Good evening everyone and welcome. Today is Tuesday, November 4th, uh 2025. The time is approximately 7 p.m. We'll now call to order uh a meeting of the South Miami City Commission. If you could please remember to silence or turn off your cell phones, we would greatly appreciate it. Madame Clerk, if you
could call the role, please. Yes. Mayor Fernandez >> present. >> Commissioner Rodriguez >> here. >> Commissioner Mon >> here. >> Commissioner Cay >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. If you could please stand for a moment of silence followed by the pledge led by Commissioner Bonich.
>> Special. >> We'd ask you to keep in your prayers this evening the family of U. Officer David Garuso who passed away unexpectedly earlier this week here on Miami Beach. uh as well as the Cheney family uh following the loss of Vice President Cheney.
>> Madam Commissioner, >> ready? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. And please be seated. Madam clerk, I believe we have a couple presentations this evening. >> Yes, we have two. >> If you could read the first one, please. >> Yes. Employee of the quarter for Q3, officer John Colin. >> Chief, you're recognized or manager.
>> Okay. >> Good evening. I'm happy to present the award for employee of the quarter for Q3 to officer John Collins. You can come up. I'll give the floor I'll give the floor to Chief Hatfield, but I just want to say Officer Collins has always been since I started here at
the city very professional, exactly what we would expect one of our officers to be, exactly what we would hope they would be for the community. So, this is very welld deserved. And I also just want to give a shout out to Pliables because aside from the $250 the city gives the employee the quarters on their paycheck, they have offered free
pliables for all of our uh recognized employees. So, You will receive that. Chief, >> thank you. It is with great pride that I present Officer Collins with employee of the quarter. Throughout this past quarter, Officer Collins has gone above and
beyond the expectations of his role, consistently demonstrating professionalism, initiative, and unwavering dedication to the mission of the South Miami Police Department. His performance has been exceptional with impressive records of arrests, citations, field interviews, and
community parking walks that clearly reflect his proactive approach to policing. Yet, his impact goes far beyond the numbers. Officer Collins has shown himself to be a steady leader, stepping into the role of acting sergeant
and as serving as a field training officer with distinction. His mentorship has helped shape the next generation of officers, instilling confidence, professionalism, and a readiness in those he under his guidance. Officer
Collins is a role model whose work ethic, integrity, and commitment to both enforcement and community engagement set a high standard for all of us. His efforts not only strengthen our department, but also build trust and safety in the community that we serve.
for his remarkable achievements and his outstanding representation of the city of South Miami. I'm honored to present Officer Collins with the employee of the quarter. Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. I really appreciate this
award. I'm honored. I am thankful that I I've been able to do what I've been doing. 40 years. I've been doing this a long time and I am thankful that I've been able to work for the city of South Miami for almost nine years. I have a great command staff,
Chief Hatfield, and the rest of the staff is great sir, Mr. City Manager. Thank you very much for looking out for me two years ago when I was injured. Thank you. And thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate all of y'all. Y'all are great. Anything you need, I'm here. I'm
here. You call me. you flagged me down. I'm I appreciate this. Thank you very much. I'm not a good talker, but thank you. >> You're doing a good job. You're doing a good job. Don't worry about it. >> And y'all didn't have to Oh, >> yes. There you go. Say >> thank you. You did not have to. I
appreciate it a lot. Okay. Thank you. That is Thank you very much, >> Officer Collins. There a special person in from your family who may be here with you. You want to recognize? >> Oh, the backbone. >> There you go. So there you go.
We can't we can't do it without them. So let's give her a round of applause. >> Officer Collins, congratulations. Let's come up and take a picture, sir. >> Thank you very much. Okay, madam clerk, if you could read item two, please. >> Yes. Epilepsy awareness month proclamation presented to Epilepsy
Alliance Quarter. Thank you. Um, this month is EP epilepsy awareness month and we'd like to invite Luis to come up and join us. Uh, we present a proclamation on behalf recognizing the month and I'll just quickly read the proclamation and then recognize you for
some comments. Uh, so whereas epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects people of all ages, races, and backgrounds and is characterized by recurrent unprovoked seizures and more than 3.4 Four million people in the US, including over 400,000 Flidians, live
with epilepsy each day. Whereas epilepsy can be profound impacts on individual safety, education, employment, and quality of life and stigma and misconceptions about the disorder continue to create barriers for those living with it. And whereas organizations such as the Epilepsy Alliance Florida provide vital services,
education, advocacy, and support to individuals and families affected by the disease. And whereas epilepsy awareness month observed each November is dedicated to increased public understanding of epilepsy, promoting seizure, first aid education, and supporting research toward improved
treatment and a cure. And whereas we wish to recognize the importance of raising awareness and fostering a more inclusive and supportive community for those impacted by epilepsy. Now therefore, I have your friend as mayor along with my colleagues on the city commission, Vice Mayor Ryan Corey and Commissioner Alisa Wich and Commissioner
Steve Gay and Danny Rodriguez, do hereby proclaim uh today or this month, November 2025, as epilepsy awareness month. And with that, Luis will recognize you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the commission and of
Miami. Um my pleasure to be here today. U I am the seizure training specialist for Epilepsy Line Florida and just to correct you 500,000 500,000 Floridaians currently live with seizures and epilepsy. One out of 10 people will have a seizure. One out of
26 people will be uh will be deemed epileptic at some point. So um we are we're very happy to get the proclamation from the city of South Miami. Um, and I want to just commend all of you for reaching out to us and for us to be
partnering with the city of South Miami. Um, we would love at some point this month, if possible, to try and get some buildings lit up in purple if it's possible. Um, and again, I want to just
commend you all for thanking I mean, I want to thank you for um, bringing us to the forefront this month and throughout the year. um and giving us this proclamation. >> And if I could just ask, what other events are happening this month that we could potentially so
>> make the public aware of and possibly participate in? >> Sure. So, uh we have upcoming events uh in next year. We have a lot of um we're planning right now a lot of things for November, but we haven't have we don't have everything yet set in stone.
February of next year is our walk the talk for epilepsy at Zoom Miami. Saturday, February 14th, Valentine's Day. And we're also trying to what I do for the company myself is I advocate and
I teach. I'm a teacher. I'm a former high school teacher. I go out into all the schools and I train teachers, parents, and students about seizures and epilepsy. I do short workshops,
weekend workshops, daily workshops about what seizures are and how it can be managed with treatment because there is no cure currently. Uh so yeah, that's what I do. I did bring some things for
you for the commission for all of you to have brochures. I brought some pamphlets. I've brought some information. So you can all share within your group. Uh and again I'm very very appreciative of you all um being on board with
epilepsy in Florida. >> Thank you. Colleagues, any questions? >> Yeah, you're recognized. Sir, >> uh it's a great cause and and I appreciate what you guys are doing for it. Um I think you'll see that the city and all its constituents and all its residents are really supportive of many
causes, including this one. One of the things that you guys could do is maybe help us with your marketing campaigns, whatever you guys do digitally, uh we can help promote stuff. If there's anything that you guys are doing for donations or any events that you guys are doing, like you said, maybe next year, February, >> please come back and let us know about
it. You know, the forum's here for you. You can just come and tell us your three minutes of snippet of what you guys want to do, how we can help. We'll be more than happy to do so. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> Commissioner comments, just be recognized. Um, I I was listening to what you were
saying about lighting up our buildings, which I I don't know that we do that, but I know that we sometimes light up the palm trees. So, that is something that is available should you guys >> happy to support if you if you'd like to give direction to do that. >> Oh, okay. So,
>> if that can be done, >> yeah, I think that would look very pretty. Okay. So, then that's I propose we do that. Mr. >> Manager, if you can make that happen, we'd appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Sure. Good. Okay. Thank you for being here. We'll uh come on down and present you the proclamation.
>> Perfect. Thank you. She's online. Okay, Madam Clerk, are there any other presentations this evening? >> No. No. >> Okay, if we could move then on to We do not have the minutes for >> No. >> 10:21. Okay. If Mr. Madam manager, if we could have your report, please.
>> Madam manager, you're recognized. >> Thank you, mayor. >> On the event side, we have Somi Second Saturday coming up on November 8th. That's from 5:30 to 9:30. The theme this month is Harvest Festival. So, there'll be good family fun and photo opportunities for the kids. The city is going to be participating in a Veterans
Day tribute in coordination with the American Legion on Tuesday from 11 to 12. Um, You may have seen that painting already started at the city's parking garage and that is an anticipation of the artwork with Alex Miharees for the art and public places and we're hopeful
that that'll be done before Thanksgiving. Thanks to Caring Miami in coordination with Commissioner Rodriguez and our parks department tonight from 5:00 to 7:00 there was a food distribution that occurred at the community um at the children's clinic and on Monday the 10th thanks to a donation from Family and Children
Foundation in coordination with the mayor and our parks department, the city will be hosting a distribution event at the children's clinic from 12 to 1 in the afternoon. Um these distributions are going to occur the second Monday of every month through March. And finally, just a thank you to the team for um our
safe streets event. It was great. It was very well attended. Public works did an awesome job with um the haunted house. So good that town center advisory board wanted to extend that next year and make it a bigger event. So good luck public works. Heads up that's coming your way.
That's the end of the report. Thank you, madam manager. Colleagues, uh, Commissioner Rodriguez, you recognized. >> I I just want to say I cannot take full credit for the caring my Yes, I did help out, but the initial idea came from Commissioner uh Gay and Commissioner Bonich
>> and the mayor >> and the mayor. It was all of us. >> Same on same on the on the distribution. So, thank you. >> You know, I all I did was contact them and call them, but you know, we all work together to do make that happen. Thank you, though. >> Thank you. >> Further comments? Yes, sir.
>> I heard there's a rumor after the uh second Saturdays there's at Boogies they're going to have freestyle night. I think the mayor's going to be performing. >> Oh, really? >> That's what I heard. >> Maybe part of your statement is >> a new skinny pants. >> Yeah, exactly. Thank you.
I won't be wearing any skinny jeans though. Thank you. Just baggie jeans. Freestyle night. Okay. Uh further comments, questions? None. Okay. Thank god that report's over. Uh, madam city attorney, you're recognized for your report. >> Yes. Good evening everybody. We have two
updates tonight. The first is on the Mandle Stem site. So, we're happy to report the fire access easement received preliminary approval from Miami Dade County Fire. So, we continue to work with the property owner to finalize the easement document providing for that fire access. The second thing is we uh
we would like to bring or will bring to the commission hopefully December 2nd two items related to that site. The first one is a resolution modifying the approved plan development for the school site uh to allow for the new conceptual site plan and expansion of those school
facilities. And the second resa would be approving a development agreement with the school to allow for the new site plan and also increased capacity for student for student enrollment. So hopefully both those items will come on December 2nd before the commission. >> Can I can I ask on the on the
development agreement? What is the capacity expansion they're asking for? >> Up to 200 students max. >> 200 additional or 200 total? >> I think the expansion up to 200 correct. >> And what's the total what's the total headcount today that's authorized? >> I'm not sure. May >> I'd like to know that because that's not that's that to me is a new item. Okay.
>> As part of the discussion. So >> So currently and after >> Yes, please. >> proposed. Okay. >> If you can get that to me tomorrow, I'd appreciate it. >> Okay. Anything else on your report? Yes, we have an update on the third and amended and restated interlocal agreement with Miami Dade County. This
is for the city's solid waste disposal. So, uh there was some lastm minute changes proposed by the solid waste department and they were headed to the BCC today for approval. Fortunately, we worked with four other cities that were impacted on the solid waste agreement
and we had uh we actually the department supported a deferral of that item. So, in the meantime, we are going to work with the county staff to propose some changes to this last draft of the agreement. And potentially, there's two big items in that agreement. They
proposed sort of a lastm minute increase in our disposal rates above the CPI if the capacity at their landfills is full or near capacity, >> which is near near extinct at the moment. So, exhausted. >> So, that uh that increase had no cap and
no no notice. it would happen automatically once the county determined that their capacity was at at level. So, we continue to work with them and hopefully we can come to a revised agreement that we'll have acceptable changes to the four five cities impacted
by that and it'll go back to the BCC in in December. And just one related note, um there was also no exception, you'll recall in the agreement, there's a we can dispose of what they call, I think, sourced separated recyclable materials. So that
includes green waste and other other matter uh outside of their system. They did not create an exception for composting even though they just authorized composting at the county. And for us it's about 40 to 50% of our residential waist stream is food waste.
So we are thanks to the good work from of commissioner Eileen Higgins at the county commission who authorized or has made composting easier. We are exploring some conversations with uh services that can possibly make composting part of our our waste
handling stream here at the city. and that opportunity would have been foreclosed, but for I think the good work of our city attorney and the work of uh city attorneys at at some of the other contract cities whose contracts were expiring raising these issues. And I want to thank um Commissioner Higgins
for uh also pushing for the deferral uh since this is obviously an item of particular interest to her given her work on it for the last two years. >> Yes, sir. Does the uh interlocal agreement also speak about green waste? >> It does. It It treats it the same as
>> It treats it the same. >> It treats the same. >> So, will we have the opportunity to bypass that at all? >> We will. We can we can divert green waste, dip it or we can we can process it outside of the county's facilities. >> Oh, we can't. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Doesn't need to be it doesn't have to be mandatory. Mandatory included.
>> The uh the posture of that portion of the waist stream has not changed. So, it's just particularly with respect to composting. they had not uh added it to the exceptions to what they call MSW or municipal solid waste. Is that right? >> Correct me if I'm recalling the terms incorrectly.
>> So, um yeah, no, it's uh it was uh an item that uh has made its way onto the agenda without a whole lot of advanced notice to impacted cities and the impacts go well beyond uh the contract cities whose contracts are expiring potentially. The language
is rather ambiguous. Um the language on the price locks was particularly nettlesome because it references the existing capacity as of the date of the agreement but did not allow for the possibility of them increasing capacity by expanding the landfill. So we would be subject to
price increases even though they had expanded capacity substantially. Um, it also possibly arguably impacts cont the contracts of cities whose contracts are still in place and most troublesome the
lack of price certainty and asking for a 20-year term as opposed to what's been a 10-year term historically. This is literally a mess. And uh if we're not careful and I know that thank god we have a a good team in the city attorney's office that also their
representation of other cities makes organizing around these issues principalities a little bit easier >> because we were able to get on the phone with Heidi Sarah and uh a couple of other folks who represent other cities and quickly summarize the issues get in front of the county
uh with a show of solidarity uh unity among cities. Um, but the way this is being set up, the conversation is not advantageous to us at all. And uh, we're trading historically when we signed these agreements, we got 10 years of cost certainty, right, for a 10-year
commitment. We get we do not get that in this particular >> three years, right? >> Uhhuh. >> You get three years. >> We don't even get three years. I mean, it's whenever the as I whenever the capacity expires at the landfills, you're no longer you you no long you don't no longer get the benefit of the contract, right? I think we have to have
a conversation about whether this agreement is worth signing at all honestly. >> And if I could add just further, so if they propose these disposal fee increases without a cap, there is no mechanism currently for the city to terminate the agreement. It has to be terminated by mutual consent of the
county and the city, >> which will never happen. >> There's no exit if the fees go high. >> So they're trying to lock up capacity for a put contract for whatever facility they want to build >> at our frankly I think at our expense. And it's, you know, um, we probably need to have a conversation about whether we
need to look at going beyond the county for some relief because I'm not sure that this is going to get resolved at the local level, right? >> Um, you know, speaking of relief, do we have we had an update? Obviously, this probably just been already erased from
their memories, but the trash by rail opportunity with the agreement, has it that's pretty much dead? >> It's pretty much dead. I I you know uh they have not responded to our offer. Uh I've inquired I think staff has inquired
as well. Uh they're supposed to be setting up a site visit. They actually are coming tomorrow. Okay. They're coming out tomorrow to see the site. So maybe there's a glimmer of hope that that gets resolved. >> Who's coming? >> Uh Alicia Daniels, I believe, Roy Kohley and the team at Solid Waste at the county are coming out to see the site.
You know, I I think there are some real opportunities for us to consider working with Coral Gables uh on, you know, again, we were talking at one point about taking the resources to improve our public works yard. You know, we may want to consider just
taking our full three acres, using it for this purpose, and talking to Coral Gables about some sort of an interlocal and relocating our public works facility onto their campus because they've got a pretty sizable campus. So, I think there are those opportunities, but we'll see if there's any interest on the part of the county of of developing a facility
uh on our on our public works yard for for waste to rail. >> What about the ability with the other cities that we just joined in on here on this conversation with the BCC? >> So, just statutoily the county can close the system and they control they control
how the rules are set up around disposition within the county. So unless there's a statutory change that allows us to kind of through an interlocal have cities work together to set up their own system uh you know we're really we're really
stuck uh under whatever framework the county articulates right now that framework as it's being set up doesn't provide us any guarantees on costs and you know that is our biggest I mean again just as you all know the transfer fees that we are forced to pay now uh
roughly $120,000 a year you know I I think that's that's half of a half of a mill roughly or 40% of a mill, a tenth of a mill, excuse me. So, it all of these costs begin to add up and we're looking at substantial cost escalation
uh with our operations and disposition side depending on where we're forced to take trash in the future. Um, >> if I may, mayor, yeah, there was a CPI annual 4% cap on the disposal fee >> while there while while there was capacity, >> but the with the latest change that
changed and so now there is no cap. If if they achieve capacity in the landfills, there's no cap on what they could charge this. >> Well, I I I always read the same I always read the same way. I thought that there was no cap. There was a CPI cap while there was capacity, but after the capacity expired, you were at what the will of the market.
>> Correct. >> Correct. Yes, ma'am. with what you said right now about the canon controlling, we wouldn't be able to I know this is a long shot. We wouldn't be able to set up our own system to get rid of our own trash.
