All [Music] [Music] right. [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music]
[Music] [Music] Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey.
[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music]
[Music] Hey, [Music] thank you.
[Music]
Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] Yeah, [Music]
I know. [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat.
[Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
[Music]
Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] 26, 2025. I am joined by my colleagues, Vice Chair Commissioner Joe Coro, District 1 Commissioner Miguel Gabella,
District 2 Commissioner Damian Partardo, and our newest Commissioner Ralph Raphael Rosado, District Three. I'm not going to call you new at our next commission meeting. You'll be old
then. we'll we've we've gotten over our new shiny toy with with you. So, thank you all for coming again and um let's get let's get going. Where did we leave off?
I think with SR1 SR1 Are we on try to expedite it? Mr. City Attorney, would you please read the title
into the record for SR1? Yes, Madam Chair. Uh SR1, second reading ordinance, an ordinance of the Miami City Commission pursuant to sections 100 3605 parenthesis 2, 101.75
parenthesis 3, and 166.021 parenthesis 4. Florida Statutes amending chapter 16 of the code of the city of Miami, Florida's amended city code titled elections more particularly by amending section 16-2 of the city code titled same holding of city election straw
ballot to change the date of the general election from November 4, 2025 to November 3, 2026 and to change the date of all subsequent elections providing for the extension of existing terms of office containing a severability clause
and providing for an immediate effective Do I have a motion? I'll make the motion. I have a motion. Do I have a second for for what? For discussion. I have a motion and a second for discussion. I would think that you guys might want to pull this for discussion.
I'm I'm sorry. It's a motion and a second for discussion. I thought it was in the agenda for discussion. What? SR1. Huh? No. Well, I don't I I don't think we're ready to vote on it. I think you guys would want to have some moments of discussion. So I have a
motion and a second for discussion only. So then I would need another motion. Yes, I understand. So I have a motion and a second for discussion only. Can I go ahead and open uh I need to It's not necessary to have the motion in second. So we can just begin discuss discussion.
Commissioner Partardo. Yeah. So just going back to what this actually does. It moves elections from odd years to even years. Voter participation goes from an estimated 10 to 15% to a 60 to 65% and that is huge. We know we save
millions of dollars over time. We know 28 of the 34 municipalities in Miami date county are already on the general election cycle. We know that there is voter support for this. Uh on the campaign people were constantly asking me about this. Uh the polling indicates
that there's broad support even with the additional year issue. We have thousands of petitions we've received in the city of Miami asking us to make this change. I wanted to take a couple of seconds just to discuss some of the objections that came up during public comment. A few folks were saying that we were
cancelling an election. We are not cancelling an election. There is a 2025 election that is happening that will contain ballot initiatives, but the elected officials move to 2026. There was also a discussion about how there's a runoff. How this might help in the
primary, but it's going to like not be effective at all in a runoff. Well, first of all, in our office of mayor, it's been 16 years since we've ever even had a runoff. So, these are only the elections that actually go to a runoff. And even when they do go to a runoff,
it's intuitive. And some people have cited a two to three times greater participation versus four to five when you're in when you're in the uh the general in the in the primary, not the runoff. Um, I wanted to mention I I wanted George if you could you and your
staff address two of the big issues that are also out there which is one that it's illegal that we have this battle of of legal opinions and go ahead with that first and then if you could address the additional year and why we have to do an additional year. It doesn't matter if we
do this now or if we do this five years from now, we're always going to have to have an additional year. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, first let me just say that this is from our perspective, this is not a duel or a battle with the Florida Attorney General. This is not us proving who's
smarter than the other. We're just seeking to get this commission the correct answer and to the right answer. And so the question was initially posed, can the city change the date of its election? And the answer is yes. Then the second question, how would we do it?
Well, obviously there's the provision for changing the charter via a referendum. You could do that. We all know how that's done. But unique to I think uh this situation is there's actually three Florida statutes that authorize the city commission to change
the date of election by ordinance um and provide for um uh the proper uh qualifications and uh adjusting people's uh tenurs or terms. So the three statutes we're talking
about are 166.021 021 Florida statutes. Um that basically says um however nothing in this act shall be construed to permit any changes in a special law or municipal charter which affect the terms of elected officers and the manner of their election except for
the selection of election dates and qualifying periods for candidates and for changes in terms of office necessitated by such changes in election dates. And I'll speak generally and I'll have um uh division chief Eric Eves comment on the specific matters. But um
it's important to note that um when we talk about general law um so the next statute that's relevant is 166.021 parenthesis 4 4. Um and then the next section is part of the
election code a 100.3605 Florida statutes which addresses the conduct of m municipal elections. That provision says the governing body of a municipality may comma by ordinance comma change the dates for qualifying and for the election of members of the
governing body of the municipality and provide for orderly transition of office resulting from such changes. Um, so there's three statutes that authorize us to do this and then there's over 25 years I think of attorney general
opinions that say it's appropriate to do it this way. Um, after this item reached the agenda, uh, the day before, I think it was June 11th of this year, the day before the 12th meeting, which was supposed to happen, we got a letter from
the, uh, Florida attorney general who indicated that um that those statutes are inapplicable to the city of Miami because the city of Miami is located in Miami date county and Miami date county has a home rule charter and that um, the
rules are different for municipalities. ities that exist under such circumstances. And the opinion, I think, did a pretty decent job of explaining um how the home rule charter works and um what the provisions of the home rule charter are.
However, there was one sort of glaring omission in the attorney general's opinion, which was um article 8, section six of the Florida Constitution, which um provides that
Um, article 8, section 11, parenthesis 1g, Florida constitution of 1885 says, however, article 8, section 11, parentheses 6 of the 1886, 1885 constitution provides that general law supersedes the Miami date county charter
notwithstanding anything said previously. Goes on to say, nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict the power of the legislature to enact laws. goes further to say, "All such general laws shall apply to Dade County and to all municipalities therein to the
same extent as if this section had not been adopted, and such general laws shall supersede any part or portion of the home rule charter provided for herein in conflict therewith." So, it's pretty clear that that section of the charter applies to the city of Miami and
to um the movement of the election dates. And um so we we responded and uh and those who wish to read it in detail uh we provided a legal opinion 25-001 that sets out our our provision. We also
took note of the fact that we're not the first municipality in in the state of Florida to change the elections via these statutes. We're not even the first municipality in Miami date county to use these statutes to change the date of our election. One uh local municipality did
it I believe in 2023 and there was no constrnation, no push back. Um one just recently did it. Same thing, no constrnation, no push back. Um our position is Florida law allows you
to do it via this method. Um and so um let me have Eric fill fill in any blanks that I left, if any. um if you would happy to do so. Good afternoon. Um I don't have much to fill
in other than to just, you know, briefly explain the attorney general's position and and what he what he does not dispute. Um our interpretation of these statutes is not in dispute. The fact that these statutes would authorize us
to take this action is clear under the plain language of the statutes. The attorney general's opinion is that these statutes are trumped by the Miami Dade County Charter via the 1885 Florida Constitution. And so, as we all know,
the Constitution trumps statutes and generally statutes trump local law. Um, the problem with the attorney general's opinion, in our view, is that the 1885 constitution makes it clear that the general laws of the state of Florida
trump the Miami date county charter. Um, there are different kinds of laws that the legislature passes. General laws, um, to put it simply means they apply throughout the state. There are special or local laws that the legislature can
pass which are more targeted to specific areas or regions within the state. our interpretation of the 1885 Constitution, which I should add the Florida Supreme Court agrees with given several decisions we've cited, um has
made it clear that while special or local laws cannot trump the Miami Date County Charter, general laws, which are laws that apply throughout the state, apply to Miami date county. um they wouldn't be general laws if there was
always Miami if Miami date county was always excluded they wouldn't really meet the definition of general laws general laws apply to everyone that includes the county so our position is simply these statutes and our again our interpretation of these statutes has not
been disputed by the attorney general um he simply believes that they're trumped by other laws and our position is that the Florida constitution clearly says that the general laws of this state apply to Miami date county like they do to everyone else. And I would add to
that um a general law 100.3605 which I read from before says the governing body of a municipality maya by ordinance change the dates for qualifying and for the election of members of the governing body of the municipality and provide for the orderly transition of office resulting from such
date changes. In other general law 101.75 says parenthesis 3 nothing notwithstanding any provision of local law or municipal charter. The governing body of a municipality may by ordinance move the date of any municipal election
to a date concurrent with any statewide or countywide election. So we're not we're not using this ordinance to sort of pick another date. The only way we can use 101.75 in conjunction with 100.3605
is to move your elections to the general cycle which is when the state and federal um elections periods are. Um and then another general law which applies to every municipality in the state of
Florida is 166.021 021 which I read earlier basically has a provision that says you can't change anything except for the selection of election dates and qualifying periods for candidates and for changes in terms of office necessitated by such changes in election dates. Now, as I indicated, another
municipality had had done this in Miami Date County, and some folks said they didn't think it was an appropriate thing to do, similar to what we've seen here. And those folks actually went to court and they filed an action against that city. And the court in that case said,
for example, sections 166.0214 0214 and 100.36052 Florida statutes uh governing statutes expressly and unambiguously authorized the city to enact the challenged ordinances. Then they further said contrary to
plaintiff's argument the court concludes that two statutes expressly and unambiguously authorized the city to pass the challenged ordinances sections 166.0214 90214 and 100.365 parenthesis 2 Florida statutes a the
statutory text is clear and unambiguous requiring no extrinsic evidence to construe the governing statutes. Um that court essentially found that uh that other municipality was correct in um changing the dates of the election via
those ordinances. That decision was appealed. it went to the third district court of appeals and the third district court of appeals affirmed the decision. However, unfortunately, they didn't issue an opinion, but um even though there's no opinion, we believe that
that's more persuasive than say an attorney general opinion. So, we believe we're in good standing with the Florida Constitution, Florida statutes, the case law, and 25 years of attorney general opinions,
except for one written on June 11th of this year. But, um, but that's that's why we believe it's legal and consistent with Florida law. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Commissioner Pardo, do you have anything else? Um, I did actually.
