Dec 03, 2025 City Commission Meeting

I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS REGULAR -- EXCUSE ME, EVERYBODY.

[1. Call to Order ]

[00:00:13]

INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY A >> ROLL CALL.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY SALMONE. >> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER ISROW. >> HERE.

>> MAYOR WALKER. >> HERE.

[4. Approval of Minutes ]

>> VICE MAYOR BRIER. >> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. >> HERE.

>> APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. >> MOTION APPROVE.

>> SECONDED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BRIER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. ALL IN

FAVOR. >> AYE.

>> OKAY. IF I CAN GET EVERYBODY TO JUST -- THANK YOU. PLEASE

[5. Comments from the Public on Non-Agenda Items ]

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

>> FOR RIGHT NOW I HAVE JIM NELSON.

>> GO AHEAD AND SPEAK? >> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS JIM NELSON, 114 WEST 69TH PLACE, PARKLAND ISLES. NEVER SPOKE HERE. I'M NEW TO

TOWN, COUPLE YEARS. >> WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU. >> BEFORE I SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY, I'M LOOKING FOR -- I WANT TO THANK THE OFFICERS HERE TODAY FOR THEIR SERVICE AND THEIR DEDICATION.

>> ABOUT 10 DAYS AGO I WAS STARTING TO THINK ABOUT AND BEGINNING TO PACK FOR THANKSGIVING, AND I LOOKED OUT THE DINING ROOM WINDOW, AND YOU I SAW A CRUISER COME UP OUTSIDE MY HOUSE. I'M IN A GATED COMMUNITY. WITH THE LIGHTS ON, QUIETLY. AND HE HAD ONE OF THESE FLOODS HE WAS USING, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE. OH, SOMETHING'S GOING ON. SO I OPENED THE GARAGE AND WALKED OUT THE GARAGE. I LOGGED, IT WAS ABOUT FIVE OR SIX OFFICERS THERE. AND THEN I LOOKED UP THE STREET, AND THERE WAS LIKE TWO MORE CARS THAT BLOCKED OFF THE END OF THE STREET AND SEVERAL OTHER CARS THAT HAD GONE AROUND AND BLOCKED OFF AND WERE CHECKING OFF THE DIFFERENT EXITS AND ENTRANCES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT TURNS OUT OUR STREET WAS SWATTED OR SWATTING, AS IT'S CALLED. FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW, THAT'S A FAKE 911 CALL. IT'S INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS TO THE POLICE, NOT TO MENTION THE HOMEOWNER WHO MIGHT THINK THAT THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND NOT AWAKE THAT SOMEONE'S TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, ASSAULT OR ROB THEM OR SOMETHING. AND I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, SOONER OR LATER, SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET KILLED, BUT THAT ALREADY HAPPENED BECAUSE IN DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH TONIGHT, THERE WAS AN OFFICER THAT RESPONDED TO A FAKE 911 CALL IN BROWARD, I THINK FORT LAUDERDALE, AND HE WAS KILLED SPEEDING TO THE SCENE, TRYING TO GET THERE. I THEN LEARNED THERE WERE 15,000 SWATTINGS LAST YEAR IN FLORIDA ALONE. AND I WAS CHATTING WITH A NUMBER OF THE OFFICERS, AND THEY GET THIS ALL THE TIME. THIS IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE AND A WASTE OF RESOURCES AND TIME 99% OF THEM ARE FAKE BUT MAKES THEM NO LESS DANGEROUS BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE YOU'RE GOING TO IS NOT. HUGE NUMBERS OF THEM ARE THE SCHOOLS NOW. SO IN CHATTING WITH THE OFFICERS, I SAID, LOOK, I RETIRED FROM A CAREER IN TECHNOLOGY AND HIGH-LEVEL STUFF. I'LL VOLUNTEER AND HELP TRACK THOSE GUYS DOWN. BECAUSE IT'S A REALLY SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES. I SAID, IT'S ALL RIGHT. I'LL VOLUNTEER. I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, GET THE SOFTWARE, THE SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE YOU NEED TO DO THIS, AND YOU HAD TO BE POLICE TO GET IT. AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SOFTWARE. I SAID, WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. I'LL VOLUNTEER, AND I'LL APPLY TO GET THE GRANTS. AND I DISCOVERED HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM IT IS, AND IT'S EVERYWHERE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU TO WRAP UP.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THE TOWN COUNCIL CONSIDER A PROPOSAL OR A APPROPRIATION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT SWATTING BECAUSE I NOW KNOW THERE'S HUNDREDS OF THEM IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND

THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JIM.

[00:05:11]

>> KAREN BEAUTIFULLY. >> KAREN.

>> HI, CARE BUSEY, 6550 WEST 84TH AVENUE. I'M JUST HERE FOR A FORMAL REQUEST BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THANKSGIVING. I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OR DESTRUCTION, WHICHEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BESIDE THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER.

AND WE SPENT ALL DAY ON TUESDAY PRESSURE WASHING, CLEANING, EVERYTHING FOR THE HOLIDAY. AND BY THURSDAY WHEN IT RAINED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THE DUST AND ALL, EVERYTHING WAS BLACK. SO I'M KIND OF MAKING A FORMAL REQUEST THAT I HAVE TO LIVE ACROSS FROM THIS EVERYDAY, AND IT'S REALLY ANNOYING THAT NO CONSTRUCTION BE DONE ON THE 23RD AND 24TH OF DECEMBER.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS? ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING THERE'S NON, WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN.

>> THANKS, MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO WISH EVERYBODY A HAPPY THANKSGIVING. I HOPE YOU ALL HAD SOME GREAT TIME WITH YOUR FAMILY, AS I DID. IT WAS A REALLY WONDERFUL TIME. I'M THANKFUL FOR A LOT THIS YEAR. I'M THANKFUL THAT YOU'RE ALL HERE. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN A COMMISSIONER NOW FOR A YEAR, AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST ENGAGED INTERESTED CROWD I'VE SEEN LOOKING OUT FROM THE DAIS, AND I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT. IT BRINGS ME TO MY POINT WHICH IS FAIRLY IRONIC. IN THIS VERY WELL ATTENDED MEETING WITH AN ENGAGED POPULOUS WHICH IS WHAT WE ALL WANT, I SEE -- I ALWAYS GET EMAILS, I GET 0 LOT OF TEXTS, I GET A LOT OF PHONE CALLS FROM RESIDENTS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS THAT THEY WANT ASSESSED, AND THEY WANT ME TO HELP THEM GET TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO ADDRESS THEIR ISSUES.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ALL DO THIS FOR. WE DO THIS TO HELP SERVE THE COMMUNITY. IT BRINGS UP THE CONCEPT OF HOME RULE. THE MORE DECISIONS THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE FOR ITS PEOPLE AND THE MORE MONEY THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN EARMARK FOR ITS PEOPLE AND DECIDE HOW TO HANDLE, THE BETTER FOR THE RESIDENTS, VERSUS HIGHER LEVELS OF COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL.

SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE HERE I KNOW ARE VERY VOCAL ABOUT ABOLISHING PROPERTY TAXES. AND I JUST WANT TO DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THIS KIND OF ENGAGEMENT IS REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE LOCAL HOME RULE AND DECIDE WHAT WE'RE DOING AND FOR YOU TO HAVE A VOICE. IT SOUNDS PRETTY ATTRACTIVE TO ABOLISH PROPERTY TAXES. I KNOW. I WOULD LOVE TO NOT PAY THAT BILL EVERY YEAR. BUT NOT KNOWING WHAT REPLACES THESE FUNDS, THEN WE'RE SIMPLY IGNORING SOME CRITICAL INFORMATION ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO FACE SUCH A HUGE DECISION. THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THERE'S LOTS OF TALK ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH BUT NO TALK ABOUT WHAT REPLACES IT. AND TO ME, THAT'S THE CRITICAL QUESTION. LET'S IMAGINE THAT THE STATE ADOPTS IN ACROSS THE BOARD SALES TAX, RIGHT, WHICH REPLACES LOST PROPERTY TAXES SIGNIFICANTLY. THAT MONEY STARTS OFF GOING TO THE STATE. NOW, THE STATE WILL DISH THAT MONEY OUT TO THE VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES AND CITIES TO DO THINGS WITH. BUT THE CITY OF PARKLAND, WE GET ABOUT 10 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS FROM PROPERTY TAX AS WE DO FROM SALES TAX RIGHT NOW. OKAY. WELL, THEN LET'S COME UP WITH SOME IMAGINARY SCENARIO WHERE THE STATE INCREASES THE SALES TAX, AND NOW THE CITIES CAN GET A BIGGER CHUNK OF THAT.

WELL, THE PROBLEM NOW IS THIS DISAPPEARS, THE ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE LOCAL POPULATION AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING THESE DECISIONS NO LONGER EXISTS BECAUSE THAT MONEY IS CONTROLLED FROM THE STATE LEVEL. SO IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, WELL, YOU BETTER GET ON A PLANE TO TALLAHASSEE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE SOME OF THESE THINGS.

WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A DECISION LIKE THIS, IT'S A VERY HARD DECISION TO MAKE. AND I THINK AS THESE PROPOSALS -- AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM THAT ARE GOING THROUGH OUR LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW AND POSSIBLY ONTO A BALLOT REFERENDUM WHICH IS GOING TO GO TO A POPULATION VOTE, RIGHT, PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS, EXACTLY WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND EXACTLY HOW IT MAY AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE YOUR SAY, JUST LIKE YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY THAT YOU CAN GUARANTEE YOU HAVE A SAY IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY THAT YOU LIVE IN.

THAT'S ALL I GOT, MAYOR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. COMMISSIONER ISROW.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. APOLOGIZE I CAN'T BE HERE IN PERSON. I'M HERE IN NEW ORLEANS ATTENDING A COMBAT ANTISEMITISM SUMMIT.

IT'S ACTUALLY VERY REAFFIRMING, I SHOULD SAY, IS THAT THERE'S OVER 150 MUNICIPAL LEADERS HERE FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY, SOME EVEN FROM CANADA, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT COMMENTING ON ANTISEMITISM, BUT HATE AS WELL. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT --

[00:10:02]

YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER MURPHY SALOMONE. >> THANKS, MAYOR. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN FOR THOSE WORDS. I THINK IT IS A VERY APPROPRIATE STATEMENT SEEING THIS GREAT GEANGMENT, THIS GREAT GROUP. I'VE GONE TO COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR A VERY LONG TIME BEFORE I RAN FOR THIS COMMISSIONER'S SEAT. AND MOST TIMES IT WAS EMPTY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PROCLAMATION. SO THIS IS JUST AWESOME TO SEE. AND WE KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE THINGS TO SAY, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WELCOME. BUT WE ALL ARE PART OF A VERY UNITED SPECIAL BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT, BUT DEFINITELY THE WHOLE IDEA OF HOME RULE, EVERYTHING YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN, I THINK WELL SAID, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH. I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING. IF YOU DON'T CELEBRATE THAT, JUST SPENT TIME WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A BUSY HOLIDAY SEASON ALREADY, LOTS OF EVENTS, LOTS OF WORK STILL GOING ON, LOTS OF GIVING WHICH I DO WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT FOR ONE MINUTE IS GIVING TUESDAY WAS YESTERDAY. SO IF YOU DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING -- AND I ALWAYS SAY IT'S NOT MONEY NECESSARILY, IT'S TIME, IT'S SKILLS, AND ALL OF THAT MAKES SUCH A DIFFERENCE. AND HEATHER KHALIL WHO ACTUALLY LIVES IN MY COMMUNITY AND IS DEFINITELY JUST VERY VALUED IN OUR COMMUNITY DOES A TON OF CHARITY, PHILANTHROPIC AND THINGS FOR THIS COMMUNITY AND BEYOND. I WANT TO THANK HER BECAUSE I HAVE ATTENDED A COUPLE OF EVENTS, AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS FOR GIVING THROUGH HEATHER. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS, YOU KNOW, THE INTERFAITH CEREMONY THAT WAS HELD AT COLD CHICKFA JUST RECENTLY WAS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE COMMUNITY, THE UNITY THAT WE HAVE. YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE FAITHS COMING TOGETHER, RABBIS, PRIESTS, ET CETERA, AND REALLY TALKING AND SHARING, AND NOT NECESSARILY AGREEING ON EVERYTHING, BUT AT THE END HUGGING AND SINGING, AND IT WAS REALLY MEANINGFUL. SO I WOULD LIKE TO WISH EVERYONE A HAPPY, HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON AND, YES, A HAPPY NEW YEAR AS WELL. LOOKING FORWARD TO AN AWESOME 2026. AND THANK YOU, MAYOR. THAT'S WHAT I

GOT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. VICE

MAYOR. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I KNOW WE'VE GOT A FULL AGENDA AND A PACKED HOUSE. I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE RESIDENTS TIME AS THEY'RE ALL HERE, AND WE % WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM. I THINK WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE, WE HAVE A FIRST FIRST LADY PARKLAND DOTTY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE. IS DOTTY HERE? TO ADMIRE THE MAYOR AND HIS BLACK COWBOY HAT AND RED CORVETTE DRIVING DOWN HOMEBERG ROAD AND HAVING GROWN UP HERE SINCE THE '80S, THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE -- TWO OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA ARE VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS TO MAKE. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FIRST CAME TO PARKLAND, IT WAS THE RANCHES, PINE TREE ESTATES, A FLEDGLING DEVELOPMENT CALLED CYPRESS HEAD AND NOT MUCH ELSE IN PARKLAND. WE HAVE LONGTIME FRIENDS AND CLASSMATES THAT STILL LIVE IN THE AREA. AND SO WE HAVE SOME -- YOU KNOW, LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU ALL AND HAVING A DISCUSSION ON THE DAIS HERE AS WE'VE GOT SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES TONIGHT. SO I'LL FOREGO THE REST OF MY FORMAL COMMENTS. AVOID LIKE TO SAY HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO EVERYONE.

I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO A RECOGNITION OF DEPUTY CHIEF -- FIRE CHIEF MIKE MOSER WHO I CANNOT SAY ENOUGH GLOWING THINGS ABOUT, WAS HONORED TO ATTEND HIS RETIREMENT AT THE FIRE STATION.

WE'RE GOING TO LOSE MIKE AS A FIRE CHIEF IN THE CITY OF

[00:15:01]

SO WITH THAT, MAYOR, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I TOO WANT TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS FOR BEING HERE. HOW ABOUT NOW? IS THAT BETTER? OOH. USUALLY I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF. IT'S A LITTLE BIT LOUDER THAN I'M USED TO. BUT, ANYWAY, I'M GLAD TO SEE EVERYBODY HERE. THIS IS GREAT. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE LATER. I JUST HAVE TWO THINGS. I DON'T TYPICALLY TALK ABOUT EVENTS, BUT NOBODY BROUGHT UP THE LIGHT UP THE NIGHT AT THE ZIMMERMAN FRACMAN BUILDING FROM 6:00 TO 9:00. LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT, AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO EVERYONE. I HOPE YOU HAD A GREAT THANKSGIVING, A HAPPY NEW YEAR, AND LASTLY, YOU KNOW, WITH THE HOLIDAY SPIRIT, ONE OF THE THINGS MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN DOING FOR SEVERAL YEARS IS WE DRESS UP AS MR. AND MRS. CLAUS FOR SOS FOR THEIR LIGHT UP THE VILLAGE. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. THIS YEAR WE ACTUALLY HAVE A COCONUT CREEK TRUCK WE'LL BE RIDING ON. THAT'S A FIRST FOR ME. I HAVEN'T BEEN ON A

[6. Proclamations and Recognitions ]

>> CAN WE GET EVERYONE WHO'S HERE FOR THE BOOK CONTEST WINNERS, CAN YOU GUYS COME DOWN HERE?

>> THIS IS ALL ABOUT YOU GUYS. COME AROUND, YES.

>> OKAY. SO SINCE 2004, THE PARKLAND LIBRARY HAS QUCTED AN ANNUAL BOOKMARK CONTEST. THE PARKLAND LIBRARY ENCOURAGES SCHOOL CHILDREN THROUGHOUT PARKLAND TO SUBMIT ENTRIES WITH AN INTEREST TO GROW INTEREST IN THE LIBRARY, HEIGHTEN THE RESOURCES THE LIBRARY HAS TO HONOR AND STIMULATE THE PARKLAND YOUTH. WINNERS OF THIS CONTEST HAVE BEEN SELECTED BASED ON ORIGINALITY AND CREATIVITY AND AWARENESS OF THE PARKLAND LIBRARY. OVER THE YEARS HUNDREDS OF PARKLAND CHILDREN HAVE PARTICIPATED. THIS YEAR'S WINNERS CONTINUE THE TRADITION OF BRINGING HIGH-QUALITY, ENTERTAINING AND USEFUL LIBRARY RESOURCES TO OUR RESIDENTS. AND THE WINNERS ARE -- DO I READ

THAT TOO? >> SURE.

>> ADDISON CRUISEO WHO IS IN KINDERGARTEN.

>> AND CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? YEAH. WE'VE GOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU, RECOGNIZE YOU. ELLE CHANG, FIRST GRADE.

>> LACKSHEETSA -- DID I COMPLETELY MESS IT UP? I'M SORRY. WILL YOU SAY IT? THAT'S BEAUTIFUL. SORRY.

>> PROVIDENCE DAIGLE, THIRD GRADE.

>> RILEY EDRAIN.

STOUT, FOURTH GRADE.

>> AUDREY HUSSEIN, FIFTH GRADE.

>> AVA CHANG, FIFTH GRADE. MAYBE WE HAVE SISTERS. CHRISTYANNA MILLER, SEVENTH GRADE. ARUSHI NONAVATI, EIGHTH GRADE. SORRY.

APPLAUSE ] >> CHEVONCHI, PATTALK, EIGHTH GRADE.

[00:20:50]

RUN FOR BEAGLE? >> THE RUN FOR BEAGLE THIS YEAR, RECIPIENTS OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE PARKLAND DASH, THIS YEAR'S PARKLAND DASH WAS ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL EVENT IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY CAME TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE NOT ONLY SOUGHT TO HOLD A HEALTHY OUTDOOR FITNESS EVENT BUT ALSO TO RAISE MONEY FOR A VERY WORTHY CAUSE. PROCEEDS FROM THE PARKLAND DASH ARE BEING FOR BEAGLE, CELEBRATING SCOTT BEAGLE, A TEACHER, CROSS COUNTRY COACH AND SUMMER CAMP COUNSEL. IT SUPPORTS THE SCOTT J. BEAGLE MEMORIAL FUND TO SERVE AT-RISK, UNDERSERVED KIDS TOUCHED BY GUN VIOLENCE TO A SUMMER SLEEPAWAY CAMP. THANK YOU TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PARKLAND DASH AND THE SPONSORS OF THIS EVENT. WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO RECOGNIZE THIS CAUSE AND PRESENT PROCEEDS FROM THE CITY OF THE PARKLAND DASH TO RUN FOR BEAGLE.

>> AND THEN WHO IS HERE FROM THE BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOLS? I SEE MS. KEVIN, MR. BEAVERAGEY. ANYBODY ELSE? THERE HE IS, MR.

GEE. THERE YOU GO. >> A PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE PARKLAND DASH ARE ALWAYS PRESENTED TO THE BROWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS LOCATED WITHIN PARKLAND. WE AFFIRMLY BELIEVE IN INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE, AND THERE IS NO MORE PURE WAY OF DOING SO THAN CONTRIBUTING FINANCIALLY TO THE SUCCESS OF THE SCHOOLS THAT EDUCATE AND CARE FOR OUR CHILDREN. THE PRINCIPLES MAKE IT EASY TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FUNDING AS THEY CONTINUE TO ENSURE OUR SCHOOLS ARE STRONG. DESPITE THE MANY CHALLENGES THEY FACE, YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT. WE ARE PROUD OF OUR PRINCIPALS, PROUD OF OUR TEACHERS AND SCHOOL STAFF AND PROUD OF PARKLAND'S CHILDREN WHO CONTINUE TO EXCEL UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP. WE REGULARLY RECOGNIZE OUR STUDENTS FOR THEIR ACADEMIC AND ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENTS AT OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS, AND WE KNOW IT STEMS DONE BY THE GREAT WORK OF COACHES, TEACHERS, EMPLOYERS AND PRINCIPALS. AS TOKEN OF OUR APPRECIATION, PLEASE ACCEPT THESE PROCEEDS FROM THE 2025 PARKLAND DASH.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PARKLAND 17 MEMORIAL FOUNDATION. THERE'S ALICE, I SEE ALICE, AND THERE'S TONY.

>> AND THERE'S MIKE MOSEER. >> THANK YOU.

[00:25:12]

>> EVERY FALL THE CITY OF PARKLAND SELLS PUMPKINS AT A STANDALONE PUMPKIN PATCH AT THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER. AS PEOPLE DROVE PAST AND DECIDED TO STOP AND BUY A PUMPKIN FOR CARVING, THEY MAY HAVE NOT REALIZED THEY WERE SUPPORTING A GREAT CAUSE.

THE PARKLAND 17 MEMORIAL FOUNDATION IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT IS PLANNING AN UNFORGETTABLE AND MAJESTIC PUBLIC MEMORIAL TO HONOR THE 17 LIVES THAT WERE TAKEN TOO SOON.

THE MEMORIAL WILL BE LOCATED IN A QUIET SERENE, 150-ACRE PRESERVE THAT BORDERS CORAL SPRINGS AND PARKLAND TO UNITE THE TWO AFFECTED COMMUNITIES. TONIGHT, WITH GREAT THANKS FOR ALL THOSE WHO BOUGHT PUMPKINS AT THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER, WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT AND RECOGNIZE THIS CAUSE AND PRESENT PROCEEDS FROM THE 2025 CITY OF PARKLAND PUMPKIN PATCH TO THE PARKLAND 17 MEMORIAL FOUNDATION. THANK YOU TO THE PARKLAND 17 MEMORIAL FOUNDATION FOR LEADING THIS JOURNEY OF LOVE AND HOPE FOR OUR CITY AND OUR COMMUNITY.

>> AND CHIEF MOSEER, IF YOU'LL COME BACK UP.

>> CORAL SPRINGS PARKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT, FIRE CHIEF MIKE MOSEER HAS A LONGSTANDING, VAST AND REWARDING CAREER IN PUBLIC SAFETY. AND WHEN WE SAY LONG LASTING, THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN.

MIKE BEGAN HAS CAREER AS A FIRE EXPLORER AT THE AGE OF 14. HE WENT ON TO BECOME A POLICE AND FIRE DISPATCHER FOR THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, A PUBLIC SAFETY AIDE WITH FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT, A FIRE RESCUE DISPATCHER WITH BSO BEFORE JOINING CORAL SPRINGS AS A VOLUNTEER IN 2000. AFTER BEING HIRED FULL TIME IN 2021, MIKE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS OTHER COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. IN 2005, HE WAS PROMOTED TO DRIVER ENGINEER, IN 2009 TO LIEUTENANT, AND IN 2010 TO CAPTAIN. HE SERVED AS A STEP-UP BATTALION CHIEF BEFORE BEING PROMOTED TO DIVISION CHIEF IN 2014 AND WAS APPOINTED DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF IN 2020. MIKE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A MEMBER OF FEMA USAR, FLORIDA TASK FORCE 2 AND WAS DEPLOYED TO GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI, AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA AND HAITI IN 2010 AFTER THE AREA WAS DEVASTATED BY A 7.1-MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE.

COMMUNICATIONS IS MIKE'S FORTE AND SPECIALTY. AS A PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, HE WAS DEPLOYED ALL OVER THE COUNTRY TO HELP VICTIMS OF HURRICANES IKE, CHARLEY, KATRINA AND MICHAEL.

MICHAEL IS WITTY AND ACCOMPLISHED, YET HUMBLE. SO YOU MAY NOT KNOW HE WAS AWARDED THE FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE HEROISM AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD IN 2002, THAT HE WAS BROWARD COUNTY EMT OF THE YEAR IN 2003 AND STATE OF FLORIDA PIO OF THE YEAR IN 2008.

HE HAS ALSO RECEIVED MULTIPLE UNIT AND TEAM ACCOLADES FOR SPECIALTY RESCUE CALLS IN HIS CAPACITY. DEPUTY CHIEF MIKE MOSER , WE CHECKED IN WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES, AND WHILE THEY WILL MISS YOU, YOUR CALM-IN-THE STORM PRESENCE, YOUR STEADFAST LEADERSHIP AND YOUR DAILY FRIENDSHIP, THEY SHARED THAT THEY KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED AND THEN SOME IN YOUR NEXT ROLE. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND T OF LUCK IN YOUR NEXT CHAPTER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR 25 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

[00:30:25]

WHILE WE'RE SAD TO SEE YOU GO, WE'RE ALSO INCREDIBLY PROUD YOU'VE TAKEN THIS NEXT STEP IN YOUR CAREER WITH THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD. WE KNOW YOUR COMMUTE IS ABOUT TO GET A LOT LONGER, AND WE MIGHT EVEN JOKE IT SHOWS% JUST HOW FAR YOU'RE WILLING TO GO FOR A CHALLENGE. BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT HOLLYWOOD IS GAINING AN EXCEPTIONAL DEPUTY CHIEF, AND THEY'RE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE, YOUR PARTNERSHIP AND YOUR UNWAVERING DEDICATION TO OUR COMMUNITY. YOU WILL BE ALWAYS PART OF OUR PARKLAND FAMILY, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU CARRY A PIECE OF PARKLAND WITH YOU AS YOU EMBARK ON YOUR NEXT CHAPTER. WE LOVE YOU.

] >> MARCELA HAS BEEN SO GENEROUS TO PUT TOGETHER THIS GIFT FOR YOU. IT'S ALL OF YOUR FAVORITE CANDIES. SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE THIS WITH THE FAMILY.

APPLAUSE ] >> APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[7. Approval of the Agenda]

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BRIER AND A SECOND BY

[8. Consent Agenda ]

>> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED? PLEASE SHOW A PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING THAT THERE'S NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN AND A SECOND BY MURPHY-SALOMONE. ROLL

CALL. >> COMMISSIONER ISROW.

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN.

[9.Regular Agenda ]

>> YES. >> COMM

>> YES. >> VICE MAYOR BRIER?

>> YES. >> PLEASE SHOW PASSAGE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. RESOLUTION 2025-096, REPLACE OF THE HVAC CONDENSER WATER PLANT AT PREC. A COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CONDENSER

[00:35:03]

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. CHRISTINE GARCIA, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL SERVICES AND PROJECTS. THIS IS JUST AN ITEM TO REPLACE OUR CHILLER UNIT OVER PART OF OUR A/C AT THE P-REG, IT IS BUDGETED AND PART OF OUR REPLACEMENT PLAN AND IT'S REACHED ITS LIFE EXPECTANCY AND TIME FOR REPLACEMENT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >>

>> ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING THAT THERE'S NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR BRIER AND A SECOND BY MURPHY-SALOMONE. ROLL CALL.

>> COMM >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. >> YES.

>> VICE MAYOR BRIER. >> YES. MAYOR WALKER.

>> YES. PLEASE SHOW A PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY.

>> ITEM 9B IS RESOLUTION 2025-098, PURCHASE OF MOBILE GENERATOR. A RESOLUTION THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE PIGGYBACK OF THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION SHERIFF'S COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM UNDER SFA-EQU21.1 FOR THE EQUIPMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF A MOBILE GENERATOR TO TRADE WINDS POWER CORP IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $147,000.266, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> CHRISTINE GARCIA, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL SERVICES AND PROJECT. ANOTHER ITEM PART OF OUR REPLACEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN PART OF THE APPROVED BUDGET. IT'S OUR MOBILE GENERATOR.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS MOBILE GENERATOR IN CASE WE NEED IT AT OUR FIRE STATIONS OR ANY OF OUR OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE WE MAY NEED GENERATOR SERVICES, IN ADDITION TO THE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AGAIN, IT'S A REPLACEMENT THAT IS ALREADY BUDGETED AND PART OF THE

REPLACEMENT PLAN. >> ANY QUESTIONS? MOTION?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEINGTHAT THERE'S NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN AND A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR BRIER. ROLL CALL.

>> COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. >> YES.

>> COMM >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER ISROW. >> YES.

>> VICE MAYOR BRIER. >> YES. MAYOR WALKER.

>> YES. PLEASE SHOW A PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY.

>> ITEMS 9C, D AND E WILL BE PRESENTED TOGETHER. I'LL READ EACH ONE OF THOSE TITLES INTO THE RECORD. WE WILL NEED SEPARATE VOTES ON EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS. I KNOW A PLAN IS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON EACH ONE OF THE ITEMS AS WELL. BEAR WITH ME.

ITEM 9C IS RESOLUTION 2025-094, PINE TREE ESTATES ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND FLORIDA RELATING TO THE PINE TREE ESTATES ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKLAND, PROVIDING AUTHORITY, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION, CREATING THE PINE TREE ESTATES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT AREA, CONFIRMING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION, APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLE, IMPOSING ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE ROADWAY AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENTS, PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDS, PROVIDING FOR EFFECT, PROVIDING FOR INITIAL PREPAYMENTS, PROVIDING FOR RECORD OF AN ASSESSMENT NOTICE, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 9D IS RESOLUTION 2025-093, RANCHES ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE CONSTRUTION AND FUNDING OF THE RANCHES ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKLAND, PROVIDING AUTHORITY, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION, CREATING THE RANCHES AND ROADWAY ASSESSMENT AREA, CONFIRMING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION, APPROVING ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROVIDING TO ARE A COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENTS, PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDS, PROVIDING FOR EFFECT, PROVIDING FOR INITIAL PREPAYMENTS, PROVIDING FOR RECORDING OF AN ASSESSMENT NOTICE, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND THE LAST ITEM IS 9E, RESOLUTION 25-095, PROPOSED ROAD ASSESSMENTS. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PARKLAND, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING TO USE THE METHOD OF COLLECTING NONADD VALOREM LEVIED WITHIN THE INCORPORATED PART OF THE CITY, PROVIDE FOR THE MAILING OF THIS RESOLUTION AND

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. KELLY.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, KELLY SCHWARTZ, FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO FOR YOU ON THE DAIS, TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION IS GOING TO COVER A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY. AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE ASSESSMENTS QUITE A BIT OVER THE LAST YEAR. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS MAY BE THE FIRST TIME THAT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE HEARING IT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO COVER ALL OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS AGAIN. LET ME GET MY SLIDES UP. SO JUST A

[00:40:11]

[00:45:01]

THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT HAD THE PROCESS THAT WAS FULL DEPTH ROADWAY RECLAMATION. THAT'S THE FDR PROCESS THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT. MILLING RESURFACING, PAVING AND ASSOCIATED EARTH WORK, CLEARING AND GRUBBING, TREE REMOVAL WHEN NEEDED, AS WELL AS GUARD RAIL, SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKERS.

THAT ROADWAY PROJECT COST $6.56 MILLION. SO HOW ARE WE FUNDING THOSE TWO PROJECTS? AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE CHART, ARPA ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED THE $1.57 MILLION TO COVER THAT COST OF THE DRAINAGE. THE GENERAL FUND IS FUNDING $2 MILLION, AND THE RESIDENTS ROADS, THE PIECE THAT'S BEING INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT DISCUSSED THIS EVENING, THE $4.56 MILLION IS BEING INCLUDED AS THE ASSESSMENT. SO THAT SHOWS THE BREAKDOWN OF ARPA AT 19%, THE GENERAL FUND AT 25% AND THE RESIDENTS AT 56%. NOW WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT THOSE ASSESSMENTS AND THE RESIDENTS COVERING THEIR SHARE, HOW ARE THOSE PAYMENTS GOING TO BE MADE? THERE'S TWO OPTIONS. THE FIRST IS FOR AN INITIAL PREPAYMENT, THAT'S A ONE-TIME PREPAYMENT OPTION OF $5,743 PER BUILDABLE LOT, AND THOSE PAYMENTS WOULD BE DUE BY FEBRUARY 25TH OF 2026. THE OTHER IS IF THE RESIDENTS CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THAT INITIAL PREPAYMENT, THEN THEY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WHICH WILL BE NO GREATER THAN $603 PER BUILDABLE LOT, AND THOSE WILL BE INCLUDED ON THE TAX BILLS THAT ARE MAILED EACH NOVEMBER BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER OF 2026 FOR 20 YEARS. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I DID RECEIVE THE MOST WITH PINE TREE ESTATES RESIDENTS WHEN THEY CONTACTED IS WHETHER THIS WAS AN AND OR AN OR. THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION THAT MAYBE THEY HAD TO PAY THE $PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE $600 A YEAR. JUST TO CLARIFY AND EMPHASIZE TONIGHT, IT'S EITHER OR. IF YOU MAKE THAT UP FRONT INITIAL $PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE PAYMENT, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE ASSESSMENT ON YOUR TAX BILL ANNUALLY. NOW LET'S MOVE INTO THE RANCHES. AND JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE RANCHES, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT PROPERTIES IN THE RANCHES HAVE BEEN ASSESSED. IN 1984 WITH RESOLUTION 84-25, THERE WAS APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PAVING OF ROADS IN THE RANCHES AREA. AND IN 1994, RESOLUTION 94-33 AND 94-40 ACTUALLY APPROVED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RANCH'S DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. SO THERE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HISTORICAL ASSESSMENTS ON THESE SAME TYPE OF PROJECTS. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TWO PROJECTS THAT OCCURRED IN THE RANCHES. THE FIRST THE DRAINAGE PROJECT WHERE WE ARE REHABBING CANAL SYSTEM, REHABBING THE CULLVERTS, CLEARING THE OVERGROWTH, RESTORING THE CANAL SLOPES AND ACTUALLY REPLACING THE ENTIRE PUMP SYSTEM. THAT OVERALL PROJECT IS ABOUT $8.9 MILLION AND THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INCLUDES THE MILLING, THE REWORKING OF THE EXISTING BASE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROADWAY, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, THE GUARD RAIL, SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKERS. AND THAT PROJECT IS ABOUT $4.9 MILLION.

SO THERE WERE TWO PROJECTS IN THE RANCHES. THE TOTAL FOR THE TWO PROJECTS IS ABOUT $13.9 MILLION. AND LIKE PINE TREE, WE'RE SHOWING A BREAKOUT OF THE FUNDING OF THESE PROJECTS, AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE DO NOT INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR ANY OVERAGES OR CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE CHANGE -- FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT. SO AS YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROJECT, THERE'S THINGS THAT CAN COME UP. AS WE PRESENT THIS THIS EVENING, IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS THAT DO COME UP THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT, THE CITY WILL BE COVERING THOSE FUNDS. SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S BEING SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, THE CITY WOULD BE COVERING THOSE

[00:50:05]

AND SO WE ARE BEING ASSESSED FOR OUR APPORTIONED SHARE OF THE ROADS PROJECT WHICH EQUALS APPROXIMATELY $450,000. SO THE CITY IS -- IN ORDER TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE, WE ARE COVERING OUR PORTION FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT WE OWN IN THE RANCHES AND, IN FACT, THE CITY OWNS THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WITHIN THE RANCHES. AND IS THEREFORE COVERING THAT AMOUNT.

SO THE COST FOR THESE IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS. THE INITIAL PREPAYMENT, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT THE RANCHES IS BEING ASSESSED BY ASSIGNED ACRE. SO IT'S $10,115 PER ASSIGNED ACRE, AND THE ONE-TIME PREPAYMENT OPTION WOULD BE DUE FEBRUARY 25TH OR IF THE PREPAYMENT OPTION IS NOT EXERCISED, THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT IS NO MORE THAN $1,028 PER ASSIGNED ACRE. AND, AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD START WITH THE NOVEMBER 26TH TAX BILL FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

SOMETHING TO NOTE AS MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING THAT STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE IS ACTUALLY AN ASSESSABLE BENEFIT. AND HAD THE CITY CHOSEN TO ASSESS FOR BOTH PROJECTS, THE INITIAL PREPAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY $29 PER ASSIGNED ACRE AND ANNUALLY APPROXIMATELY $2,900 PER ASSIGNED ACRE, SO ALMOST TRIPLE WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED THIS EVENING. WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THOSE ARPA FUNDS AND THAT A PROJECT LIKE THIS WAS AN ELIGIBLE OPTION. SO WHEN THE CITY WAS CONSIDERING ITS OPTIONS WITH THE TREASURY AND REVIEWING THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN, AND THESE WERE TWO -- ACTUALLY BOTH WERE PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THAT, IT WAS WONDERFUL TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE FUNDS TOWARDS THESE PROJECTS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS. SO THE THIRD RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS REGARDING THE UNIFORM COLLECTION METHOD. AND IT'S A LOT OF FORMAL LANGUAGE AND TERMS THAT BASICALLY ALLOW US TO COLLECT THESE ASSESSMENTS ANNUALLY ON THE TAX BILL. SO IT'S CONSIDERED A NOTICE OF INTENT AUTHORIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-ADVALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. THAT'S THE FANCY LANGUAGE FOR SAYING IT'S GOING TO ON YOUR TAX BILL IN THE NON-ADVALOREM SECTION. THIS IS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST. AND WE WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT IT TO THE TAX COLLECTOR, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, AS WELL AS THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NO LATER THAN JANUARY 10TH. AND THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WHEN WE COLLECT THOSE IN FUTURE YEARS, THOSE WILL STRICTLY BE USED TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE FOR THE LOAN THAT WILL BE TAKEN OUT ON BEHALF OF THESE PROJECTS. SO THE TIMELINE. WE'VE MOVED IT ALONG IN OUR TIMELINE FROM OUR PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. THE FIRST CLASS NOTICES WE MAILED OVER 950 FIRST-CLASS NOTICES REGARDING TONIGHT'S HEARING, AND THOSE WERE MAILED ON NOVEMBER 7TH. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE FOUR ADVERTISEMENTS THAT HAD TO BE PUBLISHED FOR OUR INTENT TO UTILIZE THE UNIFORM COLLECTION METHOD FOR NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS SO FOR FOUR CONSECUTIVE WEEKS OF NOVEMBER, WE HAD THOSE ADVERTISEMENTS PLACED. TONIGHT, OF COURSE, IS OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION AFTER THIS EVENING IS COMPLETED, THERE WILL BE FIRST-CLASS NOTICES FOR THE INITIAL PREPAYMENT OPTION MAILED TO ALL PROPERTIES. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THOSE OUT AS SOON AS THIS FRIDAY. I WOULD SAY THE LATEST WOULD BE NEXT WEEK. AND, AGAIN, THE INITIAL LETTER THAT WENT OUT WAS TO NOTIFY OF TONIGHT'S HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT ALSO WENT INTO THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY ON THE COST, BOTH THE INITIAL PREPAYMENT AND THE ANNUAL, SO THESE NEXT NOTICES WILL GIVE MORE SPECIFIC EXPLANATION AND DIRECTION IF

[00:55:04]

AFTER WE HAVE THE -- >> EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME.

>> ONCE WE HAVE RECEIVED ALL OF THE INITIAL PREPAYMENTS, AND WE'VE DONE THE ANALYSIS OF WHAT HAS BEEN PREPAID AND WHAT IS STILL PENDING TO BE INCLUDED WITH THOSE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS, WE WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BANK LOAN, AND WE ANTICIPATE BRINGING THAT BEFORE YOU IN THE SPRING OF 2026. AND THEN, OF COURSE, OUR FIRST ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WILL BE INCLUDED ON THE TAX BILL IN NOVEMBER OF 2026. SO I THINK THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. OF COURSE I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. HEATHER IS AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. BUT WITH THAT, I THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KELLY. BEFORE WE GET INTO THE AGENDA ITEMS THEMSELVES, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE

PRESENTATION? >> I HAVE JUST A QUESTION -- WELL, I MEAN, I GUESS THIS IS FOR BOTH PINE TREE AND THE RANCHES. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, KELLY, THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS IF THIS OPTION GOES THROUGH, ONE IS A PREPAYMENT OF A LUMP SUM NOW OR AT SOME TIME BEFORE FEBRUARY, WHATEVER, OR IT GOES ON THEIR TAX ROLL. BUT IS THERE ANY THIRD OPTION, IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THEM AFTER THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS TO PREPAY THE BALANCE OWED WITHOUT INCURRING ANY ADDITIONAL INTEREST OR IS THERE NO WAY TO DO THAT?

>> IN THIS SITUATION, BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING OUT A BANK LOAN POTENTIALLY ON BEHALF OF OVER 900 PROPERTIES, AND THE CITY ACTUALLY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PUT UP WHAT'S CALLED A BUDGET COVENANT. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO KIND OF USE OUR OWN ASSETS TO SECURE THIS KIND OF LOAN BECAUSE THE BANKS VIEW SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS KIND OF AS A RISKY AREA. SO IN ORDER TO DO SO, WE HAVE TO SET CERTAIN PARAMETERS ON THE TYPE OF LOAN THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN. WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL WHERE WE COULD DO -- WE COULD DO AN OPTION AND THE 10TH YEAR, SAY, FOR A CALL OPTION, BUT AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD BE PAYING OFF THE ENTIRETY OF THE BALANCE IF YOU WERE DOING THAT CALL. YOU CAN'T, SAY, PICK AND CHOOSE, AND IN YEAR THREE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EIGHT PEOPLE PAY DOWN, AND IN 12, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE SEVEN MORE PEOPLE PAY DOWN. IT'S JUST TOO COMPLICATED, AND THE LOAN THAT'S BEING OFFERED AND THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THAT CAPACITY. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME LOANS THAT HAVE BEEN STRUCTURED PREVIOUSLY WHERE YOU CAN DO PREPAYMENTS, BUT THAT MEANS PAYING IT OFF IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND SOMETIMES THERE'S EVEN A PENALTY. FOR INSTANCE, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER OUTSTANDING LOAN THAT IF WE WERE TO CHOOSE TO REPAY IT, IT HAS A 1% PENALTY ON TOP OF THE BALANCE THAT'S OWED. SO THE MORE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU REQUEST TO BE PUT INTO THE DEBT, SAY YOU WANT THE CALL OPTION, THE PREPAYMENT OPTIONS, THAT WOULD ALSO IMPACT YOUR INTEREST RATES AND COULD MAKE THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOAN EVEN HIGHER. SO NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PARTICULARLY RECOMMEND. WE COULD EXPLORE EVERYTHING WITH THE BANKS THAT HAVE PROPOSALS FOR US, BUT IN MY DISCUSSIONS, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S VERY FEASIBLE OR IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST SOLUTION BECAUSE IT MAKES THE COST OF THE

DEBT HIGHER. >> AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR AND THE RESIDENTS ARE CLEAR, THESE ARE -- THESE FIGURES THAT YOU'VE HE WENT OVER TONIGHT OR MAXIMUMS, RIGHT? THEY WILL NOT

GO ANY HIGHER? >> THEY WILL NOT BE A PENNY HIGHER. AND THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT BECAUSE WHEN WE CREATED THE NUMBERS, WE HAD TO USE SOME ASSUMPTIONS. WE'RE MONTHS AWAY FROM CLOSING THIS LOAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FED IS GOING TO DO WITH INTEREST RATES NEXT MONTH. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE LOAN SPECIFICALLY ARE GOING TO BE SET UP WITH THE CLOSING COSTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PREPAYMENTS WE'RE GOING TO GET IN. YOU KNOW, THE LARGER THE LOAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT MIGHT BE MORE DESIRABLE. IF MORE PEOPLE PAY, YOU KNOW, THERE MY BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER OF AN INTEREST RATE.

SO BECAUSE OF THOSE UNKNOWNS AT THIS TIME, WE USED A HIGHER ASSUMPTION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE USED AN ASSUMPTION OF A 5.5% INTEREST RATE. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE HAVING A 5.5 INTEREST RATE. WE EXPECT IT TO BE MUCH LOWER. SO THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PRESENTED FOR THE ANNUAL RATES ARE THE MAXIMUM, AND, IN FACT, WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WILL BE LOWER. I JUST DON'T KNOW TO

WHAT EXTENT AT THIS TIME. >> AND YOU MENTIONED IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR BECAUSE I WANT TO UNDERSTAND AND

[01:00:01]

>> SO, CORRECT. THE ROAD PROJECTS DO HAVE SOME CONTINGENCY AVAILABLE. IF IT'S ENOUGH, THEN IT WOULD BE ENOUGH.

IF THERE WAS EXCESSIVE COSTS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CONTINGENCY OR EXCESSIVE COSTS WITH THE DRAINAGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDS AND A CHANGE ORDER, THOSE WOULD ALL BE COVERED BY THE CITY. WE WILL NOT BE GOING AND INCREASING ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THE RESIDENTS.

>> OKAY. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU FOR THOSE

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, KELLY. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS WE'LL TALK ABOUT EACH AGENDA ITEM PRIOR TO US MAKING ANY MOTIONS. ONCE I FEEL WE HAVE A CONSENSUS UP HERE ON THE DAIS, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC, ALLOW THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND THEN ONCE THEY SPEAK, WE'LL GO BACK, AND WE'LL MAKE OUR FINAL DETERMINATIONS AS TO HOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. SO FOR NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH AGENDA ITEM 9C RESOLUTION 2025-094, PINE TREE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION. SO, YOU KNOW, WITH PINE TREE, I THINK, AGAIN, THIS WAS A PROJECT THAT WE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO, BUT I CAN'T GO BACK IN THE PAST. I CAN ONLY GO WITH WHAT I DO IN THE PRESENT, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PASSED ON BY MANY, MANY COMMISSIONS. WE DECIDED THIS WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE HAPPENED, TO MAKE THE RESIDENTS IN PINE TREE, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO THE BEST EXTENT WE COULD. SO, AGAIN, WE ARE CONTRIBUTING AN AMOUNT TO THESE RESIDENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. I THINK SO FAR I'VE HEARD NOTHING BUT GOOD THINGS, HOW THAT ROAD PROJECT IS GOING. I KNOW A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS ARE HAPPY. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY EXCITED THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS PROJECT FINALLY STARTED AND SOON TO BE COMPLETED. AND IF NOBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING AT THIS TIME, I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR THE PINE TREE?

>> YES. FIRST WE HAVE OSCAR VEEATA.

>> THANK YOU, OSCAR. BEFORE YOU START, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GOING TO BE FAIR TO EVERYONE. WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY STRICT WITH THE THREE-MINUTE TIMELINE. WE'RE GOING TO STICK TO THE ASSESSMENT WE HAVE AT HAND. SO PLEASE DO NOT STRAY FROM WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT WHICH IS THE ASSESSMENTS ON THESE PARTICULAR PROJECTS. AND I'LL NEED YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN YOU HAVE

THREE MINUTES >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS OSCAR I HAVE LAR A. I LIVE AT 6209 NORTHWEST 66TH AVENUE. TWO THINGS TO MENTION. ONE IS ABOUT THE LIKES SHE SAID ABOUT THE 10% BECAUSE 10% ALLOWANCE THAT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT. WHAT HAPPENED IF THE 10% IS NOT SPENT? SO WILL THAT BE RECALCULATED AND MONEY BE RETURNED OR HOW WILL THAT MONEY BE MANAGED? SECOND ONE IS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND TO MY OBSERVATIONS, I'M IN THE BUSINESS OF ROADWAYS, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON. I ALSO NOTICE THE -- ONE OF THE ITEMS, TWO OF THE ITEMS SEEM TO BE TABULATION FOR THE COMPANY THAT GOT THE CONTRACT INCLUDES MILLING OF THE EXISTING ASPHALT AND IS NOT HAPPENING. THE TOTAL VALUE OF THOSE TWO ITEMS ABOUT $510,000. SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK FOR SOMEBODY TO SEE IF THAT MONEY IS NOT GOING TO BE SPENT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT MONEY, IF THE ASSESSMENT IS GOING TO BE

RECALCULATED. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO AGAIN, WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY BACK AND FORTH TODAY, BUT AFTER EVERYONE FROM THE PUBLIC MAKES THEIR COMMENTS,

[01:05:02]

ELSE FROM PINE TREE? >> YES. NEIL STUDY.

>> NEIL STUDY, 6439 NORTHWEST 69TH WAY, PARKLAND, PINE TREE ESTATES. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS WHAT I FEEL IS INJUSTICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF 69TH WAY. DUE TO FP&LS RIGHT OF WAY, 69TH WAY ONLY HAS HOUSES ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. I FEEL THAT FP&L'S PRO RATED SHARE IS INEQUITIABLE. FIRST, UNDERSTAND THAT I DO NOT OBJECT TO EITHER THE PAVING PROJECT OR THE ASSESSMENT. I JUST FEEL THAT FP&L MUST PAY MORE THAN THEIR NOW THEY'RE NOW ASSESSED, ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIM THEY ONLY USE THE STREET INFREQUENT, ANY RESIDENT ON MY STREET WILL TELL YOU THEY USE IT MORE. CONTRARY TO THEIR INFREQUENT USAGE OF CLAIM, I'VE LIVED THERE OVER 30 YEARS, AND I HAVE SEEN THE DAMAGE THAT THE USAGE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND TRUCKS AND CRANES CAUSE IMPUNITY. THEIR TRUCKS NEED THE ENTIRE STREET, AND THEY USE IT ALL THE TIME BECAUSE THEY HAVE LEASES ON THE SOUTH END BLOCKING THEIR USUAL WORK ROAD UNDER THE POWER LINES. SO FP&L IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE ROADWAY BY THOSE LEASES, AND THEY DON'T EVEN REQUIRE THEM TO BE GATED, FENCED. ALL THEIR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, NO MATTER HOW LITTLE OR HOW MUCH, COMES DOWN OUR STREET. THOSE STREETS WERE NEVER MADE FOR HEAVY CRANES AND LIFTING HEAVY SPOOLS OF WIRE AND THAT TYPE OF THING. I WAS A RESIDENT WHEN HURRICANE WILMA WENT THROUGH. OUR STREET WAS ABUSED BY THEIR USING IT AS A STAGING ROAD. THEY BLOCKED OUR DRIVEWAYS. NOT ONLY DID THEY BLOCK OUR DRIVEWAYS, THEY TURNED AROUND IN THEM, BREAKING PAIFERS AND ALSO CONCRETE. AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, CONCRETE IS STILL BROKEN. IN '17, I ASKED THEM TO COME OUT AND HELP WITH THE REPAIR COSTS OF A COLLAPSED PIPE FROM THE OLD FARM. THEY DENIED EVEN OWNERSHIP. SO HERE'S WHAT I CONCLUDE. THERE ARE 24 LOTS ON 69TH WAY, AND WE'RE PAYING $5,743 BUCKS PER LOT. IF YOU MULTIPLY THAT OUT IT COMES TO $137,833 FOR THE OWNERS. FP&L IS PAYING $5,743.

THIS IS A BUSINESS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NOT ONLY YOU, THE CITY, BUT US AS THE OWNERS. I THINK THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR

SHARE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

PINE TREE? >> WE DO. LORENA CAR GAWN.

>> IS LORENA HERE? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE?

>> YES, KUNNAL NANAVANTY. >> NO?

>> OKAY. CONNIE LAGALA. CONNIE? >> OKAY.

>> DYLAN RIVERA. >> OKAY.

>> FRANK CASTILLO. >> HI. FRANK CASTILLO FROM 6051

[01:10:07]

MAKE IT VISIBLE? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THAT'S IT? ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON -- YES,

SIR. >> HI. MY NAME IS JIM NELSON. MY ADDRESS HASN'T CHANGED, I HAVEN'T MOVED. I DON'T REALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DETAILS, AND I'M AGO NOSK ABOUT IT. I DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE AREA AFFECTED, BUT I HAD A COUPLE OBSERVATIONS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. WHEN THE GENTLEMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT TRUCKS AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON THE ROAD, HE MIGHT HAVE A POINT. I RECALL READING SOME TIME AGO A D.O.T. STUDY THAT CALCULATED THAT HEAVY TRUCKS' WEAR ON THE ROAD IS EQUIVALENT TO 45 AUTOMOBILES. IT WEARS OUT THE ROADS 45 TIMES MORE QUICKLY, AND YOU ALL MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A COPY OF THAT STUDY. AND IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING HELPFUL TO USE. THE OTHER GENTLEMAN MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT ASSESSMENTS. I COME FROM LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT'S WHERE I MOVED DOWN FROM, AND WE ACTUALLY HAD OUR TAXES GO DOWN, PROPERTY TAXES A COUPLE TIMES BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH -- WE HAD SUCH A HIGH INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES AND THE MILL RATE WAS BASED ON THAT. SO MAYBE THERE IS A PRECEDENT. I DON'T KNOW. THE LAST THOUGHT IS I THOUGHT THE -- YOU HAD A COMMENT THAT I THOUGHT WAS KIND OF PROFOUND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ALL PICKED IT UP. BUT SHE SAID THE BANKS VIEW IT AS RISKIER, THE FINANCES THIS WAY, AND I THOUGHT, WELL, BANKS HAVE A REASON, AND I THINK THE REASON -- AND I DON'T SEE THIS IN THE

[01:15:03]

>> THANK YOU.

YES. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS INAUDIBLE ]. I MOVED TO -- SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO. LAST YEAR WE MOVED TO PINE TREE , AND BASICALLY WHAT I SEE IS WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY MAIN ROADS IN OUR CITY, AND I SEE THE HOMEBERG WHICH IS THE STREET WE HAVE TO TAKE TO GO IN AND OUT OF THE HOUSES, YOU KNOW. TRAFFIC IS CRAZY, AND IT'S A CONCERN BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE NOT -- WE ARE NOT GETTING YOUNGER. WE ARE GETTING OLDER. AND MANY TIMES WE NEED -- WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT, THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO GET OUT FAST. AND TODAY JUST TO COME OVER HERE, I SPENT 15 MINUTES JUST TRYING TO GET OUT OF MY ESTATE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE CITY IS DOING ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE IT'S VERY, VERY -- IT'S REALLY A MAIN CONCERN.

SOMEBODY REALLY NEEDS TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL, WE HAVE TO WAIT MAYBE FOR THE AMBULANCE TO COME, I DON'T THINK THAT' FAIR. SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY SHOULD PUT AS A PRIORITY TO REALLY BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY. IT'S NOT JUST ME, IT'S EVERYBODY. WE NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE PLACES THAT WE NEED TO GO FOR MANY DIFFERENT REASONS. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH

WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> PETE MACKLIN, 6195 NORTH 63RD WAY, PARKLAND. I LIKE THE STREETS. I'VE DRIVEN DOWN SOME OF THEM THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE. THEY LOOK GREAT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING MY DONE. THEY GRADED MY STREET TODAY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HEAD ON DOWN. BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT. I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE LOOKING IT UP BECAUSE I LOOK A LOT OF STUFF UP BECAUSE AS YOU GUYS -- WELL, AS THE COMMISSION KNOWS, I'VE BEEN UP HERE BEFORE, AND I'VE GROWN WEARY OF LOOKING THINGS UP. BUT I REMEMBER -- I THINK I REMEMBER, IT'S NOT DONE BY BUILDABLE LOT. IT'S DONE BY STREET -- FOOTAGE ON THE STREET, THAT'S THE WAY I REMEMBER IT. IT COULD BE ADVAN TAIDGES TO SOME PEOPLE BUT NOT FOR OTHERS. I JUST DON'T AGREE THE WAY IT'S BEING DONE. I DON'T THINK IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO ME.

I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. SO THAT BEING SAID, I

THINK THAT'S IT. THANKS. >> THANKS, PETER.

>> BE BACK LATER. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON PINE TREE? OKAY.

SEEING THAT THERE'S NONE, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT BACK UP FOR THE COMMISSION. I THINK I'VE ALREADY STATED MY CASE. WE'VE -- THIS IS A PROJECT THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN, THE RESIDENTS WERE ASKING FOR IT TO HAPPEN. IT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE FINALLY ACCOMPLISHING. I'M VERY PROUD THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS DONE THAT WHEN OTHER COMMISSIONS

[01:20:04]

>> I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT, MY ONLY ISSUE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I CAME ON THE COMMISSION, AND I KNOW IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THE PRIOR COMMISSION'S FOCUS TOO IS THAT WE STARTED TACKLING SOME VERY TOUGH ISSUES. ONE OF THEM WAS THE PINE TREE ROADS, BOTH FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT, THE DRAINAGE AND THE ROADS. AND THIS WASN'T AN EASY ISSUE TO TACKLE.

AND TO YOUR POINT, THERE'S A REASON WHY THE CAN WAS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD FOR DECADES. THERE WAS A DISPUTE OVER, YOU KNOW, WHO HAD THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS, WHO OWNED THE ROADS, YOU KNOW, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT WAS, ET CETERA, AND THERE HAVE BEEN PATCHES, AND WE WERE STILL HAVING RESIDENTS WITH ISSUES ON THE ROADS. SO THIS WASN'T A FUN PROJECT. THIS WASN'T A PROJECT WHERE AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE SOME OUTCOME THAT HAD SOME PAIN POINTS FOR EVERYONE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS A TOUGH ISSUE THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, HAD BEEN NEGLECTED FOR FAR TOO LONG, SOME BY PRIOR COMMISSIONS, AND THE RESIDENTS WERE SCREAMING, IF YOU WILL, FOR US TO TACKLE THIS ISSUE. AND SO I AM SO EMPATHETIC TO THE RESIDENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS, THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THE ROADS DONE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WERE -- WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THIS VERY EARLY, I HEARD FROM RESIDENTS SAYING, YOU KNOW, AMBULANCES ARE GOING TO -- TO THE RESIDENT TO JUST SPOKE, AMBULANCES ARE GOING TO TAKE LONGER TO COME DOWN THESE STREETS BECAUSE WE HAVE POTHOLES AND BUMPS AND CAN'T GET DOWN.

CARS ARE GETTING DAMAGED. YOU KNOW, SO THESE WERE ISSUES THAT THERE WAS A COMPONENT TO IT THAT WAS AS MUCH ABOUT AESTHETICS AND PLEASANT SMOOTH ROADS AS IT WAS ABOUT SAFETY AND PROPERTY VALUES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE -- YOU KNOW, WITH BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS, WITH BOTH OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, REALLY, WE'RE INVESTING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS WELL OVERDUE, ADMITTEDLY FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THEY ARE NOT EASY DECISIONS. THEY'RE NOT DECISIONS THAT WE TAKE LIGHTLY. THEY'RE NOT DECISIONS THAT ARE FUN IN THE SENSE OF IT'S NOT -- YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT HOLDING A FARMERS MARKET OR SOMETHING FOR THE RESIDENS, BUT THEY ARE ISSUES THAT WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, AND WE WERE TACKLING VERY TOUGH ISSUES, THIS IS ONE OF THEM. AND I'M GLAD THE RESIDENTS ARE GETTING THE ROADS PAVED, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE SOLVING SOME OF THE SAFETY AND HEALTH CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO PEOPLE GETTING UP AND DOWN THOSE STREETS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO WERE PART OF THE SOLUTION, WHO WERE PART OF THE TEAM TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO TRY TO FIND AN ANSWER. AND AT THE TIME WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT, T COULD HAVE BEEN UPWARDS OF $18 TO $20 MILLION, THOSE WERE Select to skip to this part of the video">T COULD HAVE BEEN UPWARDS OF $18 TO $20 MILLION, THOSE WERE THE ASSESSMENTS -- THE NUMBERS WE WERE GETTING FOR THE ROADWAY PROJECT. AND THANK GOD, THANK GOODNESS WE WERE ABLE TO FIND THIS FDR PROCESS WHICH WAS A FRACTION OF THE COST BECAUSE IT REALLY WOUND UP BEING A BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS IN SAVING THAT MONEY. WITH THAT, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> I DO WANT TO ADDRESS TWO QUESTIONS. ONE OF WHICH, AND, KELLY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ON THE CONTINGENCY. MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CONTINGENCY, IF YOU MAKE THE UP-FRONT PAYMENT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROJECTS WILL STILL BE GOING ON. THERE'S NO WAY FOR THOSE CONTINGENCIES TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENTS. IF YOU TAKE THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT, THOSE CONTINGENCIES WOULD THEN GO BACK TO THOSE WHO TAKE THE ANNUAL

ASSESSMENTS, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> YOU'RE 100% ACCURATE. THE LANGUAGE WITH THE INITIAL PREPAYMENT IS THAT YOU'RE PREPAYING IT UP FRONT, YOU'RE SAVING ALL THE COSTS OF THE ISSUANCE AND THE INTEREST AND ALL OF THOSE EXTRA COSTS. BUT IT'S THE ONE-TIME OPTION. HOWEVER, IF THERE IS CONTINGENCY -- THERE IS CONTINGENCY IN THE PROJECT, AND IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE, THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS PAYING DOWN THAT DEBT, SO IT WOULD JUST LOWER A FUTURE ASSESSMENT EVEN MORE.

>> OKAY. >> IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A HUGE IMPACT, BUT, YES, IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY GO BACK TOWARDS THIS PROJECT, THIS DEBT AND THESE RESIDENTS.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND THEN 69TH WAY, FPL, THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, ON THE PARTICULAR ROADWAY. SO SHOULD FPL DAMAGE THE ROADWAY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WILL

TAKE CARE OF. >> AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING

WE WOULD CONTACT FPL ABOUT TOO. >> OF COURSE.

>> GET RESOLVED. I APPRECIATE THAT BEING NOTED TO US. IT'S ON OUR RADAR NOW, AND WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSIONS. AND IF IT HAPPENS, I INVITE THEM TO NOTIFY US SO WE CAN RESOLVE THAT.

>> AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT COMMENT. YOU KNOW, IF -- YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S WASTE MANAGEMENT, WHETHER IT'S FPL, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER IT MAY BE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO GET THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE DIFFERENT CONTACTS THAN RESIDENTS HAVE, SO WE MAY HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY

[01:25:07]

>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. >> THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION -- I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR KELLY OR SOMETHING, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT MILLING BEING PART OF THE

PROJECT. >> WELL, THAT'S ONE I THINK -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT ONE HERE TONIGHT, SO IF YOU WANT TO SEND US AN EMAIL. THAT ONE IS A LITTLE MORE DETAILED TO TRY TO GET IN. SO, OSCAR, IF YOU WANT TO SEND US AN EMAIL, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT ENGINEERING GETS BACK TO YOU REGARDING THOSE QUESTIONS

ON THE MILLING. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KELLY.

JUST GOING FOR THE NUMBERS FOR THE PINE TREE ASSESSMENT, THE ONE-TIME BEING $5,700 ROUGHLY. 608 FOR 20 YEARS IS A LITTLE OVER $12,000, SPREAD IT OVER -- WHAT DID I SAY? 20 YEARS, SORRY.

$12,000. IS IT POSSIBLE TO GIVE US A BEST CASE SCENARIO WHERE IT SAYS IF WE DON'T USE ANY OF THE CONTINGENCY, THAT NUMBER WILL GO DOWN TO A NUMBER SO THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED CHOICE ON WHICH ROUTE WE WISH TO GO BY FEBRUARY 25TH? NOT NOW, BUT MAYBE SOMETIME IN EARLY FEBRUARY?

>> AND I DON'T HAVE THAT CONTINGENCY NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME., UNFORTUNATELY, THIS EVENING. AND THERE WAS PROJECT CONTINGENCY AND AN ASSESSMENT CONTINGENCY. SO I COULD GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU IN THE FUTURE. I KNOW THIS IS YOUR

NEIGHBORHOOD. >> RIGHT.

>> SO YOU HAVING THIS INFORMATION WOULD DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING TO HAVE. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE IT

TODAY. >> NOT TONIGHT, BUT JUST BEFORE WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHICH ROUTE WE'RE GOING TO GO, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THAT SO WE CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED

DECISION. >> SURE. I WILL GET THAT

CALCULATION FOR YOU. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR, IF I COULD CHIME IN.

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> IF YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME.

>> YES. >> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO ALSO JUST CHIME IN, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE END OF A YEARS-LONG KIND OF PROCESS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO KIND OF TAKE AWAY FROM ALL THE ACHIEVEMENT AND THE SUCCESS THAT EVERYONE HAS ALREADY NOTED. BUT I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENT ABOUT THE LACK OF CONTINGENCY FOR LEGAL FEES. AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT KIND OF FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY AS A LAWYER AND A LITIGATOR IS I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD PLAN FOR LITIGATION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK A CITY SHOULD PLAN THAT ITS RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO SUE THEM, RIGHT? I THINK THAT ASSUMPTION IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT YOUR CITY TO BE THINKING BECAUSE THAT CREATES AN ADVERSARIAL KIND OF DYNAMIC, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND THE RESIDENTS, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT AS A COMMISSION. I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. OUR GOAL IS TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE RESIDENTS AND COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS THAT ALLOW US ALL TO MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY NOT BE PERFECT EVER, BUT IT'S ONE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS AND RESPECTS, BOTH KIND OF THE JUSTIFICATION AND THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT. AND I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT LITIGATION DOES BECOME A PROSPECT OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT'S A WAY TO EFFECTUATE CHANGE OR GET WHAT THEY WANT, I JUST REMIND EVERYONE THAT LITIGATION COSTS MONEY, AND THAT MONEY IS PAID FOR BY TAX DOLLARS. SO IT'S KIND OF A VICIOUS CYCLE THAT I'D RATHER PEOPLE SPEND THEIR TIME AND MONEY ON POSITIVE SOLUTIONS, RATHER THAN ON FIGHTING IT BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU AS A LAWYER, MOST OF THE TIME IT'S THE LAWYERS WHO END UP WINNING AND NOT THE PARTIES. SO I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME LEGAL ACTION RECENTLY, WHETHER IT'S -- YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE SUBJECT MAY BE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST -- YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE THAT DIALOGUE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO EVER HAVE TO BE IN A POSITION, WHETHER AS A RESIDENT OR AS A COMMISSIONER WHERE IT FEELS LIKE THE ONLY WAY THAT OUR CITY AND OUR RESIDENTS CAN FIND, YOU KNOW, SOLUTIONS GOING FORWARD IS THROUGH LEGAL ACTION. I JUST THINK THAT SHOULD ALWAYSO BE A LAST RESORT. AND OBVIOUSLY PINE TREE, AS ALREADY WAS STATED EARLIER, WAS A UNIQUE LEGAL ISSUE. THIS WASN'T DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MALICIOUS INTENT. I THINK THERE WAS A GENUINE BELIEF ON BOTH SIDES OF THEIR -- YOU KNOW, THEIR POSITION. AND THAT'S WHEN REALLY, YOU KNOW, LEGAL INTERVENTION MAY BE NECESSARY. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I AT LEAST COMING FROM KIND OF A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING I THINK A CITY PLANS FOR AS A CONTINGENCY FEE, YOU KNOW, PLANNING FOR INCREASED COST OF MATERIALS AND INCREASED COST OF LABOR, SURE. BUT I THINK ONCE WE START HAVING THAT DIALOGUE, I THINK WE'VE MOVED IN A DIRECTION WHERE WE'RE NO LONGER KIND OF ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HOPEFULLY ADDRESSED THAT AND TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT WE WILL ALWAYS BE OPEN FOR DIALOGUE. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYONE EVER FEELS THEY'RE NOT BEING HEARD OR THERE'S SOME SORT OF ISSUE THEY WANT TO RAISE, PLEASE REACH OUT TO ANY ONE OF US. AND EVER STILL BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE RIGHT RESPONSE, ET CETERA, I'D ASK THAT YOU AGAIN, YOU KNOW, EVEN COME TO ME, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO TRY

[01:30:02]

WANTED TO SAY. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

ANYONE ELSE? DO I HAVE A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ISROW AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. ROLL CALL:

>> 9C. >> YES, 9C.

>> COMMISSIONER ISROW. >> YES. I JUST WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS AND OVERALL, YOU KNOW, RUNDOWN OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO WHILE I CONSIDER THIS, IT IS TWO PROJECTS, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF BLEND IN TOGETHER. SO ONE PROJECT WE HAVE THE DRAINAGE PROJECT. THE DRAINAGE PROJECT IS MAKING THE DITCHES LARGER, IT'S MAKING THEM WIDER. THIS IS SOMETHING WE DECIDED TO DO BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTS. WE GOT A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE RESIDENTS AS FAR AS FLOODING IS CONCERNED, FIRE SAFETY WAS A CONCERN THAT WE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS.

THIS DRAINAGE PROJECT WILL PROTECT AND HELP IN BOTH THOSE SITUATIONS. SO WHEN ARPA FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE, WE DECIDED TO USE $5.3 MILLION OF THOSE ARPA FUNDS TOWARDS THIS PROJECT. NOW, MIND YOU, THOSE ARPA FUNDS COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE SPECIFICALLY USED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THEY NEEDED TO BE USED FOR SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. WE AS A COMMISSION CHOSE TO USE IT FOR THIS PROJECT TO HELP, AGAIN, OFFSET THE COSTS. AS A CITY, WE ALSO DECIDED WE WOULD CONTRIBUTE ROUGHLY $4.3 MILLION TOWARDS THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT SO THAT THE RESIDENTS DIDN'T HAVE TO BEAR ANY OF THE COSTS FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT. AS KELLY MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS WAS ALSO A PROJECT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED. BUT, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IMPROVING EVERYONE'S LIFE IN PARKLAND.

THE DRAINAGE PROJECT, AGAIN, WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE PARTICULAR REASONS. THEN THAT LEFT US WITH THE ROADS. AND, AGAIN, WHILE THESE ARE PUBLIC ROADS, THESE ARE NOT ROADS LIKE HOMEBURG, LIKE UNIVERSITY, LIKE PARKSIDE WHERE THE ENTIRE CITY USES THESE ROADS ON A DAILY BASIS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT TO ME MAKES THIS PROJECT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. SO THE TOTAL PROJECT IS ROUGHLY $14 MILLION WHICH, AGAIN, WE COULD HAVE ASSESSED -- FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT, WE COULD HAVE USED THE $5.3 MILLION ARPA FUNDS FOR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S LOCKS ROAD OR A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS. WITH THE $4.3 MILLION THAT THE CITY IS CONTRIBUTING, WE COULD USED THOSE MONEYS SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY TALKED ABOUT COULD WE BE MORE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE. SURE, WE COULD HAVE NOT DONE THIS PROJECT AT ALL, AND WE COULD HAVE TAKEN ALL OF THOSE FUNDS, MINUS THE 5.3, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO USE THOSE IN SOME PARTICULAR FACET FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOWER OUR MILLAGE RATE. BUT, AGAIN, WE CHOSE AS A COMMISSION THAT THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT FOR OUR RESIDENTS, AND WE DECIDED TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS PROJECT FOR THE REASONS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. SO THAT LEAVES US WITH A $4.3 MILLION ASSESSMENT FOR THE ROADS. SO, AGAIN, ASSESSING RESIDENTS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE LIKE. BUT WE'RE STEWARDS OF THE ENTIRE CITY OF PARKLAND. SO WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS. THE CITY IS CONTRIBUTING, THAT'S ALL OF THE RESIDENTS, $4.3 MILLION, $5.3 MILLION IN ARPA FUNDS WHICH

[01:35:02]

IT IS. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS AND THEN GIVE MORE COMMENTS.

>> WELL, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS TOO. I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE CONTRIBUTION. AGAIN, THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE BEING ONE OF THE ORIGINAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN WE FIRST MOVED HERE, THIS IS TO THE POINT IN THE PRESENTATION, THIS IS 14 OR MAYBE $15 MILLION GOING INTO AN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT THAT WAS VERY MUCH NEEDED IN THE RANCHES. WE ARE ADDRESSING DRAINAGE ISSUES, THE CULLVERTS, FIRE PREVENTION ISSUES, THE ROADS, THE SAFETY ON SOME OF THE ROADS THAT ARE MORE PERILOUS.

BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS AS WELL, AND THEN MAYBE WE COULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION.

>> THAT'S HOW WE WERE GOING TO DO IT, BUT, OKAY. WE CAN MEET.

>> THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION. >> NEIL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

JORDAN? >> YEAH. I MEAN, I'D KIND OF LIKE TO JUST FRAME IT AS -- I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE, AT LEAST ON THE COMMISSION, IS ALL IN AGREEMENT JUST AS WE WERE IN PINE TREE. THE GOAL IS TO FIND RESOLUTION AND SOLUTIONS.

WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE OBVIOUSLY REMAINS TO BE SEEN TONIGHT, BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL CREATIVE AND WILLING ENOUGH, AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE. THE HOPE IS THAT PEOPLE RECOGNIZE, AS YOU SAID, MAYOR, THAT ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO COME TO US ABOUT BEING MORE EFFICIENT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING TAXES, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE RESIDENTS WHO COME TO US ABOUT THE CITY NEEDS TO TAKE ON MORE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY -- FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CERTAIN THINGS. AND, UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ALL THE TIME, RIGHT? THERE IS SOME GIVE AND TAKE. AND, YOU KNOW, AS WE SIT HERE AND ALSO TALK ABOUT THE ELIMINATION OF PROPERTY TAXES, AND WE TALK ABOUT WHERE THOSE FUNDS ARE GOING TO COME FROM, WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO, THE CITY CAN ONLY MANAGE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AS MUCH AS WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT IN TERMS OF THEIR COMMUNITY, THEIR SERVICES, RIGHT? IF RESIDENTS SAY I DON'T WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES. WELL, FINE. YOUR TAXES WILL GO DOWN, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THE OFFSET OF REDUCTION IN SERVICES AND QUALITY OF LIFE. THAT'S THE REALITY. YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. SO I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DIALOGUE. AND ONE THING I'D KIND OF LIKE TO PUT OUT THERE IS IN CONSIDERATION OF A PROGRAM, I SEE CORAL SPRINGS HAS DONE HOUSING ASSISTANCE, FINANCIAL NEED. MY CONCERN ABOUT THE RANCHES HAS BEEN -- ESPECIALLY SINCE -- FORGIVE ME, I FORGOT HER NAME, BUT WE HAD A RESIDENT WHO CAME MONTHS AGO WHEN THIS CONVERSATION WAS KIND OF JUST STARTING, AND SHE WAS IN TEARS TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS COULD POTENTIALLY FORCE HER OUT OF HER HOUSE, AND SHE'S BEEN LIVING HERE, YOU KNOW, 40, 50 YEARS, THAT OBVIOUSLY -- YOU KNOW, THAT MATTERS TO ME, AND I'M SURE THAT MATTERS TO ALL OF YOU AS WELL. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS SOME THOUGHT ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE AGREEING, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CONSENSUS UPON AGREEING BY THE CITY, WHICH I KNOW WE WON'T BE DISCUSSING TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO SEE PART OF THAT BEING DONE IN A FASHION THAT'S FOR APPLICATION ON NEED BASE BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THOSE WHO REALLY ARE IN NEED GET MORE OF THE HELP THAT THEY REALLY ARE IN NEED OF AND TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE IS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND A LOT OF IT IS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN

[01:40:02]

I WANT TO TAKE THAT IN ACCOUNT AS MUCH AS WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE GENERAL COMMUNITY. THOSE ARE SOME THINGS I WAS PUSHING FORWARD AS WE GO FORWARD TONIGHT.

>> VERY GOOD. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD, I DO THINK, WE ALL AGREE THE COMMISSION CONTRIBUTION, ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION, GREAT IDEA, MAYOR, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE

A DISCUSSION. >> VERY GOOD. ALISYN.

>> FIRST WE HAVE JAMES WILLARD.

>> MAYOR, I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK. IT'S A JOKE ABOUT FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT. I CALLED THEM MULTIPLE TIMES, THEY BLEW UP MY STUFF, SO TO GET MONEY OUT OF THOSE GUYS,

I'M NOT CONFIDENT. >> WE WANT TO STAY -- WE TALK

ALL THE TIME. >> OKAY. NOBODY ELSE KNOWS ABOUT

IT. >> OKAY. I GOT IT.

>> OKAY. >> MY NAME IS JIM WILLARD, AND I LIVE IN THE RANCHES. I HAVE SINCE '56. AND MY PROPERTY WAS ALL DIRT WHEN I BOUGHT IT, AND IT GOT PAVED, I HAD TO PAY FOR IT. BUT IT WAS NOTHING. BACK THEN I WAS WORKING, MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. AND I THINK IT COST ME -- IT WAS EITHER $600 OR $800 IS WHAT IT WAS. BUT THE WHOLE THING IS -- WHAT I UNDERSTAND, I COULD BE WRONG, BUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS IT'S GOING TO COST US THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO GET OUR PROPERTY, PAY FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO RUN ON OUR ROADS. THAT DON'T MAKE GOOD SENSE TO ME. AND IF YA'LL HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT, GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU, MR. WILLARD. >> I ALSO WANT TO MENTION FOR JIM BECAUSE I TOLD YOU, MAYOR, THAT I'M A LIAISON CHOSEN BY YOU AND THE COMMISSION. I HAVE ALL THESE OLD FOLKS RIGHT HERE THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAXED OUT OF THEIR HOUSES. AND THIS MAN OVER HERE UP ON THE TV SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE OUR RESIDENTS BEING KICKED OUT. JIM DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY. HE'S ON SET MONEY. CHARLIE AND HIS WIFE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

GOING TO MOVE INTO OLD FOLKS' HOMES? I'M SORRY, ASSISTED LIVING. AND WHERE'S PETE AND CINDY? PETE AND CINDY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. SO WE'RE GOING TO -- YOU AND I HAVE SPOKE ABOUT THIS MULTIPLE TIMES, AND YOU REASSURED ME WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THESE OLD FOLKS KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOMES. THEY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOUSES. SO IT'S NOT FAIR TO MR. WILLARD, LIKE YOU SAID, HE'S BEEN HERE 56 YEARS, OKAY? AND I -- AND MAYOR AND I, YOU AND I WORKED 80 HOURS WITH MR. WILLARD BECAUSE THOSE ARE HIS ROADS TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE PUT IN FOR THE CULLVERTS ACROSS THIS PROPERTY. AND MR. WILLARD WORKED WITH YOU GUYS TO ALLOW YOU GUYS TO ASSESS HIS PROPERTY. SO IT'S SUPER UNFAIR, ESPECIALLY AS A LIAISON -- YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS MIGHT THINK I GOT THIS FROM ME. NOTHING IS IN IT FOR ME. I WON'T TAKE A CONTRACT IF YOU GAVE IT TO ME, OKAY? I'M A RESIDENT WHO PAYS TOO, BUT I'M HERE FOR THE OLD PEOPLE, AND I'M SURE YOU CHOSE ME FOR SOME OF THOSE QUALITIES. SO MR. WILLARD DOESN'T WANT TO BE TAXED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, DO YOU,

MR. WILLARD? >> WELL, I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M 91 YEARS OLD. I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME. BUT I HAVEN'T WORKED IN A LONG TIME. SO ALL THESE HIGH PRICES, I JUST

DON'T GET IT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. Z, MAYOR AND COMMISSION. AND I HEARD YOU UP THERE IN TALLAHASSEE, AND LISTEN TO WHAT MR. WILLARD HAS TO SAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANKS, MIKE. THANKS, JIM.

APPLAUSE ] >> MIKE ASK ALATCHY.

>> YOU USED YOUR TIME, RIGHT, MIKE?

>> I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT YOU GUYS CAN FIRE ME AT ANY TIME YOU WANT, BUT, LISTEN, I HAVE NOTHING BUT HEARTACHE AND HEADACHE. I'VE SPENT $400 IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS TRYING TO HELP US GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT I TOLD YOU GUYS IN THE BEGINNING, IF YOU CHOSE ME AS YOUR LIAISON THAT WE WERE GOING TO USE THE HONEY JAR, AND IF THAT HONEY JAR DIDN'T WORK, THEN WE WERE GOING TO GET A BIGGER HONEY JAR OUT, AND THE THREE PEOPLE YOU INVITED OUT SAID WE AGREE WITH MR. ASK ALATCHY. SO I'M STILL WORKING, BUT OUR FOLKS RIGHT HERE, ELI,

[01:45:02]

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU HEARD ME SAY. I THINK ALL OF US FEEL THAT

WAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE TO SHOW COMPASSION, OTHERWISE JUST LET ME HANG MY BADGE OUT. I HAVE NOTHING IN THIS FOR ME BUT A BUNCH OF HEARTACHE, OKAY? PLEASE, MR. MAYOR, NOTE THAT FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT TO TELL

THEM -- >> THANKS, WE APPRECIATE.

>> WELL, NO. >> WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING

YOU'VE DONE. THANK YOU. >> WHAT'S THAT? OH, I'M NOT OUT OF TIME YET. OH YOU RAN THE CLOCK OUT ON ME WHEN I TURNED

AROUND. OH, SHOOT. >> MIKE, THANK YOU, BUDDY.

>> RAY. >> RAY.

>> WE'RE GOING BY THE LIST NOW.

>> WHO WASES YOUR ORIGINAL LIST. >> YOU WANT MY ORIGINAL LIST?

>> THAT SHOULD BE FIRST, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. PETER BECKERS.

>> PETER BECKER. THIS IS THE RANCHES, YES. PETER BECKER. ARE YOU COMING TO SPEAK? NO, OKAY. NEXT.

>> ALL RIGHT. PETER NAVARRO. >> PETER NAVARRO. YOU GOING TO SPEAK? YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU CAN.

>> SO WE CAN GO DOWN THE LINE. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. CINDY NAVARRO. >> NO. CINDY, YOU DON'T WANT TO

SPEAK, OKAY. >> ARLAN PERKINS.

>> ARLAN, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? ARLAN PERKINS? NO. OKAY. NEXT.

>> HEATHER SILVER. >> HEATHER SILVER. OKAY. SHE'S ON RAY'S LIST. NEXT. IT'S OKAY. JUST READ.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO TO THIS LIST. THEY'RE ON TWO LISTS

HERE. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

>> JUDY AND JEFF SCHWARTZ. >> JUDY, JEFF, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU CAN.

>>

>> CHARLES VERNA BYRON. >> CHARLES? NO.

>> MARK KESTON. >> I'M ON THE LIST.

>> HE'S ON THE OTHER -- >> HE'S NOT ON THIS LIST.

>> JUST NEXT LIST. >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT LIST YOU'RE GOING BY. TERRANCE SMI, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

>>

>> JOHN RUSSELL. >> JOHN.

>> WE'RE HERE. >> DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK, JOHN?

NO. WAS THAT A NO? >> YEAH, THAT'S A NO.

>> OKAY. NEXT. >> ALEXANDER RUSSELL.

>> OKAY. NEXT. >> ELKIN KAD GAWN.

>> OKAY. NO PROBLEM. >> BARRY CHAPWICK.

>> BARRY. NO. >> DOROTHY PAGLYARA .

>> HI. I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING ABOUT CONTRIBUTING EXTRA FROM THE CITY. THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A STICKER SHOCK WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY $90,000 FOR OUR PROPERTY. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO MY MOM. AND I JUST HAD A COUPLE PRABLGHT CAL QUESTIONS. HOW MANY BIDS DID YOU GET FOR THE -- YOU KNOW, THE PAVING OF THE ROADS?

>> I'LL CIRCLE BACK. I'M GOING TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS, AND THEN

I'LL TRY TO ANSWER EVERYTHING. >> OKAY. AND WAS THE LOAN RATE

[01:50:07]

THE AMOUNT THAT THEY CHARGE US? >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT. SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. AND LIKE I SAID, ONCE EVERYBODY SPEAKS, I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN TO CIRCLE BACK AND ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS I CAN OR COMMENT ON, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER I CAN. AND LIKE I SAID, IF WE CANNOT GET TO THOSE ANSWERS TONIGHT, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THOSE QUESTIONS TO YOU, YOU KNOW,

TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY. >> MARY CONNOR.

>> THAT WAS ME. >> OKAY.

>> ABBY HAUL. >> ABBY.

>> HI. I'M ABBY HALL, 6767 WEST 84TH AVENUE. I JUST WANTED -- I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS. ALL I KNOW IS I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE DRIVING ON THE ROADS IN THE RANCHES, SO I DON'T FEEL AS A RESIDENT OF THE RANCHES I'M GETTING ANY MORE SPECIAL BENEFIT THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE CITY THAT COMES TO A BIRTHDAY PARTY, THAT COMES TO A SHOW AT THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER, THAT GOES TO THE DOG PARK BECAUSE ALL THOSE PEOPLE DRIVE AROUND THE

NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S ALL. >> THANK YOU, ABBY.

>> SO NOW WE'RE ON TO THE LIST. >> THAT'S THE LAST.

>> YEAH. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE SIGNED UP TWICE, SO UNLESS

-- YES. >> SO THAT WOULD BE RAY.

>> RAY. >> OKAY, RAY.

>> 6790 NORTHWEST 83RD TERRACE IN THE RANCHES. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, THANKS FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT FIRST BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A SERIES, A LONG LIST OF VERY SPECIFIC CONCERNS COMING FROM THE HOMEOWNERS. AND AS THE LADY SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER, AS FAR AS THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT MEETING TWO BASIC TESTS, ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE PROPERTY ASSESS MUST RECEIVE A SPECIAL BENEFIT FROM THE IMPROVEMENT, AND THE COST MUST BE FAIRLY AND REASONABLY APPORTIONED AMONG THOSE PROPERTIES. TONIGHT I BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE RANCHES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT AS DRAFTED IS GOING TO FAIL BOTH. YOU WILL HEAR THAT THE CITY'S OWN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND BUDGET DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES MOST OF THE ROADWAY PROJECT AS STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE WORK.

REPAIRING DETERIORATED CAUSED BY THE RANCH'S DRAINAGE PROJECT AND THE RESLOPING ROADS TO MOVE STORM WATER, YET IT'S BEING PUSHED INTO A SEPARATE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. EVEN THOUGH WE PAY A CITY WIDE STORM WATER ASSESSMENT CURRENTLY. THE BOUNDARIES AND INCLUSION LIST THAT ARE INCONSISTENT, SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLEARLY WITHIN WHAT YOU CALL THE RANCHES ARE LEFT OUT.

THE ROUGHLY 80 1/2 ACRE OF THE HENDRICKS FARMS ON NORTHWEST 84TH EAP AVENUE WHILE EXEMPT COUNTY PARCELS INSIDE THE LINE GET THE BENEFIT BUT ARE NOT ON THE ROLL, BOTH OF THOSE, THE HENDRICKS FARMS ALONG WITH SOME PROPERTIES ALSO OWNED HERE BY THE COUNTY AND BY THE CITY. THE METHODOLOGY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PINE TREE ESTATES NEXT DOOR. PINE TREE USES BUILDABLE LOTS WITH FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION AND A $2 MILLION CITY CONTRIBUTION.

THE RANCHES ARE GETTING ASSIGNED ACREAGES. A PATCHWORK MILLING PLAN WITH NO COMPARABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ROADWAY PROJECT. AS A MUCH HIGHER PER PARCEL BURDEN, EVEN THOUGH BOTH AREAS ARE LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY LOCAL ROADS, YOU'RE APPROVING ON THE SAME NIGHT. AND YOU'LL HEAR SERIOUS ENGINEERING

[01:55:01]

TREE ESTATES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT ONE IS A SHELLEY. ARE YOU SHELLEY?

>> THANKS, GUYS. I'M GOING TO TO DO MY BEST TO DO THE THREE MINUTES. YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME, MY READING IS A LITTLE SHAKY. CAN YOU PUT IT ON THERE? THANK YOU. I'M SHELLEY MILLER.

I LEVY AT 7660 NORTHWEST 86TH TERRACE IN THE RANCHES SINCE 1973. ONLY MR. WILLARD HAS BEEN HERE LONGER THAN ME. ONE CORE ISSUE. THE CITY'S OWN DOCUMENTS SHOW THIS ROADWAY ASSESSMENT IS LARGELY STORM WATER WORK THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE COVERED BY THE STORM WATER UTILITY, NOT CHARGESSED AGAIN TO RANCHES RESIDENTS. RESOLUTION 2004-096, YOU APPROVED ONE UNIFIED CONTRACT WITHBERGROM LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RANCHES NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESURFACING, I'M SORRY, NOT TO EXCEED $11,30 4,000,800. THAT IS A SINGLE AWARD, NOT TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS. IN RFP2004-13, SECTION 5.1, THE CITY TOLD BIDDERS THE ROADWAY WILL BE RESURFACED TO ADDRESS FURTHER DETERIORATION CAUSED BY THE RANCH'S DRAINAGE PROJECT AND SPECIFIC ROADWAY SELECTIONS WILL BE RESTRUCTURED TO SLOPE TOWARD THE CANAL, ENABLING EFFICIENT STORM WATER COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT. THOSE ARE STORM WATER-DOMINANT PURPOSES. REPAIRING DAMAGE CAUSED BY A DRAINAGE PROJECT AND RESHAPING ROADS TO MOVE STORM WATER TO CANALS IN THE PUMP STATION, AT THE SAME TIME THE CITY CREATED A STORM WATER UTILITY BY ORDINANCE 2023-009 WITH ITS OWN NON-ADVALOREM ASSESSMENT, ADOPTED ANNUAL STORM WATER ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS AND A STORM WATER MASTER PLAN TO FUND THIS KIND OF WORK. AND, AGAIN, IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2025, IN FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET NARRATIVES STATED THAT HEAVY DRAINAGE EQUIPMENT WILL DAMAGE RANCH'S ROADWAYS AND THOSE ROADS WILL THEN BE RESURFACED, YET AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, STORM WATER UTILITY DOLLARS COLLECTED SINCE 2023 HAVE NOT BEEN USED INSIDE THE AREA YOU NOW LABEL THE RANCHES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT AREA. INSTEAD THE RANCHES RESIDENTS ARE BEING ASKED TO PAY TWICE. ONE, STORM WATER CHARGES, CITY WIDE THROUGHOUT THE STORM WATER UTILITY AND, TWO, A SECOND TIME THROUGH THIS RANCHES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT FOR RESURFACING TIED TO DETERIORATION CAUSED BY THE RANCH'S DRAINAGE PROJECT AND FOR CROSS SLOPE WORK ENABLING EFFICIENT STORM WATER COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT, THAT IS DOUBLE CHARGING FOR STORM WATER-DRIVEN WORK. MY REQUEST IS SPECIFIC.

BEFORE YOU CERTIFY ANY FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, PLEASE DIRECT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS TO IDENTIFY ALL STORM WATER-DOMINANT LINE ITEMS, DITCHING CANAL WORK, STORM STRUCTURES, CROSS SLOPE CHANGES TOWARDS CANALS TO THE NORTHWEST 66 LANE ELEVATION AND ANY RESURFACING DESCRIBED AS REPAIRING, DETERIORATION CAUSED BY THE DRAINAGE PROJECT AND RECLASSIFY THOSE COSTS TO THE STORM WATER UTILITY AND/OR GENERAL FUNDS. ONLY TRUE ROAD-ONLY WORK THAT PROVIDES A SEPARATE ROADWAY BENEFIT SHOULD REMAIN IN THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH SHELLEY. >> AUSTIN HARRIS.

>> AUSTIN? I SAW AUSTIN EARLIER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIGN UP BECAUSE I'M GOING TO CALL FOR ANYBODY ELSE AFTERWARDS.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARK KESTON, AND I CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE RANCHES AND HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR THE PAST 23 YEARS. IN FWEE, THE CITY

[02:00:02]

TWO, P5 IS THE LABEL FOR WHAT YOU YOURSELF CALL THE RANCH'S DISTRICT, AND, THREE, THOSE SAME P5 PARCELS, MINE INCLUDED, MY NEIGHBORS' AND THE 4E7B DRINKS FARMLAND ARE ALREADY PAYING EXTRA BECAUSE YOU SAY THE AREA NEEDS MORE STORM WATER WORK, YET AS BEST AS WE CAN TELL, NO STORM WATER DOLLARS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SPENT INSIDE THE GEOGRAPHIC FOOTPRINT THAT YOU NOW CALL THE RANCHES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT AREA, INSTEAD, THE CITY IS PROPOSING A SECOND SEPARATE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT INTO WHICH YOU HAVE LOADED -- WHICH YOU HAVE LOADED LINE ITEMS THAT YOUR OWN RFP DESCRIBES AS REPAIRING -- AND CROSS SLOPING FOR STORM WATER COLLECTION. SO THE SAME P5 RANCHES PROPERTIES ARE, ONE, PAYING HIGHER STORM WATER RATES UNDER THE STORM WATER UTILITY, AND, NUMBER TWO, BEING ASKED TO PAY AGAIN UNDER A, QUOTE, ROADWAY, END QUOTE, ASSESSMENT FOR STORM WATER-DRIVEN WORK. MY ASK, AND I ASK THE CITY TO CONSIDER THIS, I WOULD LIKE THE CITY AND THE COMMISSION TO ACKNOWLEDGE ON THE RECORD THAT P5 CATEGORY IS THE CITY'S RANCH'S STORM WATER DISTRICT AND THAT THOSE PARCELS HAVE BEEN PAYING HIGHER STORM WATER ASSESSMENTS SINCE 2023 AND DIRECT STAFF TO ENSURE THAT STORM WATER-DOMINANT COSTS WITHIN THAT FOOTPRINT ARE FUNDED THROUGH THE STORM WATER SYSTEM THAT WAS CREATED FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE NOT QUIETLY SHIFTED INTO THIS ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. IF THE SAME P5 RANCHES PROPERTIES ARE PAYING TWICE FOR THE SAME STORM WATER WORK, THAT IS NOT A LAWFUL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, IT IS

A MISCLASSIFICATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPLAUSE ] >> DREW.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. I'M DREW, I LIVE ON 697881ST TERRACE. SPECIAL BENEFIT MUST BE TO PROPERTY, NOT PEOPLE. FLORIDA LAW IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HAS TO DO. THERE ARE TWO REQUIREMENTS, ONE, THE PROPERTY ASSESSED MUST RECEIVE A SPECIAL BENEFIT FROM THE IMPROVEMENT AND, TWO, THE COSTS MUST BE FAIRLY AND REASONABLY APPORTIONED AMONG THOSE PROPERTIES. IN SUMMARY, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MUST PROVIDE SPECIAL BENEFITS TO PROPERTY, NOT PEOPLE. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE RANCH'S METHODOLOGY. SECTION 1, SPECIAL BENEFITS. IT SAYS THAT ALL TAX PARCELS ARE BENEFIT BY THE MERE AVAILABILITY OF A PAVED AND IMPROVED ROADWAY NETWORK AND THEN LIST THE BENEFITS. ONE OF THE KEY BULLETS READS VERBATIM, FACILITATING ACCESS TO AND DELIVERY OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FIRE RESCUE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, LAW ENFORCEMENT, POSTAL DELIVERY AND TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. THESE ARE SERVICES TO PEOPLE, RESIDENTS, PATIENTS, STUDENTS, MAIL RECIPIENTS, NOT TO THE LAND. Z OR WHETHER THE RANCHES IS MILLED RECONSTRUCTED OR LEFT AS IS AND AN AMBULANCE CAN STILL FOLLOW THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO MY DRIVEWAY. POSTAL DELIVERY IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL LAW.

SCHOOL BOARDS FOLLOW ROUTES SET BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. THOSE MAY BE IMPORTANT GENERAL SERVICES, BUT THEY ARE FUNDED CITY AND COUNTY WIDE. THEY DO NOT RISE AND FALL ON WHETHER MY STREETS GET ONE INCH OF MILLING OR A FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION, YET YOUR

[02:05:05]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MY NAME IS HEATHER SILVER. I LIVE AT 7060 NORTHWEST 83RD. I WANTED TO SHOW THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT YOU TELL THE RESIDENTS THIS PROJECT WILL DO AND WHAT YOUR METHODOLOGY CLAIMS THE SPECIAL BENEFITS ARE. IN YOUR PUBLIC RANCH'S FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHEN RESIDENTS ASKED WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BIGGING THE DITCHES DEEPER AND HOW DOES THIS INCREASE THE RESIDENTS' SAFETY, THE CITY ANSWERED, DEEPENING THE DITCHES INCREASES WATER VOLUME AND WATER FLOW, THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE ROAD RESURFACING WILL CREATE A MORE EFFICIENT DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT DRAMATICALLY REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF FLOODING OR WATER PONDING ON STREETS DRAINED DURING STORMS AND HEAVY RAIN EVENTS. WHEN THE RESIDENTS ASKED ARE THE INCLINE CHANGES AND GUARD RAILS PART OF THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS OR THE ROAD RESURFACING, THE CITY ANSWERED, ROAD RESURFACING. SO IN THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS YOU DESCRIBE THIS AS A DRAINAGE-DRIVEN PROJECT. DEEPER DITCHES, CHANGE ROAD INCLINES, LESS PONDING AND FLOODING. BUT WHEN WE REACH THE SPECIAL BENEFITS SECTION OF THE RANCH'S METHODOLOGY, THERE IS NO WULTS THAT MENTION, ONE, REDUCING FLOODING, TWO, CORRECTING THE CROSS SLOPE TO REMOVE STORM WATER OR, THREE, REPAIRING DETERIORATION CAUSED BY THE RANCH'S DRAINAGE PROJECT.

INSTEAD, THE BENEFITS YOU LIST ARE THINGS LIKE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, POSTAL DELIVERY AND TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS WHICH, AS WE DISCUSSED, COURTS HAVE SAID ARE BENEFITS TO PEOPLE, NOT PROPERTY. SO WE END UP WITH A TROUBLING PIVOT, DOUBLE PIVOT. WHEN YOU SELL THE PROJECT TO RESIDENTS, IT'S ABOUT THE FLOODING, THE DITCHES AND THE STORM WATER. WHEN YOU JUSTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ON PAPER, YOU PIVOT TO THE GENERAL SERVICES TO PEOPLE THAT THE FLORIDA CASE LAW TREATS VERY SKEPTICALLY AS A BASIS FOR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS BEFORE YOU ADOPT THE METHODOLOGY AS FINAL, PLEASE, NUMBER ONE, ALIGN THE OFFICIAL SPECIAL BENEFITS SECTION WITH WHAT THE PROJECT ACTUALLY DOES, PRIMARILY STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE-RELATED WORK AND SHOW WITH EVIDENCE HOW EACH MAJOR LINE ITEM CONFERS A DIRECT PROPERTY-BASED BENEFIT TO EACH PARCEL. AND, NUMBER TWO, MAKE SURE THOSE BENEFITS ARE NOT JUST RESTATEMENTS OF GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND THAT EVERYONE IN PARKLAND ALREADY RECEIVES. IF THE WRITTEN FINDINGS DO NOT MATCH THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT, THEN THIS ASSESSMENT IS ON VERY SHAKY

LEGAL GROUND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> RENEE PORTER. >> RENEE.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS RENEE PORTER. I LIVE AT 707 WEST 84TH AVENUE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ONE GLARING BOUNDARY ISSUE WHICH IS THE APPROXIMATE 80 1/2 ACRES OF HENDRICKS FARM ALONG NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE. THIS LAND IS CLEARLY IN THE RANCHES AND SHOULD BE ASSESSED. THERE ARE 60 PARCELS 24 1/4 ACRES AND 22.2 ACRES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS FRONTING THE VERY RANCHES ROADS YOU PROPOSE TO IMPROVE. THEY ARE CURRENTLY ZONED AE2, ONE OF THE

[02:10:01]

ALSO YOUR STORM WATER FRAMEWORK CONFIRMS THAT YOU CONSIDER THIS LAND PART OF THE RANCHES, AND THE STORM WATER UTILITY, THESE SAME HENDRICKS PARCELS ARE CODED P5, THE SAME RANCHES STORM WATER CATEGORY AS MY PROPERTY AND MY NEIGHBORS' PROPERTIES. THEY ARE INSIDE THE RANCH'S DRAINAGE PROJECT FOOTPRINT. THE RANCH'S PUMP STATION SITS ADJACENT TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LARGER HENDRICKS PARCEL, RIGHT ALONG LOCKS HATCHEE ROAD.

CHAPTER 170 IS ALSO CLEAR THAT A MUNICIPALITY MUST INCLUDE A BUDDING PROPERTIES THAT RECEIVE THE IMPROVEMENTS BENEFITS WHEN IT DRAWS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. HERE WE HAVE AE2 ZONE LAND R1 FUTURE LAND USE, P5 RANCHES STORM WATER CLASSIFICATION, CITY ROADS TO BE IMPROVED RUNNING ALONG NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE AND THE RANCH'S PUMP STATION AT THE CORNER, YET SOMEHOW THOSE 80 1/2 ACRES HAVE BEEN LEFT OFF THE RANCH'S ROADWAY ASSESSMENT ROLL, WHILE MY SMALLER SIMILARLY CODED PARCEL IS FULLY ASSESSED. AT THE SAME TIME, VACANT LAND WITHIN THE RANCHES IS BEING CHARGED THE FULL ASSIGNED ACRE RATE ASSESSMENT, EVEN WHEN NO HOUSE -- WITH NO HOUSE OR DRIVEWAY, BASED ON FUTURE, HIGHEST AND BEST USE. IF THAT IS YOUR STANDARD, HENDRICKS FARMS CLEARLY QUALIFIES. MY REQUEST IS SIMPLE. ADD THE TWO HENDRICKS FARM PARCELS ALONG NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 80 1/2 ACRES TO THE RANCH'S ROADWAY ASSESSMENT ROLL BASED ON THE SAME ASSIGNED ACRE BASIS AS EVERY OTHER A/A-E ZONED RANCH'S PARCEL. IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO DO THAT, PUT ON RECORD A CLEAR ENGINEERING AND LEGAL EXPLANATION FOR WHY R1 FUTURE USE AE ZONED, AE2 ZONED P5 RANCHES STORM WATER LAND ABUTTING THE PROJECT ROADS AND PUMP STATION IS THE ONLY RANCHES LABELED LAND THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY THIS ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> CESAR PEREZ.

>> HELLO, I'M CESAR PEREZ. I LIVE AT 7901 WEST 82ND TERRACE FOR THE LAST 22 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY PARCELS INSIDE THE DISTRICT BUT ARE OFF THE ROLL WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS SOMEHOW ARBITRARY BUT IS ALSO IN DETRIMENT OF THE RANCH'S OWNER BY SHIFTING THEIR COSTS ONTO US. SO LET'S EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT PARCELS AND HOW THEY UNDERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF THE ASSIGNED ACRES METHOD. THE RANCH'S METHODOLOGY SAY THERE ARE 471.5 ASSIGNED ACRES IN THE ASSESSMENT AREA.

ADDS UP TO THIS UM NUMBER. SO THIS 471.5 IS THE FIGURE THAT WE ARE USING AS A DENOMINATOR BEING USED TO DIVIDE THE TOTAL PROJECT COST. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU OVERLAY THE CITY OWN ZONING AND OWNERSHIP MAPS, WE GET A VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE. FOR INSTANCE, THERE IS A 20-ACRE CONSERVATION PARCEL WEST OF NORTHWEST 87TH STREET ZONED BY S AND OWNED BY THE COUNTY WHICH IS INSIDE THE ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY BUT NOT ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL, YET ANOTHER 9.6 ACRE ZONE OR S PARCEL ALSO OWNED BY THE COUNTY IS LOCATED INSIDE THE SAME BOUNDARIES BUT, AGAIN, IS NOT ON THE ROLL. SO PUT TOGETHER, THAT IS 29.06 ACRES OF COUNTY LINE, INSIDE THE RANCH'S BOUNDARIES WITH PROJECT ROADS IN FRONT OF THEM RECEIVING THE SAME DRAINAGE AND ROADWAY BENEFITS BY PAYING NOTHING. AT THE SAME TIME EQUESTRIAN PARK AND AN AE PARCEL ARE ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL, EVEN THOUGH THE DOLLAR YOU CLAIM PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN ONLY THREE ZONING TYPES FOCUSED ON FAMILY

[02:15:03]

AT THE TUNE OF 1,600 MORE PER PARCEL BASED IN THE CITY'S OWN NUMBERS. ON -- SAME GOVERNMENT PROPERTY INSIDE THE DISTRICT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY HAVING THE GOVERNMENT PAY ITS SHARE FROM THE GENERAL FUNDS, EXCLUDING THE PARCEL FROM THE SCOPE OR OBTAINING A SPECIAL -- MY REQUEST IS SIMPLE. PUT THE COUNTY ACRES ON THE ROLL AND HAVE THEM PAY THEIR ASSIGNED ACRE SHARE OR ADJUST THE COST AND METHODOLOGY SO THE SAME STATUS IS COVERED BY THE CITY OR THE COUNTY, NOT BY INFLATING THE PER-ACRE BURDEN ON EVERY RANCH RESIDENT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS CLAUDIA PEREZ, 82ND TERRACE. I'VE BEEN LIVING AT THIS ADDRESS FOR 22 YEARS. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ASSIGNED ACREAGE METHODOLOGY AND WHY IT DOES NOT MATCH HOW THE RANCHES ACTUALLY WORKS. ON PAPER, ASSIGNED ACRES SOUNDS SIMPLE. HOWEVER, TOTAL OF THE ACRES AND DIVIDED COST AND ASSUMING THAT EACH ACRE GETS AN EQUAL SHARE OF BENEFIT AND COST, IN REALITY THE RANCHES IS MORE COMPLICATED. SOME THREE ACRE PARCELS CAN LEGAL I BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO OR EVEN THREE BUILDABLE LOTS IN THE FUTURE. ALL THE THREE-ACRE PARCELS ARE EFFECTIVELY LOCKED BY PLOTTING EASEMENTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND CANNOT BE SUBDISWIEDED. SOME PARCELS ALREADY HOST MULTIPLE HOMES OR STRUCTURES, OTHERS ARE VACANT PASTURES, YET UNDER ASSIGNED ACRES, EVERY ACRE IS TREATED THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY PRESENT OR FUTURE HOMES IT CAN SUPPORT. A THREE-ACRE PARCEL, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN BE SPLIT IN TO THREE LOTS, PAY THE SAME AS A THREE-ACRE PARCEL THAT CAN NEVER BE -- EVEN THOUGH IT IS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND A LONG-TERM USE OF THE ROAD NETWORK ARE VERY DIFFERENT. AT THE SAME TIME, VACANT LAND WITH NO HOUSE, NO DRIVEWAY, NOW BEING CHARGED THE FULL ASSIGNED ACRES RATE, ON THE THEORY, THAT -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANYTHING IS BUILT. THAT'S THE LOGIC YOU ARE USING TO CHARGE VACANT PARCELS IN THE RANCHES. IF YOU'RE TRULY BELIEVE HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS THE RIGHT LENS, A MORE CONSISTENT APPROACH, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE APPROVING PINE TREE ESTATES ON THIS SAME NIGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN USED TO BUILD UP THE LOTS OR EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS AS YOU DID IN PINE TREE ESTATES OR AT LEAST DISTINGUISH PARCELS THAT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED FROM THOSE THAT CANNOT INSTEAD OF PRETENDING THEY ARE THE SAME. OVERCHARGING SOME PROPERTIES RELATIVE TO THEIR ACTUAL AND FUTURE USE, CHARGES OTHERS WITH MUCH HIGHER DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIAL AND TREAT GOVERNMENT PARCEL AND EXEMPT LANDS INCONSISTENTLY AS WE JUST DISCUSSED MY REQUEST BEFORE ADOPTING THIS METHODOLOGY AS FINAL, PLEASE ASK THE STAFF TO REVISIT THE BENEFIT UNIT AND THE PRESENT AN ALTERNATIVE BASE ON BUILDABLE LOTS OR EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS WITH CLEAR TREATMENT -- THAT WOULD BE A MORE FAIR AND EFFICIENT TO THE RESIDENTS AND OWNER OF THE RANCHES AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AT PINE TREE

ESTATES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAXINE GUTMAN. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MAXINE GUTMAN, AND I LIVE AT 7370 NORTHWEST 82ND TERRACE IN THE RANCHES, AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 11 YEARS. TONIGHT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO FINALIZE TWO LOCAL ROAD ASSESSMENTS AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME MEETING. ONE FOR PINE TREE ESTATES AND

[02:20:01]

>> RORY ODWYER. >> RORY.

>> GOOD EVENING. RORY ODWYER, 7707 NORTHWEST 82ND TERRACE IN THE RANCHES. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE NUMBER OF THIS ASSESSMENT WAS ACTUALLY CHOSEN BECAUSE IT DID NOT START WITH PARCEL BY PARCEL BENEFIT, IT STARTED BY A BUDGET GAP. IN MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS, CITY LEADERSHIP HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE UNIFIED RANCHES PROJECT WAS VIEWED AS ROUGHLY $15 MILLION.

AND THAT THE CITY WAS THOUGHT TO TAKE 1/3, 1/3 AND 1/3 SPLIT WAS APPROPRIATE. ABOUT 1/3 FOR ARPA, ABOUT 1/3 FOR CITY FUNDS AND ABOUT 1/3 ROUGHLY $5 MILLION, EXCUSE ME, FOR RANCHES RESIDENTS THROUGH THE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. THE MAYOR HAS SAID OPENLY THAT IT HAS BEEN -- YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROADWAY NUMBER YOU ASSUMED THE ROAD PORTION WOULD BE ABOUT $5 MILLION AND DECIDED RESIDENTS SHOULD PAY THAT SHARE. HE HAS ALSO SAID THAT PERHAPS WE MAY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE AND SHOULD HAVE ASSESSED THE RESIDENTS FOR THE DRAINAGE PORTION. AND EVEN ASKED, QUOTE, CAN WE ASSESS THE RESIDENTS FOR THE ENTIRE OVERALL PROJECT, CLOSED QUOTE. RESIDENTS WHO HAVE QUESTIONED THIS WERE CALLED, FRANKLY, SELFISH, QUOTED. BEFORE YOU FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT STAFF AND YOUR CONSULTANTS TO PRODUCE, ONE, ACTUAL OBJECTIVE STUDY, ENGINEERING REPORT OR PARCEL LEVEL BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT EXPLAINS WHAT SPECIAL MONETARY BENEFIT EACH RANCH'S PARCEL RECEIVES FROM THIS ROAD WORK ASSESSMENT, ABOVE AND BEYOND THE GENERAL FUNDED DRAINAGE WORK, STORM WATER CROSS SLOPE

[02:25:02]

THANK YOU. IN YOUR MATERIALS LANE IS SLATED FOR A VERY EXPENSIVE FULL CONSTRUCTION, FULL RECONSTRUCTION AND ROUGHLY A 12-INCH RISE IN ELEVATION. THE PRICE TAG FOR THAT SHORT SEGMENT IS ABOUT $660,000. THAT'S A HUGE SLICE OF THE OVERALL RANCHES ROAD PROGRAM AND IS BEING SPREAD ACROSS EVERY PARCEL IN THE RANCHES, EVEN THOUGH MOST OF US DO GET NO DIRECT PARCEL ACCESS BENEFIT FROM THAT STREET AT ALL. IF YOU ASSUME 16 PARCELS ALONG 66 LANE AND ABOUT 161 OTHER PARCELS IN THE RANCHES, THAT $660,000 ADDED COST WORKS OUT TO OVER $FOURS EXTRA PER OTHER PARCEL FOR A STREET WE PROBABLY WILL NEVER DRIVE ON AND THAT SERVES PRIMARILY AS HIS OWN FRONTAGE AND LARGE CITY-OWNED TRACT. SO ONE SHORT ROAD GETS A GOLD PLATED REBUILD AND A 12-INCH RISE WHILE MANY OTHER STREETS GET THE BARE MINIMUM, AND WE'RE ALL PAYING OVER $4 MORE EACH FOR THAT CHOICE.

THERE'S A BETTER OPTION THAT SOLVES BOTH THE TECHNICAL AND FAIRNESS PROBLEMS, FDR FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION. FDR DOES NOT JUST SCRATCH OFF THE SURFACE AND HOPE THE OLD BASE MAY HAVES, IT PULVERIZES THE EXISTING ASPHALT AND BASE IN PLACE, MIXES IT IN A STABILIZER, RESETS THE CROSS SLOPE AND PACKS IN A NEW MOISTURE-RESISTANT BASE ACROSS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE ROADWAY.

FOR NORTHWEST 66TH LANE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN DO NOTHING AND THE $660,000 FULL DIGOUT, A HYBRID FDR SOLUTION COMBINED WITH THE MODEST EMBANKMENT WHERE NEEDED COULD LIKELY RAISE THE PROFILE AND STABILIZE THE BASE AT A MUCH LOWER COST WHILE FITTING INTO A RANCHES WIDE FDR STANDARD FOR EVERY STREET. RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, THAT $660,000 NORTHWEST 66 LANE PROJECT IS JUST BAKED INTO THE SHARED BILL, INCREASING EVERYONE'S COSTS BY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, EVEN FOR RESIDENTS WHO WILL NEVER USE THAT STREET. MY ASK TONIGHT, DIRECT YOUR ENGINEER TO PLACE AN FDR-BASED ALTERNATIVE FOR ALL STREETS, INCLUDING A HYBRID FDR OPTION FOR NORTHWEST 66TH LANE, INSTEAD OF THE $660,000 RECONSTRUCTION YOU'RE ASKING FOR, REPORT BACK IN PUBLIC ON WHETHER A UNIFORM FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION SECTION AND A MORE MODEST NORTHWEST 66 SOLUTION COULD ACTUALLY LOWER THE TOTAL PROJECT COST AND GIVE EVERY PARCEL A STRONGER MORE CONSISTENT ROADWAY. IF WE'RE GOING TO PAY THIS MUCH, WE SHOULD NOT BE SUBSIDIES ONE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE STREET WHILE THE REST OF US GET THE CHEAPEST TREATMENT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT NAME HERE IS BARRY

GUTMAN. >> BARRY.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SPIEGEL.

>> IT'S BARRY SPIEGEL. MAXINE NEVER TOOK MY NAME. I FORBID HER FROM THAT. BARRY SPIEGEL, 737 NORTHWEST 82ND TERRACE. AT THE APRIL 24 STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE $660,000 INCREASE. JUST TO CLARIFY, HE SAID, ON NORTHWEST 66 LANE WHERE WE ARE HAVING A MAJORITY OF FLOODING, THEY ARE RECOMMENDING TO RAISE THAT A

[02:30:02]

>> WOULD BE NEEDED. AND THE CHAPTER 170 A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT MUST REFLECT A SPECIAL PARTICULAR BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSED PARCELS. THAT'S SIMPLY PICK UP THE TAB FOR LOCALIZED DRAINAGE FIXES THAT BELONG IN THE STORM ASK IS THAT TO PULL THE NORTH WEST 66 LANE RECONSTRUCTION AND 12 INCH ELEVATION WORK OUT OF THE ROADWAY ASSESSMENT COLUMN, AND TREATED HONESTLY AS STORM WATER DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE. IF IT REMAINS IN THE PROGRAM, IT SHOULD BE FUNDED BY THE STORM WATER UTILITY OR THE CITYWIDE FUNDS, NOT CHARGED TO EVERY RANCH FAMILY AS IT WAS A UNIFORM ROAD BENEFIT WE WILL ENJOY. NO ONE IS SAYING DON'T FIX NORTHWEST 66 LANE. WE'RE SAYING FIX IT IN THE RIGHT POCKET WITH THE RIGHT STORMWATER DOLLARS INSTEAD OF QUIETLY PUSHING THESE FLOOD COSTS INTO A ROADWAY ASSESSMENT OF THE RANCHES RESIDENCE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, BARRICK. >> I'LL BE BUCCI?

>> BOBBY? >> BOBBY BUCCI, 6550 NORTHWEST 81ST AVENUE. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT AN ENGINEERING CHOICE BE, BEFORE YOU, FULL DEPTH PROCLAMATION VERSUS SIMPLE MILLING AND RESURFACING WITH SPOT AND BASE REPAIRS. THERE'S A REASON FDR WAS CHOSEN AS A COURT ALPHA PI PINETREE ESTATES WHY WASN'T IT EVEN COURTED OR PURSUED IN UNIFORM OPTIONS FOR THE RANCHES. IN SIMPLE TERMS, MILLING AND AMP RESURFACING, YOU GRIND OFF ABOUT AN INCH OF OLD ASPHALT AND PUT A NEW ASPHALT, PUT NEW ASPHALT BACK. YOU CAN TWEAK ACROSS THE SLOPE A BIT, YOU DON'T FIX THE UNDERLYING BASE AND SOME GREAT UNLESS YOU LATER DECIDE TO DIG IT OUT IN CERTAIN BAD SPOTS. FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION IS A PULVERIZED EXISTING ASPHALT IN THE BASE TOGETHER TO MAKE STABILIZER WITH CEMENT UNFOLDMENT ASPHALT AND REGRADE THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THE RIGHT CROWN AND CROSSROAD AND COMPACTED INTO NEW STRONG MOISTURE RESISTANT BASE BEFORE START, BEFORE PAVING. THE RANCHES AS EXACTLY THE KIND OF PROBLEMS FDR IS DESIGNED TO FIX. LONG-TERM WASTER AND DRAINAGE ISSUES, CROSS SLOPE PROBLEMS TO KEEP WATER PONDERING ON YOUR ROAD AND TIRED BASE, TIRE BASE LAYERS UNDER AGING ASPHALT. IF

[02:35:02]

FAILURES. THANK YOU. >> IN QUEUE.

>> PETE FREED. >> PETE?

>> MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US. MY NAME IS PETER FRIEDLAND. I LIVE AT 6875 NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE. I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT A PATTERN, A PATTERN WHERE THE CITY KEEPS REUSING THE SAME BASIC RENOVATES TO JUSTIFY NEW SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. TONIGHT, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT MULTIPLE SUPPOSED BENEFITS FROM THREE EXISTING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ARE BEING ARBITRARILY REBRANDED INTO A FOURTH ASSESSMENT CALLED THE RANCHES ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. PARKLAND ALREADY HAS THREE SEPARATE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS ON OUR TAX BILLS. A FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT, A SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT, AND A STORMWATER ASSESSMENT. WITH THEIR OWN STORMWATER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE SHOWING P5 AS THE RANCHES DISPLAYING DISTRICT PAYING THE HIGHEST STORMWATER RATE IN THE CITY, NEARLY FIVE TIMES WHAT N/A OTHER PROPERTIES PAY. SO AS RANCHES HOMEOWNERS, WE ALREADY PAY THREE DEDICATED ASSESSMENTS FOR FIRE RESCUE, WASTE, AND STORMWATER. NOW LOOK AT WHAT YOUR RANCHES ROADWAY METHODOLOGY CLAIMS AS SPECIAL BENEFITS. UNDER THE SPECIAL BENEFITS SECTION, IT SAYS THAT THE ROADS WILL FACILITATE ACCESS TO AND DELIVER, DELIVERY OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES, INCLUDING THE HIGHER RESCUE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, LAW ENFORCEMENT, POSTAL DELIVERY, AND TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. THOSE ARE THE CITY'S WORDS. BUT FIRE RESCUE, SOLID WASTE, AND STORMWATER ARE ALREADY THE STATED PURPOSE AND BENEFIT OF THREE EXISTING ASSESSMENTS. IN ADDITION, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, WORKS SUCH AS EXPENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHWEST 66 LANE FOR FLOODING AND NONUNIFORM CROSSFLOW CORRECTION ON SOME ROADS BUT NOT OTHERS IS BEING DESCRIBED AS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. AND CHARGED TO US, YET AGAIN, UNDER THIS ROAD ASSESSMENT. AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THIS SUPPOSED, SUPPOSED SPECIAL BENEFIT INCLUDING EMS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, POSTAL DELIVERY, TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS ARE BENEFITS TO PEOPLE AND NOT PROPERTY. WHICH CONSTITUTE AN UNFAIR TAX, NOT AN ASSESSMENT. TONIGHT, THOSE SAME BENEFITS ARE BEING ARBITRARILY REBRANDED AS REASONS TO IMPOSE A FOURTH RANCHES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. WE PAID ONCE FOR FIRE RESCUE. WE PAID ONCE FOR FIRE RESCUE, NOW WE'RE IN TOLD WE MUST PAY AGAIN BECAUSE BETTER ROADS BENEFIT FIRE RESCUE. WE PAID ONCE FOR SOLID WASTE. NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD WE MUST PAY AGAIN BECAUSE BETTER ROADS BENEFIT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION.

[02:40:01]

>> THANK YOU. >> MONIQUE.

>> THAT EVENING. MY NAME IS MONIQUE BLACK WREAK, AND I LIVE THAT 6790 NORTHWEST 83RD TERRACE PARKLAND, FLORIDA IN THE RANCHES IS JUNE OF 2003. MAYOR ON THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE SPECIFIC PART OF YOUR OWN RECORD THAT SHOWS THE RANCHES ROADWAY PROJECT IS IN SUBSTANCE A STORMWATER AND FLOODING PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN LOADED INTO A ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. AT YOUR APRIL 2024 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING, A STAFF EXPLAINED THAT YOU ARE AT 90% DESIGN ON THE RANCH'S PROJECT, WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF ABOUT $3.5 MILLION. AT THAT MEETING, YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SO ONE DAY JOHNSON SPOKE ABOUT THE DESIGN CONSULTANTS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 66 LANE, AND SAID, QUOTE, SO ON NORTHWEST 66 LANE WHERE WE ARE HAVING THE MAJORITY OF THE FLOODING, THEY ARE RECOMMENDING TO RAISE THAT A FOOT. THAT STATEMENT EXPLICITLY TIES THE DESIGN CHANGE TO A FLOODING PROBLEM, NOT AESTHETICS OR CONVENIENCE. RIGHT AFTER THAT, YOUR PARKLAND ENGINEER ALEX CONFIRMED THAT THIS FLOOD TURBINE DESIGN CHANGE WAS BEING PUSHED STRAIGHT INTO THE RANCHES ROADWAY ASSESSMENT. HE SAID, QUOTE, I'M ASKING FOR AN INCREASE OF 660,000, BRINGING THE TOTAL PROJECT COST UP TO $4.1 MILLION. COSTS ANTICIPATED TO BE ASSESSED TO THE RANCHES RESIDENCE. YOUR CITY MANAGER, NANCY MARANO, THEN IDENTIFIED BY THE NUMBER JUMPED. SHE DESCRIBED THE CAUSES RAISING THE ELEVATION OF NORTHWEST 66 LANE, AND SHE THEN STATED, AND I QUOTE, AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE END OF YOUR DESIGN, WE CAN FINE TUNE THE COST, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 4.1 OR 4.2 MILLION DOLLARS TO BE ASSESSED. THE AUDIO RECORDING OF THAT MEETING LITERALLY DOCUMENTS THE CHAIN OF EVENTS. A $3.5 MILLION PROJECT CROSS COST WAS INCREASED BY $660,000 FOR FLOOD RELATED DESIGN DECISION ON ONE STREET. AND THAT SAME 660 WAS IMMEDIATELY TREATED AS PART OF THE AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED TO THE RESIDENT RANCHES. SO THIS IS NOT LEADER BOOK, KEEPING DECISION WHERE SOMEONE QUIETLY SHIFTED COSTS. FROM ONE POT TO ANOTHER, BUT YOUR OWN WORDS AT 90% DESIGN YOU INTENTIONALLY BAKED A VERY EXPENSIVE FLOODING FIX FOR 66 LANE INTO WHAT IS NOW CALLED THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, AND THEN SPREAD THE COST, ALONG WITH OTHER DRAINAGE TURBINE DESIGN SUCH AS WORK CLAW SLOPE REVERSAL TO EVERY PARCEL IN THE RANCHES.

IN REALITY, THIS IS PROOF IN YOUR OWN WORDS THAT THE DYING OF THE RANCHES ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS FUNDAMENTALLY A STORMWATER AND FLOODING PROJECT, INCLUDING 66 LANE. THE DESIGN TEAM DID NOT IDENTIFY SEVERE FLOODING PROBLEM ON ONE STREET, THEY EXPLICITLY DESIGNED TO FIX, RAISING THE PROFILE OF FIT A FOOT, EXCUSE ME. THAT IS A DOMINANT FUNCTION OF THESE COSTS, YET THE STORMWATER SOLUTION HAS BEEN TREATED AS A ROGUE COST TO BE SPREAD ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SOME GENERALIZED ROADWAY BENEFIT. ON TOP OF THAT, PER YOUR OWN RFP AND MULTIPLE ADOPTED CITY BUDGETS FOR '25 AND '26, THE CITY ALREADY KNEW AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ROAD RESURFACING AND ASSOCIATED COSTS WERE BEING DRIVEN BY GENERALLY FUNDED DRAINAGE PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THESE ARE DIRECT STORMWATER AND FLOODING, FLOODING RELATED ISSUES DOMINANT BY DESIGN, NOT INCIDENTAL . MY ASKS ARE SIMPLE. BE HONEST IN THE RECORD AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE $666,000 DESIGN INCREASE ON 66 LANE IS A FLOOD MITIGATION EXPENSE, NOT A GENERIC ROADWAY BENEFIT TO ALL 175 PARCELS. DIRECT YOUR STAFF AND YOUR CONSULTANTS TO BREAK OUT ALL THE FLOODING, STORMWATER RELATED

[02:45:04]

>> THANK YOU. >> THERE IS ONE MORE NAME ON THE LIST. IT JUST SAYS BARRY. IS THAT THE SAME BARRY?

>> YUP. BARRY. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S BARRY CHARNOCK. I LIVE AT 8750 NORTHWEST 72ND STREET IN THE RANCHES. I'M GOING LAST , AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR, SO I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT EVERY FACT THAT YOU'VE JUST HEARD.

INSTEAD, I WANT TO END WITH THE BIG IDEAS THAT TIE IT ALL TOGETHER. SPECIAL BENEFIT, FAIR SHARING OF COST, AND PROJECT SCOPE. A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SIMPLE. THE CITY SHOULD CLEARLY SAY WHAT THE PROJECT IS REALLY FOR. SHOW THAT PURPOSE DIRECTLY BENEFITS THE PROPERTIES BEING CHARGED, AND THEN DIVIDE THE COST IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE. WHAT WE'VE SHOWN TONIGHT IS THAT THIS GOT FLIPPED. PUBLICLY, THE CITY IS DESCRIBED THIS PROJECT IN PLAIN TERMS. IT'S ABOUT DRAINAGE, FLOODING, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. IT'S ALSO ABOUT FIXING DETERIORATION THE CITY ITSELF SAID WOULD RESULT FROM THE GENERALLY FUNDED DRAINAGE WORK IN YOUR RSP AND ADOPTED BUDGETS. THAT IS THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IN YOUR OWN PUBLIC RECORD. BUT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT SHOWS UP ON PAPER , AND TONIGHT, THOSE GOALS DIDN'T JUST FADE, THEY BASICALLY DISAPPEARED. INSTEAD, THE BENEFITS ARE DESCRIBED AS GENERAL SERVICES AND BENEFITS TO PEOPLE, NOT PROPERTY, BENEFITS WE ALREADY RECEIVED CITYWIDE AND THROUGH OTHER ASSESSMENTS.

PRETTIER STREETS WAS NEVER THE DOMINANT PURPOSE DRIVING THIS PROJECT. THAT MISMATCH IS THE CORE PROBLEM. THE STATED SPECIAL BENEFITS DON'T MATCH THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS WORK, AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED HIGHER COSTS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT. THIS MISMATCH RESULTS IN COST SHIFTING , ARBITRARY LINES OF CONVENIENCE, AND HIGH COSTS THAT ARE TOTALLY DISCONNECTED FROM THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT. THAT IS WHY YOU'VE HEARD SO MUCH FRUSTRATION, BECAUSE THIS FEELS MORE LIKE AN ARBITRARY BUDGET DECISION DRESSED UP WITH A LIST OF GENERIC AND OF ITS WE ALREADY RECEIVE. HERE'S THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE. A HUGE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON A SMALL NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN THE CITY. IF YOU SIMPLY INCLUDE THE TWO CLEARLY BENEFITED HENDRIX AND COUNTY PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY LEFT OUT, A TYPICAL 2 1/2 ACRE RANCH IS PARCEL WOULD PAY ALMOST $5000 LESS OF THAT INITIAL PAYMENT. 20%. REMOVING THE NORTHWEST 66 LANE FLOOD WORK WOULD MEAN ABOUT $7600 LESS PER AVERAGE PARCEL OF THE RANCHES BEFORE FINANCING. THAT'S NOT A ROUNDING ERROR, THAT'S REAL MONEY TO REAL FAMILIES SUCH AS HERE TONIGHT. SO I'LL END WITH A SIMPLE REQUEST, NOT A DEMAND. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. WHAT IS THE RUSH TO DO THIS TONIGHT? TAKE A SHORT PAUSE. MAKE THE PAPERWORK MATCH THE REALITY. ALIGN THE STATED BENEFITS WITH THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT, AND ALIGN THE BOUNDARY AND THE COST SHARING TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY BENEFITED . IN TERMS OF SCOPE, FOR PINETREE ESTATES, THE CITY'S INITIAL COST ESTIMATES FOR FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION WERE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE FINAL ACTUAL COST. $20 MILLION 11,000 PER PROPERTY. FOR THE RANCHES, WE DIDN'T EVEN INVESTIGATE A QUOTE FOR THE SAME MODERN, UNIFORM, LESS INVASIVE APPROACH IT ALL I'M ASKING IS BASIC DILIGENCE. PAUSE LONG ENOUGH TO PRICE A DURABLE UNIFORM FDR OPTION SO THE RANCHES HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR QUALITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT AS PINETREE ESTATES RATHER THAN MOVING FORWARD WITH AN INFERIOR PATCHWORK PLAN THAT WILL INEVITABLY CHANGE AND IS BASED ON OUTDATED ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA FROM YEARS AGO. IF YOU DO THAT, YOU WILL STILL FIX THE FLOODING IN THE ROADS, BUT YOU WILL ALSO FIX SOMETHING JUST AS IMPORTANT TO US: THE SENSE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING TREATED FAIRLY, HONESTLY, AND CONSISTENTLY BY ITS OWN CITY. AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE

[02:50:05]

QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE ON THE LIST? OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK? FRED, I SEE, I SEE PETE.

ALL RIGHT. >> FRED A.P.T., 9205 NORTHWEST 70TH COURT. I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER IT NOW, BUT ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS TO PAY $10,000 IN ACRE UP FRONT. TALK HAS BEEN THAT THERE MAY BE LAWSUITS AND OTHER THINGS THAT MAY AFFECT THAT FINAL NUMBER AFTER YOU REQUIRE THE PAYMENT. SO IF SOMEBODY DOES WRITE A CHECK FOR $10,000, WHENEVER THE DEADLINE IS, AND THEN THERE'S A SETTLEMENT THAT REDUCES THAT $10,000 AMOUNT, HOW DO THEY GET THE DIFFERENCE BACK? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. ANSWER THAT LATER. I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 23 YEARS. DURING THAT TIME, THE BUDGET OF THE CITY HAS EXPANDED ALMOST EXPONENTIALLY , IN PART BECAUSE OF ALL THE NEW HOMES THAT WERE ADDED AND ALL THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT IT GENERATES. AND DURING THOSE 22 YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF NICETIES THAT THE CITY HAS SPENT MONEY ON. CONVERTING GRASS SOCCER FIELDS TO ARTIFICIAL TURF. BEAUTIFYING HOME BERG ROAD. CONVERTING A PARK TO A CLAY TENNIS CENTER. LOTS AND LOTS OF NICETIES THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN SPENDING MONEY ON, WHICH IS GREAT. YET DURING THE SAME 22 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE OR WHATEVER IT IS, YOU KNEW THAT THESE PUBLIC ROADS WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. YOU KNEW THAT THESE CANALS WOULD HAVE TO BE FIXED. YOU HAVEN'T SPENT ALMOST A PENNY OF IT DURING THE 22 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE, AND NOW, WHEN THE BILL COMES, YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT. IF YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE, AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HERE FOR 20 YEARS, WHY WEREN'T YOU PUTTING MONEY ASIDE TO FIX THESE THINGS OVER THE LAST 22 YEARS INSTEAD OF SPENDING IT ON THE NICETIES AS WE GOT MORE AND MORE MONEY COMING IN FROM ALL THE NEW HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE BUILDING HOMES? LASTLY , WHEN I STARTED THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU WHEN IT WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED OVER A YEAR AGO, I WAS TOLD THAT ONE OF THE, AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A LEGAL THING, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS YOU FELT IT FAIR THAT ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THE RANCHES PAY FOR ALL OF THIS IS BECAUSE ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THE RANCHES DERIVE A BENEFIT FROM IT. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE HAVE DOZENS OF DOZENS OF BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE OUT OF THE RANCHES THAT PROVIDE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR ALL PARKLAND. WE HAVE ARBORISTS, WE HAVE LANDSCAPERS, WE HAVE EQUESTRIAN CENTERS, WE HAVE WHATEVER IT IS MIKE DOES FOR A LIVING, WHEREVER HE WENT.

THAT'S, THAT SERVES ALL OF PARKLAND, ALL OF PARKLAND BENEFITS FROM BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE RANCHES, YET YOU DON'T FEEL THAT ALL OF PARKLAND SHOULD HELP OFFSET THE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION. YOU ONLY WANT THE PEOPLE IN, IN THE RANCHES TO PAY FOR IT. I UNDERSTAND THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE ÚPAYING MONEY FOR, FOR SURE. I GET THAT. BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE RANCH PROVIDES IN TERMS OF SERVICES FOR ALL OF PARKLAND, MAYBE THE CITY CAN COME UP WITH MORE MONEY. IT'S NOT A LEGAL ARGUMENT BUT I'M MORE CONCERNED OF THE LONG-TERM ISSUE OF -- SHE WAS SAYING YOUR CITY MANAGER -- KEEP LINING UP WITH CHECKS, COMING IN TO PAY. HOW DO YOU GET THAT MONEY BACK IF THE FINAL NUMBER, THROUGH SOME LEGAL ARBITRATION, COMES LOWER? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO WRITE A CHECK UP FRONT, WHICH YOU WOULD PREFER, SO YOU CAN GET A SMALLER LOAN. IF THERE ISN'T

AN ANSWER TO THAT. >> IN QUEUE. PETE? COME ON DOWN.

>> YOU ALREADY HAD YOUR THREE MINUTES.

>> -- SINCE HE WAS HIRED BY THE CITY -- CAN YOU PLEASE DEFINE --

>> THIS ISN'T RECORDED. >> HE'S SAYING THAT YOU HIRED HIM TO BE THE LIAISON. CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT HE KEEPS REPEATING?

>> PETE? PETE? >> WELL, TO SPEAK TO THAT ONE COMMENT THERE THAT WAS JUST MADE, I SEE IN STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE, WE SPOKE TO SOMEBODY IN THE RANCHES, AND IT WAS ONE PERSON LIKE THEY HAVE IN H AWAY. THEY HAVE NO HOAS, SO YOU CAN'T SAY SOMEBODY IS SPEAKING FOR THEM UNLESS THEY HAVE AN H AWAY

[02:55:01]

AND I COME IN HERE WITH NOTES MOST OF THE TIME. I'M WRITING ALL AROUND THIS PIECE OF PAPER, AND THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE SAID BY PEOPLE THAT ARE, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, AND SOME OF THEM I DO AGREE WITH. MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS JUST TABLE THE ENTIRE THING.

>> CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC? >> WERE THERE EVER TWO MEETINGS TO ADDRESS THIS? IF THERE WERE, I NEVER SAW THEM. YOU SHOULD HAVE TWO MEETINGS TO ADDRESS THIS. I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT THERE SHOULD BE TWO MEETINGS TO ADDRESS THIS. FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE RANCHES UNDERSTAND THAT, I'VE SEEN LEDGERS THAT WERE PROVIDED FOR ME FROM THE CITY. IT'S SPENT, LIKE, $2.4 MILLION TO PUMP OUT WATER, TO FIX TROTTERS LANE. $1.4 MILLION FOR THE FIRST, FIRST STREET OR FIRST WATER PROJECT. THEY DID NOTHING BUT IMPROVE THE ROAD THAT GOES INTO THE RANCHES ON WHEREVER THAT ROAD IS, ABOVE THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER. THEY SPENT $1.4 MILLION ON THAT. -- THE RANCHES DIDN'T PAY FOR IT. THEY SPEND MONEY TO FIX TROTTERS LANE, THEY PUMP THE WATER OUT, AND THEY'VE NEVER BEEN BILLED. AND TO SPEND, EXCUSE ME, $10.1 MILLION IN THE 2.4, THAT'S 12 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS. DID YOU GUYS EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR. AND EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY. WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR IT? THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR MY ROADS. WE HAD A -- EXCUSE ME, WE HAD TO SUE YOU GUYS TO GET THAT MONEY. LET THEM SUE YOU. MAKE THEM PAY FOR WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET, GET THEIR ROADS DONE, TO GET THEIR, THEY'RE GETTING, I CAN'T COVER ALL THESE DIFFERENT NOTES I HAVE HERE. I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY FRIENDS HERE TONIGHT EITHER. OH, SHOOT. ANYWAY, THEY'RE GETTING, THEY GOT LUCKY, IN A WAY. AARP MONEY TO PAY FOR A LOT OF THE STUFF THEY WOULD NORMALLY PAY FOR. IF THEY, THEY DISAGREE WITH IT BEING A STORMWATER FEE, FINE. READJUST THE STORMWATER FEE AND LET THEM PAY FOR IT DURING THEIR NORMAL ASSESSMENT IN THE STORM WATER, IF THEY DISAGREE WITH IT. I THINK THEY'RE RIGHT. JUST REASSESS THEM. THERE IS, THERE IS TOO MUCH GOING ON HERE TONIGHT FOR, FOR IT TO BE APPROVED TONIGHT. YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE MEDIANS ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE VALID POINTS, AND I LIKE MY POINT TOO. I DON'T WANT TO PAY, AND THIS IS THE SAME THING I SAY EVERY TIME I COME IN HERE. IF I HAD TO PAY, I'LL PAY, I DON'T MIND PAYING -- I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE THE, FOR PINES FREE STREETS. I'VE DRIVEN DOWN SOME OF THEM, THEY LOOK GREAT, THEY'RE DUTIFUL, AND IF I PAY FOR THEM, FINE. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. AND I SAY THIS EVERY TIME I COME IN HERE. FOR 12 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS , IT'S NOT MY JOB TO PAY FOR IT. EVERYBODY IN HERE SEEMS VERY NICE AND THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE REASONS, BUT I CAN PRETTY MUCH, ANYTHING THEY SAID TONIGHT, COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT REASON.

THAT'S JUST ME. >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, PETE.

>> MIKE, HOLD ON ONE SECOND, PLEASE, PLEASE. I'M GOING TO BE RESPECTFUL, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS VERY QUICK AND SIMPLE SO YOU CAN LET MIKE SPEAK MULTIPLE TIMES, AND YOU JUST LET THAT GENTLEMAN SPEAK MULTIPLE TIMES. THERE'S JUST ONE THING THAT I WANT TO SAY. EACH ONE OF YOU ARE -- THERE

[03:00:04]

>> I DON'T KNOW, JUST SO YOU GUYS CAN HEAR, I DON'T KNOW, THERE WAS NO AUDIO FOR THE LAST ABOUT A MINUTE. STILL CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME.

>> MAYOR? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU, JORDAN.

>> SO I JUST HAVE ONE -- >> YOU CUT ME OFF WITH 1:40, AND THAT GUY HAD NO BUSINESS COMMENTING HERE.

>> MIKE, MIKE. >> IT WAS PART OF THE RANCHES.

THAT WAS SHUT DOWN. NOW THIS GUY GETS TO COME IN? WHATEVER, MAN.

SEE YOU LATER. >> OKAY. WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR THREE HOURS. I'M GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL COME RIGHT BACK. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? LET'S HEAR EVERYBODY ELSE. ANYBODY ELSE WHO

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> HI, I'M ORLEY GUYS. I LIVE ON NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE. MY HOUSE HAS NO FLOODING ISSUE.

IT'S BUILT ON A LITTLE INCLINE, KNOCK ON WOOD, THANK GOD IT'S NEVER FLOODED. MY HOUSE IS BEING ASSESSED, $62,000 OVER 20 YEARS TO DRIVE ON A PAVED ROAD IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. I THINK THAT NUMBER IS CRAZY. I HAVE FIVE CHILDREN. WE ALL ARE STRUGGLING, RIGHT? I MEAN, I JUST THAT'S, DRIVING ON A PAVED ROAD IS THE BARE MINIMUM THE CITY SHOULD BE PROVIDING. IT'S NOT A SPECIAL BENEFIT, IT'S BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE. AND JUST ONE THING THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE, ANYONE ELSE MENTIONED, MY ROAD, NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE, HASN'T BEEN PAVED IN 40 YEARS.

40 YEARS. IT'S OVER DUE BY AT LEAST 10 YEARS. CRUMBLING, POTHOLES, ET CETERA. SO 40 YEARS OF COLLECTING A LOT OF TAXES FROM US, AND THERE'S NO MONEY TO REPAVE OUR ROADS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU ALL TO

RECONSIDER. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> GOOD EVENING, GUYS. HOW ARE YOU? FIRST I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS -- OH, I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. HOWARD DVORKIN, 7809 GALLEON COURT. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF PARKLAND FOR 35 YEARS. AS I WAS SAYING, I WANT THANK EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME OVER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, AND CERTAINLY NANCY AND SO WENDY HAVE TAKEN TIME OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, IF I, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AS A 20% LANDOWNER OF THE RANCHES, I REALLY PURCHASED THAT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE CITY. BECAUSE THIS WAS FOUNDED ON EQUESTRIAN, ON FARMING. NEVER IN MY THOUGHTS WHAT I THINK THAT I WOULD BE ASSESSED NEARLY $1 MILLION TO PAY FOR WHAT I BELIEVE , AND WHAT THESE PEOPLE BELIEVE, IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY. I HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE SUCCESS OF THE RANCHES, BUT ALSO, I BELIEVE IN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FAIRNESS. AND THIS ISN'T FAIR, GUYS. THIS IS WRONG. THE CITY, AS OPPOSED TO ANY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I KNOW IN PARKLAND, OWNS THE ROADS IN THE RANCHES. THEY OWN THE ROADS IN THE RANCHES. THAT BEING SAID, PINETREE, YOU DON'T OWN THE ROADS IN PINETREE. RICH, YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, ANYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU GUYS DON'T OWN THE ROAD. THOSE NEIGHORHOODS ON THE ROADS. YOU OWN THE ROADS IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND, IN THE RANCHES. YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, AND I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID MANY, MANY TIMES, AND I HAVE TO TALK FASTER, THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAYING TAXES FOR 20, 30, 40, 50, AND MAYBE EVEN 60 YEARS BACK THERE. AND THE REALITY IS, WHY DO YOU HAVE A $15 MILLION ASSESSMENT? BECAUSE THE AREA HAS BEEN COMPLETELY NEGLECTED.

NEGLECTED! BY THE CITY. AND NOW YOU'RE COMING TO THE RESIDENTS SAYING, OH, THANKS FOR THE TAXES, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY MORE. THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG. WE ALL WANT SAFE AND MAINTAINED ROADS, AND THE SITUATION, YOU KNOW, THE

[03:05:03]

>> THANK YOU, HOWARD. THEY ARE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD

LIKE TO SPEAK? >> I JUST WANT TO ASK, --

>> CAN YOU COME A LITTLE CLOSER, AND YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

>> LLERENA CADIGAN. MY ADDRESS, 7373 NORTHWEST 82ND TERRACE. YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE CONTINGENCY WILL NOT BE RETURNED FOR THOSE WHO PAY UP FRONT ON THE ASSESSMENT. I JUST FEEL THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNFAIR. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO

CONSIDER. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> DID YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CYCLE BACK TO, TO THE QUESTIONS?

>> YES. >> IT'S LESS THAN 30 SECONDS.

>> WELL, WE'LL ADDRESS -- I BELIEVE -- GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID. I THINK

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TONIGHT. >> I HAVE ANOTHER TWO QUESTIONS.

>> BUT YOU, YOU, YOU HAD YOUR TIME TO SPEAK.

>> A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE SPOKE TWICE.

>> KNOW. NO ONE SPOKE TWICE. >> THE GUY FROM HYDRATED. YEAH.

>> HE SPOKE ON A DIFFERENT, HE SPOKE ON A DIFFERENT AGENDA

ITEM. >> MY QUESTIONS MIGHT SAVE YOU MONEY. MY QUESTION, I, I DIRECTED TO SAVE YOU MONEY.

>> SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEND ME THOSE QUESTIONS. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE RELATIVE -- THE NUMBER CAN --

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> HE CAN HAVE MY THREE MINUTES, YEAH.

>> SOMEBODY'S GIVING HIM THE THREE MINUTES THERE.

>> SHE'SGOING TO GIVE ME HER THREE MINUTES. IS THAT OKAY?

>> NO PROBLEM. >> ALL RIGHT. CESAR PEREZ, ONE 7901 NORTHWEST 82ND TERRACE. I SPOKE FOR. IT'S JUST TWO SMALL QUESTIONS THAT I BELIEVE IS GOING TO SAVE US MONEY. IT'S THAT THE DRAINING PROJECT AND THE ROB IMPROVEMENT WASN'T TIMELINE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ESCAPING THOSE ROADS. IN THE PROJECT FOR THE DRAINAGE IS NOT EVEN HALFWAY THROUGH, AS I CAN SAY. SO WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? REPAIR THE ROAD AND THEN DRIVE THOSE MACHINES BACK ON THOSE ROAD TO DESTROY IT AGAIN? WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? THOSE ARE MY TWO QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WHO -- NO, YOU ALREADY SPOKE, PETE. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING THAT THERE IS NONE -- OH. OKAY.

>> I'M DR. JOE BYRON, I LIVE AT 70,000 NORTHWEST 84TH AVENUE, AND THIS QUESTION CAME UP THE FIRST TIME THESE ROADS WERE PAVED. NOW, DOWN THE ROAD, THE COUNTY IN THE STATE ARE GOING TO SAY, HEY, THEY DON'T HAVE WATER AND SEWER. WE'RE ON SEPTIC AND WELLS. THAT'S A CONSIDERATION DOWN THE ROAD. OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO TEAR THESE ROADS UP AGAIN TO PUT IN WATER AND SEWER.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> NO. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, I'M CLOSING IT TO THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ME? ALLISON TURN THIS UP? WELL, IT'S PROBABLY HARD TO HEAR BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S TALKING.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OH, THEY -- AND HE WAS KIDDING.

>> I HATE USING THE GAVEL, BUT. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO GET, I'D LIKE TO GET BACK ON TRACK HERE, SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, I'M GOING TO ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER I'M GOING TO HAVE SO ONE DAY DRESS A QUESTION, AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ANTHONY AND HEATHER TO KIND OF GO THROUGH A LOT OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE. I BELIEVE I HAVE EVERYBODY NOTED HERE, SO WE'LL DO THE BEST WE CAN TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHERE WE'RE HEADED. FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS, ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO, BUT WE ARE STEWARDS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY ON A FINANCIAL BASIS. SO WE

[03:10:03]

AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE I'M DOING. AND I WILL STAND TALL AND PROUD THAT WHAT I AM DOING IS THE RIGHT THING.

>> FAILED THE CITY. >> MONIQUE! ONE MORE OUTBURST, MONIQUE, AND I'M SORRY, YOU WILL HAVE TO LEAVE. I HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT. MOST, IF NOT ALL OF WHAT YOU SAY IS NOT EVEN

CLOSE TO BEING ACCURATE. >> YOU HAVE NO HEART FOR THE

CITY. >> MICHELLE, PLEASE.

>> I'LL LEAVE. YOU HAVE NO, YOU HAVE NO HEART.

>> AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU AGREE WITH, THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE . BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, I'M NOT UP HERE BECAUSE I WANT TO BE THE MAYOR. I'M UP HERE TO MAKE SURE I'M DOING EVERYTHING I CAN TO DO RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS. AND AGAIN, YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH ME ALL YOU WANT, AND THAT'S OKAY. AND GUESS WHAT? I'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT IT. I'LL SIT DOWN WITH YOU. I'LL LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. AND I DON'T HAVE A, I DON'T HAVE A CLOSED MIND WHERE I JUST -- IF -- LISTEN. YOU CHOSE TO LIVE IN THE RANCHES. I CHOSE TO LIVE IN PARKLAND ISLES. SOMEONE ELSE CHOOSES TO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SOMEONE ELSE CHOOSES TO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. WITH THOSE

[03:15:02]

NAME ME, NAME ME ANOTHER MAYOR OR ANOTHER COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD DO THAT. I WILL HAVE, OKAY. ANYWAY , I HAVE TO BE THE MAYOR, AND WE HAVE TO BE A COMMISSION FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.

AND IF A GROUP OF PEOPLE CANNOT SEE THAT A 10 MILLION, A $10 MILLION CONTRIBUTION IS NOT ENOUGH, I'M SORRY, IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO RATIONALIZE. BECAUSE I'M HERE FROM YOU TONIGHT, BUT YOU DON'T THINK I'M HEARING FROM OTHER PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS? HOW ARE YOU GIVING THEM THAT MUCH MONEY? I DON'T DRIVE ON THE RANCHES. I DON'T EVER GO BACK THERE. I DON'T -- IF THEY'RE FLOODING, IF THEY'RE WHATEVER. EXCUSE ME, I GAVE YOU YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. ONE MORE OUTBURST, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST, I'M NOT GOING TO BE PUT IN THAT POSITION. I'VE EARNED THIS SPOT , SO I DESERVE THE TIME THAT I'M TAKING, BECAUSE I GAVE EVERYBODY ELSE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND EVERYBODY'S GOT MY CELL PHONE NUMBER. EVERYBODY'S GOT MY EMAIL. I WILL TALK TO ANYBODY AND MEET ANYBODY ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, AND HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION. I'M NOT GOING TO YELL BACK AND FORTH WHILE I'M SITTING UP HERE IN THE DAIS TRYING TO DO MY JOB. SO I TOOK NOTES. I'M GOING TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO ANSWER EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR OF WHAT IS GOING ON, WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE'RE HEADED. WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION AMONGST THE COMMISSION, AND WE'LL DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS. SO LET'S KEEP IN MIND, THE CITY IS BEING ASSESSED FOR THE PROPERTY IT OWNS. SO ANY EXTRA ASSESSMENTS, ANY OF THAT STUFF, THE CITY IS IN THE SAME POSITION. AND I TAKE MY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY. BIDS FOR THE ROADS, YOU ASKED. I BELIEVE WE GOT FOUR OR FIVE BIDS, IF

I'M NOT MISTAKEN. >> YES.

>> THE LOAN RATE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED. WE'RE GOING TO SHOP IT AROUND TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO ENSURE WE GET THE BEST LOAN RATE. AS FAR AS SELLING THE ASPHALT, I WOULD ASSUME , HOWEVER BERGERON DID THAT PROJECT, ALL THOSE COSTS ARE SOMEHOW FACTORED INTO HIS FINAL BID. SOMEBODY MENTIONED ABOUT THE SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT. I

BELIEVE THAT'S A PASTOR. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO WE, ALL WE DO WITH THE SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT IS COLLECT THE MONEY FROM THE RESIDENTS. EXACTLY WHAT A COST FROM WEIGHT MANAGEMENT. JUST SO YOU DON'T GET THAT BILL. AND THAT GOES ON YOUR, YOUR TAX BILL. SO YOU CAN CALL IT AN ASSESSMENT, SURE, BUT IT'S A PASTOR. 66, 66 LANE. 66 LANE, THE CITY IS CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL FUNDS TOWARD 66 LANE.. TO TALK ABOUT FDR. SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY ON THE, ON THE FDR AS IT RELATES TO PINETREE, AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK -- TO COME AND TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE FDR. SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY STARTED WITH PINETREE, WE THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY. AND ONE OF OUR ENGINEERS WAS ABLE TO FIND, BECAUSE WE DO WORK EXTREMELY HARD TO DO WHAT WE CAN FINANCIALLY, CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY THINK, TO DO, TO TRY TO SAVE MONEY. AND OUR ENGINEER CAME UPON FDR AND FDR WAS A PERFECT FIT FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH THE FDR. WE WERE ORIGINALLY WITH PINETREE GETTING ESTIMATES BETWEEN $12 MILLION AND $15 MILLION. SO WE, WE STUMBLED, I DON'T WANT TO SAY STUMBLED, YOU KNOW, WE DID RESEARCH AND, YOU ATION, AND WE

[03:20:02]

FOR FDR OR WHATEVER. >> SURE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO THE CITY CONTRACTED WITH THE RNP, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, TO EVALUATE THE RANCHES EXISTING ROADWAYS AND COME UP WITH A FEASIBLE SOLUTION. THE SOLUTION METHODOLOGY THAT WAS CHOSEN WAS MILLING AND RESURFACING. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT MILLING AND RESURFACING IS A ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGY THAT'S DONE BY ALL AGENCIES FOR ROADWAYS. OUR LOXAHATCHEE ROAD PROJECT WE'RE DOING INCLUDES BILLING AND RESURFACING. WHEN I FIRST GOT TO THE CITY OF PARKLAND, MY FIRST ENGINEERING PROJECT WAS THE HOLMBERG ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE TO PINE ISLAND, AND THE METHODOLOGY CHOSEN FOR THAT PRODUCT WAS ALSO MILLING AND RESURFACING. FOR THE PINETREE COMMUNITY, THE, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE BASE MATERIAL. THE BASE MATERIAL WAS EVALUATED BY THE ENGINEERING FIRM, AND THAT BASE MATERIAL IS ACTUALLY STRONGER THAN THE BASE MATERIAL IN PINETREE. WITH THAT BASE MATERIAL BEING STRONGER, THE ENGINEERS THEN SHOWS MILLING AND RESURFACING. FDR WAS EVALUATED, BUT ONE OF THE KEY REASONS FDR IS UTILIZED IS WHEN YOU DO HAVE AN ACTUAL FAILING BASE. THE PINETREE ROADWAY BASE WAS FAILING. THEY METHODOLOGY FOR FDR WAS IN UTILIZED BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN IT'S MOST APPLICABLE FOR YOU TO PULVERIZE AND USE THE MATERIAL FOR THAT PROCESS. THIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN PINETREE BECAUSE OF THE STRENGTH OF THE BASE MATERIAL IN PINETREE. IN THE RANCHES, I'M

>> YOU VERY MUCH. SOMEBODY ALSO BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE, THE CONTRACT FOR BERGERON. MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, THE CITY BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WE ACTUALLY HAD THREE SEPARATE CONTRACTS. NANCY? THREE SEPARATE CONTRACTS. WE HAD THE DRAINAGE PROJECT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE PUMP STATION , AND THEN WE

HAD THE ROADWAY PROJECT. >> RIGHT. WE PULLED THE PUMP STATION OUT BECAUSE WE FELT THAT WE COULD GET BETTER PRICING.

>> WHICH WE DID. >> YES, EXACTLY RIGHT.

>> SO, AGAIN, WE COULD'VE VERY EASILY TAKEN THE BID AND JUST PAY IT, BUT WE SPECIFICALLY BROKEN UP INTO THREE SECTIONS BECAUSE WE FELT WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE MONEY ON THE PUMP STATION, AND SURE ENOUGH, WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO THAT SAVES ALL OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND MONEY, BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE PROJECT IS ONE THAT WE DECIDED AS A COMMISSION TO PAY FOR. WHEN AGAIN, THAT WAS A PROJECT THAT WE COULD HAVE VERY EASILY ALSO ASSESSED FOR IT. SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, I BELIEVE I ANSWERED ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M PREPARED, OR, SHOULD I SAY, WHATEVER, KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH FOR WHATEVER. SO ANTHONY, HEATHER, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS WHICH I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS. SO I HAVE THE SPECIAL BENEFIT, IF WE CAN JUST GO OVER THAT, THAT A LITTLE BIT IN MORE DEPTH, SO WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT, IF WE CAN, I KNOW KELLY CAN SPEAK ON, IF, IF NEEDED, THE BROWARD COUNTY PARCEL, WHICH IS 29 ACRES.

HEATHER, IF YOU CAN ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT THE ASSIGNED ACREAGE VERSUS THE BUILDABLE LOT, SO WE CAN GET SOME CLARITY AND SOME UNDERSTANDING INTO THAT. AND THEN ALSO, WE HAVE THE 80 ACRES IN HENDRIX, OR WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 80, BUT I THINK YOU GET THE GIST. SO BASICALLY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE SPECIAL BENEFIT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE AND THE REASON THE METHODOLOGY WAS CHOSEN FOR THE ASSIGNED ACREAGE AS OPPOSED, AS OPPOSED TO THE BUILDABLE LOTS. THE BROWARD COUNTY 29 ACRE PARCEL AND THAT THE 80 ACRES IN HENDRIX. SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ANTHONY, HEATHER, HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO HANDLE THAT.

>> DO YOU WANT TO START? GO AHEAD.

>> SURE. I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO HIT THE ISSUE WITH A LARGER LOT, I'M GOING TO HIT THE SPECIAL BENEFIT FOR YOU. AND THEN MAYBE KELLY CAN STAND UP AND DISCUSS SOME OF THE

[03:25:04]

THEY INCLUDE SAFE, ADEQUATE, AND RELIABLE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT AREA, WHICH IN TURN IMPROVES THE ATTRACTIVENESS, UTILIZATION, MARKETABILITY, AND THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THOSE PROPERTIES. THE ROADWAY PROJECT WILL ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF THE ROADWAYS BY ADDING GUARDRAILS, ELIMINATING POTHOLES, CRACKS, AND UNEVEN SURFACES. THE ROADWAYS THAT THESE PROPERTIES OWNERS HAVE IN THEIR INVITEES HAVE TO DRIVE OVER TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY. THE ROADWAY PROJECT WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION AND/OR ENHANCEMENT OF MARKETABILITY, AND THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP PROPERTY TO ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE, AND THEN FINALLY, THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN FOCUSED HERE ON TONIGHT BUT IS JUST ONE OF FOUR IS THE, THE, PROVIDING THIS ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO AND DELIVERY OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND IT DOES PROVIDE CERTAIN EXAMPLES, FIRE RESCUE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL, SOLID WASTE, WE HEARD THESE LISTED TONIGHT. THE, THE THING THAT APPEARS TO BE, NOT BEING MISUNDERSTOOD, IS THAT THAT ASSESSMENT IS NOT FUNDING EMS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL SERVICES, BUT IS RATHER ENSURING THAT THE ROADWAYS ARE IN A CONDITION SO THAT THOSE SERVICES CAN REACH AND BE PROVIDED TO THOSE ASSESSED PROPERTIES. WHICH IS A CRITICAL DISTINCTION. SO THAT'S ON SPECIAL BENEFIT. THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENT APPORTIONMENT METHODOLOGIES, AND, AND YOUR METHODOLOGY CONSULTANT MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS IT AS WELL. THE PINETREE PROJECT WAS DONE BASED UPON BUILDABLE LOTS. THAT AREA CONSISTS OF A MUCH MORE HOMOGENOUS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. IT'S LARGELY RESIDENTIAL, IT'S LARGELY BUILT OUT, AND MOST OF THE, THE PARCELS ARE WITHIN CERTAIN SIZE PARAMETERS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR SOME OF THE USES, ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL USES AND ASSOCIATED NONRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES THAT YOU INSTEAD SEE IN THE RANCHES AREA. BECAUSE THE RANCHES HAS THESE PARCELS THAT ARE LARGER IN SIZE, AND THEY HAVE AGRICULTURAL USES, AND THEY HAVE ASSOCIATED NONRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED ON THOSE PROPERTIES IN PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S CURRENTLY IN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. BECAUSE OF THOSE DISTINCTIONS, YOUR METHODOLOGY CONSULTANT DECIDED THAT THE ASSIGNED ACREAGE WAS A MORE FAIR AND REASONABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT AS A PROXY FOR THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL BENEFIT THAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DUE TO THE DIVERSE USES THAT ARE EXISTING IN THE RANCHES AS OPPOSED TO PINETREE. WE DID TALK ABOUT THE METHODOLOGIES, AND WE DISCUSSED WHETHER BUILDABLE LOTS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE RANCHES, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS, THAT ASSIGNED ACRES IS BASED ON THE LAND AREA EXPRESSED AND THE PROPERTY PRESERVES RULE WAS A MORE ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE TYPE OF BENEFIT THAT IS GOING TO THOSE PROPERTIES. I THINK THAT WAS THE TWO LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD REGARDING SPECIAL BENEFIT AND APPORTIONMENT. THE OTHER ONES DEALT WITH THE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES, AND I THINK KELLY MAY PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND THERE.

>> THANK YOU. THE, I WAS JUST PULLING UP PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION WITH OUR CONSULTANT WHO DID THE METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY, AND HE NOTED THAT THE BROWARD COUNTY PROPERTIES WERE RIGHT AWAY'S AND EASEMENTS, AND THAT'S WHY THEY WERE REMOVED FROM THE, THE ACREAGE MAMA BECAUSE THEY WERE FOR RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO CAN DEFINITIVELY SPEAK ON THE 80

ACRES IN HENDRIX? >> SO I'M, I'M NOT THE

[03:30:12]

CONSULTANT. >> YEAH, AND I, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY, THEY ACCESS TO THOSE, THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IF IT'S THE PROPERTY THAT I'M THINKING OF, IS OFF OF

UNIVERSITY. >> YEAH, OR LOXAHATCHEE.

>> OR LOXAHATCHEE, YEAH. >> OKAY.

>> LOXAHATCHEE. >> OKAY. I THINK, I BELIEVE THAT TOUCHES ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, OR AT LEAST THAT I TOOK NOTES ON. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ANYONE? VICE MAYOR? YEAH, GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS, BECAUSE I'VE, I'VE NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF NOT HAVING A HEART FOR THE CITY. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON THIS DAY IS DOESN'T HAVE A HEART FOR THE CITY. BUT MY HEART IS, IS HURTING. THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE. THIS IS NOT EASY, AND I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY. THE, THE, THE ISSUE, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHEREVER NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED OR WHATEVER, THERE IS A, EVERYONE, I THINK ALL OF US CAN AGREE THAT THERE IS A DEFINITIVE NEED TO PUT MONEY INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE RANCHES. AND WHETHER THAT HAS BEEN, TO YOUR POINT, LONG-OVERDUE PASSED BY, BY OTHERS, FIND WE CAN LOOK AT, MAYBE, WHETHER IT'S STRATEGIC PLANNING, TALKING ABOUT FUNDING FOR, FOR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS GOING FORWARD OR WHATEVER. BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW, AND IT IS HARD WITHOUT UPSETTING SOMEONE, AND NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE TONIGHT, GRANTED, THERE WILL BE SOME PEOPLE UPSET, IT IS HARD TO JUSTIFY PUTTING CITY FUNDS FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT INTO ONE COMMUNITY AND, AT THE SAME TIME, I GET THE PAIN AND THE ANGST AND THE, THE, THE HURT THAT IS GOING TO COME AS A RESULT OF THE RESIDENTS HAVING TO PAY ANYTHING FOR A PORTION OF, OF THE ROADWAY PROJECT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ANSWER THAT APPEASES EVERYONE, AND THAT'S NOT WHY WE TOOK THIS POSITION, WE TOOK THIS POSITION ALSO MAKE SOME HARD DECISIONS, AND TO TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF PARKLAND. NOBODY LOVES THIS AREA OF PARKLAND, YOU KNOW? I LOVE IT AS MUCH AS YOU. I GO TO CHURCH OR, OR WORSHIP WITH THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE RANCHES. I HAVE SOME OF THE FRIENDS, PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WHO I TRULY LOVE, PEOPLE I'VE KNOWN IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FOR MANY YEARS WHO I HAVE AN ADMIRATION FOR. SO THIS IS NOT A DECISION THAT IS, IS TAKEN EASILY, AND I, I, YEAH, WE'LL TALK TONIGHT ABOUT WAYS WE CAN, WE CAN TRY TO HELP. I WANT TO EXPLORE, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE RESIDENTS ARE, ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ADDRESS. I'M GLAD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THEM NOW. SOME OF THEM, THEY'RE JUST UNFAIR OR MISGUIDED, AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT, IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO HELP FINANCIALLY FURTHER THE RESIDENTS WITH, WITH WHAT I GET TO BE, AND I DO GET IT, WE DO HERE YOU, I GET IT THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S PAINFUL. IT'S, IT'S NOT EASY. AT THE SAME TOKEN, I, I GOT OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE REST OF THE CITY WHO WILL SAY, YOU'RE GIVING NINE, $10 MILLION TO THE RANCHES? SO I, I GET IT. WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THIS AS BEST WE CAN WITH, WITH ALL OF THE FACTORS IN PLACE, AND IT IS NOT, I CAN TELL YOU, I'M SITTING HERE TORMENTED. IT IS NOT AN EASY DECISION. IT IS NOT A DECISION THAT I TAKE LIGHTLY. I'M SURE THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES DON'T TAKE LIGHTLY. I KNOW THE MAYOR DOESN'T. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO, I WANT TO, IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS, I, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THE, THE COMMISSIONER ISRAEL MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL NEED BASE OR, OR WHATEVER, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO A SORT OF PROGRAM. I, BELIEVE ME, MY HEART HURTS FOR THE MR. WILLARDS OF THIS COMMUNITY TOO. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT, OR IF THAT IS DISCRIMINATORY OR WHATEVER IT IS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT A CONTRIBUTION. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OTHER WAYS WHERE WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED TONIGHT BY SOME OF OUR ELDERLY AND/OR FINANCIALLY, YOU KNOW, VULNERABLE FOLKS IN THE

[03:35:01]

>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, NEIL,

CINDY, JORY? GO AHEAD. >> JUST WANT TO START WITH THE, YOU KNOW, I ECHO THAT SENTIMENT. I THINK NO, NO COMMISSIONER WANTS TO BE IN A POSITION OF HAVING THE RESIDENTS COME BEFORE THEM AND, AND POUR THEIR HEART OUT SAYING THAT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING IS WRONG AND THAT IS HURTING THE RESIDENTS. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT, NO ONE WANTS TO DO THAT. NO ONE WANTS TO HURT THE RESIDENTS. BUT AS I SAID EARLIER, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF PARKLAND'S, AND, YOU KNOW, WELL RANCHES IS, OF COURSE, AN INTEGRAL PART, IF NOT THE, THE GENESIS OF PARKLAND, IT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T NECESSARILY ABIDE BY THE LAW. AND THAT'S WHY HEATHER IS HERE, IS BECAUSE WE RELIED ON EXPERTS FOR THIS DETERMINATION.

THE DETERMINATION LEADS SAYS THE METHODOLOGY. SO I PERSONALLY, I, I'M GOING TO RELY ON OUR EXPERTS TO BELIEVE THAT THE METHODOLOGY IS SOUND. WHETHER THE SOUNDNESS OF IT IF THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND I THINK WE NEED TO SEPARATE NOSE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THE CITY DOES IS BOTH LEGAL AND FAIR , RIGHT? THOSE ARE TWO COMPONENTS FOR OUR CONVERSATION HERE TONIGHT. I PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THE FINANCIAL NEED PROGRAM. THERE'S NO DISCRIMINATION LAW BASED ON FINANCIAL NEED OR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES. IN MY VIEW, EVERYONE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE ASSESSED THE SAME, BUT THEY WOULD BE A FUN SET-ASIDE, CERTAIN ALLOCATION OF DOLLARS THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHOWN THE ABILITY, TO SHOW NEED, WHETHER, WHATEVER THE CRITERIA IS, THEY WILL JUST BE GETTING ESSENTIALLY A, A STIPEND. IT WOULD BE KIND OF HAVING TO PAY A, QUOTE, LESS OF AN ASSESSMENT. THEY WOULD JUST BE GETTING FINANCIAL SUPPORT OR AID IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT. I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING DEFINITELY WORTH LOOKING INTO. IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS, THE QUESTION I DO HAVE IS, THERE'S A LOT THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP ABOUT HOW COST ASSOCIATED WITH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING FOLDED INTO ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS , AND MY QUESTION IS, IS ARE THOSE TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY? ARE THEY TWO SEPARATE BENEFITS, OR IS IT THAT THE ROADS, BY GIVING THE IMPROVEMENTS, ALSO IN THAT PROCESS ARE GOING TO BE ADDING DRAINAGE BENEFITS , SO IT'S A, A TANGENTIAL BENEFIT, IF YOU WILL. IT'S NOT THE PRIMARY GOAL OF WHAT THE PRODUCT IS. AND, AND, IF SO, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN EITHER BREAK OUT, AS THEY'RE SAYING COSTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY TIED TO JUST STORM WATER, DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, WE HAVE A MASTER STORM WATER PLAN. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SET FORTH IN A PRODUCT, WELL, THEN YES. THIS IS SOMETHING THE CITY HAS TO DO, AND I HAVE TO DO MEETING, THIS IS WHY WE COME UP WITH STORMWATER MASTER PLANS BECAUSE THESE ARE THINGS WE, AGAIN, RELIED ON EXPERTS TO KNOW THAT OVER THE COURSE OF HOWEVER MUCH TIME, THESE OTHER PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE IMPLEMENT TO DO ENSURE THAT OUR CITY IS PROPERLY PROTECTING ITSELF FROM ANY FLOOD, STORM WATER, ET CETERA. SO, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXTENT OF OUR BENEFITS, WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO BE ANCILLARY, OR THOSE ARE DIRECT BENEFITS. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE TALK A LOT ABOUT, PEOPLE ARE SAYING, WELL, EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY USES THE ROADS. WELL, YES, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO USE THE ROADS. I GO TO THE FARMERS MARKET, I GO TO PARKLAND, I GO TO, YOU KNOW, LIBERTY PARK. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS WHETHER THE BENEFIT VERSUS A SPECIAL BENEFIT. AND I KNOW THAT MAY BE A NUANCE, AND THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, WE ARE ALL SITTING HERE HAVING CONVERSATION NIGHT, AND MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S GETTING VERY TECHNICAL. IT'S GOTTEN VERY LEGAL, RIGHT? EVEN THE RESIDENTS ARE READING, WHATEVER THEY'RE READING FROM THE VERY LEGAL ANALYSIS. AND WHEN I DON'T WANT TO DO IS FOR US AS A COMMISSION AND AS RESIDENTS OF THE CITY TO BE HAVING A LEGAL DEBATE ABOUT THIS. I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT IF THE CITY, WHICH I BELIEVE , WE HAVE DONE ALL THE WORK AND ALL THE KIND OF DUE DILIGENCE TO ENSURE THAT OUR METHODOLOGY IS, IS SOUND AND, AND COMPLIES WITH THE LAW. SO AS LONG AS THAT KIND OF THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE GOING FROM , I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN NECESSARILY START ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT THE METHODOLOGY IS, IS LEGAL AT THIS, AT THIS MEETING. I PREFER TO TALK ABOUT MORE PRACTICAL SOLUTION. RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT LAWSUITS IN THIS AND THAT, THE LAWSUITS ARE ONLY GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME, MORE MONEY, AND THAT'S STILL, LIKE I SAID, THE COST HAS TO GET PAID FROM SOMEWHERE. THE CITY, ANYTHING THE CITY FUNDS COMES FROM TAX DOLLARS. SO, TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE LAWSUITS AND THIS AND THAT, OF COURSE, RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE FREE TO DO AS THEY PLEASE. I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S BETTER, BETTER WAYS TO, TO ACHIEVE AN END GOAL THEN THROUGH THREATS AND LITIGATION. SO MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT DOES HAVE SOME CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY WITH THE RECOGNITION ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE CITY HAS DONE WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO ENSURE THAT OUR

[03:40:03]

>> YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS, THE MONIES AND THE COSTS RELATED TO THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE ROAD PROJECT , AND MAYBE, AND MAYBE KELLY CAN, CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT. SO I BELIEVE THE CITY'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT EXERCISE TO SORT OF SEPARATE THOSE TWO PROJECTS. ON THE SPECIAL BENEFIT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY, I MEAN, ANYTIME YOU DO A ROAD PROJECT, YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOME ASSOCIATED ANCILLARY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE PUTTING MORE HEART STUFF ON THE GROUND, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE MORE RUNOFF. SO MOST ROAD PROJECTS ACTUALLY DO INCLUDE SOME MINOR STORMWATER, YOU KNOW, EITHER IMPROVING THIS WALES, YOU KNOW, OR, OR IF THERE IS, IF THERE'S DRAINAGE PIPES, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT THE DRAINAGE FROM THAT NEW ROADWAY SURFACE IS, IS PROPERLY FUNCTIONING. SO TO, TO THAT EXTENT, IF IT'S A STORMWATER PROJECT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROADWAY SURFACE ITSELF, THAT WOULD BE, NORMALLY BE, COULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN A ROAD ASSESSMENT AND FUNDED THAT WAY. IF IT'S SOME, IF IT'S A STORMWATER PROJECT THAT IS MORE EXPENSIVE AND IS NOT, IS TAKING ROADWAY DRAINAGE FROM OTHER PROPERTIES AND DOING A, A MORE COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THEN YOU WOULD TYPICALLY HANDLE THAT THROUGH A SEPARATE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. OR, OR ANOTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE REVENUE SOURCE. ON THE ISSUE WITH THE HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT, OR MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT. THAT IS A PROGRAM THAT THE CITY COULD LOOK AT. I HAVE DRAFTED THOSE FOR OTHER AREAS. THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS YOU CAN GO ABOUT THAT.

TYPICALLY, IT'S DONE, IF YOU'RE AN OWNER -- YOU CAN APPLY IF YOU MEET WHATEVER INCOME LIMITATIONS THE CITY WANTS TO USE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THOSE UP. THOSE ARE ALREADY OUT THERE.

SHIP PROGRAM. FLORIDA HOUSING ALREADY HAS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE INCOME , VARIOUS INCOME BASED UPON FAMILY SIZE ALREADY DETERMINED FOR YOUR SPECIFIC METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA, SO YOU'RE NOT RE-CREATING THE WHEEL HERE. BUT THAT IS A PROGRAM THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT. IF YOU WANTED TO PURSUE THAT, IT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK WELL BEFORE THE ROLE HAS TO ACTUALLY BE CERTIFIED FOR COLLECTION NEXT YEAR.

>> THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY GOOD TO HEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPENING, BUT I ALSO WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK KELLY. I KNOW HEATHER WAS DEFERRING TO YOU, IF YOU COULD JUST SPEAK ON THE, IF YOU'VE ALREADY KIND OF PULLED OUT THE, THE MAJOR COST, I THINK THAT'LL ADDRESS A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE BEEN

HEARING. >> YES, SO THE PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED WHEN THIS RFP WAS ISSUED, THERE WERE, IT WAS

[03:45:02]

>> OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. SO, YEAH, I THINK MY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THE $500,000, I THINK, IS A VERY FAIR NUMBER, AGAIN, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE CITY'S ALREADY OUT LATE. BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD ALREADY LIKE TO SEE SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS SET ASIDE FOR THE FINANCIAL NEED HARDSHIP PROGRAM. I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTING THAT AMOUNT, BUT I THINK THE AMOUNT HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, BUT SOMETHING MEANINGFUL DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE THE, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE RANCHES, RIGHT? OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HEARING THAT SOME RESIDENTS HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 50 YEARS, SOME OF THEM WHO ARE NO LONGER WORKING ON PROBABLY FIXED INCOME. THEY'RE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY SITUATED THEN, THAT MANY OF THEIR OTHER NEIGHBORS . AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT FAIRNESS, I THINK THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SO I'M OUT HERE TO TO SAY WHAT THAT NUMBER IS JUST YET. I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE PART OF THE

DISCUSSION. >> CINDY O'NEILL?

>> WE'RE GOING TO DEFER TO CINDY. YUP.

>> SO I, I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS , HEATHER, ANTHONY, KELLY. GOOD INFORMATION, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE ATTENDED TONIGHT HAVE MADE AN ARTICULATE CIVIL CONSTRUCTIVE WAY, WHICH IS APPRECIATED. JUST A VERY SMALL, MINIMAL, OTHERWISE. SO, WITH THAT SAID, I DO AGREE, DEFINITELY, WITH COMMISSIONER ISROW. I'M SO USED THE CALLING YOU VICE MAYOR. ALMOST DID THAT.

BUT THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE HARDSHIP PIECE, I DO THINK, I THINK THE STORM WATER ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. I, I WILL SAY THIS . FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN, THERE WERE ESSENTIALLY FOUR THEMES THAT WERE RAISED TONIGHT, AND AGAIN, I THOUGHT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE WAS WELL SPOKEN, GOOD INFORMATION. YES, TECHNICAL, YES, SOME CERTAINLY LEGAL. IT'S PART OF IT. BUT IF THERE ARE, I MEAN, CERTAINLY THERE'S MANY THAT HAVE LEFT ALREADY TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF US WANT TO GO HOME TO OUR FAMILIES, BUT I'M REALLY HOPING THAT RESIDENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO WERE EXTREMELY VOCAL OR VERY, YOU KNOW, ANYONE THAT HAS CONCERNED SHOWED, YOU KNOW, LISTEN TO THIS MEETING, READ THE TRANSCRIPT, BECAUSE WE ARE ANSWERING THE VERY IMPORTANT GOOD QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD. I ALSO THINK ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR RAISING THE ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE CITY. I AM A HUGE SUPPORTER OF THAT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT MORE, VERY IMPORTANT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A HIGHER NUMBER THAN 500,000, BUT STILL, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING THE CITY HAS ALREADY CONTRIBUTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AT THAT 5 MILLION. SO OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT MOST OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, AND THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AND VERY HELPFUL. SO I'M HOPING THE RESIDENTS FEEL THAT WAY TOO.

>> OKAY, COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN.

>> YEAH, ALSO I'D LIKE TO -- >> FINISHED, CINDY? COMMISSONER

KANTERMAN, GO AHEAD. >> SO NO ONE ON THIS DAIS HAS BEEN HERE FOR LONGER THAN I BELIEVE EIGHT YEARS, AND TWO OF US FOR ONE YEAR. IT WOULD BE REALLY EASY FOR US TO SAY, THIS ISN'T, THIS WASN'T OUR PROBLEM, AND TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS, BUT JUMPING INTO THIS FEETFIRST, IT'S NOT EASY. AND THERE'S LOTS OF GREAT POINTS ON BOTH SIDES. I THINK MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED WERE EXCELLENT AND ANSWERED. I DO WANT TO DEFEND MY GREAT NEIGHBOR PETER. HE, HIS COMMENT, WHILE NOT POPULAR IN THIS ROOM, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS ARE ECHOED MANY TIMES IN COMMENTS THAT I HEAR FROM RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF THESE

[03:50:05]

SO I WOULD ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT LOOKING INTO ADDITIONAL SUPPORT AS A NEEDS-BASED PROGRAM WITH FULL, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, I WOULD

LOVE TO SUPPORT THAT. >> KELLY, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A NEEDS-BASED PROGRAM? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE NECESSARILY FAMILIAR WITH. I JUST --

>> I HAVE WORKED WITH SOME GRANT TYPE PROGRAMS AT PRIOR MUNICIPALITIES, AND USUALLY THEY ARE BASED ON, AS HEATHER REFERENCED , TO LARGER GRANT PROGRAMS, SO YOU WOULD USE THE, THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS OF A CDBG GRANT OR SHIP GRANT AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND THERE IS A PROCESS THAT WE COULD LOOK INTO PUTTING INTO PLACE IF THAT'S THE DIRECTIVE OF THE CITY. I DO THINK THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT AT A FUTURE MEETING AS WE DEVELOP A PROGRAM, AND BRING IT BACK FROM ADDITIONAL DIRECTION ON THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING . BUT YES, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE WORKED WITH IN THE PAST, AND WE HAVE SHERRY, WHO WAS OUR BUDGET AND GRANTS MANAGER, AND SHE HAS AN EXTENSIVE GRANT BACKGROUND, SO I'M, I'M CONFIDENT THAT BETWEEN US AND WORKING WITH HEATHER, WE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BRING BACK TO YOU AS A PROPOSAL

AS AN OPTION. >> OKAY. SO WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT IS IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO LOOK INTO A BIT MORE ABOUT A FINANCIAL NEED PROGRAM THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO. CINDY MENTIONED ABOUT POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL FUNDING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 500,000. KEEP IN MIND THE 500,000, IT ALSO INCLUDED ANY OVERAGES. SO, YOU KNOW, ONCE TONIGHT STOPS, WE, WE HAD TO FIGURE, AS OF TODAY, ANY FIGURES GOING FORWARD WOULD ALSO BE COVERED BY THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S THE DRAINAGE OR, OR THE ROAD PROJECT. SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS LET ADDRESS POTENTIALLY ADDING TO THE 500,000 AS CINDY HAD INDICATED, AND THEN LET'S DISCUSS AN AMOUNT THAT WE COULD SET ASIDE FOR A FINANCIAL NEEDS GRANT PROGRAM. THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD ASSUME ANTHONY WOULD BE FOR YOU. THAT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY WRITTEN INTO THIS RESOLUTION. WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A NEW, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING

DIFFERENT, I WOULD THINK. >> YEAH, WE WOULD PROBABLY BRING A SEPARATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> OKAY, SO, SO FOR TONIGHT, IS IT OKAY, I GUESS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION KIND OF AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THAT, JUST SO THAT WE CAN SAY, OKAY, IF WE WANT TO DO MORE FOR THE 500,000, BUT WE ALSO SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT FINANCIAL NEED IS JUST SO THAT WE HAVE AN OVERALL TOP LEVEL AMOUNT THAT THE CITY WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONALLY TO. IS THAT --

>> I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO YOU COULD, BECAUSE THAT MAY BU- AFFECT YOR DECISION ON HOW MUCH YOU CONTINUE OVERALL.

>> MAYBE IT'S NOT IN STONE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT OBVIOUSLY VOTING ON IT, BUT WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. SO IF WE WOULD, SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT ADDING MORE ADDITIONAL MONIES, CINDY, YOU GO AHEAD AND PUT OUT THERE WHAT YOUR

REQUESTING. >> RIGHT. I'M NOT SURE THAT I HAVE A MEDICAL NUMBER. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S REALLY, WE THINK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY CONTRIBUTED, WE THINK ABOUT THE ARPA, THE POINTS OF THE ARPA. SO FOR ME, IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 500 AND 1 MILLION, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S PROBABLY A FAIR AND GETS TO, ALSO, CONSIDERING THE NEED-BASED, BECAUSE THAT'S ADDITIONAL MONIES, AND THE CITIES ALREADY CONTRIBUTED THE 5 MILLION HAD SO -- BUT YOU GOT TO PICK A NUMBER.

>> I NEED TO PICK A NUMBER, MAYOR?

>> YOU MENTIONED IT, SO YOU GOT TO PICK A NUMBER, AND THEN --

>> MAKE A MOTION. >> WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION NECESSARILY, BUT THROW OUT ANOTHER NUMBER.

>> WHAT'S THE NUMBER BETWEEN 500 AND 1,000,007 50?

[03:55:02]

>> OKAY, I CAN DO THE MATH. SO --

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO BRING UP ONE QUESTION. NOW, THE 660 K THAT WAS ADDITIONAL FOR THE 66, AND IT WAS BRIEFLY MENTIONED QUICKLY THAT THE CITY IS ALREADY PUTTING FUNDS TOWARDS THAT SPECIFIC PORTION, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH? BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO THROW OUT 660 IS A NUMBER. THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE OF THE NUMBER. OBVIOUSLY CINDY IS NICE% THAN ME, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE, FALLEN HER RANGE OF WORK. BUT I'M FINE WITH

CINDY'S -- >> GORDON?

>> NANCY, CAN I ASK , BUDGET WISE, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT JUST NUMBERS. LET'S PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE, OKAY? OBVIOUSLY I CAN SAY HERE AND SAY LET'S GIVE 12 MILLION, $1 BILLION, RIGHT? I'M ON THE SCREEN, PERFECT FOR DR. EVIL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, WHAT WERE DOING ISN'T JUST BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY ALL OF US ARE EMPATHETIC. THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB IS TO HEAR, FEEL, LISTEN, BE THERE FOR PEOPLE WHEN THEIR IN THEIR TIME OF NEED. BUT I ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DECISIONS WE MAKE ARE STILL FINANCIALLY SOUND, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EMOTIONAL AND ILLOGICAL, AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DANCING ON THE LINE HERE, AND THAT'S OKAY. BUT I STILL NEED TO MAKE SURE, FROM A VIABILITY AND FEASIBILITY STANDPOINT, LET'S SAY WE WERE TO PUT IN $750,000 TOWARDS THE PROJECT.

AND THEN LET'S SAY LATER ON WE DO COME UP WITH A FINANCIAL NEED THAT WE COMMIT ANOTHER 150 OR TO $250,000. LET'S SAY WE BRING IT TO A TOTAL OF $1 MILLION. WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR US ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS IN TERMS OF EITHER CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WE MAY HAVE COMING OUT OF THE PIPE THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE GOING TO REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL FUNDING, OR IN TERMS OF OUR MILLAGE RATE, WHICH WE ALREADY KNOW IS GOING TO BE LIKELY HAVING TO GO UP, YOU KNOW, NOT NEXT YEAR, THEN THE YEAR AFTER.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU OF WHAT, WHAT YOU SEE AS, AS THE KIND OF, THE AFFECT OF A MILLION-DOLLAR OUTLET.

>> WELL, MOST IMPORTANTLY, ANY AVAILABLE FUNDS THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE, WE ALWAYS EARMARKED FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS AND/OR OUR INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. THERE IS A REASON WHY OUR CITY IS SO DESIRABLE AND LOOKS SO GOOD. IT'S BECAUSE WE INVEST A LOT OF OUR DOLLARS IN OUR PARKS, INTO BEAUTIFICATION, INTO LANDSCAPING. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE FACING CHALLENGES AS, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THERE'S, THERE'S TAX REFORM. THEY'RE LOOKING AT ELIMINATING TAXES FROM HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES, WHICH WOULD HAVE A GIGANTIC IMPACT TO THE CITY. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE 97% RESIDENTIAL. OF THAT 97% RESIDENTIAL, 80% OF THOSE HOMES ARE HOMESTEADED. PEOPLE MOVED TO PARKLAND TO RAISE THEIR FAMILIES, AND IT'S TO REMAIN HOME. WE'RE NOT A HOLLYWOOD WHERE WE HAVE SEASONAL PEOPLE.

WE ARE HOMESTEADED COMMUNITIES. SO THE DRASTIC IMPACT ON NO TAXES WOULD PRETTY MUCH PUT US IN A NEGATIVE CAPACITY JUST TO MAINTAIN POLICE AND FIRE. WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN OUR PARKS. WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR FACILITIES.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TAX REFORM IS GOING TO GO, BUT I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE FUNDS THAT WE EARMARKED FOR CAPITAL. IF THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE IS TO REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS, WHETHER I WOULD NEVER, NEVER WOULD RECOMMEND ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF 1 MILLION. I WOULDN'T EVEN BE COMFORTABLE. BUT ANYTHING BETWEEN ZERO AND 1 MILLION, THAT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE FINANCES AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD MANAGE. BUT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. WE ALSO ARE DOING VERY WELL ON THE GOLF COURSE PARCEL. SO YES, WE COULD TAKE SOME OF THOSE SURPLUS DOLLARS THAT WE'RE MAKING FROM THE SALE OF THAT GOLF COURSE LAN AND REDIRECT IT, BUT THAT WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY UP TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT TO THAT FINANCIAL STRENGTH, THERE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FUNDS. BUT, AS I HAD MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER, WE, WE DO USE IT FOR CAPITAL.

>> I, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF -- SORRY, JORDAN, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A ONE MILLION-DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION. HOW WE SPICE IT UP WITH REGARDS TO A NEED-BASED PROGRAM OR, OR, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO GET GRANT FUNDS OR ANYTHING ELSE FROM THAT ORDER THAT AFTER-THE-FACT, BUT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT BASED ON THE

FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL. >> KELLY, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, LET'S SAY 250,000 AS A GRANT FUND PROGRAM. JUST FROM A TOP-LEVEL, YOU KNOW, VIEW, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? HOW, HOW MANY FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD WE BE ABLE TO POTENTIALLY ASSIST WITH THAT TYPE OF, OF FUNDING? I JUST WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, OKAY, WE MAKE A FUND TO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER ISROW, YOU KNOW,

[04:00:05]

>> THERE ARE SO MANY PARAMETERS WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO.

>> YEAH. HOW MANY ARE ELIGIBLE, RIGHT?

>> HOW MANY ARE ELIGIBLE IS GOING TO BE NUMBER ONE. SO TYPICALLY IN A GRANT PROGRAM LIKE THAT, YOU MIGHT SAY 150% OF THAT LOW INCOME QUALIFIER, AND NOT KNOWING THE INCOME OF THE RESIDENTS EXACTLY IN THAT AREA, I CAN'T SAY HOW MANY WOULD QUALIFY AT THAT LEVEL . IF WE LOOK AT, WELL, ARE WE GOING TO CONSIDER 200% OF THAT LOW INCOME THRESHOLD. ONCE YOU START GETTING ABOVE THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A TRUE GRANT PROGRAM BASED ON NEEDS. SO IT, IT'S A REAL THOROUGH ANALYSIS, WE HAVE TO DO, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT , YOU KNOW, WHAT, IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS SINCE I'VE WORKED ON INCOME-BASED GRANTING, GRANT PROGRAMS, SO I HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THEY STAND NOW. THEY, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE DO WANT TO QUALIFY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE HOME. AND THEN WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM? ARE WE TALKING, IF THEY'RE AT 100% OF THE POVERTY LINE OR THE LOW INCOME THRESHOLD, ARE WE GOING TO PAY 100%, AND IF THEY'RE AT 200% OF THAT LINE, ARE WE GOING

TO PAY FOR 50%? SO. >> AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE

WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE? >> IF IT'S A GRANT PROGRAM.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE USING FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDING, THEN THOSE ARE PARAMETERS THE CITY COULD ESTABLISH. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND HAVE A, A REASONABLE TEST TO EVERYTHING AND, AND REALLY, WHENEVER I VIEW CITY FUNDS AS A GRANT, WE, WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES AS KIND OF OUR, OUR COMFORT BASELINE SO T■HAT OU KNOW THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY UTILIZING THOSE TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR A TRUETYPE GRANT PROGRAM. BUT THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT PARAMETERS WE COULD LOOK INTO. AND AGAIN, I DO THINK IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE ASSESSMENT IN THAT, IF YOU'RE TALKING THE $750,000 CONTRIBUTION AND THAT BRINGS THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT DOWN TO THE 3.6 LEVEL FOR THE ROADS. THEN WE NEED TO ESTABLISH

THOSE OTHER GUIDELINES OF, OF -- >> YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE COULD DO TONIGHT. YOU CAN COME BACK TO US AND TELL US THERE ARE ONLY FIVE PEOPLE ELIGIBLE, OR WHATEVER.

>> AND THAT MAY BE THE CASE. >> SO WE HAVE -- A NUMBER BASED ON HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD EVEN FIT THE CRITERIA.

>> I, I, I KIND OF , I HEAR YOU ON THAT, VICE MAYOR, BUT I, I KIND OF SEE IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. I THINK WE'RE GETTING TOO TECHNICAL AND WAY TOO BOGGED DOWN IN THE WEEDS HERE. THE LIKES OF SOMEONE LIKE A MR. WILLARD, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT SOMEONE WHO'S HERE TO GAME THE SYSTEM AND COMING TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING UNFAIRLY, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE, I DON'T EXPECT THAT OF OUR RESIDENTS, AND I THINK EVEN THE MEMBERS OF THE RANCHES COMMUNITY WILL FROM THEIR FELLOW RESIDENTS. THEY KNOW WHO IS IN NEED AND WHO'S NOT, RIGHT? WE CAN STILL HAVE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THAT CRITERIA IS, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO HELP THOSE WHO REALLY ARE NOT ABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD MOTION THAT WE CONTRIBUTE $750,000 TO THE BASE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSMENT FEE, AND THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FINANCIAL AID. I KNOW THAT'S NOT FOR TONIGHT. I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT THAT BE PUT ON AGENDA AND WE CONSIDER A $250,000 SUPPLEMENT OR SUBSIDY FOR THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT PROGRAM DOES NOT GET FULLY UTILIZED, THOSE DOLLARS, I THINK WE TALK ABOUT AT THAT NEXT HEARING ABOUT HOW THOSE DOLLARS THEN GET RETURNED THE REMAINDER OF THE COMMUNITY.

>> MY, MY WORRY ABOUT THAT, COMMISSIONER, IS IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS A TOTAL PACKAGE OF $1 MILLION, I HAVE NO IDEA, AS I SIT HERE TONIGHT AND WE GOT A PASS OR VOTE ON THE ASSESSMENT, WHETHER THAT 250 IS GOING TO HELP ANYONE . BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE UNDER WHATEVER CRITERIA THE STATE OR FEDERAL USED. I WOULD MUCH RATHER USE THE TOTALITY OF THE, OF THE AMOUNT TO OFFSET THE ASSESSMENT.

>> LET'S DO THIS. IF, IF, IF WE COULD. LET'S TALK ABOUT A NEED-BASED PROGRAM DIFFERENTLY. WE CAN HAVE NANCY GO THROUGH, WE CAN HAVE NANCY GO THROUGH THE BUDGET, GO THROUGH THE FINANCING. WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. WE CAN PUT IT ON,

[04:05:04]

I, I, I GET IT, IT AFFECTS IT, BUT I THINK, IF NANCY AND KELLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO KIND OF DIGEST THIS POTENTIAL PROGRAM, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION LATER. AND, AND I THINK THE DOLLARS, WE CAN POTENTIALLY, AGAIN, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S EVEN FEASIBLE. SO I DON'T WANT TO SHORTCHANGE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TONIGHT BASED ON WORRYING ABOUT , IF THIS PROGRAM IS REALLY FEASIBLE, IF THE AMOUNT WILL BE ENOUGH. SO I JUST WANT TO FOCUS ON THAT. I TRUST NANCY AND KELLY TO, IF THIS PROGRAM MAKES SENSE, WE'LL FIND, WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIND AN AVENUE TO GET THERE. WHATEVER THAT MONEY ENDS UP BEING. I DON'T WANT TO MIX, I GUESS BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I DON'T WANT TO MIX -- I KNOW IT DOES, BUT I HAVE FAITH IN OUR FINANCING, FINANCING TEAM THAT WE CAN HANDLE WHATEVER WE DECIDE NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT A LATER DATE.

IF IT NEEDS -- >> SO I DON'T KNOW THE PROCEDURAL, WHAT I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MAKE IT A MILLION-DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASSESSMENT?

>> YES. >> I'LL, I'LL OFFER THAT

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. >> I DON'T KNOW. WE, WE -- WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> WELL, SO HERE'S, HERE'S MY CONCERN, THOUGH. NANCY JUST SAID SHE'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT GOING ABOVE 1 MILLION. SO TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO GIVE A GENERAL CONTRIBUTION OF $1 MILLION, THEN WE DECIDE LATER ABOUT A FINANCIAL NEED. NOW WE GOT ABOVE THE AMOUNT WE JUST THAT WE CAN GO ABOUT.

>> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE, NANCY'S SAYING TONIGHT, SHE'S NOT SAYING SHE CAN'T MAYBE FIND SOME NEED-BASED , YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A NEED-BASED PROGRAM. TO ME IT'S A LITTLE

BIT DIFFERENT THAN -- >> WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A STRATEGY ON, ON HOW TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. AND HEATHER, OF COURSE, SHE'S ALREADY DONE IT, SO YEAH.

>> OKAY. LOOK, NANCY, YOU'RE THE FINANCIAL PERSON. SO THEY'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT, I'M GOOD WITH THE AMENDMENT.

I'LL MOTION FOR A ONE MILLION-DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION, AND TO, WELL, I GUESS TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, I STILL THINK THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS A VERY CRITICAL ASPECT OF THIS, BECAUSE

-- >> I'M, I'M WITH YOU, I'M

WITH YOU 100% ON THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. I JUST FINISHED

REAL QUICK. >> OH, SORRY. IT'S JUST SOMETHING I BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY, AND I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HAD THIS KIND OF INFORMATION FOR TONIGHT. ALL I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS IF THERE'S A FINANCIAL EFFECT OF GETTING $1 MILLION, AND THEN LATER ON, LIKE YOU SAID, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE MAY ACTUALLY BE A NEED. THERE MAY BE EVEN MORE THAN WE THINK. AND SO MY CONCERN IS WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF KICKING OFF A NUMBER DOWN THE ROAD. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN IDEA DOWN THE MIND. SO AS LONG AS NANCY IS COMFORTABLE

WITH THAT, I AM. >> AND IS ALSO NOT A NET ZERO, RIGHT? IF WE'RE REDUCING THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT, WE'RE REDUCING EVEN THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED, THERE AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL BY A CERTAIN PORTION. SO IT'S NOT LIKE ONE IS NOT OFFSETTING THE OTHER. SO IF WE, IF WE, IF WE GO WITH THE ONE MILLION-DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION TO THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT, EVEN THOSE THAT MAY BE FINANCIALLY VIABLE IN NEED ARE ALSO GETTING THEIR ASSESSMENT REDUCED WITH THE DOLLARS WILL OFFSET AS WELL.

>> AND WE SHOULD THEORETICALLY BE ABLE TO HELP MORE FAMILIE,

BECAUSE -- >> OR MAYBE LESS NEEDS. OR MAYBE LESS NEEDS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY, SO --

>> MAYOR, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? I'M SORRY.

>> SHOULD JUST START OVER WITH THE MOTION.

>> YEAH. >> JORDAN -- SINCE YOU STARTED

-- >> $1 MILLION IS, IS THE MAGIC NUMBER . YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I MY HOPE IS THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE WITH TRUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THIS NUMBER IS GOING TO REDUCE THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY THE GOAL, I'M HAPPY THAT WE'RE REACHING HERE. I STILL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LIKES OF MR. WILLARD AND THE OTHER RESIDENTS HERE WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ABOUT DROPPING $1000 FOR THEM. IT MAY BE THAT THE THOUSAND DOLLARS IS STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO KEEP, STAY IN THEIR HOME. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD, I WOULD HAPPILY MOTION TO CONTRIBUTE $1 MILLION TO, YOU KNOW, THE OLDEST, ORIGINAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY OF PARKLAND TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE HERE, WE'RE LISTENING TO THEM, THAT THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, FOR LACK OF TRYING. AND I THINK EVERYONE HERE NOW HAS SEEN, WHETHER THERE STILL PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE PUBLIC OR NOT, I CAN'T EVEN TELL -- BUT YES,

THERE ARE. >> THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION, AND THAT WE GOT OVER IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND WE'VE EXPLORED

[04:10:03]

>> I COMPLETELY AGREE, COMMISSIONER. ISROW.

>> CAN I JUST MAKE A CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER? IS YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 90 WITH AN AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY TO ADD THE CONTRIBUTION OF $1 MILLION ABOVE WHAT'S PROVIDED? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I ECHO THIS COMMENT, AND I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> AND I, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I AGREE ABOUT THE HARDSHIP BASE.

WE, WE SHOULD STILL EXPLORE THAT. THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS MOVE SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY THAT I STILL CALL MR. AND MISSES OUT OF THEIR HOME , AND/OR PUT THEM IN A FINANCIAL SPOT. SO WE'LL, WE'LL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THAT.

>> SO CAPITAL NINE -- WE HAVE AN -- ADDITIONAL MILLION-DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION TO THE RANCHES WHICH WOULD BRING THE TOTAL DOWN TO 3.3. 3.3. NOW, KEEP IN MIND, THIS STOPS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO STOP THE CLOCK. RIGHT? BECAUSE ONCE WE APPROVE THIS ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT GO UP.

>>'S ADDRESS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR, THE RESIDENTS ARE ALL CLEAR AS WELL, TODAY STOPS THE CLOCK, SO THE ASSESSMENT IS CAPPED AT THIS NUMBER. ANY ADDITIONAL CHARGES GOING FORWARD

IS BORN ON THE CITY. >> YOU MEAN LIKE COST OVERRUN -- BUT CORRECT, YES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE -- BUT ANYTHING

THAT HAPPENS WITH THE PROJECT. >> RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE MAX. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ISROW FOR A ONE MILLION-DOLLAR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE ASSESSMENT FOR 9D. AND THEN WE HAVE A SECOND BY

COMMISSIONER MURPHY SALOMONE. >> APPROVING 9D WITH AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE A CITY CONTRIBUTED ADDITIONAL MILLION

DOLLARS. >> YEAH, OKAY. SO THEN ROLL

CALL. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY SALOMON?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ISROW?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN?

>> YES. >> VICE MAYOR BRIER?

>> YES. >> MAYOR WALKER?

>> YES. PLEASE SHOW IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

>> OKAY, ITEM -- GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

>> 9E, SORRY. RESOLUTION 2025-095, PROPOSED ROAD ASSESSMENTS, AND THIS IS ESSENTIALLY, GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO ADD THESE ASSESSMENTS ON THE TAX REPORT.

OH, ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA? IT'S GOT TO BE THIS AGENDA ITEM. YOU GOING TO BRING UP SOMETHING ELSE, PETER. ALL RIGHT. COME ON. YOU'RE GETTING TECHNICAL. IT'S

OKAY. >> I'M SORRY.

>> NO, I SAID YOU WERE GETTING TECHNICAL.

>> WELL, WE GET CREDIT FLORIDA STATUTES ON A REGULAR BASIS.

>> GOT IT. >> THE TECHNICAL PART --

>> I WAS JUST JOKING. TAKE YOU, PETER.

>> I COULD DO WITHOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS, BY THE WAY.

>> I, I THINK -- SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, WE, WE SKIPPED OFF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. WE STARTED WITH 94, PINETREE ESTATES, THE RANCHES, AND WE ENDED UP TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FINANCING, HELPING PEOPLE OUT, WHICH I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH. IT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND --

>> IT'S, IT'S NOT RIGHT. >> I GOT SO MANY NOTES HERE.

YOU, I USED UP ALL MY PAPER AND, HOLD ON, I GOT SOME STUFF HERE.

SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT. AND I'M NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT IT. AND I KNOW, AND YOU'VE ADDED MORE MONEY TO, TO THE FINAL BUDGET.

AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE WITH THE PINETREE ESTATE LAWSUIT .

THERE'S CLAUSES IN THERE TO SAY WHAT YOU DO FOR ONE PERSON YOU HAVE TO DO FOR ANOTHER. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW IT WAS WORDED, BUT IF IT HAPPENS HERE, IT HAPPENS OVER THERE. AND SO, AND I'M SURE ANTHONY, I DON'T, I CAN BE WRONG, AND I'M SURE YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS. BUT -- HOLD ON. YEAH. WE STARTED

[04:15:01]

>> PETER, I CAN TALK TO YOU SERIOUSLY. AND BRING THEM HOME THIS WEEKEND. I CAN EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT TO YOU. I'M HAPPY TO.

>> THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT YOU GUYS, THE BOARD DOES, AND I HAVE NOTES. IT SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO, IT NEEDS TO BENEFIT THE PROPERTY, AND IT'S, YOU GUYS AREN'T DOING THAT. IT'S, IT'S BENEFIT FOR THE RANCHES, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW? YOU'RE PUTTING TWO PUMPS IN, PUMP WATER IN, PUMP WATER OUT.

THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO PUMP WATER IN. ANYTHING IT DOES FOR THE RANCHES, IT COMES, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR PROPERTY. IT GIVES THEM WHETHER TO THEIR HOUSE. SO IT'S --

>> PETER -- >> IT'S ALL THESE LITTLE THINGS THAT, WE DISCUSSED THIS FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.

>> PETER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. BUT TONIGHT WAS ABOUT TRYING TO BE AS FAIR TO EVERYONE AS POSSIBLE,

AND, PETER, THANK YOU. >> WAIT, I STILL GOT 37 SECONDS.

36. YOU THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASSESS THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS IN PARKLAND FOR SOMETHING YOU'RE DOING FOR ONE SPECIFIC AREA WHEN FLORIDA STATUTES SAY YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSESS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING BENEFITED?

>> I'M GOING TO WAIT UNTIL YOUR 37 SECONDS ARE DONE. WE'RE A COMMUNITY, AND AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE, THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY NOT POSSIBLE. BUT TONIGHT, WE WERE ABLE TO COME TO A COMPROMISE HERE ON THE MISSION, AND PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE, WHO ARE BEING ASSESSED FOR A PROJECT THAT WILL BENEFIT THE RANCHES.

OKAY. COMMENTS BY THE BROWARD SHERIFF'S OFFICE. SORRY. CAUGHT

YOU OFF GUARD. >> I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON

9C, MAN. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON 9E?

>> EXCUSE ME, 9E. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WAIT, WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? NOPE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN. WHO WAS THE SECOND? ANYBODY? VICE

MAYOR? >> SECOND.

>> VICE MAYOR BRIER. ROLL CALL.

>> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THIS IS JUST THE MECHANISM TO COLLECT.

>> YES. >> READY?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER KANTERMAN?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY SALOMONE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ISROW?

>> YES. >> VICE MAYOR BRIER?

>> YES. >> MAYOR WALKER?

>> YES. PLEASE SHOW IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. COMMENTS BY THE

BROWARD SHERIFF'S OFFICE. >> I ONLY HAVE ONE. I'M GOING TO MISS MIKE. NO OTHER COMMENTS.

[11.Comments by the Coral Springs-Parkland Fire Department]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SECONDED.

>> HERE, HERE. >> THESE ARE YOUR LAST COMMENTS

FROM THE -- >> ME SOME STATS.

>> YOUR, YOUR, YOUR FINAL COMMENTS.

>> MAKE THEM GOOD. >> AS DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF FOR THE CORAL SPRINGS PARKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT. THIS WILL BE YOUR

LAST. >> YOU KNOW.

>>

>> THANK YOU. YOUR WORDS ARE VERY KIND TONIGHT. I WILL MISS YOU ALL AND I PROMISE TO COME BY ONCE IN A WHILE. OTHER THAN THAT, I WILL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AFTER WE LEAVE. AT THE RISK OF CRYING AGAIN, THAT IS ALL THE COMMENTS I HAVE. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> SELFISHLY, THANKFULLY I STILL GET TO SERVE WITH YOU ON THE PARKLAND 17 MEMORIAL BOARD BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL STAYING ON TO CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB. COMMENTS BY THE

CITY -- >> HOLD ON. I'M NOT THERE AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO BE THERE FOR THE CEREMONY. I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU ONE LAST TIME HOW GRATEFUL I FOR YOU. EVERY TIME SOMEBODY GOES TO A NEW COMPANY OR NEW JOB YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE PERSON OR PEOPLE THAT -- TO LEAN ON OR GIVE YOU SOME INSIGHT. YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE FOR ME SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. YOU'VE DONE IT WITH HUMOR AND GRACE EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR JOB AND EXTREMELY WELL KNOWLEDGE AND PROFESSIONAL . ALL I ASK IS THAT YOU SHARE SOME OF THAT CANDY WITH ME AND YOUR LAST FINAL DUTY YOU CHANGE THE NAME TO PARKLAND CORAL SPRINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT. OTHER THAN THAT I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST.

[04:20:02]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE]

[12.Comments by the City Manager ]

>> COMMENTS BYCITY ATTORNEY. CITY MANAGER.

>> I WANT TO COMMENT THAT THE NEXT MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE 17TH IS OFFICIALLY CANCELED. WE WILL NOT BE HAVING

[13.Comments by the City Attorney ]

>> THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO WISH EVERYBODY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.