Feb 26, 2025 Regular

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

THIS ITEM IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I HAVE K JOHNSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

>> KATE JOHNSON MAINLAND FOUR.

I WANT TO FOCUS REGARDING FEES SPECIFICALLY ON THE CERTIFICATE OF USE FEES.

WELL, I KNOW IT IS FURTHER ON THE AGENDA, FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT ARE HERE TO BE VOTED ON, SO I WILL DISCUSS IT HERE AS WELL.

TAMARAC SAYS WE ARE BUSINESS FRIENDLY, YET YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR BUSINESSES.

LAST MEETING, I LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CERTIFICATES OF USE.

I ALSO WATCHED AS, EVEN WITH IT NOT BEING AN ORDINANCE YET, SOME TRIED TO MAKE DEMANDS OF GOODWILL AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY LAST FALL, BASICALLY TRYING TO EXTORT CONCESSIONS WITH THREATS OF WITHHOLDING APPROVAL.

THANKFULLY, GOODWILL IS BIG ENOUGH BUSINESS TO STAND THEIR GROUND.

BUT WHAT ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES? WOULD A SMALL BUSINESS BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE PRESSURE OR SAY FORGET IT AND GO ELSEWHERE? I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF CERTIFICATES OF USE ARE ANTI-BUSINESS.

I UNDERSTAND WANTING CLOUD TO GET PROPERTY OWNERS TO CLEAN UP THEIR PROPERTIES, BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM AS IT CUTS DOWN ON THEIR INCOME IN AN ECONOMY THAT ALREADY MAKES BUSINESSES STRUGGLE.

THOUSANDS OF BUSINESSES HAVE CLOSED SINCE COVID.

PLAZAS LEFT STRUGGLING FOR TENANTS, AND THE ECONOMY HAS NOT BOUNCED BACK ENOUGH TO KEEP MANY IN BUSINESS.

THAT MAY BE PART OF THE REASON PLAZAS ARE IN DISREPAIR OR BEING SOLD.

LOOK AT OUR OWN CITY.

BUSINESSES COME AND GO.

HERE TODAY, COMING TO THIS COMMISSION, ALL EXCITED ONLY TO CLOSE A YEAR LATER.

PLAZA OWNERS STRUGGLE TO KEEP THEIR SPACES FILLED.

HOW DOES THIS HELP THEM? IT DOESN'T.

IF YOU WANT TO BE BUSINESS FRIENDLY, THEN TRULY BE BUSINESS FRIENDLY AND WORK WITH THEM, NOT AGAINST THEM.

GRANTED, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BEHIND THE SCENES TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, BUT I DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE ANSWER.

I DO, HOWEVER, SUPPORT LANDLORD REGISTRATION AND BELIEVE A $75 REGISTRATION FEE TO BE FAIR.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CITY DOES ABOUT AIRBNB REGISTRATIONS, IF IT'S REQUIRED, OR IF THERE IS A SEPARATE FEE FOR THAT.

IF NOT, THERE SHOULD BE, BUT IT SHOULD BE A MUCH HIGHER FEE THAN A REGULAR RESIDENTIAL LANDOWNER. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM WHO HAS NOT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, THEN I WILL BRING THIS TO MS. CALLOWAY, WHO'S AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

NOT SEEING MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, HOWEVER, I DO.

>> MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY.

>> SURE.

>> I JUST WANT TO BRING A BIT OF CLARIFICATION TO THIS ITEM.

THIS CREATES A PLACE FOR THOSE TWO FEES THAT ARE CREATED BY THE ORDINANCES THAT THAT WILL BE IN THE LATER PART OF THE AGENDA.

ALTHOUGH THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION ORDINANCE DOES NOT CALL FOR A REGISTRATION FEE IN THIS RESOLUTION.

[01:25:03]

I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP TO THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION AND IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT WE CAN REMOVE THAT THAT FROM THE ORDINANCE.

>> THAT'S WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE PART?

>> NOT THE ORDINANCE, THE RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING IT AS A SPACE HOLDER OR INCLUDING IT FOR THE AMOUNT THAT YOU WISH.

>> THIS RESOLUTION CREATES A PLACE FOR THESE TWO FEES, AND IT ALSO INCLUDES A $75 FEE FOR THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION PROCESS.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

THE FEE DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF BECAUSE THE FEE IS BEING SET BY A RESOLUTION, WHICH THIS ONE PROVIDES THAT SERVICE.

>> BASICALLY, IF THE ORDINANCE GOES THROUGH, THEN THE RESOLUTION HAS IT IN THERE AND THEN IT IS A FEE. IS WHAT?

>> THERE IS A $75 FEE RECOMMENDED IN THIS RESOLUTION, NOT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IN THIS RESOLUTION, WHICH IS HOW THE FEES ARE TO BE SET.

>> SO THERE IS A FEE.

IN THE FUTURE, IF THERE IS ANY.

MY SUGGESTION O MY POINT IN THIS THAT, THAT $75 EXIST IN THIS RESOLUTION FOR REGISTRATIONS, AND IF THE COMMISSION IS NOT INTERESTED IN PLACING THAT, THIS WOULD BE A TIME TO MAKE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION.

>> GOT YOU. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S LISTED HERE ON THE MEMO?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, MAYOR.

JUST FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, THE NEW FEES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN YOUR BACKUP ARE IN RED.

I CAN CLICK THROUGH IT QUICKLY ON THIS SLIDE JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

>> PLEASE.

>> YES. THIS IS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE.

THE FEES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, ARE IN RED.

THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME LOCATION APPROVAL FEE IS A NEW FEE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.

THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL TYPE HOMES THAT ARE ABLE TO LOCATE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, BETWEEN SIX UNRELATED PEOPLE, UP TO 14 IS A RESIDENTIAL TYPE 2.

IT'S BY STATE.

WE CANNOT CONTROL IT.

IT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE, BUT AS IT IS NOW, WHEN A STATE IS PERMITTING SUCH A USE, THEY'LL SEND A VERIFICATION FORM TO THE ZONING OFFICE FOR US TO VERIFY THE ZONING.

WE DO NOT CHARGE CURRENTLY.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO ASSESS A FEE TO THAT PROCESS, SIMILAR TO THE FEE THAT WE ASSESS FOR A ZONING LETTER, SO THAT FEE IS BEING PROPOSED AT $200.

THE CERTIFICATE OF USE FEE, AS YOU SEE, IS IN RED, IT'S BEING PROPOSED AT $100.

THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE EXTENDED HOURS SALE PERMIT FEE, AS YOU RECALL, THAT ORDINANCE IS ON FOR THIS EVENING, BUT DURING THE DISCUSSION, THAT ORDINANCE IS PROPOSING AN EXTENSION OF THAT PERMIT FOR TWO YEARS.

AS IT IS NOW, THE FEE IS $500 PER YEAR, AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO THE FEE, AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT FEE BE 1,000, WHICH IS THE 500 PLUS THE 500 EACH YEAR, WOULD MAKE IT 1,000 FOR A TWO YEAR PERMIT.

THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION FEE AS MENTIONED BY THE MANAGER IS HERE.

STAFF IS PROPOSING $75, AND IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO NOT ASSESS A FEE.

THIS IS THE TIME TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND MAKE THE CHANGE.

AND THEN WE JUST NEEDED TO CLEAN UP SOME FEES FOR THE TREE REMOVAL.

PRIMARILY, THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WOULD BE ASSESS A FEE IF THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE IS LESS THAN 18".

WE HAD TO MAKE SOME CLEANUP, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE ON THE FEE SCHEDULE.

IT IS CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THAT A FEE IS ONLY ASSESSED, IF THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE IS OVER 18".

THOSE ARE THE CHANGES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. IN REFERENCE TO THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION FEE, I THINK WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE OTHER CITIES, 75 WAS COMPARABLE, WASN'T IT?

>> YES. WE HAD ONE CITY, I THINK IT IS THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE THAT DID NOT HAVE A FEE, AND THAT WE HAD SOME CITIES BETWEEN 75, $100.

>> I THINK IF MY RECOLLECTION SERVES ME CORRECTLY, I HAVE A GOOD MEMBER OF NUMBERS, I THINK MARGATE WAS LIKE 225.

>> IT WAS A LITTLE HIGHER, YES.

>> TANYA EMAILED ME THE SUCCESSION RATE.

MARGATE HAS A 72% SUCCESSION RATE, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A HIGHER FEE.

THAT I THINK IT WAS 225.

WHEN I LOOK AT CORAL SPRINGS,

[01:30:02]

THEIR SUCCESSION RATE IS ONLY 35%.

FORT LAUDERDALE, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T CHARGE A FEE, THEIR SUCCESSION RATE IS ONLY 11%.

IT SEEMS LIKE CHARGING A FEE DOES GET SOMEWHAT SUCCESSION RATE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY BEING ANTI-BUSINESS, BUT I'LL LOOK AT THE DATA THAT YOU SENT ME.

I'M FINE WITH THE $75.

I THINK IT'S NOT TOO PRICEY FOR RESIDENTS.

THESE ARE LANDLORDS. THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THEY'RE RENTING.

IT'S A BUSINESS. I'M FINE WITH THE $75.

JUST LOOKING AT THE DATA THAT YOU SENT TO US IN TERMS OF THE SUCCESSION RATE.

SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHARGING ARE GETTING A BETTER SUCCESSION RATE.

FOR ME, THAT'S OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. MS. CALLOWAY, WHEN LOOKING AT THE OTHER CITIES, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE ARE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES.

LOOKS LIKE APPLES TO ORANGES.

TAMARAC HAS LESS PEOPLE THAN FORT LAUDERDALE.

COULD THAT BE THE REASON WHY THE SUCCESSION RATE IS 11% COMPARED TO A MARGATE THAT IS HIGHER BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE? HOW DO YOU VIEW IT?

>> THAT COULD BE ONE ELEMENT THAT IS IMPACTING THAT.

YOU ARE CORRECT, IN THAT CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE HAS A HUGE NUMBER OF RENTAL PROPERTY IN COMPARISON TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND THE CITY OF MARGATE, SO THAT COULD IMPACT THAT DATA.

JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE MEMBERS, THAT DATA INFORMATION WAS SENT TO EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN YOU'RE BENCHMARKING, IT IS WISE TO BENCHMARK A CITY LIKE OUR OWN? LET'S SAY WE'RE BENCHMARKING TAMARAC, WE'D WANT TO BENCHMARK A CITY THAT IS COMPARABLE TO TAMARAC.

IN YOUR DATA THAT YOU SENT, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT CITY IS COMPARABLE TO TAMARAC AND WHAT THEIR SUCCESS RATE IS ON RECORD?

>> THE CITY OF MARGATE, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES.

WE DID REACH OUT TO THEM, AND AS OF THIS MORNING, STILL HAD NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE, AND WE INCLUDED THAT IN YOUR EMAIL.

BROWARD COUNTY WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS.

THEY HAVE ABOUT 1,100 RENTAL PROPERTY THAT WAS IN COMPARISON TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC, AND THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE IS WAY LARGER.

RELATIVE TO THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED BACK, I WOULD SAY THE CITY OF MARGATE WOULD BE THE CLOSEST.

THOSE WERE THE ONLY COMMUNITIES THAT HAD A VIABLE REGISTRATION PROGRAM, WHICH IS WHY WE UTILIZED JUST THOSE COMMUNITIES.

>> WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PROGRAM IS VIABLE AND MARKETABLE AND NOT JUST A PROGRAM THAT IS ON THE BOOKS AS A FEEL GOOD ITEM, BUT AN ITEM THAT IS MARKETABLE AND VIABLE?

>> WELL, STAFF IS PROPOSING A $75 FEE, BUT OF COURSE, THE POLICY AND THE FEE AS ADOPTED IS UP TO YOUR DISCRETION.

>> HOW WILL YOU ROLL OUT THE ITEM, THIS INITIATIVE TO TO RESIDENTS SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ON THE BOOKS?

>> WE WOULD TRY TO DO AN EDUCATION AND MARKETING CAMPAIGN.

WE WOULD ALSO TRY TO INCLUDE THE REAL ESTATE.

I THINK THERE'S AN AGENCY THAT IS NORMALLY IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY THAT WE CAN TRY TO GET INVOLVED TO HELP US TO DISSEMINATE SOME OF THIS INFORMATION TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE RENTING THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL AS WELL, WHICH IS A BIT UNIQUE.

>> YOU DON'T YET HAVE A CONCRETE PLAN TO ROLL OUT FOR MARKETING?

>> WE DO. WE WOULD DO AN EDUCATION PERIOD WHERE WE WOULD ROLL OUT VIA INSTAGRAM, VIA THE TELEGRAM, VIA ALL OUR MODE OF COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE'D ALSO INCLUDE IT AS A PART OF OUR DISTRICT MEETINGS WHEN WE GO OUT AS WELL, SO WE CAN EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY, SO THEY ARE AWARE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS ON THE BOOKS.

THEN WE CAN USE OUR CODE OFFICERS TO DISTRIBUTE FLYERS AND TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE THAT THIS PROGRAM IS AVAILABLE.

>> IT'S JUST THAT YOU'RE USING TERMS LIKE WE COULD AND WE MAY.

>> I APOLOGIZE.

>> I'M NOT HEARING WE ARE GOING TO OR WE WILL.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS PASSED TO PIO ALREADY? HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THAT DEPARTMENT, AND DO THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE IN THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY RECOGNIZES THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THEN WE'LL MAKE IT AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE FOR REGISTRATION.

I THINK IT WAS MARGATE AND BROWARD COUNTY THAT HAVE THAT REGISTRATION PROGRAM THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON THEIR WEBSITE AS WELL.

IT LET'S YOU TO GO ON, AND POPS UP, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MARGATE ATTRIBUTES TO THE SUCCESS OF THEIR PROGRAM.

IS THAT SELF-REGISTRATION THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEBSITE?

>> ABSOLUTELY, WAS IT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PIO KNOWING OR ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT?

[01:35:05]

>> THE PIO IS AWARE BOTH, AND WE WILL BE LAUNCHING A FULL SCALE MARKETING CAMPAIGN.

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE REALTORS ASSOCIATION TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE'RE DOING SUCH AN INITIATIVE? HAVE YOU HAD A CONFERENCE WITH THEM AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

>> NOT YET, COMMISSIONER. WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THIS COMMISSION WAS ON BOARD AND THAT THIS WOULD BECOME AN ADOPTED LEGISLATION.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT FOR A PERIOD BEFORE ROLLING OUT OR A PERIOD AFTER ROLLING OUT, THAT THE FEE COULD BE FREE FOR A WHILE.

YOU'D SAY, WE WANT COMPLIANCE, WE WANT PEOPLE TO REGISTER THE FIRST MONTH, FIRST 90 DAYS IS FREE, AND THEN AFTER 90 DAYS, IT'S GOING TO ESCALATE TO A FEE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO BOLSTER OUR SUCCESS RATE, IF WE ROLL IT OUT TO SAY, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET REGISTRATION FOR THE FIRST YEAR FOR FREE, IF YOU DO THIS WITHIN 90 DAYS, I BELIEVE THAT IS A MARKETING IDEA TO GET PEOPLE TO SIGN UP PRETTY QUICKLY.

IF THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A FEE COMING AFTER 90 DAYS, THEN WITHIN THE FIRST 90 DAYS, THEY WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO REGISTER.

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> THAT'S A VERY VIABLE OPTION, COMMISSIONER.

IF THAT'S A DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, WE CAN CERTAINLY GO IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> I'D ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO PONDER THAT.

THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE PROGRAM TO MAKE IT FREE SO THAT RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND BECAUSE DURING EDUCATION PERIOD AS WELL, YOU DON'T WANT TO PUSH A FEE.

YOU WANT TO PUSH EDUCATION OF THE PRODUCT.

WHAT IS THIS? IT'S GOING TO BE NEW TO THE CITY.

IT'S GOING TO BE NEW TO THE RESIDENT.

SO DURING THE EDUCATION PERIOD, YOU TELL THEM WHAT IT IS, THAT SORT OF STUFF, COMPLY, COME IN, SIGN UP, GO ON THE WEBSITE, SIGN UP, IT'S FREE.

BUT IF YOU DON'T DO IT BY THIS DATE, IT'S GOING TO BE AT A FEE, I THINK THAT WOULD PUSH SUCCESS.

>> CITY MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN OUR UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM, OUR RENTAL PROPERTIES ARE IDENTIFIED AND SO THAT WOULD BE OUR INITIAL TARGET FOR ENFORCING OR FOR DEPLOYING THIS ORDINANCE.

