5.b. TR14399 -A Resolution of the City of Tamarac, Florida, ratifying citywide purchases from AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, during the period of May 1, 2025, through April 30, 2026, in the amount of $513,630; authorizing an additional $214,012 expenditure for the remaining period of fiscal year 2026; authorizing annual expenditures of up to $513,600 for FY27 and FY28 with AMAZON.COM through the OMNIA Cooperative Contract Master Agreement awarded by the State of Utah as contract #LS4679; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.

[5.b. TR14399 -A Resolution of the City of Tamarac, Florida, ratifying citywide purchases from AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, during the period of May 1, 2025, through April 30, 2026, in the amount of $513,630; authorizing an additional $214,012 expenditure for the remaining period of fiscal year 2026; authorizing annual expenditures of up to $513,600 for FY27 and FY28 with AMAZON.COM through the OMNIA Cooperative Contract Master Agreement awarded by the State of Utah as contract #LS4679; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

ITEM 5BA RESOLUTION. CITY OF TAMARAC RATIFYING CITY WIDE PURCHASE FROM AMAZON.COM SERVICE LLC DURING THE PERIOD OF MAY 1ST, 2025 THROUGH APRIL 30TH, 2026 IN THE AMOUNT OF $513,630, OR AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL $214,000 IN $1,212 EXPENDITURES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2026, AUTHORIZING AN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $513,600 AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2728 AMAZON.COM THROUGH OMNIA COOPERATIVE CONTRACT MASTER AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE A SECOND TO MY MOTION.

SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THIS ITEM IS NOW OPEN TO PUBLIC. IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SAME RULES APPLY AS TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

KAY JOHNSON MAINS FOR. I'M GLAD YOU PULLED THIS BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS THAT I DIDN'T QUITE GET ANSWERED THAT I'M HOPING YOUR DISCUSSION WILL ANSWER. THERE WAS AN APPROVED 513,630, YET THEY WENT OVER BUDGET $214,012 IN EXPENDITURES. IT'S FROM WHAT I CAN TELL ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

OR THEY'RE EXPECTED TO GO OVER. YEAH. YOU WANT TO VOTE ON EXPENDITURES FOR 27 AND 28 THAT ARE 513. WELL, IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH FOR THIS YEAR, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU'RE BUDGETING THAT SAME AMOUNT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND HOW THAT MAKES ANY SENSE BECAUSE PRICES ARE ONLY GOING TO GO UP.

SO IF YOU NEED THAT EXTRA MONEY THIS YEAR, WHY WOULD YOU NOT NEED THAT EXTRA MONEY IN COMING YEARS? SO I HOPE THE DISCUSSION WILL EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE WAS A PRESENTATION DONE AT MONDAY'S WORKSHOP. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE MORE DISCUSSION.

BASICALLY, I PULLED THE ITEM BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE NUMBERS EITHER.

AND CITY MANAGER, IF YOU WISH TO EXPLAIN IT, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

SURE. THANK YOU MAYOR. AND I WILL INVITE OUR.

ACTING DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MISS MOXIE.

BUT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY RATIFYING THE EXPENDITURE THAT WENT BEYOND THE ALLOCATED

[01:40:03]

BUDGET AND ALSO ASKING FOR ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR THE REMAINING OR REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

AND THAT'S THE $214,000. AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR RATIFICATION OF THE THE $513,000 SPENT IN, IN ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING OF $214,000 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

MISS MOXIE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SHARE? OKAY. GOOD MORNING. MAYOR. VICE MAYOR. COMMISSIONER, CITY MANAGER AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

FOR THE RECORD, I AM PRISCILLA MOXEY, INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES.

REGARDING RESOLUTION 14 399. IT'S ACTUALLY A THREE PART RESOLUTION. FIRST IS THE RATIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES TOTALING 513,630.08, WHICH WAS INCURRED FOR A 12 MONTH PERIOD FROM MAY 1ST, 2025 THROUGH APRIL 30TH, 2026.

THE SECOND APPROVAL IS FOR THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES.

EXPENDITURES NOT TO EXCEED $214,012 FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 26.

THE THIRD IS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANNUAL EXPENDITURES AUTHORITY NOT TO EXCEED 513,600 FOR FISCAL YEARS 27 AND 28 THROUGH THE OMNIA PARTNER COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT CONTRACT.

LLS4679 WITH AMAZON SERVICES, LLC. THIS RESOLUTION CAME UNDERWAY BY US REVIEWING PROCUREMENT, REVIEWING THE CITY'S EXPENDITURE.

IN PRIOR YEARS, YOU HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWED FOR 150,000 TO BE SPENT WITH AMAZON SERVICES.

IT'S NOT GOING ABOVE THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY BECAUSE ALL OF THE EXPENSES THAT ARE INCURRED ARE FOR REGULAR SERVICES.

HOWEVER LIKE WITH FIRE THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET A LOT OF THEIR SUPPLIES THROUGH THEIR REGULAR CHANNELS AND IT WAS EASIER AND FASTER TO GET IT THROUGH AMAZON AND SOMETIMES EVEN CHEAPER.

SO THEY'VE USED AMAZON WHEN THEY WRITE TO THE COUNTY TO GET SUPPLIES AND WEREN'T ABLE TO.

SO THIS HERE WAS JUST A. BETTER METHOD OR MORE EFFICIENT METHOD OF GETTING OUR SERVICES, GOODS AND SERVICES IN A TIMELY MANNER.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER, IS THERE A REASON WHY IT'S NOT WRITTEN OUT IN THREE PARTS? BECAUSE IT'S ALL JUMBLED TOGETHER, BUT THE REQUEST IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE ALL THOSE SEPARATE THREE DIFFERENT ACTIONS. RIGHT. BUT WHICH IS TO, TO RATIFY AND THEN TO ALLOCATE THE $214,000 AND ALSO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE LEVELS FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEARS.

RIGHT. BUT THERE MIGHT BE APPROVALS ON ONE, BUT NOT ALL THREE.

AND THIS PUT ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE IT'S NOT LINE ITEM DOT SEPARATELY.

WHAT PROCEDURES DO WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE BEING DONE THAT ARE ALREADY BUDGETED? RIGHT. IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, THESE ITEMS ARE NOT OVER BUDGET.

THEY'RE JUST COMING OUT OF INSTEAD OF WE HAVE A BUDGET TO GO TO THIS.

A, B, AND C, RIGHT, TO GET OUR SUPPLIES OR WHAT WE NEED.

BUT THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR WE DID. WE DECIDED TO NOT DO A AND B, WE WENT STRAIGHT TO C, SO THE MONEY THAT WAS ALLOCATED FOR A AND B ROLLED INTO C. SO WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY. SO OPERATING EXPENSES CAN COME FROM ANY VENDOR.

IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS WITHIN OUR POLICIES IF WE SPEND OVER A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, IT'S SUPPOSED TO COME TO COMMISSION. WE'VE GOTTEN APPROVAL IN THE PAST TO USE AMAZON, BUT IT WAS LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC AMOUNT.

HOWEVER, WE'VE EXCEEDED THAT BECAUSE THE NEED FOR FASTER SERVICE, FASTER GOODS TO BE DELIVERED.

ALL OF IT PLAYED A ROLE INTO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE OUTLINED IN THE BACKUP THAT WAS SUBMITTED THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND HOW THEY SPEND.

SAY THERE'S AN EVENT AND THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S NEEDED.

IT'S SOMETIMES IT'S FASTER TO GET IT FROM AMAZON THAN IT IS TO GET IT FROM, SAY, WALMART, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS LIKE, IF WE USE THE WALMART.COM NEW FEATURE THAT ALLOWS FOR A SIMILAR SERVICE,

[01:45:03]

WHICH ONE IS CHEAPER? SOMETIMES IT'S AMAZON. SO IT'S BASICALLY FOR THE TEAM TO LOOK AT WHICH VENDOR HAS IT CHEAPER. AND THAT'S THE ROUTE THEY TYPICALLY TAKE.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE CONSERVATIVE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR SPEND AND FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

SO WE WOULD TYPICALLY GO WITH WHOEVER HAS IT THE CHEAPEST.

AND IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT IT'S TYPICALLY AMAZON.

SO IF I MAY, IF I MAY ADD, MADAM MAYOR THE AMAZON THAT WE USE IS NOT THE SAME AMAZON THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO, TO YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS. THIS IS A BUSINESS ACCOUNT THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED WITH AMAZON AND MAJORITY OF THE PURCHASES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE EITHER THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS OR THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES MANAGER.

AND SO BOTH, BOTH. AND SO IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE THE PROCUREMENT APPROVAL PROCESS THAT, THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED FOR ANY OTHER CHANNELS.

AND SO IT DOES GO THROUGH THE SAME LEVEL OF SCRUTINY BEFORE THEY'RE BEFORE THEY'RE EXECUTED.

I APPRECIATE THAT. SO. BUILDING DEPARTMENT SPEND.

I'M ROUNDING UP NUMBERS $1,400. THAT'S IN THEIR BUDGET.

CITY CLERK TEN GRAND IN THEIR BUDGET. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 76,000 PRESUMPTIVELY IN THE BUDGET.

THEN WE'RE NOT SPENDING. WE'RE NOT SPENDING OUT OF OUR BUDGETS ELSEWHERE, IS WHAT I'M ASKING, BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE HAPHAZARD HOW IT'S PRESENTED.

I'M SORRY. BECAUSE IT'S ALL PUT TOGETHER AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE WOULD TAKE FY 25 AND COMBINE IT WITH FY 26.

WHY DID WE DO THAT? WELL, THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION WAS TO RATIFY THE PRIOR EXPENSES AND TO INCREASE OR TO REQUEST FOR THE REMAINING OF THIS YEAR.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE CITY WANTED TO CONTINUE USING A NEW PIGGYBACK AGREEMENT THAT JUST CAME INTO PLACE AFTER THE ONE EXPIRED IN 25. WE WERE JUST DIRECTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED.

SO WE OUTLINED EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD BECAUSE IT SAYS MAY 1ST, 2025 TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025, WHICH IS FY 2025. FIVE MONTHS WAS $265,810. ALL RIGHT.

BUT THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1ST, 2025 TO APRIL 30TH, 2026, WHICH IS SIX MONTHS OF FY 2026, IS THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT $265,810. 39.

I'M SORRY.

WHILE MISS MOXLEY IS LOOKING INTO THAT MADAM MAYOR, WE SIMPLY COULD NOT IGNORE THE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WE HAD WITH AMAZON SINCE THE LAST RATIFICATION OF OUR SPENDING THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.

SO WE HAD TO INCLUDE THAT IN THAT AMOUNT. THAT'S WHY THE TIMELINE IS, IS A LITTLE LARGER THAN NORMAL FISCAL YEAR PERIOD.

THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS IF IT WAS WRITTEN AS A, B, AND C, THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR FOR ME.

THAT'S WHY I'M HAVING TROUBLE. AND ALSO WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,012 FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF MAY 1ST THROUGH 2020, MAY 1ST, 2026 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026. AGAIN, FIVE MONTHS.

AND THAT AMOUNT IS NOT THE SAME. IF I TOOK $513,630, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY WANTING FOR THE YEAR MINUS THE 265 810 THAT WE ALREADY SPENT FOR THIS YEAR.

THE AMOUNT LEFT OVER THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED WOULD BE $247,820.

THE WAY I'VE DONE MY MATH, IF I'VE DONE IT RIGHT.

SO WE'RE OFF BY MONEY. I DIDN'T DO ALL THE FINISH THE CALCULATION, BUT.

WE'RE OFF BY $33,808. SO I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH THE MATH.

SO BASICALLY I UNDERSTAND HAVING CITY MANAGER IF YOU GO AND BUY MONTH MADAM MAYOR, OUR PROCUREMENT USUALLY SLOWS DOWN AND STOPS IN IN MIDDLE OF AUGUST AS WE COME TO THE, TO THE END OF THE THE FISCAL YEAR.

[01:50:06]

AND SO BUT I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT, THAT THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, WHICH IS NONE OF THESE DOLLARS ARE ARE BEING ADDED TO THE BUDGET. THESE ARE BUDGETED DOLLARS FROM DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS THAT ARE BEING SPENT INSTEAD OF HOME DEPOT OR SOME OTHER ENTITY GOING TO AMAZON FOR. AND THAT PART I GET AND THAT PART I UNDERSTAND.

AND THAT PART I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU KNOW WHAT, MACY'S IS DOING A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THIS TIME THAN BLOOMINGDALE'S OR NORDSTROM'S OR WHEREVER WE'RE GOING TO GO SHOP ON A REGULAR, YOU KNOW, FOR CLOTHING. RIGHT? I GET IT. THAT'S NOT MY MY ISSUE SO MUCH, BUT I'M NOT FULLY GETTING JUST BECAUSE IT SLOWS DOWN IN AUGUST.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR US TO RATIFY $513,630 FOR THE YEAR, FISCAL YEAR 26. BY ONLY ASKING US TO APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH IS 214,000 AND CHANGE. BUT THE REALITY IS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE MATH OF WHAT WE ALREADY SPEND OF $5,810 FROM OCTOBER 1ST, 2025 THROUGH APRIL 30TH, 2026. THE FIRST HALF OF FY 2026.

THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITH ACTUALLY NEEDING TO APPROVE $247,820 FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR.

IF WE ARE TRYING TO USE $513,000 IN CHANGE AS OUR MAGIC NUMBER, IT'S NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE.

EXACTLY. AND SO IF WE DO FIND OUT THAT WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT THRESHOLD, WE WOULD STILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.

ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT NUMBER. BUT YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE THE SAME $513,600 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 THAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY WANT OUR MARK TO HIT FOR THIS YEAR.

AND FOR SOME REASON, WE'RE IN ONE PLACE WE'RE ASKING FOR $513,600 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2028.

LATER ON IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, IT'S ACTUALLY $600 SHY.

I'M SORRY. I KNOW YOU GUYS BUST YOUR BUMS AND YOU DO A REALLY GREAT JOB.

BUT I FEEL THAT THIS PIECE NEEDS SOME MORE WORK AND SOME STRAIGHTENING OUT FOR SOME CLARITY.

AND I THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF SOME PROCEDURES ON US.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BE USING AMAZON, ARE WE USING IT JUST FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF IT? YOU CAN ALWAYS ORDER IT FOR NOT NEXT DAY SERVICES.

IF WE REALLY HAVE PLANNED IN ADVANCE, HOW MUCH OF SOME OF THIS IS A RUSH TO DO CERTAIN THINGS ON PLANNING IS WHERE I HAVE TROUBLE WITH SOME OF THE REST OF THIS.

SO I'VE I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T GET SOME OF THE NUMBERS TO BE ABLE TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.

THANK YOU. AND I HAVE COMMISSIONER PATTERSON AND THEN I HAVE COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

YEAH. THANK YOU MAYOR. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS TOO DURING THE BRIEFING AND RAISING SOME OF THE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT YOU RAISED.

BUT I THINK WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON IS THE CO-OP AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR A TERMINATION DATE OF 2030. WHY DOES. WHY CAN'T THE VALUES JUST BE BUDGETED? WHY DO WE NEED TO RATIFY A SPECIFIC VALUE FOR SPECIFIC FISCAL YEARS? WHEN THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR A TERM THAT GOES TO 2030? I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO RATIFY THE EXPENDITURES THROUGH NOW THAT EXCEED WHATEVER WAS BUDGETED FOR IN PRIOR YEARS, BUT WE HAVEN'T YET APPROVED A BUDGET FOR 27 OR 28.

SO WHY WOULD WE NEED TO? WHY DOES THAT NEED TO BE HERE VERSUS.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING TO. OR ARE WE EVEN EXTENDING THE CO-OP AGREEMENT RIGHT NOW? IS THAT A PART OF THIS REQUEST? THE CO-OP AGREEMENT THAT WE USED IN THE PAST HAS EXPIRED.

SO WE WOULD NEED TO PIGGYBACK OFF A NEW CO-OP AGREEMENT.

WE WERE PIGGYBACKING OFF ONE THAT EXPIRED IN MAY OF 2025.

YES. I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE WAS AN INTERNAL MIS STAFF DROPPED THE BALL AND WE GET IT.

THIS TYPE OF STUFF MAKES US LOOK. THAT'S WHY THEY COME AND GET ON US.

BECAUSE ON THE INSIDE THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT REALLY.

I MEAN WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PROCUREMENT DIRECTORS TRANSITION INTERNALLY.

IT MAKES SENSE THAT THIS FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

BUT THIS IS ALSO THE TYPE OF STUFF THAT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS USE AS AMMUNITION TO COME AND ATTACK THE COMMISSION.

WE UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL IN TERMS OF, WE GOT TO WAIT ON YOU GUYS TO COME LET US KNOW THERE'S ISSUES.

SO TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, WE'RE DEALING WITH THREE THINGS BUNDLED UP IN ONE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IF YOU DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IT, YOU'LL MISS IT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH HER THAT THIS IS CONCERNING.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND, HOWEVER, THAT OPERATIONALLY, WE DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS A COMMISSION TO RATIFY THE EXPENDITURES.

[01:55:03]

MY QUESTION AND MY MY NEXT QUESTION REGARDING THE CO-OP AGREEMENT, THOUGH, IS IS THERE A VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FISCAL YEAR IN THE CO-OP AGREEMENT? BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I GOT THE CO-OP AGREEMENT? NO, THERE IS NO VALUE. THERE IS NO VALUE. SO WHY DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY A VALUE PER YEAR THEN? WHY CAN'T THAT JUST BE A BUDGETED VALUE FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES PER DEPARTMENT? IT'S NOT JUST OFFICE SUPPLIES. AND THIS NUMBER IS JUST BASED ON OUR OUR PAST PERFORMANCE.

AND SO IT ALSO PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF DISCIPLINE FOR OUR EXPENDITURES WITH ONE VENDOR.

AND IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO EXPLORE THE OTHER AVENUES THAT, THAT WE HAVE.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANT TO DESIGNATE AMAZON AS THE SINGLE SOURCE FOR, FOR EVERYTHING THAT, THAT WE NEED TO PURCHASE. AND SO THIS PROVIDES US A BIT OF A DISCIPLINE FOR US TO, TO EXPLORE OTHER AVENUES WHEN, WHEN THEY'RE AVAILABLE, BUT IT ALSO OFFERS A CONVENIENT WAY OF EXPEDIENT WAY OF GETTING THINGS IN PLACE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE BALANCED IN TERMS OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE AVAILABILITY AND PROVIDING SOME DISCIPLINE SO THAT WE EXPLORE OTHER, OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR, FOR, FOR OUR PROCUREMENT.

AND THAT MAKES SENSE. I GET IT, I AGREE, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THOUGH, WHY WE NEED TO RATIFY THAT FUTURE EXPENDITURE FOR FUTURE BUDGET YEARS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT YET APPROVED A BUDGET FOR. IF THE CO-OP AGREEMENT DOES NOT BIND US, WHY ARE YOU GUYS ASKING FOR THAT? SO WE DON'T HAVE TO. IT'S JUST A BIT OF A CONVENIENCE SO THAT YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN TO INITIATE THIS, THIS APPROVAL REQUEST FROM THE, FROM THE COMMISSION SO WE CAN DO IT.

WE CAN JUST ASK FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE THE RESOLUTION, WHICH IS THE RATIFICATION OF THE EXPENSES AND $214,000 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU AGAIN IN THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW FISCAL YEAR AND ASK FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR A SIMILAR AMOUNT.

SO WE CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING FROM AN OBLIGATION STANDPOINT.

I'M JUST I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MANAGER.

I JUST THERE'S A DOT THAT SOMEONE'S NOT CONNECTING FOR ME.

WHY DO WE NEED TO SOMEBODY HELP ME FIGURE OUT THERE'S A DOT MISSING HERE.

SO FOR ANYTHING THAT'S AN EX OF 100,000, WE WOULD REQUIRE OUR POLICY REQUIRES YOU GUYS TO GIVE US CONSENT TO BE ABLE TO USE ONE VENDOR. SO REGARDLESS OF IT BEING MULTIPLE PURCHASES AND FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, IT'S STILL AMAZON LLC.

AND IF WE GO OVER 100,000, WELL, THE CITY MANAGER CAN APPROVE ANY TRANSACTION FOR ANY CONTRACT FOR US TO BE.

SO THERE'S A POLICY SOMEWHERE THAT SAYS A SPECIFIC VENDOR.

OKAY. SO EVEN IF THE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE YOU GUYS GAVE A LIST OF EXPENDITURES PER DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC AMAZON EXPENDITURES.

SO HAVE THOSE THAT DOLLAR VALUE BEEN BUDGETED IN THAT PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT'S LINE FOR THAT AMOUNT.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT LINE IT'S BUDGETED IN FOR THE VENDOR ALONE, OUR PROCUREMENT POLICY DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE TRANSACTIONS FROM IT.

BUT THAT TO ME, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WELL, FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, IF IT'S BUDGETED, IF IT IS, BUT IT STILL REQUIRES A COMMISSION APPROVAL FROM PURCHASING FROM A SINGLE VENDOR WHEN IT'S OVER $100,000, NOT CO. IT'S IN. IT'S IN THE COLD. RIGHT? NO, I GET NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE DOT THAT WAS MISSING.

SO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET. IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE VENDOR PURCHASING AUTHORITY FROM A SINGLE VENDOR OVER $100,000, I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DANIEL. YES, I KNOW A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS FROM THE PUBLIC CAME EARLY AND SAID WE'RE SPENDING DISCRETIONARY FUND. THAT'S TAXPAYER MONEY. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

LET'S CLARIFY. AND EVEN FOR THE VETS, I TRIED TO ORDER STUFF FOR THE VETERANS DAY, THE MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY COULDN'T BECAUSE WE COULDN'T PURCHASE FROM AMAZON.

SO I DID ORDER, BUT IT COULDN'T BE APPROVED BECAUSE WE WERE OVER THE AMOUNT.

SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I WOULD HATE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE TO HIRE PURCHASE SOMETHING AND THE.

THE MANAGER CANNOT APPROVE IT BECAUSE WE DECIDED HE CANNOT APPROVE ANYTHING OVER $100,000.

[02:00:02]

SO AS A VENDOR, THE WHOLE CITY HAS SPENT MORE THAN 500,000.

CORRECT. SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM. SO YES, THEY DO NEED APPROVAL TO SPEND MORE BECAUSE THAT'S THE AVENUE WE'RE TAKING.

IT'S LIKE SAYING AMAZON IS A THING. I KNOW IN MY HOUSEHOLD THERE'S AN AMAZON BOX EVERY DAY.

NOT ME. MY HUSBAND, BY THE WAY. BUT IT'S JUST THE WAY WE'RE LIVING IN THESE DAYS.

SO NO, IT'S NOT ADDITIONAL FUNDS. IT'S JUST TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF GETTING PRODUCTS TO THE CITY, WHICH EVENTUALLY IS TO OUR RESIDENTS. SO I WOULD PREFER WE NOT DELAY THIS ANYMORE, BUT WE VOTE SO WE CAN CONTINUE DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. I KNOW IT'S THREE PARTS, BUT IF YOU READ IT, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND IT.

IT'S IS NOT COMPLICATED. SO IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

IF NO ONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE. NO.

I'M SORRY, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. PRISCILLA. THE IS IS THERE IS THERE A WAY TO BIFURCATE THIS TO ALLOW PURCHASES ON AMAZON TO GO FORWARD? WHILE YOU WORK OUT WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS, FOR THE PREVIOUS OR FOR THE FUTURE YEARS.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE SPENT SOME MONEY THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO RATIFY.

AND OBVIOUSLY MADAME DOGE IS ASKING THAT WE LOOK INTO THESE THINGS. THAT IS RIGHT. SO DO YOU? CAN WE BIFURCATE THIS? CAN WE? YES, WE CAN BIFURCATE IT FOR THE RATIFICATION AND FOR THE SECOND APPROVAL TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS THROUGH THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND DO THE PORTION FOR FY 27 AND 28 AS THE CITY MANAGER HAD MENTIONED. OKAY. CITY MANAGER WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED DURING MY TIME. GIVE IT A REST.

CITY MANAGER, YOU DON'T HAVE YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP MY TIME TO THEN GO TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO ASK WHAT THEY WANT TO ASK.

I HAVE THE FLOOR. BE RESPECTFUL. SO DO YOU. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO? YES, SIR. OKAY. MR. MANAGER, OPERATIONALLY, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO YOU AN OPERATION? ABSOLUTELY. VICE MAYOR. SO IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION.

AS THE AS WE MENTIONED, THE RATIFICATION IN THE REMAINDER, THAT $214,000 APPROVED WOULD ALLOW US TO CONTINUE PROCURE GOODS AND SERVICES FROM AMAZON FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU FOR RATIFICATION OF FUTURE PURCHASES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW FISCAL YEAR.

HOW MUCH HAVE WE SPENT SO FAR FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR? I. CAN I GRAB MY LAPTOP ONE SECOND? SORRY. ABSOLUTELY.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. BUT IT'S $513,000. INCLUDING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND THE PORTION OF THE LAST FISCAL YEAR SINCE THE LAST TIME AMAZON WAS APPROVED. FOR, FOR FOR OUR PROCUREMENT.

ONE SECOND.

SO FAR FOR FY 26, WE'VE SPENT $265,810.

THAT'S SO FAR THIS YEAR. CORRECT. FROM A FROM OCTOBER THROUGH APRIL 30TH.

OKAY. AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE BUYING OR CROSS DEPARTMENTS.

[02:05:05]

OKAY. SO LET ME GET THE EXCEL OPEN UP. SORRY.

DOES ALL DEPARTMENTS USE AMAZON CORRECT. THEY ALL DO.

FIRE POLICE. PUBLIC SERVICES. POLICE DOESN'T ORDER ANYTHING ON THE CITY'S BUDGET.

THEY'RE SEPARATE. OH, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AMAZON ACCOUNT.

DO DOES BSO HAVE THEIR OWN AMAZON ACCOUNT? YES.

OKAY. SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT CITIES USE AMAZON.

I'M JUST GOING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE WITH MADAME DOGE.

IT'S FINE. TAKE YOUR TIME. OKAY.

ATTACHMENT.

WHILE MISS MOXIE IS LOOKING. VICE MAYOR. WE CAN ALSO PROVIDE YOU AN EXTENSIVE LIST.

ONCE YOU MAKE A DECISION ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, WE CAN DEFINITELY PROVIDE YOU WITH AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF THOSE THOSE ITEMS. YOU KNOW, THE ITEMS THAT WE PURCHASED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FOR IT, FOR PARKS AND RECREATION.

AND AND I'M BEING TOLD THAT, THAT WE DID PROVIDE THAT LIST.

OKAY. SO AMONG THAT LIST, YOU WOULD PROBABLY SEE LIKE A LITTLE HAT THAT SAYS MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

THAT IS IN ONE OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OFFICES.

I HOPE THAT WAS NOT PURCHASED ON AMAZON. GO AHEAD, MISS MAXINE.

I GUESS IT'S IN YOUR OFFICE. I'M SORRY. TRYING TO GET THE EXCEL OPEN.

IT HAD OVER 900 PAGES TO PRINT. THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T.

OH, OKAY. NINE, 900 PAGES OF AMAZON PURCHASES.

SO? SO YOU'RE SAYING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026, WE'VE SPENT $265,810 SO FAR, AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL HOW MUCH? $214,012. HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS NUMBER? WE LOOKED AT THE SPENDING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, THE PATTERN WHERE IT STARTS TO DECLINE WHICH TYPICALLY RUNS AROUND YEAR END. HOWEVER, FOR A 12 MONTH PERIOD, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME THING FROM MAY OF LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR.

SO WE WERE OPERATING ON THAT SAME PREMISE THAT IF WE WERE TO USE AMAZON FOR THOSE EXACT SAME SERVICES NEXT YEAR, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE. OR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS YEAR.

SO IT'S BASED ON MATH TRENDS, SCIENCE. YOU DIDN'T JUST PULL A NUMBER OUT OF YOUR BEAUTIFUL HAT. NO, SIR. OKAY, SO THIS IS UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST, CORRECT? SEPTEMBER 30TH. SEPTEMBER 30TH. WERE YOU IN THIS POLICY ASKING FOR.

AN AMOUNT STARTING OCTOBER 1ST UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH FOR NEXT YEAR AS WELL? YES, SIR. WE HAD REQUESTED. WHY DON'T YOU JUST PUT IT IN THE NEXT BUDGET? WELL, THE REQUEST WASN'T FOR THE ACTUAL EXPENSES THAT GOES THROUGH THE BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS.

IT WAS TO PROVIDE EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY NOT TO EXCEED IT.

BY THE PIGGYBACK AGREEMENT OF THE OMNI CONTRACT, THAT WAS THE THIRD PART.

SO IT WASN'T THE ACTUAL SPEND. IT WAS THE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO PIGGYBACK FOR THAT AMOUNT.

BECAUSE IF WE SPEND OVER 100,000 WE WOULD HAVE TO COME TO YOU ANYWAY TO GET APPROVAL.

IT WAS COMMISSIONER BOLTON. IT WAS THE VENDOR PERMISSION.

BASICALLY, I'M JUST EDUCATING RESIDENTS WHO WOULD NEVER MAKE IT UP HERE.

SO, SO YOU JUST WANT AN AMOUNT THAT WILL.

THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME UP HERE EVERY TIME WE MAKE IT TO 100,000.

BECAUSE ONE DEPARTMENT ALONE, A LOT OF OUR OPERATIONS HAPPENS THROUGH PARKS AND RECS.

[02:10:06]

WITHIN THAT 12 MONTH PERIOD, THEY'VE SPENT ABOUT 149 000 IN IN ITSELF.

SO JUST ANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS? I THINK IT WAS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT SPENT ABOUT 90,000. SO JUST THOSE TWO ALONE, FIRE DEPARTMENTS SPENT $90,000 ON AMAZON.

YES, SIR. WHAT DID THEY BUY? IT'S IN THE LIST OF THE 900 PAGES.

IT'S IN THE LIST OF 900 PAGES. YES. TAB TWO OF THE EXCEL ATTACHMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED PROVIDES EVERY SINGLE THING THAT THE CITY HAS SPENT. AND I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY PEOPLE HEAR THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS SPENDING 500 AND SOMETHING. THERE WAS A CITY COMMISSION. THEY WON'T SAY CITY, AND WE'RE SPENDING 500 AND SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLARS ON AMAZON.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL ASK, WHAT IS BOLTON SPENDING THE MONEY ON TO SEE WITH HIS FACE ON IT, YOU KNOW, BUT THESE. YEAH. PAYROLL ENDS JUNE 12TH.

SO THESE ARE FIRE RELATED PURCHASES SOMEWHAT AS WELL.

$98,000. A PART OF THE EXPENSES ARE I HOPE THEY SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE BECAUSE THEN MADAME DOGE WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THAT, TOO. OKAY, SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR $214 AND 12, $214,012 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS YEAR, AND THEN THE EXPECTED SPEND FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN THE THIRD PART IS RATIFYING THE PREVIOUS SPEND.

CORRECT. OKAY, SO HERE'S MY THOUGHTS. YOU KNOW, I AM COMFORTABLE DOING THE REMAINDER OF THIS YEAR AND THEN GOING FORWARD BUT ANYTHING THAT HAS YOUR PREDECESSOR'S NAME ON IT, I REFUSE TO APPROVE.

QUITE FRANKLY, SHE HAS MADE MILLION DOLLAR MISTAKES AND SHE HAS SAID IT ON RECORD.

I DON'T NECESSARILY TRUST THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

I JUST THINK THAT SOME OF THE PRACTICES HAVE BEEN SHADY.

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

I THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WAS OBVIOUSLY SHADY.

SO AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO, I'D BE ASKING FOR A THOROUGH AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M ASKING FOR NOW. I'M JUST ASKING FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO BIFURCATE THIS TO GIVE APPROVAL FOR THE AMOUNT GOING FORWARD FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR AND THE AMOUNT GOING FORWARD FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN LEAVING THE ACCOUNTING TO THE MATHEMATICIANS SO THAT THEY CAN APPEASE MADAME DODGE.

IF SOMEBODY, IF HANS ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU PUT THAT INTO A MOTION SO I CAN PROPERLY VERBALIZE IT.

THANK YOU. I THINK THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ELIMINATED.

AS FOR THE FUTURE FISCAL YEAR, AND THE RATIFICATION WILL BE PART OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND THE REQUEST FOR THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR AMOUNT IS PART OF THIS RESOLUTION. SO IT'S BASICALLY AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO BASICALLY APPROVE THE TWO REQUESTS VERSUS THREE.

OKAY. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT WE NEED TO.

I WASN'T AWARE THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

YES. MOTION BY MYSELF. IT IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS PER ROBERT'S RULES GOES FIRST WE HAVE THE SUBSTITUTE.

MOTION GOES FORWARD. WILL YOU JUST RELAX YOURSELF? I'LL GET THE SAME POINT. BELIEVE ME, I'M RELAXED.

OH, GOOD. I'VE NEVER BEEN SO RELAXED. OH, GOOD.

SO, CITY ATTORNEY, BECAUSE WE'RE TYPICALLY A MESS, WHICH IS A SHAME.

BASICALLY, PLEASE REPEAT THE MOTION, READING IT OF WHAT IT WOULD READ SO THE CITY CLERK CAN HAVE IT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I'M BEING ASKED, IF I WILL BE HAPPY TO AMEND AS THE MAKER OF THE LAST MOTION, AND THEN THE VICE MAYOR CAN APPROVE OR NOT.

AND IF IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED, WE GO THROUGH THE FIRST ONE AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR SECOND.

BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE SO COMPLICATED. CITY CLERK.

CITY ATTORNEY. PLEASE PROCEED. IT'S A MOTION TO AMEND TO TO RATIFY THE EXPENDITURE FROM MAY 1ST, 2025 THROUGH APRIL 30TH, 2025 IN AMOUNT 513,630 AND MOTION TO ALSO ADD ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR

[02:15:10]

WHICH IS, I BELIEVE, SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026, TO ADD A $214,012 TO PURCHASE WITH ZON.COM. AND THAT'S THE MOTION.

VICE MAYOR. OKAY. SO SO SO YOU'RE ASKING US NOW TO GIVE A SECOND D GIVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, OR ARE WE DOING AWAY WITH THE MOTION AS THE THIS IS THE MOTION THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE IT TO. YES. BASICALLY ASKING FOR ME TO APPROVE THE MOTION.

AND THEN YOU WOULD SECOND IT BECAUSE YOU WERE THE PERSON WHO MADE THE SECOND. YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION.

CORRECT. WHAT I ASKED FOR IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BE HEARD FIRST.

DOESN'T MATTER. WE GOT THE SAME PLACE. SO I'M JUST CLARIFYING THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO EDIT THE MAIN MOTION TO ONLY GIVE APPROVAL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, FUTURE FISCAL YEAR, AND THEN NOT APPROVING THE PREVIOUS SPEND. WE'RE NOT RATIFYING THE PREVIOUS SPEND.

RIGHT. WE'RE LEAVING THAT FOR ACCOUNTING TO COME BACK TO GIVE US WHATEVER THE MAYOR HAS ASKED FOR.

SO NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR YOU TO CLARIFY. YEAH.

WELL, I'M GOING ON WHAT STAFF IS ASKING BASED ON THIS RESOLUTION.

OKAY. WHICH THE RESOLUTION IS THE CITY OF TAMARAC TO RATIFY THE CITY WIDE PURCHASES OF AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC DURING THE PERIOD OF MAY 1ST, 2025 THROUGH APRIL 30TH, 2026 IN THE AMOUNT OF $513,630 MAYOR, THOSE PURCHASE HAS BEEN ALREADY MADE. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR RATIFICATION.

SO. RIGHT. BUT THIS VICE MAYOR IS SAYING HE IS NOT APPROVING THE $214,012 EXPENDITURE FOR THE LAST PART OF THE PERIOD FOR THIS, THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, CORRECT? YEAH. SO BUT APPROVING THE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR UP TO $513,600 FOR FY 2728 FOR THE CONTRACT, BASICALLY, IT'S APPROVING THE CONTRACT, ALLOWING THE CONTRACT TO GO UP TO THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS BEEN ASKED FOR FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, FOR FINISHING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS.

THAT IS WHAT'S BEING DONE. IT'S THE CONTRACT AS A CO OP, AS COMMISSIONER PATTERSON IS SAYING, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS BEEN EXPENDED, THAT PART WILL COME BACK TO US WITH CLARIFICATION AT ANOTHER TIME.

THAT IS WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR. THAT'S WHAT I'M FINE WITH THAT. I ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT I AND JUST JUST DEFINE CLARIFICATION. MAYOR YOU WANT A LIST OF ALL THE EXPENSES AND THE DEPARTMENTS THAT THAT SPENT THEM? NO, I RATHER SEE THAT THERE'S A PROCEDURE IN PLACE.

I'M MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE PROPERLY UTILIZING OUR SERVICES.

THE RUSH SERVICES PART OF IT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT.

THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS.

THAT'S SOMETHING FOR PROCESS THAT I SPOKE WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT.

BECAUSE IF ALL OF US ARE SPENDING IN, THERE'S A $513,000 TO BE SPENT WHERE IT'S ALL THE SAME BUDGET LINE, RIGHT, OF WHETHER IT'S HOME DEPOT OR LOWES OR WHATEVER WAS SAID EARLIER PAPER.

AND THIS IT'S NOT ADDING ADDITIONAL MONEY TO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED.

IT'S JUST MOVING WHERE IT'S BEING SPENT THIS YEAR, POSSIBLY UP TO THE SAME FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THE EXPENDITURES ARE PROPER.

THAT'S NOT THE CONCERN. WE'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THERE'S NOT ADDITIONAL MONEY BEING PUT IN TO THIS.

THE OTHER PART THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR SEPARATELY IS THAT THERE WAS $214,000 MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED, BUT YOU DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROVED. NOT APPROVED.

RATIFY IS FOR PRIOR. SORRY. IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED FOR THE NEXT PART OF THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS.

THAT'S NOT CALLED RATIFICATION. MAYOR RATIFICATION IS PAST EXPENSIVE.

THAT'S WHAT SHE JUST SAID. I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE WORDING HERE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK AT EVERY BREATH. NO, NO.

SO BASICALLY I TAKE THE LIBERTY TO SPEAK AT EVERY BREATH.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION. CAN WE CLARIFY YOU? ARE YOU THE MAYOR? MADAME DOGE IS ASKING FOR A LIST OF EXPENSES TO LOOK THROUGH.

OR IS SHE ASKING FOR A POLICY TO BE. BECAUSE NOW I'M THOROUGHLY CONFUSED.

LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR? FOR THE PREVIOUS TIME? I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO LOOK OVER THE EXPENSES TO FIND WHERE THE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN HAT IS.

[02:20:03]

I MADE THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL EXPENSES, ITEM BY ITEM ARE LISTED OR ATTACHED TO THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM ONLINE. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WERE ASKING FOR.

BUT SHE'S ASKING FOR POLICY. OR THAT'S NOT AT ALL.

SO IF I MAY, IT'S SIMPLE. WE'RE CONFIRMING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED AND THE CONCERN THAT I HAD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE, WAS THAT THIS IS NOT ADDITIONAL FUNDS BEING ADDED IN TO THE BUDGET LINE.

THE BUDGET LINE IS SET. IT'S JUST SAYING WE'RE USING THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR MORE THAN ALL THE OTHER VENDORS WE'RE USING FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

WE HAVE A CONTRACT THAT'S EXPIRED THAT IS TELLING US THAT WE CAN ONLY SPEND $150,000 WITH THEM, WHICH IS OBVIOUS THAT WE'VE ALREADY GONE OVER THAT.

SO THERE'S A REQUEST FOR US TO PUT A HIGHER AMOUNT IN THERE.

AND USING THE HIGHER AMOUNT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN HIT IS WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO PUT IN THAT PART.

I'M FINE. THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT SOME.

THE PEOPLE WILL NOT APPROVE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

I DON'T I'M GOOD. I HEAR WHAT SAID. I WOULD LIKE IT SPECIFIC BECAUSE IT MAKES IT CLEAN.

I THINK WE'VE ALREADY SAID IT. AMAZON.COM SERVICES FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR OF 2025 AND 2026 WILL BE THE 513,000.

AS FAR AS 27, 28 WILL BE THE SAME AMOUNT. JUST PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR.

WE'VE GOT $513,600 IN ONE PLACE, AND WE HAVE 513,000 STRAIGHT IN ANOTHER PLACE.

CLEAN IT UP IN THE RESOLUTION. LISTEN, YOU KNOW, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, YOU KNOW, YOU YOU WERE SOUND CRAZIER, BUT YOU'RE SOUNDING CRAZIER BY THE MINUTE. AND I DON'T WANT TO SOUND CRAZY LIKE YOU.

SO YOU KNOW WHAT? FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THAT. I'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

AND THEN FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO WANT TO JOIN A TAMARAC DOGE COMMITTEE.

BY ALL MEANS. KATE, I NOMINATED YOU FOR THE PRESIDENT.

CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE QUESTION? THE QUESTION? NO, NO, WE'RE NOT CALLING THE QUESTION YET.

COMMISSIONER, RIGHT, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK COMMISSIONER. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEMS THAT WE'RE SPENDING.

FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE INITIATIVE FUNDS OF 20,000.

ELIZABETH WENT TO PURCHASE SOMETHING FROM AMAZON AND SHE HAD TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE RING AROUND. IT WAS LIKE 25 BUCKS. AND I EVENTUALLY PURCHASED UP MY POCKET.

SO THAT $25 COMES OUT OF MY INITIATIVE FUND, ISN'T IT? CORRECT. THAT'S ALREADY BUDGETED. CORRECT. SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING I'M TALKING IN LAYMAN'S TERM BECAUSE I HEARD THE ARGUMENT GOING BACK AND FORTH. AND I THINK THE MAYOR SAYING ADDITIONAL FUNDS, WE'RE NOT SPENDING ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS. THE THE FIRE SPENDS 90 GRAND BASED ON THE BACKUP THAT'S ALREADY IN THEIR BUDGET OF WHAT THEY'RE SPENDING.

CORRECT. SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING, WE'RE WE'RE USING AMAZON MORE.

WE NEED A HIGHER THRESHOLD. CORRECT. IT'S NOT ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY.

IT'S NOT NONE OF THAT STUFF. THE MONEY IS ALREADY BUDGETED. IT'S JUST COMING FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, DIFFERENT LINES. CORRECT. THAT'S WHY THE MEMO SAID NO FISCAL IMPACT. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I GOT. I READ IT AND THAT'S AND FROM THAT LITTLE PURCHASE OF 20 SOMETHING BUCKS AND I SAW THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS JUST TO GET SOMETHING FROM AMAZON FOR 20 BUCKS. I UNDERSTAND, SO THAT'S WHY I READ IT AND I UNDERSTOOD IT.

SO THE BACK AND FORTH OF US SPENDING ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT THAT DOESN'T KIND OF MAKE SENSE.

SO IT'S JUST US SAYING WE'RE SPENDING MORE WITH THIS VENDOR BECAUSE THEY OFFER BETTER PRICING.

CORRECT. WE'RE BEING MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE BY LOOKING FOR BETTER PRICING.

CORRECT. BECAUSE THE OTHER VENDOR WAS CHARGING 200 BUCKS AND AMAZON WAS CHARGING 20 BUCKS, BUT WE COULDN'T GET AMAZON BECAUSE THIS WHOLE COMPLICATED PROCESS GOING BACK TO WHAT DOCTOR DANIELS MENTIONED.

SO ALL THE BACK AND FORTH AND ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN LAYMAN'S TERM IS JUST SAYING WE WANT TO SPEND MORE AND IT'S ALREADY BUDGETED FOR.

CORRECT. OKAY. SO I'M COOL WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

I UNDERSTAND THE CONTRACT PART OF IT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CONTRACT FROM 2025 I STARTED.

I MEAN, 2025. I SAW THAT OBVIOUSLY WE DROPPED THE BALL IN THAT STUFF AND AND CORRECT.

CORRECT ME. WE ALSO HAD TO PURCHASE MICROSOFT WAS SHI IT CAME TO US IN A FEW MONTHS AGO.

OBVIOUSLY MICROSOFT, MICROSOFT IS LIKE AMAZON.

THEY'RE INDEPENDENT COMPANIES. BUT FOR SOME REASON WE GO THROUGH THESE THIRD PARTY COMPANIES BECAUSE WHY.

AND SO MOST TIMES THAT OMNI CONTRACT IS A PIGGYBACK AGREEMENT THAT SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH A CHEAPER PRICE.

AND SO IF WE WANT TO GO WITH A VENDOR, WE WOULD TRY TO FIND THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE.

SO WE TYPICALLY WOULD PROCUREMENT WOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE PIGGYBACK AGREEMENT HAS IN PLACE.

MOST TIMES, JUST LIKE IF YOU WERE TO OPEN UP AN OFFICE DEPOT ACCOUNT FOR A BUSINESS OR FOR A WELL,

[02:25:01]

FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, YOU SHOULD BE GETTING THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE THAT THEY WOULD OFFER.

BUT FOR SOME REASON, WHEN WE DO IT WITH AMAZON, IT'S LOWER THAN WHAT WE WOULD PAY.

OFFICE DEPOT AND WE WOULD GET IT MUCH FASTER BECAUSE WE HAVE AMAZON RIGHT HERE IN OUR CITY.

SO MOST TIMES WHEN THEY WHEN THEY DO ORDER, THEY GET THEIR THINGS WITHIN THE SAME DAY AT A LOWER PRICE.

SO THEY'VE JUST USED THAT MORE. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS EVERYTHING'S ALREADY BUDGETED FOR.

WE'RE JUST GETTING A BETTER PRICE FOR THE RESIDENTS.

AND WE'RE USING AMAZON AND WE'RE JUST LIFTING THAT THRESHOLD TO CONTINUE TO GET A BETTER PRICING.

CORRECT. AS OPPOSED TO PAYING AT 200 BUCKS, AMAZON HAS IT FOR 20 BUCKS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE EXPLANATION.

I DO STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH NOT UNDERSTANDING THE MATH OF 513, THAT IT DOES MATTER, BECAUSE NOW SHE'S ONLY ASKING US TO RATIFY 200 OR APPROVED $214,000. IT'S SHY ABOUT 30 GRAND. AND THEN SHE'S GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, WE NEED THE REST OF THE MONEY.

SO IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE NUMBERS IN THERE THAT MAKE UP THE $513,600 FOR THE YEAR.

WELL, WHAT I READ AND WHAT THE WHAT I WAS JUST JOINING THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT THE 214, THE 214 IS ADDITIONALLY, FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR FROM MAY 1ST UP UNTIL THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

CORRECT. WE'VE ALREADY EXCEEDED OUR THRESHOLD FROM BEFORE.

AND YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR A HIGHER LIMIT FOR US TO CONTINUE SPENDING MONEY, GETTING GREAT PRICES FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR THAT'S ALREADY BUDGETED FOR.

UNDERSTOOD. BUT IF WE'RE USING $513,600 AS THAT MAGIC NUMBER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, WE DID NOT MADAM MAYOR.

SO THAT'S THE CONFUSION THAT THAT $513,000 IS SINCE MAY OR APRIL OF 2025.

AND SO IT'S NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR. THE, THE, THE 2026 EXPENDITURE WITH AMAZON IS ABOUT $260,000 PLUS 214 THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR NOW, WHICH MAKES UP THAT $513,000.

NO, THAT'S THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

FINE. YOU GUYS WANT TO KEEP IT AT 214,000? NOT IF YOU'RE MAKING 2027 AND 2028 $513,000.

YOU'RE NOT MAKING. AND IF WE'RE 2026, WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK.

YOU'RE HAVING A SHY. THAT'S ALL. MAYOR. CAN I BE SHORT? FINE. CAN I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? I KNOW IT'S COMMISSIONERS RIGHT TIME.

WHAT THEY SAID WAS SHE DID THE PATTERN. THE PATTERN WAS MONTHLY.

SO APPARENTLY THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE SPENDING LESS THAN LAST FISCAL YEAR.

SO THE PRIOR MONTHS, SIX MONTHS THAT'S GONE OR FIVE.

I'M WE SPENT LESS A FEW THOUSAND LESS ABOUT 2740.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THOUSAND LESS THAN WE DID IN 2025.

THEREFORE, IF SHE IS LOOKING AT JULY. JUNE. JULY.

AUGUST, SEPTEMBER. THOSE ARE SLOWER MONTHS, SO IT WOULD NOT EQUAL THE 240 SOMETHING THOUSAND.

IT WOULD EQUAL TO 14. NOW, IF I WAS HER, I'D JUST ASKED FOR FIVE 550,000 600,000 BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW YEAR BRINGS.

SO I WOULD I AGREE WITH YOU. I WOULD ASK FOR MORE BECAUSE THE TRAIN IS CONTROL SPENDING.

SO THERE SHE GO. LOCKED IT DOWN. SHE'S BEING PRUDENT.

SO LET'S APPROVE THE 214 BECAUSE SHE'S BEING PRUDENT.

SHE WANT TO KEEP US ON THE CHAINS AND BOUND. SO THAT'S FINE.

LET'S JUST APPROVE IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. POINT STILL BEING, WE'RE STILL APPROVING THE HIGHER AMOUNT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS ANYWAY.

SO HOW PRUDENT ARE WE REALLY BEING ANYWAY? YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AT 214? YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE NUMBERS EQUAL UP. GO, GO VIEW IT.

KEEP THE REGULAR MOTION. IT'S CLEAR ON THE FLOOR.

I SHOULD HOPE BY NOW. CITY CLERK. CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER.

RIGHT. YES. MAYOR GOMEZ. YES. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

YES. COMMISSIONER DANIELS. YES. VICE MAYOR BOLTON, NO.

GOOD FOR YOU. PLEASE CLEAN UP THE NUMBERS IN THE RESOLUTION.

THAT'S ALL I ASK FOR. TO MAKE THE NUMBERS EQUAL AND RIGHT IN THE RESOLUTION.

BECAUSE IT'S A BIT OF A MESS. OH, SO HE COULD SAY HE VOTED AGAINST IT.

DEAR DOGE. DEAR DOGE. IT'S ALL HER FAULT. SHE'S SUCH A WITCH.

WHAT CAN I TELL YOU? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS NOON.

WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK. BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING A 15 MINUTE BREAK.

WELCOME TO NOON. ALL RIGHT,

[7.a TO2628 -An Ordinance of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 14 of the City Code related to motor vehicles and traffic by creating a new article establishing the use of speed detection systems to enforce school zone speed limits in accordance with state law; providing for codification, severability, and an effective date. ]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS 1216, AND WE ARE RESUMING OUR MEETING WITH OUR ORDINANCES.

ON FIRST READING. WE ARE AT 7AT02628. CITY ATTORNEY PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

[02:30:04]

ITEM SEVEN AN ORDINANCE OF CITY TAMARAC WINJE.

CHAPTER 14 OF CITY CODE RELATE TO MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC BY CREATING NEW ARTICLE ESTABLISHING THE USE OF SPEED DETECTION SYSTEMS TO ENFORCE SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMITS, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MOVE IT SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. TANYA STERLING, OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION AND IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.

TANYA STERLING, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

FOR THE RECORD. TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING CHAPTER 14 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC AS IT RELATES TO SCHOOL ZONE DETECTION SYSTEMS WITH A DETERMINATION OF A HEIGHTENED SAFETY RISK AS A BACKGROUND.

I'D LIKE TO START WITH. THIS ITEM WAS LAST SEEN AT THE APRIL 6TH COMMISSION WORKSHOP WITH A PRESENTATION THAT PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW OF SCHOOLS. SCHOOL ZONE SPEED DETECTION SYSTEM SYSTEMS AUTHORIZED UNDER HB 657 FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAM.

FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL ORDINANCE, A PUBLIC HEARING, AND A DETERMINATION OF A HEIGHTENED SAFETY RISK.

SUBSEQUENT TO THIS, STAFF REVIEWED A TWO DAY TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED IN MARCH.

WE ALSO REVIEWED A SCHOOL ZONE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES, AND WE CONSIDERED BSO TRAFFIC AND SAFETY INFORMATION.

SO FROM THE APRIL 6TH WORKSHOP, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY AND TO LOOK AT OPERATIONAL AND ENFORCEMENT DETAILS.

SO FOR SPEED DETECTION IMPLEMENTATION ON PROGRAM.

THERE ARE SEVERAL STEPS THAT THE LAW REQUIRES.

IT REQUIRES. AGAIN, I MENTIONED THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL ORDINANCE, PUBLIC HEARING, THE TERMINATION OF A HEIGHTENED SAFETY RISK, AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNAGE AND PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN, AND ALSO FOR A WARNING PERIOD.

SO TO BRING THIS ITEM FORWARD, STAFF EVALUATED SEVERAL THINGS.

WE LOOKED AT SCHOOL ZONE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

WE LOOKED AT ENFORCEMENT METHODOLOGIES USED BY NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES.

AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE STATUTORY IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

SO AS IT RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE HEIGHTENED SAFETY RISK, WE THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO, AGAIN, JUST REVIEW QUICKLY THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN MARCH, BOTH ON THE 23RD AND 24TH AND WHAT THE STUDY SHOWED WAS THAT SHOWED THE VEHICLES TRAVELING SHOWED THAT VEHICLES TRAVEL TEN MILES OVER THE.

THE POSTED SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMITS IN SEVERAL SCHOOL LOCATIONS, AS LISTED HERE.

TAMARAC ELEMENTARY, DISCOVERY ELEMENTARY, RENAISSANCE CHALLENGER, AND MILLENNIUM AND THE STUDY SHOWED THAT FOR THE AVERAGE DAILY VIOLATIONS, IT WAS A LITTLE OVER 2000, AND FOR THE TWO DAYS IT WAS A LITTLE OVER 4000.

SO WHAT DOES THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DOES? IT CREATES ARTICLE FOUR.

SORRY, ARTICLE FIVE OF CHAPTER 14, WHICH IS SECTION 14-89, WHICH IS THE AUTHORIZATION AND USE OF SCHOOL ZONE SPEED DETECTION SYSTEMS. SO THE ORDINANCE, WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN ORDINANCE IS THAT IT ESTABLISHES LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR SCHOOL ZONE SPEED DETECTION SYSTEMS. IT WILL AUTHORIZE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.

IT WILL ESTABLISH A HEARING AND APPEAL PROCEDURE.

AND AGAIN, IT REQUIRES SIGNAGE, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND AS WELL AS AUTHORIZED THE AGREEMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM.

SO TODAY'S STAFF IS SUGGESTING AN ENFORCEMENT APPROACH THAT WILL BE DURING ACTIVE SCHOOL SESSIONS, WHICH IS 30 MINUTES BEFORE SCHOOL STARTS AND AFTER 30 MINUTES AFTER DISMISSAL, WHICH REFLECTS A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH WITH THIS SUGGESTION FOR ENFORCEMENT. I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT TWO OPERATIONAL APPROACHES FROM OUR NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE SAME CITY OF SUNRISE AND PLANTATION.

THEY USE THE SAME APPROACH FOR ENFORCEMENT. THIS THE WHAT THEY DO IS FOR ZONE SCHOOL ZONE ENFORCEMENT.

THEY WILL WILL HAVE A VIOLATION THAT IS TEN MILES OVER THE POSTED SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMITS AS WELL AS THE OUTSIDE FLASHING PERIODS, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THAT CAMERAS WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE UTILIZING THE ROADWAYS, ROADWAY, REGULAR POSTED LIMITS. AND JUST TO PROVIDE A FEW EXAMPLES.

SO FOR A SCHOOL ZONE LIMIT AT 15MPH, VIOLATORS WILL GET A TICKET AT 26MPH.

[02:35:09]

AND DURING THE REGULAR SPEED LIMIT, AT A POSTED LIMIT AT 25 VIOLATION WOULD OCCUR AT 36MPH.

SO AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ENFORCEMENT TO OCCUR ONLY DURING ACTIVE FLASHING SCHOOL ZONE PERIODS.

AND THIS SLIDE BASICALLY SHOWS THE SCHOOL ZONES IN OUR TAMARAC DISTRICT.

AND WE'RE PROPOSING A MORNING AND AFTERNOON ENFORCEMENT AND WHICH IS REFLECTED HERE ON THIS SLIDE.

SO AGAIN, STATE LAW REQUIRES ON WHICH THE CITY WILL FOLLOW POSTED SIGNAGE, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, AND A 30 DAY WARNING PERIOD, WHICH IS ALSO JUST BEST PRACTICES.

THE VENDOR HAS ALSO NOTED THAT WITH THE BUSINESS RULE, TAMARAC CAN CHOOSE TO, YOU KNOW, INCREASE THAT WARNING PERIOD.

AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND THIS WILL INCLUDE A PSA CAMPAIGN, WEBSITE, INFORMATION FLIERS, SOCIAL MEDIA, COMMUNITY OUTREACH, AND OF COURSE, WARNING NOTICES WILL BE DURING EDUCATIONAL PERIOD.

SO SHOULD A CITATION BE CONTESTED? THERE IS AN IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK WHICH HAS THESE FIVE SIMPLE STEPS.

SO A CITATION IS ISSUED. SOMEONE CAN REACH OUT WITH A CITATION, REACH OUT TO THE VENDOR, THE VENDOR WILL PREPARE THE HEARING DOCKETS AND THE CITY WILL PROVIDE THE HEARING, LOCATION, MAGISTRATE AND THE LIAISON SUPPORT.

SO FOR THE MAGISTRATE HEARING FRAMEWORK, THE CITY WILL BASICALLY FOLLOW THE ADMINISTRATION PROCESS SIMILAR TO WHAT CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION USES, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2-71.

I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT HERE THAT APRIL 6TH WORKSHOP, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT STAFF WAS ASKED TO, TO LOOK INTO. AND THIS SLIDE BASICALLY PROVIDES THAT INFORMATION.

SO AS IT RELATES TO THE MAGISTRATE PROCESS THE CITY WILL DESIGNATE A HEARING OFFICER.

THE VENDOR INDICATED THAT APPROXIMATELY 1% OF CASES USUALLY, YOU KNOW, REQUESTED HEARINGS.

AS IT RELATES TO HEARING THE ERROR HANDLING ERROR RATES, THE VENDOR INDICATED THE ERROR RATES REPORTED ARE MINIMAL.

AND ALSO THE VENDOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION IF ISSUES OCCURRED FOR FDOT COORDINATION.

THE VENDOR ALSO INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE A DEDICATED PROJECT TEAM THAT WORKS VERY CLOSELY WITH FDOT, AND FOR THE EDUCATIONAL PERIOD, THE VENDOR WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY AND BSO FOR EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.

REGARDING THE FISCAL IMPACT, I JUST AGAIN WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE THE THE CITATION IS $100 PER VIOLATION. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE BREAKDOWN OF OF THAT 100.

BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE FISCAL IMPACT, THE VENDOR WILL TAKE CARE OF THE INSTALLATION AND EQUIPMENT.

SO THE FISCAL IMPACT, I WOULD SAY WOULD BE A COST NEUTRAL TO THE CITY.

AND FINALLY, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AGAIN AS IT RELATES TO ORDINANCE CREATING.

ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 14-89, WHICH IS THE AUTHORIZATION AND USE OF SCHOOL ZONE SCHOOL ZONE SPEED DETECTION SYSTEM.

SHOULD THERE BE CONSENSUS TODAY? THE AGREEMENT WITH READ SPEED, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED VENDOR THE CONTRACT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED TO ANTICIPATED FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONCURRENT WITH THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'LL HAVE QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.

THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE A COMMENT? I'VE GOT THREE, SO I'VE GOT KATE JOHNSON, RONALD J. WASSERMAN AND MARK GOGGIN AND PATTY LYNN.

SAME RULES APPLY AS ALWAYS. THANK YOU, KATE JOHNSON.

MAINTENANCE FOR. I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I READ THE BACKUP MATERIAL AND I SAW THAT THERE WERE 4120 VIOLATIONS OVER TWO DAYS, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

I MEAN, OUR SCHOOL ZONES SHOULD BE SACROSANCT.

THEY SHOULD BE THE ONE SPEED LIMIT SIGN. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW ANY OTHERS, YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THAT ONE BECAUSE LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

[02:40:02]

BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT NOBODY'S GOING TO GET A TICKET UNLESS THEY ARE AT LEAST 11 MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. OKAY, 26 MILES AN HOUR.

SO I JUST LOOKED IT UP. THE TOTAL TOTAL STOPPING DISTANCE.

IF YOU'RE GOING 15 MILES AN HOUR, IS STILL 44FT.

SO IF YOU SEE A CHILD IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU'VE BASICALLY GOT 44FT BEFORE YOU HIT THEM.

WITH THE YOU NEED 44FT, RIGHT? IF YOU ARE GOING 25 MILES AN HOUR, YOU NEED 85FT TO STOP BEFORE YOU HIT THAT CHILD.

AND WE KNOW THAT NOBODY'S GOING TO LOOK 85FT DOWN THE ROAD.

IF YOU'RE SPEEDING THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE AND A CHILD RUNS OUT.

YOU DON'T HAVE 85FT. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE SAYING LET'S ENFORCE THE LAW.

IT'S 15 MILES AN HOUR IN A SCHOOL ZONE BECAUSE KIDS ARE IMPORTANT.

BUT LET'S GIVE THEM AN EXTRA TEN MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING.

THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. AS I SAID, OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR MOST PRECIOUS COMMODITY.

WE MUST PROTECT THEM IN ANY WAY WE CAN. AND IF WE'RE DOUBLING THE STOPPING DISTANCE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM OFF.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES I'LL ENTER A SPEED ZONE AND I'LL GO, OH, SPEED ZONE, AND I'LL CUT MY SPEED DOWN QUICKLY, AS QUICKLY AS I CAN. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH THE SPEED ZONE AT A MINIMUM OF 25 MILES AN HOUR.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE MORE REGULATED AND STRICTER IN WHAT WE ALLOW TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD, RONALD WASSERMAN, RONALD J. WASSERMAN.

SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT. PART OF WHAT WE DO. ANYBODY WHO GOES OUT TRAVELING FROM TAMARAC DESERVES A GOLD MEDAL WHEN THEY HIT THESE DIFFERENT SCHOOLS.

I MEAN, IT'S AMAZING HOW MANY SCHOOLS ARE REALLY OUT THERE.

SO HERE'S WHAT I WANT AND HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAPPEN.

KEEP ON ENFORCING THESE SPEEDS. KEEP ON ENFORCING THEM.

WHETHER THEY GO OVER 15 MILES AN HOUR, TEN MILES AN HOUR, 11.

ALL OF YOU IN THIS ROOM KNOW THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH SPEEDING SCHOOL ZONES, ETC..

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME ON THIS. YOU KNOW, MOST PEOPLE KNOW WHERE I LIVE.

THERE ARE SO MANY SCHOOLS AND EVERYBODY SPEEDING.

CAPTAIN HERE HAS BEEN WORKING THE AREA, SO TO SPEAK.

AND MAN, THEY FOUND SOMEONE SPEEDING WHO WAS DOING 80 MILES AN HOUR ON SOUTH GATE, 80 CAP NOSE. SO WHEN IT COMES AGAIN, I'M SORRY TO JUST KEEP ON BELABORING THE POINT.

BE SAFE. SO MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE NOT. MANY OF YOU.

SPEED, AND ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT GO DOWN UNIVERSITY BY CHALLENGER.

YOU'RE GOING DOWN THERE SOMETIMES 70, 80, 90 MILES AN HOUR CUTTING IN AND OUT.

SO AGAIN ABOUT THE SCHOOLS, PLEASE. THIS IS A PERSONAL OUT TO PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THEIR CARS.

PLEASE SLOW DOWN. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU, I'M GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TIN CANS ON YOUR CARS.

THAT THAT MUFFLER REALLY SOUNDS GOOD GOING DOWN THE STREET.

SO AGAIN, CAPTAIN BANKS, KEEP ON HITTING THESE SPEEDERS.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. ONE OF. AND I'LL END IT.

NOW, MANY OF YOU DON'T KNOW ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS.

HER HUSBAND SERVED IN WORLD WAR TWO. SHE WAS SIDESWIPED BY SOMEBODY GOING ONLY 70 MILES AN HOUR

[02:45:01]

COMING INTO MY COMMUNITY. SHAME ON YOU. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.

THANK YOU. I HOPE SHE'S OKAY. SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR FIVE MONTHS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M MARK DOUGAN TAMARAC. IT'S A GOOD PROPOSAL.

IT'S GOT TO BE WATCHED, TAKEN CARE OF. BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE GOOD CLARIFICATION OF HAVING A LIVE PERSON THERE DURING THOSE TIMES.

THE ONE THING WITH MIAMI-DADE, THEY STOPPED IT FOR A WHILE BECAUSE OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS AND ISSUES, A BIG ISSUE. WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE MONEY TO THE TICKET CLINIC AND OTHER ATTORNEYS BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIG THINGS.

HOW IS YOUR CAMERA ONE GOING TO PROVE WHO IS DRIVING THE CAR? IT COULD BE YOUR CAR, BUT YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING AT THAT TIME.

THERE'S TWO CARS. I KNOW THE SPEED LIMITS ARE GOING BAD IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

IF I'M GOING, THE 15 AND OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE PASSING.

I ALWAYS BLOW MY HORN AT THEM. BUT WHEN THE CAMERA TAKES A PICTURE, IF IT GRABS BOTH CARS, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHICH CAR WAS SPEEDING? SO THIS HAS TO REALLY BE WORKED OUT.

THAT'S WHY A LIVE PERSON IN THE SCHOOL ZONES A LOT BETTER THAN THE CAMERAS.

THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THEN AFTER CALHOUN, WE HAVE CAROL MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU, PATTY LYNN. I AGREE WITH KATE. IF YOU'RE GOING 20 MILES THE MINUTE YOU CROSS 20 MILES AN HOUR, YOU SHOULD BE CITED 26 MILES AN HOUR IN A 15 MILE AN HOUR ZONE IS WAY TOO MUCH.

WAY TOO MUCH. I THINK TAMARAC NEEDS TO GET WITH WHOEVER'S PUTTING UP THE SCHOOL ZONE SIGNS AT PINE ISLAND ROAD, ESPECIALLY ONCE THE SCHOOL ZONE STARTS.

ONCE THEY GET TO THE RED LIGHT, THEY FORGET AND THEY GO ACROSS AND THEY'RE STILL IN THE SCHOOL ZONE, BUT THEY'RE SPEEDING. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS, WELL, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO REMEMBER IF THEY DON'T REMEMBER AND THE KIDS THERE, IT'S NOT YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEBODY.

WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO ON BOTH SIDES OF PINE ISLAND ROAD, ON THE WEST SIDE, GOING WEST AND ON THE EAST SIDE COMING EAST.

NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER FLASHING SIGN TO REMIND PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THESE KIDS.

AND AND I AGREE, A LIVE PERSON ON A MOTORCYCLE GET THEM ALL.

WE DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE TO DO THAT. WE JUST DON'T.

AND THE SIGNS WILL WORK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

CAROL MENDELSOHN, WOODMONT DISTRICT FOUR. I COMMEND THE INITIATIVE FOR DOING THIS.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AS A FORMER RETIRED ADMINISTRATOR WORKING WITHIN THE SCHOOLS AND HAVING SEEN POTENTIAL CASUALTIES, I THINK THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO RECONSIDER THE MILEAGE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND REDUCE IT.

I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION.

TEN MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. COMMISSIONER VICE MAYOR BOLTON, ARE YOU WISHING TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS ON THIS CLARIFICATION. I WAS JUST ASKING WHAT THE MILEAGE IS, BUT YOU KNOW, THE MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT.

AND I JUST SO WANTED CLARIFICATION THAT IT'S NOT MILEAGE IN SOMEBODY'S CAR, BUT IT'S THE MILEAGE, BUT IT'S THE SPEED LIMIT POSTED, RIGHT? I MEAN, TEN, TEN MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT.

THOSE WITH THOSE WITH A PHD SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT.

CITY MANAGER I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO CAPTAIN FRANKS, PLEASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CAPTAIN FRANKS. TAMARAC DISTRICT CHIEF.

[02:50:01]

THANK YOU, CAPTAIN FRANKS. WHEN YOUR OFFICERS ARE OUT THERE ON THE SPEED LIMIT FOR SCHOOL ZONES, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM ELASTICITY THAT YOU GIVE BEFORE GIVING A TICKET.

IT'S UP TO THE. IT'S UP TO THE DEPUTY. IT'S THE DISCRETION.

FLORIDA STATE STATUTE BASICALLY GIVES US A NORMAL CITATION.

THERE'S LIKE A FIVE MILE AN HOUR BREAK FOR. YOU CAN GET YOU'LL GET A WARNING PRIOR TO OVER FIVE.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SCHOOL ZONES, IF YOU'RE DOING ONE MILE PER HOUR OVER BY FLORIDA STATE STATUTE AND A SCHOOL ZONE, WE CAN ISSUE CITATIONS. AND WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME WHAT OUR OFFICERS DO OR DEPUTIES DO.

THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT DISCRETION. EVERY DEPUTY HAS THEIR OWN DISCRETION OF HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO ISSUE A CITATION.

AND WHEN THEY DO THE SCHOOL ZONES WELL, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MORE OF OUR MOTORCYCLE AND TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE.

I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET FOR THAT, BUT WILL YOUR DEPUTIES STILL BE OUT THERE DURING SCHOOL TIME TO ENFORCE TRAFFIC? WE WILL ENFORCE EVERYTHING BUT SPEEDING BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, THE SPEEDING CARS, UNLESS THEY'RE DRIVING IN A RECKLESS MANNER BECAUSE IT BECOMES DOUBLE JEOPARDY WITH THE WITH THE CAMERA IS ISSUING A CITATION.

AND THEN IF WE ISSUE A CITATION, IT'S IT'S DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THAT, THAT PERSON BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY ISSUING AND ENFORCING THE SPEEDING AT THAT POINT.

BUT IF THEY ARE DRIVING RECKLESSLY, WE WILL STOP THEM.

WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE CAN ISSUE. IF WE SEE SOMEBODY THERE OPERATING, LET'S SAY AT 15, 20 OVER, WE CAN STILL STOP THEM AND LOOK AT THEM FOR EITHER A RECKLESS TYPE OF VIOLATION OR OTHER VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE.

BUT IT'S THE SAME AS WITH THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS.

WE WE COULDN'T WRITE A RED LIGHT TICKET IF THEY WERE ALREADY BEING ISSUED A TICKET THROUGH THE CAMERA, BECAUSE IT DOES BECOME A DOUBLE JEOPARDY SITUATION.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, AT THE SAME TOKEN, IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICER OUT THERE WHO SEES THAT THEY'RE GOING FIVE MILES OVER THE 15 MILE AN HOUR, THEY'RE NOT GETTING A TICKET BECAUSE THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED AT THIS TIME TO GO ANYTHING UNDER TEN MILES AN HOUR.

TEN MILES AN HOUR. SO WHAT? DOUBLE JEOPARDY ACTUALLY REALLY ATTACH.

IF HE'S GOING, SAY, SEVEN MILES PER HOUR OR FIVE MILES, WHICHEVER.

IF THEY HAVE THE DISCRETION, THEY'RE OPERATING IN A MANNER THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH A LOT OF CHILDREN AND EVERYTHING. YES, THEY CAN STOP FOR THAT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO THE TEN MILE PER HOUR LIMIT THAT THE CAMERA WOULD BE, OR THE 11 PLUS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I MEAN, THE DEPUTY COULD STILL GIVE A RED LIGHT AT THAT POINT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER TEN.

BUT IF THE DEPUTY THEN SEES THEY'RE GOING OVER TEN, THE RED LIGHT CAMERA KICKS IN AND THEN THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT SO THERE'S STILL THAT HUMAN NEED. UNLESS WE ARE ABLE TO LOWER THE.

YES. AND ALSO THE ONE THING IS, LET'S SAY, AND THIS IS THE ONE THING WITH THE RED SPEED CAMERAS, THE WAY THEY'RE SET UP IS PRIOR TO THE FLASHING LIGHT.

SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS CAPTURING YOU AS YOU GO PAST THE FLASHING LIGHT ITSELF.

SO THE THE VIDEO WILL CAPTURE THE FLASHING LIGHT AS WELL AS THE VEHICLE.

SO THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOW ENTERING.

SO LET'S JUST FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HIT THE RED LIGHT AT COMING EASTBOUND OR WESTBOUND ON COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD, AND THEY'VE ALREADY PASSED WHERE THE RED SPEED CAMERA IS.

NOW THEY'VE STOPPED AT THE RED LIGHT, AND THEY'RE NOW HARD ACCELERATING TO GO PAST THAT. IF WE DO SEE THEM, THAT YES, WE CAN STOP THEM AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE RED SPEED CAMERA WE KNOW WOULD NOT HAVE CAPTURED THEM FROM THE LIGHT FORWARD.

IT'S THE RED SPEED CAMERAS ARE SET UP PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL FLASHING LIGHTS.

OKAY, SO THERE WAS A CONCERN MENTIONED ABOUT WHAT IF THERE'S ACTUALLY A PERSON DRIVING PROPERLY AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH AND THEN HAVE SOMEBODY SPEEDING? WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WILL HELP KNOW WHO'S ACTUALLY DOING THE SPEEDING SO THE RIGHT PERSON GETS A TICKET.

THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE RED SPEED CAMERA SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH WHICH VEHICLE IS GOING FASTER OFF OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY USE.

AND THAT'S ALSO THE JOB OF THE FOR US, WE WOULD BE HAVING A TRAINED PERSON AT BROWARD SHERIFF'S TO REVIEW EVERY CITATION.

WE GET A COPY OF THE VIDEO AS WELL AS THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

THEY VIEW THE VIDEO AND THE VIDEO WOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW WHICH VEHICLE WAS DOING THE SPEEDING ON IT.

BECAUSE IF THE PERSON IS DOING 15MPH AND A PERSON IS DOING 26, IT'S CLEARLY OBVIOUS WHICH VEHICLE IN THE VIDEO IS DOING THE 26.

SO IT IS NOT JUST A PHOTOGRAPH, IT'S ACTUALLY A PHOTOGRAPH PLUS A VIDEO, WHICH IS THEN ALSO THAT ONCE WE SEND IT TO READ SPEED, READ SPEED WOULD THEN SEND IT TO THE VIOLATOR AND THEY'LL BE AFFORDED A COPY OF THE VIDEO ONLINE THROUGH THE THE VIOLATION ITSELF.

SO THERE'S SOME PROTECTIONS IN PLACE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.

ABSOLUTELY, MAYOR. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE. A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR TANYA, PLEASE, MISS STIRLING WHERE DID WE COME UP WITH MORE THAN TEN MILES AN HOUR BEFORE THE POSTED SCHOOL ZONE? THIS IS BY STATE LAW.

AND I REACHED OUT TO THE VENDOR TO ASK WHY, AND HE EXPLAINED THAT STATE LAW WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT VIOLATIONS WERE EGREGIOUS,

[02:55:02]

THAT IT HAD TO BE REALLY SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES A CITATION POSSIBLE.

SO IT'S JUST BY LAW BECAUSE THE GOAL IS TO HAVE PEOPLE SLOW DOWN, NOT TO.

OKAY. RIGHT. I'VE SHARED THIS BEFORE. I'M GONNA JUST SHARE IT AGAIN.

I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH WITH THIS, THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE BETTER SIGNAGE, ESPECIALLY GOING THROUGH ANY SCHOOL ZONE THAT HAS AN INTERSECTION AND YOU HAVE A LIGHT.

I KNOW GOING NORTH ON PINE ISLAND FROM COMMERCIAL, IF YOU'RE AT 57TH, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A FLASHING LIGHT BEHIND YOU.

YOU CAN ONLY TELL WHEN YOU SEE THE CARS CRAWLING AS THEY COME UP.

BUT IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND YOU DON'T, THERE'S NO SIGN.

AT LEAST I HADN'T SEEN IT. WHERE THERE IS NO SIGN ON PINE ISLAND THAT SAYS WHERE THE SCHOOL ZONE ENDS, SIGNAGE NEEDS TO BE BETTER. WE CAN'T TELL PEOPLE WE'RE GOING TO POSSIBLY GIVE THEM A TICKET WHEN WE CAN'T EVEN HAVE SIGNAGE THERE, AND SIGNAGE WHERE THE TREES NEED TO BE TRIMMED AROUND IT.

SO THERE'S NO MISTAKE THAT THERE'S A CAMERA WARNING AND THAT THERE'S A SCHOOL ZONE ALSO COMING EAST ON COMMERCIAL FROM WHERE THE DISCOVERY ONE WOULD BE IS NOT OURS.

SO BUT STILL PEOPLE THERE SHOULD BE BETTER SIGNAGE ON COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD GOING EAST.

SO I KNOW THAT SUNRISE IS ISSUE. AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, HAVE A FEW WORDS WITH SUNRISE, I KNOW I WILL.

BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, WE NEED BETTER SIGNAGE. I WOULD ALSO, I BROUGHT THIS UP AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD ANY CHANCE TO GET THROUGH TO FDOT.

I THINK PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION WHERE ON UNIVERSITY TAMARAC ELEMENTARY AND RENAISSANCE CHARTER ARE NOT CONSIDERED SCHOOL ZONES. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SPEEDING OVER THERE. AND WE CAN'T REALLY DO MUCH, BUT WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE SPEEDING. HOW ARE WE COMING ALONG WITH TRYING TO GET THAT INTO A SCHOOL ZONE? WE'RE STILL IN THE BEGINNING PROCESS. NO.

NOT YET. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT I DID SPEAK WITH THE CITY OF SUNRISE, AND THEY'RE MAKING SURE THAT IN THEIR SCHOOL ZONES, BECAUSE OF ENFORCEMENT.

WE HAVE FLASHING LIGHTS. THEY HAVE FLASHING LIGHTS IN ALL THEIR SCHOOL ZONES.

I REACHED OUT TO THE VENDOR. HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR SCHOOL ZONES WITH THESE THESE ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS WILL ALSO HAVE THESE FLASHING SCHOOL LIGHTS.

SO THAT WILL COME UP WITH OUR BUSINESS RULE WHEN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY WHERE REPLACEMENTS FOR THE CAMERAS AND YOU KNOW, WHERE THE FLASHING LIGHTS WOULD NEED TO GO. SO WE ARE WORKING ON THAT.

I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I REALLY NOT SURE IF WE DO IT NOW OR IF WE HAVE TO DO IT NEXT READING, BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO, IF WE'RE APPROVING THIS, TO INCLUDE UNIVERSITY DRIVE FOR WHEN AND IF THE SCHOOL ZONES ARE APPROVED, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH FDOT AND GET ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF DONE FOR TAMARAC ELEMENTARY AND FOR RENAISSANCE CHARTER.

SO DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS HERE, OR DO WE. IN REGARDS TO THE LOCATION AGAIN.

THE THE STATE LAW IS FLEXIBLE AND IN REGARDS TO LOCATIONS, IT GIVES THE CITY THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, ADD LOCATIONS, REMOVE LOCATIONS. SO AT ANY TIME, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HAVE THAT CONTRACT GOING, WE CAN ALWAYS ADD OR REMOVE LOCATIONS BASED ON THE DATA.

OKAY. SO SINCE THIS IS ENABLING LANGUAGE FOR US TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN HERE RIGHT NOW.

NO, WE CAN DO IT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACT, IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTRACT FOR PUTTING THEM ON ALERT THAT WHEN AND IF WE GET THIS RIGHT, THIS IS GOING TO BE A ZONE, RIGHT. AND SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED, THE FOR SECOND READING, THE VENDOR WILL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. COMMISSIONER DANIEL THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU. REGARDING THE PERIOD, THE 30 DAY PERIOD FOR TRAINING THE PUBLIC.

CAN WE INCREASE THAT? CAN WE DOUBLE THAT, PLEASE? BECAUSE I THINK 30 DAYS IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IT CAN BE.

YEAH. EVEN. YEAH. EVEN TO THREE MONTHS. BECAUSE TRUST ME, THEY STILL WON'T KNOW.

SO IF WE COULD BE VERY PROACTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO THE TRAINING, SO AT LEAST OUR RESIDENTS WILL BE AWARE OF THE CHANGES AND NOT GET CAUGHT IN THE TRANSITION IF THIS DOES PASS. ANOTHER QUESTION.

THANK YOU FOR OUR CAPTAIN. THE OFFICER ESPECIALLY ON COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THEY LIVE THERE.

WILL THE OFFICERS STILL BE OUT? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT YEAH, NOTHING CHANGED AS FAR AS YOUR DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A CLARIFICATION. COMMISSIONER DANIEL, WOULD YOU WANT I KNOW, 30, 60 OR 90. HONESTLY, I WOULDN'T MIND 90, BUT I'LL SETTLE FOR 60.

BUT WITHIN THE 90 WE'RE ACTUALLY TRAINING. LIKE WE'RE NOT JUST WAITING 90 DAYS, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSTANTLY BOMBARDING THEM WITH INFORMATION THAT THIS IS COMING IF IT IS APPROVED. OKAY. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THE VENDOR HAD MENTIONED THAT THE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION WOULD TAKE ABOUT 90 TO 120 DAYS.

[03:00:08]

SO THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, EDUCATION WILL NEED TO START RIGHT AWAY.

ONCE THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WILL SOMEHOW STILL GET THE 90 DAYS OF TRAINING, BUT ONCE THE CONTRACT, THE CITY STAFF WILL START WORKING IMMEDIATELY ON EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.

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

MAY I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TRAINING? IS THAT 60 OR 90 DAYS? THAT WAS I THINK. DO WE NEED A CONSENSUS HERE ON IT? BECAUSE I, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, NOT NECESSARILY CONSENSUS, BUT I NEED IT FOR THE MINUTES. I JUST WANT TO BE I THINK THE DESIRE IS 90.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 90, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE ANYWHERE FROM 90 TO 120 DAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE PROGRAM.

SO 90 DAYS, 90 DAYS, JUST IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED FOR IN HERE.

BUT 90. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR BOLTON.

YES. MAYOR GOMEZ. YES. COMMISSIONER. RIGHT. NO.

COMMISSIONER. DANIEL. YES. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

YES. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 4 TO 1. THANK YOU.

[8.a TO2609 - An Ordinance of the city commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10 of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code by amending Article 3, "Use Regulations," by amending Section 10-3.2, entitled "Table of Allowed Uses" Section (H) entitled "Table 10-3.1 : Allowed Uses" to add " Recovery Residences" as a use type within the residential, group living category ; and creating Section 10-3.6, entitled "Requests for Accommodation," to provide for a reasonable accommodation process consistent with Section 397.487(15)(a), Florida Statutes; amending Article 6 entitled rules of construction and definitions, Section 10-6.2 entitled "Use Categories and Use Types" defined to provide for a definition of recovery residences; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. ]

MOVING ON TO ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING. 8AT02609.

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD ORDINANCE EIGHT EIGHT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

CITY OF TAMARAC AMENDING CHAPTER TEN OF CITY OF TAMARAC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ARTICLE THREE USE REGULATION BY AMENDING SECTION TEN DASH 3.2 ENTITLED TABLE OF ALLOWED USES.

SECTION EIGHT ENTITLED TABLE. TEN 3.1 ALLOW US TO ADD RECOVERY RESIDENCES.

USE TYPE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL GROUP LIVING CATEGORY AND CREATING SECTION TEN.

3.6 ENTITLED REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION TO PROVIDE FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR PROCESS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION THREE.

97.487 FLORIDA STATUTES AMENDING ARTICLE SIX ENTITLED RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITION SECTION TEN 6.2 ENTITLED USE CATEGORY AND USE TYPE DEFINED TO PROVIDE FOR A DEFINITION OF RECOVERY RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL TAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE MOVE IT. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. KENT MELIA, OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, WILL BE DELIVERING A PRESENTATION AND HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE ORDINANCE SINCE FIRST READING AND BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I PROVIDED AN UPDATED PRESENTATION BASED ON THE FEEDBACK I GOT FROM THE FIRST MEETING.

SO I'LL GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES AS WELL, TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE.