Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

MORNING, EVERYBODY.

[00:00:07]

GOOD MORNING MADAM MAYOR.

GOOD MORNING.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.

GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.

IT IS 9:00 A.M.

[CALL TO ORDER:]

WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING THE SELECTION OF AN INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK-- I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GREAT HOLIDAY.

AND I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE VICE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS, TO PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE .

THAT WE ARE SEEKING INTERIM

[1. Opening Statement]

OF INTEREST FOR THIS POSITION.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, SAM GOREN, AND ASK YOU TO EXPLAIN THE RULES OF THE ROAD, PLEASE.

THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO TUESDAY.

TODAY IS A COMPETITIVE SELECTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENGAGEMENT BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF AN INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY COMMISSION IN RECENT DAYS.

THERE ARE THREE RESPONDERS TO THE RFP THAT WENT OUT SOME TIME AGO.

AND TODAY IS THE DAY AT WHICH THEY'LL BE INTERVIEWED IN A VERY UNIQUELY IMPORTANT PROCESS.

THE PROCESS IS WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.

AS YOU KNOW, IT'S A VIRTUAL MEETING.

YOU HAVE A VIRTUAL QUORUM LEGALLY TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, CONDUCTING YOUR BUSINESS WITH PUBLIC ACCESS, PARTICULARLY UNDER CERTAIN THIS IS, IN FACT, A PROCUREMENT WHICH IS BASED ON A COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS UNDER THE STATUTE, YOU HAVE DESIGNATED YOURSELVES AS THE NEGOTIATING TEAM, THE BROWARD COUNTY ETHICS CUT.

AS YOU KNOW, IN DIRECT REPORTS SUCH AS CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEYS, IN SOME CASES FINANCE DIRECTORS OR AUDITORS, ET CETERA, THE COMMISSION GETS TO SIT AS THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

YOU ARE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

YOU'VE DESIGNATED YOURSELVES AS THE ENTITY TO DO THAT.

AND UNDER THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE, TWO EIGHTY SIX POINT OH ONE ONE THREE, SUBSECTION TWO IN FOLLOWING.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN THIS MORNING IS YOU WILL RECESS THIS PUBLIC SESSION.

EACH APPLICANT WILL BE INTERVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY IN A CLOSED DOOR SESSION UNDER TWO EIGHTY SIX POINT OH ONE ONE THREE.

IT WILL BE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF INTERVIEWING APPLICANTS AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RFP, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED FOR THEIR REVIEW AND FOR THEIR RESPONSE.

THE CONTEXT TO WHICH IS THAT WHEN EACH APPLICANT COMPLETES THEIR PRESENTATION OR THEIR QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION, THEY WILL THEN LEAVE THE PRIVATE SESSION TO HEAD INTO THE PUBLIC MEETING.

AT THE END OF THE THIRD PUBLIC-- THE THIRD PRIVATE INTERVIEW PROCESS, THE COMMISSION WILL NOT DELIBERATE, WILL NOT EVALUATE AND WILL NOT MAKE

[00:05:03]

ANY COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO YOUR DECISION MAKING, BECAUSE THAT MUST BE MADE IN A PUBLIC FORUM, BE IT KNOWN FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE'S NOTHING OFF THE RECORD, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CLOSED DOOR OF THE PRIVATE SESSION, ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC IS NOT ACCESSING THAT INTERVIEW PROCESS, IT WILL BE RECORDED, IT'LL BE VIDEOED, IT WILL BE TAPED, ET CETERA.

AND THAT VIDEO AND THAT TAPE WILL BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE STATUTORY REALM WITHIN 30 DAYS OR LESS, DEPENDING UPON WHEN THE COMMISSION MAKES A DECISION, WHICH COULD BE, IN FACT, TODAY.

NOW, THAT BEING SAID, ONCE YOU ADJOURN THE LAST INTERVIEW ON THE LIST OF INTERVIEWS, YOU WILL ALL BE THEN IN THE PUBLIC SESSION.

THE PUBLIC HAS AN UNFETTERED RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC MEETING.

IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC MEETING.

AT WHICH TIME THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION WILL DELIBERATE AND WILL ACTUALLY RANK AND OR MAKE A DECISION ULTIMATELY WITH REGARD TO THE INTERVIEWS THAT WERE CONDUCTED IN THE PRIVATE SESSION.

THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN RESPOND TO.

I'M HAPPY TO TRY.

YOU'LL ALSO NOTE THAT THIS IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN A SHADE SESSION OF LITIGATION.

IT'S NOT A LITIGATION MATTER.

IT IS A PROCUREMENT MATTER.

THE COMMISSION IS ACTING IN A VERY UNIQUELY SPECIFIC CAPACITY.

YOU'RE HIRING A DIRECT REPORT.

YOU ARE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

YOU HAVE A LIMITED RIGHT OF ACCESS IN A PRIVATE SETTING TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.

AND YOU WILL AGAIN REPAIR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING DIRECTLY AFTER THE LAST INTERVIEW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF ACCESS IS NOT IN ANY WAY ABRIDGED.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO TRY.

BUT THAT'S THE GENERAL FOUR CORNERS OF THE DISCUSSION AS TO HOW YOU GOT HERE.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROCEED THIS MORNING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE ALL SUBMITTED THEIR RFP RESPONSES, ALL OF WHICH ARE PUBLIC RECORD.

IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TRY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M NOT SEEING THAT THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO EXIT THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND PROCEED WITH THE AND JOINING US AS DE FACTO MEMBERS ARE CITY CLERK FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECORDING AND TAKING MINUTES.

A MEMBER OF OUR IT DEPARTMENT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS LAMAR, IN CASE WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL MEANING ISSUES, WE ALSO HAVE OUR CITY MANAGER, MICHAEL CERNECH, CITY ATTORNEY SAM GOREN AND KEITH GLATZ, OUR PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER JOINING US IN THE NEXT MEETING.

MADAM MAYOR, JUST TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY

[2. Oral Presentations of Interim City Attorney Firms]

CLEAR, THERE ARE THREE INTERVIEWS SCHEDULED IN THE IN THE PUBLISHED AGENDA, IN THE HART AGENDA AND IN THE DIGITAL AGENDA.

AT NINE TEN WE HAVE THE LEWIS 10:00 A.M.

WE HAVE THE AND AT 10:50 WE HAVE THE SO THEY'RE IN THE QUEUE.

ALTHOUGH AS A MATTER OF DISCUSSION, AS I JUST OFFERED IT, ONLY ONE APPLICANT WILL BE INTERVIEWED AT ONE TIME, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER.

AND WE NEED JUST TO PROVIDE SOME DIGITAL TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT WHO IS LAST SPEAKING IS ABLE TO EXIT THE PRIVATE SESSION TO ALLOW THE NEXT APPLICANT TO, IN FACT, ENTER THE PRIVATE SESSION.

AND AT THE END OF THE LAST INTERVIEW, EVERYBODY EXITS THE PRIVATE SESSION INTO THE PUBLIC SESSION TOGETHER.

OK? THANK YOU.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER GELIN AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS ARE NOW WITH US AT THE MEETING.

AND I TRUST THEY HEARD MY PRESENTATION, IF NOT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL ADJOURN TO-- WE WILL--.

MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

THIS MEETING WILL STILL BE RUNNING, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY.

THAT IS CORRECT.

IT WILL BE RECESSED TO GO INTO THE PRIVATE SESSION.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

WE ARE RECESSING THIS MEETING GOING INTO OUR PRIVATE SESSION.

SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'LL MEET YOU OVER ON THE NEXT TEAMS LOG IN.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS TWELVE FIFTY.

AND OUR ORIGINAL MEETING IS BACK ON.

CITY CLERK? THERE YOU ARE.

SORRY, I'M TRYING TO FIND MY SQUARES.

IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CONFIRM THAT WE ARE ALL BACK.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

OK, I'M GOING BACK INTO THE MEETING NOW.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

HELLO.

HI.

AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

AND MAYOR GOMEZ.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AT THIS TIME--.

OK, SO JUST DO A LITTLE MUTING THERE SEEING THAT PEOPLE MUTED.

[3. Evaluation of Interim City Attorney Firms]

WE ARE NOW UP TO NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE EVALUATION OF INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY FIRMS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSION.

I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS AS SUCH.

I CAN GO AROUND AND I WILL ASK EACH ON THE COMMISSION TO RATE THEIR ONE, TWO AND

[00:10:08]

THREE, AND THEN I WILL TALLY THAT UP AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE.

SO.

VICE MAYOR, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR ONE, TWO AND THREE.

TWO, THREE, ONE.

YOU'RE MUTED.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE SAYING OTTINOT FIRM FIRST.

YOU'RE SAYING AND YOU'RE SAYING THE LLW LAST.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.

OK.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, YOUR LIST, PLEASE.

OK, I HAD TO UNMUTE SORRY.

MY FIRST CHOICE IS GLENN, THE SECOND IS OTTINOT AND THE THIRD IS LEWIS, LONGMAN AND WALKER .

COMMISSIONER GELIN IS NOT PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I'M KIND OF STUCK RIGHT NOW.

I HAVE TORCIVIA, DONLON.

AS WELL AS OTTINOT AT NUMBER ONE.

I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER TWO AT THIS POINT.

AND I HAVE LEWIS, LONGMAN AT NUMBER THREE.

OK, AT THIS POINT, I NEED YOU TO MAKE A DECISION BETWEEN I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT COMMISSIONER GELIN NOT HERE RIGHT NOW AND WE CANNOT WAIT TILL ONE O'CLOCK IF THAT'S WHAT HE'S PLANNING ON RETURNING.

SO I NEED YOU TO TELL ME YOUR CHOICE, PLEASE.

THAT'S MY CHOICE.

I'M ON THE CALL RIGHT NOW.

OK.

SO, COMMISSIONER GELIN, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR ONE, TWO AND THREE.

I HAVE OTTINOT RANKED NUMBER ONE.

AND I'M ON THE ROAD RIGHT NOW, SO I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE TWO FIRMS. YOU GOT GLENN AND YOU'VE GOT SO THE LAST ONE OR THE FIRST ONE THE FIRST ONE AS A SECOND FIRM.

AND THE THIRD ONE AS THE THIRD FIRM.

I KNOW THIS MIGHT BE HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO BELIEVE, BUT GUESS WHAT? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU AND I ARE IN THE SAME BOAT.

AGAIN.

SO AT THIS TIME WE HAVE BASICALLY A TIE BETWEEN ANY DISCUSSION? I WANT TO--.

GO AHEAD.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN SAM AND MR. ALLEN WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A COMMUNITY THING? SO WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE COMMUNITY.

MR. ALLEN REFERENCED A LOT OF THE WORDS THAT I PERSONALLY USE WHEN IT COMES TO SERVING, WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING LEARNING, THE MENTION OF HIS MOTHER, SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN TAKING A HUGE INITIATIVE ON.

AND EVEN THOUGH MR. ALLEN DOES NOT RESIDE IN TAMARAC, HAVING THEM AS A SISTER CITY IN CORAL SPRINGS IS VERY IMPORTANT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS DONE A REAL BIG PUSH ON LOCAL BUSINESSES AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MR. ALLEN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERTAKE ANYTHING THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

IN THE LAST MEETING, WE DISCUSSED WHAT'S OUT THERE PENDING.

SAM SAID THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE NEXT PERSON WON'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE CONSIDERING IT'S NOT A TRUCKLOAD, IT'S A FULL LOAD, BUT IT'S NOT A TRUCKLOAD.

AND FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE RESEMBLANCE OF SAM TO MR. ALLEN WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN MY DECISION.

[00:15:01]

SO THAT'S MY TAKEAWAY FROM THIS MEETING.

THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES WERE SUPER.

ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPER.

BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY OPINION LIES ON.

FORGIVE ME, VICE MAYOR.

YOU'RE SAYING MR. ALLEN.

AND IF ANYBODY WANTS FROZEN OVER THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

I LIKED I THINK HE WOULD BE A VERY, VERY GOOD FIT.

MY ONLY CONCERN WAS IT BEING A ONE MAN SHOW AND WOULD HE BE ABLE TO HANDLE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT GO ON WITHIN OUR CITY OR WOULD HE BE SUBBING IT OUT, SO TO SPEAK? BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DID-- I LIKED HIM VERY MUCH.

HE REPRESENTS HIMSELF VERY, VERY WELL.

THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT HIM.

THANK YOU.

OK.

AND I ACTUALLY ECHOED THOSE SENTIMENTS THAT YOU HAVE, COMMISSIONER PLACKO, KNOWING HOW MUCH TIME AND ENERGY IS DEVOTED TO OUR FIRM BY THE FIRM THAT WE HAVE.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO GO TO OUTSIDE COUNCIL, OTHER THAN CERTAIN THINGS REGARDING INSIDE COUNCIL, WAS THE CONCERN AND THE DESIRE TO HAVE MULTIFACETED OUTREACH THROUGH A FORM WHICH WE WOULD NOT HAVE THROUGH AN INDIVIDUAL .

ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. OTTINOT IS VERY WELL KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT ALL THE FACETS OF THINGS THAT GO ON IN A CITY DUE TO HIS BEING A CITY ATTORNEY FOR OVER 15 YEARS WITH VARIOUS CITIES, EVEN IF THEY ARE MIAMI, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE THEY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT RULES AND REGULATIONS.

SO HAS APPLIED, EACH OF THE FIRMS THAT HAVE APPLIED.

AND IT'S UP TO THIS COMMISSION TO DETERMINE, THOUGH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHICH ONE OF THESE AND I WILL SAY WE'RE DOWN TO TWO BETWEEN GLENN'S TEAM BECAUSE AND BEST IN THE INTERIM TIME WHILE WE ARE TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM A FIRM THAT HAS ASSISTED US FOR OVER 15 YEARS INTO THE NEXT PICK THAT PRESUMABLY WILL BE ASSISTING US FOR A LONG TIME TO COME.

SO I--.

WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.

WE ARE NOT FORCED TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.

BUT I BELIEVE IT IS WISE THAT WE DO.

HOW ABOUT THIS? IF THERE'S NOBODY READY TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS, I WAS GOING TO SAY AND I SEE THAT COMMISSIONER GELIN WISHES TO SPEAK AND I SEE COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS NEXT.

I WOULD SAY IF YOU WANTED TO TABLE THIS CONVERSATION UNTIL AFTER NUMBER FIVE IS DISCUSSED, WE CAN DO THAT.

IF YOU NEEDED MORE TIME TO PONDER OR WE CAN TAKE THIS NOW.

SO THAT IS ALSO ON THE TABLE FOR CONSIDERATION.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU'RE ON DECK.

MY QUESTION IS FOR OUR CURRENT CITY ATTORNEY.

SAM, HOW MUCH LITIGATION DO YOU DO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

YEAH, THE ANSWER IS IT DEPENDS.

I MEAN, FRANKLY, MUCH OF THE DEFENSE WORK IS HANDLED BY THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, THE WE DO.

AND WE HAVE SEVERAL DOZEN FORECLOSURE MATTERS THAT WE'VE HANDLED OVER THE YEARS, WHICH ARE PROPERTIES IN FORECLOSURE FOR WHICH WE HANDLE THE ACTUAL LITIGATION AND BRING BACK MONEY TO THE CITY WHEN WE COLLECT ON CODE LIENS OR UTILITY LIENS, WHICH PAY BACK TO THE CITY ONCE YOU MAKE APPLICATION FOR AND ARGUE TO GET THEM.

THERE ARE SOME MATTERS THAT ARE NOT HANDLED BY THE INSURANCE COVERAGE.

THERE MAY BE A HANDFUL OF THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY PENDING.

SO THE BULK OF THE DEFENSE WORK IS HANDLED THROUGH THE LEAGUE, THROUGH THEIR ASSIGNED LAWYERS.

AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE OTHER MATTERS WE HANDLE TOGETHER.

WE DO.

BUT I WOULD SET THE BULK OF LITIGATION IS HANDLED THAT WAY.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHALLENGING THE ALLEGING A BREACH BY THE CITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE COUNTERCLAIM BY THE CITY AGAINST MICHAEL BERK AND JOHNSON AND THE WOODLAND'S CASE FROM A YEAR OR SO AGO, THE WOODLAND'S HOMEOWNERS

[00:20:05]

ASSOCIATION SUED ON THE LAND USE THEM AND TRANSMITTAL.

