[0:37] >> All right today is Tuesday July 28th 7:09 p.m.

[0:41] Calling today's meeting into order madam clerk

[0:43] if you'll take the roll please.

[0:47] [Roll call]

[0:50] [Vice Mayor absent]

[0:58] >> Mayor you have a quorum.

[1:00] If you'll lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please.

[1:04] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

[1:06] of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

[1:06] one nation under God, indivisible,

[1:07] with liberty and justice for all.

[1:22] >> Item two a presentation of fiscal year 2027 budget

[1:25] and proposed operating millage rate.

[1:27] Mr. Manager.

[1:30] >> Thank you mayor.

[1:32] If I can have our budget manager come up we've prepared a quick ,

[1:40] we've prepared a presentation on you on the budget but a quick

[1:44] summary or what the staff is requesting.

[1:47] Tonight is about setting the millage rate cap or ceiling,

[1:54] this is where the commission during your September budget

[1:58] hearings will not be able to go above.

[2:00] Staff is currently recommending keeping it

[2:03] flat at 3.883 for that ceiling.

[2:07] But we have the presentation for you if you can come up please.

[2:30] >> Okay I'm gonna start with a quick recap on the budget

[2:34] principles.

[2:35] So the principles are ensure compliance with policy statutes

[2:39] and contractual obligations of the town.

[2:42] It supports building and maintaining infrastructure,

[2:46] for the community in the long term.

[2:49] It establishes spending authorization,

[2:52] safeguards reserves to save financially sound,

[2:56] so when our audits are done we have a good financial basis

[3:02] and we come up with a clean opinion on our audits.

[3:08] And the budget should be transparent affordable

[3:10] and sustainable.

[3:14] The elements of the budget the financial document

[3:17] used to protect future revenues and expenses

[3:20] for fiscal year time period.

[3:22] It's a roadmap to carry out the Town Commission's objectives

[3:26] and strategies.

[3:28] Revenues are based on property appraiser

[3:33] values and the military and our state and local estimates

[3:38] for the General fund.

[3:40] Expenses expenditures are based on specific needs and services.

[3:46] We try to maintain reserves and funding for capital program

[3:51] and the fiscal year starts on October 1st of every year

[3:55] and that's on September 30th.

[3:57] On the budget calendar today is our meeting

[4:02] to discuss the military to advertise on the trim notice.

[4:08] That'll be a cap, that's today's meeting and on August 4th

[4:12] by August 4th we need to provide the information to the property

[4:18] appraiser so that can be advertised on the trim notice

[4:21] which goes out around mid-August to the 20 something of August.

[4:26] We have a first public hearing on the budget and the military

[4:31] for September 8th 5:01 p.m.

[4:35] And the second and final hearing on September 22nd at 501.

[4:42] The budget that the town's budget

[4:46] is based on several funds.

[4:47] The compliments of the General Fund which is General Government

[4:51] operations.

[4:52] We have special revenue funds which is recreation and culture.

[4:59] We have the building services and transportation.

[5:01] We have the Capital Projects fund.

[5:04] Enterprise funds which is our water sewage

[5:08] funds our stormwater funds solid waste and parking.

[5:11] And then we have an internal service fund just

[5:15] called Fleet Management Fund which

[5:16] we use to maintain and replace our vehicles.

[5:20] Tonight we'll be discussing basically the general fund.

[5:27] So revenues from the general fund

[5:31] are mainly protecting 27 million in revenues.

[5:36] Our revenues are mainly from ad valorem taxes.

[5:40] That's 78% and then we have franchise fees

[5:43] and some other intergovernmental revenues.

[5:47] Our budget is based on 24.8 million

[5:50] in projected expenditures.

[5:53] The majority of it goes to public safety, then

[5:59] general government and parks and recreation

[6:01] then physical environment and we have

[6:04] 11% going to transfer to enterprise funds.

[6:09] The budget, the proposed budget that you

[6:12] have would return 2.4 million to general fund reserves.

[6:18] Operating expenditures are 21.5 and 3.1 million

[6:22] would go to transfer to the enterprise funds.

[6:28] These are components of our General Fund revenue.

[6:33] In dollar value.

[6:35] As you can see it's mainly 21 million

[6:40] would be from ad valorem revenues.

[6:48] We would not be using any fund balance to balance the budget

[6:53] and we would have an excess which

[6:56] we would return to reserves.

[7:05] This is the chart is the same as basically the first slide

[7:11] that we went through.

[7:12] 78% of our revenues for the general fund

[7:15] are made up of ad valorem revenues.

[7:20] And our expenditures these are expenditures in dollar values.

[7:26] Between public safety and general government,

[7:30] that's the major portion of what our general fund

[7:34] expenditures are.

[7:38] We would be transferring out $3,065,000,

[7:43] 2.5 million would be to provide funding for a Steward project

[7:52] or Steward projects I'm sorry stormwater projects that we need

[7:56] to work on.

[7:57] And then balance of 565, 565,000 would be to balance the water

[8:04] and sewer fund.

[8:05] Until we complete our rate studies.

[8:18] Okay so we have a funding policy base

[8:23] and based on the funding policy, the amount

[8:27] that we would need to fund, it's a target

[8:31] we're striving to fund a target for 2027.

[8:34] Would be approximately $12.6 million

[8:39] for committed reserves for operations and maintenance.

[8:44] Then we have a hurricane and disaster reserve.

[8:52] A budget stabilization reserve and a capital reserve.

[8:57] Those combined, for fiscal 2027 be it 12.6 million

[9:04] which means we would increase those reserves by $1.4 million.

[9:09] Balance is returning to unassigned fund balance would be

[9:13] $950,000.

[9:15] We've budgeted that we would have total return to reserves

[9:21] of two point 2,000,003 82111.

[9:24] And that's based on a millage rate of 3.8743.

[9:32] Just a little lower than the current millage rate.

[9:37] For property values and millage rates.

[9:40] So we have a small jump at 6.2% increase in our property values.

[9:47] That's mainly attributable to the existing properties.

[9:52] Not new construction.

[9:57] You'll see the same information.

[10:00] This is over what properties the increases are

[10:04] and you can see it's mainly driven by the condominium

[10:08] buildings.

[10:09] Any property that's in the condominium buildings.

[10:16] Okay the adjustable value on the,

[10:20] so the adjustable value is basically it's like market

[10:23] value.

[10:24] Then we have what's called the taxable value so that's

[10:28] after homesteaded properties and only the 10% increase

[10:33] on non homesteaded properties.

[10:36] So for the tax above, just values

[10:41] the condominiums are 59% of the value

[10:44] but when it comes to their taxable value

[10:48] they end up being 67% of our tax roll.

[10:52] And the single family section is 25%

[10:55] of the just value which is sort of like a market value.

[10:59] But when it comes to factoring in homesteads

[11:04] that percentage goes down to 19%.

[11:12] Taxable values and the millage rates

[11:15] so you see over ten years how the military has come down.

[11:19] Gone all the way from 4.8 we're currently at 3.8830.

[11:24] And the budget is based on 3.8743.

[11:35] And then the property a -- where do tax dollars go?

[11:41] So 21% goes to server side.

[11:44] 36% goes to the school board and 40% of your property taxes

[11:48] go to state county 4% goes to state funding.

[11:57] So the majority of your taxes go to the school board

[12:01] and Dade County and only 21% ends up going to Surfside.

[12:10] Get to the millage rates and tax revenue.