WE WOULD HAVE A TARGETED AUDIENCE TO BEGIN WITH, AND THEN WE CAN START THE PROGRAM WITH THAT GROUP.

>> MS. CALLOWAY, JUST REMIND ME OF THE PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE?

>> IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.

WE CAN EITHER ISSUE A CITATION OR WE CAN TAKE YOU THROUGH A NOTICE, AND THEN A TIME FOR YOU TO CURE AND THEN TAKE YOU THROUGH THE FULL MAGISTRATE PROCESS.

THAT'S HOW IT'S REFERENCED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

>> SOME PROPERTIES HAVE ABSENTEE OWNERS, AND THEY HAVE A MANAGER THAT MANAGES THE PROPERTY.

WHAT ARE THE ACCEPTABLE PEOPLE TO REGISTER? WHO ARE THE ACCEPTABLE PEOPLE TO REGISTER? WOULD YOU CONSIDER MANAGERS OF A PROPERTY TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS WELL?

>> A PROPERTY OWNER, BUT WE WILL ALSO INCLUDE A CONTACT.

IN THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO BE ABLE TO CONTACT FOR VIOLATION FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES, IS TO ABLE TO BOLSTER OUR ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS.

WE NEED THE PROPERTY OWNER, PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION, AND WE'LL ALSO COLLECT THE PROPERTY MANAGER INFORMATION AS WELL.

>> WE'RE GOING TO COME ON, ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM. YES.

>> HOW WILL YOU HANDLE RESIDENTS THAT ARE EXEMPT? LET'S SAY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THEY'RE EXEMPT, OR POLICE OFFICERS OR THAT STUFF.

THEY CANNOT HAVE THEIR INFORMATION OUT, SO HOW DO YOU MANAGE THAT?

>> THE ORDINANCE, AS IT'S WRITTEN, PROVIDES FOR THAT EXEMPTION.

FLORIDA STATUTE PROVIDES FOR THAT EXEMPTION, AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND PUT IT IN AS A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IF YOU HAVE THAT CURRENT EXEMPTION, THEN YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM REGISTERING.

>> BECAUSE THERE ARE RESIDENTS WHO THEIR HOUSES IN A TRUST AND THEY PUT IN A TRUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND TO SEE WHO THE OWNER IS.

[01:40:02]

MANAGERS, CAN WE LOOK AT THAT AS WELL?

>> YES, IF YOU'RE A CORPORATION, WE WANT YOU TO REGISTER.

WE JUST WANT A CONTACT.

IF YOU'RE A CORPORATION, WE HAVE THE EXEMPTION, IF YOU'RE A CORPORATION, WE JUST NEED SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO CONTACT.

>> THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THE RESIDENTIAL HOME.

>> WE JUST GET THAT.

MISS MAXINE, PLEASE DON'T RUN.

ARE YOU COMING BACK? THANK YOU EXPLAINING THE RESIDENTIAL HOME LOCATION APPROVAL FEE.

IS THAT COMPARABLE WITH WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING?

>> THE $75?

>> NO. I'M ON THE FEES.

>> OH, I APOLOGIZE.

>> RESIDENTIAL HOME LOCATION.

>> WE'RE PROPOSING THE SAME FEE WE USE FOR ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER. SO YES.

>> BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AS WELL?

>> YES, WE ALSO LOOK IT IS COMPARABLE. YES.

>> BECAUSE I KNOW WE ASK YOU TO LOOK OUT FOR OTHER PLACES AND WE ASK YOU IN THE COUNTY AND THEN SOMETIMES WE CONVENIENTLY ASK YOU FOR OTHER LIKE SIZE.

BUT YOU'VE LOOKED WITHIN OUR REGION.

>> WE DID YES AND WE THINK THE EFFORT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WOULD DO FOR A ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER, SO WE USE THE SAME FEE.

>> APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION ON THE TREE CHARGES.

THESE FEES FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF USE REQUIREMENTS IN AND ABOVE WHATEVER OTHER PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND PROCESSES THAT THEY NEED TO DO?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE PROCESS WOULD BEGIN BEFORE YOU GET TO A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT WOULD BE WITH A CERTIFICATE OF USE, AND YOU WOULD PAY THAT FEE.

>> HOLD ON A SECOND. I HAVE DEFINITELY NOT DONE FOUR MINUTES.

IT'S OKAY. I WON'T BE THAT LONG I PROMISE.

AS FAR AS A LANDLORD REGISTRATION PROGRAM OF THE $75 AS A PERSON ON THIS COMMISSION WHO EVERYBODY KNOWS, I RENT OUT ONE OF MY PROPERTY.

ONE PROPERTY, I LIVE IN THE OTHER.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A FEE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH $75.

MY CONCERN IS MORE IS THIS CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE A YEARLY, OR DOES THE WHETHER IT'S YEARLY COME ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE? BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE ITEM BEING TALKED ABOUT WITHIN THE FEE STRUCTURE BUT THE ADVERTISING AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF WE COME ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REGISTRATION PROGRAM.

HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT? I'LL CLARIFY. IT SAYS $75.

>> IN THE ORDINANCE, ONE THING TO BE DISCUSSED IS WHETHER IT'S YEARLY, IF IT'S THE SAME LANDLORD OR NOT.

IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO BRING UP.

IF WE PUT IT HERE, DOES IT MEAN IT'S YEARLY, OR IS IT SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE FOR DICTATION OF WHEN IT'S YEARLY, TWO YEARS OR WHEN IT'S SWITCH ON OWNER OR WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED?

>> THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY HAS ANNUAL FOR THE REGISTRATION AND THE FEE WOULD BE AS PROPOSED BY RESOLUTION HERE.

THE ORDINANCE ALSO HAS THAT THE CITY MAY ASSESS A FEE AS THE MANAGER WAS SPEAKING TO WHICH GIVES US THE OPTION HERE TO ASSESS OR NOT TO ASSESS WITH THIS RESOLUTION.

IF WE CHOOSE TO DO.

>> WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK IN THAT ITEM IS THAT IS THE SAME OWNER THAT YOU CHECK ON BAR COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, THERE'S BEEN NO DEEDS TRANSFERRED.

WHY WOULD WE MAKE THE OWNER REDO A WHOLE FORM? MAYBE JUST DO A CHECK MARK, YES, ON THE STILL SAME PHONE NUMBER, EMAIL ADDRESS, AND ALL THAT STUFF.

BUT WHY WOULD WE HAVE THEM SUBMIT A WHOLE FORM IF THE PROPERTY HASN'T CHANGED OWNERSHIP, AND THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE THE LANDLORD IS STILL THE LANDLORD AND THE CONTACT PERSON.

IS THAT FOR HERE OR FOR LATER?

>> FOR THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE SAYING UNDER THOSE FACTS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD ONLY REGISTER IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> YEAH, ME THEORETICALLY.

I'LL JUST USE ME AS AN EXAMPLE.

I'VE BEEN RENTING OUT MY PROPERTY FOR A FEW YEARS.

YOU'RE NOT ASKING WHO MY TENANTS ARE, YOU'RE ASKING ME HOW TO FIND ME.

IF I'M STILL KEEPING MYSELF ON THE REGISTRY, I HAVEN'T SOLD MY PROPERTY.

THERE'S NOTHING TO GIVE ANY APPEARANCE OF ME NOT OWNING THAT PROPERTY ANYMORE.

WHY AM I RE-REGISTERING MYSELF EVERY YEAR? IT'S MORE OF A OWNER ON THE CITY AND IT'S ALSO ON THE LANDLORD. THAT'S THE PURPOSE.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION IS CURRENT SO THAT IN CASE I'VE MOVED OR I'VE CHANGED MY PHONE NUMBER OR MY EMAIL, YOU WANT TO STILL BE ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME OR IF I DECIDE TO HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGER, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT CURRENT PERSON.

THAT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A CHANGE OF FEE LIKE THE SUNBIZ HAS.

[01:45:02]

$35 YOU CHANGE YOUR YOU REGISTERED AGENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HERE OR FOR DISCUSSION THERE.

>> IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE YOUR ORDINANCE TO JUST HAVE THE REGISTRATION BE APPLICABLE FOR CHANGE OF OWNER, THEN THIS REGISTRATION FEE WOULD APPLY FOR THAT REGISTRATION.

>> SO IT'S OKAY, EVEN THOUGH.

>> THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. AS FOR ADVERTISING, WHEN WE GET TO THAT, THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER IDEAS TO THROW IN THERE AND I'LL DO IT AT THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THESE LANDLORD REGISTRATION PROGRAMS ARE GENERALLY MOST BENEFICIAL TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND TO THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IN MOST CASES, WE WANT TO HAVE THIS ON FILE FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS.

I WANTED TO JUST GO THROUGH TWO REASONS THAT I'M REALIZING MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE IDENTIFIED AND I THINK COULD BE IMPORTANT.

THERE'S A DISTINCTION OBVIOUSLY, BETWEEN FOUR UNITS AND UNDER AND FOUR UNITS OR MORE.

I THINK TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, WHEN YOU ARE LEASING A SINGLE FAMILY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT VERSUS WHEN YOU ARE A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY OWNER AND YOU OWN A BUILDING WITH MULTIPLE UNITS AND WHAT OUR INTENDED PURPOSES ARE FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT ARE THERE.

I THINK THEY'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER MAKING THAT DISTINCTION AND DELINEATING BETWEEN THOSE TWO FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

THE FIRST ONE IS, I TOO RENT PROPERTY AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A REGISTRY SO THAT WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED OR IT'S VACANT, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, A CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTER, OR WHATEVER THAT WE HAVE A WAY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER, A.

BUT THEN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FOUR UNITS OR MORE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A ROUTINE INSPECTION PROCESS PROACTIVELY THAT I THINK SHOULD BE HAPPENING AND THIS LANDLORD PROGRAM WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IN THAT REGARD AS WELL, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> IT DOES AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN INSPECTION PROCESS FOR FOUR UNITS AND MORE UNDER OUR BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

UNDER THAT PROGRAM, IF YOUR FOUR UNITS ARE MORE, YOU HAVE TO GET A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IN THE CITY AND THAT'S SUBJECT TO THAT INSPECTION PROCESS.

THIS IS JUST FOR A REGISTERED PROGRAM.

THIS STARTS FOR YOUR SINGLE FAMILY, IF YOU'RE RENTING UP TO ANY RENTAL SO WE CAN JUST HAVE A DATABASE FOR OUR PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE DO HAVE THAT INSPECTION PROCESS THAT'S TIED IN THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

IF YOU ARE RUNNING A BUSINESS, RENTING FOUR UNITS OR MORE, CURRENTLY UNDER A CODE, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GET A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FROM THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DIVISION AND THEN THERE'S A SAFETY INSPECTION AND SO ON, THAT'S TIED INTO THAT CURRENTLY.

IS THAT AN ANNUAL INSPECTION OR IS THAT WHEN THEY GET THE INITIAL BTR.

>> THEY GET THE INITIAL AND AND THERE'S AN ANNUAL INSPECTION THAT GOES WITH THAT.

>> WILL THE FOUR UNITS OR MORE PROPERTY OWNERS BE NOW REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CU?

>> NO, THE CU PROGRAM IS JUST FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AS IT'S BEING PROPOSED TO YOU.

THAT'S WHY IT'S THE PLAZAS THAT ARE IMPACTED PRIMARILY, BUT IT'S JUST FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

>> BUT WOULDN'T A FOUR UNIT OR MORE, ISN'T THAT ALSO A COMMERCIAL?

>> IT'S CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY. IT'S RESIDENTIAL.

>> BUT OWNERSHIP IS COMMERCIAL.

LIKE, IT IS OWNED BY AN ENTITY, EITHER OWNED BY AN LLC OR A CORPORATION OF SOME MAGNITUDE.

>> IN SOME INSTANCES THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.

IN SOME INSTANCES, IT MIGHT BE A PERSON THAT OWNS FOUR UNITS OR TWO.

>> NO, I'M REFERRING TO THE OR MORE.

>> OR MORE. IN A LOT OF CASES, IT COULD BE A CORPORATION, BUT THE USE ITSELF IS CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL.

>> I'M GLAD YOU MADE MENTION OF THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR THE FUTURE ITEM REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF USE.

FOR ME, I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, THERE IS A TIE.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME TIES, AND AND I SAY THIS ALL THE TIME.

I OFTEN FIND THAT WE DRAFT ORDINANCES AND THERE IS NO CONNECTION AND THEN WE'RE DRAFTING MULTIPLE ORDINANCES.

NOT ALWAYS ARE THEY REMEDYING THE ISSUE.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SYNCHRONICITY BETWEEN THE ORDINANCES, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM IS GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME ENFORCING THIS AND

[01:50:02]

THAT AND THIS AND THAT TO A COUPLE OF THE DIFFERENT POINTS THAT I HEARD ON THE BOARD THIS MORNING.

I CAUTION WHEN WE START ADOPTING THESE DIFFERENT ORDINANCES TO SOLVE DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT WE LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS AND TIE THINGS TOGETHER AND BRING ABOUT A MORE ROBUST, A BETTER INTEGRATED POLICY THAT WOULD BEST IMPACT THE COMMUNITY.

IN THIS REGARD, A LANDLORD REGISTRATION SHOULD TIE TO THE BTR PROCESS.

IT SHOULD BE TIED AND CONNECTED TO THE INSPECTION PROCESS FOR MULTIPLE REASONS.

THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE IT IF IT'S JUST GOING TO BE ON THE BOOKS.

IT'S A VEHICLE THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE USING TO BE ABLE TO A, MAKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE COMPLAINT IN THAT BUILDING, AND B TO PROACTIVELY CONDUCT INSPECTIONS IN THOSE BUILDINGS.

IF WE ALREADY HAVE THE VEHICLE, WHY DO WE NEED TO CHARGE FOR THIS? IF THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING THE FEE THROUGH THE BTR SYSTEM, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A FEE FOR LANDLORD REGISTRATION.

IF THE BTR PROCESS IS ALREADY SERVING AS THE MECHANISM TO PROVIDE FOR INSPECTION.

IF THIS IS JUST SIMPLY DATA, I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR A FEE.

I THINK WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IS THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY AND ENSURE THAT THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED RESULT IN A PENALTY OR A FINE, BUT REGISTRATION, I DON'T BELIEVE SHOULD CONSTITUTE A FEE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS ON THE ITEM BEFORE US WHICH IS FOR THE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> WE'RE STAINING WITH THE FEES AS PROPOSED IS THAT.

>> I WOULD MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE TO ELIMINATE THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION FEE AND HAVE THE REGISTRATION AT ZERO DOLLARS FOR LANDLORD REGISTRATION AND THERE BE A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER.

>> POINT OF CICATE. I THINK THE BTR YOU SAID IT'S FOUR UNITS OR MORE AND THIS IS FOR SINGLE FAMILIES.

>> THIS IS FOR ALL BEGINNING AT SINGLE FAMILY.

THE BTR PROGRAM EXCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND TRAMPLEX.

>> I HEAR YOUR POINT. BUT THE PROCESS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT WAS FOR FOUR UNITS OR MORE.

HOW WOULD WE COLLECT INFORMATION FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RENTERS?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S THE SAME PROCESS, THAT EVERYBODY REGISTER HAVE THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER, FAILURE TO REGISTER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI.

FAILURE TO REGISTER RESULTS IN A PENALTY.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD MAINTAIN AN ANNUAL RENEWAL PROCESS JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE DATA IS ACCURATE IF IT IS A PROACTIVE RESPONSE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OR WHOMEVER.

BUT WE LOOK AT THAT JUST SO THAT WE CAN ALWAYS ENSURE WE HAVE THE PROPER INFORMATION ON FILE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULDN'T BE A COST FOR A PROPERTY OWNER.

>> I CAN SUPPORT THAT. YOU DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THE FEE? I'M IN SUPPORT OF LIMITING THE FEE.

>> WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US.

THE MOTION WAS BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

HE ACCEPTS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, DO YOU ACCEPT?

>> I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE THEN SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO COLLECT THE FEE UPFRONT, WHAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE.

I BELIEVE I SAW THAT SOMEWHERE, BUT WOULD WE INCREASE THE PENALTY THEN BY $75 SO THAT WAY.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION HERE AS WELL, CLARIFICATION FOR ALL THIS.

BECAUSE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PLACEHOLDER IF THERE WOULD BE A FEE.