WE HANDLE THAT CASE OURSELVES INTERNALLY, WAS NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE.

SO MIKE SO IT'S A BLEND OF ITEMS, BUT THERE'S NOT A TRUCKLOAD OF LITIGATION WHICH WE'RE HANDLING AND FRANKLY, THE CITY IS NOT ENGAGED IN THAT MUCH.

WE DO PERIODICALLY UPDATE YOU ON PENDING LITIGATION THROUGH A QUARTERLY REPORT, MUCH OF WHICH IS BEING HANDLED BY OUTSIDE COUNCIL.

AND AREN'T THERE INSTANCES WHERE YOU STILL FARM OUT WORK THROUGH OTHER LAW FIRMS OUTSIDE OF THOSE RELATED TO FMIT? RARELY.

OK, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES.

I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT COMMISSIONER.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE DID SOME WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? EMINENT DOMAIN.

EMINENT DOMAIN, THAT WAS SOMETHING ASSIGNMENT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OK, RIGHT.

WE COULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT WE FELT THAT HIS TIMING AND HIS LITTLE ABILITY AND EXPERTISE WAS THE RIGHT PLACE.

RIGHT TIME.

RIGHT.

SO IN GENERAL, IT'S ALMOST NORMAL PRACTICE FOR SOME ATTORNEYS TO CARVE OUT SOMEWHERE TO OTHER FIRMS AS PART OF THEIR PRACTICE.

WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE CLIENT'S INTERESTS AND IF TIMING AND AVAILABILITY AND COMPETENCY AND THE OTHER COMPONENTRY OF LOYALTY TO CLIENT REQUIRES AN OUTSOURCING.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

OK, MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

HAVE YOU GUYS CALLED ANY OF THE REFERENCES THAT WERE LISTED IN EACH OF THE APPLICANTS PROPOSAL? COMMISSION? IF YOU WERE TO ANSWER, YOU CAN JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I HAVE DECK.

SO IF YOU WANT TO LOWER YOUR HANDS AND YOU WANT TO ANSWER THIS ONE, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, ARE YOU WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS QUESTION THAT YOU WERE BEING ASKED? YEAH.

IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.

I THINK I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, THEN WE'LL HOLD YOU FOR A MOMENT WHILE COMMISSIONER GELIN IS FINISHING ON THE FLOOR.

OK? OK.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER GELIN, YOUR NEXT QUESTION.

WELL, I DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS OR FROM YOU.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THEY WISH TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

SO AT THIS TIME IS THEIR NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE? WELL, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, RIGHT? TO DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, THE BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IF CAN COMMISSIONER GELIN ASK HIS QUESTION AGAIN? YES.

SO EACH OF THE APPLICANTS WERE ASKED TO LIST REFERENCES FOR THE PROPOSAL.

I WAS WONDERING IF MAY I RESPOND, MAYOR? RESPOND YOU MAY.

OK.

I DID NOT CALL THE REFERENCES BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE REFERENCES WOULD BE BIASED TO THE ONES WHO ARE RECOMMENDING THE ATTORNEYS.

SO FOR ME, I DID NOT CALL THE THE REFERENCES.

HOWEVER, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT I DID WAS I WENT IN THE REVERSE.

SO IF IN THE CASE OF PAGE.

OK, SO HE HAD LIKE LISTED LIKE TWO REFERENCES FROM NORTH MIAMI BEACH.

AND LIKE TWO REFERENCES FROM SOMETHING ELSE.

SO MY THINKING WAS, OK, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT HE'S GOOD WITH.

SO I CALLED THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT I WOULD THINK THAT HE'S NOT GOOD WITH, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY WHO I CALLED AND THAT SORT OF STUFF BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET A ALTERNATE PERSPECTIVE ON HIM.

THE SAME THING WITH THE OTHER FIRMS. LIKE IF THEY LISTED SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, ON THEIR REFERENCE, THEN I WOULD CALL SOMEBODY THAT IS ADVERSE TO THAT PERSON THAT THEY LISTED.

SO THAT'S HOW I KIND OF DID MY DIGGING.

AND THEN I ALSO WATCHED COMMISSION MEETINGS FROM THE CITIES THAT THEY REPRESENT AND SEE HOW THEY INTERACTED WITH CITY COMMISSIONERS.

[00:25:01]

SO HOW THEY ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THE FLOOR, ON THE SPOT.

SO PARTICULARLY WITH TORCIVIA, I LOOKED UP THE CASE WITH MR. BOSEMAN, WHO WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT.

I FOUND PAMELA THAT WAY, AND THAT'S THE STUFF.

THEN I WOULD LOOK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN SEARCH FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS, ASKED THEM WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THEIR ATTORNEY.

SO I WENT VERY, VERY THOROUGH.

SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A WISE THING FOR ME TO CALL THE REFERENCES.

SO THAT'S HOW I MADE MY DECISION.

AND THEN IN THE CASE OF TORCIVIA TOO, I LOOKED AT EACH OF THEIR RESUMES BECAUSE THEIR PROPOSAL LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE, YOU KNOW HOW THE OTHER PROPOSALS LOOK LIKE, OK, THIS IS MY EXPERIENCE IS WHAT I DO.

THIS IS HOW MUCH I'M GOING TO CHARGE, THAT SORT OF STUFF.

TORCIVIA LOOKS LIKE, OK, I'M LISTING ALL MY TEAM MEMBERS, HERE ARE THEIR BIOS, HERE ARE THEIR RESUMES AND THAT SORT OF STUFF.

SO THEN I FIGURED OUT WHO EACH LAWYER'S PREVIOUS EMPLOYER WAS AND I'D CALL THEM AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

HOW DID THIS LAWYER DO AT YOUR FIRM? CAUSE THEN I WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHY DID THEY LEAVE THE OTHER FIRM? SO, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, MY DECISION IS I'M NOT TAKING IT LIGHTLY.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHY I'M STUCK BETWEEN TORCIVIA AND OTTINOT BECAUSE THESE ARE THE ONES THAT STUCK OUT THE MOST AND PEOPLE HAD THE BEST THINGS TO SAY, EVEN THEIR ADVERSARIES.

BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THEIR FRIEND.

I WANTED TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE ADVERSE TO THEM.

AND HOWEVER THEY WERE FAIR TO THEM AND THE THINGS THAT THEY SAID, THAT'S WHY I'M STUCK RIGHT NOW.

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE MORE DELIBERATION TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

OK, YES.

OK, SO FOR THE FIRST FIRM, LEWIS, LONGMAN AND WALKER, I REACHED OUT TO GELIN, THE CITY ATTORNEY IN DELRAY BEACH.

WE SHARE THE SAME LAST NAME, BUT WE ARE NOT RELATED.

SHE WASN'T AVAILABLE.

I REACHED OUT TO LORENA BRAVO FROM HIALEAH.

SHE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND KIM NOT AVAILABLE.

AND I DID THE SAME THING.

I DIDN'T GET ALL FIVE BECAUSE IT WAS, I THINK, FRIDAY OR A NEW YEAR'S EVE.

SO MOST PEOPLE WERE OUT AND THE SAME THING WITH THE TORCIVIA LAW FIRM, MOST OF THE PHONE NUMBERS WERE ALL STAFF NUMBERS, CITY MEMBERS, SO EVERYONE WAS PRETTY MUCH OUT.

BUT I DID FIRST, I HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT LISTED ON OF REFERENCES WHO REACHED OUT TO ME.

A FORMER FLORIDA BAR PRESIDENT REACHED OUT TO ME, A FORMER MAYOR OF NORTH MIAMI REACHED OUT TO ME AND A CURRENT STATE REPRESENTATIVE WHO'S A YALE LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE REACHED OUT TO ME.

AND THEN I ALSO CONTACTED NINE OF THE 10 REFERENCES AND THEY ALL GAVE GLOWING REFERENCES.

AND THEY WERE ALL AVAILABLE BECAUSE MOST OF THE NUMBERS WERE ALL CELL PHONE NUMBERS.

SO THEY ALL TOOK THE CALL.

OR IF I LEFT A VOICEMAIL, THEY CALLED ME BACK.

SO FEDERAL JUDGE RODNEY SMITH GAVE SOME KIND WORDS.

JOHN SCHUBIN SAID HE'S THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE AND EXPERIENCE, HAS A GREAT NETWORK OF ATTORNEYS SAYING THAT WHAT COUNTY ATTORNEY FERNANDO INSTRUMENTAL IN SETTING UP SOMETHING, CAN'T READ MY OWN HANDWRITING.

HE HAD NOTHING NEGATIVE BUT GAVE A GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

SOMEONE SAID HE'S SMART, INTELLIGENT, VERY EXPERIENCED.

BUT THEN ONE CURRENT SUNNY ISLES COMMISSIONER WHO ALSO A CURRENT ATTORNEY WORKING AT A LAW FIRM, SHE GAVE A REALLY GLOWING RECOMMENDATION.

AND I RAN OUT OF SPACE WRITING DOWN WHAT SHE SAID.

VERY DIPLOMATIC, INVALUABLE IN EVERY ASPECT, EVEN HANDED, ETHICS AND INTEGRITY, UNDERSTANDS EMPATHY, VIRTUE, VERY VIRTUOUS, SUPPORTS EFFORT OF COMMISSION, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT AND TECHNICALLY FANTASTIC, PUTS THE EFFORT

[00:30:01]

AND RESEARCH IN, UNDERSTANDS THE LAW.

SHE MISSES SHE MISSES HIS ACUMEN, JUDGMENT AND INTEGRITY.

LOYAL, GOOD NATURED, UNDERSTANDS THE PROCESS, MISS HIM DEARLY.

HE GAVE GREAT ADVICE, RESPECTS ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, INVALUABLE TO THE CITY, TAKES CALLS 24/7.

RARE COMBINATION OF ACADEMICS AND UNDERSTANDS THE LAW, POLITICS AND DYNAMICS, GIVES ONE THOUSAND PERCENT TO THE DAIS.

AND SO THAT WAS DANA GOLDMAN, AN ATTORNEY.

I BELIEVE WAS ISLES BEACH.

AND SO EVERYONE THAT I CONTACTED, I REACHED NINE OUT OF 10 PEOPLE.

THEY ALL GAVE GLOWING REVIEWS.

PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE HAD A CELL PHONE.

SO EVERYONE HAD YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL ATTORNEYS, ALL LICENSED BY THE FLORIDA BAR.

THEY ALL HAVE EXPERIENCE.

AND SO THE REASON WHY I HAVE BROWARD COUNTY, NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS AT CORAL SPRINGS, SO HE CAN BE HERE AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE.

HE SAID HE'S DEDICATED ONLY PRETTY MUCH TO TAMARAC.

AND I VIEW THIS AS A SHORT TERM THING BETWEEN THREE TO SIX MONTHS.

IT COULD EVEN LAST SIX MONTHS.

AND IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A SMALL BUSINESS AN OPPORTUNITY.

AND THESE OTHER FIRMS ARE GREAT AND THEY WOULD HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ON THE FULL TIME ROLE WHENEVER WE START THAT PROCESS.

SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TWO CENTS.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YEAH.

MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT MR. AND IS WELL RESPECTED IN THE CIRCLES.

YOU KNOW, THEY SHARE-- THEY HAVE SHARED A ROOM WITH EITHER OF THESE SO THE QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU MET HANS OTTINOT? HAVE YOU MET GLENN TORCIVIA? AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THEM? NOT THAT I WOULD SEE IT AS A RECOMMENDATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON EACH OF THEM, IF YOU'VE MET THEM BEFORE.

TO ME, COMMISSIONER? YES, YES.

I KNOW THEM ALL PERSONALLY.

I KNOW HANS OTTINOT PERSONALLY.

I KNOW AL MEMBERS OF THEIR COLLECTIVE LAW FIRMS. WE INTERFACE ON MANY THINGS BASED UPON OUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE AND OUR CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS LARGER THAN JUST BROWARD COUNTY.

IT'S STATEWIDE IN MANY INSTANCES.

SO I DO KNOW THEM, HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR EACH OF THE LAW FIRMS THAT HAVE APPLIED TO THIS POSITION.

THEY'RE ALL HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT.

AND THAT'S NOT SAID LIGHTLY.

IT SAID BECAUSE IT SAID OUT OF RESPECT AND OUT OF REALITY.

HAVE YOU WORKED WITH EITHER OF THEM BEFORE OR HAVE YOU OUTSOURCED WORK WITH THEM OR HAVE THEY OUTSOURCED WORK TO YOU? YES.

GLENN TORCIVIA, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS PROVIDED LEGAL ADVICE TO BROWARD HEALTH WHEN I WAS GENERAL COUNSEL THERE FOR SIX PLUS YEARS.

IN SOME YEARS PAST, ASSISTED WITH SOME LEGAL ASSISTANCE THERE.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE IN YEARS PAST SOME LIMITED ASSIGNED WORK IN SUNNY ISLES BEACH AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO HANS OTTINOT.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT MAYBE IN A HALF DOZEN EMINENT DOMAIN CASES, I WAS THE MEDIATOR IN SUNNY ISLES BEACH CASES IN WHICH THE TOWN WAS A PARTY TO LITIGATION AND EMINENT DOMAIN THAT YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER.

I MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE MEDIATOR IN SOME OF THOSE CASES.

AS TO THE LEWIS LONGMAN FIRM, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM IN SOME FORM OR FASHION IN THE PAST, PERHAPS NOT MYSELF PERSONALLY, BUT I'VE WORKED WITH THEM ALL IN SOME FASHION.

OK.

I DON'T SEE MR. HE IS.

OK.

IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, MR. TORCIVIA IN THE PAST IN ANY CAPACITY? NO, COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I HAVE NOT HAD THE PLEASURE OF DEALING WITH THEM IN ANY CAPACITY IN THE PAST THAT I CAN REMEMBER.

OK, IF YOU WERE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN EITHER, WHAT WOULD YOUR CHOICE BE?

[00:35:03]

WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MAKE A CHOICE IN THIS INSTANCE, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH ANY OF THE FIRMS THAT HAVE APPLIED TO BE THE INTERIM.

HOWEVER, I DO KNOW CERTAINLY BY REPUTATION THAT THEY'RE ALL CAPABLE AND COMPETENT.

AND I KNOW THAT THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF HERE WILL BE ABLE TO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH WHOMEVER THE COMMISSION CHOOSES.

OK.

I WANT THIS RESOLVED TO ARE WELL, IF YOU WANT, COMMISSIONER, WE DO HAVE THE VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER PLACKO WITH SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, IF THAT'LL HELP YOU TO THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THEY'RE CONSIDERING COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I PRESUME I CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

IS THAT-- ARE WE STILL FURTHER DISCUSSING I MEAN I'D LIKE TO LET HER BE ABLE TO BE HEARD, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, IF THAT WAS--.

THAT'S OK? THAT'S OK.

YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS IN THIS OPEN DISCUSSION IS HEARING OTHER PEOPLE'S POINT OF VIEW AND HEARING THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE DIDN'T RESONATE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS COMMISSIONER GELIN SAID WAS, YOU KNOW, WE ARE PROPONENTS OF PROMOTING SMALL BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT THAT.

AND AS I SAID EARLIER, I THINK HANS WOULD BE A GREAT FIT HERE.

I JUST WAS A BIT CONCERNED ABOUT HIM BEING A ONE MAN SHOW.

BUT HAVING HEARD THE DISCUSSION THAT OTHER ATTORNEYS FARM OUT THINGS AND BEING AS THIS WOULD BE AN INTERIM POSITION, I THINK HE WOULD BE A VERY, VERY GOOD FIT.

AND HE MADE A COMMENT THAT THIS AT THIS POINT IN HIS LIFE WOULD BE GOOD FOR HIM PROFESSIONALLY.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE HAND KIND OF HELPS THE OTHER.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE GLENN'S FIRM.

YEAH, I GUESS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR A FULL TIME ATTORNEY, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THEM APPLY.

SO AM I CORRECT THAT IF THEY ARE NOT SELECTED, THEY CAN APPLY FOR THAT? YES.