[12:16] So we're currently in an adopted rate of 3.8830.

[12:21] We've prepared the budget based on a rate of 3.8743.

[12:27] And our rollback rate is 3.5221.

[12:33] And you'll see the revenues that are generated

[12:38] by those different rates are current rates would generate

[12:45] 1.967 million, the proposed budget

[12:50] was prepared based on an increase of 1.919.

[12:55] Almost 1.92.

[12:56] And the rollback rate would mean no increase in taxes.

[13:05] The various rates depend on voting.

[13:09] The voting that's required.

[13:11] So if we were voting for the 3.8830 we would need a unanimous

[13:17] vote.

[13:18] The proposed rate of 3.8743 we would need four votes

[13:23] of the governing body.

[13:25] And the rollback rate would require three votes

[13:29] which is a majority vote.

[13:32] So today we're going to determine what the capital would

[13:39] be for the trim notice and once you've

[13:42] advertised on the trim notice, it's

[13:45] really setting the ceiling you can't go down

[13:48] so you could go down afterwards but you can't go up.

[13:52] Go above that rate.

[13:59] Based on the budget was prepared based on the 10% tax increase.

[14:04] Over the rollback rate.

[14:09] And then this is just how much each millage rate is worth.

[14:17] So every one millage is worth 5.4 or 5 $4 million of revenue.

[14:30] I think that's it.

[14:32] Okay tonight's staff is only seeking guidance

[14:34] on a millage cap.

[14:36] And recommended millage cap that exists,

[14:40] existing military at 3.8830 mills although we are building

[14:46] the budget on a military of 3.8743. --

[14:49] on a millage rate of 3.8743.

[14:57] >> All right thank you Andrea.

[15:00] Any questions?

[15:01] Can we get a motion on the table for reopen to public comment?

[15:07] >> Make a move for a motion for (Indistinct)

[15:12] >> Can we get a motion for the item to move proceed --

[15:16] >> Yeah.

[15:18] So moved.

[15:20] >> What's the motion?

[15:23] >> Motion to proceed with the rate I believe we could get this

[15:29] to 3.8743 as our cap.

[15:33] I just wanted feedback from town staff if that's something that

[15:37] we feel we could --

[15:39] >> Commissioner.

[15:40] Yeah you can set the cap at 38743 should you wish.

[15:47] We always recommend going a little bit above that

[15:50] simply because we're maintaining a flat millage

[15:52] rate so that you have flexibility and discussion.

[15:55] As you start getting into your meetings in September

[15:58] if you're talking about more projects or different levels

[16:01] of service or anything like that, if you do not

[16:04] have any wiggle room because you set the millage too low,

[16:08] then you're not going to be able to kind of move.

[16:10] So all staff is building the budget

[16:13] at a lower millage rate than what's existing,

[16:15] for the ceiling we recommend at least keeping it flat so

[16:21] that you have that buffer.

[16:23] You're talking about , how much is it?

[16:33] Is it about 50?

[16:35] Okay.

[16:36] So 50,000, if you want to set it at the 38743 that's what

[16:41] we're building the budget at anyways.

[16:44] You'll be fine with that.

[16:47] I would just recommend whatever cap you have,

[16:51] just realize that you will not be able to go above it.

[16:55] The good thing is that Surfside is in a really good

[16:57] financial position.

[16:58] In other places during the special hearings

[17:04] commissioners would ask well we want this

[17:06] and we want more of this and we want more of that

[17:08] and my response is do you want to raise the millage?

[17:11] Because there was no room but you

[17:13] guys are in a really good healthy position so setting it

[17:17] at the, and where we're building the budget is perfectly fine.

[17:21] >> Okay with that I'm comfortable pushing us to be

[17:26] fiscally responsible and to drive out that end cap there.

[17:30] I think it's a good start for a new commission

[17:32] and I make a motion to proceed with the 3.874.

[17:39] >> 3.8743 just for --

[17:44] >> 3.874.

[17:47] >> I'll second it we'll open it up to public comment

[17:50] and we'll come back to this.

[17:51] >> First speaker Commissioner Richard.

[18:10] >> Marianne Mashhad.

[18:12] 9225 Collins Avenue.

[18:14] Surfside.

[18:15] So unless there's something I'm not aware of, I recommend

[18:21] keeping it at the 3.8830.

[18:23] Thank you.

[18:25] >> Thank you Commissioner.

[18:28] Michael Carrickun.

[18:42] >> Michael Carrick 9565 Abbott.

[18:44] So must be nice to be flush with all this cash.

[18:48] Just to put it in perspective, the first budget I worked on

[18:53] in 2010 for the fiscal year 2011,

[18:57] the total revenue from ad valorem taxes was 5 million.

[19:01] Now it's 20 million.

[19:03] There was a good graph over there

[19:05] so you saw the high millage rate actually brought

[19:07] in very little amount of money.

[19:08] Back then.

[19:09] The total amount of resort tax revenue in 2011 was a whopping

[19:16] 250 000.

[19:17] Now it's I think 6 million something like that.

[19:21] So anyway my point is I sent everyone an email,

[19:24] I know that you're not going to go line by line tonight.

[19:27] So please take it if you have any questions about,

[19:31] the depth of information that I provided please don't hesitate

[19:34] to reach out to me.

[19:36] A couple of points, I want to make sure

[19:42] that everyone understands that the,

[19:45] there's liabilities associated with increasing the headcount.

[19:48] I know this particular budget still

[19:50] has the CEO or chief of staff position

[19:52] I think you guys eliminated that already.

[19:54] I don't know if you did or not but I think you should.

[19:58] There is also a lot of clarity that's

[20:02] needed around the new building.

[20:04] For the building department.

[20:07] I also wanted to point out that the building Services

[20:12] department might be right for outsourcing based

[20:16] on the fluctuating and variable workload over the next five

[20:22] years or so.

[20:23] I don't know if that's a smart to actually bring in full time

[20:26] people for all of that because when you bring in full time

[20:30] as everyone knows there's a lot more

[20:31] liabilities associated with that.

[20:33] So again I'm not going to get into too many details here

[20:37] I support the 3.8743 thank you very much.

[20:43] >> Thank you.

[20:44] Mr..

[20:51] >> Jeff Somper 8827 Emerson the budget is bloated but that's not

[20:57] your fault. It's a situation that has developed over at least

[21:04] ten years.

[21:05] It's not unusual when money comes in.

[21:10] Additional money comes in to spend it.

[21:15] What I recommend is because it's not

[21:18] going to be able to be done between now and September

[21:21] when you have to approve a budget.

[21:25] Is that a deep dive be done on the budget with each

[21:32] of the departments I don't know whether you'd

[21:36] want to use the Budget committee or something like that

[21:41] or how you would like to hire an outside consultant to sit down

[21:46] and go through line item by line item

[21:50] find out what exactly is done in operations of each department.

[21:56] Because Surfside has not grown, we're still a mile square.

[22:04] We're still close to the same population.

[22:07] As it has been for the last ten years.

[22:13] There are many things that have increased in cost.

[22:17] Pension health care.

[22:20] Salaries have had to increase because of inflation.

[22:24] But not to the extent that if you look at the budget numbers

[22:29] from ten years ago and look at them now, that you can say that

[22:35] there is not bloat and excess in the budget.

[22:39] So I think you need to take a hard look at it.

[22:43] Have somebody take a hard look at it.

[22:44] Because you don't have the time to do so.

[22:55] >> Please double check on that thank you.

[22:57] >> Thank you.

[23:02] >> All right thank you everybody for your comments

[23:04] and your feedback Mr. Zumper when I hear you won't be

[23:06] on the Budget Committee in August.

[23:08] We don't have quorum yet we would

[23:10] love to have your eyes on it this month but.

[23:13] Thanks for your input.

[23:15] Tonight I'm just going to remind everybody tonight

[23:17] is just about setting the cap right?

[23:19] We are going to spend the next two months still going

[23:22] through this budget, there's still a lot to look at.

[23:25] But we want to set our cap tonight.

[23:27] That's the requirement that we have to do.

[23:29] We want to be responsible and not limit ourselves.

[23:32] That's all we're here to do tonight.

[23:34] So we have a motion unless there's

[23:35] a need for further discussion we can call the roll?

[23:39] >> I very much share Commissioner Wingard's goal

[23:43] of getting to a number like 3.8743.

[23:45] But I do, I'm inclined to support the staff's

[23:53] recommendation which was also made by Commissioner Mic'd just

[23:57] having done this before you just never know,

[24:00] and voting tonight to lower the taxes versus voting in September

[24:04] makes absolutely no difference in what anybody ever

[24:06] pays I want to make sure that's clear.

[24:08] All of this is effective next year.

[24:10] So it's just a question of whether we leave ourselves

[24:13] that bit of wiggle room.

[24:15] But I would rather us say agree that we

[24:18] want to get to 3.8743 in September and make that a goal.

[24:23] The budget is in fact built on that goal

[24:26] so it shouldn't be too hard.

[24:28] But I think just out of prudence you never know,

[24:31] nothing really is gained tonight by lowering

[24:33] the military e millage rate.

[24:39] It seems like a show to lower taxes I want to do it anyway

[24:43] but I want to do it in September.

[24:45] I think we should go with the manager's recommendation.

[24:48] And stick with the current rate for the trim notice.

[24:51] Again, I have every intention of getting to 3.8743

[24:56] at the next meeting it doesn't make a practical difference.

[25:04] >> Yeah just Segway to what Commissioner Valdosta was

[25:11] saying.

[25:14] I mean I tend to sort of try to give myself the ability

[25:25] to decide what I want to do based on ,

[25:34] like what could be reasonable from a military standpoint which

[25:37] would be like keeping the same rate.

[25:41] I don't know if we're going to get to a practical --

[25:48] I don't think actually, I we're not

[25:51] going to get a particular advantage

[25:53] if we're going to set a lower millage rate tonight.

[25:57] From now in September you know we'll

[25:59] be talking about many things during our budget workshop right

[26:02] like we want to do this, we want to do that.

[26:06] And things that ultimately are going

[26:08] to be vetted by the community.

[26:10] So I want to make sure that this is ,

[26:14] that everybody understands that.

[26:15] So that the idea is not to waste money absolutely not.

[26:23] We want to lower taxes as much as possible.

[26:26] But at the same time we want to listen to the community

[26:30] and give the services that the community think that we

[26:34] should have in Surfside.

[26:36] So that's why if we want to do that,

[26:39] and we keep thinking about that, then maybe leaving 3.883

[26:46] would give us an extra 50 K which is not a lot.

[26:51] But still.

[26:52] A little bit of wiggle room.

[26:57] I don't feel strongly about it, I mean at the end of the day

[27:01] with this commission we're going to settle for 3.8743.

[27:04] Like I said it's just 50 K. It doesn't change it that much.

[27:10] However, you know.

[27:12] The final decision is going to be in September

[27:15] so it's just a limit now.

[27:22] Mayor Danzinger: I just want to say I've seen this commission

[27:24] spend almost $300,000 with less of a discussion

[27:27] and we're talking about $50,000.

[27:28] So this is boggling my mind I don't know

[27:31] if there's another purpose.

[27:32] I just want to say two years ago we were at $15 million spending

[27:37] close to 16.

[27:38] We're at 21 now the town is asking for that's

[27:41] a lot of growth in two years.

[27:42] So I am not passing a 3.87 budget I

[27:46] expect us to bring a lot lower.

[27:48] Because yes there's a lot of revenue coming in

[27:51] but unless we can articulate during my time

[27:53] with that 15 million we built three parks,

[27:55] we did the Dune resiliency we did project after project

[27:57] after project.

[27:58] So I think there's a lot of room in again

[28:01] we have two months to figure out where this money is going.

[28:04] And how a lot of these departments

[28:06] I don't know how many of you have gone

[28:07] live I know by a line item yet in the budget

[28:09] and how I don't want to use bloat is the wrong word

[28:12] but how those numbers have exceeded in the last two years.

[28:16] And I ran on fiscal responsibility

[28:18] and I'm going to be there so to say that I'm just

[28:20] going to adopt the same number as last year is completely

[28:22] wrong.

[28:23] And I don't know again why we're going

[28:25] in circles on less than a percentage of a point.

[28:27] >> It's just an opinion.

[28:31] >> I mean my suggestion was we informally agree among ourselves

[28:35] that the goal is to get it down.

[28:37] Which we all agree we all want to be

[28:39] the politician who cuts taxes nobody's disagreeing about that.

[28:43] It's just, to the mayor's question he's asking

[28:47] what is the reason the reason is that our fundamental goal here

[28:51] should be prudence not sort of a soundbite.

[28:54] Tomorrow.

[28:55] And just in the interest of prudence nothing

[28:58] is lost by staying with the current tax rate.

[29:01] Some scenario is foreclosed.

[29:05] And I just think our obligation is

[29:08] to be the most prudent tonight.

[29:10] Than in September we can all cut taxes

[29:12] and we can say we cut taxes.

[29:13] So I would opt for again, because I

[29:17] don't feel this proposal is really considered.

[29:19] We informally agree that that's what we're going to go.

[29:22] But then we still vote for the current rates

[29:25] just to give the staff and everybody wiggle room.

[29:27] Mayor Danzinger: So there's a great line

[29:30] item becomes a role when action is

[29:31] taken towards its achievement.

[29:33] >> And the best time to start doing something better is now

[29:36] so this isn't for a sound bite if I need a sound bite

[29:39] I'll create one.

[29:40] Everyone's over on the record.

[29:42] And everyone can hear it.

[29:44] But this is about setting a precedent

[29:46] and if it's our first budget and we've heard from town staff

[29:50] that we're in a good place here.

[29:53] And my motion was to get into action right away.

[30:00] Being fiscally responsible and even

[30:02] though it's just a small amount but that's one step.

[30:05] And that's that the precedent and how

[30:06] we're going to move forward.

[30:08] >> Thank you Madam clerk.

[30:10] >> Commissioner Giovanni?

[30:13] >> We need four votes or three to pass on the three?

[30:19] >> That's entirely different that's when you --

[30:22] that's in December. --

[30:25] September.

[30:26] Tonight you need a majority to set the millage that's

[30:29] all you're doing.

[30:41] Commissioner Travani: It's 50 K. Yes.

[30:43] >> Commissioner.

[30:45] Again I share the goal of lowering

[30:48] the taxes per field tonight we need to be prudent so no.

[30:51] >> Commissioner Weingart.

[30:54] >> Yes.

[30:56] >> Vice mayor Birnberg?

[31:01] >> (Indistinct) yes it's a yes.

[31:04] >> Mayor Danzinger?

[31:07] >> Yes.

[31:09] >> The motion carries.

[31:12] >> I think it needs to be charged.

