[1:01] All right. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the regular town commission meeting of Tuesday, March 10 to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:26] All right. So we've got a couple deferrals on this agenda item. Until the next meeting, we're going to be deferring 5A, 12A.

[1:35] 13A and 19A.

[1:39] Are there any other addition solutions or deferrals?

[1:45] Pretty much all the items, right?

[1:47] And we're going to be moving up.

[1:50] We will also be moving up the item 18B

[1:54] until after our invocation.

[1:57] So everybody understands.

[1:59] All right, Rabbi Singer.

[2:05] OK, if they can increase the microphone now, would you be good to?

[2:09] Please,

[2:13] head in the podium as well,

[2:17] once I can wrap it.

[2:19] Thanks.

[2:22] Is it working?

[2:23] I'm not sure.

[2:25] Yep.

[2:26] Go ahead, sir.

[2:34] Honourable mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, town staff, town attorney, distinguished residents

[2:44] of Lord of the day by the sea, good evening,

[2:49] and a couple of weeks on Wednesday, April

[2:55] First, we are sure in a Jewish holiday called Passover, which is known as the celebration

[3:02] of freedom.

[3:04] The Passover celebration begins with a traditional Seder meal, which we start with an invitation

[3:15] for whoever is hungry to come and eat.

[3:17] This custom began where there were many hungry people, many years ago, who could be expected

[3:27] to accept the invitation.

[3:30] Thank God today in the United States, I believe, actual hunger for the most part no longer exists.

[3:44] Nowadays, food insecurity could possibly mean that someone doesn't know today where

[3:53] tomorrow's dinner is coming from.

[3:56] God has blessed us with such abundance that even obesity is common amongst many segments

[4:06] of the society.

[4:09] But yet we still have hunger. Nearly 3,000 years ago, the Prophet Amos predicted,

[4:19] days are coming, says the Lord our God, when I will send the famine into the land.

[4:25] Not a famine for bread, nor thirst for water, but to hear the word of the Lord.

[4:34] Those days of famine are here. We are surrounded by many people who have all the food they need.

[4:43] But yet they are hungry and thirsty for knowledge. Because what we really hungry for is connection, meaning, direction and spirituality.

[4:59] and the ancient invitation goes out to them, whoever is hungry, come and eat, whoever is in need, come and learn.

[5:10] Almighty God, we thank You for giving us plenty. We thank You for giving us much physical needs.

[5:22] We ask you to help us satisfy the psychic family that you have sent us.

[5:30] Guide our elected leaders in their efforts to create and maintain an environment in which

[5:37] those seeking your word can find it free of distraction, of physical want, and free of

[5:45] man made barriers between us and you. In this season of freedom, refresh us with a spirit

[5:56] of redemption and freedom that we may be free to serve you without trials and tribulations

[6:06] and despite all the hardships and challenges which we may encounter may be blessed to be

[6:12] to be focused, to be able to serve you with joy, with happiness, with clarity, and maybe you'll be blessed with an abundance of health for us and for our loved ones.

[6:29] Amen. Thank you.

[6:33] All

[6:36] right, so we're going to be moving up 18 B. I do have a statement that the town attorney provided for me to read and we will get to the public comments, we'll have a presentation and then get to the public comments.

[6:49] All right, as provided in section 2-23 of the town code and the town's meeting procedure resolutions it is my obligation as mayor to maintain strict order and decorum at the commission meetings.

[7:05] All comments should be related to town business and we strive to conduct the meeting in a polite and respectful manner.

[7:12] The broadest possible accommodations will be provided for statements of personal opinion.

[7:18] but no one should engage in personal attacks.

[7:20] Please do not delay or interrupt the proceedings or piece of the meeting.

[7:27] Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stamping a feet, whistles,

[7:31] yells, and similar demonstrations are prohibited.

[7:35] Any person who causes an interruption of the meeting will be given

[7:39] the option to stop the interruption or to leave the meeting.

[7:43] Failure to comply following a warning may lead to it order the sergeant of arms,

[7:47] to remove you from this room for the remainder of this meeting.

[7:51] Continued willful interruptions or disturbances may lead to arrests pursuant to section 871-01 of Florida statutes.

[8:02] Town Clerk, how many do we have to speak?

[8:05] We have 46 speakers.

[8:07] 46 speakers.

[8:09] Okay, so we are going to also limit this to two minutes.

[8:12] We do have a clock right underneath me, which will warn you also our podium will flash yellow when 30 seconds remains to give you a warning.

[8:22] Obviously, if it turns red and it buzzes and just complete your thoughts, we're not going to shut you off.

[8:28] So let's be mindful of everyone allowing everyone to speak.

[8:32] If there's an option to say something like, oh, I'm speaking on behalf of two other people with me and we all want to agree,

[8:39] It would help aid the process so that people don't have to wait.

[8:42] With that many speakers, this is going to be like a two hour, so your consideration would be greatly appreciated.

[8:49] So with that, we will call the first person that speaks up on 18th.

[8:53] I'm sorry, I apologize, we're going to have a presentation first, and then we'll get to public comments.

[9:00] Commissioner DiNapoliis, is your item, would you like to present it?

[9:07] Thank you, Mayor, fellow commissioners, and everyone who has joined us here tonight.

[9:11] Before we take public comment, I want to take some time to clearly explain what this motion is and what it is not because there has been some confusion in media reports and public discussion.

[9:23] I have some final belt and suspender edits to the draft resolution, which have been passed around and I enter them into the record.

[9:32] I'm happy to answer any questions on those later during the discussion period.

[9:37] They've been passed around to the commissioners.

[9:39] We routinely edit resolutions up here, which is why they are presented as drafts ahead

[9:44] of time.

[9:46] This version printed is the version I'm seeking the motion on.

[9:49] Can I see you've queued the slides?

[9:52] So ladies and gentlemen, please follow along and look at the slides as I walk through

[9:56] the presentation.

[9:58] So we currently have what is called a secondary code designation.

[10:02] That's right there.

[10:03] at SeaGrip and Commercial for President Donald J. Trump Drive.

[10:08] This was approved by this commission on September 10th, 2025.

[10:15] The commission later approved meeting minutes from that September 10th meeting on December

[10:21] 9th, 2025, and those minutes referenced the final draft resolution approved, which is a

[10:28] routine administrator process.

[10:29] The sign we currently have is a green lamppost sign for President Donald J. Trump drive, similar in style to that of Barack Obama Boulevard, which also exists in Broward, so you could see it right there at the bottom.

[10:48] So, why are we discussing this again today, because the Florida legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation 82 to 30 in the House in 27 to 10 in the Senate, so that 73% in each chamber to create an honorary state designation for commercial boulevard within the town limits of Lauderdale by the sea for President Donald J. Trump boulevard.

[11:14] I'm

[11:19] sorry one second. Those outside could you please be respectful and let the commissioner make his presentation?

[11:28] Or you can leave either way.

[11:32] As I've said, the state has passed an honorary state designation for commercial boulevard within the town limits of Lauderdale by the sea for President Donald J. Trump boulevard.

[11:42] It's important to understand what this means. This does not rename commercial boulevard.

[11:50] Let me repeat that clearly. This does not change the name of commercial boulevard. The state would simply install two brown and yellow honorary roadway markers for President Trump that are added on the street rather than replacing any commercial boulevard signage.

[12:16] So what the state legislature has voted on is to add two standard markers like this image on commercial boulevard.

[12:24] You've probably there about six to eight feet off the ground.

[12:27] You've probably seen similar ones all across Florida.

[12:30] There's one for POE Arache along the beach there.

[12:34] They named them after many different people.

[12:38] So the motion before us tonight is actually very simple.

[12:42] If the governor signs the bill already passed by the Florida legislature

[12:48] and the two brown and yellow state markers go up,

[12:51] then the town will contingently remove the two local green

[12:56] lamppost signs at sea grape and commercial.

[13:00] That's it.

[13:02] What this motion does not do is permanently create two

[13:06] designations at the same intersection.

[13:09] So we are not trying to create a Trump and Trump intersection

[13:12] with this motion.

[13:15] The intent here is actually the opposite.

[13:18] It's to be reasonable and to ensure there is only one

[13:21] designation if the state law takes effect.

[13:24] So to be very clear, here's how the vote works.

[13:27] Scenario one, if the commission votes yes, and the governor signs the bill,

[13:32] the state installs two standard brown and yellow roadway markers up on commercial like the one in the picture.

[13:39] The town removes the two local green lamppost code designation signs at sea grape and commercial.

[13:45] The end result, one clear state designation, and we call it a day.

[13:51] Scenario two, if the commission votes yes and the governor for some reason does not sign the bill,

[13:57] the town local signage at sea grief and commercial remains the result status quo.

[14:03] If the commission votes no today, town local signage at sea grief and commercial also remains the result status quo.

[14:13] So a yes vote simply prepares the town to implement the state designation if it becomes

[14:21] law while leaving the current sign in place if it does not.

[14:25] We are hearing this today to let everyone know we are not trying to have people meet at

[14:32] a Trump and Trump intersection.

[14:34] The goal here is to have one remaining at the end.

[14:37] So now I'm going to talk to you all about history and precedent.

[14:40] Every governmental body that is considered this state honorary designation has approved

[14:46] it, often unanimously and with bipartisan support.

[14:50] The following slides show that communities across Florida handle presidential roadway

[14:56] designations as nonpartisan ceremonial

[15:00] Tax. They have done so quietly, respectfully, and reasonably. The following evidence also shows that naming streets after people, politicians and presidents, often during their presidency, is part of the history of Florida and part of our towns and counties history. It is not unusual, it is not partisan, it is part of the historical record. The next series of slides shows that recognizing presidents with roadways has

[15:29] happen for generations in Broward and the Tri-County area.

[15:34] It has happened during their presidencies and while they are alive.

[15:39] There is no reason we should treat the current President differently.

[15:50] So as you can see in Hollywood and Broward, right here in Broward County in the 1920s,

[15:56] 27 Presidents including then incumbent Calvin Coolidge received streets.

[16:00] You've got Eisenhower, Kennedy, George H.W. Bush, received a street in Del Rey in Palm Beach County.

[16:08] You can see it right there, back in the early 90s.

[16:11] During his one and only term, he received it.

[16:14] So, once again, during his term.

[16:16] We have the Ronald Reagan term pike, named during his lifetime.

[16:20] Barack Obama Boulevard.

[16:23] Next slide.

[16:23] was designated in Broward in 2009 during the first year of his presidency,

[16:30] followed by a street in Miami-Dade and not one but two streets in Palm Beach County

[16:38] during his second term. More recently in 2023, the City Commission of

[16:44] Hylia, home to the second largest Hispanic population in the United States,

[16:48] unanimously approved a Trump Street. In 2024, the Miami-Dade County Commission

[16:55] approved a Trump Street, 9-1, with Democrats and Republicans joining

[17:01] together. Palm Beach County acted last year unanimously to co-designate part of

[17:08] Southern Boulevard in the president's honor. All three Republicans and all four

[17:14] Democrats voted for it.

[17:17] The town of Palm Beach voted unanimously on a consent agenda to approve the designation

[17:22] for President Trump on Southern Boulevard last September, unanimously.

[17:27] West Palm Beach approved that same designation, four to one, including three Democrats, so

[17:34] they all have to vote on that because it crosses towns.

[17:38] Why did these commissions vote this way so overwhelmingly in favor because they recognize something

[17:43] simple, they were honoring the President of the United States not making a partisan statement.

[17:49] The facts are that all of these votes were done with very little controversy.

[17:55] So the question becomes, why should it be any different here?

[18:00] If counties just

[18:04] continue to speak, please.

[18:07] If counties where

[18:13] commissioners run openly on party lines can come together and pass this

[18:17] with bipartisan support, surely our small town where commissioners don't run on a party

[18:21] line can and should do the same.

[18:24] Why should we be divided on this issue when literally no one else has?

[18:29] If our neighbors in the tri-county area from all walks of life can honor President Trump

[18:33] with bipartisan support, just as other presidents have been recognized, then surely our town

[18:39] can do so as well and be just as inclusive as they have been.

[18:44] Some people have said we should not name things after people, but that is simply not reality.

[18:52] Our town itself reflects this tradition.

[18:55] We have Freight Family Park.

[18:57] We have the building we are presently meeting in, Jarvis Hall, named after a person.

[19:03] Our beach portals, our Connie Hoffman-Blasa, all named for people, even while living.

[19:10] Across Broward County and the entire country,

[19:12] There are parks, roads, and buildings named after people.

[19:16] It's part of the civic life here in Florida, as well as other states.

[19:20] If you fly in a Little Rock, Arkansas, a well known Republican state now,

[19:25] you land at the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport.

[19:27] This is not about politics, it's about honoring and recognizing history.

[19:32] It's a standard practice, not a partisan act.

[19:36] To deny recognition now is to erase history, and that is simply unreasonable.

[19:42] Some have asked why here in Lauderdale, by the sea.

[19:45] Well, the answer is simple.

[19:47] Besides our town approving our local sign last year,

[19:51] the Florida legislature recently weighing in,

[19:54] and Florida law requiring us to have a vote on this.

[19:58] Supporters of presidents often seek these recognitions

[20:00] in communities where those presidents

[20:02] were strongly supported.

[20:04] The President Obama's streets in Broward, Palm Beach,

[20:07] and Miami-Dade were all promoted by his supporters

[20:09] in communities that voted for him overwhelmingly.

[20:12] This is natural and the same dynamic is true here.

[20:16] Supporters make these requests and opponents

[20:18] may voice objections.

[20:20] You're always more likely to hear

[20:22] from the opposition for these resolutions.

[20:25] But I also know that there are just as many,

[20:27] if not more, in support.

[20:29] They simply don't feel the need

[20:30] to come to a microphone.

[20:33] They have already.

[20:34] Excuse me, Commissioner, one second.

[20:36] For those that are yelling outside,

[20:37] Here's your one warning if you continue. I'm going to ask them to have you leave. Please

[20:42] Yeah, I don't care. You can keep yelling. You're going to be sent home if you continue. Go ahead commissioner

[20:52] So your buttons not press it's

[20:58] not green one second. Go ahead

[21:01] It's not working for me

[21:02] That

[21:09] hit the button again

[21:10] Okay, one

[21:19] second guys are having some issues

[21:25] It's green now

[21:27] Okay, go ahead.

[21:28] As I was saying, you're all more likely to hear from the opposition for these resolutions.

[21:31] But I also know there's just as many, if not more, in support.

[21:35] They simply don't feel the need to come to a microphone.

[21:37] They've already spoken at the ballot box.

[21:40] The fact is that lateral by the sea gave President Trump very large victories in all three of his elections in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

[21:50] The present supporters here are neighbors, small business owners, parents, retirees, volunteers, and families.

[21:58] They're part of the civic fabric of our town.

[22:01] It's a fact that you can take a walk on commercial boulevard and see small businesses selling some Trump theme merchandise, even a restaurant that serves a Trump burger.

[22:09] Whether you agree with it politically or not, it is a reality of our community.

[22:14] That's why it's fitting to recognize President Trump in the place where so much support has always been centered.

[22:19] Their voices in this town's voice is clearly unique in Broward County, which tends to vote the mere opposite, but it deserves to be recognized no less.

[22:29] Right here in Broward, Barack Obama Boulevard was co-designated in 2009, shortly after his election.

[22:35] Not in a place he lived, but in a place that supported him strongly.

[22:39] He's got four streets in the tri-county area.

[22:42] There were no protests of that decision, it was respected.

[22:45] Today, I simply ask for the same courtesy and fairness.

[22:49] There should really be no controversy that we recognize the president who carried our

[22:54] town three times by large majorities who has our only president from Florida, and he

[22:59] was shaped national history.

[23:01] Now, I understand that for some, this may feel controversial, and I want to acknowledge

[23:05] that openly.

[23:07] Look, I know this is a passionate issue.

[23:09] I know there are strong feelings on both sides.

[23:12] That's the nature of democracy.

[23:13] Our job up here is not to avoid every tough conversation, it's to handle them fairly and respectfully.

[23:21] I want to assure you that my goal is to represent all of our community's diverse perspectives.

[23:27] This resolution is about division, it's about recognizing a legacy that matters to many residents

[23:33] while respecting all viewpoints. I've heard some say, oh, we don't need this. My answer is simple,

[23:38] Fairness is always needed, balance is always needed.

[23:42] We need it because this recognition reflects the voices of so many in our community.

[23:48] Give those voices their due.

[23:50] We are merely transitioning a local sign to a state sign.

[23:54] The time is right, the Florida legislature passed this designation, and

[23:59] small towns can make history just as big cities can.

[24:03] Some may, I've heard this said, don't politicize our town.

[24:05] You know, I hear that concern, and I want to be clear, this is not about politicizing anything, and this is not about partisanship.

[24:17] I'll repeat, this is not about politicizing anything, and this is not about partisanship.

[24:23] Honoring one president does not diminish another.

[24:27] Code designating Obama Boulevard in Broward did not erase the Ronald Reagan turnpike.

[24:32] Approving a Trump Boulevard does not erase Obama.

[24:35] It's about adding, not subtracting, about inclusion, fairness and respect, not division.

[24:42] If honoring President Obama with a boulevard wasn't politicizing, then this should not be either.

[24:49] Fairness is not politics, it's respect and recognition.

[24:52] And beyond symbolism, there are benefits here.

[24:55] This could put Lauderdale by the sea on the map in a whole new way.

[24:59] As a place that recognized history while it was being made,

[25:03] a landmark that attracts visitors, photos, even national attention.

[25:07] I've seen plenty of people taking selfies and visiting the existing sign at Siegrey.

[25:12] Our town has been packed with visitors lately, undeniable,

[25:16] tourists love symbolic landmarks.

[25:19] Those who support the new state markers, what they're going to do is proudly take a photo.

[25:23] Those who don't will simply walk away or drive past it.

[25:27] The state markers are not going to disrupt daily life.

[25:30] They're certainly not going to hurt tourism on the contrary, they're going to enhance it far from driving visitors away

[25:36] They will be a draw and it could still bring a presidential visit now that it has the blessing of the state legislature

[25:46] You never know

[25:48] I don't think we should ignore the overwhelming vote of the legislature

[25:51] Approving this might even help us in Tallahassee where too often Broward is seen as only part of the opposing team

[25:57] Showing the true diversity of our communities voice in a positive way can only help us

[26:02] Now, it's important to address some false claims that I've seen circulating.

[26:06] Some of the suggested the Florida legislature was somehow misled about a resolution passed

[26:10] by this commission.

[26:12] That is simply incorrect.

[26:15] First of all, legislature knows about our local sign and referenced its desire to codify

[26:20] our earlier local vote.

[26:22] The honorary local sign resolution was passed by this town commission on September 10, 2025.

[26:29] The date of December 9th, 2025, which has been referenced by some, refers only to the town

[26:36] commission's later approval of the meeting minutes from that September 10th meeting,

[26:41] minutes that are naturally approved at a later meeting.

[26:44] The minutes provide legal support for the resolution adopted during the earlier meeting.

[26:49] This is standard procedure since the minutes approved include reference to the minor changes

[26:54] is made to the initial draft that were approved the night of that September 10th meeting.

[26:59] So just like I offered some minor changes to tonight's draft for resolution, the minutes

[27:04] re-approved at a later meeting would naturally reflect that.

[27:08] So there's no vast conspiracy at play here just referencing the minutes related to the final

[27:13] resolution.

[27:13] So to be clear, the resolution itself was passed on September 10th, and the minutes reflecting

[27:19] that action were approved on December 9th, which is a routine administrative step taken

[27:24] by every commission. There is no misinformation provided to the legislature and the public record

[27:30] clearly reflects the September vote as well as the later minutes being approved.

[27:35] Others have suggested this process was somehow hidden or secret. Again, that is not true.

[27:41] We are discussing this tonight in a public meeting with public comment followed by a vote in front

[27:46] of the public with plenty of people here. Exactly how local government is supposed to work.

[27:52] Transparency is exactly what tonight's meeting represents, an open discussion followed by a vote in front of the public.

[27:59] Some have also argued that having the Commission vote on any names of streets is

[28:04] somehow against the democratic process and should require

[28:07] townwide referendums. I've showed you the history on those slides of how representative governments have named streets and roads all over the

[28:16] state and country.

[28:17] Representative government functions because voters elect commissioners to make decisions after hearing public input.

[28:24] If every routine decision required a townwide referendum, local government simply would not function.

[28:31] I've shown you that the state law is what governs this process, not our local charter.

[28:36] State law requires the state designation to come before us at the local commission.

[28:41] So we do have a state locally through our commission.

[28:44] It's also important to remember that commercial boulevard is a state roadway.

[28:49] The state of Florida has the authority to designate state roads, and this resolution

[28:53] simply clarifies how the town would respond if the governor signs the bill.

[28:59] Contrary to some things I've read, nothing here tonight is stopping a local charter amendment

[29:03] governing local signage.

[29:06] Lastly, I've heard some of the most partisan voices I've ever met claim they are defending

[29:11] non-partisanship.

[29:12] yet many of those same voices have themselves acted with extreme partisanship

[29:17] attacking commissioners personally and spreading misinformation. This

[29:22] resolution is not about partisanship, it's about recognizing and honoring

[29:26] history, not politics. Florida is the home state of the president, our only

[29:33] president from Florida, and I've shown you that communities across Florida have

[29:38] honored presidents of both parties in similar ways. We should treat our current president

[29:43] no differently. Let me also point out something important about the resolution before us

[29:49] tonight because I believe it reflects a reasonable compromise that you might not all see. Some

[29:55] people will say they want to remove any reference to the president entirely.

[30:05] But that's not what we are here to do tonight, and that approach doesn't solve disagreement. It simply tries to erase history.

[30:15] Respectfully, that's not compromised. On the other hand, I've received some calls that ask for both the C-grave sign and the state markers to go up. And that's also not what this resolution does. In many ways, this resolution is actually a win-win for everyone involved.

[30:34] For those who support the current local sign, a yes vote ensures that President Trump is

[30:39] still honored through the state designation that has already passed the Florida legislature.

[30:45] And for those who oppose the current local lamppost sign at C-Greypin commercial, a yes

[30:50] vote also means the local sign will come down once the state markers go up.

[30:55] So if you think about it, this resolution actually reduces conflict rather than creating

[31:00] it.

[31:00] It's very reasonable and common sense solution.

[31:04] It replaces a local sign that some people object to, with a standardized state designation that is used across Florida to honor historical figures.

[31:14] In other words, the town takes a step back and allows the state recognition to stand on its own on a state road.

[31:21] That's why this is balanced and a reasonable outcome.

[31:24] And in government, when you can find a path that resolves concerns on both sides, that's

[31:29] usually the right path to take.

[31:31] I also want to acknowledge that some commissioners previously voted against the original designation.

[31:37] I respect that.

[31:38] Reasonable people can disagree, but tonight we are not deciding whether recognition should

[31:43] exist.

[31:45] Recognition for the president exists currently at C-GRAPE.

[31:48] Tonight, we are deciding whether to adopt a reasonable compromise that aligns our town with the state designation already overwhelmingly approved by the Florida legislature.

[32:00] I hope we will be on the side of history.

[32:04] So I would simply ask my colleagues to consider whether supporting this resolution now might reflect exactly what our residents expect from us, practical cooperation and

[32:14] and reasonableness when circumstances evolve.

[32:17] Because in many ways, this proposal accommodates both perspectives.

[32:22] Now I want to acknowledge that I know this is a passionate issue.

[32:24] There are strong feelings on both sides.

[32:27] This is democracy, but something else is also true.

[32:30] Often the loudest voices in a room are those opposed to something.

[32:34] Those who support something are often simply satisfied to see it moving forward

[32:38] and do not always come to the microphone.

[32:40] They also might not await a couple hours to just say a few words.

[32:44] My responsibility is not just to the people in this room tonight.

[32:47] It is to the more than 6,000 residents of Lauderdale by the sea.

[32:51] And many residents have contacted me privately, and I've received probably over 100 public

[32:56] comments, positive public comments, about this resolution in the last few days.

[33:02] I'll be candid.

[33:02] I like the local sign at Sea Great personally.

[33:05] Plenty of people have shared with me how much they love it.

[33:08] I thought it was a nice local recognition, but I'm also willing to be reasonable and step

[33:14] aside for the state markers.

[33:16] This resolution reflects compromise, fairness, and the same approach other counties and municipalities

[33:21] have taken successfully.

[33:23] So the question before us tonight is really very simple.

[33:27] Does lawter will by the sea treat this president the same way other presidents have been treated

[33:31] across our region?

[33:32] or do we make this town the one place where recognition becomes controversy?

[33:39] I believe the answer should be fairness.

[33:41] I believe the answer should be respect for history, and I believe the answer should be

[33:46] respect for the office of the president.

[33:48] By approving this resolution, we affirm that our town respects its history, values all of

[33:54] its people, and is willing to extend recognition in a way that is measured, dignified, and

[33:59] and beneficial to the community.

[34:01] A yes vote is a common sense compromise.

[34:04] And I hope that we've followed lead of every other elected body on this issue and vote overwhelmingly in favor of this resolution.

[34:12] With that, I reserve my further comments on this motion for after public comments.

[34:16] I proudly present this resolution and ask for your support and a second.

[34:21] And so just to be clear, you're making the motion before we have public comments.

[34:28] That is a yes.

[34:30] You're not on mic.

[34:31] Okay.

[34:32] May I speak?

[34:34] I'll press the button.

[34:35] All right.

[34:36] Let me press the button.

[34:37] You already lit up.

[34:38] You're lit up.

[34:39] Go ahead.

[34:39] Okay.

[34:40] If the motion's been made, then I'll probably second the motion.

[34:44] Okay.

[34:45] All right.

[34:45] So we have a first and a second, but we are going to have public comments and then I'll

[34:50] I'll come back to you for that second.

[34:51] If you want to make additional comments

[34:54] since you made the motion and then we'll take it

[34:55] for the rest of us.

[34:57] So with that, Claire, please call the first person.

[35:01] Oh, I'm sorry.

[35:02] When you come up to the microphone, the microphone flexes

[35:05] so make sure that you raise it and flex it

[35:07] so that everybody could hear you.

[35:09] Again, there is two minutes and please state your name

[35:11] and address for the record.

[35:13] So we have that as well.

[35:14] Thank you.

[35:17] In mere disverification, I received a final list

[35:20] So we have 55 total speakers 55 speakers, okay, so we're going to call them three in a row.

[35:27] So the first three speakers are Patrick Ferguson, Michael Ferguson and Laura Ortiz.

[35:44] Patrick Ferguson, 4550 West Trade Rins Avenue, mayor, commissioners, good evening.

[35:51] A long time resident here in Lauderdale, by the sea.

[35:54] And what brings many of us here today is not just a road sign, it's something more fundamental than that.

[35:58] trust in the local democratic process, and trust in our local elected officials.