Could you address the additional year because that came up quite a bit and and also I mean I think ideally it would be great to have it voted on etc. But we know that we have support for this measure in this moment and if we wait for another cycle, another election,
other people to show up, we may never have this chance again. It's been hard to get to where we are even in this moment. So I I think if you explain the additional year that'll address everything that I heard uh in public comment. Yeah. And it so as I've been
saying, no matter how you slice it, if you move the dates of the elections, somebody's going to get an extra year. Um, you could I mean, you could conceivably if you were a mathematician with I am not figure out a way to do it
so that a commissioner would lose a term. But um the reason we chose or we think this method is more appropriate and better is because you all were elected to a term of four years for us. A gentleman stood up here earlier and
said, "I'd gladly give away my year, but he didn't win fouryear terms." He hasn't won anything yet. You you each have won an election um for a term. And so to try and take away a year from you would
require you to lose a year for which the people have already given you that year. Um and and um the other so like by moving the election it affects there's three positions the
mayor district five and district three that are up this term and then you have the other three spots which would be up in 2027 generally and so um it's difficult to
make these moves and like I was saying if you do move the date of the election to the evenyear cycle since we are on an oddyear cycle with four-year terms, somebody's going to get that extra year whether you do it now, you do it next year, you do it two years from now. So,
um that's essent, you know, it's it's just the sort of the way it is right now. And this is um it doesn't necessarily benefit anybody other you know there's a notion that it benefits the people sitting in office now but if you were to do it next year you would benefit those
sitting in office then. And so, um, it's probably a terrible explanation, but but, um, in order to do this, um, every action has consequences. And so, by moving the election, it extends the term. And, um, you know, and that would
be the same, as I said, for any other movement of the term. Thank you, Commissioner Cabella. Uh, no, I'm going to look, I've already made my position, I think, clear in the past, but that's my position. And I respect all of you. U I know there's good
intentions here why to do it. I'm just not comfortable with the fact that the I can't hear you, Commissioner. Sorry that so yeah that you guys know my position. and I've made my position clear and uh I'm not going to reiterate uh but briefly I just uh feel that the uh the
voter and I and I understand that u there's good intentions here but uh I just can't uh you know uh I can't do it and I respect your what you guys my colleagues are doing so I'll I'll leave it at that you guys know full well where where my positions at and I'll just uh
leave it at that I think the voter should participate and uh that's what I Commissioner Rosado, you know, I I began canvasing last year uh because I did not necessarily know that there would be a special election,
but I had an expectation that the person that I was ultimately running to replace would likely be a mayoral candidate. So when I began walking in December last year, this was already a hot topic because Coral Gables was discussing it and folks asked me a number of times and and a number of folks approached me to
support ultimately whether it was now or at some point in the future some sort of a move to evenear elections for all the reasons that have been discussed. It's it's pro turnout. It gets more folks out there. It gets people excited and interested in the democratic process and it also saves taxpayer dollars. I mean,
we've got another item on this agenda, RE6, which the the vice uh chair has sponsored and I' I've co-sponsored that looks at ways to provide tax relief for senior citizens. Right. So, on the campaign trail over the span of six months, a number of folks said, "Are you
in favor of being more democratic in terms of resident turnout?" And also, not necessarily those same people, me, many, many people said, "Is there a way to provide tax relief?" And I especially heard that from seniors. So, I think it would be inconsistent for me to say we've got to look for ways to save
money, but here's one way that I don't think we'd we should actually save money. Um, I I've been in favor of this for for a number of months. I've been on the record on this and and I'll be supporting this again. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Uh, I heard Commissioner Parter say that we weren't changing the election. Well, I'm sorry, but I didn't drink the Kool-Aid. Uh, how can you say we're not changing
an election when we are not having an election this November? It's going to be held in November of 26, the primaries. And then you claim that, oh, we're not
going to have runups. You know well that with all the people that are running for mayor, for all the people that are running for district three, they are going to be runups in those two races. And we don't know
if there will be a runup in district 5 or not. I hope not. But we don't know. But we certainly know that right now there will be runoffs in two out of the three. And those will be the times that people are going
to elect really elect whom is going to represent them in the runup. a runup in December 8 that if your position is that you're doing
this to have more representation, we're going to have the lowest amount of turnout than we've ever had in our history to elect a mayor and at least one
commissioner. Um, I also heard you say that you got to do this now because you know you got support for it now, but you don't know if you'll have it in the future. Well, if this is such a slam
bang that everybody wants it, why are you afraid to wait into the future? And if Miami is just running to city hall because they want this, people will go
and get a petition and sign up and make sure that they get this. You won't even have to have the commission do it. But the truth of the matter is that
you're not doing this for the reasons that you claim because it's clear that in December the 8th when we're going to be deciding the majority if not all of her elected officials in runoffs.
It's going to be a much lower turnout than any other time that we have had elections. You're you're doing this, Commissioner Parter, because you don't want certain people that you feel would win if they
run or are running now to be able to win. You stay to that. Uh you certainly have. Now, the attorney general expressed his
opinions that I am in agreement with. The city attorney has expressed his that I respect and respectfully disagree with. We've discussed this for I don't know how long
at the last commission meeting. It is not my intention to keep talking and talking on this. I'd like to finish this meeting today as quickly as possible because I think most of what we have, we either discussed it at the last meeting
or discussed it in the morning session. So, we could go quite quickly. We all know that if this passes today, it will end up in the courts and I will predict all the way to the Supreme Court
of the state of Florida. And so be it. Let's vote. not waste more uh time uh in today's meeting and I've said what I needed to say. Thank you. Thank you. May
I have a motion for SR1? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I. No. No. The motion passes 32 with Commissioner Coryo and Commissioner Cabella voting no. Fire.
Okay. Okay. Next, uh, FR the first reading items. Yes, Madam Chair. FR1 first reading. Is there going to be Didn't we voted this already on on FR on
FR? No. No. FR1. No, we we haven't voted on it yet. FR1, I think there was a request for a deferral after the fact. Madam Chair, may I have a motion to defer FR1? Second. I have a motion and second. All in favor to the July 10th
meeting. Yeah. To the July 10th meeting. All right. FR2, first reading ordinance. An ordinance of the Miami City Commission repealing chapter 38, article 3 of the code of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended, city code titled parks and recreation bayfront park
management trust in its entirety to abolish the Bayfront Park Management Trust. Further amending chapter 2 article 11 division 2 titled administration boards committees commission standards for creation and review of boards generally to remove
references to the trust further amending chapter 18 article 3 section 18-72 titled finance city of Miami procurement ordinance application and exclusions to remove references to the trust further amending chapter 54 article 1 section
54-9 titled streets and sidewalks in general placing signs, advertise, advertisement or displays on any portion of public rightway, street or sidewalk surface to remove references to the trust. Further directing the city manager to take any and all actions necessary to affectuate the city's
operation of the Bayfront Park and Maurice Fay Park in accordance with this ordinance containing a severability clause and providing for an immediate effective date. F FR3, an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending chapter 2, article two of the code of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended,
titled administration, mayor, and city commission to prohibit outside employment of the mayor containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. That is the end of the FR. Thank you, gentlemen. Would you like to pull any of the FR items for
discussion? Well, uh, I think we Well, you're saying for discussion, right? I I don't need to discuss anything more. F FR3, let me just state on the record clearly because
it was not read in the headliner by the city attorney. This would only uh apply to the position of mayor effective November 10th, 2025 of this year.
And the reason um I made it effective November 10th is because the four years that was approved by the voters for the position of mayor ends uh on approximately November 10th of
this year. Uh the extra year is one that we are given to the mayor like to the rest of the commission. And I just feel that if this is a year that was done approved by the
voters, we should um demand that our office of mayor would be a full-time position uh where there's no outside uh employment. And this would include uh sizable race uh to the mayor that
would be equal to that of a member of Congress that each represent an area approximately the size of the city actually uh a little bigger than the city of Miami in population. Uh however,
if uh that's not suffice, I will be willing to uh uh open it up uh for additional uh compensation for the office uh of mayor. Does anybody else have any comments for
Can we separate and FR2? Yeah, we can separate. Yeah, because I got a couple of questions on the These are two both separate two two separate. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Um, this is something that originally was within charter review because it's incredibly complicated.