IF WE GO THROUGH WHEN WE GET TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WE SAY THERE'S NO FEE FOR APPLICATION AND CHANGE IT FOR FEE FOR PENALTY, WE CAN DO THAT IN THE ORDINANCE.

BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, IN ORDER TO COLLECT ANY FEE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, WE NEED TO HAVE A PLACEHOLDER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO CLARIFY, MAYOR.

ANY CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROCESS SHOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE.

THIS IS JUST FOR FEE SCHEDULE AND SETTING THE FEES AND CREATING A SPACE FOR THAT FEE.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE ADOPTING IT.

THAT'S WHAT WE DO WITH RESOLUTIONS.

WE DON'T WANT TO PUT FEES IN AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT.

WE WANT TO DO IT WITH A RESOLUTION, BUT I ALSO HEARD THE SENTIMENTS OF COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

I'M THINKING MAYBE WE SHOULD PASS THE ORDINANCE FIRST AND THEN PASS A RESOLUTION AFTERWARDS.

WHY ARE WE PASSING A RESOLUTION BEFORE WE PASS THE ORDINANCE, MISS CALLOWAY?

[01:55:01]

>> IT'S JUST THE PLACEMENT ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE OF HOW THE AGENDA IS STRUCTURED.

BUT FOR THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER PATTERSON IS PROPOSING IS THE ELIMINATION OF THAT $75 WHICH IF THAT'S A CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION, THAT CAN HAPPEN NOW, THAT WOULD BE NO FEE.

HOWEVER, IF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT FOR PENALTY OR FOR NON REGISTRATION, YOU WANT TO ASSESS A FEE, WE CAN PLACE HOLD THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HERE.

IT'S JUST REGISTRATION FEE, THAT'S $75.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THIS RESOLUTION, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD ALREADY PUT A PLACEHOLDER AS TO WHAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE IN THIS RESOLUTION.

ALTERNATIVELY, TABLE THIS AND PASS AN ORDINANCE FIRST SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE MEATS AND BONES OF THE ORDINANCE AND THEN ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR THE FEE SCHEDULE.

THAT WOULD ELIMINATE ALL OF THE CONFUSION THAT SOME OF US HAVE.

>> CITY ATTORNEY.

>> YES. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER BOLTON, GENERALLY AS YOU INDICATED EARLIER, THE FEE IS BY ORDINANCE.

I MEAN, RESOLUTION WHICH CAN BE MODIFIED QUICKLY.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE A PENALTY IN LIEU OF A FEE, IT SHOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT GIVE PROPER NOTICE TO OBVIOUSLY THE VIOLATORS NOT THROUGH A RESOLUTION.

IF THE IDEA IS WE WANT A PENALTY, SO WE CAN PASS THIS RESOLUTION WITH NO FEE, THEN EVENTUALLY DEAL WITH THE PENALTY PHASE AND THE ORDINANCE.

>> I JUST THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD COME FIRST.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A RESOLUTION WHERE THIS IS, LIKE, A WISHFUL DOCUMENT.

WE'RE SPEAKING TO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST.

>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, ARE YOU WISHING TO DO A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL AFTER THE ORDINANCES?

>> I DON'T LIKE TO DO MOTIONS TO TABLE UNLESS I THINK [LAUGHTER] I HAVE SUPPORT.

BUT I JUST THINK THAT THE RESOLUTIONS ARE EXPRESSION, HOW A BODY FEELS.

IF WE'RE PASSING A RESOLUTION, WE'RE PASSING A RESOLUTION BASED ON WHAT WE FEEL ABOUT WHAT ORDINANCE.

IT DOES NOT YET EXIST.

>> WE'RE DOING THE RESOLUTION, WHICH ALSO CREATES THE PROCEDURES FOR OUR POLICY THAT IS THE ORDINANCE.

>> THIS RESO IS A FEE RESOLUTION FOR NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD, BUT IT HAS OTHER FEES.

THE PENALTY ASPECT THAT IF WE WANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE VERSUS THE RESOLUTION.

TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, THIS RESOLUTION WILL NOT DEAL WITH THE PENALTY ASPECT.

I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT LEGALLY TO PUT PENALTIES IN A RESOLUTION.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE'RE PAST THAT POINT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT.

>> I UNDERSTAND, ARE WE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE ISSUE? THAT'S WHAT YOU, BUT I THINK WE STILL FIND LEGALLY, IF THIS BODY DOESN'T WANT A FEE FOR THE REGISTRATION, WHICH WAS MOVED BY WE CAN DO THAT.

>> AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE MOVEMENT, WHICH IS COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, HAS ACCEPTED COMMISSIONER PATTERSON'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

YOU AS A SECOND, DO YOU SUPPORT IT, OR DO YOU WISH TO GO FORWARD ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION? WHICH DOES NOT HAVE THE REMOVAL, SUBJECT TO THE VOTE ON THAT AND SUBJECT TO A NEW MOTION, IF THAT IS.

>> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON'S.

>> MOTION.

>> MOTION IS TO REMOVE THE FEE AND TO ADD A PENALTY.

BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID THAT WE CANNOT ADD A PENALTY IN THE RESOLUTION.

IT HAS TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE.

COMMISSIONER PATTERSON WOULD HAVE TO AMEND HER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO JUST STRIKE THE FEE FROM THE RESOLUTION OR ALTERNATIVELY TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AS ORDINANCE IS PASSED.

>> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, DO YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

>> I SEE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, BUT IF THAT WOULD MAKE THIS MAKE SENSE, THEN YES, SO I'LL AMEND MY FRIENDLY MOTION TO STRIKE THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION FEE AS CURRENTLY PRESENTED.

>> COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT? COMMISSIONER BOLTON?

>> THANK YOU. CITY CLERK? WHEN YOU'RE READY, CALL THE ROLL. PLEASE.

[02:00:02]

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES AS AMENDED FIVE TO ZERO.

>> THANK YOU. MOVING NOW TO 4BTR14225.

[4.b TR14225 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida,affirming and ratifying the City Manager’s Administrative Order dated February 19,2025, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein, declaring Zoning inProgress and instituting a 180-day moratorium on the submission, processing,approval or issuance of any new business tax receipts, development orders orpermits for any funeral home use in the City of Tamarac, in accordance with Chapter10, Section 10-5.4(U) of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances; authorizing anddirecting the City Manager to undertake study and review of the city’s regulationsrelating to locations of funeral home use in the City of Tamarac providing that uponthe adoption of this resolution affirming the Administrative Order, no permits shall beissued for any new funeral home use not otherwise exempt during the time periodcovered by this resolution; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; andproviding for an effective date]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 4B, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF TAMARAC, AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 19TH, 2025, AND INCORPORATED AND DECLINED ZONING IN PROGRESS, INSTITUTE 180-DAY MORATORIUM ON SUBMISSION PROCESSING, APPROVAL, ISSUANCE ON ANY NEW BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, PERMIT FOR ANY FUNERAL HOME USE IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10-5.4 OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC COURT OF ORDINANCES, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER UNDERTAKE STUDY AND REVIEW OF CITY REGULATION RELATING TO LOCATION OF FUNERAL HOME USE IN CITY OF TAMARAC PROVIDING THAT UPON THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION A FIRM AND ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE THAT NO PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR ANY NEW FUNERAL HOME USE, NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPT DURING THE TIME PERIOD COVERED BY THIS PROVIDING CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEALABILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE A MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE?

>> MOVE IT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

I WILL NOW OPEN THIS ITEM UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

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

OUR CITY MANAGER, LEVENT SUCUOGLU, AND MAXIE CALLOWAY, OUR DEPUTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> VICE MAYOR DANIEL?

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0.

>> THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW MOVING TO ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING.

[5.a TO2586 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida,amending Chapter 3 of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances entitled “AlcoholicBeverages” by specifically amending Section 3-4, entitled “Special Permit requiredfor Extended Hours” allowing the City Manager or Designee to consider, approve,and renew special permits for extended on-premises consumption of alcoholicbeverages during specified extended hours and increasing the period of permitapproval or renewal to two (2) years; providing for codification; providing forconflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

FIVE A TO2586, CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 5A, ORDINANCE OF CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF TAMARAC AMENDED CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCE ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES" BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDED SECTION 3-4 ENTITLED "SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR EXTENDED HOURS" ALLOWING CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO CONSIDER APPROVAL AND RENEW SPECIAL PERMITS FOR EXTENDED ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DURING SPECIFIED EXTENDED HOURS, INCREASING THE PERIOD OF PERMIT APPROVAL OR RENEWAL OF TWO YEARS, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

>> MOVED.

>> SAY ANYTHING, BUT YES, I'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

I WILL NOW OPEN THE ITEM UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE HAVE PATTY LYNN COMING TO THE PODIUM.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

>> PETTY LYNN MAINLANDS 8.

I'M OPPOSED TO THIS ORDINANCE.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ANYBODY REQUESTING AN EXEMPTION FOR LATE-NIGHT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

THE ONLY WAY THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS IF IT WAS ON THE AGENDA.

PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW. IF IT'S ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO LET YOU KNOW THINGS THAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW.

I OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. KATE JOHNSON.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE ELSE AFTER KATE JOHNSON, PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE CLOSED.

>> KATE JOHNSON MAINLANDS 4.

EACH TIME ONE OF THESE REQUESTS COMES FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. LOOK, SORRY.

BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, WE ALL HEAR FROM THE OWNERS ON THE RATIONALE AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO KEEP THEIR BUSINESSES AND THE COMMUNITY SAFE.

IT ALSO ALLOWS THE COMMUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT AFFECTS THEM AS HAPPENED AT THE LAST MEETING FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION RENEWALS.

IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMISSION TO HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY ON SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT THAT MAY INCREASE NOISE, DRUNKENNESS, AND CRIME.

AT THE SAME HEARING, SOMEONE USUALLY ASKS BSO ABOUT THE CRIME RATES, THE CALLS, AND OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS AND THE EXTENDED HOURS.

WE LEARN MUCH ABOUT OUR CITY AND BUSINESSES THROUGH THIS QUESTIONING.

THAT IS A GOOD THING.

IF THERE WERE CALLS TO THOSE PROPERTIES, WE FIND OUT, AND IT INFORMS DECISIONS.

HAVING IT YEARLY ALSO KEEPS BUSINESS OWNERS ON THEIR TOES.

THEY DO NOT HAVE TIME TO LET ANYTHING SLACK OFF.

HOW DOES ANY OF THIS REPORTING OR PUBLIC COMMENT

[02:05:04]

HAPPEN IF THE PROCEDURE IS DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? WITH THIS CHANGE, THERE WOULD BE NO COMMISSION OVERSIGHT AND TWO YEARS BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER.

RATHER THAN OUT IN THE OPEN OF THIS COMMISSION.

I DID READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND NO, IT CAN BE REVOKED, BUT HONESTLY, WHEN DOES THAT REVIEW OCCUR? EVERY TWO YEARS? IT OCCURS AT COMMISSION MEETINGS YEARLY.

IT SHOULD STAY THAT WAIVER, THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE RESIDENTS OF TAMARAC.

I DO NOT SUPPORT CHANGING THE CURRENT PROCEDURES AND COMMISSION OVERSIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. MISS CALLOWAY, OUR DEPUTY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

>> THANK YOU, MISS CALLOWAY.

>> COMMISSIONER.

>> MISS CALLOWAY, YOU SERVE AS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AS WELL AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CORRECT?

>> I DO, COMMISSIONER.

>> IN YOUR ROLE AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT ROLE?

>> HERE AT THE CITY OF TAMARAC OVER 11 YEARS.

>> PRIOR TO THAT?

>> OVER 10 YEARS AT THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI.

>> IN YOUR ROLE AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE THINGS, JUST AN EXAMPLE SAMPLING OF SOME OF THE INITIATIVES OR ITEMS THAT YOU COULD, IN YOUR CAPACITY, ADMINISTRATIVELY PASS.

>> IN THE LAST CODE AMENDMENT, WHICH OCCURRED IN 2018 IS WHEN THE CITY DID A OVERALL OF OUR NINE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY CAME TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, BUT IT DIDN'T COME WITHOUT A SET OF STANDARDS OR CRITERIA.

FOR VARIANCES, ALL TYPE OF VARIANCES, WHETHER IT BE HEIGHT OR SETBACK SIGN, I HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, BUT IT IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE CODE.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM THIS PROCESS.

THERE ARE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE CODE.

WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THOSE CRITERIA THE CHANGES MOVING IT FROM THE CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY MANAGER DESIGNEE.

THE CRITERIA STILL REMAINS, WHICH ARE THE SAME CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE PERMIT CAN BE REVOKED.

CHANGES WERE NOT MADE TO THOSE.

>> UNDER YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT YOU HAVE THESE TYPES OF DISCRETION.

>> IT IS NOT, BUT I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE CLEAR, IT'S JUST NOT ARBITRARY, ON MY PART.

THERE ARE STANDARDS THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED AS A PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH I AM SUBJECT TO AS A PART OF MY REVIEW.

>> THEN I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE EXAMPLES LIKE SETBACKS AND SIGNS.

JUST SAY THEM AGAIN AND SAY A FEW MORE.

>> DIMENSIONAL. ALL TYPE OF SETBACKS.

I THINK THERE'S SOME HEIGHT UP TO FIVE OR 10%.

THERE'S A LIST IN THE CODE. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE.

SIDE YARD, FRONT YARD, REAR YARD.

THERE'S SOME HEIGHT AS WELL.

THERE'S SOME SIGNAGE, DISCRETION.

THERE'S A LAUNDRY. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT COME IMMEDIATELY TO MY ATTENTION.

>> THOSE DON'T COME TO THE COMMISSION?

>> THEY DO NOT. BUT THEY ARE WITHIN MY DISCRETIONARY, WHICH SOMETIMES IS BETWEEN 5 AND 10%.

>> GOT IT. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH, LET'S SAY, ONE OF THESE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SERVES ALCOHOL, BSO IS CALLED.

THAT'S THE STUFF. WHAT'S THE PROCESS TO CLAW IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION?

>> AS IT IS NOW, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS JUST LIMITED CHANGES IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AS CROSSED THROUGH.

CITY COMMISSION IS REPLACED WITH MANAGER OR DESIGNEE.

THE APPLICATION WOULD STILL BE FILED WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REVIEWED BY THE CITY MANAGER, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT INCREASED PARKING DEMANDS, INCREASED LAW ENFORCEMENT DEMANDS.

INCREASED ENVIRONMENTAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACT, INCLUDING GENERATION OF NOISE, LIGHT, AND ODORS, INCREASED ADVERSE EFFECTS ON EXISTING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE ABILITY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OWNER OR MANAGEMENT TO MINIMIZE THE ABOVE-LISTED EFFECTS.

IT GOES CONTINUES TO SAY THAT THE ABOVE CRITERIA, ALL OF WHICH I'VE JUST READ IN GRANTING THE EXTENDED HOURS ARE THE SAME CRITERIA WE COULD LOOK AT TO REVOKE THE PERMIT.

THE REVOCATION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> IN YOUR TIME AS A CITY EMPLOYEE, DO YOU SOMETIMES GET FRUSTRATED WITH CITY COMMISSIONS?

>> IT'S OKAY.

>> CAN I DEFER THIS ONE? [MUSIC]

[02:10:07]

>> NO, WE DON'T.

>> WE STAY STEADFAST AND UNFRUSTRATED.

>> MISS CALLOWAY, I ASKED A QUESTION BECAUSE SOMETIMES ITEMS THAT PROBABLY YOU DON'T RECOMMEND COME TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSION VOTES YES, AND GOES AGAINST YOUR RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> IN DEPARTMENTS ADMINISTRATIVELY, IT IS STRINGENT.

YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT IS SET BY THIS CITY COMMISSION.

>> YES, YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS SOMEWHAT THE BIBLE FOR THE COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT.

YES, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT STRICTLY.

>> YOU WOULD THROW THE BOOK AT A BUSINESS IF BSO OR ANY OTHER ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR IF THEY VIOLATE ANY OF THE ISSUES, YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY THROW THE BOOK, AND THEY WOULD COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, CORRECT?

>> YES. IF ANY OF THESE CRITERIAS ARE VIOLATED, YES, THEN THAT IS A REASON FOR REPLICATION.

>> NO EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE.

>> TELL ME ABOUT LIVE LOCAL. THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.

>> IT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS, WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC HEARING, IT MUST OCCUR ADMINISTRATIVELY.

