[1.b Vehicle Allowance (City Commission Only) - Discussion with Consensus to: 1. reduce the vehicle car allowance; 2. do away with it; 3. use a city issued vehicle for city business or 4. IRS mileage reimbursement - 2023 Standard Mileage Rates of$0.67 per mile or 5. A city vehicle for business purposes. Requested by Commissioner Elvin Villalobos]

VEHICLE ALLOWANCE.

THIS IS A DISCUSSION.

THIS IS ONLY DEALING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION ONLY.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

DURING THE WORKSHOP, THE ITEM WAS DISCUSSED, BUT I HAD BRIEFLY EXITED THE MEETING TO TAKE CARE OF SOMETHING, AND THIS WAS DISCUSSED.

AND I JUST WANT CLARITY.

AND THE REASON WHY I WANT CLARITY IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MY PIECE OF PAPER THAT I BROUGHT, BUT BACK THERE'S BEEN THREE MEETINGS.

THE FIRST MEETING TOOK PLACE, I BELIEVE, IN FEBRUARY OR APRIL AROUND THERE.

I HAVE THE PAPER IN MY OFFICE WHERE A FIFTH OPTION WAS INTRODUCED BY COMMISSIONER DANIEL AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON AT THAT MEETING AGREED.

BUT FOR SOME REASON, WE ALL SEEM TO BE OKAY WITH IT.

BUT NONE OF US SAID NO TO IT.

BUT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.

THERE IS CONFUSION AS CONFUSION COMES.

THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER MEETING WHERE IT TOOK PLACE, WHERE THE OPTION WAS ALSO INTRODUCED DURING A WORKSHOP, AND THEN THE FINAL MEETING WAS TAKING PLACE.

SO THE FIFTH OPTION WAS A CITY VEHICLE.

SO I HAD OPTIONED OUT ABOUT OVER A YEAR AGO FOR THE CAR ALLOWANCE.

I TOOK THE IRS MILEAGE RATE FROM THAT TIME I PRODUCED RECORDS FOR THE MILES, THE MAP, EVERYTHING THAT WAS CONNECTED TO THAT.

THEN THE FIFTH OPTION, WHICH WAS AN OPTION THAT EVERYBODY SEEMED OKAY WITH, IT WAS THE VEHICLE WHICH TOOK NEARLY A YEAR TO, TO PROCESS.

THEN NOW WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE IS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NO LONGER AN OPTION. THE IRS MILEAGE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION.

THERE'S NOTHING OTHER THAN THE CAR ALLOWANCE OPTION.

SO I JUST WANT CLARITY AS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND I WANTED TO HAVE IT ON RECORD JUST BECAUSE I WAS NOT PART OF THAT MEETING.

BUT ALSO FOR THE RECORD, YOU KNOW COMMISSIONER BOLTON INDICATED ON HIS TAMARAC POST ARTICLE THAT I

[00:05:10]

DEMANDED THE CITY MANAGER TO BUY VEHICLES, EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW VERY WELL THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE BECAUSE NONE OF US INDIVIDUALLY CAN DEMAND ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY OTHER THAN MINIMAL THINGS THAT MAY COME APART.

BUT MY POINT IS THAT FIRST, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I DID NOT DEMAND THE CAR, THE VEHICLE, AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON INDICATED ON HIS STUPID ARTICLE, HIS FRAUD ARTICLE, BUT ALSO THE FIRST OPTION WAS A TESLA.

WE ENDED UP WITH WHAT ARE THEY CALLED CITY MANAGER? THE VOLTS NOT EVEN A CHEVY VOLTS.

IT WAS A CHEVY VOLT.

SO IT'S A SMALLER VERSION.

SOMETHING THE COUNTY USES SOMETHING THAT MANY CITIES USE.

SO WITH THAT I JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES AS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING.

IS IT A SILENT ITEM THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY, HEY, THE ONLY OPTION PER POLICY IS THE CAR ALLOWANCE, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT'S THE CASE.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS DURING OUR THREE MEETINGS THAT WE HAD THAT WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS WHATEVER YOU WANTED.

IT WAS ALL OPTIONAL.

THERE'S FIVE OPTIONS, AND WHATEVER ANYONE WANTED WAS THE CASE.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT KIND OF BLEW WITH THE WIND.

SO THAT'S ALL.

AND I HAVE NO MORE COMMENTS AFTER THAT.

SO THEN THIS IS HIS CLARIFICATION IS IS SET.

IT'S CLEAR WHATEVER CONFUSION WAS CONFUSION, WHATEVER POLICY WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SPEAKERS]. ACTUALLY THERE IS ONE MORE COMMENT THAT I FORGOT.

GO AHEAD. SO APPARENTLY COMMISSIONER BOLTON FILED AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST ME ABOUT ALL OF THIS AND THE REASON WHY I'M BRINGING IT TO RECORD, BECAUSE HE ALSO BROUGHT IT UP TO THE RECORD FIRST, EVEN THOUGH THE INFORMATION SAYS CONFIDENTIAL.

SO HIS NEXT ARTICLE SAID THAT I'M UNDER INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF THIS POLICY.

EVEN THOUGH I CAN PROVE WHATEVER THEY WANT ME TO PROVE THAT EVERYTHING WAS DONE PROPERLY AND NOT IMPROPERLY.

SO WHOEVER'S WATCHING THIS AND READ THE STUPID ARTICLE THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON WROTE INSINUATING THAT I'M UNDER INVESTIGATION, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELEASED THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT IS CONFIDENTIAL.

BUT NO ONE CAN STOP IT.

SO WHICH IS STUPID TOO, BECAUSE THE CODE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION, SAYS THEY CAN'T DO NOTHING ABOUT WHAT IDIOT COMMISSIONERS DO ON THE DAIS OR ON COMMITTEE OR ON THEIR OWN TIME. SO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO THIS ITEM IS NOW CLARIFIED AND WE ARE GOING TO 1C UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON CURB APPEAL PROGRAM.

[1.c Update and Discussion on Curb Appeal Program Presented by Deputy City Manager, Maxine Calloway]

GOOD MORNING MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

MAXINE CALLOWAY FOR THE RECORD, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS ITEM REALLY QUICKLY.

AT THE LAST, AT THE LAST BUDGET RETREAT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE CURB APPEAL PROGRAM IN DEPTH, AND WE INCREASED THE ALLOCATION BUDGETED ALLOCATION FROM $50,000 TO $100,000.

AND YOU ASKED AT THAT TIME FOR A PRESENTATION TO BE MADE SO YOU CAN HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE CURB APPEAL PROGRAM, BUT BEFORE THE BUDGET GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE THE BACKGROUND, LET YOU KNOW WHO IN THE COMMUNITY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM, AND SOME INFORMATION AS TO WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN USED FOR.

SO THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES IS A RENTAL PROPERTIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS PROGRAM.

THE ASSISTANCE IS PROVIDED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE BASIS BECAUSE THE FUNDING IS LIMITED.

AND AS I GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE EXHAUSTED THE FUNDS ALREADY FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

THE PROGRAM IS A GRANT PROGRAM, SO THERE'S NO REPAYMENT REQUIREMENT.

AND AFTER THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE, THE HOMEOWNER'S PROPERTY QUALIFIES FOR ENTRY INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS PROGRAM.

[00:10:01]

AND THAT'S A QUARTERLY PROGRAM WHERE YOU HAVE RESIDENTS THAT ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CURB APPEAL AND FOR THEIR PROPERTY LOOKING GREAT.

AND WE DO THAT ONCE PER QUARTER, ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN EACH DISTRICT AND ONE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

IT'S A $3,000 IS A MAXIMUM AWARD.

WE HAVE SEEN PROPERTY OWNERS, HOWEVER, PROVIDE A MATCH.

SO DEPENDING ON THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING, SOMETIMES IT MIGHT BE 4 TO $5,000 AND THEY'LL PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL 1 OR $2,000, BUT THE MAXIMUM UNDER THIS PROGRAM IS $3,000. OFTEN TIMES WE ATTACH A PAINT PROGRAM, WHICH IS UP TO $500.

AND SO WE'LL SEE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE DOING THE CURB APPEAL, AND THEY INCLUDE THE PAIN PROGRAM AS A PART OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING DONE TO THEIR PROPERTY.

SO HERE ARE THE QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENTS.

WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE DRIVEWAYS AND I HAVE SOME IMAGES JUST SHOWING SOME OF THE DRIVEWAYS WE HAVE PROCESSED THIS YEAR.

BUT DRIVEWAY EXPANSION, WHICH WE KNOW REQUIRES A PERMIT EXTERIOR PAINTING, GARAGE DOOR GUTTERS, IRRIGATION, DRUNKEN TRASH AND DEBRIS REMOVAL FROM THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF LANDSCAPING, ROOF PAINTING AND CLEANING.

JUST SOME MINIMAL REPAIR BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, THE $3,000 IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DO A NEW ROOF.

SOME SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, SOFFITS AND FASCIA, AND SOME WINDOW IMPROVEMENTS IS WHAT THE QUALIFYING EXPENSE.

AND JUST SOME IMAGES REAL QUICK JUST TO SHOW YOU SOME BEFORE AND AFTER, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO DRIVEWAYS, SINCE THAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE BUDGET RETREAT.

SO PRESENTLY WE HAVE ASSISTED 17 RESIDENTS WITH THE CURB APPEAL PROGRAM AND WITH THE PAINT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM.

YOU SEE THE PROPERTIES WE HAVE ASSISTED TO DATE.

AND SO THIS IS WHERE WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION DURING THE BUDGET RETREAT.

WE ASSIST UP TO 120% AMI.

SO THIS IS A QUALIFYING CHART.

AND THIS CHART HAS BEEN UPDATED RELATIVE TO PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE A VIOLATION NEED TO ABATE THEIR VIOLATION.

THIS IS HOW WE PROCESS THE APPROVAL AND WHO MIGHT BE QUALIFIED UNDER THE PROGRAM.

BECAUSE IT'S OWNERSHIP THAT HAS TO YOU HAVE TO OWN YOUR PROPERTY AND RENTAL IS NOT PERMITTED.

YOU THESE ARE SOME OF THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP AND INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE IT.

NOW, MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY JUST TO ADD TO THE PRESENTATION, THERE WAS ALSO A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE THE CANAL WALL CONCERNS DISCUSSED DURING THE BUDGET WORKSHOP AND YOU KNOW WITH THE CONSENT OF THE THE CITY COMMISSION, WE WANT TO INCLUDE THAT AS A, AS A, AS A POSSIBLE GRANT REASON AS WELL. SO IF THERE IS YOU KNOW, CONSENT FROM, FROM THE COMMISSION AND IF THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON OUR PART TO ADD THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. I KNOW PERSONALLY I WOULD APPRECIATE IT, SINCE I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR SOME ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR CANAL WALLS FOR PROBABLY EVERY YEAR I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION. SO IF THIS COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE THAT, I WOULD BE GRATEFUL.

I KNOW THEIR RESIDENTS WOULD BE GRATEFUL, TOO.

SO I WILL ASK FIRST IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY IF YOU AGREE OR NOT TO THE ADDITION OF THE CANAL WALLS AS YOU GO THROUGH IT WOULD BE GREAT.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS NO QUESTIONS AND I AGREE.

THANK YOU. NO QUESTIONS AND I AGREE.

THANK YOU. AGREED.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS A THUMBS UP.

SO ALL FIVE OF US AGREE ON THIS PROGRAM AND INCLUSION OF THE CANAL WALLS.

THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

WE ARE GOING TO 1D, TO2560 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING

[1.d TO2560 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, Amending Chapter 2, Entitled Administration, of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances, specifically, Article XI, Entitled Code of Ethics, Section 2-405 Entitled Standards of Conduct and Article XII, Entitled Lobbying Activities, specifically Section 2-412 Entitled Filing of Contact Log, to provide for greater transparency, decorum, and values to strengthen the quality of representative Government through Ethical Principles governing the conduct of the City's Elected and Appointed Officials; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for codification; and providing for an effective date. Presented by Deputy City Manager, Maxine Calloway]

OUR CODE AND ETHICS.

THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, MISS MAXINE CALLOWAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS ITEM, JUST TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND.

SO BACK IN DECEMBER 2023, THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA, SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY, DECORUM AND STANDARDS TO GOVERN EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH APPLICANTS, LOBBYISTS AND DEVELOPERS.

BASED ON THAT ITEM, STAFF WENT AHEAD AND CONDUCTED A SURVEY OF ORDINANCES IN BROWARD COUNTY.

WE LOOKED AT BROWARD COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY, AND A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES YOU WILL SEE THIS MORNING ARE COMING FROM BROWARD COUNTY

[00:15:09]

CODE OF ORDINANCE. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

WHAT'S UNDERLINED IN RED IS WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING TO BE ADDED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO, OR EXISTING CODE OF, ETHICS AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. SO I'LL WALK THROUGH EACH SLIDE WITH THE CHANGES THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND THEN AFTER THE QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION, YOU'LL SEE THAT I'VE ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL SLIDES.

THAT INCLUDES OUR EXISTING ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES PROVISION AND THEN ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY PROVISION FROM THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, WHICH WE FOUND TO BE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS A BIT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR CODE.

SO UNDER SECTION 2-405 IN RED, YOU SEE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD CONDUCT AND VALUES, THE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY'S ORGANIZATION, ORGANIZATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE CITY.

AND WE'RE ADDING AND THE BASIS FOR GOVERNING THE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR OF THE COMMISSION.