FR2? No, we're on FR2. Yeah. No, I'm sorry. FR3. No, I use FR2. Anybody have any comments on FR2? Is it it's going to be discussed? I I do have remarks and if the clerk could distribute some items that I provided to
him. I have some things for each of my colleagues. So this is what he's uh distributing is essentially historical research on the Braayfront Trust going back essentially to its inception. And I want to preface my remarks uh by saying
um what one of the public speakers very eloquently explained which is I'm here to discuss not to discuss people but to discuss ideas and that's very important to the discussion I think we're going to have. I want to make sure that we decouple the discussion around what I'm proposing with any particular
individuals. Um, but as you'll see by looking at at some of the documents, and this is just just a drop in the bucket in terms of articles that have been written about the Bayront Park Trust over time, you're going to see that this is for a variety of reasons the most politically volatile entity that is
affiliated with the city historically. It just it just is. It's, you know, it's been around almost since I was a child and that's been an issue that's been going on since then. Um, there was a phrase I used at last week's commission meeting when I first proposed
this idea and it was interesting to see that in one of the articles that's there from 1987, you had former uh city commissioner Rosario Kennedy using the exact same phrase, which is that this entity in particular is a political football. So all these years later,
almost 40 years later, and I would still consider it very much a political football. So apparently that's just not changed over time. Um the this is an agency that's often used to divide us when we need to be united and working together for the benefit of the residents of the city. Uh there's even
an article that I distributed and it's one of many many that I could distribute where a previous executive director got into some some major major trouble which obviously was problematic not just for him but for the image of the city as a whole. Uh we know that Bayfront Trust
has gone through a variety of executive directors I mean dozens upon dozens of executive directors during its history and I think there's a reason for that. Again this is not specific to any one elected official. It's the history of the agency and it is I think um related
very closely to the way that it's it's structured. It's historically been unstable. Today we even had somebody lobbying the city commission to support a certain course of action regarding this city affiliated entity. I've also
distributed an ordinance from some years back that was uh showing how the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority was dissolved. So, it's an entity that existed for many years. The city had commission had determined that it had run its course. Um, it had determined
that a number of city staff members were already involved in its operations in the same way that we see this being the case with this particular entity at this moment in time. And so, they transferred they dissolved the entity and they transferred the duties to the city commission and its staff uh when it was
clear that the agency was no longer necessary to function in the way that it had functioned. Um in addition there is an article from 2013 that we distributed uh written by the National Recreation and Parks Association. Now that is the industry association for parks and recck
professionals in the United States. So this is not a political organization. It is the trade group that oversees parks and recreation professionals and accreditation and standards and all of that. And the article is about alternative structures for overseeing very large complex urban parks that
generate a lot of revenue, right? And it talks about the conservancy model, which is a slightly different model where you have a nonprofit and it's a board of directors, etc. Uh that's the way that you see Central Park being operated in a number of major parks in large urban centers throughout the country. Who is
the featured park that leads the article? Like what is the actual introduction of the article? It is Bayfront Trust. This is an article from 2013. So this has a complex nationally recognized history of
being a problematic amenity to oversee. This is the introduction to this article about how to run parks and it is talking about in 2013 quoting folks that are sometimes in the audience and have been around for a long time saying what a challenge this has been. And so it is recommends an
alternative structure that is not the structure that we have in place. For all of these reasons, I am proposing that we dissolve this entity and we put it under the opices of the city manager and task him with coming back with a defined
structure that actually does work better, that is much more stable. uh whether it is as a division not within parks and recreation specifically but a division of the city or a conservancy but I think this has over the span of
the last 40 years generated more than its fair share of controversy and it has it's run its course it is not being run optimally and again I'm not talking about specific people and I don't want to associate this with any elected officials in particular this is the
history of this entity And I think this is the best course of action to address something that has been kicked down the road not for months or years but decades. Commissioner Partardo, I think that when
we talk about not just Bayront Park Trust, but we talk about all of the entities, whether it's Omnic, whether it's DDA, whether it's I mean, we can look at they've all been and still are political footballs. I think that's a problem because we're not
serving our residents where there's a strategy, you know, happening about, like you said, it's personal. It's not about the specific action. I think especially in this case where we're looking at the Olympia and talking about the Olympia transaction, acknowledging
that the city is not really good at managing assets and handling businesses that are more complex than maybe just standard municipal transactions. I think that's the case with Biff Park Trust. It's complex. It is outside of the scope
of a municipality. I think if we want to look at something like a conservancy, I'm all in favor of looking at alternative structures along with residents. I think this is a joint decision. I don't think it should be us
who makes this determination in these cases. And I think if jointly with residents, we determine there's a better route where we can do the master plan, we can segregate those funds and be able to to move forward with that, that's great. In the meantime though, I have to
say stability has been provided to the trust. The residents who weren't happy are happy. There is work on the master plan. They're thrilled about that. They feel heard. They feel acted upon. I would not like to see that stability
jeopardized. And I think we can do both. I think we can provide the stability while still go ahead and plan for the future with residents and look at different options. Commissioner Cabala. Yeah, I I agree. You're just moving it from one entity to
the other is what you're doing. And if that were the case that all entities are bad and have problems, which they do, not all are bad, but they they have a problems. Right now, I'm in the middle of creating the Alipata CR that I worked for since I got here in January and you Commissioner Pardo and you uh uh
chairwoman King helped me on. And you know if this was the case and we lose faith in all of our you know institutions and then I mean yes it's difficult. Um however I I have to respond uh Commissioner Rosado during my tenure uh there's been no problems thus
far only like been at it like three or four months. The the the last seven or eight years have been the the uh the problem. uh you know without having a plan of action and like I said I'm open in December to having a discussion and because by then we should have a a more
clear picture what can be done with this and if if the the will of my colleagues is to dissolve the the the party into something else I have no problem with that but to do it now in the middle of you know that we're trying to write the ship we're putting uh accounting uh standards and and things that should
have been put into place of mechanisms so so the kind of things that you're talking about you know, keep them to a minimum. We're doing it right now. We've installed actually positive things for the for the park, guardrails, if you will, so this, you know, uh, doesn't happen. So, you know, u, this on the fly
and, you know, look, you're not you're not the first one that tried to dissolve the park. Commissioner Garo tried to do this 4 months ago and and it failed. you know, uh, I know where this is coming from, you know, but I'm not going to get into the the antics or, you know, of the the negative stuff. At the end of the
day, right now, there is no plan. Right now, what you're saying is, let's take it away from this entity, the entity, and let's put it in the hands of the city manager when there is no plan in place because this is this is done on the fly. But I understand your concern. That's why I say, let me finish my job,
okay? What I'm trying to do in December, we can revisit it, okay? you know and then if we decide then and there to do it go ahead by all means you know but but then we would have a plan what what exactly let's identify the problems in the structure okay and then let's come
up with a solution but but not like like this you know it seems to me that you know uh some here have a uh you know uh under the guise that we're going to you know and what you're doing is in the middle of trying to write the ship if
you will you're throwing another monkey wrench at it you you know what I mean? We're you know so so all the work that I've done for 4 months trying to to to write this thing will be I don't know um gone into nowhere and like I said in you know the uh the alle which I am now
waiting for the county to move on because we've done all our work here that we could do it's been presented if if if I were were to feel like that you know about every institution then we'd have no institutions really because everybody's got got uh problems. So that's my two cents but at the end of
the day I leave to my colleagues what should be done and I I will go along with it peacefully. Um for me I don't think that any of the chairs of the trust did a bad job and I think I've
said that I don't think Commissioner Coro has done a bad job and I don't think Commissioner Cabella is doing a bad job. But what's happening between us and this park is distracting
and it takes away from the work that we do. The exercise equipment in the park took 18 months plus. That exercise equipment is used every day. And I believe that it was an issue because of
the person that was chairing it. And I believe now there is another issue because the person that is the chair of it. I would support this only only to find some resolutions
because neither of my colleagues have done a bad job and are doing a bad job. It is personality based. That's how I feel. So I would support this on first reading only.
to find some amicable resolution so that we are not screaming at it or screaming over my head. Um scaring my mother to death because she believes that in one one second somebody's going to hit me
and that's the only reason. The Bayfront Park is a beautiful space. It is a beautiful space and from where from where it has come from like there was a
lot of criticism about the dog and cat park. It's beautiful and people have said it's beautiful, but it got a bad rep because of the person that initiated the the the plantings, the flowers, and what
Commissioner Gabella is trying to do is also right. And to make the record straight, Commissioner Reyes asked for a forensic audit of every entity in the city, all of the CRAAS, the trust, and
everything. and after that he would make his decision. Staff advised that a forensic audit during the time that it was requested would almost be impossible to to to do because of the work and an
audit was already going on. I I'm not I'm not doing that blame game. I just want us to move beyond this moment in the city. However, that is that will be best for the residents of this city as
well as this commission. So, I'm going to entertain this on first reading. But something somebody has to convince me otherwise second reading. Tell you what, uh, one step further cuz I'm I'm a risk taker
all my life. I resigned. You guys go ahead and handle it. That's the way you want it. I'm not going to play these games. I've been trying to do a good job. With all due respect, M madam chairwoman, you know, even the dog park, I haven't even talked once about taking off the dog park, the gym equipment. If you remember when I was not the
chairman, I tried to help them out to install the gym equipment because 80% of the voters came through and I said that and I stated that here. Okay, that's what I did. But this this fantasy that uh that somehow this is being done for the uh for the correctness of of uh you know, because there's a lot of things
going on. First of all, I've been there for 4 months. Second of all, okay, the whole thing it's been going on for seven, eight years to say, and you're right, the personalities are involved. However, nobody can accuse me, okay, of diing fun of this or that because I've
only been there for four months. But if that's the case, you want, let me save you some trouble and some time because I am not Mr. Gado. If you guys don't want me there, I will not be there. I furthermore, I will have more time to dedicate to my district, which I have. Okay? Okay. And by the way, the answer to you with the uh I I am always talking
to officer Rodriguez to you, sir, in in our thing. And I have moved a lot since I've been here a year and a half with the police department. So, I try to do my job. You know what I mean? And uh and they're always giving me the stats, the police department that everything's good. You've heard them that the crime is down. So, I I don't know where, but I
believe you. But if that's being done, I'm going to go ahead and speak to to the chief of police to see what furthermore. But I don't want anybody get to get the impression that I'm not on the on the job. But I I say it again. If the problem is this, okay, I offer I tender my resignation right now and
that's it. We're done. No problem. Thank Do I have Go ahead. Do I have a Do I have a motion for FR2? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I
no name. in motion. Motion passes. And chair, is this coming back to the July 10th meeting? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Could could I add something respectfully? I want to make sure that
that that Commissioner Gabella understands. I I have a challenge with this particular structure for this entity and it is independent of my feelings for anybody sitting to my left. I just want to make that very clear. I'm not taking it personally, but I'm but I'm resigning. I'm telling you,
I don't need this. I don't need to take this this little dog and pony show that we're playing here. I don't need to do it. When he wanted uh the uh whoever he wanted on that thing, I I voted for him because like I said, I'm not into petty politics. That's what I I don't play that. Okay? I don't I've never have I'm not going to continue to do it now just
because some other of us are. But but I take u I do take offense that I've been working at that for 4 months. Okay. The executive director he's spending in there he's putting in he's burning the midnight oil. Okay. Last weekend, the weekend before we planned the 4th of
July, we have a a 31st, you know, um u New Year's Eve for this year planning for that and that's all on the air now because of what you guys are doing. But I'm not going to be part of the shenanigan. I think this is a shenanigan really because for 7 8 years Mr. or nobody say, "Hey, let's dissolve this." This came to be after I got in
because there's a personal problem with me here. I fine. I I I take it. I embrace it. And if you guys don't want me there, I won't might be I won't be there. But what I do take personal is that he was there for 78 years. He said he said to us in in 2024 last year, I'm
stepping down in January. And we all took his word. I remember that. Yeah. And I took his word. And when January came, he didn't want to step down. He wanted to confuse and wait and play a little game and this is the game they were playing. So he won. Congratulations, sir. He won. Not not a problem. No, not a problem. Answer this,
please. That That's totally untrue. That's the truth. What I stated in December was that I would happily step down came January so that I could help a new incoming chairman moving the trust
forward. They didn't want help. They wanted to spend hundreds of thousands of more dollars uh in doing things their way because they didn't know what they were doing. For instance, something that I'm not even going to blame him because I've
seen that many of the things that were going on, he didn't even know about it. He found out after the fact like like what are you talking about? Well, uh, like the meeting that I went to that you wanted and the main reason you had a
special meeting was that you wanted to bring an auditing uh, firm that was going to end up costing based on the amounts of dollars up to 700 plus dollars an hour for eight and a half years
uh, auditing. it was probably going to cost a million plus or over $2 million and he wanted a vote and all of a sudden his interim executive director tells him, "Oh, that item has been withdrawn." He turns around and says, "What do you
mean?" He didn't even know. So, they had to whisper into his ear, "Why?" And you know why it was withdrawn? Did anyone want to say they needed to have put a bid out for that? Which they did. the same way as the Pedmobile that
the last resolution from the trust was to have it activated and the last executive director ignore that it didn't activate it. It was sent and here are the emails by his interim executive director to GSA
in the city without any resolution whatsoever from the trust. And you got a member here, Mr. Martell, if I'm lying, let him speak up. The mics are here for him. Uh, this pet mobile that could be
out there helping many, many uh, families in our city and their pets was sent to GSA to be sold except board never the board never approved it. And then when the manager told him that, where's the bore
approval? You can't sell it without board approval. Then he sent another email to cancel it using another excuse why he was doing it asking if it hasn't been sold yet then let's stop to sell it. For instance the dogs and cats that
were mentioned 57 statues. Well, those statues along with two very valuable piece of art pieces, the Himemen da art piece in front of the
slip next to the arena that could be worth maybe as much as a million plus $2 million along with the Baldas one that we have on loan uh to the entrance of the
museum. the contract that were part of the donation that we had to keep the upkeep. The contract for the upkeep was cancelled. It was a very inexpensive contract that we have to do certain things to it every several months. the
upkeep to the statues that were all painted by local artists. Uh 57 statues of dogs and cats that have to be waxed so that the paint would be protected from the sun and the elements and they could last for years and years.
