[0:04] >> mayor: all right, good evening, everyone, it's 6:30,

[0:09] I'm calling the meeting to order.

[0:12] mauricio. >> commissioner joseph.

[0:13] >> present. >> commissioner lama.

[0:15] >> here. >> commissioner stuyvesant.

[0:16] >> here. >> vice mayor viscarra.

[0:18] >> here. >> mayor sphechen.

[0:19] >> here. >> all members present, ma'am.

[0:21] >> mayor: okay, great. Thank you.

[0:27] if you could please ruse for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:29] [pledge of allegiance] >> mayor: thank you.

[0:46] we do not have an invocation tonight.

[0:50] mauricio? >> okay.

[0:52] so first item on the agenda that we will consider tonight is the

[0:55] approval of the minutes of may 14th.

[1:02] >> can I get a motion, please? >> so moved?

[1:05] >> second. >> second.

[1:07] >> all in favor? Thank you.

[1:11] we will now play the mayor's opening message.

[1:18] 92 good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[1:21] we appreciate your attendance and thank you for joining us

[1:24] tonight. Before we begin, there are a few

[1:28] important reminders regarding conduct during our commission

[1:31] meetings. Please ensure all electronic

[1:34] devices are turned off or set to silent mode to maintain the

[1:38] integrity of our proceedings. Mutual respect is a foundation

[1:41] of productive discussions. We ask that everyone remain

[1:45] silent and attentive when someone is addressing the

[1:48] commission. Clapping, applauding, heckling,

[1:51] or any verbal outbursts, either in support or opposition of the

[1:55] speaker, are strictly prohibited.

[1:58] any individual wishing to address the commission must fill

[2:00] out a public speakers card and submit it to the city clerk

[2:04] before the relevant item is announced.

[2:07] each speaker is granted a maximum of three minutes.

[2:10] should you exceed this time, the chair will notify you to

[2:13] conclude your remarks. Speak directly to the agenda's

[2:17] points, remain concise, and avoid redundancy.

[2:21] should an individual speak without the chair's permission,

[2:23] or continue speaking after a warning, they may be escorted

[2:26] out of the chambers. It is essential to avoid making

[2:31] impertinent, slanderous remarks or becoming boisterous while

[2:34] addressing the commission. Such behavior may lead to being

[2:37] barred from future commission appearances.

[2:40] unless majority of the commission members present vote

[2:44] otherwise. The previding officer may --

[2:47] presiding officer may disallow signs or placards in the

[2:51] commission chamber. Please exit the chamber quietly

[2:52] and without disruption. The goal of our meetings is to

[2:55] facilitate public input and participation.

[2:59] however, disrupt fn or disorderly conduct hinders our

[3:03] collective objective. Individuals who want to speak on

[3:05] an item on the agenda are asked to fill out a public speakers

[3:08] card, and give it to the city clerk before the item is

[3:11] called. Speakers are asked to speak to

[3:14] the issues, make comments concise and to the point, and

[3:16] refrain from making duplicate comments.

[3:19] all speakers will be limited to one three-minute comment per

[3:25] item. If you exceed the three-minute

[3:27] allotment the chair will advise you to finish your comment.

[3:29] if you speak out of turn without permission from the chair and/or

[3:32] you do not cease speaking after one warning, you will be

[3:35] escorted out of chambers. In order to maintain orderly

[3:40] conduct, and/or proper decorum at these meetings, anyone who

[3:43] interferes with the orderly process of the meetings ara --

[3:47] after a warning may be removed from the meeting and may be

[3:50] barred from further appearance before the city commission as

[3:53] permitted in s286-0114, s-f and ss74.57474.574 and 74-21

[4:04] of the city's code of ordinances.

[4:08] any necessary removal will be made at the direction of the

[4:10] mayor and will be carried out by law enforcement or a designated

[4:14] sergeant-at-arms. It is essential that attendeesed

[4:17] adhere to heez rules of procedure to ensure productive

[4:19] meetings that serve both the public and the city commission.

[4:25] thank you for your cawpgz and understanding -- cooperation and

[4:27] understanding. >> mayor: okay, before we get to

[4:28] the order of business, I want to welcome everyone.

[4:31] it's really nice to see so many people in the audience.

[4:34] I want to thank you for coming. I want to re mind you in

[4:36] addition to the three-minute rule and a make sure you sign

[4:41] for any item to speak, this room is designed in a way that we can

[4:45] hear all conversations up here, so even if you're in the back we

[4:47] can hear your conversations, so kindly if you do need to speak

[4:52] to your neighbor please do so outside because it's very

[4:54] disruptive for us up here. Okay, thank you.

[4:58] mauricio, changes to the agenda.

[4:59] >> yes, we have a couple of changes to tonight's agenda.

[5:02] the first one is additional information has been provided

[5:04] for item 9a, which is the resolution awarding.

[5:18] item 9a was a resolution -- 9i was a sublease agreement with

[5:24] the sunny isles beach jewish community center.

[5:26] item 9j has been revised and a resolution, the resolution

[5:30] specifically has been revised, and item 9k has been added on,

[5:33] which is a resolution adopting the 2025 through 2030 miami-dade

[5:39] county local mitigation strategy.

[5:41] >> and are we combining g and h?

[5:43] >> yes, we are. >> mayor: okay.

[5:45] great. Wonderful.

[5:46] thank you. Do woo need to vote on --

[5:50] >> make a motion to approve those changes.

[5:51] >> mayor: can I get a motion? >> motion.

[5:53] >> second. >> all in favor?

[5:55] thank you. Okay.

[5:57] so now the first item is ordinances for first reading.

[6:04] 6a and I apologize, give me one second, I just lost my things.

[6:12] 6a is an ordinance of the city commission of the city of sunny

[6:15] isles beach, florida, amending chapter 256 of the code of

[6:19] ordinances of the city of sunny isles beach article v, section

[6:26] 256-37, entitled definitions, rules and regulations for

[6:31] operation, section 233-8 entitled penalties for offenses

[6:35] and 256-39, entitled enforcement.

[6:37] to create and provide regulations for the use of

[6:40] electric bicycles within the city's jurisdiction.

[6:43] providing for repealing, severability, codification, and

[6:45] an effective date. >> mayor: okay, mr. City

[6:47] manager? >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[6:51] the commission. We're bringing this forward in

[6:53] response to your request to revise and update our bicycle

[6:59] ordinance to include specific regulations regarding e-bikes.

[7:05] >> mayor: okay. Do we have any public speakers?

[7:11] >> we do. >> mayor: okay.

[7:13] >> stephen hirsch. >> good evening, stephen hirsch,

[7:17] 17201 collins: I support this ordinance that's amending

[7:23] chapter 256 relating to promoting pedestrian safety in

[7:27] our sidewalks. I think it's a great follow-up

[7:31] to the earlier ordinance regarding scooters.

[7:36] however we must note this will likely increase the amount of

[7:40] bicycles albeit motorized bicycles on the right lane of

[7:43] collins and sunny isles beach boulevard.

[7:48] that led me to look at the 236-page, 2016 sunny isles beach

[7:54] master plan to see what if any provisions could be affected by

[7:59] this, albeit motorized bicycles on our main arteries.

[8:04] after reading the report it was evident to me that the 2016

[8:10] study where survey times are over 10 years old needs to be

[8:13] updated for several reasons. Population growth has

[8:19] substantially increased traffic demand and are well beyond the

[8:23] original projections. The report predates e-scooters,

[8:28] micromobility devices, app-based on demand transit demands such

[8:36] as ubers, lyfts, and the report relied on traffic counts and

[8:40] patterns from approximately 2014 through 2015 as any of us speak

[8:51] with residents of sunny isles beach and ask what are the major

[8:53] downsides to the quality afflife in our city, traffic always

[8:57] seems to be near the top if not at the top of the rist.

[9:04] as the next logical step after creating pedestrian safety for

[9:08] micromobility devices, I suggest the commission -- I suggest to

[9:12] the commission that maybe it's time to take and revisit our

[9:17] outdated transportation master plan sunny isles beach has

[9:22] changed dramatically since 2016 with increased development, new

[9:27] transportation technologies, and evolving pedestrian safety

[9:33] concerns. Our transportation plan should

[9:35] be updated using current data so that any future investments that

[9:39] we need to make regarding traffic flow, traffic safety,

[9:45] pe paid safety are based on today -- pedestrian safety are

[9:50] based on today's realities and not yesterday's assumptions.

[9:52] thank you very much for allowing me to talk.

[9:54] >> mayor: thank you. Any other speakers?

[9:55] >> no further speakers. >> mayor: okay.

[9:57] I'll take comments or questions commissioner joseph would you

[10:01] like to start? >> just my idea originally was

[10:07] to ban e-scooters and e-biked in sunny isles.

[10:13] we really don't have a safe provision for them to be in the

[10:19] streets. They're absolutely not safe on

[10:20] the sidewalks, and and, regard for that is the safety of

[10:28] residents in the city. We have scooters now for riders

[10:35] on the 16 off the streets, which have made a big difference.

[10:47] we will see how things progress but right now our streets are

[10:50] somewhat safer and we will see what happens in the near

[10:52] future. We can always come back and make

[10:55] our policies stronger as necessary.

[11:08] >> mayor: vice mayor? >> I support this obviously.

[11:11] but I was hoping -- hoping, and I don't mean to catch anybody

[11:14] off guard, but if you have the information off the top of your

[11:18] head, I know that we started the enforcement or the warning

[11:23] period, and I liked one of the facebook posts I saw that on

[11:27] that first day you didn't have to open the warning -- you know

[11:34] the warning book. So I was just wondering how it's

[11:38] looking. If you have any input on that.

[11:42] >> to date both pd and code have reported that they've had zero

[11:47] violations. >> that is great news.

[11:51] >> okay. Anyway, that it's all.

