[0:03] You're still going? To put this
[0:05] over here? Let's do it. Good
[0:06] evening, ladies and gentlemen.
[0:08] The mayor has called the
[0:10] meeting to order. Mayor Roscoe,
[0:13] present. Council member. Kaplan.
[0:15] Present. Council member. Kaplan.
[0:17] Still here? Council
[0:19] Councilmember. London. Vice
[0:21] mayor. Sardinas here. Council
[0:23] member. Sawyer here.
[0:24] Councilmember Vazquez here. MR.
[0:26] Mayor, we do have a quorum.
[0:28] Please rise for the Pledge of
[0:29] Allegiance and stay standing
[0:31] for the invocation afterwards.
[0:33] Like I pledge allegiance to the
[0:35] flag. United States of America
[0:37] and to the Republic for which
[0:41] it stands. One nation under GOD,
[0:42] indivisible, with liberty and
[0:48] justice for all. Pastor. Yes.
[0:51] Let's bow our heads to pray.
[0:53] Eternal GOD, we are thankful
[0:55] for how good you are to all of
[0:56] us in our families, in this
[0:58] community. We recognize you as
[1:00] the one who makes all of this
[1:02] possible. Each member of this
[1:04] council is here because you
[1:06] have ordained them to be here,
[1:08] and for this we are thankful.
[1:10] So we gather this evening with
[1:11] grateful hearts for the
[1:12] privilege of serving this
[1:15] beautiful island and its people.
[1:17] We acknowledge, Father King,
[1:19] that true leadership is both
[1:21] the responsibility and the gift.
[1:23] And we humbly ask for your
[1:25] guidance as we step into the
[1:28] important work before you,
[1:29] before all of us. Ancient of
[1:32] days, from ocean's Edge to
[1:34] village green, you have planted
[1:36] this place and you have called
[1:40] leaders to rise. Sustain each
[1:41] of them personally and
[1:44] professionally. The men and
[1:45] women you have chosen to lead
[1:49] this community. Are now ready
[1:53] to be led by you. Bestow upon
[1:55] this Council clarity of purpose.
[1:58] Remind us that every voice
[1:59] matters and every decision
[2:04] shapes a future not yet seen.
[2:06] Father GOD, MAY we lead with
[2:09] humility and finish with hope.
[2:11] Bless this chamber and all the
[2:13] people of GOD. Say amen. Amen
[2:18] and amen. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:20] The next item is the mayor's
[2:25] brief comments by council. I
[2:30] would. I would like to offer
[2:32] our condolences for our fallen
[2:36] police officers. We've had two
[2:39] in good succession here. I'm
[2:41] sure the police chief was at
[2:44] the funeral today representing
[2:48] us. So. These fortunately were
[2:51] not from our department. But
[2:55] obviously we very cognizant of
[2:57] the fact that these are
[2:59] outstanding men and women that
[3:02] protect us at different places.
[3:06] So our condolences. For those
[3:10] who didn't hear our state rep,
[3:13] Vicky Lopez, now goes to the
[3:16] Miami-Dade County Commission
[3:18] taking the seat that Eileen
[3:22] Higgins vacated. So we're going
[3:25] to be a little bit orphan from
[3:28] one one side of the the House
[3:31] of legislature. And so if there
[3:33] are people that are interested
[3:35] in running, this is the time to
[3:38] go, go talk to the speaker and
[3:42] the Senate PRESIDENT. Any other
[3:44] comments? I would just like to
[3:45] make a quick comment. I brought
[3:47] this up at the police
[3:48] investiture, but for the
[3:51] benefit of the general public.
[3:52] Halloween, although it seems
[3:54] like ages ago, was a tremendous
[3:56] success and it was in large
[3:58] part due to our police presence,
[4:00] not just at the borders,
[4:01] keeping everybody safe and a
[4:03] watchful eye, but passing
[4:05] amongst all the residents and
[4:07] all the children. It was truly
[4:08] heartwarming. Every family
[4:11] would see an officer and run up
[4:12] and hug the officer and have a
[4:14] whole conversation. It was
[4:15] terrific and it's exactly what
[4:17] we've always worked for in this
[4:19] village. So I'm very grateful
[4:22] and very proud. That's all.
[4:25] Thank you. Just wanted to thank
[4:27] my colleagues for expressions
[4:28] of support recently. Thank you
[4:33] all. A brief acknowledgment to
[4:34] wonderful events I had the
[4:35] opportunity to attend just
[4:37] recently, one of them being for
[4:39] the Key Biscayne Film Festival.
[4:41] Just wanted to thank that group.
[4:42] What an incredible job they've
[4:43] done in curating an amazing
[4:45] lineup. For all the residents
[4:47] here in Key Biscayne. I would
[4:49] invite everyone to check it out.
[4:50] The second one for Bill Baggs
[4:53] and the Friends of of Cape
[4:56] Florida, also a wonderful event.
[4:57] Just watching how community
[4:59] comes together to really help
[5:01] to maintain our jewel on this
[5:02] island. And just to remind
[5:05] everyone, I was reminded, going
[5:07] up to the top of the lighthouse,
[5:08] of what a beautiful sight that
[5:10] is, the incredible history
[5:11] behind it, and all the people
[5:14] that work so hard to maintain
[5:16] it. So I also invite everybody
[5:18] to just kind of go back into
[5:19] into what we have historically
[5:24] right in our backyard. One more
[5:26] thing for everyone, hopefully
[5:30] feels generous to help out.
[5:32] Terrible hurricane that hit
[5:35] Jamaica and eastern Cuba. So
[5:37] keep that in in your keep them
[5:39] in your prayers. And also if
[5:41] you could contribute to those
[5:44] causes that would be great.
[5:46] With that. MADAM Clerk, the
[5:49] next item is public comments.
[5:58] Okay. I have Charles Sherman.
[6:01] Charles Sherman 324 West
[6:03] Heather drive. Again, I've come
[6:05] to praise commend the Council
[6:07] and the administration. For
[6:09] years they've been supportive
[6:12] of the elderly, our senior
[6:14] citizens and active and
[6:15] important part of this
[6:17] community. Recently, as a
[6:20] policy matter, the free classes
[6:23] of exercise at the community
[6:27] center have been. Now the
[6:29] people have been told they need
[6:32] to pay $220 for the free
[6:35] classes. I'm not sure this is a
[6:37] a great policy change if you
[6:38] want to be supportive of the
[6:41] seniors, largely elderly women.
[6:43] I've been to some of those
[6:45] classes. There's one lady, 97
[6:47] years old, Marilyn Kreisberg,
[6:50] who leads one of these classes.
[6:51] It's incredibly inspiring. I
[6:55] urge you to go right, and I
[6:57] have taken council people there
[6:59] because this is an amazing
[7:02] woman. $220. You don't think
[7:04] it's very much for a community
[7:05] like Key Biscayne, wealthy
[7:08] community, that classes have
[7:10] been halved since that policy
[7:12] was put in place in OCTOBER. If
[7:15] you go to those classes now,
[7:17] they're there a shred of what
[7:19] they were. So I'd like to
[7:20] council, I'd like the
[7:21] administration to give it a
[7:22] deep think and try to figure
[7:24] out whether there's a way to
[7:26] get these ladies back in the
[7:28] classes. It's not the light
[7:31] exercise, it's the social
[7:34] contact. It's the community
[7:36] coming together. And now
[7:37] they're not coming together. So
[7:40] I really urge you to give it a
[7:42] think. Thank you, thank you. Is
[7:45] that 220 for a year or a month?
[7:48] Yeah a year. Yes. That's that's
[7:51] for a year. But a lot of people
[7:53] are only on Key Biscayne, as
[7:55] you know, for six months, four
[7:57] months, 3 or 4 months. And
[7:59] that's a lot of money for 2 or
[8:00] 3 months. How many classes a
[8:03] week do they have? They have
[8:06] dozens. So really there's a
[8:07] there's a lady. There's a lady
[8:09] there named Roxy who is a you
[8:12] could you could talk to I think
[8:13] you know her and she's she's
[8:16] really organized it very well.
[8:18] And people it's it's an
[8:21] inspiring thing to go to and to
[8:23] see these people and they're,
[8:25] you know, they spend Maryland,
[8:26] for instance, has an hour long
[8:29] class. The first 15 minutes,
[8:30] the ladies are all gathering
[8:32] around, talking and sharing
[8:33] whatever they've been doing.
[8:36] It's a gossip 15 minutes, and
[8:37] it's really important to them.
[8:40] Okay. We can take that up at
[8:41] some point. Thank you. Please
[8:47] give it a think. Next speaker,
[8:52] Karen Bieber. I think he's got
[8:55] a he's got it. Good. I actually
[8:56] have two separate things I'm
[8:59] going to mention to you. Karen
[9:02] Bieber, 788 Crandon. The first
[9:04] one is I'm speaking as my
[9:05] position on the Village of Key
[9:06] Biscayne Sustainability
[9:08] Advisory Board, and I'm
[9:10] inviting everyone here to
[9:12] please join us tomorrow from 2
[9:14] P.M. To 5 P.M. At what is the
[9:16] first ever South Florida
[9:18] Sustainability Summit that is
[9:21] meant for advisory boards from
[9:22] municipalities across South
[9:26] Florida. Most of the summits
[9:29] are regional or national, and
[9:31] they really are meant for staff
[9:34] or elected officials. We are
[9:36] very specifically speaking to
[9:37] our counterparts in different
[9:40] municipalities. About 6 or 8
[9:42] months ago, we started talking
[9:43] about our challenges, and we
[9:45] know that the challenges that
[9:46] we have here are not unique to
[9:47] Key Biscayne, but rather are
[9:49] the same for each municipality.
[9:51] So why are we working in silos?
[9:53] It would be so much better if
[9:55] we can have power in numbers,
[9:57] if we share successes, share
[9:59] challenges and share resources.
[10:02] So we convened a summit. We
[10:04] invited 12 different
[10:06] municipalities, again from
[10:08] across South Florida. We have
[10:11] three panels. One is how to get
[10:13] things done, which is really
[10:15] important, I think, for people
[10:16] who are volunteers, members of
[10:18] the community, we actually pay
[10:20] a play, a very important role
[10:22] in moving forward goals and in
[10:24] bringing to you issues in our
[10:25] community. We have another one
[10:28] that is about water management,
[10:30] and we have a third one that's
[10:32] about waste management. And
[10:33] that is of course the bigger
[10:36] issue of waste, but also
[10:37] recycling events, things like
[10:39] that. So it should be really
[10:40] great. We have a happy hour
[10:43] networking from 5 to 6. So
[10:46] please join us tomorrow. Okay.
[10:49] Second thing is speaking to
[10:52] agenda item ten c on your for
[10:55] this evening. I'm quite sure
[10:58] that stamped concrete has a
[11:01] place somewhere in this country.
[11:05] But that place is not here. We
[11:07] no longer have the privilege of
[11:09] being able to look at or
[11:12] consider projects just in in
[11:16] its own little box. We have to
[11:17] consider the bigger picture.
[11:19] And does any project that
[11:20] you're approving does it does
[11:23] it speak to what we want? Does
[11:24] it speak to the longevity? Does
[11:26] it speak to the resiliency? And
[11:27] does it speak to the health of
[11:29] Key Biscayne? When we're little,
[11:31] we get to pick a shirt and we
[11:32] get to pick shorts and maybe a
[11:34] shoe and a sock and we can put
[11:36] it all together. But at a
[11:38] certain age, we have to look in
[11:39] the mirror and go, you know,
[11:40] maybe we really need to
[11:41] coordinate everything. So
[11:43] that's the same thing, I think,
[11:44] in how we need to really
[11:47] approach these larger projects.
[11:50] Approved pilot studies, measure.
[11:52] Right. Just stamped concrete.
[11:54] Absolutely. Have it be one of
[11:56] them. But there are so many
[11:58] options right now where we can
[11:59] test and measure and make a
[12:01] good decision on what that
[12:03] spend is. And I don't believe a
[12:04] blanket. Let's do the roads and
[12:06] let's put solid pavement. Maybe
[12:08] because it's a grant that we
[12:09] can use, or maybe it's because
[12:11] it checks the box. I don't
[12:12] think that's the right thing.
[12:14] Consider the options, fund a
[12:15] few pilot projects, get the
[12:17] data, measure it, and then make
[12:20] the right decision as we as we
[12:23] move forward. So thank you,
[12:37] thank you. Elisa Benac. Elise
[12:41] Pennock, 772 Ridgewood Road.
[12:44] Mayor and council members,
[12:46] village manager I just really
[12:48] am here on behalf of the
[12:50] Disability Advisory Board to
[12:52] say thank you for creating that
[12:56] new position. We are super
[12:59] excited. It's, you know,
[13:02] customer what is it? Resident
[13:04] experience. Sorry. And we know
[13:05] that this person will wear many
[13:08] hats. We know that. You know
[13:11] one of those will be disability
[13:12] and inclusion services. And we
[13:14] are fully committed to
[13:17] supporting that person. And you
[13:19] know guiding them in any way
[13:21] that we can. We we are here for
[13:22] them and we are incredibly
[13:24] hopeful about this. So thank
[13:26] you again. And just know that
[13:27] we are working really hard.
[13:29] We're working. I want to say
[13:30] thank you to Todd because they
[13:32] bought a beach wheelchair and
[13:34] we're working with him on that,
[13:35] and we're working very hard.
[13:36] And we actually have another
[13:38] meeting going on right now. So
[13:40] I'm going to leave and go to
[13:41] that. But we will keep you
[13:51] updated. So thank you. Jan.
[13:54] Good evening, mayor, Council
[13:58] members and Village Manager Jan
[14:00] 611 Ocean Drive, Key Biscayne.
[14:02] Thank you for the opportunity
[14:04] to speak today. I'm the
[14:05] treasurer of the Key Biscayne
[14:07] Independent and a resident of
[14:09] 25 years. Though tonight I'm.
[14:11] Tonight I'm speaking as a
[14:12] resident. I thoughtfully
[14:14] request that the council
[14:16] examine the the new policy,
[14:18] which imposes an arbitrary fee
[14:20] for most public records,
[14:22] request a fee that was adopted
[14:25] without any public discussion.
[14:26] Accountability and transparency
[14:28] cannot be separated from public
[14:30] records. Charging a fee for
[14:32] access to information even
[14:35] before many any documents are
[14:37] produced was attempted.
[14:39] Previously in 2023, and it's
[14:42] frankly an unreasonable policy.
[14:44] It places unnecessary barriers
[14:46] between the public and the
[14:47] information they are entitled
[14:49] to limiting meeting. Excuse me,
[14:51] limiting meaningful oversight.
[14:53] The Florida Center for
[14:54] Government Accountability has
[14:56] stated that this policy,
[14:58] adopted unilaterally by the
[14:59] administration, MAY not comply
[15:02] with Florida law. This concern
[15:04] is especially urgent tonight,
[15:06] since the council prepares to
[15:09] vote for a $60 million loan
[15:10] application for the largest
[15:11] public works project in the
[15:13] island's history, imposing new
[15:15] fees for information when none
[15:18] had been imposed previously
[15:19] undermines accountability and
[15:22] risks eroding public trust. At
[15:23] the precise moment when
[15:26] transparency matters most. For
[15:27] these reasons, I urge the
[15:29] council to direct the manager
[15:31] and the clerk to request fees
[15:32] only when records are truly
[15:34] voluminous, as described in the
[15:37] state law. This safeguard is
[15:38] essential to maintaining
[15:39] transparency, accountability,
[15:42] and the public's right to know.
[15:43] Thank you for your attention
[15:45] and for considering the
[15:46] policies that protect
[15:48] government and and preserve
[15:50] access to vital information.
[15:57] Thank you, thank you. Luis de
[16:03] la Cruz. Luis dela Cruz, 640
[16:08] Allendale Road. MR. Mayor, MR.
[16:12] Vice mayor, council. Okay, so
[16:14] I'm wondering whether maybe I
[16:17] missed a a meeting of some sort.
[16:20] I try to I try not to because I
[16:22] always try to remind you of a
[16:24] lot of stuff, but I see stuff
[16:26] on this particular agenda that
[16:27] just doesn't make sense. You
[16:30] know, for instance, item nine b,
[16:33] we're borrowing $60 million for
[16:36] a project that, as far as I
[16:38] know, has not been approved.
[16:42] And we're pledging revenue
[16:44] sources for that project, and
[16:45] we're signing loan agreements
[16:49] for that project. I'm not sure
[16:51] what's going on here, but, you
[16:53] know, I mean, I don't think I
[16:55] missed a meeting, and I don't
[16:56] think you guys have brought
[16:58] this up for approval and going
[17:00] forward and borrowing money and
[17:01] pledging assets and signing
[17:04] loan agreements, tells whoever
[17:06] we're the lender is that we've
[17:08] approved the project, which we
[17:11] have not. In fact, there's
[17:12] another engineer right now
[17:14] looking at things, and I think
[17:15] he's going to come up with
[17:17] something that you're going to
[17:18] appreciate a lot more than what
[17:20] we already have. So again,
[17:24] that's a loan for $60 million.
[17:32] Then there's the. Line item ten
[17:36] d a contract with Black and
[17:41] Veatch not to exceed $373,000.
[17:44] What is I'm not I'm not sure
[17:45] what is that for, because, I
[17:47] mean, they are the ones that
[17:49] are translating what the
[17:51] engineers are, are doing for
[17:53] for us, the engineers, they're
[17:55] our second set of engineers. I
[17:57] never really understood that
[18:01] concept, but why are we signing
[18:02] another contract for $374,000
[18:05] with Black and Veatch? I also
[18:09] heard that we paid them $45,000
[18:12] or something to fill out the
[18:14] application for financing,
[18:17] something that I am absolutely
[18:24] sure our cfo and Colleen could
[18:26] do in one afternoon. I just
[18:29] don't understand what you guys
[18:31] are doing with our money, and
[18:33] I'm not accusing the council
[18:34] because the council is not the
[18:37] one signing the checks, but
[18:39] $45,000 to. For what? To
[18:43] oversee another, you know, to
[18:44] to fill out an application. And
[18:46] then there was another $50,000,
[18:49] I think that that was paid to
[18:51] Black and Veatch or or thought
[18:53] to be paid to Black and Veatch
[18:54] for them to oversee the work
[18:56] that this new engineer is doing.
[18:58] How many engineers do we need
[19:00] in order in order to get this
[19:02] done? And if we do need an
[19:04] engineer, then let's hire an
[19:07] engineer on our staff. If our
[19:09] Chief Resiliency officer cannot
[19:12] do the work, he cannot do the
[19:14] job then, and we have to pass
[19:16] it along to consultants all the
[19:17] time. Let's hire the right
[19:21] person. Okay. This is our money.
[19:22] Everybody here and everybody
[19:24] who's listening and people who
[19:25] don't even listen until they
[19:27] realize how much money has been
[19:29] spent and how much, you know,
[19:31] you guys have to approve and
[19:34] and millage. But the bottom
[19:37] line is that I don't want my
[19:39] money to be spent that way. I
[19:41] don't want I don't want Black
[19:42] and Veatch to get $50,000 to
[19:44] look over the shoulder of
[19:46] another engineer. I don't want
[19:48] I don't want them to get
[19:49] $45,000 for filling out an
[19:52] application. This has got to be
[19:54] the best job in the world to be
[19:55] a consultant to the village of
[19:58] Key Biscayne. Come on. Please,
[20:01] guys. One last thing. I am
[20:05] absolutely 100% in favor of
[20:07] what? What Karen was talking
[20:10] about. You know, we should not
[20:12] be going forward and putting
[20:19] stamped concrete or or. The
[20:21] paving that we normally do on,
[20:23] on our, on those, on those
[20:24] speed tables that were that
[20:26] we're fixing and on the streets
[20:29] without giving a chance to.
[20:33] What the consulting engineer
[20:34] who, who we paid very little
[20:36] money to. And he did a huge
[20:38] amount of work in a complete
[20:40] opposite of what normally
[20:42] happens here. You know, Walter
[20:44] Walter Rodriguez Meyer, who is
[20:46] professor at Stanford
[20:47] University. And he's got some
[20:50] really good ideas for us to be
[20:52] holistic in our resilience, not
[20:57] just to put in huge pipes and
[20:58] huge pumps, but to make our our
[21:01] streets resilient, right? Our,
[21:03] our our traffic circles. Let's
[21:05] let's try it. Let's try two
[21:07] traffic circles and let's
[21:09] measure and let's see if that
[21:11] works for us. It's a lot better
[21:14] to be holistic in this and not
[21:18] just let's make it all paving
[21:20] and impervious materials. And
[21:21] let's, let's put the biggest
[21:23] pumps and the biggest pipes
[21:24] that we can possibly put
[21:25] together. Thank you very much.
[21:29] Thank you. I'll be listening on
[21:41] tv. Sanchez. Cecile Sanchez,
[21:44] 260 Cypress Drive. I come again
[21:49] to ask you. You are our elected
[21:52] officials. One of you, all of
[21:54] you. Someone has to represent
[21:58] me and a bunch of us that maybe
[22:01] they don't show up, but they
[22:03] sometimes read in the paper or
[22:07] in the chats or your your your
[22:12] communications. But it's crazy.
[22:16] Can you please hold to your
[22:19] pocket book? Well, the manager
[22:21] wants. And what staff wants is
[22:23] one thing, but you're the ones
[22:26] that have to make the decision.
[22:28] How long are we going to
[22:29] continue spending this kind of
[22:31] money? For what? I don't
[22:33] understand what Luis says.
[22:36] Thank you. Thank you. Because
[22:40] part of it. All right. I just
[22:42] want to ask about the one time,
[22:45] a long time ago, I asked our
[22:49] mayor if maybe he could have a
[22:51] like, once a month, maybe a
[22:53] night, that people could come
[22:55] here and ask questions because
[22:57] it's very hard. We come here,
[23:00] we say our piece, but nothing
[23:02] ever happens afterwards. You
[23:04] can't answer. There's no give
[23:06] and take. Is there anything
[23:10] that maybe can be done? Tweak
[23:13] once a month? I don't know, I
[23:16] don't know what could be, but I
[23:18] think maybe it would make maybe
[23:20] some people that are reluctant
[23:22] to come because they say,
[23:24] what's the point? Why should I
[23:26] come and waste my time? They
[23:29] don't listen and I'm sorry, but
[23:31] that's what people say. It's
[23:33] not that because they're not
[23:35] here, they're approving what
[23:39] you're doing. Not necessarily.
[23:43] I need to ask, why did we have
[23:46] a gag policy? I know there's
[23:48] something going on now that
[23:50] hasn't been finished, but why
[23:54] in this community? We needed a
[23:57] guiding policy. I don't
[24:00] understand it. I wish someone
[24:03] would explain it. We're not in
[24:06] Cuba. Why? Why do we need a
[24:08] policy? Can we come and say.
[24:11] Because what is happening? We
[24:15] don't need to hide? I want to
[24:17] ask the same thing about the
[24:19] money, I don't understand. I
[24:21] try to come to the meetings. I
[24:24] tried to read and get a little
[24:25] understanding of what's going
[24:29] on. If we have a committee of
[24:31] three that suggested that we
[24:34] hire an engineer to come and
[24:37] give us another idea of how to
[24:38] maybe improve the stormwater,
[24:41] and we are not on the water.
[24:43] I've been living here since
[24:46] 1960. I don't think we ever had
[24:51] a house condemned because of
[24:58] flooding. So the you know, I if
[24:59] we need to do whatever we need
[25:02] to do is one thing, but this is
[25:04] what is this? Are we giving
[25:08] money away? It's crazy. It's
[25:11] crazy I so if we're not sure,
[25:15] why are we going to apply for a
[25:17] $6 million loan? I would like
[25:21] somebody to explain it simply.
[25:25] Simply as we says. Are we going
[25:28] gung ho on this or not? Now,
[25:31] regarding those recovery
[25:34] residences, you mean that I
[25:39] might have my neighbor's house
[25:43] as a rehab place? Is that the
[25:47] law? That is, we need to obey
[25:51] that I'm going to have some
[25:55] recovery. Drug addicts,
[25:58] whatever, living next to me. I
[26:01] would like somebody to tell me,
[26:04] where are we going? Is this
[26:06] necessary? Do we need to say
[26:08] yes? What are other
[26:11] municipalities doing? Can how
[26:13] about communicating with us and
[26:15] telling us what is happening,
[26:17] not just put it that you need
[26:19] to vote or you need to decide?
[26:20] I don't understand that part.
[26:23] Oh, do we have a building code?
[26:25] Do we have a good building code?
[26:27] If we have a good building code,
[26:30] like Brett says, why do we need
[26:33] to keep on giving variances?
[26:36] Please? I would like to know if
[26:38] we were working with Raquel
[26:41] Regalado and we were going to
[26:45] kind of give the $950,000. Why
[26:47] are the friends of the
[26:48] underlying now are going to
[26:50] enter into the picture and be
[26:53] consultants? So traffic circles,
[26:57] that's another issue. Please. I
[26:59] remember council was ready. You
[27:01] can you wrap it up okay.
[27:03] Council was ready to vote on
[27:07] putting plastic grass in the
[27:08] parking when we were
[27:10] reconfiguring and on on
[27:15] Fernwood, the the way we parked,
[27:17] you were all because Staff Jake
[27:20] Osman came here and said it was
[27:22] cheaper and you were ready to
[27:24] vote and say yes. If it wasn't
[27:26] for Brett Moss, that brought it
[27:28] again. And Mike Davie, we were
[27:31] going to have plastic grass for
[27:33] parking there. So can we just
[27:37] go slow? Is this an emergency
[27:40] please? Please. Okay. No more
[27:43] consultants like you are. A
[27:45] former council member used to
[28:00] say thank you. Mike Davie. Yeah.
[28:03] Son of a mike Davie, 50 Ocean
[28:06] Lane Drive. First, I do want to
[28:07] commend. We didn't nobody
[28:09] brought it up veterans day. I
[28:10] thought this year was
[28:12] especially you know we're we
[28:14] used to when I moved here first
[28:16] 20 something years ago. We had
[28:18] a lot of older veterans who
[28:20] were here, and they've gone now
[28:22] and they've passed. But. Well,
[28:24] not some of you, but you know,
[28:26] you're still around, but, you
[28:28] know, it's just it was a great
[28:30] event. I thought it was really
[28:31] well done. Well done. You know,
[28:33] your team always does a great
[28:34] job and the vets. So it's a
[28:36] great I love that event for Key
[28:38] Biscayne. It's so important
[28:39] that what we do here I'm here
[28:42] to talk about two things. I am
[28:43] really I appreciate that you
[28:45] funded the position for, for
[28:46] for special needs, for
[28:48] disability, you know, for for a
[28:49] coordinator. I think that's
[28:50] that's great. I'm really proud
[28:52] of this council for for moving
[28:53] forward. I regret that we
[28:55] didn't do it when I was up
[28:57] there. Two things I do want to
[28:58] talk about are the the
[29:00] revolving credit, the the state,
[29:02] the freshwater fund. As I
[29:03] understand it, I'm in support
[29:05] of it simply because it gives
[29:06] us a funding source. It doesn't
[29:08] obligate us to spend any money
[29:09] on this, doesn't obligate us to
[29:11] borrow. It just gives us and we
[29:13] have to stay current for this
[29:14] fiscal year. We need to be in
[29:16] the process. So that's why I'm
[29:17] asking you to support that
[29:18] moving forward on the
[29:19] Rickenbacker. We need to get
[29:21] going. We need we said we'd put
[29:23] up and we need to do it. So
[29:25] that's on the agenda tonight. I
[29:26] would ask that you all move
[29:28] forward with that. Let's keep
[29:29] this village going forward. We
[29:30] need to be moving. It's been
[29:32] how many years we've been
[29:33] talking about stormwater and
[29:34] undergrounding. Let's get going.
[29:36] You guys have the opportunity.
[29:38] So thanks very much. Have a
[29:40] great night. Thank you. Thanks.
[29:48] Next speaker, Brett Moss. Good
[29:50] evening, Brett Moss. 152 West
[29:53] Mashta Drive. Thank you to all
[29:55] of you. I know this is not easy.
[29:57] I've sat up there and some of
[29:58] the hardest parts are listening
[29:59] to everybody during public
[30:01] comments because I know all of
[30:03] you want to respond, but for
[30:05] time it's difficult to do. I'm
[30:07] here for two reasons. One of
[30:11] them. You know, I was not here
[30:13] when Key Biscayne Incorporated.
[30:15] I moved here 20 years ago. But
[30:17] I do think of myself, think to
[30:19] myself, what's the reason why
[30:21] we incorporated? And only one
[30:24] word comes to mind is called
[30:26] control. We want to control our
[30:29] destiny. We want to control our
[30:31] services. We want to control
[30:33] our assets. So I see on the
[30:34] agenda that you guys are
[30:36] talking about the conversion
[30:37] and transferring our lights to
[30:40] fpl, and I think you guys need
[30:41] to think hard about this,
[30:43] because I think it goes against
[30:45] what we one of the reasons why
[30:48] we incorporated, I'm sure there
[30:50] are other avenues where we can
[30:52] keep control of our assets,
[30:55] hire them to maintain them for
[30:56] us. And I would like to at
[30:58] least you guys to look into
[31:01] that. Second, I'm here for the
[31:02] variances that are being
[31:04] requested at 640 South Mashta.
[31:06] I know that you guys asked the
[31:08] Zork to look at it. I am the
[31:10] chair of the Zork currently. We
[31:13] did take a deep dive into it.
[31:15] We went through everything. It
[31:17] was unanimous that we were all
[31:22] against the variance. We we
[31:25] know that this is on a large
[31:28] lot. It's a regular sized lot.
[31:31] It first of all, a higher
[31:33] ceilings is not, to us a
[31:35] justifiable reason why you
[31:36] would ask for variance. And
[31:37] they they said it's
[31:38] unacceptable. High ceilings
[31:40] which they're a couple feet
[31:42] higher than my ceilings in my
[31:45] house. The way our code is
[31:47] designed for height is that you
[31:48] can achieve those ceiling
[31:50] heights that you want, but it's
[31:52] a trade off. By pushing the
[31:54] walls inwards, they would have
[31:56] to move it in about 18in on
[31:58] each side. They would achieve
[32:00] it. It's easy to be done. They
[32:02] have to go back and redesign it,
[32:03] do it like everybody else does
[32:06] it. There's no reason or any
[32:07] justification. They also asked
[32:08] for increasing the height of
[32:10] the rear yard. It's something
[32:12] that we're still discussing as
[32:14] a board, but we have not come
[32:16] down to whether we're going to
[32:18] recommend to you guys to
[32:19] increase it or not. We MAY we
[32:21] don't know how much it's going
[32:23] to be. So our strong feeling is
[32:25] that if they do want to do that,
[32:27] they should wait until you guys
[32:28] make a decision. This is not
[32:29] something that should go
[32:31] through the variance process.
[32:33] That is what we looked at. I
[32:35] have to go pick up my son if
[32:37] you want me to come back. If
[32:38] you want to ask questions
[32:39] during the hearing portion, I
[32:41] can come back. If not, just let
[32:42] me know. All right. Thank you,
[32:46] thank you, thank you for coming.
[32:54] Next. Speaker Gene Stearns.
[32:59] Three minutes. I got 30 minutes.
[33:02] MR. Mayor, council members. MR.
[33:05] Manager, MADAM Clerk, 250 k
[33:08] Florida Drive. Gene stearns,
[33:11] thank you for everything you do.
[33:14] I think it we're so fortunate
[33:16] to live in this island. It's
[33:18] not just that it's an island.
[33:21] It's a community. Police and
[33:23] fire rescue are phenomenal. Our
[33:25] public area maintenance is
[33:28] phenomenal. It's not perfect,
[33:31] but darn near close to perfect.
[33:32] And the care and attention that
[33:34] is paid in this village is
[33:37] absolutely appreciated. And I
[33:38] have to always remind people
[33:40] when I listen to the concerns
[33:41] that are expressed, that let
[33:43] people have legitimate concerns,
[33:45] we continue to have the lowest
[33:47] tax rate of any municipality in
[33:50] Dade County. I believe that MR.
[33:52] London has done a good job at
[33:53] looking at every nickel that's
[33:55] being spent unwisely, and
[33:57] reminds us all about it, and
[34:00] that's important because
[34:01] otherwise you're not hearing
[34:04] what needs to be heard. But one
[34:05] of the things that I think it's
[34:07] frustrating, any of us who've
[34:08] lived here a long time and I've
[34:11] lived here 53 years, is that
[34:14] we're surrounded by parks. And
[34:17] to get here, we have to go over
[34:18] a causeway. And that causeway
[34:20] has been poorly maintained for
[34:23] every year that I've been here.
[34:25] The causeway fund has been
[34:27] appropriated for other county
[34:30] purposes. Historically, they
[34:31] didn't spend money on
[34:32] maintenance. That left the
[34:34] Bearcat Bridge in a point of
[34:36] near failure, frankly, was
[34:38] close to failure when they
[34:39] discovered it, and it would be
[34:41] wonderful if the county paid
[34:43] better attention to our needs
[34:45] and the needs of the people
[34:47] that want to access the public
[34:49] parks on Key Biscayne, because
[34:52] our interest is is clear. We
[34:53] live here, but in a sense,
[34:56] we're also stewards of what we
[34:57] see around us. What's happening
[34:59] in Cape Florida, what's
[35:01] happening in that state park,
[35:02] what's happening in Crandon
[35:03] Park, what's happening on the
[35:05] Causeway. And if we wait for
[35:07] the county to do what it's
[35:09] supposed to do, I'll be long
[35:13] gone. MR. London will be long
[35:15] gone. The money that he's saved
[35:18] will not be spent. And and we
[35:20] have to do it because they're
[35:22] not going to do it. We can
[35:24] whine about it. We can complain
[35:25] about it. We can say they
[35:27] should do it. But left to their
[35:28] own devices, they would
[35:30] recreate on Rickenbacker
[35:33] Causeway what we see going over
[35:35] on on the islands, going to to
[35:38] the beach on Watson Island, a
[35:40] road that is mindlessly stupid.
[35:42] I mean, there's no other way to
[35:44] say it and frankly, paved from
[35:46] one end to the other. And
[35:47] that's what the county was
[35:50] planning for Virginia Key.
[35:53] Asphalt and concrete, and then
[35:55] requiring all kinds of
[35:57] expensive stormwater removal
[35:59] systems because the dirt is
[36:01] going to be gone. It's just
[36:03] going to be asphalt. So
[36:06] frustrated with this, a fellow
[36:08] came to see me who who was
[36:10] going to develop some land on
[36:12] Key Biscayne and named David
[36:14] Martin. I didn't know David,
[36:16] and he asked me if I'd get
[36:18] involved. I said, I don't do I
[36:19] never appear in front of the
[36:21] council and anything about
[36:23] anything that's not pro bono.
[36:25] And I don't help developers do
[36:27] anything. And I didn't know him.
[36:32] And but he's a nice gentleman.
[36:34] And on the way out he said, is
[36:35] there something I can do for
[36:37] Key Biscayne? I said, sure, how
[36:38] a bunch of really good
[36:40] engineers and design a causeway
[36:41] because the county isn't doing
[36:43] it. And that was a flippant
[36:44] comment. And the next thing I
[36:46] know, he did it. And so he
[36:48] hired some really, really
[36:49] bright people and spent a lot
[36:51] of time coming up with a design
[36:52] for the Causeway that has the
[36:54] misfortune of making sense. It
[36:58] not only provides access for us
[37:00] to get to and from the island,
[37:03] it provides our role. Frankly,
[37:04] it looking what's going on in
[37:06] the state park in Crandon Park
[37:07] to provide access to the people
[37:09] who own that land, that are
[37:10] entitled to use it without
[37:12] having to spend a day getting
[37:15] home. And so this plan just
[37:18] frankly just makes sense. And
[37:20] what it also does, and I give
[37:21] an awful lot of credit to our
[37:23] county commissioner, Raquel
[37:27] Regalado, who who is just
[37:29] really taking charge and
[37:31] identified the problem and has
[37:34] brought into the project the
[37:35] underlying and the funding
[37:37] mechanism for the underlying
[37:38] and the process that they've
[37:39] been involved in, and called
[37:41] this part of the project the
[37:43] shoreline. And I invite you all
[37:45] if you haven't done it, when
[37:47] you go in Virginia, key count
[37:49] the traffic lanes of asphalt
[37:52] that are on Virginia Key today.