It was cancelled. Why? Because the interim director wants them to fall apart as quickly as he could see them. Uh the fountain.
The fountain. My god. That we weren't on top of it to make sure that it would not be damaged when we had a major event there to make sure that their staging was not going to be placed right on top of it like what
happened. It's unconscionable. But that's exactly what happened. and we had over $30,000 uh in damages. And I asked, did that invoice ever get sent? So, whoever did the damage would pay for it.
And if it was sent, was it paid? Can I respond to the allegations that you're making? First of all, the fountain was rushed. Okay. Was rushed to the point that you you guys did a roofing thing without a permit. Okay. And the guy wanted to get paid and the
city didn't want to pay him. They owed him $400,000 because it was rushed. Sir, let me let me let me respond. Let me respond with what you what the gentleman said. And then the fountain, the water needed to take out again because it was rushed because there was something peeling off. That's exactly why because
of what you're doing here is exactly why I had to give the report, okay, of that special meeting I had and what we had found because this is what you do. What happened in your tenure now, you're trying to make it my responsibility when I've been there for 4 months. You were there for seven or eight years. How are you? You know, I've been there for 4
months, my friend. You can't pin everything on me. And this is this is exactly why pe with people like you, we have to put it on the record because I wasn't going to be saddled, okay, with the stuff that's been going on there for seven, eight years. I'm not the guy that the city came with an regular audit and said you got to implement these these uh
these uh uh things, these guardrails in place so the accounting is done correctly and everything else. You didn't do that. I that's not me. We're trying to write, you know, the stuff that you didn't do. We've been making implements that you didn't do. The dockage, it's in bad condition. You had an you never had an engineer report
done. You know, the the leaks in the in the in the bunker that are happening now. You you in the seven or eight years that you've been there, you never took care of it. We're the ones that are trying to take care of it. I mean, this is this is the truth, folks. I've been there for 4 months, you know, and we've we've done a lot, let me tell you, in
four months, I think, and I've had no controversy other than you. You know what I mean? But at the end of the day, if this is the will of this body, so be it. Okay, I accept it. This is a lot of hogwash that he came. No, you're the you're see you see how he starts. I
didn't start with We've already discussed and passed the We should take a vote. We should take a vote. You voted on it. That's it. We're on FR3. We're Oh, you quit lying. You're lying, sir. Stop. Stop lying. Um F FR3.
FR3. FR3. We're on to FR3, right? Do I have a motion? It's the police chief here, please. A motion for discussion, madam chair. FR3. I'm sorry. No discussion. If you just want to discuss FR3, do I have a motion? Motion made to pass. I mean, a
mo just a motion. A motion discuss. No, if you want to discuss it, let's just We don't We don't need a motion to discuss. The clerk just said if would you guys like to discuss FR3? Yeah. I mean, I think we need to. Okay. It's vice chair's item. Let's let's put a timer on
this. It's u I don't have a lot to say in this except that um beginning November of this year going forward is a year that the people did not vote for. Therefore, I think we have a
responsibility to make sure that this mayor, for that matter, any other mayor that would be sitting there uh would be a full-time mayor and that there are no outside employment for the office of mayor. Um, I've included
um raising the mayor's salary to the level of a congressional member of Congress that have an area of population slightly over the city of Miami. Um, and but if that's not suffice, I'll be
willing to, you know, consider a higher salary even than a congressional member. Uh, simple as that. I I believe that whoever the mayor is should not only be a full-time job but that that should be
their sole employment. No outside employments. The possibilities are too great for too many conflicts and too many additional problems to the city. Madam chair, can I weigh in? Yes,
please. Well, what um here we go again. Uh he's doing this in retaliation because he's upset at the two years thing that you know the the passing of the one-year extra because my question here here we go again. Why didn't you do this seven or eight years ago when you were here? If you knew this was bad, how
come you you waited till now is my question. Oh, all this stuff you see folks, there's a pattern here. Okay, there's a pattern here. He's not doing it because No, no, no. He's doing it because now he wants to punish the mayor. Okay, you know what I mean? And maybe this is good, by the way. Maybe it's a good thing. I don't know if it is or not. I'd have to study it and I'm not
ready to vote on this yet. But my point is you're not doing it because you know this and that. You're doing it because you want to get back at the mayor because you're upset, okay, that the two-year thing, you know, happened, you know, and and this is what and folks, this is how we continue. This is how we continue here in this little dog and pony show that we got to, you know what
I mean? This this is what goes on here. This this is the truth of the matter. Commissioner Partardo. Madam Chair, this is one of the items that was actually being looked at through charter review, but it's very very complicated because it's not a question of just outside employment or have a full-time
employment. I I believe all of us have outside employment or most of us have outside employment. Some staff has outside employment that you get special approval for. So its impact is very broad ranging. We need to look at other cities of similar size. This isn't
something that someone should just decide and put on an agenda and it, you know, all of a sudden pops up. It needs to be studied and I think it should be done under charter review. So, I'm against it. Commissioner Bizado, I can I can support that position as as uh
as being appropriate that we do it as part of larger charter reform efforts. Well, the problem that I have is we talk about charter review then what happened to the charter review and everything else that we just voted upon here that was not part of the charter review.
I don't know. I mean what's convenient is part of the charter review. What's not is not part of the charter review. And and by the way, I've taken this position for a long time on this. Uh, I had in the past that the city attorneys
could uh confirm this uh looked at bringing it up, but I was told that I could not bring it up at any time because it was not part of what voters voted upon uh
for the position of mayor that that was not included. Otherwise, it would have been brought up. But I will tell you what is truly uh getting back. This individual uh was chasing all over me for a year
and a half to get him to endorse him, help him in his campaign. And I'm talking about Mr. Gaba. When I ran in 17, I had forgotten until somebody pointed it out to me. There were two $500 contributions to my campaign for from
one Miguel Gabella and he spent a year and a half bas Steve Widow asked me to get to your campaign and that's why support him because I saw that this is what was going to come to the city. Oh yeah. Yeah. You that's why you were Is that why you were at my
house? Is that why you were in my house in 2019? You went to my house in 2019. I got rid of you because you invited me. That that doesn't have anything to do with you visiting his house and and you giving him campaign. I didn't invite you to mind. That doesn't have anything to
do I don't know what to do, man, cuz you lied so much. Who the hell FR3 FR3? Let's move on to FR3. Why do I always get stopped? Because this guy wants to act like a thug and interrupt and interrupt and interrupt. Keep talking, man. Go ahead. Keep talking. I'm here.
I'm done. We're not because because we're not talking about FR3. We have saddled off into other stuff. If we could keep I will not inter interrupt anyone if we can stay on topic with what
is before us. Well on topic is that u we discussed this. I'll make a motion that I know I would not get a second but I won't have it in the record but at least someone uh tried to do what was right in this and I
respect everybody else's opinion. Uh but there's a motion for FR3. M Madam Chair, I did want to add something um just on charter review so people would understand. We had this at the beginning when we came in about a year and a half ago. We started a lot of work on charter
review and the mayor had included that in his state of the city address. And so we went back and looked at previous charter reviews and we found that the last time we did this was about 10 years ago. There were about 17 recommendations. we adopted or we sent three or four to the voters. The rest
weren't. But when we analyze the ones that charter review didn't allow to go to the voters that didn't make it, they were really important. Like we wouldn't be in this position and we adopted that stuff way way long time ago. So what we were trying to do is create a a
mechanism that had teeth where okay, if this committee gets together and they pick 10 items, all of them go to the voters. like well there's not there's not support for a mechanism like that to make that happen. Then we were working on well maybe with a four-fifths we can
we can navigate it so that the commission can still hold set aside a few and then other bigger ones go to the voters. I'm just giving this in the way of background because I'm not sure if you remember but we even sent through procurement to see how other cities do
charter review and we came back we found that Broward actually had one that went directly to voters. We we analyzed some other cities. So the reason we're doing these reforms on a one-off is because this is what we can do and we think we can do in this moment and they're important enough to try to start
changing our structure. So that's I just wanted to give that explanation. My concern with this and is why I'm not voting for it is because for something like that I believe we would need a strong mayor and the voters voted down a strong mayor form of government some
years ago. Um so if we can move forward if there's no more discussion for this. Well I I will tell you what will be coming next. Uh Madam Chairman, uh if not uh later on this year, you'll
see it beginning of next year. uh this overwhelming petition drive that has under 2% of signatures of voters, if they're all even ballot, which I doubt it very much,
and they've been going at it for close to 3 months, and have under 2% of the signatures of our voters. uh someone's going to come up that this is what we need and we have the votes
now. And how many more districts do you want? Nine, 13, 21, 27? But as long as you'd include a strong mayor in it and then it's going to come uh to a
referendum sometime uh next year if this that you all pass today stands uh the test of the courts and this is what this is really all about. And you know, I respect
uh each person's position. I'm I'm aware of the realities. Uh I'm also thanking God for giving me the patience
to um take one step at a time for now. But I'm not blind as to what's happening here. This whole charter amendment stuff is all a ruse. I'm tired of seeing people laughing at
our residents thinking that they could use them like a rag and that they're bulls and they could do whatever they want, that they're cute. One thing that I know is that when I was mayor of the city, I didn't have any
outside employment. I lived in what I made. I don't have any outside employment today and I chose that. I didn't have to do it. Believe you me, I was smart enough that if I wanted to
have outside employment as mayor, I would have made plenty of money. I did back when I was uh in my early 30s and was out of office out of after two terms uh as commissioner
and I made a lot of money the first uh year and a half, two years that uh I was out of uh office but um I chose to serve the city
And I strongly believe in what uh I've stated we need to pay a mayor a sufficient salary so that there's no question that they could live on the salary of a mayor but
assure that there's no outside employment that they're going to be working full-time strictly for us. Uh I'm willing to do that if we pay Mr. Nora, if we pay others 300
plus th,000 a year benefits. We got employees in the city of Miami that we're paying private firms for their service. Five and a half actually, I think it's 571,000 a year.