>> No, we have to by virtue of the local ordinance that's I think supported by correct me attorney if I'm wrong that's based on the existing statutory framework. the county sets the rules and whether we have a contract or not, we have to take our trash to be dis I mean
our residential solid waste to be disposed at one of their facilities. The only advantage that signing the contract provides us is that while there historically we get the benefit of a discount because we make a long-term commitment and they give us a lower contract rate. So typically it's about a
20 to 25% savings. That model is still embedded in this current contract with the exception that once it hit capacity >> which is >> the markets. So we get a very limited amount of cost certainty for a very long term. Obviously you can understand why
that makes no sense. So yes ma'am sir, excuse me. Um, I think, you know, with these with these increases in prices, I think it might be prudent for us to explore, and I know I know I'm not going to be this
isn't a fan favorite thing to say, but um exploring the idea of uh maybe reducing the recycling pickups from once every week to every other week because in there we will have a a cost savings to the >> So, I think that's so I think one of the
the reason the composting issues particularly important is because if we can if we can get that included as an exception to the requirement to dispose of it at a county facility, we can divert it and reduce
our total tipping fees, which should save us a substantial amount of money. So, let's just say it's 40% of our our total load today. So, that exception is something we need to push very strongly for. And I think if we don't get the kind of relief we want, ultimately I would suggest after this conversation plays out, we may want to have a
conversation about whether we want to as a group of cities go to the legislature and ask our delegation to for for counties that are capacity constrained, which I would include Miami date county that definition whether they allow us to
set up our own systems for purposes of creating more predictability and and having some more control over over costs. That's going to make the county's job all the more difficult. So, that's not a a conversation we should embark on lightly, but the current posture of the
agreement is a very poor one for us is what I would say. >> Further questions of the city attorney, comments? Anything else, Madam City? >> Just one further comment. We'll keep you apprised of our negotiations uh with the county and see if we're able to to get those revisions that we need. So, we'll
keep you posted on that. >> Yeah. Hopefully, we'll have some some certainty by the 18th if possible. Thank you. Okay, with that we'll conclude this city attorney's report and open up the floor for public remarks. Uh I've got a few names signed up for public remarks. Uh Mr. Grace, you're first on the list.
Please come forward. >> Sir, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Um my name is Kevin Grayson. I am uh one of the uh organizers of the Somi Art Festival. Uh we are entering now into our 40 41st Somi artfest uh
that will be held on February 22nd and 23rd of 2026. Uh we are here to request a waiver of of fees uh for this year. Um as to the resolution um that is um in in front of you. Um we are a small but
mighty group of volunteers that put this event on every year. Um I often There are there are 20 of us who are um members of the South Miami Rotary Club and not one of us lives in South Miami
and yet we are dedicated and committed to putting this event on every single year with hundreds of hours that go into putting it on. We are also very um proud to say that um we have 120 spots for artists at this point with three weeks
left to go. We have 170 applications for artists. This is from right now, as the last time I looked, 14 states where we have South Miami has a reputation of putting on one of the best
art festivals in the country. And that's why we have these uh individuals from all over the country wanting to come here to display their works and to experience what South Miami has to offer. And we are pleased to be able to do that every year. And the other thing
is that we um we do uh surveys of all of the not of all but of many of the the patrons um who come that weekend. And the one thing that we hear over and over again is that everyone loves the fact that it is a familyfriendly event. And
that's what sets us apart from some of the other art festivals that some of them are forprofit. Ours is not for profit. Uh and uh we look forward to that and we love the working relationship that we have with the city and we are looking forward to the next
couple of years in planning and how we can continue the festival um with all of the changes happening on Sunset and with Sunset Place. >> Thank you, Mr. Grace. Thank you for organizing the event. You guys do a spectacular job. Commissioner Guy, you're recognized. >> Yeah. I just wanted to ask you a quick
question since you're here >> with so much demand and I think that's the most we've ever heard uh from the arts festival. >> Is there a need or anything that you guys need more space? Is that something that we can work with some of our our retailers? You know, is that something that you guys are looking for that we
can probably help with? It's not because while you know one of the things that we're really trying to do is to always continue to increase the quality of of the artist and that will happen in the next couple of weeks when we start to go through and and we select who can come.
The nice part is is it's it's always good to be able to say thank you but no thank you. Um and want people to continue to want to be here. >> Any further questions, Mr. Grace? We have them. Okay. Thanks again. We greatly appreciate your contribution. >> Thank you.
>> Uh Mr. Lopez, you're recognized. Good evening. >> Jason Lopez, 7730 Southwest 65th Place. I'm here for two reasons. Uh first, glad Mayor Stoddard's in the background. I'm here to urge you to restart the urban landscape committee that uh we started
in 2010. Um I think with the large investment in trees that's about to happen, everything going on with Gene Willis connecting to the underlying uh 6540 Manor Lane, there's a need uh to make some smart investments
back into the plants for South Miami. Um there's a broader term that you hear pretty regularly called Florida friendly when it comes to plants. I think we can make a South Miami friendly concept, help in a lot of ways. Uh secondly,
I'm here to mention, you know, I know you guys are talking about 6540 today and its future use. I don't know how broad or centered that is. I hope that it's to consider it as a park. Uh if it is to consider it as park, um I think
that the neighborhood's made it pretty clear in all the conversations that I've had with them in the past year that we've been doing this that we we want a simple space. We don't want an overbuilt has a lot of structures, a lot of things going on. Um, that particular spot has a
lot of history for South Miami. If you think about it, just about every resident of South Miami that's ever lived in South Miami has gone down that way once they built that bridge. Um, it is definitely the entrance to our neighborhood. And so, keeping it open to
visibility, being able to see around the corner what's coming around US1 and all these different things is really important. Um, I think we can a really logical landscape plan in there that does not include a lot of future upkeep and maintenance. I think that there are
smart plant choices you can make uh that limit growth and height and whatnot so that we're not always in there needing more and more resources from the city to take care of the space. Uh I'm not suggesting Van Smith Park, but I am suggesting a you know there's plenty of
ornamental natives that you can use. Uh the Institute for Regional Conservation exists and on their website is the natives for your neighborhood. Uh you can go in there, you can put in 33143 and it'll tell you whole list of plants that used to live here. Uh if we work
from that group of plants, we will not be setting up a bunch of need for fertilizers and irrigation, trimming, and all this kind of stuff. And so I'm hoping that we can turn 6540 into I once heard Centennial Park for the city of
South Miami. Makes a lot of sense. We're about to turn 100. Um and I hope we can keep it a simple space without overdevelop overdeveloping it. Thank you >> Jason. Before you leave again, just to make sure I got the name right. Institute for Regional Conservation. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Natives to your neighbor.
>> That I got. Thank you. >> Okay. Next on the list, Mayor Solder. You're recognized, sir. Good evening. Philip Stoddard, 6820 Southwest 64th Court. Um, I'll just reinforce what Jason said. Uh, we used to have an urban landscape committee who
did a wonderful job for us and we are very fortunate to have Jason as a professional horiculturist with a passion for native plants. So, when you get when you get an expert, he'll work for you for nothing. Grab him. Um, excellent idea. I first wanted to address uh M4, the sustainability um
guidelines. Um my wife, Dr. Gray Reed, and I both submitted comments five weeks ago that did not appear in your draft tonight. Um it's a very good idea and I totally support what what it is. I'm I do want
to see it um amended and corrected because the what you have there is suitable for a tempered environment. It would be good in Colorado or Wisconsin, but not Miami, Florida. Our sun angles are different. Our humidity is different. And you have an expert uh Dr. Gray Reed who actually taught this stuff
until she retired last year. Um so there's very good um resident expert help to assist you. Uh regarding solar, um I understand the torium. Um, part of the issue is insurance. I was hoping we'd have some
numbers by tonight on which insurance, you know, what fraction of insurance companies are solar hesitant because >> mayors, I I think just to disabuse everyone of that of that notion that I I I would personally that was not the reason for the moratorium. Okay. The
reason for it was that we learned that was not being applied. So, we had an ordinance that um was not being enforced in our building process. Apparently, we had a conversation two and a half years ago and it was interpreted by a line reviewer as meaning that there was no
mandate in place anymore. So, that was really the reason I wanted I spoke to some other residents about that this morning. >> Oh. >> Who asked me about it. So, I wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you for Thank you for the clarification. You know, we we've had that discussion before about about insurance, but quite honestly, we were in this posture
>> because there was a >> an error, >> a glitch. Okay. Yeah. I mean, the the insurance thing is is a legitimate issue that has to get worked out and and Commissioner Cay and I talked about this at some length. >> Um trash reduction. My family composts. We have like, you know, put out five
pounds of trash every week. Um but our recycle bin is pretty heavy and I'm really careful about only any appropriate things. I just wheeled it out to the curb this evening and if I had to take two weeks worth uh Commissioner Rodriguez, I would I would struggle to uh uh to do that,
particularly with my torn rotator cuff muscle. Um so, um I would uh love to keep the recycling at at once a week, but I'd be happy to go back to once a week trash pickup. Um, the last thing is is that there are zero waste experts who would be delighted to
to help us um figure out how to how to do our trash better. And I mean to your point, mayor, that's that yes indeed, we could do some really good stuff. And I'm so appreciative that you're thinking about this constructively. So, thank you all. >> Thank you, sir.
Okay, I've got uh John Edward Smith next on the list and he's the last name I have. So if there's anyone else who'd like to address this committee, this commission in public remarks, please come forward. You can sign up with John. Madam clerk, if you could check online in a minute, we'd appreciate it. >> Sir, good evening.
>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. John Edward Smith observing 52 years on 64th Court and a business owner in South Miami as well. I'd like to start my remarks this evening uh by commending the team uh for
organizing the safe streets Halloween. It was an exceptional experience. It was particularly enjoyable to see a number of the parents uh dressing up as well with their kids. I think that was really a lot of fun to
see that. Uh it reflects how a familyfriendly community environment here in South Miami. Uh I was asked um by staff when the event was started and my best
recollection is that it it started in 1984 uh with South Miami Hospital at their location. they had a Halloween event and then eventually we moved it to uh Sunset
Drive. I think initially um it was only on the sidewalks and then you know obviously the street was closed but um that's some of the history of it anyway. Um, I would
also like to acknowledge the fact that the earth is round and you don't fall off the edge when you cross Red Road into the land of Dade County
and Coral Gables. I was delighted to see our elected officials and marketing team at the ribbon cutting for Bulongerie a few weeks ago. It wasn't too long ago when Jake opened
a restaurant where Schuler's 347 and now Beauty and the Butcher is, uh, where they promoted themselves as located in the heart of South Miami, and that's a corner in Coral Gables.
>> We're happy to claim it, John. >> Yeah, I know. For uh, for 20 years Since founding what is today's Somi magazine, the concept of town center was promoted a designation by the mayor's marketing task force in
the mid1 1990s bringing the synergy and dynamics of the businesses together in the area, our red sunset community. I understand that with tax dollars being spent on city
marketing uh initiatives that east of red road was not on the map. I'm glad to see we're attempting to make that right and to appreciate our wholeness. On another subject, this is the proposed redevelopment of
the city hall property. Over the last five decades of my professional career, I believe I've been seen as a collaborator, a convenor, a consensus builder. However, what I am pl what I am to
address this evening, some might consider me to be a commodent. On November 8th, 2016, I voted along with an overwhelming majority on the following straw ballot
initiative. Should the city use the value of the existing library and/or city hall and police station property as fully funded at no cost to the taxpayer? the construction of an
environmentally sound and more efficient city hall, police station and or library and other possible improvements to the city such as sewer connection for residents in lowlying neighborhoods currently on septic tanks park
improvements or tax reduction. In listening to the presentations and discussions regarding the development of our city hall property, I am particularly concerned about one item and that is the silver Martin building.
I had reservations about the conveyance I also have reservations about the conveyance of park space to be garnered for development purposes. I have a print out of an article published in Somi magazine in 2014 as
part of our series of historic buildings in South Miami. And I would like to provide this now for your edification and request that it be part of the record. >> Okay. Senator, can you share a copy of the ballot language you referenced because
I'm Can you also leave a copy of the ballot language if you have it? >> Yes, sir. Thank >> Thank you, sir. To quote from the article, "The city of South Miami enjoys a somewhat modest inventory
of architecturally and historically significant structures in the shopping and dining district. Thanks to the efforts of concerned city and county citizens, the preservation of structures representing
the tastes, styles, and concerns of these that come before us survived to provide our city with an identity uniquely its own. I've heard elected officials talk about
moving the building and even demolishing it while saving some pieces to be used as homage toward our history. This is appalling and disrespectful to
our history. As it regards moving the building, I might suggest you ask Don Slesnik, former chair of the Date Heritage Trust, about moving a Carl Rock building.
I remember seeing such an attempt literally fall apart and demolishing it. It seems like we have our own Eastwing story right here in little old South Miami. Either option is not viable in my
considered opinion in dealing with the pro proposed redevelopment and I stand in opposition to this. I would respectfully ask to press the pause button and see how we can incorporate
the silver Martin building as part of our civic space in any reconfiguration of the city hall property. There is not time to present this tonight. However, I am available to
present this at another time and I thank you for your consideration and time. >> Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. Is there anyone else who like to address this commission and public remarks that's in the audience? >> Anyone on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand.
>> Okay, seeing no one in the audience? Is there anyone online? >> One last time. >> No. Okay, seeing no one online, we'll close public remarks. Uh let's move on with the agenda for today. Um colleagues, with if you have no objection, I'd like to call up item
number three, which uh is the arts festival item. And then I'll move on to uh the discussion on M5 since I do believe we have got some of our design professionals here in the building. And without objection again, we'll move on
to five. followed by um M4 since we have some folks in the audience on that issue here and the moratorum. Okay, that seemed like a good way to proceed. Okay, madam clerk, if you could read item three for the record, please. >> Yes. Item three, a resolution of the
mayor and city commission of the city of South Florida approving and authorizing the waiver of certain event related fees and cost and amount not to exceed $16,526 pursuant to section 15B-6 of the city
code for a special event known as the Somi Artfest presented by the return Rotary Foundation of South Miami, Inc. to be held Saturday, February 21st, 2026 and Sunday, February 22nd, 2026 on
Sunset Drive between Red Road and US1. >> Colleague, does anyone need a presentation on this item from staff or are we clear on the request? >> Clear. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Grace, thank you for being here this evening. Is Is there a motion on item three? Would anyone like a cookie?
>> I'll move the motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay, so a motion by Commissioner Gay, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Uh any comments before we vote. >> Okay, seeing none, uh Madam Clerk, if
you can call the role, please. >> Yes. Commissioner Hay, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bonish, >> sorry, I was just looking at it. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Item passes 4 Z. >> Thank you very much. Uh if we can read item
I've lost track of where I was. >> Five. >> If we can read item M5, please. >> M5. Okay. M5. Report on negotiations for construction of the Southwest 63rd Court Bridge over Twin Lake Canal replacement
project and feasibility of a new bridge. >> Mr. Munoz and his fabulous tire are recognized. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. It's available. Uh so, Alex Munoz, director, public works. You do have a report M5 uh in
your kit, your agenda kits, uh that walk you through, uh the details on the the bridge discussion. Uh this is just a report. Uh it's not an action item. We would have to follow up with an action item subsequent to any uh guidance here. Uh probably two action items, one for
design and the other one for construction. So just to uh address guidance that we've gotten in some especially in some of the strategic sessions and goal sessions and also discussions uh at the commission uh we put this report together uh to walk you
through where we started and you know where we are today based on especially based on the board's guidance. So uh the the bridge bid was uh advertised in January of 2025 this year. Design started way before that. As you all know, uh the one lane has been closed
since October of 23. Um so we advertised, we got those solicitations, uh yeah, 23. Uh we advertised, we got the solicitations in. Uh during that time, we reviewed and a decision was made that the proposals were
nonresponsive. uh using state statute uh after the proposals were deemed non-responsive. It allows you to negotiate uh directly based on the fact that you got non-responsive proposals. Uh we began uh negotiations after the proposals were rejected with one of the proposers that had significant
experience in uh bridge building. Uh that has been going on for quite a while which has been good in the sense that has been a collaborative process with the engineer the bridge builder uh Jose here from EXP has been very involved in those as well. Uh and that process has
led us uh to the ability of putting a proposal together uh that considers a lot of the on-site conditions and what's there uh and gets us as much of an improved uh proposal and project uh and still following the guidelines of doing
a a refurbishment uh and um uh bridge. uh that refurbished bridge, the one that we're we're uh thinking about doing and we had talked about this, you'll remember there was a big concern on the lifespan of that bridge and we had those discussions here. Uh based on the approach that we're doing now, it's a significantly improved lifespan and
that's in your report. Uh and it's a lot of it has to do with the approach of uh the top deck and we're looking at a lifespan based on what the engineer of record has told us which is not Jose, it's SRS uh 75 years. Actually, it's a sub SRS 75 years. So uh the benefits of
the there's there was two approaches. We looked at the original that was advertised and then we had this negotiated uh option. So option one is the negotiated uh better option, the preferred option and option two is in your report as the original uh that was advertised. Um, and Jose can go more
into this when he comes up, but we're looking at a longer life uh life cycle and an easier construction process uh for the option that we're looking at. Um, on this preferred option, the cost
is 3.3 million and uh it's about u 286 calendar days uh from for uh mobilization to substantial completion. um the other options a little longer and cost more $4.4 million in 358 days. We
also based on the consider on the input that we got, we looked at other considerations. Some of those other considerations included uh a new bridge, a covert. We looked at the process to approach that to speed it up if possible to compare to what we were doing which we also considered a design build. Uh we
got some outside input. We even had EXP look at the concept of a new bridge. We reached back out to Durm uh more than once. We reached back out to Durm uh on the design on the uh permitting process as well. There are other options and on their face some of these other options
would be less expensive for what is the structure I like to call it the structure of the bridge uh but not the impacts that would result from the60 flood level rise requirements. Uh so and those are somewhat unknown because until you go through that process of getting a
permit and doing some designs, you wouldn't know what those full costs are. But it it on on its face, yes, uh the actual structure could be less. Uh but it doesn't provide certainty. It's a lot, you know, it's a process that you would have to run through and spend some money on in order to get a
determination. So we did look at those options. uh the one before you we think is the one that provides the greatest certainty. Uh and the other one would take time to determine, you know, whether it's viable or not. Uh one of the things that we did in looking at those options that would require a new
bridge, right? We're doing a a repair bridge, not a new bridge. Uh that's why we're able to use the existing permit and also not uh trigger those 2060 requirements. Uh we looked at a feasibility review that we have up here that I'm going to let Jose walk us through uh quickly. Um, and it shows the
impacts of raising uh the road if you were to do a new in the most likely scenario and the impacts that would be required if you were to do a new bridge. So, with that, I would bring up Jose uh to talk about that and uh any other questions you might have, we'll both be
here to uh take. >> Good evening everybody. Uh my name is Jose Santiago, EXP US services consultant. Um uh I would like to also recognize uh two other consultants that are online right now. I have Carmen Borea who is a bridge expert uh and also
uh Jason Vita who actually helped us prepare this report and uh prepare this alignment. So what we did was we we looked at two different scenarios that were uh presented before uh here at the commission. one was uh discussing uh you know perhaps raising the bridge
elevation uh by one and a half feet or by six feet. Um the you know we we looked at both scenarios. We we looked at the design criteria. I don't want to get too technical, but we did look at things like design speed and approach
slopes and the elevations uh that we we needed uh to be able to go a foot and a half and then touch down on both sides of the property uh both sides of the bridge on uh next to adjacent properties. And what we found was that
for the first scenario where we raised a bridge a foot and a half, we were going to impact uh a total of five properties u in the handout. And I let me see if we have the uh graphics here in this scenario here which is the foot
and a half scenario. Uh one property would have both driveways impacted uh which is the shaded in red. And then four other properties that are highlighted in yellow would be partially affected or would have one driveway imp
uh at least one driveway impacted. They would lose the ability to use one driveway. Now, obviously, if we're going to impact these driveways, we're going to attempt to harmonize driveways. Let's say if we we wanted to move forward with a foot and a half scenario, we would
have to come back. we would be obligated to harmonize or to cure these driveways. And so that that into itself is a process uh if the owners are immuneable to it. We're just making a hypothetical scenario right now, assuming that the owners would be okay with having one or
both of their driveways impacted. So that's that was the first scenario that we looked at. And then the next scenario that we looked at was actually raising the bridge by six feet. And I believe this was a request uh based upon having a kayaker go under the bridge h
having having him be able to go under the bridge. Um just to go back the foot and a half is based on the sea level rise criteria. So the foot and a half is based on raising the bridge to meet sea level uh rise criteria. The six foot is to accommodate
kayakers. And in this case we would have five properties that would lose both driveways. You would have to cure both driveways. >> Uh, >> sorry. What is What does that mean exactly? Because when you say cure both driveways, they lose they lose their
existing access. >> So, we have to provide it elsewhere. >> We would have to >> or we have to or we're changing the grade of their property. >> We would be changing the grades on their property if if they were immenable to it. >> That's I mean, >> obviously we can't we can't do any work on their property without their authorization, but correct.