[36:03] Back in September, after the resolution co-designating Seagrape Drive was passed,

[36:08] several residents including myself making up the no politics and paradise.

[36:12] Initiative got together, drafted, and submitted a charter amendment to the town.

[36:18] Purpose of this charter amendment was so that going forward all honorary

[36:22] Co-Name Designations, other be roads, public places in town, would ultimately go back to the residents for a vote of approval before being enacted.

[36:32] Now, unfortunately, we submitted our charter amendment back in January, and unfortunately our great town attorney has been held up from giving her final legal form opinion on that at the behest of one commission.

[36:45] And we found out that there was a secondary process going on the whole time, whereby language

[36:52] was snuck into a bill in Tallahassee as an amendment, and which included the code designation

[36:59] for commercial boulevard.

[37:01] This was done, folks, because it is a state road, and that would make it outside the authority

[37:06] of our planned charter amendment that was underway.

[37:10] And regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum with this issue,

[37:15] it sends a wrong message under your undermines local trust in our democratic process.

[37:20] But this commission can do a lot to repair that by voting no on this resolution.

[37:25] I want everyone in this room to know that the streets of Lauderdale by the sea don't belong to politicians.

[37:30] They don't belong to political parties.

[37:33] They belong to the people.

[37:35] Thank you very much.

[37:45] Michael Ferguson.

[37:57] Good evening, Michael Ferguson, 4550 West

[38:01] trade winds Avenue. I'm a long time resident and veteran of the United States

[38:05] Air Force, and I have a proposal for this commission that I believe can

[38:11] unite this town and put aside this unnecessary partisan divide to do this

[38:16] honorary Trump sign. And that proposal is to vote no on this resolution, remove

[38:22] move the President's name and honor a true hero, a commercial boulevard.

[38:28] And that hero is Army Captain Cody Cork, a true son of Florida who decided to serve

[38:35] his nation and was tragically killed when the President started a war with Iran without

[38:43] congressional authority.

[38:45] So let's,

[38:51] so let's honor Captain Cork, who served the residents in this room

[38:56] honorably. In for the residents in this room, I also have a proposal for you. If you

[39:03] feel that your local officials are ignoring you, if you are sick and tired of

[39:09] these officials focusing more on culture wars and partisan puffery than the

[39:14] issues that actually matter,

[39:18] if you want full

[39:24] leadership in this community, instead of

[39:30] a certain town commissioner that ignores the people, goes the Tallahassee and sidestepped

[39:38] a local democratic process.

[39:41] If that makes you sick and tired then I have a proposal for you and that proposal is to

[39:47] this and me to tell Hassee, to be your voice, because I intend to run for Florida House District 100, because this community deserves true leadership.

[39:57] All right.

[40:05] Let speakers, Laura Ortiz, followed by Linda Thompson Gonzalez, followed by Kimberly Birch.

[40:12] Hi.

[40:22] How are you?

[40:23] Good evening.

[40:24] I'm Linda Thompson Gonzalez, mayor and commissioners.

[40:27] Thank you for the opportunity to be with you this evening and speak.

[40:31] The people of Lauderd, I'm a long time resident, excuse me, of Lauderd, of all the CLIV

[40:36] and C Ranch building A. Thank you.

[40:38] The people of Lauderdale by the sea really want home rule.

[40:42] We voted for each of you because we believe in the democratic process and we really want

[40:48] you first and foremost to defend our home rule to stand up for the right of the people in

[40:55] our town to make our decisions about what happens within our town.

[41:02] We don't really want that our voices are diminished or

[41:08] overridden by state preemptions.

[41:12] We do not want you to hand over control to legislators in Tallahassee to force their decisions

[41:18] on all of us.

[41:19] In fact, you're handing us, presenting us with a Fed a complete, but only requires the signature

[41:24] of the governor to make all of this happen.

[41:27] So instead of a code designation of the C great road,

[41:31] we now have a state law that code designates commercial

[41:35] as has been described previously,

[41:37] that will code designate commercial boulevard,

[41:39] which is our main road.

[41:41] The main road that runs the entire length of our small town

[41:44] from the bridge to the beach.

[41:47] This was done really without ever allowing.

[41:50] We can talk, say this, we have a democratic process,

[41:52] but this was not done in a democratic or fair way.

[41:56] This was done without ever allowing the people of our town

[41:58] to have a vote, to express our opinions beforehand,

[42:02] before we were presented with a federal complete,

[42:05] in a denigration really of our home rule,

[42:10] which we all really cherish.

[42:13] You have taken our voice, we betrayed our trust.

[42:17] Several residents have proposed a charter amendment

[42:21] and we urge you to support the Charter Amendment which would have placed this vote in the hands

[42:28] of our residents to vote up or down.

[42:32] It's quite apparent that this democratic process was not acceptable and instead there was

[42:40] an end run which we are aware of that was made to Tallahassee.

[42:45] So, you know, we can say that this is a democratic process.

[42:50] You know, we can, it's really a betrayal of our home rule.

[42:55] This action, you know, you can say, put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[43:01] And I think we've had a process here that's not fair.

[43:05] It's not supportive of our home rule.

[43:07] We ask you to please restore our trust in our town commission, restore trust in our town

[43:14] leadership and restore a home role.

[43:17] Please vote no on 18B.

[43:20] Thank you very much.

[43:21] Thank you, Excuse me.

[43:37] Good evening.

[43:38] My name is Kimberly Birch,

[43:39] Lauderdale by the C resident.

[43:41] After the September vote on the code designation,

[43:44] many of us resident felt our voices were not being heard.

[43:48] So we followed the law.

[43:49] We exercised our rights under the state constitution

[43:52] by organizing, protesting, and submitting a charter amendment.

[43:55] So the voters could decide this issue at the ballot box.

[43:59] Instead, we read in the news that House Bill 33 passed code designating commercial boulevard,

[44:05] and that a state representative was asked by one of our commissioners to add the commercial boulevard language to this bill.

[44:15] Thereby taking away our local voice.

[44:18] When residents follow the law and use the democratic process to be heard, their voices should not be bypassed.

[44:25] In fact, the Fort Lauderdale Young Republicans said it directly.

[44:29] They wrote the other day, this move would ensure the sign remains permanent and

[44:34] protected from potential removal by future local commissioners.

[44:39] Commissioner Denopoli, disagreement is not extremism.

[44:44] You referred to residents who oppose this issue as extremist partisans and hypocrites.

[44:50] Yes, you did.

[44:52] But those people are your constituents.

[44:54] They are residents who care deeply about this community and they deserve respect.

[44:59] You

[45:00] Even when you disagree with them, representative government requires listening to the people and earning their trust. You are elected to represent us, not replace our voices, when the majority of speakers at the September meeting oppose this measure, and those voices were dismissed, and the trust was eroded. You said that you know what most people in this town want through private conversations. If that's true, then there should be no fear in letting the residents vote.

[45:29] You also stated, because we're a beach town that doesn't mean we check our first amendment rights at the beach or bridge.

[45:36] That may be true in private life.

[45:38] But when you said on the day I was representing this town, personal politics should never out overshadow the voices of the residents you represent.

[45:46] I have a last sentence, commissioners, tonight you have a choice.

[45:49] Listen to the residents of this town, or listen to party politics.

[45:55] Thank you.

[45:56] Thank you.

[45:57] Thank

[46:02] you.

[46:02] Next speakers, Judith Robbins, Rosemary Coons, and Sherry Kimball.

[46:13] Judith Robbins.

[46:16] Ms. Robbins, are you here?

[46:22] Yes.

[46:22] Rosemary Coons.

[46:28] Hi, Ms. Kins.

[46:29] Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, and town staff.

[46:35] Just stay your name and your address, please.

[46:37] My name is Rosemary Coons.

[46:39] I reside at 1431 South Ocean Boulevard.

[46:43] I had a prepared speech to make, but I'm now very curious.

[46:49] I keep hearing referral to that this resolution was brought to the State Senate by one of the commissioners here,

[46:59] and not all commissioners were aware that this was happening.

[47:04] So I'm going to ask each of these commissioners their participation in this.

[47:11] I'm going to start with you, Mr. Graziano.

[47:13] We don't ask, if you want to ask, we can answer after, but we don't go back and forth with comments, so we can ask them to do that when we speak in.

[47:24] That's how it works. Sorry, guys, outside.

[47:26] That would be fine. I would just like that on the record before the vote.

[47:31] Mr. Graziano, will you party to this being taken to the Senate?

[47:34] You're doing the same thing. It's not cross-examination. We're trying to hear your comments as well.

[47:39] If I can ask these questions, then you can ask them, but we don't do back and forth.

[47:44] You can request it, and if he wants to do something later, he can do that, sure.

[47:48] That's all I'm going to do, so I could like to ask these questions, please.

[47:51] Okay.

[47:51] Mr. Graziano, would you party to this, going to the State Senate, and

[47:56] were you aware that this was happening?

[47:59] He can answer you when we bring it back, where we don't go back and forth.

[48:03] I apologize, ma'am.

[48:04] Mr. Polo-Apolis, were you ready to-

[48:08] Madam, can you give your opinion maybe, so that we could hear what you feel on this issue?

[48:13] Yes.

[48:14] Thank you.

[48:14] My issue, my response to this situation is that I believe that the commission was fearful that the vote would go against their vote.

[48:27] And therefore, they did this end around and snuck up to Florida Senate with this resolution and passed it.

[48:36] This is unacceptable.

[48:40] There's democratic process should be allowed to go on and we should let the voters decide.

[48:46] Please vote no on this commission and let the voters decide in November.

[48:52] Thank you.

[48:52] Thank you, ma'am.

[49:03] Good evening.

[49:04] Sherry Kimball.

[49:05] I live on North Trade Winds.

[49:08] Once again, the residents are being subjected to a code name change with little notice.

[49:14] And now we're finding out the state has already voted on it.

[49:18] One person with an agenda should not be able to dictate their direction of an entire town.

[49:24] For Broward County, there are many cities in this state where politics are embraced, and

[49:30] They celebrate Trump's name on a street, even in airport.

[49:33] Clearly, there's lots of places with his name on our ready.

[49:36] But again, this is a nonpartisan town, and we don't want any politicians' name on anything.

[49:42] Lauderdale by the sea is not red, it's not blue.

[49:44] We are white, all colors, and black, the absence of color.

[49:48] Residents from other cities may speak tonight, but their opinions should not matter.

[49:52] What matters is what our residents think.

[49:55] I ask each of you, as you said on the dius, who do you represent?

[49:58] The residents of this city or the Republican Party because clearly you can't represent both.

[50:05] We voted for you because we thought you'd represent us and you should do this.

[50:09] And it's just wrong that you're not.

[50:13] Mayor Malkoon, I want to address you personally.

[50:16] I regularly see you at lots of things in this town, more than most other commissioners.

[50:21] You hold your Monday meetings with the mayor to engage the residents.

[50:24] It's when I had an issue with an unruly Airbnb, you reached out to me, you helped me,

[50:30] you were responsive and I appreciate that.

[50:34] It's apparent to many of us that being a council member in Lauderdale by the sea is just

[50:38] a stepping stone to go on to something bigger and better with a Republican party if you play

[50:42] the game right.

[50:43] I think you genuinely enjoy being mayor and I think that you don't have that same ambition.

[50:50] There's a lot of people here who are going to remember how this vote goes down tonight.

[50:55] And they're going to vote that way in the next election.

[50:57] And I'd like to see somebody whose responsive stay on this mayor.

[51:01] So I'm asking you, I don't think there's other people I can appeal to, but I'm asking you, please, to consider how you vote.

[51:08] Thank you.

[51:14] Net speaker, Herbert Dale, followed by a machine Simpson, followed by Paul Novak.

[51:27] Herbert Dale.

[51:28] Well, there he is.

[51:39] Good evening.

[51:40] My name is Herbert Dalham, a long time resident of Lauderdale,

[51:45] but it's by the sea approximately 26 years.

[51:49] Having lived here a long time, I usually mine my own business

[51:53] and take care of my own needs.

[51:55] I was absolutely flabbergasted a couple of months ago

[51:59] when I saw Donald Trump's name go up on secret.

[52:02] I believe that was the best kept secret in this town.

[52:07] Recently, what seems to have evolved is now turned to a- it's just legislation by secrecy and surprise.

[52:22] There is absolutely no reason why this issue should not be presented to the voters if it were.

[52:29] and the voters were to decide to honor Donald Trump, I believe we could all accept that.

[52:36] Hopefully, they would not do that because based upon my opinion, he's not worthy of that recognition.

[52:44] I would respectfully

[52:49] request that each of you vote no on this resolution.

[52:53] And speaking for myself, any of you who vote yes, I guarantee you one thing.

[52:59] you will not have my vote in the next election, and perhaps you could look for a position working for ICE.

[53:05] Thank you very much.

[53:22] All right, let me.

[53:25] Hi, my name is Michonne Simpson, a resident of Lauderdale by the Sea of Interimar.

[53:31] I am 100% against naming a road in our town after a living or a dead person right now.

[53:38] I urge the commission to vote no.

[53:39] This isn't about opposing recognition for President Trump.

[53:44] It's about process, transparency, public trust,

[53:48] and president have four key concerns.

[53:51] The transparency and good governance that our town

[53:53] is known for, the reputation of harm that our town

[53:57] could experience, setting bad precedent,

[54:00] and also what would President Trump say?

[54:03] Transparency and good governance.

[54:05] We all know under Florida's law, the sunshine law,

[54:07] public boards must conduct business openly in a manner that allows meaningful public participation and transparency that hasn't happened here.

[54:16] Like others, I learned about a lot of this from a newspaper and an email. I saw no invitations to participate in any discussions on this topic.

[54:24] I'd love to see who was who was consulted as far as third parties on this topic. Make it all public and let us see.

[54:30] It does not feel like it was a transparent properly disclosed process.

[54:35] Our town projects itself on openness and community involvement didn't happen here.

[54:39] I'm running out of town.

[54:40] Reputational harm, I just feel like it's a divisive issue.

[54:43] Some people want it, some people don't.

[54:45] This is the most people I've ever seen at any town meeting, and there's a reason for it.

[54:49] Why even get into this?

[54:51] There are more important issues for the commission to be talking about.

[54:54] And it is the medical commission of the building.

[54:57] You started your presentation with President Obama's sign.

[55:00] That tells me that you know it's political.

[55:02] I wouldn't want that sign here either.

[55:05] I don't want a president's name there.

[55:08] I think the naming of the sign and having party leaders

[55:13] participate in our process is really...

[55:16] Anyway, I'm going to skip ahead and just say,

[55:18] what would Donald Trump want?

[55:19] I'm not sure that Donald Trump would want this.

[55:21] Commercial road at Boulevard, I looked it up.

[55:23] It's been called that since the 1940s.

[55:25] 15.2 miles, we're going to give them 0.4 stretch of it.

[55:29] Who wants the tip of the road?

[55:31] I don't think Donald Trump would, he's much too big.

[55:34] I think he would want the entire thing.

[55:36] I think you guys need to make sure Trump wants this road.

[55:39] It's a simple fix, you at least need to pause this process and get participation from the community.

[55:45] Do what's right, vote no.

[55:47] Thank you.

[56:00] And Mr. Nidak.

[56:03] Mayor commissioners, my name is Paul Novak, I've been a long time resident here in Lauderdale by the sea.

[56:08] I will be brief, regarding putting Trump-named street signs on the proposed areas mentioned, I would not favor until a proper method of determining the majority vote of our citizens.

[56:24] A townwide referendum should be the determining factor in this important matter.

[56:31] This is called democracy.

[56:33] Win or lose?

[56:41] Annette Speaker, Diane Maxson, I'm sorry, we'll

[56:48] get to you.

[56:49] Diane Maxson, followed by Bruce Novak, followed by Christy Firth, Diane Maxson, are you here?

[56:58] Last name, Maxson?

[57:00] Is it Dwayne, Dwayne Maxson?

[57:01] Dwayne Maxson, sorry, I'm sorry.

[57:03] My apologies.

[57:04] I should know that in my neighbor.

[57:06] Dwayne Maxson.

[57:07] Yes, sir, come up from here.

[57:09] Yes, please come up to the microphone, sir.

[57:14] And if you can bring the microphone down so we can all hear you, thank you, sir.

[57:21] Before I get started, Commissioner, please stay your name in.

[57:25] We've all been kicked out of better bars.

[57:27] Mr.

[57:30] Matten, can you just express your name and your address?

[57:32] I am entirely in favor of naming the avenue down Jake Trump Boulevard.

[57:39] And that's all I have to say.

[57:41] Thank you.

[57:42] Thank you.

[57:50] Now, it's your turn, sir.

[57:54] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, commissioners.

[57:59] My name is Bruce Novak.

[58:00] I'm here today as a former resident and current manager of one of the owners of the

[58:05] Heinen Beach Resort, who cares deeply about our community.

[58:09] I was born in Holy Cross Hospital and grew up on Algiers Avenue for the first 15 years of my life,

[58:15] with my parents Carol, Paul, and my siblings, Brian and Jennifer.

[58:20] what a town to grow up in so many memories.

[58:24] I believe the mayor and the commission work for the residents of the town and I would

[58:29] encourage you, gentlemen, to be advancing an agenda that builds community, unifies

[58:34] the town, preserves our history as a seaside oasis.

[58:38] Let's keep Waterdale by the sea welcoming, unified, and above politics.

[58:43] Thank you.

[58:44] Thank you.

[58:51] Who is next?

[58:53] Okay.

[58:54] Okay.

[58:55] Sorry.

[59:01] Good evening, everyone.

[59:02] I'm Christy Firth, a 54-year,

[59:04] lauded out by the sea resident and business owner.

[59:07] Our new citizen referendum,

[59:09] the No Politics in Paradise,

[59:11] was submitted to the town in January.

[59:14] And went on the ballot,

[59:15] well, undoubtedly passed this November.

[59:18] It states that naming the town public spaces and streets

[59:21] will now be voted on by the people,

[59:24] not the politicians,

[59:25] and that any current political signage will have to come down.

[59:29] Shortly after submission, an alternate plan was hatched to override the no politics

[59:33] and paradise referendum by passing a bill at the state level, making political signage

[59:38] for state roads like commercial boulevard beyond the reach of town residents.

[59:43] A Sun Central article alerted the public to the state bill, which prompted the following

[59:47] letter to state officials from Commissioner Razziano.

[59:51] He writes, hi, just was informed that your committee is considering

[59:54] HB33 that would co-designate commercial bill of art from West

[59:58] straight ones have a new east.

[1:00:00] To A1A is President Donald J. Trump Boulevard. This boulevard is entirely within Laudalia by the

[1:00:05] sea where I am an elected commissioner. Commercial boulevard may be a state highway, but the

[1:00:10] bill is an extremely aggressive move by state officials never elected by our residents

[1:00:15] to rename a tiny portion of a road entirely within our town footprint. To my knowledge, our

[1:00:21] commission was never consulted by you, the house sponsor or staff to the intention of this

[1:00:27] bill. If that happened, it could have been discussed and voted to support or oppose.

[1:00:32] Why would less than one mile of this boulevard and lorded by the sea interest state officials

[1:00:36] to initiate a name change? I am not in favor of renaming roads which do not have positive

[1:00:42] quantifiable social or economic value to local residents. In this case, it is a potentially

[1:00:48] divisive flashpoint for controversy within our welcoming Florida persona and if possible,

[1:00:54] with draw this bill from consideration from your committee, and vote against this unnecessary

[1:00:59] puffery respectfully.

[1:01:01] John A. Graziano, Commissioner Town of Lauderdale, by the state.

[1:01:09] He got it all in.

[1:01:13] Net speaker, Mark Firth, followed by Rico Petrocelli, followed by Henry McKinnon.

[1:01:20] Good evening mayor and commissioner, this is Mark Firth.

[1:01:30] I have to sit up, I had the opportunity to sit up there with you, and it was a difficult decision to make sometimes.

[1:01:38] But I believe that you can kick the can down the road.

[1:01:41] You don't need to make this resolution tonight.

[1:01:44] You can pass it after the next election.

[1:01:49] When you find out whether or not the people of this town pass them the referendum, or they don't pass it.

[1:01:56] Commissioner Dunnopoli says that he has a lot of people calling him.

[1:02:00] There's a chance that it would pass if there's a chance that it won't pass.

[1:02:05] If it doesn't pass, you have carte blanche to do whatever you like, right?

[1:02:09] And it's a mandate if the people pass it that you're doing the wrong thing for the people.

[1:02:14] Well, please do the right thing, respect the people of the town, and listen to the people of the town.

[1:02:21] Have this election, have our referendum, which is going forward.

[1:02:26] Thank you very much.

[1:02:39] Good evening mayor, city commissioners, everybody here.

[1:02:44] No, I am not a Lorde d'Albieta city resident, but I did swim here once, you know, that was as good as it got for me.

[1:02:51] You know, I come here always prepared for speeches anywhere I go, but I did observe a lot of things here before I got here, and I'm going to have to correct it.

[1:03:03] I was outside.

[1:03:04] Stay your name, I'm sorry.

[1:03:06] Rico Petrucelli Plankation, Florida.

[1:03:10] I was outside with the deputies and we were talking and I happened to notice and look down at your mat leading into the Jarvis Center.

[1:03:17] It says, relax, you're here.

[1:03:21] I'd like to point that out to the people out there in the back, relax, where were you

[1:03:27] when all of these other signs were placed up?

[1:03:31] There was never.

[1:03:32] I've been in this county and elected people, this has never happened before, never.

[1:03:39] I came by here from Rabbi Horror Boulevard in Plantation, Rick Case Drive, Alcy Hastings,

[1:03:51] Boulevard, Ronald Reagan Turnpike.

[1:03:56] You can't let the people who elected you, you said it, you saw the numbers here in

[1:04:04] in Lauderdale by the sea.

[1:04:06] Donald Trump is well-liked here.

[1:04:09] This group, the other thing I noticed

[1:04:11] is that they had to ask every person coming up

[1:04:15] or you a resident, so they don't even know them.

[1:04:19] They didn't know the residents, they asked me.

[1:04:21] Oh, you're a resident?

[1:04:22] No, they were just asking everybody,

[1:04:25] so don't tell me what a tight knit group this is.

[1:04:29] They don't know anybody.

[1:04:31] Go ahead, make the approval, live with it.

[1:04:33] It's the right thing to do.

[1:04:39] Next, right,

[1:04:54] all right.

[1:04:54] Please.

[1:04:55] Good evening.

[1:04:57] Yes, sir.

[1:04:57] Please stay here.

[1:04:58] My name is Henry McKinnon.

[1:05:00] I'm a lawyer, a small business owner, and a resident of Lauderdale by the sea.

[1:05:04] Thank you for your time tonight.

[1:05:06] Voting yes for this legislation is a very risky economic move for our community.

[1:05:12] The commission should take careful warning from a virtually identical event

[1:05:15] which occurred recently in our nation's capital.

[1:05:18] In December of last year, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, our nation's cultural

[1:05:23] arts center for over 50 years, added Trump to the name of the Kennedy Center.

[1:05:29] This was done without input from the residents of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and

[1:05:33] Virginia, all of whom are major patients at the center.

[1:05:37] A new sign was put up overnight.

[1:05:39] Residents and tourists, citizens from both parties, were outraged and firmly expressed their

[1:05:44] outrage with their wallets.

[1:05:45] Ticket sales at the Trump Kennedy Center dropped 50% within one week.

[1:05:51] Season ticket subscriptions dropped 36%.

[1:05:55] More than 40% of all theater seats are now empty during performances.

[1:06:00] Less than three months after the name was changed to Trump Kennedy Center,

[1:06:04] on February 1st, it was announced the center would be closing for construction and revitalization.

[1:06:10] In truth, the closing is because of the public's negative reaction to the name change,

[1:06:14] which may keep in the art center open financially impossible.

[1:06:18] As a result, surrounding businesses such as restaurants,

[1:06:21] coffee shops, ice cream shops, much like the shops we have in our downtown,

[1:06:25] lost customers and are currently closing.

[1:06:29] We are known as a non-partisan beach town.

[1:06:32] Our businesses are heavily dependent on income from tourists.

[1:06:35] The hard fact is that in these politically divided times, we risk losing half of our consumers,

[1:06:40] Just as happened after the name Trump was added to the Kennedy Center.

[1:06:44] I respectfully urge each commissioner to vote no on 18B.

[1:06:48] Thank you.

[1:06:50] Thank you.

[1:06:54] Next speaker, Karen Campagna, followed by Eileen Cretzer, followed by Mary Hayes.

[1:07:08] Hello, if you can bring the mic down.

[1:07:10] Yeah.

[1:07:11] I'm Karen Campagna.

[1:07:12] I live in Imperial Lane in Lauderdale by the sea, I'm a resident.

[1:07:16] And I have in my hand the latest Fox News poll.

[1:07:19] This came out on Wednesday and I think it might go a long way to explaining a little bit of why there's so many people here tonight and also predict a little bit about the future.

[1:07:31] First off, as of the poll released on Wednesday, the number of Americans that disapprove of Trump's handling of immigrations is 53%.

[1:07:43] and that's one of his better marks.

[1:07:47] The number that disagree of his performance on the economy, 61% and

[1:07:52] disagree on tariffs, 63% and the cost of living, 67%.

[1:07:57] When you look at that overall, it's pretty damning, but

[1:08:01] when you look at underneath, beneath those statistics, there's something very,

[1:08:06] very interesting that I think goes a long way to predicting the future.

[1:08:10] And that is when you look at each disapproval rating,

[1:08:13] It can be split into people that self identified as not only disapproving of that metric, but who are angry about that metric.

[1:08:23] And if just picking out one, his overall job performance, 32% identify as angry, that's unprecedented.

[1:08:34] How that is manifesting itself is that people in all of the primaries that we have had,

[1:08:42] the midterms rather that we've had, and also in the special elections,

[1:08:48] they are voting out people who support Trump.

[1:08:52] Also, by the way, they're voting out people who stood by and did nothing to oppose Trump.

[1:08:58] I think some of you are up for reelection come November, and I think in predicting the future, I certainly wouldn't vote for anybody that supported this measure, and I think I'm not alone in that.

[1:09:11] Good

[1:09:22] evening, my name is Eileen Craitzer.

[1:09:24] I am a resident of Largo, by the sea.

[1:09:26] I live off of Allenwood Drive for many years.

[1:09:29] Well, eight years, to be exact.

[1:09:32] Our town has long been a welcoming, nonpartisan community.

[1:09:36] As residents, many of us worry that turning our public streets

[1:09:41] into political statements changes our unique character.

[1:09:45] You are all elected to improve our community.

[1:09:48] I don't think this designation does anything

[1:09:50] to improve our community at all.

[1:09:53] By moving this designation to commercial boulevard, a state road,

[1:09:56] the resolution that you're proposing creates a way to bypass us, the local voters.