Maybe we don't want to overdo it and pay that to a mayor, but we could certainly pay a mayor fair amount of dollars to be your full-time mayor. And I'm looking way into the future. I'm not
looking, you know, for the end of the year, next year. This is something that has to be looked at for the long term, not just the very short term. Anyway, can we move on? Maybe we should look at curtailing the outside council that
we're spending for you in the tune of excess of $10 million and the lawsuits that you have going on that you're probably going to cost the city. Sir, your friends have been interrupt but you see the people that give you orders what to do and there's a motion.
You didn't I didn't do I have a second. There's a motion for FR3. Do I have a second? Seeing no second. Motion dies for a lack of second. Motion Motion dies for a lack of Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to deny FR3.
Second. It died. Oh, it just died. It died. Oh, okay. It died. Let's go to the PZ items. Mr. City Attorney, would you please read the titles for the PZ items into the record? Um PZ 1 and two have been indefinitely
deferred. Yes, Madam Chair. PZ3 is a first reading ordinance. An ordinance of the Miami City Commission with attachments amending ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of the Miami comprehensive neighbor neighborhood plan pursuant to smallcale
amendment procedures subject to section 163.3187 Florida statutes by changing the future land use designation from restricted commercial to general commercial of the acreage described herein of real property at 1930 2002060
Northeast 2 Avenue 6497 106 6, 120, 146, and 160 Northeast 20th Street and 135 Northeast 19 Terrace, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit A making findings
containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. PZ4 first reading ordinance. An ordinance of the Miami City Commission with attachments pursuant to articles 3 and seven of ordinance number 13114. The zoning ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida has amended Miami 21 code
amending the Miami 21 code to add appendix Q titled Braymond Miami campus special area plan SAP amending the zoning atlas of the Miami 21 code to reszone approximately 12.9 acres of property currently zoned T636 AO T636B
T612 and T680 to include a Braymond SAP zoning overlay district for the properties located approximately 2020 and 260 Biscane Boulevard, 2001, 2010, and 2060 Northeast 2nd Avenue, 94,
106, 1114, and 246 Northeast 20th Avenue, and 111, 120, and 137 Northeast 20th Street as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit A and amending the Miami 21 code to incorporate the Braymond SAP regulating
plan attached and incorporated as exhibit B and the Braymond SAP concept book attached and incorporated as exhibit C into appendix Q which proposes new development and adds an autorelated commercial establishment to the Braymond SAP making findings containing a
severability clause and providing for an effective date. PZ5 is a first reading ordinance, an ordinance of the Miami City Commission with attachments approving a development agreement pursuant to chapter 163 Florida statutes and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute said development
agreement in a form acceptable to the city attorney, a draft of which is attached and incorporated as exhibit B 120 Northeast 20th Street LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 120 Street, 220, I'm sorry, 2020 Biscane Boulevard LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, 2020 Biscane60 Biscane Boulevard LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company 260 Biscane 2060 Northeast 2nd Avenue LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company 2060 Northeast
246 Northeast 20th Terrace LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company 246NE Raymond Hyundai Inc. a Florida corporation. Raymond Liowitz Gas Station LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company. Raymond Liboitz Service and Parts LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Raymond Liboitz Temple Lots LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Raymond Liowitz Miami Downtown Properties 1 LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company. Raymond Liowitz Miami Downtown Properties 2 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Raymond Lieowitz Parking Garage LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and NB Leasing Inc., a Florida corporation
collectively applicant in the city of Miami, Florida, governing the properties generally located at 2020 and60 Biscane Boulevard 2001, 2010 and 2060 Northeast 2nd Avenue, 9410614
and 246 Northeast 20th Terrace and 111, 120 and 137 Northeast 20th Street. More particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit A. Such development agreement would allow development as described in the following phases. Phase 1A includes an 11story auto service parking building.
Auto service building with 339 service bays, 620 parking spaces consisting of 1,176,000 square ft. Phase 1B, development of a wounderf of 29,160
square feet along Northeast 20th Terrace between Northeast 2nd Avenue and Biscane Boulevard. Phase 2 a 60story mixeduse building of 1,300,000 square ft and 624 dwelling units. Phase three, a 60story
mixeduse building of 825,000 square ft and 550 dwelling units. And phase four is the renovation of a gas station of 4,000 square feet, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.
PZ6, an ordinance of the Miami City Commission, amending ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended by amending article 3 titled general to zone, specifically by adding sections 3.19 titled transit station neighborhood
development to establish criteria for transit oriented development with design flexibility and public benefits making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. Okay. And that one will be amended um
with the PZ PZAB information. Um PZ7, first reading ordinance, an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida as amended by amending article 4, table 4 titled density, intensity, and parking
to modify food service establishment patron limitation. Further amending article 5, section 5.4 4 titled general urban transex zones T4 to introduce a flexible lot coverage program to adjust the maximum lot area to update roof
element standards and to modify side and rear rear setbacks making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. And finally, PZ8, first reading ordinance and ordinance of the Miami City Commission, amending ordinance number
13114, the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida, is amended specifically by amending article 3, section 3.16 of the Miami 21 code titled workforce housing special benefit program supplemental regulations to introduce a new workforce housing program within the city of Miami, making
findings, containing a severability clause, and providing for an effective date. That concludes the PZ items. Gentlemen, of the PZ items, are there any items that you want to pull for discussion? PC6, I'd like to pull it.
Uh, I need a lot more information. Uh, so I'd like to defer it and PC8 as well. PZ6. You want to pull PZ6 as well? PZ8. Mhm.
Any others? Okay. May I have a motion to pass PZ 3, four, five, and seven? Motion. Second. Before we vote, uh, I'd like to make a disclosure, and if anybody else has any, uh, they should,
uh, I met, uh, with PC 3, four, and five, with, uh, Mr. Shack representing the business entity here and uh their
attorney. I did as well. Thank you. Those would be Jenning disclosures. Those are Jennings disclosures. Yes. Anyone else care to make a Jennings disclosure for PZ 3, four, and five? I'll make one, but I they didn't I met with Mr. Shaq, but
not about this. Okay. But just to air on the side of caution. Okay. I'll just say that. Um Okay. So, sorry. What are we discussing now? We're Commissioner Gabella, did you meet with anybody on PZ? Yes, I met with them. Okay. Yes. So,
you have a We're just making a decision. No, you have to disclose. Okay. They don't Yes, they came into my office. They presented the project and I'm okay with them. Nobody presented the project to All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. So I have a motion for PZ 34 and
345 and 7. All in favor? I I motion passes. PZ6 was pulled for like to defer PC6. I would rather not. This is my district and I would ask if you can have
your questions because it's first reading. I thought it was uh citywide. No, no, no, no. This is specific. There's a lot of misinformation that is going around about this particular project. It is the raising of a public
public housing development and it is going to provide two to one affordable housing units. They because it's section 8, right? They have to
give back two for one. So for every one unit that is there, they have to give back two units. Okay. Well, this would be in first reading, but chairman. Yes. Uh chairwoman, um please make sure the staff puts down what is affecting a district. Nowhere
here does it say district 5. So if if I could, Madam Chair, if I could clarify. Okay. So uh uh Commissioner Cory, you are correct. This is a citywide ordinance that sets the framework for TOD uh district program. Uh the
chairwoman was referring to the first program which will be the Little River District which we approved at the last commission meeting that establishes the the flume for that housing that she was just referring to.
Um if other tods are to be unlocked, they would have to go through that process, establish the flume amendment to establish the node and so forth. Can can we limit it to the area involving
district five without having to open up Pandora's box into other areas? So right now it is limited. It's it's only that district that's been established with the flume amendment and that actually has to be reviewed by the
state which is currently in their review now. Then can we when it comes back in second reading clearly specify that is only to this area because I think it's going to save us a lot of y problems here. So the the
other part of the conversation is that you know this is creating a program that is competitive with some of the pressures that we're receiving with RTZ and with live local to incentivize development around our transit stations within our city. So this gives
development the alternative within Miami 21 to work look I'm not asking that you're dancing around my question. and you limit it to accomplish what chairwoman King needs in her district to that area of where she's doing this and
not open it up to other areas like I beginning to think that's what you want to accomplish with this. So, so it is today it is limited to that area. No other area can take advantage of this program unless they were to come back to the commission with a FUM amendment.
