Good afternoon, everybody.
It's our regular meeting of July 14, 2026.
It's 4:00 PM, our starting time.
I'm going to call the meeting to order
and we'll have the clerk call roll the members, please.
Council Member Greenberg.
Present.
Council Member McDonald.
Present.
Council member, Meyer.
Present.
Vice Mayor, Fuhrman.
Here.
Mayor Cordino.
I'm here.
Mayor a quorum is present.
At this time, a motion would be in order
to allow council member Meyer to participate virtually.
Does anybody want to make that motion?
I'll make it.
We have a motion.
Do we have a second?
Second.
We have a motion, a second.
All in favor, say Aye.
Aye.
All right, Mr. Meyer, welcome.
Where are you today?
Thank you.
I'm in Salzburg.
Oh.
Salzburg, I love it.
It's a shame we're in Pine Crest,
but we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance anyway.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All right, let's move to the first item of business.
That's our consent agenda.
Does anybody want to pull anything off our consent agenda?
Yes.
Mayor.
Just a tab five.
Tab five.
All right.
Tab five.
Anybody else?
I have a question about the minutes.
OK.
Minutes.
Do you want to pull the minutes?
Can we pull the minutes or we just make a correction?
Pull the minutes.
I guess pull the minutes, OK.
Pull the minutes and we'll talk about them.
OK.
And anybody else want to pull anything?
Does anybody on the public want to speak
on any of the unpulled items from the consent agenda?
Now would be the time.
Seeing none, we will move past that.
Do we have a motion on the consent agenda
of the non-pulled things?
I move.
We have a motion and a second.
All in favor.
Aye.
All right.
Great Anybody opposed.
All right.
That passes.
All right.
Tab one.
Ken, you had a minute issue.
Oh the minutes-- yeah over-- and I know you guys are going
to love talking about this, but page 206 when it talks about
the custom bench that we approved and the--
[INAUDIBLE]
--wording got changed to a design feature.
Let's be fair, it's a custom bench.
And I don't know why it got stricken as--
that got stricken and put it in as design feature.
Yeah my understanding is that was in fact because what it is,
that's what we--
[INAUDIBLE]
--agreed to when we--
I know that when we moved on the motion--
because I think it was my amendment to the motion.
I mean, it was done as a--
that's what we voted on.
So we did vote on it?
I thought so.
That's what I rememb-- as a design feature,
just more than a bench.
It was a direction at council that
could change it from a bench to a design feature that
was decided on [INAUDIBLE].
So there you have it.
OK.
Does anybody want to speak on the design feature or the bench,
the mega sidewalk or whatever we're calling it?
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on that item.
We'll go to--
Are you going to adopt the minutes?
Motion.
Oh, yeah.
Let's adopt the minutes.
Can you make a motion on that?
Motion to approve.
OK.
Anybody want to second?
[INAUDIBLE]
I'll second.
All right.
All in favor of adopting the minutes say aye.
Aye.
Passes unanimously.
OK tab five.
Let's see.
I just want to pose I spoke to the manager.
There appears to be a speaking of what
we're calling things here.
This is-- it references Howard Drive,
but this is not actually Howard Drive bridge,
but this is about the Chatham field.
It's 124 bridge.
124 bridge.
So it was my error.
What was that?
So we're doing repairs--
It's in the bridge.
--to the bridge on 124 not Howard Drive,
so the resolution should reflect the bridge on 124th.
Fortunately, the Howard Drive bridge is still functioning
on 5th.
It was my fault because the cover memo--
It just got built.
Yeah, that's why--
Howard drive, so the resolution was
referring to the wrong bridge.
So--
That could be a problem.
So a motion to amend the item to substitute
124 street for wherever it says Howard Drive--
Howard Drive.
--would be in order.
All right.
Anybody want to speak on that?
Seeing none, we'll open and close the public hearing.
OK, so motion.
Move.
All right motion--
Second.
McDonald and Fairman.
And the motion as amended.
Yes.
To 124 street.
All right.
All in favor?
Aye.
OK, motion--
Aye.
Motion passes.
All right.
Agenda and order of business.
Does anybody mind if we move tab 14 up to right,
after the special presentations.
Peter Englund from the EDC is here,
and I promised him we would do a presentation on that.
Anybody mind?
No.
All right.
That being done.
OK, good.
Special presentations.
Palmetto Middle PTA.
Council member, Meyer.
So my name is on this item, but it
came as a request from board member Luis Santos
to give the Palmetto middle PTA airtime during today's council
meeting.
So with that, I'll just let the middle school PTA association
take the word from here on.
Anybody here for that?
This might be a resolution.
We are-- we have some members here from the--
Come on up.
But really there is someone from--
If you could please state your name and address for the record.
Good afternoon.
My name is Jennifer Sturgis.
I'm representing the Palmetto middle PTSA.
I understood, though, that Miss Luis Santos
office are the people who are going to speak on this.
And I believe she's downstairs finding parking.
So--
OK.
--I don't know if you can--
We can.
--pass this?
Yeah, we'll hold it off until then.
I picture it would be best to present first.
OK, good.
Thank you.
We'll move on to tab 14 next, but first,
let me just say that I wanted to congratulate Miss Shannon Del
Prado as our mayor elect.
[APPLAUSE]
She'll be taking over in November.
Congratulations couldn't be more proud of you,
and so I just wanted to say hello to her.
She's in the room tonight watching again.
Very big shoes to fill.
Well thank you.
OK, let's go to tab 14 real quick
before the special presentations.
Tab 14, that is Miss Clark, will you go ahead.
It's a resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,
expressing support for the economic Development
Council of South Miami-Dade and its 2026 South Miami-Dade
competitive assessment, authorizing the village manager
to communicate the support to regional partners providing
for an effective date.
All right.
So we work with the Economic Development
Council of South Miami-Dade.
And they did a competitive assessment for South Dade.
And Peter Englund from the EDC is here.
Peter, would you like to do a brief presentation so
the council can figure out what you did
and see if we want to support it.
I will keep it very brief.
All right.
Mayor members of council, manager, mayor to be.
I'm Peter Englund I'm reside at 7620 Southwest 171st street
in Palmetto Bay.
I'm also the chief strategy officer
with the economic Development Council of South Miami-Dade.
We recently, with the help of the Metropolitan center at FIU,
concluded a competitive analysis of South Miami-Dade County
and have come to the point where we're
ready to implement this plan for planned economic growth in South
Miami-Dade County.
We've had a meeting with your manager, very successful meeting
with the manager and council member, McDonald,
and we look forward to continuing
to work with you and the partnership
that we've enjoyed in the past.
Thank you very much.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
All right.
Thank you.
Any questions for Mr. Englund?
Any questions on the resolution?
Does anybody want to speak on the public on this read tab
14 resolution.
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
I'll move.
We have a second?
Second.
Motion to second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Anybody opposed?
All right, motion passes.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
No presentation just yet.
Let's go to Tab two.
Tab two.
Tab two is approved.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
I'm sorry.
I'm on the wrong.
Let's go to tab six.
This is for second reading of an ordinance
of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,
comprehensively amending chapter 30, land development regulations
of the village code of ordinances,
including Article II, decision making
and administrative bodies, Article III development approval
procedures, Article 4 zoning district regulations,
Article V additional regulations,
Article VI environmental regulations,
Article VII signs, and Article IX rules of construction
and definitions providing for amendment and adoption
providing for inclusion in the village of Pinecrest code
of ordinances.
Providing for conflicts, providing for severability
and providing for an effective date.
This was deferred from May 5 and June 11, 2026.
Who wants that?
I'll take it, Mr. Mayor.
Fire away.
So, before you-- in your packet, you
have the latest addition of the recommended changes to the land
use regulations.
You also, on Davis, received two additional documents
that have some further clarifications of the language.
The council would like us to go through each one
or if there are any questions, how would you like to proceed?
I know we've had multiple.
This is second reading, right?
This is second reading.
I defer to anybody else on the council.
It says here, from both University of Miami,
that also has helped recent recommendations.
We have folks from--
Mayor Fernandez is here as well on some
of the proposed changes to the parking,
specifically to parking regulations.
So that's where we'd like to hear
from the members of the public on those issues.
Or is there any questions from council
on any of the proposed changes?
Any questions from council?
Just for clarification.
So the papers that were handed to us.
Those--
That's the final iteration.
But were those the same things that were handed to us last--
did we see those changes prior last month?
We discussed those changes last month.
So there's no--
No changes to the--
I remember it vividly.
Of course, it was two months ago,
which is why I'm asking if we discussed them.
But no.
So there's no additional changes--
There are no--
--on that.
--additional changes.
We did have to remove some of the changes, because of SB180.
So some things that were included the first time,
we went over this, had to be excluded
because they were considered to be more restrictive, in which
case, we're not able to adopt at this juncture because
of the SB180 limitation.
And those were also--
Those have all been removed.
We were told about that.
In other words, were there any additional--
that's a weird way to word it, but any additional removals?
There were.
I guess I'd like to know what was removed since last time,
just so we're aware.
If they're not legal under Florida law, we can do about it.
But it would be good if we could know that.
Do you, by chance, have that?
OK.
Can we briefly defer for a second,
so I can go pull that up in my office, the last edit?
OK.
So move on to the next item.
And then give me two seconds, and I'll come back with that.
We're ready for our presentation?
The special presentation for the PTA.
I believe that the people from Luisa Santos' office
are stuck downstairs.
They can't get up because we're at capacity.
I don't understand.
We'll get them a police escort.
Jason, we're going to send down the police chief
to take special care of--
[INAUDIBLE]
--the dangerous PTA people coming up here, cause trouble.
All right then.
So what do you think we want to do next?
There's pink lemonade over there.
How about-- it's tab 6.
How about tab 7?
We can't do that.
How about tab 8?
Who wants to do tab 8?
Youth Governance Day.
Manager's not here.
This is all hers.
Should we just go write the plan of the month?
Yeah, let's do the plan of the month, please.
It's my favorite part of the meeting.
Today, you have grass.
Today, we're talking about grass in front of us.
And there'll be a flyer if anybody wants to get this.
There's a couple of grasses there
that look really nice in the landscape.
We have, right in front of the mayor's door, fakahatchee grass.
And either side of that is Pink Muhly Grass,
which is a very brilliantly pink seed pods that come out.
And then on the side of that is the cordgrass,
which does well in damp areas pond by waterways and ponds
and things like that.
Plus, at the bottom of this, we'll
talk about a number of other grasses.
And there's one at the bottom called bristle basket
grass, which I don't have an example,
but it does great in shady areas.
So areas underneath trees and whatnot
that you can't get anything to grow,
the basket grass does really well.
So any of you council members are
willing to take a grass home?
I'm taking the pink one.
And whatever you're taking home, we'll
go to the Parks Department, and they'll
find a good place to plant it.
All right.
Perfect.
That's all you got.
That's all I got.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
--questions.
Please.
So this grass of the month stuff,
you've been doing this for a while?
Plant of the month.
[INAUDIBLE] this month is grass.
Oh, OK.
Very cool.
Grass is a plant out here.
Just in case.
All right.
Okey dokey.
So what about tab 13?
[INAUDIBLE] That's a small version.
Anybody want to do 13?
Ms. Clerk.
A resolution of the village Pinecrest,
Florida, determining the proposed military
for fiscal year '26, '27, seven or eight.
Never mind.
Not 13.
Let's hold off on 13.
[INAUDIBLE]
Let's do 15.
Tab 15?
Yeah, let's do tab 15.
OK.
A resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,
authorizing the village manager to enter
into a professional services agreement
with Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd for the transportation
assessment study, providing for an effective date.
This is also the managers meeting.
OK, good.
So we're pretty much out of time.
Let's just take--
You want to do YAC?
Yeah, let's do the YAC.
Youth Government-- no.
Go, Mr. Chairman.
Where is that?
I got to find it myself.
OK.
Confirmation of the tab 12.
Is that it?
The list of the members is on the list, Mayor.
Yeah, just basically requiring your confirmation.
All right.
Does anybody disapprove of any of these children on this list?
[LAUGHTER]
One of them's room is a complete mess
and hasn't cleaned her room in weeks.
OK.
I would--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
I don't disapprove of the child, just the--
Oh, just a mess of the room.
Just a mess in her room.
You want to name names?
No.
OK.
I would like to make one comment on the act.
All right.
Very excited that we're going to have
20 young people from the village participate in this.
I'm even more impressed by what happened behind the scenes.
This past year, a lot of the YAC students
wanted to clarify the rules about membership
and getting into the act.
They wanted not to be an automatic, just because you
were in one year, that you automatically
got in the next year.
They wanted interviews done.
And it's a good thing, because in the past,
we've had some issues with stuff not being turned
in and maybe people getting on YAC that maybe shouldn't
have been on YAC.
And this year, we had a case where
two returning members, for one reason or another,
did do not apply properly, and therefore, were not
allowed in the YAC this year.
And the most impressive thing was they really
wanted to be in YAC, but they put the organization
before themselves and understood the importance of the rules
and timelines, and they graciously agreed to, again,
put the organization before themselves.
So very impressive.
Two young members of our community,
and a great group of 20 kids coming in.
So I'm looking forward to the upcoming year.
OK, great.
Thank you.
You're doing a wonderful job with that,
so you should be commended.
Excellent work.
Glad to have you doing it.
All right.
So that's the YAC.
Ms. Manager, you're back.
Yes, I'm back.
Where did we leave off?
Which one are we-- oh, tab 6.
Do we have to vote on this?
Yeah.
Do we need to vote on that or are we just OK with--
Consensus.
--consensus?
Anybody?
So we have consensus.
We're good.
OK.
Go back to 6.
OK.
So to answer the question, anything
that is in this document that has a double underline or double
strikethrough are the things that
were changed from the first reading to now, second reading.
Anything in the handout or in the--
Both.
So anything you see with double underline or double
strikethrough are things that occur
between the past proceeding--
You wanted to go through those?
I mean, doesn't need to for my sake.
If anybody else wants to, sure, but I
don't want to delay the meeting.
Any other questions from the council?
A couple.
Number 1, on page 49 of 130, paragraph G. It
talks about encroachment of a hedge onto the sidewalk.
And maybe Esther can speak to this.
Do we also want to say for the right of way line?
Which page are you--
I'm sorry, sir.
What page are you--
49.
49 of 130.
49.
What paragraph do you--
G, at the bottom.
That section is specific to fences.
So I don't know that you want to have
right of way in that section.
I know what you're saying about the encroachment,
but if it has to do with right of way,
it's a different subsection.
Is that your final answer?
That's my final answer.
OK.
That's your final answer.
Anything else?
I do have a question about the bike parking.
Let me get to that.
I know the bike parking--
oh, I'm sorry, page 77 and 78.
I'll get to the easy one on page 78.
And this hearkens me back to when the county made provisions
for mandatory bike racks on commercial property.
Item E, signage, just don't see any point
in telling people they need to put up
signs to show that the bike rack is a bike rack.
Pretty self-explanatory, right?
I know it's a little thing, but it's just one
more sign up that somebody's got to pay for,
that somebody's got to maintain.
And I don't see a need for it.
Also, I think for right now, the number
of bike racks being requested is a little bit on the high side.
I would prefer to have something like 5 to 50 spaces
require two bike racks, 50 to 100 require 4, a 100 to 200
require 6, 200 to 500--
Where is this?
It's on page 77.
Page 77.
There's a--
77.
I'm thinking about Sunnyland and some of these shopping
centers that we have, that have several different owners,
and they're going to be putting up quite a few bike racks.
And I don't know--
I mean, I'd like to start a little smaller scale,
see that they're getting used, and then advance it from there.
Plus, there is another requirement
that it has to be near the entrance to the building.
And that can get a little tricky about who's
going to make that determination on where they should be located.
And that would be under C, item 2, and item 1
as well-- bicycle parking space shall
be located near the entrances to the building.
If you're looking at Sunnyland South, as you've just stated,
we have a number of different owners of that parcel,
and there are entrances all the way along,
starting with Sergio's at one end and Milam's at the other.
Right.
The arbiter of where they would go
is staff, because we're the ones that review for these things.
And as far as the number of rack or bicycle parking spaces,
that's up to counsel.
Was this pulled from the county?
Chad, are you on the call?
I think Chad's on the call.
No.
Hi, everybody.
Good afternoon.
This was proposed by staff.
I don't know if it came from the county,
but this was an original proposal from staff.
I would err on the side of caution
for more bicycle parking than less.
So I'm good with the way it is.
Anybody else?
I agree.
I think there's been a lack of bicycle parking.
We build shared use paths.
We try to encourage people to ride bicycles
to the shopping area.
And if you do, and you don't have a place
to park and lock your bike, you're not going to do it.
I think the concern is, as vice mayor laid out as well founded,
I don't-- but I mean, if there's not much of a will to change it,
I'm fine with it.
But I think it's a fair concern.
I would be happy to see how this plays out maybe at a smaller
number, but not a--
I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly if that's not clear.
Mr. Meyer, how do you feel?
Sorry, but I had a bad connection.
So is this on the topic of the bike racks or on another topic?
There's a proposal to limit the number of bicycle parking spaces
out there.
If your connection is bad, I bet, I can guess.
Yeah, I could guess for you.
You probably want to keep it the same and not lower it.
Well, I don't see a drawback to this, quite frankly.
I mean, the cities that have done
this in other parts of America have benefited from an increased
level of pedestrian and bike traffic
of local residents attending their local commercial
districts.
And as one of those residents that
likes to visit our US1 establishments usually and often
struggle to find places to park my bike safely.
And at times, I have to park it in places
where it's not visible, and I worry that it
might be taken away, et cetera.
So I think in the end, everyone's
going to benefit from this.
I frankly don't see any drawbacks
to moving forward with this aspect of our land use
regulations as is currently.
All right.
So we'll keep it the same, it seems like.
I mean, it's only 16 bicycle spots per 1,000 parking spaces,
so it didn't kill anybody.
Anything else, Mr. Chairman?
The second one that he had questions about
was subsection E, the one about the signage
and markings, whether or not we need to have that.
That's E, all bicycle parking spaces
shall be posted with a permanent and properly maintained
above ground sign.
