Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 13TH, 7 P.M.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

CITY OF TAMARAC COMMISSION MEETING.

I'M GOING TO ASK FOR THE ROLL CALL TO BE DONE, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

GOOD EVENING, VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BOLTON REMOTELY.

GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU.

AND MAYOR GOMEZ, GOOD EVENING.

I WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY TO PLEASE STAND.

THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER GELIN AND I WILL ASK FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR AN EMPLOYEE OF OURS WHO HAS PASSED AWAY FOR ALEJANDRO DAVILA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

WE WELCOME MR. MAX LEMMON TO THE DAIS WITH US THIS EVENING, AND WE WILL NOW GO TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY

[1. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT]

REPORT.

MR. JOHN HERRON, THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I DO HAVE ONE ITEM THAT I NEED TO REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION TWO EIGHTY SIX POINT ZERO ONE ONE FLORIDA STATUTES HEREBY REQUEST AUTHORIZATION OR DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION TO SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT A SHADE MEETING WITH THIS COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING MATTER TITLED THE FEDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION VS.

CITY OF TAMARAC FMCS CASE NUMBER ONE EIGHT ZERO FIVE ZERO ONE ZERO FOUR ONE FIVE TWO.

IT'S RELATED TO A GRIEVANCE FILED BY AN EX EMPLOYEE BY THE NAME OF PEYTON WHITFIELD.

IT'S AN EMPLOYMENT MATTER WORKER'S COMP CLAIM AND NEED YOUR AUTHORIZATION TO GO AHEAD AND WORK WITH STAFF TO SCHEDULE THAT MEETING AND CONDUCT THAT SHADE MEETING.

AT THIS TIME, I NEED CONSENSUS FROM THE DAIS TO SET THIS MEETING.

VICE MAYOR YES, AND ANY TIME IS AVAILABLE.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

I DIDN'T HEAR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? IT IS A REQUEST FOR A SHADE MEETING REGARDING A MATTER THAT IS A EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE THAT'S BEEN FILED AGAINST.

THAT'S FINE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THAT'S FINE, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YES, THAT'S FINE, THANK YOU.

YOU'VE GOT CONSENSUS.

I'M GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT IF I CAN GET A RESEND OF THE LINK SO I CAN BE ABLE TO BE ON TEAMS, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING CONNECTED SO I CAN BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE.

IN THE INTERIM, WE WILL NOW GO TO THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER REPORT.

[2a. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Month]

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO WE JUST HAVE A FIRE PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAMATION THAT I BELIEVE YOU WILL READ OR SUMMARIZE AT YOUR DISCRETION.

[INAUDIBLE] SO WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION REQUESTED BY FIRE RESCUE COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION DIVISION, WHEREAS FIRE IS A SERIOUS PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN BOTH LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY AS HOME FIRES REPRESENT A GREAT RISK FOR PEOPLE.

SMOKE ALARMS ALERT YOU TO DANGER IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE IN WHICH YOU MAY HAVE AS LITTLE AS TWO MINUTES TO ESCAPE SAFELY.

WORKING SMOKE ALARMS CUT OUT THE RISK OF DYING AND REPORTING HOME FIRES IN HALF, TAMARAC RESIDENTS SHOULD BE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN THEIR HOME UNDERSTANDS THE SOUND OF THE ALARM AND KNOWS HOW TO RESPOND.

TAMARAC RESIDENTS WILL MAKE SURE THEIR SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL FAMILY MEMBERS, INCLUDING THOSE WITH SENSORY OR PHYSICAL DISABILITIES.

TAMARAC FIRE RESCUE IS DEDICATED TO REDUCING THE OCCURRENCES OF HOME FIRES AND HOME FIRE INJURIES THROUGH PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION.

THE THEME FOR THE 2021 FIRE PREVENTION MONTH IS LEARN THE SOUNDS OF FIRE SAFETY.

ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMISSION, WE DO HEREBY HEREBY PROCLAIM THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2021 AS FIRE PREVENTION MONTH IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND COMMEND COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION DIVISION FOR NOT ONLY MINIMIZING DANGERS TO GUESTS AND RESIDENTS FROM FIRE, BUT

[00:05:04]

ADOPTING ALL HAZARDS APPROACH TO PROPERTY AND LIFE SAFETY.

SO WE THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

[2b. Proclamation - Honoring Mr. Adam Dahari and Mr. Ron Barr]

SECOND ONE, OK, AND THE SECOND PROCLAMATION IS HONORING MR. ADAM DAHARI AND MR. RON BARR, AND THIS WAS REQUESTED BY FIRE MARSHAL TOMMY DEMOPOULOS.

EXCELLENT.

AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. DAHARI AND MR. BARR ARE IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT.

IS THAT CORRECT? EXCELLENT, GENTLEMEN.

WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS REVISED FORMAT OF WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR PROCLAMATIONS AND OUR APPRECIATION FOR YOUR SERVICE.

BUT I WILL READ THE PROCLAMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED.

REQUESTED BY DIVISION CHIEF FIRE MARSHAL TOMMY DIMOPOULOS, WHEREAS WHILE A MEETING WAS BEING HELD.

WAS BEING CONDUCTED AT THE COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE OF SUN VISTA APARTMENTS ON MONDAY, JULY 19, 2021 AT APPROXIMATELY 11:40 A.M.

THEY NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM A UNIT ACROSS THE POOL AREA.

AND WHEREAS MR. ADAM DAHARI, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND MR. RON BARR, A COMMUNITY ARCHITECT, WERE ATTENDING THE MEETING.

AND WHEREAS MR. DAHARI AND MR. BARR RAN INTO THE UNIT TO ASSIST A RESIDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO ENTER THE UNIT TO SAVE PETS TRAPPED INSIDE.

WHEREAS MR. DAHARI AND MR. BARR WERE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THE UNIT AND RESCUE THE ANIMALS.

AND WHEREAS MR. DAHARI AND MR. BARR ACTIONS SAVE THE PETS IN DISTRESS AND ALLOWED FIREFIGHTERS TO MANAGE THE FIRE AS THEY HAD ALREADY ENSURED THAT THE PETS WERE SAFELY REMOVED FROM THE UNIT.

AND WHEREAS MR. DAHARI AND MR. BARR EXHIBITED THE SPIRIT OF TAMARAC THINKING NOT OF THEMSELVES, BUT OF THE ANIMAL'S SAFETY, DEMONSTRATING WHAT IT TRULY MEANS TO CARE FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS.

AND NOW, THEREFORE, ON BEHALF OF THIS TAMARAC COMMISSION DO HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND COMMEND MR. ADAM DAHARI AND MR. RON BARR FOR PERFORMING UNSELFISH ACTS OF GALLANTRY AND BRAVERY BY ATTEMPTING TO SAVE LIVES AND EXEMPLIFYING THE SPIRIT OF TAMARAC.

WE THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

[APPLAUSE] AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE PROCLAMATIONS, I BELIEVE FOR YOU, I WOULD YOU LIKE A PICTURE DOWN HERE OR ARE WE GOING TO FOREGO THE PICTURE? COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE TAKING A PHOTO? OK, WE'LL BE RIGHT DOWN.

MY APOLOGIES, EVERYBODY.

ALL RIGHT.

JUST ASK FOR ANOTHER MOMENT, BECAUSE I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEE ALL THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING VIA TEAMS. EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.

I NOW HAVE THE JOIN BUTTON.

WE ARE NOW MOVING TO.

[2c. Request For Extension of the Second Public Hearing Date for the Woodlands Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA]

ITEM C.

MADAM MAYOR [INAUDIBLE].

APOLOGIES, WE'RE GOOD, MADAM MAYOR, YOU NEED TO STOP SHARING.

[00:10:04]

I'M SHARING, YES, I DIDN'T THINK I WAS UP.

I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S NOT LIKE ME.

THERE'S AN UP ARROW RIGHT NEXT TO THE LEAVE BUTTON.

YEAH, AND IT'S OFF.

MY APOLOGIES, EVERYBODY.

AND NOW I WILL TURN ON OVER TO JOHN [INAUDIBLE].

YES, MADAM MAYOR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER, I AM NOW GOING TO TURN OVER THE MEETING FROM SPECIAL COUNCILMAN MR. MAX LOHMAN AND LEAVE THE CHAMBERS FOR YOU ALL TO ATTEND TO THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU.

SO THIS ITEM IS 2C UNDER THE CITY INTERIM CITY MANAGER REPORT A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE WOODLANDS LAND USE AMENDMENT PLAN REQUESTED BY SCOTT BACKMAN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, 13TH FLOOR WOODLANDS HOME HB GP.

SO I NOW NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE FOR THIS ITEM.

SO MOVED.

SECOND, THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MR. LOHMAN, WELCOME AGAIN TO THE DAIS.

THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS MAX LOHMAN.

I'M SPECIAL COUNSEL RETAINED BY THE CITY OF TAMARAC FOR THIS ITEM RELATING TO THE LAND USE AMENDMENT THE WOODLANDS PROJECT AMENDMENT NUMBER 20-01 ESR AND 1LUA-19.

SURE.

I USUALLY DON'T GET ASKED TO SPEAK LOUDER.

NO PROBLEM.

USUALLY PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE HEARING, BUT I'LL MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU DO.

WHAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A REQUEST FROM ATTORNEY SCOTT BACKMAN ON BEHALF OF 13TH FLOOR FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.31843 C1 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

AND WHAT THAT PROVISION IN THE STATUTES ALLOWS IS AN EXTENSION OF TIME BEYOND THE 180 DAY REQUIRED TIME TO ADOPT A [INAUDIBLE] AMENDMENT AFTER IT'S BEEN TRANSMITTED.

THIS WOULD BE THEIR THIRD EXTENSION REQUEST AND THEY HAVE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION, A 10 MONTH EXTENSION PURSUANT TO THAT.

SO THE ITEM WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO GRANT THE EXTENSION, GRANT THE EXTENSION WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE EXTENSION.

AND THEN BASED UPON THAT DECISION, THEN THAT WILL PRECIPITATE FOLLOW ON DECISIONS.

IF YOU GRANT THE EXTENSION, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO SET A TIME TO DETERMINE THE TIME TO WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO EXTEND IT.

SAME THING.

IF YOU WERE GOING TO GRANT IT WITH CONDITIONS, YOU WOULD STILL WANT TO SET A TIME THAT THIS THIRD EXTENSION WOULD EXPIRE.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO DENY THE EXTENSION, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU SET THIS THE LAND USE AND ZONING PORTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR HEARING ON NOVEMBER 10TH, BECAUSE THAT'S THE NEXT YOUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION DATE.

AND IT'S ALSO THE DATE WITH WHICH WE'LL PROVIDE MORE THAN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTICE IS PROVIDED FOR THAT MEETING, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU.

I WILL NOW ASK MR. BACKMAN TO HAVE ANY REMARKS.

AND I WILL ASK EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER TO SPEAK INTO OUR MICROPHONES, PEOPLE AT HOME ARE HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING US.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, THERE WE GO.

SCOTT BACKMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING.

GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR VICE MAYOR COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON REMOTELY

[00:15:02]

APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE COURTESY TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL THIS EVENING.

WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU ON ON WHAT I WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER, AS YOU JUST HEARD FROM MR. LOHMAN.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR TO THE COMMISSION AND THEN I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH WHAT AN INTERESTING FIVE WEEKS IT'S BEEN SINCE YOUR SEPTEMBER 9TH MEETING WHERE WE ALL AGREED UPON AND THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING FORWARD TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE APPLICATIONS NEXT WEEK ON OCTOBER 20TH.

THE REQUEST IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE LAND USE AND FOR THE LAND USE ONLY.

IT IS 180 DAYS.

IT'S TO ENSURE THAT THE PROCESS IS MOVING THROUGH, THAT YOU'RE WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH ALL THE VARIOUS PARTIES AND THIS IS AFTER TRANSMITTAL.

I'M SORRY AFTER COMMENT FROM THE STATE AND PRIOR TO ADOPTION, ITS 180 DAY WINDOW.

WELL, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY TRANSMITTED CONCURRENTLY, AND SO WE USE FIVE AND A HALF OF THOSE SIX MONTHS UP JUST GETTING THROUGH A COUNTY PROCESS.

SO THERE WAS AN EXTENSION GRANTED BACK IN MAY THAT WENT THROUGH JULY, AND THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION AT THAT TIME IN DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR THEN CITY MANAGER THAT THE ITEM WAS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD DURING THAT WINDOW OF TIME.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS FURTHER DIALOG AND DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT JUST TO CLARIFY AND SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, HAS BEEN DRAFTED.

MULTIPLE VERSIONS HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH.

IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE HANDS OF THE CITY FOR REVIEW.

SO AS FAR, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, IT'S DONE, IT'S READY TO BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL BACK AND FORTH FROM WHAT I'M BEING TOLD.

AND COLLECTIVELY, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT OURSELVES, AS WELL AS CITY STAFF ARE LOOKING FOR THIS ADDITIONAL ZONING, NOT FOR LAND USE.

I'M SORRY, NOT FOR REZONING, NOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR THE SITE PLAN, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN JUST A MINUTE AS WELL.

BUT THIS IS A LAND USE SPECIFIC ISSUE.

IT HAS BEEN EXTENDED ADMINISTRATIVELY THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE TWO TIMES PREVIOUSLY AND TRUTHFULLY, IT WAS OUR EXPECTATION THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE EXTENDED A THIRD TIME ADMINISTRATIVELY.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE AND WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

LIKE I SAID, WE WERE EFFECTIVELY [INAUDIBLE].

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A NOTICE ISSUE THAT I'M SURE WE'LL TALK ABOUT READY TO PRESENT OUR LAND, USE, OUR ZONING AND OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT TIES EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING FIVE WEEKS SINCE SEPTEMBER 9TH, SEPTEMBER 9TH, YOU ALL WERE PULLED BY YOUR CITY MANAGER SO AVAILABILITY FOR EITHER OCTOBER 6TH, LAST WEEK OR OCTOBER 20TH AND ALL FIVE OF YOU AGREED OCTOBER 20TH WOULD BE THE DATE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD.

WE WERE READY, ABLE, WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD.

ABOUT A WEEK LATER, THE CITY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT WAS COMPLETELY CONTRARY AND EFFECTIVELY CHANGED THE RULES OF THE GAME FOR OUR APPLICATION, DECIDING THAT OUR APPLICATION FOR THE LAND USE WAS NOW GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AS A LEGISLATIVE ITEM RATHER THAN A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM.

I WANT TO GET INTO THE THE LEGALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THAT AS PART OF MY REQUEST.

WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT, MR. LOHMAN'S HERE AS WELL.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY A DISAGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO THAT ISSUE, AND THAT'S YET TO BE RESOLVED.

SUBSEQUENTLY, A FEW DAYS LATER, WE LEARNED THAT OUR APPLICATION EFFECTIVELY CANNOT MOVE FORWARD UNLESS OUR SITE PLAN IS READY TO GO NOW.

I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AT OUR TRANSMITTAL HEARING BACK IN JULY OF 2019, THERE WAS CONVERSATION AND AN AGREEMENT BY THE APPLICANT BY ME, SPECIFICALLY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT THAT OUR SITE PLAN WOULD BE SUBMITTED AND MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND EVERYTHING WOULD COME BACK COLLECTIVELY AT ONE TIME.

WE, I THINK WITHIN A MONTH OF MAYBE TWO MONTHS OF THAT MEETING SUBMITTED OUR SITE PLAN.

OUR SITE PLAN WENT THROUGH THE BETTER PART OF 10 TO 12 MONTHS WORTH OF BACK AND FORTH REVIEW ANALYSIS, MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH MS. CALLAWAY, MR. DOUGHERTY, YOUR FORMER CITY MANAGER, MR. CERNECH AND OTHERS, AS WELL AS DISCUSSION WITH WITH AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU AS IT RELATED TO THE DIRECTION THAT THE THE APPLICATION WAS MOVING.

THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME THAT THAT WAS ABOUT ABOUT A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR AGO, WHERE THE APPLICATIONS WERE CONTINUING TO MOVE THROUGH FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE BEING HAD WITH WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY AND IN PARTICULAR, YOUR FORMER CITY MANAGER ABOUT MOVING THE APPLICATIONS FORWARD WITHOUT FINISHING THE SITE PLAN.

CONSIDERING A LOT OF THE UNCERTAINTY, A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY, WHICH I THINK YOU'RE ALL WELL AWARE IS VERY WELL DOCUMENTED, HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING PLACE.

[00:20:01]

SOME GOOD, SOME BAD.

I THINK WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WERE GOING TO BE NECESSARY AND BRINGING FORWARD A SITE PLAN THAT MIGHT NOT LOOK LIKE THE FINAL SITE PLAN MAYBE DIDN'T MAKE THE MOST SENSE WHEN ON MULTIPLE OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS IN THIS CITY.

LAND USE, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, SO LONG AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS TIGHT ENOUGH WITH A MASTER SITE PLAN AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER PROVISIONS OBLIGATING THE DEVELOPER TO DO THE THINGS HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO COULD MOVE FORWARD.

AND SO THAT IS THE REASON THAT THERE HAS NOT.

THE SITE PLANS BEEN A WORK IN PROGRESS.

IS THE SITE PLAN THROUGH THE DRC PROCESS AND READY TO MOVE FORWARD, IT IS NOT.

WE LEARNED, I DON'T KNOW THREE WEEKS AGO THAT THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTE MUST AND NECESSITY, OR WE'D BE MOVING FORWARD WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF DENIAL AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER ISSUES THAT, LOOK, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A FAIR HEARING.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR OUR DUE PROCESS.

WE WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IF WE NEED TO MOVE IT FORWARD AS ONE FULL PACKAGE WITH THE SITE PLAN, WE ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT.

I THINK MS. CALLOWAY WOULD TELL YOU, I WILL CERTAINLY TELL YOU IT'S NOT THROUGH DRC.

IT'S CAN'T BE IN FRONT OF YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY.

IT CAN'T BE IN FRONT OF YOU ON NOVEMBER 10TH, IF THE SITE PLAN ITSELF HAS TO BE A PART OF THAT.

SO YOU'VE GOT QUASI JUDICIAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES, YOU'VE GOT A SITE PLAN ISSUE.

AND THEN CAME THIS DISCUSSION AS A RESULT OF THOSE TWO ITEMS, AND I SUBMITTED A LETTER ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO EXPECTING AN UNDERSTANDING AND HAVING BEEN TOLD AND REAFFIRMED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT THE EXTENSION WAS GOING TO BE GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY, JUST AS THE OTHERS HAD BEEN ON THE EVE OF A WEEKEND THAT CHANGED AS WELL.

THAT WAS A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AGO.

AT THE SAME TIME, CORRESPONDENCE WAS PROVIDED TO ME BY MS. CALLAWAY AT ABOUT 7 O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY EVENING.

I DID NOT RECEIVE IT UNTIL MONDAY MORNING BECAUSE IT ENDED UP IN QUARANTINE FOR A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REASONS.

REGARDLESS, IT WAS 7 O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY EVENING OR FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING THAT I RECEIVED THE EMAIL TELLING US DECISIONS HAVE CHANGED.

YOU ARE MOVING FORWARD ON OCTOBER 20TH, GET THE NOTICE OUT WELL, THERE'S A CONSULTANT THAT DOES THE NOTICE.

IT'S THE SAME CONSULTANT THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR THE BETTER PART OF FOUR YEARS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT HAS SENT COUNTY NOTICE, CITY NOTICE, ET CETERA.

AND THAT CONSULTANT WAS TOLD BY THE CITY, STOP NO NOTICE.

YOU DON'T NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

THE ITEM IS BEING POSTPONED.

AND MONDAY MORNING WE REACHED OUT TO THE CONSULTANT AGAIN, AND SHE SAID THERE'S NO WAY I CAN GET THIS OUT BY THE END OF THE DAY ON TUESDAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE MET YOUR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO NOTICE WAS NOT MADE.

IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT OR PROPER FOR THE OCTOBER 20TH MEETING.

SO YOU'VE GOT FOUR ISSUES OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FIVE WEEKS THAT HAVE BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK IN CONCERT WITH MR. LOHMAN, WITH MS. CALLAWAY, WITH MS. GUNN HAVING A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

LIKE I SAID, ALL WE WANT AT THE END OF THE DAY IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS APPLICATION.

IT MAY GET VOTED FOR, IT MAY GET VOTED AGAINST, BUT WE'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WHAT WE ARE NOW BEING TOLD IS GOING TO BE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL APPLICATION.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT NOW IS A LAND USE AMENDMENT, A REZONING, BOTH OF WHICH ARE READY TO GO, AS YOU HEARD FROM MR. LOHMAN.

A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED AND MY CLIENTS CONCERNED, IS READY TO GO FORWARD BEFORE YOU AND OUR SITE PLAN.

THE SITE PLAN WILL NOT BE READY.

AT A MINIMUM, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE PROBABLY TWO MORE ROUNDS OF REVIEW, AND THAT'S ONCE WE GET IT READY TO MAKE A RESUBMITTAL 30 TO 45 DAYS PLUS ROUNDS OF REVIEW PLUS TIME TO ADDRESS COMMENTS, PLUS TIME TO RESUBMIT, PLUS A PLANNING BOARD MEETING BECAUSE THAT IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE PROCESS BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO YOU ALL.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR 10 MONTHS IF IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT AND YOU SAY, COME BACK TO US AND TELL US WHERE YOU ARE IN SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT, THAT'S FINE TOO.

ALL I WANT IS DUE PROCESS FOR MY CLIENT AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO ALL OF YOU WITH THOSE APPLICATIONS.

AND I DON'T I KNOW THAT THAT IS WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO THAT AS WE SIT HERE TODAY.

THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE AS IT RELATES TO IT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I AM NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES, SO ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? COMMISSIONER GELIN AND ACTUALLY, BEFORE I BEGIN COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I KNOW YOU'RE IN THE SKY.

IT'S THE SAME THING AS WE ALWAYS DO.

IF YOU HAVE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE LITTLE ICON AND I'LL SEE YOU.

THANK YOU.

I UNDERSTAND MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.

FIRST QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND OR CITY MANAGER.

WHY IS THIS UNDER THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER REPORT VERSUS BEING ON THE REGULAR AGENDA? BECAUSE THIS IS AN ITEM THAT SHE'S ASKING DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION ON.

THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT COMMUNICATION GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN MS. GUNN MYSELF AND SEVERAL OF YOU WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD BE APPROVED.

THE EXTENSION WOULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY OR NOT, OR WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD COME TO YOU.

AND I WILL ADMIT THAT WHEN I FIRST MET WITH THREE OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD DECIDED BY CONSENSUS OR

[00:25:01]

OTHERWISE.

ON SEPTEMBER 6TH.

I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT YOU WERE SETTING THE MEETING FOR THE 20TH.

AND THAT BEING THE CASE, IT CHANGED MY ADVICE TO THE CITY.

BUT SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD SET THAT DATE AND ESTABLISHED THE DATE, I DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO JUST UNILATERALLY DETERMINE THAT THAT MEETING WASN'T GOING TO OCCUR.

WHERE I THOUGHT PRIOR TO THAT WE I THINK WE COULD HAVE, I THINK THE STAFF COULD HAVE DONE IT.

AND SINCE THE NECESSITY.

WELL, SINCE THE THE NEED TO NOT CONDUCT THAT HEARING BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT PREPARED.

THAT'S WHAT PRECIPITATED NOT HAVING THE MEETING IS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FULL APPLICATION, AS WAS ALLUDED TO, THAT WAS PROMISED AT FIRST AT FIRST READING OF THE TRANSMITTAL STAGE THAT THEN BROUGHT THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION.

BY MY ESTIMATION, TO BE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO WHETHER OR NOT.

WHAT YOU DO WITH THE APPLICATION, SO RATHER THAN JUST CANCELING THE MEETING, IT SEEMED AT THAT POINT INSTEAD OF IT BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

OK, SO IF THE COMMISSION DID NOT VOTE ON THE OCTOBER 20TH DATE, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVELY RESCHEDULED OR PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH AN EXTENSION? I THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SOUND GROUNDS FOR DOING IT ADMINISTRATIVELY LIKE THEY HAD BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY, THE PREVIOUS TWO EXTENSIONS.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

I KNOW THE SECOND ONE WAS I WAS INVOLVED WITH I KNOW THE SECOND ONE WAS GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS AS WELL.

AND SINCE AT TRANSMITTAL.

THE REQUIREMENT FROM THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WAS MADE PART OF THAT DECISION, AND BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN AND IT HADN'T BEEN SUBMITTED, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GRANT THE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE THEM TIME TO PRESENT THE SITE PLAN SO THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION, AS WAS REQUESTED AT FIRST READING AT THE TRANSMITTAL STAGE.

WHAT WHAT CITIES DO YOU SERVE AS CITY ATTORNEY CURRENTLY? CURRENTLY, I'M THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS AND THE TOWN OF LANTANA, AND I'M GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE WEST PALM BEACH DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND I WAS FORMERLY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I ALSO REPRESENTED THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH.

AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THOSE CITIES, DID STAFF PROVIDE EXTENSIONS TO APPLICANTS OR DID THEIR COMMISSIONS OR ELECTED BODY PROVIDE OR APPROVE EXTENSIONS? IT WOULD ALWAYS BE ITS VERY FACT SPECIFIC.

IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT TYPE OF EXTENSION WAS BEING GRANTED OR REQUESTED RATHER AND WHETHER OR NOT A MEETING HAD BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED IF A MEETING HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC.

AND SOMEBODY ASKED FOR AN AN APPLICANT ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION.

I HAVE ALWAYS ADVISED THE CITY TO REQUIRE THEM TO HOLD THAT PUBLIC MEETING AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT EXTENSION AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

AND SINCE THE PUBLIC HAD BEEN WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, THEN THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THAT MEETING AND BE HEARD BECAUSE OSTENSIBLY ONCE NOTICE IS IS PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR CODE AND STATE LAW, PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN IT MAKE THEY CHANGE THEIR SCHEDULES.

THEY ADJUST AROUND IF IT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM SO THEY CAN SHOW UP AND BE HEARD.

NOW WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS ALSO ADVISED THEM AT THOSE MEETINGS IN EVERY CITY THAT I HAVE EVER REPRESENTED.

BESIDES THE ONE THAT I REPRESENT NOW, I THE FIRM THAT I USED TO BE WITH, WE REPRESENTED 12 DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES IN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND I'VE SAT ON THE DAIS FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM.

AND WHAT I WOULD ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE IS WELL, THE APPLICANT IS NOT GOING TO PRESENT STAFF IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION EITHER.

BUT IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU WANT TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL.

WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

AND WE'LL PROVIDE THAT TO THE TO THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR THEM FOR CONSIDERATION.

BUT YOU WILL FORGO THE OPPORTUNITY OF SPEAKING AGAIN WHEN IT COMES BACK.

AND I'VE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED MY ELECTED OFFICIALS TO GRANT THOSE EXTENSIONS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

IF YOU KNOW, IF AN APPLICATION WAS, IF THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING SOME REASON THAT THE APPLICATION WAS DELAYED OR INCOMPLETE.

OK, AND AT WHAT POINT DID YOU LEARN THAT BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU MET WITH ME AND THE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS? AT WHAT POINT DID YOU LEARN THAT IT WAS THIS CITY COMMISSION THAT DETERMINED THE OCTOBER 20TH DATE? IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I LEARNED THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHED THE OCTOBER 20TH DATE.

THE DAY I MET WITH, I BELIEVE I MET WITH YOU AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS ON THE SAME DAY.

SEPARATE TIMES, OF COURSE, I MET WITH THE WITH COMMISSIONER PLACKO AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND THE MAYOR, I BELIEVE, A WEEK PREVIOUSLY.

AND I LEARNED OF THAT IN THE AFTERNOON.

I THINK IT WAS LATER IN THE AFTERNOON OR THE EARLY EVENING.

I THINK THAT THAT DAY, THE 29TH, I BELIEVE.

OK.

AND THAT'S WHAT I BECAME AWARE OF IT.

THANK YOU, MR. BACKMAN.

I'M LOOKING AT YOUR LETTER WHERE YOU'RE STATING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS INFORMED BY CITY STAFF THAT THE OCTOBER 20TH HEARING WOULD NOT PROCEED FORWARD AND THAT

[00:30:03]

STAFF'S CONCURRENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.

ON WHAT DATE WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE MEETING WILL NO LONGER BE HELD ON OCTOBER 20TH? WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE LETTER, IS IT THE 20, WHILE YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? MS. GUNN ON WHAT DATE WAS THE COMMISSION INFORMED THAT THE OCTOBER 20TH HEARING WOULD NO LONGER BE HELD ON THAT DATE? THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY IN EACH OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE HELD WITH MAX AND EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY, THAT WAS THE PREMISE UNDER WHICH WE WERE PROCEEDING.

OK? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DATE MAX OR MS. GUNN? I CAN LOOK ON MY CALENDAR.

I BELIEVE THAT.

WAS THAT SEPTEMBER 30TH MS. CALLOWAY? 29TH, 29TH IS WHEN WE MET WITH IS WHEN WE MET WITH YOURSELF AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS AND WE MET WITH YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON I BELIEVE IT WAS ALMOST EXACTLY A WEEK BEFORE.

WE MET WITH THE MAYOR COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND COMMISSIONER PLACKO ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, AND THEN WE MET WITH VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS AND COMMISSIONER GELIN ON THE 29TH.

OK.

AND THAT'S WHERE QUESTIONS CAME UP.

EXCUSE ME, I JUST WAS ASKING IF YOU WOULD REPEAT YOUR QUESTION OF THE DATE OF IF I HEARD YOUR QUESTION WAS THE DATE OF WHEN WE WERE TOLD IT WAS NOT GOING FORWARD, CORRECT? SO THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED WHAT WHEN WAS THE COMMISSION ADVISED THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD? RIGHT.

AND IT WAS AN INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS.

SO WE MET WITH THREE OF YOU ON THE 20TH AND THE OTHER TWO ON THE 29TH.

THE COMMISSION WAS ADVISED IN AN EMAIL ON OCTOBER 1ST THAT IT WAS NOT GOING FORWARD BECAUSE OCTOBER 20TH MEETING SEPTEMBER 20TH MEETINGS, WE WERE NOT ADVISED THAT IT WAS, SO SEPTEMBER 20TH.

WE WERE ADVISING YOU THAT IT WAS STILL ADMINISTRATIVE.

THAT WAS THE DIRECTION UNDER WHICH WE WERE MEETINGS WITH EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY UNTIL THE 29TH WHERE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION ITSELF SHOULD DECIDE ABOUT ANY EXTENSION.

SO UP UNTIL THAT POINT, THE STAFF WAS PROCEEDING WITH MAX'S GUIDANCE THAT BECAUSE THE OTHER TWO HAD BEEN GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE SHOULD DO THE SAME.

RIGHT AND IF I WAS ASKING COMMISSIONER GELIN TO CLARIFY, WHEN WAS THE COMMISSION NOTIFIED? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS, RIGHT? THE COMMISSION WAS NOTIFIED OCTOBER 1ST.

THANK YOU.

AN EMAIL WAS SENT TO ALL OF YOU AROUND 6:45 ADVISING YOU THAT IN FACT, RATHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION, IT WOULD BE DONE BY YOU ALL.

AND I WAS INFORMED ON THE 29TH WHEN I MET WITH MS. GUNN AND MAX AND MS. CALLOWAY.

SO MR. BACKMAN, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU REQUESTED A DATE OF OCTOBER 20TH? YOU WERE HERE, YOU AGREE TO THE DATE OF OCTOBER 20TH BACK IN SEPTEMBER.

SURE.

IF I MAY, I THINK AT ONE POINT UNDER THE FORMER CITY MANAGER, THIS MEETING WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO GO FORWARD THIS EVENING WITH WITH THIS BEING THE ONLY ITEM THAT THAT WAS SOME TIME BACK IN AUGUST, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A POLLING.

OBVIOUSLY, I WAS CONSULTED.

MY CLIENT WAS CONSULTED.

THAT DIDN'T WORK FOR SOME REASONS.

I THINK ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS NOT PRESENT AND WANTED TO BE.

AND SO IN DISCUSSIONS, I BELIEVE SUBSEQUENTLY WITH WITH MS. GUNN, WE PROVIDED TWO DATES OCTOBER 6TH LAST WEEK AND OCTOBER 20TH.

I BELIEVE THE CITY DETERMINED THAT MR. LOHMAN WAS AVAILABLE ON THOSE DATES THAT MY CLIENT AND I WERE AVAILABLE ON THOSE DATES.

AND I BELIEVE THOSE TWO DATES WERE PRESENTED TO ALL OF YOU BACK ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

AND YOU ALL SAID THAT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS THAT YOU ALL WERE AVAILABLE AND WANTED TO DO THE MEETING ON THE 20TH.

SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES, AND AS I INDICATED UNTIL AFTER THAT AND FOR DIFFERENT EVENTS OCCURRED, THAT COMPLETELY CHANGED THE RULES OF THE GAME ON HOW WE'VE BEEN PROCESSING THIS APPLICATION.

WE WERE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO PROCEED ON OCTOBER 20TH.

I THINK A LOT OF THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN OVER THE LAST FIVE WEEKS.

OK.

SO WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE MEETING WAS GOING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 20TH, AT WHAT POINT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NOTICES WENT OUT TO THE AFFECTED PARTIES? YEAH, SURE.

IN PREPARATION FOR THAT OCTOBER 20TH DATE.

SURE SO WE HAVE WE HAVE A CONTRACT OR MY CLIENT HAS A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY THAT'S VERY REPUTABLE THAT'S BEEN DOING NOTICE IN BROWARD COUNTY FOR DECADES THAT IT'S IN PLACE.

IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS MEETING AND THEY NEED TO GET THE NOTICE OUT BY A SPECIFIC

[00:35:01]

DATE.

THEY WERE ACTUALLY WORKING ON THAT NOTICE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE THEY SPECIFICALLY WOULD HAVE SENT IT.

IT WOULD HAVE GONE OUT ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 5TH, WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT UNDER YOUR CODE TO ENSURE THAT NOTICE IS SUFFICIENT AND NOTICE IS PROPER.

THEY WERE ADVISED BY THE CITY ON OCTOBER 29TH I'M SORRY, SEPTEMBER 29TH, I BELIEVE WAS THE DATE IT WAS A WEDNESDAY THAT THE MEETING'S NOT MOVING FORWARD.

I'VE SEEN THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT IS THE ADVICE THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT THEY WERE GIVEN.

THEY STOPPED.

IT WAS NOT UNTIL ABOUT 9:30 OR 10 O'CLOCK ON MONDAY MORNING AFTER SPEAKING WITH MS. CALLOWAY AND SEEING THE BACK AND FORTH IN THE EMAIL THAT MAYOR GOMEZ JUST REFERENCED FROM OCTOBER 1ST THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE ON OCTOBER 1ST, IT WAS SINCE I DID NOT RECEIVE IT ON OCTOBER 1ST THAT THEY NEEDED TO GET NOTICE OUT BY THE NEXT DAY, THEY SAID.

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THAT KIND OF NOTICE FOR THAT MANY PEOPLE.

THE CITY AND AGAIN, EVERYONE WAS OPERATING UNDER A CERTAIN DIRECTION.

BUT THE CITY HAD NOT PROVIDED THE NOTICES THAT NEEDED TO GO OUT THAT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.

AND SO THE NOTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN READY POTENTIALLY TO START STUFFING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THE CONSULTANT WOULD HAVE HAD TO DO AROUND 4 O'CLOCK ON MONDAY AFTERNOON.

THEY SAID, SORRY, OUR CONTRACT SAYS FIVE DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE.

AND SO THAT IS WHY NOTICE DID NOT GO OUT, BUT WE DID EVERYTHING WE CAN AS DILIGENTLY AS WE COULD ONCE WE FOUND OUT TO TRY AND KEEP THINGS MOVING FORWARD.

OK.

AND THEN YOU REFERENCE THE RULES BEING CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME AS IT RELATES TO THE DESIGNATION OF A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT BEING LEGISLATIVE VERSUS A QUASI JUDICIAL.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF OUR SUBSTITUTE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THIS MATTER? WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

I RESPECT MAX VERY MUCH.

I AGREE WITH THE POSITION HE IS TAKING ON THE CITY'S BEHALF.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE TYPICALLY LEGISLATIVE.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT FOR A VERY GOOD REASON.

THIS CITY CHANGE THAT AND IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, WHICH YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE.

MY LEGAL OPINION, NOT MR. LOHMAN'S.

AND YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC WILL BE HELD AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, HOLDING EVERYONE THAT IS INVOLVED IN THAT HEARING TO A HIGHER STANDARD, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THERE WERE ISSUES ON A COUPLE OF LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE CITY BACK IN 2004 AND 2005.

SO YES, I AGREE.

I DISAGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE LEGISLATIVE, ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR PLANNING BOARD MEETING OUR FIRST CITY COMMISSION MEETING WERE BOTH HELD AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS ON OUR LAND USE LAND AMENDMENT.

YOUR THEN CITY ATTORNEY GAVE DIRECTION ON THE RECORD THAT THE LAND USE APPLICATION WAS QUASI JUDICIAL.

SO UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE OUR TUNE AND OUR POSITION AS IT RELATES TO THE NATURE OF OUR HEARING.

I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE POSITION THAT YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS TAKEN.

HE'S NOT WRONG UNDER STATE LAW, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR MATTER.

I DON'T THINK ANY COURT HAS EVER SEEN HIM OR RULED ON HIM, AND I THINK OUR POSITION IS PRETTY STRONG.

GENTLEMEN, BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE MOVE INTO YOUR MICROPHONES I AM BEING ASKED FOR YOU TO SPEAK LOUDER, PLEASE THANK YOU.

OH ME.

SO ARE YOU SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SECTION 2-369 QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE THE FOLLOWING MATTERS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE FINAL DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OR BOARD SHALL BE CONSIDERED A QUASI JUDICIAL AND ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS SITE SPECIFIC LAND USE AMENDMENTS.

MR. MAX LOHMAN CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION AS IT CONTRASTS WITH MR. BACKMAN? CERTAINLY.

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN PREVIOUS EMAILS, I CAN READ THOSE IF YOU WANT.

WELL, I HAVE REFERENCED IT'S THE MARTIN COUNTY [INAUDIBLE] AND IT'S A 1997 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE.

AND THAT CASE SAYS EMPHATICALLY.

IT WAS EMPHATICALLY DECLARED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT THAT LAND USE AMENDMENT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE LEGISLATIVE.

WHERE I DISAGREE WITH MR. BACKMAN IS THAT I DO NOT AGREE THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN BUY LEGISLATIVE CAPRICE.

CHANGE THE FORMAT OF A HEARING THAT HAS BEEN THE FORMAT OF WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.

THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.

AND HERE'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR MY OPINION.

THE REASONING GIVEN PROVIDED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IS THAT A LEGISLATIVE MATTER IS A MATTER IS IS A HEARING AT WHICH YOU ESTABLISH A GENERAL POLICY OR RULE.

AND WHEN YOU APPLY THAT GENERAL POLICY OR RULE, THEN YOU USE QUASI JUDICIAL

[00:40:02]

PROCEDURES TO DO SO.

SO WHETHER YOU TAKE TESTIMONY AT A LEGISLATIVE HEARING UNDER OATH OR OTHERWISE, THE DECISION IS STILL QUASI IS STILL LEGISLATIVE, NOT QUASI JUDICIAL.

AND THE REASON THAT IT IS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STANDARDS TO APPLY.

YOU ARE NOT APPLYING A RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO A SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU ARE ESTABLISHING THE RULE THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OR THE PRESENTATION IS TAKEN UNDER OATH OR NOT DOESN'T CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE DECISION.

AND IT'S MY OPINION THAT A ELECTED BODY CANNOT SUDDENLY CHANGE THE NATURE OF THAT WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEY PASSED A PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN THEIR CODE.

AND THAT'S NO DISRESPECT TO YOUR, YOUR PRIOR CITY ATTORNEY OR YOUR PRIOR COMMISSIONS THAT VOTED ON IT OR MR. BACKMAN, FOR THAT MATTER.

IT'S JUST THAT I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MUNICIPALITY OR A COUNTY HAS THE FREEDOM TO ADOPT SUCH LEGISLATION, AND THEN THAT WOULD SUDDENLY MAKE IT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.

ALSO, EVEN IN THE LEGISLATION THAT IS ADOPTED, THERE IS AN INHERENT CONFLICT IN IT.

IN ONE PLACE, IT SAYS IT IS UP TO THE LEFT UP TO THE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION, AND THEN IT TURNS AROUND AND SAYS IT WILL BE CONDUCTED QUASI JUDICIALLY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU RECONCILE THOSE TWO THINGS.

AND THEN IN LIGHT OF THE MARTIN COUNTY CASE, [INAUDIBLE] WHERE THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECLARED THAT THEY WERE LEGISLATIVE BECAUSE IT WAS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION WHEN IT WENT TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AND THEY ADOPTED JUDGE PERRY [INAUDIBLE] DISSENTING OPINION IN A FOURTH DCA CASE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CITED TO, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ULTIMATELY ADOPTED IN USAM.

AND SO THAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FOR MY ADVICE.

WHILE I AGREE WITH MR. BACKMAN THAT THERE ARE TIMES AND THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN ADOPT MORE RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATIONS, MORE RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION OR RULES IN THE APPLICATION OF A STATUTE OR LAW, WHICH YOU CAN.

THERE ARE CERTAIN CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE NOT PREEMPTED TO STATE LAW THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE.

YOU CAN UNLESS IT'S PREEMPTED BY IN YOUR CHARTER COUNTY.

AND IF YOU'RE IN A CHARTER COUNTY AND YOU'RE NOT PREEMPTED BY IT, YOU COULD YOU COULD POTENTIALLY THE REGULATION OF THE SALE OF ALCOHOL OR HOW LATE A BAR CAN STAY OPEN.

IF STATE LAW OR THE COUNTY SAYS THAT THEY CAN STAY UP UNTIL 4 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADOPT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT CLOSES THEM THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO CLOSE AT 2, AND THAT'S COMPLETELY OK.

THAT'S NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCE WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

THIS IS A A THIS IS BLACK LETTER LAW DECIDED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, AND THEY HAVE DECLARED WHAT THE NATURE OF THE HEARING IS.

AND IT IS MY OPINION THAT A CITY COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES AND RE CHARACTERIZES THE FORMAT OR THE OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT HEARING IS CONDUCTED, MEANING THAT YOU CAN PASS IT.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S LEGAL, RIGHT? IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING AND THE AUTHORITY, RIGHT? OK.

AND I'LL JUST QUOTE THE EMAIL WHERE YOU SAY THE CITY CANNOT OVERRULE THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION AND USAM SUCH THAT LEGISLATIVE ACTS ARE TRANSFORMING A QUASI JUDICIAL ACTS SIMPLY BY ADOPTING AN ILLEGAL CODE PROVISION.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT HERE.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON WAS HEAVILY CRITICIZED FOR TAKING ON THE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY, SAM GOREN.

AND I THOUGHT THAT CRITICISM WAS UNFAIR BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE LEGAL OPINION OF A CITY ATTORNEY.

AND GIVEN THE ONE SIDED CONTRACT OF THE FORMER CITY MANAGER AND ILLEGAL SECTIONS OF OUR CODE, THIS COMMISSION SHOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER FILING A MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY, SAM GOREN AND HIS FIRM, BASED ON SOME OF THE FALSE AND ILLEGAL ITEMS THAT ARE IN OUR CODE.

I KNOW THAT'S NOT A DISCUSSION FOR TODAY, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER BECAUSE WE HAVE SO I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

I'LL RESERVE MY 50 SECONDS FOR ANOTHER TIME.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, THANK YOU.

IF I JUST UNDERSTOOD COMMISSIONER GELIN, HE WAS NOTIFIED ON THE 29TH THAT THE MEETING WAS GOING TO BE POSTPONED.

IS THAT WHAT I HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER GELIN? WHEN WE MET WITH COMMISSIONER GELIN, WE WERE MOVING FORWARD ADMINISTRATIVELY.

THAT WAS THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO EACH ONE OF YOU IN OUR INDIVIDUAL

[00:45:01]

MEETINGS AFTER THE MEETINGS WE HAD WITH COMMISSIONER GELIN AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

QUESTIONS AROSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY STAFF SHOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OR WHETHER THE CITY COMMISSION DID.

THOSE QUESTIONS WERE DIRECTED TO BOTH MAX AND I, AND MAX GAVE AN OPINION ON OCTOBER 1ST THAT IT WAS THE CITY COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION.

EVERYBODY WAS PROVIDED.

WE WERE MOVING ALONG THE TRACK OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

UP UNTIL THOSE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED BETWEEN THE 29TH AND THE 30TH, YOU ALSO SENT A QUESTION REGARDING THE SAME.

I DID.

YES, I GUESS THE ONE THING THAT THAT SURPRISES ME A LITTLE BIT IS THAT IF THE CITY, IF THE COMMISSION SETS A MEETING, THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CHANGE THAT IS THE COMMISSION.

AND I THINK WE ALL KNEW THAT.

SO WHEN I QUESTIONED IT, THEN IT TOOK A COUPLE OF DAYS TO GET BACK AROUND TO THE EMAIL GOING OUT ON OCTOBER 1ST, AND WE RECEIVED IT AT 6:06, I BELIEVE.

OH NO, YOU, YOU RECEIVED IT AT 6:06, WE RECEIVED IT AT 6:47 AND I DON'T KNOW WHO OR DID YOU SEND IT TO MR. BACKMAN? I DID NOT SEND THAT EMAIL TO MR. BACKMAN.

MAXINE CALLOWAY SENT A SEPARATE EMAIL TO MR. BACKMAN, DESCRIBING THAT THIS WAS THE CASE AND WE DID NOT SEND THE SAME EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO YOU.

OK.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS SENT TO MR. BACKMAN? I CAN ANSWER THAT.

SURE.

IT WAS SENT OCTOBER 1ST AT 7:09 P.M..

AS I MENTIONED, AND I'VE FURNISHED THE PROOF THAT WAS REQUESTED OF ME, IT ENDED UP IN QUARANTINE WHEN IT COMES FROM MR. LOHMAN'S OFFICE AND THERE WAS A FOOTER OR SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SAID, THIS IS FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE.

THOSE ARE BUZZWORDS THAT MY IT COMPANY.

SO IT ENDED UP IN QUARANTINE.

I FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS IN QUARANTINE.

FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING, I SPOKE WITH MS. CALLOWAY FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING.

I RECEIVED A SUBSEQUENT EMAIL, FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING, BUT I DID INITIALLY WAS INITIALLY SENT TO ME BY STAFF AT 7:09 P.M.

ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1ST.

OK.

AND AT THAT POINT, YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THE NOTICE OUT ON TIME.

I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL ACTUALLY I FOUND OUT FROM AN EMAIL BLAST THAT WENT OUT ON SUNDAY THAT THE MEETING WAS MOVING FORWARD.

THAT IS HOW I FOUND OUT FROM A MASS EMAIL BLAST, AT WHICH POINT I MADE SOME INQUIRIES.

I REACHED OUT TO MS. CALLOWAY.

I HEARD FROM HER FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING, AS I WOULD EXPECT IT WAS A WEEKEND, AND THAT IS WHEN I LEARNED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER WE SPOKE WITH MS. CALLOWAY.

I BELIEVE ONCE OR TWICE ON MONDAY MORNING AND REACHED OUT TO THE NOTICE COMPANY AND WAS BASICALLY TOLD AND THE NOTICE COMPANY.

WE SENT AN EMAIL FORWARDED MS. CALLOWAY'S EMAIL.

THEY RESPONDED TO THE CITY, SAYING OUR CONTRACT SAYS FIVE DAYS AND EVEN IF IT WAS THREE DAYS, MAYBE, BUT WE'VE GOT LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO GET THIS ON AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE NOTICE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DONE BY THE 20TH OR BY THE 5TH, AS LONG AS I HAVE YOU HERE.

THE LAST TIME YOU ALL MET WITH DRC WAS SEPTEMBER OF 2020.

SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

SO TELL ME WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING FROM A YEAR AGO, WHY WITHIN THAT YEAR HAVE YOU ALL NOT BEEN BACK TO DRC? SURE.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE, SO THERE WERE SEVERAL ROUNDS OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPLICATION.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER NOT USING IT AS AN EXCUSE, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF START AND STOP DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS BECAUSE OF COVID AND HOW WE WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH.

I THINK IT TOOK US THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR AND CHANGE TO BE SCHEDULED AT THE COUNTY.

AT THAT POINT, WE WAS DONE WITH THE CITY.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS UNTIL NOW, BUT WE HAD PLANNING COUNCIL MEETINGS, COUNTY COMMISSION MEETINGS, ALL AT THE COUNTY, ALL WHEN THEY WERE, WERE NOT MEETING OR WERE MEETING REMOTELY, BUT DIDN'T WANT TO LET US MEET REMOTELY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

WE WERE STILL WORKING ON OUR SITE PLAN FOR THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR DURING ALL OF THAT.

THERE CAME A POINT IN TIME, AS I MENTIONED, THAT WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS.

I THINK THE VERY EARLY PART OF THIS YEAR WITH YOUR FORMER CITY MANAGER ABOUT GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING HERE AND THE CONSTANT PUSH AND PULL PRIMARILY FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH DENSITY AND PRODUCT TYPE AND WHERE HOMES GO AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

COULDN'T WE MOVE THIS FORWARD MORE SIMILAR TO THE WOODMAN APPLICATION OR SOME OF THE OTHER LAND USE AND ZONING APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE HAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM? THE DIRECTION WE GOT WAS WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY ME AT THE JULY 2019 MEETING.

[00:50:02]

YES, THAT IS PERMISSIBLE.

YOU COULD DO THAT.

YOU COULD MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

ULTIMATELY, IT WOULD BE THE DETERMINATION OF THE CITY COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COMFORTABLE APPROVING IT THAT WAY.

THAT IS NOT THE DIRECTION.

SO WE STOPPED PROCESSING THE SITE PLAN.

WE WERE STILL WORKING ON IT.

THERE WERE STILL DISCUSSIONS.

WE WERE STILL MODIFYING THE LOT LAYOUT WHERE THINGS WERE GOING.

TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT THE SITE PLAN SPECIFICALLY, WE WERE GOING TO WAIT TO FINISH UNTIL AFTER WE KNEW THAT THE LAND USE ZONING AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAD A MASTERPLAN THAT LOOKED VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT OUR SITE PLAN WAS WITH ALL, EVERY SINGLE TREE AND EVERY SINGLE LIGHT AND YOU KNOW, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BUT OTHERWISE, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS GOING TO BE REQUIRED WAS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR THE MASTER PLAN.

AND THAT IS HOW WE PROCEEDED FORWARD UNTIL I HAVE THE DATE HERE SOMEWHERE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20TH.

I WAS ADVISED BY MS. CALLOWAY THAT THE SITE PLAN IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE THE CITY KNEW, I MEAN, IT'S NOT THIS WASN'T A UNILATERAL DECISION.

WE WERE WORKING UNDER DIRECTION FROM THE FOR THE FORMER CITY MANAGER.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE WERE WORKING TOWARDS BRINGING OUR APPLICATIONS FORWARD.

THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A SITE PLAN PRESENTED TO YOU ON OCTOBER 20TH, AND WE WERE INFORMED ON SEPTEMBER 20TH THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.

YOU DO RECALL, THOUGH, AT OUR MEETING BACK IN JULY OF 2019 THAT YOU DID AGREE THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE INCLUDED.

YES.

OK.

AND AND AGAIN, WE THAT IS PART OF THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU.

WE ARE OR ALTHOUGH WE WOULD PREFER TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE MANNER AND DIRECTION THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH A MASTER PLAN AND PROTECTIVE LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY, THE COMMUNITY, ALL OTHER PARTIES ARE GETTING ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.

EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DONE FOR THE WHITMONT APPLICATIONS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND SUFFICIENT.

THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE.

WE WOULD LIKE THE TIME TO FINISH.

AND I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY.

I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL.

BUT MR. LOHMAN SAID THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT SUBMITTED.

IT WAS SUBMITTED.

IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS IT IS AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

AGAIN, IT HASN'T FINISHED THE DRC PROCESS, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT.

BRING IT FORWARD ON WHEN, WHENEVER OUR NEXT MEETING IS SURE WE'RE HAPPY, WE'RE READY.

IT'S NOT DONE.

AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR THE TIME TO FINISH OUR SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND PUT EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF YOU.

OK.

THANK YOU, MR. LOHMAN.

CAN I ASK YOU, IS IT NORMALLY PROCEDURE THAT STAFF WOULD GRANT EXTENSIONS ON LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS? IN MY EXPERIENCE, SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IF AGAIN, IF IT HADN'T BEEN NOTICED AND IT WAS A MATTER OF HOW YOU PROCESSING AN APPLICATION? YES, MA'AM.

AND WHAT I IF I WAS IN ARTFUL AS I RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN.

WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS THAT THE LAST ACTION THAT OCCURRED ON THAT SITE PLAN BY THE CITY WAS SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2020.

AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S BEEN NO RESUBMISSION SINCE.

CORRECT.

AND SO THAT THAT'S THAT'S THE CASE.

SO IN FAIRNESS TO THE CITY AND NOT SAYING, I DON'T I DON'T DOUBT MR. BACKMAN'S CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER WHATSOEVER.

BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE SITE PLAN, REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE TO THIS COMMISSION AT TRANSMITTAL THAT A SITE PLAN WOULD BE RESUBMITTED.

SO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE DONE AT THE STAFF LEVEL HERE, AND I JUST REFERRED TO ONE POTENTIALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION FOR PROCESSING AN APPLICATION.

BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A CITY MANAGER OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO RELIEVE AN APPLICANT OF A CONDITION OR SOMETHING THEY AGREED TO IT TRANSMITTAL THAT WAS IMPOSED UPON THEM OR REQUESTED BY THEM BY THIS COMMISSION.

SO IN FAIRNESS TO MR. BACKMAN, THAT'S STILL A LITTLE BIT OF A RED HERRING.

THEY SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED PRODUCING THEIR SITE PLAN.

PUBLIC ANGST ABOUT AN APPLICATION OR PEOPLE'S CONCERN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WITHOUT AN APPLICATION IS NOT JUSTIFICATION TO NOT MOVE FORWARD PREPARING YOUR APPLICATION.

YOU NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND PREPARE YOUR APPLICATION AND SUBMIT IT.

AND IT'S BEEN A YEAR SINCE THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN RESUBMITTED.

AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT BLAMING MR. BACKMAN.

I DON'T DOUBT HIS REPRESENTATIONS.

I WAS NOT THERE.

I KNOW THE MAN TO BE TRUTHFUL.

I'M NOT GOING TO.

I'M NOT ACCUSING HIM OF TELLING A LIE OR BEING FALSE.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL LISTEN TO WHAT THEY WHAT THEY LIKE TO HEAR BECAUSE IT'S FAVORABLE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S HUMAN NATURE.

I DON'T FAULT ANYONE FOR THAT.

BUT.

PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT ADVICE, I WOULD HAVE EITHER SOUGHT DIRECTION FROM THIS BODY OR I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD MY SITE PLAN.

THAT'S JUST ME.

[00:55:01]

I HAVE A QUESTION 10 -5.3.

THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ANY SUBSEQUENT SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS FOR DEFERRAL SHALL BE IN WRITING STATE THE REASONS FOR DEFERRAL AND BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE BODY SCHEDULE TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION.

HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THAT? I'M.

HOLD ON.

I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND THE REFERENCE HERE, I THINK I HAVE IT.

WHICH ONE IS IT? THANK YOU.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBPARAGRAPH 4, MA'AM.

I'M SORRY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SUBPARAGRAPH 4A AND B REQUEST TO DEFER A SCHEDULED AND NOTICED HEARINGS? CAN I? LET ME JUST.

I BELIEVE IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS REQUEST A.

YES, MA'AM, THAT'S THAT'S DOWN HERE, AND THAT IS 4B THANK YOU.

THAT IS THAT IS 10.

10.

10-5.3.

AND IT IS SUBPARAGRAPH.

I BELIEVE LOOKS LIKE E4.

NO, I MISSPOKE.

F4 A AND B, AND IT'S REQUESTED TO FIRST SCHEDULE AND NOTICE HEARINGS AND WHAT IT SAYS AT THE TOP OF THE PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS IT SAYS REQUEST TO DEFER A SCHEDULE TO NOTICE HEARINGS AND APPLICANT MAY REQUEST THAT REVIEW OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION BE DEFERRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SO PARAGRAPH A BEFORE ANY MAIL NOTICES OF THE HEARING ARE MAILED AND FINAL AGREEMENTS AND FINAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLISHED NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ARE MADE.

A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A DEFERRAL THAT STATES THE REASONS FOR DEFERRAL MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR, WHICH IS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ZONING, WHO MAY GRANT THE REQUEST FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN.

SO PARAGRAPH B, THE PARAGRAPH THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO COMMISSIONER PLACKO, IT SAYS ANY SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL SHALL BE IN WRITING STATE THE REASONS FOR DEFERRAL AND BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE BODY SCHEDULE TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION.

THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION AS APPROPRIATE SHALL CONSIDER SUCH A REQUEST AND EITHER GRANT THE REQUEST FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN OR DENY THE REQUEST AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, REVIEW AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.

THAT IS AKIN TO THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE TO YOU EARLIER THAT IF A AN ITEM HAS BEEN NOTICED, THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF IT.

YOU'VE GOT A SCHEDULED AND NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN YES, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THAT SCHEDULED DATE WHERE YOU HAVE THE HEARING TO BRING FORWARD THAT DEFERRAL.

THE POSITION THAT WE'RE THAT WE WERE PROCEEDING UNDER UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT I REALIZED AND I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN THE ONE THAT SET THE DATE WAS REALLY UNDER 4A.

WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE AND ADDRESS THIS, THIS EXTENSION OF THE REQUESTED EXTENSION OF TIME ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND THEN WHEN I LEARNED, EVEN THOUGH IT HADN'T BEEN PUBLICLY NOTICED, BUT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD SET THE DATE FOR THE MEETING, I DID NOT THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

WE WERE KIND OF IN THIS NEBULOUS, NOT REALLY A NOT REALLY B POSITION.

IT HADN'T BEEN NOTICED YET, BUT THE COMMISSION HAD SET THE HEARING.

AND SO I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT FORWARD FOR THE COMMISSION'S DECISION RATHER THAN STAFF TO MAKE IT UNILATERALLY.

IN MY MIND, IT VERY CLEARLY STATES DIRECTLY TO THE BODY SCHEDULE TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION, AND THAT WOULD ALWAYS BE THE COMMISSION.

SO, YES, MA'AM, IF IT HAD BEEN NOTICED, IF IT'S NOTICED AND THEY ASK FOR A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS IF YOU HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S BEEN NOTICED, THAT'S THAT'S HAPPENING NOW.

I MEAN, THE ONLY WAY THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IS IF AN APPLICANT WITHDRAWS THEIR APPLICATION, BECAUSE THEN THERE'S NOTHING TO HEAR.

BUT IF THE APPLICANT, IF YOU'VE PUBLICLY NOTICED A HEARING, YOU NEED TO GO FORWARD THAT HEARING AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE REASONS THAT I SAID BEFORE SO THAT PEOPLE ARE MAKE IT ARRANGED, THEY'VE ADJUSTED THEIR SCHEDULE, SO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO BE HEARD.

IT'S A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC AND THEN HEARING THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION AT THAT SAME HEARING AS A MATTER OF PROVIDING DUE PROCESS TO THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THEM PRESENT THEIR CASE AND ASK FOR AN EXTENSION.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OR A CONTINUANCE, IF YOU WILL, IN THEIR IN THEIR IN THEIR HEARING.

AND AT THAT POINT, THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND AND AND BALANCE THE INTERESTS AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE GOING TO DENY THAT REQUEST AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, ADJUDICATING THE MATTER OR DECIDING ON THE MATTER AT THAT HEARING OR WHETHER THEY WOULD CONTINUE IT.

A IS THE FIRST PART WHICH WAS ADMINISTRATIVE IF NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED YET AND AND THE MEANING THE PUBLIC HASN'T BEEN NOTICED, YOUR PUBLIC HEARING HASN'T BEEN FORMALLY NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW IN YOUR CODE WITH THE PUBLIC, THEN TYPICALLY THOSE TYPES OF EXTENSIONS ARE A MATTER OF PROCESSING AND APPLICATION, AND THEY ARE

[01:00:04]

TYPICALLY HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE THIS IS.

THE COMMISSION SET THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THE EXTENSION ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, WHICH WAS 10 DAYS LATER.

SO WHY ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, DIDN'T THE BALL START ROLLING? WHEN WE SET THE MEETING, WE SCHEDULED THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 13 FOR THE 20TH.

SO WHY DIDN'T THE PROCESS BEGIN AT THAT POINT? I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT PROCESS YOU'RE REFERRING TO, MA'AM, OF NOTICING IT.

WELL, THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AGAIN, WHY THAT HAPPENED, WHY THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I AGAIN THERE WERE SOME INTERVENING EVENTS, BUT I'M NOT COMPLETELY CERTAIN OTHER THAN I CAN SAY THAT FOR MY PART, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAD SET THE MEETING.

SO WHEN I WAS MADE AWARE THAT THE SITE PLAN WASN'T READY TO BE SUBMITTED, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS EVEN A PART OF THE APPLICATION.

WHEN I GOT INVOLVED IN THIS, I KNEW YOU HAD A LAND USE AMENDMENT.

I KNEW YOU HAD A REZONING AMENDMENT AND THERE WAS A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

I HAD NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SITE PLAN BEING A PART OF IT.

AND AS I STARTED GETTING INFORMATION, I WAS PUT IN A POSITION OF DOING THINGS SPEAKERS].

I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT THE QUESTIONS BEING CONFUSED.

OK.

LET ME LET ME.

I'M SORRY.

I SHOULD HAVE.

I SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS WAS FOR MS. GUNN.

I UNDERSTAND YOU DID NOT FIND OUT ABOUT THIS INITIALLY.

I'M AWARE OF THAT.

I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE SAID MS. GUNN IF WE SET THIS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, WHY DIDN'T THE PROCESS START AT THAT POINT? THE COMMISSION SET THAT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 13TH.

THE PROCESS OF NOTICING PEOPLE.

I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SURE.

SO NOTICE AND THIS IS PRETTY TYPICAL IN ALMOST EVERY SITUATION I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE.

IF NOTICE IS REQUIRED 15 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME, IT GETS SENT 15 OR 16 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME.

IT DOESN'T GET SENT 30 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME.

THE PROCESS WAS STARTED, AS I MENTIONED WHEN COMMISSIONER GELIN ASKED.

WE OBTAINED THE CONTRACT.

THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

STAFF PREPARES THE LETTER THAT GOES INTO THE NOTICE.

WE OBTAIN THE CONTRACT NOTICE WAS ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING STARTED TO EXACTLY WHAT EXTENT, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT AS I MENTIONED ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE CONSULTING COMPANY THAT BOTH MY OFFICE AND THE CITY WERE IN TOUCH WITH WAS INFORMED.

THE APPLICATION IS NOT MOVING FORWARD ON OCTOBER 20TH AND THEY STOPPED, SO IT WAS MOVING FORWARD, AS I'VE INDICATED SEVERAL TIMES, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO THE YES, THERE WAS WHAT I BELIEVE AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF EVENTS THAT MY CLIENT AND I DON'T BELIEVE AFFORDS US APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M ON THE HAMSTER WHEEL HERE.

MY QUESTION IS YOU ALL KNEW WE HAD SET THE MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, SO YOU DON'T CALL UP YOUR COMPANY THAT DOES THE MAILINGS FOR YOU FIVE DAYS AHEAD.

YOU PREPLAN FOR THAT.

WE DID THAT.

SO WHY WASN'T THE NOTICE READY THEN? THE NOTICE IS BEING PREPARED.

OK, SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMMISSIONER, THE CITY TOLD THE NOTICE CONSULTING COMPANY TO STOP PREPARING THE NOTICE.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME OR MY CLIENT.

WE WERE PREPARING THE NOTICE THROUGH THE CONSULTANT THAT WE HIRED.

THEY WERE INFORMED BY THE CITY TO STOP PREPARING THE NOTICE BECAUSE THE MEETING IS NOT MOVING FORWARD.

SO I GUESS I WILL GO BACK TO MS. GUNN, AND I'M GOING TO ASK MAXINE TO COME TO THE PODIUM TO DESCRIBE THIS SITUATION.

GOOD EVENING, MAXINE CALLOWAY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONER, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE BY THE APPLICANT.

WE WERE PROCEEDING AS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE FASHION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION.

WE FOUND OUT THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD NOT BE MOVING FORWARD.

WE KNOW THAT THAT WAS COMMITTED TO THIS COMMISSION AS A PART OF THE COMPLETE APPLICATION.

AND SO WE TOLD THE APPLICANT DAYS BEFORE THAT THE SITE PLAN NEEDED TO BE A PART OF THE COMPLETE APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT READY WE COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT TO EITHER WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION OR SUBMIT FOR AN EXTENSION.

AND SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR AN EXTENSION, ONE THAT WE EXPECTED TO

[01:05:02]

GRANT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

SO WHEN WE SET THIS MEETING ON THE 13TH.

YOU SET THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 9TH IS WHEN YOU WERE POLLED.

WHEN WE SET THE MEETING NO ONE WAS AWARE AT THAT POINT THAT THEY COULDN'T CHANGE THAT? WHEN THE MEETING WAS SET, I IMMEDIATELY EMAILED THE APPLICANT 7:33 P.M.

THE NIGHT THE MEETING WAS SET, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THE MEETING WAS SET FOR OCTOBER 20TH AND THAT THEY SHOULD BEGIN NOTICING.

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT IS WHEN WE BEGAN PREPARING THE APPLICATION, WE PULLED THE RECORD FOR THE FIRST READING.

WE SAW IT THAT IT WAS EXPLICIT THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDED TO BRING A SITE PLAN ALONG.

WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

I RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH YOU AS WELL, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

AND WE COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY NEEDED TO COMPLETE A SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE ALSO COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY NEEDED TO EITHER WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION OR SUBMIT FOR AN EXTENSION, AND THE APPLICANT THEN SUBMITTED FOR AN EXTENSION.

WE ATTEMPTED TO PROCESS THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY UNTIL WE WERE ADVISED OTHERWISE THAT'S THE CHRONOLOGY.

SEPTEMBER 9TH IS A THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH IS A THURSDAY.

THAT WAS THE MEETING YOU HAD BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS DAY WAS A HOLIDAY, THE WEDNESDAY WAS A JEWISH HOLIDAY, I BELIEVE.

AND SO YOU HAD THE MEETING THAT THURSDAY.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

OK.

THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP.

OK, I'M GOING TO STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE.

DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO FINISH UP IN YOUR LAST 50 SECONDS? SURE.

ON WHAT DATE WAS THE CONSULTANT TOLD NOT TO SEND NOTICES? SEPTEMBER 29TH.

WE EMAILED THE VENDOR BECAUSE A VENDOR HAD EMAILED US ABOUT A WEEK OR TWO BEFORE BECAUSE THE VENDOR WANTED TO START, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL MAILING.

IT'S A VERY LARGE MAILING.

WE'RE REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO MAIL THE ENTIRE WOODLANDS AS OPPOSED TO THE 400 FEET, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

AND SO THE VENDOR DID SEND US AN EMAIL BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BEGIN THE PROCESS.

BUT WE WERE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE, I GUESS, FACTORS THAT IMPACTED THE MEETING DATE.

AND SO ON THE SAME DAY, WE NOTIFIED YOU, COMMISSIONER, THAT THE MEETING WOULD BE CANCELED.

THAT'S WHEN MY STAFF TOLD THE VENDOR THAT THE MEETING WOULD BE CONTINUED, SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO BE NOTICED FOR THE MEETING TO BE NOTICED.

THANK YOU.

AND I THINK I ASKED THIS QUESTION EARLIER, BUT JUST WANT TO VERIFY AGAIN.

WHEN WAS THE ATTORNEY MR. LOHMAN, INFORMED THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY THE COMMISSION THAT SELECTED THE DATE? IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I BECAME AWARE OF THAT ON THE 29TH IN THE AFTERNOON.

IT WAS AFTER I HAD THAT WAS THE DAY THAT I MET WITH YOU AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS SEPARATELY AT DIFFERENT TIMES EARLIER IN THE DAY.

AND AS I STARTED TO TRY TO CRAFT AN EMAIL AND A COMMUNICATION TO MS. GUNN, I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER HOW I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT I CAME TO LEARN THAT THE MEETING WAS ACTUALLY THE DATE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION.

AND THEN I CONTACTED MS. GUNN.

WE HAD ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS AND I SAID THIS CHANGES THE POSITION THAT I WAS TAKING PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE LIKE I SAID IN MY MIND, IT PUT US IN THIS NEBULOUS IN-BETWEEN 4A AND 4B KIND OF A PLACE BECAUSE YOU HAD SET THE MEETING WHILE IT HADN'T BEEN NOTICED YOU HAD ESTABLISHED THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE MEETING.

AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DID NOT SEEM APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO GRANT THE EXTENSION AT THAT POINT AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU.

BEFORE THAT, I HAD SAID AND I SAID TO ALL OF YOU IN THE MEETINGS SINCE THE SITE PLAN WAS REQUIRED IN THE SITE PLAN FOR NOT TO BE TRITE, WAS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

THAT IT WOULDN'T BE THAT IT SHOULDN'T COME BACK BEFORE YOU ON THE 20TH AS A NORMALLY SCHEDULED ITEM BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE WHAT YOU WERE PROMISED YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO GRANT THE EXTENSION ADMINISTRATIVELY.

I DIDN'T LEARN, LIKE I SAID, UNTIL THE LATE AFTERNOON, EARLY EVENING OF THE 29TH THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

THERE WAS A BIT OF A DELAY GETTING MY EMAIL OR MY COMMUNICATIONS OUT.

I WAS RESPONDING TO EMAILS FROM A COUPLE OF YOU TO LET YOU KNOW I WAS WORKING ON IT AND LOOKING INTO IT AGAIN.

INDIVIDUALLY, THESE EMAILS WEREN'T SHARED WITH VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS.

THEY WERE JUST BETWEEN ME AND EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER GOING BACK AND FORTH, AND I WAS IN DEPOSITIONS TAKING DEPOSITIONS FOR A VERY LARGE CASE THAT I'M INVOLVED IN

[01:10:01]

STARTING ON THE 30TH.

SO ALL DAY ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, I WAS IN DEPOSITIONS FROM FIRST THING IN THE MORNING UNTIL THE EARLY EVENING AND THEN ON OCTOBER 1ST, I WAS IN DEPOSITIONS FROM THE EARLY MORNING INTO WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE MID-EVENING AROUND 7 OR 8 O'CLOCK ON THAT FRIDAY.

SO I WAS ABLE TO POP OUT DURING A BREAK AND GET THE EMAIL OUT TO MS. GUNN AS RAPIDLY AS I COULD AND THEN GO BACK IN AND COMPLETE MY DEPOSITION.

AND SO THAT DID DELAY THE RESPONSIVENESS AS FAR AS GETTING THAT OUT.

AND AND ALL I CAN DO FOR MY PART, IS APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

IT WAS REALLY UNAVOIDABLE.

I COULD NOT NOT CONDUCT THOSE DEPOSITIONS, I HAD PEOPLE UNDER SUBPOENA THAT WERE ATTENDING DEPOSITIONS BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

AND I COULDN'T JUST SAY, HEY, WE'RE TAKING A BREAK FOR TWO HOURS.

YOU HAVE TO SIT TIGHT WHILE I ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

AND AND I WAS IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH MS. GUNN THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

EVERY TIME I GOT A FIVE MINUTE BREAK, JUST ABOUT I WAS EITHER ON THE PHONE OR TEXTING OR TRYING TO LET HER KNOW THAT I WAS WORKING ON IT JUST TO KEEP HER APPRIZED TO SAY I'M WORKING ON THIS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SHE WAS REALLY PUSHING, YOU KNOW, TO HER CREDIT, SHE WAS TRYING TO PUT THE SCREWS TO ME AS HARD AS SHE COULD TO GET IT OUT.

SO YOU ALL WOULD HAVE IT.

OK.

AND CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT DATE WERE YOU APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL? I BELIEVE IT WAS IN JULY.

AND WHEN DID YOUR ACTUAL CONTRACT START? FIRST TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU ALL VOTED TO RETAIN ME AS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE PROJECT IS WHEN IT STARTED, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE YOU CAN TELL FROM MY INVOICES THAT WAS VERY LITTLE WORK DONE ON IT OTHER THAN REVIEWING THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

I WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS THERE WERE ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS PROJECT, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T BECOME AWARE OF THE MAGNITUDE AND THE SCOPE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES OR THE NECESSITY FOR A SITE PLAN UNTIL WAY LATE IN THE PROCESS.

I WAS WORKING ON THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LAND USE AMENDMENT IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE.

IT WAS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REZONING APPLICATION IN AND OF ITSELF WAS ALSO COMPLETE AND I WAS WORKING ON THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN PEOPLE DO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENTS WITHOUT A SITE PLAN THAT DOES HAPPEN.

I'VE MORE OFTEN SEEN THEM WITH A SITE PLAN BECAUSE THEY USUALLY AFFECT EACH OTHER.

SO I WAS A LITTLE PERPLEXED THAT THERE WASN'T A SITE PLAN, AN OFFICIAL FINISHED SITE PLAN.

BUT.

IT WAS TAMARAC IT'S THE WAY THAT YOU GUYS HAD PROCESSED YOUR APPLICATIONS FREQUENTLY, SO I WAS LIKE, OK, I'M NOT TRYING TO COME IN HERE AND TELL THE CITY HOW TO DO THEIR BUSINESS AND CHANGE THE WAY THAT WHAT THEIR APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE, PER SAY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT ABOUT IT.

THE WISDOM OF IT NOTWITHSTANDING, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT.

SO I WAS PROCEEDING UNDER THAT AND TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

AND THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD WITH MS. CALLAWAY WAS ABOUT THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

AND HOW OFTEN DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF AND OR THE APPLICANT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 9TH AND SEPTEMBER 29TH? CAN YOU PLEASE TALK INTO THE MIC? I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU.

I APOLOGIZE.

I'VE NOT BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK MORE LOUDLY TWICE IN A MEETING.

I DON'T THINK EVER IN MY LIFE, SO I'LL MAKE SURE I KEEP THE VOLUME UP.

I HONESTLY COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW MANY TIMES I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS WE WERE AS WE WERE MOVING FURTHER ALONG IN THIS PROCESS.

AND AS THE MEETING DATE WAS DRAWING NEAR.

ONCE WE GOT IN SEPTEMBER, I WAS IN CONSTANT CONTACT PROBABLY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.

I WOULD SAY AT A MINIMUM WITH MS. CALLOWAY AND THEN FROM SEPTEMBER 9TH, LEADING UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20TH, WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO, OR PROBABLY EVEN THE WEEK BEFORE THAT, WE WERE TRYING TO SCHEDULE MEETINGS TO TRY AND MEET WITH EACH OF YOU.

SO I'D HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU AND GO OVER THE APPLICATION AND HAVE AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU AND POTENTIALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS.

WE STARTED SPEAKING MORE FREQUENTLY.

AND IT WASN'T UNTIL I THINK WHEN WE HAD IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE WE HAD THE FIRST MEETINGS WITH THE FIRST THREE COMMISSIONERS THAT MS. CALLOWAY HAD RECALLED THAT THE SITE PLAN SHE HAD GONE BACK AND LOOKED AT THE MINUTES OR THE FROM THAT MEETING AND RECALLED THAT THE SITE PLAN WAS WAS REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO IT.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF AGO, SO I DON'T REALLY FAULT HER FOR NOT REMEMBERING IT WITH MY SCHEDULE.

SOMETIMES I HAVE A HARD TIME REMEMBERING WHAT I DID TWO DAYS AGO, BUT SO AT THAT POINT, THAT CHANGED THINGS AGAIN.

WE WERE LIKE, WELL, WHEN I WAS MEETING WITH THE COMMISSION, I WAS LIKE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS CAN GO FORWARD BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN ISN'T READY.

AND AGAIN THEN.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND THEN I WAS DOING SOMETHING LIKE I WAS ALLUDING TO BEFORE THAT I ABSOLUTELY LOATHED DOING, WHICH WAS TAKING A POSITION AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND HAVING TO REVERSE MYSELF.

IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK MOST LAWYERS HATE MORE THAN ALMOST ANYTHING IN THE WORLD.

OTHER THAN LOSING.

RIGHT AND MS. GUNN, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR INFORMING THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE DECISION

[01:15:03]

WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION TO HOLD A DATE OF OCTOBER 20TH.

IS IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, IT IS CITY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSIBILITY, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW THE I CAN'T ANSWER THAT AND WHAT I WOULD JUST SAY AS IT RELATES TO MAX BEING ADVISED OF THIS, THE DATE BEING SET FOR OCTOBER 20TH.

WE AS STAFF DID NOT THINK IT TO BE MATERIAL BECAUSE WE JUST WERE CHECKING YOUR AVAILABILITY BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO CHECK AVAILABILITY INDIVIDUALLY AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO LAND ON A DATE.

SO AS A DEFAULT, WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD AND HAD A QUICK, YOU KNOW, WHICH DO YOU PREFER? YOU TOLD US AND WE MOVED FORWARD.

SO IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME THAT THAT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN AGREEING ON A DATE.

SO.

THAT'S THAT'S I THINK THAT'S IN FAIRNESS TO MS. GUNN, I THINK THAT'S ACCURATE, I WAS THE ONE WHEN IT WHEN I BROUGHT IT, WHEN I WHEN I LEARNED OF IT AND I DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM, THEY WERE LIKE, WELL, YEAH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO HAVE IT ON THAT.

AND FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THEY HAD ASKED YOU ABOUT YOUR AVAILABILITY INDIVIDUALLY OVER THE PHONE.

AND TO ME, WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU MADE THE DECISION BY CONSENSUS AS A GROUP, AND THAT WAS THE DISTINCTION.

AND THAT'S WHAT CHANGED THINGS FOR ME.

AND I SAID, I DON'T I DON'T FAULT MS. GUNN OR MS. CALLOWAY FOR NOT SAYING, HEY, BY THE WAY, THEY DECIDED BY CONSENSUS AT A MEETING.

IT'S I THINK TO THEM, IT SEEMED LIKE SOMETHING VERY NORMAL THAT HAD ALWAYS GONE ON.

AND IT WAS ME THAT ONCE THEY INFORMED ME OF IT, I SAID THAT THAT CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF IT BECAUSE NOW IT WAS A DECISION THAT YOU MADE AS A BODY, AS A GROUP RATHER THAN CALLING YOU IN.

FINDING OUT WHEN YOU'RE AVAILABLE AND THEN INFORMING YOU ALL THAT A MEETING IS BEING SCHEDULED.

RIGHT.

BUT THE THE ITEM WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 9TH.

SO, SO DID YOU NOT WATCH THAT MEETING AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THIS ITEM? NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION TO MS. MAXINE OR TO MS. GUNN.

ACCORDING TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THE CITY NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE APPROVING THE EXTENSION PRIOR TO ON THE 29TH.

BEING TOLD TO COMMISSIONER GELIN AND MYSELF, IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, AND MAXINE, IF YOU'LL JOIN ME AT THE PODIUM JUST TO MAKE SURE I HAVE IT RIGHT.

THE APPLICANT FORMALLY NOTIFIED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL, SO WE NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED LEGISLATIVE AND THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD EITHER WITHDRAW THE PENDING APPLICATION OR REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN AT SECOND READING.

SO AFTER WE HAD PRELIMINARY MEETINGS WITH SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMPLETENESS OF THE SITE PLAN, I'M SORRY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO ON THE 23RD, I UNDERSTAND THAT MS. MAXIME PRIOR SAID THAT SHE NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT ON THE 29TH ABOUT THE EXTENSION.

THEN I HAD A MEETING WITH MR. LOHMAN AND MS. MAXINE ON THE 29TH, THEN COMMISSIONER GELIN, EITHER.

PRIOR TO ME, I WAS I WAS IN THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO KNOW.

SO I'M GOING TO SAY THAT, HE COMMISSIONER GELIN WAS TOLD AFTER ME.

SO THE AND THEN WHEN WAS THE MAYOR, COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND COMMISSIONER PLACKO, INFORMED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE EXTENDED? THE 29TH OR 30TH? THE 20TH, WHEN WE MET WITH THEM ON THE 20TH, WE INFORMED THEM THAT THIS ITEM, BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT READY, WE WERE GOING TO AND THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE.

THEY'D ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION AND THAT STAFF WAS GOING TO CONSIDER GRANTING THE GRANTING THE EXTENSION ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T READY.

AND AGAIN, WE WERE PROCEEDING UNDER THAT THEORY AT THE TIME BECAUSE I WAS I WAS ADVISING MS. GUNN AND MS. CALLOWAY AND I MS. CALLOWAY, AND I DIDN'T KNOW AGAIN THAT THE COMMISSION HAD SET THE DATE.

SO COMMISSIONER GELIN AND MYSELF WERE THE LAST ONES TO KNOW ABOUT.

THE EXTENSION WAS GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT.

THE EXTENSION HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT.

WE WERE PROCEEDING UNDER THE PROCESS THESE DATES ARE CONFUSING ME AND MS.

[01:20:04]

CALLOWAY SAID THAT SHE TOLD THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE GRANTING THE EXTENSION ON THE 29TH.

THAT'S THE SAME DAY I FOUND OUT AS THE SAME DAY COMMISSIONER GELIN FOUND OUT.

MY QUESTION IS WHEN WAS THE MAYOR COMMISSIONER PLACKO AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EXTENSION? THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE, AND I THINK I CAN.

I THINK I CAN CLARIFY IT FOR YOU.

WHEN WE MET WITH THE FIRST THREE COMMISSIONERS ON THE 20TH OF SEPTEMBER, WE WERE PROCEEDING UNDER THE THE IDEA OF GRANTING THE REQUESTED THE THEN REQUESTED EXTENSION.

OR NOT NOT REQUESTED, I'M SORRY.

LET ME CLARIFY, HE HAD NOT ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION YET.

WE WERE WE WERE SAYING, WE'RE TELLING YOU, LOOK, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SITE PLAN READY.

THEY CANNOT MAKE IT BY NOVEMBER 10TH.

THEY CAN'T MAKE IT BY THE 20TH OF OCTOBER.

THE SITE PLAN IS NOT READY.

SO WE INFORMED THE FIRST THREE COMMISSIONERS ON THE 20TH.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION.

WE'RE GOING TO DIRECT THEM TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION OR WITHDRAW THEN ON THE 23RD IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS THE DATE THAT MS. CALLOWAY INFORMED THE APPLICANT THAT THEY NEEDED TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION.

I BELIEVE WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND THEN THE FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION.

IN THIS ROUND OF EXTENSIONS WAS REQUESTED ON SEPTEMBER 28TH IN WRITING BY MR. BACKMAN, AND THAT'S IN THE BACKUP FOR THE AGENDA ITEM.

THEN AGAIN, DURING THE ENSUING TIME THAT WAS ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, WE RECEIVED THAT.

WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HAVING JUST RECEIVED THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, MEANING ME MEANING MS. CALLOWAY, MS. CALLOWAY AND MS. GUNN AND MYSELF AND WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.

AND THEN.

WE MET WITH THE TWO OF YOU COMMISSIONER GELIN AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

THE VERY NEXT DAY ON THE 29TH.

OK.

I STILL DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU HAD SET THE COMMISSION MEETING DATE UNTIL THAT LATE THAT AFTERNOON, EARLY THAT EVENING.

AND THEN WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF IT, THE ENTIRE PATHWAY THAT WE WERE GOING DOWN IN THE IN THE APPROACH THAT WE WERE TAKING CHANGED BECAUSE OF THAT INFORMATION.

AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS THE WAY IT IS.

COMMISSIONER, YOU HAD A COUPLE OF MINUTES LEFT ON YOURS.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WE HAVE SOME INTERNAL ISSUES HERE AND WE CAN KEEP GOING AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S THE RESIDENTS OF THE WOODLANDS WHO ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THIS.

WE SET A DATE, IT GOT CANCELED.

WE SET ANOTHER DATE WE'RE POSTPONING AGAIN.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO RESPECT THE APPLICANT, WE NEED TO RESPECT THE RESIDENTS AND WE NEED TO DEAL WITH INTERNAL ISSUES IN A TIME SENSITIVE MANNER.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

SO I'M NOT SEEING THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON WISHES TO SPEAK.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE THAT THE ONES THAT SUFFER ARE BASICALLY THIS COMMUNITY, THE WOODLANDS, WHETHER YOU'RE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT OR UNDECIDED.

IT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT IS HAVING ISSUES WITH THIS.

I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED SORT OF.

INTERIM CITY MANAGER.

THE REASON THIS COMMISSION HAD TO BE PULLED ON THE DAIS IS BECAUSE IT WAS TOO DIFFICULT TO BE ABLE TO GET A PULL OF DATE, HOLD FOR CONSENSUS FROM ALL OF US IN THE TRADITIONAL MANNER IN WHICH YOU USUALLY SET OUR CALENDAR.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE WERE HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING A CONSENSUS DATE, YES, CORRECT.

SO SINCE IT IS THE ONE TIME THAT WE ARE AWARE THAT ALL OF US ARE HERE IN ORDER TO GET US TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER SO THE CITY CAN CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS AT HAND, WHICH IS WHERE CITY STAFF SETS THE AGENDA AND THE DATES OF ITEMS ARE TO COME BEFORE US THROUGH CONSENSUS.

IT WAS PUT ON THE CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH.

CORRECT.

SO YOU CAN GET THE DATE THAT THE MEETING WOULD BE HELD.

YES, WE SET IT FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH TO GET CONSENSUS AMONG YOU AND IT WAS SET IT WAS DONE ONCE BEFORE THROUGH A WORKSHOP, BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE OUR CALENDARS WERE TOO DIFFICULT.

THAT'S FINE.

TAKING THIS POSITION BECAUSE I WASN'T INVOLVED.

SO THERE HAS BEEN SOME PROCEDURAL STUFF BEFORE THIS WHICH INCLUDES OUR CALENDARS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT US AS A COMMISSION NEEDS TO WORK ON BETTER IN ORDER TO HELP OUR CITY STAFF BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE PROCESSES THAT ARE IN PLACE AND HAVE WORKED SO WELL UP

[01:25:01]

UNTIL THIS TIME.

MY REQUEST IS THAT WHEN THIS COMMISSION MAKES THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND THIS APPLICATION, WE TAKE ALL POLITICS OUT OF THIS.

WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS PERSONAL IN NATURE TO THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS COMMUNITY.