[31:15] This is the new one.

[31:18] Don't worry.

[31:20] You guys want to be (Indistinct).

[31:29] >> All right moving on to item three a.

[31:31] Approval of revised drawing of the scope of the Champlain

[31:33] Towers CTS Memorial madam clerk if you

[31:35] read the title of the resolution into the record please.

[31:38] >> A resolution of the Town Commission of the town

[31:41] of Surfside Florida approving revised drawings and scope

[31:43] of work for the Champlain Towers South Memorial authorizing

[31:45] the Town Manager to negotiate and finalize a contract

[31:47] for construction with Schiff Construction and Development

[31:50] Inc. For the project providing for implementation and provide

[31:53] for an effective date item three eight.

[31:57] >> Thank you Mr. Manager if you introduce this item please?

[32:00] >> Yes mayor thank you very much.

[32:03] >> Is there a motion?

[32:06] >> I was going to let him introduce it two minutes to make

[32:10] a motion --

[32:11] >> Mayor so in March or prior to March we received ,

[32:19] we put out a bid and we received a total project cost

[32:22] for the memorial of over $5 million.

[32:25] With regards to the voter referendums

[32:27] that would have required a voter referendum either now

[32:32] or in August or November.

[32:34] The Commission directed staff to look at the project

[32:37] and see if we can get it below the threshold

[32:39] and the total budgeted amount is 3.55 million.

[32:43] Staff and our consultant Keith Engineering

[32:48] which we have present here who will walk you

[32:50] through the presentation, was able to take a look

[32:53] at the project and identify certain aspects of the project

[32:56] that we can split up in construction phases.

[33:01] So what is before you tonight is for the substantial contracts

[33:06] and it's substantial form.

[33:08] For approval with shift we're going to give you the update

[33:12] and then staff does need direction may be separately

[33:16] from the contractor altogether however you want to handle it.

[33:20] Mayor.

[33:21] With regards to the image on the wall itself.

[33:25] During the memorial, I had the memorial event in June.

[33:33] There were, those attending who put me aside

[33:38] for at least a good 5 to 10 minutes.

[33:41] Talking about how the image was not appropriate.

[33:45] The families did discuss this during their designs,

[33:49] the image that is there is being,

[33:53] is what their recommendation is.

[33:56] And I believe several families are

[33:58] members of the community have also reached out to some of you

[34:00] on the commission as well.

[34:02] And so seeing and hearing a lot I just

[34:07] wanted to make sure that whatever we move forward with

[34:09] is what the Commission wishes to move forward

[34:11] with so I'm asking you for direction on that as well.

[34:14] With that if I can have correct from Keith

[34:18] to just kind of walk us through to show what

[34:22] the overall update on what we faced

[34:25] for this phase of the construction project is.

[34:30] >> I'm just going to get a motion on the table and then

[34:33] we'll proceed. (Indistinct) and also I just want to reiterate

[34:38] some of the history because I think June 24th some articles

[34:41] were put out with some misinformation which is that

[34:44] this commission value engineered this project delayed

[34:46] the project.

[34:47] I think there's a referendum item

[34:49] and I forget which month it was exactly

[34:51] but it was last year which the residents voted

[34:56] to restrict the commission from spending

[34:59] I believe it was 5% of the ad valorem revenue

[35:01] which equated to roughly 3.5 million I'm going to say?

[35:05] Of the proposed budget without a referendum.

[35:08] Comes the memorial at 7.5 million

[35:11] which exceeds that amount which would require the commission

[35:13] go to the referendum by the residents.

[35:16] Obviously that would a delay the project

[35:18] but you run the risk of the residents

[35:19] saying we don't want this project

[35:20] and there goes the entire memorial we've

[35:22] been building for five years.

[35:24] So the commission, the previous commission

[35:26] went out and had Keith Valley engineer this down to an amount

[35:30] that the commission can authorize

[35:32] without referendum so that's what we have here today.

[35:35] As manager stated the images yes I

[35:37] get it was pushed by 1 or 2 family members.

[35:40] I've been hearing a lot about it it's

[35:41] extremely I mean as a resident come on it's traumatic.

[35:45] To see a site where so many people lie dead.

[35:48] A lot of the first responders a lot of the residents a lot

[35:52] of family members (Indistinct) so it

[35:55] was a proposal for an additional this image has become iconic

[35:58] for this event.

[36:01] It signifies multiple things including

[36:03] the continuation of life the infinity sign

[36:06] that is built in there.

[36:07] It was an entire different aspect

[36:10] and that became the vision so what we have here tonight

[36:13] is a revised plan.

[36:15] Conforming to hopefully a value engineered down to the price

[36:19] that we can improve here tonight.

[36:20] With a revised design so I would ask

[36:22] for a motion to approve this with the revised design.

[36:26] >> I'll make the motion to approve and proceed with this

[36:33] project that's so important and I committed to family members

[36:36] that I've talked with that were going to get that done.

[36:38] In our commission so I ask for fellow commissioners

[36:42] support their.

[36:42] And moving this along.

[36:45] Expeditiously.

[36:46] Also motion to approve the revised image of love lives

[36:54] on, it's a beautiful message, it's

[36:57] a hand from below connecting to a hand from above.

[37:00] That's remembering the past showing the future.

[37:03] So I make a motion to approve this.

[37:08] >> I'll second it.

[37:10] All right.

[37:12] Let's hear the updates.

[37:15] >> Good evening Mayor and Commissioners my name is Greg

[37:19] Cheverie I'm vice president of Keith.

[37:22] Been a pleasure working on this project with the town

[37:27] and stakeholders.

[37:28] Just wanted to give you an update

[37:31] on what the manager mentioned.

[37:33] Also you described it very well mayor.

[37:36] All the different activities and events that took place

[37:42] and how everything just resulted in this version, this latest

[37:48] iteration of the design, some of the major modifications

[37:51] that were made were to fit the project into a budget

[37:56] that could be adopted by the commission

[37:58] and also that could fit efforts needed for the contractor to do.

[38:04] What was done was this area here on the eastern side

[38:10] of the proposed memorial was scaled

[38:14] down so that this area now becomes a more green space area.

[38:19] And also there were some scaled down areas

[38:25] as well as far as some of the attributes that were again,

[38:30] tailored so it could mean project budget.

[38:35] Nevertheless, what you see before you

[38:38] is a rendering of a, the wall where we would commemorate

[38:44] or memorialize the victims as well as a waterfall feature that

[38:50] would show an image in the background.

[38:53] And also a lot of landscape that would provide the experience

[39:03] that was established by stakeholders of this design

[39:08] throughout the process.

[39:09] Nevertheless at the end of it shows

[39:12] how the entrance from the Western side

[39:15] towards the eastern side would look.

[39:17] With some of the remnants that came from the building itself.

[39:23] And those will remain as part of the design.

[39:26] This is now also an eastern look from Western side.

[39:31] As to how the memorial will look as you can see,

[39:36] the area that has been modified now

[39:39] shows a view and a perspective to the ocean.

[39:43] And right now we are in the final stages

[39:48] of obtaining all permits.

[39:49] And this has been our latest iteration update

[39:53] for the Surfside Memorial.

[39:55] >> Thank you Craig and for the commission because I know we

[39:58] received an email from residents I think today or yesterday,

[40:01] Keith and the team has walked the site with Miami Dade Fire

[40:08] Miami Dade County to make sure that there sufficient room to go

[40:12] through and any other concerns that Miami-Dade fire may have

[40:15] and we are good to go.

[40:17] We're submitting the final response to their comments

[40:21] by the end of the week and once they have that,

[40:25] we should get a pretty quick turnaround for approval

[40:27] as we've already addressed in the field with them.

[40:33] >> Thank you.

[40:37] >> (Indistinct) okay so I had a bit of a question.

[40:41] Because I was checking this over today.

[40:44] Item number, I can't even see.

[40:47] Item number six I think it >> Number six?

[40:51] This area?

[40:52] >> Or maybe it's number one.

[40:54] Can scroll down.

[40:55] >> So this is on the Western side there's a memorial signage.

[41:00] And then item number six, we will have,

[41:05] these are points where we will have certain degrees of, debris

[41:10] that comes from the site itself.

[41:13] >> Craig can you scroll down so they can see the column again

[41:16] of what that looks like?

[41:17] I think it's the, there.

[41:19] This one's a good one or even at nighttime

[41:21] if you want to show it.

[41:23] >> Two separate things I have an item for a column and then you

[41:26] have an item for debris so what I saw when I read that is a pile

[41:28] of debris which we're seeing now on the --

[41:32] >> So these are all these are the columns that you see

[41:36] and then inside of the columns are the chunks of the various

[41:40] debris that is currently across the street from the site.

[41:44] So it's meant to memorialize the actual pieces in the columns

[41:50] as a feature that will also have light in their.

[41:53] >> Okay but it's not a pile up like we're seeing

[41:56] in the entrance park right now.

[41:58] >> It would be broken down to fit the area.

[42:01] >> Because if you go to the map there's another item

[42:05] for the pillars.

[42:06] You have two as a pillar feature and then six as debris.

[42:12] >> Yeah if I may -- so the six, this area here and here

[42:20] and here.

[42:21] And over here.

[42:23] And towards the end.

[42:24] These are small debris that we will blend in

[42:29] with the landscape.

[42:30] It's debris that was preserved from the site.

[42:33] And that was a feature that was requested

[42:37] throughout the process.

[42:38] >> Do we have a photo of what that looks like

[42:40] because we're looking at a photo of a pillar so you're telling me

[42:43] it's two separate things?

[42:44] >> I don't have that on the on --

[42:48] I don't have that here.

[42:49] It's basically positioning a piece of debris

[42:52] in those areas with the landscape.

[42:54] >> So judging on the faces of the crowd and the feedback that

[42:59] we got from when they moved the debris to the tennis center.

[43:02] Was people can't drive up columns anymore.

[43:05] They can't look at this this is their home this is their life

[43:08] and what you're doing is you're putting

[43:10] a piece of someone's home in the grass in front of them.

[43:13] And so I mean again, I don't want to judge it yet

[43:16] before I've seen what it looks like but I've seen nothing

[43:19] of what that is supposed to be.

[43:21] Is that a nice rock that has been put into the gardening,

[43:24] is it a giant, is what we're seeing now

[43:26] in the tennis center which is extremely disturbing to a lot?

[43:31] And again I want to thank you you've

[43:33] been on this for the last five years with us.

[43:35] Through a couple of commissions.

[43:37] And it's a very difficult position you guys were in

[43:39] and I think you did a great job of managing

[43:41] all the feedback and input so just

[43:44] bear with us a little longer and we're almost there.

[43:46] I just want to clarify something.

[43:51] >> So I can look for what that would look like.

[43:56] I just have to, I need some time or I

[43:58] can send that to the manager.

[44:00] Thereafter.

[44:01] >> Yeah that's not even a feature that I remember even

[44:06] seeing any of the plans or anything so we can definitely

[44:09] bring that back.

[44:10] To the commission and if the commission

[44:12] decides that's not a type of feature that's just debris

[44:15] that we wouldn't use or place because that's more

[44:17] of a gardening type of feature.

[44:19] It's a hardscape more than anything so.

[44:22] That wouldn't stop the whole project.

[44:25] It wouldn't cause like a complete redesign of anything.

[44:29] >> It's just positioning of debris.

[44:32] >> I would just ask again before it gets placed

[44:35] or if there's something we can see on that first.

[44:38] >> Are we requesting an amendment or a amended motion?

[44:44] I mean we can approve -- can't approve something we can't see.

[44:49] But we want to move the project along.

[44:51] We don't have any photo of that?

[44:54] >> I just need a few minutes to see what I can find.

[44:58] >> In the meantime through the mayor may I ask him questions

[45:02] of the manager and attorney I'm confused about a few things.

[45:08] If we approve a design tonight does it

[45:11] still go to the PNC under the recently adopted law

[45:17] that major design elements go to the PNC?

[45:22] >> No sir again the design isn't changing and this was all done

[45:26] and approved prior to that occurring.

[45:28] The only thing that we've done -- prior to the April ordinance.

[45:36] The only thing that we've done is taken a look

[45:40] at the phase construction project

[45:41] to get it under the budget we haven't changed the design we

[45:44] haven't done anything with regards

[45:46] to the overall design of the project.

[45:49] >> And is there any, my understanding and you can please

[45:54] correct me if I'm wrong.

[45:56] The Memorial committee hasn't weighed in on the project at all

[46:01] since, not since the April meeting or whichever meeting it

[46:04] was that -- approved the scaled back project.

[46:08] Okay.

[46:09] Third question.

[46:12] Through the mayor for the attorney.

[46:13] What is the current status of those spending limits

[46:18] from the referendum because when we've talked recently

[46:21] about the Collins Water main, I've

[46:24] gotten the impression from the attorney

[46:26] that the intention is to hold that referendum to be illegal.

[46:35] I haven't been totally convinced by that

[46:37] but that's my understanding of where the attorney's advice has

[46:40] been leaning.

[46:41] So doesn't that create an opportunity then

[46:43] for us to discuss the project as originally designed including

[46:46] the canopy and the other feature that was taken out

[46:53] in March or April which I think was the concrete benches?

[46:56] I mean I think if we're going to be

[46:59] not hemmed in by the referendum, spending limits

[47:02] when it comes to the water main why are they hemming us

[47:05] in now in the memorial project I'm

[47:07] not quite sure what the different approaches.

[47:09] Why we have two different approaches

[47:11] to do different projects.

[47:14] >> The answer is I don't know who you mean they.

[47:18] Who's hemming you in?

[47:20] >> I'm just saying we, the reason why this was,

[47:25] the project was scaled back was to fit underneath the spending

[47:29] cap.

[47:29] So if the spending cap is no longer in your opinion, law,

[47:36] then shouldn't we be considering the full project

[47:41] that was before us originally that went out to bid?

[47:47] >> You're going to the motivation as to why

[47:51] there's been a modification and whether you just want to --

[47:55] >> The should question is for the commission but the legal

[47:58] question is, is it your opinion that --

[48:02] that we're not bound by the referendum?

[48:04] Spending cap?

[48:05] >> That is where I'm heading that I haven't come to that

[48:09] final conclusion yet but that is the direction that I'm headed

[48:11] in which is that the unanimous vote provision as well

[48:19] as the 60% provision were not properly placed before

[48:23] the voters.

[48:25] >> Okay.

[48:27] >> But that's the direction that we're headed in.

[48:32] I haven't come to that conclusion

[48:33] so as of tonight, you're still, my advice

[48:37] is that you're still bound by that provision.

[48:40] >> We are okay.

[48:42] But right but we might not be a month from now or --

[48:46] >> Might not be if you want to put this off you can.

[48:49] >> Those are my questions I mean are we having discussion then I

[48:53] mean I would like to -- those answers are hopeful

[48:57] for the point I wanted to make but.

[48:59] >> Before we get into discussion I'm going to bring up public

[49:03] comment is the presentation (Indistinct).

[49:07] No we can do public comment while you're checking

[49:10] if you have a few minutes.

[49:12] All right where's my speaker.

[49:16] Barbara Cohen.

[49:17] You sure?

[49:19] Okay.

[49:20] I'll come back to you.

[49:25] George Cousillas.

[49:32] >> George 9225 Collins Avenue.

[49:37] First Mr. Mayor, your description

[49:41] of the timeline and culpability where we are

[49:44] is exactly accurate.

[49:45] That this commission didn't get us here.

[49:49] But I want to talk about probably something very

[49:53] dull to most people here.

[49:55] But the construction contract.

[49:57] I've gone through it come on I've go through construction

[50:00] contracts all the time.

[50:02] There's some weird things in here which,

[50:05] I mean if the contract is fine with it,

[50:09] but it looks like it things were trapped in many months ago not

[50:12] by our current attorneys -- drafted many months ago not

[50:18] by our current attorneys and there's things that strike me --

[50:21] you have liquidated damages that apply to the contractor.

[50:25] But you don't have a waiver of consequential damages.

[50:28] Typically when you have liquidated damages

[50:30] you also have a waiver of consequential damages.

[50:33] The difference between them is a consequential damages

[50:37] a direct cost.

[50:39] I wasn't able to open, I lost so many thousands

[50:42] of dollars of business a day, you owe me for that

[50:45] or I rented a tent for a big grand opening

[50:48] and I didn't get that.

[50:49] Liquidated you just apply a number.

[50:52] So that's not in there so the contract

[50:55] is kind of on the hook for both because you don't have it

[50:58] and when you go into nets and 2.3

[51:01] and when you go further down into 8.6,

[51:05] that's where the waiver of consequential damages portion.

[51:11] Paragraph is.

[51:12] And it's really only waiver of the contractors.

[51:17] Consequential damages so they can't

[51:19] go after the town for loss of profit or loss

[51:21] of this or loss of that.

[51:23] You usually have consequential damages for both parties.

[51:25] And that's not in there.

[51:30] Finally and this is an important part of any construction

[51:34] contract, you have this, what's usually

[51:38] called a continuing performance clause in a contract.

[51:40] And what it does is the beauty of construction contracts

[51:44] as opposed to most contracts is everything goes to hell.

[51:48] During construction.

[51:49] And the contract is designed to manage that right?

[51:53] According to the terms for regular contract,

[51:56] people would be in default by the second day.

[51:58] Both parties.

[51:58] But not so in a construction contract

[52:01] there are changes and all these mechanisms in place.

[52:04] And if you let me run just a few seconds over.

[52:07] So typically what you say is if we

[52:10] have a dispute over the change order for the new bathroom that

[52:13] was added, the contractor is still

[52:15] obligated to perform the work.

[52:17] While the dispute goes on.

[52:19] And the owner is obligated to keep paying

[52:22] while the dispute is going on.

[52:24] Here you only have continuing to performance

[52:27] on the part of the contractor.

[52:29] Again it's kind of an uneven thing

[52:31] I'm surprised any contractor would agree to it.

[52:34] If they have that's fine but this was written by an earlier

[52:37] attorney I presume, and so I would

[52:40] recommend going through this very carefully

[52:43] and seeing, wringing out things like this.

[52:46] Thank you.

[52:47] >> Thank you George.

[52:54] Commissioner?

[52:59] >> Marianne Marcia 9225 Collins Avenue.

[53:03] So this is a first view of the revised memorial

[53:09] and I see life through trees and fountain.

[53:14] But I just wish it would reflect more of the positive view

[53:21] of hope and life.

[53:23] For the future.

[53:24] Versus the sadness and tragedy of the past.

[53:29] Thank you.

[53:30] >> Thank you Commissioner.

[53:33] >> Robert Cohen last chance?

[53:37] Okay.

[53:37] All right let's close public comment

[53:41] and go back to the commission.

[53:45] Is Keith ready to do find anything or not yet?

[53:59] >> Do not have with me a rendering that would show

[54:02] or depict that.

[54:04] What I can say is, I believe in prior presentations

[54:09] that we submitted we did show how that would look

[54:14] and basically just to describe.

[54:17] It's pieces of debris that are similar to like manager

[54:22] mentioned art scape that would be positioned

[54:25] around some landscape.

[54:28] So that was something that was very well described in the past

[54:35] but apologies I don't have that rendering with me right now.

[54:43] >> (Indistinct) what?

[54:45] >> Yes would you have that?

[55:06] >> Sandra did the 60% go to PNC?

[55:11] >> Yes August 28th 2025.

[55:15] That's what I'm looking for actually.

[55:34] Here Greg.

[55:35] It's in here.

[55:59] >> (Indistinct) No this one doesn't have it.

[56:39] So this came on a different rendering.

[56:49] >> We can mayor Commissioner, again that's hardscape,

[56:54] we can go back and tomorrow email you all what the rendering

[56:59] would look like.

[57:01] And then that's something that during construction or prior

[57:04] to construction starting, if the commission

[57:07] wants to give certain direction on that we can adjust.

[57:10] That doesn't stop the project.

[57:12] >> Would you mind sorry Mr. Trevor can you leave that file

[57:17] open I want to make reference to it.

[57:20] >> Or this one?

[57:23] Oh the 60%?

[57:46] >> So just to clarify come on to the motion maker

[57:48] if you're willing to amend it to exclude I guess item six until

[57:52] such time it can be reviewed and added?

[57:58] >> I see a number of sixes throughout that's all the same

[58:01] item?

[58:02] Same future?

[58:03] I see six throughout the --

[58:07] >> These are the sections where that hardscape would be placed.

[58:14] >> Okay but if we're able to proceed with the overall project

[58:17] and isolate this component, for further direction then

[58:22] I'll amend my motion.

[58:23] As such.

[58:24] >> Second I agree.

[58:27] >> The pending motion is to move forward with the alternative

[58:34] design and to direct the attorneys and manager

[58:43] to negotiate the terms of a final contract.

[58:46] That's the pending motion that's there.

[58:49] >> And with that you can still review the contract given

[58:52] the concern that was --

[58:53] >> So this plan here, I'm not sure that this is in the revised

[58:58] drawings.

[58:59] Is this in the revised packet that's been approved by shift?

[59:04] Okay.

[59:06] >> The position of the hardscape yes.

[59:09] >> And so within their contract, and within the scope of what

[59:15] you're awarding tonight, is the specification if you will,

[59:23] that at those locations there will be the placement of certain

[59:28] debris right?

[59:29] That's what.

[59:30] Okay.

[59:35] You can go ahead on the motion if you

[59:39] want to place a further directive, separate and apart

[59:45] from the contract, that the Council, the commission

[59:51] would like to have input in the materials that are being placed

[59:58] at each of these debris locations,

[1:00:00] and we can do that separate from the contract.

[1:00:04] You don't want to pull out this from the contract,

[1:00:08] it's part of the contract it's part of what's being bid.

[1:00:11] He's including these items as placing these things there.

[1:00:14] If you want to select the individual pieces that

[1:00:17] you'd like to do, do that separate from the follow up --

[1:00:22] >> We want to know what this is there's no image of what

[1:00:26] we're approving here tonight.

[1:00:27] It says debris.

[1:00:29] The feedback and again this is started a year ago when they

[1:00:33] moved on --

[1:00:35] >> So then you can approve this project with a modification that

[1:00:38] removes the debris from the approved plans.

[1:00:42] >> Why don't we leave the debris analyze the alternative we can

[1:00:48] still do a change order if it's going to be a change order

[1:00:51] or just swap the materials at no cost.

[1:00:53] But right now, they have in the contract

[1:00:56] the cost of the placement if you take it out,

[1:00:58] and I did later it's going to cost more.

[1:01:01] For sure.

[1:01:03] >> We've asked to bring it back to the council.

[1:01:06] If we come back and we say we don't like this you take it off

[1:01:09] the contract right now the contract let's say whatever two

[1:01:12] point, $3.550 million is approved.

[1:01:15] That's what's approved tonight.

[1:01:16] And if we decide we don't want to move forward with debris

[1:01:19] because it's traumatic -- then It's a change order --

[1:01:24] >> Yeah that's what I said yeah.

[1:01:27] >> But we're not approving the design it's --

[1:01:31] >> You're approving the plans that are in the --

[1:01:37] >> We're approving the contract with the plans with

[1:01:39] the stipulation that the artwork on the walls changes and the six

[1:01:42] comes back to the commission to see --

[1:01:44] >> No problem.

[1:01:46] Got it.

[1:01:47] >> So there's a motion --

[1:01:51] >> There's a pending motion you can call the question and --

[1:01:57] >> So we can call to vote.

[1:01:59] To approve it.

[1:02:00] >> Mayor do you want to go ahead and call the question?

[1:02:05] >> Sorry my questions were preliminary to discussion.

[1:02:11] I mean sorry I got -- there's a lot I have to say.

[1:02:17] This represents a major departure from the memorial

[1:02:21] as planned before.

[1:02:23] >> Which her commission did by the way.

[1:02:26] >> Please be clear about what you're saying.

[1:02:30] You're just commission denied this right?

[1:02:31] We're approving it tonight.

[1:02:33] >> I know I know but I need to --

[1:02:37] in the past two years plus the memorial committee,

[1:02:40] they're the ones I want to put front and center not

[1:02:42] the commission.

[1:02:42] And I have the floor it's not appropriate for you --

[1:02:46] >> Which you took without us.

[1:02:49] >> I have the floor.

[1:02:51] I want to make a comment because I haven't

[1:02:54] had a chance to make a comment.

[1:02:55] >> Make your comment accurate please that's what I'm going

[1:02:59] to ask you to do or we're going to move on to commission

[1:03:01] we're going to vote --

[1:03:02] >> I'm not saying anything inaccurate I'm saying this

[1:03:06] design represents a major departure from the original

[1:03:09] design and we need to be clear about this there's a two year

[1:03:11] process not led by the commission but by the memorial

[1:03:13] committee that resulted in this design.

[1:03:15] I want to say for the benefit especially

[1:03:18] the two commissioners who are new.

[1:03:20] Because I know the Planning and Zoning Board

[1:03:22] had something to do with this.

[1:03:24] I think the members of the Memorial Committee

[1:03:27] will be extremely upset with this decision.

[1:03:30] Extremely.

[1:03:31] The decision to, I mean there's a general esthetic principle

[1:03:36] that came out of years of planning.

[1:03:40] And it started with mood boards in this very room.

[1:03:43] Like over two years ago.

[1:03:46] They wanted the memorial to be a little bit challenging.

[1:03:49] They weren't looking for just hopeful.

[1:03:51] They wanted it to be a sign that something horrible had

[1:03:55] gone wrong here.

[1:03:56] And that wasn't the commission's decision.

[1:04:00] That came from the committee through many many open meetings

[1:04:04] so the committee.

[1:04:06] I just want everyone to appreciate

[1:04:07] this is why I feel the need to put this on the record

[1:04:10] because this is a dramatic dramatic change of direction

[1:04:13] from what the committee considered.

[1:04:16] The decision to have debris the decision even

[1:04:18] to have that image, came from that vision which was not

[1:04:22] a one off thing and certainly wasn't from the commission.

[1:04:25] So in the interest of accuracy I need to make that clear.

[1:04:30] I think this decision about the wall art in particular

[1:04:35] is really taking us, again not just in a direction

[1:04:39] but here I'm making a different point

[1:04:41] I'm in the wrong direction.

[1:04:44] I would ask the motion maker and the commission

[1:04:46] I would think the wall art should go back

[1:04:48] to the memorial committee and it should go back

[1:04:50] to PNC for comment.

[1:04:52] And I want to, I'm expressing my own opinion.

[1:04:57] With all due respect to the manager

[1:05:00] or to whoever came up with this image of the two

[1:05:02] hands and the love lives on script.

[1:05:05] It's schmaltz.

[1:05:07] It looks like the kind of wall art

[1:05:10] that you might buy at target.

[1:05:12] The cursive script of love lasagna,

[1:05:16] looks like those live laugh love designs that

[1:05:21] are already kind of a joke.

[1:05:24] It really, it really lowers the design quality of the memorial

[1:05:28] and I'm just saying that.

[1:05:30] Please before we approve this a design professional should look

[1:05:34] at it the PNC board should look at it

[1:05:36] and I think the memorial committee should

[1:05:38] look at it because it really is a step in the wrong direction

[1:05:41] these two hands touching it looks extremely cheesy.

[1:05:45] And I think that's not, I mean it's not

[1:05:49] an image worth engraving in stone.

[1:05:51] It's not timeless.

[1:05:52] It looks outdated.

[1:05:53] It looks cheap.

[1:05:55] And I don't say that lightly I really think

[1:05:57] we're going in the wrong direction.

[1:06:00] The reason why I asked Mr. Ashbury to bring back

[1:06:03] the 60% design is because they actually had

[1:06:05] a pretty elegant design there.

[1:06:08] Of a kind of abstract that's it right there.

[1:06:13] And abstract version of the building.

[1:06:16] And the memorial committee thought they didn't want that.

[1:06:19] But this is much much much better than the love lives on.

[1:06:24] Much better.

[1:06:25] And that's just my opinion but I have

[1:06:28] a feeling that if you took this to PNC

[1:06:29] and you took this to Memorial committee

[1:06:31] they would pick that over this.

[1:06:33] So I really hope we still have time

[1:06:37] and I think we should get an opinion from all those parties

[1:06:40] that are interested.

[1:06:42] I think the love lives on is terrible I'm not

[1:06:44] going to belabor the point you might disagree but from,

[1:06:48] I don't think any serious artist or designer

[1:06:50] would approve of this.

[1:06:51] And again it looks like something from target.

[1:06:56] The other thing, I don't really understand

[1:06:59] the logic of how we got here.

[1:07:02] If we're expecting that we're going

[1:07:05] to be no longer subject to the spending cap in a month's time,

[1:07:11] then why not consider the entire project

[1:07:14] with the canopy which was really the central design

[1:07:17] feature of the whole thing that took years?

[1:07:19] To come up with?

[1:07:20] Why not have that?

[1:07:22] So I think they should come back to us in August

[1:07:25] after it goes to PNC and after it

[1:07:26] goes to the Memorial committee.

[1:07:28] May I make one other point I think

[1:07:31] it's important to the process?

[1:07:33] >> I need you to land the plane and hurry up already.