WE FOUND THAT BROWARD COUNTY HAD THIS IN THEIR CODE JUST TO FINISH OFF THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND THAT PROVISION.

AND SO WE HAVE ADDED THAT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FOUNDATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT WE JUST ENGAGED IN, WHICH INCLUDED MISSION AND OR ADDITIONAL VALUES.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL.

UNDER SECTION 2-405 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, EACH EACH PUBLIC OFFICER SHALL RECOGNIZE.

EACH PUBLIC OFFICER SHALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE MAIN FUNCTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AT ALL TIMES IS TO SERVE AND PROMOTE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC, AND WE'RE ADDING IN RED BY ADHERING TO THE FOLLOWING VALUES.

AND THESE ARE THE VALUES A CONSIDER THE INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IN DECISIONS.

B DO NOT ACCEPT GIFTS OR OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS GIVEN TO INFLUENCE A VOTE OR PUBLIC POSITION AND C DO NOT USE THE PUBLIC POSITION FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

UNDER SECTION 2-405, WE'RE STILL UNDER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, SUBSECTION FIVE EACH PUBLIC OFFICER PLEDGES TO SUPPORT AND CARRY OUT PUBLIC POLICY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT OF THE CITY.

SECTION 2-405 UNDER SIX EACH PUBLIC OFFICER PLEDGES TO KEEP THE.

I PROMISE I'M NOT DOING THAT.

IT'S JUST JUMPING FORWARD.

EACH PUBLIC OFFICER PLEDGES TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY INFORMED ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT, EMPHASIZE AND PRACTICE FRIENDLY AND COURTEOUS SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, AND SEEK TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND IMAGE OF PUBLIC SERVICE BY ADHERING TO THE FOLLOWING VALUES OF INTEGRITY.

A BE TRUTHFUL WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOUR PEERS, THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS.

B DO NOT PROMISE THAT WHICH YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE IS UNREALISTIC.

C BE PREPARED TO MAKE UNPOPULAR DECISIONS IN MOVING THE COMMUNITY'S INTERESTS FORWARD.

D DO NOT KNOWINGLY USE FALSE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITIONS, AND E DISCLOSE SUSPECTED INSTANCES OF IMPROPRIETY TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.

SECTION 2-405 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WERE ADDING AN ENTIRE NEW NUMBER IN NUMBER 23, TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR GOVERNMENT, EACH PUBLIC OFFICER SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING VALUES.

A COME TO MEETINGS PREPARED.

B DISCUSS ALL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC.

C DO NOT DISCLOSE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHOUT PROPER LEGAL AUTHORIZATION.

D MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE MERITS OF ISSUES, AND E DO NOT REPRESENT THIRD PARTIES INTERESTS BEFORE OR AGENCY.

AND FINALLY, AS IT RELATES TO APPLICANTS AND DEVELOPERS AND THE DISCUSSION OF AND THE DISCUSSION OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WE HAVE JUST ADDED TO THE FILING OF CONTRACT LAW.

CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE, IF YOU'RE A LOBBYIST, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO FILE YOUR LOBBYIST PAPERWORK WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, AND YOU ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A CONTACT LOG AFTER EACH OF YOUR MEETINGS TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.

AND SO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CAPTURING ALL THE DISCUSSION THAT'S THAT'S HAPPENING IN THOSE MEETINGS, WE'RE ADDING TO THE VERY END ON YOUR CONTACT LOG.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO INCLUDE ANY REQUESTS THAT ARE MADE BY ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBER, AND ANY PROFFERS THAT ARE MADE BY THE LOBBYIST DURING THOSE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS THAT MIGHT OCCUR WITH A LOBBYIST OR AN APPLICANT.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AS IT RELATES TO THE ADDITIONAL SECTIONS THAT ARE BEING ADDED IN THE CODE OF CONDUCT, CONTACT AND THE FILING OF LOBBYISTS.

AND AFTER THIS SLIDE, WE DO HAVE, IF IT'S THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION TO SEE WHAT OUR CURRENT ENFORCEMENT PROVISION LOOKS LIKE, AND THEN LAUDERHILL, I CAN JUST GO THROUGH THAT.

SO THIS IS FOR THE CODE OF ETHICS, OUR CURRENT ENFORCEMENT PROVISION, WHICH IS 2-408 VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE MAY

[00:20:07]

CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES.

ANY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER WHO VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE MAY BE REMOVED FROM ANY AND ALL BOARDS PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE STATUTES AND LOCAL ORDINANCES, AND THE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICER THAT VIOLATES THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ETHICS SHALL ALSO BE SUBJECT TO CENSURE BY 4/5 VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

THAT'S OUR CURRENT LANGUAGE UNCHANGED.

THESE ARE THE PENALTIES THAT FOR THE LOBBYING, THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, PENALTIES.

AND THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR THE LOBBYISTS.

THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE SHALL BE INFORMED OF ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES WHO HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGISTRATION, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS OF THIS ACT, AND IN EACH SUCH INSTANCE SHALL CONDUCT SUCH INVESTIGATION AS HE OR SHE SHALL DEEM NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO THIS IS PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER AS IT RELATES TO THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

THE RESULT OF EACH INVESTIGATION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE CITY COMMISSION MAY WARN, REPRIMAND OR CENSURE THE VIOLATOR, OR MAY SUSPEND OR PROHIBIT THE VIOLATOR FROM APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ANY EMPLOYER BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION OR ANY DECISION MAKING BODY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, OR FROM OTHERWISE LOBBYING FOR ANY EMPLOYER IN ANY FASHION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUSPENSION OR PROHIBITION MAY NOT EXCEED A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND NO SANCTIONS SHALL BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE LOBBYIST, ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION HAS BEEN OFFERED REASONABLE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

THE PENALTIES CONTINUES THE VALIDITY OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY EMPLOYEES, OR ANY DECISION MAKING BODY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE.

IN ADDITION TO THE PENALTIES PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, INDIVIDUALS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL PENALTIES AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BROWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 1012 AND ARTICLE 12 OF THE BROWARD COUNTY CHARTER.

SO I OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME AND ATTACHED IS THE NOT THAT IT'S RECOMMENDED.

WE JUST FOUND THAT THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL HAD A DIFFERENT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAN WHAT WE WERE.

WE FOUND ELSEWHERE.

MOST OF THE CITIES HAVE AN IDENTICAL PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISION AS OURS.

AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO SHARE JUST A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE FOUND IN THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKET.

LET'S GIVE IT A MOMENT SO EVERYBODY CAN READ.

AND IF IT HELPS, I CAN JUST SUMMARIZE WHAT LAUDERHILL HAS IN THEIRS.

WHAT WE FOUND WAS DIFFERENT WITH THEIRS PRIMARILY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

IF THE VIOLATOR OF THEIR CODE IS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OR A CHARTER OFFICER, THEN AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION IS FIRST CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED TYPES OF VIOLATIONS HAVE OCCURRED.

IF THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR MAKES A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED.

THE CITY COMMISSION MAY THEN IMPOSE ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES, SUBJECT TO THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS, WHO ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE VIOLATION, AND THEN THEY HAVE LISTED THEIR ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES [INAUDIBLE]. IT'S LESS AN ORAL REPRIMAND BUT THIS IS AFTER AN INVESTIGATION IS CONDUCTED.

OKAY. I'M NOT SEEING ANYBODY'S THINGS TURNED OVER.

SO I GUESS I WILL GO BECAUSE I'M THE ONE WHO ASKED FOR THIS TO BE ON HERE.

THE ADDITIONS WHILE I MOSTLY APPRECIATE THEM, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON.

WE CONTINUALLY HAVE MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THESE BROKEN SOMEHOW, THE ONES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE BROKEN, ESPECIALLY 12 AND 13, A GE 12 AND 13 ARE CONTINUALLY STOMPED ON.

OUR RULES DO NOT ALLOW US TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CENSURE, WHICH IS JUST BASICALLY A PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND DOES NOTHING.

WE DON'T REFER TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE STRENGTH THAT IT SEEMS THAT LAUDERHILL HAS.

[00:25:04]

I'M IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR CODE OF ETHICS.

I THINK THAT IT'S AT LEAST STRONGER THAN OURS.

I DO QUESTION HOW THE INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION IS STARTED AND WHO CONDUCTS IT.

AND AND THEN THE PROCESS.

BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE BROUGHT TO US YET I FEEL IT HAS NO TEETH WITHOUT HAVING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT LAUDERHILL HAS CURRENTLY. WE CAN CENSURE AND THEN BY LAW, STATUTORY AND PROBE AS CONDUCTED BY LAW.

THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE UNLESS THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN TELL US WHAT EXACTLY THOSE ITEMS ARE UNDER I BELIEVE IT'S 112.

WHAT ARE THEY LIKE? WHAT DOES IT MEAN AS FAR AS WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES IN THE PAST, AND IT'S ONLY IF THE CITY, THE [INAUDIBLE] COMES AND INVESTIGATES IT SEPARATELY OR IF SORRY PERSONAL SUMMER.

IF WE DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT GIVES IT TO THE GOVERNOR AND SAYS, TAKE A LOOK.

AND THE GOVERNOR IS NOT GOING TO JUST COME TAKING A LOOK AT OUR CITY.

HE'S GOT, WHAT, 411 CITIES TO BE DEALING WITH ON TOP OF THE COUNTIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE HE HAS TO BE WORRYING ABOUT.

SO AS MUCH AS THIS IS OUR OWN HOUSE, WE NEED TO BE TAKING CARE OF OUR OWN HOUSE.

OUR RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ASKING US TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN HOUSE, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN.

IT'S. I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE.

A PIECE OF PAPER SHOULDN'T DICTATE HOW WE BEHAVE.

WE'RE ADULTS.

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROFESSIONALS.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BEHAVE.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER, SHOULDN'T TELL US HOW TO BEHAVE.

AND USUALLY THE PIECE OF PAPER IS FOR ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THINGS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

NOT FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT WRONG OR ANYBODY ALLEGEDLY DOING IT WRONG.

AND SPEAKING OF THAT WORD, THAT WORD IS THROWN AROUND BY SOME PEOPLE AND IS PUT IN EMAILS AND IS PUT IN POSTS, AND IT'S PUT IN BLOGS WITH INSINUATION AND ALLEGATIONS THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE DOING THINGS WRONG, KNOWING VERY WELL IT'S NOT, BUT IT'S, AS A PUBLIC OFFICER WERE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD.

WE'RE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE MORE DEFAMATORY COMMENTS OR WRITTEN COMMENTS ABOUT US AND IT'S IMPROPER.

SO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY AS WELL, I WANT SOMETHING WITH TEETH IN HERE THAT MAYBE WILL STOP US.

AND I SAY THE UNIVERSAL US KNOWING THAT NOT EVERY PERSON ON THIS COMMISSION IS DOING THIS.

SO FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO KNOW VERY WELL THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING THIS, I AM NOT TRYING TO OFFEND YOU.

I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SEEN AS A GROUP RIGHT NOW AND AS A COMMISSION.

WE ARE NOT REPRESENTING OURSELVES WELL BECAUSE WE'RE ALL PAINTED WITH THE SAME BRUSH.

WE ARE THE TAMARAC CITY COMMISSION.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR FIVE OF US DON'T BEHAVE WELL.

WE ALL DON'T BEHAVE WELL IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE.

SO I'M HOPING WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON THIS TODAY VERSUS JUST LETTING IT GO.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN NUMBER 23 FOR 23A DISCUSS ALL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC.

IF THIS PASSES, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? IS THE CITY GOING TO SET UP A PROCEDURE THAT SAYS INCLUDED IN WHEN A PERSON OR A PROJECT, AN APPLICATION IS FILED THAT THAT APPLICANT HAS TO MEET WITH ALL OF US, KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO THEN BE DISCLOSED, RIGHT.

AND WHAT OUR DESIRES OR THOUGHTS ARE FOR WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.

AND THEN COME TO AN OPEN WORKSHOP AND DISCUSS IT.

IS IT THEN IS IT A? THE REASON AND I THINK PROCUREMENT HERE, MAXINE.

BECAUSE BECAUSE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE CONE OF SILENCE ISSUE AND WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT.

SO PROCUREMENT CAN CAN OBVIOUSLY ADD TO THAT, BECAUSE IF THERE'S A CONE OF SILENCE, LET'S USE ANY RFP, RFQ UNDER THE CITY CODE, THERE'S A CONE OF SILENCE THAT APPLIES.

AND UNTIL THE BID IS BASICALLY RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OR OPEN.

YOU KNOW, THE CODE OF SILENCE APPLIES THROUGHOUT.

SO THAT'S THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PART.

YOU KNOW THAT'S SEEMS TO BE SOME INHERENT CONFLICT WITH THE CONE OF SILENCE PROCESS.

[INAUDIBLE]. WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS ON WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP THEN ALSO SHOWS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A DIVIDE.

ONE IS THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCUSSION WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND MAYBE WE SHOULD BE THINKING, IF, YOU KNOW, A CONTRACT'S UP IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS, NONE OF US ARE ALLOWED TO TALK WITH A POTENTIAL APPLICANT FOR THEIR

[00:30:02]

BID A YEAR. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT FURTHER BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PURCHASING AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE KIND OF CONTRACTS.

AND I'LL USE THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, CALL IT WHAT IT IS WASTE MANAGEMENT, THE SANITATION SERVICES OF THE CITY.

WE KNOW WHEN THINGS ARE GOING TO EXPIRE.

WE KNOW WHEN THE TOWING IS GOING TO GO TO EXPIRE, WHAT OTHER LANDSCAPING.

WE KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO EXPIRE.