[37:54] In some places, you have nine
[37:57] lanes of asphalt road. The plan
[37:58] that David Martin's engineers
[38:01] came up with turns all of that
[38:04] into a park, all of it, and
[38:07] provides access for us free,
[38:09] unencumbered access. It
[38:11] provides for bicyclists no
[38:13] conflict between cars and
[38:15] cyclists, because the access
[38:17] and egress for cars is on the
[38:19] inside lane, and the cyclists
[38:20] can stay either down or
[38:23] Virginia Key, or on the outside
[38:25] lanes and go straight through.
[38:27] It is something that if we
[38:29] don't do it, it is going to be
[38:31] a problem for us. It's unfair
[38:33] to ask anybody, David Martin or
[38:35] anyone else to keep funding it.
[38:37] And so that work is to the
[38:39] point where it can be funded.
[38:41] We just need to do it, because
[38:43] if we don't do it, nobody is
[38:45] and we're going to end up with
[38:48] a mess. So I urge you to do it.
[38:49] And I thank you for considering
[38:51] it. And I can tell you how
[38:53] important it is to this
[38:55] community. Thank you, thank you.
[38:58] Okay, MADAM Clerk, that's all
[39:00] cards I have. The next item is
[39:03] the agenda. Approval, deferrals,
[39:04] additions, deletions,
[39:07] substitutions and withdrawals.
[39:17] I'd like to pull 12 g. Roll g.
[39:25] G g g g g g. Okay. I got
[39:29] excited when I heard g. Because
[39:32] I'd like to suggest that we not
[39:36] deal tonight with nine g and
[39:37] with the discussion item on
[39:41] next part nine g. I think
[39:43] there's a lot of frustrations
[39:46] about variances, policies and
[39:48] procedures. These have to be
[39:50] addressed, I think, more
[39:52] comprehensively. These measures
[39:54] I don't think address what's
[39:56] really going on. And the cause
[39:58] that we're so concerned about
[40:01] for so long. So I'd rather I'd
[40:05] rather deal with this, you know,
[40:07] with Chad in a more
[40:10] comprehensive way than to adopt
[40:12] these measures or even waste
[40:14] time discussing them. Frankly,
[40:15] tonight, isn't there a deadline
[40:18] for the state for JANUARY 1st?
[40:24] Chad. I think that's nine d. I
[40:27] think what I'm talking about,
[40:28] the advisory board to deal with
[40:31] variances, that's nine g, nine
[40:34] g I'm sorry. That's my
[40:37] suggestion. You're asking to
[40:45] defer. Yep. Well. I don't know
[40:47] that we need to vote on it
[40:48] tonight. But I certainly would
[40:50] like to have some discussion. I
[40:53] think it needs to come out on
[40:56] nine g. Because just deferring
[40:59] it to what. Why don't we. We'll
[41:01] have a discussion item on mayor
[41:03] and council reports. The
[41:05] ex-parte part I want to deal
[41:07] with this, but I don't think
[41:09] these are the right way to deal
[41:10] with the problem. There is a
[41:11] problem. These aren't the
[41:13] solution, and I don't think
[41:16] they can be well, okay. You
[41:18] would like to add a discussion
[41:21] item. That's right. Yeah, yeah.
[41:24] Hold on. Have a discussion item.
[41:25] We have a discussion item on ex
[41:27] parte communications. Yeah,
[41:32] yeah. Frank on your item nine g.
[41:39] Are you willing to defer it? No,
[41:41] no not at this time I would I
[41:42] would like to have a discussion
[41:44] on it. We don't have we maybe
[41:46] we MAY defer on it after we
[41:48] discuss it. But I would like to
[41:50] have a discussion on it okay.
[41:51] Thank you. Frank. Frank, can I
[41:53] ask you a question? Your
[41:55] concern for the ordinance of.
[41:56] Thank you, Oscar, you're
[41:57] concerned about the ordinances
[41:59] is to just discuss this. The
[42:02] all the the all the zoning
[42:04] issues is one, one complete
[42:07] group specifically variances.
[42:09] Yeah. For for many years, we
[42:10] simply didn't deal with
[42:11] variances. They never came
[42:13] forward. And now we're dealing
[42:14] with them repeatedly. Right.
[42:16] And the point that Brett made
[42:19] earlier about justification is
[42:21] really is a problem for us. So
[42:23] we don't have. But in our
[42:24] current code we don't have any
[42:26] issue with a hardship. Now
[42:27] we're having a discussion
[42:28] without being able to have the
[42:29] benefit of having the
[42:31] discussion. So either we should,
[42:33] I think, defer it or not defer
[42:35] it. I'm in support of having
[42:36] the conversation. Okay. All
[42:38] right. We'll have a
[42:39] conversation and we'll we'll
[42:43] see where it goes. All right,
[42:46] MADAM Clerk, all those in favor
[42:48] of the agenda as amended? No,
[42:50] I've got a couple I want to do.
[42:52] Excuse me, I want to I want to
[42:55] take ten b, ten c and ten d and
[42:56] move those to a workshop. I'm
[42:59] sorry. Ten b, ten b, ten c and
[43:03] ten d and move those into an
[43:03] infrastructure workshop. I
[43:05] don't believe we can address
[43:07] these this time. There's these
[43:09] are super complicated issues d
[43:15] d b, ten b, c and d okay. And
[43:17] move those to an infrastructure
[43:19] workshop. Good. Where what
[43:21] workshop would that be. We'll
[43:23] create one. So you want to
[43:24] create an infrastructure
[43:26] workshop. Yeah okay. Not a
[43:28] committee. It's just a workshop.
[43:29] Workshop. Committee workshop.
[43:32] Is that a motion? Yes. Second.
[43:34] I'll second. Great. So for the
[43:36] record, the request was as part
[43:39] of deferrals would be ten b, c
[43:41] and d and then there to be a
[43:43] workshop on those items. Yes.
[43:45] Right. Just I know there's
[43:47] other items too, but I mean
[43:47] just for purposes of those
[43:49] three. Those three. Yes, sir.
[43:51] Just to understand ten b, ten c
[43:54] and ten d and ten d I don't
[43:56] think I mean my, I think we
[43:58] should talk about I don't mind
[44:00] ten b and ten c but ten d I
[44:01] think that's a subject to
[44:03] discuss today. I'd like to have
[44:05] that ready for discussion.
[44:06] That's a that's already been
[44:07] discussed at a workshop,
[44:09] already been discussed at ad
[44:10] hoc. So there's no need to go
[44:12] back to an infrastructure
[44:13] workshop. It doesn't make sense.
[44:15] I mean, clearly it's on the
[44:16] record, clearly what the
[44:17] position is prepared to be
[44:20] reported. So in my opinion, I
[44:23] don't think ten d merits a
[44:24] workshop. It's already been
[44:26] approved. You're talking about
[44:28] ten d ten d yeah, that's why i
[44:31] asked ten d it's been, it's I
[44:34] just heard ten b no it's b c
[44:37] and d right. So ten d has
[44:39] already gone through a workshop
[44:41] has already been discussed ad
[44:44] nauseam at the last ad hoc
[44:46] committee. I don't think it
[44:48] merits an additional what are
[44:50] we going to talk about. This is
[44:52] something that's already been
[44:53] discussed. It's something that
[44:56] is prepared to be voted on and
[44:58] to defer to a workshop. I just
[45:01] don't see the logic behind that.
[45:03] I'm good with your analysis.
[45:08] Thank you. I agree, I agree
[45:11] with Mike. So there was a
[45:13] motion and a second. Yeah. So
[45:17] we vote on ten b, c and d. You
[45:20] those that wish to defer it say
[45:25] I. Aye those opposed. No no nay
[45:26] Councilmember Kaplan and
[45:29] Councilmember Bosco and what
[45:30] happened. It's deferred.
[45:33] Deferred. Deferred motion
[45:37] carries three. Okay. I have a
[45:40] question for your item. Nine g.
[45:42] Would you be okay with treating
[45:44] it the same way and creating a
[45:46] workshop around that to go a
[45:47] little bit deeper on the
[45:49] variances, or do you still want
[45:51] to have that discussion? Well,
[45:53] this is because you mentioned
[45:54] you want to have a discussion
[45:55] workshop would allow that,
[45:57] right? My issue is, yeah, this
[45:59] has been brewing now I've been
[46:01] on council for a year. This has
[46:03] been brewing for a year and I
[46:04] don't know. Now we're getting
[46:05] to Thanksgiving, Christmas
[46:07] where we're going to have a
[46:08] workshop and I think we need to
[46:10] discuss it. It I don't know if
[46:12] we need to make a decision on
[46:14] today, but I think we need to
[46:16] discuss what's going on. I'm
[46:18] discussing I support discussion,
[46:23] okay. Anything else? All right.
[46:26] All those in favor of the
[46:28] agenda changes, I I'm sorry.
[46:31] Was there an objection? No.
[46:35] Okay. Motion carries. The next
[46:38] item is a special recognition
[46:53] for Officer Gordon r Spitler.
[46:56] Good evening. Mayor, Council
[46:58] manager, before we start with
[47:00] the special recognition, I just
[47:01] want to thank the mayor for
[47:03] acknowledging the last week in
[47:05] Dade County has been extremely
[47:06] difficult for law enforcement.
[47:08] And we did have members at both
[47:09] services, including today. So
[47:11] thank you for acknowledging
[47:13] that. But let's celebrate some
[47:14] good stuff, because we don't
[47:17] get to do that often. And it's
[47:19] with great pride that I stand
[47:21] here before you today to
[47:23] formally recognize Officer
[47:25] Gordon Spitler for his
[47:27] exemplary actions on Friday,
[47:29] OCTOBER 17th of this year, we
[47:30] received a request from
[47:31] Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office
[47:33] with an emergency at Hovey
[47:35] Beach involving an overturned
[47:36] kayak and two distressed
[47:38] swimmers. And at the time,
[47:40] Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office
[47:41] didn't have available vessels
[47:42] to respond. Officer Spitler was
[47:43] dispatched and promptly arrived
[47:45] in the area, and he was
[47:47] directed to where the victim's
[47:48] location was. Upon locating
[47:50] both individuals who were in
[47:51] the water, he observed that
[47:53] they were visibly in distress
[47:55] and struggling to stay afloat,
[47:56] and despite operating as a one
[47:58] man unit, he demonstrated
[48:00] exceptional composure, decisive
[48:02] action under pressure as he
[48:04] positioned his vessel to safely
[48:05] render immediate aid. He
[48:07] immediately recognized one of
[48:08] the swimmers was in severe
[48:10] distress, but he maneuvered
[48:11] closer and successfully brought
[48:12] that individual aboard by
[48:14] physically hoisting him from
[48:16] the water. Despite the victim's
[48:18] exhaustion and lack of mobility,
[48:19] he immediately placed the
[48:20] individual into a recovery
[48:23] position and began to monitor
[48:23] their condition while
[48:25] simultaneously coordinating the
[48:26] rescue of the second swimmer.
[48:28] Through his calm leadership
[48:29] sound judgment, both victims
[48:31] were safely recovered and
[48:32] transported to the dock area at
[48:33] Miami, Seaquarium, for medical
[48:35] assistance. His quick response,
[48:37] courage, and prompt execution
[48:39] of his duties directly resulted
[48:40] in the preservation of two
[48:42] lives. His actions exemplify
[48:43] the highest standards of public
[48:45] service and bring great credit
[48:47] upon himself and the Key
[48:48] Biscayne community. Therefore,
[48:50] I am extremely proud to award
[48:52] Officer Gordon Spitler with the
[48:54] agency's Lifesaving Award for
[48:55] his heroic actions and
[48:57] dedication to duty. During this
[49:14] incident. Gordon.
[49:18] He's afraid
[49:20] to have you talk, so I'm just
[49:22] going to do it anyways. I just
[49:24] want to tell you, and for the
[49:25] people here, we're a community
[49:27] and it starts from the
[49:28] residents here because I've
[49:29] been doing this for 30 years.
[49:31] You can see all the stripes
[49:32] even more than the chief has
[49:34] there. So it starts from the
[49:35] community. You're supporting
[49:37] the village council and making
[49:39] these village council people
[49:41] who then pick a great chief and
[49:43] the chief then supports us. And
[49:45] with your budget, you guys make
[49:47] it so he's able to give us the
[49:48] best training that departments
[49:50] get. And with that training
[49:52] that we get and the equipment
[49:53] we get, we're able to go out
[49:55] there and help the community
[49:57] and do rescues that we do out
[49:58] here for the village. And
[49:59] always, as the village manager
[50:01] says, you know, we keep this
[50:02] place safe and secure. So thank
[50:04] you for your support always and
[50:06] what you do for us. Thank you,
[50:16] thank you. Thanks, Tom. Gordon,
[50:17] on behalf of this community, we
[50:19] want to thank you for your
[50:21] service here. Great job. Thank
[50:30] you. MADAM Clerk. I'd like to
[50:33] move up since our commissioner
[50:37] is here, let's move ten a
[50:41] forward. Okay. A resolution of
[50:43] the village council of the
[50:45] Village of Key Biscayne,
[50:46] Florida, approving a memorandum
[50:47] of understanding with the
[50:49] friends of the underline.
[50:51] Underline, Inc. For advisory
[50:52] services relating to the
[50:54] Rickenbacker Causeway in an
[50:57] amount not to exceed $950,000,
[50:58] providing for waiver of
[50:59] competitive bidding, providing
[51:01] for authorization, and
[51:03] providing for an effective date
[51:05] move moved second properly
[51:07] before us. MR. Manager, you
[51:10] want to lead us off? Yes, MR.
[51:13] Mayor, and yes, MR. Mayor and
[51:14] Council members, I do want to
[51:15] recognize. I do believe the
[51:17] commissioner is here. I'm sorry.
[51:18] There she is. We also have with
[51:20] us also the ceo of the friends
[51:22] of the Underline, as well as
[51:24] the, we hope, the team from
[51:25] Serbia who's going to be doing
[51:27] with us. So what we have before
[51:28] you and what we brought
[51:30] together is a memorandum of
[51:31] understanding, as well as the
[51:33] proposal to execute this
[51:34] project. This is something
[51:35] we've been working on very
[51:37] closely with the friends of The
[51:38] Underline, as well as the
[51:39] consultants that are bringing
[51:41] on. Some people MAY ask, why
[51:42] are we bringing on the
[51:43] underlying? We're bringing them
[51:45] on because of their expertise,
[51:46] their experience, and also
[51:48] their access to these
[51:51] consultants. We believe the Mou
[51:53] we put together reflects both
[51:55] the village's priorities
[51:58] primarily, as well as creating
[51:59] what MR. Stearns talked about
[52:01] before, an opportunity to
[52:03] create a regional destination.
[52:06] So the work has been done, the
[52:07] money has been set aside, and
[52:09] now we have in front of you is
[52:11] the opportunity to make the
[52:12] decision to move forward with
[52:15] this project any time.
[52:19] Questions on the board. Steve.
[52:22] Question if we. Comparative
[52:24] analysis study based on the
[52:26] last page of the project budget.
[52:28] Can you give me an idea of what
[52:30] it would be? The cost would be
[52:32] to basically do the design
[52:33] comparable for what the county
[52:35] is going to going to do this
[52:38] proposing and what Rigoletto's
[52:40] plan is proposing. I'm not I'm
[52:41] not sure I'm getting what
[52:43] you're saying. Okay. So I was
[52:44] just trying to understand if in
[52:46] the in the budget line items
[52:47] here, you got task one through
[52:49] through seven, is there a
[52:50] specific task there that's
[52:52] doing a comparison between what
[52:53] the county's plan would cost
[52:56] and what their plan would cost?
[52:58] No, there is not, because I
[53:00] don't think the county's plan
[53:01] is far enough along in order
[53:03] for it to make sense. But in a
[53:06] big scheme, big course it is.
[53:07] Yeah. There's no there. There's
[53:10] no way to get a baseline for
[53:11] those two. Maybe, maybe Raquel
[53:14] can address that. I'm happy to
[53:16] respond to that. Yeah. So the
[53:18] so the county does have a plan
[53:20] for Burkhardt. And as you know,
[53:21] we've talked about how we've
[53:23] kind of put a pin in the Nepa
[53:25] and we did extend it
[53:26] geographically, but the county
[53:29] does not have in the budget
[53:31] anything for the complete redo
[53:33] of the Rickenbacker. What they
[53:35] have is some funding that we've
[53:37] set aside for immediate fixes
[53:39] that we've talked about, and
[53:41] we've had other public meetings
[53:43] about and we're actively
[53:44] working on, but there is no
[53:47] funding for the Rickenbacker.
[53:49] We did ensure in the last
[53:51] budget that the money that is
[53:52] being collected for the tolls,
[53:54] and I spoke about that when I
[53:56] was here last time, was going
[53:58] to pay all the debt for the
[54:00] William Powell, because I want
[54:02] to make sure as we reset the
[54:04] Nepa, that we can go out for a
[54:06] bigger bond to do all of the
[54:07] Rickenbacker, including the
[54:10] bear cut. So that is already
[54:12] baked in. But in the county
[54:14] budget, there is no money for
[54:17] the Rickenbacker post. The
[54:19] immediate changes that we're
[54:20] making now, and that's why we
[54:22] didn't have a comparison. I
[54:24] have met with our state and
[54:26] federal partners about changes
[54:29] to the Nepa, and they're open
[54:31] to that. And as we discussed
[54:32] last time, the county really
[54:35] has not moved forward on the
[54:37] Nepa. They're waiting for us to
[54:39] do this planning so we can all
[54:43] kind of catch up together.
[54:46] Happy to take any other
[54:50] questions. Brief question.
[54:52] Commissioner, thank you for
[54:54] always. Thank you for coming
[54:56] over with the the investment
[54:59] that we're making. I fully
[55:01] concur that it's duly necessary.
[55:02] We have to move forward with
[55:04] this. We have to provide our
[55:08] own input on it. And but in the
[55:11] process of evaluating and
[55:12] seeing and doing our due
[55:14] diligence, one of the things
[55:15] that I'm always concerned about
[55:17] is what is it that can we do
[55:18] that is not infrastructure
[55:21] related, but that provides more
[55:23] cohesion between the different
[55:24] agencies? When we have big
[55:27] events or big issues. So we can
[55:29] we can do it better. I don't
[55:31] know what that solution is, but
[55:33] it seems to me. So that's part
[55:35] of our working on right now
[55:37] plan. And we have several
[55:38] meetings on that. And we are
[55:40] counting cars. We are getting
[55:42] the zip code information. We
[55:43] are meeting with the
[55:46] stakeholders and your manager's
[55:48] part of those meetings. So yes,
[55:50] council member and I believe I
[55:51] sent out an update about two
[55:53] weeks ago. I'll forward it to
[55:54] you. It's actually moving
[55:55] pretty quickly. They've
[55:57] committed to have a
[55:58] transportation maintenance plan
[56:00] or management plan in place by
[56:02] the beginning of the season. By
[56:03] JANUARY, we've asked them to
[56:05] put that in place. It'll help
[56:07] us communicate, coordinate any
[56:09] events or peak season traffic,
[56:11] and also find short term, as
[56:13] you mentioned, short term
[56:15] infrastructure solutions that
[56:17] will reduce the impact on my
[56:19] return on investment that are
[56:21] looking for on my end. My staff
[56:24] has been working and we are
[56:25] purchasing the signs. So we
[56:27] have worked with fdot and we
[56:28] are making the purchase of the
[56:30] signs. So we'll go back. We
[56:31] have talked to fdot. They're
[56:33] going to let us put some
[56:34] information on the signage that
[56:35] already exists, but we were
[56:37] told by the state that we could
[56:40] not put information regarding
[56:44] the closure of Crandon or the
[56:46] closure of Bill Baggs on their
[56:49] signage. They can only put
[56:50] information on street closures
[56:52] on their signage. So we're
[56:54] going to go ahead and we're
[56:55] going to be purchasing those
[56:57] signs with the county and
[57:00] placing them in different parts,
[57:02] because again, we're going into
[57:05] high season, we need to give
[57:08] people a heads up. So we're
[57:08] going to be making that
[57:10] investment and listen on
[57:12] unrelated but related, right? I
[57:15] have been working on some
[57:18] issues with sargassum, and I've
[57:19] met with your manager, and we
[57:21] are going to be bringing you a
[57:23] plan to save you some money on
[57:25] sargassum side. So we were able
[57:27] to to move some things around
[57:29] there, and I'll bring that to
[57:31] you in the next two months. So
[57:34] and I've also made requests to
[57:35] private donors to help us with
[57:37] this plan. So we're we're open
[57:40] to that. We have a few people
[57:41] that have said that they have
[57:43] an interest, and I'm going to
[57:44] keep working on that. So as
[57:47] soon as we if as soon as we get
[57:48] those commitments, we'll, we'll
[57:51] take we'll lower this amount as
[57:55] much as possible. So. Yeah, I'm
[57:57] glad that you brought that up
[57:59] because I think that that has
[58:02] been certainly been my attempt
[58:05] to, to take on this situation
[58:07] here. And one, as I've always
[58:09] said, there's a short term fix
[58:11] because this infrastructure
[58:12] project is not going to happen
[58:14] overnight. So there's a short
[58:16] term fix which is doing the
[58:18] kinds of things that we're
[58:20] doing to understand the traffic
[58:22] patterns and to have a better
[58:24] maintenance of traffic plans
[58:26] that are in place. And and
[58:29] those are with the county and
[58:31] the city and working together.
[58:33] And then there is what we're
[58:35] talking about here tonight,
[58:39] which is, as someone said, no
[58:41] one's going to do this for us.
[58:42] Nobody nobody's going to do
[58:44] this for us. Nobody's going to
[58:46] step up. This is this is Key
[58:49] Biscayne issue. So if it's Key
[58:50] Biscayne issue, we got to put
[58:52] Key Biscayne money in it to try
[58:54] to, to to find what those
[58:56] solutions are. And those
[58:58] solutions have to do with our
[59:00] being able to get in and out of
[59:02] our homes. Okay. And nobody
[59:05] really pardon me, MADAM
[59:07] Commissioner, but nobody really
[59:10] cares about about our issue.
[59:15] Okay. So this is our attempt to
[59:17] go forward and do something to
[59:19] figure out whether this this
[59:22] dream is feasible. If the dream
[59:23] is not feasible, we'll go to
[59:26] plan b. But but this is a good,
[59:28] good start. And this is what we
[59:30] need to do to get to the to the
[59:33] next phase of of solving in on
[59:34] a long term basis. We're
[59:37] working on the short term, but
[59:38] we're also working on the long
[59:41] term. And I want to say I've
[59:42] also brought an item to the tpo
[59:44] and we're working on that. And
[59:46] we should roll that out
[59:48] hopefully by the beginning of
[59:50] the year. Also for some busses.
[59:52] So one of the things that we're
[59:53] doing is we're going to be
[59:55] counting cars at the different
[59:56] locations, and then we're going
[59:58] to be working with the city and
[1:00:00] private vendors to do busses
[1:00:01] for these events. And we're
[1:00:03] going to have people park at
[1:00:05] our Metrorail stations and then
[1:00:07] bus them in and out. So we are
[1:00:09] looking at finding a way to
[1:00:11] limit the cars in whatever way
[1:00:13] possible. We are planning on
[1:00:15] using that same system for Art
[1:00:17] Basel. So it's not this is not
[1:00:18] the only place that it's going
[1:00:20] to be used, but I think here it
[1:00:22] would be very impactful. Okay.
[1:00:23] So seemingly you're getting
[1:00:25] some good feedback from all the
[1:00:27] stakeholders. The county
[1:00:28] willingness to slow down the
[1:00:30] Nepa with the bare cut. That's
[1:00:32] a good sign. Now you're talking
[1:00:33] about potentially looking at
[1:00:35] events and transportation.
[1:00:36] That's certainly to me is an
[1:00:38] update from the last time we
[1:00:40] spoke. Anything else that you
[1:00:41] could shed on feeling how
[1:00:42] you're feeling about those
[1:00:44] stakeholders and their take on
[1:00:46] all of this? I know the county
[1:00:47] had a plan then I was looking
[1:00:50] at ours or I say ours. But what
[1:00:52] about Miami? What about the
[1:00:54] city? I've met with several.
[1:00:55] Obviously we're waiting for the
[1:00:57] City of Miami election, right?
[1:00:59] But yes, I've met with the the
[1:01:01] elected officials at the city
[1:01:03] of Miami that are staying post
[1:01:05] this election. And they've all
[1:01:07] first, they have a relationship
[1:01:08] already existing with the
[1:01:10] underline. And I think that's
[1:01:12] important. And secondly, they
[1:01:14] are interested in a solution. I
[1:01:16] have also been talking to them
[1:01:17] about the convergence. So we
[1:01:18] have also been talking about
[1:01:20] potentially working on the
[1:01:22] convergence and a connector. So,
[1:01:24] you know, we're also talking
[1:01:26] about just connecting trails
[1:01:28] and bikeways in generally. And
[1:01:29] that's been something that's
[1:01:31] been very positive. There were
[1:01:33] some folks on the city count,
[1:01:35] the city commission that were
[1:01:37] anti, you know, that kind of
[1:01:38] thing. They're not there
[1:01:41] anymore. So so I think that all
[1:01:42] helps. And we have been talking
[1:01:44] to them about Virginia Key and
[1:01:45] their plans for Virginia Key
[1:01:46] and obviously the Marine
[1:01:48] Stadium. I actually worked with
[1:01:50] the city of Miami on the
[1:01:52] memorandum of transit that was
[1:01:54] embedded in the rfp for the
[1:01:56] Marine Stadium, but that has
[1:01:58] fallen through. So we now have
[1:02:00] to regroup with them. And we
[1:02:01] have been meeting with the
[1:02:03] sheriff on this issue, because
[1:02:04] now there's another party
[1:02:06] involved in this. We have been
[1:02:09] we've spoken to we've spoken to
[1:02:11] noaa. So all along, you know,
[1:02:13] the you know, the Rickenbacker,
[1:02:14] we've reached out to everyone
[1:02:16] and everyone's excited about it.
[1:02:18] I can tell you in terms of
[1:02:19] update at the federal level and
[1:02:21] at the state level, there is
[1:02:22] interest in this idea of
[1:02:24] reclaiming the road. And I
[1:02:26] think there's a lot of interest
[1:02:29] by private fundraisers. Also,
[1:02:31] like private foundations are
[1:02:32] interested in this idea of
[1:02:34] resiliency and reclaiming. So I
[1:02:36] think, as I said before, as a
[1:02:38] stormwater project and as a
[1:02:40] resiliency project, I think it
[1:02:41] really has potential to get
[1:02:43] funding through that venue. And
[1:02:43] we're continually working on
[1:02:47] that. Raquel, can you share any,
[1:02:49] any numbers as far as private
[1:02:50] donations? The hours that I've
[1:02:52] made. Right. So the asset I've
[1:02:56] made to date is 165 is what
[1:02:59] I've asked for. So I have
[1:02:59] people working on that. So that
[1:03:01] would that would go against the
[1:03:06] 950. Yes. Okay. Okay. As we
[1:03:09] work on memorializing Mo, we've
[1:03:11] certainly had a lot of
[1:03:12] experience with what doesn't
[1:03:15] work. So let's please keep in
[1:03:17] mind lessons learned as we as
[1:03:20] we work on that. I agree with
[1:03:22] the redevelopment of the
[1:03:25] Seaquarium. Maybe it's time to
[1:03:27] relook at the water taxi
[1:03:29] connecting to Bayside and and
[1:03:31] maybe the Grove. There is going
[1:03:34] to be. There is a submerged
[1:03:36] land piece that goes with that,
[1:03:38] and there is going to be some
[1:03:38] dredging because obviously
[1:03:40] there's going to be a Marina.
[1:03:42] So that's something that we can
[1:03:43] look into. The issue with that
[1:03:45] in the past has been the
[1:03:47] manatees. However, that manatee
[1:03:49] map is being redone, so I'm
[1:03:51] happy to talk to the state
[1:03:53] about that again. That's one of
[1:03:54] the things that's supposed to
[1:03:56] come back to the county soon.
[1:04:00] Great. Yes, I will say on that.
[1:04:02] And again, this this aquarium
[1:04:03] item went to committee and it
[1:04:06] goes before the full board, the
[1:04:08] Marina and the dry dock there,
[1:04:11] I think will also help us in
[1:04:14] the future with some of the
[1:04:16] boat traffic. So, I mean, I
[1:04:18] think that's one of the, one of
[1:04:19] the things that that I focused
[1:04:21] on on that piece is there
[1:04:22] really is a tremendous need. So
[1:04:24] I think that will help us
[1:04:25] somewhat. And that's something
[1:04:29] that we can we can plan for. I
[1:04:31] think when we now as we know
[1:04:33] more about how this aquarium is
[1:04:34] going to be used, we need to
[1:04:36] put that into our system in
[1:04:38] terms of the counting and the
[1:04:40] humans. Right. And when they're
[1:04:42] coming. But the programing of
[1:04:45] that space is going to be all
[1:04:47] the time. It's not going to be
[1:04:48] at peak times, which is the
[1:04:50] issue that we have with the
[1:04:51] Marine Stadium and with
[1:04:53] Virginia Key. Is there going to
[1:04:54] be a it MAY not be determined
[1:04:56] yet, but is there going to be a
[1:04:58] launch in that Marina? Yes.
[1:05:00] Okay. There is a launch in that
[1:05:02] Marina. Once upon a time, this
[1:05:04] aquarium did have a little boat
[1:05:05] that used to go around that
[1:05:07] area. So this aquarium lease
[1:05:09] and what I'm presenting to the
[1:05:11] Board of County commissioners
[1:05:13] doesn't have any new uses. It
[1:05:15] only has augmented of the
[1:05:17] existing uses. So because there
[1:05:20] was a dock and a boat, there is
[1:05:22] how we get to a Marina and a
[1:05:24] dry dock, because those things
[1:05:29] existed in a smaller form. So.
[1:05:31] I think the project is
[1:05:32] fantastic. I think it's
[1:05:35] beautiful. I think the
[1:05:37] elevation, the viaduct, I think
[1:05:39] additional beach, I think all
[1:05:40] of it's fantastic. And more
[1:05:43] importantly, we have you and I
[1:05:44] think really Key Biscayne is
[1:05:46] very fortunate to have a
[1:05:47] commissioner like you. And when
[1:05:49] you feel the same way, you're
[1:05:51] going to be the best mayor we
[1:05:52] have in the county. I think
[1:05:53] you're bright, you're dynamic,
[1:05:55] you're persuasive, you're
[1:05:56] diligent, you're forward
[1:05:57] thinking, you're creative, and
[1:05:59] you're one hell of a saleswoman.
[1:06:01] Okay? One hell of a saleswoman.
[1:06:02] And you've basically convinced
[1:06:04] these people. I mean, I'm
[1:06:05] probably the only person you
[1:06:07] haven't convinced to give you
[1:06:09] $250,000. Well, for 11 years,
[1:06:10] I've been examining budgets,
[1:06:12] trying in vain to make the
[1:06:14] village more efficient. Most of
[1:06:16] my efforts have been in vain.
[1:06:17] They've been failures. We
[1:06:19] continued over budget, over
[1:06:22] staff and over expend. But I
[1:06:23] don't know of anything we've
[1:06:26] done or have thought of doing
[1:06:28] with the information we have.
[1:06:31] There's a bigger waste of
[1:06:32] $950,000, and I can think of
[1:06:34] and I'll tell you why. First of
[1:06:36] all, to go ahead and pay the
[1:06:38] engineers to continue, the
[1:06:40] engineers, the architects,
[1:06:41] everybody for you to do the
[1:06:43] outreach for you to do the
[1:06:44] license. I think that's great,
[1:06:46] except and I think, as Mike
[1:06:50] said, we have no idea if
[1:06:51] financially this can make any
[1:06:54] possible sense. And the reason
[1:06:56] I say that is because we don't
[1:06:58] have a ballpark estimate, not a
[1:07:00] detailed line estimate with
[1:07:02] 10,000 lines and saying down to
[1:07:04] the last yard of concrete and a
[1:07:06] ton of steel, it's going to
[1:07:08] cost this versus the project
[1:07:09] we've seen the county wants to
[1:07:11] do, which is like, well, humps
[1:07:14] and lumps basically have humps
[1:07:16] go over things and people go
[1:07:18] underneath good and cheap and
[1:07:21] no comparison to this. But
[1:07:23] there's a cost factor. And
[1:07:25] since I know you probably all
[1:07:26] convinced to give the 950 at
[1:07:28] this point, consider this.
[1:07:30] Consider what Mike was saying.
[1:07:31] Consider the fact that let's
[1:07:33] give an amount of money that we
[1:07:35] can go ahead and get a ballpark
[1:07:37] estimate for the two things.
[1:07:38] Come back with adult to see
[1:07:40] what that cost. And is that
[1:07:42] practical? Is that possible? Is
[1:07:44] that feasible? Can it be
[1:07:46] financeable? Can the money be
[1:07:47] raised before we go forward?
[1:07:49] Because, as you said, we
[1:07:50] shouldn't have said this.
[1:07:52] Rachel, you said this is my
[1:07:54] first ask. It's not my last,
[1:07:56] it's the first ask. And you
[1:07:59] know what? City of Miami is not
[1:08:00] paying a penny to this. Dade
[1:08:02] County is not putting a penny
[1:08:04] to this. The state of Florida
[1:08:05] with the park is not putting a
[1:08:08] penny to this. The federal
[1:08:09] government with Noah and the
[1:08:10] fisheries, they're not putting
[1:08:12] pennies. Now, of course, we
[1:08:13] have more money than all they
[1:08:15] do, but we have more money than
[1:08:16] they do. And so we're being
[1:08:18] asked to do it. And you know
[1:08:20] what? I don't mind doing some
[1:08:22] of the stuff. And if the whole
[1:08:23] thing makes sense, if
[1:08:24] dynamically we can look at it
[1:08:27] and say, hey, you know what,
[1:08:27] it's next to $200 million, $200
[1:08:29] million over 30 years, 8
[1:08:31] million, $9 million a year.
[1:08:32] That's a doable number. So
[1:08:34] let's go ahead and move forward
[1:08:35] and let's spend the money,
[1:08:37] because once we do that, we
[1:08:39] have to convince the county and
[1:08:40] everybody else involved that
[1:08:43] it's feasible. Now, if we know
[1:08:44] what it's going to cost, we can
[1:08:46] do that. But if we have no idea
[1:08:48] and we don't know what's going
[1:08:51] to happen, I mean, I you're
[1:08:52] much better salesperson than me,
[1:08:54] but let me tell you, I've been
[1:08:55] selling vacuum cleaners,
[1:08:56] encyclopedias and every other
[1:08:57] damn thing my whole life. And
[1:08:59] when you get the facts, it's
[1:09:00] really easy to sell things. And
[1:09:02] we don't have the facts. We
[1:09:03] don't have the major fact,
[1:09:04] which is the cost differential
[1:09:07] between the two things. At the
[1:09:07] end of the project, will we
[1:09:09] have estimates? That's the
[1:09:11] point. Yes. We will have a cost
[1:09:12] estimate. Well, once we have a
[1:09:13] cost estimate we can decide
[1:09:15] where to go. That's what I'm
[1:09:16] saying. Pay for the cost
[1:09:18] estimate. So how you want to
[1:09:19] get there. Well you don't want
[1:09:21] to get because you have enough
[1:09:22] information now to do both. You
[1:09:24] don't need any more okay. Not a
[1:09:26] line by line, a ballpark
[1:09:28] estimate. Okay. You might be
[1:09:29] off by 20 or $30 million, but
[1:09:31] that doesn't matter in the
[1:09:32] scheme of things. The scheme of
[1:09:34] things is if we if this thing
[1:09:36] can work, I'm 100% for it. But
[1:09:38] we got to know what the numbers
[1:09:39] are, how many millions or
[1:09:41] hundreds of millions of dollars
[1:09:42] difference is going to be, and
[1:09:44] then how are you going to
[1:09:45] finance it for 30 years and
[1:09:46] then move forward? So I'm
[1:09:48] proposing, since I know if I
[1:09:50] don't propose this, you're
[1:09:52] going to give the 950 to give
[1:09:53] an amount of money to go ahead
[1:09:55] and get a ballpark estimate for
[1:09:58] the county, the bumps and lumps
[1:09:59] system and this beautiful,
[1:10:03] fantastic system. So if you
[1:10:04] allow me and respectfully, I'll
[1:10:06] tell you anything you want.