Okay. Can you spell that out in plain English? Yes. In the second reading ordinance, please. Sure. And also there will be there will be an amendment to exclude historic districts because this this area is not a historic district. Correct. Cor that's correct. And that is
proposed for second reading that the language is clear that it doesn't affect historic districts. Commissioner Partardo and it won't uh include NCDS any of the NCDs. Correct. Correct. So what we will be So there's a couple
revisions that have been requested. One is to include PZAB's changes. Uh you share what those changes are. Yes, I'll share what those changes are right now to change the uh warrant process of T612 to an exception. So it has to go to PAP
for a review and approval. Uh properties located within a a mile to a half mile shall not exceed T68. So right now it's proposed to be T612. that would come down to T68. And then the additional amendments are
to exclude NCDS 1, 2, and three. Uh to require uh the exception approval by commission for any locally uh nationally and individually designated historic properties. So if they were to come in
with a proposal, it would have to be come before this commission for their approval. uh and then to incorporate uh the new workforce housing tiered AMI percentage requirements that we've discussed in PZ uh 8 um to also include
in that this legislation as well. And I I have one clarification. Um could you just for the benefit of the public? I've heard a lot in our office and uh in public comment just about the difference
between the historic districts like myo and RTZ and live local and how they do or do not apply in historic districts. Yes. So um you know today in in our code in chapter 23 we established the
historic districts uh the various districts uh you know Palm Grove is a historic district is a historic district spring garden spring garden yeah right correct uh we have many historic districts um those districts
are protected in our ordinances today right so m's a good example because you have T5 and T6 but there's a height cap there 35 ft, right? Which we want to keep, which we want to keep. Uh, you know, Miami 21 doesn't make specific
reference of myo within it for each zoning district, right? It it's all within chapter 23. This works the same way, right? So, all of those districts are still protected under this ordinance. As it relates to RTZ, uh, you know, that is a county
ordinance. Uh, and those protections are not as certain. uh as they would be under our ordinance. Uh and also for Live Local, Live Local just recently amended its uh its um uh bill through
House Bill. Give me one second. This is actually important. Um one second. through Senate Bill 1730 that specifies that nationally designated areas are exempt from live
local. Well, myo happens to be locally designated. Okay, so you could still do a live local project potentially in Myo. Um, and as it relates to live local, just so that everyone has this information, right now we're at 55
projects that we've received citywide that are live local projects. Wow. And those projects are only providing 140% AMI. Um, so again, one of the things behind this is to try to create a program that development the
development community can work under under, you know, the Miami 21 standards. And if I heard you correctly, the county it it's not clear whether RTZ applies in historic districts. It's not in the language per se or I've not read it to
be explicitly exempting historic districts specifically. Okay. Thank you very much, chair. Uh I will make the motion based upon what I was told on first reading.
I do have a I have a couple of requests. Uh, I know we talked about the NCDS being excluded, but what about parcels immediately adjacent to NCDS, right? So, I happen to live in one of the NCDs, but the concern from my neighbors are the adjacent properties located along Coral Way, because those technically would be
eligible, but those are of concern to my neighbors who front those properties. So, I'd like to profer that friendly amendment to that to the motion. And the the other thing is there's a lot of confusion on this particular item. I've been approached and I imagine we all
have by a number of people and so if we could have ideally by tomorrow morning a lay person's explanation as to what this actually entails that would be tremendously helpful. I've been approached by a number of neighborhood associations throughout the city and especially folks in in my district and I
need an easy way to explain this to them. We can provide that. Um and and just you know I think it's also important to understand the layer of processes that are required to even come through this program. It's not just the simple you
know once this is approved developers can come in with a T612 or T624 tomorrow right like you have to have the land use you have to go through the exception process so with a master plan so there there's layers of of this that's important to understand and we can
provide that information. I have a motion. May I have a second? Okay. Sorry, I I stepped out for a minute and I was kind of Okay, so what are we voting on? PC PC6. PC6. Okay. Uh, okay. I'm ready. I have a motion. Second. All
in favor? Chair. I'm sorry. I just want to make sure the mover is okay with all the amendments that are being proposed. The second all the amendments being proposed. Good to go. Understood. I have a motion in a second. All in
favor? I I as amended. As amended. Amended. Chair, can we go to the uh re U items that are left? We have one more left in PZ8 was pulled. Okay. PZ8.
Who pulled PZ8? I did. I did. I was just wondering um if you could explain the percentages and the AMIs and how the workforce housing uh and and again talk about the pressure of RTZ and live local and how this tries to
actually keep uh development within our code so that we can control it as opposed to losing the control and getting a much worse result in our city. I think that's very important and I think our residents don't don't understand how that can happen.
Yeah, absolutely. Um so, you know, we so today we have a uh attainable mixed income program in Miami 21 that helps promote affordable housing. It it provides several different flexibilities as it relates to setbacks, heights, uh,
and other, uh, and other items that Miami 21 has required because we know the impact of cost uh, both to land value and construction cost, right, to a project just in general, let alone an affordable projects that are dealing with very thin
margins. So, this this program is specific to the workforce housing aspect, right? Um, and with what we've seen with Live Local, what we've seen with RTZ is that they're they're pushing their version of workforce, but it's at
a much higher AMI level at 140% AMI. Uh so what what this has done is we've looked at uh you know we've actually been working very closely with the district 5 office on a tiered approach to our workforce requirements because we
know that workforce incomes are not just at 140 and they're not just below 60. Um so this what this does is allow for a range of AMI levels starting at uh 60% and less uh 15% of the units of the
development would be required uh from 100% AMI and less uh 25% of the units would be required and then the last tiered would be from 120% AMI less at
10%. which is which amounts to 50% of the development's units would have to be in that tier. Um and then you would be available to get these various flexibilities. Uh the setbacks, lock coverage, those things which again are similar to what we have in our
affordable um attainable mix income program. Um but we're just allowing it now more specific for the workforce program as well to compete with RTZ live local. I've I've got through the chair. I've got questions on this. I'd like to defer
this uh because there's a couple of questions that I'm not sure, but uh if if if you go go ahead to vote, I'm I'm going to go vote vote no unless you guys deferred. That's where I'm at. I was briefed on it, but I got a couple more questions that I wasn't sure. I apologize.
There's a request to defer PZ8. So, I have a motion to defer PZ8. I have a second. All in favor? I chair to what date? I apologize. Which date? To July the 10th. July the 10th is fine. To the first meeting in July. Yeah. Okay. With
you guys. Yeah. There there seems to be a lot of confusion around this one as well. And folks are coupling them. They've they've I've received a number of emails coupling PC6 and PC8 and they're not that closely related. So I think we just need to clarify that for the public. Okay. So I have a motion and
a second. All in favor? I. PZ8 has been deferred. Go back to RE5 and six. I see the police chief here. Chief, uh I place this item on the agenda
to ascertain uh from the administration areas of funding that we're going to need into next year's budget and several budgets after. As I was going over with you, um
the numbers we're coming up with is that we're around 300 police officers short right now. That's not including uh some that we've lost for different reasons that we have to hire those
replacements. as we discussed uh in the fourth year since we're not going to hire everyone out of a hundred that I'm proposing each year in the first
year. Uh we won't hire all 300 until the fourth budget cycle year. By that time, including increases that we would have had, we're probably looking at maybe 33
to 35 million a year. Initially each year that we hire the first 100 is more 16 million versus around 10 11 million uh afterwards
because we're buying the initial car and all the initial equipment for the officers. Um, I just want to have you on the record to see if I'm correct in what I am proposing to the administration and
to this body as to additional officers that we need uh for the Miami Police Department to provide the security that we're obligated to for the protection of lives and
properties in our city. So, good afternoon, Madame Chair, members of the commission. Manny Morales, chief of police. Um, just to commissioner, just to give you uh a little bit of context to it. Right. Right now, we're sitting with last
year's amendment. We're sitting at 1390. Right now, we have about uh 42 officers in the field training program that will come online sometime before the end of this year. 28 of them coming at the end of this month. Um, in the academy we
have another 40. So once you take those away, we have about 40 vacancies that we expect to fully fill before the end of this fiscal year and put him in the academy at some point either before October or right after October. Um,
looking at our ability, uh, to be able to put him through the academy, I think somewhere between 75 and 100 is the sweet spot where we're able to put him in the academy. Uh, taking a look at an average of the last four or five years, we lose not only to the drop,
resignations, and terminations about 45 officers per year. So, kind of keep track. Um, as a matter of fact, last year, I know Commissioner Gabella brought up an item. He wanted to bring us up to staffing. I I had the discussion in front of the commission that I I didn't feel it was fiscally
responsible for me to accept those buddies bodies when I had about 80 vacancies yet to fill. So, it would have been nice to have them in the in the table of organization and in our budget spots, but I wouldn't have been able in in good faith to fill them. I think now we're in a position to do that. kind of
moving forward, we'll be able to get those and and if you kind of look at the city, just to let you know, we're in a fantastic spot. So, it's not that there is a need for now, but there is a need to prepare for what Miami is to become, right? So, we're sitting at a 17 17%
reduction in part one crimes. That's 40% less stolen cars. That's 20% less robberies from a number that was already a historic low last year. We're about to be 38% down in homicides come the 1st of
July. So, our officers are doing well, but I'm looking at the city, how we're growing. Just a conservative estimate, probably about 7,000 dwelling units are coming into line sometime within the next couple of uh budget years. We need
to prepare for that. And if you look at Miami 21, an estimate is that Miami has the potential to grow 10 times what it is now, 5 million folks. I don't think we'll get there. Not in our lifetime anyways, or my lifetime, but I think that this is the beginning step to get
us ready for what's to come. I I got a question, uh, Chief. So, all right. So, so what we're doing is with these numbers, we're we're just making up. We're not having a net gain. We We haven't had a net gain yet, right? Correct. Okay. I still got 40 vacancies
as of right now, but by the end of this fiscal year, those will be in the academy. Correct. My my question now would be, what percent on a yearly basis of the new officers that you are hiring
come certified already, meaning you don't have to send them through the academy. You could put them right into the field. Yeah, commissioner. A very small percentage of the officers we ended up hiring are are certified officers that have already 10, 15, 20%. What? I couldn't give you an exact
number. I can get that. I can get that from you. I'll have my uh my staff in the back begin to look at that. But I can tell you the overwhelming majority uh of the officers that we hire are brand new recruits that we're putting through our own academy. And I'll be honest with you, that's the way we
prefer. I know that the time to ready or the time that these officers are willing to make a contribution to our staffing numbers on the street, it's a lot shorter when we hire certified officers. So, it's 5 months if you hire certified officers versus 13 months if you hire a
brand new recruit. But the teachings and the training that we give them in the academy turns a far superior police officer in my humble opinion. Okay. Can I just ask at the end of that year? So what's that net going to be in
terms of person officers? What is that net number again in the net gain? So by the end of this year we'll be at 1390 by the end of this fiscal year we should be able to have conditional I know but what's the net gain? What what in percentage terms or we're in in numbers?
