[c. TR13250 - Acceptance of Assignment of a Construction contract with The Marker Construction, LLC from AD1 Tamarac Hotels to City of Tamarac A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, Authorizing the Appropriate City Officials to Execute that Certain Assignment of Construction Agreement By and Between AD 1 Tamarac Hotels, LLC, The Marker Group, LLC, and the City of Tamarac for the Acceptance of the Assignment of the Construction Contract; Providing for Conflicts; Providing for Severability; and Providing an Effective Date.]

[d. TR 13269 Termination of Construction Agreement w/AD1 Group A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, Authorizing the Appropriate City Officials to Execute that Certain Settlement and Release Agreement Between Ad 1 Management Inc., AD 1 Hotels, LLC and the City of Tamarac, Attached Hereto as Exhibit “A-1”, for the Termination of the Construction Contract by and Between AD 1 Management Inc. and the City of Tamarac Dated April 12, 2017; Providing for Conflicts; Providing for Severability; and Providing an Effective Date. Commission District(s): Citywide]

FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA MACNAMARA COMMISSIONER FOR THE RECORD THE TWO PULL ITEMS BYE BY COMMISSIONER GUILLEN ARE AS FOLLOWS. ITEM 60 WHICH IS A TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 3 2 5 0 READS AS FOLLOWS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY TAMARACK FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THAT CERTAIN ASSIGNMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT BY BETWEEN A.D. 1 TAMARACK HOTELS LLC THE MARKER GROUP LLC AND THE CITY OF TAMARACK FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE NON-MONETARY AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION TO CONTRACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER APPROVED LINE ITEM CHANGE ORDERS WITH THE APPROVED BUDGET PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT FUNDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SECOND ITEM OF THE TWO THAT WERE PULLED BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE AS FOLLOWS ITEM SIX. THE TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 3 2 6 9 READS AS FOLLOWS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY TAMARACK FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THAT CERTAIN SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 81 MANAGEMENT INC AND 81 HOTELS LLC AND THE CITY OF TAMARACK ATTACHED TO IS EXHIBIT A ONE FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BIND BETWEEN EIGHTY ONE MANAGEMENT INC. AND THE CITY OF TAMARACK DATED APRIL TWELVE OF TWENTY SEVENTEEN AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT RIGHT AND PRESERVE VIABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED A MOTION A SECOND TO GET THE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION MOVED A SECOND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK COMMISSIONER ALLEN AS YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS PULLED IT. YES. SHARE WITH US YOUR CONCERNS. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A FULL CHANCE TO READ. AND I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED THIS MORNING THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER BUT I STILL HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. SO JUST READING THE DOCUMENTS I UNDERSTAND THAT.

EIGHTY SPENT. THERE WAS ONE POINT FOUR OR FIVE MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS EIGHTY ONES MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION TO BUILD A CLUBHOUSE. ARE THERE. WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL COST TO CONTINUE OR TO FINISH BUILDING THE CLUBHOUSE. THE OVERALL MARK MASON FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMISSION VICE MAYOR COMMISSIONERS THE OVERALL COST OF THE PROJECTS IS ELEVEN POINT TWO MILLION. SO WE'VE THE ONE POINT FOUR ZERO 5 MILLION HAS BEEN SPENT. OK HAVE WE CONDUCTED AN AUDIT OF THESE ONES EXPENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DOLLARS WERE ALLOCATED CORRECTLY. WE APPROVE EACH ONE OF THE DRAWERS ON THE ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND. OKAY. ACTUALLY I'VE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE THE BEGINNING. SO ALL THOSE DOLLARS WERE MONITORED.

RIGHT. THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PUT THEM IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT THE ESCROW WAS CONTROLLED BY US. SO EACH AND EVERY DRAWER THAT WAS MADE AGAINST THE ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND WAS APPROVED BY US. AND NONE OF THIS WAS IN IT'S FOR YOU OR FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. CITY MANAGER IN TERMS OF WHY ARE WE SETTLING WITH 81 VS.

PURSUING DAMAGES THAT WERE BUILT INTO THE CONTRACT. WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT ONE I'LL TAKE IT ON AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO. THERE WAS A SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS WHICH I CAN'T RELATE PUBLICLY TO BECAUSE I WAS NOT IN EVERY DISCUSSION BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEED TO DISSOLVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND 81 GIVEN THE RELATIONSHIP THAT THEY ESTABLISH AND WHICH DID NOT FULFILL ITSELF. AND OF COURSE THE CONTRACT THE ADMINISTRATION CAN REPORT TO YOU SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THE ISSUES THE ITEMS THAT OCCURRED THAT CAUSED THE PARTIES TO SEEK A DIVORCE AS THE CASE MAY BE AND WHEN IN LEGAL TERMS A DIVORCE IS REQUESTED IN THE BUSINESS SENSE YOU LEAVE IT TO LOOKED AT LOOK AT AND EVALUATE YOUR CONTRACT RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE COSTS AND EXPENSE OF LITIGATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND 881 CREATED THE FRICTION THAT I'M TRYING TO DESCRIBE PUBLICLY TO YOU AS BEST AS I CAN. DID OCCUR AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS OF DISCUSSION REMEMBER 81 AND THE CITY

[01:40:05]

WERE THEORETICAL PARTNERS BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OF 81 BEING THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE CITY ANYONE'S BUILDING A HOTEL INDEPENDENTLY THE CITY OF TAMARACK THEY'RE BUILDING A HOTEL WITH X NUMBER OF DOLLARS OF THEIR OWN. THAT HOTEL IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION MARKER. CONSTRUCTION IS THEIR CONTRACTOR. THE CITY WAS NOT IN PRIVACY WITH MARK OR ALTHOUGH EVERY CONTRACT THAT WAS DESCRIBED THERE IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING WERE A SIGN OF ALL DOCUMENTS AS WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CITY ENGAGED OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ASSIST IN EVALUATING AND REVIEWING AND MEASURING THE POTENTIAL FOR LITIGATION WITH 81 IT WAS DETERMINED IN HIRING OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF BOTH PARTIES TO FIND A WAY TO RESOLVE THE MATTER. INTERESTING RELATIONSHIP IF I CAN AS A LAWYER WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY THERE'S ISSUES OF MOBILIZATION AND OPERATIONAL THINGS WHERE AS YOU KNOW IN THIS SITUATION IT'S ONE PIECE OF LAND THERE ACROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR PARKING FOR OTHER INNER RELATIONS BUT THEY'RE SEPARATE PROJECTS. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF BRINGING IN A THIRD CONTRACTOR OR BRINGING OTHER PARTIES TO PERFORM THE SERVICES CONFLICTS IN OTHER RELATIONSHIPS THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED OR COULD OCCUR WERE CONSIDERED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR COLLECTION THE POTENTIAL FOR THE PROJECT BEING FORESTALLED OR OTHERWISE DEFEATED WAS A MAJOR CAUSE OF CONCERN FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED THE CONVERSATION AND OPERATIONALLY WITHOUT SPEAKING FOR THE MANAGER OR ADMINISTRATION. THE CONCERN WAS TO FIND A WAY TO RESOLVE THE MATTER AMICABLY AND TO ESSENTIALLY AVOID THE COST AND EXPENSE OF LITIGATION IN THE FUTURE. SO RIGHTFULLY SO YOU'VE ASKED THE QUESTION WE DID WAIT WAY THAT WE MEASURED THE POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FOR THE CITY AND THE TIME AND EXPENSE WOULD HAVE TAKEN LITIGATE WITH 81 AND IT WAS BEST TO ESSENTIALLY DISSOLVE THE RELATIONSHIP MOVE DIRECTLY WITH MARKER AS THE CASE MAY BE AND KEEP THE MAXIMUM COST AND EXPENSE ISSUES THAT WERE CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT IT WAS IT WAS CONSIDERED IT WAS REVIEWED AND PART OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN FOR THIS DISCUSSION AND FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. SO IF WE WERE IF WE DID CHOOSE TO GO TO LITIGATION WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN COVERED UNDER OUR FLORIDA LEGAL CITIES INSURANCE POLICY OR WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE NOT NOT COVERED AS A MATTER YES. GOOD QUESTION. THE F.M. I T WOULD NOT COVER THIS IS A CONTRACT ISSUE A CONTRACT DISPUTE. IF IT WERE A TORT CLAIM RIGHTFULLY SO IF IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CLAIM OR SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF A TOUR TO CLAIM THE LEAGUE WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THE OBLIGATION THE CITY INDEPENDENTLY HIRED OUTSIDE COUNSEL PETER BRANDT AND BOB FORENSIC AND THEIR LAW FIRM TO GIVE A LOOK SEE ON THE ON THE SITUATION AND GIVEN THE DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THEM AND THE DECISION MADE BY ADMINISTRATION TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE MAKE MAKE DO WITH THE SITUATION AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. MUCH OF THE TIME OVER THE PAST NUMBER OF MONTHS WAS WAS GIVEN TOWARDS THAT RESOLUTION WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WITH THAT RESOLUTION THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE RELATIONSHIP DIRECTLY WITH MARKER AND BUILD THAT WHICH HAD A CONTRACT TO DO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. SO GIVEN THAT GIVEN THAT THIS WAS I GUESS ESSENTIALLY A NO BID CONTRACT WHAT KIND OF DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE IN THE SELECTION OF 81 WHEN THAT DECISION WAS MADE. HOW DO WE KNOW WE CHOSE THE RIGHT PARTNER IN PURSUING THIS CONTRACT. THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT TO US BY A BROKER AND WE MET WITH THE BROKER AND THE EIGHTY ONE TO US WHAT THE WHAT THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD THIS PARTICULAR HOTEL ON THE PROPERTY. THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS TO BUILD ON THE VACANT PROPERTY THAT'S JUST NORTH OF THE PARKING LOT ON COLONY WEST BUT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A VARIETY OF REASONS NOT TO BUILD THERE AND SO YOU KNOW WE WORKED THROUGH AND DEVELOPED THE WHERE THEN LOOK CURRENT SITE IS LOCATED. SO DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WE CHECKED INTO EIGHTY ONE IN THERE AND THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD A HOTEL WHICH IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS BUILDING THE HOTEL. AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BUILT OTHER THINGS AND THEY WERE WILLING AND ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO WHAT THEY WHAT WE AGREED TO DO FOR THEM TO MANAGE THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW IN MANAGING THE PROCESS FOR THE SITE AS I SAID ON MONDAY MORNING YOU KNOW THIS WAS REALLY ABOUT ECONOMIES OF SCALE WHEN IT CAME RIGHT DOWN TO IT. AND YOU KNOW FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS OVER THE PAST YEAR YEAR OR SO IT THINGS HAVE JUST SIMPLY NOT WORKED OUT AS WELL AS I THINK EVERYBODY HAD HOPED FOR. AND YOU KNOW WE'RE AT THE WE'RE AT THE POSITION WE'RE AT TODAY AND. HAVE WE. ARE WE GOING TO CONDUCT A POST TRANSACTION REVIEW TO FIND OUT WHAT LESSONS ARE LEARNED OR WHAT MISTAKES WE MADE OR THEY MADE SO WE CAN DOCUMENT AND LEARN. YEAH. YOU KNOW WE LEARN FROM. WE CERTAINLY TRY TO LEARN FROM EVERY MISTAKE YOU KNOW SO IN EVALUATING THIS YOU KNOW IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAME UP AGAIN WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER YOU KNOW THAT WOULD BE THE BEST ROUTE FOR US TO TAKE OR YOU KNOW WHATEVER LESSONS WE LEARN FROM IT AND SAY WELL MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT AND WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO YES WE ALWAYS LEARN FROM THESE TYPE OF THINGS. OK. AND THEN I THINK

[01:45:01]

I READ SOMEWHERE THAT SO. OF THE ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS SEVEN. IS IT SEVEN OR A MILLION DOLLARS THAT'S BEEN SPENT SO FAR. IT'S THE ONE POINT NINE MILLION DOLLARS.