>> THAT IS COMING DOWN FROM THE STATE?

>> IT IS. IT HAS.

>> IT IS HERE?

>> IT'S EFFECTIVE, YES.

>> EVEN THE STATE UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME THINGS ARE TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE.

I DON'T AGREE WITH LIVE LOCAL, GOING ADMINISTRATIVELY, HAVING HIGH RISES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT COMING TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

BUT HOW WOULD THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THAT IS A THING?

>> WE WERE A BIT COGNIZANT OF THAT, AND SO WE PUT IN OUR ORDINANCE, AS YOU RECALL, THIS COMMISSION ADOPTED CERTAIN GUIDELINES, AND WE PUT IN THERE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT AND CONDUCT A COMMUNITY MEETING JUST TO PUT THE PUBLIC ON NOTICE.

THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE NOTIFIED.

BUT THOSE PROJECTS WOULD NOT GO BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AND ARE EXEMPT FROM COMING BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> A RESIDENT SPOKE ON FIRST READING.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, FOR ALLOWING THAT, BY THE WAY.

WHAT COULD BE PUT IN THIS ORDINANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS ARE AWARE THAT A BUSINESS OWNER IS COMING BEFORE YOU ADMINISTRATIVELY?

>> WE CAN PUT IN THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE BUSINESS JUST TO NOTIFY YOU OF THE APPLICATION.

THAT'S A CONSIDERATION.

>> HOW EXPENSIVE IS THAT?

>> THE COST WOULD BE BORNE BY THE APPLICANT, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE MAILING.

THEY TYPICALLY USE A VENDOR THAT WE WORK WITH ALL THE TIME TO DO THE NOTICE, AND IT CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM 1,000-$1,500 FOR THE NOTICE.

>> HOW DO WE ADVISE THE PUBLIC THAT THERE IS AN AGENDA OUT?

>> THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IS REQUIRED TO PUBLISH AND SHE DOES SO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

>> CITY CLERK, YOU PUBLISHED THE AGENDA ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE?

>> IT'S ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, AND ALSO FOR NOTIFICATION PURPOSES, ALL OF OUR MEETINGS, WE USE SUN SENTINEL TO ADVERTISE AS WELL.

>> COULD WE PUT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS TO ADVISE THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY CLERK HAS TO PUBLISH, OR THE BUSINESS OWNER HAS TO BEAR THE COST OF PUBLISHING?

>> SURE, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION, WE CAN PUT THAT IN THERE.

>> I SUPPORT THIS ITEM AS IS.

HOWEVER, IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION TO HAVE SOME SAFEGUARDS TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THROUGH PROBABLY A CITY CLERK NOTIFICATION OR A NOTIFICATION IN THE SUN SENTINEL OR ANY TYPE OF OTHER NOTIFICATIONS, MAYBE ON SOCIAL MEDIA SO THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS,

[02:15:01]

CERTAINLY I'D BE INTERESTED IN THAT.

WHY THE SUN SENTINEL? WHY CAN'T THESE BUSINESS OWNERS ADVERTISE ON TAMARAC TALK?

>> COMMISSIONER, WE CAN USE ANY MEDIUM THAT THE COMMISSION FEELS FIT.

AT THIS MOMENT, FOR NOTICE REQUIREMENT, THE LAW DOES STATE THAT IT HAS TO BE A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.

THAT'S WHY WE USE SUN SENTINEL, BUT WE ALSO USE OUR EMAIL BLAST THROUGH GOVDELIVERY THAT WE SEND OUR NOTIFICATIONS OF THE MEETINGS AS WELL.

THAT'S ANOTHER MEDIUM THAT WE CAN USE.

>> NOWADAYS, TAMARAC TALK IS WAY BETTER THAN THE SUN SENTINEL, SO PROBABLY WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT, GIVE THEM SOME BUSINESS.

WELL, MISS CALLOWAY, I SUPPORT THE ITEM AS IS, BUT IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION TO ADD SOME NOTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR THROUGH PIO, THEN I'D BE HAPPY FOR THE RESIDENT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST HAD A QUICK PIECE THAT I WANTED TO ADD TO IT.

I THINK I'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE WEBSITE AND JUST HOW WE COULD POTENTIALLY ENHANCE OUR WEBSITE TO MAKE IT MORE USER-FRIENDLY, MORE TRANSPARENT.

PERHAPS WE JUST ADD IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING BUSINESS FRIENDLY SOMEWHERE ON OUR WEBSITE WHERE WE GIVE NOTICE THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THERE'S JUST A LISTING OF ALL OF THE BUSINESSES THAT EITHER HAVE THE EXCEPTION OR IS APPLYING TO HAVE THEIR EXCEPTION RENEWED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I'VE BEEN JUST READING THE ORDINANCE AGAIN AND FOR SOME REASON, I THOUGHT THE CITY MANAGER WAS JUST GETTING THE POWER TO RENEW BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD THESE TWO BUSINESSES THAT CAME IN FRONT OF US NEXT TO EACH OTHER ON STATE ROAD 7, I9, AND THE OTHER CLUB.

I'M JUST SEEING THE DESIGNEES CONSIDERED TO APPROVE.

IF A NEW BUSINESS COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO GET THE EXTENDED HOURS OR GIVEN THE POWER TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

>> THAT WAS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIRECTION.

>> SORRY, THAT WAS MY MISUNDERSTANDING.

I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST GIVEN THE POWER TO RENEW, BECAUSE I KNOW THESE EXISTS AND BUSINESSES HAS COME IN FRONT OF US IN THE PAST TWO YEARS.

THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES.

I WAS DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF NOT BEING TOO STRINGENT BECAUSE THEY'VE PROVEN TO BE GOOD SORTS OF A COMMUNITY AND JUST MADE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, BUT I'M NOW SEEING THAT CONSIDERED TO APPROVE AS WELL.

FOR ME, FOR A NEW BUSINESS TO COME IN, I WOULD WANT THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE INPUT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANT.

IF IT'S RENEWED, I WILL GIVE THE CITY MANAGER THAT POWER.

I THINK THOSE BUSINESSES PROVEN THEMSELVES.

THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES, AND I THINK GIVING YOU GUYS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE POWER IS VERY HELPFUL, BUT I THINK IF A NEW BUSINESS COMES IN IN A SPECIFIC PART OF THE COMMUNITY, I WOULD WANT THAT TO COME TO THE COMMISSION.

I WANT TO HAVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC, THAT PART OF IT, DEFINITELY.

IN JUST UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, IT WAS MY MISINTERPRETATION.

BUT IF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE PART FOR APPROVE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE POWER TO JUST RENEW IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE POWER.

THAT'S THOSE ARE MY SENTIMENTS.

>> COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY, JUST TO QUALIFY SOME OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

IF A NEW BUSINESS COMES IN, FOR EXAMPLE, A NIGHTCLUB, WHICH IS PRIMARILY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS EXTENDED HOURS, THEN THE NIGHT CLUB IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE, AND THAT COMES BEFORE YOU? THESE CHANGES ARE FOR EXTENDED HOURS TO SERVE AND CONSUME ALCOHOL.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS FOR.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.

YOU'RE THE UF LEGAL BRILLIANT MIND.

I'M JUST UNDERGRAD, SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

>> DID THAT HELP?

>> YEAH.

[LAUGHTER].

>> SEEING OUR ORDINANCE, IT SAYS NOT ONLY IS IT 2:00 AM TO 4:00 AM BUT IT'S ALSO INCLUSIVE OF ONE HOUR EARLIER DAILY FROM 8:00 AM TO 7:00 AM.

WE'RE SAYING THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WE'VE GIVEN OUT, NOT ONLY EXTENDED 4:00 AM, THEY NOW START EARLIER AT 7:00 AM OR IS IT TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS?

>> MAYOR, SO UNDER SECTION 3-4, THIS SPECIAL EXTENDED HOURS PERMIT IMPACTS YOU CAN APPLY FOR ONE FOR EVERY DAY TO EXTENDED ONE HOUR FROM 7-8.

YOU CAN APPLY FOR ONE TO HAVE IT NEW YEAR'S EVE, DECEMBER 31, JANUARY 1ST.

[02:20:01]

YOU CAN APPLY FOR ONE FOR ST. PATRICK'S DAY OR YOU CAN APPLY FOR NUMBER 4, WHICH IS ON THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, EXTENDING THE HOURS FROM 2:00 AM, I'M SORRY, EXTENDING THE HOURS ON PREMISES TO 4:00 AM.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST POPULAR ONE.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT LATA BURNER AND I9 RECEIVED WHEN THEY WERE BEFORE YOU.

THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS NOT CHANGING.

IT HAS BEEN HERE SINCE I WANT TO SAY 2019.

THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGES.

WE'RE ONLY CHANGING WHAT IS CROSSED OUT AND PROPOSING WHAT'S BEING UNDERLINED.

>> I WAS JUST GETTING CONFUSED WHEN I WAS READING THE BACKGROUND WITH THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN FOR ME.

I DO NOT BELIEVE AN ADDITIONAL FEE FOR NOTICE.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING, BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO PUT $500 FOR EVERY TWO YEARS, BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT FOR THE BUSINESSES, THEN WE'RE PUTTING ANOTHER $1,000 OR 1,500 OWNERS ON OUR BUSINESSES TO DO THAT NOTIFICATION SO I HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN WITH ADDING THAT ITEM IN.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS GOING ON THAT.

BUT I THINK BECAUSE OF HEARING THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THAT, I THINK THAT CREATES AN ISSUE THAT AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THAT ONE.

WHEN YOU RESPONDED TO COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, IF YOU CAN REPEAT THAT, WHEN A BUSINESS COMES IN FOR I'M COMING IN, I WANT A BUSINESS, AND I WANT TO HAVE A NIGHT CLUB.

>> IT'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IN THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT.

IT REQUIRES YOUR APPROVAL AND THERE'S A DISTINCTION.

THIS IS NOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT.

IT'S A SPECIAL EXTENDED HOUR PERMIT.

IT'S JUST TO EXTEND THE HOUR BECAUSE TYPICALLY THE BUSINESS CAN ONLY CONSUME AND SELL ALCOHOL UNTIL 2:00 AM.

>> RIGHT. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING, AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE COMING IN TO SAY THEY WANT A NEW BUSINESS HERE.

WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN GET THE NEW BUSINESS HERE TILL TWO, BUT GO BACK TO ADMINISTRATIVE IF YOU'RE A NEW BUSINESS TO EXTEND TO FOUR OR ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS?

>> I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE I MAY APPROVE IT TILL TWO, DOESN'T MEAN I WANT THEM HERE TILL FOUR DEPENDING ON THE AREA AND LOCATION.

I THINK THE TEAM DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB.

BUT ACTUALLY HEARING AFTER LAST COMMISSION MEETING WHEN WE HAD THIS BROUGHT FORWARD, WHAT IS PRESENTED WAS ONLY THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF WHAT THE ZONING WAS FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY.

IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT WERE AROUND IT IN THE CONVERSATION.

I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GIVE THE FULL COMPLETE PICTURE FOR US.

SOME OF US ARE AWARE OF WHAT'S AROUND THERE.

IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

IT ADDS TO THE CONVERSATION IF IT COMES BEFORE US FOR THE INITIAL.

I WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE INITIAL COME TO US, AND I'D BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AMENABLE TO THEN GIVING REVIEW TO STAFF, BUT NOT THE FIRST ROUND FOR ME PERSONALLY.

I WOULD MAKE THIS ORDINANCE FOR ME THAT IT WOULD COME BEFORE THE CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR RENEWAL AND REVIEW AT THEIR ANNIVERSARY TIME, BUT NOT HAVING IT WHERE IT'S THE FIRST ONE.

I ALSO DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING PUBLIC BECAUSE A PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW WHEN THE ANNIVERSARY DATE IS FOR THE FIRST YEAR BEFORE IT COMES BACK.

IT'S THE FIRST YEAR, IT DOESN'T GET RENEWED TILL THE SECOND YEAR IF WE GO THROUGH WITH THIS ORDINANCE, BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHERE COMMUNITY HAS AN ABILITY TO ADVISE CITY STAFF, PROBABLY THROUGH CODES, PROBABLY THROUGH CRT OR C CLICK FIX, IF THERE ARE ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY.

I SEE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WISHES TO SAY SOMETHING. GO AHEAD.

>> MADAM MAYOR, SINCE MISS CALLOWAY INDICATED THAT A NEW NIGHTCLUB HAS TO COME FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AS YOU KNOW YOU CAN ALSO ADD A CONDITION ESPECIALLY THE FIRST YEAR THAT THEY STAY WITHIN THE 2:00 AM HOURS AS A CONDITION, SO THEY DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THIS ORDINANCE IF THIS COMMISSION.

YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THAT CONDITION THAT 2:00 AM WILL BE FIRST YEAR, AND THEY HAVE TO COMPLY.

>> WELL, I LIKE THE IDEA, THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING TO REQUIRE THAT, IT'S SUBJECTIVE TO WHEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING WOULD REVIEW IT AND THEN PUT IT IN OR NOT.

>> WELL, A NIGHTCLUB, A LOUNGE WHO WANTS TO OPERATE, THEY HAVE TO COME FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND YOUR CONCERN IS THAT IF THEY GET INITIAL APPROVAL, THEY COULD GO THE NEXT DAY,

[02:25:01]

AND YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY, THE COMMISSION AS A BODY CAN BASICALLY IMPOSE A CONDITION, SAY, WERE SUBJECT TO BASICALLY OPERATING FOR A YEAR TO SEE THERE'S NO PROBLEM, THEN YOU COULD OBVIOUSLY GO FORWARD TO THE BENEFIT THAT THIS ORDINANCE MAY PROVIDE.

>> I DO HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

BUT I GUESS I'VE BEEN TOLD SEVERAL TIMES.

DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, MAYOR, YOU'LL HAVE A TIME TO BRING THIS BACK TO VOTE ON IT AT THAT TIME AND THEN WHEN THAT HAS HAPPENED, THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED, AND SO SOMETHING THAT I'VE SUPPORTED BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS FIX IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN A DIFFERENT TIME HAS NOT WORKED OUT THE WAY THAT PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT HAS BEEN FOR BENEFIT.

>> THROUGH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS AND REVIEW, I THINK MISS CALLOWAY STAFF HAS IMPOSED CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS PART OF APPROVAL BEFORE IT COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND SHE UNDERSTAND THAT MIGHT BE A DIRECTIVE, AND SHE CAN IMPOSE THAT, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT. WELL, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

IN MY OPINION, THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN, FOR ME, I DO NOT SUPPORT IT AS WRITTEN BECAUSE I WOULD WANT IT TO BE FOR RENEWAL, NOT FOR FIRST TIME.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. PEOPLE CAN AGREE WITH IT OR NOT?

>> CITY MANAGERS JUST HYPOTHETICALLY SAY, SOMEONE DECIDES TO OPEN THE MAYOR'S CAFE, AND THEN THEY COME FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND IT'S 2:00.

THEY COME IN FRONT OF US, AND THEY'RE SAYING, WE CAN PUT IN THERE THE MAYOR'S CAFE CANNOT BE GET THIS RENEWAL UNTIL TWO YEARS FROM OPEN DAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BASICALLY?

>> CORRECT.

>> THAT'S A WAY WE CAN MITIGATE ANY NEW BUSINESS THAT COMES INTO THE COMMUNITY FROM USING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO CIRCUMVENT THIS THING.

THAT CLARIFIES MY CONCERN IN THAT ASPECT OF IT, SO THANKS.

>> SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> VICE MAYOR DANIEL?

>> ALL RIGHT, THEN. WE'RE GOING ON TO ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING.

>> MOTION PASSES 4-1.

6A2O2574, CITY ATTORNEY,

[6.a TO2574 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida,amending Chapter 12, “Business Tax Receipts Regulations,” by creating Article XIV, entitled “Certificate of Use”; providing for the requirement of a certificate of use forall new tenants in commercial properties prior to the issuance of a business taxreceipt requiring commercial property owners to resolve existing code and safetyviolations and existing liens before a certificate of use is issued to a new tenant;providing for penalties; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providingfor severability; and providing for an effective date.]

PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 6A, AN ORDINANCE CITY COMMISSIONER CITY TAMARAC AMENDING CHAPTER 12, BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT REGULATIONS BY CREATING ARTICLE 14 ENTITLED CERTIFICATE OF USE FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF STIFIC REUSE FOR ALL NEW TENANTS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO THE INSURANCE OF A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT REQUIRING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESOLVE EXISTING CODE AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS, EXISTING LIENS BEFORE CERTIFICATE USE IS ISSUED TO NEW TENANTS; PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDE FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDE FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDE FORCIBILITY; PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

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

>> SO MOVE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW OPEN, AND I HAVE JACK VENTIMAGLIA.