[11:54] >> mayor: okay. With that I'll take a motion?

[11:56] >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second.

[12:00] >> mayor: mauricio? >> commissioner joseph?

[12:02] >> yes. >> commissioner lama.

[12:04] >> yes. >> commissioner stuyvesant.

[12:06] >> yes. >> vice mayor viscarra.

[12:08] >> yes. >> mayor svechin?

[12:10] >> the ordinance passes on first reading, second reading will be

[12:12] scheduled for july. >> okay, next item, please.

[12:16] >> next item is 8a, which is an ordinance of the city of sunny

[12:30] isles beach, florida, amending chapter 265 article ii section

[12:35] 265-5 init titled definitions and article v, section 265-17

[12:41] entitled subdivision plat approval of the code of

[12:44] orordinances of the city of sunny isles beach.

[12:45] in accordance with the requirements of section 177.071

[12:50] of the florida statutes as amended by senate bill 784,

[12:56] 20005, and to align with certain procedures in chapter 28 of the

[12:59] miami-dade code of ordinances providing for repealer,

[13:02] severability, codification, and an effective date.

[13:05] >> thank you. >> good evening, mayor, vice

[13:09] mayor, commissioners. This is second reading of our

[13:12] ordinance related to the platting procedures in the land

[13:14] development regulations. Just as a quick refreshther

[13:18] purpose of this ordinance is to come into compliance with state

[13:20] legislation that passed in 2025 that requires all municipalities

[13:26] and counties to administratively approve plats with no further

[13:28] action or approval by the governing body.

[13:33] as the commission requested last month a line has been added to

[13:35] the ordinance which states the city manager shall for

[13:41] informational purposes only submit a written report to the

[13:43] city commission advising of any plat approval, approval with

[13:46] conditions, or denial. And that's added in two places

[13:49] in the ordinance, once for subdivisions, and also for

[13:53] waiver of plats. >> mayor: thank you.

[13:54] are there public speakers? >> no, ma'am.

[13:57] >> all right. Are there questions or comments

[13:58] from the commission? >> yes.

[13:59] >> mayor: go ahead, commissioner stuyvesant.

[14:01] >> well this was not the direction that was given.

[14:05] to be informed after the application gets approved,

[14:08] what's the point? So we said that we wanted to

[14:11] know when this application was submitted.

[14:17] so I will make a motion to modify again exactly the same

[14:19] language that it was recommended, with the difference

[14:22] the city manager shall for informational purposes only

[14:28] submit a written report to the city commission advising of any

[14:31] plat, free plat or modification application.

[14:39] the second thing on the site, the city commission shall for

[14:42] informational purposes only submit a written report to the

[14:44] city commission advising of any waiver of plat application we

[14:55] had a discussion and the direction was very simple.

[14:57] we want to be informed. This is administrative.

[14:58] we cannot do anything. We cannot interfere, so the only

[15:00] thing we need to know is to be informed.

[15:06] we feed to be informed after the application gets submitted, not

[15:09] after it guess approved. >> mayor: before I take a

[15:12] motion,x a second to your motion, can I get clarification

[15:15] from the city attorney because we addressed this during agenda

[15:17] review. >> right, as we discussed on

[15:19] tuesday at the workshop in looking back at the statute, you

[15:22] as a governing body cannot be involved in any way, shape, or

[15:25] form in the platting process. The language that was requested

[15:30] by implication involves you and inserts you into the process.

[15:35] it screams interference. If there is a difference between

[15:37] going when it's applied for versus when it's approved it

[15:44] points directly to interfeerps, whether it be indirect inference

[15:47] or direct interference if you have that in your code anybody

[15:50] challenging it would have that to work with.

[15:52] so again to keep in the spirit of the statute you are not

[15:55] involved in the process at all. It should be after the fact.

[15:58] >> mayor: okay. Thank you.

[15:58] >> mayor: there is a motion on the table.

[16:02] >> again, that is guessing somebody is going to interfere

[16:05] because that's not what it says.

[16:07] plus we give the direction, you can give your recommendation,

[16:09] but we are the legislative body.

[16:11] we are the ones who decide we're voting for this.

[16:14] and that interference claim look for it in the status, that's an

[16:21] interpretation. That is not there.

[16:23] so -- you are assuming that by we knowing about this we are

[16:26] going to do something with that information.

[16:28] and that's not the spirit of this.

[16:31] so, it was taken from us, the ability of the power to vote for

[16:38] that, for that application. It wasn't taken for us.

[16:42] the ability to get informed, so like I said, we need to be

[16:51] informed when the application gets submitted ignot, not

[16:55] after it got approved that was the specific direction we gave

[16:57] in the last commission meeting. >> mayor: okay, is there a

[17:00] second to commissioner stuyvesant's motion?

[17:05] okay, so motion dies. We're back on the original

[17:07] motion or rather I don't have a motion yet.

[17:10] so would anyone like to add anything or make a motion?

[17:19] >> can I get a motion for this item?

[17:22] second? Mauricio?

[17:23] >> commissioner lama. >> yes.

[17:26] >> commissioner stuyvesant. >> .

[17:28] >> no. >> vice mayor viscarra.

[17:30] >> I'm a no because I don't think the language should've

[17:32] been added to begin with. I liked it the way it was last

[17:35] month, so. >> commissioner joseph.

[17:39] >> okay. >> no.

[17:47] >> mayor svechin. >> the ordinance fails on second

[17:49] reading 2-3. >> mayor: okay so can you

[17:51] clarify what's going -- >> well, by florida statute, you

[17:55] have to, you have to pass an ordinance in this regard.

[18:01] >> mayor: so would you like to make a motion, commissioner

[18:05] viscarra. >> I would like to make a motion

[18:07] to remove the language we added last month.

[18:10] >> mayor: can you remind me please what the language was for

[18:12] the record? >> the language says, as

[18:14] currently written, the city manager shall for informational

[18:17] purposes only submit a written report to the city commission

[18:21] advising of any plat approval, approval with conditions, or

[18:25] denials. >> mayor: okay, is there a

[18:29] second to vice mayor's motion? We have to pass something.

[18:31] >> well, if there is no second I will change my vote or I'll, you

[18:35] know, I'll reconsider the vote or whatever.

[18:37] >> okay, hold on. Hold on.

[18:39] so if we go back, may I, please?

[18:43] if we go back to the original language, what are the

[18:46] implications? >> which original language?

[18:48] >> no, just means that the manager would not need to advise

[18:51] us. That's the difference.

[18:52] so, so vice mayor. >> so what are we .

[19:05] >> vice mayor if you could clarify.

[19:06] >> the way it was originally presented to us, this language

[19:08] about the city manager was added last, at the last meeting.

[19:13] >> correct. >> and I don't think it's

[19:14] necessary. I think we get the information

[19:16] if there is something we want to know, we have the monthly

[19:19] reports, I feel like adding -- it's not standard language and I

[19:25] don't think it belongs there. I don't -- you know if I have to

[19:28] change my vote, I will. We're newt going to be without

[19:31] compliance -- not going to be without compliance but I really

[19:34] think it should just not be there.

[19:36] >> mayor: all right so there is -- is there -- let's try this

[19:37] again so because there wasn't a little bit of confusion.

[19:41] so vice mayor made a motion to go back to the original which

[19:44] did not have the language of the manager having to inform the

[19:50] commission, specifically of a change.

[19:51] is there a second? If we can go back to the

[20:03] original? >> procedurally, we would need

[20:04] to reconsider this and one of the members of the commission

[20:07] that voted against, in this case vice mayor to reconsider this

[20:11] item, and then make the motion that she wishes.

[20:15] all right. >> mayor: okay.

[20:17] >> so motion to reconsider. >> mayor: as written.

[20:21] >> yes as written today. >> mayor: today, yes.

[20:25] >> and the second for that motion.

[20:28] >> second. >> mayor: okay.

[20:30] >> all in favor? >> aye.

[20:36] >> why are we considering the motion as is, the resolution as

[20:38] written today. >> mayor: all right, now I need

[20:41] a motion for that. >> second.

[20:44] >> mayor: all right, mauricio. >> okay, commissioner lama.

[20:49] >> yes. >> commissioner stuyvesant.

[20:53] >> no. >> vice mayor viscarra.

[20:56] >> yes. >> commissioner joseph.

[20:58] >> no. >> mayor svechin.

[21:00] >> yes. >> the ordinance is adopted 3-2

[21:03] as written tonight. >> mayor: all right, next item,

[21:06] please. >> next item is 9a,

[21:11] resolutions. A resolution awarding request

[21:13] for proposal number 26-04012 and approving an agreement with all

[21:19] season imports doing business as the christmas palace to install

[21:23] holiday lights and decorations at various locations throughout

[21:25] the city. >> mayor: okay, mr. City

[21:30] manager. >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[21:31] the commission, this is our bid that we put out approving with

[21:40] all season imports doing business as the christmas palace

[21:43] to install holiday lights and decorations at various locations

[21:45] throughout the city. >> mayor: okay, do we have

[21:49] public speakers? >> we do.

[21:51] david virgil. >> mayor: okay.

[21:56] >> mayor: again as a reminder to everyone, this your opportunity

[22:01] to speak up. >> my name is david virgil.

[22:04] my address is 17500 -- I just want to say the renderings of

[22:08] the new holiday lights look amazing, in my opinion.

[22:13] it's great that there is a wide variety of colors to choose from

[22:17] as it appears in the packet. It shows red and green, blue and

[22:22] white, and also yellow, so in case anyone's controversy about

[22:26] the colors, the city could choose different colors.

[22:30] there's also great coverage from the north end of

[22:35] the city to the south end of the city which is pretty great too.

[22:37] there is one thing I notice on page 30 of the pdf document, it

[22:41] shows that there is three palm trees at town center park,

[22:47] anything two fell down so maybe two sets of light may be an

[22:54] extra cost that is unnecessary at this time.