CORRECTION. ONE POINT SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS HAS BEEN SPENT SO FAR. THE CONTRACT WITH MARKER HAD A GMP GROSS MAXIMUM PRICE OF EIGHT POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND THEN MAYBE THE EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOON. SO THIS TOTAL FINANCIAL IMPACT OF ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS WHAT DOES THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT THE ELEVEN MILLION POINT ELEVEN POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS. YEAH. THAT TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECTS WILL WILL WILL COVER THE COST OF THE THE CLUBHOUSE TO CUT THE COST OF THE CARD BARN PARKING AREA. OUTFRONT OUR RESPONSIBILITY OR IN THIS CASE IT'S 68 PERCENT OF ALL OF THE SITE WORK ON THE SITE BECAUSE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO US. OK AS WELL AS FURNISHINGS FIXTURES. SORRY I'M NOT GOING TO THE BUILDING. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS THEN CAN WE CALL THE VOTE. MADAM MAYOR IF YOU WILL. THE COMMISSIONER HAS PULLED A EACH ITEM SEPARATELY EACH ITEM MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AS WELL. THE FIRST OF WHICH WOULD BE ITEM 60 WHICH IS TEMPORAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 3 2 5 0 WITH THE RECORD CREATED BY BOTH MYSELF AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AS WELL AS PART OF THOSE ITEMS. THANK YOU WE HAD A MOTION FROM BOTH OF THEM TO DISCUSS. DO WE NEED A SEPARATE. YES A PROMOTION APPROVED PLACE SO SEPARATE MOTION TO APPROVE. I NEED A PROMOTION TO APPROVE SIX C LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE ARE HERE I NEED A MOTION OK. THANK YOU. GOT A MOTION SO I GOT A SECOND ON 60 ON SIX. THANK YOU MAYOR. COMMISSIONER BOLTON ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER. WHAT WERE WE DOING. WE JUST DISCUSSED THEM. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOW VOTING ON IT BUT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY OKAY. SO WE ARE VOTING ON SIX SEE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH A MARKED CONSTRUCTION LLC FROM 81 TAMARA HOTELS TO CITY OF TAMARA AND. AND THIS IS REFERENCING THE AGREEMENT JUST TO BE SURE YES. THOSE ARE THE EXECUTED AGREEMENTS.

THE NUMBER THAT MATCHES THE TOP ACTUALLY. YES YES. PLACE MAY PLATEAU. YES.

COMMISSIONER GALEN. YES. MR. FISHMAN. YES. MAYOR GOMEZ. YES. TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 1 3 2 5 0 0 PAST. THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION OF SECOND FOR SIX D TR 1 3 2 6 9 TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH 81 GROUP MOVED. SECOND COMMISSIONER FISHMAN. YES COMMISSIONER GALEN YES. VICE MAYOR FLACCO. YES COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YES. MAYOR GOMEZ. YES. TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 1 3 2 6 9 PASSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING THAT THERE IS NO REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS WE'LL BE MOVING TO EAT OR

[a. TO2398 - Amending Chapter 2, "Administration", Article II, "City Commission" Repealing Section 2-32 "Legislative Aides" in its Entirety An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida amending Chapter 2, “Administration,” Article II, “City Commission,” of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances, by repealing Section 2-32, “Legislative Aides,” in its entirety; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING. I HAVE 2 0 2 3 9 8. AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE TO CITY COMMISSION REPEALING SECTION 2 DASH 3 2 LEGISLATIVE AIDES IN ITS ENTIRETY. CITY ATTORNEY WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS INTO THE RECORD. YOU HAVE TO DO MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSION FOR THE RECORD THIS IS THIS IS TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 3 9 8 WHICH IS REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS COMPLETE FORM. IT IS AS FOLLOWS READS AS FOLLOWS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 2 IN TITLE ADMINISTRATION AT ARTICLE 2 CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY TAMARA. CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REPEALING SECTION 2 DASH 32 REFERENCES LEGISLATIVE AIDES IN ITS ENTIRETY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT PLANNING FOR SEVERABILITY AND FINALLY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND I MOVED. SECOND ANYBODY CARE TO DISCUSS THIS YES. OKAY. YOU'RE NOT LATE BUT I WILL GO WITH MR. BOLTON. OK. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE WILL DISCUSS THIS ON MONDAY WE DISCUSSED THE CHANGES TO BE MADE. SO THIS IS JUST TO REPEAL PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO LEGISLATIVE AIDES. BUT IS THIS ALSO GIVING STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE PART TIME ASSISTANTS OR IS IT JUST IS THIS JUST REPEALING THE ORDINANCE BOUND FOR THE RECORD. I DEFER THE MANAGER A GOOD QUESTION. COMMISSIONER BOLTON THIS

[01:50:03]

ORDINANCE AFTER MUCH CONVERSATION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS SIMPLY REPEALS THAT SECTION OF THE CODE THAT RELATED TO LEGISLATIVE AIDE. SO ONCE ONCE YOU ON SECOND READING REPEAL IF YOU DO REPEAL THIS ORDINANCE THE OTHER ENGAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH THE COMMISSION ET CETERA WOULD BE A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACT BY THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER WOULD THEN NO LONGER BE PART OF THE CODE IN THE CONTEXT OF LEGISLATIVE AIDES. SO THAT DELETED IN ITS ENTIRE THERE'S NO REPLACEMENT IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING CITY MANAGER DID YOU WISH TO SAY ANYTHING AND JUST JUST THAT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU DIRECTED THANK YOU.

RIGHT. BECAUSE I SAW AN. ADVERTISING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ROLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION ALREADY ON THE WEB SITE. SO I'M JUST IF I MAY COMMISSION BOLTON THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISON WHO HAS ALSO POSTED WE GOT THE EMAIL EARLIER TODAY.

OK. SO THAT DIRECTION WAS GIVEN JUST TO BE CLEAR AT THE LAST WORKSHOP OR THE WORKSHOP BEFORE NOT MONDAYS BUT THE MONDAYS BEFORE. I'M I'M NOT VERY CLEAR WHEN WE GAVE THAT DIRECTION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF IT WASN'T AT THIS PAST MONDAY AS IT WAS TWO MONTHS AGO WERE NOT LAST WORKSHOP WITH THE WORKSHOP BEFORE IS. IS THAT IS THAT WHEN I MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS IN FAVOR OF LEGISLATIVE AIDES NOT NECESSARILY BEING PAID BUT ONLY GETTING PERHAPS A SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS STIPEND AND WAS NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. A SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. THAT WOULD BE TOO BURDENSOME ON THE CITY'S BUDGET. COMMISSIONER BOLTON IF I MAY THE CITY MANAGER THREW THE CHAIR. UNDERSTOOD. BUT I'M STILL THE CHAIR. THE TOPIC AT HAND IS A LEGISLATIVE AIDES ONCE ASSEMBLY ON THAT. AND I AM GOING TO BRING IT OVER. THE TOPIC AT HAND IS THE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND THE CONSENSUS THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH. THEN YOUR QUESTION IS SOMETHING SEPARATE ABOUT YOUR DESIRE FOR LEGISLATIVE AIDES. I WANT I WANT TO BE CLEAR BEFORE I VOTE AND FLORIDA LAW GIVES ME THAT RIGHT. TO BE CLEAR BEFORE I VOTE CORRECT ACT AND SO I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR AND AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO LET THE CITY ATTORNEY ANSWER MY QUESTION. I WILL BUT I NEED YOU TO READ IT OUT PLEASE. THE CITY ATTORNEY THREW A CHAIR. WE ARE VOTING ON REPEALING PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT GIVES LEGISLATIVE AIDES NOW THE ABILITY TO BE PAID. AND THIS IS SEPARATE FROM HIRING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS. I LAST RECALL THAT I WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIRING A SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT THAT THAT FISCAL IMPACT WOULD BE TOO BURDENSOME ON THE CITY AND THAT I WAS FOR HIRING LEGISLATIVE AIDES BUT AT A VERY SMALL MINIMAL COST MAY RESPOND THAT A MAYOR THE COMMISSIONER IN HIS ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S BEFORE HIM IS ACCURATE WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS A TOTAL REPEAL. SO THE REFERENCE TO THAT ORDINANCE THAT WAS DRAFTED DURING A TIME DURING ANCIENT TIMES. IT'S AN OLDER ORDINANCE AS YOU KNOW HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR MANY YEARS. THE ULTIMATE CONVERSATION THAT WAS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION WAS TO REPEAL THAT ORDINANCE.

BRING BACK A REPEAL ORDINANCE PLAIN AND SIMPLE AND THAT THERE WOULD BE AN IMPLEMENTATION BY ADMINISTRATION OF THE ENGAGEMENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO AS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISONS WHICH WOULD BE A AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT IF IT BE THE WISH OF THE COMMISSION TO CLARIFY ON THE RECORD THAT THE POTENTIAL REPEAL OF THIS ORDINANCE INCLUDES THE COINCIDENTAL OBLIGATION OF ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE THOSE ENGAGED PERSONS. THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO ASK HIM TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD BUT THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU DOES ONE THING ONLY IT REPEALS THAT SECTION THE CODE TO DASH 32 IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO IT IS MY FIRST READING BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU PASS IT ON SECOND READING THAT SECTION ESSENTIALLY GOES AWAY. SO ALL OF IT ALL OF IT. COMMISSIONER. SO MR. TURNER THREW THE CHAIR AT THE AT THE WORKSHOP WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION GAVE CONSENSUS TO HAVE STAFF GO

[01:55:10]

AHEAD IN WHAT WE DID FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS. THAT WAS ENOUGH THAT THAT WAS ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION. THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR STAFF TO ADVERTISE THE POSITIONS OR SAYING RESPOND THEN AND THERE. THE ANSWER IS THAT THAT YOUR CITY MANAGER IS A DIRECT REPORT TO YOU AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY CLARIFICATION OF WHAT WHAT INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN OR WHAT AUTHORITY WAS ACCEPTED AND RECEIVED. I'D ASK YOU TO ASK THE MANAGER TO CONFIRM ON THE RECORD WHAT WAS COMMITTED TO CAUSE FRANKLY I BELIEVE THAT WAS IT. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT WE WOULD BE ADDING ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT IN THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION OFFICE AND THAT WE WOULD BE RECRUITING FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISONS FOR THE COMMISSION AND THAT IT WAS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER IF THEY CHOOSE TO TOOK ADVANTAGE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISON AND FURTHER BASED ON THE CONVERSATION. IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY STAFF THAT A COMMISSIONER MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISON AND MAY CHOOSE HOW TO ASSIGN WORK TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS. IF THE COMMISSIONER CHOSE TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON HELPING THEM I GUESS WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IS THIS. THIS ORDINANCE WAS INITIALLY DRAFTED FOR THE LEGISLATIVE AIDES TO REPORT TO THE CITY COMMISSION IS THAT. PART OF THE ORDINANCE BEING REPEALED AS WELL SO THAT THEY ARE DIRECT. SO THAT THEY THEY DIRECTLY REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER. OR. HELPED ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE PASSING TONIGHT BECAUSE IF WE ARE ALREADY ADVERTISING POSITIONS WHAT WHAT ARE WE TAKING ACTION ON TODAY. JUST TO BE CLEAR. SECTION 2 DASH 32 IS THE SECTION THAT HAS BEEN IN THE CITY COMMISSION BOOKS FOR MANY YEARS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE CAREFULLY WITH ME IF YOU SEE ALL THE STRIKE THROUGH ALL OF SECTION TWO DASH 32 HAS BEEN DELETED WHICH PROVIDED IF IT'S PASSED ANY CITY COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF THREE LEGISLATIVE AIDES TO ASSIST IN COMPILING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SUBJECTS THAT LEGITIMATELY ARE OR COULD BE OF CONCERN TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINE SHALL APPLY TO LEGISLATIVE AIDES. NUMBER ONE AGE SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. NUMBER TWO AGE SHALL SERVE WITHOUT MONETARY REMUNERATION FROM SET FROM THE CITY OR ANY COMMISSIONER. NUMBER THREE COMMISSIONERS SHALL NOMINATE THE A DESIRED AND UPON APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION. THE HL SERVE A TERM TO EXPIRE THE FOLLOWING MARCH THE TENTH. THE AIDE SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE NOMINATE AND COMMISSIONER. NUMBER FOUR. AGE MAY NOT HOLD ELECTED OFFICE IN THE CITY. NUMBER FIVE. AGE MAY NOT BE CITY EMPLOYEES IN NUMBER SIX. TWO OR MORE COMMISSIONERS MAY NOT APPOINT THE SAME AIDE IF THE COMMISSION ADOPTS THIS ORDINANCE AND FIRST AND POTENTIALLY SECOND READING THAT WHICH I HAVE READ BACK TO WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE WOULD BE REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NOT REPLACED. THE REPLACEMENT IF ANY IS THAT IS THE DIRECTION AND AUTHORIZATION GIVEN TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE DEFINED DEFINED POSITION. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM CALLED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISONS THAT WOULD SERVE A FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE REPEAL THAT'S PROVIDED FOR BEFORE THE COMMISSION. SO SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SEEING THE CITY COMMISSION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES PERIOD AS IT IS LEGISLATIVE AIDES WERE NOT ABLE TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES PERIOD WHETHER PAID OR UNPAID. UNDER WHAT IS CALLED LEGISLATIVE AIDES BECAUSE YOU'VE YOU'VE YOU'VE MADE A STRIKE OUT OF ANY CITY COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF THREE LEGISLATIVE AIDES. SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS TAKING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO HAVE PEOPLE WORK FOR US FOR FREE. THAT IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS SAYING. AND I MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT I'M NOT FOR THAT. SO I THINK THIS IS A FAST ONE. LET ME REPEAT JUST SO I'M CLEAR I THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IS TAKING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO HAVE PEOPLE WORK FOR US FOR FREE BECAUSE A CITY COMMISSIONER WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AGAIN PERIOD WHETHER PAID OR NOT. THAT IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS SAYING AND WHAT