IF I DESTROY THAT, I APOLOGIZE.

>> MAYOR, I HAD A FEW COMMENTS ON THE SIDEM.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE THEM AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS OR AFTER?

>> AFTER.

>> IF OKAY. YOU SURE OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS IF YOU FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE THEM BEFORE, THEN, PLEASE DO SO.

>> I WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.

>> I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT BECAUSE STAFF NORMALLY SPEAKS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT SO WE SHOULD TRY TO BE CONSISTENT.

>> I DON'T CONSIDER THE CITY MANAGER STAFF ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AS HE'S NOT PRESENTING.

[OVERLAPPING] IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

CITY MANAGER IS WILLING TO WAIT. PLEASE PROCEED.

PLEASE, AS ALL OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES STATE YOUR NAME AND CHAT.

>> JACK VENTIMAGLIA WITH SHOP 1 OWNERS OF MIDWAY PLAZA.

MADAM MAYOR COMMISSIONERS STAFF, AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS, SHOP 1 OBJECTS TO THE AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.

THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTIES.

BUT AS WRITTEN TODAY, I FEEL THAT IT'LL ULTIMATELY LIMIT PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESSES ALIKE FROM MAKING IMPROVEMENTS AND BRINGING NEW BUSINESSES TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

THE AMENDMENT ITSELF IS SOMEWHAT DISRUPTIVE AND DOESN'T ALIGN TO CAPITAL PLANS AND PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT SCHEDULES THAT INSTITUTION OR PROPERTY OWNERS, SUCH AS SHOP 1 INSTITUTES.

JUST TO BRING LIGHT OF THAT,

[02:30:02]

CAPITAL ALLOTTED FOR IMPROVEMENTS IS BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS, NET OPERATING INCOME, RETURN ON INCOME, APPROVED CAPITAL PLANS AS APPROVED BY OUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SHAREHOLDERS AND INVESTORS ALIKE.

IF A LANDLORD IS UNABLE TO EFFECTIVELY GET A TENANT TO OPEN AND PAY RENT, THEN THE LANDLORD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.

I WOULD SAY SHOP 1 ITSELF IS INVESTING OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND THE PARKING LOT AND ROOF ALONE.

IF A SHOPPING CENTER OWNER PRESENTS A PLAN TO THE BOARD, THE COMMISSION STAFF, THAT THEY HAVE A CENTER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS OVER ITS TIMELINE, THEN THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT WITH THE CITY.

>> THE AMENDMENT ITSELF IS SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE AND CAN RESULT IN UNDUE BURDEN TO COMMERCIAL TENANTS.

THE NEED TO KEEP PROPERTIES, AS WRITTEN IN THE CODE, VISUALLY APPEALING IS SUBJECTIVE AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

ITEMS SUCH AS SEAL CODING, STRIPING, PAINTING, LANDSCAPING, AND INSTITUTIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS ARE CONSIDERED COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE.

COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE IS CHARGED BACK TO THE TENANTS, SO THEY PAY FOR THAT.

FORCING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THEY'RE CITED TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS INSTANTLY CAN RAISE THEIR RATES AS THEY COME ACROSS THESE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS.

MY CONCERN THERE IS THAT WILL DETRACT PROSPECTIVE BUSINESSES FROM COMING IN AND RENEWING THEIR LEASES AFTER LEASE EXPIRATION DUE TO HIGHER RENT COSTS AND CAM COSTS.

THE AMENDMENT ALSO CREATES TIMING ISSUES THAT COULD BE DAMAGING TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND TENANTS ALIKE, AS WELL.

TENANT LEASES OFTEN CONTAIN LANGUAGE THAT IF A TENANT DOESN'T RECEIVE PERMITS WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD, THAT TENANT HAS THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COULD LEAD THE TENANTS EITHER TERMINATING LEASES, CAUSING UNDUE COSTS AND HARDSHIP TO BOTH THE TENANT AND PROPERTY OWNER.

ADDITIONALLY, IT CREATES DIFFICULTY FOR THE OWNERS TO MEET THE TIMELINES WITHIN THE CITATIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> KATE JOHNSON. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YOU'LL BE NEXT.

>> KATE JOHNSON, MAINLAND 4.

I'VE ALREADY MADE SOME COMMENTS UNDER ITEM 4A, SO I WILL NOT MAKE THOSE SAME ONES HERE.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, AS YOU'VE JUST HEARD FROM THE OWNER OF THE PLAZA.

YOU WANT TO MAKE BUSINESSES COMPLY WITH CLEANING UP THEIR VIOLATIONS AND LIENS BEFORE LETTING THEM COLLECT RENT, WHICH MAY HELP THEM TO COMPLY WITH CLEANING UP AND FIXING THEIR VIOLATIONS.

THAT SEEMS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO BEING BUSINESS FRIENDLY.

HOW DOES IT HELP IF THE MONEY IS AN ISSUE AND VACANT SPACES ARE AN ISSUE AND THE INCOME IS NEEDED TO REPAIR WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED? AS IN THE PLAZA RECENTLY DISCUSSED, THEY DEVELOPED A FIVE-YEAR PLAN.

THEN THE CITY CAME BACK AND DEMANDED THAT THEY SELL THE PARKING LOT BEFORE YOU WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO RENT SPACE TO GOODWILL, EVEN THOUGH THAT ORDINANCE WAS NOT EVEN APPROVED YET AND NOT ENFORCEABLE.

IF A PLAZA OWNER DOES NOT FIX THEIR VIOLATIONS, LIEN THEIR PROPERTIES, AND IF NEEDED, THEY WILL BE FORCED TO SELL THEM WHEN THE COST IS TOO HIGH.

THEN VIOLATIONS CAN BE FIXED BY AGREEMENT AND LIENS CAN BE PAID AND SOLD.

IF NOT AND THEY KEEP THE PLAZAS OR BUSINESS BUILDINGS, THEN USE WHAT RECOURSE IS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, BUT DO NOT BE HYPOCRITICAL.

YOU DID NOT REQUIRE THIS OF SHAKER VILLAGE.

THEY HAD THREE MILLION IN LIENS AND VIOLATIONS, YET YOU DID NOT MAKE THEM CLEAN THEM UP OR EVEN TAKE DOWN THE EYESORE FOR YEARS BEFORE YOU ALLOWED A SALE.

YOU ALLOWED THE DILAPIDATED BUILDING TO STAND AND, BY THE WAY, IS STILL STANDING.

INSTEAD OF FORCING REPAIR, YOU WIPED OUT LIENS AND VIOLATIONS AND LET IT GO FORWARD BECAUSE THE CITY WAS BUYING IT.

THE CITY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY IN JANUARY AND THE EYESORE REMAINS.

YOU'VE OWNED IT FOR OVER A MONTH.

ARE YOU GOING TO FINE YOURSELF? OF COURSE NOT. MY POINT IS THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT BUSINESS FRIENDLY OR EVEN FAIR TO BUSINESSES YOU SAY YOU WANT TO ATTRACT TO OUR CITY.

LOOK WHAT YOU PUT GOODWILL THROUGH AT THE LAST MEETING AT MIDNIGHT, BY THE WAY.

THEY STOOD STRONG.

OTHERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. THANK YOU.

[02:35:03]

>> THANK YOU. JEFFREY SHAPIRO.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NOT, THEN PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE CLOSED AFTER JEFFREY SHAPIRO.

>> JEFFREY SHAPIRO, RESIDENT IN THE WOODLANDS COMMUNITY.

ON THIS MATTER, YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO AFFECT ALL YOUR CURRENT AND MAYBE EVEN FUTURE LANDLORD BUYERS OF THE SMALLER SHOPPING PLAZAS, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT A LOT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO GET TENANTS IN, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE BUYING SOMETHING THAT NEEDS AND REQUIRES MORE WORK THAN JUST THE AESTHETICS.

BY REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION FOR THE AESTHETICS TO BE ADDRESSED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, OTHER THAN MAYBE THERE IS A MAJOR CONCERN THAT THAT NEW LANDLORD HAS TO PUT A ROOF ON THE ENTIRE PLACE, WHICH IS A LOT MORE COSTLY.

IT CAN COST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

YOU'RE JUST GOING TO DRIVE BUSINESSES AWAY.

FOR SOME OF THE OTHER SMALLER CENTERS, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY, WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO CHANGE TENANTS, MAKE IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM EVEN TO REFILL A SPACE WHEN ONE TENANT GOES OUT.

I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY IF YOU WANT TO GROW BUSINESS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. MISS CALLOWAY, OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

LOOKING FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION.

ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE. CITY MANAGER, PLEASE PROCEED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. BEFORE WE START THE CONVERSATION, I'D LIKE TO MAKE TWO MINOR SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS ORDINANCE, AND THIS ORDINANCE BEING EXTREMELY STRICT.

ONE IS TO PROVIDE A DISCRETIONARY COMPLIANCE ALLOWANCE BASED ON THE TEXT THAT'S ON THE SCREEN THAT PROVIDES AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME DISCRETION TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS OF THE PLAZA FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS.

THE OTHER ONE IS THE NEXT PAGE, JIM.

THE NEXT ONE IS TO PROVIDE A SIX-MONTH, LET'S CALL IT GRACE PERIOD OR EDUCATION PERIOD PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ORDINANCE.

>> CITY MANAGER, YOU ARE ASKING FOR US TO? ACTUALLY, I STILL NEED TO DO A MOTION A SECOND TO GET THIS GOING. I'M SORRY.

BASICALLY, ARE YOU ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THAT FOR US TO BE DISCUSSING IT THAT WAY? ASKING US TO INCLUDE IT AS A DISCUSSION WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR?

>> I AM ASKING THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THOSE TWO SUGGESTIONS AND SEE IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THEM INTO FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.

>> OKAY. THOSE ITEMS ARE ON THE TABLE.

WE'RE NOW UP FOR DISCUSSION. VICE MAYOR DANIEL.

>> I THINK IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, THE NUMBER 1 TOPIC THAT'S ON RESIDENT MIND IS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE PLAZAS? YOU CANNOT GET GREAT BUSINESS IN THE CITIES UNTIL WE CLEAN UP THE PLAZA AND IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

I'VE LIVED HERE FOR OVER A DECADE, YEARS.

IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

THIS IS THE ONE TIME WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT TO MAKE CHANGES.

OTHER CITIES MAKE CHANGES.

FOR SOME REASON, WE'RE STUCK.

TO MAKE ANY TYPE OF ADOPTION TO IT, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE SAME OLD SAME OLD.

I WAS NOT ELECTED TO MAKE THINGS REMAIN THE SAME.

I KNOW MY RESIDENTS, THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR ME, THEY WANTED THE PLAZAS TO CHANGE.

THAT WAS THE NUMBER 1 TOPIC.

YOU CANNOT GET GREAT BUSINESS UNTIL YOU FIX UP YOURSELF.

IF YOU'RE BUYING A HOUSE, WHEN I BUY MY HOUSE IT WAS RENOVATE, I STILL HAD TO FIX IT UP.

IF WE EXPECT THAT OF THE RESIDENTS, WE SHOULD EXPECT THAT OF OUR PLAZA OWNERS.

NO, WE'RE NOT GIVING RESIDENTS, OH, YOU DON'T GET TO FIX YOUR ROOF OR YOU DON'T GET TO FIX YOUR DRIVEWAY.

WE TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO FIX IT.

THE SAME THING THAT APPLIES TO RESIDENTS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PLAZA OWNERS.

AS HOME OWNERS, YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

[02:40:01]

IF YOU BUY A HOUSE WITH LIENS AND VIOLATION, GUESS WHAT, AS A NEW OWNER, YOU HAVE TO FIX THOSE.

THIS IS COMMON SENSE.

IF WE DON'T STAND OUR GROUND AND DO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT AND MAKE OUR CITY BETTER AND HOLD PLAZA OWNERS ACCOUNTABLE, WE'RE ACTUALLY HELPING BUSINESS.

NOW THE CITY WILL BE ATTRACTIVE FOR BUSINESS TO COME IN.

NOW WE CAN ASK FOR NICER RESTAURANTS.

NOW WE CAN ASK FOR BUSINESSES THAT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL AND WANT TO BE IN A CLEAN, NICE, UPDATED PLAZA.

SOME OF OUR PLAZAS HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED IN DECADES, UNACCEPTABLE.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

>> WRONG TIME I'M ABOUT TO SNEEZE.

MANAGER, YOU'RE WELL MEANING, BUT NO, I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT RECOMMENDATION.

I MEAN, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE THE ONES ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET BEGGING FOR VOTES.

SO WHEN RESIDENTS ASK US TO DO SOMETHING, WE WANT TO BE IN A POSITION TO DO WHAT THEY ASK US TO DO.

THE PREVIOUS ITEM IS DE MINIMIS TO THIS ITEM.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE CONTROL OVER WHERE WE WILL WANT TO BE ABLE TO TALK OPENLY TO BUSINESS OWNERS AND HOLD THEIR FOOT TO THE FIRE.

ARBITRARILY GIVING IT TO A STAFF MEMBER THAT BREEDS LOTS OF PROBLEMS. THE PLAZA ON MATNAB, I THINK IT WAS CHINA DOLL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BACK IN THE DAY, WHERE NOW ARCADIA IS.

WAS THAT CHINA DOLL PLAZA?

>> THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESTAURANTS. [INAUDIBLE]

>> YEAH. THAT PLAZA, HORRENDOUS, WAS NOT BEING FIXED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

THE CITY DID MOBILE TOURS, DID ALL SORTS OF THINGS TO GET DEVELOPERS TO COME IN.

FINALLY, IT WAS KNOCKED DOWN AND NOW IT IS RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S SOME HABITS OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES NOT FIXING THEIR PLAZAS.

AS A BUSINESS OWNER AS WELL, I WANT TO MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THERE'S NO LIENS.

BECAUSE IF THERE'S LIENS, IT'S NOW GOING TO INCENTIVIZE IN THE MIND OF THE BUSINESS OWNER THAT, HEY, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE MY RENT IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THESE LIENS.

I WANT TO MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THERE'S NO LIENS.

THAT WAY, I FEEL LIKE I'M NOT GOING TO BE CHARGED EXUBERANT AMOUNT OF RENT WHEN I'M ALREADY IN.

THIS IS A REAL LIFE STORY IN THE PLAZA WHERE MY BUSINESS IS.

THERE WAS A SHOOTING AT SOME TIME AGO.

PLAZA WAS RUN DOWN.

THERE WAS A SHOOTING AT A CORNER STORE INSIDE THE PLAZA IN ANOTHER CITY.

SO A LOT OF CUSTOMERS DID NOT WANT TO COME TO THE PLAZA, A, BECAUSE THEY FELT UNSAFE, AND B, BECAUSE THE PLAZA WAS RUN DOWN.

THE LANDLORD DID A MAJOR FACADE UPGRADE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN CUSTOMERS STARTED COMING.

WHY? BECAUSE THE PLAZA LOOKED ATTRACTIVE.

IT LOOKED SAFE.

WHEN YOUR BUSINESS PLACE OR THE PLAZA LOOKS SAFE, IT'S WELL LIT, IT INVITES CUSTOMERS.

IT'S RUN DOWN, NOT WELL LIT, CUSTOMERS DO NOT WANT TO COME.

WE'RE NOT FORCING BUSINESS OWNERS TO DO ANYTHING.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SAYING WE'RE HOLDING YOU TO THE STANDARDS OF OUR CITY.

THE STANDARD SHOULD NOT BE CHASING CORAL SPRINGS.

WE SHOULD NOT BE SAYING, WHY IS CORAL SPRINGS THIS? WHY IS THIS OR THAT? WE SHOULD NOT BE CHASING CORAL SPRINGS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR OWN STANDARD IN TAMARAC AND BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GOING TO FOLLOW IT.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PLAZAS LOOK GOOD, RESIDENTIAL SPACES LOOK GOOD.

I'M TIRED OF RESIDENCES ALSO SAYING, WHY DOES CORAL SPRINGS HAVE TO DO THIS AND CORAL SPRINGS IS SO STRICT AND SO MANY PEOPLE ARE MOVING TO CORAL SPRINGS AND ENJOY THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME STANDARD IN TAMARAC.

I THINK WE DO, WE JUST NEED TO HOLD THEIR FOOT TO THE FIRE.

ATTRACTIVE BUSINESSES ATTRACT CUSTOMERS AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

WE'RE BEING BUSINESS FRIENDLY.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CITY LOOKS GOOD.

[02:45:05]

I WOULDN'T WANT TO ENTERTAIN THAT RECOMMENDATION.

I APPRECIATE YOU COMING, THOUGH.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I AM PRO BUSINESS.

I'M A BUSINESS EXECUTIVE.

ACTUALLY, WE JUST RECENTLY RENT A SPACE UP IN PALM BEACH.

INITIALLY, THEY WANTED TO LIST IT FOR $13 A SQUARE FOOT.

I LISTED IT FOR 19 AND WE GOT A RENTER IN TWO DAYS, LOOPNET COSTAR.

IN TWO DAYS, WE GOT A RENTER.

SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS ASPECT OF IT.

I ALSO READ THE PUBLICATION AND I SEE YOU GUYS PAID 36 MILLION BUCKS FOR THAT PLAZA.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MOVING TO FLORIDA.

MORE AND MORE COMPANIES ARE INVESTING IN TAMARAC.

WE'RE NOT CHASING CORAL SPRINGS.

WE'RE UNIQUE TO CORAL SPRINGS.

THE RANKING SHOWED THAT RECENTLY WE'RE TOP FIVE AND THERE'S A REASON YOU COME HERE BECAUSE YOU SEE TAMARAC IS VALUABLE, AND TAMARAC IS PART OF A RENAISSANCE.

THIS IS THE TIME FOR US TO MAKE SURE OUR NEW PLAZA OWNERS UPLIFT OUR COMMUNITY AND MAKE IT BETTER BECAUSE YOU'RE COMING HERE TO BE PART OF THE RENAISSANCE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE PART OF THE RENAISSANCE, YOU WANT TO INVEST AND MAKE THE COMMUNITY BETTER.

I DO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE RESIDENTS PERSPECTIVE AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE BEING ANTI-BUSINESS.

I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY BEING PRO BUSINESS.

WE'RE MOVING WITH THE SENTIMENTS OF WHY YOU'RE COMING HERE.

THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME FOR US AS A CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THESE NEW BUSINESSES AND THE NEW PLAZA OWNERS WHO ARE BUYING IN TAMARAC LIFT THE STANDARDS OF TAMARAC.

I HEAR YOUR POINT AS A BUSINESS OWNER, BUT I THINK YOU INVESTED HERE FOR A REASON.

IF YOU INVESTED 36 MILLION BUCKS, I THINK YOU SEE SOMETHING ABOUT THE CITY THAT'S ATTRACTIVE.

WE WANT YOU TO LIFT OUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

SO THIS IS JUST NOT US BEING ANTI-BUSINESS.

I THINK WE'RE BEING PRO RENAISSANCE.

WE WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT JOURNEY.

I DO SUPPORT ALL MY COLLEAGUE SAID IN MAKING SURE THAT OUR PLAZA OWNERS, ESPECIALLY OUR NEW BUYERS, LIFT THE STANDARDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

I DO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.

I SUPPORT IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A HARM ON BUSINESS.

I THINK IT'S JUST MAKING OUR CITY BETTER AND IMPROVING OUR COMMUNITY.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I CAN SEE THIS THING FROM ALL DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINTS.

I'M A BUSINESS OWNER, SO I GET THE BUSINESS'S PERSPECTIVE AS A FORMER CODE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR.

I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLICATIONS WITH THE STAFF AND JUST THEM BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO ON THE BEHALF OF THE REQUESTS OF ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSION, WHAT HAVE YOU.

SITTING HERE, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS.

AS THE NEWEST PERSON HERE, I WAS MOST RECENTLY IN THE STREETS TALKING TO RESIDENTS, AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST, PEOPLE REALLY FEEL DISSATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.

SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE OF THE AESTHETICS, THE APPEARANCE OF THE PLAZAS, I WISH I HAD A QUARTER FOR EVERY TIME I KNOCKED ON A DOOR AND SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT THAT WAS THEIR CONCERN.

LEGITIMATELY, IT IS AN ISSUE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IF WE TRAVERSE THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY, WE CAN SEE THAT OUR COMMERCIAL PLAZAS LACK ATTENTION.

ON THE FLIP SIDE, MAYBE I SHOULD SAY CONVERSELY, THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER WORD.

CONVERSELY, I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK WITH SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

I THINK WE WOULD AGREE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

A NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, I CAN THINK OF TWO AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO A, KEEP THEIR DOORS OPEN FOR SEVERAL REASONS, BUT SOME TO INCLUDE THEIR ROOFS ARE LEAKING.

I ACTUALLY KNOW A SMALL RESTAURANT THAT WAS OPENED, NOT IN MY DISTRICT, BUT JUST ACROSS THE STREET.

THEY WERE THERE MAYBE SIX MONTHS.

THE PROPERTY OWNER REFUSED TO MAKE REPAIRS, DESPITE THE RUNNING VIOLATIONS AND LIENS THAT WERE SITTING ON THE BUILDING.

I UNDERSTAND WHY MY COLLEAGUES DECIDED TO GO THIS ROUTE.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT FOREIGN FOR CITIES TO USE THIS VEHICLE TO ADDRESS CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTERS.

I DON'T ALWAYS 100% AGREE WITH THIS MECHANISM BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE CHALLENGES AS WELL.

THERE'S CHALLENGES TO ALL SIDES OF IT.

IT JUST IS WHAT IT IS.

BUT I HAVE SPOKEN TO STAFF,

[02:50:01]

AND I'VE ASKED THAT WE REALLY DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL OF OUR OTHER ORDINANCES AS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO REALLY CONSIDER.

CODE ENFORCEMENT IN OUR CITY IS IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY ON ALL LEVELS.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF IS ALREADY LOOKING INTO SOME WAYS TO BRING BEFORE MY COLLEAGUES, A REFRESHED ORDINANCE THAT WILL GIVE THAT DEPARTMENT THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR HEFTIER FINES, DEAL WITH FORECLOSURES, HAVE ALL OF THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES IN OUR CITY.

WITH THAT SAID, I WILL SAY THAT I DO SUPPORT, AND IT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION TO GO WITH AN EDUCATION PERIOD.

I AM IN SUPPORT OF ALL SIDES OF THIS THING.

IT'S TOUGH WHEN YOU'RE SITTING IN THIS SEAT.

YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT I NEED TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS THING FROM ALL PERSPECTIVES.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER DOING AN EDUCATION PERIOD, WHERE EVERYONE IN OUR CITY THAT IS AN OWNER OF A COMMERCIAL PLAZA IS GIVEN THE COURTESY BY OUR STAFF TO BE NOTIFIED OF A, THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING APPROVED, B, THAT THEY'RE PROVIDED A LIST OF ALL VIOLATIONS AND REMEDY ON HOW TO GET THEM ADDRESSED AND C, ANY RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY TO INCLUDE OUR FACADE PROGRAM TO HELP THEM ADDRESS WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS AT THEIR SITES. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, I TOO HAVE THOUGHT THAT.

WELL, I'VE WANTED THIS ORIGINALLY, WHEN IT ROLLED OUT, IT WAS NOT THE ROLLOUT THAT I EXPECTED.

IT WOULD WORK AGAINST BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL IN WHICH WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, IN MY OPINION, AS WRITTEN.

I THINK THAT WHEN LOOKING AT THIS NEW RESOLUTION THAT WAS PUT IN THE MEMO, IT HAS DIFFERENT PLAZAS IN THERE NOW, SMALLER PLAZAS, SMALLER PLAZAS THAT MAY NOT EVEN HAVE TENANTS.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT? IF YOU DON'T HAVE A TENANT, IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THIS.

I SEE THAT WE HAVE NO TRANSFER FEE.

WE HAVE VIABLE COMPLAINTS.

THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT I CAN PULL APART, BUT SEEING THAT TIME IS DEFINITELY A FACTOR.

I CANNOT FULLY SUPPORT IT AS WRITTEN UNLESS THERE IS AN EDUCATIONAL PIECE.

I SAID THIS BEFORE, THERE'S SOME HYPOCRISY IN HERE.

OUR CITY IS NOT KEEPING OUR ROADS AND OUR PARKING LOTS, CONSTANTLY ASPHALTED, AND SEAL-COATED.

THEN WHY ARE WE MANDATING THAT CONTINUOUSLY OUT OF SOME OF OUR BUSINESSES? IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR BUSINESSES BE HELD TO THAT STANDARD, THEN THE CITY NEEDS TO BE HELD TO IT, TOO.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING OUR BUSINESSES TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE THE BIGGEST BUSINESS IN THE CITY.

WE'VE GOT THE MOST PROPERTY.

I DO THINK SOME OF THIS STUFF IS VERY IMPORTANT TO GO THROUGH.

BUT SEEING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ENOUGH TIME OR SUPPORT FOR IT.

ALSO, I'LL ASK THIS QUESTION.

THIS CERTIFICATE OF USE IS ONLY FOR WHEN WE COME IN ONE TIME BUT OUR BUSINESS TAX IS EVERY YEAR.

I'M A NEW BUSINESS IN HERE. I'M IN THAT PLAZA.

I'VE GOT TO GO EVERY YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? MISS GALLOWAY.

>> YES, THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS RENEWED.

THE CERTIFICATE OF USE IS, YES, IT'S FOR EVERY NEW TENANT THAT IS MOVING IN, IF IT'S A STANDALONE BUILDING, AND IT'S BEEN VACATED AND THERE'S LIENS OR VIOLATION ON THAT BUILDING, THEN A TENANT, EVEN IF IT'S ONE TENANT, CANNOT MOVE IN UNTIL THEY'RE RESOLVED.

>> UNLESS IT'S A TRANSFER TO THE SAME BUSINESS OR SO?

>> IF THERE'S A TRANSFER, THEN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR THAT.

YOU CAN TRANSFER AT NO COST PROVIDED, OF COURSE, THERE'S NO LIENS OR VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY.

>> WELL, I'VE LISTENED TO MY COLLEAGUES, AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN EVERYBODY.

I WANT SOMETHING IN HERE.

I WANT THERE TO BE AN EDUCATION PERIOD.

I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO SALES THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

WE'VE GOT NEW PLAZA OWNERS THAT BOUGHT THEIR PLAZAS WITH SPECIFIC BUSINESS PROPOSAL TO COME INTO OUR CITY,

[02:55:01]

INVEST IN OUR CITY, AND UPSCALE THOSE PLAZAS THAT THEY HAVE BOUGHT.

I DON'T THINK BEING RETRO IS A WAY TO DO IT.

I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE THE LAST ITEM IN THE TOOLBOX.

IF CODE ENFORCEMENT IS FINDING ALL OF THESE ITEMS ON A PROPERTY, THEN IT SHOULD ALREADY BE POSTED ON THAT PROPERTY BEFORE A SALE OCCURS, AND THE LANDLORD BEING GIVEN THAT NOTICE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS OPPORTUNITY, THIS OPPORTUNITY, THIS OPPORTUNITY, THIS OPPORTUNITY.

SINCE YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED THIS OPPORTUNITY, AND WE HAVE NOT WORKED TOGETHER FROM SAF AND BUSINESS PLAZA, THEN, THEREFORE, THIS IS BEING INSTITUTED.

BUT I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS THE FIRST RUN, AND THIS IS WHERE IT SHOULD GO RIGHT AWAY.

MY OPINION. COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

>> THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING.

MISS GALLOWAY, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION, WE'VE ALL WHEN WE'RE DOING CHANGES, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN AN EDUCATIONAL PERIOD.

I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.

>> NO, NOT NECESSARILY, VICE MAYOR.

SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS UPON ADOPTION, THE WAY WE WROTE THIS IN SOME INSTANCES, WE HAVE PUT IN, LIKE, AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS OR SO.

WE HAVE WRITTEN THAT IN.

WE MIGHT NOT CALL IT AN EDUCATIONAL PERIOD.

WE MIGHT HAVE PUT IN AN AMORTIZATION PROVISION.

>> WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE, I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN YOU GUYS FOR DOING AN EDUCATIONAL PERIOD.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A TIME FRAME FOR THAT.

>> WELL, WITHOUT THIS SECTION, IT'S ADOPTED EFFECTIVE UPON ADOPTION.

THAT'S THE WAY WE WROTE IT.

>> I'M IN AGREEMENT TO MAKING THAT CHANGE, SO EVERYONE WILL BE AWARE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S A MOTION COMING OUT FOR IT, BUT COMMISSIONER BOLTON, GO AHEAD. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>> I'M NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE EDUCATION PERIOD, ONLY BECAUSE IN TAMARAC, WE'VE BEEN ASKING AND DEMANDING AND BEGGING AND SEEKING AND KNOCKING ON THESE BUSINESS OWNERS' DOORS TO FIX THEIR PLAZAS.

HAD THIS JUST BEEN A NEW IDEA? SURE. BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD FOR A VERY LONG TIME, YOU NEED TO FIX YOUR PLAZAS.

I'M NOT FOR IT.

I HEAR LOTS OF SUPPORT FOR AN EDUCATION PERIOD, BUT I'M NOT FOR IT.

THEY HAVE GOTTEN WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND SIX MONTHS IS TOO LONG.

>> IS IT SIX MONTHS?

>> YEAH, THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN.

IT SAYS FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.

>> OH, I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH ANY OF THEM.

SORRY CITY MANAGER, BUT I'M TOTALLY NOT IN AGREEMENT.

BUT A TIME FRAME TO NOTIFY, LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I'M FOR THAT.

WOULD IT BE SIX WEEKS? THAT'S FINE.

DON'T TAKE THAT LONG TO EDUCATE SOMEONE ON OUR ORDINANCE.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF THERE'S AN EDUCATION PERIOD, NOT SIX MONTHS.

IF THERE'S A TWO-MONTH EDUCATION PERIOD, LET'S SAY, THEN THE BUSINESS OWNER HAS TO TELL THE TENANTS.

THEY HAVE TO BECAUSE LET'S SAY IN SIX MONTHS, THE LEASE IS GOING TO BE EXPIRED OR IN TWO MONTHS, THE LEASE IS GOING TO BE EXPIRED.

A TENANT NOW HAS IN THE BACK OF THEIR MIND, YOU'VE GOT LIENS.

YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE MY RENT.

I THINK AS A BUSINESS OWNER.

I WANT TO KNOW, HEY, GIVE ME MY LEASE NOW, LET ME SIGN IT AT THE OLD RATE OR AT A LOW RATE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO PASS THIS COST ON TO ME.

IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EDUCATION PERIOD, IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN THAT THE OWNER OR THE CITY IS GOING TO TELL EACH AND EVERY BUSINESS OWNER IN THAT PLAZA, BECAUSE THE BUSINESS OWNERS NOW ARE GOING TO KNOW, HEY, MY RENT MAY BE INCREASED BECAUSE OF THESE NEW THINGS THAT THE BUSINESS OWNER IS GOING TO DO TO THE PLAZA.

>> CITY MANAGER.

>> MAYOR, THE SIX MONTH IS SUGGESTED FOR THE REASON THAT A LOT OF THESE PLAZAS HAVING THESE VIOLATIONS IN THEIR BOOKS, THEY'RE SUDDENLY BEING FACED WITH THIS ENFORCEMENT THAT WILL DISRUPT THEIR BUSINESS.

JUST DISRUPTED, NO QUESTION.

SIX MONTH EDUCATION, GRACE PERIOD, PREPARATION PERIOD WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH BRINGING THEIR ACT TOGETHER, BRINGING THEIR FINANCES TOGETHER, BRINGING THEIR PLANS TOGETHER, APPLY FOR PERMITS, DO THEIR DESIGNS, AND DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO PREPARE THEM FOR TAKING CARE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS IN THE BOOK.

[03:00:05]

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM. I HEARD THE CONCERNS OF COMMISSIONER BOLTON AS SOMEONE WHO OWNS A COMMERCIAL SPACE.

BUT I THINK MOST OF THESE OWNERS AND THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE PURCHASING THESE PLAZAS ARE BIG PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS, GUYS WITH A LOT OF FINANCE AND CAPITAL.

I THINK THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD, I'M FOR IT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON MENTIONED, TENANTS MIGHT DO THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

I THINK THESE INVESTORS AND THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUYING THESE PLAZAS, HAVE BIGGER INVESTORS TO ANSWER TO, BIGGER PENSION FUNDS, BLACKSTONE, AND THESE BIG COMPANIES, THEY HAVE CERTAIN RETURNS THAT THEY GET.

IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THEY MAKE SURE THAT THESE PLAZAS SUCCEED.

SOMEONE THAT'S NOT GOING TO INVEST 36 MILLION BUCKS NOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE TENANTS, AND IT'S RENTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE INVESTORS AND PEOPLE TO ANSWER TO.

I HEAR THE CONCERN OF COMMISSIONER BOLTON FROM A BUSINESS OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE.

BUT I THINK THE PLAZA OWNERS, AND FROM WHAT I READ IN THE PUBLICATIONS, AND WHEN I SEE PEOPLE BEHIND THESE PLAZAS IN TAMARAC ARE THESE BIG INVESTMENT FIRMS AND PENSION FUNDS.

I THINK THEY HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND MATRIX AND THINGS TO ANSWER TO.

I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PLACES ARE RENTED, THAT THEY HAVE THE OCCUPANCY RATES TO ANSWER TO THE INVESTOR.

I'M FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD BECAUSE I THINK THEY WILL DO IT FOR THEM TO SUCCEED.

I'LL SUPPORT THAT PART OF IT.

>> MISS MAXIE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

>> MAYOR.

>> THIS ONLY DEALS WITH WHICH ZONING PLACES?

>> ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

>> IT'S NOT AN OFFICE PLAZA.

>> IT'S NOT BASED ON ZONING DISTRICT.

>> BUT IT'S NOT AN OFFICE PLAZA?

>> I SUPPORT THE SIX MONTHS.

I ALSO THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE ANYTHING FROM THIS DAY FORWARD ON BECAUSE IF THERE'S NEW VIOLATIONS AND GOING FROM THERE, I THINK THAT IT MAKES IT TOO HARD TO RETRO THIS TO NEW.

WE'VE GOT TWO NEW PLAZA OWNERS THAT WE KNOW OF THAT WORKING AND HAVING LEASES THAT ARE ALREADY INTACT.

WE WIND UP PUTTING THIS IN HERE EFFECTIVE TODAY, THEN ALL THOSE LEASES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE BROKEN.

ALSO, WE HAVE SMALLER PLAZAS.

I SEE THAT YOU HAVE US SECURITIES IN HERE.

IT'S A VERY SMALL BUILDING.

I SEE THAT THEY'VE DONE THEIR STUFF.

BUT WHO KNOWS HOW MANY OF THOSE EXTRA SPACES WITHIN THERE ARE BEING RENTED.

WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THOSE SMALL LEASES? I WOULD THINK IT'S NOTICED NOW.

SIX MONTHS. IF THAT SAME PLAZA HASN'T DONE IT, IT GOES IN FOR FUTURE USE.

I'M GETTING A LOOK LIKE I'M NOT MAKING SENSE.

>> YEAH, I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU MA'AM. I'M SORRY.

>> RIGHT NOW WE HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT I'M USING YOU AS AN EXAMPLE.

MIDWAY PLAZA IS HERE, SHOP 1 IS HERE.

THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC BUSINESS THAT IS GOING TO BE LEASED.

THIS RULE HAS NOT BEEN PUT INTO PLACE. THAT LEASE IS IN EFFECT.

BY MAKING THIS RETRO TO THEM AND MAKING IT FORCE UPON THEM, IT WILL CAUSE AN ISSUE WITH THEIR TENANT OR COULD CAUSE AN ISSUE WITH THEIR TENANT.

>> THE SIX MONTH EDUCATION PERIOD MAYOR WOULD BE EFFECTIVE THE DAY THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED.

>> WELL, I'M SAYING IF THERE IS NO, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS, ORDINANCE TAKES EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION.

>> CORRECT.

>> THAT MEANS IT'S RETRO, CORRECT?

>> NO. BUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD SECTION 12246, WHICH WILL READ PUBLIC EDUCATION PRIOR TO, SO IT WOULD BE TO THE ENFORCEMENT, FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT, AND SO THAT'S THE LANGUAGE WE'RE PROPOSING TO INSERT AND BECOME SECTION 12-246.

ARTICLE 14 SHALL BE ENFORCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SIX MONTHS.

>> LET ME CLARIFY.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> IF THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED TODAY, IF AN EXISTING SHOPPER CENTER HAS EXISTING LIENS AND FINES, AND THEY EITHER HAVE A POTENTIAL TENANT THAT THEY WANT TO INTERNAL LEASE THIS IF THE EFFECTIVE DATE WITHOUT, LET'S SAY ASSUMING NO PUBLIC EDUCATION, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, MAYOR.

YOU'RE INDICATING THAT IF A SHOPPING CENTER HAVE EXISTING LIENS, THAT THEY HAVE A TENANT, THAT LET'S SAY THE LEASE IS BEING NEGOTIATED, YOU WANT THIS ORDINANCE TO APPLY PROSPECTIVELY, IF THAT'S CORRECT?

>> BECAUSE THE LEASE IS READY SIGNED TODAY. IT'S SIGNED YESTERDAY.

I SIGNED TWO MONTHS AGO, AND THEY'RE IN PROCESS OF DOING WHAT THEY NEED.

>> RIGHT NOW, IF THIS ORDINANCE PASSED, NOTWITHSTANDING NEGOTIATION AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES,

[03:05:02]

IT WOULD IF IT'S A SIGNED LEASE, AND LET'S ASSUME THAT THEY DIDN'T GET THE BUSINESS LICENSE OR CU, THE ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED.

WITHOUT BUT THE EDUCATION PERIOD HAS GIVEN, I CALL IT A WAIT PERIOD TO ALLOW EDUCATION ALLOW ENFORCEMENT TO BE DELAYED.

>> THAT'S WHY I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS REALLY A NEED FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD TO BE IN THERE AS SIX MONTHS TO ALLOW FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

SOME OF THESE PLAZAS, IF YOU'RE GETTING TO THIS POSITION, YOU DON'T HAVE JUST A COAT OF PAINT YOU NEED TO DO.

YOU HAVE TO GO OUT AND DO YOUR BIDS, JUST LIKE WE DO OUR BIDS. THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES IN THERE.

>> THE EDUCATION I THINK LET'S JUST CLARIFY THE RECORD.

THE EDUCATION PERIOD, LIKE ANY OTHER EDUCATION PERIOD, IF WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST, ALLOW STAY ENFORCEMENT UNTIL THE EDUCATION PERIOD IS OBVIOUSLY COMPLETED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS.

IT'S NOT THE ARTICLE IS IMMEDIATELY ENFORCE AFTER THE SIX MONTHS.

IT'S NOT ENFORCED WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS.

WE START ENFORCING IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE SIX MONTHS EXPIRES.

>> EXACTLY. I'M SAYING WHY I'M SUPPORTING CHANGING SECTION 6 TO HAVE THIS.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR.

FOR ME, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE STAY, THE PERIOD THAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR WOULD BE A PERIOD THAT'S AN ACTIONABLE PERIOD.

CERTIFIED MAIL GOES OUT TO PROPERTY OWNER THAT THE CITY IS REQUESTING A MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY OUTSTANDING ISSUES AT YOUR LOCATION AND ANY NEW ORDINANCES ADOPTED.

IF THEY DON'T RESPOND, LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

LIKE, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR US TO JUST DRAG THIS OUT FOR SIX MONTHS AND PUT THE ONUS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER TO JUST EITHER COME OR GO OR JUST WHATEVER.

LIKE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST AN EDUCATION PERIOD, BUT THAT IT'S A PERIOD WHERE THEY'RE BEING, TO SOME DEGREE, SUMMONED TO COME IN, THERE'S A DISCUSSION HAD A PLAN OUTLINE AND ACTIONABLE ITEMS AND STEPS TAKEN FOR THEM TO REMEDY AND ADDRESS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

IF WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE SIX MONTH PERIOD TO MAKE IT A SMALLER TIME SO THAT STAFF CAN GET OUT THOSE NECESSARY CERTIFIED LETTERS THAT WOULD THEN REQUIRE THEM TO COME IN AND HANDLE THEIR BUSINESS ON THE BEHALF OF THEIR PLAZAS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, NOT JUST THE TRADITIONAL EDUCATION PERIOD THAT WOULD LEND TO JUST A STAY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT POTENTIALLY THERE ARE SOME BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS THAT MAY BE UNDERWAY.

BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT CURRENTLY ARE OCCUPYING SPACES THAT ARE STRUGGLING AS A RESULT OF THE LIENS AND THE FAILED MAINTENANCE ON THEIR BUSINESSES.

AGAIN, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS FROM VARIOUS VANTAGE POINTS AND MAKE THE BEST DECISION THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN.

FOR ME, AGAIN, EVERYONE KNOWS, I BELIEVE IN CODE ENFORCEMENT 100%.

I JUST THINK THAT, AND I SAID THIS THE LAST TIME THAT I DON'T THINK THIS WAS EXACTLY THE WAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DID IT.

>> THANK A CITY ATTORNEY SEEMS THAT YOU WISH TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, YOU WANT TO CALL IT A COMPLIANCE SPIRIT, WHERE STAFF BASICALLY WILL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH SHOPPING CENTERS, IF THEY WORK OUT SOME COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, AND IF THEY ARE MOVING TOWARDS A COMPLIANCE, THEY GET WHATEVER APPROPRIATE RELIEF.

BUT IF THEY GIVE US THE SAME ROUTINE, WE CAN IMPOSE ENFORCEMENT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, COMPLIANCE YOU SAID.

>> POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

WOULDN'T THAT REQUIRE US TO ALLOW DISCRETIONARY?

>> CODE ENFORCEMENT IN GENERAL, I KNOW, BUT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DISCRETIONARY ITEMS BEFORE, BUT DOES IT HAVE TO BE CODIFIED WITH THE DISCRETIONARY ITEMS FROM CODE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, SO THE REST OF IT.

BECAUSE AFTER SIX MONTHS, OR WHATEVER THE TIME IS, DURING THE SIX MONTHS, THERE'S NOTICE AND THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER FOR A PROGRAM, AND THEY'RE WORKING ON THE PROGRAM.

WHEN THIS TIME OF THE EDUCATIONAL PERIOD HITS, WHAT HAPPENS? IS IT NOW THEY CAN'T GET THEIR CU, BUT THEY'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF THE PROGRAM THAT THEY LAID OUT WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, SO THEN ARE THEY GETTING THEIR CUS OR THEY'RE NOT GETTING THEIR CU, CITY MANAGER?

[03:10:02]

>> THAT WAS THE INTENTION WITH THE FIRST SUGGESTION, MAYOR, THAT WOULD PROVIDED THEY COMPLY WITH ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT WOULD PROVIDE A DISCRETIONARY APPROACH TO THE CERTIFICATE OF USE FOR THAT PLAZA?

>> IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE WHAT APPEARS TO BE WANTED, THE CODE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ENFORCING NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT GIVES EVERYBODY THE ABILITY TO DO THE JOB OR ELSE WE'RE WRITING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE ENFORCEMENT OR GIVE THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT IS DESIRED.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTUATE THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD IF WE'RE USING THAT TERM THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS USING IN REGARDS TO WHAT SEVERAL OF US ON THE COMMISSION SAID YOU HAVE THE TIME TO GET THEM THE CURRENT PLAZAS IN ORDER TO WHERE THEY ARE WORKING ON SOMETHING, THEY CAN GET THEIR CU? WE WOULD NEED TO GIVE YOU THAT OTHER CONDITION OF ISSUANCE IN 12-4243E.

YOU NEED THAT IN THERE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CODIFY SOMETHING THAT IS EFFECTIVE?

>> THIS DEFINITELY PROVIDES AN ADDED LEVEL OF DISCRETION ON THE CITY'S BEHALF.

IF WE SEE THAT PLAZA OWNERS OR COMMERCIAL OWNERS, THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THESE A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT THEY HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE THAT WILL ACTUALLY THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED, THAT WE SEE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE OWNER TO IMPLEMENT THOSE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S BEYOND SIX MONTHS, THIS WOULD PROVIDE A DISCRETION TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS AS USUAL.

NOW, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, IF WE JUST, APPLY THE SIX MONTH PERIOD, THEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DISCRETION WHATSOEVER AT THE END OF AT THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE SIX MONTHS.

>> IF IT'S SIX MONTHS BECAUSE THERE'S COMMENTARY FROM THE COMMISSION THAT IT MIGHT BE LESS THAN SIX MONTHS?

>> IF IT IS, YES.

>> I'M WAITING FOR ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO BE GIVEN TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

>> POINT OF ORDER, MADAM MAYOR.

>> QUESTION FOR MISS CALLOWAY.

I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH NEXT SLIDE.

>> YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THE NEXT SLIDE, COMMISSIONER?

>> IT SAYS, PUBLIC EDUCATION PRIOR TO ENFORCEMENT.

WHEN IS ENFORCEMENT? DEFINED THAT?

>> WE WOULD BASED ON THE LAST SENTENCE, ENFORCEMENT WOULD BEGIN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC EDUCATION, WHICH IS A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.

ENFORCE THE PUBLIC EDUCATION TIME FRAME WOULD BEGIN UPON ADOPTION, SIX MONTHS OUT.

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT IS WHEN THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE FULLY ENFORCED.

THEN THAT WOULD ALSO WORK WITH THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT HAS SOME DISCRETIONARY LANGUAGE, IF THERE'S PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT IS IN THE MIDST, IT PROVIDES FOR A PLAN, A COMPLIANCE PLAN THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED TO SHOW THAT THERE'S GOOD FAITH EFFORT, THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON DOING THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

IF YOU FAIL TO DO THAT OR COMPLY WITH YOUR OWN PLAN, THEN THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION, AND THEN YOU'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE, WHERE NO CU WOULD BE ISSUED TO TENANTS MOVING INTO YOUR BUILDING.

>> THE EDUCATION PERIOD ESSENTIALLY STARTS TODAY IF WE ACCEPT THAT.

>> THIS IS ON SECOND READING, YES.

OUR INTENT, I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER WAS TO MEET WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, LET THEM KNOW WHAT VIOLATIONS EXIST ON THEIR PROPERTY, WORK WITH THEM TO COME TO HAVE A COMPLIANCE PLAN PUT TOGETHER, BUT THE INTENT WAS NOT JUST TO HAVE JUST EDUCATION, BUT TO ALSO NOTIFY ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITH LIENS AND VIOLATIONS AND COMMENCE WORKING WITH THEM.

>> CITY ATTORNEY?

>> JUST EFFORT TO MOVE THIS ALONG, YOU CAN HAVE A SHORTER EDUCATION PERIOD, MAYBE A MONTH OR TWO, BUT ORDINANCE CAN GO INTO EFFECT, AS MOST MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND, THIS IS A CODE ISSUE.

STAFF NEGOTIATE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT ALL THE TIME.

IF AFTER ONE MONTH EDUCATION PERIOD, I THINK THE DIRECTIVE IS TO THE MANAGER AND STAFF ALSO MY OFFICE,

[03:15:01]

WE NEED TO MEET WITH THESE PROPERTY OWNERS, SAY, HEY, WE NEED COMPLIANCE, AND COMPLIANCE NEED TO BE ACHIEVED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.

WE DON'T HAVE AND I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED.

SOME PROPERTY OWNERS PROBABLY WILL GIVE YOU A SIGN OFF ON THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT.

THE ONES THAT DON'T, AT LEAST WE HAVE A HAMMER TO SAY, HEY, WE CAN START ENFORCING IT.

THE COMPROMISE CAN BE A SHORTER EDUCATION PERIOD.

I THINK I'M LISTENING, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, LOOK, WE NEED TO HAVE A HAMMER OUT THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT COMPLIANCE IS ACHIEVED.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO DO, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER PATTERSON IS TRYING TO DO.

COMMISSIONER PATTERSON IS LOOKING AT THIS FROM A VANTAGE POINT OF SHE IS BRAND SPANKING NEW.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME SHE IS HEARING THIS ITEM AS A COMMISSIONER.

SHE'S HEARD THE WOES OF THE COMMUNITY WHILE CAMPAIGNING AND THROUGHOUT HER TIME AS A GOVERNMENT WORKER.

HOWEVER, THE REASON WHY I'M SO ADAMANT ABOUT THIS SIX MONTHS IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE SIX MONTHS AGO, WE HAD A BUSINESS OWNER IN FRONT OF US NEGOTIATING FROM THIS MIKE ABOUT HIS NON-COMPLIANCE.

THAT BUSINESS OWNER WOULD GET ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.

