[47:04] [Captioner Present]
[47:52] >> I want to thank you for your comments and everything that
[47:57] the Citizens Budget Commission does.
[47:59] It's more important to us now that we
[48:03] have citizens looking at every nickel that comes into the city
[48:06] and going out of the city and.
[48:08] More important that we have that in place now than ever before.
[48:12] You are very talented group of people in terms
[48:15] of financial capabilities.
[48:17] We want you to continue being watchful for any opportunity
[48:24] that we can.
[48:27] To do a better job in the city.
[48:28] Not just internally but also for the taxpayer.
[48:31] Thank you very much.
[48:33] Anyone else wish to be heard.
[48:40] your name and address for the record please.
[48:46] >> Hello everybody.
[48:47] My name is Laurie Henriquez.
[48:49] My address is 600 Northwest 86 Avenue, Pembroke Pines Florida.
[48:56] I am also on the board for the diversity.
[48:59] I had a question for City Manager's.
[49:04] Just need clarification comment regarding if we are city
[49:10] of approximately 180,000 people, more or less.
[49:15] The Powerpoint indicated that the assessed value of 56,000
[49:22] residents.
[49:23] Was that correct?
[49:25] >> That was households.
[49:28] >> Is there any indication about the revenue that is being
[49:34] generated or the value that is being generated for commercial
[49:37] property?
[49:40] >> Yes.
[49:41] >> Was it shown I might have missed it.
[49:43] >> It wasn't in the presentation,
[49:45] but we certainly can break that down.
[49:47] The percentage of revenue that comes
[49:49] from ad valorem for residential for commercial
[49:52] as well as for industrial permit the total
[49:55] of all those properties, as far as the taxable value
[50:00] of the city.
[50:02] It is 112 million.
[50:05] >> Including the commercial?
[50:07] >> Includes commercial and industrial, yes, it does.
[50:11] >> Thanks for the clarification.
[50:12] He mentioned being on the board for the budget.
[50:15] I'd be willing to submit my resume
[50:18] and I'd like to be involved in that level as well.
[50:20] I have a bachelor's degree in finance.
[50:23] The one thing is I don't know if anybody
[50:25] is aware that the economy, we're in a bubble.
[50:31] I feel that we are in a bubble.
[50:33] I have a bachelor's degree in finance.
[50:35] I have not been able to find work in finance.
[50:39] Commercial finance, for over a year.
[50:42] I came across Commissioner good.
[50:46] Today I went to a job interview and I was hired on the spot.
[50:51] It is a good thing.
[50:53] I monitor, we love Pembroke Pines closely.
[50:58] I see a lot of residents asking for work.
[51:00] I don't know if AI is taking away the jobs
[51:04] or making it impossible for people like Me to find work?
[51:10] Because AI is screening the year that you graduate from college.
[51:15] There is ageism.
[51:16] I can show you my resume.
[51:19] When you show up and we are talking
[51:24] about the tax exemptions.
[51:26] You are taking a money from me.
[51:29] From my table.
[51:30] From my two kids.
[51:32] >> We can't take into that subject here.
[51:36] >> I'll leave it at that.
[51:40] [Cross-talk]
[51:42] >> There are about what the state's placed restriction
[51:44] of what can be discussed in this chamber.
[51:47] >> Sorry this is my first time.
[51:49] I apologize.
[51:51] >> It is hardly your fault. It is least of all your fault.
[51:54] >> Thank you.
[51:56] >> Should be able to say whatever the heck they want.
[51:59] However, that is not the law in Florida.
[52:02] Not at least in city halls.
[52:04] We have to sit to the budget.
[52:07] You're doing so well.
[52:09] >> Can I start again?
[52:11] I wanted to put out there, Commissioner Castillo,
[52:14] I mean Mayor Castillo.
[52:17] That I cannot find work in my industry in this city.
[52:21] Almost every job that I've ever had
[52:24] has been outside of this city.
[52:27] Just keep that in mind when you guys are thinking.
[52:30] I'm pretty sure most of you also work outside of the city.
[52:35] >> Thank you for your testimony.
[52:36] I'm glad you said you got hired today.
[52:39] Congratulations!
[52:40] I'm very happy for you.
[52:43] Anybody else wish to be heard on the budget?
[52:45] Anybody else wish to be heard on the budget
[52:48] permit commissioners comment any Comments?
[52:56] >> Anyone else?
[52:57] Without further ado, this hearing is adjourned.
[53:01] We will take a short recess.
[53:06] Then we'll begin our city commission meeting.
[53:11] >> If you will come we have ordinances to read.
[53:14] First reading.
[53:16] >> Let's get back in business.
[53:18] Go ahead.
[53:19] >> Thank you Mayor and Commissioners.
[53:21] The BB a public hearing number one
[53:24] are two ordinances before you.
[53:25] One of which relates to the mileage for the city's
[53:29] upcoming fiscal year.
[53:30] Which are both for allowed for public hearing.
[53:33] They're provided for both state statute 265 Florida statutes.
[53:38] The city charter is the millage and with your permission
[53:42] I'll read into the record.
[53:43] BPH number two is ordinance 2026-09 motion to adopt Proposed
[53:52] Ordinance 2026-09 on First Reading.
[53:55] Proposed ordinance operating the millage rate of 5.6690 or $5.69
[54:01] per thousand of taxable assessed property value.
[54:05] Which is 4.5% above the rollback rate of 54226,
[54:10] for the city of Pembroke Pines, for, pursuant to the 2026-2027
[54:15] city budget, accordance with chapter 200, Florida Statutes:
[54:20] Establishing the debt service millage rate of 02507 for debt
[54:25] service on the general obligation bonds approved
[54:27] by the electorate: Providing for conflicts:
[54:31] Providing for severability providing for an effective date.
[54:35] This is the first reading of the establish of the millage.
[54:38] In accordance with state law and the City Charter.
[54:42] >> City Attorney, can I have a motion.
[54:43] And move by the Vice Mayor.
[54:45] Is there a second?
[54:46] The second by Commissioner Rodriguez.
[54:48] Any discussion?
[54:50] Anything from the public?
[54:52] We heard a yes.
[54:55] Did you have anything?
[55:02] >> Sorry.
[55:04] I wanted to follow up on special events
[55:10] during in the Recreation and Culture Arts total.
[55:14] I had highlighted this when looking at what
[55:18] the impacts of the DIY restrictions
[55:21] that we'll be having in the next year.
[55:23] Although I understand that legally moving forward,
[55:27] we cannot name these festivals or celebrate them in specific
[55:31] ways.
[55:32] My assumption is that the Caribbean Heritage Festival
[55:39] was brought down.
[55:41] I am wondering if we can put in place a similar budget
[55:46] for the upcoming year for a Caribbean music festival
[55:50] or something of that sort.
[55:51] I'm willing to move forward on this item this evening.
[55:55] Come back on second reading just see a little bit more
[55:58] of a wiggle room and that for additional budgets
[56:01] that may or may not be able to name currently.
[56:04] I think it's really important to celebrate music heritage
[56:09] or anything.
[56:11] Anything else for special events.
[56:13] On that same line, although the advertising budget in the past
[56:19] for these kind of events was quite low at $5,000 per I do
[56:23] want to put something in this space for the advertising of all
[56:29] of our events, because some of them do completely fill out
[56:32] and they've been staples in our community.
[56:35] Like Pine State, we don't technically
[56:37] have to advertise because people already come up
[56:39] and show up for that.
[56:40] For newer events, I do want to build out some kind of budget
[56:44] in that.
[56:45] In May in my fault not seeing it.
[56:48] Maybe it's in the communications budget.
[56:50] That is something.
[56:52] Is very small, but I think it's something
[56:54] that we should look forward and not simply put a zero.
[56:57] As always, we do have wiggle room in our budget.
[57:01] Maybe to come up with something a similar to the Caribbean
[57:06] Heritage Festival announced.
[57:08] If we can put a line item of new events or something like that.
[57:15] >> I can tell you, Commissioner, I'm looking at Mr. Dodge.
[57:20] He and I had a conversation about events.
[57:24] And the activities of the Diversity and Heritage Board
[57:31] as part of our ongoing one on one.
[57:33] It was his impression, Charlie, correct me if I'm wrong.
[57:38] It was your impression that somewhere in December staff
[57:41] will be ready to discuss their review
[57:43] of possible recommendations on moving forward,
[57:47] in line with the state's new rules were.
[57:50] I thought that we had talked about maybe
[57:52] what we would do when staff is ready is reviewing it to.
[57:58] Is that we would probably workshop it and see if we
[58:01] can't come up with a schedule.
[58:03] It could very well be that some of the events
[58:09] are repackaged into legally acceptable format.
[58:13] It could be that some of them will require some sponsorship.
[58:17] Some of them are pay events.
[58:19] Some are them remain free.
[58:22] Certainly the national holidays are available.
[58:25] However, while they can be acknowledged,
[58:29] they don't fall into our core service.
[58:31] We don't know -- and this is part of why I think it makes
[58:37] some sense.
[58:38] Events have always been an important part
[58:41] of the city of Pembroke Pines.
[58:43] My conversation with the manager,
[58:45] he feels that sometime in December staff will be ready.
[58:48] We can probably call together a workshop to further
[58:51] explore and understand this.
[58:52] I think it should be done together with the heritage
[58:56] Diversity Board.
[59:00] Whose name will likely need to be changed as well.
[59:03] I think all of that is probably coming in December.
[59:07] Is what I meant to say.
[59:10] >> I feel comfortable with that.
[59:11] I just want to make sure we are dedicating
[59:13] a budget at some point for the possibility
[59:17] that these events need to be changed in name or time frame.
[59:21] Things like that.
[59:23] >> Yes, man.
[59:25] >> At least a small amount of money towards digital
[59:29] advertising of these events as well.
[59:30] And if that was part of the communications plan.
[59:33] I apologize if I didn't catch that.
[59:36] >> Thank you.
[59:37] Commissioner good.
[59:45] >> I reserve that for the next item.
[59:47] However, on this item it was a concern for me as well
[59:51] to the special events.
[59:53] For me I think we all agree that these type events.
[59:57] It's the best connection that we can make with our residents.
[1:00:01] I do not know why we even contemplate
[1:00:04] any removal of any event under any circumstances.
[1:00:10] The special events was reduced by about $100,000 from last year
[1:00:16] to this year.
[1:00:17] In my opinion, I think that we should actually doubling that
[1:00:22] special event from 500,000 to 1 million.
[1:00:27] And then create new programing, we have the same programing year
[1:00:31] after year after year.
[1:00:33] And I've heard constantly that there's an interest
[1:00:35] to have additional type of programing
[1:00:38] for other groups of people.
[1:00:40] To participate within the city.
[1:00:43] I know that we're going to have this workshop, hearing workshop.
[1:00:47] But this is the budget.
[1:00:49] If we don't establish the budget,
[1:00:52] there's no guarantee that the money will be assigned
[1:00:55] in a workshop in December.
[1:00:57] I think we should making some capacity for an increase
[1:01:02] in special events.
[1:01:04] Because there's a line item that is called special events.
[1:01:08] It doesn't have any particular and it could be loaded up.
[1:01:16] That money would be reservation of either enhancement
[1:01:19] to existing programing or a creation of new programing.
[1:01:25] I am in full support of that.
[1:01:27] That's one of the big concerns that I had in this.
[1:01:30] This is a half $1 million and a $600 million total budget.
[1:01:35] I think it's really something that
[1:01:38] has great impact, with regards to how we connect
[1:01:42] with our residents and I don't think
[1:01:43] there is anything wrong with increasing it.
[1:01:45] Making it double.
[1:01:47] From 500,000 to 1 million.
[1:01:52] >> Yes, sir.
[1:01:57] >> So there's no confusion.
[1:01:59] Adjustment to the fiscal year 26-27 budget,
[1:02:01] I believe Commissioner, what you're addressing.
[1:02:04] The December workshop is beginning structuring what
[1:02:08] we're going to do for the fiscal year 27-28.
[1:02:12] How it affects everything.
[1:02:17] If this is a motion of yours, we would
[1:02:21] have to go back and look at the budget
[1:02:24] and figure out how we can increase that and decide what
[1:02:28] we might be able to reduce.
[1:02:30] In order to make that happen.
[1:02:33] >> Can that be done between the first and second reading?
[1:02:36] >> Yes, it can.
[1:02:37] If that's the desire of the commission.
[1:02:40] >> Just a stipulation, can it come from the police or fire.
[1:02:45] If it does, it loses my vote.
[1:02:48] >> Does anyone object to consensus moving forward with
[1:02:51] that?
[1:02:52] Anyone else wish to speak on the item?
[1:02:56] >> I'll be brief.
[1:02:57] I would like to thank Finance Director Chung, for once again,
[1:03:04] presenting to the public very easy to understand process.
[1:03:08] I want to acknowledge that the budget is online with links.
[1:03:14] I have had it online agenda book now for 13 plus years.
[1:03:22] But when it comes to the budget, I actually
[1:03:25] need to have a working document.
[1:03:26] I want to thank you for going above and beyond
[1:03:29] to produce a 450 page PDF.
[1:03:32] Now residents can actually share and go through those as well.
[1:03:36] It's one of those things where you ask
[1:03:38] for technology to be helpful.
[1:03:40] Some cases it doesn't work as well as it could be.
[1:03:44] A couple things: One, I submitted a very detailed load
[1:03:51] of questions to the administration.
[1:03:56] Imagined that it was going to be challenging to be
[1:03:59] able to get all those answered by first reading.
[1:04:01] I respect that.
[1:04:03] So I narrowed down my focus and I just
[1:04:07] want to focus on the most material issues
[1:04:11] within the budget.
[1:04:12] One of the things is we have a $3.85 million reserve draw.
[1:04:18] We are using approximately 3.885 million of general fund reserves
[1:04:23] to balance this year's budget.
[1:04:25] How much of the 3.885 million is paying
[1:04:28] for reoccurring expenditures?
[1:04:36] >> Mr. Manager.
[1:04:36] >> Mr. Mayor, I believe finance director Chung responded to this
[1:04:40] question.
[1:04:41] However, every year, as far as I know,
[1:04:45] we have might say plug the number into the budget saying
[1:04:50] that we're using reserves.
[1:04:51] We've never had to do that.
[1:04:54] If I do not have that number in there,
[1:04:58] then you'd have to raise your millage rate to 3.8 million,
[1:05:04] which we might not need.
[1:05:06] What that is going to do is pass on an increase to the residents.
[1:05:11] >> Yes, of course.
[1:05:13] >> I never believed in that.
[1:05:14] That's why we used it.
[1:05:16] We're very vigilant during the year.
[1:05:18] We don't always spend all that money.
[1:05:20] There are reasons for it.
[1:05:22] If there's any leftover money, that goes back into reserves.
[1:05:26] Those reserves are always dedicated for one time
[1:05:31] expenditures of capital items.
[1:05:34] You do not use your reserves for expendable items operating
[1:05:39] budget.
[1:05:40] Because once you do, they are gone forever.
[1:05:43] If you committed to that, then what do you do the second year?
[1:05:47] Do you take another 3.8 million out of the reserves?
[1:05:50] So you have nothing left.
[1:05:52] That becomes a problem.
[1:05:56] >> In summary, is a one time or recurring, Mr. Dodge?
[1:06:01] >> In this budget, I don't anticipate using it.
[1:06:04] Reserves would be for one time expenditure.
[1:06:07] >> So your plan is one time.
[1:06:09] If you had to use it come it'd be one time.
[1:06:12] >> One time expenditures.
[1:06:14] >> Perfect.
[1:06:15] We've got increases in the general fund.
[1:06:20] That makes mostly up of personnel expense.
[1:06:24] Is that going to be the new bar in next year's budget?
[1:06:30] Is this a one time increase?
[1:06:33] >> It's one time this year.
[1:06:35] We can't project what it will be for future years,
[1:06:39] because union contracts come up on a regular basis.
[1:06:43] I can't tell you what that might be.
[1:06:48] Once we receive those documents, we
[1:06:51] share them with the commission.
[1:06:54] Then it's decided how much money we can afford to do that.
[1:06:58] That's what we discuss with our bargaining units.
[1:07:03] >> On the finance department, is $425,000 for other services.
[1:07:08] How much of that is new and reoccurring spending?
[1:07:17] >>, would you address that.
[1:07:18] >> Lisa Chung, associate city manager and finance director.
[1:07:21] Therefore in 25,000 that we have and other services is
[1:07:26] for facility contract services permits so those are recurring.
[1:07:30] >> Okay.
[1:07:32] >> Good news.
[1:07:34] We found $252,000 of an increase since August 1st budget was
[1:07:40] published.
[1:07:41] Supervisor of elections has reduced costs from 370,000 to 90
[1:07:47] something thousand dollars per minute as a result of that, Mr.
[1:07:50] Dodge, are you comfortable lowering this year's budget
[1:07:55] tonight by $252,000?
[1:07:59] >> I'd have to look at it, Commissioner,
[1:08:01] this has not been discussed with me prior.
[1:08:03] The best thing to do, instead of lowering it,
[1:08:08] is lowering the amount of money that we put in reserves.
[1:08:12] >> That was my follow up.
[1:08:14] >> That wouldn't change anything,
[1:08:15] as far as what we're proposing.
[1:08:17] It would not change
[1:08:22] [Cross-talk]
[1:08:23] >> Nor would it change the ability to reduce millage
[1:08:25] because of that.
[1:08:27] We're already 3.8 million in the hole.
[1:08:30] Whenever we find, we will continue
[1:08:33] to deduct from what we have budgeted from reserves.
[1:08:38] >> Last question : It's always challenging ever ear.
[1:08:44] I did ask the administration.
[1:08:46] I knew we were going through a budget
[1:08:50] exercise for something pending.
[1:08:52] Something in a couple of months.
[1:08:55] We sat at the workshop the other day
[1:08:59] and went through an exercise.
[1:09:02] The manager identified a certain amount of funding.
[1:09:06] My questions a couple weeks ago was,
[1:09:08] is there any dollars that could be reduced in this year's budget
[1:09:16] or deferred without cutting front line services?
[1:09:20] Is there anything between first and second reading ,
[1:09:29] that you could propose for whether it be deferred
[1:09:37] or reduced?
[1:09:39] >> If I understand your question, Commissioner,
[1:09:41] you're talking about the current budget?
[1:09:44] >> This year's budget.
[1:09:48] [Cross-talk]
[1:09:50] >> I can't tell you at this point.
[1:09:51] We're in September.
[1:09:53] Usually you finalize your budget maybe a couple of months after.
[1:09:59] We have commitments for open purchase orders.
[1:10:03] Those are carried over.
[1:10:04] If I were to reduce something, if we
[1:10:09] hadn't committed to that comment we
[1:10:11] wouldn't be able to reduce it because we had to carry it over.
[1:10:15] >> But you're open to -- >> We're certainly look at it.
[1:10:19] We're open to it.
[1:10:20] Certainly.
[1:10:21] >> The budget board was mentioned before .
[1:10:27] This my last comment.
[1:10:28] I do anticipate a potential change,
[1:10:30] as far as my appointments.
[1:10:32] So please put the application in through the clerk's office.
[1:10:37] So I don't have -- so I have the ability at the next meeting
[1:10:43] to make a substitution change.
[1:10:47] >> To follow up with ordinance says.
[1:10:51] >> I'm asking the clerk to post that I'm receiving applications.
[1:10:56] >> How many positions?
[1:10:58] >> One right now.
[1:10:59] I have all my positions are filled
[1:11:00] at the moment within the district.
[1:11:02] This would be potentially what I have on the budget side.
[1:11:08] >> Clerk do you have that?
[1:11:11] >> Also I'm working on an economic development program,
[1:11:16] in my individual capacity.
[1:11:18] To look at ways that we can stimulate our immediate Pembroke
[1:11:23] Pines economy.
[1:11:25] Identify the industries that are being impacted by technology
[1:11:28] and where things are moving.
[1:11:30] I'm sitting down with a core group of chamber members
[1:11:34] right now.
[1:11:35] And we are formulating how we can do a an outreach.
[1:11:41] I asked the manager for this year's budget.
[1:11:45] To allow budget for district town halls.
[1:11:50] And I would utilize those funds in order
[1:11:52] to be able to push out information come
[1:11:55] at least within my district, but certainly Citywide people
[1:11:59] are hurting.
[1:12:01] We have always been a city of forward looking.
[1:12:08] So I think the city of Pembroke Pines
[1:12:12] is in a very very good position.
[1:12:14] We rebounded from COVID.
[1:12:17] We rebounded from short sales back in 2008.
[1:12:21] And interest rates just went up.
[1:12:23] The mortgage rates just got established at 7% today.
[1:12:26] We know the housing market is a little turbulent
[1:12:29] in the near future.
[1:12:31] I am doing my part in this budget process, is good.
[1:12:38] The manager is open to make adjustments when necessary.
[1:12:40] I know as a collegial body, we're
[1:12:43] going to invest dollars that are going
[1:12:45] to have the greatest return on investment
[1:12:47] back to the community.
[1:12:49] That's what I'm looking forward to.
[1:12:51] Thank you for your time.
[1:12:53] >> Thank you.
[1:12:54] We appreciate your efforts on economic development and we know
[1:12:57] that you will discuss those fully with the City manager,
[1:13:00] city attorney, and also with Mr.!.
[1:13:04] Before you bring your item here.
[1:13:06] Then from there, the commission will
[1:13:08] decide how to proceed with city wide town hall
[1:13:12] meetings and the like.
[1:13:14] Thank you very much.
[1:13:15] Any further discussion?
[1:13:17] >> I have a follow up.
[1:13:19] What was alluded to was some of the lists provided
[1:13:22] during amendment three conversation
[1:13:24] that we had on Monday.
[1:13:26] Personally looking at the list, while that was an exercise
[1:13:31] conducted by administration to show us
[1:13:35] possible effects, possible items that could be cut in the future.
[1:13:38] I look at this and I don't feel comfortable for at least
[1:13:41] this year, if we do not have to absolutely cut down on these.
[1:13:46] Because to me, these are also essential services.
[1:13:51] I just want to put that on the record.
[1:13:54] >> I appreciate that.
[1:13:55] This commission come Mr. Dodge, Mr. Gordon,
[1:13:58] retains the ability to amend the budget at any time.
[1:14:02] >> Legally, correct.
[1:14:04] >> Anything from the commission?
[1:14:05] None.
[1:14:06] Hearing from the public?
[1:14:09] Seeing none all those in favor.
[1:14:12] Passes unanimously.
[1:14:15] >> For the record, we tell the public after the approval
[1:14:19] and first reading, the second and final budget is scheduled
[1:14:23] for 6 p.m.
[1:14:25] On Wednesday, September 16th, 2026 in these chambers.
[1:14:29] The notification is a reference to the millage as proposed
[1:14:34] in the first adopted millage.
[1:14:36] Page number three.
[1:14:38] May I read.
[1:14:40] PB eight number three is a motion
[1:14:42] to adopt ordinance number 2026 dash ten on first reading.
[1:14:45] The record proposed ordinance number 2026 ten
[1:14:48] is an ordinance of the city Pembroke Pines Florida.
[1:14:51] Adopting the budget for fiscal year 2026 2027
[1:14:54] and adopting the five year Capital Improvement Program
[1:14:57] for the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida,
[1:14:59] in accordance with section 5.08 of the City Charter,
[1:15:03] providing conflicts, providing for severability
[1:15:07] and providing for an effective date.
[1:15:08] Second and final reading is scheduled for Wednesday, 726,
[1:15:13] 2026 --
[1:15:22] September 16th, 2026.
[1:15:27] >> Is there a motion?
[1:15:29] Is there second?
[1:15:31] Thank you.
[1:15:34] >> Please understand that my questions are somewhere
[1:15:37] submitted to the staff and they respond and still
[1:15:39] there's a number of other questions that I had in regards
[1:15:42] to the budget.
[1:15:43] It's all been reminded that we see the detailed budget Monday.
[1:15:48] Today is Thursday.
[1:16:37] >>-- one was for a general fund and one was for utilities.
[1:16:41] I think another one for road and bridge.
[1:16:45] >> One more page here.
[1:16:46] Flip one more.
[1:16:48] >> Capital budget 10.4.
[1:16:51] Following pages capital items.
[1:16:53] This is what's in the current budget.
[1:16:56] >> Go to page 14 on the slides.
[1:16:58] The next slide please.
[1:17:00] I just want to clarify on this simple thing.
[1:17:04] I didn't pick this up until looking at the Powerpoint.
[1:17:08] The fire rescue it shows 1.2 million for fire engine.
[1:17:15] >> Yes.
[1:17:16] >> Is that correct?
[1:17:18] >> Yes.
[1:17:19] >> On page 336 of the budget .
[1:17:27] It would be object number six 64450,
[1:17:30] which is in the fire budget.
[1:17:39] Page 336.
[1:17:42] 664450, which is -- >> What was it again, Commissioner?
[1:17:59] >> 664450, titled Fire engine.
[1:18:01] And the number here is $2.27 million.
[1:18:07] The power is 1.2 million.
[1:18:12] Clarity, which is at?
[1:18:14] Is supposed to be 1.2 million and it's
[1:18:16] incorrect in the budget?
[1:18:18] >> I believe at one time we had two.
[1:18:20] I don't know if it's corrected.
[1:18:23] >> It's in the budget right now.
[1:18:25] Is 2.2.
[1:18:26] Is that $1 million that we all of a sudden
[1:18:29] found to be able to put in our events?
[1:18:34] >> We can reduce our >> That will help reserves,
[1:18:41] that's correct.
[1:18:41] >> Not necessarily.
[1:18:43] >> I don't need the explanation, other than the fact
[1:18:46] of what's right.
[1:18:48] >> For asking the question, let the chief answer.
[1:18:51] >> I didn't ask the question.
[1:18:53] >> Marcel Rodriguez, fire chief.
[1:18:56] Commissioner, the line item you're looking at
[1:18:58] is a combination of both the fire engine
[1:19:01] and the tactical support unit.
[1:19:03] The tactical support unit is not a truck
[1:19:06] that replace on a regular basis permit it is not
[1:19:10] used as often as the engine.
[1:19:16] No Capitoline for the tactical support unit.
[1:19:19] So it's combined with the fire engine.
[1:19:28] >> With that, I apologize, mayor,
[1:19:30] there's a $2.5 million contingency in the budget.
[1:19:35] In the budget, right?
[1:19:39] That's was my think that we could pull for some
[1:19:43] of the recreation events.
[1:19:48] Right?
[1:19:48] I would like to have now between second reading,
[1:19:53] I guess a historical perspective of the contingency fund
[1:19:58] permit how much we've budgeted, how much we've worked
[1:20:02] and how much has been a part of the carryover.
[1:20:05] I know the contingency is when a storm hits we
[1:20:10] have to clean up the streets.
[1:20:11] That's the money been sitting.
[1:20:13] Until we get reimbursed.
[1:20:14] I kind of want to know where we've been with the contingency.
[1:20:18] We need to have some options to be
[1:20:21] able to move some money around to support
[1:20:25] programing that we rightfully need to have in the city.
[1:20:32] >> Commissioner, we can give you detail from prior years on how
[1:20:36] the contingency is used.
[1:20:38] And therefore items that are unexpected.
[1:20:43] >> Don't go back like to 1992 or something.
[1:20:47] I just want something realistic that we
[1:20:51] can say that we have the ability to move monies around.
[1:20:54] I know sometimes when there's nonprofits or political action
[1:21:01] committees, sponsorship monies come out of that.
[1:21:05] >> I'm not aware of any political action committees that
[1:21:08] have ever been funded by the city.
[1:21:13] >> Committees maybe.
[1:21:16] >> Can I have my floor back, please.
[1:21:21] Thank you very much.
[1:21:23] On page 340 of the budget .
[1:21:29] It is a line item 546155 comets R and m land and building school
[1:21:36] major project.
[1:21:39] There are several billion dollars
[1:21:43] of school building projects that are being
[1:21:47] done under a general fund teir.
[1:21:52] And I was under the understanding
[1:21:55] that maybe schools were going to be done under school budgets.
[1:22:00] Not necessarily under general fund.
[1:22:02] I'd like to get an explanation of why
[1:22:05] we are spending money for schools under general funds.
[1:22:10] >> Mr. Dodge, certainly, this question has come up
[1:22:13] in the past.
[1:22:14] These are city owned buildings.
[1:22:17] The schools actually pay the debt on it.
[1:22:21] The building themselves belong to the schools.
[1:22:24] If, for example, there are repairs
[1:22:28] needed for the facilities, such as reroofing or doors.
[1:22:33] We've always paid for it out of that fund.
[1:22:36] Out of the city fund, because they are
[1:22:40] in fact property of the city.
[1:22:43] If we were to use school funds, at some time in the future,
[1:22:49] if we didn't continue with charter schools.
[1:22:52] There may be a claim on those funds back.
[1:22:57] That's why we always use the general fund.
[1:23:00] That we've done historically for the last 25 years.
[1:23:06] >> Will have more conversation on that.
[1:23:08] You're saying, it is an authorized expense
[1:23:15] under a general fund.
[1:23:17] Using tax dollars for schools.
[1:23:20] The second thing, the next thing is
[1:23:24] I'm looking at vehicle replacements.
[1:23:26] It looks like it's about 4 or $5 million cost.
[1:23:30] Probably just like to have a general conversation
[1:23:33] on what is that replacement cycle for some
[1:23:36] of these vehicles.
[1:23:38] >> I don't know what line item you're looking at.
[1:23:41] >> It's throughout.
[1:23:43] Like replacement of vehicles and it totals about $5 million.
[1:23:49] It's through a lot.
[1:23:50] I'd like to understand whether replacement schedule is.
[1:23:52] I'll replace them after four years?
[1:23:55] After six?
[1:23:57] After ten years?
[1:24:00] >> Commissioner, it depends on the vehicle.
[1:24:03] It has to deal with the condition of the vehicle.
[1:24:07] Most of our vehicles last a lot longer than that.
[1:24:11] We have equipment in some areas that is ten, 15 years old.
[1:24:16] There are others that the lifespan of it
[1:24:19] come if example, in police cars is less because
[1:24:22] of the miles on the road.
[1:24:26] There are replacements.
[1:24:28] Occasionally, there may be a new vehicle
[1:24:31] that's needed for some purpose.
[1:24:33] This also includes trailers, dump trucks,
[1:24:37] or whatever it might be for that particular department.
[1:24:41] >> I'll take a look and see how it compares to interest norm.
[1:24:45] Just to make sure.
[1:24:47] I know newer vehicles are obviously better.
[1:24:50] Nowadays, the way maintenance vehicles,
[1:24:55] they last a lot longer sometimes.
[1:24:56] Somebody charge can be pushed farther out.
[1:24:59] Lasts a little bit longer.
[1:25:01] So we'll have that conversation again.
[1:25:04] Another item here is not in the budget.
[1:25:07] We had talked about having a professional solid waste
[1:25:12] manager.
[1:25:13] I see it was not included in the additional staffing.
[1:25:17] I think we're in a position right now where we really
[1:25:20] need to have a professional solid waste
[1:25:23] person, who understands this industry throughout.
[1:25:27] Who has spent their career in solid waste.
[1:25:32] Very simple things.
[1:25:34] I was taking a look at our code of ordinances
[1:25:38] and our solid waste codes.
[1:25:40] It is so out of date.
[1:25:42] I do not understand why it's not being brought up
[1:25:45] to current code.
[1:25:46] We are still making reference to flow control.
[1:25:50] Do not flow control means?
[1:25:52] You have to bring your solid waste to where we tell you.
[1:25:55] And the reference in the code is to a disposal agreement
[1:25:59] with router, that no longer exists.
[1:26:01] When you look at other aspects of the code,
[1:26:05] they are just very simply outdated.
[1:26:07] What was even more surprising, one of the issues
[1:26:11] we're trying to deal with right now, is recycling.
[1:26:14] Our code does not even speak to recycling.
[1:26:18] So that is something that a professional
[1:26:23] would be able to grab a hold of and at least bring
[1:26:29] our code to current compliance with the way we operate,
[1:26:32] actually.
[1:26:33] We need somebody to actually really pay attention and monitor
[1:26:36] what's going on.
[1:26:38] Waste Authority now and everything's
[1:26:39] starting to go in gear.
[1:26:41] The last meeting we talked about that we're
[1:26:43] going to do some composting and some vegetative material.
[1:26:46] Mr. Mayor, a wonderful letter you sent out there.
[1:26:50] I really appreciate that.
[1:26:51] You made it very clear.
[1:26:53] I didn't want it to stink and we don't want traffic.
[1:26:57] And that's a real statement.
[1:26:59] People think that green waste doesn't smell.
[1:27:01] The reason why Fort Lauderdale disbanded their green composting
[1:27:06] is because it smelled.
[1:27:08] Mayor did a great job of pushing it out.
[1:27:10] We need someone paying attention to those kind
[1:27:12] of things that are happening.
[1:27:14] Again, I've got to reiterate and because I've really angers me
[1:27:18] that we miss the opportunity to go to Broward County
[1:27:22] and protest their zoning change.
[1:27:25] Their zoning amendment that allowed the landfill that is
[1:27:30] West Pines to go from 100ft to 300ft.
[1:27:34] If they want to do a 300 foot landfill,
[1:27:37] there is no stopping it now.
[1:27:40] We had a chance to speak it and we missed the opportunity.
[1:27:45] Again I think having a professional that
[1:27:47] knows those kind of things, pays attention, brings it
[1:27:50] to awareness to city manager and to others
[1:27:53] who may be participating in this solid waste arena.
[1:27:57] I'm telling, again, to my colleagues,
[1:28:00] this is something I think we really
[1:28:02] should be giving direction to the city manager
[1:28:04] to include solid waste manager.
[1:28:06] A professional in the industry.
[1:28:09] A position with the city of Pembroke Pines.
[1:28:12] >> I agree that you should take a look at it.
[1:28:16] It should be funded out of the trash fees.
[1:28:18] If we need a position there, because the environment
[1:28:23] is changing.
[1:28:24] That's the way it should go.
[1:28:26] I know you have an assistant city manager who is operating
[1:28:30] as the environmental overseer.
[1:28:35] I know these individuals probably answer there.
[1:28:44] If there's a feeling that we need
[1:28:46] to have one more person to get these things done,
[1:28:48] I think it should absolutely be evaluated.
[1:28:52] >> You said director or manager?
[1:28:54] There's a >> Right now, we do have
[1:28:59] sustainable and one of these assistant city manager.
[1:29:02] He's doing a great job.
[1:29:04] There's nothing.
[1:29:05] I'm really impressed with the growth that
[1:29:07] has occurred since taking that.
[1:29:11] I've been in this business 2530 years,
[1:29:13] I'm telling you I still don't know anything.
[1:29:16] It's the more you know, the less you know type thing.
[1:29:21] It shifts all the time.
[1:29:23] It would be a great asset to the assistant city manager
[1:29:26] to oversee that part of the operation.
[1:29:29] >> Do you need a motion for this?
[1:29:32] >> I think taking note of what we're saying.
[1:29:34] I do not hear any objection to it.
[1:29:37] That's pretty clear that something you'd like to look at.
[1:29:41] >> I'd like to ask the city attorney for a legal question.
[1:29:45] It is my understanding that voters of Broward County
[1:29:50] gave the county authority to do whatever they wanted
[1:29:52] on the property that they own.
[1:29:55] Right through the referendum.
[1:29:57] Was it two cycles ago or something like that?
[1:30:01] >> City attorney?
[1:30:04] >> My recollection is that there were referendums in recent years
[1:30:08] on the ballot referencing protecting certain lands.
[1:30:10] That was a specific issue on the ballot regarding the county's
[1:30:14] inability to modify the use or land use of certain regionally
[1:30:18] significant properties.
[1:30:20] Not specifically, environmentally sensitive,
[1:30:22] but restricted properties.
[1:30:24] But the county is always, under the county charter,
[1:30:28] maintain its integrity and legal control over its own land.
[1:30:32] That's been Revalidated.
[1:30:33] The site that we don't want stinking traffic,
[1:30:38] they control that.
[1:30:39] They own that property, correct?
[1:30:43] >> That's what it's called.
[1:30:45] That is correct.
[1:30:48] Incorporated Broward county, which they do own.
[1:30:51] >> Outside of Florida DEP, telling them they can't go up.
[1:30:56] They have full control over that asset, correct?
[1:31:01] >> If I may comment Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't use that particular
[1:31:04] phrase.
[1:31:04] There may be limitations and restrictions
[1:31:07] that are not yet in being.
[1:31:09] I would not choose to compromise the city right to an objection
[1:31:12] to an issue, which may occur.
[1:31:15] >> You asked to the attorney.
[1:31:19] [Cross-talk]
[1:31:19] >> I don't want to stray too far.
[1:31:22] >> Good question.
[1:31:24] >> I'm in agreement that we need to have an industry professional
[1:31:32] , who is a day to day knowing of what's happening.
[1:31:36] It's no shot at anyone who is currently
[1:31:39] overseeing the process.
[1:31:40] Commissioner goods involvement for 25 years,
[1:31:44] he was a day to day guy for a very long time.
[1:31:47] We need somebody on the bench who can look out
[1:31:49] for our best interests.
[1:31:50] To advise us when necessary.
[1:31:52] I think there's an opportunity through the professional
[1:31:55] services procurement.
[1:31:57] Where the manager can bring somebody in.
[1:32:02] On an as needed basis to watch these things.
[1:32:05] Because it could ramp up kind of quick.
[1:32:09] I would want to have someone brought on to look out
[1:32:13] for the interest of all of us.
[1:32:16] >> Thank you very much.
[1:32:17] Commissioner good.
[1:32:18] Reclaiming your time.
[1:32:20] >> Thank you Mr. Mayor.
[1:32:24] The next thing that I don't quite understand.
[1:32:26] I think I need an explanation or maybe something is not right.
[1:32:36] Looking at employee salaries throughout this document,
[1:32:42] every employee --
[1:32:45] I appreciate the detail.
[1:32:47] I've got to say it's spot on.
[1:32:50] It really gives a good picture of what's
[1:32:53] going on with the budget.
[1:32:56] I did notice, though, that every position is getting an increase.
[1:33:02] Anywhere from 10 to 20%.
[1:33:06] And what is happening is as you're
[1:33:10] going higher up in management, it gets closer to the 20%.
[1:33:16] I do recognize that there is a general employee --
[1:33:24] let me preface this, this does not include public safety.
[1:33:27] Public safety we manage that through a contract.
[1:33:30] They seem to be consistent with the contracts that we agreed to.
[1:33:35] We did agree to a general employee
[1:33:38] contract for compensation.
[1:33:41] But that contract only allows maximum of 5%.
[1:33:45] And then there are many other employees,
[1:33:50] particularly as you go into management
[1:33:51] and above, that are not in the general employee contract.
[1:33:55] So I don't even know how and what determines their increases.
[1:33:59] I'm hoping that this is a mistake.
[1:34:03] Maybe there was just some double counting error or whatever.
[1:34:07] When you have somebody that's making high six figures --
[1:34:15] [Cross-talk]
[1:34:17] >> Mr. Dodge, what say you to this?
[1:34:19] >> We have specifics and we'll look at them.
[1:34:24] >> That's it.
[1:34:26] That's substantial and thank you.
[1:34:29] Another thing I was having difficulty with is the city
[1:34:36] is using Florida contract staffing.
[1:34:40] Which is FCS.
[1:34:43] FCS is a workforce management that
[1:34:47] does supply personnel to support our city operations.
[1:34:54] There are no details in the budget
[1:34:56] that define what positions are being sourced out in the city.
[1:35:02] It could be window clerk.
[1:35:05] It could be somebody at Parks and Recreation.
[1:35:10] It could be somebody in finance.
[1:35:15] The only way that these numbers are provided to us,
[1:35:20] is under what are called, other services, FCS.
[1:35:23] So it just comes up with a general number of the cost.
[1:35:28] And when you look at the number, the amount
[1:35:33] that it costs us for FCS employees,
[1:35:37] versus our own city of Pembroke Pines employees.
[1:35:42] And in some cases, they are three times the amount
[1:35:46] of what we pay our own employees.
[1:35:48] So what that tells me is, we have
[1:35:51] a large number of FCS personnel working
[1:35:54] for the city of Pembroke Pines.
[1:35:57] I do not know anything about what positions they're filling.
[1:36:02] I don't know whether they're being compensated at.
[1:36:06] Are we overpaying or underpaying them.
[1:36:09] Anything.
[1:36:10] I think we should be getting a more detailed assessment of what
[1:36:17] our contract employees are doing with the city.
[1:36:21] When it's clear to me that more than 50%
[1:36:23] of the employees here at the city of Pembroke Pines
[1:36:26] are contract employees.
[1:36:28] I am going to need that kind of understanding.
[1:36:33] >> Commissioner, we certainly can provide that to you.
[1:36:37] That is not accurate that we have employees making
[1:36:40] three times the amount of what you consider to be
[1:36:44] the traditional employees.
[1:36:45] If you remember this slide -- >> Mr.
[1:36:53] Manager I better my statement to you.
[1:36:58] When you total up personnel service cost in a department
[1:37:03] for city employees.
[1:37:06] Then you match that to what the total amount for FCS costs are,
[1:37:12] the FCS costs double N triple what
[1:37:16] the personnel costs total total personnel
[1:37:19] costs for city employees.
[1:37:21] It just tells me that you might have one, two, FCS employees
[1:37:27] for every one city employee.
[1:37:31] >> That is accurate.
[1:37:33] >> I'm not saying that you're making more than our people.
[1:37:36] But I don't know what they're making.
[1:37:37] I don't know what position titles they are.
[1:37:40] I just know that they're working for the city.
[1:37:42] Somewhere in the city.
[1:37:44] It's hard for me to assess.
[1:37:49] >> That we can provide.
[1:37:51] >> Mr. Manager, number of these questions didn't come up before.
[1:37:56] I'm at a loss because I'm hearing this the first time
[1:37:59] as well.
[1:37:59] What the commissioner is asking for is an order, obviously.
[1:38:03] For next year, if we could, let's
[1:38:06] distribute these books in advance of when
[1:38:11] we distribute them this year.
[1:38:14] So that the commissioner has the opportunity
[1:38:16] to review the books earlier.
[1:38:19] And these questions can be there.
[1:38:21] So we can hopefully resolve these questions
[1:38:23] and not have to bring them up on a day.
[1:38:28] >> Just for clarification, the online budget was provided
[1:38:32] on August 1st.
[1:38:33] The printed one we all requested a little bit later.
[1:38:37] It's easier to see.
[1:38:41] >> Thank you comment you clarified what I meant.
[1:38:45] Printed budgets earlier.
[1:38:47] Because Commissioner Schwartz is right.
[1:38:49] A document like this is easier looked at in hard copies.
[1:38:53] Just make sure that we get that out several weeks beforehand.
[1:38:58] So that we don't have to go through this process now.
[1:39:03] Where questions are being raised,
[1:39:05] very legitimately many of us have heard before.
[1:39:12] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, other things that came to my attention
[1:39:16] as I was reviewing the details as well.
[1:39:19] Again, public safety has its own it at media personnel.
[1:39:27] So police have their own ID, fire have their own I t.
[1:39:32] They have their own media people.
[1:39:33] And the city has it and media people.
[1:39:36] I don't understand why we can't consolidate all of them
[1:39:39] under one roof and maybe get a little bit of a synergy out
[1:39:42] of that action.
[1:39:44] That is my opinion.
[1:39:46] I want to bring it to the attention of my colleagues,
[1:39:50] where they find it to be of any value or not.
[1:39:54] >> I can tell you uniformed services,
[1:39:56] they will be hard pressed to give up their PIOs.
[1:40:02] Both fire chief and police chief have PIOs
[1:40:06] that answer directly to them.
[1:40:08] So that the information that they provide under their state
[1:40:12] authority meets their particular expectations.
[1:40:16] It has always been that way in every city in every jurisdiction
[1:40:21] that I've worked in.
[1:40:22] I certainly believe that we could look at it.
[1:40:25] It differs from general communication.
[1:40:30] >> PIO is one thing, media is another.
[1:40:34] >> They have those responsibilities.
[1:40:37] >> There are certain cities that do have communication department
[1:40:41] that includes all art major organizations.
[1:40:47] However comment they do have dedicated personnel.
[1:40:50] The only thing I'd ask for that is maybe
[1:40:52] someone within the communication department
[1:40:55] can have branding across the board.
[1:40:57] But I think our media personnel in each
[1:41:00] do pretty much as good a job as they
[1:41:03] can with the branding of the place and fire being separate.
[1:41:09] The structure could be different.
[1:41:11] There are plenty of cities that combine all of it
[1:41:15] but they are individually.
[1:41:17] They're under the same umbrella.
[1:41:19] But they are associated with each department.
[1:41:21] >> Mr. Mayor I appreciate Commissioner Goode's focus.
[1:41:25] I mentioned earlier that there were some questions that
[1:41:29] asked the administration that they had not written back
[1:41:33] to me on.
[1:41:34] I also acknowledge Commissioner Goode,
[1:41:37] that there are technologies within about five categories
[1:41:42] within PD now.
[1:41:44] That deserve a review of overlap,
[1:41:51] if certain softwares are doing the same thing.
[1:41:55] Why would we be spending the money
[1:41:58] for the duplication of tech?
[1:42:02] Some of it is like a half $1 million worth of programing.
[1:42:08] This is something that I anticipate
[1:42:11] getting between now and second reading period
[1:42:14] I am with you on that one.
[1:42:17] I want to keep my items kind of brief tonight.
[1:42:21] The administrator is probably going
[1:42:23] to get me something in the ballot,
[1:42:25] hopefully within a week so we can
[1:42:28] have that second reading with a little more clarification.
[1:42:31] Why we're speaking about our first responders,
[1:42:35] who I absolutely support.
[1:42:42] >> I apologize I took the floor from you.
[1:42:43] >> Another thing I'd also like to take and reconsider the 410
[1:42:50] workdays versus a five eight workweek.
[1:42:53] I'd like to share with you with some of my beliefs.
[1:42:57] Where I think operations are efficient,
[1:43:01] are inefficient both on service level and as a financial impact.
[1:43:05] I'd like at some point to have that conversation where we talk
[1:43:09] about four dash ten versus 5-8 workweek.
[1:43:13] >> Would you like to bring that back as a commission item with
[1:43:16] whatever background you wish to include or how would you like
[1:43:20] to proceed with that discussion?
[1:43:23] >> I can do that.
[1:43:25] It could be a lengthy discussion it could be a quick.
[1:43:29] I do not know how my colleagues would feel.
[1:43:32] >> I don't know if we can do it tonight.
[1:43:34] >> Not tonight.
[1:43:36] >> I am glad to hear the preview.
[1:43:40] >> Thank you for that.
[1:43:41] >> I thank you for bringing it up go ahead.
[1:43:45] >> The other thing I'm having some difficulty with is
[1:43:48] understanding our attorney costs.
[1:43:50] There is a small section here for the attorney speaks to what
[1:43:56] they have as a retainer.
[1:43:58] That's most of what the cost is per I
[1:44:03] know that there is more costs than just
[1:44:08] what's under the attorney.
[1:44:10] That the attorneys get paid or outside attorneys.
[1:44:14] For instance, I cannot figure out what is currently hourly
[1:44:19] rate?
[1:44:20] I know we approved an hourly rate at some point
[1:44:23] in time, which is about 225 an hour.
[1:44:27] >> May I respond quickly?
[1:44:29] It went from 225 to 250.
[1:44:34] >> What was it in this >> Two hourly billed work.
[1:44:40] That's correct.
[1:44:41] Not for the >> I think you should
[1:44:45] meet with the city attorney come and go through your questions.
[1:44:47] >> The other thing is somebody can help me find where the cost
[1:44:52] for external legal fees are captured in the budget.
[1:44:56] I couldn't really lock that down.
[1:45:02] The only other thing is I am still not
[1:45:09] clear about what our anticipated budget
[1:45:13] amount, that has not been expended
[1:45:17] will be that we carry forward.
[1:45:20] Again, we have a very large amount
[1:45:24] of encumbrances or designated dollars for projects.
[1:45:29] Things of that nature.
[1:45:31] I do understand encumbrances, when
[1:45:34] you talk about them being in APO or some kind of purchase order
[1:45:38] or some kind of commitment for that payment.
[1:45:40] You have to wait 30 days past your budget cycle,
[1:45:45] before you can make all payments clear.
[1:45:47] In order to make your financial documents correct.
[1:45:50] As they need to be.
[1:45:53] There are a number of other items that are not covered,
[1:45:57] that have not been committed funds for payment.
[1:46:00] But are still sitting there.
[1:46:02] We just did one a couple of weeks ago.
[1:46:05] It was $100 million.
[1:46:07] What are we anticipating for this next year?
[1:46:10] I know the question was answered by Chief Financial Officer.
[1:46:16] Said, well, the budget amendment might be coming to us sometime
[1:46:21] in December.
[1:46:22] Which is good.
[1:46:24] It's better than waiting and hoping
[1:46:26] that it's a budget amendment for this year.
[1:46:30] Not as we traditionally done a year from the budget approval.
[1:46:36] I was don't like to have an understanding, generally, of how
[1:46:42] much money is we're anticipating is going to be rolled over,
[1:46:46] it's going to be added to this budget because it's 600 million,
[1:46:49] it's going to be 100 million I'd just like to understand that.
[1:46:54] That's what we just did.
[1:46:55] We just approved $100 million budget and added it to last
[1:46:58] year's -- >> 100 million rollover.
[1:47:02] >> We should sit down with the manager and ask these questions
[1:47:06] directly.
[1:47:06] I don't have that information.
[1:47:09] >> That's my question.
[1:47:11] >> Did you answer that, Mr. Dodge?
[1:47:14] >> The current when we have, as you know,
[1:47:17] didn't have the strategic plan in the budget that was quite
[1:47:21] a bit of money.
[1:47:22] That was part of the rollover.
[1:47:26] Then were the encumbrances, which
[1:47:28] were purchase orders that were encumbered
[1:47:31] before the end of the fiscal year.
[1:47:36] We did not be able to finish the project.
[1:47:38] So we carried it over and it goes in front reserves,
[1:47:42] but then we have to pay it, we take it from there.
[1:47:45] Yes, there sometimes excess funds
[1:47:47] that are left over each fiscal year that go into fund balance.
[1:47:52] That's how we're able to accumulate
[1:47:55] all the funds that we're using for the strategic plan.
[1:47:58] We use those for capital.
[1:47:59] If you use them up for operating,
[1:48:02] then you're never able to secure sufficient funds
[1:48:05] to do projects that are needed for the community.
[1:48:10] But there's no way you could generate the money.
[1:48:12] Other than put it in a future fiscal year and raise the taxes.
[1:48:18] So we've always tried to avoid that.
[1:48:21] Pay for capital out of whatever funds
[1:48:23] we had left over in reserves.
[1:48:26] >> I would offer , manager, more to my colleagues as well.
[1:48:34] Maybe should think about having a capital budget
[1:48:37] as well as operating budget.
[1:48:39] Because we don't have a capital budget.
[1:48:42] Where we have as money set aside for capital budgets.
[1:48:45] Capital budgets typically would get
[1:48:47] approved at the same time the operating budget.
[1:48:50] Which means that any money that you still have sitting there.
[1:48:52] Might have a five year project, it got it
[1:48:55] and the money needs to be there for.
[1:48:57] But if you have capital budget that
[1:48:58] gets submitted at the same time as your operating budget, what
[1:49:01] happens is you just automatically
[1:49:03] carry those dollars over with having to go through
[1:49:05] and amended budget process.
[1:49:07] That we're doing now.
[1:49:09] We can talk more about that later.
[1:49:11] There's a more formal way of doing that?
[1:49:14] Because I don't like making approval of a budget months
[1:49:18] later.
[1:49:18] That are in the numbers --
[1:49:21] I understand why it's being done.
[1:49:24] >> Commissioner good for clarification purposes.
[1:49:26] I'd like to have a definition of an adopted budget, operating
[1:49:31] budget, and a working budget.
[1:49:32] That's what I'd like to have in an ordinance clearly defined
[1:49:36] by legal of what is what.
[1:49:38] We need clarification.
[1:49:41] >> Okay.
[1:49:43] >> Mr. Dodge, if you could provide that clarification
[1:49:46] permit go ahead.
[1:49:48] >> I just want to say where the comments I'm making today,
[1:49:53] I am not asking for the reduction in the budget.
[1:49:57] That's why I went ahead and said, I don't think,
[1:50:00] why I agreed to the millage.
[1:50:03] I think it's very important.
[1:50:05] That's a very important decision we made.
[1:50:07] What I'm speaking about is just Reallocations.
[1:50:11] Move money.
[1:50:12] I would rather see projects comment like we're
[1:50:15] talking about the events.
[1:50:17] I'd like to see events elevated.
[1:50:19] It's direct contact with the community.
[1:50:20] That's what we need to be doing.
[1:50:22] I'd like to see it going in some of our capital projects,
[1:50:25] whether they be in our facilities
[1:50:26] or in some of our transportation infrastructures.
[1:50:28] I'd like to see the moneys go there
[1:50:31] because those are things people are constantly
[1:50:33] talking to me about.
[1:50:34] About why aren't we getting some of those things?
[1:50:38] Not about anything else other than that.
[1:50:44] >> And we have that ability.
[1:50:47] >> Mr. Mayor, that concludes my comments.
[1:50:49] I think everybody did a great job.
[1:50:52] I appreciate the detail.
[1:50:53] That was good stuff.
[1:50:54] Great set of >> Thank you.
[1:50:59] >> Following up to what commissioner good mentioned.
[1:51:02] You did mention employee salary bump.
[1:51:04] I want to hear if Miss Cheung has anything regarding that.
[1:51:08] I think was mentioned at 10 to 20%.
[1:51:13] That was not my interpretation, if you can clarify?
[1:51:17] >> Good evening.
[1:51:18] That increases that are reflected
[1:51:21] has been a result of the 26 budget.
[1:51:24] Being a little bit lower.
[1:51:26] The collective bargaining agreement, I don't think
[1:51:30] was approved until later on in the year
[1:51:33] period so those numbers were not reflected in the 26 budget.
[1:51:37] It looks as if the 27 change between 26 and 27,
[1:51:41] looks a lot bigger than it should.
[1:51:45] >> If later on we saw with an actual budget was from 25-26,
[1:51:51] versus what we have in the proposal,
[1:51:53] it would be more of a tighter space between those two?
[1:51:57] >> Yes.
[1:51:59] >> Commissioner, may I point you to an example.
[1:52:02] I wouldn't say it unless I could prove it.
[1:52:08] >> I just interpreted something different I just wanted clarity.
[1:52:11] >> I want to make sure we have the opportunity to meet with
[1:52:14] the manager and go through the questions completely.
[1:52:17] >> I heard the answer, the response and I think
[1:52:19] it's important for the commissioner to recognize where
[1:52:21] I'm speaking, in particular to the budget.
[1:52:24] 330 and go to item number 512451 paragraph
[1:52:36] >> 512451.
[1:52:51] >> can look across This was 24, 25, 26, 27.
[1:52:57] There's just several >> Commissioner good --
[1:53:07] >> We can look together.
[1:53:08] >> Commissioner good --
[1:53:17] >> That presentation.
[1:53:18] >> That's what we're looking at at the series.
[1:53:21] That's why we need clarification.
[1:53:24] When we look at how the books are presented,
[1:53:27] we are not looking at our current working budget,
[1:53:32] comparing next year's budget.
[1:53:34] We're still working off the adopted budget.
[1:53:36] In the book presentation period I
[1:53:38] know there's national guidelines on how it's presented.
[1:53:43] Now more than ever, residents taxpayers
[1:53:47] need to know how the money is allocated.
[1:53:51] If we have a labor agreement that
[1:53:54] was ratified late September.
[1:53:59] And there's a lookback period, that's going to be reflected
[1:54:04] in the following year's .
[1:54:08] In the working budget, not the adopted one.
[1:54:11] I look forward to some clarification.
[1:54:14] But really all the questions today, I'm
[1:54:16] very happy with all of my colleagues
[1:54:19] and how prepared we were tonight.
[1:54:22] >> Thank you very much.
[1:54:24] Anything further?
[1:54:26] >> Mr. Mayor, really quickly.
[1:54:28] The commissioner good has --
[1:54:32] I appreciate the opportunity very much.
[1:54:35] >> Anything else on this?
[1:54:36] Anything from the public?
[1:54:38] Seeing none.
[1:54:39] Yes, Ma'am.
[1:54:40] Please.
[1:54:46] Your name and address for the record.
[1:54:50] You have three minutes.
[1:54:52] >> Hello come again, Laura Enriquez,
[1:54:54] 600 North West 86th Avenue, Pembroke Pines, Florida.
[1:54:59] I just want to point out regarding the Subcontractor's.
[1:55:03] I do know an example that you were looking for.
[1:55:07] Sometime last year, the police department
[1:55:10] had an open position for accounts payable.
[1:55:12] The pay was $18.
[1:55:14] I am pretty sure that there would have
[1:55:17] been a markup for management.
[1:55:20] So that we're discussing the budget,
[1:55:22] I'd like to know how much the city would be
[1:55:24] paying for something like that?
[1:55:26] You were discussing that and it just popped in my mind.
[1:55:30] >> Thank you very much.
[1:55:31] Anything further?
[1:55:33] Anything from the public?
[1:55:35] Hearing none all in favor say aye.
[1:55:40] I'll opposed?
[1:55:41] It passes unanimously.
[1:55:46] >> I am a no on the budget.
[1:55:51] >> If you will comment Mr. Mayor,
[1:55:54] the second final public hearing on the budget ordinance will
[1:55:57] also be scheduled at the same time for consideration
[1:55:59] on Wednesday September 16th, in these chambers as well as 6 p.m.
[1:56:04] As well the millage ordinance described previously.
[1:56:07] Which will be considered under both state law and state law
[1:56:10] the charter at the time.
[1:56:12] >> Anything else on this item?
[1:56:14] This budget hearing is closed.
[1:56:18] We will now open our regular City Commission meeting
[1:56:24] of September 3rd, 2026.
[1:56:28] Mr. Clark, if you call roll.
[1:56:40] >>
[1:56:40] [Roll Call] We have a quorum.
[1:56:58] >> Thank you very much.
[1:56:59] Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance
[1:57:01] and remain standing for the National Anthem.
[1:57:12] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
[1:57:14] of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation
[1:57:19] under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[1:57:33] [National Anthem Playing]
[1:58:46] >> Thank you very much.
[1:58:47] Please be seated.
[1:58:49] Clerk com announcements of items to be pulled from the agenda.
[1:58:58] >> Item number 15 has been pulled.
[1:58:59] >> Thank you very much.
[1:59:01] Any others?
[1:59:02] >> No comment mayor.
[1:59:04] >> Under presentations today will be the fire Rescue
[1:59:07] Department will formally introduce to the Commission
[1:59:09] and to the public a new sponsorship program.
[1:59:12] It allows for the hiring of Non-certified individuals
[1:59:15] and city employees while they complete their required training
[1:59:20] and certifications to become sworn firefighters.
[1:59:26] Chief Rodriguez come at you are recognized.
[1:59:29] >> Good evening again.
[1:59:30] Marcelina Rodriguez fire chief.
[1:59:32] Thank you very much to allow me to present to you
[1:59:37] the new sponsorship program.
[1:59:39] Two first introduce it to the public, as well as
[1:59:42] the Commission.
[1:59:43] Before I get on -- one second.
[1:59:51] I have a Powerpoint presentation.
[1:59:55] I have to load it.
[1:59:57] Would I have access here?
[2:00:07] >> Do you see it on your screens, commissioners?
[2:00:09] Before I begin with the Powerpoint presentation,
[2:00:14] I think it's important to understand our current hiring
[2:00:16] process.
[2:00:17] Today, and for as long as I've been here,
[2:00:21] we've only hired certified firefighters.
[2:00:23] What does that mean?
[2:00:25] You have to have your fire certificate come as well
[2:00:28] as your EMT certificate, emergency medical technician.
[2:00:32] As well as some other certificates.
[2:00:34] The sponsorship program that I'm going to go over
[2:00:37] provides us with the opportunity to hire
[2:00:41] Non-certified firefighters.
[2:00:43] That means individuals without any certifications.
[2:00:47] But I hope they have a strong desire to serve this community.
[2:00:52] So one of the primary goals or objectives or benefits
[2:00:58] of this program is going to provide us
[2:01:01] a larger pool of candidates.
[2:01:04] We are looking for military veterans, recent high school
[2:01:10] graduates, college graduates, lifeguards.
[2:01:13] Perhaps someone that is seeking a career change.
[2:01:17] Maybe a communication expert or a police officer.
[2:01:22] Anyone seeking a career change that
[2:01:24] may not be happy or satisfied in their current career,
[2:01:26] but have always wanted to and they fire service
[2:01:31] has intrigued them.
[2:01:32] Those are the individuals that we're going to look for.
[2:01:35] We will search for high quality candidates
[2:01:38] whose character and values align with our standards
[2:01:41] here in Pembroke Pines.
[2:01:48] This will be a huge recruitment tool.
[2:01:53] Supplementing our existing ten week program period
[2:01:56] we're not getting rid of our current program.
[2:01:58] It's only going to supplement.
[2:02:00] We'll deploy and utilize it as we feel fit
[2:02:04] or as that need arises.
[2:02:07] What I'm referring to is one of the changes
[2:02:11] is going to be 21 week program which
[2:02:14] will incorporate both fire minimum standards,
[2:02:17] as well as emergency medical technician.
[2:02:19] To be 21 weeks compared to ten weeks.
[2:02:22] It's going to be a longer program.
[2:02:24] It's going to be a cost effective training.
[2:02:27] But what's not going to change is
[2:02:30] we're going to maintain our class one professional standards
[2:02:33] throughout the entire program.
[2:02:35] In my humble opinion, I expect after 21 weeks of being exposed
[2:02:39] to our training staff, they are going
[2:02:42] to be more prepared on day one than utilizing
[2:02:46] our current ten week process.
[2:02:51] Let me go over briefly how the program is going to work.
[2:02:56] It's going to first begin with a strong proportional outreach.
[2:03:00] We're going to have job fairs with the help of our HR
[2:03:04] department, as well as Mr. Rothstein.
[2:03:06] We're going to have school outreach, social media,
[2:03:10] internet based advertisement.
[2:03:13] We've discussed even meta ads.
[2:03:15] We're going to try to reach as many of these candidates
[2:03:18] as possible.
[2:03:18] Up to and including, and employee incentive of $1,000 per
[2:03:23] month to an employee of Pembroke Pines recommend a candidate
[2:03:27] and that candidate is hired as a city employee,
[2:03:32] for the training program.
[2:03:35] And then they become a sworn firefighter, EMT,
[2:03:39] that employee will receive a $1,000 incentive per second,
[2:03:44] is the screening and selection process.
[2:03:47] We have standardized and validated exams,
[2:03:50] which will include Cpap.
[2:03:53] Written aptitude exams, structured interviews.
[2:03:55] As well as assessment centers peer
[2:03:58] to ensure that we get the most qualified candidates
[2:04:02] for those positions period then the condition
[2:04:10] conditional employment.
[2:04:11] The conditional job offer is going
[2:04:13] to be consistent with our current standards.
[2:04:15] It's going to include backgrounds, polygraph,
[2:04:17] polygraph test, drug screening, etc..
[2:04:20] It's not going to change.
[2:04:21] When the firefighter completes that successfully it
[2:04:26] completing the 21 week program, they'll
[2:04:29] obtain their certification, and they'll
[2:04:31] be able for a full time firefighter EMT as a sworn
[2:04:33] firefighter and join the ranks of our current firefighters.
[2:04:36] However, they're going to have to commit
[2:04:38] to four years of employment as a firefighter if not,
[2:04:42] if they leave, they will have to reimburse the city
[2:04:47] for the education and their training.
[2:04:56] So a little bit of the framework on how that's going to work.
[2:05:01] We're going to onboard them as city employees.
[2:05:04] Full time making $20 an hour.
[2:05:07] It will be at will employees.
[2:05:12] Trainee must earn certifications in firefighter one firefighter
[2:05:17] two, EMT, Evoc and CPR training, which we will provide.
[2:05:22] They'll have to maintain certain standards
[2:05:24] throughout their program.
[2:05:25] Consistent with our current standards.
[2:05:27] At that point, as mentioned earlier, they'll transition
[2:05:31] and they'll have the opportunity to transition
[2:05:33] into a sworn firefighter.
[2:05:35] There are some advantages to the empty program in-house.
[2:05:40] Not so long ago, you approved a contract
[2:05:45] allowing us to an agreement with Memorial Hospital.
[2:05:50] Allowing our firefighters, our EMTs,
[2:05:54] that are taking courses within our program
[2:05:58] to complete their clinicals at Memorial Hospital.
[2:06:00] That was a key agreement to help us to get to where we are today.
[2:06:05] The EMTs will complete all of their field training
[2:06:08] in-house at our fire stations on our trucks.
[2:06:11] Come day one, they'll already be familiar with our system.
[2:06:18] They will have an advantage, compared to the current program,
[2:06:22] where they're not exposed to our firefighters or our system.
[2:06:28] Our fire stations, until they become a sworn firefighter
[2:06:34] on day one.
[2:06:35] Once they complete the program, and they're
[2:06:38] onboarded as a firefighter EMT, they'll have the opportunity
[2:06:42] and be required to become a paramedic within three years.
[2:06:46] They will have the opportunity to participate
[2:06:48] in our in-house paramedic class.
[2:06:51] Now we get into the financials.
[2:06:55] As you can see, there is a savings of the 21 week training
[2:07:04] course, compared to the ten weeks
[2:07:06] period the cost of the 21 sponsorship program
[2:07:12] is obviously less than a ten week training.
[2:07:15] That does not tell the whole story.
[2:07:18] The additional savings will come,
[2:07:23] because we expect there to be an increase in retention, which
[2:07:28] has been a challenge for our fire department
[2:07:30] as it has been for all municipal fire departments in the county
[2:07:34] and throughout other cities and counties as well.
[2:07:38] Our training facility was recently
[2:07:41] accredited by the Florida Department of Health.
[2:07:43] And authorized to begin offering EMP classes
[2:07:46] as I mentioned earlier.
[2:07:48] Soon we expect to expand on these programs
[2:07:51] to include both EMT and firefighter minimum
[2:07:55] standard training for individuals pursuing
[2:07:57] a career in the fire service.
[2:07:59] This is going to be and is going to become a financial benefit
[2:08:06] to the city and the fire department as well.
[2:08:08] The revenue generated from these programs come along
[2:08:11] with our other courses currently offered at the facility,
[2:08:13] will be used to offset operating costs and fund
[2:08:18] future facility improvements at the training facility.
[2:08:23] I didn't get here by myself, I had the help of a lot of people.
[2:08:27] Beginning with my staff that are highly trained and capable.
[2:08:32] The city manager for his support and him
[2:08:35] greenlighting this program.
[2:08:37] The finance department, of course.
[2:08:39] Elected officials for reviewing and approving and authorizing
[2:08:42] many of these agreements.
[2:08:44] The Human Resource department for reviewing and vetting
[2:08:48] this program and ensuring that it remains
[2:08:51] within certain guidelines.
[2:08:52] The legal team, of course.
[2:08:55] And again I just mentioned that I'm
[2:08:58] blessed to have the training staff that I
[2:09:00] do that put in the hard work to get us to where we are today.
[2:09:03] Thank you.
[2:09:04] With that, I open it up for any questions.
[2:09:08] >> Chief, I want to thank you for your presentation and I want
[2:09:10] to thank your staff for their creativity and finding ways
[2:09:14] to produce an even better fire department than we have now.
[2:09:20] I really appreciate that.
[2:09:22] My understanding is that labor has reviewed this
[2:09:25] and they're on board with it as well.
[2:09:28] We do have a full labor management partnership.
[2:09:32] >> I've met with them and discussed in details with what I
[2:09:36] went over with right now.
[2:09:37] There was no issues that I wasn't able to address.
[2:09:40] At the very end, they seem supportive.
[2:09:43] >> That's important because labor management partnerships
[2:09:47] are the stuff which great success is made.
[2:09:50] I very much appreciate the presentation.
[2:09:54] Mr. Dodge, has been incorporated into the budget.
[2:09:58] We just read it first >> Funds will
[2:10:03] be available for this program.
[2:10:04] >> Thank you very much.
[2:10:06] Any questions commissioners.
[2:10:09] >> I hate that you spoke before me.
[2:10:10] I was going to mention labor.
[2:10:12] I appreciate obviously chief, but I can't see him.
[2:10:16] Dan Rothstein.
[2:10:17] When I reached out, I think it's very incredibly important,
[2:10:21] especially with our public safety departments
[2:10:23] to work with, proactively work with our labor leaders.
[2:10:27] They represent the body that serves this community.
[2:10:30] I appreciate very much that you met with them.
[2:10:32] This is only via, I'd like to see the same over
[2:10:38] with our police department.
[2:10:39] Thank you Chief, for what you've done.
[2:10:42] >> Thank you very much.
[2:10:44] >> I want to say that everyone I talk to and the kids that are
[2:10:47] coming up with choice between police and fire.
[2:10:50] Because police eat donuts and fire eat gourmet.
[2:10:56] >> I'll let you in on a secret.
[2:10:58] I've eaten lunch with the police chief the other day.
[2:11:01] It's been a life long dream for him to become a firefighter.
[2:11:04] I gave him the opportunity to take advantage of that.
[2:11:08] Thank you.
[2:11:10] I'm
[2:11:18] >> Thank you very much.
[2:11:19] This is a proclamation of the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida,
[2:11:22] declaring National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.
[2:11:24] Is there a group here coming forward?
[2:11:26] Come on up here
[2:11:32] >> Stand here.
[2:11:33] How are you?
[2:11:34] Good to see you again.
[2:11:35] How are you?
[2:11:46] >> Good to see you.
[2:11:47] >> How are you?
[2:11:47] Good to see you.
[2:11:48] How are you?
[2:11:53] September has been designated National childhood Cancer
[2:11:57] Awareness Month, to honor the children whose lives have been
[2:12:01] lost and those whose lives have been irrevocably impacted
[2:12:05] by this devastating illness.
[2:12:07] While strengthening our nation's resolve to find cures.
[2:12:12] Whereas cancer remains the leading cause of death
[2:12:14] by disease among children in the United States with approximately
[2:12:18] 15,000 children, adolescents diagnosed with cancer each year
[2:12:22] before the age of 20.
[2:12:24] Whereas childhood cancers across all racial
[2:12:27] ethnic, and geographic social economic backgrounds.
[2:12:30] Children and their families face the challenges
[2:12:32] of this disease with incredible bravery, strength and hope.
[2:12:37] Whereas childhood cancer affects not only child diagnosed
[2:12:39] but also the parents and grandparents siblings,
[2:12:42] loved ones and the entire support network while
[2:12:45] dedicated health care professionals
[2:12:46] organizations and advocacy groups provide critical support
[2:12:50] and encouragement.
[2:12:51] Whereas the City of Pembroke Pines
[2:12:52] recognizes the devastating impact of childhood cancer
[2:12:56] on children and families in the community
[2:12:58] and the importance of advancing research and improving treatment
[2:13:03] options and increasing awareness and supporting the effective
[2:13:07] those affected by this disease.
[2:13:09] And if I could add, whereas medical science
[2:13:12] is making it possible for many of these children
[2:13:16] to live long lives.
[2:13:19] Thank to the research and the hard work that they put into it.
[2:13:24] There has never been a time where more cancers are
[2:13:28] cured than right now.
[2:13:30] We owe it to our doctors and our nurses
[2:13:32] and other health care professionals
[2:13:33] for work and our scientists and researchers
[2:13:37] for working so hard on the science of this.
[2:13:39] At a time when people are amazingly
[2:13:42] dismissive of medical science.
[2:13:45] This is what is saving lives.
[2:13:48] This is what is giving hope to adults and children alike.
[2:13:52] With this horrible disease.
[2:13:54] Therefore, Angelo Castillo, mayor
[2:13:56] of the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida, and the City
[2:14:01] Commission, do hereby proclaim September 2026 National
[2:14:07] Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Pembroke Pines.
[2:14:10] And encourage all residents to join us
[2:14:11] in raising awareness, supporting effective families,
[2:14:14] honoring the courage of children cancer patients survivors
[2:14:17] and remembering those whose lives have been lost
[2:14:19] and whose lives have been saved.
[2:14:21] Congratulations and thank you for everything that you do.
[2:14:29] [Applause]
[2:14:30] >> I'm Christina and I'm part of Mystic Force Foundation,
[2:14:33] Sylvia Vanni wishes she could be here tonight.
[2:14:35] She had other things she had to take care of.
[2:14:37] She started this foundation 17 years ago,
[2:14:40] when her son Sal passed away tragically
[2:14:42] from childhood cancer.
[2:14:43] She dedicates her entire life to making sure
[2:14:47] that children that are affected by cancer just can be kids.
[2:14:53] Because as a family when you go through childhood cancer,
[2:14:57] everything stops.
[2:14:58] These children are in hospitals and in clinics.
[2:15:03] The families are just torn apart.
[2:15:05] She works treacherously to just ensure that the kids --
[2:15:12] tirelessly to ensure that kids have a place to go.
[2:15:16] And be kids and forget about being in the hospital.
[2:15:18] We're grateful for the city and the commission
[2:15:20] for allowing us to be here and raise awareness.
[2:15:23] Without that, the funding and the ability
[2:15:26] to know that childhood cancer is not rare
[2:15:29] when it affects your kids.
[2:15:30] When it affects your family's.
[2:15:32] We are grateful for that.
[2:15:33] I just want to introduce Jay Kaplan here.
[2:15:37] He is a two time cancer survivor.a
[2:15:42] [Applause] We have Jake Duenas, this is my son.
[2:15:46] He is a one time cancer survivor.
[2:15:49] Still very impressive.
[2:15:50] [Applause] And I'm Jake's mom.
[2:15:54] And these are Jake's siblings.
[2:15:56] That is Luke, Cristian, and Danica
[2:15:58] Patrick childhood cancer affects the entire family.
[2:16:01] Would you like to say a couple things?
[2:16:04] >> First of all, I want to thank Mayor Castillo and the city
[2:16:08] Commission for their time.
[2:16:11] Of course, she introduced me, I'm
[2:16:15] Jake, two time cancer survivor.
[2:16:17] I want to say how important it is for childhood cancer
[2:16:22] awareness to be in effect.
[2:16:24] I cannot stress enough how unnoticed it is among many
[2:16:29] people.
[2:16:29] Most of the population come if you ask them,
[2:16:32] how many kids a year do childhood cancer?
[2:16:34] They probably won't tell you.
[2:16:37] We as a group are looking to change that.
[2:16:41] As cancer survivors and cancer parents from around the world
[2:16:44] are also looking to change that too, how we can start personally
[2:16:49] is via schools.
[2:16:50] We can implement that into our Septembers into our school.
[2:16:56] Kind of create a Spirit week like wearing gold and stuff
[2:17:01] like that.
[2:17:01] I remember we did it at our old school.
[2:17:04] My mom can confirm.
[2:17:06] Yeah, still do.
[2:17:09] I felt like we fought really hard.
[2:17:13] We come along with the people who didn't survive,
[2:17:18] and everybody else.
[2:17:20] The parents deserve to be recognized.
[2:17:22] This could really help us raise awareness for cancer.
[2:17:28] If we keep doing stuff like this,
[2:17:31] maybe we can raise enough funds to create better treatments
[2:17:36] for children.
[2:17:37] We are stuck with medicines from the 80s and the 60s.
[2:17:42] It does more harm than good.
[2:17:44] Actually my second cancer was from the treatment
[2:17:47] from my first cancer, which is pretty ironic.
[2:17:50] My first cancer was a tumor.
[2:17:52] My second cancer was a blood cancer from it.
[2:17:55] I really want to thank you for what you do
[2:17:59] and for keeping the city great.
[2:18:00] All of our elected officials here
[2:18:03] for also doing the same thing.
[2:18:06] Keeping our city safe, clean, and strong.
[2:18:11] Strong.
[2:18:11] That's the word of the day.
[2:18:13] Strong!
[2:18:14] Thank you.
[2:18:18] [Applause]
[2:18:18] >> Thank you so very much.
[2:18:20] Let's take a photo.
[2:18:22] >> We have fantastic little gold ribbons that we can pass out all
[2:18:26] to the commissioners.
[2:18:27] >> Let's take a photo and then you can pass those out.
[2:18:30] Wonderful.
[2:18:58] >> Thank you very much.
[2:19:08] Thank you so very very much.
[2:19:15] [Applause] It was good to see you.
[2:20:01] >> Thank you.
[2:20:02] I am going to put this on right now.
[2:20:13] >> It was nice to see you.
[2:20:14] It was a pleasure.
[2:20:16] >> Thank you.
[2:20:28] >> I think it's on.
[2:20:29] Great.
[2:20:30] Thank you very very much.
[2:20:34] now we have our commission auditor,
[2:20:36] who is here to present the completed order plan for 2026.
[2:20:42] If you would draw near please.
[2:20:47] Your name and affiliation for the record.
[2:20:55] >> Hello, Kristi Clemens, Commissioner auditor.
[2:20:59] >> Pull it down a little bit.
[2:21:01] >> I'm joined by doctor Jamie Amos,
[2:21:03] who is the day to day engagement lead on your commission audits.
[2:21:10] I don't see the presentation up here
[2:21:13] we are here to present on three of the audits that
[2:21:16] have been completed on the audit plan and issued.
[2:21:19] The first one is --
[2:21:22] I'm sorry, the presentation is not up here
[2:21:25] remediation and validation.
[2:21:27] We re reviewed reports.
[2:21:30] Thank you.
[2:21:32] From 20 to 2024, that had observations and findings
[2:21:38] associated with them.
[2:21:39] We're able to validate that all items but one
[2:21:42] had been remediated.
[2:21:43] That is good news.
[2:21:46] We will be following up on that one remaining item.
[2:21:51] Before the end of the year.
[2:21:53] There wasn't enough evidence to validate it.
[2:21:56] Because they had just recently started
[2:21:59] performing that remediation.
[2:22:02] >> Okay.
[2:22:03] >> The permitting process efficiency audit.
[2:22:07] With that, we looked at the efficiency of the processes
[2:22:12] around the permitting process.
[2:22:15] With that, there were three recommendations
[2:22:19] that we identified out of that.
[2:22:23] For the most part, the processes were efficient.
[2:22:28] The three items that were noted were very low risk items.
[2:22:33] One related to the permit technicians
[2:22:38] closing the completed permits within the system.
[2:22:42] They were still showing open a couple with those.
[2:22:46] The other one has to do with monitoring for permits that
[2:22:50] remain open that are requiring some type of action
[2:22:54] from the applicant.
[2:22:57] At 180 days, they expire and they should
[2:23:01] be closed due to inactivity.
[2:23:02] We noted one of those.
[2:23:05] During our audit, they started automating the notification
[2:23:09] to applicants.
[2:23:11] We see that as a process improvement.
[2:23:14] We just recommend that they continue utilizing the system
[2:23:19] to its highest capabilities.
[2:23:22] With that, the next one is the utility billing accuracy audit
[2:23:28] that we did.
[2:23:29] With that, there was no findings noted.
[2:23:32] We looked how they were reading meters.
[2:23:35] How they're looking for potential errors.
[2:23:38] Looking at the billing process.
[2:23:41] There were no exceptions noted.
[2:23:44] With that, we would like to thank the staff who
[2:23:48] worked closely with us.
[2:23:50] They were very responsive.
[2:23:52] We appreciate that.
[2:23:56] >> Anything else?
[2:23:57] >> Any questions?
[2:23:59] >> Anything, commissioners?
[2:24:01] Thank you very very much for your presentation
[2:24:03] and for the work that you do.
[2:24:05] You are the internal audit arm of the city.
[2:24:08] Separate and apart from you we also have the year end audit.
[2:24:12] And I know that you are being in contact with them as well.
[2:24:19] We also mentioned before we have citizens Budget Council here
[2:24:23] in Pembroke Pines.
[2:24:24] That's not something every city has.
[2:24:27] The money in this city is looked at,
[2:24:31] as you can tell from our budget discussion comment
[2:24:35] with a great deal of scrutiny.
[2:24:37] A great deal of interest.
[2:24:39] It is for that reason, that the city
[2:24:43] has kept not only its finance, but its operating practices.
[2:24:49] Working well and our internal control structure,
[2:24:53] is a strong and vibrant one.
[2:24:56] A robust one.
[2:24:58] We thank you for everything you do to help us stay that way.
[2:25:03] Thank you very much.
[2:25:07] Okay.
[2:25:11] Of peals of board of adjustment decisions.
[2:25:15] None.
[2:25:17] >> Hearing none.
[2:25:19] >> Any announcements of board and committee appointments.
[2:25:21] >> None, mayor.
[2:25:23] >> Thank you very much.
[2:25:24] Today's consent agenda items is one through 13.
[2:25:28] Commissioners, what is your pleasure?
[2:25:30] Any polls?
[2:25:31] Seeing none.
[2:25:32] Any from the public?
[2:25:34] Seeing none.
[2:25:34] Can I have a motion.
[2:25:37] >> Motion to approve.
[2:25:39] >> Moved by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner good.
[2:25:43] Any discussion?
[2:25:45] >> I want again thank the city administration for the MoU that
[2:25:49] is being approved for the Broward Teachers Union.
[2:25:52] >> Yes.
[2:25:53] I know that they will be very very pleased.
[2:25:58] Anything else?
[2:25:59] All those in favor say aye any opposed?
[2:26:03] That passes unanimously.
[2:26:05] City Attorney, we are on regular agenda.
[2:26:11] >> Thank you, mayor, may I continue for the record.
[2:26:14] If you will come at the regular agenda
[2:26:16] actual begins with item number 14.
[2:26:18] Number 14 reads as follow and the public consumption
[2:26:21] and for the mayor Commission discussion and possible action
[2:26:24] to discuss August 5th, 26 draft for solicitation for building
[2:26:29] Department services, direction on potential revisions
[2:26:32] and approvals to advertise RFP number AD 2601 operation
[2:26:37] and management of the Building Department.
[2:26:40] It's in public record item.
[2:26:42] It's a item for mayor and commission
[2:26:44] and requires your attendance and guidance this evening
[2:26:47] through the administration to the mayor Commission.
[2:26:49] Thank you.
[2:26:51] >> Okay.
[2:26:52] I know there was a survey that was passed around.
[2:26:57] Some sort of consensus could be gotten on what
[2:27:02] is a very long list of items.
[2:27:55] Okay.
[2:27:56] Mr. Gomes come if you'd walk us through this.
[2:28:03] >> Good evening, everyone, Mark Gomes,
[2:28:06] assistant city manager slash director of procurement
[2:28:08] and sustainability.
[2:28:09] As mayor said, we did send out a survey.
[2:28:13] Obviously, as you know, we've met many times in regards
[2:28:16] to this item.
[2:28:17] A couple workshops and agenda items
[2:28:19] discussing the draft solicitation
[2:28:21] for the building department.
[2:28:23] So we did recently is we sent out
[2:28:25] a survey to get this various items from the last workshop
[2:28:29] that we did.
[2:28:30] That are still pending and we need direction
[2:28:32] from the City Commission.
[2:28:33] We outlined that in the agenda item
[2:28:35] and we also set a survey recently
[2:28:37] to get understanding of where the City Commission lied
[2:28:41] on some of these items.
[2:28:44] See if there's any consensus.
[2:28:46] As you can see on the page I just handed out,
[2:28:50] there are certain items that are highlighted in green here
[2:28:53] for the three commissioners that responded to that survey.
[2:28:55] There's a consensus on.
[2:28:57] Then the items highlighted in yellow.
[2:28:59] Two of the three commissioners were on the same page.
[2:29:02] Besides that, I also handed out a copy of the survey
[2:29:07] that we sent out.
[2:29:08] Which is pretty much outlining the items
[2:29:10] in the agenda from the last meeting.
[2:29:12] On which we need direction on.
[2:29:18] >> Mr. Mayor, for full disclosure,
[2:29:20] the survey came in last night in the email.
[2:29:24] I was celebrating my 44th birthday with my family.
[2:29:28] So I didn't complete that survey.
[2:29:31] >> Happy birthday to you Commissioner Good.
[2:29:35] In fact, happy birthday to all of us.
[2:29:41] Go ahead.
[2:29:41] Don't worry about it.
[2:29:42] We do not fill out every survey.
[2:29:45] It happens.
[2:29:46] We're all very very busy people.
[2:29:48] We all do the best that we can.
[2:29:50] I know that all of us do.
[2:29:52] How do you want to proceed?
[2:29:54] >> We'd like commission's direction on each one
[2:29:56] of the items.
[2:29:58] >> Do you want to go one at a time?
[2:30:01] >> I think that would be >> The first item is:
[2:30:05] How much time should firms be provided to submit proposals
[2:30:08] following the advertisement of the RFP.
[2:30:11] Two people said eight weeks.
[2:30:12] I said four.
[2:30:14] Eight sounds fine to me.
[2:30:16] Anybody object to eight?
[2:30:18] >> I would agree to eight.
[2:30:20] >> I'm the cause right and we had --
[2:30:24] I thought we were going to be done by now.
[2:30:28] I thought we were actually going to be able to sitting here
[2:30:31] tonight selecting somebody.
[2:30:33] >> No, we're going to go through this list.
[2:30:35] We've had two workshops.
[2:30:38] >> We had three.
[2:30:39] >> And didn't respond to the survey.
[2:30:41] We're going to go one at a time.
[2:30:44] >> I was also celebrating.
[2:30:45] I was also celebrating vice mayor's birthday.
[2:30:49] >> Well come a happy birthday.
[2:30:51] The question before us
[2:30:54] [Cross-talk]
[2:30:55] >> I did communicate with Mr. Gomez verbally.
[2:30:57] I provided verbally all of the questions.
[2:31:02] We actually spoke to our times.
[2:31:05] >> The question now is: Eight weeks.
[2:31:07] I have people who are happy with eight weeks.
[2:31:09] Are you good?
[2:31:11] >> I was going with six.
[2:31:13] I'll go with eight.
[2:31:15] Here's my concern, my only concern is --
[2:31:19] we have a long list here.
[2:31:21] Go ahead.
[2:31:22] We have a long >> We go eight weeks.
[2:31:28] That puts us at the beginning of November.
[2:31:30] Mr. Gomez anticipating potentially for dates.
[2:31:35] Give us the forecast of when this comes back
[2:31:39] to the commission after you go through all your reviews and all
[2:31:42] the stuff you do on procurement.
[2:31:44] You're able to do that.
[2:31:47] I prepped you in advance.
[2:31:50] For that >> Attach to the backup for the agenda item
[2:31:55] is an estimated timeline.
[2:31:56] Based on this eight week solicitation process,
[2:32:00] we anticipate coming back to the City Commission on March 3rd
[2:32:03] with the item to approve the negotiated contract to begin
[2:32:08] the transition process.
[2:32:10] >> Honestly, put down four weeks,
[2:32:12] because I feel if they can't do it four weeks,
[2:32:14] then they don't know what they're doing.
[2:32:15] If we're going to eight weeks, I won't object.
[2:32:19] >> Mr. Gomez mentioned March 3rd.
[2:32:21] That's also a deadline that this commission
[2:32:23] imposed on our current vendor.
[2:32:27] Mr. Gomez, anticipating the possibility of an eight week.
[2:32:32] What would be the implication of a transition period
[2:32:35] if we wait that long?
[2:32:38] >> As you mentioned, the current contract we have ends around
[2:32:42] March of 2026. --
[2:32:45] 27.
[2:32:46] >> 27.
[2:32:47] We may have to extend that agreement
[2:32:50] to have the transition process take
[2:32:55] >> There's no guarantee that that would
[2:32:56] be agreeable by both parties.
[2:32:58] It's an assumption.
[2:33:01] >> Which both parties?
[2:33:02] >> The city and the current vendor.
[2:33:04] >> They don't get a say in this.
[2:33:06] This is our RFP.
[2:33:07] Let's focus.
[2:33:09] >> I want you to focus, it's a transition period on March 3rd
[2:33:12] of 2027 period
[2:33:15] >> If we say it's eight weeks, they'll figure a way to do it.
[2:33:18] We've already asked these questions.
[2:33:20] The question before us is eight weeks.
[2:33:24] Are we good?
[2:33:25] All right let's move on to the next item the next item is --
[2:33:31] >> Mr. Mayor -- >> Forgive me I'm having difficulty reading
[2:33:36] this.
[2:33:37] Is there a way you can bring it up on the screen?
[2:33:39] >> Mr. Mayor, just a comment for the record,
[2:33:42] as you go through this list, you're accepting consensus with
[2:33:46] your colleagues as opposed to motioning it.
[2:33:48] The record reflects your consensus on the item.
[2:33:51] The staff can be guided accordingly.
[2:33:53] Thank you, >> Should the RFP remain
[2:33:58] a non-mandatory Pre-bid meeting.
[2:34:00] Everyone said yes.
[2:34:01] Any objection?
[2:34:02] It will be included.
[2:34:05] The next one is should city staff
[2:34:08] document all verbal questions?
[2:34:10] Everybody said yes.
[2:34:13] Any objections?
[2:34:14] So noted.
[2:34:15] The next question was: Should the city clerk
[2:34:20] be required to attend the meeting.
[2:34:25] Everyone said yes.
[2:34:27] Any objection?
[2:34:28] We are good there.
[2:34:30] The next one was : Should the RFP remain the proposed minimum
[2:34:45] required roles and staffing levels?
[2:34:49] I'm reading this to say that everyone said yes.
[2:34:54] Any objections to that?
[2:34:56] That is good.
[2:34:59] >> One second.
[2:34:59] That one I did find a little bit confusing.
[2:35:02] Should the RFP retain the proposed minimum.
[2:35:05] Right above it it provides option A and option
[2:35:08] B. I thought that was supposed to say,
[2:35:10] option A or option B, which one was the preference?
[2:35:15] >> Just to clarify, if I may, there's option A and option B.
[2:35:21] Those both have minimum requirements.
[2:35:23] So there's minimum role assignments
[2:35:25] for option A, 18 role assignments.
[2:35:28] Filled at least by 17 individuals.
[2:35:30] Because assistant building official
[2:35:32] can serve as one of the trade chiefs.
[2:35:35] Similarly, option B would be the city providing those two staff
[2:35:39] members.
[2:35:40] Which will be the chief building official and the building
[2:35:44] department manager.
[2:35:45] This is just C1, is asking is the City Commission
[2:35:50] fine with retaining those minimum requirements
[2:35:52] for both options.
[2:35:54] >> For both options.
[2:35:55] Then I change mine to yes.
[2:35:58] >> Those two are done.
[2:36:00] We are on C3 now.
[2:36:03] >> C2.
[2:36:04] >> I thought we just did that one.
[2:36:06] >> We did c1.
[2:36:08] >> Should RFP retain the ability for assistant building official
[2:36:11] to also serve as one of the four required trade chiefs?
[2:36:15] I am reading this to be yes.
[2:36:19] Anyone object?
[2:36:22] >> I'm not going to on this one -- >> Anyone else?
[2:36:26] So, that one's good.
[2:36:27] The next one is C3 now.
[2:36:29] Should the RFP remain maintain the restrictions
[2:36:33] of the minimum required dedicated personnel shall
[2:36:36] be prohibited from simultaneously providing
[2:36:39] building department services to other jurisdictions.
[2:36:43] I am seeing yes.
[2:36:46] Adapted as necessary.
[2:36:47] That sounds like three yeses to me.
[2:36:50] Anyone object?
[2:36:53] >> I'm not saying yes to retain the restriction but only while
[2:36:56] they're --
[2:37:07] >> Mic, please.
[2:37:10] >> My answer was yes, but only during their work hours.
[2:37:13] Not during their off time.
[2:37:16] >> Anyone object to that >> Is a break,
[2:37:21] because one of the mentions was a break clocked hours?
[2:37:26] >> A break is not clocked our.
[2:37:28] Lunch hour is not a clocked hour.
[2:37:29] Otherwise, you run into mischief.
[2:37:32] If they're on their own time period out of the office.
[2:37:37] >> If they're on their own time, they should be subject to this
[2:37:40] period my thought is during a lunch break.
[2:37:46] >> They're on salary during lunch period they get paid
[2:37:48] lunch.
[2:37:53] >> Is the breaks mentioned in the questionnaire.
[2:37:55] Would that be on the clock or off the clock?
[2:38:00] >> And the solicitation, we stated that the current language
[2:38:03] states that they can't provide services while they're doing
[2:38:06] their scheduled working hour.
[2:38:08] Including breaks.
[2:38:08] If they start at say a m and go to 6 p.m..
[2:38:12] The lunch break would also be included that they cannot
[2:38:15] provide those private -- >> IG report on this thing.
[2:38:22] >> If they call it sick that day,
[2:38:24] they're still scheduled but they show up,
[2:38:26] they wouldn't be able to do it.
[2:38:29] >> If they're collecting --
[2:38:32] I read this to mean, if they're collecting,
[2:38:35] which is a paid six day PT p o, they
[2:38:39] can't use that day permit after hours they can go.
[2:38:42] Like a Saturday or Sunday.
[2:38:44] If they're off on a day, they can do it whatever they want.
[2:38:49] >> Thank you.
[2:38:50] >> I think that's just too restrictive.
[2:38:56] >> Let's put it to a vote.
[2:38:57] >> I understand the concept of a lunch.
[2:38:59] If they choose to take a half day, full day, whatever it
[2:39:03] may be.
[2:39:05] >> If it's on their time or our time period
[2:39:07] >> If they take the time off, that's their time period
[2:39:11] >> If we're paying them.
[2:39:12] >> If we're paying them, it's not their time.
[2:39:16] If they take time without pay.
[2:39:21] If they take PTO, they're on their time.
[2:39:24] There was just an IG report on this.
[2:39:28] >> It doesn't make sense.
[2:39:29] The IG report they were doing it while they were still
[2:39:31] on the clock.
[2:39:32] This is not on the clock.
[2:39:34] >> That's correct.
[2:39:36] >> The city attorney.
[2:39:38] >> If you put in for time off, your time off.
[2:39:42] >> If it's vacation time or if it's sick time and it's part
[2:39:47] of your own time, that is one thing.
[2:39:51] If it's city time you're collecting a benefit.
[2:39:56] You are working on city time.
[2:40:01] >> I think I'm coming to understand where Commissioner
[2:40:03] good is coming from.
[2:40:05] When I worked at the county.
[2:40:07] I took time off to go do things that I couldn't do on county
[2:40:11] time.
[2:40:12] You would take the time off to be able to do those things,
[2:40:17] even though in theory, you're taking time off.
[2:40:19] The agency is paying you.
[2:40:22] >> That's the mayor's point.
[2:40:24] If you're getting paid for it, it
[2:40:25] means that you've accrued a benefit.
[2:40:27] >> That's right.
[2:40:29] >> But you're taking time >> But you're being paid for that time
[2:40:32] off.
[2:40:33] The city is paying you that time.
[2:40:34] That's part of your compensation.
[2:40:35] You get to get some time off.
[2:40:38] >> Not to pick on -- >> They can go on vacation.
[2:40:43] >> Not to pick on police or anything,
[2:40:44] but let's say our police officer takes time off.
[2:40:47] I don't know if that's true.
[2:40:49] Does private security.
[2:40:51] They're not allowed to do private security
[2:40:53] during their time off?
[2:40:56] >> Not unless it's an approved detail.
[2:40:59] >> Okay.
[2:41:01] >> PD obviously has specific rules and regulations.
[2:41:07] >> The whole point of this, Commissioner, and let's back up.
[2:41:10] The whole point is not to have Pembroke Pines implicated
[2:41:15] by an association with the part time work.
[2:41:20] If you're going to work part time, it should be on your time.
[2:41:23] Should have nothing to do with city compensated time.
[2:41:26] Whether on the clock or off the clock on PTO.
[2:41:31] If you being compensated, you shouldn't use
[2:41:35] that time for part time work.
[2:41:38] >> Could they ask for paid time off?
[2:41:42] >> They can.
[2:41:44] >> Again we're not paying employee for the service
[2:41:46] provider to provide a staff person there to do a job.
[2:41:53] If it's person A B or C it doesn't matter.
[2:41:56] As long as they have it filled.
[2:41:58] That's the whole point behind it.
[2:42:00] The roles and all this other good stuff.
[2:42:21] >> Were paying the company.
[2:42:22] Someone want to make a motion on this?
[2:42:26] >> Mayor, I'm going to let you make the motion.
[2:42:29] >> I don't make motions.
[2:42:32] >> Give me the language you would support.
[2:42:34] >> I make a motion that we only have the restriction when they
[2:42:41] are clocked in.
[2:42:43] And that does not include the break or lunch hour.
[2:42:47] >> I will second for discussion.
[2:42:49] I'd really like to hear from the manager on this.
[2:42:52] I don't know how I'm going to vote on it.
[2:42:54] For the assistant manager.
[2:42:57] >> There's a second.
[2:42:58] You can ask your question.
[2:43:02] >> Define it.
[2:43:03] >> My stance as City manager is the context that comes along
[2:43:06] with this and when this was first discussed,
[2:43:10] is that staff was concerned that a person would serve as one
[2:43:16] of our trade chiefs, but could also be a building official
[2:43:20] and another city.
[2:43:21] Therefore the staff here at the city of Pembroke Pines,
[2:43:24] would not have the dedicated time we need to serve.
[2:43:28] There's a second question I'll come up in your survey
[2:43:30] that I really believe the lunch break type issue can happen.
[2:43:33] We have asked the commission.
[2:43:38] >> I just exempted that.
[2:43:39] So it's not a lunch break issue here.
[2:43:42] >> He took it out.
[2:43:44] >> They can't do it on a lunch break.
[2:43:46] >> What was I going to suggest you is the dual role issue.
[2:43:50] We've given you another question where
[2:43:52] it's Monday through Friday, during regular business hours.
[2:43:56] Again, I do not want to put yourself in a situation
[2:43:59] where you say yes here but you contradict yourself
[2:44:01] on the second vote.
[2:44:03] If that makes sense, mayor.
[2:44:06] >> Two Commissioner Rodriguez's point,
[2:44:08] which you need to restate it, Commissioner,
[2:44:10] but who are you paying?
[2:44:13] Are you paying an individual are you paying a company?
[2:44:17] If Mike Hernandez, is the building department and Angela
[2:44:22] Castillo is one of my employees.
[2:44:24] Wouldn't that be amazing.
[2:44:27] >> I would work for you.
[2:44:30] >> Let's just say he's one of my employees.
[2:44:32] He is not reporting to work that day.
[2:44:35] Tom good fills the slot.
[2:44:38] They meet the minimum requirements.
[2:44:40] Angela is not being paid or is being paid at that moment
[2:44:44] by the city of Pembroke Pines.
[2:44:46] My question is, are you paying the entity,
[2:44:48] the company that's doing the work or the individual.
[2:44:51] Are we actually paying individuals?
[2:44:54] >> We're paying the entity.
[2:44:56] It's very important, vice mayor, the context of this question
[2:45:00] was about serving in required positions in two
[2:45:05] locations at the same time.
[2:45:07] Staff's concern, I know this migrated into a different place.
[2:45:12] Staff's concern is that our chief structural,
[2:45:17] whoever that person may be in the future,
[2:45:19] cannot be in the ability permit could not serve as a building
[2:45:23] official or chief structural and another location.
[2:45:26] What staff needed as part of the situation
[2:45:29] with dedicated position is people
[2:45:31] who are here to serve the city of Pembroke Pines.
[2:45:35] >> From a staff's perspective, security we're looking for.
[2:45:39] That's what the second question comes up.
[2:45:45] >> There any objection to what the assistant city manager just
[2:45:48] said, that the officials will only serve the city of Pembroke
[2:45:51] Pines?
[2:45:51] Is anyone object to that?
[2:45:53] I'm not hearing an objection.
[2:45:56] >> I'm still missing that point.
[2:45:58] Just serving the city.
[2:46:01] All these providers have a requirement
[2:46:08] to fill the position with a qualified staff person.
[2:46:14] Whether that qualified staff person is person A B or C,
[2:46:18] as long as they're there on the day,
[2:46:20] I don't think we should be meddling
[2:46:23] with those kind of details within that organization.
[2:46:26] >> I've got to tell you Commissioner good,
[2:46:28] this rarely happens.
[2:46:30] I 150% disagree.
[2:46:32] I want to know who they are proposing.
[2:46:35] I do not want bait and switch down the road
[2:46:38] that we should hire our own staff.
[2:46:41] >> No we don't have to hire our own staff.
[2:46:43] That's not what we're talking about.
[2:46:47] We are getting our money's worth out of a contract.
[2:46:50] We have that now.
[2:46:52] There are other companies that may want
[2:46:54] to engage in other practices.
[2:46:56] In my opinion, that does not work for us.
[2:46:59] If you want to work for Pembroke Pines,
[2:47:01] you have to propose dedicated people in your proposal who
[2:47:06] we know are going to be there.
[2:47:09] Not a bunch of an apparent all start list.
[2:47:13] Then when the first day of the contract shows up,
[2:47:15] is the B squad.
[2:47:17] I'm not interested in that.
[2:47:19] I'm interested in them delivering
[2:47:21] people they said they want.
[2:47:24] They're quality people who we rank them on.
[2:47:27] And nobody else.
[2:47:28] And they should hold on to them, of course people
[2:47:31] die, they move away, they take other jobs,
[2:47:33] all that's understandable.
[2:47:35] Just moving a company moving from here
[2:47:38] to there without the approval of the contract manager.
[2:47:42] I am not involved in that.
[2:47:44] That's not what I am looking for.
[2:47:47] That's not what the company is rated on.
[2:47:50] That is not something I'm interested in.
[2:47:52] I just have to tell you come on that one,
[2:47:55] it's a bridge too far for me.
[2:47:57] It's up to you guys.
[2:47:59] >> I could probably agree for sure if we were still operating
[2:48:02] off a traditional model.
[2:48:04] The model has been substantially changed this past legislation
[2:48:08] session.
[2:48:09] They gave the private providers the right
[2:48:11] to do that our staff or our contractor would otherwise do.
[2:48:16] It's going to create an incredible shift
[2:48:20] in this industry.
[2:48:21] This is something -- >> I don't care.
[2:48:29] it's to me -- >> It sounds like I could be the deciding vote.
[2:48:37] I've listened to both sides and I've spoken to administration
[2:48:40] exclusively on this.
[2:48:41] I am going to be with Commissioner good.
[2:48:45] I think there are changing dynamics in the industry.
[2:48:50] >> If I may, I don't know if I focused how I'm voting.
[2:48:55] I just asked what the mayor wanted to do.
[2:48:58] What concerns me about a private provider,
[2:49:03] it said a 101 and I said back in June is that if we're going
[2:49:09] to go down this path, we cannot have a chief building official
[2:49:14] in-house.
[2:49:15] Because then we're going to have an ethics conflict.
[2:49:21] >> There's no ethics conflicts.
[2:49:23] Just stay on this matter.
[2:49:28] >> Let's please stay on the motion we have.
[2:49:30] It can be managed in any way that we say.
[2:49:34] >> I guess if this were the past, the way this is,
[2:49:38] it's going to fundamentally change the way that Pembroke
[2:49:42] Pines has been doing.
[2:49:45] Building services.
[2:49:47] >> Is changing already.
[2:49:49] >> For no good reason in my opinion.
[2:49:51] >> Yes, there are dynamics that are changing.
[2:49:56] Vice mayor, and colleagues, this is not the direction.
[2:50:06] If we go down this path, you're not going to get it back.
[2:50:12] It is -- it is -- mayor and I have.
[2:50:18] I mean the mayor was part of the original --
[2:50:23] >> Mayor can we call the question.
[2:50:27] >> Please please this is a big deal.
[2:50:29] Anything on the list, this is the one item
[2:50:32] that there really is a game changer.
[2:50:36] >> Can I get some clarification.
[2:50:38] There's something being misunderstood.
[2:50:41] What staff is suggesting on this item
[2:50:43] is that it's for another jurisdiction.
[2:50:45] I'm not suggesting for any moment
[2:50:48] that on Saturday and Sunday that if our building official works
[2:50:53] as a private provider for another company or for a company
[2:50:56] that he can't go to that work.
[2:50:57] What we're saying and what we're asking for,
[2:50:59] is our building officials are building officials.
[2:51:02] That are structural chief is our structural >> That's right.
[2:51:07] That's the way we've always operated here.
[2:51:09] I see absolutely no good publicly policy changes.
[2:51:13] >> I want to make that clarification.
[2:51:14] I know private provider was coming up.
[2:51:17] If one of the people that worked for the companies
[2:51:20] they're coming forward, on the side
[2:51:22] does private provider work for that company,
[2:51:25] because both the companies we've been discussing so far
[2:51:28] have private provider entities.
[2:51:29] They want to do that work on Saturday Sunday, that's
[2:51:32] not for me to say.
[2:51:33] During their time off.
[2:51:35] It's not the same.
[2:51:36] What we're saying here is we have
[2:51:37] dedicated staff in this city.
[2:51:39] If our structural chief needs to do Central Village to do
[2:51:42] reviews, we need that.
[2:51:46] >> Imagine managing your staff and you don't know --
[2:51:51] >> Now this is the one that confuses me.
[2:51:55] >> I'm going to clarify.
[2:51:57] I think we all agree on that.
[2:51:59] I think there is or I think there's consensus.
[2:52:02] I agree on that point as well.
[2:52:05] My question was simply on off time.
[2:52:08] There is a difference.
[2:52:12] Because my train of thought is, and Monday
[2:52:14] on Friday to whatever.
[2:52:15] It's not like these companies have unlimited PTO.
[2:52:19] I assume so.
[2:52:21] Most companies have limited PTO.
[2:52:24] If you ask for vacation time.
[2:52:26] If you ask for off time, it's not
[2:52:29] like we're going to have this bait
[2:52:31] and switch 100% of the time.
[2:52:34] There is a limit to the amount of time off that you take.
[2:52:39] >> I'm telling you that the IG has investigation where
[2:52:42] they've held cities and gross mismanagement for allowing
[2:52:47] employees to do unauthorized work during paid time off.
[2:52:52] Which they are compensated for.
[2:52:54] You open the door and you're inviting an IG complaint.
[2:53:00] In this industry, there has been a history,
[2:53:04] without pointing fingers.
[2:53:07] There has been a history of all kinds of shenanigans.
[2:53:11] Unless the rain is very tightly pulled.
[2:53:14] I cannot go down that path.
[2:53:18] I just can't.
[2:53:21] >> If I -- >> They were doing this simultaneously.
[2:53:28] >> I see no simultaneously.
[2:53:30] >> We were actually a part of the assistance in double
[2:53:35] payment.
[2:53:36] Remember.
[2:53:37] We were part of that process.
[2:53:40] It has happened to us already.
[2:53:43] >> My question to you, Assistant city manager Sam,
[2:53:46] if I were to support -- here's what I want, bottom line.
[2:53:51] The chief building official.
[2:53:53] Like Mr. Pezzullo who's in the back
[2:53:54] is specific to Pembroke Pines.
[2:53:58] I do not want to change that.
[2:54:00] Now tell me what I'm voting on?
[2:54:05] >> C3, was about them serving -- >> I'm not on c3.
[2:54:12] >> We are on c3, right?
[2:54:15] >> Just to clarify, right now we are on c3.
[2:54:18] A lot of the conversation I think is more focused on E.
[2:54:24] >> C3 is yes on everything.
[2:54:27] >> C3 is specifically that are required positions cannot serve
[2:54:33] in that same role in another jurisdiction.
[2:54:37] Everyone said yes, so what is the issue?
[2:54:41] >> The other topic of E was brought up.
[2:54:45] >> Let's just focus on c3.
[2:54:47] All of our officials can only serve
[2:54:49] in that capacity in this city.
[2:54:51] >> The answer is yes by everybody.
[2:54:54] >> Does anyone eject?
[2:54:55] That was a yes.
[2:55:00] >> The motion is made.
[2:55:01] >> The motion is gone.
[2:55:03] >> The next one is c4.
[2:55:07] >> Did we vote on that?
[2:55:10] >> I seconded it.
[2:55:14] >> It is removed.
[2:55:15] It is gone.
[2:55:18] >> It can't be removed.
[2:55:19] >> You can pull it off.
[2:55:22] What would you like to do?
[2:55:25] >> Would you like to vote?
[2:55:30] >> There is a motion and a second on c3.
[2:55:31] Yes we will allow them to work in other jurisdictions and --
[2:55:36] >> It's the other way.
[2:55:40] >> Time off not on the clock.
[2:55:42] Not being paid time off.
[2:55:45] >> Mayor.
[2:55:51] >> On whatever it may be. (Indistinct)
[2:55:54] >> Commissioner, if I may.
[2:55:58] >> Hold on a second.
[2:56:00] All those in favor of the motion indicate
[2:56:03] by saying I. All those opposed to the motion
[2:56:06] indicate by saying no.
[2:56:08] The ayes have it.
[2:56:10] By that motion, we will allow employees of the vendor
[2:56:17] to work in other jurisdictions.
[2:56:19] Do you understand what vote was just taken?
[2:56:25] >> Only on time off?
[2:56:27] >> Did you understand your vote?
[2:56:30] >> One second.
[2:56:31] Hold on.
[2:56:32] As long as my motion, I seconded the motion.
[2:56:37] >> You don't have to vote -- >> Nobody talks me out of my vote
[2:56:43] anyways.
[2:56:44] The point here is, and I understand we went to C3
[2:56:47] and what we were discussing.
[2:56:49] Why I have confusion, C3 says, yes, yes, yes.
[2:56:56] All of them.
[2:56:59] Okay.
[2:57:00] I have indicated, I don't want a chief building
[2:57:04] official that does not work exclusively for the city.
[2:57:07] What I understood from my conversations,
[2:57:10] and that's why I also vote in the majority,
[2:57:12] because I can bring it back up for reconsideration,
[2:57:14] Robert's Rules of order.
[2:57:17] Therefore, was I not just voting on anyone but the chief building
[2:57:23] official?
[2:57:25] >> Mr.!
[2:57:26] With great reduction in the number of words,
[2:57:30] please answer Vice mayor's question as directly as you can.
[2:57:34] What does this item mean?
[2:57:37] >>, to provide the utmost clarity,
[2:57:40] the commissioner's motion brought in item from eight one
[2:57:45] into C. What I described to the commission was that we would
[2:57:50] have dedicated staff and our city.
[2:57:53] Our trade chiefs, building officials, the 18 positions
[2:57:56] and or 15 positions that are outlined here
[2:57:58] would be dedicated to our city.
[2:58:00] That's what this question asks.
[2:58:02] When you reference a three yes votes,
[2:58:04] it was having dedicated positions.
[2:58:06] What happened in the motion, was items from lunch breaks
[2:58:12] and everything else, discussed later, and question E,
[2:58:16] was brought in and blended.
[2:58:18] That's my confusion.
[2:58:20] >> We're not referring to e.
[2:58:22] >> I wanted to vote on c.
[2:58:24] And C said yes.
[2:58:26] >> But the thing is we weren't technically voting on C,
[2:58:28] we're voting on the motion.
[2:58:31] >> Correct.
[2:58:32] The motion was blended.
[2:58:34] >> You'll have to explain it to me.
[2:58:36] I'm getting dizzy.
[2:58:37] I want the chief building officials on the individuals
[2:58:40] to be specific to the city of Pembroke Pines.
[2:58:42] I'm also sympathetic to what Commissioner Goods said.
[2:58:45] There are changes coming whether we like it or not.
[2:58:48] Providing private provider and how we provide this service.
[2:58:51] With all due respect to everyone who's been here,
[2:58:54] Brooke Pines cannot continue to operate the way it has
[2:58:56] for the last several decades.
[2:58:58] Because outside of our control lies are changing and society is
[2:59:01] changing. -- laws are changing in society is changing.
[2:59:07] Mr. Not him specifically, but his position
[2:59:10] be for the city of Pembroke Pines.
[2:59:11] I don't want a chief building official
[2:59:13] saying I'm going to work in Weston today.
[2:59:16] I don't want that.
[2:59:17] However, I'm a semi-intelligent individual.
[2:59:19] The way that this was explained and how
[2:59:22] it got to where it got to come I voted yes
[2:59:25] to bring it up for reconsideration.
[2:59:26] If what I want is not actually what I vote on.
[2:59:29] Does that make sense now?
[2:59:33] >> Let's vote explicitly on what's written on C3.
[2:59:36] Let's tackle each one afterwards.
[2:59:39] >> Is that a motion for consideration,
[2:59:41] Commissioner Rodriguez paramedic
[2:59:43] >> I will second that motion.
[2:59:46] >> Any discussion on reconsideration.
[2:59:48] All those in favor say aye.
[2:59:50] Any opposed?
[2:59:51] That passes unanimously.
[2:59:54] Commissioner Rodriguez is recognized for motion C3.
[2:59:59] >> So I motion that RFP maintain the restrictions of the minimum
[3:00:03] required dedicated slash dedicated personnel shall be
[3:00:06] provided from providing building department services to other
[3:00:09] jurisdictions.
[3:00:11] >> Second to that motion?
[3:00:12] >> Seconding the motion.
[3:00:15] >> Any discussion?
[3:00:16] All those in favor say aye any opposed?
[3:00:18] Okay.
[3:00:19] That passes.
[3:00:21] C4.
[3:00:22] What was c4.
[3:00:27] >> Should the RFP maintain the required H minimum position with
[3:00:31] the exception of official shall be filled by separate dedicated
[3:00:34] individuals otherwise expressly approved in writing
[3:00:37] to the city's contract manager.
[3:00:40] >> One said yes, one said adept is necessary.
[3:00:44] >> This falls along the same line.
[3:00:46] The only line with the assistant city manager position is
[3:00:49] depending -- >> Official.
[3:00:52] >> Excuse me, official.
[3:00:55] >> We're not talking about Mr. Gomez are you.
[3:00:58] >> Depending on the option that's selected,
[3:00:59] option A or option B. Are assistant building official
[3:01:04] could also serve as a trade chief .
[3:01:08] That's a flexible position.
[3:01:11] >> Another jurisdiction or jurisdiction?
[3:01:14] >> Then this is just dedicated to the city.
[3:01:17] It matters on what option gets picked in the future, a or b.
[3:01:22] >> What is your recommendation?
[3:01:24] >> This is something we put in there and the commission asked
[3:01:27] for options.
[3:01:28] >> What is your recommendation?
[3:01:31] >> Yes.
[3:01:35] >> (Indistinct)
[3:01:36] >> Any.
[3:01:36] They do a great job.
[3:01:38] The auditors just told us.
[3:01:40] >> And one of the things were -- >>Mic, please.
[3:01:50] >> The reason I believe that I put adapt is necessary
[3:01:53] because you're going to wind up having to change.
[3:01:56] That you continue to put on here.
[3:01:58] That we're going to hold staff that's not necessary.
[3:02:01] And those staff hours are going to be built into the permit fees
[3:02:06] and white residents are going to have to pay those permit fees.
[3:02:11] >> Unless otherwise expressly approved in writing
[3:02:14] by the city's contract managers.
[3:02:20] If it's necessary for the contract manager
[3:02:23] should be able to deal with that.
[3:02:26] >> I'm just making it very clear that my opposition to this is I
[3:02:29] believe that some of these issues are going to a cost
[3:02:34] driver that's not necessary for my residents to have to pay
[3:02:37] for permit.
[3:02:39] >> I totally agree.
[3:02:42] >> Once the private providers come in we take a substantial
[3:02:46] amount of work off of the buildings.
[3:02:49] >> You'd be contract manager?
[3:02:52] >> As of today, I would be.
[3:02:55] >> I would encourage you to heed Commissioner good is saying
[3:03:00] because nobody wants to imagine that you would incur any more
[3:03:03] expense on anything than we absolutely have to.
[3:03:07] >> I think it's extremely important to understand.
[3:03:10] We currently have approximately 50 personnel
[3:03:13] in the building department.
[3:03:17] The flexibility that a private company serving as our building
[3:03:21] department provides comment that a person, that company,
[3:03:24] can make adjustments to those personnel.
[3:03:27] What we've identified in this proposal
[3:03:29] is that a certain amount of staff, minimum staff,
[3:03:32] is required.
[3:03:33] These are the professional staff that
[3:03:35] can shift clerks in and out.
[3:03:38] They can shift additional inspectors in and out.
[3:03:40] This is the minimum amount of staff,
[3:03:43] with certain credentials, that we need to operate the building
[3:03:48] department.
[3:03:49] Considering changes in private provider, Et-cetera.
[3:03:54] We have not put in here that I need
[3:03:57] to have the same 40 staff paramedic I
[3:03:59] know that gets missed.
[3:04:01] I completely understand what the commission is going
[3:04:04] and there's a change.
[3:04:06] I know it's difficult to grasp, because you don't touch it
[3:04:09] every day.
[3:04:09] And I apologize for my passion when it comes to this.
[3:04:12] We see the ebbs and flows of plus or -4000 permits.
[3:04:16] If the permits go down, there's still
[3:04:18] work to be done on private provider.
[3:04:21] This is the minimum.
[3:04:22] I hope that is clear.
[3:04:24] I apologize.
[3:04:26] >> I have to tell you that even in baseball,
[3:04:29] tight goes to the runner.
[3:04:32] C-4, can somebody make motion with the language
[3:04:35] consistent with C four.
[3:04:37] >> I make the motion.
[3:04:39] >> That's moved by Commissioner Rodriguez.
[3:04:41] Is there a second?
[3:04:43] Seconded by the vice mayor.
[3:04:46] Any further discussion on C4?
[3:04:48] All those in favor say aye.
[3:04:50] Any opposed?
[3:04:51] That passes unanimously.
[3:04:54] C five, let's walk through C five.
[3:04:57] Should the RFP maintain the requirements that staff
[3:05:02] fulfilling minimum positions shall remain assigned
[3:05:06] to designated disciplines, while allowing an appropriately
[3:05:11] qualified and certified employee to provide limited
[3:05:14] and temporaries -- who keeps moving this.
[3:05:18] I can't read it if you move it.
[3:05:22] Temporary assistance and another discipline
[3:05:24] with the written approval of the city's contract manager.
[3:05:28] Explain what that means.
[3:05:30] >> This came up during their workshop.
[3:05:32] Again, it was to allow flexibility.
[3:05:36] Commissioner good come I believe you kind of allude to this.
[3:05:39] That if somebody had different credentials,
[3:05:42] could they fill that role on a temporary basis and fill in?
[3:05:45] Again, the reason we're here is because we
[3:05:50] heard a bunch of things.
[3:05:51] We're trying to hone in, we're in agreement on this end.
[3:05:55] >> Anyone wants to make a motion as written?
[3:05:58] >> I don't think we need to make motions.
[3:06:00] I think there would be consensus for some of these.
[3:06:03] >> I want to make sure that we're not jumping over at.
[3:06:06] Does anyone object?
[3:06:08] >> I have a question.
[3:06:10] If the same, yes, keep this.
[3:06:13] I'm trying to land these planes here.
[3:06:15] I'm sympathetic to what Commissioner Good is saying.
[3:06:19] I also understand what you're trying to get at.
[3:06:23] However, there may need to be adaptation.
[3:06:25] That's what we're trying to do.
[3:06:28] >> That's why it says -- >> -- it will explicitly say that.
[3:06:34] >> It literally says, while allowing provide --
[3:06:39] with their written approval of the city's contract manager.
[3:06:44] Their flexibility is in the link.
[3:06:47] >> As long as it's also in the RFP and also followed and not
[3:06:50] just here for us.
[3:06:55] >> Does anyone object to c5?
[3:06:56] That gets done.
[3:06:58] Now we are on c6.
[3:07:02] Mr. City attorney.
[3:07:05] Is that Mr. City manager.
[3:07:09] >> RFP the requirement that cross-disciplinary assistance
[3:07:13] may not be used to count what individual is filling two
[3:07:15] or more minimum required positions.
[3:07:17] Eliminate a required position or otherwise reduce
[3:07:20] applicable staffing levels.
[3:07:23] >> And why does this make sense?
[3:07:25] >> Mayor, I'm going to use as my reference.
[3:07:27] If you have the credentials to be the chief building officials
[3:07:32] -- excuse me, check that.
[3:07:34] Credentials to be chief structural and a chief plumbing.
[3:07:38] You cannot serve into those two roles at the same time,
[3:07:41] except a temporary situation where we're transitioning
[3:07:44] or something like that.
[3:07:45] Although it's very rare that someone
[3:07:47] has all these credentials.
[3:07:48] Again, staff's preference is this
[3:07:51] is only on a temporary basis, not
[3:07:53] on a permanent basis, so that our minimum capacity,
[3:07:56] minimum roles.
[3:07:58] >> Anybody have objection to that?
[3:08:00] >> My question would be if private providers come
[3:08:02] in and our work gets slashed in half.
[3:08:05] That would be an exaggeration or something like that.
[3:08:09] Our work gets slashed in half.
[3:08:11] Would we still all agree that only one person per role?
[3:08:16] >> Commissioner, if I could clarify.
[3:08:17] I don't know how these companies are
[3:08:20] going to bid on this are going to run their businesses.
[3:08:22] If a private provider comes in they're
[3:08:24] no longer going to provide the extra inspectors,
[3:08:27] extra plant reviewers.
[3:08:28] Chiefs and dedicated roles that were requesting,
[3:08:32] again, are the minimum.
[3:08:34] They will make cuts as necessary.
[3:08:36] That's what they do.
[3:08:38] >> The extras.
[3:08:39] They're saying it wouldn't be of the minimum staffing.
[3:08:41] Correct?
[3:08:43] >> Correct.
[3:08:44] That makes sense.
[3:08:47] >> We have disciplines of structural electrical mechanical
[3:08:49] and plumbing.
[3:08:50] Of the four, mechanical and plumbing
[3:08:52] would generally be the closest that would bind together.
[3:08:55] To have a structural and plumbing,
[3:08:58] those are two different trade schools.
[3:09:00] That doesn't generally happen in the industry.
[3:09:03] You can see a mechanical and plumbing go together.
[3:09:07] But that's about the extent of it.
[3:09:12] >> Can I ask a question.
[3:09:13] >> Yes, sir.
[3:09:15] >> In the private provider somebody qualified for all
[3:09:18] the disciplines, can they sign all?
[3:09:21] >> That would be an engineer.
[3:09:24] >> If a private provider is qualified in all
[3:09:27] the disciplines, would they be able to sign for each one
[3:09:30] of those disciplines?
[3:09:32] >> That is my understanding.
[3:09:34] >> Why would we be different than the real world business out
[3:09:37] there?
[3:09:40] >> Commissioner, in all fairness,
[3:09:42] use the word private provider, individual typically
[3:09:46] doesn't work in that role.
[3:09:48] >> Is the company.
[3:09:50] >> They may have all those disciplines within their.
[3:09:54] [Cross-talk]
[3:09:55] >> Ask you a question.
[3:09:56] Can the private provider be the same person signing
[3:09:58] for all disciplines.
[3:10:00] >> You're implying that the private provider is one person.
[3:10:03] Not a private provider company.
[3:10:06] >> Let's take it to the individual.
[3:10:07] Can the individual come if they're
[3:10:10] qualified in each discipline, can they
[3:10:12] sign for each and every >> That is my understanding.
[3:10:17] >> If they have all four, they're probably not doing
[3:10:19] the kind of work.
[3:10:20] They're probably working for NASA.
[3:10:24] >> You're going to have to pay quite the salary for such
[3:10:27] a capable person, I imagine.
[3:10:31] >> Whoa whoa whoa.
[3:10:33] So 25 years and the utility service,
[3:10:36] 25 years and the inspection service.
[3:10:38] I helped write the law in the state of Florida.
[3:10:41] I know exactly what it takes for all four disciplines.
[3:10:44] And the amount of degrees and trade school and all this stuff.
[3:10:50] It is not common.
[3:10:51] It is not common to have an individual holding
[3:10:57] four certificates.
[3:10:58] The likelihood that the city of Pembroke Pines
[3:11:02] would even have one.
[3:11:03] We don't have one person in this current setup
[3:11:06] that we have they're holding all four.
[3:11:08] Not one.
[3:11:11] >> Okay.
[3:11:12] >> I purposely covered the names.
[3:11:14] So I don't see who wrote what.
[3:11:16] I'm with whoever is in the third book providing the option
[3:11:20] that the workload efficiency and the managing the workload
[3:11:23] gets changed.
[3:11:23] The vendor would have the option to prevent a failed plan
[3:11:26] to reduce staffing.
[3:11:28] >> Commissioners Rodriguez.
[3:11:30] >> I don't want to know.
[3:11:31] I'm covering the names on purpose.
[3:11:33] Whoever that is.
[3:11:35] >> It's public record.
[3:11:37] >> Built into most of this is obviously the ability for all
[3:11:41] of us.
[3:11:42] Whether the vendor comes forward,
[3:11:44] to speak to the contract manager.
[3:11:47] Eventually, somebody whether on our end or the contractor
[3:11:51] or the vendor, could come in and say actually we
[3:11:54] have this one overachiever.
[3:11:56] They can do all these things.
[3:11:57] Can we switch that?
[3:11:59] At some point that could come up.
[3:12:01] I just want to state that flexibility.
[3:12:04] >> I think we can work that into the motion.
[3:12:08] >> Mayor, this is just the RFP.
[3:12:12] >> We're trying to approve language for you.
[3:12:15] >> We can add or approve as approved by the contract
[3:12:20] manager.
[3:12:21] >> I'm trying get that approved.
[3:12:23] >> No, that is fine.
[3:12:25] Allowing whatever's on their is fine as a consensus.
[3:12:30] >> C6 is written with Commissioner Rodriguez comment.
[3:12:34] Any objection to that?
[3:12:35] That one is cleared.
[3:12:38] D1 .
[3:12:45] >> Mayor, this item -- read it -- >> Read it first.
[3:12:54] >> The proposal initially talked about during the first year
[3:12:58] paramedic no changes within the first year.
[3:13:01] This is specific to the required positions.
[3:13:06] Not the whole staff.
[3:13:09] They control the rest of the staff.
[3:13:11] The required 18 or 15 positions.
[3:13:14] The staff's recommendation was not in the first year,
[3:13:17] they have to have year in the system understanding
[3:13:19] how it works and operates before they just immediately get rid
[3:13:22] of, let's call it not the chiefs, but some lower
[3:13:24] positions.
[3:13:26] >> That's why I wrote what I wrote.
[3:13:27] It should be up to the contract.
[3:13:30] >> I still don't want to know who wrote what.
[3:13:32] I still think setting a year with a dynamics of the industry
[3:13:36] and how everything changes.
[3:13:38] I wouldn't stick our feet in concrete.
[3:13:41] There's 365 days.
[3:13:43] >> Is there consensus for that to be negotiated with
[3:13:46] the contract manager, instead of a timeline?
[3:13:50] >> I agree to it.
[3:13:52] >> Sounds good.
[3:13:53] >> Anybody disagree?
[3:13:55] D is agreed to.
[3:13:56] E1.
[3:13:58] >> What restrictions should apply to private provider work
[3:14:00] performed by the contractor personnel assigned to the city?
[3:14:05] >> No.
[3:14:06] I believe this is where Commissioner Goode was coming in
[3:14:10] with time off.
[3:14:11] We provide a couple options here.
[3:14:15] >> I don't want people who we pay for doing that work.
[3:14:18] I want them working for us and that is it.
[3:14:20] That's the cleanest way for the city of Pembroke Pines.
[3:14:23] This has been troublesome.
[3:14:28] And embarrassing and ECG context.
[3:14:32] I don't want that drifting away.
[3:14:34] I want them to work for us.
[3:14:36] For as long as they can.
[3:14:37] If the world changes, we can work it out again.
[3:14:39] As long as we have a hand in it, I want them working for us.
[3:14:44] >> One of the options here, is to expand -- >> --
[3:14:52] >> Work performed by the contractor personnel assigned
[3:14:55] to the city Monday through Friday.
[3:14:56] Our current vendor does inspections on Fridays.
[3:15:00] If they're scheduled.
[3:15:02] This would come theoretically, if one of those personnel
[3:15:06] does private provider work on a weekend, that's
[3:15:08] one of the options that's provided here.
[3:15:11] The big issue is it's not happening Monday through Friday,
[3:15:14] during business hours.
[3:15:16] Staff initially brought this item forward.
[3:15:18] There was concern in a city vehicle,
[3:15:21] someone could fly down in another city adjacent to us
[3:15:24] and provide services.
[3:15:25] It was brought up to the commission,
[3:15:27] I think it was a one mile radius.
[3:15:28] There was a little conversation around that.
[3:15:31] We feel that we brought something back in these options.
[3:15:35] Monday through Friday during those working hours,
[3:15:38] that could be accomplished and still
[3:15:40] allow those people to do things on their own
[3:15:41] to make additional money.
[3:15:43] To do whatever they need to do.
[3:15:45] >> I'm going to go further with that, Mr. Stamm,
[3:15:48] our building stop at 6 p.m..
[3:15:51] There's nothing proving after six.
[3:15:52] There's nothing prohibiting Saturdays and Sundays.
[3:15:55] I think this is the best option to be
[3:15:58] able to adapt to the changing world of the private provider.
[3:16:03] >> Would that be a B or C?
[3:16:05] >> I believe it would be b.
[3:16:08] >> B says Monday through Friday.
[3:16:11] >> During city business >> You would add during city business
[3:16:15] hours.
[3:16:16] >> I can live with city business hours.
[3:16:20] >> What city business hours is not Friday.
[3:16:23] >> 7 to 6.
[3:16:26] >> I think we saying, Commissioner Rodriguez,
[3:16:29] is city business hours including Friday.
[3:16:32] >> Is that the difference between A and B?
[3:16:36] That's city working hours, technically
[3:16:40] city is not open on Friday.
[3:16:42] >> But department operates on Friday.
[3:16:44] Matter of fact, Mr. Stamm works there every Friday.
[3:16:48] >> It would be more the consensus of Monday to >> 7 to 6
[3:16:54] p.m..
[3:16:55] >> Adding the time frame.
[3:16:56] >>, staff has no issue with that.
[3:17:03] >> Consensus is 7 to 6, Monday through Friday.
[3:17:05] 7 to 6 Monday through Friday.
[3:17:09] Monday through Friday, 7 to 6.
[3:17:11] Anybody object?
[3:17:13] >> I still get the time off.
[3:17:15] There would be consensus otherwise.
[3:17:16] You guys can go ahead.
[3:17:19] >> We are good.
[3:17:20] The next one is what?
[3:17:22] F one.
[3:17:26] >> For reference, the current draft has two alternative
[3:17:28] leadership models: Option a, under chief building official
[3:17:33] and Building Department Operations Manager.
[3:17:36] Option B, under which positions are employed directly
[3:17:39] by the >> Private provider.
[3:17:44] I do want to get too deep into it.
[3:17:46] With the changing world, the private provider and avoiding
[3:17:49] conflict.
[3:17:50] Mr. Stem, what would be the best way forward?
[3:17:56] >> I think it can go either way.
[3:17:57] I think it's going to be a preference on the commissioner's
[3:18:00] end.
[3:18:01] Whether they want it together or to positions.
[3:18:04] We've heard different ideas come from the commission on how
[3:18:08] this can >> To clarify, we wouldn't be deciding this now.
[3:18:13] If we decide to go only with option B --
[3:18:17] we would modify the RFP.
[3:18:20] >> Modify the RFP and go with that.
[3:18:22] The reason I kept A and B, is to gather that information
[3:18:26] from the possible bidders and make a decision later.
[3:18:30] That was my preference.
[3:18:32] At least on this paper, I don't see that as a consensus.
[3:18:37] I wanted to hear from the rest of you who weren't
[3:18:39] able to complete the survey.
[3:18:43] >> Commissioner Rodriguez, I think if I may come at you are
[3:18:48] saying put it out to bid with both options.
[3:18:54] The winning bidder would be more of a contractual commitment
[3:18:57] to which way they would go?
[3:19:00] >> They would go.
[3:19:01] What we both decide would be best for the city.
[3:19:05] >> I think we should decide it upfront.
[3:19:07] >> I think that's the whole point behind it.
[3:19:09] Not putting in both.
[3:19:13] Both one or the other.
[3:19:18] We should have building official employed
[3:19:22] by the city of Pembroke Pines dedicated to the city.
[3:19:26] Don't even put it in the bid.
[3:19:29] That way it keeps it nice and clean for the review process.
[3:19:32] Just like the mayor said, like you said Commissioner Rodriguez,
[3:19:38] let's just make that decision.
[3:19:40] >> I can live with it.
[3:19:43] >> I'm not ready to make the decision right now.
[3:19:45] The two people who did not participate in the survey
[3:19:48] can give more context where their consensus is there.
[3:19:52] >> I was on the phone last time.
[3:19:53] This is my concern about the in-house.
[3:19:58] The city administration can change.
[3:20:02] If that changes, so does the entire staff.
[3:20:07] By having the vendor provide the CBO,
[3:20:11] it gives us stability regardless of what happens
[3:20:16] at the administration level.
[3:20:20] >> What if the person who the vendor chooses also happens
[3:20:23] to retire?
[3:20:24] So you come across the same issue.
[3:20:28] >> It's a matter of having in-house management that can be
[3:20:32] changed by circumstances.
[3:20:35] Whether it be through policy change of the commission.
[3:20:39] A retirement.
[3:20:41] We know.
[3:20:42] We have a general idea that there's probably
[3:20:47] going to be some evolution of what the city administration is
[3:20:52] going to look like before a contract
[3:20:54] like this comes up for renewal.
[3:20:56] Because of the length of the contract.
[3:21:01] I believe it would serve the public well.
[3:21:08] Having a chief building official not worrying
[3:21:10] if they're going to be able to keep their job if there's
[3:21:12] a change in management within the city of Pembroke Pines.
[3:21:32] >>
[3:21:51] >>
[3:21:52] >> It's not that it hasn't worked the way we've had it.
[3:21:55] But the option of having a CBO that answers
[3:22:00] directly to the city and is our employee.
[3:22:03] Offers the stronger internal control.
[3:22:08] >> The building department operations manager I feel
[3:22:12] strongly.
[3:22:12] I said this with no disrespect to Mr. Stamm.
[3:22:17] I think there needs to be a building official
[3:22:22] industry individual in between the city administration.
[3:22:28] So we can still have our in-house go to.
[3:22:32] Overseeing the operations.
[3:22:35] That's the building operations manager.
[3:22:37] Not the CBO.
[3:22:39] Mayor, I know it's a little quirky.
[3:22:42] We can have the stability of a CBO.
[3:22:46] >> It's too many people.
[3:22:49] It doesn't achieve anything.
[3:22:52] If you're an employee and you've got a chief CBO who
[3:22:56] is a city employee and then you've
[3:22:58] got an assistant city manager that's the contract manager.
[3:23:02] Assistant city manager knows enough,
[3:23:05] but doesn't have to be the one who approves the permits.
[3:23:08] He only needs to do is manage the contract.
[3:23:11] That is a different discipline.
[3:23:14] That's a different skill.
[3:23:16] I'm okay.
[3:23:18] Commissioner good has been saying for years
[3:23:21] that he's been uncomfortable with this setup.
[3:23:24] And in fairness, it's the only department head
[3:23:27] that we have that doesn't answer directly to us.
[3:23:30] I can't think of another one.
[3:23:34] If we want to move in the direction of having
[3:23:39] a CBO who's a city employee.
[3:23:43] That's fine by me.
[3:23:45] >> Would that be defined by city employee or FCS?
[3:23:49] >> I don't know.
[3:23:51] >> It's important.
[3:23:53] Because FCS, c employee.
[3:23:56] Employee contract at will.
[3:24:04] >> (Indistinct)
[3:24:04] >> All department directors are at will.
[3:24:10] >> I just need clarification.
[3:24:12] I was in house last year.
[3:24:14] I was saying this was a position that I had last October.
[3:24:19] To bring it in house.
[3:24:21] Is it a consensus of the commission
[3:24:23] that we want in-house?
[3:24:25] >> I don't have a problem with it.
[3:24:28] >> I don't have an issue with it.
[3:24:30] I'd like at a later date be briefed
[3:24:32] on liability issues regarding having
[3:24:34] that individual as an employee.
[3:24:37] I do not have a problem.
[3:24:38] It sounds like there's >> Probably less liability
[3:24:43] than an employee.
[3:24:44] >> Hence why I want to understand later.
[3:24:47] >> Mayor, this is for option B is two positions.
[3:24:52] It's the building official.
[3:24:58] >> Option A is do both.
[3:24:59] Option B was just to do -- >> Option A is contractor provides
[3:25:05] all positions.
[3:25:06] Option B is there's a chief building official.
[3:25:10] Also common operation manager.
[3:25:14] I want to make sure it's clear.
[3:25:16] I know we only talked about one position.
[3:25:19] There's two positions.
[3:25:22] >> If you do not want additional staff,
[3:25:24] the operational manager has to get pulled out of this thing.
[3:25:29] >> We're talking about somebody between the CBO
[3:25:32] and the assistant city manager.
[3:25:35] This is someone below the >> That's
[3:25:40] where the difference between F1 and F2 is.
[3:25:42] >> F is the second part of the.
[3:25:46] >> F2, I think -- >> I'm blending.
[3:25:51] >> F1 is simply the internal, external for the RFP or we
[3:25:56] provide both options.
[3:25:58] It looks like we are going with simply option B. In the RFP
[3:26:04] and consequently as the vendor only having the possibility.
[3:26:10] >> Is Commissioner good on the building department operations
[3:26:12] manager.
[3:26:14] >> I think that's perfectly fine.
[3:26:15] Does that role right now.
[3:26:19] >> Currently, miss Cheryl, is in a role as we laid this out.
[3:26:23] A lot of what she does is in terms of public records.
[3:26:30] >> The city as well as the operations.
[3:26:34] >> I'm putting a name with a face.
[3:26:41] >> If we bring it in-house, we need the operations person.
[3:26:44] >> Again, the design of this when we heard from
[3:26:47] the commission there may be an interest in having a bidding
[3:26:49] official work for the city.
[3:26:52] The building official typically works
[3:26:53] with our trade chiefs and our inspectors
[3:26:56] and that type of staff.
[3:26:58] The operations manager deals with public records.
[3:27:00] Deals with housing stuff.
[3:27:03] And technicians.
[3:27:05] >> That was my understanding on my purpose.
[3:27:07] I thought it would be duplicative.
[3:27:09] For clarity, you don't believe it would be duplicative even
[3:27:12] if we bring someone in-house to have the operations person's.
[3:27:16] >> Correct.
[3:27:17] >> This would be the third option.
[3:27:20] The third selection.
[3:27:24] >> I'm hearing a consensus for chief building official
[3:27:28] and the buildings department operation manager to be Pines
[3:27:32] employees.
[3:27:32] And not FCS.
[3:27:34] It's actually Pines employee.
[3:27:36] That's correct.
[3:27:37] Is there an objection?
[3:27:39] F1 is agreed to.
[3:27:43] >> Mayor, F2 was department head over those items.
[3:27:51] >> Oh come okay.
[3:27:52] >> That's what I was saying was duplicative.
[3:27:54] If we bring it in-house, we would need someone.
[3:27:56] >> Correct.
[3:27:58] >> That's the same person.
[3:28:00] >> So we can dispense of that one.
[3:28:02] >> G1.
[3:28:04] I don't understand what the issue is with transition.
[3:28:09] If you need a transition, I believe
[3:28:11] it should be negotiated when the transition need arises.
[3:28:14] I don't see the need to talk about a transition
[3:28:17] in a proposal.
[3:28:19] Other than to put the requirement in.
[3:28:21] That there shall be a transition negotiated between company
[3:28:25] and the contract manager.
[3:28:29] >> Talking in and out for that one?
[3:28:32] >> Any transition.
[3:28:34] >> At least some defined.
[3:28:37] There is no transition.
[3:28:39] >> You can say 180 days or less.
[3:28:42] Depending on what the commission says.
[3:28:47] >> I thought it was historical, as far as --
[3:28:51] I didn't see it that way.
[3:28:54] On this paper, Commissioner good, I didn't see it this way.
[3:28:58] I didn't see it this way in the workshop.
[3:29:00] What I'm looking at is , you have companies who have
[3:29:07] participated in a transition process in the past.
[3:29:11] The document of that transition process
[3:29:14] went, so that staff can verify the accuracy
[3:29:18] of what is submitted.
[3:29:20] Not what you're going to do.
[3:29:22] What you're going to do is a contractual commitment.
[3:29:24] This is a historical -- am I off?
[3:29:30] >> You're blending with what the second one is talking about.
[3:29:33] The historical.
[3:29:35] >> Commissioner, what we did is -- >> Point taken.
[3:29:39] I'm blending again.
[3:29:42] >> The idea that we put in the RFP is that the vendor should
[3:29:46] have to provide a plan transition and transition out.
[3:29:50] And then the historical perspective that goes in there.
[3:29:52] The plan is going to be finally negotiated
[3:29:55] with selected bidders.
[3:29:56] We separate the questions to help give you some clarity
[3:29:59] on how to move through this.
[3:30:01] >> Do we need g1, g2 enough?
[3:30:03] I mean it's an evaluation committee.
[3:30:06] >> We left it up to the commission.
[3:30:08] We heard conflicts during the discussion.
[3:30:11] >> Is she even necessary to be put in the bid?
[3:30:15] >> That's what the mayor is saying.
[3:30:17] >> I don't think so.
[3:30:18] I think you can say that in the event of termination
[3:30:23] for convenience, that a transition shall be negotiated
[3:30:30] without City commission approval,
[3:30:32] not exceeding 180 days.
[3:30:35] >> I can agree on that one.
[3:30:36] That we can just take off g1.
[3:30:41] >> I don't know.
[3:30:42] Allow me to say my piece.
[3:30:46] >> Go ahead.
[3:30:47] >> I think we need to have some form of transition plan out
[3:30:51] prior to a contract being signed and executed.
[3:30:57] Then it's terms of the agreement that requires the contractor
[3:31:03] to do certain things.
[3:31:05] Because if they're leaving, they're
[3:31:07] not going to negotiate your best interests.
[3:31:10] >> I'm with Commissioner good for the record.
[3:31:13] >> What do you want said?
[3:31:17] You've got to come up with terms for transition out.
[3:31:21] >> In terms of transition out, then the transition is
[3:31:25] negotiated in the contract.
[3:31:28] >> If I could, the existing vendor is the only one required,
[3:31:32] if they bid -- >> Any negotiator would establish their transition
[3:31:38] out terms.
[3:31:41] >> Out for both.
[3:31:44] >> Not the current out. >> Fair enough.
[3:31:51] >> (Indistinct)
[3:31:52] >> I think we hit a home run on that one.
[3:31:54] >> Agreed.
[3:31:56] G2.
[3:31:57] I think we covered it.
[3:32:00] >> This is the second part.
[3:32:02] Should the proposals be required to provide examples
[3:32:06] of transition out plans based on their experience
[3:32:08] and similar contracts.
[3:32:09] This is historical practice.
[3:32:11] If they left and joined another city,
[3:32:14] should they be required to provide us
[3:32:16] how those transition worked?
[3:32:20] >> I don't think that's a question I would ask them.
[3:32:25] I agree with Commissioner good.
[3:32:28] We should ask that of the city.
[3:32:31] I don't see this as being a need.
[3:32:34] Does anyone disagree?
[3:32:36] Okay.
[3:32:36] H1A.
[3:32:37] We are almost there.
[3:32:40] >> During the workshop, it was discussed that we should have
[3:32:43] possible outside members of the evaluation committee.
[3:32:47] This first question is, how many members
[3:32:49] should serve on the evaluation committee?
[3:32:52] Typically, retain five members.
[3:32:54] There was discussion about asking possible outside members.
[3:32:57] We're asking, one, for the total number of people that
[3:33:01] should serve on the committee.
[3:33:03] >> I'm going to say this.
[3:33:05] It doesn't matter.
[3:33:06] I think it should be an odd number.
[3:33:08] It doesn't matter to me whether it is 5 or 7.
[3:33:11] I don't like the idea of bringing people
[3:33:14] in from outside the city.
[3:33:16] I think that is not good form.
[3:33:22] I would not be able to support that.
[3:33:25] I does it matter to me whether it's 5 or 7.
[3:33:31] I think six makes it complicated for math.
[3:33:36] >> So that is just H1A.
[3:33:39] That's just how many numbers.
[3:33:41] Can we say how many numbers we'd like?
[3:33:44] I agree it should be an odd number.
[3:33:52] >> Mr. Gomes, we spoke about this earlier today.
[3:33:56] Large bids like this , how many members have historically under
[3:34:03] your leadership have served on committees?
[3:34:05] What is the appropriate number?
[3:34:08] >> The standard is five evaluators.
[3:34:11] >> Why would we break from tradition and risk a bid
[3:34:14] protest?
[3:34:16] >> I think the question and the reason they put in the -- >> --
[3:34:22] the commissioner, would be a break from tradition.
[3:34:25] >> The reasons the options were given as alternatives was
[3:34:28] because Commissioner good mentioned adding additional
[3:34:31] people from outside the city.
[3:34:34] >> Basically, H1A could be a blended discussion.
[3:34:38] Because that was there, we had to determine
[3:34:41] the number of members.
[3:34:42] Then see if we're going to bring someone from the outside.
[3:34:48] >> I'd say leave it at five.
[3:34:50] If the decision falls to bring outside people, then seven.
[3:34:59] >> You would take up H one b first.
[3:35:05] >> Let's decide how many people to bring from the outside
[3:35:07] and then decide on the number of.
[3:35:09] >> I think it should be done.
[3:35:10] I think it's bad form.
[3:35:12] I can't support it.
[3:35:14] >> I think two people from the outside.
[3:35:17] >> I think we need some outside.
[3:35:19] This has a long term contract.
[3:35:22] It's got a lot of relationships.
[3:35:25] >> For that reason I am good.
[3:35:27] I think we need to define if you're
[3:35:29] going to bring two from the outside and what they look like.
[3:35:34] >> Would they want to get paid?
[3:35:36] >> No.
[3:35:41] >> (Indistinct)
[3:35:42] >> So we're going to go out for volunteers.
[3:35:45] >> Professional Curdy city to city.
[3:35:48] >> I sat on municipals in Miami dade County,
[3:35:52] when I was a comms director from the county.
[3:35:56] >> In your day, I appreciate that one. (Laughs)
[3:36:03] >> You're never in public relations.
[3:36:05] >> That's why you never got a call.
[3:36:06] >> You never got a call.
[3:36:09] >> I'm good with commissioners good and Rodriguez on it.
[3:36:13] >> I'm uncomfortable going outside for the mere purpose
[3:36:18] of it was mentioned during the workshop of corn.
[3:36:23] I have a general sense of what companies may or may not
[3:36:30] be interested in bidding with the city of Pembroke Pines.
[3:36:34] Those organizations have served on board.
[3:36:38] There are some deep divides amongst industry.
[3:36:46] We are not asking six jurors to say if someone's guilty
[3:36:52] or not guilty in a peer review.
[3:36:54] This is not a peer review.
[3:36:57] I do not know how we avoid the potential conflict or the optics
[3:37:01] of potential conflict.
[3:37:03] If we go outside.
[3:37:05] >> I agree with you.
[3:37:06] How about if the other two are retired contractors?
[3:37:10] >> They can have a bad experience with one potential
[3:37:12] vendor.
[3:37:13] Listen, I thought the idea and listening to the workshop,
[3:37:18] I thought really hard about it.
[3:37:20] I just did not know how you get past one.
[3:37:25] How do we even put it out there?
[3:37:28] The mere fact, I mean, we are looking
[3:37:33] for people who just brings a lack of control of a process.
[3:37:40] It breaks us from nontraditional.
[3:37:42] So Mr. Gomes, and anticipating this as a possibility,
[3:37:51] and we spoke about this.
[3:37:53] Have we ever gone outside on the committee for someone --
[3:37:58] has an individual ever served on a committee who never worked
[3:38:02] here before?
[3:38:03] >> Not in my time.
[3:38:06] >> Or mine.
[3:38:08] >> It happens all the time in government.
[3:38:11] >> It happens all the time, and number two,
[3:38:13] I'm going to flip it on its head.
[3:38:15] I'm going to say that we've had the same vendor for 17 years.
[3:38:18] And we haven't changed your evaluation process.
[3:38:21] Optics matter.
[3:38:22] From my perspective, I do think it's not
[3:38:27] unusual to have someone from the outside.
[3:38:30] Like I said, I sat on dozens of them
[3:38:32] in Dade County for municipalities.
[3:38:34] Doral had me come in to interview candidates
[3:38:37] for their chief communications officer.
[3:38:39] City of Miami.
[3:38:41] Etc..
[3:38:41] Just because we haven't done it, doesn't mean it's bad form.
[3:38:46] It's routine.
[3:38:48] >> Isn't there cities and a lot of cities have internal bidding
[3:38:54] departments.
[3:38:54] So not having worked with any of the vendors at some point.
[3:38:59] >> And I stand for the record, commissioners the follow up
[3:39:05] questions to deal with credentials.
[3:39:08] When this was proposed, we specifically talked about Boral
[3:39:11] and we talked about other things.
[3:39:13] Identifying which credentials is going
[3:39:15] to be a very challenging thing and we bring this up
[3:39:18] only because this is a very small
[3:39:19] and the building department is a very small world.
[3:39:22] It can't be smaller than public relations.
[3:39:24] That's all I'm gonna say.
[3:39:26] They jump ships.
[3:39:27] When we're out to bid in 2009, there was three.
[3:39:32] >> I've been on 90% of what you proposed on.
[3:39:35] >> I think it's going to be difficult.
[3:39:38] >> So I'm going to ask, can we get around seven members and two
[3:39:42] from the outside?
[3:39:44] >> Yes.
[3:39:45] >> I agree.
[3:39:46] >> I thought you meant five total members.
[3:39:50] Seven.
[3:39:51] >> Seven, with two of them from the outside.
[3:39:55] >> Nine is too many.
[3:39:57] >> Seven members with two from the outside.
[3:40:00] Are we good?
[3:40:02] I am channeling my doctor Phil.
[3:40:06] >> Mayor for clarity.
[3:40:11] Seven and two is 9 or 7 total?
[3:40:14] >> Two of them are from the outside.
[3:40:17] >> Mayor, how do we identify credentials?
[3:40:22] Staff would want to avoid anybody
[3:40:25] avoid working in the building department world.
[3:40:28] Outside of those to try to avoid conflicts that we just
[3:40:31] can't see on a regular.
[3:40:33] >> Attend lookback period.
[3:40:36] >> Do the best you can.
[3:40:38] The City Commission.
[3:40:39] Work with attorney and figure it out.
[3:40:41] >> We believe in you, Mike.
[3:40:45] >> I appreciate the confidence.
[3:40:48] >> H4.
[3:40:51] >> H3 and h4.
[3:40:54] >> May I say are you comfortable with the direction given
[3:40:57] the staff.
[3:40:59] Ultimately double
[3:41:02] >> I'm listening.
[3:41:04] >> Ultimately, the selection process for the two outside is
[3:41:06] going to be selected by OMA.
[3:41:08] Mr. Gomes, City manager.
[3:41:11] Who is doing the selection process of the outside?
[3:41:16] >> May I respond?
[3:41:18] >> Are you asking who would select the two outside that
[3:41:20] would be joined by the insiders?
[3:41:22] >> Yes.
[3:41:24] >> The manager.
[3:41:26] >> Same manager.
[3:41:27] >> Same manager have to validate the appointment.
[3:41:30] Obviously we have some legal role
[3:41:33] in the context of who's hiring.
[3:41:35] >> Looking for people who may want to serve in the capacity
[3:41:38] of a selection committee.
[3:41:39] How do you go about doing that, from a legal standpoint?
[3:41:44] >> From a legal standpoint.
[3:41:47] From a legal standpoint, I'm asking the city attorney,
[3:41:51] how do we go about doing that?
[3:41:54] >> Manager through the hospices of those that work within
[3:41:57] the department of that administration.
[3:41:59] Can put out some form of document
[3:42:01] soliciting the availability of the parties and persons that
[3:42:04] would be available to serve in this capacity.
[3:42:06] As volunteers, not a paid position.
[3:42:09] >> All right.
[3:42:10] Okay.
[3:42:11] >> Mayor, to the extent possible to make sure that the method
[3:42:15] of requesting assistance, doesn't rarely cause a conflict.
[3:42:21] >> If, God forbid, we're unable to fill or have any interest
[3:42:26] in that role, what happens?
[3:42:31] >> You go back to five.
[3:42:32] That's h4.
[3:42:34] >> Is that a consensus of the commission,
[3:42:36] if the positions can't be filled?
[3:42:38] Is it default back?
[3:42:41] >> That's the question h4.
[3:42:42] That was my response.
[3:42:44] If you can't find these other two people, you go back to five.
[3:42:48] You move it along.
[3:42:50] >> I can live with that.
[3:42:56] >> On the document, I disagree.
[3:42:58] >> If you can't find them, you move on.
[3:43:01] Any problem with that?
[3:43:03] >> I disagree.
[3:43:05] You guys can continue.
[3:43:07] >> H four is done.
[3:43:10] I one.
[3:43:11] What communication restrictions should
[3:43:13] apply to the members of the city Commission?
[3:43:15] I don't know why this is in here?
[3:43:17] We already have an ordinance.
[3:43:19] >> I asked for a code of silence.
[3:43:22] I asked for it in the workshop.
[3:43:24] I know there's discussion and there wasn't much favorability.
[3:43:27] There wasn't much support for it.
[3:43:29] >> I believe the code of silence is a code of ignorance.
[3:43:33] I want to hear from everybody.
[3:43:36] >> Mayor, I presume that you're not calling me ignorant.
[3:43:39] >> I'm not calling you ignorant.
[3:43:41] I'm saying a cone of silence is a code of ignorance.
[3:43:44] I want the public to be able to talk to us.
[3:43:47] We do not make this decision.
[3:43:49] We may have to review on appeal.
[3:43:52] >> That's fine.
[3:43:53] >> In that case, I want to be informed.
[3:43:56] >> The code of silence would end at the point that the selection
[3:43:58] committee was done.
[3:44:01] >> I believe there's consensus.
[3:44:03] >> I believe now and when the committee is finished.
[3:44:08] [Cross-talk]
[3:44:08] >> What about the committee is finished.
[3:44:10] I want to know about it.
[3:44:12] >> Potential bid.
[3:44:14] >> I'm sorry come on I agree with you.
[3:44:16] It's not necessary.
[3:44:17] I don't even think it's ethical.
[3:44:19] We don't make this decision.
[3:44:22] >> Let's ask the city attorney's.
[3:44:24] >> It would be ethical.
[3:44:25] It's a question.
[3:44:27] >> Why don't we delegate the whole thing to staff.
[3:44:30] >> City attorney, the mayor's questioning double city
[3:44:34] attorney.
[3:44:37] >>, sir.
[3:44:39] >> Was there a birthday party over there?
[3:44:41] >> They're just asking questions.
[3:44:43] >> I'll be honest with you.
[3:44:45] This item is moot.
[3:44:46] It's already been decided and our purchasing ordinance.
[3:44:50] It's already been decided.
[3:44:52] The code of silence issue was debated here and it was decided.
[3:44:57] The fact that it's even here.
[3:44:59] >> It's here because it was a comment that I made.
[3:45:03] At the meeting.
[3:45:04] That's why it's here.
[3:45:06] Everything that is on here because it was input from each
[3:45:09] and every one of us.
[3:45:11] >> I understand that.
[3:45:13] >> You don't have to support.
[3:45:17] [Cross-talk]
[3:45:17] >> I'm not going to change the procurement ordinance for just
[3:45:21] this one solicitation.
[3:45:24] We have a procurement ordinance that
[3:45:28] already deals with this issue.
[3:45:30] I think it is moot.
[3:45:33] >> We have a consensus that it needs to move on.
[3:45:36] >> The consensus to move on.
[3:45:38] Item two.
[3:45:39] >> Same item.
[3:45:41] >> If the commission volunteers.
[3:45:43] That's done.
[3:45:44] You've got all your guidance?
[3:45:45] We are finally finished with the buildings department RF.
[3:45:51] >> When can we expect that.
[3:45:53] >> Yes.
[3:45:53] We're going to have a five minute recess.
[3:45:56] >> We haven't voted on it.
[3:45:59] >> This is the consensus of the document.
[3:46:01] >> We're bringing back the item.
[3:46:04] >> When will that happen?
[3:46:07] >> Can we address that?
[3:46:09] >> We're done.
[3:46:11] >> We'll come back to us with an RFP.
[3:46:14] >> Can we draft adopt >> We do not have to vote on anything.
[3:46:19] They're going to come back to us with an RFP.
[3:46:22] They've now been told.
[3:46:24] Bamba you want the RFP.
[3:46:26] >> I don't need it back.
[3:46:28] >> We need approve and draft and adopt tonight.
[3:46:31] >> What do you want to do?
[3:46:34] >> I'd like to follow the agenda with the agenda reads.
[3:46:36] The discussion of possible action action requires a motion.
[3:46:40] >> I move that we go out to bid as amended,
[3:46:44] based on our discussion tonight.
[3:46:47] >> Is there a second?
[3:46:49] >> That means we're putting it out.
[3:46:51] >> It would have to second.
[3:46:54] >> Hold on one second.
[3:46:55] We have to wait for the vice mayor.
[3:46:57] >> I don't want it to come back on the 16th.
[3:46:59] I want it to go out.
[3:47:01] We've got eight >> We have a motion and a >>
[3:47:07] The timeline will change.
[3:47:08] The timeline didn't think that we were doing it.
[3:47:12] >> There's a motion before and a second to approve what we just
[3:47:15] did.
[3:47:16] >> My question is, this timeline change.
[3:47:20] >> No.
[3:47:22] >> Are we good and ready?
[3:47:24] >> It'll come all the way back to us in March still?
[3:47:27] >> Yes.
[3:47:28] This is anticipated.
[3:47:30] Obviously there are certain items we have to evaluate
[3:47:33] and we have to do reference checks.
[3:47:35] Might be different things that affect that timeline.
[3:47:38] Estimated timeline in March.
[3:47:41] >> All in favor say aye.
[3:47:43] Any opposed?
[3:47:44] It passes unanimously.
[3:47:51] We now have reports of the leak and report representatives.
[3:47:58] >> Today we had our director's meeting.
[3:47:59] A couple things were discussed.
[3:48:02] League of Cities MPO representatives.
[3:48:09] Commissioner Rodriguez: Today we have the directors leading
[3:48:11] and a couple things were discussed.
[3:48:14] There's an amendment three campaign going on.
[3:48:18] I will share the link with you guys.
[3:48:21] I believe the cities have done so.
[3:48:25] They have general educational information online
[3:48:30] that is more broad than what was brought to us regarding
[3:48:33] amendment three.
[3:48:35] Some specific stats and statistics.
[3:48:39] They went ahead and provided for each individual city.
[3:48:42] If you guys would like to look at the Pembroke Pines
[3:48:45] document they put together, it was really good.
[3:48:48] I would like to ask who provided the information to them
[3:48:51] for the League of Cities or did they take it from our website?
[3:48:57] Mayor Castillo: I'm not sure.
[3:48:59] Commissioner Rodriguez: There was a document League
[3:49:02] of Cities put together.
[3:49:08] Jonathan is saying it was prior to BCCMA
[3:49:15] and my assumption is we were able to look
[3:49:19] at it and fact check.
[3:49:21] I saw a number on there and I wasn't too sure.
[3:49:25] Our finance department checked it.
[3:49:28] I think it is a good tool for us to put out.
[3:49:33] They also checked with their legal counsel, which
[3:49:36] is our legal counsel, regarding whether it is factual
[3:49:41] or has any promotion of yes or no.
[3:49:49] That is a factual document only.
[3:49:51] It is something that could guide us come especially when we
[3:49:54] are trying not to advocate.
[3:49:58] The next general meeting is in two weeks, I think.
[3:50:03] I have to check the calendar.
[3:50:06] I may or may not be in attendance.
[3:50:11] The next one is the general meeting.
[3:50:14] I think we are all invited to go.
[3:50:18] Afterwards, October will be in Coral Springs.
[3:50:22] I forgot the date. --
[3:51:01] Mayor Castillo: Do you have a report city manager?
[3:51:07] City Manager Dodge: I don't.
[3:51:13] Commissioner Schwartz: I will be as brief as possible.
[3:51:17] Give me one moment so I can pull it up.
[3:51:22] There's been a lot of change in our country, let alone our state
[3:51:28] and city, since I placed the item on the agenda a week ago,
[3:51:35] Tuesday.
[3:51:36] I have a couple of things I want to put in context.
[3:51:42] I support our police department.
[3:51:47] I want to make sure they have legitimate and lawful tools
[3:51:51] to protect the community.
[3:51:53] By supporting law enforcement and protecting privacy rights
[3:51:57] of the public, we as a commission
[3:52:01] are responsible to do this and support police.
[3:52:05] When information on the public gets collected,
[3:52:09] we have a responsibility to understand
[3:52:11] what happens to the information after it's collected.
[3:52:14] How long has it been retained, who searched,
[3:52:18] and what happens with it is shared outside the police
[3:52:27] department.
[3:52:27] What happens to this information?
[3:52:30] These are legitimate questions of government oversight.
[3:52:34] My item doesn't allege the police department
[3:52:39] or anyone else has violated the law.
[3:52:42] The item in context and pretext access
[3:52:48] to examine our policies so that the Commission and public
[3:52:56] understand where we stand.
[3:52:58] Since I placed the item on the agenda,
[3:53:01] circumstances surrounding the city's license plate reader
[3:53:06] program have changed.
[3:53:15] The police department has said that they suspended the license
[3:53:21] plate reader program.
[3:53:22] That does not eliminate the need for the item before us tonight.
[3:53:25] In several respects, it makes questions contained
[3:53:28] in the item more important.
[3:53:30] Suspending the operation doesn't tell
[3:53:33] the commission what happens to the information already
[3:53:35] collected.
[3:53:36] It doesn't tell us who previously
[3:53:37] had access to information.
[3:53:39] It doesn't tell us information generated by our cameras
[3:53:46] were accessed by outside entities.
[3:53:49] It doesn't say what information was shared
[3:53:51] and what information remains in existence.
[3:53:53] It doesn't tell us what information may have already
[3:53:56] been analyzed or derived from the original information.
[3:54:00] It doesn't tell us what contractual rights
[3:54:02] or obligations continue during this suspension process.
[3:54:05] A suspension of the program doesn't necessarily
[3:54:08] terminate the contract.
[3:54:10] Those questions remain.
[3:54:13] With that come a discussion of possible action regarding
[3:54:18] retention of data collected through the city's automated
[3:54:22] license plate recognition system and the city's agreements with
[3:54:27] Flock Safety -- the purpose of the item is to direct the city
[3:54:35] attorney come up with the city manager and chief of police,
[3:54:39] to conduct a comprehensive review of the city's LPR program
[3:54:43] and the city's agreement with the flock group.
[3:54:46] The review should address collection, ownership, access,
[3:54:50] retention, disclosure, sharing, artificial intelligence, machine
[3:54:56] learning use, commercial use, and ultimate disposition
[3:54:59] of information generated through the city's license plate reader
[3:55:02] system.
[3:55:03] Let me explain why the review remains necessary --
[3:55:08] as a part of my review, I requested
[3:55:11] the department's general orders governing our license plate
[3:55:16] reader system.
[3:55:17] The city's own policy tells us what the technology collects.
[3:55:22] The system takes a digital photograph
[3:55:25] of vehicles of license plates entering its field of view.
[3:55:30] Information is timestamped in GPS code.
[3:55:33] Stored information can include an image of the vehicle
[3:55:36] and close up image of the license plate, GPS location
[3:55:39] and time and date of the scan.
[3:55:43] There are legitimate reasons for the police department
[3:55:46] to use the technology.
[3:55:47] The general order explains it assists law enforcement
[3:55:54] in locating missing persons, locating stolen vehicles,
[3:55:57] identifying wanted vehicles, and assisting investigations
[3:56:01] involving vehicles of interest.
[3:56:03] Those are legitimate law enforcement purposes.
[3:56:06] But our police department recognizes
[3:56:09] that access to this information requires limitations.
[3:56:13] Four years, general order has restricted authorized database
[3:56:17] searches for law enforcement purposes.
[3:56:20] I believe this is appropriate.
[3:56:22] That led me to another question --
[3:56:25] if we are restrict what our own employees can do with
[3:56:29] the information, what restrictions apply
[3:56:32] to the corporation providing technology and handling
[3:56:35] information generated through the system?
[3:56:38] That brought me to the agreement with Flock Safety
[3:56:41] the agreement provides city retains
[3:56:43] ownership of the data and flock says that they do not
[3:56:47] own or resell the data.
[3:56:49] But the agreement contains another provision
[3:56:51] that requires careful city review, City Attorney.
[3:56:55] The agreement separately addresses
[3:56:56] what it calls anonymized data.
[3:56:58] Under that, flock retains rights to receive and use
[3:57:04] analyzed information from these are worldwide and Royalty free.
[3:57:17] This includes training machine learning algorithms
[3:57:22] and improving the Technology I don't know if this violates
[3:57:32] the provision of the law.
[3:57:33] That's why I want the city attorney to review this.
[3:57:37] I want to know what what this means for Pembroke Pines.
[3:57:41] I want to know what occurs in the process of converting
[3:57:45] information, collecting to our system,
[3:57:47] including the anonymized information.
[3:57:49] I want to know what use and distribute means.
[3:57:52] I want to know whether the information derived by the city
[3:57:55] system can be used to train machine learning technology
[3:57:58] or develop other products.
[3:58:01] Most importantly, I want to know whether Florida law permits
[3:58:05] these activities and whether our contract adequately
[3:58:09] protects the public.
[3:58:11] There's another important distinction --
[3:58:15] I previously asked if the police department received
[3:58:18] public records requests for the information collected
[3:58:20] from flock cameras.
[3:58:22] I was advised that no public records request for flock data
[3:58:28] from our cameras were made.
[3:58:32] There has been no public record request whatsoever.
[3:58:36] I appreciate the information the police department provided.
[3:58:39] However, public records requests are only part of the issue.
[3:58:45] My question is considerably broader.
[3:58:49] This is why I'm asking about access, sharing dissemination
[3:58:56] outside agency access and vendor access.
[3:58:59] This commission needs to have these questions answered
[3:59:08] because here's the thing that made me most uncomfortable --
[3:59:12] we have a general order that was provided two days after I placed
[3:59:17] the item on the agenda.
[3:59:20] I believe this was last Tuesday.
[3:59:25] I received the general order on the 27th.
[3:59:29] The general order we currently have that includes information
[3:59:35] disseminated to the public in social media and how we have
[3:59:43] auditing programs in place --
[3:59:47] and what's answered in the memo --
[3:59:51] has been in effect since the 26th of August, 2026.
[3:59:56] That's last week.
[3:59:58] Prior to that, after receiving a general order,
[4:00:03] I asked for revisions.
[4:00:05] I asked for all revisions regarding Lpr's.
[4:00:08] I think the police department and clerk's office for providing
[4:00:11] this information. --
[4:00:14] I thank the police department and clerk's office
[4:00:17] for this information.
[4:00:18] The general order did not include auditing
[4:00:22] and there was no requirement for the Police Department to do it.
[4:00:28] This requires vigilant solutions and flock safety
[4:00:31] for maintaining LPR safety devices the May 2024
[4:00:35] general Order ended with a section addressing database
[4:00:38] and records retention.
[4:00:40] There was no separate section establishing quarterly LPR
[4:00:45] audits.
[4:00:47] This revision included on the 26th of August is when I
[4:00:53] welcomed.
[4:00:53] I think it's a great thing.
[4:00:55] If I asked our police chief what a general order is,
[4:01:00] he would most likely say it is the policy of the department.
[4:01:04] If I asked whether all officers follow general orders
[4:01:08] to the letter of the law -- have we ever had a officer not follow
[4:01:14] a general order under his command?
[4:01:17] We don't have the tools or any evidence
[4:01:21] that audits have been conducted, specifically on LPR s.
[4:01:27] There are other general orders that may or may not
[4:01:29] have been followed.
[4:01:33] I'm not saying or insinuating that there's been misuse.
[4:01:41] But the reason why this entire discussion has come up
[4:01:47] nationally is because Pembroke itself
[4:01:51] has failed to protect our constitutional rights.
[4:01:55] The governor took action, sheriffs took action,
[4:01:59] and the chief took action.
[4:02:04] Even though the cameras can save kids
[4:02:08] from Kidnapers, legitimate law enforcement purposes,
[4:02:15] there's too much information we don't know.
[4:02:21] I'm not expecting a response next week
[4:02:24] for the review I'm asking for a.
[4:02:33] This is a moving target.
[4:02:35] I went back to our original general orders
[4:02:37] that were established by former Chief, when we had mobile units.
[4:02:45] We now have polls in the ground.
[4:02:48] It is all in the backup.
[4:02:52] When I see this yellow paper , it takes it out of context.
[4:03:01] Whoever asks the question, it was
[4:03:06] based on last week's general order, not what
[4:03:09] occurred and has been the policy of our police department
[4:03:15] the last two years.
[4:03:19] I say this not to cast dispersions.
[4:03:23] All I'm asking for is a legal review.
[4:03:32] Let's figure out what data was collected.
[4:03:35] If our police department has an opportunity to do a lookback
[4:03:41] period since 2024, up until August 25th of 2026 to see
[4:03:50] our officers conduct an audit during the period,
[4:03:55] if the administration believes that warrants transparency
[4:04:03] to provide the public confidence ,
[4:04:09] that we are not caught up in some other things we see
[4:04:13] in other communities throughout the country,
[4:04:16] I welcome that I'm not asking the commission to direct that
[4:04:20] but I welcome it.
[4:04:23] With that being said, I would like
[4:04:27] to have consensus that we allow our city attorney, police
[4:04:32] chief, and city administration to do a deep dive.
[4:04:35] Let's find out more.
[4:04:38] One of the things I discovered in past contracts is our data
[4:04:45] was going to the Miami Police Department.
[4:04:47] That's where it was stored.
[4:04:49] It is all in the backup.
[4:04:51] Now we have the city of Miami and their practices
[4:04:57] and their servers and however they do it.
[4:05:03] This is a big thing.
[4:05:09] I want to make sure our public privacy
[4:05:11] and constitutional rights are protected as the fabric
[4:05:16] and foundation of this country.
[4:05:18] With that, mayor, I'm not looking for a motion.
[4:05:25] I want a consensus.
[4:05:27] Firmly in my heart I believe we are all seeing this
[4:05:31] through the same lens, that we just
[4:05:35] don't know enough now to make any kind of decision
[4:05:37] but we certainly need to know as soon as possible
[4:05:40] and share that information.
[4:05:42] If there's another city, municipality, town,
[4:05:48] or state government that finds something --
[4:05:57] or even members of Congress --
[4:06:02] I welcome all that information.
[4:06:04] It is very rare for a city commission
[4:06:05] to be talking about something that
[4:06:07] impacts every single one of us that lives in this country.
[4:06:11] We always deal with the local stuff.
[4:06:14] This is super big.
[4:06:17] I did my absolute best to find out
[4:06:20] what the financial considerations are.
[4:06:23] I don't think we need to ask those questions tonight.
[4:06:26] That is part of the review.
[4:06:30] But by all means, so a program isn't
[4:06:34] a termination of a contract.
[4:06:36] Mayor and commissioner good, you and I
[4:06:40] share the red light camera and that whole situation
[4:06:43] and the contractual and financials.
[4:06:49] I'm thankful for the time you've given me tonight
[4:06:53] to talk about this.
[4:06:55] I want to thank the police department.
[4:06:58] We are the first city in Broward County to do this.
[4:07:01] Unless someone did it since we were sitting here,
[4:07:05] we are the only city to have suspended.
[4:07:08] Pembroke Pines leads.
[4:07:10] People look at us because we lead.
[4:07:13] I think that's a good thing.
[4:07:15] With that I yield the floor.
[4:07:19] Mayor Castillo: I want to thank you
[4:07:21] for bringing the item forward.
[4:07:23] This is one of those things I've rarely seen in my time
[4:07:29] as an elected official or my time in government, where
[4:07:34] I can say from the bottom of my heart that everyone is right
[4:07:37] and everyone is wrong.
[4:07:39] I want to explain to you where we are at in my view.
[4:07:44] I want to thank the chief for his courage
[4:07:47] and the City Manager for his.
[4:07:52] As mayor of the city, I announced
[4:07:55] that I was encouraging them to suspend the program.
[4:07:59] I did that because we are in a situation where
[4:08:08] two big a percentage of our residents
[4:08:10] have lost confidence in this tool.
[4:08:13] You've heard me say before -- and it is not a rogue political
[4:08:19] speech but what I believe to my core --
[4:08:22] government works for them and not the other way around.
[4:08:26] No matter how good a tool it, if it doesn't
[4:08:30] at least get the support of a simple majority of people,
[4:08:37] it needs to be looked at.
[4:08:41] The fact that it isn't getting the support I feel it needs
[4:08:46] to get is reflective of a couple things in my view --
[4:08:51] first is the absolute ugly cynicism in the US right now
[4:08:56] that has bled, despite my every effort to keep it away,
[4:09:02] into the city.
[4:09:04] I think it was inevitable that this would happen in.
[4:09:07] I think people forgot how truly benevolent we are.
[4:09:11] Even though we come and argue and there
[4:09:13] are issues and whatnot, we come here trying
[4:09:17] to do what's best for the city all the time, whether passing
[4:09:21] a budget or passing an ordinance.
[4:09:24] It gets overlooked because of the absolute ugliness
[4:09:27] of politics right now.
[4:09:29] I've never seen a political environment this revolting
[4:09:33] in the U.S. In my lifetime.
[4:09:36] It is not a partisan comment.
[4:09:40] I think it stains all of us.
[4:09:43] I think it is quintessentially an American.
[4:09:47] The Pembroke Pines Police Department
[4:09:49] is about catching bad guys and keeping us safe.
[4:09:53] You all heard me recite as statistic
[4:09:56] that has been verified that came out of the police department.
[4:10:00] Last year they reduced crime by one third.
[4:10:04] One of the reasons they are reducing crime, as well
[4:10:08] as other cities, is because they are using technology
[4:10:11] intelligently.
[4:10:12] The intelligent use of technology
[4:10:15] shouldn't be dismissed.
[4:10:18] If you are an amber alert and have a child in your car,
[4:10:23] it is hard to find you unless we know your license plate.
[4:10:27] During the days we had red light cameras,
[4:10:30] which were placed on the ballot while I was no longer serving
[4:10:34] on this commission, I believe 76% of Pines residents
[4:10:43] as to get rid of it.
[4:10:45] One lady called me up and said that I supported red light
[4:10:49] cameras.
[4:10:50] She asked me what I thought now and I
[4:10:52] told her to drive carefully.
[4:10:55] With those two words, she said, o, I get it.
[4:11:04] Those red light cameras helped us catch the murderer from
[4:11:15] Friday's.
[4:11:18] That guy was caught through another city's red light camera
[4:11:22] but we found him.
[4:11:24] We prosecuted him.
[4:11:26] That person is now serving justice.
[4:11:30] Chances are we wouldn't have caught that individual
[4:11:34] had there not been technology.
[4:11:36] Here's the thing about technology --
[4:11:41] it's on our school busses now as we speak.
[4:11:44] It is in front of our school zones now as we speak.
[4:11:47] When we go to Publix, it is there.
[4:11:54] When we pull out a cell phone, you are on video.
[4:11:58] It is all over the place.
[4:11:59] You cannot escape it.
[4:12:01] But that doesn't escape a police officer in another jurisdiction
[4:12:05] misusing it , casting a horrible opinion.
[4:12:13] One dumb cop created a whole problem
[4:12:17] for the entire United States because they
[4:12:21] couldn't discipline themselves not to misuse a tool.
[4:12:27] But it goes further than that.
[4:12:30] I'm not happy with any of these companies.
[4:12:34] It has only been alleged as far as I know,
[4:12:38] but if it can be verified they were selling this information ,
[4:12:46] who would want data about me going to Publix to pick up
[4:12:50] a gallon of milk?
[4:12:52] I personally don't get it.
[4:12:56] Commissioner Rodriguez: The company is charging you
[4:12:59] how much you pay for it.
[4:13:03] Commissioner Schwartz: It shows up on your cell phone
[4:13:06] when you walk past the store.
[4:13:07] Mayor Castillo: Maybe you are right.
[4:13:10] Maybe that is how it is working now.
[4:13:14] The state of Florida is the one that authorizes all camera
[4:13:21] technology for law enforcement.
[4:13:23] No one else does.
[4:13:25] That's why we have permits with them.
[4:13:27] I think governor Desantis did the right thing.
[4:13:32] Let's hold out that his cameras on the turnpike,
[4:13:36] which are there to collect tolls, are still up and working.
[4:13:40] It is only the ones in neighborhoods
[4:13:42] that catch bad guys that he had a problem with.
[4:13:46] Someone else will have to figure out that logic
[4:13:49] because it doesn't compute for me.
[4:13:51] Let's hold that aside.
[4:13:56] They are the ones who authorized all camera enforcement
[4:14:01] tools used by police and law enforcement in the state.
[4:14:08] It couldn't have happened any other way.
[4:14:13] They need to figure this thing out.
[4:14:15] I was surprised the governor didn't
[4:14:19] ask for a special session.
[4:14:21] I'm not familiar with all special session rules,
[4:14:25] but it seems to me when it comes to something this serious,
[4:14:29] they should get together and have a special session.
[4:14:33] They should bring in all these folks from flock and everything
[4:14:37] else to fess up and find out what's going on.
[4:14:44] They should create some guidelines and guardrails
[4:14:49] for this program that might have the hope of regenerating
[4:14:55] public trust in a system that's catching a lot of bad players
[4:15:06] without creating an atmosphere that may think they're being
[4:15:13] surveilled by the government.
[4:15:15] That is certainly not what this is supposed to be.
[4:15:19] This is supposed to be a tool that doesn't surveil the public
[4:15:24] but locates, defines, and identifies people
[4:15:28] known to be wanted by the law.
[4:15:32] I encourage the suspension of this program.
[4:15:36] I did not direct it.
[4:15:38] I encouraged it.
[4:15:40] I did this because I felt we had a decline in confidence
[4:15:45] from our people.
[4:15:47] As to review in the past, I practically
[4:15:52] don't think it is necessary.
[4:15:55] I don't think it is necessary to audit the police department
[4:16:04] by our city Attorney.
[4:16:06] I agree that he should provide us with the legal memo
[4:16:09] but he's in the business of defending the city,
[4:16:11] not doing operational reviews.
[4:16:13] He's in the business of defending the city when sued.
[4:16:21] Commissioner Schwartz: I wasn't suggesting the city attorney.
[4:16:23] That would be the police department's
[4:16:25] internal mechanisms.
[4:16:26] Mayor Castillo: Maybe they want to do it.
[4:16:29] Another way to do it would be the Commission auditor.
[4:16:31] I hesitate to send the Commission auditor in the police
[4:16:40] department because the optics look bad.
[4:16:45] When the police department says they
[4:16:47] are unaware of any instances in which the technology was
[4:16:51] misused, I believe the.
[4:16:54] I happen to know that they don't tolerate this kind of behavior
[4:16:58] and would have acted on it.
[4:17:00] I don't feel we have to go back in time
[4:17:04] to dig out some misdeed that we have every assurance
[4:17:08] to believe never occurred.
[4:17:10] I am more interested in sending a resolution very firmly
[4:17:17] to this governor.
[4:17:19] I think we should share it with both gubernatorial candidates,
[4:17:23] because the current governor is busy packing up because he
[4:17:27] will be out of there soon.
[4:17:29] We should make sure the next speaker of the House
[4:17:31] and president of the Senate have our resolution,
[4:17:35] demanding they call a session if they need to in order
[4:17:40] to assign staff and possibly the task
[4:17:47] force through FDLE, involving law enforcement
[4:17:53] that is involved, to come up with necessary guardrails.
[4:17:58] In the minimal amount of time, we
[4:18:01] could roll this out to the residents
[4:18:02] and say there's been a reboot to this thing.
[4:18:08] These are the circumstances under which,
[4:18:12] if it is used again, it can be used again.
[4:18:19] I'm very proud we took the step we took.
[4:18:24] It is certainly a step that police chief and City manager
[4:18:30] had within their disposal.
[4:18:31] Neither of them acted outside of their capacity.
[4:18:34] It was not a directed step.
[4:18:38] As a mayor, I encourage it because I
[4:18:42] feel there is a decline in public trust.
[4:18:44] I don't think it is necessary to audit our police
[4:18:48] department to look for some sort of misdeed that has
[4:18:54] no indication it ever occurred.
[4:18:58] I would rather spend our time not
[4:19:01] looking into some potential past thing we have no indication
[4:19:07] about.
[4:19:07] I instead would like to focus on solutions going forward, which
[4:19:13] are at the state.
[4:19:15] It is the state that authorized the use of the tool,
[4:19:18] it is the state that needs to come up with the proper policies
[4:19:21] to deal with it, and I have to tell you that protecting privacy
[4:19:27] extends far beyond license plate readers.
[4:19:30] It includes red light cameras.
[4:19:33] There are still districts that use them.
[4:19:34] It includes body worn cameras.
[4:19:39] There's already guidance that is involved there
[4:19:45] and we may need a strengthening of it.
[4:19:49] It shouldn't just be about license plate readers.
[4:19:51] It should be about how law enforcement uses
[4:19:53] all camera technology in order to ensure
[4:19:55] the constitutional rights of the people are protected.
[4:19:59] There has also been a lot of misstatements.
[4:20:03] In his legal memo , the city attorney will tell you that 20
[4:20:18] some odd times the Supreme Court has ruled that uses of these
[4:20:24] camera tools do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
[4:20:28] You have no right of privacy when you go into a public place.
[4:20:33] It doesn't exist.
[4:20:34] That doesn't mean the government has the right
[4:20:37] to sell information that would violate your privacy
[4:20:42] in some other manner.
[4:20:44] But if you are a criminal, you don't have that right.
[4:20:50] I really think we have to step back from this
[4:20:52] and understand that everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
[4:20:56] Yes, this tool is helpful.
[4:21:00] God forbid, if your child was on a bus stop tomorrow morning
[4:21:05] and someone came and snatched them,
[4:21:09] ardently as you may want to argue against these cameras,
[4:21:12] you would want them on the street to find your child.
[4:21:22] If a member of your family got horribly injured
[4:21:26] in a hit and run and you happened to catch their number,
[4:21:29] you would want a camera to find them and bring them to justice.
[4:21:36] That's what this technology allows
[4:21:38] people use to get away with this years
[4:21:41] ago when Bonnie and Clyde were in business.
[4:21:45] We have cameras today and there is no reason that can't be used.
[4:21:51] But if Steven is driving down the block
[4:21:55] to buy some flowers for his bride, that's no one's business.
[4:22:03] He should feel free to do what he wants to do or go to a movie
[4:22:10] or go down the block to the store or whatever
[4:22:13] and not feel he's being surveilled.
[4:22:16] That's what the problem is.
[4:22:18] That is my view of it Commissioner.
[4:22:22] I think we should resolve as a city commission
[4:22:26] to petition the state government into very specific action,
[4:22:31] to come up with rules that allow this tool to be used in ways
[4:22:36] that regain public trust.
[4:22:46] Vice Mayor Hernandez: I want to opine quickly I
[4:22:49] want to thank the chief Vargas it wasn't an easy decision
[4:23:00] and we spoke multiple times, including
[4:23:02] when I was on radio being interviewed on your decision.
[4:23:12] I know Captain Muller was involved
[4:23:16] and he spoke with Out Left.
[4:23:21] I spoke to Alf multiple times and you and your team
[4:23:28] called him.
[4:23:29] It wasn't just an email response.
[4:23:32] We need to commend the Pembroke Pines Police
[4:23:35] Department because you pick up the phone and call.
[4:23:39] You offer to meet with Mr. Salvy.
[4:23:43] That is commendable.
[4:23:45] Not all police departments in large cities like ours do that.
[4:23:49] To the Chief and command staff, thank you.
[4:23:52] I forgot the other captain.
[4:23:55] I know I said Woolard but whoever
[4:23:57] the other one was that called me personally, thank you.
[4:24:00] Far be it from me to criticize the governor
[4:24:04] but it wasn't that long ago that governor Desantis was advocating
[4:24:11] that our 67 counties and municipalities purchase
[4:24:14] flock cameras.
[4:24:16] He's on record.
[4:24:18] He said it at press conferences and he said it everywhere.
[4:24:22] I will not get into the politics of it.
[4:24:25] I find it interesting that there are nasty headlines coming out
[4:24:28] of Tallahassee right now, particularly
[4:24:31] with his administration and handling of it.
[4:24:33] All of a sudden he announces to take the flock cameras down.
[4:24:38] This is convenient in my view.
[4:24:40] Actually, it isn't.
[4:24:41] At the end of the day, that is press 101.
[4:24:45] Deflect when there is a crisis.
[4:24:47] Make an announcement.
[4:24:49] Take the attention away.
[4:24:50] Governor Desantis is at fault for the lack of clarity
[4:24:53] he encouraged counties and municipalities
[4:24:56] to purchase flock technology, the expenditure of tax dollars,
[4:25:02] and now he's going back on it.
[4:25:03] Rather than encourage it and tell counties and cities that
[4:25:10] since Tallahassee loves to preempt local jurisdictions --
[4:25:17] like our city or Broward County --
[4:25:20] from carrying our own laws and regulations,
[4:25:47] They did not provide any guidance out
[4:25:51] of Tallahassee of how we should handle technology that
[4:25:54] moves faster than humans do.
[4:25:57] Technology is changing every single week.
[4:26:01] It wasn't that long ago that principle Peter Bear
[4:26:05] at Price Charter didn't have to worry that students at Pines
[4:26:10] Charter were using ChatGPT.
[4:26:13] Now technology has advanced so quickly that it's
[4:26:16] difficult for us to catch up.
[4:26:18] It is incredibly unfortunate that instead of having a partner
[4:26:23] in our governor and a partner in the legislature, we don't.
[4:26:32] We are left as a local jurisdiction to clean up.
[4:26:39] That sad.
[4:26:40] I commend the chief.
[4:26:44] There are other states --
[4:26:46] Florida is one of them -- where they have a data bill of rights.
[4:26:51] You as an individual has a right to determine how much
[4:26:55] of your data exists out there because data brokers --
[4:27:00] I know this from my private consulting work --
[4:27:08] buy and sell data.
[4:27:11] To Commissioner Schwartz's point,
[4:27:14] this is why your data shows up on your phone.
[4:27:19] Your data is repackaged and sold so advertisers
[4:27:22] can determine what will pop up.
[4:27:24] I don't think you have Instagram,
[4:27:27] but this is how they determine what pops up on social media
[4:27:32] or when you open a newspaper.
[4:27:36] A digital newspaper.
[4:27:41] Florida has this kind of agreement but it is narrow.
[4:27:46] It's limited to companies with a aroun a --
[4:27:54] with around $1 million in revenue.
[4:27:57] I'm okay with all the proposals here
[4:28:00] and not just sending it to the gubernatorial candidates.
[4:28:04] I believe one is in Broward County next week we
[4:28:08] should send it to them and the incoming House speaker,
[4:28:12] the incoming Senate President.
[4:28:14] That is predetermined prior to the legislative session.
[4:28:21] We have to wait until November to see who is in what seat.
[4:28:28] Ultimately, it is immensely frustrating.
[4:28:32] I don't believe you did anything wrong.
[4:28:36] I don't believe the Pembroke Pines Police Department was
[4:28:41] careless in any way and it actually has to do with
[4:28:45] a technology that you didn't create but were encouraged
[4:28:51] to ask the previous City Commission --
[4:28:55] I came in afterwards and I think it was just prior to me being
[4:28:59] appointed --
[4:29:03] Mayor Castillo: -- no, we had it for ten years.
[4:29:10] Commissioner Schwartz: May 2024 was Chief Vargas's General
[4:29:12] Order.
[4:29:13] You were with us on that point.
[4:29:15] Vice Mayor Hernandez: I was appointed May 15th.
[4:29:20] Commissioner Rodriguez: He's --
[4:29:25] Mayor Castillo: He's talking about when
[4:29:27] we started these things.
[4:29:30] Vice Mayor Hernandez: The point is
[4:29:32] this was brought about by the governor not the chief.
[4:29:37] Thanks, chief Vargas, it's not easy being
[4:29:40] a police chief in a large city.
[4:29:42] It was difficult to make that decision.
[4:29:43] You have my support and so does your command staff.
[4:29:46] Thank you.
[4:29:53] Mayor Castillo: I have two people signed up to speak.
[4:29:56] Commissioner Rodriguez: I want to speak.
[4:29:58] Commissioner Schwartz brought up the idea
[4:29:59] of continuing to look into what that contract actually stated
[4:30:03] and what the atomized data actually came up with.
[4:30:16] I went to a conference in Baltimore in the summer
[4:30:19] and they brought up that you may only be sharing data internally
[4:30:25] and not elsewhere, but there's a caveat in the contract
[4:30:33] and the vendor can take that information.
[4:30:36] They say they split the data up so it isn't as obvious who
[4:30:40] is who, but they repackage the information
[4:30:43] and eventually sell it.
[4:30:44] Currently in the market, there is no vendor that
[4:30:48] doesn't have that part of it.
[4:30:50] That technology wouldn't be as cheap
[4:30:52] as it currently is for us to be able to use it otherwise.
[4:30:56] Not that they are the cheapest of cameras,
[4:30:59] but if a product is cheaper or free, you pay with data sharing.
[4:31:04] Most of us have Gmail, Google Maps, or Apple Maps.
[4:31:10] The reason they don't charge for their products
[4:31:12] is because you are paying for it with your data.
[4:31:18] There's a lot of discussion online not just in our city,
[4:31:25] but across the board -- and I think people like to be
[4:31:31] selectively angry when they cannot control something
[4:31:33] because they can come into City hall and ask to turn off
[4:31:38] their cameras --
[4:31:40] that opens up everyone's mind to show how surveilled
[4:31:44] we are in the general public.
[4:31:47] Here I think the issue came and was so rampantly taken
[4:31:51] on by governments, states, and a couple other agencies
[4:31:57] and the criticism was that the state now had that data,
[4:32:05] instead of what 1st May perceive private companies that sell us
[4:32:11] products.
[4:32:14] The vendors sold safety to us and we sold
[4:32:17] them the data of our residents.
[4:32:20] This happened unknowingly, because these
[4:32:23] are very nuanced conversations, as we've all come to see.
[4:32:27] Thankfully come out we are opening our eyes to this .
[4:32:37] My suggestion --
[4:32:39] and I don't think this will occur even in the next couple
[4:32:45] months -- is to do a huge investigation on our end of all
[4:32:49] our contracts.
[4:32:50] We have contracts for cameras and a million sorts
[4:32:55] of things that take in data.
[4:32:57] Where is the data going?
[4:33:01] We have cameras in our schools and there's protections
[4:33:05] on where that data can go.
[4:33:07] I've been doing research on baby monitors
[4:33:12] there are closed circuit baby monitors and people recommend
[4:33:16] that.
[4:33:17] It is easy for someone to hack a WiFi baby monitor or a camera
[4:33:26] in your home or a Bluetooth.
[4:33:31] This is in relation to the A LPR and LPR cameras,
[4:33:38] but when we are provided any kind of service,
[4:33:43] where does the data go if it is collected?
[4:33:47] We need to be conscious that maybe there
[4:33:50] are no vendors that collect data and we
[4:33:52] have to do a second look at what data is being collected.
[4:33:56] Is it worth what we are able to do?
[4:34:00] The conversation doesn't stop here.
[4:34:02] It continues to the data safety of all of our residents
[4:34:06] in the full scope of what we do.
[4:34:12] I agree that we may be not look back
[4:34:17] into every single part of it with the police department,
[4:34:20] but at least what we were able to handle.
[4:34:24] God knows where the data went.
[4:34:27] The retention policy was 30 days for some of these systems
[4:34:31] that we had.
[4:34:39] It was three years and eventually changed to 30 days.
[4:34:47] It eventually became seven but that is only
[4:34:50] the part we can control.
[4:34:51] The data is probably still being held
[4:34:54] by the flock company themselves or any of these other companies.
[4:34:59] I think we have to put parameters in.
[4:35:02] I do not want to burden the police department
[4:35:05] with looking into how flock does their data
[4:35:08] saving, other than what we internally could or could not
[4:35:15] do.
[4:35:16] I think right sizing these audits
[4:35:21] and making sure all of our legal paperwork
[4:35:26] and contracts are looked at in accordance to the data line
[4:35:32] to see where the data goes, evaluating
[4:35:34] if we are okay with sharing certain types of data.
[4:35:39] How do we work on that?
[4:35:40] Is there another product and is there
[4:35:43] something else, well more expensive,
[4:35:44] has a closed circuit with the data?
[4:35:46] That is it on my end.
[4:35:54] Commissioner Good, Jr.: I think everyone said everything
[4:35:56] that is needed to be said.
[4:35:58] I'm ready to adjourn.
[4:36:05] Mayor Castillo: I have Ben Olson from Davie, Florida.
[4:36:12] There's nothing wrong with that.
[4:36:13] You are our neighbor and state your name
[4:36:15] and address for the record.
[4:36:28] Community Member: My name is Ben Nelson and I am your neighbor.
[4:36:33] I came today because I am a victim of flock
[4:36:36] and wanted to explain how I am.
[4:36:38] I'm also a fourth generation rancher
[4:36:41] in Hinton County, Florida my family owns property there.
[4:36:45] Four years ago, my neighbor and myself learned that the Army
[4:36:53] Corps of Engineers we're going to use eminent domain to take
[4:37:01] over our property. -- advocating for a private property rights
[4:37:07] and the rights of critically endangered animals on those
[4:37:10] properties is something I do.
[4:37:12] In 2024, I released evidence that they primary Panther
[4:37:15] habitat was flooded out, despite these lands not having property
[4:37:19] on it.
[4:37:20] I proved this with surveys from the 1800s to the 2000.
[4:37:25] We recently learned in July that a few days after I released
[4:37:28] this information, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission
[4:37:31] illegally accessed the driver and vehicle Information
[4:37:34] database, or DAVID database to use flock cameras to spy on me.
[4:37:47] It is not just me.
[4:37:48] Many people are being tracked with this tactic.
[4:37:53] I go to Everglades restoration meetings, South Florida
[4:38:03] meetings.
[4:38:04] I do not make threats.
[4:38:07] I go to meetings and fight for my family's habitat.
[4:38:11] When I was fighting for my family's land,
[4:38:14] I was taking care of my mother through early onset dementia
[4:38:17] I got her audit logged back.
[4:38:20] They illegally searched a woman nine years into dementia,
[4:38:25] using information to track her son.
[4:38:27] My father and family had their Information illegally
[4:38:36] accessed 50 times.
[4:38:37] Myself, my family, and friends are
[4:38:39] being tracked by flock cameras and this
[4:38:41] is the first verified systemic abuse of the cameras.
[4:38:44] It's no mistake that the state is coming out
[4:38:49] in opposition to it because this has come down in a few weeks.
[4:38:52] We found out a long time ago we were being tracked.
[4:38:56] If we don't do something in the next few years,
[4:38:58] it will be you and your family and friends.
[4:39:01] As a person being tracked for advocating for wildlife,
[4:39:06] I think you are a hero, Mr. Schwartz,
[4:39:09] to stand up for stopping these draconian devices.
[4:39:18] There is zero measurable correlation
[4:39:21] between the increase in actual number of cameras we have
[4:39:24] and the decrease in crime.
[4:39:26] It is other factors.
[4:39:27] They don't correlate to the cameras.
[4:39:29] These cameras are antithetical to the founders
[4:39:32] intent for our country.
[4:39:34] Benjamin Franklin expressed that those
[4:39:35] who give up essential liberty for temporary safety
[4:39:39] deserve Neither liberty nor safetY.
[4:39:58] Neither we are not your canaries in th coal mine.
[4:40:15] I thank you and to answer your questions you cannot audit what
[4:40:20] FWC or other agencies do with the cameras.
[4:40:22] If you run an internal audit on the network for April 29th you
[4:40:26] would see an FWC investigation that is redacted.
[4:40:30] That is about me.
[4:40:31] You cannot see what you did with your own cameras.
[4:40:34] I will not keep talking because this is a public forum
[4:40:37] but I'm happy to engage with you and your staff
[4:40:39] to give you full details, because this
[4:40:41] is the third meeting I've gone to today about this.
[4:40:44] This is disgusting.
[4:40:45] This is real.
[4:40:46] This is why the state is changing all these things right
[4:40:48] now.
[4:40:49] The FWC is illegally stalking individuals.
[4:40:51] Just to make a point, I volunteer for the agency.
[4:40:55] I hunt pythons with them and I make panther surveying for them.
[4:40:59] I was shocked when I was on the list.
[4:41:02] There are documentarians, journalists, lawyers,
[4:41:06] conservationists, and influencers.
[4:41:08] These are people that spoke out in the meetings
[4:41:10] because they care about wildlife being trapped.
[4:41:13] Thank you for your time.
[4:41:15] I know you are not running the clock.
[4:41:17] Thanks for bringing it to the public
[4:41:18] and thank you to the chief for suspending it
[4:41:21] for Broward County.
[4:41:22] This is very real and why the state is moving quickly
[4:41:25] behind the scenes if I can be so candid.
[4:41:28] Mayor Castillo: Thanks for coming forward.
[4:41:31] All the best to you and yours.
[4:41:36] Community Member: I'm happy to engage with you.
[4:41:41] Mayor Castillo: Thank you very much.
[4:41:44] I have Al Salvy next.
[4:41:53] Community Member: Thank you so much.
[4:41:54] Mine will not be that long.
[4:42:00] Vice mayor, city Commission city manager, city attorney city
[4:42:06] clerk, let me begin by starting with something trivial
[4:42:09] that a lot of people may not know.
[4:42:11] September is national Spinal Cord Injury Month.
[4:42:16] I'm not sure if you are aware of that.
[4:42:19] I know we just had childhood cancer month
[4:42:23] but is also national Spinal Cord Injury month.
[4:42:26] I bring that up because I want to talk about how this relates
[4:42:31] to the police department.
[4:42:33] Chief Vargas, captain whirlwind, captain Pereira,
[4:42:43] Sergeant Juarez, all of you do a fantastic job
[4:42:50] enforcing spinal cord injuries.
[4:42:56] There's enforcement around taking on speeders
[4:42:59] and taking care of people with disabilities
[4:43:01] in the city of Pembroke Pines?
[4:43:03] We talk about diversity and inclusion
[4:43:06] and Pines Police Department should be spoken highly of.
[4:43:12] It is the same with the fire department.
[4:43:13] You guys are doing a fantastic job to protect people like us.
[4:43:18] Thank you and your staff.
[4:43:20] Bringing it back, I want to coattail off
[4:43:29] my vice mayor and Maria and Tom and Commissioner Schwartz.
[4:43:34] I will not make this long.
[4:43:36] As a private resident, just like the resident mentioned,
[4:43:40] it is an invasion of my privacy.
[4:43:43] I'm an American.
[4:43:44] I left Cuba for the exact reason I'm living here now.
[4:43:48] I don't want to live in a police state.
[4:43:50] I think this is becoming a police state.
[4:43:52] Not only is it becoming a police state by having us tracked
[4:43:57] and invading my property without my consent, but also
[4:44:01] the fact of what this data is being used for.
[4:44:05] I'm not a criminal.
[4:44:06] I haven't broken the law in 65 years.
[4:44:09] Without my consent, my data should not
[4:44:14] be utilized for any reason that I'm not aware of.
[4:44:17] Selling my data is not something I consented to.
[4:44:22] These cameras are being installed in city locations.
[4:44:29] I'm not sure how they were approved but they are $2,500
[4:44:31] a piece.
[4:44:32] The total installation has been about $99,000.
[4:44:37] I don't know who is paying for this.
[4:44:39] I don't know if it is taxpayers.
[4:44:41] As someone on Social Security, it hurts my pocket.
[4:44:46] This is now suspended.
[4:44:49] This is a win and a loss.
[4:44:51] There is no right answer because it helps the police department
[4:44:55] catch criminals and locate missing children,
[4:44:59] but it hurts law abiding citizens like me
[4:45:02] that feel they are being watched and tracked.
[4:45:07] I want to say that everything that was said today
[4:45:13] needs to be reconsidered and audited.
[4:45:19] It is an abomination of our rights.
[4:45:21] I only learned about flock cameras less than a month ago.
[4:45:25] I reviewed it with leadership because I
[4:45:29] felt I was getting misinformation left and right.
[4:45:37] The great police Department approached me.
[4:45:42] Captain Pereira called me and Sergeant Hernandez reached out.
[4:45:46] I was getting a lot of support reassuring me that it wasn't
[4:45:50] used for various reasons.
[4:45:53] The police department of Pembroke Pines
[4:45:55] is honest and hardworking.
[4:45:57] They protect our lives.
[4:45:58] They put their lives on the line for us every day.
[4:46:03] That's why I have the highest regard for the staff.
[4:46:08] The last thing I want to do is have any distrust
[4:46:12] in our city law enforcement.
[4:46:16] Mayor Castillo: Thank you.
[4:46:17] You are an inspiration to us and we thank you very much.
[4:46:24] >> Before you close out the meeting,
[4:46:25] so we know the direction as city Attorney,
[4:46:28] the first thing is our partner, Mike Cirillo,
[4:46:32] is reviewing contracts we have with the flock company we are
[4:46:38] reviewing this and will report back to the administration
[4:46:42] as to where we are legally in regards to the suspension that
[4:46:46] has been lawfully entered by the police Chief and the city.
[4:46:50] We will work in that direction and direct you.
[4:46:53] The second part is the take away from the motion is that you are
[4:46:57] looking for some type of resolution of some kind --
[4:47:03] Mayor Castillo: There's a resolution.
[4:47:04] We need a legal memo from you and we
[4:47:07] need additional information from the chief,
[4:47:09] to the extent that it can be provided, about any suggestions
[4:47:16] to improve the program.
[4:47:21] That is what I'm hearing, Commissioner.
[4:47:25] I'm not hearing that we want to audit the police department
[4:47:30] but want to have some information from them about how
[4:47:34] to make the program better if that is possible.
[4:47:39] Information on what improvements can be made and information
[4:47:47] on our staff.
[4:47:49] We want contract reviews and resolutions
[4:47:52] to the state to work on this.
[4:48:00] >> We will come up with a resolution and work with
[4:48:05] our police and professionals.
[4:48:07] Commissioner Schwartz: With the institutional impacts,
[4:48:11] can we look at our congressional delegation?
[4:48:15] Mayor Castillo: I have no objections.
[4:48:18] Let's include the constitutional delegation and the Broward
[4:48:22] County delegation let's make sure the resolution gets
[4:48:25] the attention of social media.
[4:48:26] I want to see it posted in its entirety.
[4:48:31] Get it to the press.
[4:48:34] Let people know that we didn't just do this.
[4:48:37] We care about it and want to see a solution come out
[4:48:40] of Tallahassee, which is the only proper place it
[4:48:45] can come from because they are the ones that authorized
[4:48:50] the use.
[4:48:51] I have one last item on old business.
[4:48:55] I thought we had a productive and well run and presented --
[4:49:02] I think Lisa Chung and the city staff there --
[4:49:09] I think in one way we owe their presentation
[4:49:14] that educated and informed us about potential cuts that
[4:49:20] could happen with respect to amendment three,
[4:49:24] I think we owe that to all the voters in the city
[4:49:29] without objection I want to ask the city manager
[4:49:31] and attorney to sit down and figure out how we can email
[4:49:35] all registered voters of the City of Pembroke Pines
[4:49:39] and provide them with a personal copy of this information.
[4:49:43] I want to be very clear that we are not advocating
[4:49:46] for or against anything.
[4:49:49] However, a public forum was held in which
[4:49:54] information was presented.
[4:49:55] The information is now on video and being
[4:49:58] streamed on our website.
[4:49:59] I see no reason why they could not
[4:50:02] be provided to each and every one of the voters,
[4:50:05] so they can look at the information.
[4:50:11] >> I respect your views and those of your colleagues.
[4:50:17] We will look at the statute carefully.
[4:50:18] We've been asked by the administration
[4:50:20] to give guidance as to what 106.113 says.
[4:50:24] There are very expressed reservations and restrictions
[4:50:28] on the statute, which I would never choose to put anyone
[4:50:33] at risk with our mayor.
[4:50:35] I will be blunt about it and you will forgive me
[4:50:38] for being that direct, but there's
[4:50:39] a specific express reference in the statute in terms
[4:50:42] of sending things to electors.
[4:50:45] There may be other ways to get to electors or those
[4:50:48] who are paying attention.
[4:50:52] Commissioner Rodriguez rose the issue.
[4:50:55] You talked about utilizing social media.
[4:50:57] We will look at those options.
[4:50:59] Mayor Castillo: That's fine.
[4:51:01] Let's think of a few.
[4:51:02] Maybe we have to boost it or something.
[4:51:05] I don't know what the answers are.
[4:51:07] People are hungry for this to be educated about this matter.
[4:51:14] Commissioner Rodriguez: For factual and educational
[4:51:16] purposes, I agree people need to know more
[4:51:19] about the Powerpoint of that link.
[4:51:22] But that should not be shared on social media.
[4:51:25] It needs to be more concise and in a more shareable fashion.
[4:51:31] There have been other public forums
[4:51:33] that have been publicized.
[4:51:34] They have good legal teams as well
[4:51:39] that wouldn't put them in jeopardy
[4:51:41] but we could think about doing something of that sort,
[4:51:44] keeping to factual education and information
[4:51:48] only, to make that more accessible to residents.
[4:51:52] It was publicized but not advertised as widely
[4:51:58] as I might have appreciated some people to attend amendment three
[4:52:03] or the budget workshop we had.
[4:52:15] It would be a good idea for us to have
[4:52:17] a public forum on the topic.
[4:52:19] I would prefer for staff to have the presentation and not us.
[4:52:25] I'm hesitant to say we should send it.
[4:52:29] Social media doesn't count as sending
[4:52:31] and another public forum doesn't start as sending.
[4:52:33] Mayor Castillo: If you all want to put together public forums,
[4:52:38] that is fine.
[4:52:42] >> That is fair game.
[4:52:46] This is an important topic for all of us
[4:52:49] in the room and outside.
[4:52:50] It is less about the content because as I've seen the drafts,
[4:52:55] the content is factual and clear.
[4:52:57] They are not argumentative nor advocacy.
[4:53:00] The destination matters under the statute.
[4:53:03] I do not want to use an ugly word but it is "muzzled."
[4:53:11] we've connected many forums.
[4:53:12] You need to be very careful.
[4:53:14] We are being very guarded about making sure
[4:53:16] that although it's a topic upon which we have great concern,
[4:53:20] we don't want to misstep and violate the law unintentionally.
[4:53:26] Mayor Castillo: No one is suggesting we violate the law.
[4:53:29] I think there's a great deal of hunger for information
[4:53:33] that people can rely upon about this very important matter.
[4:53:39] We have that information and should find a way
[4:53:42] that is legal to disseminate.
[4:53:48] Commissioner Schwartz: Attorney, I appreciate your focus on this,
[4:53:52] utilizing third parties.
[4:53:54] The law is explicit to what information there can be,
[4:54:03] how it's gathered and distributed.
[4:54:05] It doesn't just impact elected officials but also the city
[4:54:11] administration.
[4:54:12] I look forward to getting your response
[4:54:15] at the appropriate time.
[4:54:17] It is serious business and I appreciate
[4:54:21] you protecting us from the law.
[4:54:23] >> Thank you very much.
[4:54:27] Commissioner Good, Jr.: I want to reiterate
[4:54:30] that facts are facts but probable solutions
[4:54:34] that were presented is not something I'm supporting at all.
[4:54:41] I stated today that one of the potentials
[4:54:46] was getting rid of all events.
[4:54:48] I'm not interested in supporting that in any case whatsoever.
[4:54:53] I will make that statement at the time
[4:54:58] it will be if it is to be.
[4:55:00] That's not a fact.
[4:55:02] It's a potential.
[4:55:03] It needs to be clear because I will not
[4:55:05] stand behind someone saying this until we
[4:55:07] go through the exercise of what we really are
[4:55:09] going to do to make it a fact.
[4:55:14] What the remedy to the facts is something
[4:55:17] I'm against having being published in a format that
[4:55:21] makes it look like a fact.
[4:55:24] Mayor Castillo: Thank you very much.
[4:55:28] Anything else?
[4:55:30] This meeting is adjourned.
[4:55:35] [GAVEL BANGS]