Oct 25, 2023 Regular

I HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR.

ANYONE. SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

AND NOW I WILL OPEN THIS ITEM FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

LERENZO CALHOUN, THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, AND ARLENE WALSH, BENEFITS MANAGER, ARE GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION FOR ALL THESE ITEMS. GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR.

VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION LERENZO CALHOUN, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR THE RECORD.

I HAVE WITH ME TODAY ARLENE WALSH, WHO IS OUR BENEFITS MANAGER FOR THE CITY.

ARLENE WILL WALK US THROUGH OUR PRESENTATION AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CALHOUN.

GOOD MORNING TO THE CITY COMMISSION, MADAM MAYOR AND ALL OF THE CITY STAFF.

JUST TO WALK THROUGH OUR AGENDA ITEMS, OUR RENEWAL HISTORY, TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A LITTLE CONTEXT.

WE ARE A SELF-INSURED PLAN.

WE HAVE MARKETED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONTRACTED WITH CIGNA TO PROVIDE OUR SERVICES FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE, FOR OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND OUR FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT.

CIGNA HAS ADDED A LOT OF VALUE AND HAS BEEN A GREAT PARTNER WITH OUR CITY.

OUR PARTNERS WITH LOCKTON HAVE MARKETED IN 2021 ALL INSURANCE CARRIERS, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AGAIN FOR THE 2025 YEAR.

THIS YEAR WE DID MARKET THE STOP LOSS AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS.

WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE WITH CIGNA.

CIGNA HAS A 3% ESCALATOR EACH YEAR, BUT THEY ARE OFFSETTING IT THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE ARE STAYING WITH THE VOLUNTARY BENEFITS.

THEY'VE OFFERED TO NOT DO THE 3%, AND THEY'RE ALSO GIVING US A $10,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CREDIT.

THE STOP LOSS IS A 9% BLENDED INCREASE.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH OUR WELLNESS FUNDS AND OUR FSA ADMINISTRATION.

NOTABLE OUR FSA IS A FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT.

THIS YEAR IT IS GOING TO GO UP TO $3200.

IT WAS $3050.

OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WE WILL CONTINUE.

[00:40:03]

THERE IS A SIX CENT PER EMPLOYEE INCREASE.

WE HAVEN'T HAD AN INCREASE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, SO THAT DOES SEEM REASONABLE.

OUR DENTAL AND VISION WILL CONTINUE WITH CIGNA AND THAT'LL BE FOR A TWO YEAR STAY.

THE SAME RATE AND NO CHANGE IN PLAN.

WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING TO CONTINUE WITH OUR EMPLOYEE PAID SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSITE BENEFIT.

AND TO NOTE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A 10% DECREASE FOR THE EMPLOYEE PREMIUM BECAUSE WE ARE COMMITTING TO A SECOND YEAR TO EVALUATE AND TO SEE IF THEY CAN ENHANCE THE PROGRAM FROM LAST YEAR.

FROM A PLAN DESIGN POINT OF VIEW, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES.

WE WANT TO KEEP THE DEDUCTIBLES REASONABLE, BOTH FOR THE HMO AND FOR THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE.

WE REALLY HAVE DRIVEN MORE PEOPLE TO THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLAN BECAUSE THE PREMIUMS ARE LOWER.

IF YOU ARE NOT ADVERSE TO RISK YOU ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE LOW PREMIUM, NO OFFICE CO-PAYS.

SO PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME PERSONALLY THAT THIS IS A REALLY GOOD PLAN.

BUT WE'RE KEEPING THE TWO DISTINCT PLANS.

NO RECOMMENDED PLAN DESIGN CHANGES.

FROM A PREMIUM RATE AND COST SHARE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN HOW WE DO OUR COST SHARING FOR EMPLOYEES. THE HMO PLANS EMPLOYEE COST SHARE IS 12% FOR EMPLOYEE AND 25% FOR DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLAN EMPLOYS COST SHARING, 7% FOR EMPLOYEE ONLY AND 20% FOR DEPENDENT TIERS.

WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THE COST SHARE FORMULA THIS YEAR, HOWEVER, WE ARE RECOMMENDING AN 8% OVERALL INCREASE BECAUSE WE ARE A SELF-INSURED PLAN.

THIS IS ABOUT PROJECTED COSTS AND CLAIMS. AND IF YOU DO LOOK TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS CHART, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NOMINAL IMPACT ON THE EMPLOYEES IS THERE $1.85 FOR ME.

ALSO TO NOTE, DOMESTIC PARTNER RATES ARE THE SAME FOR SPOUSE AND CHILDREN WITH ANY APPLICABLE TAX IMPLICATIONS.

HEALTH PLAN COSTS.

WE DID DO OUR STOP LOSS.

AGAIN, WE HAD THAT MARKETED THIS YEAR.

CIGNA CONTINUES TO BE THE BEST CHOICE FOR US.

WE DID LOOK AT SIX OTHER CARRIERS.

THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE CITY'S HEALTH AND PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE STOP LOSS INSURANCE PREMIUM, IS APPROXIMATELY $880,000.

THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, PLUS THE ANTICIPATED CLAIMS THAT WE ARE PROJECTING IS 6.9 MILLION.

AND WE DO HAVE EVERYTHING TO COVER THAT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW THE CITY IS GOING TO PAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PIE CHART, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS REALLY OUR MEDICAL AND OUR PHARMACY CLAIMS. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON WITH GENE THERAPY, OBESITY, MEDICATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT DO AFFECT THAT AND PLUS OUR CLAIMS. SO OVERALL, OUR RENEWAL SUMMARY, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE 3% ESCALATOR BECAUSE OF THE OFFSET OF THE 10,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CREDIT, THE STOP LOSS WILL RENEW AT A 9% BLENDED INCREASE.

WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 24 MONTH RENEWAL WITH THAT SIX CENT PER PERSON INCREASE.

OUR FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTINUE.

WE WILL STILL HAVE OUR WELLNESS FUNDS OF 75,000, WHICH DOES INCLUDE ALL OF OUR PAYMENTS FOR OUR EXPLAIN MY BENEFITS, OUR PLATFORM, OUR WELLNESS PROGRAMING, OUR INCENTIVE PROGRAMING, THE THINGS THAT WE DO FOR THE CITY ALL YEAR.

IT ALSO COVERS THINGS LIKE OUR [INAUDIBLE] FEES, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S REALLY A REALLY GOOD FUND.

OUR DENTAL WILL RENEW FOR 24 MONTHS WITH NO INCREASE, NO CHANGE, AND THEN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL VISION WILL ALSO HAVE A 24 MONTH NO RATE, NO CHANGE.

AND WE ARE GOING TO DO ANOTHER YEAR WITH THE VOLUNTARY BENEFITS.