What what is the net gain? In other words, we're replaced that the guys that you know that uh you know uh retired or quit or whatever have you replaced those and then we added two numbers. What what is that number? So we've already reached the officers that are going to leave force in the drop. It's unforeseen how
many folks So we've had about 17 or 18 individuals that have been that have left the department this year. If the statistics hold and the averages hold, which is 44, we have another 30 something that are coming out that would be on top of the 40. Okay, got it. Thank
you. Is the number I was going to ask if we had a motion. Well, just before I think we need to give more answers. Uh it's the numbers that I'm using, chief, to budget 100
more officers. Uh and by that I mean that you include within that budget uh once they come out the extra sergeants the the additional higher rank officers that you need for
those officers that would be within your 300. But if we budgeted three or 100 officers in this next fiscal budget, beginning of October 1st, and for the next several budgets, 100
more per year until in the fourth year, we have sufficient officers that will be the 300 that we need. Is that a fair number to propose? that it's a doable number and I think is
it's a number that's right around the sweet spot of what we're going to need based on the growth that we're seeing right on the 7,000 uh dwelling units that we mentioned does not account for any business developments. So the night life that we continue to experience, not only in the
popularity of Bickl, the Grove or or in Windwood, just the areas that we're seeing and the visitors coming to downtown, this will give us an accurate or an effective number of officers to be able to maintain the gains that we have now and continue to get even better. All
right. Uh Chairwoman, I I will be making a motion now to approve our E5. Before the motion, can I ask a question, please? Uh, so the 100 officers that we're talking about in dollar terms, what what does that equal? Roughly 21.6
million. So it costs for year one for a police officer $216 uh,000. That is 135,000 in salary and French benefits plus 79,000 in change I believe is for equipment. So every 100
officers you're looking at 21.6 init initially. initially, first year, but and it drops to the 135 because we took all the equipment. Now, it can fluctuate because remember, we're counting in there a $55,000 police car with the air card for the laptop and
everything else. So, you can you can kind of account for or take into consideration that the first year they'll be in the academy and in training. We're not required contractually to give them a take-home vehicle till the 18 months uh till they take in the in the department until they
reach the end of their probationary period. So, we can we can kind of shift those costs a little bit. So, it would kind of fluctuate, but once you're into year two, you would have to account for the second one. Let's break down those numbers. Chief, uh in equipment, car
and other equipment, what are we talking about per officer? That's a one-time expense. So, let me let me bring up those numbers real quick. We had talked around 60,000 per officers before. It's obviously more
if you looked at into it a little further. Okay, sorry about that. Here we go. So, the cost analys or the cost breakdown. All right. You want me to go down the list real quick? Yeah, please. So, just looking at the onboarding them.
So, the pre-employment polygraph exams about $115. Pre-employment psychological about $210. Pre-employment physical about 5.82. 82. The annual physical that would be mandatory right after the higher year and thereon is 707. The air car for the
computer is 528. Yearly fuel cost calculated at current rates is about 5,700 bucks. Uniforms and accessories $2,74. The bulletproof vest $800. equipment and
safety supplies. Flex cuffs, gloves, um blanket, fire extinguisher 3,300. The gun is $440, taser is 1,700. Body warn camera 500, radio is $6,000.
Um mobile digital computer 3500. The patrol vehicle is $55,000. So the total hiring cost will be 161315. Total equipment cost 79,656. How much the first year office equipment? I'm sorry. The total
equipment 79,656 and the first year police officer salary and benefits is 135307. So, as you saw in there, obviously the gun, the taser, uh the body warn camera, even though they have contractual
amounts every year is not as much as what is the first year salary for a police officer. So, the first year salary with the just the first year salary. Okay. So, the first year salary is 67,066.
Okay. Crime prevention is 2,700. Workers compet. You want the the fringe benefit or just the cost? No, no, no. It's just the salary. Okay. 67066 is the cost for a police officer in the
academy until he reaches probation of 18 months. And we're paying, let's see, 120. Uh we're paying the rest is benefits, right? The rest is benefits. Yeah, we're paying the with the French benefits.
It's 100% of the 67 basically. So the the the bulk of the cost is the retirement which is 47,32 a year. A year 11,000 as an allocation to the health trust and another,000
bucks to Medicare. Okay. Well, it's a lot more than what we had discussed before. Yes, sir. But if uh those are the costs, they uh are the cost. Um my motion to stand if there are no
further questions of the police chief. Yeah, I did I had a just a couple of quick questions. Has there been uh and maybe this isn't for the moment or today, but has there been any analysis for using uh things where we don't need the level of training and expertise and
involved in a police officer like sometimes they use with blockbyblock security, you know, other contracts that can supplement uh the police department so that we're helping to lower our cost as well. So, we for a very long time we've had the public service aid program
uh which allows um men and women that are not necessarily uh comfortable with carrying a firearm, but they're interested in in serving their community. They perform tasks such as um composing uh investigative reports,
doing traffic crashes, issuing citations. Um we right now we have 65. they they are a great force multiplier. They help us out. Um we also have uh a proposal that we're looking at to bring some folks as uh part-time employees,
right? So mainly retired folks that still have a desire to serve, finding out a flat fee, bring them in as a 29-hour week employee to do some of those jobs to alleviate some of the the the duties that a regular police officer would do. For example, in the front desk
of all our police stations, we have a a full uniformed individual. Um, sometimes for the transporting of prisoners, when the detention officers, which we have uh 12 budgeted spots, only nine are are occupied at this time, they can help us transport. So, we're also looking at
other ways to kind of bring in some some sort of uh enhancement to to our current manpower. And my last question was, do you do any kind of comparative analysis between cities our size and other cities our size? Our crime rate and our police force numbers. So policing models kind
of vary. If you take a look at New York City, I think there are about 4.2 officers per every thousand residents. We're right now just below uh three uh which is about what the southern model is, but it kind of varies. Uh if you look at Chicago, I think they're they're
comparable to New York. Uh other cities are side like Tampa, they're closer to us. You're probably at 2.8 2.7. Yeah. But chief, if if I can interrupt for a second, uh that 3.0 is the national
average. Uh that doesn't include all the people that come into our city on a daily basis. That throws our population way high to work here. It doesn't include all the tourists that we get and visitors that we get as a prime
hub for tourism and visitors that come to conventions um business gatherings uh etc. Um so that number is strictly for residents.
Uh that's why we need a higher number, not just planning to the future for the additional 20 maybe 5,000 additional people that we definitely will get in the next uh three years. But that's also for the
much higher numbers that our population goes up uh during the day by at least a 100,000 and probably more more than that uh of people that come to work in the city of Miami. And I don't think that
even includes uh the size amount of uh visitors like we discussed uh that we have and tourists staying all over our city and so many of the hotels we have and uh other places. Absolutely. that
that is just uh a commonly used best practice number that is what you know it's our best guide to kind of saying even though I would go to add that every city's kind of different right so you have different needs yeah that's why I mention based on the cities because we
are different than most other cities in that respect chairwoman I have a a comment and a request uh first of all I want to say I I wholeheartedly support the motion that's being put forth you you have my full support on that as part of the budget process. And so I don't think
this this needs to be an amendment on my part, per se, but I'd also love to have a better understanding of how we can better employ technology uh in in in order to supplement our police force. And what I mean by that is that we know the technology has caught up in so so
many ways and I'm sure we're using it more and better than we did 5 10 20 30 years ago. So, as part of the budget process, I'd love to hear if there are investments in technology that we can make that also are great for crime deterrence, right? I I was able to take
a tour of the headquarters downtown and I saw what we have at our disposal and I wonder if there are additional investments that we can make that would be tactical towards bringing down crime even further. You all are doing a wonderful job, but I I'd love to support you in whatever way we that I can at least. Thank you, sir. And and listen,
just um kind of as a matter of discussion, just to give you an example, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they're about similar size to Miami, obviously different issues, but they're in the midst a while back, they the state uh put in a mandate. Um they they
implemented a 2% sales tax. I'm not advocating for any type of increase here. Um however it came t attached to being bringing the manpower from I want to say 1500 to around750 right so you're looking at a similar
size city who probably doesn't have the specific challenge as Miami even though they have their own and and I hope uh chief Jeffrey Norman is not watching. I'm not throwing you under the bus by any any means, but um that just to kind of give you an idea of what a city our size it is kind of playing around with
the numbers that they're kind of looking at and contemplating. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. So, so here's my question. Usually, we do this when budget time comes around, right? So, my question is,
uh where are we getting the money to? Because I was told last time that we didn't have the money to do this. Now, I guess all of a sudden the money has been found. My my question is where are we? It's part of the motion for the manager to find the money and bring it back to
I'm all for it. I'm all for it. I mean, I'm I'm pro police. Uh, you know, I'm all for it. But my question is, you know, last year I asked for this, you know, and I didn't know I can make a motion and and the the city manager is going to follow through. I was told that we didn't have the money for this last year. Now all of a sudden, we found the
money. Can you enlighten the city manager where we're getting the money from? Because last year I was told that we're going to do it. It wasn't in the budget. I heard the police chief stated why he could not accept the additional officers. So there's no way that he could have brought him on board. Well, I heard that part, but I asked about the
money part last year and uh it was told to me that we didn't have the money for it apart from what the the chief said. Yeah. Yeah. So, the nature of the uh the item before you is for us to figure out how we would fund this. Um we certainly didn't have the availability in the
budget last year. Um I can't give you a guarantee we have it this year. Um but we will certainly do um as requested as given instruction to do. Um we are evaluating a number of options just in general with the budget as a as a with
regards to obviously not only on the expense side but on the revenue side as well. um understanding the sensitivity um of the uh millillage, right? We don't want to impact the residents directly, but we are looking at other alternatives as it relates to revenue and obviously
all of that will get put into a cooker and we'll figure out what we can and what we can't afford. I mean, ultimately, you know, we don't um have the ability to outspend our revenue stream. So, you know, we'll we'll we'll keep in line with that. It's good fiscal policy. So, so what we're voting on is for you to explore, correct? I give you
a directive. We're not voting on anything. We're voting on you the the res very specific that there's very specific parameters, right? 100 officers a year. Um and then um what that would take in terms of in terms of being able to budget for it and fund it. So, we're
giving you a directive on where to find that funding possible. Correct. Correct. That's what we're doing this. Okay. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Well, chair, I'm sorry. I don't have a second. Commissioner Rosado. Second. Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you. The next one is RE6. Mr. Manager, this is uh yours. It's a resolution to establish a relief program for the city of Miami residents who are 65 and older to refund a taxes
paid by them uh and those that have have homestead properties in the city of Miami. um is sponsored by Commissioner Rosado. Both he co-sponsored this one. This is something that I was asked for on the
campaign trail door after door after door. I'd be happy to co-sponsor it as well. It's one that I think we all are in favor of. is directing the city manager to analyze the financial impact the senior citizens tax relief program
on the city of of Miami revenues based on 100% refund based on 50% refund and based on 25% refund. Once he has those numbers of how many uh senior citizens
they will affect uh that have homestead, he will come to us and break it down to us. If we choose 100, we choose 50% or 25%. What numbers we're going to be dealing with? We will have those numbers available to you before the end of July.