[22:55] so yeah. That's all.

[22:58] >> mayor: thank you. Any other speakers?

[22:59] 92 no, ma'am. >> mayor: all right.

[23:03] this is a hot topic. Are we going to put up the

[23:05] pictures on the screen? Do we have them?

[23:12] so who would like to start. This is a big conversation,

[23:14] commissioner stuyvesant would you like to start.

[23:19] who is ready to speak? >> I'll speak.

[23:21] >> mayor: go ahead. >> so I do like this.

[23:28] obviously I requested this. We do need to work a little bit

[23:34] more on the color palette, and then the nativity scene issue

[23:38] came up. So I think that we need a

[23:44] workshop to define how this is going to be structured and take

[23:49] place. Today we are talking about

[24:02] awarding of the contract that but those are my comments.

[24:04] >> mayor: okay, let the city manager answer and then

[24:06] commissioner stuyvesant, you can go.

[24:07] >> thank you, mayor. I just wanted to point out to

[24:10] commissioner lama's point that we have scheduled workshop to

[24:15] discuss this further. >> commissioner stuyvesant, go

[24:22] ahead. >> that's very interesting

[24:23] because I have here addendums and it was very specific, even

[24:28] the instruction to all the bidders that the select

[24:32] contractor shall provide holiday lighting in neutral nonholiday

[24:38] specific colors. That is exactly what it was in

[24:42] the addendum number 3 are the questions and answers to all the

[24:47] plan holders. It says that several times.

[24:49] the selected contractor shall provide holiday lighting in

[24:53] neutral nonholiday specific colors.

[24:57] to say it was going to have a workshop for this for the color

[25:00] theme when the color theme already is, it says it shall

[25:05] provide no holiday specific colors, that's even wors

[25:10] than being gaslight. Another thing it says very

[25:13] specific also during the four meetings they had, et cetera,

[25:20] that they must install a menorah but exclusive specifically the

[25:31] manger from the same display. It said that we cannot have it,

[25:35] nativity even one of the vendors provided in his offer, and it

[25:40] was excluded. So again, no nativity, nothing

[25:47] for one group and everything for another group.

[25:54] they hads we are going to be discussing the color palette.

[25:57] how is that possible whenware going to approve right now a

[25:59] contract that says it cannot be multicolor.

[26:01] I have that question, city manager.

[26:12] >> mayor: go ahead, city manager.

[26:13] >> we had to provide some general outlines in order to get

[26:16] the bid done, because time is of the essence.

[26:19] so in terms of substituting one light for another or the

[26:24] possibility of adding or moving let's say a nativity scene would

[26:29] be up to the commission, but it certainly falls within our

[26:32] purview of however we direct the vendor.

[26:35] >> mayor: okay. Go ahead, commissioner joseph.

[26:37] >> and that's how we constantly get upcharged.

[26:40] I mean the whole process is backwards, it just make no sense

[26:44] to me and we do it year after year.

[26:48] we should be having the, this workshop.

[26:50] we should be having it in march or april.

[26:53] not now. It just makes no sense.

[26:57] >> mayor: okay. Just want to give others an

[27:00] opportunity, vice mayor did you want to add anything?

[27:06] >> I recall having, sitting up here and having a discussion

[27:08] about it so I don't think -- I don't understand the outrage.

[27:11] this is, these are things we talked about, so and we should

[27:17] be having a nativity scene. >> vice mayor has the floor.

[27:21] >> and we talked about that. And we talked about that.

[27:23] just because it gets talked about doesn't mean there's

[27:26] consensus. Just because it's discussed

[27:27] doesn't mean it was agreed upon so I don't want to go down this

[27:30] rabbit hole and be here for an hour if you guys want to really

[27:33] dig into the details, we can have a work shop about the

[27:37] details, but as far as the contract is concerned, I'm okay

[27:40] with it. >> mayor: okay.

[27:44] >> may I say something? >> mayor: please, go ahead.

[27:47] >> so I think the color and what weaz presented is an improvement

[27:50] from last year. I still think it needs to be

[27:53] worked on a little but more. Me personally I like to see some

[27:56] red and green, which I'm not seeing in this color palette,

[28:01] these schematics. So I like to see thatt and

[28:06] obviously we need to talk about the nativity scene as well.

[28:09] you know I know that there is some legal impediments or

[28:14] certain laws, but I think we should be discussing that in the

[28:19] workshop as well. That's it.

[28:26] we want to streamline and simplify it, and I think we can

[28:29] work on the color pallettes very easily.

[28:37] >> we have a red one, the same one, golden one, the same one,

[28:41] silver one, so -- >> I would go with the red one.

[28:43] we take a vote. >> that's the point.

[28:46] that's -- you are not going to see this again.

[28:47] you know? And also, the issue that we have

[28:50] here with this bidding process is that the scope of work was

[28:54] completely open. It was not a line of prices.

[28:58] so you can not compare when there were not bidding with a

[29:04] price. So anybody, that they could

[29:06] submit their own design -- no. >> our price that we were --

[29:10] >> issments commissioner joseph.

[29:11] commissioner stuyvesant has the floor.

[29:13] >> let me read. So what is the competitive

[29:15] bidding? Genuine price competition m

[29:19] among comparable fix scope bids.

[29:21] here we didn't have a fixed scope.

[29:24] anybody has to submit whatever they wanted.

[29:28] so even because I saw the four meetings that the committee had

[29:33] to present thesis recommendation -- these

[29:35] recommendation, they say themselves our employees are

[29:38] staff that they could not compare.

[29:41] I'm quoting. Naithey could not compare

[29:46] the four bids. They were different.

[29:48] they were different line items. Different prices.

[29:50] so we didn't ask them to say let's quote per christmas tree.

[29:56] tyci manager. >> city question why the

[30:02] lights were still off in golden shores?

[30:03] >> I was not aware of it. I'll find out.

[30:05] >> mayor: okay, thank you. All right.

[30:07] any other comments? >> oh, actually I do have one.

[30:12] >> mayor: please, go ahead. >> so I had asked also prior to

[30:15] tuesday's agenda review regarding what is happening with

[30:21] the vendors at&t and breeze line regarding the fact that they're

[30:25] not installing fiber, which had been pulled across the

[30:33] intercoastal and is at the bridge at golden shores waiting

[30:38] to be installed but they're just not installing it.

[30:39] they're looking for additional funds from the city.

[30:46] >> mayor: deputy manager. >> I'm not aware of them getting

[30:47] any additional funds from the city.

[30:48] they have not expressed that to us.

[30:51] >> so what is the reason that we still have copper when it's

[30:55] obsolete. >> so a I told you I reached out

[30:57] to both at&t and breeze line just yesterday, breeze line got

[31:02] back to us, they are, I could not understand their response,

[31:09] and I need to getter clarification but they said that

[31:10] they are using both fiber and copper depending on the cus

[31:20] customer. >> I was with breeze line they

[31:23] never offered the opportunity and they just came and

[31:24] undergrounded mine with copper and their service is on and

[31:27] off. It's, it's actually still

[31:30] connected not to the underground.

[31:31] it's still connected to the overhead.

[31:38] so they are not being honest with you and we have paid them

[31:43] millions of dollars so we need follow-through with the city

[31:45] manager's osto not -- office to not just ride the wave but see

[31:48] what's happening and get this job completed.

[31:54] >> mayor: commissioner joseph, can you just clarify your

[31:55] request so that we can have a discussion?

[31:57] >> okay, so for next month I want a full follow-up on what

[32:01] the city manager's office is doing to hold these services to

[32:07] task in order to have them explain why they're still

[32:12] installing copper and not installing fiber that everywhere

[32:14] else in the city has access to. >> mayor?

[32:19] >> they were supposed to actually, myself and jason,

[32:24] senator pizzo were promised by at&t and breeze line that fiber

[32:31] was going to be installed at no additional charge and they're

[32:33] just not doing it. >> mayor: okay, mr. City

[32:35] manager? >> we don't regulate at&t or

[32:38] breeze line. So I'm not sure what you would

[32:42] like -- >> this contract was signed with

[32:43] the city. The city signed the contract for

[32:45] for the installations. >> I'll have to look at that but

[32:49] we don't regulate -- we don't regulate.

[32:52] >> no, it's not. We don't regulate either one of

[32:54] those. >> mayor: mr. City attorney?

[32:56] >> if they are promising something that they're not

[32:58] delivering to you as a customer, or anyone as a customer, they're

[33:01] regulated by the public service commission.

[33:04] >> so we're paying millions of dollars for the undergrounding

[33:06] and we have -- >> we're not paying --

[33:08] >> we have no oversight? >> we're not paying them any

[33:10] money. >> we haven't paid any millions

[33:11] of dollars for undergrounding? >> you're undergrounding conduit

[33:16] but they're -- that's between them and their customers.

[33:20] and to the extent that they're promising things to you as a

[33:23] customer, that they're not delivering on, that's regulated

[33:26] by the public service commission.

[33:27] >> so we installed conduit for certain services to use,

[33:32] correct? >> correct.

[33:36] >> mayor: and we -- so we had hot -- we had hot wire that

[33:39] wanted to come in and install internet in golden shores, and

[33:45] for some -- so who was it that didn't allow them to use the --

[33:49] >> if I recall correctly, hot wire did not want to participate

[33:53] unless they had full participation from the

[33:54] neighbors, and they didn't. >> right, that's correct.

[33:56] >> so we don't regulate that. >> they didn't have the

[34:00] opportunity to, to even advocate to get opinions from the

[34:07] residents. I was never asked by hot wire if

[34:09] I wanted to have their service. >> mayor: well, commissioner

[34:12] joseph, that's not up to us how they run their business.

[34:14] that's up to them. We wouldn't be contacting them

[34:19] and telling them what to do. >> mayor: so we own the conduit,

[34:22] correct? >> yes.