[1:10:02] Decisions about our town should involve the people who live in this town.

[1:10:07] Our streets belong to us, the residents.

[1:10:10] Please let the voters decide if you want to make our town political or keep it free of politics,

[1:10:16] so we can all relax here.

[1:10:18] I respectfully ask the commission to vote no on this resolution and thank you.

[1:10:35] My name is Mary Hayes, I live on Tropic Drive, Lauderdale, by the sea.

[1:10:40] I agree with most of the comments that have been made here tonight, especially Kudos to Commissioner Graziano for his wonderful letter.

[1:10:52] I agree with the comments that outline that we must respect the democratic process and

[1:10:59] And we must ensure and try to rebuild trust that has been sorely eroded by this crazy

[1:11:06] work around that you've been working on.

[1:11:08] This is about process.

[1:11:10] It should not be about politics, and we need to protect our town's character.

[1:11:15] I know you cannot answer questions directly, but I'm just wondering, how much, what is

[1:11:21] the cost of this nonsense?

[1:11:24] How much does it cost to put up a sign, take down a sign, hire all the sheriffs, have

[1:11:29] have bodyguards, have searches, we're a small community, we're supposed to relax and just live our lives apolitically.

[1:11:40] I can disagree with my next door neighbor, we each get one vote, that's fine, don't shove it down our throats.

[1:11:47] Kudos to Commissioner Graziano, and thank you for your time.

[1:11:51] Thank you, Miss Hayes.

[1:11:56] Met speakers, Deborah Armenti, followed by Stuart Dodd, followed by Barbara Struppt.

[1:12:06] Deborah Armenti?

[1:12:10] Miss Armenti?

[1:12:11] Is that?

[1:12:12] Did I say that right?

[1:12:14] Okay, Stuart Dodd.

[1:12:16] Okay, Mr Dodd.

[1:12:30] Stuart Dodd.

[1:12:32] Are you afraid of public comments?

[1:12:35] When I was sitting up there, we welcomed them on any subject, not even limited to the agenda

[1:12:40] at any time. It is our right as residents having the freedom of speech to talk to you publicly

[1:12:47] on any topic. Any time we had more than six people speaking on a topic, you had to stop

[1:12:54] and start listening. We used to have the town clerk, Tally, on the score. Had you done that

[1:13:01] at the previous meeting, you would have learned that the vast majority of residents were against

[1:13:08] renaming seed rate drive. Do you want to commit political suicide and hand the next election

[1:13:15] to anyone who puts a yard sign up with the letters R, T, F, S at the bottom? Within a couple

[1:13:23] of days it will be townwide that the polite version stands for remove Trump's f-ing sign with 60%

[1:13:31] support was 67. I didn't say anything rude. With 60% support, you're guaranteed you'll

[1:13:43] be voted out. I'm not joking, you're handing the next election to anyone running for office.

[1:13:49] Some of you weren't around in 2008, but Mr. Mayor, do you remember CIC against United

[1:13:54] R. Town? Within two years, every old guard commissioner was history because they stopped listening

[1:14:00] to the citizens. You are all headed in the same direction if you continue this stupidity

[1:14:07] of trying to rename our roads after any politician, Democrat, Republican, dead or alive.

[1:14:14] National politics is getting progressively more acrimonious and your job as elected representatives

[1:14:20] for this town is non-political. You are elected to do the will of the people. To the best

[1:14:26] of your ability and renaming streets isn't one of them. The way you're headed, if you vote

[1:14:31] yes, you probably won't be up there for much longer. Thank you.

[1:14:41] Barbara Scott.

[1:14:50] Good evening, I'm Barbara Strupp. I'm a long time resident of Lauderdale

[1:14:54] by the C. I strongly urge you to vote no.

[1:15:02] We really enjoy living in a town that's quiet, apolitical, and I really believe common sense will tell you that this is not a good idea. Just based on not only people who agree with me politically, even on the other side, they don't want this. I don't know who these people are that you say want this, but more of them should have come here tonight to say that they want this.

[1:15:30] Thank you.

[1:15:35] Next speaker, Michael Frietta, followed by Macy Shchopinski, followed by Bill Ciani.

[1:15:44] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, commissioners.

[1:15:46] My name is Michael Farora, and I am a resident of Lauderdale, by the sea.

[1:15:52] I'm here tonight to urge a no vote on the resolution to co-name commercial Boulevard.

[1:15:57] My opposition isn't about partisan politics.

[1:16:00] It is about the integrity of our local democratic process.

[1:16:05] For months, the residents of this town have been working on the no politics and paradise referendum.

[1:16:13] This is a lawful charter amendment intended to give voters a say in how our public spaces are named.

[1:16:21] By moving the designation to a state road like commercial boulevard,

[1:16:25] This commission is effectively creating a work around, permanent work around, to bypass the will of the people and place this decision beyond the reach of local voters.

[1:16:38] Furthermore, the backstory of how we got here is deeply troubling.

[1:16:43] This began with a request to the state legislature that bypassed open discussion with this commission, with this commission or businesses and our residents.

[1:16:54] The public only learned of this through a newspaper article last week.

[1:17:00] Transparency is the bedrock of public trust.

[1:17:05] And in this instance, that trust has been bypassed.

[1:17:09] Our town has long prided itself on being a welcoming nonpartisan community.

[1:17:16] Turning our main thoroughfare into a permanent political statement

[1:17:20] Without a single public workshop or voter input,

[1:17:25] changes the very character of our paradise.

[1:17:28] Please, respect the referendum process already in motion.

[1:17:34] Do not circumvent the residents, you represent.

[1:17:38] I respectfully ask you to vote no and let the voters decide.

[1:17:42] May

[1:17:51] I see Sapinski?

[1:17:54] Nancy Sapinski?

[1:17:56] Ms. Sapinski, are you here?

[1:17:59] That speaker, Bill Sianney.

[1:18:02] Mr. Sianney.

[1:18:09] The measure is town manager.

[1:18:12] I've been in this town all my life, which is a long time.

[1:18:17] I am a firm, drunk supporter.

[1:18:21] But in this case, I'm watching my town,

[1:18:25] act and bring out a very serious ugliness it's gonna drive people out of this

[1:18:35] town it's gonna make people not want to come here and I don't even want to see

[1:18:41] it come to a vote because there are partisan people whether they say they are

[1:18:46] not they will never accept a vote even if they went lose or draw on either side

[1:18:52] But I say table it, get rid of it, and let's forget about it and move on to more important things.

[1:19:05] Next speaker, Sufana Sosa, followed by Charles Leachman, followed by Michael Ross.

[1:19:13] Last name, Sosa?

[1:19:15] She left, okay?

[1:19:17] Charles Leachman?

[1:19:27] I know, that's right.

[1:19:29] Good evening, commission.

[1:19:30] You do a great job and thank you for your service.

[1:19:33] To state your name and your address.

[1:19:34] Thank you.

[1:19:35] That's next on my list.

[1:19:36] Thank you, sorry.

[1:19:37] My name is Charles Leachman, I live on Oceanic Avenue, and quite a while.

[1:19:42] All right, let me get up a little closer to this microphone.

[1:19:45] You can raise the whole thing up.

[1:19:47] Yeah, there you go.

[1:19:48] Flexible, how about that?

[1:19:50] Flexible.

[1:19:50] All right, I'll keep it simple.

[1:19:52] Well, there's a kiss principle.

[1:19:54] We'll let that go.

[1:19:55] Please vote no on resolution 2026 that I showed for.

[1:19:59] That's my request as a resident.

[1:20:02] the other thing is I just somehow I think a lot of this stuff should just let's

[1:20:09] wait till this administration is out of office before we go do some of this

[1:20:12] stuff I mean what's the urgency to do this now and I mean I'm not happy that

[1:20:18] it's already done and I'd be more than happy to see it go away and again just

[1:20:24] to reiterate let's see how this all turns out before we go honoring people thank

[1:20:30] Thank you.

[1:20:46] I'm Michael Ross.

[1:20:48] I've been a resident of Notre-Date-Wadda-Sea for 28 years.

[1:20:52] I live at 5,100 North Ocean Boulevard.

[1:20:55] In my opinion, you rush to approve the Sea grape sign, and it has been a flash point

[1:21:02] of controversy, resulting in the initiation of a soon-to-be proposed citizen referendum to

[1:21:08] let the voters decide street name changes.

[1:21:12] is. Now you are rushing to approve a state designated

[1:21:16] commercial boulevard sign, again, without the consent of

[1:21:21] the residents. This resolution will result in your taking

[1:21:26] down the new secret sign that costs my money, taxpayers

[1:21:31] money. And it's only been up for a couple of months. And I

[1:21:37] think that your haste has made a lot of waste in this

[1:21:41] town. And it was totally unnecessary to do. I respectfully ask the commission to vote

[1:21:48] no on this resolution and allow the voters to decide in November. I do not see why this

[1:21:55] matter is so urgent. Surely there are more pressing issues in Lordeau by the sea that

[1:22:01] you can spend your valuable time working on. Thank you.

[1:22:04] Thank

[1:22:07] you.

[1:22:10] Next speaker, Bruce Frankel, followed by Shelley Goldstein, followed by Kathy Henley.

[1:22:20] What was the first name?

[1:22:22] Bruce Frankel.

[1:22:24] Bruce Frankel.

[1:22:27] Shelley Goldstein.

[1:22:34] Good evening. My name is Shelley Goldstein.

[1:22:36] This is my first meeting here, so I'm going to start.

[1:22:40] Well, okay.

[1:22:42] Actually, I'm going to direct this to you, Commissioner DiNapoli.

[1:22:46] Thank you for your presentation.

[1:22:47] and whether I agree with it or not, you asked questions and could you put up the slide

[1:22:53] with the percentages of overwhelming percentages of people that voted in favor of other, yeah.

[1:23:03] So, I was impressed with the overwhelming positive votes for certain presidents nine to

[1:23:12] wine, overwhelming majority, unanimous consent, and then you ask the questions, why should

[1:23:19] there not be bipartisan support for this?

[1:23:22] Why should there not be overwhelming support for this?

[1:23:26] And why should this be different than any other president?

[1:23:31] And I hope that you just got the answer to your question tonight.

[1:23:35] Thank you.

[1:23:36] Kathy

[1:23:47] Henley.

[1:24:04] My name is Kathy Heinley. I've lived in Lauderdale by the sea on

[1:24:08] Pointe and since 1947.

[1:24:13] So regardless of anyone's political, leanings and views,

[1:24:20] decisions about having our town's public spaces named should involve all the

[1:24:27] residents of our town. Transparency builds trust in our

[1:24:32] government. So I ask you to please respect the democratic

[1:24:37] process of the United States of America and vote no today on

[1:24:42] resolution 18B. Then we can have the right to vote on the

[1:24:50] no politics in paradise referendum on the November ballot and

[1:24:54] we make the decision of what we want for our town.

[1:24:58] Thank you for your time.

[1:25:04] Net speakers, Jim Datson, we have a true main truthy followed by Chris Soto.

[1:25:21] How many are left, by the way, are you sorry?

[1:25:26] We have about 30 speakers left.

[1:25:28] Okay, sorry, Mr. Mayor, vice mayor commissioners.

[1:25:34] My name is Jim Datson.

[1:25:37] This has been my hometown since 1960.

[1:25:40] That's 66 years.

[1:25:43] I'm a registered independent in Laudal, by the sea.

[1:25:47] And I vote right here, probably standing right

[1:25:49] in this area here.

[1:25:52] I'll cut to the chase.

[1:25:54] I heard all the verbiage about why this is such a great idea,

[1:25:59] but can someone really tell me and explain to me,

[1:26:03] What's the real value added to the residents and visitors of our special town by voting yes to this resolution?

[1:26:14] You probably can't because there isn't any. It's pure politics. It's about putting a lightning rod in here to divide us.

[1:26:25] I'm counting on the two commissioners that already voted against the first one to hang

[1:26:33] in there.

[1:26:34] And Mr. Mayor, I hope you can be the one to step up to the plate and display some strong

[1:26:41] leadership by voting no.

[1:26:45] Let the voters decide and don't let the passage of this resolution become the cornerstone

[1:26:53] I'm legacy of your service as mayor of the town and commissioners.

[1:26:58] Thank you.

[1:26:59] Thank you.

[1:27:00] And thank you for your service.

[1:27:12] Good evening.

[1:27:13] My name is Trudy Robos.

[1:27:15] I've lived here since 1990, so I'm a long-standing resident, and I'm going to keep it short because

[1:27:20] Jim started on it.

[1:27:22] There was an Eileen, another woman, Michelle.

[1:27:25] Don't you all have something better to do with your time at, oh, I will also include

[1:27:30] my neighbor, Chris Vincent.

[1:27:32] Don't you have something better to do with your time and our money, even though it may

[1:27:36] be state-sponsored, whatever?

[1:27:38] How many extra additional soup kitchens is a lot or doubt by the sea sponsoring now

[1:27:45] this year?

[1:27:46] How many additional new ones?

[1:27:47] How about starting or thinking about running a blood pressure clinic in Jarvis Hall-free

[1:27:53] blood pressure monitors and then people can take their blood pressures and figure out if

[1:27:59] they need to follow up with the doctors?

[1:28:00] How about doing something constructive for the community, as opposed to this divisive nature measure?

[1:28:08] Thank you, that's all I have to say.

[1:28:16] Net speaker, Soto Stanberg.

[1:28:21] Now it's neck-wreckly.

[1:28:24] Followed by Margaret Davis, followed by Mark Pearson.

[1:28:32] Margaret Davis?

[1:28:37] I don't want to.

[1:28:37] All right.

[1:28:38] Okay, Mark Pearson.

[1:28:39] Good

[1:28:47] evening, everybody. Mark Pearson, 1921 water's edge.

[1:28:51] And while we're on that subject of water's edge, my street got renamed a few years ago without my involvement.

[1:28:58] Used to be southeast 18th street, and the town just renamed it.

[1:29:03] So I figured, okay, I like the name, that was it.

[1:29:07] I did not know anything about the renaming of the C-grade part into the Truman also.

[1:29:13] Well, excuse me, Trump also.

[1:29:16] However, when I heard it, I said, why do we do that?

[1:29:19] And then I heard, I read the explanation, and I said, gee, now I understand it, made

[1:29:24] sense to me.

[1:29:25] Made sense to me at that time.

[1:29:28] I'm listening to everybody talk tonight, and it's pretty neat listening to all these ideas

[1:29:33] because getting up here and doing public speaking is pretty hard for a lot of people.

[1:29:38] Having said that, the reality is, I believe, that the state has passed the law, or the state legislature and Senate has already passed a document that when Governor DeSantis signs it, and I feel pretty certain that Governor DeSantis will sign it, that the

[1:30:00] Point four miles of commercial boulevard is going to be re-designated, commercial, and Donald J. Trump boulevard. I believe that is the way it's going to be. So, the reality is if the commission, I believe, and yes, once I was an elected politician in a small town on the shore in a different state had very similar issues and politics here.

[1:30:27] I believe that if the commission doesn't vote yes, then we will end up with a Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump corner.

[1:30:38] That's what I believe is going to happen.

[1:30:40] Now having said that, I also would like to point out that I am a tremendous President, Donald J. Trump's supporter, and I love the way it's going.

[1:30:49] Thank you.

[1:30:50] Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

[1:30:51] Next

[1:30:56] speakers, Corey Andrews, followed by Martin Marsquitz, followed by Karen Sylvester.

[1:31:14] Good evening.

[1:31:16] I'm Corey Andrews, I live at 1481 South Ocean Boulevard.

[1:31:23] As a visitor to Lauderdale by the sea since 1994 and a permanent year-round resident for

[1:31:31] 13 years.

[1:31:33] I ask the commissioners and mayor to vote no on the code designation of commercial boulevard.

[1:31:41] My wife and I, both from the Chicago area, where we know partisan politics and political

[1:31:49] pandering were drawn to the town in part by its unique culture of non-partisanship in government

[1:31:58] and elections. Consider that what is said here tonight will not long be remembered.

[1:32:07] However, what is done here tonight will have ramifications long into the future,

[1:32:14] and a vote to co-designate commercial boulevard will ruin what for my wife and I has been a paradise

[1:32:23] in which to live, work, and worship.

[1:32:28] I urge you to keep politics out of paradise and reject this political pandering.

[1:32:37] Voters have long memories.

[1:32:40] And those who vote yes on agenda item 18B, I hope will pay a price for that vote at the next election.

[1:32:51] Thank you.

[1:32:51] So,

[1:32:57] Martin Marshquiz, Martin,

[1:33:04] Karen Syvester.

[1:33:09] Good evening.

[1:33:11] My name is Karen Syvester, I live on Terramar Island, I'm a resident.

[1:33:16] I would like to encourage the commission to focus its time on the most important issues facing the town of Lutterdale by the sea.

[1:33:24] We have significant matters that deserve the commission's attention, public safety,

[1:33:30] including our law enforcement contract, the selection of new fire rescue provider.

[1:33:36] We have infrastructure needs, including the need for a new public safety building, concerns about flooding,

[1:33:43] and maintaining and enhancing our beautiful downtown area.

[1:33:47] There are several issues being considered at the state level that could impact our community and

[1:33:52] require thoughtful engagement from this commission.

[1:33:56] Most importantly, you must focus on developing a balanced and responsible budget that considers

[1:34:02] all of these priorities.

[1:34:04] For these reasons, I respectfully request that the commission remove this item from the

[1:34:10] agenda and future agendas so that focus can remain on the issues most important to residents

[1:34:16] who elected you.

[1:34:19] The proposal to co-name commercial boulevard is clearly generating a great deal of discussion

[1:34:24] and division. In my opinion, renaming a street is not among the most pressing issues facing

[1:34:31] our town. I support our current president. And I think he'd like having a road named

[1:34:39] after him. But I also believe he would encourage local leaders to focus at first on the issues

[1:34:45] that most directly impact the residents they serve. Thank you.

[1:34:56] Let's speaker Bob Worf, first name Bob followed

[1:35:04] by Thomas Weissnett.

[1:35:12] Yes, a good evening. My name is Bob Wood. I'm a resident of Palm Beach County.

[1:35:17] And I find this event tonight quite entertaining here with everybody's opinions.

[1:35:23] But basically I came here to support Donald Trump. Donald Trump is our president.

[1:35:27] He's done a fantastic job and how you honor him and respect him is really why I'm here because I don't know anybody who would want to run for office again after the stuff that he's had to go through.

[1:35:41] So I support whatever is good for your county and for Donald Trump, have a good evening.

[1:35:48] Thank you, sir.

[1:35:51] Beers, respectful of each other, please.

[1:35:53] Let's speaker Thomas Weissenit, Wagner, excuse me, Thomas Wagner.

[1:36:06] I'm not a resident of your town.

[1:36:08] I'll go to this microphone with the light on, sir.

[1:36:10] I'm not a resident of your town, Thomas Wagner, right?

[1:36:13] Say you're not, Thomas Wagner.

[1:36:14] I come from a county way up north, quote, Pike County, Pennsylvania.

[1:36:18] I am an independent.

[1:36:20] I will let you know that I do not agree with everything that Donald Trump has to say or does.

[1:36:26] But I'm here, quite often.

[1:36:27] And you speak into the mic.

[1:36:28] I'm here quite often.

[1:36:30] I bring money into your town.

[1:36:33] I'm quite here at C-Watch restaurant, quite often.

[1:36:36] I come down here for several months here.

[1:36:38] So what I would encourage, some of those consider that,

[1:36:41] I've heard a lot about democracy.

[1:36:44] Now, I'm not a constitutional or expert,

[1:36:47] but we do not live in a direct democracy.

[1:36:49] We live in a representative democracy, as I understand it.

[1:36:54] So, I would take and urge the council to take that consideration and to balance the opinions

[1:37:01] of those that you represent with the opinions that those of those of you who young, those

[1:37:06] who come to your town and basically enjoy the wonderful paradise you have here.

[1:37:13] And we certainly want to see any conflict as an outsider though, I can tell you that when

[1:37:19] And I see both sides represented, what the feeling that it gives me as an outsider is

[1:37:28] that it's a place that actually considers democracy, considers so-cratic debate.

[1:37:34] What I've seen a lot of is I've seen a lot of objection, but I haven't heard a lot of

[1:37:39] justification for the objection.

[1:37:42] Now, you're each entitled to your vote, you're each entitled to your opinion.

[1:37:46] but I would encourage you if you want to attract people like myself to your

[1:37:51] talent to respect the opinion of the opposing side in a civil way and I think

[1:37:57] that's really the core of our democracy and unfortunately we've moved away from

[1:38:01] that so the message that you send tonight is will resound beyond your town okay so

[1:38:10] if I was in your position I would vote in the affirmative to send the message

[1:38:15] that you're bipartisan, that you're representative democracy, and that you expect everyone's opinion.

[1:38:22] Okay, thank you, sir.

[1:38:23] Thank you.

[1:38:26] Next speaker, Eli Dill, followed by Grace Gartner.

[1:38:30] More

[1:38:36] time, sorry.

[1:38:37] Eli Dill.

[1:38:39] Mr. Dill.

[1:38:44] Grace Gartner.

[1:38:47] There she is.

[1:38:48] Now you're on this.

[1:38:52] Hi, I'm Grace Gartner.

[1:38:53] I live on Elmar Drive, and I would like to encourage you to vote no, and to represent the people who put you in those seats.

[1:39:04] Thank you.

[1:39:08] I have a last name, Sinelli.

[1:39:12] Cinelli.

[1:39:17] Is that you do the first name?

[1:39:19] No, it's not eligible.

[1:39:21] No, it's not Cione.

[1:39:24] All right.

[1:39:25] No, he already won.

[1:39:26] All right.

[1:39:27] All right, next speaker is Nicholas Bett, I'm sorry.

[1:39:30] I'll wait for someone to say it.

[1:39:31] Some one second, one second.

[1:39:36] Oh, they're getting wanted.

[1:39:39] Oh, geez, all right.

[1:39:45] Hello.

[1:39:47] Yes.

[1:39:48] All right, good evening.

[1:39:49] My name is Colleen Cinelli.

[1:39:50] I live on C Great Drive.

[1:39:52] So third time I've been addressing the commission

[1:39:55] all three about the signage.

[1:39:58] First of all, I need to do something.

[1:40:04] I don't like turning my back on the residents of Lauderdale

[1:40:07] by the sea. So I urge all of you not to turn your backs on us now. Ben here three times

[1:40:17] and to quote a commissioners presentation tonight about fairly and respectively speaking,

[1:40:26] I would like the same opportunity for the residents here to be fair and respectful and put this vote

[1:40:35] off until we've had the referendum and the vote to see if some of the information that was given

[1:40:41] tonight by the commissioner is true that people are overwhelmingly in favor of this. I know when

[1:40:48] I spoke the last two times, we were not. And I disagree that people don't come out if they agree

[1:40:57] with something going on. My tally tonight is about five four and the rest of the speakers have been

[1:41:05] against those in the city, in our town, the rest of them are from out of the town, which

[1:41:12] was the same thing that happened at the first meeting.

[1:41:15] I would like to address the transparency of some of the new commissioners, and it does

[1:41:22] seem that you were elected and never stated what your goals were for the town of Lauderdale

[1:41:29] by the sea.

[1:41:30] The mayor has been here for years, I think everybody knows his policies and his appreciation of the town he's been in the political scene here for a very, very, very, very long time.

[1:41:44] However, it seems just within the past year or so the agenda has switched and again, I don't want you turning your back on us, so please vote no tonight.

[1:41:55] Thank you.

[1:41:56] Thank you.

[1:42:00] Net speakers, Nicholas Beck, followed by Brianna Reeves, followed by Chris Fincent.

[1:42:11] Hello, sorry if you could just state your name.

[1:42:13] Yes.

[1:42:14] My name is Nicholas Beck.

[1:42:16] I'm an up and coming resident of Lauderdale, by the state.

[1:42:19] Good evening, Mayor, commissioners and members of the community.

[1:42:23] I appreciate that you're listening tonight.

[1:42:25] I'm an honorary nation related to commercial law, by the state, as President Donald J. Trump,

[1:42:32] in Boulevard. I want to start by emphasizing something important about this proposal.

[1:42:37] It's fairly symbolic. Commercial Boulevard would remain commercial Boulevard.

[1:42:41] This is not the same in the road and it's not changing one's legal address.

[1:42:44] It doesn't create a particular residence or businesses and it doesn't disrupt daily life.

[1:42:49] It's simply an honorary recognition. Across prior county and throughout Florida,

[1:42:55] communities have long recognized presence and historic figures through honorary street designations.

[1:42:59] Many of those names represent leaders from both major political parties.

[1:43:04] That tradition really isn't about politics, it's about recognizing people who have served in one of the most significant roles in our country.

[1:43:12] President Trump served as the 45th President and is now the 47th President of the United States.

[1:43:17] Regardless of anyone's personal views, Honella office is historically significant.

[1:43:22] Communities across the country have recognized President in similar ways for decades.

[1:43:26] and this would simply follow that law and stand in practice.

[1:43:29] Another thing I think is important to remember is that Lario Bice is a unique community.

[1:43:33] It's a town with a strong identity and a sense of history.

[1:43:36] And honorary designation like this can reflect moments of our nation's story and

[1:43:40] the leaders who have shaped it.

[1:43:43] And honestly, one of the most positive things about tonight is simply seeing people show up and participate.

[1:43:47] Whether people support this proposal or oppose it,

[1:43:50] the fact that people care enough to attend the town meeting and speak their minds shows that civic engagement is alive and well.

[1:43:55] Well, at the end of the day, this proposal is modest, symbolic, and consistent with the way many other communities recognize President Trump's certain nation.

[1:44:02] So I respectfully ask the commission to support this honorary designation.

[1:44:06] Thank you for your time, and thank you for your service to the town of Lauderdale to see you.

[1:44:09] God bless everybody.

[1:44:10] Thank you.

[1:44:15] No, no, no, no, please, please.

[1:44:18] Brianna Reeves?

[1:44:24] I didn't hear.

[1:44:25] Yes, if you can state your name and your address and your word.

[1:44:28] Brianna Reeves, I'm not a resident of Lauderdale by the city of Fort Lauderdale.

[1:44:31] Okay, four letter, resident.

[1:44:33] Good evening, Mayor and Commissioner, as I'm here in support of the proposal to designate a portion of commercial boulevard as Donald J. Trump boulevard.

[1:44:41] This matter has already been addressed by the Florida legislature and CSHP33.

[1:44:47] Language directing this designation appears in lines 16 through 19 and the bill passed both the Florida House and the Senate in late February and early March.

[1:44:56] In short, the issue has already been debated, considered, and

[1:45:00] And decided at the state level. It is also worth noting that designating roads in honor of presidents and national leaders is a long-standing American tradition. Across the country, roads, highways, and public spaces bear the names of past presidents as a recognition of their role in nation's history. This proposal follows that same tradition. I fear that continuing to revisit this issue here is not the most productive use of the commission's or lauderdale by the sea's taxpayers' time.