[1:10:09] Thank you. I see your point.
[1:10:11] And I will tell you, as someone
[1:10:13] who's been doing this for a
[1:10:15] while, the problem with your
[1:10:17] approach is that that has not
[1:10:20] given us results in the past.
[1:10:22] The underline is a perfect
[1:10:24] example of how a planning
[1:10:27] project that included outreach
[1:10:28] because it included outreach,
[1:10:30] community buy in and built with
[1:10:32] the community wanted. That is
[1:10:34] what moved the needle with the
[1:10:36] state and with the county. The
[1:10:38] underline is the first project
[1:10:40] to be done on time and on
[1:10:42] budget at the county for over
[1:10:44] 35 years, and it was done this
[1:10:46] way, and it's had a tremendous
[1:10:49] impact and success. We could
[1:10:51] sit with some planners and come
[1:10:53] up with a sketch and give you a
[1:10:55] number, but if it doesn't have
[1:10:57] community buy in, if it's not
[1:10:59] building what people want, if
[1:11:01] it can't tell the stakeholders
[1:11:02] that this is what their voters
[1:11:05] want to see, then I can't get
[1:11:06] the money at the state level
[1:11:08] and at the county level and at
[1:11:10] the federal level. And if it
[1:11:12] isn't layered in a way that
[1:11:14] allows us to take different
[1:11:17] buckets of funding, then I only
[1:11:20] have one ask to one entity, you
[1:11:22] know, and the underlying we
[1:11:25] have bioswales, you know, we
[1:11:26] have stormwater, we have
[1:11:28] transit, we have trail, we have
[1:11:31] park. This is a very similar
[1:11:34] and and more complex plan. And
[1:11:36] that's why it has a
[1:11:39] multi-layered approach that
[1:11:41] requires a level of
[1:11:42] sophistication in the planning
[1:11:44] for us to take it to the next
[1:11:46] step. Now, I you have my word
[1:11:48] that I am working on all the
[1:11:50] financing vehicles available to
[1:11:52] the county in order to make
[1:11:54] this happen. I'm buying down
[1:11:56] the debt, you know, so that we
[1:11:59] can bond and and we're putting
[1:12:01] a pin on the bear cut. Because
[1:12:03] what I don't want is for the
[1:12:06] county to move forward. Not
[1:12:07] with the Rickenbacker fix, but
[1:12:10] with the bear cut and shut the
[1:12:12] Rickenbacker down right for
[1:12:13] four years, which is
[1:12:14] essentially what could happen.
[1:12:16] What happened to us before with
[1:12:17] the William Powell. So there is
[1:12:19] an economic impact there for
[1:12:21] Key Biscayne. There was in the
[1:12:23] past, and there will be if we
[1:12:25] continue to follow the county's
[1:12:27] path. I am not a conventional
[1:12:28] commissioner. I do not do
[1:12:30] things conventionally. I do not
[1:12:33] do it the county way. But I
[1:12:35] have a track record of success,
[1:12:37] you know, and when I stood
[1:12:40] before you in 2010, when Frank
[1:12:42] was here and I said we would do
[1:12:44] Master Academy, you know, it
[1:12:46] was a very difficult sell and
[1:12:48] we did it. And there it is. So
[1:12:50] I stand here with my track
[1:12:52] record and you have my word not
[1:12:53] because I'm a good salesperson,
[1:12:55] but because I'm someone that
[1:12:57] maybe, but because I keep my
[1:12:59] word. I've put the time in on
[1:13:00] this. And the county also
[1:13:02] believes that I have the
[1:13:03] ability to move this forward.
[1:13:05] And I think the team that we
[1:13:07] put together is a stellar one.
[1:13:08] And you have accountability
[1:13:10] every month. You can call us in
[1:13:11] here whenever you want to call
[1:13:13] us in here on this mou and ask
[1:13:15] us to provide details on
[1:13:17] exactly what we're doing with
[1:13:18] this funding. And I'm happy to
[1:13:20] provide you with that
[1:13:21] accountability. It is actually
[1:13:23] baked into the plan. I have a
[1:13:25] quick question with you. I'm
[1:13:27] asking you to do it any way
[1:13:28] different. Okay. Just you know,
[1:13:29] your business. You know how to
[1:13:31] do things, you know how to get
[1:13:32] things done. That's why you're
[1:13:34] going to be a great mayor. And
[1:13:36] I'm 100% behind you. But I
[1:13:37] still think before we go
[1:13:38] forward, you can still do all
[1:13:40] those things. But when you have
[1:13:41] the number, what the ballpark
[1:13:43] is to do the two things, and
[1:13:45] now you do it and you tell all
[1:13:46] these people that it's a viable
[1:13:48] thing, it's financially viable.
[1:13:49] It makes your sale that much
[1:13:50] easier. That's all. That's
[1:13:51] where I'm coming from. MR.
[1:13:53] Mayor, I have a quick question.
[1:13:54] I don't know if that was
[1:13:56] brought up or not. Briefly. How
[1:13:57] are we doing with the P.D.A?
[1:13:59] The P.D.A start already. So it
[1:14:01] started. We had like the first
[1:14:02] meeting, but that's all that's
[1:14:04] happened. Like, right. But I
[1:14:07] mean, is it fair, is it fair to
[1:14:10] state that this possible
[1:14:11] alternative that you're
[1:14:13] evaluating would have to be
[1:14:15] part of that? P.D.A. Yes.
[1:14:17] That's why the rush to get it
[1:14:19] done. Right. Exactly. So
[1:14:21] sometimes we we, we fault
[1:14:22] ourselves for trying to divine
[1:14:24] projects and trying to get
[1:14:25] ahead of the curve. And that's
[1:14:28] what you just heard right now.
[1:14:30] And but, but, but the fact is
[1:14:31] that there's a logistical
[1:14:32] component. I'd like to remind
[1:14:34] the council and the public, too,
[1:14:35] that there's a logistical
[1:14:37] component that we have to
[1:14:38] understand what this shoreline,
[1:14:40] this viaduct is going to look
[1:14:42] like in order not to stall the
[1:14:43] federal funding, the possible
[1:14:45] federal funding that would be
[1:14:47] tied to Bear Cut Bridge. So
[1:14:49] you're being sold one side of
[1:14:51] the story and you're not really
[1:14:52] being told the real logistical
[1:14:54] component and the troubled by
[1:14:56] us not currently investing what
[1:14:58] we need to invest. I see this
[1:15:00] more as an imperative to get it
[1:15:03] done rather than a, you know,
[1:15:05] we're coughing up 950,000.
[1:15:07] We're losing money. We're not
[1:15:08] losing money, folks. We're
[1:15:10] actually, you know, trying to
[1:15:12] trying to make sure that we
[1:15:13] don't lose money in the future
[1:15:15] and that we have a real good
[1:15:16] bridge, bear cut bridge, and a
[1:15:18] design, a complete design that
[1:15:20] ties in to the Rickenbacker. So
[1:15:21] thank you, mayor, Commissioner,
[1:15:23] for all. Thank you, thank you.
[1:15:26] Okay, Joe, one last question.
[1:15:27] One last question, I apologize.
[1:15:29] Can you explain how you're
[1:15:31] going to work on this project
[1:15:33] and run for mayor at the same
[1:15:34] time? Because just I just I
[1:15:36] mean, I just logistically I
[1:15:37] don't, you know, I'm not I'm
[1:15:38] not a politician. I don't
[1:15:40] really understand how all this
[1:15:42] works, but and I and by the way,
[1:15:43] I'm really well, I'm really
[1:15:44] surprised I run for mayor
[1:15:46] before. So I have some
[1:15:49] experience. 2016. But yes, I
[1:15:51] mean, look, we have a great
[1:15:52] team. We're going to we're
[1:15:54] going to move quickly on this
[1:15:55] the mayor's races in 2028. So
[1:15:57] there's there's plenty of time
[1:15:59] but no worries. And will be
[1:16:01] your campaign manager and will
[1:16:03] have the first sign any time.
[1:16:05] Be a pleasure. All right, MADAM
[1:16:09] Clerk. All those in favor? Aye.
[1:16:12] Opposed? Aye. Motion carries.
[1:16:14] Thank you. Thank you very much.
[1:16:18] All right. Thank you. Go to the
[1:16:23] consent agenda. You go to nine
[1:16:26] a. Oh, we didn't do the consent
[1:16:27] agenda, MR. Mayor. What do you
[1:16:30] mean we didn't we? If we
[1:16:32] accepted the the agenda, it's
[1:16:34] done. No, no. The consent
[1:16:36] agenda. Consent. Yeah. We
[1:16:38] haven't done the consent agenda
[1:16:40] yet. Okay. Does anyone want to
[1:16:47] pull the. Hold on? Oh. Thank
[1:16:52] you, MR. London pnc. Oh, you
[1:16:53] want to pull items from the
[1:16:55] consent agenda? I have
[1:16:58] questions, okay. Which one said
[1:17:01] b and c? What number? That's
[1:17:06] eight b and 88b and c. Consent
[1:17:12] agenda. Okay. Say it again,
[1:17:15] MADAM Clerk. She's pulling a, b
[1:17:19] and c I need a councilmember.
[1:17:21] London wanted to pull items
[1:17:23] eight b and eight c from the
[1:17:25] consent agenda. That's okay,
[1:17:28] that's fine. Do I have a motion
[1:17:29] for the consent agenda as
[1:17:32] amended? So moved second. Thank
[1:17:34] you. All those in favor? Aye.
[1:17:37] Opposed. Motion carries. I will
[1:17:41] read 8ba capital project
[1:17:42] authorizing resolution of the
[1:17:44] village council of the Village
[1:17:45] of Key Biscayne, Florida,
[1:17:47] authorizing the village manager
[1:17:49] to issue a work order to Con
[1:17:50] Mac Inc for replacement of
[1:17:52] community center hvac systems
[1:17:57] in an amount not to exceed
[1:17:59] $237,900, and providing for an
[1:18:04] effective date. Move it. Second.
[1:18:07] Thank you. Joe, a question you
[1:18:09] pull it, you go with it. There
[1:18:11] have been a bid on this or did
[1:18:13] we just give these people the
[1:18:14] contract without a bid? There
[1:18:17] was a bid. They were the low
[1:18:18] bidder. Yes. They were okay.
[1:18:20] Thank you, thank you. That was
[1:18:22] it. I wanted to see at the same
[1:18:24] time that same question. No.
[1:18:25] All those in favor of eight,
[1:18:28] please, I opposed motion
[1:18:31] carries. The next item is a
[1:18:32] capital project authorizing
[1:18:33] resolution of the village
[1:18:35] council of the Village of Key
[1:18:36] Biscayne, Florida, approving
[1:18:37] the purchase of replacement
[1:18:39] fitness equipment for the
[1:18:41] community center from Centurion
[1:18:43] Partners Health and Fitness,
[1:18:46] llc, dba Fitness Smith, in an
[1:18:51] amount not to exceed
[1:18:53] $152,037.24, providing for
[1:18:54] authorization, declaring
[1:18:55] certain equipment as surplus
[1:18:57] property. Authorizing the sale
[1:18:58] or disposition of surplus
[1:19:00] property. Providing for
[1:19:01] implementation and providing
[1:19:05] for an effective date move.
[1:19:09] Good evening and thank you.
[1:19:11] Yeah. Questions, Scott I mean
[1:19:15] Scott, Todd. Fred. Todd. You
[1:19:17] said one of the reasons you do
[1:19:19] this, because the maintenance
[1:19:20] costs are getting out of line
[1:19:22] for these things. Yeah, that's
[1:19:24] the thing you have here. The
[1:19:25] maintenance costs do increase
[1:19:27] over time. Okay. Well, I went
[1:19:28] ahead and checked the
[1:19:30] maintenance costs for 24 and 25
[1:19:32] and 24. There were 61, 64. That
[1:19:38] went down by 10% in 25 to 5591.
[1:19:40] And in neither case is it more
[1:19:43] than 4% of the purchase price
[1:19:44] of new equipment. And why? I'm
[1:19:46] wondering. I mean, how do
[1:19:49] dumbbells get old? I go to the
[1:19:51] gym all the time. I can't lift
[1:19:53] them all, but the ones I can
[1:19:56] lift look just fine. The racks,
[1:19:56] the non-mechanical equipment.
[1:19:58] How does all that stuff get bad?
[1:20:00] And second of all, why the hell
[1:20:02] are we going to give them all
[1:20:04] that equipment for 8500 bucks?
[1:20:06] I mean, I'm sure people in the
[1:20:07] village would buy the damn
[1:20:09] thing or whatever else, but to
[1:20:11] me, I'm. And one piece of
[1:20:13] equipment, your free motion,
[1:20:14] whatever the hell that is,
[1:20:16] that's basically 20% of your
[1:20:18] maintenance cost of your total,
[1:20:19] of all your pieces of equipment.
[1:20:21] That one piece is 20% of your
[1:20:23] maintenance cost two years
[1:20:25] running. So to me, do you
[1:20:28] really need this thing or you
[1:20:29] just want new stuff? I'll give
[1:20:31] you a couple of options. So the
[1:20:32] average lifespan for an average
[1:20:35] lifespan I use the equipment.
[1:20:37] It works fine. So not average
[1:20:38] lifespan. You're paying for
[1:20:40] preventive maintenance $190 a
[1:20:41] month. You're servicing it and
[1:20:43] I can see what's going bad. A
[1:20:45] lot of the stuff that has very
[1:20:46] few mechanical parts are not
[1:20:48] even doing anything. Steel does
[1:20:51] not usually wear out ten, 15,
[1:20:53] or 50 years. I mean, you if you
[1:20:55] were there, you saw the lat
[1:20:57] pulldown. I can't hear you. The
[1:20:59] lat pulldown actually snapped.
[1:21:01] Yeah. And that was wrapped in
[1:21:02] because the system just gave
[1:21:08] out over time. So this is do we
[1:21:11] need all this new equipment? Do
[1:21:12] we need some new equipment. Do
[1:21:14] we need new dumbbell racks?
[1:21:16] They're pretty beaten up. I
[1:21:18] actually looked at him today.
[1:21:20] If you look at him, all the I
[1:21:21] wasn't there, but I was there
[1:21:23] two days ago. All the labeling
[1:21:25] is gone. All the labels, all
[1:21:27] the labels. They're beginning
[1:21:29] to rust. You need new labels,
[1:21:32] okay? They're beginning to rust.
[1:21:35] They are all the. All the bolts
[1:21:36] is beginning. Okay. I walk
[1:21:38] through it today. You can see
[1:21:39] all the bolts are beginning to
[1:21:41] rust. I mean, what we're
[1:21:42] talking about is hundred and
[1:21:45] $50,000. Yes. Yeah. I mean, if
[1:21:46] you want some new equipment
[1:21:47] because it's better or whatever
[1:21:49] else to replace them, I got no
[1:21:51] problem with that. But to go
[1:21:53] ahead and replace everything,
[1:21:54] I'll say. Fine. It's old. Get
[1:21:56] rid of it all if it's fine. I
[1:21:58] mean, I guess maybe I have this
[1:21:59] feeling because I don't want
[1:22:01] people to get rid of me because
[1:22:03] I'm old. Okay? So, I mean, just
[1:22:04] because I'm past my useful life.
[1:22:06] I think you're looking at part
[1:22:07] of this project, not the whole
[1:22:08] project. The whole project is
[1:22:10] to replace the flooring, to
[1:22:11] paint the walls. I read the
[1:22:13] whole believe me. Yeah. So this
[1:22:15] is the whole thing. This is a
[1:22:16] whole, you know, re
[1:22:19] rehabilitation of that. The
[1:22:21] fitness center, which is one of
[1:22:22] the main drivers of our
[1:22:24] membership revenue. I probably
[1:22:26] use it more than anybody here
[1:22:28] in council. So I love the
[1:22:30] fitness center. I love the idea
[1:22:32] that having good equipment, I
[1:22:33] just hate the idea of wasting
[1:22:35] money. I don't think you're
[1:22:36] wasting money. I think when you
[1:22:37] increased the membership fees
[1:22:39] that passed in council in JULY
[1:22:41] and was implemented in OCTOBER,
[1:22:43] I think it's a reasonable
[1:22:44] assumption for the members that
[1:22:46] are now paying more to see
[1:22:47] improvements in one of the
[1:22:48] facilities that is primarily
[1:22:50] used by our members, and that's
[1:22:51] the the Fitness and Wellness
[1:22:55] Center. You can sell your $220
[1:22:56] fee went over with the older
[1:22:59] people they're paying to. Not
[1:23:00] only did we increase the fees,
[1:23:02] we expanded those that paid to
[1:23:04] it, and I think they envisioned
[1:23:05] that they should see some
[1:23:06] benefit from that in the
[1:23:07] facility that they use
[1:23:09] frequently. As it stands now,
[1:23:11] I'm against if you bring back
[1:23:12] something as reasonable that
[1:23:15] has to be replaced, I'll be all
[1:23:17] for it. Over here. Anybody? I
[1:23:19] have a comment. Go ahead. When
[1:23:21] it's my turn. I can't find it
[1:23:23] right now. I know you know
[1:23:25] where it is. I read somewhere
[1:23:26] here that the Centurion
[1:23:33] Partners agreement includes
[1:23:35] $2,328.15 for tariff. Yes,
[1:23:38] ma'am. You're going to be so
[1:23:42] proud of me. I would like the
[1:23:44] contract somehow to be amended
[1:23:47] so that if the government is
[1:23:50] ultimately required to refund
[1:23:52] those tariffs, that when that
[1:23:54] vendor gets that tariff refund,
[1:23:56] that they have to give it back
[1:23:57] to us instead of keeping it,
[1:23:59] because that's that's my new
[1:24:01] pet peeve. All these vendors
[1:24:02] are going to get the money back.
[1:24:04] And and the people who actually
[1:24:05] paid the money aren't going to
[1:24:07] get it. So we should get our
[1:24:10] 2300 back. Is there a way to do
[1:24:11] that, Chad? Of course, yes,
[1:24:13] sure. I mean, we'll write it
[1:24:14] back. I don't know if they'll
[1:24:16] agree to it, but we'll write it
[1:24:18] in and bring it up to their
[1:24:19] attention. Just fyi, I think we
[1:24:21] should do that in every
[1:24:22] contract that that we have now
[1:24:24] that we're, we're acquiring
[1:24:26] things that are charging
[1:24:28] tariffs for sure. Good point.
[1:24:29] Very good point. Excellent
[1:24:34] answer okay. I, I was like
[1:24:37] thinking like Ed this morning
[1:24:39] when I reread this thing. And
[1:24:43] so I took the field trip to, to
[1:24:46] the, to the weight room. And
[1:24:49] yeah, there is stuff there that
[1:24:52] is rusted there. There is a
[1:24:55] floor that needs to be done,
[1:24:57] the walls that need to be done
[1:24:59] because, you know, it gets it
[1:25:01] gets a lot of activity. You are
[1:25:03] you are there. I agree with all
[1:25:05] that. Yeah. I'm just saying not
[1:25:07] replacing blank everything.
[1:25:08] Replace what has to be done. Do
[1:25:10] the work, do the floor. Okay.
[1:25:12] So so I'm glad you mentioned
[1:25:14] that. So one of the discussions
[1:25:17] we've had up here is the
[1:25:18] village doesn't do a good
[1:25:20] enough job of maintenance. Okay.
[1:25:24] So now they set a policy. And
[1:25:26] you know maybe you want to redo
[1:25:28] the policy. But the policy says
[1:25:30] ten years. There are ten years.
[1:25:32] They want to replace the
[1:25:35] equipment. I mean, what what do
[1:25:37] you I mean, you know, what do
[1:25:40] you want? I want to be forget
[1:25:42] the policy. What should. No no
[1:25:44] no no no. When I say the policy,
[1:25:45] it doesn't make sense. Because
[1:25:47] if you tell me something wears
[1:25:49] out in ten years. Two more
[1:25:50] years. No, no, three more years.
[1:25:52] Some. No. Some stuff, maybe ten
[1:25:54] years is fine. Other stuff is
[1:25:55] 25 years. That's what I'm
[1:25:57] saying to you. The point being
[1:25:58] is whatever needs to be
[1:26:00] replaced. I'm saying replaced.
[1:26:01] The floors have to be done. The
[1:26:03] walls. I'm all for all that
[1:26:05] stuff. But stuff that's
[1:26:07] strictly fine not to do that,
[1:26:08] that's all. And then to go
[1:26:10] ahead with sell everything to
[1:26:12] these people. $8,500. I think
[1:26:14] that's crazy. Also, I'm going
[1:26:15] to disagree with you on one
[1:26:19] point. We want our parks to be
[1:26:20] beautiful. We want our
[1:26:21] community center to be
[1:26:23] beautiful. There's some value,
[1:26:24] some in the quality of
[1:26:26] experience. And after ten years,
[1:26:28] maybe we need bright and shiny
[1:26:31] and new and the cost of and the
[1:26:33] time involved in trying to sell
[1:26:35] off piece by piece and figure
[1:26:36] out what piece we need. What
[1:26:38] piece. It's just not worth it.
[1:26:39] It's just not worth it. I'd
[1:26:40] rather give the money to
[1:26:42] charity than have these guys
[1:26:44] date that you said. We can't do
[1:26:45] that. I said I can. You said I
[1:26:47] can personally do that. All
[1:26:54] right, move along. All right,
[1:26:56] MADAM, call it. Sorry. An
[1:26:59] amendment to the contract for
[1:27:02] the tariff. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
[1:27:03] Consensus of Council for the
[1:27:05] amendment. Amend it to not
[1:27:07] consider selling the property
[1:27:09] stuff to somebody else or
[1:27:11] donating it. Sure, sure. I
[1:27:12] thought you were going to buy
[1:27:15] it and then donate it. Oh, okay.
[1:27:17] So I'm sorry, what was the you
[1:27:19] were going to sell it to Ed for
[1:27:21] $10,000 of this obsolete
[1:27:23] equipment? We've done it before.
[1:27:25] It's the task. And the people
[1:27:28] that do take it call you when
[1:27:30] it breaks and expect you to.
[1:27:31] Hey, I bought this from you
[1:27:33] three months ago. This happened.
[1:27:35] I don't carry a warranty. I
[1:27:38] don't have maintenance staff.
[1:27:40] It it didn't go well last time
[1:27:42] we did this. Okay. So did you
[1:27:44] get those two things? To be
[1:27:45] clear, the resolution gives the
[1:27:46] manager the ability to surplus
[1:27:48] it. It doesn't have to be to
[1:27:49] these people. But then that
[1:27:51] would affect the purchase price.
[1:27:52] So there's the authorities are
[1:27:54] already there. If the direction
[1:27:57] is for the manager to examine
[1:27:58] all options, that's already in
[1:28:00] here. It's just if you can do
[1:28:02] better, let's do better. Of
[1:28:04] course, I'm under the
[1:28:06] impression from our
[1:28:07] conversation that there's a
[1:28:09] nuisance that's alleviated by
[1:28:10] simply having someone come and
[1:28:12] pick it up and take it away.
[1:28:14] Yeah, we do want to keep the
[1:28:15] facility closed for the
[1:28:16] shortest time period possible.
[1:28:19] So that means that we're going
[1:28:20] to have the new equipment
[1:28:23] delivered and the floor
[1:28:25] installed and the old equipment
[1:28:28] removed in a tight sequence.
[1:28:31] Trying to sell one piece here,
[1:28:33] one piece there. We have no
[1:28:34] storage space for this
[1:28:36] equipment while it waits for
[1:28:39] new equipment. About 90 days.
[1:28:42] So there's 90 days to make a
[1:28:43] decision. See what we can do.
[1:28:46] Right. Thank you. Okay, MADAM
[1:28:49] Clerk, as amended here. All
[1:28:51] those in favor of the
[1:28:52] resolution, as amended, opposed
[1:28:55] by motion, carries. When you
[1:28:57] draft the tariff language, will
[1:29:03] you send it around? Sure. So
[1:29:05] just quickly, Nancy, you wanted
[1:29:07] to incorporate that into all of
[1:29:08] our contract? I do I think it's
[1:29:10] a good idea. So is that
[1:29:11] something that that we've got
[1:29:14] consensus to do? Sure.
[1:29:15] Consensus for what? To
[1:29:17] incorporate all tariff. Sure.
[1:29:20] Great idea Nance okay. No
[1:29:22] problem. You were right. He's
[1:29:25] proud I know I know he's going
[1:29:27] to encourage you to run for
[1:29:31] county mayor. Council nine a an
[1:29:33] ordinance of the village, an
[1:29:34] ordinance on second reading, an
[1:29:36] ordinance of the village of Key
[1:29:37] Biscayne, Florida, amending
[1:29:39] section two dash ten advisory
[1:29:41] boards of chapter two of the
[1:29:42] Village Code of Ordinances
[1:29:44] relating to Advisory Board
[1:29:46] administration and board member
[1:29:47] requirements. Providing for
[1:29:49] severability. Providing for
[1:29:50] codification, providing for
[1:29:52] conflicts and providing for an
[1:29:54] effective date move. Second,
[1:30:00] this is. Thank you 9a9a okay,
[1:30:03] I'm happy with are we are we at
[1:30:04] discussion here. Yeah go ahead
[1:30:06] I'm happy with it. I would like
[1:30:08] to make an amendment though. I
[1:30:09] would like to add a
[1:30:11] subparagraph eight that says
[1:30:13] upon its own initiative, a
[1:30:16] board MAY present to council a
[1:30:19] report, resolution, request or
[1:30:22] advisement. Because this talks
[1:30:25] about mandatory. Reports.
[1:30:27] You're talking about something
[1:30:28] additional, right. If they want
[1:30:31] additional. Yes. Yes. Can you
[1:30:33] please what do we mean by a
[1:30:35] board. Any of these advisory
[1:30:38] boards create a board. No no no
[1:30:39] any of the existing boards.
[1:30:41] This talks about this talks
[1:30:43] about the obligation of
[1:30:46] advisory boards to report to us
[1:30:47] that that's what we're that's
[1:30:49] what this is about. And what it
[1:30:51] talks about are the mandatory
[1:30:53] reporting obligations. But it
[1:30:54] doesn't talk about voluntary.
[1:30:56] And I don't want it to be
[1:30:59] interpreted that there there is
[1:31:02] not the ability to come before
[1:31:05] council with requests.
[1:31:07] Suggestions, Advisements I want
[1:31:08] I just would like to clarify
[1:31:10] that by adding in language that
[1:31:12] that any board can come before
[1:31:15] us on their own initiative. I'm
[1:31:17] sorry, Council member, can you
[1:31:18] repeat the amendment? But is
[1:31:20] there something suggesting that
[1:31:23] they can't? Well, you just want
[1:31:25] to make it. I just want to make
[1:31:26] it clear because this says what
[1:31:28] you have to do. Okay. So right.
[1:31:30] Let's think about it a little
[1:31:34] bit. If you is that like by by
[1:31:37] their consensus by or is it
[1:31:38] like anybody can just come up
[1:31:40] and the board the board has to
[1:31:42] act like a board okay. The
[1:31:44] language doesn't authorize
[1:31:46] anyone. Any individual doesn't
[1:31:47] change any of the operations.
[1:31:49] No. That's that's really
[1:31:51] important because, you know,
[1:31:52] absolutely 10,000 people coming
[1:31:54] up that aren't speaking for the
[1:31:56] behalf of the board. Right?
[1:31:57] Right. MR. Mayor, I would
[1:31:59] suggest for procedural process
[1:32:02] purposes that it would be
[1:32:04] brought to the council liaison
[1:32:06] in order to place it on the
[1:32:07] agenda, because we have to make
[1:32:08] sure that's a process.
[1:32:10] Otherwise, they really have no
[1:32:13] way or no one to come to to put
[1:32:14] it on the agenda. They can call
[1:32:16] the clerk, why can't they call
[1:32:17] the clerk? And I do think
[1:32:19] elsewhere in the code, it I
[1:32:21] think actually in the, in the
[1:32:25] code where it describes the,
[1:32:27] the responsibilities of the, of
[1:32:30] the boards, it talks about them
[1:32:31] bringing this forward and I
[1:32:33] don't I don't have a problem
[1:32:34] bringing forward anything by
[1:32:37] liaison. Yeah. I'm not sure
[1:32:40] we've ever done that Chad. Got
[1:32:44] to go through some I believe
[1:32:47] that the board members, through
[1:32:49] their liaison, has requested
[1:32:52] the boards to come to give
[1:32:54] presentations. Yeah, I believe
[1:32:55] that's happened in the past.
[1:32:57] Here's an example. In one of
[1:33:00] the zorks, the purview did not
[1:33:03] include docs. Yes. There was a
[1:33:05] series of issues that were doc
[1:33:07] related. The board came back to
[1:33:10] council and suggested that the
[1:33:12] purview be expanded to deal
[1:33:14] with docs. Yeah, I think that
[1:33:16] the the issue is we've never
[1:33:18] allowed the boards to just pop
[1:33:19] up on the agenda. There's
[1:33:20] always been a request through
[1:33:23] the manager or through liaison.
[1:33:26] I think that if the request can
[1:33:27] come through the liaison. Yeah,
[1:33:30] I think that makes sense. And
[1:33:33] we can we can make that clear
[1:33:35] that the board, through its
[1:33:37] liaison, MAY present, if that's
[1:33:38] something that council Member
[1:33:41] stoner wants. I mean, that's
[1:33:42] not a problem. Is that okay
[1:33:45] with you? My only question
[1:33:47] would be if you have a liaison
[1:33:48] that's not participating that
[1:33:52] much. Or they're not interested
[1:33:54] in the issue, I know this whole
[1:33:56] thing with that. We just went
[1:33:57] through with the disability
[1:34:00] board. They wanted to make a
[1:34:02] presentation, and I do believe
[1:34:03] they they contacted the clerk
[1:34:07] who put it on the agenda. I
[1:34:07] just don't want to make
[1:34:10] obstacles. But personally, I
[1:34:12] don't have a problem ever with
[1:34:13] with bringing forward. We could
[1:34:15] always say the liaison or the
[1:34:18] manager. I mean, either one.
[1:34:20] Okay, or any council member,
[1:34:22] really. I mean, you could do
[1:34:23] any council member. But again,
[1:34:25] you know, the way these were
[1:34:26] set up is really the boards
[1:34:28] obviously report to the council.
[1:34:29] There's an extension of the
[1:34:31] council that's liaison to try
[1:34:33] to interface. But I mean, I
[1:34:35] don't think it's really that
[1:34:37] big of an issue. I mean any
[1:34:38] liaison is going to I would
[1:34:40] think, right, accommodate any
[1:34:41] request, whether they agree
[1:34:43] with the issue coming forward
[1:34:45] or not, but liaison or the
[1:34:47] mayor. And that way you write
[1:34:49] the reason why I bring it up,
[1:34:51] you know, and you hear a number
[1:34:53] of times speak, people speak on
[1:34:56] behalf of or that they're a
[1:34:58] member of a board, and that MAY
[1:35:00] not be with a full backing of
[1:35:02] the board. So yeah, that's what
[1:35:03] I said before. Yeah. Just to be
[1:35:07] clear, my my language said upon
[1:35:09] its own initiative, a board,
[1:35:11] not a board member, a board.
[1:35:14] And no one, I think through the,
[1:35:15] the, the pamphlet you're giving
[1:35:19] out now and all the initiation
[1:35:21] education that board members
[1:35:22] get, they are told they're not
[1:35:24] allowed to act independently.
[1:35:26] They have to act as and, you
[1:35:27] know, council members, I'm
[1:35:28] fully supportive. I just want
[1:35:30] to make sure the procedures in
[1:35:31] place so that I understand, you
[1:35:33] know, the steps, not not just
[1:35:34] because that we're limiting.
[1:35:36] They also know how to do it.
[1:35:37] Right? Right. Because a lot of
[1:35:39] folks do ask me, how do we do
[1:35:41] this, right? You know, you were
[1:35:43] at that meeting together and
[1:35:43] they ask they actually asked
[1:35:45] the question and not to get
[1:35:47] into, can you say the board as
[1:35:48] a body. It says the board. But
[1:35:50] if you want if you do, you want
[1:35:53] me to amend my language, say
[1:35:54] through there, through the
[1:35:55] through council, through their
[1:35:59] liaison council. Liaison. Is
[1:36:00] that is that what everybody's
[1:36:01] talking about? I think it's
[1:36:03] fine. Okay. Do you want me to
[1:36:04] repeat the the language upon
[1:36:07] its own initiative? A board
[1:36:10] that would be a capital b.
[1:36:13] Comma through its council
[1:36:16] liaison comma MAY present to
[1:36:20] council a report resolution
[1:36:27] request or advisement. Report
[1:36:31] resolution or request or
[1:36:38] advisement. Okay. You got it,
[1:36:40] Chad? Yep. Are you good with it?
[1:36:42] I'm fine with it. Okay.
[1:36:44] Consensus of council for the
[1:36:48] amendment. Yes, yes, yes. This
[1:36:50] is nine a we'll need a public
[1:36:51] hearing on second reading.
[1:36:54] Mayor. Public hearings now open
[1:36:58] on nine a advisory boards
[1:37:00] seeing no one come forward.
[1:37:03] Public hearing is now closed.
[1:37:06] Council member London yes. Vice
[1:37:08] mayor. Yes. Yes. Council member.
[1:37:10] Stoner. Yes. Council member.
[1:37:12] Vazquez. Yes. Mayor. Roscoe.
[1:37:14] Yes. Councilmember. Bracken.
[1:37:16] Yes. Council member. Kaplan.
[1:37:18] Yes. The ordinance is adopted,
[1:37:21] as amended, on second reading.
[1:37:26] Can. Let's skip to nine c an
[1:37:29] ordinance of an ordinance on
[1:37:30] first reading. An ordinance of
[1:37:31] the Village Council of the
[1:37:33] Village of Key Biscayne,
[1:37:35] Florida, amending chapter 23
[1:37:36] retirement. Article two police
[1:37:38] officers and firefighters
[1:37:39] retirement plan of the Village
[1:37:41] of Key Biscayne. Code of
[1:37:42] ordinances regarding the
[1:37:44] retirement plan for police
[1:37:45] officers and firefighters of
[1:37:47] the Village of Key Biscayne,
[1:37:49] specifically amending section
[1:37:52] 2347 c of the village Code to
[1:37:54] permit retired police officers
[1:37:56] hired on a part time status to
[1:37:59] receive in-service distribution,
[1:38:00] providing for conflicts,
[1:38:02] providing for severability,
[1:38:03] providing for codification, and
[1:38:07] providing for an effective date.
[1:38:10] Go ahead chief, anyone needs to
[1:38:14] move. Moved. Second. Thank you.
[1:38:16] Good evening. Mayor. Council
[1:38:18] members, we're bringing this
[1:38:19] forward because we recently had
[1:38:22] two long tenured police
[1:38:24] officers retire and indicated
[1:38:26] that they'd like to maintain
[1:38:27] reserve status, something that
[1:38:29] we haven't been able to do in
[1:38:30] the past because of the
[1:38:31] requirements under our
[1:38:32] accreditation for training. In
[1:38:34] order to do this and compensate
[1:38:36] them for their time, it does
[1:38:37] require a pension ordinance
[1:38:40] change. And that's what we're
[1:38:41] coming before before you
[1:38:43] tonight asking, we do have a
[1:38:45] policy that we're in draft
[1:38:47] right now. We've met with the
[1:38:47] collective bargaining groups
[1:38:49] and explained it to them. This
[1:38:50] does not replace police
[1:38:52] officers. They're not going to
[1:38:54] be supervisors over anyone.