YES.

THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER.

OK, I THINK HANS HAD A NICE, EASYGOING PERSONALITY THAT WOULD BLEND WITH ALL OF US BECAUSE WE'RE ALL VERY, VERY DISTINCT PERSONALITIES.

SO IN MY OPINION, IT MAY BE A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU.

AS EVERYBODY HAS MADE THEIR COMMENTS, I WILL NOW MAKE SOME OF MY OWN.

IN JUST A COUPLE OF LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING, I GUESS.

THE REASON FOR SOME OF THE PAPERWORK, THE WAY IT WAS, THERE WAS A PAGE LIMIT ON WHAT WAS ALLOWED TO BE PROVIDED TO US ON EACH OF THE APPLICANTS.

THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THIS COMMISSION TO NOT HAVE IT BE VERY LONG.

SO THESE APPLICANTS WERE PROVIDING US WITH THE BEST THEY CAN IN THE LOW AMOUNT OF PAPERS THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE TO US TO BE ABLE TO SHOW US THEIR INITIAL FOOT FORWARD.

AND I JUST ALSO WANT TO CONFIRM WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT OUTSOURCING OVER YOUR 15 YEARS HERE FOR WORK THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS DELEGATED TO YOU AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN RARE.

THE FACT THAT IT WAS RECENTLY THE FIRST TIME ACTUALLY IN 10 YEARS THAT I'M AWARE OF, THAT WE'VE DONE EMINENT DOMAIN WAS THE FIRST TIME I KNOW THAT YOUR FIRM HAS ACTUALLY OUTSOURCED, OUTSOURCED SOMETHING.

IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT TO BE A CORRECT STATEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT SPECIFIC NEED AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME AND GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ASSIGNED TASK, THE ANSWER WAS YES.

AND THAT WAS A-- ALTHOUGH AS THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, WE WOULD'VE ENGAGED THAT FIRM AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

YOUR SUPPORT FOR THAT WAS CERTAINLY VERY HELPFUL.

AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY US AS A COMMISSION BECAUSE THE ROLE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

[00:40:04]

AND WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS DOING IS BASED ON WHAT OUR COMMISSION NEEDS.

AND SO THAT OUTSOURCING WAS NOT DONE WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE AND IT WAS NOT DONE WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL AS A COMMISSION.

SO I JUST WANTED THOSE TWO LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS ON THE RECORD.

PART OF THE THING THAT I'VE SAID TO THIS COMMISSION BEFORE AND MAYBE SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ON THE COMMISSION THEN WHEN I'VE SAID IT BEFORE.

NOBODY HERE CAN TELL ANY OF US HOW WE CAN CHOOSE TO LIVE OUR LIVES.

WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

AND IT IS NOT UP TO US TO SAY SOMEBODY CANNOT HANDLE SOMETHING IF THEY HAVE PUT THEIR NAME IN THE RING TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK.

SO AS MUCH AS I DO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS INITIALLY ABOUT MR. OTTINOT'S FIRM BEING A SOLO PRACTICE, BEING ABLE TO HANDLE THIS WITH HIS EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE HE IS PRETTY MUCH AWARE OF WHAT HE'S GETTING INTO.

HE'S VERY MUCH AWARE OF WHAT HE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

AND IF HE IS TO OUTSOURCE STUFF, THAT WOULD COME BACK TO US FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST IN CERTAIN DETERMINATION.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GENERAL PHONE CALLS THAT SAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? IF WE HAVE ANOTHER EMINENT DOMAIN CASE, WHERE DOES HE PUT BANKRUPTCY IN BONDS AND OTHER STUFF? THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DISCUSSION.

AND I THINK THAT OUR CITY ALREADY HAS.

AND IT MIGHT BE THROUGH THE LEAGUE OF CITIES SET BOND COUNCIL THAT WE UTILIZE FOR FINANCE PURPOSES.

AND AT THIS MOMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF IN THE NEXT TWO TO SIX MONTHS WE'RE EVEN CONTEMPLATING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CROSS AT THAT TIME.

SO AS FAR AS HIM BEING A SOLE PRACTITIONER, SO TO SPEAK, IN HIS ABILITIES, I DO BELIEVE THAT IF HE SAYS HE COULD DO IT, THEN HE CAN DO IT WITHOUT ANY ISSUE.

AS FAR AS GLENN'S TEAM, I THINK THAT THEY ARE VERY WELL VERSED AND WILL BE ABLE TO SERVE THE NEEDS FOR US IF WE SHOULD SELECT THEM FOR THE INTERIM POSITION OR IF THEY SHOULD NOT BE SELECTED FOR THE INTERIM POSITION AND REAPPLY FOR THE LONG TERM BASIS.

SO THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER AS I SAID EARLIER, I THINK OUR CITY WILL BE VERY WELL SERVED BY ANYBODY WE SELECT.

AND AT THIS TIME I HAVE TWO OTHER HANDS ON DECK.

SO GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS IN THE PROPER ORDER IN WHICH I RECEIVE THEM.

I HAVE COMMISSIONER GELIN, I BELIEVE YOUR HAND UP BEFORE COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

SO COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

THERE'S ALWAYS AN ASSUMPTION THAT A FIRM, IF THEY'RE DEEMED TOO SMALL, CAN'T HANDLE THE WORK.

AND I DEAL WITH THAT AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, BIDDING ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WHEN IN FACT WE CAN HANDLE THE WORK.

SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU SAID THAT.

AND ALSO JUST LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA OF ALL THE FIRMS. AND KEEP IN MIND, WE SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES AND ALL THESE FIRMS ARE SMALL.

I THINK SAM WOULD STILL CONSIDER HIS FIRM A SMALL FIRM.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT WAS LISTED AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM AND KEY STAFF, YOU KNOW, THEY ALL CHECK THE BOX ON THIS.

EXPERIENCE, DEPTH AND QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE, LEVEL OF SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION AND A RANGE OF SERVICES.

THEY ALL PRETTY MUCH CHECKED THE BOX ON THIS.

EXPERIENCE.

THEY CHECK THE BOX.

MINORITY SMALL BUSINESS, TAMARAC RESIDENT, SOME OF THEM CHECK THE BOX HERE.

SO REALLY, THEY ALL CHECKED THE BOXES AND IT JUST REALLY BECOMES A MATTER OF PREFERENCE AFTER THEY MEET ALL THESE CHECKED BOXES.

I DO THINK THAT LIMITING THE PAGES WAS A GOOD THING BECAUSE THEY'LL GIVE YOU AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE WANT AND WE WON'T HAVE TIME TO READ IT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

SO I THINK WE HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION.

ALL THE FIRMS HAVE GREAT REFERENCES.

THEY HAVE GREAT EXPERIENCE.

THEY ALL HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LAW DEGREE FROM GREAT SCHOOLS.

SO IT REALLY IS A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WANT TO DO, WHERE WE WANT TO GO.

AND I'M JUST GLAD YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT, BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS AN ASSUMPTION THAT, YOU KNOW, A FIRM IS TOO SMALL TO HANDLE CERTAIN THINGS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK ALL THE FIRMS ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING, YOU KNOW, THE DEMANDS OF THIS CITY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

AND ALSO, I AM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER HERE IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC, TOO.

SO I DO UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS OF SMALL BUSINESS.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FORCOMMISSIONER GELIN, AS YOU'RE DONE, I'M GOING TO HAND THE FLOOR OVER TO COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

NO, I WAS NOT LAUGHING AT YOU, BUT I JUST AND I KNOW THE MIND OF, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

SO WHEN HE MAKES COMMENTS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING TO KEEP BRINGING IT UP AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

YOU'RE IN FOR A TREAT.

ANYWAY.

[00:45:02]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENTS, MR. BOLTON.

I FORGOT MY QUESTION.

WHAT I LIKED ABOUT HANS IS THAT HE BROUGHT A VERY WARM INTERVIEW, YOU KNOW, SO THE OTHER PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WERE MORE, YOU KNOW, LIKE COOKIE CUTTER.

BUT HANS WAS VERY-- HE HAD A VERY GOOD RAPPORT WITH EVERYBODY.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT SAID, HE DID MAKE A VERY GOOD CITY ATTORNEY.

WHAT I LIKED ABOUT TORCIVIA IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT I DIDN'T LIKE THE FIRST FIRM.

MR. LONGMAN, IT'S NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT FIRM.

I DID LIKE THEM.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN I READ THROUGH THE PROPOSALS, YOU KNOW, THEY KIND OF STUCK OUT TO ME, YOU KNOW, FIRST AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS TIME WENT BY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGED.

SO, YOU KNOW, SO HANS BROUGHT THAT SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, OK, I'M GOING TO WORK EXTREMELY HARD TO IMPRESS EVERYBODY AND I'M NEXT DOOR.

SO I'M GOING TO BE IN YOUR HAIR AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET RID OF ME.

AND I'M GOING TO BE IN CITY HALL EVERY DAY AND I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT I JUST GET THINGS DONE.

THAT'S THE ATTITUDE THAT HE HAD.

AND THEN THE TORCIVIA LAW FIRM JUST SEEMS LIKE VERY POLISHED, I GUESS.

YOU KNOW, THEY JUST-- I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T WANT MY COMMENTS TO SOUND DISPARAGING TO ANYBODY BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT MY INTENTION IS.

BUT I DO WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT.

WHEN I CAME TO THE CITY, SAM WAS VERY NICE, YOU KNOW, HE WAS ALWAYS VERY FUN TO WORK WITH, LIKE HE JUST MADE YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE.

AND I ALWAYS TEASE HIM AND I TOLD HIM THAT, YOU KNOW, JACOB WAS MY FAVORITE AND JACOB IS STILL MY FAVORITE.

THAT WAS THE TRUTH.

BUT, YOU KNOW, SAM IS A CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL AND HE IS JUST AN AMAZING PERSON.

AND I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WHERE WE DEFERRED IN AN OPINION IS NOT LIKE I'M TRYING TO PRACTICE LAW IS ON THE STORAGE FACILITY ISSUE BECAUSE MY RESIDENTS JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST DIDN'T LIKE THAT IDEA.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THIS IS ABOUT SAM.

SO I WISH THAT WE WEREN'T GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND WHEN I SAID IT, HOW I SAID IT, YOU KNOW, WHY I SAID IT, YOU KNOW, WAS NEVER ON MY MIND BEFORE THE MEETING.

AND I THINK THAT IF I GO BACK THROUGH MY TIME HERE AS A COMMISSIONER, THAT COMMENT WAS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT I'LL REGRET THE MOST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE ARE LOSING A GEM THAT IS EXTREMELY SMART AND HAS REPRESENTED OUR CITY WELL.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU ARE A BAD PERSON.

AND YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN KIND TO ME AND MY FAMILY AND HAS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, TRIED YOUR VERY BEST TO GIVE ME LEGAL ADVICE THAT IS SOUND.

AND SOMETIMES I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THEM AND I WOULD QUESTION WHY THIS WAS SO.

AND YOU WOULD BRING ME BACK TO ELEMENTARY, SO TO SPEAK, AND BREAK IT DOWN WHERE I WOULD UNDERSTAND IT VERY, VERY WELL.

YOU KNOW, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BLOGS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF WOULD MAKE PEOPLE OUT TO BE VILLAINS AND ENEMIES.

AND THAT'S THE STUFF.

AND, YOU KNOW, SAM I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, AS A LIFELONG FRIEND, YOU KNOW,

[00:50:02]

I HOPE THAT HE REMEMBERS THE GOOD CONVERSATIONS WE HAD AND NOT THE BAD ONE.

WE REPRESENT NORTH FLORIDA WHERE MY CHURCH IS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE NICE TO EACH OTHER.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS PROCESS MUST HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR YOU, UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU ARE LEAVING THE CITY THAT HAS BEEN VERY KIND TO YOU AND YOU HAVE BEEN VERY KIND TO.

AND I TRULY WISH YOU ALL THE BEST.

I KNOW THAT THE NEW YEAR IS COMING UP.

AND PLEASE DON'T BE A STRANGER.

I LOVE SHE'S JUST A AWESOME SOUL AND I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE TIMES WHEN YOU REACHED OUT TO ME ON PERSONAL MATTERS, JUST TO MAKE ME A BETTER OFFICIAL, THINGS THAT YOU DID AND SAID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

AND YOU'RE JUST AN AMAZING PERSON ALL THE WAY AROUND.

AND, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LOCAL BLOGS OR HOWEVER PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE US OUT TO BE, I JUST WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE AN AMAZING PERSON .

YES, YOU ARE.

I STILL LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE AND I STILL LOOK FORWARD TO BEING A REFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING AN ATTORNEY JOB SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I WOULD NEVER DISPARAGE YOU.

AND I THINK THAT THESE COMMENTS ARE PURE AND TRUE AND THEY SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED IN SOME WAY.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER.

SO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM MY COLLEAGUES.

I'M PREPARED TO SPEAK ON IT.

AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE THE VICE MAYOR WAS ON DECK.

VICE MAYOR.

I JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION TO HIRE OTTINOT LAW AS AN

[4. Possible motion to select a firm for Interim City Attorney Services]

INTERIM ATTORNEY FOR OUR CITY.

I SECOND THE MOTION.

CITY CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES, VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

YES.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YES.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YES.

AND MAYOR GOMEZ.

YES.

UNANIMOUS.

SO HANS, WE WELCOME YOU TO THIS WONDERFUL CITY THAT IS A CITY OF TAMARAC WITH ALL OF OUR PERSONALITIES AND ALL OF OUR DESIRES FOR KEEPING OUR CITY GREAT AND EVEN MAKING IT GREATER.

AND TO OUR WONDERFUL CITY ATTORNEY, WE DO LOVE YOU.

I HAVE A HAND UP.

GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO IT BELONGS TO.

AND TO ALL OF OUR PARTICIPANTS, WE THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR APPLYING AND YOUR TIME AND YOUR ENERGY.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR APPLICATIONS WHEN WE LOOK FOR OUR FULL TIME CITY ATTORNEY.

I AM GOING TO RECOGNIZE GLENN.

I JUST WANT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS TO HANS.

YOU MADE AN EXCELLENT CHOICE.

HE'S A GREAT LAWYER AND A GREAT PERSON AND WE'LL ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST IF YOU NEED IT AND WISH YOU ALL HAPPY NEW YEAR.

UP IN THE AIR.

HANS.

THANK YOU.

I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.

SO AT THIS TIME WE JUST A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES.

CONGRATULATIONS HANS ON YOUR APPOINTMENT.

I WELCOME TRANSITIONING AS THE YOU AFTER THIS MEETING OR THEREABOUTS DURING THE WEEK.

MAYOR AND COMMISSION, BASED UPON THE FINANCIAL PROPOSAL WHICH WAS OFFERED BY MR. OTTINOT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY VIRTUE OF THE MOTION ACCEPTING HIM, I'M SURE THAT HANS WILL SUBMIT A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT OF SOME TYPE WHICH WILL CONFORM TO THE PROPOSAL.

I'LL COORDINATE AS BEST AS I CAN WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AND WITH YOURSELVES TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S BUTTONED UP, SO TO SPEAK, AND THAT WE MAKE ALL APPROPRIATE STEPS TO NOT HAVE ANY GAPS OR CONVERSATION TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING SURE THAT THE TRANSITION IS BOTH SMOOTH, SEAMLESS AND PROFESSIONALLY ACCOMPLISHED UNDER THE FLORIDA BAR RULES, WHICH I WILL CERTAINLY DO FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY AND MY LAW FIRM COLLECTIVELY AND WITH EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS WELL.

[00:55:02]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND HANS, I WELCOME YOU TO STAY ON THE CALL WITH US IF YOU SO WISH, WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, AND I AM NOT SEEING ANY REQUEST FOR A BATHROOM BREAK.

SO THEREFORE, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE STRAIGHT INTO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

[5. Review of attorney’s report issued by John Herin, Esq. and possible motion regarding the selfstorage project at Rock island Road and Commercial Boulevard.]

REVIEW OF ATTORNEY'S REPORT ISSUED BY JOHN HERIN, ESQUIRE, AND POSSIBLE MOTION REGARDING SELF-STORAGE PROJECT AT ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD.