RIGHT. WE KNOW WHEN THOSE CONTRACTS ARE COMING ABOUT.

THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION TO HAVE AND TO ADD INTO THIS MINE AT THIS POINT WAS GOING TO I N MY OPINION, WHATEVER JUNK WENT ON WITH 13TH FLOOR CLUB LINK APPLICATION AND ALL OF A SUDDEN $2.9 MILLION OR APPROXIMATELY OF ASKS BEING MADE, NOT IN THE PUBLIC LIGHT LAST MINUTE APPLICANTS FEELING THAT THEY HAVE TO SAY YES OR ELSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THEIR PROJECT DONE. NOT EVERYTHING'S ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE COMMUNITY THAT IS LIVING THERE.

SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES AROUND IT MAYBE IT QUALIFIES.

MAYBE IT DOESN'T.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION.

ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GOT CHARITIES INVOLVED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT.

AND AN APPLICANT IS BRINGING FORTH AS IF IT'S THEIR OWN IDEA.

SO THE PURPOSE BEING FOR THESE CONVERSATIONS TO BE HAD ABOUT WHO MIGHT BE ASKING WHAT MIGHT BE ASKED FOR DISCUSSING CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC, IS THAT A CONTRACT NEGOTIATION? THAT'S NOT A CONTRACT NEGOTIATION NECESSARILY.

THAT'S A DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION.

MAYBE WE HAVE TO FIX THE WORDING.

WELL, LET ME ADDRESS THE DEVELOPER APPLICATION ISSUE, AND I THINK MISS CALLAWAY IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION RULE IS A JUDICIAL CREATED RULE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.

SO THIS CITY HAS OBVIOUSLY THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION RULE, WHICH IS CODIFIED IN THE CODE, ALLOW ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SPEAK TO APPLICANTS RESIDENTS ABOUT A POTENTIAL PROJECT.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE AWARE SOME CITIES DO NOT HAVE THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION RULE.

SO SOME CITY BASICALLY, IF YOU FILE AN APPLICATION, A DEVELOPER, THERE'S NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY OFFICIALS.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN APPROACH DEVELOPMENT.

ONE NUMBER OF CITIES FELT THAT IF YOU HAVE THE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION RULE IS, IS ALLOW ELECTED OFFICIALS TO NOT ONLY TALK TO DEVELOPERS, ALSO TALK TO OBJECTORS OR RESIDENTS WHO HAVE CONCERNS, BUT SOME CITIES TAKE A MORE RIGID APPROACH AND SAY, LOOK, WE DON'T WANT TO TALK TO ANYONE, RESIDENTS OR DEVELOPERS.

LET'S JUST NOT HAVE THAT RULE.

AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MAXINE, I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HOW MANY CITIES IN BROWARD COUNTY THAT DO NOT HAVE THE EX-PARTE RULE, BUT UNDER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, WHEN THAT DECISION WAS, I BELIEVE, 10, 12 YEARS AGO, YOU HAVE TO MODIFY YOUR CODE TO PERMIT EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION.

IF THE CITY DID NOT MODIFY THEIR CODE.

GENERALLY, THEY WILL ADHERE TO NO COMMUNICATION AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS FILED, NOT BEFORE, BUT WHEN THE APPLICATION IS FILED IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION RULE, THAT MEANS NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ELECTED OFFICIALS, DEVELOPERS OR RESIDENTS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS.

SO NOW YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER OPTION FOR DISCUSSION THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD WANT TO HAVE A RULE THAT YOU DO NOT TALK TO ANY APPLICANT AFTER THEY PUT IT APPLIES TO BOTH RESIDENTS.

WHICH MY GUT REACTION SAYS THAT IS A DEFEATIST PURPOSE TO US SERVING THE POPULATION, WHICH INCLUDES BUSINESS OWNERS, LANDOWNERS, APPLICANTS, RESIDENTS.

I PERSONALLY WOULD THINK THAT THAT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR OUR CITY TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR RESIDENTS.

WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LISTEN WHEN IT COMES TO QUASI JUDICIAL, WE CAN'T SAY YES OR NO.

WE SHOULDN'T BE SAYING YES OR NO BECAUSE IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE FILED, BE MODIFIED, WORKSHOPPED, DISCUSSED, WHETHER IT'S WITH US OR WITH PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE CITY, BECAUSE THEN IT COMES TO US FOR A VOTE.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AS IF WE SIT IN JUDGMENT AS JUDGES.

THAT'S WHY IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL.

AND YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AND BALANCED.

THE PROBLEM IS, IF WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, IF YOU GIVE ME BLANK AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THIS OR BLANK AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THAT, OR YOU BUILD

[00:35:09]

ME THIS, OR YOU BUILD ME THAT.

IS THAT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IF IT'S ONLY COMING FROM ONE PERSON? IT'S NOT DISCUSSED AS A COMMUNITY.

THE COMMISSION TO KNOW IF ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS FEEL THIS WAY AND TO SEE IF IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

SO WE HAVE IN HERE CURRENTLY THE DISCUSS ALL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC MAY BE THE WORDING NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED OF DISCUSS ALL APPLICATION USE LIKE SITE PLAN PURCHASES.

HOWEVER WAY WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE IT ENCOMPASS LAND USE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY THAT IT COMES BEFORE US BECAUSE THE PROBLEM REALLY HAS SEEMED OR AND THEN SEPARATELY THE CONTRACT ITEM AND HOW WE DO IT WHEN WE DO IT IN THE PROCESS.

SO IF YOU'VE GOT THEY'RE COMING TO THE FIRST MEETING FOR THE CITY AND THEY COME WITH THEIR, THEIR SITE PLANS AND THEIR DISCUSSIONS AND THE CITY SENDS IT BACK, IT SAYS, YOU NEED TO REVIEW, YOU NEED TO FIX.

IT DOESN'T COME TO US. THERE'S MORE TIME IN THERE.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO LET US KNOW IN A PROCESS IF WE AGREE TO THIS, WHEN THAT SHOULD BE.

WHEN IT SAYS DO NOT REPRESENT A NUMBER E ON THE SAME THING, DO NOT REPRESENT THIRD PARTIES INTERESTS BEFORE OUR AGENCY.

WHILE IT SAID SOMEWHERE ELSE, I BELIEVE, OR PURELY PERSONAL INTERESTS BEFORE OUR AGENCY.

FOR THE FILING OF THE CONTACT LOG, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, FOR THE LOBBYISTS, THE LOBBYISTS HAVE TO DO THAT WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE COMMUNICATION.

SO AT LEAST IT'S TIMED TO KNOW WHEN IT'S OCCURRED.

MY CONCERN IS FOR THE LOBBYISTS WHO ARE POTENTIALLY INTIMIDATED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION OR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AND DO NOT FEEL THAT THEY WILL SAY THAT IT IS COMING FROM A PERSON ON THE COMMISSION.

THEY WILL TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES AND SAY THAT IT WAS THEIR IDEA.

THEN AGAIN, FOR ANY LOBBYISTS WHO POSSIBLY WOULD DO THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY YOU'RE NOT HELPING THE CITY IF YOU'RE NOT HELPING US HELP YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THAT'S JUST A CONCERN I HAVE.

WHEN IT COMES TO ALSO, THE FILING OF THE CONTACT LOGS, LIKE I WAS SAYING, IT'S HARD TO PROVE WHO'S SAYING WHAT AND WHO'S BEEN DOING THE ASK.

WHEN WE HAVE OUR ENFORCEMENT, THIS IS ALREADY WHAT'S IN PLACE, PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES.

IT'S VERY VAGUE.

OUR ENFORCEMENT PROVISION NEEDS TO BE MORE DETAILED.

I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MORE LIKE LAUDERHILL'S.

I'VE JUST SCANNED IT.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT A REPRIMAND DELIVERED IN A PRIVATE MEETING MEANS ANYTHING.

BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S IN THE SUN.

BUT I THINK THAT POSSIBLY MAYBE IT STARTS HERE.

IT'S ALSO ON PAGE 8.

OR 16, WHICHEVER ONE OF THE LITTLE NUMBERS YOU GOT.

I THINK THAT MAYBE BY PUTTING THAT OUR CITY CODE REQUIRES A REFERRAL TO THE GOVERNOR FOR ACTION, FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, OR OTHER OTHER AGENCY DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

MAYBE THAT WOULD ALLOW THOSE AGENCIES TO SAY IT IS A VIOLATION.

OUR CITY HAS DEEMED IT A VIOLATION, AND WE'RE GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING.

I ALSO THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING.

WE KNOW THAT A PERSON OR PEOPLE HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG ON THE COMMISSION, THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THAT TOPIC.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE CENSURED FROM EVEN SPEAKING ABOUT THAT TOPIC AFTER THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED IT.

IT JUST NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING MORE.

WE CAN'T THROW ANYBODY OFF THE COMMISSION.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT POWER. THAT IS THE POWER OF THE RESIDENTS IN THEIR DISTRICTS TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

BUT THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

DO I DO I LIKE SO FAR, AT LEAST, WHAT WE START, YOU KNOW, AN ADD? YES, BUT TO ADD AND NOT COMPLETE IT.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE BECAUSE ARE WE GOING TO BE BACK HERE AGAIN? WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE ADDING MORE THINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY TEETH ON.

CITY MANAGER, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? OH, NO. [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].

JUST TO ADD, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION.

WE DID THE VERY BEST TO RESPOND TO THAT DECEMBER 2023 CONSENSUS ITEM TO BRING BACK WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD RESPOND TO THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE IN THAT ITEM.

HOWEVER, WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR DIRECTION, AND I APPRECIATE YEAH, I APPRECIATE IT.

[00:40:04]

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M SAYING I'M CONCERNED IT'S TAKEN SEVEN MONTHS, SEVEN MONTHS TO GET HERE.

HOW MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH? HOW MANY OTHER BID THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH? HOW MUCH IS CURRENTLY ON OUR DESK? YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT TWO ITEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT SHORTLY.

HOW MANY MORE THINGS ARE WE TRYING TO COME DOWN THE PIKE? HOW ARE WE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT CITY OF TAMARAC IS ACTUALLY OPEN FOR BUSINESS, AND YOU CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE COMING TO OUR CITY COMMISSION AND KNOWING THAT WHEN YOU SPEAK TO US, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY THAT THE THE RUG IS GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT FROM UNDERNEATH YOU AT YOUR LAST MEETING.

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PURPOSE TO HELP THAT CITY MANAGER KEEP LOOKING LIKE YOU WANT TO PRESS.

SO BEFORE I GO TO COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS YES OR NO? OKAY. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

SO I KNOW IN THE PROCUREMENT CODE THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT YOU KNOW, BEFORE SOMETHING COMES TO THE COMMISSION WE CAN DISCUSS WITH THE VENDOR ANYTHING.

RIGHT. FOR ME, THAT'S A LOOPHOLE.

BECAUSE YOU CAN REQUEST MONEY FROM THEM AT THAT TIME.

YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT.

GO AHEAD. CLARIFY.

IF A RFP RFQ IS SUBMITTED AND PUBLISHED, THE CONE OF SILENCE IS TRIGGERED.

IF THERE IS NO RFQ, RFP THEN THERE'S NO CONE OF SILENCE.

SO JUST, JUST JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FROM A FACTUAL STANDPOINT WHEN THE CORRECT.

SO PRIOR TO THE RFP, THERE'S ANYBODY CAN SAY ANYTHING AND THEN YOU CAN LOBBY THE HECK OUT OF THEM.

JUST FOR EXAMPLE MISS MAXINE WAS THAT APARTMENT ON ROCK ISLAND AND BAILEY THAT WAS JUST BUILT BY LEGACY.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LEGACY GAVE THE PAC GAVE $10,000 TO OUR VISION PAC, WHICH WE KNOW IT'S COMMISSIONER BOLTON PAC BASED ON RECORDS THAT WE HAVE.

MY PROBLEM.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THAT, THAT'S $10,000 THAT A DEVELOPER IS SAYING, HEY, I'M, YOU KNOW, I WANT YOUR SUPPORT, I WANT YOUR VOTE.

BUT SOMEHOW COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS THE SAY TO SAY, HEY, I HAVE I HAVE THREE VOTES FOR YOU.

SO THAT'S MY ISSUE BECAUSE THEN THAT MONEY, THAT $10,000 MAKES ITS WAY INTO PRIVATE PACS, WHICH IS THE FRIENDS OF MARLON BOLTON PAC, OR GETS PAID TO HAPPY FEET OR GETS PAID TO FORECAST HOLDINGS, WHICH WE KNOW ARE RELATED TO COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

SO I MEAN, AND THAT'S JUST $10,000.

I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT OVER $150,000 JUST IN ONE PAC THAT HE OPERATES.

SO MY THING IS THAT LOOPHOLE NEEDS TO BE CLOSED WHERE IT SAYS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LOBBY AT ALL.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO GET MONEY FROM A DEVELOPER, YOU CAN GET THE $1 DOLLAR MAXIMUM DONATION THAT ANYONE CAN GIVE YOU.

ANY ANY ENTITY CAN GIVE YOU, BUT FOR ONE ENTITY TO GIVE $7,000 AND THEN A MONTH LATER GIVE ANOTHER $3,000 TO GET YOUR PROJECT APPROVED. THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE NOW WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PAYING TO PLAY OR PLAY TO PAY OR WHATEVER HOWEVER YOU SAY IT. AND WE CANNOT HAVE THAT.

SO THAT'S A BIG ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I CAN GO ON AND ON WITH THIS WHOLE MONEY SITUATION.