[1:07:37] >> I understand that both the manager and the mayor have been

[1:07:40] hearing from people who have strong views but the memorial

[1:07:42] committee met in public and those people need to express

[1:07:46] their views in public otherwise it's kind of like a sort

[1:07:49] of hearsay and I am not comfortable with rejecting

[1:07:52] the open deliberative decision of the committee in favor

[1:07:56] of privately delivered remarks.

[1:07:59] To the mayor and the manager.

[1:08:00] That's not right.

[1:08:01] This was always meant to be an open design process

[1:08:03] and I don't know who's saying that they're traumatized

[1:08:06] but they need to say it in public.

[1:08:08] This is too important to make a decision

[1:08:11] in this kind of hearsay manner.

[1:08:12] And so again I think we're going in the wrong direction

[1:08:15] and we're doing it through the wrong process.

[1:08:18] >> So first of all I think you heard from your own residents

[1:08:21] right here.

[1:08:22] But I get it.

[1:08:25] You're entitled to your opinion and we have ours.

[1:08:27] And the memorial committee which I

[1:08:28] put together five years ago, they were input

[1:08:31] and we hear their input but we're building with resident

[1:08:34] money and item for the residents for the town of Surfside too

[1:08:37] remember.

[1:08:37] We are not building something for three family

[1:08:40] members that provide input.

[1:08:41] We hear it and we took it under consideration.

[1:08:43] And I would say a large, this entire thing was pretty much

[1:08:47] designed with their input.

[1:08:48] But there's certain elements that offended others there

[1:08:51] are certain elements that are just not what we

[1:08:53] are looking for as a community.

[1:08:54] And we are the ones that live here we're

[1:08:56] the ones that have to see it every time I've

[1:08:58] walked through the beach.

[1:08:59] So you're entitled to your opinion we've heard it.

[1:09:02] We're moving on we are not going to be the commission that

[1:09:04] comes here tonight and continues to further delay

[1:09:06] a process that's now been five years in the making.

[1:09:09] >> I'm not interested in delaying we have consultation

[1:09:12] on the wall art please I would ask Commissioner Weingart to get

[1:09:15] that feedback this is going to be an embarrassment to the town

[1:09:17] if we go ahead with this.

[1:09:19] >> I've heard you and you've asked me a number of times

[1:09:22] to change my motion and I've extended an olive branch

[1:09:25] a number of times now and good grace but I haven't seen that

[1:09:28] returned.

[1:09:29] But you're definitely entitled to your opinion.

[1:09:32] I find it very interesting you know

[1:09:34] there's so much talk from the memorial committee

[1:09:37] and from vocal family members that this hasn't gotten done.

[1:09:40] Yet when we try to make movement,

[1:09:43] we get into this paralysis from analysis cycle

[1:09:45] and just going in circles while it could

[1:09:48] be better it could be better.

[1:09:49] I mean a picture of the building collapsing is ridiculous

[1:09:52] and that should absolutely not be up there.

[1:09:54] And there's a proposed beautiful lovelies on message

[1:09:58] as I shared earlier.

[1:09:59] And my motion stands and I committed

[1:10:02] to family members that came up to me

[1:10:03] and said why don't we have this yet?

[1:10:05] As if it's our fault but we're just elected in March.

[1:10:08] For three months and.

[1:10:09] And I said we're going to be the commission that's

[1:10:10] going to move it forward.

[1:10:12] I can't answer for what happened in the past.

[1:10:15] So I'm moving forward.

[1:10:18] >> We did find a rendering of those Hardscapes if you'd like

[1:10:23] to look.

[1:10:24] This again was a while ago.

[1:10:27] But the idea is to have hardscape

[1:10:30] throughout the landscape.

[1:10:31] Throughout the project.

[1:10:34] >> That looks like debris again this looks like Rebar sticking

[1:10:38] this looks like exactly what we have in the tennis center

[1:10:41] so I'm absolutely against that.

[1:10:44] That is someone's home right there.

[1:10:46] Somebody died on that thing.

[1:10:48] I'm not putting that in the garden

[1:10:50] for everybody to look at and walk past.

[1:10:52] There's people that will not walk into the city that have

[1:10:55] lived here hundreds of people.

[1:11:00] So I would ask the motion maker to take out

[1:11:03] number six from the design.

[1:11:05] >> I did that previously I amended my motion.

[1:11:09] >> So we can value it down further if required

[1:11:13] but we're not looking to maintain that visual.

[1:11:18] Madam clerk call the roll please.

[1:11:22] >> I have a question -- so this design of the two hands is

[1:11:26] coming from where?

[1:11:27] Like who did that?

[1:11:32] >> Symbol of it for the last five years.

[1:11:35] >> This is the image that is on the temporary banners that have

[1:11:39] all the names that are, that have been on the site it's also

[1:11:43] been used in the fliers and whatnot.

[1:11:44] I don't know where the original image came from.

[1:11:47] But the town's used it for many years.

[1:11:52] >> Yeah but what I'm saying is like the complete thing like

[1:11:56] with the, because I don't remember if the writing is

[1:11:59] on that image or not.

[1:12:00] Is it on that image?

[1:12:02] It is?

[1:12:03] Okay.

[1:12:05] >> Madam clerk.

[1:12:08] >> Call the roll?

[1:12:12] >> No.

[1:12:15] >> Commissioner Weingart.

[1:12:17] >> Yes.

[1:12:20] >> Commissioner Trevanny.

[1:12:22] >> I'm going to make my comment before voting.

[1:12:26] This we said this is not going to go back

[1:12:28] in front of the PNC or the committee right?

[1:12:33] >> They've already seen it.

[1:12:35] This design has been approved and done in the last commission.

[1:12:39] What we are doing now is just approving the contract.

[1:12:42] You're talking about the image.

[1:12:45] Did not see that image no but they saw this memorial --

[1:12:49] >> I'm talking about the image and the debris.

[1:12:54] Yeah I don't feel comfortable voting yes

[1:12:58] just because this went through a process

[1:13:03] and I'm okay with something that comes out of a process.

[1:13:10] I'm less okay with us coming back at the end

[1:13:14] and doing modification without the input of the people

[1:13:16] so I'm going to vote no.

[1:13:17] >> Remember you're now on the record for voting no

[1:13:21] for a memorial that's all.

[1:13:23] So whatever process is not fitting in your head properly

[1:13:26] you will always be on record that you said no to a memorial.

[1:13:29] Something that the families have waited

[1:13:31] five years something this committee

[1:13:32] is waiting to heal and move on to the next chapter

[1:13:34] of our community you guys want to say no that's fine.

[1:13:37] >> True but -- you made a comment to what I said so I can

[1:13:42] --

[1:13:45] >> (Indistinct) debate is over debate is over

[1:13:47] the question's been called.

[1:13:48] Madam clerk let's finish this up please.

[1:13:52] >> Absolutely yes I'm very glad to vote yes for this it's been

[1:13:56] five years.

[1:13:59] And absolutely yes thank you.

[1:14:01] >> Mayor Danzinger.

[1:14:04] >> Yes and I there's not one family member here so.

[1:14:09] We're going to say yes.

[1:14:10] >> Motion carries.

[1:14:12] Motion to adjourn?

[1:14:14] >> For what?

[1:14:22] >> The budget was already approved by the previous

[1:14:25] commission back in, this is just the contract terms.

[1:14:30] >> Motion to adjourn?

[1:14:34] >> Second.

Special Town Commission Meeting

Transcript