>> I would imagine they wouldn't want to be living in on a property with no access to the roadway. >> Correct. Correct. Did you Was that your question, Commissioner? I thought you recognized. >> And and and what does that exactly mean?
Because while we can have a conversation of it affects their driveways, what does that really mean? >> What what it really means, that's a great question. What it really means is that let's say if you're the homeowner and you're sitting in your living room and you're looking out at your driveway,
you've now got an approach that's x number of feet. We can go back to the original diagram. I can tell you exactly how many feet above where it was before. And so you've literally got a wall now in front of you. >> Think of think of a think of a highway
burm in your front yard. Of course, >> which is awful, but like how then what they drive down into. >> Yes. They have to we'd have to h they'd have to basically create uh ingress and eress through their property and account for the change of grade. >> That is correct. So then all of these houses would have
>> these are the homes that are affected >> subsequent flooding because of that water >> correct. We would have to also address drainage. >> Drainage. Yes. Yeah. >> Oh. >> So again we used criteria uh slope the current you know uh slope criteria for
bridges. We followed uh we followed the uh you know the standard criteria. And what we found also just to give you an idea to accommodate a bridge elevation of six feet our project would be extended 400 feet. So we'd have 400 feet
of roadway uh to accommodate that slope that's going up coming down. So it it would project would also be extended grading to satisfy those grades that are required to go up and down on the road.
So, so that's that's basically um the impacts that we have. Just to give you an idea, we also created another graphic here. What I just spoke about, this is what the grade would look like if you raised the foot. If you raised the bridge a foot to half, your grade would
be elevated by that green blue sketch up there. And if you raised your bridge by six feet, then that's the wall that I was talking about that the homeowner would see. And then we just put a six foot band, I believe, correct me if I'm
wrong, Jason, next to that uh red line there just to give you an idea of how high that elevation would be. >> And again, this is in a non-replacement scenario. >> In a non-replacement scenario. Okay. >> And that's that's pretty much it. um you
know we looked at uh profiles uh we we could have gotten further but we would require a feasibility study and we could tell you exactly what the impacts are but from my experience having worked on many FOT projects over the over the years. Uh the the
curing process or the business or the uh the property damages process is just as painful as the construction process. you would have to add another two years, let's say, if we decided to go forward with this, which obviously we're not we're not contemplating it, but we would have to add another two years just to
address all the property damages and then construct. >> Can I ask a question related to that, Madam Attorney? Are are we potentially subject to an inverse condemnation claim condemnation claim here? >> Sorry to put you on the spot, but I'm just >> possibly yes, mayor. If it affects their
axis particularly, >> okay, >> and we're not able to harmonize, there could be a potential >> is harmonizing it to their satisfaction or harmonizing it to a standard. What's what's the >> what's the cure? Probably just a standard. >> Probably to a mutual satisfaction, I
would think. >> Okay. So, either way, we're we could be looking at a lawsuit. >> Yes. >> Okay. No, I I'm Yeah, if it's if it's Yeah, it's Yes, it could be five. Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Are we done with the presentation? >> Yes. >> Colleagues, questions on any of the slides? Any slides you want to see again? >> No. >> Any slides? >> Any slides you want to see again or have questions about? >> Okay. Questions, comments? Sir, you're
recognized. >> So, I've been I've been, you know, really trying to work on figuring out the economics of the bridge and and doing some research and
understanding of other bridges that have been constructed just like we see you know an F dot standards or standards for bridges on construction numbers. Um, and so when we I reached out to some other people and brought them to the city just
so we can have conversations. The numbers for a new bridge could significantly be a lot less expensive. Um, obviously we have not got to the point where we would have a bridge design to have certain 100% satis
accuracy on what a new bridge design or new bridge would look like. So obviously that we can't talk about that but the understanding of pricing could be significantly less expensive. What the consequences are are
more time. Right? So that's something that if the commission is non-negotiable on time but we're able to save potentially money is it a feasible understanding to move forward with that? Right. So bridges, most of the people that we
spoke to or I spoke to all say that a new bridge is probably the best scenario there, not a replacement. >> When you say >> new replacement, >> you say who you spoke to. So >> yeah, I spoke to BCC Engineering. >> Okay. >> Um
and I spoke to another firm, but that not as in detailed as I did with BCC. Um, so that that that's the only way that it would be significantly less expensive. So in the in the caveat of trying to save money and doing something
new that has the same lifespan, right? I mean, it'll probably still have the same 75 80 year lifespan. The other consequences are, you know, one of the things I wanted to look into, which they did, right? Is if we needed to raise it, maybe not paddle board level kayaking, you can still kayak
under there now, right? So raising it 18 in if you change the geometry on the bridge it could be feasible as well without having so much of an impact on harmonization is what my understanding was as well but that again that's all
not we we don't know an accurate number we're not 100% accurate on what that could be. So what the determination of the of my colleagues is have an option just to replace it which is currently at $3.3 million
or in my opinion um have a a feasibility design with a new geometry and a new bridge at what I'm expecting to be a significant cost decrease. Those are the two options that in my opinion we should look at. >> Okay. So you can repeat that one more
time. the two options that you see. >> Well, the option is the one that we're doing now, >> which is the replacement. >> The replacement. >> Okay. >> And the other option would be to move forward um on a study or a design, a preliminary study, so we can get a more accurate.
>> So, PDN, is that what we would need to do? A PDN on a bridge replacement? >> Bridge replacement. >> Uh PD is generally used uh as a study when trying to acquire federal funds. Uh in this case, you would need it would be a study. It would be a feasibility study, >> but essentially it's the same thing.
We're just trying to determine the feasibility of >> of whether a new the new feasibility and cost of whether the new bridge Yeah. >> what a new bridge the same thing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And and again, let let me stop before I have comments
or questions. Do you have any comments or questions? Sure. Go ahead. >> Um I mean, I commend Commissioner Ka for what he's trying to do. I I mean, it would be great have a new bridge that would make our waterways more transient.
Um, >> this wouldn't make it that much transient. It would be just a new bridge. >> Okay. Um, to me and and I'd be much o more open to feasibility and continuing this going on and on. But this bridge has been if the
bridge were open normal, but it's not. It's closed and you have a lot of residents in that area. I particularly know the one house that gets affected and don't matter what scenario and he just wants something done. Um, if it were my house,
that's going to be a huge impediment uh for so where it might be saving costs on the bridge, we're going to acrue costs on, you know, fixing up all these properties. >> No, we don't know that yet. >> They did the study.
>> No, that was the current bridge increasing at 18 in and then six feet. >> Right. This is not technically a new bridge. No. >> So the we looked at two alignments. One was based on sea level rise criteria which
will be required with a new bridge. A new bridge >> will require you to build it a foot and a half higher. >> A foot and a half. Yes. >> Okay. >> That's a that's going to be a given. And we went through that process right now with the Matter Lane Culver. The Metal Lane Culver. Uh we we went head-to-head
with Durm for almost a year because they came back and they asked us for a repair to give to provide sea level rise criteria and actually include that uh along the adjacent properties of the cold. We won the battle because we said
this is an emergency repair. uh every project new project that's going through DURM now has to meet sea level rise criteria that that is that is you know their requirements right now for >> so at minimum we get a foot and a half of increase and the adjacent externalities
>> right >> I mean that's whether whether it's a new bridge or replacement bridge in a non-emergency scenario >> correct >> you're at a foot and a half higher and you've got to account for the impacts to the adjoining properties because of the the grade change >> correct because this is an emergency repair and
again. So the non-engineer the grade change requires you to basically extend the approach to achieve the grade that's required. >> That is correct >> to get the extra foot and a half of elevation. Is that correct? >> Yes. Mayor, let me just because it's based on that real quick. >> Go ahead. I'm going to recognize you afterwards.
>> That is based on apples to apples on the same bridge if it's a replacement bridge. >> The idea the thought process is with a new bridge that the geometry would change. it would swallow up the 18 in and it won't have as much consequences on harmonization. >> How does that happen? So >> the geometry of the bridge I'm not I'm
not the structure. No, >> but we would that's something that we we would need to find detail. >> Okay. So that's the part I mean beyond the time which is not an inconsequential factor because we've been the bridge has been effectively at 50% capacity for two
years since Chip and I walked it very early on in his tenure here. and uh led to this fantastic discovery. Um and it's been close, it's been effectively service reduction for two years >> at at least. I just wanted to clarify.
Um I know Alex said October 23, which was when the first required bridge inspection was conducted by FDOT. By the time FDOT got to the bridge, it was already closed. It appears that and I remember >> no we we it was we we so I walked this
bridge as many of us I'm sure did during our campaigns and you know I don't know if it was ours or somebody else's and the bridge seemed to be in pretty deplorable shape at the very least it needed to be painted. So, you know, we wrote out there with with John and the team to look at it. And when we could
identify whether we owned it, we put a call on the FDOT and that's when we came out, they did a preliminary inspection said you own it, we think. They weren't sure and oh, by the way, it looks like it's structurally deficient. So, they the the immediate direction was close a lane down, >> correct,
>> to limit access. So, yeah, I would imagine this happened in April thereabouts of because you when did you start again? February. >> January January 23. So somewhere in that first quarter time frame is when this conversation happened, right? >> So >> we probably got the we finally got
official official confirmation in October. >> Right. And then subsequent to that there was another bridge inspection conducted uh in April of this year and it shows that the deterioration has continued. It's continuing to deteriorate. >> So I just want to put that on the
>> Rodriguez recognized. >> Yeah. I just want to finish up by, you know, in addition to the to the to the new information that now it's a lifespan of 75 years. You know, in speaking with the manager, there's ways to beautify signage and make the bridge look nicer.
We already have a permit. If we're going for a new design and all that, I mean, we're looking at just possibly what, three years total? Four years >> between the permitting and the coordination with the property owners >> and construction and everything. Four years >> at least three years, >> guys. I mean, I think we we we have a
responsibility to get this bridge done for our residents and the best way forward in my opinion is let's repair it. It gets to 75 years, rebutify it as much as possible and get the bridge open, you know, as soon as possible and that's the way that I'm in favor of
voting for this. You have any comments? Yes. Go ahead. So, am I correct in believing that option two is not on the table for any of us? >> Option two and the six foot elevation.
>> I just I just want to make sure that we are >> so under this scenario for me it's definitely not on the table. I don't know that I think Commissioner Kai is holding out hope that a PD study would show >> that or PD P whatever preliminary engineering study would show. >> Nobody knows what that means except for you and him. Don't worry.
It's something that traffic engineers make a lot of money doing, pursuing projects that never get built in my experience here in the county generally. So, no offense to the traffic engineers who do a good job with the studies. We just never build them. So, um you know, it's basically determine how to how to solve for the problem and what it's
going to cost, order magnitude. That's what the study will tell you. I think he's what I'm what I'm struggling to understand because my experience with my colleague is a very logical person being an engineer and an entrepreneur and I just don't see how we in this conversation that you've had with BCC
how we solve for in my mind with any bridge the bigger it gets the taller it gets the more the approach has to grow to kind of preserve the grades that the regulatory authorities require. And so with any elevation of the bridge, it's
going to impact more property. I mean, this is the same conversation when I was a 26 year old behind the years idiot working for a mayor at the city of Miami we had around the Bickl bridge, right? Which is we all wanted to raise it another five, six, seven, eight, 10 feet so we could limit the number of
openings, particularly when you had luxury pleasure craft that had arguably zero commercial value as opposed to the maritime traffic. And the and the problem was all the budding real estate was expensive then. Imagine what it costs now. So the you know the height of
the bridge was left. It was raised a little bit but not nearly as much as everybody else wanted. And we abandoned the idea of the Johnny Whitten tunnel that we used to call about. It was a commissioner that was proposing cut you know cutting a tunnel underneath that span of water because it would eliminate
the need for the bridge altogether. So those are the kind of options I think you're trying to explore. I just don't know how we reconcile the external impact. I think to Commissioner Rodriguez's point, we could be saving a lot of money on the bridge, but spending a lot of money buying what have become
very expensive homes adjacent to it. So, we buy in this case in one scenario seven or eight million of cost because some people may be unhappy with their homes and say, you know what, I don't I don't like it. you basically took it from me and we end up in litigation over
what we owe them by way of compensation or whether we end up buying their home, which is probably more likely than not what would end up happening because we'd be buying probably half the value in a lot of cases. So, that's the part I'm struggling with because I I understand what you're trying to do, but so I want to give you one last opportunity to maybe convince me to
>> I'm not finished. >> Oh, I'm sorry. You weren't finished. >> I just I asked you guys a question. >> Sorry. Let me recognize Commissioner again. Go ahead. >> Okay. So then is that I'm just trying to gauge us here. None of us are open to a six foot bridge there. Okay.
>> So, that being the case, >> in a perfect world, what would we even imagine we would be saving with another with like doing this all over again? >> A new bridge. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. You're recognized. So the there's
what we what I've heard as a matter mag manner of magnitude for pricing historically in the bridges that they do throughout Miami date county it's anywhere between 600 and $700 per per linear foot right right now we're
currently at roughly what 12300 I don't remember what the actual price per square foot is right now but it's pretty high So is this like the the building Dante Facel superers size me >> correct? Right. So but we don't know all the different aspects of that as well
yet but we're getting there. >> So that that's what my what I've been told right so that's the order of magnitude difference there um to answer the mayor's question on geometry. So imagine that we currently have a surface um and the structure is already in place
right and it's let's say two feet deep just just a suggestion my understanding from the new geometry is that if you do something new, you don't need to have all that geometry of two feet wide as a bridge might be right now with all that concrete. You can create a new bridge
with the geometry being a foot, right? I'm being I don't know the >> Okay, so the bridge design saves you a foot of elevation. >> Saves you an elevation. >> Okay. >> No, but that's apples and apples, right? That's >> No, no, no, no. So any any new bridge design, the DURM is going to require you
to raise. >> Yeah, but you got to understand what I'm saying. So if the bridge currently is this, it's 3 ft thick, right? And the new geometry of the new bridge is only 18 in. That's where you gather the 18 in of waterway system. So it clears that.
>> Correct. But when you go in for permitting for that new structure, they're going to enforce the new code. >> Yeah. What he's saying is the bed of the I'm sorry the the the road bed >> rather than being 3 ft is 18 in thick. >> Right. >> And so that be provides for the
differential in terms of the SLR >> clearance. >> Clearance. Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. I so I I understand what Commissioner Kai is saying and and actually uh in working in collaborating with the bridge uh contractor that that work you know that we we had uh with us
and and the uh design firm. We actually came up with the most shallow uh beams available. In other words, in order to uh maximize clearance because that was one of the things that had been discussed here in the commission that it
was the desire of the commission to have as much clearance as possible. Um they came back with what they call a 12 a 12 in FSB system under the deck. They they basically optimized the deck and the bridges to the to the maximum possible.
Um how they're going to save another foot and a half. So, what did you save when you did that platform? >> What did we save? >> Yeah. >> In terms of >> cost height, height. >> We didn't because we added a new deck. >> Is this a part of the repair scenario? >> Yes. >> So, we're already getting the the
height. >> We're getting that height in the repair. >> Yes. >> And And what again in terms of Commissioner Kai, in terms of the duration or lifespan of the new bridge? >> Be the same. >> They'd be the same. So, it's 75 years and 75 years. Okay. And years to let's
put time >> well it's what I've been told it's not four years >> well I'm saying permitting to through construction complete >> entire so the age of the >> what I've been told is delta would be six months to a year the difference between doing the new permit this is what I've been told >> okay but there's but there's no
guarantee even okay so you're saying that what they're telling you is there's no externalities created by by by replinging the your bridge because of the system they would use to kind of
keep to meet the SLR. >> You mean harmonization issues there? >> Yes, correct. >> No, I'm not saying that. >> Okay. >> There could be. >> Okay. >> That's okay. Okay. >> No, that's it. >> So, look, I think I think the I mean I
think the most obvious course for me is unfortunately I mean I'd love to I'd love to visit this issue, but we've been at we've been waiting for a path forward for two years. And so, um I I mean I would like to see improvements on this breakground before
I have to knock on doors again next November, quite honestly. uh because I'd hate to knock on these doors again and be exactly in the place that we are right now without a clear solution only to find out that we still may be buying
non-significant liability uh on on a replacement scenario. So So my my my vote would be to kind of go forward with the the in place replacement strategy that we've that we have vetted very thoroughly uh and we know is going to
have no impact on the surrounding neighbors. Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. >> I thought you were done. >> No, it's just I asked something unusually quiet. >> No, because I asked a question. It said some everybody's off answering and then Okay. Um, >> is is this three million whatever
dollars currently in our budget? >> No. >> No. I love the silent. We we had um um if you remember during the budget period that we had assembled a package certain projects that we would borrow for and um um I forget what the
other projects were but we had put that into that list of projects. >> It was it was it was the bridge and the culvert that we had put into that but we had eventually ended up in that package >> infrastructure. Yeah. >> So so we had the bridge and the culverts. And now we've added the park the possibility of the one on 80th and
US one manor lane. >> Yes. >> So it was bridges, culverts, manner lane. Did we have an estimate or an idea of what we thought this was going to cost >> on the bridge? >> Yeah, >> we we slotted three the the the 3 point almost 4 million um in in that list. And
on the culbert, remember it's the delta between the money that we received from the state >> um and and and what we would have out of pocket. The combination of those projects was $5 million. 5.1 >> for both of them >> for two culverts and the bridge was
roughly 5.1. That's what I remember >> coming from us. >> We would borrow. >> Exactly. So we would borrow 5.1 and mander lane to that. We're at six something. >> 66. Assuming we Assuming we borrowed the whole thing.
>> You are. Yeah. Um, >> hold on. I got I got to I got to >> Well, I'm I'm answering her. >> You have a question for her? >> No, I have Yeah. kind of like a comment question. >> A dialogue. >> Would you like to me to recognize your colleague here in a colloqui? >> Hallelujah. Of course.
>> Okay. Good. Remember we have already in the C um in the CIP already um the the 3.5 million allocated for the Dante Facel building. So this money can be used currently for the bridge and later
if we decide to go forward with that project then Alfredo can review and go forward with uh financing. This is the most that 3 point something from Dante facil is the most elastic piece of >> No, I think I thought we I thought we had decided that we didn't want to borrow for that building which is why it
got moved out of the debt service bucket >> into the cash bucket and the things that we had discussed borrowing because they had >> such a long life cycle >> was for the bridges because you know we would finance them for 30 years but they have a life cycle that's two and a half
times the the term of the debt. I mean, am I wrong, Madam Commissioner? >> You what? >> Am I wrong in recalling? >> I You're recalling correctly. I The only reason that I say that that it's >> because the last time we had a conversation about something, we said, "Oh, we'll use that money and then
borrow here and move it back and and I don't know that that will work." So, yes, you are correct. >> Okay. >> In saying we moved it from the borrow bucket to the cash bucket, >> correct? >> And it's kind of just sitt >> sitting there waiting for us to resolve the other issues. >> Exactly. So, I I just
I caution us on maybe leaving this for later because I worry that we inadvertently will continue to add small things here and there and the five or $6 million will quickly become $10 million.
>> Yeah, cost escalation is real. So, again, I'm I'm assuming you are endorsing the original option. Yeah, because the other options to me don't really well the six foot one you'd have to >> neither SLR or six feet nor a possible
option that Commissioner Cay >> is proposing which is a new bridge. >> Well, I I think the new bridge we just keep kicking the can >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. For the comments are you good? Sir, you want to close this out? Okay. So, I think the direction is to
proceed with the um with a replacement bridge. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. I have uh if you can read item five in the record, please. Item five, a resolution of the mayor and city commission of the city of South
Florida holding the first public public meeting required under section 255.065 065 3C Florida for the statues in connection with an unsolicited proposal from Somi Paddle Padell Center LLC for Padel Center on the rooftop of the city
of South Miami municipal parking garage authorizing and directing the city manager to proceed with with the proposal without a public bidding process and proceed with the public interest review for further findings by the city commission. >> Okay. M uh Mr. City manager, would you want to give us a quick overview and
then we'll decide whether we want a full presentation or >> Yes, sir. >> You want to proceed? >> Um um as you remember, there was a pre prior discussion on two concepts uh to possibly activate the rooftop of the garage, soccer and and the Fidel uh
project. Um I have reviewed uh and with staff uh reviewed both of those opportunities. Uh obviously both are um I think worthy of of consideration. I I think um the Padell project just has a certain dynamic that brings something
that we don't offer uh in this community uh uh an activation that that I think would also uh bring uh some numbers that that would also benefit I think not only parking but the business in the surrounding area. Um so the item before
you is is a consideration uh resolution of holding our first public meeting um as following the state statute 255.065. 1065. Um, as a result of that unsolicited proposal, as you know, we we have that ability within our code as
well to consider uh unsolicit proposals and and proceed without u bidding, if you will. But we are leveraging the state statute in this case uh that would allow uh such a project that um that would facilitate the development of a of a of a public project and it's got to be
a qualifying project. Um this proposal from Sopi Somi Somi Podell Center LLC which is subsidiary of Vanvego Ventures and and principles are here um would be five Pedell cords on the rooftop of the garage with a fabric cover for a portion
of it. Again, it would be for for public use. And so this item is is the first step of that process and it um it puts a burden on me to determine whether uh the proposal is in compliance with the minimum requirements of the state statute and and in in doing so uh this
item determines that that those requirements have been met. Um the proposal is is in your packet. Um and you see sort of you know the project team uh the how it would be uh deployed
the financials three different avenues. Um we had a conversation I think there probably an interest more in considering the straight lease uh option um instead of considering a a percentage of revenue. So this is the first step. The second step of this process if the
commission uh considers uh authorizing us to continue down this path would be to continue working on this proposal. That would be a design, build, finance and operate this facility. And we would have a second meeting notice meeting that that at that time would would be
the public public uh interest review um and further determination of of an agreement with with the this entity uh for your consideration. Um structurally, you know, it would they they are estimating 8 to 10 weeks. If if you
know, once we say go to construct uh the facilities uh on the garage, there'll be some things we're going to have to review from a structural standpoint, make sure that that um you know uh is acceptable to our building official. Um and there's a few other elements of the
state statute that we would have to satisfy along this process. But again, this is the first step in considering this unsolicited proposal. So, I'm bringing this as the option uh after considering both the soccer option and the pedel option. Um, and certainly they're here to to share more
information and our parks director is here to answer any questions that you may have. Um, and certainly that's an overview and and would would turn it over to you for your discussion. The financials are are attached potentially. You know, there's some more conversations to be had if if this
commission deems so and directs us to continue. Um and you see the different models as it relates to straight lease payments or a lease payment and participation uh in in revenue. Um as well I mentioned parking revenue that would be enhanced
by the participants attending uh this facility. Um and certainly happy to answer any more questions or do a deeper dive in certain aspects that you may want andor if you want to hear from the proposer again which are here. Colleagues, uh, do we want to hear a
full presentation? We're going to hear it at the next meeting as well, are we not, Madam City attorney? Procedurally, >> you can, mayor, at the next meeting as well. >> We do need to have a public hearing this evening. Correct. >> Yes, it's public comment, not a hearing. >> Okay. So, um, colleagues, do you want a full presentation from the respondent or
do we want to save that for the next meeting and just address any comments or questions to the manager with respect to what we may want to see in the next in the next step? Okay. So, let's do that. No offense to present company here. Okay. Uh why don't I open up the public hearing first and then we can have a
discussion about what we may want to see come back to us at the next public hearing. All right. Okay. Okay. Is there any of the public who'd like to address this commission on item five on tonight's agenda, which is uh an unsolicit proposal received to authorize
the construction of a paddle court facility, five paddle courts on the rooftop of our public parking garage in the Somi district. Please come forward at this time. There's any member uh online who'd like
to address this commission at this time, please raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one online and no one in the chamber, we will close the public hearing. Why don't I go left to right and Commissioner Wich, why don't you kick us off? >> Thank you. Um I just caution everyone
because sometimes it says six courts and sometimes it says five in the paperwork. >> It's five. I imagine it's because that's what's in the drawing, but you might want to update that move forward. >> Anything else? >> Okay, Commissioner Rodriguez.
>> Um, my only questions is there going to um is there going to be I guess alcohol sold in the convent in the convenience store or is is that a possibility? You know, if you are you aware of this? Do I have to ask? Um, >> yeah, there something we haven't really
like got into that level of detail. So, I don't know if there's an aspiration on that. Obviously, we would have to look and see, you know, anything that would preclude that ability. Uh, but we haven't really gotten into that yet. If they may, they may explain that they have an interest or not. I don't know.
>> Jeffrey Garcia, uh, Commissioner, uh, we had not gotten into that into that level of detail. Uh, but that is something that, you know, beer and wine uh, capacity is something we would be interested in exploring. We've talked about it amongst ourselves, but we even amongst ourselves haven't gotten to that level of detail.
>> Okay. >> Um, we originally we discussed uh publicly if you remember was uh some kind of light refreshments whether it's a juice or whether it's a you know an energy drink or something of that nature. We would be interested though in having a discussion about a beer and
wine. It's not a deal breaker, you know, one way or the other. It's just something that seems like it' be interesting in a nice amount. >> The the only reason I bring it up, I mean smoothies, all that I I have no it's just I'm also looking out for our current businesses that are there too, you know, and let's all share from Let's
all share the wealth of of the people >> and we've gone through the neighborhood and talked to and some of the others and we want to be complimentary. We want to work together and you know we've even talked to them you know >> exploring the legality if they could come up and host a happy hour you know
some something interesting for local business. >> That's the reason I bring it up is just you know cohesiveness with the current businesses that are are there now. >> Absolutely. >> Okay that's it. >> Thank you. Any thoughts? Yeah. Um in respect to uh bathrooms, what what's the
solution for restrooms up there? >> So uh what we have uh looked into and and I and I think you addressed it briefly at at whatever it was a month ago or so um bringing in if you've been to Padillax uh or one of the others uh downtown uh they actually have those
modular bathrooms. Uh don't think portaotties, think really kind of nice higherend modular bathrooms. Um and the that they're even decorated and masqueraded. They look like permanent bathrooms, the ones at Padillax. And you know, they come on the back of a trailer
and and you know, this is kind of what we've been exploring thus far. >> I feel like the city has one available that's coming up that we can go rent to >> that for our own events. >> Just on on that point, because this is a in my in my day-to-day work, this is a
real issue with uh the county and Durham and WADA review of these uses. So, do we have the equivalent of a temporary events permit status in our code? Because even so, the city of Miami, for example, has temporary use permits that they authorize.
>> I know the warf was open under one for us. >> It was, but they all but those require but those require even modular units be connected to sewer. >> And so, you know, we we you know, again, as we think about how we execute this, that's a real consideration. I mean, obviously the property is serviced by
sewer since we've got ground floor retail tenants there, but just thinking about that may be an improvement that you have to underwrite if it's depending on how the county >> Yeah. >> treats the review. >> And there is sewer up there. >> I don't know if it I I don't know if there is or not up there, but >> I think through the drainage, isn't it?
>> I don't know. So again, I just highlight that as an issue. >> No, >> depending on how we treat it. You also again just, you know, caution to the caution to the enthusiastic including us. depending on how if it's if it's in the temporary use versus the temporary
event category, you've got to pay road impact fees or whatever they're called these days, mobility fees >> to the county for the use. So, um just a couple items to to to be concerned about as we structure the arrangement.
Kai, any further any further questions on your part? I'm sorry, Commissioner Ro again. >> Sorry. Sorry. Um, is there a commitment from a revenue perspective on um, if you hit certain numbers? >> The offer here, the offer here is if
there's three scenarios. One is a u straight $18,000 a month with a 2% increase annually >> or there are reduced base payments with revenue share. I I actually would like us to consider countering
with the higher of the base payment as represented here or 15% of the total revenue as kind of the payment whichever is higher. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. The reason being I mean I'm just looking at how these agreements typically the kind of the industry
average is about 12 and a half to 16% of gross is what you are typically paid compensation on a lease like this or a lease like a license agreement. So again, I would suggest rather than a revenue split, I I I like the the shity
of the consistent cash, but would want the true up in the event, you know, let's assume we authorize a whole bunch of activations and you do extraordinarily well, we want to share on the upside with you as well. >> We're not opposed to that and and you know, could be we could hammer out the actual details of it, but we're not opposed to that. >> That's where I was going over.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, you're recognized, sir. Um, so you would have to crane I guess that that's a great question by the way about the bathrooms. I didn't even think about that. Um, you would have to crane it up there. >> No, >> be driven up on a trail.
>> Okay, good point. >> Have the headway clear. Okay, >> but then how do you how do you clean it because the courts will be in at that point? >> That's that's that we have not gotten that far. >> Yeah, that that that I just I mean >> bring it back down. I um no just from
being on construction sites all the time that's that's going to be uh >> you must be a contractor Danny >> and you know Danny sorry commissioner uh it could be closer towards the you know the uh the >> yeah that the >> the east side of the
>> east northeast >> and then it would be more accessible. >> Okay. >> But we have not gotten to that. >> You might want to consider and the height of that truck those trucks are big. >> Yeah. >> So if you have may you might not have clearance. >> Cleaning trucks. Yeah. Yeah. So, just bring >> we got to we got to deal with poop. So, we'll figure that out. Okay. Anything
else we want to throw out there by way of comments? Okay. Uh, Madam Attorney, what action must we take? Do we need to have affirmative motion? >> Yeah. First, I wanted to clarify for the record that the full proposal is included with this agenda item and available to the public
>> should they wish to review it. Um, today this is actually just confirming that this is the first public meeting required by the P3 statute. uh you're authorizing the manager to proceed with evaluating this proposal without competitive bidding and also authorizing
him to come back with the public interest determination. That will be the second public meeting and further authorizing him to engage any consultants that are necessary in his review and evaluation of the proposal. >> Okay. So that is I will adopt that as
the statement of the motion required and move the item in that >> essentially it's the resolution title. >> Okay. Perfect. Is there a second on the resolution? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further comments? Any further direction? >> Okay. Madam clerk, if you can call the role, please.
>> Yes. Commissioner Bonish? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cay? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez? >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez? >> Yes. >> Item passes 4. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> We look forward to coming back and and we're going to clean up that typo. Commissioner, I promise you, >> we look forward to coming back and and
and working on >> Thank you for always dressing to the nines. Well, I'm happy. >> Good to see you. >> Nice nice shirt. >> Yes. >> Thank you for my shirt. I knew you would always have my >> Okay. Uh we've got um
let's move to item M4 and uh the corresponding um first reading of the mortorium which is item six. If you could read M4 and item six please. and for proposed ordinance regarding sustainable design.
And item six, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of South Florida retroactating extending the previous moratorum of the enforcement of the se of section 20-3.6W of the city's land development code relating to a residential requirements
for solar photo systems the tech systems. >> Mr. Manager, Mr. Cabar making the presentation. Okay. within everybody. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Director. Uh we're just bringing this back because it had
expired and we need the moratorum extended until we finalize the replacement ordinance which is that sustainability uh building ordinance that is up for discussion. >> Okay. So, let's take is there um any discussion on item six? >> Okay. Can I get a motion on item six?
>> I'll move it. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion by Commissioner uh Bonich and a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Madam clerk, if you can call the role on item six. >> Yes. Commissioner Cayenne. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bon. >> Yes.
>> Mayor Fernandez. >> Yes. >> And passes. Great. Mr. We're going to recognize you on M4 just to piggyback on the ordinance. So if you could walk us through your memo and your recommendation >> for the uh sustainable >> Yes ma'am just kind of piggyback on the
same discussion. >> So um we try to move from being a mandated uh to build more sustainably or just really what we have now is just you have to put solar panels. There's no consideration as to building efficiently, how you site the property
or anything like that having operable windows or anything. So, we looked at this and came up with something that um took from a few different cities, but basically it's a point system and if developers or homeowners decide to build
a home that has certain there's like a I think there's like 12 different items, but it's how you site the property, the deep overhangs, um maintaining certain trees on the lot, these types of things. If you incorporate these things, reclaimed water, all that. If you incorporate these, there's a point
system and depending on how many of these items you meet, you get a discount on your permit fees. So, I think the discounts range from 15 to 35%. And basically, um, for like a $800,000 home, the permit
fees now would be about 16,000, I think, no $12,000 in the new permit fee structure. So, the savings is, you know, a few thousand dollars. uh it won't make up for the cost maybe of if it's more expensive to build. But really, I mean, this is something that we're trying to
um convince people that it's the right thing to do. Uh it's going to save them on their energy bill, it's a sustainable way of building. Um you know, we really need to take care of our environment and just putting trees in the ride of way really isn't enough. Um well, we come in
and just clear these private lots and put these glass boxes that are really not energy efficient and dump a solar panel on the top. So, this is really a completely different direction. I think it's the right direction. I think um you know people in the market are looking
are more aware nowadays that we need to be very conscious of how we build and that there's a better way of building and you you do need to build with consideration of the climate and location where you're building. So, that's what's in front of you. Uh I think most of you have gone through it with me. We also went to a green task
force. You heard uh Mayor speaking about his comments. Uh I was going to address his comments. Basically, he has some issues with >> Can we Can we get copies of them because I It was not in the package. Correct. >> No, it was not in the package. >> Okay. If you can for when the item comes back for presentation, if you can again
run the ordinance by them and then bring us back the comments, I'd appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I was just going to briefly say mostly it's um he has concerns with mold and mildew with some of the items that I have on there, which is like having operable windows or things of that nature because of the high humidity
in South Florida. But, uh, you know, 1920s homes are not sealed tight and they probably have less mold than any home that you build nowadays. So, I'm not I mean, I haven't gone back to him. I was going to go back to him and ask him if he had any research on that because I haven't been able to find any
uh or if that's just personal preference, but I I think that um you know having operable windows to be able to open your windows on days in December and January is actually a very good thing. It's from all the research I've done, it's actually um you know helps with the cross ventilation. It's
actually healthier. You get more outside air. I mean it's just I haven't found anything that says that that's not a good thing to do. Isn't it by code? Don't you have to have an operable window for your by egress window? >> You need to have a means of eress, but means of eress is very small. So most of
these modern homes that you see, the big windows, they're >> mixed >> solid pes like but not in the bedrooms. That's typically more living. So you only have to have one window in the bedrooms and >> yeah, so these very big windows are usually not operable.
>> Okay. In most of the construction that we see nowadays, there's also the deep overhangs, the front porches, all that is gone, um, from what we see in the style homes that are being built, that's not really very common anymore. Uh, even though it's really the appropriate style of construction and and design for
Florida. Um, he was also concerned with the, um, reclaiming the rainwater and um, with mosquitoes and how that could become a mosquito nuisance. I believe he said there was an issue in Key West with this. Um, again, these are things that it's like behavior that people just need
to do things correctly. Um, you know, you give a gun to somebody who's going to go out and shoot a whole bunch of people, you give a gun to somebody who's going to be responsible with it. So, I feel the same way. It's like we shouldn't promote things that are um sustainable and headed in the right
direction because people just don't behave properly. So, um, and there was some other little things, but mostly those were his big concerns and I'll make sure to include them when we come back for first reading. >> Thank you. Comments. >> Here's one each.