THIS IS JUST STRINGING THINGS ALONG.

PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS AGO, WHEN THAT BUSINESS OWNER WAS IN FRONT OF US, STAFF WAS WORKING WITH THAT BUSINESS OWNER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

MS. CALLOWAY, AM I WRONG? TWIN GATES PLAZA, OLD BOSTON MARKET?

>> YES, THAT IS BEEN.

>> THEY WERE HERE SIX MONTHS AGO, AND AT THAT POINT, WE SAID, NO, WE WANT YOUR PLAZA TO BE FIXED.

YOU'LL RECALL THAT A COUPLE OF DAYS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN E MAILING ME ABOUT THAT PLAZA. WHAT ARE WE DOING? I CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH, JUST HAVE A ONE SIZE FIT ALL SOLUTION FOR THIS, BECAUSE THAT SPECIFIC PLAZA HAS BEEN AN ISSUE SINCE I'VE BEEN ELECTED, EIGHT YEARS, AND THE OLD CITY MANAGER WAS PULLING OUT HIS HAIR FOR EIGHT YEARS.

I CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH SAY, SIX MONTHS FOR COMPLIANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THEM, WE'VE BEEN BEGGING THEM TO COMPLY AND IS NOT SINGLING OUT A BUSINESS, BUT THAT BUSINESS IS IN MY DISTRICT, AND THAT'S THE BEST EXAMPLE THAT I CAN GET AT THIS POINT.

THEY WERE HERE SIX MONTHS AGO.

YOU GIVE THEM AN EDUCATION PERIOD FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS, WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM A YEAR PLUS THE EIGHT YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.

I'M GOING TO STAND UP FOR THE RESIDENTS ON THIS.

ABSOLUTELY NO.

LIKE THE RESIDENTS DESERVE BETTER, AND I HAVE THE E MAILS TO PROVE IT.

I'VE COPIED THE MANAGER, THE ATTORNEY, MS. CALLOWAY, ALL OF YOU.

I'VE COPIED YOU ON MY EMAILS.

THE LAST EMAIL THAT I COPIED YOU GUYS ON, YOU SAID, HEY, THIS IS COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

WE'RE DOING THINGS.

THEN TO GO BACK TO THE RESIDENTS AND TELL THEM, SIX MONTHS FOR AN EDUCATION PERIOD BEFORE ENFORCEMENT.

>> I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF BECAUSE WE'RE REPEATING AND GOING THROUGH AND ADDING EXTRA TIME.

>> I WAS NOT REPEATING.

I I BROUGHT UP.

>> YOU HAVE YOUR POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

I'M NOW GOING TO GO, DR. DANIEL COMMISSIONER VICE MAYOR.

I'LL WHICHEVER TITLE COMES OUT CORRECT SOON, I PROMISE.

VICE MAYOR. QUICKLY, BECAUSE IT'S ON A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, PLEASE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE UP TO. I'M NOT.

>> I KNOW THE PLAZA YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO BUY FOOD IN THERE.

I REMEMBER THE GUY COMING UP AND HAVING ALL THESE THINGS.

BUT MY POINT WAS SIX MONTHS IS TOO LONG BECAUSE THEY ALL KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PLAZA.

IF YOU CAN BUY A PLAZA FOR 36 MILLION, GOD BLESS YOU, YOU CAN FIX UP YOUR PLAZA.

I SEE THAT WORK IS BEING DONE IN THAT PLAZA BECAUSE I DRIVE BY THERE.

[03:20:01]

I THINK YESTERDAY I WAS BY THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE.

I SEE THE GARBAGE THING ON ONE SIDE.

I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT I SAW THE ONE SIDE.

I SEE YOU'RE DOING THE WORK. IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT YOU.

BUT THE GUY CAME WITH PLANS, NOTHING, AND JUST WANT US TO WIPE AWAY THE LID.

NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

FIVE YEARS, IF WE LEAVE IT SUBJECTIVE TO THE CITY, WELL, IT'S BEEN A LIFETIME OF THIS PLAZA PROBLEM SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, AND IT HASN'T BEEN FIXED.

LEAVING IT TO THE SUBJECTIVENESS, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

SIX MONTHS IS TOO LONG.

IF SOMEBODY COME TO YOU WITH A FIVE-YEAR PLAN, THAT'S TOO LONG.

AT WHAT POINT ARE WE GOING TO SAY ENOUGH? IT'S JUST TOO LONG.

I'M ALL FOR WORKING WITH SOMEONE THAT'S WILLING TO WORK, BUT SOME OF THESE PLAZA OWNERS OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT WILLING TO WORK.

WE COULD SHORTEN THE TIME.

I'LL EVEN GO TO HALF, THREE MONTHS BE FAIR, BUT THE SUBJECTIVITY, IT'S TIME WE HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

YOU HOLD RESIDENTS ACCOUNTABLE.

WHY NOT THEM?

>> THANK YOU. AM I HEARING ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE AS IS SO WE CAN CALL THE ROLL? I AM NOT HEARING ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AS IS.

AS THE LIGHTS GO ON, THE LIGHTS GO OFF.

IF THERE'S NO FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AS IS, I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLL.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 4-1.

>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SUBJECT TO PEOPLE NOT BEING HAPPY WITH ME, IT IS 1:40.

WE'LL BE TAKING A HALF HOUR RECESS. SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 2:10.

HI. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME BACK.

IT IS 2:16.

APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY.

WE ARE RESUMING OUR MEETING.

EVERYONE'S IN A SEAT. WE ARE GOING TO 6B.

[6.b TO2583 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida,establishing the "Landlord Registration Program" by amending Chapter 13 entitled“Miscellaneous Offenses” of the city’s code of ordinances, by renaming Section 13-9to “Landlord Registration Program” to require the registration of residential rentalproperties; providing definitions, establishing registration requirements, violationsand specifying enforcement mechanisms; relocating the “Landing and Take Off ofHot-Air Balloons” section from Section 13-9 to Section 13-10; providing forcodification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for aneffective date.]

>> MADAM MAYOR, MAY I HAVE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE?

>> YES, COMMISSIONER BOLTON. GO AHEAD.

>> GOING BACK TO ITEM 6A.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ITEM TO ADOPT THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> LET'S DEAL WITH THE MOTION RECONSIDERATION, THEN WE DEAL WITH ACCEPTANCE.

>> BASICALLY, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER 6A TO2574.

AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU ARE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.

YOUR MOTION IS ON THE TABLE, AND THERE'S A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THE ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT TO BRING BACK ITEM TO2574.

YES BRINGS IT BACK AND NO DOES NOT. CITY CLERK.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0.

>> NOW, IS THERE A MOTION ON THAT?

>> SO MOVED.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE AS READ AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

NOW I AM SEEING COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LENGTH OF THE EDUCATION PERIOD NOT BEING SIX MONTHS, BUT TO BE THREE MONTHS.

>> POINT OF CLARIFICATION, PLEASE.

THE CITY MANAGER MADE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

IS IT THE COMPLETE RECOMMENDATION OR IS IT JUST THE ONE?

>> HE'S ACCEPTING BOTH RECOMMENDATION WITH A MODIFICATION OF THE EDUCATION PERIOD TO THREE MONTHS INSTEAD OF SIX MONTHS.

>> FOR THE RECORD, MADAM CLERK, THE LANGUAGE IS HERE.

IF YOU DIDN'T GET A COPY, MAKE SURE IT'S PART OF THE RECORD SO WE CAN AMEND THE ORDINANCE ACCORDINGLY.

>> CAN I ASK THAT WE RE-READ THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE? BECAUSE I'M OKAY WITH THE THREE MONTHS, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE SECOND.

>> PLEASE.

>> COMMISSIONER CALLOWAY, WELCOME TO THE DESK.

>> THE GREEN IS THE NEW LANGUAGE.

SECTION 12-243E, WHAT'S IN RED IS WHAT IS ALREADY PROPOSED AND WHAT'S IN GREEN IS THE ADDED NEW LANGUAGE.

[OVERLAPPING]

[03:25:01]

>> MS. CALLOWAY, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE.

>> THAT WASN'T WHAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON SAID.

>> THE FORMAL APPLICATION IS FILED IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

>> NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> BUT THE MAKER OF THE MOTION DID NOT SAY THAT.

IS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION SAYING THAT OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT? BECAUSE IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IS SAYING THAT FOR THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THEN THE MAKER OF THE MOTION NEEDS TO SAY IT.

>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACHIEVE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS IS THAT STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO TALK WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS, BUT WITHIN THE PURVIEW THAT THEY HAVE THREE MONTHS.

>> CORRECT.

>> THEY HAVE A PLAN. YOUR DISCRETION IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THOSE THREE MONTHS.

YOU HAVE A PLAN.

YOU'RE COMING BEFORE THE CITY, AND THERE'S THREE MONTHS TO SUBMIT AND DO ALL THE NECESSARY THINGS, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH YOU OVER THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD.

>> YES. BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS TRYING TO CLARIFY IS THE OTHER ITEM, PLEASE.

>> BECAUSE IF THEY'RE USING A BROADER TERM, CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE, IF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IS NOT HERE, THEN NO ONE CAN REVIEW OR APPROVE.

THE LANGUAGE WILL STAY THE SAME.

ALL WE WOULD EXCLUDE IS THE TERM DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD REPLACE WITH THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. CITY MANAGER OR CITY MANAGER'S DESIGNEE, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES COMING TO DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, ANYWAY.

>> THE REQUEST WAS FOR THE ORDINANCE TITLE TO BE RE-READ.

DID MS. CALLOWAY FINISH IT SUFFICIENTLY TO THE REQUEST?

>> I RE-READ IT MYSELF BECAUSE IT WAS TOO CONFUSING. IS IT MY TURN OR NO?

>> NO. I'M TRYING TO GET THE MOTION SECONDED AND THEN THE DISCUSSION CAN COME AFTERWARDS.

>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON DID A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE.

HE OBVIOUSLY ACCEPTS IT.

THEN COMMISSIONER WRIGHT IS SAYING HE ACCEPTS IT.

NOW YOU WISH TO SPEAK.

GO AHEAD. OR YOU HAD A QUESTION ON SOMETHING ELSE?

>> I THINK VICE MAYOR WANTED JUST FOR THE RECORD.

CAN YOU RE-READ THE TWO AMENDMENT FOR LANGUAGE? I THINK SHE WANTED CLARITY.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR?

>> SHE READ IT.

>> SHE READ IT?

>> YEAH.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, THOUGH, THAT THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION IS TYING IN WITH A SECOND RECOMMENDATION.

THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION OF YOU HAVING DISCRETION IS, I HAVE DISCRETION TO WORK WITH THESE BUSINESS OWNERS WITHIN THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD OF THE EDUCATION.

IT IS NOT A I HAVE DISCRETION TO WORK WITH YOU FOREVER.

IT IS A DISCRETION TO WORK WITH YOU DURING THIS THREE-MONTH PERIOD.

>> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. THAT'S WHERE I WANTED IT TO BE RE-READ BECAUSE I WAS UNCLEAR BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE DISCRETION FOREVER.

I WOULDN'T WANT A FIVE-YEAR PLAN LIKE WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US OR A 10-YEAR PLAN TO PASS.

I DIDN'T WANT DISCRETION UNDER THOSE TYPE OF TIME FRAME.

IF THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION, THEN NO, I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

TECHNICALLY, REOPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS BECAUSE THE ITEM'S BEEN RENEWED.

ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

BACK TO COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

VICE MAYOR DANIEL, YOU'RE GOOD?

>> IT WAS CLARIFIED.

>> CITY MANAGER, YOU WISH TO MAKE CLARIFICATION?

>> MAYOR, I WANT TO FURTHER CLARIFY COMMISSIONER BOLTON'S FEEDBACK, WHICH IS THAT THREE-MONTH PERIOD IS TO ESTABLISH A PLAN OF ACTION AND MOVE FORWARD VERSUS WITHIN THREE MONTHS MITIGATE THE ENTIRE SITUATION.

>> I WILL WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER. WE GOT IT.

[03:30:01]

>> YOU HAVE IT. GOT IT.

>> CITY CLERK.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASS 5-0 AS AMENDED.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO 6B TO2583.

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 6B, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, ESTABLISH THE LANDLORD REGISTRATION PROGRAM BY AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ENTITLED MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCE, BY RENAMING SECTION 13-9 TO LANDLORD REGISTRATION PROGRAM, REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES, REQUIRING FOR DEFINITION, ESTABLISHING REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT, VIOLATION SPECIFIED ENFORCEMENT, A MECHANISM RELOCATING THE LANDING AND TAKEOFF OF HOT AIR BALLOONS, SECTION 13-9 TO SECTION 13-10, PROVIDE FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDE FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDE STABILITY, PROVIDE EFFECT DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

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

>> SO MOVED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THIS ITEM IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I DO NOT SEE ANYBODY SIGNED UP SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ITEM.

NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO SPEAK.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

MS. CALLOWAY, OUR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CITY MANAGER IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

ONE DAY, WE'LL CHANGE THE TITLE ON MY STUFF HERE.

DISCUSSION, I HAVE COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THEN I'LL START THIS ONE OFF AS WE WERE SEEMING TO HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATION EARLIER TODAY.

I HAVE HEARD THE COMMENTS ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE MAKING IT SEPARATE ITEMS FOR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR HOW OFTEN WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS.

I WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU'RE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND YOU HAVE NOT SOLD YOUR PROPERTY AND IT'S CLEAR, THEN YOU SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR JUST CHECKING THAT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ARE CURRENT.

THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO MAKE SURE THE NAME AND ADDRESS IS CURRENT, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE RECEIVING A FINE IF THIS IS A YEARLY THING WHEN YOU'RE THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER.

I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BEING FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY AS WELL.

I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN WE DO OUR EDUCATIONAL PERIOD, WE SHOULD ALSO BE ADVERTISING THE NEW TREE INFORMATION, WE SHOULD BE ALSO ADVERTISING THE VACATION RENTALS, REASON BEING IS THIS, THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUR VACATION RENTAL ORDINANCE IS, OUR REGISTRY IS, AND THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE TREES AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH TREES.

I'M ADDING THAT IN HERE ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING FROM BEFORE AND WE'RE TYING IT ALL TOGETHER FOR AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT COMING THROUGH THIS ITEM.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, ALSO KEEPING IN MIND WITH OUR EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS ARE AWARE OF IT BECAUSE CONDOMINIUMS, IF THEIR WATER BILL IS PAID FOR BY THE ASSOCIATION, THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION IN THE CITY'S WATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LEASE OR A CHANGE.

WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CAPTURING EVERYONE.

EVERY ASSOCIATION THAT SCREENS, THIS WILL BE A VERY GOOD WAY TO ENFORCE AND GET THE WORD OUT, SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE THAT.

I KNOW OUR DATABASE FOR ASSOCIATIONS IS NOT STRONG, BUT MAYBE WE CAN WORK ON THAT AS WELL SO WE CAN KNOW EVERY TIME ASSOCIATION HAS A CHANGE IN PRESIDENTS, BOARDS, AND THEIR PROPERTY MANAGERS.

I AM FOR THIS.

I'VE SHARED THAT I'M FOR THIS.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THOSE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX THAT I THINK OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT NEEDS FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS.

CITY CLERK, CALL ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, GO AHEAD.

>> ONE SECOND.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, CITY MANAGER.

[03:35:01]

THERE'S NO FEES. WE DID THAT EARLIER.

WE GOT RID OF THE $75 AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO REGISTER THE HOMEOWNERS.

>> CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> COMMISSIONER WRIGHT? YES.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

6CTO2584.

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

[6.c TO2584 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida,Amending Chapter 2, Administration, "Article III, "Boards, Committees,Commissions," of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances, by renaming andamending Division 7, titled “Reserved”, to "Senior Advisory Committee" and addingcontent thereto; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing forcodification and providing for an effective date]

>> ITEM 6C, AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COMMISSION AND CITY TAMARAC, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE 3, BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSION OF CITY OF TAMARAC COURT OF ORDINANCE BY RENAMING AMENDING DIVISION 7 TITLE RESERVE TO SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ADDING CONTENT CONFLICTS, PROVIDES FORESEEABILITY, PROVIDE FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDE FACT OF DATE. THANK YOU.

>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS NOW CLOSED.

OUR CITY CLERK, KIMBAL DILLON IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

CITY CLERK, JUST CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR GOMEZ. EXCUSE ME. COMMISSIONER BOLTON?

>> MAYBE. YES.