COAST COASTAL WASTE WAS A BIG ONE.

THIS OTHER, YOU KNOW, AVIATION, YOU KNOW, $5,000, $20,000, $30,000.

SO FOR ME, THAT PROCUREMENT CODE, IT NEEDS TO SAY AVOID IT AT ALL, LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

THAT'S A LOOPHOLE BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT PROJECTS COMING SOON RIGHT BEFORE THE RFP IS EVEN SENT OUT.

SO IF WE CAN CLOSE THAT, THAT LOOPHOLE, I MEAN, I WOULD FEEL A LOT BETTER.

I'M SURE THE RESIDENTS WILL FEEL A LOT BETTER, RIGHT? BECAUSE NOW MONEY IS NOT USED TO DEFAME YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND ORCHESTRATE SOMETHING AND PUFF UP SOMEBODY ELSE AND THEN SHOOT IT OUT AND EMAIL TO THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD, YOU KNOW, PUTTING STUFF THAT'S NOT EVEN TRUE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY'S GETTING USED. SO FOR ME, IT'S A MONEY THING, AND THAT'S WHAT THE FBI AND THE OIG LOVES, IT'S THE MONEY SITUATION.

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT ETHICS.

SO IF WE DON'T HOLD OURSELVES WITH THAT STANDARD, BUT YET WE'RE MESSING AROUND WITH, YOU KNOW, A TON OF MONEY HERE THEN AND THEN WE HAVE NO

[00:45:02]

TEETH. THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN MY IN MY IN MY VIEW.

RIGHT. BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS DON'T KNOW.

THEY WILL KNOW.

I MEAN, I'M SURE THEY'RE ALL GOING TO KNOW.

THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE A NICE DOOR HANGER ON THEIR DOORS AND AND SIGNS EVERYWHERE, I'M SURE OF THAT.

BUT UNTIL THEY DON'T KNOW, WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.

AND WHAT ARE WE SETTING A BAD EXAMPLE FOR OTHER CITIES TO DO THE SAME THING? WHAT ARE WE DOING? SETTING A BAD EXAMPLE FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND CANDIDATES TO DO THE SAME THING.

THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY HAPPENING.

SO ARE WE GOING TO BE THE CITY THAT SETS THE BAD EXAMPLE? I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO STAY SILENT ON THIS TOPIC.

THIS IS A VERY HOT TOPIC FOR ME, ESPECIALLY WITH CONTINUAL ATTACKS OF JUST A BUNCH OF LIES.

IT WAS RECENTLY COMMISSIONER BOLTON JUST RECENTLY RELEASED AN ARTICLE ABOUT MY LIAISON WHO GETS PAID $100,000 APPARENTLY PASSING OUT FANS BECAUSE IT'S HOT.

LIKE, LIKE IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, YOU KNOW, TO GET SENT AN EMAIL TO THE ENTIRE MY MY CONSTITUENTS TO TELL THEM, HEY YOUR COMMISSIONER TOLD THE CITY MANAGER TO BUY HIM A VEHICLE, AND THEY GET CONFUSED.

SEE, IF IT WASN'T FOR THIS MONEY HERE, THIS OVER NEARLY $200,000.

IF IT'S NOT FOR THIS MONEY THAT DEVELOPERS GIVE TO COMMISSIONER BOLTON, HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE SEND OUT AN EMAIL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN KRYSTAL PATTERSON THIS MORNING ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL SHE IS.

AND BECAUSE IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY TO SEND OUT A 20,000, 50,000, 60,000 EMAILS.

IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND HOW DO YOU GET THAT MONEY? WELL, HERE YOU ARE DEVELOPERS HERE YOU ARE LOBBYISTS HERE YOU ARE.

AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY QUESTIONABLE.

THESE ARE OUR VENDORS GIVING COMMISSIONER BOLTON A TON OF MONEY TO MALICIOUSLY ATTACK OUR CITY MANAGER, TO ATTACK OUR CITY STAFF, TO ATTACK OUR CITY COMMISSIONERS, TO ATTACK OUR RESIDENTS, TO ATTACK OUR CITY STAFF.

THAT IS WHERE I'M GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE FBI AND THE OIG, ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS THE MONEY SITUATION.

SO THEY WANT THE MONEY SITUATION.

WE'RE GOING TO FIND THE MONEY SITUATION.

BUT UNTIL WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING STRONGER I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT EVEN PRIOR TO AN RFP BEING ISSUED, THERE'S NO REQUEST FOR MONEY.

AND IF WE DO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS A REQUEST FOR MONEY YOU'D LIKE, THE MAYOR SAID YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TO VOTE ON THAT ITEM.

YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS IT WAS SAID THAT I GOT EVEN MY MY RESIDENT THAT SOMEHOW USED TO LOVE ME.

AND THEN NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN SUPPORTS MISS PATTERSON AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW COMMISSIONER BOLTON FROM ALL PEOPLE, BUT IT'S YOU KNOW, CONFUSING RESIDENTS AND TO LIE TO THEM AND TO AND TO PRODUCE, YOU KNOW, EVEN THINGS THAT SAY, OH MY GOSH, LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS TRUE.

AND THEN FOR THAT RESIDENT TO SPREAD THAT MISINFORMATION, WE CANNOT HAVE THAT.

WE THAT'S EMBARRASSING AT THIS POINT.

SO CENSURING SOMEONE FOR UNETHICAL PRACTICES WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY, WHEN IT COMES TO MISINFORMATION, I'M ALL FOR IT.

THIS IT HAS TO END.

AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE I WAS SAYING, LAST MEETING THE SHE SOMEONE ASKED ME.

DARCY SCHILLER ASKED ME DID I GET $35,000 TO MY PERSONAL ACCOUNT BECAUSE I'M UNDER INVESTIGATION FROM 13TH FLOOR.

IT'S LIKE.

IT'S LIKE COMMISSIONER BOLTON MAKES THESE STORIES UP, TELLS POOR DARCY AND THEN DARCY JUST COMES UP TO ME AND SAYS, OH MY GOSH, YOU'RE UNDER INVESTIGATION.

YOU'RE A LIAR. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU.

AND I SAY, WHO TOLD YOU THIS? OH, COMMISSIONER BOLTON JUST TOLD ME.

I JUST FOUND OUT RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHY I'M COMING TO THE TO THE SOURCE.

RIGHT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF MY COMPANY WANTS TO GIVE $1,000, IF I HAVE FIVE ENTITIES AND I WANT TO GIVE

[00:50:04]

THE MAYOR $1,000 FROM EACH ENTITY, THAT THAT IS OKAY.

THAT IS LEGAL.

SPEAKERS] RIGHT. BUT SOME PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION BELIEVE THAT THAT'S PAC MONEY.

THAT'S NOT PAC MONEY.

$150,000 $30,000 $15,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $20,000.

THAT'S PAC MONEY.

THAT'S NOT ENTITY MONEY.

AND THAT'S A PROBLEM.

SO I JUST WANT THAT FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE JUST THE MISINFORMATION THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS SPREADING THROUGH MY THROUGH MY COMMUNITY. FORTUNATELY, THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT THINK THEY'RE OLDER THAN THAN ALL OF US IN HERE.

THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

THEY READ RIGHT THROUGH IT.

SO, AGAIN, TO SEND OUT 60-100,000 EMAILS, IT COST A LOT OF MONEY PER MONTH.

AND WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? THESE PACS.

I'LL YIELD FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. SO I TAKE IT YOUR COMMENTS WERE TO LIMIT MONIES GIVEN FROM VENDORS TO $1,000 ONLY TO PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION.

NO PAC MONEY BEING GIVEN AT ALL.

AND SUPPORT OF CENSURE AND NO VOTES IF VIOLATING ANY ETHICS RULES IS WHAT I HEARD A LOT, BUT I'M NARROWING DOWN.

OKAY, I JUST MAYOR I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAWS.

WITH RESPECT TO VENDORS MAKING POLITICAL DONATIONS, I INDICATED CLEARLY IN THE PAST COMMISSION THAT THAT IS PERMITTED CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, WHICH I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY.

HE'S OUT OF TOWN.

I WILL BRING HIM TO A FUTURE WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS PLUSES AND MINUSES OF RESTRICTING DONATION FROM VENDORS.

I BELIEVE WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPERS, LOBBYISTS I THINK COMMISSIONER WRIGHT IS VERY FAMILIAR.

HE STATED WITH THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE THESE DONATION LIMITATION OR STATE LAW THEY'RE CONTROLLED BY THE LEGISLATOR WITH RESPECT TO THE LIMITS.

SO WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORITY OF CITY VENDORS GENERALLY WE CAN HAVE SOME RESTRICTION.

BUT WHEN IT'S SOMEONE WHO HAS NO RELATIONSHIP, NO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY IF THEY WANT TO GIVE TO A PAC, THEY WANT TO GIVE TO A CANDIDATE.

I DON'T BELIEVE ANY LAW RESTRICTS THEM IF THEY HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY.

CAN I SAY SOMETHING TO THAT? YEAH.

GO AHEAD. SO SOME MONEY WAS GIVEN THROUGH DIFFERENT ENTITIES TO THIS PAC.

RIGHT. WHEN YOU TRACE IT BACK.

SO IF IT'S TRACEABLE, THEN WE CAN WE CAN BITE.

IN TERMS OF RIGHT NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IF THE CITY ADOPT A CODE PROVISION THAT PROHIBIT VENDORS. CORRECT.

RIGHT. YEAH.

OBVIOUSLY THE VENDOR IS ALSO WILL BE CAUGHT UP IN THIS QUADRANT.

SO LET'S JUST SAY VENDOR A HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO OUR CITY, HAS NO BUSINESS TO OUR CITY, BUT VENDOR A HAS A RELATIONSHIP TO VENDOR B, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A VENDOR OF THE CITY ON THEIR BEHALF.

THEY GAVE MONEY TO THE PAC.

THAT CONNECTION.

CAN WE BITE ON THAT CONNECTION? AGAIN BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE LIKE LAUNDERING MONEY AT THIS POINT.

YEAH. AND THAT'S THAT'S THOSE THOSE I DON'T KNOW IF THE TERM THOSE ISSUES.

AND THAT'S WHY I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY WHO CREATED THE VENDOR POLITICAL DONATION RESTRICTION [INAUDIBLE].

YEAH. IT CAN ENTITIES FIND WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT THE DONATION RESTRICTION.

OBVIOUSLY, FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM, HE SAY YES.

AND NOW WHETHER WE CAN GO AFTER THOSE ENTITIES OR IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY A LOT OF THESE LAWS SOMETIME TO A CERTAIN DEGREE AS AN HONOR SYSTEM THAT THE VENDOR, IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE UPFRONT WITH THE CITY AND THEY WOULDN'T TRY TO CIRCUMVENT A DONATION RESTRICTION.

[00:55:03]

BUT, YOU KNOW MOST WILL COMPLY.

SOME MAY NOT. I CAN'T.

SO THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, FROM FROM A STANDPOINT YOU BRING SOMEBODY IN WHO HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE, WHO COULD GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS ON THE PLUSES AND MINUSES.

YOU KNOW, AND I HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY OF MIAMI BEACH.

YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE VENDORS WHO HAVE CIRCUMVENTED HOW DO YOU PROVE IT? YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH RESOURCE AND TIME THAT YOU TRY TO FIND A CONNECTION.

AND WHAT ABOUT IF THEY LIE ABOUT IT? WHAT ABOUT IF I QUESTION THE VENDOR THAT CAME BEFORE US THAT SAID, OH, THAT'S NOT MY COMPANY.

AND THEN COME TO FIND OUT, IT WAS USED THROUGH A DIFFERENT COMPANY.

THAT WAS HE WAS AN OFFICER OF THAT COMPANY.

YEAH. I MEAN, AGAIN IF, IF, IF THE VENDOR IS NOT TRUTHFUL TO THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, COULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND END DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM.

YOU KNOW, CAN IT CAN A CONTRACT BE RESCINDED BASED ON MISINFORMATION? I CAN TELL YOU, BASED ON MOST OF OUR CONTRACT THE COMMISSION CAN TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE.

OKAY. AND CONVENIENCE MEANS WHATEVER REASON.

OKAY. BEFORE GOING, I THINK THE VICE MAYOR WANTED TO SPEAK.

BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A CASE, WHICH I REALLY GUESS I WANT TO READ MORE.

IT'S UNIFIED.

IT'S THE CASE THAT THE VICE MAYOR HAD MENTIONED SINCE IN UNITED WITH THE SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH CAMPAIGN DONATION AS, AS A TOOL OF FREE SPEECH.

OKAY. I THINK THAT WAS ALSO DEALING WITH PANHANDLING AND STUFF LIKE THAT AS WELL.

IN THAT CASE, WAS THAT? OKAY I MIGHT BE WRONG.

BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT AND STRONGER RULES FROM OTHERS.

AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED IN A MORE DETAILED WORKSHOP ABOUT HOW TO CREATE MORE EFFECTIVE LAWS FROM FOR CAMPAIGN MONEY AND PAC MONEY, WE CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE STRONGER THAN THE STATE IF IT IS THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITY.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY, IT IS A SLIDING SCALE ON WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE POPULATION AND THE VOICE, AND WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, INSTEAD, I HEAR WHAT I PREFER TO HEAR VERSUS FEELING LIKE THERE'S NO HOPE.

WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL.

WE SHOULD SHY AWAY.