>> Thank you. >> I'm thankful to you for bringing this. Thank you very much. I know it's taken a lot of time and effort for you and your team and I'm happy to see that we are approaching our residents who are grown adults capable of making choices on
their own every day and allowing them to do that in their homes versus mandating what they need to do. I appreciate you doing all of this. >> Thank you. >> Yes, go ahead, sir. >> Sorry, I just have one more question. the the retention tanks. Are you
requiring them underground or are you requiring them overground? >> There's no requirement for it to be above or below ground. >> Okay. >> Wherever you want. >> Be well. Okay. I mean, you keep that in mind. Um, if you have a 5 foot setback where you going to put the retention. >> So, yeah. So, I have a couple comments
about that kind of detail. Okay. >> So, yeah. Well, go ahead. Yeah. >> No, no, that that's it. I mean, we might I know City of Miami Beach requires you to do it underground for that purposes. They're very tight lots. >> So you're you're you know >> you're not going to are you going to count it as part of the structure and
now it's in the in in the setback or >> No, I I see that almost the same way you would see you know not even >> privacy wall that we talked about the other day. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> Yeah, but it's a big tank and how to if you again if you have a five foot setback and you put one of these big tanks, you're taking up most of the
space. you know, people are they're going to not I I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not going to be in do like they're not going to want to do it because you're taking up half of their uh their their their side space, you know, their setback. So, only houses
with big setbacks, 15 foot setbacks are going to look into doing something like this where they might want the discount. But I'm just saying think about that. >> So, um I guess what you would like to see is that We say could be below grade or above what?
>> Yeah. I'm just Yeah. Okay. For these again these smaller homes lots with setbacks say that want to do this but are like I'm not going to do it because I don't have the room. >> Sure. What do you guys think? Commissioner B has a question for you. >> So are you saying then that they don't have to take the setback into account
that that doesn't count? I just they could put it in ground and then the setback is it doesn't affect the difference or we can or we can basically >> make that something that's not counted as part of the setback. So you could or >> let them use 80% of the setback four feet of the five.
>> I I agree want to do that. Think about it. >> I don't want that. There's I mean >> there's portions of my setback on the west side of my house that are useless to me. I mean really other than it's a walking path. So the more mechanical stuff I could stick there the better frankly. I I could see, you know, depending on the lot condition, it could
work. Um, but but yes, I understand that it for some some cases may be too cumbersome and giving people options as to where they set it is absolutely appropriate. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not stipulated where it has to be above or below ground right now. >> Commissioner Kai, do you have any thoughts? >> No.
>> I again, my intention personally, and maybe it's not the the not the position of the board, but my I I think we do need a mandate. I think we should set a standard, right? I think we should not have a single mandate, which is my biggest problem, which is if panels are nothing, right? I think there's a lot of
ways to get to the same result because we've talked about this, right? Mandating panels and allowing people to build highly intense mechanical systemdriven homes is not really advancing the goal of sustainability. So, I'd like to have a menu of options, but I think there needs to be a standard whether it's a point total that we need
to hit at a minimum above which you can get a discount on fees, etc., or or preserving as an alternative someone who just wants to do panels, right? But I think we do need to have a menu of minimums that we that we mandate, not
just, you know, an incentive based structure, which quite frankly, the incentive we're offering is dimminimous, right, on the cost of a typical home. You know, to give someone a 4,000 or or six7,000 discount on a home that's going to cost them three four million to build, I
don't think it's that significant a cost center. Yes, ma'am. Would you be willing to give them a better incentive? >> Yeah, I would. I I am I think I think I think we have a minimum and but I think also when you hit a certain threshold, for example, if you want to build a
recess porch that's six feet deep, it shouldn't count towards your lot coverage. >> So, we have something like that. >> So, those those are I'm fine with giving people more and better, but I think we do need to set a minimum bar because otherwise we're going to get, you know, in many cases a race to the bottom. I
don't I don't think the dollar incentive is strong enough given the direction which we're seeing pricing on homes. It's not that strong. It's not I don't think a strong enough market incentive to get us to where we want to go. >> So then instead of mandating it, why wouldn't we give them better incentives?
What you're talking about maybe not money, maybe something else. >> We have just to because I'm not sure it's clear, but there are other incentives. So there is an incentive on if you maintain certain trees and they're within the footprint of the
house that will work with you on the setbacks. If you have a green roof that you collect the rain water then we work with your pvious area. So if you have the the wraparound porches or the deep porches that it doesn't count against your >> my point is I think to those things if
it translates to to money right more sellable square footage for the builder it's probably going to be adopted right I don't think that just the permit discount and so this is I mean this is just an outline this is not really an ordinance yet so when we get the ordinance will we can have the conversation but if we can't get to a
strong suite of incentives like what you're talking about that translate into dollar value for the builder or the homeowner. Um, I think we need to think about having, you know, a menu of m minimum mandates. >> What he means is make it really, really worth it because mandating people is
terrible. We shouldn't do it. >> Well, that's what she said. >> Well, I have them in there. >> We mandate we have mandate. We have mandates around, you know, minimums for, you know, uh, you know, we have a building code that requires minimums. So, this is really no different in that regard. We're just we it has an
environmental nexus, not just a a safety nexus around the structure, right? To sustain a windstorm event. So, you know, I don't see it any different than than a building code minimum standard. I don't I don't think it should be ownorous. I don't think it should be prescriptive in only one way, which is my only my main
complaint about what's been the practice here before. You only have one option, and one option is never a good option because it leads to distorted results. I think we're seeing that right now. And so I would say, you know, either it's a very very strong suite of incentives that we know builders are going to take advantage of because they see economic
value and benefit for themselves or an eventual owner occupant or it's got to be a mandate that you know kind of finds a middle ground and says you can do any number of these things to get to what I think we all want which is to reduce total the total energy loads that homes
are creating right on systems and by their external impact on the environment. That's my thinking. Again, we probably have a very, you know, probably have a range of opinions on this board as we should, right? But that's what I would like to see and when we see the ordinance come back, it
address either a very strong incentive suite, not just the permit fee reduction or, you know, alternate alternate mandatory minimums. >> What you have in front of you should have that though. >> I didn't I didn't see it. I don't know. I don't know what the
but all I see is permit fee discounts. Am I reading the wrong document? >> The individual like sections, it'll tell you like if you wrap on porch, your wedding count. Yeah, you got to keep going. Those are definitions I believe at the beginning and the whereas clauses, but I I know exactly what what you're getting at. So, um,
>> yeah, it's not this is not I mean, again, I'm not sure if this is a draft of the ordinance because this is not in the form of an ordinance that I'm familiar with and I see these often, but I would imagine there's got to be a section that's going to walk through someone through what the calculations
look like, right? So, if you do this, you get this by way of relief. I didn't see that spelled out here again. >> Okay. >> I thought this was a working draft of ideas, not really an ordinance. So, I think there's a lot of great ideas in here. I think there's a lot of good thinking in this. this is exactly what I want which is incorporating more passive
ways to meet the same goal but um I just think we need to think about you know there's there's a conversation about you know encouraging porches by adjusting F calculations that's the right idea but what that means in practice is what I'm trying to understand strongly >> okay
>> further comments okay so we look forward to seeing the ordinance thank you >> okay we'll move on then Um, where am I going next? Let's go to um M1. >> Yep. Madam Cler, do you want to read it
for the record or we'll recognize Commissioner Rodriguez >> service on multiple boards? >> Okay. Do do you want to have the city attorney review the legal posture that was in the Okay. >> Okay. Great. >> So, madam city attorney, if you you're
recognized to kind of explain the issue. >> Yes. Um, Commissioner Rodriguez brought up this item and the issue was whether legally the same individual or person could serve on two boards in the city, particularly the designer review board and the planning board. So, the analysis
is a constitutional analysis because the Florida constitution prohibits a person from serving in two offices or two office board members. Okay. What is an office? an office is deemed any position uh where that board has more than
recommending powers and can make can make final decisions on certain matters. Conclusion, the design review board in some instances does have final decision making authority. Many times it's recommending but in some instances it has final decision-making authority. So
a position on that board is an is an office under the Florida Constitution. Okay. The planning board however under our charter was set up as purely an advisory or recommending body. So members of the planning board only recommend to the commission and do not
take final action. So members of the planning board are not officers under the Florida constitution. So legally a person could sit on both the design review board which is an office and the planning board which is not deemed an office. However, as we raise in the
memo, there are some concerns potentially with sitting on two boards that overlap in this design review process or development approval process. And so, it's really the will of the commission. Uh I think if you direct us, the amendment would be quite simple. It
would prohibit one the same individual from sitting on both the design review board and the planning board. And it would be a simple code amendment if that's the direction. >> Mr. you recognize, sir. >> So, and and aside from from the legality, I just think, you know, just
pure common sense, you have he or she is reviewing something on the design review board for then two weeks later for that same he or she to review it again in the planning board. I just it's it's redundant. I think we should pick
whichever board the person wants. I don't care you know planning board design review board but let's give other people opportunities so we hear different ideas um plus it also adds that that one per that person he or she has an additional influence because they
get to hear it more than once and they get to vote on it more than once. So I just felt it's common sense that if and it's specifically to those two boards because those two boards it's literally one goes to the other then comes to us. You know, you you don't have the same
instance when you're on the finance board and you're on the design review board or, you know, when you're on the green task force and you're on the planning board. They don't overlap. These two in particular strictly overlap each other. So I just
feel it's it's just common sense to clean this up and you know and again give opportunity to other residents to to provide their ideas >> for the further comments. >> The only comment I would say there is that not most of the design review
boards are not going planning board. A lot of the design review boards are just houses or external commercial buildings. The majority of the things that go to DRB are not necessarily going to planning. Not not a lot. >> All the all the all the big buildings over four stories >> go to planning board. Yeah.
>> Go from DRB to planning board. >> But the majority of actual items that go to DRB like the actual quantity of the numbers are not going to >> so so if the individual prefers to do that then go stay on the DRB and give someone else an opportunity on the
planning board to >> No, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that they're not one and the other. They're always they're not always together. >> No, I know. But a lot of You're right. You're right. It's not all of them. And and DRB does review on the home side. Unless the home is asking for variance,
then it does then then it would go to the to the planning board. Again, I just they're so similar in scope and so interactive with each other. I just feel it's common sense where we just if you I don't you should you should >> let Let me Can I finish it? Yeah.
>> Oh, sorry. My apologies. Yeah. >> So, I don't I don't disagree with that. I I think but it is it is on the commissioner themselves that are appointing both the DRB member and the planning board to understand that. I mean, that's really what we're saying here is not necessarily to codify it. I
think it's just a reminder to the fellow commissioners to, you know, think a little bit more pragmatic and not put two of the same people on on one commission. I agree with that statement. >> Sure. >> Commissioner recognized. >> I wouldn't qualify it. >> Okay. We all know I I brought this up
before because so this is like Groundhog's Day for all of us, I think. >> I don't know where that's going. >> Oh, yeah. So, nobody ever listens to me when I say it, but here we are again. So, the idea had merit the first time. It has merit this time. Having someone in any capacity having undue influence
on two groups of people is not the way that this city should operate. They should operate completely independent of each other and the two shall never meet >> any boards >> on on boards like DRB and planning board that they can see the same people over
and over. I don't think you'll see that anywhere else. There's one body. >> Can I can I ask a question? Do we have a complaint from anybody who's gone through the process about any member? >> Do you think anybody's going to complain? >> I I No, I people are not shy in this town. I don't know. I don't know where we're living. I mean >> answer that question though.
>> Okay. So, I mean I I I look I You know, I think one of the wonderful things about this city, right, is that there was my election or Commissioner Rodriguez election at the end when 7:00 happened, right? We all stood outside
the election polling stations and for the most part, I walked away shaking my opponent's hand, having cordial conversation, and the election was over. Right. And so what I And I and I think that tradition has been one that's been
established here for a long time. And I've seen in many cases, and I'll use Mark Logo not to point out someone in immediate context who was part of a very, very hard-fought, bitter election, who was then
subsequently appointed onto the planning board, right, to say grace over very prominent projects here, right? I think that's the one constitutional the one charter board that exists. And so, you know, I think I think we should embrace
that tradition. We should look beyond the immediate cycle. Uh because I think it's what helps bring the community back together, right? These, you know, elections can be very striden. They can be very difficult. I I don't disagree. Is there the potential for a conflict?
Absolutely. I have not seen one manifest yet. And trust me, I get complaints about things that happen at boards all the time. Uh I have not gotten a complaint about any individual trying to execute an outsized influence on the DRB or the planning board. In fact, you
know, um it's from my understanding of the composition of the planning board, very hard for any individual to really dominate uh any number of the personalities that serve on that board. We've got luckily very sophisticated and very seasoned people serving on that
board. um you know Jay Miller and Gus Bada who chair the school board are not going to be pushed around by anybody right they're going to speak their mind so I you know I I think that the could there be a problem yes I think the better the better course here is to
exercise some restraint and if there is a problem um at the at the appropriate time we should legislate it's not that the idea doesn't have any merit it's not that there isn't the possibility of a conflict but I I think we could move forward. And as Commissioner Gaia said,
probably the better solution is for I don't even know if it's my appointee or not, but I will speak to the clerk afterwards. It's the person who appointed that person onto either of the boards to have a little bit more contextual um
awareness about who they're appointing onto the board and what are the roles are discharging, right? that we don't put people in a position wittingly or unwittingly for them to exercise any undue influence. Right? I don't think this item needs a legislative fix. I think it just needs us to apply some
common sense. I don't disagree with either of you on that point. Um I think the I think the undertone of this is just one that um you know speaks to us looking backwards as opposed to looking forward. And so I I I would just suggest that, you know,
we we deal with it in the way that Commissioner Ga suggested, which is that um if it's if it's our appointee, maybe we should revisit the wisdom of whether that person should serve on those two significant boards. I think you're right. They're both very significant boards. There is the potential for
conflict. Although I do think the overlap is fairly dimminimous for the reasons that Commissioner Ka said. The majority of what gets permanent in the city are single family homes. That goes exclusively to the DRB. they never see it and the planning board never sees it either. So, um that's certainly my my
position. I mean, we are short of board member. We can if you want to carry this item over for the next meeting so that Commissioner Corey can weigh in and we can decide whether there's support for an immediate legislative fix. I'm happy to leave the item open that way so that we don't short circuit the conversation,
sir. >> So, well, I what you said I I I 100% and we rarely do this, but I 100% disagree with you in what you're saying is the reasoning for this. This has nothing to do with an
election. This has nothing to do with one opponent with another. Nothing to do. It just so happens to be that the one individual it was an opponent and that it just happens to be. But this is about just common s like having the same
person which by the way were both or the same person was appointed by the vice mayor to both. So after me and him spoke I'm like you already have him >> know the culprit. >> Huh? >> Oh my goodness. >> We know >> not this vice mayor the current vice mayor.
>> Um >> no no no no. We're not looking at her. >> Um >> yeah. >> So it has nothing to do with an election. This is just about you know I don't think that we should have the same person on two boards that are and by the way all yes homes uh go to the DRB and
not to planning board but all major issues variances setbacks asking for permission to do anything goes to DRB and goes to planning board the little homes I'm not worried who cares like that's insignificant I'm talking about
>> again the variances the variances the variances end up here right it's not like it's not like they go through DRB and they all go through the planning board and I I get it but but again so I think I think the >> let's give other people an opportunity and again pick whichever the better the board is. I don't care who what the individual picks I don't
>> look the person serves the person serves at the pleasure of the person that appointed them right so I think the I think the I think the question is for the person who made the appointment to consider whether they should exercise that discretion in a different manner.
Again, I think in the absence of any allegation, any complaint, which I have not heard in and and his service predates my tenure here, >> there's no there's no complaints. There's there hasn't been a complaint. I just think from current, even if you want to grandfather it to to the uh I
just think going forward, it's smart for the city not to have the same person making the decision on two separate boards that interact so much with each other. If you want to grandfather the person into their renewal, I I I don't care. That's fine. Um, I'm just saying
going forward, let's give others opportunities to to to to put their views and let's let's let's spread the wealth a little bit. >> Mr. K, I can ask you a question regarding this because you served on the DRB. I never served on any lower board. >> Yes. >> I mean, >> when you said DRB, I'm like, oh, he's
talking I know I know Commissioner I know I know Commissioner served on the planning board for for a little bit. >> So did I. Okay. And so the question I have is I mean the DRB my my layman's interaction was that it often had trouble procuring quorum. Correct.
It had a history of procuring quorum. >> When I was chairman of the DRB we did not miss quorum number. >> Okay. Okay. Madam cler and the new DRB is always meaning correct. Had issues. >> No no no it did and now it's been corrected. >> Oh okay. >> Now it's been corrected. So, so my I
mean to my to my knowledge planning board has had and madame clerk you've been here a good while. So can you share with us your perspective on whether either board has had recurring quorum issues because I think the other side of
this for me is I don't know that we have an infinitely long line of people one with the experience in the field and two with a desire and passion to serve on either board right and so >> we had we had a a quorum issue on the
DRB within the past um two years but that has been corrected disability staff. >> Okay. >> But the planning board has never had >> we have seven now, right? >> Yeah. The planning board has never had quum issues.
>> Okay. >> Everybody wants to be on that board. >> Again, if you want to grandfather the current person, I'm fine until the renewal comes up. That's fine. This is for looking towards the future. Let's be like Commissioner Ky always says, be bestin-class. Let's give other people the opportunities to provide their
ideas. >> That's it. I mean, >> so Okay. So that's I think I think this is a discussion item. I think we've had a discussion about the issue. There's nothing that precludes any person who feels passionately about this as a policy fix from working with
the city attorney and bringing forward a legislative fix. So I'm happy if you want to have a conversation so we have the benefit of a fifth member to weigh in before we take that step. I'm happy to carry this over on the agenda so we hear from the vice mayor who's missing
or we can we can we can wrap up. we can wrap up the conversation and I I'd say to either colleague who >> No, I know but I'm saying to I'm looking at both of you because you both rightfully you mentioned that you brought this up >> very early on by the way >> huh >> I didn't I know
>> no I know initially initially it was you know my colleague to the left who brought this issue forward so I just want to understand from the two folks who have been who've raised this issue is this something you want to have by way of further discussion in the context of pending legislation or do you want me to carry this over to the next agenda.