[1:38:56] They're just going to have the
[1:38:58] ability to assist in road
[1:38:59] patrol, special events or
[1:39:01] things that we have and get
[1:39:02] compensated for it. They have
[1:39:05] to work a minimum of 12 hours a
[1:39:06] month and not exceed 30 hours a
[1:39:09] month. Okay. Great idea chief.
[1:39:13] I commend you questions on
[1:39:17] first reading. Question is why
[1:39:20] are we limiting the 30 hours?
[1:39:22] Because there was a reserve
[1:39:23] program here in the past that
[1:39:25] was not successful. So there
[1:39:27] was a reserve program in the
[1:39:28] past here that was not
[1:39:30] successful. So we established
[1:39:32] this at this point to see how
[1:39:34] successful it goes. If if we
[1:39:36] see that it's better at that
[1:39:38] point, we MAY increase it. We
[1:39:39] MAY not. There's also a concern
[1:39:41] from the collective bargaining
[1:39:42] groups about taking
[1:39:43] opportunities away from the
[1:39:45] police officers. I also chief,
[1:39:47] I believe it's federal law, the
[1:39:48] part time workers, they can't
[1:39:50] work more than 30 hours a week.
[1:39:51] No, I know, but he's asking why
[1:39:53] we're limiting it to 30 hours a
[1:39:55] month or a month. Yeah, I would
[1:39:57] like to amend the ordinance to
[1:40:01] say that to be limited by the
[1:40:04] limit of the collective
[1:40:05] bargaining agreement is subject
[1:40:07] to the chief's discretion, so
[1:40:10] that if, in fact, we can have
[1:40:11] more than 30 hours and you're
[1:40:13] happy with more than 30 hours,
[1:40:14] and some people want to work
[1:40:16] more than 30 hours, why limit
[1:40:18] it? I think we will receive
[1:40:19] challenges from the union, I
[1:40:22] said subject to them like this,
[1:40:23] but it's subject to them
[1:40:25] approving. Why don't we do this?
[1:40:26] It's first reading. We're in
[1:40:28] active discussions with the
[1:40:30] union for second reading. We'll
[1:40:32] we'll have a report back if
[1:40:34] they would agree. Fine. Good. I
[1:40:35] can do that. We're sending them
[1:40:38] the policy tomorrow. So. Great.
[1:40:40] All right, MADAM Clerk. Thank
[1:40:41] you. Council member. Stoner.
[1:40:43] Yes. Councilor. Vazquez. Yes.
[1:40:45] Mayor. Roscoe. Yes. Council
[1:40:46] member. Bracken. Yes. Council
[1:40:49] member. Kaplan. Yes. Council
[1:40:50] member. London. Yes. And vice
[1:40:52] mayor. Sardinia's. Yes. Yours
[1:40:54] is approved on first reading.
[1:41:00] Thank you. Okay. Nine d. D as
[1:41:03] in David, right? Yes. Oh, sassy.
[1:41:04] You're going to MISS The
[1:41:10] discussion now. Well, yeah. An
[1:41:12] ordinance on first reading. An
[1:41:13] ordinance of the village of Key
[1:41:14] Biscayne, Florida, amending
[1:41:17] section 30 Dash 11 definitions
[1:41:19] and creating section 30 Dash 39
[1:41:20] certified Recovery residences
[1:41:23] of the village. Code of
[1:41:24] Ordinances relating to Review
[1:41:26] and approval procedures for
[1:41:28] certified recovery residences.
[1:41:29] Providing for severability.
[1:41:31] Providing for complex.
[1:41:32] Providing for codification and
[1:41:35] providing for an effective date.
[1:41:37] Move. Second. Thank you. You
[1:41:40] want to give us a background?
[1:41:43] Sure. Good evening. CHAIRMAN,
[1:41:44] building, zoning and planning
[1:41:47] Director. So this ordinance is
[1:41:49] really in response to a state
[1:41:52] bill, sb 954, I believe it was,
[1:41:53] which requires municipalities
[1:41:56] to create a process for
[1:41:59] certified recovery residences
[1:42:01] to be included in the community.
[1:42:03] You mean you didn't come up
[1:42:05] with this by yourself? This was
[1:42:09] not out of a workshop, nor my
[1:42:11] own head. This was really close
[1:42:12] collaboration with White Sirota,
[1:42:14] who I believe is writing these
[1:42:15] ordinances for municipalities
[1:42:18] all over the place. And so this
[1:42:21] really creates a definition of
[1:42:22] adopting certain state language
[1:42:24] about what a certified recovery
[1:42:27] residence is. It's, you know, I
[1:42:28] think in Parliament, but be
[1:42:30] more explicit. The state law
[1:42:33] mandates us to do this. We must
[1:42:36] we must have this in place by
[1:42:38] the end of the year.
[1:42:41] Essentially, there's no that's
[1:42:44] I think Chad can speak to that,
[1:42:46] that this is not negotiable. We
[1:42:48] have to comply with the law.
[1:42:51] Yeah. The law says JANUARY 1st.
[1:42:53] We are to have this in place.
[1:42:54] There's no penalties. But, you
[1:42:56] know, in the spirit of the law,
[1:42:58] we as many governments are
[1:43:00] trying to comply. Miami-Dade
[1:43:02] County heard this on first
[1:43:04] reading today at the county
[1:43:05] commission, for example. All
[1:43:08] this is doing is procedural.
[1:43:11] And it's it's a process that
[1:43:13] even if it wasn't in our code,
[1:43:15] if we were if the request was
[1:43:16] made, we would put them through
[1:43:18] a very similar procedure under
[1:43:20] the Fair Housing Act. So but
[1:43:25] we're limited very much by Ada,
[1:43:27] Ada and all that kind of that's
[1:43:28] what this is all about. Yeah.
[1:43:30] Correct. Yeah. Fair housing
[1:43:32] right. Yes. So but are you
[1:43:34] making it more. Wait wait wait.
[1:43:35] She's not finished. I just want
[1:43:37] to ask a couple questions. Did,
[1:43:41] did, is this language you're
[1:43:47] drafting or is this. Basically
[1:43:49] copying of of what is actually
[1:43:51] required of us. So my question
[1:43:53] is, is can we amend it at all
[1:43:56] or not? I'll answer that. First
[1:43:58] of all, the statute expressly
[1:44:02] provides requirements that the
[1:44:04] ordinance has to have. So a lot
[1:44:05] of this language comes straight
[1:44:08] out of that. Also, the language
[1:44:11] here follows the Department of
[1:44:13] Justice guidance with the
[1:44:14] criteria that we need to follow.
[1:44:16] If we have to make these types
[1:44:18] of decisions, yes, we can make
[1:44:21] tweaks. I would prefer if
[1:44:23] through first and second
[1:44:24] reading, if you guys want to
[1:44:26] call me and we can work through
[1:44:28] them, we have a couple of
[1:44:30] tweaks we still want to make
[1:44:32] that. I'm going to propose on
[1:44:34] second reading myself because
[1:44:36] this is still, you know, I
[1:44:37] think it we're close, but i
[1:44:39] still want to tweak a couple of
[1:44:41] the language. So. Okay, so
[1:44:42] you'd rather that we call you.
[1:44:44] And I would prefer just because
[1:44:46] of this, you know, these types
[1:44:49] of matters. Ten, ten, 12 years
[1:44:51] ago, there was massive amount
[1:44:53] of a massive amount of
[1:44:54] litigation around the state. It
[1:44:56] wasn't until our federal
[1:44:58] representatives, as well as
[1:44:59] representatives in California,
[1:45:01] came together and started to
[1:45:03] work with the Department of
[1:45:04] Justice and then the state of
[1:45:05] Florida, in fact, adopted
[1:45:08] certain regulations. So I would
[1:45:10] prefer if we talk individually,
[1:45:13] speak with me. And on second
[1:45:14] reading we can have a robust
[1:45:18] discussion. So. So so are you
[1:45:20] advising us not to ask
[1:45:22] questions? You can if you want.
[1:45:25] I'm happy to take your comments,
[1:45:28] but getting into any fact
[1:45:30] specific situations I will not.
[1:45:32] Okay. You know, but if it's
[1:45:33] just general comments that's
[1:45:34] fine. But you should know that
[1:45:36] I am going to come back on
[1:45:37] second reading with some tweaks
[1:45:41] of my own. This is just for the
[1:45:42] record. This is another
[1:45:46] instance of the state usurping
[1:45:48] our self, our our right to
[1:45:49] self-govern. I'm not really
[1:45:52] worried about this particular,
[1:45:54] its procedural, but yeah, but
[1:45:55] it's another it's another
[1:45:58] instance of that. Can I, can I
[1:46:00] talk to Nancy? Right. What
[1:46:02] Nancy is if we make this, can
[1:46:03] we make this more restrictive
[1:46:06] or as a question under your
[1:46:08] opinion, not his. I'm asking
[1:46:10] you. Yeah, as it were. I don't
[1:46:12] know if we can make it more
[1:46:13] restrictive because it matters.
[1:46:15] So the law says at a minimum,
[1:46:17] we have to have certain things.
[1:46:19] We can be more restrictive. The
[1:46:22] criteria is set that you look
[1:46:24] at, okay. But there are certain
[1:46:25] things we can ask other
[1:46:28] governments have more robust
[1:46:30] procedures. So again, you know,
[1:46:32] if you want to make it more
[1:46:34] restrictive, I'm happy to hear
[1:46:36] some of your thoughts. But yes,
[1:46:40] this is the minimum. I think
[1:46:40] your question are we
[1:46:42] inadvertently paving the road
[1:46:43] for this possibly happening in
[1:46:46] our. No, I don't I don't I
[1:46:50] don't think so. I, I think that
[1:46:54] well. Again, 1012 years ago,
[1:46:56] Boca Raton, Delray Beach, all
[1:46:58] these beach cities, they were
[1:46:59] dealing with this a lot. It
[1:47:01] didn't come here. It doesn't
[1:47:03] mean it can't. But we could
[1:47:05] definitely look and make it
[1:47:06] more restrictive. Do you have
[1:47:09] some ideas? But we are confined
[1:47:11] by what we can do through the
[1:47:13] Fair Housing Act. Okay, thanks.
[1:47:14] Well, it sounds like you're
[1:47:16] going to be working on this
[1:47:17] anyway. And you have some ideas.
[1:47:19] Yeah, yeah. We and again, some
[1:47:20] of my ideas came from speaking
[1:47:21] with Council Member Stone
[1:47:22] already. I've talked with a
[1:47:24] couple of other council members
[1:47:27] also. Also, we are seeing what
[1:47:28] other like what Miami-Dade
[1:47:30] County did for example. So
[1:47:32] today. So we're we're
[1:47:33] monitoring what all the
[1:47:35] different governments are doing.
[1:47:38] So we're going to come back
[1:47:39] with with some changes. I have
[1:47:40] a question. Sure. How many
[1:47:41] occupants can be in these
[1:47:43] recovery residences. It depends.
[1:47:45] It depends on their license and
[1:47:49] the type of facilities. Well,
[1:47:53] the the maximum in the law, I
[1:47:57] believe 90, 50 or 90 I read. No,
[1:47:59] I think it's larger. Hold on, i
[1:48:01] can't. That's not a single
[1:48:06] family house for. They talk
[1:48:07] about how many people you have
[1:48:09] to have supervising and working
[1:48:11] there the ratios. But I didn't
[1:48:13] see us at based on the size of
[1:48:14] the property, the number of
[1:48:16] beds, the number of rooms. I
[1:48:18] didn't see anything in there.
[1:48:19] So that's why I'm asking under
[1:48:23] under the level four. It it
[1:48:25] says that the residence is
[1:48:27] managed, is approved for 100
[1:48:31] residents and is wholly owned
[1:48:32] and controlled by a licensed
[1:48:33] service provider, electing to
[1:48:36] manage up to 300 residents. So
[1:48:38] my question is, could you take
[1:48:40] a 75 100 foot lot and go build
[1:48:42] a ten story building and put
[1:48:43] 100 people in there? No, it's
[1:48:45] based upon zoning. Still, one
[1:48:48] of the criteria that you would
[1:48:51] look at is whether the
[1:48:52] requested accommodation would
[1:48:54] require a fundamental
[1:48:55] alteration in the nature of
[1:48:57] land use and zoning regulations
[1:48:59] that comes out of the doj
[1:49:02] standards. So the answer is no.
[1:49:04] So basically, if we for
[1:49:06] argument's sake, I think 75 100
[1:49:10] foot lot with a 0.47 F.A.R
[1:49:13] gives you about 3525ft!S, our
[1:49:14] standard, I'm assuming. Were
[1:49:16] you talking about single family
[1:49:19] areas? No. Under the what I
[1:49:24] just said is that the if if the
[1:49:26] request would, would require a
[1:49:28] fundamental alteration in the
[1:49:29] nature of the land use and
[1:49:31] zoning, then that wouldn't be a
[1:49:32] reasonable accommodation. That
[1:49:34] would be this is not a
[1:49:35] residential then. No, it could
[1:49:38] be. Your example is to go high,
[1:49:39] build a building, but someone
[1:49:41] can come in to a home and do
[1:49:43] this. Okay. So say we build a
[1:49:47] standard home 3525ft!S. How many
[1:49:48] people could we have housing
[1:49:50] there? It depends on their
[1:49:51] licensing and the spacing. I
[1:49:53] mean, there's a lot of
[1:49:54] different factors. Okay. Yeah.
[1:49:56] I mean, this is an operating
[1:49:57] business, isn't it? Then again,
[1:49:58] I guess my next question then
[1:50:00] becomes, is there anything we
[1:50:02] can do in our zoning code which
[1:50:04] is reasonable and
[1:50:06] nondiscriminatory, of course,
[1:50:07] to limit the number of people
[1:50:09] that would be in these recovery
[1:50:10] residences. I think you just
[1:50:12] said the magic words. You can't
[1:50:14] be discriminatory, and it has
[1:50:17] to be reasonable. So there MAY
[1:50:19] be things that we can look at
[1:50:20] that other governments have
[1:50:23] done. But again, you need to be
[1:50:26] cautious of this because this
[1:50:28] could turn into a fair Housing
[1:50:30] Act issue. So but I'm happy to
[1:50:32] talk to you, like I said, and
[1:50:34] hear some of your ideas. And,
[1:50:36] you know, we've done a lot of
[1:50:38] these across the state over the
[1:50:40] years. How does Live Oak Live
[1:50:43] Local affect potentially affect
[1:50:47] this? Live local does not
[1:50:49] affect us. This is separate. So
[1:50:51] so live local developer
[1:50:52] couldn't come in and do
[1:50:53] workforce housing and also
[1:50:55] attach one of these and then
[1:50:56] violate all those. Push through
[1:51:00] zoning is well live local is
[1:51:02] not permitted in single family
[1:51:04] first of all. So it would be in
[1:51:05] commercial, industrial or mixed
[1:51:07] use. You don't have industrial,
[1:51:10] so it would be limiting if they
[1:51:12] were to come in and do a live
[1:51:17] local project. It has to be
[1:51:19] income restricted, which is
[1:51:20] interesting because typically
[1:51:22] what you see is these homes are
[1:51:24] actually very wealthy people
[1:51:25] that are from the north that
[1:51:27] come down here to rehab. So
[1:51:28] it's a little different. And
[1:51:30] they're transient. They're not
[1:51:31] rental. These are transient
[1:51:33] living type facilities. So I
[1:51:35] don't really see the there's no
[1:51:36] connection. The connection.
[1:51:37] Could someone be creative?
[1:51:38] Maybe. But they also would have
[1:51:40] to go through the licensing
[1:51:42] process. And it just doesn't
[1:51:43] make sense to me. It would have
[1:51:46] to be a full rental. I mean, it
[1:51:47] seems difficult. Yeah. Just
[1:51:48] asking the general question.
[1:51:51] Thank you. So again, please, I
[1:51:53] mean, I'm happy to reach out to
[1:51:55] you guys in between, like I
[1:51:56] typically try to check in, but
[1:51:58] if you have anything, call me.
[1:51:59] And on second reading we can.
[1:52:01] I'm happy to have a robust
[1:52:07] discussion. Okay. Okay. So. I
[1:52:11] think that covers it on first
[1:52:12] reading, MADAM Clerk,
[1:52:14] Councilmember Vasquez. Yes.
[1:52:15] Mayor. Roscoe. Yes.
[1:52:17] Councilmember. Yes.
[1:52:18] Councilmember. Kaplan. Yes.
[1:52:20] Councilmember. London. Yes.
[1:52:22] Vice mayor. Yes. And
[1:52:25] Councilmember. Stoner. Yes.
[1:52:30] Approved on first reading. 90.
[1:52:33] MR. Mayor 90. Okay. An
[1:52:35] ordinance of the Village of Key
[1:52:36] Biscayne, Florida, amending
[1:52:38] section 30 Dash 104,
[1:52:40] Institutional district of the
[1:52:41] village Code of Ordinances to
[1:52:43] provide development regulations
[1:52:45] for properties that are
[1:52:47] 10,000ft!S or less. Providing for
[1:52:49] severability. Providing for
[1:52:50] codification, providing for
[1:52:53] conflicts, and providing for an
[1:52:55] effective date. So moved.
[1:52:58] Second. Second. Thank you. I'd
[1:52:59] like to make an amendment to
[1:53:02] this. Well, first tell people
[1:53:05] what's going on to do here. We
[1:53:08] have well this is the general.
[1:53:10] This is there are two parts to
[1:53:12] this. Yeah. This is the general
[1:53:14] changing of the code to
[1:53:18] accommodate a property that is
[1:53:20] smaller than what is typically
[1:53:23] our institutional size property.
[1:53:25] Usually the institutional size
[1:53:26] properties are like
[1:53:28] Presbyterian Church, Saint
[1:53:30] Agnes, they're large properties.
[1:53:32] But we have for example, Chabad,
[1:53:34] which is in a much smaller
[1:53:35] property. And the institution,
[1:53:40] first of all. This is to allow
[1:53:44] a smaller size property to be
[1:53:46] classified as institutional.
[1:53:48] That's that's the first step of
[1:53:53] the process. It's a kind of
[1:53:54] unique situation because we
[1:53:56] have, for example, Chabad,
[1:53:58] which is right, or most all of
[1:54:00] the houses of worship are and
[1:54:03] it's functioning under a an
[1:54:04] order that gives a lot of
[1:54:06] restrictions. But that's not
[1:54:07] really what this particular one
[1:54:09] is about. This is about
[1:54:12] allowing this. This item is
[1:54:13] about allowing smaller
[1:54:17] properties to be fall within
[1:54:19] institutional provided for as
[1:54:24] an institutional zoning. So it
[1:54:27] excuse me, but it is creating a,
[1:54:29] a classification to allow
[1:54:32] smaller properties to be
[1:54:35] institutional and and Nancy why
[1:54:37] why why do we need to do this?
[1:54:38] I read I read this and I,
[1:54:40] honest to GOD did not
[1:54:41] understand it. It's too much
[1:54:43] for me. So why is this helping
[1:54:44] us or restricting us? Why would
[1:54:47] we do this just as a well, for
[1:54:48] example, right now we have
[1:54:50] Chabad, right? Which doesn't
[1:54:52] have institutional. It doesn't
[1:54:54] have the benefits of
[1:54:56] institutional. Zoning, and it
[1:54:58] doesn't have the obligations
[1:55:01] and restrictions of, of, of
[1:55:02] institutional zoning. But it is
[1:55:04] a house of worship, and it's
[1:55:06] right where it should be, where
[1:55:07] all the houses of worship are.
[1:55:09] So it's trying to bring them
[1:55:11] under the same umbrella as all
[1:55:12] the other houses of worship.
[1:55:14] Okay. And particularly to allow
[1:55:16] them to have some kind of
[1:55:17] signage. Well, that's one of
[1:55:20] the issues that that it came up,
[1:55:22] this whole issue came up with
[1:55:23] the signage because we didn't
[1:55:25] know what to do with them
[1:55:26] because they weren't
[1:55:27] institutional. They were an
[1:55:29] outlier on that issue. Is that
[1:55:32] the only issue? They're under a
[1:55:34] development order? One reason I
[1:55:36] don't know why we would want to
[1:55:39] do this is the conversation we
[1:55:40] just had about live local, and
[1:55:41] I don't know why we would want
[1:55:43] to create institutional
[1:55:45] opportunities where the
[1:55:46] neighborhood isn't houses of
[1:55:48] worship. The local doesn't
[1:55:50] concern institutional. It does.
[1:55:54] No it doesn't commercial,
[1:55:56] definitely industrial. Let me
[1:55:59] check. Institutional. No, but
[1:56:00] let me check the new changes to
[1:56:02] see if it changes it recently.
[1:56:05] Well, let me just say that my
[1:56:08] amendment was not only going to
[1:56:10] be for properties less than
[1:56:13] 10,000ft!S in size and contiguous
[1:56:16] with existing institutional
[1:56:18] uses, so it couldn't be in the
[1:56:20] middle of the island. Some
[1:56:22] house wants to. It has to be.
[1:56:24] That's a helpful. That's so
[1:56:26] just an answer to the live
[1:56:30] local question. It's.
[1:56:33] Commercial, industrial, mixed
[1:56:37] use or any portion or or mixed
[1:56:39] use and in portions of any
[1:56:42] flexibly, flexibly zoned areas,
[1:56:44] such as a planned unit
[1:56:46] development permitted for
[1:56:48] commercial, industrial or mixed
[1:56:50] use. Now there are new
[1:56:52] definitions for for those terms.
[1:56:57] Now to that we need to look at.
[1:57:00] The. There was an amendment in
[1:57:02] 2025 that would allow
[1:57:03] municipalities to allow
[1:57:05] additional development in
[1:57:07] church properties, but it
[1:57:09] doesn't require it. It doesn't
[1:57:12] mandate it. Yeah, yeah. With
[1:57:15] the addition that that Nancy
[1:57:17] suggested, which I think is
[1:57:19] important, is contiguous means
[1:57:21] attached to our comp plan
[1:57:24] speaks to the same issue. Yes.
[1:57:25] This would be essentially
[1:57:26] taking something like, for
[1:57:29] instance, somebody could apply
[1:57:30] to rezone a single family home
[1:57:34] to commercial. We would not
[1:57:35] support that. The comp plan
[1:57:37] doesn't support it. So I think
[1:57:40] if someone wanted to build a
[1:57:41] church on Satinwood, right,
[1:57:43] it's the comp plan would not
[1:57:45] support that as well. I think
[1:57:48] making it explicit into the
[1:57:50] into the code is helpful though.
[1:57:52] The only place to the zoning
[1:57:53] ordinance. We talked about this
[1:57:55] in our preview meeting. The
[1:57:56] only other place that I could
[1:57:59] think of that would work would
[1:58:02] be contiguous to the community
[1:58:06] church, because that's
[1:58:09] institutional. So it's also
[1:58:12] Fernwood. So we had this
[1:58:14] discussion not too long ago
[1:58:17] about the undesirability of
[1:58:19] establishing a footprint that
[1:58:20] would affect the Fernwood
[1:58:24] neighborhood. So back to what
[1:58:27] exists. And and I think what
[1:58:29] provoked some critical thinking
[1:58:31] about Chabad specifically is
[1:58:34] the menorah in the front lawn.
[1:58:36] Well, let let me just go back
[1:58:39] and say the order under which
[1:58:42] Chabad is functioning is
[1:58:44] astounding. There are like 20
[1:58:45] restrictions. You can't do this.
[1:58:46] You can't do that. You can't.
[1:58:48] It is. And I think it happened
[1:58:51] because at the time, 20 or so
[1:58:52] years ago, no one really
[1:58:54] understood what Chabad was.
[1:58:56] Never one was probably a little
[1:58:58] nervous and put all these
[1:59:00] restrictions and now that
[1:59:04] history has has unfolded, it's
[1:59:06] everything's fine. And that was
[1:59:08] just that. That order is just
[1:59:10] overkill. Overkill and
[1:59:12] discriminatory in some respects.
[1:59:13] It's discriminatory. It's
[1:59:15] ridiculous. Can we can we back
[1:59:17] off on that, Nancy? Can we
[1:59:19] revise the order so that. Well,
[1:59:21] it seems it just seems silly
[1:59:22] that it seems silly that it
[1:59:24] wouldn't just be institutional
[1:59:26] and that why don't you make
[1:59:27] that amendment to your thing
[1:59:30] that this is it's less than
[1:59:31] 10,000ft in adjacent or
[1:59:34] contiguous to the existing
[1:59:36] institutional use, and that way
[1:59:38] it limits it really to that
[1:59:39] neighborhood. Jan, are we on
[1:59:42] the straight and narrow? It
[1:59:46] depends on, you know, adjacency.
[1:59:49] I guess it would mean across
[1:59:53] the street. Yeah. Okay. We MAY
[1:59:55] have to define that, but we
[1:59:57] could probably. Yeah. We know
[1:59:59] that's worse. Okay. Yeah.
[2:00:01] Contiguous is touching.
[2:00:02] Adjacent is sometimes defined
[2:00:04] as across the street. Sometimes
[2:00:07] it's not Frank's point. So if
[2:00:08] someone would decide that they
[2:00:11] wanted to do this on another
[2:00:12] piece of property on Fernwood,
[2:00:14] would that are we opening up
[2:00:16] this situation so we allow
[2:00:19] another possible facility on
[2:00:22] Fernwood. So we should remember
[2:00:23] that this allows somebody to
[2:00:25] ask for a rezoning application.
[2:00:28] It does not guarantee that they
[2:00:30] would be getting a rezoning for
[2:00:31] that. And we still apply
[2:00:33] elements of the comprehensive
[2:00:35] plan that. Does it make sense
[2:00:36] there? That sort of thing. But
[2:00:38] if they're but if they're a
[2:00:39] religious institution, doesn't
[2:00:40] matter which religious
[2:00:41] institution they are and they
[2:00:43] just they make an application
[2:00:45] and we reject that application.
[2:00:47] What merits are we rejecting
[2:00:48] the application on neighborhood
[2:00:50] compatibility? You know, if if
[2:00:52] we already have a we already
[2:00:53] have a church on firmly. That's
[2:00:56] my point. But if it's in, say,
[2:00:57] Fernwood houses facing away
[2:00:59] from it, even though the
[2:01:00] property is adjacent and it's
[2:01:02] out of character for the rest
[2:01:03] of the street, like there's a
[2:01:04] number of reasons to continue
[2:01:06] to reject that that are valid.
[2:01:08] I can foresee a weak position
[2:01:10] on the part of our successor
[2:01:13] council. Yeah, it sounds like a
[2:01:14] lawsuit waiting to happen to me.
[2:01:16] I mean, if we want to, if we
[2:01:19] want to narrow it further, even
[2:01:22] to the northwest quadrant of
[2:01:24] the city, I mean, of the
[2:01:26] village, just because I can see
[2:01:28] one saying that. I mean, look,
[2:01:30] if you look at the zoning map,
[2:01:32] I'm looking at it now on my
[2:01:33] screen. I mean, there's a lot
[2:01:35] of blue in that area, which is
[2:01:37] institutional. You know, one
[2:01:38] can reason that that's where
[2:01:40] you're limiting, you know, uses
[2:01:41] to go because of the
[2:01:43] compatibility issues. So maybe
[2:01:45] that will cure the Fernwood
[2:01:47] concern somewhat. I mean, I
[2:01:49] know Fernwood is right there on
[2:01:51] the North, but still, if you
[2:01:53] limit to the north west
[2:01:55] quadrant that can we do that is
[2:01:56] community church school problem,
[2:01:58] I think. I think we can draft
[2:02:00] we can draft something that's
[2:02:02] more narrow. Yeah. Not
[2:02:04] presently, but you know it. If
[2:02:06] things get more popular,
[2:02:08] potentially we can we can
[2:02:10] definitely draft something
[2:02:12] that's more narrow to tie it to
[2:02:14] that area. And we and we can
[2:02:18] even draft it even tighter. And
[2:02:22] defining adjacency to that to I
[2:02:25] think that that would. Help.
[2:02:28] Okay. As opposed to amending
[2:02:29] the development order, which is
[2:02:32] another way to do this. I mean,
[2:02:34] I'm in full support to, to to
[2:02:35] do whatever we need to do to
[2:02:37] make the institution feel like
[2:02:38] they're part of the community.
[2:02:40] So whatever we need to do that
[2:02:41] to make it happen, I'm
[2:02:43] supportive. I just want to make
[2:02:44] sure we're not opening up
[2:02:45] Pandora's Box and causing
[2:02:46] another open up Pandora's box.
[2:02:48] Yeah, let me work with Council
[2:02:49] Member stoner and come back in
[2:02:50] narrowing the geographic area a
[2:02:52] little bit for you, and then we
[2:02:54] can come back on second reading
[2:02:55] and see if you guys think that
[2:02:57] that's. And will you please,
[2:02:59] please think a little deeper
[2:03:01] about the implications? I will
[2:03:04] I will study it to make sure
[2:03:05] that we're not getting tripped
[2:03:08] up there and ironclad on the
[2:03:10] comp plan. Well, I can tell you
[2:03:12] that the comp plan for single
[2:03:13] family residential includes
[2:03:16] religious facilities to.
[2:03:19] They're an allowed use in the.
[2:03:20] They are an allowed use. But
[2:03:22] we're back to compatibility
[2:03:24] correct. So it MAY not be
[2:03:25] permitted everywhere I
[2:03:26] understand that. But just so
[2:03:28] you knew that that it is
[2:03:29] allowed as a permitted use in
[2:03:31] the future land use category
[2:03:33] for the single family district.
[2:03:35] So but we'll Jeremy's looked at
[2:03:37] the comp plan issue. We'll look
[2:03:40] at it again. I mean obviously
[2:03:41] our elders, our land
[2:03:42] development regulations have to
[2:03:45] be consistent with our comp
[2:03:46] plan. So we'll we'll ensure
[2:03:48] just comp comp plan. Can you
[2:03:50] give a definition Chad. What
[2:03:52] comp plan? The definition. I'm
[2:03:54] sorry, are you both hold on one
[2:03:55] second. The development the
[2:03:57] comprehensive development plan
[2:03:59] that's in place. Say it again
[2:04:02] I'm sorry. The comp plan. So
[2:04:04] the comprehensive plan is our
[2:04:05] growth management plan. It's
[2:04:07] mandated under Florida law,
[2:04:08] which is our constitution for
[2:04:11] land use planning. The zoning
[2:04:13] code implements the comp plan.
[2:04:16] So each property has a
[2:04:18] comprehensive plan designation
[2:04:20] and each plan is comprehensive
[2:04:22] plan. Yes. Yes. I was just
[2:04:23] looking for the comprehensive
[2:04:25] plan, and I'm sorry,
[2:04:28] Councilmember, you had a thanks.
[2:04:29] Thanks. Yes. The Galleria
[2:04:33] shopping center. Jeremy, I'm
[2:04:34] sorry. I had a quick question.
[2:04:37] Did you had mentioned using the
[2:04:39] word contiguous, meaning
[2:04:42] clusters of worship, and we're
[2:04:43] getting rid of that. We're
[2:04:45] getting rid of contiguous. Like
[2:04:46] we'll need to define contiguous
[2:04:47] as attached. Well no, but we'll
[2:04:49] need to define the term no but
[2:04:50] okay. So I don't mean
[2:04:51] necessarily contiguous from the
[2:04:53] standpoint of attached but but
[2:04:56] by defining an area of worship,
[2:04:59] not necessarily one house after
[2:05:02] the next 1 or 1, but more from
[2:05:05] I mean, it's part of the
[2:05:06] fundamental layout of the
[2:05:08] village of Key Biscayne that it
[2:05:10] has a clearly defined
[2:05:11] commercial district. The
[2:05:13] churches are clustered in a
[2:05:15] particular way. That was way
[2:05:17] the way, you know, the Mackle
[2:05:19] brothers laid it out initially.
[2:05:21] They preserve those large lots
[2:05:23] for religious institutions,
[2:05:28] right? Yes. Same. Okay. Okay.
[2:05:31] My friend, I guess we weren't
[2:05:33] able to put these two together,
[2:05:36] right? So and so should we vote
[2:05:38] on this one? Yeah. Go ahead on
[2:05:43] 90 as amended. Mayor Roscoe.
[2:05:45] Yes. Councilmember Bracken. Yes.
[2:05:47] Councilmember Kaplan. Yes.
[2:05:48] Councilmember. London. Yes.
[2:05:51] Vice mayor Sardinia's. Yes.
[2:05:52] Councilmember. Stoner. Yes.
[2:05:54] Councilmember. Vasquez. Yes.
[2:05:56] The ordinance is approved on
[2:06:01] first reading. The next item is
[2:06:03] nine f an ordinance on first
[2:06:04] reading an ordinance of the
[2:06:06] Village of Key Biscayne,
[2:06:07] Florida. Rezoning the property
[2:06:09] located located at 101 Harbor
[2:06:12] Drive. Property folio number
[2:06:17] 2442 32 0060230 from the
[2:06:18] village residential district to
[2:06:21] the institutional I district,
[2:06:23] providing for severability,
[2:06:25] providing for conflicts, and
[2:06:26] providing for an effective date.
[2:06:29] So moved mayor. This is a quasi
[2:06:31] judicial hearing technically,
[2:06:33] so we should open up the public
[2:06:34] hearing. If anybody wants to
[2:06:36] speak, they'd have to be sworn
[2:06:38] in. Do we need a second? Yeah,
[2:06:40] somebody needs to. Is there a
[2:06:43] second? Wait. I'm sorry. One
[2:06:46] second. Councilmember Kaplan in
[2:06:50] London already moved the item.
[2:06:51] Okay. Please stand and raise
[2:06:55] your right hand. Who's that?
[2:06:57] Would that be? Probably only
[2:07:00] Jeremy. Jeremy? Oh, yes. Thank
[2:07:02] you. Sorry. Do you swear and
[2:07:04] affirm that the testimony you
[2:07:06] give this evening is the truth?
[2:07:08] Yes. Thank you. Probably should
[2:07:10] have put his hand on a Bible.
[2:07:12] And then, for the record, I
[2:07:14] think, mayor, if you want to
[2:07:15] call the public hearing, I
[2:07:16] don't see anybody. And then we
[2:07:18] can open and close it. Call.
[2:07:22] Public hearing is now open on
[2:07:25] 9e9f9f only nine f seeing no
[2:07:28] one come forward. Public
[2:07:32] hearing is now closed. Okay.
[2:07:36] Okay. So this is this is the
[2:07:41] ordinance to change to rezone
[2:07:44] the location where the Chabad
[2:07:48] is now to institutional. So
[2:07:51] this is first reading. So
[2:07:53] presumably this comes back on
[2:07:55] second reading. And if we pass
[2:07:57] the the prior ordinance then we
[2:07:59] would pass this. If we don't
[2:08:00] pass the prior ordinance then
[2:08:02] we'll probably won't pass this.
[2:08:04] If we don't pass the prior
[2:08:05] ordinance, then this will not
[2:08:08] be heard. Yes, on second
[2:08:09] reading, I don't really know if
[2:08:11] we need to have too much
[2:08:13] discussion. Same caveats, but
[2:08:15] the justification here, it
[2:08:17] seems to me, is just completely
[2:08:19] contrary to our history and
[2:08:21] reality. This whole point was
[2:08:22] to accommodate the Chabad, not
[2:08:24] to encourage additional houses
[2:08:25] of worship anywhere in the
[2:08:29] island. That's just not right.
[2:08:31] So that justification on page
[2:08:35] one of the memo, in my opinion.
[2:08:37] Well, I wish you would read the
[2:08:39] order under which they're
[2:08:39] functioning now, because you
[2:08:41] might change your mind. I have
[2:08:43] read it. It's been a long time.
