>> All right today is Tuesday July 28th 7:09 p.m.
Calling today's meeting into order madam clerk
if you'll take the roll please.
[Roll call]
[Vice Mayor absent]
>> Mayor you have a quorum.
If you'll lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please.
>> 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.
>> Item two a presentation of fiscal year 2027 budget
and proposed operating millage rate.
Mr. Manager.
>> Thank you mayor.
If I can have our budget manager come up we've prepared a quick ,
we've prepared a presentation on you on the budget but a quick
summary or what the staff is requesting.
Tonight is about setting the millage rate cap or ceiling,
this is where the commission during your September budget
hearings will not be able to go above.
Staff is currently recommending keeping it
flat at 3.883 for that ceiling.
But we have the presentation for you if you can come up please.
>> Okay I'm gonna start with a quick recap on the budget
principles.
So the principles are ensure compliance with policy statutes
and contractual obligations of the town.
It supports building and maintaining infrastructure,
for the community in the long term.
It establishes spending authorization,
safeguards reserves to save financially sound,
so when our audits are done we have a good financial basis
and we come up with a clean opinion on our audits.
And the budget should be transparent affordable
and sustainable.
The elements of the budget the financial document
used to protect future revenues and expenses
for fiscal year time period.
It's a roadmap to carry out the Town Commission's objectives
and strategies.
Revenues are based on property appraiser
values and the military and our state and local estimates
for the General fund.
Expenses expenditures are based on specific needs and services.
We try to maintain reserves and funding for capital program
and the fiscal year starts on October 1st of every year
and that's on September 30th.
On the budget calendar today is our meeting
to discuss the military to advertise on the trim notice.
That'll be a cap, that's today's meeting and on August 4th
by August 4th we need to provide the information to the property
appraiser so that can be advertised on the trim notice
which goes out around mid-August to the 20 something of August.
We have a first public hearing on the budget and the military
for September 8th 5:01 p.m.
And the second and final hearing on September 22nd at 501.
The budget that the town's budget
is based on several funds.
The compliments of the General Fund which is General Government
operations.
We have special revenue funds which is recreation and culture.
We have the building services and transportation.
We have the Capital Projects fund.
Enterprise funds which is our water sewage
funds our stormwater funds solid waste and parking.
And then we have an internal service fund just
called Fleet Management Fund which
we use to maintain and replace our vehicles.
Tonight we'll be discussing basically the general fund.
So revenues from the general fund
are mainly protecting 27 million in revenues.
Our revenues are mainly from ad valorem taxes.
That's 78% and then we have franchise fees
and some other intergovernmental revenues.
Our budget is based on 24.8 million
in projected expenditures.
The majority of it goes to public safety, then
general government and parks and recreation
then physical environment and we have
11% going to transfer to enterprise funds.
The budget, the proposed budget that you
have would return 2.4 million to general fund reserves.
Operating expenditures are 21.5 and 3.1 million
would go to transfer to the enterprise funds.
These are components of our General Fund revenue.
In dollar value.
As you can see it's mainly 21 million
would be from ad valorem revenues.
We would not be using any fund balance to balance the budget
and we would have an excess which
we would return to reserves.
This is the chart is the same as basically the first slide
that we went through.
78% of our revenues for the general fund
are made up of ad valorem revenues.
And our expenditures these are expenditures in dollar values.
Between public safety and general government,
that's the major portion of what our general fund
expenditures are.
We would be transferring out $3,065,000,
2.5 million would be to provide funding for a Steward project
or Steward projects I'm sorry stormwater projects that we need
to work on.
And then balance of 565, 565,000 would be to balance the water
and sewer fund.
Until we complete our rate studies.
Okay so we have a funding policy base
and based on the funding policy, the amount
that we would need to fund, it's a target
we're striving to fund a target for 2027.
Would be approximately $12.6 million
for committed reserves for operations and maintenance.
Then we have a hurricane and disaster reserve.
A budget stabilization reserve and a capital reserve.
Those combined, for fiscal 2027 be it 12.6 million
which means we would increase those reserves by $1.4 million.
Balance is returning to unassigned fund balance would be
$950,000.
We've budgeted that we would have total return to reserves
of two point 2,000,003 82111.
And that's based on a millage rate of 3.8743.
Just a little lower than the current millage rate.
For property values and millage rates.
So we have a small jump at 6.2% increase in our property values.
That's mainly attributable to the existing properties.
Not new construction.
You'll see the same information.
This is over what properties the increases are
and you can see it's mainly driven by the condominium
buildings.
Any property that's in the condominium buildings.
Okay the adjustable value on the,
so the adjustable value is basically it's like market
value.
Then we have what's called the taxable value so that's
after homesteaded properties and only the 10% increase
on non homesteaded properties.
So for the tax above, just values
the condominiums are 59% of the value
but when it comes to their taxable value
they end up being 67% of our tax roll.
And the single family section is 25%
of the just value which is sort of like a market value.
But when it comes to factoring in homesteads
that percentage goes down to 19%.
Taxable values and the millage rates
so you see over ten years how the military has come down.
Gone all the way from 4.8 we're currently at 3.8830.
And the budget is based on 3.8743.
And then the property a -- where do tax dollars go?
So 21% goes to server side.
36% goes to the school board and 40% of your property taxes
go to state county 4% goes to state funding.
So the majority of your taxes go to the school board
and Dade County and only 21% ends up going to Surfside.
Get to the millage rates and tax revenue.
So we're currently in an adopted rate of 3.8830.
We've prepared the budget based on a rate of 3.8743.
And our rollback rate is 3.5221.
And you'll see the revenues that are generated
by those different rates are current rates would generate
1.967 million, the proposed budget
was prepared based on an increase of 1.919.
Almost 1.92.
And the rollback rate would mean no increase in taxes.
The various rates depend on voting.
The voting that's required.
So if we were voting for the 3.8830 we would need a unanimous
vote.
The proposed rate of 3.8743 we would need four votes
of the governing body.
And the rollback rate would require three votes
which is a majority vote.
So today we're going to determine what the capital would
be for the trim notice and once you've
advertised on the trim notice, it's
really setting the ceiling you can't go down
so you could go down afterwards but you can't go up.
Go above that rate.
Based on the budget was prepared based on the 10% tax increase.
Over the rollback rate.
And then this is just how much each millage rate is worth.
So every one millage is worth 5.4 or 5 $4 million of revenue.
I think that's it.
Okay tonight's staff is only seeking guidance
on a millage cap.
And recommended millage cap that exists,
existing military at 3.8830 mills although we are building
the budget on a military of 3.8743. --
on a millage rate of 3.8743.
>> All right thank you Andrea.
Any questions?
Can we get a motion on the table for reopen to public comment?
>> Make a move for a motion for (Indistinct)
>> Can we get a motion for the item to move proceed --
>> Yeah.
So moved.
>> What's the motion?
>> Motion to proceed with the rate I believe we could get this
to 3.8743 as our cap.
I just wanted feedback from town staff if that's something that
we feel we could --
>> Commissioner.
Yeah you can set the cap at 38743 should you wish.
We always recommend going a little bit above that
simply because we're maintaining a flat millage
rate so that you have flexibility and discussion.
As you start getting into your meetings in September
if you're talking about more projects or different levels
of service or anything like that, if you do not
have any wiggle room because you set the millage too low,
then you're not going to be able to kind of move.
So all staff is building the budget
at a lower millage rate than what's existing,
for the ceiling we recommend at least keeping it flat so
that you have that buffer.
You're talking about , how much is it?
Is it about 50?
Okay.
So 50,000, if you want to set it at the 38743 that's what
we're building the budget at anyways.
You'll be fine with that.
I would just recommend whatever cap you have,
just realize that you will not be able to go above it.
The good thing is that Surfside is in a really good
financial position.
In other places during the special hearings
commissioners would ask well we want this
and we want more of this and we want more of that
and my response is do you want to raise the millage?
Because there was no room but you
guys are in a really good healthy position so setting it
at the, and where we're building the budget is perfectly fine.
>> Okay with that I'm comfortable pushing us to be
fiscally responsible and to drive out that end cap there.
I think it's a good start for a new commission
and I make a motion to proceed with the 3.874.
>> 3.8743 just for --
>> 3.874.
>> I'll second it we'll open it up to public comment
and we'll come back to this.
>> First speaker Commissioner Richard.
>> Marianne Mashhad.
9225 Collins Avenue.
Surfside.
So unless there's something I'm not aware of, I recommend
keeping it at the 3.8830.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Commissioner.
Michael Carrickun.
>> Michael Carrick 9565 Abbott.
So must be nice to be flush with all this cash.
Just to put it in perspective, the first budget I worked on
in 2010 for the fiscal year 2011,
the total revenue from ad valorem taxes was 5 million.
Now it's 20 million.
There was a good graph over there
so you saw the high millage rate actually brought
in very little amount of money.
Back then.
The total amount of resort tax revenue in 2011 was a whopping
250 000.
Now it's I think 6 million something like that.
So anyway my point is I sent everyone an email,
I know that you're not going to go line by line tonight.
So please take it if you have any questions about,
the depth of information that I provided please don't hesitate
to reach out to me.
A couple of points, I want to make sure
that everyone understands that the,
there's liabilities associated with increasing the headcount.
I know this particular budget still
has the CEO or chief of staff position
I think you guys eliminated that already.
I don't know if you did or not but I think you should.
There is also a lot of clarity that's
needed around the new building.
For the building department.
I also wanted to point out that the building Services
department might be right for outsourcing based
on the fluctuating and variable workload over the next five
years or so.
I don't know if that's a smart to actually bring in full time
people for all of that because when you bring in full time
as everyone knows there's a lot more
liabilities associated with that.
So again I'm not going to get into too many details here
I support the 3.8743 thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
Mr..
>> Jeff Somper 8827 Emerson the budget is bloated but that's not
your fault. It's a situation that has developed over at least
ten years.
It's not unusual when money comes in.
Additional money comes in to spend it.
What I recommend is because it's not
going to be able to be done between now and September
when you have to approve a budget.
Is that a deep dive be done on the budget with each
of the departments I don't know whether you'd
want to use the Budget committee or something like that
or how you would like to hire an outside consultant to sit down
and go through line item by line item
find out what exactly is done in operations of each department.
Because Surfside has not grown, we're still a mile square.
We're still close to the same population.
As it has been for the last ten years.
There are many things that have increased in cost.
Pension health care.
Salaries have had to increase because of inflation.
But not to the extent that if you look at the budget numbers
from ten years ago and look at them now, that you can say that
there is not bloat and excess in the budget.
So I think you need to take a hard look at it.
Have somebody take a hard look at it.
Because you don't have the time to do so.
>> Please double check on that thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> All right thank you everybody for your comments
and your feedback Mr. Zumper when I hear you won't be
on the Budget Committee in August.
We don't have quorum yet we would
love to have your eyes on it this month but.
Thanks for your input.
Tonight I'm just going to remind everybody tonight
is just about setting the cap right?
We are going to spend the next two months still going
through this budget, there's still a lot to look at.
But we want to set our cap tonight.
That's the requirement that we have to do.
We want to be responsible and not limit ourselves.
That's all we're here to do tonight.
So we have a motion unless there's
a need for further discussion we can call the roll?
>> I very much share Commissioner Wingard's goal
of getting to a number like 3.8743.
But I do, I'm inclined to support the staff's
recommendation which was also made by Commissioner Mic'd just
having done this before you just never know,
and voting tonight to lower the taxes versus voting in September
makes absolutely no difference in what anybody ever
pays I want to make sure that's clear.
All of this is effective next year.
So it's just a question of whether we leave ourselves
that bit of wiggle room.
But I would rather us say agree that we
want to get to 3.8743 in September and make that a goal.
The budget is in fact built on that goal
so it shouldn't be too hard.
But I think just out of prudence you never know,
nothing really is gained tonight by lowering
the military e millage rate.
It seems like a show to lower taxes I want to do it anyway
but I want to do it in September.
I think we should go with the manager's recommendation.
And stick with the current rate for the trim notice.
Again, I have every intention of getting to 3.8743
at the next meeting it doesn't make a practical difference.
>> Yeah just Segway to what Commissioner Valdosta was
saying.
I mean I tend to sort of try to give myself the ability
to decide what I want to do based on ,
like what could be reasonable from a military standpoint which
would be like keeping the same rate.
I don't know if we're going to get to a practical --
I don't think actually, I we're not
going to get a particular advantage
if we're going to set a lower millage rate tonight.
From now in September you know we'll
be talking about many things during our budget workshop right
like we want to do this, we want to do that.
And things that ultimately are going
to be vetted by the community.
So I want to make sure that this is ,
that everybody understands that.
So that the idea is not to waste money absolutely not.
We want to lower taxes as much as possible.
But at the same time we want to listen to the community
and give the services that the community think that we
should have in Surfside.
So that's why if we want to do that,
and we keep thinking about that, then maybe leaving 3.883
would give us an extra 50 K which is not a lot.
But still.
A little bit of wiggle room.
I don't feel strongly about it, I mean at the end of the day
with this commission we're going to settle for 3.8743.
Like I said it's just 50 K. It doesn't change it that much.
However, you know.
The final decision is going to be in September
so it's just a limit now.
Mayor Danzinger: I just want to say I've seen this commission
spend almost $300,000 with less of a discussion
and we're talking about $50,000.
So this is boggling my mind I don't know
if there's another purpose.
I just want to say two years ago we were at $15 million spending
close to 16.
We're at 21 now the town is asking for that's
a lot of growth in two years.
So I am not passing a 3.87 budget I
expect us to bring a lot lower.
Because yes there's a lot of revenue coming in
but unless we can articulate during my time
with that 15 million we built three parks,
we did the Dune resiliency we did project after project
after project.
So I think there's a lot of room in again
we have two months to figure out where this money is going.
And how a lot of these departments
I don't know how many of you have gone
live I know by a line item yet in the budget
and how I don't want to use bloat is the wrong word
but how those numbers have exceeded in the last two years.
And I ran on fiscal responsibility
and I'm going to be there so to say that I'm just
going to adopt the same number as last year is completely
wrong.
And I don't know again why we're going
in circles on less than a percentage of a point.
>> It's just an opinion.
>> I mean my suggestion was we informally agree among ourselves
that the goal is to get it down.
Which we all agree we all want to be
the politician who cuts taxes nobody's disagreeing about that.
It's just, to the mayor's question he's asking
what is the reason the reason is that our fundamental goal here
should be prudence not sort of a soundbite.
Tomorrow.
And just in the interest of prudence nothing
is lost by staying with the current tax rate.
Some scenario is foreclosed.
And I just think our obligation is
to be the most prudent tonight.
Than in September we can all cut taxes
and we can say we cut taxes.
So I would opt for again, because I
don't feel this proposal is really considered.
We informally agree that that's what we're going to go.
But then we still vote for the current rates
just to give the staff and everybody wiggle room.
Mayor Danzinger: So there's a great line
item becomes a role when action is
taken towards its achievement.
>> And the best time to start doing something better is now
so this isn't for a sound bite if I need a sound bite
I'll create one.
Everyone's over on the record.
And everyone can hear it.
But this is about setting a precedent
and if it's our first budget and we've heard from town staff
that we're in a good place here.
And my motion was to get into action right away.
Being fiscally responsible and even
though it's just a small amount but that's one step.
And that's that the precedent and how
we're going to move forward.
>> Thank you Madam clerk.
>> Commissioner Giovanni?
>> We need four votes or three to pass on the three?
>> That's entirely different that's when you --
that's in December. --
September.
Tonight you need a majority to set the millage that's
all you're doing.
Commissioner Travani: It's 50 K. Yes.
>> Commissioner.
Again I share the goal of lowering
the taxes per field tonight we need to be prudent so no.
>> Commissioner Weingart.
>> Yes.
>> Vice mayor Birnberg?
>> (Indistinct) yes it's a yes.
>> Mayor Danzinger?
>> Yes.
>> The motion carries.
>> I think it needs to be charged.
This is the new one.
Don't worry.
You guys want to be (Indistinct).
>> All right moving on to item three a.
Approval of revised drawing of the scope of the Champlain
Towers CTS Memorial madam clerk if you
read the title of the resolution into the record please.
>> A resolution of the Town Commission of the town
of Surfside Florida approving revised drawings and scope
of work for the Champlain Towers South Memorial authorizing
the Town Manager to negotiate and finalize a contract
for construction with Schiff Construction and Development
Inc. For the project providing for implementation and provide
for an effective date item three eight.
>> Thank you Mr. Manager if you introduce this item please?
>> Yes mayor thank you very much.
>> Is there a motion?
>> I was going to let him introduce it two minutes to make
a motion --
>> Mayor so in March or prior to March we received ,
we put out a bid and we received a total project cost
for the memorial of over $5 million.
With regards to the voter referendums
that would have required a voter referendum either now
or in August or November.
The Commission directed staff to look at the project
and see if we can get it below the threshold
and the total budgeted amount is 3.55 million.
Staff and our consultant Keith Engineering
which we have present here who will walk you
through the presentation, was able to take a look
at the project and identify certain aspects of the project
that we can split up in construction phases.
So what is before you tonight is for the substantial contracts
and it's substantial form.
For approval with shift we're going to give you the update
and then staff does need direction may be separately
from the contractor altogether however you want to handle it.
Mayor.
With regards to the image on the wall itself.
During the memorial, I had the memorial event in June.
There were, those attending who put me aside
for at least a good 5 to 10 minutes.
Talking about how the image was not appropriate.
The families did discuss this during their designs,
the image that is there is being,
is what their recommendation is.
And I believe several families are
members of the community have also reached out to some of you
on the commission as well.
And so seeing and hearing a lot I just
wanted to make sure that whatever we move forward with
is what the Commission wishes to move forward
with so I'm asking you for direction on that as well.
With that if I can have correct from Keith
to just kind of walk us through to show what
the overall update on what we faced
for this phase of the construction project is.
>> I'm just going to get a motion on the table and then
we'll proceed. (Indistinct) and also I just want to reiterate
some of the history because I think June 24th some articles
were put out with some misinformation which is that
this commission value engineered this project delayed
the project.
I think there's a referendum item
and I forget which month it was exactly
but it was last year which the residents voted
to restrict the commission from spending
I believe it was 5% of the ad valorem revenue
which equated to roughly 3.5 million I'm going to say?
Of the proposed budget without a referendum.
Comes the memorial at 7.5 million
which exceeds that amount which would require the commission
go to the referendum by the residents.
Obviously that would a delay the project
but you run the risk of the residents
saying we don't want this project
and there goes the entire memorial we've
been building for five years.
So the commission, the previous commission
went out and had Keith Valley engineer this down to an amount
that the commission can authorize
without referendum so that's what we have here today.
As manager stated the images yes I
get it was pushed by 1 or 2 family members.
I've been hearing a lot about it it's
extremely I mean as a resident come on it's traumatic.
To see a site where so many people lie dead.
A lot of the first responders a lot of the residents a lot
of family members (Indistinct) so it
was a proposal for an additional this image has become iconic
for this event.
It signifies multiple things including
the continuation of life the infinity sign
that is built in there.
It was an entire different aspect
and that became the vision so what we have here tonight
is a revised plan.
Conforming to hopefully a value engineered down to the price
that we can improve here tonight.
With a revised design so I would ask
for a motion to approve this with the revised design.
>> I'll make the motion to approve and proceed with this
project that's so important and I committed to family members
that I've talked with that were going to get that done.
In our commission so I ask for fellow commissioners
support their.
And moving this along.
Expeditiously.
Also motion to approve the revised image of love lives
on, it's a beautiful message, it's
a hand from below connecting to a hand from above.
That's remembering the past showing the future.
So I make a motion to approve this.
>> I'll second it.
All right.
Let's hear the updates.
>> Good evening Mayor and Commissioners my name is Greg
Cheverie I'm vice president of Keith.
Been a pleasure working on this project with the town
and stakeholders.
Just wanted to give you an update
on what the manager mentioned.
Also you described it very well mayor.
All the different activities and events that took place
and how everything just resulted in this version, this latest
iteration of the design, some of the major modifications
that were made were to fit the project into a budget
that could be adopted by the commission
and also that could fit efforts needed for the contractor to do.
What was done was this area here on the eastern side
of the proposed memorial was scaled
down so that this area now becomes a more green space area.
And also there were some scaled down areas
as well as far as some of the attributes that were again,
tailored so it could mean project budget.
Nevertheless, what you see before you
is a rendering of a, the wall where we would commemorate
or memorialize the victims as well as a waterfall feature that
would show an image in the background.
And also a lot of landscape that would provide the experience
that was established by stakeholders of this design
throughout the process.
Nevertheless at the end of it shows
how the entrance from the Western side
towards the eastern side would look.
With some of the remnants that came from the building itself.
And those will remain as part of the design.
This is now also an eastern look from Western side.
As to how the memorial will look as you can see,
the area that has been modified now
shows a view and a perspective to the ocean.
And right now we are in the final stages
of obtaining all permits.
And this has been our latest iteration update
for the Surfside Memorial.
>> Thank you Craig and for the commission because I know we
received an email from residents I think today or yesterday,
Keith and the team has walked the site with Miami Dade Fire
Miami Dade County to make sure that there sufficient room to go
through and any other concerns that Miami-Dade fire may have
and we are good to go.
We're submitting the final response to their comments
by the end of the week and once they have that,
we should get a pretty quick turnaround for approval
as we've already addressed in the field with them.
>> Thank you.
>> (Indistinct) okay so I had a bit of a question.
Because I was checking this over today.
Item number, I can't even see.
Item number six I think it >> Number six?
This area?
>> Or maybe it's number one.
Can scroll down.
>> So this is on the Western side there's a memorial signage.
And then item number six, we will have,
these are points where we will have certain degrees of, debris
that comes from the site itself.
>> Craig can you scroll down so they can see the column again
of what that looks like?
I think it's the, there.
This one's a good one or even at nighttime
if you want to show it.
>> Two separate things I have an item for a column and then you
have an item for debris so what I saw when I read that is a pile
of debris which we're seeing now on the --
>> So these are all these are the columns that you see
and then inside of the columns are the chunks of the various
debris that is currently across the street from the site.
So it's meant to memorialize the actual pieces in the columns
as a feature that will also have light in their.
>> Okay but it's not a pile up like we're seeing
in the entrance park right now.
>> It would be broken down to fit the area.
>> Because if you go to the map there's another item
for the pillars.
You have two as a pillar feature and then six as debris.
>> Yeah if I may -- so the six, this area here and here
and here.
And over here.
And towards the end.
These are small debris that we will blend in
with the landscape.
It's debris that was preserved from the site.
And that was a feature that was requested
throughout the process.
>> Do we have a photo of what that looks like
because we're looking at a photo of a pillar so you're telling me
it's two separate things?
>> I don't have that on the on --
I don't have that here.
It's basically positioning a piece of debris
in those areas with the landscape.
>> So judging on the faces of the crowd and the feedback that
we got from when they moved the debris to the tennis center.
Was people can't drive up columns anymore.
They can't look at this this is their home this is their life
and what you're doing is you're putting
a piece of someone's home in the grass in front of them.
And so I mean again, I don't want to judge it yet
before I've seen what it looks like but I've seen nothing
of what that is supposed to be.
Is that a nice rock that has been put into the gardening,
is it a giant, is what we're seeing now
in the tennis center which is extremely disturbing to a lot?
And again I want to thank you you've
been on this for the last five years with us.
Through a couple of commissions.
And it's a very difficult position you guys were in
and I think you did a great job of managing
all the feedback and input so just
bear with us a little longer and we're almost there.
I just want to clarify something.
>> So I can look for what that would look like.
I just have to, I need some time or I
can send that to the manager.
Thereafter.
>> Yeah that's not even a feature that I remember even
seeing any of the plans or anything so we can definitely
bring that back.
To the commission and if the commission
decides that's not a type of feature that's just debris
that we wouldn't use or place because that's more
of a gardening type of feature.
It's a hardscape more than anything so.
That wouldn't stop the whole project.
It wouldn't cause like a complete redesign of anything.
>> It's just positioning of debris.
>> I would just ask again before it gets placed
or if there's something we can see on that first.
>> Are we requesting an amendment or a amended motion?
I mean we can approve -- can't approve something we can't see.
But we want to move the project along.
We don't have any photo of that?
>> I just need a few minutes to see what I can find.
>> In the meantime through the mayor may I ask him questions
of the manager and attorney I'm confused about a few things.
If we approve a design tonight does it
still go to the PNC under the recently adopted law
that major design elements go to the PNC?
>> No sir again the design isn't changing and this was all done
and approved prior to that occurring.
The only thing that we've done -- prior to the April ordinance.
The only thing that we've done is taken a look
at the phase construction project
to get it under the budget we haven't changed the design we
haven't done anything with regards
to the overall design of the project.
>> And is there any, my understanding and you can please
correct me if I'm wrong.
The Memorial committee hasn't weighed in on the project at all
since, not since the April meeting or whichever meeting it
was that -- approved the scaled back project.
Okay.
Third question.
Through the mayor for the attorney.
What is the current status of those spending limits
from the referendum because when we've talked recently
about the Collins Water main, I've
gotten the impression from the attorney
that the intention is to hold that referendum to be illegal.
I haven't been totally convinced by that
but that's my understanding of where the attorney's advice has
been leaning.
So doesn't that create an opportunity then
for us to discuss the project as originally designed including
the canopy and the other feature that was taken out
in March or April which I think was the concrete benches?
I mean I think if we're going to be
not hemmed in by the referendum, spending limits
when it comes to the water main why are they hemming us
in now in the memorial project I'm
not quite sure what the different approaches.
Why we have two different approaches
to do different projects.
>> The answer is I don't know who you mean they.
Who's hemming you in?
>> I'm just saying we, the reason why this was,
the project was scaled back was to fit underneath the spending
cap.
So if the spending cap is no longer in your opinion, law,
then shouldn't we be considering the full project
that was before us originally that went out to bid?
>> You're going to the motivation as to why
there's been a modification and whether you just want to --
>> The should question is for the commission but the legal
question is, is it your opinion that --
that we're not bound by the referendum?
Spending cap?
>> That is where I'm heading that I haven't come to that
final conclusion yet but that is the direction that I'm headed
in which is that the unanimous vote provision as well
as the 60% provision were not properly placed before
the voters.
>> Okay.
>> But that's the direction that we're headed in.
I haven't come to that conclusion
so as of tonight, you're still, my advice
is that you're still bound by that provision.
>> We are okay.
But right but we might not be a month from now or --
>> Might not be if you want to put this off you can.
>> Those are my questions I mean are we having discussion then I
mean I would like to -- those answers are hopeful
for the point I wanted to make but.
>> Before we get into discussion I'm going to bring up public
comment is the presentation (Indistinct).
No we can do public comment while you're checking
if you have a few minutes.
All right where's my speaker.
Barbara Cohen.
You sure?
Okay.
I'll come back to you.
George Cousillas.
>> George 9225 Collins Avenue.
First Mr. Mayor, your description
of the timeline and culpability where we are
is exactly accurate.
That this commission didn't get us here.
But I want to talk about probably something very
dull to most people here.
But the construction contract.
I've gone through it come on I've go through construction
contracts all the time.
There's some weird things in here which,
I mean if the contract is fine with it,
but it looks like it things were trapped in many months ago not
by our current attorneys -- drafted many months ago not
by our current attorneys and there's things that strike me --
you have liquidated damages that apply to the contractor.
But you don't have a waiver of consequential damages.
Typically when you have liquidated damages
you also have a waiver of consequential damages.
The difference between them is a consequential damages
a direct cost.
I wasn't able to open, I lost so many thousands
of dollars of business a day, you owe me for that
or I rented a tent for a big grand opening
and I didn't get that.
Liquidated you just apply a number.
So that's not in there so the contract
is kind of on the hook for both because you don't have it
and when you go into nets and 2.3
and when you go further down into 8.6,
that's where the waiver of consequential damages portion.
Paragraph is.
And it's really only waiver of the contractors.
Consequential damages so they can't
go after the town for loss of profit or loss
of this or loss of that.
You usually have consequential damages for both parties.
And that's not in there.
Finally and this is an important part of any construction
contract, you have this, what's usually
called a continuing performance clause in a contract.
And what it does is the beauty of construction contracts
as opposed to most contracts is everything goes to hell.
During construction.
And the contract is designed to manage that right?
According to the terms for regular contract,
people would be in default by the second day.
Both parties.
But not so in a construction contract
there are changes and all these mechanisms in place.
And if you let me run just a few seconds over.
So typically what you say is if we
have a dispute over the change order for the new bathroom that
was added, the contractor is still
obligated to perform the work.
While the dispute goes on.
And the owner is obligated to keep paying
while the dispute is going on.
Here you only have continuing to performance
on the part of the contractor.
Again it's kind of an uneven thing
I'm surprised any contractor would agree to it.
If they have that's fine but this was written by an earlier
attorney I presume, and so I would
recommend going through this very carefully
and seeing, wringing out things like this.
Thank you.
>> Thank you George.
Commissioner?
>> Marianne Marcia 9225 Collins Avenue.
So this is a first view of the revised memorial
and I see life through trees and fountain.
But I just wish it would reflect more of the positive view
of hope and life.
For the future.
Versus the sadness and tragedy of the past.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Commissioner.
>> Robert Cohen last chance?
Okay.
All right let's close public comment
and go back to the commission.
Is Keith ready to do find anything or not yet?
>> Do not have with me a rendering that would show
or depict that.
What I can say is, I believe in prior presentations
that we submitted we did show how that would look
and basically just to describe.
It's pieces of debris that are similar to like manager
mentioned art scape that would be positioned
around some landscape.
So that was something that was very well described in the past
but apologies I don't have that rendering with me right now.
>> (Indistinct) what?
>> Yes would you have that?
>> Sandra did the 60% go to PNC?
>> Yes August 28th 2025.
That's what I'm looking for actually.
Here Greg.
It's in here.
>> (Indistinct) No this one doesn't have it.
So this came on a different rendering.
>> We can mayor Commissioner, again that's hardscape,
we can go back and tomorrow email you all what the rendering
would look like.
And then that's something that during construction or prior
to construction starting, if the commission
wants to give certain direction on that we can adjust.
That doesn't stop the project.
>> Would you mind sorry Mr. Trevor can you leave that file
open I want to make reference to it.
>> Or this one?
Oh the 60%?
>> So just to clarify come on to the motion maker
if you're willing to amend it to exclude I guess item six until
such time it can be reviewed and added?
>> I see a number of sixes throughout that's all the same
item?
Same future?
I see six throughout the --
>> These are the sections where that hardscape would be placed.
>> Okay but if we're able to proceed with the overall project
and isolate this component, for further direction then
I'll amend my motion.
As such.
>> Second I agree.