SO AT THIS TIME, I AM GOING TO ASK CITY MANAGER, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO STATE AT THIS TIME? NO.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY OTHER THAN WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED MR. HERIN'S MEMO TO YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

I HOPE EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DISCUSSION IS WITH YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CITY ATTORNEY.

AND WAS THAT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD BEFORE WE GO TO MR. HERIN? NO MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

MR. HERIN, I DO NOT SEE YOU BUT I SEE YOUR INITIALS DOWN HERE, SO I KNOW YOU'RE ON.

YES, MA'AM AND MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OF YOU.

I HOPE YOU'RE ALL ENJOYING THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

AS SYNDICATED BY THE CITY MANAGER MR. CERNECH.

I HAVE PROVIDED TO HIM AND HE'S DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF YOU A MEMO THAT SUMMARIZES THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BACKGROUND FACTS AND ANALYSIS AND ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDATION THAT I PUT FORTH WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ELECTS NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CLOSING ON THE TRANSACTION, THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE SETTLEMENT THAT I WAS ASKED TO REVIEW.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MEMBERS ON THE CITY COMMISSION THAT MAY NOT OR WERE NOT ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THAT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE MEMO TOOK PLACE.

JUST KIND OF BRIEFLY, THERE WERE TWO LAWSUITS THAT WERE FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF TAMARAC BY PRESTIGE HOMES OF TAMARAC INC THAT ULTIMATELY BECAME PRESTIGE HOMES OF TAMARAC LLC, ASSERTING A NUMBER OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY.

BUT REALLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION, THE FOCUS OF THAT LITIGATION AND ULTIMATELY THE ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION PERTAINED TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD.

I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH PROPERTY.

THE WAY THAT THE CITY CAME TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY IS INTERESTING IN THE SENSE THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ITSELF REQUESTED IT, PARTICULARLY IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE DEDICATION OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC, TO A LARGE DEGREE, WAS A FUNCTION OF A REQUEST AND IMPOSITION MADE BY BROWARD COUNTY.

AND ULTIMATELY, THAT'S IN FACT WHAT DID HAPPEN WHEN THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOW CENTRAL PARK IN MANNER, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEY WERE REPLANTED, THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WITH-- THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS SEPARATELY PLANTED AS TRACK H.

IT'S L SHAPED AND CONFIGURATION, HAS A SMALL FRONTAGE ON COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD AND LARGER FRONTAGE ON ROCK ISLAND AND COMPRISES ABOUT THIRTY SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FEET PLUS OR MINUS.

THE GENESIS OF THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THIS PROPERTY IS THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED, AS IS NORMAL IN THE PLATTING PROCESS, BROWARD COUNTY REQUIRED A USE DESIGNATION TO BE ASSIGNED TO TRACK H.

AND THROUGH THAT PLATTING PROCESS, THE NOTATION THAT WAS IMPOSED UPON THE PROPERTY WAS FOR THE USE AS A FIRE STATION.

IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER, HE DID INDICATE THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT DURING THAT PLATTING PROCESS BY CITY STAFF TO PERSUADE BROWARD COUNTY TO GIVE THE PROPERTY MORE GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL DESIGNATION.

BUT NONETHELESS, ULTIMATELY, THE PLAT WAS APPROVED WITH THAT NOTATION ON TRACT H.

AND AS A RESULT, WHEN THE CITY ELECTED LATER ON, NOT NECESSARILY TO BUILD A FIRE

[01:00:08]

STATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE IN THE WAS IMPROPER.

AND THAT IS BOUND TO BE USED SOLELY FOR A FIRE STATION, THAT THE CITY DID NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THAT PURPOSE AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD REVERT BACK TO THEIR OWNERSHIP.

LET ME STOP AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND THAT WE'VE COVERED SO FAR.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS RAISED AT THIS TIME.

OK.

SUBSEQUENT POINT TO THAT POINT IN TIME, DO THE NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT AS WAS INDICATED BY YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, MR. FACT ASSIGNED TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES THROUGH THE FOUR HANDLED AND TO BE IN FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

AND IN PARTICULAR, MICHAEL BURKE WAS ASSIGNED THROUGH THE HANDLE THAT LITIGATION.

AND I DO SEE THAT MR. BURKE IS A GUEST AND PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S CONVERSATION.

AND CERTAINLY EITHER MR. ANYTHING TO ADD AS WE GO ALONG, I CERTAINLY WELCOME THEIR INPUT SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES WHO BASICALLY LIVED THROUGH THIS WITH THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE TIME.

AT SOME POINT IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN, THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRESTIGE HOMES AND MR. BURKE AND THE CITY AND STAFF ABOUT WHAT ULTIMATELY WAS THE END TARGET.

WHAT DID EVERYONE WANT TO DO IF IN FACT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF SETTLING THIS DISPUTE THROUGH A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT? THE AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE TWO PARTIES WOULD JOINTLY SELL THE PROPERTY TO, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AN UNKNOWN UNNAMED THIRD PARTY FOR AN UNNAMED UNKNOWN USE.

BUT THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THE DISCUSSION THAT ULTIMATELY TOOK PLACE AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AS TO WHERE THE CITY WANTED TO HEAD.

INTERESTINGLY DURING SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THERE WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR YOURSELF, AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON OF ACTUALLY BUYING OUT PRESTIGE AS OPPOSED TO ENTERING INTO SOME TYPE OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT WERE STATED, WHICH FRANKLY, THE CITY JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE FROM THAT POINT FORWARD THERE'S KIND OF A DEARTH OR LACK OF ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD.

BUT ULTIMATELY, WHAT DID OCCUR WAS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR THE PARTIES TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO A NOW IDENTIFIED PURCHASER, ROCK ISLAND STORAGE LLC, AND SPLIT THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY 50/50.

AND AGAIN, GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME, THE INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS WERE, WELL, WHAT SHOULD THAT SPLIT BE, ET CETERA.

PRESUMPTIVELY, THE WHAT WE WANT AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT.

AND ULTIMATELY, IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION, IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE THAT HAD NOW BEEN GOING ON FOR CLOSE TO A DECADE AND TO RID THEMSELVES OF THE LAWSUIT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT PROVIDED FOR THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY TO ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.

PURSUANT TO THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, STAFF BEGAN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING THAT.

ULTIMATELY, MR. GOREN REPORTED BACK TO YOU ALL RECENTLY THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS READY TO BE CONSUMMATED AND TO FOR THE PARTIES TO MOVE ON AND

[01:05:03]

QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, WELL, WHAT ALTERNATIVES DO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY? ONE INTERVENING FACTOR, AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME WHEN A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS TOOK PLACE, IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE PARTIES ESSENTIALLY COMING TO AN AGREEMENT AND IN THEORY AS TO WHAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD BE.

AND AFTER THAT SETTLEMENT WAS APPROVED IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING THE PROPERTY BEGAN IN EARNEST, THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASE OF ROCK ISLAND STORAGE DID A SITE INSPECTION AND DISCOVERED SOME MONITORING WELLS THAT SUGGEST THAT THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE CONTAMINATED.

AND AFTER SUCH, WITH DUE DILIGENCE, THEY IN FACT DID DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A LEVEL OF ARSENIC CONTAMINATION THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH.

SO WHATEVER THE END USE OF THIS PROPERTY MIGHT BE, WHETHER IT'S CITY OWNERSHIP, ROCK ISLAND STORAGE OWNERSHIP OR THIRD PARTY OWNERSHIP, SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BECAUSE AS SET FORTH IN MY MEMO, THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO RESOLVING AND MITIGATING THAT CONTAMINATION DIFFER DEPENDING UPON THE USE.

SO IF IT'S A USE THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS GOING TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY GENERALLY, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A PARK, THEN THE REMEDIATION PROCESS IS MORE LENGTHY, MORE EXTENSIVE AND BY EXTENSION, MORE EXPENSIVE.

WHEREAS IF THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM, THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PAVE OVER THE CONTAMINATION, YOU CAP IT AND THAT IS SATISFACTORY.

SO IF THE PROPERTY IS IN FACT THE USE THIS TERM COMMERCIAL USE, THE REMEDIATION CAN BE IMPLEMENTED QUICKER AND LESS EXPENSIVE THAN IF THE PROPERTY WERE USED FOR A GOVERNMENT POTENTIALLY GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE WHERE THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD HAVE CONTACT WITH THAT PROPERTY.

AND BY THAT I MEAN GOING ON IT, PLAYING, ET CETERA.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT CONTAMINATED SOIL WILL ALL HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

NEW FILL BROUGHT IN AND THE CONTAMINATED FILL HAS TO BE DISPOSED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

AND THAT IS AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION.

SO THAT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES WHILE THIS PROCESS WAS TAKING PLACE AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHERE DOES-- WHAT ARE THE CITY'S OPTIONS? SIMPLY REALLY THERE'S TWO.

AND AGAIN, I'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. BURKE, WITH MR. GOREN AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER, MR. CERNECH.

AND THERE'S SOME GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT EITHER THE CITY MOVES FORWARD WITH CONSUMMATING THE TRANSACTION THAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR AS INITIALLY OR AT ONE POINT, CONSIDER BUYING HAVE AGAINST THE CITY AND THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION.

HOWEVER, THAT LATTER ALTERNATIVE COMES PRESUMPTIVELY AT A PREMIUM COST TO THE CITY.

IT PRESUMES THAT THE THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THEY WOULDN'T OR THAT THEY WOULD.

AND ULTIMATELY, IF THAT IS A SOLUTION THAT GETS IMPLEMENTED, NOT ONLY WILL THE CITY IN ALL LIKELIHOOD HAVE TO PAY A PREMIUM TO THE GOING TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATED TO THE ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IS THE STORAGE.

AND ALTERNATIVELY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IF YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, THEN THE CITY WOULD BE THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAKING CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.

QUESTIONS? ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR PRESENTATIONS? YES, FOR THE MOST PART AT THIS POINT.

I'VE SUMMARIZED THE CONTENTS OF THE MEMORANDUM AND WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE SALIENT POINTS OF HOW THE DISPUTE STARTED, WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE INTERIM, WHAT THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AND NOW THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS THERE, WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVES, WHICH I

[01:10:03]

OUTLINED JUST A MOMENT AGO? THANK YOU.

AS IT WAS KIND OF A SEMI TIE FOR WHOSE HAND WAS RAISED FIRST, I'M GOING TO GO WITH COMMISSIONER BOLTON AS THIS IS IN HIS DISTRICT AND HE DID ASK FOR THIS SPECIAL REPORT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU ARE ON THE FLOOR.

AND THEN COMMISSIONER GELIN, YOU'RE ON DECK.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU'RE ON MUTE.

OK.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR.

I'M SORRY, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

AND THANK YOU, MR. HERIN, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I THINK THAT YOUR EVALUATION OR YOUR MEMO WAS WELL PUT TOGETHER.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

BUT SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THIS UNCOMMON WHERE A CITY WOULD WANT TO BACKTRACK OR BACK OUT OF A DEAL OR A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR NOT ONE TO SIGN CLOSING DOCUMENTS? CAN YOU RECALL THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCES AS AN ATTORNEY ANY OTHER SCENARIOS LIKE THIS? YES, I MEAN, IT'S NOT COMMON.

LET ME SAY THAT TO BEGIN WITH.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT IN AN OPTIMUM WORLD, THE BEST WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TAKING PLACE AND IN FACT, WAS DISCUSSED COLLECTIVELY BETWEEN THE COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF.

AS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT OTHER INSTANCES, THERE IS ONE INSTANCE THAT I SHARED WITH THE CITY MANAGER WHERE THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES DECIDED ULTIMATELY NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN EXPANSION OF THEIR CITY HALL USING THE PARKING LOT THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND THEIR CITY HALL, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THE CITY HAD ALREADY HAD VOTED TO EXPAND CITY HALL, HAD AUTHORIZED THE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT TO BUILD THAT CITY HALL.

THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN EXECUTED.

THE CONTRACTOR WAS MOBILIZING AND READY TO BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION.

WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL THERE HAD A CHANGE OF HEART, THEY VOTED TO RESCIND THE APPROVALS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW CITY HALL AND INSTRUCTED STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE NUMBER, BUT THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES ENDED UP PAYING THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO WALK AWAY FROM THE PROJECT.

AND I WOULD ANALOGIZE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF, WELL, ACTUALLY THERE WAS LITIGATION.

IRONICALLY, THE CITY ENDED UP SUING ITSELF, STATING THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAD EXCEEDED AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE THE CONTRACT WAS ULTRA VIRUS.

AND ULTIMATELY, THE PARTIES SETTLED FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT THAT I STATED.

OK, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT CITY COMMISSION, SINCE IT WERE A NEW COMMISSION, WERE RECKLESS IN THEIR DECISION TO BACK OUT OF THE AGREEMENT? AND I KNOW EVERY--.

IT IS INTERVENING FACTOR TO THE STORY I JUST GAVE IS THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CITY COMMISSION THAT GAVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND BACK OUT OF THE TRANSACTION AND TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR TO GO AWAY.

IS THAT RECKLESS? I THINK THAT TO SOME DEGREE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS.

IT RISES TO THE LEVEL NECESSARILY OF THE QUESTION IS MALFEASANCE OR MISFEASANCE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

BUT I'M SURE THAT THERE WERE AND ARE STILL PEOPLE IN CITY CORAL GABLES THAT DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A PRUDENT SOLUTION TO THEIR DILEMMA.

AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT IF THIS COMMISSION DIRECTS STAFF TO UNWIND THE

[01:15:06]

SETTLEMENT, IF THAT IS IN FACT AMENABLE TO THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED, THAT THERE WILL BE SOME IN THE COMMUNITY WHO THINK THAT THAT'S NOT A PRUDENT DECISION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING WAS AN INTERNAL ISSUE, CORRECT? MR. HERIN? TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CITY MOVING FORWARD WITH A PARTICULAR PROJECT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER.

THE LITIGATION.

IT WAS DECISION WAS NOT THROUGH LITIGATION, CORRECT? NO, MA'AM, IT WAS--.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD AND HAD THAT CLEAR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LETTING ME CLARIFY.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, CONTINUE.

OK, SO.

MADAM MAYOR, I THINK OF THE PAST FIVE YEARS KNOWING YOU HAVE FINALLY FIGURED YOU OUT.

WELL, WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY HAS ASKED THE QUESTION THAT DOESN'T FIT YOUR NARRATIVE, YOU TRY TO BUTT IN SO THAT THE NARRATIVE CONTINUES TO BE YOUR NARRATIVE.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE SAYING--.

DON'T ATTACK ME.

I'M NOT ATTACKING.

-- YOUR QUESTIONING.

I'M JUST SAYING--.

YOU'RE QUESTIONING WHEN YOU START MAKING IT PERSONAL, IT BECOMES AN ATTACK.

SO PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE ON ME.

PLEASE PROCEED TO FINISH YOUR QUESTIONS TO MR. HERIN.

THANK YOU.

TWENTY TWENTY ONE IS COMING AND I WANTED TO BE A DIFFERENT YEAR.

SO AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THAT UP, WE'RE GOING TO BE FIGHTING.

FRANKLY, YOU'RE MESSING UP MY NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION.

SO I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE ASKING QUESTIONS.

YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION.

CONTINUE, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

MR. HERIN, YOU SAID IN YOUR IN YOUR MEMO TO US.

THESE WORDS.

INTERESTINGLY, EARLIER, EARLY ON IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, YOU AND AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ADVOCATED FOR BUYING OUT THE NO REAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT IDEA.

CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? YES, AS I INDICATED, AS I STATED BEFORE, THE STAFF CAME TO THE TO THE CITY COMMISSION COLLECTIVELY, INCLUDING WHEN I SAY STAFF, I'M.

I MEAN, TO INCLUDE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THEY CAME TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND SAID THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE THIS DISPUTE.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PURSUE THAT DISCUSSION? AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE CHAITS HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED OR SUGGESTED THAT THE WAY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE AND THE LITIGATION, EVERYTHING, ALL OF IT WAS TO THE CITY AND THE CHAITS TO GO THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDED GETTING THE NOTATION ON THE PROPERTY, LIMITING ITS USE TO A SUCCESSFUL, AND THEN ENTERING INTO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY, WHICH ULTIMATELY BECAME ROCK ISLAND STORAGE, AND TO SPLIT THE PROCEEDS AT THAT.

AT THAT INITIAL POINT, WHILE, AGAIN, THE DETAILS WEREN'T KNOWN, THE CHAITS HAD SUGGESTED THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE MONEY WOULD BE SPLIT WOULD BE A 50 50, MAYBE EVEN SUGGESTED IT BE MORE ON THEIR BEHALF AND LESS ON THE CITY'S.

THEY WERE ALSO ASKING FOR A AN 80 APPROXIMATELY 80 THOUSAND DOLLAR CREDIT FOR SOME CODE LEADS THAT THEY HAD PAID OFF.

THE DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT WAS, IN FACT, HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS DID INDICATE, WELL, WHAT WHY DON'T WE JUST BUY THE CHAITS

[01:20:07]

OUT PERIOD? WHILE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND GENERALLY AGREED TO IT'S VERY CLEAR ALSO THAT STAFF RECEIVED THE DIRECTION TO CONTEMPORANEOUS THEIR DUAL PATH.

WAY TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS ALSO THE ALTERNATIVE OF SELLING THE PROPERTY.

WHAT CAME BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ULTIMATE APPROVAL WAS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT I REFERRED TO IN MY MEMO THAT WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION.

20876, THAT SPECIFIED THAT, IN FACT, THE CITY WOULD SELL THE PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH PRESTIGE HOMES.

THERE IS LITTLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT TOOK PLACE AFTER THAT INITIAL DISCUSSION AND THE BRINGING THE RESOLUTION FORWARD IN THE FORM OF THAT CONTAIN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ULTIMATELY WAS APPROVED.

STATED SIMPLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

THIS PARCEL OF LAND WAS A PART OF THE GOLF COURSE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

TYPICALLY, GOLF COURSES ARE CONTAMINATED LAND, CORRECT? YES.

OK.

VERY COMMON.

VERY COMMON.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT WANT THIS PIECE OF LAND TO SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE? IS THAT IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CITY THOUGHT BECAUSE THIS LAND IS CONTAMINATED, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR A PARK? NO, BECAUSE THE CONTAMINATION WAS DETERMINED TO EXIST LATER.

I MEAN, WHILE ULTIMATELY, IF WHOEVER HAD OBTAINED AND MAINTAINED OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, I THINK WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS ARSENIC CONTAMINATION.

I BELIEVE THAT.

AND CERTAINLY INITIALLY, BASED UPON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF, THAT IT WAS PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF.

THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS ITS LOCATION.

SO FOR, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE AT SOME POINT BY SOMEONE PRIMARILY AT THE COUNTY TO PLACE A FIRE STATION ON THAT CORNER, IT DIDN'T LEND ITSELF FOR THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION AND THAT THE DECISION AND THE EVALUATION OF THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE SITE THAT WHERE THE EXISTING FIRE STATION IS AND THAT WHICH WAS REMODELED, IS THAT WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT EXISTING SITE, IT WOULD HAVE BETTER ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY THAN THE CORNER PARCEL ON ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL WOULD EVER HAVE.

OK.

SO THAT WAS THE DETERMINATION AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRE STATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

OTHER USES, I THINK THAT THE DECISION WAS THAT IT JUST THAT LOCATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEND ITSELF TO A LINEAR PARK, THAT THERE ARE OTHER PLACES IN THE CITY THAT ARE BETTER SUITED.

AND IN FACT, IN MY IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY MANAGER, HE INDICATED THAT VERY EARLY ON IN THE LITIGATION AND THE DISCUSSIONS, THERE WAS AN ALTERNATE PARCEL THAT MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED FOR TRANSFER TO THE TO THE TO THE CITY AND RATHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION THAT BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT NEVER CAME TO PASS.

AND FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, THE CITY FOUND ITSELF STUCK WITH THIS PARCEL.

OK, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN A MOMENT MR. I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

MR. CITY MANAGER.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS OF CENTRAL PARK AND MANOR PARC DO NOT HAVE

[01:25:06]

POOLS IN THEIR BACKYARD? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THEY DON'T HAVE POOLS IN THEIR BACKYARDS, LARGELY BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THOSE SWIMMING POOLS.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY A THAT WAS ACTUALLY A DISCUSSION POINT WHEN 13TH FLOOR CAME THROUGH AND REQUESTED THAT THE ORIGINAL TOWNHOMES THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THAT PROPERTY AND PROJECT THE TRANSITION FROM TOWNHOMES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, GIVEN THE PRICES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR THE HOUSES, PUT IN SWIMMING POOLS OR NOT.

AND MY RECOLLECTION WAS PARTICULARLY IN CENTRAL PARK, GIVEN THE ZERO LOT LINE CONFIGURATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES, THAT THERE TRULY WAS NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE BACKYARD FOR SWIMMING POOL.

IF THEY WERE NOT ZERO LOT HOMES.

DO YOU THINK THAT POOLS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED IF THE BACKYARD SPACE ALLOWED IT? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHETHER THERE WERE PERMITTED OR NOT, I THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED NOW IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO CONFIGURE THE POOL IN A WAY THAT MET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PROHIBITION ON SWIMMING POOLS IN MANOR PARC, CENTRAL PARK OR HIDDEN TRAIL.

I THINK THAT THE LIMITING FACTOR IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS IS THE FACT THAT THE LOTS ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL THAT WOULD CONFORM TO THE BUILDING SET BACKS THAT ARE PLACED UPON THOSE LOTS GIVEN THE SIZE OF IT.

MR. CERNECH.

I WENT BACK MANY, MANY YEARS OF THE PAST.

I WENT BACK MANY, MANY YEARS.

RIGHT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MS. CALLOWAY SAID WAS POOLS CANNOT GO INTO THE BACKYARDS OF CENTRAL PARK AND MANOR PARC BECAUSE THE LAND WAS TOO CONTAMINATED FOR POOLS.

YOU DO NOT RECALL THAT CONVERSATION IN THE COMMISSION MEETING? COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I DON'T RECALL THAT.

NO.

AND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER BOLTON, THE CONTAMINATION ACROSS THE PROPERTY WITH WHICH WE SPEAK IS NOT UNIFORM.

AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO PROHIBITION ON SWIMMING POOLS IN ANY ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS, BLANKET PROHIBITIONS.

YOU WOULD YOU WOULD NEED TO GET THE SOIL TESTED IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTAMINATION.

AND SO WE, YOU KNOW MS. CALLOWAY COULD HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT CONTAMINATION IN CERTAIN AREAS OR CERTAIN SITES.

BUT THE REALITY IS YOU DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S CONTAMINATION TO BEGIN WITH UNTIL YOU TEST AND THEN IF THERE IS CONTAMINATION, WHETHER IT'S SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CONTAMINATION TO CAUSE AN ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, A SWIMMING POOL CONTAMINATION IN A SWIMMING POOL DOESN'T DOESN'T NECESSARILY MIX, MEANING THE ISSUE WOULD BE WHEN THAT DIRT IS IS TAKEN OUT AND REMOVED.

YOU HAVE TO DISPOSE OF THE CONTAMINATED SOIL.

IF THERE IS CONTAMINATION, THERE IT IS.

IT IS THEN BURIED AT A CERTAIN DEPTH BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THOSE SUBDIVISIONS, IF THERE WAS CONTAMINATION PRESENT, A CLEAN FILL WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN OR THE PROPERTIES WERE CERTIFIED THROUGH THE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT AS THEY EXIST TODAY.

SO THAT THE CONTAMINATION ISSUES REGARDING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BEFORE THAT WENT IN.

AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO MS. CALLOWAY'S SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT CONTAMINATION AND SWIMMING POOLS.

BUT THE YOU KNOW, THE NOTION THAT YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE CONTAMINATION, I DON'T I DON'T THINK IS A CORRECT ASSESSMENT, JUST UNDERSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE CONTAMINATION IS NOT UNIFORM ACROSS THAT

[01:30:02]

PROPERTY.

FOR ANY LITIGATING ATTORNEY, I THINK THAT IF THEY ARE WISE, THEY SHOULD, BEFORE SIGNING ANY CLOSING DOCUMENTS, TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THE CITY KNEW THAT THE LAND WAS CONTAMINATED OR NOT, AND IF THE CITY IS TRYING TO PASS OFF A CONTAMINATED PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THEM.

I THINK THAT IN THE REALM OF THE INTERNET.

IS ANY PERSON WANTING TO BUY THIS LAND FROM ROCK ISLAND STORAGE SHOULD LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY KNEW THAT THE LAND WAS CONTAMINATED OR NOT, BECAUSE I AM AS FAIR TO MY RESIDENTS AS I AM FAIR TO DEVELOPERS AND IT SEEMS LIKE A BUSINESS DECISION FOR THE CITY.

I REPRESENT MY RESIDENTS AND I ALSO HAVE TO HOLD THE HANDS OF DEVELOPERS AS WELL.

SO I WOULD CAUTION THEM TO DIG VERY DEEP TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS CITY WANTED TO PASS OFF A PIECE OF LAND THAT WAS CONTAMINATED TO SOMEBODY WILLING AND ABLE TO BUY IT JUST BECAUSE THE PIECE OF LAND IS PRIME LOCATION.

SO THAT IS MY COMMENTS MADE TO THAT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.

NOW, I WANT THE THIS COMMISSION.

THIS ONE.

NOT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WHERE.

THEY DID NOT, AT LEAST IN THE OPINION OF SOME OF THE RESIDENTS.

DOES NOT LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS, I'M SPEAKING TO THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WHERE THE MAYORS SAT ON COULD HAVE AT THAT TIME SAID TO OURSELVES, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S BUY OUT THE CHAITS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A BUSINESS DECISION, WE'RE LOOKING AT PEOPLE WHO ARE BUSINESS MINDED.

IT'S BUY OUT THE CHAITS.

THEN IF THE LAND IS CONTAMINATED.

LET US FIX THAT ISSUE.

AND THEN LISTEN TO THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS, MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE THERE IS WHAT GOES THERE AND IF THAT'S NOT A PARK.

AND THAT'S A GAS STATION OR A RESTAURANT THAT WE SO ARE MUCH IN NEED OF.

LET'S SELL THE LAND TO MORTON'S, WHOEVER THEY ARE, RIGHT? LET'S SELL THE LAND LINE, RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT THIS COMMISSION TO HEAR WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF THIS FINE CITY HAS SAID, BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A POINT OF CONTENTION, NOT JUST FOR THE REST OF A COUPLE OF DAYS, BUT IN TWO YEARS.

AND I'LL MAKE SURE.

THAT THIS COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THAT AND I REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS, SO THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WILL IMPALE THIS COMMISSION.

WHEN I POSTED ON FACEBOOK YESTERDAY.

QUESTION WAS, SHOULD THE CITY OF TAMARAC ALLOW THE BUILDING OF A STORAGE FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD? SAID PROVIDE YOUR ANSWER DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW AND OR COPY AND PASTE TO MY EMAIL.

AND DOOR.

SOME OF THEM CHOSE TO STAY ON FACEBOOK AND THEY SOUNDED OFF.

[01:35:06]

PAT PARKIN SAID THAT CORNER NEEDS TO BE PRINTED UP.

MARCY THOMPSON SAID IT'S A POCKET PARK HERBERT DALY, WHO VOLUNTEERED IN YOUR LAST ELECTION, MADAM MAYOR SAID, I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND SINCE I ADDRESSED THAT THE COMMISSION SINCE I ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION WHEN THIS WAS FIRST INTRODUCED.

IT'S TOO BIG, IT'S TOO TALL.

AS I EXPLAINED, THERE ARE OVER 20 APARTMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY BEHIND THEM THAT WOULD NEVER SEE SUNSHINE AGAIN.

A SMALL OR POCKET PARK WOULD SHOW TO VISITORS THE BEAUTY OF TAMARAC, PAT PARKIN.

ABSOLUTELY NOT, NOT NOT.

ROBIN AND WHEN I RESEARCHED THESE PEOPLE, NOT ALL OF THEM LIVE IN MY DISTRICT AND THINK MOST OF THEM LIVES IN DISTRICT THREE, WHERE ELVIN IS NOW THE COMMISSIONER, WHERE JULIE IS THE FORMER COMMISSIONER, JULIE FISHMAN, FORMER.

SHE SAYS NO.

BELONGS IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA, NOT A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

JEFFREY YOUR NEIGHBOR MADAM MAYOR, SAYS, I RECOMMEND NO.

THERE IS A LARGER FACILITY JUST A FEW BLOCKS WEST ON THIS OF THIS ON COMMERCIAL, AND IT HAS EMPTY UNITS AND IS ONE OF THE LEAST EXPENSIVE IN THE AREA.

I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I RENT A UNIT THERE AND HE GOES ON.

HIS COMMENTS ARE REALLY, HIS COMMENTS ARE VERY LONG.

LARRY JOSEPH JEFFREY AGREED WITH HIM.

ERIC SHUTTERED STRUCTURES.

AND HE LIVES IN DISTRICT THREE, BY THE WAY, AND I KNOW FROM PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT.

HE ALMOST SUPPORTS YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

TARA SHAWNA SAYS BEAUTIFY THE AREA? CARL BETTY GAMBINO SAYS NO, PUT A PARK.

LISA MANY ACCIDENTS HAPPEN BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MARCY, A LOT OF RESIDENTS MAY NOT EVEN BE ON NEXT DOOR, AND I MIGHT FEEL LIKE I DON'T WANT TO BOTHER TO SIGN UP SO.

TOMMY FIRST, CAN YOU PROHIBIT IT? PROS, THEY BRING IT, THEY BRING IN GOOD TAX MONEY BECAUSE IT'S THE SIZE AND NOT TO PROMOTE LARGE TRAFFIC.

AND THE CONS ARE WHAT BENEFIT DOES IT HAVE TO YOUR RESIDENTS, YOUR BOSSES? SOUNDS LIKE A PRIME LOCATION.

I WOULD THINK YOU CAN PUT SOMETHING MORE APPEALING.

GOOD LUCK.

KEEP US POSTED.

I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.

I WON'T BORE YOU, BUT THE COMMENTS ARE THERE.

I SUBMITTED TO THEM TO THE CITY CLERK AND I TOLD HER TO PUT IT A PART OF THE RECORD, AS A PART OF MY EXHIBITS.

I'M TALKING AND I KIND OF KNOW THE LAST TIME TAUGHT ME SO I CAN PUT IT AS EXHIBITS.

FROM WHAT I'M SAYING.

CORRECT SAM? YOU ARE CORRECT COMMISSIONER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

LET'S GO OVER TO NEXT DOOR.

WHERE THE CITY IS THE HOLDER OFF OF THE RECORDS FOR THIS, BECAUSE I POSTED ABOUT MY CITY 'S PAGE.

I DID A SURVEY, SAME QUESTION ASKED, SHOULD THE CITY OF TAMARAC ALLOW THE BUILDING OF A STORAGE FACILITY ON THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD? YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESULTS WERE? 92 PERCENT SAID NO.

EIGHT PERCENT SAID YES AND ZERO PERCENT UNDECIDED.

PEOPLE COMMENTED ON NEXT DOOR, TOO.

THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WHO WANTS TO GET UP EVERY DAY AND SEE AND LOOK INTO A CONCRETE?

[01:40:02]

IT'S UGLY.

AND WATKINS SAYS, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

FRED.

SAYS OR FREDDY SAYS, WE DON'T WANT MORE BUSINESSES LIKE THIS ONE.

DIANA SAYS WE NEED SOMETHING MORE LIVELY, NOT ANOTHER STORAGE FACILITY.

YOU KNOW, THAT EVERYBODY'S SOUNDING OFF, THAT THEY DO NOT LIKE IT AND THEY DO NOT WANT IT.

AND I MAKE THIS A POINT OF CONTENTION BECAUSE I BROUGHT TO THIS A THIS COMMISSION, SOME OF YOU WERE HERE.

THE COMMENTS OF MY RESIDENTS AND THEY ALSO CAME.

TO THIS COMMISSION AND ASKED THAT A STORAGE FACILITY NOT BUILT, NOT BUILT ON THE CORNER OF COMMERCIAL AND THIS COMMISSION ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN.

WHERE NOW WE ARE CHARGED WITH A DECISION WHETHER TO MAKE A BUSINESS DECISION OR NOT, NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS AND HAVE EXPOSURE.

WHEN THIS COMMISSION COULD HAVE.

JUST BOUGHT OUT THE CHAITS.

ADDRESS CONTAMINATION ISSUE.

CONTAMINATION ISSUES IF AND WHEN THEY AROSE.

AND.

SATISFY THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.

UNDERSTAND.

WE OR STAFF AT SOME POINT DECIDED THAT THIS COULD NOT BE A PARK.

WHY NOT? WHY NOT? I'VE SEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES, EVEN IN SUNRISE, THAT HAS PARKS SMALLER THAN THIS ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET.

OK, CANNOT BE A PARK, MAYBE.

WE CAN CALL IT FREEDOM CORNER, DIVERSITY CORNER PUT STATUES IN AND OR THE HISTORY OF TAMARAC ON THE CORNER SOMETHING BUT THIS COMMISSION DID NOT LISTEN AND THIS IS WHY WE ARE HERE.

AND YOU ALL KNOW THAT I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO GO STAND IN THE SUN FOR 14 DAYS AND 12 HOURS A DAY.

I WILL DO IT, I'VE DONE IT AND I'VE DONE IT, AND I WILL DO IT AGAIN.

I'LL MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS, THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY THAT I CARE ABOUT SO MUCH, REMEMBER WHAT THIS COMMISSION DID.

DECISIONS, THE BAD DECISIONS THAT WE MADE, THEY ELECTED US TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THEM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE FAILED THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.

AND I JUST HOPE THAT IF A STORAGE FACILITY IS BUILT ON THE CORNER.

IT WILL.

HOLD THE NAME IN MEMORY OF.

MAYOR MICHELLE J GOMEZ ON THE TOP OF IT, I HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER OBLIGES ME AND PUT AND CALL IT MICHELLE J GOMEZ BUILDING AND MEMORIALIZE YOUR NAME ON THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE WHEN COMMISSIONER GELIN AND I DID NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.

YOU ALSO REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS OF MY DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTS OF WOODLANDS AND YOU FAILED TO ACT.

AND THE RESIDENTS WILL REMEMBER THAT YOU FAILED, THAT YOU FAILED TO ACT.

MADAM MAYOR, I'M NOT DONE.

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THIS FROM YOUR CAMPAIGN SPEECHES FROM TWO YEARS.

PLEASE, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT RUNNING AND TRYING TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER GELIN WHEN HE RUNS AGAINST ME.

CAN YOU PLEASE GO BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND? MADAME MAYOR, YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

I DID.

I DID NOT INSINUATE THAT.

I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT POLITICS, I'M SURE SOMEBODY WILL RUN AGAINST YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE COMMISSIONER GELIN OR ANYBODY IN THIS COMMISSION.

PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.

YOU BROUGHT THIS UP.

YOU OPEN THE DOOR TIME OUT, TIME OUT, TIME OUT, TIME OUT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS THE FLOOR TO FINISH HIS QUESTIONS.

[01:45:03]

THANK YOU.

DON'T OPEN DOORS, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OPEN TOO.

72000 PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT, MR. SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND.

IF SUCCESSFUL IN REMOVING IN THE REMOVAL OF THE PLAT NOTATION AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, THE CITY AND A THIRD PARTY WITH THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE 50 WITH PRESTIGE TO RECEIVE SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND PLUS OR MINUS CREDIT TO RESOLVE THE CODE LIEN THE CODE LIEN ISSUE.

SO THERE ARE PRESENTLY CODE LIENS ON THE PROPERTY IS THAT 72 THOUSAND THAT WOULD COME FROM THEIR 50 PERCENT OR IT WILL COME FROM THE CITY'S 50 PERCENT.

WELL, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE.

THE CHAITS DISCHARGED THE LIENS WHEN THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO ULTIMATELY THE DEVELOPER OF THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES, AND WHAT THEY DID IS THEY THEN BROUGHT A SUBSEQUENT ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, ALLEGING THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WERE IMPROPERLY IMPOSED AND THEY WERE ENTITLED TO A REBATE OR REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT AMOUNT.

DURING THE COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CHAITS THAT ULTIMATELY WAS REDUCED TO WRITING IN AND PART OF THE RESOLUTION.

THAT THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED.

THE CITY DID AGREE.

AND TO CREDIT THE CHAITS THAT SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND PLUS OR MINUS OF THAT WOULD COME, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WOULD COME FROM THE CITY'S 50 PERCENT.

OK.

BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS AND PLEADINGS, PENDING REVIEWS, IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION, VARIOUS CITY EMPLOYEES EITHER GAVE SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OR PROVIDED DOCUMENTS DURING THE DISCOVERY PROCESS, INTERNAL E-MAILS AND FILES, DOCUMENTS STATING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT SUITED FOR THE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF A FIRE STATION.

FURTHER, ALTHOUGH NOT VERY CLEAR, IT ALSO APPEARS THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IDEALLY SITUATED FOR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL USES, SUCH AS A LINEAR PARK OR LINEAR OR POCKET PARK.

BUT WHO WERE SOME OF THOSE EMPLOYEES, DO YOU RECALL? WELL, LET'S GO BACK FIRST.

THE BOTH MR. BURKE AS WELL AS THE CITY MANAGER, MY CONVERSATIONS WITH WITH MR. CERNECH, HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR AND I RESPECT HIS THAT INITIAL DETERMINATION.

HE DID NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO BE THE RECIPIENT OF THIS DEDICATION, OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND WHEN THE STAFF LOOKED AT AND TRIED TO CONFIGURE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR FIRE STATION, THE GEOMETRY DIDN'T WORK.

COMPARED TO THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE AND REDEVELOP THE EXISTING FIRE STATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE TURNPIKE.

AND SO THE ULTIMATELY THAT INFORMATION THROUGH THE DISCOVERY PROCESS AND THROUGH CONVERSATIONS OBVIOUSLY BECAME KNOWN TO THE CHAITS.

AND THAT TO SOME DEGREE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS PART OF THE GENESIS OF, WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT, LET'S JOINTLY SELL IT.

AND SOME OF THOSE THAT BECAME THE GENESIS OF A PART OF THE DISCUSSION, ULTIMATELY SETTLING THIS LONG, ONGOING, VERY 10 YEARS GOING LITIGATION.

I, YOU KNOW, THE SAME ANALYSIS WAS, TO SOME DEGREE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DONE WITH REGARD TO WAS THIS A OPTIMUM SITE FOR A LINEAR OR POCKET PARK? AND AGAIN, THE DETERMINATION WAS NO.

THROUGH YOUR THROUGH YOUR PROBE, MR. HERRON, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT, IN YOUR MEMORANDUM THAT THE PARTIES HAVE NOW COME TO REALIZE THAT CONTAMINATION WAS ON THE LAND AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER, MR.

[01:50:11]

THOSE CLAIMS. AND MR. BURKE, MIKE BURKE, HAS REPRESENTED THAT THOSE ARE NOW RESOLVED ? FOR THE MOST PART.

YES, SIR.

MY CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED INDICATES THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, SOME ASSOCIATED LITIGATION REGARDING THE CONTAMINATION THAT WAS DISCOVERED BY ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

THEY INITIALLY REFUSED TO CLOSE UNTIL THE ISSUE OF THE CONTAMINATION WAS RESOLVED.

TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERYONE THAT I CONSULTED WITH, THE PROPERTY IS NOW IN A POSITION WHERE BROWARD COUNTY, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION OF BROWARD COUNTY HAS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED A REMEDIATION PLAN THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY OR DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY AS A STORAGE FACILITY.

THAT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE TO ROCK ISLAND STORAGE, IS ACCEPTABLE TO BROWARD COUNTY, ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY, ACCEPTABLE TO THE REGULATORY AGENCIES.

AND THAT'S WHY THE PARTIES ARE NOW IN A POSITION TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE ON THE TRANSACTION IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

DO YOU THINK THAT FURTHER LITIGATION COULD HAPPEN AFTER THIS IF THEY IF THEY REALIZE THAT THE CITY KNEW THAT THERE WAS CONTAMINATION ON THE LAND BEFORE THE CITY TOLD THEM THAT THEY FOUND OUT? I'M WHENEVER I'M ASKED THAT QUESTION BY GOVERNMENTAL CLIENTS OF MINE, MY STANDARD RESPONSE IS ALL IT TAKES IS THREE HUNDRED AND SOME ODD DOLLARS, THE FILING FEE THAT NOW THAT NOW EXISTS TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ANYONE CAN FILE A CLAIM.

THE LIKELIHOOD, I THINK, IS SOMEWHAT REMOTE.

AND THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS, AGAIN, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE REPORT AND REFLECTED IN MY COMMENTS HERE TODAY, IS THAT ALL THE PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE SALE AND ULTIMATE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY ARE IN FACT AWARE OF THE CONTAMINATION, THE EXTENT OF THE CONTAMINATION AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO RESOLVE THE EXTENT EXISTING LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PRESTIGE HOMES, THE CHAITS.

THE CHAITS HAVE ALREADY SIGNED.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.

I WOULD DEFER TO MR. BURKE ON THIS PROCEDURAL QUESTION, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND I'VE SEEN AND IT'S PART OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE CHAITS HAVE OR WILL EXECUTE A GENERAL RELEASE IN FAVOR OF THE CITY AS TO ALL CLAIMS THEY COULD THEY THEY DID OR COULD HAVE BROUGHT IN THE CURRENT LITIGATION, WHICH THEORETICALLY WOULD ENCOMPASS ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENT CONTAMINATION.

I'M NOT SO SURE IF THERE ARE SIMILAR RELEASES UPSTREAM IN THE SECONDARY LITIGATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BY ROCK ISLAND SAND AGAINST THE PRESTIGE AND THE CITY REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION.

YOU SAID THAT ALL IT TAKES IS ABOUT 300 SOME ODD DOLLARS TO FILE A LAWSUIT.

DO YOU THINK SIMILARLY THAT ANYBODY WHO USES SOMEBODY AS THEIR MINION AND HAVE A LITTLE POWER COULD THEN LAUNCH A BOGUS INVESTIGATION INTO SOMEBODY ELSE JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN? BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? DON'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I THINK ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE, ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE.

I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO DID THAT.

WELL, YOU KNOW, MR. HERRON, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE A STELLAR ATTORNEY.

YOU HAVE PROVIDED A SOUND MEMORANDUM.

I THINK THAT YOU DID A FINE JOB ON THIS.

I'M SATISFIED.

I THINK THAT MY RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THAT I FOUGHT AS HARD FOR THEM AS I POSSIBLY COULD.

I WILL TRANSMIT THIS TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS IN MY DISTRICT, AT LEAST, AND A

[01:55:07]

FEW KEY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND OTHER DISTRICTS AS WELL, SHOWING THEM JUST HOW MUCH I'VE FOUGHT FOR THEM.

AND I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD WANT TO OBLIGE IN THIS.

SO IF THERE'S ANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE THAT WANTS TO SEND OUT A TELLING THE RESIDENTS WHAT HAPPENED.

I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD.

I'LL YIELD FOR NOW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

AND I DO WANT TO SAY AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I DID NOT MAKE THIS CLEAR EARLIER WHEN I FIRST STARTED DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE AND THE MEMO THAT I'VE PROVIDED TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU THROUGH STAFF, I WANT TO SAY THAT BOTH OR ALL THE INDIVIDUALS THAT I SPOKE TO, MR. CERNECH, THE CITY MANAGER, AND MICHAEL BURKE, OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

THEIR ASSISTANCE AND THE INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED TO ME WAS INVALUABLE, AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY PROVIDED TO ME.

AND I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR ASSISTANCE THAT WITHOUT THEIR ASSISTANCE, THE WORK PRODUCT I PUT BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE PROVIDED IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND THEIR ASSISTANCE, WHICH, AS I SAID, WAS INVALUABLE.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THERE ARE THERE ARE A FEW.

I SEE HERE, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP? NO, MA'AM, I DID NOT.

I'M SORRY, MR. CITY MANAGER, MY APOLOGIES.

I DID, MADAM MAYOR, BUT I LOWERED IT.

OK.

JUST DOUBLE CHECKING BECAUSE THESE GO UP AND THESE GO DOWN.

AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

YEAH, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS A QUESTION.

FOR, I'LL POSE THIS QUESTION TO BOTH JOHN AND THE CITY MANAGER, I'M NOT SURE WHO WILL BE BEST ABLE TO ANSWER, BUT REGARDING THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR REMEDIATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE ARSENIC.

ALTHOUGH THE STATE REQUIREMENT IS CHEAPER AND DIFFERENT FOR A COMMERCIAL USE RATHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL USE, IT IS STILL SAFE, IS IT STILL CONSIDERED A BEST PRACTICE AMONG, I GUESS, THE MORE REPUTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES? BECAUSE SOME AGENCY THAT IS MORE FRIENDLY TO BUSINESS AND NOT AS CONCERNING ABOUT THE REAL IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY AND HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO OTHER STATES? SO MADAM MAYOR, IF I MIGHT, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT THAT COMMISSIONER GELIN.

SO THE STATE OF FLORIDA SETS REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION DEPENDING ON LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION.

THE STATE OF I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO OTHER STATES OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT CONTAMINATION IS ALL THROUGHOUT OUR STATE.

AND THE STATE'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AT LEAST FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IS A STRONG ENOUGH AGENCY IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.

THE STATE'S AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED TO BROWARD COUNTY IN AN INSTANCE LIKE THIS, AND THE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION IS THE DIVISION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GUIDING THE CITY OR A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, A DEVELOPER, WHOMEVER IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SEEKING TO MAKE CHANGES.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, BROWARD COUNTY HAS GUIDED US THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PREPARING THIS PROPERTY FOR MITIGATION AND REMEDIATION, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN MITIGATED OR REMEDIATED.

THERE IS A PLAN NOW ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY WHICH SPECIFIES HOW THAT MITIGATION WOULD OCCUR IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY IS CONSTRUCTED.

IF THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINED TO BE USED DIFFERENTLY, WE WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND AMEND THAT APPROVAL FOR WHATEVER INTENSITY IT IS

[02:00:03]

DESIRE FOR THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THAT.

SO.

AND DO YOU KNOW HOW? SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CLEANUP IS MORE THOROUGH IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A RESIDENTIAL USE VERSUS A COMMERCIAL USE.

YES, ABSOLUTELY, COMMISSIONER.

SO THE COMMERCIAL CLEANUP IS AT A CERTAIN LEVEL UNDERSTANDING THAT IT THE SOILS IN THIS CASE ARE ENCAPSULATED UNDERNEATH THE PARKING LOT AND UNDERNEATH THE FOUNDATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF SO THAT THEY'RE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

IF YOU GO INTO RESIDENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENT, THERE'S MORE REMOVAL OF SOIL TYPICALLY REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BRING IN CLEAN SOIL, IN ORDER THAT IF YOUR IF YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN PEOPLE ARE PLAYING IN THEIR YARD FROM THINGS THAT THEY'RE NOT COMING IN CONTACT WITH SOIL THAT'S LACED WITH ARSENIC OR TO THAT EFFECT.

AND THEN IF WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, FOR INSTANCE, FOR A PARK OR FOR A SETTING WHERE PEOPLE WILL COME IN CONTACT WITH THE GRASS, THE SOIL, WHATEVER, I BELIEVE THAT IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LEVEL OF REMEDIATION.

AND I MY POINT IN DESCRIBING ALL OF THIS TO YOU IS THAT THE YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL, THE STATE AND THROUGH THE COUNTY HAVE ALL DETERMINED THAT THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS CAN BE MITIGATED SAFELY SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE YOU DECIDE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT LEVEL OF MITIGATION NEEDS TO OCCUR, DEPENDING ON THE USE THAT IS DECIDED.

OK.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RANGE OF COSTS ARE FOR THE DIFFERENT REMEDIATION LEVELS? NO, I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THE ULTIMATE USE.

OK.

YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE STORAGE FACILITY BECAUSE THE BECAUSE THE SOIL CAN BE CAN YOU KNOW CAN BE CONTAINED ON SITE AND ENCAPSULATED UNDER IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE AMOUNT OF CLEAN FILL THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT IN IS FAIRLY MINIMAL.

THAT'S THE LOWEST COST REMEDIATION.

IT JUST GETS MORE EXPENSIVE FROM THERE AND I CAN'T PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT ASKED FOR AN OPINION FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FIRM AS TO WHAT IT WOULD COST TO REMEDIATE THE SITE.

BUT TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE ARSENIC CONTAMINATION FROM THE SITE TYPICALLY REQUIRES YOU KNOW APPROVAL OF CUBIC YARDS DEEP OF SOIL AND THEN BRINGING IN CLEAN SOIL TO REPLACE THAT.

AND SO ON A SITE THIS SIZE, THAT GETS TO BE FAIRLY EXPENSIVE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS.

OK.

AND I KNOW AT ONE POINT ROCK ISLAND STORAGE WANTED TO BACK OUT OF THE DEAL.

IS THAT NO LONGER THE CASE? THEY STILL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.

OK.

AND IF THERE WAS A LAWSUIT, WHO WOULD HANDLE THE LAWSUIT, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF I CAN RESPOND TO IT, COMMISSIONS IT WOULD BE A CONTRACT ACTION.

IT MAY NOT BE IT MAY NOT BE COVERED BY THE FMIT MR. BURKE MAY WELL BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT.

HE'S CURRENTLY ASSISTING THE CITY ALONG WITH OUR OFFICES IN THE CO-PLAINTIFF'S SIDE WITH REGARD TO THE PENDING LITIGATION WITH ROCK ISLAND ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.

BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BE A CONTRACT ISSUE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES.

SO DO WE HAVE A CURRENT LAWSUIT WITH THE? YES, WHICH THE CITY IS A CO-PLAINTIFF IN ALONG WITH PRESTIGE, WHICH SEEKS TO EITHER LIQUIDATE THE DEPOSIT TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, ETC.. WE ARE WE ARE IN THE SAME LITIGATION WITH ROCK ISLAND, SELF-STORAGE.

OK, SO.

CITY COMMISSION AGREED TO JOIN THAT LITIGATION SEVERAL MONTHS AGO IN AN EFFORT TO GET THE DEAL CLOSED.

AND SO WE'RE IN A SUIT AGAINST ROCK ISLAND STORAGE.

WE'RE IN A LAWSUIT TOGETHER, MR. BURKE, AND BEST RESPOND IS IN THE DETAILS.

BUT THE ANSWER IS YES.

OK, DID YOU WANT DETAILS ON THAT COMMISSIONER? BRIEFLY.

YES.

SO THE AFTER THE ARSENIC WAS DISCOVERED AND THE CLOSING DID NOT TAKE PLACE, PRESTIGE HOMES INITIATED A LAWSUIT AGAINST ROCK ISLAND FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TO DEMAND THAT THEY CLOSE.

[02:05:01]

THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE CITY TO JOIN THAT LAWSUIT AND THE CITY HAS JOINED IN THAT LAWSUIT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF ROCK ISLAND TO CLOSE.

ROCK ISLAND COUNTERCLAIMS RELATED TO THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ARSENIC, WHICH WASN'T KNOWN UNTIL SOME INSPECTIONS WHICH WERE DONE LATE IN THE GAME.

AND SO THAT LAWSUIT HAS KIND OF BEEN ON HOLD FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WHILE ROCK ISLAND LOOKED INTO WHAT COULD BE DONE TO REMEDIATE THE SOIL SITUATION, THE CONTAMINATION SITUATION, AND NOW SATISFIED THAT IT CAN BE REMEDIATED.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT ROCK ISLAND IS IN A POSITION NOW TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE CLOSING AND IS SATISFIED.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEN THE LAWSUIT CAN BE DROPPED.

BOTH BY PRESTIGE, TAMARAC AND ROCK ISLAND, THEY WOULD DROP THEIR LAWSUIT.

THE PRESS, THE OTHER LAWSUIT HAS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED OUT BY THE COURT WHOSE FINAL ORDER, THE ONE THAT PRESTIGE BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY BACK IN 2011.

AND THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVED BASED ON THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THE COURT HAS APPROVED.

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS ENTERED AN ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE AND HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION THEN TO ENFORCE THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE EVENT THAT IT'S NOT FULFILLED.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

I DO NOT SEE YOUR HANDS RAISED.

SO TAKING IT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME.

AND I WILL.

IS THAT? COMMISSIONER PLACKO GO AHEAD.

UNMUTE YOURSELF PLEASE.

I WAS CONTEMPLATING.

CAN SOMEBODY GIVE ME THE BOTTOM LINE HERE? I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT, WHAT ALL WHAT? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT TO DO NOT TO DO? WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES AND WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS? I'D KIND OF LIKE THE BOTTOM LINE.

JUST REMEMBER, THERE STILL SOME MORE COMMENTS WE HAVE.

OH I'M SORRY.

OK.

I UNDERSTAND.

AND THAT'S.

I CAN WAIT.

OK, I CAN WAIT.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE FROM THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING WAS THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF THE SITUATION FOR GOING FORWARD AND OF THE SELF-STORAGE UNIT ON ROCK ISLAND AND COMMERCIAL, THAT WAS WHAT MR. HERRON WAS HIRED FOR BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON TO DO AND THAT IS WHAT GOT DONE HERE NOW.

SO.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, IF YOU WISH TO FINISH ANSWERING THE REST OF THAT QUESTION, YOU MAY DO SO.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

LISTEN, HOW I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TODAY.

AND THIS WAS MY INITIAL INTENTION THAT WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION.

MR. GOREN BROUGHT THE ITEM AS JUST AN UPDATE TO US AS A MATTER OF BEING A GOOD ATTORNEY AND WANTING TO UPDATE HIS CITY COMMISSION.

IT WAS NEVER AN ITEM TO VOTE ON.

SO I WOULD CAUTION THIS CITY COMMISSION TO AND I SAY THIS CITY COMMISSION TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD VOTE ON THIS.

I HAVE GOTTEN MY REPORT OUTSIDE COUNCIL HAS INVESTIGATED THE ITEM.

I AM PLEASED WITH WHAT THE INVESTIGATION SAID AND.

I CAN NOW ADVISE MY RESIDENTS THAT THE BEST THING TO DO .

SOMEBODY I WILL TELL MY RESIDENTS THAT THE BEST DECISION THAT WE CAN MAKE AT THIS POINT IS TO CONTINUE ON THE PATH THAT WE ARE ON BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF WE'D HAVE TOO MUCH EXPOSURE GOING FORWARD.

I JUST FEEL THAT IF WE STOP THE PROCESS AND NOT SIGN THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS, NUMBER ONE, WE'RE GIVING THE CHAITS FREE MONEY.

NUMBER TWO, WE'RE GIVING ROCK ISLAND STORAGE FREE MONEY IN THE EVENT THAT THE

[02:10:15]

CLAIM TO US AGAINST US.

YES.

AFTER ALL OF THAT, WE WOULD HAVE THE LANDS, THE THE BUSINESS DECISION THEN WOULD BE TO THEN FLIP THE LAND, TO GET TO RECOUP SOME OF THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD HAVE PAID OUT IN LAWSUITS, THAT'S A BUSINESS DECISION.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED SO MUCH SO THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS MONEY WOULD BE SHED OUT THROUGHT THIS.

THINK ABOUT IT.

WE PAY THE CHAITS.

WE PAY OFF ROCK ISLAND STORAGE OR WHOEVER IT IS, LET'S JUST SAY FOR COMPENSATION SAKE, IT'S TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

THE CITY NOW HAS THE LAND.

WE THEN SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHERE NOW THE RESIDENTS ARE MORE PALATABLE TOO AND WE SELL IT FOR ONE POINT NINE MILLION DOLLARS, THEN THE CITY IS ONLY OUT ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

IT IS NOT COMPLICATED.

IF IF YOU IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS OWNER AND IF YOU UNDERSTAND BUSINESS, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, YEAH.

THE CITY MAY BE EXPOSED.

AND YES, WE WOULD BE PAYING UP MONEY UPFRONT NOW, BUT WE STILL HAVE PRIVATE LAND THAT WE CAN TURN AROUND AND SELL TO A DEVELOPER THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING ELSE, NOT A STORAGE FACILITY.

SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO PUT A PARK ON THE CORNER.

I'M SAYING THAT WE COULD PUT, YOU KNOW, A GAS STATION OR A RESTAURANT OR WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE COMES.

THAT'S WHAT A SENSIBLE BUSINESS PERSON WOULD DO.

BUT.

GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THAT THE THAT THE HORSE HAS ALREADY LEFT THE BARN.

AND.

REALLY AND TRULY, THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION WHO MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS HAS TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES AT THE POLLS IF THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES THERE, BECAUSE THEY MADE THIS DECISION THAT NOW MY RESIDENTS HAVE TO LIVE WITH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. HERRON GAVE BROUGHT FORWARD A VERY WELL PUT TOGETHER MEMORANDUM AND IT SPEAKS TO OUR OPTIONS.

THAT IS ALL I WANTED OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO DO.

GIVE US OPTIONS IN WRITING.

LET US SEE THE BOTTOM LINE.

OK, IF YOU IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

DON'T JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S MALFEASANCE, NEGLECT OF PUBLIC DUTY.

ALL THAT STUFF.

SIGN IT NOW.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.

THAT THAT IS NOT THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

TO JUST GO TO OUR RESIDENTS AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

THIS DOCUMENT IS FAIR AND IT SHOWS THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHATEVER DECISION WILL BE MADE.

IT'S NOT SAYING, OH, MARLON, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES THAT.

I THINK THAT THIS DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, OUTLINES WHAT THE.

WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND THE CONSEQUENCES AND THE BOTTOM LINE.

WITH THAT SAID, I GOTTEN WHAT I WHAT I WANTED, SO.

THE CITY ATTORNEY GAVE AN UPDATE, JOHN GAVE AN UPDATE THROUGH HIS MEMORANDUM AND ON COURSE WE WERE YOU, MADAM MAYOR, WAS GOING TO EXECUTE THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT.

GO AHEAD AND EXECUTE THAT CLOSING DOCUMENTS.

AND WHEN SHE DOES, MADAM CLERK, I WANT A COPY OF IT, THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS AND ONE COMMENT IS WHILE THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE, I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH MR. BURKE, WHO I WORK WITH ON A LOT OF MATTERS OVER THE YEARS AND HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT.

AND I THINK HE'S AN EXCELLENT ATTORNEY.

AND TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BEFORE, I THINK IT'S FAIRLY REASONABLE THAT IN ANY SETTLEMENT THAT THE CITY NEGOTIATES WITH THE EXISTING LITIGATION THAT'S RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THAT THE PARTIES WOULD EXECUTE

[02:15:02]

HERE IN A STANDARD PRACTICE WITH MR. BURKE AND MY DEALINGS WITH HIM IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

AND I WOULD GUESS THAT IT, MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT HE WOULD DO THE SAME HERE.

SO TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENS AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS FROM ROCK ISLAND AGAINST THE CITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONTAMINATION, I THINK THAT WILL ALL BE WRAPPED UP AND RESOLVED IN SETTLEMENT OF THAT LAWSUIT, ASSUMING THE CITY MOVES FORWARD WITH THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AS TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY COMMISSIONER PLACKO, I WANT TO BRIEFLY SAY THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, RESOLVE THE LITIGATION, OBTAIN THE RELEASES THAT I JUST MENTIONED AND THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE OR ALTERNATIVELY SEEK TO BUY THE PART OF THE PRESTIGE, THE CHAITS, AS WELL AS ROCK ISLAND OUT OF THEIR CLAIMS OR POTENTIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY.

THE STARTING POINT OF THAT DISCUSSION IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE THE NUMBER THAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE, WHICH IS THE 50 50 SPLIT BETWEEN THE THE CHAITS AND THE CITY, WHICH IS AT EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

SO THAT'S YOUR STARTING POINT.

THAT'S YOUR BASEMENT FROM A REALISTIC STANDPOINT.

AND IT CAN GO UP FROM THERE AT ANY POINT.

BUT AGAIN, AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON POINTED OUT, THAT'S A BUSINESS DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO GO THE ROUTE THEY WANT TO GO.

AND THAT ALSO PRESUMES THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTERTAIN THAT CONSIDERATION OF THAT ALTERNATIVE.

THANK YOU.

SO AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY COMMENTS.

APPRECIATE YOURS, SO I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S A TENDENCY TO TRY TO MAKE FACTS, FICTION BE FACTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A VACUUM.

AND THIS IS A 10 YEAR SITUATION.

WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PRIOR COMMISSION AS WE SEE SOMEBODY LEAVING THE DIAS AREA AS WE TRY TO SPEAK.

SO IT'S NOT AS EASY.

IT'S NOT IN A VACUUM.

THERE'S A WHOLE THING PRESENTED TO US ON FACTS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND THE JUDGMENT OF IT ALL IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAD IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN YOU WERE SHARING ABOUT THE FIRST CITY YOU WERE DEALING WITH? THAT WAS AN INTERNAL ISSUE.

THIS COMES FROM A MAJOR ISSUE IN OUR CITY THAT STEM FROM 2006, 2007 WITH A GOLF COURSE THAT WAS BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND AS YOU ARE VERY WELL FAMILIAR WITH, THERE IS ALWAYS LITIGATION THAT DEALS WITH GOLF COURSES BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND IT IS NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE AND IT IS NOT AS CUT AND DRY AS EVERYBODY WISHES IT TO BE.

WE'RE ALSO DEALING WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS ELECTRICAL OVERHEAD AND IN A SHAPE THAT IT IS NOT VERY EASY TO CONTEND WITH.

AND WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY ACTIVE AND BUSY ROAD.

AND WHILE SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE SELECTIVE MEMORIES, SOME OF US WERE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE IT BE BOUGHT OUT AT THE TIME IN 2018.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.

WE WERE DEALT A HAND THAT HAD A SITE THAT WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED, THE FIRE STATION THAT WE COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE.

WE HAD TO COME UP WITH THE BEST DECISION WE POSSIBLY COULD FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT, AS I SAID, IS ODDLY SHAPED, BUSY CORNER AND HAS WHEN THE REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION CAME TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SETTLEMENT AND OPTIONS WERE GIVEN TO OUR CITY ATTORNEYS, CITY STAFF AND THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN IT.

THE.

SORRY.

WHEN WHEN THIS WAS DONE, WE ASKED FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD FOR OTHER FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

COULDN'T ACCEPT IT WITH THE LAYOUT WAS WHETHER THEY WERE GAS STATIONS, WHETHER THEY WERE RESTAURANTS.

WE'VE DISCUSSED AT NAUSEUM ABOUT THE PARK FACILITIES AND HOW EVEN WITH A LINEAR PARK, THE IDEA OF HAVING ANOTHER PARK RIGHT THERE WITH POWER LINES, PEOPLE WEREN'T GOING TO COME TO IT.

AND THE BEST USES AND WE COULDN'T DO IT FOR OUR PARK BECAUSE THE COUNTY COMMISSION AT THAT TIME SPECIFICALLY SAID FIRE STATION, ONLY.

THEY WOULD NOT GIVE US OTHER MUNICIPAL USES.

SO THROUGH ALL THIS, THE BEST DECISIONS WERE MADE AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE MADE OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD, AND THAT WAS FOR THE STORAGE UNIT.

THE PROPERTY VALUES HAD GONE UP TREMULOUSLY FROM WHEN WE ORIGINALLY WERE TOLD THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY WORTH EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND TO NOW.

[02:20:07]

IT WAS WORTH ONE POINT SEVENTY FIVE, WHICH IS A TREMENDOUS.

I THINK COMPLIMENT.

CAN ANYBODY ELSE HEAR? WE'RE BACK ON.

I NEED TO ASK FOR A MINUTE TO JUST DO SOMETHING ON MY END.

SO I'M PUTTING THIS MEETING IN RECESS MR. CERNECH, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO SEE A PASSING OF THE VIRTUAL GAVEL.

I KNOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN WISHED FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, BUT CANCER OR THIS WILL NOT MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

SO ANYWAY, WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

SO AS I WAS SAYING BEFORE, TECHNOLOGY DECIDED TO HAVE ITS OWN LITTLE PAUSE BUTTON.

DECISIONS ARE MADE WITH THE BEST INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AND THE BEST INFORMATION THAT WE CAN DO.

I UNDERSTAND THAT ALSO STATISTICS ARE NICE AND SKEWED SOMETIMES.

98 PERCENT IS REALLY A LOT.

BUT FORTY NINE PEOPLE TOTAL OUT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ON FACEBOOK AND ON NEXT DOOR WERE THE ONES WHO RESPONDED.

I LOOKED AT IT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE UPSET, BUT EVEN AS SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON NEXT DOOR SAID, WHY ARE WE REVISITING THIS? WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE AND.

THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE.

SO AS FOR THE QUESTIONS REGARDING CONTAMINATION AND FOR A RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT WAS BUILT, THEY HAD TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR THOSE COMMUNITIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT.

THIS ONE LAST PIECE OF PARCEL THAT WAS LEFT OVER FOR THE FIRE STATION HAS CONTAMINATION ON IT.

SO WE HAVE FOUND OUT.

ANYBODY WHO DOES A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHO SIGNS A CONTRACT HAS TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS RAISED IN THE LAWSUIT THAT ROCK ISLAND STORAGE BROUGHT FORTH, BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE'S ARSENIC ON GOLF COURSES, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A WHILE.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, AND WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS ON THIS CALL, SO I WILL.

CITY MANAGER, YOU NEED A, YOU HAVE A COMMENT? GOT TO UNMUTE FIRST PLEASE.

MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING, BUT AFTER YOU'RE FINISHED, MADAM MAYOR .

YOU GOT IT.

SO.

THERE ARE SOME THERE ARE NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS WHO CAN HELP WITH THESE QUESTIONS, IF NEED BE.

THE TIME.

THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO POSSIBLY BUY OUT THE CHAITS, POSSIBLY HAVE TO BUY OUT THE STORAGE UNIT.

MY CONCERN IS CONTEMPT OF COURT.

WOULDN'T THERE BE FINES? WOULDN'T THERE BE ISSUES? THIS IS NOT JUST A REGULAR CONTRACT THAT WE ARE SAYING, HEY, MAYBE WE HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART.

THIS IS A SETTLEMENT OVER 10 YEARS TIME WORKING ON THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT.

WOULD WE BE POTENTIALLY IN CONTEMPT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE OUR MINDS AT THIS TIME? MADAM MAYOR, I THINK I COULD TAKE THAT QUESTION.

PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU.

SURE.

YEAH, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL CONTRACT.

IT HAS IT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO TO RESOLVE SOME LITIGATION.

IT'S BEEN FILED WITH THE COURT.

THE COURT HAS APPROVED IT.

THE COURT HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE IT.

SO IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION UNLESS PRESTIGE HOMES WOULD AGREE TO SCRAP THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

THE COURT WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO ENFORCE IT AND WOULD BE ABLE TO USE ITS POWERS, BE THEY CONTEMPT IF NECESSARY, ALTHOUGH THAT HOPEFULLY WOULD NEVER BE REQUIRED OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

BUT CERTAINLY THEY COULD JUST SIMPLY ORDER THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH IT.

SO THAT'S WHY PRESTIGE WOULD HAVE INCREDIBLE BARGAINING POWER TO SCRAP THE

[02:25:02]

SETTLEMENT.

THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEMAND UNREASONABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, OR THEY COULD JUST SIMPLY REFUSE ALTOGETHER.

IN WHICH CASE, IF THEY REFUSED, THEN THEY COULD DEMAND THAT THE COURT ENFORCE IT.

AND THE COURT THEN WHAT THE COURT WOULD DO IS ENTER AN ORDER DEMANDING THAT THE CITY COMPLY WITH WHAT IT AGREED TO DO.

AND THEN IF THE CITY DID NOT, THEN IT COULD USE OTHER POWERS, INCLUDING THE CONTEMPT POWER YOU MENTIONED, TO OBTAIN ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO.

WOULD ALSO, THE COUNTY HAVE ANY ABILITY TO COME BACK AFTER THE CITY OF TAMANAC AS IT MADE ITS DECISION TO REVERSE THE LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS BASED ON A SETTLEMENT THAT WAS PUT BEFORE THE COURT AND THE AGREEMENT BY THE CITY TO DO WHAT IT PROPOSED IN THE SETTLEMENT? SO THE PLAT NOTE RESTRICTION, WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY, I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. GOREN WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE PLAT NOTE CURRENTLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO A SELF STORAGE FACILITY OR WHETHER IT RESTRICTS IT TO A COMMERCIAL USE.

I'M NOT SURE OF THAT.

CERTAINLY LOTS OF MONEY WAS EXPENDED BY ROCK ISLAND TO, THE CITY DIDN'T SPEND THAT MONEY , THE CHAITS DIDN'T SPEND THAT MONEY.

BUT LOTS OF MONEY AND TIME WAS SPENT TO GET THE COUNTY TO CHANGE THE RESTRICTIVE NOTE ON THE PLAT FROM A FIRE STATION TO WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS THERE.

BUT WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN EFFECTING THAT CHANGE.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS THERE.

I'M PRETTY SURE THAT I MEANT IF IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED IN ORDER FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THIS SETTLEMENT.

MY CONCERN WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY COULD COME FORTH WITH A CLAIM AGAINST US AS WELL DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY THAT IF IT CHANGED THIS SPECIFIC NOTE BASED ON THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THAT WE WOULD THEN NOT BE MOVING FORWARD WITH.

IT MAY BE A QUESTION YOU CAN'T ANSWER.

IT MAY BE A QUESTION THAT NONE OF THE ATTORNEYS CAN ANSWER.

AND I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE AS A AS A CONCERN.

THAT I'M NOT SURE OF THAT AND I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER THAT.

I'M SORRY.

WELL, IF WE HAVE TO CROSS THAT BRIDGE, WE'LL ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

MR. YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'S YOUR CALL IF YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED.

NO, I IMPLICITLY TRUST MR. BURKE'S RESPONSE.

THANK YOU.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS ALSO I THROW THAT OUT THERE AND IT MAY WIND UP BEING A MORE RHETORICAL ONE, BUT THE REPUTATION OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE AND BEING ABLE TO BE TRUSTED IN BARGAINING, WHETHER IT BE BARGAINING WITH OUR EMPLOYEES FOR PENSION, WHETHER BE BARGAINING WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTRACTING WITH OUR CITY OR THROUGH ANY OTHER KIND OF LAWSUITS.

WOULD ANY KIND OF REVERSAL OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NEW PEOPLE ON A COMMISSION BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO HAVE OUR REPUTATION NOT BE SULLIED? I THINK MR. GOREN WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST TO DEAL WITH THAT HE KNOWS A LOT MORE ABOUT MUNICIPALITIES AND THAT THAN I MADAM MAYOR.

OK.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY? ARE YOU STILL AVAILABLE TO SPEAK WITH US AT THIS TIME, AND IF NOT? MAY I SPEAK? I'M ACTUALLY IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BECAUSE MY IPAD DIED AND THE BATTERY WOULDN'T CHARGE WHILE I WAS PLUGGING IT IN AND MY DESKTOP DOES NOT HAVE A MICROPHONE, SO I MIGRATED TO THE MANAGER'S OFFICE.

I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN SEE ME, BUT I'M HERE AND I HAVE NOT MISSED A BEAT ON MY IPOD.

JUST DIED REGRETTABLY.

IF YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, I'LL TRY TO BEST RESPOND.

I APPRECIATE THE THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I THINK WE ALL SOME OF US HAVE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD THE ABILITY TO KEEP OUR EQUIPMENT ON OUR BATTERY PACKED AND ENERGIZED BUT FOR SOME REASON THE BATTERY WILL NOT RECHARGE AND I CAN'T GET SO.

TECHNOLOGY.

WELL GLAD YOU HAVE ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS.

THE QUESTION BASICALLY IS THIS, AND IT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT RHETORICAL, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT, BUT THE CONCERN THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE IF WE WERE TO DETERMINE WITH A NEW COMMISSION TO REMOVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD.

SOMETHING THAT WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

BUT NOW LATER ON, WITH A NEW COMMISSION COMING TO REVERSE THAT DECISION, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO HAVE BARGAINING POWER AND ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO TRUST US AT OTHER NEGOTIATIONS? WHETHER IT BE OUR EMPLOYEES THROUGH PENSION NEGOTIATIONS, WHETHER IT BE OTHER SETTLEMENT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY OR WITH ANY OUTSIDE COUNSEL OR

[02:30:01]

DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTS WE WOULD HAVE TO ENTER INTO? MADAM MAYOR, THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS MINDED QUESTION, WHICH I AM NOT ABLE TO ANSWER.

IT IS ONE WHICH IS REALLY IN THE REALM OF THE COMMISSION.

IT'S A POLICY DRIVEN DISCUSSION.

IT IS SOMETHING WHICH IS INHERENT IN YOUR AUTHORITY AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

I CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCEPTION WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING TODAY AMONG LAWYERS, CONSULTANTS AND OTHERS.

IT REALLY IS YOUR EMBRACEMENT OF THAT CONCEPT, WHICH I CANNOT RESPOND TO.

I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE ENTITLEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY WHICH THIS COMMISSION OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, HOWEVER, THAT'S REALLY UP TO YOU ALL WHAT YOUR PERCEPTION OR YOUR THOUGHTS WOULD BE.

AND I WOULD BE LOATH TO RESPOND AND GUESS OR SPECULATE WHERE I THINK THAT IT'S OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT A CITY ATTORNEY CAN REALLY DO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A BONE OF CONTENTION, WHETHER IT BE FROM PEOPLE NOT WANTING THE GOLF COURSES, THETHE FIRST PLACE.

TO THE ISSUES OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A GAS STATION, BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS OFFERED TO BE A GAS STATION, PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT AS A GAS STATION.

POCKET PARK.

PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY DON'T WANT TO PARK A PARK KNOWING THAT THERE'S THE OVERHEAD WIRE AND THE FILL ON THE GROUND.

THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT GOES INTO IT.

SO THE DESIGN AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD, THE VERY PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD.

THE SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE STORAGE UNIT HAS DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS LOWER, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING, TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A CONDOMINIUM, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE RIFF-RAFF, TO MAKE SURE THAT HAVE SECURITY.

ALL THINGS THAT EVERYBODY HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH HAS BEEN LISTENED BY THIS COMMISSION, HAS BEEN LISTENED TO BY ALL PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED TO MAKE A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION THAT IT'S ALSO OUT OF ALL THE OTHER ITEMS, WAS DEEMED THE LESS TRAFFICKED FOR THIS.

SO IT WAS A DECISION.

IT WAS THE BEST DECISION THAT WAS MADE AT THE TIME.

AND IT IS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION.

AND WE ARE IN SETTLEMENT AND WE ARE MINUTES AWAY FROM IT BEING RESOLVED, 10 YEARS OF LITIGATION VERSUS OPENING THE DOOR TO HAVE POTENTIALLY ANOTHER THREE TO FIVE, MAYBE EVEN 10 MORE YEARS OF LITIGATION.

SO THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS ON THIS.

AT THIS TIME, I HAVE HEARD THAT THERE IS NOT A REQUEST FOR A VOTE.

I WILL THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME DURING THIS ALLEGED HIATUS THAT WE WERE HAVING.

I THANK YOU FOR VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION, MR. HERRON.

MR. AND WELCOME ABOARD AGAIN.

AND CITY ATTORNEY SAM, YOU KNOW THAT AGAIN.

WE WILL MISS YOU.

I WILL DEFER TO GIVE YOU THE FINAL MOMENTS ON THIS CALL.

SO IT IS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO IS SITTING IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

PLEASE PROCEED.

I KNOW THE MANAGER WANTS TO SPEAK FIRST.

I'LL JUMP OUT OF THE SEAT AND SHIELD MYSELF FROM HIM MOMENTARILY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME FINAL CLOSING COMMENTS AS WE PRE CLOSE THIS TRANSACTION.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, BUT BEFORE WE DO, CITY MANAGER, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUMP TO MR. HERRON FIRST.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE THE CITY ON IT'S SELECTION OF MR. I'VE KNOWN MR. YOU ALL.

I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH HIM AND TO AND TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

AND AND I THINK THAT THE CITY HAS MADE AN EXCELLENT CHOICE AND WOULD BE WELL SERVED WITH HIM AS YOUR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY AND WISH HIM THE BEST OF LUCK.

AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HE SAT IN TO LISTEN TO THIS.

I SEPARATELY SENT HIM AN EMAIL SAYING THAT IF YOU WANTED TO REACH OUT TO ME CONCERNING THIS MATTER, HE'S FREE TO DO SO.

AND I ALSO LAST WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION HAVING THE CONFIDENCE IN ME AND PROVIDING ME WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK AND DO THIS WORK FOR YOU ALL.

AND I'M AVAILABLE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OFFLINE AT ANY COMMISSIONER'S CONVENIENCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CITY ATTORNEY.

I'M SORRY, CITY MANAGER.

YOU WERE FIRST.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

I'M BACK.

I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON ASKED REGARDING SWIMMING POOLS IN CENTRAL PARK, MANOR PARC AND HIDDEN TRAILS.

SO I REACHED OUT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PROHIBITED AND IF SO, WHY.

AND I GOT BACK THREE DIFFERENT ANSWERS, BUT I'LL PIECE THEM TOGETHER FOR COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

THE FIRST WAS THEY WEREN'T PROHIBITED IF THEY COULD MEET THE SETBACKS.

THE SECOND WAS THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE THIRD WAS THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND THE FOURTH WAS THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS

[02:35:03]

FILED ON THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO SAFE TO SAY THEY ARE PROHIBITED.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY OTHER THAN I GOT FOUR.

I ASK A QUESTION.

I GOT PRETTY MUCH FOUR DIFFERENT ANSWERS.

BUT BETWEEN THE LOT SIZES, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, THE DRAINING AND THE DRAINAGE AND THE ENGINEERING, THEY ARE PROHIBITED IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.

I HOPE THAT HELPS.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

SITTING IN THE MANAGER'S CHAIR, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE M OH, THERE IT IS.

OK.

THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN.

ABSENT A DIRECTION OR MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THIS ACTION, AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON APTLY PLACED THE DISCUSSION EARLIER DURING THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, I WILL NOTIFY COUNSEL FOR THE BUYER AND COUNSEL FOR PRESTIGE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY IS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO FULFILL ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTION.

AS I MENTIONED DURING THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING, THE POTENTIAL WAS TO CLOSE DURING THE LATTER PART OF THIS YEAR, WHICH WOULD BE THIS WEEK, WHICH IS PROBABLY UNLIKELY BASED UPON THE SETTING A TIME WHEN I'M LIKELY THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND TO WHATEVER EXTENT AND TO WHATEVER THE NEED ARISES.

MR. AND EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED IF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT CLOSED BEFORE THE 9TH OF JANUARY, IT WILL BE DOCUMENTS TO BE SIGNED, THERE WILL BE CLOSING STATEMENTS TO BE SIGNED, ETC.. YOU KNOW, MADAM MAYOR, WE WILL KEEP THE COMMISSION FULLY APPRIZED OF THE CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION OR ITS ANTICIPATION FOR CLOSING AND CLOSING AND FUNDING THE RELATIONSHIP AND SET FORTH AND ABSENT ANY DIRECTION OR MOTION TO THE CONTRARY, WE WILL PROCEED ON YOUR BEHALF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION.

AND I THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TECHNICAL ALL IS FINE.

ALL IS GOOD.

AND AT THIS TIME IT IS 3:18.

THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR TIME.

ENJOY THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON AND VERY HAPPY AND VERY HEALTHY 2021 TO EVERYBODY.

TAKE CARE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.