Fort Lauderdale City Commission Conference Meeting - September 16, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Fort Lauderdale City Commission Conference Meeting - September 16, 2025
This City Commission Conference Meeting on September 16, 2025, covered a range of topics including the state legislative program, city attorney search, public art program, and a development agreement termination. The meeting began with a public appearance on the FDOT street art controversy and included discussions on infrastructure projects, neighborhood concerns, and city hall plans.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Howard Dubisar (attorney for the city) reported on an FDOT administrative hearing regarding street art. He described the process, noted that a formal hearing request was denied, and outlined options: an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, a declaratory judgment action in circuit court, and a pending DOAH rulemaking petition consolidated with Miami Beach. He stated that the city expects an adverse ruling and that a notice of appeal would be filed immediately. Commission members expressed support for legal action and asked clarifying questions.
- Phoenix Marks (Public Art and Placemaking Advisory Board) thanked the commission for the discussion and expressed support for iconic public art.
- Brucey Cummings (Tarpon River resident) spoke in favor of public art, citing the Tarpon River Bridge murals and their positive community impact.
- Troy Liggett (Middle River Terrace) raised concerns about the public art process, specifically regarding the roundabout sculpture selection, saying the board’s email voting before meetings lacked transparency and community input. He requested more neighborhood engagement.
- Ted and Sarah (River Oaks Civic Association) emphasized the need for community input in public art decisions and mentioned their neighborhood’s self-funded murals. They also stated support for preserving median trees on Las Olas Boulevard.
- Bill Brown (Council of Civic Associations) noted the timing of the discussion and commended the city for seeking feedback. He highlighted the need for transparency and community involvement.
- Chris Nelson (Flagler Village resident) expressed support for terminating the One Stop Shop agreement, stating that the developer had years to secure funding.
- Marilyn Almano (Lauderdale Tomorrow) thanked the commission for deciding to terminate the agreement and urged swift action, suggesting the site could be used for a park.
- Mark Dickerman (community activist) supported the termination and suggested the site become an arts park.
- John Rodstrom (attorney) supported termination but cautioned the city to conduct better due diligence on future contracts, noting the developer’s background and legal issues.
- Barbara Stern (resident) recalled earlier warnings from Vice Mayor Herbst, criticized the original agreement, and urged the city to keep the site as open space.
Discussion Items
- BUS-1: 2026 State Legislative Program – Presented by Daphne, the city’s legislative liaison. The draft program includes updated statements on economic development, housing (short-term rentals, ADUs), and infrastructure. Ten appropriation requests were listed, including $1M for aviation technical training, $500K for cold case reduction, $643K for a fire boat, and $1.25M for Galt Mile safety improvements. Staff noted that several funding amounts will be reduced. Commissioner Glassman raised concerns about future SAFER grant costs for fire positions. The commission offered feedback and asked for prioritization.
- BUS-2: City Attorney Search Update – Jerome Post (HR Director) announced three candidates: Paul Bangel, Shari McCartney, and Angela Rosenberg. Paul Figg (search committee) stated all candidates meet qualifications. The commission discussed the selection process. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman requested additional time to interview candidates due to upcoming travel. The commission agreed to aim for a decision by October 23, 2025, after individual interviews.
- BUS-3: Public Art and Placemaking Program – Joshua Cardin (Cultural Affairs Officer) presented five funding options: (1) Incorporating public art in new public buildings, (2) Dedicated ongoing funding ($315K in FY26 budget), (3) Design flexibility for private development in exchange for public art, (4) Sense of place elements in planning initiative areas, and (5) Accepting gifts/grants. Commissioners expressed support for options 1, 2, 3, and 5, but had concerns about option 4 being a requirement. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman stressed the need for community engagement and representation of diverse neighborhoods. Commissioner Herbst opposed a blanket 2% mandate. The commission provided direction to staff to craft a resolution incorporating these elements. There was also a discussion on the status of Layered Money projects (Esplanade Park sculpture, the beach sculpture, and Heisinga Park piece), with updates that installations are expected in late 2025 or early 2026.
- BUS-4: One Stop Shop Discussion – Commissioner Glassman proposed termination of the comprehensive agreement for the One Stop Shop development in Flagler Village, citing lack of good faith, failure to provide promised $250K good faith money, and no timeline for DRC. Mayor Trantalis supported termination, noting material breaches including assignment of the contract without city consent and lack of verifiable funding. Commissioner Sorensen agreed. The commission directed staff to prepare a termination letter for the October 7, 2025 meeting.
- City Hall and Holiday Park Parking Garage Updates – Assistant City Manager Ben Rogers provided updates. For City Hall, staff will present a comparative matrix of six proposals on October 7, 2025, without a recommendation. The commission will then shortlist. A needs assessment and massing study will be done concurrently. For Holiday Park, a full financial analysis of three proposals is expected in November 2025, with possible presentations. The surface lot design is underway and expected by end of year.
- Property Wall Heights – Commissioner Sorensen requested a future conference meeting to discuss regulations on fence and wall heights, citing issues with elevated structures and sight lines. Staff will bring a presentation.
Key Outcomes
- FDOT Street Art: The city will file a notice of appeal immediately upon an adverse ruling. The commission supported legal actions including a declaratory judgment and DOAH petition. A closed session is requested for the next meeting.
- 2026 State Legislative Program: The commission provided feedback; staff will finalize the program with revised numbers.
- City Attorney Search: The commission will individually interview the three candidates and aim to make a decision by October 23, 2025.
- Public Art Program: The commission directed staff to develop a revised ordinance incorporating options 1, 2, 3, and 5, with emphasis on community engagement and transparency.
- One Stop Shop Agreement: The commission directed staff to prepare a termination letter for the October 7, 2025 meeting based on material breaches.
- City Hall: Staff will present a qualifications/experience matrix on October 7, 2025, for the commission to shortlist. A needs assessment and massing study will begin.
- Holiday Park Garage: Staff will bring a full analysis of three proposals in November 2025 for a decision.
- City Manager’s Report: Announced promotions in police, fire, and other departments, and a AAA rating from S&P Global for special obligation bonds.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome to the City Commission conference meeting this uh September 16th, 2025. Um I appreciate you all being here today. We have a number of things to discuss. And um we have quite a few guests visiting with us today, so we'd like to accommodate their schedules and probably take them first so we can move forward with our meeting. Um soon as my computer warms up, be ready to go. So normally we take up uh communications at this point, and we don't have a communication from any of the advisory boards today, but I would like to take this moment and invite um the people that have been working on our on our behalf with regard to the the intersection and crosswalk controversy. And um, Howard, if you'd like to come up to the podium, introduce yourself, and give us a little update on what's been going on. Thank you. That's it. So good afternoon. My name is Howard Dubisar of Weiss Soroda Healthman, and happy to be here. Uh yesterday I had the privilege of representing the city of Fort Lauderdale in an administrative hearing at the Florida Department of Transportation. As I'm sure everybody understands, there was a memorandum issued by the department and a letter sent demanding that the city remove what they thought were 11 locations but 10 locations, various types of street art. And you were given the opportunity to file what's called a petition for a formal hearing. Uh the difference between a formal hearing and an informal hearing, informal, you go and you have an argument. There's no presentation of witnesses, there's no judge, there's somebody who's a presiding officer from the department itself. In a formal hearing, it actually goes to an administrative law judge who runs the proceedings if it's a trial. You'll have witnesses, you'll have exhibits. Because we think there are material factual disputes, not the least of which is whether, as Fort Lauderdale has in its contract, that these are traffic common devices versus the state taking the position that these are detrimental to public safety. Um we had requested a formal hearing and filed that petition. Uh nonetheless, the department maintained that we needed to appear for the informal hearing that they set, and that was yesterday, where I was joined by uh various city representatives, including your city manager, assistant city manager, uh Miloch, whose department I should know off the top of my head. Transportation and mobility. Thank you. Just doesn't roll off my tongue like that. So in any event, uh the first part of the hearing, the presiding officer who is a 20-year member or employee of the Florida Department of Transportation, uh, invited us to argue why it should be formal as opposed to informal. Um this is the third hearing that I've done of this type. I did it for the cities of Delray Beach and Key West. The same thing occurred. We went to Orlando to the rest stop at Turkey Lake, where they have an office building, and we argued why it should be formal. Uh the presiding officer took a 10-minute recess and consistent with the other cities came back and said that request is denied. We then went forward with the hearing. The state actually goes first, even though it's our petition and the FDOT had two lawyers there, and then the assistant uh secretary of transportation. They made their legal argument. Again, there was no evidence, no presentation of witnesses, and then I made mine uh and I was given the opportunity. They they rebutted me, I gave rebuttal to them. What happens at the end of this hearing is we're invited to give written closing arguments as opposed to actually presenting a closing argument there. The deadline for presenting our written closing argument is Thursday, and we will be doing that at the close of business on Thursday. Um experience proves to be accurate in this case, uh, prior experiences, we'll have that order probably at some time on Friday, Monday at the latest. Um there, as you probably know from the City of Delray Beach and from Key West, within hours of the order having been issued. Uh FDOT was on the scene with Florida Highway Patrol shutting down the streets, and they painted over the artwork. Uh in Delray, at first they painted over the mural between weather and automobiles. The paint went all over the place, then they went ahead and sandblast it. So putting it in the context of your case, unfortunately, we're going to expect a similar outcome based on the informal hearing. Uh and that leaves the city with some options at this point. One of which is, and again, because this is not executive session, I'm not going to get into what we call work product or strategies on how to deal with this or anything that would be privileged, but I can tell you procedurally what could occur at this point is we could file a notice of appeal. Arguably there is a rule that might result in staying the action without a hearing. Usually you have to file a motion, which like we would do in an abundance of caution anyway. In addition to that, the city can bring a declaratory judgment action in circuit court in Broward County, seeking to have declare that a memorandum which gave rise to this was effectively a rule, but the uh department didn't go through the required rulemaking pro uh process, and there are a whole host of other issues that we couldn't raise in there, including the fact, and this is something we argued vociferously at the hearing. The statute that this is predicated on in part is 3160745 Florida statutes. Uh that statute specifically contemplates that the department can give you a directive and you're required to comply with it, and there could be some financial implications if you don't.
openpublica.com