[34:26] >> we pay to have the conduit installed and we're allowing

[34:29] services to install their copper cable, which is obsolete, in our

[34:36] conduit, without any say so as to what gets installed in that

[34:39] conduit? >> we don't regulate utilities

[34:41] the state of florida does. We can't, it's just like fp&l.

[34:46] they are, we're essentially preempted again, they are, they

[34:49] fall under the public service commission's jurisdiction.

[34:53] >> okay, so. >> if they're doing something

[34:55] they're not supposed to be doing and again a lot of it comes

[34:59] between the company and the customer what product they

[35:02] provide, and the city doesn't get involved in that.

[35:05] >> this was the city that signed the contract with fp&l and the

[35:10] services several years ago to install the services and

[35:18] unfortunately, from what I believe is wording similar to

[35:21] whatever is on the poles goes underground, without anyone

[35:25] having any foresight to -- or to do any research to understand

[35:31] that cable, that copper was obsolete or internet service,

[35:38] and that, that fiber which was already several years ago in use

[35:44] was the up and coming product for internet, and no one thought

[35:48] in this city to look out for the residents and have any forward

[35:55] thinking thought to say you must since we're paying so many

[36:01] millions, install fiber. Is that correct?

[36:03] >> mayor: but again, for clarification, as far as who the

[36:06] city is paying. >> well, that, first of all,

[36:09] that question should be directed to the manager.

[36:11] and two, my understanding is that we cannot dictate what

[36:17] these companies offer. >> so, no.

[36:21] how many millions have, has the city paid to have the

[36:25] undergrounding work done? >> that I have to defer to the

[36:28] city manager. >> mayor: susan?

[36:30] >> we'll have to research that. Mayor, we're getting off topic.

[36:33] >> mayor: I understand. >> this number should be on the

[36:36] tip of your tongue. >> mayor: commissioner joseph,

[36:38] let's stick to the item on the agenda.

[36:41] so. >> no, but, no, because then we

[36:43] get to next month, and we still haven't gotten to the point, and

[36:47] these services, every resident, 200 something households in

[36:54] golden shores, are the orphan child of the city.

[36:58] everyone else in this city, every high rise, atlantic isle,

[37:03] everywhere, has fiber. Golden shores is the only area

[37:06] that there is no even hope except what are they saying for

[37:10] four years? Maybe they'll be installing the

[37:13] fiber that's right at the bridge on our side in golden shores,

[37:18] and they might get around to it in four years?

[37:21] that's totally unacceptable. >> mayor: I hear you.

[37:23] however, that's not the item on the agenda.

[37:26] >> well, I've made it --led y like to add this --

[37:30] >> mayor: we're not. >> I make a motion to add this

[37:32] to the agenda. >> mayor: okay.

[37:34] we can't do that right now. >> can we make a motion?

[37:39] >> [off mic] >> I would like to add a

[37:41] discussion as to the undergrounding in golden shores,

[37:45] and why it is not been followed up on by the city manager's

[37:50] office and we've just allowed them to ride the wave month

[37:55] after month without accomplishing what they had said

[37:58] they would accomplish. >> who's they?

[38:01] >> the at&t and breeze line. We finally have completion

[38:05] except for one property for fp&l's undergrounding.

[38:10] and that's another issue that for another day if that doesn't

[38:14] get resolved that I have to bring up for one resident in

[38:18] golden shores that's been tortured with their electrical

[38:21] power. >> mayor: no, I understand.

[38:22] I think that what you're asking for is not something that we can

[38:26] possibly even discuss today. >> well, I want to bring it to a

[38:30] head so that the city manager who's it's his duty with all the

[38:35] millions we've paid out for the undergrounding, to be aggressive

[38:39] in following up and holding these services, they're feet to

[38:46] the fireford to get the job -- fire in order to get the job

[38:50] done in the way it was promised.

[38:52] >> mayor: I understand that but the question that you're asking

[38:53] is not within the remit of the city manager as far as giving

[38:57] any sort of direction to a private utility.

[39:02] >> well,. >> mayor: is my point.

[39:03] >> we have the city attorney f. We have to bring suit against

[39:05] them, then that's what we should be doing.

[39:07] >> mayor: I understand but you must agree this is a very, very

[39:09] big scope of discussion that you're looking to --

[39:13] >> month after month and there's never any --

[39:15] >> mayor: I understand. How about this, why don't you

[39:16] work it through with the city attorney and the manager and

[39:19] bring it on for next month so that we're all clear and

[39:22] vaadvanced notice of what exactly you want to discuss.

[39:26] >>> great. >> mayor: okay.

[39:27] thank you. >> be ready.

[39:29] >> mayor: okay. We'll be ready.

[39:30] all right. I'll take a motion then?

[39:34] >> so moved. >> mayor: I need a second?

[39:42] >> no second. Okay.

[39:45] so what do we do in this instance?

[39:48] the item dies? >> remains.

[39:50] >> mayor: okay, status quo. Okay, next item.

[39:53] >> next item is 9d, a resolution approving an agreement with

[39:58] pipeline plumbing service of broward for as needed citywide

[40:01] plumbing and back flow repairs. >> mayor: okay.

[40:04] mr. City manager. >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[40:06] the commission. This is an agreement with

[40:09] pipeline plumbing for as needed citywide plumbing and back flow

[40:15] repairs. >> mayor: okay.

[40:16] do we have any public speakers. >> no, ma'am.

[40:17] >> mayor: all right, I will take comments and questions from the

[40:20] commission. I will take a motion then.

[40:22] >> motion. >> need a second.

[40:24] >> second. >> all in favor?

[40:26] all right. Next item, please.

[40:31] >> 9e, is a resolution approving a 4th amendment to the

[40:35] agreement with universal protection service llc doing

[40:39] business as alight universal security services for armed

[40:43] security -- unarmed security guard services at government

[40:46] center. >> mayor: okay, mr. City

[40:48] manager. >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[40:49] the commission. This is the company that

[40:51] provides security guard services at the government center 24

[40:54] hours a day. >> mayor: thank you.

[40:56] do we have public speakers? >> no, ma'am.

[40:58] >> mayor: any comments from the commission?

[41:00] >> no. >> mayor: I'll take a motion,

[41:03] please? >> so moved.

[41:06] >> mayor: I need a second? >> second.

[41:08] >> mayor: all in favor? Okay.

[41:09] next item, please. >> 9f is a resolution approving

[41:12] the issuance of a purchase order to cspi technology solutions for

[41:16] the purchase of uninterruptible power supply units.

[41:22] >> mayor: mr. City manager? >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[41:23] the commission. This item is for backup power

[41:30] supply for I.t. >> mayor: all right, do we have

[41:33] any public speaking cards? >> no, ma'am.

[41:35] >> mayor: all right, you sure? >> yes.

[41:38] >> mayor: okay. I'll take a questions from the

[41:40] commission. Go ahead, commissioner joseph.

[41:41] >> at the agenda review even though it's just tampingantatory

[41:46] to this -- tangbatory to this item I had asked regarding the

[41:50] solar panels on the city on city hall roof.

[41:53] is there any information that you have that I had requested?

[42:00] >> mayor? >> mayor: please.

[42:02] >> the solar panels we check with our I.t. Director, and

[42:04] would not be compatible for this use.

[42:10] >> no, I understand, but I had sent over information regarding

[42:12] different types of solar panels.

[42:13] I was asking what type of solar, solar panels do we have

[42:17] exactly? >> solar panels is a separate

[42:20] issue. And we're still gathering the

[42:21] information on that. >> I'm asking for brand, make

[42:33] and category, and efficiencies regarding the solar panels that

[42:36] are installed on the city hall roof, whether it was taken into

[42:44] account, the heat factor, and sun factor in sunny isles in

[42:50] south florida regarding the type of solar panels that were

[42:54] installed or was it just done willy-nilly like so many other

[42:58] things that we waste money on in this city.

[43:04] >> mayor: okay. Anyone else?

[43:07] >> I would like that for next month, please.

[43:10] >> mayor: that could be done probably by email, your

[43:12] request. >> mayor: okay, okay.

[43:17] perfect. I need a motion.

[43:18] >> so moved. >> mayor: I need a second.

[43:21] >> second. >> mayor: all in favor?

[43:23] all right. Next item, please.

[43:26] it's g and h combined. >> 9g is a resolution approving

[43:29] a use and occupancy agreement and addendum thereto with the

[43:34] florida department of transportation for public

[43:35] parking and other public purposes on parcel number 7756

[43:41] located at 500 sunny isles boulevard.

[43:44] 19h is a resolution approving a use and occupancy agreement, and

[43:48] addendum thereto with the florida department of

[43:50] transportation for parcel number 3129 located at 500 sunny isles

[43:55] boulevard. >> mayor: okay.

[43:56] mr. City manager? >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[43:58] the commission, these two parcels are near each other off

[44:02] of sunny isles boulevard and fdot owns these parcels.

[44:06] this enters into an agreement with fdot, so we can further

[44:09] develop and use those parcels. >> mayor: all right.

[44:13] mr. City clerk, do we have public speakers?

[44:16] okay I'll take comments from the commission.

[44:18] >> yeah, I have a question because here they make keeping

[44:21] reference to exhibit b. It says everything is about

[44:27] exhibit b or the map, et cetera, are but there is no exhibit b in

[44:33] any of the three items. >> so how can we vote if we

[44:38] don't the full information. Another thing is that it says as

[44:46] well that we need to do these so we can, we can sublease the

[44:52] property for the playground, et cetera.

[44:54] but now we don't even have the sublease portion being added to

[44:58] the agenda. So like I said, the exhibit b,

[45:02] which is what it says the most important part, is not

[45:06] ininincluded anywhere. It just says draft.