[2:08:46] Yeah. And I participated at the
[2:08:50] time. I really encouraged that
[2:08:52] council to approve that use.
[2:08:54] There were there were many
[2:08:56] points of controversy, one of
[2:08:58] which was, you know, parking
[2:09:00] and traffic, pointing out that
[2:09:02] Orthodox people don't drive,
[2:09:04] but that didn't really sway the
[2:09:08] argument. No, didn't. I will
[2:09:10] tell you that the next door
[2:09:12] neighbor had a lot of
[2:09:14] reservations about it at the
[2:09:17] time. Yeah, but they are very
[2:09:20] happy with their neighbor now.
[2:09:22] Yeah, yeah. So I mean, if this
[2:09:24] doesn't if this isn't the best
[2:09:26] solution to actually
[2:09:28] institutionalize that site
[2:09:30] while preserving zoning
[2:09:32] integrity elsewhere, including
[2:09:34] Fernwood, I'm all about fixing
[2:09:36] whatever the problems are
[2:09:37] either way. But I think the
[2:09:39] discussion that we just had on
[2:09:42] the prior ordinance helps. Okay,
[2:09:44] okay, let's see if we can bring
[2:09:47] it home. Councilmember Bracken.
[2:09:49] Councilmember Kaplan. Yes.
[2:09:51] Councilmember. London. Yes.
[2:09:52] Vice mayor Sardinia's. Yes.
[2:09:54] Councilmember. Stoner. Yes.
[2:09:55] Councilmember. Vasquez. Yes.
[2:09:58] Mayor Roscoe. Yes is approved
[2:10:02] on first reading. Okay, let's
[2:10:06] have a conversation on nine g.
[2:10:08] An ordinance on first reading,
[2:10:10] an ordinance of the Village of
[2:10:11] Key Biscayne, Florida, amending
[2:10:13] chapter. Chapter 30, Zoning and
[2:10:15] Land Development Regulations of
[2:10:17] the village code of ordinances
[2:10:20] by creating section 3062 to
[2:10:21] establish an advisory board to
[2:10:24] review regulatory variances.
[2:10:27] Amending section 3063 variance
[2:10:30] procedures and section 3066 and
[2:10:32] regulatory variances relating
[2:10:34] to the Advisory Board providing
[2:10:36] for severability, providing for
[2:10:38] conflicts, and providing for an
[2:10:42] effective date so moved. Second.
[2:10:45] Thank you. Okay, since I've
[2:10:46] been the one year that I've
[2:10:48] been serving on council, we've
[2:10:50] had many variance requests come
[2:10:54] before us. And in order to
[2:10:59] understand the application,
[2:11:02] it's extremely time consuming.
[2:11:10] It's very technical. Even the
[2:11:12] application is is technical.
[2:11:14] And it has happened on occasion
[2:11:20] that we've had applications
[2:11:21] that are incomplete and it
[2:11:23] comes before us. We don't even
[2:11:24] realize they're incomplete. And
[2:11:27] my my feeling is that if we
[2:11:29] have a board of architects,
[2:11:31] primarily architects and other
[2:11:32] people familiar with the code
[2:11:36] and in the in the land use
[2:11:38] business, they could go over,
[2:11:41] it would be an advisory board.
[2:11:41] They could go over the
[2:11:43] application. They could make
[2:11:45] sure that it was complete, that
[2:11:49] it would fit, that it that it
[2:11:55] was. A a viable variance. We're
[2:11:56] getting variances now just
[2:11:59] because people want them.
[2:12:00] There's not even a reason, this
[2:12:02] one that we're going to look at
[2:12:03] later tonight wants higher
[2:12:05] ceilings. There's not even a
[2:12:08] reason. It's ridiculous. We
[2:12:10] have a code. We have a code.
[2:12:12] And since I've been on council
[2:12:16] we are having code by variance.
[2:12:18] Everyone comes in for variance.
[2:12:19] We have a code for a reason.
[2:12:21] It's supposed. It's supposed to
[2:12:23] establish rules that everyone
[2:12:25] abides by. And if you want to
[2:12:28] certain concessions, then you
[2:12:28] have to make certain
[2:12:30] concessions. And we're not
[2:12:31] having that. And this, this
[2:12:34] body is not taking the time or
[2:12:37] having the capacity to do an
[2:12:39] in-depth analysis of these
[2:12:41] applications that come before
[2:12:43] us and, and, and, and Jeremy
[2:12:46] and his staff do a fine job,
[2:12:48] but it's not fine enough in
[2:12:50] terms of we need more eyes on
[2:12:52] it. And I think that if we had
[2:12:54] a board that would make
[2:12:55] recommendations to us, we could
[2:12:57] take that under consideration.
[2:12:59] As well as Jeremy's
[2:13:01] department's recommendations.
[2:13:03] You will see, as we consider
[2:13:05] later on tonight, the variance
[2:13:07] request, that Jeremy's
[2:13:09] interpretation is far different,
[2:13:11] and his recommendation is
[2:13:12] diametrically opposed to what
[2:13:16] the Zork and those were all
[2:13:19] most all architects were their
[2:13:21] recommendation on those same
[2:13:23] those same applications. So I
[2:13:25] think we need help on this. And
[2:13:28] I think more information and
[2:13:30] more full information is better.
[2:13:34] So what are you suggesting I'm
[2:13:36] suggesting I'm suggesting that
[2:13:40] we have a an advisory board to
[2:13:43] review variance applications,
[2:13:46] that they review applications,
[2:13:47] that they make recommendations
[2:13:51] and they either present to us,
[2:13:53] along with Jeremy and his
[2:13:55] department or they present.
[2:13:57] They give it to Jeremy, and
[2:13:59] Jeremy presents it to us.
[2:14:01] Question. Question. Go ahead.
[2:14:02] Wait wait wait. Go. Go ahead.
[2:14:04] Mike. So how do we avoid
[2:14:06] conflict of interest when we
[2:14:08] have architects that are they
[2:14:10] recuse? Just like we recuse? No,
[2:14:12] just hear me out. So if we have
[2:14:14] architects that are on the
[2:14:15] board, but they're also
[2:14:17] employed to do work on the
[2:14:19] island they're in, how are we
[2:14:21] going to get people to do this?
[2:14:22] Because, you know, if we ask
[2:14:24] them, just for example, let's
[2:14:26] say we asked Tom Weber to be on
[2:14:27] the board. He's doing a he's
[2:14:29] doing a project on the island.
[2:14:30] How how. So he would have to
[2:14:32] recuse himself on every time he
[2:14:33] would be looking at his own
[2:14:35] property. Yes, absolutely. Just
[2:14:36] like when I was sitting on
[2:14:37] magistrates, people who my firm
[2:14:39] represent came before special
[2:14:40] magistrate and I had to recuse.
[2:14:42] Just like you have to recuse
[2:14:44] when when Martin when Martin's
[2:14:46] development comes. Question. So
[2:14:48] even if it's not their own
[2:14:49] development, which that's
[2:14:51] obvious to recuse, what if
[2:14:53] they're it's a completely
[2:14:54] different development they're
[2:14:55] working on, but they're working
[2:14:57] on this variance that they
[2:14:58] foresee. They might set a
[2:14:59] precedent here that might allow
[2:15:01] him to get a precedent on his
[2:15:02] development. So they're working
[2:15:05] with the code. No, no. Okay. So
[2:15:07] I'm on the board. I'm going to
[2:15:10] recommend this variance because
[2:15:12] at some future point in time, I
[2:15:13] might be working on another
[2:15:15] project that might request that
[2:15:16] same variance. And I could use
[2:15:17] this variance as PRESIDENT On
[2:15:20] why to get that variance. Well,
[2:15:21] I'm just saying I mean, that's
[2:15:24] going kind of deep. But why,
[2:15:27] why, why create that? The other
[2:15:29] part is when we talk about
[2:15:31] variances, and we had a
[2:15:33] discussion and I was thinking
[2:15:34] about this particular variance
[2:15:35] that you brought up that we're
[2:15:37] going to see today. And part of
[2:15:39] the criteria of how we look at
[2:15:40] these variances is not a
[2:15:42] requirement for hardship.
[2:15:43] That's that's what I want. And
[2:15:45] so maybe we just change that.
[2:15:46] Let me tell you about that. And
[2:15:49] if we change to add that
[2:15:51] criteria to say, hey, if there
[2:15:54] is no hardship, if you can't
[2:15:55] prove any type of hardship,
[2:15:57] this isn't even getting to the
[2:16:01] next step. If I can just before
[2:16:03] it's just subjective. No, no,
[2:16:05] we can have the discussion, I
[2:16:06] just but let's just refrain
[2:16:08] from speaking about the
[2:16:09] variance items we're hearing
[2:16:11] later on tonight. The stage is
[2:16:12] out of general high level,
[2:16:14] please. Thank you. As far as
[2:16:16] first of all, as far as this
[2:16:17] hardship discussion is
[2:16:18] concerned, it's I understand it.
[2:16:20] I think it's a great idea
[2:16:22] theoretically, but under sb 180,
[2:16:24] I don't think we can even add
[2:16:26] that right now. Number one.
[2:16:30] Number two, our own section
[2:16:32] 1048 conditions for issuance of
[2:16:34] a variance. Subsection one
[2:16:37] submission by the applicant of
[2:16:38] a showing of good and
[2:16:40] sufficient cause that the
[2:16:42] unique characteristics of the
[2:16:44] size, configuration or
[2:16:46] topography of the site limit
[2:16:48] compliance with the provision.
[2:16:49] That's hardship, that's
[2:16:50] hardship. That's what that
[2:16:52] means. But not but doesn't
[2:16:55] cover all hardships. This is
[2:16:57] saying that the code, the
[2:16:59] reason for this is we have a
[2:17:00] code that in general applies to
[2:17:02] everybody. And there are
[2:17:04] circumstances that are unique
[2:17:06] to a property where the code.
[2:17:08] Okay, but what if what if that
[2:17:10] property is not just just add
[2:17:11] one clarification?
[2:17:12] Councilmember stoner, I believe
[2:17:15] you referenced chapter ten.
[2:17:18] That's actually relating to
[2:17:20] variances underneath the
[2:17:21] National Flood Insurance
[2:17:23] program. Right? Okay. Which is
[2:17:25] different than chapter 30. So
[2:17:27] those are flood variances,
[2:17:28] which are that's the standard
[2:17:30] under federal law that that we
[2:17:32] adopt. So I was confused
[2:17:34] because I looked and I and I
[2:17:35] wasn't sure maybe let's go back
[2:17:37] to the original one. So we
[2:17:38] don't talk about the other
[2:17:39] variants. Just this whole
[2:17:41] thought of recusing and how do
[2:17:42] we find people in this
[2:17:44] community that effectively will
[2:17:46] never work in this community,
[2:17:47] because otherwise they MAY have
[2:17:48] to recuse themselves on some
[2:17:49] level or another. Well,
[2:17:50] someone's not going to someone
[2:17:53] would not not hire an architect
[2:17:57] because they serve on the board.
[2:17:58] No, but the archetype would
[2:18:00] have to recuse himself. Right.
[2:18:01] But we have we have more than
[2:18:03] five architects on this on this
[2:18:05] island. We have a lot of
[2:18:07] architects, Nancy. And it's not
[2:18:09] only architects. A couple of
[2:18:11] things right now, Jeremy has
[2:18:14] criteria and he analyzes each
[2:18:16] criteria. He gives us analysis.
[2:18:18] We can agree or disagree with
[2:18:21] his analysis. Are you saying we
[2:18:22] should have different criteria
[2:18:24] than Jeremy has for the
[2:18:25] advisory board? No, I'm not
[2:18:27] saying we should have different
[2:18:29] criteria. Yes. So they're going
[2:18:30] to basically see if they agree
[2:18:32] with Jeremy's analysis. They're
[2:18:34] going to do it their own
[2:18:35] analysis. So basically see if
[2:18:37] they agree or disagree. They
[2:18:38] disagree. They'll tell based on
[2:18:40] the exact same criteria. Right.
[2:18:43] That's what. So so then and the
[2:18:45] basis of everything is our our
[2:18:46] chapter 30 whatever the hell it
[2:18:49] is. Okay. Our code. Now the
[2:18:51] next thing you want to say why
[2:18:52] I'm against your thing. Because
[2:18:55] you want architects to do this.
[2:18:56] And my experience at this
[2:19:00] village in 2013, I proposed
[2:19:04] that the bfe was ten feet and I
[2:19:06] said we should raise the Bfv or
[2:19:09] permit to be raised because we
[2:19:10] didn't even permit to build at
[2:19:13] a higher bfe without penalizing
[2:19:16] 10% of the F.A.R. And the
[2:19:17] village architects all came
[2:19:20] here and they said the village
[2:19:21] would look terrible. We don't
[2:19:22] like the architecture. It's not
[2:19:24] going to be. We don't really
[2:19:26] care. It doesn't matter, I said.
[2:19:27] But you really caring about the
[2:19:28] sustainability and resilience
[2:19:30] and then, you know, but it's
[2:19:31] more important you can't raise
[2:19:34] it. So basically they went
[2:19:35] along with the architects and
[2:19:37] you know what happened. We now
[2:19:40] have bfe plus one. So everybody
[2:19:42] at that point in time now
[2:19:44] because those architects. So
[2:19:46] architects are artists. Excuse
[2:19:48] me. Architects are artists.
[2:19:49] Yeah okay. They're not
[2:19:51] technicians. They're not
[2:19:53] lawyers. I have no problem with
[2:19:55] your thing. As long as it does
[2:19:56] not involve architects. The
[2:19:58] mayor appoints people, whoever
[2:20:00] he thinks is qualified. We
[2:20:02] agree or we disagree with those
[2:20:03] people. And that's it. They
[2:20:05] might be an architect. It might
[2:20:06] be a contractor. They might
[2:20:08] just be an attorney. They might
[2:20:09] be an intelligent individual
[2:20:11] who knows how to read. Okay,
[2:20:13] anybody, but not limited to
[2:20:15] architects. If he has an
[2:20:16] architect, fine. That's all.
[2:20:18] Which takes care of your
[2:20:19] problem, Oscar, with appointing
[2:20:21] architects, you might have a
[2:20:22] conflict if you're a developer
[2:20:24] or fear whatever. There's a lot
[2:20:26] of other people you and I both
[2:20:27] know that. Look, reading these
[2:20:30] plans, you need, you need. Not
[2:20:31] everyone has to be an architect,
[2:20:32] but you need technically, what
[2:20:34] I was thinking when you brought
[2:20:36] this up is is this similar to
[2:20:37] like, a site site plan review,
[2:20:39] which we talked about and I
[2:20:40] think when Brett was on on
[2:20:42] council as well, he spoke about
[2:20:44] the need for this and I didn't
[2:20:47] know how that would look. But I
[2:20:48] see something brewing here. But
[2:20:50] I want to be really careful
[2:20:51] that just it's not just
[2:20:53] architects, it could be a gc
[2:20:55] too. But also yeah, that also
[2:20:57] has some interest in
[2:20:58] constructing here at one point
[2:21:00] and now sees an opportunity to
[2:21:02] create a very dangerous
[2:21:03] precedent that he could later
[2:21:05] use at a time. And I'm not
[2:21:06] saying people are going to do
[2:21:08] that, but it could happen. But
[2:21:09] the point is, they're supposed
[2:21:13] to be. But isn't that checking
[2:21:14] against the code? I understand
[2:21:16] checking against the code.
[2:21:19] They're not making policy.
[2:21:20] They're checking against the
[2:21:22] code. They should be doing what
[2:21:24] Jeremy and his staff are doing.
[2:21:25] But this but this is more us.
[2:21:27] Isn't the issue really that
[2:21:28] we're not? That the people are
[2:21:30] coming before us and they're
[2:21:31] not showing any hardship. Okay,
[2:21:35] so so no, that's not this issue.
[2:21:37] But to me, okay. Well by the
[2:21:40] same token, if we know that
[2:21:42] we're going to raise the bfr,
[2:21:44] more than likely the bfr, like
[2:21:45] we're talking about, even our
[2:21:47] drainage program, we say as
[2:21:49] soon to be if is going to be
[2:21:50] bfr plus three, right. Because
[2:21:52] our engineers and yet we're
[2:21:55] saying Vaf plus one right now.
[2:21:56] And someone comes to the plan
[2:21:58] now that's b plus two for
[2:21:59] argument's sake. That doesn't
[2:22:01] comply with it doesn't comply
[2:22:03] with our code. But we know
[2:22:04] already that we're going to be
[2:22:05] changing that because we're
[2:22:06] already telling we're designing
[2:22:09] something. We just did that
[2:22:11] saying, I'm going to buy a sofa,
[2:22:12] right? And you say to the
[2:22:15] salesman, it's going to go on
[2:22:17] sale in five months, so give me
[2:22:18] the sale price. Now, we don't
[2:22:21] know. We have a code now. We've
[2:22:23] already told people that our
[2:22:25] engineers to design our
[2:22:27] stormwater based on an increase
[2:22:28] in bfr. We haven't changed the
[2:22:30] code. Okay, well, you see,
[2:22:31] that's when cases like that
[2:22:33] come is why you have variances.
[2:22:34] Because people have to be
[2:22:35] reasonable and say, you know
[2:22:37] what, why would you have
[2:22:39] somebody do something when you
[2:22:40] know you're going to change it?
[2:22:41] But we just did that. We just
[2:22:43] did that for a house on I'm
[2:22:45] just saying exactly. Not on
[2:22:46] Harbor. I'm, I'm saying that's
[2:22:47] why you have variances.
[2:22:50] Everybody can't be variance. We
[2:22:52] don't need a code because it's
[2:22:54] code by variance. Come on. Okay,
[2:22:57] Frank. I you've articulated a
[2:22:59] problem. Yeah. There's no doubt
[2:23:01] that that's a problem. Yeah.
[2:23:04] The the process for correcting
[2:23:07] the problem, in my opinion, is
[2:23:09] not even in the neighborhood of
[2:23:11] this interposing another board
[2:23:13] and another layer of.
[2:23:17] Bureaucracy vesting in a group
[2:23:21] of people, a technical
[2:23:23] responsibility. That is our job,
[2:23:25] relying on that department,
[2:23:27] which in my opinion needs to do
[2:23:30] a better job. That's where the
[2:23:31] big problem can start to be
[2:23:35] fixed. If these memos are both
[2:23:37] number one, discouraged in
[2:23:39] inappropriate cases, and number
[2:23:42] two, done better, inappropriate
[2:23:44] cases. And if we had an
[2:23:46] opportunity, say, for two
[2:23:48] readings instead of one to deal
[2:23:49] with these. So they're just not
[2:23:52] coming at us out of left field.
[2:23:54] So we have a process, time to
[2:23:57] digest all the information,
[2:23:59] recognizing that it is
[2:24:02] technical in nature. And if we
[2:24:05] were to maybe not necessarily
[2:24:08] use the word hardship, but
[2:24:10] think in terms of a real
[2:24:12] justification that's rooted in
[2:24:13] something more like the flood
[2:24:16] language, a unique condition or
[2:24:19] a circumstance that augurs for
[2:24:21] an adjustment because it's
[2:24:22] equitable and it's
[2:24:23] inconsequential to the
[2:24:25] neighbors, that'd be a better
[2:24:27] standard than what we have now.
[2:24:29] But even with what we have now,
[2:24:31] I don't think we're bringing
[2:24:33] these forward appropriately
[2:24:35] because they're supposed to be.
[2:24:38] The result is supposed to be
[2:24:40] consistent with our regulations
[2:24:42] and these variances that we've
[2:24:45] been confronted with are simply
[2:24:48] based on the fact that someone
[2:24:49] doesn't want to comply with the
[2:24:51] code as written. But we are
[2:24:54] getting recommendations from
[2:24:56] our staff to approve them. So
[2:24:58] two parts to that. One is I
[2:25:00] think staff needs to do a
[2:25:01] better job in making sure
[2:25:03] compliance and conditions are
[2:25:05] all checked. All the boxes are
[2:25:08] checked. Secondly, I agree with
[2:25:09] some of these recommendations
[2:25:11] without being specific about
[2:25:13] which ones. Because of what I
[2:25:15] just said. At the very least,
[2:25:17] the result is supposed to be
[2:25:19] consistent with the regulations.
[2:25:21] Our regulations are very
[2:25:22] specific about height and slope
[2:25:24] and such, and thus to simply
[2:25:27] not want to comply with it is
[2:25:30] not a justification to me. Do
[2:25:32] you think there is room to
[2:25:34] adjust the criteria? Sure. To
[2:25:35] help in that manner? I think
[2:25:37] now you mentioned not use the
[2:25:39] word hardship maybe. Well,
[2:25:41] hardship would what would be
[2:25:43] what would be language that I
[2:25:44] think the language is
[2:25:46] instructive. And the reason
[2:25:48] that I'm a little bit shy about
[2:25:51] hardship is because hardship is
[2:25:53] so maybe impossible to really
[2:25:56] prove it's objective. Bad, bad,
[2:25:59] bad way to go. So if I could,
[2:26:01] under general zoning law,
[2:26:03] there's really three different
[2:26:05] types of variances standards.
[2:26:08] You have hardship which is the
[2:26:09] most strenuous. You have
[2:26:11] compatibility which is the most
[2:26:13] flexible. And they have one
[2:26:13] that's called practical
[2:26:15] difficulties, which is like a
[2:26:16] blend of the two, which is
[2:26:18] similar to what you heard in
[2:26:19] the flood criteria that
[2:26:20] Councilmember Stoner was
[2:26:24] mentioning. So. Happy to
[2:26:26] present you all three standards.
[2:26:28] You can look at what they look
[2:26:30] like, the criteria, and go from
[2:26:32] there. You could also build off
[2:26:33] the compatibility and add more
[2:26:35] criteria if you wanted to, to
[2:26:38] the only one that is really set
[2:26:39] historically is the hardship.
[2:26:41] And there are certain criteria
[2:26:43] in there that is very term of
[2:26:46] art. That again is extremely
[2:26:49] difficult to meet. So I'm happy
[2:26:51] to provide that information to
[2:26:53] you so you can review it. It's
[2:26:54] not obviously in here, but it
[2:26:56] could be for a future code
[2:26:58] amendment. I have a comment and
[2:26:59] I have a suggestion. Well, I
[2:27:02] have a question, a suggestion
[2:27:05] and a question. Can we even
[2:27:09] amend our code under sb 180? So
[2:27:13] I think that we someone could
[2:27:15] say that changing your code to
[2:27:18] add a hardship is more
[2:27:20] restrictive or burdensome.
[2:27:23] Whether or not other types of
[2:27:25] changes we'd have to look at
[2:27:26] and see. Mike and my my
[2:27:28] suggestion is, which would be
[2:27:30] yes. No, we couldn't do it. But
[2:27:31] there's there's a piece of
[2:27:34] illogic in lumping variance
[2:27:37] with sb 180, because a variance
[2:27:40] is a deviation from code. Right.
[2:27:42] But the the sb 180 has a
[2:27:43] provision that says that until
[2:27:46] 20th OCTOBER of 2027, we can't
[2:27:50] adopt procedures that are more
[2:27:52] restrictive or burdensome. But
[2:27:53] we're not we're not trying to
[2:27:55] make it more restrictive than
[2:27:56] the current code. We're just
[2:27:57] trying to make it within our
[2:27:59] code, which I understand here.
[2:28:00] But I think what Councilmember
[2:28:02] Stoner was trying to say, if we
[2:28:03] changed our variance criteria,
[2:28:07] though, to add restrictive, to
[2:28:08] add like a hardship, that's
[2:28:10] going to make it more stringent.
[2:28:12] We don't have hardship in our
[2:28:13] code than our current code and
[2:28:15] what we currently have. No than
[2:28:16] what our current code. Not in
[2:28:17] this ordinance. What's being
[2:28:19] proposed? If we amended our
[2:28:22] zoning code to to add criteria
[2:28:24] to ensure that we stay within
[2:28:27] our code, not making it more
[2:28:28] restrictive. That's not that's
[2:28:30] not what the question the
[2:28:33] question was, if we were to add
[2:28:36] a hardship standard, okay, for
[2:28:38] variance in our code, that
[2:28:40] would be more restrictive than
[2:28:42] our current code. So is is
[2:28:44] there is there other
[2:28:45] municipalities obviously that
[2:28:47] are facing this problem that
[2:28:48] are clients of yours? Okay,
[2:28:51] that you could maybe say, hey,
[2:28:53] like for example, Golden Beach,
[2:28:56] okay, or City of Surfside or
[2:28:58] who have some more restrictive
[2:29:00] language that we could
[2:29:02] potentially bring into our
[2:29:04] situation and healthfully and
[2:29:05] not have to reinvent the wheel?
[2:29:07] No, we wouldn't reinvent the
[2:29:09] wheel. I've definitely done
[2:29:12] when I have rewarding codes,
[2:29:14] avoid reinventing. I will look,
[2:29:16] but I'm pretty sure that I
[2:29:20] personally have a. A comparison
[2:29:21] of the different zoning
[2:29:23] variants standards with
[2:29:25] criteria that I'll look and see.
[2:29:27] Okay, let me, let me let me
[2:29:30] jump in, folks, because we're
[2:29:33] we're going all over the place.
[2:29:35] So Nancy, I love you, but I
[2:29:37] think, you know, maybe you
[2:29:38] bring this back. Well, what I
[2:29:41] was going to say is, can we and
[2:29:42] rather than take a vote, can we
[2:29:44] defer and call the Zork before
[2:29:48] us to talk to us about their,
[2:29:50] their. So, so let's let's defer
[2:29:52] it. But we got into two
[2:29:55] discussions. We got into a
[2:29:57] variance discussion which would
[2:29:59] lead us somewhere else. And
[2:30:01] this is about an an advisory
[2:30:04] panel. Right. So you know let's
[2:30:06] separate those two because that
[2:30:08] that was a worthwhile
[2:30:09] conversation. And we need to
[2:30:12] keep going in that area. But.
[2:30:15] Yes. Last comment. In all due
[2:30:16] respect, do you hear me? I
[2:30:18] think you do an excellent job
[2:30:21] of analyzing, comparing,
[2:30:23] considering and coming down
[2:30:25] with recommendations, which are
[2:30:26] very easy for, I think, for
[2:30:29] most people to understand and
[2:30:30] decide whether we agree with
[2:30:31] your logic or we don't agree
[2:30:33] with your logic. I don't
[2:30:34] understand the problem because
[2:30:36] I don't see the complications
[2:30:38] involved. But if in fact that
[2:30:40] is the case, then maybe we can
[2:30:42] make it a simple way for him to
[2:30:44] define his criteria or to
[2:30:46] explain it to people. If you
[2:30:48] don't think that what he does
[2:30:49] is simple enough for people to
[2:30:51] understand. When I say people,
[2:30:52] I mean our council understand.
[2:30:54] But otherwise I think and I've
[2:30:56] been around a lot of zoning in
[2:30:57] different places and everything
[2:30:59] else, and I have very thorough,
[2:31:01] complete point by point job
[2:31:03] with a conclusion which you
[2:31:05] might agree with, you might not
[2:31:06] disagree with. But he certainly
[2:31:08] gives you the reasons why he
[2:31:09] does agree with it or disagrees
[2:31:11] with it. And then we can make
[2:31:14] our own decisions. Okay, let's.
[2:31:16] If we permission and defer the
[2:31:18] I'm moving to defer this to
[2:31:21] defer we have a second second.
[2:31:25] All those in all those in favor.
[2:31:29] Aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
[2:31:34] Okay. Let's go to the real
[2:31:35] variances and not the ones that
[2:31:43] we were. Let's go to ten e.
[2:31:46] 1616 I think. Is it 16. I think
[2:31:49] it's tab 1616. Yeah okay. Okay.
[2:31:50] So again these are going to be
[2:31:52] quasi judicial hearings. So
[2:31:53] after the titles are read and
[2:31:55] you can read both at the same
[2:31:56] time and have one hearing mayor
[2:31:59] if you want okay let's do that.
[2:32:02] Just two separate votes. Two
[2:32:05] separate votes. But the next
[2:32:07] item is a resolution of the
[2:32:09] village council of the Village
[2:32:10] of Key Biscayne, Florida,
[2:32:12] approving a variance request to
[2:32:15] allow a maximum rear zone lot
[2:32:17] elevation of nine feet and six
[2:32:18] inches above base flood
[2:32:20] elevation on property located
[2:32:23] at 640 South Match to Drive,
[2:32:25] where eight feet and six inches
[2:32:27] above base flood elevation is
[2:32:28] otherwise required. Providing
[2:32:29] for findings, providing for
[2:32:30] conditions, providing for
[2:32:32] recording and providing for an
[2:32:35] effective date move second.
[2:32:38] Second. Thank you. Yeah. Read
[2:32:40] the other title also. Yes, a
[2:32:41] resolution of the village
[2:32:42] council of the Village of Key
[2:32:44] Biscayne, Florida, approving a
[2:32:45] variance request to allow a
[2:32:48] maximum exterior wall height of
[2:32:50] 23ft and six inches above base
[2:32:52] flood elevation on property
[2:32:54] located at 640 South Master
[2:32:56] Drive, where a maximum exterior
[2:32:58] wall height of 22ft and six
[2:33:01] inches above base flood
[2:33:02] elevation is otherwise
[2:33:03] permitted. Providing for
[2:33:05] findings, providing for
[2:33:06] recording and providing for an
[2:33:09] effective date moved second.
[2:33:13] Thank you. Okay, do we need the
[2:33:14] applicant? Give the applicant.
[2:33:17] Sure. First swear in anybody
[2:33:19] who's going to speak. And then
[2:33:20] we can let the applicant
[2:33:23] present and staff please stand
[2:33:25] and raise your right hand. Do
[2:33:27] you swear and affirm that the
[2:33:28] testimony you give this evening
[2:33:32] is the truth? Yes. Thank you. I
[2:33:34] don't see any other members
[2:33:35] from the public that are here
[2:33:37] to speak. So. And then we'll
[2:33:38] have to just open a public
[2:33:40] hearing at public hearing is
[2:33:44] now open on ten e and ten f.
[2:33:48] Seeing no one come forward.
[2:33:49] Public hearing is now closed.
[2:33:52] Okay. We need to give the
[2:33:54] applicant the sufficient time
[2:33:56] to present their case. Sure.
[2:34:00] Yes. Okay. It's important to
[2:34:02] know how much time do you need?
[2:34:06] Go under our government.
[2:34:09] Agendas and minutes. Said 5 or
[2:34:11] 10 minutes. Five. Ten minutes.
[2:34:13] Agenda packet. So we're just
[2:34:14] we're just pulling up the
[2:34:16] agenda packet for visuals. Yeah.
[2:34:19] But just so you all know, this
[2:34:21] is this is two separate
[2:34:23] variance requests that are
[2:34:25] similar. So I think we can
[2:34:27] discuss them at the same time.
[2:34:28] One is for wall height on the
[2:34:31] property. The overall height of
[2:34:32] the building is within the 35ft
[2:34:35] limit. So this is a1a request
[2:34:37] for one foot of additional wall
[2:34:40] height on the perimeter wall. I
[2:34:42] think notable in this case.
[2:34:43] This is a building with a
[2:34:47] sloped roof, which is generally
[2:34:50] well received from from council
[2:34:52] in the past. It gives an
[2:34:54] impression overall of a lower
[2:34:57] lower height compared to the
[2:35:00] more rectilinear buildings. The
[2:35:03] other in addition they have.
[2:35:05] The massing of the building. Is
[2:35:07] that the second floor, where
[2:35:09] this variance request is being
[2:35:11] asked for, is well set back
[2:35:14] from the street you have single
[2:35:16] storey massing on the on the
[2:35:19] street side. So the and then
[2:35:20] you have a very large setback
[2:35:22] on the south side. So the two
[2:35:24] sides that are most impacted by
[2:35:26] this are the ocean side and the
[2:35:27] north property, which
[2:35:29] coincidentally the architect
[2:35:33] also designed. And that's an
[2:35:36] existing two story building. So
[2:35:39] the second variance request is
[2:35:40] for one foot of additional
[2:35:43] height in the rear sort of back
[2:35:46] patio pool area. And then it
[2:35:48] steps back down to the property
[2:35:52] line. What's the design purpose
[2:35:55] on the on the rear lot? I'm
[2:35:57] going to let the applicant
[2:36:00] speak to that in terms of in
[2:36:03] terms of purpose. The house
[2:36:06] across the street from the side,
[2:36:09] that's about 10 foot or 5 foot
[2:36:09] higher than this house over
[2:36:12] here. You can design that one.
[2:36:15] Who built that one? Wow. Yes.
[2:36:19] Great. Yeah. That's fine. So
[2:36:21] again, it comes to the view of
[2:36:22] everything that the city. So
[2:36:24] and I will make sure no matter
[2:36:32] how the. 17 people. So we'll do
[2:36:37] this in two ways. Smart smart
[2:36:41] man. So how much cheaper. So
[2:36:43] he's coming over. What happens
[2:36:44] when you read encyclopedias.
[2:36:53] But. You're going to. Have we
[2:36:56] should have the it would appear
[2:36:58] in OCTOBER as well because the
[2:37:00] the backup files are there. So
[2:37:02] we can cheat that way. By the
[2:37:04] way this particular thing we
[2:37:05] OCTOBER 1st. Yeah. Let's go
[2:37:07] ahead and pull that up. He's
[2:37:08] talking about raising the dirt
[2:37:10] okay. So search for 640 the
[2:37:11] dirt and the whole island
[2:37:13] because of the reason we had
[2:37:14] the whole thing because it's
[2:37:16] too low. So we really haven't
[2:37:18] changed. But it'll be the same
[2:37:21] problem. That's the problem
[2:37:23] because we should have changed
[2:37:25] the color. Ready to raise the
[2:37:27] dirt. Okay, I'm just trying.
[2:37:29] I've been pushed. I just pushed
[2:37:30] what I've been told what? We
[2:37:32] can get there from here because
[2:37:33] this was deferred. You're
[2:37:35] making the change. So the
[2:37:36] drawing should be in the
[2:37:37] OCTOBER that the island's going
[2:37:38] to know they are. They're going
[2:37:41] to find the well the agenda on.
[2:37:43] Shut up. You be quiet. You be
[2:37:46] quiet too. But but but we can
[2:37:47] use that one. That was fine.
[2:37:49] Yes. Okay. You're becoming a
[2:37:51] pain. Yes. I love you, though.
[2:37:54] Listen, nobody can protect me
[2:37:56] from myself. You should know
[2:37:58] that by now. I don't give a
[2:38:02] damn, I know. I don't give a
[2:38:05] damn. I'll go eat the pizza.
[2:38:10] Okay? Yeah. Are we on a okay? I
[2:38:12] need to make this thing. This
[2:38:14] is. This is a perfect example.
[2:38:17] I think it's time. What time?
[2:38:19] Is it? Nice. Yeah. You did.
[2:38:21] Okay. Let's get it done. Now.
[2:38:24] It's 11. Okay. Ten. Okay, I'll
[2:38:27] go down there. You have to
[2:38:31] raise it. You raise in the dirt.
[2:38:39] And what is it? Ten e. Okay, so
[2:38:43] it'll be time. I'm worried
[2:38:47] about it. No no no. Sorry. 16.
[2:38:49] Okay, I understand why we have
[2:38:51] technical difficulties. Oh,
[2:39:03] okay. The big agenda did you
[2:39:11] get. I went to 16. Yeah. Okay.
[2:39:16] Okay. You want to scroll down
[2:39:20] to the drawing? The drawings?
[2:39:23] Are there any days instead of
[2:39:28] one we're going to go to 1030.
[2:39:37] Yeah. So I need to. Know okay.
[2:39:45] There you go. All right. Yeah.
[2:39:46] All right. That's a good start.
[2:39:50] Yeah. Then there we go. Indiana.
[2:39:51] Indiana was like, hold on, hold
[2:39:54] on a minute. Yeah. Michael I
[2:39:58] open every day. That's cool.
[2:40:00] That's great. I've done a lot
[2:40:02] of road trips like that. That's
[2:40:04] fun I love it I love driving.
[2:40:06] Yeah I mean, we got it. All
[2:40:10] right, let's go. There. Let's
[2:40:14] go. Well, I, you know, my wife,
[2:40:16] my wife and I were married in
[2:40:17] the. We still have we got
[2:40:19] married and she's like okay.
[2:40:22] Yeah we still have. We still
[2:40:25] have something in here. And
[2:40:30] then we have a family house on
[2:40:33] on Lake Starnberg. Oh my GOD, I
[2:40:38] love that. Very same. All right,
[2:40:41] we got it. Yes. Sorry about
[2:40:44] that. Oh, but you found it.
[2:40:51] This package? Yes. Nice. Anyway.
[2:40:58] Let's go. Oh, yeah. So with
[2:41:00] your permission, I'll just set
[2:41:03] the scene a little bit for the
[2:41:04] applicant. So this is the
[2:41:07] existing property at South
[2:41:10] Mashta Drive. This is the home
[2:41:11] that's currently under
[2:41:12] construction at 630 South
[2:41:14] Mashta next door, right next
[2:41:16] door. And then this is the
[2:41:18] existing home to the to the
[2:41:20] north side. This was built in
[2:41:23] 2001. And then this is the
[2:41:27] location on on the Island. You
[2:41:30] didn't show the one across the
[2:41:32] street? I did not show the one
[2:41:35] across the street. Yours wasn't
[2:41:37] built with permitting. Yeah,
[2:41:39] well they have permit for one
[2:41:41] of them has was having work
[2:41:42] done right now and it is being
[2:41:44] done with a permit. So this is
[2:41:46] a survey. And then I'm going to
[2:41:49] let the, let the applicant, the
[2:41:51] applicant's representative take
[2:42:03] it from here. So okay. My name
[2:42:04] is Rafael Portuondo from Puerto
[2:42:07] Perotti Architects. We do a lot
[2:42:10] of work in here in Key Biscayne.
[2:42:12] We actually we did the house to
[2:42:16] the right of it back in. 2012.
[2:42:21] Right. For at the time, one of
[2:42:23] the things before starting, one
[2:42:25] of the things that has come up,
[2:42:27] which I think is somewhat
[2:42:29] problematic for architects, is
[2:42:30] the fact that we're dealing
[2:42:33] with flood, Criteria's and
[2:42:36] Coral Gables Palm Beach are all
[2:42:38] dealing with flood criteria's.
[2:42:39] And then the one thing that I'm
[2:42:41] going to talk about today is
[2:42:42] I'm part of the Classical
[2:42:44] Institute of Architecture and
[2:42:45] Art. I'm a board member there.
[2:42:47] And one of the things that we
[2:42:50] push is classical architecture
[2:42:51] between and it's also a dialog
[2:42:53] between gardens and landscaping.
[2:42:54] Right. One of the problems that
[2:42:56] you're all going to have, and
[2:42:57] you're all having right now, is
[2:42:59] the fact that we're the streets
[2:43:00] that are probably like 5.1 and
[2:43:02] we're going up to elevation 11.
[2:43:03] One of the things that you're
[2:43:05] going to see, and it's
[2:43:06] happening already in the
[2:43:07] village of Key Biscayne, is
[2:43:11] you're getting monumental homes
[2:43:13] with 12 steps to get to the
[2:43:15] front door because of what's
[2:43:17] happening. Right. And so how do
[2:43:19] you manage that as an architect?
[2:43:21] How do you manage such a
[2:43:22] discrepancy? Back in the day
[2:43:25] when you looked at, you know,
[2:43:27] the houses that were being
[2:43:27] built, you would go up two
[2:43:29] steps to go to the front door
[2:43:31] and you would be two steps to
[2:43:32] the back door. And now let's
[2:43:34] suppose I'm going to use your
[2:43:35] criteria for you just real
[2:43:38] quick. We're at elevation 11
[2:43:39] and we're asking for our rear
[2:43:42] yard to be at elevation 9.5.
[2:43:45] And the code is 8.5. Right. But
[2:43:48] what happens if it goes to 14?
[2:43:49] Does that mean you're going to
[2:43:51] have 12 steps to go from your
[2:43:53] house to the to the 8.5? In
[2:43:55] other words, part of the give
[2:43:56] and take of any design that
[2:43:59] we're working on is not making
[2:44:01] these are homes. These are not
[2:44:02] municipal buildings. Right. So
[2:44:04] there's a there's a comfort
[2:44:06] zone of most homes that you
[2:44:10] want to manage that. So having
[2:44:23] said that I guess we can start.
[2:44:26] I'm going to go to the, to the
[2:44:27] hopefully the rendered
[2:44:44] elevations that are here.
[2:45:12] Is it
[2:45:15] possible to make the screen
[2:45:19] smaller? Sure. Just just with
[2:45:23] that plus and minus. There's a
[2:45:38] little lag on it though. Okay.
[2:45:40] So one of the responsibilities
[2:45:42] we all have as architects is to
[2:45:44] make sure that the house feels
[2:45:45] like a home, doesn't feel like
[2:45:47] an apartment building. And one
[2:45:48] of the goals that we had in
[2:45:50] this particular project is if
[2:45:53] you see the gate that we the
[2:45:56] entrance we have here, it's
[2:45:58] actually the entrance to a
[2:45:59] series of stairs that go
[2:46:01] through a pergola, which takes
[2:46:03] us to an upper courtyard. Right.
[2:46:06] So we're managing that stairway
[2:46:08] on the interior part of the
[2:46:10] diagram, as opposed to the
[2:46:11] exterior part of the diagram,
[2:46:13] which gives it a scale of a
[2:46:14] human scale. And that's
[2:46:15] important with anything you do
[2:46:18] in any town, in any
[2:46:19] municipality. The other thing
[2:46:20] that we did is we worked
[2:46:22] closely with zoning in, in
[2:46:23] terms of managing the bonus
[2:46:26] points, right? So what you see
[2:46:27] in the house next door and
[2:46:29] other houses you see in Key
[2:46:30] Biscayne is that there's a big
[2:46:32] facade right on the street and
[2:46:33] you're managing, you know, ins
[2:46:34] and outs. But in this
[2:46:36] particular case, we have from
[2:46:38] the from the gates that go up
[2:46:40] to the front door, a 20 foot
[2:46:42] setback. So we're really
[2:46:43] stepping the house. So it's
[2:46:45] really much more sculptural on
[2:46:47] the street. And so one of the
[2:46:49] one of one of the goals that we
[2:46:50] have is that it doesn't look
[2:46:52] like a massive house. If you
[2:46:54] look at the house that we did
[2:46:57] in 2000, 2 or 2012, our house
[2:46:59] is actually lower than the
[2:47:02] house next door. And so one of
[2:47:03] the things that we're looking
[2:47:05] at is a sense of scale. And
[2:47:06] also the other thing that we're
[2:47:08] looking at is gardens. So if
[2:47:10] you look at and I'm going to
[2:47:12] take you to the floorplans in a
[2:47:13] second, but when I want to
[2:47:15] start off with is how the
[2:47:17] architecture can actually be
[2:47:18] beautiful to the street and not
[2:47:21] monumental to the street. Part
[2:47:23] of this is also working with
[2:47:25] zoning and making sure that
[2:47:26] we're also doing the things
[2:47:36] that are correct. I think it's
[2:48:00] stuck. Just as a frozen. So
[2:48:05] just you can navigate here.
[2:48:07] Where's that? What are you
[2:48:10] pointing just oh yeah. So are
[2:48:11] you trying to get to a side
[2:48:14] elevation. That's fine. I just
[2:48:17] want to show. The rear. You
[2:48:19] should be able to navigate with
[2:48:22] the arrows now. Okay. So I'm
[2:48:23] not the most technical guy just
[2:48:25] putting it out there. But the
[2:48:27] other thing too is in regards
[2:48:29] to the rear facade is a lot of
[2:48:30] times, like for example,
[2:48:32] bulkheads used to be at 4.5,
[2:48:34] now they're at 7.5. So how do
[2:48:36] you deal with that. So these
[2:48:37] are not hardships that you
[2:48:39] would say this is a hardship.
[2:48:40] We're dealing with hardships in
[2:48:43] general. And how do we solve
[2:48:44] them? We're doing it the most
[2:48:49] responsible way we can. So. In
[2:48:52] this particular case here we
[2:48:55] are at 11. We come down a step,
[2:48:57] we come down two steps and then
[2:48:59] we're at we raised it a foot
[2:49:02] and we're at 9.5, 9.5 from 8.5
[2:49:04] is never going to be noticed
[2:49:08] from anyone ever. But as a home,
[2:49:10] we don't have five steps coming
[2:49:12] down to the rear yard. I'm
[2:49:14] going to show you the site plan
[2:49:15] in a second, because part of
[2:49:16] dealing with the zoning code
[2:49:18] and the bonuses is if you step
[2:49:20] back x amount, then you get a
[2:49:21] bonus. If you step back x
[2:49:23] amount more, you get more bonus.
[2:49:24] So what happens is it actually
[2:49:26] starts pushing the house back.
[2:49:27] And by pushing the house back,
[2:49:29] there's less space between the
[2:49:31] house and actually the bulkhead.
[2:49:32] So instead of adding more steps
[2:49:33] and more steps and encroaching
[2:49:35] more and more into the rear
[2:49:37] yard, we actually asked for the
[2:49:39] foot to go up. Right? So this
[2:49:41] is the rear facade. You can see
[2:49:43] how it's actually very
[2:49:44] compatible. It's very classical
[2:49:47] in terms of a Florida type of
[2:49:49] architecture. And the idea
[2:49:51] behind it is that it's we
[2:49:53] believe that strongly in
[2:49:55] classical orders and classical
[2:49:56] architecture, and we feel that
[2:49:57] it's going to be appropriate
[2:50:00] for the village of Key Biscayne.
[2:50:17] And so having said that. Okay,
[2:50:21] here we go. So the other thing
[2:50:23] that we also didn't do is a
[2:50:25] roundabout driveway, because we
[2:50:27] really believe in green space
[2:50:28] and architecture and gardens
[2:50:30] and the whole thing. So here
[2:50:34] you actually drive in two car
[2:50:37] garage. You have a path that
[2:50:39] goes in through this pergola.
[2:50:41] So this is our our stairs that
[2:50:44] are going up. You come to an
[2:50:46] elevated garden, you walk to
[2:50:49] your front door. You have a
[2:50:51] path that goes all the way to
[2:50:53] the rear yard, all the way to
[2:50:56] the water. You have living room,
[2:51:01] dining room. Back of house, bar,
[2:51:03] kitchen, family room. So you
[2:51:05] have the family room,
[2:51:06] underwater dining on the water,
[2:51:08] living on the water and his
[2:51:13] office on the water. By by
[2:51:15] giving this much garden space
[2:51:18] to the street. We've actually
[2:51:20] actually created a tighter area
[2:51:22] in the back. But in order to
[2:51:24] get the the larger, grander
[2:51:25] spaces giving back to the
[2:51:27] street without a fortified
[2:51:30] facade, we've actually created
[2:51:32] a ton of green space, not only
[2:51:33] on the ground plane, but also
[2:51:35] on the entrance. And we have a
[2:51:37] structure on each side. And the
[2:51:40] main house is actually probably
[2:51:41] 50ft from the street, if not
[2:51:45] more so when you get to the
[2:51:48] rear yard. We have a choice.
[2:51:49] Either we add more steps, which
[2:51:51] is another three steps, and you
[2:51:53] can see how that's going to
[2:51:55] encroach. So one of the things
[2:51:56] that architects do, which is
[2:51:59] the artistic part of it, is
[2:52:00] what are we giving back to the
[2:52:02] to the village of Key Biscayne.
[2:52:03] That is an architecturally
[2:52:04] significant move, right? And
[2:52:06] we're giving up a lot of green
[2:52:08] space and a lot of house that's
[2:52:10] set back, which is a lot
[2:52:12] different than a lot of the
[2:52:13] houses that are going up right
[2:52:15] now in density. So that's one
[2:52:16] of the things that we're that
[2:52:18] we're doing. So when it when it
[2:52:19] comes to the hardship, it isn't
[2:52:21] that the fact that there's a
[2:52:23] that the lot is a wedge lot or
[2:52:25] the lot is doing something
[2:52:26] different. It's the fact that
[2:52:28] we're managing flood criteria,
[2:52:30] we're managing that. And how do
[2:52:31] you do something beautiful and
[2:52:34] look residential without having
[2:52:36] such changes of level? And so
[2:52:39] we thought that the more
[2:52:41] responsible way and the less
[2:52:44] monumental way is to have three
[2:52:46] steps down from the house to
[2:52:50] your garden, and as opposed to
[2:52:51] six steps down from your house
[2:52:52] to the garden, which would
[2:52:54] encroach further into the rear
[2:52:56] yard. So we've given up a lot
[2:52:57] of elements, a lot of
[2:52:59] architecture and gardens to the
[2:53:01] street in order to, to to
[2:53:03] achieve all the bonus points,
[2:53:06] which is part of working in Key
[2:53:17] Biscayne. And then. The other
[2:53:19] thing that we deal with a lot
[2:53:22] is hurricane having having
[2:53:26] clients that have. To be able
[2:53:28] to insure their property the
[2:53:30] best way possible. And a lot of
[2:53:32] that is having concrete roofs.
[2:53:35] So when we when we deal with a
[2:53:36] concrete roof and we're dealing
[2:53:37] with a classical classical
[2:53:39] style, which has to do with
[2:53:41] eaves and all these other
[2:53:43] things, we have to manage how
[2:53:45] that system works with all the
[2:53:47] rafters and everything else.
[2:53:49] It's easy to say, just make
[2:53:50] your house 18in smaller all the
[2:53:52] way around and you can solve
[2:53:54] that. But that's not really a
[2:53:55] realistic solution. So we're
[2:53:56] asking for a one foot variance
[2:54:01] in order to make the house.
[2:54:04] Something with Florida details,
[2:54:06] large overhangs and all these
[2:54:08] things. But the way we have to
[2:54:09] fasten it is not always that
[2:54:11] easy because we have to do like
[2:54:12] clamps and bolts and all these
[2:54:14] other things. The other thing
[2:54:15] that happens is that when you
[2:54:17] start to do that and you and
[2:54:19] you were to lower it and it
[2:54:20] creates a series of other
[2:54:21] problems. But what happens more
[2:54:22] importantly is when you're
[2:54:24] dealing with balconies and
[2:54:25] actually softer elements of the
[2:54:29] house, then those raft, those
[2:54:29] beams that come down actually
[2:54:33] compress the line of sight. So
[2:54:35] one of the things that also the
[2:54:36] village of Cubicin has is
[2:54:38] modern contemporary homes,
[2:54:40] which have the 22 six plus
[2:54:42] parapet, which makes them
[2:54:46] probably close to 26 or 27ft
[2:54:50] high. Right. So in your code
[2:54:51] you have style. So there are
[2:54:52] certain styles that allow you
[2:54:54] to have a high parapet because
[2:54:56] they're contemporary. And then
[2:54:57] there are certain styles where
[2:54:59] they're more classical that
[2:55:01] have a little bit more of a
[2:55:02] restriction, but we're not
[2:55:04] exceeding our maximum height in
[2:55:05] terms of our ridge. That's
[2:55:07] still within the 35ft. We're
[2:55:09] just saying that in order to do
[2:55:10] something that is more a
[2:55:12] Florida Florida classical style
[2:55:13] and dealing with the the
[2:55:16] criterias of insurances,
[2:55:18] concrete roofs, flood criterias
[2:55:22] that you're discussing changing
[2:55:24] anyway. But I agree with Nancy
[2:55:27] in a way. It's not it's not a
[2:55:28] variance that you're saying
[2:55:29] there's a there's a problem.
[2:55:31] The problem is built into all
[2:55:33] the things that we're having to
[2:55:35] deal with in terms of the noise,
[2:55:37] the flood criterias, which is
[2:55:39] not normal problems. These are
[2:55:41] problems that are thrust upon
[2:55:42] the architects to try to solve
[2:55:45] in the most meaningful way. And
[2:55:47] so when we come to you for
[2:55:49] something fairly insignificant
[2:55:51] in the overall things that we
[2:55:54] have to solve, I'm saying to
[2:55:55] you that I'd rather have the
[2:55:57] house more residential looking
[2:56:00] than monumental looking. And so,
[2:56:02] by the way, I can solve that is
[2:56:04] by the same way that they
[2:56:06] solved it in Key Biscayne in
[2:56:08] 1961, 1957 is you have three
[2:56:10] steps up, you have two three
[2:56:11] steps down, as opposed to a lot
[2:56:13] of the houses that I'm seeing,
[2:56:14] Biscayne that have ten steps up
[2:56:17] and then ten steps down. And
[2:56:19] that to me starts losing the
[2:56:20] characteristics of a home. And
[2:56:22] I think that's problematic. So
[2:56:24] the architects that look into
[2:56:27] the softness of homes, I think
[2:56:30] I think that at least that's
[2:56:32] what my goal is, is that it's
[2:56:35] not something that you can say,
[2:56:38] you know, I want to have no
[2:56:41] fill and I want to have seven
[2:56:42] steps down in the rear and
[2:56:44] seven steps to the front. So
[2:56:46] I'm trying to manage a lot of
[2:56:47] moving parts, including your
[2:56:50] code and including the esthetic.
[2:56:53] And so I think that we've we've
[2:56:56] come a long way in terms of, of
[2:56:58] having a home that feels like a
[2:56:59] home doesn't feel like an
[2:57:01] apartment building. And I think
[2:57:03] that what we're asking for in
[2:57:06] terms of assistance, to make
[2:57:07] sure that we're doing the right
[2:57:09] thing, is a one foot variance
[2:57:13] in terms of height, in terms of
[2:57:15] fill, and a one foot variance
[2:57:17] in terms of height, in terms of
[2:57:19] how to manage a concrete roof
[2:57:20] in an environment where clients
[2:57:23] are asking for a lot of things.
[2:57:24] So to make sure that they have
[2:57:27] the least. Expensive insurances.
[2:57:31] And so in working with, with
[2:57:33] the staff, they've, they've,
[2:57:35] they've done a great job
[2:57:37] guiding us. And I think that
[2:57:39] it's a home that I'm super
[2:57:40] proud of. And it's for some
[2:57:42] it's for the end user. And they
[2:57:44] are Key Biscayne residents and
[2:57:46] they're very happy and proud of
[2:57:48] their home. That's basically
[2:57:49] that. Do you have any questions?
[2:57:52] I can answer them. How about
[2:57:56] the the the the wall, the wall
[2:57:57] variance that you're looking
[2:57:59] for. That's the height I
[2:58:01] thought I thought there was a
[2:58:02] screening wall that you were
[2:58:04] looking for. No, it's really
[2:58:08] the 22 6 to 23 six okay. What's
[2:58:10] the assumption you're making
[2:58:13] for bv in the future in terms
[2:58:16] of what it should be or what
[2:58:17] we're going to have here in the
[2:58:19] village? You're designing homes,
[2:58:20] you're designing them at bfi
[2:58:22] plus one and bf at bf plus one.
[2:58:25] Okay. And for example Coral
[2:58:26] Gables gives you bf plus three.
[2:58:28] They're up to three plus three.
[2:58:30] They're already. Yeah. And so
[2:58:31] is Palm Beach and so is
[2:58:35] everyone else. So and these are
[2:58:35] also things that help you in
[2:58:37] your insurances like no I
[2:58:39] understand above. I'm just so
[2:58:40] how do you manage plus three.
[2:58:42] How do you manage plus three
[2:58:44] with a with a code that says
[2:58:45] 8.5 it's impossible. So when
[2:58:49] you're using bf now and which
[2:58:52] is ten plus one is 11 plus two
[2:58:53] and a half, right. That's eight
[2:58:55] and a half. You want to do nine
[2:58:57] and a half. We're doing nine
[2:58:59] and nine and a half. It's eight
[2:59:00] and a half now you're doing
[2:59:02] eight and a half and you want
[2:59:04] to do nine and a half. Correct.
[2:59:05] So you're saying you want to
[2:59:07] raise the one one one foot
[2:59:09] which is bf plus 12 would be bf
[2:59:10] minus two and a half. Right. So
[2:59:13] if we went to bf plus two not
[2:59:14] plus three you'd still be fine
[2:59:16] then, right? But because we're
[2:59:18] still bf plus one you're not.
[2:59:20] And of course we have gone to
[2:59:22] bf plus three like the other
[2:59:23] people for telling our
[2:59:25] engineers that's how to design
[2:59:27] our storm sewer system and how
[2:59:29] Key Biscayne will be, which
[2:59:31] would then make you find bf
[2:59:34] where you are, right? Plus two.
[2:59:35] I think your other point is
[2:59:37] this one and this is Nancy's
[2:59:38] point as well. Let's say that
[2:59:40] you went to bf plus three. That
[2:59:41] doesn't affect your maximum
[2:59:43] height. No, but the point is we
[2:59:45] have now saying you can't be
[2:59:47] more than 2.5ft below the below
[2:59:48] that, correct? Correct. But the
[2:59:50] other thing is this bf plus
[2:59:51] three means you're going to be
[2:59:52] from elevation eight to
[2:59:56] elevation 13. I'm not. I'm
[2:59:57] right. So in other words, how
[2:59:59] are you going to make how are
[3:00:00] you going to mitigate that.
[3:00:02] Which is a bigger problem. You
[3:00:03] know you're arguing with the
[3:00:04] wrong guy. I'm supporting you.
[3:00:06] Okay. So no, but I'm just
[3:00:07] saying I'm trying to tell you
[3:00:09] is what you're doing is
[3:00:10] something why we have variances?
[3:00:12] Because we haven't changed yet.
[3:00:14] Although we've made changes and
[3:00:15] tell people we're going to
[3:00:16] change. We're designing things
[3:00:17] to change. But we haven't
[3:00:19] gotten around to actually doing
[3:00:21] the change. So that's when a
[3:00:23] variance comes in because it's
[3:00:24] something we are definitely
[3:00:26] changing. Everybody's changing.
[3:00:29] But you're you're doing it
[3:00:31] today before the change is done.
[3:00:32] So that's why you're asking for
[3:00:34] a variance that makes all the
[3:00:36] sense in the world to me. Don't
[3:00:37] say anything else. Questions I
[3:00:39] have a quick question. How do
[3:00:41] we how do we stop this from
[3:00:43] becoming a PRESIDENT? By change,
[3:00:46] by changing, by going ahead. We
[3:00:48] said, plus three. Let's change
[3:00:50] our code. Make it bf plus three.
[3:00:52] I mean, that's all. I'll just
[3:00:53] say that variances are not they
[3:00:56] don't set a precedent, but they
[3:00:59] could be persuasive. But each
[3:01:03] one stands on its own. Yeah.
[3:01:08] Okay. Well true. We're
[3:01:13] experiencing owners
[3:01:14] understanding this is
[3:01:17] precedential. And they're
[3:01:19] coming more frequently than
[3:01:21] historically seeking variances
[3:01:23] for all kinds of reasons.
[3:01:24] There's no doubt that everyone
[3:01:26] that gets approved, they will
[3:01:28] stand up here and say that the
[3:01:30] council approved, you know, one
[3:01:32] here or there. But legally
[3:01:34] speaking, they each stand on
[3:01:35] their own. But I, I understand
[3:01:38] your point. Would you help me
[3:01:40] understand the wall height
[3:01:42] justification? You talked about
[3:01:44] roof construction and material.
[3:01:48] I'm not sure I fully grasp the
[3:01:50] complication that that presents
[3:01:52] in terms of. One of the things
[3:01:54] we're dealing with today is the
[3:01:57] thought of concrete roofs. So
[3:01:57] the concrete roofs, like 8 to
[3:01:59] 10in of concrete. I'm sorry, I
[3:02:01] can't hear you either, can I?
[3:02:02] So we're dealing with concrete
[3:02:04] roofs, which are requests from
[3:02:07] clients that are typically 8 to
[3:02:10] 10in of concrete, plus 8 to
[3:02:13] 10in of styrofoam and structure.
[3:02:16] So you're dealing with a large
[3:02:19] build up of, of concrete and,
[3:02:21] and insulation and steel and
[3:02:23] the whole thing. I don't
[3:02:24] understand that being more
[3:02:26] specific. Okay. If you
[3:02:28] typically have a rafter, it's
[3:02:31] like for a wood rafter, like a
[3:02:34] truss, the top chord is like
[3:02:35] four inches, six inches, 4 to
[3:02:37] 6in, right? When you're dealing
[3:02:38] with a concrete roof, you're
[3:02:43] dealing with about 12 to 14in.
[3:02:44] No, no. What's what kind of
[3:02:46] span are you talking about? Can
[3:02:48] I can I jump in because I think
[3:02:49] I think I understand the
[3:02:52] question. So, you know,
[3:02:54] historically it's not about the
[3:02:56] it's not about the spans or the
[3:02:58] trusses. This is about
[3:03:00] insurance carriers greatly
[3:03:02] prefer that you have a concrete
[3:03:03] roof structure, whether it's
[3:03:05] sloped or flat. Yeah. You get
[3:03:07] mitigation credits for it. And
[3:03:11] the idea is if you have a
[3:03:11] penetration through the
[3:03:12] membrane, through the
[3:03:14] waterproof membrane, when
[3:03:16] that's a concrete substructure,
[3:03:18] the structure doesn't fail.
[3:03:19] When it's a wood substructure,
[3:03:21] you get rot. You get an
[3:03:22] eventual failure of the
[3:03:24] structure from a leak that you
[3:03:25] don't. You're not as vulnerable
[3:03:27] with with a concrete structure.
[3:03:29] So but as you can imagine, you
[3:03:33] know, a wood rafter has that
[3:03:34] has a certain dimension
[3:03:37] structural dimensions for wood
[3:03:38] versus concrete for long spans
[3:03:41] isn't that different. But when
[3:03:43] you go up from there, from the
[3:03:45] inside to the outside, that's
[3:03:47] where the concrete structure is
[3:03:50] a lot thicker. You know, a wood
[3:03:52] structure, you have plywood
[3:03:53] sheathing and then you really
[3:03:55] very quickly after that you
[3:03:57] have the waterproof membrane
[3:03:59] with the concrete, you have a
[3:04:02] thicker layer and then you have
[3:04:03] the insulation, everything else
[3:04:05] too. So you tend to have a
[3:04:07] thicker overall dimension for
[3:04:09] concrete roof. But how does
[3:04:11] that affect the overall height?
[3:04:12] How does that affect anything?
[3:04:14] Oh okay. Let him take it. So
[3:04:20] what happens is that. If we
[3:04:22] take it if we if we take it out
[3:04:24] of the house, we'd be going
[3:04:26] down a foot and a half or a
[3:04:28] foot. What if we, if we, if we
[3:04:29] push that down to, to actually
[3:04:32] become like a truss. The end
[3:04:33] rafter of a truss is about six
[3:04:35] inches. Right. And that sits
[3:04:38] right on top of the concrete
[3:04:41] beam, the the rafter. The truss
[3:04:43] sits right on top of the sits
[3:04:45] on top of the truss, not the
[3:04:47] upper court. The top court.
[3:04:49] Let's see. Yeah okay okay. And
[3:04:51] so that dimension is six with
[3:04:54] concrete. It's more like like
[3:04:56] 12 to 14 depending on the size
[3:04:58] of of the span and your house.
[3:05:00] There's no way it's going to be
[3:05:01] more than an eight inch.
[3:05:03] Shouldn't be more than an eight
[3:05:04] inch thick. So okay. So let me
[3:05:06] just take a little bit further.
[3:05:07] The way the concrete roof
[3:05:09] systems work is that there is a
[3:05:13] steel. Let's say partitioned
[3:05:16] like a, like an aluminum
[3:05:18] partition with 6 to 8in of
[3:05:20] styrofoam. The aluminum
[3:05:21] partition that holds up the
[3:05:23] styrofoam. The styrofoam is
[3:05:25] what the concrete is poured on
[3:05:27] top of. And so you're dealing
[3:05:30] with a thick assembly in order
[3:05:32] to make that concrete roof work.
[3:05:34] Right? Isn't it? Isn't like
[3:05:36] truss is an icynene. It's it's
[3:05:40] the, the the 6 to 8in of
[3:05:41] styrofoam is what supports the
[3:05:44] concrete pour on top. So if we
[3:05:46] were to push all that down to
[3:05:48] be like a truss, we would be
[3:05:51] going down probably like ten
[3:05:53] inches, 12in. I understand
[3:05:56] correctly, you're saying that
[3:05:58] you're using styrofoam. As for
[3:06:01] material, styrofoam with steel
[3:06:03] in between the styrofoam panels
[3:06:05] come like every 3 or 4ft. So
[3:06:08] these so these frame it in
[3:06:10] steel. So insulation panels now.
[3:06:12] Yes it's it's built into the
[3:06:13] insulation as well. My
[3:06:15] translation of this if I have
[3:06:17] this accurately is because the
[3:06:18] structure that sits underneath
[3:06:20] the concrete is so thick
[3:06:23] compared to a regular roof.
[3:06:26] You're you're delving down into
[3:06:29] the dimension of the house. And
[3:06:31] so you want extra height to
[3:06:33] mitigate that effect. Correct.
[3:06:35] Is that is that a fair. That's
[3:06:36] exactly right. And you're using
[3:06:38] that instead of using sprayed
[3:06:40] cell foam insulation between
[3:06:42] the rafters. Correct. Right.
[3:06:44] The styrofoam is the insulation.
[3:06:46] Yeah. But I mean yes, but
[3:06:47] you're getting all this extra I
[3:06:50] mean to me again I'm all for
[3:06:52] your first variance. But you
[3:06:53] haven't said a damn thing on
[3:06:55] this one. That makes me think
[3:06:56] you need the second variance
[3:06:58] based on this, because there's
[3:06:59] other construction methods to
[3:07:01] use in insulating the house
[3:07:03] that you don't have to go with
[3:07:05] it. Now, of course you want to
[3:07:07] use that method. That's fine. I
[3:07:08] don't disagree with you. Maybe
[3:07:09] that's the best method for you,
[3:07:11] but it's certainly not the only
[3:07:12] method where you would not have
[3:07:14] to add any, any height to the
[3:07:16] to the property. So I would say
[3:07:19] in the last eight out of ten
[3:07:20] homes we've done with concrete
[3:07:22] roofs. Yeah. And the reason why
[3:07:24] the clients are requiring or
[3:07:26] requesting it is because it it
[3:07:27] actually lowers their
[3:07:30] insurances. And you don't get
[3:07:33] that with, with trusses. And so
[3:07:35] part of the issue is that all
[3:07:39] due respect you're wrong. Well
[3:07:41] then we should talk to eight of
[3:07:44] my clients. So and let me ask
[3:07:46] you this. Why are you saying
[3:07:47] that? You're right. Because
[3:07:49] basically you get a credit for
[3:07:50] the connection between the
[3:07:52] concrete roof and the wall
[3:07:54] structure. You don't get a
[3:07:55] credit for the for the
[3:07:58] horizontal vertical areas, okay?
[3:07:59] That they're you're getting
[3:08:02] your credit connection and
[3:08:04] concrete that you have there.
[3:08:05] That's what you're getting your
[3:08:07] mitigation credits for okay.
[3:08:09] And you made your mitigation
[3:08:10] credit still is basically
[3:08:12] windows and doors. I don't
[3:08:15] agree with that okay. So so the
[3:08:18] driver here is not interior
[3:08:20] wall height to ceiling. It's
[3:08:22] roof structure through
[3:08:24] structure so as not to
[3:08:25] penetrate down into the
[3:08:27] dimension of the house itself.
[3:08:29] Correct. You're not using roof
[3:08:31] trusses, right? No. It's all
[3:08:34] poured concrete with insulation
[3:08:36] which is built into the system.
[3:08:38] It's like you're buying a
[3:08:44] system, right? So if you if you
[3:08:46] would not raise the the height
[3:08:50] of the, the the. Structure, how
[3:08:53] what would the difference in
[3:08:54] height be. Would it be a foot
[3:08:56] basically. Right. Right. Okay.
[3:08:58] So so how what is the ceiling
[3:09:00] height on the second level from
[3:09:16] slab to finish fourth. I'm, I'm
[3:09:17] thinking I remember it being
[3:09:21] like nine feet. So if it would
[3:09:22] go down it would go down to
[3:09:24] like about eight. And to be
[3:09:25] honest with you on your drawing.
[3:09:27] Right. I mean, just have to
[3:09:29] pull it in. Yeah, but let me
[3:09:31] see if I can. Let me see if it
[3:09:40] can be clear. Let me see.
[3:09:43] Jeremy, can you help me pull
[3:09:45] that in? Is it possible to
[3:09:47] mitigation credits for
[3:09:48] insurance for Florida residents?
[3:09:50] It's the section b right there,
[3:10:04] right? Hey, Siri, what is the
[3:10:08] list of mitigation credits for
[3:10:12] insurance for section homes?
[3:10:19] There you go. Right there. Are.
[3:10:22] Zoom in on zoom in as needed.
[3:10:24] It might take a moment to for
[3:10:26] the resolution to come in. Yeah,
[3:10:30] but. It's there. So it's so the
[3:10:35] top of the. Looks like it's ten
[3:10:39] ten feet two right. Yeah.
[3:10:40] That's ten feet two to the top
[3:10:43] of the concrete. Right. So
[3:10:47] right. It's probably so if you
[3:10:49] elevation nine. So if you lose
[3:10:51] a foot there the ceiling would
[3:10:53] only be nine feet. It would go
[3:10:55] lower than nine at that point.
[3:10:57] Yeah. Yeah. With nine. Well
[3:10:59] it's ten two now. So if you
[3:11:01] take a foot out it would be
[3:11:03] nine two. Right. Well ten foot
[3:11:04] two is to the, to the top of
[3:11:06] the, to the top of the beam.
[3:11:07] Right. Top of the roof. Right,
[3:11:09] right. So there's really only
[3:11:10] nine. Well that's to the and
[3:11:12] you have a vaulted section.
[3:11:15] Yeah. So what we what we. So if
[3:11:16] you notice with the concrete
[3:11:19] roof there is no trusses. So we
[3:11:21] can actually at that point go
[3:11:23] up a little bit with the
[3:11:25] ceilings. Yeah. But our spring
[3:11:27] point would be like at nine in
[3:11:28] the main area. So but the lower
[3:11:30] the whatever that is bedroom
[3:11:31] area there is where the shower
[3:11:33] bathroom is. It looks like
[3:11:34] that's nine feet. Right. And
[3:11:36] you can see where the edge of
[3:11:38] the, of the styrofoam, it's
[3:11:40] right at the bottom of the
[3:11:42] insulation. And if you were to
[3:11:44] have trusses, you would have
[3:11:46] all that space up. Yeah. So so
[3:11:48] they've got this massive
[3:11:51] insulation. How many inches of,
[3:11:52] of styrofoam you have. Looks
[3:11:55] like about it. It all depends
[3:11:57] on the r rating, but I think
[3:12:01] it's about 8 or 9in. Yeah.
[3:12:05] What's required are 30. Yeah.
[3:12:07] But when you have like rigid
[3:12:08] insulation it's actually. No
[3:12:10] but what's required Arthur.
[3:12:13] Arthur. So the other thing
[3:12:15] that's important, Edward, is
[3:12:17] this, that the insulation by
[3:12:20] the styrofoam is part of the
[3:12:21] insulation. I understand, but
[3:12:22] it's actually sometimes thicker
[3:12:25] because it's also somewhat
[3:12:26] structural. In other words,
[3:12:28] it's it's actually like a thick
[3:12:29] enough, dense enough styrofoam
[3:12:31] that it's actually going to
[3:12:33] hold the, the metal channels
[3:12:42] that are holding it in place.
[3:12:50] Mayor and a vice mayor.
[3:12:57] Designated survivor. The the
[3:12:59] lower level is what that looks
[3:13:02] like. It's 12 two. I don't know
[3:13:03] where you're reading. Where are
[3:13:04] you reading? Look at the
[3:13:06] section on the on the side
[3:13:07] there's there's a section view.
