[0:11] Good afternoon, everybody.

[0:12] It's our regular meeting of July 14, 2026.

[0:16] It's 4:00 PM, our starting time.

[0:18] I'm going to call the meeting to order

[0:20] and we'll have the clerk call roll the members, please.

[0:23] Council Member Greenberg.

[0:24] Present.

[0:25] Council Member McDonald.

[0:26] Present.

[0:27] Council member, Meyer.

[0:29] Present.

[0:30] Vice Mayor, Fuhrman.

[0:31] Here.

[0:32] Mayor Cordino.

[0:33] I'm here.

[0:34] Mayor a quorum is present.

[0:36] At this time, a motion would be in order

[0:37] to allow council member Meyer to participate virtually.

[0:41] Does anybody want to make that motion?

[0:43] I'll make it.

[0:44] We have a motion.

[0:44] Do we have a second?

[0:45] Second.

[0:46] We have a motion, a second.

[0:47] All in favor, say Aye.

[0:48] Aye.

[0:48] All right, Mr. Meyer, welcome.

[0:50] Where are you today?

[0:52] Thank you.

[0:53] I'm in Salzburg.

[0:54] Oh.

[0:54] Salzburg, I love it.

[0:56] It's a shame we're in Pine Crest,

[0:58] but we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance anyway.

[1:00] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

[1:05] and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

[1:09] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[1:12] All right, let's move to the first item of business.

[1:14] That's our consent agenda.

[1:16] Does anybody want to pull anything off our consent agenda?

[1:22] Yes.

[1:23] Mayor.

[1:23] Just a tab five.

[1:25] Tab five.

[1:28] All right.

[1:28] Tab five.

[1:29] Anybody else?

[1:31] I have a question about the minutes.

[1:33] OK.

[1:34] Minutes.

[1:34] Do you want to pull the minutes?

[1:37] Can we pull the minutes or we just make a correction?

[1:40] Pull the minutes.

[1:40] I guess pull the minutes, OK.

[1:41] Pull the minutes and we'll talk about them.

[1:43] OK.

[1:44] OK.

[1:44] And anybody else want to pull anything?

[1:49] Does anybody on the public want to speak

[1:52] on any of the unpulled items from the consent agenda?

[1:54] Now would be the time.

[1:57] Seeing none, we will move past that.

[1:59] Do we have a motion on the consent agenda

[2:03] of the non-pulled things?

[2:05] I move.

[2:06] We have a motion and a second.

[2:08] All in favor.

[2:09] Aye.

[2:10] Aye.

[2:11] All right.

[2:12] Great Anybody opposed.

[2:13] All right.

[2:13] That passes.

[2:14] All right.

[2:14] Tab one.

[2:18] Ken, you had a minute issue.

[2:19] Oh the minutes-- yeah over-- and I know you guys are going

[2:23] to love talking about this, but page 206 when it talks about

[2:28] the custom bench that we approved and the--

[2:32] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:32] --wording got changed to a design feature.

[2:36] Let's be fair, it's a custom bench.

[2:39] And I don't know why it got stricken as--

[2:41] that got stricken and put it in as design feature.

[2:46] Yeah my understanding is that was in fact because what it is,

[2:49] that's what we--

[2:50] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:50] --agreed to when we--

[2:51] I know that when we moved on the motion--

[2:55] because I think it was my amendment to the motion.

[2:57] I mean, it was done as a--

[3:00] that's what we voted on.

[3:03] So we did vote on it?

[3:04] I thought so.

[3:04] That's what I rememb-- as a design feature,

[3:06] just more than a bench.

[3:07] It was a direction at council that

[3:09] could change it from a bench to a design feature that

[3:12] was decided on [INAUDIBLE].

[3:16] So there you have it.

[3:17] OK.

[3:18] OK.

[3:20] Does anybody want to speak on the design feature or the bench,

[3:23] the mega sidewalk or whatever we're calling it?

[3:25] Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on that item.

[3:27] We'll go to--

[3:28] Are you going to adopt the minutes?

[3:29] Motion.

[3:30] Oh, yeah.

[3:30] Let's adopt the minutes.

[3:32] Can you make a motion on that?

[3:33] Motion to approve.

[3:34] OK.

[3:35] Anybody want to second?

[3:36] [INAUDIBLE]

[3:36] I'll second.

[3:37] All right.

[3:38] All in favor of adopting the minutes say aye.

[3:40] Aye.

[3:41] Aye.

[3:42] Aye.

[3:42] Passes unanimously.

[3:44] OK tab five.

[3:45] Let's see.

[3:46] I just want to pose I spoke to the manager.

[3:49] There appears to be a speaking of what

[3:52] we're calling things here.

[3:54] This is-- it references Howard Drive,

[3:56] but this is not actually Howard Drive bridge,

[3:58] but this is about the Chatham field.

[4:00] It's 124 bridge.

[4:01] 124 bridge.

[4:02] So it was my error.

[4:04] What was that?

[4:05] So we're doing repairs--

[4:06] It's in the bridge.

[4:07] --to the bridge on 124 not Howard Drive,

[4:10] so the resolution should reflect the bridge on 124th.

[4:15] Fortunately, the Howard Drive bridge is still functioning

[4:17] on 5th.

[4:18] It was my fault because the cover memo--

[4:19] It just got built.

[4:20] Yeah, that's why--

[4:20] Howard drive, so the resolution was

[4:23] referring to the wrong bridge.

[4:25] So--

[4:26] That could be a problem.

[4:27] So a motion to amend the item to substitute

[4:33] 124 street for wherever it says Howard Drive--

[4:36] Howard Drive.

[4:37] --would be in order.

[4:39] All right.

[4:39] Anybody want to speak on that?

[4:42] Seeing none, we'll open and close the public hearing.

[4:44] OK, so motion.

[4:48] Move.

[4:49] All right motion--

[4:50] Second.

[4:50] McDonald and Fairman.

[4:51] And the motion as amended.

[4:54] Yes.

[4:55] Yes.

[4:55] To 124 street.

[4:58] All right.

[4:58] All in favor?

[4:59] Aye.

[5:00] Aye.

[5:00] OK, motion--

[5:01] Aye.

[5:02] Motion passes.

[5:03] All right.

[5:04] Agenda and order of business.

[5:05] Does anybody mind if we move tab 14 up to right,

[5:12] after the special presentations.

[5:15] Peter Englund from the EDC is here,

[5:16] and I promised him we would do a presentation on that.

[5:20] Anybody mind?

[5:21] No.

[5:21] All right.

[5:22] That being done.

[5:23] OK, good.

[5:24] Special presentations.

[5:25] Palmetto Middle PTA.

[5:27] Council member, Meyer.

[5:30] So my name is on this item, but it

[5:33] came as a request from board member Luis Santos

[5:36] to give the Palmetto middle PTA airtime during today's council

[5:41] meeting.

[5:42] So with that, I'll just let the middle school PTA association

[5:47] take the word from here on.

[5:52] Anybody here for that?

[5:54] This might be a resolution.

[5:56] We are-- we have some members here from the--

[5:58] Come on up.

[6:00] But really there is someone from--

[6:02] If you could please state your name and address for the record.

[6:05] Good afternoon.

[6:06] My name is Jennifer Sturgis.

[6:07] I'm representing the Palmetto middle PTSA.

[6:11] I understood, though, that Miss Luis Santos

[6:14] office are the people who are going to speak on this.

[6:18] And I believe she's downstairs finding parking.

[6:22] So--

[6:22] OK.

[6:23] --I don't know if you can--

[6:24] We can.

[6:24] --pass this?

[6:25] Yeah, we'll hold it off until then.

[6:28] I picture it would be best to present first.

[6:30] OK, good.

[6:30] Thank you.

[6:31] We'll move on to tab 14 next, but first,

[6:34] let me just say that I wanted to congratulate Miss Shannon Del

[6:40] Prado as our mayor elect.

[6:42] [APPLAUSE]

[6:46] She'll be taking over in November.

[6:48] Congratulations couldn't be more proud of you,

[6:50] and so I just wanted to say hello to her.

[6:52] She's in the room tonight watching again.

[6:54] Very big shoes to fill.

[6:55] Well thank you.

[6:57] OK, let's go to tab 14 real quick

[6:59] before the special presentations.

[7:01] Tab 14, that is Miss Clark, will you go ahead.

[7:05] It's a resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,

[7:07] expressing support for the economic Development

[7:09] Council of South Miami-Dade and its 2026 South Miami-Dade

[7:12] competitive assessment, authorizing the village manager

[7:15] to communicate the support to regional partners providing

[7:17] for an effective date.

[7:19] All right.

[7:21] So we work with the Economic Development

[7:24] Council of South Miami-Dade.

[7:25] And they did a competitive assessment for South Dade.

[7:29] And Peter Englund from the EDC is here.

[7:32] Peter, would you like to do a brief presentation so

[7:34] the council can figure out what you did

[7:36] and see if we want to support it.

[7:38] I will keep it very brief.

[7:40] All right.

[7:40] Mayor members of council, manager, mayor to be.

[7:46] I'm Peter Englund I'm reside at 7620 Southwest 171st street

[7:51] in Palmetto Bay.

[7:52] I'm also the chief strategy officer

[7:54] with the economic Development Council of South Miami-Dade.

[7:57] We recently, with the help of the Metropolitan center at FIU,

[8:01] concluded a competitive analysis of South Miami-Dade County

[8:05] and have come to the point where we're

[8:06] ready to implement this plan for planned economic growth in South

[8:12] Miami-Dade County.

[8:13] We've had a meeting with your manager, very successful meeting

[8:16] with the manager and council member, McDonald,

[8:18] and we look forward to continuing

[8:20] to work with you and the partnership

[8:21] that we've enjoyed in the past.

[8:24] Thank you very much.

[8:25] If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

[8:27] All right.

[8:28] Thank you.

[8:30] Any questions for Mr. Englund?

[8:34] Any questions on the resolution?

[8:36] Does anybody want to speak on the public on this read tab

[8:38] 14 resolution.

[8:40] Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

[8:42] Do we have a motion?

[8:44] I'll move.

[8:45] We have a second?

[8:46] Second.

[8:46] Motion to second.

[8:47] All in favor?

[8:48] Aye.

[8:49] Aye.

[8:49] Anybody opposed?

[8:50] All right, motion passes.

[8:52] Thank you, sir.

[8:53] All right.

[8:55] No presentation just yet.

[8:56] Let's go to Tab two.

[9:04] Tab two.

[9:05] Tab two is approved.

[9:06] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[9:06] I'm sorry.

[9:06] I'm on the wrong.

[9:07] Let's go to tab six.

[9:10] This is for second reading of an ordinance

[9:13] of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,

[9:15] comprehensively amending chapter 30, land development regulations

[9:18] of the village code of ordinances,

[9:19] including Article II, decision making

[9:21] and administrative bodies, Article III development approval

[9:24] procedures, Article 4 zoning district regulations,

[9:27] Article V additional regulations,

[9:29] Article VI environmental regulations,

[9:31] Article VII signs, and Article IX rules of construction

[9:34] and definitions providing for amendment and adoption

[9:36] providing for inclusion in the village of Pinecrest code

[9:39] of ordinances.

[9:40] Providing for conflicts, providing for severability

[9:43] and providing for an effective date.

[9:44] This was deferred from May 5 and June 11, 2026.

[9:49] Who wants that?

[9:51] I'll take it, Mr. Mayor.

[9:52] Fire away.

[9:54] So, before you-- in your packet, you

[9:56] have the latest addition of the recommended changes to the land

[10:03] use regulations.

[10:04] You also, on Davis, received two additional documents

[10:09] that have some further clarifications of the language.

[10:15] The council would like us to go through each one

[10:17] or if there are any questions, how would you like to proceed?

[10:22] I know we've had multiple.

[10:23] This is second reading, right?

[10:25] This is second reading.

[10:27] I defer to anybody else on the council.

[10:29] It says here, from both University of Miami,

[10:35] that also has helped recent recommendations.

[10:39] We have folks from--

[10:40] Mayor Fernandez is here as well on some

[10:45] of the proposed changes to the parking,

[10:51] specifically to parking regulations.

[10:53] So that's where we'd like to hear

[10:56] from the members of the public on those issues.

[11:00] Or is there any questions from council

[11:02] on any of the proposed changes?

[11:04] Any questions from council?

[11:06] Just for clarification.

[11:07] So the papers that were handed to us.

[11:12] Those--

[11:13] That's the final iteration.

[11:15] But were those the same things that were handed to us last--

[11:19] did we see those changes prior last month?

[11:21] We discussed those changes last month.

[11:23] So there's no--

[11:23] No changes to the--

[11:24] I remember it vividly.

[11:25] Of course, it was two months ago,

[11:27] which is why I'm asking if we discussed them.

[11:29] But no.

[11:29] So there's no additional changes--

[11:31] There are no--

[11:31] --on that.

[11:31] --additional changes.

[11:32] We did have to remove some of the changes, because of SB180.

[11:37] So some things that were included the first time,

[11:40] we went over this, had to be excluded

[11:43] because they were considered to be more restrictive, in which

[11:47] case, we're not able to adopt at this juncture because

[11:50] of the SB180 limitation.

[11:52] And those were also--

[11:55] Those have all been removed.

[11:56] We were told about that.

[11:57] In other words, were there any additional--

[12:00] that's a weird way to word it, but any additional removals?

[12:02] There were.

[12:03] I guess I'd like to know what was removed since last time,

[12:08] just so we're aware.

[12:09] If they're not legal under Florida law, we can do about it.

[12:14] But it would be good if we could know that.

[12:16] Do you, by chance, have that?

[12:18] OK.

[12:19] Can we briefly defer for a second,

[12:24] so I can go pull that up in my office, the last edit?

[12:29] OK.

[12:30] So move on to the next item.

[12:31] And then give me two seconds, and I'll come back with that.

[12:35] We're ready for our presentation?

[12:40] The special presentation for the PTA.

[12:43] I believe that the people from Luisa Santos' office

[12:47] are stuck downstairs.

[12:48] They can't get up because we're at capacity.

[12:50] I don't understand.

[12:52] We'll get them a police escort.

[12:54] Jason, we're going to send down the police chief

[12:57] to take special care of--

[12:59] [INAUDIBLE]

[13:00] --the dangerous PTA people coming up here, cause trouble.

[13:05] All right then.

[13:06] So what do you think we want to do next?

[13:08] There's pink lemonade over there.

[13:10] How about-- it's tab 6.

[13:12] How about tab 7?

[13:13] We can't do that.

[13:14] How about tab 8?

[13:16] Who wants to do tab 8?

[13:18] Youth Governance Day.

[13:20] Manager's not here.

[13:21] This is all hers.

[13:23] Should we just go write the plan of the month?

[13:26] Yeah, let's do the plan of the month, please.

[13:28] It's my favorite part of the meeting.

[13:31] Today, you have grass.

[13:33] Today, we're talking about grass in front of us.

[13:38] And there'll be a flyer if anybody wants to get this.

[13:43] There's a couple of grasses there

[13:45] that look really nice in the landscape.

[13:48] We have, right in front of the mayor's door, fakahatchee grass.

[13:53] And either side of that is Pink Muhly Grass,

[13:55] which is a very brilliantly pink seed pods that come out.

[14:01] And then on the side of that is the cordgrass,

[14:05] which does well in damp areas pond by waterways and ponds

[14:10] and things like that.

[14:11] Plus, at the bottom of this, we'll

[14:12] talk about a number of other grasses.

[14:15] And there's one at the bottom called bristle basket

[14:18] grass, which I don't have an example,

[14:20] but it does great in shady areas.

[14:24] So areas underneath trees and whatnot

[14:25] that you can't get anything to grow,

[14:27] the basket grass does really well.

[14:30] So any of you council members are

[14:33] willing to take a grass home?

[14:35] I'm taking the pink one.

[14:36] And whatever you're taking home, we'll

[14:37] go to the Parks Department, and they'll

[14:40] find a good place to plant it.

[14:41] All right.

[14:42] Perfect.

[14:43] That's all you got.

[14:44] That's all I got.

[14:45] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[14:46] --questions.

[14:47] Please.

[14:47] So this grass of the month stuff,

[14:49] you've been doing this for a while?

[14:50] Plant of the month.

[14:51] [INAUDIBLE] this month is grass.

[14:53] Oh, OK.

[14:53] Very cool.

[14:54] Grass is a plant out here.

[14:56] Just in case.

[14:57] All right.

[14:59] Okey dokey.

[15:00] So what about tab 13?

[15:03] [INAUDIBLE] That's a small version.

[15:07] Anybody want to do 13?

[15:10] Ms. Clerk.

[15:12] A resolution of the village Pinecrest,

[15:13] Florida, determining the proposed military

[15:16] for fiscal year '26, '27, seven or eight.

[15:18] Never mind.

[15:18] Not 13.

[15:19] Let's hold off on 13.

[15:21] [INAUDIBLE]

[15:21] Let's do 15.

[15:26] Tab 15?

[15:27] Yeah, let's do tab 15.

[15:28] OK.

[15:29] A resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,

[15:31] authorizing the village manager to enter

[15:32] into a professional services agreement

[15:34] with Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd for the transportation

[15:37] assessment study, providing for an effective date.

[15:40] This is also the managers meeting.

[15:41] OK, good.

[15:42] So we're pretty much out of time.

[15:44] Let's just take--

[15:45] You want to do YAC?

[15:46] Yeah, let's do the YAC.

[15:48] Youth Government-- no.

[15:50] Go, Mr. Chairman.

[15:51] Where is that?

[15:53] I got to find it myself.

[15:54] OK.

[15:54] Confirmation of the tab 12.

[15:57] Is that it?

[15:58] The list of the members is on the list, Mayor.

[16:01] Yeah, just basically requiring your confirmation.

[16:04] All right.

[16:04] Does anybody disapprove of any of these children on this list?

[16:07] [LAUGHTER]

[16:09] One of them's room is a complete mess

[16:11] and hasn't cleaned her room in weeks.

[16:12] OK.

[16:13] I would--

[16:13] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[16:14] I don't disapprove of the child, just the--

[16:15] Oh, just a mess of the room.

[16:17] Just a mess in her room.

[16:18] You want to name names?

[16:19] No.

[16:19] OK.

[16:20] I would like to make one comment on the act.

[16:22] All right.

[16:25] Very excited that we're going to have

[16:26] 20 young people from the village participate in this.

[16:31] I'm even more impressed by what happened behind the scenes.

[16:36] This past year, a lot of the YAC students

[16:40] wanted to clarify the rules about membership

[16:44] and getting into the act.

[16:46] They wanted not to be an automatic, just because you

[16:48] were in one year, that you automatically

[16:50] got in the next year.

[16:53] They wanted interviews done.

[16:55] And it's a good thing, because in the past,

[16:57] we've had some issues with stuff not being turned

[16:59] in and maybe people getting on YAC that maybe shouldn't

[17:03] have been on YAC.

[17:04] And this year, we had a case where

[17:06] two returning members, for one reason or another,

[17:11] did do not apply properly, and therefore, were not

[17:15] allowed in the YAC this year.

[17:18] And the most impressive thing was they really

[17:21] wanted to be in YAC, but they put the organization

[17:26] before themselves and understood the importance of the rules

[17:29] and timelines, and they graciously agreed to, again,

[17:35] put the organization before themselves.

[17:38] So very impressive.

[17:41] Two young members of our community,

[17:43] and a great group of 20 kids coming in.

[17:47] So I'm looking forward to the upcoming year.

[17:49] OK, great.

[17:49] Thank you.

[17:49] You're doing a wonderful job with that,

[17:51] so you should be commended.

[17:53] Excellent work.

[17:54] Glad to have you doing it.

[17:57] All right.

[17:58] So that's the YAC.

[17:59] Ms. Manager, you're back.

[18:00] Yes, I'm back.

[18:01] Where did we leave off?

[18:02] Which one are we-- oh, tab 6.

[18:03] Do we have to vote on this?

[18:04] Yeah.

[18:05] Do we need to vote on that or are we just OK with--

[18:07] Consensus.

[18:08] --consensus?

[18:09] Anybody?

[18:09] So we have consensus.

[18:11] We're good.

[18:14] OK.

[18:14] Go back to 6.

[18:15] OK.

[18:16] So to answer the question, anything

[18:19] that is in this document that has a double underline or double

[18:23] strikethrough are the things that

[18:25] were changed from the first reading to now, second reading.

[18:30] Anything in the handout or in the--

[18:33] Both.

[18:34] So anything you see with double underline or double

[18:38] strikethrough are things that occur

[18:39] between the past proceeding--

[18:41] You wanted to go through those?

[18:42] I mean, doesn't need to for my sake.

[18:44] If anybody else wants to, sure, but I

[18:46] don't want to delay the meeting.

[18:51] Any other questions from the council?

[18:55] A couple.

[18:57] Number 1, on page 49 of 130, paragraph G. It

[19:03] talks about encroachment of a hedge onto the sidewalk.

[19:10] And maybe Esther can speak to this.

[19:11] Do we also want to say for the right of way line?

[19:17] Which page are you--

[19:18] I'm sorry, sir.

[19:19] What page are you--

[19:19] 49.

[19:20] 49 of 130.

[19:22] 49.

[19:23] What paragraph do you--

[19:24] G, at the bottom.

[19:26] That section is specific to fences.

[19:31] So I don't know that you want to have

[19:33] right of way in that section.

[19:35] I know what you're saying about the encroachment,

[19:41] but if it has to do with right of way,

[19:46] it's a different subsection.

[19:56] Is that your final answer?

[19:57] That's my final answer.

[19:58] OK.

[19:58] That's your final answer.

[19:59] Anything else?

[20:01] I do have a question about the bike parking.

[20:04] Let me get to that.

[20:11] I know the bike parking--

[20:13] oh, I'm sorry, page 77 and 78.

[20:21] I'll get to the easy one on page 78.

[20:24] And this hearkens me back to when the county made provisions

[20:28] for mandatory bike racks on commercial property.

[20:32] Item E, signage, just don't see any point

[20:37] in telling people they need to put up

[20:39] signs to show that the bike rack is a bike rack.

[20:43] Pretty self-explanatory, right?

[20:44] I know it's a little thing, but it's just one

[20:48] more sign up that somebody's got to pay for,

[20:50] that somebody's got to maintain.

[20:52] And I don't see a need for it.

[20:55] Also, I think for right now, the number

[21:00] of bike racks being requested is a little bit on the high side.

[21:07] I would prefer to have something like 5 to 50 spaces

[21:12] require two bike racks, 50 to 100 require 4, a 100 to 200

[21:20] require 6, 200 to 500--

[21:24] Where is this?

[21:25] It's on page 77.

[21:26] Page 77.

[21:27] There's a--

[21:27] 77.

[21:28] I'm thinking about Sunnyland and some of these shopping

[21:31] centers that we have, that have several different owners,

[21:36] and they're going to be putting up quite a few bike racks.

[21:40] And I don't know--

[21:41] I mean, I'd like to start a little smaller scale,

[21:45] see that they're getting used, and then advance it from there.

[21:49] Plus, there is another requirement

[21:52] that it has to be near the entrance to the building.

[21:57] And that can get a little tricky about who's

[22:00] going to make that determination on where they should be located.

[22:07] And that would be under C, item 2, and item 1

[22:19] as well-- bicycle parking space shall

[22:20] be located near the entrances to the building.

[22:26] If you're looking at Sunnyland South, as you've just stated,

[22:30] we have a number of different owners of that parcel,

[22:33] and there are entrances all the way along,

[22:36] starting with Sergio's at one end and Milam's at the other.

[22:40] Right.

[22:43] The arbiter of where they would go

[22:45] is staff, because we're the ones that review for these things.

[22:51] And as far as the number of rack or bicycle parking spaces,

[22:57] that's up to counsel.

[22:59] Was this pulled from the county?

[23:03] Chad, are you on the call?

[23:05] I think Chad's on the call.

[23:08] No.

[23:09] Hi, everybody.

[23:10] Good afternoon.

[23:12] This was proposed by staff.

[23:14] I don't know if it came from the county,

[23:16] but this was an original proposal from staff.

[23:25] I would err on the side of caution

[23:28] for more bicycle parking than less.

[23:30] So I'm good with the way it is.

[23:31] Anybody else?

[23:34] I agree.

[23:35] I think there's been a lack of bicycle parking.

[23:38] We build shared use paths.

[23:42] We try to encourage people to ride bicycles

[23:45] to the shopping area.

[23:46] And if you do, and you don't have a place

[23:48] to park and lock your bike, you're not going to do it.

[23:54] I think the concern is, as vice mayor laid out as well founded,

[23:59] I don't-- but I mean, if there's not much of a will to change it,

[24:05] I'm fine with it.

[24:06] But I think it's a fair concern.

[24:08] I would be happy to see how this plays out maybe at a smaller

[24:11] number, but not a--

[24:16] I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly if that's not clear.

[24:21] Mr. Meyer, how do you feel?

[24:26] Sorry, but I had a bad connection.

[24:28] So is this on the topic of the bike racks or on another topic?

[24:32] There's a proposal to limit the number of bicycle parking spaces

[24:35] out there.

[24:37] If your connection is bad, I bet, I can guess.

[24:39] Yeah, I could guess for you.

[24:41] You probably want to keep it the same and not lower it.

[24:45] Well, I don't see a drawback to this, quite frankly.

[24:49] I mean, the cities that have done

[24:50] this in other parts of America have benefited from an increased

[24:56] level of pedestrian and bike traffic

[25:00] of local residents attending their local commercial

[25:03] districts.

[25:04] And as one of those residents that

[25:07] likes to visit our US1 establishments usually and often

[25:11] struggle to find places to park my bike safely.

[25:15] And at times, I have to park it in places

[25:17] where it's not visible, and I worry that it

[25:20] might be taken away, et cetera.

[25:22] So I think in the end, everyone's

[25:24] going to benefit from this.

[25:25] I frankly don't see any drawbacks

[25:27] to moving forward with this aspect of our land use

[25:34] regulations as is currently.

[25:37] All right.

[25:37] So we'll keep it the same, it seems like.

[25:39] I mean, it's only 16 bicycle spots per 1,000 parking spaces,

[25:43] so it didn't kill anybody.

[25:46] Anything else, Mr. Chairman?

[25:47] The second one that he had questions about

[25:50] was subsection E, the one about the signage

[25:54] and markings, whether or not we need to have that.

[25:59] That's E, all bicycle parking spaces

[26:03] shall be posted with a permanent and properly maintained

[26:05] above ground sign.

[26:08] And his position is, a bike rack is a bike rack is a bike rack.

[26:13] Do you need to have signs to show that these are bike racks?

[26:16] You tell somebody that's a bike rack.

[26:18] I don't think so either.

[26:19] OK, good.

[26:19] You can ask Council Member Meyer.

[26:21] Is it he can't find a place to park his bike because he doesn't

[26:24] see the sign?

[26:25] No.

[26:26] Or the parking--

[26:27] There's no bike racks.

[26:28] --the physical--

[26:29] There are no bike racks.

[26:30] --doesn't exist.

[26:30] There are no bike racks.

[26:31] Once you have a rack, you probably don't need a sign.

[26:35] He made my point, which is a little bit,

[26:38] problem is there are no bike racks,

[26:39] there are very few in the village.

[26:42] So to tell, say, Sunnyland, that they're going to put a string

[26:46] of, I don't know, 20-some, 30-some along their storefront

[26:51] sidewalks is a lot, a lot right now where they don't have any.

[26:57] And so should we start off with these numbers?

[27:00] Or should we start a little bit smaller

[27:01] and give our commercial property places to properly place

[27:05] them, check out their usage?

[27:08] And if Council Member Meyer goes back

[27:11] and he can't find a spot because all the bike racks are being

[27:14] used, then we got a great problem,

[27:16] and we upped the number of them.

[27:20] I disagree, Vice Mayor.

[27:22] I think if we're going to do it--

[27:24] this isn't 16 for a 500 to 1,000 parking spaces.

[27:29] We don't even have that.

[27:30] But the thing is, we don't have them now.

[27:32] It's 16 what?

[27:33] Bicycle--

[27:35] Bicycles.

[27:35] Yeah.

[27:36] 16--

[27:36] 16 bicycles, not bike racks.

[27:38] It's like one bicycle rack.

[27:40] One bicycle.

[27:40] There's 16 slots in a bicycle rack, probably.

[27:44] This isn't [INAUDIBLE].

[27:45] No, that's settled.

[27:46] We're settled on that one.

[27:47] Anything else?

[27:49] I'm going to take out the signage.

[27:51] Yeah.

[27:51] Fine with me.

[27:52] You're fine with taking out the signage for the bike

[27:55] racks and just having the bike racks required?

[27:57] I believe the people of Pinecrest

[27:59] can distinguish a bike rack from not a bike rack.

[28:02] OK.

[28:03] So we'll delete subsection E, in which case, F becomes E.

[28:12] So we'll strike everything in subsection E,

[28:15] and then F will now become E.

[28:20] Fine with me.

[28:21] OK.

[28:23] F can be whatever you want.

[28:25] OK.

[28:26] Anything else?

[28:30] I just have a clarification question, if you don't mind.

[28:33] I believe we had a lengthy conversation.

[28:35] This is related to the UM building that will be--

[28:41] well, the UM building, I believe that we're

[28:47] the former furniture Macy's store used to be,

[28:50] that's going to go up.

[28:51] And we had a lengthy conversation

[28:52] about ensuring that we have limited open parking

[29:00] spaces visible from US1.

[29:02] And rather, that we would be asking

[29:05] them to have underground parking enough so that we could

[29:10] repurpose some of the ground level parking

[29:13] and replace asphalt for trees, et cetera,

[29:16] and improve the visibility from US1 into our village.

[29:19] What has been the outcome of that request?

[29:22] And is that being reflected on this new version of the land use

[29:26] regulations?

[29:27] Chad, do you want to answer that question

[29:29] or do you want me to answer?

[29:32] Well, I'll just caution first that that plan is still

[29:37] being reviewed by staff.

[29:38] And the specifics of it will come before the council

[29:42] in a quasi judicial hearing.

[29:44] So I don't know how much detail we should

[29:47] get into the project itself.

[29:53] I've heard that the submittal so far

[29:55] does have some underground parking, but I have not seen it.

[29:59] As far as the code amendment tonight, Josi,

[30:02] do you want to introduce--

[30:04] I think it's the language that we have been working on parking.

[30:08] Sure.

[30:11] The code amendments that would impact specifically

[30:15] the University of Miami facility is

[30:19] one of the handouts that was on Council Dais.

[30:23] And specifically, what we are looking at is--

[30:29] and this was vetted, by the way, by the engineer

[30:35] that reviews the parking uses.

[30:37] And they are in agreement with the language

[30:40] that we are proffering to council now,

[30:43] which would provide for one space for every 200 square feet

[30:50] of gross floor area or fractional part thereof.

[30:55] That is applicable to any medical or dental office.

[30:59] But for facilities that are 50,000 square feet or more

[31:04] in gross area, the staff can grant administrative waiver

[31:09] of up to 10% from the total amount of required parking,

[31:14] based upon the submittal of a parking utilization study from

[31:18] a licensed engineer.

[31:23] The other language that was changed specifically

[31:28] that impacts that facility is on the first paragraph

[31:34] that you see before you, where it

[31:36] talks about allowing for the deduction of square footage

[31:42] for things like mechanical rooms, utility

[31:44] rooms, stairwells, and elevator shafts.

[31:49] So when they do the calculation for these larger facilities,

[31:53] we would be removing the square footage that is contributed

[31:58] to these types of facilities, which I think, in the UM case,

[32:03] it represents more than, I want to say,

[32:06] 19,000 square feet or something like of that building.

[32:09] It's either an elevator shaft, or mechanical room,

[32:12] or utility, something like for IT back of the room

[32:15] that doesn't really have any people.

[32:17] And that's not unique to us.

[32:18] This is interesting.

[32:19] No.

[32:20] We're just expanding it a bit, because the language

[32:23] we had presently only provided for exclusion

[32:27] of restroom facilities, employee break

[32:30] rooms, and walk-in freezers, which we just expanded

[32:33] that to include the mechanical rooms, utility

[32:36] rooms, stairwells, and elevator shafts.

[32:41] OK.

[32:44] Any other questions from the council?

[32:46] One more on page 90 of 130.

[32:49] Just curious.

[32:50] Chad probably has an answer for this.

[32:52] But the artificial turf not counting

[32:56] as green space artificial turf.

[32:58] What's stricken is artificial turf

[33:00] shall not be counted or considered as required.

[33:02] natural green space, thank goodness.

[33:05] But was that stricken just because it was redundant?

[33:13] It is redundant, because in our green space definition--

[33:18] They still have to comply with that.

[33:19] --they still have to comply with that.

[33:21] Correct.

[33:23] That's correct.

[33:29] Anything else?

[33:33] OK.

[33:36] Does anybody want to speak on this from the public?

[33:40] Any of the applicants?

[33:42] You guys good with this?

[33:45] [INAUDIBLE]

[33:46] Sir.

[33:46] Mayor.

[33:54] Mr. Mayor, members of council, good evening.

[33:56] Javier Fernandez for the record, office at 2,

[33:58] 1 Alhambra circle, Suite 1205.

[34:02] I just wanted to affirm our support for, I guess,

[34:04] reverting back to the language in section 522R.

[34:10] I believe that leaves the language

[34:12] as it was or exists in the code today for shared parking.

[34:16] We'll continue to try to work with our neighbor

[34:17] to find an accommodation that works for all parties there

[34:21] and hopefully result in some spaces being retenanted.

[34:24] I did just want to suggest to the council with respect

[34:26] to lines 12 and 13.

[34:28] So this is page 126, the revised standards for health and fitness

[34:34] studios, and the existing standard

[34:36] for instructional studios.

[34:39] Many of the uses that are contemplated in line 12

[34:41] are included in the definition of line 13.

[34:44] And so we would just suggest that maybe

[34:46] those two categories be collapsed and allow those uses,

[34:49] whether it's a yoga studio or a fitness and health

[34:52] establishment, to be parked at a ratio of 1 space per 180.

[34:56] What page again?

[34:58] I believe it's page 126.

[35:00] No, [INAUDIBLE].

[35:02] I think it's page 68.

[35:03] Sorry.

[35:03] My apologies.

[35:05] 68?

[35:06] I'm in the wrong section.

[35:07] 68 of 130.

[35:08] He's talking about the table.

[35:10] The table.

[35:10] My apologies.

[35:11] Yeah.

[35:11] The table on page 68 of 130 has items 8 through 14.

[35:18] And I believe, the suggestion is combining sections 12 and 13,

[35:24] which currently have different parking space

[35:28] requirements for instructional studios,

[35:30] such as dance and karate, establishments with the health

[35:34] and fitness section, which requires one space for each 180

[35:40] square feet.

[35:40] My apologies.

[35:41] The reference to the definition is on page 126 through 127.

[35:44] And that if you look at, could encapsulate a yoga studio,

[35:47] which would also be potentially captured under the use

[35:51] classification on line 12.

[35:53] So it just seem that we should just consolidate and simplify

[35:56] that for the benefit of commercial users.

[35:59] Those are my only comments.

[36:00] Again, thank you to all of you, and your staff,

[36:02] and city attorney for your help throughout this process.

[36:05] Thank you.

[36:08] Anybody else?

[36:09] Mr. Penn.

[36:13] When one lawyer gets up, we all have to get up.

[36:15] We have to suffer through it.

[36:17] Graham Pembroke, Howard L. Fernandez, [INAUDIBLE]

[36:19] 200 South Biscayne Boulevard.

[36:21] I asked Mr. Fernandez's suggestion.

[36:24] We have absolutely no issue with that

[36:26] as long as the number is the new number, which is the 180

[36:29] square feet for active space.

[36:33] Just briefly on that, as your package reflects,

[36:37] that number, the 180 square feet has been vetted significantly

[36:44] by your transportation engineer.

[36:47] We've done studies on eight separate locations

[36:50] that all support that number.

[36:52] And it's actually shows that it's a conservative number.

[36:55] So we have no objection to Mr. Fernandez's suggestion.

[36:58] And we would ask you to otherwise adopt it as written.

[37:01] Thank you so much.

[37:02] OK.

[37:04] Mr. Proctor.

[37:07] Thank you.

[37:07] You're welcome.

[37:09] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[37:11] Jerry Proctor, attorney for University of Miami General

[37:15] Counsel's Office.

[37:16] We do support the changes that have

[37:19] been presented by the manager.

[37:23] They really get us to about the same--

[37:26] excuse me, about the same place, which

[37:29] is to recognize that a large medical facility requires less

[37:35] parking on a proportional square foot

[37:37] basis than a small medical facility.

[37:42] And this gets us to that place.

[37:45] The concerns along the way, the reason for the last minute,

[37:50] there are concerns that your consultant raised

[37:53] about safeguards, questions about case by case operation,

[37:59] because every medical facility is different than the next one.

[38:03] And there's safeguards now in the proposal that

[38:10] require us to make certain submittals that frankly, we're

[38:15] going to make anyway, but it requires us and requires anyone

[38:19] in our shoes to present operational factors

[38:24] and present them, if we're asking

[38:26] for a waiver, for independent review by a traffic engineer,

[38:32] and to do that before we appear in front

[38:34] of the council with our site plan.

[38:37] That's an extra step.

[38:39] It's a safeguard that was suggested

[38:42] by staff and the consultant.

[38:45] And we have no problem with it.

[38:47] I want to congratulate the staff and the council

[38:51] for taking these items on your vision plan

[38:58] four years ago, called for a look at parking requirements

[39:04] and where they are excessive to make a good faith

[39:07] attempt to reduce them.

[39:09] That's what's happening.

[39:11] It's very clear in your vision plan update

[39:14] in the resolution that was adopted by council.

[39:17] And I appreciate your following through on it.

[39:21] Thank you.

[39:22] I appreciate that.

[39:22] We're nothing if not courageous when it

[39:24] comes to parking and bicycle.

[39:25] Mr. Mayor, if I may real quick, also just

[39:27] wanted to bring to the council's attention

[39:29] that the other handout has to do with the changes

[39:33] to the sign code that facilitated the two

[39:37] signs on the same street that we talked about also

[39:41] with the UM folks.

[39:43] And we provided that information to you,

[39:46] but we've sorted all of that out, where it wouldn't even

[39:49] have to come to council.

[39:50] It's just as a matter of course, if they

[39:52] wanted to do them both on one side,

[39:54] there would be just rules of how they would get to that point.

[39:58] Got it.

[39:59] Anybody else from the public want to speak on this?

[40:02] All right, Ms. Clerk, there's hopefully nobody online

[40:05] that wants to talk about this.

[40:07] No.

[40:08] Mayor, at the moment, no.

[40:09] No.

[40:09] Nobody raised their hand.

[40:11] We'll close the public hearing.

[40:12] Any further debate?

[40:13] If not, do we have a motion?

[40:15] What about that combining 12 and 13,

[40:19] as was suggested on the instructional studio,

[40:22] such as dance?

[40:24] Oh, do we want to do that?

[40:25] I see no reason why not to.

[40:27] Chad, are you there still?

[40:29] I didn't see any issue with that.

[40:32] It's a policy decision from you guys.

[40:36] From a legal perspective, I'm fine with it.

[40:39] I think the question was-- what Mayor Fernandez mentioned was

[40:42] that there might be like yoga in a health and fitness

[40:47] establishment, so he just thought

[40:49] they both belonged together.

[40:53] I think--

[40:54] In the definition of health and fitness on page 126,

[41:01] and I think that was the reference,

[41:03] it says an establishment that's providing instruction, that

[41:07] are the establishment sustaining high density uses,

[41:09] including yoga.

[41:11] So I think it's within that overall definition.

[41:19] So number 12, is it just strictly dealing with dance

[41:26] and karate, that's it?

[41:27] Everything else would fall under health and fitness

[41:29] establishments?

[41:32] Right.

[41:34] Well, instructional studios--

[41:35] Instructional studios would be specific.

[41:37] Oh, because what he was saying is

[41:39] that it could potentially just be

[41:40] a structural facility for yoga.

[41:44] Yeah.

[41:45] There seems to be some overlap between the two.

[41:48] They are similar.

[41:52] I think that it makes sense.

[41:55] I guess you just gotta make sure that there's--

[41:59] I think what the mayor, Mayor Fernandez,

[42:02] was saying was about the overlap between the two.

[42:05] So how do we deal with it?

[42:06] Do we just add yoga to number 12 and move on?

[42:09] Or do you think we should combine the two?

[42:10] Because it's definitely different amount of class.

[42:14] Yeah.

[42:15] I mean, it's definitely a different parking standard.

[42:19] I mean, I'm not a parking excerpt,

[42:23] but those uses seem similar.

[42:26] But I mean, I don't know if maybe someone from the staff

[42:31] want to maybe speak as to that.

[42:33] But it seems as if there's definitely a difference

[42:37] in parking demand for sure.

[42:40] Ms. Janisse.

[42:42] Pat Janisse, acting planning director.

[42:44] I would concur that those two should be one.

[42:47] And it wouldn't make it less confusing for anybody

[42:50] applying for parking and also staff.

[42:54] Less confusing is good.

[42:57] The issue, though, is that one of them

[43:01] is one space for [INAUDIBLE], and the other one

[43:04] is one space per 180.

[43:06] So that's a big difference.

[43:10] So I would argue the opposite.

[43:15] I would argue that we should just add yoga to number 12

[43:20] and be more conservative that way.

[43:24] However you wish.

[43:25] Well, it's up to counsel.

[43:27] What's your recommendation?

[43:28] I would--

[43:29] [INAUDIBLE]

[43:30] Maybe the attorneys can chime in,

[43:32] [CHUCKLES] and Mayor Fernandez too.

[43:35] Again, obviously, our preference is that everything is at 180.

[43:40] Adding yoga to the 12 would be the opposite

[43:43] of what the definition of health and fitness is already.

[43:46] Because health and fitness yoga is within health and fitness

[43:50] as defined in the draft.

[43:51] So therefore, it should be number 13.

[43:56] What the mayor is suggesting is that for clarity's sake,

[44:00] and I understand what Pat's point of view too,

[44:02] is that the difference between a karate studio,

[44:05] and a yoga studio, and a health and fitness club

[44:09] are not different enough to justify

[44:10] them being a separate category.

[44:12] That's the policy decision within your discretion.

[44:15] But definitely, yoga should not move into 12,

[44:18] it would have to stay in 13.

[44:21] Sorry.

[44:23] Graham, that's only because yoga is

[44:27] within the definition of health and fitness, which is in 13?

[44:31] Correct.

[44:32] Yes.

[44:34] It's appropriate for health and fitness definition

[44:36] under our opinion.

[44:37] So the request from the--

[44:40] Mayor.

[44:40] --from the outside zoning lawyers

[44:43] was to put them all in the category with a lower standard,

[44:49] with the one space per 180 feet.

[44:52] That makes sense.

[44:54] All right.

[44:55] Which part of this makes sense?

[44:56] Let me know.

[44:58] Can we just keep it the same?

[45:00] What they're proffering is that we would--

[45:02] Who?

[45:04] Mayor Fernandez is proffering that we would go--

[45:07] Mr. Graham doesn't like that idea.

[45:10] Well, they're proffering that everything

[45:13] be put to the one for every 180 square foot standard,

[45:18] which is less restrictive than the one for every 100

[45:23] square feet, which currently is what

[45:25] we have for dance and karate.

[45:28] So staff is always interpreted like the dance studios, very

[45:34] more intensive, because you get a lot of kids or people

[45:38] coming all at one time for those classes, which

[45:41] is why those have one for every 100 square feet, one parking

[45:46] space for every 100.

[45:48] So it's up to if you want to be more restrictive

[45:51] or if you rather loosen it up.

[45:53] And if you want to loosen it up, then yes,

[45:55] put it to 1 for every 180.

[45:58] Like a Pilates class, a yoga class, but at the same thing.

[46:01] People all showing up at one time for an hour-long class

[46:04] and then leaving.

[46:05] It's more on the number of people in a given class.

[46:08] I think dance classes tend to have a lot more participants

[46:11] in a given time, just traditionally-- right, Pat,

[46:14] would you say or--

[46:15] No.

[46:16] What's been our experience?

[46:18] I would say, my spinning class--

[46:22] I would say, like you're spinning classes--

[46:24] It's similar?

[46:26] --doing all that are the same as a dance class.

[46:28] So one for 180.

[46:30] That is correct.

[46:31] Yeah.

[46:31] OK.

[46:32] One for 180, which is what Mayor Fernandez recommended.

[46:36] You're good with that?

[46:37] Yes.

[46:38] Does anybody have a problem with that?

[46:39] OK.

[46:40] Make it so.

[46:41] So combining 12 and 13?

[46:44] Correct.

[46:44] OK.

[46:45] And then all the numbers will be changed accordingly.

[46:49] To 13.

[46:50] OK.

[46:52] Unscrew this up in a couple of years.

[46:53] All right.

[46:54] Anybody else want to comment on this?

[46:57] Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing,

[46:58] like we already did.

[46:59] Do we have a motion?

[47:01] I'll move.

[47:03] Second.

[47:03] All right.

[47:04] Motion is second.

[47:05] And the motion is to adopt, as amended,

[47:07] including the floor amendment regarding dance studios.

[47:11] All right.

[47:12] Ms. Clerk.

[47:13] Council Member Greenberg.

[47:14] Yes.

[47:15] Council Member McDonald.

[47:16] Yes.

[47:17] Council Member Meyer.

[47:19] Yes.

[47:19] Vice Mayor Fairman.

[47:20] Yes.

[47:21] Mayor Corradino.

[47:22] Yes.

[47:22] Motion is approved.

[47:23] Ordinance is approved, Mayor.

[47:24] OK.

[47:25] Perfect.

[47:25] Are we ready for the presentation?

[47:28] Thank you.

[47:29] I believe so.

[47:30] And, Mr. Mayor, I'll introduce that topic

[47:32] on behalf of the PTSA.

[47:34] And I'll provide a little bit of context

[47:36] as to why I'm doing that now versus which is not necessarily

[47:42] in line with how I introduced the topic earlier.

[47:45] So as part of our strategic plan,

[47:48] we have wording that expresses our support for public schools

[47:54] and specifically, in support of exploring

[47:57] private-public partnerships that would help improve the field

[48:00] conditions at some of our public schools.

[48:03] And specifically, we've been focusing--

[48:05] [INAUDIBLE]

[48:07] Yeah.

[48:08] We've been focusing those conversations on the Palmetto

[48:12] Middle School fields.

[48:16] The manager has taken the lead on exploring this

[48:20] in coordination, especially with Luisa Santos' office.

[48:24] Because it is a public-private partnership

[48:26] that we're exploring, there's also

[48:28] been conversations with the Pinecrest Premier Soccer Club

[48:32] that has approximately 400 to 500 families

[48:36] signed up as part of the club that live in Pinecrest.

[48:39] And that would be potentially interested in renting out

[48:42] the field amongst other organizations

[48:44] should the field conditions improve and should there

[48:47] be substantial levels of investments

[48:49] put into the improvement of those fields.

[48:53] I would like to let the manager update

[48:55] the council on the progress of those conversations.

[48:58] And then following that update, I

[49:01] believe the Palmetto Middle PTSA is

[49:04] present to express their support for this exploratory effort

[49:09] as well.

[49:09] And so we should grant them time to speak on behalf of the PTSA

[49:15] after the manager has provided the context and the update

[49:19] report on how conversations have been going forward so far.

[49:23] So if the manager wouldn't mind.

[49:25] So just to give council an update,

[49:29] during strategic planning, council

[49:31] did ask me to contact the school board

[49:36] to see if there would be any opportunity to partner with them

[49:40] on the Palmetto Middle School Field.

[49:43] We've had multiple meetings with different folks

[49:47] at the school board.

[49:49] School Board Member Santos has also

[49:51] been very active in these discussions and to facilitate

[49:55] these discussions.

[49:57] Long and short of it, the school board

[50:00] is amenable to a partnership, but because of just school board

[50:10] needs elsewhere that are more pressing than updating a field,

[50:15] they, as an organization, are not

[50:18] inclined to carry the debt for something like this.

[50:24] And they're asking if there's going

[50:25] to be a partnership, that we do it similarly to how

[50:28] other cities do it, which is the debt is carried

[50:32] on the books of the municipality.

[50:35] The school board allows us to use the field after hours

[50:39] and program the fields, and keep the revenues that

[50:41] are generated from the rentals of these facilities.

[50:45] And we have similar arrangements with them already.

[50:48] So I have seen draft joint use agreements that we've already

[50:53] worked through several drafts with staff and the attorneys.

[51:00] The issue now is timing of everything.

[51:03] I know that we have folks here from both Pinecrest

[51:07] Premier as well as PTA.

[51:08] They wanted to speak to council in anticipation of our budget

[51:12] hearing and meetings, the workshops

[51:14] that we're going to have in August,

[51:16] because workshops don't allow for public input.

[51:19] So I think that's really what's coming before you.

[51:23] But also, I did receive project estimates

[51:28] and a conceptual design of how this would be laid out

[51:33] that we can also have available to council

[51:36] when we get into budget workshop.

[51:39] But that's where we're really at is, at this point,

[51:42] when we get into budget discussions, whether or not

[51:46] the timing for council on moving forward with this project.

[51:51] All right.

[51:52] Thank you.

[51:54] Who's up?

[51:54] Thank you, manager.

[51:55] And with that, I'll let the PTSA come up to the podium.

[52:02] Hello, everyone.

[52:02] Thank you.

[52:03] Sorry for the confusion earlier.

[52:04] That's all right.

[52:05] As I mentioned, my name is Jennifer Sturgis.

[52:07] I am the newly elected president of the Palmetto Middle School

[52:10] PTSA.

[52:11] I'm happy to be here today.

[52:13] We have several other members of our PTSA,

[52:15] other parents, grandparents.

[52:17] And our brand new and fabulous principal

[52:21] is also here, Ms. Milian-Valdez, in support of this project.

[52:27] I just briefly wanted to say we've spoken with Council Member

[52:32] Meyer.

[52:33] We've spoken with School Board Member Santos' staff

[52:38] and School Board Member Santos herself.

[52:40] We've learned a lot about this project.

[52:42] We are aware of it, because there is a similar use agreement

[52:46] in place in the current time.

[52:49] It's our position that this is a win for the village,

[52:53] of course, because your involvement would help expand

[52:57] access to parks and recreational spaces

[53:00] for the village residents.

[53:03] Children in the neighborhood are walking over, participating in

[53:06] all the sports and activities that happen,

[53:09] as the manager mentioned, after school hours

[53:13] and on the weekends.

[53:14] And it's also our position in representing

[53:17] the PTSA and the parents at our school and families,

[53:19] that it's a win for our fabulous neighborhood traditional middle

[53:24] school.

[53:26] We are exactly that.

[53:27] We are not a magnet school, we are

[53:30] your traditional neighborhood school.

[53:32] And we're proud of that.

[53:33] We offer everything for everyone who wants

[53:37] to be a part of our school.

[53:39] And an upgrade to the field, which it desperately

[53:42] needs at this point, would serve our students, most of whom

[53:47] are residents as well, during school hours

[53:50] and in all of their extracurricular activities

[53:52] that they participate in on those fields.

[53:55] If any of you follow what's happening at Palmetto Middle

[53:58] School, we Excel in all of these athletics

[54:00] that we participate in.

[54:02] And these are happening at our school.

[54:04] It serves as a great opportunity for these students

[54:07] to become leaders.

[54:08] It serves as a great opportunity for us

[54:11] to showcase what's so fabulous at our school.

[54:14] We are constantly trying to recruit and compete

[54:16] against the other schooling options.

[54:19] And the use of this field of the upgrades to these facilities

[54:22] would help us in serving that need and desire

[54:25] to continue recruiting on behalf of Palmetto Middle School.

[54:28] So with that said, I know that we have someone

[54:33] from School Board Member Santos' office here.

[54:37] And we also have maybe one or two other parents who

[54:40] might want to say something.

[54:41] I can share that Principal Valero, who

[54:45] just left, she recently retired, was fully in support of this.

[54:48] We had been through many walkthroughs and whatnot

[54:52] at the school.

[54:53] And in our transition to our new principal, Ms. Milian-Valdez,

[54:58] I know that she's learned about the project,

[55:00] understands the importance of it,

[55:01] is also very much in support of it.

[55:03] So I can speak on behalf of both of them,

[55:05] that they are excited and hopeful

[55:07] that this idea and project can become a reality at our school.

[55:11] So I'm going to turn it over quickly.

[55:14] Thank you for having me.

[55:17] Hello.

[55:17] I'm Johanna Ralsten-Cox.

[55:18] I'm the chief of staff for Luisa Santos.

[55:20] And she could not be here today.

[55:22] So I just came to share that exactly as Ms. Sturgis says,

[55:26] she is fully in support of this project

[55:28] and really thanks the village for considering it.

[55:31] And also, thank you so much, Ms. Galiano,

[55:35] thank you, for everything you've done

[55:39] as well to coordinate with the school board as well on this.

[55:44] All right.

[55:45] Thank you.

[55:46] Any questions from the council?

[55:47] Mr. Mayor, I was going to, if it's OK with you,

[55:52] invite one more person to speak.

[55:53] Absolutely.

[55:54] If Pinecrest Premier, Manny, can come up.

[55:58] Thank you.

[55:58] Welcome.

[56:03] Good evening.

[56:06] Good evening.

[56:07] Good evening.

[56:07] It's good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members.

[56:10] Before I begin, I would like to recognize school board member

[56:13] Lisa Santos, and thank her for taking her time to meet with me

[56:16] and her willingness to explore this opportunity.

[56:19] Her commitment to finding innovative ways

[56:20] to strengthen our public schools and better serve

[56:22] the students of our community is greatly appreciated.

[56:25] I look forward to continuing to work alongside her, Miami-Dade

[56:28] County Public Schools, and the village of Pinecrest

[56:31] to make this vision a reality.

[56:33] My name is Manuel Escobio.

[56:35] I stand before you not only as a resident of Pinecrest,

[56:38] but also as president of Pinecrest Premier Soccer Club,

[56:41] a local 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

[56:45] Every member of our board of directors

[56:47] lives in Pinecrest because we're deeply invested

[56:49] in the future of this community.

[56:51] I'm joined this evening by Maura Lamar,

[56:53] who serves as general manager for the club.

[56:55] Tonight, I'm asking for your support

[56:57] for a project that's much larger than soccer.

[57:00] Throughout my professional career,

[57:01] two individuals have profoundly influenced

[57:03] the way I approach difficult decisions--

[57:05] Warren Buffett and his late partner, Charlie Munger.

[57:07] One of Charlie Munger's most enduring principles

[57:10] was the practice of inversion.

[57:12] When confronted with a difficult problem,

[57:14] he would encourage us not only to ask how do we succeed,

[57:17] but also to invert the question and ask how do we fail.

[57:21] Applying that principle here, we should certainly

[57:23] consider the tremendous benefits of modernizing

[57:25] the athletic facilities at Palmetto Middle School.

[57:28] But we should also ask ourselves a more important question--

[57:30] what happens if we do nothing?

[57:32] If we choose not to act, the status quo

[57:34] is unlikely to remain static.

[57:36] Competing schools, both public and charter,

[57:38] will continue investing in modern campuses

[57:40] and athletic facilities, while Pinecrest

[57:42] risks falling further behind.

[57:45] Families evaluating where to educate their children

[57:48] increasingly consider the overall student experience,

[57:51] including the quality of school facilities.

[57:54] As the gap widens, enrollment pressures

[57:56] may increase attracting, and retaining exceptional teachers

[58:00] and staff may become more difficult.

[58:02] Community pride may diminish.

[58:03] And we will have missed a rare opportunity

[58:05] to create a shared public asset that

[58:07] benefits students, residents, and generations to come.

[58:11] The greatest risk before us is not

[58:12] that we undertake an ambitious project.

[58:15] The greatest risk is that we fail

[58:16] to act while every community around us

[58:18] continues moving forward.

[58:20] Strong public schools are the foundations

[58:22] of strong communities.

[58:23] They attract families, sustain property values,

[58:26] fosters civic pride, and shape how

[58:28] a community is perceived by those considering making it

[58:31] their home.

[58:32] When we invest in our schools, we're

[58:33] investing in the long-term vitality and competitiveness

[58:36] of Pinecrest itself.

[58:37] Across Miami-Dade County, communities

[58:39] have recognized that modern athletic facilities

[58:41] are no longer a luxury.

[58:43] They're an essential part of attracting families, supporting

[58:46] students, and creating vibrant public spaces.

[58:50] South Miami, Coral Gables, Key Biscayne,

[58:52] and numerous Miami-Dade County Public schools

[58:54] have all invested in modern athletic facilities

[58:57] and have become valuable community assets.

[58:59] Pinecrest should not be left behind.

[59:01] Palmetto Middle School is an outstanding public school

[59:03] with a proud history, but first impressions matter.

[59:07] When families compare schools today,

[59:08] facilities influence perceptions.

[59:11] Modernizing this campus would give students a first class

[59:14] athletic environment during school hours,

[59:16] while creating an asset the entire community can

[59:18] enjoy after school.

[59:20] This project is also an opportunity

[59:21] to show an effective public-private partnership

[59:24] can work.

[59:24] And Pinecrest is uniquely positioned to be that partner.

[59:27] For more than two decades, our nonprofit

[59:29] has been a pillar of this community.

[59:31] Today, we proudly serve more than 2,000 young adult,

[59:34] young athletes, and their families,

[59:36] making us one of the largest youth soccer organizations

[59:39] in South Florida and the largest youth organization in Pinecrest.

[59:43] Every weekend, our fields bring together

[59:44] thousands of parents, grandparents, volunteers,

[59:47] coaches, and children, who share a common purpose--

[59:50] helping young people grow into successful adults.

[59:53] Several years ago, Pinecrest Premier

[59:55] participated in a competitive request

[59:59] for proposals, process, and RFP.

[1:00:01] Our proposal received the highest evaluation score

[1:00:04] by a significant margin, because of the strength

[1:00:06] of our vision, our leadership, our partnership,

[1:00:09] our financial stewardship, and our unwavering commitment

[1:00:12] to serving this community.

[1:00:14] We accepted that responsibility because we

[1:00:16] believe we could help make youth sports

[1:00:18] and Pinecrest even stronger.

[1:00:20] Yet, despite earning that distinction,

[1:00:22] the additional access to quality fields that many anticipated

[1:00:25] has never materialized.

[1:00:27] The great obstacle to fulfilling our mission

[1:00:29] has never been a lack of volunteers, coaches,

[1:00:31] or families.

[1:00:32] It has been the shortage of quality athletic facilities.

[1:00:35] That is precisely the gap this project would close.

[1:00:38] Every afternoon, we have images that our general manager

[1:00:42] is sharing that shows the current conditions of what

[1:00:46] Palmetto Middle currently looks like.

[1:00:48] This is where rec program is currently at.

[1:00:50] We have over 700 members.

[1:00:52] It's in our rec program.

[1:00:53] It's that run from U4 through U7.

[1:00:57] That, obviously, is far from optimal.

[1:01:02] Every afternoon, hundreds of young people

[1:01:04] step onto our fields.

[1:01:05] They learn teamwork before they learn tactics.

[1:01:07] They learn resilience after losing a difficult match.

[1:01:10] They learn discipline, humility, accountability,

[1:01:12] and perseverance-- the qualities that

[1:01:14] shapes successful adults, engage citizens, and future leaders.

[1:01:18] While many of our players continue

[1:01:20] their athletic careers in college,

[1:01:22] what makes us most proud is that more than 95%

[1:01:25] pursue higher education Pinecrest Premier's mission has

[1:01:28] never been simply to develop exceptional soccer players,

[1:01:31] it has always been to develop exceptional people who

[1:01:34] become exemplary citizens.

[1:01:38] Every organization is ultimately defined by one thing--

[1:01:41] its ability to decide how its limited resources are allocated

[1:01:44] to its most pressing needs.

[1:01:46] That is true in business, and it's true in local government.

[1:01:49] Priorities are a choice.

[1:01:51] And tonight, I'm asking the council to choose wisely.

[1:01:54] We're all aware that the village recently

[1:01:56] completed the purchase of [INAUDIBLE] property.

[1:01:58] And I have seen the initial renderings

[1:02:00] that are generally beautiful.

[1:02:02] But as a resident of Pinecrest for nearly 30 years,

[1:02:04] I'll be honest with you, I do not use the park,

[1:02:06] and I do not feel my family's quality of life depends on it.

[1:02:11] Council members, opportunities like this do not come often.

[1:02:14] These are moments in public service

[1:02:17] when elected leaders have the chance

[1:02:18] to make decisions, whose benefits extend well

[1:02:20] beyond a single budget cycle or even a single generation.

[1:02:24] I believe this is one of those moments.

[1:02:26] This project will strengthen one of our community's

[1:02:28] premier public schools, beautify one of Pinecrest's most visible

[1:02:33] public campuses, expand recreational opportunities

[1:02:36] for thousands of families, encourage healthier lifestyles,

[1:02:40] reinforce the desirability of our community,

[1:02:42] and create a lasting legacy for generations to come.

[1:02:45] I respectfully ask that you support

[1:02:47] moving this project forward and work collaboratively

[1:02:50] with Miami-Dade Public County Schools, Pinehurst Premier

[1:02:53] Soccer Club, and our community to make it a reality.

[1:02:57] I began this evening with Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger,

[1:03:00] because they understand that truly consequential decisions

[1:03:03] require us to think beyond the immediate

[1:03:05] and focus on the long term.

[1:03:07] In business, we often say that the greatest investments

[1:03:09] are those whose returns compound over time.

[1:03:14] The same is true of investments in our children, our schools,

[1:03:17] and our community.

[1:03:18] The measure of great leadership is not

[1:03:20] whether we solve today's problems,

[1:03:22] but whether we have the vision to prevent tomorrows,

[1:03:25] and the courage to seize opportunities

[1:03:27] whose greatest rewards may not be realized for years to come.

[1:03:31] Let us choose progress over complacency,

[1:03:33] partnership over hesitation, and legacy over convenience.

[1:03:37] Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration.

[1:03:40] you very much.

[1:03:41] Any questions from the council?

[1:03:42] I would just ask if we could get copies of that.

[1:03:46] Those documents, if you have them electronically,

[1:03:48] if you could send them through the clerk, that'd great.

[1:03:51] Thank you.

[1:03:52] Thanks for your--

[1:03:54] All right.

[1:03:54] Thank you, all, very much.

[1:03:55] And just if I briefly, because the schools are here,

[1:03:58] I'm going to talk.

[1:04:01] Not on the subject.

[1:04:01] I just want to--

[1:04:03] with Ms. Ralsten-Cox here and the representatives

[1:04:07] from Palmetto Middle, I just want

[1:04:08] to use the opportunity to thank you all for everything

[1:04:11] you do for the school and for the community,

[1:04:13] and to welcome Ms. Milian-Valdez, who

[1:04:15] will undoubtedly get tired of me at the EAC next year.

[1:04:20] But it's great to have you all here--

[1:04:23] the incoming president of PTA, the outgoing, so many of you.

[1:04:29] Shapiro, good to have you back at Palmetto Middle.

[1:04:31] But thank you for all you do for our schools and our community.

[1:04:34] Thank you all as well.

[1:04:35] I could have gone on more about school things, but--

[1:04:37] You did a great job.

[1:04:38] I was quick.

[1:04:39] Well, thank you.

[1:04:40] I could talk about the state policy if you'd like.

[1:04:42] I got all sorts of topics.

[1:04:44] The buzzer worked.

[1:04:45] The buzzer worked.

[1:04:47] The shock, the dog collar.

[1:04:48] Yes.

[1:04:48] Thank you.

[1:04:48] Keep pushing that button.

[1:04:49] So we'll get more details on this in our work

[1:04:53] up to the budget, as far as--

[1:04:54] Theoretically, yes.

[1:04:55] Yes.

[1:04:55] OK.

[1:04:56] All right.

[1:04:57] Thank you.

[1:04:59] All right.

[1:04:59] Good.

[1:05:00] All right.

[1:05:01] I have one other thing to say.

[1:05:03] Yeah.

[1:05:03] It's listening to the gentleman, your presentation, which

[1:05:06] was well done, it reminded me, way back when

[1:05:08] my kids were small, I actually coached soccer.

[1:05:13] And we used at Palmetto Elementary

[1:05:17] over to the space that's right next to 124 Street, which

[1:05:21] was then wide open.

[1:05:23] This was back in, I think, the early '80s.

[1:05:26] And I was asked to coach.

[1:05:28] And I never played soccer, but I got the rule book out,

[1:05:31] and I figured it out.

[1:05:32] I used to tell the kids, just kick it that way

[1:05:33] into the-- anyway, I had a woman come up to me and said,

[1:05:36] boy, you're such a good coach.

[1:05:37] She never played soccer either.

[1:05:38] I said, if you only knew.

[1:05:39] But anyway--

[1:05:40] [LAUGHTER]

[1:05:41] I'm always looking for volunteers.

[1:05:43] No.

[1:05:43] [LAUGHTER]

[1:05:45] Been there, done that.

[1:05:46] And I think that field is planted with native plant

[1:05:48] of the month grass.

[1:05:50] Well, it looks like it.

[1:05:51] You can't play soccer there anymore.

[1:05:53] [INAUDIBLE] all the varieties.

[1:05:54] All the varieties of grass and the ankle buster.

[1:05:57] All right.

[1:05:58] Thank you, all, very much.

[1:05:59] Let's go to reports and recommendations.

[1:06:01] Village council did the plan of the month.

[1:06:03] Village manager, communicated council, what have you got?

[1:06:06] Anybody got any questions for the communicated council?

[1:06:10] Were you going to do the native plant?

[1:06:12] We did that already in your absence.

[1:06:13] You can do it again, though.

[1:06:15] You want to do it again?

[1:06:15] No, that's fine.

[1:06:16] Do you want to find out which one you want to take home?

[1:06:18] No, no, no, no.

[1:06:18] Let's go.

[1:06:19] Let's go.

[1:06:21] All right.

[1:06:22] Any questions for communicating?

[1:06:22] Any questions for the communicating council?

[1:06:25] Seeing none, tab 8, what's Youth Governance Day?

[1:06:29] We got to do anything on that?

[1:06:31] Mr. Mayor, is this the time that you

[1:06:34] want to talk about the speed limit change?

[1:06:36] I never want to talk about speed limit change, but you're--

[1:06:39] Bringing up all the greatest hits.

[1:06:40] I think the village manager has an update on that.

[1:06:42] Oh, you were talking about the-- you're

[1:06:43] asking the manager to do the roof thing while we're at it?

[1:06:46] Do you want to do the roof thing, too?

[1:06:48] Speed limit.

[1:06:48] Didn't we put the speed limits to bed already?

[1:06:52] I thought so.

[1:06:53] So the update is, the county's legal department is still

[1:06:57] reviewing the letter that we sent, advising them

[1:07:01] that we wanted to update the speed

[1:07:04] limits on the arterial roads.

[1:07:06] So jury is still out and being discussed by legal department

[1:07:12] county.

[1:07:14] The Youth Governance Day update, there's

[1:07:16] a letter that's included in your packet.

[1:07:21] I don't know if you have any questions.

[1:07:23] I do not.

[1:07:24] And then we have the submission of the capital and operating

[1:07:28] budget.

[1:07:29] But before I get into that, can we just

[1:07:32] go on to the fine mitigation request?

[1:07:35] I know that there was an attorney here

[1:07:38] representing that individual.

[1:07:40] I think they were going to ask for a deferral of the item.

[1:07:43] Or you're going to go ahead and--

[1:07:46] Here we go.

[1:07:49] Sorry.

[1:07:49] Hi.

[1:07:50] Amanda Corcan, office is at 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800.

[1:07:52] My client had emergency, is not going

[1:07:54] to be able to be here today.

[1:07:55] I'm ready to make a presentation without him, but to the extent

[1:07:58] that you'd like to hear from him personally,

[1:07:59] then we are willing to defer it.

[1:08:02] Anybody care?

[1:08:04] I mean, you're here, you might as well

[1:08:06] go as far as I'm concerned.

[1:08:07] I'm ready.

[1:08:07] All right, fire away.

[1:08:08] You want to do that one?

[1:08:09] Good.

[1:08:10] You want to do that now or--

[1:08:11] Yeah, let's do it.

[1:08:12] OK.

[1:08:13] OK.

[1:08:16] As I stated, I'm Amanda Corcan.

[1:08:18] I am here on a mitigation request for 60 to 85 South West

[1:08:22] 98th Street.

[1:08:23] This is a property that was bought out of foreclosure.

[1:08:28] I don't know if you want to hear from your staff first or from me

[1:08:30] first.

[1:08:33] Typically, the applicant speaks first,

[1:08:36] and then the staff will respond.

[1:08:38] OK, let's do it that way.

[1:08:41] This was a property that was bought out of foreclosure.

[1:08:43] It had a history of violations, including unsecured pools,

[1:08:47] stagnant pool conditions, a bunch of other small ones,

[1:08:50] and then also a big one for unpermitted work.

[1:08:52] Previous owners had done unpermitted building work,

[1:08:55] finds violations dating back to 2020.

[1:08:59] When my client bought the property in foreclosure,

[1:09:02] it was through an auction.

[1:09:04] And he took title.

[1:09:05] He did not take title until August 7 of 2025.

[1:09:10] OK, so you're looking at basically violations from 2020

[1:09:14] for unpermitted work accruing through 2025.

[1:09:16] He takes title in August 7 of 2025.

[1:09:22] He went to review the property, looked at the house, and said,

[1:09:26] you know what?

[1:09:26] It's going to be way too much to deal with this unpermitted work.

[1:09:29] The property has been derelict for a number of years

[1:09:31] in the village of Pinecrest, so it's an eyesore

[1:09:33] for the neighborhood.

[1:09:34] And he said, you know what?

[1:09:35] We'll demolish the house.

[1:09:37] We'll take care of the pool.

[1:09:38] We'll take care of all the stagnant conditions.

[1:09:40] And they did so immediately.

[1:09:41] They immediately reached out to the village,

[1:09:43] immediately applied for the building permit

[1:09:46] to demolish the property, immediately

[1:09:48] took care of the stagnant conditions.

[1:09:51] The pool had already been secured by that time,

[1:09:54] but he did act with all due diligence

[1:09:56] after he obtained title through foreclosure.

[1:09:58] Right now, the fines are in the amount together with costs

[1:10:02] and interest, like $587,000, because they all go back

[1:10:05] to 2020.

[1:10:07] I submitted a request to mitigate for costs plus a good

[1:10:11] faith contribution of $25,000 to the village of Pinecrest.

[1:10:15] And the reason is, he does plan to build his residence there.

[1:10:19] He is investing in the community.

[1:10:21] The property was derelict.

[1:10:23] And think there is a public policy in favor

[1:10:25] of encouraging people to take these properties

[1:10:27] and deal with them, to the benefit of the neighborhood.

[1:10:30] So he did immediately do all the things

[1:10:33] necessary to take care of this property.

[1:10:35] Right now, it's cleared and ready

[1:10:39] for-- he's going to be filing plans to do a single family

[1:10:42] residence at the property.

[1:10:45] So my respectful request is for the fines to be reduced

[1:10:49] to $25,000 plus costs.

[1:10:52] One of the bases, if you want to think about numbers of where

[1:10:55] that number comes from, if you look at when he acquired title

[1:10:59] to the property, August 7, 2025, till the time that the property

[1:11:03] was completely demolished, permit closed,

[1:11:05] and everything like that, the total amount of fines that had

[1:11:10] accrued during his time of ownership to get the demolition

[1:11:14] done and everything like that, 33,419 total.

[1:11:19] That includes costs.

[1:11:21] But obviously, during that time, it

[1:11:23] took quite a while to get a permit

[1:11:25] from the village of Pinecrest to get the demolition.

[1:11:27] So the $25,000 is reasonably based on what a fine would be

[1:11:33] for the time that he had control of the property.

[1:11:35] And I have spoken, our client has worked with the village

[1:11:40] to really take care of this immediately

[1:11:43] for the benefit of the village.

[1:11:44] So we would respectfully request that consideration.

[1:11:46] I'm here to answer any questions.

[1:11:48] I also have the general contractor here.

[1:11:50] To the extent that you have any questions about the violations

[1:11:53] or the condition of the house, the demolition or anything

[1:11:56] like that, they are available.

[1:11:57] And then otherwise, I defer to staff and answer questions.

[1:12:01] All right.

[1:12:04] Ms. Cabrera.

[1:12:07] For the record, my name is Esther Cabrera.

[1:12:09] I'm the co-compliance supervisor for the village of Pinecrest.

[1:12:12] Being brought before you today is a request for mitigation

[1:12:14] of fines for the property located at 6285 Southwest 99th

[1:12:22] Street by the current owner, which is Carbonell, LLC.

[1:12:26] Each case being presented was an excessive fines of 100,000.

[1:12:30] And as per division 2-150, the village council has

[1:12:33] the authority to consider this mitigation request.

[1:12:37] I'm going to go ahead and just say,

[1:12:38] I'm going to repeat a little bit of what Amanda Corcan said,

[1:12:40] just we're all on the record.

[1:12:42] Currently, the property has an outstanding balance

[1:12:45] of $578,313.79.

[1:12:50] Each case has been broken down in the memorandum submitted on

[1:12:53] July 1 for your consideration, which is in your packet.

[1:12:57] A quick history, this property does go back as

[1:12:59] of November of 2020.

[1:13:03] The first violation that was issued,

[1:13:06] if it's on page 2 of the memorandum,

[1:13:09] it was for a interior renovation.

[1:13:14] This interior renovation was brought into compliance

[1:13:17] by Carbonell, LLC, through the demolition process, which

[1:13:20] was done on June 4 of 2026.

[1:13:23] As you can see there, there's a breakdown

[1:13:24] of all the hard cost owed.

[1:13:27] On May 7 of 2021, Lavender Diving Group,

[1:13:31] who was the owner at that time, sold the property

[1:13:33] to Strength Capital.

[1:13:35] Strength Capital, at that time, incurred the violation

[1:13:37] cost from the previous owner and also incurred two different code

[1:13:42] violations-- one had to do with the swimming pool

[1:13:44] and the other had to do-- the swimming pool stagnation,

[1:13:47] and the other one had to do with the gates leading

[1:13:49] into the swimming pool not being self-closing, self-latching.

[1:13:52] I could just see, that documentation will show you

[1:13:54] individually how much each fine could accrue to,

[1:13:57] including the hard cost.

[1:13:59] On May 5 of 2022, the property was sold to 6285 Southwest 9

[1:14:04] Street LLC.

[1:14:06] All violations and penalties in hard costs

[1:14:08] were transferred through the sale to these individuals.

[1:14:12] Cases under ownership of this property

[1:14:14] were mitigated at the special magistrate meeting.

[1:14:17] On July 11 of 2023, the property was sold to Yellow Pine, LLC,

[1:14:21] and all violations, penalties, and hard costs

[1:14:23] were transferred through the sale of the property.

[1:14:25] The cases under this ownership were mitigated

[1:14:28] by the special magistrate.

[1:14:30] On April 11 of 2024, Carbonell, LLC

[1:14:33] was awarded the property through a foreclosure bid.

[1:14:36] On April 12, 2024, Carbonell, LLC

[1:14:40] contacted the village of Pinecrest

[1:14:41] to address outstanding compliance violations.

[1:14:44] On May 9, there was a legal freeze

[1:14:46] that was placed as the previous owner, which

[1:14:48] was Yellow Pine, LLC, filed an objection to the sale,

[1:14:51] and shortly thereafter, a bankruptcy.

[1:14:54] The certificate of title cannot be issued to Carbonell,

[1:14:56] LLC until the review process was complete.

[1:14:59] The freeze began on May 9 and ended on August 7 of 2025.

[1:15:04] The legal freeze at this time no longer Carbonell,

[1:15:06] LLC to access the property, so the village

[1:15:09] did continue to maintain the property.

[1:15:12] On August 7 of 2025, Carbonell did receive

[1:15:15] the certificate of title.

[1:15:17] On August 8, they had made contact

[1:15:19] with the village to start addressing

[1:15:21] all outstanding violations.

[1:15:23] As you can see, I've put two tables together

[1:15:25] for your consideration-- one is the table without the freeze,

[1:15:28] which the penalties would accrue daily until time of compliance.

[1:15:32] For each individual case, I've also

[1:15:34] addressed it as by interest, daily fines, totals,

[1:15:37] so you have numbers every which way.

[1:15:39] And then I also did the table with the freeze

[1:15:41] for your consideration, which would be that during the time

[1:15:44] that Carbonell owned the property

[1:15:46] and they could not gain access due to the legal freeze,

[1:15:50] I removed those as daily penalties,

[1:15:52] just in case that was a consideration for mitigation

[1:15:54] for you to consider at that point,

[1:15:56] holding the fines not against them

[1:15:58] since they did not have access to the property.

[1:16:01] On December 1 of 2025, the special magistrate

[1:16:04] considered a request for mitigation involving nine cases.

[1:16:10] Each was assessed an amount of less than 100,000.

[1:16:13] Following the consideration of the request,

[1:16:14] the special magistrate reduced those fines from 60,852

[1:16:18] to 20,933.

[1:16:20] And those violations were paid by Carbonell, LLC.

[1:16:25] At this point, I do not have any further information to provide,

[1:16:30] unless you have any questions for me.

[1:16:31] Do we have questions?

[1:16:32] So they've already paid a fine.

[1:16:34] They did pay a fine at the special magistrate.

[1:16:36] And that was for?

[1:16:38] Multiple violations-- abandoned vehicles, overgrown conditions.

[1:16:42] Not under their ownership, though.

[1:16:43] No.

[1:16:44] Every case that was under their ownership, the Carbonell,

[1:16:47] they rectified it within.

[1:16:49] So they paid a total of what?

[1:16:50] 29--

[1:16:52] $20,000.

[1:16:53] Yes.

[1:16:53] $20,000.

[1:16:54] So they ended up paying $20,933.86.

[1:17:01] That was the reduced amount.

[1:17:02] And the amount that was reduced was $60,852.86.

[1:17:08] But those were other cases other than these three that--

[1:17:11] Yeah, those were all fines that were under $100,000.

[1:17:13] And the special magistrate has the authority

[1:17:15] to mitigate for those.

[1:17:16] So now, they're here, and they want to settle this thing,

[1:17:20] pay the hard costs of $3,148.08, and basically,

[1:17:26] a fine of $25,000.

[1:17:28] That is what they're recommending.

[1:17:30] And what's the staff's recommendation?

[1:17:34] For us to figure it out.

[1:17:35] Well, I already can figure it out.

[1:17:37] What do you want?

[1:17:38] I'd accept that offer, and settle this, and move on.

[1:17:41] Because it seems to me like they've come--

[1:17:46] well, let me finish.

[1:17:47] I mean, what I've heard, what I've read,

[1:17:49] they just took over the property a year ago.

[1:17:52] All of this stuff goes back to what?

[1:17:54] Five or six years ago.

[1:17:56] They're the third owner.

[1:17:57] The third owner, whatever.

[1:17:58] Here we are.

[1:17:59] They've already taken care of $20,000 in fines.

[1:18:03] And they're willing to pay the hard costs

[1:18:05] and make another payment.

[1:18:07] I say, let's accept that and move on.

[1:18:11] That would be my vote.

[1:18:12] Any thoughts?

[1:18:13] I don't disagree with you.

[1:18:14] I mean, there's only $3,100 in hard cost total to this whole

[1:18:18] thing.

[1:18:18] And that includes staff time?

[1:18:21] Yes.

[1:18:24] I do have some questions, if I may.

[1:18:26] Yes, you may.

[1:18:27] [INAUDIBLE]

[1:18:28] Thank you.

[1:18:30] Yes, I'm still awake.

[1:18:32] I'm still awake, in case you were counting me out.

[1:18:38] I'm even more awake now that Spain

[1:18:40] has beat France in the World Cup that makes me happier.

[1:18:44] But that's just my personal preference.

[1:18:46] OK.

[1:18:47] Any question?

[1:18:47] Wait a second.

[1:18:50] He just interjected.

[1:18:51] What was the final score?

[1:18:52] 2-0.

[1:18:54] 2-0.

[1:18:55] OK.

[1:18:56] We get to pick both countries, both teams that

[1:18:58] are in the finals.

[1:18:59] Hang on a minute.

[1:19:00] Now, who's he going to pick next?

[1:19:01] If you're Argentinean, and you don't get to be a Spain fan,

[1:19:04] you get one.

[1:19:07] No, no.

[1:19:07] It's just that I prefer to play against Spain in the final.

[1:19:10] Oh, you're counting the chickens.

[1:19:11] I see.

[1:19:12] I see.

[1:19:13] OK.

[1:19:13] So the questions I have are--

[1:19:16] I have two questions-- so one is related to the acquisition

[1:19:20] price for the property.

[1:19:22] So how much did Carbonell, LLC pay in foreclosure

[1:19:27] for the property?

[1:19:28] Can you clarify what that amount is?

[1:19:30] That's question number 1.

[1:19:32] And number 2-- because maybe you have answers to both.

[1:19:36] Number 2 is, what was the appraised value

[1:19:39] of the property at the time that Carbonell acquired it

[1:19:44] in foreclosure?

[1:19:46] So I can attest that the property was sold at auction

[1:19:50] for $2,107,200.

[1:19:52] Esther, can you speak into the microphone, please?

[1:19:54] --for $2,107,200?

[1:19:59] So 2.1 million.

[1:20:01] Right.

[1:20:02] That was what the offer was and that Carbonell bidded.

[1:20:05] And they won the bid.

[1:20:08] Excellent.

[1:20:08] Thank you.

[1:20:09] And what was the appraised value of the property

[1:20:12] at the time that they won the bid for the acquisition?

[1:20:18] I can give you an estimate.

[1:20:19] Now, remember, at this point, the house

[1:20:21] is no longer there and demolished.

[1:20:23] But according to--

[1:20:25] I went on to a couple websites, with the real estate websites,

[1:20:28] and it looked like it was running at around between low 4

[1:20:33] million to about 450 million.

[1:20:38] Low four million to mid four million, in between there.

[1:20:41] All right.

[1:20:42] Let's just take low four million and round it up to four million,

[1:20:47] because that proves my point.

[1:20:49] When you're buying a property in foreclosure,

[1:20:53] you're going at it with risk, number 1.

[1:20:56] And you're assuming the risk.

[1:20:57] And the value of that risk is the difference

[1:20:59] in value, 1.9 million, the 2.1 versus the 4 million.

[1:21:06] And so you're taking that risk.

[1:21:08] You're assuming that this property

[1:21:10] is going to come with some surprises

[1:21:11] that you don't know what they will be.

[1:21:14] But in exchange for that, you're paying

[1:21:15] for almost half the value or the appraised value

[1:21:20] or the market value of the property at that time.

[1:21:23] Well--

[1:21:23] Can I respond?

[1:21:26] Yeah, in a minute.

[1:21:26] I don't know if you may respond.

[1:21:28] But I want to close down my thoughts.

[1:21:32] At the time that you were--

[1:21:34] there's a request for bids for offers for the property.

[1:21:40] And any potential suitor, any potential buyer

[1:21:45] will look at this property, will assess its value,

[1:21:48] will estimate that it's at four million.

[1:21:50] I would imagine, at least that's the diligence I would do,

[1:21:52] and even though I'm not an expert in this.

[1:21:54] I would look at what the value is for that property.

[1:21:56] OK, four million.

[1:21:59] And if I had known at that time that the village was going

[1:22:04] a few years later or a year later,

[1:22:06] was going to just basically remove all outstanding debts

[1:22:10] on the property that are owed to the village.

[1:22:13] I might have considered at that time

[1:22:15] to also make an offer for the property.

[1:22:20] In fact, there could have been many other potential buyers

[1:22:23] for the property if all of them had known at that time

[1:22:27] that a year later, the village was going to basically withdraw

[1:22:30] all outstanding debts on the property.

[1:22:33] So the fact that we are even considering to do that now

[1:22:37] is potentially unfair to any other potential buyers

[1:22:40] a year ago that would have considered this property

[1:22:43] for an acquisition.

[1:22:44] That's what I'm coming to.

[1:22:46] I'm not really looking at this whether--

[1:22:48] I'm thinking, OK, it's $400,000 fair or it's $587,000 fair.

[1:22:54] I'm looking at this from a business perspective.

[1:22:57] You're buying a property in foreclosure.

[1:22:59] You know that it's coming at risk.

[1:23:02] You're buying it under the assumption

[1:23:04] that there are some debts outstanding.

[1:23:06] And in fact, if you had done your research at that time,

[1:23:08] you would have known what the amount of the debt

[1:23:10] is, because that's public record.

[1:23:13] And yet, you're still moving forward,

[1:23:14] and you're moving forward with the acquisition,

[1:23:16] because you know that 2.1 million is a good deal.

[1:23:20] It's half the value of the property at that time.

[1:23:23] So I think the fact that we're even

[1:23:28] considering lowering this debt is

[1:23:31] us trying to influence what was actually a business decision.

[1:23:38] And for that reason alone, we could potentially

[1:23:43] discuss whether it should be the table without the freeze

[1:23:45] or the table with freeze.

[1:23:47] I think that's a valid argument.

[1:23:48] We could talk about that.

[1:23:50] But I don't think it is--

[1:23:52] it would be disrespectful of even how the market works,

[1:23:57] if we later come in and withdraw the debt on this property.

[1:24:00] And it would be unfair, as I've said,

[1:24:02] to any potential buyers at that time that would have otherwise

[1:24:05] considered to place a bid on the property as well.

[1:24:09] If I may respond--

[1:24:10] Let me have the attorney--

[1:24:11] Amanda, you want to respond to that?

[1:24:12] And then we'll go back.

[1:24:14] Hi.

[1:24:14] This is Amanda [? Hahn, ?] for the record, responding.

[1:24:18] The assessed value in 2024, when the house was on the property,

[1:24:21] was $2,791,000.

[1:24:25] The bid was at 2.1.

[1:24:27] He spent about $300,000 to $400,000 in subsequent

[1:24:31] litigation, afterwards challenging the bid between

[1:24:33] a couple of banks and a couple of previous owners.

[1:24:36] That's why there was a delay in taking title.

[1:24:38] And then he had to spend over 100 to demolish the house.

[1:24:41] So we're in it for about 2.75, which is what

[1:24:44] the assessed value was in 2024.

[1:24:46] So I respectfully request that the village, when you consider

[1:24:52] encouraging people to take title of these derelict properties--

[1:24:56] the property was a disgusting pool,

[1:24:59] unpermitted work, and all kinds of things for six years

[1:25:02] until now.

[1:25:03] And so he took care of it immediately upon taking title.

[1:25:06] I think that that should be considered as encouraging people

[1:25:09] to turn the properties over in the village.

[1:25:13] Mr. Chairman.

[1:25:14] Ms. Cabrera, first of all, thank you

[1:25:17] very much for the way you presented the data.

[1:25:19] That was very helpful when we looked it over.

[1:25:21] So I appreciate all the charts and all the history of it.

[1:25:24] We had a similar case for this not very long ago.

[1:25:28] Same situation.

[1:25:29] A property sold once or twice, and then purchased.

[1:25:33] These fines are all baked into the purchase

[1:25:35] price of these properties.

[1:25:38] So I see no reason to discount--

[1:25:42] now, at this point, to waive all these fees.

[1:25:46] I mean, whoever-- it's been purchased, what?

[1:25:48] Three times, with all these fines attached to it?

[1:25:52] So that's got to be--

[1:25:54] I don't know.

[1:25:54] I've never bought a house in foreclosure, so I don't know.

[1:25:57] Do you not know that there's $300,000 worth of fines attached

[1:26:01] to it?

[1:26:02] He did not know.

[1:26:03] He did not know.

[1:26:04] No.

[1:26:04] How could you not know?

[1:26:05] How do you not know?

[1:26:06] Because he bought it at a foreclosure auction.

[1:26:08] He said, look, I did not know that there was $500,000

[1:26:10] in fines.

[1:26:10] OK, so that would be his fault. What I do agree with,

[1:26:16] the fact that he jumped right on this,

[1:26:19] I do like the idea of going with the table with the freeze,

[1:26:23] the $407,000, because it appears he bought it,

[1:26:26] immediately contacted the village,

[1:26:28] started doing something.

[1:26:29] Then this legal matter came up about ownership.

[1:26:32] He didn't have title to the house.

[1:26:34] You don't want to give him a discount?

[1:26:36] I think, at that point, going with the 407 would

[1:26:39] be very appropriate, but I would not waive the fees any further

[1:26:45] than that, because, again, it's baked into what

[1:26:49] he paid for the house.

[1:26:50] The only fines that accrued on the property while he had

[1:26:54] control of it is $33,419.

[1:26:58] Understood.

[1:26:59] I understood, he came in and did a great job

[1:27:02] trying to button everything up.

[1:27:04] That's fine.

[1:27:04] But he still purchased that liability.

[1:27:10] It is true.

[1:27:10] However, there is an incentive for the village

[1:27:13] to incentivize people to buy these properties,

[1:27:17] demolish the house, secure the pool, clean up the landscaping,

[1:27:20] and build a nice new house.

[1:27:23] And that's why we should waive the $180,000.

[1:27:26] Well, what's your proposal then?

[1:27:28] To go with the $407,991.23.

[1:27:32] And your rationale is that everybody knows

[1:27:34] that these fines are there.

[1:27:35] And when you bid on the house, you

[1:27:38] bid on it with those in mind.

[1:27:39] You can make a gamble that you'll get them waived,

[1:27:43] but that's a gamble.

[1:27:46] Well--

[1:27:46] I have a question then.

[1:27:47] I don't see-- I'm sorry.

[1:27:48] I don't see--

[1:27:48] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[1:27:49] I don't see how anybody doesn't know that this fine exists

[1:27:54] on the property.

[1:27:56] What you don't know, it's their mistake.

[1:27:59] I know that you're going to defer.

[1:28:00] No, no, I don't understand.

[1:28:01] No.

[1:28:02] I mean, I remember my previous term on this council,

[1:28:04] we had a lot of these kinds of--

[1:28:06] a lot, I remember, of these situations.

[1:28:09] And we'd have our fines, on a daily basis, running up

[1:28:14] on paper.

[1:28:16] I don't recall.

[1:28:17] Maybe Mitch can answer.

[1:28:19] These fines, are they liens on the property?

[1:28:24] Are they liens?

[1:28:25] Yes.

[1:28:25] We lien the property.

[1:28:26] And when in foreclosure, and this property

[1:28:30] has gone through a number of iterations--

[1:28:33] We're generally a claimant in those foreclosure

[1:28:36] cases for liens, so that to the extent

[1:28:39] there's excess revenue from the foreclosure sale,

[1:28:44] we would get paid out of that.

[1:28:46] In this case, apparently, we got nothing out of foreclosure sale,

[1:28:49] because it was below the amount of the prime judgment.

[1:28:53] OK.

[1:28:53] Well--

[1:28:54] [INAUDIBLE] and the village was listed in foreclosure.

[1:28:58] Was not.

[1:29:00] So if we weren't listed, that means the--

[1:29:03] Everything stands.

[1:29:04] Pardon?

[1:29:04] Everything stands.

[1:29:05] I'm sorry.

[1:29:06] Everything stands as it is, all the fines and--

[1:29:09] Yes.

[1:29:10] OK, I get it.

[1:29:10] But that does go to the notice issue.

[1:29:12] I'm sorry?

[1:29:13] That does go to the notice issue,

[1:29:14] because the village was not part of the foreclosure action.

[1:29:17] That was where I was coming from.

[1:29:18] If we were not listed, and somebody takes property

[1:29:22] under foreclosure and is not aware of these liens that go

[1:29:26] back five or six years, they--

[1:29:29] So you have two ways of looking at this.

[1:29:31] You can say, hey, yes, the property owner did not look

[1:29:34] and didn't do some diligence.

[1:29:36] A lot of people don't go and say,

[1:29:38] hey, I'm getting ready to foreclose,

[1:29:39] maybe I should call that city and see

[1:29:41] if there's any type of penalties before I go ahead

[1:29:43] and declare the property.

[1:29:45] It's just a matter of you're going to--

[1:29:47] Well, OK, let me finish.

[1:29:49] My thought was or is, if this were the original property

[1:29:54] owner who allowed the property to lay fallow and all that,

[1:29:58] that's one thing.

[1:30:00] But I don't think--

[1:30:02] which is why I thought what counsel has said.

[1:30:07] And what I remember from other incidents, Joe, Mr. Mayor,

[1:30:11] that we had similar type things, where

[1:30:13] we had these enormous fines.

[1:30:16] And then somebody came in and purchased,

[1:30:17] and did what we wanted, cleaned up the property.

[1:30:20] We looked at them as on paper, a number,

[1:30:23] but then said, OK, let's resolve this for the new person.

[1:30:28] These aren't supposed to be punitive.

[1:30:30] And there is some public policy involved in, OK, somebody

[1:30:33] buys property.

[1:30:36] I don't think we should be here and second guessing

[1:30:39] somebody's business decision.

[1:30:40] But at the end of the day, the purchased property,

[1:30:42] he finds out, there are liens.

[1:30:44] He's made an effort to pay costs.

[1:30:47] And I guess, now, total of 25-- almost $50,000 in fines.

[1:30:53] I would say, we, as Pinecrest, shouldn't be in a manner

[1:30:58] in a-- shouldn't be our intention

[1:31:00] to be punitive with people who didn't incur the violations.

[1:31:05] So my view is to accept this offer and move on with it,

[1:31:09] let the person come in and build this house,

[1:31:10] do whatever, and move on with it.

[1:31:13] We haven't been damaged.

[1:31:14] We've got paper violations, and that's what they are.

[1:31:17] That's all they are, they're paper.

[1:31:20] Ms. Manager.

[1:31:21] The people that lived around there

[1:31:23] were damaged, not by them in particular, but just because

[1:31:26] of the ongoing violations for over six years.

[1:31:29] So there is that issue.

[1:31:32] Well, they're not here.

[1:31:33] I get that, but there's no way to quantify that,

[1:31:35] other than, yeah, you don't want to live next to a place

[1:31:38] like that.

[1:31:40] To your point, I think that the fines are supposed

[1:31:43] to be that code compliance.

[1:31:46] The primary goal is compliance, not punishment.

[1:31:50] We just had a care where--

[1:31:51] Hold on that, Jerry.

[1:31:52] Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:31:53] I'm sorry.

[1:31:53] Jerry's been chomping at the bit to go here.

[1:31:55] Go for it.

[1:31:56] Well, I don't want to speak over you, Vice Mayor,

[1:31:59] but I agree with you.

[1:32:00] I mean, I think-- look, honestly, I

[1:32:02] don't find this one particularly close.

[1:32:06] I would be willing to go with the whole thing,

[1:32:08] but I'm OK with the 407 that the vice mayor proposed.

[1:32:12] And I'll tell you why.

[1:32:13] [INAUDIBLE]

[1:32:15] Yeah.

[1:32:15] But yeah, I mean, these fines, I don't view it as punitive.

[1:32:20] I appreciate the comments from Council McDonald,

[1:32:22] but I don't view it as punitive.

[1:32:23] I view these as essential to our neighborhoods.

[1:32:26] There were neighbors who were affected.

[1:32:28] These things have to be upheld.

[1:32:30] They're critical to the quality of life in the village.

[1:32:33] And I understand that this LLC was not the owner at that time,

[1:32:38] but they bought it, whether they knew it or not.

[1:32:40] They certainly should have known it or could have known it.

[1:32:44] And when you buy a property in foreclosure,

[1:32:49] anybody knows or should know that there is a serious risk

[1:32:52] that there are violations, especially, from everything

[1:32:54] we can tell, you look at the property,

[1:32:56] and you could tell it was in violation.

[1:32:57] This wasn't some latent thing buried somewhere in the records.

[1:33:01] This was a property that was in total disrepair.

[1:33:04] And with all due respect, the notion

[1:33:09] that we want to incentivize people,

[1:33:11] we don't need to incentivize people to buy in Pinecrest.

[1:33:13] People are salivating to buy these properties,

[1:33:15] and flip them, and sell them for all sorts of other money.

[1:33:18] And God bless them.

[1:33:19] I mean, that's their prerogative.

[1:33:20] And I don't know what this entity is doing with it

[1:33:23] or not doing with it.

[1:33:24] But to me, they knew or should have

[1:33:28] known what they were buying.

[1:33:29] This is a large amount of money.

[1:33:31] And it was a great discount.

[1:33:34] I respect them.

[1:33:36] And the reason I'm OK to go with the substantial reduction,

[1:33:41] I mean, the reduction that Vice Mayor Fairman is suggesting is

[1:33:44] $180,000, which I don't think we need to do, but I'm OK with it.

[1:33:50] But again, I don't think it's about incentivizing people,

[1:33:53] because what they're doing is getting under market,

[1:33:55] a home in a beautiful part of Pinecrest

[1:33:57] that they can either live in and enjoy or flip

[1:33:59] for some astronomical number.

[1:34:03] And they're going to get all sorts of other benefits

[1:34:05] from living there.

[1:34:06] Heck, they may not have to pay taxes.

[1:34:08] But I think, to me, this is not--

[1:34:11] and I appreciate the arguments of counsel.

[1:34:13] And I appreciate the advocacy.

[1:34:15] This isn't that.

[1:34:16] But to me, I would uphold the full amount, but I'm OK with--

[1:34:21] I may not use that word.

[1:34:22] I'm perfectly comfortable with the reduction

[1:34:25] that the vice mayor proposed in this one.

[1:34:28] OK.

[1:34:29] Interesting.

[1:34:29] I don't know if I remember correctly, if Council Member

[1:34:32] Hochkammer were here, she would be kicking both you and I

[1:34:34] under the table on this one, because I think we hammered

[1:34:37] those guys in the past.

[1:34:38] Did we really?

[1:34:39] I seem to remember making decisions, though, where we, OK,

[1:34:43] let's move on and make--

[1:34:45] Yeah.

[1:34:46] What?

[1:34:46] Well, make a deal.

[1:34:48] Usually, they're a little different circumstances.

[1:34:50] But we just had a case right before you came in, Jim,

[1:34:53] that it was a six figure, and it was the same sort of thing.

[1:34:57] They had purchased a house, knowing

[1:35:00] that those fines were there, and then wanted

[1:35:02] them relieved from those fines.

[1:35:08] If they knew it, that's one thing.

[1:35:10] I'm hearing that your guy didn't know they had to know it.

[1:35:13] Again, here's what I'm seeing.

[1:35:15] I'm just looking at this.

[1:35:16] Not here.

[1:35:16] We're looking at, whatever it is, $400,000.

[1:35:20] I don't want to say-- well, she's a lawyer.

[1:35:23] You're a lawyer.

[1:35:24] If I get hit, I'm the owner, and I get hit with this.

[1:35:26] And I didn't know anything about it.

[1:35:28] There's enough money at stake here to drag us all into court

[1:35:31] and sue us over it.

[1:35:32] I mean, not that we have to.

[1:35:33] I'm just saying, is there an issue of notice?

[1:35:36] My whole point is on this kind of thing.

[1:35:39] Let's settle it with a number that satisfies us and move on.

[1:35:44] And that's all I'm saying.

[1:35:45] Got it.

[1:35:46] And whether it's 50,000 or whatever.

[1:35:48] Well, this is where I would-- with Council Member Greenberg's

[1:35:52] point, once he did own it outright, he took care of it.

[1:35:59] And apparently, if I'm to believe what I read here,

[1:36:03] there was a point in time where he could do nothing

[1:36:05] to the property, even though it was up in the air

[1:36:09] with a title dispute.

[1:36:10] So we're relieving them of that time frame

[1:36:13] of those fines accumulating.

[1:36:16] So that's where I'm thinking, that's

[1:36:20] something he maybe had no control of.

[1:36:23] They came up, and he did get right on it

[1:36:25] once that time passed.

[1:36:27] Yeah.

[1:36:27] I mean, I just want to--

[1:36:28] I'm sorry.

[1:36:29] No, go ahead.

[1:36:30] I don't believe there's a plausible--

[1:36:33] the concern that you raised, though, Council Member McDonald,

[1:36:36] is about a notice and whether there's a risk to us is fair.

[1:36:40] I don't think there's a plausible notice claim.

[1:36:43] I find it unfathomable.

[1:36:46] And I don't know, maybe this is a question

[1:36:48] for Mitch or for somebody.

[1:36:52] If there's a risk that the homeowner is going

[1:36:54] to look at this and say, I didn't have notice,

[1:36:56] I'll see you in court, well, then

[1:36:58] I don't want to mitigate this thing.

[1:36:59] I mean, I would do the mitigation

[1:37:02] if we're going to give them the benefit of their quick work

[1:37:07] and put it down to 407.

[1:37:09] I mean, I don't know if there's a way to do that on a condition

[1:37:11] that we're not going to be in court.

[1:37:13] Condition it on receiving a release.

[1:37:16] Yeah, I mean, I would do that.

[1:37:17] I mean, if we can do that legally, sure,

[1:37:22] I mean, I would have any mitigation conditioned

[1:37:24] on release.

[1:37:25] I don't want to mitigate $180,000 then go to court.

[1:37:27] If they're going to challenge, they

[1:37:28] should challenge the whole amount, not mitigate an amount.

[1:37:30] So yes, if you want to condition mitigation

[1:37:33] on receiving a release of claims from the owner, you can do that.

[1:37:37] Yeah.

[1:37:37] I mean, I would want to do that.

[1:37:38] And again, I'm not trying to make this adversarial,

[1:37:40] but I'm not hearing that from--

[1:37:42] they're not up there, waving the saber and saying that.

[1:37:44] But if there is any risk, sure, if we're going to mitigate

[1:37:47] $180,000, I would suggest we do it on the condition of release.

[1:37:52] And I would be supportive of that.

[1:37:54] OK.

[1:37:55] Well, I get the lay of the land.

[1:37:56] Do we need a public comment on this?

[1:37:59] Yes.

[1:38:01] So with that, if you all don't mind,

[1:38:03] I'll open the floor for public comment.

[1:38:08] Oops.

[1:38:09] Mr. Sanchez, welcome back.

[1:38:11] Hey, how's it going, guys?

[1:38:13] Ralph Sanchez, 8360 Southwest 1/35 Street, Pinecrest, Florida,

[1:38:17] 23156.

[1:38:19] I'd like to follow up on what Counsel Meyer said,

[1:38:22] Vice Mayor Fairman, Councilman Jerry Greenberg.

[1:38:27] First, the property owner in this case is a corporation.

[1:38:31] It's not a young family that didn't know what they were

[1:38:34] doing, went for a foreclosure.

[1:38:37] It's a sophisticated client who knew or should

[1:38:41] have known of the fines.

[1:38:42] I don't think any of the fines should be waived.

[1:38:45] They bought this property at about a $2 million discount,

[1:38:49] so they already got the windfall.

[1:38:51] The fines are about $400,000, $500,000.

[1:38:54] So even if they pay the full amount,

[1:38:56] it would be $2.6 million.

[1:38:58] Subtract that from $4 million.

[1:38:59] They're still saving $1.4 million.

[1:39:02] So that's all I have to say to that.

[1:39:04] Thank you.

[1:39:04] Appreciate that.

[1:39:06] Anybody else from the public want to comment on?

[1:39:08] Mr. Speizer.

[1:39:10] Welcome back, Harry.

[1:39:11] Yes, thank you very much.

[1:39:12] Harry Speizer, 10,001 Southwest 70th Avenue.

[1:39:15] Just one question.

[1:39:16] I don't understand, why warrant the liens reported?

[1:39:22] If I'm hearing you correctly, how

[1:39:25] could somebody not know that there's a lien on the property?

[1:39:28] I don't get it.

[1:39:29] Either the attorneys are incompetent or someone

[1:39:34] is not doing their job on the city's part.

[1:39:37] But this sounds bewildering to me.

[1:39:39] I don't understand what's going on.

[1:39:42] That's the $587,000 question.

[1:39:44] Yeah, that's the question.

[1:39:46] I can't answer.

[1:39:47] I mean, it's either there or it isn't there.

[1:39:50] I'm startled to hear an attorney say, we didn't know.

[1:39:55] I'm going to respond to that.

[1:39:56] That's all I can say.

[1:39:56] I'm going to [INAUDIBLE] you, but you've

[1:39:58] managed to insult both parties.

[1:39:59] So, Ms. Manager, why don't you respond to that?

[1:40:02] I'm going to respond to that, because it's not our issue.

[1:40:06] We record every lien with the county.

[1:40:09] So whoever foreclosed on the property

[1:40:12] did not notice it correctly.

[1:40:14] The onus is not on the village to do that.

[1:40:16] It's all recorded in the county record, these liens.

[1:40:21] But this isn't a question and answer period, except for us.

[1:40:24] OK.

[1:40:25] So anybody else from the public want to comment on this?

[1:40:31] Ms. Clerk, anybody online?

[1:40:33] I just wanted to make sure that the record--

[1:40:35] Hold on.

[1:40:36] No, Mayor.

[1:40:36] I thought you--

[1:40:37] No one online--

[1:40:38] We can't invite you.

[1:40:39] I'm the only person--

[1:40:40] I was wanting to show because she went last week.

[1:40:42] I know.

[1:40:43] Now, you know that.

[1:40:44] I knew that before, because she raised her hand.

[1:40:46] I'm going to go through the process.

[1:40:48] Anybody online wants to speak?

[1:40:50] Not on this item, no.

[1:40:51] Ms. Clerk, would you like to--

[1:40:53] Just making sure that the record reflects

[1:40:55] the assessed value of the property in 2024,

[1:40:57] with the house on it, was 2791.

[1:41:00] So it was not $4 million.

[1:41:01] And we're not talking about the windfall that I think

[1:41:03] maybe is in some minds here.

[1:41:05] So we're at 2.1 on the bid, about $300,000 to clear title,

[1:41:10] through the litigation with the banks and things like that,

[1:41:13] and about 150 on the demo.

[1:41:15] So we're in for 2.55.

[1:41:17] All right.

[1:41:18] So with that, we'll close the public comment portion of this.

[1:41:24] Any more debate or does somebody want to make a motion?

[1:41:26] Mr. Mayor.

[1:41:27] Yes, sir.

[1:41:27] Question for Mitch, so I understand

[1:41:29] before I make a motion.

[1:41:31] So what Council Member Greenberg was talking about,

[1:41:34] there's some provision we put about,

[1:41:36] if we do give them the freeze rate of 407,

[1:41:42] do we have a time frame on when we would receive the money?

[1:41:46] Or is it another type of commitment?

[1:41:49] You can put all of those conditions on.

[1:41:51] I would suggest that you provide a 30-day period,

[1:41:58] if that's acceptable to the requester,

[1:42:02] and also condition it on receiving a release of claims

[1:42:11] satisfactory to the village attorney.

[1:42:20] General release.

[1:42:22] So we're at that point, where--

[1:42:24] So I would like to make the motion to levy the fine

[1:42:31] at $407,000 or mitigate the fine of $407,991.23,

[1:42:39] based on the following conditions,

[1:42:41] that it's paid within 30 days and that there is a release

[1:42:45] of claims acceptable to the village attorney.

[1:42:48] OK, we have a motion.

[1:42:49] Do we have a second?

[1:42:50] I'll second.

[1:42:51] All right.

[1:42:52] Any final debate on that?

[1:42:54] All right, Ms. Clerk.

[1:42:59] Council Member.

[1:42:59] Greenberg.

[1:43:00] Yes.

[1:43:00] Council Member McDonald.

[1:43:02] No.

[1:43:03] Council Member Meyer.

[1:43:04] Yes.

[1:43:06] Vice Mayor Fairman.

[1:43:07] Yes.

[1:43:08] Mayor Corradino.

[1:43:09] No.

[1:43:10] Motion is approved.

[1:43:11] All right.

[1:43:12] Thank you, all, very much on that.

[1:43:16] We have this thing, parking analysis for fitness

[1:43:18] and medical centers.

[1:43:19] Did we already go over that or--

[1:43:20] We went over [INAUDIBLE].

[1:43:21] So that's done.

[1:43:24] That's done.

[1:43:24] So the only thing--

[1:43:25] Red light cameras?

[1:43:27] Red light cameras, yes.

[1:43:28] Anybody care about that?

[1:43:30] Oh, yes.

[1:43:30] Well, the chief's here.

[1:43:36] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council.

[1:43:37] Good evening, sir.

[1:43:40] If you all recall, a few meetings ago,

[1:43:42] we approved moving forward with the red light cameras

[1:43:45] on the 67th Avenue corridor.

[1:43:48] I was instructed to study if any of our other interior signalized

[1:43:53] intersections may also be deserving of such cameras.

[1:43:57] So I commissioned the study.

[1:44:00] You should have the results in your packets.

[1:44:04] Based on the study, based on the results,

[1:44:07] my recommendations are to remove two from the 67th Avenue

[1:44:10] corridor, relocate them to other intersections,

[1:44:14] and if it is the will of this council,

[1:44:16] move forward with the intersections on my memo,

[1:44:19] which is 112 and 7, 2, 104 and 7, 2, 120 and 7, 7, 128 and 7,

[1:44:25] 7, and 132 and 7, 7.

[1:44:27] All these intersections showed considerable violations

[1:44:32] of red light runners, not to include

[1:44:35] right turns, just straight through and left turns.

[1:44:39] The reason I would recommend to remove the 6,

[1:44:44] 7 and 124 and 120 and 6, 7, because the study showed those

[1:44:48] were relatively low risk intersections in the original

[1:44:51] 67th Avenue corridor.

[1:44:54] Questions?

[1:44:55] I have one.

[1:44:56] Sir.

[1:44:56] So on the 77th Avenue streets, is it mostly the 77th Avenue

[1:45:03] that the cars are running the reds or is it the cross streets?

[1:45:07] What have you got here?

[1:45:08] 120, 128, and 132nd.

[1:45:12] I don't have it broken down by the actual direction.

[1:45:17] If need be, I can break it down even further, but that's--

[1:45:19] It would be the same answer then for 112 and 104 for 70.

[1:45:23] Correct.

[1:45:23] OK.

[1:45:24] Got it.

[1:45:27] Anybody else?

[1:45:27] I just have a question.

[1:45:28] I think this is great.

[1:45:29] And I of course defer to the chief's recommendation on this.

[1:45:32] In the earlier iteration, it was all on Ludlum,

[1:45:35] so I know that to the extent the word was shared about this,

[1:45:38] it would be, hey, we're putting cameras in on Ludlum.

[1:45:41] Obviously, this changes it a bit,

[1:45:43] but can you just remind me of what the plan is

[1:45:46] when these are deployed?

[1:45:48] Is there going to be an announcement, hey,

[1:45:50] we're putting cameras here?

[1:45:51] Yes, it requires a public information campaign

[1:45:53] and requires a 30-day warning period.

[1:45:57] So there will be general knowledge of this.

[1:46:01] We have not yet moved forward with the contract on 67th

[1:46:04] Avenue, because if there was any interest in expanding it,

[1:46:08] it would be all part of the same contract.

[1:46:09] We would have to go back to the vendor

[1:46:11] and rework some of the terms.

[1:46:13] So that's why we're here today, to decide what direction you

[1:46:15] guys want to go.

[1:46:16] I have a feeling, you'll figure it out

[1:46:18] pretty quick when you get the note.

[1:46:19] But will this have, I mean, a substantial cost?

[1:46:22] No, it's cost-neutral to the village.

[1:46:24] That clause still remains.

[1:46:26] OK.

[1:46:27] I think it's great,

[1:46:29] Mr. Mayor, so--

[1:46:30] I have a question, if I--

[1:46:31] oh, sorry.

[1:46:31] Go ahead.

[1:46:32] Go ahead, Ariel.

[1:46:33] Then we'll let chairman go since he's in the room.

[1:46:36] I have a question for the chief.

[1:46:39] As you did the studies on these other intersections,

[1:46:41] did you study the ones on 67th that had been originally studied

[1:46:46] by the vendor?

[1:46:49] In the original study that prompted us to move forward with

[1:46:53] the 67th Avenue, we have that data.

[1:46:56] We didn't do another study on 67th Avenue.

[1:47:00] But your staff, it is the village

[1:47:02] that did the studies on these other new intersections?

[1:47:05] I'm sorry.

[1:47:06] Can you repeat it?

[1:47:06] I didn't hear you.

[1:47:08] Who did the study on these additional intersections?

[1:47:11] Was it us or the vendor?

[1:47:13] No, the vendor does the study.

[1:47:14] They put out temporary cameras on all these intersections.

[1:47:18] They let the data run for a 12-hour period.

[1:47:20] And then they report back how many violations were witnessed

[1:47:23] in the 12-hour period.

[1:47:25] But it was done at our request.

[1:47:26] At our request.

[1:47:27] Correct.

[1:47:28] OK.

[1:47:29] All right.

[1:47:29] Thank you.

[1:47:30] Thanks for clarifying.

[1:47:31] Mr. Chairman.

[1:47:32] So back in our February meeting, when we approved these,

[1:47:34] it was for five red light cameras.

[1:47:38] From my remembrance of it, it's basically a trial that we were

[1:47:43] going to check out the red light cameras,

[1:47:46] see how effective they would be on 67th Avenue.

[1:47:49] At that time, there were two of the intersections

[1:47:51] that they classified as tier 3, which were less of a problem

[1:47:55] intersections than the other ones,

[1:47:57] the two that you have mentioned.

[1:47:58] Correct.

[1:48:00] The discussion became, should we look at other intersections

[1:48:04] to take those two and spread this out around the village

[1:48:07] a little bit more, rather than having everything on 67th

[1:48:10] Avenue?

[1:48:11] So sure enough, we have two intersections,

[1:48:15] both on 112th street, 72nd Avenue and 77th Avenue,

[1:48:20] which could take the place of those.

[1:48:22] So my belief is, we should just stick to the five cameras that

[1:48:26] we originally approved in February,

[1:48:29] but take two of those in the tier 3 category and move them

[1:48:34] to this 1/12 and 72nd, 1/12 and 77th.

[1:48:41] And let's see how effective they are,

[1:48:43] what the public reaction is.

[1:48:45] Again, if we're going to do these things,

[1:48:48] I'm going to expect that these red light violations will

[1:48:51] decrease in number.

[1:48:52] If they're not decreasing in number, then what are we doing?

[1:48:56] We're not really making our streets any safer.

[1:48:59] So I would suggest that we stick with the five cameras originally

[1:49:03] intended in February, and change the two locations,

[1:49:07] and then see how this all works.

[1:49:10] All right.

[1:49:12] Everybody spoken?

[1:49:13] I'm inclined to go with what the chief says.

[1:49:15] So what do we want to do?

[1:49:17] Somebody--

[1:49:20] [INAUDIBLE]

[1:49:21] We got to do something.

[1:49:22] We got to come to at least a consensus, which--

[1:49:24] We're just going to put them everywhere then?

[1:49:26] No, I think anywhere there's a problem, I guess.

[1:49:28] Well, I don't know if we've looked at every intersection.

[1:49:30] Well, we haven't, but the ones we've

[1:49:32] looked at, where there's a problem, he's recommending them.

[1:49:35] I mean, I don't know how you ignore

[1:49:37] life safety issue like that.

[1:49:39] And we're hearing the chief say, based

[1:49:42] on the experience of the police department,

[1:49:44] this is where we should move them to,

[1:49:46] because the results where they currently are

[1:49:50] haven't demonstrated the need.

[1:49:52] So he's giving us a recommendation to move them.

[1:49:55] I think we should listen to the chief's recommendation.

[1:49:58] For clarification, they are not up yet on 67th Avenue.

[1:50:01] This is just based on study numbers.

[1:50:03] OK.

[1:50:03] Even-- OK.

[1:50:06] I guess, what we're saying is we find out that there is not

[1:50:09] an issue there.

[1:50:11] What's it matter?

[1:50:12] You just keep them up.

[1:50:14] Well, we had approved five.

[1:50:16] Yeah, but doesn't cost us anything.

[1:50:19] I know, but it's still more cameras, more infrastructure

[1:50:24] at these intersections.

[1:50:26] You're still not.

[1:50:26] There's other intersections that we're not taking care of.

[1:50:31] I think it's an overreach.

[1:50:33] That's just my personal opinion.

[1:50:35] We approve five.

[1:50:37] We looked into others to see if we should spread that out

[1:50:40] instead of keeping it on 67th Avenue.

[1:50:42] We found two good intersections that above all, the others

[1:50:45] qualify.

[1:50:47] Let's just move the two and keep it at five, and get it started

[1:50:54] and see how it affects the traffic.

[1:50:57] Again, last year, 39 tickets were

[1:51:00] issued for running red lights in the village of Pinecrest.

[1:51:04] So how big of a problem is it?

[1:51:09] Why would you argue with preventing people from--

[1:51:12] I'm not preventing them, but fining them

[1:51:14] for running red lights.

[1:51:15] [INAUDIBLE]

[1:51:16] It's like speeding through the schools.

[1:51:20] Listen, I agree, it's--

[1:51:21] It's OK to speed through a school zone,

[1:51:23] but there is a toll for that.

[1:51:24] And that's what this is.

[1:51:25] Go ahead and run as many red lights

[1:51:27] as you want, but there's a fine for it, because it's unsafe.

[1:51:30] And we could--

[1:51:31] It's deadly.

[1:51:32] At the same time, we're talking about lowering the speed limits

[1:51:35] when we decided on the five red light cameras.

[1:51:37] And I'm not a fan of red light cameras,

[1:51:38] but it is a safety issue.

[1:51:40] And we are showing that there's a lot of people

[1:51:42] running these red lights.

[1:51:44] So you're right.

[1:51:45] I mean, we could put cameras everywhere in the village

[1:51:49] and make it maybe safer.

[1:51:52] But look at you as one, not a huge reduction in red light

[1:51:57] running, but a good bit of revenue coming into the village.

[1:52:01] But I don't know if it's made it a lot safer.

[1:52:07] All right.

[1:52:07] So who's in favor of the chief's recommendation?

[1:52:10] I guess, that's the question.

[1:52:11] I am.

[1:52:12] So I have a question for--

[1:52:14] Yeah, go ahead.

[1:52:17] Generally speaking, I agree, this is a safety matter.

[1:52:20] And as such, if we have a solution recommended

[1:52:22] by the chief to address a safety matter,

[1:52:25] we should move forward and support it.

[1:52:27] It's my opinion.

[1:52:28] I'm curious if the chief has any data or any insights

[1:52:32] as to whether these types of deployments,

[1:52:36] these types of cameras do actually

[1:52:37] impact the number of red lights that drivers run.

[1:52:42] We're not going to be the first village that installs them,

[1:52:44] so what are the statistics?

[1:52:47] What does the data prove or show in other deployments,

[1:52:50] other cities that have implemented these?

[1:52:52] And what reduction have they seen in reckless driving?

[1:52:59] So here's the best way I can answer that question.

[1:53:03] Our current red light cameras are on US1.

[1:53:06] US1, three-lane highway.

[1:53:08] People that traverse US1 are not only local,

[1:53:11] but they're coming from all over the place.

[1:53:13] What we're looking at here are interior cameras,

[1:53:16] which would generally be much more local than US1.

[1:53:20] If we compare it to the speed enforcement

[1:53:22] cameras at the schools, that had a huge impact

[1:53:25] on slowing people down.

[1:53:27] Our year over year violations issued at the schools

[1:53:31] for the speed decreased significantly,

[1:53:33] which meant people who got tickets in year 1

[1:53:36] are not getting tickets in year 2,

[1:53:38] because not that they're not driving anymore,

[1:53:40] but they know to slow down.

[1:53:42] So that is the ultimate goal here.

[1:53:45] I guess, time will tell.

[1:53:46] I don't have any hard data in other municipalities,

[1:53:49] but that is my general belief that, yes, I believe,

[1:53:52] we will see a similar pattern if we put these

[1:53:54] on the interior roads in Pinecrest.

[1:53:56] So the question was, who agrees with the chief's recommendation?

[1:54:01] I've got one.

[1:54:02] Ariel's got two.

[1:54:05] Three, four, four.

[1:54:06] So we don't need to vote.

[1:54:07] That's the consensus.

[1:54:09] Is that all you need, Mitch?

[1:54:10] We don't need a voting on this?

[1:54:11] Yeah, I think that the staff can act based on the council.

[1:54:16] Excellent.

[1:54:17] All righty then.

[1:54:18] So what's next?

[1:54:20] However, in an abundance of caution,

[1:54:23] open it for public comment.

[1:54:24] In an abundance of caution, even though we're not voting.

[1:54:27] All right.

[1:54:27] Does anybody want to comment on this?

[1:54:29] Open to the public.

[1:54:31] Seeing none.

[1:54:31] Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

[1:54:34] Nobody online, I'm assuming?

[1:54:35] No.

[1:54:37] Or nobody online cares.

[1:54:38] That's fine.

[1:54:42] All right.

[1:54:42] Submission of the budget.

[1:54:44] That's different than tab 13.

[1:54:48] Did you want to leave the budget for the last thing?

[1:54:53] Is that not--

[1:54:54] I haven't done the budget yet.

[1:54:55] So we can go on to the resolutions and then--

[1:54:58] OK.

[1:54:59] Let's do tab 15 then.

[1:55:01] That's the last one.

[1:55:03] That was a resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,

[1:55:06] authorizing the village manager to enter

[1:55:07] into a professional services agreement with Bowman Consulting

[1:55:10] Group, Ltd, for the transportation assessment study,

[1:55:12] providing for an effective date.

[1:55:14] All right.

[1:55:15] Whose baby is that?

[1:55:16] That's my baby.

[1:55:17] So we've had a couple years worth of discussion

[1:55:23] during strategic planning on the idea of establishing

[1:55:28] a transportation assessment fee to augment what

[1:55:32] we get from local option gas taxes,

[1:55:35] for the purposes of maintaining our road infrastructure,

[1:55:42] a right of way infrastructure.

[1:55:44] Right now, we get about, I want to say,

[1:55:48] 430,000 from the local option gas taxes, which, in today's.

[1:55:57] economic climate, is basically worthless in terms of trying

[1:56:03] to resurface our roadways.

[1:56:06] We have made a lot of headway with our drainage projects

[1:56:11] and our potable water projects to resurface

[1:56:15] some of the interior residential areas.

[1:56:19] But in a general sense, when you look

[1:56:21] at the condition of the pavement throughout the village,

[1:56:24] the areas that are worse off are obviously

[1:56:27] the ones that are traversed mostly with most traffic, which

[1:56:31] would be the arterial roadway.

[1:56:34] So in furtherance of establishing a funding

[1:56:40] source that's dedicated similarly to the stormwater

[1:56:44] utility fee that we have, which is specific just

[1:56:46] for drainage improvements, my recommendation-- and council has

[1:56:51] considered this, and it is part of my overall recommendation

[1:56:54] in the budget, is that we would consider

[1:56:57] establishing the transportation assessment fee.

[1:57:00] But before you do any of that or even

[1:57:03] actually implement something or consider the vote,

[1:57:06] we would have to do a study, which

[1:57:09] is what I have before you right now, that would look at it

[1:57:12] and give you a recommendation of how

[1:57:15] we might go about establishing something like this.

[1:57:19] So this is the first step.

[1:57:20] We would obviously, if we were to go forward

[1:57:23] with this approach, we would have

[1:57:25] to have public hearings and all that.

[1:57:27] But the first step in doing this is doing the actual study

[1:57:31] that establishes the individual benefit to the properties

[1:57:36] and why we would be charging X, Y,

[1:57:38] Z. So they would develop a formula and base it on X, Y, Z.

[1:57:43] And then we would come back to council

[1:57:45] with all of that with the consultant presenting to council

[1:57:48] for your consideration.

[1:57:51] All right.

[1:57:52] Any questions?

[1:57:55] This is for an impact fee type of thing, right?

[1:57:58] It's an assessment fee.

[1:58:00] So it's a special assessment.

[1:58:02] And it's specific to only things that

[1:58:04] would be for maintenance or things

[1:58:07] that we would be building in the public right of way,

[1:58:10] just because our transportation fund, the local option gas

[1:58:13] taxes that we get--

[1:58:14] Assessment on the homes?

[1:58:15] It's an assessment on the homes.

[1:58:17] OK.

[1:58:17] It's a special assessment fee, similar to what

[1:58:19] we did for the potable water.

[1:58:20] Got it.

[1:58:21] All right.

[1:58:21] Understood.

[1:58:22] It's not an impact fee.

[1:58:23] A developer comes in, it would be on the property.

[1:58:26] On properties.

[1:58:27] Like the stormwater.

[1:58:28] The stormwater fee.

[1:58:29] Correct.

[1:58:30] OK.

[1:58:31] Any questions from us?

[1:58:34] Just a comment.

[1:58:35] I mean, I support doing the study.

[1:58:38] I think we'll have time, once we have the study, to make

[1:58:41] decisions about what to do with it,

[1:58:44] but I think we need the information.

[1:58:46] This goes to the point that the drum--

[1:58:50] I guess, a number of us have been beating butt about.

[1:58:52] We need to be concerned about what happens.

[1:58:54] Look, this may be something we need to do anyway,

[1:58:56] but especially something we need to be concerned about what

[1:58:59] happens if this ridiculous expansion

[1:59:02] of the homestead exemption passes.

[1:59:04] And there's still a very real chance,

[1:59:06] even though all of its proponents, the rats,

[1:59:09] have fled the ship, because they realize it's an absurd idea.

[1:59:12] But nonetheless, there's still a very good chance

[1:59:14] that this nonsense passes, which means

[1:59:15] we're going to have to be prepared to fund

[1:59:19] basic functions of the village.

[1:59:20] And this is one of a very viable way

[1:59:24] to consider doing it in the end, especially

[1:59:26] if the homestead exemption expands so dramatically.

[1:59:29] It's not even going to be something that people will still

[1:59:31] come out ahead in the village, potentially, depending

[1:59:33] on what these numbers are.

[1:59:35] But I very much appreciate the manager bringing this forward,

[1:59:40] because it's the responsible thing

[1:59:42] to do, to study all of these options.

[1:59:44] And so I support it.

[1:59:46] And I look forward to seeing what we learn.

[1:59:49] OK.

[1:59:49] Anybody from the public want to comment on this.

[1:59:52] Mr. Speizer?

[1:59:54] Short and sweet.

[1:59:56] I fully agree.

[1:59:57] Got to have the data.

[1:59:59] Got to have the information.

[2:00:00] You need to make good, wise decisions.

[2:00:03] I fully support it.

[2:00:05] All right.

[2:00:05] Thank you.

[2:00:06] Anybody else?

[2:00:08] All right.

[2:00:08] Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period.

[2:00:11] Do we have a motion?

[2:00:13] I'll move.

[2:00:14] All right.

[2:00:14] Second.

[2:00:15] Motion in favor.

[2:00:16] Second.

[2:00:16] All in favor?

[2:00:17] Aye.

[2:00:18] Anybody opposed?

[2:00:19] Aye.

[2:00:19] All right.

[2:00:20] Motion passes unanimously.

[2:00:23] Excellent.

[2:00:24] All right.

[2:00:24] Mayor.

[2:00:24] Yes.

[2:00:25] One more thing that's not on the agenda

[2:00:26] that I wanted to bring to council and ask for approval,

[2:00:31] we have--

[2:00:33] council had approved the award to the lowest

[2:00:37] bidder for the raised crosswalk project.

[2:00:41] The raised crosswalk project is part of the bond issuance

[2:00:47] that we already did two years ago.

[2:00:49] I have a deadline of October, by which we have

[2:00:53] to build the raised crosswalks.

[2:00:56] The lowest bidder has bailed out.

[2:00:59] And the second low bidder has agreed to take on the project.

[2:01:06] The additional cost to the village is $66,574.

[2:01:13] So I would recommend that we go forward with the second low

[2:01:18] bidder at the full amount of $812,102,

[2:01:27] so that we can go ahead and start the construction and make

[2:01:30] the deadline for the use of the bond proceeds,

[2:01:34] which have to be effectuated before the end of October.

[2:01:38] Since we're not meeting in August, I brought this to you.

[2:01:42] This is the last minute thing.

[2:01:43] We literally found this out last Friday,

[2:01:46] which is why I'm bringing this to you on Dais.

[2:01:49] Is this based on the changes?

[2:01:52] This is based on changes of the scope.

[2:01:54] The revised low bid, which was the second low bidder,

[2:01:58] was Metro.

[2:01:59] And we would be awarding-- the cost is still $66,574 more than

[2:02:07] the low bid that we had awarded previously.

[2:02:10] What's the total cost?

[2:02:11] Total cost, $812,102.

[2:02:15] And what was Metro's original bid?

[2:02:18] I don't know the answer to that question, unfortunately.

[2:02:22] I'd like to know.

[2:02:25] Again, we're talking about--

[2:02:28] Let me see.

[2:02:28] You guys know how I feel about getting too fancy with some

[2:02:32] of these things.

[2:02:33] These crosswalks should be fairly straightforward--

[2:02:36] some concrete, some asphalt, some markings.

[2:02:40] And we're making them into something fancy that's

[2:02:43] costing us a lot of money.

[2:02:45] I'd like to know where Metro was and what

[2:02:49] their taking off of their bid to do the simplified

[2:02:52] version that we talked about.

[2:02:54] What's fancy about it?

[2:02:57] Pavers, concrete, colored concrete, regular concrete,

[2:03:02] asphalt, traffic markings.

[2:03:03] I mean--

[2:03:04] Understand.

[2:03:04] How many locations are they going in?

[2:03:07] I think it's five or six.

[2:03:09] I believe, it's five along all the cross streets on--

[2:03:13] Kendall Drive.

[2:03:13] --Kendall Drive.

[2:03:15] This is for the shared use.

[2:03:16] Shared use.

[2:03:17] In fact, Jim, you sent us a great video that

[2:03:21] showed elevated crosswalks.

[2:03:23] I think it was in Canada.

[2:03:25] I think it was in Canada, that you sent us.

[2:03:27] No, not in Canada.

[2:03:28] It could have been Houston.

[2:03:29] Well, you might have seen it.

[2:03:29] I don't think you took the video.

[2:03:31] I think you just shared--

[2:03:31] The original.

[2:03:32] You're right, I did.

[2:03:33] I sent it to you.

[2:03:34] And--

[2:03:34] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[2:03:36] You've never been to Canada?

[2:03:37] No, not recently.

[2:03:38] I was going to say--

[2:03:40] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:03:42] Yes.

[2:03:43] The [INAUDIBLE] crosswalks slow traffic down,

[2:03:46] especially when they're turning in and out of the streets.

[2:03:49] So that's why--

[2:03:50] That's a safety issue for people on bicycles.

[2:03:52] Right.

[2:03:53] So that's why we want to do it.

[2:03:55] And I noticed in that video that you sent, they were very basic.

[2:03:58] And they were still quite functional.

[2:04:01] And they worked.

[2:04:01] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:04:02] I have the amount.

[2:04:04] The original amount was bid at $977,042.

[2:04:10] So they dropped it to $812,102.

[2:04:15] So it got cheaper.

[2:04:17] Well, because it got simpler.

[2:04:20] Right.

[2:04:20] We changed the scope and fixed it a little bit.

[2:04:24] See, it got cheaper.

[2:04:25] It's renewed.

[2:04:25] It's even better.

[2:04:27] And we were heading in the right direction.

[2:04:28] Correct.

[2:04:29] We were heading in the right direction.

[2:04:30] We can complain about that.

[2:04:32] And what's the reason why you're suggesting we do it now and not

[2:04:36] at the September meeting?

[2:04:38] It's a timing issue, because we need time to construct it.

[2:04:42] We have to spend the money by no later than October 31.

[2:04:49] So what's the alternative?

[2:04:50] To not do it?

[2:04:53] You don't spend the money.

[2:04:54] What are you going to do?

[2:04:55] Give it back.

[2:04:56] You have to give the money back.

[2:04:57] Yeah.

[2:04:58] You give it back.

[2:04:58] The whole idea--

[2:04:59] So it's not our money.

[2:05:00] Yeah.

[2:05:00] Correct.

[2:05:01] OK.

[2:05:02] So the idea is a good one, a race crosswalk.

[2:05:06] It's a safety issue.

[2:05:08] The issue is that the low bidder just pulled out.

[2:05:11] So it's a matter of going to the next low bidder and awarding.

[2:05:16] But that's what you'd do anyway, wouldn't you?

[2:05:18] We normally would do that, but I need

[2:05:20] council approval, because it exceeds my purchasing authority.

[2:05:23] Because the original bid was how much?

[2:05:25] The original bid was 7.45.

[2:05:27] Was 66 grand less than the new low bid?

[2:05:33] Well, no, the second.

[2:05:37] Let me say--

[2:05:38] What's the second?

[2:05:39] Yeah, what's the--

[2:05:40] The original bidder, which was SC Contractors,

[2:05:45] bid for $745,528.

[2:05:50] The second low bidder was Metro Express for $977,000.042.

[2:05:58] SC Contractors has pulled out.

[2:06:01] They don't want to do the project.

[2:06:03] That's the--

[2:06:04] That was the lowest bidder.

[2:06:05] So the next low bidder was Metro Express.

[2:06:10] And they have revised their bid, because we've changed the scope.

[2:06:14] We've simplified the scope.

[2:06:16] And their revised number is now 8, 12, 102.

[2:06:21] Which is how much more than the--

[2:06:22] Which is $66,500, roughly, above what the low bidder originally

[2:06:28] was, which was a 7.45.

[2:06:30] So less than 10%.

[2:06:31] Right.

[2:06:33] Yes.

[2:06:33] OK.

[2:06:34] I got no problem with it.

[2:06:35] I think it's not our money.

[2:06:36] We have to give it back to whomever gave it to us.

[2:06:39] And this is exactly the process that we'll

[2:06:41] be going through anyway.

[2:06:42] When the low bidder pulls out, you pick the next low bidder.

[2:06:44] They revise their bid because we value-engineered.

[2:06:47] We got a price that's less than--

[2:06:49] it's 8% higher than we did before, which

[2:06:52] is not necessarily significant.

[2:06:54] And if we don't spend the money--

[2:06:56] We have to return it.

[2:06:57] --we're going to return it.

[2:06:59] And we got to vote on this anyway

[2:07:01] to give you authorization.

[2:07:02] So if we don't do it now, we don't even vote on it now,

[2:07:06] we're likely to have to give the money back,

[2:07:09] because there's no way we can get through construction

[2:07:11] by the end of September.

[2:07:16] So construction has to be done or just--

[2:07:18] Construction.

[2:07:19] We have to have spent the money.

[2:07:20] You spend it.

[2:07:21] And the money is from--

[2:07:23] I just want to make sure I understand.

[2:07:24] The money is from--

[2:07:25] It's budgeted.

[2:07:27] It was in the--

[2:07:28] But who's it from?

[2:07:29] Bond.

[2:07:30] Bond proceeds.

[2:07:32] Bank loan proceeds, because that was a bank loan.

[2:07:34] It wasn't a bond that we issued a couple years ago.

[2:07:38] It's part of that bond that we did

[2:07:39] for phase 2 of Coral Pine Park.

[2:07:43] So it is our money, though.

[2:07:44] I mean, it's not--

[2:07:45] It's our money.

[2:07:45] It's not our money.

[2:07:46] It's not like it's a grant that we then would--

[2:07:48] No, no, no.

[2:07:48] It's just that if you don't spend it by a certain time,

[2:07:51] we have to then send it back, because we

[2:07:54] have to spend it within two years of the bond or the money--

[2:07:57] I guess, the question is, we're committed

[2:07:59] to the project in the first place.

[2:08:01] We're spending 8% more money.

[2:08:04] Is that the reason not to do the project?

[2:08:07] Whether you vote on it now or you vote on it whenever,

[2:08:10] is that a reason to risk the project?

[2:08:12] I say no.

[2:08:14] Same project.

[2:08:15] We all were committed to it.

[2:08:16] It's 8% more now.

[2:08:19] We need to do it.

[2:08:20] We would have approved it if we didn't have

[2:08:22] that other low bid that bailed.

[2:08:24] And obviously--

[2:08:25] We would have paid more.

[2:08:26] We would have still paid more.

[2:08:27] Yeah.

[2:08:28] And then we would have just authorized the low bid before,

[2:08:30] because we were committed to the project.

[2:08:31] And this will be the first raised sidewalk.

[2:08:34] I think that's a great--

[2:08:35] crosswalk, rather.

[2:08:36] I think it's a good step in the right direction

[2:08:39] to see how these work, because I can see application

[2:08:42] in the future in this town, of having raised

[2:08:45] crosswalks, for life safety issue for walkers and bicycles.

[2:08:52] OK.

[2:08:53] So if somebody want to make a motion.

[2:08:55] I will, motion to accept the second bidder.

[2:09:00] Anybody want to second it?

[2:09:02] Second.

[2:09:02] I'll second.

[2:09:03] All right.

[2:09:04] Chairman got it.

[2:09:04] All in favor, say aye.

[2:09:06] Aye.

[2:09:07] Aye.

[2:09:07] Anybody--

[2:09:07] Aye.

[2:09:08] No.

[2:09:08] Unanimous.

[2:09:09] All right.

[2:09:09] What's next?

[2:09:11] Budget.

[2:09:11] All right.

[2:09:14] Pass the gavel.

[2:09:16] Can I take a little break?

[2:09:18] You guys go ahead.

[2:09:19] Let me know what happens.

[2:09:20] [LAUGHTER]

[2:09:21] All right.