[45:17] so I do believe we should defer this item until we have the full

[45:22] scope and all the information. >> sorry, which exhibit b are

[45:26] you referencing? To t

[45:28] >> three of them say exhibit b over and over.

[45:30] no not in the resolution, in the remands.

[45:32] >> mayor: what page is it? >> okay.

[45:33] let me go. >> it looks like it's at least

[45:35] one of them is 4d on page 2. >> I found 14 reference to

[45:47] exhibit b and it's nowhere. And that's a specific what is

[45:51] like the scope, the terms, et cetera.

[45:55] what it's supposed to be the okay, the residents state that

[46:04] fdot using occupancy agreement and addenda are appended hereto

[46:11] and incorporated as competent exhibit b but we don't have any

[46:13] exhibit b. And that's exactly about the use

[46:18] and o occupancy agreement. It says then later on that we

[46:23] acknowledge receipt -- we acknowledge provisions exhibit

[46:26] b, we don't have any exhibit b. >> I'm going to let the city

[46:32] attorney answer that. >> or the sublease is exhibit b,

[46:40] again, no exhibit b. So how can we vote on something

[46:43] that we don't have? >> okay, what page were you

[47:23] referring to? Just pick one.

[47:26] >> put f and put exhibit b and you're going to find it.

[47:31] it's more than 14 reference and that's exactly the exhibit that

[47:34] is going to be redrawing the boundaries.

[47:37] in the legal description, all of that, none of that is there.

[47:47] >> no, I don't know. >> I have 20 pages as, I have 20

[47:57] pages on the use and occupancy agreement.

[47:59] I have the resolution and the cover page, that's what I have.

[48:01] >> okay, you read it? >> what do you have?

[48:04] >> I have the same thing. >> so where is -- so exhibit b.

[48:07] >> it's supposed to have the scope.

[48:09] >> at the end, but -- >> in the occupancy.

[48:12] >> it's in all the documents. >> in the resolution.

[48:15] >> it's not in the resolution. It's not in the memo.

[48:18] it's in the document. >> it should be everywhere.

[48:20] >> in the 18 pages document you're going to see three of

[48:23] them at the end, and also it makess reference to exhibit b --

[48:27] c, exhibit c is not -- >> it only has exhibit a in

[48:31] the -- >> right.

[48:32] >> in the occupancy agreement. >> mayor: page 2, number 4 of

[48:37] page 2. >> thank you.

[48:42] >> it says it under d. Described in exhibit b.

[48:48] >> mayor and commissioners, the attachment, the exhibit b was

[48:55] attached to the sublease agreement, so if you look at the

[48:59] schematic, the item they pulled.

[49:01] >> that's the one with the schematics and the shaded green

[49:06] areas. >> yes, that's what is being

[49:07] referenced as exhibit b. It was just added to the

[49:10] wrong -- >> which is the deferred item.

[49:13] >> yeah. >> and I do see the schematic.

[49:16] but it doesn't say there that's exhibit b because we had exhibit

[49:20] a and the schematic is just it's supposed to be like the tree

[49:26] survey and the position. And disposition.

[49:31] and it's like I said, it's not in the two resolutions that

[49:36] we're voting on right now. >> okay, mauricio, for the

[49:40] record, could you clarify where it is, please?

[49:44] >> it's in the deferred item. >> it's attached to item 9j, and

[49:50] it's labeled as schematic for that.

[49:52] >> for exhibit b. >> rather than exhibit b.

[49:55] but that, it should be attached to items 9h and 9i.

[50:00] >> so it was inadvertently left out.

[50:02] >> yeah, attached to the wrong item.

[50:06] >> mayor: okay. All right.

[50:11] so is it available right now on, online?

[50:15] >> it is available online, yes. >> mayor: okay.

[50:20] >> again, it's not what it's making, it says in the

[50:26] resolutions that it's going to have including the scope, the

[50:30] boundaries, et cetera, so like I said, it's not there.

[50:34] here we can see the schematic, which are the survey, the

[50:38] drawings, the trees, et cetera. That's not the reference that

[50:43] the contract is making about exhibit b over and over.

[50:48] >> may I? >> yeah, please, go ahead.

[50:51] >> is the plan to have the sublease item back on next

[51:00] month? Or is there some things to be

[51:02] worked out? >> some version of that should

[51:05] be back next month, yes, that is the intent.

[51:12] >> okay. >> so we should have --

[51:12] >> so we should -- you know, combine everything refer for all

[51:16] for next month or. >> we cannot vote on something

[51:18] we don't have. >> there is something time

[51:20] sensitive at this point nat we need to pass this or can we

[51:25] wait? >> mayor?

[51:26] >> mayor: let city manager answer that.

[51:28] >> it can be deferred for a month.

[51:32] >> mayor: okay. Does this not slow down us being

[51:33] able to add the parking? >> yes, it does.

[51:36] >> it delays it, yes. >> mayor: I'm just concerned

[51:38] that we are in very, very big need of parking in that area, so

[51:43] this delays the parking by at least a month?

[51:48] >> yes. >> mayor: okay, are you all

[51:49] comfortable deferring it then? >> why was the item deferred?

[51:54] >> I don't know. >> because there is no exact --

[51:58] [off mic] >> no.

[52:00] >> mayor: please. Nothing from the audience,

[52:01] please. Okay.

[52:03] so I want to get a very, very clear picture of this before we

[52:05] start deferring anything because there have been multiple

[52:09] complaints in that area for parking.

[52:12] so the item that was deferred you said it's coming back next

[52:16] month in some other way. >> correct.

[52:21] >> yes, so but can you clarify for the commission and for the

[52:26] public why those things need to be connected or don't need to be

[52:28] connected so that way we can make a good decision here not

[52:32] just defer it because we don't want to vote on it.

[52:35] >> okay, so the use on occupancy agreement is intentional to be

[52:40] able to bifurcate the green open area from the paved parking area

[52:46] which is used for a public parking area that has a revenue

[52:51] generator in it. The green open space ask just

[52:55] green open space. So the first step is to

[52:59] bifurcate those parcels into two separate pieces.

[53:04] the sublease agreement which was our initial reason for doing

[53:09] that had to be approved by fdot first and also by us and then it

[53:13] was sent to the jewish community center upon their review, they

[53:19] had some edits and some concerns with the agreement as written,

[53:24] they would like to consider changing some terms.

[53:27] they want to meet with us after to see if we could come to a

[53:32] different agreement that is less of a sublease and more of a

[53:36] donation where we are not subleasing to them.

[53:41] we are still maintaining the fdot property, but they would

[53:46] donate the playground. >> mayor: right but I don't want

[53:49] to commingle those two things because the revenue that we

[53:54] generate from that parking, I don't know if you had an

[53:58] opportunity to confirm how much that is per month, I had asked

[54:01] for that. >> it was sent to us.

[54:02] >> I did send it to you. >> mayor: you did?

[54:05] I missed it then if you can bull that up because missing out

[54:10] obviously not just we want the additional parking, but we need

[54:14] to be mindful about the lost revenue as

[54:20] >> also in the future, we're planning on having -- or when

[54:29] miami-dade gets around to it -- >> mayor: I want to make sure

[54:33] we're tight on this, because any additional delays can compound

[54:38] all of the delays, and this had been a long time coming to get

[54:42] extra parking there. >> so the revenue to date from

[54:48] october 1 this fiscal year to june 3rd is $78,885.97.

[54:56] the revenue from last fiscal year was $110,924 $110,924.87.

[55:05] >> mayor: and how many more parking spaces would this

[55:08] increase? >> 18 additional and two

[55:10] additional handicapped spaces. >> mayor: and how many do we

[55:14] have there now off the top of your head?

[55:19] >> 30? >> mayor: I know it doesn't

[55:20] double it, but it's a significant enough amount that

[55:22] it's warranted, okay. One second.

[55:26] I just want to make sure we're all clear as to what we're

[55:29] talking about here. Go ahead, commissioner joseph.

[55:35] >> so I understand that on the third floor at gateway parking

[55:41] lot, the temple rents spaces, correct?

[55:48] >> through their zoning approval from a previous commission, they

[55:53] purchased a number of spaces. They are actually on the roof.

[55:58] >> how many? >> again, sir, I'm -- 26, I

[56:01] think? >> okay.

[56:02] are there any other available, any other spots available.

[56:09] >> yes. I mean, it depends.

[56:12] >> so why don't we allow them to rent more spots?

[56:16] >> if they would like to, we could.

[56:19] they do rent it for special events.

[56:21] >> but this parking is not limited to just the -- this is

[56:26] public parking. >> I understand.

[56:28] but most of them will be taken up by shul goers?

[56:34] >> potentially. There's also a business there.

[56:35] >> yeah, so I'm not thinking though short term.

[56:39] I'm thinking long term. >> no, I understand that, but

[56:42] there's also a business there that needs parking that has

[56:46] nothing to do with the shul that could benefit from that parking.

[56:51] >> and I've been there when people are parking there and

[56:53] walking to the restaurant, so, yes, even when there's an event

[56:57] at the synagogue. >> mayor: sure.

[57:00] >> but I'm just thinking if the synagogue is saying they're so

[57:06] pressed for spots, why don't we offer them the more spots at

[57:14] gateway? Since there are so many more

[57:19] available? >> mayor: that's always

[57:19] available to them. >> they're aware of those spots.

[57:22] >> but maybe it hasn't been presented in this manner at this

[57:25] time for them to accept them and alleviate any pressure for the

[57:31] parking. >> mayor: but again, this is

[57:33] not specific to the synagogue, so --

[57:35] >> yes, I know that. But that would also open up more

[57:38] spaces for the restaurant. Possibly.

[57:42] >> mayor: I think people park wherever is convenient for them.

[57:49] anyone else? >> did we have a motion on

[57:53] deferral? >> mayor: not yet.

[57:54] >> I agree with commissioner joseph.

[57:56] I think if there is something that alleviates an immediate

[58:01] problem if there is one and we can just do it right and the

[58:04] city manager says there's no harm, no foul, I'm good with

[58:11] deferring as well. >> mayor: so you're making a

[58:13] motion to defer. >> yes.

[58:15] >> mayor: I need a second. >> second.

[58:17] >> mayor: all in favor? [ chorus of ayes ]

[58:22] >> I'm a no on that, just for the record.

[58:24] next item, please. >> next item is

[58:34] 9.j a resolution of the city of sunny isles beach, florida,

[58:35] allowing the mayor and commissioners, at each elected

[58:37] official's sole choice and option, to enroll and

[58:39] participate in and receive the same insurance benefits as is

[58:42] available to city's regular employees, including for a

[58:46] period not to exceed two years after the end of the elected

[58:47] officials' respective terms of office.

[58:52] >> mayor: mr. City manager? >> mayor, vice mayor, members of

[58:54] the commission, this is an item we discussed at a workshop and

[58:57] we're bringing it back to you for approval.

[59:01] it would establish the ability for the elected officials after

[59:05] serving two full terms to participate in the city's health

[59:10] insurance for two years. >> mayor: just for

[59:13] clarification, I want to make sure that we understand the

[59:18] item. Mr. City attorney?

[59:20] >> the first initial part of it is just memorializing what the

[59:24] status quo already is, that you're conferring upon yourself

[59:30] the benefits since 2010 have been received by elected

[59:34] officials. When we had the discussion,

[59:35] there was a component that there was direction to come up with a

[59:41] gap filler with regards to once an elected official leaves

[59:46] office to allow them to get on to other insurance.

[59:48] so I believe the consensus was two years, so that's what we

[59:53] were proposing, but again that's all up to you.

[59:56] >> mayor: and just for the members of the public or anyone

[59:59] watching, currently the commission receives the option

[1:00:01] of participating in the health insurance, same as the city

[1:00:06] staff, and has been since 2010. >> I believe so, yes, 2010.

[1:00:11] >> mayor: do we have public speakers?

[1:00:14] mauricio? >> but that's not for free.

[1:00:17] >> mayor: I understand, yes, of course.

[1:00:20] >> we do. Dina goldman?

[1:00:23] >> my name is dina goldman. I reside at 308 point sienna

[1:00:30] drive, and I just want to say a quick support for this

[1:00:34] initiative. I think it very well

[1:00:37] memorializes something that is a well-needed benefit for elected

[1:00:43] officials, and they provide tremendous service, the ones

[1:00:47] that provide that service for two consecutive terms.

[1:00:53] and they work hard and contribute a lot and this is a

[1:01:00] finite -- there are finite parameters to this and it's a

[1:01:04] very welcome initiative. And I'm happy to support that.

[1:01:08] >> mayor: thank you. Any other speakers?

[1:01:10] >> no, ma'am. >> mayor: all right, I'll take

[1:01:12] comments -- go ahead, commissioner joseph.

[1:01:15] >> I'm looking for a definition of a full term.

[1:01:21] >> yes, that's right, there was during the agenda review, that

[1:01:23] question was asked. >> right.

[1:01:26] I think in our conversations before, we had talked about the

[1:01:32] appointed less of a full term, but mauricio, you had quoted

[1:01:36] that section of the -- back on tuesday.

[1:01:42] as we discussed, commissioner joseph, if it's an appointed

[1:01:47] unexpired term, that wouldn't count as a term, but the

[1:01:50] question you posed to me before the meeting which we need to

[1:01:54] check is if in your case you were elected to an unexpired

[1:01:59] term, whether that counts as a term or not.

[1:02:01] >> mayor: and does it have to be the entire term.

[1:02:04] >> the way it's written now, the resolution is a full both two

[1:02:10] full uninterrupted elected terms.

[1:02:13] >> mayor: so if you're one day short of the term, then you're

[1:02:15] not eligible? >> that was the direction I got

[1:02:17] from the city manager, yes. >> mayor: I understand, all

[1:02:19] right. >> so nobody quits in the

[1:02:23] middle. >> and in that regard, it would

[1:02:25] allow me to run again? >> mayor: no, you would be

[1:02:30] eligible to use the insurance. >> no, he cannot.

[1:02:33] >> mayor: yes, because it's a full term for him.

[1:02:36] >> no, it's not. They need to clarify that.

[1:02:41] >> mayor: specifically for anyone that has the three years

[1:02:45] as a full term, they were elected to a term and they can't

[1:02:49] add an extra year, so is that considered a full term or not?

[1:02:54] >> what jerry and fabiola have are full terms.

[1:02:58] because if it weren't, then that's what he's saying.

[1:03:03] if it weren't, then he would be able to run for commissioner

[1:03:08] again. >> yes, correct.

[1:03:12] >> there's language in the charter that defines, and I

[1:03:18] remember looking at it some time ago, and you guys are well

[1:03:23] within that. It's like when you were in that

[1:03:27] two-and-a-half -- it's like around that two-year mark that

[1:03:29] it gets fuzzy, but if you're not able to run for that seat again,

[1:03:35] it's because that counts as a full term and that's the

[1:03:38] position that you're in. >> mayor: right, that was my

[1:03:41] question during the agenda review.

[1:03:43] so are we including something like that as a full term?

[1:03:50] >> section c23 (c). >> right.

[1:03:52] and will end at midnight the day before the mention in the term

[1:03:56] whether or not it is actually completed, except a vacancy

[1:03:59] being filled for less than two years remaining and the filling

[1:04:02] of that term shall not be counted as a term under this

[1:04:05] section. >> mayor: so it counts?

[1:04:07] >> so if you get elected to fill in for more than two years, then

[1:04:13] that counts as a full term, according to our charter.

[1:04:16] >> okay, so then for health reasons as well, health

[1:04:21] insurance reasons, then it's a full term.

[1:04:25] >> I would think so. >> but you can't have it both

[1:04:29] ways, so it has to be determined.

[1:04:30] >> mayor: I agree with that. Mr. City attorney, is that --

[1:04:36] >> what's the other way? I don't know what both ways

[1:04:40] means. >> what commissioner joseph is

[1:04:42] saying is you cannot run for a third term because his would not

[1:04:45] be considered a full term under this --

[1:04:48] >> but it is a full term. >> exactly, that's what he's

[1:04:51] saying. If it's a full term, then it's a

[1:04:53] full term for all purposes. >> yes, correct.

[1:04:57] >> mayor: but I want to make sure that's what's in the

[1:04:59] resolution. >> don't give the health

[1:05:02] insurance and I'll run again! >> the resolution definitely

[1:05:05] talks about a full term. As to what a full term is is

[1:05:10] dictated by your charter. >> right, you can say as set

[1:05:13] forth in c23 ... Whatever. >> mayor: all right.

[1:05:18] anyone else? Go ahead.

[1:05:23] >> so I want to be very precise, okay?

[1:05:26] because the public is owed precision when we're spending

[1:05:30] their money on ourself. This resolution will have

[1:05:36] taxpayers pay for the health insurance for two years after

[1:05:43] elected officials are no longer in office.

[1:05:49] I heard it suggested we have to do this to follow the law, but

[1:05:53] we don't. >> no, no, I did not say that.

[1:05:57] >> no, you're interrupting me -- >> mayor: wait a second.

[1:06:00] >> I'm being interrupted. >> mayor: wait, commissioner

[1:06:04] stuyvesant, I want to make sure the record is clear --

[1:06:07] >> you're not required to confer upon yourself benefits after you

[1:06:11] leave office. Simply the status quo since

[1:06:13] 2010. I'm not saying that you are

[1:06:17] required to give yourself insurance after you leave

[1:06:20] office. >> I asked in the last

[1:06:22] commission meeting if we were breaking the law several times

[1:06:25] with the status quo and your answer was yes.

[1:06:28] >> with the status quo, you are receiving insurance that has not

[1:06:31] been conferred upon yourself, so you need to formalize that but

[1:06:36] that doesn't talk about insurance after your term.

[1:06:39] >> mayor: those are two separate things.

[1:06:40] >> and I asked specifically if we were breaking the law many

[1:06:43] times. I'm going to ask again.

[1:06:46] the status quo that we have right now, are we breaking the

[1:06:49] law? >> you've been receiving

[1:06:51] benefits since 2010 -- >> it's a yes or no question.

[1:06:54] >> no, it's not. >> it is.

[1:06:58] it's your interpretation as always.

[1:07:01] so I'm going to -- >> you need to memorialize, you

[1:07:04] have to confer upon yourself the benefits you receive.

[1:07:06] the city manager can't do it. The city manager back in the day

[1:07:10] in 2010 couldn't do it. You have to confer that upon

[1:07:13] yourself. >> again, that's your

[1:07:16] interpretation. October 29, 2009, in 2007, the

[1:07:22] city was audited by the irs, and one of the stipulations

[1:07:27] effective january 1, 2008, was that the salary of elected

[1:07:32] officials -- salary -- be subject to all applicable

[1:07:37] federal income taxes. Moving on: this information was

[1:07:43] only recently learned after lengthy discussions with florida

[1:07:50] retirement system representatives.

[1:07:52] nothing to do with insurance. We are talking about frs.

[1:07:56] frs has recommended that the city comply by simply including

[1:08:01] the elected officials in the next monthly report.

[1:08:06] we are talking about the florida retirement system.

[1:08:11] it doesn't make any allegation to health insurance.

[1:08:17] the analyzed cost for the city is seven thousand whatever

[1:08:19] whatever and the elected officials are eligible for the

[1:08:23] same benefits and subject to the same requirements as regular

[1:08:29] city employees. >> yes, because then you're

[1:08:31] considered an employee. >> moving on, it says proposed

[1:08:36] next steps. Meet with the elected officials

[1:08:38] so if there is any interest in enrolling the city in the

[1:08:43] elected official class of frs, an approval resolution for frs

[1:08:48] at the november or december commission meeting.