AND WE ARE OFFERING A 10% DECREASE TO PREMIUM FOR ALL EMPLOYEES FOR ACCIDENT CARE, CRITICAL CARE AND HOSPITAL CARE.

WE WANT TO GIVE THIS ONE MORE YEAR TO SEE IF WE CAN HAVE THE ENHANCEMENTS AND REALLY HELP THE EMPLOYEES FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

I THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I AM NOT SEEING ANY.

CITY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

MAYOR JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS FOR 5A, 5B, 5C.

THIS IS FOR 5A TR 14014.

WE'RE DOING EACH OF THEM SEPARATELY.

I HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR 5B TR 14015, PLEASE.

[5.b TR14015 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving the renewal of the Agreement with Cigna, authorizing the appropriate City Officials to renew the Agreement with Cigna, providing for Stop Loss Insurance; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

[00:45:02]

NOT HEARING ANY DISCUSSION.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR, WE PROBABLY NEED TO OPEN FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU ARE CORRECT.

SORRY. ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW OPEN.

SEEING NO ONE WISH TO. OKAY.

SAME RULES AS PUBLIC COMMENT.

JEFFREY SHAPIRO, 6104 ORCHARD TREE LANE IN THE WOODLANDS.

I BEING THAT I'M RETIRED AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH MY INSURANCE PREMIUMS EVEN THROUGH MEDICARE AND MY SUPPLEMENT INSURANCES, AND THEY CONTINUALLY GO UP AND EVEN MY PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN IS DOUBLING FOR ME FOR NEXT YEAR, BEING WHAT THE CITY WITH THE MULTITUDE OF EMPLOYEES THAT THEY HAVE, AND TO ACTUALLY WIND UP WITH THE CITY EXPENSES ON THIS ACTUALLY BEING ABOUT THE SAME OR LESS BY AS MUCH AS 10% FOR EACH.

I THINK IT'S GREAT.

I WISH EVERYBODY COULD GET INSURANCE THAT WAY, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

AND WHEN YOU REACH RETIREMENT AGES AND FIGURE OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO INSURE YOURSELF FOR HEALTH AND ANY TYPE OF CATASTROPHIC EMERGENCY, I THINK THE CITY IS DOING A GREAT JOB ON BEHALF OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. MAYOR GOMEZ.

THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 5C TR 14016, PLEASE.

[5.c TR14016 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving the renewal of the Agreement with Cigna, authorizing the appropriate City Officials to renew the Agreement with Cigna providing for a Dental Insurance Program, providing for the continuation of the existing cost allocation of the Dental Insurance premium between the City and employees; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

SO MOVED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

NOT SEEING ANYONE. THE COMMISSION HAVING ANY QUESTIONS? CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. 5D TR 14017.

[5.d TR14017 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving the renewal of the Agreement with Cigna and authorizing the appropriate City Officials to renew the Agreement with Cigna, providing for a Voluntary Vision Insurance Program providing for the continuation of the existing cost allocation of the Voluntary Vision Insurance, providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

SO MOVED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THIS ITEM IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

NO ONE WISHING TO SPEAK FROM THE COMMISSION.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

VICE MAYOR BOLTON.

EXCELLENT. MOVING ON TO OUR ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING.

[6.a TO2543 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10 of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances, entitled “Land Development Code” amending Article 2, entitled “Zoning Districts” amending Section 10-10-2.7(C), entitled “Woodlands Overlay District”, by specifically amending Subsection 10-2.7 (C)(4) entitled “General Maintenance Standards” to remove certain restrictions on fences; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WE WILL DISCUSS.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT UNTIL THEY GO TO SECOND READING, WHICH WOULD BE AT TIME CERTAIN.

6A TO 2543.

CITY ATTORNEY. PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

ITEM 6A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

AMENDING CHAPTER TEN OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCE ENTITLED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING ARTICLE TWO ENTITLED ZONING DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 10-10-2.7C ENTITLED WOODLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SUBSECTION 10-10-2.7 C 4 ENTITLED GENERAL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS TO REMOVE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON FENCES.

PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION.

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR.

HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

MISS CALLOWAY IS AT THE READY.

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAKING A PRESENTATION.

NO. YES.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MAXINE CALLOWAY, FOR THE RECORD, BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE WOODLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND JUST FOR CONTEXT, BUT INITIALLY THE WOODLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS ADOPTED IN 2004, AND THEN IT WAS RECODIFIED WHEN WE ADOPTED OUR NEWLY CODIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN 2018.

IT SUNSETS IN 2025, IT WAS AMENDED A FEW TIMES AND THEN FINALLY WILL SUNSET IN 2025.

[00:50:06]

THE PURPOSE OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT STAFF RECEIVED EMAILS FROM WOODLAND SECTION ONE AND WOODLAND SECTION FOUR ASKING STAFF TO LOOK AT AMENDING THE WOODLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT TO REMOVE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS RELATIVE TO FENCE AND HEDGES.

AND SO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DO THAT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 10-2.7 (C)(4) AND IN RED STRICKEN THROUGH IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DELETED FROM THE WOODLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO FENCES WILL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE RESTRICTION, AND SO ONLY WHEN THE FENCE WILL BE USED AS A SAFETY BARRIER TO AN ENCLOSED POOL WILL BE STRICKEN, AS SEEN IN THE SLIDE.

IN ADDITION, AND HIDDEN FROM VIEW WITH A CONTINUOUS HEDGE WILL ALSO BE STRICKEN, ALLOWING THEN FENCE TO BE PERMITTED, AND ANY REGULATION RELATIVE TO FENCE WILL BE CONTROLLED BY THE RESPECTIVE HOA.

BECAUSE THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT, THERE ARE SEVEN STANDARDS IN THE CODE THAT GOVERNS THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

ALL THE STANDARDS WERE MET AS EVIDENCE IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET STAFF THEREFORE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND AT THIS TIME I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU, MISS MAXINE.

JUST FOR THE RECORD HAVE WE ADDRESSED MR. SHAPIRO'S QUESTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE? MR. SHAPIRO'S COMMENTS WAS RELATED TO THE WOODLAND SITE PLAN.

THAT WILL BE BEFORE YOU ON NOVEMBER 8TH.

SPECIFICALLY, HIS REQUEST IS TO ASK TO HAVE CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO THIS DOES NOT.

SORRY I MEANT EDWARD, I THINK EDWARD HAD A THING WITH THE FENCE.

HE WAS. HE'S ONE OF THE EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED.

HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF ONE OF THE HOA, AND WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM HIM REQUESTING THAT THIS BE BE AMENDED.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

MY QUESTION IS JUST DIRECTED TOWARDS THE CITY MANAGER, MR. DELGADO, WHO IS KNOWN AS THE SHERIFF OF THE WOODLANDS BECAUSE HE'S THE GENTLEMAN THAT GOES OUT AND CUT THE GRASS.