Okay. When is the first budget hearing that we're going to have? September 13th. Okay. Okay. So, the end of July would be a good time to uh have it. Do I have a motion? So moved. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I
motion carries unanimously. Gentlemen, at this time we have a an attorney client session. I will recess the meeting. Can we just finish? I think we got very little left. Oh, we don't
have very little left. We have Can I just say something for the record real quick before we in case I I'm not here after the meeting. So, I said earlier uh but I was I would resign as pay for trust, but um change mind. different trust. Yes, as chairman, but um I think
I owe it to the employees there an explanation of what just happened. Okay. I have a responsibility. So, at the spur of the moment, that that is my intention. Okay. Right. But it doesn't until you put it in writing. It's not real. So, well, I won't put it in writing until the second reading when
you guys finally have your makes sense. But I think I owe it to the employees to give them an explanation of what might occur and what is occurring. Okay. That it's my responsibility. So, I just wanted to put that on on on the record, please. Thank you. Okay. Um, the
attorneys have been here all day. We're racking up fees, so we're going to And it's after 5:00 or Yes, after 5:00. So, we're going to take the attorney client session and that way if our discussion items uh go long, we can get that out of the
way. So, we're going to recess now to give you a relief. I have a discussion item. Uh DI6, I'll defer this until the first budget hearing. I can also defer DI4. Hold on a second.
Okay. So, I need a motion to defer DI4. Okay. Okay. Can we Okay. Hold on. Hold on. You're confusing Todd. So, we'll start with DI4 first. Yes. DI4 is being deferred till when? Should be to the next meeting in the 10th. I think July
July 10th. May I have a motion? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? Motion carries unanimously. Commissioner Coroyo. BI6 defer to the first budget uh hearing September 13th. Yes. Do I have a
motion? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? Okay. Um I don't know how much more you have left, but two big ones, Madam Chair. Yes, we do have the auditors here for
presentation. It'll take literally two minutes and then they can go. I mean, well, it's up to you. No, no, I'm sorry. I thought we can just accept their report from our briefings. No. Or do they have to do it? Where are they?
Where are they? We can go to the attorney client session. Are you sure? No, I don't see anybody walking. If you want them to be before you ask, they should be here.
Hello, guys. Good afternoon, commissioners. If you were sitting here this morning, I would have taken you this morning. I didn't see you. Oh, okay. All right. Well, thank you for taking us. Now, um we'll be presenting the results of the 9:30 2024 audit. Um
we issued um an opinion of financial statements of the city as well as the audit of the city's grant programs and a management letter required by the state of Florida. In all instances, those reports were unmodified or clean opinions. So, nothing to bring to your attention. We had access to all books
and records of the city. There were no audit adjustments to the process and we had no disagreements with management through the audit process. With that, we'll take any questions you have. Thank you, chair. I'm sorry if I get the speaker's name. Your name's your name for the record? Anal Harris with
RSM. Do we have any questions? I I got my briefing with him. I heard him gentleman. Well, and Brett Freeman with RSM as well. Okay, Matt, do I need to accept there? Nope. Good to go. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank
you. Okay, so we will recess now for the attorney client session. What do we have left? Read a statement. Yeah. Yeah, I'll read the statement. Oh, wait. He has to. We have DI1, DI 7, and 8. Di have left one, seven,
and eight. And you could probably defer DI1 now since that person is not here. Okay. May I have a motion to defer DI1? I got a motion. Second. All in favor? July 10th, which is the next one? Uh,
July 10th. Seven and eight. Um, DI2 we just did, right? Yeah. Mhm. Mhm. Uh, what else do we have? Seven and eight. Seven and eight. Um,
okay. Would you like to defer eight? Defer eight. Yeah. Do I have a motion? There's a motion. It's a second. All in favor? I to the last meeting in July. Last meeting in July. Understood. Up July 10th. July 24th.
Okay. And seven will be real quick. Uh it's real quick. I don't need to get into it. I just want simply it's an up and down. uh bring up uh the fact that I'd like for this body
to instruct the administration to have a vote of the property owners in the DDA uh district and of the commercial property owners also
residential and commercial if they want to pay taxes uh extra taxes or not. I'm not taking sides here on whether they should vote one way or another. All that I'm saying
is this is established in ' 67. It's been around now for 58 years. Just give the people an opportunity to vote if they want to pay the extra taxes or not. And break it up, residential versus
commercial, because they're two distinct areas. That's all. I I don't think this is real quick. Um the DDA like many of the other entities has just been a target in some ways. Uh Omnic went
through that. We just saw Bayfront Park Trust in our office that represents that region. We do not hear people uh angry and upset. Some of them pay $100 a year. They pay more for streaming services
than they do with their DDA. Uh some people believe that there are bloated line items. DDA has a process for that. Uh does it need reform? They're open to it. Uh I can see that yeah, sure, reform is probably something that is needed. Um
and I just don't think that that this is the way to do it. When I've talked to Commissioner Higgins, she says her office doesn't have, you know, any of these issues as well. So this isn't something that's bubbling from residents. This is something that is largely brought it brought by a target
and I don't think we should be doing that with our residents. I think they have an avenue where they can give their feedback and changes can be made and if that doesn't work then then I think we should entertain something. Then then I think you're in agreement with me. Let the residents vote on it. What's the big
problem? They're paying extra taxes and nobody in the city pays. Uh, and the downtown, last I heard, belongs to the whole city. Belongs to Little Havana, Alapata, Liberty City, Overtown, Little Haiti, Wagami. It belongs to all of
Miami. Why should only one portion of Miami pay taxes for a downtown authority to spend it? Let the people decide. Commissioners, you know, if you're right, then they'll vote for it. Commissioners, I'm This is
not quick because I'm sure my other would want to weigh in. So, let's go to the attorney client session and let's defer it. Yes. Could could Could Could Could Could Could Could Could Could Could Could we defer it? If there's a motion to defer motion to defer second. All in favor? I to what date? Can it
next uh meeting July 10th? Yeah. Can it be brought up uh well be brought up at July 10th? You choose the time. Yeah. And Madam Chair, just for the record, I wanted to say that assessments are everywhere when you're receiving special services. I live in an area where we
have an assessment because we have guard house security certain things. So, I also think there needs to be an understanding of what people are getting and what people are paying. And that's why I think this needs a bigger conversation. I don't think I've seen any guardouses in downtown Miami or
Bickl. I had a motion in a second and everybody voted to defer. I just want to say so if we're going to if you need more time then shouldn't we do it instead of the July 10th meeting the next meeting so you have time to I mean I'm just saying July 10th meeting that's not meeting the other meeting July 24th
24 24th might be busier because our last meeting I think July 10th will be lighter so July 10th is meeting we already voted for it to be July 10th so we're going to leave No no no no no we voted and then he said July 10th I voted for July 20th
24 was never stated at the time. Okay. Well, I'm stating it now. It was my motion. I'm stating it now. Well, then you have to bring it back to vote down the All right. I bring it back. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. We're fighting over a date here. Todd, what was passed? Um, so
for me, the clarification was for July 10th. So, we voted for July 10th according to the That's fine with you, Commissioner. Okay. So, at this time, the meeting is in recess so that we can go to the It's a recess. No, there needs to be a statement read into the record, I
believe, before you recess. Go ahead. Thank you. And then I have to come back to close the meeting after attorney client session. We're actually done. Sort of. I have to come back to close the meeting after attorney client session. Yes. Yes. Okay. On June 17, 2025, under the provisions of section
286.011, 011 parenthesis 8, Florida statutes. I requested that this city commission meet in private to discuss pending litigation in the case of William O. Fuller Martin Pania II, the Barlington Group LLC, Caillyo Marketplace LLC, Yoamo Cayete LLC,
Little Havana Arts Building LLC, Little Havana Arts Building 2 LLC, Tower Hotel LLC, Bickl Station LLC, Pedress Villas LLC, Futurama LLC, L Shopping LLC, Beatstick LLC, Vieres Cultural Cultural Fridays in Inc., Little Havana
Bungalow's LLC, and LHAB Trust LLC versus City of Miami Joe in his individual capacity. Arthur Norya in his individual capacity. Victoria Mendes in her individual capacity. Case number 23-CV-24251- R pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, to
which the city is presently a party. The city commission approved my request and would now at approximately 5:20 p.m. commence a private attorney client session under the parameters of section 286.011 parenthesis 8. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions
related to litigation expenditures. This private meeting will conclude approximately 1 hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the city commission which include chairwoman Christine King, ch commissioners Miguel Angel Gabella, Damen Partardo and Raphael Ralph Rosado, city attorney
George K. Weissong III, Deputy City Attorney Kevin R. Jones, Assistant City Attorney Supervisor Eric J. Eves, assistant city attorney Margaret Snyder, and outside council Raquel A. Rodriguez, Esquire, Angel Cortinez, Esquire, and Jonathan Cascal, Esquire. A certified
court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public. Upon the conclusion of the above cited ongoing litigation at the conclusion of the attorney client session, the regular commission will be reopened and the person chairing the commission meeting will announce the termination of the
attorney client session. Thank you. And for the record, the the meeting is in recess. [Music]