[2:09:23] I'm good with taking a five minute recess.

[2:09:25] Well, now that everybody's walked out--

[2:09:26] I got to go, too.

[2:09:27] So--

[2:09:29] All right.

[2:09:31] OK.

[2:09:35] Only so long.

[2:09:38] Ariel, are you still awake?

[2:09:41] Did you get a chance--

[2:09:43] Very much awake.

[2:09:45] Had you been to the--

[2:09:47] there's a Mozart concert, where they have dancing,

[2:09:53] ballet from the--

[2:09:56] I went there a couple years ago.

[2:09:57] I can't remember the name of it.

[2:09:59] It's a touristy thing, but it's great.

[2:10:02] Is that at the Mirabell Gardens.

[2:10:05] Does that ring a bell?

[2:16:00] [SIDE CONVERSATION]

[2:16:21] I'm back.

[2:16:22] Oh, you made it.

[2:16:24] Ariel, you made it.

[2:16:25] I made it.

[2:16:25] [CHUCKLES] I made it.

[2:16:27] I made it back.

[2:16:29] We don't know how long the break is.

[2:16:31] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:16:35] My wife made sure that I was muted

[2:16:37] when I went to the bathroom.

[2:16:38] No fun, like The Naked Gun.

[2:16:40] [LAUGHTER]

[2:16:42] When he goes in.

[2:16:42] [SIDE CONVERSATION]

[2:16:46] All right, let's bring it back to order.

[2:16:50] Priscilla's not here, so now, she can't--

[2:16:53] Can't what?

[2:16:54] We can't.

[2:16:54] She's not here.

[2:16:56] Where's Priscilla?

[2:16:57] It's on.

[2:16:58] Yeah, but I need you to do the--

[2:16:59] Can't get the words off the screen.

[2:17:02] And put up a PowerPoint.

[2:17:04] Oh, yes.

[2:17:07] OK.

[2:17:08] Has everybody thought they would leave?

[2:17:10] [INAUDIBLE] Everyone left.

[2:17:12] OK.

[2:17:13] Because it's everybody's favorite thing.

[2:17:15] The only reason we're here.

[2:17:16] We're back.

[2:17:17] But nobody--

[2:17:17] Yeah, I guess we're back.

[2:17:19] All right.

[2:17:20] So here we go.

[2:17:22] Budget.

[2:17:25] As always, in July, I'm tasked by the charter

[2:17:29] to present a proposed budget for council and a proposed

[2:17:34] five-year capital plan improvement program.

[2:17:38] So we'll go through our presentation.

[2:17:41] Tonight, you are charged with setting the tentative millage

[2:17:46] rate.

[2:17:49] But once a tentative millage rate is established or set,

[2:17:53] then notices are sent of the tentative millage rate

[2:17:56] to all the residents.

[2:17:59] Just to remind council, whatever we decide to do

[2:18:02] is what is set out in the notice.

[2:18:04] If in the future, council wanted to change it and increase

[2:18:09] that tentative rate to a higher rate,

[2:18:11] we would just have to renotice it again,

[2:18:13] but you can do that at any time.

[2:18:15] So why set that rate in the first place?

[2:18:17] If we could change--

[2:18:18] It's just the way the law requires

[2:18:19] us to do a tentative rate, so that they

[2:18:21] could issue the notices to people

[2:18:24] ahead of our public hearings.

[2:18:28] So you could set the rate at whatever you wanted,

[2:18:30] the maximum rate, the tentative rate.

[2:18:33] And you can change it whenever you want.

[2:18:35] Correct.

[2:18:35] You can lower it.

[2:18:36] You can lower it without having to notice.

[2:18:39] But if you go higher, you have to renotice.

[2:18:43] So you can go higher, you just got to notice.

[2:18:44] You just have to renotice.

[2:18:46] Correct.

[2:18:47] The renotice is extremely cumbersome.

[2:18:50] And I recommend you just set a maximum rate that

[2:18:53] is the maximum rate.

[2:18:55] Do not set it with the intention of

[2:18:57] Raising-- Of raising it later.

[2:18:58] --further, have the possibility.

[2:19:02] I recommend that.

[2:19:03] Got it.

[2:19:05] I believe in all the years that [INAUDIBLE] has been doing this,

[2:19:10] no one has ever renoticed.

[2:19:12] And none--

[2:19:13] Ever, anywhere.

[2:19:14] None of our clients, we've never gone through--

[2:19:17] Including Pinecrest, we've never been renoticed.

[2:19:19] OK.

[2:19:20] First slide, please.

[2:19:23] So right now, what is being proposed in the budget message

[2:19:28] is maintaining our millage rate at 2.503, which technically

[2:19:34] is considered a tax increase, although it's not a millage rate

[2:19:40] increase.

[2:19:41] We need four out of five votes to maintain that rate.

[2:19:46] Correct.

[2:19:47] OK.

[2:19:47] So the main--

[2:19:49] At the final hearing, you do not need four votes

[2:19:52] to set a tentative.

[2:19:55] Would be a good idea to go over that tonight.

[2:19:57] We need four votes to adopt a final rate that is in excess

[2:20:00] of your rollback rate.

[2:20:01] The rollback rate, we'll go through that.

[2:20:03] And I'll go over all the logistics

[2:20:05] of what can happen in a slide that

[2:20:08] comes a little later in my presentation.

[2:20:11] But today's vote can be by majority

[2:20:13] for any tentative millage rate.

[2:20:16] And at the first budget hearing, you

[2:20:19] could pass that first preliminary rate,

[2:20:22] regardless of what it is, by simple majority.

[2:20:26] And the final vote, the final adoption will require 4/5

[2:20:32] to exceed the rollback rate by up to 10% and unanimity

[2:20:37] to exceed it more than 10%.

[2:20:41] OK.

[2:20:41] Next slide.

[2:20:44] This is presently where we land.

[2:20:47] In terms of other cities, you'll note

[2:20:51] that you have Sunny Isles, Doral, Aventura, and Bal

[2:20:55] Harbor, which are all very unique in that they

[2:21:02] have different types of zoning.

[2:21:04] They have a lot of multifamily zoning,

[2:21:07] a lot more commercial, big malls,

[2:21:10] which all contributes to their being able to set

[2:21:14] a very low millage rate.

[2:21:16] Then you have Palmetto Bay at 2.35, and then Pinecrest at 2.5.

[2:21:21] The Unincorporated Dade County, last year, was at 1.9.

[2:21:27] Next.

[2:21:30] So what is built into my proposed budget

[2:21:33] is a 7.35% increase in taxable value.

[2:21:39] That represented, if we keep the mill rate at 2.503,

[2:21:43] it increases our ad valorem tax revenues

[2:21:46] by roughly $1.3 million.

[2:21:49] We also saw increases in permit activity and public works permit

[2:21:55] activity to the tune of 277,000.

[2:22:01] Utility taxes increased 260.

[2:22:06] And then you have several different intergovernmental

[2:22:09] revenues, which we are also expecting to increase slightly.

[2:22:13] Some state revenue at 78,000.

[2:22:17] Police grants and local business taxes are all seeing increases,

[2:22:23] but then we're seeing a decrease of 4,500 in anticipated grants

[2:22:31] for Pinecrest Gardens.

[2:22:32] So when we build the budget, we're

[2:22:35] only budgeting those grants that we have received awards for.

[2:22:40] We continuously, obviously, apply for other grants.

[2:22:43] We may get additional grant funding,

[2:22:45] but what's actually built into the budget

[2:22:47] are things we already know and have been approved for.

[2:22:50] And then we also have a decrease in alcoholic beverage license

[2:22:53] revenues by of 2000.

[2:22:56] And then we see for charges for service,

[2:22:59] we have an increase of approximately $413,000.

[2:23:04] And those are as a result of revenues

[2:23:07] coming from additional programs at our parks and Pinecrest

[2:23:10] Gardens, as well as an increase in administrative fees

[2:23:14] that we collect out of the stormwater utility fund

[2:23:19] and also transportation fund to offset our administrative costs.

[2:23:23] The following increase are broken down.

[2:23:27] Obviously, the 38,000 in parks programs,

[2:23:30] 153 in new Pinecrest Gardens program revenues,

[2:23:35] 190,000 of additional administrative fees from

[2:23:39] stormwater, $3,008 from CITT, and then additional $5,000 from

[2:23:45] private duty charges, and additional revenues from 911

[2:23:52] public safety charges.

[2:23:54] All that is offset by a slight decrease in community center

[2:23:58] program revenues.

[2:23:59] So the total revenue outlook for next year

[2:24:02] is a year over year total increase of 3.945137.

[2:24:10] Next.

[2:24:13] Again, what I put before council for consideration

[2:24:17] is to maintain the millage rate at 2.503.

[2:24:21] The proposed general fund budget includes transfers to other

[2:24:26] funds, but the total general fund budget,

[2:24:30] including transfers, is totaling $44,858,706.

[2:24:37] That is a 8.2% increase in expenditures

[2:24:41] over the current year's revised budget,

[2:24:43] including carryovers and transfers.

[2:24:46] Could you explain that a little bit more detail?

[2:24:48] 8.2% increase in expenditures.

[2:24:51] We spent that or were you planning on spending it?

[2:24:55] What is built into the budget--

[2:24:58] The one year proposal.

[2:24:59] The one year proposal increases expenditures

[2:25:03] over this current year's budget by 8.2%.

[2:25:06] And those are--

[2:25:07] But that includes--

[2:25:08] Those are all choices that we're making.

[2:25:10] Those are choices that are built into my budget.

[2:25:12] But that doesn't include just the ambient cost of things.

[2:25:18] That is the ambient cost plus capital projects--

[2:25:21] Plus new projects.

[2:25:22] --which I'll go over in a later slide as well.

[2:25:27] It provides for 2.5% cost of living increases

[2:25:31] for all nonsworn personnel, plus 2.5

[2:25:35] merit for non-union personnel.

[2:25:40] Just wanted to mention, even though we

[2:25:41] have a 2.5 cost of living built into the budget,

[2:25:45] the actual cost of living increase for this region

[2:25:49] was 3.8% year over year.

[2:25:52] So overall, if you add both cost of living and merit,

[2:25:57] you're looking at a 5% increase, the cost of living increase.

[2:26:01] The true CPI for this area was 3.8%.

[2:26:05] Quick question.

[2:26:06] So 8.2 increase in expense.

[2:26:09] In the coming budget, the current millage rate

[2:26:13] that you're proposing, would allow us an 8.2 increase

[2:26:16] in expenditures.

[2:26:18] That would be new expenditures?

[2:26:19] New expenditures.

[2:26:20] Additional--

[2:26:21] Additional.

[2:26:21] --expenditures, beyond last year's or current year's budget.

[2:26:24] So that would give us the option of,

[2:26:26] if we didn't spend that kind of money,

[2:26:28] we could stick that into reserves for potential--

[2:26:33] with this homestead exemption nonsense that's going on.

[2:26:37] In other words, we'd be able to save 8.2%?

[2:26:40] If you don't give any raises to anybody, including the union

[2:26:43] personnel, you would be able to accomplish that.

[2:26:45] So that includes the--

[2:26:47] Everything.

[2:26:48] OK, I got it.

[2:26:48] Correct.

[2:26:49] So that's not strictly capital projects.

[2:26:52] OK.

[2:26:52] [INAUDIBLE] is also at the inflationary cost

[2:26:56] of things this year.

[2:26:58] Yeah.

[2:26:58] Correct.

[2:26:59] Correct.

[2:26:59] It builds in all these different things.

[2:27:02] And we'll go over it, but yes, you're

[2:27:04] dealing with the inflationary costs as well.

[2:27:07] They're already baked into the budget.

[2:27:10] Next.

[2:27:13] For example, the Florida Retirement System,

[2:27:15] which is the pension program for the police department,

[2:27:19] that is outside of local control.

[2:27:21] That's a state set by state legislature, that

[2:27:24] increase from 35.19% to 37.74%.

[2:27:30] The budget includes funds for the schools.

[2:27:36] You know how we always give grants to every school, $5,000.

[2:27:40] It also sets aside funding for the music program

[2:27:43] at the elementary school and middle schools,

[2:27:46] which we've continued to support.

[2:27:49] And it also provides $10,000 for annual grant to the Economic

[2:27:54] Development Council.

[2:27:56] Next.

[2:27:58] When you look at the full effect of the budget,

[2:28:02] the biggest increase in the budget

[2:28:05] was due to the police department.

[2:28:08] So in a general sense, we have different categories,

[2:28:13] we have personnel costs and then operating costs.

[2:28:16] In personnel cost, you saw an increase of $824,370.

[2:28:24] And in total operating cost, we experienced an increase

[2:28:29] of $947,820.

[2:28:34] So the biggest increase across all departments was here.

[2:28:39] The next largest increase happened-- go to the next--

[2:28:45] happens in the Public Works Department.

[2:28:47] Now, the Public Works Department is, relatively speaking,

[2:28:51] a smaller department.

[2:28:52] But because we added an additional position there,

[2:28:57] the other thing we did was increase the starting salaries

[2:29:04] for the maintenance workers, for some of the department

[2:29:07] personnel that came in at a lower starting salary than what

[2:29:12] was recommended in the compensation

[2:29:14] and pay study, benefit study that we completed.

[2:29:19] So total personnel services in that department increased

[2:29:22] $191,779.

[2:29:26] Operating expenses increased $22,775.

[2:29:31] Next.

[2:29:34] So I'm hopeful that you were able to read my budget

[2:29:38] message, which was very detailed,

[2:29:41] and all the things that could happen

[2:29:43] or that are happening, which do impact

[2:29:47] our fiscal stability in the future, not least

[2:29:54] of which is obviously, the Property Tax Reform Amendment 3

[2:29:57] consideration.

[2:29:58] So when we get into our budget workshops,

[2:30:02] we will present you with a 5-year forecast,

[2:30:06] 10-year forecast.

[2:30:07] And you'll see that if this were to pass,

[2:30:10] how this is all going to be playing out

[2:30:12] in the next several years?

[2:30:17] Today, we just received information

[2:30:20] that finally, inflation seems to be slowing down,

[2:30:25] so it looks like they are likely going

[2:30:27] to start decreasing interest rates, which

[2:30:29] is a good thing for us.

[2:30:32] Disaster preparedness, some of the stuff that's

[2:30:35] happening on the back end, the federal government

[2:30:40] is revising how it deals with natural disasters.

[2:30:44] They're likely going to be pulling away

[2:30:47] a lot of their present support.

[2:30:50] And it's going to be shifted to the states

[2:30:52] and local governments.

[2:30:53] So the fact that we maintain the $5 million

[2:30:57] set aside for emergencies is a good thing.

[2:30:59] But more and more, it's going to all fall on our shoulders

[2:31:04] to bear if there were a large natural disaster.

[2:31:08] Intergovernmental funding is becoming

[2:31:12] more and more competitive.

[2:31:13] You have grants becoming more competitive.

[2:31:15] You have less grants being dollied out or doled out.

[2:31:20] And then you have other long-term considerations

[2:31:22] that are constantly putting pressures on our expenses,

[2:31:26] like rising insurance costs, like our liability insurance

[2:31:30] went up 22% year over year.

[2:31:35] Health insurance costs, obviously, keep going up,

[2:31:38] inflationary pressures.

[2:31:39] All of that just builds to increase our overall cost

[2:31:43] of doing business.

[2:31:45] Next.

[2:31:47] So this is a snapshot of where we are from an expenditure

[2:31:53] standpoint.

[2:31:55] So you'll see, the total increase

[2:31:59] between the current budget year and next year's budget year

[2:32:04] totals $3.4 million.

[2:32:10] Before we do the budget workshop,

[2:32:13] I will be sitting with each of you

[2:32:15] individually to go line by line, both on the revenue side

[2:32:20] and on the expenditure side, to show you

[2:32:23] what the percent difference is between the current year

[2:32:27] and next year.

[2:32:29] But I can tell you, in the police department in particular,

[2:32:35] that one saw the largest increase year over year

[2:32:38] was like a 12% increase.

[2:32:41] And that has really impacted mostly

[2:32:44] because of the new collective bargaining agreement.

[2:32:49] Next.

[2:32:52] So this is the breakdown of the different categories.

[2:32:56] And this is right on target.

[2:32:59] Personnel cost is always around 58% to 60%

[2:33:04] And that's normal for this type of organization.

[2:33:12] The transfers, when you see transfers,

[2:33:14] those are funds that leave the general fund

[2:33:19] and go to other funds.

[2:33:20] And I'll go over those as well.

[2:33:22] But that is also a $6.8 million, but that

[2:33:27] includes the issuance of another bank loan or bond

[2:33:31] to do certain capital projects.

[2:33:33] And I'll go over that as well.

[2:33:34] Next.

[2:33:37] So here's what we've included in the capital project fund.

[2:33:43] Some of these are being funded by my proposed bond issuance.

[2:33:48] So I'll go over each item.

[2:33:51] So I'm just going to round. $41,000 for the computer

[2:33:56] upgrades for every department in the village,

[2:34:00] with the exception of police.

[2:34:03] 97,000 for virtual environment upgrades.

[2:34:07] Some of these are mandated by the state, by the way.

[2:34:11] A lot of these IT things are now state-mandated security measures

[2:34:16] that we have to implement.

[2:34:18] Data security posture management with NVISIONx,

[2:34:21] which is a certain software that we have to have to comply with

[2:34:25] the state mandate, $75,000.

[2:34:28] Police computer hardware replacement-- again,

[2:34:31] just like we, on the nonpolice side,

[2:34:34] have a replacement schedule for all our vehicles and computers,

[2:34:38] so does the police department.

[2:34:40] So $30,250 for that.

[2:34:43] Taser replacement, $56,000.

[2:34:45] The vehicle fleet replacement is $531,000.

[2:34:50] And you'll notice that every year,

[2:34:53] now that we have the fleet, it's roughly about half a

[2:34:56] million dollars to keep through that replacement schedule

[2:35:00] that we've set up for the vehicles.

[2:35:03] Now, for the bond issuance, we have two projects

[2:35:09] that I've recommended to council as part of the proposed budget.

[2:35:13] One is the Ludlum shared use path,

[2:35:17] for a total of 4.8 million.

[2:35:20] And the other was the balance of Alayda Mas Park for 6.5.

[2:35:26] So the budget number, that 2.503,

[2:35:30] anticipates the issuance of a bond for those two projects.

[2:35:35] Fitness center equipment replacement for roughly $51,000.

[2:35:41] The Pinecrest Gardens Horticultural Master Plan,

[2:35:44] every year, we spend about $150,000 in botanical stuff that

[2:35:50] happens at Pinecrest Gardens.

[2:35:52] We have $130,000 for restoration of the Weldon Carrier Cottage,

[2:35:58] which is one of that little historic cottage that's between

[2:36:03] the community center and Pinecrest Gardens.

[2:36:06] We have equipment replacement at Pinecrest gardens for roughly

[2:36:10] $21,000.

[2:36:11] Cypress Hall AC replacement for $25,000.

[2:36:15] Garden gate access at the rear of the garden for $32,000.

[2:36:21] Playground resurfacing at Pinecrest Gardens for $25,000.

[2:36:24] Automated rigging system for the lighting at Banyan Boat,

[2:36:28] $50,000.

[2:36:29] Acoustic treatments for Cypress Hall for $28,000.

[2:36:34] And digital wireless microphone system for Banyan Boat, $25,000.

[2:36:38] So the total capital projects recommended for next year,

[2:36:42] including Alayda Mas and Ludlum shared use path,

[2:36:46] totals about 12.6 million, roughly, $12.7 million.

[2:36:52] Next.

[2:36:53] The other funds have also some capital projects,

[2:36:56] but those are funded through their own revenue sources.

[2:36:59] So in stormwater utility fund, there's 500,000 set aside

[2:37:04] for Ludlum road drainage improvements.

[2:37:07] And you have a $6 million catch all for stormwater master plan

[2:37:12] projects that have already been designed.

[2:37:14] And we're going to just be plowing through

[2:37:16] as we get permits.

[2:37:19] Transportation fund provides for $700,000 for the 62nd Avenue

[2:37:25] sidewalk path construction.

[2:37:27] That $700,000 is also built into that bond issuance that I

[2:37:30] recommended.

[2:37:32] And then another $606,000 for 120th Street and 77th Avenue

[2:37:38] intersection improvements.

[2:37:41] That's the money that we received from Bet Shira.

[2:37:47] CITT fund were recommended $800,000 for Kendall and Ludlam

[2:37:54] intersection improvements, 1.1, roughly,

[2:37:59] for village-wide construction and maintenance of the roadways.

[2:38:05] And then Ludlam road resurfacing the second year

[2:38:10] allocation, which is another million dollars.

[2:38:12] So you'll recall that we've budgeted, in the current year,

[2:38:16] a certain amount of money for road resurfacing of Ludlam.

[2:38:19] We applied for federal grants, but we didn't get them.

[2:38:22] So we have to come up with the balance for that road

[2:38:25] resurfacing project.

[2:38:27] So the CITT would have a total of $2.9, almost $3 million

[2:38:32] for those improvements.

[2:38:34] And then finally, the impact fee fund,

[2:38:36] where we take impact fees that we collect.

[2:38:39] And you have to spend them specifically

[2:38:41] for certain purposes.

[2:38:42] We have the stormwater master plan projects, $120,000.

[2:38:46] Artificial intelligence prophecy, $20,000.

[2:38:49] And the Thor Guard lightning protection system for parks,

[2:38:52] $77,840.

[2:38:56] Just for clarification, for all the folks in the audience

[2:39:00] or listening from home, these different funds

[2:39:03] have their own revenue sources.

[2:39:05] These are not necessarily tied to any ad valorem revenue

[2:39:10] sources.

[2:39:12] Next.

[2:39:14] This is how the proposed millage would

[2:39:18] look to an average homeowner, which has a 1.379 thousand

[2:39:27] taxable value on their home.

[2:39:29] They would be paying $3,281 a year if they pay early and they

[2:39:37] get the pay early discount.

[2:39:40] Next.

[2:39:42] So going to the mayor's question about,

[2:39:45] what votes are necessary for what?

[2:39:48] So the current rollback rate is 2.3674.

[2:39:55] So to go anywhere beyond the 2.3674,

[2:40:01] you need to have four votes.

[2:40:05] To create with a four to one vote,

[2:40:10] the highest council can go is a 2.6041 mill rate.

[2:40:18] And you can go beyond that with a unanimous 5-0 vote.

[2:40:24] For every $0.10 of mill, it represents about $843,700

[2:40:31] of revenue.

[2:40:34] Are there any questions on this specifically?

[2:40:36] Because I know this was one of the things,

[2:40:38] when you talk about setting tentative millage rates,

[2:40:43] anything beyond the 2.3674 requires minimum four votes.

[2:40:49] That slide doesn't say this, does it?

[2:40:51] Yes, that's what it says.

[2:40:53] So

[2:40:54] To go to 2.503, which is our current rate--

[2:40:58] You need four votes.

[2:40:59] Four votes.

[2:40:59] Anything above 2.3674, you need four votes minimum.

[2:41:05] If you go beyond the 2.6041, you need unanimous, five votes.

[2:41:12] So to clarify, though, at this meeting

[2:41:14] today, we'll vote on a preliminary millage rate.

[2:41:19] And for that to pass, we just need a simple majority.

[2:41:23] We don't need, say, I'm just going

[2:41:26] to-- an illustrative example.

[2:41:28] Imagine, today, we said we will vote.

[2:41:31] Somebody makes a motion for 2.53,

[2:41:34] the current military right.

[2:41:36] And then that motion gets the support of three votes today,

[2:41:42] then it passes.

[2:41:44] And then that becomes the preliminary millage rate.

[2:41:47] The tentative.

[2:41:49] Yeah, the tentative.

[2:41:50] Exactly.

[2:41:50] But then for the final military to become the law, basically,

[2:41:54] at Pinecrest, you would need four votes to rectify that.

[2:41:58] Correct.

[2:41:59] Well it has to be.

[2:42:00] It's unclear.

[2:42:02] One of us is a little--

[2:42:03] All right, what's 2/3 of 5?

[2:42:06] 4.

[2:42:07] OK.

[2:42:09] Yeah, that column, it's not as clear as it--

[2:42:13] It's the way the law reads.

[2:42:15] But in our case, yeah, it talks in these terms,

[2:42:18] because if you had a bigger council, you wouldn't need.

[2:42:21] So that's why.

[2:42:23] Right.

[2:42:24] is.

[2:42:25] This reflects what the law says.

[2:42:27] But 2/3 in our case--

[2:42:28] How many councils have even numbers of people on them?

[2:42:30] None?

[2:42:31] None.

[2:42:32] It's usually seven or nine member councils.

[2:42:35] But you don't need unanimous vote, in other words.

[2:42:38] Or you--

[2:42:39] Well, this law applies to the County Commission, which has 13,

[2:42:45] some counties have 9.

[2:42:47] The City of Miami Beach has seven.

[2:42:49] So it just depends.

[2:42:50] Each not indivisible.

[2:42:51] But for our purposes to go beyond the 2.6041,

[2:42:56] you would need unanimous vote.

[2:42:58] OK.

[2:42:59] Got it.

[2:42:59] Ultimately.

[2:43:00] Not tonight, ultimate.

[2:43:02] OK.

[2:43:02] Next.

[2:43:03] But what's the point?

[2:43:04] This is what our general fund balance trends

[2:43:06] look like over the years.

[2:43:09] So this proposed budget provides for a surplus of approximately,

[2:43:17] I want to say, 348,000, roughly, dollars surplus at the end

[2:43:21] of the year.

[2:43:22] Next.

[2:43:25] This just gives you the general fund revenue and expenditure

[2:43:30] trends over the years since our incorporation.

[2:43:33] And where you see the little triangles, those were really,

[2:43:37] I guess, milestone moments that ultimately affected

[2:43:42] the trajectory of our expenditures,

[2:43:45] because we did some purchasing of parks and some large scale

[2:43:50] changes when we did the collective bargaining

[2:43:54] agreements like that when we put in take-home vehicles.

[2:43:57] So those are pretty significant enough

[2:43:59] that I wanted to mention it, because it

[2:44:02] sets a new normal for the level of our expenditure trend.

[2:44:06] Next.

[2:44:08] This shows you the difference between what we normally budget

[2:44:13] and what was actually spent.

[2:44:16] So you'll notice that in the beginning of our existence,

[2:44:20] the first 10 years, what we budgeted and what we spent,

[2:44:25] there was a big difference.

[2:44:26] There was a lot of savings.

[2:44:28] But from 2009 to present, there isn't a lot of wiggle room.

[2:44:35] We're working within 5% to 0% difference

[2:44:39] between what we budget and what we actually spent.

[2:44:43] '22, '23, the difference was because that

[2:44:46] was the collective bargaining agreement that we did,

[2:44:49] and that went gangbusters.

[2:44:52] So the difference between what we budgeted and actually spent

[2:44:55] was a big difference.

[2:44:56] So that's an outlier.

[2:44:57] But if you look otherwise, we don't have a lot of wiggle room.

[2:45:02] That's what basically this is showing,

[2:45:03] that we don't have a lot of fat in our budget numbers.

[2:45:10] Next.

[2:45:12] This is the trend of how many capital projects, what we

[2:45:15] spend on any given year over the years in capital projects.

[2:45:20] So over the years, obviously, the big spikes

[2:45:25] in the last 10 years has to do with the acquisitions

[2:45:29] of those parks.

[2:45:31] Next.

[2:45:33] And this is what our general fund reserve

[2:45:35] looks like versus our set aside for-- we have the hurricane set

[2:45:40] aside of five million.

[2:45:42] And then we also have set aside 10% of our budget for reserves.

[2:45:47] So that's what that's looking like.

[2:45:49] So we are above the bare minimum,

[2:45:54] which is where the red line and the yellow little dot

[2:45:57] is on that last column.

[2:46:03] Next.

[2:46:05] Next.

[2:46:07] And this is the final slide, which

[2:46:08] shows how we compare to other taxing jurisdictions.

[2:46:14] So obviously, the school board and Miami-Dade County

[2:46:17] have the bigger chunks.

[2:46:19] And then Pinecrest is the green on the bottom.

[2:46:23] And Miami-Dade Fire Rescue is at 2.3965,

[2:46:27] or at least it was last year.

[2:46:31] And that pretty much sums up the budget presentation

[2:46:38] for you guys.

[2:46:39] Obviously, we'll have more discussion

[2:46:41] when we get into workshops.

[2:46:42] So the question now is, what do you

[2:46:45] want to set the tentative millage at?

[2:46:49] I've had individual discussions with some of you,

[2:46:52] not all of you, about the concept of whether or not

[2:46:57] to go with my recommendation or whether you want to consider

[2:47:00] going a little higher so that you have flexibility

[2:47:03] when you get into budget workshop discussions.

[2:47:08] Obviously, my recommendation is only that there

[2:47:11] may be other things-- there are things

[2:47:13] that did not make it into budget that you may want to consider.

[2:47:18] So that's up to you guys.

[2:47:23] One last thing I do want to mention.

[2:47:25] We have the real possibility that the property tax

[2:47:31] reform will happen.

[2:47:33] The effect for us on finances is pretty significant.

[2:47:38] Over two years, the first two years of implementation,

[2:47:41] that will be a $4.5 million hit to our budget.

[2:47:46] And there's no way for us to absorb that,

[2:47:48] unless you start literally laying off people and closing

[2:47:52] departments.

[2:47:53] It's not something that our growth, at the rates that we're

[2:47:56] growing now, year over year from a taxable value,

[2:47:59] is not going to be able to absorb that.

[2:48:01] We may be able to absorb the first year, the 1.5,

[2:48:04] depending on how the numbers pan out,

[2:48:06] but we definitely will not be able to do the 1.5 one

[2:48:08] year and then another three million the following year.

[2:48:11] So you're saying that if that passes,

[2:48:12] we're into an austerity mode where we'd be laying off staff.

[2:48:16] You will either have to lay off staff or increase taxes,

[2:48:18] there's no question.

[2:48:20] There's only those two options.

[2:48:22] And I know we've talked about this some,

[2:48:24] but is that with or without-- that's

[2:48:26] as it currently stands now.

[2:48:29] Those numbers are based on if the Amendment, as it's currently

[2:48:32] written, passes.

[2:48:33] Correct?

[2:48:34] Because just to make this even more fun,

[2:48:38] there's a more dire scenario that's very realistic,

[2:48:40] which is if this passes.

[2:48:42] Well, the order would be this follows--

[2:48:43] the Supreme Court could very well declare that the five

[2:48:47] year waiting period for new residents to Florida

[2:48:51] is unconstitutional, because it is.

[2:48:55] So if that is stricken, that means that we wouldn't even

[2:49:00] have any--

[2:49:01] right now, as it currently planned,

[2:49:02] it would count on revenue for those first five years

[2:49:04] from new residents.

[2:49:05] Residents who just moved into Pinecrest

[2:49:08] would be paying full taxes, which is substantial.

[2:49:10] We have a lot of people coming in.

[2:49:11] If that's stricken, we lose that money, too.

[2:49:14] And so again, even though people are running from it,

[2:49:17] there's a good chance it passes.

[2:49:19] It's that austere, but possibly more so.

[2:49:21] So when I did the budget--

[2:49:24] I tend to budget conservatively.

[2:49:27] And we have historically tried to maintain the millage rate

[2:49:30] at a certain level for multiple years in a row.

[2:49:34] It's just the perfect storm, as my budget message mentions.

[2:49:38] We purchased two new parks.

[2:49:43] We gave substantial increases to the police department.

[2:49:47] And all that is happening at the same time

[2:49:51] that this may now push down our revenue sources.

[2:49:58] We don't have huge populations.

[2:50:02] So all the population-based formulas

[2:50:04] are decreasing for us, all the revenues that

[2:50:08] are population-based formulas, because other areas are growing

[2:50:12] in population, so they suck up.

[2:50:14] And so our portfolio of revenue sources

[2:50:18] is very limited because seven--

[2:50:21] let me see, 58% of our revenues--

[2:50:29] rather, 48% of our revenues come from ad valorem taxes.

[2:50:34] So that's a big chunk.

[2:50:35] So anything that happens to ad valorem

[2:50:37] is going to have a ripple effect, because we don't have

[2:50:40] a lot of other revenue sources, and those that we

[2:50:44] do have tend to be, historically, decreasing trend.

[2:50:50] So we do get a lot from franchise fees,

[2:50:54] which is good, because that diversified our portfolio.

[2:50:57] But ultimately, there is no way to absorb 3 million plus 1.5

[2:51:04] in two years.

[2:51:08] There's no way.

[2:51:09] It looks like we're between the old rock and a hard place here.

[2:51:13] We've got a legislature that passed this rollback

[2:51:17] or elimination of homestead exemption

[2:51:19] in one day, no consideration whatsoever.

[2:51:22] And then, of course, they throw the ball at us.

[2:51:24] So it seems we could keep the millage rate of 2.503,

[2:51:29] which was last year, and hope for the best--

[2:51:33] Hope for the best.

[2:51:34] --or we can raise it to 26041 and say,

[2:51:39] because these yo-yos in Tallahassee

[2:51:41] did this without any consideration,

[2:51:43] so we're going to have to raise our millage rates

[2:51:46] for the coming year, in effect, to as

[2:51:49] a semi-insurance that we're going

[2:51:53] to have some revenue if this thing passes.

[2:51:56] Now, if it doesn't pass, we could say,

[2:51:59] if we raise it to 26041, if it doesn't pass,

[2:52:02] well then we'll reduce it next year.

[2:52:05] It's timing.

[2:52:05] It's up to council, because I'm optimistic.

[2:52:09] I've always said, things may happen

[2:52:12] that all of a sudden, interest rates go down,

[2:52:14] and people start constructing.

[2:52:16] And we have gangbusters in Pinecrest

[2:52:18] again, where we're increasing our taxable value

[2:52:20] by double digits.

[2:52:22] That's not happening now.

[2:52:24] But at one point, it did.

[2:52:25] And maybe the stars align.

[2:52:28] But the question is, do we do things proactively or of wait

[2:52:33] and see?

[2:52:34] My in the budget, what I recommended was wait and see.

[2:52:39] But council may not want to wait and see,

[2:52:41] you may want to be more proactive.

[2:52:43] And I think that if you give yourselves a little wiggle

[2:52:46] room in your tentative millage rate,

[2:52:48] you can have those discussions more robustly

[2:52:51] during the budget hearings-- budget workshops, rather.

[2:52:54] Well, really, I mean, that conversation is not necessarily

[2:52:57] about this year, but it's like, how

[2:52:58] do you generate new revenue sources or additional revenue

[2:53:02] in the future?

[2:53:03] We only have 6,000 homes.

[2:53:06] There's only so much you can do, but--

[2:53:08] We need more than 6,000 homes if they're going to survive off--

[2:53:09] But even if you were to do something--

[2:53:11] --ad valores taxes.

[2:53:11] --with density, that takes 10 years from now.

[2:53:14] Those things are--

[2:53:15] You're only making density changes.

[2:53:17] The last changes we made still haven't gotten anybody to bite.

[2:53:19] In fact, we're losing power on the US1 quarter.

[2:53:26] I mean, it's almost like it's going out of business.

[2:53:28] But if folks want to keep this the residential character,

[2:53:31] then they got to understand that they're going

[2:53:33] to be the ones getting the hit.

[2:53:35] That's not true.

[2:53:35] I mean, you could do a lot on US1

[2:53:38] and not impact one ounce of the residential character

[2:53:41] of the interior of Pinecrest.

[2:53:46] The concept of all the US1 vision

[2:53:48] plans that we've done, dating all the way back

[2:53:52] to the beginning, never had commercial intrusion outside

[2:53:57] of the commercial corridor.

[2:53:59] It never intruded into the residential area.

[2:54:00] In fact, what we've done is pushed the residential

[2:54:03] into the commercial corridor, not the opposite way around.

[2:54:05] So that's a fallacy that any that reconsidering land use

[2:54:10] and zoning on the US1 corridor impacts

[2:54:13] the residential character of Pinecrest neighborhood.

[2:54:15] It's just not true, never has, never will.

[2:54:18] You could put--

[2:54:19] I agree with you.

[2:54:20] --giant things out there and not impact

[2:54:23] the nature of the residential quality of life.

[2:54:28] And the proof of that is that story that I told with the folks

[2:54:34] that developed the half acre property literally in the shadow

[2:54:37] of Dadeland and took a half acre property,

[2:54:41] put 7,500 square foot home on it, sold it for $7 million.

[2:54:45] Doesn't degrade the property values.

[2:54:49] Literally in the shadow of Dadeland station.

[2:54:51] And it actually increases the property values,

[2:54:54] which is the national trend.

[2:54:55] So that's a fallacy.

[2:54:57] I know some people will disagree with it,

[2:54:58] but they're going through attrition.

[2:55:00] The new person in Pinecrest wants

[2:55:02] to see quality redevelopment on the US1.

[2:55:04] I don't disagree.

[2:55:06] The issue is, that's a longer term approach.

[2:55:09] I think the more immediate issues

[2:55:11] are what we would have to tackle,

[2:55:13] whether to do it now or later.

[2:55:15] Like, how do you want to go forward?

[2:55:17] And I think that's why, from a tentative millage rate

[2:55:20] perspective, when I reached out to some of you and spoke to you,

[2:55:24] I had suggested that you consider going a little higher.

[2:55:27] But that's up to you.

[2:55:28] I know it's not typical what you do, but--

[2:55:30] Should we move on to tab 13.

[2:55:31] That, I guess, is what you're asking us.

[2:55:33] Do you want to read that?

[2:55:34] Mayor, just reflect a little bit on the conversation and also

[2:55:39] the document that the manager shared with us.

[2:55:43] And I think all of us know, I mean,

[2:55:45] this is the busiest time of the year, maybe, for our staff

[2:55:48] when it comes to planning.

[2:55:50] There's a lot of work that goes into this.

[2:55:52] So first of all, I wanted to acknowledge that and thank

[2:55:53] the manager and the staff for the great work that

[2:55:56] always takes place.

[2:55:59] I want to piggyback a little bit on what the mayor said.

[2:56:03] The conversation about diversifying our revenue base

[2:56:07] and reducing our reliance on ad valorem taxes

[2:56:10] is a conversation that we've been having for a while.

[2:56:16] And understanding that it is something that will not

[2:56:19] fix the short term, but rather, would

[2:56:22] be a process that would have long-term impact

[2:56:26] on our financials for the village.

[2:56:31] It needs to be, however, a process that at some point,

[2:56:33] begins.

[2:56:36] And I think at no time in our history have there

[2:56:38] been more indications, as there are now,

[2:56:41] that the time should be now.

[2:56:44] We should not be continuing to delay

[2:56:47] the discussion or the analysis on what that can look like,

[2:56:51] especially along our Pinecrest Parkway

[2:56:54] or potentially, even considering annexing parts of Dadeland

[2:56:59] or who knows, some other areas in the vicinity of the folks.

[2:57:04] Who knows?

[2:57:06] But I think that conversation needs to start at some point,

[2:57:09] and yes, understanding that it would have a long-term impact.

[2:57:13] I am surprised that there is no reference to it in the budget

[2:57:16] document.

[2:57:19] I would imagine that if we ever want

[2:57:22] to take that conversation seriously and initiate it,

[2:57:26] that we might have to conduct a study,

[2:57:29] hire a firm that advises us on what

[2:57:31] that is, what that looks like.

[2:57:35] We'd have to hold debates amongst our community,

[2:57:38] et cetera.

[2:57:38] There's certainly cost involved.

[2:57:40] I can't imagine that we could make progress

[2:57:43] on that planning aspect of our revenue diversification

[2:57:47] for free.

[2:57:49] And I am surprised that there is no reference to it in the budget

[2:57:53] document, considering what's at risk for our village now

[2:57:58] and what may be coming in the future.

[2:58:00] So can there be consideration as we prepare for the workshop?

[2:58:05] It's not for today, but however, there's

[2:58:07] consideration to begin that process now

[2:58:11] versus continuing to delay it?

[2:58:17] That's to me or to you.

[2:58:19] Council can direct me whatever you guys want

[2:58:22] to start looking at a planning exercise, but budget is budget.

[2:58:27] I believe that direction had been provided already

[2:58:29] in some past council meetings.

[2:58:32] We can maybe discuss it again.

[2:58:33] But if I recall properly, there have been a few council meetings

[2:58:37] in the recent past, where we've talked about the need

[2:58:40] to begin to assess what that looks like,

[2:58:44] and that we had discussed, if not in the last meeting,

[2:58:47] but in the meeting before that one.

[2:58:49] [INAUDIBLE] workshops and there's a deadline,

[2:58:51] I think, of 2028 for me to present all that to council.

[2:58:56] That is what's--

[2:58:57] I think if not in the last council meeting, in the one

[2:59:00] before it, we had discussed the possibility

[2:59:03] of including it as part of our budget workshop conversations.

[2:59:07] And if we're going to have an informed

[2:59:12] conversation during the budget workshops,

[2:59:14] then I think we should begin to think about what that can look

[2:59:17] like now, so that the staff can provide us

[2:59:20] with options or topics for how we can approach it.

[2:59:24] I think my opinion is that it's never too early to start

[2:59:27] having those conversations.

[2:59:28] Anything we could possibly discuss at this point in time

[2:59:31] in this budget would be a planning exercise

[2:59:33] anyway to collect data and gather information.

[2:59:36] You couldn't necessarily do anything.

[2:59:38] So I don't see why we don't do that.

[2:59:40] I would imagine that we got a new council coming in

[2:59:44] in the fall, and that group is going to have to--

[2:59:50] it seems like there's a lot of hard work that--

[2:59:52] I can give you an estimate for--

[2:59:54] Thanks a lot.

[2:59:55] I can give you an estimate for a consultant

[2:59:57] to do that kind of exercise.

[3:00:00] We ought to start frame--

[3:00:01] I mean, I don't mind framing that conversation this time,

[3:00:04] but ultimately--

[3:00:05] We do have funding surplus in the budget,

[3:00:09] so we have wish lists in, wish list out items

[3:00:14] that we would be going over when we

[3:00:15] do the budget workshops anyway.

[3:00:17] And that could be one of those things

[3:00:18] that you guys can tag on to.

[3:00:21] So to answer the question, I would say,

[3:00:22] it's probably worth the discussion during the budgeting

[3:00:25] process.

[3:00:26] And I think what we approved earlier

[3:00:28] in terms of the transportation fee is a step in that direction.

[3:00:32] I agree, we have to be having these conversations.

[3:00:34] And we did talk about it at a prior meeting.

[3:00:36] I didn't view it as part of this--

[3:00:40] this is a little semantic.

[3:00:41] I don't view it as part of this particular budget process,

[3:00:43] because we have to create a budget from what we have.

[3:00:45] But I think in conjunction with that,

[3:00:46] we should be having these conversations.

[3:00:47] And I know that there was talk of doing some after budget,

[3:00:51] doing some workshops too about the state tax vote

[3:00:57] referendum and other option.

[3:01:00] Yes, thank you, town halls.

[3:01:01] And I think we absolutely have to have those conversations.

[3:01:06] I think part of the budget has to almost

[3:01:08] be to educate our constituents on what that means

[3:01:13] to the village of Pinecrest.

[3:01:14] Effectively, we pride ourselves on the highest level of service

[3:01:19] that we can possibly get out of our very, very small budget, one

[3:01:22] of the lowest in Miami-Dade County.

[3:01:24] We're going to obliterate that.

[3:01:28] The level of service that we provide will not exist anymore.

[3:01:34] It will become the lowest quality of service

[3:01:38] that the public could possibly tolerate,

[3:01:40] because there will simply be no money.

[3:01:43] Look, we don't have staff in the first place,

[3:01:44] in spite of what people say.

[3:01:46] You got one public works director, one planning director,

[3:01:48] very few people underneath them, and one building official.

[3:01:52] Our staff levels are shoestring compared to most other cities.

[3:01:56] And when you have to start getting rid of those people,

[3:01:58] because you don't have the money to keep them, you can forget it.

[3:02:02] You won't see your public works director

[3:02:04] picking trees out or coming to your property

[3:02:07] to look at your swale.

[3:02:10] And the mistakes that will then be happening because you won't

[3:02:13] get that hands on attention, it's

[3:02:15] going to change Pinecrest much for the worse.

[3:02:21] People move here.

[3:02:22] People live here because of the service

[3:02:24] that they get from our government,

[3:02:25] Pinecrest government, the things we've done in the last 30 years.

[3:02:28] You're absolutely--

[3:02:29] Not to have the Wild West.

[3:02:31] So you can't just do whatever you wanted to do.

[3:02:36] Anyway.

[3:02:37] All right.

[3:02:37] So yeah, let's move the tab 13, because that's

[3:02:39] where we set the number.

[3:02:40] So Ms. Clerk, will you read that?

[3:02:41] Resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,

[3:02:43] determining the proposed millage rate for fiscal year 2026 2027,

[3:02:47] setting the date, time, and place for the public hearings

[3:02:49] required by state law, directing staff

[3:02:52] to transmit necessary documentation

[3:02:54] pursuant to the requirements of Florida statutes

[3:02:56] on the rules and regulations of the Department of Revenue

[3:02:59] of the state of Florida, providing for an effective date.

[3:03:03] All right, let's pick a number.

[3:03:05] Pick a number between 1 and 10.

[3:03:07] And that's effectively what we get to do.

[3:03:09] Sorry, Mayor, if I--

[3:03:10] Oh, go ahead.

[3:03:11] Yeah, go ahead.

[3:03:12] Jerry's going to go.

[3:03:14] No, I think another aspect of the conversation

[3:03:16] needs to include our reserves and the way they

[3:03:22] have evolved over the years.

[3:03:24] I think we could all agree that what $1 buys you today

[3:03:28] is very different than what $1 bought you

[3:03:30] 10 years or five years ago.

[3:03:33] And I don't know if our reserves have

[3:03:34] been growing at the same rate as we've seen the cost of things

[3:03:39] go up.

[3:03:40] I know the cost of our capital projects

[3:03:43] has probably doubled over the course of the last five

[3:03:47] to seven years.

[3:03:49] So I don't know if the level of our reserves

[3:03:52] have doubled over the last five to seven years.

[3:03:55] And what I do know, though, is that we cannot expect a lot help

[3:03:58] from the state if a disaster strikes in this area,

[3:04:03] and that we would be on our own for a while, possibly,

[3:04:07] as has been, I think, was the case with Irma for some time.

[3:04:11] So again, I think reserves should be a topic of discussion

[3:04:17] or at least get some insights from the manager on that

[3:04:19] and their level, whether they are appropriate for what it

[3:04:23] costs to get things done today.

[3:04:25] And if they're not necessarily in an area

[3:04:29] where we are comfortable, then I think

[3:04:31] that's a relevant aspect of the conversation when

[3:04:34] we vote for the temporary or tentative millage rate,

[3:04:39] because we may want to have some cushion there

[3:04:42] that allows us to build up the reserves over time

[3:04:47] to a level that is probably more financially

[3:04:50] responsible for our village-- not to mention the risks that

[3:04:53] exist, as you've all stated, with property taxes

[3:04:57] and what's happening out of Tallahassee.

[3:04:59] But again, that, to me, is another risk

[3:05:01] that we may be underappreciating when it comes to the levels

[3:05:06] that we're budgeting for, unless we

[3:05:08] feel those are the right ones.

[3:05:09] Jerry.

[3:05:10] Look, I think that reserve is one of the factors

[3:05:14] that we need to think about for sure.

[3:05:16] My recommendation is, well, we have a recommendation.

[3:05:19] My preference would be to go with what the manager said.

[3:05:22] I mean, it's interesting.

[3:05:24] I mean, in prior years, it's often

[3:05:25] that the manager recommends something higher

[3:05:27] and then the council wants to lower it.

[3:05:30] I know we're in odd times now, the bizarre world.

[3:05:34] But, I think to me, it's a sound starting point.

[3:05:39] We did increase it last year.

[3:05:41] We increased it for the first time in a very long time.

[3:05:45] And at least when I did it, when I

[3:05:48] voted for the ultimate budget, what I said

[3:05:51] and what I stand by is, I don't plan

[3:05:54] to make that an annual occurrence to keep raising it.

[3:05:56] We saw what happened when we came in

[3:05:59] with a much higher number last year

[3:06:01] and then lowered it ultimately for the final thing.

[3:06:05] To me, look, obviously, as I've said many times

[3:06:10] and have been emailing seemingly everyone in the village about,

[3:06:12] we do have to be very concerned about what was going to happen.

[3:06:15] But to me, the answer-- and I appreciate

[3:06:17] where it's coming from.

[3:06:18] To me, the solution is not to raise it this year

[3:06:20] and see what happens.

[3:06:21] First of all, there is still some hope it gets defeated.

[3:06:24] I think if we raise it in anticipation,

[3:06:25] we're sending the wrong message, the opposite message.

[3:06:29] If it passes, we're going to have to do a number of things.

[3:06:32] As we've been talking about for the last few minutes,

[3:06:34] we're going to have to look at alternative sources, the transit

[3:06:37] thing, what we may want to do on US1, all sorts of other things.

[3:06:41] We're also going to have to make some significant cuts.

[3:06:43] It's part of why I wanted to hold off on the park vote

[3:06:46] last month, but OK, I understand.

[3:06:47] I don't think that the solution is

[3:06:50] to try to tax our way out of it right now in advance.

[3:06:53] I think it sends a mixed and confusing message

[3:06:56] to the community.

[3:06:57] I think it's putting a lot on the backs of people right now.

[3:06:59] We would be increasing significantly on people

[3:07:04] before there's any relief coming from the state.

[3:07:06] So it would be a significant move

[3:07:09] to raise it at all for a second year in a row.

[3:07:11] So I wouldn't support it in the long run.

[3:07:14] And I don't love the idea of going with something higher just

[3:07:17] to see, because I, for one, can't imagine possibly going

[3:07:20] higher than the rate that we already went up to last year.

[3:07:23] So I would recommend we go with what the manager recommended.

[3:07:25] That still gives us plenty of room for conversations,

[3:07:27] I think pointing to the sky area,

[3:07:29] because you're coming in from there.

[3:07:31] But the issue that Council Member Meyer raised

[3:07:33] about reserves is important, and it's

[3:07:34] a conversation we have to have.

[3:07:36] But to me, it's about where we put money

[3:07:37] within what we've already got, not increasing the pot.

[3:07:40] So I would support what the manager said, especially knowing

[3:07:45] that I don't want to go for something that I couldn't vote

[3:07:48] for later, if that make sense.

[3:07:51] All right.

[3:07:52] Who else has got thoughts?

[3:07:55] [INAUDIBLE]

[3:07:57] Well, I've always looked at the process.

[3:08:01] And the process was, we set this tentative millage rate.

[3:08:04] And then we have public input.

[3:08:06] And then we decide what we want to do in the end, which is

[3:08:09] what we finally did last year.

[3:08:11] Now, granted, a little different situation.

[3:08:13] We had a budget that was enormous.

[3:08:16] A lot of things that people wanted to do,

[3:08:19] council people wanted to do, and we couldn't get them all done.

[3:08:21] And we said no to a number.

[3:08:24] I think going into discussion, I'd

[3:08:26] have to stand by that same idea that we'd go at slightly higher

[3:08:30] to give us some room to discuss and debate, and find out

[3:08:34] what the--

[3:08:35] great example, the middle school project.

[3:08:38] Is that important?

[3:08:42] And if it's really important and people really want it,

[3:08:46] maybe the taxes go up a little bit to pay for it.

[3:08:48] I mean, 1/10 of a mill is 800-and-some thousand dollars.

[3:08:53] So I like having that little room.

[3:08:55] I think I'd be inclined to settle back to that 2.503.

[3:09:03] But I'd like the room to have an honest discussion

[3:09:06] with the public and with ourselves

[3:09:08] over the next couple of months to determine that that's

[3:09:11] correct, that we don't need a little bit more money to spend

[3:09:14] on something that we really want to get done.

[3:09:18] I have a question for you.

[3:09:20] Is what Ken just said, the difference between 2.503

[3:09:24] and 2.6041, 800,000?

[3:09:28] Yeah.

[3:09:29] Priscilla, can you bring up the chart

[3:09:31] that has the different millage rates?

[3:09:33] It's like 848.

[3:09:34] Probably, $900,000.

[3:09:36] It's 850, I think.

[3:09:37] Well, let's say--

[3:09:37] That one.

[3:09:38] No.

[3:09:38] Go back.

[3:09:38] That one.

[3:09:39] No.

[3:09:39] Go back.

[3:09:40] That one.

[3:09:42] That tells you, 843.

[3:09:44] 843.

[3:09:48] I came into this, thinking, and I'm still thinking that way,

[3:09:51] but go with the manager's recommendation.

[3:09:54] Then as I think it more, I think,

[3:09:55] we're in this position because of these people

[3:09:57] that we send to Tallahassee, who are--

[3:09:59] [COUGHS]

[3:10:02] --that is totally irresponsible with no input,

[3:10:05] other than the governor dictating to them.

[3:10:07] And they've passed it.

[3:10:08] And they're about to try to gut our town and every other city

[3:10:12] in this village, in this state, which is

[3:10:15] lousy government at its worst.

[3:10:17] I mean, it's just terrible.

[3:10:20] So one way of trying to hedge a little bit is to raise

[3:10:23] the millage by 1/10, which is nothing, really.

[3:10:28] But I understand what happened last year,

[3:10:31] where the millage rate went up considerably.

[3:10:35] And there was a lot of consternation in town.

[3:10:38] I think what the mayor just raised

[3:10:40] was a very good issue, that for this village going forward,

[3:10:44] if this thing passes come November,

[3:10:48] this village is going to have to take another look at US1,

[3:10:52] the corridor, and see how we can grow

[3:10:58] our commercial district to increase revenue for this town.

[3:11:01] I think that's going to be something.

[3:11:03] But we went through that a couple of years ago.

[3:11:05] A lot of people were vociferously against it,

[3:11:08] because they thought it was going to be

[3:11:09] the worst thing since whatever.

[3:11:12] Just one correction.

[3:11:13] Not true.

[3:11:14] Not true.

[3:11:14] Not a lot of people.

[3:11:15] Well, a lot of noise--

[3:11:16] Not a lot of people were against it.

[3:11:18] The referendum was defeated.

[3:11:20] I understand.

[3:11:21] It got a significant landslide numbers.

[3:11:24] You're absolutely correct.

[3:11:25] There was a very loud, very poignant minority.

[3:11:31] So it was actually very favorable in Pinecrest.

[3:11:33] You're absolutely--

[3:11:34] 70% of the people liked it.

[3:11:36] I stand corrected.

[3:11:36] You're absolutely correct.

[3:11:37] I just remember the vociferousness

[3:11:39] of all the stuff that was going on.

[3:11:41] Loud--

[3:11:42] Loud and yeah, whatever.

[3:11:43] Believe me, I know.

[3:11:44] I knocked on doors--

[3:11:45] Loud and popularity don't--

[3:11:46] --too much--

[3:11:47] --match.

[3:11:48] --against that thing.

[3:11:48] So I would say, though, that I would go with the manager's rate

[3:11:53] recommendation of 2.503.

[3:11:56] And then this village will deal with whatever

[3:11:58] happens in November.

[3:12:00] Ariel.

[3:12:01] So I'm with Vice Mayor Fairman here,

[3:12:05] in that to me, we're doing a disservice to ourselves

[3:12:10] and the community by shutting down the potential conversations

[3:12:14] that could take place, the potential decisions that could

[3:12:17] take place as we workshop through this together more

[3:12:21] or hear feedback from the community

[3:12:24] if we weren't to incorporate an additional buffer

[3:12:32] in this tentative millage rate that we passed today

[3:12:38] to accommodate for that.

[3:12:39] So it doesn't mean that we are voting for a tax increase,

[3:12:44] not at all, because the conversations that take place

[3:12:47] during workshop may lead us to keeping the millage rate

[3:12:52] at the level that it is now, or even lowering it, who knows?

[3:12:55] Or maybe even raising it slightly,

[3:12:58] if it warrants that we should go in that direction.

[3:13:01] So to me, it's too early now to shut down those conversations

[3:13:05] or those possibilities.

[3:13:07] I would be comfortable with going

[3:13:09] with the 2.6, or 3, or whatever that number is,

[3:13:13] but it's the 2.6 number, not the 2.53.

[3:13:18] And then giving us the opportunities

[3:13:21] to have those discussions in August,

[3:13:23] after input from the community, and in our own conversations,

[3:13:27] and what we think is best for our village.

[3:13:35] All right.

[3:13:35] You're the tiebreaker, Mayor.

[3:13:37] OK.

[3:13:38] Interesting.

[3:13:39] So right now, if we had to--

[3:13:43] I guess what you all are saying, this

[3:13:44] doesn't have really anything to do with what

[3:13:46] we vote on in the long run.

[3:13:49] This is just for discussion purposes.

[3:13:52] And I start to think, then what's the point?

[3:13:54] Because no matter how-- if this is the feeling that we have now,

[3:13:59] no matter what the number we discuss

[3:14:00] is, if this was the way the vote would come out,

[3:14:02] we have to go back to the rollback rate,

[3:14:05] because it takes four out of five

[3:14:07] to do anything but the rollback rate at this point in time.

[3:14:11] And we're at three to two right now.

[3:14:12] You might have a compromise above the rollback rate

[3:14:17] to be able to get a fourth vote.

[3:14:19] But yes, if you want to pass the budget and the rate

[3:14:23] with a bare majority, it would have

[3:14:25] to be the rollback rate or lower.

[3:14:27] And the rollback is 2.367.

[3:14:30] That is correct.

[3:14:31] So that's lower than what we were currently operating under.

[3:14:34] So right now, everybody that I've heard

[3:14:37] has said either my recommendation, right?

[3:14:42] Yeah.

[3:14:42] So the lowest that we're talking about

[3:14:44] is the 2.503, which I think we have the four votes minimum for.

[3:14:49] So I think the rollback rate is not being discussed right now.

[3:14:55] So at a minimum, the lowest that everybody's talked about here,

[3:14:59] even the people that weren't necessarily

[3:15:01] comfortable with going higher, was the 2.503.

[3:15:05] That's my recommendation.

[3:15:06] I mean, yes.

[3:15:06] I mean, look, I think theoretically, sure,

[3:15:09] if there was some great way we could lower it,

[3:15:11] I'm sure everybody in this desk would.

[3:15:15] But I think it's fair to say, we're not--

[3:15:18] The lowest denominator right now is the 2.503.

[3:15:22] Also, I think, phrased another way,

[3:15:23] I don't think there's anybody who would be willing to throw us

[3:15:28] off a cliff like that.

[3:15:29] I mean, whatever agreement or disagreement

[3:15:30] we have in this realm of 2.5, 2.6,

[3:15:33] I think we will all make sure we don't hit the rollback

[3:15:36] if we come to it.

[3:15:37] Yeah.

[3:15:38] So the question then is, all right, so the tentative,

[3:15:42] do you want to leave it at 2.503 or do you want to go higher?

[3:15:45] Well, I mean the fact is, what do you want to go--

[3:15:47] Well, my point has always been, why go through this exercise

[3:15:50] if we're not even consider something higher?

[3:15:54] It's a tentative rate.

[3:15:56] You discuss it.

[3:15:58] Maybe this middle school project gets a great demand

[3:16:03] from the public.

[3:16:04] And we decide that we need to change the budget around.

[3:16:07] We have that option.

[3:16:08] If not--

[3:16:09] What rate do you want to go to?

[3:16:10] I'm sorry.

[3:16:11] Let's say it differently.

[3:16:13] You're not suggesting that we're going to do a higher rate.

[3:16:16] What you're suggesting is that, for the purposes of discussion,

[3:16:20] as we put a budget together and start to go to the workshops,

[3:16:24] that we give ourselves the latitude

[3:16:25] to explore the entirety of this budget

[3:16:29] and not pin ourselves into anything.

[3:16:31] But you're perfectly willing to accept the manager's

[3:16:35] recommendation right now.

[3:16:37] But for discussion purposes, you want to have [INAUDIBLE].

[3:16:40] And for bringing the public into the discussion--

[3:16:42] You want to have that freedom.

[3:16:44] Right.

[3:16:44] So this is in no way a suggestion

[3:16:46] that we would do anything higher,

[3:16:47] it's just something that we need to do.

[3:16:50] Since I came on council, I always thought that,

[3:16:52] why aren't we doing that?

[3:16:53] Because what's the public-- give them their voice to say,

[3:16:58] absolutely, don't spend another dime,

[3:17:00] or I want the middle school project done,

[3:17:03] because I got a bunch of families that live on

[3:17:05] [INAUDIBLE], and they want to go out there and play.

[3:17:07] What I'm hearing is that there's not

[3:17:09] advocacy to go to a higher rate.

[3:17:13] There's just the advocacy to have the discussion.

[3:17:15] Absolutely.

[3:17:16] OK.

[3:17:17] What rate?

[3:17:18] 2.6?

[3:17:19] Was that the one Mr. Meyer suggested?

[3:17:22] And the one Jim suggested.

[3:17:23] I didn't say-- it's right here that--

[3:17:25] No, I'm saying--

[3:17:26] Yeah, 2.6041, that's where I got it from.

[3:17:29] OK.

[3:17:29] Yeah, that's on that.

[3:17:31] I'll support that.

[3:17:33] Anybody got a motion?

[3:17:35] We'll open the public comments.

[3:17:39] Anybody from the public want to speak?

[3:17:42] Seeing none.

[3:17:43] Nobody wants to speak on the budget.

[3:17:48] Well, candidates in the room, nobody

[3:17:50] wants to speak on the budget.

[3:17:53] Duly noted.

[3:17:56] All right.

[3:17:56] Public hearing is closed.

[3:17:57] Anybody online?

[3:17:58] No, Mayor.

[3:17:59] All right.

[3:18:01] Just go ahead.

[3:18:02] Yeah.

[3:18:02] So I'm clear.

[3:18:03] So what we're talking about is, for discussion purposes,

[3:18:06] we're going to set it at 2.6041, which is just

[3:18:10] for discussion purposes.

[3:18:12] And then when we get finished with our budget workshops,

[3:18:15] and then in September, we'll decide what the permanent rate

[3:18:18] is going to be.

[3:18:19] Yes, sir.

[3:18:20] So this is merely for discussion purposes.

[3:18:22] Total discussion.

[3:18:23] Whatever shakes out during our workshops in August.

[3:18:26] This is going to go to the public.

[3:18:28] Residents in a notice that says, notice of--

[3:18:31] That we're considering this rate.

[3:18:34] Yeah.

[3:18:35] And these guys are going to run for it.

[3:18:37] All right.

[3:18:38] Make a motion.

[3:18:40] I move that we set the tentative millage rate at 2.6041.

[3:18:46] I'll second.

[3:18:47] Motion and second.

[3:18:49] All in favor?

[3:18:50] Aye.

[3:18:51] Aye.

[3:18:51] Anybody opposed?

[3:18:52] Aye.

[3:18:54] [LAUGHTER]

[3:18:55] Wait, what?

[3:18:56] I don't know.

[3:18:56] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[3:18:58] Time delay.

[3:18:59] Yeah.

[3:18:59] Jim.

[3:19:00] Oh.

[3:19:01] I'm opposed.

[3:19:02] I'm opposed to 2.6, even for discussion purposes.

[3:19:06] Yeah, because, I mean, as I said,

[3:19:08] I think I'm not going to support raising it.

[3:19:13] And I don't think that especially after last year,

[3:19:16] I don't think--

[3:19:17] I don't want to use the word "irresponsible,"

[3:19:18] because I completely appreciate what everyone's doing.

[3:19:21] I personally don't like the idea of sending out there

[3:19:26] a higher number that I can't support in the long run.

[3:19:28] And I think it runs the risk of a furor.

[3:19:32] And everything we dealt with that, I thought

[3:19:34] was counterproductive.

[3:19:36] That said, I respect where people are--

[3:19:38] [INAUDIBLE] to support it either.

[3:19:39] I don't think I'm going to support it either.

[3:19:41] That's why I think if we voted to--

[3:19:47] I wouldn't support it, honestly.

[3:19:49] But for discussion, I'm all for it,

[3:19:50] because it's a good topic to discuss.

[3:19:53] And I certainly respect that.

[3:19:55] To me, it's a process point, though.

[3:19:57] And my concern, I think that the discussion should be,

[3:20:01] especially if there's not going to be an appetite

[3:20:03] to go higher than that anyway, I think

[3:20:04] there is a very serious discussion

[3:20:05] to have about what we do with what we have,

[3:20:07] with that 2.503 number.

[3:20:11] And for example, as the vice mayor is suggesting,

[3:20:13] there's an uproar in favor of the field, for example,

[3:20:17] then we're going to have to make decisions about other things,

[3:20:19] because I don't think we're in a position

[3:20:22] where we can be taking on any more of these obligations

[3:20:25] at this point anyway, because especially with what

[3:20:27] we're facing long-term.

[3:20:29] And I also think that increasing it

[3:20:31] does burden people right now, before it passes.

[3:20:34] And we're going to have major decisions to make

[3:20:36] if this thing passes.

[3:20:38] To Councilman Meyer's point, we need to have these conversations

[3:20:40] anyway.

[3:20:41] Because if this thing doesn't pass, I'm sure

[3:20:43] there's something else coming down the track.

[3:20:45] And we have to do that.

[3:20:46] But to me, just looking at this budget and this year,

[3:20:49] and maybe I'm battle-scarred, because my first

[3:20:52] and thus, far only budget experience was last year.

[3:20:55] But I'm not comfortable, even as a tentative rate,

[3:21:00] setting something higher than I would go for.

[3:21:02] And I don't disagree with that, whatsoever.

[3:21:04] I don't feel the same way in the sense

[3:21:08] that I think that it's a worthwhile discussion

[3:21:11] to give us flexibility, because we haven't discussed the budget,

[3:21:14] we've only received it.

[3:21:15] But the way I'm reading it, probably, this gets a 5

[3:21:20] to nothing, in my opinion, to stay exactly where it is.

[3:21:23] And this is for discussion purposes only,

[3:21:25] which I don't know how we could--

[3:21:27] my personal opinion is, why limit yourself

[3:21:31] to where you think you want to be if you just

[3:21:33] got this book tonight?

[3:21:34] And I just want to make that clear from my--

[3:21:36] all right.

[3:21:38] And I would agree with both of you.

[3:21:39] I'm for this tonight, so we can have that discussion.

[3:21:44] And if it raises discussion within the village,

[3:21:48] I think it's going to be important

[3:21:50] for people to understand why we did it,

[3:21:52] and that we are reacting to what the legislature did,

[3:21:57] what was potentially coming down the pike.

[3:22:00] So as a responsible government, we

[3:22:02] look at for discussion purposes.

[3:22:05] And I think that's good.

[3:22:06] And if people come in, screaming and yelling,

[3:22:08] then it might be a way to educate them

[3:22:10] on what their legislature has done to us and every other city

[3:22:13] in the community.

[3:22:15] May I just ask a question?

[3:22:17] How is the wording-- how is the communication drafted

[3:22:21] to residents when they get this letter?

[3:22:24] Is there a reference to the millage rate in that letter?

[3:22:27] Or is there a reference to your taxes are going up by x?

[3:22:32] Because they're still going up.

[3:22:33] I mean, even if we get the same millage rate,

[3:22:36] their taxes are going up.

[3:22:37] Yeah, it will say that the taxes--

[3:22:38] So what's the wording?

[3:22:39] So even at 2.503, they're going to get a tax notice that says

[3:22:45] they're getting a tax increase.

[3:22:47] So to the regular person, who doesn't know necessarily

[3:22:50] that the millage rate is being maintained the same,

[3:22:53] they're going to be getting them.

[3:22:54] For the last 30 years, they've gotten

[3:22:56] a notice that says their taxes are increasing,

[3:22:58] because we've never or very rarely ever gone to the rollback

[3:23:01] rate.

[3:23:03] We only went below the number of whatever

[3:23:06] the mill rate that was set at any given

[3:23:09] time, when the legislature forced it on us in--

[3:23:13] I think it was 2008 that they forced a decrease.

[3:23:19] I think what compounds our issue is really the fact that we've

[3:23:23] made significant purchases lately,

[3:23:25] and we've made other commitments with take-home vehicles

[3:23:29] and stuff like that.

[3:23:30] All that stuff is just all hitting us at the same time.

[3:23:33] So to Council Member Greenberg, my first two years

[3:23:37] doing this, maybe one or two people

[3:23:43] had any interest in listening to Josi's presentation

[3:23:46] about the budget.

[3:23:47] This is true.

[3:23:47] Or to have even good council discussion

[3:23:52] about the intricacies of the budget.

[3:23:55] When you came in last year was something that maybe we

[3:23:58] should have been doing more of.

[3:24:00] Now, it was extreme because there was extremely large budget

[3:24:03] and that we really had to whittle it down.

[3:24:05] But I relish that public input.

[3:24:08] Yeah, people got angry, but the people

[3:24:12] that cared, that wanted to know came and found out.

[3:24:14] Listen, we had to discuss it a lot more amongst ourselves

[3:24:18] and really come to some good decisions

[3:24:20] on how to pare that down to the 2.5.

[3:24:22] So I expect something similar, maybe less dramatic right now,

[3:24:27] but--

[3:24:27] It's not going to be as dramatic.

[3:24:29] You know why?

[3:24:30] Because what people tend to do when they get that notice,

[3:24:33] it tells them what they're paying in the current year,

[3:24:36] and with the increase, what they're

[3:24:38] going to be paying next year.

[3:24:40] And when they look at the total number,

[3:24:42] if it's $20 more, $30 more, it's not a big deal to them.

[3:24:48] What made it a big deal last year

[3:24:50] was that we were going from a 2.4 or 2.39,

[3:24:55] whatever, to a 3.78.

[3:24:57] But just to be clear, we weren't going there.

[3:24:59] We were having a discussion.

[3:25:00] But we get paid.

[3:25:01] But the tax, the notice they got showed--

[3:25:03] To have this discussion.

[3:25:04] The only thing we really have to do--

[3:25:08] well, somebody said that we do get paid too much.

[3:25:12] They do.

[3:25:13] Follow the money.

[3:25:14] They wanted their money back.

[3:25:17] But the only thing we have to do all year

[3:25:20] is have this discussion.

[3:25:22] And that a citizen would be upset

[3:25:24] that we're going to have a discussion on a budget

[3:25:26] that we just got tonight, that we're leaving our options open,

[3:25:31] would be a disqualifier.

[3:25:34] I mean, we have to have this discussion.

[3:25:36] It's our job.

[3:25:37] I agree.

[3:25:38] I just think we can have this-- you know what I'm saying.

[3:25:40] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[3:25:43] I signed up to do my council workshop in August again.

[3:25:45] And I'm going to maybe keep sending emails

[3:25:47] about raising taxes, because it's an easy one.

[3:25:50] I think the dialogue is helpful and fun.

[3:25:53] So no, I do agree with that.

[3:25:54] And I think it's a well-taken point.

[3:25:55] Hopefully, Council Member Meyer and I

[3:25:57] can enjoy a slightly more peaceful August than last year,

[3:26:00] but maybe not.

[3:26:00] I'll have my budget--

[3:26:02] [INAUDIBLE] next year.

[3:26:02] [INAUDIBLE] one week before our budget workshop.

[3:26:07] So for those that come, which is usually Harry Speizer.

[3:26:12] He left.

[3:26:13] --Al Kramer--

[3:26:13] [INAUDIBLE]

[3:26:14] We have--

[3:26:14] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[3:26:15] --will show up this year.

[3:26:17] Joe remembers, and Ken, you were saying the same--

[3:26:20] and Cindy out there, years ago, we

[3:26:22] had these budget hearings, and Josi,

[3:26:23] on our final second reading or whatever.

[3:26:27] We'd have two or three people out there

[3:26:28] in the front row, that was it.

[3:26:29] And I think the reason was, we always

[3:26:31] kept the millage rate low.

[3:26:33] Which it still is.

[3:26:34] We fought to keep it down there.

[3:26:36] And it still is there, as your chart shows.

[3:26:38] So it's one of the newest in the county.

[3:26:38] Yeah, exactly.

[3:26:39] When you look at Coral Gables-- even

[3:26:42] Palmetto Bay said there is now-- what is it

[3:26:44] that I sent it to you guys?

[3:26:45] 26--

[3:26:46] 26--

[3:26:47] 269.

[3:26:48] 269.

[3:26:49] 2.9.

[3:26:50] Isn't it 2.9?

[3:26:51] I thought I read--

[3:26:52] OK, 269.

[3:26:53] The rate was 2.9-something.

[3:26:55] So yeah, we're still lower.

[3:26:57] So we've gone through the exact same process for over 30 years,

[3:27:00] and we still have one of the lowest millage

[3:27:02] rates in Miami-Dade County.

[3:27:04] And so the reason that I voted to have the tentative rate

[3:27:11] higher last year was that, after sitting here for 20 years,

[3:27:16] I would come into the budget process with the actual voting,

[3:27:20] and say, I have no idea where people stand on this budget,

[3:27:23] because nobody would come to this room.

[3:27:25] John Steinbauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Speizer

[3:27:29] would come and voice their opinion.

[3:27:31] Three people out of 18,000 people would come.

[3:27:35] Now, people want to come out when

[3:27:36] the bulldozer hits the street, but nobody really

[3:27:38] cared about the budget.

[3:27:40] So I thought, like you thought, let's open it

[3:27:42] up for a broader discussion.

[3:27:44] Let's not limit ourselves down.

[3:27:45] Let's put a number out there that's

[3:27:46] maybe a little bit higher to give us latitude for discussion.

[3:27:51] And that's what we did.

[3:27:52] And it was a positive discussion we had last year.

[3:27:54] And we learned a lot about what people thought.

[3:27:56] And it's better than sitting in this room

[3:27:58] alone, discussing it in a vacuum.

[3:28:00] With that, Mr. McDonald, your traditional role

[3:28:04] on the council--

[3:28:05] Is to motion to adjourn.

[3:28:06] To adjourn.

[3:28:07] Mayor, if I may, this resolution not only

[3:28:11] determines the proposed millage rate, but also the hearing date.

[3:28:14] So just to confirm the two hearing dates that we had

[3:28:17] previously discussed, but to ensure that you're available

[3:28:20] as this cannot be changed after.

[3:28:22] But this is for September 10 and September 22.

[3:28:26] We do have it for 6:00 PM.

[3:28:28] You can start as early as 5:01.

[3:28:29] So if there's any changes that you would like to make,

[3:28:31] this is the moment to.

[3:28:34] September 10 and the 22.

[3:28:36] I'm good on both.

[3:28:38] And while you look at that, I was asked by the vice mayor

[3:28:41] to just show you all that we did say, welcome to to Key Biscayne.

[3:28:47] I was going to say the welcome to Pinecrest.

[3:28:49] Key Biscayne.

[3:28:49] I know.

[3:28:50] Welcome to Key Biscayne, everybody.

[3:28:52] Welcome to Key Biscayne.

[3:28:52] That's where my head's at.

[3:28:53] It's a great place.

[3:28:54] These are hands delivered to people that move into Pinecrest.

[3:28:57] The vice mayor takes them to their houses

[3:28:59] and introduces them.

[3:29:02] [INTERPOSING VOICES]

[3:29:04] Does the vice mayor do repairs at their house, too?

[3:29:08] Yes, he does, doesn't he?

[3:29:09] I have a wasp nest in mine.

[3:29:10] Can you get that out?

[3:29:12] All right.

[3:29:12] I mean, if you're nice to him, he's

[3:29:16] going to pressure clean your sidewalk.

[3:29:19] Mayor.

[3:29:20] As long as you vote for him.

[3:29:20] Yes, ma'am.

[3:29:21] So are we good for September 10 and 22 at 6:00 PM.

[3:29:25] No, as early as humanly possible.

[3:29:27] So 5:01 for both meetings?

[3:29:29] Is everyone available?

[3:29:30] As early as 5 o'clock.

[3:29:32] No, she said 5:01.

[3:29:34] 5:01, I said.

[3:29:34] 5:01.

[3:29:35] If you schedule your budget hearing for a time certain,

[3:29:39] and you don't vary from that, you

[3:29:42] could have your council meeting prior to the budget hearing,

[3:29:47] if you want.

[3:29:49] Your regular council meeting.

[3:29:50] Oh, my God.

[3:29:51] But in September, we only have two set,

[3:29:53] and that's both for budget.

[3:29:54] No, but we're going to have to-- no,

[3:29:56] one of the meetings in September is the council meeting.

[3:29:58] The first one.

[3:29:59] Oh, OK, the 10th.

[3:29:59] Oh, I see what you're saying.

[3:30:00] On the 10th.

[3:30:00] So the meeting on the 8th, you will not have a meeting

[3:30:03] on the 8th.

[3:30:03] No.

[3:30:04] No.

[3:30:04] Right?

[3:30:04] We're not having a meeting on the council meeting.

[3:30:06] No.

[3:30:07] So how do we avoid that?

[3:30:09] Can we start the budget hearing at 5:01 and do a council meeting

[3:30:14] at 3:00 to get that out of the way?

[3:30:17] You can.

[3:30:18] Yeah.

[3:30:19] Because I mean, we don't want to dilute what would be--

[3:30:23] we don't dilute the budget with the council.

[3:30:25] We can narrow the agenda down.

[3:30:26] Yeah.

[3:30:28] Can we do that?

[3:30:29] Anybody mind starting the council meeting on the 10th

[3:30:32] at 3:00 PM?

[3:30:33] It's OK with me.

[3:30:34] Are you anticipating a long budget meeting?

[3:30:36] I'm trying to remember back to--

[3:30:39] did we have [INAUDIBLE].

[3:30:40] We just introduced the budget.

[3:30:41] It's taken three hours.

[3:30:43] We started at 4:00.

[3:30:44] It's 7:30.

[3:30:47] I may have work commitments that day.

[3:30:50] I'm OK [INAUDIBLE].

[3:30:52] 4:00?

[3:30:53] 4:00 would be better than 3:00, because at least--

[3:30:55] Is that OK?

[3:30:56] Yeah, I think so.

[3:31:02] I know that's a vague--

[3:31:05] If we do 4:00.

[3:31:06] 4:00 can be fine.

[3:31:07] That's fine.

[3:31:08] I would prefer that to 3:00, just because if I have to be

[3:31:10] downtown for some stuff, it'll--

[3:31:12] Yeah, I hear you.

[3:31:14] Anybody else?

[3:31:15] [CHUCKLES] I think 4:00 is a good compromise.

[3:31:21] I will be glad to be back in the US.

[3:31:24] No problem.

[3:31:26] All right.

[3:31:27] Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn, I wanted

[3:31:31] to ask our new planning director to come to the podium,

[3:31:36] so I may introduce him.

[3:31:37] All right.

[3:31:38] [APPLAUSE]

[3:31:43] This is Joseph MacDonald.

[3:31:46] So it's both Joseph Corradino and Jim McDonald put together.

[3:31:51] The fabulous planning director.

[3:31:55] Thank you very much.

[3:31:56] And I'm very happy to be here.

[3:31:59] My dad's name is Jim.

[3:32:02] My last name has an extra vowel.

[3:32:05] I'm a Mac.

[3:32:06] I get that part.

[3:32:07] Usually, we think of it as Scottish.

[3:32:09] That's correct.

[3:32:10] Except all my people came over from Scotland, Ulster.

[3:32:12] And they dropped the A, 150, 200 years ago, but whatever.

[3:32:16] I see you got the green pants on, though.

[3:32:18] I do.

[3:32:18] Thanks so--

[3:32:19] Glad to be here.

[3:32:20] And I appreciate that.

[3:32:21] Yeah.

[3:32:22] I'm looking forward to working with you.

[3:32:25] Tell us about yourself.

[3:32:26] Soon.

[3:32:26] We didn't finalize this.

[3:32:28] My address is currently [INAUDIBLE]--

[3:32:30] You don't want the address.

[3:32:31] [INAUDIBLE]

[3:32:34] OK.

[3:32:35] I'll be looking for a place as close to Pinecrest,

[3:32:37] as I did that drive today, and it's very long.

[3:32:40] Our previous planning director drove all the way

[3:32:42] from Fort Myers.

[3:32:43] I can't complain.

[3:32:45] Does he inherit the car?

[3:32:46] It seems hard.

[3:32:49] I will be trying the [INAUDIBLE] train [INAUDIBLE]

[3:32:52] tomorrow, just to see how that goes.

[3:32:54] OK.

[3:32:55] We'll have places to park your bike, don't worry.

[3:32:58] But there will be signs [INAUDIBLE].

[3:33:00] And both my master's from Florida State,

[3:33:05] my doctorate from UNC Chapel Hill are in planning.

[3:33:09] My undergrad degree is from Michigan, just like Steve--

[3:33:11] Oh, wow.

[3:33:12] --but in meteorology.

[3:33:13] I went to Florida State to study hurricanes.

[3:33:15] And I segued into natural hazard mitigation planning.

[3:33:19] So I lived in Florida.

[3:33:20] My family has a long history with Florida.

[3:33:23] They wintered here for three generations.

[3:33:25] So I'm very familiar with South Florida.

[3:33:27] And we have some very good friends in common, Alex David

[3:33:31] and Jerry--

[3:33:31] Wonderful people.

[3:33:32] I've known them for almost 20 years.

[3:33:35] And I know several other planners in South Florida,

[3:33:38] so I'm excited.

[3:33:38] We're glad to have you.

[3:33:39] Thanks very much.

[3:33:40] Thank you.

[3:33:41] Welcome.

[3:33:41] Yeah, welcome.

[3:33:42] Yeah, welcome to the team.

[3:33:44] You got to see us in action with our mitigation requests.

[3:33:48] All right.

[3:33:49] Good.

[3:33:49] All right, Mr. McDonald.

[3:33:50] Again, Mayor--

[3:33:50] You don't have anything else.

[3:33:52] --I'm sorry, we finalized them for 9/10,

[3:33:54] but I want to confirm for 9/22, for the record.

[3:33:57] We are doing 5:01 then.

[3:33:59] I would say so, yes.

[3:34:00] OK, perfect.

[3:34:02] All right.

[3:34:03] So do you want to just--

[3:34:04] I move to adjourn.

[3:34:05] OK.

[3:34:05] Yes.

[3:34:06] Move to adjourn.

[3:34:07] All right.

[3:34:09] All right.

[3:34:12] I'll feed us in.

[3:34:13] Yes.

[3:34:14] I thought you were going to send me So Long, Farewell song.

[3:34:17] [SIDE CONVERSATION]

Village Council

Agenda

Transcript