HE'S THE ONE THAT MAKES SURE THE COMMUNITY LOOKS WELL.

HE'S VERY INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK SOME OF HIS CONCERNS IN REFERENCE TO PUBLIC SAFETY HAVING THINGS DONE IN THE WOODLANDS, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER THAT'S COMING THEY ARE GOOD CORPORATE STEWARDS, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO REMEMBER THERE'S PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, SO WE CAN'T IGNORE THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERNS.

THE CONCERN THAT HE HAD ABOUT SOMEONE COMING TO HIS HOME.

THE CAPTAIN ADDRESSED THAT, AND HE INFORMED ME WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT TIME.

AND I RELATE THAT TO MR. DELGADO. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

BUT I JUST WANT THE CITY MANAGER TO BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT STILL LIVES THERE AND COMMUNITIES SHOULD STILL BE MONITORED.

PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE GRASS.

THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE GOLF COURSE, THEY'RE NOT CUTTING THE GRASS.

I GET THOSE EMAILS ALL THE TIME.

I GET THOSE COMPLAINTS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TOP OF THAT STUFF.

BUT IN MODERNIZING THE COMMUNITY, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE, AS MR. DELGADO MENTIONED, IT'S YOUNGER FAMILIES, YOUNGER COMMUNITY, YOUNGER PEOPLE, AND THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO MODERNIZE.

SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THIS, UM, OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE.

THANK YOU. AND ON THE RECORD, EVERYBODY IS AWARE THAT I LIVE THERE AND I HAVE TWO HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY.

I ALSO DO VERY MUCH FAVOR THIS.

I DO ASK THAT THERE BE ONE ADDITIONAL CHANGE TO 4D.

IT SAYS HEDGES ARE PERMITTED AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNIFORMLY AT A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED SIX FEET, AND SO NOT AS TO OBSTRUCT A NEIGHBORHOOD OWNER'S VIEW OF THE GOLF COURSE OR WATER BODIES.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE PUT TO NOT TO EXCEED SIX FEET, AND LET THE COMMUNITY FIX THE RULES AS TO OBSTRUCTING A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, OR THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A GOLF COURSE THERE, AND THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT WATER BODIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME.

I THINK THAT IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS A CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE OR NOT.

AND SO I WOULD ASK FOR THAT CHANGE.

IN ADDITION TO THE ITEMS THAT ARE INCLUDED AS HAS BEEN EXPRESSED, IT IS A YOUNGER COMMUNITY THAN IT ONCE WAS.

WHEN I MOVED IN, IT WAS 22.

I DIDN'T MAKE A DENT IN THE AVERAGE AGE.

NOW THE AVERAGE AGE THERE HAS COMPLETELY CHANGED AND IT IS WONDERFUL.

WE'VE GOT KIDS, WE'VE GOT DOGS, WE'VE GOT PEOPLE ON CANALS AND WATER BODIES THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR FAMILY CAN ENJOY.

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL.

AND AS I DISCLOSE, I AM A HOMEOWNER THERE AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL CALL THE ROLL.

DO I ACTUALLY HOLD ON MS. MAXINE DO I NEED TO HAVE CONSENSUS OR MOTION? WE NEED TO ADD THE LANGUAGE.

SO WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO AMEND.

RIGHT. SO I AM ASKING COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS WHO MADE THE MOTION AND COMMISSIONER WRIGHT WITH THE SECOND.

[00:55:03]

IF YOU WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THE CHANGE OF 4D.

MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND AS THE MAYOR REQUESTED.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT DO YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT? YEAH, 4D IS NOT INCLUDED, SO I WOULD HAVE TO PULL UP MUNICODE.

IF EVERYBODY HAS THEIR BOOK, IT IS PAGE 11, IN THE BACKUP.

IT'S PAGE FIVE OF NINE OF THE ORDINANCE, TEMPORARY ORDINANCE.

SO YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT THE CHANGES ARE.

MAYOR GOMEZ, JUST A CORRECTION TO THE MOTION THAT WAS MOVED.

I HAVE VICE MAYOR BOLTON MOVING THE MOTION.

AND MY APOLOGIES.

YOU'RE CORRECT. IT IS MY APOLOGIES.

YOU ARE CORRECT. IT IS VICE MAYOR BOLTON AND COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

SORRY, I WAS GOING BY WHO HAD SPOKE.

SO VICE MAYOR ARE YOU WILLING TO AMEND THE MOTION? YEAH. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAN.

YOU KNOW, IT ADDRESSES SANITARY CONDITIONS AS WELL.

AND HOMES THAT HAS MOLDS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF WOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THIS.

SO I SUPPORT THIS ALL THE WAY AND I SUPPORT THE MODIFICATION.

THANK YOU. AND. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS SECONDS IT.

ALL RIGHT, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0, AS AMENDED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO 6B TO 2540.

[6.b TO2540 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, awarding a towing services franchise agreement to D&G Towing & Recovery, LLC through July 31, 2027 including an option to renew for one additional five (5) year period and providing for month to month extensions as required; authorizing the collection of an administrative fee of 25% of the maximum towing rates to cover the City's cost pursuant to the requirements of Section 323.002(4), Florida Statutes; in accordance with the maximum towing rates as established under the Broward County Administrative Code part IX, chapter 40.50; authorizing the appropriate City Officials to execute the agreement providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

ITEM 6B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF TAMARAC AWARDING A TOWING SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO D&G TOWING & RECOVERY, LLC THROUGH JULY 31ST, 2027, INCLUDING AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD PROVIDING FOR MONTH TO MONTH EXTENSION AS REQUIRED.

AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION ADMINISTRATIVE FEE OF 25% OF THE MAXIMUM TOWING RATES TO COVER THE CITY COSTS FOR THE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 323.002(4) THE STATUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAXIMUM TOWING RATES AS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BROWARD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER [INAUDIBLE] 40.50, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING STABILITY.

PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE.

I HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING.

KEITH GLATZ, OUR PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER, IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OUR 20 YEAR AWARD WINNER FOR SERVICE HERE.

IS THERE ANYONE TODAY WHO HAS ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WELL, I DO SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO THE PARTIES ARE, WHETHER IT IS [INAUDIBLE], D&G OR WHATEVER OTHER TOW COMPANIES WE HAVE OUT THERE.

I WANT TO KNOW WHOSE DECISION IT WAS TO TAKE A CONTRACT THAT WAS PUT OUT FOR BID, AND THEN ULTIMATELY BRING OUT A NEW PROPOSAL IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTRACT.

KEITH GLATZ YOUR PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER.

JUST THE ROLE OF THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS DIVISION IS TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND ULTIMATELY, THAT THEY ULTIMATELY RECEIVE FROM THE COMMISSION ARE WISH TO LOOK TOWARDS TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY.

ON THAT NOTE, THEN CITY MANAGER, WAS THIS BROUGHT ON YOUR OWN ACCORD OR DID YOU HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE COMMISSION ASK YOU TO DO THIS? MADAM MAYOR, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT I TOOK ON AS PART OF OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND CHANGES SINCE I ASSUMED THE ROLE FOR, FOR CITY MANAGER. SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT.

WHY WAS IT DETERMINED THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTRACT THAT WENT OUT TO BID AND THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS, WAS IT DETERMINED TO DO THIS NOW? I CAN REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY AND OUR PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER FOR LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THIS CONVERSATION, BUT FROM FOR THIS SERVICE IT'S A FRANCHISE SERVICE, NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE SERVICE.

SO THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THE NUMBER OF SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR THIS KIND OF SERVICE.

WE WANTED TO SECURE OUR SERVICES WITH THIS ADDITIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER THAT'S LOCATED IN THE CITY.

SO IT'S HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION.

SO THIS IS A COMPANY THAT MOVED IN OFFICIALLY LESS THAN A YEAR AGO INTO THE CITY.

[01:00:04]

SO AT THIS TIME WHEN SOME NEW COMPANY COMES INTO THE CITY, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP A BID THAT WAS PUT OUT THROUGH A PROPER PROCESS TO CHANGE IT, TO CHANGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF A CONTRACT THAT WAS ENTERED.

RIGHT. LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE ARRIVAL TO THE CITY, AND TIMING OF IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES.

MAYOR, IF I MAY ADD, THIS WAS A COMPETITIVELY SOLICITED REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND ANY VENDOR WHO WISHED COULD RESPOND TO THE PROPOSAL.

WE HAD TWO OTHERS.

RIGHT. BUT WE ALREADY PUT OUT A PROPOSAL TWO YEARS AGO FOR A BID FOR THE TOW COMPANY.

ONE YEAR AGO? YES, A YEAR AGO FOR A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT.

THAT'S CORRECT. WHEN WE PUT OUT THAT BID, DID WE PUT ANY EXPECTATION THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SECONDARY BID AT THAT TIME? AT THAT TIME, WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE IT, BUT THINGS CHANGE.

UNDERSTOOD. BUT IF YOU HAVE A CONTRACT, YOU HAVE AN ANTICIPATION.

YOU PREPARE A CONTRACT WITH A BELIEF OF FINANCIAL GAIN OR PROPOSAL OF EMPLOYEES AND PEOPLE THAT AN EXPECTATION OF A JOB YOU'RE GOING TO DO FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THERE'S BEEN NO WARNING, NO NOTICE AN THIS CONTRACT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THIS VENDOR FOR 20 YEARS.

WOULD THEY HAVE HAD SERVICE IN THE CITY FOR 20 YEARS.

THE CURRENT VENDOR.

I'VE BEEN HERE 20 YEARS AND THE VENDOR'S BEEN HERE THAT LONG AS WELL.

OKAY. SO IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THERE WOULD BE NO EXPECTATION THAT THE RULES WOULD BE CHANGED MIDSTREAM.

IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THERE'S NO EXPECTATION FROM OUR POINT.

BUT WE DO SUPPORT AGAIN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND WE MAKE SURE THE PROCESS THAT OCCURS IS KEPT ON THE UP AND UP.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM AND NO FAULTING WITH THE EMPLOYEES OF WHAT THEY DO.

I HAVE A VERY BIG PROBLEM OF WHEN YOU DO A PRESENTATION AND YOU EXPECT YOUR CONTRACT TO BE SOMETHING, AND THEN IT BE IT HAS CHANGED MIDSTREAM, WITHOUT NOTICE OR WITHOUT DEFAULT. THERE WAS RATIONALE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SAID THAT THIS WAS FOR IF WE SHOULD HAVE A HURRICANE, WE MAY NEED THIS.

THAT WAS A RATIONALE THAT'S PUT IN OUR BACKUP.

WE MAY NEED THIS.

THEN THIS SHOULD BE A BACKUP CONTRACT, NOT ONE THAT SAYS TO THE VENDOR WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU HALF A ROTATION AND GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE HALF THE ROTATION. I THINK THAT IS IMPROPER.

IT IS NOT WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTRACTED, AND I THINK IT PUTS THE CITY IN A POSITION WHERE WE ARE NOT SHOWING THE PUBLIC THAT WE CAN BE COUNTED ON FOR THE VENDOR, FOR THE BIDS THAT WE PUT OUT.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE LANDSCAPING ONE, BECAUSE WE PUT OUT THAT NOTION RIGHT AWAY W HEN WE PUT OUT THAT CONTRACT, THERE WILL BE TWO OF YOU HERE WE ARE LOOKING FOR TWO.

WE DID NOT DO THAT EXPECTATION.

AND WHILE IT SAYS NONEXCLUSIVE IN THE CONTRACT ITSELF, NOWHERE IN THE CONTRACT DID WE EVER SAY IT'S NON-EXCLUSIVE AND WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GO OUT FOR BID AT ANY SINGLE TIME IN WHICH WE DECIDE TO DO SO.

AGAIN, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPANIES.

AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, I HAD A GREAT ASSISTANCE BY D&G TOWING WHEN MY CAR WAS STUCK, AND THEY DID A GREAT JOB, AND THEY WERE PERSONABLE AND THEY DID A GOOD THING.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE SPECIFIC BUSINESSES.

THIS IS ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE CITY, OF WHEN WE SEND OUT A BID AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO BID TO KNOW THAT WHEN THEY SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, THERE WILL NOT BE CHANGES MIDSTREAM, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S NOT BEEN A DEFAULT OR ANY ISSUES.

I FEEL THAT IF WE WANT TO HAVE TWO CONTRACTS AND WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THIS CONTRACT IS OVER.

AND IN 2027, GIVE A NOTICE IN 2027 THAT WE'RE GOING OUT FOR BID TO HAVE TWO COMPANIES AND MAKE IT FAIR, MAKE THE EVEN PLAYING GROUND.

WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS MIDSTREAM.

WE LOOK FOOLISH IF WE ACCEPT THIS.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT, WE HAVE THE STATUTES.

WE COULD DO WHAT WE WANT.

IT IS SUBJECT TO A LAWSUIT.

I KNOW WE CAN FIGHT IT. I KNOW WE CAN WIN.

THESE ARE ALL COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID TO ME, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN FOREBEAR FOR THIS SINCE I KNEW THAT THIS WAS COMING, AND SINCE THIS WAS COMING AGAIN, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS ONLY FOR BACKUP IF WE NEEDED ANY ISSUES IN A HURRICANE.

BUT YET WHAT IS PRESENTED TO US IS NOT THAT AT ALL.

IT IS A SEPARATE SECOND CONTRACT IN THERE.

SO I AM UNHAPPY FOR WHATEVER POLITICAL GAMES I FEEL IS BEING PLAYED WITH THIS COMPANY COMING IN.

I DO NOT THINK IT IS PROPER FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THIS CONTRACT, AND I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD THINK THAT D&G AS A GOOD COMPANY, THAT IT IS, WOULD HAVE THE SAME EXPECTATION FOR THIS TO BE DONE. IF YOU WERE IN THE SHOES OF THE CURRENT VENDOR THAT HAS A CONTRACT OUT, THAT YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THIS TO BE DONE TO YOU IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES.

SO I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS COMMISSION TO VOTE AGAINST THIS SECOND CONTRACT.

THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

NO ONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY.

WE CAN CALL THE ROLL. ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT IS THAT FOR A ROLL OR FOR A COMMENT.

GO AHEAD. I WAS NOT AWARE OF ALL OF THAT.

I JUST READ THE BACKUPS AND DEFINITELY IT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPANY.

YOU KNOW, WOMAN OWNED, MINORITY OWNED GRID SERVICE INVOLVING THE COMMUNITY.

[01:05:04]

CITY MANAGER, CAN YOU, IN REFERENCE TO WHAT THE MAYOR SAID IN THE PROCESS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN HOW THAT HAPPENED? SO THE COMMISSIONER, THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THE EXISTING PROVIDER, HAS A NUMBER OF YEARS LEFT IN THE TERMS. SO FOR US TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL OR SECONDARY SERVICE PROVIDER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR OUR WELL-BEING IN TERMS OF EMERGENCIES AND FLOODS AND HURRICANES AND ALL THOSE THINGS, WE COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO WAIT ANOTHER 3 OR 4 YEARS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THAT CONTRACT TO TAKE SOME, SOME SAFETY MEASURES, BUT INSTEAD WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES PROVIDED BY OUR ORDINANCE AND THE STATE STATUTES AND ALL THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER SERVICE PROVIDER THAT CAN NOT ONLY BALANCE, BUT ALSO PROVIDE THE BACKUP AND ADDITIONAL SAFETY.

THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE PRACTICE.

WE DO THIS ON A NUMBER OF OTHER PRECAUTIONARY SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR DEBRIS COLLECTION SERVICES WITH, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR SERVICES.

MOST RECENTLY, WE'VE DONE IT WITH OUR LANDSCAPING SERVICES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR WE'RE DOING IT SO IT'S NOT A UNIQUE PROCESS.

INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR ANOTHER THREE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THIS EXISTING CONTRACT, WE TOOK STEPS TODAY TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL SAFETY. SO CITY MANAGER HAS THIS COMPANY NOT BEEN ABLE TO PERFORM ITS JOB OR DO I HAVE.

IS THAT FOR KEITH? WEST WAY HAS BEEN A GREAT CORPORATE PARTNER.

WE'RE EXTREMELY HAPPY TO HAVE THEM AS OUR SERVICE PROVIDER.

THEY'VE BEEN A GOOD CORPORATE PARTNER.

AND SO WE HAVE I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR COMPLAINTS WITH THEIR SERVICES.

WE'VE HAD NO PERFORMANCE ISSUES MAYOR.

THANK YOU. SO YOU SAY THAT IT'S FOR IF WE SHOULD HAVE A FLOOD AND IF WE SHOULD HAVE PROBLEMS. BUT THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT, IS IT? IT'S FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES IS IT NOT.

IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT, BUT IT IS A SUPPLEMENTAL PROVIDER IN CASE WE NEED THE SERVICES OF AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER AT TIMES OF DISASTER AN DIFFICULTIES.

SO THEN WHY ARE WE NOT MAKING THE CONTRACT AS AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE TIME OF EMERGENCIES, IF THE CURRENT VENDOR CANNOT PERFORM? MAYOR THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE ALLOWS THE ADDITION OF THESE, YOU KNOW, SERVICE PROVIDERS. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE IT EQUITABLE AND EQUALLY BENEFICIAL FOR ALL PARTIES TO REMAIN AND MAINTAIN AND PROVIDE THEIR SERVICES.

DO YOU THINK IT'S EQUITABLE TO CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY AND THEN CHANGE THE CONTRACT MIDSTREAM WITHOUT HAVING NOTICE? RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY FOR THOSE, YOU KNOW, LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THIS.

I'M ASKING WHAT YOU THINK IS FAIR.

IT'S NOT LEGAL. IT'S NOT A LEGAL QUESTION.

DO YOU THINK IT'S FAIR? DO YOU THINK IT'S FAIR, DO YOU THINK IT'S RIGHT? I THINK WE ENJOYED A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EXISTING SERVICE PROVIDER? AND WE'VE BEEN A GOOD PARTNER, JUST AS THEY HAVE BEEN.

AND SO OUR INTENTION IS NOT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THAT, BUT THE ADDITION OF ADDITIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER, I THINK IT HELPS THE CITY AN OUR COMMUNITY.

HOW DOES IT NOT TAKE AWAY IF WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH AND ROTATE OUT THE BUSINESS? SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY TAKING AWAY BUSINESS FROM ONE BUSINESS FOR ANOTHER.

OKAY, DECLINING TO ANSWER, I UNDERSTAND.

THE TIPPING AND LANDSCAPING THAT WERE DISCUSSED THOSE CONTRACTS, WHEN THEY WENT OUT FOR BID, THEY WERE OUT FOR BID KNOWING AT THAT TIME, AT THAT TIME, THERE WOULD BE TWO VENDORS, NOT AT A LATER DATE, NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTRACT AND IT HAS EXTENDED.

IT HAS JUST STARTED.

THE EXPECTATION IS THERE TO PERFORM UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND UNLESS THERE WAS AN ISSUE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A CHANGE.

I WOULD SUPPORT MAKING THIS AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT FOR OVER THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME.

IF WESTWAY, OUR CURRENT TOW COMPANY, WAS NOT ABLE TO PERFORM, OR IF WE HAVE A HURRICANE AND WE HAVE ANY SPECIAL NEEDS, I'D HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM MAKING IT AS A SECONDARY.

FOR WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS FOR WHY THIS SUPPOSEDLY CAME FORWARD IS WANTED, AND FOR THE FACT THAT THEY'VE ENJOYED A GOOD 20 YEARS IN THE COMPANY IN DOING THE BUSINESS, IT'S BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO PERFORM.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE HYPOCRITICAL.

WE WANT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE, AND THEN WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE.

IF WE WANT TO ADD SERVICES, THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE.

[01:10:01]

IT SHOULD BE DONE WHEN THIS CONTRACT IS OVER.

DR. DANIEL COMMISSIONER.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE'RE ADDING AND BRINGING MORE BUSINESS TO THE CITY.

NO ONE BUSINESS SHOULD MONOPOLIZE FOR 20 YEARS, SO I'M ALL FOR BRINGING IN MORE MINORITY BUSINESS FOR ONE AND FOR TWO B OTH BUSINESSES ARE GOOD. WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING ONE, WE'RE JUST ADDING A SECONDARY.

SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS AT ALL.

IN FACT, I'M GLAD TO SEE US EXPANDING.

VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU MAYOR.

KEITH, DID YOU LOOK AT OTHER CITIES TO SEE IF OTHER CITIES HAVE THIS MODEL WHERE THEY HAVE MORE THAN ONE SERVICE PROVIDERS? YES. THERE ARE OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA THAT UTILIZE MORE THAN ONE.

CORAL SPRINGS, PEMBROKE PINES, PARKLAND, I UNDERSTAND, AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

AND OF COURSE, WHEN YOU GET DOWN INTO THE MIAMI AREA, MIAMI, MIAMI BEACH, OBVIOUSLY DO.

SO THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR IT IN THE REGION.

OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS AN ORDINANCE WHICH THEN GIVES RISE TO WHAT DOES OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE SAY? DOES THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WHICH IS THE LAW? DOES IT SAY THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT, OR DOES IT SAY THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE PROVIDERS? THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP AS NON EXCLUSIVE, SO IT'S SILENT IN THAT ISSUE.

OKAY. SO WOULD NOT BE RUNNING AFOUL OF OF ANY LAWS GOING AGAINST THE [INAUDIBLE].

NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

OKAY. AND THEN IS WESTWAY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC? THEY ARE I BELIEVE IN LAUDERDALE LAKES, BUT THEY'RE WITHIN THE TEN MILE RADIUS THAT'S PERMITTED UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

OKAY. AND D&G IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY? YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. LISTENING TO EVERYONE'S COMMENTS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO THE ONLY THING I DO WANT TO SAY, I'M IN AGREEANCE WITH EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.

YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DANIEL WHEN SHE'S SAYING THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT LOCAL AND ADD, AS WELL AS WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING, THAT IT ALMOST SEEMS UNFAIR.

THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO ADD TO THAT IS HOW DO WE CLOSE THOSE LOOPHOLES WHERE NOT SO MUCH OF A LOOPHOLE, BUT HOW MUCH? HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS NEXT TIME? AND I'M SAYING THIS PUBLICLY SO THAT WE ALL ARE AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.

I'VE NEVER SPOKEN TO WESTWAY.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH WESTWAY.

I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH D&G ONCE.

YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS A VERY SIMPLE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

BUT IF WE CAN SOMEHOW AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE, IS IS MY THING.

SO TALKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW, TALKING TO CITY MANAGER, KEITH, I KNOW YOU TAKE ORDERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, BUT YOU ARE THE PROCUREMENT MANAGER, AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS.

DEFINITELY, IF THERE'S AN ORDINANCE ISSUE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR.

SO JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY COMMENTS ON THAT.

I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE.

THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW GOING TO 6D TO 2539.

NO. MAYOR GOMEZ.

NO. THANK YOU.

MOTION PASSES 3 TO 2.

[6.d TO2539 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, adopting the Second (2nd) Budget Amendment to the City of Tamarac operating budget, revenues and expenditures, the capital budget, and the financial policies for the Fiscal Year 2023, by increasing the total revenues and expenditures by a total of $4,596,514 as detailed in Attachment “A” attached hereto and summarized in Attachment “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein; providing that the 2nd Amendment is being adopted in the same manner as the original budget and serves as the new adopted budget: providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

6D AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC ADOPTING THE SECOND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC OPERATING BUDGET REVENUES EXPENDITURE.

THE CAPITAL BUDGET, THE FINANCIAL POLICY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BY INCREASING TOTAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURE BY A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,596,514, AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT A ATTACHED HERETO AND SUMMARIZED AGREEMENT.

ATTACHMENT B ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN, PROVIDING THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS BEING ADOPTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL BUDGET AND SERVE AS A NEW BUDGET NEW ADOPTED BUDGET PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE.

MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BOLTON.

[01:15:01]

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

CHRISTINE CAJUSTE OUR FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR.

AND JEFF STREDER, OUR BUDGET MANAGER, WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION.

YES. NO. YES. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

FOR THE RECORD, JEFF STREDER.

I'M JOINED BY CHRISTINE CAJUSTE, OUR DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES.

TEMPORARY ORDINANCE 2539 IS THE SECOND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023, TODAY, BEING THE FIRST READING AND THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING BEING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023.

BUDGETS AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR MUNICIPALITIES ARE GOVERNED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 166.241.

AN SUBSECTION EIGHT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO AMEND THEIR BUDGETS ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR OR WITHIN 60 DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF A FISCAL YEAR.

THE TABLE IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS HOW THE BUDGET AMENDMENT IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FUNDS.

YOU WILL SEE THAT ONLY TWO CATEGORIES OF FUNDS ARE BEING CHANGED.

THEY ARE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS AND THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE GENERAL FUND.

THE TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IS $4,596,514.

WHERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ITEMS REPRESENT 85.89% OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS REPRESENT 14.11% OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ITEMS CONSIST OF FOUR RESOLUTIONS.

ALL OF THESE RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED AN AUTHORIZATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

THE FIRST IS RESOLUTION 2023-039.

THE TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT NEEDED FOR THAT IS $571,852.

THE NEXT RESOLUTION IS R-2023-060.

THERE IS NO NET CHANGE NEEDED FOR THIS ITEM.

THE NEXT RESOLUTION IS 2023-093 AND THE TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IS.

THERE IS NO NET CHANGE NEEDED FOR THIS ITEM.

OH I'M SORRY, THE TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IS $549,654.

AND THAT IS IN THE SURTAX FUNDS.

THAT'S FUND 149.

SOME OF THIS HAD TO COME IN ORDER TO FUND THIS HAD TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND, A SMALL PIECE, AND THERE'S NO NET CHANGE TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR THAT PART OF IT.

RESOLUTION 2023-085 IS THE NEXT RESOLUTION, AND THE TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IS $2,826,446. AGAIN, THE AMENDMENT IS IN SURTAX FUND 149.

THE SMALL PORTION THAT HAD TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND DID NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGE.

NEXT WE MOVE ON TO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. THE FIRST IS TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING NEEDED FOR WORK THAT'S BEING DONE BY THE CORRADINO GROUP, INC.

AND THE TAMARAC 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED IN RESOLUTION 2022.

I'M SORRY. RESOLUTION 2022-115.

BUT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN 2023, I INCLUDED IT AS A MISCELLANEOUS ITEM INSTEAD OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ITEM.

THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING IS $199,980, AND THERE IS NO NET CHANGE FOR THIS ITEM.

THE NEXT IS AN INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADOPTED BUDGET.

THE INCREASE IS $25,000.

AGAIN, THERE IS NO NET CHANGE NEEDED FOR THIS ITEM.

NEXT IS APPROPRIATING FUND BALANCE TO BALANCE THE FUND FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PUBLIC ART FUND.

THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS IS $215,062.

IN TWO GRANT FUNDS WE'RE RE-APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR FUNDING TO BALANCE THE FUND FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN FISCAL YEAR 2023.

WE ARE APPROPRIATING $80,000 IN THE CDBG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND, AND WE'RE APPROPRIATING $143,500 IN THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM OR THE SHIP FUND.

[01:20:06]

AND THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL, BECAUSE USUALLY THESE GRANT PROGRAMS ALLOW MULTIPLE YEARS TO SPEND DOWN THE REVENUE.

LASTLY, WE'RE APPROPRIATING NET ASSETS TO BALANCE THE FUND FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.

AS IT TURNED OUT, THE EXPENSES FOR CLAIMS AND THE COST OR THE EXPENSE FOR THE STOP LOSS WAS HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROJECTED BY STAFF.

AND THAT IS $210,000 CHANGE.

THE BUDGET AMENDMENT IS ALSO WHEN WE MAKE CITY COMMISSION AWARE OF PERSONNEL CHANGES THAT OCCURRED DURING FISCAL YEAR 2023.

ALL OF THESE CHANGES I'M ABOUT TO PRESENT TO YOU REQUIRED NO, HAD NO BUDGETARY IMPACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.

THE FIRST IS THE ADDITION OF ONE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR POSITION IN THE CITY COMMISSION BUDGET, OR IN THE CITY COMMISSION DEPARTMENT.

THE NEXT IS THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE CHIEF MECHANICAL INSPECTOR POSITION TO AN ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL/CHIEF MECHANICAL INSPECTOR IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. AND WE HAD A IN THE ENGINEERING DIVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES.

WE HAD A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ENGINEER POSITION TO AN ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER.

IN THE FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, YOUR AWARD WINNING FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, WE HAD A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROCUREMENT AND BUDGET TECHNICIAN POSITION TO A LOGISTICS TECHNICIAN. AND THEN THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN.

AN UPDATE IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

THERE WAS THE CREATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE ASSISTANT PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER POSITION WITH A GRADE OF 225, AND THAT IS FOR SUCCESSION PLANNING TO PLAN FOR AN UPCOMING RETIREMENT.

IN SUMMARY, THE TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IS $4,596,514.

IT IS MADE UP OF $4,386,514 CHANGE TO SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AND A $210,000 CHANGE TO INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.

AGAIN, NO CHANGE TO THE GENERAL FUND.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

EXCELLENT. AS THIS IS STILL ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THERE ANY COMMENT BY THE COMMISSION? NOT SEEING ANYONE? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

THANK YOU. MOVING NOW TO ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 8A TO 2538.

[8.a TO2538 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, terminating “Zoning In Progress” by amending Chapter 10, Article 3, of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code, entitled “Use Regulations”, by amending Section 10-3.2, entitled “Table Of Allowed Uses”, by specifically amending Table 10-3.1, by creating a new “Use Type” under “Retail Sales” for “Vape/Smoke Shop And Liquor Store” and permitting “Vape/Smoke Shop And Liquor Store” as “Special Exception” in the MU-N (Mixed Use Neighborhood), MU-C (Mixed Use Corridor), MU-G (Mixed Use General), and NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning districts; and amending Section 10-3.3, entitled “Use-Specific Standards”, by creating Section 10-3.3(D)(15)(e), entitled “Vape/Smoke Shop And Liquor Store”, to provide for a minimum separation distance between similar uses of this “Use Type” and from the real property that comprises a public or private preschool, elementary school, middle school, or secondary school within the City’s municipal boundaries and neighboring cities; and by creating Section 10-3.3(D)(15)(f), entitled “Bar, Lounge Or Tavern”, to provide for a minimum separation distance between similar uses of this “Use Type” and from the real property that comprises a public or private preschool, elementary school, middle school, or secondary school within the city’s municipal boundaries and neighboring cities; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

ITEM 8A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC TERMINATING THE ZONING IN PROGRESS BY AMENDING CHAPTER TEN, ARTICLE THREE OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ENTITLED USE REGULATION BY AMENDING SECTION 10-3.2 ENTITLED TABLE OF ALLOWED USES BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING TABLE 10- 3.1 BY CREATING A NEW USE TYPE UNDER RETAIL SALES FOR VAPE SMOKE SHOP AND LIQUOR STORE AND PERMITTING VAPE SMOKE SHOP AND LIQUOR STORE AS SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND MU-N AND MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MU-C MIXED USE CORRIDOR.

MU-G MIXED USE GENERAL NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

AMENDING SECTION 10-3.3 ENTITLED USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS BY CREATING SECTION 10-3.3 D 15 ENTITLED VAPE SMOKE SHOP AND LIQUOR STORE TO PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN SIMILAR USES OF THIS USE TYPE AND FROM THE REAL PROPERTY COMPRISED OF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PRESCHOOL, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, SECONDARY SCHOOL WITHIN THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING CITY'S, AND BY CREATING SECTION 10- 3.3 D 15 F, ENTITLED BAR OR TAVERN, TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN SIMILAR USES OF THIS TYPE AND FROM THE REAL PROPERTY THAT COMPRISES A PUBLIC PRIVATE PRESCHOOL, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, SECONDARY SCHOOL WITHIN THE CITY, MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND NEIGHBORING CITIES.

PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION.

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE.

I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

[01:25:02]

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WILL WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? KATE JOHNSON MAINLAND'S 4.

I WAS EMBARRASSED FOR THIS COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF TAMARAC AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING WHEN THIS FIRST READING TOOK PLACE.

IT STARTED OUT WELL AND GOOD.

EVERYONE AGREED THERE SHOULD BE MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN VAPE SMOKE SHOPS AND LIQUOR STORES AND SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES THAN THE 1000FT REQUESTED.

THERE WAS ACTUALLY CONSENSUS, WITH EVEN COMMISSIONER DANIEL VOICING CONCERN THAT THEY WERE TOO CLOSE.

AMAZING. THEN ONE PERSON DECIDES HE DOESN'T THINK WE SHOULD EXTEND THE DISTANCE ANYMORE, AND LO AND BEHOLD, THE OTHER TWO COMMISSIONERS CHANGED THEIR VOTES.

OR SHOULD I SAY ONE RESCINDS THEIR SECOND AND THE OTHER VOTES NO.

ONLY WHEN SHE THOUGHT THE VOTE WOULD PASS ANYWAY.

SEEING HER NO VOTE, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS ASKED FOR A RECONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO DEFEAT THE MOTION.

WHILE LAUGHING, COMMISSIONER DANIEL REFUSES THE REVOTE, SHOWING HER INITIAL VOTE WAS SYMBOLIC AND SHE DIDN'T REALLY WANT IT TO FAIL. BOTH SHE AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON LAUGHED ABOUT IT AS THEY PLAYED THEIR GAMES .

COMMISSION THIS IS NOT A LAUGHING MATTER.

EVERY VOTE SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND WITH INTENT.

YOUR SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF TAMARAC IS NOT A GAME.

LET YOUR YES BE YES AND YOUR NO BE NO.

I'VE BEEN TOLD POLITICS IS A GAME, BUT TO SEE IT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF ME ANGERS AND SADDENS ME.

I CARE ABOUT THIS CITY AND I TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, EVEN IF YOU DON'T.

WHERE IS YOUR INTEGRITY TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUT YOU IN OFFICE? TRAGICALLY, I DON'T SEE IT.

NOW WITH THE SECOND READING OF THIS ORDINANCE, IT HAS CHANGED.

THERE ISN'T EVEN A SPECIFIED DISTANCE ANYMORE.

IT JUST STATES TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE.

WHAT IS THE DISTANCE AND WHAT HAPPENED TO ADDING PARKS AS A PLACE NEEDING DISTANCE? WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FOR BARS, LOUNGES OR TAVERNS? THE MAYOR LEFT THE VOTE WITH IF THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT OUR CITY TO BECOME, WELL, I DON'T WANT OUR CITY TO BECOME A PLACE FILLED WITH LIQUOR STORES, VAPE AND SMOKE SHOPS, AND ONE THAT IS CARELESS ABOUT THE WELL-BEING OF OUR CHILDREN.

IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD TO ASK FOR MORE YOUTH, TRACK AND FIELD OR WINTER BASKETBALL LEAGUE EXPANSION.

BUT CARING FOR OUR CHILDREN STARTS WITH THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY.

YOU ARE IGNORING IT TO THEIR DETRIMENT.

AS YOU VOTE THIS TIME, VOTE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN.

MAKE TAMARAC A THRIVING CITY WHO CARES ABOUT EVERY RESIDENT YOUNG, OLD AND IN BETWEEN.

AND BY THE WAY, HAVING MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUSINESSES IS NOT A BAD THING.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THEIR MIND.

SEEING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

MISS CALLOWAY, OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

NO ONE HAS QUESTIONS, I HAVE COMMENTS, THEN I STILL AM VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF PUTTING THIS BACK TO A 2000 SQUARE FOOT FOR 5E 2000 FEET AND THEN ADDING IN NOT BEING NEXT TO ANY RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR PARKS.

I AM STILL IN SUPPORT OF INCREASING FOR THE LOUNGE BAR AREA.

IT'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ANYWAY, TO AT LEAST 1500 FEET IF NOT 2000.

I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE PARK TAMARAC VILLAGE, WHICH WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DON'T IF WE HAVE IT AS 1500 OR 2000? THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM COMING BEFORE US ANYWAY, IT'S THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

THE VARIANCE IS GOING TO BE DONE.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR IT ANYWAY.

AND THEY ARE ON NOTICE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS ON A PLANNING ZONING IN PROGRESS FOR PRIOR TO US GOING OUT FOR QUOTES FOR TAMARAC VILLAGE.

SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE, AND IT SHOULD NOT STOP US FROM THE FUTURE THAT WE'RE HOPING FOR TAMARAC VILLAGE.

IT IS JUST TO ALSO PUT PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE FOR THE REST OF OUR CITY.

I HAVE BEEN WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS WE WENT TO SOME RIBBON CUTTINGS AN BOTH OF THE RIBBON CUTTING PLACES IN THE PAST WEEK HAVE SAID THAT THEY TOO SUPPORT THE HIGHER SEPARATION CURRENT BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN PLACE.

IT PROTECTS THEM FROM FEELING THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO ENCROACH ON THEIR TERRITORY.

I UNDERSTAND WE WANT TO BE THE END ALL AND BE ALL FOR EVERYBODY, AND WE WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE TO NEW BUSINESSES.

[01:30:03]

BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS BE THE ONE WHO'S GOING TO SUPPORT BUSINESSES THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST THING FOR OUR CITY'S GROWTH, AND THAT COMES BACK TO US FOR A VOTE ANYWAY.

SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

AS THEY ARE. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I'M GOING TO AGREE ON THAT.

I THINK THE LAST TIME WE HAD CONSENSUS THAT WE WE NEEDED THE ADDITIONAL FEET, WE DETERMINED THE DISTANCE BETWEEN WHAT 1000FT LOOKS LIKE, WHICH IS BY IN FRONT OF BSO, INTO THE FIRE STATION AND THE CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY HERE BY THE FOUNTAIN.

SO IT'S NOT VERY FAR.

AND ADDING ANOTHER BUSINESS TO THAT CLOSENESS IS MAYBE AN ISSUE.

SO DEFINITELY I'M IN SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THAT, TO CHANGE IT, TO ADD THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ALSO TO SAFEGUARD SCHOOLS AND ANYTHING THAT TO DO WITH CHILDREN AROUND THERE.

WELL, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT'S ALREADY ON THE FLOOR, SUBMITTED BY VICE MAYOR BOLTON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

SEEING THAT THERE'S NO MOTION OR MOVEMENT TO DO SO.

THERE IS NO AMENDMENT.

VICE MAYOR. MS. CALLAWAY DID WE REMOVE? VICE MAYOR. DID WE REMOVE THE DISTANCE FROM THE ORDINANCE ALTOGETHER OR IS IT STILL THERE? IT'S STILL THERE. IT WAS NEVER IN THE TITLE IN FIRST READING, BUT IT IS IN THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY, SO WE JUST WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.

YEAH. WE DID NOT CHANGE THE TITLE FROM FIRST TO SECOND READING.

IT'S STILL THE SAME.

I SEE THAT I READ THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU.

SEEING NO OTHER CONVERSATION.

THE ITEM REMAINS AS IS, WITH 1000FT OF SEPARATION FOR BOTH ITEMS AND THE EXPRESSED ZONING CHANGES.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. VICE MAYOR BOLTON.

NO. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

NO. COMMISSIONER DANIEL.