IT SHOULD BE LET'S HAVE A WORKSHOP WHERE WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER IN HERE, SOMEBODY FROM MAYBE THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS OR EVEN FROM THE STATE THAT DEALS WITH IT ON LOBBYING AND PAC RULES, AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE COULD DO TO PUT PROPER RULES IN PLACE FOR OUR CITY WHEN IT DEALS WITH VENDORS, WHEN IT DEALS WITH IN GENERALS.

BECAUSE YES, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN GIVE IT TO THEIR UNCLE THIRD TIMES REMOVED AND THROUGH THIS PAC, TO THAT PAC, QUITE HONESTLY, THERE'S ALSO CERTAIN THINGS THAT I'M LEARNING NOW THAT THINGS DIDN'T EVEN COME TO US UNTIL AFTERWARDS FOR A VOTE.

BUT HOW LONG IN TIME WERE THINGS BEING PLANNED? BECAUSE I HEARD YOU SAY CITY ATTORNEY.

WELL, IF THEY HAVEN'T FILED THEIR APPLICATION YET, YOU CAN STILL HAVE ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS.

SOME PLANS TAKE A REALLY LONG TIME.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE THING THAT'S GOING ON 11 YEARS.

PROCUREMENT. YOU HAVE A LITTLE MORE CONTROL OVER THE PROCESS.

THE DEVELOPERS OBVIOUSLY WITH RESPECT TO CAMPAIGN DONATIONS AND CONTRIBUTION THAT'S THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE WITH THESE GUYS.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM WHO'S DOING THE DONATING, RIGHT? I'M LOOKING AT IT FOR THE DONATIONS COMING IN IN GENERAL.

AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE DONATIONS ARE COMING IN AND HOW THE DONATIONS ARE COMING IN WE CAN THEN FIGURE OUT WHICH AVENUE IT IS, DEVELOPER OR VENDOR.

POINT BEING, WE NEED A BIGGER WORKSHOP FOR THAT WITH ALL THE RULES AND EVERYTHING IN PLACE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ PRIOR TO COMING HERE.

TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN IDEA AND BEING GIVEN EXAMPLES OF WHAT COULD LEGALLY BE IMPLEMENTED.

AGAIN YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE, I'M WORKING ON BRINGING THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WITH RESPECT TO VENDOR. I WANT PERSONALLY, AND I'LL ASK FOR THE COMMISSION.

[01:00:03]

IT SHOULD BE THREE. I DON'T WANT JUST ONE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I KNOW THE ATTORNEY FROM CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.

IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE, LET ME KNOW.

NO, NO, YOU'RE HANDLING THIS.

YOU'RE OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

BRING US THREE ATTORNEYS THAT DEAL WITH PACS AND LOBBYING AND RULES FOR CITY GOVERNMENT.

AND LET'S GET THIS OUT ON THE TABLE AND GET IT DEALT WITH AND RESPECTFULLY.

NOT WAITING ANOTHER SEVEN MONTHS.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

LET'S BE REALISTIC. NOTHING'S GOING IN PLACE FOR THIS CURRENT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PAC THAT WOULD JUST DISCUSS THAT MAYBE COMMISSION OR AND I CLEARLY INDICATED THAT I'M WORKING ON IT.

I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE MANAGER WANTED TO WANTED TO BRING DISCUSSION HERE TODAY, BUT THE SPEAKER HAD A CONFLICT.

BUT WITH RESPECT TO DONATIONS WE'LL LOOK IF THERE'S ANYBODY WITH THE ELECTION COMMISSION OR, YOU KNOW, OIG, I MEAN, THEY THEY DEAL WITH A LOT OF ISSUES AND LET'S SEE IF THEY HAVE SOMEBODY.

EXCELLENT. SEPTEMBER 9TH.

SOUNDS LIKE OUR NEXT WORKSHOP WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANYWAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A WORKSHOP IN AUGUST.

LET'S GET SOMETHING SOLID ON THE TABLE OF WHEN WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, AND OBVIOUSLY IF NOTHING GOES INTO EFFECT UNTIL WE THEN HAVE THE WORKSHOP.

WE THEN HAVE THE ORDINANCE WRITTEN, THEN HAVE THE TWO READINGS AND ALL THAT KIND OF GOOD STUFF.

I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, SO REALISTICALLY, FOR ANYBODY WHO'S LISTENING, THIS ISN'T GOING INTO EFFECT, OBVIOUSLY, FOR ANYBODY WHO'S RUNNING AN ELECTION RIGHT NOW, HOWEVER, WE COULD FIX SOME OF OUR RULES NOW.

IT WOULD BE NICE THAT WE FOLLOW OUR RULES CURRENTLY THAT SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO AVOID CREATING CONDUCT, CREATING APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY OR OTHERWISE UNBEFITTING A PUBLIC OFFICER, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS OR PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICER, BEHAVING IN A RANCOROUS OR CONTENTIOUS MANNER.

THAT'S 12. THAT'S ONLY PART OF 12 AND FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS IS 13, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CLAIM CONTAINS ONE OR MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, OR THOSE MADE WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD AS TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINT OR CLAIM CONTAINS FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF MATERIAL FACT, IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS.

WE'RE ALREADY STOMPING ALL OVER IT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? WE'RE STOMPING ALL OVER IT AND NOTHING'S BEING DONE.

SO, CITY MANAGER, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE GO TO THE VICE MAYOR? THEN HE'S NEXT. AND THEN WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER DAN.

IF I MAY FURTHER COMPLICATE THE THE CONVERSATION.

YOU KNOW, THE THE IDEA OF OR THE IDEAL POSITION THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO REMEDY ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING HERE IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT IS A VERY DIFFICULT PLACE TO GET TO BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND A LOT OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE DESCRIBING HERE ARE ALREADY GOVERNED BY EXISTING STATUTES AND, YOU KNOW, LOCAL, STATE, FEDERAL STATUTES. AND SO ANY VIOLATION OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS PROVEN VIOLATIONS OF THOSE KINDS OF ACCUSATIONS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALREADY GOVERNED BY EXISTING LAWS.

SO GOING BACK TO YOUR, YOUR YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THE THE, THE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE THE CITY'S EXISTING CODE OF ETHICS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO TO PURSUE THAT AS IS TODAY AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEN, YOU KNOW MEET WITH THE ATTORNEYS, MEET WITH THE OTHERS, MEET WITH OTHER EXPERTS, AND SEE HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THE ENFORCEMENT PART OF IT AT A LATER DATE. [INAUDIBLE] I JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU AND THE COMMISSIONER FIND PEOPLE.

I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW YOU OVER THE PAST ALMOST TWO YEARS, AND I THINK WE WE MAKE A LOT OF THIS PERSONAL COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

AND WE GOTTA, WE GOTTA GET RID OF OUR PERSONAL FEELINGS SOMETIMES.

I CAN RECALL DURING AN ELECTION YOU WROTE A POST ATTACKING DR.

DANIELS AND MYSELF SAYING THAT WERE UNEDUCATED.

WHILE DR.

DANIELS HAS ACHIEVED THE PINNACLE OF EDUCATION, WHICH IS A PHD, AND I HAVE NOT ONE BUT TWO MASTER'S DEGREE FROM SOME OF THE FINEST SCHOOLS IN THIS COUNTRY AND NEVER TOOK IT PERSONAL BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF POLITICS.

IT'S A CONTACT SPORT, AND I THINK SOMETIMES A LOT OF THIS STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING IS POLITICAL.

AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE CONTACT SPORT OF POLITICS.

BUT I DIDN'T JUDGE YOU BASED ON THAT.

I GOT TO KNOW YOU AS A PERSON, AND I THINK YOU'RE A FINE INDIVIDUAL.

YOU'RE A GOOD FATHER. I'VE SEEN WHAT YOUR DAUGHTERS AND YOU DEFINITELY CARE ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY.

SAME THING WITH COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YOU KNOW, HE I THINK HE'S A HE'S A GOOD PERSON, YOU KNOW EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE MIGHT ATTACK HIM AND SAY STUFF ABOUT HIM.

YEAH, PERHAPS HE'S A LITTLE EGOTISTICAL, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL TELL HIM THAT TO HIS FACE, BUT, YOU KNOW BUT I THINK ALL IN ALL, I THINK HE'S A GOOD PERSON.

[01:05:09]

DR. DANIELS. I THINK SHE'S A GOOD PERSON AS WELL.

SHE DEFINITELY WANTS TO THE COMMUNITY LOOKING BETTER.

SHE WANTS TO SEE TAMARAC LOOKING A LOT BETTER.

AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY SHE, SHE, SHE DOES STUFF POLITICALLY.

GOING BACK TO ATTACKING US AND LOOPING US AND SAYING, COMMISSIONER BOLTON PROMISES THREE VOTES AND ALL THAT STUFF.

THAT'S KIND OF LIKE SLANDERING OUR NAMES, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE BIGGEST DEALS THAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR, WOODLANDS DR.

DANIELS VOTED WITH YOU AND THE MAYOR.

SO, I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH ALLEGEDLY SHE WAS ATTACKED BY THE COMPANY DURING THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, SHE STILL VOTED FOR IT BECAUSE SHE WANTS THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK BETTER.

LOOK AT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUE.

I VOTED FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THE BEST COMPANY.

SO I THINK TRYING TO LOOP US IN IN TIRES AND PAINT, ALL OF US, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.

IT MAKES ALL OF US LOOK BAD.

AND I THINK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU DEFINITELY CARES ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WANT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LOOP US IN AND PAINT US IN THAT, THAT THAT MANNER MAKES THE WHOLE CITY LOO BAD.

MAKES ALL OF US LOOK BAD.

AND I THINK WE GOT TO MOVE PAST THIS.

WE GOT TO MOVE PAST THE ALLEGATIONS.

YOU SITTING HERE SHOUTING, WE GOT TO MOVE PAST THE ALLEGATION OF COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I DON'T KNOW WHO TAMARAC POST IS OWNED BY, BUT YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO GET PAST ALL OF THIS STUFF BECAUSE IT'S NOT HEALTHY.

IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THE CITY.

IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THE STAFF.

WE HAVE ABOUT $4 MILLION WORTH OF STAFF SITTING RIGHT HERE, YOU KNOW, AND THIS THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME ON.

WHO'S DOING THIS, WHO'S SENDING EMAILS, WHO'S DOING.

THOSE ARE PETTY STUFF.

WE NEED TO GO OUT AND FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE'S WORK.

HOW CAN WE MOVE THIS COMMUNITY FORWARD? HOW CAN WE MAKE IT BETTER? HOW CAN WE IMPROVE PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE? HOW CAN WE BRING DOWN THE COST OF LIVING? THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSUMED WITH, NOT WHO'S ATTACKING EACH OTHER BACK AND FORTH.

IT IS NOT NEEDED.

YOU KNOW, BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN, BOTH OF YOU ARE FATHERS.

BOTH OF YOU ARE HAVE WIVES, YOU KNOW.

AND YOU'VE GOT TO MOVE PAST THIS, GET PAST THESE PERSONAL THINGS.

IT'S PERSONAL STUFF.

IT'S NOT MARLON BOLTON AGAINST ELVIN VILLALOBOS OR MARLON AGAINST MICHELLE, YOU KNOW.

WE'RE HERE TO DO THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE.

AND IF WE KEEP GETTING CONSUMED IN THESE PERSONAL ATTACKS, IT'S GOING TO STIFLE US.

IT'S GOING TO MAKE US LOOK BAD, AND IT'S GOING TO TIE US INTO A BIG, YOU KNOW, A BAD LIGHT.

WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED, ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS EMAILED ME, CONGRATULATIONS, MOREY.

GO UP THERE AND DEAL WITH THAT CORRUPTION.

I REMEMBER THAT, AND I LOOKED AT THAT MESSAGE ALL THE TIME.

EVERY DECISION I'VE EVER MADE HERE WAS BASED ON FACTS, WAS BASED ON WHAT I THINK WAS RIGHT, AND WHAT I THINK WAS IN THE BASE OF THE BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS.

NO ONE HAS NEVER INFLUENCED ME, NEVER SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION.

SO TO MAKE FALSE ALLEGATION ENTICING TO THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, IT'S UNWANTED.

IT'S NOT NEEDED.

TRUST ME, I'M VERY MUCH AWARE.

SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO GET PAST THIS STUFF.

AND I THINK ALL OF US, ALL OF US DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THIS COMMUNITY, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US.

SO TRYING TO CREATE THESE THINGS AND CREATE THESE ILLUSIONS THAT WE'RE CORRUPT OR WE'RE THIS OR THAT, TRYING TO PAINT TAMARAC IN THAT LIGHT, IT HURTS ALL OF US.

IT HURTS ALL OF US.

SO I THINK ALL OF US, AS HAS DONE THE BEST THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE SO FAR.

DR. DANIELS AND I YOU YES, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ROOKIE MISTAKES AND THINGS THAT WE LEARNED IN TERMS OF PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

BUT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE UNWARRANTED.

THE ATTACKS, THE BLOGS, THOUGH, THAT THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

WHEN YOU GOOGLE TAMARAC, YOU'RE GOING TO READ THAT STUFF.

SOMEONE WANTS TO COME HERE AND BUY A HOUSE, THEY'RE GOING TO READ ALL THESE PETTY THINGS THAT'S GOING BACK AND FORTH.

YOU KNOW WHAT? WE LOSE ANOTHER PERSON WHO CAN BUY A HOUSE.

THAT'S TAX REVENUES FOR THE CITY.

THAT'S ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER.

SO WE DON'T SEE THE IMPACT OF THESE THINGS.

WE THINK IT'S ELVIN VERSUS MARLON OR THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

IT IS NOT NEEDED.

WE JUST NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND I THINK THIS ETHICS STUFF, YEAH, WE CAN PUT THESE IN PLACE.