>> The pending motion is to move forward with the alternative
design and to direct the attorneys and manager
to negotiate the terms of a final contract.
That's the pending motion that's there.
>> And with that you can still review the contract given
the concern that was --
>> So this plan here, I'm not sure that this is in the revised
drawings.
Is this in the revised packet that's been approved by shift?
Okay.
>> The position of the hardscape yes.
>> And so within their contract, and within the scope of what
you're awarding tonight, is the specification if you will,
that at those locations there will be the placement of certain
debris right?
That's what.
Okay.
You can go ahead on the motion if you
want to place a further directive, separate and apart
from the contract, that the Council, the commission
would like to have input in the materials that are being placed
at each of these debris locations,
and we can do that separate from the contract.
You don't want to pull out this from the contract,
it's part of the contract it's part of what's being bid.
He's including these items as placing these things there.
If you want to select the individual pieces that
you'd like to do, do that separate from the follow up --
>> We want to know what this is there's no image of what
we're approving here tonight.
It says debris.
The feedback and again this is started a year ago when they
moved on --
>> So then you can approve this project with a modification that
removes the debris from the approved plans.
>> Why don't we leave the debris analyze the alternative we can
still do a change order if it's going to be a change order
or just swap the materials at no cost.
But right now, they have in the contract
the cost of the placement if you take it out,
and I did later it's going to cost more.
For sure.
>> We've asked to bring it back to the council.
If we come back and we say we don't like this you take it off
the contract right now the contract let's say whatever two
point, $3.550 million is approved.
That's what's approved tonight.
And if we decide we don't want to move forward with debris
because it's traumatic -- then It's a change order --
>> Yeah that's what I said yeah.
>> But we're not approving the design it's --
>> You're approving the plans that are in the --
>> We're approving the contract with the plans with
the stipulation that the artwork on the walls changes and the six
comes back to the commission to see --
>> No problem.
Got it.
>> So there's a motion --
>> There's a pending motion you can call the question and --
>> So we can call to vote.
To approve it.
>> Mayor do you want to go ahead and call the question?
>> Sorry my questions were preliminary to discussion.
I mean sorry I got -- there's a lot I have to say.
This represents a major departure from the memorial
as planned before.
>> Which her commission did by the way.
>> Please be clear about what you're saying.
You're just commission denied this right?
We're approving it tonight.
>> I know I know but I need to --
in the past two years plus the memorial committee,
they're the ones I want to put front and center not
the commission.
And I have the floor it's not appropriate for you --
>> Which you took without us.
>> I have the floor.
I want to make a comment because I haven't
had a chance to make a comment.
>> Make your comment accurate please that's what I'm going
to ask you to do or we're going to move on to commission
we're going to vote --
>> I'm not saying anything inaccurate I'm saying this
design represents a major departure from the original
design and we need to be clear about this there's a two year
process not led by the commission but by the memorial
committee that resulted in this design.
I want to say for the benefit especially
the two commissioners who are new.
Because I know the Planning and Zoning Board
had something to do with this.
I think the members of the Memorial Committee
will be extremely upset with this decision.
Extremely.
The decision to, I mean there's a general esthetic principle
that came out of years of planning.
And it started with mood boards in this very room.
Like over two years ago.
They wanted the memorial to be a little bit challenging.
They weren't looking for just hopeful.
They wanted it to be a sign that something horrible had
gone wrong here.
And that wasn't the commission's decision.
That came from the committee through many many open meetings
so the committee.
I just want everyone to appreciate
this is why I feel the need to put this on the record
because this is a dramatic dramatic change of direction
from what the committee considered.
The decision to have debris the decision even
to have that image, came from that vision which was not
a one off thing and certainly wasn't from the commission.
So in the interest of accuracy I need to make that clear.
I think this decision about the wall art in particular
is really taking us, again not just in a direction
but here I'm making a different point
I'm in the wrong direction.
I would ask the motion maker and the commission
I would think the wall art should go back
to the memorial committee and it should go back
to PNC for comment.
And I want to, I'm expressing my own opinion.
With all due respect to the manager
or to whoever came up with this image of the two
hands and the love lives on script.
It's schmaltz.
It looks like the kind of wall art
that you might buy at target.
The cursive script of love lasagna,
looks like those live laugh love designs that
are already kind of a joke.
It really, it really lowers the design quality of the memorial
and I'm just saying that.
Please before we approve this a design professional should look
at it the PNC board should look at it
and I think the memorial committee should
look at it because it really is a step in the wrong direction
these two hands touching it looks extremely cheesy.
And I think that's not, I mean it's not
an image worth engraving in stone.
It's not timeless.
It looks outdated.
It looks cheap.
And I don't say that lightly I really think
we're going in the wrong direction.
The reason why I asked Mr. Ashbury to bring back
the 60% design is because they actually had
a pretty elegant design there.
Of a kind of abstract that's it right there.
And abstract version of the building.
And the memorial committee thought they didn't want that.
But this is much much much better than the love lives on.
Much better.
And that's just my opinion but I have
a feeling that if you took this to PNC
and you took this to Memorial committee
they would pick that over this.
So I really hope we still have time
and I think we should get an opinion from all those parties
that are interested.
I think the love lives on is terrible I'm not
going to belabor the point you might disagree but from,
I don't think any serious artist or designer
would approve of this.
And again it looks like something from target.
The other thing, I don't really understand
the logic of how we got here.
If we're expecting that we're going
to be no longer subject to the spending cap in a month's time,
then why not consider the entire project
with the canopy which was really the central design
feature of the whole thing that took years?
To come up with?
Why not have that?
So I think they should come back to us in August
after it goes to PNC and after it
goes to the Memorial committee.
May I make one other point I think
it's important to the process?
>> I need you to land the plane and hurry up already.
>> I understand that both the manager and the mayor have been
hearing from people who have strong views but the memorial
committee met in public and those people need to express
their views in public otherwise it's kind of like a sort
of hearsay and I am not comfortable with rejecting
the open deliberative decision of the committee in favor
of privately delivered remarks.
To the mayor and the manager.
That's not right.
This was always meant to be an open design process
and I don't know who's saying that they're traumatized
but they need to say it in public.
This is too important to make a decision
in this kind of hearsay manner.
And so again I think we're going in the wrong direction
and we're doing it through the wrong process.
>> So first of all I think you heard from your own residents
right here.
But I get it.
You're entitled to your opinion and we have ours.
And the memorial committee which I
put together five years ago, they were input
and we hear their input but we're building with resident
money and item for the residents for the town of Surfside too
remember.
We are not building something for three family
members that provide input.
We hear it and we took it under consideration.
And I would say a large, this entire thing was pretty much
designed with their input.
But there's certain elements that offended others there
are certain elements that are just not what we
are looking for as a community.
And we are the ones that live here we're
the ones that have to see it every time I've
walked through the beach.
So you're entitled to your opinion we've heard it.
We're moving on we are not going to be the commission that
comes here tonight and continues to further delay
a process that's now been five years in the making.
>> I'm not interested in delaying we have consultation
on the wall art please I would ask Commissioner Weingart to get
that feedback this is going to be an embarrassment to the town
if we go ahead with this.
>> I've heard you and you've asked me a number of times
to change my motion and I've extended an olive branch
a number of times now and good grace but I haven't seen that
returned.
But you're definitely entitled to your opinion.
I find it very interesting you know
there's so much talk from the memorial committee
and from vocal family members that this hasn't gotten done.
Yet when we try to make movement,
we get into this paralysis from analysis cycle
and just going in circles while it could
be better it could be better.
I mean a picture of the building collapsing is ridiculous
and that should absolutely not be up there.
And there's a proposed beautiful lovelies on message
as I shared earlier.
And my motion stands and I committed
to family members that came up to me
and said why don't we have this yet?
As if it's our fault but we're just elected in March.
For three months and.
And I said we're going to be the commission that's
going to move it forward.
I can't answer for what happened in the past.
So I'm moving forward.
>> We did find a rendering of those Hardscapes if you'd like
to look.
This again was a while ago.
But the idea is to have hardscape
throughout the landscape.
Throughout the project.
>> That looks like debris again this looks like Rebar sticking
this looks like exactly what we have in the tennis center
so I'm absolutely against that.
That is someone's home right there.
Somebody died on that thing.
I'm not putting that in the garden
for everybody to look at and walk past.
There's people that will not walk into the city that have
lived here hundreds of people.
So I would ask the motion maker to take out
number six from the design.
>> I did that previously I amended my motion.
>> So we can value it down further if required
but we're not looking to maintain that visual.
Madam clerk call the roll please.
>> I have a question -- so this design of the two hands is
coming from where?
Like who did that?
>> Symbol of it for the last five years.
>> This is the image that is on the temporary banners that have
all the names that are, that have been on the site it's also
been used in the fliers and whatnot.
I don't know where the original image came from.
But the town's used it for many years.
>> Yeah but what I'm saying is like the complete thing like
with the, because I don't remember if the writing is
on that image or not.
Is it on that image?
It is?
Okay.
>> Madam clerk.
>> Call the roll?
>> No.
>> Commissioner Weingart.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Trevanny.
>> I'm going to make my comment before voting.
This we said this is not going to go back
in front of the PNC or the committee right?
>> They've already seen it.
This design has been approved and done in the last commission.
What we are doing now is just approving the contract.
You're talking about the image.
Did not see that image no but they saw this memorial --
>> I'm talking about the image and the debris.
Yeah I don't feel comfortable voting yes
just because this went through a process
and I'm okay with something that comes out of a process.
I'm less okay with us coming back at the end
and doing modification without the input of the people
so I'm going to vote no.
>> Remember you're now on the record for voting no
for a memorial that's all.
So whatever process is not fitting in your head properly
you will always be on record that you said no to a memorial.
Something that the families have waited
five years something this committee
is waiting to heal and move on to the next chapter
of our community you guys want to say no that's fine.
>> True but -- you made a comment to what I said so I can
--
>> (Indistinct) debate is over debate is over
the question's been called.
Madam clerk let's finish this up please.
>> Absolutely yes I'm very glad to vote yes for this it's been
five years.
And absolutely yes thank you.
>> Mayor Danzinger.
>> Yes and I there's not one family member here so.
We're going to say yes.
>> Motion carries.
Motion to adjourn?
>> For what?
>> The budget was already approved by the previous
commission back in, this is just the contract terms.
>> Motion to adjourn?
>> Second.