[3:13:09] I can't read that. Okay. Well,
[3:13:11] it's pretty tough to read. Yeah.
[3:13:13] It's to it's to actually top of
[3:13:19] top of slab. Oh yeah. There's
[3:13:21] 12. There's on the side. Yeah
[3:13:23] I'm trying to do that. How are
[3:13:25] you doing. I'm fine. Pulling
[3:13:30] over to the side. With two
[3:13:35] fingers. Oh great. Let me just
[3:13:38] do this. Oh I'll just go to the
[3:13:41] side. There you go. A little
[3:13:44] farther. There. There we go.
[3:13:53] Okay. So 13 three. So I mean,
[3:13:55] well that's that's from slap
[3:13:58] slap. Yeah. So we have a ten
[3:14:03] foot ceilings inside. Well a
[3:14:05] couple of thoughts occur to me
[3:14:06] design wise, one of the
[3:14:08] challenges that you've
[3:14:10] described are indeed challenges.
[3:14:12] Everybody's affected by them. I
[3:14:14] think our considerations
[3:14:17] include somewhat trying to
[3:14:19] control the metastasis of sugar
[3:14:22] cubes, the replication of the
[3:14:24] same contemporary design over
[3:14:26] and over and over again. This
[3:14:30] does that. The height of the
[3:14:33] visual of the door being so
[3:14:36] elevated and creating a sense
[3:14:37] of verticality is a problem.
[3:14:43] You've addressed that. And you
[3:14:45] know, it's a it's an esthetic
[3:14:48] design with lots of landscaping.
[3:14:49] So congratulations on all of
[3:14:51] that. We're obviously wrestling
[3:14:55] with these, by the way. You
[3:14:56] should all be wrestling with it
[3:14:58] because we're all wrestling
[3:14:59] with it. And and the question
[3:15:01] you have to ask yourself is
[3:15:04] what kind of designs are. So
[3:15:06] let's say that I did know front
[3:15:09] yard know garden. And I had six
[3:15:12] feet of steps. Here's a little
[3:15:14] mitigation credits. In this
[3:15:15] particular case we're hiding
[3:15:16] the steps within the gardens.
[3:15:19] Yeah he doesn't need it. So one
[3:15:20] of the things that I give
[3:15:21] lectures on is the dialog
[3:15:23] between gardens and
[3:15:24] architecture. And so one of the
[3:15:26] things that I hope you see is
[3:15:28] that there is a there's a huge
[3:15:29] combination of gardens and
[3:15:31] architecture. And I think that
[3:15:33] that's what makes it feel like
[3:15:35] a home, because it sits on the
[3:15:36] ground as opposed to five feet
[3:15:41] up. Looks great. We see that in
[3:15:42] theory, we see too little of it
[3:15:46] in actuality, right. All right,
[3:15:51] folks, we got. Let's do ten
[3:15:53] first. That's looks a little
[3:15:55] bit easier. That's the that's
[3:15:57] the rear lot. Make a motion for
[3:15:59] approval. I'm sorry. It's
[3:16:00] already been moved. Already
[3:16:04] moved. Mayor Roscoe, are you
[3:16:07] ready to vote? Oh, sorry. We
[3:16:15] are. We got it. You. Second,
[3:16:17] Councilmember Kaplan moves the
[3:16:20] item, and Councilmember London
[3:16:23] had seconded. And there are no
[3:16:26] changes that I. Okay on any
[3:16:28] mayor Roscoe. Yes.
[3:16:29] Councilmember. Bracken. Yes.
[3:16:31] Councilmember. Kaplan. Yes.
[3:16:32] Councilmember. London. Yes.
[3:16:35] Vice mayor. Yes. Councilmember.
[3:16:37] Stoner. Yes. Councilmember.
[3:16:41] Vazquez. Yes. The resolution is
[3:16:44] approved. Motion carries the
[3:16:49] next item ten f okay. Any
[3:16:54] further discussion on ten out.
[3:16:56] If you would take the height
[3:16:58] out of the lower level and just
[3:17:01] shrink the the the the ceiling
[3:17:03] on the on the first floor, what
[3:17:05] would that do to your design.
[3:17:08] Well, we end up having. Eight
[3:17:10] foot doors, which is normal for
[3:17:13] a house like this. And so we
[3:17:16] have I think. Ten foot ceilings
[3:17:19] inside. So because we have all
[3:17:21] the cavities for ac ducts and
[3:17:23] everything else. So it would
[3:17:26] start to limit ceiling designs
[3:17:28] and all these other things. Ten
[3:17:31] foot ceilings is is probably
[3:17:33] low for a lot of the houses in
[3:17:35] Key Biscayne. So I think it's a
[3:17:37] normal ceiling height that we
[3:17:45] would want in a house like this.
[3:17:49] Quick question. Are you ready?
[3:17:51] I'm ready. All right. Council
[3:17:54] member Bracken. No.
[3:17:57] Councilmember Kaplan. Yes.
[3:17:58] Councilmember. London. Yes.
[3:18:01] Vice mayor Sardinia's. No.
[3:18:04] Councilmember. Stoner. No.
[3:18:06] Councilmember. Vazquez. Yes.
[3:18:10] Mayor. Roscoe. Yes. Motion
[3:18:15] carries. Thank you very much.
[3:18:17] And just so you hear it from my
[3:18:19] side, I think that you're
[3:18:21] questioning all these things is
[3:18:23] actually a great thing. And I
[3:18:25] think hopefully today I gave
[3:18:27] you some insight on what we're
[3:18:28] going through as well. So thank
[3:18:31] you. Thank you sir. Thank you.
[3:18:33] Thanks. Design. Beautiful
[3:18:38] design. Yeah. Okay. Let's go
[3:18:43] back to nine b the mitigation
[3:18:44] credits I know exactly which
[3:18:47] ones okay. Ordinance on second
[3:18:48] reading, an ordinance of the
[3:18:49] village of Key Biscayne,
[3:18:51] Florida, concerning the
[3:18:52] village's stormwater project
[3:18:54] relating to the Clean Water
[3:18:56] State Revolving Fund Loan
[3:18:57] program, making findings,
[3:18:58] authorizing the loan
[3:19:00] application, authorizing the
[3:19:02] loan agreement, establishing
[3:19:05] pledged revenues, designating
[3:19:06] authorized representatives,
[3:19:08] providing assurances. Providing
[3:19:10] for conflict, providing for
[3:19:12] severability, and providing for
[3:19:15] an effective date move. Second.
[3:19:22] Thank you. Questions to Colleen.
[3:19:26] Colleen, how do you think the
[3:19:27] state will feel about us
[3:19:29] submitting an application for
[3:19:31] something we might not build,
[3:19:32] and then come back later and
[3:19:34] say, oh, we made a mistake.
[3:19:35] We're not going to build it,
[3:19:38] even though in the application
[3:19:39] basically says in the
[3:19:39] resolution, I'm not mistaken,
[3:19:42] go back to tab six, was it?
[3:19:44] Fine, tab six somewhere. It
[3:19:48] says on the. Whereas such
[3:19:49] stormwater improvements include
[3:19:50] they tell you what we're going
[3:19:52] to do but which really means we
[3:19:55] approved it right to do that.
[3:19:58] So back in 2023 sorry. Back in
[3:20:00] back in 2023, there was a
[3:20:02] resolution before council to
[3:20:03] adopt what was called the
[3:20:05] facilities plan. That was for
[3:20:07] this project. So we've already
[3:20:09] approved this project. No we
[3:20:10] haven't, no not to construct.
[3:20:12] But the facilities plan was to
[3:20:15] submit to the state revolving
[3:20:16] fund for our design loan, and
[3:20:18] they required that to be able
[3:20:20] to do the design loan. That
[3:20:21] facilities plan carries forward
[3:20:22] into the construction loan
[3:20:24] process. This is a normal
[3:20:26] process for the srf as far as
[3:20:28] whether we use the money or not.
[3:20:29] It is not uncommon for
[3:20:31] communities to have something
[3:20:33] happen where they can't do the
[3:20:34] project or they decide not to
[3:20:36] do the project. It become too
[3:20:37] expensive and they can't use
[3:20:38] the loan dollars they've been
[3:20:41] given. If we end up doing that,
[3:20:44] there's no penalty. They think
[3:20:46] that's fine. I can't speak for
[3:20:47] them. I'm telling you that
[3:20:50] there's no penalty. Okay? In
[3:20:52] addition to there being no
[3:20:54] penalty, there's also a
[3:20:57] procedure to vet whatever plan
[3:21:00] we do decide to do and if it's
[3:21:02] sufficiently compatible. Right.
[3:21:05] The if there are changes to the
[3:21:06] plan, there's a process by
[3:21:08] which we would amend the
[3:21:10] facilities plan. We can pursue
[3:21:12] that process and we can get
[3:21:13] more details about what that
[3:21:15] would look like. But it is
[3:21:16] possible. And that doesn't mean
[3:21:18] that we can't use those loan
[3:21:20] dollars. That is up to the
[3:21:21] extent of the changes that we
[3:21:23] would end up making, but major
[3:21:25] changes. I don't know what
[3:21:27] major means. No, but you had
[3:21:28] said to before that it can't it
[3:21:30] has to be substantially the
[3:21:31] same plan. It can't be a
[3:21:32] different project. What they
[3:21:34] look like, what they look at in
[3:21:35] the facilities plan, is a
[3:21:36] review of the environmental
[3:21:37] impact that your project is
[3:21:39] going to have, the historical
[3:21:40] impact. There's a species
[3:21:42] analysis. So when it comes to
[3:21:44] changing the plan, if there's a
[3:21:45] change to what the
[3:21:46] environmental impact would be,
[3:21:48] they would want to know that we
[3:21:49] might have to redo the
[3:21:50] environmental portion of the
[3:21:52] facilities plan. For example. I
[3:21:54] haven't gotten into the details
[3:21:56] with them about what
[3:21:57] constitutes a major change.
[3:21:59] They were reticent to give me
[3:22:01] any specifics on that because
[3:22:03] it's so variable from one
[3:22:05] project to the next. What
[3:22:07] constitutes that? What they did
[3:22:09] say is, if we do change it
[3:22:11] beyond the point that it can
[3:22:13] just be adopted as more or less
[3:22:15] the same as what we're doing,
[3:22:16] then they would go through an
[3:22:17] amendment process with us where
[3:22:19] we'd have to basically update
[3:22:20] our facilities plan. But
[3:22:23] basically the proposed plan
[3:22:24] would understand the other
[3:22:26] engineer is doing it is
[3:22:27] significantly different than
[3:22:29] this plan. This plan here is
[3:22:31] like gravity with a pump into
[3:22:32] the base system. And he's doing
[3:22:34] a hybrid system, which is
[3:22:35] basically utilizing our
[3:22:38] existing drainage wells,
[3:22:39] putting a shallow injection
[3:22:41] wells, small pumps. How do we
[3:22:43] know all that? Because that's
[3:22:46] what he said anyway. He didn't
[3:22:48] say that. Okay. When did he say
[3:22:50] that? That's what I heard him
[3:22:51] say. Maybe my hearing is bad.
[3:22:53] No, no, I mean, you're I'm
[3:22:55] sorry. Let me finish. Okay,
[3:22:57] then you will. Then I will ask
[3:22:58] for a point of privilege. I
[3:23:00] assume that's the case. Is that
[3:23:01] a substantial change? I can't
[3:23:04] speak for Fdep. I'm not an
[3:23:06] engineer either. Okay, fine.
[3:23:08] Thank you. So, point of
[3:23:11] privilege, mayor. Okay, okay.
[3:23:14] I'm hearing already. It's a
[3:23:16] done deal here. We got a design
[3:23:17] going on, and I'm already
[3:23:19] hearing details about a design
[3:23:21] that this council has not heard.
[3:23:23] I'm hearing mixed signals about
[3:23:25] the program manager. I'm
[3:23:27] hearing mixed signals about
[3:23:29] reviews, about moving forward
[3:23:33] with the design hearing, moving
[3:23:35] forward, and tabling a critical
[3:23:37] discussion about a program
[3:23:39] manager into a workshop. I'm
[3:23:41] sorry, I don't I'm staying. I'm
[3:23:42] trying really to stay on point
[3:23:44] here because it's important,
[3:23:45] because this will affect what
[3:23:47] you're doing. The financing
[3:23:50] that we're currently evaluating
[3:23:53] without any clarity on the
[3:23:54] project delivery and the
[3:23:56] management structure, is
[3:23:59] woefully inadequate. From my
[3:24:02] perspective. Logically, we have
[3:24:04] just tabled a critical item
[3:24:06] which has to do with the
[3:24:08] program manager and going like
[3:24:10] that, we're taking this project
[3:24:11] off the rails. Mayor and
[3:24:14] council, I can tell you from 35
[3:24:16] years of experience I have seen
[3:24:18] this before. I have seen it
[3:24:20] over and over again. We have a
[3:24:22] lot of money at stake here, you
[3:24:24] know, and I'm seeing patterns
[3:24:26] that are really concerning.
[3:24:28] Number one, I'm seeing a
[3:24:30] complete criticism of staff, a
[3:24:32] devaluation of the existing
[3:24:34] design without any merits. I
[3:24:37] have received a lot of
[3:24:38] criticism, not only just
[3:24:40] criticism. I've been playing
[3:24:41] threats about this moving
[3:24:44] forward. I have the text and I
[3:24:46] am. I am very concerned about
[3:24:48] how this council is moving
[3:24:50] forward with this project. This
[3:24:52] is a significant public purpose
[3:24:53] project. It is a project that
[3:24:55] was committed to this community.
[3:24:57] It is a project that I ran on a
[3:24:59] platform, and now I'm hearing a
[3:25:01] council member talking
[3:25:03] specifics specifically, just
[3:25:05] specifically said we don't need
[3:25:07] a gravity system. We can use
[3:25:09] some pump stations. How did he
[3:25:11] figure that out? Who's talking
[3:25:13] with I'm sorry, sir, there is
[3:25:16] one thing I want to say here.
[3:25:18] There's $90 million at stake,
[3:25:20] mayor. 90 million? That's a lot
[3:25:22] of money. And one thing that I
[3:25:23] have seen in the public sector
[3:25:25] is when you have a lot of money
[3:25:26] like that, first it discredit
[3:25:28] comes in, then the hijack comes
[3:25:30] in. And what we're witnessing
[3:25:32] here is a complete hijack of
[3:25:34] this project with a pretext
[3:25:35] that they don't want to do it
[3:25:37] or do the undergrounding or do
[3:25:38] whatever. But we're talking
[3:25:39] about something that really
[3:25:40] concerns me, and this council
[3:25:42] needs to be aware that we're
[3:25:43] not moving in the right
[3:25:45] direction. We're trying to take
[3:25:46] up Black and Veatch when the
[3:25:47] program management, the project
[3:25:49] is off the rails. Now we have a
[3:25:51] council member who's not a
[3:25:52] professional engineer quoting
[3:25:54] designs. This council needs to
[3:25:56] take this very seriously. We're
[3:25:57] committing a lot of money and
[3:25:59] there's a lot of money at stake.
[3:26:00] I'm wondering who's interested
[3:26:02] in this money. All right. What
[3:26:04] we're talking about is nine b
[3:26:08] and it's an ordinance. No, it's
[3:26:10] it's a that will help us if we
[3:26:14] decide to go with this design
[3:26:18] that we can get the best bang
[3:26:20] for our buck in terms of the
[3:26:22] financial aspect of it. Correct.
[3:26:24] That's all we're doing here at
[3:26:26] this time. We're not committing
[3:26:28] to any funds. We're not doing
[3:26:30] anything different than what
[3:26:33] was pretended that we put
[3:26:36] together a plan. And if we go
[3:26:38] forward with that plan, we have
[3:26:41] the best, the best financing
[3:26:43] and loan agreement that we can
[3:26:45] get out there. And what I'm
[3:26:46] hearing tonight, which is a
[3:26:49] little bit different, I think,
[3:26:51] is that there's a possibility
[3:26:54] that we could, if we go with a
[3:26:57] plan b or design b, that we
[3:27:01] could apply this loan to that.
[3:27:03] What you're saying. No, she's
[3:27:05] she's not promising that. What
[3:27:07] she's saying is that there is a
[3:27:08] process to go through, that
[3:27:10] it's a rigorous process. But
[3:27:12] you know this. No one's told
[3:27:14] her this, but no, but that that
[3:27:16] doesn't mean that whatever we
[3:27:18] choose to come up with, whether
[3:27:20] it is the plan as it stands,
[3:27:21] whether it is a value
[3:27:23] engineered plan, whether it's a
[3:27:24] modified plan, whether it
[3:27:26] perhaps is even a different
[3:27:27] plan, you know, that would all
[3:27:29] go through a certain process.
[3:27:31] What what what I'm hearing is
[3:27:34] that this could be this could
[3:27:37] be used for something else to
[3:27:39] do to achieve the same goals. I
[3:27:40] don't think I don't think we
[3:27:42] want to make that statement. I
[3:27:43] think what we're really trying
[3:27:44] to say is we're giving
[3:27:45] ourselves financial flexibility.
[3:27:47] And if we truly are doing an
[3:27:48] alternative analysis that we
[3:27:50] have one of the alternatives
[3:27:53] standing by that is ready to be
[3:27:55] procured, ready to be financed
[3:27:57] so that we can do a true
[3:27:58] evaluation between the two
[3:27:59] projects. Just earlier tonight,
[3:28:01] we asked about whether there
[3:28:03] was another project available
[3:28:04] for the Rickenbacker Causeway
[3:28:06] to do the same exact thing. So
[3:28:08] I would hope we would be
[3:28:09] consistent on doing it within
[3:28:11] ourselves as well. To have two
[3:28:12] alternatives to evaluate when
[3:28:14] it finishes their project. It
[3:28:16] MAY be helpful to remember our
[3:28:17] meeting and tally with the
[3:28:19] gentleman that was the head of
[3:28:21] this, this department, because
[3:28:23] we broached the subject of the
[3:28:26] possibility of a change, and he
[3:28:28] spoke about a process to
[3:28:29] respond to whatever it is that
[3:28:31] we come up with. And Colleen
[3:28:33] said he hesitated because I
[3:28:34] think they don't want to commit
[3:28:36] to something, but that doesn't
[3:28:38] mean it's off the table. But I
[3:28:40] think the real the real thing,
[3:28:41] the real question in place
[3:28:45] right now is we are just
[3:28:47] locking in a financing
[3:28:48] mechanism, that's all we're
[3:28:50] doing. Nothing more. Question.
[3:28:52] Colleen, could you elaborate on
[3:28:55] any additional cost that would
[3:28:58] be required at this time from,
[3:29:00] let's say, your if we assume
[3:29:01] that we're not moving forward
[3:29:03] with this, is there if there is
[3:29:05] there additional cost that you
[3:29:07] would have to add under the on
[3:29:09] your current current criteria
[3:29:11] to put put forth this thing to
[3:29:14] the state. So, so I guess to
[3:29:15] clarify, are you asking if we
[3:29:17] say no tonight? No, I'm just
[3:29:19] saying if are there any
[3:29:20] additional costs you have to
[3:29:22] add right now if we approve, if
[3:29:24] you if you approve, what other
[3:29:26] costs do we have to add? I
[3:29:28] think last time I checked we've
[3:29:30] used about two thirds of the
[3:29:32] work order. So about 20,000 or
[3:29:33] so has been used for the
[3:29:35] support from Black and Beach. I
[3:29:37] think the next week would be
[3:29:41] like $2,000. So. So just to
[3:29:43] make sure you're clear, I'm
[3:29:44] clear there's an all all we're
[3:29:46] talking about is an additional
[3:29:48] $2,000 to to to put the
[3:29:50] application in place more or
[3:29:52] less all the fees, banking fees,
[3:29:53] everything associated with the
[3:29:54] project. The application is not
[3:29:56] executing the loan. But yes,
[3:29:57] the application for the loan is
[3:29:59] we're basically there. How are
[3:30:01] we going to manage this
[3:30:03] application process or
[3:30:05] modifications into any design
[3:30:07] without a program manager? This
[3:30:10] item has been tabled. Are you
[3:30:12] referring to if we change? No.
[3:30:13] We are point of privilege. We
[3:30:14] we still are. We're talking
[3:30:16] about the program. I know you
[3:30:17] want to talk about this, but
[3:30:19] you're. But but we've tabled
[3:30:20] the program manager and I want
[3:30:22] to understand why we're tabling
[3:30:23] a program manager. When you are
[3:30:25] trying to move forward and
[3:30:26] trying to manage, you know,
[3:30:28] you're asking for a loan,
[3:30:29] you're asking for a loan, and
[3:30:31] we're going to have to maintain
[3:30:32] that, and we're going to have
[3:30:34] to try to keep it in a way that
[3:30:36] we can, that we can retain that
[3:30:38] loan. How are we going to do
[3:30:39] that without a program manager
[3:30:40] project? That's right. I
[3:30:41] appreciate that question. But
[3:30:43] that's not fair to ask her
[3:30:44] tonight, because that was just
[3:30:46] a decision that was made about
[3:30:47] a bit ago. Okay. Understand
[3:30:48] that's a condition she asked
[3:30:50] for. Look, I think I think
[3:30:52] we'll be able to pull it pull
[3:30:53] it off ourselves. We do have
[3:30:54] the capability. I think after
[3:30:55] tonight's decision, we are
[3:30:57] going to have to make a major
[3:30:59] decision on what projects we're
[3:31:00] going to do. Priorities,
[3:31:01] timelines. You know, this
[3:31:03] decision could impact the
[3:31:05] capital plan, but that's
[3:31:06] something. But I want to be
[3:31:08] able to look at tonight but
[3:31:09] still have a major impact. I'm
[3:31:11] sorry, but I want to understand
[3:31:12] why we're tabling the program
[3:31:13] manager. That's not what's
[3:31:15] before us right now. It is sir.
[3:31:17] No it isn't. We have already
[3:31:19] tabled it. We? Well, I'm making
[3:31:21] well, I'll come back on that.
[3:31:22] The table in the program
[3:31:24] manager. But staff is trying to
[3:31:25] move forward with a project and
[3:31:27] the financing. And at the same
[3:31:28] time, you're tabling the
[3:31:30] program manager without any
[3:31:32] logic whatsoever that that MAY
[3:31:35] be. But we are still on only on.
[3:31:38] Let's see. So let's get let's
[3:31:41] get past this. Okay. And you
[3:31:42] can have that other discussion.
[3:31:46] Okay sir. Yes. Okay. I have my
[3:31:48] recollection of when this came
[3:31:49] up at last meeting and we went
[3:31:51] over this the other day. I have
[3:31:54] in my mind this the, this whole
[3:31:56] application process was going
[3:31:59] to cost approximately $30,000.
[3:32:00] And, and now you're saying
[3:32:03] we're approximately 20 into it.
[3:32:06] So maybe maybe we have ten left
[3:32:09] to go and not two. I it doesn't
[3:32:10] matter. I just want to make
[3:32:12] sure that our record is clear
[3:32:13] and that we're not committing
[3:32:16] to something. It's not. No. The
[3:32:17] work orders for about $33,000.
[3:32:19] I just spoke to the program
[3:32:20] manager, Mike, about how much
[3:32:22] they've used so far. It's about
[3:32:23] two thirds they've used. And
[3:32:25] they said, you know, they don't
[3:32:26] anticipate using the full
[3:32:28] remainder, right? Okay. Right.
[3:32:30] And so I'm doing a guesstimate
[3:32:31] knowing how far we've taken it,
[3:32:33] knowing that Benjamin is
[3:32:34] putting in the financials. And
[3:32:36] I'm going to ask for the legal
[3:32:38] opinion. And it's more or less
[3:32:39] putting everything together and
[3:32:41] sending it off. I just did
[3:32:42] ballpark estimates for number
[3:32:44] of hours that would take. We
[3:32:45] don't have any more
[3:32:46] coordination calls. You know I
[3:32:47] understand it's simple. And
[3:32:49] then my other my other point of
[3:32:50] clarification is because I
[3:32:52] think we're a little fuzzy on
[3:32:54] whether we could use these
[3:32:56] funds for something else. My my
[3:32:59] understanding is that this
[3:33:00] these funds would be given on
[3:33:02] the basis of the permit we had.
[3:33:04] That was part of the
[3:33:05] application. Right? So if we go
[3:33:08] to a different plan entirely,
[3:33:10] it's going to it's going to be
[3:33:11] something with a different
[3:33:12] permit, because we can't use
[3:33:14] this permit unless it's value
[3:33:16] engineered or there is a
[3:33:20] substantial. Right. So so I
[3:33:22] just want to make that clear.
[3:33:25] Having said that, we're already
[3:33:26] there. We've already spent the
[3:33:28] money. We've already we've
[3:33:29] already committed everything we
[3:33:32] have to commit in order to get
[3:33:33] the loan. I'm not sure why we
[3:33:35] wouldn't do that at this point.
[3:33:38] And if we don't take the money,
[3:33:40] we don't take the money, right?
[3:33:43] Correct. All right, MADAM Clerk,
[3:33:44] is there needs to be a public
[3:33:49] hearing. Second reading, second
[3:33:50] reading. Okay. Public hearing
[3:33:56] is now open. Seeing no one come
[3:33:57] forward. Public hearing. I got
[3:34:00] a question in the already. We
[3:34:03] gave him $20,000 to fill out
[3:34:04] this loan application, right?
[3:34:06] Yes. Why don't we have a copy
[3:34:09] of it? It's in draft form.
[3:34:11] Sorry. The loan application
[3:34:12] itself is actually not that
[3:34:13] long. It's all the attachments
[3:34:15] and the amendments or not, the
[3:34:16] amendments, the attachments to
[3:34:19] it. I'm looking at the thing.
[3:34:20] So why don't we have a copy of
[3:34:22] it? It's in draft form okay.
[3:34:24] And we we didn't change the
[3:34:26] attachment because it's a
[3:34:27] second reading of the first
[3:34:29] reading. You keep the first
[3:34:32] reading it was a It was the
[3:34:34] loan application as a blank
[3:34:35] document because we hadn't we
[3:34:36] hadn't filled anything out.
[3:34:38] More or less. It hasn't been
[3:34:40] filled out yet. We have a draft.
[3:34:42] It has been filled out. I
[3:34:43] believe there was a public
[3:34:44] records request that received
[3:34:46] it, could I have a copy? Of
[3:34:48] course. Thank you. We'll send
[3:34:52] it to you. Let's go. Vice mayor.
[3:34:55] Yes. Council member. Stoner.
[3:34:57] Yes. Councilmember. Vasquez.
[3:34:59] Yes. Mayor. Roscoe. Yes.
[3:35:04] Councilmember. Bracken. Yes.
[3:35:07] Councilmember. Kaplan. Yes.
[3:35:09] Councilmember. London. No. The
[3:35:12] ordinance is adopted on second
[3:35:20] reading. Okay. We've got a
[3:35:23] number of important items here
[3:35:29] under 12 b okay. I'm putting
[3:35:32] forward fellow by the name of
[3:35:34] Federico Flores to this
[3:35:35] Miami-Dade County Aircraft
[3:35:37] Noise Abatement Advisory Board.
[3:35:40] Good suggestion. Next. All
[3:35:42] right. Consensus council. Yes,
[3:35:50] sir. Consensus. Consensus.
[3:35:56] Let's see. 12. Let me let me
[3:35:58] take something that we've
[3:36:01] already talked about. 12 e 12 e
[3:36:04] okay, okay. Acceptable uses
[3:36:06] within institutional zoning.
[3:36:08] Yes. So one of the things that
[3:36:11] that we've found out recently
[3:36:13] is that there is some
[3:36:16] differences or discrepancy or
[3:36:20] it's not clear that within the
[3:36:22] institutional you could do
[3:36:25] something as the farmers market.
[3:36:28] Okay. So I wanted to bring this
[3:36:30] to your attention and see, you
[3:36:32] know, do we want to go ahead
[3:36:34] and make that change to allow
[3:36:38] for that to happen or not?
[3:36:40] Jeremy, can you give a little
[3:36:43] bit of backdrop on this? I can
[3:36:46] the so we have the existing
[3:36:48] farmers market that was that
[3:36:50] has a btr that we've been doing
[3:36:51] at the community church for
[3:36:56] some time that isn't strictly
[3:36:58] in line with the allowed uses
[3:37:01] on the property. By my
[3:37:03] understanding, there could be
[3:37:06] an amendment to allow sort of a
[3:37:07] like a special use district or
[3:37:10] something creating that as an,
[3:37:12] as an ancillary use or an
[3:37:14] additional use that's permitted
[3:37:16] under certain conditions. And
[3:37:19] it sort of falls was approved.
[3:37:20] Something was approved. They
[3:37:23] have a btr for that property.
[3:37:25] It happened before my time when
[3:37:28] when we had for instance sorry.
[3:37:30] Thank you. Business tax receipt.
[3:37:34] So the we had an application
[3:37:36] this summer for a temporary
[3:37:38] move while they were repaving
[3:37:41] the community church, it moved
[3:37:43] over to the Presbyterian Church.
[3:37:46] The I had them fill out a
[3:37:48] special event permit because
[3:37:50] that's the proper way to do
[3:37:53] this. You know, special event
[3:37:56] permit is only use only
[3:37:57] available for a single day. So
[3:37:59] I think they did two because
[3:38:01] they had two weeks where the
[3:38:02] where the event was over there.
[3:38:04] But there's there's other I'm
[3:38:06] sure Chad can comment as well.
[3:38:06] But there's other
[3:38:08] municipalities that come up
[3:38:10] with additional permit types
[3:38:12] when you have a recurring event
[3:38:14] and that goes through a little
[3:38:15] bit more rigorous review
[3:38:17] because you know you're
[3:38:19] expecting it to be every week
[3:38:22] or, or longer than one day, and
[3:38:24] you make sure that it has the
[3:38:25] appropriate facilities to
[3:38:28] accommodate it. Chad. Chad, you
[3:38:30] got anything to add? There's
[3:38:32] definitely models on the
[3:38:35] farmer's market. Typically you
[3:38:37] get into the type of products,
[3:38:41] how often they usually have
[3:38:42] like insurance requirements
[3:38:44] plan. I mean there's we have
[3:38:46] examples that we can provide if
[3:38:48] we want to get real detailed on
[3:38:50] it. So it's something we could
[3:38:53] bring back. Okay. As far as I
[3:38:56] can tell. You know, the
[3:38:58] farmer's market has worked well.
[3:39:00] People like it. The types of
[3:39:02] things that they sell there are,
[3:39:04] are not usually found
[3:39:08] everywhere on the island. So I
[3:39:11] would be in favor of getting
[3:39:14] our attorney to to codify this.
[3:39:16] If it's, you know, something,
[3:39:18] you guys think it's worthwhile,
[3:39:22] I agree. Okay. All right, Chad,
[3:39:24] bring us on back and give us
[3:39:26] more time. Just a quick
[3:39:28] question on is the Christmas
[3:39:29] tree sale and the pumpkin patch,
[3:39:32] are they similar? I think that
[3:39:35] that's not as it's not
[3:39:36] reoccurring. You know, that's
[3:39:37] more of like the special event
[3:39:39] or I don't know how you issue
[3:39:41] them temporary or the like, but
[3:39:42] that's this my understanding is
[3:39:45] the farm market is going to be
[3:39:47] weekly, right? Right. It is and
[3:39:49] it is weekly has been going on.
[3:39:50] It's very popular. It's great.
[3:39:52] We want to encourage it. Right.
[3:39:53] No, I know the existing one.
[3:39:55] But I mean the legislation that
[3:39:56] we would that we would put
[3:39:57] forward would allow for
[3:39:59] something more on a regular
[3:40:01] basis. I'd like to do that
[3:40:02] because it's a it's a good
[3:40:05] thing. Okay. You got marching
[3:40:13] orders. Consensus. Has have all
[3:40:18] of you looked at the scheduling?
[3:40:23] Workshops and the schedule for
[3:40:27] 2026? No, no. No, it's two
[3:40:29] different items. Yeah. Yeah
[3:40:35] okay. Quite aware. So I've got
[3:40:37] a couple of changes that I
[3:40:40] would suggest we'll have. We'll
[3:40:44] have Jocelyn circle back with
[3:40:48] with with the schedule for the
[3:40:53] village. Now for the proposed
[3:40:56] workshops. Main, main what they
[3:40:59] are. So I'm sorry, MR. Mayor,
[3:41:01] you wanted to go over the 2026
[3:41:03] council schedule first? Yeah.
[3:41:05] Council meeting. I heard that
[3:41:07] they haven't looked at it in a
[3:41:09] lot of detail. So let's not
[3:41:11] waste time talking about
[3:41:12] something that they haven't
[3:41:14] really had a chance to look at.
[3:41:15] So you would like me to bring
[3:41:17] this back for DECEMBER? Yes.
[3:41:20] Okay. And then now look at the
[3:41:24] workshops that are proposed,
[3:41:27] the tabs that. Yes. Where the
[3:41:30] workshops they propose
[3:41:31] tentative workshop DECEMBER
[3:41:34] 10th zone one alternative
[3:41:39] analysis and plan, MR. Manager.
[3:41:43] Yeah, if I MAY. At the last ad
[3:41:46] hoc committee, I believe, and I
[3:41:48] sent it out to them for
[3:41:50] approval today. They asked for
[3:41:52] a preview or a pre-meeting,
[3:41:54] whatever we want to call it, in
[3:41:55] advance of a full council
[3:41:57] workshop for the alternative
[3:41:59] plan, so that MAY adjust that
[3:42:02] date. I know, council member,
[3:42:05] I'm not sure if you had a
[3:42:05] chance to read that plan that I
[3:42:07] sent you, Councilmember Vazquez,
[3:42:08] but you might not been able to
[3:42:10] absorb it yet. I don't know
[3:42:11] completely. No, not considering
[3:42:12] all the stuff that we have.
[3:42:14] Right. So I think but I guess,
[3:42:16] generally speaking, would you
[3:42:17] prefer to have an ad hoc
[3:42:19] meeting before it goes to full
[3:42:20] council? Because that would
[3:42:23] adjust this date that she's
[3:42:24] mentioning right now? I was
[3:42:26] just trying to firm up the
[3:42:27] dates, and if they agreed with
[3:42:29] everyone's schedule and all the
[3:42:35] other proposed workshop dates.
[3:42:37] That means to me it's six one
[3:42:39] half the other doesn't matter.
[3:42:40] We're having ad hoc meetings
[3:42:43] and we're tabling items, so I
[3:42:44] don't I don't get the sense of
[3:42:52] it. Okay. So DECEMBER. The 10th
[3:42:53] is not a good date anyway.
[3:42:55] Mayor. That's also in the
[3:42:57] that's a best practices. Yeah.
[3:42:58] It's. Yeah, exactly. It's the
[3:43:01] day after our regular meeting
[3:43:06] so correct. I also heard
[3:43:07] tonight there might be an
[3:43:09] interest in having a zoning
[3:43:10] workshop. And I also heard the
[3:43:11] interest of perhaps an
[3:43:13] infrastructure workshop. And
[3:43:15] then if the ad hoc committee
[3:43:16] wants to have those three
[3:43:18] workshops in advance of the
[3:43:20] council workshops, this kind of
[3:43:23] throws this calendar up in the
[3:43:26] air. And perhaps maybe me and
[3:43:29] Jocelyn can sit down and okay,
[3:43:33] let's do this. Mike, why don't
[3:43:39] why don't you. Decide what
[3:43:41] meetings you're going to need
[3:43:43] the ad hoc and then say, okay,
[3:43:45] after we finish this one and
[3:43:48] this one, then we want to do a,
[3:43:51] a full workshop so that we can
[3:43:53] then be on that on that page.
[3:43:55] Yeah, I'll work with Steve and
[3:44:01] Jocelyn, develop dates. Okay.
[3:44:04] Other workshops. Another one we
[3:44:06] have on there. Again
[3:44:08] tentatively again we can work
[3:44:10] it through is JANUARY 8th. Is
[3:44:11] the undergrounding workshop
[3:44:13] okay. Back to you with a
[3:44:15] recommendation. Is everybody is
[3:44:18] that JANUARY for JANUARY 8th.
[3:44:20] Yep. Thank you. Okay everybody
[3:44:22] good on that one then. Yep yep
[3:44:26] okay. Yep. And then we have a
[3:44:30] recommendation for Zork.
[3:44:34] Workshop on MARCH 4th. Thanks.
[3:44:35] That will do. We come back with
[3:44:38] all the resilience related.
[3:44:41] MARCH 4th recommendations.
[3:44:43] That's okay with me okay. You
[3:44:46] want to put these together I
[3:44:48] will okay. So there's consensus
[3:44:50] for MARCH 4th. These evening
[3:44:51] workshops day workshops.
[3:44:53] Evening should be evening.
[3:44:56] Evening. Yeah. MARCH 4th is
[3:45:01] okay with me. The next before.
[3:45:06] Okay. And I think the zone one
[3:45:07] alternatives for the full
[3:45:09] council. Council member I mean
[3:45:11] mayor, I think we need to wait
[3:45:13] till we talk to the ad hoc
[3:45:14] committee to figure out how
[3:45:16] we're going to. Yes. Sounds
[3:45:17] like it'll get pushed until
[3:45:19] JANUARY. You're trying to fit
[3:45:21] in three meetings. And there
[3:45:23] there was another workshop that
[3:45:26] we talked about a number of
[3:45:29] months back, about the swales
[3:45:34] that we we need to address. And
[3:45:38] with that, if you all indulge
[3:45:42] me, I'd like to go to 12 d b d
[3:45:48] as in dog d okay. Yes. I've got
[3:45:53] our former mayor Festa. And
[3:45:59] what I wanted to do is I. Yeah,
[3:46:02] I have an issue with code
[3:46:08] enforcement. It seems like
[3:46:10] there are some restrictions
[3:46:13] that are code enforcement. Body
[3:46:17] seems to have or there's some
[3:46:20] where someone says that they
[3:46:23] need direction on this issue,
[3:46:26] and we need to have a a small
[3:46:28] conversation on it tonight is,
[3:46:31] is this you know, I understood
[3:46:34] it. And Chad you can help. Here
[3:46:38] is we have a code if if our
[3:46:41] code enforcement is following
[3:46:44] that code, then they cannot
[3:46:47] pursue some investigations or
[3:46:50] what what is the what is the
[3:46:54] point on this. Well, our my
[3:46:56] understanding is in talking
[3:46:58] with you is that there MAY be
[3:46:59] certain code provisions
[3:47:01] specifically relating to the
[3:47:02] swale that our code enforcement
[3:47:05] officers feel are not clear
[3:47:07] enough for them to enforce
[3:47:09] certain aspects based on the
[3:47:11] existing code, based on the
[3:47:13] existing code. Yes, and there
[3:47:16] MAY be a need to update that to
[3:47:18] give the code compliance
[3:47:21] officers comfort inciting
[3:47:22] homeowners or property owners
[3:47:25] that are not consistent with
[3:47:27] the code, as maybe what the
[3:47:30] village would like to see. So I
[3:47:32] mean, underneath our code, if
[3:47:33] they have personal knowledge or
[3:47:35] they they see a violation, they
[3:47:37] can cite somebody. However it
[3:47:39] sounds in speaking with you
[3:47:41] that they're uncomfortable with
[3:47:43] the current language and are
[3:47:45] looking for guidance. Okay,
[3:47:47] Jeremy, can you shed light on
[3:47:53] that? Yeah. So the the
[3:47:54] applicable codes are sections
[3:47:58] of the Public Works Ordinance.
[3:48:03] That and and the applicability
[3:48:04] to Swales is always a bit
[3:48:06] tricky because it's something
[3:48:09] that is it's not owned. But we
[3:48:11] manage the right of way. The
[3:48:13] village effectively owns the
[3:48:15] right of way. But the
[3:48:17] homeowners responsible for
[3:48:20] maintaining it and then the we
[3:48:22] also have certain issues in our
[3:48:23] code. Our code says you can
[3:48:25] only have turf for certain
[3:48:29] portions of adjacent to asphalt,
[3:48:32] but in fact, it's not practical
[3:48:34] to only have turf in certain
[3:48:35] neighborhoods where you have
[3:48:39] repeated flooding, regular
[3:48:40] flooding through the entire
[3:48:42] rainy season. So those areas
[3:48:45] get completely rutted and you
[3:48:47] can't you end up with a churned
[3:48:49] up mud. So and in fact, we've
[3:48:51] allowed people to have certain
[3:48:54] types of gravel to replace turf
[3:48:56] because it is completely
[3:48:58] impractical to have turf. But
[3:49:00] to to the specific point,
[3:49:03] Jeremy, the the buttons that
[3:49:06] you see, the, the, the stakes
[3:49:09] in the ground that are they put
[3:49:11] concrete underneath all those
[3:49:14] things. Are they against our
[3:49:16] code within a certain distance
[3:49:18] from the edge of asphalt? Yes.
[3:49:22] Okay. And and are people
[3:49:24] driving around? Do they not see
[3:49:26] that or are they told not to
[3:49:29] enforce that? No. We we have
[3:49:29] been we've been enforcing
[3:49:32] things that are a danger. Yeah.
[3:49:33] Right. When when somebody
[3:49:35] creates a tripping hazard, when
[3:49:37] somebody creates something that
[3:49:40] is a clear violation. Yes.
[3:49:42] We've been we we enforce that
[3:49:43] simple question, Jeremy. When
[3:49:45] they block the access to the
[3:49:48] swale by this concrete thing,
[3:49:51] poles by reflectors by anything,
[3:49:53] it's not legal. Is that against
[3:49:55] our code? It is within a
[3:49:56] certain distance from the edge
[3:49:58] of of pavement. There's the
[3:50:00] pavement. Here's the property
[3:50:02] line in that area is the swale.
[3:50:05] Is it a against our code in
[3:50:07] that area to block it? Yes or
[3:50:09] no? I know you're allowed to
[3:50:11] have certain landscape elements.
[3:50:13] I'd have to check the code to
[3:50:15] be clear. There's, there's it's
[3:50:17] not as straightforward as
[3:50:19] property line. So you can you
[3:50:21] can block it. Then you can have
[3:50:22] for instance, you're allowed to
[3:50:24] have shrubs over a certain
[3:50:26] height that are effectively
[3:50:27] blocking it. We're talking
[3:50:29] about people putting posts in
[3:50:30] the ground and putting chains
[3:50:33] across the across the post and
[3:50:35] ropes or whatever. And blocking
[3:50:36] say, is that against the code?
[3:50:38] That's what. But that's what
[3:50:39] John's talking about. I mean,
[3:50:41] we're talking about these sort
[3:50:43] of blatant divisions, basically
[3:50:45] saying, don't park here. This
[3:50:47] is my this is my grass. I don't
[3:50:48] want you running over it. And
[3:50:50] that's kind of what this the
[3:50:51] purpose of those, those things
[3:50:53] are I mean, they're to block
[3:50:54] people from parking on the
[3:50:55] swale. And, and I think what
[3:50:57] we're asking is, is this
[3:50:58] against the code or not against
[3:51:00] the code? I think John's very
[3:51:01] clearly says this is against
[3:51:03] the code, and he wants this
[3:51:04] kind of addressed. If you're
[3:51:05] suggesting that it's not 100%
[3:51:06] clear what Mike is suggesting,
[3:51:08] do you have a resolution? Do
[3:51:09] you have a solution for this
[3:51:10] other than consistently
[3:51:13] policing it? Yeah, I mean, I do
[3:51:14] I do think consistency in
[3:51:16] policing is part of the issue.
[3:51:18] It's look, it's part of the
[3:51:19] reason we've brought a third
[3:51:21] person on so that we can do
[3:51:22] something other than just
[3:51:23] monitor construction sites with
[3:51:26] the rest of our staff. And I
[3:51:28] think we could do more thorough
[3:51:30] policing of these. There is
[3:51:33] certain vague vagueness in the
[3:51:35] code that wouldn't we could we
[3:51:37] could stand to improve the
[3:51:39] partly it's it's the fact that
[3:51:41] it's sort of scattered around
[3:51:42] in different portions of the
[3:51:44] code that we have. Some of it's
[3:51:46] in landscape, some of it's in
[3:51:47] the Public works ordinance. And
[3:51:49] we're also dealing with county
[3:51:51] and county requirements for
[3:51:53] roadway sections that even if
[3:51:55] it's not a county road, they do.
[3:51:57] We have a way forward to yeah,
[3:51:58] I think we have a way forward
[3:52:01] to improve, improve, improve
[3:52:03] enforcement under existing
[3:52:06] rules. Okay. We can step up
[3:52:08] enforcement under existing
[3:52:10] rules. Is it a matter of better
[3:52:12] educating the code enforcement
[3:52:14] people so they know also? Yeah
[3:52:16] I mean I think it's it's it's
[3:52:18] not a complicated educational
[3:52:21] process. Like they they know
[3:52:22] it's been resource strapped so
[3:52:23] we can improve enforcement on
[3:52:26] this. Can I suggest that we
[3:52:28] prepare a plan that talks about
[3:52:31] clarifying the code, policing
[3:52:34] the code. This is my suggestion.
[3:52:36] First, let me pull all these
[3:52:38] things. And Chris would have to
[3:52:39] be involved just in the right
[3:52:41] away. I think I have him on my
[3:52:43] whiteboard right now, by the
[3:52:44] way. We'll pull it out and
[3:52:45] we'll tell you everything that
[3:52:47] is in the code right now so
[3:52:48] that we clearly understand
[3:52:49] what's what's assessed the code.
[3:52:51] Before we talk about changing
[3:52:53] it. It MAY be what we want.
[3:52:54] We'll come back to you on
[3:52:56] DECEMBER. Let's, let's let
[3:52:58] let's start the education
[3:53:01] process okay. But we have to
[3:53:02] educate. We have to pull it out
[3:53:04] and we have to. It sounds like
[3:53:06] there's unclarity even amongst
[3:53:07] the leadership on what that
[3:53:09] code looks like. So I don't I
[3:53:10] don't know if it's necessarily
[3:53:12] clarity. I think it's just the
[3:53:13] lack of enforcement over the
[3:53:15] last 20 or 30 years is kind of
[3:53:17] put people in a difficult
[3:53:18] situation. We also got a
[3:53:20] responsibility to yeah, there
[3:53:22] is and I and I think that it's
[3:53:24] more the point of it's, it's in
[3:53:25] a couple of different sections
[3:53:27] of the code. It's about
[3:53:28] consolidating it. So we
[3:53:30] understand what we're dealing
[3:53:31] with. It's not I don't know
[3:53:33] that we'll need to redraw or
[3:53:35] rewrite anything. But we also
[3:53:37] guys we got to be we got to be
[3:53:38] conscientious. We just can't go
[3:53:39] and start finding citizens
[3:53:40] because they've got they've
[3:53:41] done this because their
[3:53:43] neighbor did it and the guy
[3:53:45] down the street did it. So we
[3:53:46] got to there needs to be
[3:53:49] there's got to be some some hey.
[3:53:50] Yeah. It's got to be. Hey, guys,
[3:53:51] by the way, you understand this
[3:53:52] is not appropriate. Here's a
[3:53:54] warning. Please take it out by
[3:53:56] x period of time. I have a
[3:53:58] legal question. Are we going to.
[3:53:59] Get responses like, I've had
[3:54:01] those coral rocks for 40 years
[3:54:04] in my swale, and now you're
[3:54:08] citing me because. Or that I'm
[3:54:10] sure there will be some people
[3:54:11] saying there definitely will be.
[3:54:13] I think there's a I think
[3:54:14] there's a significant case
[3:54:16] study that I would recommend
[3:54:18] you talk with Miami Beach on
[3:54:19] their encroachment removal
[3:54:22] policies and what they
[3:54:24] encountered. They had to it's,
[3:54:26] you know, normal shrubs and
[3:54:28] saplings, whatever. Not that
[3:54:30] hard to remove. But when you're
[3:54:31] talking about an oak tree or
[3:54:33] you're talking about an
[3:54:35] instances driveways built over
[3:54:36] easements where pipes should be
[3:54:38] out for outfalls, those are a
[3:54:40] little hard to remove, but
[3:54:42] still legally we can remove
[3:54:44] them. So just, you know, I
[3:54:45] think that it for council
[3:54:47] purposes, I mean, it really
[3:54:49] should give you a sense of what
[3:54:50] the breadth and scope is of
[3:54:52] this. This is not just removing
[3:54:53] stuff off the swale. These are
[3:54:55] people that have planted a tree
[3:54:57] for their dead dog. Say, you
[3:54:59] know, and it. I'm serious. I've
[3:55:04] had or those are just walls. So
[3:55:07] I give you a courtesy. Two
[3:55:09] seconds here. Come on. Forward.
[3:55:12] Are you done, John? Three. Two
[3:55:14] seconds are up. John Fester,
[3:55:16] 695 Harbor Lane. I came here
[3:55:18] eight months ago. Then six
[3:55:22] months ago, and nothing has
[3:55:24] been done. As a matter of fact,
[3:55:26] six months ago you said you
[3:55:27] were going to schedule a
[3:55:28] workshop. I know you're going
[3:55:30] to do it now. The building and
[3:55:32] zoning director. I asked him
[3:55:33] specifically about the absolute
[3:55:35] violations of our code. Our
[3:55:37] code is not complicated. It's
[3:55:40] very simple. Absolutely. Very
[3:55:42] simple. And what I was focusing
[3:55:44] on was exactly what Joe
[3:55:47] mentioned. The pipes, the rocks,
[3:55:50] the ropes, the ropes, the wood.
[3:55:55] Ugly. And also present a hazard
[3:55:57] for pedestrians, bicycles and
[3:55:59] cars should they need to swerve
[3:56:02] into the swale. Right. When I
[3:56:04] talked to Jeremy eight months
[3:56:06] ago at his office, I was told
[3:56:09] it's a major problem for him.
[3:56:12] And you can you can debate what
[3:56:14] I'm going to say. But what I
[3:56:16] thought I heard was that
[3:56:18] previous councils have said
[3:56:20] it's difficult. Lay off it for
[3:56:22] now. So and he actually
[3:56:24] encouraged me to come and talk
[3:56:26] about it, because he wanted
[3:56:27] this council to provide
[3:56:30] guidance. So we did the study
[3:56:32] in terms of mentioning to
[3:56:34] everybody what was the problem.
[3:56:35] You schedule a workshop.
[3:56:37] Nothing's happened. I asked
[3:56:39] them that evening back in MAY
[3:56:41] if he would at least remove the
[3:56:44] posts, and he said, I will not
[3:56:45] do selective enforcement. Those
[3:56:47] were his words. It got a little
[3:56:49] heated exchange, but he did say
[3:56:52] that if I went and told him the
[3:56:54] addresses, he would said code
[3:56:55] compliance over there. That's
[3:56:58] not the way to run a village.
[3:57:00] You had low lying fruit from a
[3:57:02] tree that could easily have
[3:57:05] been taken care of years ago.
[3:57:07] Those low lying fruit have now
[3:57:09] fallen on the ground. They're
[3:57:11] rotting. More and more people
[3:57:13] are putting things up. There's
[3:57:15] one house that has three
[3:57:17] different types of posts, not
[3:57:20] even uniformity. So all I'm
[3:57:23] asking you to do now is two
[3:57:26] things. Acknowledge that your
[3:57:29] code is clear on this specific
[3:57:32] item. Number one. Number two,
[3:57:34] instruct the building zoning
[3:57:37] department to develop a plan to
[3:57:40] have those removed as soon as
[3:57:43] possible. I would recommend you
[3:57:45] write a letter to all the
[3:57:46] village residents that owned
[3:57:48] home and tell them about the
[3:57:50] problem, and that we are going
[3:57:51] to start enforcing this, and
[3:57:54] they have x weeks to remove
[3:57:57] these education campaign. Write
[3:57:59] x weeks to remove it. If after
[3:58:01] those things are not removed,
[3:58:03] then you will refer to the
[3:58:05] special magistrate for finding.
[3:58:07] That's the way it's done. Get
[3:58:09] that done with. That's the easy
[3:58:12] thing to do. Now, the workshop
[3:58:14] where the administration could
[3:58:17] say, we need clarity on what to
[3:58:18] put in the swales versus
[3:58:21] drainage, rock or other things,
[3:58:23] trees. It's very clear about
[3:58:25] trees. It's very clear about
[3:58:28] the 3 foot or 6 foot clear zone.
[3:58:30] What you could put in there,
[3:58:32] develop that in the workshop.
[3:58:33] Also in the workshop. I'll
[3:58:35] bring it up. Now. You should
[3:58:37] discuss whether you could, how
[3:58:38] you're going to allow people to
[3:58:40] put artificial turf in the
[3:58:42] front, because you should be
[3:58:44] aware that the state of Florida
[3:58:46] prohibits municipalities from
[3:58:48] not allowing artificial turf.
[3:58:49] So you need to rewrite your
[3:58:52] zoning code on that as well. So
[3:58:53] that could be part of the
[3:58:55] workshop. All right, John,
[3:58:57] thank you. But I but I do want
[3:58:59] you to ask building and Zoning
[3:59:01] to start enforcing it now and
[3:59:03] not waiting. I think we have
[3:59:04] consensus of council on that.
[3:59:08] So yeah. Yeah definitely. Yeah.
[3:59:10] Yes. Okay. One more thing for
[3:59:15] Jeremy. Jeremy. I don't know.
[3:59:17] We in our code, do we have any
[3:59:19] sight lines at corner lots
[3:59:20] going on to intersections? Yeah
[3:59:22] we have requirements for clear
[3:59:24] sight lines. Well I gotta tell
[3:59:26] you, there's a number of places
[3:59:28] in this game when you pull to a
[3:59:29] corner and you cannot see
[3:59:31] around. And I guess it's really
[3:59:32] code enforcement type thing
[3:59:35] again. So I would like to again,
[3:59:37] if people have a whatever
[3:59:38] they're putting out there to
[3:59:40] have them, the code enforcement
[3:59:42] go ahead and say, listen, you
[3:59:44] have to remove that. Maybe
[3:59:45] they're putting it out and they
[3:59:47] have no idea. When we see the
[3:59:49] when we notice those issues, we
[3:59:51] act on it. Well, I'll send you
[3:59:52] a few pictures tomorrow. Are we
[3:59:54] supposed to go out and tell you?
[3:59:56] Well, look, when my when my
[3:59:58] team sees it or notices it, but
[3:59:59] I'll tell them about it. They
[4:00:01] might do it because. Yeah. Yeah
[4:00:03] I would love to. When they
[4:00:05] notice them, they act on it.
[4:00:07] When they, when they've done it
[4:00:09] driven by it 50 times and they
[4:00:11] stop noticing it. Sometimes you
[4:00:13] stop seeing these things. So we
[4:00:16] always, always welcome
[4:00:18] information or problems so that
[4:00:20] we can act on it. I would just
[4:00:21] suggest you might want to
[4:00:23] mention it to him. Yeah. I just
[4:00:25] want to be clear. So are you
[4:00:26] directing the administration to
[4:00:27] enforce our codes in our line
[4:00:30] of sight codes? Just want to be
[4:00:31] clear. That's the case. Jeremy
[4:00:33] and I will. And I will come up
[4:00:35] with a plan. If we want to wait
[4:00:36] until after the workshop. But
[4:00:38] but the the the main message
[4:00:41] was start, you know, giving the
[4:00:44] education. And in those cases
[4:00:46] that are, you know, really bad
[4:00:48] then you got you got to cite
[4:00:51] them. Yeah. No, I think we'll
[4:00:53] come up with we'll start
[4:00:54] educating the residents and
[4:00:55] that'll get them maybe excited
[4:00:57] about coming to a workshop and
[4:00:58] talking about their ideas or
[4:01:00] whatever, getting a bunch of
[4:01:02] citations out there will drive
[4:01:03] attendance to a workshop. Part
[4:01:05] of our code is such that you're
[4:01:07] not. You have all these houses
[4:01:09] that do not have grass out
[4:01:10] there because it's mud and
[4:01:12] water, etc. You want to start,
[4:01:14] you don't want to enforce that.
[4:01:15] We're now talking about
[4:01:16] enforcing blockage of the
[4:01:18] obstructions. Yeah, I think
[4:01:21] there's a because I also have
[4:01:22] the villages. I think that
[4:01:24] there's a low hanging fruit. I
[4:01:25] mean, I'll be in noncompliance.
[4:01:27] I have the villages. Everybody
[4:01:29] has the and by the way, I have
[4:01:31] approval in writing to, to be
[4:01:32] able to put the rocks in the
[4:01:34] front yard. So look, this is
[4:01:35] where it gets confusing because
[4:01:36] they're picking and choosing up
[4:01:38] here before you were here. Why
[4:01:39] don't we do this? Because
[4:01:40] that's not very far away. It's
[4:01:42] DECEMBER 9th. Let's pull the
[4:01:43] stuff. Everything that we have
[4:01:45] on the swales out of the code,
[4:01:46] we'll bring it to you, show it
[4:01:48] to you on DECEMBER 9th, and
[4:01:50] then we can take a look at it
[4:01:51] and then talk about. But start
[4:01:53] the education process. Yeah. No,
[4:01:55] no we will I mean we can't wait.
[4:01:56] Education is educating
[4:01:57] ourselves as well as as well.
[4:01:58] Right. All right. We're already
[4:01:59] talking about selective
[4:02:00] enforcement up here. So we're
[4:02:02] either going to do it or we're
[4:02:04] not going to do it okay Nancy
[4:02:06] you want to take 12 b and 12 c
[4:02:07] okay. We'll see how long it's
[4:02:15] going to take. On 12 b. I think
[4:02:17] our Board of Special
[4:02:20] magistrates having a board is
[4:02:23] not really serving the, the the
[4:02:24] village very well. Everyone on
[4:02:26] the board is doing a great job
[4:02:28] and it has nothing to do with
[4:02:30] who's on the board. It has to
[4:02:32] do with our structure and other
[4:02:33] municipalities. Rather, some
[4:02:35] have a board, but many
[4:02:37] municipalities have a special
[4:02:39] magistrate or a special master
[4:02:40] because this is a quasi
[4:02:43] judicial hearing. And the
[4:02:45] purpose of the hearing really
[4:02:47] is fact finding is making a
[4:02:50] record. Because when people
[4:02:51] disagree with the facts that
[4:02:54] are found by the magistrate,
[4:02:57] they can appeal to the court.
[4:02:58] And I circulated today
[4:03:00] something to show you what
[4:03:02] happens when when we don't have
[4:03:05] people in that position who
[4:03:06] understand what the function
[4:03:09] and are not qualified to
[4:03:10] perform the function of that
[4:03:13] body. So my suggestion is that
[4:03:17] we do away with the the board
[4:03:24] and that we appoint two lawyers
[4:03:27] who have litigation experience.
[4:03:31] For pay to serve as the special
[4:03:34] master. And if anyone read the
[4:03:35] opinion that I sent around
[4:03:37] today, you will understand why
[4:03:41] that is so important. I read
[4:03:47] the opinion. I don't know if
[4:03:51] certainly there seemingly was
[4:03:53] maybe a failure to hear certain
[4:03:55] evidence or certain
[4:03:57] conversation or discussion. I
[4:03:58] don't know what the outcome, if
[4:04:00] the outcome would have been
[4:04:01] different had that been allowed.
[4:04:03] But my I guess what I'm curious
[4:04:05] is you mentioned that it's not
[4:04:07] functioning. And so I'm curious,
[4:04:08] is there data to suggest that
[4:04:10] it hasn't functioned over the
[4:04:13] last 30 years? No, no, as a
[4:04:14] matter of fact, in my
[4:04:17] discussions with Chad, it's not
[4:04:20] frequent that we lose appeals.
[4:04:22] But but what happened in this
[4:04:24] case indicates that they don't
[4:04:26] understand because they don't
[4:04:30] understand evidence and and
[4:04:33] fact finding and creating a
[4:04:35] record. They're not doing what
[4:04:37] that job, what that body is
[4:04:39] supposed to do, which is
[4:04:40] different than an advisory
[4:04:43] board. Okay. Isolated. So let
[4:04:44] me explain to you what could
[4:04:45] have happened, what should have
[4:04:48] happened. In that case, I think
[4:04:50] if there had been, if they had
[4:04:52] made a finding of fact that the
[4:04:54] the grandfathered use was
[4:04:56] abandoned. But they didn't say
[4:04:58] that, right. They didn't let
[4:05:00] anyone talk about it and say,
[4:05:03] oh, that you that you don't
[4:05:04] have that right anymore.
[4:05:06] Because when you go to the
[4:05:08] appellate court, it's not a new
[4:05:11] trial. They can only make their
[4:05:12] decisions on the basis of of
[4:05:14] the record that's been given to
[4:05:16] them. So if the if the
[4:05:19] magistrate hasn't made a record,
[4:05:20] they don't have anything to go
[4:05:21] on. And that's exactly what
[4:05:23] happened here. They had nothing
[4:05:26] to go on. And and honestly. All
[4:05:30] these violations that go before
[4:05:32] the magistrates really are it's
[4:05:35] a fact determination. Did you
[4:05:37] violate is there a violation.
[4:05:39] Did you get notice. Do you have
[4:05:41] due process yes or no. It's
[4:05:44] it's really a legal analysis.
[4:05:45] And knowing how to make a
[4:05:47] record. Most times people don't
[4:05:50] appeal, but when they do, bad
[4:05:52] things happen. It really was.
[4:05:53] That wasn't good. Nancy, are
[4:05:54] there particular types of
[4:05:56] lawyers that do this litigation?
[4:05:59] Anyone who does litigation, and
[4:06:02] I'm certain that we have many,
[4:06:04] many lawyers in this. They
[4:06:06] don't even have to be bar
[4:06:08] members of the Florida Bar. But
[4:06:11] any person who who was a lawyer,
[4:06:12] who did litigation, we have so
[4:06:14] many retired people who would
[4:06:16] be more than happy to fill that
[4:06:18] function. And we only need one
[4:06:20] magistrate to serve at a time.
[4:06:22] So if we have two, we could get
[4:06:24] through a once a month. Right?
[4:06:26] Okay. We're we're running out
[4:06:30] of time. What is is there is
[4:06:32] there a lot of consensus to
[4:06:35] have something brought back, or
[4:06:36] do you want to think about it
[4:06:38] some more or what? I'm support
[4:06:40] of it. I'd want to think about
[4:06:41] it some more. I just haven't
[4:06:43] seen enough data to suggest
[4:06:44] that the system is broken. But
[4:06:46] but this could just be an
[4:06:47] isolated incident, a mistake,
[4:06:49] or a matter of training because
[4:06:52] Nancy's dead right about the
[4:06:54] function. Yeah. No, I agree
[4:06:55] with our attorney PRESIDENT.
[4:06:57] Our attorney was present, and
[4:07:00] he was his his guidance was
[4:07:03] disregarded. So he advised them.
[4:07:06] Yes. He advised them to allow
[4:07:08] the testimony to make the
[4:07:09] record. And and it wasn't
[4:07:11] followed, and it wasn't because
[4:07:13] anyone was intentionally doing
[4:07:15] it. They really didn't
[4:07:16] understand what their function
[4:07:18] was. Do you do you think that
[4:07:22] could be. Resolved through
[4:07:24] training? How are you going to
[4:07:26] I mean, how often are you? It's
[4:07:27] not a training thing. You have
[4:07:29] to be you have to have
[4:07:30] understand the record, how to
[4:07:31] make a record. You have to
[4:07:33] really be a lawyer. So I think
[4:07:34] and that's why other
[4:07:35] municipalities have lawyers.
[4:07:36] The ramification of the result
[4:07:38] would have what was the ramp
[4:07:39] that the ramification was that
[4:07:40] they, they could continue to
[4:07:42] use the dock attempt
[4:07:43] incorrectly. Yeah. Okay. We
[4:07:46] lost the village, lost the case
[4:07:48] because it wasn't handled well.
[4:07:49] We can't really tell for
[4:07:52] certain is that if that
[4:07:54] testimony was allowed and heard
[4:07:56] that it would have changed the
[4:07:58] outcome. It doesn't matter. I'm
[4:07:59] just in other words, the
[4:08:01] financial aspect of it. There
[4:08:02] was a financial loss that we
[4:08:04] that we incurred because of
[4:08:05] something that was done. No, I
[4:08:07] don't I don't think we suffered.
[4:08:08] No, there wasn't any there
[4:08:10] wasn't there wasn't any
[4:08:13] monetary damages. They I mean
[4:08:17] the in this case, the owner did
[4:08:19] send a threat of a bird harass
[4:08:21] claim against the village while
[4:08:22] the appeal was pending, which
[4:08:24] is would could result in
[4:08:27] monetary damages. But we
[4:08:29] haven't seen anything since we
[4:08:30] had additional legal fees. We
[4:08:32] did. Yes, there was legal fees
[4:08:34] in the defense. I mean, we over
[4:08:35] the years have had very few
[4:08:37] appeals of the Code Enforcement
[4:08:40] board, and we have one, you
[4:08:42] know, the ones that I recall,
[4:08:44] we've won several. This one was,
[4:08:47] as council member stoner said,
[4:08:50] was a little bit odd in that
[4:08:52] the court latched on to what
[4:08:54] happened and was not thrilled
[4:08:57] with the fact that the the
[4:08:59] board did not allow the
[4:09:01] property owner to provide put
[4:09:05] their case on. So. So, yes. So,
[4:09:07] so, Chad, in other in other
[4:09:08] municipalities like Pinecrest
[4:09:11] or or Surfside or
[4:09:13] municipalities of similar size,
[4:09:14] what do they do? So I'll tell
[4:09:16] you that like the newer cities
[4:09:18] have a magistrate. As council
[4:09:21] member, stoner is saying the
[4:09:24] some of the older cities still
[4:09:26] have boards. Some of the larger
[4:09:29] cities have boards, but most
[4:09:32] have a magistrate who is a
[4:09:35] lawyer who the government pays.
[4:09:36] So you would have to pay this
[4:09:38] person. Currently you don't pay.
[4:09:40] You know, the magistrate boards
[4:09:44] and it's you know, it's like
[4:09:45] clockwork and they act like a
[4:09:48] judge. Now, the difference
[4:09:50] being also is in those
[4:09:53] circumstances, typically it
[4:09:55] depends. But usually my office
[4:09:58] would. So currently my office
[4:09:59] sits as the advisor to the
[4:10:01] board, just like I'm sitting
[4:10:02] with you. In the case when
[4:10:04] there's a magistrate, we would
[4:10:05] sit as a prosecutor, we would
[4:10:07] prosecute. So we would be
[4:10:08] putting on the evidence, like
[4:10:09] Councilmember Stoner saying,
[4:10:10] whereas here the staff puts it
[4:10:12] on. So there might be a
[4:10:15] structural change also, but we
[4:10:17] can provide you with a survey
[4:10:20] of what all the cities do. We
[4:10:22] can, you know, show you what
[4:10:23] would change. I mean, we would
[4:10:25] have to change our code,
[4:10:27] obviously. But it's it's really
[4:10:28] a policy decision. Which way
[4:10:30] you want to go are the fees for
[4:10:32] people like this $20,000 or. No.
[4:10:35] It's usually like probably it I
[4:10:38] mean, you probably have $1,000
[4:10:40] a month. Like it's usually not
[4:10:42] that high and sometimes it's
[4:10:44] per case. I mean, we would have
[4:10:47] to decide on how we do it, but
[4:10:48] they're typically not very high.
[4:10:50] I also just in closing, because
[4:10:52] I know we're going to wrap it
[4:10:54] up, I think it's important for
[4:10:56] the village to look like we
[4:10:58] know what we're doing and, and,
[4:11:03] and, and to have the. The board
[4:11:05] of magistrates without people
[4:11:08] with litigation experience
[4:11:10] really it just doesn't fulfill
[4:11:15] the job of, of the, of the task.
[4:11:17] So I think it would be similar.
[4:11:19] Also like I think we have a red
[4:11:22] light camera magistrate, I
[4:11:24] believe it would be similar to
[4:11:29] that. Okay. We should the board.
[4:11:31] So I'm sorry. What was that? Is
[4:11:33] it so is this something that we
[4:11:36] want to pursue? Yes. I'm
[4:11:37] hearing definitely look at it
[4:11:40] more for sure. Okay. Look at it
[4:11:42] more. So do you want me to
[4:11:43] bring back some additional
[4:11:44] information on a survey of what
[4:11:46] the other cities do, maybe
[4:11:47] figure out what they're
[4:11:48] charging? Are magistrates are
[4:11:50] charging as well as. And then
[4:11:53] you can start working with
[4:11:55] Nancy about how it would look.
[4:11:58] Okay. Yeah. And and maybe some
[4:11:59] type of metric that would talk
[4:12:01] to us about the performance of
[4:12:03] the current structure over time.
[4:12:05] Just, just because let me, let
[4:12:07] me check with is it really
[4:12:09] broken or is was this a one off
[4:12:11] I don't know okay. I'll check
[4:12:12] with Steve on that and we'll
[4:12:13] put something together. I'm
[4:12:15] going to defer my 12. See what
[4:12:18] is what's expired. I'm going to
[4:12:22] defer to what's 1312 means not
[4:12:25] in public. We're going to defer
[4:12:26] that one okay. Yeah. And I'm
[4:12:29] going to defer 12 h also that I
[4:12:31] have on there. We need to get
[4:12:35] the 13 a 13 a. Yes, indeed.
[4:12:37] Election of vice mayor pursuant
[4:12:41] to section 2.02 b of the
[4:12:45] village charter looking for
[4:12:47] nominations? Yes. Nominate
[4:12:52] Oscar. Seconded. I'm sorry, is
[4:12:56] the second second. Yeah.
[4:13:00] Discussion. Doing a great job,
[4:13:03] Fernando. Okay. Sitting back
[4:13:05] there, I'll nominate Fernando.
[4:13:07] You said nominate Fernando.
[4:13:08] I'll nominate Fernando. I asked
[4:13:11] him if he would be Vice Mayor.
[4:13:13] Oscar all the way. Okay. Just
[4:13:15] checking. Fernando. Oh, this is
[4:13:17] to renew. First word for you.
[4:13:20] Okay? Okay. Is it Olivia? Still.
[4:13:24] Do I still love him? So
[4:13:26] consensus. Oscar. Yes.
[4:13:29] Consensus. Consensus of council.
[4:13:32] All right. Congratulations.
[4:13:33] Congratulations. He's going to
[4:13:34] get the drainage done, though.
[4:13:36] He's going to get the drainage
[4:13:37] done, I gotta go get the
[4:13:38] undergrounding. He's training
[4:13:40] for mayor. All right. Since
[4:13:43] we've had so much fun, anything
[4:13:46] else, MR. Manager? You need
[4:13:49] anything else? I think we're I
[4:13:51] think we're good. MR. Mayor. I
[4:13:52] do want to just state one thing.
[4:13:54] If you look at 11 a two, you
[4:13:56] saw it when I emailed it to you.
[4:13:58] But again, that outlines not
[4:13:59] just for you, but for the
[4:14:01] public as well, the status of
[4:14:02] all the major projects that
[4:14:04] we're doing in initiative. So
[4:14:06] just want to make sure you take
[4:14:07] a look at that as well. Chad,
[4:14:09] you got anything for us? What
[4:14:10] was that? Good. 11 I'm good.
[4:14:11] Have a happy Thanksgiving
[4:14:13] everyone. Yes yes indeed yes
[4:14:15] indeed. We we won't be back
[4:14:17] together again here. But all
[4:14:19] right. With that, I need a
[4:14:22] motion to adjourn the second.
[4:14:25] All those in favor? Aye. Post
[4:14:27] adjournment, we've got the
[4:14:28] Thanksgiving and recognition
[4:14:29] ceremony tomorrow. Tomorrow? At
[4:14:33] what time? 11. I think
[4:14:35] formalities will start at 12.
[4:14:36] 12. Okay. Formalities will