[1:08:53] this is extremely self-serving. I'm embarrassed to even be

[1:08:57] having this discussion right now.

[1:09:01] because for the time being, we have three elected officials

[1:09:04] that are going to be out of office this november.

[1:09:09] and right now, they are trying to codify to continue receiving

[1:09:13] health insurance for the next two years on your dime and my

[1:09:19] dime, because I'm a resident of sunny isles beach, so when we're

[1:09:24] in longer working, you are going to continue paying for our

[1:09:28] family health insurance. So my question is very simple --

[1:09:35] >> I said I already recused myself from the vote.

[1:09:38] >> according to the law, florida constitution article 7, number

[1:09:44] 10, public money may be spent only for a public, municipal

[1:09:51] purpose. What is the municipal purpose of

[1:09:55] paying the health insurance of the families of elected

[1:10:00] officials when they're no longer in office for the next 24

[1:10:03] months? It's a very simple question

[1:10:05] about municipal purpose. >> can I answer that?

[1:10:08] >> mayor: please, go ahead. >> the florida attorney general,

[1:10:11] several florida attorney generals, have opined that it's

[1:10:15] absolutely permissible for you to receive benefits.

[1:10:18] >> we may. We don't must.

[1:10:19] I have your answer here. It says you're going to say that

[1:10:23] it requires the city to pay for a former official's insurance.

[1:10:30] >> article 7 does not apply in this case.

[1:10:32] >> so this is a choice. We are choosing to make the

[1:10:36] people pay for us when we are no longer in office.

[1:10:40] so I really wanted to see what is the municipal purpose.

[1:10:43] that's my question, it's very simple.

[1:10:50] >> mayor: okay, for clarification, again, these are

[1:10:52] two separate things. Since 2010, the members of

[1:10:57] whomever was sitting up here on the dais had the option of using

[1:11:02] the city health insurance. Some did, some didn't.

[1:11:06] that's since 2010. It was recently realized that it

[1:11:09] was never put in a resolution. So this was a cleanup in order

[1:11:13] to say if members of the commission are going to continue

[1:11:15] to receive health insurance, it needs to be resolved.

[1:11:19] in addition to that, and this is the secondary thing, there would

[1:11:23] be an additional benefit if an elected official wanted to use

[1:11:28] it after leaving office where they can continue using the

[1:11:31] insurance for themselves, as I understand, not their families,

[1:11:35] themselves. They can pay for their families

[1:11:36] for an additional two years. So those are two separate

[1:11:40] things. One thing is the status quo

[1:11:43] happening since 2010 and the second thing is secondary and

[1:11:45] additional. >> that's not the issue in front

[1:11:49] of us. >> mayor: it is.

[1:11:50] but I want to give someone else an opportunity to speak, please,

[1:11:54] that has not yet. You've spoken.

[1:11:57] >> I've spoken. >> mayor: commissioner lama,

[1:12:00] did you want to add anything? >> first of all, I want to just

[1:12:04] clarify a couple things or correct a couple things that

[1:12:06] were said. This is not for families.

[1:12:09] I don't know where you get that information from.

[1:12:12] >> you can pay additional for families.

[1:12:13] >> mayor: one at a time, please.

[1:12:15] >> but you'll have to pay for them.

[1:12:18] >> yeah, like now. >> so it just applies to the

[1:12:23] elected official and has a cap of two years.

[1:12:26] >> correct. >> so it is very clear.

[1:12:29] and this is not something out of the ordinary either, because

[1:12:32] other cities have similar type of policies.

[1:12:36] some cities don't, some cities do.

[1:12:39] so, I mean, you're making it seem as if the residents are

[1:12:43] going to be paying endless amounts of money.

[1:12:45] and this is an opportunity that's been given to other

[1:12:50] people that are going to run and become elected officials as

[1:12:52] well. And I think just like exmayor

[1:12:57] goldman said, it's good to give those elected officials a gap so

[1:13:04] when we get back to let's say our normal lives, we can have

[1:13:10] some time to adjust and look for other options when it comes to

[1:13:15] health insurance. >> mayor: okay, vice mayor?

[1:13:18] did you want to add anything? >> only that the memo being

[1:13:23] referred to is frs. And it has nothing to do with

[1:13:26] insurance, I agree with that. This is frs.

[1:13:29] it doesn't apply. It's not for families.

[1:13:31] this is not codifying -- we went over all of this already.

[1:13:35] >> and just to be clear, so under chapter 112, your

[1:13:41] employees that retire, that actually retire, you are

[1:13:45] required under florida law to provide them continuing

[1:13:50] insurance in the same -- intermixed with your other

[1:13:53] employees so they get the benefit of the lower.

[1:13:55] >> and how long is that for? >> continuously.

[1:13:57] for your retired employees, those that fit the definition of

[1:14:01] a retired employee. That's in the statute.

[1:14:05] [ off mic ] >> mayor: can we just -- I'd

[1:14:09] like -- we need to maintain decorum up here.

[1:14:15] commissioner stuyvesant, let the city attorney finish what he's

[1:14:18] saying. >> so under florida law under

[1:14:23] chapter 112, you're required for your retired employees to

[1:14:26] continue their health insurance if they so opt to do that.

[1:14:29] >> for life? >> yes.

[1:14:35] >> under chapter 166, you have the authority to extend that to

[1:14:39] other employees that are not deemed retirees because it's not

[1:14:45] prohibited by state law, okay? You are allowed to do it.

[1:14:47] in fact, you did it before for your city attorney for many,

[1:14:52] many years, right? This is the same thing.

[1:14:54] you have the authority under 166 to do that if you want to.

[1:14:58] fair point with municipal purpose, you need to decide what

[1:15:01] that municipal purpose is, no doubt about that.

[1:15:05] but it is not prohibited for you under your home rule powers to

[1:15:09] go ahead and confer that upon yourselves because specifically

[1:15:13] it's not prohibited under 112 and it's consistent with the

[1:15:15] fact that for your other employees that are retired, you

[1:15:19] have to provide them by law. And you can extend that to

[1:15:22] others if you so wish, which you've done in the past.

[1:15:30] >> so I know personally former employees from the city that

[1:15:34] were invited to the fourth floor just to realize that they were

[1:15:38] being forced to resign. So when any of our employees,

[1:15:43] let's say a police officer, a lady police officer, she is

[1:15:48] pregnant, and she's forced to resign, are we going to give

[1:15:52] them the courtesy of two years of health insurance?

[1:15:56] yes or no, is that for all the employees or politicians, we're

[1:16:01] a special class that we have to have special treatment?

[1:16:04] because we cannot retire. We have specific terms for a

[1:16:12] reason. So retirement benefits do not

[1:16:13] apply for us. That status does not apply to

[1:16:17] us. Like you said, that status

[1:16:19] implies that we can do it. That we are not prohibited to do

[1:16:24] it. Not that we have to do it.

[1:16:25] however, my question remains the same.

[1:16:28] so a police officer that is pregnant and they get fired, are

[1:16:33] we giving that police officer two more years of courtesy

[1:16:37] insurance? Yes or no?

[1:16:40] >> not if you fire an employee. Why would you give benefits to

[1:16:44] someone you fired? >> I'm asking the city manager.

[1:16:48] >> mayor: go ahead, city manager, when an employee is

[1:16:51] fired, do they retain benefits? >> not in they're terminated,

[1:16:54] no. >> if they resign?

[1:17:01] voluntarily. >> mayor: if an employee

[1:17:03] resigns, do they maintain benefits?

[1:17:04] >> they may be able to under cobra.

[1:17:09] >> ccobra is just an expensive carry-over.

[1:17:15] >> so we're not paying the insurance of that police officer

[1:17:17] that was forced to resign? Like we do on the fourth floor.

[1:17:22] so again, this is about choices. Sadly, this is about right and

[1:17:28] wrong. I, myself, due to my current

[1:17:33] family situation, understand very well the need of health

[1:17:37] insurance. I have a family member with a

[1:17:42] very bad condition, so I get it. However, this is not a personal

[1:17:51] issue. This is about right and wrong.

[1:17:53] these are not the rules of engagement.

[1:17:59] the people voting for this will benefit from this immediately.

[1:18:03] if we wanted to do this, this is so important to do, so none of

[1:18:07] us should be eligible to receive this benefit.

[1:18:10] and then we can be making a decision that it will make

[1:18:15] sense. But right now, this is a

[1:18:20] good-bye gift we're giving to ourself and again this is

[1:18:23] totally wrong. That's why people don't trust

[1:18:29] government anymore. It's completely self-serving.

[1:18:30] if the idea that you claim is just to clean up the status quo,

[1:18:36] that option of two more years should not even be there.

[1:18:40] and if we want to do that as a perk for the people to run for

[1:18:44] office, the proper way, because it's people's money, should be

[1:18:48] put to a referendum and we allow the people to say you know what,

[1:18:53] elected officials have a very hard job.

[1:18:55] maybe they should not be making ten or $20,000 a year.

[1:18:59] maybe they have to be making 50. Maybe they should be having

[1:19:02] better benefits. That is up to the people, not to

[1:19:06] us, to increase our salaries or to start giving us perks that

[1:19:12] are not there right now. So this is morally

[1:19:17] reprehensible, completely wrong. And in the spirit of being fair,

[1:19:23] none of us should be able to benefit from this.

[1:19:28] >> mayor: okay. Anyone else?

[1:19:32] all right. I'll take a motion on the item.

[1:19:36] >> so moved. >> mayor: I need a second.

[1:19:42] >> roll call, mayor? >> mayor: yes.

[1:19:47] >> commissioner joseph. >> I defer my vote.

[1:19:51] >> you can't. >> well, call me last, please.

[1:19:56] >> commissioner joseph, you need to vote.

[1:20:00] >> no. >> commissioner stuyvesant.

[1:20:04] >> no. >> commissioner lama.

[1:20:08] >> yes. >> vice mayor viscarra.

[1:20:13] >> yes. >> mayor svechin?

[1:20:15] >> mayor: before I vote, I just want to say that earlier during

[1:20:17] our workshop, we had a discussion about how in november

[1:20:21] there's going to be some changes to all of our tax bills

[1:20:27] potentially. And while we are an incredibly

[1:20:29] healthy city, thank god, and we're doing very well, we don't

[1:20:33] know how that's going to work out after november.

[1:20:36] so perhaps in past years, I would have been supportive of

[1:20:39] this item. I think that given how things

[1:20:43] may or likely will change in november, it's important that we

[1:20:50] are more I guess -- it's not about responsibility.

[1:20:52] I would say just more conservative and while I do

[1:20:57] agree that health insurance for elected officials is absolutely

[1:21:01] something that should be allowed, I don't use it, but

[1:21:04] that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, not at all.

[1:21:08] there are some things that elected officials should be able

[1:21:11] to get. And perhaps after november,

[1:21:16] whomever new people are up here, they may decide they want to

[1:21:20] revisit this, but based on that and what's happening in

[1:21:23] november, I'm a no. >> the motion and resolution

[1:21:31] fails. >> commissioner joseph needed to

[1:21:32] vote. >> I did.

[1:21:34] >> he voted no. >> may I say something?

[1:21:37] so I think that the purpose of this is not to, you know, shower

[1:21:42] ourselves with extra benefits or anything.

[1:21:46] because if we had bad intentions like other cities have done, we

[1:21:49] would have raised our salaries exponentially, because what we

[1:21:54] get paid, I mean, I'm thankful for it, but obviously we can not

[1:21:57] earn a living from that. Other cities make a lot less.

[1:22:00] other cities don't make anything.

[1:22:02] other elected officials don't make anything.

[1:22:05] so I think it's fair to give the opportunity to people that have

[1:22:07] been sitting here for eight years to have that gap, that

[1:22:13] cushion. Because now when let's say they

[1:22:18] finish their terms, you need some time to kind of adjust, and

[1:22:23] whether you're going go into the corporate world or go into

[1:22:28] entrepreneurship. At less least we have the choicf

[1:22:31] we want to continue to participate and make use of

[1:22:33] those two extra years, so I really do take offense to what

[1:22:37] commissioner stuyvesant said, because we have -- we sit here

[1:22:42] and we serve the people, okay? And we're here to serve the

[1:22:48] community, to make the community better.

[1:22:53] and I don't think this is anything close to trying to, you

[1:22:57] know, benefit ourselves. This is just giving us a cushion

[1:23:02] of two extra years to have health insurance, whether we

[1:23:05] have that choice, we take it, whether I go back into corporate

[1:23:10] or have insurance offered to me through another means, fine.

[1:23:14] but I really take offense in what you said, because it really

[1:23:18] paints a picture that we are trying to really grab a lot of

[1:23:22] money and we're going to raise our salaries from $20,000 a year

[1:23:27] to 120,000. >> I never said that.

[1:23:29] >> I'm giving you an example, the way you're presenting

[1:23:35] things. I really take offense with that.

[1:23:40] >> so that's your interpretation of my words and I never said

[1:23:42] that specifically. My point was very simple.

[1:23:47] actually, we know, god willing if we don't die before, we know

[1:23:50] when we're getting out of office.

[1:23:53] so I know that unless anything happens, I'm going to be out of

[1:23:57] office in november 2028. Other people like you guys,

[1:24:03] november 2026, so we can plan accordingly because we know the

[1:24:05] moment that we are going to be stepping out of office.

[1:24:08] and that's why I tried to connect this and give an example

[1:24:11] that somebody who is forced to resign, then they are called

[1:24:16] today to the fourth floor and they go to their home that night

[1:24:20] knowing that they no longer have a job.

[1:24:23] those people, which I personally know that had those meetings on

[1:24:31] the fourth floor, more than one, two and three, those people

[1:24:35] never had the opportunity to prepare to get another job, to

[1:24:41] find another insurance. It happened to them overnight.

[1:24:44] people with children, people with families.

[1:24:46] so my point is that we are adults clearly and we can plan

[1:24:53] accordingly when we are going to be out of office and also what

[1:24:56] is it that we're going to be doing to supplement our income

[1:25:00] or to get insurance. All of the above.

[1:25:04] so I was not -- >> it's called life planning.

[1:25:07] >> I was not trying to offend or insult anybody, I'm sorry if you

[1:25:11] feel offended by my words. They were not directed to you or

[1:25:15] anybody specifically. It's just that this doesn't make

[1:25:19] sense. This is how government -- you

[1:25:24] know when you're getting out of office so we can plan

[1:25:29] accordingly. >> mayor, before, just a

[1:25:32] logistical issue. So the resolution was voted

[1:25:35] down, but remember there were two parts.

[1:25:38] >> mayor: exactly, I was just about to get to that.

[1:25:42] >> we need clarification about the status quo and then the

[1:25:44] additional two years. >> mayor: do we need a motion

[1:25:47] to split this out? >> we can bring it back next

[1:25:49] meeting with just the status quo.

[1:25:53] >> mayor: okay. All right.

[1:25:54] we don't want to do that right now?

[1:25:57] >> I mean, no, I'd prefer you have the language in front of

[1:26:01] you. >> mayor: perfect, okay.

[1:26:03] I want to close this conversation, wa, because I thie

[1:26:08] can go on and on and I agree with you, commissioner lama and

[1:26:14] vice mayor, and -- I was supportive of this item, but

[1:26:19] given everything else, it started not making sense to me.

[1:26:24] and I can appreciate commissioner stuyvesant, what

[1:26:27] you're saying. I think had you said what you

[1:26:29] just said now earlier, it would have landed a little bit

[1:26:34] differently. Okay, next item, please.

[1:26:37] >> next item is the -- >> so you're saying you would

[1:26:40] change your vote? >> mayor: no.

[1:27:04] >> mayor, vice mayor, members of the commission.

[1:27:05] this adopts the date county local mitigation strategy.

[1:27:11] >> mayor: do we have public speakers?

[1:27:13] >> no, ma'am. >> mayor: any comments from the

[1:27:14] commission? I'll take a motion, please.

[1:27:17] >> motion. >> second.

[1:27:19] >> mayor: all in favor? All right.

[1:27:21] now we're on to -- that's it for add-ons, correct?

[1:27:25] citizens forum, mauricio? Do we have public speakers?

[1:27:29] >> we do. >> vitally?

[1:27:34] >> mayor: just make sure we have the clock on, thank you.

[1:27:40] >> mi was coming here as a visitor and conducting business

[1:27:48] here. One of the things is that you

[1:27:50] guys coming up on the budget 2026-27 and one of the things

[1:27:57] going on with the home taxes and things like that, I was

[1:28:01] wondering how our police department is going to be

[1:28:04] supported. One of the things is I'm not

[1:28:07] sure how much you guys get money out of traffic tickets.

[1:28:11] you go to intercoastal british, I guarantee you can use that

[1:28:18] budget, writing the tickets, to be able to support the police

[1:28:21] department. One of the reasons why is

[1:28:23] because on several occasions, I observed somebody traveling a

[1:28:27] lot faster than they should be traveling.

[1:28:29] another thing is I don't know where we're going to get

[1:28:32] elected, but they're going to have a hard time to do a great

[1:28:34] job as you guys are doing. And to me that's very important,

[1:28:39] because coming up here at night or in the daytime, it doesn't

[1:28:42] really matter, you notice things going on and that comes from the

[1:28:47] city manager and administration. When you guys don't get to relax

[1:28:53] or something happens, I want you to look at yourself and say you

[1:28:55] know what, I did a great job, because as a visitor that comes

[1:29:01] here very often, I think you do an amazing job, thank you.

[1:29:06] >> mayor: thank you. >> mr. Maddows?

[1:29:20] >> good evening, mayor and commissioners.

[1:29:26] victor matos, 18201, collins avenue.

[1:29:29] I'm the manager of the trump royale and I come to you with

[1:29:33] three basic things for us. That the last commission meeting

[1:29:37] that I attended, we were talking about the development right next

[1:29:41] door to us, and unfortunately, they're not playing nice.

[1:29:47] 4:00 in the morning, trucks and construction.

[1:29:49] taking over the streets. Noise affecting a lot of our

[1:29:53] residents. Not to mention the debris and

[1:29:56] dust that's coming up against the building creating more

[1:30:01] expenses for our residents as they have to clean their windows

[1:30:04] and not being able to enjoy their balconies.

[1:30:08] we would love for the city manager or the code enforcement

[1:30:14] to actually help us and if there's a possibility for us to

[1:30:19] get notice when and if they're going to be doing work at 4:00

[1:30:23] in the morning so that we can advise our residents that these

[1:30:26] things are taking place. We also want to bring to your

[1:30:29] attention, I don't know if you've seen it lately, but a lot

[1:30:31] of our residents are complaining about beach erosion.

[1:30:34] and that is something that is affecting us, because we've lost

[1:30:38] a lot of beach in the last eight to nine months, I would say.

[1:30:41] and we don't know if the commission has actually been

[1:30:47] briefed on this or if there's a plan.

[1:30:49] and last but not least, the most recent complaint we're getting

[1:30:52] is about the seaweed. I don't know if there's also a

[1:30:55] plan for that as well. So I do appreciate your time and

[1:30:59] have a great evening. >> mayor: thank you.

[1:31:02] your comments have been noted by the manager and he'll be in

[1:31:04] touch with you, thank you. >> no other speakers, ma'am.

[1:31:08] >> mayor: all right, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

[1:31:11] meeting adjourned.

Regular City Commission Meeting

Transcript