[02:00:01]

WE'RE DOING IS REPLACING THAT WITH PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE WORKING FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND WORKING FOR THE CITY COMMISSION BUT DIRECTLY REPORTING TO THE CITY MANAGER ON A PAID BASIS. AND WHAT I ASKED FOR IN A WORKSHOP WAS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AS IT IS UNDER THE ORDINANCE BUT HAVE THEM PAID A SMALL STIPEND BUT THIS IS SAYING THAT WE CAN'T HAVE THEM PERIOD. AM I RIGHT WITH MY ANALYSIS MR. ATTORNEY FUTURE MAY RESPOND THEIR CONDITIONS PLEASE. WELL THE ANSWER IS THAT THAT YOU ARE YOU ARE TECHNICALLY CORRECT. YOU ARE LIMITED IN THAT OPPORTUNITY AND REPLACING IT WITH IT WITH AN OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP THAT WOULD BE PAID. THAT'S CORRECT RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M. THAT'S WHAT I'M UP FOR. OKAY. I WAS I MADE IT I MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES. WE WANTED TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES WHETHER PAID OR UNPAID. AND IF THEY ARE PAID THEY SHOULD NOT BE PAID A SALARY BUT PAID A SMALL STIPEND. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED FOR. NOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING AWAY THOSE FREE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND WE ARE NOW HIRING ASSISTANTS LITERALLY FOR UP TO 20 DOLLARS AN HOUR. SO EACH OF US WOULD HAVE ONE AND ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. IF NOT I WILL SAY SOMETHING. THANK YOU. YEAH GO AHEAD. OK WELL YOU'RE NOT WORKING IF YOUR STATEMENT IS GOOD AS YOU PRESS YOUR BUTTONS IF YOU WORK SAY NOTHING'S WORKING. THANK YOU IF WE REPEAL THIS PORTION OF THE CODE IS THERE ANYTHING TO PRECLUDE US JUST AS WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY FROM CALLING IT A VOLUNTEER AND HAVING SOMEBODY WORK FOR US FOR FREE AS A VOLUNTEER. NOW RESPOND. NO. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU THROUGH THE MANAGER AND INQUIRE OF OUR H.R. DIRECTOR TO GIVE YOU THAT COMFORT OF KNOWING THE ANSWER. I CAN'T KNOW OPERATIONALLY HOW THAT FUNCTIONS GO NOT INVOLVED IN THE DAY TO DAY ASPECT OF THAT BUT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IF IT'S IF IT'S BEEN LEGALLY DONE IN THE PAST TO HAVE VOLUNTEERS QUOTE UNQUOTE TO SERVE COMMISSIONERS OR OTHERS THE BY REPEALING THE AUDIENCE WOULD NOT CHANGE THAT CONDITION. IT WOULD CHANGE THE TITLE IT WOULD CHANGE THE DIRECTION IT WOULD CHANGE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE. BUT IF THERE ARE OTHERWISE GIVEN VOLUNTEER OPTIONS THAT'S NOT AFFECTED BY THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING AND MANY AMERICANS JUST COULD CLARIFY THE THE LEGISLATIVE AIDES ARE A DESIGNATION THAT WERE GIVEN TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS BY A COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS ORDINANCE IN THE PAST AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THE THE CITY COMMISSION THE CITY MANAGER THE CITY ATTORNEY THE CITY STAFF DO DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OR SAY OVER VOLUNTEERS WHO ASSIST YOU IN THE COMMUNITY IN ANY WAY. THE LEGISLATIVE AIDE DESIGNATION WAS JUST THAT IT WAS A DESIGNATION THAT WAS CREATED YEARS AND YEARS AGO UNDER THE CITY CODE FOR INDIVIDUALS TO BE DESIGNATED AS LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND THAT WAS THAT WAS REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION. SO THOSE THOSE APPOINTMENTS WERE BROUGHT TO YOU WHEN THEY WERE BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION IN THE PAST AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. THE VOLUNTEERS THAT YOU HAVE THAT ASSIST YOU IN THE COMMUNITY IN ANY GIVEN CAPACITY ARE NOT LEGISLATIVE AIDES PER SAY UNDER THE CODE THEY. THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS WHO ASSIST YOU. THEY ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AND CITY STAFF. IF I MAY JUST JUMP IN ON THAT ONE SINCE I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD LEGISLATIVE AIDE THAT BROUGHT FORTH AND WENT THROUGH THE COMMISSION APPROVAL MY UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENTIATION IS THAT THAT PERSON WAS ABLE TO THEN GET A PASS TO COME INTO THE CITY INTO CITY HALL AND BE ABLE TO BE HERE TO DO WORK. WHEN I WAS NOT THERE WAS A VETTING PROCESS OF. THE KIND THROUGH THE SYSTEM. I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF A

[02:05:01]

REGULAR VOLUNTEER WHO MIGHT BE COMING IN WITH YOU VERSUS ONE THAT IS NOT AT LEAST.

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHOLE PROCESS BEHIND A LEGISLATIVE AIDE COMMISSION FISHERY. YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. I'M GOOD FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GALEN. SO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A LONG EXHAUSTIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS BUT I WOULD LIKE TO STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A LEGISLATIVE AIDE OR A SLASH IN TURN THAT WOULD YOU KNOW HAVE I HAVE A PASS AND BE ABLE TO COME IN AND DO SOME WORK IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LEADS ON. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW WE MIGHT BE REPEALING THIS I DO WANT TO SEE SOME KIND OF REPLACEMENT WHERE IT DOESN'T HAVE ALL THOSE LIMITATIONS THAT'S IN THAT LANGUAGE OF HAVING TO BE A TAMARACK RESIDENT AND CAN'T RUN FOR OFFICE ALL THESE OTHER LANGUAGE THAT I DON'T THINK NEEDS TO BE THERE. I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE SOME KIND OF INTERNS LAST LEGISLATIVE AIDE SO THAT IF I WANT TO BRING A COUPLE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS IN TO LEARN LOCAL GOVERNMENT YOU KNOW THEY CAN DO THAT AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME AND GO AS NEEDED OR AS I WOULD NEED THEM TO COME AND GO AND I MET SHE HAS TO COMMISSIONER GALLONS. POINT THAT ISSUE WAS RAISED AT THE WORKSHOP WHERE THIS WAS DISCUSSED AND IT WAS SAID THAT WE WOULD EVALUATE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY NUMBER OF MODELS IN USE IN OTHER CITIES FOR INTERNS FOR THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT AND THEN WE WOULD ULTIMATELY BRING BACK TO YOU IN THE FORM OF A FORMAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BOLTON. THIS IS YOUR SECOND ROUND. YES. THIS IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT. THIS IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT REFERRING TO THE ORDINANCE THAT IS AT HAND IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT GIVES THE CITY COMMISSION THE RIGHT TO HAVE ANY SORT OF HELP AT THIS TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHEN OR OR IN WHAT WHAT VENUE THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF WOULD PRESENT SOME SORT OF INTERNSHIP PROGRAM BUT THIS IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT. GIVES US THE ABILITY OR THE RIGHT TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND THE STRIKEOUTS. THE STRIKEOUTS ARE OBVIOUSLY TOO MUCH. I THINK THE STRIKEOUTS. OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS SHOWN BY BY THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT IS TAKING AWAY OBVIOUSLY THE RIGHT TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES. THE ONLY STRIKEOUT THAT THAT I THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IS IS SECTION 2 OBVIOUSLY SUBSECTION 2 POINT TO DASH 3 2. SUBSECTION 2 AGE SHALL SERVE WITHOUT MONETARY RENUMERATION FROM THE CITY OR OR ANY COMMISSIONER I MEAN IF IF IF I WANT TO TO HAVE. SOMEONE HELP ME WITH SPECIAL PROJECTS. THIS WAS THE ONLY THING THAT THAT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TO DO THAT TO ACCOMPLISH. TO THAT END AND A YES VOTE WILL BE TAKING WOULD BE TAKING AWAY JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. A YES VOTE WOULD BE TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES IN NO VOTE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY HAVING US RETAIN THE RIGHTS TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES UNPAID THAT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WHETHER WE VOTE YES OR NO. THE CITY COMMISSION HAS ALREADY THROUGH CONSENSUS IN A WORKSHOP GIVEN TO THE CITY MANAGER. THE RIGHT TO HAVE STAFF ADVERTISE THE POSITIONS AND MADAM CLERK LET THE RECORD REFLECT IN THIS MEETING THAT AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS THAT I WAS NOT FOR THAT MOVE I WAS NOT FOR US HIRING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO BE PAID AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL SUPPORT STAFF IN THE OFFICE BECAUSE WE ALL SAID THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR PRESENT. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IS DOING. I DIDN'T SEE HOW WE EVALUATED HER. JOB RESPONSIBILITIES AND I WAS TAKING IT BACK TO SEE THAT WE ARE ADVERTISING THAT WE WERE ADVERTISING THAT POSITION. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT FOR HIRING ANY TYPE OF

[02:10:05]

STAFF TO BE PAID UP TO TWENTY DOLLARS PER HOUR WHETHER PART TIME OR FULL TIME. THAT WILL BE TOO BURDENSOME ON THE CITY'S BUDGET AND IN MY VOTE TONIGHT WOULD BE TO REFLECT THAT WE KEEP THIS ORDINANCE AT LEAST THE SAME UNTIL WE CAN LOOK AT IT AGAIN THAT'S IT. I SWEAR I WAS GOING TO JUST REITERATE THAT I DO REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THE ABILITY OF US TO HAVE UNPAID INTERNS. YES AND WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT AND AS OUR CITY MANAGER JUST AGREED WITH THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET HUNG UP HERE ON TITLES WHETHER PEOPLE ARE CALLED LEGISLATIVE AIDES OR THEY ARE CALLED INTERNS. IT DOESN'T MATTER. I THINK HAVING THE ABILITY TO HAVE THESE UNPAID INTERNS AIDS VOLUNTEERS WHATEVER AS LONG AS WOULD THAT NEED TO BE A SPECIAL RESOLUTION TO GET THAT BACK IN ANYBODY. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER PLEASE. YEAH THAT'S A QUESTION OF MATH. I HAVEN'T TRIED TO ANSWER IT THROUGH THE MAYOR IF I CAN. IF IT BE THE WISH OF THE COMMISSION TO TO PROMOTE ON THE RECORD A CONFIRMATION OF THE MANAGER'S COMMITMENT THAT CAN BE DONE BY THE MANAGER TELLING YOU WHAT HIS COMMITMENT IS ON THE RECORD YOU ENGAGE HIM FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING THE MANAGER THAT CERTAINLY YOUR PREROGATIVE TO TRUST HIS JUDGMENT AND HIS ANSWER. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BOLSTER THAT WITH A RESOLUTION THAT SUPPORTS THE SAME CONCLUSION WITH SOME PARAMETERS I'M HAPPY TO DRAFT IT NOW. BUT BUT BUT THAT'S WHAT A RESOLUTION WOULD DO IT SIMPLY WOULD CONFIRM WHAT HE'S TELLING HE WAS GOING TO DO. NOW MR. SENATOR HIS WORD IS GOOD WITH ME. I JUST WAS ASKING THE QUESTION IF THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE WE NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO ENSURE WE WOULD HAVE INTERNS AVAILABLE OR WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM TO REACH OUT TO THE COLLEGES AND I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE THAT IN PLACE. SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. THANK. YOU. BASICALLY. THIS CONVERSATION IS THE CULMINATION OF SEVERAL WORKSHOPS THAT WE HAVE HAD WHERE SEVERAL THINGS WERE FLOATED. CONSENSUS WAS HAD CONSENSUS WAS NOT HAD AND THIS. WHAT CAME ABOUT TODAY WAS BASED ON CONSENSUS AT THE LAST MEETING. THIS IS ONE OF THE SEVERAL ITEMS AT THE CONSENSUS OF THE LAST MEETING. THE OTHER ITEM AND CONSENSUS OF THE LAST MEETING WAS FOR AN INTERNSHIP PROGRAM THAT WILL BE CREATED AND BROUGHT TO US FOR EVALUATION. THESE THINGS TAKE TIME TO CREATE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT BEFORE BROUGHT TO US FOR OUR VOTE. AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM WAS THE COMMUNITY LIAISON POSITIONS THAT WAS CAREFULLY DISCUSSED COMPLETELY DISCUSSED OVER SEVERAL HOURS. AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH IN THOSE POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IN THE MARIN COMMISSION'S OFFICE OF A COMMISSION OFFICE. SO THAT IS THE CULMINATION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED. THE PARTICULAR ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY STATED AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP.

THEN SHALL WE REPEAL THIS PARTICULAR NINETEEN SEVENTY FIVE ORDINANCE. THE ANSWER AT THAT MEETING WAS YES AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS PREPARED FOR US. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS IS BEING PREPARED FOR US FOR REVIEW BY OUR CITY MANAGER OR OUR CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE THEY WANT US TO DO THIS. THIS WAS REQUESTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION. I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING I SUPPORTED THEN AND I'M NOT SUPPORTING NOW BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF THE LEGISLATIVE AIDES UNPAID WITH PARAMETERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE AND HAD NO ISSUE WITH IT. SO FOR THOSE REASONS THAT IS WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING IT TONIGHT. BUT THIS IS ON FIRST READING. THERE WILL BE A SECOND READING AND IT SEEMS THAT COMMISSIONER GUILLEN WISHES TO SPEAK AGAIN ON THE MATTER. IS YOUR SECOND GO AHEAD.

NO. SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE AGAINST THIS. COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS AGAINST PORTIONS OF THIS. SO MAYBE WE INTO THIS TABLE IT AND GO BACK TO THE WORKSHOP WITH IT AND CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S RIPE FOR PASSING. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IN AN UNPAID INTERNS. I DID INTERNSHIPS WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE. I GOT PAID I WASN'T DOING ANY FREE INTERNSHIPS. SO TO ME I THINK PAYING MINIMUM WAGE IS GOOD FOR A COLLEGE INTERN ALLOW THEM TO LEARN. IT GIVES THEM MOTIVATION TO GO TO WORK BUT THAT'S NOT ON THE FLOOR FOR TONIGHT. SO IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WE SHOULD JUST TABLE IT AND AND GO BACK TO THE WORKSHOP WITH IT RESPECTFULLY. THE

[02:15:01]

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BEING CREATED SOMETHING COMPLETELY SEPARATE. THIS IS AS THEY SAY TOOLS IN THE TOOL BOX. RIGHT. SO SO BUT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE AGAINST IT MARLINS AGAINST PORTIONS OF IT. SO MAYBE WE TABLED IT UNTIL WE WE GET FEEDBACK. WELL ONCE THE CITY STAFF BRINGS BACK THE DRAFT OF THIS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THIS OR AMEND IT UNTIL I MEAN PUT IT BACK TO THE WORKSHOP SO WE CAN WORK ON IT ONCE WE HEAR BACK FROM STAFF ON THE INTERN PROGRAM PRESUMPTIVELY THAT THEY WOULD BE WORKING ON IT BECAUSE I THINK THE BIGGEST ITEM WE HAD WAS WHETHER OR NOT LEGISLATIVE AIDES ARE PAID OR NOT PAID. AND PART OF THE ISSUE IS THROUGH THE ORDINANCE CITY COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY. NOW IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY YOUR REQUEST IS TO NOT DO ANYTHING WITH THIS AT THIS TIME WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE OTHER PROGRAMS TO BE ROLLED OUT. THE DETAILS OF THE PROGRAM. GIVEN HOW MANY DETAILS RIGHT NOW CRY THEY HAVE TO BE PUT TO A WORKSHOP WE WILL HOLD THAT ITEM FOR A MOMENT IF I MAY I HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THEN I HAVE COMMISSIONER FISHMAN WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AT THE MAYOR IF I MAY. COMMISSIONER YELLEN IF IT BE THE WISH OF THE COMMISSIONER TO TABLE THE ITEM TO A TIME UNCERTAIN BUT SUBJECT TO THE PRESENTATION BY ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUBSTITUTE PROGRAM THAT'S BEING DESCRIBED EMOTIONS THAT EFFECT WOULD BE LEGALLY DOABLE. YOU MADE THAT MOTION ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER EFFICIENT I MAY BE WRONG BUT PART OF THE REASON THAT WE TALKED ABOUT REPEALING THIS PARTICULAR PART OR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY PLACE IN CODE THAT THERE IS A POSITION MENTIONED AND IT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO GO OUT AND GET SOMEONE TO WORK FOR THEM AND IT'S FOR THEM TO WORK FOR THAT COMMISSIONER. ALL OTHER HIRINGS VOLUNTEERS. I'M SORRY. ALL OTHER HIRINGS ARE DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE IT'S DIFFERENT AND THAT DIFFERENCE CAUSES THE ISSUE FOR ME. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POSITIONS WHERE IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSIONER TO HIRE THAT'S UP TO THE VOTERS AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE DECIDED NOT TO GO THAT ROUTE WAS SO THAT WE DIDN'T GO CREATING A POSITION THAT REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE COMMISSIONERS. IT'S THE THE PART TIME POSITION IS FOLLOWING THE REGULAR COURSE OF ACTION. THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THAT POWER. AND I DON'T I DON'T SEE WHERE WE NEED TO GO BACK TO DISCUSS IT.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FISHMAN AND WHILE I DO AGREE WITH THAT AS THE PREMISE OF WHY WE WOULD NOT HAVE IT. FOR ME MY ISSUE IS FOR THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT BASICALLY PUTS IT ON THE CITY COMMISSION THAT WE FIND DUE TO INCREASE USAGE OF AND RELEVANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE THE WHEREAS CLAUSES FOR ME. THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PART THAT YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED. WHICH IS WHY I HAVE THE ISSUE TO THE APPEAL. SO COMMISSIONER BLOCKER WE APPEAR TO BE ALL OVER THE BOARD HERE AND I'M SO CONFUSED NOW ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING OR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE THREE DIFFERENT OPINIONS FIVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. SO YOU KNOW MAYBE WE NEED A TIME OUT TO GO BACK TO THIS BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS HERE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE JUST NEED TO COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT OF WHAT WE NEED WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE THESE PEOPLE AND WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO CALL THEM. SO MAYBE IT IS TIME FOR A TIME OUT. YOU KNOW FOLKS WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS HERE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING. THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US. LET ME HANDLE THIS PLEASE. SORRY. SO THANK YOU. CITY ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME I'VE HAD TWO PEOPLE SAYING THAT THEY'RE WISHING TO TABLE. CAN I ASK THEM FOR A MOTION TO TABLE TO A TIME CERTAIN AFTER OUR CITY HAS REVIEWED THE POTENTIAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM THAT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO HAVE THIS PHRASE PROPERLY SO WE KNOW WHEN TO PUT THIS BACK ON. SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS IF COMMISSIONER GALLO MAKES A MOTION TO TABLE TO A TIME CERTAIN IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. YOU HAD A VOTE ON IT AND IT'S OVER. THE COMMISSIONER PROMOTES A MOTION TO TABLE ON THIS ITEM TO

[02:20:02]

A TIME UNCERTAIN OR TO A TIME CERTAIN. IT'S NOT DEBATABLE EITHER VOTED UP OR VOTED DOWN. CAN I MAKE A REQUEST BEFORE ANYBODY DOES THAT MOTION TO PLEASE MAKE IT TO A QUANTIFIABLE TIME CERTAIN PLEASE. YOU HAVE THE GAVEL MADAM MAYOR. AND SO IF THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO'S WISHING TO MAKE A MOTION I'M ASKING YOU TO DO SO TO A TIME CERTAIN TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO OFFER THAT UP AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION YOU MAY BUT AS SOON AS SOMEONE TAKES UP THE CUDGEL AND VOTES ON IT IT'S OVER BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION WHEN I ASK THE QUESTION TO THE CITY MANAGER AND OR H.R.

DIRECTOR HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE TO BRING BACK THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERN PROGRAM. YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE VERY LONG BUT I WOULD I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU PROGRAM GIVE US SOME GIVE US SOME TIME TO COME UP WITH THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF. I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW HUMAN RESOURCES IS IN THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE HELP AND ALSO RECRUITING FOR THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIAISONS. I WASN'T I WASN'T NECESSARILY RUSHING BACK TO YOU WITH THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM ALTHOUGH WE HEARD YOU LOUD AND CLEAR THAT YOU WANTED IT. WE ALSO I THOUGHT WE HEARD YOU LOUD AND CLEAR THAT YOU WANTED IT AND THAT IT WAS IT WAS A PAID INTERNSHIP SO WE JUST GOT A FULL TIME FRAME 45 DAYS YESTERDAY. WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT. SO I MEAN I WOULD I WOULD SAY 60 DAYS. GOOD EVENING LORENZO CALHOUN DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WHAT THE MANAGER DID NOT SHARE WE ALSO ARE IN THE MIDST OF RECRUITING FOR FIREFIGHTERS AT THIS TIME. SO I THINK 60 DAYS IS REASONABLE MY STAFF IS IN THE MIDST OF LOOKING AT A MODEL FOR A PROGRAM AND LOOKING AT SOME OTHER CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE AND THE PROGRAMS THAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE. SO IF YOU GIVE US ABOUT 60 DAYS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO YOU. OKAY. HOW MANY FIREFIGHTERS YOU HEARD BEFORE. WE ARE RECRUITING FOR THREE FIREFIGHTERS WE HAVE OVER 300 APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE THREE POSITIONS THIS IS THE LARGEST NUMBER WE HAVE HAD IN THE HISTORY OF TAMARACK. FOR THOSE THREE POSITIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GREAT PROGRAM SO GOOD I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR 60 DAYS BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION I DID HAVE MY BUTTON PRESSED. I DON'T WE WE DON'T ACTUALLY THAT'S AN ERROR IF YOU TAKE YOUR CUE SET THE SECOND YOU'RE DONE TALKING ABOUT IT. SO JUST TELLING YOU WHAT THE RULES SUCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER FISHMAN'S SECOND AT PLEASE CALL THE QUOTE TO CALL THE ROLL. NO. IT YOU. THE REQUEST IS TO KNOW WHAT JUST HAPPENED. BASICALLY WHAT JUST HAPPENED. IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE TABLED FOR APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS DURING THAT TIME THE CITY STAFF IS WORKING ON THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM BECAUSE THERE IS A DESIRE FOR HAS BEEN STATED A DESIRE TO PAY INTERNS VERSUS HAVING PEOPLE WORK FOR FREE IN VOLUNTEERING. AND THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT HAVING THE LEGISLATIVE AIDE PORTION REPEALED. THERE'S A REQUEST FOR SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS TO BE PAID WHICH COULD BE IN TURN CONSIDERED INTERNSHIPS WHICH WOULD BE PAID UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY'S MANAGER AND HUMAN RESOURCES. SO AT THIS TIME THAT'S WHAT THAT'S ABOUT. SO THERE'S A MOTION A SECOND ALREADY TO TABLE THIS ITEM PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER GALEN YES. COMMISSIONER FISHMAN. YES. MAY I GO. YES. MR. BOLTON RECUSED ON THE BASIS OF THE OF THE MAYOR NOT GIVING ME THE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND THAT IS MY LEGAL RIGHT AS A CITY COMMISSIONER. MADAM MAYOR THE COMMISSIONER WHO I LOVE DEARLY I WOULD I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMISSIONER TO NOT RECUSE YOURSELF. BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT GIVE YOU THAT AUTHORITY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONFLICT. MR. ATTORNEY THE CITY THE MAYOR SAW THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM LIT WITH MY REQUEST TO SPEAK BEFORE THE VOTE AND IT WAS DENIED ON THAT BASIS. I RECUSE. AND ACTUALLY COMMISSIONER BOLTON I BELIEVE AS THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED EVERYONE HAS TWO RIGHTS TO GO AROUND AND I HAD THE RIGHT TO MOVE THIS MEETING FORWARD. YOUR VOICE HAD BEEN HEARD ON THE MATTER. YOU HAVE GOTTEN ACTUALLY ONE OF THE. BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR IS THAT YOU DID NOT WANT IT DISCUSSED TODAY AND WE'RE HAVING THINGS ABILITY TO CHANGE. SO I'M TRULY NOT SURE WHY YOU'RE UPSET. AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON AGAIN HAS THE RIGHT TO PUT THE MOTION THAT. YOU CANNOT RECUSE YOURSELF APPLYING IT. HOW DO YOU FIGURE THAT I'M UPSET. RECUSING YOURSELF FROM A SIMPLE VOTE. I THINK YOU CAN ABSTAIN. YOU CAN. I AM. YOU CAN'T. I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THAT YOU DID NOT GIVE ME

[02:25:03]

THE RIGHT TO SPEAK WHEN I CUED IN ON THE PARLIAMENTARY PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. AND YES AND I JUST SHARE WITH YOU I DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY THAT IS RUNNING THIS MEETING THAT I HAVE ALLOWED. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT HAVE TO DECIDE OR DID YOU NOT CANCEL IT. NO. YOU'RE RIGHT HERE YOU'RE FLASHING. OK. SO ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME THE ABILITY TO SPEAK. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE. AND AS A CITY ATTORNEY HAS BASICALLY I DID SAY I DID SAY BEFORE THE VOTE THAT I WANT TO SPEAK. AND YES. AND YOU YOU DID. BUT NO. AND YOU FIGHT OVER ME AND I'M ALLOWED TO DO THAT. YOU WENT OVER ME. YOU HAD YOUR TWO CHANCES SPEAK PER THE RULES. NO. WE COULD DISCUSS THE RULES ON MONDAY BECAUSE YOU BECAUSE YOU WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT US HIRING LEGISLATIVE AIDES. I SAW JUST THIS WEEK COMMISSIONER BOLTON YOU'RE ACTUALLY NOT RECOGNIZED TILL WE HAVE A VOTE ON THE FLOOR AND I'VE ASKED FOR THE ROLL TO BE CALLED. THEY ARE GOMEZ. YES. MOST PAST LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE ARE NOW MOVING ON. PARDON. I JUST SAID IT'S NOT THAT THE MOTION IS PASSED TO TABLE IT FOR 60 DAYS.

AND MADAM CLERK HOW WE FIND A MADAM MAYOR. HOW WILL THE CLERK REFLECT THE THE VOTE. IF ANY OF COMMISSIONER BOLTON HOW WILL THAT BE REFLECTED. AS AN ABSTENTION I'M ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE PART OF MY JOB HERE IS NOT JUST TO PROTECT THE CITY AS A WHOLE IS TO PROTECT EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY FROM CHALLENGES UNDER CHAPTER 112. AND I'M SUGGESTING TO THE COMMISSIONER WHO I CARE ABOUT VERY MUCH THAT YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO VOTE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT SOMEONE COULD FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU UNDER 112. I'M CONCERNED THAT ABSTAINING FOR HAVING NOT NOT HAVING A CONFLICT UNDER STATE LAW WOULD PUT YOU AT RISK. I CAN ONLY GIVE YOU MY BEST ADVICE. I ALSO HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO BE HEARD AS THIS OF THE COMMISSIONER. I DON'T DENY THAT. AND THAT'S NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE THE GAVEL OBVIOUSLY BUT I'M ALWAYS OF THE ETHICS ISSUE. THAT'S THAT THAT IS A CONCERN. I WAS DENIED THAT I WAS DENIED THE ABILITY TO SPEAK I WANT BOLTON FINE. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. IF IT IS THIS ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT. HAVE YOU ALREADY SAID IT ON THE RECORD. IF IT IS NOT THEN I AM ASKING YOU TO LET US CONTINUE AND PLEASE HAVE YOUR VOTE. IF IT IS SOMETHING NEW PLEASE GO FORWARD. THE LAST AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING. THE LAST COMMISSIONER WORKSHOP I MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT I WAS NOT FOR HIRING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO WORK FOR US EITHER AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL. NOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO HAVE FREE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDES THAT ARE PAID A SMALL STIPEND. WE HAVE GONE OVER GONE AHEAD.

WITHOUT TAKING A FORMAL ACTION TO ADVERTISE. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR. THE PUBLIC THINKS THAT THE ENTIRE CITY COMMISSION WANTS TO HIRE FIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS PLUS AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT FOR THE MAYOR. AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THAT IS THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT I'VE ALWAYS SAID IS THAT WE WANT LEGISLATIVE AIDES THAT ARE UNPAID AND THOSE WHO ARE PAID SHOULD BE PAID AT LEAST SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS AS A SMALL STIPEND. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE TONIGHT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO TONIGHT IS TAKE AWAY LEGISLATIVE AIDES PERIOD FROM BEING FROM BEING DIRECTLY ASSIGNED TO THE CITY COMMISSION. WE JUST HAD ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS SAY SAY THAT THIS WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO TO THE VOTERS ON THE BALLOT AND THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT TRUE. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT HOW WE REPEAL AN ORDINANCE. AND SO LET'S NOW REPEAL AN ORDINANCE THAT NOW WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS WE CAN HAVE LEGISLATIVE AIDE. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY TO HAVE FREE LEGISLATIVE AIDES. COMMISSIONER BOLTON YOU COULD SAY I'M DONE. OK. WE HAVE NOT VOTED ON TAKING AWAY LEGISLATIVE MY VOTE IS YES CAN WE HAVE A BATHROOM BREAK PLEASE. CAN I CLARIFY. I'M GOING I'M GOING TO WALK OFF YOU AND YOU STILL YOU STILL HAVE HE WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION FOR YOU. GOING. I'M GOING TO WALK OFF. YOU STILL HAVE YOU STILL HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE IN QUORUM. PLEASE I NEED TO TAKE MY ALLERGY MEDICATION AND MY VOTE IS YES. PLEASE CLARIFY. THANK YOU SIR. OK. IT IS 940 I KNOW THAT IT SEEMS A LITTLE LATER THAN PEOPLE PROBABLY REALIZE BUT IT IS

[02:30:01]

940. LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK. YOU NEED MORE THAN 15 LESS. OK. I'M FINE WITH IT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN TEN MINUTE BREAK BE BACK AT NINE FIFTY THREE PEOPLE IN THE SEATS WERE MOVIN. SURPRISE SURPRISE IT. IT IS NINE FORTY SIX AND WE ARE READY TO GET THIS PARTY STARTED AGAIN. I BELIEVE WE HAVE LAST LEFT OFF. AT OUR. AUDIENCE ON

[b. TO2399 Local Business Preference Ordinance An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 6 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, entitled “Finance and Taxation”, specifically amending Article V, entitled “Tamarac Procurement Code”, by creating Section 6-146.1, to be entitled “Local Business Preference”; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for an effective date.]

FIRST READING B C O 2 3 9 9 LOCAL BUSINESS PREFERENCE ORDINANCE CITY ATTORNEY WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE TITLE INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU AMERICAN NATION IF YOU CAN. THIS IS TEMPORARY AUDIENCE NUMBER TWENTY THREE NINETY NINE AND IT READS AS FOLLOWS. IT'S AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY TAMARACK FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES ENTITLED FINANCE AND TAXATION AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING ARTICLE 5 ENTITLED TAMARA ELECTRIC HERMAN CODE BY CREATING SECTION SIX DASH ONE FORTY SIX POINT ONE TO BE ENTITLED QUOTE LOCAL BUSINESS PREFERENCE. END OF QUOTE PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT BY AND POSSIBILITY AND FINALLY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION OF SECONDS TO GET THIS ON THE TABLE. SO MOVED. SECOND THANK YOU. I SEE COMMISSIONER IS LIGHT COMMISSIONER IN GALLONS. LIGHT IS LIT. SO I FIRST WANT TO THANK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS FOR AGREEING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A LOCAL AND SMALL BUSINESS POLICY HERE IN THE CITY AND JOIN THE 17 OTHER CITIES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS THIS MORNING JUST TO MAKE A COUPLE OF SMALL CHANGES AND HOPEFULLY YOU FOLKS WILL AGREE. SO THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SEE DIFFERENT HERE IS TO ADD ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS LANGUAGE TO A LINE ITEM THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE COMMISSION CAN WAIVE THE POLICY ANYTIME AND FOR ANY REASON. SO JUST TO ADD THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS LANGUAGE AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION THE CODE WHERE OR THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WILL PROVIDE EITHER TWO AND A HALF OR FIVE POINTS TO LOCAL AND SMALL BUSINESS I WANT TO SEE THAT INCREASE FROM FIVE POINTS FROM TONIGHT TO FIVE POINTS OF FIVE POINTS OR TEN POINTS THAT A LOCAL OR SMALL BUSINESS WILL GET. THE PRIMARY REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE WORK WITH SO FEW LOCAL AND COUNTY BUSINESSES THAT I CHECK WITH OUR PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR I THINK WE HAVE ACTIVE CONTRACTS WITH FOR TAMARACK BUSINESSES AND 30 TO BROWARD COUNTY BUSINESSES. SO THIS MIGHT PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN INCENTIVE. AND IN SPEAKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS TODAY I THINK THEY WERE OK OR ON BOARD WITH IT. THERE IS A..

REQUEST OR A COMMENT. BEING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BEING ON BOARD WITH IT I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION. SURE. IF I CAN RESPOND TO THE COMMISSIONER. LEGALLY HE'S CORRECT MEAN TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER AS A MATTER OF POLICY WOULD CHOOSE TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT THE MANAGER'S DECISION WITH REGARD TO WAIVING PROVISIONS WOULD NOT BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. THAT'S LEGALLY DOABLE IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO ACT ON THAT. THAT WOULD BE AT SECTION 9 ON PAGE 5 OF 7. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION TO ADD PERCENTAGE POINTS IN THE ORDINANCE FURTHER IS A MATTER OF POLICY THE COMMISSION COULD DECIDE BY APPROPRIATE MOTION AND TO THE EXTENT WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. QUINT MORGAN'S HERE THIS EVENING. WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL DRAFT PERSON OF THE ORDINANCE GIVEN THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION. HAPPY TO CLARIFY ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THAT WHICH IS BEING ASKED FOR BY COMMISSIONER YELLEN. IT'S LEGALLY DOABLE WHETHER IT'S POLITICAL FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO. THAT'S BETWEEN YOURSELVES AS VOTING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK YOUR MANAGER TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO YOU AS ANY MANAGER AND ALSO I WOULD OUR PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR IS HERE AS WELL. SO CITY MANAGER YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS MANAMA. I WOULD ACTUALLY JUST DEFER TO OUR PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER KEITH GLASS WITH REGARDS TO THE THE THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THE FIVE AND FIVE VERSUS FIVE AND TWO AND A HALF. THANK YOU. PLEASE. GOOD EVENING KEITH GLASS PURCHASING CONTRACTS MANAGER. FIRST OF ALL I CERTAINLY CANNOT DISAGREE WITH THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS LANGUAGE THAT CERTAINLY MAKES PERFECT SENSE IN THIS TYPE OF STATURE. I DO HAVE A CONCERN HOWEVER ON WHAT I CALL IT WHAT IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT AND I I'VE ONLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE CHANGES SINCE THIS MORNING. SO I MAY NEED I MAY NEED A CLARIFICATION ON THIS MYSELF BUT THE WAY I'M READING THIS IS IF THE PERCENTAGE. IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS A TAMARA LOCAL BUSINESS

[02:35:10]

THEY ARE ABLE TO RECEIVE ON AN ON AN EVALUATION FOR AN RFP FIVE POINTS. AND IF THERE ARE A BROWARD VENDOR IN MY READING THAT THEY ALSO RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE POINTS. CORRECT. SO SO FOR EXAMPLE IN MY WELL MY CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER CITY I RECEIVED FIVE POINTS FOR BEING A LOCAL BUSINESS WITH THAT CITY. AND THEN ANOTHER FIVE POINTS FOR BEING I WERE A BROWARD COUNTY GOVERNMENT. SO ON A SCALE OF ZERO TO 100 THE BIG CORPORATIONS THEIR MAXIMUM SCORE WAS ONE HUNDRED. BUT FOR ME BEING A LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS AND COUNTY CERTIFIED BUSINESS MY FEELING WAS 1 10. SO IT GAVE ME THE FLEXIBILITY OF OR GAVE ME THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING AN ADDITIONAL 10 POINTS. AND IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE IN A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES. I'M NOT. DO I MIRAMAR IS THE ONLY MUNICIPALITY I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT HAS THE WHAT I WOULD CALL A CUMULATIVE OR A CHAIN. PREFERENCE. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN PLEASE PLEASE CORRECT ME ON ON ANY OTHER SORT OF I'M NOT AWARE OF AT THIS POINT BUT I I DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF A CHAIN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH RECEIVING ONE OR THE OTHER BUT I FEEL THAT IF WE START AWARDING PREFERENCES FOR MULTIPLE AREAS THAT THE PREFERENCE ITSELF STARTS TO BECOME THE CRITICAL A CRITICAL PART OF THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF MORE SO THAN PERHAPS EVEN PRICE OUR QUALIFICATIONS OR SCHEDULE. YES. AND I UNDERSTAND AND I UNDERSTAND HOW WHY YOU WOULD WHY THAT MIGHT BE. WELL IT WOULD DEFINITELY REQUIRE US TO MAKE SOME VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATIONS OF HOW WE STRUCTURE ALL OF OUR POINT. I THINK I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENT RECEPTION AND I'M GOING TO HAND YOU AN EVALUATION OF SCORE SHEET FROM THE CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH WHERE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A LOCAL BUSINESS AND A MINORITY BUSINESS PROGRAM. AND THERE WERE SOME FIRMS THAT QUALIFY FOR BOTH THE LOCAL AND THE MINORITY BUSINESS PROGRAM AND GOT ACCESS POINTS BUT NONE OF THOSE FIRMS WON THE FIRM THAT ENDED UP WINNING. THEY DID GET LOCAL PREFERENCE. THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY MINORITY BUSINESS PREFERENCE IN THE TOP THREE FIRMS ACTUALLY. THE TOP THREE FIRMS WERE DID NOT HAVE ANY ANY MINORITY PREFERENCE SO EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN STACK AND GAIN A LOT OF POINTS IT DOES NOT IT DOES NOT PREVENT A FIRM THAT DOES NOT HAVE THAT STACKING ABILITY TO STILL WIN. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT. MY CONCERN IS THAT IT DOES HOWEVER WHILE IT DOES PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY I JUST SEE THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL MAYBE A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE AND THEN A LITTLE BIT AND I THINK I WOULD DISTINGUISH TWO A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MINORITY AND THE LOCATION PROFITS BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING SOMEONE'S LOCATED IN TAMARA AND THEY ALSO HAPPEN TO BE IN BROWARD COUNTY AND THEY'VE REGISTERED THERE IN BROWARD COUNTY AND NOT SORT OF FUNNY FURNITURE TO THE CBC. I UNDERSTAND. SO THEN THEY WOULD NOT GET THE THE ADDITIONAL FIVE POINTS FOR NOT BEING A CBE AND BASED ON YOUR E-MAIL TODAY WE HAVE VERY FEW CERTIFIED CBD THAT WE CONTRACT WITH. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. AND I'VE OFFERED MY OPINION ON THAT AS WELL. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS REGARDING ARE YOU COMPLETE. HOW MANY QUESTIONS. I NEED A CLARIFICATION. WHERE ARE YOU. WHERE'S THIS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS LANGUAGE MEAN. SO IF YOU LOOK ON SECTION 9 IT SAYS OR SECTION D FOR EXCEPTIONS AND NUMBER NINE.

AND THAT'S ON PAGE 5 OF THE MEMO. IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER AND OR CITY COMMISSION MAY EXEMPT ANY COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION FROM THE LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO AWARD OF CONTRACT BY THE CITY COMMISSION. SO LOOKING AT THIS IF YOU HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE OF A POLICY IN PLACE WHY DO YOU NEED TO JUST. WHY CAN THE CITY COMMISSION AND OR CITY MANAGER REMOVE IT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON AND IN DISCUSSING IT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TODAY THEY SAID THAT THERE COULD BE SOME LEGITIMATE REASONS WHY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. AND SO THIS LANGUAGE IS THERE FOR PROTECTION OF THE CITY. AND SO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS COMMISSION OR ANY FUTURE COMMISSION OR THE CITY MANAGER OR ANY FUTURE CITY MANAGER DOESN'T ABUSE THAT RIGHT OR ABILITY WE CAN ADD THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS LANGUAGE IN THERE SO THEY

[02:40:02]

DON'T JUST DO IT AT ANY TIME ANY REASON THEY WOULD HAVE TO REALLY JUSTIFY WHY THEY WERE MOVING THIS SMALL BUSINESS PREFERENCE. AND MAYOR I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE POLICY ARE ADEQUATE TO COVER THE ISSUES IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE FOR WHY WE WOULD NOT UTILIZE THE PREFERENCE IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. RIGHT. SO IT'S ACTUALLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A VERY MINOR ERROR. AND I THINK THE SITUATION IS VERY CLEAR AND THOSE I BELIEVE RUN PRETTY MUCH THE FULL GAMUT OF WHERE WE NEED TO GO WITH THAT. WELL I APPRECIATE THAT I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT.

IN GENERAL I DON'T SEE WHY THE CITY COMMISSION HAS ANY ROLE IN PLAYING WITH PROCUREMENT AT ALL SO I DON'T SEE WHY THE CITY COMMISSION SHOULD EVEN BE INCLUDED IN IT BUT THAT'S JUST MY ISSUE BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO ISSUES NO LOOK OF IMPROPRIETY. THE CITY COMMISSION IN MY OPINION SHOULDN'T EVEN BE LISTED. WE SHOULD HAVE NO SAY SO I'M BEING LOOKED AT FUNNY FROM MY COLLEAGUE IT'S PROCUREMENT. WE ARE NOT PROCUREMENT SPECIALISTS. THAT'S WHY WE ARE WE ALL SAW THESE ETHICS LIBERALS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF SO AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS AND THE AMOUNTS PERSONALLY THE WAY I READ IT IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCORING THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEW AND THAT WE'RE DOING AND I'M VERY HAPPY THAT WE ARE DOING IT AND I'M GLAD THAT COMMISSIONER GELINAS BROUGHT IT FORTH.

HOWEVER I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE NUMBERS AS THEY ARE HERE. WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BRING A PART I DON'T KNOW HOW IT ACTUALLY PLAYS IN OUR CITY. AND I'M TRULY. FORGIVE ME BUT I ON THIS ONE. I DON'T CARE WHAT NORTH MIAMI DOES. I DON'T CARE WHAT RIVERA RIVERA BEACH DOES. I ONLY CARE ABOUT THE CITY OF TAMARACK BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE OUR BUSINESSES SO I AM CONCERNED AND ESPECIALLY IF OUR PROCUREMENT MANAGER HAS CONCERNS AND WE HAVE NO NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN RUN AND NO ABILITY TO SEE CERTAIN THINGS IN ACTUALITY. I WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE COMFORTABLE SEEING HOW THIS EVEN PLAYS OUT IN OUR CITY FIRST IF IT'S PASSED. OBVIOUSLY ONE FIRST READING AND THEN AT A TIME IN THE FUTURE IF WE'RE FINDING THAT OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES OR SMALL BUSINESSES. WHAT'S THE ACTUAL PROPER WORDING ON THIS. LET'S PRIORITIZE SMALL BUSINESSES BROWARD COUNTY CERTIFIED SMALL BUSINESS VENDORS. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE THEN I WOULD SAY LET'S REVISIT IT AT THAT TIME. BUT I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM RIGHT NOW.

THAT HAS NEVER BEEN EXPLORED HERE IN THE CITY. IT'S A GOOD START. YEAH. MY OPINION COMMISSIONER GONE. I ALSO IT'S A GOOD START BUT OUT FOR THE REASON WHY WHEN THE SHOW'S INFORMATION IS TO ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS THAT CAME UP. SO FOR EXAMPLE VICE MAYOR FLACCO BROUGHT UP SOME CONCERNS WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE EXAMPLE OF NORTH MIAMI WHERE THEY SAID IF YOU WANT LOCAL BUSINESS PREFERENCE YOU HAVE TO SPEND 10 PERCENT OF THE VALUE OF THE CONTRACT WITH A LOCAL BUSINESS. AND SO THAT'S JUST AN INCENTIVE TO DRIVE PEOPLE TO WORK WITH THE LOCAL BUSINESS. BUT NO ONE HAS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE INCENTIVE SOME PASSING ON ANOTHER SHEET THAT SHOWS ANOTHER RFP WHERE THERE WERE FOUR BIDDERS AND NONE OF THE BIDDERS DECIDED TO WORK WITH A LOCAL BUSINESS. SO NONE OF THEM GOT POINTS BUT THERE WAS STILL A WINNER. AND SO THESE POLICIES ARE IN PLACE JUST TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES SO THAT LARGER CORPORATIONS WILL WORK WITH A SMALLER CORPORATION OR WILL WORK WITH A LOCAL BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO OUR PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR WE ONLY HAVE FOUR TAMARACK BUSINESSES HAVE CONTRACTS WITH US AND ONLY 29 BROWARD COUNTY CERTIFIED SMALL BUSINESSES. SO THIS IS JUST A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE AND DRIVE THAT NUMBER TO GO UP AND IF IT'S TOO AGGRESSIVE WE CAN ALWAYS PUT IT DOWN BUT RIGHT NOW I DON'T FEEL IT'S AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU COMPARE THOSE NUMBERS TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND ESPECIALLY COMPARE THOSE NUMBERS TO NORTHERN CITIES. WELL WE CERTAINLY WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THAT OUR VENDOR COMMUNITY DOES SHOULD BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE COUNTY PROGRAM AND REGISTERING CEVICHE. NOW YOU MENTIONED FOUR VENDORS THAT'S FOUR OUT OF THE EIGHT VENDORS THAT ARE REGISTERED AT THE CBD WITH THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW SO THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF TAMARACK VENDORS THAT ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROGRAM AND WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO WORK WITH OUR VENDOR COMMUNITY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROGRAM AS WELL. AND WE WERE IN OUR IN OUR WORKSHOP. VENDOR COMMUNITY ABOUT THAT AND WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THE VENDOR COMMUNITY DOES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BECAUSE THOSE ARE THOSE ARE GREAT SERVICES AND PROVIDE A LOT OF. GOOD. VISIBILITY FOR THAT THOSE MEMBERS OF THE VENDOR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER GUILLEN'S THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN HEARD. IN NEED OF YOUR ASSISTANCE CITY ATTORNEY I'M SORRY I MET HIM THERE. WE

[02:45:08]

HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE RECORD. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO MOVE IT FORWARD.

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

[02:50:03]

AMENDED. IF YOU SO CHOOSE IF I HEARD YOU BECAUSE I'M HAVING TROUBLE BASICALLY WE NOW NEED TO DO EMOTIONAL AS AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUDIENCE AS AMENDED. I NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED SO MOVED IT CITY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL WHEN YOU'RE READY. COMMISSIONER GALEN. YES MR. BOLTON. YES COMMISSIONER FISHMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR FLACCO. YES. MAYOR GOMEZ. YES.

TEMPORARY ORDINANCE TWENTY THREE NINETY NINE PASSED AS AMENDED. ON FIRST READING.

THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE MOVING TO 8 C 2 0 2 3 9 1 COMPREHENSIVE PROCEDURES FOR CITY

[c. TO2391 - Comprehensive Procedures for City Commission Meetings An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 2 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, entitled “Administration”, specifically amending Article II, entitled “City Commission”, by amending Section 2-34, entitled Comprehensive Procedures for City Commission Meetings”; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for an effective date.]

COMMISSION MEETINGS. CITY ATTORNEY PLEASE READ THE TITLE INTO THE RECORD. THANK AMERICAN MISSION TEMPORARY AUDIENCE NUMBER TWENTY THREE NINETY ONE READS AS FOLLOWS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY TAMARACK FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES AND TITLE ADMINISTRATION SPECIFICALLY AMENDING ARTICLE 2 ENTITLED CITY COMMISSION BY AMENDING SECTION 2 THE ACT 34 AND TITLE COMPREHENSIVE PROCEDURES FOR CITY COMMISSIONER MEETINGS PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION PROVIDING FOR COMPLEX SEVERABILITY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO GET THIS ON THE TABLE.

SECOND OKAY. MADAM MAYOR IF I MAY NOT NOT TO INTERRUPT BUT BUT GIVEN THE CONVERSATION OF THE COMMISSION ON MONDAY AT THE WORKSHOP IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH I MIGHT BE DIRECTED TO READ THE TITLE INTO THE RECORD IT WAS THE WISH OF THE COMMISSION TO ESSENTIALLY PULL THE ITEM FOR THE AGENDA BY MOTION AND TO NOT NOT EVEN TABLE A BUT REMOVE IT AS IF AS IF IT DIDN'T EXIST LEGALLY AND IF THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS MONDAY'S CONVERSATION. BUT YOU KNOW IT IS WEDNESDAY YES IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA COMPLETELY IF THAT IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION IF NOT YOU'VE GOT A FIRST READING AND YOU CAN HAVE AT IT YES. SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I DON'T MAKE MOTIONS FROM MY SEAT. SO IF THERE'S SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION THAT WE IT FROM THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION A SECOND TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA. CAN I HAVE ROLL CALL POLICE COMMISSIONER FISHMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR FLACCO. YES MR. MCCLELLAN. YES COMMISSIONER BOLTON. YES. GOMEZ. YES. ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA. THANK YOU SIR. SINCE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND NO AUDIENCE IS ON SECOND READING WE ARE NOW MOVING TO QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS AND I AM GOING TO ASK

[a. Commissioner E. Mike Gelin's Motion to Reconsider Pursuant to City Code Section 2-34(j)(5) Commissioner E. Mike Gelin's Motion to Reconsider Pursuant to City Code Section 2-34(j)(5) to Reconsider TR13257 - Rock Island Self- Storage – Major Revised Site Plan. According to the City Attorney, the Motion to Reconsider was timely filed by the Commissioner on April 25, 2019, under the City Code as a voting member on the prevailing side.]

THE CITY ATTORNEY TO READ THE MOTION TO CONSIDER INTO THE RECORD AND EXPLAIN THE RULES OF THE ROAD REGARDING THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER. OKAY MARY COMMISSIONER GOOD EVENING AGAIN. YOU'LL NOTE ON THE AGENDA THE PRINTED AGENDA THE FOLLOWING WHICH IS COMMISSIONER MIKE GILLEN MOTION TO RECONSIDER. PURSUANT TO CITY SECTION THIS IS WITH REGARD TO ITEM OBSTRUCT THAT WITH REGARD TO RESOLUTION NUMBER TR 1 3 2 5 7 WHICH WAS THE ROCK ISLAND SELF-STORAGE FACILITY APPLICATION COMMISSIONER GUILLEN'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 2 DASH 34 SUBSECTION J 5. TO SPECIFICALLY RECONSIDER TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 3 2 5 7 THAT'S THE ROCK ISLAND SELF STORAGE APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR REVISED SITE PLAN ACCORDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO IS ME. THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER IT CAN RECONSIDERATION WAS TIMELY FILED BY COMMISSIONER YELLEN ON APRIL THE 25TH. UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SPECIFICALLY I CITED WHICH IS SECTION 2 DASH 34 J 5 FOR REOPENING THE DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS MOTION THIS EVENING WOULD PASS.

THE ITEM WOULD BE SET OR BOUND OVER FOR REVIEW TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE MAY 22ND MEETING WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE APPROPRIATE ADVERTISING A NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY LAW. THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION A SECOND TO GET THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION SO MOVED WE'RE ABOUT TO FILE FOR NO SECOND CAN. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER. SEE. YEAH. SO FOR THIS ITEM THERE WAS A RESIDENT THAT COMPLAINED BECAUSE THE ADVERTISING THAT WENT OUT SAID THAT THE MEETING WAS AT 7 P.M. INSTEAD OF 9 A.M. AND SO I THINK THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE MEETING NOTICE THAT WENT OUT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS TWO PAGES TO THE MEETING NOTICE THE FIRST PAGE HAD IT CORRECT. THE SECOND PAGE DID NOT. AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE DISCUSSION WITH THE RESIDENT IS THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS

[02:55:03]

THE MEETING STARTED AT 9:00 AND THAT THIS TOPIC WOULD BE HEARD AT 7 P.M.. AND WHILE I DID EXPRESS TO HIM WE'VE HAD SOME LONG MEETINGS WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE THAT LONG.

THAT'S JUST PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD IT'S NOT SAYING THAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR I'M JUST SHARING THAT. THAT WAS WHERE THE CONFUSION CAME FROM. COMMISSIONER BOLTON THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR. THE RESIDENT THAT COMMISSIONER GALAN IS REFERENCING IS ADAM HARRY AND ADAM IS THE SON VISTA GARDENS CONDO ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT. HE SENT AN EMAIL SEE SEEING ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND YOU MADAM MAYOR IN HIS EMAIL HE REFERENCES THAT THE RESIDENTS THAT HE REPRESENTS DOES NOT FEEL THAT. THE STORAGE FACILITY SHOULD GO FOR IT. I'LL READ HIS EMAIL INTO RECORD THEN IF THE CLERK WANTS ME TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE EMAIL I'M I CAN DO SO. THIS EMAIL WAS ORIGINALLY SENT LAST NIGHT FROM MY OFFICIAL EMAIL ACCOUNT. TO BEGIN I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS MY THANKS TO YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS. MY NAME IS ADAM TO HARRY AND THE PRESIDENT OF SOME VISTA GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PRIME TO THE PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD ALSO KNOWN AS ITEM ELEVEN DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE ON APRIL 24TH 2019. TO BEGIN I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS THE DEEP OPPOSITION OF THE RESIDENTS AND OWNERS OF SOME VISTA GARDENS WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. FURTHERMORE AND SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION I HAVE JUST FINISHED REVIEWING MOST OF THE VIDEO OF THE HEARING. AND AS A RESULT I AM COMPELLED TO EXPRESS MY SHOCK IN HAVING HEARD SOME OF THE MISSTATEMENTS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE AT SAID MEETING TO POINT OUT JUST A FEW OF THE MANY EXAMPLES. FIRST OF ALL WHILE REVIEWING THE VIDEO OF THE HEARING ONLINE AND NOTICED THAT THE GENTLEMAN ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY THAT WOULD BE DENNIS MEALY DURING THE COURSE OF HIS PRESENTATION TURNED TO THE AUDIENCE AND THEN BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THERE DID HOW THERE DID NOT SEEM TO BE ANY OBJECTION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY AS EVIDENCED BY THE LACK OF ATTENDANCE. HOWEVER WHAT HE FAILED TO MENTION IS THAT PERHAPS THE REASON FOR THE LACK OF ATTENDANCE WAS THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICES THAT WERE PRESUMABLY MAILED TO RESIDENTS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY WERE MAILED WITH THE INCORRECT HEARING TIME LISTED AS A RESULT. AND TO MY SURPRISE AND DISMAY I ARRIVED AT CITY HALL 7 P.M. TONIGHT ONLY TO BE GREETED BY LOCK DOORS LOCKED CHAMBER DOORS AS EVIDENCE OF THIS I'VE ATTACHED TO YOU HERE N PLEASE FIND A COPY OF THE ERRONEOUS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE THAT THAT WAS PRESUMABLY RECEIVED BY OTHER NEIGHBORS NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY. AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE NOTICE INDICATES THAT THE HEARING WAS TO BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. TONIGHT RATHER THAN 9 A.M. WHICH WAS WHICH IS WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED. WHILE THIS LIKELY WAS NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN THE PROPER PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. THE DRONE OF PHOTOS NUMBER TWO THE DRONE PHONER PHOTOS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VIEWS FROM THE STORAGE FACILITY INTO SOME VISTA GARDENS WAS EXTREMELY MISLEADING. WHILE THE PHOTOS ACTUALLY SHOWED THE HORIZONTAL LINE OF OFFSITE FROM THE TOP OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING STRAIGHT OUT TO SOME VISTA GARDENS WHAT WAS CONVENIENTLY ADMITTED WAS THAT THE VEGETATION WAS THAT THE VEGETATION VEGETATION IN THE PHOTOS WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE THE COMMISSION BELIEVE WOULD OBSTRUCT THE VISIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY

[03:00:03]

SUBSTANTIALLY EXIST ONLY AT THE TOP OF THE TREE LINE. IN CONTRAST TO THE PRESENTATION MADE AT THE HEARING THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT BECAUSE. THE THREE STOREY BUILDINGS IN SOME VISTA GARDENS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER THAN THE PROPOSED FACILITY THE ENTIRETY OF BOTH BUILDINGS WOULD BE CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY EXPOSED TO EACH OTHER AND THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO VEGETATION OR THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO VEGETATION ON THE TRUNKS OF THE TREES AND NOTHING ELSE EXISTS TO OBSTRUCT THE VIEW.

AS A COMPARISON IT WOULD BE LIKE WALKING ON A JUNGLE FLOOR AND HAVING SOMEONE TRY TO CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT'S OBVIOUSLY IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE OF THE OFF OF LEAVES. THIRTY SIX FEET UP ON ON THE TOP OF THE TREES ARE OBSTRUCTING THE VIEW DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU. IT'S SIMPLY IN NONSENSICAL NONSENSICAL. AS A CITATION THE PHOTOS WERE CLEARLY TAKEN IN SUCH A WAY TO PREVENT THE VIEWER FROM SEEING THE FULL SCOPE OF THE BUILDING EXPOSURE. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS FOR REFERENCE NUMBER THREE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FLEETING COMMENT BY THE TEMPORARY PROPERTY MANAGER WHO WAS REPLACING THE PREVIOUS FULL TIME PROPERTY MANAGER. THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER BY THE ASSOCIATION OF SUN VISTA GARDENS REGARDING THE PROPOSED FACILITY NOR HAS THERE BEEN ANY OFFER MADE TO US BY THE DEVELOPER.

ONCE AGAIN IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE CLAIMS MADE AT THE HEARING SUN VISTA GARDENS HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN. WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPER. WE HAVE NEVER PROVIDED ANY FEEDBACK. WE HAVE NEVER AGREED TO ANYTHING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND WE WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN TO BUILD THE SOUTH STORAGE FACILITY UNTIL WE RECEIVE THE IGNORE IN NORA'S PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. IN FACT WE HAD WE EVEN BEEN ASKED TO FOR FEEDBACK. IT MOST CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSITIVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK AS A GENTLEMAN ALLEGES TO HAVE RECEIVED TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR I HAVE. ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW OR FROM WHOM THE ALLEGED THE THE GENTLEMAN IS RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION FROM SAN VISTA GARDENS.

WHILE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AS DETAILED ABOVE CAN PERHAPS BE EXPLAINED I CANNOT IMAGINE A SCENARIO IN WHICH A GENTLEMAN COULD BE AS MISTAKEN AS HE WAS TODAY ABOUT SOME VISITORS POSITION ON THE MATTER. THIS INVESTOR GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION SIMPLY COULD NOT BE MORE OUTRAGED BY THE OPPOSED AND OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSED SITE THAN WE ALREADY ARE TO CONCLUDE. WHILE THERE ARE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES I HOPE THE REFERENCES ABOVE ILLUSTRATE THE SHOCK AND CONCERN WITH WHAT WAS WITNESSED IN ONLY THE PORTION OF THE HEARING THAT WAS ABLE TO FEEL WHEN THE OWNERS OF SOME VISTA PURCHASED THE COMMUNITY. WE NEVER EXPECT TO BE LIVE VILLAGES INTO A MONSTROUS SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AND PERHAPS WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A DECISION TO PURCHASE THERE HAD WE BELIEVE TO BE A POSSIBILITY. THE FACILITY STANDS TO DIMINISH THE ATTRACTIVENESS DESIRABILITY AND VALUES OF THE UNITS IN SERVICE LIKE GARDENS AND THERE'S SOMETHING WE WE DO NOT WANT ON OUR DOORSTEP. MOREOVER AS A RESULT OF THE NUMEROUS MISTAKES MISSTATEMENTS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS PERPETUATED AT THE HEARING TODAY WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTION IT IS AND WILL BE THE POSITION OF THE ASSOCIATION TO CONSULT WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND PURSUE ANY REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO US TO BLOCK THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE. IN THE MEANTIME ON BEHALF OF SOME VISTA GARDENS CONDOMINIUM OWNERS WE STRONGLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER AND RESCIND THE PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTION THAT OCCURRED TODAY AT LEAST UNTIL PUBLIC NOTICE HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED AND THE COMMUNITY HAS THE AND THE COMMUNITY HAS A FAIR CHANCE TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT IN REBUTTAL AS IS OUR RIGHT. WE SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER WHICH WE HOPE CAN BE RESOLVED FAVORABLY SHOULD ANYONE

[03:05:03]

DESIRE TO REACH OUT TO ME DIRECTLY PLEASE FREE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. THE GENTLEMAN WANTED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND TODAY HE SENT AN EMAIL. IT IS VERY SHORT. HE SAYS PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES FOR BEING UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT'S HEARING. HE GIVES HIS NAME AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF SOME VISTA ASSOCIATION YOU MAY RECALL THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT HOWEVER PROBLEM PRIOR TO THIS MEETING I WOULD LIKE TO ONCE AGAIN EXPRESS THE OPPOSITION OF SOME MR. GARDENS COMMUNITY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. HE GOES ON AND CONCLUDES I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO EITHER POSTPONE THIS VOTE AND OR OR THIS AGENDA ITEM OR IF MY STATEMENTS BELOW ARE SUFFICIENT TO PERSUADE A VOTE FOR A FORMAL REHEARING OF THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST FOR VARIANCES ALLOW FOR A VOTE IN THAT REGARD HE CONTINUES AND HE SIGNS HIS NAME. ADAM THE HARRY MADAM MAYOR YOU WOULD RECALL THAT THE DEVELOPER THROUGH THE DEVELOPERS ATTORNEY MADE MENTION THAT SOME VISTA AND HIMSELF OR HERSELF HAD AN AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPING AND THAT THE STAFF AND INVESTORS REFUTING HAVING AGREED TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT SUNLESS DAY SAYING THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE IN TIME AND WHEN THEY DID RECEIVE THE NOTICE THE NOTICE AT THE TIME WAS INCORRECT. DID LOOK ON THE NOTICE AS WELL AND IT HAD TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. RESIDENTS DID SHOW UP IN THE MORNING AND HAD TO LEAVE BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY LENGTHY MEETING AND OTHER RESIDENTS DID APPROACH ME THAT THEY CAME ACTUALLY CAME AT 7 P.M. AND THE COMMISSION DOORS WERE CLOSED. SO THE GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT IN HIS ANALYSIS THAT THE THAT THE NOTICED WAS CONFUSING SOME RESIDENTS CAME IN THE MORNING AND SOME RESIDENTS CAME IN THE IN THE EVENING. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE RESIDENTS HAD A I BELIEVE THAT THE RESIDENTS LEGAL RIGHT TO BE AT THE MEETING WAS ABRIDGED IN SOME WAY. AND I THINK THAT THIS RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSIONER GUILLEN'S VOTE IS IS TIMELY AND SHOULD AT LEAST BE CONSIDERED AN EITHER WE REHEAR THE HEARING OR ACCEPT THIS LETTER AS AS JUST ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF HOW THE RESIDENTS IN MY DISTRICT IS OUTRAGED ABOUT THIS STORAGE FACILITY. THEY DO NOT WANT IT EVEN AT FOUR STORIES HIGH. IT IS JUST GOING TO BE AN ATROCITY A MONSTROUS BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF COMMERCIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

NOBODY WOULD WANT SUCH A TALL BUILDING IN THERE IN THEIR COMMUNITY. AND SO I'M APPEALING TO THE COMMISSIONER ONCE MORE TO EITHER CHANGE THEIR VOTE TO REFLECT NOT APPROVING THE VARIANCE AND OR REHEARING THE THE MATTER AT A LATER DATE SO THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE ABLE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. IF YOU WOULD MATTER MAYOR.

THERE ARE RESIDENTS HERE FROM DISTRICT 1 AND ONE SUCH RESIDENT VIOLA WATSON IS ALSO HERE. THAT IS NOT FOR THE STORAGE FACILITY. IF YOU WOULD OPEN A LIMITED DISCUSSION SO THE PUBLIC COULD SPEAK THAT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD. IF THAT PLEASES YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME HEY YOU FORGIVE ME BUT TONIGHT IS ON A MOTION FOR REHEARING AND IT'S A MATTER OF WHETHER OR NOT A MAN MADE A DIFFERENCE. THIS IS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY COMMISSIONER GALES NOT FOR REHEARING MOTION. YOU CAN'T CONDUCT A QUASAR DIGITAL HEARING TONIGHT NOT RIGHTLY POSTED ON SUCH IT'S A MOTION TO LIMITED MOTION LIMITED MOTION WHICH WAS THAT WHICH IT PASSED BY THE COMMISSION WOULD BIND THE MATTER OF OVER FOR A LIMITED REREVIEW AND I SAID LIMITED BECAUSE THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION ARE NOT VOIDED BY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN REOPENED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE THEORETICALLY OF ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN THAT'S NOT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY OFFERED. SO VERY LIMITED SCOPE. COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS THE RIGHT

[03:10:01]

TO READ THE RECORD THE LETTER INTO THE RECORD BUT IT'S NOT EVIDENCE IT'S SIMPLY THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT. THAT PERSON WOULD CARE TO TESTIFY AT THE NEXT MEETING. IF YOU GRANT THE RECONSIDERATION THAT'S WHEN IT WILL BE HEARD AND THE MOTION ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS FOR THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND THAT IS THE LIMIT SO THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE READY TO CALL THE GALLERY A LEGITIMATELY BASED MOTION WHICH THEY MAKE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER THIS EVENING. AND IF IT'S PASSED BY THE COMMISSION WE'LL BE BOUND OVER FOR THE MAY 22ND MEETING WITH PROPER NOTICE MADE. AND JUST ME OR WAS IT THE JUNE 22ND MEETING IN ORDER TO HAVE TIME FOR FOR ADVERTISING IT MAY MAY 22ND MAY I. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS JUNE SO I GOT THE DAY OFF. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR MY MAYOR IF WE IF WE VOTE YES TONIGHT WE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE CHANGING THE VARIANCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE'RE SIMPLY JUST PUTTING IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA WHICH IS MAY 22ND TO BE REHEARD. AND AT THAT TIME THE GENTLEMAN IS WILLING TO BE HERE AND OTHER RESIDENTS AS WELL. AND THEY CAN BE TAKING MEASURE UP AGAIN THE MAYOR FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY NOT PREVIOUSLY OFFERED. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE SAME RESIDENT THAT IS HERE THIS EVENING IS WELCOME TO SPEAK THAT EVENING. IT'S NOT FOR TODAY. IT DOESN'T FIT IN TODAY'S PURVIEW. COMMISSIONER PARKER THANK YOU. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. AS FAR AS I KNOW IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE DEVELOPER GOES OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND HAS A MEETING AND WE GET NOTICE BACK OF WHEN THE MEETING WAS AND PEOPLE SIGN IN. SO WE KNOW WHO WAS THERE WAS THERE IN FACT THIS MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS. YES MADAM VICE MAYOR THERE WAS OK. AND SECONDLY THROUGH THE CHAIR TO SAM WHAT'S THE LEGAL OBLIGATION HERE. BECAUSE IN FACT THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE NOTICE MAYOR RESPOND THAT AMERICA'S FOR THE LAWYERS IN THE AUDIENCE AROUND THE DAIS AND FOR THOSE EVEN AREN'T LAWYERS. ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS OF A DEFENSE ANY ARGUMENT IS A LACK OF NOTICE.

IT'S ONE OF THE PREEMINENT BASES FOR DUE PROCESS BEING DENIED. SO IF YOU ASKED ME MY OPINION WHICH YOU HAVE. MY SUGGESTION IS AGAIN THAT IF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR LEGITIMATE REASON AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL TECHNICAL DEFICIENCY IN THE NOTICE THAT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF HAVING LIMITED TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT THE MOTION IS WELL INTENDED AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FAVORABLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AT THIS TIME. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL PLEASE COMMISSIONER GALEN. YES. MR. FISHMAN. YES I SMELL FLACCO. YES COMMISSIONER BOLTON. YES THEY ARE. GOMEZ. YES. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN SEEING THAT THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS THAT IS TEN THIRTY. HAVE A GOOD EVENING GET HOME SAFELY AND AGAIN VERY HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY TO ALL WOMEN AND ACTUALLY TO THE MEN TO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

a. Jayla Austin Proclamation Presentation of a proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez Commending and Congratulating Jayla Austin for Her Award Winning Chinese Poem. (Requested by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez)

b. TU Graduating Class of 2019 Presentation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez of Certificates of Graduation to the Graduating Class of Tamarac University - May 2019:

c. Pedestrian Safety/Awareness Month Proclamation Presentation of a Proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming the Month of May 2019 as "Pedestrian Safety/Awareness Month". (Requested by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez)

d. National Women's Lung Health Week/Turquoise Takeover Initative Proclamation Presentation of a proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming May 6 - 12, 2019 as "National Women's Lung Health Week/Turquoise Takeover Initiative Week". (Requested by the Mayor and Commissioners)

e. Water Safety Month Proclamation Presentation of a proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming the month of May 2019 as "Water Safety Month". (Requested by Parks & Recreation Director Greg Warner)

f. National Kids to Parks Day Proclamation Presentation of proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming May 18, 2019 as "National Kids to Parks Day". (Requested by Parks & Recreation Director Greg Warner)

g. Haitian Heritage Month Proclamation Presentation of a proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming the Month of May 2019 as "Haitian Heritage Month". (Requested by Commissioner Marlon Bolton)

h. Mental Health Month Proclamation Presentation of a Proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming the Month of May 2019 as "Mental Health Month". (Requested by Commissioner Marlon Bolton)

i. National Small Business and Economic Development Week Presentation of a proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomes proclaiming the week of May 5, 2019 as "National Small Business and Economic Development Week". (Requested by Economic Development Manager Lori Funderwhite)

j. Jewish American Heritage Month Proclamation Presentation of a proclamation by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez proclaiming the month of May 2019 as "Jewish American Heritage Month". (Requested by Mayor Michelle J. Gomez)

CITY COMMISSION REPORTS

a. Investment Report - February 2019 Commission District(s): Citywide

8. ORDINANCE(S) - FIRST READING

11. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING(S)

May 08, 2019 Regular