AS I HAVE SAID TO MY COMMUNITY, WHETHER THEY HAVE LIKED IT OR NOT, AND I'M PRETTY SURE I'VE GOT PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIKE IT, I CANNOT MAKE A DECISION ON IF I LIKE A CAKE UNTIL IT'S FULLY BAKED AND I BELIEVE IN FAIRNESS TO ALL PARTIES.

FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BRINGING FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO BE FULLY HEARD AND FAIRNESS FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO FULLY SAY IF THEY WANT SOMETHING OR NOT.

AND YOU CAN'T DO IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN EVERYTHING ALL TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE IN A COMPLETED PACKAGE, THE APPLICANT IS NOT IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF MY FEELINGS ON THE SITE PLAN.

I MADE IT VERY CLEAR AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT I WANT A SITE PLAN.

I WANT THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT TO BE THE FINAL ONE.

I DO NOT WANT BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH THIS COMMUNITY DOES NOT NEED BACK AND FORTH.

THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH.

I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A PLOT REASONS FOR THE NEED FOR THE EXTENSION, AND I RESPECT THAT OUR PROCESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT IT DOES NOT COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION UNTIL IT IS READY.

IT HAS COME BEFORE US PREMATURELY.

A DATE WAS SET PREMATURELY.

I'M NOT HERE FOR BLAME.

THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT IS DONE AND NOW WE NEED TO FIX IT AND MOVE FORWARD AND GET THIS GOING.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BEFORE US, AND THAT IS FOR AN EXTENSION ON THE APPLICATION.

SO.

I'M GOING TO ASK THIS COMMISSION TO CALL THE VOTE ON AN EXTENSION FOR THE APPLICATION.

MAYOR GOMEZ, YES, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS, NO COMMISSIONER PLACKO, NO COMMISSIONER GELIN, NO.

THE MOTION FAILS THREE TO ONE.

I WILL NOW ASK FOR A MOTION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR AN EXTENSION WITH THE TIME CERTAIN WITH CONDITIONS.

THAT WAS THE THREE ITEMS THAT WERE BEFORE US.

ISN'T THAT? MAX.

IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAD THREE ITEMS TO REVIEW, ITS THREE ITEMS. YOU HAD THREE POTENTIAL CHOICES.

YOU COULD GRANT AN EXTENSION, GRANT AN EXTENSION WITH CONDITIONS OR NOT GRANT AN EXTENSION.

YOU HAD A MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION AND IT FAILED.

SO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EITHER HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO GRANT THE EXTENSION WITH CONDITIONS OR ALTERNATIVELY TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE EXTENSION SO THAT THERE IS CLEAR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TAKEN.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR AN ACCEPTANCE WITH CONDITIONS? THE CITY ATTORNEY, I THINK YOU SAID EARLIER THAT IF WE DENY, THEN YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THE NEXT MEETING.

WE HAVE THE HEARING.

YES, SIR.

OK.

AND FOR THE APPLICANT, IS THAT GOING TO GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME TO PROVIDE THE NOTICES TO THE COMMUNITY? JUST SO I'M CLEAR, WHAT DATE ARE WE DISCUSSING? NOVEMBER 10TH.

AND TODAY'S THE 13TH.

YEAH, IT WILL.

I CAN'T TELL YOU.

WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING A HEARING THAT EVENING, BUT WE CAN GET THE NOTICE OUT.

YES.

AND REGARDING THE SITE PLAN, YOU SAID IT'S READY, BUT IT JUST HAS NOT YET BEEN APPROVED BY THE DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE.

THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, IT HAS GONE THROUGH TWO ROUNDS OF REVIEW.

IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE.

MS. CALLOWAY CAN ADDRESS THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY THE DRC.

IT THEN GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN COMES TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

CAN THE COMMISSION STILL REVIEW IT BEFORE THAT? DEFER TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

OK, SO FOR THE COMMISSION, DOES IT STILL HAVE A REQUIREMENT? YOU STILL WANT TO SEE THE SITE PLAN BEFORE MAKING A DECISION? IT IS TIED TO THE CONDITION.

YES, MOST DEFINITELY BECAUSE IF WITHOUT A SITE PLAN FOR ME.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE HOMES ARE ON A FIFTY FOUR FOOT LOT, IF THERE ARE TWO STORY OR IF THERE THEY'RE ONE STORY, HOW BIG THEY ARE.

I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT IF I'M VOTING ON IT.

THE POLLS ARE GOING TO BE WHERE THE POLLS ARE GOING TO BE.

THE TRAFFIC CALMING HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE TREES AND THE LIGHTING HAS BEEN APPROVED.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I'M AGREEING ON BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE.

[01:30:02]

THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

THERE'S A SITE PLAN ON THERE.

THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IS SOMETHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN SEPTEMBER 2020.

I AM PRETTY SURE THAT THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RESIDENTS, THE CONVERSATIONS I KNOW I HAVE HAD THAT THAT SITE PLAN IS NOT CURRENT AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE FINAL SITE PLAN AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT WHAT I AM ABLE TO VOTE ON.

AND IT DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS IN THIS CITY THAT THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO GET APPROVAL OR NOT.

IS TODAY IS NOT IS FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 2020.

SO IT IS NOT AS IT IS TODAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT UPDATED THERE BEEN UPDATES TO THE SITE PLAN SINCE SEPTEMBER 2020? SO, SO I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY TO VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS'S POINT.

YES, THERE'S A SITE PLAN, THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT OF A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE LOTS.

YES, IT HAS BEEN UPDATED AND MODIFIED MULTIPLE TIMES SINCE IT WAS LAST SUBMITTED FOR FORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEW BY MS. CALLOWAY AND HER DEPARTMENT.

AND I THINK THEREIN LIES THE ISSUE.

CAN YOU SEE A SITE PLAN WHEN WE COME BACK BEFORE YOU, IF WE COME BACK BEFORE YOU IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS? SURE.

CAN YOU SEE A SITE PLAN THAT IS READY FOR YOU TO APPROVE? WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE EXPECTATION THAT'S BEEN VOICED AT LEAST BY MAYOR GOMEZ AND COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

I WOULD CONTEND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.

BUT AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO MS. CALLOWAY OR MR. [INAUDIBLE].

IN A POINT OF ORDER.

SO THE MOTION WAS MADE, IT DIED.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS.

BECAUSE THERE'S THREE.

CAN YOU CLARIFY CITY ATTORNEY? CERTAINLY.

IT WAS EITHER OR.

[INAUDIBLE] YOU MADE A MOTION TO GRANT THE EXTENSION.

IT WAS A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED, AND THAT MOTION FAILED.

SO DOES THAT EFFECTIVELY DENY THE EXTENSION? YES, I THINK YOU COULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT FOR THE RECORD, TO BE CLEAR, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE EXTENSION SO THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR .

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SHOW THAT THE EXTENSION WITHOUT ANY CHANGES OR THE EXTENSION AS THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED, WHICH WAS THE 10 MONTHS HAS BEEN DENIED.

THAT IS CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT HAS BEEN DENIED.

IT IS BEEN A VOTE, ONE IN FAVOR, THREE AGAINST THAT IS DENIED.

HOWEVER, THERE WERE THREE OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL IS HEARD CLEARLY.

BUT THERE'S NO MOTION FOR.

THAT'S WHAT I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY.

ANOTHER QUESTION.

MR. ATTORNEY IS A SITE PLAN, TYPICALLY PART OF A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT? WELL, IT DOES DEPEND ON THE JURISDICTION.

SOME JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE THAT AS PART OF YOUR TOTAL APPLICATION, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS CONCURRENT PROCESSING, WHICH IS PROCESS A LAND USE AMENDMENT, REZONING TOGETHER, THEN THEN USUALLY IN MY EXPERIENCE, SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF IT.

BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TAMARAC'S CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT AS A CODE REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S WHY AT TRANSMITTAL, IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SITE PLAN AS MAYOR GOMEZ HAS ALLUDED TO, AND MR. BACHMAN HAS ACKNOWLEDGED.

THAT THEN THEY SAID, WELL, WE'D LIKE TO SEE A SITE PLAN, AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD BRING ONE BACK.

SO WHILE THERE IS NOT A CODE REQUIREMENT IN YOUR CITY, FOR ONE, THE APPLICANT AGREED TO BRING IT BACK AND PRESENT TO YOU A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION AT SECOND READING OF THE COMP PLAN AND REZONING.

IT'S NOT READY.

YES, IN THE CITIES THAT I REPRESENT AND THE CITIES THAT I'VE REPRESENTED, TYPICALLY THOSE SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF OUR CODE TO TRAVEL ALONG WITH THESE OTHER APPROVALS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT THE MAYOR IS REFERRED TO AS A FULLY BAKED CAKE.

THAT.

AND AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE TRITE.

IT'S JUST THAT'S THAT'S THE TRUTH.

THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT IS DONE IN MANY PLACES, IN OTHER PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND PCDS AS PART OF YOUR CODE.

YOU DON'T EVEN DO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

YOU CAN DO PHASING IN THE APPROVAL ITSELF.

THAT'S WHICH IS WHAT YOUR DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT'S AGREEMENT OR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH.

THEY CAN BE CHALLENGING TO DO WITHOUT A SITE PLAN BECAUSE YOU CAN PUT THINGS IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT CAN'T BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE SITE PLAN.

AND SINCE IT IS AN AGREEMENT WHILE IT IS VOTED UPON BY THIS COMMISSION, IT CAN'T

[01:35:04]

UNILATERALLY BE AMENDED BY THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE IT IS AN AGREEMENT, NOT A DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

SO IT'S IN.

MY RECOMMENDATION WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IS TO YES, I THINK IT IS WISE TO SEE A SITE PLAN ALONG WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY GO HAND IN HAND.

CAN YOU REVIEW A LAND USE AMENDMENT AND REZONING WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WITHOUT A SITE PLAN WITH IT? YES.

THERE'S NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THAT.

YOU CAN REVIEW A LAND USE AMENDMENT BY ITSELF.

SINCE 2009 VERY FEW COMMUNITIES DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE IN 2009, SENATE BILL 360 PASSED CHAPTER 163 WAS AMENDED, WHICH THEN ALLOWED CONCURRENT PROCESSING.

I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THERE WERE A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS THAT DID CONCURRENT PROCESSING BEFORE SENATE BILL 360, EVEN THOUGH STATE LAW DIDN'T REALLY ALLOW IT.

A LOT OF COMMUNITIES STILL DID IT BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE THE FULLY BAKED CAKE.

BUT STATE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE A SITE PLAN.

NO, SIR IT DOES NOT.

ALL RIGHT.

BUT IN YOUR VIEW, IT IS A BEST PRACTICE.

YES, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS.

OK.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY THE EXTENSION AND TO HEAR TO HAVE THE NEXT MEETING ON NOVEMBER 10TH.

SECOND.

CALL THE QUESTION.

MAYOR GOMEZ.

NO.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I DON'T SEE HIM UP THERE.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

A QUICK QUESTION, ISN'T THIS SUPPOSED TO BE ROTATED AGAIN OR IS THIS THE SAME ROTATION? I JUST USE THE SAME ROTATION.

OK, NO.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YES.

THE MOTION IS A TIE TWO TO TWO.

BASICALLY AS A TIED TO THE TWO, IT'S THEN FAILS, RIGHT? SAY THAT AGAIN.

AS A TIE, IT FAILS.

I DON'T KNOW.

WE'VE GOT IT IN A TIE IS NO ACTION.

A TIE IS NO ACTION.

SO NEITHER PASSES OR FAILS.

BUT IT HAS THE EFFECT OF FAILING BECAUSE, OK, SO THAT FAILED TOO.

SO THEN I BRING TO THE THIRD.

ARE WE HAVE IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON THIS OR NO? PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL COME DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

CITY ATTORNEY, SHOULD WE HAVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON THIS ITEM? THE COMMISSION SHOULD SHOULD.

MY ADVICE WOULD BE THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONDUCT THIS ITEM IN THE WAY THAT YOU NORMALLY CONDUCT ITEMS IN THIS PART OF YOUR AGENDA.

IF YOU NORMALLY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF YOU DO NOT NORMALLY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING, THEN I WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.

AND PUBLIC COMMENT IS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE HAD AT THIS TIME.

WE'VE BEEN MAKING OUR DECISION SO FAR WITHOUT PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEREFORE WE WILL CONTINUE AND HAVE.

THE LAST ITEM FOR RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MOTION.

BUT WE SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE THIS IS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE UNDER THE CITY MAYOR'S REPORT AND I'M PRETTY SURE THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL CONFIRM THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT STATES THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE TO COME DURING THE MIDDLE OF AN ITEM, WHERE IT'S BEING HEARD UNLESS IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, AS THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND WE'VE ALREADY HAD TWO VOTES WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC COMMENTS.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL COME RIGHT AFTER THIS BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE SCHEDULED.

YOU PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT EARLIER.

YOU CAN HAVE YOUR OPINION COMMISSIONER GELIN.

I'M GOING BY THE RULES OF THE ROAD AND TRYING TO HAVE THIS BODY REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING BEFORE.

THE PROBLEM THE PROBLEM THIS COMMISSION HAS HAD IS THAT WE HAVE GONE AWAY FROM THE PROCEDURES AND YOU KNOW, BY NOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT PROCEDURES, AND WE CANNOT KEEP TURNING EVERYTHING UP AND DOWN WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT AND CAUSE PROBLEMS. WE HAVE DONE THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION WE ARE NOW.

SO THEREFORE, THIS ITEM CAME IN DURING INTERIM CITY MANAGER REPORT, ORIGINALLY FOR CONSENSUS FOR DISCUSSION.

THE ITEM IS SET AT THIS TIME OF THE CALENDAR.

WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THIS ITEM AND PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AFTER THIS MATTER DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS.

SO AT THIS TIME, COMMISSION, WE HAVE NO ACTION.

THE ONLY OTHER ITEM.

I'D LIKE TO RETRACT MY MY VOTE, I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT COMMISSIONER GELIN WAS ASKING.

YOU'RE ASKING FOR A MOTION FOR REHEARING.

RECONSIDER.

RECONSIDERATION ON THE MATTER.

YOU ARE IN DUE TIME AND AS SUCH, WE NEED TO VOTE ON HAVING IT REHEARD.

[01:40:05]

IS THAT CORRECT OR IS IT JUST REHEARD? CITY ATTORNEY? PROCEDURALLY IN ORDER TO RECONSIDER AN ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONS.

WELL, IN THIS CASE, NORMALLY IT'S SOMEBODY FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE.

AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS IS EXPRESSING THAT HE CAST HIS VOTE IN ERROR, SO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE SINCE THAT VOTE NOT TO RECONSIDER.

BUT SINCE THAT VOTE FAILED TO ENTERTAIN A NEW MOTION, NOT RECONSIDER THE ONE THAT DID NOT PASS OR FAIL.

OK, SO I AM LISTENING TO HEAR WHAT MOTION IS BEING REQUESTED.

IS IT A MOTION? SO THE MOTION WILL BE A MOTION TO DENY THE EXTENSION AND TO HAVE THE FINAL HEARING ON THE 10TH.

MOTION TO EXTEND TO THE NEXT MEETING.

WELL, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THEY HAVE A CURRENT EXTENSION THAT EXPIRES ON NOVEMBER 10TH.

OK? VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS JUST MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUESTED EXTENSION, WHICH IS A 10 MONTH EXTENSION AND HAVE THIS ITEM HEARD ON NOVEMBER 10TH, IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SECOND.

CITY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR GOMEZ.

NO.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

ONE SECOND, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YES.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

YES.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

HE WENT TO SLEEP.

THE MOTION PASSES THREE TO ONE.

SO THEREFORE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, NOTICE WILL NOW GO OUT BY THE APPLICANTS ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES, AND THE MEETING IS BEING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10TH.

SEVEN.

OH WELL.

SEVEN P.M.. IS THAT THE ONLY ITEM WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THAT DATE OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A REGULAR MEETING? IT'S A REGULAR MEETING AND IT IS UP TO THE CITY MANAGER TO SET THE SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY.

IT IS TIME FOR THIS COMMISSION TO GET OUT OF THE SCHEDULING BUSINESS.

SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHILE I WOULD NORMALLY TAKE A BREAK, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO MAY WANT TO HAVE COMMENTS NOW THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS UP.

SO WE WILL NOT TAKE A BREAK AT THIS TIME AND WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

[3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION]

OUR CITY ATTORNEY WILL SHARE THE RULES OF THE ROAD OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THEN I WILL GO THROUGH ON THE LIST.

JUST TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, RESTRICT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE AND MAINTAIN YOUR CIVILITY AND DECORUM.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE RECOMMENDING.

AND YOU ALSO YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND YOU CAN SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING OR ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT.

THANK YOU.

AND I WILL ALSO ASK THAT I KNOW IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ITEM, IT MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE EMOTION.

I REQUEST THAT THEY, THE EMOTION REMAIN OUT OF IT.

WE TYPICALLY DO NOT CLAP, JEER, BOO, HISS, HAPPINESS IN THIS AUDIENCE, SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE KEEP THE SAME THING.

WHEN YOU COME TO THE DAIS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME ADDRESS IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE, IF YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE, AT LEAST THE CITY IN WHICH YOU LIVE.

SO THE FIRST PERSON UP IS PATRICIA FOX.

GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR COMMISSIONER IS MY NAME IS PATRICIA FOX.

I LIVE AT 5601 MULBERRY DRIVE AND I AM HERE THIS EVENING.

I WAS HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE WHOA, WHO IS IN FAVOR OF THIS OF THE SET OF THE 13TH FLOOR MOVING FORWARD AND GETTING AN EXTENSION WHICH SERIOUSLY TO ME DISAPPOINTS IN YOUR VOTES.

WE ARE A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION AND WE HAVE OVER THREE 830 HOMES.

THE WHOA REPRESENTS SIX OF THE EIGHT SECTIONS IN THE WOODLANDS AND THE WHOA IS IN FAVOR OF AND SUPPORTS THE 13TH FLOOR AND THEIR PLANS AND THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.

UNFORTUNATELY, YOU DIDN'T GRANT THAT AND I AM SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY DISAPPOINTED IN ALL OF YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

RICHARD [INAUDIBLE].

MY APOLOGIES.

NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

ABSOLUTELY.

[01:45:01]

THANK YOU.

FIRST OF ALL, YOU GOOD PEOPLE, I TRUST AND PRAY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE WELL, IT'S GOOD TO SEE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.

WITH THAT SAID, AS FAR AS THIS VOTING WITH 13TH FLOOR, IT'S BEEN ALMOST FIVE YEARS BACK AND FORTH.

THERE'S NO SITE PLAN.

THERE'S NO NOTHING.

WE'RE TIRED OF IT.

OK, IF IT'S NOVEMBER THE 10TH, IF IT'S THE 20TH OF OCTOBER.

WHO CARES? JUST GET IT OVER WITH AND VOTE, NO, I'M NOT HERE.

BASICALLY FOR 13TH FLOOR.

I AM HERE BECAUSE I AM THE PRESIDENT OF SECTION THREE, ONE OF THE TWO ESTATE SECTIONS WITHIN THE WOODLANDS.

AND WE GOT A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET AT 5405 WHITE OAK LANE.

IF YOU REMEMBER, MAYOR, I CONTACTED YOU ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS AGO IN REFERENCE TO THIS ISSUE.

IT'S A PARTY HOUSE, WE'RE LOOKING AT STRIPPERS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT GO-GO BOOTS AND G STRINGS AND MONEY BANDS WRAPPED AROUND THEM.

ON COLUMBUS DAY, WE HAD 500 CARS PARKED ON THE WOODLANDS GOLF COURSE FROM WHITE OAK LANE, ALL THE WAY BACK TO SIXTY FOURTH, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WHITE OAK LANE.

WE CALL THE COPS.

THEY CAME AND SAID, IT'S A PRIVATE PARTY, IT'S A PRIVATE PARTY, REALLY? I THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT A PRIVATE PARTY.

THEY'VE BEEN DOING THIS NOW FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS.

OUR PEOPLE ARE TIRED.

WE ARE READY TO MOVE.

WE ARE SICK OF IT.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

WHEN I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE FROM OUR MAYOR, I CONTACTED YOU.

YOU WERE SO DILIGENT.

YOU STOP WHAT YOU WERE DOING AND YOU WORKED IT AND YOU WORK FOR US AND WE THOUGHT WE HAD IT LICKED.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

I CALL YOU COMMISSIONER G, YOU PICKED UP THE BATON BECAUSE ON SUNDAY, COLUMBUS DAY, WE HAD THE SAME THING HAPPEN AGAIN.

OK, THEY'RE WALKING AROUND BLOWING WEED, G-STRINGS, GO-GO BOOTS.

THEY'RE RUNNING IN AND OUT OF MY PROPERTY LINE, TAKING SELFIES, TAKING PICTURES.

WHAT IS THIS? WHAT THIS EVER HAPPENED IN PARKLAND, WHERE IT HAPPENED IN CORAL SPRINGS? WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS GHETTO MENTALITY.

IS THAT WHAT WE REPRESENT HERE IN TAMARAC? YOU TALK ABOUT EMOTION.

I HAVEN'T SLEPT FOR EIGHT HOURS IN THREE DAYS.

MY PEOPLE ARE CALLING ME.

I'M THE PRESIDENT.

ANOTHER THING.

LAST TUESDAY, WE HAD A MEETING ON WOODLAND'S BOULEVARD.

AT THE PRESIDENT'S HOME, CHRIS HODGES.

WE HAD OUR HOMEOWNERS THERE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

DO YOU KNOW, PLEASE INDULGE ME, PLEASE INDULGE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME THIRTY FIVE MORE SECONDS? WE HAD THE POLICE PULL UP.

OUR MEETING STARTED AT 6:30 AT 6:45.

THE POLICE WERE OUTSIDE TELLING US, GET THESE CARS MOVED OFF OF WOODLANDS BOULEVARD BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, YOU GOT 10 MINUTES.

TICKETED AND TOWED.

MY QUESTION IS WHAT DIFFERENTIATES WOODLANDS BOULEVARD ESTATE SECTION FOUR FROM WHITE OAK LANE ESTATE SECTION THREE? IS IT BECAUSE YOU LIVE THERE? WRONG QUESTION.

AND I NEVER AND I NEVER GOT YOUR EMAIL, I'VE SPOKEN TO RICHARD, THE OTHER RICHARD POWELL, AND I WILL ASK YOU AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE DON'T TALK BACK AND FORTH ON THIS.

AND NO, BECAUSE YOU TEXT ME AND IT COMES TO MY OTHER, MY PERSONAL EMAIL.

I DON'T ALWAYS GET YOURS.

YOU GO INTO MY SPAM.

YOU WANT MY EMAIL ADDRESS, YOU HAVE IT ANYWAY.

WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS THERE'S A WONDERFUL DEPUTY BACK THERE WHO'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT WITH HER.

MM HMM.

MM HMM.

YEAH.

SO IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TALK TO HER FURTHER ABOUT IT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SPEAK WITH HER.

SHE KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND IN REFERENCE TO WHAT YOU SAID, HONORABLE MAYOR, YOU CONTACTED RICHARD POWELL.

I TEXTED YOU, I CALLED YOU AND I EMAILED, YOU DON'T SAY I DIDN'T.

MR. [INAUDIBLE] I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH.

THANK YOU.

SAME TO YOU.

JUST PLEASE SPEAK TO THE DEPUTY.

SHE HAS THE INFORMATION AT HAND.

THANK YOU FOR NOTHING AGAIN.

ALWAYS.

WE HAVE EILEEN LIEBERMAN, MICHAELSON.

AND FOR THE RECORD, MR. [INAUDIBLE] ADDRESS, HE LIVES IN TAMARAC.

I WAS ONLY GOING TO SAY TAMARAC, HE HAS ALREADY TOLD YOU THE ESTATE SECTION.

EILEEN LIEBERMAN MICHAELSON.

I RESIDE AT 4809 WOODLANDS BOULEVARD.

[01:50:02]

I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT MS. FOX TOLD YOU ABOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE WHOA AND THAT THEY BIND 830 HOMES.

WHAT SHE DIDN'T TELL YOU WAS PARAGRAPH 16 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHOA AND 13TH FLOOR SPECIFICALLY SAYS WHOS HAS NO CONTROL OVER INDIVIDUAL OWNERS IN THE WHOA AND OR INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THAT WHOA AND CANNOT CANNOT, HOLD ON.

AND DOES NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING REGARDING THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL OWNERS OR INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATIONS OR THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN REGARD TO THE PROJECT OR THIS WHOA AGREEMENT, SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE WAS A NON-UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE OFFICERS AND THE BOARD OF THE WHOA TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT.

IT IS NOT BINDING ON THE SECTIONS, IT IS NOT BINDING ON THE RESIDENTS.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PROBLEM THAT RICHARD GREENWICH IS TALKING ABOUT.

HE CALLED ME ON MONDAY TO TELL ME THAT A BSO OFFICER RESPONDED AND TOLD HIM THAT THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE SECTION THREE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE WHOA.

I IMMEDIATELY WENT THROUGH YOUR CODE SECTIONS.

I LOOKED AT YOUR TABLE OF ALLOWABLE USES, WHICH IS SECTION 10-3-2 SUB H.

I LOOKED AT SECTION 10-2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION A PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ALLOWABLE USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

I LOOKED AT SECTION 10-2.7 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADOPTS A WOODLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

I LOOKED AT 10-3.5 TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES.

AND GUESS WHAT? NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE SECTION SAYS IT DOESN'T APPLY UNLESS YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE WHOA.

SO I FIND IT APPALLING THAT BSO WAS SO UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S CODE THAT THEY REFUSED TO STOP AN ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OCCURRING ON WHITE OAK LANE.

I HAVE COPIES FOR YOU OF THESE STATUTES, WHICH I'VE HIGHLIGHTED SO THAT YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT YOUR CODE SAYS AND FRANKLY, WHAT YOUR CODE REQUIRES.

IF THEY WANT TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT'S A TEMPORARY USE, THEY NEEDED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO MS. CALLOWAY, I'M WILLING TO BET MS. CALLOWAY WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED THAT APPLICATION.

THEY NEVER DID THAT.

THEY SERVE ALCOHOL, WHICH THEY CHARGE FOR, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A LICENSE FROM FROM THE STATE AGENCY TO SERVE ALCOHOL.

HOW IS THIS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ALLOWED TO THRIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD? WHEN YOUR CODE SAYS THAT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, YOU NEED TO ENSURE THAT YOU PROTECT THE RESIDENTS, IT'S A SUBSECTION TWO OF 10.2A2 TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF NOISE, INCOMPATIBLE POPULATION DENSITY, TRAFFIC CONGESTION, FLOODING AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

I KNOW MY TIME IS NOW UP, BUT I'M GOING TO GO TO YOUR CITY CLERK AND GIVE HER COPIES OF THE STATUTE.

I HAVE COPIES FOR ALL OF YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK.

YOU GUYS ARE SIGNED UP TWICE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO TOMMY [INAUDIBLE] JR., PLEASE.

GIVE US ONE SECOND.

THE MIC'S GOING TO GET WIPED DOWN.

SORRY.

NO WORRIES.

I'D LIKE TO SEE TOP OF THE EVENING TO THE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, EVERY COMMISSIONER, CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK AND EVERY ONE ELSE THAT MAKES UP THE BODY OF THIS DISTINGUISHED BOARD.

FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ME AND MY WIFE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND BEFORE YOU TO CONVEY TO THE BOARD AN ISSUE OUR ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING AT OUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR THE LAST THREE WEEKS OR SO.

MY NAME IS TOMMY [INAUDIBLE] JR.

THIS IS MY WIFE, THEORA.

WE RESIDE AT 5730 ON NORTHWEST 54TH TERRACE IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA.

ABOUT THREE WEEKS OR SO, WE DECIDED TO CUT BACK SOME HEDGES AT THE [INAUDIBLE] OF

[01:55:02]

OUR RESIDENCE, SOME BRANCHES, SOME TREES AND SO FORTH, AND SUBSEQUENT TO DOING SO.

WE TRANSPORTED [INAUDIBLE] AND PLACE IT OUTSIDE IN THE FRONT OF OUR RESIDENT FOR BULK PICK UP.

WE HAVE BEEN LIVING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED ADDRESS FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT WE DECIDED TO UTILIZE THE BULK PICKUP SERVICES AND SO FORTH.

TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT BULK NORMALLY IT'S PICKED UP IN MY COMMUNITY EVERY MONDAY OF THE WEEK AND OF COURSE, WE SET THE BULK OUT ABOUT THREE OR FOUR DAYS PRIOR TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS PICKED UP ON THAT PARTICULAR MONDAY.

MONDAY, HAVING ARRIVED AT MY PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

IT WAS AFTER 5:00 AND I SAW THAT THE BULK WAS STILL IN FRONT OF MY RESIDENCE AND OF COURSE, HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED.

AND I ON TUESDAY THE NEXT DAY, MADE CONTACT WITH THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND I EXPRESS MY CONCERN AS IT RELATED TO NOT HAVING THE BULK PICKED UP FROM THE FRONT OF MY RESIDENCE.

THE PERSONS THAT I TALKED TO TOLD ME THAT MANAGEMENT WOULD MAKE CONTACT WITH ME ON THE LATTER PART OF THE DAY.

BUT THAT DID NOT OCCUR.

SO THE NEXT DAY, WHICH WAS WEDNESDAY, I CALLED BACK.

I SPOKE SUPPOSEDLY TO MANAGEMENT YOUNG LADY BY THE NAME OF GLADYS, AND I EXPRESSED TO HER MY CONCERN THE BULK NOT BEING PICKED UP AT MY PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

AND SHE WAS VERY APOLOGETIC.

BUT SHE PROMISED ME THAT THE BULK WOULD BE PICKED UP AND THE SITUATION WOULD BE RECTIFIED.

A FEW DAYS, PASS AND SO FORTH.

THAT DID NOT OCCUR.

I CALLED BACK AGAIN.

I SPOKE WITH ANOTHER LADY AND I MUST HAVE CALLED MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, BUT NOTHING WAS DONE, NOTHING BUT PROMISES AND SO FORTH.

SO I MADE AN ATTEMPT TO COME HERE.

I CAME HERE, I GUESS, LAST WEDNESDAY WITH THE HOPES OF MAYBE TALK WITH SOMEONE COMMISSIONER OF MY DISTRICT.

BUT I AT THAT TIME SPOKE TO, I GUESS, THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIONER BECAUSE HE TOLD ME I NEED TO SPEAK TO, CAN YOU GIVE ME ABOUT MAYBE 15 MORE SECONDS, PLEASE, I NEED TO SPEAK TO.

I BELIEVE A TROY JESS, I CALLED TROY JESS.

AND BEFORE I EVEN MADE IT OUT TO THE PARKING LOT, HE RETURNED MY CALL.

AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, I COMMITTED HIM FOR BEING A GENTLEMAN AND A SCHOLAR, AND I COULD LEAD TO HIM A SITUATION CONCERNING THE ISSUE AT MY PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

AND HE PROMISED ME WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS HE WAS GOING TO GET BACK TO ME AND HE WAS GOING TO RELATE TO ME.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE STATUS WAS AND THAT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF.

OF COURSE, A FEW DAYS WENT BY MONDAY OF THIS WEEK.

I CALL MR. TROY JESS, MONDAY MORNING LEFT A MESSAGE FOR HIM ON HIS RECORDER.

DID NOT RECEIVE A RETURN CALL.

CALL BACK THE SAME DAY AT ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK.

I LEFT ANOTHER MESSAGE DID NOT RECEIVE A RETURN CALL.

ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATER, CALL THE MAIN OFFICE SPOKE WITH A YOUNG LADY AND TO THE EFFECT OF WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS IN FOR THAT PARTICULAR DAY, WHICH WAS MONDAY, SHE TOLD ME, YES, UP TO THIS PRECISE MOMENT, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RETURN CALL AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED FOLLOW UP.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THIS TROY AND I WAS VERY TAKEN A BANK AND IT'S BEEN VERY [INAUDIBLE] THAT NO ONE FOLLOWED UP AND I STILL HAVE THIS TRASH THAT IS PLACED IN FRONT OF MY PLACE OF RESIDENCE BEEN UP OVER THREE WEEKS.

I HAVE PHOTOS.

MR. [INAUDIBLE]? YES, I APPRECIATE AND I CAN SEE AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT FORGIVE ME, YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT OVER TIME AND I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU DON'T MIND MR. [INAUDIBLE] IS HERE.

YES.

SO IF YOU WOULD, WOULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK WITH HIM, THE GENTLEMAN RIGHT THERE, HE'S GOING TO SPEAK WITH YOU AND THEN TALK WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS.

I APPRECIATE IT, AND I HOPE THAT THIS TIME THAT HE, YOU KNOW, HE WILL DO SOME FOLLOW UP.

I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

AND YOU ALL HAVE A HAVE A VERY NICE EVENING.

THANK YOU.

YOU TOO.

I HAVE [INAUDIBLE] SORRY, I'M HAVING TROUBLE READING.

IS THERE A [INAUDIBLE] HERE? NOREEN, I'M SORRY.

NOREEN, PLEASE JOIN US.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, IF YOU CAN, FOR THE RECORD, OR JUST AT LEAST THE CITY.

SO SHE'S GETTING THERE.

SORRY.

THAT'S OK.

IT'S MAUREEN SIMMONS.

MY APOLOGIES, OK.

I LIVE AT.

AND THEN PULL, IF YOU WOULD PULL THE MIC A LITTLE DOWN.

[02:00:01]

YEAH, THANK YOU.

YOU LIVE IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

YEAH, I LIVE AT 76 NORTH WEST 76TH STREET.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN VEHICLES ARE COMING FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE? THEY TURN ON 76TH STREET IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS AND THEY USE IT AS A THROUGH WAY.

THEY DO NOT LIVE ON 76TH STREET AND THEY GO FAST LIKE 50 AND 60 MILES AN HOUR, AND MOST THEY DON'T LIVE THERE.

THEY'RE JUST GOING UP TO 78TH AVENUE.

SO I WENT TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND I COMPLAINED AND I SAID, COULD THEY TRY AND PUT SOME SPEED BUMPS SO THAT THEY WON'T BE GOING SO FAST? SO THE CITY OF TAMARAC THEN GAVE ME A LIST OF RESIDENTS, THE NAMES THAT I THOUGHT I COULD SIGN, WHICH IS VERY CONFUSING ON ONE STREET.

ONE PERSON SAYS IT SAYS AVENUE.

THEY SAY TERRACE.

THEY SAY STREET.

SO I WENT BACK AND THEY SAID THAT I COULD PUT THE NAMES ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND I COULD USE THAT SAME STREET.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED? IT'S VERY CONFUSING BECAUSE THEY GAVE ME THIS HERE WITH SOME RED LETTERS [INAUDIBLE] SOME RED LINES, AND YOU CAN'T MAKE IT OUT.

THE LINE IS SO RED, SO LARGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THE.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S NORTHWEST BECAUSE IT'S IT'S NOT PLAIN.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH.

SO AND ALSO.

THE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON 76TH STREET, MOST OF THEM ARE RENTERS AND THEY LIVE OUT OF STATE AND THE OTHER THE OTHER AREAS THEY SOME OF THEM, THEY DON'T WANT TO SIGN OR JUST LET'S SEE HERE.

THEY DON'T WANT TO SIGN OR THIS OUT OF STATE, AND THEY'RE NOT THE MAIN PROBLEM IS ON 76TH STREET AND I'M SUPPOSED TO BE GOING ON OTHER AREAS TO GO AND GET THESE SIGNATURES.

SO I'M JUST HERE ASKING IF SOME SPEED BUMPS COULD BE PLACED SO THAT THE VEHICLES DON'T GO ALL THAT FAR FAST.

THANK YOU, AND I'M PRETTY SURE YOUR COMMISSIONER WE'LL GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU AND TALK WITH YOU ABOUT THE PROCESS AND SEE WHAT SHE CAN DO TO HELP.

YES.

OK, OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GIVE HER ONE SECOND.

SHE'S HANDING YOU THE CARD.

WHAT DISTRICT IS SHE IN? [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE MICROPHONE IS BEING [INAUDIBLE].

JEFFREY SCHAPIRO HAS LEFT THE BUILDING.

MR. [INAUDIBLE], MAUREEN SIMONS AND OK, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE ON MY LIST WHO WISHES TO SPEAK.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK THIS EVENING ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT FURTHER DOWN ON THE AGENDA? THE ANSWER IS NO.

WE ARE NOW DONE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

IT IS CURRENTLY 9:04, SO WE WILL RESUME.

AT 9:25, IT'S A 15 MINUTE RECESS.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD.

IT IS 9:25, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

HERE.

MAYOR GOMEZ.

HERE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER GELIN IS WALKING IN THE DOOR.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL NOW BE MOVING ON TO

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

CONSENT AGENDA.

CITY MANAGER, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS? NO, WE DON'T.

EXCELLENT.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

SO MOVED.

SECOND.

[02:05:04]

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GOMEZ.

YES.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

[INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY FOUR TO ZERO.

THANK YOU.

WE'RE NOW MOVING ALONG TO ITEM FIVE A ON THE REGULAR AGENDA TR13689 AUTHORIZE

[5a. TR13689 - Authorize and Approve ILA for Solid Waste Processing]

AND APPROVE THE ILA FOR SOLID WASTE PROCESSING, CITY ATTORNEY HERRON PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

YES, MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

IT'S A RESOLUTION THE CITY COMMISSION CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH BROWARD COUNTY AND PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES PROVIDING FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUPPORT SERVICES THROUGH JULY 2, 2028, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE, SAID 2ND AMENDMENT, TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE.

SO MOVED.

SECOND.

THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY TROY GIES, OUR BUDGET AND CONTRACTS MANAGER, WHO IS COMING TO THE PODIUM IN MOMENTS.

ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M SORRY FOR THE DELAY.

SO TONIGHT I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ILA AND I JUST WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BACKGROUND AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE BECAUSE SOLID WASTE HAS MULTIPLE LEVELS, BOTH AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND THE COUNTY LEVEL.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW.

SO THE ILA THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE SOLID WASTE THAT'S GENERATED IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND AS IT'S TAKEN TO THE WASTE ENERGY PLANT.

THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE HAULING AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT.

I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER ON IN THIS PRESENTATION, HOW THESE THINGS LINK UP.

AND THEN LASTLY, THERE IS CURRENTLY AN ILA BEING DRAFTED TO CREATE THE SOLID WASTE SPECIAL DISTRICT.

IN THE PAST THAT WAS THE RESOURCE RECOVERY BOARD RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM THAT WAS THAT WAS IN PLACE.

AND SO THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING ON.

AND IN FACT, THERE IS A MEETING THIS MORNING OR THIS AFTERNOON WHERE WE HAVE A VERY ROUGH DRAFT.

THAT IS BEING REVIEWED BY THE SOLID WASTE WORKING GROUP.

AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO START TO SEE MORE AND MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S AT A VERY, VERY ROUGH STAGE.

BUT I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD WELL.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY THE THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE.

AND AS I MENTIONED, THE RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM THAT WAS THE COUNTY WIDE SYSTEM THAT WAS IN PLACE, IT RAN FROM ROUGHLY 1987 TO 2013.

AND IN 2013, THE RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM WAS ALLOWED TO SUNSET, WHICH THEN LEFT A LITTLE BIT OF A I DON'T WANT TO BE OVERDRAMATIC AND SAY A WILD WEST SITUATION, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A UNIFYING CONTRACT FOR ANY OF THESE SERVICES, WHICH WOULD HAVE.

REQUIRED INDIVIDUAL CITIES TO COME UP WITH THESE AGREEMENTS, WE ALREADY HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE OUR GARBAGE PICKED UP, BUT THEN TO GO AND AS A CITY, GET A CONTRACT FOR SOME PLACE TO ACTUALLY DISPOSE IT FOR US WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE.

SO WHAT HAPPENED IS BROWARD COUNTY.

THEY THEY GENERATED, THEY CREATED A CONTRACT FOR THEIR WASTE WITH WHEELABRATOR, WHICH IS THE WASTE ENERGY PLANT.

SO THAT CONTRACT WAS IN PLACE.

AND THEN THEY ALSO.

BID OR NEGOTIATED WITH BERGERON AT THAT TIME TO HAVE ANOTHER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACT IN PLACE.

BERGERON, IN THEIR CONTRACT, LANDFILLED EVERYTHING, SO WE HAD WHEELABRATOR AS AN OPTION THAT WAS THE WASTE ENERGY PLANT.

AND THEN WE HAD BERGERON.

THAT WAS A LANDFILL AGREEMENT.

WE CHOSE AT YOUR DIRECTION.

WE CHOSE TO GO WITH THE WHEELABRATOR DISPOSAL OPTION, WHICH TAKES ALL IT'S THE SOLID WASTE GENERATED WITHIN THE CITY TAMARAC TO THE WASTE TO ENERGY PLANT.

[02:10:02]

IT'S IT'S DEFINITELY THE PREFERRED PREFERRED WAY OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US.

IT'S BY FAR THE PREFERRED WAY TO MANAGE SOLID WASTE THAN IT IS TO TO DISPOSE OF IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT PRIMARILY GOES INTO THE BACKYARD OF ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES.

SO IN 2013, THE CITY OF TAMARAC ENTERED INTO AN ILA, I ACTUALLY HAVE A SLIDE FOR THIS NOW, I'M SORRY.

SO IN 2007 IN 2013, THE CITY OF TAMARAC ENTERED INTO THE ILA TO START USING THAT AGREEMENT WITH WHEELABRATOR TO DISPOSE OF OUR OF OUR SOLID WASTE.

AND THAT CONTRACT, THE INITIAL TERM, WAS VALID FROM JULY 2013 TO JULY 2018.

IN 2018, WE EXERCISED THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT AGREEMENT, WHICH THEN EXTENDED THAT FROM 2018 TO 2023.

THERE ARE STILL TWO FIVE YEAR RENEWALS RENEWAL OPTIONS TO THIS CONTRACT, TWO OF FIVE.

THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT WOULD EXTEND FROM 23 TO 28.

HOWEVER, THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC CLAUSE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHEELABRATOR AND BROWARD COUNTY THAT REQUIRED BROWARD COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO PROMISE AT LEAST 50000 TONS OF SOLID WASTE EFFECTIVE [INAUDIBLE] JANUARY 15, 2022.

AND SO THIS IS THIS.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS DOING A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, IT IS EXTENDING THAT AGREEMENT FROM 2023 TO 2028.

AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY I FEEL THAT THAT IS A POSITIVE THING AND IT IS ALSO BY DEFAULT THEN HAVING THE CITIES COMMIT THEIR SOLID WASTE STREAM TWO WHEELABRATOR IN ORDER TO AFFECT THIS, THIS SORT OF COUNTY WIDE EXTENSION OF THIS OF THIS ILA.

RIGHT NOW, WITH THE CITIES THAT CURRENTLY PARTICIPATE WITH WHEELABRATOR, WE ARE CLOSE TO A MILLION TONS OF SOLID WASTE.

SO IT'S IT SHOULD BE RELATIVELY EASY FOR THE THE PARTICIPATING CITIES, EVEN IF NOT EVERY SINGLE CITY CHOOSES TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS.

IT STILL SHOULD BE RELATIVELY EASY FOR US TO HIT THAT 500000 TON MARK AND.

SO THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE OF THE CHANGES THAT WOULD OCCUR WITH THE WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ILA.

SO FIRST OF ALL, OBVIOUSLY WOULD EXTEND IT UNTIL THE 2028.

THERE IS AN ANNUAL CPI INDEX THAT STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME.

IT HAS A ONE PERCENT FLOOR AND A FIVE PERCENT CEILING, SO THAT WOULD STILL STAY IN PLACE AND THAT BETWEEN NOW AND 2023 WOULD ACTUALLY HIT TWICE.

SO IT HIT IN JULY OF 2022 AND IT HIT IN JULY OF 2023.

AND THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL $1.50 PER TON THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED ON TO THAT RATE.

I'M NOT DEFENDING THAT THAT INCREASE.

I WILL SAY THAT THE FIRST TWO OR THREE YEARS OF THIS RECENT CONTRACT EXTENSION, THE CPI WAS EFFECTIVELY FLAT, AND SO I AGAIN, NOT IN DEFENSE OF IT.

I ASSUME THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH UP OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM AND AND IT DOESN'T.

EFFECTIVELY, IT DOESN'T RAISE THE RATE DRAMATICALLY.

THE ONE ISSUE THAT IS IN PLAY HERE IS THAT WE CURRENTLY PAY ALL THE CITIES ON THIS CONTRACT CURRENTLY PAY LESS FOR OUR BULK AND YARD WASTE.

RIGHT NOW, SOLID WASTE IS 47.79, $47.79 PER TON, AND BULK RATE BULK WASTE IS $31.11 .

SO WHEELABRATOR HAS THE POSITION THAT THAT SOLID WASTE RATE OF 47.79 YOU KNOW, PLUS THE CPI PLUS THE CPI, THAT THAT WOULD APPLY TO EVERYTHING.

THAT'S A GLOBAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROWARD COUNTY AND WHEELABRATOR THAT IS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION.

BROWARD COUNTY IS NOT ANY HAPPIER THAN ANY OF US ARE.

SO THERE STILL IS SOME, THERE STILL SOME ROOM FOR THAT TO RESOLVE ITSELF.

I WILL SAY THAT OUR BULK WASTE STREAM COMPARED TO THE SOLID WASTE STREAM, IT ONLY MAKES UP 12 PERCENT OF THE OF THE WHOLE SOLID WASTE STREAM.

SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT IS ACTUAL GARBAGE, 12 PERCENT IS BULK AND ROUGHLY 10 PERCENT IS RECYCLING.

SO EVEN WITH THE POTENTIAL COST INCREASE TO THE SOLID WASTE, AND LET'S LET'S

[02:15:05]

EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT HERE, I'LL ASSUME THAT BULK IS INCLUDED IN THAT AND THAT HIGHER RATE.

EVEN WITH THAT INCREASE, THE ILA IS STILL, IN MY OPINION, THE BEST OPTION TO DISPOSE OF SOLID WASTE.

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER OPTION FOR US TO GO TO.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF LARGER CITIES THAT HAVE THEIR OWN CONTRACT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

I CAN SAY POMPANO HAS A HAS A SEPARATE CONTRACT, BUT THAT'S A LARGE CITY.

AND AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT I THINK THEY AND HOLLYWOOD ARE TWO CITIES THAT HAVE A SEPARATE STANDALONE CONTRACT ON THEIR OWN.

I WOULD NOT ADVISE US TO DO THAT.

I THINK THIS ILA HAS SERVED US WELL.

THE DISPOSAL AT THE WASTE ENERGY PLANT IS STILL, IN MY OPINION, THE BEST OPTION WE HAVE.

AND I THINK GOING FORWARD, IT STILL IS GOING TO REMAIN TO BE A GREAT OPTION AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE INCREASED TECHNOLOGY COMING IN.

THE TIMING OF THIS OF THIS EXTENSION IS ALSO VERY BENEFICIAL TO US AS A CITY.

OUR CURRENT CONTRACT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR THE HAULING OF OUR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING EXPIRES ON SEPTEMBER 2023.

THERE ARE NO EXTENSIONS ALLOWED IN THAT CONTRACT, SO WE ARE GOING TO BE GOING OUT TO BID, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE STARTING THAT PROCESS NEXT YEAR.

SO HAVING A STABLE, DEFINED LOCATION TO BE TAKING OUR SOLID WASTE TO IS ONLY A GOOD THING, THAT WILL ONLY HELP US IN BEING ABLE TO NEGOTIATE A HAULING CONTRACT THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE MORE FAVORABLE TO US.

AND AND SO THAT WILL BE A POSITIVE THING GOING FORWARD.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL ASK IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, ANYTHING THAT YOU NEED CLARIFIED.

THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR.

OUR CONTRACT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, YOU SAID, ENDS ON SEPTEMBER 2023.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT DOES NOT AFFECT.

ANYTHING SO EVEN IF WE CHANGE VENDORS, THAT IS IN EFFECT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

CORRECT THESE, THOSE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONTRACTS TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCESSES.

SO ONE IS THE IS THE CONTRACT THAT PICKS THE GARBAGE UP AT THE SIDE OF THE CURB.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS WHERE THEY TAKE THAT TO TO BE ULTIMATELY PROCESSED.

THANK YOU.

I WILL NOW OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THIS COMMISSION, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GOMEZ.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YES.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

AND VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

YES.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY FOUR TO ZERO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

[6a. TO2485 - Amending Section 2-29(c), of the City's Code, entitled "Regular meetings"]

WE WILL NOW GO TO SIX A ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING, WE HAVE TO2485 AMENDING SECTION 2-29C OF THE CITY'S CODE, ENTITLED REGULAR MEETING, CITY ATTORNEY.

PLEASE READ THE TITLE, FOR THE RECORD.

YES MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, AMENDING ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 2-29C OF THE TAMARAC CITY CODE ENTITLED REGULAR MEETINGS PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SO MOVED.

SECOND.

CITY CLERK WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS NEEDED.

SEEING THAT WE DON'T ALSO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON HERE, IT IS AN ITEM FOR THE AGENDA.

ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO MAKE COMMENTS.

SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE CLOSED.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

I CAN'T TELL IF THESE ARE ON FROM LAST OR IF THERE ARE.

JUST HAD A YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE WATCHING FROM HOME AND ALL THAT STUFF.

THIS IS TO MOVE THE MEETING TIME.

THIS ITEM IS TO GO AHEAD CITY CLERK.

THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR AT A PREVIOUS MEETING YOU.

THE COMMISSION, AS A BODY OR AS A CONSENSUS, DECIDED TO MOVE THE BOTH MEETINGS, THE SECOND WEDNESDAY AND THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH TO SIX P.M.

SAME STARTING TIME.

SO THIS WILL BEGIN JANUARY ONE, GIVING US TIME IF IT PASSES OR IF IT'S ADOPTED ON SECOND READING AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO START ADVERTISING THAT TO THE RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU.

ARE YOU? OK.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YOUR LIGHT IS LIT.

YEAH, I JUST THINK THE MEETING SHOULD REMAIN AT SEVEN O'CLOCK PM.

PEOPLE ARE STILL GETTING OFF FROM WORK AT FIVE O'CLOCK, SIX O'CLOCK, 6:30.

THEY'RE ON THE ROAD, THEY'RE TRAVELING.

MOST CITIES IN BROWARD COUNTY THEIR COMMISSION MEETING STARTS AT SEVEN O'CLOCK PM.

SO I DISAGREE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS AND THAT'S WHO WE'RE HERE TO REPRESENT.

AND AT TIMES THEY, YOU KNOW, MOST MEETINGS ARE EMPTY, BUT AT TIMES THEY WANT

[02:20:02]

TO BE HERE.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE A MEETING THAT STARTS AT SIX O'CLOCK, MOST OFTEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE HERE.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

AS FOR MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE HAVING TWO EVENING MEETINGS A MONTH.

THIS COMMISSION IS NOT SERVING ALL OF THE PUBLIC THAT IT SERVES, AND BY REMOVING THE DAY MEETING, WE HAVE REMOVED THOSE PEOPLE WHO WORK AT NIGHT FROM THEIR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO COME TO THE MEETING OR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT DRIVE AT NIGHT TO BE ABLE TO COME AND BE HEARD AT OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS.

AND I ALSO THINK WE ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO OUR CITY STAFF BY MAKING THEM STAY LONGER AND BE HERE AT EVENINGS AND THEN TO MAKE IT START AT 6:00 P.M., WHERE IT'S EVEN WE DON'T END EARLIER.

AND WE HAVE THEORETICALLY EXTENDED THEIR TIME, SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS EITHER, FOR MY REASONS.

PARDON? WE HAVE BEEN DOING BETTER, YES, WE HAVE, BUT THAT ALSO DOESN'T TAKE AWAY, IN MY OPINION, THE FACT THAT WE ARE REMOVING THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE FOR ONCE A MONTH BY HAVING ALL NIGHT MEETINGS.

SO I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY HAS MADE ANY COMMENTS THAT THEY WISH TO MAKE.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, ARE YOU WISHING TO MAKE A COMMENT? WELL, IF I'M HEARING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER MOTION TO SWITCH ONE MEETING BACK TO MORNING.

WELL, THERE'S CURRENTLY A MEETING, THERE'S CURRENTLY A MOTION AT THIS TIME FOR IT TO BE AT SIX P.M.

FOR BOTH EVENING MEETINGS, AND THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

I'M SAYING THAT FOR THE REASONS OF THAT, I'VE JUST GIVEN I DO NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE US.

OKAY.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR GOMEZ.

NO, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

NO.

VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS.

NO.

THE MOTION FAILS THREE TO ONE.

THANK YOU.

SO AT THIS TIME, THIS COMMISSION IS AWARE THAT IT HAD [INAUDIBLE].

COMMISSIONER PLACKO IS FOR THE CHANGE.

COMMISSIONER GELIN MYSELF AND YOURSELF VOTED TO NOT CHANGE IT ACCORDINGLY.

IS THAT THE VOTE THAT YOU WISH TO TO MAKE, WAS THAT THE VOTE YOU WISH TO MAKE? SO AS THIS COMMISSION IS AWARE THAT WE HAVE MADE AN END DATE TO SUNSET THE CURRENT MEETING SCHEDULE AS IT IS IN DECEMBER, SO.

IT WOULD RESUME TO THE NORMAL.

RIGHT? YES, NO, MAYBE [INAUDIBLE].

CITY ATTORNEY.

OK, SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THIS ITEM FAILS.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

SORRY.

DESPITE NEW CONTACTS, I'M HAVING SOME ISSUES.

[10a. Discussion and consensus on Inspiration Way art piece purchase and permanent placement]

WE WILL NOW MOVE TO 10, AM I CORRECT? WE ARE NOW.

YUP.

WE'RE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 10 OTHER 10 A DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS ON INSPIRATION WAY ART PIECE PURCHASE AND PERMANENT PLACEMENT.

THE PRESENTATION THAT WE WILL RECEIVE IS BY BETH RAVITZ, AND I'M NOT SURE IF GEORGE GADSON IS ON THE AIR, SO TO SPEAK.

NO, GEORGE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.

OK.

WE MISS GEORGE, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE YOU.

PLEASE PROCEED.

YES, I'M BETH RAVITZ AND MY PARTNER GEORGE GADSON IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, BUT ALWAYS IN OUR MINDS.

OK, I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PURCHASES FOR INSPIRATION WAY THIS YEAR.

THIS WAS OUR SECOND INSPIRATION WAY, AND THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE DECIDED TO MAKE SOME PURCHASES.

THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE OF A $60000 PURCHASE BUDGET, IF SO DESIRED.

YOU DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT, BUT WE CAN USE IT UP TO 60000.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

OK.

THIS IS ONE PURCHASE, IT'S CALLED SUPERSTAR.

IT'S BEEN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET IN FRONT OF A RETENTION POND.

THE ORIGINAL PRICE WAS 25000, AND HE AGREED TO SELL IT TO US FOR 22000.

DID? I HAD THE LOCATIONS.

THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT.

OK, THIS IS A SECOND ONE, WHICH IS LEE BELL.

IT'S CALLED BLUE HERON, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S ON STATE STREET AND NOB HILL, AND HER FINAL PRICE IS 12000.

AND THIS IS UNSTOPPABLE.

CORNER OF COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD AND NOB HILL.

OK.

THE UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRESENTATION THE FINAL THAT I SENT IN DIDN'T MAKE IT

[02:25:02]

BECAUSE I WANTED TO SHOW YOU.

THE COMMITTEE ALSO DECIDED WHERE TO PERMANENTLY RELOCATE THESE SCULPTURES.

SUPERSTORE.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON A MEDIAN ON LAGOS DE CAMPOS, STARTING AT MACNAB AND GOING ALONG THE ROAD ENDING AT PINE ISLAND.

THERE'S A VERY LOVELY MEDIAN THERE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON THAT MEDIAN.

THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT IS TO TRY TO TAKE THESE SCULPTURES FROM INSPIRATION WAY, WHICH ARE SMALLER, LESS EXPENSIVE AND PUT THEM WHERE RESIDENTS CAN FEEL IT'S PART OF THEIR COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF.

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT SCULPTURES ON SIGNIFICANT AREAS THROUGHOUT TAMARAC.

AND THAT'S WHY THE MEDIAN WAS CHOSEN.

BLUE HERON.

WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT HERE IN CITY HALL AT THE ENTRANCE AND TAKE THE SCULPTURE THAT'S HERE IN CITY HALL AND PUT IT IN THE LOBBY OF THE NEW COLONY WEST CLUBHOUSE, WHERE BILL WELLER HAS GIVEN THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE $5000 OF HIS BUDGET, WHICH HE HAS AVAILABLE FOR ART.

HE'S GIVING IT TO THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE.

WE'VE DECIDED TO MATCH IT, AND WE THOUGHT THAT BLUE HERON WOULD LOOK VERY GOOD THERE.

WHAT HAPPENED TO MY THIRD ONE? UNSTOPPABLE, WHICH WAS THE ONE ON THE CORNER OF COMMERCIAL AND NOB HILL.

WE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE IN THE NEW WATERS EDGE PARK.

WHEN YOU ENTER THE PARK TO THE LEFT, THERE'S A GRASSY AREA AND WE THOUGHT THAT THAT SCULPTURE IS VERY PLAYFUL AND VERY FUN AND WOULD LOOK GOOD THERE.

OK, HERE IS THE CORRECT.

OK, SO HERE'S SUPERSTAR ON THAT MEDIAN THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING.

AND THAT'S BLUE HERON, WHICH WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO PUT IN THE LOBBY HERE.

AND UNSTOPPABLE IN WATERS EDGE PARK.

ANY QUESTIONS? CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO COLONY WEST SITUATION? YES.

BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR OF COLONY WEST REQUESTED THAT HE NEEDS ARTWORK THERE.

SO WE MET THERE TO LOOK AT ALL THE BLANK WALLS.

AND HE TOLD US THAT HE HAS $5000 IN HIS BUDGET.

HE HAS A LINE ITEM AVAILABLE FOR ART.

AND WOULD WE LIKE TO PLACE ART THERE? SO THE COMMITTEE ON THREE DIFFERENT WALLS.

ONE, WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE COLONY WEST LOBBY TOWARD THE BACK THERE JUST BEFORE THE RESTAURANT, THERE'S A COUCH WITH A WALL ABOVE IT.

THAT WAS ONE SPOT.

THEN UPSTAIRS, RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE GLASS PIECE THAT'S ON THE WALL NOW ACROSS FROM IT.

THERE'S A WALL BEFORE YOU GO INTO THE BANQUET HALL.

WE THOUGHT A PAINTING WOULD LOOK VERY GOOD THERE.

AND THEN TO THE LEFT WALL, TO THE RIGHT OF THE ELEVATORS.

THERE'S AN EMPTY WALL THERE AS WELL.

WHERE WOULD THIS GO? EXCUSE ME.

WHERE WOULD THIS PIECE GO? OH, THIS SCULPTURE.

WE HAVEN'T DECIDED EXACTLY THE LOCATION WHERE IT WOULD GO.

BUT WE KNOW WE WANT TO MOVE IT THERE AND WE WILL DISCUSS IT WITH BILL AND HIS STAFF IF THEY HAVE ANY IDEAS WHERE THEY WANT IT.

BUT IT'S A BEAUTIFUL SCULPTURE AND WE NEED A PLACE FOR BLUE HERON.

AND WE THOUGHT BLUE HERON WOULD LOOK VERY GOOD HERE AND THAT THIS SCULPTURE IS VERY MORE APPROPRIATE, BLUE HERON IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A COLONY WEST CLUBHOUSE.

WE FEEL, AND WE FEEL THAT THIS SCULPTURE IS VERY APPROPRIATE, SO WE'LL PLACE IT PROBABLY IN THE DOWNSTAIRS LOBBY SOMEWHERE.

SO WE'RE PUTTING A CALL OUT FOR ARTISTS $3000 FOR THREE DIFFERENT PAINTINGS.

WE'VE INCLUDED IMAGES OF COLONY WEST CLUBHOUSE.

WE'VE INCLUDED THE PUBLIC ART THAT'S ALREADY THERE SO THAT THE ARTISTS WHO APPLY WHO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION KNOW WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, WHERE ASKING FOR A LARGE SIZED PAINTING OR WHAT'S CALLED A BAR RELIEF, WHICH IS ARTWORK THAT IS MORE THREE DIMENSIONAL, BUT IT

[02:30:01]

STILL IS ON THE WALL FOR THOSE THREE LOCATIONS.

IF AN ARTIST HAS THREE WORKS THAT WE THINK ARE GREAT, WE COULD BUY IT ALL FROM ONE ARTIST OR THREE DIFFERENT ARTISTS $3000 APIECE.

THANK YOU, I AM SORRY, BUT I MISSED A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THIS CONVERSATION, I DIDN'T.

THE FLIES WENT FAST.

YOU'RE STATING TO TAKE THE CURRENT SCULPTURE THAT IS IN THE LOBBY HERE, YES.

DO YOU HAVE A PHOTO OF THAT AGAIN FOR PEOPLE TO SEE? I DON'T, BUT IT'S IT'S IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE DESK WHERE THE GUARD SITS AND IT'S SILVER AND IT'S ABOUT FIVE FEET HIGH.

IT'S ON ABOUT A ONE FOOT PEDESTAL.

AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT AT COLONY WEST AND PUT BLUE HERON HERE.

NO, I GOT THAT PART.

I'M OK WITH WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT BLUE HERON.

I GET THAT.

YOU WANT TO PUT BLUE HERON HERE, OR IT'S A LITTLE MORE VIBRANT AND DRAMATIC.

MM HMM.

MY CURIOSITY IS WHERE YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT PIECE THAT'S IN OUR LOBBY AND WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT IT IN COLONY WEST.

RIGHT.

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT LOCATION YET FOR IT.

WE'LL DISCUSS IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

OK.

AND THEN WE WILL SHOW YOU ONCE WE GET THE SUBMISSIONS FOR THE CALL FOR ART, FOR THE THREE WALL PIECES.

WE WILL BE PRESENTING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THE PROCEDURE THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE MAKES A RECOMMENDATION AND WE BRING IT TO YOU FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

SO AT THIS TIME, BASICALLY, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT THAT PIECE WILL ACTUALLY FIND A HOME THERE IS THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT THAT PIECE WILL FIND A HOME THERE.

YES.

BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED IS TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ARTWORK THAT WE HAVE HERE WITH BLUE HERON.

YES.

ON THE SIMPLEST BASIS.

THAT I GOT.

SO PERSONALLY, I HAPPEN TO THINK THE HIGH JUMPER, THE CLOWN MAN, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL HIM, WHATEVER IS SORRY.

UNSTOPPABLE.

I THINK HE'S HILARIOUS AND GREAT, AND I'VE ALWAYS ENJOYED WHEN I'VE PASSED BY AND THE FIRST TIME I SAW, I SMILED SO.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE PICTURE OF WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLACE IT IN OUR PARK BECAUSE THAT ALSO HAS TO BE VERY.

CAREFUL WHERE WE HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THERE AND A LOT OF ACTIVITIES, SO I THINK IT'S FUN AND I THINK IT FITS.

SO PERSONALLY, I HAVE I'M FINE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID WITH THE CURRENT PIECES, WHERE PURCHASING AND WHERE THEIR PLATE BEING PLACED VERSUS ANYTHING ELSE.

THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE ON THAT AS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM.

SO.

TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION, WE WILL ASK FOR A CONSENSUS.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THAT'S A YES, WITHOUT THE MIC.

SO SHE SAYS YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

I SUPPORT THE FULL PRESENTATION THAT SHE GAVE TONIGHT.

VICE MAYOR.

YES.

YOU'VE GOT CONSENSUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THE COMMITTEE.

THANKS YOU.

I KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY PLEASED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION ANOTHER TIME.

OK.

SO I HAVE 10B DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION RELATED TO A MAJORITY, NOT A

[10b. Discussion and direction related to a "majority" not a "super majority" when it comes to the censure and/or removal of a member of the City Commission]

SUPERMAJORITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CENSURE AND OR REMOVAL OF A MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

THIS ITEM WAS REQUESTED BY VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS TO INTRODUCE HIS REQUEST.

PLEASE PROCEED.

SO THIS COMES FROM, YOU KNOW, OUR BEHAVIOR ON WHETHER IT'S ON THE DAIS OR THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OR ELSEWHERE.

AND QUITE BRIEFLY, NOT TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THIS WE CURRENTLY ARE ABLE TO CENSOR SOMEONE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND ALTHOUGH WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT THIS EARLIER THIS YEAR, NONE OF US CENSORED ANYONE.

AND WE JUST LET THINGS HAPPEN.

AND I THINK THE ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT THERE.

I THINK IF WE CAN HIRE AND FIRE A CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AND THOSE ARE BIG ROLES, OUR ROLES ARE ALSO HUGE.

WE ARE THE LEADERSHIP IN THE CITY.

AND IF WE'RE NOT HOLDING EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE, IF WE'RE NOT SHOWING LEADERSHIP SKILLS THAT WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING PROPERLY AND IF WE'RE MISBEHAVING, WE'RE DOING ALL TYPES OF SHENANIGANS, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CENSOR SOMEONE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR.

AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ALLOWED TO, AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT EITHER.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING INTO.

AND IT'S JUST FOR CIVILITY.

AND I KNOW THAT THIS COMMISSION, WITH MY EXCEPTION, HAS GONE THROUGH

[02:35:05]

A CIVILITY, YOU KNOW, WORKSHOP AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

THE NEXT ONE IS THE REMOVAL OF A COMMISSION MEMBER FROM THE DAIS.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ON A SUPERMAJORITY, WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY BECAUSE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO REACH A SUPERMAJORITY, SO THAT MEANS THAT.

ANY OF US CAN ACT UP AND NEVER BE REMOVED.

AND I THINK.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS, WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM TRUE JUSTICE FOR WHAT WE ARE TO BE DOING, EVEN IN OUR ETHICS COURSE THIS THIS MORNING INTO THE AFTERNOON.

THEY TOUCHED ON THIS.

AND IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE.

YOU KNOW, I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER GELIN, AND WE WERE ABLE TO HASH OUT IN A CIVIL MANNER, SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M SORRY.

LET'S RESPECT EACH OTHER MORE.

AND I THINK WE NEED THAT.

AND I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER GELIN FOR TAKING THE TIME TO TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED, BUT WE ALSO NEED SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FALL BACK ON WHEN WE DON'T ACT PROPERLY.

SO.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, IT'S HOW DO WE CHANGE EVEN IF YOU GUYS EVEN SUPPORT THAT? BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE FIRST STEP.

IF WE CAN SUPPORT A MAJORITY VERSUS THE SUPER MAJORITY, AND I KNOW IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF CODE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHIN ONE, BECAUSE ONE IS FOR CENSURE AND THE OTHER IS FOR REMOVAL OF THE COMMISSION.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU WHEN YOU SAY REMOVAL OF A MEMBER FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, YOU'RE SEEKING IT NOT PERMANENTLY, BUT FOR THE EVENING OR FOR THE MEETING.

OK.

JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

AND CITY ATTORNEY, WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT CENSURE ACTUALLY IS? YES, CENSURE IS A IS ESSENTIALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF A PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND UNDER THE EXISTING CODE PROVISIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CENSURE OR REPRIMAND PUBLICLY ONE OF YOURSELVES FOR ANY ACTION THAT A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION BELIEVE IS INAPPROPRIATE AND WARRANTING THAT SUCH A PUBLIC REPRIMAND REPRIMAND, IT DOES REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, FOUR FIFTHS VOTE.

AND THEN AND IF THE IF THIS COMMISSION, AS A AS A BODY, WISHES FOR THAT TO BE CHANGED TO JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

DIRECT US TO DO SO AND WE'LL PROCESS A CODE AMENDMENT.

SO THAT'S SIMPLE AS THAT.

RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

THANK YOU.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CODE OF CONDUCT ITEMS FOR REMOVAL FROM THE DAIS WAS ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY, NOT A SUPERMAJORITY.

IS THAT INCORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IT IS JUST.

ONE IS REMOVAL OF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A MEMBER OF THE BODY FROM THE CHAMBERS FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT OR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR IS BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY AND AT THE DISCRETION OF THE THE MAYOR IS THE ONE RUNNING THE MEETING.

YOU IMPLEMENT THAT THROUGH A VOTE, WHEREAS A FORMAL CENSURE OF THIS BODY TO ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, NOT A MAJORITY VOTE.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMISSION CHANGED THE RULES THAT REMOVED MY ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE OR GIVE A WARNING FOR ANYBODY WHO IS BEHAVING AGAINST OUR ETHICS IN OUR RULES WHERE I DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY ANY LONGER.

SO IT IS UP TO THIS COMMISSION, SO THE COMMISSION ALREADY HAS THAT POWER OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY REQUEST OF SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT BEHAVING ACCORDING TO OUR CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE REMOVAL OF A PERSON ON THE COMMISSION.

AT A MEETING VICE MAYOR.

SO THAT PART, I THINK, IS HANDLED.

OK.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE ITEM THAT HAS A SUPERMAJORITY? OK, SO.

NO ONE ELSE IS SEEMING TO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.

I'LL SHARE MY MY THOUGHTS.

FIRST OF ALL, IT'S IN MY OPINION, UNBELIEVABLE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO TELL US HOW TO BEHAVE.

REALITY IS WE SHOULD ALL KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE.

IT IS DISGUSTING THAT IT HAS EVER COME TO A POINT WHERE WE ARE GOING AGAINST THE

[02:40:04]

RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE.

AND ANYBODY AT ANY TIME ON THIS COMMISSION HAS HAD THE ABILITY TO SAY SOMEONE'S NOT BEHAVING.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE IDEA OF CENSURE, CENSURE IS A TWO STEP PROCESS.

IT TAKES THE MOTION FOR CENSURE TO COME OUT FOR ONE MEETING.

THAT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY AND THEN IT HAS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT A SECOND MEETING, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE SUPERMAJORITY.

LETTER OF CENSURE.

IT DEPENDS ON YOUR FEELINGS ON IF IT HOLDS ANY WEIGHT.

BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY SAYING PUBLIC REPRIMAND.

TODAY'S DAY AND AGE, EVERYBODY WATCHES THE MEETINGS, MAYBE.

MY CONCERN WITH MOVING FROM A SUPERMAJORITY TO A MAJORITY.

IS WHEN THERE ARE TIMES WHEN.

THERE MIGHT BE COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO MAY JUST.

USE THE POWER FOR GAMESMANSHIP OR POLITICAL REASONING VERSUS FOR ANY TRUE RATIONALE TO HAVE A CENSURE.

SO THAT IS WHAT MY BELIEF IS, WHY THERE SHOULD BE.

A SUPERMAJORITY, AND QUITE HONESTLY, I'VE EXPRESSED THIS OPINION TO.

OTHERS THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE REMOVAL OR CHANGE OF A.

CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE THE SAME AS THREE FOURTHS TO AVOID ANY POTENTIAL POLITICAL GAME PLAYING.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE NOW IN A WORLD THAT WE START LOOKING AT THINGS IN THE NEGATIVE VERSUS IN THE POSITIVE.

AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT'S A SHAME, BUT.

SO I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.

I ALSO THINK THAT SOMETIMES ALL THE RULES IN THE WORLD AREN'T GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE PROPERLY.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW.

WE TELL PEOPLE, DON'T TEXT AND DRIVE, WE TELL PEOPLE SPEED LIMITS, WE TELL PEOPLE THAT THE COFFEE IS HOT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PUT IT IN WRITING.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S IN WRITING.

IF PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES, PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.

IS DONE IN WRITING, AND I DON'T KNOW.

IF OUR ROLES ARE JUST ON A SIMPLE BASIS, THE CHANGE OR THE TEETH ARE STRONG ENOUGH FOR ENFORCEMENT.

JUST THOUGHTS COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YEAH.

SO FIRST QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

HOW MANY OTHER CITIES THAT YOU THAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH IN TERMS OF WORKING WHERE THERE WAS NOT A SUPERMAJORITY FOR REMOVING A MEMBER FROM A COMMISSION MEETING? I WOULD SAY PROBABLY SPLIT.

THE, YOU KNOW, REMOVAL UNDER YOUR EXISTING REGULATIONS.

REMOVAL OF A EITHER A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER FROM THE CHAMBERS DOES NOT REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY.

RIGHT.

SO IN THAT REGARD, I THINK THAT YOU'RE SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.

I AS WITH REGARD TO PROBABLY THE NEXT WHAT I ANTICIPATE, THE NEXT QUESTION ABOUT CENSURE AGAIN, PROBABLY SPLIT EVENLY.

SOME REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY.

OTHERS DON'T.

SOME JUST REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

YEAH, I THINK THE I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR HAVING THE HIGH BAR OF A SUPERMAJORITY IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN ABUSE POWER IF YOU HAVE THREE VOTES.

IF YOU HAVE THREE FRIENDS ON THE COMMISSION AND THERE'S A WINK WINK AND YOU WANT TO HARM SOMEONE, YOU CAN DO THAT.

AND THEN IT IT RUINS THE REPUTATION OF THE CITY BY HAVING SOMEONE CENSURE OR REMOVE ON A REGULAR BASIS.

SO HAVING THAT SUPERMAJORITY OF FOUR FIFTHS REALLY SETS A HIGH BAR.

SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR THAT SOMEONE REALLY HAS TO DO SOMETHING EGREGIOUS TO HAVE THEM CENSURED OR REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

SO I THINK HAVING THE SUPERMAJORITY IS IMPORTANT.

WE DO HAVE A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO REMOVE SOMEONE, AND NO ONE HAS AGREED TO DO THAT.

SO IT'S NORMAL FOR PEOPLE TO DISAGREE.

SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, TENSIONS FLARE UP.

PEOPLE SAY THINGS THAT THEY REGRET, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ALSO MAKE UP AND APOLOGIZE AND COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER, AS WE DID WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO THIS LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT OR DISCIPLINE.

AND SO WE'VE DONE REALLY WELL SINCE THE DIVIDER IN CHIEF HAS BEEN REMOVED.

[02:45:03]

AND I THINK THAT'S WHY SOME OF OUR MEETINGS AND EVERYTHING HAS GONE SMOOTHLY SINCE WE'VE HAD A CHANGE IN IN CITY MANAGEMENT.

SO I DON'T SEE A NEED TO GO AWAY FROM A SUPER MAJORITY.

CAN I ADD THAT WE IF WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGH STANDARD THAT.

THE THREE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE THAT ARE REALLY HIGH BAR, WHICH IS ACCOUNTABILITY AND HIRING AND FIRING OF CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY, BE CHANGED TO SUPERMAJORITY.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN? GIVE ME ONE SECOND CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT A CHARTER ITEM THAT IS A CHARTER ITEM AND.

SO I WOULD JUST PUT IT OUT THERE THAT I SUPPORT THAT ITEM COMING BEFORE THE CHARTER COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.

SO.

I DON'T SUPPORT THAT ITEM.

THANK YOU.

AND IT STILL CAN COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.

THAT'S WHAT THEIR PURPOSE IS.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO WAS NEXT.

YEAH, IT DISTURBS ME A LITTLE THAT THIS IS EVEN BEING BROUGHT UP.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT, BUT IT'S BETTER TO GET IT ON THE TABLE.

BUT I THINK IF WE AS A GOVERNING BODY, IT SHOULD BE THE SUPERMAJORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

I WOULD NOT LIKE TO THINK THAT WE'D HAVE THREE PEOPLE GANGING UP AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT HAS TO BE A SUPERMAJORITY.

THANK YOU.

SO WE WE HAVE THAT AND BASICALLY WE WILL CONTINUE TO HOPE GOING FORWARD THAT PEOPLE WILL JUST TALK TO THE ITEM AND NOT ABOUT A PERSON AND EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND WE COULD TALK ABOUT OUR OPINIONS BUT NOT PUT THEM FORTH.

WITH ANY KIND OF ANTAGONISM, ANTAGONISM TO ANYBODY INDIVIDUALLY.

AND THAT'S THE WAY WE NEED TO CONTINUE GOING FORWARD, AND THAT'S MY HOPE FOR THIS COMMISSION.

SO SAYING THAT THIS ITEM IS OVER, WE WILL NOW GO TO ITEM 10 C DISCUSSION

[10c. Discussion related to City Commission activity on all Social Media Platforms]

RELATED TO CITY COMMISSION ACTIVITY ON ALL SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. THIS ITEM WAS ALSO ASKED FOR BY VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS, AND THEREFORE I WILL TURN THE FLOOR BACK OVER TO YOU TO PRESENT THIS REQUEST.

SO THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST ITEM, BUT I LIKE TO JUST GIVE DIRECTION AND INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTION WITH THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CITY MANAGER OR CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO DRAFT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN WE CAN ENFORCE WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOCIAL MEDIA OUTLETS THAT ARE NOT GIVING US A GOOD REPUTATION AND THEY'RE DOING CHARACTER DAMAGE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THOSE EITHER A COMMISSION MEMBER THAT TENDS TO FORWARD THEM TO OUR CONSTITUENTS OR ANYONE THAT IS BLATANTLY JUST JUST MIXING FACTS WITH FICTION AND AND HOLD THOSE PARTIES ACCOUNTABLE ON OUR BEHALF AND TAKE ACTION TOWARDS THAT.

I DON'T THINK OUR CURRENT POLICY WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA IS VERY STRONG WHEN IT COMES TO THE COMMISSION.

PERHAPS IT'S STRONG WHEN IT COMES TO STAFF, BUT NOT FOR US.

SO I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN COME BACK WITH THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT.

AGAIN, IT'S JUST CONSENSUS ON WHAT THEY CAN DRAFT AND WE CAN DISAPPROVE OR APPROVE WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA OUTLETS.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

JUST SORT OF CITY MANAGER.

AN ATTORNEY AND STAFF CAN DRAFT A STRONG SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM USAGE.

AND IF WE CAN COME, YOU KNOW, WHEN WITH IF ANY OF US TRIES TO LIE TO THE PRESS OR LIE ABOUT US OR CREATE NARRATIVES OR JUST.

WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE CONSEQUENCES.

IT WAS KIND OF WITH THE FIRST ITEM THAT I HAVE AND THIS IS BASED ON ARTICLES.

THIS IS BASED ON NEXT DOOR, OUR NEXT DOOR ACCOUNTS BEING REMOVED BECAUSE WE WERE DELETING MESSAGES AND REMOVING CERTAIN COMMISSION MEMBERS AWAY FROM PAGES.

WE HAD CERTAIN ISSUES WITH THE COMMISSION, WITH OUR COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, EMAILS

[02:50:01]

GOING TO OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT WERE JUST LIES.

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CORRECT THOSE ISSUES.

AND I JUST WANT CITY THE CITY TO JUST KIND OF SOMEHOW PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER, DRAFT SOMETHING AND THEN WE CAN REVIEW IT TO SEE IF WE WANT TO APPROVE THAT OR NOT.

WHO'S GOING TO BE MONITORING THAT? WHO'S GOING TO BE? OR WE SEE IT ON NEXT DOOR ON FACEBOOK.

OUR RESIDENTS GET THE EMAILS.

YOU KNOW.

SO WE SEE IT.

BUT OK, SO THEN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T LIKE.

IT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT? IT'S OUT THERE, IT'S DONE.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE SOME CONSENSUS OF WHAT WE CAN DO.

WHETHER IT'S CENSORING THAT PERSON THAT'S FORWARDING FAKE NEWS, QUOTE UNQUOTE, OR IT'S REMOVING THEM FROM THE COMMISSIONER, THAT'S WHERE ITEM A CAME ITEM B CAME FROM.

SO IT WAS A CORRELATION WITH THAT.

THIS IS JUST SO THAT THEY CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT FOR US.

OK, I AM FOR A POLICY, A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY THAT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO, FOR DRAFTING SOMETHING FOR US TO READ, TO SEE WHAT IT IS.

SOCIAL MEDIA IS TAKING ON NEW LIFE.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS GROWN OVER THE YEARS.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY MUCH PREVALENT BEFORE 2020, AND I WILL SAY IT'S BECOME PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN MORE ACCESS TO INTERNET, MORE ACCESS TO BLOG PAGES OR BECOME BLOGGERS.

MORE ACCESS TO EMAIL ADDRESSES OR WHATEVER THEY WANT.

OR CREATE THEIR OWN PROFILES WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHO'S ACTUALLY THE ONE CREATING THEM.

AND SO THE INTERNET AS A WHOLE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS ARE VERY MUCH.

SOME TERRITORY THAT HAS NEEDS TO HAVE SOME RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND IT IS AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE THERE IS NO.

THERE'S NO RAMIFICATION FOR PEOPLE WHO JUST TAKE ONE SENTENCE THAT YOU SAID, MAYBE AT EIGHT O'CLOCK, DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT DON'T DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE WAS A LOT OF DETAIL AND THINGS CHANGE BY NINE O'CLOCK.

OR MAYBE YOU HAVE A SENTENCE SET AT EIGHT, ANOTHER SUNSET AT 10 AND THEN PUT IT IN THE ORDER.

AFTER THAT IS ANOTHER SENTENCE SET AT NINE AND OUT OF CONTEXT.

CONTEXT CAN CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND IT HAS BEEN CREATING A LOT OF PROBLEMS. THERE'S A LOT OF SPIN DOCTORS OUT THERE, PROFESSIONAL OR OTHERWISE.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ALL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR AS WELL.

AND SO I DO WELCOME TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DRAFTED AND THIS COMMISSION REVIEWS AND AT THAT TIME, WE CAN DETERMINE IF WE GO FORWARD AND WHAT HAPPENS.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION DRAFTING THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY STAFF, DRAFTING SOMETHING TO BRING BACK WHEN ABLE AT A WORKSHOP, I PRESUME, FOR DISCUSSION.

SO.

AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS THAN I WILL DO A ROLL CALL, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THE ABILITY FOR CREATION.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO LOOK AT WHAT THEY CAN DRAFT, BUT I'M DUBIOUS.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE WORD YOU WANT TO USE, BUT THAT'S OK.

MS. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE YOU HAVE RESERVATIONS.

I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE ISSUE AND HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT CONTROLLING THIS, MONITORING IT AND DECIDING IT.

AND I AM WILLING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND SEE WHAT STAFF CAN COME UP WITH.

SOUNDS GOOD, AND I THINK STAFF HAS HEARD YOUR CONCERNS, YOUR LIST OF CONCERNS, AT LEAST THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED.

COMMISSIONER GELIN.

I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT.

THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SO THERE ARE ALREADY RULES IN PLACE THAT WE NEED TO ABIDE BY WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA IN TERMS OF NOT HAVING DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE IT CAN BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC RECORD AND ALL THESE THINGS.

SO THERE'S YOU KNOW.

CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN INFORMED ABOUT BY THE CURRENT CITY ATTORNEY AND PRIOR CITY ATTORNEYS IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BEHAVE AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HELD ACCOUNTABLE EVERY FOUR YEARS.

SO IF WE BEHAVE IN A CERTAIN WAY OR SAY CERTAIN THINGS, YOU KNOW, VOTERS HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE EVERY FOUR YEARS.

I DON'T THINK A POLICY NEEDED OR NECESSARY.

AND THEN IS IT GOING TO BE STAFF'S JOB TO MONITOR EVERYONE'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AND DECIDE WHAT'S BAD, WHAT'S GOOD? I JUST I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.

THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR.

CITY ATTORNEY.

IS THIS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

THERE ARE.

THERE'S LIBEL AND LIES, AND.

[02:55:02]

THERE ARE FIRST AMENDMENT ASPECTS TO THE ITEM THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING.

BUT CONVERSELY, THE.

THE ARENA OF SOCIAL PLATFORMS AND HOW THEY'RE USED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS IS AN EVOLVING AREA OF THE LAW.

I AM AWARE, AS AS COMMISSIONER GELIN POINTED OUT, THAT MY PREDECESSORS HAVE.

THERE'S A MEMO OUT THERE REGARDING A CASE OUT OF LOUDON COUNTY, AS WELL AS ONE INVOLVING OUR PRIOR PRESIDENT ABOUT THE ABILITY TO BLOCK PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ET CETERA.

I THINK FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT OUR DIRECTION WOULD BE TO COMPILE THAT INFORMATION INTO A POLICY AS OPPOSED TO A MEMO TO EXPAND UPON THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE EXISTING CASE LAW AND SET FORTH A POLICY THAT YOU ALL WOULD SAY YES OR NO TO.

AND I JUST WANT TO CONCLUDE THIS.

THE CONSENSUS.

SO I NEED A RESPONSE.

GOT A YES, AND I HAVE A YES.

SO WE HAVE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE DRAFTING OF AN ITEM TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD.

WHEN YOU CAN.

AT A WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSION.

I JUST WANT TO SHARE ONE ONE MINUTE STORY REALLY FAST.

I WAS AT KINGS POINT TABLES, WHICH HAPPENS EVERY TUESDAY WITH ALL THE CLUBS.

AND I WENT TO ONE TABLE AND A RESIDENT THERE THAT I'VE KNOWN FOR FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS LOOKED AT ME WITH DISGUST AND I WAS A LITTLE PUZZLED AS I APPROACHED HER BECAUSE I CAN SEE THE TENSION.

SHE TELLS ME NO POLITICS, VERY LOUD.

AND I SAID, OK, AND THEN SHE GOES ON TO TELL HER GIRLS ON THE TABLE LIKE HE NEEDS TO GO.

REFERRING TO ME, I GO ON TO THE NEXT TABLE AND SHE COMES UP TO ME ABOUT 10 MINUTES LATER.

BETH [INAUDIBLE] MS. BETH [INAUDIBLE] HAD JUST TOLD HER.

BECAUSE SHE HEARD THE WHOLE THING BETWEEN US THAT.

WHAT SHE HAD READ WAS NOT TRUE.

SO SHE CAME UP TO ME 10 MINUTES LATER TO APOLOGIZE IF I HAD NOT BEEN FOR MS. BETH [INAUDIBLE] SEEING WHAT HAPPENED RECTIFYING IT.

THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENT WOULDN'T HAVE NEVER COME UP TO ME.

SHE WOULD HAVE FOREVER GONE WHATEVER SHE READ.

SHE WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE GRAVE, AND SHE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT TO EVERYBODY ELSE THAT SHE WAS AROUND HER.

I SHOWED UP YESTERDAY TO TUESDAY TABLES, THAT WHOLE TABLE CHANGED YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON ME.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THIS ITEM UP, BECAUSE THAT DAMAGE, THERE'S SO MUCH CHARACTER DAMAGE THERE THAT IT'S A BIG PROBLEM, WHETHER NOW FOR US, FOR FUTURE COMMISSIONS, FOR COMMISSIONS OUT THERE, IN EVERY COUNTY, EVERY CITY, EVERY STATE.

IT'S THERE'S CONSEQUENCES TO DOING THAT AS WELL.

I THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.

AT THIS TIME, ITEM 10D WAS REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON, COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS NOT WITH US, THEREFORE AT THIS TIME OF 10:20 P.M..

THIS COMMISSION MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

I WISH EVERYBODY A WONDERFUL EVENING, WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE IN TWO WEEKS OR AT EVENTS IN BETWEEN.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.