[1:45:29] By moving forward on this proposal today, allows this body to focus its attention and energy in more productive places such as the many local issues that directly impact the residents and businesses of Lauderdale by the seat.

[1:45:42] Thank you for your time and consideration.

[1:45:44] Let's move on.

[1:45:45] Thank you.

[1:45:47] No, please, please.

[1:45:49] No, please.

[1:45:51] Mayor Vincent, how are you, sir?

[1:45:59] Good evening mayor vice mayor commission and most of all BSO thank you captain and your staff for your

[1:46:05] service and the public state that you provide to the town of Lauderdale by the sea and especially the sea and making sure everyone's safe. Thank you to the to stay your name and

[1:46:13] Vincent resident. Thank you. Thank you mayor

[1:46:17] You start off with

[1:46:19] residents of every right to pursue a charter amendment regarding future honorary street name decisions

[1:46:26] That's the democratic process should continue

[1:46:28] And I believe we can all agree on that.

[1:46:31] However, the charter amendment effort concerns town-controlled streets and future decisions

[1:46:37] commercial boulevard, as we know, is a state road governed by state authority.

[1:46:43] These are separate legal jurisdictions.

[1:46:47] As past mayor and recent chair of the charter review board for the town of Lodera by the

[1:46:51] sea, I understand those differences.

[1:46:53] Supporting this resolution is not a rejection of voter input.

[1:46:58] It's a recognition of existing state authority.

[1:47:02] This is not about partisanship.

[1:47:04] It's about respecting state law, maintaining procedural water, providing clarity, reducing confusion, and moving forward responsibly.

[1:47:14] Lauderdale by the sea can respect differing opinions while also respecting the legal processes already completed and in place.

[1:47:24] In summary, commercial boulevard is a state roadway.

[1:47:28] The legislation that has acted, this resolution simply aligns our town with that lawful action.

[1:47:35] Residents are free to pursue the future charter changes for town controlled streets and that process should be respected.

[1:47:41] But this matter involves state authority.

[1:47:44] Supporting this resolution brings clarity, consistency, and closure.

[1:47:49] I fully support this resolution.

[1:47:51] I want to thank commission Dadapli for your understanding of the state law and

[1:47:56] why we choose to live in this great state of Florida.

[1:47:59] Thank you for your time, Joe.

[1:48:00] Thank you.

[1:48:03] Perfectly timed, everyone's doing so good.

[1:48:05] Annette Speakers, Nancy Demko, followed by Kiki and Larry Kaiser, followed by Yani and Najar.

[1:48:15] Ms. Demko.

[1:48:23] All right.

[1:48:24] Kiki and Larry Kaiser.

[1:48:30] Kaiser.

[1:48:32] Yani and Najar.

[1:48:37] You could raise it up for you.

[1:48:38] Yeah, perfect.

[1:48:41] Good evening.

[1:48:42] My name is Yani and Najar, I'm not a resident.

[1:48:47] I was born and raised here.

[1:48:49] I listen to a lot of residents in the previous meeting, so respectfully, so I'm going to ask that you do this.

[1:48:54] All right, I appreciate Mr. Mayor, where do you live and for a lot of help?

[1:49:00] Yeah, for a lot of help.

[1:49:01] He lives in for a lot of help.

[1:49:03] Okay, but before I begin, I want to sincerely acknowledge and thank all the law enforcement officers from BSO, both outside and inside this building, for ensuring this evening remains orderly and peaceful.

[1:49:16] In my opinion, this is not about naming a road.

[1:49:18] It's about acknowledging historic achievements that had a lasting impact on our nation on the world.

[1:49:23] President Trump delivered historic economic growth, secure borders, and strong support for small businesses.

[1:49:30] One of the most significant accomplishments of his presidency was the historic Abraham Accords,

[1:49:35] which brought peace agreements between Israel and multiple Arab nations.

[1:49:39] Something experts believe could not be possible.

[1:49:41] Achievance of this magnitude and this kind would ordinarily earn a person a Nobel Peace Prize.

[1:49:48] It's worth noting that many in this room speak passionately about defending democracy,

[1:49:53] yet proposal itself is a product of the democracy.

[1:49:56] Of citizens participating in civic process and electing representatives to enact laws reflective of their constituents.

[1:50:05] And attempts to silence or suppress that, participation won't contribute to the very democratic principles.

[1:50:10] We all claim to value an honorary designation is a modest, but meaningful way for this community to recognize leadership that made history.

[1:50:21] It acknowledges an achievement that advanced peace, strength in America, and

[1:50:24] demonstrated the power of bold leadership so I strongly encourage the council to support this proposal.

[1:50:29] Thank you very much.

[1:50:30] Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

[1:50:34] Mayor, as a point of information, we have ten remaining speakers.

[1:50:37] Okay, the next three speakers, Allen Barski, followed by Lynn Swanson, followed by Spiro Marshelos.

[1:50:46] Marshelos.

[1:50:54] Allen Barski, here he comes.

[1:51:08] Sir, with the light on, yes, right there.

[1:51:10] Thank you very much for hearing all of the constituents.

[1:51:14] My name is Allen Barski, I'm a resident of Flutterdale by the sea for 26 years on Corsair Avenue.

[1:51:20] Just wanted to highlight many people have said the importance of transparency and honesty

[1:51:27] and honesty also in the debate.

[1:51:29] There's been a number of things that have been said here tonight that just do not ring

[1:51:32] through at all and we really want to raise the level of discussion and make sure that decisions

[1:51:38] are based upon facts.

[1:51:40] So when people say that President Trump is not controversial, just hearing tonight all

[1:51:45] of the controversy, how can you even say that?

[1:51:47] There was a statement that was said tonight about the state has passed a law, so we have to respect it and we have to pass this law.

[1:51:55] If we don't agree with the state law, how about the city go back to the state and say, hey, we really want to keep politics out of Lauderdale by the sea.

[1:52:03] Let's not have any streets named after politicians, it really hasn't done us any good.

[1:52:08] There was a comment earlier about the value of this sign that people are taking pictures and it's a spot that's attracting people.

[1:52:15] I live in work and I live in this area and I walk around it all the time.

[1:52:20] The only people I see around the signs is on Saturday and they're protesting Donald Trump.

[1:52:26] Do you want the whole town to be known as this is the place where we protest, Donald Trump?

[1:52:32] Why don't we just leave the law in place and show them how ridiculous it is to have two streets that are named Donald Trump Boulevard?

[1:52:38] It's ridiculous.

[1:52:39] Why don't you just name all of the streets, Donald Trump Boulevard?

[1:52:44] Seriously, let's keep this town nonpartisan, let's take away all this controversy, it can be done very easily with your support. Thank you.

[1:52:55] Thanks.

[1:52:55] Thank you so much.

[1:52:59] Lynn Swanson.

[1:53:03] Lynn Swanson.

[1:53:04] Lynn Swanson.

[1:53:06] Lynn Swanson.

[1:53:07] Lynn Swanson, sorry.

[1:53:11] Spiro Marcellos.

[1:53:18] Mr. Marcellos, if you could raise the mic up your kind of talk.

[1:53:21] Yeah.

[1:53:22] Spiro Marcellos, two commercial boulevards.

[1:53:26] Tonight's very important.

[1:53:29] People are giving their opinions as part of America freedom of speech.

[1:53:35] Donald Trump has done an excellent job as President of the United States.

[1:53:38] He has stopped the drugs from coming into America,

[1:53:42] saving hundreds of thousands of people's lives.

[1:53:45] Those are lives. We want to save lives. He's done a great job.

[1:53:49] He's protecting, as we speak, where in war with Iran, Iran has been attacking us for

[1:53:59] the last 47 years.

[1:54:00] We lost thousands of soldiers the last 47 years.

[1:54:03] We lost in the army, Marines.

[1:54:06] We've been attacked by them, and now Donald Trump has said this has to stop, and we are cutting

[1:54:11] the devil.

[1:54:12] The devil is in Iran.

[1:54:15] Donald Trump understands what's going on in this world.

[1:54:17] It's time to step up.

[1:54:19] We have domestic terrorists in our cities.

[1:54:22] People that come Saturdays and sit in front of the bank and protest, or they're in Oakland Park and US one, it's ridiculous.

[1:54:30] Instead of Sunday protesting, they should maybe go to church and see what's all about.

[1:54:35] God bless America, Trump has done an excellent job, and you can redeem yourselves tonight people and vote positive.

[1:54:42] Donald Trump will help Lordeal by the sea.

[1:54:46] God bless Donald Trump and God bless America, and that's it, and let's go to the vote.

[1:54:52] Thank you very much.

[1:54:53] All right, thank you, Mr. Marchellus.

[1:54:56] Net speakers, Sim draw dorsi, followed by Jonathan Renzi, followed by Eileen O'Brien.

[1:55:10] Sparkly jacket.

[1:55:14] Good evening, gentlemen.

[1:55:15] If you can bring the mic down so they can get a little bit, thank you.

[1:55:18] Good evening my name is Sandra Dorsey I want to see give her a second please give me a second

[1:55:27] And thank you so much for your service everyone here who's doing service just say your resident or not

[1:55:33] I think not a resident. Thank you. I know it's okay. It doesn't matter. You still listen to everyone. It's an open. It's an open forum

[1:55:40] It is an open forum

[1:55:41] So I want to see again my name is Sandra Dorsey while I am not a resident of Lodidia by the sea

[1:55:46] I am a Broward, I am here engaged in civic service in Broward County and I'm here tonight

[1:55:55] to support those who have actually asked for this honorary designation of the portion

[1:56:01] of Commercial Boulevard as President Donald J. Trump Boulevard.

[1:56:05] This is not just about a name or a sign, it's about recognizing leadership, respecting the

[1:56:11] voices of the community and honoring the principles that make our country great.

[1:56:17] President Trump served as the 45th president of the United States during his administration.

[1:56:23] He oversaw significant economic growth, historic tax reforms and policies that strengthen national

[1:56:31] security, many Americans, including residents here in this area, feel that his leadership

[1:56:36] had a lasting positive impact in deserving recognition.

[1:56:42] The honorary designation is one small but meaningful way

[1:56:45] to acknowledge that contribution.

[1:56:48] Commercial Boulevard is a state road

[1:56:50] making it an appropriate location

[1:56:52] for a state honorary designation.

[1:56:55] Approving the resolution could also bring attention,

[1:56:59] visitors and commerce to the town,

[1:57:02] benefiting local businesses and communities as a whole.

[1:57:05] The Republican Party headquarters has been located in this immediate area for decades, and the surrounding communities

[1:57:12] include many voters who proudly support President Trump.

[1:57:18] Thank you so much, and I know that the right thing will be done.

[1:57:23] Thank you, ma'am.

[1:57:24] Come in.

[1:57:24] Thank you.

[1:57:29] Jonathan Renzi?

[1:57:31] No, sir, please respect each other, please.

[1:57:40] Hello, sir.

[1:57:41] Good evening, my name is Jonathan Renzi, my family owns a residence on North Ocean Boulevard not far from here.

[1:57:49] I'm here tonight to thank the mayor, Mr. Malcolm, vice mayor, Mr. Strauss, and the various commissioners for taking the time to be here tonight.

[1:57:59] I urge all of you to vote yes to move forward on this proposal.

[1:58:04] I understand that a lot of people who have voiced different opinions are saying that

[1:58:10] we are renaming commercial boulevard, that's not correct, that's not a fact.

[1:58:14] This seems to be a very simple honorary designation, a sign that goes both directions.

[1:58:21] There are many, many ways that make President Trump one of the greatest presidents in decades.

[1:58:29] There are many reasons for it.

[1:58:31] It was touched on previously.

[1:58:33] Something that was not touched on is the fact that he has greatly pushed forward eight peace deals

[1:58:41] among different wars that were going on that.

[1:58:45] Most of us didn't even know about it for the last few years.

[1:58:48] And hopefully we'll be on the edge of number nine, Iran, and number ten, Russia and Ukraine.

[1:58:53] So I'd like for everyone to vote yes to move forward on this, let's focus on making

[1:58:59] Lauderdale by the sea a safe neighborhood and finding ways to move forward.

[1:59:05] And I also want to take the rest of my time to appreciate the fact that over $500,000 was made

[1:59:12] thanks to Commissioner DiNapoli from responsibly investing the funds that can you believe it?

[1:59:19] The funds in the city were not even invested, like, that's just wild to me.

[1:59:24] So I want to just express my gratitude for doing a great job investing the funds,

[1:59:30] making Lauderdale by the sea a great place for everyone to live in and enjoy.

[1:59:34] And let's move forward, let's honor our president.

[1:59:37] He's our commander in chief, and let's just get this done.

[1:59:40] Thank you.

[1:59:41] Thank you.

[1:59:44] I'm loving everyone's keeping the rack the time good, huh?

[1:59:48] Everything great for them.

[1:59:49] Next speaker is Eileen O'Brien, followed by Steve Cutt, followed by Robert Mark.

[1:59:55] Mark.

[1:59:59] Let me set Brian.

[2:00:01] Hi, my name is Alina Brine. I'm a Catholic, and I stand here and taking an excerpt. I'm not a resident of Loderdale by the sea, and I'm taking an excerpt from the full text of the Epstein case documents case number 18-2868. This is not relevant to the discussion. This is relevant because somebody said that you didn't give a good reason why this shouldn't be done. This is your reason. Epstein files, plaintiffs, Katie.

[2:00:29] for causes of actions against defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein alleges as follows factual allegations.

[2:00:40] On the fourth final factual encounter with defendants Donald J. Trump, the plaintiff Katie Johnson was tied to a bed by defendant, Donald J. Trump,

[2:00:52] who then proceeded to forcibly rape plaintiff Johnson during the course of-

[2:00:58] Ma'am, I'm going to stop your, I apologize,

[2:01:04] this is grease feature, this is

[2:01:25] in,

[2:01:45] no, no, no, no, no, please, please stop.

[2:01:52] All right, you're out of order, you're out of order, be respectful and not use bad language, please.

[2:02:03] Your time is up, please have a seat, ma'am.

[2:02:06] Ma'am, please have a seat.

[2:02:07] No, thank you, please have a seat sir

[2:02:20] if you can press the button on the on the thing please it'll turn green

[2:02:24] There you go. Okay. My name is Stephen Kutner. I'm a resident of Fort Lauderdale

[2:02:35] I'm

[2:02:37] first-generation American to two German parents my father escaped Nazi Germany in February of 1938

[2:02:46] The only reason why I am here today is because he was able to escape while the rest of my grandparents

[2:02:52] were not allowed to escape. I know this has nothing to do with it, but what I heard in the beginning

[2:02:57] was a lot about history and a lot about this history is how let's just say it sounded like a

[2:03:10] lot of propaganda from East Germany to me. I lived in West Berlin in 1986 to 1987 while the wall was up.

[2:03:21] I understood German fluently. I heard German radio, East German radio propaganda.

[2:03:32] What I heard today, this opening was exactly that. So if you want to talk about history,

[2:03:41] let's talk about history because this is not how democracy works. However you slice it

[2:03:49] and dice it, we, as residents, or at least the people of Fort Lauderdale by the sea, get

[2:03:56] to have a voice overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, the people here have are disgusted with

[2:04:06] this decision.

[2:04:08] So I'm asking respectfully that you vote no on this.

[2:04:11] What I'm also going to say, is that Republicans have had their best worked on was being able to convince evangelicals that a vulgar greedy racist man who has had five children without three wives, pays porn stores for sex, groups, women,

[2:04:45] and

[2:04:45] Mark, Jin Forte.

[2:05:00] Hi, good evening, mayors, commissioners.

[2:05:06] You need to be patient, you need to be able to speak, please, thank you.

[2:05:12] I can have my hat, this is a free country.

[2:05:18] Hi, thank you, good evening mayors and commissioners.

[2:05:22] My name is Jennifer Forte, and I'm from Fort Lauderdale.

[2:05:26] While I visit Lauderdale by the sea often,

[2:05:30] because I truly enjoy the quaint charm and lively atmosphere of this community.

[2:05:38] I feel very strongly about this proposal.

[2:05:46] From what I've heard tonight, some residents have created what they have called as a movement, no politics and paradise.

[2:05:54] However, the reality is that many of these individuals involved in that movement

[2:05:59] and have been protesting here every single weekend.

[2:06:03] These protests have caused traffic disruptions

[2:06:07] and have negative impacts on local businesses in the area.

[2:06:12] As I was walking here from my card to the meeting this afternoon,

[2:06:18] several people have stopped me and complimented my hat

[2:06:21] and said they loved it.

[2:06:23] That interaction alone shows that there are many people

[2:06:26] in this community with different perspectives who feel comfortable expressing them.

[2:06:32] For that reason, I believe in this proposal to designate an honorary street, Donald J. Trump

[2:06:38] Boulevard, and it should pass. President Trump accomplished a great deal of, sorry, accomplished

[2:06:47] a great deal of things during his presidency for so far, and many people should recognize

[2:06:54] and appreciate those accomplishments, including myself.

[2:06:57] Thank you for your time.

[2:06:58] Thank you.

[2:07:02] Last speaker, Alfonso Connelliz.

[2:07:05] Out

[2:07:12] of resident.

[2:07:16] Hey, good night.

[2:07:17] Everybody belongs here, thank you.

[2:07:19] Good evening, I am a 37 year old resident of the County of Broward,

[2:07:24] a long time for Lauderdale resident.

[2:07:27] Comes a Lauderdale by the sea a lot.

[2:07:29] I've been coming here as a child.

[2:07:32] I see Deja Vu here tonight because I was here six months ago.

[2:07:36] So the night Charlie Kirk passed away and I see the same people and I hear the same arguments.

[2:07:45] I think heard arguments that the town was going to run dry, that the businesses were going

[2:07:52] to go away, that this was going to become like one of those ghost towns you see in a movie.

[2:07:56] And I on every weekend I'm here and as I was driving here, the town seems to be booming

[2:08:01] and full of people.

[2:08:04] A lot of the people from all over the county come over here to take a picture with the

[2:08:09] sign and they absolutely love it.

[2:08:11] This county has, this city has about 6,000 residents, it's had a state house that's been

[2:08:16] Republican for decades and I hear a lot of threats about, we're not going to vote for you

[2:08:23] next time.

[2:08:24] I guarantee you all the people that we hear never voted for you in the first place are

[2:08:27] and we're going to vote for you next time anyways.

[2:08:29] So who cares?

[2:08:33] There's a sign on Southern Boulevard.

[2:08:35] It's great, people absolutely love it.

[2:08:37] I hear people complaining about protesting,

[2:08:40] but they protest at the Tesla every weekend.

[2:08:42] They protest at the corner at the target every weekend.

[2:08:46] And I mean, last weekend they were protesting

[2:08:47] in front of the home depot about ICE.

[2:08:51] So it seems like they're never going to be happy anyways.

[2:08:53] They're going to protest about something.

[2:08:54] So let's stop complaining, get this done, and keep a lot of deal by the C-grade and good night.

[2:09:02] Thank you.

[2:09:03] Thank you, sir.

[2:09:05] That was the last speaker you said?

[2:09:08] Oh gosh.

[2:09:09] All right.

[2:09:12] So what we're going to do is I'm going to first ask, given the testimony that was provided,

[2:09:18] I'm going to still ask the maker of the motion if they still wish to make their first and the second.

[2:09:25] Yes, I move the motion.

[2:09:26] Okay, and is there still the second?

[2:09:28] Yes, I second the motion.

[2:09:30] Okay, so what we're going to do, I just before we get the debate and bring it back to the commission,

[2:09:34] I don't want to clarify one point because it was mentioned several times from the audience members.

[2:09:40] And that is what is the reason, I think you had a slide on there regarding what a yes and a no vote mean.

[2:09:48] Because I want to, I just want to clarify that for people that were in the audience if it was not already cleared.

[2:09:54] So, the state legislature passed a resolution, and what does that mean?

[2:10:00] Commissioner, do you want to state that, it means it's basically going to happen if the governor signs it, correct, regardless of a yes or no tonight?

[2:10:08] Okay, this is just approval of markers.

[2:10:12] When the state legislature passes legislation, it has to come before the local commission as a requirement for approval.

[2:10:21] For approval of designating the state road, or is that the markers on the state road?

[2:10:26] Okay, all right, so we're gonna go ahead and commissioner Polopolis as the maker of the second, do you want to state something?

[2:10:34] The reason why you second in it, or do you want to make a comment?

[2:10:38] If we're going to start Commissioner commons and sure I'll begin.

[2:10:43] I first want to thank everyone who came this evening.

[2:10:46] This is what civic engagement is all about.

[2:10:50] People coming out where they agree with something or not agree with something but voicing their opinions.

[2:10:55] And I always say this, it's unfortunate that we don't have this kind of a turnout when it's a budget meeting

[2:11:00] or when we're talking about a public safety building

[2:11:03] or when we're talking about looking at a new fire department.

[2:11:08] Everyone here, please come to those meetings.

[2:11:12] Ron Prasad is here every meeting, right Ron?

[2:11:14] Every meeting.

[2:11:16] Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[2:11:19] Everyone's entitled to voice their opinion

[2:11:21] in a respectful manner.

[2:11:24] And like I said in September, we're all adults.

[2:11:27] Let's all act like adults.

[2:11:29] Let's drop the hate, drop the animosity towards one another because we all belong here.

[2:11:36] I don't care if you're a resident or not, every person in this room belongs here.

[2:11:41] This is an open forum and everyone can speak their mind in my opinion.

[2:11:45] I also mentioned September that I believe an honorary sign recognizes Donald Trump's patriotism.

[2:11:52] We're talking about a president who's actively neutralizing threats to our country and whether

[2:11:57] Whether you agree with him or not, whether you like his politics or you abort them, I truly

[2:12:03] believe that President Trump is doing what he believes is best for this country.

[2:12:09] And I respect that.

[2:12:11] He's not a politician's politician.

[2:12:14] He doesn't take the conventional approach to the office.

[2:12:17] And in my personal opinion, that's what's been needed in at least my lifetime.

[2:12:22] time. If you don't agree with him, then that's perfectly fine. But that doesn't take away

[2:12:28] from the fact that what we are doing here tonight is simply honoring a sitting president.

[2:12:35] Again,

[2:12:37] a resident this evening stated that putting a Trump sign would be damaging to the businesses

[2:12:41] and a lot of other things. I drive the streets of this town every single day, and I walk

[2:12:46] them at least a few times a week. It's busy, everyone. The traffic is tremendous. Spring

[2:12:53] break us here and people are not turning away from our town, they haven't been.

[2:12:58] Another resident mentioned that we cannot represent the people of this town in the Republican

[2:13:03] Party, and I agree with her, 100%, I don't represent the Republican Party.

[2:13:09] If I agree with their politics, that's my personal belief, and I'm entitled to that just as

[2:13:14] anyone else is entitled to their beliefs.

[2:13:16] But I've always sat up here and I've done what I think is in the best interest of the town,

[2:13:21] Whether you agree with it or not, I've set up here for four years, and I made decisions that have been very unpopular.

[2:13:28] I've had four one votes against me multiple times, but I still believed in what I was moving for.

[2:13:35] But I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

[2:13:38] And I'm here to do what I think is right for this town.

[2:13:42] That's why I'm up here.

[2:13:44] I support the motion this evening because we're essentially doing the same thing that we just did in September.

[2:13:49] In my mind, it's the same vote.

[2:13:51] It's the same public comments, it's the same people,

[2:13:55] it's the same complaints, it's the same support.

[2:13:57] I don't really see much of a difference.

[2:14:02] I want to end with this.

[2:14:04] We had an attendance of about 120 participants this evening.

[2:14:08] Our town is composed of about 6,000 residents.

[2:14:11] It's about 2% of the population was here today.

[2:14:14] Assuming that everyone here, assuming that everyone here

[2:14:17] was a resident, which we know was not true.

[2:14:19] But I represent all of Lauderdale by the sea, and those who are home, who are constantly

[2:14:25] silenced from their opinions, those who oppose my position, those who support it, it doesn't

[2:14:30] matter to me, and those who like me and those who don't.

[2:14:34] I'm always going to do what I feel is right in my heart.

[2:14:38] Honoring the sitting president in my opinion, my belief in my heart is the right thing for

[2:14:44] the town.

[2:14:45] I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

[2:14:48] That's why I support my motion.

[2:14:50] I yield.

[2:14:51] All right.

[2:14:52] So we have a first and a second.

[2:14:53] We're going to bring it back to commission discussion.

[2:14:55] I'm going to go first.

[2:14:56] I think I'm going to go first.

[2:14:58] I believe in them.

[2:14:59] We'll open it up top.

[2:15:00] So there's if they press their buttons, okay. All right, first of all, I want to thank everyone who spoke this evening in Commissioner Jean Applee for presenting the item. I would like to briefly address some of the comments we've heard and clarify a few points. Some residents have told me that they feel underrepresented politically in a county that is overwhelmingly aligned one way. There are many residents here and throughout this region who feel their views are not always reflected locally.

[2:15:29] whether people agree with those views or not, those residents are part of this

[2:15:35] community and their voices matter as well. At the same time, we have heard the

[2:15:41] phrase no politics in paradise. Repeat it quite a bit over the last year,

[2:15:47] along with accusation that this commission somehow brought politics into this

[2:15:51] town. That claim is simply not accurate and the timeline makes that very clear. The

[2:15:58] The protest began more than a year ago as demonstrations aimed at the president.

[2:16:03] Well before this commission ever considered Seagrave Drive co-designation for the first

[2:16:08] time in September.

[2:16:10] After the September vote, a second weekly protest about the designation was added and that

[2:16:16] issue became a justification to continue those demonstrations.

[2:16:22] Organized by many of the same individuals who have been involved in broader advocacy efforts

[2:16:26] in this town for years. That timeline is important because it makes clear that the political

[2:16:33] activity surrounding this issue did not begin with this commission's actions in September.

[2:16:40] These demonstrations also appear to be part of a broader protest movement across the county,

[2:16:47] with similar protests occurring in multiple communities on rotating schedules.

[2:16:51] Many participants have come from outside Lauderdot by the sea and while some local residents

[2:16:57] have participated, a significant number appear to be coming from other communities.

[2:17:03] At the same time, many residents who support this designation have shared their view privately

[2:17:09] through emails and conversations.

[2:17:12] That broader context is important to understand as we discuss the claim that politics were somehow

[2:17:19] introduced into this town by this commission.

[2:17:23] It is important to remember that Lauderdale by the Sea has nonpartisan elections, but

[2:17:29] that does not mean residents or elected officials do not have political views.

[2:17:34] Nonpartisan simply means candidates do not run under party labels on a ballot.

[2:17:40] It does not mean politics or opinions disappear from the community.

[2:17:44] So, the claim that the Commission brought politics into Lauderdale by the sea is simply

[2:17:50] not accurate.

[2:17:51] Politics and civic advocacy has existed in this town for many years.

[2:17:57] I know that firsthand, I've lived here for 51 years and have seen many of those debates

[2:18:04] unfold.

[2:18:05] Political action committees, organized advocacy groups and local publications, have long been

[2:18:12] part of its history often led by many of the same individuals and groups we are hearing

[2:18:18] from today, including those organizing protests, circulating flyers, and advocating for

[2:18:25] the proposed charter amendment. Given that history, it is difficult to reconcile the phrase

[2:18:32] no politics and paradise with the longstanding reality of political advocacy that has existed

[2:18:39] here for decades.

[2:18:41] Setting that broader context aside, it is important to recognize that the issue before

[2:18:46] the commission is a routine function of government.

[2:18:50] Across Florida and across the country, roads and public places are regularly designated

[2:18:56] in an honorary manner.

[2:18:58] To my knowledge, requiring voter approval for honorary street designations would be unusual

[2:19:04] and would make a lot of deal by the sea an exception amongst municipalities in South Florida,

[2:19:09] certainly Florida.

[2:19:11] For that reason, the level of controversy surrounding this issue here is not something we typically see

[2:19:20] when similar honorary designations are considered in other communities.

[2:19:24] This makes it somewhat ironic that a proposal framed as keeping politics out of our town

[2:19:31] It's self-require turning routine municipal decisions into political-refrendums.

[2:19:39] This type of action is simply part of ordinary municipal governance.

[2:19:45] Our system of local government is representative.

[2:19:49] Residents elect a commission to make legislative decisions on behalf of the community.

[2:19:55] And that is how municipalities across Florida operate.

[2:19:59] I would also like to note that the proposed referendum that has been discussed publicly is not currently before the town.

[2:20:07] No language has been approved and no petition signatures have been submitted.

[2:20:12] Municipal government must operate under the rules that exist today, not under rules that may or may not be adopted in the future.

[2:20:22] It is also important to address the concern that has been raised about how this matter reached the commission.

[2:20:28] There has been an accusation that this change was pursued without the consent of the commission or the residents.

[2:20:35] Regardless of how an idea originates, nothing becomes policy unless this commission approves it at a public meeting,

[2:20:43] which is exactly what is happening tonight.

[2:20:47] Please, I also view this as a practical compromise.

[2:20:50] The state designation will move forward, and this allows the town to remove a local code designation, so there is only one designation in place.

[2:21:01] Let me explain the resolution before us.

[2:21:04] The state of Florida has approval legislation designated a portion of commercial boulevard as President Donald J. Trump boulevard.

[2:21:12] Because commercial boulevard is a state road, Florida law requires the town to approve the installation and

[2:21:18] and approval of the state markers within our jurisdiction before they can be installed.

[2:21:24] This resolution simply allows the state markers to be installed and

[2:21:28] provides that once those state markers are in place, the town's existing secondary code designation at C Great Drive will be removed.

[2:21:36] So again, there will be only one designation.

[2:21:40] Strong opinions and disagreements are part of democracy.

[2:21:43] But threats, intimidation, and personal attacks are unacceptable and have no place in

[2:21:50] our community or in the way that we conduct public debate.

[2:21:55] For those reasons, I will be supporting this resolution this evening.

[2:22:00] People have different opinions about the designation itself and that is normal in a democracy.

[2:22:07] But my responsibility as mayor is to represent the entire community and to approach these

[2:22:13] issues based on the facts and the law that governs us.

[2:22:17] Lauderdale by the sea is a community where people with different views can live together

[2:22:22] respectfully, even when we do not all agree.

[2:22:26] And with that, I will take Vice Mayor, you have the floor, sir.

[2:22:31] Oh, boy.

[2:22:34] Yeah, I was hoping we'd take a break, but let's keep going, and we'll try to finish in time

[2:22:41] I have to see the USA meet Italy and the World Baseball Classic tonight, God blesses.

[2:22:47] Okay, well, there's a lot to talk about last September.

[2:22:52] Here we go again.

[2:22:53] My good friend, Commissioner DiNapoli has served up more from that old punch ball that we talked about earlier this past year.

[2:23:04] Except this time, things are a little different.

[2:23:08] This is not wholly initiated from the town commission as it was before this.

[2:23:14] From what my understanding was initiated by a Miami representative as a house bill 33, somebody down in Miami.

[2:23:21] Quickly ram through the Florida legislature, through the house, through the senate,

[2:23:26] ultimately, in place in front of the governor, which I believe, and I'm gonna suspect the governor will sign it, it's sitting on his desk.

[2:23:34] Now, this is brought to the town for resolution and approval by the commission representing the town.

[2:23:42] My understanding and everybody could correct me as come before us because we have to approve it as a commission in order for

[2:23:53] the legislature's action to proceed forward with this designation.

[2:23:57] If we don't approve it, it doesn't get designated, and in essence it dies.

[2:24:06] Since this is a designation, and since this is a legislated designation by the State of Florida,

[2:24:14] this designation and the signs are in essence permanently affixed to this town.

[2:24:20] Much like a tattoo, this tattoo will not be easily removed if desired in the future.

[2:24:26] without undergoing a long and painful process, which involves going back to Tallahassee.

[2:24:32] For example, if a future commissioner, two years, three years from now,

[2:24:38] once this designation removed, it would require the commission in the town to obtain state representation,

[2:24:48] to champion their cause up in Tallahassee for a legislative action to remove the designation.

[2:24:53] It's not as simple as two, three years from now, we as a commission don't want to have

[2:24:59] the sea grapes sign anymore and we decide not to have it.

[2:25:02] We have to go up to the big guys up in Tallahassee.

[2:25:08] It's this permanency that's being thrust upon us by Tallahassee that really in my opinion

[2:25:17] raises the need, exactly the need for something like this to go through referendum rather than us as voted officials voting for this because we may believe in doing the right thing.

[2:25:33] Since this is being thrust upon us through the state and now we have to decide as a town if this action is acceptable.

[2:25:44] I think that raises the need for a referendum on this issue.

[2:25:49] I'm going to, don't clap.

[2:25:53] I'm going to finish.

[2:25:54] I'm going to suspect that my fellow commissioners will vote the same way that we did in September.

[2:25:59] And that's fine.

[2:26:00] And that's part of the democratic process, which I deeply and wholeheartedly respect.

[2:26:05] But I'm just throwing out my opinions here and how I feel about certain things and why certain things should happen

[2:26:11] And how I think this is happening, this item that's being thrust upon us from Tallahassee raises much more bigger issues in my opinion, much more bigger concerns in my opinion.

[2:26:27] This is Tallahassee designating us, telling us we're going to have this road.

[2:26:32] This is Tallahassee telling us we control issues of short-term rentals, you don't have the right to do that.

[2:26:41] We know better than you, we're a big brother.

[2:26:44] This is my big concern.

[2:26:46] And is this what is happening now maybe just a crack in the armor of the future

[2:26:52] to the point where we need as a town to be concerned about losing our home rule?

[2:26:56] Will we be seeing 30 story buildings in downtown Lordeau by the sea in the future?

[2:27:04] I hope not, and I will do what I can't to fight against that.

[2:27:08] But this is something that we should always keep in mind on who we vote for here, for the town as well as who we vote for, as our representatives in telehassy.

[2:27:20] I have personally always thought of Lord Elba to see, maybe naively, as a oasis protected from politics and conflict, the politics and conflict that we see, I don't know, I hate to say what Lord Elpompano or the state of Florida.

[2:27:37] But I'd like to think of us as an oasis of safety.

[2:27:41] And I understand that people in this town, including myself, do have political views.

[2:27:46] I just simply don't wear it on my sleeve publicly, and I don't endorse doing that.

[2:27:54] Same thing I was brought up religious, and I still think of myself as a religious person.

[2:27:59] But I don't wear my religion on my sleeve.

[2:28:01] I don't try to force my religious beliefs on other people as well.

[2:28:04] And I just don't think that's the right thing to do.

[2:28:07] We were told when we sit around the dining table or playing cards, you know, don't talk about religion or politics.

[2:28:13] There's a lot of other things in the world to talk about.

[2:28:15] I talk about fishing, it seems to work, a lot.

[2:28:19] I know too much, but despite my personal feelings, I believe bringing presidential names into the town is plain old partisan politics.

[2:28:32] Whether it's Trump or Obama, I just don't see it right for either one.

[2:28:37] I'd rather not have it.

[2:28:39] I don't see a need for it.

[2:28:41] You want to have an honorarium for our presidency.

[2:28:45] Let's call it President Boulevard, simply.

[2:28:55] Regardless of your political feelings, I do not support the agenda item as you probably guess that.

[2:29:01] I think it brings conflict or divisiveness to the town rather than a sense of community and what I generally try to inspire is a sense of togetherness for this town.

[2:29:14] If you know me, you've known me for the last eight years, that's what I've been trying to work forward and I still will continue to work for that.

[2:29:22] I want to thank everybody who's here, people that left, the people that were outside, the people that are watching.

[2:29:29] And especially the people that called me up at the time to talk to me on the phone.

[2:29:34] I got, I don't know, maybe 100 emails, you probably all got that too, from people on both

[2:29:41] sides saying they don't support it, they do support it.

[2:29:44] Some people, they were just those, what do you call those things, those blank things, they

[2:29:47] just put their name on both sides.

[2:29:50] I liked the ones, and I took the ones more to heart, the people actually wrote something

[2:29:56] from their heart, and I thought that was good.

[2:30:00] Whether it was, whatever side it was, it was heartfelt, and they took a time out of their life to be involved in the community, which Commissioner Palopoulos talked about. We would love to see this kind of full room when we're talking about simple agenda items. We would love to see this kind of community involvement on a day-to-day basis when we're up here. We don't only want to see this when we're talking about a signage issue.

[2:30:30] So take that to heart and consider that, you know, as we move forward towards November or towards the next year, come out to the meetings.

[2:30:40] You have something to say, voice your opinion. You like what we're doing up here, say it. If you don't like it, don't be afraid to say it as well.

[2:30:47] The fact that you took the time to reach out and be here today shows an involvement and I salute everybody here. Thank you very much, and I'll pass the torch.

[2:30:57] All

[2:31:01] right, thank you, Commissioner Cretziano.

[2:31:06] As you know, I am not a lawyer.

[2:31:10] I am a common sense person, and I very much love loaded over the sea.

[2:31:17] I have done everything that I possibly can do to convey that to anybody who wrote to me.

[2:31:23] I wrote back to them if you were from Artown.

[2:31:27] You told me why you support or why you deny.

[2:31:31] and I write back to you.

[2:31:35] We have excellent public speakers on this dius, most of them are lawyers, okay?

[2:31:43] And they're trained to convince you of their point of view.

[2:31:48] I'm trained to tell you how I vote in the best interests of our town.

[2:31:54] And I will oppose this resolution once again.

[2:32:03] I do not think that we should be surprised.

[2:32:08] I didn't hear about this bill until it was in the Sun Sentinel.

[2:32:13] That's like last week, so I wrote, so I wrote and asked.

[2:32:20] And some of you know that I probably write better than I speak, and that's me.

[2:32:27] But I'm telling you, I do not like how this process was initiated.

[2:32:33] Think about this.

[2:32:34] Two, two, two, two representatives from Miami Dade.

[2:32:42] Put forward a resolution honoring somebody who just was killed, Charlie Kirk.

[2:32:48] So that bill, people who are in the political arena know that that bill was going to receive special priority and automatic approval.

[2:33:01] That bill did, it was HB 33.

[2:33:05] So it was sent to the Senate and the Senate agreed and you saw the numbers, the numbers were good, big.

[2:33:11] But do you think anybody cared about the tag-a-law-and-bill designating commercial drive as a code designation, or the sign that's going to be put up there, whatever we want to call it?

[2:33:24] It's just not right.

[2:33:27] So I wrote to the governor, yes, I didn't know that somebody was going to read what I wrote to the governor.

[2:33:33] I wrote to the, and believe me, I don't think that it's law.

[2:33:39] I think that it's legislation that has been sent to the governor.

[2:33:43] And I don't know, floor to law, because I'm not a lawyer,

[2:33:47] but just because something passes the legislation,

[2:33:51] a legislature, I should say, that does not mean that it's law until the governor signs it.

[2:33:57] And now, whether it's law or codification or whatever they want to call it, it's still

[2:34:05] a very, very untransparent process that does not serve our community and therefore I still

[2:34:14] remain opposed to this and I wanted to go to the people in our town to represent the feelings

[2:34:23] and the votes in our town.

[2:34:25] Voting is the best way. You go to the ballot box, you've told the world how you feel about things and you don't go to the ballot box, that's a real problem.

[2:34:36] Just like if you don't come here and tell us how you feel about things, that's a real problem. We have to know and I had 149 emails sent to me.

[2:34:49] Most of them were sent with the same script on it.

[2:34:56] Vote for Trump because it's common sense and it's a win-win.

[2:35:01] Well, I don't know what that means.

[2:35:03] You tell me what that means.

[2:35:04] But somebody told them the right to the same thing.

[2:35:06] Like 60 of them said that.

[2:35:10] I didn't respond to them because they were non-residents.

[2:35:13] When the residents wrote to me and said,

[2:35:15] I like Trump, and here's why I like him.

[2:35:18] I wrote to him and said, yeah, but I'm really concerned about the process and the transparency.

[2:35:25] And wasting so much time of this commission up here without dealing with the management of our town.

[2:35:35] We have BSO to worry about.

[2:35:38] We have BSO to worry about.

[2:35:40] You know, BSO, we all say everybody here says BSO does a great job, okay, how are we going

[2:35:46] to pay them?

[2:35:47] That's the next issue because they want a lot more money.

[2:35:50] We have the crisis at the, at the, at the, with the fire department, you know, pomp and

[2:35:55] old cancel their contract.

[2:35:57] We got another year to go.

[2:35:58] How are we going to do that?

[2:36:00] Why shouldn't we spend what, two and a half hours discussing that and everybody come here

[2:36:06] and tell us how they feel about that?

[2:36:08] We had we had a workshop, which was authored by the mayor

[2:36:12] I had asked for a workshop to be held in September of last year

[2:36:17] We held it in January and it was a very very good workshop. We learned from BSO

[2:36:24] and we learned

[2:36:26] That Pompano is not interested in doing anything with us even though some people went and made

[2:36:32] made overtures to them and Pompano came back and said, well maybe we'll do something.

[2:36:37] But, you know, they have not been a reliable partner.

[2:36:40] We just signed a contract two years ago which they, after one year, said no.

[2:36:45] We don't like it anymore so it's done.

[2:36:47] So there are a lot of issues that we could be dealing with, you know, and we're dealing

[2:36:53] with something that does not have any economic or social value to our town.

[2:37:00] And thank you.

[2:37:11] All right, is anybody else?

[2:37:16] I don't see a button pushed.

[2:37:19] Okay, Commissioner Jean-Napoli, go ahead.

[2:37:27] Yeah, I just want to thank everybody for being here, both for and against.

[2:37:30] I like to think he came out here because it's the mayor's birthday this week.

[2:37:34] So, but I know you didn't.

[2:37:37] But I'm just letting everybody know it is his birthday this week.

[2:37:40] To the person that just mentioned facts and propaganda,

[2:37:44] And they referenced the list there.

[2:37:48] So that's the list you were talking about,

[2:37:51] saying how they were voting for other presidents.

[2:37:54] But all these overwhelming votes were actually

[2:37:56] to designate streets for President Trump

[2:37:58] and Miami-Dade and Palm Beach County.

[2:38:01] So what I was trying to explain was that all these other

[2:38:06] municipalities voted in overwhelming majorities,

[2:38:11] both Democrats and Republicans to recognize

[2:38:13] President Trump on signage in these two other counties and I felt that it's a shame here,

[2:38:18] unlike every other city and town on that list, some have made this an issue where in every

[2:38:22] other county and town and city it hasn't been. I did get hundreds of emails against in favor,

[2:38:30] over a hundred in favor. I saw the mayor gave a great recitation of the political history of the

[2:38:35] town for decades to say it hasn't been political, really doesn't reflect history.

[2:38:41] A referendum is not the law which we operate under for a state designation.

[2:38:46] Statue currently requires a town commission to have a vote.

[2:38:49] It's not a referendum.

[2:38:52] I've heard as mentioned that signs are permanent.

[2:38:54] No signs are truly permanent.

[2:38:56] The legislature could change it in the future.

[2:38:59] So, local, I heard a mention like, why are we talking about this?

[2:39:04] We should talk about other things.

[2:39:05] Well, local governments regularly address ceremonial recognitions

[2:39:08] while simultaneously handling budgets, contracts, and public safety.

[2:39:12] We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and at the end of the day it's a common sense motion, and I just asked to call the question.

[2:39:23] All right, is any other public comments?

[2:39:25] Anybody else wish to speak again?

[2:39:29] All right, so, hearing none, ma'am, I don't know why you have your arm up the whole time.

[2:39:34] I can't see anything you're holding.

[2:39:36] We have a first by Commissioner DiNapoli, and a second by Commissioner Polopolis, please call the rule.

[2:39:43] are the vote.

[2:39:46] Please catch your vote.

[2:39:52] Motion passes, three, two, with Vice Mayor Strauss and Commissioner Graziano voting

[2:39:57] no.

[2:39:58] All right.

[2:39:59] Thank you.

[2:39:59] We're going to take a 15-minute break and come back to the actual agenda.

[2:46:26] No, we're not doing the invocation. All right, we're going to call the meeting back to order. Yes, we do have to ask that anybody else sign up for other public comments. Courtney. Did anybody sign up for any other public comments? No. Okay. All right. So that brings us to public safety discussion, B.S.F. February, 2026, public safety report. You have two minutes.

[2:46:51] That's much better.

[2:47:02] Time-erring commissioners.

[2:47:04] Town Manager, Captain Christopher Sutter,

[2:47:07] and Brad Sharves office.

[2:47:09] I'd like to go quickly over the February 20th, 2026 BSO Public Safety Report.

[2:47:14] As you guys know, on February 21st, the former executive officer,

[2:47:20] Lieutenant Christmas Fowler, was transferred to the BSO Civil Division.

[2:47:25] And on that same date, we acquired the Lieutenant Tony Hopkin.

[2:47:29] Americans is here today sitting with us.

[2:47:31] I'd like to just go over a brief synopsis of her career with the Broward Sheriff's Office.

[2:47:36] Ten and Tony Hopkins, a law enforcement leader, nearly two decades of service at Broward Sheriff's Office,

[2:47:40] currently serving as a lieutenant and executive officer in the Lauderdale by the sea district.

[2:47:44] Throughout her career, she's held progressive leadership roles including administrative sergeant,

[2:47:48] core sergeant, and role basso sergeant, overseeing district operations, specialized community units, and

[2:47:53] high profile event planning.

[2:47:55] She has coordinated operational plans for major community events and

[2:47:58] dignitary visits, supervising multiple disciplinary teams and

[2:48:01] lead critical incident responses as a hostage negotiator team leader with the agency SWAT

[2:48:06] hostage barricade team.

[2:48:08] Known for a strong leadership, operational oversight and community focused approach.

[2:48:11] She brings both tactical expertise and strategic management experience to her role.

[2:48:16] It's kind of but Hopkins combines field experience with advanced education and

[2:48:19] professional development.

[2:48:20] She holds a master's in disaster management from Florida National University.

[2:48:23] a master of business administration from Nover, Southean,

[2:48:27] so a southeastern university, and a bachelor's degree in management information systems from the University of West Florida.

[2:48:33] In addition to their agency responsibilities, you served as a unit supply leader with the southeastern Florida Regional.

[2:48:38] All hazards, incident management team, supporting disaster response, effort state-wide,

[2:48:42] her background reflects commitment and leadership to public safety, emergency management, and

[2:48:46] continuous professional growth.

[2:48:48] And I would like to welcome her to the watered out by the city.

[2:48:51] Yes, welcome, thank you,

[2:48:55] and that really quickly next thing I'd like to recognize is our deputies of the month for February 2026.

[2:49:06] Deputy Scott Clier, Deputy Brian Swatkins, and Deputy Kairan Ranferan.

[2:49:10] On February 21st, these three deputies demonstrated professionalism teamwork and resolving a delayed burglary that led to a subject's identification and arrest.

[2:49:19] The victim reported an unknown individual had entered his real curtailage overnight and

[2:49:23] its stolen electric bicycle, a scooter, and clothing valued at over $1,000 from an unlocked

[2:49:27] storage room.

[2:49:29] Later that day, the victim located the suspect riding stolen bicycle near Beach Portal.

[2:49:33] Recovered the bicycle and alerted Deputy Rantran, who was in the area on patrol.

[2:49:37] Deputy Rantran immediately broadcasted a detailed description of the suspect enabling Scott

[2:49:41] Clier to quickly vent canvas the area and locate the subject matching the description as he

[2:49:45] attempted to leave the town.

[2:49:46] Subject was contained without incident and a show of identification was conducted during which the victim positively identified the offender

[2:49:53] Suspect was also be found to be wearing the clothing that he had stolen from the same storage unit

[2:49:59] Debbie Swatkins conducted a postman interview obtaining a full confession of the burglary and theft

[2:50:04] The confession of I combined with the positive identification and recovery of stolen property strength in the case and insured accountability

[2:50:10] to their swift and coordinated efforts to investigate

[2:50:13] a worth of deputy secured critical evidence,

[2:50:15] recovered valuable property,

[2:50:17] and upheld the standards of the prior Sheriff's Office.

[2:50:19] This is just one of those incidents

[2:50:21] where they worked in tandem as a team,

[2:50:24] quickly grabbed this suspect

[2:50:26] as he was actually leaving the town,

[2:50:28] which had he evaded, it might have eluded capture

[2:50:30] because we didn't have the correct video,

[2:50:32] but we had a good description at that time.

[2:50:35] So the quick work of these three gentlemen

[2:50:37] insured a good case here and we got the property back

[2:50:39] back to the victim, and we got a good case for prosecution, so I want to congratulate them on their job well done.

[2:50:48] We did have one special event this past month that we attended myself and

[2:50:53] CSAG of Anna Anderson.

[2:50:54] We attended the on February 19th, 2026.

[2:50:57] The party in the park, Oceans of Love event held by the town at the Freak Park playground.

[2:51:02] It was a very well attended event, positive interaction with the deputies and

[2:51:07] the community members and strong partnership with the town.

[2:51:10] We enjoyed doing that event, all these events with the town.

[2:51:13] We get very good feedback from the residents and enjoy just interacting with everyone and

[2:51:19] giving them a smile, giving them a little beach ball to kick around while they're playing at the park and

[2:51:22] then joining a very family-friendly event.

[2:51:25] Other than that, we had a couple crimes this month, nothing really serious.

[2:51:30] It was really kind of a slow month.

[2:51:32] If you guys have any questions on that, I can obviously go into any event as well.

[2:51:41] No questions and thank you for you and your men for tonight.

[2:51:45] I know you had a pretty good team out there and I appreciate that as well.

[2:51:48] Thank you, sir.

[2:51:49] Yep.

[2:51:52] All right.

[2:51:52] Town Manager Report.

[2:51:54] Good evening.

[2:51:55] So on the manager's report this evening, our next party in the park series serves a dual purpose.

[2:52:00] It will be called party in the park, art in the park, as well as our freed park mural unveiling.

[2:52:05] So I encourage anyone who hasn't stopped out there ready to take a look at that mural.

[2:52:09] several options were proposed to the commission and we put out to the residents to vote so that mural has been completed.

[2:52:16] It's beautiful so we're going to have a chance to meet the artist and as well as do some arts and crafts out in our new beloved

[2:52:23] Freed Park playground. The event takes place March 18th from 5 to 630 and the unveiling of the mural will take place at 530.

[2:52:32] Again, Wednesday, March 18th, from 5 to 630, and the unveiling of the mural will be at 530.

[2:52:39] So, Broward League of City's annual dinners coming up, the sponsorship tier that we have done in the past cost $5,000.

[2:52:48] I'm looking for a direction if that's something the commission would like to do again this year.

[2:52:52] There's also the option for a lower tier if

[2:52:57] there's any input on that, or what the commission's thinking.

[2:53:03] Yeah, I mean, I'm going to stay consistent with my opinion of this on the last meeting.

[2:53:09] It's a nice event.

[2:53:10] I fully support the Barrel League of Cities, but at the same time, my goal this year is to save money.

[2:53:16] I mean, if I'm not willing to donate to some of these charities because I think we need to save for tax purposes.

[2:53:23] And then quite frankly, I don't want to obviously purchase tickets for ourselves to go to an event.

[2:53:28] I know they go to a good cause, but it's something, in my opinion, where the money needs to go somewhere else.

[2:53:34] It's not legal.

[2:53:37] Anybody else?

[2:53:39] Commissioner Diably.

[2:53:40] Yeah, I'd tend to agree with Commissioner Poulopoulos.

[2:53:44] I'm fine with that.

[2:53:47] Okay, thank you for the direction on that.

[2:53:49] So back to our public safety workshop.

[2:53:53] Several good questions were brought up by members of our commission.

[2:53:55] The vice mayor had brought up looking at what it would take to change our methodology for

[2:54:03] the fire assessment fee, so in speaking with a consultant, it would cost 35 to $40,000 to

[2:54:10] do that study and would take approximately three to four months.

[2:54:13] The caveat with that is in order to do that, the study would essentially have to be done

[2:54:18] by May 1st, which this timeline doesn't allow.

[2:54:21] So I'm looking for input if that's something we want to move forward with, or if we're okay

[2:54:25] skipping that release for this year yeah can this this again just a reminder

[2:54:31] this is for the issue of whether it was feasible for us to do our own fire

[2:54:36] department so this issue was for looking at the square footage for condos to

[2:54:42] figure that number out and see if we could charge differently because we charge a

[2:54:45] flat fee right now for the fire assessment for resident. Oh I'm sorry I'm sorry it's

[2:54:50] two different. No I was putting two different things on there okay yeah that

[2:54:53] Actually, that was something that I brought up to you.

[2:54:55] Yes.

[2:54:55] Yeah, I'm sorry.

[2:54:57] Forgive me.

[2:54:58] So, do you want to do it in Tuesday?

[2:54:59] Are you okay with also the fire department study?

[2:55:03] So, to do that study by May, it's not possible.

[2:55:10] It's not possible, so assuming we don't do that,

[2:55:14] which is looks like we're not, when's the next time we can do that?

[2:55:18] And when would it be effective?

[2:55:20] We can do the study this year, but it would not apply

[2:55:22] to this year's fire assessment rate, so it would be then in next year.

[2:55:27] Okay, but at least some point we can look forward to doing this so that we can hopefully

[2:55:32] help the commercial people who are getting possibly overcharged more than they should be.

[2:55:42] And then we could also have the knowledge of what the condos are paying and at least for

[2:55:47] their common areas and per square foot.

[2:55:49] Right, so for this year is it would stay status quo in terms of methodology for the fire assessment rate, so how much that needs to be increased versus other avenues of revenue that something we could then play with next year should we choose to go forward with the study really what we're looking at the big increases that we're going to be facing is really coming next year or the year after is I think the big ones, right?

[2:56:10] Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, coming up, it depends how quickly we transition to another provider.

[2:56:16] That's going to be the ultimate determiner, but we are seeing increased costs from Pompano starting to get up in the range of one of those provided costs that we were given.

[2:56:26] And if we skate into this, for neck, not May 1st, but for next year, can we skate into it at a lower cost?

[2:56:33] We can ask, but I can always go back to the consultant and see if it would be cheaper.

[2:56:37] It would be a rushed item, it would be an item they could do and take somewhat of their time on it, right?

[2:56:43] Yeah, I'm happy to go back and ask if that's something that we want to consider for a budget item and then be prepared to discuss that further during budget season.

[2:56:50] Okay, let's keep it on the table, but on the back part.

[2:56:54] Okay, thank you.

[2:56:56] And then the second item is for a study for, sorry, go ahead, Commissioner.

[2:57:00] Sorry, sorry, before we get to the second study,

[2:57:06] I'm admittedly I'm the only one up here I think who lives in a condo in La Riva, see.

[2:57:12] And I'm going to speak for those who do live in condos because the one thing that has

[2:57:15] happened over the last four years since surfside, obviously a tragedy, is HOA fees have gone

[2:57:21] crazy.

[2:57:22] Special assessments have gone crazy.

[2:57:25] With throwing more burden on a condominium unit owner is probably unfathomable to those

[2:57:31] residents.

[2:57:31] I guess my question is this, what does this study actually, what is this study looking into?

[2:57:37] Is it whether or not the square footage of common area should be included as part of a fire assessment?

[2:57:42] Because my understanding is the unit owners, the square footage of their unit is what's looked at.

[2:57:48] Am I wrong?

[2:57:52] Yes.

[2:57:52] Whoever, who ever, who ever, obviously.

[2:57:53] Go ahead, Vice Mayor.

[2:57:54] Yeah, it was my intention not to raise the prices for the condo owners and the condo livers.

[2:57:59] I don't think so.

[2:58:00] But to see if it's fair.

[2:58:01] to see if it's fair number one and number two.

[2:58:05] Potentially to reduce what the commercial people are paying for their minimal use of fire in general.

[2:58:14] So that, because I think they get swept into the same bucket as the condo common area is commercial.

[2:58:22] If I understood it right, and I said let's take a look and separate it so we have some idea of the metrics of how much people are paying in general.

[2:58:31] per square foot, so as a condo person, as a condo dweller, you can know now, if you're

[2:58:38] paying too much as compared to other people. So we have some kind of something to

[2:58:44] wait against. Sure. I wasn't looking for condo people to pay more money at all.

[2:58:50] I mean, I don't think they can afford to at this point, but I guess my question is I'm

[2:58:53] claiming ignorance, okay? How is it currently assessed at this point? Is it per the

[2:58:59] The square footage of the individual unit's dwelling, you're shaking your head and

[2:59:03] commersion.

[2:59:03] Not for residential, only for commercial is the name of the square footage basis.

[2:59:07] Residential is a flat fee.

[2:59:09] So whether you're in a condo or a single family house or a multi-family, it's a flat fee across, right?

[2:59:14] Yes, that's what I was trying to figure out.

[2:59:15] Except for the common areas.

[2:59:17] Well, no, except commercial is the only thing that is done differently.

[2:59:21] Commercial property is the only thing that's done on a square footage basis.

[2:59:24] So again, what defines commercial property then for somebody living in?

[2:59:29] So it's not a business, so it would be a business.

[2:59:33] Okay, so common areas for a condo would not be defined as commercial in any way.

[2:59:38] So it's straight, so the thought process was to look at if a 1,200 square foot condo

[2:59:46] should be paying the same as a 4,000 square foot house to see what that pie looks like.

[2:59:51] Right. I'm just saying that there are condos that are larger than single family houses in the town as well, but I'm just saying I'm trying to understand is

[3:00:00] So the study going to be looking at specifically whether or not common used area in a condominium should be, I guess, considered as part of the square footage, and therefore reapportioning the fire assessment because you're looking at common area, single family houses don't have common area, condominiums have common areas, some of them have gyms, some of them have libraries, some of them have party rooms, obviously lobbies. Is this study specifically looking at whether or not we're going

[3:00:27] to raise the fire assessments on those condominium dwellers because they have common area.

[3:00:33] That's my question.

[3:00:34] My understanding of the request was to look at square footage of individual condos.

[3:00:39] Not necessarily just the common area.

[3:00:42] So looking at where, how the pie is getting divided up, and again, you know, this, and if

[3:00:48] we have time to flush this out, if this is something we want to do, it's, we can't do

[3:00:51] it before May 1st, which is when it's due.

[3:00:54] So we can discuss this further if this is something we want to look into.

[3:00:57] It's just a matter of how the pie gets sliced up.

[3:00:59] Yeah, I just wanted some clarity because I mean, it's a costly study of talking $35 to $40,000.

[3:01:03] Just want to make sure I know what we are getting for $30 to $45,000.

[3:01:07] Yeah, so this was just kind of the high level.

[3:01:10] Is this something you want to explore, then I would bring it back and then we could flush out those details a little more.

[3:01:13] I just wanted the commission to be aware of the time, you know, time frame and the cost associated with it.

[3:01:18] Because obviously we can't complete this before.

[3:01:20] We have to have the numbers in for the virus.

[3:01:21] I'm not this year's fire assessment, I understand it's going to come in for, it would come in for the following years.

[3:01:27] I'm okay with the study, I just, I guess, I just want to see where this is leading.

[3:01:34] He's off.

[3:01:39] Well, he had the floor so I was, I'll yield, I'll yield, I'll yield, I'll yield, it's fine.

[3:01:44] Commissioner, do you want to have the vice mayor wants to say something else?

[3:01:48] Okay, go ahead.

[3:01:50] We were, we were having discussion mayor so back and forth so I think that's everything that was said I agree with.

[3:01:56] I would just like to see common areas included, so we have the metrics for that too, so we know for square footage.

[3:02:02] It helps you know that somebody buying a unit, selling a unit, knows what your assessment is going to be, both for fire and as well as taxes.

[3:02:14] So I guess that's important to know all these things.

[3:02:17] Spending $30,000 to do that might be a different issue.

[3:02:20] Right. There might be an easier way to do that, a cheaper way to do that, I'd like to explore that, but I would like to see everything included, not just the unit but the common areas as well in the discussion of fire assessment.

[3:02:36] Right. I guess, again, I'm not trying to be a dead horse here, but that's my point.

[3:02:40] I mean, what we're looking to do really, I guess, is tax condominium residents because they have common area versus, I guess, non-residents or non-cutter.

[3:02:52] No.

[3:02:53] We don't want to do that.

[3:02:54] We don't want to do that.

[3:02:56] No.

[3:02:57] I mean, it is right now.

[3:02:57] It should be the same, right?

[3:02:59] Everybody should be saying the same, but I just don't know if the common area is included in the assessments or not.

[3:03:05] Yeah, but we're even not.

[3:03:06] No, so the common area doesn't pay a fire.

[3:03:09] No, the residential per unit, correct, let's heal them.

[3:03:12] So, again, kind of going to that point, let's just assume for,

[3:03:16] let's assume that the vast majority of condominiums are probably on average

[3:03:22] smaller than a single family house, on average, I'm guessing.

[3:03:26] So you have one bedroom, one bass, you have two bedroom, two bass,

[3:03:30] most residential units that are single families are probably a 3-2,

[3:03:33] at least a 2-2, but probably a 3-2 if not larger, and that 1-1 condo is paying the same,

[3:03:40] tell me if I'm wrong, is paying the same fire assessment rate right now as a 4,500 square foot

[3:03:47] single family house. Correct. That is correct. So if you add on more square footage to the condo unit,

[3:03:55] you're basically requiring the 808 to pay more, right? Because the 808 is just going to raise its rates

[3:04:00] It's for its residents.

[3:04:03] I'm telling you this as a former president of a building in the town, because I was there for four years, and this is something that they all feared is our fire rates going to go up because now they're going to say, well, we have a gym, we have a party room, we have this, we have a lobby.

[3:04:16] I mean, they're on average, most units in a condo are smaller than a single family house, but they're paying the same rate as it is right now.

[3:04:25] Now, this study basically can, in my opinion, I guess, really only increase the rate for a condo resident versus a single family resident.

[3:04:33] So I think just from a high level view, we could slice this however you all want to do it.

[3:04:38] I think this was just a suggestion to look at the square footage first.

[3:04:41] So however the commission wants to look at how we do fire assessment fees, this is the 50,000 foot view of what a study would cost, whatever that.

[3:04:51] Right, I understand, I understand for our purposes today.

[3:04:53] I understand for our purposes today, but if we go forward to study, I mean, I know what we're going to get back.

[3:04:57] The condos have common area, single-family residents don't.

[3:05:02] They're all paying a constant rate right now that is equal.

[3:05:07] And if you were portioned more square footage to a condominium, it's only going to go up for a condominium resident.

[3:05:13] But you really wouldn't because condos aren't paying per square foot.

[3:05:17] They're paying for-

[3:05:18] You guys, there's like, there's someone with a floor, there's other people waiting.

[3:05:23] Okay, commission to NABLY, go ahead.

[3:05:25] Yeah, so how do other cities assess this?

[3:05:31] How we're currently doing it except with the caveat that some cities do commercial based on a square footage range.

[3:05:39] We do a flat, it is X amount of sense times how much square footage you have.

[3:05:43] So if we do we do currently residential is a same price per every residential unit correct

[3:05:50] So whether it's a condo of any type of residency. Yes, it is the same fee across the board

[3:05:55] Yes, but commercial properties in large will buy the C pay by a

[3:05:59] Metric of a numerical value times the square footage correct. Yes, so

[3:06:04] Is is does a town have the ability to change the way that assessment happens?

[3:06:10] Yes, so we could do square footage for everyone

[3:06:13] If we wanted to in theory, yes, okay, so that would be the point of the study then

[3:06:20] My understanding was to look at yes, we could because there's no point of a study if you can't change it

[3:06:25] It's just showing us information. We're paying 35 grand to have something we can't change so my understanding of what the vice mayor was asking for was to

[3:06:33] move

[3:06:34] Keep single-family homes in one bucket and then look at the condos and their square footage there

[3:06:40] so

[3:06:41] Yeah

[3:06:42] Yeah.

[3:06:42] So if the goal implies that there's like a free rider situation economically going on

[3:06:49] if some sort, so if you reduce the commercial rates because you assess square footage to

[3:06:56] others, I don't know what the impact of that would be until you see the study.

[3:07:00] Well, you're essentially increasing residential.

[3:07:02] I mean, you still have to get to that.

[3:07:03] That's what I was wondering.

[3:07:04] Like, who's the free rider in the kind of car you used to have to get that same number

[3:07:08] who's paying for it and how that's about.

[3:07:09] So then it would logically increase residential?

[3:07:12] Yes, if you're going to decrease commercial costs

[3:07:15] that would raise residents.

[3:07:16] So then Commissioner Pilafolis' theory is possibly correct

[3:07:18] that it would increase condos.

[3:07:21] It could, it will impact all single family homes

[3:07:24] if we lower one portion of who's paying what,

[3:07:27] then that needs to be made up somewhere.

[3:07:29] Whether that's true or we able to just do it on condos

[3:07:31] and nothing else.

[3:07:33] I think we can do it however you all want.

[3:07:35] I think we want, if you want to look at square footage

[3:07:37] as a whole, I believe that's possible.

[3:07:39] I'll let the, so I guess, I guess that's where the, that's where the rubber meets the road, like who benefits at the end of the day?

[3:07:47] I'll yield.

[3:07:48] I guess what is the most equitable, but somebody has to pay the whole thing, has to be, you know, you had to reach a goal, right?

[3:07:54] Like one goes up, one goes down, yeah.

[3:07:58] And just as a brief point of information, yes, there are different ways to do the methodology.

[3:08:03] That's why you hire a consultant, and they certify that it's in compliance with the required methodology.

[3:08:08] But the case law and the statutes, they're different ways to slice and dice it.

[3:08:13] And yes, it is ultimately a zero sum came, we have to pay for everything somehow.

[3:08:19] But if we go to something that is per square footage for everyone,

[3:08:22] you can't say that like residents win and commercial loses because big residents will pay more,

[3:08:28] small residents will pay less, like there might be a mixed outcome.

[3:08:32] That's why you need the study to know exactly where you're going.

[3:08:36] And we did this before, right?

[3:08:39] So we've looked at the rates, but we haven't changed the methodology for

[3:08:43] the formula, meaning we've kept residential, flat, fixed fee, and

[3:08:47] commercial has been on a square footage basis.

[3:08:52] Commissioner Lapis.

[3:08:55] My question for you, how practical is it to, is it easy?

[3:09:01] to basically rate the fire assessment on a square footage basis across the board,

[3:09:07] commercial and residential, because you obviously then have to look at the square footage

[3:09:10] of each and every single individual unit that's owned in Lauderdale, but I see I know that's attainable.

[3:09:16] I know that's on BCPA, is that basically how it would be done?

[3:09:19] And that's how it would be done.

[3:09:20] So the May 1 timeframe, that's the time that BCPA needs to implement any new way

[3:09:27] that we are going to allocate those charges, so that's why it can be done.

[3:09:33] It can be done.

[3:09:34] They will do it however we want them to do, but like the town attorney said, as long as

[3:09:38] it falls within the statute and guidelines.

[3:09:42] As long as we follow those guidelines, we can do however we want.

[3:09:45] And then we have to present a two BCPA prior to by May 1st.

[3:09:50] So we could do the study, give it to them before May 1st of next year, and that would take

[3:09:56] the fire assessment that the commission establishes in 2027.

[3:10:03] Right.

[3:10:03] We all understand it's not going to happen this year.

[3:10:05] We can get the study done this year by the end of the calendar year.

[3:10:07] Whatever it may be, it's going to take a few months to do.

[3:10:09] It's not going to impact us until 2027.

[3:10:11] I just wanted to make sure from a practical standpoint,

[3:10:14] if we were going to go strictly upon or strictly on, I should say,

[3:10:17] a square footage basis that it's something that can be done very easily.

[3:10:22] It's not something that would cause you a lot more work or a lot more administrative work.

[3:10:26] No, it'll cost BCPA some more work.

[3:10:29] Sorry, BCPA.

[3:10:31] Hey, Commissioner Napa, you got it.

[3:10:33] Yeah, I said a question.

[3:10:34] So, 35 grand for a study to basically tell us what?

[3:10:40] Whatever you want them to tell you.

[3:10:42] No, if I'm just wondering, I always question these prices

[3:10:46] for these studies and things.

[3:10:49] If I go to the BCPA right now and look on the website,

[3:10:53] I see square footage of residences, whether they're condos

[3:10:55] Those are commercial properties or houses.

[3:10:58] Could I just submit a request to BCPA today and see every single property in Lauderal

[3:11:05] by the sea and get that for free?

[3:11:07] Yes, we can.

[3:11:08] So why would I pay somebody $35,000 to tell me what I could get for free?

[3:11:12] Because like the ton of attorneys said, we have to make sure that we are following the

[3:11:15] right guidelines in the Florida Statues to make sure that however way we're going to do

[3:11:19] with it, it is acceptable.

[3:11:20] Yeah, but I'm just saying is that we could get a handle on it where which ones are condos which ones are commercial properties

[3:11:27] They're all designated by VCPA correct and so it's not like it's some hidden thing

[3:11:32] So if we wanted to see the impact of

[3:11:36] What would a square footage

[3:11:39] Costs if we just applied the same commercial property square footage costs right now all it is is a spreadsheet

[3:11:45] And I could just take a divider. I mean I've seen AI do things like this

[3:11:50] You run it through AI and then it'll make the whole thing.

[3:11:53] I mean, I've done it myself and I'm just wondering why we pay so much money for studies that are public information, really.

[3:12:00] And I could probably, I'm not saying I want to do it, but I have seen AI doing this where I have given it literally like a stack of papers and said create a spreadsheet of names and phone numbers of everybody in this information.

[3:12:15] And I'm sure like if we went to the BCPA we could say can you give us a CD-ROM disc jump drive?

[3:12:21] I want all the square footage of every property in larval about a C designated by commercial or residential

[3:12:28] slash condo and then couldn't we just look at that?

[3:12:32] We can.

[3:12:33] So that's what I'm wondering like why do we pay people for stuff like that?

[3:12:36] If I may that's the input.

[3:12:39] But then the question is how much are you charging per square foot?

[3:12:42] Well, yeah, but I'm just, I just said that at least we, if we already know what we charge now and we're already going to find out what we charge like, but that amount that's charged for square foot for commercial is derived from the actual records of fire experience with commercial as a use, which residential as a use has a different experience of calling for fire. So that's where the work comes in. I'm not saying it's the right price or not. I'm saying that the square footage is just data you start from. But if I wanted to apply

[3:13:12] everything the same as right now I could just take that information and divide it

[3:13:16] and say hey I have all the square footages of everything why don't I just take

[3:13:20] whatever our current fee is and divide it and then see what happens because I

[3:13:24] think as the tunnel attorney's pointing out we need to have the data of fire

[3:13:27] history to justify the rates of what's being charged so I think we have to have

[3:13:31] look at that I think you know yes you can plug in numbers but there's more that

[3:13:35] goes into that than I feel comfortable having staff do frankly so just

[3:13:41] throwing it out there. It seems like we, you know, I don't know how they measure which

[3:13:47] one is more. That's part of the study. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I guess it all depends

[3:13:51] on what you want to look at. Be helpful with, you know, as far as just figuring out

[3:13:55] what the square footage is, I didn't know that it was not a divider of, you know, other factors

[3:13:59] based. And normally in new study, you would look

[3:14:02] at the data, you would look at the fire experience and you would also validate the numbers. We've

[3:14:08] been charging and update them as well as look at different methodologies.

[3:14:13] So yes, they'll do what you tell them to but within the framework of a fire assessment

[3:14:18] and you can also ask them if there's a certain amount of this work if you do it upfront

[3:14:22] does that affect the price, like you could ask that question.

[3:14:27] So I think we'll bring this back as a further discussion item at some point to kind of narrow

[3:14:31] this down as to what we all would like to see with this and then I can get some harder

[3:14:36] numbers from the consultants, what if we provide them with all this data, things like that.

[3:14:40] So I would like to flush this out at a later point, if that's okay.

[3:14:46] That's fine.

[3:14:48] And then the second part of that is to do a study for a fire rescue department.

[3:14:53] I have two proposals, one's 30,000, one's 60,000, 12 to 14 weeks to complete.

[3:15:01] This is something we want to look into. I can just say by some of our neighbors' experiences just looking at rates, I find it very difficult to think that we'd be able to do it for cheaper. That's not me as an expert saying that. That's just me looking at the realities of what it costs to staff of fire department, what it would cost in terms of equipment, what it would cost in terms of insurance, pensions, hiring ancillary city staff then to have to manage. You're basically doubling the size of our city.

[3:15:29] staff, so we would need more HR, we probably need more finance people, so it can be done,

[3:15:35] but I'm just skeptical that it would be significant savings.

[3:15:39] Commissioner Jean-Napoli?

[3:15:41] Yeah, I know as an interesting topic, I brought up what would it cost?

[3:15:44] We always love to compare apples to apples, but I don't know about spending all that money

[3:15:50] just to figure it out.

[3:15:53] Seems like an expensive study, too.

[3:15:56] I mean, I just did some back-of-the-table math based on what BSO is paying its firefighters

[3:16:02] put in all the equipment, so you're talking about having to buy another engine,

[3:16:07] two rescues because you need to have a reserve, plus battalion chiefs vehicles,

[3:16:11] fire chiefs vehicles, and the specter vehicles.

[3:16:13] So you're talking a multi-million dollar investment upfront for just equipment by itself,

[3:16:17] and then you're talking about having to have a larger fire station than to house all that equipment.

[3:16:22] So just the antler costs at the beginning are very high as well.

[3:16:25] Could you save some money over time, perhaps, but I think the caveat with that is,

[3:16:30] Firefighters now are a very smaller pool growing on a daily basis with the amount of vacancies there are with people going to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach County, the vacancies BSO is experiencing, the vacancies Fort Lauderdale has, it's become a very hard commodity to get people to want to fight fires, just very much it is to be in law enforcement, so we would need to pay a premium to get that as well, so could there be some savings? Yes, can I tell you how much? No, do I think it would be significant?

[3:16:59] And most likely not.

[3:17:05] Commissioner Poppins.

[3:17:06] Well, that's what I was going to get to because I'm not one to spend $30,000 or especially $60,000.

[3:17:14] I think that's ridiculous, but I'm not one to spend $30,000 on a study.

[3:17:17] But this is maybe one of those instances where I might be the lone guy up here who thinks we should do it this one time.

[3:17:24] And again, I understand your point.

[3:17:26] I know the back of the envelope math, I get it.

[3:17:28] But we know what other departments pay their employees, but other departments pay their employees and charge us a premium, right, because they're not doing it for out of the goodness of their hearts, I don't know what pompano, but we know that whether it's BSO, whether it's for Lauderdale, they're going to charge us a premium, they're making money.

[3:17:48] I don't know what the percentage is, I don't know what percentage of that is premium versus just hard costs.

[3:17:53] And that's really what the difference is, but this is a huge, huge item.

[3:18:00] This is, in my opinion, the biggest, most important ticket item of this commission for this year, we have to solve this problem.

[3:18:10] And what this basically does, and I want to make sure this is what it actually does.

[3:18:15] This either keeps it on the board or completely takes it off the board, right?

[3:18:21] Correct.

[3:18:22] I would do this as a holistic study of what we would need to stand up a fire department, including all costs.

[3:18:28] That's what I want to make sure.

[3:18:29] Yes.

[3:18:30] It's not just what.

[3:18:30] It's how much.

[3:18:32] Correct.

[3:18:32] Because it's all about the numbers.

[3:18:34] So what doesn't help us if we don't have numbers attached to it?

[3:18:37] I mean, this is something that, tell me if I'm wrong, is a deer field that's doing this?

[3:18:42] Yes.

[3:18:44] With the police.

[3:18:45] Which is police, not with fire?

[3:18:47] I don't think so.

[3:18:48] Do you know?

[3:18:49] I believe it's both, yes.

[3:18:50] It's both.

[3:18:51] Both are BSO fire rescues.

[3:18:53] I'd love to see how that experiment goes.

[3:18:55] I wish we had time to watch it.

[3:18:57] Yeah, I'd love to see how that experiment goes because we could learn a lot from it,

[3:19:01] quite frankly.

[3:19:01] Right.

[3:19:02] And then I would also say with that.

[3:19:04] With those numbers, obviously, the two proposals we have, there's a significant difference

[3:19:08] between BSO's proposal and Fort Lauderdale's proposal.

[3:19:11] So again, that's another thing to look at.

[3:19:13] But I just wanted to get it out there upfront.

[3:19:15] You know, your equipment costs upfront are going to be multiples of millions of dollars

[3:19:19] to stand up a fire department, initially, without any other cost.

[3:19:24] But as we saw in the workshop that we had a month ago, both of those departments are

[3:19:31] actually looking for us to fund additional equipment anyways, right?

[3:19:35] We'd have to buy one rescue.

[3:19:37] So we've won for a lot of real estate.

[3:19:40] Correct, yes.

[3:19:41] So we'd only have one, so we'd have to buy two and then another engine, so you're talking

[3:19:46] because you have to have obviously reserve units then, right?

[3:19:49] So plus equipment plus but we actually equipment in any ways

[3:19:53] They're using our equipment some of it. Yes. Some of it they they updated their equipment. Yes. Yes. Yeah, so like all the

[3:20:01] Packs that they wear they own

[3:20:03] They put some we put some stuff on the truck, but they outfitted the rest of it

[3:20:08] So they're there are ancillary

[3:20:10] Again, the only reason why I would ever support a study like this which again $30,000 is unbelievable to me

[3:20:17] I don't really know how they come up with that number, but regardless, the only reason I would consider this study is because it basically flushes out the entire option.

[3:20:27] It's either once you have the study, it's a yes, or it's a no and you have your backup, your hard objective support.

[3:20:35] That's why I would be okay with the $30,000 proposal because this is the most important thing that we have to do for this town this year.

[3:20:45] It's not a sign. It's making sure that the fire department is there to service,

[3:20:51] whoever it may be, to service our people. So, if it takes the option off the table,

[3:20:57] but then so be it. It's a $30,000 cost, but we're talking about a multi-multi-multi-million dollar

[3:21:04] issue that is going to be hopefully, not two years, but hopefully impacting us for the next

[3:21:11] It's going to be your second largest line item with obviously police being first.

[3:21:17] So while I will never be the first person to say that $30,000 is a drop in the bucket

[3:21:20] because I don't believe that, I do think in this instance it's warranted and that's just

[3:21:25] my position on this.

[3:21:26] I agree, and we need to put it to bed soon.

[3:21:30] I mean, we need to take care of our public safety, it needs to be figured out soon, but

[3:21:35] I think it's responsible to be able to see all the options, to give everyone an option

[3:21:40] whether it's feasible or not, so who's next?

[3:21:45] Commissioner Gatziana.

[3:21:48] I agree with Commissioner Thielopoulos, but let me ask you,

[3:21:56] what's the comparison between the two studies?

[3:21:59] The 60 versus the 30?

[3:22:02] That's just the numbers I got from two different consultants.

[3:22:04] I know the same thing.

[3:22:05] The same difference in what they're going to do.

[3:22:07] Again, these were just high level numbers.

[3:22:09] I just ask for what it would take to stand up a full fire department,

[3:22:12] including equipment and personnel costs and all their ancillary costs to the town.

[3:22:18] So there's such a huge difference?

[3:22:21] Yes.

[3:22:22] Yeah, it's such a-

[3:22:23] Two weeks difference.

[3:22:25] Two weeks.

[3:22:26] Two weeks, two weeks.

[3:22:28] Two weeks, two weeks.

[3:22:28] Yeah.

[3:22:28] Two weeks, you know.

[3:22:31] So if they're comparable studies and one is 30, I think that we should move on with my fellow commissioners.

[3:22:40] here said, so I'd be supportive of the 30,000.

[3:22:45] This is a huge, huge issue, and then we'll have explored all options.

[3:22:54] So then also the important point to consider with that is now that's going to delay any

[3:23:01] decisions on the cost of the P3 because we're not going to know how big of a station we need.

[3:23:06] So it's just putting that out there so you're all aware.

[3:23:09] That's fine.

[3:23:12] Okay, I will have them put together a package for your consideration.

[3:23:17] We have more speakers too.

[3:23:18] All right, Mr. Jambly.

[3:23:20] Yeah, I was going to go along with Commissioner Polopolis.

[3:23:22] He has me convinced we've spent like $25,000 on some studies in a neighborhood of speeding and so forth.

[3:23:31] So this is a huge undertaking.

[3:23:33] So I like Proposal 2, 30K, 14 weeks sounds reasonable to me when you consider the impact of it all.

[3:23:40] And again, I'll bring the commissioner, Paulopolis, for bringing that up.

[3:23:43] I'll bring final cost back to you.

[3:23:45] These were literally high level numbers.

[3:23:46] I asked them to put together based on what they were doing.

[3:23:49] Well, exactly, so I will.

[3:23:52] 120, you know, so I will make sure we bring that back.

[3:23:55] And vice mayor does want to add, but I know you.

[3:24:00] I agree with him on that, I would agree to option two, which would be the two-week extra, but half the price.

[3:24:11] I would ask that since the PPP program, the public safety thing that we're looking at is so important and intertwined in what we're trying to do, by the way.

[3:24:24] I think what we're doing with this will either allow us to get our own fire department or we'll put that thing to sleep forever.

[3:24:31] So that's important, you stated very well.

[3:24:34] But since we have the public safety issue intertwined with that, is it possible to discuss this with, I think it's a core.

[3:24:43] Maybe have them flip the bill or pay part of it, since it's something that affects what they're ultimately going to be providing us.

[3:24:53] I can ask, see what they say, but I don't see an incentive on their part to do it, but I'm happy to ask them.

[3:25:00] Doesn't hurt?

[3:25:01] Well, okay, that's all thrown, thanks.

[3:25:04] I understand they're in the business of building buildings, they're not in the business of running fire departments, so we can talk.

[3:25:12] Negotiations, negotiation, that's the fun part about it.

[3:25:18] Okay, go ahead.

[3:25:19] Commissioner, do you have an employee again?

[3:25:20] But yeah, my guess is it would only impact the PVP in the sense of how much administrative space we would need if we had our own department and as far as the extra equipment that would be necessary to maintain.

[3:25:32] So that's how it probably could impact it, it would probably require more space.

[3:25:38] Yeah, so which would even increase the overall cost of the project by square footage, yeah.

[3:25:45] Okay, next.

[3:25:46] Okay, thank you.

[3:25:47] Go ahead.

[3:25:48] Moving on.

[3:25:49] At the last meeting, we discussed the proposed charter amendment.

[3:25:53] There was some talk about taking a look at the latest iteration of that and whether we

[3:25:57] wanted a second opinion from another law firm.

[3:26:00] So I'm coming back to you all now that you've had time to take a look at the proposed amendment

[3:26:04] and Susan's work.

[3:26:06] And if you all want to seek a second opinion or if you want to move forward.

[3:26:11] All right.

[3:26:12] Mr. DiNabli.

[3:26:12] Well, so I expressed some procedural concerns last time relating to that proposed harder amendment being advanced through the the citizen petition process.

[3:26:22] I know the commission was initially briefed in January regarding it.

[3:26:27] And then I later discovered that subsequent revisions to that petition language occurred without additional updates to the commission.

[3:26:33] So, that raised a concern for me, but my primary concern, however, related to the communications

[3:26:40] that took place between town staff and the petitioners.

[3:26:44] And you see, charter amendment that the petitioners are seeking to operate under is governed

[3:26:51] by Florida statutes 166-031 and 101-161.

[3:26:57] I brought those with me, if everybody wants to take a peek, I'm going to pass them out.

[3:27:01] So,

[3:27:04] you know, it's important to understand that our local charter does not govern the process for which they are seeking to operate under.

[3:27:15] So, there are two different ones.

[3:27:17] I read the statute numbers.

[3:27:22] Here you go.

[3:27:27] Anybody need any more?

[3:27:29] One more set?

[3:27:30] Okay.

[3:27:31] What are we looking at first?

[3:27:32] Yeah, I'll show you

[3:27:34] So I'm just trying to point out that our local charter

[3:27:37] Our local charter does not govern the process that the petitioners are seeking to operate under

[3:27:44] They're seeking to operate under Florida statute, which I passed out and

[3:27:49] It's going to be a combination of both of these. So if you look at 16603-1

[3:27:55] You'll see a governing body of a municipality made by ordinance

[3:28:00] It's

[3:28:02] petition by 10% of the registered electors, and that's how you get something on the ballot.

[3:28:09] So the reason for me passing these out is these statutes are really limited in what they require from the town to engage in any conversations and back and forth with the petitioners.

[3:28:21] In fact, I don't see any statutory obligation for the town to guide or assist petitioners in drafting ballot language.

[3:28:29] It's very light in these statutes about what a town or a city should do, yet from what

[3:28:36] I've reviewed, the communications between the town staff and the petitioners appear to

[3:28:40] have gone beyond simply acknowledging the petition process and have moved towards guiding

[3:28:47] the petitioners on how to craft ballot language that would pass legal review.

[3:28:51] So to be clear, I did speak with the town attorney initially.

[3:28:55] I did provide some legal theories, questions I had about the petitioners first draft, which is totally appropriate, everybody, all any one of us could do that.

[3:29:04] What surprised me though was later learning that our town attorney's detailed legal memorandum addressed to the town manager was being shared with that petition group.

[3:29:13] To me, that just goes too far, a much shorter response, I believe, would have been appropriate.

[3:29:20] You know, our town attorney's client is the town, not the petitioner group.

[3:29:25] And I don't believe there's any duty that I can see in statute to advise the petitioners

[3:29:30] to the extent that you can see the advice and those legal memos.

[3:29:35] And it appears as though the petitioners are relying on our town attorney

[3:29:39] to be almost like quasi their attorney to go back and forth and craft a valid item that

[3:29:45] would meet legal muster. So in my opinion they should simply hire their own attorney.

[3:29:50] Now I understand that the town manager has been deferring to the town attorney's judgment

[3:29:55] on these matters. I respect that. I also understand that the town attorney's

[3:30:00] The perspective is that she wouldn't want to have ballot items to be so bad as to botch up our charter. So I get that, I respect that. But I think spending time writing those detailed legal memos that we got copies of after the fact to be shared with that petitioner group. I just think it goes too far. And it's not the only way to address the concern. You could just write a much shorter response and not get into all that detail.

[3:30:29] I was also concerned that we, as a commission, were kind of left in the dark about the further communications from the town attorney that were sent between their first and their subsequent drafts.

[3:30:39] And we only found out shortly before our last meeting, so that's why I brought this up.

[3:30:44] And given that charter amendments affect the town's governing document, I think it's essential that we do remain informed as the language evolves.

[3:30:53] And we've heard from the town manager that this would be resolve going forward, that we would continue, that we would be informed.

[3:31:00] I heard some say last time the commission has no role in this and that we can only defer to the town attorney, that's not true.

[3:31:07] I mean our action at the last meeting proved that, the town attorney will operate at the direction of the commission.

[3:31:13] We specifically requested to defer any decision on seeking a second opinion and to prevent further communication with the petitioners by the town attorney.

[3:31:21] and to instead bring that up here tonight, but I just think that I continue to believe it's going to be prudent to obtain a limited independent legal review before the town moves further into what could become a contentious public process.

[3:31:38] I believe it's both reasonable and responsible to get a second legal review, that's just my opinion.

[3:31:43] I don't believe it's going to cost very much, simply a safeguard for the town.

[3:31:49] Corporations, boards, my company, we routinely seek second opinions.

[3:31:55] We have two lawyers working on the same thing right now, for a matter.

[3:32:00] So I just think it's a matter of due diligence and I heard conversation before and

[3:32:04] this is not to slight anybody's competence as a lawyer, anything like that.

[3:32:10] I just want to say no one's infallible.

[3:32:11] You know, the Supreme Court of the United States with the best judges in the country does

[3:32:16] not unanimously agree on everything.

[3:32:18] Everybody knows it could be a tight vote.

[3:32:21] I reviewed language of an ordinances and resolutions and our charter review board amendments with

[3:32:26] each of you up here in detail.

[3:32:29] You know, given my experience in election law, I pointed out a bad error that our town staff

[3:32:33] had not discovered last year that our new qualifying date for the November elections was incorrect

[3:32:39] as it was originally presented.

[3:32:41] So our last charter review board package, there was stray language that I pointed out, which is why we brought back, you know, the one item regarding timeframes for the certification of petitions.

[3:32:52] So I just think a second set of eyes is always helpful, but, you know, what I would propose at the end of the day is I think we're really almost becoming their quasi attorneys and the guidance that we're giving them.

[3:33:05] And these statutes that I passed out show you what, you know, you don't really have to say much of anything.

[3:33:12] But if we guide them, they can actually get something and, you know, they can move forward with something.

[3:33:18] And it's almost like we became their attorney in how to pass legal muster.

[3:33:24] And none of this is required here.

[3:33:26] And I, you know, so I'd respectfully ask the following.

[3:33:29] Town Manager investigate outside counsel with experienced municipal and election law.

[3:33:35] Return to the commission at our next meeting with three cost estimates for limited legal review before the town attorney or town manager replies to the petitioner's further.

[3:33:44] Simply choose a reputable firm, get some estimates, some that have substantial legal experience in the field,

[3:33:51] I'm sure we all know who they are.

[3:33:53] Simply ask them what a legal review of a single ballot item would cost and let us know at

[3:33:58] the next meeting.

[3:33:59] We're talking narrow limited review, focused specifically on the legal issues surrounding

[3:34:04] the petition process and the proposed ballot language before the town provides any further

[3:34:10] substantive response to the petitioners.

[3:34:13] I just think once again, we don't owe any duty.

[3:34:18] they can put forward, they have every right to go petition for whatever they want.

[3:34:22] Can I ask that we've gone like so far down the path that it's like we're guiding them and we don't have it.

[3:34:27] Can I ask you one thing because you said something really fast and I just want to get an idea, a specific idea.

[3:34:34] So you're saying because our, correct me if I'm wrong, the charter identifies ordinance items that come before the commission.

[3:34:43] The proposed agenda, the proposed, the amendment is not in ordinance.

[3:34:49] Correct, so in our town charter it talks about a legal review process by the town attorney for amending ordinances.

[3:34:57] They are not operating under that because they are trying to change different sections.

[3:35:03] They are trying to amend the charter pursuant to the Florida statutes, I've handed out.

[3:35:06] which if you read them, and I'm just pointing out that there is no legal review

[3:35:12] process, there's no requirement to go back and forth. And like I said, yeah, I

[3:35:16] get it. You know, you don't want them pushing something that's totally gonna

[3:35:21] botch up the charter, but at the same time, you don't have to guide them as much as

[3:35:25] you've seen in these legal memos where it's a lot of information, and it's

[3:35:30] basically you're showing them how to make a petition item. It's almost like you're

[3:35:34] becoming their lawyer, and I just see a problem with that.

[3:35:37] And we're getting build funds.

[3:35:39] Yeah, we're getting build for it.

[3:35:40] No, thank you.

[3:35:42] We have Commissioner Cross-Henry.

[3:35:44] With respect to these two pieces that you just handed out, 166.031 is the preferred document

[3:35:53] or what's the story here?

[3:35:56] Both of them say the same thing.

[3:35:58] With respect to two different sections.

[3:36:02] So on 166-031, you're talking about charter amendment and the section is under Chapter 166 Minus

[3:36:08] Appalities.

[3:36:09] I include the other one because that's primarily related to constitutional amendments for the

[3:36:15] state.

[3:36:16] But there is language in there regarding the 75 word and the how to title and structure

[3:36:25] an amendment.

[3:36:26] So that's these are the ones that you look at when you're structuring a charter amendment at a municipal level.

[3:36:33] You have these two interplay each other.

[3:36:35] So an attorney who's going to follow up on this would need to look at 166-031 and follow the rules there.

[3:36:45] and that ballot summary of the amendment or that language that you just said, not exceeding 75 words in length, they both would have to be adhered to, is that it?

[3:37:00] Yes, this has to be adhered to, but the point I'm trying to make is that there's no obligation of the town to keep going back and forth with petitioners on how to amend your own town charter.

[3:37:11] No, I understand the, you know, the overall point, I'd like to hear from Council what she has to say about how she's been dealing with the referendum people because I don't, I don't know that you've been guiding them.

[3:37:32] I think you've been representing us, is that true?

[3:37:36] Through the mayor?

[3:37:38] Yes, please.

[3:37:39] Thank you.

[3:37:39] Yes.

[3:37:40] My role is to represent the town and specifically the will of the town commission in this process.

[3:37:47] As I opined in my first memo and as Commissioner DiNapoli has explained this evening, Article 4 of

[3:37:55] our charter does not apply and that was one of the preliminary questions.

[3:38:00] A number of questions were framed by the petitioners for the clerk and the manager who asked for

[3:38:05] guidance. And so the guidance I've given is to the administration in response to those inquiries.

[3:38:11] These two statutes are the rules that govern subsection one of each of these statutes

[3:38:18] as given more meaning by the case law that has interpreted them over time. And so we were asked to look

[3:38:27] at the legal form of the petition which is what we did. And the I'm hearing in some of the

[3:38:34] conversation kind of a sense of a question has been framed yet. So let me just try to frame it.

[3:38:40] So why would there be something to raise with the legal framing of it? There is case law that says

[3:38:47] if the petition is substantively illegal, like it violates state law for cities to have this in their

[3:38:56] charter, or if it fails to meet the standards that have been given meaning by the case law,

[3:39:01] then it's proper for that not to go on the ballot at all, that you shouldn't even let the

[3:39:07] voters say because it's not a proper thing. And these standards are interpreted towards

[3:39:13] are you misleading the voters or are you fairly putting a proposition in front of them?

[3:39:18] That's a simplification. So that's what we've done. That's the information

[3:39:24] that's been provided. It is definitely concerning as we said at the last meeting that you had

[3:39:29] not receive the second round submission of the petition, which was not something I knew until, you know, it was just an oversight as the manager explained

[3:39:39] got lost in the work of he was out of town and I assumed it had been done and I should have assumed. So that's something that that was not proper. But that's what we did. And we did it with the best interests of the town in mind. And we've simply said, you know, this is

[3:39:59] is our assessment of the concerns.

[3:40:01] All along, the petitioners could start

[3:40:03] circulating their petition at any time.

[3:40:06] They are the ones driving the train of this,

[3:40:08] but they've asked for the guidance so far.

[3:40:10] We've given them guidance.

[3:40:11] If we're not going to give them any more guidance,

[3:40:13] that's perfectly fine with me.

[3:40:15] My only question is, what would be the role?

[3:40:18] I'm open to another attorney.

[3:40:20] I've said it's up to you all if you want

[3:40:22] to get another attorney to look at this.

[3:40:24] My question would be, what would you do with that product?

[3:40:26] But that would be the question that I would have, but I hope that helps you.

[3:40:35] I yield to Commissioner, well, it's going to be the vice mayor, go ahead.

[3:40:43] Just a quick question.

[3:40:44] Is there anything within those statutes in our charter that prohibits our town attorney from speaking to a petition?

[3:40:52] No, but I have not spoken to them.

[3:40:54] I've only responded to the emails that the administration has asked me for guidance on.

[3:40:59] Okay, do we have anything in these statutes, 1, 6, 6, 0, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 6, 1, that prohibits our town attorney from participating the way she did.

[3:41:12] No, but like I said, it's the level of participation.

[3:41:16] And sharing our internal town memos, legal memos that were from her to the town manager, with the petitioners.

[3:41:23] I just think is too far.

[3:41:25] I don't think that we should do that because that, to me, crosses the line into really guiding

[3:41:32] somebody almost to the point where they can hire their own attorney.

[3:41:37] Why are they leaning on us costing us money for a petition that they haven't even got

[3:41:41] signatures for for a group that is not operating under the local town charter provisions?

[3:41:48] We're under no duty to do that.

[3:41:50] But once again, like I said, I get it that, you know, you don't want something that's so bad that it doesn't make any sense, but at the same time, you know, the guidance level is getting to be, I think, too far from what I see in these legal memos which are not even addressed to the petitioner, they're literally from the town attorney to the town manager, and then they're being emailed, so that's what I just thought was strange.

[3:42:19] I think the question I have is how much oversight do we want to have on our

[3:42:24] town attorney and given guidance not only on this issue but on any issue that comes up.

[3:42:29] There are situations where other items come up not petitioners or charter amendment

[3:42:35] things where the town attorney might opine on or give guidance on in the similar degree.

[3:42:43] Do we have to oversee everything that the town attorney does on a piece by piece basis or do

[3:42:48] We have a blanket mandate now to our town attorney saying no more communications with anybody except town manager and commissioners, I'm trying to see where we're going with this.

[3:42:59] I think the point is that this is extra help that is required.

[3:43:04] We're giving help that is not required by our charter.

[3:43:08] We're basically doing, that this is the argument I think you're making.

[3:43:11] We're doing the work of an of a of a party that has to have their own attorney because in our charter it states that we do not have to do anything.

[3:43:19] So my question last time this came up mayor was if I may.

[3:43:24] Then why why are we going to a second opinion at all?

[3:43:28] Why not just let this petitioner hire his own attorney or her own attorney or however it stated and let them proceed?

[3:43:36] Why are we even bothering with the idea of having to get Council to do a second opinion?

[3:43:43] Oh, I gave my, oh, I'll wait for you.

[3:43:48] You didn't press your button to shut off, because I know Commissioner Poplis also would like to talk.

[3:43:54] You should shut yours as well.

[3:43:56] Yes, thank you.

[3:43:57] Shut it off for you.

[3:43:58] Okay.

[3:43:58] Commissioner Poplis.

[3:43:59] Yeah, I see both sides of the coin to this.

[3:44:01] I mean, I'll start with saying I would turn to have been up here with you for four years and you do an excellent job and you're very knowledgeable and, you know, way more about this.

[3:44:07] and I do, that's for sure.

[3:44:09] And as an attorney, I do agree also

[3:44:11] with Commissioner DiNapoli.

[3:44:13] I mean, I'm infallible.

[3:44:14] I mean, there's no way, I'm not infallible.

[3:44:16] Excuse me, excuse me, I'm very fallible.

[3:44:20] I like to think I'm infallible, but I'm not.

[3:44:22] No, I make mistakes all the time.

[3:44:25] I work with many attorneys over the years

[3:44:27] and we always correct each other

[3:44:28] and we always try to the best

[3:44:30] and the best work product is usually

[3:44:31] when you put multiple attorneys together in a room

[3:44:34] and you get a finished product.

[3:44:36] I understand from a standpoint of cost, I do agree, this is taxpayer money, one hundred percent.

[3:44:44] Whatever you do, basically, is being paid for by the taxpayers.

[3:44:47] We prove that every year.

[3:44:49] And so this is a third party who's not operating under the charter, who is basically getting, I don't say free legal services, but legal services, essentially.

[3:45:00] That's free legal services. That's already done. That's, I guess, the thing that I don't really know where we go from here, because if we get a second opinion and push an app, we'll frame this to you. If we get a second opinion, we're going to get basically a work product. We're going to get a memorandum. But is that a memorandum that we then share with the petitioners? Because if we share it, it becomes a public record, I believe at that point.

[3:45:28] Right, it's a public record anyway so aren't we then just paying more than for something we don't need it's I would say this

[3:45:34] This is this is how I see it as a compromise. I would say yes

[3:45:37] I do think that we should never do this again

[3:45:40] Because I don't think it's correct. I don't think that you could have ten petitioners come to you

[3:45:45] Does that mean that we're gonna issue a legal memorandum for each and every petitioner?

[3:45:49] I mean we've sat up here, you know the vice mayor the mayor and I have sat up here for a long time and we've we've worked some crazy stuff

[3:45:56] that a petitioner could bring up real crazy stuff. This is not crazy. But I'm talking about really

[3:46:02] weird things that they may want an opinion. There might be 150 words, not the 75, and they're constantly

[3:46:08] going to be bogging you down with legal memorandums that quite frankly, I don't want to pay for. I don't

[3:46:12] want the tax payers to pay for. So I agree. In this instance, I understand what you're doing. I understand

[3:46:20] that is a serious proposal by the petitioners and you want to make sure that if it's going to go

[3:46:27] through it's not going to mess up our charter. But that's the job of them and I believe they have

[3:46:33] attorneys who are actually within the petitioning group. I mean that's their job. If I want to petition

[3:46:38] this town I wouldn't expect you to give me a memorandum though I'm sure I love it.

[3:46:47] I would

[3:46:48] I guess at this juncture, what are we going to achieve, and I'll bring it back to you, Commissioner Napoli.

[3:46:55] I think that this is something that quite frankly I wish didn't happen, but it happened.

[3:47:01] So that's where I'm at, practically speaking.

[3:47:04] I would say going forward, please don't issue memorandums that get circulated because I mean,

[3:47:10] this is your attorney for the majority as you always say, up here, right?

[3:47:15] We're not providing free legal services for the public, that's not our job.

[3:47:23] Our job is to govern, so I'll yield.

[3:47:27] So we'll go to Commissioner Dabli followed by Commissioner Grazioni.

[3:47:31] I suppose the problem is where does it lie now?

[3:47:34] So like you said, Commissioner Poloffelis, my concern is who's your client?

[3:47:38] Why are you writing legal memorandum at all that becomes a public record in that instance

[3:47:46] when you know that somebody is just going to go and take it.

[3:47:50] As an attorney, I could just say, well, I'm having a conversation or I could issue an

[3:47:57] opinion that just says this does not, the town cannot approve or certify the ballot title

[3:48:03] in summary in their current form.

[3:48:04] So, ballot language must clearly and accurately state the measures to your purpose.

[3:48:10] You know, two sentences I could get it done, you know, but where do we stand now?

[3:48:17] I don't know, probably shouldn't say, but do you think that the current version is something

[3:48:23] that could fly, probably shouldn't say, you know, that's the whole purpose for getting an

[3:48:29] outside opinion because right now it is stopped.

[3:48:33] There has been no further communication since the last one, but as anybody who has an

[3:48:38] attorney knows, when you're talking constitutional law, legislation, statute, there can be a variety

[3:48:45] of opinions over what applies and what doesn't, you know, a variety of opinions over whether

[3:48:50] the current version is something that should be approved or should not be approved, you know.

[3:48:57] So that's what I would be interested in.

[3:48:59] And that's the whole purpose of it, is not because of what has happened so much, which

[3:49:04] I agree should not happen again, especially when somebody is operating under statute that,

[3:49:09] you know, we don't have to feed them as much as they've been fed, you know.

[3:49:15] But shouldn't we know what somebody else's opinion might be on something that rarely comes

[3:49:21] up once every 14 years or however long it is and you know any reasonable attorney could

[3:49:29] disagree on something shouldn't we have some idea because I know I brought up stuff

[3:49:34] here and then suddenly people's eyes lights up and say oh yeah that's good if I wasn't

[3:49:40] bringing it up then you know it wouldn't happen you know but it's it's just because I'm looking

[3:49:46] at it, I'm a second set of eyes. So on something as rare as this, that's where I think the second

[3:49:52] set of eyes mentality comes in and why I would propose that. Because it's not something

[3:49:57] that's normal regular. You know, this is like clearly a unique issue. So that's the reason

[3:50:05] why I'd still seek it or at least seek estimates for it if you're concerned about the cost. Because

[3:50:10] right now, we don't owe any duty to respond.

[3:50:15] I think someone, a commenter came here and they said that we're holding it up.

[3:50:21] That's the funny part. They're asking us to do stuff clearly,

[3:50:26] relying on the statute doesn't require us to do anything.

[3:50:29] They're waiting for us to do that.

[3:50:31] Not that I'm supposed to be worried about them.

[3:50:34] They should be having their own legal counsel, but they're claiming these things,

[3:50:39] which are at least whoever was claiming it. I don't know if they were actually from that group.

[3:50:43] It was just comments that were made. Maybe they weren't. But claiming that we're holding it up

[3:50:49] because they want us to basically say, hey, is this one okay? And then guess what? They're going

[3:50:54] to rely on that later in the event somebody sues whether it wins or loses. So it's like the town

[3:51:01] working against the town working for somebody not of the town to help them make a charter amendment.

[3:51:07] It just seems really strange when we're not required to do these things.

[3:51:12] So yes, I'd still would like a second opinion.

[3:51:14] At least estimates for it, we could at least ask without getting too far into the weeds.

[3:51:19] You've heard us ask about $30,000 study and you heard the town manager say, well, I'm going

[3:51:25] to go out and ask again and see what it really costs for a detailed one.

[3:51:29] We could at least get estimates and come back at the next meeting.

[3:51:31] Right now, we're under no obligation to do anything further.

[3:51:35] Well, because I still want to know what somebody else would say about the current version without it suddenly becoming now that we've all said it public record and all this other stuff.

[3:51:45] Well, but it will be, but it won't be if they just give verbal opinions, and it's not public record.

[3:51:52] I see my point. It's like you're right and a half that becomes public record. So you have a conversation instead.

[3:51:59] You know, all right, we have a make you wait, Commissioner Graziana go ahead, sir.

[3:52:06] To the council again, is there any liability exposure for what we've done already?

[3:52:13] No, no, there's an liability.

[3:52:15] Okay, so why don't we just write to them and say, hey, whatever you do, whatever you do is up to you and you have to follow through on whatever your client wants to do.

[3:52:28] I could certainly do that.

[3:52:30] You know, for like a two-paragraph, you know, like short and sweet, we love you by.

[3:52:35] Yeah.

[3:52:36] And as a point of information, a side note based on what Commissioner Polopoulos was saying,

[3:52:41] and you may be getting as well, some cities do have ordinances for the charter amendment process.

[3:52:46] After this experience, I think it would be a nice thing for us to have an ordinance

[3:52:49] that would reflect what all of you would like to see in this.

[3:52:51] But we don't have it.

[3:52:52] We don't now, so that's why we were stuck doing that.

[3:52:54] So why can't we solve the problem by doing just that?

[3:52:59] But to be clear, the memos I have written have not rewritten the question for them.

[3:53:04] They have simply said that the reasons that they are wrong.

[3:53:07] And then they have responded in the way that they best see fit.

[3:53:12] Maybe there are neophytes in this whole arena.

[3:53:14] And they are just thinking that they have to ask counsel or counsel for approval to move forward.

[3:53:23] I don't know that, but if there's a solution and we're not liable, I would say right to him say you're on your own.

[3:53:36] It's in a one short paragraph.

[3:53:39] We love you, bye.

[3:53:40] Yeah, I love you, bye.

[3:53:43] That's my line.

[3:53:44] Those are famous words.

[3:53:45] Thank you, next.

[3:53:46] Yeah, that was the news.

[3:53:55] I'm going to go back to what I just said, I mean, I feel like yes, in this instance, we went too far, how we want to rectify that in the future, we can discuss if we go and get a second opinion, we're basically doing their work for them again.

[3:54:12] again. That's the problem.

[3:54:20] It's already done. The cat's out of the bag or whatever you

[3:54:24] want to call it. The problem is, again, I don't think that we should do this again because

[3:54:29] it's a very slippery slope. You do it for one group. You got to do it for another group

[3:54:33] and you do it for another group. And quite frankly, I don't think it's appropriate, but this

[3:54:39] time it happened and I quite frankly think that we're just going to end up doing work for

[3:54:44] them. God bless them. They want to go forward with their petition, whatever it is they want to do.

[3:54:49] Let them go pay a lawyer. I pay lawyers to do work for me and I am a lawyer.

[3:54:57] And they have to submit it. So what's the process if they do it on their own? They have to go to the

[3:55:02] who approves the actual final. Ultimately the petition goes to the supervisor of elections and

[3:55:08] they have a limited scope where they look at validating the signatures in the form of the petition.

[3:55:13] And they have a gin-tenth deadline just to remind everyone.

[3:55:17] And so, again, I guess I come back to this, and I can't remember who brought this up.

[3:55:21] But it was mentioned that basically if it fails on its face because it doesn't comply

[3:55:27] with the statutory requirements, then it's not added to the ballot, right?

[3:55:33] No?

[3:55:33] No.

[3:55:34] That becomes a basis for not putting it on the ballot.

[3:55:37] So there's precedent in other cities over time to say we're not going to put this forward

[3:55:43] And usually that results in the Petition Committee filing a lawsuit, and then the court decides

[3:55:47] whether it was appropriate to hold it off the ballot.

[3:55:49] As about to say, who decides is the circuit court?

[3:55:52] Yeah, but in those types of proceedings, which are pre-election, the presumption is in favor of

[3:55:58] the petitioners and the voters' rights, and there's kind of a thumb on the scale against the local

[3:56:04] government standing between them and the ballot, unless you can really show that no, this is truly wrong.

[3:56:11] So if we thought, if we believe that it was not compliant, or the adverse party, to the petitioners.

[3:56:19] Sometimes cities have filed lawsuits, sometimes they have been the recipients of lawsuits from

[3:56:25] petitioners when they have said we are not going to forward this onto the ballot.

[3:56:29] And we had one of those cases, it was litigated up to the third district, and the court said we were right to prevent

[3:56:35] it from going on the ballot because it violated a state law.

[3:56:38] is down? No, in a different city, just as an example. Okay, but okay, so this kind of

[3:56:43] changes my calculus in my mind now. I was under the impression if it fails on its face,

[3:56:48] it's, it fails on its face, it's not being out to the ballot and realize when we go through

[3:56:52] it. If it fails on its face, then you can decide

[3:56:56] as a city, if it's clear enough, not to forward it, and then the question becomes, do they

[3:57:02] issue you are not. Okay. That changes my mind. And again, it's with full respect. Now I understand,

[3:57:14] I think what Commissioner Napoli is getting at. This is, and of course, it's still public record,

[3:57:20] but the point is, we are basically making sure that we are completely covered in the event that we,

[3:57:25] in the future? Am I wrong? Challenge, I guess, the petition for failing to satisfy, obviously, the statutory requirements.

[3:57:34] Is that false? Is that wrong?

[3:57:36] Well, the question is whether you allow it on the ballot. If you do allow it on the ballot, there's also a group of challenges that are post-election.

[3:57:44] And the standards are different than because you're not worrying so much about do the voters have access to the ballot or not.

[3:57:50] So those will just look at, is this something can be enforced or not, that post-election challenge?

[3:57:56] For whoever may still be listening at, you know, 1040 in the evening, and we had daylight savings.

[3:58:01] My goal is not to, in any way, shape or form, disenfranchise anyone.

[3:58:05] It's not to prevent anything from going to the ballot.

[3:58:09] My point is, I want to make sure that whatever does go into our charter is proper,

[3:58:15] because if it's not proper, then we have a real mess after the election, right?

[3:58:23] Potentially, depending on if we sue or if someone else

[3:58:26] sues, which was the spirit in which I reviewed and provided the guidance that you've all received.

[3:58:31] Because you're trying to prevent that.

[3:58:33] And you've seen the nature of the questions that I've raised.

[3:58:36] I'm not going to comment further, but you've seen that.

[3:58:40] I mean, is any time that you provide us a legal memorandum, is that public record?

[3:58:43] most of the time we have very limited attorney client privilege as public

[3:58:49] attorneys now when you're in active litigation that can be different but the

[3:58:55] scope of work product and attorney client privilege for public

[3:58:58] attorneys is much more constrained. Okay I understand so this is this is a CYA I'm

[3:59:04] not gonna tell everyone what that means but essentially what I now understand

[3:59:10] and I think Commissioner Napoli a little bit clearer,

[3:59:13] what, and Commissioner Napoli correct me if I'm wrong,

[3:59:15] what you're basically requesting is a second opinion

[3:59:18] in the event that whether there's a pre-election

[3:59:21] or post-election challenge that we have our ducks in a row,

[3:59:27] and we have two opinions from two attorneys.

[3:59:31] Essentially it.

[3:59:33] Well, essentially my, once again, the thing that bothers me

[3:59:38] is that we, meaning the town, brought them this far because no, it really does bother me.

[3:59:46] We helped them, we've helped it to not fail on its face.

[3:59:52] So in the original version, if we really thought it was so objectionable,

[3:59:56] we could have rejected it for the ballot and then let them sue.

[4:00:00] And oh, well, you know, it probably would have fallen on its face. But instead, what happened? There was guidance. So then more, more iterations of it come forward. You've just seen the marijuana. And then I don't know if anybody paid attention to these things at the state level. The state SOE rejected it for the ballot. They sued Supreme Court of Florida just said, sorry, we don't care. You know, I mean, this stuff happens all the time. What bothers me is that, you know, we've

[4:00:29] have guided them along the way,

[4:00:32] expended our money, our town money

[4:00:34] to help people that want to change the charter.

[4:00:37] I mean, this is like a big deal in my opinion.

[4:00:39] And that's why I brought ours.

[4:00:40] I just want to know, like,

[4:00:42] it's why we have a credit.

[4:00:43] There can be pre-suits, there can be post-suits,

[4:00:47] but there can also be straight up ballot rejections.

[4:00:51] And if we are guiding somebody to not have

[4:00:54] a straight up ballot rejection,

[4:00:56] then you know, that's what we've done.

[4:00:59] And I just think it's bad.

[4:01:02] So I just want to know that I would like a second set of eyes

[4:01:06] because anybody can disagree on these items.

[4:01:09] There's so much case law on different things.

[4:01:11] I mean, some things that I thought should go up don't.

[4:01:14] Some things that I think are crazy, they allow.

[4:01:17] It's all, it's really specific to who's in the chair

[4:01:21] at the time.

[4:01:24] And if you don't have difference of opinions,

[4:01:27] I mean, like I pointed out, there have been mistakes.

[4:01:29] I'm not trying to, you know, go after anybody, but, you know, there's been mistakes and everybody makes mistakes. Nobody's infallible.

[4:01:36] So I just wanted to have in some seconds that I said, I said for you, poke holopolis infallibility clause.

[4:01:44] So this is what bothers me that we are, we have fed them and we've spent our money doing it and we could have just rejected it straight up.

[4:01:52] but we're feeding, you know, if we continue that policy,

[4:01:57] the slippery slope argument that you made,

[4:01:59] Commissioner Pralopolis, like anybody could just come

[4:02:02] and say, oh yeah, well, I'm saying we don't town attorney.

[4:02:05] Yeah, I know, but that's basically what's been going on

[4:02:08] and we didn't even know about it.

[4:02:10] So you see, like that's what bothered me about the whole thing.

[4:02:14] It's that we didn't even know about it.

[4:02:15] We're doing stuff way beyond what we're required to do

[4:02:18] in my opinion.

[4:02:19] And, you know, they can run whatever they're getting

[4:02:22] through anything and then they basically can run it through AI and then plop out

[4:02:27] something you know that's probably what they did they would never do that yeah

[4:02:30] actually probably is but that's that's the whole theory for me is that I kind of

[4:02:39] want to know I kind of want to know where we stand on it but I don't want to

[4:02:43] produce further records well I don't think you get around that I'm not yeah I'm

[4:02:48] Although transparency, I mean, again, that's what I'm trying to get.

[4:02:52] There's no legal memo requirement when you talk to an attorney, by the way, you know.

[4:03:03] So then at that point, we have, so we have a third version right now currently, so then

[4:03:09] we would need Susan to finish her work product and then have that other attorney review that

[4:03:15] at that point.

[4:03:17] No.

[4:03:18] No.

[4:03:18] Well, but that's what I'm saying.

[4:03:19] or if you're being directed, I'm now getting commission guidance, which I have not received previously, so I would simply wrap it up and say we have no further opinions at this time, yeah, you're on, you're on, you're on, you're on, get your own lawyer and, and if you want to proceed,

[4:03:38] We need to govern myself accordingly, don't offer opinion, don't say like, hey, this is right, this is wrong.

[4:03:48] Well, I mean, that's what's been going on though.

[4:03:51] And I'm receiving directions, so I hear you.

[4:03:54] Yeah, I just wish that we were asked the direction ahead of time, that's just me, but let's go ahead, commissioner Grousey.

[4:03:59] To be clear, Mr. Mayor, I did have some meetings and conversations and was responding to prior requests about analyzing

[4:04:08] It didn't come out of the blue.

[4:04:10] Was it through the whole commission or just one person?

[4:04:12] Individually.

[4:04:13] Well, I think that should come from the whole commission.

[4:04:16] Not just one person.

[4:04:16] He doesn't direct the decisions of the entire commission.

[4:04:19] That's a fair comment.

[4:04:20] Yes.

[4:04:20] Okay, commission.

[4:04:21] So just for sorry, for my clarification as of now,

[4:04:24] we are full stop on everything.

[4:04:25] No.

[4:04:26] Well, let's let Commissioner Graziano speak.

[4:04:28] He's been waiting.

[4:04:31] Yes.

[4:04:32] if we hire a new attorney or a firm, what is that protection?

[4:04:41] That's nothing as far as I'm concerned.

[4:04:43] It would have been nice initially.

[4:04:45] Yeah, if we had hired them initially, that's different.

[4:04:49] That's why I'm saying, if we just turn them off, you know,

[4:04:53] the spiket is dry and let's see where it goes.

[4:04:59] And if they go ahead with a petition, then we can review it.

[4:05:06] Well, no, we're saying we don't want to review it.

[4:05:09] We don't want to review it.

[4:05:10] No, we don't want to review it.

[4:05:12] Prior to them.

[4:05:14] What they would have to do is get all the signatures.

[4:05:16] Right.

[4:05:17] And then there would have to be enough as a judge by the supervisor.

[4:05:20] And if it were so, then it would go on the ballot.

[4:05:22] And it would be up to the voters whether it became law.

[4:05:25] Here's where you would possibly get a second set of eyes

[4:05:29] is to whether it met ballot muster prior to it going on a ballot. That's the point.

[4:05:36] So what are we going to do? Open us up for a lawsuit. If we say we hire this firm

[4:05:42] and they say, hey, they're not adhering to the law and we say, hey, you know, this is

[4:05:51] not appropriate, then we're still going to be sued. They're representing us.

[4:05:58] Here's I think we're mixing up two different things here. So when petitioners have a ballot

[4:06:04] item and they keep asking us to is it okay? The the law does not require us to say anything.

[4:06:11] Right. So that's where we are right now. That's where we are right now, but we already

[4:06:16] gave them a bunch of stuff. So they've submitted three things back and they say, hey, is this

[4:06:21] This one okay, right?

[4:06:22] So assuming they were to get enough petitions to actually get something on the ballot,

[4:06:29] at that point, a second opinion as to whether whatever they come up with is valid for

[4:06:36] the ballot would be okay to talk about at that point.

[4:06:43] You see, it's an if thing.

[4:06:45] Yeah, but I don't want to make us vulnerable to a lawsuit.

[4:06:48] No, you're, you're, I, I, people get sued all the time.

[4:06:51] you're not vulnerable to a lawsuit by, you know, doing one thing or another. You know, I just

[4:06:59] gave you the example, the marijuana amendment that was being proposed, they sued. And guess what,

[4:07:04] the court said, sorry, no dice. And then it was over really quick. I mean, these things happen.

[4:07:09] You know, it's probably cheaper to get sued sometimes than to keep going back and forth.

[4:07:13] But if we do nothing, then it's up to them. So it is up to us to certify it for the ballot.

[4:07:21] Am I correct? Or up to the SOE?

[4:07:24] The SOE.

[4:07:25] So the SOE?

[4:07:26] People have to take action, but it's quite clear that you don't have to agree,

[4:07:30] you don't have to bless it, you just have to take action.

[4:07:32] And be specific about the action.

[4:07:35] That's where you're not being clear.

[4:07:38] A vote, generally, it's the vote of the governing body to send it on to the

[4:07:41] governing, to the supervisor to place it on the ballot.

[4:07:45] But you just said earlier that you could reject it at that time if it's so awful.

[4:07:49] If it's so awful, there is precedent in the case law for where, in that particular case,

[4:07:55] and there's a few other cases out there, it directly contradicted state law.

[4:07:59] And so that governing body chose not to move it forward.

[4:08:03] That is an option for the commission.

[4:08:05] That's what I'm saying.

[4:08:06] That often draws a lawsuit from the petition committee, but it may not.

[4:08:09] There's no guarantee.

[4:08:10] That's what I'm saying is that at that point, you would possibly consider getting another

[4:08:16] opinion as to whether the final version of whatever the heck they come up with

[4:08:21] passes ballot muster. I personally see a lot of issues in the current, well the

[4:08:26] most recent one that I've seen anyway, I saw issues, you know, I'm not gonna

[4:08:31] say what the issues are because I'm not gonna feed anybody, you know, but I saw

[4:08:36] issues that could be litigated after before, things like that,

[4:08:46] but

[4:08:46] So I still think this is a matter at hand that if we were to provide direction we would say don't respond at all that's that's option easy option and then reserve the matter for possibly a second legal opinion in the event that they actually get signatures.

[4:09:02] We don't know if they will or not.

[4:09:03] Right, go ahead, I'm sorry.

[4:09:07] Could go that route,

[4:09:09] go ahead, put the mission up.

[4:09:11] Yeah, that's what I was just thinking of, we don't know one if they're going to get the signatures,

[4:09:17] but aside from that, what's the deadline time attorney for the rough future?

[4:09:22] To the supervisor is June 10th.

[4:09:24] Okay, so let's say they get it to the supervisor, that's the final format.

[4:09:30] They can't make amendments after June 10th, right?

[4:09:33] That's my understanding, yes.

[4:09:34] So wouldn't we then go get a legal opinion after June 10th because we'll know we have to get it like

[4:09:41] In a very short time frame. I believe that what the commissioner is saying is that

[4:09:48] Commissioner de Napoli is saying is that

[4:09:51] If you had

[4:09:53] Another opinion on the third version of the petition that said to you that you should prevent it from going on the ballot

[4:10:01] it that then you would want to know that before June 10th.

[4:10:06] Far deadline is June 10th to prevent it from going on to the ballot.

[4:10:09] Well, I thought that was the deadline for them to submit it.

[4:10:11] What is our deadline to prevent it?

[4:10:13] Is it the same date?

[4:10:14] It's probably.

[4:10:14] Essentially, yes.

[4:10:15] Because right now, as we have said, they could go ahead at any time if they choose.

[4:10:22] They're driving this train.

[4:10:23] Sure.

[4:10:24] It's their petition, of course.

[4:10:25] And so it's just a question of the clock when they get enough signatures and usually they

[4:10:30] We have to get more than the requirement and some of them get thrown out and there's

[4:10:33] a whole process around that.

[4:10:35] But I believe what Commissioner DiNapoli is saying is, do we see for one of a better

[4:10:41] word like a kill shot, something that's really, really wrong, that we would want to hold

[4:10:45] it off the ballot with a second opinion?

[4:10:48] Well, that's where I think we should have some second opinion at that moment in time in

[4:10:53] the future in the event that they actually get signatures.

[4:10:57] I don't even know what their final version is, by the way.

[4:10:59] I don't either.

[4:11:00] It was what you received last two weeks ago.

[4:11:02] Yes.

[4:11:02] That's the last version.

[4:11:04] The one that we did receive right before the meeting.

[4:11:06] Yeah, the Monday before last.

[4:11:08] I didn't know they amended it since then, or.

[4:11:09] I have no idea.

[4:11:11] Not that I've received.

[4:11:12] I don't believe they have.

[4:11:13] No, because we've provided no response.

[4:11:15] So that was the last submission that they gave to us

[4:11:17] for you all to review before deciding if the town attorney

[4:11:20] was going to review any further or not.

[4:11:22] So everything stopped at that point.

[4:11:24] OK.

[4:11:27] And they may not continue.

[4:11:28] Who knows?

[4:11:30] We don't know.

[4:11:32] All right, so where do we leave this are we going to again in my opinion? Okay, we're March 10th. We have three months

[4:11:41] Yeah, I would say let's see what happens in two weeks when they if they get more. Yeah, let's see if they get more

[4:11:47] I don't know I don't even know. I think the direction would need to be this

[4:11:51] Commissioner Pelluff list that the town attorney nor the town manager provides any further communication just like we did last time

[4:11:58] I think I think we I think I don't know I don't want to speak for anyone else but I think it's a consensus on that yeah, I think she's got loud and clear

[4:12:04] I agree okay, there's a noopsy no more upsies got it

[4:12:11] You know

[4:12:12] Send it with love in the kiss or whatever. I'm sure

[4:12:18] Was no send nothing to say we love you goodbye. No, just literally send we love you goodbye. I love you. All right, so we all are we in agreement

[4:12:27] place, Mayor, do you agree with that or no?

[4:12:33] I mean, it's just, it's trying to not waste resources, unless this is something that we actually have to address is we're not going to know I get it.

[4:12:43] I mean, it was a big, I just want to point something out as well.

[4:12:46] We have five minutes left at before 11 and we need a motion to extend the meeting.

[4:12:51] I'll make a motion.

[4:12:52] Okay, what are we extending it to, we need a time right, a specific time?

[4:12:55] Yes, we do.

[4:12:56] 11-05.

[4:12:58] No.

[4:12:58] 11-15, maybe.

[4:12:59] I see 11-15.

[4:13:01] Sure.

[4:13:01] Okay.

[4:13:01] And we need four to vote, yes.

[4:13:03] Okay.

[4:13:03] So we'll take the vote.

[4:13:05] Yes, for me.

[4:13:07] Oh, here.

[4:13:07] Just.

[4:13:08] We have a few items left over.

[4:13:10] Although we say that and it winds up being an hour.

[4:13:14] We've got one consent item and one resolution based on commission direction from the last meeting.

[4:13:18] So I voted.

[4:13:20] I voted.

[4:13:21] Go ahead.

[4:13:22] Oh.

[4:13:23] Oh, sorry.

[4:13:24] I mean, I rush you, I just won't really do.

[4:13:28] The motion passes 5-0 to extend to 11-15.

[4:13:32] Thank you.

[4:13:33] Great, and then one last item on the agenda is the United Way Mayor's Gala.

[4:13:37] I think given the input based on the Broward League of Cities,

[4:13:40] this is something that the Commission desires to skip as well.

[4:13:46] Lovely event, but that's why I'm

[4:13:50] guessing, yes.

[4:13:53] Yes, can I get a third, yes, please?

[4:13:55] Yes.

[4:13:56] Thank you.

[4:13:58] I know we've enjoyed it, Vice Mayor, several times.

[4:14:03] You can still buy individual tickets for 400 if you so choose.

[4:14:09] Next commission meeting is.

[4:14:12] Whoever has open seats like last time with us.

[4:14:15] We'll put the hat out and see who.

[4:14:17] And the next commission meeting is Tuesday, March 24th at 630.

[4:14:21] That's the end of my report.

[4:14:22] Any questions?

[4:14:27] All right, we have approval of minutes for a regular time commission meeting held on January 27th, 2026, and Public Safety Workshop held on February 10th, 2026.

[4:14:36] There are questions.

[4:14:39] Just make a motion.

[4:14:42] Nobody can.

[4:14:43] Is this approval of minutes and two minutes on the commission meeting held on January 27th and the Public Safety Workshop on February 10th.

[4:14:52] Oh,

[4:14:59] I see him.

[4:15:02] All right.

[4:15:11] This is 10a, by the way, if you are looking on your sheet. So let's move to approve. Oh, sorry. Okay, we have two on 127, 26, one. Okay.

[4:15:44] I'll wait and approve.

[4:15:45] I'll second.

[4:15:46] All right.

[4:15:49] Please cast your vote.

[4:15:57] Motion passes 5-0.

[4:15:58] Aye.

[4:15:59] Commissioner commas.

[4:16:03] Commissioner DiNapoli.

[4:16:05] Nothing further.

[4:16:07] Except I'll see at taste of the beat.

[4:16:11] Commissioner Pilapolis.

[4:16:14] No comments.

[4:16:15] Thank you.

[4:16:16] Commissioner Graziano.

[4:16:19] It's just an update.

[4:16:21] FPNL still, we're still waiting for data that they promise to furnish us.

[4:16:26] So that we can try to move up their dates as, you know, Senator Piso and Representative

[4:16:34] Lamarca has been helping us.

[4:16:36] We have a date of 2032 for the north part of the town, which we're trying to get to 2028.

[4:16:44] And we have a date of 2040, and this is the underground utilities for the rest of LLEBTS.

[4:16:49] So that's not too good, so we want to try to work on that, but they've been strengthening the grid system throughout with all new lateral lines.

[4:17:00] Farmers market has been great, it seems to be really, really strong.

[4:17:06] Slow progress on pursuing paying for lighting of the beautiful moral, but a mural on commercial Boulevard, but I think that I've got a price range now

[4:17:20] that I can start working on, it's about $15,000, so I'm going to be hitting up as many

[4:17:27] people as I can to try to contribute because it's a private property and we're unable

[4:17:33] to provide funds.

[4:17:38] Happy sad St. Patrick's Day is coming up and probably before the next meeting so everybody

[4:17:44] somebody have a good, safe time, and I've been assisting with the help of our BSO

[4:17:55] captain, Chris Utter, some residents who are trying to slow down the traffic on the

[4:18:04] intra-coastle, and that will be up to the data that's currently being compiled in

[4:18:13] in Tallahassee, so I have nothing else.

[4:18:16] Thank you.

[4:18:17] Vice Mayor Straffs.

[4:18:21] They will see everybody tomorrow night at the Taste of

[4:18:24] Lordeau by the Sea, great event.

[4:18:25] Be out there and be safe.

[4:18:28] Mayor Malkoon.

[4:18:30] Yeah, and just to add to the events,

[4:18:31] don't forget about the sea short plays that

[4:18:33] are starting this weekend as well.

[4:18:34] That's always a great event and space fills up

[4:18:37] so you can go on their website and sign up.

[4:18:40] And we only have one other item, and that is Resolution 18B.

[4:18:43] A resolution of the town commission of the town of Lauderdale by the sea floor to approving the assignment of the continuing professional services agreement from Hitchcock design group to RVI planning and landscape architecture and approving a work authorization for construction document design services with RVI for the high business and they tore a portal portals.

[4:19:05] Any public comments?

[4:19:07] New, new, new, town manager, you're going to handle this, right?

[4:19:10] Yeah, I'll be very brief with this.

[4:19:12] So at the February 10th Commission meeting, the Commission gave direction to staff to go ahead and bring back what it would cost to finish design of it but not move forward with the project that before you tonight is what you requested the total cost to have 100% construction documents is $71,550.

[4:19:27] Happy to answer any questions you may have.

[4:19:30] This means once the commission wants to budget for the project, at a certain point in the future we'll have the documents ready, and then we can just go into permitting and hire someone.

[4:19:42] Seeing no comments, do you guys want to make a motion to approve it or

[4:19:51] okay?

[4:19:53] So I don't see any motions or commission or grassy on it.

[4:20:00] Was there a grant involved with this?

[4:20:03] Yes for design.

[4:20:04] Yeah, isn't that what we're doing here finishing the design it's portion of design. Yes, correct. Yeah

[4:20:11] Well, I think that you know, it looks like we're spending money, but it really to me is a long-term saving money because we don't have to move forward

[4:20:20] Even though we have an obligation with these design people. We don't have an obligation to

[4:20:25] Implement the design isn't that correct?

[4:20:28] Correct, yes, and then we could just once the commission wants to budget this project moving forward.

[4:20:32] We can go ahead and take this off the shelf and get it ready to go right away.

[4:20:35] Right, so I think it's an appropriate expenditure.

[4:20:42] Do you want to make a motion?

[4:20:44] Yes.

[4:20:44] Okay, a motion by Commissioner Graziano is there a second?

[4:20:50] All right, a second by Commissioner Poppins, thank you.

[4:20:53] Please cast your vote.

[4:20:56] So, the

[4:21:02] cost for this itself is $71,550, but we did have a $35,000 grant for this

[4:21:07] Courtney, is that correct?

[4:21:08] $15,000?

[4:21:09] $15,000?

[4:21:13] Just talking to Mike, so people can hear you.

[4:21:17] Yes, there's been some work already done, but this is to complete the documents.

[4:21:21] I don't have what we've spent to date on this, but-

[4:21:23] Today, I'm sorry.

[4:21:25] Today we will eventually,

[4:21:28] once everything's submitted, about $16,000.

[4:21:33] Press your button and all.

[4:21:36] Oops.

[4:21:37] I think I just messed up everybody.

[4:21:38] Okay, go, Vice-Mirror.

[4:21:40] Yeah, so just so I'm clear before I hit yes or no.

[4:21:44] Yes, the total, how much are we putting out?

[4:21:48] 16, about 16,000.

[4:21:49] Okay, and then we'll have the plans

[4:21:51] and we're set to go.

[4:21:52] Correct, yes.

[4:21:52] I will agree to that.

[4:21:54] Thank you.

[4:21:54] Give me a chance.

[4:21:56] Commissioner DiNapoli, I was just wondering, do we lose anything by waiting?

[4:22:01] Do we lose the grant?

[4:22:02] The grant would go.

[4:22:03] So if we don't do this now, then we lose the grant.

[4:22:05] Correct, and it's going to cost us more money.

[4:22:06] Okay, so then I will agree to go forward.

[4:22:09] All right, any other discussion?

[4:22:10] All right, let's do a vote.

[4:22:12] Again.

[4:22:14] Please cast your vote.

[4:22:16] We can pass this 5-0.

[4:22:18] So our motion to adjourn.

[4:22:19] Thank you.

[4:22:20] Thank you.

[4:22:28] That's nice.

[4:22:28] That's my phone.

[4:22:29] Thanks.

Regular Town Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript