Sep 10, 2025 Regular

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DO. THANK YOU, MAYOR. NOT SURE, MANAGER, IF I SHOULD ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY BUSINESS QUESTIONS.

>> I CAN TRY.

>> JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTRACT.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BASED ON WHAT I READ IN THE BACKUP.

WE'VE BEEN IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR SINCE '99, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, OR IS IT THAT THIS IS A BRAND NEW PIGGYBACK FROM FERDINAND BEACH?

>> THIS VERSION OF THE AGREEMENT IS BRAND NEW PIGGYBACK FROM SAN FERNANDINA BEACH CONTRACT, BUT IT'S THE SAME VENDOR THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR ALL THIS TIME.

>> WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS WITH THEM SINCE '99, BUT WE ARE CHANGING THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR AGREEMENT OR PERHAPS MAYBE THE SCOPE BASED, AND WE'RE USING THEIRS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AND WHAT I READ, AND I JUST WANT FOR CLARIFICATION.

WE'RE PAYING THEM 300,000 TO COLLECT ON SERVICES RENDERED.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE PAYING 4% FOR ALL FUNDS COLLECTED PLUS $100 FLAT RATE FOR ALL MEDICARE CLAIMS. IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THE 1,000 A MONTH AND 4% OF NET COLLECTIONS IS ACCURATE, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR HELP ON THE $300,000 PIECE JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE.

OR IS IT UP TO 300,000.

>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, MIKE NISI, FIRE CHIEF.

I'M BRINGING DOWN CHIEF FRAZIER ALSO.

HE WORKED ON THIS CONTRACT, AND IT'S A MAXIMUM OF $300,000.

THE OTHER FEES ARE BASICALLY BUILT INTO THAT.

THAT'S HOW IT COMES UP TO THE MAX IS 300,000.

BUT CHIEF FRAZIER, IF YOU WANT TO COME OVER AND ANSWER ANY OF THE FURTHER QUESTIONS.

HE DID WORK ON THE CONTRACT.

>> NO, CHIEF. WE WANT YOU.

>> I'M HERE TOO.

>> I'M ONLY KIDDING. [INAUDIBLE] WE WANT TO MAKE YOU WORK BEFORE YOU LEAVE.

>> I'LL WORK.

>> NO, I'M ONLY KIDDING. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, AND THESE QUESTIONS ARE BUSINESS-RELATED QUESTIONS.

SUBSECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT SAYS THAT COMPENSATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 300,000 PER FISCAL YEAR UNLESS AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED.

BUT THEN LATER IN THE CONTRACT, THERE IS A SECTION, AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT THAT SAYS, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF 4% PLUS.

IT SAYS A FEE STRUCTURE AS FOLLOWS, 4%, AND HERE IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO THE 300.

I WASN'T CLEAR, BUT IT SAYS 4% OF NET COLLECTED REVENUE FOR EMS BILLING SERVICES $1,000 FLAT MONTHLY FOR PROCESSING, AT 6% OF COLLECTIONS, 3% OF COLLECTIONS FOR MCO PROGRAM.

FOR THE SAKE OF THE RECORD AND CLARIFICATION ON COMPENSATION, WE'RE PAYING UP TO 300,000 NO MATTER WHAT'S COLLECTED.

>> THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD BE PAYING WOULD BE $300,000.

NORMALLY, THE FEES COME IN AT AROUND 250, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT AVENUES OF COLLECTION, BUT WE TRIED TO GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER SO THAT OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO OVER WHAT WE'RE SAYING IN STATING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING.

WHENEVER YOU TALK ABOUT THE FEC SCHEDULE, WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICAID AND FEDERAL FUNDING, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE A FEE.

IT'S A FEDERAL LAW, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT.

THEY CHARGE $1,000 A MONTH BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO IT.

NOW, THE COMBINED WITH THAT, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLECTIONS FOR EMS TRANSPORTS, AS WELL AS PEMT, WHICH IS ANOTHER AVENUE OF COLLECTING MONEY, AS WELL AS MCO.

NOW, YOU'RE PUTTING THEM ALL TOGETHER,

[01:15:05]

BUT A THREE OF COMBINED WOULD NOT EXCEED $300,000.

>> HOW IS THAT GAUGED BASED ON PRIOR COLLECTION, OR IS THAT BASED ON.

>> THAT'S BASED ON THE PREVIOUS COLLECTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, AND ANTICIPATED REVENUE WE HAVE COMING IN.

A NORMAL TRANSPORT FEE, WE CHARGE INDEPENDENT.

IF IT'S A BLS, IT'S $600, ALS, 650, BLS, 700.

THEY COLLECT ON THAT, WE PAY THEM.

IT'S A REGULAR FEE, WE PAY THEM 4%.

IF IT'S A GOVERNMENT LIKE MEDICARE OR MEDICAID, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE FEE.

IT'S $1,000 A MONTH, WHICH REALISTICALLY THAT WE RECOVER THAT QUITE FREQUENTLY.

THEN WHENEVER WE START GETTING INTO PEMT, WHICH IS A ACRONYM USED FOR MEDICAL TRANSPORTS THAT WE GET RESIDUAL BACK FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WE FILE A REPORT WITH FINANCE.

WE GET ADDITIONAL MONIES.

THEY TAKE CARE OF THE ACCOUNTING FOR ALL OF THAT.

THEY TAKE CARE OF THE BILLING.

OUR FEES ARE PROBABLY LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THE OTHER AGENCIES IN THE COUNTY ARE CURRENTLY PAYING.

>> ARE OUR FEES BASED ON OUTSTANDING DEBT OWED TO THE CITY, OR ARE THESE FEES BASED ON.

>> NO. THE FEES ARE BASED ON EMS TRANSPORTS. INITIAL.

>> YOU GUYS ARE PROJECTING A NUMBER.

>> NOW, FOR 2022, WE PAID $92,297, '23, WE PAID $106,090, '24, $114,809.

NOW, WITH THAT, WE HAVE THIS EMS TRANSPORT FEES.

THAT'S WHY WE COMBINE THEM ALL BECAUSE IT'S ONE COMPANY DOING THEM ALL.

NOW, REVENUE WISE, FOR '22, WE HAD $2,152,329.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY, BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU HAD 4% OF THE TRANSPORT, WHICH, LIKE I SAID, WE NORMALLY CHARGE FOR BLS IS $600, WHICH ARE THE LOWEST IN THE COUNTY AT THAT FEE, AND AN ADDITIONAL $1,000 A MONTH FOR THE FEDERAL TYPE MEDICARE OR MEDICAID PAYERS.

NOW, WITH THAT, IN 2023, WE COLLECTED $2,513,803.

>> 24, WE COLLECTED 2,696,227, AND OUR PROJECTION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY CHANGED OVER TO A NEW COLLECTION SOFTWARE CALLED AMBULANCE COMMANDER, WERE PROJECTED AT $3,012,010.

OUR OUTLAY FOR THE TRANSPORTS FOR THAT, LIKE I SAID, FOR 24, OUTLAY IS 114,000 AND OUR INTAKE IS 2,696,000.

>> WITH RESPECT TO OUTSTANDING DEBT? I MEAN, IT SOUNDS THE COLLECTION RATE IS PRETTY HIGH, BUT IS THAT HIGHER?

>> WERE WE ARE AT 76.7%, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

>> IS THERE OUTSTANDING DEBT CURRENTLY?

>> WHAT DOES THAT FIGURE LOOK LIKE?

>> SINCE THE INCEPTION OF OUR EMS TRANSPORTS AND OUR COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO TRACK, WHICH GOES BACK TO 2011, YOU'RE LOOKING AT I'M SORRY.

[OVERLAPPING].

>> $13 MILLION DOLLAR?

>> $13,073,876 SINCE 2011.

>> THERE'S CURRENTLY $13 MILLION IN OUTSTANDING DEBT?

>> CORRECT.

>> FOR FIRE SERVICES. [OVERLAPPING]

>> SINCE THE INCEPTION SINCE 2011, SENT SYMBOL OUR COMPUTERIZED PROGRAMMING.

LAW STATES THAT WE CAN GO BACK FIVE YEARS.

BUT THAT'S JUST IN THERE FOR INFORMATIONAL AND WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO WITH THAT YOU MADE.

>> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AGREEMENT AND THE PRIOR AGREEMENT?

>> NOTHING REALLY OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE PUT IN A NEW SOFTWARE.

THEY DID IN FEBRUARY OF 2024, AND IT'S CALLED, LIKE I SAID, AMBULANCE COMMANDER, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT METHOD THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT.

WE HAVE HAD BILLING IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, AND THEY BOUGHT AND SOLD EACH OTHER.

THE COMPANIES CHANGED NAMES FOR MANY YEARS.

THIS IS A EXTENSION, WE DECIDED TO.

PREVIOUSLY, THEY USED A DIFFERENT VENDOR FOR SOME OF THE MCO AND PEMT MONEY, AND NOW DIGTECH'S DOING IT ALL BY THEMSELVES.

THEY OUTSOURCED IT. NOW THEY'RE NOT.

THAT CHANGED A LITTLE BIT OF THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT.

>> BEFORE IT WAS JUST TRANSPORTS.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE PRESENTING THIS ITEM AS A MEANS TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY WITH THE CONTRACT, GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT HAS REACHED ITS EXPIRATION POINT.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE ITEM.

[01:20:02]

I FEEL LIKE THERE MIGHT BE A MORE, WE COULD POTENTIALLY BENEFIT FROM A SOLICITATION MAYBE IN THE NEXT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M OKAY WITH THE 5 YEAR [OVERLAPPING].

>> WHEN YOU SAY SOLICITATION WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>> A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION ON VENDORS THAT MAY, [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS OUT THERE.

IF WE'VE BEEN WITH DIGITECH'S SINCE 1999, I'M NOT THE EXPERT IN THE AREA, BUT THE NUMBERS THAT I'M SEEING AND HEARING DO RAISE A LITTLE CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, FOR, PURPOSES OF JUST ENSURING THAT, WE REMAIN SOLVENT AS AN ORGANIZATION.

IF WE'VE BEEN USING THEM FROM 1999, AND I GET, OBVIOUSLY, IT IS EASIER A LOT OF THE TIME JUST TO STICK WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT.

LIKE I SAID, I'M FINE WITH SUPPORTING THE ITEM TODAY.

WE'RE AT I THINK I SAW SEPTEMBER 2025 IS WHEN THE CONTRACT TERMS. WE DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SERVICE.

BUT I, WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DO THIS FOR 5 YEARS.

I THINK IF I READ, IT'S A 5 YEAR OF AGREEMENT.

>> IT'S A THREE WITH ADDITIONAL SUBCONTRACTS ON ATTACHED TO IT. [OVERLAPPING].

>> WITH AN AUTOMATIC 5 YEARS YEARS.

>> IF THEY'RE THE BEST OUT THERE, THEN THEY'RE THE BEST.

BUT IF WE HAVEN'T DONE THE RESEARCH, AND WE HAVEN'T, PUT A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION OUT FOR THE SERVICE.

I THINK WE WOULD BE DOING OURSELVES AS AN ORGANIZATION A DISSERVICE.

POTENTIALLY, THERE COULD BE, SOMETHING OR SOMEONE OUT THERE THAT COULD HELP US COLLECT ON WHAT'S OUTSTANDING, AND POTENTIALLY, MAYBE THE RATES ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPETITIVE AS WELL.

BUT THOSE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THAT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. NOW I'M GOING TO OPEN THIS UP FOR THE PUBLIC.

ANYBODY WISHING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WISH TO SAY ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

I'LL JUST SAY THANK. YES. YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> NO, MAYOR. I MEAN, IF IT'S A DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION, YOU CAN DEFINITELY OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, AND SO WE CAN, LOOK INTO A SOLICITATION AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT TERM.

>> I THINK THERE WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT IT MEANS TO GO AFTER COLLECTIONS BECAUSE THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY TAMARAC RESIDENTS.

>> YOU RECALL.

>> NO [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT COLLECTIONS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TERM OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR THIS EVENING, WHICH IS THE BILLING SERVICES, AND IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO LIMIT THAT TERM TO 1 YEAR, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, DURING THAT TIME, SOLICIT NEW PROPOSALS BECAUSE THIS CONTRACT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR SO MANY YEARS.

>> OKAY. WELL, SEEING NO REQUEST FOR THAT.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR I POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

YES. I DID ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE.

>> OF COURSE I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU MADE THE MOTION, DO YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR [OVERLAPPING].

>> WHAT'S THE AMENDMENT?

>> I'M PROPOSING THAT WE MODIFY THE AGREEMENT AND REDUCE THE TERM FROM IF IT'S THREE.

IS IT CURRENTLY THREE YEARS? I WOULD SAY THAT WE DO A ONE YEAR TERM AND REQUIRE THAT STAFF PUT OUT A SOLICITATION AT THE END OF THAT TERM. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GET.

IF THEY'RE THE BEST, THEN THEY'RE THE BEST.

IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN, I THINK WE HAVE AND TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, THIS IS NOT I KNOW WE'VE BEEN USING THAT WORD COLLECTIONS LOOSELY.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT FROM A BILLING STANDPOINT, THAT WE OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OUTSTANDING DEBT.

WE TALK ABOUT OUR BUDGET REGULARLY, AND I THINK THAT, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE AND ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY COMMENTS, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I SEE A TEAM OF PEOPLE COMING TO THE PODIUM. CHIEF NISI.

>> YES. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A PIGGYBACK.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN JUST CHANGE AND MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

WE HAVE TO START THE WHOLE PROCESS OVER AGAIN.

THIS CONTRACT EXPIRES THE 30TH OF THIS MONTH.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT JUST A LITTLE SIDE NOTE.

WE'RE GETTING WITH PROBABLY THE BEST RATE FROM THIS COMPANY IN BROWARD COUNTY, AND IT'S PROBABLY 10,15 OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE USING THEM.

TAKE A LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS.

BUT THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST VENDOR FOR THIS.

IF YOU WANT TO DO COLLECTIONS, NOT TO MIX UP THE TWO, THE COLLECTIONS, THE 13 MILLION THAT OUTSTANDING IS A SEPARATE SERVICE.

THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO.

DIGITECH WOULD NOT COLLECT ON THAT'S A SEPARATE SITUATION.

[01:25:03]

THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE TO GO COLLECT.

I SAY, COLLECTIONS, BUT BUT THE COMPANY DIGITECH, IS PROBABLY THE BEST ONE AROUND.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST TO BE KNOWN. A FIVE.

IT'S REALLY A THREE IN A ONE AND A ONE.

WE ACTUALLY DID KEEP IT LESS.

THEY WANTED TO DO MORE, AND WE KEPT IT SLOWER BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAYBE TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT'S OUT THERE IN ABOUT 5 YEARS.

THAT'S WHY WE DID THAT. JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, WE'LL HAVE TO REDO THE WHOLE CONTRACT, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE IN A TIME SQUEEZE HERE A LITTLE BIT.

>> THE CITY ATTORNEY WISHES TO SECOND.

>> THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED IN TERMS OF REDUCTION OF YEARS IS PERMISSIBLE FROM A PIGGYBACK STANDPOINT.

>> THE BUSINESS TERMS ARE NOT BEING CHANGED.

THE PRICING IS STILL THE SAME, EVERYTHING, BUT THE REDUCTION OF YEARS, YOU CAN DO IT UNDER THE LAW.

>> BUT AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I GUESS, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, IS IT.

THERE'S DEBT COLLECTION, WHICH IS THE 13 MILLION, WHICH IS SEPARATE AND NOT PART OF THIS CONTRACT.

>> WHAT WE'RE SAYING THAT DEBT COLLECTION IS NOT PART OF THE [OVERLAPPING] CONTRACT.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT SERVICE.

>> RIGHT.

>> WE'RE SAYING REGARDING THE PIGGYBACK, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE DECIDE THE PIGGYBACK, WE CHOOSE A CONTRACT WHERE THEY HAVE GONE OUT AND I'VE HAD RESPONSES, AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME POPULATION AS WHAT WE HAVE GOTTEN, AND THEY USE A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO SELECT THE VENDOR.

THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD DECIDE TO PIGGYBACK THAT CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY USED THE SAME METHODOLOGY THAT WE WOULD HAVE USED IF WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GO OUT FOR A SOLICITATION.

WHEN WE PIGGYBACK, WE NEGOTIATE THE TERMS WITH THEM, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE TERM, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE CONTRACT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO ABOUT CHANGING THE TERM AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE.

>> IT'S COMMON THAT FIRE DEPARTMENTS USE THE PIGGYBACK PROCESS BECAUSE THEY GO OUT AND THEY SOLICIT ALL THESE VENDORS.

THEY GET THE BEST COMPETITIVE.

IT'S ALL COMPETITIVE, AND THEY BOIL IT DOWN.

THAT'S WHY WE DO THE PIGGYBACKS, YOU OFTEN ENOUGH, BECAUSE THE WORK'S BEEN DONE BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE LARGER AND BIGGER, AND SO WE PIGGYBACK ON THAT TO GET THE BEST DEAL.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. WHEN I WAS DOING MY RESEARCH BASED ON WHAT I WAS PROVIDED BY THE STAFF, WHAT I READ WAS WE HAD THIS COMPANY SINCE 1999, WE'RE PIGGYBACKING, SAME COMPANY.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANY DETAILS AROUND WHEN FERDINAND BEACH DID THEIR AGREEMENT.

THERE WERE NO BENCHMARKS.

THERE WAS NO DATA IN THE PACKAGE.

NOTHING TOLD ME ABOUT RETURN ON INVESTMENT. THERE WAS NO DATA.

AS A DECISION MAKER, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS DEBT IN THIS CITY, AND WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THE SAME VENDOR THAT WE'VE HAD FROM 1999, AND MY BACKUP GIVES ME NO NUMBERS, I DON'T KNOW HOW EFFICIENT IT IS, AND SO I, MANAGE THROUGH YOU.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE.

I HEAR THE CONCERN OF THE STAFF. I HEAR THE CHIEF.

BUT THAT'S I STUDIED MY MATERIAL, AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT WE GO INTO A 5-8 YEAR STRAIGHT AGREEMENT WITHOUT ANY ESSENTIALLY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IT'S A 3 YEAR WITH AN AUTOMATIC 5 YEAR RENEWAL.

>> YEAH. ONE YEAR.

>> BUT T'S AUTOMATIC.

>> ONE YEAR.

>> IT IS AUTOMATIC THAT'S WHAT I READ.

>> IT COULD BE JUST 3 YEARS, AND THEN WE GO OUT.

>> COMMISSIONER.

>> CITY ATTORNEY, GO AHEAD.

>> EVERY AGREEMENT THE CITY HAS, HAS A TERMINATION, I SAY 90% FOR CONVENIENCE.

THIS AGREEMENT HAS IT UPON SEVEN DAYS NOTICE, YOU CAN TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE.

THE TERM IS NOT A LOCK IN TERM.

IF THE CITY WANTS TO GET OUT, IT CAN GET OUT.

>> BECAUSE I WOULD SAY FURTHER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTSTANDING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE PERFORMING IN FERDINAND BEACH.

AGAIN, NUMBERS MATTER.

DATA MATTERS, AND, I CAN'T JUST, BLANKETLY JUST SAY, OKAY, LET'S JUST DO IT.

AGAIN, I WASN'T CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE PAYING THEM.

THE WAY THIS WAS DRAFTED WASN'T 100% CLEAR TO ME.

WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT BASED ON WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS SAYING, WE WOULDN'T BREACH THE PIGGYBACK BY MODIFYING THE TERM, THEN I WOULD STILL BE INCLINED TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, ADJUSTING THE TERM, AND WE PUT OUT OUR OWN SOLICITATION BASED ON OUR NEEDS IN OUR ORGANIZATION.

[01:30:03]

AGAIN, IF IT COMES BACK, THAT THEY'RE THE BEST OUT THERE, THEN THEY'RE THE BEST OUT THERE, BUT SEEING SOMETHING THAT SAYS 99, AND WE'RE IN 2025, I MEAN, THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN FOR ME.

>> I ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOLTON, HE ACCEPTS THE AMENDMENT.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU WOULD SECOND THE AMENDMENT.

COMMISSIONER PATTERSON. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S FOR CHRISTINE OR IF IT'S FOR OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR, CHIEF NISI, ONE OF YOU GUYS.

WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE CHANGED TERMS OF A CONTRACT THAT HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED FROM IT BEING A YEAR CONTRACT TO A 3 YEAR CONTRACT, AND IT WOUND UP BEING THAT BEFORE A SHORTER TERM, THE TERMS CHANGED.

PUTTING IT OUT THERE, IT WAS OUR LOBBYIST.

WE HAD A YEAR CONTRACT.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBERS. I SAY IT WAS $80,000 FOR A YEAR.

WHEN WE TOLD THEM THAT WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE TERM AND REDUCED THE TERM TO 6 MONTHS, IT THEN WENT TO A HIGHER AMOUNT OF MONEY.

WHEN WE WANTED TO PUT IT AS A 3 MONTH, IT WENT TO A HIGHER AMOUNT OF MONEY.

I UNDERSTAND CITY ATTORNEY WHILE YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT A MATERIAL ITEM, IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED, I AM NOT 100% SURE THAT WE CAN SAY THAT POINT BLANK.

WHO CAN TELL ME WITH COMPLETE CERTAINTY.

>> MAYOR, THE VENDOR IS WELL AWARE THAT IF STAFF BRING UP A SUBJECT TO COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND IT CAN BE REJECTED, CAN BE APPROVED, IT CAN BE MODIFIED.

IF THEY DON'T I WOULD SAY, ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION, THEY OBVIOUSLY, REJECT. THAT'S UP TO THEM.

BUT THE COMMISSION HAS A RIGHT TO ALSO MODIFY AND THE CONTRACT AND REDUCING THE TERMS AS NOT, I WOULD SAY, DESTRUCTIVE OF THE PICKER BACK REQUIREMENT.

>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO.

MY COMMENTS ARE BASICALLY WE SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY MINIMIZE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A MATERIAL ITEM, AND AS YOU SAY, THE VENDOR CAN THEN SAY TO US, THANK YOU, BUT GO AWAY.

I KNOW YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

CAN YOU? YOU'RE NOT THE VENDOR.

>> BUT I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT ABOUT 5, 6 YEARS AGO, WE DID GO OUT FOR SOLICITATION, AND WE DID HAVE DO THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND DIGITECH DID WIN THE CONTRACT BACK THEN AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. IF THE DIGITECH SHOULD SAY WE'RE NOT REDUCING IT, THEN WE ARE WITHOUT A CONTRACT; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SERVICES THEN FALL TO WHOM?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I JUST ASKED HIM THE QUESTION.

SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR GOMAS?

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

>> WE ARE NOW MOVING TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

6A, CR14318. CITY ATTORNEY,

[6.a TR14318 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving the award of RFP No. 25-14R and authorizing the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute an agreement between the City of Tamarac and ; for design-build of the Sabal Palm Park project in accordance with Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 25-14R; authorizing an expenditure from the appropriate accounts; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. ]

PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 6A, A RESOLUTION IN CITY COMMISSION CITY TAMARAC, APPROVE AN AWARD, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NUMBER 25-14R, AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER, A DESIGN NEGOTIATING AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND FRANJO BUILDERS, LLC, FOR DESIGN BUILT OF SABAL PALM PARK PROJECT AND CORNS WITH RFP NUMBER 25-14R.

AUTHORIZING EXPENSE FROM APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTS, BRIAN, FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

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

>> MOVE IT.

>> YOU WERE DOING SO WELL. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU WISH TO HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS ITEM?

>> YES, MADAM MAYOR.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> ON MONDAY, WE TALKED ABOUT EIGHT MILLION UP TO 14 MILLION.

I NOTICED IN THE BACKUP THAT THERE IS A CONTINGENCY BUDGET OF 10%, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS CUSTOMARY FOR A 10% CONTINGENCY.

[01:35:03]

I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT THE PARK WOULD BE BUILT AT $8 MILLION, CONSIDERING THE COMMENTARY THAT WAS GIVEN ON MONDAY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE PIGEONHOLING OURSELVES WITH COST, IT SAYS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT PLUS CONTINGENCY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE LANGUAGE CAN BE CHANGED BECAUSE ON MONDAY, DURING THE MEETING, WE DID SAY THAT STAFF WAS GOING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CLIENTS.

THERE WERE SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT MATERIAL BEING SUBPAR AND HIGHER GRADE AND ALL THAT STUFF.

I DON'T KNOW THAT BETWEEN MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY THAT THERE WERE SOME NEGOTIATIONS.

AGAIN, I'M NOT PUSHING FOR A HIGHER COST, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT 1 GET A QUALITY PARK.

THEY'VE BEEN WAITING NINE YEARS, AND I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A HICCUP IN THE PROCESS.

THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN WITH THAT.

>> THE CITY MANAGER.

>> MAYOR, IF I MAY. COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THIS RESOLUTION IS FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND TEAM TO NEGOTIATE AND NOT JUST NEGOTIATE, BUT ALSO TO IDENTIFY NOT THE ELEMENTS, BUT IDENTIFY THE LEVEL OF DESIGN ELEMENTS IN THE PROJECT AND COME UP WITH A COST.

AS I MENTIONED ON MONDAY, NUMBER MAY GO DOWN, MAY GO UP.

THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE BUILDER HAS NOT BEEN HAD YET.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

I THINK WE SHOULD, IF WE MAY CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE AND AND SAY SUBJECT TO FURTHER NEGOTIATION OR RESULTS OF NEGOTIATION AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION.

>> BY ALL MEANS, TRY TO GO LESS, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE SOME ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD.

>> THAT'S A CONFLICT, MADAM MAYOR, WITH THE INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION IS TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE.

BUT IF WE'RE LIMITING THAT TO NOT TO EXCEED THAT FIGURE, IT INTUITIVE.

>> THE REQUEST IS TO REMOVE PART OF SECTION 4.

>> IS TO REMOVE NOT TO EXCEED TERM AND SAY THIS WAS THE BID AMOUNT.

>> IT WOULD BE, BASICALLY, REMOVE SECTION 4, AS YOU INDICATED, MAYOR.

>> REMOVING SECTION 4. JUST SEEING IF COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS DONE. VICE MAYOR?

>> NO. I WAS JUST AGREEING BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION ON MONDAY, BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE, MR. MUSTAVA.

HE STATED THAT THE VENDOR FOR 14 PLUS MILLION WAS THE ONLY VENDOR THAT AGREED TO EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY WANTED AT THE LEVEL THAT THE CITY WANTED.

WE WENT AHEAD AND CHOSE THE LOWEST BIDDER.

WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THEY WOULD NEGOTIATE TO GET THE BETTER PRODUCTS THAT THE CITY WANTED.

I THINK IF YOU DO LIMIT IT, MAYBE WE WON'T GET THE BETTER PRODUCTS.

I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

BECAUSE THE QUALITY THAT THE 14 MILLION WAS SUGGESTING WAS THE QUALITY THAT THE CITY WANTED, BUT THE PRICE WAS DOUBLE.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO THE VICE MAYOR, PLEASE.

I'M JUST PLAYING DEVI ADVOCATE. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT.

IF WE SAID NO TO THE 14 MILLION, WHICH HAD EVERYTHING THAT WE WANTED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LIMITATION ON THE 8,000, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE EIGHT MILLION DOESN'T GET TO THAT?

>> I GUESS WHAT WE DECIDED WAS DON'T PASS THAT FOR SURE.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION, BUT I SAID, WE CANNOT EXCEED THE 14 MILLION.

BUT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE, I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO GO BELOW THE 14 MILLION.

>> MY WONDER IS IF WE STILL NEED TO PUT A CAP ON IT,

[01:40:02]

BECAUSE IF WE WIND UP GOING UP TO THE 14 MILLION, WHY DIDN'T WE JUST STICK WITH THE ONE THAT HAD THE 14 MILLION.

>> I THINK BECAUSE THIS COMPANY WAS MORE WILLING TO WORK WITH US. WAS THAT IT? THE PRICE WAS CHEAPER.

THEY CAME IN SECOND AS FAR AS APPROVAL.

BUT THE PRICE WAS EIGHT MILLION COMPARED TO 14 MILLION.

THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> RIGHT. BUT MY CONCERN WITH WHAT WOULD THERE BE SOME CAP BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO REACH14 MILLION.

>> I SAID, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T EXCEED THE 14 MILLION.

BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE. I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED ABOUT VENDOR, DEPENDS ON THE VENDOR YOU PURCHASE IT FROM. I THINK YOU DID.

YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SHEEN.

WE DON'T WANT TO BUY FROM SHEEN, BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT QUALITY.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

THIS IS WHY THE EXPERTS ARE GOING TO NEGOTIATE.

>> ABSOLUTELY, WE WILL, AND VICE MAYOR I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT ALL FOUR VENDORS THAT PRESENTED, THEY OFFERED THE PRODUCTS THAT QUALIFIED OR THAT MATCHED THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY ASKED FOR.

NOW, BECAUSE WE DID NOT SPECIFY NECESSARILY, IT'S GOING TO BE A FORD F150 TRUCK WHITE WITH LIGHTS ON AND BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED, WE JUST SAID WE NEED A TRUCK WITH FOUR WHEELS AND THIS MAN HORSEPOWER.

ONE WAS $8 MILLION, ONE WAS $14 MILLION.

NOW, WE HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH THE BUILDER AND DEFINE THAT TRUCK TO FURTHER DETAIL AND MAKE SURE WE GET THE BEST QUALITY THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IN THAT PARK.

>> I THINK WHEN I LOOKED AT THE ENGINEER'S FACE, HE WAS MORE THE 14 MILLION WAS LIKE A LAMBORGHINI, A BENTLEY.

>> WE DON'T KNOW [LAUGHTER].

>> THAT'S THE REACTION I FELT.

>> I CAN'T TELL IF THIS GRASS IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER GRASS, BUT WE'LL FIND OUT.

>> IT MIGHT NOT BE IN THE EIGHT MILLION MIGHT JUST BE RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. IN LOOKING AT MY NOTES FROM MONDAY'S DISCUSSION, I THINK RDC, WHICH CAME IN AT 14 MILLION, WE SAID THEY, ALONG WITH FRANJO, HOWEVER, ENGLISH OR SPANISH, HAD SAME EXPERIENCE, THAT DESIGN WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT.

I THINK FRANJO ALSO HAD A LOCAL TAMARAC RESIDENT.

THEY HAD CONTRACTORS WHO WERE LOCAL, THAT A FOUNDATION.

WE BASICALLY JUDGED THE EXPERIENCE, THE TEAM, AND THE PEOPLE IN THEIR PRESENTATION.

FOR THE MONEY, FRANJO WAS MORE OR LESS THE SAME AS RDC.

HOWEVER, RDC WAS A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ALL AGREED ON FRANJO.

THEN THE NUANCES WAS THE COST.

WE KNOW IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE HIGHER, BUT THE TEAM THAT THEY PRESENTED WAS DEFINITELY THE SAME AS RDC.

AS I MENTIONED, IT AS HALF THE PRICE.

AT EIGHT MILLION, AND CITY MANAGER, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A CAP.

THEY CAN'T EXCEED WHAT AMOUNT, BECAUSE THE OTHER COMPANY WAY POINT, THEY WERE 10.5, AND THE POMPEO WAS 117.

POMPEO SAID NO CHANGE ORDERS ON THIS PROJECT.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THEIR POSITIVE POINTS.

IN COMPARING THOSE COMPANIES, IS FRANJO GOING TO AGREE TO SOME OF THOSE THINGS?

>> BY QUALIFYING TO THIS POINT, THEY ARE ACCEPTING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PUT OUT THERE.

THEY'RE ACCEPTING THAT FOR $8 MILLION AND SOME CHANGE, THEY'RE WILLING TO CONSTRUCT THE PART THAT WE SPECIFIED IN OUR RFP.

THAT'S THE COMMITMENT ON THEIR PART.

NOW, WHAT'S GOING TO BE SOME CHANGING FACTORS? MAYBE DURING THE DESIGN PROCESS THEY'LL COME BACK TO US AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK FOR DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE PARK.

WE MAY SEE SOME OTHER BENEFITS IN DOING SOME THINGS IN A LITTLE DIFFERENT WAY, AND THOSE THINGS MAY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ALL ELEMENTS OF THE PARK THAT WE SPECIFIED IN OUR RFP DOCUMENT FOR THAT PRICE.

>> YOU ALSO MENTIONED A PARK IS NOT SOMETHING COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF BUILDING.

ACCORDING TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BOLTON MENTIONED AS WELL, HE WANTS TO HAVE SOMETHING GOOD IN HIS DISTRICT.

WHAT I LOOK AT WITH FRANJO AND RDC IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE DESIGN IN THE TECHNOLOGY WORLD THEY'RE WORKING IN MARKETING, YOU JUDGE PEOPLE BASED ON THE DESIGN OF THEIR WEBSITE, ARE THINGS LIKE THAT SEEING THEIR SKILL SET.

THESE TWO GUYS ACTUALLY HAD GREAT DESIGNS,

[01:45:01]

EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THEM USED THE SAME FITNESS COMPANY FOR THE OPEN PARK.

IT'S MORE OR LESS THE SAME VENDORS THAT THEY'RE USING.

WHEN IT CAME ON TO THE DESIGN, THEIR PRESENTATION OF WHAT THEY PRESENTED AND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

IT WAS VERY THOROUGH, AND IT WAS WELL DESIGNED.

ALSO LOOKING AT THE OTHER PARKS THAT THEY WORK ON, FOR INSTANCE FRANJO, THEY WORK ON EL PRADO PARK IN FORT LAUDERDALE, AND ALSO THE STADIUM IN FORT LAUDERDALE, WHICH ARE MODERN INNOVATIVE PLACES.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WERE ATTRACTIVE ABOUT THEM AS IN ADDITION TO THEIR PRICING.

BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT A PARK IS NOT COMPLICATED.

THE PRICE FOR WHAT WE'RE PAYING THEY'RE GOING TO GO UP TO 14 MILLION.

>> THAT'S ONE SIDE OF IT, AND THE OTHER PART OF IT IS THAT THIS IS A DESIGN BUILD PROCESS, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH THIS COMPANY, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A DESIGN PROCESS.

THE ELEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME, A BASKETBALL COURT, A PLAYGROUND IN A DOG PARK.

THOSE AMENITIES ARE GOING TO BE DELIVERED AS PART OF THIS PACKAGE.

BUT THE DESIGN WE WILL WORK WITH THEM, WE WILL SIT DOWN WITH THEM.

I'LL COME TO YOU AND WE'LL BE PART OF THAT DESIGN PROCESS.

THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THIS APPROACH.

THEN THEY'LL GO AHEAD AND CONSTRUCT.

>> I'LL POINT TO THE DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER. IT'S GOING TO BE HIS LEGACY.

I KNOW WHEN HE SITS DOWN THE BEAT IN TRINIDAD 20 YEARS FROM NOW, HE WANTS TO IMAGINE THAT THERE'S A GREAT PARK THAT HE LEFT THERE IN A LEGACY THAT HE LEFT.

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO SETTLE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN EXCELLENT IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO JUST MAKE ONE QUICK POINT THAT I GUESS IF WE EVEN IF WE WERE TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT TO REMOVE THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT BASED ON WHAT THE CITY BUDGETED FOR THE PROJECT, WE'RE STILL WELL BELOW AT LEAST $1.7 MILLION BELOW WHAT WE WERE BUDGETED AT.

THEN EVEN WITH THAT, $550,000 LESS THAN THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER.

I WOULD SUPPORT A REQUEST TO REVISE THE LANGUAGE, NOT TO EXCEED LANGUAGE TO AT LEAST PUT US WHERE WE WERE AT BUDGET, IF NOT, THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH ROOM HERE.

I THINK THAT THEY CAME IN AT BASELINE TO YOUR POINT.

PREPARED TO GIVE US EXACTLY WHAT WE ASKED FOR IN THE RFP.

ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION WAS THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO GIVE US THE PARK THAT WE WANT.

EVERYONE ELSE PRESENTED A PARK THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, AND, OBVIOUSLY, NOT TO FORGET AND MENTION THAT THEY WERE PREPARED TO DO OUTREACH AND WORK WITH THE COMMISSION AND DELIVER A PARK THAT WOULD BE BEST SUITABLE FOR THE CITY, AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE DONE NATIONAL PROJECTS.

THEIR CREATIVITY, I THINK, WAS BAR NONE COMPARED TO THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE PRETTY MUCH HAS DONE WORK HERE LOCALLY.

THOSE WERE JUST MY COMMENTS ON THE ITEM.

>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

>> YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A PARK.

WE UNDERSTAND THE VENDOR.

WE JUST WANT TO GIVE STAFF THE LEVERAGE TO NEGOTIATE PRICE, QUALITY, PRODUCT, ADD, SUBTRACT, ALL THE ELEMENTS, WHATEVER THEY WANT.

YOU KNOW THE BUDGET THAT YOU HAVE IS GOING TO COME BACK TO US ANYWAY.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE IT IN THE END.

FOR NOW, JUST STRIKE THE LANGUAGE AND THAT GIVES STAFF THE MAXIMUM LEVERAGE OR FLEXIBILITY TO COME BACK WITH WHAT THEY HAVE.

>> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PATTERSON THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A CAP, AT LEAST GOING UP TO THE MAXIMUM OF OUR BUDGET, OR ELSE, WHY DID WE GO WITH THE LOWEST BIDDER? I SEE THAT IT COULD ONLY GO HIGHER EXPONENTIALLY.

AS I SAID ON MONDAY, WHILE I AGREE THAT IT'S A PARK, WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IT'S A FORMER GOLF COURSE.

I THINK PEOPLE REMEMBER THE EXCITEMENT OVER OTHER GOLF COURSES BEING REMEDIATED.

I WOULD EXPECT THAT SAME EXPECTATION OF THE GOLF COURSE BEING REMEDIATED QUITE WELL.

I'M NOT SAYING THIS GROUP CAN'T DO IT, BUT THAT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY TO REMEDIATE, AND SINCE WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THAT'LL BE ON TOP OF DECIDING WHETHER WE WANT A FULLY LOADED F150, OR DO YOU WANT THE BASE MODEL.

I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME PARAMETERS, OR THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A $14 MILLION ITEM,

[01:50:03]

BEING PRESENTED A $14 MILLION ITEM FROM FRANJO.

SO I DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CAP PUT IN THERE.

WE CAN ALWAYS DECIDE IF IT NEEDS TO GO UP LATER. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

>> MAY I?

>> GO AHEAD, [INAUDIBLE].

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. BUT THE BUDGET THAT THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED, AND THAT'S IN OUR BOOKS, IS THE NATURAL BACKSTOP FOR THIS TOP OF THIS LINE, AS YOU ALL MENTIONED.

IT EXISTS AND WE CANNOT GO OVER THAT NUMBER.

FOR US TO GO OVER THAT NUMBER, WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH AN AMENDMENT, WITH A CHANGE, WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT FEEL FREE TO ADD THAT TO THE LANGUAGE OR LEAVE IT. IT EXISTS.

>> CONSIDERING THAT THIS CITY IS VERY USED TO BUDGET AMENDMENTS EVERY SIX MONTHS BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND APRIL OR WHATEVER IT IS.

ANYWAY, SO THERE'S NO FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT I'M HEARING.

IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, CITY CLERK?

>> I MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>> NO. YOU HAVE THE AMENDMENT WHERE YOUR AMENDMENT WAS NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>> WE ARE DELETING SECTION 4.

>> YOU'D DELETE SECTION 4? THAT'S ALREADY WHAT IT IS.

>> THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS GOING TO HAVE A CAP IN THERE, AND NOT TO EXCEED THE BUDGET AMOUNT THAT THIS PROJECT ALREADY HAS.

>> SECTION 4 IS WHERE THE BUDGET IS.

>> NO. SECTION 3.

BASICALLY, THE MANAGER BY OPERATIONAL LAW, THERE'S A BUDGETARY AMOUNT FOR THIS PART.

HE CANNOT EXCEED IT UNLESS COMMISSION APPROVE [INAUDIBLE] SO THAT OPERATES.

SECTION 4 IS THE CAP LIMITATION ON THE CONTRACT.

THAT'S WHAT WE ELIMINATE.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.

YOU'RE SAYING SECTION 3, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER WORDING OF NOT TO EXCEED, IS UNDERSTOOD BY FRANJO OR WHOMEVER WE'RE CONTRACTING TO THEM THAT THAT'S A CAP?

>> YES. IT'S THE BUDGET. UNLESS THE CITY MANAGER REQUESTS A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO EXCEED THAT AMOUNT, LIKE ALL CAPITAL PROJECT, HE HAS TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

YEAH. YES.

>> CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR GOMEZ.

>> VICE MAYOR DANIEL.

>> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

>> COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0, AS AMENDED.

>> THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW GOING TO ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 7A T02602.

[7.a TO2602 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida amending Chapter 14, “Motor Vehicles and Traffic”, Article Il, “Stopping, Standing and Parking”, Section 14-26, “Parking Restrictions—Public Rights-Of-Way”, to provide for a community driven mechanism to manage parking restrictions and enforcement in public rights-of-way citywide; and amending Section 14-37 entitled “Parking Violation Enforcement” to provide for a public education period prior to administration and enforcement of the ordinance and the on-street parking policy; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for codification; and providing for an effective date. ]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 7.

ORDINANCE CITY COMMISSIONER OF CITY TAMARAC, AMENDED CHAPTER 14, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE 2, STOP AND STANDING IN PARKING, SECTION 14-26, PARKING RESTRICTION, PUBLIC RIGHTS AWAY, TO PROVIDE A COMMUNITY DRIVEN MECHANISM TO MANAGE PARKING RESTRICTION, ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC RIGHTS AWAY CITYWIDE, AMENDING SECTION 14-37, ENTITLED PARKING VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION PERIOD PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATION ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND ON STREET PARKING POLICY, PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

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

>> MOVE IT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THIS ITEM HAD A FULL PRESENTATION AT THE STAFF WORKSHOP ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH.

OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER MAXINE CALLOWAY IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AT THIS TIME, I'M OPENING PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I ALREADY HAVE A FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP.

WE'LL GO WITH KATE JOHNSON, MARK AUGEN, AND THEN SANDRA, IS IT DERVIS OR DAVIS?

>> DENNIS.

>> DENNIS. SORRY. YOU'LL BE THIRD.

THEN ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK THERE, PATTI LYNN WILL BE AFTER.

>> KATE JOHNSON MAINLANDS 4.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM EXTREMELY CONFUSED OVER WHY THIS IS BACK ON THE DOCKET AGAIN.

WE SPENT YEARS GETTING THIS PUT IN PLACE.

WE SPENT YEARS GETTING IT TO GO FROM 2:00 AM TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT TO START, AND TO START GETTING IT ENFORCED.

A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN THE BUDGET AND HIRED TO ENFORCE THIS CODE.

NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'LL ENFORCE IT IN SOME PLACES, BUT WE WON'T ENFORCE IT IN OTHER PLACES.

[01:55:01]

I SEE THAT MAINLANDS 4 IS ON THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS.

GREAT. BUT WHAT ABOUT MAINLANDS 1 AND 2? WHAT ABOUT MAINLANDS 5? WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE OTHER ONES? WE HAVE A SIGN WHEN YOU COME INTO MAINLANDS 1, 02, 3, 4, AND 5, THAT SAYS NO PARKING OVERNIGHT.

BUT NOW WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO AWAY WITH THAT? I HAVE TALKED NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT THE ISSUES WITH PARKING IN THE STREET.

I WAS DRIVING DOWN MY ROAD THE OTHER DAY, AND I WAS DEALING WITH A CRISIS.

IT WAS DAYTIME.

I COULD NOT GET THROUGH MY ROAD BECAUSE CARS WERE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.

THANKFULLY, IT WAS DAYTIME.

I SLAMMED ON MY HORN, SOMEBODY CAME OUT, MOVED ONE OF THE CARS.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AT NIGHT.

WHEN YOU HAVE NARROW ROADS, AND YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, HOW CAN YOU SELECTIVELY ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE? BECAUSE IF IT WAS ME, THE FIRST THING I'D BE DOING WHEN I GOT A TICKET WAS COMING BACK TO THIS COMMISSION AND SAYING, WHY ARE YOU SELECTIVELY ENFORCING THIS LAW AGAINST ME AND NOT THOSE PEOPLE? AGAIN, I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, YOU OPEN YOURSELVES UP WHEN YOU DO THINGS SELECTIVELY.

I'VE TALKED TO OTHERS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY ALL ASKED ME TO ENFORCE THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS GO AWAY.

WE WANT TO SEE THE CODE ENFORCED AS IT IS WRITTEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MARK AUGEN FROM TAMARAC LAKES, SELF, BUT I'M ALSO AN APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE FOR SECTIONS 1 AND 2.

AS KATE SAID, THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AGAIN, AND DISCUSSED AGAIN, AND DISCUSSED AGAIN.

I UNDERSTAND FOR DISTRICT 3 AND 4, YOU'RE A NEWER SECTION OF TOWN, YOU'RE BIG OF ROADS, A LITTLE WIDER. I KNOW THAT.

I DO A LOT OF UBER DRIVING THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND CORAL SPRINGS, AND DRIVING THROUGH SOME OF THOSE STREETS ARE A LOT EASIER THAN DRIVING THROUGH THE STREETS ON THE EAST SECTION OF TOWN.

IN YOUR EXEMPTION, AFTER SEARCHING THROUGH THE BACK DOCUMENTS ON PAGE 730, YOU HAD THE LISTING OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS, OR THOSE COMMUNITIES.

IT CAME UP FOR BOTH TAMARAC LAKE'S HEALTH, AND TAMARAC LAKE'S SECTION 1 AND 2, DOWN OFF OF PROSPECT, WHY WEREN'T WE LISTED ON THAT? WE'VE HAD THE RULE.

I MOVED INTO TAMARAC LAKE HEALTH IN 2000.

THE RULE WAS THERE BEFORE I MOVED IN BECAUSE IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME WHEN I BOUGHT A HOUSE IN THERE, AND I HAD A SIGN THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE RULES THAT THERE WAS NO PARKING AT NIGHT ON THE STREET.

WE STILL HAVE IT. WE'VE UPDATED IT.

WE SENT, BACK WHEN CHIEF GLASSMAN WAS HERE IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC, OUR UPDATED RULES FOR THE PARKING IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE GOT BACK FROM THE TRAFFIC OFFICER, THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO TAMARAC, SOME ADDITIONAL STUFF TO ASSIGN THERE.

THERE WERE STATE RULES REGARDING PARKING IN THESE COMMUNITIES.

IF YOU HAVE DOUBLE YELLOW LINES IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AT THE INTERSECTIONS AND EVERYTHING, IT'S A STATE LAW THAT THEY CAN'T PARK THERE, THAT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED, AS WELL.

OUR COMMUNITY AT TAMARAC LAKE SOUTH AND TAMARAC LAKE SECTIONS 1 AND 2.

SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD IN 2001, AND EVER SINCE, OUR TWO COMMUNITIES WORK TOGETHER ON A REGULAR BASIS.

WE HAVE OUR SAME ATTORNEY FOR THE TWO COMMUNITIES.

WE WORK TOGETHER ON DOING THE RULES, SO ONE COMMUNITY CAN'T SAY THEY DON'T DO IT IN THAT COMMUNITY.

OUR RULES ARE VERY SIMILAR FOR BOTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES, AND WE HAVE THIS NO PARKING EXEMPTION INTO THEM THAT NEEDS TO BE STAYING.

AS ADDED TO THIS LIST, THIS LAW SHOULD NOT BE PASSED THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, UNLESS YOU ADD OUR TWO ADDITIONAL.

I DO HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM DON FROM TAMARAC SECTION 1 AND 2, THAT I'LL GIVE TO MS. CONWAY, BECAUSE I EMAILED A BIG EMAIL TO THEM THE OTHER NIGHT EXPLAINING TO HER AND THE CITY MANAGER,

[02:00:02]

OUR PROPOSAL THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THIS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T DRIVE DOWN THE STREET.

HALF THE TIME, THE SCHOOL BUSES CAN'T GET THROUGH AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, AND I CAN'T GET THROUGH SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF TWO HOUSES DOWN THE END OF MY STREET.

BUT HERE IS THE CITY SIGN THAT THE CITY PUT UP IN ONE COMMUNITY.

>> THANK YOU. MS. DENNIS , AND THEN PATTI LYNN.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS SANTRA DENNIS.

I'M A HOMEOWNER IN MAINLAND SECTION 10.

I'M ACTUALLY HERE TODAY.

I WORK IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY, AND I'VE BEEN LIVING IN TAMARAC FOR FIVE YEARS NOW.

I'M ACTUALLY HERE TO THANK VICE MAYOR DANIEL FOR ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS AROUND PARKING IN MAINLAND SECTION 10.

TAMARAC IS A GROWING CITY, WHICH USED TO BE MORE OF A SENIOR CITIZENS COMMUNITY.

THERE'S MUCH MORE FAMILIES, AND SO THE POKER RESTRICTIONS ALSO DO HAVE A BURDEN ON SOME OF US WHO DO HAVE MULTI VEHICLE HOMES.

IN MY COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY, IT IS NOT ONLY FOLKS WHO, JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE THERE PAST 12:00, DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NECESSARILY STAYING OVER.

BUT I ALSO KNOW IN MY COMMUNITY, THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS THAT ONLY FIT ONE CAR, AND MANY OF THE HOMES THAT WAY.

IF YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN, IF YOU HAVE A PARTNER, THE HOMES ARE NOT BUILT TO HAVE MULTI VEHICLE CARS IN THAT DRIVEWAY.

IF PEOPLE ARE BEING TICKETED, I BELIEVE THAT TO BE PREDATORY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN TAMARAC, WHO HAVE FAMILY, SPECIFICALLY IN MY DISTRICT.

I ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DRIVEWAY.

WE GOT NOTICES THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE UPDATES ON OUR DRIVEWAY AFTER YEARS OF THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF OUR HOMES NOT NECESSARILY BEING PAVED.

WHEN WE GOT THAT NOTICE IT WAS DURING HURRICANE SEASON.

I THINK THAT THE CITY OF TAMARAC SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY REALLY COGNIZANT OF THE COST THAT IT TAKES FOR HOMEOWNERS TO MAKE REPAIRS DURING HURRICANE SEASON.

IT'S AN EXPENSIVE SEASON.

PEOPLE DO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE SEASONS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE REPAIRS.

THE NOTICE PERIOD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE WANT TO UP KEEP THEIR HOMES, WANT TO KEEP THEIR PROPERTY VALUES UP, BUT DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SIGNIFICANT TIME WHEN THE ENFORCEMENT STARTED HAPPENING.

IN THE NOTICE IT STARTED TO SAY, BASED ON THE CODES IN THE CITY, THAT PEOPLE WILL STARTED GETTING FINED $250 A DAY FOR NOT UPDATING THEIR DRIVEWAY WITHIN, I BELIEVE A TWO-MONTH PERIOD.

I THOUGHT, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE VERY PREDATORY.

THIS IS HOW PEOPLE LOSE THEIR HOMES.

I MYSELF MADE A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE BECAUSE I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO COME HERE THIS EVENING, BUT I KNOW MANY OF MY COMMUNITY MEMBERS DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF TIME.

I WANT TO SEE MUCH MORE OF A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS AROUND WHAT COULD BE COMMUNITY PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING AROUND PARKING.

I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE FAMILIES IN TAMARAC, WHO HAVE SINGLE DRIVEWAYS, WHO DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE, BUT TO PARK THEIR CARS ON THEIR STREETS.

I THINK BY COMMUNITY, WE CAN DEVELOP WHAT SOME SOLUTIONS COULD BE TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUES IN EACH COMMUNITY.

I APPRECIATE YOU, VICE MAYOR, DANIEL.

I HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO COME HERE BECAUSE I DO WORK DOWN SOUTH, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSIVENESS AND THE ABILITY FOR US TO COME TO A SHARED CONCLUSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AFTER PATTI LYNN? SEEING NONE, THEN PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE CLOSED AFTER MS. LYNN.

>> THANK YOU. PATTI LYNN, MAINLANDS 8.

WE HAVE A LAW ON THE BOOKS THAT WE FOUGHT LONG AND HARD TO GET.

THEN WHEN THE LAW WAS PUT ON THE BOOKS, PEOPLE WERE GIVEN AMPLE ENOUGH TIME TO PLEASE WIDEN YOUR DRIVEWAYS.

YES, IT'S EXPENSIVE, BUT THAT'S THE COST OF OWNING A HOME SOMETIMES.

YOU HAVE TO PAY TO BE THERE.

THE LAW HAS BEEN HERE FOREVER ABOUT PARKING, IT WAS BETWEEN 2:00 AND 6:00.

THEN WE CHANGED IT TO 12:00 AND 6:00.

BUT THE LAW WAS THE LAW, WAS THE LAW, WAS THE LAW.

WHEN CAPTAIN COOPER WAS HERE, I HAD HIM PLEASE CHECKING ALL THE TIME AT 64TH AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 57TH COURT.

THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO LEAVE THE COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE 2-3 CARS PARKED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION.

YOU HAVE TO GO ON THE OTHER LANE IF SOMEONE'S COMING IN AND MAKES THE TURN.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL ACCIDENTS THERE.

WE FOUGHT FOR THIS LAW.

WHY IS IT THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN KEEP IT AND WE CAN'T?

[02:05:03]

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT IN OUR DOCUMENTS? WE HAVE IT IN OUR RULES, BUT OUR RULES ARE NOT DOCUMENTS?

>> WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT CHANGING IT? WHY IS IT BEING CHANGED? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

WE FOUGHT, WE CAME, EVERYBODY CAME, AND THEY AGREED, AND THINGS WERE GOOD FOR A WHILE.

NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET AGAIN.

IT'S UNSAFE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED. COMMISSIONER RIGHT.

>> MS. CALLOWAY, I THINK I RECALL VERY WELL MENTIONED TO INCLUDE MAINLANDS 8 AND 9.

I KNOW THE WOODLANDS, MAINLANDS 8, MAINLANDS 9 THOSE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT WANT THIS TO BE ENFORCED, AND I WAS ADAMANT ABOUT THOSE COMMUNITIES.

I SEE THE WOODLANDS, BUT I DON'T SEE MAINLAND 8 AND MAINLAND 9.

>> COMMISSIONER, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THOSE?

>> SO, AS YOU KNOW THIS WAS DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY DURING THE JUNE WORKSHOP, AND WE WERE DIRECTED.

STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO COME BACK WITH THESE CHANGES AND TO COME FORWARD WITH A MECHANISM THAT WOULD ALLOW COMMUNITIES TO GET INVOLVED IN WHAT HAPPENED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS THE PARKING POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW COMMUNITIES WHO ARE NOT LISTED ALREADY AND WHO WANT TO HAVE PARKING ENFORCEMENT BY 55% VOTE OF THE RESIDENTS, ONE HOME ONE VOTE TO BE ABLE TO INSTITUTE THAT, AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LIFT.

>> IF YOU CHECK YOUR NOTES, YOU SEE MAINLANDS 8 AND 9.

>> I CAN ADD THAT COMMISSIONER.

>> YEAH MAINLANDS 8 AND 9 BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] HAS BEEN ADAMANT ABOUT IT SO I KNOW THE WOODLANDS, MAINLAND 8 AND MAINLAND 9.

>> FOR THE RECORD, I CAN JUST LIST OF ALL THE COMMUNITIES OR I CAN JUST WAIT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER CHANGES FROM ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

>> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, MS. CALLOWAY.

CAN YOU JUST SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS POLICY IS SAYING NECESSARILY.

CAN YOU CLARIFY SO THAT THEY HAVE CLARITY AROUND WHAT THIS SAYS AND WHAT IT DOES?

>> CERTAINLY, COMMISSIONER.

SO WE ARE MAKING A CHANGE IN THE CODE.

THE CODE CURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR A RESTRICTION, MEANING THAT WE WOULD ENFORCE THERE'S NO ON STREET PARKING ALLOWED.

ANYWHERE IN THE CITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12 MIDNIGHT AND 6:00 A.M. DURING THE RETREAT IN JUNE, WE WERE DIRECTED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE SO WE ARE LIFTING THAT RESTRICTION.

PARKING WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE CITY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT THE COMMISSION ALREADY TOLD US THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE ON STREET PARKING RESTRICTED.

THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE IN THE POLICY THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE, AND THEY'RE LISTED, AND THE COMMISSIONER JUST ADDED TWO MORE COMMUNITIES TO THAT.

IF A NEIGHBORHOOD, AS DEFINED BY THE POLICY, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON STREET PARKING IN THEIR COMMUNITY BY A PETITION OF 55% OF THE RESIDENTS OF THAT COMMUNITY, THEN THAT RESTRICTION WOULD BE ENFORCED BY THE CITY.

LIKEWISE, IF A COMMUNITY WHO HAS A RESTRICTION ON, BUT WOULD LIKE THAT RESTRICTION TO BE LIFTED AND TO HAVE ON STREET PARKING IN THAT COMMUNITY BY 55% OF THE RESIDENTS, THEY'RE ABLE TO LIFT THAT RESTRICTION.

>> THANK YOU. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE'RE STILL ENFORCING BUT WE'RE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO HOW WE ADDRESS PARKING IN OUR CITY, BECAUSE TO THE ONE OF THE RESIDENTS THAT SPOKE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY HAS WIDER STREETS, MAYBE NEWER HOMES, WHILE MAYBE THE EAST SIDE OF THE CITY HAS A DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURE.

SOMEONE ELSE SPOKE TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE ONCE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BEDROOM COMMUNITY WHILE NOW WE'VE GOT 43-YEAR-OLD MEDIAN AGE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHERE THERE'S MORE KIDS, MORE FAMILIES.

SO I THINK WHAT THIS COMMISSION DECIDED TO DO WAS LOOK AT AN APPROACH THAT WOULD CONSIDER ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS AND I LOVE IT.

I THINK THIS IS FAIR.

I THINK PERSONALLY, AS THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE, I RECEIVED SEVERAL PHONE CALLS FOR FOLKS WHO LIVE IN COMMUNITIES IN MY DISTRICT, WHO UNFORTUNATELY ARE SUBJECT TO SMALLER DRIVEWAYS, WHO DID NOT LIKE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AND WHO WEREN'T COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR ROADS.

I THINK THIS IS A FAIR APPROACH.

IF A NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS ENFORCEMENT, THEY JUST NEED TO PETITION THEIR COMMUNITY, GET 55% OF THE FOLKS TO AGREE AND YOU GET ENFORCEMENT.

IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT.

I THINK THAT IS DEMOCRACY.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT STAFF BROUGHT THIS ITEM.

[02:10:01]

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, THOUGH RELATING TO THE PROCESS.

I DIDN'T SEE IN THEIR ENFORCEMENT OF VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID TAGS, DERELICT VEHICLES PARKED ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, MAYBE VEHICLES WITH COVER THAT ARE COVERED FLAT TIRES ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.

DOES THIS ADDRESS THAT?

>> THIS ORDINANCE DO NOT, BUT THAT IS ALREADY IN THE CODE.

IT'S UNDER A SEPARATE SECTION SO THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT.

>> IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THEY SHOULD BE COMPLIMENTARY.

IF YOU'RE ENFORCING PARKING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO PULL THAT SO THAT WHOEVER'S DOING THE ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T SKIP OVER IT BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE PER THIS ORDINANCE.

BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME.

THE OTHER QUESTION BECOMES, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN SIZE AND SO HOW WOULD THE COMMUNITY KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC NUMBER IS TO ACHIEVE 55% IN THE EVENT THAT COMMUNITY IS INTERESTED IN ENFORCEMENT?

>> WE WOULD HELP THEM BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT WAS A TOUGH ONE COMMISSIONER.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A BROAD DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SO IF THERE IS A SMALL HOA COMMUNITY THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, HAD THREE OR FOUR STREETS, THEN STAFF WOULD DETERMINE THAT THAT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD SO WE INSTITUTED, AND WE INCLUDED IN THE POLICY A DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD THAT INCLUDED IT CAN CONSIST OF A SUBDIVISION, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A GROUP OF CONTIGUOUS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITH SHARED CHARACTERISTIC AND BOUNDARIES.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE ONCE A COMMUNITY A RESIDENT REACH OUT AND THEY'D LIKE TO SUBMIT A PETITION THEN STAFF WOULD HELP THEM TO DEFINE WHAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN THAT COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT MIGHT VARY DEPENDENT ON THE MAKEUP.

SO THAT DEFINITION IS IN THE ON STREET PARKING POLICY, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 8.

>> I THINK I'VE NOTED A CONFLICT UNDER YOUR DEFINITIONS FOR RESIDENT VOTE.

IT SAYS ONE VOTE PER HOME PER PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP STATUS OR NUMBER OF RESIDENTS.

BUT THEN IN YOUR NOTE, IT SAYS, FOR PURPOSES OF VALIDATING THE PETITION, EACH PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO ONE VOTE REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF OWNERS OR RESIDENTS.

>> THAT IS FOR VERIFICATION, SO WE WOULD VERIFY UN BROAD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT VOTE IS COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY.

>> BUT I THINK THE DEFINITION SAYS REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP, SO IT SEEMS LIKE A CONFLICT THERE.

WE'RE SAYING VOTE DEFINES AS IT'S REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS IT, BUT THEN WE SAY THAT WE NEED TO VERIFY.

I THINK WE MIGHT GO TO THAT CLEAR THAT UP SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT THERE.

>> WE'LL BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

>> THEN MY LAST COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I SAW SOMETHING IN THERE FOR SIGNAGE.

TYPICALLY, WHEN PEOPLE LAUNCH THESE PROGRAMS, A LOT OF CITIES HAVE THESE PROGRAMS. BUT TYPICALLY WHEN PEOPLE LAUNCH THESE PROGRAMS, THEY LAUNCH THEM WITH THE INTENT THAT THE PROGRAM PAY FOR ITSELF.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNAGE.

IF THERE'S A COMMUNITY THAT'S NOT LISTED CURRENTLY, BUT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE IN THE ENFORCEMENT, AND THEY NEED TO ERECT SIGNS IN ORDER TO NOW MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THERE'S AN ENFORCEMENT PROVISION IN PLACE.

TYPICALLY, THEY WOULD PULL FROM FUNDS THAT ARE BEING PAID INTO THE PROGRAM THROUGH DECALS, OR MAYBE LET'S SAY A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS CURRENTLY LISTED.

THEY NEED TO HAVE AN EXTRA CAR FOR MAYBE KIDS HOME FOR THE SUMMER, AND THEY NEED PERMISSION TO PARK AN EXTRA CAR.

TYPICALLY, PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO COME TO THE CITY, GET A DECAL, GET A GATE PASS, GET SOMETHING SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE CAR THERE AND THAT CAR NOT BE IN JEOPARDY OF A TOW.

DO WE HAVE THAT MECHANISM IN PLACE, OR ARE WE SAYING THAT IF YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THESE COMMUNITIES REGARDLESS, YOU CAN'T?

>> THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING. [OVERLAPPING]

>> SHE'S GOING TO TAKE HER TIME.

>> I THINK I WOULD PUT THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.

EVEN FOR THOSE WHO ARE DISINTERESTED RIGHT NOW, PERHAPS THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE GRANDCHILDREN OR HAVE SOMEONE COME INTO TOWN TO VISIT, I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE A MECHANISM WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO GET A VEHICLE TO PARK IN THE COMMUNITY LEGALLY EVEN IF THEY ARE A COMMUNITY THAT HAS OPTED TO HAVE PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

THEN I THINK THE PROCEEDS FROM THAT IS WHAT THE CITY WOULD THEN USE TO INSTALL SIGNS AND I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD CIRCULATE.

[02:15:02]

THE FUNDS FROM THE PROGRAM SHOULD CIRCULATE.

THEN CONVERSELY, MAYBE IF YOU LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, MAYBE FOLKS ARE ABLE TO HAVE A PARKING PASS ON THEIR CAR.

MAYBE THEY HAD TO RUN IN REAL QUICK TO DROP GROCERIES.

I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT OR MAYBE THEY NEED TO MOVE THEIR CAR FOR THE NIGHT.

THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTION IN THE MORNING. I DON'T KNOW.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU LIVE THERE AND YOU NEED TO PARK ON THE ROAD, THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE GIVEN SOME TYPE OF A PERMIT OR DECAL OR SOMETHING SO THAT THEIR CARS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO MAYBE ONE OR TWO CARS OR TWO CARS PER HOUSEHOLD OR WHATEVER IT IS.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN HERE. THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHTS.

>> THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN THE LESS FILLING, TASTE GREAT ARGUMENT FOR THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION AND IT'S NEVER GOTTEN EASIER AND AFTER YEARS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO, WE DID FINALLY PUT SOMETHING IN.

PART OF THE ISSUE THAT WE WERE HAVING WAS ALSO PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING THEIR NEIGHBORS VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPANDING THEIR INSIDES OF THEIR HOME AND NOT USING THEIR GARAGES, NOT USING THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN INTRUDING ONTO THEIR NEIGHBORS AND SO THIS WAS ALSO PUT IN AS A MECHANISM TO HELP TRY TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT ISSUE.

MS. CALLOWAY, IF WE HAVE RESIDENTS IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAVE THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN THEY BUY THEIR PROPERTY SAYS NO PARKING ON THE STREET.

INSTEAD OF MAKING THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVE TO DO A 55% TO BE INCLUDED IN HERE, WOULDN'T IT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADD HERE SAYING, IF YOUR COMMUNITY ALREADY HAS IT IN THE RULES, AND EVERYBODY WHO BUYS THEIR PROPERTY KNOWS IT'S IN THEIR RULES, IT CAN AUTOMATICALLY BE PUT IN HERE VERSUS HAVING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ARDUOUS TASK OF TRYING TO GET 55 AND OLDER BECAUSE BUT NOT 55 OLDER, MY APOLOGIES.

I'M A LITTLE TIRED. I'M GOING INTO 55 OLDER IN A COUPLE OF YEARS.

BECAUSE 55 OR MORE.

THE PROBLEM IS WE ARE NOW TELLING COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE IT IN THEIR RULES THAT WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THEIR RULES DON'T COUNT ANYMORE?

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

IF YOU HAVE MOVED IN AN HOA, IT'S IN YOUR BY LAWS, AND THERE'S NO STREET PARKING, IT'S NOT OUR INTENT TO CONFLICT WITH THAT AND CITY ATTORNEY, YOU CAN OPINE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS DOES.

>> BUT MANY TIMES, THE COMMUNITIES ARE TOLD THAT THE COMMUNITIES CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE CITY HAS SAID THAT THEY CAN PARK THERE.

WE'VE HAD ISSUES BETWEEN VARIOUS COMMUNITIES IN OUR CITY.

YOU KNOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS OVER THE YEARS.

SO MY ASK IS OUT OF CURIOSITY, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE INSTEAD OF MAKING? WE HAVE TAMARAC LAKE SOUTH RIGHT NOW.

TAMARAC LAKES 1 AND 2, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN HERE, AND HOPEFULLY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER WOULD AGREE.

THEIR RULES ALREADY SAY THAT THERE'S NO PARKING ON THE STREET SO IF THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT TODAY, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO NOW SOLICIT THE COMMUNITY FOR 55 AND MORE FOR WANTING TO OPT OUT, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN PROVE THAT THEIR DOCS, RECORDED DOCUMENTS SAY THAT THERE'S NO PARKING ON THE STREET, AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PROTECTED.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DOUBLE NEGATIVES ON THIS, WHICH IS REALLY WHY IT'S HARD, THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE NO PARKING ON THE STREET AND HAVE IT ENFORCED BY THE CITY.

>> MAYOR IF IT'S IN THE BY LAWS THIS POLICY IS NOT INTENDED TO CONFLICT OR TO COMPETE OR TO MANAGE OR TO ENFORCE HOAS THAT HAVE IN THEIR BYLAWS.

THERE'S NO STREET PARKING.

THEN WE DO HAVE SOME COMMUNITIES AS WELL THAT IS ENGAGED WITH THE CITY THROUGH AN AGREEMENT AND WITH BSO FOR ENFORCEMENT OF UNSTREET PARKING.

I THINK WE HAVE LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THOSE ARRANGEMENTS THAT WE ENFORCE SO THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO GO AGAINST CHOICE?

>> NO, I THINK MY POINT IS BEING MISSED.

IF THEY'RE NOT IN THIS AGREEMENT, AND THEIR COMMUNITY ALREADY HAS THAT IN THEIR RULES, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO MAKE THEM GO DO A PETITION FOR 55% OF ITS RESIDENTS TO VOTE TO OPT OUT OF NOT HAVING NO PARKING ON THE STREET AND TO HAVE PARKING ON THE STREET, IF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ALREADY SAY NO PARKING ON THE STREET, CAN THAT BE UTILIZED INSTEAD OF THE PETITION? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE UTILIZED?

>> IF THEIR RULE SAYS NO PARKING,

[02:20:02]

THEN THE RESIDENTS THAT RESIDE WITHIN THAT HOA MUST ABIDE BY THOSE BY LAWS.

IN FACT, IN SOME INSTANCES, THAT'S PROBABLY WAY STRONGER THAN THIS.

>> BUT IF THEY'RE CITY STREETS, THEY'RE NOT BEING ENFORCED AND THE CITY COMMUNITY CAN'T TOW A CAR OR PUT A TICKET ON A CAR THAT DO THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY.

IT'S NOT A PRIVATE STREET.

>> SO THEY NEED THE CITY? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

IS IT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE BEFORE I ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THEY'LL ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY CONCLUSION?

>> MAYOR I THINK MISS CALLOWAY IS EXPLAINING THAT THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS NOT CHANGING ANY AREAS WHICH PROHIBIT PARKING ON THE STREET VIA HOA BYLAW? IT REMAINS THE SAME.

BUT IF GROUP OF RESIDENTS WANT TO CHANGE THAT, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, CORRECT?

>> BUT THE MAYOR IS SAYING THAT SHE'S CONCERNED IF IT'S IN THE BYLAWS, THAT THAT COMMUNITY MAY STILL WANT TO PETITION THE CITY TO HAVE ON STREET PARKING, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> WE HAVE SNOWY STREETS.

WE HAVE COMMUNITIES SET OF CITY STREETS.

>> THAT PROHIBITS COMMUNITIES RIGHT NOW TODAY.

I HEARD HER PRETTY THAT PROHIBIT ON STREET PARKING IN THE BYLAWS.

>> IN THE BYLAWS. YEAH.

>> AND DOES THIS LEGISLATION CHANGE THE BYLAWS IN A WAY TO ALLOW TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, OR DOES IT ALLOW ON STREET PARKING.

BASICALLY, YOU SAID EARLIER THAT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.

>> BYLAWS WITH TRUMP, YEAH.

>> THEN WHY DO YOU HAVE SEVEN OR EIGHT AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES? YOU HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE CITY STREETS.

IT DIDN'T MATTER THAT THEIR BYLAWS SAID THAT THEY ARE NO PARKING? CITY WOULDN'T ENFORCE IT.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE IT ON CITY STREETS, SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.

>> SOME OF THESE HOAS ARE ENFORCING THERE.

THEY'RE CALLING TO COMPANIES THEY ARE ENFORCING NO PARKING.

WE HAVE GOTTEN CALLS WHERE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN TOLD BY [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'M SAYING THEY'RE NOT, BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITIES MIGHT NOT BE DOING IT RIGHT.

I'M ASKING FOR SOMETHING SO SIMPLE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

>> SURE, SO I APOLOGIZE CAN [OVERLAPPING].

>> IF WE HAVE A COMMUNITY.

INSTEAD OF DOING THAT OTHER AGREEMENT AND HAVING TO GO THROUGH CERTAIN OTHER THINGS, IF THEY HAVE IN THEIR BYLAWS AND THEY HAVE CITY STREETS, AND IT SHOWS THAT THEIR BYLAWS SAY OR A CONFIDENCE, SAY THAT THEY HAVE NO PARKING ON THE STREETS, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE 55% PETITION TO HAVE THEIR NO PARKING ON THE STREET ENFORCED, CAN THAT DOCUMENT BE USED IN SET?

>> WE WOULD ADD TO THE POLICY THAT IF A NEIGHBORHOOD OR A COMMUNITY IN THEIR BYLAWS HAVE NO STREET PARKING, THEN THAT COMMUNITY THAT WOULD BE ENFORCED BY THE CITY.

>> CORRECT. IT APPS OUT OF HAVING TO HAVE THE PETITION BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY ALREADY HAS IT.

IT'S THE DECLARATION. IT'S THE COVENANTS.

IT'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

WHEN YOU BUY YOUR HOME, YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO.

NOT ALL COMMUNITIES HAVE IT.

NOT ALL COMMUNITIES RULES SAY THAT YOU CAN'T PARK. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN RULES.

SOME COMMUNITIES DO.

WE'RE HEARING ABOUT THE OLDER COMMUNITIES THAT DO HAVE IT.

BUT THE OPTION AFTERWARD WOULD BE THEN FOR THE COMMUNITY TO DO THE 55 AND OPT OUT.

>> MISS MAYOR, DO WE KNOW THOSE COMMUNITIES?

>> WE JUST HAVE THREE THAT WERE ALREADY MENTIONED TODAY.

>> ARE THEY LISTED? I THINK A FEW IS ALREADY LISTED HERE.

>> TAMARACK LAKE, SOUTH 1 AND 2 HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD US THAT THEY'RE NOT.

GREEN HAVEN AND FAIRHAVEN AND [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT IN HERE.

>> IT'S AT THE PLEASURE OF THIS COMMISSION.

>> I'LL TAKE MY OTHER TWO FOR RIGHT NOW.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T THEN OPT OUT AS A COMMUNITY WITH 55 AFTERWARDS TO SAY PARKING WON'T BE ENFORCED.

BUT FOR THE IMMEDIACY OF IT, TO LET IT STILL BE ENFORCED FOR THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ASKING FOR IT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

TO INCLUDE THAT IN THERE.

AND THEN THE COMMUNITY IF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT IT, THEN THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING THE CITY THE DOCUMENTS, MIND YOU.

IF YOU LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT'S NOT BEING ENFORCED, THEN YOU'RE NOT SAYING TO THE CITY, LOOK AT MY RULES WE'RE BEING ENFORCE US BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT IT ENFORCED.

BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT ALREADY HAVE THE RULES, WHY PUT THEM THROUGH THAT BURDEN IF WE DON'T NEED TO FOR RIGHT NOW? IF WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THAT CREATIVE ABILITY TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY FROM THE OLDER COMMUNITIES TO THE YOUNGER COMMUNITIES, WHY IS THAT OPTION NOT AVAILABLE? THIS CITY HAS BEEN IN THE AVERAGE AGE OF 48 GOING DOWN FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS.

LIKE I SAID, THIS HAS BEEN AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PAST WHAT 20.

[02:25:02]

WE'RE TRYING TO COME TO SOMETHING CREATIVE.

WHY CAN'T WE DO A LITTLE BIT TO HELP OUR RESIDENTS? COMMISSIONER BOLTON?

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. ATTORNEY, IS THIS SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, OR AS WE LEARNED THE NEW TERM THIS EVENING, SELECTIVE JUDGMENT?

>> THIS POLICY OBVIOUSLY IS A POLICY IS BEING DRIVEN BY COMMISION FEEDBACK FROM RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF HOW THEY IMPLEMENT THIS PARKING REGULATION, AND STAFF HEARD THOSE FEEDBACK FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AND TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT EXEMPT SOME AREAS OR ALLOW RESIDENTS TO EXEMPT THEMSELVES, AND SOME AREAS YOU HAVE ENFORCEMENT.

SO FROM A STANDPOINT, IT CAN BE ENFORCED LEGALLY BASED ON THE POLICY DIRECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION.

>> SO IS IT SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OR NOT?

>> I DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE IF I'M LIKE, I GIVE YOU A CITY OF MINING BEACH A COASTAL CITIES, AND I HEARD COMMISSIONER PATTERSON TALK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT.

LIKE, ON CERTAIN CITIES, ESPECIALLY WITH CITIES WITH LIMITED RIGHT AWAY AND LIMITED I WOULD SAY CONDO COMMUNITIES WHERE THE CONDOS AREN'T BUILT WITH SUFFICIENT PARKING.

THE CITY CREATE LEGISLATION TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING ON THE RIGHT AWAY.

AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE PERMIT ON YOUR VEHICLE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET TOWED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PUBLIC STREET.

CITIES HAVE CREATED, I CALL IT LEGISLATION TO ASSIST RESIDENTS IN DEALING WITH PARKING SHORTAGE AND WHILE ENFORCING THE PARK FROM NON RESIDENTS.

>> SO IT'S NOT SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT?

>> I DON'T SEE IT.

>> OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT IN THE IN THE MEETING, I DID SAY TAMARAC LAKES SOUTH AND NOT TAMARAC LAKES NORTH.

>> SO NO TAMARAC LAKES NORTH, TAMARAC LAKES SOUTH.

>> YEAH. SECONDLY, I HAVE A VERY GOOD PULSE ON DISTRICT 1.

I KNOW THAT TAMARAC LAKES 1 AND 2 WHILE THEY HAVE SOME ON STREET PARKING ISSUES, THEY DO HAVE THEIR RESIDENTS PARK AT THE CLUBHOUSE AREA AND SO FORTH.

THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN ISSUE AS TAMARAC LAKE SOUTH DOES.

I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN FROM DISTRICT 1 THAT TAMARAC LAKE SOUTH SHOULD BE ON THAT, AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT, NOT TAMARAC LAKE SOUTH.

>> TAMARAC LAKE SOUTH, NOT NORTH?

>> NOT NORTH? CORRECT. WE JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IS TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND THAT SORT OF STUFF CAN GET THROUGH.

AND WHO WOULD WANT TO DIRECT A TICKET TO THEMSELVES.

THIS SECTION THAT SAYS, 55% OF RESIDENTS CAN SUBMIT A PETITION AND VOTE TO GET PARKING ENFORCEMENT TO GET A $21 TICKET WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING. IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

IT LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER, AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN.

BUT WE'RE POLICYMAKERS.

WE'RE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE MAKING POLICY FOR THE RESIDENTS SOMETIMES, AND WE OUGHT TO MAKE POLICIES SOMETIMES THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, BUT ARE GOOD FOR THEM.

IF SOMEBODY IS CAUGHT IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF THEM.

I'D LOVE TO SEE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS, THAT A COMMISSIONER MAY MODIFY THE LIST AT ANY TIME WITH A MAJORITY VOTE BY THE COMMISSION.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT ANYWAY.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT IS ADDING COMMUNITIES, MAYOR GOMEZ IS SUGGESTING COMMUNITIES.

I'M CHANGING COMMUNITIES.

THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE DOING IN THE FUTURE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS FULLY BAKED.

IT COULD BE FULLY BAKED TONIGHT IF WE ADD THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MAY MODIFY THE LIST AT ANY TIME,

[02:30:07]

SUBJECT TO A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR IF I HAVE A SUPPORT FOR THAT.

>> QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WOULD THAT BE TAKING THE CONTROL OUT OF THE COMMUNITIES WHEN THEY HAVE TO VOTE [OVERLAPPING]

>> NO. THE COMMUNITIES WOULD STILL HAVE THE CONTROL.

IF A COMMUNITY DOES NOT WANT IT, THEY CAN PETITION THE CITY AND WITH A 55% VOTE.

IF THE COMMUNITY DOES WANT IT, THEY CAN PETITION THE COMMUNITY AS WELL FOR A 55% VOTE.

BUT I THINK IF THIS COMMISSION SAYS, FOR INSTANCE, HEY, I SEE A PROBLEM IN X COMMUNITY, I DON'T THINK MY TIME SHOULD BE RUNNING, I'M ANSWERING A QUESTION.

IF A COMMUNITY IS HAVING AN ISSUE WITH PARKING, AND YOU SEE THE ISSUE AS A COMMISSIONER, YOU SHOULDN'T LOSE THE RIGHT TO BRING THAT AT TO THE ATTENTION OFF YOUR COLLEAGUES, AND YOUR COLLEAGUE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESPECT THAT TO SAY, YEAH, THERE'S A PROBLEM IN YOUR COMMUNITY.

AND, OF COURSE THE MAYOR HAS CITYWIDE.

SHE SEES A PROBLEM IN ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES, SHE SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED FROM BRINGING A COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE AND ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THAT.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> POINT OF CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER.

I THINK INITIALLY, WE DID THE COLLOG OF THE COMMUNITIES BY EACH COMMISSIONER.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE REVERTING BACK TO THAT BY DWEN.

IS THAT MORE LESS THE SAME THING THAT WE'LL BE ADDING AND REMOVING COMMUNITIES BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR?

>> YEAH, WE DID THE SAME THING HERE.

BUT THE LEGISLATION IS NOT GIVING US THE ABILITY TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE.

>> BUT I THOUGHT THE INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH THE LEGISLATION WAS THAT WE KNOW THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE PARKING ISSUES.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT IN THERE.

AND THEN WE PUT THE POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE A PART OF THE PARKING SITUATION.

I THINK THIS IDEA CAME ABOUT FROM US, NOT WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY DO THE COLLOG OF THE COMMUNITIES, WHICH WE DID INITIALLY.

AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THESE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES.

NOW WE PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE TO SAY IF YOU WANT TO OPT IN OR IF YOU WANT TO OPT OUT.

SO GOING BACK TO THE COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED WHERE WE STILL HAVE THE POWER TO PICK AND ADD AND REMOVE COMMUNITIES.

>> AND WE SHOULD HAVE THAT POWER TO ADD AND REMOVE COMMUNITIES.

BUT THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE THAT POWER TO ADD TO ADD THEIR COMMUNITY OR REMOVE THEIR COMMUNITY.

THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO ADD AND REMOVE A COMMUNITY.

IT DOES NOT GIVE US THE ABILITY TO ADD OR REMOVE A COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE, I DON'T SEE THAT LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATION, AND I DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THAT RIGHT TO COME BACK TO CITY COMMISSION AND SAY, HEY, I WANT TO ADD THIS COMMUNITY, OR LET'S SAY, IF A COMMUNITY BUILDS A PARKING GARAGE, THEN THEIR WOES ARE DONE.

IF THE COMMUNITY GETS A GRANT FROM THE CITY OR WHEREVER TO EXTEND DRIVEWAYS, THERE'S NO MORE ON STREET PARKING, THEN WE CAN TAKE THAT COMMUNITY OFF.

IT GIVES US THE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADD SUBTRACT, BUT IT ALSO GIVES THE RESIDENTS THE ABILITY TO ADD SUBTRACT.

I'M NEVER WANT TO TAKE AWAY POWER FROM THE BODY THAT THE RESIDENTS SELECTED.

>> CITY ATTORNEY.

>> I JUST ASK COMMISSIONER BOLTON FOR CLARIFICATION.

THERE'S A GENERAL RULE PARKING IS PERMITTED WITH THE EXCEPTION 1, 02, AND 3.

YOU WANT TO ADD NUMBER 4, WHICH PAGE PAGE 9 OF THE ORDINANCE.

WHICH FOUR BASICALLY WOULD GIVE A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY TO [OVERLAPPING]

>> PAGE 1?

>> PAGE 9, IS PAGE 4 OF THE TEMPORARY ORDINANCE.

JUST LOOK ON TOP, PAGE 4.

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE CITY OF TAMARAC ON STREET PARKING POLICY.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE.

[02:35:01]

>> WE'RE PASSING THIS POLICY BY ORDINANCE?

>> WELL, THE ORDINANCES BASICALLY PROVIDE THE GUIDELINES AND THE LAW BUT IT'S NOT IN THE POLICY.

BUT THE ORDINANCE TO CONTROL IN LAW.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE PASS LEGISLATION BY RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE, AND THERE'S AN ORDINANCE THAT POINTS TO A POLICY.

AND IF THE POLICY DOES NOT HAVE THE LANGUAGE, THEN IT DOES NOT EXIST.

>> YEAH. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ORDINANCE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY.

>> EXACTLY. IT'S NOT IN THE POLICY.

I'M SAYING ADDED IN THE POLICY.

IT DOES NOT HERE, GIVE US THE RIGHT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT I'M INDICATING TO YOU, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE POLICY SHOULD ALSO BE REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE?

>> NO, I'M SAYING WE NEED TO ADD NUMBER 4.

>> ON PAGE 4.

IS 1, 2, 3 IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 4, THERE ARE THREE ACCEPTANCE.

>> PAGE 9.

>> IT'S BASICALLY THE GENERAL ON STREET PARKING IS PERMITTED EXCEPT 1, 2, AND 3 AND BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS AND THE REVISIONS YOU WANT TO MAKE THE POLICY, YOU WANT TO BASICALLY INDICATE THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN ADD TO THE LIST OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CAN HAVE RESTRICTED OR UNRESTRICTED PARKING ON RIGHT AWAY, CORRECT?

>> EXACTLY. LISTEN, THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT PERHAPS COULD GET A DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT TO IT.

FOR INSTANCE, IN DISTRICT 1 ON ROCK ISLAND, THERE IS BAILEY SQUARE, LEGACY OF TAMARAC.

IF THAT COMMUNITY SHOULD, LET'S SAY, BE FULL 100% CAPACITY, THEN WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS THAT SOME OF THOSE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO PARK AT LAKES OF CARRIAGE HILLS OR A NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY OR GO OVER TO THE GATE OR GO OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE SO WE NEVER KNOW WHEN A DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO TRIGGER MORE CARS, AND THOSE CARS WANT A PLACE TO PARK SO NOW THEY'RE GOING TO FIND PARKING IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY THAT NOW TRIGGERS A PROBLEM IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

THAT COMMUNITY IS GOING TO FEEL POWERLESS WITH, CANNOT GET A 55%, AND WE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER YOU WANT BASICALLY A STANDARD OUTSIDE THE PETITION REQUIREMENT, BUT IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THIS BODY.

>> YOU GOT IT, MS. GOMEZ?

>> I DO.

>> QUESTION. THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY GOING IN, OR IS THERE GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION? THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS HERE ALL THE TIME.

[OVERLAPPING] WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MS. CALLOWAY.

>> HE SAYS, DID YOU HEAR THAT MS. CALLOWAY, AND THEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME I'M GOING ASKED FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>> WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY CHANGES, MA'AM.

>> IT'S STILL A FLUID CONVERSATION.

IT'S GIVING YOU POWER.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT.

I'M NICE TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU LOOK PRETTY.

[LAUGHTER] I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>> ACCEPTED. THANK YOU.

>> I'M GOOD. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] ALREADY ACCEPTED IT.

BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT. I AGREE.

I'M HAVING A COMMUNITY MEETING AT SPRING LAKE IN A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND IF I BRING OUT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY SAY, HEY, WE GOT PARKING PROBLEMS, I OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO COME TO THE BODY AND SAY, HEY, I NEED TO ADD THIS COMMUNITY.

IF I WENT THERE, THEY ALL ASSEMBLED.

I THINK THAT'S AN UNNEEDED ADDITION, FOR SURE.

>> TWO MINUTES.

>> I THINK THAT ADDRESS THE MAYOR ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAS EXISTING PARKING RESTRICTION COVENANT BY LAWS.

I THINK THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER BOLTON ALSO ADDRESSED YOUR CONCERN WITH COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BYLAWS THAT RESTRICT PARKING,

[02:40:04]

THAT YOU CAN BASICALLY PUT THEM ON THE LIST AND THAT THE BY LAW WOULD CONTROL BASICALLY THE ENFORCEMENT.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT IT ALSO SUBJECT TO COMMISSION APPROVAL.

WHEREAS, IF IT WAS ALREADY IN THE RULES, IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO COMMISSION APPROVAL BECAUSE IT ALREADY AS AN OPTION TO ALREADY BE IN THERE, AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH HAVING TO COME TO A COMMISSION MEETING AND BE PUT ON THE DAYS, AND THEN WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE, SO IT'S TWO READINGS.

>> THIS WOULD BE THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT IT IS WE WOULD HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT CREATES GENERAL LANGUAGE AT THE COMMISSION, BUT IT WOULD BE A POLICY CHANGE.

BUT WE WOULD HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED THE POLICY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY.

I WOULDN'T SEE IT AS EVERY TIME A COMMISSION LIKE ELECTED OFFICIAL WANTS TO ADD A COMMUNITY TO THE LIST THAT IT HAS TO BE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE.

>> IT WOULD BE A RESOLUTION CHANGE, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS VERSUS JUST COMING TO THE CITY AND SHOWING WHICHEVER DEPARTMENT, PRESUMPTIVELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MY RULES FOR THIS COMMUNITY SAY THIS, AND OUR COMMUNITY WANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE IN THE POLICY.

IT'S ADDING AN EXTRA STEP.

>>MAYOR, IF YOU WANT THE COMMUNITIES THAT THIS COMMISSION AND THAT'S UP TO THIS BODY, IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY AND YOU WANT ADMINISTRATIVE, I GUESS, ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL BY THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS STAFF, THAT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.

I DON'T MAKE THAT CALL.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I PUT THAT OUT THERE, AND THE COMMISSION DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO HANDLE IT. THAT'S FINE.

I DON'T THINK THOUGH THERE'S AN END RUN ON WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

BUT I APPRECIATE IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAD HIS 2 MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. WHEN I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH A COUPLE OF COMMUNITIES INCLUDE MAIN COMMUNITIES, I DID COME BACK WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY HAVING BSO ENFORCE THIS, BUT TO LOOK AT PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT COULD ENFORCE THIS.

I BELIEVE SOMETIMES BSO IS BUSY.

WITH REASON, THEY'RE DEALING WITH OTHER THINGS, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT PARKING IS NOT IMPORTANT.

BUT IF WE HAD A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT IS CONSISTENTLY GOING ON SCHEDULE AROUND THESE NEIGHBORHOODS TO ENFORCE THESE, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER.

BSO IS NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.

THEN I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A SPORADIC THING.

THEY JUST GO HERE, TRY TO GET SOME ENFORCEMENT, AND THEN SIX MONTHS LATER GO BACK.

I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION.

DID YOU LOOK INTO THAT? I THINK I ALSO BROUGHT THAT UP AT A WORKSHOP. I MAY, MADAM MAYOR.

I DID I BELIEVE WE DID GO OUT FOR SOLICITATIONS ON THAT SERVICE AND WE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING RESPONSES.

HOW COULD WE HAVE, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT YET PASSED? THIS WAS WHEN THE CITY STARTED ENFORCING PARKING REGULATIONS AND WHEN THE CITY WAS HIRING OR IN THE PROCESS OF HIRING THE ADDITIONAL CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH PARKING ENFORCEMENT POSSIBILITIES AT THAT TIME.

WE WANTED TO AT LEAST SUPPLEMENT OUR SERVICES WITH OUTSIDE SERVICES WHILE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF HIRING THOSE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND WE WEREN'T THAT SUCCESSFUL FINDING THE FIND THE COMPANY.

I IF I'M CORRECT, MISS CALLOWAY, YOUR DEPARTMENT WAS MANAGING THAT PROCESS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE OUTCOME.

>> THAT'S CORRECT, MR. MANAGER, AND YOU STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO.

UNDER SECTION 14-37, YOU ARE ABLE TO APPOINT ANY OTHER PERSON APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AUTHORIZED TO BE A PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST, PROVIDED THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTE 316640.

THIS IS SECTION 14-37 B, TICKET IN PROCEDURE.

THAT'S BEEN IN THE ORDINANCE.

THE CITY MANAGER STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

>> THE ORDINANCE HAS SEVEN PAGES.

>> PAGE 10 AT THE BOTTOM,

[02:45:02]

COMMISSIONER, PAGE 5 AT THE TOP.

IF THAT HELPS, SECTION 14-37 B, TICKET IN PROCEDURES.

VEHICLES PARKING IN A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE TICKETED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, FIRE INSPECTOR, AND ANY OTHER PERSON APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AUTHORIZED TO BE A PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST AFTER MEETING FLORIDA STATUTE REQUIREMENTS.

>> I FIND IT ODD THAT WE CAN'T FIND SOMEBODY BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMUNITIES THAT ENFORCE PARKING, CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, MIAMI BEACH.

>> THEY HAVE TO BE A PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FLORIDA STATUTE.

WHEN WE HIRED THE OFFICERS, IT TOOK ABOUT SIX MONTHS OR, SO IF YOU RECALL, MR. MANAGER, TO GET THEM IN A CLASS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A DELAY PERIOD.

>> THERE HAS TO BE SOME EXISTING COMPANY.

I'M IN COURT ALMOST EVERY DAY, AND, I PARK DOWNTOWN.

I DON'T PAY THE METER, SOMEBODY CAN SEND ME A TICKET.

THEY DO EXIST, AND THEN THEY'RE IN SERVICE.

THE ONES THAT WE FOUND WERE ENFORCING A COMMUNITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

NO ONE THAT WE FOUND WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A CITYWIDE SERVICE.

THEY'RE MORE FOCUSED BY COMMUNITY BY AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT WE DIDN'T FIND ONE THAT COULD COME IN AND BLANKET THE ENTIRE CITY.

>> NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS, AND WE'RE GOING TO PASS THIS TONIGHT, HOPEFULLY, WE WILL LOOK AGAIN.

>> WE CAN ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS ON FIRST READING, SO YOU SEE IT ON SECOND READING AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> I GET MY 15 SECONDS TOMORROW.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST LOOKED AT MY EMAIL.

THE HAVENS AS WELL. THAT SHOULD BE ANALYST.

FAIR HAVEN GREEN HAVEN. HAVE I SAID WEST OF NON-ENFORCEABLE, WEST OF PINE ISLAND BETWEEN.

>> THE COMMUNITY IS CALLED THE HAVENS?

>> FAIR HAVEN GREEN HAVEN.

>> YOU SAID?

>> FAIR HAVEN.

>> FAIR HAVEN GREEN HAVEN IS ON THERE.

>> SUNSET AISLES?

>> SUNSET AISLES.

>> JUST CLARIFICATIONS ON THE MS. POINT.

IF THE COMMUNITY ALREADY ENFORCES PARK IN THE COMMUNITY, CLARIFY A LITTLE. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED.

>> IN THE HOA WOULD ENFORCE IT, BUT THE MAYOR IS SAYING OFTENTIMES THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE MECHANISM, THE RESOURCE, THEY CAN ENFORCE IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ADDING THOSE COMMUNITIES OR?

>> WHAT I'M SAYING, THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT JUST BECAUSE THEIR COMMUNITY RULES DON'T ALLOW PARKING, BECAUSE IT'S CITY STREETS, THESE COMMUNITIES CANNOT TOW AND CANNOT ENFORCE.

GOT YOU. THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE REQUEST WAS MADE.

IF THEIR ASSOCIATIONS SAY THAT THEY DON'T ALLOW PARKING, AND PEOPLE HAVE MOVED IN SUBJECT TO THOSE RULES, AND THEY LIVE WITH CITY STREETS, THEN AS AN EXCEPTION TO HAVING TO DO THE 55, THEY SHOW THEIR RULES.

THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE 55% TO REMOVE IT. CORRECT.

>> BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE RULES WILL SUPERSEDE THE 55%.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE RULES, THEY WOULD COME WITH THEIR RULES, THAT WAS IS GOING TO SUPERSEDE THEM HAVING TO GO AND GET 55% FROM THE COMMUNITY?

>> IF THEY HAVE THE RULES, IT WOULD SUPERSEDE HAVING TO PETITION TO OPT OUT OF THE NO PARKING ON THE STREET.

BUT IF THEY'RE IN AND THEIR RULES SAY THAT THERE'S NO PARKING ON THE STREET, THEY ARE STILL ENTITLED TO THE RULES OF 55% PETITION TO GET THEM TO OPT INTO NO PARKING ON THE STREET.

YOU'RE SAYING TO ADD LANGUAGE IN THE POLICY THAT WOULD MAKE AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH NO ON STREET PARKING IN THEIR BYLAWS THAT ARE ON CITY STREET THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO BRING THEIR DOCUMENTS TO THE CITY TO ESTABLISH TO SHOW US, AND THOSE COMMUNITIES WOULD BE ENFORCED.

>> YOU HAVE MY NUMBER 2. IT'S A SECOND PART OF NUMBER 2.

>> THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO RESEARCH AND TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE IF THE BY LAW IS TO CONTROL IN LAW, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY PUT COMMUNITIES ON THE LIST THAT HAVE BY LAWS THAT MAY PROHIBIT PARKING, SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL TO DEEM THE BYLAW AS A CONTROLLING LAW.

BECAUSE IF A MEMBER OF COMMISSION SAY,

[02:50:03]

NO ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING IN THIS AREA, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT WITH THE BYLAWS IF THE BYLAW SAID IT PROHIBIT ON STREET PARKING.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> KEEP IT AS THIS.

>> POINT OF CLARIFICATION. MANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES ARE REALLY OLD.

SOME OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS CAN BE EXPIRED.

JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A BY LAW THAT SAYS ON STREET PARKING IS PROHIBITED, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS A CURRENT AND VALID BY LAW.

NOW WE'RE GETTING IN THE BUSINESS OF MANAGING COMMUNITIES.

I JUST THINK THAT WE'RE WAY WHAT THIS IS INTENDED TO DO IS ENFORCED FROM A CITY'S LEVEL.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF ENFORCING HOA RULES.

I JUST I THINK THAT WE STICK TO WHAT WE'VE GOT.

I THINK THE COMMISSIONER ALREADY MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND THE VICE MAYOR ALREADY ACCEPTED SECONDED THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

I THINK WE STICK TO WHAT WE HAVE AND OUT OF THE GRAY AREA.

>> JUST ONE PART OF CLARIFICATION, MURTA APPLIES.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR RULES AND REGULATIONS BEING UP TO DATE WITH YOUR CONDUCT DOCS AND YOUR ASSOCIATION DOCS.

BUT ANYWAY, THEY MAY BE 30-YEARS-OLD, BUT YOU EXPIRE, THEN YOU HAVE TO REDO THEM ALL.

AS SEEING THAT THIS CONVERSATION IS ALREADY, I THINK BEEN BEATEN, DON'T YOU THINK? WE'RE GOOD. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> VICE MAYOR DANIEL.

>> MAYOR GO ON.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0, AS AMENDED.

>> THANK YOU.

>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS 9:52.

WE ARE TAKING A BREAK UNTIL 9:05.

SORRY. I REALLY NEED A BREAK, DON'T YOU THINK? SO WE'LL BE BACK ACTUALLY, TAKE THAT BACK. 10:10, 10:10 WINS.

WE'LL SEE YOU BACK IN 1010.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS 10:10, AND WE ARE BEGINNING AGAIN.

WE ARE UP TO 8.A T02597.

[8.a TO2597 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10, Article 4 of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code, entitled “Development and Design Standards,” by revising Section 10-4.4, entitled “Landscaping and Tree Preservation,” to clarify and strengthen the city’s landscaping and tree preservation regulations, to enhance consistency in their interpretation, application, and enforcement, and to expand the purposes for which tree preservation trust funds may be used; providing for codification; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. ]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE, READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF CITY TAMARAC AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 4 OF CITY TAMARAC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS BY REVISING SECTION 10-4.4 ENTIRE LANDSCAPING AND TREAT PRESERVATION, CLARIFY, STRENGTH THE CITY LANDSCAPING AND TREAT PRESERVATION REGULATIONS TO ENHANCE CONSISTENCY IN THE INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT TO EXPAND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH TREAT PRESERVATION TRUST FUNDS MAY BE USED, PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

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

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, MAXIE CALLAWAER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE MARK GOGGIN LISTED FOR THIS ITEM.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

>> GOOD EVENING. AGAIN. MARK GARDEN FROM TAMARACK LAKE SOUTH.

JUST A QUESTION FOR SOMETHING TO LOOK AT 'CAUSE IT CAME UP DURING INTERVIEWS FOR SOME NEW RESIDENTS THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY ASKED THEM ABOUT THE TREES IN THEIR YARD, WHAT SIZE THEY ARE. HOW MANY? I DON'T KNOW IF MAXIE WILL HAVE THE ANSWER THAT'S CONSIDERED HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEIR INSURANCE POLICY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEIR AGENT WAS ASKING, HOW MANY TREES ARE IN THE YARD, BECAUSE IF THEY FALL ON THE ROOF.

THAT'S SOMETHING TO REMEMBER, TOO, AS TO HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT OUR RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IF THIS ONE INSURANCE COMPANY'S ALREADY ASKING THAT QUESTION. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. SEEING THAT NO ONE ELSE HAD SIGNED UP, AND NO ONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

THIS ITEM IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION.

SEEING NO ONE WASN'T WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAY I GO MASS?

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0.

>> EIGHT B TO2598.

[8.b TO2598 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10, Article 5 of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code, entitled “Development Review Procedures,” by amending Section 10-5.2, entitled “Summary Table of Development Review Procedures” , specifically Table 10-5.1 and Table 10-5.2, entitled “General Notice Requirements”; and amending Subsection 10- 5.4(J), entitled “Plat Approval,” to designate the City Manager or designee as the administrative authority for plat and replat submittals, and to revise plat approval procedures in compliance with Senate Bill 784, amending Section 177.071 Florida Statutes, as set forth in Exhibit “A”; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. ]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> IN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONER CITY TAMARAC,

[02:55:03]

AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5 OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES BY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.2, ENTITLED SUMMARY TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, SPECIFICALLY TABLE 10-5.1, TABLE 10-5.2, ENTITLED AL NOTICE REQUIREMENT, AMENDED SUBSECTION 10-5.4J, ENTITLED PLAT APPROVAL.

TO DESIGNATE THE CITY MANAGER DESIGNATE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE PLAT AND REPLAT SUBMITTERS, AND TO PROVIDE PLAT APPROVAL PROCEDURES IN COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 784, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I NEED A MOTION IN A SECOND, PLEASE?

>> MOVE IN.

>> OH, YOU WERE DOING SO WELL. I'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND I HAVE A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER DANIEL. MISS CALLOWAY IS STILL AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SEEING NONE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

SEEING NO ONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BY THE COMMISSION, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAY YOU GO, MASS?

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0.

[8.c TO2601 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida amending Chapter 10, Article 5 of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances, entitled “Administration”, by amending Section 10-5.3 entitled “Common Review Procedures” by specifically amending Section 10-5.3(C) entitled “Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting” to require pre-application neighborhood meetings to be open to the public, and to require actual notice to owners of properties within a townhouse, condominium, or timeshare development; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. ]

>> 8.C 202601, CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> IN ORDINANCE OF CITY COMMISSIONER CITY OF TAMARAC AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5 OF CITY OF TAMARAC COURT UP ORDINANCE, ENTITLE ADMINISTRATION BY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.3 ENTITLED COMMON REVIEW PROCEDURES, BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.3C, ENTITLED PRE APPLICATION, NEIGHBORHOOD MEAN TO REQUIRE PRE-APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEANS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, TO REQUIRE ACTUAL NOTICE TO OWNERS PROPERTIES WITHIN TOWNHOUSE, CONDOMINIUM AND TIM SHARED DEVELOPMENT, PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

I NEED A MOTION AND SECOND, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

MISS CALLOWAY REMAINS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I SEE YOUR LIGHT IS LIT.

DO YOU WISH TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS?

>> NO, MADAM MAYOR.

>> SEEING NO ONE ELSE WISHES TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR GOMEZ?

>> VICE MAYOR DANIEL.

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5-0.

>> 8.D TO20623 CITY ATTORNEY,

[8.d TO2603 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending the city’s Code of Ordinances by amending chapter 2 entitled “Administration”, article Ill entitled “Boards, Committees, Commissions”, by repealing in its entirety division 12 entitled “Privatization Committee”; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. ]

PLEASE, READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY OF TAMARAC AMENDS THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ENTITLE ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE 3 ENTITLED BOARDS COMMITTEE COMMISSIONS, BY REPEALING HIS ENTIRETY, DIVISION 12 ENTITLED PRIVATIZATION COMMITTEE, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONER BOLTON, A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR DANIEL.

WAIT, I'M SO SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.

ACTUALLY, IT DOES SAY AD ON MY LIST. MY APOLOGIES.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AFTER? MISS JOHNSON, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO SO.

>> JOHNSON, MAINLAND 4.

REGARDING THE PRIVATIZATION COMMITTEE.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE PRIVATIZATION COMMITTEE OVERSEES, INVESTIGATES AND GIVES INPUT WHEN THE CITY IS CONSIDERING PRIVATIZING A SERVICE AS WHEN A COMMISSIONER WANTED TO SEE IF BSO FIRE RESCUE WOULD BE BETTER THAN OUR OWN TAMARAC FIRE RESCUE.

OF COURSE, THERE WAS NO WAY THERE BETTER FOR US THAN OUR OWN DEPARTMENT, AND THAT IDEA WAS DISMISSED.

BUT I BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF RESIDENTS WHO THEN HAVE INPUT.

HOWEVER, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DISMANTLE THIS COMMITTEE? WHO RESEARCHES, WHO MAKES DETERMINATIONS, WHO GIVES INPUT FROM RESIDENTS? IS IT THE COMMISSION, CITY PERSONNEL ONLY? THEN THE COST IS TOTALLY BORNE BY THE CITY AND NOT DEPENDENT ON VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE WILLING TO DO THIS WORK.

INPUT IS ONLY FROM THE CITY BECAUSE BY THE TIME IT COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, MOST DECISIONS ARE ALREADY MADE AND RESIDENT INPUT HAS LITTLE SWAY.

IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS A POWER GRAB TO GIVE MORE POWER TO THE CITY AND THE COMMISSION WHILE TAKING IT AWAY FROM RESIDENTS.

I MAY BE WRONG, BUT TAKING AWAY THIS COMMITTEE DOES NOTHING TO GIVE VOICE AND INPUT FROM RESIDENTS.

WHY FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN UNLESS THERE'S A REASON AND IT IS BROKEN.

THEN IF IT'S BROKEN, LET'S FIX IT,

[03:00:02]

NOT DO AWAY WITH IT.

THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD STAND.

RESIDENT VOICES ARE ALWAYS NEEDED.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE ELSE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION.

WELL, I'LL JUST SAY EVERYTHING I SAID LAST MEETING.

I REITERATE THIS MEETING AS TO WHY I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT BECAUSE I JUST WON'T.

CITY COMMISSIONER BOLTON, ARE YOU WISHING TO SPEAK, OR YOU WISHING TO VOTE?

>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.

IT'S A RECURRING THEME FROM KATE THAT IS AGAINST THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S NOT TRUE.

I APPRECIATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I'VE ALWAYS APPRECIATED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I'VE SAID THAT TO THE CAPTAIN MANY TIMES.

I'VE SPOKEN TO THE GUYS SEVERAL TIMES.

I'VE GONE TO THE FIRE STATION.

I'VE BROUGHT THEM GIFTS.

THEY KNOW MY HEART.

THIS CONVERSATION WAS LOST IN TRANSLATION.

WHAT I SAID BACK THEN WAS WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT BSO WOULD BE SAVING US MONEY.

THAT'S ALL THAT WAS.

TO REGURTUATE THIS CONVERSATION IS JUST LUDICROUS, AND I WISH KATE WOULD STOP. THANK YOU.

>> I WISH WE WOULDN'T CALL PEOPLE BY NAMES LIKE THAT, ANYWAY.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> MAYOR GOMEZ?

>> THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 3-2.

>> THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW MOVING TO OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING 9.A TB098.

[9.a TBO98 - Board Order approving/denying Special Exception application requesting approval for the construction and installation of a 14’ x 48’ digital billboard display fifty (50) feet in height, to be located west of the Sawgrass Expressway and north of Commercial Boulevard, on an undeveloped parcel of land zoned Recreation and owned by the City of Tamarac. ]

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

>> ITEM 9.A, BOARD ORDER APPROVAL, D9 SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION.

REQUEST AND APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION OF DIGITAL BILLBOARD DISPLAY 50 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE LOCATED WEST OF SAL GRASS EXPRESSWAY IN NORFOLK COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD, ON AN UNDEVELOPED PARCEL OF LAND ZONED RECREATION AND OWNED BY THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

>> CITY ATTORNEY, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE RULES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL, AND THEN OUR CITY CLERK WILL SWEAR IN ANY WITNESSES.

>> ALL PERSON TESTIFYING FOR THE CITY COMMISSION WILL BE SWORN IN.

THE APPLICANT INEFFECTIVE PART WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, BRING FORTH WITNESS, CROSS EXAMINE WITNESS, REBUT ANY TESTIMONY.

ALL EVIDENCE, RELIED UPON BY REASONABLE PRUDENT PERSON, SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE, WHETHER SUCH EVIDENCE WILL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT OF LAW.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPLEMENT OR EXPLAIN OTHER EVIDENCE, BUT SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SUPPORT A FINDING.

STATEMENT FROM THE ATTORNEY SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS ARGUMENT, NOT CONSIDERED AS TESTIMONY.

CITY COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO HEAR ANY TESTIMONY WHICH IS IRRELEVANT AND REPETITIVE.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAY BE PRESENTED IN A FORM OF COPY.

ORIGINAL SHOULD BE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.

ALL PARTIES SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW EVIDENCE, COMPARED COPIES WITH ORIGINALS, AND QUESTION PARTIES ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.

THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION WILL BE AS FOLLOW APPLICANT.

OR APPLICANT REPRESENT WILL PRESENT FIRST.

STAFF WILL THEN GIVE PRESENTATION IF REQUESTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

IF FACT THE PARTIES WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT TESTIMONY.

PERSONS WHO ARE SUPPORTED IN OPPOSITION CAN PROVIDE TESTIMONY OR STATEMENTS.

A PARTY WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

CITY COMMISSION WILL, OBVIOUSLY, MAKE THE DECISION AFTER THE PRESENTATION.

NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY PART COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> I WILL GO DOWN THE LINE. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON?

>> YES. I SPOKE TO THEM.

>> YES. I MET WITH THEM, CITY [INAUDIBLE].

>> I'VE SPOKEN WITH MR. CESAR. VICE MAYOR?

>> YES, I MET WITH THEM.

>> THERE WE GO. NOW, CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES.

>> YES. MANY MONTHS AGO.

>> MADAM CLERK, [OVERLAPPING] I'M NOT TAKING HER JOB.

>> OH, WITNESSES FOR THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> THANK YOU. MADAM MAYOR, THE WITNESSES THEY'VE BEEN SWORN IN.

>> EXCELLENT. I NEED A MOTION IN A SECOND, PLEASE?

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THE DESIGNATED AGENT, FOR THE APPLICANT, WILL DELIVER THE PRESENTATION OR ANY ONE OF THE THREE OF YOU FINE GENTLEMEN.

>> IF I MIGHT, AND I'LL BE BRIEF,

[03:05:03]

THE APPLICANT WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION.

MY NAME IS MITCH CESAR, ATTORNEY FOR THE RECORD FOR THE APPLICANT.

LET ME JUST GIVE A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF YEARS.

I THINK, AT LEAST THREE, AND HAS REALLY EVOLVED FROM WHERE IT STARTED, WHICH YOU'LL GET MORE DETAIL, I'M SURE.

WHERE WE ENDED UP WAS WE REALLY WANTED TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN BEING AT A SITE, IF POSSIBLE.

A CITY HAD OFFERED MULTIPLE SITES.

WE EVOLVED, AND ENDED UP TALKING ABOUT UNUSED CITY LAND.

THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP BY SAWGRASS.

WE ALSO FELT IT VERY IMPORTANT TO BE AT A LOCATION THAT DID NOT DID NOT AFFECT HOMEOWNERS IN ANY WAY.

I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT MIGHT BE AFFECT THE ALLIGATORS, IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SAWGRASS EXPRESSWAY.

THERE IS NOTHING THERE.

THERE'S A LITTLE SLIVER OF UNUSED CITY PROPERTY, AND WE ARE ONLY GOING TO USE A SLIVER OF THAT.

THE CITY, AS HAS BEEN ALREADY NEGOTIATED, WILL BE GENERATING SIGNIFICANT FEES EVERY MONTH FROM THAT, AND THE BETTER WE DO, THE MORE FEES ARE GENERATED TO THE CITY.

ALSO, WE'LL BE PROVIDING FREE ADVERTISING SPACE FOR THE CITY.

ALSO, EMERGENCY INFORMATION BECAUSE THIS IS DIGITAL.

THE CITY COULD CONTACT US.

GOD FORBID THERE IS A HURRICANE OR A STORM COMING.

WE COULD START FLASHING SIGNS WITHIN 30 SECONDS, I BELIEVE, OF THE CITY NOTIFYING US.

AGAIN, P&Z PASSED IT LAST WEEK, FIVE, NOTHING.

WE BELIEVE WE HAVE STAFF SUPPORT.

I'M GOING TO BRING ROBERT UP HERE.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A VERY QUICK BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF IT AND THE COOPERATION.

I DO WANT TO SAY THAT EVERY RECOMMENDATION THE CITY HAS MADE.

OVER ALL THIS TIME, WE'VE AGREED TO EVERY SINGLE ONE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

ROBERT WANTS YOU COME UP.

IF YOU COULD ALSO NOT GIVE US AN OVERVIEW, BUT A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE FEST.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ROBERT RUBIN.

I'M A CEO OF 3N.

WE DID START THIS ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

WE CAME AT THE REQUEST OF A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE STAFF WASN'T REALLY FOND OF THAT IDEA, BUT THEY DID SUGGEST THAT THEY HAD PUBLIC LAND OR CITY LAND THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER.

THEY ENDED UP UNDER MS. CALLOWAY'S TEAM, PICKING FIVE PIECES OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY, AND WE SELECTED ONE OF THOSE.

THE PROPERTY HAPPENED TO BE THE FARTHEST WEST ON THE SAWGRASS.

ALL THE FIVE PROPERTIES WERE ON EXPRESSWAY.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE. IT PASSED.

I BELIEVE IT WAS, 04:1 IN ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, IN ORDINANCE 2504.

AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.

I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU IF YOU CAN SEE THERE'S AN X MARK ON THE WEST SIDE.

IT'S RIGHT NEAR CITY FURNITURE, JUST TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE NO RESIDENCES ANYWHERE NEAR THE PROPERTY.

IT'S IN OUR BUSINESS TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE, AND I'M ABOUT TO TELL YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PARTNERS IN THIS, BUT IT DOES ALMOST 100,000 VEHICLES A DAY, AND THAT'S PRETTY GOOD FOR A SIGN.

SO I'M GOING TO AVOID GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY, BUT I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT TO REITERATE WHAT MR. CESAR SAID.

WE HAVE ENTERED INTO A PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENT, WHICH I THINK IS NEXT ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT.

AND PART OF THAT LICENSE AGREEMENT IS THAT WE PROVIDE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR THE CITY TO PROMOTE CITY EVENTS.

SAWGRASS IS MOSTLY A COMMUTER EXPRESSWAY.

PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY STOP IN TAMARAC, BUT THIS WILL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN TAMARAC.

IT ALSO WILL BE EXCELLENT FOR PROMOTING CITY OWNED BUSINESSES.

AGAIN, PEOPLE DRIVE THROUGH TAMARAC AND DON'T NECESSARILY EXIT.

AND HOPEFULLY, WE PROVIDE REALLY AFFORDABLE RATES TO ADVERTISE, AND WE'LL ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO PROMOTE THEMSELVES TO HAVE PEOPLE STOP IN TAMARAC AND HOPEFULLY SPEND MONEY AT THOSE BUSINESSES.

[03:10:02]

OUR FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT TOGETHER IS THAT WE PAY A FIXED AMOUNT BASE AMOUNT, WHETHER WE MAKE MONEY OR NOT.

I BELIEVE IT'S 30,000 A SIGN.

THERE'S TWO SIGNS BACK TO BACK.

THAT'S 60,000 BASE PER MONTH MINIMUM.

AND THEN IF THE REVENUE SHARING IS HIGHER, THERE'S 25% REVENUE SHARE SO WHICH HOPEFULLY, WE ESTIMATE TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND $100,000 A YEAR, WHICH IS EXPECTATION.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE, THE SIGN TAKES UP ABOUT ONE PARKING SPACE IN LENGTH.

IT'S A RADIUS OF ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN FEET.

THESE SIGNS ARE ALSO USED, AS MR. CESAR SAID, TO PROMOTE SAFETY, AND THE MISSING PERSONS IS A BIG PART OF THAT.

AMBER ALERTS SILVER ALERTS AND MISS FBI MISSING PERSONS.

IT'S ALSO USED BY THE CITY FOR MAYBE A HURRICANE EVACUATION.

I KNOW THERE WAS A MAJOR ACCIDENT ON THE SAWGRASS IN THE LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE, TWO WEEKS AGO, BUT WE COULD ALSO ALERT PEOPLE TO THAT SO THEY COULD EXIT THE EXPRESSWAY.

AND AS I SAID, THE CITY AS PART OF THE CONTRACT, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE THE CITY EVENTS.

I KNOW YOU HAVE SEVERAL HERE.

GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHAT A SIGN LOOKS LIKE.

WE USE A VERY HIGH QUALITY SIGN THAT ADJUSTS THE BRIGHTNESS FOR NIGHT AND DAY.

SOMEBODY ASKED US THE OTHER DAY, COULD IT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT, LIKE THE EVERGLADES? AND THE SIGNS HAVE NO LIGHT EMANATING FROM THE BACK OF THE SIGN.

AND IF THERE'S EVER A PROBLEM WITH THE SIGN, IT JUST TURNS OFF.

THERE'S NO FLASHING.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS AN EXPRESSWAY.

THEY'RE STATIC IMAGES.

SO THERE ARE NO IMAGES THAT COULD BE DISTRACTING, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I DO WANT TO ADD ONE QUICK THING.

WE'RE ALSO GIVING PREFERRED RATES TO BUSINESSES IN TAMARAC, SO THEY WILL NOT PAY THE NORMAL RATE.

THEY WILL BE GETTING A PREFERRED LOWER RATE.

AND OF COURSE, DON'T FORGET THAT THE MAIN REASON RESIDENTS USUALLY MIGHT OBJECT IS HOW THEY'RE AFFECTED.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE PICKED ACTUALLY THE LOCATION THAT MAY HAVE HAS THE LEAST TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S WEST OF THE SAWGRASS.

THEREFORE, WE FELT IT IMPORTANT NOT TO AFFECT ANY HOME OWNER IN ANY WAY.

THAT'S WHAT EXISTS HERE.

SO IT'S A GOOD PARTNERSHIP.

THE CITY DOES WELL WITH IT.

HOPEFULLY, WE WILL AND WE'RE ALSO VERY HOPEFUL TAMARAC BUSINESSES WILL ALSO.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GO TO ANY CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION, STAFF, WILL YOU BE DOING A PRESENTATION? ARE YOU SUBMITTING YOURS IN TO THE RECORD?

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. FOR THE QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM, STAFF IS SUBMITTING THEIR PRESENTATION INTO THE RECORD.

SUBJECT, OF COURSE, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, SUBJECT TO THE NINE CONDITIONS THAT'S LISTED IN THE MEMORANDUM.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THOSE CONDITIONS AS ATTACHED TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY. THIS ITEM IS NOW OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

OPEN TO DISCUSSION BY THIS COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, MADAME. DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR PRESENTATION, DO YOU HAVE, LIKE OTHER LOCATION WHERE YOUR BILLBOARD IS LOCATED? LIKE, OTHER PLACES, DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLE OF OTHER PLACES WHERE YOUR BILLBOARD ARE?

>> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PRESENTATION.

WOULD YOU HAVE THAT BY CHANCE?

>> NO, IT'S NOT IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT WE HAVE SIGNS IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN BROWARD COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE.

ANYWHERE ELSE IN BROWARD?

>> I THINK YEAH, CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE.

>> SOME OTHER LOCATIONS ARE IN PROCESS, BUT NOT FORMAL.

REMEMBER, THIS IS ALSO A VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPT HAS EVOLVED THROUGH WORKING WITH THE STAFF,

[03:15:01]

BECAUSE USUALLY YOU HAVE A PRIVATE LAND OWNER AND PAY A RENT FOR THEM.

THIS IS UNUSUAL, AND IT'S PROBABLY THE NEW TREND.

UNUSED CITY PROPERTIES SO THEY GENERATE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE AND HAVE GOOD CONTROL.

ALSO, TO REMEMBER, HOPEFULLY, WITH YOUR PASSAGE TONIGHT, WE STILL HAVE TWO OTHER HOOPS TO GO THROUGH.

WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A MINOR HOOP WITH THE COUNTY, AND THEN THE STATE DOT.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF LAYERS OF PROTECTION, HONESTLY.

>> WHY THIS LOCATION, WHY NOT SAMPLE IN CORAL SPRINGS OR OAKLAND PARK IN SUNRISE? WHY THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION ON COMMERCIAL? THEY ALL HAVE LAND WATER AND EVERGLADES, DON'T THEY?

>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE EVERGLADES.

I THINK IT WAS THE FACT THAT THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL CLOSER, AND USUALLY THERE ARE SOME OBJECTIONS TO BEING TOO CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL.

YOU HAVE IN YOUR ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE THAT EXIST TODAY.

IT SAYS 150 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE'RE OVER 2,000 FEET SO WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE MOST THE SAFEST.

TRUTHFULLY, WE DIDN'T TAKE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE COMPETITORS OUT THERE, AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE ALL THE LOCATIONS.

MAYBE THE COMPETITORS WOULD PURSUE THOSE OTHER LOCATIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVEN'T YET SO WE JUST PICKED THE ONE THAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE MOST THAT FIT OUR NEEDS AND HIGH TRAFFIC, NOT NEAR RESIDENTIAL, BASICALLY.

>> WE THOUGHT IT WAS HONESTLY THE LEAST IMPACTFUL TO CITY RESIDENTS.

ALL THE OTHER CHOICES HAD PROBABLY HIGHER TRAFFIC, BUT ALL IMPACTED RESIDENTS.

THAT'S WHY WE SHIED AWAY FROM THAT.

>> MAKES SENSE. DRIVING ON SAWGRASS, WHERE'S THE NEXT BILLBOARD? COMING FROM 95, YOU PASS WILES.

YOU PASS UNIVERSITY, IT'S PARKLAND.

YOU COME AROUND AS COOL RIDGE DRIVE, THEN THERE'S ATLANTIC.

IS THIS THE ONLY BILLBOARD ON SAWGRASS?

>> IT'S THE ONLY BILLBOARD ON SAWGRASS.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST?

>> YES, IT'LL BE THE FIRST.

>> IT'LL BE THE FIRST ON A SAWGRASS?

>> YEAH. JUST TO ADD FLORIDA STATUTE, THE FLORIDA ORDINANCE THAT'S F.REGULATE SAYS YOU CAN'T PUT, THEY HAVE A SPACING REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 FEET, NOT ON AN EXPRESSWAY, AND 1,500 FEET ON EXPRESSWAY.

SO THIS COULD BE THE ONLY SAWGRASS BILLBOARD IN TAMARAC, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER ONE, BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE SIGN.

>> ALSO, THE WAY IT EVOLVED WITH STAFF, IF WE WERE WITH A PRIVATE LAND OWNER OR EVEN IN THE SAME LOCATION, WE'D BE PAYING A LOT LESS RENT THAN THE DEAL WE MADE WITH TAMARAC, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE HONEST.

>> OKAY. YOU SAID IT'S 60,000 PER MONTH?

>> PER YEAR.

>> PER YEAR. I'M SORRY.

>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S THE BASE RENT.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM PER MONTH, EXPECTED FULLY TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THAT.

BUT THAT'S THE BASE RENT IF WE NEVER SELL A LAND.

>> SIXTY THOUSAND PER YEAR, JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I HEARD PER MONTH?

>> I WAS LIKE CHING CHING. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]

>> COMMISSIONER, MAY I CLARIFY THAT FURTHER FOR THE RECORD?

>> ONLY BECAUSE IT'S A SCALE.

FOR YEAR 1 AND 2 IS $60,000 OR 25% OF NET REVENUE.

FOR YEAR 3-7 IS 33,000 PER PANEL OR 66,020 OR 25% OF NET REVENUE.

WHEN YOU GET TO YEAR 8, IT JUMPS UP TO 36,000 PER PANEL OR TOTAL OF 72,000 OR 25% OF NET REVENUE.

YEAR 12, THEN IT'S 78,000 OR 25% OF NET REVENUE AND THEN IF THEY'RE IN THE SECOND TERM BECAUSE IT'S 15 YEAR INITIAL TERM, AND THEN AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR ANOTHER 15 YEARS.

YEAR 16, IT GOES TO 84,000 A YEAR OR 27% OF NET REVENUE.

AND YEAR 23, IT GOES TO 90,000 A YEAR OR 30% OF NET REVENUE.

AND WE GET TO AUDIT.

THIS IS HOW WE KNOW THE NET REVENUE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

>> RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT THAT EVERY YEAR.

I LIKE IT BECAUSE I CALL IT THE MICHAEL JORDAN DEAL.

PEOPLE GET CONTRACTS THAT HAVE A FIXED PRICE.

JORDAN SAID, "GIVE ME 5% OF WHATEVER HAPPENS." MADE HIM A BILLIONAIRE.

I ALWAYS LIKE THE DEAL WHERE YOU GET A PERCENTAGE OF SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S A HUGE UPSIDE, AND THERE'S A FLOOR.

SO THAT PART OF IT, 60 GRAN A MONTH WAS, BUT YOU SAID PER YEAR.

[LAUGHTER] SO 25% OF REVENUE PREFERRED RATE FOR TAMARAC BUSINESSES?

[03:20:01]

>> ABSOLUTE.

>> WHEN YOU SAY PREFERRED RATE, HOW WAS THAT QUANTIFIED? HOW DO YOU VALUE THAT?

>> SOIF MCDONALD'S OR COCA COLA ADVERTISE WITH US, WE GENERALLY SELL AT A RATE THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.

BUT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY, AND WE OFFER THAT TO LOCAL BUSINESSES, AND WE CAN OFFER THEM INSTEAD OF MAYBE ONCE EVERY MINUTE, WE CAN OFFER THEM ONCE EVERY TWO MINUTE OR EVEN ONCE EVERY THREE OR FOUR MINUTE, AND THAT REALLY SUBSTANTIALLY LOWERS THE RATE FOR THEM.

SO EVEN SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN ADVERTISING.

SO I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE UNIQUE TO US.

I DON'T THINK A LOT OF COMPANIES DO THAT, BUT WE FOUND IT VERY EFFECTIVE TO APPEAL TO LOCAL BUSINESSES.

>> THROUGH LOCAL COMPANIES?

>> YOU SAID [OVERLAPPING].

>> AND ALSO, WE'D BE ADVERTISING CITY EVENTS OBVIOUSLY FOR FREE ON A REGULAR BASIS AS WELL.

>> CITY EVENTS, YOU GIVE US FREE ADVERTISING?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HOW DO YOU VALUE WHAT'S PRIME TIME? PRIME TIME IS WHAT? 5:00? DO YOU PAY MORE AT 5:00 OR DO YOU PAY MORE AT A CERTAIN TIME?

>> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, BUT WE GENERALLY DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

SO IF YOU'RE CONTRACTING FOR EVERY MINUTE, YOU GET EVERY MINUTE 24 HOURS A DAY.

>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE US 12:00 AT NIGHT WHEN THERE'S NOT MUCH TRAFFIC?

>> NO. O IF WE'RE PUTTING YOU ON THE BOARD, YOU'RE GOING TO GET EITHER EVERY MINUTE OR EVERY TWO MINUTES, WHATEVER IT IS.

>> PREFERRED RATE FOR TAMARAC BUSINESS IS NOT GOING TO BE AT 2:00 AM?

>> IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT OBVIOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND HOW TO ADVERTISE BUSINESS WORK.

THOSE WERE MY ONLY QUESTION.

AND YOU SAID THE ENVIRONMENT.

THERE'S NO ISSUES, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE EVERGLADES?

>> WHAT IF THE STATE DECIDE? I KNOW MANY SAWGRASS, YOU MIGHT KNOW THE HISTORY, BUT I KNOW MANY YEARS STATE DECIDE THEY WE'RE NOT GOING WEST ANYMORE.

WHAT IF THEY DECIDE IN THE FUTURE IF THEY WANT TO GO INTO EVERGLADES?

>> WELL, SO THE BACK OF THE SIGNS ARE COMPLETELY DARK SO THERE IS NO LIGHT EMANATING FROM THE BACK OF THE SIGN.

SO SOMEBODY ASKED US ONCE CAN THIS HURT AN ANIMAL OR WHATEVER? BUT THERE IS NO LIGHT COMING FROM THE BACK.

THE LIGHT ONLY GOES TO THE SAWGRASS.

>> NO INTERACTION?

>> THERE'S NO LIGHT POLLUTION, AND THE PARCELS, THE CITY ON LAND, THERE'S NOTHING HAPPENING THERE.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN.

COMPATIBILITY. YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, YOU CAN SHOW US THAT'S FINE.

>> AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE CITY MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS OVER THE LAST SIGNIFICANT PERIOD AND US A SUBMITGREEING, WELL, NOT LITERALLY TO EVERY RECOMMENDATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANKS.

>> I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN GENERAL, AND THEN I HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONTRACT, AND WE'RE NOT UP TO THE CONTRACT.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET IT TO WHERE THE DISTANCE OF THE LIGHT ON THE SIGN.

YOU SAID IT DOESN'T AFFECT HOMES.

HOW FAR CAN SOMEONE BE EXPECTED TO SEE THIS SIGN? HOW FAR AWAY?

>> YOU CAN SEE IT FROM PROBABLY A QUARTER OF A MILE AWAY, ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILE.

>> THERE'S NO HOMES IN WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF THE RADIUS OF THIS LIGHT?

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE SAWGRASS TO SEE IT.

THERE WILL BE LIKE A 30 DEGREE ANGLE.

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT.

EVEN IF YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT ON, THERE'S VERY LITTLE LIGHT EMANATING FROM THAT.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO SEE IT STRAIGHT ON.

>> THE TRANSFERABLE PART, I HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT IT BEING TRANSFERABLE WITHOUT COMING BACK HERE FOR REVIEW.

IF YOU'RE TRANSFERRING IT TO ANOTHER COMPANY, WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO THEY HAVE TO STILL STICK TO THE RULES, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE SAME AS YOU GUYS.

I HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH THAT.

IT ALSO IS BASED ON HAVING A DIFFERENT BUSINESS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THEM COME BACK BEFORE US AND THEY TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY, AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA FOR THAT PARTICULAR COMPANY.

MY COMMENT IS, THE SINS OF THE FATHER.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE TRANSFERABLE AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT COMING BACK TO THE CITY.

MISS CALLOWAY, I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER BILLBOARD.

NOT ONE WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THIS TURNPIKE SITE.

THE SAWGRASS SITE. THE ONLY OTHER SITE IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO A BILLBOARD IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC WOULD HAVE TO BE THE [INAUDIBLE], IS THAT CORRECT?

[03:25:06]

>> THERE IS A DISTANCE SEPARATION OF 1,500 FEET.

IF THAT'S MET, BUT REMEMBER WHAT WE DID IN 2023, WHEN WE AMENDED THE CODE, WE MADE IT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE HERE.

IT'S UNLIKELY THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ONE AT SAWGRASS, BUT THE OTHER LOCATIONS WE HAVE ARE ON THE TURNPIKE. UNDER TURNPIKE. YEAH.

>> BECAUSE I REMEMBER THERE BEING EIGHT OR SO AREAS. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THERE LIKE FIVE.

>> IN ONE LOCATION AND ANOTHER IN ANOTHER LOCATION.

IF SAWGRASS IS TAKEN, IF YOU SHOULD GET THIS, SAWGRASS IS TAKEN, NO ONE ELSE CAN GO THERE.

THEN THE ONLY OTHER PLACE WOULD BE THE TURNPIKE.

>> IT'S UNLIKELY.

>> THE REST OF MY COMMENTS ARE ALL ABOUT CONTRACT.

>> SEEING NO OTHER.

>> ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>> WHAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

>> DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE TRANSFERABLE?

>> COMMEND.

>> YES. THANK YOU.

NOW, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ACCEPT THAT CAUSE YOU WERE A SECOND.

>> I ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> SURE.

>> I PRESUME YOU MEAN AS [OVERLAPPING].

>> LET ME CLARIFY. BASICALLY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IF IT'S APPROVED, IF THE APPLICANT SELLS THE BILLBOARD OR THE BUSINESS, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK AND GET THE PERMISSION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

>> CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROOF.

>> WAIT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> NOT JUST SALES, BUT AS SIGN AND I DON'T WANT TO LIMITED REWORD.

>> IT'S A TRANSFER OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS CONDITION NUMBER 1, ARE WE REWORDING IT? A TRANSFER.

WE'RE FOR THAT CONDITION, WE'RE CHANGING IT TO NO TRANSFER IS PERMISSIBLE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION. CORRECT?

>> GOOD FOR YOU, MITCH.

>> NO. CITY CLERK.

GOOD TO GO. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

>> MAYOR GOMA.

>>THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0.

>> NO, YOU KNOW I SAID NO THE LAST TIME, PEOPLE.

I TRY TO BE CONSISTENT.

ANYWAY. WE'RE UP TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[10.a TR14319 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving and authorizing the execution of a license agreement between the City of Tamarac and 3N Outdoor Media, LLC attached hereto as Exhibit “1” , granting the right, privilege and license to use a twelve hundred and forty-eight (1,248) square foot area, more particularly described in Exhibit “B” of city owned property located just West of the Sawgrass Expressway and North of W. Commercial Blvd, further identified by Folio No. 4941-07-09-0020 and more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, to facilitate the installation of one (1) double-sided digital billboard sign for an initial term of 15 years; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. ]

TEN A TR 14319.

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF THE RECORD.

>> A RESOLUTION AND CITY COMMISSION CITY OF TAMARAC MOVE, AND AUTHORIZED EXE A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND THREE N OUTDOOR MEDIA, LLC, GRANTING THE RIGHT PRIVILEGE AND LICENSE TO USE A 1,248 SQUARE FEET AREA DESCRIBING EXHIBIT B OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED JUST WEST OF SAWGRASS IN NORFOLK WEST COMMERCIAL.

TO FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF ONE DOUBLE SIDE DIGITAL BILLBOARD SIGNED FOR INITIAL TERM OF 15 YEARS.

PLAN FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

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