And his position is, a bike rack is a bike rack is a bike rack.
Do you need to have signs to show that these are bike racks?
You tell somebody that's a bike rack.
I don't think so either.
OK, good.
You can ask Council Member Meyer.
Is it he can't find a place to park his bike because he doesn't
see the sign?
No.
Or the parking--
There's no bike racks.
--the physical--
There are no bike racks.
--doesn't exist.
There are no bike racks.
Once you have a rack, you probably don't need a sign.
He made my point, which is a little bit,
problem is there are no bike racks,
there are very few in the village.
So to tell, say, Sunnyland, that they're going to put a string
of, I don't know, 20-some, 30-some along their storefront
sidewalks is a lot, a lot right now where they don't have any.
And so should we start off with these numbers?
Or should we start a little bit smaller
and give our commercial property places to properly place
them, check out their usage?
And if Council Member Meyer goes back
and he can't find a spot because all the bike racks are being
used, then we got a great problem,
and we upped the number of them.
I disagree, Vice Mayor.
I think if we're going to do it--
this isn't 16 for a 500 to 1,000 parking spaces.
We don't even have that.
But the thing is, we don't have them now.
It's 16 what?
Bicycle--
Bicycles.
Yeah.
16--
16 bicycles, not bike racks.
It's like one bicycle rack.
One bicycle.
There's 16 slots in a bicycle rack, probably.
This isn't [INAUDIBLE].
No, that's settled.
We're settled on that one.
Anything else?
I'm going to take out the signage.
Yeah.
Fine with me.
You're fine with taking out the signage for the bike
racks and just having the bike racks required?
I believe the people of Pinecrest
can distinguish a bike rack from not a bike rack.
OK.
So we'll delete subsection E, in which case, F becomes E.
So we'll strike everything in subsection E,
and then F will now become E.
Fine with me.
OK.
F can be whatever you want.
OK.
Anything else?
I just have a clarification question, if you don't mind.
I believe we had a lengthy conversation.
This is related to the UM building that will be--
well, the UM building, I believe that we're
the former furniture Macy's store used to be,
that's going to go up.
And we had a lengthy conversation
about ensuring that we have limited open parking
spaces visible from US1.
And rather, that we would be asking
them to have underground parking enough so that we could
repurpose some of the ground level parking
and replace asphalt for trees, et cetera,
and improve the visibility from US1 into our village.
What has been the outcome of that request?
And is that being reflected on this new version of the land use
regulations?
Chad, do you want to answer that question
or do you want me to answer?
Well, I'll just caution first that that plan is still
being reviewed by staff.
And the specifics of it will come before the council
in a quasi judicial hearing.
So I don't know how much detail we should
get into the project itself.
I've heard that the submittal so far
does have some underground parking, but I have not seen it.
As far as the code amendment tonight, Josi,
do you want to introduce--
I think it's the language that we have been working on parking.
Sure.
The code amendments that would impact specifically
the University of Miami facility is
one of the handouts that was on Council Dais.
And specifically, what we are looking at is--
and this was vetted, by the way, by the engineer
that reviews the parking uses.
And they are in agreement with the language
that we are proffering to council now,
which would provide for one space for every 200 square feet
of gross floor area or fractional part thereof.
That is applicable to any medical or dental office.
But for facilities that are 50,000 square feet or more
in gross area, the staff can grant administrative waiver
of up to 10% from the total amount of required parking,
based upon the submittal of a parking utilization study from
a licensed engineer.
The other language that was changed specifically
that impacts that facility is on the first paragraph
that you see before you, where it
talks about allowing for the deduction of square footage
for things like mechanical rooms, utility
rooms, stairwells, and elevator shafts.
So when they do the calculation for these larger facilities,
we would be removing the square footage that is contributed
to these types of facilities, which I think, in the UM case,
it represents more than, I want to say,
19,000 square feet or something like of that building.
It's either an elevator shaft, or mechanical room,
or utility, something like for IT back of the room
that doesn't really have any people.
And that's not unique to us.
This is interesting.
No.
We're just expanding it a bit, because the language
we had presently only provided for exclusion
of restroom facilities, employee break
rooms, and walk-in freezers, which we just expanded
that to include the mechanical rooms, utility
rooms, stairwells, and elevator shafts.
OK.
Any other questions from the council?
One more on page 90 of 130.
Just curious.
Chad probably has an answer for this.
But the artificial turf not counting
as green space artificial turf.
What's stricken is artificial turf
shall not be counted or considered as required.
natural green space, thank goodness.
But was that stricken just because it was redundant?
It is redundant, because in our green space definition--
They still have to comply with that.
--they still have to comply with that.
Correct.
That's correct.
Anything else?
OK.
Does anybody want to speak on this from the public?
Any of the applicants?
You guys good with this?
[INAUDIBLE]
Sir.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor, members of council, good evening.
Javier Fernandez for the record, office at 2,
1 Alhambra circle, Suite 1205.
I just wanted to affirm our support for, I guess,
reverting back to the language in section 522R.
I believe that leaves the language
as it was or exists in the code today for shared parking.
We'll continue to try to work with our neighbor
to find an accommodation that works for all parties there
and hopefully result in some spaces being retenanted.
I did just want to suggest to the council with respect
to lines 12 and 13.
So this is page 126, the revised standards for health and fitness
studios, and the existing standard
for instructional studios.
Many of the uses that are contemplated in line 12
are included in the definition of line 13.
And so we would just suggest that maybe
those two categories be collapsed and allow those uses,
whether it's a yoga studio or a fitness and health
establishment, to be parked at a ratio of 1 space per 180.
What page again?
I believe it's page 126.
No, [INAUDIBLE].
I think it's page 68.
Sorry.
My apologies.
68?
I'm in the wrong section.
68 of 130.
He's talking about the table.
The table.
My apologies.
Yeah.
The table on page 68 of 130 has items 8 through 14.
And I believe, the suggestion is combining sections 12 and 13,
which currently have different parking space
requirements for instructional studios,
such as dance and karate, establishments with the health
and fitness section, which requires one space for each 180
square feet.
My apologies.
The reference to the definition is on page 126 through 127.
And that if you look at, could encapsulate a yoga studio,
which would also be potentially captured under the use
classification on line 12.
So it just seem that we should just consolidate and simplify
that for the benefit of commercial users.
Those are my only comments.
Again, thank you to all of you, and your staff,
and city attorney for your help throughout this process.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Mr. Penn.
When one lawyer gets up, we all have to get up.
We have to suffer through it.
Graham Pembroke, Howard L. Fernandez, [INAUDIBLE]
200 South Biscayne Boulevard.
I asked Mr. Fernandez's suggestion.
We have absolutely no issue with that
as long as the number is the new number, which is the 180
square feet for active space.
Just briefly on that, as your package reflects,
that number, the 180 square feet has been vetted significantly
by your transportation engineer.
We've done studies on eight separate locations
that all support that number.
And it's actually shows that it's a conservative number.
So we have no objection to Mr. Fernandez's suggestion.
And we would ask you to otherwise adopt it as written.
Thank you so much.
OK.
Mr. Proctor.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Jerry Proctor, attorney for University of Miami General
Counsel's Office.
We do support the changes that have
been presented by the manager.
They really get us to about the same--
excuse me, about the same place, which
is to recognize that a large medical facility requires less
parking on a proportional square foot
basis than a small medical facility.
And this gets us to that place.
The concerns along the way, the reason for the last minute,
there are concerns that your consultant raised
about safeguards, questions about case by case operation,
because every medical facility is different than the next one.
And there's safeguards now in the proposal that
require us to make certain submittals that frankly, we're
going to make anyway, but it requires us and requires anyone
in our shoes to present operational factors
and present them, if we're asking
for a waiver, for independent review by a traffic engineer,
and to do that before we appear in front
of the council with our site plan.
That's an extra step.
It's a safeguard that was suggested
by staff and the consultant.
And we have no problem with it.
I want to congratulate the staff and the council
for taking these items on your vision plan
four years ago, called for a look at parking requirements
and where they are excessive to make a good faith
attempt to reduce them.
That's what's happening.
It's very clear in your vision plan update
in the resolution that was adopted by council.
And I appreciate your following through on it.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
We're nothing if not courageous when it
comes to parking and bicycle.
Mr. Mayor, if I may real quick, also just
wanted to bring to the council's attention
that the other handout has to do with the changes
to the sign code that facilitated the two
signs on the same street that we talked about also
with the UM folks.
And we provided that information to you,
but we've sorted all of that out, where it wouldn't even
have to come to council.
It's just as a matter of course, if they
wanted to do them both on one side,
there would be just rules of how they would get to that point.
Got it.
Anybody else from the public want to speak on this?
All right, Ms. Clerk, there's hopefully nobody online
that wants to talk about this.
No.
Mayor, at the moment, no.
No.
Nobody raised their hand.
We'll close the public hearing.
Any further debate?
If not, do we have a motion?
What about that combining 12 and 13,
as was suggested on the instructional studio,
such as dance?
Oh, do we want to do that?
I see no reason why not to.
Chad, are you there still?
I didn't see any issue with that.
It's a policy decision from you guys.
From a legal perspective, I'm fine with it.
I think the question was-- what Mayor Fernandez mentioned was
that there might be like yoga in a health and fitness
establishment, so he just thought
they both belonged together.
I think--
In the definition of health and fitness on page 126,
and I think that was the reference,
it says an establishment that's providing instruction, that
are the establishment sustaining high density uses,
including yoga.
So I think it's within that overall definition.
So number 12, is it just strictly dealing with dance
and karate, that's it?
Everything else would fall under health and fitness
establishments?
Right.
Well, instructional studios--
Instructional studios would be specific.
Oh, because what he was saying is
that it could potentially just be
a structural facility for yoga.
Yeah.
There seems to be some overlap between the two.
They are similar.
I think that it makes sense.
I guess you just gotta make sure that there's--
I think what the mayor, Mayor Fernandez,
was saying was about the overlap between the two.
So how do we deal with it?
Do we just add yoga to number 12 and move on?
Or do you think we should combine the two?
Because it's definitely different amount of class.
Yeah.
I mean, it's definitely a different parking standard.
I mean, I'm not a parking excerpt,
but those uses seem similar.
But I mean, I don't know if maybe someone from the staff
want to maybe speak as to that.
But it seems as if there's definitely a difference
in parking demand for sure.
Ms. Janisse.
Pat Janisse, acting planning director.
I would concur that those two should be one.
And it wouldn't make it less confusing for anybody
applying for parking and also staff.
Less confusing is good.
The issue, though, is that one of them
is one space for [INAUDIBLE], and the other one
is one space per 180.
So that's a big difference.
So I would argue the opposite.
I would argue that we should just add yoga to number 12
and be more conservative that way.
However you wish.
Well, it's up to counsel.
What's your recommendation?
I would--
[INAUDIBLE]
Maybe the attorneys can chime in,
[CHUCKLES] and Mayor Fernandez too.
Again, obviously, our preference is that everything is at 180.
Adding yoga to the 12 would be the opposite
of what the definition of health and fitness is already.
Because health and fitness yoga is within health and fitness
as defined in the draft.
So therefore, it should be number 13.
What the mayor is suggesting is that for clarity's sake,
and I understand what Pat's point of view too,
is that the difference between a karate studio,
and a yoga studio, and a health and fitness club
are not different enough to justify
them being a separate category.
That's the policy decision within your discretion.
But definitely, yoga should not move into 12,
it would have to stay in 13.
Sorry.
Graham, that's only because yoga is
within the definition of health and fitness, which is in 13?
Correct.
Yes.
It's appropriate for health and fitness definition
under our opinion.
So the request from the--
Mayor.
--from the outside zoning lawyers
was to put them all in the category with a lower standard,
with the one space per 180 feet.
That makes sense.
All right.
Which part of this makes sense?
Let me know.
Can we just keep it the same?
What they're proffering is that we would--
Who?
Mayor Fernandez is proffering that we would go--
Mr. Graham doesn't like that idea.
Well, they're proffering that everything
be put to the one for every 180 square foot standard,
which is less restrictive than the one for every 100
square feet, which currently is what
we have for dance and karate.
So staff is always interpreted like the dance studios, very
more intensive, because you get a lot of kids or people
coming all at one time for those classes, which
is why those have one for every 100 square feet, one parking
space for every 100.
So it's up to if you want to be more restrictive
or if you rather loosen it up.
And if you want to loosen it up, then yes,
put it to 1 for every 180.
Like a Pilates class, a yoga class, but at the same thing.
People all showing up at one time for an hour-long class
and then leaving.
It's more on the number of people in a given class.
I think dance classes tend to have a lot more participants
in a given time, just traditionally-- right, Pat,
would you say or--
No.
What's been our experience?
I would say, my spinning class--
I would say, like you're spinning classes--
It's similar?
--doing all that are the same as a dance class.
So one for 180.
That is correct.
Yeah.
OK.
One for 180, which is what Mayor Fernandez recommended.
You're good with that?
Yes.
Does anybody have a problem with that?
OK.
Make it so.
So combining 12 and 13?
Correct.
OK.
And then all the numbers will be changed accordingly.
To 13.
OK.
Unscrew this up in a couple of years.
All right.
Anybody else want to comment on this?
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing,
like we already did.
Do we have a motion?
I'll move.
Second.
All right.
Motion is second.
And the motion is to adopt, as amended,
including the floor amendment regarding dance studios.
All right.
Ms. Clerk.
Council Member Greenberg.
Yes.
Council Member McDonald.
Yes.
Council Member Meyer.
Yes.
Vice Mayor Fairman.
Yes.
Mayor Corradino.
Yes.
Motion is approved.
Ordinance is approved, Mayor.
OK.
Perfect.
Are we ready for the presentation?
Thank you.
I believe so.
And, Mr. Mayor, I'll introduce that topic
on behalf of the PTSA.
And I'll provide a little bit of context
as to why I'm doing that now versus which is not necessarily
in line with how I introduced the topic earlier.
So as part of our strategic plan,
we have wording that expresses our support for public schools
and specifically, in support of exploring
private-public partnerships that would help improve the field
conditions at some of our public schools.
And specifically, we've been focusing--
[INAUDIBLE]
Yeah.
We've been focusing those conversations on the Palmetto
Middle School fields.
The manager has taken the lead on exploring this
in coordination, especially with Luisa Santos' office.
Because it is a public-private partnership
that we're exploring, there's also
been conversations with the Pinecrest Premier Soccer Club
that has approximately 400 to 500 families
signed up as part of the club that live in Pinecrest.
And that would be potentially interested in renting out
the field amongst other organizations
should the field conditions improve and should there
be substantial levels of investments
put into the improvement of those fields.
I would like to let the manager update
the council on the progress of those conversations.
And then following that update, I
believe the Palmetto Middle PTSA is
present to express their support for this exploratory effort
as well.
And so we should grant them time to speak on behalf of the PTSA
after the manager has provided the context and the update
report on how conversations have been going forward so far.
So if the manager wouldn't mind.
So just to give council an update,
during strategic planning, council
did ask me to contact the school board
to see if there would be any opportunity to partner with them
on the Palmetto Middle School Field.
We've had multiple meetings with different folks
at the school board.
School Board Member Santos has also
been very active in these discussions and to facilitate
these discussions.
Long and short of it, the school board
is amenable to a partnership, but because of just school board
needs elsewhere that are more pressing than updating a field,
they, as an organization, are not
inclined to carry the debt for something like this.
And they're asking if there's going
to be a partnership, that we do it similarly to how
other cities do it, which is the debt is carried
on the books of the municipality.
The school board allows us to use the field after hours
and program the fields, and keep the revenues that
are generated from the rentals of these facilities.
And we have similar arrangements with them already.
So I have seen draft joint use agreements that we've already
worked through several drafts with staff and the attorneys.
The issue now is timing of everything.
I know that we have folks here from both Pinecrest
Premier as well as PTA.
They wanted to speak to council in anticipation of our budget
hearing and meetings, the workshops
that we're going to have in August,
because workshops don't allow for public input.
So I think that's really what's coming before you.
But also, I did receive project estimates
and a conceptual design of how this would be laid out
that we can also have available to council
when we get into budget workshop.
But that's where we're really at is, at this point,
when we get into budget discussions, whether or not
the timing for council on moving forward with this project.
All right.
Thank you.
Who's up?
Thank you, manager.
And with that, I'll let the PTSA come up to the podium.
Hello, everyone.
Thank you.
Sorry for the confusion earlier.
That's all right.
As I mentioned, my name is Jennifer Sturgis.
I am the newly elected president of the Palmetto Middle School
PTSA.
I'm happy to be here today.
We have several other members of our PTSA,
other parents, grandparents.
And our brand new and fabulous principal
is also here, Ms. Milian-Valdez, in support of this project.
I just briefly wanted to say we've spoken with Council Member
Meyer.
We've spoken with School Board Member Santos' staff
and School Board Member Santos herself.
We've learned a lot about this project.
We are aware of it, because there is a similar use agreement
in place in the current time.
It's our position that this is a win for the village,
of course, because your involvement would help expand
access to parks and recreational spaces
for the village residents.
Children in the neighborhood are walking over, participating in
all the sports and activities that happen,
as the manager mentioned, after school hours
and on the weekends.
And it's also our position in representing
the PTSA and the parents at our school and families,
that it's a win for our fabulous neighborhood traditional middle
school.
We are exactly that.
We are not a magnet school, we are
your traditional neighborhood school.
And we're proud of that.
We offer everything for everyone who wants
to be a part of our school.
And an upgrade to the field, which it desperately
needs at this point, would serve our students, most of whom
are residents as well, during school hours
and in all of their extracurricular activities
that they participate in on those fields.
If any of you follow what's happening at Palmetto Middle
School, we Excel in all of these athletics
that we participate in.
And these are happening at our school.
It serves as a great opportunity for these students
to become leaders.
It serves as a great opportunity for us
to showcase what's so fabulous at our school.
We are constantly trying to recruit and compete
against the other schooling options.
And the use of this field of the upgrades to these facilities
would help us in serving that need and desire
to continue recruiting on behalf of Palmetto Middle School.
So with that said, I know that we have someone
from School Board Member Santos' office here.
And we also have maybe one or two other parents who
might want to say something.
I can share that Principal Valero, who
just left, she recently retired, was fully in support of this.
We had been through many walkthroughs and whatnot
at the school.
And in our transition to our new principal, Ms. Milian-Valdez,
I know that she's learned about the project,
understands the importance of it,
is also very much in support of it.
So I can speak on behalf of both of them,
that they are excited and hopeful
that this idea and project can become a reality at our school.
So I'm going to turn it over quickly.
Thank you for having me.
Hello.
I'm Johanna Ralsten-Cox.
I'm the chief of staff for Luisa Santos.
And she could not be here today.
So I just came to share that exactly as Ms. Sturgis says,
she is fully in support of this project
and really thanks the village for considering it.
And also, thank you so much, Ms. Galiano,
thank you, for everything you've done
as well to coordinate with the school board as well on this.
All right.
Thank you.
Any questions from the council?
Mr. Mayor, I was going to, if it's OK with you,
invite one more person to speak.
Absolutely.
If Pinecrest Premier, Manny, can come up.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Good evening.
It's good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members.
Before I begin, I would like to recognize school board member
Lisa Santos, and thank her for taking her time to meet with me
and her willingness to explore this opportunity.
Her commitment to finding innovative ways
to strengthen our public schools and better serve
the students of our community is greatly appreciated.
I look forward to continuing to work alongside her, Miami-Dade
County Public Schools, and the village of Pinecrest
to make this vision a reality.
My name is Manuel Escobio.
I stand before you not only as a resident of Pinecrest,
but also as president of Pinecrest Premier Soccer Club,
a local 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Every member of our board of directors
lives in Pinecrest because we're deeply invested
in the future of this community.
I'm joined this evening by Maura Lamar,
who serves as general manager for the club.
Tonight, I'm asking for your support
for a project that's much larger than soccer.
Throughout my professional career,
two individuals have profoundly influenced
the way I approach difficult decisions--
Warren Buffett and his late partner, Charlie Munger.
One of Charlie Munger's most enduring principles
was the practice of inversion.
When confronted with a difficult problem,
he would encourage us not only to ask how do we succeed,
but also to invert the question and ask how do we fail.
Applying that principle here, we should certainly
consider the tremendous benefits of modernizing
the athletic facilities at Palmetto Middle School.
But we should also ask ourselves a more important question--
what happens if we do nothing?
If we choose not to act, the status quo
is unlikely to remain static.
Competing schools, both public and charter,
will continue investing in modern campuses
and athletic facilities, while Pinecrest
risks falling further behind.
Families evaluating where to educate their children
increasingly consider the overall student experience,
including the quality of school facilities.
As the gap widens, enrollment pressures
may increase attracting, and retaining exceptional teachers
and staff may become more difficult.
Community pride may diminish.
And we will have missed a rare opportunity
to create a shared public asset that
benefits students, residents, and generations to come.
The greatest risk before us is not
that we undertake an ambitious project.
The greatest risk is that we fail
to act while every community around us
continues moving forward.
Strong public schools are the foundations
of strong communities.
They attract families, sustain property values,
fosters civic pride, and shape how
a community is perceived by those considering making it
their home.
When we invest in our schools, we're
investing in the long-term vitality and competitiveness
of Pinecrest itself.
Across Miami-Dade County, communities
have recognized that modern athletic facilities
are no longer a luxury.
They're an essential part of attracting families, supporting
students, and creating vibrant public spaces.
South Miami, Coral Gables, Key Biscayne,
and numerous Miami-Dade County Public schools
have all invested in modern athletic facilities
and have become valuable community assets.
Pinecrest should not be left behind.
Palmetto Middle School is an outstanding public school
with a proud history, but first impressions matter.
When families compare schools today,
facilities influence perceptions.
Modernizing this campus would give students a first class
athletic environment during school hours,
while creating an asset the entire community can
enjoy after school.
This project is also an opportunity
to show an effective public-private partnership
can work.
And Pinecrest is uniquely positioned to be that partner.
For more than two decades, our nonprofit
has been a pillar of this community.
Today, we proudly serve more than 2,000 young adult,
young athletes, and their families,
making us one of the largest youth soccer organizations
in South Florida and the largest youth organization in Pinecrest.
Every weekend, our fields bring together
thousands of parents, grandparents, volunteers,
coaches, and children, who share a common purpose--
helping young people grow into successful adults.
Several years ago, Pinecrest Premier
participated in a competitive request
for proposals, process, and RFP.
Our proposal received the highest evaluation score
by a significant margin, because of the strength
of our vision, our leadership, our partnership,
our financial stewardship, and our unwavering commitment
to serving this community.
We accepted that responsibility because we
believe we could help make youth sports
and Pinecrest even stronger.
Yet, despite earning that distinction,
the additional access to quality fields that many anticipated
has never materialized.
The great obstacle to fulfilling our mission
has never been a lack of volunteers, coaches,
or families.
It has been the shortage of quality athletic facilities.
That is precisely the gap this project would close.
Every afternoon, we have images that our general manager
is sharing that shows the current conditions of what
Palmetto Middle currently looks like.
This is where rec program is currently at.
We have over 700 members.
It's in our rec program.
It's that run from U4 through U7.
That, obviously, is far from optimal.
Every afternoon, hundreds of young people
step onto our fields.
They learn teamwork before they learn tactics.
They learn resilience after losing a difficult match.
They learn discipline, humility, accountability,
and perseverance-- the qualities that
shapes successful adults, engage citizens, and future leaders.
While many of our players continue
their athletic careers in college,
what makes us most proud is that more than 95%
pursue higher education Pinecrest Premier's mission has
never been simply to develop exceptional soccer players,
it has always been to develop exceptional people who
become exemplary citizens.
Every organization is ultimately defined by one thing--
its ability to decide how its limited resources are allocated
to its most pressing needs.
That is true in business, and it's true in local government.
Priorities are a choice.
And tonight, I'm asking the council to choose wisely.
We're all aware that the village recently
completed the purchase of [INAUDIBLE] property.
And I have seen the initial renderings
that are generally beautiful.
But as a resident of Pinecrest for nearly 30 years,
I'll be honest with you, I do not use the park,
and I do not feel my family's quality of life depends on it.
Council members, opportunities like this do not come often.
These are moments in public service
when elected leaders have the chance
to make decisions, whose benefits extend well
beyond a single budget cycle or even a single generation.
I believe this is one of those moments.
This project will strengthen one of our community's
premier public schools, beautify one of Pinecrest's most visible
public campuses, expand recreational opportunities
for thousands of families, encourage healthier lifestyles,
reinforce the desirability of our community,
and create a lasting legacy for generations to come.
I respectfully ask that you support
moving this project forward and work collaboratively
with Miami-Dade Public County Schools, Pinehurst Premier
Soccer Club, and our community to make it a reality.
I began this evening with Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger,
because they understand that truly consequential decisions
require us to think beyond the immediate
and focus on the long term.
In business, we often say that the greatest investments
are those whose returns compound over time.
The same is true of investments in our children, our schools,
and our community.
The measure of great leadership is not
whether we solve today's problems,
but whether we have the vision to prevent tomorrows,
and the courage to seize opportunities
whose greatest rewards may not be realized for years to come.
Let us choose progress over complacency,
partnership over hesitation, and legacy over convenience.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration.
you very much.
Any questions from the council?
I would just ask if we could get copies of that.
Those documents, if you have them electronically,
if you could send them through the clerk, that'd great.
Thank you.
Thanks for your--
All right.
Thank you, all, very much.
And just if I briefly, because the schools are here,
I'm going to talk.
Not on the subject.
I just want to--
with Ms. Ralsten-Cox here and the representatives
from Palmetto Middle, I just want
to use the opportunity to thank you all for everything
you do for the school and for the community,
and to welcome Ms. Milian-Valdez, who
will undoubtedly get tired of me at the EAC next year.
But it's great to have you all here--
the incoming president of PTA, the outgoing, so many of you.
Shapiro, good to have you back at Palmetto Middle.
But thank you for all you do for our schools and our community.
Thank you all as well.
I could have gone on more about school things, but--
You did a great job.
I was quick.
Well, thank you.
I could talk about the state policy if you'd like.
I got all sorts of topics.
The buzzer worked.
The shock, the dog collar.
Yes.
Thank you.
Keep pushing that button.
So we'll get more details on this in our work
up to the budget, as far as--
Theoretically, yes.
Yes.
OK.
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
Good.
All right.
I have one other thing to say.
Yeah.
It's listening to the gentleman, your presentation, which
was well done, it reminded me, way back when
my kids were small, I actually coached soccer.
And we used at Palmetto Elementary
over to the space that's right next to 124 Street, which
was then wide open.
This was back in, I think, the early '80s.
And I was asked to coach.
And I never played soccer, but I got the rule book out,
and I figured it out.
I used to tell the kids, just kick it that way
into the-- anyway, I had a woman come up to me and said,
boy, you're such a good coach.
She never played soccer either.
I said, if you only knew.
But anyway--
[LAUGHTER]
I'm always looking for volunteers.
No.
[LAUGHTER]
Been there, done that.
And I think that field is planted with native plant
of the month grass.
Well, it looks like it.
You can't play soccer there anymore.
[INAUDIBLE] all the varieties.
All the varieties of grass and the ankle buster.
All right.
Thank you, all, very much.
Let's go to reports and recommendations.
Village council did the plan of the month.
Village manager, communicated council, what have you got?
Anybody got any questions for the communicated council?
Were you going to do the native plant?
We did that already in your absence.
You can do it again, though.
You want to do it again?
No, that's fine.
Do you want to find out which one you want to take home?
No, no, no, no.
Let's go.
All right.
Any questions for communicating?
Any questions for the communicating council?
Seeing none, tab 8, what's Youth Governance Day?
We got to do anything on that?
Mr. Mayor, is this the time that you
want to talk about the speed limit change?
I never want to talk about speed limit change, but you're--
Bringing up all the greatest hits.
I think the village manager has an update on that.
Oh, you were talking about the-- you're
asking the manager to do the roof thing while we're at it?
Do you want to do the roof thing, too?
Speed limit.
Didn't we put the speed limits to bed already?
I thought so.
So the update is, the county's legal department is still
reviewing the letter that we sent, advising them
that we wanted to update the speed
limits on the arterial roads.
So jury is still out and being discussed by legal department
county.
The Youth Governance Day update, there's
a letter that's included in your packet.
I don't know if you have any questions.
I do not.
And then we have the submission of the capital and operating
budget.
But before I get into that, can we just
go on to the fine mitigation request?
I know that there was an attorney here
representing that individual.
I think they were going to ask for a deferral of the item.
Or you're going to go ahead and--
Here we go.
Sorry.
Hi.
Amanda Corcan, office is at 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800.
My client had emergency, is not going
to be able to be here today.
I'm ready to make a presentation without him, but to the extent
that you'd like to hear from him personally,
then we are willing to defer it.
Anybody care?
I mean, you're here, you might as well
go as far as I'm concerned.
I'm ready.
All right, fire away.
You want to do that one?
Good.
You want to do that now or--
Yeah, let's do it.
OK.
As I stated, I'm Amanda Corcan.
I am here on a mitigation request for 60 to 85 South West
98th Street.
This is a property that was bought out of foreclosure.
I don't know if you want to hear from your staff first or from me
first.
Typically, the applicant speaks first,
and then the staff will respond.
OK, let's do it that way.
This was a property that was bought out of foreclosure.
It had a history of violations, including unsecured pools,
stagnant pool conditions, a bunch of other small ones,
and then also a big one for unpermitted work.
Previous owners had done unpermitted building work,
finds violations dating back to 2020.
When my client bought the property in foreclosure,
it was through an auction.
And he took title.
He did not take title until August 7 of 2025.
OK, so you're looking at basically violations from 2020
for unpermitted work accruing through 2025.
He takes title in August 7 of 2025.
He went to review the property, looked at the house, and said,
you know what?
It's going to be way too much to deal with this unpermitted work.
The property has been derelict for a number of years
in the village of Pinecrest, so it's an eyesore
for the neighborhood.
And he said, you know what?
We'll demolish the house.
We'll take care of the pool.
We'll take care of all the stagnant conditions.
And they did so immediately.
They immediately reached out to the village,
immediately applied for the building permit
to demolish the property, immediately
took care of the stagnant conditions.
The pool had already been secured by that time,
but he did act with all due diligence
after he obtained title through foreclosure.
Right now, the fines are in the amount together with costs
and interest, like $587,000, because they all go back
to 2020.
I submitted a request to mitigate for costs plus a good
faith contribution of $25,000 to the village of Pinecrest.
And the reason is, he does plan to build his residence there.
He is investing in the community.
The property was derelict.
And think there is a public policy in favor
of encouraging people to take these properties
and deal with them, to the benefit of the neighborhood.
So he did immediately do all the things
necessary to take care of this property.
Right now, it's cleared and ready
for-- he's going to be filing plans to do a single family
residence at the property.
So my respectful request is for the fines to be reduced
to $25,000 plus costs.
One of the bases, if you want to think about numbers of where
that number comes from, if you look at when he acquired title
to the property, August 7, 2025, till the time that the property
was completely demolished, permit closed,
and everything like that, the total amount of fines that had
accrued during his time of ownership to get the demolition
done and everything like that, 33,419 total.
That includes costs.
But obviously, during that time, it
took quite a while to get a permit
from the village of Pinecrest to get the demolition.
So the $25,000 is reasonably based on what a fine would be
for the time that he had control of the property.
And I have spoken, our client has worked with the village
to really take care of this immediately
for the benefit of the village.
So we would respectfully request that consideration.
I'm here to answer any questions.
I also have the general contractor here.
To the extent that you have any questions about the violations
or the condition of the house, the demolition or anything
like that, they are available.
And then otherwise, I defer to staff and answer questions.
All right.
Ms. Cabrera.
For the record, my name is Esther Cabrera.
I'm the co-compliance supervisor for the village of Pinecrest.
Being brought before you today is a request for mitigation
of fines for the property located at 6285 Southwest 99th
Street by the current owner, which is Carbonell, LLC.
Each case being presented was an excessive fines of 100,000.
And as per division 2-150, the village council has
the authority to consider this mitigation request.
I'm going to go ahead and just say,
I'm going to repeat a little bit of what Amanda Corcan said,
just we're all on the record.
Currently, the property has an outstanding balance
of $578,313.79.
Each case has been broken down in the memorandum submitted on
July 1 for your consideration, which is in your packet.
A quick history, this property does go back as
of November of 2020.
The first violation that was issued,
if it's on page 2 of the memorandum,
it was for a interior renovation.
This interior renovation was brought into compliance
by Carbonell, LLC, through the demolition process, which
was done on June 4 of 2026.
As you can see there, there's a breakdown
of all the hard cost owed.
On May 7 of 2021, Lavender Diving Group,
who was the owner at that time, sold the property
to Strength Capital.
Strength Capital, at that time, incurred the violation
cost from the previous owner and also incurred two different code
violations-- one had to do with the swimming pool
and the other had to do-- the swimming pool stagnation,
and the other one had to do with the gates leading
into the swimming pool not being self-closing, self-latching.
I could just see, that documentation will show you
individually how much each fine could accrue to,
including the hard cost.
On May 5 of 2022, the property was sold to 6285 Southwest 9
Street LLC.
All violations and penalties in hard costs
were transferred through the sale to these individuals.
Cases under ownership of this property
were mitigated at the special magistrate meeting.
On July 11 of 2023, the property was sold to Yellow Pine, LLC,
and all violations, penalties, and hard costs
were transferred through the sale of the property.
The cases under this ownership were mitigated
by the special magistrate.
On April 11 of 2024, Carbonell, LLC
was awarded the property through a foreclosure bid.
On April 12, 2024, Carbonell, LLC
contacted the village of Pinecrest
to address outstanding compliance violations.
On May 9, there was a legal freeze
that was placed as the previous owner, which
was Yellow Pine, LLC, filed an objection to the sale,
and shortly thereafter, a bankruptcy.
The certificate of title cannot be issued to Carbonell,
LLC until the review process was complete.
The freeze began on May 9 and ended on August 7 of 2025.
The legal freeze at this time no longer Carbonell,
LLC to access the property, so the village
did continue to maintain the property.
On August 7 of 2025, Carbonell did receive
the certificate of title.
On August 8, they had made contact
with the village to start addressing
all outstanding violations.
As you can see, I've put two tables together
for your consideration-- one is the table without the freeze,
which the penalties would accrue daily until time of compliance.
For each individual case, I've also
addressed it as by interest, daily fines, totals,
so you have numbers every which way.
And then I also did the table with the freeze
for your consideration, which would be that during the time
that Carbonell owned the property
and they could not gain access due to the legal freeze,
I removed those as daily penalties,
just in case that was a consideration for mitigation
for you to consider at that point,
holding the fines not against them
since they did not have access to the property.
On December 1 of 2025, the special magistrate
considered a request for mitigation involving nine cases.
Each was assessed an amount of less than 100,000.
Following the consideration of the request,
the special magistrate reduced those fines from 60,852
to 20,933.
And those violations were paid by Carbonell, LLC.
At this point, I do not have any further information to provide,
unless you have any questions for me.
Do we have questions?
So they've already paid a fine.
They did pay a fine at the special magistrate.
And that was for?
Multiple violations-- abandoned vehicles, overgrown conditions.
Not under their ownership, though.
No.
Every case that was under their ownership, the Carbonell,
they rectified it within.
So they paid a total of what?
29--
$20,000.
Yes.
$20,000.
So they ended up paying $20,933.86.
That was the reduced amount.
And the amount that was reduced was $60,852.86.
But those were other cases other than these three that--
Yeah, those were all fines that were under $100,000.
And the special magistrate has the authority
to mitigate for those.
So now, they're here, and they want to settle this thing,
pay the hard costs of $3,148.08, and basically,
a fine of $25,000.
That is what they're recommending.
And what's the staff's recommendation?
For us to figure it out.
Well, I already can figure it out.
What do you want?
I'd accept that offer, and settle this, and move on.
Because it seems to me like they've come--
well, let me finish.