We can keep it in the posture of a discussion item. What is >> with the vice mayor? >> With a vice mayor, what is your preference? Because I think those are the two >> ask him for >> Okay, sir. What would it >> Yeah, I mean I have no issues with having the vice mayor. He's part of this commission. So having him voice his
opinion is fine with me. >> So let's let's if I can get a motion to defer this to the November 18th meeting. We've had a discussion here. We'll get the vice mayor's um perspective and then we can always direct staff to act in accordance to the majority of the board.
Is that okay? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I'll move the motion to defer. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Are you going to second? >> Huh? >> Are you going to second >> me? I'm not planning to. No. >> So, it's going to be >> I don't know. I've got >> No, I'll second it.
>> I'm happy to second it. I thought there would be a natural second. That's why I was jumping at the chance. Okay. >> I'm not afraid to have >> some a motion. A motion by Commissioner Kay and a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Okay. >> Defer >> without without oppos opposition to the deferral. Let's show it uh deferred to
November 18th. I'm going to say ourselves a roll call vote. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> okay. Moving on. Um can we read M2, please? >> Yes. Art and Public Places amendment clarifying eligible locations for public
art. Um, I believe Commissioner Bonich, this is your item. >> Actually, it it had been drafted by the city attorney. >> Would you like her to start the presentation then? >> I I think that would be better because I think she probably has better verbiage and then I can talk about
>> Madam City attorney, you're recognized. Thank you. >> I'm happy to. Um, this was brought forward by Commissioner Bonich. Um it's regarding a potential whether a potential clarification should be made to the art and public places ordinance
and essentially it would ensure that any art displayed in public areas or public or or only publicly accessible areas and not other areas which may not be publicly accessible like lobbies or internal spaces that are not accessible to the public.
>> Currently it's discussed >> attorney. Can I my apologies? Yes. I I forgot we have someone online who's here on item four. If I could pause this. Sure. >> Uh Commissioner Bonich >> and just call item four really quickly. >> Okay. >> Okay. Madam clerk, if you can read that on the record, that way I can I can keep Miss Sanchez who's been patiently
waiting. >> Keep her off of Zoom. Yes. Thank you, Samantha, for letting me know. >> Okay. Item four, a resolution of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida selecting approving a 5-year term agreement with public sector performance associates LLC for
performancebased audit services of city departments pursuant to a request for proposals number CSM 2025-11 in amount not to see $268,500. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh Mr. City Manager, you're recognized. >> Thank you, mayor. uh commissioners. Um
this item um is furthering a requirement of the charter which uh stipulates that each department would get a performance-based audit uh once every 5 years. Um we had gone out to we had a prior firm and we went out for a competitor process to identify uh a new
firm. We had seven proposals uh ranging from uh 168 uh 500 to 1.4 million. This is a fiveyear five-year engagement. Um the committee evaluated and also did oral interviews. Uh the firm that's uh being recommended and as mayor as you
mentioned and Miss Monica Sanchez who's a managing partner of uh public sector performance is is online to to also answer any questions. Uh their bid is two thou $268,500. So that's a recommended vendor to be our partner to comply with the charter and
do a uh performance audit review once every five years of the departments. And in your item there's a schedule attached how we would which departments will go through year one, year two, year three, year four, year five. Um those reports will be issued by September 30th of each
year. They would also assist the departments in in having creating um the ICMA International City Manager Association performance reports uh which I think it' be a really good value added. Um, so Miss uh Miss Sanchez is at managing partners online in case you
have any questions for her. >> Colleagues, any questions? None. >> I have a quick question to the manager. Um, they're contracted for five years, >> but they do an audit every once every five years >> of each department. So there's a schedule that rotates um the departments
like for example, year one would be police and public works. Um and then human resources and admin services year two finance including IT parking and procurement year three parks and wreck and culture year four and then development services department year five and that way we comply with each
department once every five years. >> Appreciate that. Thank you sir. I I do have a quick question. Can you I know we have retained a you know public accounting firm for our uh general audit annually. How is this audit different than other than it's a charter requirement? How's it different than the
financial audits that we perform annually? A >> financial audit is is is really taking more ensuring the integrity of u you know our financial accounting u in this case we're taking a look at how the departments are organized how they're performing that they'll take a look you know like say development services
permitting they'll take a look at their process you know efficiency come up with recommendations uh so it's really more performance based not necessarily financially based as an as an audit would be. >> Okay. And when when have we been doing this regularly and faithfully in compliance with the charter
requirements? >> Yes, this has been in the charter since the year 2000. >> And do we have the reports from the last series of u audits? >> Yes. Uh the previous firm with Baker Tilly. >> Okay. I'm just I'd just be curious to see those if you wouldn't mind
circulating those. I'd love to just peruse them in my free time. >> Pure incitement. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh this is a public hearing item. So, any member of the public who'd like to address the commission on item four uh which again is the approval of a five-year term agreement with public sector performance
associates for performancebased iss required by our charter. Please come forward at this time. Seeing no one in the chamber, madam clerk, uh is there anyone other than Miss Sanchez online? >> No. >> Okay. So, uh we will close the public hearing. Miss Sanchez, thank you for your help. We look forward to your
findings. Uh colleagues, further comments, is there a motion to adopt the item? >> I'll move the motion. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Kai and a second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, if you can call the role, please. >> Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bonich. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cayenne? >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez?
>> Yes. >> Item passes for >> Thank you. Okay. We can go back to um the discussion item. >> We have Jason waiting also. Maybe we >> Jason, are you here item? I thought we got M4. >> M3. >> M3. >> Yes. >> Oh, man. I'm sorry. Yes. So, let's table
if I can. >> Sorry. >> A public places and we'll take up M3. It's also Commissioner Bonich's item. I don't know if there's a presentation by anyone. >> Hey, Jason falling asleep. >> Sorry. >> No, there's not a presentation by anyone. I just have notes that are mine. So, I'm just going to hand them to you guys so that as I talk to them, you can
see them. >> Great. >> Um, >> this is uh M3 where this is a discussion regarding future ideas for um the Banner Lane property. >> That's okay. Ah, you know what? I I' I'm learning.
>> Oh, >> I'm learning. I >> have an extra copy. >> Yes, I do. I have >> Jason, you're more than happy to have a copy to give a copy to >> We'll share with him >> here.
>> No, that's okay. I am more than happy to share. >> I just believe that if we are investing in a park that is next to a park and across the street from a park that we should be activating that park
and making it so that the money that I mean let's be so for real right now money's coming off of the tax roles because it's going from private property to our property. If nothing is built on there, obviously they were going to build a development on there that would have generated taxes
that will no longer exist. And so if we continue along the road of spending money and buying things and we don't have things that are gener revenue generating, I think we run into issues in the long run. And I think we owe it
to our residents, all of them, all 12,000 of them, to consider different ideas versus just leaving trees and no cars and everything, which is, I'm sure, what the neighbors would like, but those neighbors aren't the only neighbors in
the entire city of South Miami. So, when I look at it, we looked at like pickle ball and what are people doing with pickle ball right now? In our city, our pickle ball courts are busy all the time.
I don't believe we charge for our pickle ball courts. You can I can give you one to Quinton. I I handed some this way. Um and it so I am saying by way of this we need to activate this park. We have Fuches Park across the street which is a passive
park. We have the underlying in that area which will be a passive park. We need to make the things that we purchase work for us. This is one idea. It's not by far the only idea. But I think if we look at things, if you
have pickle ball there, even just four courts, which leaves a lot of green space left in that area, you are right literally plugging into the vein of something that people are looking for. We have people sending us emails even from other cities saying,
"Hey, I can't play pickle ball at this time." We are offering these courts most of the time, if I'm not mistaken, for free. Correct. So, they're free. Somewhere along the line, we need to charge at least people who are not
residents fees to use our things. C. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yes. Are you agnostic as to where we do this or do you is it just a matter of putting getting more productive use out of some space? >> Because I because I I I would I would >> double
>> double because I I I think personally this would be a poor location for an active activation because we already have parking issues with the neighboring office building. >> Where would you suggest? >> I would suggest across the street
>> at Fuches. fuches where you have a green space that is does not have any any native trees has an area that is open and could be could be you know developed and is a green space that is I walk there every day is never utilized I mean it does have the tot lot but the
adjacent green space which probably could accommodate a couple of a couple pickle ball three or four pickle ball >> court we've looked at that in the past >> and it has an existing parking it has an existing parking reservoir which I think is the key issue for So if you're if you are agnostic as to
either location, I'd be happy to support us exploring again the addition of these courts at FUS in lie of Manor Lane Park. >> And then what are you suggesting at Manor Lane? I I am 100% open to doing it at Fuches. I have no problem with doing it at
>> Yeah, I think the Manderling for me activation for the park, it's it's got to be some sort of a passive park. >> Dog park todd. >> It could be it could have a dog. It could have a dog amenity area. I think you know that is probably going to be in the vein of a passive pocket park in my
mind in terms of what we could do there because you are constrained by the right of way to the what direction 80th Street. >> Yeah, I was going to say don't start saying northsoutheast. >> No, no, no. I I'm so Anyhow on 80th Street and you do not have any sort of
natural areas that can easily accommodate parking. It's kind of has the same problem that Bob Walsh Park has in terms of its organization, which is why I've been pushing this integration with the school because we can leverage that parking infrastructure. So, I would tell you I have I'm perfectly fine with
adding pickle ball courts to our inventory >> and I'm agnostic. I want people to have to pay for them. There is an entire system out there that is a digital system. You reserve the court, you pay for it, you show up. But given that we may be going into a world where of
property tax reform, it becomes even a more ascendant issue. So I'm fine with getting people used to paying for >> amenities that have natural demand. They do it for they do it for soccer. >> Yeah. >> They do for pickle ball. It doesn't have to be an outrageously high fee, but just something else. >> If you look at what they're doing, and
it's in here, if you look at what they're doing in other cities, they have quote unquote free times, but they also have times where they charge. So we could come up with like you know parks and rec has done a great job of coming
up with resident fees and non-resident fees so we can capture that as well but I think that we need to do something even if it's a more passive activation there I think
fes park is a great idea have no problem with that as a matter of fact we looked at paddle padell >> padell five courts there >> yeah So I >> Yeah, but Pickle is a little bit louder than Padel, so I don't know that we'd go crazy with five courts there. Um, but
you know what? If you want a more passive thing, then let's do a dog park. I mean, people love dog parks. I love dog parks. >> We could have a we could have a dog enclosure area there. I don't think it's I don't think I don't think it's I think I'm open to any number of ideas. I think the the problem with adding facilities
is that part of the charm of the lot is preserving the canopy that's there and so harder to integrate courts for that reason. When I think of fuks, there's just this natural green area that's sits between a ring of trees and very easily I think to slot I would think three
pickle ball courts there >> without too much difficulty. But you know that's something that we can ask the director to look at. >> Okay. So then are we in agreement then that we'll look at it for fees? Wait, wait. We haven't I haven't heard from I haven't I was I was shutting you out before. Now I'm shutting out this side of the day.
>> Oh my god. Like that's possible. >> Yes, sir. >> We haven't really been in a position to just dictate what a park's going to do. Why don't we just go follow the process? Give it back to the city manager and the parks department and figure out give us options of what we what different opportunities they could have for that
park. I mean, which part >> which park? >> I I think I think I think the maybe the idea is we we send staff out to look at options for activating or improving both, right? Are there are is there an activation for FUKs that provides us an ability to add an amenity to that park,
which again I would tell you is that green space in my mind is way woefully underutilized. I don't see kids. You heard a lot about this in the prior email chatter of people throwing balls out there and I I'm there all the time with my dog. I walk there at least once a day. Never happening on a Saturday.
Right. The the tot gets utilization. And the volleyball court, everything else, the shelter when it's rented, absolutely. The walking path does, but that green space never trotted on from what I can tell. And we should maybe put a camera on it so we can figure out what's actually happening there. >> Oh my god.
>> Right. to dispel the uh dispel the dispel the the lore of it, right? But I I think maybe if you want to give staff commissioners if you're immunable to look at how we can activate both and leverage one can be an active have an active amenity, one can have a more passive orientation. When I say passive,
it could include a dog amenity. I would put that in that category. But I think you know the the opportunity with Manor Lane Park is you know should it be our Centennial Park? I think it was a interesting reference >> by way of a name, right? >> Kind of the gift to honor the next
hundred years, right? And create another green space. >> Just an idea. Anyhow, >> it's just a name. >> We can discard it as well. We'll name it after you, Commissioner Bon. >> Bon Park. >> That's okay. I have the Bon Park. >> So, is that the direction we want to give? Have uh >> I think that is a great direction and
I'm very much looking forward to seeing Pickle Ball. >> Fantastic. Okay, let's move on then. Um, >> if I knew this was going to be this easy, I'd have one of these ready every meeting. >> You should. It was very well. It was very well organized. >> I think the courts look great. >> You intimidated me with your preparation.
>> And and we do we do have to do something for Manor Lane. I at least are thinking about it. >> Okay, Madam Clerk, what items we have left? We have um >> one and two. >> We have one one and sorry, M2 and >> CA1, right?
>> Okay. We've uh we haven't have we >> we haven't voted on on number two, have we? >> No. One and two. No. >> Okay. So, let's let's take up item two because I don't think there'll be any discussion. >> Okay. Item two, a resolution of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida approving and authorizing
the purchase of solid waste disposal services from the Miami Day County Department of Solid Waste Management in amount not to exceed $900,000 for fiscal year 2025 2026. >> Thank you. No, we were that's the
interlocal. This is our um cont a contract of the approval of the expenditure for tipping fees for this for this current calendar year. Okay, Mr. Manager, why don't you just, you know, add that into the record or whatever clarification is necessary on item two. >> No, mayor, you're correct. I mean uh
similarly to last commission meeting where we had utilities, water and FPNL the similar expenditure that we bring forward um at the beginning of the fiscal year to authorize um the charges for uh uh on the disposable per ton
going from 74.40 per ton to um 7612 uh per ton and then the transfer fee uh going from $16.28 to $16.66. So you're just approving uh the disposal the purchase of and expense of the
$900,000 for the service. >> Thank you. And and Mr. Andrew, the only thing I would add, Commissioner, to your question as to the interplay between the two items is that should we not execute the interlocal the fee that was just quoted would increase to the non-contract rate. I don't know if we have that handy. Am I recalling the
posture correctly? So, if we don't sign in the interlocal, the penalty for not signing a 20-year agreement is that we pay more for the disposition. So, it goes to about, you know, 90 $90 a ton. What's the >> Yes, ma'am. So, add 20% to the 900 to
the 900,000. >> That's ridiculous. How's every city not losing their ever loving minds over this? >> They are. So, but again, it's just that the item was presented without notice to the board. We had asked for it. Mr. Munos had asked for it two or three times over the last
calendar year since we knew our local was expiring was not provided. It appeared at a committee agenda. Luckily, a lobbyist friend sent it to me. Actually, it was Mr. uh Lopez who was representing the uh waster rail party sent it to me to ask me what the posture
was of the our competing interlocal. And that's what kind of tipped at least me off to the fact that this was moving. >> Yeah, mayor. the the non-contract rate is $114. >> Okay. So, instead of paying 76, they're charging us basically a $50 search
charge. So, >> okay, >> quick I may um when we were talking earlier about trash, um I did bring up a point. I know Mayor Starter wasn't
thrilled with that idea, but you we can order bigger bins to your house if you want. Um Huh. >> about recycle. I'm just saying we're we're going to be now taking on more cost for our solid waste where the
recycling if we do it every other week. Again, we can order bigger bins if you want for your residents. Um we're looking at six figure savings possibly. >> I don't I don't know that we're looking at six figure savings and I think spoke about it with the manager.
>> Oh, we are. Okay, that's fine. That was not the number a couple years ago. So, >> no six figures. >> So, the question the only question I have was I think it's a conversation we have all been struggling with because it was you know >> so my question was is this an option? >> It is an option. It is an option. I
think we were we were waiting for this elusive study to happen now that we switched vendors. I know that was one if you can refresh our recollection Mr. Manager. I know that it was I think believe scheduled recently that waste management was going to kind of go through our disposition run on our own. So we knew what we were even generating
per run. >> So that that's u it's in the works and then the consultant is doing the analysis providing the information. Um but raction of our >> are they going to get do the two runs or how are they are they just be the one time they're going to run through >> one.
>> Okay. So at least we'll know what our >> yeah our data is total. By the way, I'm totally open to having the conversation about larger bins and reducing the frequency. >> Okay. >> I'm just saying it'll save us money considering that now we're taking on more money.
>> Yes. I think this was uh the increase in service was really done as a as my conservative friends like to say as a um what's the term we use when we No, not as not not that as a uh virtue signaling exercise.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm not. >> Anyhow, M. >> Okay. So, do we have a motion? >> Do we have a Do we have a motion on >> Do we have a motion on item two? >> I'll move the motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Cayenne and a second by Commissioner uh
Rodriguez. Madam Cler, if you can call the RO on item two. >> Yes. Commissioner Bonish? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cay? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez? >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez? >> Yes. >> Item passes 4 Z. >> Okay. Let's move back to uh M2. >> All we have left. >> No, we have number one. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to I have I have I
have comments on that. So, >> okay. >> Okay, we're back to Lady >> Art and Public Places. So, I'm I'm sorry for interrupting your presentation before, Madam Cury. >> Okay. Art and Public Places. This item was brought by Commissioner Bonich. Um
the question is whether a clarification is needed to the ordinance to make it very clear that only art displayed in publicly public areas or publicly accessible areas is is permissible. I think the issue may arise from one
particular clause in the existing ordinance which says it could be placed in a publicly visible space not necessarily open to the public for access. You're recognized. Yeah. >> Okay. And and this comes into play
because if it is in a lobby area, many lobbies have curtains that they close in the evening. So then it obscures the art that is supposed to be in public places. The name of the thing is art in public places, not
art that you can see >> in from a public place. If if it was art that you can see from a public place, my best friend Bridget who lives across the street, my house would be art in public places because she could see the art inside my house from her house. >> When you don't close your curtains >> when I Oh, yeah. When I don't close the
curtains. So So literally, I'm just saying we need to clarify it so that it is in a public place available. >> You don't want to clarify it so it's visible from a public place. >> No, it's not. No, it's got to physically be able to be accessed.
>> I'm sorry. There's an actual condition now where the we've approved the art in public places within a lobby. >> Well, I think someone took artistic license and made that an art in public places and we don't have enough
clarification in our art and public places verbiage to say that is >> okay. So to the city attorney, the language is ambiguous currently. What's our position? >> I believe so, mayor, because in another
section in the ordinance, it says it could be publicly visible space. And as Commissioner Bonich mentioned, that doesn't necessarily mean it's publicly accessible in a public area. >> Okay. And and do we have an actual condition where we have a project that's
now incorporating an improvement that's going to be >> I'm not >> in a private space manager >> there. Uh yes. Uh the current Avalon project has a piece inside the lobby which is adjacent to the big plate glass window viewable from the outside
uh questionable at times and certainly if the curtain is closed is not and I think commissioner don't want to speak for you but I think that that's one of the things that you identified as >> well but but again then staff made a determination that that was we've made a determination at in development services
I'm assuming when we reviewed the submitt that that was an appropriate location for the public. >> Yes. I I have not gone back and reviewed it, but obviously I'm assuming that that that was uh that was the case. And >> I thought there I thought there were I thought their A was the plaza and the
improvements. >> There's two two is the >> two elements. Correct. Because because the plaza does not trip the financial threat or doesn't satisfy. >> It probably doesn't satisfy the full amount. And so there's a piece that went in in there's three pieces. There's a piece in this plaza. There's a wall
mural that was painted on the approach into the garage on the ground floor on the on the east side of the project by the main entrance. There's a there's an entrance on that side which really >> This is on the on the east side >> on the east side. Yeah. Faces a lobby. >> Okay. >> There's a mural that was painted on on
that wall along the the entrance to the garage and then there's a two pieces inside the lobby adjacent to the plate glass window. But in many cases, as have I, you know, have shared with uh Avalon, that curtain may be closed sometimes, maybe because of the sun orientation.
And so it kind of defeats the purpose of it being public, if you will. So I've had this conversation with him. So I'm assuming that what you said is correct, that at some point we deemed it eligible based on the language. Um I also have had conversation with Mr. Shriber uh about uh reconsidering that that would
actually uh receive credit for it. I think he's amanable for it not to receive credit. That's a recent conversation. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, I think the clarification is warranted. Sounds like it. >> No, I I agree. I'm just I didn't I you
know, there's Look, I mean, quite often a code will say something, but there's an interpretation by staff that basically becomes the deacto rule. And so staff is struggling with that determination, then let's clarify legislatively. >> And and I think it's especially warranted because our art and public
places program is in its infancy. And at the more we are able to close these types of loopholes, the more our city will benefit from what the program was, >> you know, made for. >> 100% agree. >> Thanks, everybody. >> Thank you.
>> Further comments. >> Okay. So staff has the direction it needs to draft the remedial ordinance. Okay, cool. Okay, great. Let's read item one then. Let's close it out. >> Item one, a resolution of the city commission of the city of South Florida
approving an acceptment in office of community oriented policing services cops matching grant from the United States Department of Justice DOJ for the cops hiring program in amount of $375,000. >> Thank you, Mr. Anders. You want to present the item?
Thank you, mayor, commissioners. Um, this, um, this item is a grant that, um, had been submitted back in June 30th. Um, we had a way to whether we were going to, uh, be awarded or recommended for award. Uh, I think we got notified on October 10th. Uh, cops grant uh,
federal program that, uh, allows for enhancing staffing, not necessarily, uh, funding staffing that that that, um, is normally funded through local proceeds. In this case, this program, uh, if the commission deems to to move forward on, we would have to accept formally accept
the award by November 24th. Um, this is an up to $375,000. It would give us the ability to hire uh above and beyond our our established headcount, which is at full staffing is at 51. um we would not be able to hire an
additional staff uh police officer until we reach at full staffing which is usually an a challenge for many agencies. Um we're currently one one body away from that given that we have the one vacancy. This this program would offset in our case given where the
salary is um 48% of the cost of an officer. um we would um uh also then that's a three-year uh commitment to fund it and then we would have to commit that that position would be held 12 months beyond the three years uh on our
on our dime. The thought process here uh the chief and I when we had discussed this opportunity back back in June was that um in the last two fiscal years I had communicated that I I had not brought forward any recommendations to increase staffing um given that we had
number of vacancies as as we have discussed here and and we had challenges in fulfilling uh and filling those vacancies. So I didn't want to increase the cost of it when we couldn't fill what we were staffed for. Um so we did have an increase of an officer in the in
my first fiscal year which was um 2324 um or 2425 no 2324 >> 2324 >> yeah thank you and and so the two subsequent years I have not brought forward a recommendation for for the reason that that I stated uh obviously
with the intent of uh bringing forward increasing the staffing um probably for next fiscal year Um there's the history of the department has had maybe in the last 10 years it's it's moved between 50 to to 53. Uh the
department had reached 60 all the way back into about 20 years ago had reached the the staffing of 60. So, the thought process here was if if we're going to be recommending increasing our staffing uh by at least one for the next fiscal year. Uh and then within a three-year
period, we may see, you know, maybe two more that we may be able to offset that through a grant if we were awarded that grant and offset that cost uh at the 48% level. And then we would keep those those officers uh you know for for for the remainder. We would not necessarily
be inclined to reduce our staffing at that point. So we do have that burden that we have to carry that cost um beyond the three years but the fact that we would be in a position to increase our staffing and commit to that that we could offset the cost by 48% uh up to
three officers if we decide to to go up to the three officers. There's no commitment that we have to um and and so that's the opportunity before us. Uh again, the the the grant is is not uh we're not bound to this grant until we uh formally accept the award and that's
why it's before you. Um we did not staff uh we did not add a position based on this because we didn't know if we were going to get it when we passed the budget. Um but we always said if we were to get it uh we can always hire and go
above um the 51 by one. let's say 52 because we know we have eb and flow of uh retirements and we're expecting you know several people that are on the drop. So uh although we would go let's say higher to 52 once we hit 51 we may drop back down given that we have you
know a couple of uh folks uh officers in the drop program uh and then for that first year that we would carry it that way because we would probably have a salary savings. What we do for year two and three or or or sooner than that remains to be seen. uh potentially from
a financial standpoint, but at a minimum we could do one officer if we accept this award as soon as we hit 51. Um which we're we have people in the queue and and in process. So I just want to give you an overview on that and certainly the chief can can provide
further overview and any other questions that that that you may have. >> Anyone have any questions? The chief or the uh manager want to lead us off. Go ahead. This can be answered by either the chief or the city manager. Now that we've
brought Avalon Bay online, are we as at staffed at 51, are we still covering for that additional mass of humanity? So I don't know how we are saying we need 51, we need 52. How
do we make that determination? And right now knowing that that's come online and that more is coming online, how are we gonna make those? >> I have the same question which is what what what's our metric? Because one of the things I'm struggling with is what is our staffing ratio
correlary question is we've also seen crime drop substantially year-over-year and we're kind of at all time probably lows for the last 50 years societywide. So what's a staffing metric we're trying to achieve, Chief? because that that was not elaborate on in any of the backup.
>> Yeah, I'll let the chief elaborate on on on the staffing, but you know what I would I would say that we we would look broader than just crime. Obviously, big the biggest things that we face are are quality of life type issues. You know, as we know, the block the box and that kind of traffic enforcement, which you know, it it requires a static static
officer and and it takes somebody away from uh driving through the neighborhoods and that visibility. So, you know, I would I would look at things broader than just crime. Uh >> yeah. So I'm I'm curious again broad question. What's a staffing metric? What are these men and women going to do because
>> nothing was elab nothing was elaborated about that in any of the backup. And just to kind of get into my commentary for me my heartburn about this issue is that we are proposing to add three people to the to we may need them.
There's probably a very good reason for it. But we went through an entire budget process and this is the first that this possibility was discussed. And I was the literal, you know, turd in the punch bowl during the budget during the budget
process talking when we were trying to hire five staff people saying, can we afford to do that? And it would have made sense to have a conversation about the opportunity of the grant during that point in time. So that that's kind of the posture I'm coming out of, which is what's the driving need? We clearly
submitted a grant. I've read the grant materials. I read the application Mr. River provided to me. It seems like part of this is the quality of life issue we're trying to address. A part is homelessness. It looked like but I want to understand what the operational need is for these three bodies. >> And I just want to clarify one thing on the on the discussion purposes. I mean I
did mention that we were not recommending to increase it because we had trouble staffing. >> Sure. I just rewatched the entire budget workshop from from July. This issue never came up one time. >> I I I've had conver hours last night. >> I've had conversations about if I can
finish my response, please. I've had conversations about this the issue of whether we were going to get an award or not. We didn't know at that time. >> Whatever you advised the grant was applied for. a may or may may >> you may you may but I want I want the facts in the record because it's important because this mayor has been asking about staffing from the first day
he got here and passed a resolution to basically make sure that we're getting staffing updates because so again I'm being put in a position where I'm likely going to vote against a cops grant because we are having no conversation about what our goals are with respect to
the department and so I would have expected in the budget process that we would have had a window into number one that we could apply side. Number two, that we would have potentially had three people added to the to when we've already added 13 people to this organization since fiscal year 23
started. Right? That's a million dollars of payroll conservatively that we've added thus far. I'm two positions short. So, that number is light. So, I'm a little frustrated that my only notice onto this issue for this entire board is an item being dropped on the agenda,
right? because this is not particularly the environ we're heading into which I remind my colleagues we're going into a world of tax reform property tax reform that's being put on the ballot and the one place where we will have no operational flexibility with all seven proposals is with respect to our police
budget so we're raising our base requirements because the way the language reads in every proposal is the same language cut and paste I can read you the line references if you want them per bill but it says total funding for law enforcement cannot be less than such funing total budgeted amount for fiscal
years 26 or fiscal years 27 whichever is higher. This would change the to and our funding requirements for fiscal year 26 from an operational to 51 officers to 54 with a corresponding funding commitment and we are locked in. >> So with that as a background context I
I'm I'm happy to hear your thoughts. >> May I? >> Yes, >> mayor. I I I would have had no recommendation to increase our by three for the reasons that I stated. Even even the prospect if we knew that we were going to get the grant obviously that's a different conversation. We had no clue and we weren't going to know
till till October. So I I would have not brought a recommendation forward to increase the to much less by three because we wouldn't do that in one year. So that's the reason for not having a recommendation to increase to I there there was no information that would so
even today there's no nothing changes as a result of the recommendation at that time. the issue of going back and talking about positions that have been added over a three-year period. I don't understand the connection whatsoever. >> The the connection is the connection. >> Would you allow me to finish, Mr. Mayor? Go ahead. You know, I think I think
obviously you don't want to hear a response, so I'll finish here and I'll let the chief answer. >> No, right. I I'm sorry. My apologies. You have the time. >> No, it's okay, sir. Go ahead, Chief. Uh as the manager had pointed out, we we applied for this grant uh back in June. U but most agencies don't apply for this
grant because they'll never reach it. Uh this is an opportunity for us to actually staff to full staffing and then be able to go above and beyond. The reason for it, uh Mr. Mayor and Commission, is that we're planning for the future of South Miami. Uh we have
Avalon Bay as uh Commissioner Bonich spoke about. We have I would call it Avalon Bay 2 eventually coming online. We have Alta across the street that will come online. We're talking about the roadway in as a potential uh uh density
development. So the density is is being developed and we just had recently the box two if you will completed and then coming online as well as Somi Park. So, we're trying to anticipate for that as well as the the commission's direction that there's an opportunity for us to
annex portions of the north end of the city. So, for us, it was just a future planning. Uh where will these bodies go? Yeah, there are quality of life issues that need to be addressed right here in our downtown area. Uh those bodies would be community policing bodies to address
quality of life issues here in uh the town center area as well as up into our Le Park community. Yes, you're recognized. >> Can you kind of share with us what the metric is right now? So, 51 officers, you know, how do you break that down so
we can see when we get to 52, 53, 54, what does that mean? >> So, right now, uh, we just hired our 51st officer, um, after a recent retirement. So, that person just came on board. They'll be swear in, uh, sworn in, I should say, uh, next week. Um, so
we are at full staffing. This is an opportunity for us to go above and beyond that. Uh as the manager put out and as probably well explained in the in the memorandums is that once we hit 51, we have that's our bottom line. We have to stay at that for this grant.
If we hire 52 and number 51 leaves, we're still getting the benefit of a 50% or 48% uh salary uh sponsorship, if you will, from from the Department of Justice grant, we still have to get back
above that 51 to hire anything above and beyond that. So, if we saw, let's say we do the first one in year one and we never get a opportunity to do two and three. We owe nothing to the federal government. This is all uh you know
reimburseable uh piece. It's not us having to d you know put the money upfront on the table so to speak. We could go through this and you could all approve it tonight and say yes we're going to we approve you to move forward and we never even get there. We never even use it. There's no commitment on
our part financially. You recognize >> with Avalon? Like we were at 51 before Avalon, correct? We've been at 51 for a couple years. >> We've been 51. We've been a 51 since fiscal year 24 when we added when we
both got on the commission, added back a position that reduced in the prior year. So we had a 50 officer to for 23. We increased it to 51. So we went back to basically the prior balance. >> Okay. So then >> we were never at full staffing. We're at 46 officers. We had a rough
>> I remember. So with the addition of Avalon Bay, we have not added any additional police officers to cover that humanity >> meant to be. >> Well, it is it is it's a massive humanity. I mean it's like >> yeah but so again you know
following following the broader conversation society and again I'm not g driven by what happens with Doge but we just saw right the chief finance officer come into this market and say that you know we measure by population growth and inflation right
and our county is accused of overspending $32 million on whatever metric they're using I I have a fundamental what I what I see here what gives me trouble trouble is that I don't understand what part of our operational plan today is not being satisfied right
and to me it's not necessarily because you know you could have more density but you can have fewer service calls in that kind of environment right more people does not always result in more service calls in fact in in in fact I would say
with the development of soi park and the deconentration of poverty on that property right you're adding more affluent people right you raise the level of the neighborhood in some ways. And so I would imagine your aggregate service calls in a lot of those contexts, Liberty City and the redevelopment of that public housing has
had that kind of an impact. So what I'm trying to understand is financially we're making a substantial commitment in an environment where we're going to be locked in budgetarily by the state likely should this happen. Right? Right? So, we lose operational flexibility as a
commission to make adjustments if we have future recurring revenues, which we know we will have if some of the more extreme proposals pass. And so, my my challenge is what is the operational demand today? Not in the future because, you know, the market could change and Avalon Bay 2 could go away. Avalon Bay
is there, right? We don't know yet, I think, because it's too early in its history to understand what kind of service called is generating, but we do know what Vox one has been open for a couple years. So chief, I would ask what kind of service calls are we getting out of that project or out of Somi Park now
that they're open for been open for a year? Are we seeing an escalation in demand for services based on that that product or is the volume relatively flat? Because the crime statistics lead me to believe that they're going we're going in the opposite direction that we've got we've got less crime. And so
my question is what is the return? I'm what I'm what I'm struggling with is I'm likely giving budgetary flexibility away in future years because of what may happen, right? In an environment where the demand for police services may be flat, right? Even though we're adding bodies, that's what I'm not
understanding. And so I'm trying to get a sense and none none of the background material that I've read gives me any sense of what operationally today there may be a deficiency because if there is one, just like I want to fill the open slots, I want to provide more services to meet the demand that's going unmet. But I have not heard that our service
response times are increasing and I don't know that our demand for service in terms of calls is actually going up. So if you can highlight where the operational gap is today, I certainly would be more comfortable supporting this. >> I I I certainly don't have the numbers in front of me as far as our response times uh as of this this year. Uh but I
can tell you as of last year, our calls for service went up about a thousand calls for service annually uh from 23 to 24. >> Um I guess in the discussion in the briefing this is taking a turn. So I'm
I'm trying to grasp I want to understand this correctly. >> This money is grant money. >> Yes sir. >> Portion of it. It's a it covers up to 48,000 of >> 48. It's 48% of >> 48% sorry. Sorry. 48% French
>> um for three for hiring three police officers over a fiveyear period. So it doesn't necessarily have to be >> up to three. We could just do with one. >> Okay. In a fiveyear period choice to move up to we applied for up to three >> in a again in a fiveyear period. Yes. >> So it could be on year five that we
decide to do this. >> Well we no we have to execute within by year three in order to maintain >> years. Okay. By year three >> we can also apply for an extension. I mean you so if we get to the point we're having difficulties hiring bodies which we have had. >> We have. >> We can ask we can ask DOJ for an
extension on >> Okay. All right. But I'm I'm sorry. I'm just want to get on my point and be done. >> Um, >> so we have 51 officers right now. This pertains to anybody over 51. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, where I find that I don't know
how we're going to meet this is that how many officers do we have right now in the drop and that we're going to lose in 26 >> four at a minimum. >> So, we would have to first replace those four to then get to these additional three >> unless we hired somebody while we had full staffing at 51 so that we could hold them on to them. There's a strategy
obviously. >> Well, but there's a strategy that obviously you hold on, you have the grant money, you don't need to use it till year three and then you wait obviously in 26 some of these officers are going to come off. Whatever. There's ways that you can do it. So my question
to the mayor is how and please I I I really don't know the answer to this. So I'm asking you because you you know how is this affecting that if the property tax happens and I saw and I've read everything that you said about that we have to fully fund um the police at you
know year 26 or fiscal year 26 or 27. How does this increase our current number that we just approved? >> So as I as I understand the perspective law right and Mr. Revol the manager can correct me. We approved this grant
today. We are going to make a revision to our budget right in the midyear at some level. So the to is going to if we get to make the decision to hire one officer in this fiscal year. We're going to have to increase the to from 51 to 52. >> Well, we don't have to >> and we're we're going to we may not hire the person, but I mean we need to we
need to create the budget authority to hire the person. We're adopting the grant with the grant. We're committing the money to do this. >> Why don't we wait till 27th or 28th? Again, I think there is a strategy here. The my bigger problem. Okay, this is in
my opinion a process of fail a process failure, right? Because we should have had this conversation in the context not only the police department where there's a grant opportunity, which we all want to hire and make sure that our communities are safe and well protected. I want to meet
what the service demand is today and be prepared to meet it in the future. But we also are operating in a broader context where these decisions are going to constrain our ability to invest resources in other parts of our operation. And you know when I had the when I was the again the turd in the
punch bowl saying do we really want to hire an events leader and poor Nicole is sitting there and I know she's this time of the year she's dragging her butt around town because she's got an event every single week but she's working that hard. I'm the one saying maybe we should hold back. And little did I know that one of the other choices was, well, we
may have the opportunity to bring on three cops. I think I would have made a very different decision about onboarding five nonp police personnel, right? In that context, knowing that we had the possibility of hiring three officers, right? I I would have said, you know
what, maybe we should reserve some funding so that we and not commit to those bodies because you know what happens in the world because I've lived this world in 2009 when I was the chief of staff to mayor and we had to reduce a budget that was $450 million at the time
by $150 million. Right? The last people in always the first people out and in the world that we're going into potentially we are not going to have the choice of firing officers, right? We're going to have to fire non police department personnel, right? And I don't like in my own practice or in this in
this business, I don't want to be making commitments to people about their lives without that kind of predictability. And so again, the manager doesn't understand the nexus. We talked about it on Friday during my brief is I see this as a continuum about hiring, whether it's PD or staff, right? My problem with this
item is we never talked about it in the course of the budget and this is going to require a budget modification, right? May or may not. May or may not. It's not going to require how is it not going to require a budget modification. >> What I want to know is it may or may are
we definitely making a budget change or maybe we're making >> guys I don't know why we applied for a grant we didn't intend to prosecute the opportunity on that doesn't make any sense. >> I'm sorry I I just if we were to hire an officer we would don't need to make a budget change. We are going to have uh positions that are going to go below our
our uh funded. We're going to have salary savings. we can carry this one hire that we have above and beyond because we're gonna have people that are going to leave and so >> correct >> and and and the issue of hiring knowing this information and budget to hire three officers.
>> What I'm saying is I was not recommending that even if we had the grant then that we would hire three officers because we couldn't and we didn't need them all in year one. So this is a scaled approach but but if it's a point of contention I happily withdraw this item and and I think I
think it'd be appropriate. So I this is my item. I'm withdrawing the item and the commission can bring it back as you see fit. But I don't know why we're it's because there's been a lot of things said that are not necessarily accurate and leading up to this conversation. I am I'm going to finish my my statement,
Mr. Mayor. Okay. Because it's going to be statement today. and leading up to this the lack of conversation uh based on on the concerns and not even communicating those to me. I think it's it's a completely uh failure in communication and an issue. If I would
know that it was such a heartburn issue, I would have had open ears to it. I didn't know the extent of this till right now. >> Sir, that's we had a meeting with where your deputy manager was in the room and so was another another director, two directors in the room. I said, 'You going to be
surprised by the item I have an issue with on this agenda was this one for these reasons. So >> all the research you did and all these things about all the three positions I got hired, never did you have that conversation with me. Okay? >> Never. So if you want to have that conversation, I'm happy to have it. If you want to talk process, I'm happy to
have it. So I don't think that that's the type of conversation that we should have. If you were so concerned about it, I'd be happy to entertain and listen and tell you what we did and why. and maybe you disagree, but the fact that I'm getting surprised by your uh disappointment and anger on this issue
is beyond my uh comprehension and I wasn't even given the courtesy to have this conversation with you. So, having said that, I withdraw the item. I don't want it to be a point of contention. >> We don't we don't need to withdraw the item. The rest of the board wants to approve it. I have to make a decision where I want to approve it. My only my my question to you on Friday was I want
to understand the operational need. I still we we're speaking generalities. I don't understand what the goals are in terms of staffing the department long term with all these things happening. We haven't had that conversation. I don't understand what the operational need is today. I have concerns about our ability to carry these costs into the future. I
think they're legitimate concerns given the environment we're operating in. And yes, I think that they impact other parts of the budget because of those constraints. And I do not want to have this board's hands tied. And again, it's not it's not because we don't I don't want more officers, right? It's not that I'm trying, you know, as I said before,
acting conservatively here, I think, is a conversation worth happening. Now, I'm one person. I chair the meeting. I have a big freaking mouth clearly. So, maybe everyone thinks that I, you know, I don't rule the roost here, Mr. Manager. It's a board of five. So, if this, if the board wants to act on the item, I'm
happy to entertain a motion. I've said my piece. You know, again, I'm not surprised why it's why you you're surprised by my frustration with the item because it was expressed very directly in the in the briefing we had at 8:30 in the morning on Friday. So, you know, this is where we are. It's fine. We'll figure it out. It it'll be
one issue and we'll move past as we have with anything else we've disagreed in the past as well. But again, I'm just want to tell my my colleagues in in three short years, we add these three positions, it's 16 positions, four of which are cops, right? It's over a million dollars in recurring payroll.
not counting for the not counting for the indirect expenses associated with these positions and I'll just tell you we talk about priorities and you mentioned all these competing things right again I'm not saying this is not a wise place to invest money but you know I don't understand this is going to impact the to at some point where we had
one position this year and two next we're going to go from 51 officers to 52 and 52 to 54 to complete the grant requirements and the language in the bills which we are all acutely aware of says is you're locked into your numbers from 26 or 27, whichever is higher.
That's the basis of my concern. If I'm crazy, if I'm a worry wart, this is the way I'm wired. This is the reason I think I'm in this job is to worry about what happens tomorrow. And I apologize if I'm expressing myself in a way that is unmeasured, which I think is atypical of me. But I think it's a legitimate
legitimate concern, Mr. Manager. And if you don't understand the nexus between the two, we can have further conversation about it. But this is why I characterize this as a process failure because if the grant was applied for in June and we have a workshop in July, it would have been good to have a side conversation about there is this
opportunity like we talk about borrowing here, right? Which as a correlary, I'll tell you that the million dollars in recurring payroll translates into $17 million in borrowing capacity, right? So with that, I'm going to close. Yes, ma'am.
I would like clarity and I don't know if it comes from you or from you or from the team over here. If we get this grant and it's just sitting there and next year we hire one officer and then we don't hire anymore, we are not
responsible. I know but we are not responsible for hiring an additional two. We are not forced to hire a total of three in the five years. >> Correct. So it's just a pot of money sitting there in the case that we do. >> Yes.
>> Okay. I >> It's actually reimburseable. Correct. >> Yes. But then >> not a pot of money. You never get the money. >> Yeah. Unless I I I get that part. So Mr. Mayor, my question to you is
how are you viewing this so differently to me where I see it as if we need it, we're going to need it anyway. And I understand what you're saying. When we get to 52, 54, 57, 65, whatever the number is, we're no matter what, we're
going to be stuck with it. That's what we're seeing in the language. I understand that part. I'm just not understanding how that is translating to the possibility of >> So I'll I'll answer your question because I don't want to be dis I'll
answer your question but let me recognize Sharaya who's been waiting to say something and apparently had not recognized but I'll get to your question. >> Well what what I was going to say and this is my my opinion here is that I don't think none of us really disagree with the opportunity to maybe have police. It's not really going to affect
our budget if we don't want it to. Right. But I will say that I I think I understand what you're saying, mayor, is that systematically there's an issue where what we should request as a board is when we go through the budget season
that we calculate and incorporate any grants that we have allocated that we're looking at. So, we just finally got a sheet this past week of all the different grants that we're attaching. Right? So I I don't maybe I'm being a little bit oversimplistic here, but it's
just a process thing that we need to fix for next year. I don't think budgetly we're going to be in a position that we have to take that money. Um I think it's systematic where in the budget season next year, let's incorporate the grants, the possibilities. We understand and that's much broader picture of what we can and can't do, possibility of getting
grants for one thing or another. And it just makes our life easier when we start determining the budget season from fiscal year 26. I know oversimplistic, but I think that's the issue. >> Yeah, that's that's part of the issue. I think the other issue is to answer your question, I've lived this movie before,
right? In 2004, working as a chief of staff for a mayor, you know, you realize that you've hired 60 cops in the city of Miami on cops grants and you have a structural deficit in the department because you don't have you've never set your budget up to fund the balance of the salaries and indirect benefits,
right? And so what happens is it consumes opportunities to invest in other parts of the operation. And again, I think there is a a a real political sensitivity around this issue. Who wants to vote against hiring more cops? Nobody, right? And then you and that's
in a regular context, but in a regular context, if you find yourself in a budget year where you revenues are down, right, you can make the decision to trim the department, right? All I'm saying is in this context, we may not even have that choice. So the the grant documents
all say he's going to keep the cop for one year. I mean, I've read the FAQ and all the tax information, right? I had a conversation with the grants director of the city of Miami, so I'm recalling what the rules are and we had a conversation with Teresa who advised us on this grant here. you know, trying to understand and
I and I see the opportunity, but I also see the danger of make a commitment to people and we're going to honor the commitment to the cops, but we're going to break our commitment if we find ourselves in that in that budgetary situation. By the way, all the fun stuff we're talking about in that world goes away as well. Park park investments. So,
it's just the tip of the iceberg this issue. So again, I was just surprised that something as significant as this, because we've been talking about, we've been talking about cops and getting resources to hire more cops and making sure they're getting people through the academy would be an opportunity that
would not go mentioned to us in the course of the budget conversation when we're talking about adding more people to the other side of the table of organization. That's why I was caught flatfooted. The environment heightens my anxiety about it. You know, again, we can we can we
can we can we can hire all of them or none of them. That's a decision. At this point, I've said way too much. Is there a motion to adopt the uh grant or not? >> Wait, I have a I have a I have uh the 48% is that for the first three years, >> three years,
>> right? It covers the salary for the first three. So um so to the mayor was saying that we hired you know uh for example um you know we we hired uh employees on this budget here but the difference is on those we cover full
cost where here we're covering 52%. Only not >> yeah but we but again I go back I go back to my original question. What is the operational demand today? My question is three years that one that cop on the to is it the 52% that goes or
is it the full salary >> that should >> the full salary? >> Well, yeah, but the grant the grants with the full the full salary isn't on for us to pay. It shouldn't be in our It's not in our budget. We have a grant for 48%. >> Okay.
>> We have a we have a budget that has all sorts of revenues that balances the budget. Those revenues go away. The grant is revenue. So, but the cost of the cost, right? So, that's that's how I see the analysis. Again, we're talking about questions that we don't know the answers to because how that provision
gets interpreted, we don't know, right? It could be get interpreted exactly the way you're saying it. Net of grant allocations from the federal government. We don't know the answers. That's also part of my concern. Yes, sir. >> Chief, question for you. Um, moving forward for next fiscal year, is it a possibility that we have a little bit
more systematic way of understanding what our needs are going to be moving forward? For example, I just spoke to you today earlier about more of a need maybe uh of having uh police that are going to do enforcement on parking traffic issues where I'm seeing what I know I can talk to a lot of forums
having issues with. Right. So if we have the ability to increase or rearrange some of our budget budget of police to enforce traffic violations, not to mention it also brings revenue. Um that's something I would be interested
to see what your position would be as we start continue to allocate less from maybe service calls or you know um issues with safety to more of a more I don't know what the word is but I think you understand what I'm trying to say. >> Yes, sir. Uh we apply for grants all the
time when they come available. Whether it's an FOT grant, uh federal grant, a state grant of some sort, we try and save uh the commission, the city, our our customers money. Uh so those grants
come up at various times throughout the year. Um, and you know, we we were recently awarded one. I think it was 30 or $40,000 for aggressive driving. And that's that's a huge number to be able to to, you know, pay overtime rates and to buy equipment. But some of that stuff
we don't know when it's going to come available, when we're going to get awarded it and this grant to to, you know, go back is we applied for the grant in June. We have no idea whether we're going to get it or not. and it would have been OBBE overcome by events
because you would have already voted for your budget year prior to us even knowing whether or not we got the grant. So, there are some there are some nuances with timing of some of these things. Can we keep you more informed? Yes, we can definitely keep you more informed as to when we are applying for
grants and what those grant amounts may or may not be. >> And that's that's totally understandable, Chief. But we have made decisions with an understanding that we might get a grant here and there. So, I think just having that information there when we're in budget season. It's just that it'll help a lot. That's all. Yes, sir.
>> You're recognized. Yes. Sorry. You have comments to move the motion. >> Okay. >> Oh, and I have a request that doesn't have to do with moving the motion. You want to move the motion and then I'll make a request >> for information. Yeah. I'd like to understand >> and I don't know if that's you or or the
city manager or even Alfredo in finance. I'd like to understand how we're running our metrics um for police officer ratios. you know, do we have one police officer for every 12 people? Do we whatever that is? I don't need the answer now. I just like the information
so that now we have Avalon Bay come online like like you just said, we have Avalon Bay, we have, you know, Vox 2, we have Alta coming up across the street. So, I completely understand what the mayor is saying that we're seeing, you know, crime levels down, but
I want to understand our metric irregardless of what type of crime is going on in this city. >> Well, to add to that, I think we've already gone through that process kind of when we did the annexation numbers. Yes, sir. >> And try to do that with police. So, we've already started that process. So,
if you can just nail it down, just let us know. >> Yes, sir. We'll do. >> Mayor, with that, may I move the motion? >> You can. >> I'll move the motion. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Uh, we have a motion by Commissioner Kai, a second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, please call the RO.
>> Yes. Commissioner Bay. >> Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bon. >> Yes. With Can I make a condition? >> Um if if you if you'd like I just
procedurally let's resend your second and then if you could ask the maker of the motion to accept your modification. Okay. What's the >> modification? The modification is that if if and when this is going to kick into play that we are notified ahead of time so that if there are conversations
or changes that need to happen in the operating budget that we are able to do them because I think that the point that the mayor is making is also very important. >> So >> I agree. Wait, hold on. So from an operational perspective they're going to move monies around.
>> No, no, no. from an operational perspective when we're going to hit and the button for officer number 52 that we are notified >> in any fiscal year. >> No, but that's not so if we're going to go to 52 in the fiscal budget, we would decide that if we want to do that at the
budgeting season, the only per the only way that we cannot do that is in this fiscal year, which I don't even think the the grants available for this gr fiscal year anyway. So, we would be privileged to the information of adding one said policeman at budget season. So I I I just I appreciate what clearly is
an attempt to assuage my concern. So thank you. I think >> bad job of it. >> No, no, you're not doing a bad job of it. I think to Commissioner Ga's point, if it happens in the context of fiscal year 27, it should come through the regular budget process in the regular order. If it happens in fiscal year 26 and we're going to add a position above
51, my expectations we get a a meteor modification showing a change to the to whether it impacts >> the total amount of funding or not depends on whether someone's left or whatever the other issues are. But there has to at least be in my mind a to modification to show the additional
position. So and whether there's an additional amount of money I would imagine it would come as part of that modification. Mr. Manager, Mr. River. Am I correct? >> When you approve the budget, you you approve a line item of salaries and
benefits. Um and and and so I had said earlier that if if if this was approved and we reached full staffing and we wanted to trigger the first one that we would carry that within this budget because we're going to have savings from people that leave and so that eb and
flow we would stay within that line item of salary and benefits. So that's what I was trying to describe why it would not necessarily uh trigger and if you disagree jump in uh trigger >> doesn't require trigger doesn't it require modification to the to0 in terms of the number of employees in the
department >> the budget book has a headcount but when you approve what you're approving is the the the the monetary aspect you know if it's not my interpretation and or position that you are necessarily approving a headcount you're approving a a dollar amount that allows for that.
So, in the end of the fiscal year, if we were to hire plus one, we would not go over that line item because we're using salary savings because of the eb and flow of of um >> which I wouldn't care >> the eb and flow of vacancies. So, >> I I thought we approved
>> headcount >> headcount and the number. So, again, >> I I'll leave that to interpretation. Yeah, >> I thought it was both. So, I thought it was both, but again, >> it could be. I'm just That's how I interpret it. I'll leave it to >> It's all right. It is. It's not it doesn't I think the point being that to
your to your requested modification we should have that information in the course of a modification but maybe not with respect if we say within the current budget authority of the manager he's saying it doesn't require a teal modification we'll we'll discuss that another day so I don't I
don't think the modification is necessary so if you want to keep the motion in its regular posture >> okay >> we have the first by commissioner uh sorry >> the second by commissioner bonich I think we had Affirmative a vote from Commissioner Cay from Commissioner Rodriguez and we are waiting on a vote
from Commissioner Mo. >> Mayor Fernandez. >> No. >> Item passes 31. >> Wait, before we leave, >> may I go? >> All right. Happier news. >> Um,
so Q if I may. Uh I guess 70 we today the the food bank uh all the food was given away and we serviced 75 to 100 people. So that's a good job on on all of us. Um >> thank you Dr.
>> Dr. Scott. Yeah, thank you Dr. Scott for putting us in contact with Care for Miami and thank you to Care for Miami for coming through so fast by the way. So I um thank you to them. Uh on another note, I just want to advise the commission and staff. Uh today I had uh
what I thought was an unexpected amazing meeting with uh Miami Dade College. Uh got a tour of their facilities. They have a whole new AI, cyber security, uh financial um culinary at Wolson. Um so I'm
currently um beginning works to they will provide us or our residents and staff for uh free uh upskilling uh certifications in AI. So in in cyber
security in financing in culinary arts in uh IT services. So these are something that we can offer to our residents. They're willing to come here and do workshops to explain to them how to apply for free. They get their first
year and their first certification free. So this is not only offering to our residents and staff because it's open even any of us who want to do AI uh certification. Hey, you never know. It's the future. Um it'll it'll it'll be free
to them and you know it's an opportunity for jobs that are going to be relative in the future and highpaying jobs and if they've they choose to take it to a further level the college will help them with funding where it will be minimal year two and three but they can go all
the way up to a full bachelor's and and getting uh a bachelor's with Wolfson. So that's something that we're I we're I'm going to start working on. It won't be till quarter one of next year because crazy season is starting soon. So, the
holiday season. So, just wanted to give you guys a heads up that that's something that I'm working on. And >> sorry, you said on that point, just something for you to think about as you're talking about certification opportunities. They do have a program on OSHA initial OSHA. I forget the the number, but there's an OSHA certification standard for construction.
>> 30 10 and 30 >> 10 and 30. So, that would be something that would be great in connection with uh >> I don't know if they do that. I will ask but that's a great >> they have done in the past so that's I mentioned some clients have worked with them on >> Oh really >> on providing upscaling connection with um development projects that are
happening in certain areas >> and and uh the the the head of Pedro which is the head of their AI department is willing to come here and train staff on you know co-pilot Gemini uh chat GBT uh and and and invite residents and
whoever wants to come and just start learning how to implement AI into into your personal lives. So, there'll be many there'll be workshops and seminars and things like that that we're going to be uh hopefully be working with uh Francesca to and and Miami date college
to put those together for next year. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Did any of you guys go to Miami date? >> No. >> I'm the only one. >> Yeah. Oh, and I and I will state which is cool, chief, that um their cyber security
um school I guess is one of six in the state that's uh certified by NSA >> which I was very impressed by very impressed by so all right thank you guys
>> for the reports >> congratulations okay thank you everyone we stand in recess or adjourned excuse me