##VIDEO ID:BKtr585CFZA## o one. Good morning Our monthly October commission meeting. Let's get started. Got a busy agenda. It's the hybrid commission meeting, and I'm gonna ask our city clerk, Rafael Granada, to provide the relevant information. Good morning everyone. During this hybrid commission meeting, the City Commission is physically present in the commission chamber at Miami Beach City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, third floor. The public may attend the meeting virtually. However, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting or provide public comment in person may appear at the commission chamber to participate or provide comment virtually. During the commission meeting, the public may join the meeting by visiting the zoom app on their smart device or on the web at zoom.us or you may do so by telephone at 305224. 1968 again 305224 1968 the toll free number is 88847544998884754499. The webinar ID 813928576. 71 pound members of the public wanting to speak virtually on an item during the meeting must click the raise hand icon. If using the zoom app, or press star nine on the telephone to raise their hand. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. At this point, I'd like to invite Rabbi Mindy Decter to provide our inspirational invocation. Rabbi Decter is the director of the Friendship Circle, which, if you're not familiar, is a tremendous organization that helps youth with disabilities. And I've seen firsthand the dedication and selflessness to help those individuals, including a tremendous bike ride. They do annually. Also, congratulations, Rabbi. You recently became a chaplain with our Miami Beach Police Department. So congrats on that. Mazel tov. It's an honor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Almighty God, we stand before you in prayer, look favorably upon the mayor and the honorable members of the city commission of our great city of Miami Beach. We beseech you, almighty and merciful Them the joy of life, good health and prosperity. Bless these distinguished individuals who have been chosen to make laws and decisions for the citizens of our city. Grant these public servants wisdom and understanding in their noble pursuit of justice and equality. Guide them so that they will always be conscious of your presence, and will strive to enact laws with honesty and integrity in attendance with your will. May they have the wisdom to turn adversity into opportunity and to transform the demanding challenges we face today into the seas from which we will sprout the growth of tomorrow. May our city serve as a beacon of light for people of all faiths and walks of life. May Miami Beach help achieve the goal so powerfully stated in our pledge of Allegiance, so that America is truly one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Let us say Amen, Amen, Amen. Thank you, thank you. Rabbi. Doctor, at this point, we'll do our Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to ask our new building director, Rise. 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. Amen. Okay, let's commence the Satanic hour. And, Mitch, that is very gracious of you to allow Joe to go before you. That's. I was here before you. Oh, you were even here before. Wow. Okay. Good morning. Commissioners. I thought I thought Mitch was being a nice guy. Well, he is a nice guy. He is? My name is Joe Manning. I'm here to thank the commission for continuing the Satanic Hour, which I think is so important for residents to air their thanks and their grievances and any issues that come up. What I'm here to talk about is our five ad, which is the street vendors Concerned about it because I think the street vendors add a great deal to our quality of life here on Miami Beach. I also think there's a very thin line between artists and craftspeople, and that really has to be looked at a little more closely. I know artists, jewelry designers. This is from one of them. I know Cindy Vega, Christine King, who are jewelry designers. But I also remember the gentleman who did these beautiful miniatures of our iconic lifeguard stations years ago. He was an artist, okay? He didn't design those stations himself, but he made these things in honor of them, and they were important. And when we have visitors to the city, we have to give them something to take back. Yes, they take the photos, they take the tours, they enjoy our wonderful Art Deco architecture, our entertainment, our nightlife. But it's so Let's face it, guys. Not everybody can go to Art Basel and buy rotting bananas off the wall. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, I'm Mitch Novack. I actually had not planned to speak here today, but I was inspired by Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez's email where she alluded to the $20 million in Geo Bond money. We have for available. That money is only part of a money grab. The uninspiring plan that we paid in excess of $650,000 by a someone I consider a mediocre planner, entails. $100 million redo for Lummus Park. All we really need to do is spend the $5 million available in geo Park Geo Bond monies to replenish the park with palm trees and a few seagrape trees, and most importantly Is that money largely can't be touched. Ocean drive in itself has very little infrastructure, and the only way to get that money is by relocating Ocean Drive atop the vestiges of the original Lum Plantation from the 1870s. So I would ask you to finally focus in on that boondoggle park plan and stop wasting our money and one other. On a side note, I've been mentioning the traffic gates for the closure of Ocean Drive between 13th and 14th place. We had another breakage of one of those gates. Each one has cost us $3,000. The latest one is the other gate on 13th and ocean. This would be the third broken gate in six weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Greetings, Commissioner. Mayor. My name is Brenda Jordan. I'm an artist. I've been an artist probably longer than most of you were born. I had a developed an arts nonprofit called water bringing the flavor of my heritage and culture to Miami Beach. I put on successfully the Yemaya Oshun Festival, or African Extravaganza. So many things. So before Art Basel came here, there was a man who ran the Arts Council, David Whitman, and he was. Familiar, sharing that, that I was in Brazil. My point is, art Basel came here. He went to Basel with another person and brought art Basel here. And the reason why Art Basel came here is not only because of the water and the beautiful nature, but the diversity of culture and the arts. Worked at the Art Center of South Florida. I worked county wide teaching feel that this program for the artist vendors To every coin, and in order to have a viable arts program, you have to include the artists. Suppose I was setting up something for the Holocaust Memorial. How could I do that without intimate information about what is needed? How to make this program a viable program? No, I don't like to see the tacky little tables schlep with a whole lot of stuff. I'm an artist. My table looks like a gallery. As you mentioned, Christine King, we know who the real artists are. But no one came to us. I sent a letter to all of the commissioners. Nobody responded except the mayor to acknowledge that he got my letter. But did it go anyplace? No. No one gave the right. If you want to come to my table, follow me out to see what I do. 110 degree weather. You're in an air conditioned office. Thank you. I'm outside sweating. So I think that you should contact me. Anyone who really Lunch program. We're going to go now virtually to Alicia Casanova. Alicia, you have two minutes. Please state your name and address. My name is Alicia Casanova. I'm the vice president of the Mid-beach Neighborhood Association. Good morning. The Mid-beach neighborhood association. MBNA appreciates the efforts of our mayor and our city commissioners on numerous efforts that were undertaking. That will make a positive impact on our city. We're in support of Commissioner Suarez's, our five j regarding charter vessels hours of operation, which will serve to improve the quality of life of our residents. We appreciate his efforts on making our waterways safer and quieter. We also support Commissioner Fernandez's referrals to the finances and the economic resiliency Committee to divide the Mid-beach area into two zones east of Indian Creek and west of Indian Creek. We support Commissioner Fernandez's resolutions that are aligned with our efforts and those of the city's transportation department Throughout, not just on the conflict points as are currently approved by the fDOT. This will promote a cohesive and uninterrupted esthetic look for the bike lane and maximum visibility, which will serve to improve safety. Additionally, we hope to continue working closely with the city on the esthetics of the Jersey. Barriers are on Indian Creek that are currently an eyesore and on the much needed continuous pathway. Both of these are urgently needed in order to complete this valuable amenity. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please state your name and address. Does that mean. Yes. Sorry. My name is Robin Rice. My address is 4455 North Meridian Avenue, and I represent a group of homeowners asking for traffic calming on Meridian Avenue between 42nd and 47th Street. I've lived in this house for 24 years. It's a very busy street. I believe the speed limit is 25, but people regularly go 3540 miles an hour. Sometimes they pass each other. There are families walking on the street An extremely dangerous place to be. There was a speed bump installed partially a few years ago, and one homeowner objected to it, so it was never finished. So there's a sign on Meridian Avenue and there's paint on the ground, but there's no bump. If you come and stand and watch in rush hour, you will see how fast these people go. It is nuts. And I feel very strongly that, I mean, we never let our kids out on the street, on that street, for all of 18 years because of it. So we've done a survey of all the houses around where the bump was supposed to be. Most houses are in favor. There's a few that are not, but most of us are. So I'm here representing those of us who are in favor. Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Regalado. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Yes, sir. Yes. Good morning. My name is Liz Regalado. I am the executive director of the Miami-Dade County Domestic Violence Oversight Board. Supported the resolution passed by the Commission then and supports this item. It's also resolution I'm addressing resolution five, A, B and seven J. We would like for the Commission to consider not repealing the ordinance that was passed and allowing the voters and the residents of the City of Miami Beach to once again opine on whether or not to have the participation of Miami Beach on the food and beverage tax for domestic violence. As well as homeless services. In 2019, there was a study that was done by the Committee of the Domestic Violence Oversight Board that noted Miami Beach was the fifth largest municipality with domestic violence incidents. We appreciated the city recognizing that and acknowledging and providing a grant to the tune of Action and Human Services, Department of those funds to go directly to victims. We support the participation of Miami Beach in the food and beverage tax. Currently, we cannot build the. The tax goes for the construction and operations. Thank you so much, ma'am. Domestic. Thank you. State your name. Address? You have two minutes, please. Good morning. My name is Janet Figueroa, and I'm one of the artist vendors here in Miami Beach. I don't live in Miami Beach. I actually live in West Palm Beach, and I drive all the way here for an hour and a half every day. And back home to do my art. And I want you all to understand, you see this? It might look like a necklace to you, but when you get it closer to you and you get a closer look at it, you see the intricacy that it takes to do this. This is done with a needle and thread, okay? It takes hours to do this. It takes dedication, patience, love for what you craft, that you do. And it has Art is only art. No art and craft belongs together. Because in your mind, you're creating the idea. Then you're getting the findings to make the idea. And then you have to have the craftsmanship to be able to create it. And that's all I have to say to you. This program is important. And when the tourists come here and they see this, they say, wow, you did that. And I say, yes. And we're here because of this program, because don't you do it in the area that you live? I said, no, only Miami Beach has the permit that gives us the permit to be able to do this. And they said, wow, that's great. They take that impression back and they take something back that we make. But they know that the city of Miami Beach is behind this program because other cities don't have this program. So it's important that we keep going because everybody, when Everybody has their limits. One person could be a simple artist. You have a second level or master's level and a beyond level. So everybody works at their own rate and at their own pace in their art. It's up to the person on the limit. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Your president, nobody could tell you don't go to the next level. Thank you. All right. And I want to show it to you. So I want you all to see it. Our next virtual speaker is Johan Moore. You have two minutes. Please state your name and address. Good morning. Johan Moore, 717 Jefferson Avenue. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for what appears to be an entirely municipally relevant municipal center. And I want to support a few items on it. Item r5 ag from Commissioner Fernandez, I think is a really important social Over 10% rent increases and a few other tenant protections in that. I want to support our seven g. The water taxi proposal as a step forward from the failed ferry service. I just came across AC7AS which would mandate that fire Station one's new location not impact the track. And I think I can say on behalf of my entire neighborhood, albeit informally, that we were very happy if that passes and if that in fact proves to be the case. Likewise, I want to thank Commissioner Bart for C7a2 to buy the vacant and mosquito filled Kapoor site on Washington Avenue at 12th Street. And finally, on behalf of my committee in express, explicit, express expression of our position, we really urge that the We think it's really a minimum effort for the public to shield the turtles endangered species from their lights. And we also were not happy that the legislation now only applies to buildings, common areas. And I want to contrast that if I have another moment with a piece of an item that we just passed that will come to you as an LTC, if it hasn't done so already, urging that retail businesses with their air conditioning on, not be permitted to have. I apologize, we're out of time. Next, please state your name and address. You have two minutes. Good morning. My name is Tracy Slavens. My address is 1900 Purdy Avenue, apartment 1909, Miami Beach. I'm here today as a resident and as a voter. I also serve on the board of directors of Lotus House, a shelter that provides over 1500 women and children a year with supportive services, shelter services, and the ability to help get them back on their feet. I am committed to ending homelessness in Miami-Dade County. I serve as the Chair of Residents United to End Homelessness, and it's important to me to raise A community. They deserve the help. I'm here today to speak against items R5, AB and r7 J. The Commission previously rightfully determined that the 1% food and beverage tax to support homeless and domestic violence services should be decided by the voters. Notwithstanding my position on the issue, and I'm here to state my objections to the record on this for this commission rescinding the question and removing it from the ballot. This is a violation of our civic rights and our right to voice our respective choices. It's an assault on our democracy. The question was presented to the voters, to decide, and this commission should not be in the business of usurping that process. The right to vote is critical to our nation's success. Depends on it and the voters being asked the question should be trusted to answer it. So with that, I implore you to reconsider the repercussions of passing R7 J today. It has a tremendously negative impact. It will affect Our next speaker is MFA Miami Holmes. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Thank you so much. My name is Annie Lord. I'm the executive director at Miami Homes for all. Address is 3250 Southwest Third Avenue, Miami. 33129. And I'm here to speak in support of the Housing Protection Ordinance R5 ag Miami Homes for all promotes housing solutions in Miami-Dade to address the full scale of our needs and during the pandemic, we facilitated the eviction Task Force, which was a cross-sector collaborative that prevented evictions in real time by coordinating services and resources for vulnerable tenants. And while we were doing this, we learned something really intuitive, which is that we were able to prevent more displacement and homelessness. When we started reaching out proactively to tenants In Miami Beach, 50% of all households are cost burdened or paying more than they can afford for their housing costs. Many Miami Beach residents are currently at risk of being displaced by rising rents and possibly facing homelessness. What the Housing Protection Ordinance could do is to create the opportunity for the City of Miami Beach and its partners to provide services and resources that could help tenants, whether rent increases and prevent their displacement and homelessness. So we at Miami Homes for all hope that you will approve this ordinance. And thank you so much for considering it. Thank you. Go ahead. Please state your name and address. You have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and commissioners. My name is Matthew Gaulton and I live at 125 Jefferson Avenue. I'd like to speak in support of item C, 4k, C4, D and R5Y. The overlay to beach walk safety. Many of these items were also recommendations. When I was the chair See. Many thanks for looking to implement these recommendations regarding our five Y. While in support, I'd like to see this expanded to include all ages and abilities. A speed limit is a best practice along shared use paths and is commonly found in cities both big and small, across the country. There's wide support on Miami Beach for this as well. Please get the police on board. Chief Jones, if you're listening, I'd be more than happy to help you learn more about this. I urge our five y to be expanded, not to just include seniors, but everyone. Thank yo. Our next virtual speaker is Peter James Fung. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Hi. Good morning. My name is Peter James Fong. I'm the vice president of Palms of Alton, 1025 Alton Road. I'd like to urge the commissioners today to please reconsider. And also resist any attempt to take To building a fire station or basically anything inside of the park. Green spaces are rare. They're valuable and they should be left to the community as a whole to enjoy. Thank you. Whoever whoever was next, go. Please state your name, address, and you have two minutes. Thank you. Kieran James Lubin, 15th and Lenox Avenue. So I'm back to also urge the commissioners and the mayor to reconsider the Flamingo Park location for the fire station. I've been appreciative of the dialog to date. You guys have been an open book. I still believe that no matter how things proceed, if construction actually starts, we'll see a large period of tim, perhaps perpetual, in which the track and football stadium are unavailable to the public. I forgive my cynicism, but this is my experience of how these things go in my life. I understand that it's a convenient location. There's no negotiation with the private sector. It's not the right thing to do. The people who use the stadium are huge in number. A couple hundred. Yesterday I was there as I am most days, and I just don't believe that we've got an active construction site. These people carry insurance. They, you know, they're they're going to be big trucks, materials moving in and out. It's going to be closed for a long period of time. You often see delays in public projects of this nature. So again I'm quite skeptical and would urge everyone to seriously look into another location. Matthew, standing next to me, has proposed a couple. I we're all happy to help in the search if happy to spend some time. If there's a real mandate from heaven. In any case, I want to also mention Commissioner magazine mentioned in the last meeting. Everyone would prefer outside the park, but if it's going to be in the park, the parking area is probably much preferred to the green space near the track. In the sense that there's been proposals, I think for a decade now on file that Not in active use by people trying to achieve their fitness goals, etc. Do the right thing. Don't put the fire station in the park. Thank you. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is Darren Jourdain. Please state your name and address. You have two minutes. Good morning commissioners. Yes. 910 Jefferson Avenue. Miami beach. So I'm against also building the fire station within the Flamingo Park. And I believe even if everything goes well, there will be still disruptions. Plus the fact that there will be fire station, a building right next to the track while we're running, there will be lots of disruptions, noise. This, that pollution. Right. And it's not conductive for one's mental health. I would urge you to consider any other location Side note, I would like to bring your attention to enforcement of the. Also, the smoking ban at the beach. I've been actually talking to various lifeguards and they say they cannot do their lifeguard job. Meanwhile, they are also looking over right people smoking. I always find cigarette butts in at the beach. So I'm wondering who is enforcing it. They said code compliance supposed to go around and enforce that. And I don't think that's happening. And also late nights we walk a lot the beach. And I see people still camping at the beach. So I don't see any police presence enforcing like the no camping. Right. Law. So I think there is an issue with enforce versus passing laws. So thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you sir. Go ahead. State your name. Address. You have two minutes. Hi Matt Rosenberg, South Beach track club and save Flamingo Park. Thank you. By the way, to each and every commissioner Much appreciate the effort. And again, number one, you know, we prefer it not to be in the park as pretty much everyone says, we really would prefer the fire station be somewhere else very strongly. That being said, very grateful for Commissioner Fernandez and the other commissioners that have supported the C-7s in regard to making sure the track wouldn't be moved or anything like that have come to appreciate the interpretation of the word definitively in a title versus in the actual resolution, language and movement of track versus the way I interpret it as affecting the track. So again, I unfortunately wasn't able to email everyone earlier than I would have preferred, but I don't know whether we can sort it out today or maybe in the future. That language of if we are unable to move it elsewhere, which we still really do, and we are submitting the proposals to you all for the Walgreen's location, as well as the South Beach Health and Safety corrido, which you have for evaluation for other locations. But the ability of that wording of we would Versus undo whatever that other word was, which could be a day to us and six months to somebody else of undo effecting of usage. So with the greatest of respect and appreciation for keeping the track, we'd love to keep it this way. We'd prefer the fire station be elsewhere. We're glad to continue to work in a very friendly way, to try to see what we can do to make that happen. And again, very appreciative of the efforts that you're making. I know sitting in that chair is different than standing over here, and we're very grateful for all the efforts of making sure the track would not be moved, affected or closed. And we'd like to see it never be closed for even construction. And again, very appreciative. And whether this gets sorted today on C-7a or a little bit later, either way, very appreciative. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is Alfred Rosario, state your name. You have two minutes. Good morning. My name is Alfred Soria. I reside at 6039 Collins Avenue. I'm calling about the FNB The opportunity to make their voices heard in a democracy. Your vote is your voice. It should not be silenced. Is this commission going to be a barrier to the ballot box? Voting is an opportunity for change for all those Miami Beach residents who say homelessness is not a top issue for them. This is an opportunity to target and scale up resources and drive down homelessness without criminalization, that's good for all residents and businesses. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I didn't see who was next. So whoever it is, state your name. You have two minutes. Yeah. Good morning mayor. Commissioners, my name is Richard Ruszczynski. I'm president of Palms Association of Alton road. 1025 Alton Road. I'm here to speak to the prevailing opinion of over 100 residents of Palms Association. Our voices represent a shared commitment to preserving the integrity of Flamingo Park. Over the past 32 years, we've witnessed numerous grabs of land in Flamingo Park. This is now the fifth attempt to encroach on this treasured park, and we strongly oppose it. The Enjoy daily by countless residents. I ask you, where in the world would they? Would they take limited city park land to build a fire station such as this? And the answer is nowhere. We urge you to respect the will of the community and find an alternative location for the fire station. We're not going away. We will continue to oppose this project. You cannot have an inch more of our park. Past mayors and commissioners have already taken too much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is Dave Greaser. State your name, address, and you have two minutes. Good morning everybody. David Greaser, 1754 Meridian Avenue. I'm speaking today in support of item C for I, the Miami Beach Marine Park proposal. I'd like to thank Commissioner Dominguez and the co-sponsors for this item. Commissioners Bob Suarez and magazine. The benefits for the creation of a marine park off of Miami Beach on our swimmable, unique nearshore habitat are immense. Huge recreational opportunities, economic Habitat for our many endangered species. Coral, fish and mammal living just a really short swim from our shores. This park already exists and we now have the opportunity to celebrate and protect it. We look forward to speaking about this coral reef ecosystem in greater detail when it's at committee, so thank you all and have a wonderful day. Thank you. We've taken up already the 30 minutes that are allocated to Sutnick. So for the next speakers we're going to do one minute. So please have that in mind please. So I'm not sure who it was. I believe you were. So state your name address and I'll start the clock. Good morning all. My name is Sylvia. Laura. I've been here before and I'm representing some of the owners and the Apollo condominium. I'm joining my voice to Richard, who just talked to you. And again, we are just. We. I'm just representing here. I'm just want to ask you to find another place to the fire station. Like I said, we support. We know that it's very important that they have Any more green spaces taking away. Please try to do your best efforts. Let us remember you like the commission that did something because I know this problem at the fire station. It has been going on for so long, but let us remember you as the ones that found a place and we can fix this. You know, you found a solution. Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Patrick Bercik. State your name, address, and you have one minute, please. Hello. My name is Patrick Reschke. I live at 1754 Meridian Avenue, right across from Pride Park in City Hall. I'm calling today about the spectacular coral reef that we have a short swim from the southern portion of the beach. The reef is full of endangered species like sea turtles, manatees, queen conch, and all sorts of colorful tropical fish. So I'm really grateful that Commissioner Dominguez has put forward an item that has been co-sponsored by Commissioners Magazine and Suarez to continue to look into how we can protect this area for It's a really great opportunity for our city to celebrate another part of our natural environment. So thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next please. You have one minute. State your name and address. Good morning, Mayor and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Sophie Ringle. I live in two, three, nine five Lake Drive on the city of Miami Beach. I am here to express my concerns about the homeless tax. And I urge you to support Commissioner Suarez. Agenda item to avoid a referendum on our current ballo. This item is misleading, not transparent, and not in the interest of local businesses and residents. The advertisements I have been receiving in the mail are misleading and do not include important information. It stated. Quote Miami Beach visitors end up shouldering the majority of the cost. End quote. And here, quote the penny initiative by the Homeless Trust uses revenue revenue from tourists to fund housing for the unhoused, end quote. Also misleading establishments in hotels where the And so why is it stated in the in. These ads? What is also left out. Speaker has initials A and B. Please state your full name. You have one minute please. I'm here supporting Commissioner Suarez's agenda to rescind the agenda item for the homeless tax. Everyone in my neighborhood I spoke to doesn't understand what this was. They've been totally misled. They weren't aware that this is a 1% on top of 2% already on restaurants. And frankly, we'd like to vote with this new commission putting an appropriate measure on that actually has Miami Beach in control of what happens with this money and how we direct it. So please support Commissioner Suarez's agenda to rescind this from the ballot, please. Thank you. So much. Please. Next, state your name and address and In support of removing addendum eight from the ballot, as I feel like it's very misleading. The city already does an amazing job in supporting the homeless. There's already programs here that somebody spoke earlier of the amazing jobs they do to support the homeless. Our tax dollars already support this. We provide food, housing, medical. We provide all everything they need. I don't understand why there needs to be another tax on top of the tax that we already pay to do this. On top of that, it's not going to be managed by the city. It's going to be managed by a third party. Also, as somebody already mentioned, this is very misleading. It says it's supposed to be for the tourists, but really it's not. It's not. Even the hotels are exempt from this tax. Instead, this is going to be applied to the small businesses that that US residents go to visit. So the small businesses and the residents are going to be paying for this tax. That's already on top of another tax that we already pay. Please remove this. This is not right. It's misleading. It's false. Thank you. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is Lori Baker. Oops. Lori Baker. Hello. Thank you so much for your time today. I Double 1616 Michigan Avenue. We ask for your support today for our five K. Commissioner Fernandez's item that speaks to city sponsorship and the disbursement of funds. This will greatly impact the ability to do work in Miami Beach for organizations like ours, small non-profits that produce great things in our city. We also ask that you join us at the South Beach Jazz Festival this will be our ninth annual. It's the biggest ever in Miami Beach, and we are so happy that we have announced our program this week, and it has more programing for residents than ever and guests to our city. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Next, please state your name. Address you have one minute. Good morning commissioners. My name is Wendy Walsh. My address is 152 northeast 89th Street, El Portal. I serve as the principal officer for Unite Here. Local Vice president for our international union. I'm here to speak on our day one on the Miami Beach Convention Center hotel and the status of the development. We are very encouraged that things are starting to move again on this development. Obviously, this was a hotly debated issue years ago, and the voters ultimately decided to have this hotel, but it's been stalled for so long and we feel it's so important, obviously, for providing good jobs to low wage workers here in Miami Beach. But also it is the way to attract high quality conventions to Miami Beach. We've shown this over and over nationally, and we really encourage the commission, both at the county and the city, to do everything possible to help get that off the ground. Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Wayne Wayne. State your name, address, and you have one minute. Good morning. Lee Roberts, south of fifth. I want to begin by saying how amazing this city is. The rabbi who opened up the remarks Was amazing. Joe Manning, Mitch Novak. Everybody that followed cares about the city. And I'm so impressed by the dozens of people have already spoken and listening. It's a special city of democracy in action, whether rich or poor. It's just a beautiful place with a lot of variating theories or thoughts and experiences of life. But I love this city. I, I, I have no problem with the tax. I have a problem where the money is going. The homeless trust has shown that they're not the best stewards of money, and that I think that it should be redrawn so that that money is applied differently. Thank you sir. I apologize, but we had one minute. I apologize. I'm going to the next person. Yes. Good morning. My name is Jamie Lasky. Three, two, one Ocean Drive, Miami Beach. I'm here because I recently voted yes on the 1% homeless care Ballot. All the extra taxes in Miami Beach have raised our entertainment and dining costs by 30%. When you consider that most places are adding a 20% tip plus seven plus three, plus another three. But I still voted yes for the 1% homeless care to help Miami Beach take care of these people. And I think they've done a fantastic job this year. But now I find out that this money is not going to Miami Beach. It's going to Miami Dade, who I feel does a terrible job. So I'd like to have my vote back. And I agree with what many of the other people have said this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is someone with a screen name of Dan Snow, Miami. Please state your name, address, and you have one minute, please. Hello. My name is Hannah Baumgarten, 900 Bay drive, Miami Beach. I'm co founding artistic director of Dance Now Miami. I'm here in support of C7 v commissioners Bart Commissioner Bart measure and proposal to support the arts At the last commission meeting. Speaking with Howard Herring of the New World Symphony, and we believe this is a visionary measure because there is a paradigm shift in the state of Florida regarding supporting the arts, or rather, not supporting the arts. It is a visionary measure. It will help continue to identify identify Miami Beach as a place where arts thrive and are recognized internationally. And we do hope that you support this measure. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Next, please. You have one minute. State your name and address, please. Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Williams, 4540 North Meridian Avenue. I'm here to thank all of you for bringing up this traffic calming problem we have on Meridian Avenue. Once again, to the agenda. I've lived on Meridian for over 13 years. I have a nine and 11 year old. We also have a dog. We walk to Polo Park regularly. I walk my son to school every morning and we walk the dog regularly throughout the neighborhood. We witnessed firsthand the speeding and reckless driving on Residents and the population in Miami Beach has grown after Covid. Despite the neighborhood's efforts to address the issue in the past. We've had limited success. In 2017, the A study was commissioned by the city that highlighted the traffic concerns on Meridian and the surrounding neighborhood. The independent consultants identified that the streets with historically designed to accommodate ambulances when the Ritz residences served as a hospital, contribute significantly to the speeding problem. Thank you so much. Our next virtual caller is Giuliana Toma. Please state your name. You have one minute, please. Name and address. Giuliana. Toma 734 Michigan. Also a board member. I am calling regarding the Flamingo Park Fire Station. I'm urging you to find a new location. The green space is vital for our environment. It helps to reduce the heat load effect on the city. And it also will help to reduce On water when we have these heavy inundations of rain, I urge you to find a location or host a charette with the community for an existing building that we can revitalize the readapt reuse that already has some of the infrastructure in place that we can then maybe enlarge, but not to take away from our very limited green space that we have on the beach. Thank you. Thank you. And just just for the record, the gentleman with the hat is the last person. Go ahead ma'am. Hi. Good afternoon. Good morning. My name is Sonia Raquel Barrientos, and I am from 6989 Collins Avenue. And with God's creation Ministries. And I am over here opposing to R5, AB and R7, J and I support the initiative. And I think the board should be getting the issue. And in fact, people are downstairs voting and they have to have and have their voice to be heard, not the commission. You know, we have the right to be and this is a democracy and we It. Thank you so much. Our last virtual speaker is Stephanie. Stephanie. Go ahead please. My name is Stephanie Berman. My address is 7970 Biscayne Point Circle. I'm the president of Carrfour Supportive Housing and Miami Beach native. I would like to urge the commission not to pass Rbh five and ask Miami Beach, including Miami Beach residents, have the responsibility to contribute its fair share towards caring for the most vulnerable in our county. Why should one of the wealthiest cities in the county be one of the few to not to contribute? I would like to address the comment made by an earlier speaker about transparency. There are a few bodies that are more transparent than the homeless trust. The City of Miami Beach is an active participant in the homeless Trust Continuum of care. All meetings are open to the public and well attended. All budgets and funding decisions are openly discussed with opportunities for the public to participate. More importantly, why would you not allow your citizens the opportunity to decide? Silencing your citizens is not acceptable, especially for all of us that have already taken the time to go and vote. I urge you Much. Sorry. You're the last speaker. Go ahead. Please. Yeah. Good morning. My name is Jesus Alberto Meneses and I live in 702 and 13th Street. And Euclid in South Beach. I've been living here for 25 years, and I'm an artist. And what I see since I've been here in the beginning, it used to be a very beautiful art community. But everywhere you will see a lot of art. And more and more. I see less art in public places, less art. The local people participating, and one idea that I have since I lived in Europe before to create one day a week or one day a month, like it used to be, where you can show art in one room and that will create more of an artistic neighborhood than just selling and selling and selling and buying and buying and buying. So we'll attract more interesting people like myself and create more young people to encourage them to become artists You take my recommendation seriously? That was the last speaker. Thank you everyone for called in and came in. And also everyone who emails and texts us. We appreciate the feedback and it is very helpful. Let's call we have a 10:00 time certain with the convention center hotel. So I'm going to try to get through some items before then. Let's do the board and committee appointments are nine a yes, sir. Everyone on the dais has a paper with a list of the nominees. Just for the record, there is one name for each position. So each are unopposed. We could do this by acclamation, or I could do them one by one. Whatever your acclamation. So we have a consensus. Okay, so for the record, Mr. Dobler is being appointed and you're. The commission is finding that this position, he has the knowledge, experience or expertise to achieve the committee's objectives. Mr. Frank Kozarac, Mr. Donald Goldberg and Of residency. So all done by acclamation. Moved second. All. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. The appointees have been made. Mayor, if I may report on the pulled items for the consent or. Yes. Thank you. Did that cover R9, A and B? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. So for the record, the following items have been separated from the consent agenda. Mayor minor is not separating any items. Commissioner Bart is separating two items. C7 AK c7 a s again. Commissioner Bart separating c7 AK c7 a s. Commissioner Dominguez is separating two items c4 s, as in Sam and c7 a be again c4. S c7 a be. Vice Mayor Fernandez is separating six items c2 P. C7. I. C7. AK. C7. A. S. Again. C to H. C to F. C7. P. C7 I. C7. AK. C7. A. S Commissioner magazine is separating two items. C7 a, b and c4 z again. C7. AB c4. Z. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez is separating one item. C7. Z as in zebra. C7. Z. Commissioner Suarez is separating four items. C7 j c7 k c7 p c7 v. Again, Commissioner Suarez is separating. C7. J c7 k c7 p c7 b and for the record, there was one addendum. Item C7 a s, but that has been pulled. So it will be heard and the committee is going to have to vote on whether to add that item to the consent agenda. At that time, is there a motion to set the agenda? I make a motion. Okay. The motion has been made by Commissioner Bond, has been seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. And we can show the agenda set by acclamation with the items that were pulled from the consent agenda. Back to you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. May we approve the consent agenda? Yes. Well, the mayor has the floor. Did you make the motion? I move that did anybody a second? Yes, Commissioner. Second. All in favor? Aye. Yes, sir. All in favor of motion passes? Because I didn't hear any no's. So the consent agenda is adopted excluding the separated items. Next. Let's do some second reading items. Can we do those now? I don't think so, mayor. I think, let me see. I think the first one is at 1010. So no, first we could do first readings if you wish. Commissioner Suarez, any interest in doing your item? Now, we may not be able to finish it before our 10:00 time. So we'd have to continue. Any interest in doing that? Okay. That is what number is it? It's the homeless tax item. Yeah. Two items R7J and R 587 J and R five AB. Yeah. R7J and R R7J is repeal resolution 2023 32719. Ballot question for 1% tax. And what was the R five again. Let's see our five number five AB AB. So r five AB is an ordinance of the Mayor and city commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, repealing ordinance 2023 4567 by amending chapter 1 or 2 of the City of Miami Beach code entitled Taxation by amending article five entitled Local Business Tax by repealing section 102 three, eight, eight thereof, entitled Levy Collection and Administration of 1% Local Option, Food and Beverage Tax, Homeless and Domestic Violence Tax, thereby striking from the city Code all provisions authorizing Miami-Dade County to levy, collect and administer the 1% local option. Food and beverage Tax, also known as the Homeless and Domestic Violence Tax, within the municipality limits of the city of Miami Beach, as provided in section 212 .0306 of the Florida Statutes, providing for codification Repealer, severability and Effective Date. This is a first reading. It is item R5 AB. Mayor. Mayor McGinn, you're recognized. Commissioner colleagues. Thank you colleagues. Over the last week and literally right this second, our residents are voting on a referendum question that was purposely engineered to mislead and take advantage of taxpayer money. Democracy isn't just about having a vote. It's about ensuring that votes are cast with clear, fair and transparent information. An undemocratic government's information is distorted and manipulated for special interests. That's exactly what's happening here. What I'm holding up here and what I've passed around to you all, is a donor list of special interest developers and lobbyists of a political action committee, barely formed over a month ago with a war chest of a half $1 million. And let me read through this list at the top of the list for $100,000 donation. Lennar Corporation industry is developers Miami for everyone industry. It's another PAC. They donated $100,000. Chapman Partnership, a vendor Home to Suites Doral Miami Airport. This is a hotel they gave $30,000. Atlantic Pacific Communities Real estate developers $20,000. Armonk three LLC, real estate developer, $10,000 Jeb Bush and Associates Jeb Bush, $5,000. Let's be clear they're not donating half $1 million out of the goodness of their hearts. This is all about a return on investment, an ROI that puts taxpayers on the hook for $10 million each year to bankroll the homeless trust, an organization outside the city of Miami Beach that has no written obligation to allocate any funds back to our city. This proposed homeless tax is a masterclass in bad governance. Now ask yourself, why are developers pumping big money It's a money grab. It's like a reverse Robin Hood taking from hard working local hospitality businesses that aren't part of luxury hotels and handing it right into the interest of billionaire developers, lobbyists and special interests. Residents united to End Homelessness pack was created just last month, yet it's already raised more money for this single issue than any of my colleagues on this dais raised during their entire campaigns. This pack has raised more money to lobby our voters than any of you who raised them, who have raised them to serve them in office. Let that sink in for a second. Some of you may argue that we should let the voters decide on this issue, but let's not. Let's not ignore the reality here. This vote is a manipulation with half $1 million Designed to confuse and manipulate. This is hardly an honest appeal to the public. It's a stacked deck. Big money up against zero opposition. And the voters are being misled by powerful interests pushing for a tax hike under the guise of compassion. Hell, right now there's three guys standing outside of City Hall getting paid $25 an hour to market this seemingly innocuous tax. The truth never stood a chance here. Ask yourself, are you doing a service to the voters who elected us to protect them in their financial interests? Or a service to the developers and lobbyists who, funneling half $1 million into this pack and put this into perspective earlier, this year, we all voted to rescind a $1 million cash out payment to the homeless trust if we rescinded a $1 million cash out payment to the A year in perpetuity. Now, before I get into the meat and potatoes of my presentation, I want everyone to know that this tax is being marketed as a tourist tax. Yet, ironically, it excludes restaurants located within hotels where the majority of tourists stay and dine. What does this do? This will disproportionately affect our mom and pop local restaurants to shoulder the burden that they didn't create. Our local restaurants didn't create homelessness. They create working class jobs, and this tax increase will punish them. Make no mistake, this vote is a litmus test of where we stand and where our priorities lie. On one hand, we have billionaires, billionaires, and their network of dark money PACs funded by the likes of Lennar Corporation and Jeb Bush Associates. On the other hand, are the residents and local businesses of Miami Their best interest. Now, P.J, can you please pull up the presentation? And I'd like to get into the specifics on this ballot measure and why I believe this is a misleading and disingenuous ballot question. Next slide, please. As I showed everyone on my colleagues, you all have a handout of all the donors on this on this PAC that was created over a month ago. Next slide. Okay. So I want to go into some of the misleading claims that this PAC has has put out into our into our public. You know what I find really disingenuous is that this is a one penny tax. This is a 1% tax. And it's people have come up to me. They say, say, hey, I thought it was just going to be one penny. But out of the bill. No, it's 1%. And almost every mailer that I have here, including this one, one penny, can end homeless homelessness on the beach. Ridiculous Solution to end to end homelessness in Miami Beach. Okay. Never mind the fact that we are already a compassionate city for homelessness. Okay. We provide seven over $7 million a year for homeless outreach services. That includes park rangers, police, housing, community services, and the claim here that this will end homelessness. That's ridiculous. More taxes will not end homelessness. And the fact that they say that this is going to be funded by tourists, yet somehow excludes restaurants, establishments inside hotels where tourists stay is very disingenuous. Next slide please. How many slides by the way do you have. A couple more. Okay. Questionable lobbying. This pack calls anti-camping laws a public safety risk. So what we all passed here where it says we passed our Okay, this doesn't align with our Miami Beach policy, state law, or the Supreme Court. You know, I talked to our housing director and she said housing doesn't change behaviors. And this is what this tax aims to do. It it aims to transfer wealth from Miami Beach taxpayers to an to an unelected county organization that's going to be controlling $10 million a year of Miami Beach money. Next slide please. This is where the misleading ballot question comes in. Approve a 1% tax on food and beverage sales. Misleading and critical context. There is already a 2% resort tax on food and beverage sales in Miami Beach. This would increase it to 3%. Instead of saying approve 1%, it should say an additional 1%. Next slide. False expectations. The homeless trust has repeatedly said that it can end homelessness in two years. Every every time A bit more money and throwing money, throwing more taxpayer dollars at housing doesn't solve homelessness or the flow of criminal homelessness into our city. Next slide. So this is where the big money comes in. And you have developers and special interests pouring money into this pack. You know, just recently at the county, the homeless trust is paying more than it's paying $4 million over the appraised value for a for a hotel to be converted $4 million over the appraised value. I think it came in at averages nine, and they're going to be be paying $14 million for it without a single bidding process. You know, that comes out to $136,000 per bed. You know, the only ones who who gain to profit from this are developers and special interests who are going to be making millions in profit at the expense of at the expense of This would make us the highest taxed jurisdiction in the county. I just want everyone to be. We will be at 10%. Next slide please. 85% of the tax would go to the homeless trust. That's an approximately $10 million of taxpayer dollars per year. The city has no control over over the spending of this money. They are under no obligation to give it back. Okay. In fact, in 2017, the HUD inspector general determined that the Homeless trust did not properly oversee its recipients and was ordered to reimburse HUD nearly $100,000. The City of Miami Beach receives less than $1 million in grant funding from the Homeless Trust per year. Why should we export more taxpayer dollars to this county organization? Next slide. Just recently and I spoke to Commissioner Higgins. They have been given a noncompliance Do not want to have any independent audits as required by the County Commission. The homeless Trust hasn't agreed to an independent audit in years. County violation. Issues. County violation notices have been issued and they have been silent. Next slide. And just so everyone is aware, the homeless trust doesn't provide any services. They don't. They control the purse strings of who gets the money, who the providers are. Why do you think there's so many big donors here? It's because they aim to be first in line to receive this money. Next slide please. We're important. Do we really want to enable an organization that brings more benefits to the county to attract more homelessness? Throwing Your next slide, please. So, look, we cannot allow a political action committee funded by billionaires, developers, special interests or high powered lobbyists to mislead our voters into a tax increase in exchange for a return on investment. The $450,000 to lobby our voters could have been spent on homeless services. Instead of a deceptive marketing campaign. And you can close the slide, JP. Look, I know this is tough. I know the timing is not ideal. I understand the optics that might that some of you might be concerned about. But I can assure you, I'm not doing this for a personal gain. I'm not trying to win a gold medal. I'm doing this because I believe it's the right thing to do, given the circumstances we've been handed the easiest path forward up here would be inaction. But at the end of Believe this referendum question is misleading, deceptive and aims to take advantage of our taxpayers. The right decision is to rescind this ballot question and not allow a previous commission's mistake to cost our city's taxpayers $10 million a year indefinitely. Ultimately, we were elected to make the hard decisions and safeguard our city's best interests against those who aim to exploit us. I certainly hope our taxpayers and future years remember how we vote today. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Laura Dominguez. Thank you. And thank you for Commissioner Suarez for bringing this item forward. I am in disagreement of repealing something that people are currently voting on, and I agree with you that the timing is not ideal, and it's something that should have come sooner. I also disagree with what's been said about the homeless trust having seen and read and Meetings with the homeless, trust people they are an honest organization that really tries hard to help with the homeless issue and a few things that were mentioned. I just want clarification and the city attorney can correct if I'm wrong on any of these items, but what this tax means it's for every $150 restaurant tab, it's $1.50. That's dedicated to combating homelessness and domestic violence. In Miami-Dade County, the penny program only applies to establishments that gross over $400,000 and have a liquor license. If you eat at a fast food restaurant, it doesn't apply if you eat at a restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol, it doesn't apply in restaurants that gross less than 400,000. It does not apply if you eat at a restaurant within a hotel, that means room service, too. It doesn't apply if you don't eat out, it doesn't apply. So it's not a property tax. And of all We don't participate and we're Miami Beach is one of them. And because of our tourist destination, we do attract homeless. We have an amazing homeless outreach program. And I think that this program that the voters are currently voting on will only help with this issue. So that's what I wanted to share. And Rick City, Mr. City Attorney, you can if any of the items that I mentioned are not so please correct them. No you you accurately stated that it applies to establishments other than at hotels and restaurants, hotels and motels that have a liquor license, and it does not apply to any establishments with gross revenues of $400,000 or less. That is accurate, Mr. Mayor. Just just to put things into context, I don't know any restaurants that don't serve wine or any form of alcohol. And by the way, gross sales of Let's. That's pretty much that encompasses all local mom and pop restaurants in Miami Beach. Commissioner, let's hear from everyone else. Obviously, you'll have an opportunity to speak again. Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I think an argument has been made that we're going to be the municipality in Miami-Dade County that is going to be paying the highest sales tax rate than any other jurisdiction in Miami-Dade County because of this tax. And I want to know, is our CFO in the room, Mr. Green, if you could approach the podiu. Good morning. Good morning. What are the sales taxes? The taxes? I'm sorry. When individuals that are eating out in Miami Beach, what are the taxes that they pay? So there's the base 7% sales tax that everyone is going to pay, whether it's Miami 9%. Okay. And in Miami-Dade County, what are the taxes that individuals outside of Miami Beach are paying? It would be, again, the 7% base sales tax, the 1% tax towards the homeless for eight. But there is an additional 2% food and beverage on food and beverage inside hotels. Okay. So. So in the rest of Miami-Dade County, outside of hotels, 8%. It's 8%. Correct. And they're already paying the 1% tax. Correct. The difference between the rest of Miami-Dade County and Miami Beach is that in Miami Beach, unlike the rest of Miami-Dade County, we're paying a 2% tax. Correct. So we are paying in total 9% versus 8% in the rest of the county. So if we come in now and we pay that 1% tax on homeless and domestic violence services, just how We're going to be the highest jurisdiction in Miami-Dade County, not because of the 1% homeless tax that everyone else is paying, but it's because of the 2% resort tax that we pay in Miami Beach that the rest of Miami-Dade County does not pay. Is that correct? That is correct. Can I ask a clarifying question? I'm sorry to interrupt. Yes. I thought Bal Harbor and Surfside do also do not contribute to 1% tax. That is correct. Bal Harbor and Surfside, Miami Beach were the only three municipalities. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Mr. Mayor, but Mr. Attorney or Mr. Clerk. Bal harbor is also there. Are they also contemplating the 1% sales tax they have on the ballot question right now? So they have the question as well. Surfside. Well, I have the floor and I did not interrupt you And here very, very clearly. Why is it that Miami Beach would end up being higher than any other jurisdiction in Miami-Dade County? It's not because we're going to be paying the same tax that the rest of Miami-Dade County pays. It's because we have an additional resort tax. Now, Mr. CFO, what do we do with that resort tax? The resort tax is utilized for a lot of different things. Utilize to kind of offset the expenditure, the expenses that are related to resort type activities. So we're going to be paying things out of there related to the police department, code compliance, cleanliness, sanitation, things that kind of offset and take the lift off of the property tax burden of the citizens. And if we did not have the resort tax, what impact would that do to the millage rate that every property owner that every homeowner, that every resident in Miami Beach A substantial increase in the millage rate and or a substantial decrease in level of service. And if the resort tax is impacted, let's say, well, let me ask. Let me let me rephrase the question. And perhaps Mr. Manager, you might be the most appropriate to answer this. If we do not address homeless issues, would the resort tax collections be affected? Or could we anticipate that the resort tax collections would be affected if we don't address homelessness? So I don't know that there's a 1 to 1 correlation, but certainly they're interrelated somehow that the more that people perceive the city to be safe and clean, the more we're likely to encourage people to come visit Miami Beach. Okay, so, so by making sure that we're properly addressing homeless issues and not just us individually in Miami Beach, but as a region, we help support the resort Us balance our budget. That help us avoid a cut of services to our residents. Is that correct? That is correct. And so I just want people to understand because homelessness is not an issue unique to Miami Beach home. And I think I'm done with you Mr. CFO. Feel free to sit down. I don't want to thank you. I don't want to keep you there. But homelessness is not an issue. That is unique to Miami Beach. I agree with my colleague. We take very strong positions on homelessness, but we can't address it alone without being a partner at the table with the rest of the region, because homelessness is a regional issue. Homelessness is a very transient issue. I don't know if Alba is here. Doctor Tara, the The doctor. Tara. Good morning. How many of the homeless individuals. How many individuals who are homeless in our city necessarily are are coming in from other areas of Miami-Dade County or the region? I would probably say more than 80%, 85%. And so if we're addressing homelessness only in our city without continuing in the collaboration on the regional services, it's hard for us to be able to address homelessness because homelessness is a regional issue. We have in Miami Beach, we have a very transient homeless population. And so and that's what I want us to understand, because this tax and it is a tax, and it's unfortunate that we need this tax. It goes to the regional entity that addresses homelessness. That's the homeless trust. And Of the homeless stresses here. Miss Millard, if you would approach the podium, please. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Yes. As it relates to elected representation, are there are there representatives of, let's say, county commissioners that serve on the homeless trust? Yes. We have a 27 person board. Seven appointments from the Greater Miami Chamber. Among those appointments are the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Oliver Gilbert. Also, the mayor sits on the board as a representative. We have three representatives from the League of Cities, of which you are one. We also have the chair of the Housing and Services Development Committee. We also have Judge Steven Leifman, who is the chair of our finance and Audit committee. He's been doing homelessness work his entire life and has advised the state Supreme Court of the State of Florida on issues of homelessness. And he has been our long time finance and audit Committee chairman. So, so, so, Miss Mallett, if I understand right, the mayor of Miami-Dade County has a seat on Has a seat on the on the Homeless Trust. Commissioner bastion, who chairs the housing committee at the county, has a seat at the homeless Trust and there are three representatives from the Miami-Dade County League of Cities and now one from the city of Miami Beach through the League of Cities. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And in addition to that, we have members of the bench. Judge Leifman, who, as you just stated, has advised the Supreme Court on, on homeless related issues. Correct. As well as the superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Okay. And so and so I'm just going to end with asking the city attorney a number. Just just a couple of questions. We approved a ballot question. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. The ballot question is that a requirement of the state of Florida? Yes. The state requires a municipality who is Adopt an ordinance which was done and then to seek voter approval of that ordinance and the state is asking us to do that because we urged the state to do that. Is that correct to pass that statute? We urge the state to pass that statute. Is that correct? There was interaction with the state. Yes. Okay. And we asked the state to pass a statute because the voters asked us to pass to urge the state. Is that correct? I do not have the details, but I believe there was a straw ballot at some point in time. All right. And that's your ballot. 53% of our voters asked us to urge the state to pass the statute, which is why we're going to the voters. Does the government control a political action committee? Can you repeat the question, does residents united to end homelessness Any oversight, any involvement with a political action committee. It should not. It should not. So it's easy to attack a political action committee because it is easy to attack an entity that has contributions from developers, from high powered names like Jeb Bush and other and other individuals. But this has this is not the entity that is getting the money. This is not the entity that put the question on, on, on the ballot. There are there are many political action committees out there that do things that people look favorably on, and probably most of the time look unfavorably on, but they're independent of candidates. They're independent of issues on, on the ballot and, and, and I don't think that it's fair to judge the work that the homeless Trust has been doing over the course of 30 years, bringing down the population of homelessness at 1000. Now, because of individuals that have decided to contribute to a political action committee, that's independent of the city of Miami Beach, that the city of Miami Beach has nothing to do with that. The county has nothing to do with that. The homeless trust has nothing to do with. And perhaps you might see housing developers contributing to this PAC to end homelessness because they know that homelessness. Yeah, it makes it hard to sell a house if you're making a development. Who wants to buy a house or a property in a community that's affected by homelessness? Who? Who? What? Leader? What leader wants to see a community be affected by by. By homelessness. What private entity? What developer? What former political figure? And so I don't blame people contributing to a PAC. That's that's that's that's looking to support this tax because we do have a Seen in the past. Studies tell us that Miami Beach has a domestic violence issue, and people who have been victims of domestic violence that do need housing, that this tax will help address. So I don't think it's right at this point to take this away from the voters. I think there are unintended consequences that could happen to our budget. Otherwise. And I also do think that it is not right for us to be collaborating with the rest of the region on this tax, because homelessness is not an issue unique to Miami Beach. It is a regional issue and we need to be addressing it regionally. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Bot then we'll go to Commissioner Roger Gonzalez. We do have a 10:00 time certain we have. I like to call the big significant items early and which I did. But we are going to have to take a break soon and continue this item after the convention center hotel item. But let's hear, Commissioner Barton, depending on time timing, we'll go to Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez. I agree that packs are the bane of our political existence. And Citizens Decisions ever made by the Supreme Court when it comes to free speech and politics, and letting individuals have their voices. I do not agree, and I will never agree, that taking a ballot question off of the ballot when close to 20,000 residents have already voted, when we had ample time as a body to deliberate on what was going to be included on the ballot and the language that was going to be included on the ballot, both as part of the committee of the whole that met with our legal team and our charter amendment review committee members and all of us, no one, no one, no, no one on the committee. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Just a lie. Excuse m. We didn't find out about this until September 19th when the sample ballots came out. No one knew about this. When we had a committee of a whole to go over I got a sample ballot in the mail on September 19th, and as soon as I did, I put it on the agenda. I didn't know about this. I don't think anyone knew about this. Our committee as a whole, we were never told about this. Number eight. Never. Rick, can you please clarify that the committee of the whole focused on the charter review questions there were letter to letters to Commission, several, I think, including one in August that included all of the ballot questions. But this was not discussed at the committee. Okay, so excuse me. I apologize for my mischaracterization of the process, but we have been we had been advised in writing over the last number of months, and there are ample opportunities to have conversations with our legal team to discuss this issue. I think it is a terrible practice and it god awful precedent for small d democracy for us to start telling voters that we're just kidding. You're not smart enough to make a decision. You're not smart enough to see through the political BS that we are all subjected Probably in any city in this country is subjected to literally pounds of junk mail telling people how awesome one candidate is or how demonic another candidate is, or the same on the issues themselves. I think that if we start here and I'm deeply troubled that we have two items for discussion today that talk about taking something off the ballot, I think that is an unholy, terrible decision. A precedent to set. And I, for one, will not support them, regardless of the merits that may or may not be in place. About the item on discussion. Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez. Commissioner Suarez, you are right. We were not informed of that ballot question. I'd like to ask our city attorney a question. Did this body vote to put that homeless ballot question on the ballot? This was done by the prior commission. Not As I mentioned earlier, there was a letter to Commissioner. At least one that included all of the ballot questions, but this was not the subject of the Charter Review Board discussions, because it's not a charter review question. Commissioner Bott brings forward a very important point, which is that we have two different questions here that are questionable. And the reason for this is because in my entire political career, I've never seen a private meeting of the hole for ballot questions. Normally, when Miami Beach places something on a ballot, we go question by question at a public meeting. We put the ballot question up for everyone to read. And at that moment, publicly, we all know what's going on. The ballot. And that did not happen this time. This time, a private meeting was called a meeting of the whole. And in that meeting we discussed certain items, but we never it's very interesting to me that during that meeting, question number eight, which by the way, the city attorney's This ballot question so that you can reevaluate in the future. That never happened. We never knew that it was going. And frankly, I was shocked when I saw it on the ballot. And when I saw the campaign starting to be run, I was, I you know, I felt very helpless because when the straw ballot question came on, we had the same pack with hundreds of thousands of developer dollars running a campaign, so it was impossible to fight. I'm going to give you a little bit of history about this. We have always opposed this tax Commissioner Dominguez, Mark Samuelian was one of the biggest opponents of this tax commissioner Malakoff. We had told we told the homeless trust they would come before us every single year, and they would say, would you please approve this tax? And every single year we said no. So what did he do? The head of the Homeless trust, he went to Tallahassee and he changed the state law. But included in that state law was our ability to hold a referendum. So I would say it was about a We're leaving, some of whom were running for other offices, and they needed money for campaigns. So they put this question on the ballot, knowing that this commission did not vote on this ballot. Question. So the entire thing was a deceitful move. And frankly, I think we need to bring forward legislation in the future that ballot questions need to be heard at a public meeting with the public's ability to weigh in on them question by question, before anything goes on. The ballot. And if anybody is at fault here. I'm sorry, but I would say that it is the city attorney's office. I was furious and also I'm furious about question three because extra language was added to that question too. And that and every single item on question three was not discussed. So whose idea was it to have this meeting of the whole because I was you know, I should have stood up and said something then because I knew that something was It is my understanding that this is the process that has been followed in the past. So I was following precedent. It's a committee of the whole, which is a public meeting, by the way. I wanted to clarify that it's not a private meeting. Well, there was nobody really from the public there. I it was it's not the same as hearing it as a commission meeting. And for the record, in my eight years, we've never done that before. So moving forward, I'm going to bring some legislation that ballot questions need to be heard. They should probably have a couple of hearings before they go on our ballot. And we need to vote publicly on them. And I think that this is the fairest way. So we are not intervening or ruining an election process. We're writing something that was hidden from this body up here, because I don't think we would have voted to put this on the ballot, especially after withdrawing our $1 million to the homeless trust. I will tell you, over the years I've gotten very frustrated because what I found about the homeless Trust is that it is a group of developers who have apartments across Miami-Dade Housing First policy is $30,000 per year per homeless person, roughly something like that. The thing is, is that homeless people don't necessarily want to live in these apartments, so they get these apartments. The developers are paid $30,000 per year, no questions asked. And then the homeless go back out on the street. So when I started to question this practice, I said, why are we housing these homeless in downtown Miami? Why aren't we building something in homestead or something less expensive? I couldn't get an answer. Then I requested the financials on a $60 million budget, and I literally got one page with like five line items on it, which I don't think is transparent at all, which is probably why the county is upset that they have not gotten an audit and which is why this body especially has always voted no on this. So I am a no today. I'd like to thank Commissioner Suarez for bringing this forward. I was going to try to write about it in my email, but it was so complex and convoluted that I didn't And repeals something that this body did not approve, did not approve to put on the ballot. So there's just two of us left who haven't spoken. Commissioner magazine. And I'm going to speak briefly to try to see if we can get through this item before our hotel, convention center, hotel item. I guess I separate this into two, two aspects. One let's talk about the substantive aspect of the tax. I do not like it at all. And I've made that so clear in every vote that I've taken. I've said it publicly, I voted no to putting it on the ballot. I believe if I'm not correct, I didn't go back and check. But I believe Commissioner Rosen, Gonzalez and I this is a former commission. We're the only ones that voted no to it. So the two of us did. We're being consistent here. And there's a number of reasons, many of which have been said before. I'm not going to repeat everything, but our city spends millions, millions of dollars to help the homeless. And really the crux of it. And you pointed this out, Commissioner Suarez, is we do not have control of these funds. This is an The stand. Your reasoning, Commissioner Fernandez. But it still would make us the highest tax in the state. It impacts our residents. It impacts our businesses. And my concern is we do not control those funds. So I believe there's better use of the money. This is not the reason I'm against it, because I was against it a couple of years ago when the issue first came up. But it's very interesting that the same players that are involved in the homeless trust, and I won't mention people by name, but, Commissioner Fernandez, you mentioned a lot of those people by name, by name. They are out there front and center. When you open the newspaper and read about homeless, they are the first ones quoted in in, in my opinion, harsh tones criticizing our commission for the enforcement efforts that we take against the homeless. It is unbelievable. They're asking us to send them money. They're asking us to approve taxes. But yet when we take the measures and again, we're spending millions of dollars to help the homeless, to get them to shelter, Do not have a criminal element amongst the homeless, amongst us. We get the reports literally every day of what happens in our city, and it's a problem and our residents know it and our residents tell us all the time and by the way, we're doing a good job. I give our police credit. We need to do more. And I think our commission is demanding that we do even more. But we are doing a good job compared to many other parts of the country, the country. And we get criticized for it all the time. But you know what matters? Our residents and our businesses, they are actually very appreciative of the job we're doing. But anyway, I mentioned that because it doesn't impact my vote. It's not the reason I'm taking saying these things, because I voted against this tax on the ballot a couple of years ago before all this came up, but I find it disingenuous that you're coming in, on the one hand, asking for money. But yet when we take the measures that are not just humanitarian, but they're also the right measures to take to protect our businesses and events, and that we get whacked over the head for it. But I'm and I and I understand your points, Commissioner Roseanne Gonzalez. I just and I think there could have been better communication. I'm going to I'm going to come a little bit to the defense of our city attorney. There was an LTC. There probably could have been more robust. I'm also remembering that a couple of years ago, I thought it was an interesting process that when our commission again, you and I had voted no to it, but our commission had approved it, that there was a process that it was going to take. It had to go back to the state, and it was going to take a little while to get back on the ballot. Which is ultimately what happened. But again, there is a new commission. Most of us here are new. So I, I guess I was aware of it. And it's unfortunate, but the question now comes, do we take a ballot measure that's on the ballot? People have voted over 20,000 people, I think in Miami Beach already. There's going to be more who probably won't even know that it doesn't count. So I'm going to leave that hanging in the air, and I'm going to turn it Glad I'm not the swing vote anymore. So I come at this with a bit more nuanced view. I get the feeling a lot of my colleagues, for better or worse, are entrenched on one side or the other. I really wrestled with this in the past week up to last night. I also will bifurcate the discussion here into two separate items. One is the merit of the tax. I've been adamantly against this for years. I've called into public meetings as a member of the public and now as an elected official who one of the things I take most seriously, if not the most seriously, is our fiscal policy in the city. And as a leader, as an elected representative, I think it would be almost a dereliction of duty to allow taxes to be raised for items that are going outside of our city, when so many people in our community are hurting at a time of inflation, when we saw parking rates that were approved by previous commissioners were proposed, we all sat there, sat up and said, this is not the right Taxes that are going to take $10 million out of our city. And when I talk about what's important in our city, Miami Beach High School, it has a reading proficiency rate of 56%, right. Math rate of 35%. Excuse me if I got those numbers mixed up. If we're going to be raising taxes, which I'd be against in 99% of scenarios, let's put it towards education. Let's put it towards things that have a direct, tangible effect. I'm not convinced that spending more and more money on the homeless issues is a way to solve it. It in my mind, at times, perverse incentives from not to get off track here, but in India from 1858 to 1947, the British Raj ruled and they set up incentives to control a Cobra problem. And they provided bounties where people could essentially turn in snakes And it compounded the problem and throwing money at some of these NGOs, non-government organizations, I believe, really doesn't always solve problems, but almost draws more attention and more need to them. When I look at some of the issues that we've had with homeless, and this isn't to discount the work that's done because there are critical services that incredible people in our community are committed to and make a tangible difference. But when I look at some of the issues that we've had in our city, I ask myself, would more money have solved that? I had a loaded gun pulled on me by a homeless individual in the ground floor of my family's apartment. Would putting $10 million of our taxpayer money to the homeless trust have prevented that? There's a homeless person that raped a young woman on Lincoln Road 2 or 3 weeks ago. Would giving the homeless trust $10 million have prevented that? I don't think s. Feel free to argue otherwise, but the most Putting more and more money towards the non-government organization, and to say that it's going to end homelessness in two years just because we need more money. We're putting $7 million per year already towards homeless services. So without a compelling argument, I'm just not convinced that more money is the answer. So I've been steadfast against that. But the part that really keeps me up at night is, is this the correct path forward? This has been put to the ballot to voters, and I believe wholeheartedly in democracy and like my colleague, I loathe the Citizens United. And I think it's the bane of our democracy, but it's the parameters that we have to operate in. And it would be hypocritical for me to sit there and raise money for my campaign, to send out my slanted mailers to say, well, vote for this, and then criticize others for doing so. So I get that. That's part of democracy. But also we're elected This wasn't something in the state constitution. This is a measure that was voted on by a previous commission to put something on the ballot. Like many, many other things. And I view this as legislators put this on the ballot. Legislators have the right to take this off the ballot. We're elected and we have the ability to do so. This isn't taking away our choice, our ability to be heard. Our freedom of democracy. Elected positions. Right. This isn't in the state constitution. I don't view this the same as sitting there taking away our citizens voices. I see this as a need for us to be bold, to be leaders, and to exercise our true conviction. And one thing I just wouldn't be able to live with is by standing by. Because I promise you, I promise you that would be the easier decision. And that would probably be the more politically savvy thing to That would be the easiest thing to do is sit there and say, you know what, go ahead. I'm just going to sit back and watch. But at a time when every single day I see so many people in our community hurting, hurting members of my family, members of my community, because of the high cost of living businesses shutting down. Right. Despite all the economic incentives that we're trying to provide, small businesses are hurting. And this is hitting small business. $400,000 of gross revenue for a restaurant is not your poppy steak. It's not your carbon. It's the guy that invested his money to open up a burger shop on Washington Avenue. And those are the people that have reached out to me, and I gave them my commitment that I would stand up for them because they said, our business is already hurting. Our staff are already hurting. And to sit there and then impose what will be the highest tax in the state of Florida is not something Taking this off the ballot. I don't view this as a chill to democracy. It kept me up at night saying, you know, we're in the process of putting something to the voters. But this was legislatively driven by a previous commission, even contemplating putting it on the ballot. And we have the ability to take that off. So I appreciate now I leave you hanging all good. I as much as I want to I don't like this tax at all. I do have reservations about the timing of it. And I understand you did it as quickly as you could have as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Suarez, would you be willing to make this into a straw vote so it'll be non-binding? And then it would come back to this commission to vote afterwards? Well, I'd ask the city attorney. I mean, what if this passes? Are we binded because you gave me information before this meeting started saying that if Will to undo. So if you can shed some light on that, the legal, safe, legally safer approach, if this is what this body wishes to do, would be to remove the question from the ballot at this time, if you let it go through and then decide that it was a straw ballot, or you decide you want to repeal the ordinance, there could be challenges that that the city must move forward with the will of the voters. So if the will of the body is not to have this tax, this would be the better time legally to do that. Can you explain that a little more about why we would have legal challenges if we've done straw ballots before? Actually, the 2 a.m. 5 a.m. Alcohol item was a straw ballot, which I always supported the 2 a.m. So it had clear majority on that. We never passed it. Why would why would this be any different than that vote? Because those questions were awarded as straw ballots. This question you were you're indicating you want to treat it as a straw ballot, which means The ballot is printed and it doesn't include the word straw ballot. It is not a straw ballot. You can't change that from the dais. I'm just I'm trying to grapple with the legal. The legal nuances of. And this is a nice, healthy debate amongst lawyers why there would be a difference in removing the ballot question, but that would not be subject to legal challenges, but converting it into a straw ballot, letting the voters continue to vote. It's a valid it's still a question. Why? Why the distinction? Even if you remove it from the ballot, it's not to say that somebody might not challenge it. I think there will be a we will have a more difficult time defending if you allow it to continue and then wish to repeal the tax. I'll also add, I mean, I'm not saying this would be ideal. We don't know how the vote will go. I think I suspect based on a prior straw ballot, how it will go partly because I think a lot of it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a And politics involved so that you can't get that into a 75 word ballot question. But ultimately, could our commission overturn, not overturn, but could we independently make a decision on the tax? Post the vote? Yes. And that is where I was saying that that could be challenged with more impact than a challenge to the removal from the ballot. Commissioner Suarez. Two things. So the city attorney, when you came to me this morning, you told me that there was new information, that it would be even harder. Can you explain why that would impact any sort of idea that post a election? This would make things more difficult. And after that, I'd like to add one more. I don't know that I could make it any clearer than I just did. I think that once the once the people have spoken, there is a greater likelihood that somebody will challenge and seek to require the city to move forward. With what? I'd like to point out there is precedent for this. I believe in 2016 or 17 we did rescind. Well, not we, but a previous commission did rescind a ballot measure for alcohol sales at 2:00, 2:00. And the same thing happened. It was already on the ballot. People were technically voting for it. Yes. There was a piece of paper and a sign in front of the precincts that says, you know, this, this question is invalid. I'm assuming that once we pass this, this is that's exactly what will happen. But just like look at that for a second. You know, just just look at the issue there. You know, a previous commission rolled back 2 a.m. Alcohol sales. And you know, we're just where does the priority lie on that. So if we're willing to roll back, if we're willing to rescind a 2 a.m. Rollback, you know, it's a no brainer to rescind a 1% tax that's going to be in perpetuity for Miami Beach during the worst economic times that we've seen as far as small businesses and small mom and I understand and I am sympathetic to friendly amendments. Maybe I can make a friendly amendment to say that next year, next year we can put on another ballot measure where we have with the homeless trust, a better negotiated contract, where we have outlined terms on how the money will be received back to Miami Beach and how it will be spent. But to blindly go ahead and just dole out $10 million a year to an entity that has has had a lot of issues as far as transparency goes, as currently issues with the count. It's just a real it's a real dereliction of duty as an elected official. But I am more than happy to sponsor an item to bring this back. Next year where I will myself or Commissioner Fernandez, who's who serves on the Homeless Trust, can put together a ballot question that is more sincere and And end with this commission. The commission that we're standing here that serves the residents. So I'd be more than happy to meet halfway on that. Mayor minor, if that is, if that assuage your your your feelings on the matter. Well, thank you for that. So just the city attorney just to go over this basically three options. We have. One is to remove it right now. Two to convert it to a straw ballot. Or three wait till after the vote and then remove it. Your legal opinion is that our most legally defensible position is to remove it right now, consistent with Commissioner Suarez's item. Well, I wish to clarify. You do not have the option of turning this into a straw ballot. The question is printed and is already out with the voters. So you you have the two options. And actually the third that Commissioner Suarez presented, which I guess is an amendment which is to proceed now and then to return to being a ballot question back in 2026, because these elections can only occur on even years. And yes, to reiterate my prior opinion, I think the there would be a more difficult defense involved if the voters have already spoken, if the election has gone throug. So just I just want to be clear, we could not we could not right now. I thought you were saying it was not a legally defense position, but you're saying now that we could not convert this into a non-binding straw ballot vote at this time? That is correct. You cannot. Okay, Commissioner magazine. Commissioner magazine. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. In a similar fashion, would we be able to pass or amend this legislation that turns this from automatically going to effect that if this passes? So let the vote essentially play out and then it comes the voter or it comes back to the commission to say, then we take a vote on whether to pass this. When we talk about honoring democracy in 2022, there was a referendum question for the community health center that passed overwhelmingly, 62%. And that vote came to the commission to implement it. And the commission said, well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm not sure that what you're asking is, is distinguishable from allowing the vote to occur and then repealing, I mean, you're saying we'll come back and we'll decide whether or not to repeal it. So if you repeal it, then you have the same question of legal challenges. If you allow it to go through, then it's a non-issue. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Suarez, I think at the end of the day, we're going to know where we stand. I think you're going to be the swing vote on this. So I'm going to make a motion to move forward. So I'll, I'm going to support you. I am not pleased to remove this from the ballot at this time. I detest it, actually, that being said, ultimately, and I think you said this, Commissioner magazine, I'll quote you paraphrase. Ultimately, we were elected to make the best decisions for our city and our residents and our businesses and I have been unequivocal every step of the way, whether it be the homeless tax, whether it be the millions that this commission then rescinded to the homeless trust. And by the way, it's not to say that they're not doing good work, and they do things. It's just fundamentally, it's where our tax dollars are best spent. And it's also I think there's also a different view as to how to solve a problem. California has spent more money on trying to solve the homeless problem than anybody, and they have clearly not solved it. So I think this commission, especially this, this literally this commission is on the right track using humanitarian efforts, using millions of dollars of hard working taxpayer dollars to help homeless, but also using our enforcement tools that our homeless outreach and obviously our police. And we keep demanding more. But we're appreciative, obviously, of the efforts because I think I hear from residents a lot of times we get complaints, but also very appreciative that we do not have the homeless issues that that many other municipalities even surrounding us have. So I'm going to support you as as difficult to make the tough decisions. And I do not. Commissioner Fernandez, thank you. This has been such a healthy and robust discussion because this is a very important issue. No one likes taxes. No one likes passing a tax to the community. I don't like us taking away the community's vote while they're actively voting. And you know, we discussed that ad nauseum at this point. I do just want to clarify a few things. You know, it's been said and I think it's very important to be careful with the words we put out there, because it does affect our image and our reputation that we would be the highest taxed community in the state. That's not true. For example, I know that or that Orlando, Orlando is, I believe, 13%. I think they have there's a 0.5% from Orange County. There's a 6% tax from from from the state. There's a there's a the city itself has a 6% tax. So Orlando is about 13 or more than 13%. So that's important to put out there. Another thing that I think should be put out there is that the homeless trust is a governmental entity. Many things have been said here that they're not a governmental entity, that they're a private entity, that they have no oversight. The mayor of Miami-Dade County sits on the trust. The chairman of the board of county commissioners sits on the trust. Other members of the county commission sit on the trust as well. I sit on the trust as well. And Mr. Mayor, if this vote passes with your vote, since you appointed me to the Homeless Trust, a position that I did not want and that I asked your office not to appoint me t, I'm not going to be sad to go in on a failed mission, and I will resign, effective today from the homeless trust. If this if this vote passes. Because I do think that homelessness is a regional issue. If we do want to solve it, we always say we lead with compassion. Well, we're not leading with compassion if we're not creating avenues for housing, we're not leading for compassion. If we're not creating housing for domestic violence victims, which our community is the one leading in the county with domestic violence victims that this tax will help address. We're not leading with compassion. If we are now not creating availability in shelters so that we can place homeless individuals in shelters as opposed to arresting them. And so and so, I just want to be very clear, you know, we're going to pass this motion. And I respect I respect everyone's position because I do agree with Commissioner Suarez. You are doing the right thing. And highlighting disingenuous. Miss leading false advertising, and I commend you for that. And the pack should be ashamed of itself. And the people who are behind the pack. Let this be a learning lesson. People deserve honesty and truth in their elections, and Commissioner David Suarez is actually doing something really good in highlighting the myths truths that are put out there in in the pack. But I don't believe we should be taking away from the voters because there are educated voters out there who know truth from fiction, and we count on their vote when we get elected, and they get smear advertising about each one of us, funded by those same PACs. And we trust them then to use their judgment in a Democratic way. And now we're pulling the rug under them, and we're and we're telling them we don't trust you. Voters of the city of Miami Beach, to make that decision, and we're going to pull that away from you. So, Mr. Mayor, with the passage of this, of this, of this resolution, if it passes, I will be resigning from the homeless trust. I am not going to set out on a failed mission. I think we're sticking our head in the sand. If we think we will arrest our way out of homelessness. It is a regional issue that we need to collaborate with the trust. We need to create availability in our shelters, because that is the biggest issue that I believe we have, and this helps us create availability in those shelters. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to before Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. Yes, thank you for serving on the Homeless Trust. I did appoint you and you had mentioned to me at the time you did. It wasn't a position you wanted, although I subsequently you did say you were happy that I did appoint you. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll. Obviously your your resignation is accepted, Commissioner Rosen. Gonzalez, I think you should nominate Commissioner Suarez. I was just about to say homeless trust. I was just about to offer. You really want to shake it up? I think that he would make a great addition to the homeless trust board. What I would like to point out is with the $60 million in homeless trust funds each year, and with Judge Steven Leifman as sitting on the board and the chair of the Finance committee, why is the Homeless Trust not giving him the operating funds to open that facility that he has created so that we have a place to place the homeless so that we don't have to jail them. That to me is the biggest question because we went to see the facility. He's dedicated his life to building the facility. He got the state of Florida and the county to, you know, to give him the funds. And now the county is going to give operating funds and those funds aren't even coming from the homeless trust. So really, if the homeless trust cared about the homeless, the first order of business for the homeless trust would be to fund the operating funds for Judge Steven Leifman facility, and that is not being done. And that for me, is probably the most egregious thing because that is the only facility that is compassionate, that wants to bring in the homeless. It has a hairdresser, tattoo removal, educational facilities, beds they actually wash the homeless people's feet when they walk in so that they don't feel so, that they don't feel intimidated. And they and they accept medication. And when I saw the tour of this facility, I said, well, why isn't this facility open? This could house 150 people. Could literally take the homeless people off the streets, get them the medicine that they need. It's the actual solution. And yet the homeless trust isn't funding that. I don't get that that to me makes no sense. So let's call the vot. So I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, a second by. A second, please. Second. Favor all in favor of the motion. Say I, I heard Rosen, Gonzalez. Yes. Magazine. Yes. Suarez. Yes. And mayor minor. Yes. So item passes are seven J. We now have to do companion item. I'm going to do the same if it's okay. Moved by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Rosen. Gonzalez. This is on item R5 a be the ordinance commissioner magazine. This is a roll call on the companion ordinance. Vice mayor Fernandez. No. Commissioner Dominguez. No. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Bok. No. Commissioner. Rosen. Gonzalez. So this is this is the companion ordinance to repeal. Yes. Okay. Mayor minor. Yes. Motion carries second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. This is item R5, ab. Okay. Nice light. Morning. Let's city city clerk, can we please call the hotel convention center items? So we are now recessing the commission meeting and starting as the RDA, we are going to do first two items or we're going to do RDA one, which is a public hearing. It is incur indebtedness grant agreement Miami Beach Convention Center hotel and it is a companion item to R7 a, which is public hearing incur indebtedness approved grant agreement Miami Beach Convention Center hotel. These are both public hearings. R7, a RDA one good morning honorable Mayor and Commissioners. Raquel Williams, assistant City Manager the items before you today are seven A or seven B, RDA one and RDA two are a reflection of a tremendous effort. If you're recalling those, let me let me read those two I apologize. So we are also doing that are seven which is joint approved six amendment RDA interlocal agreement and RDA two. Which is which six amendment to the RDA Interlocal Agreement. The first two items are public hearings. Thank you. Mr. Clerk. So these items are a reflection of a tremendous effort to catalyze the development of the convention center headquarter hotel, as you all are aware, in 2018, the city approved a lease and development agreement to allow for the hotel. Since then, the impacts of Covid and the financial markets have stalled the project. And in March of this Year, the RDA board requested that the administration meet with only the Board of County Commissioners, approved a Sixth amendment to the interlocal agreement between the RDA, the city and the county, and they also approved the RDA to incur debt in order to facilitate a grant agreement that would allow the developer to close that financial gap and be able to reach financial closing, and then begin vertical constructio. So staff has met with the developer on several occasions, and we have also coordinated with Miami-Dade County to negotiate an agreement, which the county has already provided approval for. And we are now asking that the city and the RDA do the same and allow for the Sixth Amendment as well. So some of the public benefits negotiated include waivers of the junior ballroom, and that would be for on an annual basis to be divided among the RDA and the county and the city. And so the RDA would have an opportunity to provide the city with access and the county with access. Once the RDA would terminate, all of the benefits would then go to the city. So all of the public benefits that we're about to go through with the expiration of the RDA, the city would then receive those benefits. So there are 20 waivers for conference rooms that can be used on a monthly basis. So if the RDA or the county needed to utilize space there, we could have meetings at the hotel. We would also have a public safety office of approximately 250ft■!S on the ground floor of the hotel, where our police and fire department could utilize the space. There would be 70 nights annually for delegation. So think sister cities delegations. We often have to rely on the private sector to assist us with appropriate rates. This would allow us to have those rooms available. Also, reimbursement of 100 rooms for weather emergencies. So think hurricanes and storms. If we do need to have our public safety professionals or senior executive or administrative staff available in the city, we would have the rooms to be able to do so. The developer is also proposed to have a culinary arts program for Miami Beach Senior High School, as well as a job fair and so those are just some of the public benefits. There are also some financial benefits in the form of participation fee. And I'll allow my colleague Jason Green, CFO, to go through that. Thank you. Jason Green Chief Financial Officer So I'll go through a couple of those items. There is a we negotiated a subordinate participation payment that would start at half $1 million, beginning five years after the opening or stabilization of the hotel, and it would continue for 50 years, escalating at 3% per year. So this would be starting at half a million in the 50th year. It would work out to approximately 2.1 million over that 50 year time frame. We would collect about $56.4 million in payments. Those payments would be split 5050 between the RDA and the county. And upon dissolution of the RDA, which could be between 2036 and 2044, those dollars would then revert to the city. The RDA portion, another element of that would be there's a 2% one time transfer fee on the gross sale proceeds, less debt and closing costs upon an arm's length transaction to a third party. Basically, if the hotel gets sold to another entity at any time during this agreement, we would be getting a 2% back to that to us, and that would also be split in the same manner of the 50 over 50 between the city and Miami-Dade County, the grant itself would be $75 million PA to the developer to complete their financing to get the hotel completed. It would be through a conduit issuer, which is the public finance authority. I did work together closely with our financial advisors. Their financing team, based on the strong financial projections of the RDA. We tried to make that as short a time frame debt as possible. So we're only looking at a five year payback. Our current estimate is around 85.6 million. Obviously, that changes every day based on the markets and such that we have. The 92.5 is an upper limit. We don't think that we will come close to that at the end of the day. And there's also an option that we can cash fund part of that grant at closing, based on the amount of cash available in the RDA. As we close our fiscal year. So in addition to the participation fee, the development of the hotel will allow the convention center to realize its fullest potential. We know that the convention center has been very active this year alone. About 98 events at the close of the fiscal year. And we anticipate that with the convention Center hotel, we will be able to attract an elevated and more curated portfolio of events to the center because we will have those 800 rooms on the convention center campus adjacent to the convention center, adjacent to Lincoln Road and Ocean Drive will be, which will be an economic driver Counn addition to the participation payments over the next 30 years. Note that the lease with the Convention Center hotel is for 99 years, but just by way of an example, over the next 30 years, we can anticipate payments of about $188 million directly to the city. In addition, there will be property taxes, funding that goes to the RDA. We'll have convention development tax as well as resort taxes to the tune of about $540 million over the next 30 years. So it's not enough to necessarily just look at the participation fee and the public benefits that will come with the agreement and approval of the interlocal agreement amendment. But to look at the bigger picture of what this hotel will bring to Miami Beach and to Miami-Dade County. Miss Ryan saying that the mayor is not speak, and I'm just going to say, you know, this is such an exciting moment for our city and something that we've been working on for a very long time. This unlocks so much potential for the Miami Beach Convention Center in conventions, high caliber conventions, professional conventions that take us out of the trade show business, and actually attract into our community the high paying visitors that can support the economy. On Lincoln Road, that can support the businesses in Collins Park that can help us achieve the transition in on Washington Avenue and other areas of the city that need the injection of economic activity, good paying economic activity to support the small businesses and the employers of our city. So it really is just a great opportunity to elevate our convention business, especially with the threat of a convention center hotel just up north, very close to us. They are building an impressive center campus, but we're going to be able to compete in that market now because we'll have the adjoining convention center hotel and our iconic beaches to complement it. So it really is a significant moment for our city, for our economy, not just for the convention center, but it really is an opportunity for our entire city as an economic engine. And I really want to thank Chairman Oliver Gilbert of the Board of County Commissioners and Commissioner Eileen Higgins Higgins for their work on this. I just I just want to ask because there's no money from the city of Miami Beach general fund is going into this. Is that correct? That is correct. And by in turn, we're putting no money into this. But then we have the opportunity now to participate in the $500,000 participation fee as part of this agreement. Is that correct? That is correct. And over 30 years, what is the lease payment amount? I read somewhere it was about 149 million, but I just want to make sure that that's what we're unlocking here. I think the 188 is both a mix of the lease payment and a voluntary surcharge that they're adding on. So 188 million, over $188 million we're unlocking here. And what are we unlocking on property taxes to the city? In the beginning, property taxes will be a little bit low while the RDA is still in existence, but the total on taxes over the 30 year period 543 million. That's to the city. And then there's some county taxes as well. But 543, that's what's going to come to the city over the next 30 years. So we're unlocking $543 million in property taxes to the city. We're unlocking over $180 million in lease payments to the city, in addition to a new participation fee that the city is going to be getting without having to invest a single dollar from the city's general fund, from the city's budget into into this. So this is an exciting moment for our economy in Miami Beach. Mr. Mayor, whenever the moment is right, I'd like to make a motion with an amendment to reflect, to make sure that that that we get the city's portion of the transfer fee as part of this agreement. Thank you. This is a good moment. I'll second it. Yeah. I was next, Commissioner Rose. I'm sorry, Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you so much, mayor. And thank you both. Raquel and Jason. And if I remember correctly, and you may have said this, but it was so much information quickly. I remember Commissioner Samuelson, when this went to the ballot for the voters to vote on, included for a portion to go to education and resiliency because program was something that was very important. I believe, in the initial lease agreement with the city, that the city determined how the revenue should be allocated. And so I believe that is correct. Thank you. And Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. Yes, I had one question when we reopened this agreement. Now, is there a certain time, is there a time limit on when the convention center needs to be built? Yes. So this is not a reopening of the lease agreement. This is a separate agreement with the RDA and the agreement stipulates that nine months after execution of the agreement, that the developer needs to break ground or start construction of the hotel and so the developer is fully aware of that. And they are here today to provide any additional details on the schedule. Okay. I wanted to write some of this down. You know, as you walk around the city, you're seeing that our sidewalks are empty, the storefronts are vacant. The freeze closed yard has closed, sushi garage closed, LA dairy closed. TGI Fridays closed. Chotto, matte juvia and Sorbillo, a pizza place. Our tourism taxes are currently down by how much this year. Jason I think we ended the fiscal year year over year, 3.5% okay as of October. But if you speak to people in the streets, they would tell you that hotel room rates are low, vacancies are high. There's worries that we're heading into some sort of recession. Meanwhile, you know, I watch these other communities flourishing. And I think our biggest problem is the fact that, you know, we're not going to compete right now in terms of luxury goods with the, you know, the design district. We're not competing with Wynwood for the cool, you know, to be cool. What we have right now left in Miami Beach is our convention business. And the fact that we haven't been able to fire this up with the hotel is disappointing. And I think it's really hurting our economy. You can see that with the restaurants closing and, you know, and our hotel rooms not full, I worry that it's going to be higher than 3.5% like you're stating right now, Jason. And that could cause a significant issue in in our budget. So I'm okay with this. I was not happy at the beginning with such a large grant, and I did want a percentage, but I understand the need for this hotel. If we can book these massive conventions, we really need to get this hotel built in order to fill the. How many hotel rooms do we have right now? We're close to 23,000. About 21,000, 21,000. And how many additional rooms in the pipeline right now? Like an additional couple thousand, right. If you include that, we think about 3000 might be in the pipeline, but then some will come offline for renovations. And you know, buildings sometimes come out of service. So, you know, one thing I would like to remind everybody of you know, as we take this vote today and as we say, you know, we don't want transient uses. You know, we only want residential uses is the fact that we have the most massive tourism infrastructure in the entire state of Florida, possibly apart from Orlando. I don't know if Orlando has overtaken us in terms of convention business at this point. I don't know what their business is versus ours. Do you know that number? Well, they they have about 3 or 4 headquarter hotels adjacent to their convention center. So they're pulling in business. But like how much are they doing compared to us in terms of like overall revenue and conventions? Oh, they pull in more than we do for sure. They've really grown their convention center busines. It's booming. I was actually there this past weekend because mangoes, which we have on South Beach, was opening a new restaurant there, and it was amazing to me to see everything flourishing around the convention center and how Orlando has seriously embraced the convention business at this point, we have no choice but to move forward. Given the $700 million investment in the convention center, the fact that our businesses are seriously suffering and as a body, a lot of our policies. And I want you to think about this moving forward, are taxing our businesses more. Thank goodness we just repealed the tax that we had right here, banning things, closing hours and I think that instead of all of this banning, banning, prohibiting, what we need to do is encourage and incentivize. So I just think that the most important thing that we can do at this very moment is, is vote for this. I'd like to say to David Martin, the developer for this project, 75 million is a lot of money. We want that hotel built and we need to build as quickly as possible. How long do you think it's going to take? If it takes nine months to get the shovels on the ground, how long to build the property? 28 months, 28 months. Okay. The sooner the better. Commissioner Bart, as soon as it's appropriate. I'd like to second the motion. I am very excited about this. This has been a very long time coming. It is long overdue. And I think we all, regardless of where we all started on the convention Center hotel years ago when it was a discussion item among activists and residents, it was a ballot item. Anybody who is in town. Two weeks ago, when the Adobe Creative Conference was in town and had that that building rocking and rolling and had the entire city buzzing with people spending money in our restaurants and our our nightlife and on our beaches and had creative pop ups all over the place. We need this yesterday. And David, I know you've got a bunch of fish in the in the mix. My metaphors here irons in the fire, let's say. But this this needs to be brought online in the best possible manner. The highest quality. And you know, no mistakes, full speed ahead because it is going to add so much to our city in countless ways, not just those enumerated financially which are critical, but in terms of helping out the businesses that that have been suffering. You know, after Covid et cetera. This we need this and let's get it going. Yes. There's no question this convention center hotel is a game changer for our city. I addressed it in my remarks yesterday at the CVB annual meeting. It's kind of the buzz going around about the hotel and the county, and I acknowledged Chair Gilbert from the county, who and they approved it. So I'm a yes, but I just want to say a couple of things. Get it on the record. I spent most of my time when I met with staff, city staff about this, asking this question, do we have the protections in place to ensure that this hotel gets built in a timely fashion, and that we can't move the goalpost because I personally am very disappointed that this passed in 2018. And here we are, six years later. And now we're we're we're coming up with the 75 million RDA money. And the question I'll ask and I'm going to pose it to you again. Is there something more we can do in this contract to make a fool proof? I'll give you an example. You mentioned the nine months after execution. They have to break ground. Are there is there a carve out for that? For potentially if they couldn't get the proper financing, I believe they have it in place. But if they couldn't, does that null and void that nine months. So the county has been very particular about that provision. And they too are very concerned about the timeliness of this project. And essentially there there is no workaround to my understanding around that nine month criteria. So they need to commence construction between the execution of the agreement and nine months time. Otherwise it's void. Okay. I was just just checking with them. So obviously the foundation work is already is permits are in and the vertical permits are ready to go just pending a payment that they have to make. So that would be really the biggest impediment if anything was going to get slowed up. So we don't anticipate that. Well then I'll turn it to Eric, our city manager, to address what Jason just mentioned about the permits. And is there anything else in this contract you would want to see in this agreement that would ensure that this hotel will be built timely, in accordance with these dates that we're hearing? So the underlying lease agreement, which was executed, you know, four years ago, has certain provisions in it that protect both the city and the development team, in effect. And, and we've got the nine month provision in the grant agreement, which I think is appropriate. I'm hoping that's going to happen sooner than the nine months, because we'd all like to see this hotel done and open as soon as possible. But I think that we're in a good place. I think that obviously we've got a committed developer. They've got more than $20 million of their own money already in the property, and the fact that we're coming to the table with the grant agreement, and they're going to be coming to the table with more than $500 million of private equity. I think that this is going to be a win win. Okay. So you should know everyone who's listening, but even David Martin, I'll say it straight to you. I actually was throwing out some ideas to strengthen some of these timelines. One of the things that I am not doing, it is I was informed by our legal department that if we did that, we'd have to go back to the county to get their approval. And obviously I didn't want to delay delay the process. So we're doing that. I will give you a compliment, David. And part of this, obviously, it is so important to our city and but you've been straight with me always. And you said to me straight out, this is going to get done. And I believe you and I and I take you, I take you at your word and also you, you put together a beautiful product. When it's done, it's going to be it's going to be world class. So let's, let's get this done. And but obviously the timelines are important. I think you're hearing it clear cut here. We don't want any any disappointments. Mayor, if I may I think you just made a really good point there that the agreements that are set up, that and the interlocal agreement are set and were approved by the county. So as you mentioned, there's any kind of substantial change outside of a, you know, dotting an I or crossing a T on the grain agreement, it would be required to go back to commission, because I believe and the city attorney can chime in if I'm off on this is then if there were any changes made to the grant agreement here today, then the local would then become null and void. And I didn't mention the part of that in our local agreement. I know we talked about it at Ferc and the commission approved underwriters. We are refunding to about $250 million in RDA debt and the RDA. This RDA Interlocal amendment allows for that. So any delay, if there was a change to it would go back to the county would also delay that refunding. And we're up. I'm up against a December 31st deadline based on some documents, some information that's in one of the amendments to the existing or local. So if everything goes today as it is that we'll be able to also start working on that refunding. Thank you. Okay, I'll one final question and I'll ask this to the city administration and also to David and his and his team. Is there anything else that you think that you need? Do you anticipate coming back to the commission for anything before this hotel gets completed? I hope not. No, sir. I love that. Thank you. We got that on tape. Right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, Commissioner Fernandez, vice Mayor Fernandez, thank you. So with a motion on the table, I just wanted to make sure that it reflects that the city is exercising its right to get its portion of the participation of the of the transfer fee, which, by the way, the transfer fee is one of the things that was added to this agreement, which was not part of the original agreement. And this is a 2% transfer fee that right now is shared between the RDA and the county. And the county has given us the opportunity to get that at the city, instead of it going to the RDA. So I'd like to make sure that the motion on the table reflects that amendment to the agreement. So if I understand, you'd like to make a motion to amend the motion on the table to specifically incorporate into the agreement that the city will take its portion of both the annual fee and the transfer fee, and any other benefits that are currently being split between the county and the RDA, that the RDA will come to the city. We will amend the motion accordingly, and I believe the vote, it's a public hearing and I have someone from the audience. Wayne, go ahead please. You have two minutes. Let me just say that I have no financial interest in the city that I know I have spoken to David about this project, and I trust the man I've come to go from antagonist to supporter, and that I really believe this is a game changer for Miami Beach, not just because of the convention center, but I understand the meetings and convention business. I did the circulation for the for 80% of the of the conventions worldwide through my marketing company over my lifetime. And what this presents us is not just the 800 million in taxes, but billions in economic activity over the next 30 years. It is a win win, and he needs that 75 million to go forward. And it's been stuck in mud for too long. And I, I want this to go forward. I will give this advice to the city that there's competing forces. Right. There's the Lowe's, there's Fontainebleau. And now this hotel. And they're not going to talk to each other very well because they're competitors for meetings, for hotel rooms. And so I want the marketing department to really come up with a business plan to engage that community that puts on meetings and conventions effectively independent of the county's efforts. And really write down, like, how are we going to get to that audience? How are we going to bring them into the city? And that's the biggest thing that the city could do right now, planning out 24 months from now. Thank you very much. Yes. Hi, Daniel. Giraldo. Oh, sorry. Okay. Oh, okay. Hi, everyone. Daniel Serrato with Miami Design preservation League. So I was in another life, involved in a few of the ballot questions that did not pass for the hotel. And I will say that this project has gotten better and better each time. Personally, I think if the 1 in 2018 had been built and opened around the time of Covid, we may have actually had bigger economic issues with an empty 800 room hotel. So I think everything happens for a reason and I'm excited for this to move forward. I wanted to echo what Commissioner Bob said about the Adobe conference was amazing, and I hope we have more of those and also just wanted to mention that we have those Enzo Gallo murals that are looking for a place to be restored. So possibly in the future they could go in the convention hotel. So thank you. He's right behind you. There's no one else in zoom and no one else in the audience. If we can close the public hearing, please, Commissioner magazine. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for recognizing me. First and foremost, I would like to thank our partners at the county, notably Chairman Gilbert. Our own representative that represents the area Commissioner Higgins. I know they were integral, as were the other county commissioners, in supporting this. Very excited to help facilitate this. Moving forward. It is time in Miami Beach. And one of the things that's most heartening about this new commission up here is we are unafraid to embrace greatness. Right? We are unafraid now to sit there and be proud that we have $2.5 billion of investment along Collins Avenue. We are unafraid to say we should be the preeminent destination for attracting the world class conferences across the entire world. Here in Miami Beach, so I couldn't be more proud to support this. I will say that that this is just one tool in the toolkit. I'm hoping that we don't just sit here for the next 2 to 3 years, and thwart progress in other areas in anticipation of this convention center coming on. Right. We need to restore our full time residential population because while it's great to have world class conventions, Miami Beach is so much more than just being a one trick pony, right? We have so much more to offer the world. So I view this as one tool in our tool kit to truly becoming the best community and city in the entire country. To live, to work, to visit, to raise a family, to come for conventions. And I'm very proud that this is going forward, proud to be part of the team behind it now. Thank you for saying that. And I've actually personally visited multiple establishments, mostly restaurants, bakeries and literally every part of our city South Beach Mid-beach North Beach. And when I've gone and I don't go announced, I just show up. They've been packed and there's a lot of high end, a lot of high end businesses coming here and want to be here. It's one of the reasons why we keep pushing our city and our city manager to get the permitting process moving swifter. I'll even Lyle Stern is you can he can rattle off all the amazing establishments that are coming to Lincoln Road. There's a lot of exciting times ahead. Unless anybody else has anything to say. I love the idea about the Ansel Gallo murals, and I would like to incorporate into my motion urging the developer to consider that as part of their property, as an urging. No, no, I'm kidding. Without making it part of the motion, I'm urging him to consider it. That's fair. That's fair. There you go. Let's call a vote. So this is on day one, as amended. I have a motion from Commissioner Fernandez, a second by Commissioner Bart. All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye aye aye. Motion passes seven zero. Commissioner Higgins is absent. May we do our day two? Yes. Same maker of the motions. Yes. I'll move the item. So motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Bart Sda2. All in favor? Is this the moonlighter item? Oh, yes. Yeah. So moved. So? So motion from Commissioner Suarez. Second. I mean, a motion from Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. All in favor? RDA two. Aye. I motion carries seven zero. Commissioner Higgins is absent. Are we going to do the remainder of the RDA items, or you wish me to go to the companion items in the regular commission meeting? I'll move the remaining of the RDA agenda. So just for the record, Commissioner, Commissioner Fernandez is moving RDA item three, which is joint award RFQ 2024 005 and Economic Development Consultant Services for joint Approved Lease agreement with Moonlighter fab lab, 1661 Pennsylvania Avenue five. Extend Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce lease 116th Street and Sixth Amendment number two lease with Open Vision One, LLC, 1560 Collins Avenue. Do I have a second on all items? Three, two, six. Favor of approving RDA items three, four, five and six. Please say aye. Aye. Motion passes seven zero. Commissioner Higgins is absent. The companion items for we are now concluding the RDA meeting. We are recessed. We are now reconvening as a city Commission meeting. We had two joint items on the hotel matter. R-7a. It is joint and current debt approved grant agreement. So r7 a as amended moved in second motion by Commissioner Fernandez, as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Suarez on R seven A1. All in favor, please say aye. Hi. It's approved. 70R7B. May I have a motion moved? Second motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. All in favor of R7B, please say aye. Aye. Motion passes seven zero. This is an R naught, if I may, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Clerk, NBC one is joint with RDA three. If you could do that. Sure. Thank you. Give me one second. So this is the North where we're now reassessing as the city commission meeting, reconvening as the North Beach community Redevelopment Agency meeting. If item one is award, it's a joint item award, RFQ 2024, Dash 005 and economic development consultant. May I have a motion on on North Beach CRA one? I'll second Commissioner Botts motio. I'll take that as a yes. So I have a motion from Commissioner Bot on CRA one, seconded by Vice Mayor Fernandez. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion is approved. Seven zero. Commissioner Steinberg is absen. Thank you so much. We're now reconvening back as a city commission meeting. Commissioner Rosen. Gonzalez, you have an R nine AB discuss update on the convention center hotel. Is there anything you want to add? No, I think we covered it. Great, great job. Excellent. David, come on up. All right. I just want to tell you a few things. David Martin 33 130 310 Mary Street, Miami, Florida. I just want to say you have my firm's commitment. You also have Turnberry, my joint venture partner. Who's here? You have their commitment and you also have Balfour Beatty, our general contractor's commitment. We're all here, and I just want to thank you. Your staff, specifically Raquel Williams. Eric Carpenter, Jason Green, Rick Dopico, your entire staff has been amazing to work with, professional and difficult, but very professional. But thank you so much guys. I really appreciate it. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Okay. We got two significant items under our belt. Let's go to second reading items R5 B. So R5 be mayor is an ordinance of the mayor and city commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending Miami Beach Resiliency Code at chapter two entitled Administration and Review Procedures, article one entitled Land Use Boards, section 2.12, entitled Planning Board at section 2.1.2.2, entitled Membership and Appointment. Section 2.1.3, entitled Design Review Board at section 2.1.3.2 entitled Membership and Appointment and section 2.1.4 entitled Historic Preservation Board at section 2.1, 4.3 entitled Membership and Appointments on section 2.1.5 entitled Board of Adjustment at section 2.1.5.2, entitled Membership to amend the requirements for the Architect and Landscape Architect categories as applicable, and providing for codification Repealer, Severability and Effective Date. This is a second reading public hearing. The item requires a 5/7 vote. It is item R5 b Commissioner bot that is the longest title for the shortest item since its second reading. I'd like to just move it second. Tom, unless you have anything that needs to be added. It's a public hearing, so give me one second. I see no one in the audience that I need to open my zoom, and I see no one in zoom. So if you would like, I can call the vote. If there's no discussion. Commissioner, we can all learn from your brevity. Thank you. Boy, that's a sentence I never thought I would hear. That's an oxymoron right there. Next up, Alex, vice mayor, you're next up for that one. I know. Right? Yeah. Let's call the vote. Go. Commissioner Suarez. Yes, Commissioner Dominguez. Yes, Commissioner. Rosen. Gonzalez. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes, Commissioner. Bok. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. The item is approved just for the record, that was Commissioner Bot and seconded by Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Our five C. R5C is in order to the mayor. City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the code of the city of Miami Beach. So part B, entitled Miami Beach Resiliency Code, chapter two, entitled Administration and Review Procedures. Article one, entitled Land Use Board Boards at section 2.1.2 entitled Planning Board at section 2.1.3, entitled Design Review Board. Section 2.1.4, entitled Historic Preservation Board and Section 2.1.5, entitled Board of Adjustment to establish a requirement that any individual appointed to serve on a Land Use Board must complete an architectural walking tour in Miami Beach and providing for codification, Repealer severability and an effective date. This is item R5 c this is a second reading public hearing. The item requires 5/7 vote r5 c Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. First and foremost, I would like to thank George Neary, who gave me this idea. He and I, we firmly believe in educating the people, making the decisions about our historic districts. And sometimes people get appointed to these boards and they aren't even familiar with some of the history. This will require these walking tours that I think are so pivotal of both North and South Beach, and I'm really looking forward to it. I know, Daniel, you're here. Would you like to say a few words? Yes. Thank you. If I may be recognized. Daniel Serrato with Miami Design Preservation League, thank you so much for this idea, George. My predecessor and all of you. We continue the work to preserve, protect and promote. I did want to make it clear that we are not charging for the tours. So this will be no cost to the members. I don't know if that was in the document, but we just want to make sure that that is clear and we've set up the process already. Several of your aides have already taken the tours, and we're looking forward to giving them to more folks. I, I had a couple of questions. Thank you. Daniel, if we need transportation for these tours, can the city arrange that for the land use members so that I would love to actually be invited on these tours when the land use members take them? Because I think that you're going to see a big shift in how we're voting and how we're treating our historic districts. Once people, you know, take the tours and understand better, or are the tours, they're just going to be regular walking tours, or will we be on a bus? We'll just and I'll let Tom answer. But just so you know, what's been happening is folks are contacting us and saying, when can I take a tour? And so we've been saying, just whenever you want, but maybe we could do like both, like we could have a group tour that might have to be I don't know if that's sunshine or not, but I've noticed some of the folks, they want to just take it on their own time. The good news is we offer the tours every day and so. But we could do either way. Commissioner, I would love the opportunity to walk these districts with the members of our Planning board, Design Review board, Historic preservation Board and have these conversations in a sunshine meeting so that, you know, so hopefully, you know, it will shift opinions and just educate. I think it's positive all the way around. Commissioner Bart, I think, wanted to say something. Commissioner bark. Yeah, I love this item so much. I think it's long overdue. And I can't believe nobody thought of it before now. So good on you. I wanted to make a very minor friendly amendment. If I could, which is in the language it says a tour of the Art Deco district and or the North Beach Historic District. Mimo something to that effect. I'd like it to be. And not. And or there are two very distinct parts of the city with very distinct heritages and needs and issues, and concerns. And so maybe that means it's two separate tours or one longer tour. But I think we can't have people well informed about one part of the city and not about the other. I'm fine with that amendment, and hopefully we can knock the tours out in one morning instead of requiring two separate tours somehow cover South Beach and then take everybody up to North Beach. And hopefully each time we do these tours right around when we do the appointments, you can invite the members of the commission to and make it a sunshine tour, because I think that communication is key, and I think that it's a huge it's a huge curve. I believe from when you start serving on a land use board and, and, and because you, you really don't understand our historic architecture or preservation until you start to see case by case basis. So hopefully we'll all join in on the first tour this coming January. When do we appoint all the land use boards? December. Usually in January. You could appoint in December because their terms technically expire on December 31st, but in the past the commission has usually made those appointments in January. Okay. So hopefully we'll do our first tour January or February. And with that, I mean, I would move the item. I'll second the vote. And for the record, this is a public hearing. I see no one else in the audience, no one else in zoom motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Bart, Commissioner Bart. Yes. Commissioner. Roseanne Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes, Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Vice mayor. Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. The item is approved. That was. Item R5CR5FR5F. R5F is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Miami Beach Resiliency Code, chapter two, entitled Administration and Review Procedures article five Rezoning and Development Approvals at section 2.5.5, entitled Development Approvals under the Live Local Act to establish administrative fees for the review and approval of developments pursuant to the Live Local Act, including section 1.6, 6.04151, subsection seven, Florida Statute, and by amending the City Code at appendix A fee schedule to provide for administrative fees for the review and approval of the developments under the live Local Act and providing for codification, repealing of ability and effective date. This is a second reading. Public hearing. The item requires A57 vote. It is R5 f point of order. The item is advertised for 1030 oh. It is oh, it's 1125. Oh my God, the day is flying! Oh my God, where did the day go? Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez. So I thought I would share. There was a very telling slide as the chair of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, we do a regional zoom twice a year, and they put up a slide on live local acts. And it was a slide of the state of Florida. And what you could see was of the 45 live local projects that have been filed with the state of Florida, 28 of them are in Miami, six of them are in Miami Beach. So 13% of all live local acts statewide are here in Miami Beach, and 66% of all live local acts are here. And right across the bridge in Wynwood and the Design District, which I found kind of interesting. So as we embark on this and hopefully nobody's moved forward in their state filings, correct. We've only received the six applications. Or is it more at this point? It's the six, but they have not been deemed complete as of yet. Okay. So none of our applications are complete, but when they are complete, this is a fee schedule of four hearings and how we will charge them. I don't think I don't think we're going to get a lot of live local projects simply because I don't think you can build workforce housing on Miami Beach. It's very, very difficult even when, you know, I was looking at Collins Park with Servetus before, I know that this has to do with fees. But I wanted to mention this. I was looking at our Collins Park project where we gave the land. We gave $10 million. And have you guys seen what it looks lik? I don't think I think it's really I don't know how we got that product, but even with the subsidies, okay. And free land, what we got is really unsightly. I would not want to put I would not want to work with that company ever again. But you know, so I don't think we're going to be a target for live local. But if we are, this is just a fee schedule for it. I don't know if any of you have any comments, but I would just move the item. You know, second. Okay. Commissioner magazine, maybe this is directed to the city attorney or city clerk, but the city of Miami is going through a high profile live local application right now, I believe, on one of the former Sears buildings down in the Coral Way or Coral Gate neighborhood. I was watching their city Commission meeting. I am a glutton for punishment. If you ever want to feel better about us up here, watch the City of Miami. I say that somewhat in jest, but I believe one of their commissioners, Commissioner Reyes, plans to go to Tallahassee to talk about perhaps even don't want to put words in his mouth, lobby against the live local act. But if our legislative aide Peter is talking, if there are certain changes that we would like to see in Miami Beach, maybe we could do so in conjunction with the city of Miami, as it seems like they're engaged here. That would be a good suggestion. So I move this to second call the vote motion from Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Dominguez. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. Yes, Commissioner. Bok. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Vice mayor. Fernandez. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion carries item R5. F is approved R5 z. R5 z is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending chapter 70 of the code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, entitled Miscellaneous Offenses by amending article one entitled In General, by amending section 71 thereof entitled State Misdemeanors, by adopting through specific reference to state law, misdemeanor offenses of threatening or harassing specified public employees, officers, and officials to affirmatively establish offenses against municipal law for the same acts that constitute such offenses against the state law providing for repealing of ability, qualification, and effective date. This is a first reading. It is item R5, z. Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you mayor. I recently met with the city attorney and with Mark Fishman from the City Attorney's office and with the prosecutors, and asked them for any ordinances that they felt would be helpful in doing their jobs and in keeping our city safe and that's where this item came up. And I'll let the city attorney talk a little bit more about it. Sure. As you all know, we have adopted a series of state offenses as by specific reference into our code to allow our prosecutors to prosecute. If the state attorney is not prosecuting and I will turn to Mark Fishman, who is much well better versed than I am. Yes. Good morning. Thank you all. Yeah. That's correct. This would be adopting two additional state law misdemeanors, threatening or harassing specified individuals and making them city ordinance violations. This would be obviously useful because then our municipal prosecution team could be the entity responsible for these prosecutions. They've been prosecuted. It's not that many of them, but they are important offenses, threatening or harassing law enforcement officers, firefighters, even elected officials. And they've been prosecuted by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office. Previously successfully about 50% of the time. So, you know, they're prosecuting them. And I think we might be able to even do a more effective job on these offenses. So I think this would be a good ordinance for us to adopt and have our municipal prosecution team handle these violations. Thank you. I'd like to move the item. Second, you have a lot of seconds. I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor on the item. Thank you. Thank you. Mark and I and I, and I want to acknowledge the work that you and your municipal, our municipal prosecution team has done. I had, I think, personally brought legislation that our commission approved 6 or 7 different additional offenses. I know Commissioner, Vice Mayor Fernandez has brought. Now, Commissioner Dominguez, your your our prosecution team has has a success rate on convictions of about 90%, which is. Successful prosecution help correct arrest and a successful prosecution. And by the way, that's another element that we don't talk about so much. And we talked about the homeless issue before. We will offer plea deals if people get the help that they need court options, which is does not cost the city anything. So there's so much we're doing besides just obviously enforcing our laws. But also in the spirit of helping people. So thanks for the great work you do. And on the comment about the State Attorney's office, and I think it's recognized their their resources are strained. They have 34 cities that they need to account for. Obviously, they handle all felonies by state law. So to the extent that we can take over misdemeanors and make it a priority that our residents absolutely demand that we do, it makes more sense to have it under our municipal municipal prosecution team. So thanks. Thanks for all the work you do. Yeah. Thank you to our team. Yep. I'll vote yes, sir. So I have a motion for Commissioner Dominguez, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez. Ambassador Fernandez, Commissioner magazine. Yes, Commissioner. Suarez. Yeah. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes, Commissioner. Bot. Yes. Vice mayor. Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Commissioner. Dominguez. Okay. You have to vote on. Yes. I didn't hear it. Sorry. Has anybody ever voted against their own item, mayor? Minor? Yes. Motion carries. It is approved. Seven zero second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. Our five aa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry, Commissioner, I have to apologize. Our five AA is an order of the mayor. City Commission of the City of Miami Beach. Amending chapter two of the code of the City of Miami Beach and administration by amending article two entitled City Commission, by amending section two, Dash 14 thereof, entitled Meeting Procedures and Agendas to clarify that any ordinance or resolution placed on a City Commission agenda with a fiscal impact greater than $75,000 shall first be referred to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Commission Committee and further, to require affirmative vote of five seven of the City Commission for approval of any ordinance or resolution placed on a City Commission agenda by the mayor or city Commissioner that will have a recurring fiscal impact of more than $25,000 per fiscal year and providing for severability, severability, codification and effective date. This is a first reading. It is item R5, AA Commissioner Magazine. Thank you and Mr. Mayor. Also thank you for appointing me chair of the Finance Committee. It's been a learning experience and really looking to start adapting some fiscally sound measures. How do you get to $1 billion budget? Slowly, right. But it happens and it's a lot of smaller items that add up. And it's very hard once a government program is added to repeal that. So I think we need to be very prudent. And some of this comes as a response to our budget meeting, and in particular, the last one where there were just a lot of items that are just kind of added on the fly. And I get that right. There might have been some of mine I can't recall. Well, I do recall there weren't, but I was using that as a caveat. But it has nothing to do with me personally or anybody else personally. It's just implementing sound policy that will live well beyond all of us. I hope, in protecting the finances of our city and, you know, essentially just pointing out things that happened that kind of led to this was just adding very, very large budget items on the fly. And I get that a lot of times at the end of the year, you are up against a timeline. Essentially, what this looks to do, though, is if there is anything that is above $75,000 can't just be added on the fly, it has to be actually added to our Finance Economic Resiliency Committee meeting. I think we went in. Mr. CFO, I don't know if you were around, but where we started at in that let's call it last budget meeting the surplus that we thought we were going to have after items were kind of heard on the fly, reduced it down by several hundred thousand or maybe even a few million dollars. Right. And there were perhaps merits to all of those. I believe that there were. But I think it's prudent fiscal policy to essentially have that heard in the same manner that we would hear items all throughout the year and if we are adding something on the fly that's going to be recurring, recurring year over year, just have slightly higher of a threshold for approval for that, we see it for if we want to add FA, we want to add other things in our city. We have a higher threshold for what gets added. I think the same measures should start being introduced to our budget. I have something else on for reserve policy, but Mr. CFO, anything that I'm missing here or that you wanted to add for this? No, Commissioner, I believe that that summarizes it. And you are correct. I believe it was in several several hundred thousand dollars during our budget hearings that were items that were added, which is the purview of, you know, as I always mentioned, as the purview of the commission. And typical here. Yeah, yeah, typical. And what I'm looking to avoid is just those things being made on the fly, like I said, I'm certain there were merit to all of those, but any other time throughout the year, you have to go through a more rigorous and public vetting process. I'm not sure if during the last budget meeting is providing adequate time for all of us to kind of digest and analyze just kind of line items that are adding a couple hundred thousand dollars to our budget. Commissioner Fernandez, thank you for sponsoring. Not that I'll hand it over, but I'll hand it over to the mayor. Vice mayor, to see where we want to. Commissioner Fernandez. Vice Mayor Fernandez, I just want to thank the sponsor. You know, this is a great piece of legislation. I'm all for these processes that keep us and future commissions in a in a responsible path. So I totally appreciate this this framework. I just have a question like for example, there's times the budget this year we dealt with a budget that had fee increases. Let's say. And let's say at the end of the process, you know, we become aware of a fee increase and we decide, okay, we don't want to move forward with a fee increase. And we want to you know, reverse the fee increase because it's going to yield an impact on our residents. And our taxpayers pockets, but it's also going to yield then an impact on the budget. Does this make does this policy before us make an exception for something like that when we're talking, you know, not an allocation to an outside agency, but internally our our internal budgeting of fees and fines and that type of stuff. Sure. So I can try to answer that. What this item does is it does two things. As as the sponsor indicated. One, it corrects a, a an error. We believe in the code that items having a greater than $75,000 impact. Go to any committee and now it will properly go to the finance committee. But second, any ordinance or resolution that is sponsored and initiated by the mayor or city commissioner. So in the case of, you know, the parking ordinance that was introduced at the September 26th budget meeting, that would be an item that could have recurring fiscal impact of more than $25,000 per year. So that would simply require an affirmative vote of 5/7 of the commission. And let me just ask the city clerk, Mr. Clerk, on that item. Is there a way between first and second reading to find out what was the vote? I'm pretty sure it was unanimous. I think we all we all sponsored that. It was. So when it's something of merit, you know, and that's what I like when it's something of merit, something that is important. This puts an extra layer. But we usually do come together and we come together to support it. I, I support this I think this is great. I think it's good sound policy. It's responsible and it keeps us in a responsible path. But it also thinks about the future. Other commissions. And you did such an incredible job. Commissioner magazine leading this year's budget as a first year commissioner. I'm so proud to support you in this, Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. I'm supportive of this, but here is what I want to warn everybody moving forward. You know, right now I think we have a commission where people are completely open minded on every single item. Right. So and that that's great. But I have served on commissions in the past where you had a voting bloc of three people that always voted together. So let's say that you had some recurring funding item that you wanted to pass. That was $25,000 or like, like I would say, I would move the 25,000 to 50,000 because frankly, you never know when you're going to. You might have had like, for example, in the over the past four years, I could have had a really great funding item, but because of this five seven threshold, I would have never gotten my funding item passed because there were three members of the commission that even if I said, I want to give away free ice cream and rainbows and sunshine, they would have said, no, that's a terrible idea. So while this is while this is wonderful, it could hamstring you in the future if you wanted to get some funding passed, that was very important to you. So what I would ask you is to take the $25,000 threshold and make it 50,000. I don't think that's a huge ask. I think it's I think 5/7 is a high threshold. Many times. So I don't know how you guys feel about that, but that would be my amendment. And I think that protects, you know, protects something that, you know, is important to people and yet so low you would I'll second that. Oh, that's great. Okay. Good. Call the vote. So I have a motion by from Commissioner magazine, seconded by Vice Mayor Fernandez, as amended, with the $50,000 threshold. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes, Commissioner Bart. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Gonzalez. Yes, Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion is approved as amended. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. That was our five double a, and I'll reiterate the compliments to you, Commissioner Magazine, on the great work you're doing. The finance Committee. I'm a little biased since I appointed you, but I think the consensus is and I'll also echo with Commissioner Rosen, Gonzalez said. I think our residents did a great job with our commission. We are open minded, very resident focused. You're seeing it from the from the items on the agenda. Let's call the next item commissioner. It's Commissioner Botts R five AC. Five AC is in order of the mayor city Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending subpart A of the Miami Beach Code entitled General Ordinances by amending chapter 106 entitled Traffic and Vehicles by Amending article one entitled in general, by creating section 106.8 to be entitled permitted Parking, blocking a driveway or Parking space and providing for Repealer severability, codification and Effective Date. This is a first reading. It is item R5, AC. Thank you Commissioner bot. Thank you mayor. This is a common practice in the city as it as it stands currently, but it has never been codified and I don't know that a lot of people know that they can do this. So I wanted to codify it and make sure residents knew that this was an option. As we seek to find more parking spaces in a finite land mass, I'll turn it over to our director of our interim Director of Parking and let him explain the guidelines here. But but the short version is you can block your own driveway, but not somebody else's. You can't impede anybody's sight lines. You have to continue to be neighborly, respectful, cognizant of public safety. But but yes, you can do it without risk. Thank you. Good morning, Jose Gonzalez. Transportation and mobility director and interim parking director. As you mentioned, Commissioner, there are some some conditions, some safeguards that are built into this ordinance in order to minimize any, any, you know, complaints or friction, even between neighbors of residential dwellings, up to four units. Some of those conditions include that vehicles, while they can block their own space, their own assigned space, they cannot intrude into the sidewalk. They cannot block sight lines or, you know, visibility to their neighbors. So if there are adjacent driveways, one next to the other, a vehicle cannot park in such a way as to block a vehicle exiting from the adjacent driveway. Not being able to see oncoming traffic, for example. And that's for safety, for safety reasons. And of course, there are also other stipulations, such as no parking in front of a fire hydrant or a fire connection. Those sorts of safeguards. But this will and the intent is to try to increase the parking supply in North Beach. So by allowing buildings, residential buildings, up to four units to be able to block their own spaces, potentially that can double even the amount of cars that can park at those properties. Yes. So to move it. So unless there's a discussion to be had, I'd like to move it. Commissioner magazine, it's a great item, Commissioner. But when we were going through the North Beach parking, a lot of people said that they utilize this and they felt it was sort of unofficial. So kudos to you for codifying it. I'd love to be added with your permission. As a co-sponsor on this. No, of course. Happy to have you. Call a vote. So the co-sponsor is also seconding it. Okay. Commissioner Suarez seconds it. Okay. Commissioner Dominguez. Yes, Commissioner. Barnes. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Rosa Gonzalez. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion is approved. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th, co-sponsored by Commissioner Magazine. C7 AB. R5 ad. C7 a b as in boy. Okay. Got it. One second. C7 a b is direct city administration to develop a succession plan for the Chief of Police. It was separated by two commissioners. It was separated by Commissioner Dominguez and Commissioner magazine. Well, we'll go in alphabetical order. Commissioner Dominguez, thank you. And thank you for bringing this item forward. I think it is a very important. And since I chair the public safety and Neighborhood Quality of Life Committee, I would love to have the opportunity to have more robust conversation and would like to have this item be a referral to the Public Safety Committee. Commissioner magazine. Yes. Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, thank you for this. I think it's prudent for any organization, especially $1 billion government enterprise such as ourselves, to have key succession plans in all top positions and especially with the chief getting to the top. I believe in two years I thought it was prudent and I think it's a good measure to do so. I believe some of those discussions may already be in the works and happening us at our level. We're not always privy to what's happening at the staff level. So I just invite the chief to kind of give his thoughts. If these discussions or perhaps the city manager, if these things internally are already underway. I'd like to speak for us before we do that. If you don't mind. So it's my item. So succession planning, as you say, it's prudent to do that. I have no doubt that is being done right now. But it's, it's important for us as the legislative body to be involved in the planning. It is other than us up here elected and our appointment of the city manager. No offense to every other directors. All our departments are important, but our chief of police is literally one of the most, if not the most critical position in our city. And really, just like everything else we do, whether it be spring break, we want to be proactive about it. And as the legislative body, we want to be involved in the process. One of one of my concerns that and why I brought this item now, is the way our government system is set up. And I'm explaining this not for my colleagues who know all this. I'm explaining it to our residents who may not realize the city manager appoints the next chief of police, and then brings it to us as the body usually shortly before that transition will take place. It puts us in a very difficult position as a legislative body, because you're now having a person who's being selected, who's probably going to have the votes, and if you vote no, you're going to be working with this person for the next one, two, three, 4 or 5 years with a no vote hanging over you. It makes it a very difficult, and I don't I actually have no basis for saying this because I didn't look, but I'm guessing most of those votes are unanimous. So this was to have us be involved in the process and have input from the solicitor, but also making sure that the transition and every aspect is being looked at. For example, the last two chiefs, including including our chief Wayne Jones, are at in the drop. I won't get into what that means for everybody, but it's basically a process that relates to a pension. But at the end of that drop that that individual must retire. So our last two chiefs, Chief Jones, who will have that in a couple of years, a little less than two years. Chief Clements, we're in that process and that's okay. But the question I had, which is, I think a logical question has, are we are we now in the system where that is the de facto and default position that we're taking? Somebody who's been here 25, 30 years, you may get a great choice. I'm not questioning that. But should we also be looking at other people who may be in the middle of their careers, but are absolute standouts and superstars within our within our administration? Should we be looking outside three Chiefs ago? I'm not saying that's the best move. Sometimes that works out great. Sometimes it actually does not work out great. I've actually done some my own surveying on that, but I think we need to look at every single aspect of the process and also be involved with you, because don't I just don't want. And I've heard the rumors and the percolation of, of a particular name of somebody who may be the next person in line and that person may be great. I'm not saying anything negative, but I'm not rumors of who the next person is going to be without going through that robust process. We just want to make sure that we are we have a great police department. I love, I love police, I have unabashedly have the tremendous, utmost respect for what the men and women in blue do every day. It is not an easy job, especially in this political climate. We're immune from that. In Miami Beach, I actually was talking to I always talk to our offices. Any chance I get. I literally knock on their car windows to talk to them. But one thing I hear, and I'm happy to hear it, is they they they know, they know. The residents of Miami Beach love them and adore them and appreciate them. That is not true of many, many, many cities. Actually, I had this weekend. I had a couple officers tell me that they were actually transferred from other departments, and they did not have people coming over to them. They said people would say hi, but the fact the level of residents who come over to them to thank them, to introduce their kids to, to have their kids who are five years old say thank you, Officer. They said they've never seen that in another city. It's beautiful. It's testament to our residents and what we do. But I give that background on a succession planning item because we are, I am. I'll be the first one to admit I demand I ask a lot of our police department, I do, I'm not going to I'm not going to lie. You see it up here and behind the scenes it's even mor. And it's only because I know how much police can impact and significantly decrease crime and basically intimidate the bad guys. There's no question about that. And that's why I keep pushing, because it's so vital. That's why we have, for example, I'll give one example. It's important to me as our chief and our city manager know, to have police stand out their cars during their shifts. It's still not happening to the level. And our commission passed it. This is legislative policy. And by the way, what I'm asking is when they're at when they're sitting in their cars, sometimes, sometimes they need to be in the car for whatever reason, but just literally stand outside it, literally just stand outside. It's a game changer. I saw it, I'm seeing it in some degrees and our residents love it. I even think the officers like it. I think they appreciate it because they're getting so many thank yous, and I could tell you it is a game changer. I hear our residents tell me all the time when they see the officer. It is, and I'm sure I fortunately or unfortunately, I don't speak to too many criminals, but I'm sure it's a game changer for them as well. So that's why I brought this item, because I want us to consider all aspects, and it's all aspects to make sure we the next that we have that the chief who is going to continue on is obviously going to continue on in the great things we are doing, but also make the changes that this body, our commission, is demanding of our police department or asking whatever words you want to use that I think prior commissions did not ask of our police department. We are asking more. There's no question. But I think that's also reflective. For example, in the collective bargaining agreement, we are giving more. We are we are giving more. We are, we give the best training, we compensate. Well, actually, I was talking to an officer recently. You notice I'm leaving out names, but I want people to continue to give me information. I was talking to an officer who transferred from another department and he or she. I said, why did you transfer? And they're like, the money. The money was great. And she goes, it happens to be okay. I gave it away. It was a she she goes, it happens to be, this is a great place to work and I'm happy I'm here. But that wasn't the consideration. It was the money. The money was better and I took it. So the reason why I this is so important is. And why I want this body to be involved in the succession planning is because we want to make sure we have a chief who is going to affect the rate of change. We are asking our police department to change in ways that they have not done before. I mean, I give the prime example as being outside the car, being proactive, relating to homeless individuals. This this commission has been loud and clear how we expect to handle those situations. So that's why I brought this. I respect Commissioner Dominguez, your your your request to refer it. I personally will not accept that friendly amendment. I would ask this body. I think this is pretty straight forward asking sort of certain timelines that we get reported back to on how the process is going. And I don't think it needs to go to committee. So I'll ask that we pass the resolution as is today. Mayor, let me just hear from Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. I would like this to go to committee for a discussion before we pass this today, because there's some stuff in here that, you know, this shadow effect. I don't really understand what that is, that we're going to embed somebody in the police department with a shadow of a fact. I don't really understand that. So I would like to have a conversation at committee, let them have some conversations with the police department to hear what they think about this and the administration, so that I better understand exactly what this is, because there is a, you know, while the police report to the city manager, they do not report to us as a political body. And I'm not sure that I really want to get so involved. I want to have the best police chief we possibly can. But I also would like to defer and have some conversations before I vote on this, not defer. Just send it to committee. Commissioner Dominguez, thank you. And I agree with that. While it's a city manager that does the appointment of the chief, the only way for the body to committee and have the conversation? I love that this commission, most of the times, every single commissioner attends the committee meetings. And I think it's of utmost importance to have this discussion and the way for us to be involved is to have it at committee. And Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Commissioner magazine. Yeah. I vice chair of the Neighborhoods Committee. And, you know, I think that time is of the essence here. I think we need a succession plan immediately. I mean, how many months do you have through the chair? Just under two years, sir. I just under two years. Just under two years? Yeah. You know, I certainly don't want to be caught off guard in having a selected set of candidates that we may or may not be comfortable with, but I think what's before us today is just have the police bring forward a plan, correct. On succession for the next police chief. I don't see what the what a committee would do for, for to make this. I mean, if we're considering if, if we're if we're uncomfortable about getting mending in the in how the police do a succession plan. And I don't think a committee is the right approach. I think we're just telling them that we need to have a plan sooner rather than later. Commissioner magazine, thank you, Mr. Mayor. My thought process behind actually pulling this was just to facilitate conversation. I actually co-sponsored the item because like I said, it is prudent to have a discussion. I also don't feel the need to overly micromanage this process. Right. My point in having this pulled and discussed was just to be sure, I had a fair degree of certainty, but that was just unconfirmed. I know how well our city is run, so I figured as much that these talks and discussions were already underway. But this was a good way to have this discussion in public. I wouldn't see the need to micromanage or overengineer it at a committee level. I would just like to even if we would have a some sort of recurring every three months, we kind of get feedback to how that process is going. Just so this maintains a continuous dialog. Me personally, I wouldn't feel the need to send it to committee, but I'll, you know, respect the will of my colleagues. Mr. No pressure, Commissioner Fernande. So I have a I have a few questions. This resolution speaks to two plans. It speaks to a succession plan, but then it speaks to no later than 12 months prior to the conclusion of the police chief's participation in the drop. Transition plans should begin. Leadership transition plans. I just want what's the difference? And I don't know if the city attorney would be the right person to explain this or the sponsoring member of the commission or the city manager. What's the difference between the succession plan and then the leadership transition plan that's supposed to begin 12 months before the chief's departure? Is that more appropriate for Eric or City attorney? I don't know where the police chief or the here. I mean, I'm happy to jump in, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. I kind of felt like I was watching somebody talking about me while I'm in the room. Obviously, the city manager's role is to try and put the organization in the best possible position, to move forward with the best possible team. I am extremely grateful that we have the time that we have with the chief. He and I have already started talking about what the future of the department looks like, what plans are being put in place to build the bench so to speak? So that not just for the next chief, but three chiefs from now were ready to have a wonderful command staff, whether it be in house or out of house. And I'll be honest with you, I am still mulling all of that over. I have thoughts on both sides. Obviously having an in-house person who understands all the challenges of the city of Miami Beach is a huge plus. Sometimes you you find somebody out there that's a that's an amazing fit for an organization. And you're looking for something specific at a moment in time and you're willing to entertain that. I haven't gone down either of those paths, and I'm not there yet. But obviously these are conversations that we need to have. I feel that I am very it is very important to me that you all are kept in the loop on hiring and firing decisions. I communicate with all of you before I make any of those decisions, but ultimately, you know, it's rested with the city manager to make those suggestions, and you have to ratify the department heads. So I think there's a robust process and a discussion, whether it be here at commission, at committe, you know, happy to have those continued conversations at whatever moment you feel you need to have information. Thank you, Mr. Manager. So going back to the question that I had on the table, sorry, which was not answered, what what is the difference? I'm trying to understand. I agree we need a succession plan. What is the difference between a succession plan and a the leadership transition plan? That is being that you're being told to implement no later than 12 months prior to the chief's departure. So certainly a succession plan is what I was talking about building the bench, having people that are in leadership roles that are willing and able to step up to the next rung on the ladder as the time comes, that's succession planning, transition planning, from my perspective, is a much more specific talking about, you know, person A will go to position B at this timeline. I'm not there yet. And I think that that's ultimately something that can and probably should be flexible based on the decisions that are made about what the process is going to look like. Ultimately, the process is going to drive a lot of that discussion. Okay. And so I just need to understand, because you are our city manager, this is something that is usually handled by the city manager. Correct. And so it's I understand why the mayor is bringing this because the mayor public safety is important to this commission, especially to this mayor. So this is something our mayor prioritizes. So I understand completely why the mayor is bringing this. I need to understand do what is the recommendation of the administration on this policy before us. So I'll be honest, I've had these conversations with the chief, but I'm not ready to put forward at this moment in time, any kind of transition or or succession plan, frankly, because I've been in the job for three months and I've been hiring multiple other department heads across the city, trying to fill out the organizational chart. It is something that I'm going to roll my sleeves up and get into, but I'm I'm not, at this point in time able to commit to a timeline because I don't know what I'm going to be up against as we get into this further. Okay. So we're adopting a timeline, but you don't feel comfortable with the timeline we're putting here. I'm I'm not able to commit to that timeline today. I would like to be able to look into it further. Yeah. So this is this is exactly the answer you just got, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why I brought this item. This is a constant power play between the legislative body and the city administration. We get along, but that's what's going on right here. This is this is the answers. You're seeing right now. And I'm basically saying that our legislative body needs to be involved in the process. In one of the most important decisions that we're making. And by the way, with all due respect, City Manager. Yeah, you're making selections on other departments. First of all, that don't get the level of magnitude and probing that others do. But you've hired you've hired a procurement director. You've hired a building director. I'm sure they're great. And I met them, but I met them after you've selected them and they're basically going on the commission agenda a few days a week later, that is not the robust process that I am expecting and that I think we need to have here. And that's that is why I am putting these timelines in place, because I am trying to force our city administration to have us be involved in a process in such a critical decision. I want to make sure and I'm not saying the person you wouldn't pick wouldn't have this, but if you look at the drop and I got the I was going to put it up on PowerPoints, but I didn't want to embarrass anybody. It's not embarrassing. There's nothing bad that they did, but it our senior level command staff of the police department is mostly in the drop. They're going to be in a very short period of time of forced retirement. If you fast forward 4 or 5 years from now, when we are probably no longer on this dais, they're going to be a completely new command staff. And our police department. Bye bye. It just has to be because they're going to be in forced retirement and so we need to really critically look at these at these issues and what I'm saying. And I'm not saying the person you would pick wouldn't have it. But I want to make sure that next police chief has fire in their belly to make sure that we make the changes that we are asking our police department to make in a good way. We're great. I keep saying it because we are, but there's more. We can do. I think everyone's acknowledging, I've talked to the chief about it. I've talked to you about it. You're all in agreement with me for example, the police out of the cars, you don't. Nobody pushes back. But implementing it is another story. A little more difficult, a little more challenging. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I couldn't agree more. I mean, look, Mr. City Manager, no offense, but just because you're on the job three and a half months is not an excuse to be to be looking for and planning one of the most important decisions you'll be hiring. I mean, you've been with us for, I think, over ten years. So that's that's not an excuse. And the fact that you know, you haven't had the opportunity to look into that, it's true. I mean, this is why we're bringing this now, I think a timeline of 12 months is more than enough time for you to come up with a plan of action on a succession plan, which is going to which is going to dovetail right in line with with the drop of most of the senior command at the police station. So look, I like I like what Commissioner magazine said. I don't think we should be in the business of micromanaging it. I think we give a directive and to, to the city manager to say, look, we expect this to happen in a timely fashion. We know you have your hands full, but this is a major priority for us. It's a major priority for the city of Miami Beach. Public safety is number one. So I don't think there's anything egregious or, you know, there's any issues with with basically telling our administration that, hey, come up with a plan. And in 12 months, we expect to have a new police chief. I don't I don't want to be in the situation that the last commission was where we're it's at the very last minute and we have no plan. What's to say that Wayne wouldn't wouldn't want to retire sooner? You know, there's nothing to say that he could do that. And he perfectly could. I don't know, I don't know what's going to happen, Wayne, but, you know, if he wants to retire in three months, we're we're. What are we going to say? Oh, well, we need to wait a little bit longer to go to a committee. No, I think we should be moving forward with this as soon as possible. It's public safety. It's number one. Commissioner Bart. Thank you. Mayor, I don't think anybody disputes the public safety is our primary job. I don't think anybody in this room. Certainly not the police department. None of us elected officials. I mean, I've said it to many people on multiple occasions that our first and only real job as elected officials is taking care of our residents and our visitors. So I'm really surprised at the presumption that there isn't already succession planning going on in the police department. I mean, I've spoken with chief. Do you know it? I was just going to finish my sentence and say that I've spoken with Chief Jones and asked him, and he has said point blank that this is something that they are already working on. And you're here. Would you like to speak on that matter? Absolutely. Thank you for the invitation to chat on this matter, Commissioner. The fact of the matter is, even before I became Chief of police, as deputy chief, myself and then Assistant Chief Paul Acosta, who's now my deputy chief, were working on succession planning. The fact that I promoted an assistant chief just recently who have significant time left in the organization, is part of that succession planning. The fact that I just promoted young majors to senior levels of the organization is part of that succession planning, sending a young lady captain to the FBI Academy for senior leadership training. This summer. Part of that training, another major last succession planning. I just promoted a young captain who's got more than a decade left. The organization, training him up to take over a part of the leadership. I'm about to promote two other captains in the coming months young captains, energetic fire in their bellies to continue forward. The continuity of this police department deserves and wants. As part of that succession planning, the City manager and I have had preliminary conversations about this, and obviously we need to have more conversations about this. I'd be happy to provide a written plan of what has been done, what will be done in the future for the organization. I can tell you I've been here almost three decades in this organization. 22 of those years have been in leadership and that once until now, has it been a succession planning in the organization. And so we're well ahead of the game, understanding the urgency of the matter and happy, happy to provide a bench like the city manager mentioned to the future of this organization. If I may please. So it seems like there is already robust succession planning taking place. Maybe, maybe there's just a lack of communication here. And maybe and I'm not making this a motion to defer out of respect for your your position on this mayor. But maybe there's an opportunity for us to take a pause for a second and let you guys put something together in writing that. Then there could be a meeting about or it comes back to the commission to discuss it and then determine if this is necessary. I also have a concern about a transition plan, because I know that when you have two people in the seat of leadership leading an organization, it gets very confusing for the organization. We talked about i. Our former city manager would transition out as our new city manager, our new interim city manager stepped in and, you know, would would Elena stay here and help provide some continuity or would she step back and, you know, and I've been in corporate America and I know that when you have new people coming on to lead, it doesn't serve anybody well to have the former leader kind of hanging around. It sends mixed messages. So I'm concerned about a transition plan. I, I'd like to know more about what a transition plan means to all the parties involved, because if it's having two people trying to leave you know, two chiefs and lots of Indians to use an outdated metaphor, I think that's that's not in the best interest of our collective public safety. So I would toss it back to my colleagues and suggest that perhaps we give the benefit of the doubt to this organization that is already working actively and making steps to put the team in place to lead us through the next couple of decades and then decide once we've had that conversation, if it is something that we need to codify or if we're there. And thank you, chief, for outlining the steps you've taken. Actually, I think it was the first or second meeting that we had after I was elected mayor. I came with this list of high level command staff who are going to be basically in forced retirement. So I'm appreciative of the of the measures you've taken to make sure our department continues well after the current senior leadership has has retired. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we shouldn't confuse the two. The planning that's happening inside the police department is, you know, par for the course for the police chief. That's, you know, that's succession planning within the department. I think what this item is specifically talking about is the chief of police. And from what the city manager has just told us, there has been no planning to date because, you know, he's been three months on the job. So I don't I don't think we should delay. I think, like I said, 12 months is more than enough time. Again, we're all we're doing here is just giving direction to the city manager to start the process that process, whether there's going to be updates to us quarterly. SureBut it basically just tells the city administration, not the police department, to, you know, to make this a priority and give us give us a timeline so that in 12 months we'll we'll have a new police chief to pick from. Commissioner Fernandez and Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to say that you know. I'm disappointed that this legislation was drafted. I know why you requested it. I know why you requested it. Because you take public safety very seriously. And the future of our department, I think the hiring of a city manager, the hiring of a city attorney, and the hiring of the police chief are the things that shape the truly do shape the future of our organization and the direction that we go in. I don't know if this is in our jurisdiction, but the city attorney has opined that this isn't our jurisdiction, and that it's on the agenda. Because of that. And so I'm going to support you. I'm going to support you in this because we do need to plan for the future of the organization. I do think this is something that falls on the city administration, that falls squarely on the responsibility and the jurisdiction of the of the city manager. I think that that is the role of the city manager to be the one setting out this timeline, those those benchmarks. But the city attorney believes that that this is properly before us. And we've all said the public safety is our top priority. And I know how important this is to you, and I'm going to support you in this for the future of our department. I just want to make sure I understand. Does anything here talk about hiring a hiring a company like what we did for recruitment firm or anything like that, like what we did for the city manager? No. Okay. It doesn't preclude it. It doesn't preclude it. But I and I know Commissioner Rosenthal, I just want to address what you what you said where we are giving direction to the city manager that is our purview. That's all this item does. We're giving direction to the city manager to come back and to report with to us within specific timelines. And that is that is our prerogative. And it actually, in many ways, is very open ended to give, to give him the ability to do it, whether he wants to hire an outside firm or not. It talks about potential internal candidates, external candidates. It really gives a wide range, but it it's asking our city manager to explore all avenues to make sure we have the best person to fulfill the very important role. Yes, yes. And I just want to make sure the timelines, Mr. Manager, does the timeline put here in in the one, two, three, four, five and the six were as clause? Does it make it hard for you to select an internal candidate versus an external candidate or vice vers? I'll be honest with you. I'm going to do everything that I can to follow the direction of the resolution, but I've got to be able to do my own internal process. I understand, Mr. Manager. My question to you, my question is a very direct question. Okay. It's a very specific question. Does the timeline in the six whereas clause affect hiring internal versus external or vice versa. So I believe if the six whereas clause is the one that I think it is, then there's a difference between when you would be looking to do that if it were an internal candidate versus an external candidate. I don't know that you would want to have an external candidate coming in for an extended transition period because you would be looking for change in the organization if you were going to go outside and hire an external candidate, what would be the appropriate timing then for something like that? So I'm not in a position to say that today. I need to do more homework to be able to answer that kind of question and have conversations with my police chief to see, you know, how he feels and things that he learned in the transition to that position that maybe he would do differently. Or maybe he thinks that it was exactly what should have been done. I haven't gotten into that level of detail, and I can't answer that question today. And I just want to understand from our city attorney this is directing for there to be a succession plan to ensure a seamless transition. But the timeline here, we're not tying the city manager's hands, are we? Or do we? Does he? Because this is a proposed timeline. So the timeline, we're not imposing this timeline on the city manager are we. The actual operative language in the resolution is the last paragraph. The recitals include indications of what the Commission would like to see. I also want to point out that it talks about no longer, you know, no later than 12 months prior to the conclusion of the drop. The implementation implementation of the plan should begin no later than six months before the retirement. The interim arrangements or a permanent selection should be finalized no later than three months. There should be a final preparation for leadership handover, so the intention is that Chief Jones would stay unless he wants to leave sooner through the end of his drop is just it's suggesting timeframes, suggesting not suggesting timeframes such that everything can be done in a seamless transition and that in that case, then I think I think it's responsible, I think is forward thinking and not crazy that we're legislating to this level of detail because, you know, today we're executing a contract with the city manager or approving a contract with the city manager. And I think we need to trust the city manager to lead this process is the reason why we selected a deputy city manager that's been here for over a decade to guide us through these processes. But, Mr. Mayor, you pointed it out, the response that we got, you know, very open ended response and so for as long as we don't tie the city manager's hands and he has leeway to if it's you know, three months instead of four months or, you know, or vice versa, you know, I'm, I'm okay with it. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. Commissioner Fernandez, you're addressing timelines. But I think that this is not about timelines at all. If you look at the whereas clause from the bottom, there's something the administration will consider incorporating an interim program or shadow effect and begin conducting an evaluation of candidates who will be capable of addressing future. What does that mean? Does that mean that the mayor you're going to embed somebody in the police department and start evaluating candidates? And if you choose to do this, wait, wait, wait, wait. And if you choose to do this, what is that going to do to the morale in our police department among the leadership? What will happen at the top of the command? Why are we going to what is that going to do to overall morale? I just don't understand. If you strike this. Whereas about your this, this eerie shadow effect interim program where you can evaluate candidates, I will support you today as of timelines, but I don't want anyone from this body or especially I mean the administration. Sure, if the city manager wants to go and confer with the chief, fine. But I think that that is a very, very dangerous thing for the morale for, for our leadership team in the police department. And this is not at all about timelines. Commissioner Fernandez, this is a police department, in my opinion, takeover. Yeah, it's not a takeover, but I will remove the warehouse clause just to explain what it is. There's no eerie it. The, the what I envision was similar to what the fire department with Chief Virgil had with Digno Bello. And that was, I heard that term being used. She would shadow him. I mean, you literally saw her with Chief Virgil everywhere, but I'm happy to remove the I'm happy to remove the warehouse clause. Okay. I move the item. I'll second I just one last thing. I if this item is going to go forward, I want to make sure that we incorporate in there that the current leadership and the chief have input on the succession plan, and it's not that they're excluded. Include the police chief in discussions. Another question I had was was was this something to push out the chief? But I'm so happy that the city attorney explained that the chief can stay for his entirety, which was one of the reasons why I wanted it to go to committee to discuss that. And, Mr. Mayor, if I may just I think I think some based on some of your comments, I think people are reading way more into this. That's I mean, that's why this is a legal document and legal words are used. And then I'm hearing all these other pushing out that doesn't say that anywhere here this is responsible governance. Mayor. But on the day you said that let me, let me let me finish this. Let me finish. Let me go. I didn't cut you off, Commissioner. This is responsible governance. I'm actually very proud of this item because we have a responsibility not to allow what? It's amazing when I, when other people speak, I let them speak. And now I'm hearing commentary all around me like fascism. It's. Come on, come on, come on. Yeah, that's unnecessary. So unnecessary. Focus on the issue of fascism. Why would he want to leave with all the fun that he's had? Well, I, I am proud of this item because we, we as a commission have given direction. Are giving direction on. And we do set the policy. We've heard our city manager say it over and over again. I, I heard you say it recently. A couple of times you implement the policy set by the commission and that's all. That's all we're doing here. We're making sure that we have we are involved in the process and we make sure we get the best person. And by the way, it might be the same person who would have been anyway. We'll never know the answer to that by the way. But that's that's a moot point. This is this is responsible governance to ensure a smooth transition and ensure that all all of the best candidates are considered. Mr. Mayor, we have a motion if I just may. Commissioner Fernandez, thank you. I the one one thing that Commissioner Dominguez mentioned that I do have to say I unfortunately I did start to receive a lot of phone calls because I think the community misread the resolution. And I ask when you say community, do you mean within the police department? No. Residents. Our community respects Chief Jones. He has been a longtime member of this department. He's lived in in the city and our residents have a good relationship with him. They trust him. And that's very important in police work, trust. And it's I think as as is often said on this dais and this in this community, Miami Beach doesn't have the challenges that other communities have because they trust the men and women of the Miami Beach Police Department. They trust the chief. They. Trust the leadership and the command staff report as part of this conversation, at least for me to state, I 100% trust Chief Wayne Jones. I think the chief is doing everything in his power to implement the changes. We're asking of him. My support of this, of this resolution is about seeing the future of the organization and making sure that we're not caught in the last minute, but not a reflection in any way. Chief, I hope you stay here to the very last day of your of your of your drop period, because I believe in your leadership, in the turnaround of morale that I've seen in, in our, in our police departments and, and, and I know you're doing everything in your, in your power to implement the directives that we're, that we're passing along. And sometimes we need more cooperation from the union at times. Sometimes we need more cooperation from people on the streets. But I know you're sending the message and you're trying to drive that change. And so I just want it to be very clear. I, as a city commissioner and as a resident of this city, have full trust in you and, and that's part of, of my belief of who you are and, and the direction that this department is going in, you have made a transition. You continue to do it. I need to say that publicly. Thank you for your confidence, Commissioner. Thank you. And I've said this publicly. I've seen a lot of good, a lot of increased police visibility. I acknowledge that. I think we're even asking for more as a, as a commission. And we'll keep we'll keep driving that. We have a motion and a second, can we call the vote on item C7, AB. All in favor please say I, I, I, I just want to make sure it's with the amended removal of the clause as amended. Clause six are removed. So it's approved seven zero. That was C7 806. Where the where I was six the second, the second to last row okay. So second to last. Whereas clause seven zero motion is approved. Great. Why don't we adjourn for lunch and let's reconvene at 115, not 1:00 115. two, one. Welcome back to our afternoon session of the commission meeting. I we have a very, very and I'm going to say three very special guests in the audience today. There's an individual who served our country in World War two who is turning 100 years old today. Mr. Mr. Lloyd Stern, can you are you able to would you rather sit? Down. Mr. Stern was a sergeant in the US military and was one of the members of the Ritchie Boys. And my understanding, I hope I get this all right, but the Ritchie boys were trained in intelligence and went behind enemy lines and used Morse code to relay those messages to the Allied forces, who then used bombing raids to protect our country and literally save Europe. I know you personally, having lunches at Shmuel Sam Maslin's house, who I know is a good friend of yours, and you have a tremendous wit. You have family that came in, Mike, your son Corinne, your daughter in law, and Rebecca, your granddaughter who's here to came and we don't usually do these during commission meeting. But when you told me that you were turning 100 years old and you told me the date October 30th, literally the date of our commission meeting, I think it would be remiss of me, and I hope my colleagues agree not to honor you in a way that you deserve to be honored. And this is I feel like the least we can do for your service. I said, you have a quick what do you want to say something and we should get a do. We have a standalone microphone? It's kind of it's coming. Oh he's he's even running. I don't do you want to. Should we sing Happy Birthday while we're waiting for the microphone. Say to you happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear birthday. Happy birthday to you. I really don't think I would have survived without the community around me. It's an honor to be part of this community. And I want to seriously thank everybody very much for their friendship, for their under tolerance, because I'm not always easy to get along with. But thank you for everything. I never thought I would see this. I don't know what I did to deserve it, but thank you. Thank you. I can tell you, Mr. Stern, you absolutely earned it. And you, you you bring a lot of joy to everyone who meets you. I can attest to that. Thank you. God bless. Thank you very much. We are now well, this was part of the sutnick our that was our three minutes for Mr. Stern's happy birthday. Does anybody else want to want to speak? Can I jump in? Sure. I say Happy birthday to. I'm Howard Herring from the New World Symphony. I, I know that you guys are going to cover later on today. The issue of the replenishment of the Florida State funding that was withdrawn. I just want to because I'm not sure what my afternoon is going to be. I just wanted to have two seconds to say what I think could be a solution to all of this, I hope, is a solution we know that a vibrant city has a vibrant culture and that's what we are developing. We know this is a one time only circumstance. I think that's important to stress. And if we can maintain our momentum, which this funding will do, it will be to the benefit of the citizens of Miami Beach and South Florida and to all of us here. So I urge you to think of it as a one time move and full funding. And let us keep let us keep going. The public private partnerships that we formed, that's my message. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners Daniel Giraldo with Miami Design Preservation League, I just want to echo the sentiment of Mr. Herring that our cultural anchors rely on funding, in part from the state. It was vetoed last year. And through the vision of this commission, it was approved to do a one time stopgap taking out of the 40 million in resort tax reserves that have been built up over the years. We know it did get pulled this morning from consent, but we are hoping it will be discussed and hopefully move forward at that amount. We really needed the general support is so critical. Obviously we're a cultural anchor, but there are other ones like, well, if Sony and Jewish Museum, FIU and so many others. So we know that it's not a big ticket item, it's not $95 million, but it is important for us and we hope that you'll get to it and hopefully we'll have your support today. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Sarah de Los Reyes, sunset Harbor Neighborhood Association I just want to make sure you everybody here in the commission understand. And we know that Sunset Harbor does not have entertainment. And we have establishments that want to come in to Sunset Harbor, or they're there today and they want to put the piano or DJ or something like that. You know what we said we didn't want into entertainment in Sunset Harbor, and it should be it should obey. I mean, we told Harbor Club not to have entertainment. We told him, no DJ, no violin, because that's the definition of entertainment, no piano. That's the definition. And now brand new club that is going to be open to the public. And also, you know, to people who pay the $5,000 for the club. So I just want to make sure everybody is clear, because what I'm going to do then I'm going to bring it back to planning so they understand what the rules are in the ordinance in the neighborhood. Just want to make sure you all are aware. Thank you. Thank you. I like the orange. Hello. My name is Rabbi Yaakov Burstein. I'm the owner of a, the only Jewish all boys school in Miami Beach called Greater Miami. And I came here to show respect to this extraordinary individual. Mr. Lloyd Stern. I brought one class up, several other classes downstairs, and others that couldn't come. I wanted to bring actually, as much as possible. Every single Friday, I take my own son, Yitzchak. Every week we visit Mr. Stern and we get to hear his wisdom, the life experiences. He's truly a remarkable individual who, as the mayor said in some way, had a huge amount of World War Twos winning of the United States and the allies that we're all here, that we have freedom in this country and the city, everything. He has a huge piece of that, which is unbelievable, and we want to wish him that. We'll be here at 101, two, three all the way to 120 to celebrate it every year. Here, together with good health and happiness. And we love you here and we love you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi everybody. My name is Brenda Lagrange. I have been in business on Lincoln Road with Sparky for the past 20 years and recently had a problem with Miami Beach, and I have to thank the three commissioners I approached everybody, I sent everybody an email. Kristen, Joe and Tanya were the three that responded to me. So thank you very much. And so in March or April, they closed me down for 64 days because I didn't have a BTR, I didn't have a notice. There was no notice put on the door. I wasn't emailed, my accountant, didn't tell me. Anyway, it took me 64 days because I didn't really know what to do. I'd never been in the situation before and I paid it all. I think it was about $12,000. Everything had to be paid in order for me to get my BTR. It was paid and when I went to renew the BTR in just before September 30th of this year, they said, oh, I'm sorry, we can't issue your BTR because you still owe the $3,500 fine. I went, oh, if you don't pay the fine, we'll close you down again. There was no notice, nothing posted on the doors. Just all of a sudden a bogus $3,500 fine appears. So I don't know what Miami Beach City Hall is trying to do. If you walk down Lincoln Road, there's many stores that are closed, many desiguales just closed. That's a chain locker closed. That's a chain we. Miami Beach City Hall needs to be able to work with small businesses. I have 14 employees. They all rely on me to feed their families. And I would like to stay open. I cannot stay open and pay the $3,500 I've already paid 12. So I would like some help from the commissioners. I would like to. If you just email me, we can we can take this up offline. We'll figure out a way to perfect. Come and see us guys. We've been open 20 years and a lot of locals come in and all the snowbirds come in. So I'd like to see you all. Thank you. Mr. Manager. If I may. My aide Monica responded to Brenda and copied Sasha Gonzalez and Manny Marquez to look into a solution for this. So if we could follow up on it because I, you know, it is a legitimate concern. Businesses are closing. We need to help these individuals and so my aide sent an email to your office last Thursday after we received this. And Brenda, I responded to you as well. The ladies, not a lady. Can I can I ask a question of the city mayo? Is it possible to waive this fine? What was the $3,500 fine for? Where did you get cited for? I have no clue. They just told my accountant she has a. There's a $3,500 fine. Outstanding for what? Is that, like a reinstatement of the beta fee or something? We'll have to look into it. And obviously we'll work with you to find a solution that's reasonable. Obviously, we don't want anybody, you know, close down. I don't want to close. I struggle to pay that 12,000. Fortunately, it was the end of March. So, you know, please speak into the microphone. Sorry. You. Fortunately, it was the end of March when they closed me so I could come up with 12 grand. But the summer was terrible. I can't come up with 3500 now. Okay? He knows. So we'll be in touch. Mr. Attorney, is this something that we can waive? The fees? No, I think that would need to be handled through the special magistrate. Thank you for coming in. I know we have a number of virtual callers. This I just want to finish off and then we're going to go to a bunch of virtual callers again thanking you, Mr. Stern, for coming in. Happy birthday. But I wanted to reflect on our Miami Beach community, how special it is. As I pointed out, you had the family, his son, daughter in law Mike, Corrine and Rebecca who came in from Maryland. But the other individuals you see here are not related to Mr. Stern. They are friends. Hatzalah, a volunteer ambulance service came in. Shmuel Maslin, who probably doesn't want me to embarrass him, but literally comes to his house for Shabbat meals, took him to Israel with him. This is special. This is special. When people take it upon themselves, it happens to be he's a nice guy and he's fun to be around Mr. Stern. But still, it's really special when you see that type of community that we have here in Miami Beach. We're very blessed to be here. We have some virtual callers. Yes, mayor. Our first virtual caller is Christine King. Miss King, you have two minutes. Please state your name and address. Hello, Christine King, 916. I have an echo coming back at me. I don't know why we can hear you. Fine. Okay, good. All right, so I want to address our five ad and urge the commission to go back to the drawing board and reimagine the ordinance with artist input. And in a spirit of cooperation, and without financially hurting long time resident artists who have the same concerns about junky reseller tables and counterfeit items, Mr. Suarez, if you want the cream to rise to the top, you can help that happen in a much more positive and constructive way. I've participated in this program for eight years. It's my main source of income at the moment. The responsibility of approving and certifying artists lies squarely upon the city and the past. The process was strict. Vendor table setup had to be approved, several pieces of their work assembled in front of a panel. Certifications have been moved to zoom a completely inadequate format. Recently, I've observed several participants that should have been denied, approved, and when questioning why, I was told who am I to deny anyone? So basically, everybody is being allowed in now. The city is unhappy with the results of their failed processes and are taking them out on all artists with an ordinance ordinance that is deeply flawed and seems more focused on eliminating the program rather than improving the definition of what it is. We may do to create only five spots makes no sense. How does the city plan to pick and choose among 40 plus people to award only five spots in the lottery? Why has the word crafts been scratched out? I'd like to point out a point to the Musée des Arts et Métiers in Paris, which translates to Museum of Arts and Crafts as an example of how these two go together. Separating crafts out of an artisan program is an underhanded way to eliminate most vendors. Thank you, Miss King. Your time is up. I apologize. Our next virtual caller is Ronald Starkman. Mr. Starkman, you have two minutes. Please state your name and address. Thank you. Ronald Starkman, I'm speaking on behalf of the South of Fifth Neighborhood Association. I'm a resident of South of Fifth, and I'm speaking in support of item R5 u, which is the amendment to allow some additional height on the on the Marriott Staunton project, which the neighborhood supports because it allows the conversion of a hotel with over 200 rooms and transient uses to a 30 to a 40 unit high quality residential building, which we think will improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. Sofia had held three meetings on this, with significant people number of people in attendance. Also, the City of Miami Beach recently held a public meeting on this, and virtually everyone was in support of this project and those few who had a concern were concerned because they didn't want to lose a hotel in the neighborhood. Well, the voters have already voted that they want to see the hotel converted to residential. So that's off the table. The only issue really is the height, and it's not significant relative to the other buildings in the area. And it was required because the historic preservation Board would not allow the developer to cantilever over the historic structure. So in order to use all the FA, they needed to go up higher. We support this. I can't believe anybody would say, oh, let's tear down a 145 foot residential building. I'm sorry, hotel to build. I'm sorry. 130 to 40 unit residential building. Let's tear it down to build a hotel. Our next caller is Gail Durham. Miss Durham, you have two minutes. Please state your name. Hi there. My name is Gail Durham. I live in the West End neighborhood where I've noticed this year the homeless situation has improved. A lot, so I wanted to thank the commission, especially Commissioner Suarez, for rescinding the 1% tax. I am confident our city departments will do a much better job than the county would. So thank you for doing the right thing. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is Lori Bakkum. Hi. Hello. Thank you for your time today, Lori Bakkum power access South Beach Jazz Festival, 1616 Michigan Avenue. I'm here today to ask for your support for item C7. B this is Commissioner Bott's item and with co-sponsor of Commissioner Fernandez on state funding and the inclusion of South Beach Jazz Festival in this one time allotment, the South Beach Jazz Festival was recommended over a year ago by the State Committee for culture for the $25,000 grant that fell under the Culture builds, Florida program that the state legislature cut from this year's budget. We do rely on it. We're consistent, we're local, and we love supporting all activities in the city of Miami Beach with excellent programing for our community and businesses. We're well supported by the community, businesses and guests to the city and the City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker has the screen name of iPhone 42. If you can state your name, go ahead, please. Hi, I'm Jeremy Ruder, can you hear me? Go ahead pleas. Yeah, I'm I'm here to talk about Raven. Robert Raven Kraft's 50th anniversary, which is happening December 31st. I've already spoken to Alex Fernandez and his assistant Monique, who've been very helpful, but this event is happening in about two months from now, and I think that, you know, it's great what you guys are doing with the street sign and all that, but I think Mr. Kraft, on behalf of everything he's done for our community, including saving 17 drowning people from the ocean, I think we owe it to him to have a proper event at a proper venue. And I think with, you know, with the budget for events that the city does put on, it's something that that would be good for the community, good for the hundreds of people who are flying into Miami Beach to be part of it. Because as of now, as of today, there's nothing planned. And I don't want to drop the ball on it. We have plenty of venues. We have the New World Symphony, the Fillmore, the Woman's Club, the rooftop cinema. I mean, there's a lot of places we can have this and honor this man before it's too late. So thank you. Alex Fernandez, for taking it seriously. And I hope the rest of you see how important this man is. And that time is running out. So thank you. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker is someone with a screen name of Bibles, iPhone. Bibles. IPhone. If you can unmute yourself, please. Yes. Thank you for taking my call. I'm thankful to mayor and thankful to Commissioner Christine Gonzalez. Thankful to Mr. Blake. I'm on 13th and Ocean Drive. You all can come and visit us. It has been deserted. There is no one basically here. Potential customer. This change in policy of taking vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic has gone down. We don't have potential customers. I'm a retail business owner and I'm sitting and I don't have a business. We are trying to make now transition to some need based businesses. We need some staff member to help us with the planning, zoning and department because our business has been here for 20 years and we've been affected due to the changes and we need help, we are thankful to Mayor Mr. Blake and Miss Christine Gonzalez, who already have been helping us, and thank you for attention. I will send email to everyone. Thank you so much. Our next virtual speaker is Yoav. Please unmute yourself. State your name and address. You have two minutes. Hi. Thank you. My name is Yoav Attias. I'm a Miami Beach resident for over 21 and 4019 North Meridian Avenue. I live here with my wife and our two kids, and on behalf of myself and my wife, who couldn't be here due to a family emergency, I'm urging the commission not to remove the proposed 1% food and beverage tax in Miami Beach for homeless housing and services from the ballot. The issue is very important to us, and we strongly believe the people should be able to vote in favor or against this measure, especially after the proper process was followed. To put this on the ballot. And frankly, we think that it would be an injustice to take this measure out of the hands of the voters at this point. So we want to thank you, and I hope this proposed resolution will not be approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. Our next virtual caller is Wayne. Wayne, state your name and address and you have two minutes. Hello again. Wayne Roberts, south of fifth. I wasn't going to speak, but there are two issues that came up that are important to me. Ron had talked about the hotel south of fifth. I just want to reiterate something very important. The process the owner of the property came forward and wanted to convert the hotel into a residential property. He proffered at that exact moment that he wouldn't ask for f.a.r or height. Subsequently, probably because people got to him, the they had a referendum for height. I'm sorry for F.a.r. Then they got the f.a.r. And now they're requesting height. So that process is bad. It sets a bad precedent. We need to say, look, you make a profit, you make a profit. You live by the proffer. Unless there's some, you know, extraordinary circumstances. What that's going to do is convert many properties along that the ocean drive to 150ft. Because if you give the rights to one, it becomes standard. And I think it actually does automatically. So I don't think that is a good plan for the city. I think that sets a bad precedent and it changes our quality of life, whether it's f.a.r or height. Additionally, I do believe that the business community along Ocean Drive is being damaged by city positions on vehicular traffic along the avenue. Maybe curtailing it after a certain hour to eliminate the riffraff from driving up and down the boulevard. But it's affecting the hotels. It's affecting mangos. It's affecting that gentleman that talked earlier. His his business. And that needs to change. Thank you mister. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Keith Marx. Thank you. I'd just like to quickly correct the record. Wayne, is good intentioned, but he's not accurate. And what is accurate is in the letter to the board. This passed with a 68% height wasn't an issue. It was about f.a.r and it wasn't asking for extra f.a.r. It was asking for the f.a.r to be returned back to what the developer had when he purchased this land. This this has been owned for over 20 years by one family. The family has decided that they'd like to get out of the hotel business and convert to a hotel from a hotel to a condo, and when they came back after the referendum, it was the historic Planning board who told them, you cannot use the extra f.a.r because your design overhangs a historic property. When the city tells someone that you get. It goes and gets 68% of the county vote for F.a.r and they tell them that they can't keep the height because they have to narrow down their building the footprint. It is incumbent if it's a reasonable request, and this is a request of 18ft above the highest point seen in this building to all or all, the developer is asking for is to be. He got the far. He was told by the city he can't utilize it. If he designs it over the existing building to preserve and follow the historic board, which we want our developers to do. He is asking for a small amount of height. This is not a bait and switch. This is not the way that Wayne had explained it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next virtual speaker has a phone number that ends in 9709. Please unmute yourself. Phone number ending in 9709. State your name, address. My name is Fernando Lopez. I just want to. First I would like to thank for removing the homeless tax from the ballot. We are we are taxed enough are already and the city needs to reduce the spending. I am opposing the 1 million spending for the arts organization and it's not our job to pay for them. You know. So thank you. Thank you mayor. Everyone has spoken once. Okay, that will end the sutnick our. Let's call our five. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you. So much. And I was asked to speak about the fundraising for Making Strides. Just to keep everyone informed, the C note raised close to $13,000. We are the city of Miami Beach. Number four on the leaderboard with making strides. And we've raised $22,000 this year. And counting. The bake sale is happening now and will be happening all day tomorrow as well, which is the last day of this fundraiser. Thank you everyone for your support. Thank you. Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you R5, you. R5 you is an ordinance of the mayor city Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. Amending the Resiliency Code of the City of Miami Beach at Chapter seven Zoning Districts and Regulations. Article two, district Regulations of Division 15. Performance Standard. District PS section 7.20.15.2. Residential Performance Standard districts R Dash PS to provide height incentives to encourage the redevelopment of hotels on property zoned R PS four into residential structures by providing such properties with a height bonus if the applicant voluntarily covenants that no transient uses or short term rentals shall be permitted on the property, and providing for codification. Repealer severability and an effective date. This is a first reading. This is. This requires 5/7 vote is item R five. You. Tom. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. I'll just provide a very brief introduction. This was before the city commission at your September meeting for first reading, and it was deferred to this meeting. And so it's back before you for first reading. And it is for a height increase for eligible properties in the PS four district that agree to convert existing hotels to non transient uses. This is a private application. A public meeting was held. I believe, at the Bentley Beach Hotel for additional public input a couple of weeks ago, and since this is a private application, I will go ahead and turn it over to the private applicant to make their presentation. Thank you, Mr. Modi. Mister Casson, how much time will you need for limited to five minutes. I'll try my best. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have a big agenda. If we could, JP, PJ would put up the presentation. We'll try to make it brief while it's being put up. This. Neeson, Kasdan and Chris Pinellas of Akerman LLP for the owner of the Marriott Staunton here as well, with Colin Gorsuch, the Director of development. Mr. Carson, let me just pause you for a moment. Mr. Clarke, can we set the timer for five minutes? Thank you. Please resume. Thank you. I'll try to go through this as quickly as possible. The project history, I think you are. Now all well aware of it. Starting with the Sofa endorsed increased in f.a.r that was passed on the ballot by over 65% of the vote in and going through the Commission's adoption of the increase in f.a.r then going to fast forward to 2024, when the Resiliency and Safe Structures Act was passed by the state, which would allow the demolition of the contributing historic building, the Staunton Hotel, in order to be able to accommodate the FA on that site and at the same time preserve the Staunton Hotel, which is the preference of the city and understandably so, minimal additional height, very much in character with the buildings in the neighborhood is required, and so this has gone through a half a dozen public hearings since then. That Sofa had two meetings of the Sofa full Association, which endorsed this request. It went to the Planning Board, which voted for it at a public hearing. 6 to 1 went to the Historic Preservation Board. Another public hearing, again approved 6 to 1. It went to a community meeting. At the request of this commission. Again more recently. So this has been had as much public exposure and meetings as possible. I think you know what the current zoning is of the project. Let me try to skip ahead. This is the neighborhood context. You know, the neighborhood, including the glass condominium across the street, which is approximately 200ft tall, and the continuum buildings to the south, which are over 400ft tall. The proposed zoning modification is quite simple. It allows the increase in the height providing of course, that the historic building is maintained. And one thing that we would like to add as well, in response to a comment from the mayor, is that since the intent here is to see residential development occur in a shorter time frame, as possible, that we would have to apply for a site plan and obtain a site plan approval from the Historic Preservation Board by December 31st, 2030. So there's a timeline within which we would have to go forward with that project. So in substance, this provides an incentive to preserve the historic building, which has no protection today. It builds on the request of the neighborhood and in other neighborhoods of this. City to replace transient uses, not only the board of Sofina. We have no objections from any of the Association for the South Point Elementary has supported it as well and welcomes this because residential character in that neighborhood versus transient character is good for a community that has school aged children. It is compatible with the surrounding area. And as I mentioned, it has been endorsed by both historic Preservation Board and the and the Planning Board. And so that, in sum, is our presentation. It is a very modest request to enable the neighborhood and the city to achieve what it wants. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carson. Commissioner Suarez and then and then we'll pass it back to the mayor. Commissioner Suarez recognized. Thank you. Vice Mayor Fernandez. You know, one of the things that I campaigned on was against short term rentals. And I think we were on the other side of each other when that happened. Funny to see you on the other side. Look, I think this is a great I think this is a great item. You know, I'm always going to be in favor of less transient for more of a, for more residential. I really appreciate the fact that the family didn't have to keep the historic structure, and they decided to do it anyways, I think, I think was it like 18ft from the highest point? I think it is a existing, the existing structure, because remember the existing structure was built before the height limits and is higher. And so it's approximately 18ft from the point highest point of the existing structure to the new proposed height. Mr. Cassell, you were not recognized. So future discussions back and forth is through the chair. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he was asking me a question, so I think 18ft is a reasonable request. I, I cannot stress enough to my colleagues. You know, I used to live south of fifth forever. And you really do have a neighborhood feel. And as much as we can remove a transient nature that that should be that should be, you know, considered very, very highly so I'm going to be in favor of this, and I'd love to hear what my colleagues have to say. I'll move it second, second. Anybody else? Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. Hi. So we held this public meeting, and when I entered into the room at the public meeting, what I found to be very odd was the only residents there were Mr. Kasdan and his team, us, and then some members of Sofia. So I asked the city, how was this meeting? Noticed? And I said, was a notice sent out via mail, because I think in many other cases you have to send the notice via mail in order to really get a crowd. And we didn't. I think an email went out. I believe I spoke with Kevin, he said he'd gotten in touch with Sofia, but I don't necessarily think that that is enough outreach, and I know that in other cases, for example, like with the kiosks, like in in certain areas south of it, they had to mail a notice. I would like to ask you, as we enter this creep, height creep, if how you guys would feel about doing a public meeting with that. The residents actually get a notice in the mail so they know. Because I guarantee you, if you would have had a mailed notice, you would have walked into a room, there would have been 100 people in that room, and people would have you know, people would have said, okay, you know, we're living here and this is affecting us, and I don't have you know. Here's my question. You got the FA at referendum and you said, we're not going to increase the height. Is this project not plausible without the height? I mean, you're not going to you can't build it. So if you don't get the height, then what? Well, the there's a good possibility that the hotel would stay in order to become a first of all, let's us let us understand that when there was never anything in the legislation for the FA limiting height, there was discussion of it, but never anything in the legislation. And before, before the legislation was adopted, there was no there was nothing whatsoever about maintenance of the historic Stanton building, which narrows the property on which you can build a new structure. When it became apparent that in order to achieve the FA, it and preserve the historic Stanton, it would need some additional height. And I will tell you, this has got to be one of the most modest height increase proposals I have seen in this city in recent years, including other proposals that are pending. And so that, yes, the truth of the matter is that if it doesn't make sense to do it as a residential building, and the height is what is one of the things that's needed, then it will stay as a hotel. I mean, the our deeds operate many hotels, so I just got a text from somebody who lives not in the ground but in the Murano. And they said people did not know about this meeting. So that's my big concern. And then what happens is something gets ripped down and another building is built and we get blamed for this because we didn't notice people. I'm pretty sure that this has a pretty heavy lobby and it's going to pass today, but as we enter into season and you know, everybody is complaining about, you know, about density increases, height increases and traffic and everything, I'm going to say, well, listen, I am saying no, because I think that what we have is enough. And I don't know what to do to convince my colleagues that this creep of 50ft here and 30ft here, and the 50, it just keeps on happening. And that's how you slowly, slowly change the character of who we are. And my big problem is that you said we don't need height, and then you thought, oh, I can get the votes for height. It doesn't matter what I promised a couple of years ago, because I'm getting a whole new commission so I could just go and renege on my promise and it doesn't matter because my words don't matter. Would you like me to respond? Yes. Okay. May I thank you? First of all, there was never such a promise. Second of all, I've explained the changed circumstances. Frankly, this morning you just made an important vote on change circumstances as well, which is a convention center. When that lease was done, there was not supposed to be any public dollars. But you know, what circumstances are such that it was removed. My second on the motion, no, no, I'm not criticizing that. That is a good project. But I'm saying circumstances change. You know, now, in terms of the support that has been received and the public knows this has been the most publicly noticed and have more public participation, including multiple sofina meetings at which most of the members of the commission were there and witnessed. And when they have their general meetings, they have a large attendance at those meetings. And that that at those and, and there was always support unanimous support from Sofina the meeting was noticed the way the city notices other neighborhood meetings. And as far as the buildings on Alton Road, you have before you a letter from John Stimmel, the president of Icon South Beach, in support of this, you have a letter as well from John Caprio, president of Murano. These buildings on the west side support it and they have no impact whatsoever on this project. And so this has broad support, has had incredible amount of public meetings and is a modest request that is needed for this neighborhood. Commissioner magazine, in years past under previous commissions, we've seen a number of projects developer driven in for lack of a better words, rammed down the community's throat. The commission's throat. This has been almost entirely community driven right? I actually don't receive calls from the lobbyist team. I don't know Colin's last name. I've never spoke to him. Besides a handshake in the hallway saying hi to him at the meetings, the people that call me about this that are in support. I'm not being lobbied by the high paid people out here. I'm being lobbied by every single person in the community. Sophia. The people at the school where my daughter goes and 68% of the voters. Sure, we could get lost in the details and nuance, but wanted the spirit of what they voted for. Were going forward in converting a hotel into residential. And when we talk about traffic coming into the season, I live at the entry to South of fifth. We have zero traffic off season, and the only time that we do have traffic are for these high event, high impact weekends that are tourist driven. So we're actually taking that stress off of our infrastructure. Every single goal that we're sitting up here all day, meeting after meeting, saying we're looking to achieve this project through pro-development, we're not anti-development. We're for the right development. I challenge people if they're against this, if this is not the right development, what is on the waterfront? Converting a hotel, high impact transient usage in a residential neighborhood back into residential. Right. I think that is really achieving something great. I'm fully in support of this. If the neighborhood didn't come and say, we want this, then I'd be a bit more wishy washy, right? But I'm elected to represent people and every single person almost that I've heard from wants this project. And when we talk about the attendance, everybody's always going to say, well, I didn't know about this meeting. I can verify there were people from North Bay road there. There were people from Flamingo Park there. There were people from West Avenue there, and there were a whole host of people from south of fifth. So the outreach has been done. This is neighborhood driven, and it's really driven by a voter referendum. As well. So I congratulate you. I hope we see this in the neighborhood because like my colleague, this is along the nexus of what I campaigned on as well, right in our residential neighborhoods, making those more resident friendly, right? Not walking my daughter when we go to the park, they're past hotels, but in our residential neighborhood, embracing a community that this project helps deliver. Thank yo. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me go this way. I'll go. Commissioner Fernandez, Commissioner Gonzalez and Commissioner Suarez. Okay. Thank you. And this was adopted by the electorate. It was an incentive. We put it. We placed it on the ballot. Over 60% of the voters supported supported this. I think it was like 65% of the voters supported this. Mr. Carson, you're asking for height. Yes, sir. Did your initial proposal have this height, or was this a height that you're having to get based on feedback from staff or any board? Good question. Commissioner. This the proposal never had a height limit. There was discussion when it was first started about potentially, but it was never included in the ballot question. It was never included as any requirement. And actually to go back and this was the point I was trying to make about changed circumstances, is the original legislation did not have anything about retention of structures on the property, and then it became clear that it was desirous to retain the historic Stanton Building. And when after it passed at referendum, it was studied closely in order to utilize the extra far and save the Stanton, it was decided that some additional height would be a minimal amount of additional height. So that was the changed circumstance that drove it. It drove this and I placed in the legislation the aspect of preserving the historic structure at the request of neighbors from south of fifth who wanted the preservation of the historic structure. That's correct. It was you, Commissioner, and it was not originally in the legislation when it was first discussed. And let me ask you this. Currently, how many hotel room units are there in the in in the hotel, 224 224. And how many residential units are there going to be? Approximately 40, approximately 40. So we're going from 224 units that cost Uber drivers and rental cars and all that to approximately 40 units. So then when we talk about things that contribute to traffic and impacts, in essence, keeping 220 units will cost more of an impact to traffic, to quality of life. And the problems we're trying to solve. Not approving the this this what I consider to be modest height increase threatens a historic property that today, as of right because of the state statute can be demolished. So let's talk about everything that we are, you know, really doing here. We are lowering the impacts on traffic and we are creating transition in, in in housing from, from transient uses that we want to from in addition to preserving historic assets that the state has threatened. So let's not twist what we're doing here into something that's bad. We're actually doing something that's really good that is aligned with our goals as, as as a city. And by the way, even former members of the Historic Preservation Board were in that meeting and sent me messages afterwards that they were supportive of the comments I made there about about this project. And I believe I understand that word did get out through constant contact by the city area and the residents of the entire city. I think, you know, it's time to move this forward. I don't think we need to go back to the community. I think we've heard there's been plenty of opportunities, including at Sonic today, including at the planning Board, including at the community meetings that we already had. And most importantly, at the ballot box. When the voters said that they wanted to see this transition from transient to residential use. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Gonzalez, so I can I can see that there's support for this of all the hotels that we would want to convert. This is probably not one of them. Just because it's probably one of the nicest hotels on Ocean Drive. It also has 200 rooms. So now what we're going to do is we are going to put First Street under construction and then cut out a hotel and that whole neighborhood is just going to like, wither economically. I, you know, listen, it is what it is. I, you know, of all the places that you wanted to convert to use, I would say that this is not. But as those businesses, those small businesses begin to suffer and close to because now we have, you know, encouraged this. If you were going to say it's some other area where we had too many hotels, but literally south of fifth is what, two hotels? And by the way, if they knocked down the building, they were according to the ordinance, they were going to lose all of the f.a.r. So of course they're not knocking down the building because then they can't keep their density increase. And that was good. Yeah. You wrote that in there. So that's good. Listen, you're welcome to support it. I don't want to support it because I see it as spot zoning. It's a creep. I think there are also two other hotels that are eventually going to benefit from this f.a.r and height increase. So what you see is our beautiful little skyline is we're just losing the character of the city. I don't love it. You know, sometimes I wonder, is it the design guidelines that are causing the problem? As I was walking down Washington Avenue, the other day and people complained about the f.a.r and the way that our design guidelines work, what we end up getting is boxy structures. So people say if we had added f.a.r, then we could build it. Well, then maybe these setbacks should not be and we would not have to increase the density and the height because I don't know if you guys get that, but I get that from developers all day long. I can't build what I want to build. It turns into a box. I need f.a.r. So if we were to relax these design guidelines that create the some of the boxes, maybe they wouldn't be before us asking for this height. So I don't know the design guidelines. Are they mandated by the planning board? The HPB? Like I don't even know where they come from. Tom. What what why are they asking for more height? What did we mandate from them? So in response to your question, there's two sets of regulations that the DRB and the HPB use in reviewing new development projects. One is the minimum requirements under the code, which is intensity, height, setbacks. And depending on the zoning district, there may be other requirements. The design review and Historic Preservation Board have design criteria that they use that would be a little bit more nuanced because it looks at things like view corridors, established neighborhood context, and so each building is not going to be a one size fits all in this particular instance, the height is actually to improve the building and make it less boxy, because if they tried to cram all the allowable FA into a lower height, a good architect could probably do that. Barely meet code, but then you will end up with a box by giving them a little bit more height. You're allowing that allowable volume to be better distributed. And in this case, a way that is going to have a minimal impact on the established scale and context of the area. The problem with the height and density creep is that I would like to encourage property owners to invest in what they currently have, and when they see stuff like this happening and approving it building by building, they say we're going to let our buildings deteriorate and then eventually we're going to get the height, we're going to get the density. So what it does is it's counter to everything that I've been working for and to keep us like Barmy Island style, because now we gave today we gave this height increase. There's another, there's several f.a.r and density increases coming. So if I was a property owner, I would say I'm just going to sit back and do nothing to my property because eventually I'm going to get the zoning that I want because it's coming eventually. So this is the message that we're sending. Height increase here. F.a.r increase here. Overlay here. Let's give them over there. So I'm just going to be a no on all of these because I'm looking at the big picture. I think that these fragmented spot zoning is extremely left brain. And I would like to be more erasmian and right brain and holistic. When I look at Miami Beach and our island and how we're planning, and that's what we're lacking here. And Mr. Mooney, that's what you should really be advocating for. And I think that our group needs to come forward and have a meeting and say, what is it that we really want? Because if we continue to do this, then eventually it is going to look like like a, like a midtown Miami. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, one thing that occurred to me is that this hotel is next to a playground. I don't necessarily feel comfortable with 224 transients always next to a playground. Okay. I would much rather have a residential building next to a playground than 224 possibilities for something wrong to go happen. Okay, another note that came up was about traffic. There's no more. There's no single biggest impact to traffic than transient use. And so when you have 224 hotel rooms, that's 224 trips all day long from one very small stretch of land in south of fifth, you remove that. You're solving traffic. Traffic is going to not be solved by saying no to everything. It's going to be solved by proper planning, proper urban design. You know, Miami Beach is not what it was 30 years ago. It's not what it was 20 years ago. This is a very different place now. And I know that, you know, some of my colleagues may not think that, but this is the future and you have to accept that. So, like I said, this is 18ft. I think it's a very reasonable request considering the benefits that we're getting and the solutions that it's going to solve. And so I'd like to you know, I can move my item. Second, yes, yes. If Commissioner Fernandez, thank you. And I just want to be very clear, Mr. Kasten, or perhaps to our planning director, I hear density thrown out a lot in such a catchy word to throw. Is density being increased or decreased here with this application? Right now, the hotel doesn't have a density limit per se because it's a hotel, but the residential use that is being proposed would be, well under the maximum density. So this is actually a reduction in density, correct? Okay. So I think I think that that's very important to put out there because, you know, this narrative is thrown out there that we're increasing density and that we're increasing height. I'm sorry. No, that is so false. Such a blatant, blatant, blatant lie. When you're going from 200 units to 40 units, that is not an increase in density. That is a substantial decrease in density. And by the way, it's very easy just to say, I'm going to vote no on everything because it's a it is a very convenient place to be politically, just to vote no on everything. And then point fingers. But the reality is that later on we can't be complaining when buildings take advantage. Developers take advantage of the unsafe structures act that the state passed to demolish architecturally significant buildings. Because we just decided to say, oh, I'm going to vote against that, against everything. And then what message are we sending out there? We're saying, okay, the city of Miami Beach doesn't want to work with you. Goodbye. Architecturally significant buildings, because we're just going to vote no against the incentives that are going to help preserve the character. The architectural fabric of the city of Miami Beach that we pride ourselves in preserving. Just because we're going to say, I'm just going to vote Blanketly against everything that's going to help preserve these buildings. I think we have to. We can't paint with such a broad brush. There are technicalities and nuances in each of these items, and that is what zoning policy is. And this is a very unique circumstance and a very unique part of our city where we want to preserve the residential character of our city. And this is a voter adopted incentive that is going to help preserve a historic asset from an as of right demolition that the developer would be entitled to, while at the same time reducing density, contrary to the falsehoods that have been blatantly stated on this dais. And I'm proud to be co-sponsoring this this item as well, because I sponsored the ballot question for this. And it's. Mark. It was Mark. Oh, okay. Well, I sponsored something. I don't remember what I sponsored. I remember I sponsored the commission, the commission that the ordinance. The ordinance. Okay then. Well, the ordinance I was proud to sponsor the ordinance for it because now he's lying. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, then Commissioner bot. And I'll end it with this. You were in Amalfi this summer, and when you drove along the coast, I mean, they just say, no. So nobody's approaching them anymore, you know? And the property owners understand that they have to work with what they have because there's a strong message. We are characters. What makes us famous. Therefore, you know, you can't come and ask for anything. Go to Southampton. It's the same thing. I think if you were to go to places like Charleston, I think that there's places that understand the nature of saying no, because eventually there's tremendous value in it when we don't look like any place else, when we look like Miami Beach, when we look unique because we've said no many times and people eventually say, I'm not going to get it. So I'm just not even going to ask, and I'm going to beautify what I have. That's where I would like us to be, because that's our postcard that is good economic sense. That is the only thing that distinguishes us from any place else. So, you know, when our planning and zoning doesn't seem to you know, when our planning and zoning is spot all over the place. And people know that if they push, they can get that change. That's when we begin to lose our character and that's what makes me so nervous, because you're getting 30ft next month, somebody else is going to get 50. Next month, somebody else is going to get 40. Then there's a point five f.a.r increase. So here we are again. But I would like to encourage people to just say no, just like Nancy Reagan does. Commissioner Bartow. I just want to put on the record that it is not an 18 foot height increase from the massing of the building. This is a conversation I've had with the owners and some of your colleagues. It is 18ft from the top of the spire, so let's call a spade a spade and be accurate in what we're talking about. It's a 45 foot increase. I will say there are things I'm not loving about the process on this particular project. However, I, I like this project. I'm inclined to support it. I think that my colleague Rosen Gonzalez, Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, makes some very valid points. I'm not going to stand in the way of this project. However, I would suggest that I think there's a motion. And a second I would suggest that we call the vote a good idea. I do want to speak just a procedural point, mayor. Number one, remember, we have made the offer that of an additional provision that the development incentives in this section shall only apply to projects that have obtained a historic preservation board site plan approval before December 31st, 2030. You anticipated my question. I think you asked that last time. And the other thing that I would request, which was brought up last time, is remember, this has had three public hearings, a public meeting, two public meetings. But because of the additional public meeting that was held, this was knocked out of the current zoning cycle. Okay. Which would be that it would be waived, not have to go in January, but could go in the next meeting. So I'll make a couple of points and then I'll and I'll get back to the site plan question. So as you know, I had some concerns about this item. I raised a lot of questions last time. What put me over the top and it's my colleague Commissioner magazine made these points. But I'll reiterate Sufna a very prominent homeowners association in our city, has strongly come out in favor of this item that was extremely influential to me. The former president and current board member of South Point Elementary School is has come out in strong support. The planning Board supported this. I believe the vote was 5 to 1, 6 to 1, 6 to 1. Yeah okay. The memo says 5 to 1. So whatever it was, it was five, five 1 or 6 one. But a couple of questions. One is relating to this building, relating to I don't know of anything else. I don't know of anything else that I would ask for. Okay. I wanted it on the record. I can't say I know of anything else I'd ask for, but I would say what this is, is what we are. Yes, this is potentially a very a good project, a better use for our client and the community. But this is the vision of the South Point neighborhood. They want residential. Correct. They're developing a nice residential activity there. How many hotel units today? 224. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I wanted to make sure our Commissioner Suarez was accurate when he used that number. And how many units? Residential units. Will there b? Approximately 40. 40, approximately. So a 90% decrease. Well, significant decrease. Let's get back to the site. Plan, something that I've, I raised earlier with the convention center. I'm literally it's an important it's an important for our commission and our city because what we've seen too often is we approve. We approve like we are about to do today, seemingly. I mean, this is a significant increase. It's great. We've made the determination and the neighborhood, the south, south of fifth neighborhood has made the determination. This is good for their city, but there's a significant monetary value to what we are approving today. And what my concern is, is we approve it and then nothing happens. It falls in the abyss and then when I hear and I and I had this information prepared about the December 31st deadline of 2030 for a site plan, 2030 2030, I get very concerned that that's not even that's not even getting to the building permits, which, by the way, I think we should have safeguards for deadlines on the building permits as well, which I don't think we have. Why six years? Well, you know, frankly, some of it depends on market timing, of course. So we have to have some degree of flexibility. But if you would like to reduce it to say, 2029 or 2028, I think that I think we would be okay with that. Of course, 2820 we're okay with 20, 28, 27. I was thinking of it. I'm glad you mentioned i. But I think we need to hold your peace of mind 2027. We'll go with 2027 for site plan December 31st, December 31st. We're all in agreement. How about building permits? I'm serious. It's. We have to it's and it's. And again I'm not I'm not questioning the validity or credibility of you and your clients, but unfortunately we've been burned. And when someone gets burned, they put in protections. Yeah, I understand, of course, what this is doing is in the long term, the vision and the plan for the neighborhood is to be residential. So whether it happens in a year or two or happens in 5 or 6 years, you want to encourage the ability to go residential. So we don't want to have an incentive that for certain unforeseen market conditions, runs out. And then the next thing you know, that incentive is gone and it's going to be a hotel forever. So I think with I think we need to be careful about getting too restrictive. I, I get the site plan and going through that process. But with market conditions and everything else. And given that this is not a short term, this is the long term vision for the neighborhood. Go residential from from transient that this should always be the zoning. Now we're you're doing us is giving us a little kick in the rear. Say do it sooner to take advantage of it. But it should not be such that the incentive runs out due to unforeseen circumstances. And then it's going to be hotel forever. No, I get your concern, but you get. You get my concern that it's happened. You know it. Do you hold on to the property market? Value goes up, you flip it. I mean, it's just it's an endless cycle. And then we don't benefit. We're trying to get some we're doing this because we believe it's best for the neighborhood in Miami Beach. And by the way, though, as I think Commissioner Fernandez pointed out, the audit family has owned this property for over 25 years. They built the Marriott. They've run it as a fine business and establishment. I mean, these are these people are not flippers. They are long term investors and want to do good. Good projects. Yeah. And again, I'm not questioning you or your or your client. I have no I have no basis. I'm just saying based on our experience. So I think we have a December 31st, 2027 now. We reduced it three years on the site. Plan. What? Tom, what's what's a typical what's a typical timeline from site plan to building permits does give us less time to save Mr. Mayor. You know, if we're in the market. So in our experience, site plan approvals can be extended very significantly under state law, as we've seen over the last decade, these governor's extensions, we've had projects extended in some cases over ten years. So perhaps a deadline of December 31st of 2032 for building permit, I think would be reasonable. We can agree to that. So we're approving something. Now that you're saying you're not even going to you're not even going to begin construction potentially for eight years. I hope I hope not, I understand I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm trying to take hope out of the equation here. Well, but the fact of the matter is that, you know, there's a there's tremendous risk involved. They want to do this. They want to do this as soon as possible. But as we see economic conditions and circumstances have an effect and change things, and we can't put ourselves in such a position that it's an impossible, potentially impossible deadline to meet. So we would request that. I mean, we're saying 27 for the site plan approval, 32 for the building permit. And I guess my compassion is running, is running thin on this because our commission approved putting on the ballot, which was passed overwhelmingly to make the transient use change. Now we're approving this height increase. I, I feel like at a certain point that if you're right and it's all innocuous and market conditions change and that's unfortunate, then you probably should have to come back to may not be us. Whatever commission is here to get that approval. I just think we need to put in some deadlines. Well, we agree to the deadlines that we've now gone to 2027 on the site plan, and we agree with Mr. Mooney's suggestion on the building permit. Eric, does it take five years to get building permits from date of site plan? No matter what's typical. I mean, it depends on how elaborate the design is, but I would say anywhere from 6 to 24 months. Okay, so how about we put December 31st, 2029 for a building permits and nontransferable? It should be nontransferable. They cannot sell the property and get and keep the zoning. I don't think that's a proper condition to put in a zoning order. The zoning goes with the property. It's not with the owner. So I don't think that's legal. Mayor, if I may, I think that would be difficult, if not impossible to enforce. What happens with most of these properties. Is there a corporate entity is formed to hold the property, but then they'll sell the interest in that in that LLC or corporation, which part is not possible to tie this zoning change to a particular owner? I didn't suggest that, but but you know, if I may, if you yield, Mr. Mayor, I don't disagree with that request. But I'll tell you, here's the thing. I'm fine with it. When my attorney tells me that I can't do it because it might be hard, difficult to track and to enforce. But when the applicant's attorney is telling me that that it's hard to enforce, it makes me think, well, is there an interest in in in flipping this? No, that's what that's what starts going through my mind. One thing is when my city attorney is telling me, well, for the city to do it, it can't be done. But but when the applicant's attorney is telling me it's illegal, it makes me think, are you is this is this your plan? Yeah. Well, Commissioner, it isn't. But I would also say. Well, then why would you object to. No, no, I'm speaking. Why would you object? Well, I don't care that you're speaking. I have the floor right now. No, I thought you were asking so and so and so. I want to know why do you object? Why don't you voluntarily proffer then that. That if this is not the intent, why doesn't the applicant voluntarily proffer that they won't be transferring this development? Right. Well, because, Commissioner, I don't think it is a legal condition. I think it is illegal in zoning to tie ownership to zoning, but not at the not if the applicant voluntarily proffers it to prove their point that they're not going to transfer this. So we're fine. I. Okay. Well, we'll proffer that we will keep it and develop it. So I mean, I don't think it can be a condition in the ordinance. I don't think that's legal. Cannot write. It's not legal for us to impose it. Correct. Can they voluntarily profit if they wanted, if they wanted to? Well, I will certainly tell you it is fully their their intention to do it that way, Commissioner. They will develop it. They are developers and they will not be selling it to someone else to develop it. You can mark my words in case that ever changes, but that this is a family that has a long track record of doing their own projects and their own developments, and they are telling us that that they are doing this to develop it themselves. And Nick, if we put in these dates that we're talking about the site plan and building permits, whether it's sold or not, and, and hopefully not based on what we're hearing, but those would transfer with it. Those those deadlines. Correct. That's right. Yes. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I would discussing with my client sometimes the building permit process can get very convoluted and we would request, I know instead of 2029 being 2030 to obtain the permit, I mean, I've had some June of 2030, we'll split. We'll split it in half. We'll split it in half. All right. I will tell you, I've had some I've got a deal list with me. I have some projects that have been years in permitting. Now some of that is due to changes in design on the projects. In the course of developing the project. But believe me, a long time. Oh, we got a new building director. We're going to. We're going to get it done. But I have a follow up on that, Mr. Mayor. So the hotel would continue operating. You're not they're not going to close the operation of the hotel? No, it's going to continue operating. Correct. Until after they get their permits and until they're ready to begin construction. Correct. I just want to make sure because, you know. Yeah. Not not to complicate this. And I'm going to regret doing so. But maybe that's the more important time frame is the amount of time between the hotel closing down and the new building permits actually being obtained and up and running, because what I don't want to get into is prematurely the hotel is shut down, and then we have no economic engine. And, you know, we just have an empty derelict hole in the ground. We see that up in the Collins area. It gets to a broader point that I want to bring back to this commission about how difficult it can be to do business in this city, and it's not just the building process and things like that. We do need to take a long, hard look in the face, but we have projects like the Raleigh. It's $500 million. I hear they've spent and they're still still doing foundation work. And what did they save? A slab on the side. You know, we need to really look and evaluate and ask ourselves and have honest discussions about the best way to really go forward with some of these things. I like Commissioner Fernandez's point. I don't know how we kind of thread the needle to get there. I think what I'm looking to achieve, similar to my colleagues, expedite this as quickly as possible, but really ensure that we don't have a long time frame between when that hotel shuts down and when we get a shovel in the ground. I mean, I address Commissioner magazine briefly. Yes to that. To that point, as you might know or should know, they own and operate a 12 or 13 hotels. They're they're not like a developer who's coming in and doesn't know how to operate a hotel and closes the hotel. This is a cash flowing business. It's an operating business. They're going to keep that business going, and they've kept it in good shape for the 25 years that it's been since they built it. So they're going to keep it going as a hotel and as a nice hotel. And that's one of their businesses. This is just the other alternative that's consistent with the vision for the neighborhood. We're ready to vote. Yeah. And Mr. Mayor, I'm going to amend my motion to waive the annual zoning cycle restrictions for this amendment and schedule a second reading public hearing for November 20th, 2024. And your amendment also includes the modified site plan date and building permit date as amended, as amended. And that was the second of the of the motion. So I don't know if Commissioner Suarez, who was the maker of the motion, if he accepts the amendment. Okay. So seconded as amended. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, I would encourage you guys not to build this because I think it's going to kill all the restaurants in the neighborhood. You know, we see we did see that with the Deauville when that shut down. Everything else around it kind of crumpled. And here you have a hotel that's a really nice family hotel. Of all the hotels, like on Ocean Drive, I would say that this is the most family oriented. So I'm happy that you're not going to build anything until when 2030, because I do think that that's going to spell some sort of economic ruin for the rest of the neighborhood. You're taking away, let's say you have 200 rooms that could be anywhere from 3 to 400 people that are frequently frequenting restaurants right now, that south of Fifth and Sophia are enjoying because they've got customers. And you know what's going to happen when the people from the continuum and the 20 units that they're building there and maybe only ten, 40 units, only 20 people there, that's just going to it's an economy killer. So I would I don't know if we can incentivize you to keep that hotel open, but I don't know what you're going to replace that with because in that neighborhood, that thread was thriving. Restaurants are being buoyed by the customers from that property, and that property does not have any issues in terms of bad behavior. It's actually kind of a neighborhood hotel where if you live south of fifth and your family is coming to visit, like that's where you would stay. So it's actually an amenity to the neighborhood. So if you choose not to build this before 2030 and you wanted some other incentive to keep it open, I would work with you to keep your hotel open, because I do think that it's a pillar in the neighborhood and I worry about it closing call the vote. Commissioner magazine, as amended. Yes. Commissioner Dominguez. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Roslyn Gonzalez. No. Commissioner. Bot. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our seven D. Our seven D is a public hearing ratified three year labor agreement with IAF. October first, 2024 to September 30th, 2027 are seven D. Is an administrative item I believe Eric. If you want to go ahead first and just present it. Mala. Good afternoon, Marla Alpizar air. You got the floor. Thank you. We are very proud to bring before this commission a bargaining agreement negotiated by the administration and the IAF. We have we're very proud of this agreement, and we feel like it will bring forward for the next three years our relations with this union and provide very good benefits to our firefighter employees in this group. Okay. We've I know I was briefed on this. We've probably all been briefed out of motion. I'll second it is a public hearing. I have one person in zoom, Gail Durham. Gail, do you are you speaking on the employment agreement with the. If. Gail, please unmute yourself. Okay. I have no one else in zoom and I see no one else in the audience. Thank you, Commissioner Rosen. Gonzalez. I support our first responders. Hi, Marla, and I appreciate everything that they do. But as I've gotten, like, studying more and more of these contracts and being in a large institution myself that doesn't get merit pay, when you add our merit pay plus our colas, we are increasing salaries 6 to 7%. And in this contract in particular, I think twice is it twice in one year that we're giving 4%, or is it year over year? So the Colas are three, three and three. Yeah. But the merit pays are to the two, four, 4% steps. Can you explain those. The contract provides for merit steps. The firefighter the IAF contract has what's called step system and pay. And so every year that a person moves through and their evaluation and they have exceptional or adequate or or satisfactory is the right word evaluation, they would move up a step. It's like a longevity step. Those steps are approximately 5%. Those steps have a cap. So not every firefighter receives a step. In addition to what I'm talking about, the merits that yes, we added to those that step system for year one, a 4% step for the firefighters and for the lieutenants and the captains. The range moves up 4% in year one of the contract and also in year two of the contract. So two consecutive years Miami Beach is giving 7% salary increases, which I it's a I mean I've never seen that in an organization. Everybody in the room yesterday when we were having a conversation about it said, what do you mean you don't get merit pay your performance review. I'm like, well, I got my cola. I get 3%, 2% some years. But like, never in my life do you get like merit pay plus regular pay. So I mean, I guess it's just a great place to work. And Miami Beach, where you get 7% increases. I, you know, I think it's exorbitant 7% two years in a row. But if you guys are okay with it, that's fine. I mean, we can't vote it down because then we would be at some sort of impasse with our first responders. But I would say that this is why when you look at what we're paying in terms of salaries as a percentage of our budget, that it's growing to such a large number because those are unsustainable increases. And I know that we've had, you know, CPI increase, you know, but no organization you work for the SEC I don't know. Did you get over 7%, 7% per year. Well I'm in private practice now. Yeah. But but when you were when you were you know. So I just want us to be aware of these things because I don't think that they're sustainable. So I don't want to be the only. No. Again. Yeah, I, I'm not happy about it. Okay. I'm going to vote no. Well I'll not not specific to this item, but I'll, I'll, I'm going to actually bring up another item that it's related to. This is why I think our commission should be involved. It's not to micromanage every move that our city manager and our administration takes, but I believe they need the guidance that you're expressing right now. They need that. And when they're negotiating or whatever, whatever steps they're taking, and that's kind of why we need to be proactive on the front end. Because, like you say, it's kind of late in the game now. And perfectly respect your vote. But we would be in a very difficult position right now if we if we collectively voted no. So I. And we do have a great fire department. So thank you for the men and women in red. Okay. This is this is my final thing. Well, no I don't I, I don't want to be a no. But across the board and I also don't want our employees to dislike me because I don't think that happens in the private sector. I don't I think you get a cola, I think you get a yearly raise, but you don't get a yearly raise plus a merit pay yearly. And I think that this is a practice that, you know, it's hard to take away from somebody who has it. So here's what I would suggest. Moving forward for our employees is that those people who get the merit pay continue to get their merit pay year over year, but new hires are just going to get colas and not this merit pay, because I think that that will regulate our regulate our employees over time. And, you know, I think that we can't take away anything that anybody has, but we can improve how we do business moving forward. And that, I think, is what you need to do. So I'm going to vote for this today. But I think that we need to sit down and when as we're as you're hiring new people and I don't know if this has to be an employment practice or as part of the contracts, but moving forward and maybe police and fire are different. Maybe police and fire forevermore get 6 or 7% because they are police and fire. But I do think that this practice should probably end with new hires. And I don't know how you feel about that, but I think that that's sound financial practice. Well, new hires are happy to get a position and we don't have to. Powers. You're okay. You're saying not in a competitive environment? I don't know, I mean, I we're not the only fire department in town. We're not the only fire department in town. And every day we see, well, we in Miami Beach, we are. But not in not in the region. And we know how competitive other jurisdictions are. And so, you know, we just have to be mindful that there is a lot of competition out there. And other departments and offer a lot as well. And is this how we incentivize hiring people by, by, by by taking away benefits from them, especially to new hires? You know, when you say new hires don't, it's not going to be in a well, new hires don't know and are excited to get the job. So I mean, I think coming in that that that's where the reform needs to take place. Yes. Eric, city manager through the chair this is a contract provision and so what we're approving today is the contract for the next three years. I just don't want to create an unrealistic expectation that we can change something for new hires when we're contractually obligated to follow this set of guidelines for the next three years of anybody that joins the fire service, I'm going to vote for this today. But we should do actuarial numbers to come up with for example, like, how does this what percentage of budget given the salaries and the merit pay increases and the Colas that everybody's getting? When you look at it over time? Right now, let's say that it's 78% of our entire budget. I would like to implement some sort of policy so that we don't end up like the school board, where 88% of their budgets are salaries and they don't have money for toilet paper in the bathrooms. Literally, they run out of money for cleaning supplies, toilet paper, because of practices like these. So I would like to look at several different models of how this is being done. You guys are the experts in this area to see. All right. Everybody who's got it is going to have it forevermore. And we will not take it away. But new hires should probably be on a different system. Let's call the vote. So I still need a second on this one. Commissioner Fernandez made the motion, but I don't have a second. I'll second, so I have a second from Commissioner Bart. All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Item passes seven zero. Let's stick with these items. R5. Congratulations. Oh, Eric, come on. You want to say something? Come on up. Yeah. Good afternoon, honorable mayor. Commissioners. Mr. City manager, Mr. City attorney, Mr. City clerk. Thank you all for approving this contract. It's a contract that goes a long way in recognizing the benefits commensurate with the knowledge, skills and abilities that we bring every day. And the risks that we take every day, and also the risks that we may not take on that particular day but are expected to take, if not tomorrow, at some point in our careers. I just want to give a shout out to the professional staff that you all have. You all know that the negotiating team led by Mr. City Manager Eric Carpenter, of course, Mark taxes. Jason, thank you, Jason Green. They definitely caused some agita. Maybe 1 or 2 sleepless nights for Captain Adonis Garcia, who couldn't be here today but wants to acknowledge you all for the fine work that you do. You know, across the United States, there's instances of labor management disputes that may have negative externalities. And the writers in LA, the Boeing factory workers in the Midwest and as well, most notably the longshoremen up and down the East Coast and the Gulf. But we don't have that here. We haven't had that here. And I think it's in large part because the amazing relationship we have with you all, and the respect and admiration that you all have for us. So thank you for the work that you do, because it really is one city, one team. Even though we're on different sides of the table, it's under the same roof. And Captain Garcia did want me to highlight something. You know, we're thanked a lot for our service. We want to thank you all for your service on the dais, because you were here at the marathon meeting one day a month, and then you have another three days on top of that for committee meetings. And the vice chairs and the chairs, the amount of work that you do doing those meetings and countless neighborhood association meetings. I don't think our community realizes just the amount of work that you put in. And it's a sacrifice because I've met most of your families, beautiful families, and it's a sacrifice being away from them. So thank you for what you do. And I'll say selfishly, thank you for letting on behalf of the entire union and Captain Garcia, letting us serve the community, because it's a very impactful thing to help someone, whether it be something small that's picking a senior up in the middle of the night when they've fallen and they have no one to turn to get just back in bed, or whether you have a, you know, bring someone back from a cardiac arrest or an opiate overdose, all those things are very self fulfilling for us when we leave shift, and we're happy to be part of that and be able to help a total stranger in their time of need. So thank you for letting us serve your residents, your visitors, and our community. So thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. And you know, also just wanted to acknowledge Chief Abello and Chief Linares, who, you know, labor management. Big key part of that is leadership. And they jumped into some very big shoes and just took off running. And we're right behind them keeping up with them. Committed to the mission of serving the residents. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Thank you I just Eric to echo that yesterday when I spoke at the Heroes breakfast hosted by the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, I gave some examples of the heroism and the extraordinary efforts that our first responders make. But I also mentioned the what's not so extraordinary, seemingly. But our residents have noticed and have commented our fire, our police, just the generosity, the helping hand, the smile. It's really it's really very warm warming to hear it, that people are appreciate how how really just personable our our fire and police are. And it really goes a long way and it doesn't get headlines but it means a lot to people. Yeah. And I know two commissioners at least are familiar with this philosopher Dave Matthews, who said, when you give you begin to live. And really it's so impactful doing those even those small acts of kindness. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. Our five. R5V is an ordinance of the mayor and Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending part one, subpart B, article nine related special acts of the Miami Beach City Code entitled Pension System for Disability and Retirement of Members of Police and Fire Departments amending section 66 service and disability benefits generally related to salary and minimum line of duty disability benefits. Amending section 79 entitled Deferred Retirement Option Plan Drop related to the maximum drop participation period. Amending section 88 benefits for members hired on or after September 30th, 2013 and prior to June 8th, 2016 for International Association of FOP related to average monthly salary amending section 89 benefits for members hired on or after June 8th, 2016 and prior to May 8th. International Association of Firefighters, Local 1510 Iaff and hired on or after July 20th, 2016 and prior to July 31st, 2019 for Fraternal Order of Police. Williams Nicholls Lodge Number eight, FOP related to average monthly salary amending section 90 entitled benefits for members hired on or after May 8th, 2019 for International Association of Firefighters local 1510 if and, and or after July 31st, 2019 for Fraternal Order of Police William Nicholls Lodge, eight related to credited services providing for severability. Repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith and providing for an effective date. This is a first reading. It is item R5 v Mala. Thank you to the chair. This is a companion item that goes with the Iaff contract. This is the necessary ordinance. Changes to the pension ordinance that would align with the contract changes. I move the item. It's been moved by the chair, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Let's call the vote. I'm sorry. The motion was Commissioner magazine Commissioner Fernandez Fernandez, second by Suarez. Commissioner magazine. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Vice mayor. Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner. Bok. Yes. Suarez. Mayor. Miner. Yes. Motion carries. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. It was item R5 v R5 w. R5 w is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 789. The classified employee salary Ordinance of the City of Miami Beach, in accordance with the negotiated collective Bargaining Agreement providing for the classifications in group three, represented by the International Association of Firefighters Iaff local 1510, effective the first full pay period, July 2025. Selected pay incentives of 5% in paramedic pay will be rolled into selected base pays. There will be an across the board cost of living adjustment Cola of 3% effective. The first full pay period ending in April of 2026. There shall be an across the board Cola of 3% effective the first full pay period ending in April of 2027. There should be an across the board Cola of 3%. An additional 4% step shall be added to the end of the range for firefighter classifications, effective the first full pay period of July 2025, and an additional 4% step to the end of the range for the firefighter classification. Effective the first full pay period of April 2026, all fire, lieutenant and fire captain's pay steps shall be adjusted by 4% effective. The first full pay period of July 2025, and all fire Lieutenant and Fire captain's pay steps shall be adjusted by 4% effective the first full pay period of April 2026. Repealing all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, and effective date and qualification. This is a first reading. It is item R5 w Mala. Thank you. This is a companion to the firefighter contract. This is the salary ordinance that reflects the bargaining agreement. I move the item. Second, let's call the vote Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Gonzalez. Yes, Commissioner. Magazine. Yes, Commissioner. Bot. Yes, Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Mayor. Miner. Yes. Motion carries second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. R5 I. R5 I is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. Amending appendix A of the city coal city code. Rollback all parking fees and resident parks and recreation fees, excluding golf course fees. The fiscal year 2024 rates, including all parking rates that were scheduled for an automatic five year consumer price index CPI adjustment on October 1st, 2024, pursuant to Ordinance Number 2019, 42992 applied for an adjustment of all parking fees and related rates by annual CPI adjustments with a 3% cap and 3% certain parking rate modifications approved via Ordinance number 2024. Dash 4619 to conform such parking rates in anticipation of the five year CPI adjustment that was scheduled to occur on October 1st, 2024, and providing for Repealer severability, codification and an effective date. This is item R5. I welcome Jason. Thank you mayor. The item presented amends the appendix a of the code related to city fee. The highlights of it are the rolling back to the 2024 rate for all parking fees. It also rolls back from to the 24 rates for all. Parks and recreation fees. Not really ordinance change. Thank you. Okay, vice mayor Fernandez, thank you. And I want to thank the administration for working with me on this on this item. Last meeting we all sponsored legislation to roll back parking fees. We withdrew that item to expand on parking fees and park fees as well, because those were set to go up with with CPI. And this this doesn't have any significant impact that can't be absorbed as part of our budget. And so I just want to thank the city manager and the CFO for working on this, on this legislation. Is that a motion? I move the item second. We have a second city manager. If I could just add one additional comment, this item also caps CPI moving forward so that at no point in time will CPI ever exceed a 3% cap. And if I may, through the mayor, before I was being rounded up to the nearest dolla, which is also part of the reason why some of these increases were so drastic now is just being rounded up to the nearest cent, which keeps these CPI increases, which we need at a more modest level. If I can add on to that, that dollar round up that was removed were related to the hourly rates on the parking, and that's the major part of it. So it will be rounded to the nearest penny on the parking rates that had the five year. So the five year CPI catch up will be taken out. It'll go to an annual CPI nearest penny on the 3% for those hourly rates. So Commissioner Bart, so how will it be handled for places that only take cash. And I'll let parking come off to? If there's anything I'm going to miss on this is the one thing that's something we have to take a look at. But the only area that we really are collecting cash is in in our garages. So we're going to have to analyze to see how we can handle that. It may have to come back to make some adjustment, whether it's on how we collect, whether we decide to collect cash anymore, because it's that's kind of the industry is moving away from a cash collection basis in that area. But that's something the administration, the parking department, will be taking a look at. So if I might make a suggestion, maybe when you guys decide, you know, discuss how to handle that, we could look at incentivizing people for using those garages by rounding down to the nearest dollar, because that takes cars off the road. That's why the garages should be utilized. And that that would give reason to give people a reason to just go straight into the garage because they could save a little bit of money. Parking. What do you like to make? Would you like to offer the amendment? I, I would like to offer the amendment that you study it. I don't want to dictate it because it might be a terrible idea, but we can look into it between first and second reading, because this has to come back for second reading. Is that correct? Yes. This would have to come back for second reading parking. I don't want to speak for parking, but if they want to be ready for second reading, welcome, Jose. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. Commissioners Jose Gonzalez, transportation and mobility director and interim parking director, and we'd be happy to look at that incentive option for garages. That'd be great. Thank you. Is that something you can do within before the next meeting? Yeah, we will we will try to have if I may add, this won't become an issue until October first of 2025. So we have 11 months to deal with the issue because the rates will be set at that flat rate for all of this fiscal year. So that's why I had mentioned that it was a good point, was that the parking department will look at that to see how or if they need to modify anything and would come back at the appropriate time. Thank you, thank you. Let's call the vote Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Vice Mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Rosen. Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes, Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Chabot. Yes. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. And for the record, this item replaces item R5 zero R5 a J. R5 a j is the notice of the mayor, city Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending and restating the Miami Beach employees Retirement Plan created by ordinance 22,006. Dash 3504A, subsequently amended by creating a new section 15 application to City Manager and City Attorney appointed in 2014, providing for providing for severability, repealing all ordinances and conflict therewith, and providing an effective date. This is item R5, a J. It is a first reading. What's MP for? Commissioner magazine. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. City attorney Nick, is this you comfortable running through this? Yes, sir. So this is an amendment to the pension ordinance that is intended to implement one of the terms in the city manager's employment agreement, which the City Commission approved as part of the consent agenda this morning. The city manager's employment agreement provided for moving the manager from tier C of the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan into tier B because the City Attorney's employment agreement provides that if a more favorable pension term shall be granted to any other charter officer, that that same term shall be extended to the City Attorney. This amendment has been drafted to cover both a city manager appointed on July 24th, 2024, and a city attorney appointed on April third, 2024. Under the. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the dais on the item seeing no discussion. Is this a public hearing item? It is not. Mr. Mayor, I know you're back, so I'll pass it back to you. Let's call the vote on R5 j. Commissioner bot. Yes, Commissioner Rosen. Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Yes. Wilson. Dominguez. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Vice mayor. Fernandez. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. Second reading. Public hearing is scheduled for November 20th. It was item R5 a j. Second Commissioner Fernandez has an addendum item relating to the fire station of Flamingo Park. And since we are talking fire, we have a number of fire representatives and management. We have save Flamingo Park representative. Does anybody have any objection? If we call the item? Usually I don't call them till after five. Any objections? Okay. C7 as. C7 as is in short track of Flamingo Park not affected by fire station one. Construction Commissioner Fernandez sponsor co-sponsored by Commissioner Dominguez and magazine Commissioner Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I want to thank my colleagues for sponsoring this item. We also discussed this issue in a similar discussion. Last meeting in an item that that Commissioner Bud brought forward. And this has been a lot of teamwork. I think the first call I got after the result of the voter referendum having to do with the fire station at Flamingo Park, the call was from our city manager, and we started having discussions at that point of making sure that there was a redesign being contemplated of the of the fire station to avoid and avoid any impact that we could possibly achieve on the track, on the field, avoid any impact on the students that that use the field as as well, and so and so this resolution that we have today on the agenda establishes very clearly that it is the policy of the city to fire station one and the construction project associated with Fire Station one should not result in the relocation of any portion of the track and field or any extended interruption of the use of the field. It further directs the administration to work with the design consultant to implement any such modifications that might be necessary to ensure that the running track and field will remain where they are currently located, and to develop a plan for the construction to prevent extended interruptions. And I'd actually I'd like to amend that to prevent any interruptions to the use of the turning of the running track and field and to prepare any necessary amendments that would need to be necessary, whether it be a PSA or whether it be any amendment to the agreements with the design consultants. So that's that's, that's that's the item that's that's before us. I'm going to recognize Commissioner Bot because she pulled the item and then Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner body recognized. Thank you. Thank you for doubling down on my item from September 11th meeting. I appreciate that it's different. It's not the same item. It's not doubling down. It's different but the same. The same general idea of protecting the park. It's materially different. So I would like to PJ if you could pull up the image that I sent you yesterday. I've been working with our team on this. And this is something that is very important to all of us. As you can see here, this is a preliminary rendering of the revised site plan. It is not a new design yet, but this very clearly shows that the new fire station building will not be affecting impinging upon the track. And field. It is paramount to all of us that that we protect the track and field to the best of our ability. I you know, I, I find it a little bit amusing that the folks who are so adamant about protecting the track and field in the community, I share their desire to protect these these public facilities. But, you know, somewhere in the next 10 to 15 years, we are going to need to do some maintenance and repair work on the track and field. We're going to need to resod or we're going to need to upgrade infrastructure. Am I to take from what I'm hearing over the last couple of months that under no circumstances are we to close the track and field, even to do repair projects and improve drainage and replace the sod. I mean, that's what it sounds like from the community. So I know that's not what they what they mean. But, you know, when we come back in a, you know, or whoever's next on the commission comes back and says, it's time for us to fix the underground infrastructure, and we need to resod and we need to repave the track. We cannot be deterred by voices saying, I'm sorry, we don't want our track and field closed because it's a safety issue. I also, I hear what you're what your intent is. Vice Mayor, to protect any closure for the track and field. But I am concerned that saying absolutely no closure of the track and field is putting undue constraints on on our our partners to build this facility. I can I can support eagerly do everything possible to have no or minimal impact on the track and field during any part of the construction because we share that desire. But if our team tells us we need 48 hours to do one thing and we're going to have to shut down the outer layer, the outer lane of the track, or whatever, are we going to say no, we can't do that. That's I don't think that's where any of us want to be. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, and I'll just say, before recognizing Commissioner Suarez is that we do live in a built urban environment and construction companies know how to do this in zero lot lines where you have a building abutting two buildings abutting a small, empty parcel, and they know how to build things to the property line without affecting the neighboring property. And we need to challenge them to do it the same way that a private developer would. With that. Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I'm glad you made that amendment, because I think that's very important to the community and to the to the hundreds, if not thousands of people who use the track on a daily and weekly basis. There can be no there can be no stoppage at this track. I think we were clear that moving forward, if we're going to consider this precious green space for a site, that there should be no disruption to the activities at the track, I thin, you know, we're already sacrificing, I think millions of dollars by, by, by, by saving the South Shore Community Center for this. I think we have the, the best people for the job to ensure that there's going to be no disruptions to the track because, you know, let's face it, when there's disruptions, they could last for months. And, you know, I for one, am not going to want to see after school programs where children and families have to sacrifice for this. So because if that's the case, I'm going to be a complete no on this. Just putting that on the record. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner magazine, I appreciate this item. I was already uneasy enough encroaching on a single blade of green space for this, but I recognize that any large infrastructure project like this is going to come with in-person. Whether we would have one with the South Shore Community Center or whether we would have went with this year, whether we would go for an alternative site, they would all come with imperfect consequences for a large fire station in a built up urban area. That being said, my line in the sand of where I just lose total and complete support is shifting the track at all and taking this track offline. When I go there every single day, there are there are hundreds and hundreds of people using it at all hours, right? All hours. So where my line in the sand is, is putting this out of line, whether it be for a week, six months, a year, you know, a day, I don't think we are going to be so stringent where if for one day a truck needs to come in and, you know, we're going to make the reasonable accommodations, we're not trying to be overly cute here, but where I think this is intended to go and where you have my full and unwavering support is any type of closure of the track due to this. And then the field is, well, I was just there for the homecoming football game. There were hundreds of people. I just do not want to open Pandora's Box, where a one month closure of the track turns into six months than a year, and then we're competing with the Marriott Staunton for 2032. You know, that's that's my worry about Pandora's box. So I appreciate this item. Listen, I don't feel great about where this is going, but I recognize that this was democracy. It's seven of us. We all had our ideas. The entire community got involved. People at varying times. And in our city, a lot of people just kind of remain indifferent until things are impacting their backyard. And that's where we started hearing from our tremendous community members in the Parks and Rec and the track and field. I appreciate, Matt, you and your team getting involved. So while this was a long, messy, painful process, it was it was democrac. And, you know, seven people came here to really put forth a coordinated effort. And I think we all kind of walk away with, yeah, that's that's that's really good. There's probably some things that we would change. But any large infrastructure project, whether it be the fire station, the road raisings, there's going to be unintended consequences. And the job for us is to mitigate those. And I think this this legislation is doing just that real quick. Commissioner Suarez, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just just to clarify, does staff still have direction to possibly look for other alternative locations, or is this the last one? I don't know if there if under previous commission we gave direction to still continue to look for different sites. But is that is that still a possibility or is there are you guys under direction for that? So my direction currently, as I understand it, is to move forward with modifying the design contracts with Wannamaker Jensen to modify the design to accommodate the West end of the Flamingo Park location and to negotiate those change orders and bring them back. I think we're planning to bring them back in December. That's correc. Okay. Mr. Rosen Gonzalez, when you went back, could we go back to the slide that has the building on it? I don't know, okay. So this is not this. It's not going to be that close to the track. Correct. You're going to shrink this what we're doing right here. It's going to be that close. It's like five feet. It's like five feet. It's about five feet. Yeah. That's about five feet from the track I think. Was this included in the in the supplement for my item? I believe it was. Yes it was, it was okay. And there's no other way to make it skinnier there. And then given it's an H make it like wider in other places so that you're not like hitting the wall. We've looked at various different options, and this is pretty much the bare minimum we could get by with. To your point, the track currently has a chain link fence. It's about two feet off the track. So that's the perimeter of the track. And we felt that five feet. Given that it's a little more than the two feet that you have to the chain link fence now was sufficient. Is that going to be I mean, like I think in the design you'd have to make that kind of like a breezeway for trucks, right? Because if you make that pure cement, that's, that's that's tough. I think when you go back to the architect, I mean, I know that you wanted to keep the exact design. I don't know how much the design costs, but what I would say is that is that there's got to be a way to modify that. I'm not sure what you mean by breezeway. The I mean like open. What I mean is like open air when I look at the fire station, just intervene for a moment. But let me just intervene for a moment. Just, just just just to put clarity we are discussing today policy not a site plan. They still have work to do. There. What we're discussing today is, is the policy. The policy. Yeah. Not the site plan. We've all made a commitment that we don't want to interrupt any activity at the track. I don't think that that's absolute, commissioner, but I think that when we're saying that, we're saying we're going to try throughout the construction process to make sure that, you know, that we don't interfere with the track. I wish we did have a better site than this, but I I'm very grateful to Commissioner Fernandez, you know, for everything that he did. And Commissioner Bott for moving forward and trying to find alternate locations to. And I you know, I'm like, I'm going to support it. I feel bad, I feel like I wanted us to do outreach with Flamingo Park, but if we show them that that's not a positive diagram. And so and so, it's a little too tight. I mean, like, I, like I think let's pass this policy change today. The policy is what's before us. Look, it's taking people till 2030 to build things. So what I would say this has to go back to HPB, remember, because this isn't a historic district. This has to go back to HPB. HPB is the body with jurisdiction to consider the site plan and all of these other matters. And that's what I, I don't want us to intervene into that, that, that jurisdictional review because that's not our, our purview here. We are looking specifically at policy. Okay. But what I'm what I'm trying to tell you is that because it's a fire station where they park vehicles, you could with a with a really nice design, you could make that center where the track is open air and tell the architect you want the trucks parked in there. So instead of running up against the cement wall, you're running up against open air. There might be some vehicles parked there, but we are going to have to modify the design so that it's so that it's not just beautiful, but but that it doesn't so that you don't feel like you have a cement wall there. And that's a possibility. We just have to get there. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you Commissioner. And I think staff has gotten to that point. Commissioner Vaughn. Yeah, I don't want anybody to take away from the conversation here today that the one of the first things we talked about last week when we met as a team was how to minimize any impact on the track. And I brought up the fact that in New York and in Boston, where I live for years, there are a million different buildings that are under major, significant renovation with people walking underneath them and not being impacted by it. So obviously, this is top of mind for me as well. So I want to put that on the record and also this is not designed. This has not been redesigned yet. This is fitting in the parameters of what can go into that space to, to make sure it does not affect the track, but now it is going to go back to the architects to reimagine what that space is, because they designed the prior version of the fire station for a site location that is a very different character of place context, right? It looked kind of what the South Shore community. It just kind of fit into that context. So now it's going to be put at the end of a park and greenery and feeling lighter and feeling like it's not a monolith are going to be some of the design direction as well as obviously highly functional. So let us not judge on what we're seeing for a massing study without it having even been designed yet. What I would say, can I can I? Both of you interrupted me and I never got Dominguez has not spoken yet and Commissioner Dominguez has has should have the opportunity before we go back. And I'm going to give it back to the mayor because he is the chair of the body. But you interrupted me, and then I never got to finish my comments because you interrupted me. You said, excuse me, I need to intervene. And then you never gave me back the floor. Thank you, vice chair. I just wanted to comment. I hadn't seen the renderings before. I appreciate Commissioner Bart giving the explanation on the Flamingo Park. You know, seeing the renderings. It's scary. Like the building is so close to the track. And if it's going to be tall, how's the shading going to be? How will it affect the use of the track with that? So thank you, Commissioner, for explaining that the redesign has not happened. I am concerned, looking at the renderings of the use of that space, especially when so many residents in that area and across our city don't want it. They want the green space and we need the fire station because the other one's in horrible condition. So like, we need to make sure we get this right. Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Dominguez. Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez, to finish her point that Commissioner Suarez, you can resolve this whole problem by just when you go to the architect. And I don't know how you feel about this. The whole thing needs an understory. If you put an understory, you won't like. Like if the whole thing is an understory open. All right. And then you have to slide down a pole anyway to get that. So I mean, I would if the way that you could design this in a way that does not affect the park, that's what I'm trying to say. It's a fire station. When you when you look at most fire stations, they're open on the, on the ground floor anyway. And the guys that slide down. All right. Commissioner Suarez, thank you. And women. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Well, just real quick, I think the understory, it doesn't make sense because we want the trucks to be elevated above a certain flood. Right. But aside from that, you know, when I look at that drawing, you know, like, like my colleague, Commissioner Dominguez here, I have some serious concerns, lik, I'm, I'm I understand that this is not the final design, but under no circumstance am I going to be okay with it. With a with a new fire station, five feet from the edge of the track? It's just I'm just not going to be okay with that. So, you know, I mean, I have some serious reservations on that. And, you know, I don't know if now is the time to also direct administration to see if there's other sites that possibly at that. In the meantime, while we're doing this, instructed administration to keep maybe an open mind and see if there's other potential sites. I know, I think I think one of the residents brought forward an idea for I think like tap, tap, not not the whole building, but there was there was an idea of a of a of a building next to it that we could possibly use or, or the county's community health center. There that we could possibly use. So, look, I, you know, if that's a motion, is that a motion? If you take the South Shore Community Center out of it, look for any sites except the South Shore Community Center. And I think we already I don't I think that's a moot point, right? I mean, that's not really. No. I think you need to include that, because what if we go through this whole process again and then we go back to the community center that we just spoke? Okay. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion. There's a motion and a second before us and if and if someone that gets recognized after we take a vote on this wants to have a separate vote on a separate motion, they're more than welcome to. But there's a motion. And a second before us at the moment on the motion on the table to approve the resolution before us. Commissioner bond, are we calling a vote? We can call the vote. So if I don't know if the mayor wants to speak on this item. So just out of respect to him, Mr. Mayor, I don't know if you want to speak on this item. I think it's all been said. Okay, let's call a vote. And I'm sorry I didn't catch who made the second. I made the motion, I got that which which made the second. This is for the origina, correct, as amended, with taking the words I think it's May or something like that, making it, making it more definitive. Yeah. No, no stopping the interruptions to the track. Yes. No interruptions. So I second it. Yes. Okay. On that. All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye aye. Motion passes seven zero and I have another motion for staff to possibly look at other sites. A second. Okay. Wait wait wait wait wait wait. Commissioner bass. Commissioner Bart. Okay, so let's say hypothetically, the second motion passes. So now are we also spending money to continue the work on the five day rule? The motion. You what? I four day rule the motion. What does that even mean? Can I even finish my sentence for time out? Commissioner Bob, what did you say? Commissioner Bob. Motion oh four day rule. Commissioner Bar, first, I'm going to finish my thought, and then I would like an explanation from the city attorney of what a four day ruling of the motion even means. We committed a almost a year ago to find an alternative site for the fire station that would not drag on in perpetuity. We have done that. We have not designed the new fire station yet. We have a massing study to show that in the without it being properly designed, re-engineered, redesigned for the site, it will fit onto the space without harming the track and field, which is what we agreed that we were seeking to do. Now, all of a sudden, and by the way, we had the Inspector General saying that we were acting improperly. We had the Geo Bond committee saying we were acting improperly. We had the fire department saying, God help you if you don't give us a fire station. We have a plan to move forward. We are all very cognizant of the issues before us. Where exactly are we going to magically come up with a site that is big enough? And who, by the way, Commissioner Suarez, are you going to pay for a 30 million site? All I all I'm suggesting is keeping an open mind for staff to explore options. It's not we're not asking for a study or we're not putting money toward a consultant, but are we asking to not do any work? I mean, that's not what I said. We obviously we just passed an item that directs us to move forward with the item that we just passed. However, keeping an open mind and the fact that this is going to drag on for months, what if there is an opportunity that presents itself? And what happens if the original item that comes back and it still stays five feet from the track? What are we going to do then? I'm not going to vote for that. So I mean, you know, we're bifurcating this issue and I don't see the harm in keeping an open mind on this. Oh, excuse me if I just through the vice chair, city attorney, Mr. City attorney, could you please explain what a four day what was a four day rule? Rule? It's a procedural matter we have. I don't believe the four day rule would apply here. What would apply would be a matter of interpretation. I can I can I finish? What would apply would be that the chair could declare that the item is out of order, because it was not on the agenda. So that would be the appropriate motion. Now, I do also want to remind the Commission that at your I think it was your June meeting, there was a resolution that if the voters approved, you directed the administration to proceed at this site. So you would also need an item to rescind that resolution, which gave specific direction to go ahead and proceed. Mr. Complicate things, Commissioner Suarez, just a just just a follow just a follow up. Can we bifurcate this to say that we're going to have city staff still look for other sites, but we're still moving forward with the original site? A motion could be made as you as you desire, and it would be up to the chair to determine whether the motion is properly before the body. Can I add one thing also, then Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez? Another question I had is the Flamingo track group had given us other options to look at, which I don't believe the city administration ever looked at. So what was that? I never received any additional sites to look at for the last commission meeting. They had additional sites, and I think even in when I spoke on the item, I said for the city staff to please look at other that the locations that they suggested, I'll pull it up and I'll share it. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez okay. So if we need money to buy an alternative site, okay, I would. You can't do both. You can't say to them, go to the architects, spend money, redesign the building. But in the interim, keep looking at other options. It's either or. But what we could do is say at the next election, we bond money for a fire station. And in the interim, look for properties in a certain price range. Okay, because we're going to need to buy, you know, a larger piece of land. I know that Commissioner Bart had an item on about the Rishi Kapoor site on Washington. I think that's interesting, too. I know that it's not enough space. I understand that my point is, is that at this point, the fire station does not have any mold remediation problems. So the sense of urgency regarding the air quality in the fire station is no longer present. Now, I know we have this public safety initiative, but if we do have more time and we do need more money, then we have to make a decision like we shouldn't vote on this today. We should come back and say, you know, here's how much money we think that we need to purchase a property large enough for the fire station and then go to the voters, get the funding, and then bond it, and then do it the right way, because to CIP has so many projects right now, and they know that this is there's a sense of urgency, but we can't give two directives. It's either move forward with the site that we have or take Flamingo Park off the table table. And I just want to open the senior lunchroom at the South Fork Community Center before it's back on the table and purchase. Let's make a new direction and just purchase a piece of land. There's land all for sale all over the place. If we needed money for that, where's Jason? Jason? Jason, let's say that we do need a substantial amount of money to. We have a design. Let's say that we want to put that design someplace else, and we know that there are several sites and that those sites are somewhere in the ballpark. We could spend up as much, as much as $20 million, but we're acquiring a property, which is good. I believe, in land acquisition. What would we need to do? Would you be able to get that funding for us? Do you suggest that we bond that money? Like what would be the best way if the question is how would we come up with 20 or 30 or plus million? I'm trying not to get to 30. I was I think it would be 50, actually. What? Well, $20 million for land acquisition and then $30 million to build it. Because remember, we still have if we need to redesign and recalibrate this, that's going to be an unfunded, what, $2,025 million. And then if we have a $20 million land acquisition, we're looking at $45 million. What I believe the last estimate that was presented was in the 15 to $19 million range. Would that included modifications to the track? So actually, it was just speaking with some of the staff who would probably be about half of that. So somewhere in the 7 to $10 million range would probably what would be needed to make this site happen, or perhaps some other site, if we're adding 20, 30, 40 whatever million dollars it is an adequately sized and properly located site is put together. So if we add all of those dollars together and we're looking at 30 to 50 or $60 million, that's a very substantial amount of money. You know, either the city dips very, very deeply into its reserves and then hopefully we'll come up with a plan to refund that money over time, or you put out a general obligation ballot question to bond out additional money. Now, obviously, the 2018 vote already had dollars associated with that. And then also just to remind everyone, we do have kind of in the balance about $10 million state grant that's tied to this that we're waiting to obviously lock down that location before we officially request that confirmation from the state, which we were planning on doing. You know, to do this would be just so much money right now. We're going to have to redesign that, because we cannot have a cement wall five feet from a track, that's for sure. So we're already going to have to spend money to design it. But here is the challenge. Could we use this as an example of what our future architecture of what. Let's make it an example in resiliency. You know, with the understory, if we like whatever it takes, I don't think that we can go out and find an alternative location. It's so expensive, but we could make it so that whatever the design is, we pay for a redesign. How much is the redesign going to cost? I wouldn't be able to tell you until I get there. Their final proposals. The person who was designing it? Or do they only design fire stations? Are they experts in that or are they just architects in general? They have a great amount of experience in fire stations, but they do a lot of different projects. Okay. And just real quick, I had finally found the communication from Matt in Flamingo Park save Flamingo Park and his suggestions were the Community Health Center, which I think we already said is not big enough. But the other location was Walgreens came out saying that a series of stores were going to be closing, and the one on fifth Street in Jefferson was a possibility. So throwing that out there as a location. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just for the sake of this of our meeting, you know, I'll I'll rescind my motion, but I will I will take on I will probably be bringing something in November for something. Because what I saw on that screen, I was I was not thrilled. So Mr. Mayor or Mr. City Attorney, I'm going to want to work with you on that. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner magazine, I want to be crystal clear here. We need a fire station. We need to move forward. And if this is a binary choice where this can't be redesigned to impact the track, I'm not going to vote to put in the track. And if there's one, I'm sorry. If it's the South Shore Community Center versus the impacting the track, I'm going to choose the former. Just laying that out there. If this is a binary choice between the two sites, I'm one of seven votes. If there's six other people that feel differently perfect. That's that's democrac. But I will not vote to put this and impede in the track because we haven't heard back definitively. If this actually can be redesigned to not impact the track, it hasn't been. Is that definitive? Yes. That's the design that was presented confirms that we can make it fit without touching the track. And David, would you be able to and just tossing out an idea, move this further west if even if it meant encroaching on the sidewalk there and there's also a city bike rack in the street. The layout shown there is a zero setback from Alton Road, so it's right on the property line. So it even actually takes away the sidewalk? No, it's right up against the edge of the sidewal. Do we? Off the top of my head. Right. I haven't long thought this out, but do we even need or even want a sidewalk right by a fire station? Would that actually cause pedestrian issue? Could we actually move the fire station even further west if it would take up the sidewalk ther? I believe that you're going to find the benefit of that sidewalk, particularly on Alton Road, which is heavily trafficked. Not only that, you do have visitors that come to the fire station for blood pressure checks or other stuff that the Jason was just suggesting to me that there's a potential. The drawing showed essentially the three floors, the first floor grade floor is parking. We could eliminate that parking, but then we have no employee parking and that they wind up parking on the street in the neighborhood. Okay, so can we call the vote after your comments? So the parking could just be open and that way they're not it's not up against the cement wall. It's just open. All we're going to ask you is to try to work around the cement that's abutting the track. I mean, we can take that direction back to the designers. Okay. There is the West face on Alton. That is where the building interacts. So it won't be completely open. There's lobbies and elevators and other stuff that that needs to work there. But we can look at making that open. I mean, we could put the Apollo mural right there on the track. You never know. You know? Just kidding. Just kidding. I would just try. I'm going to vote for Alex's. We okay. So we voted on this. All right. And I'm not going to vote for an alternative location because I think we can make it work. It's been a lot of work to get to where we are. Okay. Thank you. C7. Sorry. What number is the ferry item? R r r seven g thank you. Seven I. The ferry OR7GR7G is directed administration to develop RFP for a water taxi service r seven g sh. Who's presenting this item? And I think all of us. Yeah yeah yeah. Yes. And Commissioner Suarez. Sure. I have no problem starting off, but you know, the previous commission and commissions before that, I think had a really bad taste in their mouth because of the Poseidon ferry operation. But still has merit. The fact that, you know, we're on an island, we're surrounded by water. It it only makes sense to have a transit system that's on the water. The last operator that we used, you know, they they stiffed their employees. Hell, I had an item on consent to repay back people who bought tickets and who were basically defrauded and they weren't going to get their money back from this last vendor. So I think with careful consideration, we as a commission could really consider a better plan to possibly move forward with a ferry transit system between our island and the mainland and so I schedule or commissioner Fernandez and I scheduled a sunshine meeting that was also attended by Commissioner Dominguez to really explore all options and availability that that we could take advantage on. So we had discussions with staff, and I really appreciate to hear what they have to say. Jose, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Commissioner Jose Gonzalez, transportation and mobility Director and interim parking director. So this item before before you gives the administration direction to begin drafting a request for proposal or a similar procurement document for water taxi service within our city and also connecting to the mainland over to Miami. I want to preface it by saying that absolutely, water taxi ferry service is a key ingredient in our multimodal transportation plan. It's been part of our blueprint for many years. We've we've attempted we've had several attempts at different pilot programs, but for a variety of reasons. Some of those pilot programs have not been successful as recent as the Poseidon pilot program that that was terminated just a couple months ago. So with with this item, our intent is to seek your input, your direction on where you would like water taxi service, what type of water taxi service would you like to see? Are we referring to only a cross Bay type of service or a more robust service that also serves different points within our island? That makes a difference in terms of the scope and the scale of the service? As we put together this, the scope of services for this solicitation. So I'm going to give you my vision. So this came up a couple of years ago. The Poseidon item came up. I was not a supporter of it. I voted no to it. Obviously, it did not predict how bad it would be, but I didn't like it for a number of reasons. And the proposal that I have, which was separate, which, by the way, was frustrating to me because it often got interconnected with the Poseidon item, but it's completely separate and I still have the item. It's for the city to seek aggressively and proactively grant funding. We have a grant funding request out to the state. We have not done so for the federal government, and there is significant monies potentially on the table. And by the way, what I keep hearing from the city administration is there's a lot of information that the federal government is asking and that we needed to collect that data. We need to submit that application. I literally had this item past 18 months ago, and we have not submitted the application. So we either I need a commitment. You don't have to answer me now. I'm just saying this out loud. You either give me a commitment that we're going to submit this application by a certain date, or on the next meeting, I'm bringing an item that we hire a consulting firm, which I hate to spend that money, but it's important enough. There's the federal government will spend up to 80% of the capital expenditures to build out the ferry system. And the ferry system that I'm envisioning is not only going to Miami, but literally up south and north throughout Miami Beach, literally like a trolley, except on water. And you hop on and off similar to what they have in in parts of in in Fort Lauderdale. And it can work. But we need help. We need we need some monies. And we're going to need from the, from the state and the county. But we're not going to get that. We're not going to get to that level until we sort of we move aggressively on these items. We've got to submit that application. And if there's some information missing, at least we did it and go from there. So that's the vision I have. I'm going to I'm supportive of this item, but I'm not sure of the private sector is the way to go. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. I think it's going to have to be through this type of grant funding and a sort of like a trolley system where you have the, the city run the operation. Commissioner Dominguez, thank you. Another thing that we learned, and I like your vision, mayor, I agree we need something like that. And I love the way that sounds to have it all throughout our city. During that meeting, somebody that was there is already operating a water taxi between Bayside and the Marina south of fifth. And I did some investigating with our city attorney, Kallergis. And that person does have an active beta. They give discounts to residents in three three, 139. So I think that person should also be notified that there's an RFP so that they're aware and expand the discount to all zip codes, not just South Beach in Miami Beach. But I am very supportive of this item. Mr. Vice Chair, Commissioner Bob and then Commissioner Suarez. Yeah. Thank you. I I'm supportive of this item. I also would like to see this become a ferry system going north and south, not making tons of stops, but maybe 5 or 6 stops on places at at places that are already municipal land fire station, Brittany Bay Park, the land adjacent to the Mount Sinai Hospital, Purdy, so that it's almost like an express trolley. And I'm curious. And Jose, I don't know if you know this yet or if you need to put together a process, but how is the RFP going to be written so that decisions can be made about what we're actually asking for? So we would, as part of the RFP development process, we would develop criteria, evaluation criteria. We would develop the scope itself. The scale of the effort. And that would come before you. By the way, this would only be direction for us to go back and work on that and then come before you with a draft solicitation document. But to your point, Commissioner, and I think this conversation is very timely because for the first time in many, many years, the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization, which is the regional transportation planning entity for the county, they are in the process of putting together a water taxi ferry, a comprehensive plan, which includes Miami Beach. And we are at the table, and we're part of the steering committee of associated with that effort. And they've identified several locations, potential locations, docking locations in our city and that's very important because going back to the issue of the federal grants, many times the US Dot will want to see that coordination with the regional county government whenever a municipality is proposing some type of water taxi or or really this is a regional ferry service, this would go beyond our our city limits could go north, north of us and to Surfside, North Bay village and other communities and, and as well as to our to the mainland on the west. So it's really a regional initiative that that really requires the endorsement of the county, regional transportation authority. And they are in the process of doing that study. So at least there's something that we can fall back on and point to, to the federal government when we apply for grants. Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez and Commissioner Suarez, I agree that we have to start somewhere. And I met with the people who have a prototype of a boat that looked, you know, very nice. Could be branded with Miami Beach. And if we want to be pioneers, we're going to have to show people that we can do it. And once we build one boat and show that it can be done, we're going to get funding everywhere. The state, the county, the states, the first person who's going to tell you your streets are at failure, okay. And this is an alternative, but if we don't take action and move forward and show that it can be done and be true pioneers in this, and I do think that this is going to revolutionize transportation, not just in Miami Beach, but in the city of Miami as well. That is stuck in gridlock. So I approve, like I support this. I would build two boats if we could. I think that this is the best way that we could allocate our monies. And, you know, we're going to have to make an investment. And then what we should do is a dual track approve this, go out, make the first payment and then go to the county and say, how much can you give us toward this prototype that we're you know, that we're doing this pilot program that we're doing, you know, I'm going to give a perfect example. When you first said that you wanted to make during rush hour, those two streets in Mid-beach like one ways. I thought, that's a crazy idea. Everybody's going to hate that idea. It's not going to work. But I actually drove through it the other day, and it's kind of like a like a human bridge with the police officers in the center, and there was no backup. And honestly, it's working very well. So had we listened, you know, when, when that happened and there was an angry mob and you spoke to this angry group of people that came forward, by the way, I was probably one of the biggest skeptics on that pilot program. It works. We know it works. You solve the problem. That really was one of our biggest problems. Crossing 41st Street. So congratulations to you guys for pulling it off. And Commissioner Suarez, congratulations. And this is very similar. We need to show that it can be done. And the sooner that we get our first boat built, I think it takes about a year to build a boat. I can't wait, you know, this is something perfect, a perfect example. You guys want to give away the zoning height or far. Let's say, hey, you know what you want to add to our density? Well, then you're going to pay for this funding. We can easily get funding from money. So thank you, Commissioner. We have 24 ordinances and four consent items that are on the pull list. Commissioner Suarez and then if we could thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So as a member of the TPO, I'd be more than happy to also raise the discussion as a discussion item for where we are with the county's plan for water taxi. But there's a member in the audience who is actually one of the providers for building boats, and I'd like them to speak if the body is okay for public speaking. For two minutes, he's been waiting here all day and just give us a little bit more insights into the processes. If that's okay. Yeah. Okay. Please proceed. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. Commissioners, thank you so much. My name is Jeffrey Lardy. I've been operating passenger boats out of Cowes Marina for over a decade now. We organize private events. We also are involved in some other high impact events to ferry passengers. For the past two years, I've also been involved in constructing and building those passenger boats. I sell them to private operators, but I also do that to cities and government, mainly all in the US, to provide solution like a water taxi service. When Poseidon failed, you know, they worked out of the Marina I've been working for a decade, so I'm very familiar with that operation. And I reached out to some of the commissioners which have already sat down with a few of you to try to give a bit of an education on how it should be done. And after studying the, the, the process, I think I came up with a pretty solid plan on having either one boat built or two smaller boat built to have an efficient system to start in between the Cowes Marina and Maurice Gibbs Park. You know, having a bit of a rotation between 20 to 30 minutes in between 20 to 30 passengers, or a single boat for 50 passengers. That could also welcome bike bicycles and trailers and those kind of things. I do think that the solution is viable, but I do think that the private sector should get help by the government, meaning if I were to buy the boat and operate them, I would expect the city to pay for to subsidize a portion of or the tickets at least just to make it a habit onto the citizen to come on the on those boats, start to use them. Have a solid contract for about five years. If you're expecting somebody to pay up front for all those boats to prove that this is going to work, pay for the tickets for your citizens, make sure that you know we get compensated for our service. We operate for five years. If that works, then, you know we can start charging tickets and fares. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion on the table? I'll move it. It's been moved by Commissioner Suarez. Second by the chair. Call the vote. This is the chair. The mayor or. Well, now, are you or you're the chair? Call the vote. Can I ask a question on the second? Okay. Second. Is Fernandez okay? Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? Eric? So I think we got clear direction on looking at a multi stop option along Miami Beach. I wanted to ask if you felt strongly one way or the other as to whether we should be including some upland improvements in this contract to make sure that we've got docking capabilities at some of the locations that we're going to be looking at or whether this should just be the transit piece of it. So similar to if we're talking about an on land option, we have one vendor that provides the trolley operations, and then we have another vendor that provides the bus shelters. Should we be looking at one stop turnkey operation that runs the ferry service, as well as looks at some of the docking operatio? Or should we have separate vendors looking for some feedback? What if I don't mind speaking? Why don't you come back and tell us what the best option is? Okay, happy to do that. Let's call the vote. I can't say no to you, Sarah. Do I have a Sarah de Los Reyes Center Harbor neighborhood association? It's a great idea, but one thing that you guys need to take into consideration when you do the RFP, are you catering to the residents of Miami Beach or the people who are commuting into Miami Beach? Because that that is a bigger the commuting people, that's a bigger, bigger amount of people that come in and out that if they if it's reasonable for $2, whatever it is, they're going to take the ferry and not bring the car into Miami Beach. So you have to think about which one that you're catering to. I know that the residents will get something, but I think you have to think about it and talk to the commercial establishment to be able to provide them the free pass as they work in that business. That would help you because I wrote The Poseidon, I, you know, it was only residents that were here. You put it on in the wrong time. Summer. Everybody's away. So I think that would help you. But think about that in your RFP. Who are you going to cater to? Good point in the in the cost. Thank you. Okay. Let's call a vote. So I have a motion and a second. All in favor. This is R7G. Say hi please. Hi. Hi. It passes seven zero. Thank you. I have a couple of budget items that we need to hear today. Let's call our. Actually, no, I think we have to wait till 5:00 for those. Let's call our 7FR. Seven F is a public hearing red light camera annual report. For the record, I have to read the summary. It is a one second. It is a public hearing. The summary of this item is in compliance with Florida Statutes 316 .083. Subsection three for the 2024 Annual Traffic Infraction Detector Report for the period from July 1st, 2023 to June 30th, 2024, the City of Miami Beach recorded 8532 notices of violations issued, 26 violations contested, one violation of held, 18 violations dismissed, 2929 violations issued as a uniform traffic Citation, 4597 violations paid and were collected. State funds were distributed in accordance with State Statute 316 .0083, subsection four, in the amounts as follows. As follows $345,100 to the General Revenue Fund, $70 per violation, 49,300 to the Health Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund. $10 per violation and 14,000 $790,000 to Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund. $3 per violation. This is a public hearing. I see no one in the audience. I have one person in zoom. Mr. Schaefer, are you here to talk about the annual Traffic Infraction detector report? He hasn't unmuted himself, and he's had his hand up for a while. So I see no one in zoom either. Okay, so this red light cameras were approved a couple of commissions ago. I'm not a big fan of them, but we are mandated under state law to give this report today. So that's what we're doing. So if no one else and there's no discussion, if I may have a motion and a second, please. I have a question while we're on the item. Mr. Mr. What is what would it be? The process to do away with red light cameras in the city? So I would ask our our folks that manage that contract, but I believe it would be a situation where we'd have to look at the contract provisions and see what the termination clauses are. I would imagine we must have some sort of termination for convenience. If we've been in the contract long enough that we might not have any capital expenditure to reimburse them for their initial install, then it would be a relatively painless process. If they're still recouping capital costs, then we would probably have to compensate them for breaking the contract. And the reason why I ask it is because I you know, I just I just know based on my observations and living right in front of a red light camera, I feel that they cost more accidents with people who brake to avoid a red light ticket, and then you end up with people being rear ended with, you know, with these fender benders that, that that happen. And I don't know if it's worth it. You know. And so and so I just I would like us to explore what the process would look like, what costs and what our and what our exposure would be happy to explore it. I can tell you, as someone who implemented a red light camera program in another municipality before I came here, at least at that point in time, the data was representing what you've anecdotally seen out there is that the number of accidents do go up, but the severity of the accidents change from T-Bone type accidents to the rear end accidents, which are much less drastic. But but the number of accidents do go up. And when the number of accidents do go up, so do our police officers being occupied responding to those accidents and that's an issue especially when, for example, where I live, that's area two. Do I want police officers responding to a fender bender at the corner of Chase Avenue and Alton Road, as opposed to patrolling the beach walk or speeding and noisy vehicles on Collins Avenue, or providing safety to the business corridor on 41st Street. You know, it does take away resources from what I experience on a regular basis. Fair enough. Happy to look into it. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez and Commissioner Botts, I will support you if you want to abolish red light cameras. We've been through this before. We looked at the data. It does increase accidents. And more importantly, I think it's the fine is what is the current total amount of each violation. Do we have that information, Commissioner I think it's $158. It's $158. I do think that, you know, when many of our seniors or people get that $158 violation, it's financially debilitating to them. And I also think that, yes, I, I think that they're there to generate revenue. The funny part is, is that we're not even getting that much money from these red light cameras. It's such a de minimis amount compared to what I thought it would be, given the price of the violation, but the way that the state mandated it, by the way, didn't the state, like outlaw red cameras on state roads, like they don't even have red light cameras? And we chose to keep them. But I do think that if we have if I don't know what the temperature of this body is, but I would for sure, I would definitely be behind removing them from Miami Beach, because number one, it does cause more accidents. We're not getting that much money from them. It doesn't necessarily change behavior because the people running red lights, most of the time it's an accident anyway. They you know, they're not running a red light on purpose. They just kind of get caught and then because of that, they're, you know, that's why they're stopping in the middle of the road. So I'm glad that you've been observing that tren. So I don't know if two other people would like to abolish the red light cameras, but I would be on board. I'd like to see the item as presented, but as I opened up, I'm not a fan. Okay, so we have one, two, three bringing the item Commissioner bot. I guess I'm in the minority here, but I left work early yesterday to go to a doctor's appointment to deal with an injury I received when I was T-boned in 2017. And I will tell you that I'd rather see more fender benders than more major crashes in intersections. We, as a body rail about the terrible driving in the city, the fact that people speed uncontrollably, the fact that people run red lights, that they run stop signs, that they don't seem to give a about anybody else on the road, whether a pedestrian or somebody on a bike or some other e-mobility device or another driver. So to take away one of the few things that might give somebody pause about running a red light, I think is an unfortunate path to proceed down. Well, by the way, it potentially could be bifurcated. Some of the red lights are really intended for turning turns, and that's where they primarily get people. So those might be a little different than the ones you're referring to. So it might it might be we could look at each one individually. Do we need to get a report from police as part of this item. The item was there. That's a summary I read so that report was part of the agenda. So you are approving that report which was included in the agenda? Perfect. I move the approval of the report. Second call the vote. All in favor of R7F, please say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Report is accepted. Police to handle. It's called R7CR7C is a public hearing. Adopt First Amendment to the fiscal year 2025 capital budget R7C good afternoon, Tamika Stuart. Budget director. This is the First amendment to the capital budget. It contains three items. It recommends an appropriation of $1.6 million and the realignment of 57,000 from two existing projects to a new project. So the first project is the 23rd Street Improvements, bike lane and shared use path project. So the contractor proposal came in over budget by $1.28 million. The recommendation is to appropriate these dollars from interest income that has been accrued to the Geo bond fund in the infrastructure Division. The second project is the Indian Creek Drive protected Bike lane project. The contractor's proposal has come in 278,000, more than the budget, and the recommendation is to appropriate funds from the available transportation fund fund balance. And the last project is the fire station number four. Exterior painting and Waterproofing project. That's a new project and the recommendation is to fund this project from funds left over from two existing projects that have been completed with savings. So that's the fire station four Fire Alarm Renewal project and the Miami Beach Fire Station Security Upgrade Projec. Thank you. Tamika, you're welcome. Any questions? Motion I'll move the item. I'll second. It is a public hearing. I have one person in the audience. Call in user one. Are you here to talk about the amendment to the fiscal year 2025 capital budget? Hi. Hi. Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. Yes, I'm here to talk on this item. I want to thank the mayor and commission for their continued support in appropriating funds for making our city more walkable and more likable. It is greatly appreciated by many people in the city with respect to the 23rd Street project. There just want to remind everyone that over four years ago, this project was changed at the last minute and the bike lane was actually deleted from 23rd Street. So here we are four years later and millions of dollars later and still hoping to get a portion of this project complete. So as all these things happen and things are changed at the last minute, there are real world implications, both in amenities for residents and also funding implications. So thank you again, though, for the support and moving these things forward and hope to see them complete soon. Thank you. Was this Matthew Colton of. I think it was. We have I think we have a raised hand again calling user one if this is someone else. If not. Matthew, is that you again? Hi. Hi. I'm so sorry I did not state my name and address. Matthew Goldstein, 25, Jefferson. I recognize the voice. Thank you. No other speaker. Mayor. Call the vote on R7C, we have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Mayor Minor. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes 70R7C. It's called R R7ER7E. We heard the companion item this morning. It is a public hearing. Approved lease with Moonlighter fab lab, 1661 Penn Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue. This. The companion item was approved already. I move the item, Mr. Mayor. Second. Second, call a vote and it is a public hearing. I see no one in the audience. I see no one in zoom. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. That was R7E. Thank you. Thank you. Let's call R nine Z. Nine Z is discussed. Senior meal site programing at South Shore Community Center R-9 Z. I believe this is an administrative item. Eric. Correct. Mayor. And I'd like to hand it  To develop a plan for reopening the September 16th budget hearing, the Commission discussed a one time expenditure enhancement for fiscal year 25, in the amount of $175,000 to reinstate the Senior Meal Site program. Currently, there are three providers on Miami Beach that offer operate congregate meal sites. Therefore, the administration is recommending issuing a request for proposals for vendors to be able to provide a cost analysis and service plan to maximize the city's budget. Our proposed timeline is to work with procurement to come back, come back to the commission to issue an RFP in December. Yes. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, thank you. You know, it was interesting. I had a casual conversation with Miriam from JCS, the senior lunchroom around the corner has a huge waiting list. And she said that it's going to fill up, like with 100 people, almost immediately. And by the way, I know we're putting out an RFP, but you know when she they've already kind of come up with like with a plan of all these wraparound services that they offer to. So, I mean, I hope when we do this, I know that JCS offers transportation for seniors. They have that. What are the other services that they offer? There's so many different services that they do at the site. They offer case management services. They have elderly support services as wel. Yeah. So they're going to fully program this site. And as part of the RFP, are we just doing the lunchroom or when they once they get there, do they just start to kind of operate like well we're looking to issue first the RFP to get proposals, being able to get cost analysis, see how much we could get for the cost for the 175 and what the vendor is proposing, what it would look like, and for how many people, as well as the programing. And then from there we would look at the best option and move forward. Okay, I don't know how you feel about this, but I would like to get this in the pipeline and move the item and I'll second your motion. Thank you. And if I may, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Fernandez, so this is scheduled then to be heard at Ferc November 8th, correct? Yes. An update, but not only on the senior congregate meal. I believe the item is for all of the programing for the site, for the South Shore Community Center. Okay. And then the RFP, the draft RFP that would be issued would come to the full commission for approval in January. In December, our hope is to have it by December. To be able to offer the latest would be January, correct? Okay. All right. So I'm good I'm good with it. Okay. Just want to call the vote. So this is giving administration direction R9 z. All in favor. Aye. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you sir I'm just going to make a quick comment on how important this meal service is in South Beach in particular. But even around our city recently, Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez and I were up in North Beach at Unidad for a party that they had. And we went downstairs and we saw a handful of seniors, and they were just sitting there like confused. And we asked them, what are you doing? And they said, they've already allocated the number of meals for the day, so we don't have food and that was so heartbreaking that there were about 3 or 4 seniors that were not going to have food that day, because we only paid for 140 and there was no more to give. So I really love this item. I know it's for South Beach, but if there's ever an opportunity to increase it in North Beach, it's important. And Laura, there is a waitlist of more than 100 seniors right now that are not getting lunch, that will soon be able to walk to the South Shore Community Center and have lunch again and dance some salsa. Chair aerobics. Okay, great. And we had a very successful open house, a lot of attendees came with some good ideas as well. It's called C-7b. CC. Yes, sir. C-7b is amend resolution 2024 33243 approving one time funding for Miami Beach arts and culture organizations. C-7b. Was separated by Commissioner Suare. Mr. Suarez thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I separated this because originally I thought the original ask was for nearly half a million dollars. And I want to just know why we doubled it. I understand this is a one time grant, but you know, if originally they were asking for half a million dollars, why are why give another half a million dollars, if I may, through the chair Commissioner bot the original ask was the full amount. And during Ferc we thought maybe we could cut the amount down a little bit. But in further reflection, after Ferc, it seems better to give them the full amount, which is fully funded in the budget. As it stands now, we're not asking for any additional monies to be allocated. We're just asking to proceed with the money that was correctly allocated towards this. You know, these arts and culture institutions provide tremendous economic impact to our city, not just in terms of the jobs they provide and the benefits they provide to our residents. But the people who come in for events for a night or a weekend. And I think it is penny wise and pound foolish to shortchange these organizations in a time of need. And we all know it's a one time stopgap. Hopefully the state will come back to its senses and fund the amounts that were properly allocated and approved over the many years in the past, and we can just move on and keep going. But I would like to ask our Director of Tourism and Culture to talk about the economic impact, because we're all trying to be fiscally prudent, and these numbers are quite impressive. Well, if I if I may, because, look, I just wanted to separate it to discuss. I think, you know, I'm okay with this moving forward. I wanted to have a little bit more insight, but I think moving forward, if the original committee, finance committee said, you know, half the cost and then and then there's a change of heart, wouldn't it make sense to go back to the committee to discuss that instead of bringing it forward to commission? It just seems like it's almost like a bait and switch. If you've already fleshed out a committee and then the commission, you bring it in full. So I'm okay with this moving forward for this particular item. But I think I think you know, I don't want to set a precedent where we flesh something out in committee and all of a sudden we just, you know, whoever, whoever decides to change their mind literally doubles in half $1 million of taxpayer money is spent. And look, I get it. These programs are great for the community. You know, you mentioned that this is a time in need. Yeah, but this is a time of need for all of our residents. All of our residents are feeling the pain. You know, we raised taxes this year. So you know, everything that we can do to lower taxes. I'm going to be a champion of moving forward in this city. So you know, Lissette, you're more than welcome to talk, but I'm going to go ahead and move this item. Mr. Manager, did our body raise taxes? My understanding is that the millage rate was flat between last year and this year. Thank you. And Commissioner. I'm happy to second your motion. Thank you. Commissioner Fernandez. And through the chair, if I may, two of us, Commissioner Fernandez and I are on the on the finance committee. So I can tell you there's no bait and switch here, you know, with a little bit more time to think about things. But wouldn't it be impossible? Would it be correct to do it through a committee? I defer to the city attorney. I understand it's possible, but I think the correct procedure would be if there is a change, especially if you're doubling the amount to half to $1 million. I don't know, I you know, it's one thing if it's if it's a small grant fund under $75,000, but you're, you're literally raising it half $1 million. So I think it's prudent to if you're going to be doing that excessive amount, send it back to committee. I mean, I would have been more than happy to attend that committee and discuss it. But, you know, right now we're under the gun and, you know, it seems like the cake is already baked on this. So I'm just saying, moving forward, if that's going to be the case, I would appreciate it. To go back to committee. Commissioner magazin, quick question. I just noted to Peter to ask to come down. I remember that the county was taking a vote. If they were going to essentially provide some type of funding, and I know it wouldn't replace the entire extra half $1 million. But does anybody I can't recall where they came down. I thought the county gave some money. Does that trickle down to Miami Beach at all? I'm not sure, but my recollection is, and maybe Jason could shed some light on this, that this was discussed at the budget meeting. And I if I recall correctly, it was approved. Yeah. Can speak to that quickly. The item came up during which the commission did approve it to be in the preliminary budget. That that amount it was sent to later in July to a finance committee, where it was recommended to be approximately half of that amount. But I, I believe is the commissioner Bart had mentioned there was a reasoning related to other governmental entities. Perhaps funding it might have been the purpose for that. And then when it came back, so it was budgeted at the million. We mentioned it during the budget hearings itself to see if the commission wanted to remove or reduce the budget allocation from the million in the preliminary to the half a million that was being recommended by Ferc, and it was determined at that time that they would keep the budget allocation at the $1 million. And that is what is in the final and approved budget, $1 million. So circling back to my question, did the county come up with some type of incremental stopgap funding? They did not, because they in good afternoon, they said after the director of tourism and culture, they did not. They were actually facing their own challenges with their arts and culture budget. And so they did come a little bit under what they would normally give. I believe, to their during their grant process, but they did not. We do have another municipality, which is Saint Petersburg, that they came forward and funded about close to 40 half of the recommended amount, 48% recommended by the state legislature. I retract the nice things I said for the RDA item. So I so we have a motion a second. Yeah, I through the vice chair. Can we call the vote. Yes. Let's call the roll. Yes. Yes sir. On C7 we have a motion in a second. All in favor, please say I. I hearing no no's. The item passes seven zero. Let's call R5 al. Are. Al is an order of the mayor city Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. Amending chapter 58 of the Miami Beach City code entitled housing by amending article three entitled Property Maintenance Standards by amending section 58.298 thereof, entitled Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants to require property owners of houses and buildings within the city to place signage two weeks prior to fumigation and installing one way animal doors on crawl space, and providing for severability, codification and effective date. This is a first reading. It is item R5 al Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you. This item came forward from the Animal Welfare Committee and it speaks of cats that have been killed during fumigation because the proper protocol wasn't taking place to ensure that the crawl space underneath the homes was free of any animals. Now, this item that we currently have before us, Mr. City Attorney, I believe there's a little bit more language to add. That is correct. We received a communication that the draft that was prepared and reviewed did not include some language that would would require that a property owner who is going to spray remove animals that might be in the crawl space before covering the crawl space. There was also, as a result of some discussions over the past couple of days, some concern that a one way door may or may not make sense. So I think what we're thinking is that between first and second reading, we will work with staff to come up with something that is both comprehensive in terms of addressing the concerns and also pragmatic for property owners who already have covers on their crawl spaces. Great. With that. I would like to move the item. Second, Commissioner Gonzalez, as the homeowner who has to attend because I have an older home every 4 to 5 years, I'd like to point out a few things about this that I think we need to possibly change, and then and then approve the first things first. The posting signs two weeks prior. First of all, like the city attorney who's reading them, the cats, the only people who are going to read them are people that are going to come and burglarize our homes. So by saying we're going to, you know, we're going to fumigate my house, that means like, nobody's going to be home in two weeks. So I think I think the sign portion should be eliminated because I think you'll see a rash of burglaries related to it. And then the second thing is, I have no problem making sure that there's a vent open. But this says that you have to install a cat trap door, and that's going to cost a lot of money. And by the way, it was already like $2,000 for me to test. You know what they're going to cost, what they're going to charge me to install that door. Maybe the door itself is only 25 or $30. Yeah, but that's not the point. It's the labor involved. And by the way, once you put the tent over the door, why can't we just have the vent open? Like, can you just say we'll keep our crawl space open? That way they have a way out. By the way, anything that's trapped under the house, once that tent is in and the gas is on, I hate to say it, it's toast. Now, if they have a way out. But it's true. I mean, it's like you have a heavy tent. Well, I mean, you know, you have a very heavy tent, and. But I think the issue is just. Look, we all have on our crawl spaces, vents that can be removed. Right? So just remove the vent. So if you could just make it instead of a one way door, just have a vent, make sure that there's a ventilated opening. And then remove the signage requirement. That could lead to a rash of burglaries. And then I would be fine with it. Otherwise, I think every single family homeowner is going to be upset about this because number one, we all, when you tent the will we revise it between first and second reading and thank you for the input. Really appreciate it. Okay. Thank you I'll second it. Maybe we could call for a vote right. Meow. All those in it's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion from the body. Is this item a public hearing item or. No. It is not a public hearing item. Just for clarification, properly moved and seconded. Let's call the roll. Just for the record. It is as is. Any changes would come at second reading, correct? Commissioner magazine yes. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. But we're making the changes right? Absolutely. Yes. Commissioner Dominguez. Yes. Commissioner Botts. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yeah. Yes. Motion carries. Second reading. Public hearing is November 20th. Our 5. Our 5G is an ordinance of the mayor and city Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending chapter 46 of the Miami Beach City code entitled environment by amending article five entitled Turtle Nesting Protection Ordinance, by amending section 46, 202 and 46 203 thereof to strengthen and clarify the provisions of the existing ordinance and include recommended modifications by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, FWC, and providing for Repealer, severability, codification and an effective date. This is a second reading public hearing. Our 5G. I'll take it from here. Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized. Thank you. I believe this is a second reading. And given the feedback from my colleagues, I think we've addressed a lot of concerns. I understand the mayor had concerns about an overreach as far as residents are concerned. But I think considering the fact that you have tourists that come in who may not know anything about sea turtles, this program should apply because the hotels will give proper notice. You know, I just want to share an email that we received just just today from a from a resident on the beach, you know, just a quick note of support. We hope to hear later today that the city approves amending chapter 46 at today's meeting as it as a 24 year beach resident, it's time that we join the rest of the Southern Hemisphere and do our part to minimize beach light pollution. Our 238 unit condo building at 4.65 Ocean Drive is taking your proactive guidance and support and removing our globe balcony lights. During our ongoing structural renovations, we will also be modifying our pool deck lighting, which has moonlight round globe lighting fixtures. As a long time resident, I've seen sea turtle hatchlings in front of our building dozens of times as well. In the Galapagos and Costa Rica, where obviously they're more protected. Over the years, I've seen and heard stories of late hatchlings, stragglers headed away from the ocean by light distraction. Please make us proud today. These little things are not asking for that much after all. So with that, I'd like to just move my item. Thank you Commissioner, I'll second your item and I just would like to note I love our level of compassion today, and I think this item has a lot of merits. We're compassionate towards the turtles. We're compassionate towards the animals under the buildings. And I think we also need to remember, you know, the compassion we need to extend to all people as well in our in our city, and especially given the tone of what happened earlier today. But this is a good item. You know, these are defenseless creatures that we need to protect. So I'm happy to second your motion, and thank you for making the amendments to make it less onerous on homeowners. So I believe we have a motion and a second. Yeah. Public hearing. And I see no one in zoom and no one in the audience requesting to speak. So with that, let's call the roll. So on r five, Commissioner Suarez. Yes, Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes, Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Bok. Yes. No. Motion carries. The item is approved. R5G how about the turtles? Our nine AF. Our nine AF is discussed. Scheduling and coordinating of sunshine meetings. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for calling this item. So I placed this item on the agenda. I think sunshine meetings can be a great tool for us on occasion to be able to. You want to briefly explain in case somebody doesn't know what they are our residents. I'm sorry. Yes. To interject, but yes. So sunshine meetings are when members when two or more members of the city commission wish to meet, they provide notice to the city clerk. The City Clerk advertises the meeting and then a sunshine meeting is held. It's not like a meeting of the city commission or a meeting of one of our committees. It's a meeting between two members of the city commission or more members, and minutes are taken per Florida Sunshine laws, I believe. Mr. Clerk, correct me if I'm wrong. The meetings are recorded. They don't have to be. They don't have to be. Okay, but minutes must be taken. Minutes must must be taken. Usually the sunshine meetings take place in a conference room. At times we've had sunshine meetings at, at site on, on the field to address issues. So I do believe in them as a tool. What I don't like is they're happening very frequently. They're happening too frequently. And, you know, not everyone has the luxury of doing this as a full time job. I'm fortunate. I'm able to dedicate a lot of time to this, and a number of us are able to, but not everyone in this body has that advantage. Not everyone in the public has the advantage to on a very regular basis, be looking to see when is the next sunshine meeting between two members or three members of the city Commission going to be to be in a conference room that's not televised or on zoom to partake in a discussion. So I just would like some feedback from our administration on how we can make this more streamlined. And that's what I that's why I put this on the agenda to see how we can establish clear guidelines for the scheduling and noticing of the sunshine meetings, because I don't want to overburden our staff either. It's onerous on the elected officials when we have to be running from sunshine meeting to sunshine meeting. It's onerous on the public that wants to be a part of the public discourse, but it's also onerous. On our staff when they have to be attending these meetings. So, Mr. Manager, I would like to see if there's any recommendations or guidelines that you can give us that can, you know, help us with this. So, Mr. Vice Mayor, I don't have any recommendations today on what would ultimately this look like. I mean, and I don't want to shoot from the hip. So I know that the clerk's office has been instrumental in, in trying to advertise and, and take minutes of these meetings. I don't know how heavy the staff burden has been. I haven't heard significant pushback from any of my team, but I'd like to look at it a little bit closer and maybe come back next month. Sure, sure. And at minimum, I'd say we shouldn't have sunshine meetings that are conflicting with committee meetings at very minimum, you know, whether it be our committee meetings of the land use neighborhoods or finance or, let's say, of our major boards, like, you know, the Historic Preservation Board or DRB or Boa, because, you know, the public usually wants to participate in those as well. And so I would appreciate it if you could put together some framework. I'd love to hear from my colleagues and see this is a great tool. I just feel we can't overuse this tool or otherwise it becomes very onerous on us, on the public and on staff and I'm welcome to our colleagues feedbacks. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez Oh, I mean, I do a monthly zoom that's sunshine notice and I don't think it's a big deal because we well, there's a record of it. Well, it's not just that. I mean like sometimes when we did the South Shore Community Center, we made it sunshine. The thing is, is as long as our aide is taking the notes, I don't think it's so labor intensive. I understand what you're saying because you want to attend every meeting and there's a lot of them, but I wouldn't want to discourage the opportunity for any of us to speak about something so that we can be more efficient here. I know it's frustrating because there's been a lot of meetings and sometimes I haven't attended or I haven't been able to attend, but I mean, overall, I think any time that we get together to try to speak in between meetings so that we can flesh things out is a good thing because it makes us more efficient here. I don't know how everybody else feels about it. Please don't regulate this, Commissioner Fernandez. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. I think the more we communicate, the better. I wouldn't want to put any guardrails on when we can set up meetings. I totally understand your concern, Commissioner Fernandez, but you know, the less we talk. What I found out is the more that lobbyists win because they can get around sunshine laws and take advantage of us. And so the more we discuss in a in a recorded if it's meetings or on a video session, I think we should definitely encourage that. I think the issue when you brought up that there was a meeting during a land use, you know, what I've been doing recently is sun shining neighborhood association meetings and workshops of different like bids across the city. And one happened to run alongside a land use meeting because I just had the dates wrong. So and I and I'm going to continue to do that. So that way when we're at a neighborhood association, we can speak, we can speak freely amongst each other, and I think that's a good thing. So I'm also welcome to hear back from any of my colleagues on this. Commissioner Dominguez, thank you. And thank you for bringing this forward. Commissioner Fernandez, I do tend to agree with you. We have a commission meeting. We have committee meetings. We have a process. So if any commissioner wants to discuss something together, put an item on the agenda and we can discuss it at committee or commission. And it's more respectful to the staff's time. Our time. And we allow the public notice. And we're transparent. So, Commissioner Suarez, I think you're actually the father of the sunshine meetings. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't really exist until until you started noticing them. And I and I understand the intent. I could see the efficiency in saving some time at these meetings. You are correct that we are often at a disadvantage that the seven of us cannot talk individually amongst each other. So I get that from day one I was not a fan of them and I think it's actually my hesitancy to support and sign on to these and I'm not signing on. I don't I don't go to them. I think somebody usually from, from my team goes to just to be familiar with what's happening. And I get reports is again somewhat what you just said, Commissioner Dominguez, we have commission meetings. We have our, our our committee meetings. And I just I am concerned about that. The public is not viewing anybody could come, but realistically it's not going to happen. They're not televised. And so I just think the negatives outweigh the positives, especially since it is being used so often. It's one thing if it was a one off, there was a couple of things, but we're seeing it more and more. I'm no. I didn't do anything to stop it. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Commissioner Fernandez. I didn't I just didn't show up. So. But again, I think we need to be careful. And the perception as well of how it looks to the to the public. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could just follow up on something. Yeah, I'd be interested to know. To know what the city manager and the city clerk could come up with. You know, bring back any recommendations. You know, we trust our city manager and our city clerk very much. And I and I would value very much their their recommendations on this. My concern is that, you know, I'm not as concerned as the neighborhood association meetings is those neighborhood association meetings when they're placed on on the calendar. Well, those are neighborhood meetings. They're in the public. They're with the public itself. My concern is, is when it's us as elected officials in a conference room, you know, constantly having these meetings in a conference room outside a traditional setting that's televised, that's easy for the public to participate in and listen in on at the very minimum, I would like us to see if these two continue forward sunshine meetings that are coordinated between two or more elected officials at least have a zoom link for them, so that the public at least can listen in and know what's what's going on. Something just to facilitate the transparency and the participation of the public at the very least. But Mr. Manager, Mr. Clerk, I count on you guys to, to you know, come back to us with some recommendations on, on how we can make this better while not getting in the way. And I get Commissioner Suarez where you're where where you're coming from. And I think that there is some good in being able to attend a meeting or or an. Allison Park meeting and have it advertised. But but when it's when it's here at City Hall, these meetings that you and you and I may be in a meeting to discuss policy, and it's an innocuous thing on an official calendar, on the city's website, the public is not able to really it's not really as transparent as perhaps it should be. Or it could be. And so I just would value the city clerk, the city manager coming back to us with recommendations on that. Right. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, I would say that maybe not a zoom, maybe a conference call number or some sort of, you know, you can have a phone number so we can at least have a phone call so that people can call in. But is it legal for us to not be able to call a meeting? Like, if I'm calling a meeting and I want my meeting noticed, can I be regulated on that? I mean, I was elected. What? Oh, no, I mean, if look, I would be supportive if you just wanted to make sure that we added a conference call number to every meeting so that people could call in, I would be fine with that. The problem with that is that who's going to who is going to have the conference call number at a, you know, when it's an on site meeting? I, I think you made your point clear about the sunshine meetings, but I would caution about regulating our ability to have as much public input and speak to each other and notice it. I mean, I think that there should be like more of that. I would like us to be able to sunshine everything so that we could talk about everything. Because one of the things that I find most frustrating, especially when we're at a neighborhood association meeting, we used to have to like, leave the room after somebody spoke. I didn't even know. I didn't even know that they were being noticed now. So that's great. And I would, I would I feel the opposite of how you guys feel. I feel like the more the better, the more conversation, the better the policy, the more community buy in we have, the more communication. I mean, it's just open. It's kind of taking off the shackles and recorded and recorded. Mr. Commissioner magazine. Yeah, I think maybe it would be wise just to devise some sort of either official or unofficial best practices, because I do think that these are very useful tool. One of the biggest surprises to me after getting elected is the lack of actually talking to my colleagues intermittently. I was like, you know what? I actually talked to some of them more when I was just a private citizen and resident, and there are protections that we need to hold in place. So perhaps it is for any meeting having an accessible zoom call or a conference number, perhaps they're recorded to the best of our abilities and placed on a website, but I think we can certainly find a needle to thread where we are making these open, accessible and transparent. But still being able to utilize this as a forum for us to discuss more than once a month. Okay, so are you going to bring something back? Commissioner Fernandez? Yeah, I'll work with the city clerk and the city manager on on something, and I value the feedback of our colleagues and I know that, you know, these meetings happen out of a desire to do good for our city. And, and that's that's why I want to just make sure that we do it in a way that is respectful to our staff and the public. Okay. Thank you. Good discussion. Let's call item R9ER9 is discussed. Take action. Comment on changes to redesign phase of 7070 second Street community complex Commissioner magazine. Thank you Mr. Mayor. In our previous G.O. Bond before the Arts and culture, a number of projects were allocated. One of the larger, if not largest big ticket items was the 72nd Street Community Complex. I want to be very clear. I am all in on this project. The neighborhood and community need it. They deserve it and I want to try and deliver to this project to them as quickly and as thoughtfully as possible. Now, like so many other things over the past couple of years, we've seen cost inflation across the board, and it has really made us recalibrate what a number of these projects are going to look like for the 72nd Street. That cost has been ballooning almost on a daily basis, going back a couple of years. I don't know if somebody has the exact statistics about what the project, the original project was allocated to, and then if we kept that current design, what that would have ballooned to, but it really caused us to have to go back and put out the bid for a redesign that was within the financial parameters that we set out. Now, one of the things that is driving the significant cost of this project is a rooftop Olympic sized pool. And when we put this back out for redesign, one of the things that we didn't really reconsider rediscuss is can we still deliver a world class community center for 72nd Street? If we would also take a look at the redesign of that rooftop Olympic sized pool? That's still going to be an option, but I think it would be beneficial to us as Electeds and the entire community if we would actually entertain other options as part of that recreational facility as well, if we would see some sort of soccer field, pickleball paddle on the top floor of that. I at least think that they should come back with that as part of the option, talking with the city staff, because we didn't give specific direction of the new redesign, was only considering redesigns with that Olympic size rooftop pool. I am fully well versed on the Miami Beach swim team having to use that facility, but this is a community facility of the whole. When I drive past things like the Miami Beach Country Club in the evening and I see the dozens, if not even more, people that are sitting out there at all hours of the night playing pickleball. It tells me, you know what? Can we still deliver a world class facility? But perhaps with a different design on the roof that actually isn't driving those ballooning costs. So this is a discussion item I wanted to gauge my colleagues temperatures and what I would be looking to accomplish is, given that this is in the redesign process, looking to include other designs that are not solely a rooftop Olympic sized pool, because I do believe that that's driving the ballooning cost, Commissioner. But Commissioner Dominguez and Commissioner Fernandez. Yeah. So one of the things there are two things that have changed since the 2018 Geo Bond and even the last round when you guys have talked about this one, is that there has been a very clear message sent to us by the residents of North Beach that there is insufficient parking, and we're taking multiple steps to try to alleviate some of that stress. But, you know, I've got an item that was on today's consent agenda about how to find parking for emergencies in North Beach, right? Because people have to drive down to 41st Street and, you know, by the time they get there, after work on the last day, that lot is filled up. And so now they're schlepping around from, you kno, whatever, 79th Street down to 16th or whatever it is. So parking is, is at a premium and I don't love the idea of spending a ton of money for a parking garage, but that is what that neighborhood needs in in a significant way. The other thing is that and so to finish that thought, I apologize. I want to make sure that we are maximizing the number of incremental additional spots that we are delivering from the existing surface lot. So adding, you know, 100 is probably not going to be sufficient. And so what what does that mean to the overall design? The other thing is. The Byron Carlyle was not contemplated as a contributing cultural amenity and community center amenity. The way it is now that we have an idea of what it's going to be. So it is a little bit of a different amenity. Where there may may be overlap in what we're pieces of the aquatic center, maybe there's an opportunity to sort of reconfigure re rethink a little bit some of the non-water activities that are are contemplated. Thank you. Commissioner bond. Commissioner Dominguez, thank you. And thank you. Commissioner magazine. I really like where you're going with this. I do think it's important now that it's been so long since this was on the ballot, and there's been many iterations that we get it right. I think always community input is important, and we go out to the community and ask them what they envision for that. If it is pickleball or padel or any other form of entertainment, it's important that we have a town hall and meetings and get north Beach residents involved. All right. Is there a motion on the table? Well, I guess I'll ask our city manager or David, what is the time frame? Because I like Commissioner Dominguez's idea of getting what that final touch would look like if not an Olympic size pool. How long would we have where we can realistically go back to the design team and say, hey, please include some projects that contemplate this on the roof instead of an Olympic sized pool. And am I correct in my assessment that one of the biggest cost drivers here is not only the construction of the rooftop Olympic sized pool, but the ongoing maintenance as well. Let me speak first to where we are in the project. We have gone back to the BOC and we provided them with a with a preliminary concept for the project. The 30% design documents and first costing are due in the next couple of weeks, so we should be able to reconcile number one, that we are in budget, and number two, that all of the program elements are accounted for. We have identified potential value engineering options should the cost exceed our construction budget. So we're ready to do that exercising and come back to you. The schedule right now is that we will be going to returning to the BOC and beginning community outreach next month, and we'll also be submitting for the first submittal for the Design Review Board. January will be coming back to you with a presentation as well as the DRB recommendations, so that that happens between now and January. As far as the majority of the cost, the pool is definitely a significant cost factor. I don't know that I could say it's the greatest cost factor once you consider the structure itself is costly as well. Yeah. Commissioner magazine, was your question answered as to the timeline for change of design? What would be the latest point by when we can make that decision? So, David, do you need further clarification on that? Yeah. Yes. Quick correction. We're coming here before going to DRB. Okay. But when would we be able to go out to the design team and say, I know you're going to come back with a value engineered design that includes the rooftop pool. However, they are under a very black and white mandate to only come back with designs with a rooftop Olympic size pool. If we wanted to say go back and we got input from the community that instead of an Olympic size pool on the roof, they would like a soccer facility, rooftop track, paddle, pickleball and that would actually be more in line. When could we go back and give those design parameters that we want to have a design returned? And thank you, Commissioner magazine. Let me recognize the city manager who can shed some light on this. Mr. Manager. So we're I think what you heard from our CIP director is that we are planning to bring something to you in January before we submit to DRB. I would say before we go to DRB is probably the latest. I wouldn't want to go to DRB and get approval for something and then have to change it. Obviously we have for other projects in the past, I would just prefer to not to. I think the sooner we start signaling that we're going to be making substantive changes, the better off we're going to be with the design professionals as well as, you know, where we land, budget wise. Commissioner Barton, Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. So here's the concept. And I know it's late in the game, but it's not too late in the game yet. Just a few blocks further west, there is already a pool in the ground adjacent to some sports fields. It is not an Olympic pool, but there is city owned parkland that is adjacent to that pool, which could be that whole campus could be reconfigured to include a competition, a competition level sports field, swimming pool, fire station. Excuse me. Can I just hang on, please? And then the space in as part of the community complex could then be, you know, we could make up whatever field if it's a basketball couple basketball courts or soccer field, we could incorporate that in the design so that it's just a trading of the location and the benefits are still the same to the community. The high school can still come up to North Beach and have a great competitive swimming pool to host meets at, and we are getting everything that the community wants. Once we get further input from them, but it does not cost us as much. So I would like to throw that into the mix as something to contemplate. As you're contemplating, since it's a discussion item. Okay, okay, good. I'm glad you're bringing up the pool, because we can't eliminate the pool because people really voted for that. Because of the pool, it was like a pool. And then an add on garage, right? So I have and the idea really of a competition size swimming pool, Olympic size swimming pool so we can host meets I don't think there's another. Where's the closest pool, the closest competition swimming pool. It's far right. I think it's at one of the colleges or universities. I think I had heard that there's one on the mainland, maybe at Ransom or somewhere is the closest one. Possibly. I mean, I know we have one at MDC on the Kendall campus. There's not many of them. There's like one at mission Bay in Boca Raton. There are not many. This is something that once we have this competition swimming, swimming pool, we are going to be hosting meets all the time. And so if that lot is big enough for me in order to vote on changing the garage, we would and bifurcating them, I mean, if you can get that, I know exactly what Tanya is talking about too. You have a regular swimming pool and across the street you have a soccer field. If you want to switch them out and put the soccer field on top of the garage and the swimming pool in the ground, that's a great idea, and I think your cost would be significantly less if you have the space. I don't know what exactly the Geo Bond said, but a competition Olympic size swimming pool is not just I mean, it's a whole complex. You have like practice pools where we're having practice pools and all of this stuff on that includes a warm up pool. It's not just one pool. It's a it's something that you use when you when you're holding, meet. So I don't know that that I don't know that that field is large enough. I always envision that we would build it somehow on one of those oceanfront lots that we had, because I thought that there was nothing prettier than holding a swim meet on the ocean. And at the same time, you save this public, you know, land for everybody adjacent to the library. But I think Tanya's idea seems more Commissioner Bob's idea seems more more likely to happen because people would balk and say, wait, that's that's oceanfront land that we could later. And the other place that it could be if I, if I might, through the vice chair is we could you know, we're very protective of the West lots. We don't want to let those be developed. But if there was an appetite among the community, maybe that is a place for a pool where you still get the benefit of having an ocean view, but you're not giving up oceanfront property. I'm. I'm okay with that too. So I would as long as you build a pool, once you bifurcate, the cost is going to drop exponentially. And we have a $100 million, correct. The total project budget is 101 101. So if you were to bifurcate like, see, here's the problem. They're about to bring us a plan of value engineer plan. Now we're going to change the plan now we have to go back and start the plan. Then we have to bid it out. I mean, like, how much time are we adding on once we make these changes? It's already a construction manager on board. If I would in this case, wait and see what they present to us if you want. I like your idea much better, but we cannot do this without the pool. There has to be a pool component because we promised this Olympic size facility. I think it's. I never thought it was smart to put it on top of a garage though. So we're we're. And you have it on the. You're able to I mean what does it look like the concept right now is not the very top level, but it is a, an elevated level. What do you mean not? Oh, the building itself will have multiple levels. The pool is on a raised level, but it's not the very top. It sounds like the last place in the world that I want to go swimming is in a parking garage. Yeah, yeah, especially if it's not on the rooftop. Like, hey, let's go to the garage. That's as bad as let's run next to this cement wall at the track. So yeah. Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Bond and I don't know, Commissioner magazine, if at some point you want to make a motion, you know, maybe asking staff to explore some of these ideas that Commissioner Bart has brought forward, which I think they're good ideas. You're asking for there to be a potential redesign with no pool on the garage, because we definitely do need the parking as well. So, you know, a motion might be good at some point. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, vice Mayor. One of the one of the issues that when we were talking about North Beach parking was parking garages, right. And so is this this is parking garage is going to add only an extra 100 spaces or how many spaces was it going to add from the existing from 319 to 500. So about 180 spaces, correct. And how much is this project costing? I'm sorry, how much is the project total cost. Total budget is 101. Construction budget is 70 million. So what's the total 101 one 100 $100 million for an extra 180 parking spaces. I just want everyone to understand that that that you know, I think the whole idea and the and the, the central idea of this project was for more parking. So everyone that's watching should realize that we're going to be adding 180 spaces for $100 million to possibly, and also add on a soccer field or a pool on top. I don't like that idea. I'm telling you that right now. I do not like that idea. I don't think that's a good use of taxpayer money. I think before we go to before we move forward on this, before we spend $100 million of taxpayer money, do we really want to spend it on 180 parking spaces in a pool and a soccer field on the top? I'm not going to be okay with that. So, you know, I just want to make my thoughts very clear now so we don't waste anyone's time. I, from the sense I get up here, I don't know how my colleagues feel about that, but that just seems like a boondoggle. I mean, I'm, I'm I think it's ridiculous to spend $100 million on 100. What is the math on that? I'm doing it for 5 million. Yeah. And what Commissioner Dominguez just said originally, the voters approved it for 55 million. Now it's doubled. So, you know, I don't know. I mean, and not not to mention that this is going to take like two, three, four years to construct those 300 parking, those 315 parking spaces are gone during that time. So what's up? Just to clarify the scope of the project also includes the new library. It includes a fitness center with a running track. It includes a community center that that is obviously open to the public and for community use. It includes commercial spaces on the ground floor. So there's more to it than just the garage. Just for clarity, I understand, okay. But I think like like I said, the central idea was, was to add parking. I think that's what that's what I think. That's what was sold to the voters. And so when you're telling me that it's just 180 spaces, I just I think it's just nuts. So I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say about that total of 500. But there's incremental. Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Bart, so, you know, when talking about the pool and making it usable, I remember when this first came up with a very different set of commissioners on, on the dais. One of the things that we heard about why it needed to be such a big space was because when families and friends and teams come for meets, they bring all their stuff and they set up, you know, like warming areas and coolers and towels, and they've got a tent for the sun and they've got all this stuff. So to me to I don't remember who made the point about, you know, the last place I'd want to go swim is on top of a parking lot. But, you know, maybe it is something that we really do need to reconsider, that it would be much more pleasantly sited where you don't have to go up and down in a tiny elevator or go up 3 or 4 stories and have it be in the ground. So it's not a super tall, chunky building in the middle, not super tall compared to the other things that have cropped up around there. But it's not this big, massive building in the middle of this. This area. And then the other thing is, as you think about reconfiguring, reconfiguring space and usage in in the building to try to find more parking, I don't think we need more retail space in North Beach. We have tons of underutilized or not utilized retail space as it is now, and I would be much more interested in you know, incentivizing retailers and landlords to reconfigure their space so that they can finally rent it out, because that's what we need. We don't need more people taking away from, you know, the people who are trying to make their businesses flourish. Now. Great. Elizabeth, I'll give you the last word. Even though it's not a public hearing. I know, but thanks for letting me speak. I know you've been sitting here for a while. No, I just, you know, this is our neighborhood also. And when it was first voted on, obviously it was $55 million. And it is you're right. It is probably double that now. But we definitely need parking spaces. We need more than the 180 that we would net. We also need we need retail, but we need good retail. And this will transform the whole area. It's not going to just be the older spaces because those are functionally obsolete. They're very difficult to lease. Most of them are probably condemned, but we still have people operating in them right now that if we can maybe move the pool to the west, lots. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I this is an idea and it is park use. It's something that nobody has really ever talked about before. And I just wanted to throw that out there because we've got to make this happen. This has got to be soon. So I appreciate it. Thank you I appreciate it. And just to clarify, my full intent is to move forward with the community center and the structure. I was just thinking if we could reimagine the elevated Olympic size pool, we'd be able to potentially get a much nicer center. When I hear we're going to spend $100 million on something and we need to value engineer it, I don't like that right. And, David, do you have an estimate of how much the pool is contributing towards those costs? You know, because like my colleague brought up to construct a parking space at most conservative is going to be $60,000, probably somewhere close to around 45 to 50. Granted, there are many other drivers here, but we're looking at, you know, 300, 250, $300,000 per spot. So the pool has to be a huge driver of this. I didn't bring the breakdown of the pool cost, but I should have that in the next couple of weeks when they confirm their estimate. Yeah. Okay. So I guess the motion that I would like to have and I'm open to how we include the community for their input in here is to begin preparing a request from the design team to essentially have a community center design at that budget, without the inclusion of the Olympic size pool on the roof. Because, you know, my feeling is that that's what's elevating those incremental costs. And I'll second that motion and I and I agree with with the points made by Commissioner Bart about other locations for, for pool. So there is a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? To be clear, the motion is to move forward without the pool. No. So it's just to have design options to come back that also include not having a pool. So we're going to get the designs to come back with the original design. How we were proposed that that will still be an option on the table, but I also want to have options included of a design without that rooftop pool. And can we do you consider, can we add maybe more parking to that or an option with additional parking? The way the parking is designed, we just add floors to it. You just. Yeah. You just said okay bring that as an option. Yeah. So and hold up just just one second. And, and also I would encourage you to consider encouraging public engagement with the North Beach community as, as two other locations where, you know, a pool could also be accommodated because the commissioner, Rosa Gonzalez, points earlier, the community was promised an Olympic an Olympic pool, a competitive pool and we need to deliver on those promises while being mindful of cost and parking needs. And I think, you know, there is a delicate balance where we can achieve all those things. You're heading in the in the right direction. And I think if you just would include that community outreach because that's that's pivotal here, engaging that community, seeing where, where we can accommodate the promised pool that that they voted on Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez. But also don't don't stop this process because I think when they say value engineer, the pool is not going to be on the rooftop. The pool is going to be on the actual site, but not under the garage. Right. When I said value engineered before we went through an exercise of identifying identifying items that meet the criteria of the design criteria package and meet the programing requirements, but are more nice to haves than necessities. So we've already identified those as things that could be removed to bring it back into budget, because on that site, you do have space to put the pool and put the garage and just make the garage only garage and then pool on the ground. So we would be giving up something else. But, I mean, we've gone through this process. We passed this in 2018. So here we are six years later and we're finally going to get presented something. And now we're going to say, okay, let's change it all. Before we say that, let's see what they bring us, because maybe they bring us a garage and a pool, you know, together. And maybe it's okay because otherwise to do anything else is kind of like pushing it down to start all over again. Is like years. And I would not want to build the garage without a pool. Like, I don't know what it is that you're going to show us. Hopefully it's going to be something that we all like and you have it ready to go for the next meeting. You can show it to us at the next meeting. That might be tight. What I would ask is, before we give any other direction, could we see what they're what they're proposing? So this is just requesting something in tandem. Right. So we're going to get back this option. But then we're also going to say okay what can we see without that. Well I know but you know, the way that CIP works is you have a project manager, and that project manager is focused on one goal. And when you give that project manager two goals, they're already overwhelmed. And now they don't have a clear direction. What I would ask, instead of doing anything tandem, how far away are you from showing us the final design? Because I remember voting for this like a year and a half ago. Well, we are about two weeks from showing you 30% drawings, right? We are two weeks. It's almost like we're like at the finish line and we're gonna be like, no, go to start. Let's just see what we have in two weeks before we give any opposite direction. Would that be okay? It's only two more weeks. It's been six years. Let's just see what they're going to present. And if we can reject that at that time and give a completely different direction. But between now and the two weeks, my ask would be to just keep this item on the agenda and based on what we see at the next meeting, we can take the direction that you want. Would that be acceptable to you, Commissioner magazine, just because we're so close to finally seeing something that we've paid a lot of money for, so you're going to get back the preliminary design in two weeks? Yes. With the cost estimate. Yeah. And it's and the way that we did it was a design build. I mean I think like we really it wasn't a design build or was it. The original one was design build. This is construction manager at risk construction manager. Because what we wanted to do was it got so out of control that we said, we're going to build something that we know that we have the money to pay for. We're not going to we're no longer going to design something that we can't build. So what I'm hoping is that, like the pool, if it's not on the roof, that it has some sort of sunshine because I think what would not be acceptable is a pool under inside of the concrete garage. So I hope that that's not part of their design. But in two weeks they could pull the pool out and put it adjacent, I don't know anyway. Okay, so whatever. I don't know what direction you're going to take, but we're close, I don't. Next item. Okay. We have the direction. We have the directio. Thank you. Good discussion. So there was I think his motion and I seconded it was to keep it on the agenda until next month. So you wish to defer the item then to the next meeting. Yeah. You just defer it. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. I've been told R7 I, I'm only going to give it a couple of minutes. I heard it's a quick item. If not I'm going to defer it to the next meeting r7 I. R7 I is first reading approved conveyance of air rights easement. Ms. Ms. Ms. Seven ferry Lane requires A57 vote. Commissioner magazine I'm going to kick this over to staff. I inherited this I believe this this was discussed at the finance committee in the previous commission. So I'll give it for an explanation. We actually heard it through our finance committee. We actually kicked the can down the road a little bit because we wanted to have even more engagement from the neighborhood. I believe we reached out to all relevant neighborhood groups. So if I could just ask Brad from Public Works through the chair will recognize you and hope to get through this quick. It's actually an instance where we're not giving up much in the city is actually getting revenue in. Sure. Good afternoon, Mayor Minor. Fellow commissioners, I will try and be very brief on this. This item is simply the owners at six and seven Ferry Lane are seeking an aerial easement. The easement has an elevation of exactly 65.56ft and has approximately 36.301 cubic feet. The purpose of this is for construction of a sky bridge to connect the parcels with three levels of habitat to improvements for a private balcony, a portion of a lap pool and a roof terrace. The only really issue is in question here is there's a public benefit to this that's worth approximately 803,250. And how that is going to be dispersed. Barbara is requesting for the public benefit to be allocated as follows 69% towards Bell Island and 31% in favor of Ferry Lane. And that's basically they're a volunteer neighborhood association. They're not governed by any homeowners association covenants at all. And there is consent to the proposed easement is not legally required. But this is kind of the ask, you know, of the item is also will be here to answer any other legal questions to Vice Mayor. Commissioner, thank you. Just real quick. At the finance meeting, I had brought up that 300,000 of it be allocated for the dog park, and so I'm just going to reiterate that again. Now. And is that something that we're actually allocating today? The allocation of the public benefit. So I think the item is before you because you have a request from a neighborhood association that would be specifically allocated. Obviously, the commissioner had asked for a portion of that money to be allocated for the dog park. I have no issue with that. My ask would be that the public benefit comes to the general fund for the entirety of the city, and other than the 300,000 for the dog park, that it be obviously your discretion where to allocate it. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Torres, thank you through the chair is 100% of these funds going to the city or is any of these funds going to a third party entity? Commissioner Suarez, you're not. Your mic's not on. Commissioner Suarez 100% of the funds are to be utilized at the city's discretion. We've come hand in hand with Bureau with a recommendation, but without doubt, 100% of the funds are going to the city for this dais. And the administration to administer at its discretion. And as far as you, as far as you understand, is there any side settlement agreements between borough or anyone else as far as how we vote today for any particular funds in a project? None whatsoever. Thank you, Vice Mayor Fernandez. Thank you. Mr. And then let's call the vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And just quickly, with the easement that we are giving this this air, right. Is there any does it yield any increase in unit size of the of the structure that can be built there? Absolutely not. Neither increases the yield size. The height far. We are only building what we are otherwise allowed to build under the code. Okay with that, I'm happy to second Commissioner magazines motion. Let's call the vote. I have a motion for Commissioner magazine, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez on R7. I all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Second reading is scheduled for November 20th. Our five Q. I'm sorry. Our five Q is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Resiliency Code of the City of Miami Beach by amending chapter seven entitled Zoning Districts and Regulations, article two, District Regulations, Section 7.2. 11 CD two, commercial Medium Intensity District by amending section 7.2. 11.3 entitled Development Regulations CD two to modify the floor area ratio bonus for hotel uses in CD two districts and providing for codification Repealer, severability and an effective date. This is a second reading public hearing. The item requires a 5/7 vote. It is r five Q Commissioner Fernandez, co-sponsored by commissioners bought magazine and Suarez thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank my co sponsors for joining me in presenting this ordinance that removes the point five F.a.r bonus for properties containing hotel units, suite hotels or hostels in all CD2 districts, including the key areas of Washington Avenue and Collins Avenue in South Beach. I believe that we have received support on this ordinance not just from NBU, but I this has gone also before the Planning Board, I believe, and received, I believe, a unanimous support. Mr. Mooney, and the planning Board. That's correct. Mr. Vice Mayor. Well, actually the vote at the planning Board was 5 to 1, 5 to 1. And so and so it's a very straightforward piece of legislation. I think we want to not be incentivizing more, more, more transient uses and transitioning over instead to residential uses. And that is the purpose of this legislation. I'm happy to move it. Second, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner magazine, thank you. Vice Mayor Fernandez, it was great to see so much cohesion from our colleagues. Agree. Don't want to reiterate, but we are just over hotel on our infill commercial corridors. That being said, we've said this phrase a number of times. We'll continue to do so. Easy to say that the city you don't want to be. We also need to provide direction for the city. We do want to be Washington Avenue every single time it comes up at the planning board. At any of these land use boards, it's, you know what? We could really use some. Refreshing here. Tremendous strides have been made, although maybe, you know, with some caveats with the Goodtime Hotel, the Moxie Hotel. So the right incentive package can really get this corridor off in the right direction. So here we're taking away and saying, this isn't we don't need any more of this, but I'm having trust and faith in my colleagues that we're soon going to come to the table and say, this is who we want to be and provide the right incentives for that. So on one hand, we're taking away what we don't want to be, but the next step is kind of going forward with what we do want to be. I have a few others, and Mr. Mayor, this is a public hearing. So Raphael, no one on zoom and I see no one in the audience. Sir. Okay. Oh, Troy got it under the gun. Hi, Troy. Right. Washington Avenue business improvement district, you know, not to belabor anything that's been said so far, but to speak about what Commissioner magazine just said. You know, it's okay, I guess, to take away some of the things that you don't want. However, it's a little difficult if we have not made a plan on what we do want. And I think that's something that we have to really focus on before we start taking things away is figure out a plan, figure out a goal, figure out a direction, and then move before we take things away. Thank you. Let's call the vote. We have a motion from Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner bot. Yes, Commissioner magazine. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Rosen. Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. The item is approved r5 q Mr. Mayor, I have a release from the pool list. Just to make it easy for easier so that you don't have to call that later. Okay? C7, I want to release it from the pool list. Okay. Thank you. If so, can we approve? C7 I by acclamation, just for the record, C7 accidentally pulled it and I didn't mean to. I gently pulled my I'm sorry c7 I ocean drive lighting and sidewalk improvements. Is that the sounds good? Is that the median? No, no. Okay, may I have a motion? I'll move the item C7. I second all in favor? Aye, aye. Item c7 a I passes. What else did you pull? It's R9 y. R9 y is discuss update on the Lincoln Road phase two project. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. Yes. In the spirit of moving Lincoln Road along, you know, I was with someone times up today. I was with someone from the bid the other day who said, this has been this project has been so long in coming. We might as well just give up on it. And I don't feel like that's where we should be. So what I wanted to find out is, what are we working on? I'd like to have a monthly update. It does not have to be lengthy. I just want to hear exactly what's going on and what is going to be presented and what we're doing. Moving forward. Good afternoon. David Gomez, interim director for capital Improvements. We have advertised phase two for Lincoln Road, which is the meridian Meridian road. Excuse me, Meridian Avenue and Drexel Avenue. Improvements. There are actually two different projects that are currently under the cone of Silence, but they are advertised and we have reached out to contractors to let them know that they are under the cone now. So that December ish, we should be getting bids back. Actually, December is the opening date for the bid and we anticipate starting construction March April of 25 on those two streets. So we're going to be instead of working on Lincoln Road proper, the next phase is to phase two is to work on the side streets. And that includes what can just so that we all know that is the improvements to Meridian Avenue from Lincoln Road to 17th Street and Drexel Avenue from 16th Street all the way to Lincoln Lane, North. The reason we did it that way is because when years ago, when we went through the reimagining of the project where we started cutting back on some of the scope to reduce impact to the to the businesses, the parts of the project that were easiest to transfer over and redesign were Meridian and Drexel. So those are the ones that we instructed the designer to go ahead and revise those drawings first. While they did the rest of the spine, are they becoming pedestrian areas or are they? Drexel is pedestrianized from Lincoln Lane south to Lincoln Lane, north. Okay, so you're going to start construction in March. And how long do you think construction is going to take? It's eight 8 to 10 months. 8 to 10 months. My big worry is for example, we have that business. Andrés Cardinal Torres that just opened. They spent $10 million. Are we going to put them under construction now and have them close? I mean, what does this mean for that new business? The condition for the project is that we have to maintain access and accommodate the businesses wherever we are. So we will work closely with them to make sure that that they are impacted as little as possible. With construction, there's going to be dust, there's going to be noise, but we will do our best to limit those impacts. Did you guys hear that? It's really it's not the ideal. I mean, this business owner and this property owner just invested $10 million. And now we're going to go in and rip up the whole thing right in front of their restaurant, which I guess over time is, is a positive thing. I would love for them to at least get the benefit of one season. I don't want to kick any can down the road, but which. Yeah, I is there anything else that you can do like instead of that portion next? I mean if you did the meridian right, that wouldn't affect. Yeah. They're both advertised now okay. All right. So there you have it. And what about Euclid Circle that I think is something that needs to be redone. I know you guys want to put a parking. I know you want to put a playground there, but we have a whole plan that we spent millions of dollars on. James Corner, famous architect Euclid Oval is part of the phase three or the spine improvements. So that's coming. And the spine is the main road. And when is the spine going to the spine is. I apologize, we are looking to that's the comments. The phase three project should be completing design in the summer with and beginning construction at the end of the year. Phase three. This summer. This coming summer 2025. Yeah, okay. And between now and next month, can you give us an update on where we are in terms of the advertising and everything? Can I, I want to leave this as a standing item and spend 5 to 10 minutes every meeting discussing it. If that's okay with you. Keep it simple at the at the next meeting. Phase two will still be under bid, so you won't. When will you know something? We will receive bids mid-December, so I don't know if we'll be able to come back to you for award in December or January. It depends on the commission schedule. So I'm going to just defer to just take this item and defer it till December. Bring it back in December so that we can get an update on where we are, okay. If that's okay with everyone and maybe any material update a letter to the commission. And also can you. Yeah, a letter to commission with a pictures of what's going to be happening on Drexel and Meridian so that we know what's starting in March. Okay. Thank you. So not a standing item deferred to December. So yes. And in the interim could we get could we, could we get some sort of an LTC with pictures. And what's going to happen on Drexel and Meridian starting March so that all of us are on the same page when we start to understand. And I think the LTC proactive stance. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to defer the LTC. You're looking for photos of the phase two improvements show us. Yeah. Well, we want to see is what's happening on Lincoln Road. When what date in March you're going to start start construction just so that we know okay okay pictures. Thank you. So item deferred to December. Thank you R5 I. R5 I the notice of the mayor city commission of the city of Miami to two of the Miami beach city code entitled administration by amending article three entitled agencies, boards and committees by amending Division 33 entitled North Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee to amend section 2-190.15, one thereof, entitled composition, Knowledge and Experience to allow for A57 City Commission waiver for the Geographic area residency requirements under specific conditions, and providing for repeal of ability, qualification and Effective date. This is a second reading public hearing R5 I Commissioner bot. Thank you. So this is an amendment to the guidelines for appointing people to the North Beach CRA. And it's a second reading. So unless anything has changed, which I don't think it has, I would like to move the item okay okay. Can we call the vote. Let's call the vote. It is a public hearing. I see no one in zoom. I see no one in the audience. It was motion by Commissioner Bot, seconded by Commissioner Dominguez. Commissioner bot. Yes, Commissioner. Suarez. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Commissioner. Rosen. Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Ye. Commissioner. Dominguez. Yes. Mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion passed. Motion carries. The item is approved. R5 I. Aunt. R9 ad. AD. You said a d as in David discuss action update on police departments. AI powered camera system. Yes. So this is a police item. I was doing some research on cameras and came across this and reached out to police. And it's already in the works. And I think it sounds like a great, great idea, but I just want to see where we where we are. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and commissioners. Eric Garcia, manager of police tech services. So a lot to discuss. So we do have technology that we use on some on our cameras that allows us to do some analytics, what they call AI or whatever. Coincidentally, at the time that you reached out to us regarding that particular company that was doing some interesting things with cameras, we had already been in the market for some portable cameras, because one of the things that our chief has been pressing me about has been and as well as you guys has been quick deployability and so camera trailers allow us to quickly deploy to problem areas. We looked into the particular company that you had reached out to us about. I had already spoken to them. One of the one of the ironic things is that they're called Live View Technologies, but unfortunately they're system does not allow us to live view cameras as we would with our internal systems. So what we ended up doing was we purchased camera trailers from our other from another vendor that do integrate with our system and will be available in our real time information intelligence center, and we'll use the analytics that we the analytical tools that we already have for our other cameras on those skywatch, on those portable camera trailers. So just how do we actually have those this technology yet or it's on order. So we do have camera technologies. We do have and we do have analytics that we use on our cameras in our existing system that will be able to use on our camera trailers as well. Got it. Great. And you mentioned a company. There was a newspaper article that I was I think that's what you're referring to. I don't even know the name. Okay. Yep. Great. So on it, do you need anything from us at this point, I don't think I think we're good. The chief. The chief has already been on this bandwagon. So we're we're moving with deployable camera trailers. We've got funding for now, so I have nothing to ask for today. Okay. Thank you. What is the cost? Pardon me? What is the cost? So far or do you anticipate. Well, two separate things. There's a cost for hardware. There's a cost for software. So the camera trailers themselves, they're in the area of 80 to $90,000. Fully, fully loaded. These are solar powered software. It's just licensing that we would add to cover the cameras that are included in those camera trailers. Okay. I'm good. Thank you so much. Thank you for being proactive. Yes, sir. Yeah. C2F. C two F is award ITB 2024 458 and D citywide led lighting project C to F and it was separated by Commissioner Fernandez. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an item that I pulled because this is an award. Let me just pull up the item. An award of LED fixtures, lighting fixtures in in different parts of our city Bayshore, Lagos, Allison, North Shore, Flamingo, palm View. But especially as it relates to my question, relates to the fixtures we're putting in in the historic districts Flamingo Park, Palm View does does this award take into contract design specific fixtures that go aligned according to the historic character of these neighborhood? I think the whole purpose of the entire project is obviously to upgrade the lighting we have. There are about a thousand luminaries scheduled for this phase. I have to check specifically to that question, but I think all of the fixtures are to be consistent with what these neighborhood wanted, and they're all LED lighting with particular electrical components to improve the lighting throughout the areas. Does this change the lanterns and the poles, or only not the lighting, just the fixtures. So the lanterns it does, but I think the question is, are we replacing like for like so if they're acorn lights, are we replacing them with acorns? Okay okay. So that's that's what I want to make sure if in an area let's say they have acorn lights, they're going to be getting acorn lights. Is that correct. That's correct okay. And we and are there areas where we're making improvements because sometimes you have the really we have the really ugly ones that look kind of industrial highway ish. Are we making any improvements on the esthetics of any of these to perhaps put something nicer? Good afternoon. Good evening, Christina Ortega, city engineer the lights, the light fixtures that we're installing are per our approved lighting fixtures that we typically use throughout the city. So absolutely these are going to be, you know, visually pleasant, I guess per our standards, we use a type of fixtures for residential areas versus another type for more commercial areas. If you would. Okay. Will we be engaging with the neighborhoods as these get installed. So we have we've done some public outreach presentations. We've conducted surveys, polling of the community, in particular the focus, and I apologize. No worries. No no no. Take your time. I know you were running in here, so don't worry. Run. Take your time. So we polled the community. We presented actually the different type of fixtures that we're going to be using. We also asked for preference on the color and temperature of the lighting. More bright white lights versus more amber. Will these be coming back to the city commission before they get installed in the neighborhoods? As far as the survey results or the polling results, we can share it with you. Absolutely. Well, no, the light fixtures that the city is going to be installing with the budget that we approved through the contract that we're approving, or were we going to close the loop and have the city commission approve what's being placed into the neighborhoods of the residents we represent? We can bring it back to you. Well, I mean, that's what we're here for. But typically the award of the contract would be the last time that the commission typically that would be the last time that the commission would see this item. If you would like us to bring it back, I mean, we can bring it back. Well, but what what visual is there with this item? Sorry. What's that? There's no visuals with this item. How do I know? Then we're making today the decision of the of the fixture that's going into Flamingo, Palm View, Bay Shore legacy, Allison and North Shore. But that's why we're replacing like for like we're not changing out poles. It's going to look the same. And those are iconic. Like going across the bridges. People are going to get really upset if we change that. We're not replacing lighting on the bridges as part of this project. And we have very detailed plans for each area and specify which type of fixture we're proposing so we can share. We can definitely. I mean, I just I just think I just think I would like us to see for example, some neighborhoods may not have received new lights in decades and decades. And decades. And maybe, maybe they want to see something different, something nicer than what is currently there. Or perhaps a replacement for like for like wouldn't be appropriate. I really do think these are the type of things I'm very happy you guys pulled the residents. We should be pulling the rest and surveying the residents. But ultimately things like this, at the end of the da, need to come back to the city commission for our input and guidance because we're the ones that are representing these residents and. And it's just like, you know, it's awarded. And then and then, you know, we figure out what was actually happening. So I'm going to be very careful with these procurement items going forward. And frankly, I really feel very uncomfortable awarding a contract where we are actually approving the actual fixture that's going into the neighborhoods without knowing whether my constituents want these same exact fixtures or whether they want an enhancement that they've been waiting decades for, or so I, I don't know, I kind of wish we would have had a little bit more information for us to vet with our residents before we approve this. So I would like to say, if I may, as part of that public outreach and presentation, we did provide information on the light fixtures that are being proposed and that are part of our approved project. Christina, I got that, but put yourself in my position. I understand you went out to the residents. You showed the residents what their what what the options were. Are you showing me what the options are? Are you showing the commission what what we're approving? If we're tying our votes to this, shouldn't we know since we're the ones that ultimately will get the phone call about this are going to be held accountable with what is installed in our taxpayers neighborhoods? I'm sorry. I'm going to move to defer this item. I'm going to pull this item and we'll bring it back next month with additional information. I need these memos to have more details because when we award these contracts, this is the taxpayers money that we are awarding in their neighborhoods, right outside their homes. And I want to know you may have the information, Mr. Manager, your staff may have the information, but we don't have the information and we are the elected officials. We're the ones that got elected to make this decision. And we need that information moving forward. And I'm going to be much more meticulous because I got already burnt on when I was told that some project got underway because it got approved through through a procurement, and I got zero briefing about it. So I'm just making it very clear these procurement items expect a lot of questions from me about it moving, moving forward, because it is unacceptable that here I'm being told that I am approving what is going to go in my constituents neighborhood. And they got to see it and everyone got to see it. But the people who have to put their votes to it don't get to see it. And we're going to be the ones getting the phone calls at the end of the day. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Item is deferred. And I think we did approve our new procurement director today. Last month. Yes. C2 h c2 h is award ITB 2024 381 and Flamingo Park softball fiel. Who pulled it? Commissioner Fernandez, you're up. Get the joke. Softball field. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know the softball field again. This is something that is used by people in our community, including Beach High. And I think I think also Nautilus. Right. Is it only beach high? I don't know if Nautilus uses it. Yeah. There is a there's a softball field at Nautilus. Okay. But I believe I believe that this construction might have a potential impact. And interruption to the kids that play ball there from the school. Have we identified and secured the location where these kids are going to be playing at during construction? The staff from our city's parks and rec department has met with Nautilus, as well as the coaches at Beach High and Nautilus is open and amenable to having Beach High host their games and practices at Polo Park. And then if there is an additional need to use the baseball field, the coaches have agreed to coordinate and see how they work that out. But yes, they now have a home at Polo Park. Okay. And thank you for that, Mr. Directo. They're open and amenable to it. But I guess my question is, does it work for them? There might be open and amenable, but I just want to make sure I get certainty, because the communication that I got yesterday was that, you know, everything was pending a meeting today to determine whether it would work. So I get there, might be open and willing to, but will it work there? The meeting did take place today and everybody was in agreement. And everything is on on the on the schedule for them to do that. Yes. Okay. So it will work. Yes. Okay. All right. So with that I move the approval of the item. Second. All in favor of this item C to H please say aye. Aye aye. Motion passes seven zero. C4S as in Steve C4 s is a referral to the Finance Economic Resiliency Committee. Wave Max Grant raise historic home at 6005 Alton Road. Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you. I pulled the item because the property private property adaptation program was started by Commissioner Mark Samuel and several years ago. And it has become a very popular program. But the maximum grant is $20,000 that somebody can get to raise a home. I have been in touch with the owner of the home in question. That's received requesting a max Grant wave of. I believe it's 400,000. She's in a very difficult position. She does get flooding in her home. It's a tough situation. I've spoken to the city manager about it and I'm working on it with his chief of staff to work with our lobbyists to open the FEMA grant deadline again, so that they can get the adequate funding from the federal level. So that's why I pulled this item. So that the sponsor knows that I am working on it with the city administration and trying to get the dollars from another avenue rather than depleting their private property adaptation. Commissioner Roseanne Gonzalez yeah, I find it very odd that the number has even come up because there has been no estimate, so I don't even know where did you get that number from? Michelle, the homeowner. Oh, okay. I didn't even know that. And there was an attack online, which I got very upset. I want to just explain to everybody what was going on here. Some of our residents that have homes that constantly flood are getting emails from FEMA, and FEMA is telling these residents in in these flood zone areas, you are eligible for 100% of the grants. So the residents are then reaching out to these contractors who are telling them, well, the city administers the program when they come to the city to apply for these grants. The city is now being now, right now, now we're being more helpful. But frankly, when the homeowners approach the city staff, there's like a very, very they're they're telling you, oh, you've missed this deadline. And frankly, we have not been able to draw down a single FEMA dollar when other municipalities across Florida are raising homes like crazy. 100% paid for by FEMA. So when we saw that we could not get the FEMA funding, we have been unsuccessful. To date, I believe we have two applications in the pipeline right now, but we've heard nothing. So there's something in our process that's broken because it's not fair that other municipalities are being able to administer these programs. So then it's a frustrating loop because the resident gets told by our staff, you're the window is closed, you can't apply. And then they get the email from FEMA and FEMA says, and FEMA tells the homeowner, oh, and FEMA tells the homeowner, oh, you have to go to the city. And so you're in a constant cycle and you never quite get to where you're going. So number one, the administration of the program, I think we need to explore what other municipalities are doing that we are currently not. I think that as part of this motion, what I would like to do with this item is refer it as a discussion to committee, not about raising this home, but about, you know, about I would yeah. Because I would like to have the discussion with the commissioner. Would you consider a motion to refer this to neighborhood quality of life and then we'll discuss this. Thank you. And I think we should discuss it there because we've been failing our residents. So they're getting one message of government and then it's very complex. It's very complex. But I do think on some level that we have not been that we dropped the ball. And so what the reason why this came up is because I said, well, why don't we start the process of trying to figure out how where, where it's broken in the process and take the money from that fund and then get the reimbursement from the federal government afterward, because it's eligible for 100% funding. But since the city has been unable to accomplish this, that was what we were doing. I don't know, I had one meeting with the homeowner and Amy Knowles, and the next thing I knew, I was being attacked online and called corrupt about this. I'm very, very upset that this happened. I would hope that everybody understands that there was nothing corrupt in this pipeline. I think, Commissioner Dominguez, you understand that right now. But it was I was very unhappy to wake up on Sunday morning to a scathing post. I would hope it wasn't my post for clarity. Oh, and I would I would hope, is that when I sit down at a city meeting and we are having a discussion, the last thing that I want is to get attacked online with information that only certain city employees would have had. I'm feeling I'm still angry and scathing about it because really, it ruined my whole day. I was being compared to Vicky Lopez. Me with a home raising, when all I was trying to do was figure out the grant process. And this is because there was some sort of breach in my meeting. So what I would hope our city manager moving forward is that when I sit down with city administration officials that they don't go behind my back afterward and create some sort of scandal where there isn't any. I'm glad, Commissioner Dominguez, that you reached out to the homeowner. I have spoken to Amy Knowles on the phone about this. I told her I was very angry about what happened and hopefully we will work together with this homeowner to somehow right this situation. And my hope is that when we sit down at a meeting, it stays at that meeting. Because the last thing I want, after meeting with the city official and having a conversation, is to be compared to Vicky Lopez and called corrupt over, over something that your department was unable to realize, unable to process these FEMA grants. So now that we're having this open discussion, it doesn't feel so nice that's to be attacked. So let's move forward. Let's move forward and fix the problems with the grant funding and hopefully know that, you know, when I sit down I'm and having a conversation with you, I would hope that we have the same type of fiduciary agreement that I would have when I sit with our city attorney or sit with the city manager. It's the first time that this has really ever happened, or at least that I've seen this happen to me over time. Not only that, but the homeowner was mortified because her face was plastered all over social media. Based on the meeting that I had with you. Steve Rothstein I don't know who else was in that meeting, but it was a terrible experience for all of us. I do know that you this was your program and the grants were administered through your funding, so I would expect that, you know, this somehow came from you and hopefully that something like this will never happen again. And I would love to share the post with you so you can see how horrible I felt after this information that was really a non-entity became some sort of weird political attack through the chair, please. Commissioner for the record, Amy Knowles, Chief Resilience officer I did not speak to anybody after that meeting. I don't know the person that did the Facebook post and the item came out on the agenda. I didn't speak to anybody about it before except for our city attorney's office and administration. I think that's very unfair, and I just really do want to clear the record. If something was taken out of context that you may have heard, I really have no idea. I'm not even on Facebook. I don't know the person that did the post and the item was on the agenda. So I really, I really think it's just important to clear the record. We're super, super proud of the private property adaptation program. No homes had been selected on Miami Beach until we started that program, and we're thrilled to be able to offer this to our, you know, residents and businesses. But it is very complex and very long and we worked really hard on that. The item was brought to land use in 2022 to actually hire a special consultant to help people learn how to elevate their homes and to apply for this program. And the first time we were able to submit, they have been tentatively selected for award. It's actually on FEMA's website. So we're very proud of that. The rest of Miami-Dade County is looking to us as well as leaders. So we'll continue to do that, and I'm happy to discuss it further. And public safety, do you have one? So there was one home that was raised successfully with FEMA dollars using the city's application process. So we sat down in a meeting last week. You said that no up to date. Yes. So we actually have two homes that have zero homes have been raised successfully. It's a commissioner. It's a it's a really long process. We applied for the homeowners on behalf of them. They were tentatively selected last year. So we applied in 2022. The second we brought the consultant on, they were selected last year. They're in the FEMA evaluation process. And that's information, you know, that we did provide. It takes a long time. And it is frustrating. But we were really happy to be you know, we're really some of the first in the county to be moving this forwar. It really shouldn't be taking a long time because these other municipalities with these, we need to reach out to the contractors because other municipalities are getting five, ten, 15 homes raised with 100% grant funding. And I don't understand why we have not been able to do so well since I've been in this position. We've been working really hard at it, and I think it is something new and it's something new for our community as well. We did a lot of outreach. We even had a special webinar on. We've sent postcards to people's homes to invite them to learn more about home elevation. So we've really, really done as much as we can in this area and will continue to move forward on it. I would like to make a motion that we invite FEMA to our next meeting. So that to make a short presentation so that we can establish a relationship with them, that I don't think we have right now. So, I mean, I would like the grant representative person from FEMA who's making these choices to come here and say, we're getting these emails from you and we're supposed to be processing this program. So that we can get 100% funding for people to elevate their homes. And we haven't been able to. So I don't know if inviting FEMA is the answer, but I do think that it needs that. I think we need to do something, because what we've been doing up until now is not working. I would respectfully disagree, but I'm very happy to reach out to FEMA. You know, with our grants administrator. I think that's a great idea. We did have a presentation in land use about the FEMA process as well. Okay. So Commissioner Dominguez, would you like to, as part of this referral, referring this item to neighborhood, neighborhood, I'd like to invite FEMA to neighborhoods. Then November 6th is the next meeting. Okay. So that would be my is that your motion or my motion? Your motion to refer this to the November 6th neighborhoods meeting and invite invite FEMA okay. And if we can't get FEMA at the November meeting that we would like FEMA at the December meeting, Mr. Mayor. Did you want to speak, Commissioner? I did, you're done. Okay, Commissioner Fernandez, thank you. And I just like, you know, the record to reflect that the land use committee is the land use and Sustainability Committee, you know, and so I just like to put that out there, you know, I got it going to finance Committee when it was about waiving the grants. I completely got that. I did not necessarily agree in waiving it because I do believe to the merits of what Commissioner Dominguez was mentioning, that would deplete the grant. But to the extent that we're going to be discussing a, you know, matter of sustainability and helping homes on this issue, we do have a committee and it's the land use and Sustainability Committee, the one that serves that purpose. Once your next meeting, I have no idea when our next meeting is. Mr. Clark, I let's see, Clark says. Our next meeting is I think we have 1st November. We have two meetings in November. One is a special meeting and one is a regular meeting. Is it a sunshine meeting? The land use meetings in November are November 5th and November 25th. And which is the special meeting? I don't have it divided that way. The fifth fifth is the special meeting. So November 25th, I'd be happy to place this on the agenda. If you're so inclined. Amend your motion. Fine. Okay, cool. So we'll have that on November 25th. The vote? I don't have a second, I haven't heard. I'll second. I'll second them to refer to land use. So this item is going to land use on November 25th. Invite FEMA. And it's going to be discussion not only on this particular property property, but on the general grant program. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. If so, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion passes. It is referred to land use C4 z c4 z is a referral to Finance Economic Resiliency Committee partner with Beachfront Concessionaires umbrella program. It was separated by Commissioner magazine. So I pulled my own item which I normally wouldn't do. But I wasn't expecting this. But there was a lot of events here for breast Cancer Awareness Month, and this item I thank my colleague for Co-prime sponsoring this. Commissioner Fernandez, and I think there will be broader support, but I don't think we did a good job of describing it in the title. Two separate items, both honoring people and groups in our city through a partnership with our beach Concessionaires for Breast Cancer Awareness Month next year, I, I have made a referral to the Finance Committee that we will actually work to purchase an entire beach of umbrellas that will be pink to honor breast Cancer Awareness Month. And I'm thinking about just the optics and the aerial footage that that will create. I think there will be a tremendous return on investment. Not that that's the sole reason we're doing it. We're doing it to honor a very good and noble cause along a similar fashion, just recently, the state of Florida took out all references to LGBT tourism in our from the state's website. Given that Miami Beach is an absolute. Mecca of our community in a similar fashion to the pink breast cancer Awareness Month umbrellas that we'll look for, we will do rainbow umbrellas at 13th Street Beach, which has historically always been our LGBTQ or gay beach. And those umbrellas will each year be displayed during Pride Month for the entire month on a single beach in Miami Beach. To show our commitment to the community. And again, given the absence of the state of Florida, putting this forward for marketing, I think we will be proud to have the aerial drone footage of the entire block of our city that is synonymous with our LGBT community to really display what is absolutely just critical to our fiber and our DNA. So there, I'll turn this over and thank you so much, Commissioner Magazine, for putting this forward. It's such a great display of inclusivity and, and you truly are a champion of inclusion and equality. So I'm happy to co-sponsor this item with you and to second your motion. Is there any other discussion questions debate on the item? There's a motion and a second. Is this a roll call or is this it's but we could do this by acclamation. All in favor. Aye. The referral is made c4 Z okay c7 j. C7 j approved PSA with Favela Miami Corp homeless employment services. It was separated by Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez. You, Mr. Mayor. I pull this item because I when I looked at the stats on on favela, you know we were spending about $100,000 a year for this program and it had some pretty abysmal results. And PJ, if you could pull up the item and put it on the screen, please. So this is what the community Services sent me in an email for all of last year. We favela well, the homeless services referred only 55 homeless people to the program. 24 of them took part in a temporary sanitation program. The. There was a favela work placement for eight. Only three individuals found independent employment, six were not eligible and only 20 had a program. Job placement. So you know, do I think that spending about $5,000 per person to put them in a job placement of taxpayer money, you could you could put the slide DJ no, I do not. And, you know, I think that if we're going to be serious about saving taxpayer dollars, we can't be spending it on such an abysmal results. So I don't know if we should refer this to neighborhoods and discuss a more efficient program where it doesn't cost us $5,000 per person for a program. But I mean, I certainly cannot be voting in favor of a program with such, you know, abysmal results. Thank. You. Commissioner, I'm going to I'm going to there's more discussion or debate on this. Okay. The item has been moved or second, any other questions? Discussion. Seeing no opposition Commissioner magazine, do you want to just give your thought or feedback? I'm just curious. Hearing both sides of the coin. So we work with Favela Miami for a work training program. This gives the opportunity to sheltered clients that have been placed through our homeless outreach Services team, to be able to get skill sets, to be able to reintegrate. What do you think of the results? I think that the results with this difficult population are pretty decent, especially as we grow the program and we look at reinforcing and looking at the attrition rates and adding to the to the skill sets of the individuals. And we have to also keep in mind that this is the most difficult segment in our population. These are individuals who are homeless. That favela helps reintegrate these individuals back into the workforce, including employment within our own sanitation division. And they engage for 163 hours, over four weeks of work and they and they help them not just not just in in getting in, getting this type of employment, but they also provide comprehensive employment assistance to these individuals. They help them develop their resumes. They help them get back on their own. Two feet and reintegrated with with society. And so if you challenged me to go out in the streets and engage with the homeless population, convince them to get a job and then develop their skills to continue on, on their own, I would say that this is actually pretty impressive results. And doctor, to Madam Director, is this aligned with the national standards of success? Yes, it is in line with the national standards of success. With that, I make the motion to approve this item. Commissioner Suarez. Yeah. Look, again I mean, it sounds great. I think the program is wonderful. However, the results are what you see. I mean, we have only for a single year. There's only 20 successful placements, 20. And we're paying 100 grand of taxpayer money for this. That's ridiculous. That's $5,000 per person to get them a job. We're paying. We're charging our taxpayers $5,000 per person. So that they can work. I mean, how absurd is that? I mean, look, if these numbers were better, if there was like, maybe a couple hundred, I'd be like, yeah, look, this is a great program, you know? But I mean, at what? At what number do you actually say this is not effective? Is it ten. Is it two? I mean, where do you draw the line where you say this is either effective or not? I mean, this is this is this is insane. I mean, we're spending $5,000 per person to, to put them in a, in a job. I mean, I'm sorry, but it's not the, it's not the responsibility of our taxpayers to do this. Okay. I can I can I can understand shelter placements. But you know with with such poor results I mean, this is ridiculous. So thank you. If I may. Yeah, if I may, I had worked with Alba before we even had retained favela. We were looking at actually a company in New York to offer these services. They didn't have the capability of interest coming down here. We retained favela. And by the way, I appreciate your research, Commissioner Suarez. You're very thorough, and I can see why you're frustrated about these numbers. I have a I have a different take on this. This. And to echo what Commissioner Fernandez said, this is a very difficult segment of the population. I think it's something that it's important that because we are taking such serious enforcement actions against homeless who commit crimes, I think it's also important, even though the Supreme Court has said we do not need to offer many of the services we offer, I think it's important. I think it's important that we do and the numbers may not reflect. But I tell you, I look at those 20 lives have completely been changed. I don't even think the monetary value and you raise a good point. And that's why we can debate this, whether that's the responsibility of our taxpayers money. But those 20 people I'm this is a life changer for them that they actually have employment. It's and I think we just need to continue. And maybe there are at the edges, there are things we can do better. We can improve it. It's fairly new. It's in its infancy only a couple of years. So I think it's good to highlight it. But to me it's imperative we continue and just try to improve. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, you haven't been heard yet on this item, right? Commissioner bot so I think spending $5,000 to break a cycle of chronic homelessness and equip a person who's been living on the streets to be able to hold down a job is money well spent. And so I will 100% support this. Commissioner Rosa Gonzalez and then Commissioner Fernandez, I just want to congratulate Favela and Valerie, because for years before even having this contract, she just had a volunteer group and was doing this work for free on the streets working with these homeless people constantly. I think since like 2017. Right, 2016, possibly starting in even before that. And there were just so many years of doing this work. Volunteer. So finally we came to her and said, what you're doing is so positive that we would like to give you more work and then after your first contract, I think we expanded the work, and then you set up a nonprofit to help raise money in addition to the contract, so that you could do even more work. So this is a woman who went from volunteer. This is this is real community service in action. And I'm 100% supportive. And Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Fernandez, then Commissioner Dominguez. And, you know, it's almost as if Commissioner Bob took the words and the thoughts out of Commissioner Bob. I'm sorry, did you say Commissioner Dominguez? No, no, I said okay, Commissioner Bob, it's almost as if Commissioner Bond took the word and the thoughts out of my mind. And just to think about that, what's our homeless population? Sorry? What's our homeless population? Madam director, based on the point in time. Yeah, 133 133. Based on the point in time, which is only a one time count of that night. So imagine imagine if it took $5,000 to reshape each one of those lives, you know, with $600,000, we would be you. I mean, we know it's not that easy. It's not. But for 24 individuals, for 24 individuals, they got the opportunity to work with our sanitation team. And eight individuals were able to find some sort of it wasn't with our sanitation program, but with another program that maybe fit their skill sets a little bit better. So those are individuals who now are no longer in the streets because of that. I think this is money very well spent and you know, I think, you know, we need to just realize this is a very difficult population arrest is a tool that we have. It is not going to be our only solution. It's not going to be our only solution at all. And we need to help people. Yes. Get housing. Yes. Get shelter. Yes. Get get get jobs. Otherwise it's just going to be a revolving cycle. It's going to be an issue that we send people to shelters and they'll be coming back here. Why? Because they're not getting jobs. And so and so you know, this I do believe is money very well spent and a good return on our investments. Commissioner Dominguez, thank you, mayor. And I echo my colleague's sentiments. I remember when Valerie was on the homeless Outreach Committee and since starting favela and working with the city, I for the last couple of years, if I've gone out super early to run an errand or whatnot, I've seen Valerie out there and she's out there with her team and checking in on people. The work that she does tirelessly and passionately to help our city and the homeless. I, too, agree that it's money. Well spent. I have to call the vote. This is on item C7 j. I have a motion by Commissioner Fernandez, second by Commissioner Dominguez. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Nay. We have one. No. Commissioner Suarez. Item passes six one. C7 j c7 k. C7 k is renewed. PSA with new hope Corp Inc various services for homeless. It was separated by Commissioner Suare. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Suarez, this is another program that I think has abysmal results. PJ if you can pull up the C7 k. Similar to the last item we just spoke, except this is a lot worse here. We spend roughly $600,000 a year in taxpayer money. Okay, so right now we're at $700,000. And I wanted to highlight the efficiency of new Hope and basically we have 1.8 shelter placements per week. So we're spending $600,000 of taxpayer money to shelter 1.8 individuals per week. You know, I brought the question at the last item, where do you draw the line and decide what is going to be efficient and what's not? No, unlike favela, which is a local single person operation, you know, this is a vendor and as I understand it, the people that work for new Hope and who work for Miami Beach or who work on the beach for new Hope, I believe there's four individuals right now. They charge us for, or they did for about for the last year. They charged us to be in the car driving from homestead to the beach and from home back to homestead, which was around 2 to 3 hours, and of travel time. And we were eating that cost. But aside from all that, again, we have these results where I think everyone here should be aware of, you know, these are all feel good programs, but are they working? I don't think so. And I don't think it's I don't think it's fair to burden our taxpayers on this. I would rather either bring this in-house where we have a little bit more control over the program, instead of doling this out to a third party that that has these kinds of results. So, you know, I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say about this. Commissioner Fernandez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know what's not stated there is that new hope is working in the late hour shifts, 7 p.m. To 3 a.m. Our office of Community Services is not open at that time, our homeless outreach line was not working at that time until October 1st. And we brought an item to bring that forward. Now, if we were to do what my colleague is saying, bring this in-house, we discussed this, Madam Director, to do outreach in-house as the city as part of a proposal that I wanted to do to expand our services. How many millions of dollars was it to bring that overnight outreach in-house as part of our general fund operations? Well, when we were looking at it, vice mayor, we were looking at the walk in center. If we look at it from a perspective of each caseworker for the city cost about $80,000, roughly, give or take. And that's not including administrative oversight. And I believe that the fiscal impact was going to be you know, I believe it ranged somewhere along 400 $500,000, if not more. And that's just for staffing in the in New Hope's contract. It also includes residential treatment beds as well as pre treatment beds. ET cetera. And so and so and so that's the that's that's the key thing here because with with with new Hope not only do we get the street outreach workers which is for street outreach workers that we can correct for outreach workers. And at 20% the director who oversees the program for outreach workers at a time when they're not getting referrals, these are actually direct contacts because unlike our other unlike our daytime operations, individuals can walk into the office. They don't have that at night. And until recently, they didn't even have a phone number. So these were direct contacts that they were making. And so then we're getting with this investment for outreach workers in addition to treatment beds and pretreatment beds. So we're getting as part of this contract. So it's not only the workers but it's the actual beds for the placements. Yes. And as of as of October 1st, one of the things that we had talked to new Hope about adding into their contract is the live assistance. So when a person dials our phone number, if they are homeless and need immediate support, they are transferred to either while they're working prompt one which would directly take them to the new Hope phone line, which is our number. And so and so I think I think what's not shown there in, in in what was also shown is that this is a targeted service. Again, for individuals specifically, particularly dealing with substance abuse. And that is a completely different segment of the homeless population. This is not just a general homeless population. This is a more specific segment now. And in that specific segment, they've actually done 94 emergency shelter placements. Is that correct, Madam Director? Correct. And they've actually engaged in over 9400 encounters and engagements. Is that correct? Correct. Their their number for engagements is 4919. Okay. And so and so and so you know how how does their outcome, you know, compare to the national standard? I mean working with this population, we go back to what we were discussing before. It is very difficult. These are hours that are not traditional working hours for programs. So with a service resistant population, engagement is going to be more difficult even in the nighttime hours. So in regards to national averages, there's not a lot of national programs that work outreach at these specific hours. So comparing it is very hard. And now let me let me ask you this. The outreach workers, the treatment bed, the pre treatment beds. Do they also offer for example the transportation to shelters. They they provide the transportation to the shelter for the client. But they also assist our police homeless resource officers or our police officers in general if they need, if they come across a homeless individual that needs support and they are willing to go into shelter, what happens is that the police officer will contact new Hope, and new Hope will facilitate the transportation. So that way the police officer doesn't have to go offline to do the transport to the to the shelter. With that, I think this is again money well spent. I think we should always challenge these entities to do better, to do more, especially as, as as we struggle with this, with this population. But we need to recognize the improvements we've made. We have made improvements. We still need to continue doing more. And we should challenge them to do more. But, but, but this is an important contract and I will move its approval. Commissioner Fernandez, that was impressive. That's why I pointed you to the homeless trust. I knew you were up for the for the job. Maybe your reappointment. Mr. Mayor. I'm trying. I'm trying to get him there. Mr. Mayor. Commissioner magazine, I do think it's important we drill down into some of this. And looking at these numbers, I see favela and the great work they do. And I see Valerie and her team visible in the community and their tangible results. Maybe that's because of the different hours of operating and things like that. So I'll give some credence to that. But $600,000 is a big number, right? And when I look at the results, new Hope engagements 476 over the course of a year, roughly one per day, right. Well, if I can please. So contacts and engagements are two different things. Contacts are when you're trying to talk to the person. And maybe the person pulls away or maybe the person walks away or starts, you know, screaming obscenities. Those are people that are captured in the context, not in the engagements. Engagements are actual that you can have a full conversation with the person. You can engage them, talk to them about services and that they're they may not be willing to take it, but at least that there's some sort of reception, that there's some sort of understanding of what you're offering them, and they're just not walking away from you. So we're basically paying $1,700 a day for this service. Yeah. I'm not asking him to tell me we're getting roughly 1.2, 1.3 engagements per night, $1,700 a day for one person to have one semi tangible conversation. And we're getting two people per week in a placement or pretreatment and one person a month in a residential treatment placement. Torn with what my colleague said is, where do you draw that line? Bang for your buck? Yes, these are important services. Everything is important, right? But when I boil it down to that, that we're paying $1,700 a day for one engagement, right. And for two per week placements in a pre treatment center. And we're essentially. Paying $10,000 if you boil it down for every treatment placement. And when I think of that, those people are probably back in our street the next day or the next week or something like that. Yeah, I start getting into what is this, a good return on our dollars. Right? It's not that. Is this a noble cause? Of course it is. Everybody's causes noble. And it is critical that if we are going to have an enforcement mechanism, that we have a support mechanism. But I guess the question begs, are we getting the adequate bang for our buck with this support mechanism? And that's not a that's not a tangible question that you can answer that's arbitrary. And objective subjective to each of us. But that's what I'm very much struggling with. Right now. Commissioner Suarez. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, just to put things into perspective, that's a 2% engagement rate, 2%, 1%. Sorry. Like, you know, what are we doing here? What are we what are we paying for now? I would rather have favela do this, okay? Because I know I can see her. She's here. New Hope isn't here. I would rather I want to raise no. And. Well, let me finish. Excuse me. Yeah. So, you know, look like I said, where do we draw the line on what is effective? And are we throwing good money at bad at bad initiatives? I mean, is this is this really a best use of taxpayer funds? And it's surely not. I mean, these numbers clearly show that this is not working. So, you know, I think we should defer this to neighborhoods and give this a proper, robust discussion on the motion. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Fernandez, I'm happy to support that motion because I do think we need to challenge these entities to do more. What I what I want to know is when this goes to committee, if, let's say we don't proceed with new hope, what's the market out there for, for entities that that that provide these services. And perhaps Doctor Torres, you're able to answer that now for substance abuse and co-occurring disorders, outreach teams are limited to the city of Miami, the city of Miami Beach, new Hope and Hermanos de la Calle. As far as outreach goes. And Manos de la Calle really focuses a lot of their efforts on on immigrants rather than substance abuse and co-occurring and so and so. I just want us to be aware of that, that if we decide we send this to a committee and we decide not to move forward with this, I want us to be aware we will end up with a provider of these services, perhaps serving our most vulnerable hours of 7 p.m. And 3 a.m. And then when I bring the item about expanding our services into the nighttime, am I going to have the support to expand the services into the nighttime? Because, you know, that's the thing. The service needs to be provided. The results might be hard to see because it's the most difficult population. In addition to that, they're dealing with substance abuse issues. So it's easy for us here in this air conditioned chamber wearing nice, nice expensive suits, having, you know, good food for lunch to be criticizing the work that people are doing in the middle of the night, dealing with a violent population that suffers of mental illnesses and substance abuse, and from the comfort of these air conditioned commission chambers, judge and disparage the work that this entity is doing. But what's our alternative? And if there's not a private sector alternative, are we going to take on the at least $500,000 of salary plus pension plus equipment, plus transportation and all that to do it in-house because it goes against all the other rhetoric that we've heard earlier in this meeting. And so and so we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't say we want to solve homelessness in our city, but not invest. For as flawed as the entity might be. Well, let's look at the challenge. It's a flawed challenge that they're dealing with. It's a segment of it's a segment of our community that has been failed by society and, and yeah, I'm not surprised by these numbers, but I challenge any one of us to go out there and deal with homeless individuals with mental abuse, with with mental illness and substance abuse. And what will our alternative be after neighborhoods, once we say, oh, they suck, it's only a 1% return rate. Well, who's going to be out there? And then what are we going to tell our constituents when they call us and tell us, oh, there was a man at 9:00 at night having an episode in Loomis Park. We're going to blame our police department. We're going to blame Alba because we're not following the recommendation, because someone's going to take the blame. It's not going to be us. God forbid we take the blame where the blame is going to be bad. It's going to be ugly. It's going to be nasty. It's going to be very public, and it's going to be at someone in our staff and so I just, you know, what is the alternative going to be. And so I hope you bring us an alternative of what our options will be a neighborhoods. I support the motion to send this to public safety. I know a couple of you want to speak. I think we have consensus to refer to. That's fine. Okay. Is that a motion? Yeah. Second call the vote. Let's do the following month. Which which neighborhoods. Which through the later the 2nd November neighborhoods meeting. Can I just make one commissioner magazine and along the lines of your thinking, Commissioner Fernandez, this isn't where I'm trying to pull back money. I agree, we need to allocate this money. I just want to be sure that we are allocating it most efficiently. So maybe it is this program, maybe there are no viable alternatives. But I their diligence go to my page. Maybe have new hope come in and also have favela bring forward a proposal of what they could potentially do with that amount of money. It is a complete misunderstanding of the challenges of this population. What favela does is very specific to a segment of the sheltered population that is being put back on their own, two feet into the workforce. These are individuals with mental illnesses and substance abuse issues that need detox, treatment, transportation and specialized outreach. Workers who understand how to deal with this very specific challenge for, again, it's for us. I hate to say this, it's cheap politics to say maybe favela. Maybe we do it because this is the most challenged. Let's call a vote on the right, referring to committee direct referral to the December 2nd committee. All in favor? Aye, aye. It's referred to public safety. Neighborhood Quality of Life Committee. December 2nd, c7 p as in Paul C7 P is accept recommendation. Proceed with wrap lights of at portion of Washington avenue. It was separated by Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Fernandez. I'll take this one if you okay. PJ, can you please pull up the Washington Avenue median light? Okay, so if you could zoom in for a little bit, please. So our resolution. Yeah. So, you know, I do a lot of walks at night and. And look when I saw this on, on the agenda, I thought it was ridiculous that the city wants or there's a proposal to spend a quarter million dollars on lighting on the median of where those little, those little palm tree string lights are. So, PJ, if you could zoom in just a little bit more, where those along the palm trees. Yeah. So all along Washington Avenue for those lights. Right there, a quarter million dollars. And if you could zoom back out, I think that these lights are well it's a one time payment, but it's a $50,000 a year annual cost. I think. I don't think this is money well spent. You know, these are really tacky. I can understand they look great on 41st Street and Meridian, but those are huge Royal palm trees or Calophyllum trees. These trees are maybe like eight inches in diameter. The color is not even right. And it just looks it just looks tacky. Honestly, in Washington Avenue, if we're going to spend a quarter million dollars on lighting, I'd rather do something a little bit more fundamentally changing for the neighborhood, at least something esthetically that that fits with the neighborhood. You know, this these lights, it's not going to change any sort of behavior on Washington Avenue. It's not okay if you want to change behavior. You really got to reimagine it as a whole. But, you know, this is like putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak. So I can't support spending a quarter million dollars and then $50,000 a year to keep these lights running. So I'd like to see where my colleagues are on this. Yeah. This is my item. I'm on the pool list. Okay. But it's my item. And I wanted the commissioners. Yes, but he spoke, and now I'm answering him, and he's not here. And it's usually the procedure is the polling commissioners speak first and then I'm withdrawing my item and I'm going to bring it back as something else. Okay. Commissioner. I mean, you can she pulled it, but she's my sponsor is saying she's going to bring it back. So it's kind of a moot point at this point. Yeah. I'm withdrawing. I'm going to bring it back as something else, hopefully something different. Reimagined and you know, and by the way, now you have blocks that are going to have lights, some blocks that don't have lights. You know, we're getting near the holiday season. All of our residents, all of our guests stay at the Loews and the Ritz Carlton right in that hotel. You're going to pull these lights and there's not going to be anything there. And I don't know what we have in terms of holiday lighting, but I would say that that picture that you posted is not necessarily fair. I do think that we could do more. I do think that we could do more, but that's what we have right now. Those lights are in front of the Ritz Carlton, by the way. What? Those lights aren't in front of the Ritz. They're on Washington Avenue. But the point is. Yeah, but it's not. You leave the Ritz Carlton, and that's the first thing that you see. And they actually don't look so bad going down the median like that. But you know what? If you think that it's a bad way to spend the money, I'm going to walk Washington Avenue. I'm going to figure out something else that we can do. We have we're working with Public Works to fix some of the landscaping. No, that was really bad in the sunshine meeting. We'll walk together. Oh, a sunshine meeting. Oh, okay. Alex will be meeting, and I'll bring it back as something. I'll bring it back as something else. Well, I would I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Could we ask staff? I don't know if it's public works to send kind of a map or a diagram of the lighting areas where we're talking about, because I'd like to go and see in person as well, all over Washington. Well, I mean, I was withdrawing it, but maybe I undue can I put it back on? I'm putting it back on. Wai. Because. Hi, Troy. Right. Washington Avenue business improvement district. Let's get the record straight. It is not a catastrophe. It does make a difference. It has made a difference. As a matter of fact, the first time it made a difference was less than one month after we raised the lights on the avenue. When we were able to see families, children playing and walking down Washington Avenue. And more than that, it is a safety issue because the lights are starting to not work as well. And if you recall, during the time on Espanola Way East, there was no lighting. And what happened during that time? There were shootings, there were stabbings, people were being held up. There were a lot of issues. But from the time that we put all of the lighting in there, there has not been one issue. And no, they're not going to look like 41st Street. They're not supposed to look like 41st Street, but it does enhance the avenue. So what we're talking about here is beautification. Washington Avenue needs beautification. If more than anything else, we have to think and look forward to what we can do to help Washington Avenue. So you're saying that it won't help? I'm saying that it will. I'm there, I walk there, I live there, and I can guarantee you the property owners would be happy about it. The business owners would be happy about it. But more than that, I think the general public would be happy to know that the avenue looks better. Therefore it will feel better. Therefore, there will be less crime and there will be less issues that we have to deal with with the city. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I have to, I have to, I have to I'm sorry. I have to know this is my item. Guys. I'm sorry. I have to dispute these claims. I have to dispute these claims. They were stabbing Suarez. You're out of order. They weren't just the lights. I voted for all of your lights. Wherever you want to put the lights. I always say go ahead. But, you know, because it's Washington Avenue and we want to redevelop it. We want to make sure it looks as crappy as possible. So then we can go in and bulldoze it. This is the narrative. This is what we do. We say we are not going to beautify. We are not going to fix the lights. We want it to look like crap so that then we can say, let's bulldoze it. And honestly, this type of narrative has got to stop. Troy. I'm committed. And I do think that the majority of people up here are committed to the beautification of Washington Avenue without bulldozing the entire avenue. Commissioner Fernandez, I know that you are dying to speak because you did pull this item. So through the chair. Mayor, could Commissioner Fernandez speak before he has a now that it's apparently back on? Yes. So? So, yeah. No. Listen, Troy, I respect you tremendously, but you just said it's not going to look like just like 41st Street. Well, you know what? The taxpayers are going to be paying $225,000 for the job order that we have on the agenda is to remove the old tree lights. To number two, put new tree lights, specifically says it's supposed to look like 41st Street, same as 43rd Street. That is what's on the agenda to make it look just like 41st Street. And here we are saying it's not going to look like 41st Street. But you know why? I have the issue with this item. We have lights on Washington Avenue. You know how I know it's ineffective because the property owners are not doing anything to improve 41st Street. We can invest in as many, I'm sorry, Washington Avenue, not 40. First, we can invest as much as we want on these string decorative lights. It's worth it's good money after bad. If nightclubs where we already have these lights. And so until I see a commitment from the business owners, from the property owners to do a turnaround and get rid of the problem, that is plaguing Washington Avenue, it's not the lack of the lack of decorative lights. It's not that the palm tree that the city didn't invest in putting string lights on a palm tree. The problem on Washington Avenue is that we have a criminal element operating businesses in, in on Washington Avenue, where people have. I'm sorry, sir, you do not have the floor. You're right where people are getting killed. And until we address that and until I see a commitment from the business owners and from the property owners to be agents of change, I'm not going to feel comfortable supporting this. I am sorry, I don't see the level of commitment that I've seen in other parts of the city where, where, where we have made commitments to invest, and that's why I can't support it. Why should all the taxpayers of the city of Miami Beach be investing in an area that is absorbing our police resources, that is causing deaths in our city that is hurting the image, the brand of our city with violence? Our city deserves better than that. And I'm sorry, the investment of the string light there is not going to be the, the change that we need in the air. And that's why I can't support this today. Obviously. Obviously it is not a cure all. But I will tell you one thing. I walked. I was at Tony Sushi two nights ago and it looked absolutely beautiful. I go, I went to Nathan's. I was walking when I went to the South Beach Seafood Festival. I went outside Nathan's, the Wolfsonian. It's the holiday time. This is the middle of our tourism district. These lakes do not look bad though. There are so many times I was at what's the what's the sports bar on the corner of Burke's Mickey Burke's? That is bursting? There are residents there every Saturday and Sunday and Monday watching football. And I walked out the other day. I think I have a picture of it. It looks so beautiful with those lights and we need what? And by the way, this is tourism dollars. I don't even think it's taxpayers dollars. I think it's coming out of tourism tax and that is our tourism area. And I vote for this La Liga thing that you had that I don't even know what it is. I voted for the $50,000. This is to beautify our historic district. Gorgeous lights in the middle of the holiday season and I vote for, like, what? You know, I there's a reason why I'm supporting this. And by the way, you cannot blame the property owners. There are businesses that are doing fabulously on Washington Avenue. Sure, there are a few nightclubs I don't love. Some of the nightclubs that are on Washington Avenue, but I'm a board member of the Wolfsonian. I think Nathan's deserves it, Tony said. We have so many. We have so many great businesses on Washington Avenue. And to talk like that about Washington Avenue I find offensive. I want to beautify, I want I want you to support this. I want you to support it because I know that you love Nathan's. I am sure that you have been to Tony Sushi, which is one of our oldest businesses on Washington Avenue. We have one of the most popular restaurants in the entire United States, Punta Vino on Washington Avenue. Christine, I'm supportive. If you want to call the vote, I would like to call the vote. I would like to call the vote just because I find it. And I'm sorry, Troy. I'm sorry because I do feel like there's a little. Yeah. I'm sorry. One last thing. There's not really. I mean, crime is at an all time low on Washington Avenue. That's the first thing. And as far as blaming the property owners, you can't blame the property owners for everything. A, we took the first step in beautifying Washington Avenue. Our bill, just so you know, for four years of maintenance and putting in the lights on Washington Avenue was only $100,000 initially. I think that's what the city spends on one year for 41st Street. So the comparison is different and it does enhance the area. It does make it feel more beautiful. Yes. For the record, Mr. Mayor, but it may be a little less. But regardless, we've spent I love that it's compared to the lighting project. Right. So I mean, when I said it's not going to look like 41st Street. No, of course 71st and 71st, but but it does enhance the area. It does the job. It does what it's supposed to do. And I guarantee you if all of those lights are off and it is dark, you will have a different set of problems that then you'll come back to the same commission and say, well, now we have a violence issue. It's really a danger because the police will have to deal with something entirely different. I guarantee you they will. But look at how it was before the lighting was there, and look at the way it is right now. Mr. Mayor. And yes, and then I find I find this so absurd. PJ, please put that image back up. I find these these arguments. Excuse me. I have the floor. I find that this is so absurd to say that these string lights are going to prevent crime. I think that's ridiculous. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. Excuse me. I'm talking. This is so ridiculous to make a claim that people. It is so ridiculous to claim that this is going to save lives. That is the most ridiculous claim I heard. These string lights are tacky and they do nothing for lighting. I walked Washington Avenue with you and you agreed that these do not add any. I didn't say that. Excuse me? These lights don't add any valu. These string lights don't add any value to the lighting. On, on on Washington Avenue. If this picture here clearly shows that for you to come here and say that this is somehow going to prevent stabbings, shootings, rapes, which is already happened while these string lights are on, is ridiculous. And the fact that you want to have you want to spend $250,000 of our taxpayer dollars, they're not taxpayer dollars. We can debate this all day long. Let's just take the vote and see where we're at. It's not what I said. Unbelievable. So that's where your tax dollars that would go otherwise. Commissioner, do you want to call the vote Commissioner Rosen? Yes, I'd like to call the. I'll. I'll second it. Okay. Let's call the vote. So I have a motion by Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez, seconded by the mayor. All in favor of this item, please say aye. Nay. I have a question from Commissioner Bart as to what the motion is. Can you restate the motion, please? To approve the resolution as resident activity. So I have one. I heard one, no, from Commissioner Suarez. Did I hear any other? I'm going to vote for this. But I'm going to tell you this. The property owners, you say whatever you want. Troy and I have great respect for you. The property owners need to step up to the plate, and they need to step up to the plate big time because yes, it's not the majority of the property owners, but you have bad property owners who are attracting crime, who are causing bloodshed in our city. And hurting our brand. And that's not fair to Nathan's. That's not fair to, you know, that's not fair to the Wolfsonian. That's not fair to the city of Miami Beach or our taxpayers. So I do urge you and challenge you publicly to identify those businesses, work with those property owners and up the game because it it is bad. And on that point, we have an item we're going to hear in a minute. But let's, let's let's finish the vote. So I have six one Commissioner Suarez voting no. The item passes. Great C7 z. C7 z is support metal detector pilot program at Miami Beach Senior High School. It was separated by Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez. I'm not unsupportive of this item, but I was hoping that you would refer it to the Committee on Quality Education and so that we can maybe talk to the PTA before we do this and run it through the committee, if that's okay with you. I don't have an issue with that. And we also have to reach out to the school board, because ultimately it's not our decision. And I'm okay with that. Okay. So that would be my motion and or your second commissioner bot. I also am not unsupportive of this. I just am curious why it's not to all the schools it could be by the way, I was that was part of my debate when I put it on and I we can't expand it. I picked Beach High just because it's the high school, but I wouldn't be adverse to doing that either. I wanted to one gain the appetite from my colleagues, also from parents. I mean, I had reached out to some parents just to find out, and everyone was supportive, but certainly there wasn't a scientific study in any sense. And ultimately, we're going to have to get buy in from the school board. So may we refer is the motion to refer this to the Quality Education Committee and bring this item back. Defer it to December. That's fine. That way I know to bring it back. That's fine. So with a referral to Shek deferral to December. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion carries seven zero. The item is deferred and referred. Keeping in with Washington Avenue. Our £0.05. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a let the clerk call it. Our £0.05 is an ordinance of the mayor. City Commission of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the code of the City of Miami Beach. Subpart B, entitled Miami Resiliency Code, chapter one, entitled General Provisions, article two, entitled definitions, section 1.2.1.2.2, entitled Use Definitions at subsection 1.2.2.4 entitled commercial by creating a definition for restaurant supper club, and by amending chapter seven entitled Districts and Regulations. Article two entitled District Regulations Section 7.2.5 entitled RM two Residential Multifamily, Medium Intensity and subsection 7.2.5.7 entitled uses RM2 by providing that entertainment uses shall be subject to the additional regulations in section 7.5.5.4 by amending section 7.2.6 entitled RM three Residential Multifamily High Intensity at subsection 7.2.6.2, entitled uses RM three. By providing that entertainment uses shall be subject to additional regulations in section 7.5.5.4, by amending section 7.2. 11 entitled CD two Commercial Medium Intensity at subsection 7.2 11.2 entitled use of CD two by providing that entertainment uses shall be subject to the additional regulations in section 7.5, 0.5.4, and by amending the Supplemental Conditional Use Regulations for the district by amending section 7.2. 12 entitled CD two, CD three Commercial High Intensity at subsection 7.1. 12.2, entitled Use of CD three by amending the Supplemental Main Permitted Uses to amend the requirements for dance halls to provide that entertainment uses shall be subject to the additional regulations in section 7.5.5.4, by amending section 7.2. 14 entitled North Beach Town Center Core District to a subsection 7.2 14.2 entitled use of TC1 tc two by providing that entertainment uses shall be subject to the additional regulations in section 7.5.5 0.4, by amending section 7.2 14.6 entitled Town Center, Town Center, Central Core TCC district by amending the requirements for entertainment establishments and by providing that the entertainment uses shall be subject to the additional regulations in section 7.5.5 0.4, by amending section 7.2. 13 entitled Mxc Mixed Use Entertainment District at subsection 7.2 13.2, entitled uses of Mxc by providing that the entertainment uses shall be subject to the additional regulations in section 7.5.5.4, and by amending article five entitled Supplementary District Regulations at section 7.5.5 entitled Specialized Use Regulations by amending and expanding section 7.5.5.4 entitled Entertainment Establishments by reorganizing the section establishing detail requirements for each zoning district, including location, occupational content, hours of operation, specific requirements for entertainment uses as permitted and accessory uses. Standards for nonconforming uses, minimum standards of operation, and the deletion of section 7.5.5.7, entitled Dance Halls and providing for codification, repealing, severability and an Effective Date. This is a second reading public hearing. It is 5/7. Votes are required R5T. Thank you for reading quickly. Could you just run through that in Spanish? Ralph. Yeah. Commissioner Suarez, thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a second reading on on something. I think that's well overdue. Okay. We just had a discussion about improvements to Washington Avenue, and I think we can all agree that most of the issues that come that arise from, from Washington Avenue are these outdated nightclubs. We have people getting stabbed, women getting raped, police officers almost getting run over murders, ride share impersonators, you name it, it's happening from these outdated clubs and I think it's about time we plan for the city. We want to be instead of the city we have. And, you know, I just I can't believe, like, that last item that that the fact that they, you know, that, that somehow they're going, this is this item here is actually going to prevent any more potential deaths on Miami Beach. I mean, how how tired is our public service workers putting bleach, using bleach to clean off blood off of our sidewalks? When is that going to when is that going to get when are we going to get tired of that? And do something about it? You know, pardon me, I'm very passionate about Washington Avenue. I walk it almost every night and I see how bad it is. And it is, it is, it is infuriating. It's embarrassing. It's embarrassing going down Washington Avenue. So I think we need to move forward into the next generation of, of what nightlife is and what we want it to be. And with that, I move my item. I have a question, Commissioner Dominguez. Thank you. I know that when we talked about this at land use, there wasn't a clear definition on what is entertainment. And the staff was going to come back with that. Is that included in here? Because I'm looking through it. The we have a definition of entertainment in the LDR. It hasn't changed and it did not change as part of this legislation. Anybody else? So I just need to understand, if I may, through the mayor. Okay. There's an area of the of Washington Avenue that is being exempted from this. That's correct. Okay. Just tell me if, if, if you may for the public walk through exactly the detailed change of the amendment. Sure. Basically what the amendment does is it creates a definition for restaurant supper club, which is a more defined type of restaurant. And it establishes a separate section of the code where entertainment uses are currently permitted and proposed to be permitted. And the biggest change that it puts forward is that it basically eliminates nightclubs and by nightclubs. That's a standalone alcoholic beverage establishment that doesn't serve food and non restaurant. And it limits those to certain defined areas of the city. And those exceptions would be on Washington Avenue between eighth Street and 14th Street. Larger hotels. And then there's another exception for nightclubs that would those are those are the two basic exceptions would be the larger hotels as well as Washington Avenue between eighth Street and 14th Street. It also allows for non restaurant establishments to be open until 2 a.m, and it basically summarizes the areas where that you can have entertainment in a more consolidated, easier to read fashion within the code. As part of the approval at first reading, we included two applicability sections at the request of the Commission. We also included a clarification regarding the prohibition of entertainment and Sunset Harbor, as well as within the Espanola Way area along in the Washington Avenue area have the occupancy limits been amended because I know that at one point there was an occupancy limit issue where we're an applicability clause was being proposed for business on Lincoln Road. I had concerns, you know, why are we going to make the regulation less stringent on Lincoln Road as opposed to just in general, applied broadly? Yes, we had we changed the occupancy previously at first reading the occupancy threshold was reduced to 125 persons before Cup would be required. We moved that back to 199 persons, and that's included in the ordinance. Okay. And then at 199 AC would be required. Correct. And that's the current requirement. And so and so establishments that don't meet this definition will be able to continue to operate. But they will be considered legal nonconforming. That's correct. Okay. And then for an entity entities will be able that currently operate past 2 a.m. Will be able to continue operating past 2 a.m. That's correct. New entities will they be able to continue operating past the new a new establishments if they want to operate past 2 a.m, will they be able to if they get a conditional use permit, if they are a supper club, they would be able to do that. If they're not a supper club, they would only be able to do that if they're within a larger hotel, or if they're located on Washington Avenue between eighth Street and 14th Street. Okay, under. Understood. So this is a balance. This is this is a fair balance where we help drive a transformation. Businesses that have been part of our of our community are able to continue to operating. They become now legal nonconforming. We have an area in our city where if we want to have these late night establishments past 2 a.m, but have them not be a supper club, but be more of your smaller type of bar. We can accommodate them in this part of the city, which is more defined for, for, for its entertainment. But we're now have a broader policy where we are putting these, these protections in place not only for an elevated level of entertainment, but being able to get the safeguards through a conditional use permit. Once the threshold exceeds that 199 occupancy, that's correct. Commissioner Suarez, I think this is great policy. I think it moves us in the right direction. Thank you for listening to the feedback that that that was I think you've struck a good balance here. I'm happy to support you. Thank you. Let's call the vote. Oh, Commissioner Rose and Gonzalez. And also there's this is a public hearing. You know, Commissioner Rose Gonzalez, then Commissioner Bart, look, there's nightlife and then there's nightlife. I had some friends that I went clubbing the other night because my friends insisted that I go clubbing. So I went to this place called sizzle. I don't even know if you'd call it a club. It was the coolest speakeasy on like Collins and 11th. And you go into this historic hotel and then you go down these stairs, and it was like the coolest place ever. And then my friends were like, wow, you can't stop here a hotel. What? It was in a hotel. Well, it was in a small art deco hotel. Just wait. It would be executed first. I sizzled and then after that I went to do not sit on the furniture where I had never been before, but which is another really cool nightclub right off of Washington. And like 14th, I want to say someplace like that and that place was hopping too, and it was full of like residents inside. There was like this cool, like disco. And then outside there was this courtyard and people were just, like, mingling and drinking. And so I spoke to some of the people, and they were locals that live in Flamingo Park and walk over to do not sit and I mean, I think just I'm afraid that we could be going in in the wrong direction. I mean, these people are going to keep their licenses, but let's say that do not sit on the furniture all of a sudden wants to upgrade their equipment or do some sort of renovation, and they're spending $100,000. Does that all of a sudden make them? Are they going to lose their license because of it? Because I don't want to do that to them. If they're in an area where they become legal, nonconforming, so on 14th Street, they likely would not become legal nonconforming, because that's one of the areas that's been carved out. But if an establishment is in an area and becomes legal nonconforming, as long as they don't exceed the 50% rule, then they can do upgrades and modifications to their establishment. So it's up to 50%. And like the sizzles of the world would no longer be able to exist. If somebody with a cool, historic hotel wants to open another like speakeasy ish place, they would no longer be able to do that. That's not true. They would, they would they would be able to close at 2:00. They'd have to close at 2:00. Well, but but that's the whole thing is business model for a hotel isn't a speakeasy. It's a it's a hotel. So they can totally open up a speakeasy. It's just it's going to close it too. Yeah. I mean, yeah, but people go out like they, I think they go out later than that. Places they can go. There's so many places we voted. The planning board voted. You're not recognized. We have not opened the public opportunity to be heard. If you could please sit until we open up the public hearing. Yeah. I think with the planning director, I think it's I think it's fair to state that this doesn't prevent future businesses from opening up. They would have to close it, too. And so, I mean, you know, everyone on this dais has been in favor of 2 a.m. Rollbacks along certain parts of South Beach. You know, we've all voted for that. So as you. Commissioner Gonzalez, Alton Road comes to mind. West Avenue comes to mind. So you know where are where are all our problems? Most of them are in the are in the entertainment district. You know, if you look at two, two thirds of all of our service calls are in the entertainment district. So but let me explain something to you. We have something very special that no one else has, which is this tremendous nightlife. And infrastructure. So the other night when I was at the South Beach Seafood Festival, I was waiting in line for something and talking to people. There were people from on one side of me, from Pittsburgh, from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the other side, they were from Cleveland, Ohio. They had come to South Beach just to go to this, just to come to this seafood festival. And the reason that they're coming here and, you know, they're they're going to the beach and then they want to go out afterward because they can't do that. You can't do that in Wichita, Kansas. You just can't go to Sizzle and Nathans and Twist and all these cool places in one night. And that's what makes us different. So if we didn't have 23,000 hotel rooms and we didn't have this tremendous infrastructure on the beach, and these events that we throw, I would say, yeah, let's go for it. But the problem is, is that this is kind of what makes us famous. And I didn't realize it until I was out the other night and I was dancing, and I was having such a good time, and I was thinking, wow, I love being in Miami Beach. So I, I hesitatingly, I really don't want to, I don't want to stop that from happening. I do think there are a couple clubs, by the way, that are not such great actors, but even even exchange the other night, which has been the site of like several shootings and stuff, I went by the other night and there were all these kids dressed up in like Halloween outfits, you know, and so I think that our police presence has changed. I don't know what the crime statistics are on Washington Avenue and what's happened recently, but I have seen a shift. And I mean, is there any way that we could like I don't know, how many votes do we need to make for this to pass? I have a question on what you're asking. Speaking of, let's take the vote soon. I have a question. If I could just ask a question on what you're asking, because I my understanding was that that indoor entertainment may be permitted in establishments not operating as supper clubs, serving alcohol past 2 a.m. If they are inside of a hotel fully enclosed with no access to the streets. So I think that that should address the concern that you have. I don't know, sizzle. What hotel sizzle in? I don't even know sizzles in some hotel on Collins Avenue. Do they have more than two? It's a little blurry now. Just kidding. I don't know. Okay, so any historic hotel can can continue to operate and open and they can operate past 2 a.m. Larger hotels, larger hotels. But I'll tell you, I will vote for this. The TCC district, the town center district I think, had an exception. I think what that applies citywide, except for TCC. Yeah. And the TCC, they had already prohibited that prior to this. And so we didn't want to change that regulation as part of this. Okay. I like if, if it could be any hotel if you could. And then regardless of the size, if it's enclosed and you can open up like little nightclub spots inside of a hotel if it was enclosed. But don't sit on the furniture is not in a hotel. No, it's not, it's not so. But but what he's saying is that it would fall in between the it's legal nonconforming it don't sit on the furniture will be able to operate as a legal nonconforming establishment unless they make renovations that exceed 50% of the value, which Mr. Director, correct us if we're wrong, that rarely happens because at that point they usually demolish the building and build something new because it's not worth to make that type of an investment at that point. How many nightclubs do we currently have on Washington like this? Is the entire entertainment district, right? The entertainment district is largely considered Washington Avenue. So it's only Washington Avenue. Commissioner, I have a question for you. Don't we have an industry nightlife task force? Have they discussed this? Why don't we refer the supper club ordinance to the nightclub task force? They're obviously not going to like it. I mean, well, they could get feedback. I'm. I'm concerned that you're. We have a prohibition across Miami Beach, and I want to be able to I would rather just vote today. I mean, let's just be on the record on who wants to you know, move forward on actually saving lives and preventing death and police being run over on the street. I think we've had enough of this. I mean, I don't need to refer this to a committee. I think it's not going to change anyone's mind. I think the fact that we're even debating this is ridiculous. I mean, it's absurd. I mean, we just had two stabbings last week or two weeks ago from a nightclub and a month before that, there was a shooting in a month. And a couple of months before that, there was an execution on our sidewalk, all coming from a nightclub. It's ridiculous. This is. I can't believe this is eve, like an argument. I mean, look, there's great businesses out there, but nothing good happens after 2:00. Nothing good happens after 2:00. And we're not saying that you can't open up entertainment here, but if it's not a supper club, it has to close at two. Mr. Suarez, I'm supportive. We have a motion in a second. Could I. Could I make a just because in order policy, getting the. The key is to get to five votes. That's five votes or four. This is an amendment to our land development regulations. So it needs five votes. So you need five votes. And so you know, you can always build upon a policy that you pass. And the key is getting to the finish line. And so and so I don't know Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez if, if rather than saying only hotels with 200 rooms it's hotels that have the venue fully enclosed with no access to the street because that way it's within the envelope of a hotel security is provided and you know, it's in the spirit of what's getting done. And then, you know, we can see how that works. If it needs to be tightened more, you can always tighten it more in in the future. But the key is versus to after all of these months of hard work between between committee meetings and the community input and all that, and then to have of A43 vote on something that needs five votes. And so I'm okay with that amendment within with inside fully enclosed hotels. Sure. Yeah. And in any historic hotel just just forget whether it's historic or not. Any hotel just remove the number of rooms. If it's within the envelope of a hotel, they need to have security clearly. And hotels usually do. They usually have a cup and that type of stuff that mandates a security plan, but they have no access to or from the street and are only accessed from within the confines of the hotel so that it is accessory to the hotel. And if you accept that motion that that now gets us moving, I think, to a better place. So I have a question on that. So like medium cool is on the side of the hotel, not through the confines. Medium cool will be able to continue operating as an existing business under a legal nonconforming status. But if a new hotel opened and they had something on the side and it could just be a cool, beautiful, they wouldn't be able to open it. They would have to access it from from the inside. Mr. Planning Director, that's correct. Which is good. Yeah. I mean, you don't want to. Okay. I mean, I think what we've crafted here is if you allow an every hotel with no access from the street, I think we have something and they can go till 5 a.m. Yeah. Under this. Yes, yes. All right. So we've created a policy that does allow for nightlife as long, you know it doesn't it. It's not going to kill nightlife. But my, my whole intent was never to kill. Look, my whole intent is never killed. Nightlife. It's to enhance it. It's to really up to upgrade it. Okay. In a hotel, it's more controlled, you know, you don't have fights and stabbings and shootings spilling out into the street. You know, you don't have these queue lines that now require a cup. So, you know, we're we're moving forward with that. And I'm happy to make that amendment okay. So motion as amended. Second we have a second. Let's call the vote sir. Well, Suarez was just a motion. It is a public hearings. Wait. Mr. Mayor, there's a motion to open the public hearing. Okay, okay, okay. It's a public hearing. You have two minutes. Elizabeth. Okay, so striking the 200 room limit opens up little tiny hotels that have maybe 50 hotel rooms, 25 hotel rooms, 70, 80, maybe even 100. And guess what? Those are spread all throughout residential neighborhoods. That's not a good idea, y'all. That wasn't the intent when we voted on it. And that wasn't the intent when you wrote it. So if you all want to do that, I think you're opening up yourselves for a lot of problems. But they can still do that now, though, right? You can only do that in commercial districts or only in commercial districts. It's rrm3. Yeah, we just read it. That's arm three. Is residential. Yeah. And I don't want to. Yeah, that's a problem. But I don't want to expand where you're able to do this. But the existing confines where you're already able to do so if you are 200, if you have 200 rooms. Yeah. But are there districts now could any hotel anywhere open a nightclub? No. You would, you would have to be in a commercial district or an arm. Three district. And that stands as as is correct. But why can't we make it 200 rooms if there are certain restrictions for clubs, there are certain restrictions for clubs and accessory uses that close at. Guess what, 8:00 you're opening up to anybody from the street, anybody from anywhere they want to go. This is a problem. So and I don't think that was the spirit of, of what you were doing. Can you speak to that, Tom? Currently outdoor areas above the roof or outdoor areas in general, if they're adjacent or abutting a residential building, have to close at 8:00. But that's the outdoor areas. The same doesn't apply to the indoor areas. Right? Okay. So this wouldn't this wouldn't expand it to outdoor areas, right? I mean this is indoor only, but the but the but the zone. But the code says anything 70 rooms or more. If they have less than 70 rooms it doesn't apply. So you guys by eliminating by eliminating the entire hotel rooms, you're letting it just be a free for all. What does it say? Well, the proposal well, right now currently I'm not aware of a 70 room yes minimum. I am but current as written, the 200 room limit was chosen because that is generally your larger hotels that can accommodate that. Elizabeth is right. Technically somebody could take a really small hotel game this and then open up a nightclub within the first level, but they still could. Now they could still do that now. Yeah, but but this would make it legal as opposed to illegal. But it's illegal. It's illegal now. Now they could do that, but they can't do it if you've got 70 rooms or less. I'm not aware of that restriction on it. Can we look that up I guess, and I don't know where it is. I they have to close at eight. Yeah. I don't think that exists. Yes it does. I mean if you tell you what if it, if it does, we'll bring it back. I'm just saying I don't. That was not what we voted on when we, the planning board voted 6 to 0, we were missing one person on this amendment. This this ordinance. This is not what we I think this is not Elizabeth. How about we bring you had the public comment. Now we're going to we're going to we're going to have to rely on our on our planning director. Mr. Mr. Mayor, how about we bring it down? Commissioner Gonzalez how about we bring it down to 70 hotel rooms to make sure that you just just to codify it because it's actually my aide corrected me. It's sizzle, not sizzle. Swizzle is in a small, you know what swizzle is? Swizzle is in a small, historic hotel with the average amount of rooms in one of those small hotels in Collins, hotels are going to have probably 50 units. And so if you wanted to have a threshold, I think 50 units is probably fair. You go to a minimum of 50 units. So I just I just want to understand, because our code states that there is India. That there is certain restrictions for in the arm three for oceanfront hotels with at least 100 with 100 units may utilize an accessory outdoor bar, but it speaks to outdoor. Correct. And this policy would prohibit outdoor this. This policy applies to indoor correct and so and so and so when we're saying any amount of rooms it doesn't apply to the outdoor that stays unchanged. Correct. And what what's being amended are is the count for the indoor. That's correct. That's for uses I'm sorry. Could I just want to if I may throw the mayor recognized Elizabeth because I see she's very passionate about this. And I just want to please come to the I have good reasons with moderation. Please. Yes. You know. I think that you guys have good intentions, and I really appreciate the efforts that you're taking. How about you make it not attached to I don't you know, I wish I'd done this in July because I didn't know this was all going to get convoluted, but. I think we have. I think we have a good I think we have a good proposal here. Elizabeth. And it's. Look, if things don't work out, we're still going to be here. You know, we can we can always amend it. I think we've we've come up with a robust discussion. It's this is the second reading and I get it. I mean, I do, you know, and we you know we got to start somewhere on the second reading. So I don't know. So is the amendment in historic hotels or all hotels. Mrs. Commissioner Gonzalez I mean, I would like to give an incentive to historic hotels and some of them, you know, if they if they. I would limit would that make you feel better if it was historic hotel. Would that do you want the 50 room minimum in the historic hotel and if I may because I just want to understand because I'll, you know, I like how you're phrasing it as an incentive because I just want to make sure that we're not just saying historical tells us, well, there is a purpose why we're doing it for historic hotels, you know, historic hotels do need activation. It's the policy of the city to support the, the economic vitality. We know historic properties tend to be more challenged to activate. And providing this incentive in historic hotels actually makes sense, because now we're helping those properties get commercial activity support their operations, prevent them from getting closed down, and demolished as could otherwise happen. I just want to make sure that we establish that record just to justify why. In fact, it is that we are placing this in an historic as opposed to not including others. Commissioner Bart, just so that I can understand. The more restrictive, it's less you guys. Can you take it? So, Commissioner Botkin? No, I wanted to ask you guys. So if we do historic hotels in M3, if there is a hotel in Flamingo Park, which is a residential neighborhood, would they? That wouldn't be arm three or would it? Correct? No, that's not if it's so. It's a hotel that's not located in arm three. So let's say it's a non-conforming hotel in an arm one district or in an ARM two district. They wouldn't be eligible. I think what what we're trying to get to is a balance of limiting proliferation of bad actors. Although I don't think this addresses one in particular that we have with some chronic problems. But also does not limit the variety of nightlife that we have here in the city. And so I do also like the idea of incentivizing historic properties to do something and upgrade their properties. If they can do some cool nightlife venue of some kind. But I don't want those to show up in somebody's backyard because there is a grandfathered in historic hotel. And, you know, from my years on the planning board, I we see it all the time. You know, one property on a block can do one thing, another block property on the same block can do something else. And the third property on that same block, who's the new kid on the block is like, yep, sorry you haven't been here for 50 years. You can't do it. So I want this to be equitable, and I want it to be accomplish what the very good intent is without killing nightlife and without putting an undue burden on neighborhoods that currently don't have an issue. So I'm going to rely on you guys to tell me that that is what we are accomplishing with this change on the fly, in terms of changing it to historic hotels. Yes, I, I am concerned though, that in in adding the qualifier that a hotel has to be historic to be eligible and now at second reading, I think that is more restrictive where the discussion started was in removing the minimum number of rooms, which would be a slightly more permissive change, but I, I, you know, I think we would want to develop a basis for limiting it to historic, which is non historic at this stage. Do you want to do you want to just I know you want to pass it right now but could we wait one more month, go through this process. Count how many historic hotels there are. You know like how what what would the effects of this be? And then, you know, and tell us exactly where they are, you know, do you have a map of the historic hotels? Why can't we I don't understand why can't we have this added in as historic? We know what historic hotels are designated. I think my, my, I think where the discussion started was if we removed the minimum number of rooms, that would be slightly more permissive change, which I think is okay at second reading. But I think in inserting this qualifier that a hotel has to be historic to be eligible for the exception. This has been through a lengthy process, and I don't think that that that part of it has has been analyzed. But you're not being more restrictive. You're actually being more inclusive because you're allowing it. But can't we just leave the 200 room for all hotels and just include no room limit for historic hotels? And I think that that, that, that is aligns. I think that's what Tom Mooney is explaining to Nick. Okay. How do you how do you define what's historic versus non historic? Because like Ocean's 11 is not historic but like something next to it. Yeah. Actually if I could just briefly Nick and I conferred and in actuality historic hotels would be more permissive because there's more historic hotels than 200 room hotels. So I think that including historic hotels would be okay. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner magazine. So what are we trying to get at here? Right. Let's ask ourselves. This is we want to allow this in hotels, but we want to prevent it happening from some barely functioning ten room hotel that is very small and just turns into a de facto nightclub. Right. Is that collectively what we're trying to prevent? Okay, then let's have some sort of moderate room limit on it. I think 200 is too much. Right? That's a very large hotel. But what is a minimum number of rooms? Is that 50. Right. And that way it prevents some little neighborhood small hotel from opening up as a de facto nightclub. So I think what we do is it's going to be unscientific, and we're kind of doing it on the fly, but we sit there and set some sort of minimum room limit. That way you don't have something that is a 2 or 3 story hotel in a residential neighborhood that turns into de facto nightclub, but if we would say, okay, a nightclub can happen inside of a hotel, as long as that hotel has X amount of rooms, 50 seems reasonable. But I'm quite literally just putting my finger in the air and coming up with that number. I do think 200 is too restrictive. So let's kind of meet in the middle somewhere. So, Mr. Suarez, do we have to do that right now? Why don't we? Why don't we keep the 200, okay. And include historic hotels? I think that because if you're outside of a if you're outside of the district, then a historic district, then you should meet that requirement of 200 rooms because and you're being more inclusive that way right now, any hotel can go through the cup process anyway and get a nightclub or whatever you want to call it, a speakeasy, right? Correct. If they go through the cup process, which is a lengthy, expensive process, right? Correct. Okay. So who would we be eliminating then at all? Anybody? Any hotel, any hotel that's not historic. Between 50 and 200. I just I want to go back to Switzerland, find out how many rooms they have. It's very small. How do you know how many rooms that hotel might have? 20 rooms. 30 rooms. Some of these hotels are small, but it's a historic hotel. Yes. Right. So. So with this, with this amendment, it'll be fine. It'll be able to pass. But if you're not in a historic hotel, you should have a 200 room minimum. Okay, I don't I guess that's fine. And that incentivize hotels that are historic to upgrade their property. Going back to public comment. Right, right. Troy. Right. Washington Avenue. Obviously this needs to be thought about a little bit more. And more considerations between before making such a big decision that affects so many people and so many businesses. I think the idea was or is to enhance the entertainment district or enhance entertainment in general. And I think by having supper clubs not able to have entertainment past 2:00 is a problem, because that's typically when they make their money, because having a DJ is considered an entertainer. And I think that there should be other, other considerations made. And think about really how if we're saying we want to eliminate this, what do we want it to look like, how do we plan on in incentivizing small organizations, bars or supper clubs to even come to the area? Will they really come if they know that there's a 2:00 limit? I doubt it very seriously. It doesn't end at two, though. It ends at five. If it's as long as you can serve alcohol, you're okay, right? So we're okay. But I'm saying the incentive has to be there. Right. But if we're going to do away with entertainment, then I think that's, that's that's a big problem. We're not doing away with entertainment. I understand that, but I'm just saying if we have to have more incentives for them to be there. So we need to really hash this out and think about really what we're proposing, what we're putting on the table instead of just doing it on the fly. And maybe it's not really on the fly, but it sounds like it to me. Thank you. Troy. Any other members of the public? Yes, sir. So we have Wayne Roberts. Mr. Mayor, can I just mention something? Sure. This is not on the fly. This has been debated at committee multiple times. And of course, we're going to have discussion on on the dais because we have members of the city commission who don't sit on the land use committee we don't have, even though I open up the floor to public comment, we don't have public official public hearings, advertised public hearings at land use. So I really do take offense when, when we're being told that we're doing things on the fly. No, we're having a discussion as a policy making body, and we're making the necessary amendments, which is within our legislative prerogative. And so and so. No, we are not making decisions on the fly. We are working collaboratively as a team in making policy, and that is our job. Thank you. Commissioner Fernandez. Well said. Any other members of the public? Yes, we have, Mr. Roberts. Go ahead sir, you have two minutes. So, ladies and gentlemen, here's my concern that this legislation doesn't do what David Suarez wants to accomplish, and that is to because crime is really evident at these large occupancy clubs. And what you're doing is you're impacting small bars and cafes in the district and I don't even know if it's across the city. The impact. But the target is clubs that are nuisances to and crime ridden venues that create havoc. And this doesn't do that. What's more, I'm very, very concerned that you're extending 2 a.m. Curfews to all. All restaurants that that exist south of fifth. I don't know, I think so, I don't know what you're what this. It's very confusing, Wayne. That's not true. Yeah, okay. Not the law in South. The fifth. Is that right across the board? Well, in the south of clubs, 2 a.m. It's been 2 a.m. South of fifth for some time, Commissioner Dominguez. Well, the Marina, I don't think the Marina is 2 a.m. Well, the agreement in the Marina agreement. So it's not across the board south of fifth. That's not correct. So I think this legislation needs to be looked at. I think you need to focus on these these these high occupancy clubs and shut them down that create a nuisance that, you know, the live is great. Mueller is great place. There's great clubs but there's nuisance clubs, especially on Washington. And that's our focus. And we shouldn't be taking the nuisance of Washington Avenue and moving it to residential neighborhoods. The 2 a.m. That shouldn't be the policy. Thank you. Mr. Roberts. Your time is up. Mr. We had okay. Now we have zero callers. We used to have one, but they lowered their hand. Cool. Okay, let's call the vote. What is the amendment that just came back up? I apologize, Mitch Novick. Go ahead, please. Come on. Hey. Good evening. Thanks for taking my call, Ralph. I'm in a torrential storm, taking shelter at Portofino. I commend Commissioner Suarez with this legislation. I think this is the right way forward. I would just hope at some time soon you focus in on my neighborhood, the crime ridden, the entertainment district where businesses exploit the public realm, creating an attractive nuisance on our streets. Thank you. Thank you. Our last caller is Sara de Los Reyes. Go ahead. You have two minutes. Hi. Sara de Los Reyes, sunset Harbor Neighborhood association. Even though in my neighborhood is not entertainment, it is a good thing. But you really have to think about the residential areas that have hotels. You really need to look at this. And planning. Had a big discussion about it. And they should ask planning, just like you know, Elizabeth came up. Really think about the number. You're saying 200, then you're saying 50. That might affect some other areas, especially in residential areas. So think about that. Thank you so much. Yeah, Sarah, we excluded Sunset Harbor. So and we specifically excluded it in this ordinance. So because Sunset Harbor is not going to be affected, no one else requested to speak. Let's call the vote. Just a quick point of clarification. The amendment is on the 200 room minimum is for hotels outside historic districts, and there's no room limit for hotels inside historic districts. So I second the item as amended call the vote. Actually, the mayor had seconded. Is that okay? Or either one? Look, I'll tell you. Let's let's bring it back in in six months to see how many people, if any, applied for any cups within historic hotels. So we can see maybe we're doing something that we shouldn't. You know, so we can just like revisit it. Can we do an LTC in six months so you're aware of it? Oh, well, I suppose I just don't want to. You could always put an item on the agenda. Okay. All right. Call the. Oh I have one other one. Final question. The applicability clause is that still in this. Yes. Okay. I just had to make sure that the applicability clause is in there. So motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez as amended. Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez oka. Yeah. Oh, yes. Commissioner Suarez. Yes. Commissioner. Magazine. Yes. Vice mayor Fernandez. Yes. Yes, yes. Mr. Rock. Yes, mayor. Minor. Yes. Motion carries. The item is approved, as amended. That was our £0.05. Thank you all. We started off with a bang. Ended with a bang. Got a lot done. I just need one quick direction. One minute there were planning items that were not heard today. The second readings they are supposed to go to January. Do you want them to go in January or can we bring those back in November? All the second readings we didn't get to today bring them back in November and we all agree. And one and one last thing. Do we need to a to notify the elections department. The department has been notified. They they've acknowledged receipt of the resolution. Okay. So thank you. Meeting adjourned. Thank yo