I mean, what I've heard, what I've read,
they just took over the property a year ago.
All of this stuff goes back to what?
Five or six years ago.
They're the third owner.
The third owner, whatever.
Here we are.
They've already taken care of $20,000 in fines.
And they're willing to pay the hard costs
and make another payment.
I say, let's accept that and move on.
That would be my vote.
Any thoughts?
I don't disagree with you.
I mean, there's only $3,100 in hard cost total to this whole
thing.
And that includes staff time?
Yes.
I do have some questions, if I may.
Yes, you may.
[INAUDIBLE]
Thank you.
Yes, I'm still awake.
I'm still awake, in case you were counting me out.
I'm even more awake now that Spain
has beat France in the World Cup that makes me happier.
But that's just my personal preference.
OK.
Any question?
Wait a second.
He just interjected.
What was the final score?
2-0.
OK.
We get to pick both countries, both teams that
are in the finals.
Hang on a minute.
Now, who's he going to pick next?
If you're Argentinean, and you don't get to be a Spain fan,
you get one.
No, no.
It's just that I prefer to play against Spain in the final.
Oh, you're counting the chickens.
I see.
OK.
So the questions I have are--
I have two questions-- so one is related to the acquisition
price for the property.
So how much did Carbonell, LLC pay in foreclosure
for the property?
Can you clarify what that amount is?
That's question number 1.
And number 2-- because maybe you have answers to both.
Number 2 is, what was the appraised value
of the property at the time that Carbonell acquired it
in foreclosure?
So I can attest that the property was sold at auction
for $2,107,200.
Esther, can you speak into the microphone, please?
--for $2,107,200?
So 2.1 million.
Right.
That was what the offer was and that Carbonell bidded.
And they won the bid.
Excellent.
Thank you.
And what was the appraised value of the property
at the time that they won the bid for the acquisition?
I can give you an estimate.
Now, remember, at this point, the house
is no longer there and demolished.
But according to--
I went on to a couple websites, with the real estate websites,
and it looked like it was running at around between low 4
million to about 450 million.
Low four million to mid four million, in between there.
All right.
Let's just take low four million and round it up to four million,
because that proves my point.
When you're buying a property in foreclosure,
you're going at it with risk, number 1.
And you're assuming the risk.
And the value of that risk is the difference
in value, 1.9 million, the 2.1 versus the 4 million.
And so you're taking that risk.
You're assuming that this property
is going to come with some surprises
that you don't know what they will be.
But in exchange for that, you're paying
for almost half the value or the appraised value
or the market value of the property at that time.
Well--
Can I respond?
Yeah, in a minute.
I don't know if you may respond.
But I want to close down my thoughts.
At the time that you were--
there's a request for bids for offers for the property.
And any potential suitor, any potential buyer
will look at this property, will assess its value,
will estimate that it's at four million.
I would imagine, at least that's the diligence I would do,
and even though I'm not an expert in this.
I would look at what the value is for that property.
OK, four million.
And if I had known at that time that the village was going
a few years later or a year later,
was going to just basically remove all outstanding debts
on the property that are owed to the village.
I might have considered at that time
to also make an offer for the property.
In fact, there could have been many other potential buyers
for the property if all of them had known at that time
that a year later, the village was going to basically withdraw
all outstanding debts on the property.
So the fact that we are even considering to do that now
is potentially unfair to any other potential buyers
a year ago that would have considered this property
for an acquisition.
That's what I'm coming to.
I'm not really looking at this whether--
I'm thinking, OK, it's $400,000 fair or it's $587,000 fair.
I'm looking at this from a business perspective.
You're buying a property in foreclosure.
You know that it's coming at risk.
You're buying it under the assumption
that there are some debts outstanding.
And in fact, if you had done your research at that time,
you would have known what the amount of the debt
is, because that's public record.
And yet, you're still moving forward,
and you're moving forward with the acquisition,
because you know that 2.1 million is a good deal.
It's half the value of the property at that time.
So I think the fact that we're even
considering lowering this debt is
us trying to influence what was actually a business decision.
And for that reason alone, we could potentially
discuss whether it should be the table without the freeze
or the table with freeze.
I think that's a valid argument.
We could talk about that.
But I don't think it is--
it would be disrespectful of even how the market works,
if we later come in and withdraw the debt on this property.
And it would be unfair, as I've said,
to any potential buyers at that time that would have otherwise
considered to place a bid on the property as well.
If I may respond--
Let me have the attorney--
Amanda, you want to respond to that?
And then we'll go back.
Hi.
This is Amanda [? Hahn, ?] for the record, responding.
The assessed value in 2024, when the house was on the property,
was $2,791,000.
The bid was at 2.1.
He spent about $300,000 to $400,000 in subsequent
litigation, afterwards challenging the bid between
a couple of banks and a couple of previous owners.
That's why there was a delay in taking title.
And then he had to spend over 100 to demolish the house.
So we're in it for about 2.75, which is what
the assessed value was in 2024.
So I respectfully request that the village, when you consider
encouraging people to take title of these derelict properties--
the property was a disgusting pool,
unpermitted work, and all kinds of things for six years
until now.
And so he took care of it immediately upon taking title.
I think that that should be considered as encouraging people
to turn the properties over in the village.
Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Cabrera, first of all, thank you
very much for the way you presented the data.
That was very helpful when we looked it over.
So I appreciate all the charts and all the history of it.
We had a similar case for this not very long ago.
Same situation.
A property sold once or twice, and then purchased.
These fines are all baked into the purchase
price of these properties.
So I see no reason to discount--
now, at this point, to waive all these fees.
I mean, whoever-- it's been purchased, what?
Three times, with all these fines attached to it?
So that's got to be--
I don't know.
I've never bought a house in foreclosure, so I don't know.
Do you not know that there's $300,000 worth of fines attached
to it?
He did not know.
No.
How could you not know?
How do you not know?
Because he bought it at a foreclosure auction.
He said, look, I did not know that there was $500,000
in fines.
OK, so that would be his fault. What I do agree with,
the fact that he jumped right on this,
I do like the idea of going with the table with the freeze,
the $407,000, because it appears he bought it,
immediately contacted the village,
started doing something.
Then this legal matter came up about ownership.
He didn't have title to the house.
You don't want to give him a discount?
I think, at that point, going with the 407 would
be very appropriate, but I would not waive the fees any further
than that, because, again, it's baked into what
he paid for the house.
The only fines that accrued on the property while he had
control of it is $33,419.
Understood.
I understood, he came in and did a great job
trying to button everything up.
That's fine.
But he still purchased that liability.
It is true.
However, there is an incentive for the village
to incentivize people to buy these properties,
demolish the house, secure the pool, clean up the landscaping,
and build a nice new house.
And that's why we should waive the $180,000.
Well, what's your proposal then?
To go with the $407,991.23.
And your rationale is that everybody knows
that these fines are there.
And when you bid on the house, you
bid on it with those in mind.
You can make a gamble that you'll get them waived,
but that's a gamble.
Well--
I have a question then.
I don't see-- I'm sorry.
I don't see--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
I don't see how anybody doesn't know that this fine exists
on the property.
What you don't know, it's their mistake.
I know that you're going to defer.
No, no, I don't understand.
No.
I mean, I remember my previous term on this council,
we had a lot of these kinds of--
a lot, I remember, of these situations.
And we'd have our fines, on a daily basis, running up
on paper.
I don't recall.
Maybe Mitch can answer.
These fines, are they liens on the property?
Are they liens?
Yes.
We lien the property.
And when in foreclosure, and this property
has gone through a number of iterations--
We're generally a claimant in those foreclosure
cases for liens, so that to the extent
there's excess revenue from the foreclosure sale,
we would get paid out of that.
In this case, apparently, we got nothing out of foreclosure sale,
because it was below the amount of the prime judgment.
OK.
Well--
[INAUDIBLE] and the village was listed in foreclosure.
Was not.
So if we weren't listed, that means the--
Everything stands.
Pardon?
Everything stands.
I'm sorry.
Everything stands as it is, all the fines and--
Yes.
OK, I get it.
But that does go to the notice issue.
I'm sorry?
That does go to the notice issue,
because the village was not part of the foreclosure action.
That was where I was coming from.
If we were not listed, and somebody takes property
under foreclosure and is not aware of these liens that go
back five or six years, they--
So you have two ways of looking at this.
You can say, hey, yes, the property owner did not look
and didn't do some diligence.
A lot of people don't go and say,
hey, I'm getting ready to foreclose,
maybe I should call that city and see
if there's any type of penalties before I go ahead
and declare the property.
It's just a matter of you're going to--
Well, OK, let me finish.
My thought was or is, if this were the original property
owner who allowed the property to lay fallow and all that,
that's one thing.
But I don't think--
which is why I thought what counsel has said.
And what I remember from other incidents, Joe, Mr. Mayor,
that we had similar type things, where
we had these enormous fines.
And then somebody came in and purchased,
and did what we wanted, cleaned up the property.
We looked at them as on paper, a number,
but then said, OK, let's resolve this for the new person.
These aren't supposed to be punitive.
And there is some public policy involved in, OK, somebody
buys property.
I don't think we should be here and second guessing
somebody's business decision.
But at the end of the day, the purchased property,
he finds out, there are liens.
He's made an effort to pay costs.
And I guess, now, total of 25-- almost $50,000 in fines.
I would say, we, as Pinecrest, shouldn't be in a manner
in a-- shouldn't be our intention
to be punitive with people who didn't incur the violations.
So my view is to accept this offer and move on with it,
let the person come in and build this house,
do whatever, and move on with it.
We haven't been damaged.
We've got paper violations, and that's what they are.
That's all they are, they're paper.
Ms. Manager.
The people that lived around there
were damaged, not by them in particular, but just because
of the ongoing violations for over six years.
So there is that issue.
Well, they're not here.
I get that, but there's no way to quantify that,
other than, yeah, you don't want to live next to a place
like that.
To your point, I think that the fines are supposed
to be that code compliance.
The primary goal is compliance, not punishment.
We just had a care where--
Hold on that, Jerry.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Jerry's been chomping at the bit to go here.
Go for it.
Well, I don't want to speak over you, Vice Mayor,
but I agree with you.
I mean, I think-- look, honestly, I
don't find this one particularly close.
I would be willing to go with the whole thing,
but I'm OK with the 407 that the vice mayor proposed.
And I'll tell you why.
[INAUDIBLE]
Yeah.
But yeah, I mean, these fines, I don't view it as punitive.
I appreciate the comments from Council McDonald,
but I don't view it as punitive.
I view these as essential to our neighborhoods.
There were neighbors who were affected.
These things have to be upheld.
They're critical to the quality of life in the village.
And I understand that this LLC was not the owner at that time,
but they bought it, whether they knew it or not.
They certainly should have known it or could have known it.
And when you buy a property in foreclosure,
anybody knows or should know that there is a serious risk
that there are violations, especially, from everything
we can tell, you look at the property,
and you could tell it was in violation.
This wasn't some latent thing buried somewhere in the records.
This was a property that was in total disrepair.
And with all due respect, the notion
that we want to incentivize people,
we don't need to incentivize people to buy in Pinecrest.
People are salivating to buy these properties,
and flip them, and sell them for all sorts of other money.
And God bless them.
I mean, that's their prerogative.
And I don't know what this entity is doing with it
or not doing with it.
But to me, they knew or should have
known what they were buying.
This is a large amount of money.
And it was a great discount.
I respect them.
And the reason I'm OK to go with the substantial reduction,
I mean, the reduction that Vice Mayor Fairman is suggesting is
$180,000, which I don't think we need to do, but I'm OK with it.
But again, I don't think it's about incentivizing people,
because what they're doing is getting under market,
a home in a beautiful part of Pinecrest
that they can either live in and enjoy or flip
for some astronomical number.
And they're going to get all sorts of other benefits
from living there.
Heck, they may not have to pay taxes.
But I think, to me, this is not--
and I appreciate the arguments of counsel.
And I appreciate the advocacy.
This isn't that.
But to me, I would uphold the full amount, but I'm OK with--
I may not use that word.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the reduction
that the vice mayor proposed in this one.
OK.
Interesting.
I don't know if I remember correctly, if Council Member
Hochkammer were here, she would be kicking both you and I
under the table on this one, because I think we hammered
those guys in the past.
Did we really?
I seem to remember making decisions, though, where we, OK,
let's move on and make--
Yeah.
What?
Well, make a deal.
Usually, they're a little different circumstances.
But we just had a case right before you came in, Jim,
that it was a six figure, and it was the same sort of thing.
They had purchased a house, knowing
that those fines were there, and then wanted
them relieved from those fines.
If they knew it, that's one thing.
I'm hearing that your guy didn't know they had to know it.
Again, here's what I'm seeing.
I'm just looking at this.
Not here.
We're looking at, whatever it is, $400,000.
I don't want to say-- well, she's a lawyer.
You're a lawyer.
If I get hit, I'm the owner, and I get hit with this.
And I didn't know anything about it.
There's enough money at stake here to drag us all into court
and sue us over it.
I mean, not that we have to.
I'm just saying, is there an issue of notice?
My whole point is on this kind of thing.
Let's settle it with a number that satisfies us and move on.
And that's all I'm saying.
Got it.
And whether it's 50,000 or whatever.
Well, this is where I would-- with Council Member Greenberg's
point, once he did own it outright, he took care of it.
And apparently, if I'm to believe what I read here,
there was a point in time where he could do nothing
to the property, even though it was up in the air
with a title dispute.
So we're relieving them of that time frame
of those fines accumulating.
So that's where I'm thinking, that's
something he maybe had no control of.
They came up, and he did get right on it
once that time passed.
Yeah.
I mean, I just want to--
I'm sorry.
No, go ahead.
I don't believe there's a plausible--
the concern that you raised, though, Council Member McDonald,
is about a notice and whether there's a risk to us is fair.
I don't think there's a plausible notice claim.
I find it unfathomable.
And I don't know, maybe this is a question
for Mitch or for somebody.
If there's a risk that the homeowner is going
to look at this and say, I didn't have notice,
I'll see you in court, well, then
I don't want to mitigate this thing.
I mean, I would do the mitigation
if we're going to give them the benefit of their quick work
and put it down to 407.
I mean, I don't know if there's a way to do that on a condition
that we're not going to be in court.
Condition it on receiving a release.
Yeah, I mean, I would do that.
I mean, if we can do that legally, sure,
I mean, I would have any mitigation conditioned
on release.
I don't want to mitigate $180,000 then go to court.
If they're going to challenge, they
should challenge the whole amount, not mitigate an amount.
So yes, if you want to condition mitigation
on receiving a release of claims from the owner, you can do that.
Yeah.
I mean, I would want to do that.
And again, I'm not trying to make this adversarial,
but I'm not hearing that from--
they're not up there, waving the saber and saying that.
But if there is any risk, sure, if we're going to mitigate
$180,000, I would suggest we do it on the condition of release.
And I would be supportive of that.
OK.
Well, I get the lay of the land.
Do we need a public comment on this?
Yes.
So with that, if you all don't mind,
I'll open the floor for public comment.
Oops.
Mr. Sanchez, welcome back.
Hey, how's it going, guys?
Ralph Sanchez, 8360 Southwest 1/35 Street, Pinecrest, Florida,
23156.
I'd like to follow up on what Counsel Meyer said,
Vice Mayor Fairman, Councilman Jerry Greenberg.
First, the property owner in this case is a corporation.
It's not a young family that didn't know what they were
doing, went for a foreclosure.
It's a sophisticated client who knew or should
have known of the fines.
I don't think any of the fines should be waived.
They bought this property at about a $2 million discount,
so they already got the windfall.
The fines are about $400,000, $500,000.
So even if they pay the full amount,
it would be $2.6 million.
Subtract that from $4 million.
They're still saving $1.4 million.
So that's all I have to say to that.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Anybody else from the public want to comment on?
Mr. Speizer.
Welcome back, Harry.
Yes, thank you very much.
Harry Speizer, 10,001 Southwest 70th Avenue.
Just one question.
I don't understand, why warrant the liens reported?
If I'm hearing you correctly, how
could somebody not know that there's a lien on the property?
I don't get it.
Either the attorneys are incompetent or someone
is not doing their job on the city's part.
But this sounds bewildering to me.
I don't understand what's going on.
That's the $587,000 question.
Yeah, that's the question.
I can't answer.
I mean, it's either there or it isn't there.
I'm startled to hear an attorney say, we didn't know.
I'm going to respond to that.
That's all I can say.
I'm going to [INAUDIBLE] you, but you've
managed to insult both parties.
So, Ms. Manager, why don't you respond to that?
I'm going to respond to that, because it's not our issue.
We record every lien with the county.
So whoever foreclosed on the property
did not notice it correctly.
The onus is not on the village to do that.
It's all recorded in the county record, these liens.
But this isn't a question and answer period, except for us.
OK.
So anybody else from the public want to comment on this?
Ms. Clerk, anybody online?
I just wanted to make sure that the record--
Hold on.
No, Mayor.
I thought you--
No one online--
We can't invite you.
I'm the only person--
I was wanting to show because she went last week.
I know.
Now, you know that.
I knew that before, because she raised her hand.
I'm going to go through the process.
Anybody online wants to speak?
Not on this item, no.
Ms. Clerk, would you like to--
Just making sure that the record reflects
the assessed value of the property in 2024,
with the house on it, was 2791.
So it was not $4 million.
And we're not talking about the windfall that I think
maybe is in some minds here.
So we're at 2.1 on the bid, about $300,000 to clear title,
through the litigation with the banks and things like that,
and about 150 on the demo.
So we're in for 2.55.
All right.
So with that, we'll close the public comment portion of this.
Any more debate or does somebody want to make a motion?
Mr. Mayor.
Yes, sir.
Question for Mitch, so I understand
before I make a motion.
So what Council Member Greenberg was talking about,
there's some provision we put about,
if we do give them the freeze rate of 407,
do we have a time frame on when we would receive the money?
Or is it another type of commitment?
You can put all of those conditions on.
I would suggest that you provide a 30-day period,
if that's acceptable to the requester,
and also condition it on receiving a release of claims
satisfactory to the village attorney.
General release.
So we're at that point, where--
So I would like to make the motion to levy the fine
at $407,000 or mitigate the fine of $407,991.23,
based on the following conditions,
that it's paid within 30 days and that there is a release
of claims acceptable to the village attorney.
OK, we have a motion.
Do we have a second?
I'll second.
All right.
Any final debate on that?
All right, Ms. Clerk.
Council Member.
Greenberg.
Yes.
Council Member McDonald.
No.
Council Member Meyer.
Yes.
Vice Mayor Fairman.
Yes.
Mayor Corradino.
No.
Motion is approved.
All right.
Thank you, all, very much on that.
We have this thing, parking analysis for fitness
and medical centers.
Did we already go over that or--
We went over [INAUDIBLE].
So that's done.
That's done.
So the only thing--
Red light cameras?
Red light cameras, yes.
Anybody care about that?
Oh, yes.
Well, the chief's here.
Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council.
Good evening, sir.
If you all recall, a few meetings ago,
we approved moving forward with the red light cameras
on the 67th Avenue corridor.
I was instructed to study if any of our other interior signalized
intersections may also be deserving of such cameras.
So I commissioned the study.
You should have the results in your packets.
Based on the study, based on the results,
my recommendations are to remove two from the 67th Avenue
corridor, relocate them to other intersections,
and if it is the will of this council,
move forward with the intersections on my memo,
which is 112 and 7, 2, 104 and 7, 2, 120 and 7, 7, 128 and 7,
7, and 132 and 7, 7.
All these intersections showed considerable violations
of red light runners, not to include
right turns, just straight through and left turns.
The reason I would recommend to remove the 6,
7 and 124 and 120 and 6, 7, because the study showed those
were relatively low risk intersections in the original
67th Avenue corridor.
Questions?
I have one.
Sir.
So on the 77th Avenue streets, is it mostly the 77th Avenue
that the cars are running the reds or is it the cross streets?
What have you got here?
120, 128, and 132nd.
I don't have it broken down by the actual direction.
If need be, I can break it down even further, but that's--
It would be the same answer then for 112 and 104 for 70.
Correct.
OK.
Got it.
Anybody else?
I just have a question.
I think this is great.
And I of course defer to the chief's recommendation on this.
In the earlier iteration, it was all on Ludlum,
so I know that to the extent the word was shared about this,
it would be, hey, we're putting cameras in on Ludlum.
Obviously, this changes it a bit,
but can you just remind me of what the plan is
when these are deployed?
Is there going to be an announcement, hey,
we're putting cameras here?
Yes, it requires a public information campaign
and requires a 30-day warning period.
So there will be general knowledge of this.
We have not yet moved forward with the contract on 67th
Avenue, because if there was any interest in expanding it,
it would be all part of the same contract.
We would have to go back to the vendor
and rework some of the terms.
So that's why we're here today, to decide what direction you
guys want to go.
I have a feeling, you'll figure it out
pretty quick when you get the note.
But will this have, I mean, a substantial cost?
No, it's cost-neutral to the village.
That clause still remains.
OK.
I think it's great,
Mr. Mayor, so--
I have a question, if I--
oh, sorry.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, Ariel.
Then we'll let chairman go since he's in the room.
I have a question for the chief.
As you did the studies on these other intersections,
did you study the ones on 67th that had been originally studied
by the vendor?
In the original study that prompted us to move forward with
the 67th Avenue, we have that data.
We didn't do another study on 67th Avenue.
But your staff, it is the village
that did the studies on these other new intersections?
I'm sorry.
Can you repeat it?
I didn't hear you.
Who did the study on these additional intersections?
Was it us or the vendor?
No, the vendor does the study.
They put out temporary cameras on all these intersections.
They let the data run for a 12-hour period.
And then they report back how many violations were witnessed
in the 12-hour period.
But it was done at our request.
At our request.
Correct.
OK.
All right.
Thank you.
Thanks for clarifying.
Mr. Chairman.
So back in our February meeting, when we approved these,
it was for five red light cameras.
From my remembrance of it, it's basically a trial that we were
going to check out the red light cameras,
see how effective they would be on 67th Avenue.
At that time, there were two of the intersections
that they classified as tier 3, which were less of a problem
intersections than the other ones,
the two that you have mentioned.
Correct.
The discussion became, should we look at other intersections
to take those two and spread this out around the village
a little bit more, rather than having everything on 67th
Avenue?
So sure enough, we have two intersections,
both on 112th street, 72nd Avenue and 77th Avenue,
which could take the place of those.
So my belief is, we should just stick to the five cameras that
we originally approved in February,
but take two of those in the tier 3 category and move them
to this 1/12 and 72nd, 1/12 and 77th.
And let's see how effective they are,
what the public reaction is.
Again, if we're going to do these things,
I'm going to expect that these red light violations will
decrease in number.
If they're not decreasing in number, then what are we doing?
We're not really making our streets any safer.
So I would suggest that we stick with the five cameras originally
intended in February, and change the two locations,
and then see how this all works.
All right.
Everybody spoken?
I'm inclined to go with what the chief says.
So what do we want to do?
Somebody--
[INAUDIBLE]
We got to do something.
We got to come to at least a consensus, which--
We're just going to put them everywhere then?
No, I think anywhere there's a problem, I guess.
Well, I don't know if we've looked at every intersection.
Well, we haven't, but the ones we've
looked at, where there's a problem, he's recommending them.
I mean, I don't know how you ignore
life safety issue like that.
And we're hearing the chief say, based
on the experience of the police department,
this is where we should move them to,
because the results where they currently are
haven't demonstrated the need.
So he's giving us a recommendation to move them.
I think we should listen to the chief's recommendation.
For clarification, they are not up yet on 67th Avenue.
This is just based on study numbers.
OK.
Even-- OK.
I guess, what we're saying is we find out that there is not
an issue there.
What's it matter?
You just keep them up.
Well, we had approved five.
Yeah, but doesn't cost us anything.
I know, but it's still more cameras, more infrastructure
at these intersections.
You're still not.
There's other intersections that we're not taking care of.
I think it's an overreach.
That's just my personal opinion.
We approve five.
We looked into others to see if we should spread that out
instead of keeping it on 67th Avenue.
We found two good intersections that above all, the others
qualify.
Let's just move the two and keep it at five, and get it started
and see how it affects the traffic.
Again, last year, 39 tickets were
issued for running red lights in the village of Pinecrest.
So how big of a problem is it?
Why would you argue with preventing people from--
I'm not preventing them, but fining them
for running red lights.
[INAUDIBLE]
It's like speeding through the schools.
Listen, I agree, it's--
It's OK to speed through a school zone,
but there is a toll for that.
And that's what this is.
Go ahead and run as many red lights
as you want, but there's a fine for it, because it's unsafe.
And we could--
It's deadly.
At the same time, we're talking about lowering the speed limits
when we decided on the five red light cameras.
And I'm not a fan of red light cameras,
but it is a safety issue.
And we are showing that there's a lot of people
running these red lights.
So you're right.
I mean, we could put cameras everywhere in the village
and make it maybe safer.
But look at you as one, not a huge reduction in red light
running, but a good bit of revenue coming into the village.
But I don't know if it's made it a lot safer.
All right.
So who's in favor of the chief's recommendation?
I guess, that's the question.
I am.
So I have a question for--
Yeah, go ahead.
Generally speaking, I agree, this is a safety matter.
And as such, if we have a solution recommended
by the chief to address a safety matter,
we should move forward and support it.
It's my opinion.
I'm curious if the chief has any data or any insights
as to whether these types of deployments,
these types of cameras do actually
impact the number of red lights that drivers run.
We're not going to be the first village that installs them,
so what are the statistics?
What does the data prove or show in other deployments,
other cities that have implemented these?
And what reduction have they seen in reckless driving?
So here's the best way I can answer that question.
Our current red light cameras are on US1.
US1, three-lane highway.
People that traverse US1 are not only local,
but they're coming from all over the place.
What we're looking at here are interior cameras,
which would generally be much more local than US1.
If we compare it to the speed enforcement
cameras at the schools, that had a huge impact
on slowing people down.
Our year over year violations issued at the schools
for the speed decreased significantly,
which meant people who got tickets in year 1
are not getting tickets in year 2,
because not that they're not driving anymore,
but they know to slow down.
So that is the ultimate goal here.
I guess, time will tell.
I don't have any hard data in other municipalities,
but that is my general belief that, yes, I believe,
we will see a similar pattern if we put these
on the interior roads in Pinecrest.
So the question was, who agrees with the chief's recommendation?
I've got one.
Ariel's got two.
Three, four, four.
So we don't need to vote.
That's the consensus.
Is that all you need, Mitch?
We don't need a voting on this?
Yeah, I think that the staff can act based on the council.
Excellent.
All righty then.
So what's next?
However, in an abundance of caution,
open it for public comment.
In an abundance of caution, even though we're not voting.
All right.
Does anybody want to comment on this?
Open to the public.
Seeing none.
Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.
Nobody online, I'm assuming?
No.
Or nobody online cares.
That's fine.
All right.
Submission of the budget.
That's different than tab 13.
Did you want to leave the budget for the last thing?
Is that not--
I haven't done the budget yet.
So we can go on to the resolutions and then--
OK.
Let's do tab 15 then.
That's the last one.
That was a resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,
authorizing the village manager to enter
into a professional services agreement with Bowman Consulting
Group, Ltd, for the transportation assessment study,
providing for an effective date.
All right.
Whose baby is that?
That's my baby.
So we've had a couple years worth of discussion
during strategic planning on the idea of establishing
a transportation assessment fee to augment what
we get from local option gas taxes,
for the purposes of maintaining our road infrastructure,
a right of way infrastructure.
Right now, we get about, I want to say,
430,000 from the local option gas taxes, which, in today's.
economic climate, is basically worthless in terms of trying
to resurface our roadways.
We have made a lot of headway with our drainage projects
and our potable water projects to resurface
some of the interior residential areas.
But in a general sense, when you look
at the condition of the pavement throughout the village,
the areas that are worse off are obviously
the ones that are traversed mostly with most traffic, which
would be the arterial roadway.
So in furtherance of establishing a funding
source that's dedicated similarly to the stormwater
utility fee that we have, which is specific just
for drainage improvements, my recommendation-- and council has
considered this, and it is part of my overall recommendation
in the budget, is that we would consider
establishing the transportation assessment fee.
But before you do any of that or even
actually implement something or consider the vote,
we would have to do a study, which
is what I have before you right now, that would look at it
and give you a recommendation of how
we might go about establishing something like this.
So this is the first step.
We would obviously, if we were to go forward
with this approach, we would have
to have public hearings and all that.
But the first step in doing this is doing the actual study
that establishes the individual benefit to the properties
and why we would be charging X, Y,
Z. So they would develop a formula and base it on X, Y, Z.
And then we would come back to council
with all of that with the consultant presenting to council
for your consideration.
All right.
Any questions?
This is for an impact fee type of thing, right?
It's an assessment fee.
So it's a special assessment.
And it's specific to only things that
would be for maintenance or things
that we would be building in the public right of way,
just because our transportation fund, the local option gas
taxes that we get--
Assessment on the homes?
It's an assessment on the homes.
OK.
It's a special assessment fee, similar to what
we did for the potable water.
Got it.
All right.
Understood.
It's not an impact fee.
A developer comes in, it would be on the property.
On properties.
Like the stormwater.
The stormwater fee.
Correct.
OK.
Any questions from us?
Just a comment.
I mean, I support doing the study.
I think we'll have time, once we have the study, to make
decisions about what to do with it,
but I think we need the information.
This goes to the point that the drum--
I guess, a number of us have been beating butt about.
We need to be concerned about what happens.
Look, this may be something we need to do anyway,
but especially something we need to be concerned about what
happens if this ridiculous expansion
of the homestead exemption passes.
And there's still a very real chance,
even though all of its proponents, the rats,
have fled the ship, because they realize it's an absurd idea.
But nonetheless, there's still a very good chance
that this nonsense passes, which means
we're going to have to be prepared to fund
basic functions of the village.
And this is one of a very viable way
to consider doing it in the end, especially
if the homestead exemption expands so dramatically.
It's not even going to be something that people will still
come out ahead in the village, potentially, depending
on what these numbers are.
But I very much appreciate the manager bringing this forward,
because it's the responsible thing
to do, to study all of these options.
And so I support it.
And I look forward to seeing what we learn.
OK.
Anybody from the public want to comment on this.
Mr. Speizer?
Short and sweet.
I fully agree.
Got to have the data.
Got to have the information.
You need to make good, wise decisions.
I fully support it.
All right.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
All right.
Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period.
Do we have a motion?
I'll move.
All right.
Second.
Motion in favor.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Anybody opposed?
Aye.
All right.
Motion passes unanimously.
Excellent.
All right.
Mayor.
Yes.
One more thing that's not on the agenda
that I wanted to bring to council and ask for approval,
we have--
council had approved the award to the lowest
bidder for the raised crosswalk project.
The raised crosswalk project is part of the bond issuance
that we already did two years ago.
I have a deadline of October, by which we have
to build the raised crosswalks.
The lowest bidder has bailed out.
And the second low bidder has agreed to take on the project.
The additional cost to the village is $66,574.
So I would recommend that we go forward with the second low
bidder at the full amount of $812,102,
so that we can go ahead and start the construction and make
the deadline for the use of the bond proceeds,
which have to be effectuated before the end of October.
Since we're not meeting in August, I brought this to you.
This is the last minute thing.
We literally found this out last Friday,
which is why I'm bringing this to you on Dais.
Is this based on the changes?
This is based on changes of the scope.
The revised low bid, which was the second low bidder,
was Metro.
And we would be awarding-- the cost is still $66,574 more than
the low bid that we had awarded previously.
What's the total cost?
Total cost, $812,102.
And what was Metro's original bid?
I don't know the answer to that question, unfortunately.
I'd like to know.
Again, we're talking about--
Let me see.
You guys know how I feel about getting too fancy with some
of these things.
These crosswalks should be fairly straightforward--
some concrete, some asphalt, some markings.
And we're making them into something fancy that's
costing us a lot of money.
I'd like to know where Metro was and what
their taking off of their bid to do the simplified
version that we talked about.
What's fancy about it?
Pavers, concrete, colored concrete, regular concrete,
asphalt, traffic markings.
I mean--
Understand.
How many locations are they going in?
I think it's five or six.
I believe, it's five along all the cross streets on--
Kendall Drive.
--Kendall Drive.
This is for the shared use.
Shared use.
In fact, Jim, you sent us a great video that
showed elevated crosswalks.
I think it was in Canada.
I think it was in Canada, that you sent us.
No, not in Canada.
It could have been Houston.
Well, you might have seen it.
I don't think you took the video.
I think you just shared--
The original.
You're right, I did.
I sent it to you.
And--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
You've never been to Canada?
No, not recently.
I was going to say--
[INAUDIBLE]
Yes.
The [INAUDIBLE] crosswalks slow traffic down,
especially when they're turning in and out of the streets.
So that's why--
That's a safety issue for people on bicycles.
Right.
So that's why we want to do it.
And I noticed in that video that you sent, they were very basic.
And they were still quite functional.
And they worked.
[INAUDIBLE]
I have the amount.
The original amount was bid at $977,042.
So they dropped it to $812,102.
So it got cheaper.
Well, because it got simpler.
Right.
We changed the scope and fixed it a little bit.
See, it got cheaper.
It's renewed.
It's even better.
And we were heading in the right direction.
Correct.
We were heading in the right direction.
We can complain about that.
And what's the reason why you're suggesting we do it now and not
at the September meeting?
It's a timing issue, because we need time to construct it.
We have to spend the money by no later than October 31.
So what's the alternative?
To not do it?
You don't spend the money.
What are you going to do?
Give it back.
You have to give the money back.
Yeah.
You give it back.
The whole idea--
So it's not our money.
Yeah.
Correct.
OK.
So the idea is a good one, a race crosswalk.
It's a safety issue.
The issue is that the low bidder just pulled out.
So it's a matter of going to the next low bidder and awarding.
But that's what you'd do anyway, wouldn't you?
We normally would do that, but I need
council approval, because it exceeds my purchasing authority.
Because the original bid was how much?
The original bid was 7.45.
Was 66 grand less than the new low bid?
Well, no, the second.
Let me say--
What's the second?
Yeah, what's the--
The original bidder, which was SC Contractors,
bid for $745,528.
The second low bidder was Metro Express for $977,000.042.
SC Contractors has pulled out.
They don't want to do the project.
That's the--
That was the lowest bidder.
So the next low bidder was Metro Express.
And they have revised their bid, because we've changed the scope.
We've simplified the scope.
And their revised number is now 8, 12, 102.
Which is how much more than the--
Which is $66,500, roughly, above what the low bidder originally
was, which was a 7.45.
So less than 10%.
Right.
Yes.
OK.
I got no problem with it.
I think it's not our money.
We have to give it back to whomever gave it to us.
And this is exactly the process that we'll
be going through anyway.
When the low bidder pulls out, you pick the next low bidder.
They revise their bid because we value-engineered.
We got a price that's less than--
it's 8% higher than we did before, which
is not necessarily significant.
And if we don't spend the money--
We have to return it.
--we're going to return it.
And we got to vote on this anyway
to give you authorization.
So if we don't do it now, we don't even vote on it now,
we're likely to have to give the money back,
because there's no way we can get through construction
by the end of September.
So construction has to be done or just--
Construction.
We have to have spent the money.
You spend it.
And the money is from--
I just want to make sure I understand.
The money is from--
It's budgeted.
It was in the--
But who's it from?
Bond.
Bond proceeds.
Bank loan proceeds, because that was a bank loan.
It wasn't a bond that we issued a couple years ago.
It's part of that bond that we did
for phase 2 of Coral Pine Park.
So it is our money, though.
I mean, it's not--
It's our money.
It's not our money.
It's not like it's a grant that we then would--
No, no, no.
It's just that if you don't spend it by a certain time,
we have to then send it back, because we
have to spend it within two years of the bond or the money--
I guess, the question is, we're committed
to the project in the first place.
We're spending 8% more money.
Is that the reason not to do the project?
Whether you vote on it now or you vote on it whenever,
is that a reason to risk the project?
I say no.
Same project.
We all were committed to it.
It's 8% more now.
We need to do it.
We would have approved it if we didn't have
that other low bid that bailed.
And obviously--
We would have paid more.
We would have still paid more.
Yeah.
And then we would have just authorized the low bid before,
because we were committed to the project.
And this will be the first raised sidewalk.
I think that's a great--
crosswalk, rather.
I think it's a good step in the right direction
to see how these work, because I can see application
in the future in this town, of having raised
crosswalks, for life safety issue for walkers and bicycles.
OK.
So if somebody want to make a motion.
I will, motion to accept the second bidder.
Anybody want to second it?
Second.
I'll second.
All right.
Chairman got it.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Anybody--
Aye.
No.
Unanimous.
All right.
What's next?
Budget.
All right.
Pass the gavel.
Can I take a little break?
You guys go ahead.
Let me know what happens.
[LAUGHTER]
All right.
I'm good with taking a five minute recess.
Well, now that everybody's walked out--
I got to go, too.
So--
All right.
OK.
Only so long.
Ariel, are you still awake?
Did you get a chance--
Very much awake.
Had you been to the--
there's a Mozart concert, where they have dancing,
ballet from the--
I went there a couple years ago.
I can't remember the name of it.
It's a touristy thing, but it's great.
Is that at the Mirabell Gardens.
Does that ring a bell?
[SIDE CONVERSATION]
I'm back.
Oh, you made it.
Ariel, you made it.
I made it.
[CHUCKLES] I made it.
I made it back.
We don't know how long the break is.
[INAUDIBLE]
My wife made sure that I was muted
when I went to the bathroom.
No fun, like The Naked Gun.
[LAUGHTER]
When he goes in.
[SIDE CONVERSATION]
All right, let's bring it back to order.
Priscilla's not here, so now, she can't--
Can't what?
We can't.
She's not here.
Where's Priscilla?
It's on.
Yeah, but I need you to do the--
Can't get the words off the screen.
And put up a PowerPoint.
Oh, yes.
OK.
Has everybody thought they would leave?
[INAUDIBLE] Everyone left.
OK.
Because it's everybody's favorite thing.
The only reason we're here.
We're back.
But nobody--
Yeah, I guess we're back.
All right.
So here we go.
Budget.
As always, in July, I'm tasked by the charter
to present a proposed budget for council and a proposed
five-year capital plan improvement program.
So we'll go through our presentation.
Tonight, you are charged with setting the tentative millage
rate.
But once a tentative millage rate is established or set,
then notices are sent of the tentative millage rate
to all the residents.
Just to remind council, whatever we decide to do
is what is set out in the notice.
If in the future, council wanted to change it and increase
that tentative rate to a higher rate,
we would just have to renotice it again,
but you can do that at any time.
So why set that rate in the first place?
If we could change--
It's just the way the law requires
us to do a tentative rate, so that they
could issue the notices to people
ahead of our public hearings.
So you could set the rate at whatever you wanted,
the maximum rate, the tentative rate.
And you can change it whenever you want.
Correct.
You can lower it.
You can lower it without having to notice.
But if you go higher, you have to renotice.
So you can go higher, you just got to notice.
You just have to renotice.
Correct.
The renotice is extremely cumbersome.
And I recommend you just set a maximum rate that
is the maximum rate.
Do not set it with the intention of
Raising-- Of raising it later.
--further, have the possibility.
I recommend that.
Got it.
I believe in all the years that [INAUDIBLE] has been doing this,
no one has ever renoticed.
And none--
Ever, anywhere.
None of our clients, we've never gone through--
Including Pinecrest, we've never been renoticed.
OK.
First slide, please.
So right now, what is being proposed in the budget message
is maintaining our millage rate at 2.503, which technically
is considered a tax increase, although it's not a millage rate
increase.
We need four out of five votes to maintain that rate.
Correct.
OK.
So the main--
At the final hearing, you do not need four votes
to set a tentative.
Would be a good idea to go over that tonight.
We need four votes to adopt a final rate that is in excess
of your rollback rate.
The rollback rate, we'll go through that.
And I'll go over all the logistics
of what can happen in a slide that
comes a little later in my presentation.
But today's vote can be by majority
for any tentative millage rate.
And at the first budget hearing, you
could pass that first preliminary rate,
regardless of what it is, by simple majority.
And the final vote, the final adoption will require 4/5
to exceed the rollback rate by up to 10% and unanimity
to exceed it more than 10%.
OK.
Next slide.
This is presently where we land.
In terms of other cities, you'll note
that you have Sunny Isles, Doral, Aventura, and Bal
Harbor, which are all very unique in that they
have different types of zoning.
They have a lot of multifamily zoning,
a lot more commercial, big malls,
which all contributes to their being able to set
a very low millage rate.
Then you have Palmetto Bay at 2.35, and then Pinecrest at 2.5.
The Unincorporated Dade County, last year, was at 1.9.
Next.
So what is built into my proposed budget
is a 7.35% increase in taxable value.
That represented, if we keep the mill rate at 2.503,
it increases our ad valorem tax revenues
by roughly $1.3 million.
We also saw increases in permit activity and public works permit
activity to the tune of 277,000.
Utility taxes increased 260.
And then you have several different intergovernmental
revenues, which we are also expecting to increase slightly.
Some state revenue at 78,000.
Police grants and local business taxes are all seeing increases,
but then we're seeing a decrease of 4,500 in anticipated grants
for Pinecrest Gardens.
So when we build the budget, we're
only budgeting those grants that we have received awards for.
We continuously, obviously, apply for other grants.
We may get additional grant funding,
but what's actually built into the budget
are things we already know and have been approved for.
And then we also have a decrease in alcoholic beverage license
revenues by of 2000.
And then we see for charges for service,
we have an increase of approximately $413,000.
And those are as a result of revenues
coming from additional programs at our parks and Pinecrest
Gardens, as well as an increase in administrative fees
that we collect out of the stormwater utility fund
and also transportation fund to offset our administrative costs.
The following increase are broken down.
Obviously, the 38,000 in parks programs,
153 in new Pinecrest Gardens program revenues,
190,000 of additional administrative fees from
stormwater, $3,008 from CITT, and then additional $5,000 from
private duty charges, and additional revenues from 911
public safety charges.
All that is offset by a slight decrease in community center
program revenues.
So the total revenue outlook for next year
is a year over year total increase of 3.945137.
Next.
Again, what I put before council for consideration
is to maintain the millage rate at 2.503.
The proposed general fund budget includes transfers to other
funds, but the total general fund budget,
including transfers, is totaling $44,858,706.
That is a 8.2% increase in expenditures
over the current year's revised budget,
including carryovers and transfers.
Could you explain that a little bit more detail?
8.2% increase in expenditures.
We spent that or were you planning on spending it?
What is built into the budget--
The one year proposal.
The one year proposal increases expenditures
over this current year's budget by 8.2%.
And those are--
But that includes--
Those are all choices that we're making.
Those are choices that are built into my budget.
But that doesn't include just the ambient cost of things.
That is the ambient cost plus capital projects--
Plus new projects.
--which I'll go over in a later slide as well.
It provides for 2.5% cost of living increases
for all nonsworn personnel, plus 2.5
merit for non-union personnel.
Just wanted to mention, even though we
have a 2.5 cost of living built into the budget,
the actual cost of living increase for this region
was 3.8% year over year.
So overall, if you add both cost of living and merit,
you're looking at a 5% increase, the cost of living increase.
The true CPI for this area was 3.8%.
Quick question.
So 8.2 increase in expense.
In the coming budget, the current millage rate
that you're proposing, would allow us an 8.2 increase
in expenditures.
That would be new expenditures?
New expenditures.
Additional--
Additional.
--expenditures, beyond last year's or current year's budget.
So that would give us the option of,
if we didn't spend that kind of money,
we could stick that into reserves for potential--
with this homestead exemption nonsense that's going on.
In other words, we'd be able to save 8.2%?
If you don't give any raises to anybody, including the union
personnel, you would be able to accomplish that.
So that includes the--
Everything.
OK, I got it.
Correct.
So that's not strictly capital projects.
OK.
[INAUDIBLE] is also at the inflationary cost
of things this year.
Yeah.
Correct.
It builds in all these different things.
And we'll go over it, but yes, you're
dealing with the inflationary costs as well.
They're already baked into the budget.
Next.
For example, the Florida Retirement System,
which is the pension program for the police department,
that is outside of local control.
That's a state set by state legislature, that
increase from 35.19% to 37.74%.
The budget includes funds for the schools.
You know how we always give grants to every school, $5,000.
It also sets aside funding for the music program
at the elementary school and middle schools,
which we've continued to support.
And it also provides $10,000 for annual grant to the Economic
Development Council.
Next.
When you look at the full effect of the budget,
the biggest increase in the budget
was due to the police department.
So in a general sense, we have different categories,
we have personnel costs and then operating costs.
In personnel cost, you saw an increase of $824,370.
And in total operating cost, we experienced an increase
of $947,820.
So the biggest increase across all departments was here.
The next largest increase happened-- go to the next--
happens in the Public Works Department.
Now, the Public Works Department is, relatively speaking,
a smaller department.
But because we added an additional position there,
the other thing we did was increase the starting salaries
for the maintenance workers, for some of the department
personnel that came in at a lower starting salary than what
was recommended in the compensation
and pay study, benefit study that we completed.
So total personnel services in that department increased
$191,779.
Operating expenses increased $22,775.
Next.
So I'm hopeful that you were able to read my budget
message, which was very detailed,
and all the things that could happen
or that are happening, which do impact
our fiscal stability in the future, not least
of which is obviously, the Property Tax Reform Amendment 3
consideration.
So when we get into our budget workshops,
we will present you with a 5-year forecast,
10-year forecast.
And you'll see that if this were to pass,
how this is all going to be playing out
in the next several years?
Today, we just received information
that finally, inflation seems to be slowing down,
so it looks like they are likely going
to start decreasing interest rates, which
is a good thing for us.
Disaster preparedness, some of the stuff that's
happening on the back end, the federal government
is revising how it deals with natural disasters.
They're likely going to be pulling away
a lot of their present support.
And it's going to be shifted to the states
and local governments.
So the fact that we maintain the $5 million
set aside for emergencies is a good thing.
But more and more, it's going to all fall on our shoulders
to bear if there were a large natural disaster.
Intergovernmental funding is becoming
more and more competitive.
You have grants becoming more competitive.
You have less grants being dollied out or doled out.
And then you have other long-term considerations
that are constantly putting pressures on our expenses,
like rising insurance costs, like our liability insurance
went up 22% year over year.
Health insurance costs, obviously, keep going up,
inflationary pressures.
All of that just builds to increase our overall cost
of doing business.
Next.
So this is a snapshot of where we are from an expenditure
standpoint.
So you'll see, the total increase
between the current budget year and next year's budget year
totals $3.4 million.
Before we do the budget workshop,
I will be sitting with each of you
individually to go line by line, both on the revenue side
and on the expenditure side, to show you
what the percent difference is between the current year
and next year.
But I can tell you, in the police department in particular,
that one saw the largest increase year over year
was like a 12% increase.
And that has really impacted mostly
because of the new collective bargaining agreement.
Next.
So this is the breakdown of the different categories.
And this is right on target.
Personnel cost is always around 58% to 60%
And that's normal for this type of organization.
The transfers, when you see transfers,
those are funds that leave the general fund
and go to other funds.
And I'll go over those as well.
But that is also a $6.8 million, but that
includes the issuance of another bank loan or bond
to do certain capital projects.
And I'll go over that as well.
Next.
So here's what we've included in the capital project fund.
Some of these are being funded by my proposed bond issuance.
So I'll go over each item.
So I'm just going to round. $41,000 for the computer
upgrades for every department in the village,
with the exception of police.
97,000 for virtual environment upgrades.
Some of these are mandated by the state, by the way.
A lot of these IT things are now state-mandated security measures
that we have to implement.
Data security posture management with NVISIONx,
which is a certain software that we have to have to comply with
the state mandate, $75,000.
Police computer hardware replacement-- again,
just like we, on the nonpolice side,
have a replacement schedule for all our vehicles and computers,
so does the police department.
So $30,250 for that.
Taser replacement, $56,000.
The vehicle fleet replacement is $531,000.
And you'll notice that every year,
now that we have the fleet, it's roughly about half a
million dollars to keep through that replacement schedule
that we've set up for the vehicles.
Now, for the bond issuance, we have two projects
that I've recommended to council as part of the proposed budget.
One is the Ludlum shared use path,
for a total of 4.8 million.
And the other was the balance of Alayda Mas Park for 6.5.
So the budget number, that 2.503,
anticipates the issuance of a bond for those two projects.
Fitness center equipment replacement for roughly $51,000.
The Pinecrest Gardens Horticultural Master Plan,
every year, we spend about $150,000 in botanical stuff that
happens at Pinecrest Gardens.
We have $130,000 for restoration of the Weldon Carrier Cottage,
which is one of that little historic cottage that's between
the community center and Pinecrest Gardens.
We have equipment replacement at Pinecrest gardens for roughly
$21,000.
Cypress Hall AC replacement for $25,000.
Garden gate access at the rear of the garden for $32,000.
Playground resurfacing at Pinecrest Gardens for $25,000.
Automated rigging system for the lighting at Banyan Boat,
$50,000.
Acoustic treatments for Cypress Hall for $28,000.
And digital wireless microphone system for Banyan Boat, $25,000.
So the total capital projects recommended for next year,
including Alayda Mas and Ludlum shared use path,
totals about 12.6 million, roughly, $12.7 million.
Next.
The other funds have also some capital projects,
but those are funded through their own revenue sources.
So in stormwater utility fund, there's 500,000 set aside
for Ludlum road drainage improvements.
And you have a $6 million catch all for stormwater master plan
projects that have already been designed.
And we're going to just be plowing through
as we get permits.
Transportation fund provides for $700,000 for the 62nd Avenue
sidewalk path construction.
That $700,000 is also built into that bond issuance that I
recommended.
And then another $606,000 for 120th Street and 77th Avenue
intersection improvements.
That's the money that we received from Bet Shira.
CITT fund were recommended $800,000 for Kendall and Ludlam
intersection improvements, 1.1, roughly,
for village-wide construction and maintenance of the roadways.
And then Ludlam road resurfacing the second year
allocation, which is another million dollars.
So you'll recall that we've budgeted, in the current year,
a certain amount of money for road resurfacing of Ludlam.
We applied for federal grants, but we didn't get them.
So we have to come up with the balance for that road
resurfacing project.
So the CITT would have a total of $2.9, almost $3 million
for those improvements.
And then finally, the impact fee fund,
where we take impact fees that we collect.
And you have to spend them specifically
for certain purposes.
We have the stormwater master plan projects, $120,000.
Artificial intelligence prophecy, $20,000.
And the Thor Guard lightning protection system for parks,
$77,840.
Just for clarification, for all the folks in the audience
or listening from home, these different funds
have their own revenue sources.
These are not necessarily tied to any ad valorem revenue
sources.
Next.
This is how the proposed millage would
look to an average homeowner, which has a 1.379 thousand
taxable value on their home.
They would be paying $3,281 a year if they pay early and they
get the pay early discount.
Next.
So going to the mayor's question about,
what votes are necessary for what?
So the current rollback rate is 2.3674.
So to go anywhere beyond the 2.3674,
you need to have four votes.
To create with a four to one vote,
the highest council can go is a 2.6041 mill rate.
And you can go beyond that with a unanimous 5-0 vote.
For every $0.10 of mill, it represents about $843,700
of revenue.
Are there any questions on this specifically?
Because I know this was one of the things,
when you talk about setting tentative millage rates,
anything beyond the 2.3674 requires minimum four votes.
That slide doesn't say this, does it?
Yes, that's what it says.
So
To go to 2.503, which is our current rate--
You need four votes.
Four votes.
Anything above 2.3674, you need four votes minimum.
If you go beyond the 2.6041, you need unanimous, five votes.
So to clarify, though, at this meeting
today, we'll vote on a preliminary millage rate.
And for that to pass, we just need a simple majority.
We don't need, say, I'm just going
to-- an illustrative example.
Imagine, today, we said we will vote.
Somebody makes a motion for 2.53,
the current military right.
And then that motion gets the support of three votes today,
then it passes.
And then that becomes the preliminary millage rate.
The tentative.
Yeah, the tentative.
Exactly.
But then for the final military to become the law, basically,
at Pinecrest, you would need four votes to rectify that.
Correct.
Well it has to be.
It's unclear.
One of us is a little--
All right, what's 2/3 of 5?
4.
OK.
Yeah, that column, it's not as clear as it--
It's the way the law reads.
But in our case, yeah, it talks in these terms,
because if you had a bigger council, you wouldn't need.
So that's why.
Right.
is.
This reflects what the law says.
But 2/3 in our case--
How many councils have even numbers of people on them?
None?
None.
It's usually seven or nine member councils.
But you don't need unanimous vote, in other words.
Or you--
Well, this law applies to the County Commission, which has 13,
some counties have 9.
The City of Miami Beach has seven.
So it just depends.
Each not indivisible.
But for our purposes to go beyond the 2.6041,
you would need unanimous vote.
OK.
Got it.
Ultimately.
Not tonight, ultimate.
OK.
Next.
But what's the point?
This is what our general fund balance trends
look like over the years.
So this proposed budget provides for a surplus of approximately,
I want to say, 348,000, roughly, dollars surplus at the end
of the year.
Next.
This just gives you the general fund revenue and expenditure
trends over the years since our incorporation.
And where you see the little triangles, those were really,
I guess, milestone moments that ultimately affected
the trajectory of our expenditures,
because we did some purchasing of parks and some large scale
changes when we did the collective bargaining
agreements like that when we put in take-home vehicles.
So those are pretty significant enough
that I wanted to mention it, because it
sets a new normal for the level of our expenditure trend.
Next.
This shows you the difference between what we normally budget
and what was actually spent.
So you'll notice that in the beginning of our existence,
the first 10 years, what we budgeted and what we spent,
there was a big difference.
There was a lot of savings.
But from 2009 to present, there isn't a lot of wiggle room.
We're working within 5% to 0% difference
between what we budget and what we actually spent.
'22, '23, the difference was because that
was the collective bargaining agreement that we did,
and that went gangbusters.
So the difference between what we budgeted and actually spent
was a big difference.
So that's an outlier.
But if you look otherwise, we don't have a lot of wiggle room.
That's what basically this is showing,
that we don't have a lot of fat in our budget numbers.
Next.
This is the trend of how many capital projects, what we
spend on any given year over the years in capital projects.
So over the years, obviously, the big spikes
in the last 10 years has to do with the acquisitions
of those parks.
Next.
And this is what our general fund reserve
looks like versus our set aside for-- we have the hurricane set
aside of five million.
And then we also have set aside 10% of our budget for reserves.
So that's what that's looking like.
So we are above the bare minimum,
which is where the red line and the yellow little dot
is on that last column.
Next.
And this is the final slide, which
shows how we compare to other taxing jurisdictions.
So obviously, the school board and Miami-Dade County
have the bigger chunks.
And then Pinecrest is the green on the bottom.
And Miami-Dade Fire Rescue is at 2.3965,
or at least it was last year.
And that pretty much sums up the budget presentation
for you guys.
Obviously, we'll have more discussion
when we get into workshops.
So the question now is, what do you
want to set the tentative millage at?
I've had individual discussions with some of you,
not all of you, about the concept of whether or not
to go with my recommendation or whether you want to consider
going a little higher so that you have flexibility
when you get into budget workshop discussions.
Obviously, my recommendation is only that there
may be other things-- there are things
that did not make it into budget that you may want to consider.
So that's up to you guys.
One last thing I do want to mention.
We have the real possibility that the property tax
reform will happen.
The effect for us on finances is pretty significant.
Over two years, the first two years of implementation,
that will be a $4.5 million hit to our budget.
And there's no way for us to absorb that,
unless you start literally laying off people and closing
departments.
It's not something that our growth, at the rates that we're
growing now, year over year from a taxable value,
is not going to be able to absorb that.
We may be able to absorb the first year, the 1.5,
depending on how the numbers pan out,
but we definitely will not be able to do the 1.5 one
year and then another three million the following year.
So you're saying that if that passes,
we're into an austerity mode where we'd be laying off staff.
You will either have to lay off staff or increase taxes,
there's no question.
There's only those two options.
And I know we've talked about this some,
but is that with or without-- that's
as it currently stands now.
Those numbers are based on if the Amendment, as it's currently
written, passes.
Correct?
Because just to make this even more fun,
there's a more dire scenario that's very realistic,
which is if this passes.
Well, the order would be this follows--
the Supreme Court could very well declare that the five
year waiting period for new residents to Florida
is unconstitutional, because it is.
So if that is stricken, that means that we wouldn't even
have any--
right now, as it currently planned,
it would count on revenue for those first five years
from new residents.
Residents who just moved into Pinecrest
would be paying full taxes, which is substantial.
We have a lot of people coming in.
If that's stricken, we lose that money, too.
And so again, even though people are running from it,
there's a good chance it passes.
It's that austere, but possibly more so.
So when I did the budget--
I tend to budget conservatively.
And we have historically tried to maintain the millage rate
at a certain level for multiple years in a row.
It's just the perfect storm, as my budget message mentions.
We purchased two new parks.
We gave substantial increases to the police department.
And all that is happening at the same time
that this may now push down our revenue sources.
We don't have huge populations.
So all the population-based formulas
are decreasing for us, all the revenues that
are population-based formulas, because other areas are growing
in population, so they suck up.
And so our portfolio of revenue sources
is very limited because seven--
let me see, 58% of our revenues--
rather, 48% of our revenues come from ad valorem taxes.
So that's a big chunk.
So anything that happens to ad valorem
is going to have a ripple effect, because we don't have
a lot of other revenue sources, and those that we
do have tend to be, historically, decreasing trend.
So we do get a lot from franchise fees,
which is good, because that diversified our portfolio.
But ultimately, there is no way to absorb 3 million plus 1.5
in two years.
There's no way.
It looks like we're between the old rock and a hard place here.
We've got a legislature that passed this rollback
or elimination of homestead exemption
in one day, no consideration whatsoever.
And then, of course, they throw the ball at us.
So it seems we could keep the millage rate of 2.503,
which was last year, and hope for the best--
Hope for the best.
--or we can raise it to 26041 and say,
because these yo-yos in Tallahassee
did this without any consideration,
so we're going to have to raise our millage rates
for the coming year, in effect, to as
a semi-insurance that we're going
to have some revenue if this thing passes.
Now, if it doesn't pass, we could say,
if we raise it to 26041, if it doesn't pass,
well then we'll reduce it next year.
It's timing.
It's up to council, because I'm optimistic.
I've always said, things may happen
that all of a sudden, interest rates go down,
and people start constructing.
And we have gangbusters in Pinecrest
again, where we're increasing our taxable value
by double digits.
That's not happening now.
But at one point, it did.
And maybe the stars align.
But the question is, do we do things proactively or of wait
and see?
My in the budget, what I recommended was wait and see.
But council may not want to wait and see,
you may want to be more proactive.
And I think that if you give yourselves a little wiggle
room in your tentative millage rate,
you can have those discussions more robustly
during the budget hearings-- budget workshops, rather.
Well, really, I mean, that conversation is not necessarily
about this year, but it's like, how
do you generate new revenue sources or additional revenue
in the future?
We only have 6,000 homes.
There's only so much you can do, but--
We need more than 6,000 homes if they're going to survive off--
But even if you were to do something--
--ad valores taxes.
--with density, that takes 10 years from now.
Those things are--
You're only making density changes.
The last changes we made still haven't gotten anybody to bite.
In fact, we're losing power on the US1 quarter.
I mean, it's almost like it's going out of business.
But if folks want to keep this the residential character,
then they got to understand that they're going
to be the ones getting the hit.
That's not true.
I mean, you could do a lot on US1
and not impact one ounce of the residential character
of the interior of Pinecrest.
The concept of all the US1 vision
plans that we've done, dating all the way back
to the beginning, never had commercial intrusion outside
of the commercial corridor.
It never intruded into the residential area.
In fact, what we've done is pushed the residential
into the commercial corridor, not the opposite way around.
So that's a fallacy that any that reconsidering land use
and zoning on the US1 corridor impacts
the residential character of Pinecrest neighborhood.
It's just not true, never has, never will.
You could put--
I agree with you.
--giant things out there and not impact
the nature of the residential quality of life.
And the proof of that is that story that I told with the folks
that developed the half acre property literally in the shadow
of Dadeland and took a half acre property,
put 7,500 square foot home on it, sold it for $7 million.
Doesn't degrade the property values.
Literally in the shadow of Dadeland station.
And it actually increases the property values,
which is the national trend.
So that's a fallacy.
I know some people will disagree with it,
but they're going through attrition.
The new person in Pinecrest wants
to see quality redevelopment on the US1.
I don't disagree.
The issue is, that's a longer term approach.
I think the more immediate issues
are what we would have to tackle,
whether to do it now or later.
Like, how do you want to go forward?
And I think that's why, from a tentative millage rate
perspective, when I reached out to some of you and spoke to you,
I had suggested that you consider going a little higher.
But that's up to you.
I know it's not typical what you do, but--
Should we move on to tab 13.
That, I guess, is what you're asking us.
Do you want to read that?
Mayor, just reflect a little bit on the conversation and also
the document that the manager shared with us.
And I think all of us know, I mean,
this is the busiest time of the year, maybe, for our staff
when it comes to planning.
There's a lot of work that goes into this.
So first of all, I wanted to acknowledge that and thank
the manager and the staff for the great work that
always takes place.
I want to piggyback a little bit on what the mayor said.
The conversation about diversifying our revenue base
and reducing our reliance on ad valorem taxes
is a conversation that we've been having for a while.
And understanding that it is something that will not
fix the short term, but rather, would
be a process that would have long-term impact
on our financials for the village.
It needs to be, however, a process that at some point,
begins.
And I think at no time in our history have there
been more indications, as there are now,
that the time should be now.
We should not be continuing to delay
the discussion or the analysis on what that can look like,
especially along our Pinecrest Parkway
or potentially, even considering annexing parts of Dadeland
or who knows, some other areas in the vicinity of the folks.
Who knows?
But I think that conversation needs to start at some point,
and yes, understanding that it would have a long-term impact.
I am surprised that there is no reference to it in the budget
document.
I would imagine that if we ever want
to take that conversation seriously and initiate it,
that we might have to conduct a study,
hire a firm that advises us on what
that is, what that looks like.
We'd have to hold debates amongst our community,
et cetera.
There's certainly cost involved.
I can't imagine that we could make progress
on that planning aspect of our revenue diversification
for free.
And I am surprised that there is no reference to it in the budget
document, considering what's at risk for our village now
and what may be coming in the future.
So can there be consideration as we prepare for the workshop?
It's not for today, but however, there's
consideration to begin that process now
versus continuing to delay it?
That's to me or to you.
Council can direct me whatever you guys want
to start looking at a planning exercise, but budget is budget.
I believe that direction had been provided already
in some past council meetings.
We can maybe discuss it again.
But if I recall properly, there have been a few council meetings
in the recent past, where we've talked about the need
to begin to assess what that looks like,
and that we had discussed, if not in the last meeting,
but in the meeting before that one.
[INAUDIBLE] workshops and there's a deadline,
I think, of 2028 for me to present all that to council.
That is what's--
I think if not in the last council meeting, in the one
before it, we had discussed the possibility
of including it as part of our budget workshop conversations.
And if we're going to have an informed
conversation during the budget workshops,
then I think we should begin to think about what that can look
like now, so that the staff can provide us
with options or topics for how we can approach it.
I think my opinion is that it's never too early to start
having those conversations.
Anything we could possibly discuss at this point in time
in this budget would be a planning exercise
anyway to collect data and gather information.
You couldn't necessarily do anything.
So I don't see why we don't do that.
I would imagine that we got a new council coming in
in the fall, and that group is going to have to--
it seems like there's a lot of hard work that--
I can give you an estimate for--
Thanks a lot.
I can give you an estimate for a consultant
to do that kind of exercise.
We ought to start frame--
I mean, I don't mind framing that conversation this time,
but ultimately--
We do have funding surplus in the budget,
so we have wish lists in, wish list out items
that we would be going over when we
do the budget workshops anyway.
And that could be one of those things
that you guys can tag on to.
So to answer the question, I would say,
it's probably worth the discussion during the budgeting
process.
And I think what we approved earlier
in terms of the transportation fee is a step in that direction.
I agree, we have to be having these conversations.
And we did talk about it at a prior meeting.
I didn't view it as part of this--
this is a little semantic.
I don't view it as part of this particular budget process,
because we have to create a budget from what we have.
But I think in conjunction with that,
we should be having these conversations.
And I know that there was talk of doing some after budget,
doing some workshops too about the state tax vote
referendum and other option.
Yes, thank you, town halls.
And I think we absolutely have to have those conversations.
I think part of the budget has to almost
be to educate our constituents on what that means
to the village of Pinecrest.
Effectively, we pride ourselves on the highest level of service
that we can possibly get out of our very, very small budget, one
of the lowest in Miami-Dade County.
We're going to obliterate that.
The level of service that we provide will not exist anymore.
It will become the lowest quality of service
that the public could possibly tolerate,
because there will simply be no money.
Look, we don't have staff in the first place,
in spite of what people say.
You got one public works director, one planning director,
very few people underneath them, and one building official.
Our staff levels are shoestring compared to most other cities.
And when you have to start getting rid of those people,
because you don't have the money to keep them, you can forget it.
You won't see your public works director
picking trees out or coming to your property
to look at your swale.
And the mistakes that will then be happening because you won't
get that hands on attention, it's
going to change Pinecrest much for the worse.
People move here.
People live here because of the service
that they get from our government,
Pinecrest government, the things we've done in the last 30 years.
You're absolutely--
Not to have the Wild West.
So you can't just do whatever you wanted to do.
Anyway.
All right.
So yeah, let's move the tab 13, because that's
where we set the number.
So Ms. Clerk, will you read that?
Resolution of the village of Pinecrest, Florida,
determining the proposed millage rate for fiscal year 2026 2027,
setting the date, time, and place for the public hearings
required by state law, directing staff
to transmit necessary documentation
pursuant to the requirements of Florida statutes
on the rules and regulations of the Department of Revenue
of the state of Florida, providing for an effective date.
All right, let's pick a number.
Pick a number between 1 and 10.
And that's effectively what we get to do.
Sorry, Mayor, if I--
Oh, go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead.
Jerry's going to go.
No, I think another aspect of the conversation
needs to include our reserves and the way they
have evolved over the years.
I think we could all agree that what $1 buys you today
is very different than what $1 bought you
10 years or five years ago.
And I don't know if our reserves have
been growing at the same rate as we've seen the cost of things
go up.
I know the cost of our capital projects
has probably doubled over the course of the last five
to seven years.
So I don't know if the level of our reserves
have doubled over the last five to seven years.
And what I do know, though, is that we cannot expect a lot help
from the state if a disaster strikes in this area,
and that we would be on our own for a while, possibly,
as has been, I think, was the case with Irma for some time.
So again, I think reserves should be a topic of discussion
or at least get some insights from the manager on that
and their level, whether they are appropriate for what it
costs to get things done today.
And if they're not necessarily in an area
where we are comfortable, then I think
that's a relevant aspect of the conversation when
we vote for the temporary or tentative millage rate,
because we may want to have some cushion there
that allows us to build up the reserves over time
to a level that is probably more financially
responsible for our village-- not to mention the risks that
exist, as you've all stated, with property taxes
and what's happening out of Tallahassee.
But again, that, to me, is another risk
that we may be underappreciating when it comes to the levels
that we're budgeting for, unless we
feel those are the right ones.
Jerry.
Look, I think that reserve is one of the factors
that we need to think about for sure.
My recommendation is, well, we have a recommendation.
My preference would be to go with what the manager said.
I mean, it's interesting.
I mean, in prior years, it's often
that the manager recommends something higher
and then the council wants to lower it.
I know we're in odd times now, the bizarre world.
But, I think to me, it's a sound starting point.
We did increase it last year.
We increased it for the first time in a very long time.
And at least when I did it, when I
voted for the ultimate budget, what I said
and what I stand by is, I don't plan
to make that an annual occurrence to keep raising it.
We saw what happened when we came in
with a much higher number last year
and then lowered it ultimately for the final thing.
To me, look, obviously, as I've said many times
and have been emailing seemingly everyone in the village about,
we do have to be very concerned about what was going to happen.
But to me, the answer-- and I appreciate
where it's coming from.
To me, the solution is not to raise it this year
and see what happens.
First of all, there is still some hope it gets defeated.
I think if we raise it in anticipation,
we're sending the wrong message, the opposite message.
If it passes, we're going to have to do a number of things.
As we've been talking about for the last few minutes,
we're going to have to look at alternative sources, the transit
thing, what we may want to do on US1, all sorts of other things.
We're also going to have to make some significant cuts.
It's part of why I wanted to hold off on the park vote
last month, but OK, I understand.
I don't think that the solution is
to try to tax our way out of it right now in advance.
I think it sends a mixed and confusing message
to the community.
I think it's putting a lot on the backs of people right now.
We would be increasing significantly on people
before there's any relief coming from the state.
So it would be a significant move
to raise it at all for a second year in a row.
So I wouldn't support it in the long run.
And I don't love the idea of going with something higher just
to see, because I, for one, can't imagine possibly going
higher than the rate that we already went up to last year.
So I would recommend we go with what the manager recommended.
That still gives us plenty of room for conversations,
I think pointing to the sky area,
because you're coming in from there.
But the issue that Council Member Meyer raised
about reserves is important, and it's
a conversation we have to have.
But to me, it's about where we put money
within what we've already got, not increasing the pot.
So I would support what the manager said, especially knowing
that I don't want to go for something that I couldn't vote
for later, if that make sense.
All right.
Who else has got thoughts?
[INAUDIBLE]
Well, I've always looked at the process.
And the process was, we set this tentative millage rate.
And then we have public input.
And then we decide what we want to do in the end, which is
what we finally did last year.
Now, granted, a little different situation.
We had a budget that was enormous.
A lot of things that people wanted to do,
council people wanted to do, and we couldn't get them all done.
And we said no to a number.
I think going into discussion, I'd
have to stand by that same idea that we'd go at slightly higher
to give us some room to discuss and debate, and find out
what the--
great example, the middle school project.
Is that important?
And if it's really important and people really want it,
maybe the taxes go up a little bit to pay for it.
I mean, 1/10 of a mill is 800-and-some thousand dollars.
So I like having that little room.
I think I'd be inclined to settle back to that 2.503.
But I'd like the room to have an honest discussion
with the public and with ourselves
over the next couple of months to determine that that's
correct, that we don't need a little bit more money to spend
on something that we really want to get done.
I have a question for you.
Is what Ken just said, the difference between 2.503
and 2.6041, 800,000?
Yeah.
Priscilla, can you bring up the chart
that has the different millage rates?
It's like 848.
Probably, $900,000.
It's 850, I think.
Well, let's say--
That one.
No.
Go back.
That one.
No.
Go back.
That one.
That tells you, 843.
843.
I came into this, thinking, and I'm still thinking that way,
but go with the manager's recommendation.
Then as I think it more, I think,
we're in this position because of these people
that we send to Tallahassee, who are--
[COUGHS]
--that is totally irresponsible with no input,
other than the governor dictating to them.
And they've passed it.
And they're about to try to gut our town and every other city
in this village, in this state, which is
lousy government at its worst.
I mean, it's just terrible.
So one way of trying to hedge a little bit is to raise
the millage by 1/10, which is nothing, really.
But I understand what happened last year,
where the millage rate went up considerably.
And there was a lot of consternation in town.
I think what the mayor just raised
was a very good issue, that for this village going forward,
if this thing passes come November,
this village is going to have to take another look at US1,
the corridor, and see how we can grow
our commercial district to increase revenue for this town.
I think that's going to be something.
But we went through that a couple of years ago.
A lot of people were vociferously against it,
because they thought it was going to be
the worst thing since whatever.
Just one correction.
Not true.
Not a lot of people.
Well, a lot of noise--
Not a lot of people were against it.
The referendum was defeated.
I understand.
It got a significant landslide numbers.
You're absolutely correct.
There was a very loud, very poignant minority.
So it was actually very favorable in Pinecrest.
You're absolutely--
70% of the people liked it.
I stand corrected.
You're absolutely correct.
I just remember the vociferousness
of all the stuff that was going on.
Loud--
Loud and yeah, whatever.
Believe me, I know.
I knocked on doors--
Loud and popularity don't--
--too much--
--match.
--against that thing.
So I would say, though, that I would go with the manager's rate
recommendation of 2.503.
And then this village will deal with whatever
happens in November.
Ariel.
So I'm with Vice Mayor Fairman here,
in that to me, we're doing a disservice to ourselves
and the community by shutting down the potential conversations
that could take place, the potential decisions that could
take place as we workshop through this together more
or hear feedback from the community
if we weren't to incorporate an additional buffer
in this tentative millage rate that we passed today
to accommodate for that.
So it doesn't mean that we are voting for a tax increase,
not at all, because the conversations that take place
during workshop may lead us to keeping the millage rate
at the level that it is now, or even lowering it, who knows?
Or maybe even raising it slightly,
if it warrants that we should go in that direction.
So to me, it's too early now to shut down those conversations
or those possibilities.
I would be comfortable with going
with the 2.6, or 3, or whatever that number is,
but it's the 2.6 number, not the 2.53.
And then giving us the opportunities
to have those discussions in August,
after input from the community, and in our own conversations,
and what we think is best for our village.
All right.
You're the tiebreaker, Mayor.
OK.
Interesting.
So right now, if we had to--
I guess what you all are saying, this
doesn't have really anything to do with what
we vote on in the long run.
This is just for discussion purposes.
And I start to think, then what's the point?
Because no matter how-- if this is the feeling that we have now,
no matter what the number we discuss
is, if this was the way the vote would come out,
we have to go back to the rollback rate,
because it takes four out of five
to do anything but the rollback rate at this point in time.
And we're at three to two right now.
You might have a compromise above the rollback rate
to be able to get a fourth vote.
But yes, if you want to pass the budget and the rate
with a bare majority, it would have
to be the rollback rate or lower.
And the rollback is 2.367.
That is correct.
So that's lower than what we were currently operating under.
So right now, everybody that I've heard
has said either my recommendation, right?
Yeah.
So the lowest that we're talking about
is the 2.503, which I think we have the four votes minimum for.
So I think the rollback rate is not being discussed right now.
So at a minimum, the lowest that everybody's talked about here,
even the people that weren't necessarily
comfortable with going higher, was the 2.503.
That's my recommendation.
I mean, yes.
I mean, look, I think theoretically, sure,
if there was some great way we could lower it,
I'm sure everybody in this desk would.
But I think it's fair to say, we're not--
The lowest denominator right now is the 2.503.
Also, I think, phrased another way,
I don't think there's anybody who would be willing to throw us
off a cliff like that.
I mean, whatever agreement or disagreement
we have in this realm of 2.5, 2.6,
I think we will all make sure we don't hit the rollback
if we come to it.
Yeah.
So the question then is, all right, so the tentative,
do you want to leave it at 2.503 or do you want to go higher?
Well, I mean the fact is, what do you want to go--
Well, my point has always been, why go through this exercise
if we're not even consider something higher?
It's a tentative rate.
You discuss it.
Maybe this middle school project gets a great demand
from the public.
And we decide that we need to change the budget around.
We have that option.
If not--
What rate do you want to go to?
I'm sorry.
Let's say it differently.
You're not suggesting that we're going to do a higher rate.
What you're suggesting is that, for the purposes of discussion,
as we put a budget together and start to go to the workshops,
that we give ourselves the latitude
to explore the entirety of this budget
and not pin ourselves into anything.
But you're perfectly willing to accept the manager's
recommendation right now.
But for discussion purposes, you want to have [INAUDIBLE].
And for bringing the public into the discussion--
You want to have that freedom.
Right.
So this is in no way a suggestion
that we would do anything higher,
it's just something that we need to do.
Since I came on council, I always thought that,
why aren't we doing that?
Because what's the public-- give them their voice to say,
absolutely, don't spend another dime,
or I want the middle school project done,
because I got a bunch of families that live on
[INAUDIBLE], and they want to go out there and play.
What I'm hearing is that there's not
advocacy to go to a higher rate.
There's just the advocacy to have the discussion.
Absolutely.
OK.
What rate?
2.6?
Was that the one Mr. Meyer suggested?
And the one Jim suggested.
I didn't say-- it's right here that--
No, I'm saying--
Yeah, 2.6041, that's where I got it from.
OK.
Yeah, that's on that.
I'll support that.
Anybody got a motion?
We'll open the public comments.
Anybody from the public want to speak?
Seeing none.
Nobody wants to speak on the budget.
Well, candidates in the room, nobody
wants to speak on the budget.
Duly noted.
All right.
Public hearing is closed.
Anybody online?
No, Mayor.
All right.
Just go ahead.
Yeah.
So I'm clear.
So what we're talking about is, for discussion purposes,
we're going to set it at 2.6041, which is just
for discussion purposes.
And then when we get finished with our budget workshops,
and then in September, we'll decide what the permanent rate
is going to be.
Yes, sir.
So this is merely for discussion purposes.
Total discussion.
Whatever shakes out during our workshops in August.
This is going to go to the public.
Residents in a notice that says, notice of--
That we're considering this rate.
Yeah.
And these guys are going to run for it.
All right.
Make a motion.
I move that we set the tentative millage rate at 2.6041.
I'll second.
Motion and second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Anybody opposed?
Aye.
[LAUGHTER]
Wait, what?
I don't know.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Time delay.
Yeah.
Jim.
Oh.
I'm opposed.
I'm opposed to 2.6, even for discussion purposes.
Yeah, because, I mean, as I said,
I think I'm not going to support raising it.
And I don't think that especially after last year,
I don't think--
I don't want to use the word "irresponsible,"
because I completely appreciate what everyone's doing.
I personally don't like the idea of sending out there
a higher number that I can't support in the long run.
And I think it runs the risk of a furor.
And everything we dealt with that, I thought
was counterproductive.
That said, I respect where people are--
[INAUDIBLE] to support it either.
I don't think I'm going to support it either.
That's why I think if we voted to--
I wouldn't support it, honestly.
But for discussion, I'm all for it,
because it's a good topic to discuss.
And I certainly respect that.
To me, it's a process point, though.
And my concern, I think that the discussion should be,
especially if there's not going to be an appetite
to go higher than that anyway, I think
there is a very serious discussion
to have about what we do with what we have,
with that 2.503 number.
And for example, as the vice mayor is suggesting,
there's an uproar in favor of the field, for example,
then we're going to have to make decisions about other things,
because I don't think we're in a position
where we can be taking on any more of these obligations
at this point anyway, because especially with what
we're facing long-term.
And I also think that increasing it
does burden people right now, before it passes.
And we're going to have major decisions to make
if this thing passes.
To Councilman Meyer's point, we need to have these conversations
anyway.
Because if this thing doesn't pass, I'm sure
there's something else coming down the track.
And we have to do that.
But to me, just looking at this budget and this year,
and maybe I'm battle-scarred, because my first
and thus, far only budget experience was last year.
But I'm not comfortable, even as a tentative rate,
setting something higher than I would go for.
And I don't disagree with that, whatsoever.
I don't feel the same way in the sense
that I think that it's a worthwhile discussion
to give us flexibility, because we haven't discussed the budget,
we've only received it.
But the way I'm reading it, probably, this gets a 5
to nothing, in my opinion, to stay exactly where it is.
And this is for discussion purposes only,
which I don't know how we could--
my personal opinion is, why limit yourself
to where you think you want to be if you just
got this book tonight?
And I just want to make that clear from my--
all right.
And I would agree with both of you.
I'm for this tonight, so we can have that discussion.
And if it raises discussion within the village,
I think it's going to be important
for people to understand why we did it,
and that we are reacting to what the legislature did,
what was potentially coming down the pike.
So as a responsible government, we
look at for discussion purposes.
And I think that's good.
And if people come in, screaming and yelling,
then it might be a way to educate them
on what their legislature has done to us and every other city
in the community.
May I just ask a question?
How is the wording-- how is the communication drafted
to residents when they get this letter?
Is there a reference to the millage rate in that letter?
Or is there a reference to your taxes are going up by x?
Because they're still going up.
I mean, even if we get the same millage rate,
their taxes are going up.
Yeah, it will say that the taxes--
So what's the wording?
So even at 2.503, they're going to get a tax notice that says
they're getting a tax increase.
So to the regular person, who doesn't know necessarily
that the millage rate is being maintained the same,
they're going to be getting them.
For the last 30 years, they've gotten
a notice that says their taxes are increasing,
because we've never or very rarely ever gone to the rollback
rate.
We only went below the number of whatever
the mill rate that was set at any given
time, when the legislature forced it on us in--
I think it was 2008 that they forced a decrease.
I think what compounds our issue is really the fact that we've
made significant purchases lately,
and we've made other commitments with take-home vehicles
and stuff like that.
All that stuff is just all hitting us at the same time.
So to Council Member Greenberg, my first two years
doing this, maybe one or two people
had any interest in listening to Josi's presentation
about the budget.
This is true.
Or to have even good council discussion
about the intricacies of the budget.
When you came in last year was something that maybe we
should have been doing more of.
Now, it was extreme because there was extremely large budget
and that we really had to whittle it down.
But I relish that public input.
Yeah, people got angry, but the people
that cared, that wanted to know came and found out.
Listen, we had to discuss it a lot more amongst ourselves
and really come to some good decisions
on how to pare that down to the 2.5.
So I expect something similar, maybe less dramatic right now,
but--
It's not going to be as dramatic.
You know why?
Because what people tend to do when they get that notice,
it tells them what they're paying in the current year,
and with the increase, what they're
going to be paying next year.
And when they look at the total number,
if it's $20 more, $30 more, it's not a big deal to them.
What made it a big deal last year
was that we were going from a 2.4 or 2.39,
whatever, to a 3.78.
But just to be clear, we weren't going there.
We were having a discussion.
But we get paid.
But the tax, the notice they got showed--
To have this discussion.
The only thing we really have to do--
well, somebody said that we do get paid too much.
They do.
Follow the money.
They wanted their money back.
But the only thing we have to do all year
is have this discussion.
And that a citizen would be upset
that we're going to have a discussion on a budget
that we just got tonight, that we're leaving our options open,
would be a disqualifier.
I mean, we have to have this discussion.
It's our job.
I agree.
I just think we can have this-- you know what I'm saying.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
I signed up to do my council workshop in August again.
And I'm going to maybe keep sending emails
about raising taxes, because it's an easy one.
I think the dialogue is helpful and fun.
So no, I do agree with that.
And I think it's a well-taken point.
Hopefully, Council Member Meyer and I
can enjoy a slightly more peaceful August than last year,
but maybe not.
I'll have my budget--
[INAUDIBLE] next year.
[INAUDIBLE] one week before our budget workshop.
So for those that come, which is usually Harry Speizer.
He left.
--Al Kramer--
[INAUDIBLE]
We have--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
--will show up this year.
Joe remembers, and Ken, you were saying the same--
and Cindy out there, years ago, we
had these budget hearings, and Josi,
on our final second reading or whatever.
We'd have two or three people out there
in the front row, that was it.
And I think the reason was, we always
kept the millage rate low.
Which it still is.
We fought to keep it down there.
And it still is there, as your chart shows.
So it's one of the newest in the county.
Yeah, exactly.
When you look at Coral Gables-- even
Palmetto Bay said there is now-- what is it
that I sent it to you guys?
26--
269.
2.9.
Isn't it 2.9?
I thought I read--
OK, 269.
The rate was 2.9-something.
So yeah, we're still lower.
So we've gone through the exact same process for over 30 years,
and we still have one of the lowest millage
rates in Miami-Dade County.
And so the reason that I voted to have the tentative rate
higher last year was that, after sitting here for 20 years,
I would come into the budget process with the actual voting,
and say, I have no idea where people stand on this budget,
because nobody would come to this room.
John Steinbauer, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Speizer
would come and voice their opinion.
Three people out of 18,000 people would come.
Now, people want to come out when
the bulldozer hits the street, but nobody really
cared about the budget.
So I thought, like you thought, let's open it
up for a broader discussion.
Let's not limit ourselves down.
Let's put a number out there that's
maybe a little bit higher to give us latitude for discussion.
And that's what we did.
And it was a positive discussion we had last year.
And we learned a lot about what people thought.
And it's better than sitting in this room
alone, discussing it in a vacuum.
With that, Mr. McDonald, your traditional role
on the council--
Is to motion to adjourn.
To adjourn.
Mayor, if I may, this resolution not only
determines the proposed millage rate, but also the hearing date.
So just to confirm the two hearing dates that we had
previously discussed, but to ensure that you're available
as this cannot be changed after.
But this is for September 10 and September 22.
We do have it for 6:00 PM.
You can start as early as 5:01.
So if there's any changes that you would like to make,
this is the moment to.
September 10 and the 22.
I'm good on both.
And while you look at that, I was asked by the vice mayor
to just show you all that we did say, welcome to to Key Biscayne.
I was going to say the welcome to Pinecrest.
Key Biscayne.
I know.
Welcome to Key Biscayne, everybody.
Welcome to Key Biscayne.
That's where my head's at.
It's a great place.
These are hands delivered to people that move into Pinecrest.
The vice mayor takes them to their houses
and introduces them.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Does the vice mayor do repairs at their house, too?
Yes, he does, doesn't he?
I have a wasp nest in mine.
Can you get that out?
All right.
I mean, if you're nice to him, he's
going to pressure clean your sidewalk.
Mayor.
As long as you vote for him.
Yes, ma'am.
So are we good for September 10 and 22 at 6:00 PM.
No, as early as humanly possible.
So 5:01 for both meetings?
Is everyone available?
As early as 5 o'clock.
No, she said 5:01.
5:01, I said.
5:01.
If you schedule your budget hearing for a time certain,
and you don't vary from that, you
could have your council meeting prior to the budget hearing,
if you want.
Your regular council meeting.
Oh, my God.
But in September, we only have two set,
and that's both for budget.
No, but we're going to have to-- no,
one of the meetings in September is the council meeting.
The first one.
Oh, OK, the 10th.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
On the 10th.
So the meeting on the 8th, you will not have a meeting
on the 8th.
No.
Right?
We're not having a meeting on the council meeting.
No.
So how do we avoid that?
Can we start the budget hearing at 5:01 and do a council meeting
at 3:00 to get that out of the way?
You can.
Yeah.
Because I mean, we don't want to dilute what would be--
we don't dilute the budget with the council.
We can narrow the agenda down.
Yeah.
Can we do that?
Anybody mind starting the council meeting on the 10th
at 3:00 PM?
It's OK with me.
Are you anticipating a long budget meeting?
I'm trying to remember back to--
did we have [INAUDIBLE].
We just introduced the budget.
It's taken three hours.
We started at 4:00.
It's 7:30.
I may have work commitments that day.
I'm OK [INAUDIBLE].
4:00?
4:00 would be better than 3:00, because at least--
Is that OK?
Yeah, I think so.
I know that's a vague--
If we do 4:00.
4:00 can be fine.
That's fine.
I would prefer that to 3:00, just because if I have to be
downtown for some stuff, it'll--
Yeah, I hear you.
Anybody else?
[CHUCKLES] I think 4:00 is a good compromise.
I will be glad to be back in the US.
No problem.
All right.
Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn, I wanted
to ask our new planning director to come to the podium,
so I may introduce him.
All right.
[APPLAUSE]
This is Joseph MacDonald.
So it's both Joseph Corradino and Jim McDonald put together.
The fabulous planning director.
Thank you very much.
And I'm very happy to be here.
My dad's name is Jim.
My last name has an extra vowel.
I'm a Mac.
I get that part.
Usually, we think of it as Scottish.
That's correct.
Except all my people came over from Scotland, Ulster.
And they dropped the A, 150, 200 years ago, but whatever.
I see you got the green pants on, though.
I do.
Thanks so--
Glad to be here.
And I appreciate that.
Yeah.
I'm looking forward to working with you.
Tell us about yourself.
Soon.
We didn't finalize this.
My address is currently [INAUDIBLE]--
You don't want the address.
[INAUDIBLE]
OK.
I'll be looking for a place as close to Pinecrest,
as I did that drive today, and it's very long.
Our previous planning director drove all the way
from Fort Myers.
I can't complain.
Does he inherit the car?
It seems hard.
I will be trying the [INAUDIBLE] train [INAUDIBLE]
tomorrow, just to see how that goes.
OK.
We'll have places to park your bike, don't worry.
But there will be signs [INAUDIBLE].
And both my master's from Florida State,
my doctorate from UNC Chapel Hill are in planning.
My undergrad degree is from Michigan, just like Steve--
Oh, wow.
--but in meteorology.
I went to Florida State to study hurricanes.
And I segued into natural hazard mitigation planning.
So I lived in Florida.
My family has a long history with Florida.
They wintered here for three generations.
So I'm very familiar with South Florida.
And we have some very good friends in common, Alex David
and Jerry--
Wonderful people.
I've known them for almost 20 years.
And I know several other planners in South Florida,
so I'm excited.
We're glad to have you.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Yeah, welcome.
Yeah, welcome to the team.
You got to see us in action with our mitigation requests.
All right.
Good.
All right, Mr. McDonald.
Again, Mayor--
You don't have anything else.
--I'm sorry, we finalized them for 9/10,
but I want to confirm for 9/22, for the record.
We are doing 5:01 then.
I would say so, yes.
OK, perfect.
All right.
So do you want to just--
I move to adjourn.
OK.
Yes.
Move to adjourn.
All right.
I'll feed us in.
Yes.
I thought you were going to send me So Long, Farewell song.
[SIDE CONVERSATION]