AND AS A CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONS, WE CAN DO ALL THIS STUFF.

BUT IT STARTS WITH US.

IT STARTS WITH US. IT STARTS WITH US KNOWING THAT, HEY, WE DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

AND IF WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT SO WE CAN PUT ALL THIS STUFF IN PLACE.

BUT IT STARTS WITH OUR INTEGRITY.

IT STARTS WITH OUR MORAL COMPASS, AND IT STARTS WITH LITTLE THINGS LIKE THIS.

IF YOU CAN'T RUN FOR OFFICE AND TAKE POLITICAL ATTACKS, YOU KNOW THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.

DEMOCRACY IS A MESSY SPORT.

THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

SOMEONE CAME UP TO ME AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I VOTED FOR YOU BECAUSE DURING THAT WHOLE POLITICAL SEASON, YOU NEVER GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE FRAY.

YOU NEVER GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE FIGHTING.

EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE WERE ATTACKING YOU, YOU STAYED ABOVE IT.

AND I VOTED FOR YOU BECAUSE I SAW THAT AS A FALSE LITMUS TEST OF LEADERSHIP.

THAT'S WHAT A RESIDENT SAID TO ME.

SO IF YOU WANT TO WIN YOUR REELECTION, I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE ADVICE.

STAY ABOVE THE FRAY.

YOU KNOW, DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN THAT STUFF.

IF YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB AND YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND FORTH.

SAME THING I'LL SAY TO COMMISSIONER BOLTON, THOSE PEOPLE LOVE YOU IN DISTRICT ONE.

YOU'RE A CHAMPION OF PEOPLE.

SO YOU GUYS GOT TO MOVE PAST THIS AND NOT KEEP WASTING OUR TIME ON THESE THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, PERSONAL.

[01:10:10]

COMMISSIONER DANIEL. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I WAS WELL SAID. I COULDN'T SAY IT ANY BETTER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M SITTING HERE FEELING LIKE.

WHY ARE WE DEALING WITH PERSONAL ISSUES? REGARDING THE CODE.

THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR WORKING ON THAT.

EVEN IF IT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS, I THINK IT'S WELL DONE.

AT LEAST NOW WE KNOW WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AND WHAT THE STATE IS DOING.

WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID.

I AM FINE WITH THE CHANGES IF THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIES ARE DOING WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID.

AS FAR AS THE PACS AND STUFF, I'VE READ MORE ABOUT PACS THAN I EVER WANTED TO KNOW.

I THINK I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO'S NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PAC.

AND NO, I THINK I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE DURING THE ELECTION TIME I KNOW IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A PAC, AND I'VE BEEN ATTACKED BY PACS FROM PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WANT ME TO WIN ON THIS COMMISSION.

AND I WILL SAY THIS, IT'S JUST PART OF GOVERNMENT IS WHAT I'M LEARNING.

IT'S PART OF POLITICS.

IT'S LEGAL.

AND FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT INVOLVED AND WHO WAS ATTACKED TREMENDOUSLY BY PACS WHO PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION HAVE GIVEN, IT IS WHAT IT IS THE BEST PERSON STILL WON, I WON RIGHT? SO JUST DO THE JOB, DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY AND LET'S MOVE ON.

AND ETHICS IS A MORAL THING.

IT'S A PERSONAL THING. YOU CAN PUT ALL.

IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE CRIMINALS.

IF THE LAW STOPPED CRIMINALS FROM COMMITTING CRIMES, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THEM.

SO IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IT'S GOOD FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

IT'S GOOD FOR EVERY CITY.

I AM FINE WITH THE CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED AND READ.

I READ THROUGH IT.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK THEY NEED TO BE ANYMORE.

AND FOR 13 FLOOR, WHICHEVER DEVELOPER GIVEN TO CITY AND THE COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. I AM GLAD FOR THAT CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK ANY MONEY THAT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN, IT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC, TO THE RESIDENTS OF TAMARAC, TWO ORGANIZATIONS THAT IMPACT POSITIVELY THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S MY WHOLE REASON FOR BEING HERE.

LIKE THE VICE MAYOR SAID, ANYTHING THAT MAKES OUR RESIDENTS LIVES BETTER, EVEN THOUGH THAT COMMUNITY WAS JUST IN WOODLAND.

I LIKE TO SEE THE BENEFITS OF IT IMPACT ALL OF US.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT WAS AWESOME.

I THINK THAT WAS AMAZING.

EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT SPEARHEAD IT, I DON'T I APPRECIATE WHOEVER ORGANIZED IT.

I THINK THAT WAS GOOD AND WE SHOULD KEEP THAT UP.

WE SHOULD KEEP THEM GIVING MONEY TO THE ARTWORK.

WE SHOULD KEEP THAT UP.

WE SHOULD KEEP GIVING BEAUTIFICATION.

YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS GET TO GIVE TO BEAUTIFICATION.

I THINK THAT'S ONE PLUS.

AND PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE IT.

THANK YOU. SO FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS ASKING FOR WAS THE PROCEDURES NOT TO REMOVE IT, TO HAVE IT OPENLY DISCUSSED AS A COMMISSION.

SO WE CAN ALL HAVE A SAY ON IT AS A COMMISSION.

THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS IN THE LIGHT FOR A NUMBER FOR THE CONTACT LOGS FOR ON SECTION 2-4112, AND THEN FOR HOW TO HANDLE IT PROPERLY IN THE CITY IN FLIPPING BACK AND FORTH.

I'M LOOKING AT IT STRAIGHT HERE.

OH SORRY IT IS, IT'S ON PAGE SEVEN.

A LITTLE BEFORE DASH 2-405.

HOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS? NO ONE'S SAYING THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE MONEY GIVEN, BUT IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED.

IT SHOULDN'T BE JUST ONE OR THE OTHER.

THERE'S A WHOLE COMMISSION HERE THAT HAVE GOOD IDEAS.

THERE SHOULDN'T BE ONE PERSON'S IDEAS THAT ARE INCORPORATED, NOT OTHERS WHEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD.

SO AGAIN, I ASK HOW? WE'RE GOING TO PUT THINGS IN PLACE, PROCEDURES IN PLACE, HOW? WHAT ARE OUR STEPS TO DO THIS? I THINK SOMETIMES WE GET UP HERE, WE DON'T ALWAYS WE HEAR WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR, WE HEAR SOME OF THE THINGS, AND THEN ALSO WE INTERNALIZE IT AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY ALL THINGS ARE MEANT TO BE.

RIGHT. AND SOMETIMES THEY ARE PERSONAL, BUT BELIEVE A COMMENT WAS MADE OF WHAT WAS ALLUDED TO WITH SOMEBODY RECEIVING MONEY, NOT SAYING IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE.

AND I'LL JUST PUT IT OUT THERE WHAT I HEARD COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS SAY FOR RECEIPT OF THE MONEY.

THE CLAIM WAS FROM THE PERSON RECEIVING THE MONEY THAT THERE WERE TWO IN THEIR POCKET.

[01:15:03]

NOT SAYING THAT YOU ACTUALLY WERE IN THE POCKET.

ALL RIGHT. THE ATTACKS CONTINUE SOMETIMES REGARDING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE, JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE THEY ARE TRUE, THEY WERE GOING TO BELIEVE THEY'RE TRUE.

THAT'S THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS.

THEY WILL BELIEVE IT. BUT I WILL SAY AGAIN, ON THE RECORD, I'VE NOT HAD A PAC.

I DON'T HAVE A PAC.

AND BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO BE PAINTED WITH THAT BRUSH BECAUSE, AS HAS BEEN SAID, CONTACT SPORT, WHICH POLITICS SHOULDN'T REALLY BE A CONTACT SPORT.

POLITICS SHOULD THE ONLY CONTACT IT SHOULD BE.

HI. NICE TO MEET YOU.

MY NAME IS AND I REPRESENT YOU.

HOW CAN I HELP YOU? THAT'S THE BEST CONTACT, I THINK.

SOME OF THE THINGS ARE BEING CLAIMED BEING PETTY.

THEY'RE NOT PETTY WHEN A PERSON'S REPUTATION OR PEOPLE'S REPUTATIONS ARE ATTEMPTED TO BE RUINED, SO THEY CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO THEIR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY LIES, INNUENDOS, FALSE ACCUSATIONS FROM ANY OF US WE'RE ALL RECEIVING, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE AND WE CAN SAY ALL WE WANT THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN AND WE SHOULD HAVE OUR OWN MORAL COMPASS.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST CONVERSATION.

AND FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO'VE COME TO US AT COMMISSION MEETINGS AND SAID, IN A NICE WAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE THERAPY SESSIONS ON THIS.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE HAD 3 OR 4 SETS OF PROFESSIONAL THERAPISTS COME IN AND DO VARIOUS TRAINING WITH US.

OBVIOUSLY IT HASN'T WORKED AND ONLY SOME OF IT RECENTLY WITH THE NEWEST COMMISSION.

I THINK WE HAD 2 OR 3 WITH THE PRIOR COMMISSION, WITH THIS COMMISSION, ONLY 1.

BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE MORE THAN 1, RIGHT? SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM AND THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST FOR HARDER RULES OR STRONGER RULES OR ENFORCED RULES THAT CAN BE ENFORCED BECAUSE WE HAVE LIVED TOGETHER FOR TWO YEARS AND THE RULES HAVE NOT SEEMED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

AND AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVERYONE ON THIS COMMISSION IS VIOLATING THIS RULES.

AGAIN, I AM TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF OUR RULES AND NOT BE POINTED AT WHO OR WHOM THEY MAY GO TO.

RIGHT. SO BRINGING IT BACK TO WE'VE AIRED OUR CONCERNS.

WE'VE AIRED OUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.

CITY ATTORNEY IS GOING TO HOPEFULLY DO EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO HAVE A LOBBY.

LOBBYING AND DONATION CAMPAIGN DONATIONS WHEN IT DEALS WITH WHETHER IT'S VENDOR OR APPLICANT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 8TH.

I SEE YOU JUST TURNED OVER COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS IN A SECOND AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THESE RULES HERE.

IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS ON THESE RULES HERE.

IT'S. I HAVE THE NOT CONTINGENT.

I WOULD LIKE ADD IT ON THE HOW DISCUSS ALL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC OR APPLICANTS REQUESTS IN THE PUBLIC LIGHT.

RIGHT. AND THEN ADDING THE STRONGER WE MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS TO YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT WE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY REQUIRED.

IT'S ALREADY PUBLIC.

YEAH. AND IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

THAT LANGUAGE WAS MEANT JUST TO CODIFY WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY DOING.

SO THIS IS WHEN EITHER A BID AWARD HAS COME BEFORE YOU FOR DISCUSSION AS YOU ALREADY AS YOU DO, WHICH YOU MOST RECENTLY DID WHEN YOU KNOW WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT WHEN WE NEGOTIATED THERE AND DID SOME REDUCTION IN TERMS OF THE PRICE IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

SO THAT LANGUAGE WAS MEANT JUST TO CODIFY WHAT WE ALREADY DO.

SO WHEN THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE YOU, WHEN THE AWARD IS BEFORE YOU AND THE DISCUSSION ON THAT IS OCCURRING, THE INTENT IS FOR ANY ASK OR NEGOTIATIONS TO HAPPEN AT THAT TIME.

OKAY. SO THEN THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE UNDERSTANDING AND THE THING THAT WAS MENTIONED IN DECEMBER, WHICH IS WE ALL MEET WITH THE APPLICANT.

WE ALL HAVE AN ASK OF THE APPLICANT.

LET'S PUT IT ON THE TABLE AND SEE IF THREE OF US OR MORE AGREE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING THE APPLICANT TO DO.

GOING TO THE APPLICANT IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER, THAT THERE IS CONSENSUS THAT ALL OF US ACTUALLY, OR THREE OF US, WANT WHAT'S BEING ASKED VERSUS ONLY ONE GETTING WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR BECAUSE MAYBE ONE OF THE OTHER COLLEAGUES HAS A REALLY GOOD IDEA THAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR, BUT THE APPLICANT MAY NOT DO IT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MAY FEEL THAT MAYBE IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE OTHERS.

AND LO AND BEHOLD, WE'LL HAVE A WORKSHOP MEETING AND GUESS WHAT? WE MIGHT AGREE ON IT AND THE APPLICANT WILL ACTUALLY DO IT, OR VICE VERSA.

[01:20:04]

WE HAVE AN IDEA THAT WE THINK IS NOT GOOD, AND WE ALL DISCUSS IT AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? THREE OUT OF FIVE OF US REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

THAT WAS WHAT THAT LINE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.

DISCUSS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC, NOT A DISCLAIMER.

NOT SAYING I SPOKE WITH SOMEBODY THAT WAS NOT IT AT ALL.

SO DEFINITELY NOT A MEETING OF THE MINDS ON THIS ONE AS IT COMES TO ME.

THAT WAS WHAT I THOUGHT WE UNDERSTOOD WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, TO BRING IT BACK FORTH BEFOREHAND.

AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR MY COMMENTS IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS AS SAYING, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT BEFORE IT GETS TOO FAR DOWN THE LINE AND HAVING IT JUST SHOW UP AT A COMMISSION MEETING OR THE WORKSHOP THE MONDAY BEFORE? IT'S COMING FOR A VOTE ON WEDNESDAY.

SO COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL VICE MAYOR, YOU'RE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

I DID NOT INTEND TO PAINT EVERYBODY IN THE SAME BRUSH.

I NOT ONE VENDOR, BUT THREE VENDORS HAVE TOLD ME THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS PROMISED THEM THREE VOTES.

AND THAT'S. I'M NOT SAYING YOU, ME OR WHOEVER.

BUT HE WAS PLAYING THE VOTING THE NUMBER GAME.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M IN FAVOR OF 13TH FLOOR AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON KNEW THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES THEY'VE MADE, WHICH WERE DRAMATIC CHANGES HE WILL COUNT ME IN AS A VOTE.

SO NOT JUST YOU, BUT ALSO WITH ME.

BASED ON MY COMMENTS, BASED ON HOW WE'RE REACTING TO THE APPLICANT'S INFORMATION AND THE BACK AND FORTH OF SHARING INFORMATION.

THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY PERSONAL ISSUES ON THAT.

I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE ALL DO TAKE CARE OF OF THE CITY ISSUES.

THIS IS A PART OF THE CITY ISSUE.

WE'RE A BIG, HUGE FAMILY.

AND WITH THAT FAMILY, THERE'S ISSUES.

AND WE'RE WE'RE SITTING HERE IN A SESSION.

NOT I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S WASTING TIME.

I BELIEVE IT'S CONSTRUCTIVE BECAUSE ONE, WE HAVEN'T EVEN SCREAMED AT EACH OTHER, WHICH IS GREAT.

THE MAYOR HASN'T CALLED IN FOR A RECESS.

THAT'S HUGE.

PERHAPS JUST BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE QUIET.

BUT YOU KNOW THIS, THIS NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS, EVEN BEFORE I WAS IN THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD FOR FOR YEARS THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THAT PROCESS.

AND AS MY LAST COMMENT IS JUST TO CORRECT, COMMISSIONER DANIEL ABOUT NOT BEING INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE PACS.

I BELIEVE YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THREE PACS BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON WITH A TOTAL OF NEARLY 10 TO 12 MAILERS.

PAID BY FOR BY THREE PAC THAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON WAS RUNNING.

WHETHER YOU KNEW THAT OR NOT.

IT'S INDIFFERENT, BUT I JUST WANT THAT FOR THE RECORD.

IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT, NOW YOU KNOW.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU MAYOR.

OKAY, SO THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IS ON FIRST READING FOR WEDNESDAY.

IT IS.

I'VE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER DANIELS THAT SHE SUPPORTS IT AS IS.

YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ADDITIONS TO THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY LAUDERHILL? LIKE I SAID, I'M FINE WITH WHAT YOU SUGGESTED, WHAT THE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, WHAT THE STATE IS DOING.

I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WHERE IN THE NEWSPAPER WHERE THE GOVERNOR COMES IN AND REMOVE COMMISSIONERS FROM THIS CITY.

SO I'M SURE IF YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW, THERE IS A PLACE THERE ARE THINGS IN PLACE TO PUNISH YOU FOR BREAKING THE LAW.

IT'S SIMPLE. BREAK THE LAW, YOU MIGHT GET CAUGHT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM FOLLOWING THIS PEOPLE AREN'T TRUTHFUL.

I CAN'T STOP YOU FROM NOT BEING TRUTHFUL.

I SEE IT ALL THE TIME. I SEE IT IN THIS MEETING.

AGAIN, I'M NOT INVOLVED WITH THE PAC, BUT IF A PAC WANTS TO HELP ME WIN THE ELECTION, PLEASE DO.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

SO THANK YOU.

AND I'M SURE YOU'RE FINE WITH THAT, TOO.

THANK YOU. EXACTLY.

I'M GOOD.

[01:25:06]

I'M NOT SAYING I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK YOU ABOUT 23B BECAUSE I.

STILL DON'T FEEL THAT THIS COVERS WHAT THE BIGGEST, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT HAS BEEN HAD, WHICH IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WHAT'S GOING ON FOR A COMPLETE PICTURE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY AND PROPERLY.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS FOR THIS ASK.

SO WILL IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO AMEND THE WORDING? OBVIOUSLY, IF I HAVE CONSENSUS BY THIS COMMISSION FOR THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF WHAT WAS ASKED FOR, SO WE COULD BE DETERMINING AND DISCUSSING WHAT IS BEING ASKED FOR APPLICATIONS BY TWO APPLICANTS AND DETERMINED AS A COMMISSION WHETHER THESE ITEMS ARE ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE MOVING FORWARD VERSUS LAST MINUTE SURPRISES AT THE END OF WHEN AN APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO US. SO, MAYOR, CAN WE ADDRESS THAT IN JUST BY POLICY AS IT IS NOW, ALL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS WORKSHOPPED BY THIS BODY.

SO WE BRING THOSE TO THIS BODY AS A WORKSHOP WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT THAT TIME, THEN ADDITIONAL ASK OR DISCUSSIONS RELATIVE TO OBLIGATIONS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE CAN BE DONE DURING THAT WORKSHOP MEETING.

WE CURRENTLY DO THAT.

IS THAT DONE IN SUFFICIENT TIME FOR WHEN AN APPLICANT IS DOING THEIR APPLICATIONS AND PLANS AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, OR IS IT TOO FAR INTO THE PROCESS? BECAUSE I ALSO WE NEED TO NEVER HAVE WHAT HAPPENED TO ANOTHER ONE OF OUR PROPERTIES THAT WE WILL EVENTUALLY DISCUSS, WHERE THERE WAS AN ASK FOR OVER $500,000 IN DONATION MONEY TO BE DISCUSSED AFTER THE CONTRACT TO WHICH IS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN A MAJOR REASON WHY THAT CONTRACT ULTIMATELY WOUND UP FAILING.

SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO, IS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING A SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT? THAT'S WHEN THE CONTRACT IS NEGOTIATED ALREADY BY STAFF.

IT HAS ALL THE PROFFERS OR THE OBLIGATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN IT'S BROUGHT TO YOU.

THAT IS SUFFICIENT BECAUSE THOSE CHANGES THEN CAN BE MADE BEFORE IT'S HEARD AGAIN AT A CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

OKAY. AND IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE YOU, EVEN AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR FROM ASKING FOR ANYTHING ELSE AT THAT TIME.

WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD BE MODIFYING THAT TOO.

MODIFYING ASKS AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT ARE POTENTIALLY NOT REALLY RELATIVE TO AN ITEM.

IT DEPENDS SOME OF THEM ARE IMPORTANT AND SOME OF THEM MAY NOT BE.

AND REMEMBER ALL THOSE ACTS IT'S SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPER AGREEING TO PROVIDING THAT.

YES, BUT LET'S BE REALISTIC.

WE'VE ALL SAT THERE AND WATCHED AS A DEVELOPER STANDING THERE BEING ASKED SOMETHING AT THE LAST MINUTE FOR A VOTE AND COUNTING.

OH MY GOD, IF I DO, I HAVE THREE.

DO I HAVE THREE? IF I HAVE TO, DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IS IT GOING TO PUT ME IN JEOPARDY? AND NOT ALL OF THEM ARE ABLE TO BE STRONG AS ONE COMPANY DEFINITELY WAS WHEN IT SAID NO AND THE VOTES STILL WENT THROUGH, RIGHT. DEVELOPERS COME HERE, PEOPLE AND APPLICANTS COME HERE AND THEY SPEND A BOATLOAD OF MONEY, A BOATLOAD OF TIME.

WE HAD AMENDED ALL OF OUR RULES IN OUR CITY TO MAKE OUR PROCESS QUICKER AND SMOOTHER.

AND YET, MOST OF OUR APPLICATIONS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN TAKING A LONG TIME.

SO I'M JUST ASKING, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IT WILL BE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO WORK IT OUT TO ULTIMATELY, HOPEFULLY NOT HAVE SURPRISES IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT APPLICANT? YEAH, HAVING THAT DISCUSSION IN THE WORKSHOP IS SUFFICIENT TIME AND WE CAN TRY TO BRING IT ONE WORKSHOP BEFORE THE ITEM IS SCHEDULED FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING.

JUST BY HAVING IT AT THE WORKSHOP IS SUFFICIENT TIME.

OKAY. DOES THAT NEED TO BE AMENDED IN HERE OR IS THAT IN YOUR PROCEDURES? YOUR PROCEDURES.

YEAH. SO THEN SEPARATELY I NEED TO HAVE CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THAT.

OR IS THAT YOUR PROCEDURES.

THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY THAT YOU CAN DO.

IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE.

WE CAN DO THAT OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

VICE MAYOR QUICK QUESTION.

[01:30:01]

I CAN AGREE WITH DR. DANIELS AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT LAW ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WILL BE IN PLACE IF ANYONE IS DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

I THINK THAT THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF.

MAYBE THIS IS A DUMB QUESTION, BUT GOING BACK TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION ABOUT DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTING, I THINK THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE MAKING A TON OF MONEY.

FOR EXAMPLE A 13 FLOOR IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE $2 TO $300 MILLION.

IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN CODIFY SOMETHING THAT SAY, OKAY, YOU HAVE TO GIVE A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR PRODUCT TOWARDS COMMUNITY BENEFIT? SO THAT TAKES AWAY ALL THE BACK AND FORTH OR THE NEGOTIATIONS.

LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW A COMPANY IN CALIFORNIA CALLED SALESFORCE.COM.

THEY GIVE 3% OF THEIR REVENUE EVERY YEAR TOWARDS CHARITY.

THAT'S THAT'S LIKE PART OF THEIR CORPORATE YOU KNOW, CORPORATE GOAL OF GOOD CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.

BUT I WAS THINKING GOING BACK TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION AND KIND OF GOING ON WHAT DR.

DANIEL SAID, LIKE WE DO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE $200 MILLION OUT OF A COMMUNITY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE YOU SHOULD GIVE SOMETHING.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO THE MAYOR AND TRYING TO ELIMINATE, YOU KNOW, HAVING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NEGOTIATING WHATEVER, CAN WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE CODE THAT SAY YOU GIVE A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR PRODUCT PROJECTS, FOR INSTANCE? HOW DOES THAT WORK? IS THAT POSSIBLE? CITY ATTORNEY GO AHEAD.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE LABELED AS IMPOSING A EXACTION ON A DEVELOPER BECAUSE ALL PROFFERS HAVE TO BE VOLUNTARY.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF CONTRACT ZONING.

THAT IS A QUID PRO QUO IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL.

BUT NEVERTHELESS, THERE'S SOME MUNICIPALITIES HAVE COMMUNITY BENEFIT ORDINANCE THAT ARE ADOPTED, WHICH PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR VENDORS DEVELOPERS TO DONATE SOME OF MONEY TO THE CITY TO USE FOR, YOU KNOW, PARKS, EDUCATION.

BUT THERE'S LEGISLATION THAT WE CAN IN LINE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER DANIELS AND VICE MAYOR.

YOU WERE SAYING THAT BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE SEEN THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

ORDINANCE. I THINK YOU'VE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH IT MISS CALLOWAY, WHERE VENDORS AND DEVELOPERS, AS PART OF DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, SHOWING THAT THEY'RE GOOD CORPORATE, BUT IT HAS TO BE VOLUNTARY.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T JUST, HEY, HAMMER ACROSS THE HEAD.

OKAY. RIGHT.

I KNOW COMMISSIONER DANIELS IS GOING TO GO NEXT, OKAY NEXT.

BUT THE CITY MANAGER AND MISS MAXINE WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.

YEAH. AND FOLLOW UP WITH ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES WE ALREADY LEGISLATE.

MAYOR, THE PART THAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT LOOK AT THESE YOU KNOW PARTNERSHIPS OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY FROM, FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE, THESE ARE LONG TERM IMPACTS ON THE CITY AND ON THE COMMUNITY. SO THESE PROJECTS, THEY BUILD VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY.

THEY, THEY PRODUCE INCOME FOR, FOR TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE CITY THAT, THAT OR TAX INCOME TO THE CITY THAT WE USE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT, FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE.

AND SO, WE CAN'T LOOK AT IT FROM A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION VALUE OR PERCENTAGE OF THEIR PROFITS.

IT TAKES IT TO A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.

BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE PARTNERED.

THEY ALL HAVE LONG TERM IMPACT ON THE CITIES, YOU KNOW FINANCIAL WELL-BEING AND THE SERVICES THAT IT OFFERS.

SO, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THEM FOR THESE PROJECTS.

MISS KELLY. YEAH, AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST PLACED ON THE RECORD, WE DO HAVE CODIFIED COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

THERE HAS TO BE A NEXUS WHEN YOU DO THAT TYPE OF EXACTION.

SO THE CITY DOES HAVE GOVERNMENT USE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES, AS WELL AS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEES, WHICH HAS A FORMULA CALCULATION. AND THEN AFTER YOUR RECESS, WE'LL BE BRINGING TO YOU AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS ANOTHER PART OF AN EXACTION OR FEES IN LIEU OF OR THE PROVISION OF THOSE HOUSING THAT ARE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE THAT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE.

AND ALSO ART.

WE DO HAVE ART AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

I AGREE THAT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A LEGISLATION OR POLICY, BUT I DO WANT IT TO BE A NEGOTIATION BECAUSE IT'S AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT.

SO I DO WANT IT LIKE I THOUGHT 13TH FLOOR WAS GOOD.

I THOUGHT, WHAT I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU MURRAY, WHAT VICE MAYOR SAID WAS GOOD WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, EVEN

[01:35:06]

THOUGH I DISAGREED ORIGINALLY, ONCE THE OTHER COMPANY CAME BACK TO MATCH WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND THEN HE DID THAT.

BUT I THINK IT WAS GOOD.

RIGHT. WE HAVE, THAT'S WHY WE WERE ELECTED.

I WASN'T ELECTED TO PROTECT A DEVELOPER.

EXCUSE ME, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY I'M PROTECTING DEVELOPERS.

SO, I WOULD NOT CHANGE THAT TO PROTECT A DEVELOPER.

NO. YOU COME AND YOU NEGOTIATE.

AND IF YOU LOSE THAT LAST MINUTE, YOU LOSE THAT LAST MINUTE, POINT BLANK.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK WE NEED THAT ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM FOR WHAT OUR RESIDENTS NEED, FOR WHAT MY RESIDENTS NEED, FOR WHAT THE CITY RESIDENTS NEED AS A WHOLE.

SO, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

SO, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY.

SO BY NO MEANS, PLEASE DON'T TAKE THAT AWAY.

BUT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH PARTNERSHIP, BUT A PARTNERSHIP IS WE BOTH BENEFIT, RIGHT, IN THE LONG RUN, ANY PARTNERSHIP I DO WITH AS A PRINCIPLE, WE BOTH BENEFIT IN THE LONG RUN.

WE BOTH COME BACK TO THE TABLE.

I TELL YOU MY CURRENT NEEDS AND I HOPE YOU TRY TO HELP ME.

YOU TELL ME YOURS, I TRY TO HELP YOU.

THAT'S WHAT A PARTNERSHIP IS.

SO I WOULDN'T WANT A POLICY OR ANYTHING TO STOP THAT.

YES, IT GOES TO THOSE THINGS, BUT THAT'S NORMAL.

THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND.

THIS IS SHOWN ME THAT YOU WANT TO IMPACT TAMARAC IN THE BEST WAY, AND THIS IS TAKING UP SOME OF THE BURDEN AWAY FROM THE TAXPAYERS TO DO THESE THINGS.

SO I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT REMOVING ANYTHING.

IT'S HAVING THE OPEN DISCUSSION WHICH PROCEDURALLY WE'RE GOING TO DO.

SO, COMMISSIONER DANIEL AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE US ADDING IN THE LEGISLATION, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN FROM LAUDERHILL.

I AM SEEKING, MISS VICE MAYOR.

DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK FIRST OR AM I GOING TO COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

TRYING TO WRAP THIS UP AND SAY, ARE WE BRINGING THIS FORTH ON WEDNESDAY AS A CONSENSUS TO BRING THIS FORTH ON WEDNESDAY, INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS WITH LAUDERHILL.

VICE MAYOR. YOU REMIND ME OF THE PROVISIONS AGAIN.

SO, THE QUESTION IS IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS UP ON WEDNESDAY, I THINK WITH THE ADDITIONS THAT SHE HAS, INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS.

AMENDING ENFORCEMENT TO HAVE MORE TEETH.

MORE. I SAW A BREAKDOWN OF THE SOUTHERN HERITAGE.

SO, WE'RE GOING TO ADD ALL OF THESE.

THIS IS A LOT OF PROVISIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADD.

GO BACK TO THAT LIST.

ABOVE MENTIONED TYPES OF VIOLATIONS HAVE OCCURRED, AND THOSE VIOLATIONS ALREADY CAPTURED IN OUR CODE OF ETHICS.

IF THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR MAKES A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED, THE CITY COMMISSION MAY THEN IMPOSE ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES SUBJECT TO THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE VIOLATION.

AND SO HERE IS WHEN IT'S LISTED.

SO THESE ARE THE PENALTIES.

THIS IS AFTER THE INVESTIGATION HAVE CONCLUDED I APOLOGIZE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR CLARITY ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE MANAGER MYSELF WILL OR IF IT'S THE IF IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THIS WILL BE INCLUDED, THEN YES, WE WOULD MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR AND IN THE LANGUAGE.

AND I ALSO WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER PERSPECTIVE IF YOU, YES, RIGHT HERE.

IT SAYS CITY COMMISSION OR A CHARTER OFFICER.

I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THE CHARTER OFFICERS FROM THIS EQUATION BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THE COMMISSION'S SWIFT ACTION IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE CHARTER OFFICER WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION.

BECAUSE IN THIS, IF YOU KNOW, INCORPORATE THIS, THEN THEN YOU HAVE TO DO AN INVESTIGATION IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL WRONGDOING YOU KNOW, PROLONGING THE CONVERSATION.

BUT YOU SHOULD COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION.

WHAT THE MANAGER IS SAYING. WE ARE AT WILL.

YES. IF YOU DON'T LIKE US TODAY, YOU COULD GET RID OF US TOMORROW.

OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

FOR THE RECORD, WHAT WE DID FIND IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

WE FOUND THAT EVERYWHERE ELSE IN BROWARD COUNTY, THIS WAS A BIT DIFFERENT AND WAS RECENTLY UPDATED BY THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL.

[01:40:03]

SO YEAH, I'M.

I'M. YES, YES.

OKAY. SO, BUT ALSO THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, OKAY. IF IT IS DETERMINED BY THE IT SAYS IN HERE.

IF THE REPORT.

NO, THE NUMBER 6F2-6166F, NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION AFFORDING DUE PROCESS, DETERMINED VIOLATION.

THAT IS WHAT GOES FORWARD ON THAT ONE.

BUT THE PENALTIES, HOWEVER, IF THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, YOU'RE SAYING REMOVE CHARTER OFFICER.

AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION SHALL FIRST BE CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE TYPES OF VIOLATION HAVE OCCURRED.

IF THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR MAKES A FINDING THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED.

THE CITY MAY IMPOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING.

I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT SENTENCE.

HOLD ON. THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO BE A SELF-ENFORCING EXPRESSION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND STANDARD FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND CHARTER OFFICERS.

ALL NEWLY ELECTED APPOINTED OFFICIALS, ALL CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSION, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK AND ALL APPLICANTS FOR THE BOARDS, COMMITTEE OR ADVISORY BOARD SHALL RECEIVE A COPY. IF IT IS A SELF-ENFORCING EXPRESSION.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS ACTUALLY ONE THAT COMES BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION FOR A DETERMINATION BY WHAT.

IT DOESN'T SAY, TWO THIRDS, DOESN'T SAY THREE OUT OF FIVE, REGULAR MAJORITY, SUPERMAJORITY, DOESN'T SAY THAT IT'S SELF-ENFORCING.

SO, THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHO HIRES THE INDEPENDENT? WHO? WHO IS THE INDEPENDENT? INVESTIGATOR? WELL, TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY AFTER THE INVESTIGATION IS CONCLUDED, IT'S BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE, EXCLUDING THE PERSON WHO IS BEING INVESTIGATED. SO THAT'S AFTER THE INVESTIGATION.

AFTER THE INVESTIGATION.

CORRECT. IT DOES NOT SAY WHO RETAINS THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR OR WHO INITIATES IT.

YES. SO THE COMMISSION, IT'S A GOOD START, BUT IT TOO IS OPEN.

INHERENTLY, ONLY THIS BODY CAN INVESTIGATE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION.

AND WHEN OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION HAS TO MAKE THAT CALL, HIRE THE INVESTIGATOR AND INVESTIGATOR, CONDUCT THE WORK THAT'S ASSIGNED BASED ON THE COMMISSION.

SO, THIS BODY HAS JURISDICTION OVER ITS MEMBER.

THE MANAGER, MYSELF OR MISS CALLOWAY, DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIS MEMBER.

ACTUALLY, TRULY, IT'S REALLY ONLY THE RESIDENTS HAVE A JURISDICTION OVER THE MEMBERS HERE, BECAUSE IT'S WHEN THE OTHER PEOPLE WERE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, THEY WERE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT REMOVED THEM FROM OFFICE, NOT FOR AN ETHICAL VIOLATION.

IT WASN'T THAT THE COMMISSION SAID THAT THERE WAS AN ETHICAL VIOLATION.

YEAH, THERE WAS A LAW ON.

STATE LAW THE GOVERNOR HAS TO SUSPEND.

BUT THE GOVERNOR HAS TO APPROVE IT.

AND THE GOVERNOR ONLY SUSPENDED AFTER THERE WAS A CASE FILED, RIGHT.

IT WASN'T LIKE THE GOVERNOR SAID, OH, I'M TAKING A LOOK AT TAMARAC.

LET'S SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.

I'M GOING TO PULL. RIGHT.

I STILL THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT, TO BE CLEAR, BUT IT STILL NEEDS TO.

WE WOULD. I GUESS WE AGREE TO REMOVE THE THE CHARTER OFFICER.

SO, IF IT'S COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

REMOVAL OF THE CHARTER OFFICER, MEANING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MAYOR.

GO AHEAD, VICE MAYOR.

SO YOU'RE SAYING IT SEEMS TO BE CLEANED UP? AND IT NEEDS TO BE.

WE NEED TO DELVE A LITTLE DEEPER.

SO, THIS IS JUST LAUDERHILL LANGUAGE.

LANGUAGE AS IS JUST TO PUT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

WE JUST NEED TO PUT A KIND OF CREATE OUR OWN LANGUAGE.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY.

SO IS THAT POSSIBLE WITH CONSENSUS OF THIS COMMISSION FOR YOU TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE BETWEEN NOW AND FOR ON WEDNESDAY, SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT FURTHER AT THE COMMISSION MEETING AND DETERMINE IF WE'RE VOTING ON FIRST READING, BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN WHERE WE MAKE A CHANGE OF FIRST READING.

WE'RE TOLD IT'S OKAY, WE CAN APPROVE THAT FIRST READING, BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY IT BY SECOND, INSTEAD OF DELAYING AND KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

BECAUSE THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO WORKSHOP THIS ITEM WILL BE SEPTEMBER 8TH, WHERE WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE THE PAC CONVERSATION.

[01:45:04]

LOBBY CONVERSATION, I THINK IN CITY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT US AT THE COMMISSION MEETING ON FIRST READING, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHEN THEN CHANGES WOULD BE MADE AND BROUGHT TO YOU BY.

I THINK YOU COULD BASE ON CONSENSUS HERE.

YOU CAN MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS OKAY.

AND THEN THEY COULD APPROVE IT AT FIRST READING.

OKAY. YOU CAN APPROVE OR AND WE CAN ASK FOR OTHER CORRECTIONS IF NEEDED OKAY.

CONSENSUS. YES.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YES.

MISS MAXINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHY LAUDERHILL PUT THIS IN PLACE? I DO NOT. WE DID SEND AN EMAIL OUT TO ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES THROUGH BCCMA TO LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND WHAT THEY HAVE AND WHAT WE RECEIVED WERE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS AN ANOMALY, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO, IT APPEARS WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THIS ITEM, AND IT IS CURRENTLY 11:46. ARE WE READY TO PLOD THROUGH OR ARE WE GOING TO A RESTROOM BREAK? WE GO INTO A LUNCH BREAK.

WE GO TO WORK. OKAY, I AM HEARING A CALL FOR A RESTROOM BREAK.

15 MINUTES.

CAN YOU HANDLE IT, OR DO YOU WANT TEN? TEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT.

11:56, WE'LL BE BACK HERE.

WE'RE IN RECESS. YEAH.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME BACK TO OUR COMMISSION WORKSHOP.

IT IS 11:56, AND AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO SAY THANK YOU.

WE'LL SEE YOU AT 12:30.

WE'RE GOING INTO ANOTHER RECESS.

ENJOY YOUR LUNCH.

A LITTLE BIT LATE AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE TO ONE E!

[1.e Discussion and Direction on Proposed Adoption of a Certificate of Use Program governing outstanding Liens and Appearance of Commercial Properties. Presented by Deputy City Manager, Maxine Calloway]

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CERTIFICATE OF USE PROGRAM GOVERNING OUTSTANDING LIENS AND APPEARANCES OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BEING PRESENTED BY OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, MAXINE CALLOWAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION JUST WANT TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THIS DISCUSSION ITEM THAT WE HAD DURING YOUR BUDGET RETREAT.

WE TALKED ABOUT WAYS THAT WE CAN ENFORCE THE APPEARANCE IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, THE WAY THEY LOOK AND WHAT CAN BE DONE IN ORDER TO REQUIRE THESE PROPERTY OWNERS TO BRING THEIR BUILDINGS INTO COMPLIANCE.

WE DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME A CERTIFICATE OF USE PROGRAM THAT WE BELIEVE IS WIDELY USED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, AND WHETHER THIS COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING IN LEGISLATION FORWARD WITH THAT TYPE OF PROGRAM.

SO WE DID A QUICK SURVEY OF MUNICIPALITIES IN BROWARD COUNTY, 1 OR 2 OUTSIDE OF BROWARD COUNTY THAT HAS A CERTIFICATE OF USE PROGRAM IN LAUDERHILL, OAKLAND PARK, NORTH MIAMI AND MIAMI GARDENS.

ESSENTIALLY A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

APPLICANT WOULD START WITH THE ZONING OFFICE FOR CERTIFICATE OF USE BEFORE A BUSINESS TAX IS ISSUED, IF IT'S FOUND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, OR IF THERE ARE LIENS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING ON THE PROPERTY, THEN THOSE WOULD NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BEFORE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS ISSUED.

WE WANT TO CAUTION THE COMMISSION, BECAUSE THIS CAN BE A PROGRAM THAT WILL IMPACT TENANTS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.

IF, IN FACT, THE BIG LANDLORD WHO IS THE OWNER OF A SHOPPING PLAZA, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING THIS FORWARD, THEN TENANTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE IN UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BEFORE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS ISSUED.

SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE JUST HAVE THE PROCESS HERE, WHICH I JUST DESCRIBED.

IT WOULD START WITH A CERTIFICATE OF USE APPLICATION THAT WOULD BE SUBMITTED IF YOU WERE TO DIRECT US TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE.