City of Lauderhill  
City Commission Chambers at City Hall  
5581 W. Oakland Park Blvd.  
Lauderhill, FL, 33313  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Monday, November 25, 2024  
6:00 PM  
City Commission Chambers  
City Commission Meeting  
LAUDERHILL CITY COMMISSION  
Mayor Denise D. Grant  
Commissioner Richard Campbell  
Commissioner Melissa P. Dunn  
Commissioner John T. Hodgson  
Commissioner Sarai Martin  
Desorae Giles-Smith, City Manager  
Andrea M. Anderson, City Clerk  
Angel Petti Rosenberg, City Attorney  
I CALL TO ORDER  
Mayor Grant called to order the Regular City Commission Meeting at 6:00 PM.  
II ROLL CALL  
5 -  
Present:  
Commissioner Richard R. Campbell,Commissioner Melissa P. Dunn,Commissioner  
John T. Hodgson,Vice Mayor Sarai Martin, and Mayor Denise D. Grant  
ALSO PRESENT:  
Kennie Hobbs, Deputy City Manager  
Angel Petti Rosenberg, City Attorney  
Constance Stanley, Police Chief  
Andrea M. Anderson, City Clerk  
III  
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC (AND CITY MANAGER RESPONSES TO  
THE PUBLIC, IF THE TIME PERMITS DURING THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING OF  
THE CITY COMMISSION)  
IV ADJOURNMENT (NO LATER THAN 6:30 PM)  
I CALL TO ORDER OF REGULAR MEETING  
II HOUSEKEEPING  
A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner  
Campbell, to ACCEPT the Revised Version of the City Commission Meeting  
Agenda for November 25, 2024. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG FOLLOWED BY GOOD AND WELFARE  
IV ELECTION  
A. ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR  
Commissioner Campbell nominated Commissioner Martin to serve as vice  
mayor.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Mayor Grant, to  
approve the appointment of Commissioner Sarai "Ray" Martin as vice mayor. The  
motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
V CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA  
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Martin, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, that  
this Consent Agenda was approved. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
VI APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR JUNE 10, 2024.  
A.  
These Minutes were approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
B.  
MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR AUGUST 26,  
2024.  
These Minutes were approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
C.  
MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 12,  
2024.  
These Minutes were approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
VII PROCLAMATIONS / COMMENDATIONS (10 MINUTES MAXIMUM)  
VIII PRESENTATIONS (15 MINUTES MAXIMUM)  
A. A PRESENTATION FROM THE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER MELISSA P.  
DUNN).  
XII QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS (IF NOT ON CONSENT AGENDA)  
25.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-10-260:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA GRANTING LE PARC AT  
LAUDERHILL, LLC. AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE  
ORDER (RESOLUTION NO. 19R-12-275), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS,  
TO ALLOW IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RM-40) ZONING  
DISTRICT A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH AN INCREASE IN  
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS from 330 TO 358  
DWELLING UNITS ON A 9.93± ACRE SITE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS  
TRACT 1 OF "AT&T NO. 1" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 127, PAGE  
18, OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BROWARD COUNTY,  
FLORIDA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3831 N.W. 13TH STREET,  
LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.  
Persons wishing to speak on the subject item were duly sworn in by the City  
Attorney.  
Commissioner Dunn stated she asked for the subject item to be moved to the  
present Commission agenda to allow the applicant time to speak with the  
community surrounding her development.  
interaction.  
She requested an update on that  
Vivian Dimond, the applicant, thought the meeting with the community went very  
well; they had a long discussion with Georgetown residents, the community  
adjacent to her property; her team responded to all the questions and concerns  
voiced by residents.  
Commissioner Dunn remarked that in her conversations with Georgetown  
residents they communicated that they had no issues with the development  
other than traffic concerns. She asked what Ms. Dimond’s plan was to address  
traffic concerns.  
Ms. Dimond clarified that the residents did not voice specific traffic concerns, so  
her team told them that they would willingly look further into the matter.  
Commissioner Dunn directed the question of mitigating the residents’ traffic  
concerns to city staff.  
Planning & Zoning Director Daniel Keester-O’Mills replied that through the site  
plan process, staff reviewed all aspects of the proposed development, including  
traffic impacts that was based on a traffic study.  
Commissioner Dunn pointed out that with the additional units being requested  
by the applicant, this meant an increase in traffic.  
Ms. Dimond noted the current zoning allowed for 399 units, but from the  
inception of the project they asked for a lower number of units; the addition of 28  
more units still brought to total number of below what the zoning allowed  
Mayor Grant clarified that the number of units the applicant was requesting was  
an increase from the previous number of 330 to 358 units.  
City Planner Molly Howson commented, because the subject site plan was  
originally approved several years ago, and the additional units being requested  
was a modification to the original approval, the site plan would go back to the  
Development Review Committee (DRC) for review, including the City’s traffic  
consultant revisiting the traffic study to take into account the additional 28 units.  
If the consultant felt it necessary, an update to the previous traffic study would  
be requested of the applicant.  
Vice Mayor Martin mentioned the last time he spoke with the Georgetown  
residents, they asked if the pedestrian gates would allow students living in  
Georgetown access to get to the charter school, versus them walking down to  
441 past the UPS facility.  
Ms. Dimond thought, for security reasons for the 358 unit occupants, allowing  
such access to students was not a good idea.  
Vice Mayor Martin remarked, prior to the development, and present  
convenience, was it possible to allow students such access.  
Ms. Dimond responded pedestrian access was possible until actual  
construction began, as the project’s insurance company would likely wish the  
activity to stop for liability reasons. However, if the insurance company allowed  
the pedestrian access to the students, the developer would find this acceptable.  
She noted the City always called upon her to use the lot for parking, etc., which  
they were able to grant at present, but this would change once construction  
began, as there were safety matters to consider.  
Commissioner Campbell sought clarification on where the entrance to the  
proposed development was located.  
Ms. Dimond replied the approach would be on the road entering Georgetown,  
with access to the development being before actually reaching Georgetown.  
She invited the Commission to look at the current site plan to get clarification on  
the location of the entrance, the only entrance/exit to the site. The only other  
access was solely for use by the fire department, as the latter requested that  
the site have an exit to the rear of the property. She reiterated there would be  
one main entrance with a guardhouse.  
Deputy  
City  
Manager/Finance  
Director  
Kennie  
Hobbs  
reminded  
the  
Commission the developer would be transferring land over to the City that would  
be used to construct a through street, so there would be a through street to  
allow traffic to travel between NW 13th Street and 15th Street.  
Thus, there  
would be access for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic along that corridor;  
students might not be able to enter the developers property, but they could walk  
along the through street without having to walk out to 441. The same applied to  
Commissioner Campbell’s questions with regard to vehicular access, as cars  
could arrive at the property either off of 19th, 16th or 13th Streets.  
Commissioner Campbell wished to know if there was any access going south.  
Mr. Hobbs answered yes.  
Ms. Howson added, about halfway down, if a car was heading towards east  
toward the Georgetown entrance, passing the latter there would be an  
intersection where the street Mr. Hobbs mentioned was located. This was the  
piece of the project that staff was most excited about, as it began to provide that  
connection between the industrial area, the arts and entertainment district  
between NW 15th and 16th, connecting it down to NW 13th Street, and the  
hope was it would eventually connect to the Central Regional Park. It would be  
a public roadway with dedicated five-foot ADA-accessible sidewalks at least one  
side.  
Commissioner Campbell wondered if residents were aware of this possibility.  
Mr. Hobbs stated it was included in the presentation of the initial site plan to the  
surrounding residential community; that is, the dedication of the land, and the  
development of the through street. He would have staff specifically refresh the  
community on the information regarding the plans for the through street.  
Commissioner Dunn said the traffic concerns expressed by the residents was  
not related to the through road; it was more to do with the increase in traffic  
along 441.  
Ms. Dimond commented that her team and she were excited to begin  
construction, as it had been a number of years that the project was being  
planned; they were excited to break ground in December, so whatever was  
needed to prevent further delay they were happy address.  
Mayor Grant questioned the timeframe for staff to revisit the site plan, and the  
traffic study.  
Ms. Howson replied that the applicant needed to resubmit the site plan, and  
DRC hearings were held at least twice a month, so as soon as the applicant  
resubmitted their modified site plan, the DRC would review them as quickly as  
possible.  
Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.  
Alan Brown, Lauderhill resident, thought residents were not against  
development, but it was imperative for it to be smart development; this meant  
due diligence, transparency, and engaging with the whole community, including  
Georgetown, West Ken Lark, and Broward Estates, as they were all one  
community. He believed there was a tendency to get caught up in development,  
much of which, if asked, many residents knew nothing of; there were too many  
projects to keep track of. He claimed residents had no knowledge of whether or  
not developers were receiving tax abatements, subsidies, fee waivers, etc. from  
the City, and developments were being stacked, and slipped in without  
residents’ knowledge. He never met Ms. Dimond, though he could not speak for  
members of their homeowners’ association (HOA). Mr. Brown felt the subject  
item should be tabled, so the developer and staff could meet with the all east  
Lauderhill communities, not just one.  
Mayor Grant stated this was not the first time Ms. Dimond presented the subject  
development at a City Commission meeting; in fact, the subject development  
had been coming before the Commission, staff, and the community for several  
years.  
meetings, so she was somewhat surprised to hear that he was unfamiliar with  
the details of the subject development. Nevertheless, she understood Mr.  
She knew Mr. Brown was a regular attendee at City Commission  
Brown’s concerns, and she believed the City wished Ms. Dimond and her team  
to discuss the development in relation to the immediate surrounding area;  
perhaps the discussions could be expanded to include other HOAs and their  
residents.  
Ms. Dimond stated her team, and she worked on the subject project for five  
years, and they always worked with residents and staff to ensure their plan  
worked for everyone.  
Karen Lue, Lauderhill resident, echoed similar concerns to Mr. Brown’s,  
remarking that she did not wish to see a recurrence of what happened with the  
development at the old Target site on  
W
Commercial Boulevard and  
discussion on the subject  
She mentioned the need to address what was happening with  
N
University  
Drive;  
residents  
wanted  
more  
development.  
Florida Medical Center (FMC), as well as with city taxes, which was once the  
lowest in Broward County; now there were people unable to purchase a home  
in the City due to the high taxes. She sought clarification as to what was meant  
by multifamily development.  
Ms. Dimond said she had no wish for the current discussion to become a long  
debate, stating the only way for the City’s taxes to be lowered was for there to  
be development that allowed the City to collect tax revenue to reduce the burden  
on existing taxpayers.  
Multifamily development meant more than one family  
living under the same roof; for now, the units in her development would be for  
rent not purchase.  
Ms. Lue questioned why Lauderhill was becoming a rental community, asking  
why the City was not focusing on developments to attract families to increase  
homeownership. She claimed the City was allowing investors to come in, and  
take apart the City; if this continued, there could be a mass exodus of residents.  
She lived in Lauderhill, and cared about the City.  
Varion Harris, Lauderhill resident, and  
a member of the HOA for United  
Lauderhill Community Association, asked if there was a traffic study for the  
subject development regarding its impacts to 441. He wished to know when the  
meeting with Georgetown residents took place.  
Ms. Howson stated the City’s planning staff was always clear that  
homeownership in Lauderhill was very important, per the dictate of the previous  
and present Commission. This point was conveyed to any developers coming  
into the City, but private property was privately owned, and they had their own  
development rights through which staff could only try to guide them via City  
Code. She said the subject project was a unique situation, as the project, as  
was stated earlier, began at the end of 2017 when the property was rezoned,  
and through 2017 to 2019, Ms. Dimond and her team worked through rezoning  
the property from industrial to residential, went through the entitlement process,  
gaining a special exception the resolution referenced in the backup, and they  
worked through the site plan process to the present day.  
The subject  
development was not at the forefront of the community in the last year or two,  
as the project was approved sometime ago, and the development process  
slowed down due to the COVID 19 pandemic, and other extenuating  
circumstances, but they were now back at the table. Ms. Howson noted with  
the request for additional units, the project had to come back before the  
Commission for consideration.  
In reference to the 441 Arthouse project that  
was looked at about six or eight months ago, Mr. Brown brought up the issue of  
notification to the community. She said staff took that information to heart, and  
proposed text amendments that asked for a number things: the Commission to  
approved extending the noticing requirement from  
a
300-foot to a 500-foot  
noticing radius of a project site, and staff asked that all nine major HOAs be  
notified when such public notices went out. These requests were approved by  
the previous Commission, and those amended noticing requirements were  
adhered to by the City, and staff’s effort to be as transparent as possible,  
advertising more heavily the development projects coming to the City for  
consideration.  
Ms. Howson pointed out the fact that the subject project was  
now before the Commission was evidence that staff was being very  
conscientious in keeping the community notified, and the City Commission  
informed, and comfortable as to the additional units being requested.  
Mr. Hobbs added that through more recent community meetings city staff held,  
the Finance Department, and through the CRA board there were numerous  
presentations related to the subject property.  
meetings at which upcoming projects, such as the present one, and the 441  
Arthouse were discussed number of times; the discussions included the  
He personally attended HOA  
a
entitlement process, the tax abatement process, etc., all done in the public at  
HOA meetings, and at noticed CRA and Commission meetings at City Hall.  
Staff would continue to ensure notifications were sent to all HOAs citywide, not  
just to those in the surrounding area of the development; staff would continue to  
ensure developers communicated with immediately affected associations, and  
associations would be notified whenever public meetings at which projects  
would be discussed.  
City Attorney Rosenberg wished to correct for the record that rather than tax  
abatement, it was a reimbursement.  
For clarification, the matter before the  
Commission was just for a special exception to approve the increase in the  
number of dwelling units, so the applicant could proceed with the site plan  
modification and resubmittal to the DRC.  
The City Commission and public  
would see the site plan of the subject development again.  
Ms. Howson stated all site plans required a traffic study, and the City contracted  
with a traffic study engineer at planning staff’s request; the traffic consultant  
reviewed all traffic studies supplied to the City. The 2019 traffic study for the  
subject project would be revisited by the DRC when the modified site plan was  
resubmitted to determine what, if any, changes would be required to address  
further traffic impacts.  
Mr. Hobbs added that the DRC would ensure the traffic concerns voiced by the  
public were communicated to the traffic consultant and engineers.  
Mr. Brown recalled when the 441 Arthouse project was presented to the  
community, some residents rejected the project, as they could not understand  
how an apartment building could be erected between three gas stations,  
exposing residents to pollution.  
He reiterated that residents were not against  
development, they just wanted smart development. His claimed his community  
never heard any presentation from Ms. Dimond, and the three apartment  
projects should not be combined, or presented under what he termed a cloud of  
controversy, particularly the apartment development at the Lauderhill Mall,  
stating three members of the present Commission, Mayor Grant, and  
Commissioners Campbell and Hodgson, received campaign contributions from  
Lauderhill Mall owner, Yoram Izhak.  
Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.  
Commissioner Dunn knew there was an Urban Land Institute (ULI) study of the  
subject corridor some time ago, stating the ULI did studies to evaluate the best  
use of a corridor, with an idea of doing smart development. She asked if in the  
ULI study there was information around traffic for the three above-named  
projects combined, as, in total, they proposed about 1,000 residential units.  
Mr. Hobbs replied the ULI study did not specifically look at traffic, but staff  
provided the ULI with information on the potential development along that  
corridor.  
Commissioner Dunn thought it wise for the City to get a traffic study to see the  
impact of the 1,000 new units in that area to determine their cumulative impact.  
Mr. Hobbs noted the City ordered a traffic study related to the through street off  
NW 38th Avenue, as it was required when the City was looking at connectivity to  
the Regional Park, as well as Ms. Dimond’s development. He could have his  
staff pull that traffic study, as the goal was to have a through street from the  
Regional Park down to NW 19th Street; working with staff, they would  
incorporate all the proposed developments in that area to see what additional  
impacts could be.  
Vice Mayor Martin mentioned he spoke frequently with both Mr. Brown, and Mr.  
Wilkerson. He responded to certain comments made at the present meeting,  
the first for the newly elected Commission, noting there was a pledge by the  
Commission to try to work together to ensure they united Lauderhill.  
Additionally, there were things that were voted on years ago, some approved  
even before some members of the last commission began serving; for  
example, discussions on the Le Parc project began when Chuck Faranda was  
Lauderhill’s city manager, and through the years to today the Commission  
continued to vote on the project.  
He referred to former city commissioner  
Lawrence “Jabbow” Martin’s congratulations made during public comments to  
the City Commission, and his willingness to work with the Commission and City  
staff for the betterment of the Lauderhill community, noting the same was  
needed of Lauderhill’s community leaders, their showing a willingness to work  
with the City to help the community merge united.  
Regarding the United  
Lauderhill Association, he was a resident of that community when there was a  
nonfunctioning HOA for many years, and he was instrumental in putting together  
the present HOA, and in appointing Varion Harris as HOA president. It was only  
due to that HOA functioning again that projects were coming to that  
community’s notice, as before that there was no method by which developers  
could communicate with those residents as a group. Again, the Le Parc project  
predated this HOA’s existence, and the developer should not be penalized  
because the HOA did not exist. Vice Mayor S. Martin urged residents, rather  
than incite negative energy, they should allow the City, residents, and  
developers the opportunity to work together going forward, as some things were  
due to past mistakes, others could have been handled better, but the resulting  
outcomes could not be changed, and they were better addressed collectively.  
He said the Commission and staff heard the residents’ comments, and would  
try to work better going into the future. Since Lawrence Martin began serving on  
the Commission, he pushed the initiative, Connect Lauderhill for residents to  
sign up to stay updated on city happenings; additional city efforts to keep the  
community engaged included the quarterly newsletter, Lauderhill Spotlight,  
sending eBlasts, text notifications, attending community meetings, etc.; if  
residents stayed connected, they were unlikely to miss information.  
He  
believed, in light of the recent elections, the Lauderhill community was more  
engaged than ever before, and this was a good thing, and that energy should be  
used to make Lauderhill a better place, rather than starting out on with negative  
energy that might discourage residents attending City Commission meetings for  
the first time, or tuning in virtually.  
Vice Mayor Martin stressed that the  
Commission was aware Lauderhill residents would hold them accountable, and  
they pledged their support to work to uplift and unify the community, so citizens  
should give the newly elected commission a chance to do so.  
Community  
leaders were welcome to speak with members of the Commission individually,  
and if still dissatisfied with the feedback, then they could bring their concerns to  
the public forum.  
Commissioner  
Campbell  
remarked,  
historically,  
development  
was  
a
controversial matter, balancing the needs of the community with those of  
developers; 20 years ago when he was the president of the Estates of Inverrary  
HOA, some residential developments, such as Sienna Ridge, did not exist, and  
residents at HOA meetings voiced loud opposition to proposed townhomes.  
There was always some tension between residential developments, and not  
only in Lauderhill, due to fear and anxiety such changes might bring; some were  
objective and real, while others were not. He encouraged community debates  
on such matters, but at some point there needed to be an understanding that  
communities always went through changes.  
He asked residents to bear with  
the City Commission and staff as they navigated the subject process, adding as  
an aside that it was not illegal for election candidates to receive donations from  
their local community, whether from residents or businesses, and accepting  
such donations did not amount to any candidate “selling out.” He remarked this  
was just part of the U.S.’s democratic process; each member of the  
Commission’s vote would be based on what they believed was right at the  
present time; not all Commission decisions would be liked by everyone, and  
some would be tougher than others, but decisions had to be made, as it was  
the job of the Commission.  
The City Commission’s interest was to take  
Lauderhill to better place than they found it, and at no time did the  
a
Commission feel it was or ever would be perfect.  
Commissioner Hodgson concurred with resident involvement in the dialog on  
any matter before the Commission, particularly before a decision was made; he  
heard some residents express their concern regarding Lauderhill becoming a  
rental city, both at the present meeting, and while on his campaign trail. As this  
was his first meeting, he assured those who voted for him, and the Lauderhill  
public, that he heard their concerns, as he listened to staffs presentations, the  
comments of his fellow commissioners, and the public. His receiving donations  
from persons during his election campaign did not, in anyway obligate him to  
support donors, or prevent them being investigated if such action was  
warranted, a latter action that was the duty of the police, not him. He echoed  
his fellow elected officials’ urging for the residents and businesses to work  
together with the City Commission and staff, as this was the only way for  
Lauderhill to strive to be a better city.  
Commissioner Dunn asked Ms. Dimond if she was willing to meet with another  
community association.  
Ms. Dimond responded that she met with community associations, as directed  
by city staff; noting when she tried handing her card to Mr. Brown sitting next to  
her, so they could speak after the meeting, he immediately handed the card  
back to her.  
A motion was made by Commissioner M. Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor S.  
Martin, that this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
IX  
ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS - FIRST READING (NOT ON CONSENT  
AGENDA) (AS ADVERTISED IN THE SUN-SENTINEL)  
1.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-11-158: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FISCAL  
YEAR (FY) 2025 ROLLOVER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO  
INCLUDE: A CAPITAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF  
$2,048,535.00, A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT  
OF  
$27,696,987.00,  
AND  
THE  
AN  
AMOUNT  
INTERDEPARTMENTAL  
OF $1,237,089.00 REFLECTING  
TO VARIOUS REVENUE AND  
BUDGET  
ADJUSTMENT  
APPROPRIATE  
IN  
ADJUSTMENTS  
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS AS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN THE  
BREAKDOWN IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $30,982,611.00 PROVIDING  
VARIOUS  
BUDGET  
CODE  
NUMBERS;  
PROVIDING  
FOR  
AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
Attachments:  
This Ordinance was approved on the Consent Agenda on first reading to the City  
Commission Meeting, due back on 12/09/2024. (See Consideration of Consent  
Agenda for vote tally.)  
2.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-11-159: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AMENDING  
THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 20,  
TRAFFIC, CREATING ARTICLE IV, “SPEED DETECTION SYSTEMS  
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMITS”; PROVIDING  
FOR USE OF TRAFFIC INFRACTION DETECTORS IN ACCORDANCE  
WITH  
FLORIDA  
STATUTES,  
CHAPTER  
316;  
MAKING  
A
DETERMINATION THAT THE TRAFFIC DATA STUDY SUPPORTS THE  
INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF PROPOSED SCHOOL ZONE  
SPEED DETECTION SYSTEMS IN PARTICULAR LOCATIONS WHICH  
CONSTITUTE  
ADDITIONAL  
A
HEIGHTENED SAFETY RISK THAT WARRANT  
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES; ADOPTING AND  
INCORPORATING THE TRAFFIC DATA OR OTHER SUPPORTING  
EVIDENCE;  
DETECTION SYSTEMS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING  
FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE  
AUTHORIZING  
INSTALLATION  
OF  
THE  
SPEED  
(REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
Mr. Hobbs explained there was  
a proposal to install school zone speed  
detection systems in Lauderhill; prior to taking such action, a traffic study was  
required, and Police Chief Constance Stanley and her staff conducted the  
study; the results of that study was the matter for discussion.  
Police Chief Stanley indicated Lieutenant Joseph Soren and his staff conducted  
the study, the results of which were previously presented to members of the  
Commission. It was important for the City’s schools to be safe, and other cities  
were exploring the implementation of a similar system.  
Lieutenant Joseph Soren gave a PowerPoint presentation of the subject traffic  
study, as detailed in the backup, highlighting the following:  
• The study was done over the course of five days, collecting daily averages  
• Speeding violations were anything over ten miles per hour (mph) over the  
speed limit; the speed limit in school zones was 15 mph  
• The schedule allowed for the operation of the system only during school days  
• The spreadsheet in the backup detailed the results, showing an average  
violation rate of over 50 percent; for example, the school zone at the 2500 block  
of NW 55th Avenue had an 83 percent violation rate, morning and afternoon  
combined  
The percentage violation rate was significantly higher in afternoons than  
mornings.  
Commissioner Hodgson asked if the high rate of violations on NW 55th Avenue  
was related to the actions of the surrounding population.  
Lieutenant Soren answered no; he believed the high rate was due to the  
absence of a flasher; at present, there were only signs with times listed, and the  
implementation of the proposed system would add flashers.  
The latter alone  
would be  
Lauderhill.  
a
significant deterrent to speeding in all school zones around  
Vice Mayor Martin wished to know the amount the City would receive per  
citation.  
City Attorney Rosenberg explained the subject ordinance was not for the  
assignment of a specific vendor, it was to authorize the implementation of the  
program, and as there was a bid currently out for a vendor to provide this  
service, it was preferable not to pose specific vendor questions at the present  
time. Such matters would depend on the bid vendors submitted, and how they  
would be ranked.  
Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.  
Mr. Harris noted when the subject presentation was made previously, he was  
concerned that the radar would not be active outside of school hours, asking if  
this could be mentioned in the bid discussions.  
Jonathan,  
established by the police department (PD), an expected number they wished to  
see, realizing none was the ultimate goal. He questioned if there was a  
a resident, asked if a goal for the reduction in violations was  
time/date by which the City hoped to implement the subject system.  
Lieutenant Soren concurred as to zero violations being the desire; some  
agencies that implemented the system saw up to a 95-percent reduction in  
violations. The system was currently out to bid, and would remain open until  
December 10; there were next steps in the process staff had to go through, and  
bringing it back to the Commission one or two more times before actual  
construction began.  
City Attorney Rosenberg reminded the Commission this was the first reading of  
the ordinance, which meant a second reading was needed for the ordinance to  
take effect.  
Police Chief Stanley mentioned there would be  
a
community education  
component to the implementation of the subject system; though the PD wanted  
to stop violators, they wished to educate them first, as the ultimate goal was a  
100-percent reduction.  
Jonathan asked if any rates for accidents was available due to the number of  
speeding violations issued in Lauderhill’s school zones.  
Lieutenant Soren replied that in the history of his employment with the City there  
was no significant crash with a child in a school zone.  
Mayor Grant received no further comments from the public.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor Martin, that  
this Ordinance be approved on first reading to the City Commission Meeting, due  
back on 12/9/2024. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
3.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-11-160: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL AMENDING THE LAND  
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR); ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATIVE  
PROVISIONS, SECTION 2.1, PURPOSE OF ARTICLE, DEVELOPMENT  
APPROVALS;  
ADMINISTRATION,  
SUBSECTION  
2.1.3,  
DEVELOPMENT  
AND DUTIES  
REVIEW  
OF THE  
(b) MEMBERSHIP  
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, TO UPDATE THE POSITIONS  
APPOINTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND  
CLARIFY THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS NECESSARY TO  
HAVE A QUORUM; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS;  
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE  
(REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
Attachments:  
This Ordinance was approved on the Consent Agenda on first reading to the City  
Commission Meeting, due back on 12/09/2024. (See Consideration of Consent  
Agenda for vote tally.)  
3A. ITEM REMOVED - ORDINANCE NO. 24O-11-161  
X
ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READING (NOT ON CONSENT  
AGENDA) (AS ADVERTISED IN THE SUN-SENTINEL)  
4.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-10-152: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL,  
AGENCY,  
DEVELOPMENT  
THE  
AND  
LAUDERHILL  
GJ LAUDERHILL,  
INCENTIVES IN  
COMMUNITY  
LLC;  
THE  
REDEVELOPMENT  
PROVIDING  
FORM OF  
FOR  
TAX  
REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF  
MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT  
COMPRISED OF 245 HOUSING UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF  
RETAIL CONSISTING OF THREE (3) MID-RISE APARTMENT  
A
BUILDINGS, AT APPROXIMATELY 52 + UNITS PER ACRE ON A 4.65 +  
ACRE SITE IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND  
WITHIN THE TRANSIT ORIENTED CORRIDOR, LEGALLY DESCRIBED  
AS A PORTION OF TRACT “A” LAUDERHILL SHOPPES NO. THREE,  
ACCORDING THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK  
82, PAGE 3 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BROWARD COUNTY,  
FLORIDA,  
INCLUDING  
FOLIO  
NUMBERS  
494125320030 AND  
494125320010, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN;  
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.  
Mr. Brown stated for the record that when Ms. Dimond offered him her card, he  
told her he did not accept bribes.  
Arthouse project, adding that this was an already congested area, and he heard  
nothing mentioned about the ingress/egress for the site. He claimed it was  
already acknowledged that when the subject project was presented to the HOA  
He restated his objections to the 441  
there  
was  
room  
for  
improvements  
regarding  
communication;  
some  
commissioners present at that meeting admitted to dropping the ball, having no  
knowledge of the project. It was puzzling that they could know nothing about the  
plan to build 245 apartments on one of Lauderhill’s main thoroughfare, and he  
told them at the time if they were truly unaware, they should leave the  
commission, as he doubted if such a project was in Inverrary it would have  
been missed.  
Mr. Brown stated, years prior, residents and their community  
representatives supported, and pushed for what was now Broward Central  
Regional Park, as this was smart development. They believed the area should  
be the synergy for local, black, small businesses, which the presence of the  
park would facilitate. He urged the Commission to listen to the community that  
voted them in, as he feared such developments would lead to gentrification  
along 441; he and other residents were against the project.  
Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.  
Ms. Lue asked if the subject apartments would be rentals.  
Mr. Hobbs answered yes.  
Ms. Lue wished to know why there were plans to build more apartments, rather  
than focusing on homes for young families. She went on to say that many  
residents kept abreast of what was taking place mostly behind the scenes, but  
she decided she would begin attending meetings, as the homes of her family  
and hers were in Lauderhill, so what took place in the City was very important to  
them. Added to her earlier question was wanting to know if anyone knew the  
percentage of rentals there were in Lauderhill; it seemed the City was approving  
higher buildings, and she already hated driving on 441 due to the numerous  
traffic lights, and persistent traffic congestion on the corridor.  
Commissioner Campbell stated, with regard to young families, latest statics  
showed that young persons thought differently than people of their age years  
ago in terms of owning single-family homes versus plush apartments.  
Secondly, Lauderhill was a land-locked city, meaning it was surrounded by  
other cities, some larger that the City with large tracts of vacant land; the City  
was running out of developable land with no potential to expand in any direction,  
thus, the only direction development could take was vertically. He mentioned  
the anticipation in the State of Florida of a great potential influx of residents  
moving from the north, and outside the U.S., and the only way for Lauderhill to  
absorb some of those potential residents was to attract developers to build  
residential units, and developers were unlikely to utilize a three to four-acre tract  
to develop a few single-family homes.  
Commissioner Campbell stressed that  
this was not a trend he particularly welcomed, but it was part of the reality  
moving forward, as it was a trend seen in other Florida cities, adding that he  
agreed with smart development.  
Mr. Harris said he was not against redevelopment in Lauderhill. One of the  
biggest topics of discussion was people earning a good living wage, and the  
latter were not where it should to be; realtors said in order to become a  
homeowner,  
a
buyer had to earn  
a
six-figure salary.  
He would remain  
openminded as to possibilities in Lauderhill.  
Mr. Martin thought the Commission’s and residents’ focus should not be on the  
residential piece only, but also on transportation, the ability to live, work, play,  
and buy local, as the current trend of developers was to build mixed-use  
projects. This meant commercial/retail on lower floors, and residential on upper  
floors.  
He noted the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), on  
which he represented the City when he served on the commission was about  
making transportation along the County’s major corridors accessible to  
individuals in the area to reduce the number of vehicles on the roadways. There  
were discussions on other smart transportation, such as light rail, so many  
factors tied into the subject conversation that could make the community more  
at ease with proposed developments if they understood the reality of such  
discussions, that they were attainable, and they were coming to Broward.  
He  
stressed that smart development was not done in a vacuum, focusing on just  
one piece, and the City Commission and staff were aware of the contributing  
pieces that facilitated redevelopment. Mr. Martin urged the new members of the  
Commission to educate themselves on such matters, so their responses to the  
public could reduce the pressure and concerns felt by residents living in areas  
around proposed development.  
Mr. Brown continued to state the need for the City Commission and developers  
to engage the residents in their planning, and decisions, so residents did not  
feel ignored.  
Mr. Hobbs commented on the importance of recognizing that things were not  
happening in a vacuum; despite the present discussion, these processes were  
ongoing for quite some time, for which there was considerable public outreach:  
flyers, emails, public presentations, MPO presentations at City Commission  
meetings, and special meetings. Thus, the proposed projects had been years  
in the works, with staff and the Commission meeting with the developers, and  
the developers making presentations at public meetings, etc. He stated traffic  
studies were conducted, and community feedback was received and relayed to  
traffic engineers to include in their activities, as well as staffs work with the  
MPO; feedback was incorporated into any transportation planning, so the MPO  
could provide recommendations related to ingress and egress.  
Mr. Hobbs  
restated that along with the subject discussions at the present meeting, multiple  
agencies were working with the City and developers over multiple years. During  
that time, communications were sent out to communities for their participation,  
whether online, or at regular or special Commission meetings; the latter were  
held to impart information to the public on specific matters. He stressed that  
none of the development projects being discussed at the present meeting were  
brought to the City or staff under the cover of darkness, as extensive efforts  
were made to engage the community throughout the years, and the City would  
continue to do so; staff would take the feedback from the present meeting, and  
do a better job attending HOA meetings to keep communities informed.  
Mayor Grant asked Mr. Brown if the subject project was presented at a meeting  
of his HOA.  
Mr. Brown affirmed it was, at which time some residents present voiced  
concerns that no elected officials informed them of the proposed development.  
Mayor Grant wished to know how long the process for the proposed project had  
been going on.  
Mr. Hobbs replied multiple years, not wishing to misspeak as to the exact  
timeframe; he recalled it had been since the time of the pandemic.  
Mayor Grant believed it predated the reestablishment of the HOA of which Mr.  
Varion was the president; it was possible that some newly elected members of  
the commission in 2020 were not yet brought up to speed when the project was  
presented, so they had no knowledge of the project at the time of the 2020 HOA  
meeting.  
Commission promised to do  
The project was an ongoing discussion for years, and the present  
better job sending information out to the  
a
community. She reminded everyone meeting information was sent out to the  
community via a variety of methods, including emails, so residents who were  
not connected to the City’s network might not receive the notices. She invited  
anyone present in the Chambers who wished to receive such information to  
give staff their contact details.  
Madeline Noel, Lauderhill resident, noted one of her previous questions was  
related to the 441 Arthouse project, specifically the opportunity to have any type  
of community/ youth space. Thus, in the mindset of building a project where  
residents could work, play, shop in their community, thought should be given to  
including community centers in the proposed development, or  
a
resource  
center for youths and their families. For example, she suggested a literacy  
center where families could use resources to pay bills, learn a trade, equip  
themselves to become business owners, etc.; this would be particularly helpful  
for those without their own transportation. She wished to know the percentage  
participation of Lauderhill businesses in building the proposed development.  
Mr. Hobbs responded, as it related to Lauderhill businesses and residents being  
able to participate in the actual development, as part of the agreement there  
was a portion that required developers to use local businesses to carry out  
certain activities, and provide services.  
Thus, there would definitely be an  
opportunity for local businesses to participate in the development and/or  
maintenance of the proposed project.  
Commissioner Dunn believed the last time the subject project was discussed at  
a Commission meeting, the applicant was asked to, again, reach out to the  
surrounding community, for which one or two meetings were held. She asked  
the applicant to share what transpired at those meetings.  
Hope Calhoun, the applicant’s representative, affirmed the applicant’s team  
attended a few HOA meetings prior to, and after the approval of the subject  
project’s site plan, as well as prior to the CRA, and the City Commission having  
a second reading on the subject development agreement. Overall, she thought  
residents had  
a positive response, though there were residents adamantly  
against the project with no desire to see anything happen at that site; they  
voiced their intention to protest when construction began. The applicants team  
agreed to continue working with neighboring communities; in fact, a resident  
contacted her about posting a notice for an open house, to which the applicant  
agreed.  
Commissioner Dunn sought clarification there would be additional opportunities  
for the community to weigh in on the site plan, etc.  
City Attorney Rosenberg affirmed if the developer submitted any further site plan  
modifications, they had to be brought before the Commission for approval.  
Commissioner Dunn questioned if residents at the HOA meetings made  
specific recommendations as to what they wished to see in the development.  
Ms. Calhoun responded that their feedback did not concern how the building  
would look, or the programming; they were more in terms of what they wished  
to see as a price point. This was the first time she was hearing comments  
regarding the inclusion of some type of community center, or related use. She  
mentioned the applicant’s team said on numerous occasions there would be an  
artist-type development, as they would encourage artists to reside on the  
property; this was their way of incorporating local artists into the development.  
Commissioner Dunn wished to know if there was still time to get more  
community input with the possibility of incorporating some of their suggestions  
in the development.  
Ms. Calhoun reiterated the site plan was already approved, but the applicant  
was willing to incorporate community recommendations where possible.  
Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.  
Commissioner Dunn recalled the previous interaction with Mr. Brown, and his  
comments about the then commission’s lack knowledge; it led to an ordinance  
that put policy in place requiring developers to engage with the community at a  
certain point in the development process.  
Mr. Brown remarked the location of the subject development was within a  
strong African American community, so he sought assurance from the  
Commission that tenants of the development would reflect the diversity of the  
surrounding community.  
Commissioner Dunn thought the challenge many communities faced when they  
were developing and growing was that sometimes people got moved out, and  
others got moved in. Part of the opportunity before the City Commission was to  
ensure the policies and practices they put in place that went through the city  
manager, and city planners’ office enabled the creation of an environment  
where residents could live, learn, work, and play well in Lauderhill.  
She  
mentioned one of the factors she insisted be placed in the subject developer  
agreement, to which the developer agreed, was to ensure they hired, and  
contracted locally; this was a very important piece for maintaining the cultural  
integrity, and making sure the community was fully included.  
She suggested  
Mr. Brown and she have a conversation after the present meeting, and through  
his HOA president, and the subject developer they could meet to discuss  
concrete ways to ensure some of their concerns were met.  
Lauderhill administration was not able to dictate who should be included as  
residents of rental development; however, the Commission could put  
As a city, the  
a
practices in place, so Lauderhill residents had an opportunity utilize the space  
well, to work there, do business with the developer, and that it was a beautiful  
space that was responsive to the needs of the community.  
Commissioner  
Dunn remarked there were still opportunities for stakeholders to give input,  
which she believed the developer welcomed.  
Mr. Harris remarked the issue of discrimination as to residency in Lauderhill  
was put to rest, and he believed the subject developer had been more than  
transparent with the community, attending two HOA meetings to have  
discussions with residents, and the developer told residents the door was still  
open for further discussion at any time.  
Mayor Grant received no further comments from the public.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner J.  
Hodgson, that this Ordinance be approved on second reading. The motion  
carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
5. ITEM REMOVED - ORDINANCE NO. 24O-10-153  
6.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-10-154: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF  
ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, OFFICERS  
AND EMPLOYEES, DIVISION 3, RETIREMENT, PART 3 POLICE  
PENSION PLAN AND TRUST FUND, SECTION 2-87.1(b),  
DEFERRED  
RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN, (DROP) TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER’S  
ERROR REGARDING ELIGIBILITY TO ENTER INTO THE DROP PLAN IN  
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT  
AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL AND FLORIDA STATE LODGE FRATERNAL ORDER OF  
POLICE LODGE #161; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE;  
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE  
DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Ordinance was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
7.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-10-155: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
TRANSFER OF LAND LOCATED AT 5213 N.W. 23RD STREET #166,  
AS  
MORE  
PARTICULARLY  
DESCRIBED  
IN  
THE  
ATTACHED  
QUIT-CLAIM DEED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL TO THE CRA; APPROVING THE QUIT-CLAIM DEED  
REGARDING THE TRANSFER; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE  
(REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Ordinance was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
8.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-10-156: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
TRANSFER OF LAND LOCATED AT 5406 N.W. 25th STREET #7, AS  
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED QUIT-CLAIM  
DEED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL TO  
THE CRA; APPROVING THE QUIT-CLAIM DEED REGARDING THE  
TRANSFER; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY  
CITY MANAGER DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Ordinance was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
9.  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-10-157: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL AMENDING THE CITY  
CODE  
MISCELLANEOUS  
UNAUTHORIZED  
OF  
ORDINANCES,  
CHAPTER  
PROVISIONS, CREATING  
PUBLIC CAMPING AND  
14,  
OFFENSES  
ARTICLE  
AND  
IX,  
PUBLIC  
SLEEPING,  
PROHIBITING PUBLIC CAMPING AND PUBLIC SLEEPING ON PUBLIC  
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL PURSUANT TO  
FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 125.0231; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS,  
PROVIDING METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING PENALTIES;  
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY  
MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
Attachments:  
This Ordinance was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
XI RESOLUTIONS (IF NOT ON CONSENT AGENDA)  
10.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-267:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL ACCEPTING THE  
CERTIFIED RESULTS OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 GENERAL  
ELECTION FROM THE BROWARD COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,  
BROWARD  
COUNTY  
SUPERVISOR  
OF  
ELECTIONS  
OFFICE;  
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY  
MANAGER DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
11.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-268:  
A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE  
FINAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL AND  
ATREYU BRIGHTLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000.00 AS FULL AND  
FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS INCLUDING  
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS RELATED TO ANY AND ALL  
CLAIMS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY  
CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
12.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-269:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
SECOND AMENDED ANNUAL CALENDAR OF CITY HOSTED  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
SPECIAL EVENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
Vice Mayor Martin sought clarification that when elected officials placed items  
on the events calendar, they should complete and submit an EPAF for approval  
before the event came before the City Commission for approval.  
Mr. Hobbs affirmed the submission of an EPAF was first; it should be submitted  
at least 30 days prior to any event; once approved, as the policy stated, the  
matter came before the City Commission for approval.  
Mayor Grant felt, as this was a newly elected commission, there was a need for  
the Commission and staff to review the current events calendar in more depth,  
as some events might be removed, and new ones added. She asked that at  
the next workshop, the City Manager place an item on the agenda for this matter  
to be discussed.  
Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.  
Ms. Noel requested that when City events were noticed to the public, they  
should be published in Creole and Spanish, as well as English, as Lauderhills  
population was very diverse.  
The same applied to radio broadcasts, as this  
method of communication was still very popular among Caribbean and other  
cultures in the City. She felt, with regard to City events, very few spoke to the  
Haitian community culturally, so the City could explore how to embrace the  
Haitian community to make them feel such events took them into consideration.  
Commissioner Dunn and Lawrence Martin were thanked for their support on an  
initiative the Haitian Mobilization Committee launched in January 2024, which  
they hoped the City of Lauderhill would host or sponsor when it was again held  
in January 2025, noting January was Haitian Independence Month. She sought  
the entire Commission’s support, and urged the City to have more events that  
spoke to the Haitian community, to keep them informed of the resources the  
City had available for them to access.  
Commissioner Hodgson understood the need for the City to further embrace  
Haitian residents, but as Lauderhill residents spoke a variety of languages, it  
would be difficult for the City to publish or send out notices of events, services,  
etc. in numerous languages.  
He recommended that, as Ms. Noel was an  
advocate for the Haitian community, and the U.S. was an English-speaking  
country, she encourage them to understand English a little bit more, adding that  
this was not meant as a put down of Haitian residents, as many Haitians voted  
for him, most of whom spoke English.  
Commissioner  
Dunn  
commented  
some  
35 languages  
were  
spoken  
in  
Lauderhill, and 39 percent of the City’s population was from a different country.  
Looking at best practices around cultural competencies, it was a best practice  
with communities as diverse as Lauderhill’s to look at the percentage of  
population makeup, and ensure materials were published not only in the  
language of the top three countries represented in a city, but that the reading  
level of the information published was something everyone could understand.  
This was a practice Broward County, and many other cities used; when the  
County sent out information, for example, such as by the Supervisor of  
Elections, or centered around certain topics, typically, the County published the  
information in English, Spanish, Creole, and, in some cases, Portuguese.  
She  
said the education level used as the guide was between a sixth and eighth  
grade reading level.  
Commissioner Campbell strongly supported that it was not unique to Lauderhill  
or the United States, as all societies had populations that spoke multiple  
languages.  
However, it was a common practice to print notices in English,  
Spanish, and French, and this was an appropriate practice, regardless of  
whether such persons understood English; there was no more direct  
communication than that in one’s native tongue.  
He felt there was a large  
enough population of French Creole-speaking residents in Lauderhill to warrant  
city communications being sent out in Creole as well.  
Ms. Noel thanked the Commission for their responses, expressing feelings of  
shock at Commissioner Hodgson’s comment, feeling it was insensitive for a  
community such as the City of Lauderhill that promoted multicultural, and multi  
diversity. In light of the very recent commission election, for which everyone  
who voted had to be a citizen of the U.S., and even if they had some  
understanding of the English language, the election ballot was in Creole,  
English, and Spanish; nothing on the ballot required the voter to be English  
speaking in order to vote. She was proud to be a resident of Lauderhill, and  
Commissioner Dunn selected  
a
number of residents as Lauderhill Proud  
Ambassadors, of which she was proud to be one, and wore the honor at all  
times.  
Commissioner Hodgson felt sorry Ms. Noel viewed his comments as  
insensitive, reiterating he had no disrespect for Haitians, as he knew many of  
them, including his neighbor, apologizing if it came across in this manner.  
Mr. Harris said, as a first responder, they dealt with persons who spoke many  
different languages, and communicating with persons who spoke English  
fluently was not always simple, as one word could be interpreted in multiple  
ways, making Commissioner Hodgson’s point invalid.  
Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.  
A motion was made by Commissioner M. Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor S.  
Martin, that this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
13.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-270:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
AWARD OF BID (2025-004) TO ENCO IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO  
EXCEED $2,569,525.00 TO CONSTRUCT AND INSTALL 3,006 LINEAR  
FEET OF TWELVE INCH (12") WATER MAIN ALONG N.W. 82ND  
AVENUE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN  
AGREEMENT  
PROVIDING  
AND  
FOR  
EXECUTE  
PAYMENT  
ANY  
FROM  
DOCUMENTS  
BUDGET  
NECESSARY;  
CODE NUMBER  
401-917-06496; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED  
BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
14.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-271: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE DONATION OF  
ABANDONED PROPERTY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000.00 TO  
THE BROWARD COUNTY HUMAN TRAFFICKING COALITION (BHTC)  
NON-PROFIT CHARITY TO PROMOTE EDUCATION FOR LAW  
ENFORCEMENT CENTERED ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING; PROVIDING  
FOR PAYMENT FROM BUDGET CODE NUMBER 001-24-7300;  
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY  
MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
15.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-272:  
A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE  
EMERGENCY CHANGE ORDERS FROM GREEN TEAM WHICH WERE  
DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROPERLY REPAIR THE PITCH OF THE  
DRAIN PIPE AT THE POLICE STATION; APPROVING PAYMENT FOR  
CHANGE ORDER #1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,661.61 AND CHANGE  
ORDER #2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,500.00; PROVIDING FOR  
PAYMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,161.61  
FROM BUDGET CODE NUMBER 305-351-06239; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
16.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-273:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
RENEWAL OF THE SMALL GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE  
AGREEMENT (SGEA) WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
INSTITUTE  
GEOGRAPHIC  
(ESRI),  
A
SOLE  
SOURCE  
SYSTEM  
PROVIDER  
(G.I.S)  
OF  
MAPPING  
THE  
INFORMATION  
APPLICATION, FOR CITYWIDE USE FOR A THREE (3) YEAR TERM;  
PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED  
170,100.00 OVER THE THREE YEAR TERM; PROVIDING FOR  
PAYMENT FROM BUDGET CODE NUMBERS 401-911-04620 AND  
401-911-03110; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED  
BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
17.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-274:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
AWARD OF BID TO ORACLE ELEVATOR COMPANY (RFP 2023-053)  
AS A QUALIFIED VENDOR TO RENOVATE THE SADKIN COMMUNITY  
CENTER ELEVATOR IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $87,433.00;  
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT  
AND EXECUTE ANY DOCUMENTS NECESSARY; PROVIDING FOR  
PAYMENT FROM BUDGET CODE NUMBER 307-326-6534; PROVIDING  
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER,  
DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
18.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-275:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL WAIVING COMPETITIVE  
BIDDING; AUTHORIZING THE PIGGYBACK OF THE FLORIDA SHERIFF  
ASSOCIATION’S CONTRACT (FSA 24VEL32) TO APPROVE THE  
PURCHASE OF TWO (2) FORD F-150 TRUCKS AND A TRAILER FROM  
DUVAL FORD, OR ANY OTHER APPROVED VENDOR LISTED IN THE  
CONTRACT IF NECESSARY, TO BE UTILIZED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS  
DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT IN THE  
TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $99,876.00 FROM BUDGET CODE  
NUMBER 450-927-06420; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE,  
(REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
19.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-276: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE WAIVER OF  
COMPETITIVE BIDDING; APPROVING THE LIST OF SOLE SOURCE  
DESIGNATION OF VARIOUS SOLE SOURCE PROVIDERS AND/OR  
DISTRIBUTORS OF VARIOUS ESSENTIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE;  
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY  
MANAGER, DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
Attachments:  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
20.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-277:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, APPROVING THE  
SUBGRANT AWARD AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
LAUDERHILL AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF  
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) SUBGRANT FOR HIGHWAY TRAFFIC  
SAFETY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000.00 TO REDUCE  
SPEEDING  
AND  
AGGRESSIVE  
DRIVING  
CRASHES  
THROUGH  
EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING THAT THE CITY IS  
NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ANY MATCHING FUNDS; PROVIDING  
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER,  
DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
21.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-278:  
WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; APPROVING THE AWARD OF  
BID FOR THE PURCHASE, DELIVERY AND DISCHARGE OF  
A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE  
QUICKLIME TO THE VARIOUS VENDORS INDICATED AT THE  
COOPERATIVE PRICING ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS BY THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL BASED UPON THE BIDS SOLICITED BY THE CITY OF  
TAMARAC ACTING AS "LEAD AGENCY" FOR THE SOUTHEAST  
FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING GROUP  
(#23-36B); PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT NOT  
TO  
EXCEED  
$700,000 FROM  
BUDGET  
CODE  
NUMBER  
401-921-05520 ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
22.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-279:  
WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE  
A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE  
BIDDING; APPROVING THE  
COOPERATIVE PURCHASE FOR THE SUPPLY OF AGGREGATES,  
TOP SOIL AND SAND BASED UPON BASED UPON THE BIDS  
SOLICITED BY THE CITY OF MARGATE ACTING AS "LEAD AGENCY"  
FOR  
COOPERATIVE  
THE  
SOUTHEAST  
MULTIPLE  
FLORIDA  
AWARD  
GOVERNMENT  
BID #2022-006;  
PURCHASING  
SECURING  
PRICING ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT  
FROM APPROPRIATE BUDGET CODE NUMBERS; PROVIDING FOR  
AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
23.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-280:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL WAIVING COMPETITIVE  
BIDDING; AUTHORIZING THE PIGGYBACK OF THE CITY OF POMPANO  
BEACH’S  
GASOLINE & DIESEL FUEL FROM PORT CONSOLIDATED, INC FOR  
VARIOUS VEHICLES AND GENERATORS BY VARIOUS CITY  
CONTRACT  
FOR  
THE  
PURCHASE  
OF  
UNLEADED  
DEPARTMENTS.; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT FROM BUDGET CODE  
NUMBERS 001-138-05241 AND 001-138-05240; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
23A.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-281:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY  
EMERGENCY STRUCTURAL REPAIRS OF THE TWO GREEN LEAF  
FILTERS AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THE TOTAL  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING  
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT  
FROM BUDGET CODE NUMBER 401-918-6358; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY DESORAE GILES-SMITH).  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
23B.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-282:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
PRESENTATION OF KEY TO THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL TO  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
A
FORMER MAYOR KEN THURSTON IN RECOGNITION OF HIS  
DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT TO THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER SARAI “RAY”  
MARTIN).  
Vice Mayor Martin remarked the Key to the City was the highest tool the  
Commission had at its disposal, and as Ken Thurston was the first black mayor  
of Lauderhill, and he did a great job while serving, it was only fitting that he be  
awarded the Key to the City.  
A motion was made by Commissioner M. Dunn, seconded by Vice Mayor S.  
Martin, that this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
4 -  
0
Yes:  
Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson, Vice Mayor S. Martin, and  
Mayor D. Grant  
Abstain:  
Off Dais:  
1 - Commissioner R. Campbell  
23C.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-283:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
PRESENTATION OF KEY TO THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL TO  
A
HAYWARD BENSON IN RECOGNITION OF HIS DEDICATION AND  
COMMITMENT TO THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE  
(REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER SARAI “RAY” MARTIN).  
Vice Mayor Martin said his comments were similar to those of the previous item,  
this time honoring Hayward Benson, noting at times when one was serving on a  
commission it was difficult to see the benefits or negative outcomes until years  
later. Mr. Benson helped put things in place to allow certain items going on the  
agenda, along with supporting backup that gave each item a specific reason for  
being on the agenda.  
He supported the institution of term limits, and while  
some might agree/disagree with the changing of commissioners, he thought  
term limits turned out to be a good thing for the City. Again, he felt Mr. Benson  
was very deserving of the Key to the City for his years of service on the City  
Commission.  
A motion was made by Commissioner M. Dunn, seconded by Mayor D. Grant, that  
this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
23D.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-284:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
PRESENTATION OF KEY TO THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL TO  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
A
DESORAE GILES-SMITH IN RECOGNITION OF HER DEDICATION,  
COMMITMENT AND MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY;  
PROVIDING  
FOR  
AN  
EFFECTIVE  
DATE  
(REQUESTED  
BY  
COMMISSIONER SARAI “RAY” MARTIN).  
Attachments:  
Vice Mayor Martin commented City Manager Desorae Giles-Smith voiced her  
desire to retire after 36 years of service, working her way up through the years,  
for which he felt she deserved recognition. Therefore, she should be awarded  
the Key to the City.  
A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner J.  
Hodgson, that this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
5 -  
0
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
Abstain:  
23E.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-285:  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL ACKNOWLEDGING AND  
ACCEPTING THE AMENDED TERMS OF THE NOTICE OF  
RETIREMENT AGREED TO BY THE CITY MANAGER DESORAE  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
GILES-SMITH; APPOINTING KENNIE HOBBS AS INTERIM CITY  
MANAGER EFFECTIVE UPON THE RETIREMENT OF DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED  
BY COMMISSIONER SARAI "RAY" MARTIN).  
Attachments:  
This Resolution was approved on the Consent Agenda. (See Consideration of  
Consent Agenda for vote tally.)  
23F.  
RESOLUTION 24R-11-286: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION  
OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL REQUESTING A LIST FROM ALL CITY  
DEPARTMENTS  
PROJECTS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION;  
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY  
OF  
ALL  
CURRENT  
AND  
FUTURE  
ONGOING  
COMMISSIONER SARAI "RAY" MARTIN).  
Attachments:  
RES-24R-11-286-List of Projects for City Departments.pdf  
AR 24R-11-286  
Vice Mayor Martin clarified the Commission’s ask in the subject item was to  
help the Commission remain responsive to the Lauderhill community by gaining  
knowledge of all City projects; for example, there might be projects already in  
the pipeline for some five or six years ago that the current Commission might  
be unaware of. Therefore, every city department should create a consolidated  
list of projects, whether or not they were publicized, so all elected officials could  
be educated on which projects were already in the pipeline, pending, new, etc.,  
and whether they were capital or operational projects, thus reducing the  
chances of the Commission, and the community being blindsided.  
Mr. Hobbs understood the request, adding that the majority of the project  
information making up the lists was currently available on the Citys website,  
and project information was updated monthly. Some projects were operational,  
and took place in the normal course of the City doing business, so they might  
never make it to a list, having to be addressed sooner rather than later. He said,  
as it related to larger projects, particularly developments, staff could coordinate  
that information, create a single list, and disseminate that information through  
the City’s website, HOAs, and to the Commission, including some operational  
items.  
Mayor Grant asked if a workshop could be designated to such a discussion  
only.  
Mr. Hobbs answered yes.  
Commissioner Dunn sought clarification as to what the list should include,  
wondering if construction projects were the focus of the request.  
Vice Mayor Martin responded no, not just construction projects. He mentioned a  
project such as the implementation of the school zone safety system voted on  
earlier had not yet come before the Commission, but the Commission was now  
aware that it would in the near future. Some new projects might not come to  
the Commission for six months to a year, but it was important to know about  
them even if it was for tracking rather than decision purposes.  
The  
Commission should be aware of some operational activities, such as canal  
cleaning, as the Commission’s being aware could help them when responding  
to resident inquiries.  
Commissioner Dunn supported having a workshop discussion on the matter,  
as she desired clarity on why the Commission needed to be informed of such  
information; it would be more helpful for staff to get some clear direction.  
Vice Mayor Martin added the subject item was not for going into the contents of  
the list, it was for the Commission to approve a directive to staff to develop the  
list, then in a workshop meeting the Commission could discuss with staff what,  
going forward, should be included on the list to keep the Commission updated.  
Mr. Hobbs agreed with the need to workshop the matter, as the dissemination  
component of the information gathered was important.  
City Attorney Rosenberg stated the Commission could table the item to the next  
Commission workshop.  
A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner  
Campbell, that this Resolution be tabled to the City Commission Workshop, due  
back on 3/17/2025. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
XII QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS (IF NOT ON CONSENT AGENDA)  
All persons wishing to speak on the following quasi-judicial items were  
collectively sworn.  
24.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-10-259:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA GRANTING LAUDERHILL  
MALL INVESTMENTS, LLC. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE  
A
DEVELOPMENT ORDER, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO ALLOW IN  
THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONING DISTRICT A MIXED-USE  
DEVELOPMENT INCLUSIVE OF 233 DWELLING UNITS AND 14,186  
SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL USES ON A 3.23± ACRE SITE LEGALLY  
DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE "LAUDERHILL MALL SOUTH OUT  
PARCELS" PLAT AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 183, PAGE 374, OF  
THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,  
MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1267 N.W. 40TH AVENUE,  
LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.  
Commissioner Dunn sought clarification as to why the subject item was being  
tabled.  
City Attorney Rosenberg explained the applicant contacted staff to request the  
item be tabled; special exception applications required applicants to satisfy  
certain advertising requirements. However, per statute, if an item was tabled at  
a public meeting to a date certain, the applicant avoided the need to readvertise.  
The motion would be to table the item to the Commission’s January 13, 2025  
meeting.  
Commissioner Dunn thought the item was tabled when it was last on the  
agenda.  
Mr. Keester-O’Mills indicated the applicant was still reviewing the Citys  
conditions of approval, and they were not yet at the point of being ready to sign  
the affidavit to commit to those conditions.  
applicant accordingly.  
He would follow up with the  
Commissioner Dunn questioned if there was a limit on the number of times an  
applicant could table an item.  
City Attorney Rosenberg explained if the applicant was not ready by the time the  
agenda item came up, they could request that it be tabled to a date certain.  
This Resolution was tabled on the Consent Agenda, due back to the City  
Commission Meeting on 01/13/2025. (See Consideration of Consent Agenda for  
vote tally).  
26.  
RESOLUTION NO. 24R-11-287:  
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL GRANTING TO CARLOS  
ARRUZA,  
EXCEPTION  
OWNER  
USE  
OF  
SSI  
LUBRICANTS,  
LLC.,  
A
SPECIAL  
TO  
DEVELOPMENT  
ORDER,  
SUBJECT  
CONDITIONS, TO ALLOW IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (IL) ZONING  
DISTRICT AN OUTDOOR STORAGE/BULK STORAGE OF GAS, OIL,  
AND OTHER FUELS FOR THE STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL  
VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN A FULLY ENCLOSED SCREENED  
AREA USE ON AN APPROXIMATELY 0.91± NET ACRE VACANT  
PARCEL; GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF N.W. 16TH  
STREET BETWEEN N.W. 34th TERRACE AND N.W. 38TH AVENUE,  
WITH THE ADDRESS OF 3550 N.W. 16th STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF  
LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.  
Matt Scott, representing the applicant, introduced project team members Robert  
Warnick, and Carlos Arruza.  
Commissioner Campbell recalled that  
a
special exception was already  
approved for the subject property, asking why another was needed.  
Mr. Keester-O’Mills replied the applicant sought to purchase the subject  
property, and the special exception granted to the previous owner would not  
transfer to the new owner. Additionally, the applicant was slightly modifying the  
outdoor storage element.  
Commissioner Campbell asked if parcel of land in question was for parking  
only.  
Mr. Scott affirmed the proposed use was for parking fuel vehicles only.  
Commissioner Campbell saw in the backup it stated storage of gas, asking if  
this meant there would be two different uses.  
Mr. Scott responded that the application was for the storage of fuel trucks; that  
is, to park them onsite, and as they were fuel trucks that might have some fuel  
in them, so staff viewed this as outdoor storage. In his experience, most cities  
viewed storage of any kind, whether it be vehicles, materials, or equipment as  
outdoor storage; thus, outdoor storage parking was a type of outdoor storage if  
the parking was not for consumer or passenger vehicles. The applicant did not  
propose installing any tanks onsite, in the ground or otherwise for the storage of  
fuel.  
Commissioner Dunn requested a presentation.  
Mr. Scott gave a PowerPoint presentation on the subject item, as detailed in the  
backup. The site was less than an acre located in the Citys industrial zoning  
district; based on Google research, the site had been vacant for 30 years, and  
the applicant thought it ideal for their needs. He said they provided diesel fuel to  
various industries, including: marine, healthcare, construction, etc., and the  
subject location was very central to the various clients they served.  
They  
proposed storing 15 to 20 fuel trucks onsite, and they would improve the site  
with new fencing with secured access points, and security cameras,  
landscaping, and a hard surface on which trucks would park. He noted the  
routine would be for drivers to come on site, park their cars, take the trucks  
offsite, fill them with diesel fuel at the port, deliver fuel, and then return the  
trucks. Mr. Scott explained, with regard to safety concerns, no truck  
maintenance or repairs would be done onsite; nor would any fueling or  
un-fueling of trucks be done onsite; the request was to park the trucks  
overnight. Currently they rented a site in Davie to park their trucks, but due to  
them being an established business for some 60 years, they thought it better to  
purchase a site to park their trucks. He said parked trucks would only contain  
ultralow sulfur diesel, and biodiesel fuel, as it was the safest of fuels; this was  
important, as in the fuel industry there were certain types of fuel, gasoline and  
propane that had very low ignition points, and diesel had the highest flashpoint  
of all potential fuels.  
In most cases the trucks would be empty, but in an  
abundance of caution, they wished to disclose they may contain a small amount  
of fuel. City staff recommended approval of the subject application, subject to  
staff conditions, as they found it met the criteria for approval in the Citys code.  
Mr. Scott stated that the staff conditions to be met included: the use must go  
through the site plan review process, so staff from planning and zoning, police,  
fire, engineering, etc. would review the applicant’s site plan to ensure it met city  
code; he said the applicant willingly complied with all staff conditions. The fuel  
truck industry was heavily regulated, and the applicant possessed all required  
licenses, truck inspections, etc.; the presentation included a 20-year study on  
fuel truck accidents, and the data showed no accidents occurred while a fuel  
truck was parked. He showed pictures of the types of fuel trucks that would be  
parked onsite, stating they were all equipped with a variety of safety features; he  
asked that the Commission approve the subject application.  
Commissioner Dunn wished to know more about the type of fencing around the  
site.  
Mr. Scott stated city code required fencing with landscaping inside, and outside  
that fencing, so the applicant would provide the tallest fencing allowed, along  
with landscaping, security cameras, and gated access with a fob system only  
employees could access.  
Commissioner Dunn asked if there was an accident onsite, was Station 30, the  
nearest fire station to the subject site, equipped to handle such an incident.  
Fire Chief Robert Torres commented the subject use was a unique situation,  
and his duty was to the safety of Lauderhill residents, so they would look at how  
a significant leak on one of the subject trucks would be dealt with. His staff,  
including Fire Marshal Matthew Newman would review the applicants site plan  
to ensure all city fire codes were met, and ensure it was as safe as possible.  
Commissioner Dunn questioned if it were possible to get an assessment of the  
safety piece of the subject development before voting on the proposed  
resolution.  
City Attorney Rosenberg explained the matter currently before the Commission  
was the special exception component; the next step would be the site plan, and  
the Commission could direct staff to bring the site plan before the Commission,  
so safety questions could be posed to the applicant.  
Commissioner Dunn stated, as safety was her main concern, she wished the  
site plan to be presented to the Commission.  
Commissioner Campbell drove past the site, as he was concerned about its  
proximity to the adjacent residential community. canal separated the  
A
industrial area from the residential community; the site was not located as far  
east as he thought, being more central, so he realized it was not as close to the  
residential community as he thought.  
Mayor Grant asked why staff recommended approval.  
Mr. Keester-O’Mills replied, as it was a special exception application, all the  
conditions laid out in the Land Development Regulations (LDR) were met, or  
would be met by the applicant as part of the application, which would be the site  
plan approval.  
Commissioner Dunn asked for staff to examine the health and wellbeing of the  
surrounding community when reviewing the applicant’s site plan.  
Mr. Keester-O’Mills explained the approval of special exception applications  
included factors related to health, safety, and the general welfare of the  
community.  
Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.  
Ms. Lue expressed concern over the size of the trucks, and the narrowness of  
the roadways they would traverse, so she, too, wished to see the site plan.  
City Attorney Rosenberg indicated this was just the beginning stages, and the  
site plan submitted by the applicant had to go through all of the processes,  
including being reviewed by all disciplines, and there would be opportunities for  
community input at each meeting, including when the site plan was presented  
at the Commission meeting.  
Scott Wagner, Lauderhill resident, reminded the Commission the proximity of  
the Turnpike running right through the center of the City had trucks running up  
and down it all day; they presented a greater hazard than a few trucks parked in  
an empty lot. This was an opportunity for the City to earn some tax revenue.  
Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.  
A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner  
Campbell, that this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
XIII QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS, FIRST READING  
XIV QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS, SECOND READING  
XV UNFINISHED BUSINESS  
XVI OLD BUSINESS  
XVII NEW BUSINESS  
A.  
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 24O-09-151:  
ORDINANCE NO. 24O-09-151: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY  
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL APPROVING THE  
COMPREHENSIVE  
AGREEMENT  
BETWEEN  
THE  
CITY  
OF  
LAUDERHILL AND THE HILL DISTRICT, LLC, PROVIDING FOR THE  
DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE  
OF THE GATEWAY DESTINATION COMPLEX AS CONCEPTUALIZED  
IN THE UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL TO BE LOCATED ON THE  
PROPERTY  
CONSISTING  
OF  
APPROXIMATELY  
+/- 13.9 ACRES  
GENERALLY LOCATED AT SUNRISE BOULEVARD AND STATE  
ROAD 7 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 178, AT PAGE 161, OF THE  
OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BROWARD COUNTY AND AS MORE  
PARTICULARLY  
DESCRIBED  
HEREIN  
AND  
MORE  
COMMONLY  
KNOWN AS THE FORMER K-MART SITE; PROVIDING FOR AN  
EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER, DESORAE  
GILES-SMITH).  
City Attorney Rosenberg read the ordinance into the record, as detailed in the  
backup.  
Vice Mayor S. Martin noted the subject property was located at the intersection  
of Sunrise Boulevard and 441, and as the subject site was meant to be a  
Lauderhill destination, the desire was to develop  
a large complex on the  
property that included restaurants, parking, etc. As residents were passionate  
about development in the subject area, he thought it a good idea to allow the  
elected officials to look at the subject site, as there were two items in the  
backup that were not there when approval was granted previously.  
He  
explained the purpose of the subject item was for his colleagues and he to vote  
to reconsider the previously approved ordinance, not to discuss the contents of  
that ordinance.  
City Attorney Rosenberg gave an overview of what took place regarding the  
subject property. In 2021 there was a request for letters of interest (RLI) issued  
by the City, asking interested parties to give feedback on the type of  
development they envision for the subject location. She said the City received  
ten responses to that RLI, as shown in the attachments contained in the  
backup.  
The point of the RLI was for city staff to gather information to  
determine the scope on which to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) that  
would be sent out, detailing the development the City considered to be best for  
that location. She recalled that at that time a number of large developments  
were taking place in bordering cities, and the City wanted to wait to see how  
those transpired to see if they were good ideas. During this time, the City was  
approached by a private developer with an unsolicited proposal; the latter was  
something that was a different mechanism allowed in Florida statutes called a  
public/private partnership. In such situations, all the costs would be paid by the  
developer, and they had to provide public purpose, a donation of some aspect in  
order to qualify to apply. Ms. Rosenberg mentioned this was the first proposal  
of this type the City ever received, and there was nothing in the city code to  
dictate what that process was, though the State statute had parameters in  
place as to whether the developer would have to pay a fee, how long the bid  
should remain open, etc. She said the City then passed a code, adopting the  
Florida statute, filling in those gaps to define how the City would process  
unsolicited bids as part of Lauderhill’s purchasing code.  
other cities were charging as fee, and found that Fort Lauderdale had  
experience with processing unsolicited bids and charged $25,000.00 fee,  
Staff tracked what  
a
a
which the City similarly adopted. Though this seemed high, city staff wished to  
ensure that before staff took the time to process and review a development  
application the City was not asking for, they needed to make sure the developer  
was serious. The City put into place all of the steps, and the developers asked  
for no tax incentives, or any other monies from the City; in this instance, the  
developer contributed public portion elements, one being  
garage the City requested. Other elements the developer proposed included  
hotels, some residential areas, likely condominiums, as well as other  
commercial uses, such as restaurants. She noted the City asked for  
a
public parking  
a
commercial kitchen to be put in place at the Lauderhill Performing Arts Center  
(LPAC), as it currently had a small area with a microwave, making it challenging  
for caterers for events to function. A greenspace area was proposed, a type of  
beer garden, to hold outdoor events. Ms. Rosenberg stated the applicant was  
very involved in high tech, such as digital art, holograms, etc., noting that one of  
the principal members developed Wynwood, previously Overtown, so they were  
used to uplifting areas. When this overall concept was presented, the City had  
to decide if it was something it wished to proceed with. She said the City  
decided to advertise the development, and in January 2024, the advertisement  
was published, explaining the parameter of the elements being sought, and a  
60-day period was given to respond, per city code. When that advertising went  
out, it was not only sent to the entire City Commission, it went to all city  
departments, telling everyone who was interested to make sure they were  
aware. She said the advertisement was sent to everyone who responded to the  
RLI to give them an opportunity to respond, but no responses were received  
after two months; the unsolicited bid proposer was then awarded the project.  
The approved ordinance before the Commission was the comprehensive  
agreement that spoke about the terms, which said the applicant would build an  
unsolicited, conceptual of the project, but the City Commission would decide  
what that site plan would look like, the elements it would and would not include;  
that had yet to happen. Ms. Rosenberg explained the ordinance was a kind of  
global agreement that stated the developer could lease the land, paying the City  
annual rent, and the City would collect the taxes for every use on the property  
that was not a government component; the latter would include the Citys  
requested parking garage, and commercial kitchen at the LPAC. She said this  
would bring in income to the City, and, ultimately, give the ability to lower the tax  
burden on Lauderhill’s taxpayers; again, there were no tax incentives for the  
developer in the agreement. She added that the developer agreed to update the  
technology in the LPAC, as they planned to use the City’s facilities; they agreed  
to provide training, so there would be an education component, and to contract  
and hire local.  
development, and once completed, at the end of the lease it would all belong to  
the City. She noted, as the next step was the site plan phase, from the  
The developer would pay for all infrastructure for the  
beginning the Commission would be involved in planning what went on the site.  
Vice Mayor Martin said the presentation and what the developer proposed was  
great; it was a good idea from which the City would benefit.  
He sought  
clarification as to why an RFP was not issued after the responses to the RLI  
closed, as planned.  
Mr. Hobbs affirmed that after the City received the RLIs, staff was in the  
process of developing an RFP when the unsolicited bid was sent in, after which  
staff stopped developing the RFP that was based on the RLIs submitted,  
shifting the focus to the unsolicited bid. As part of the unsolicited bid, there was  
an opportunity for interested parties to provide feedback and comments on the  
unsolicited bid.  
Assistant City Attorney Zach Davis-Walker disclosed, as his family and he  
owned land, and lived in the subject area; he was both an interested party, and  
a city employee. He was involved in the subject process at its inception, stating  
the RLI was initially sent out for the City to explore the kind of demand in the  
market, and if that demand was in line with the City’s goals for the 14-acre  
property that lay in the City’s eastern CRA. The property was an anchor parcel,  
which meant the City had to be the catalyst for development in that area, so it  
was important to know what developers had in mind for development in that  
corridor.  
He commented that despite the City not being pleased with the  
responses to the RLI, which included: a big box store, townhome-type products;  
in general, nothing that would create economic growth along that corridor, staff  
proceeded with developing an RFP. However, once the City went received the  
unsolicited bid, the RFP became moot, but the City was required to go to the  
public to let all the developers who responded to the RLI know that the City  
received an unsolicited proposal; after the required 60-day period, the City  
received no responses. He remarked, at that point, there was no purpose to  
send out an RFP to find developers who would partner with the City, which  
would cost the taxpayers, when there was already an interested developer  
willing to pay to develop the property on their own with no financial ask from the  
City.  
The unsolicited bid acted as a point of reference for any interested  
developers who thought they could match that bid, and they had 60 days to  
bring forward their proposal; thus, the route the City chose to move in had the  
same effect of sending out an RFP at that time.  
Mr. Hobbs reiterated, prior to the unsolicited bid coming in, and following the RLI  
responses, despite not being satisfied, staff was in the process of developing  
an RFP, which they stopped doing for the reasons stated above by Mr.  
Davis-Walker. It took time for staff to develop the RFP, as they continued to  
research development in nearby cities, such as Plantation, and Dania, exploring  
development for the subject site.  
Commissioner Campbell wished to know if staff was satisfied with the proposal  
as is, considering the development along NW 38th Avenue and NW 19th Street  
corridors, and the projections made in the past.  
Mr. Hobbs responded that, conceptually, the City was satisfied with all the  
components presented in the unsolicited bid, but there were other processes in  
place that must take place before Commission approval on the final product  
could be considered.  
Mr. Davis-Walker explained the subject area within the City had a County land  
use of a transit oriented corridor (TOC) that promoted density, and with his  
involvement with the MPO that spanned a number of years, he knew there were  
certain rights of way within the County with failing levels of service, and 441  
would not get any wider. The County, therefore, sought to plan for more transit  
oriented, pedestrian-connected areas to bring density, and retail closer, which  
was what was transpiring on 441.  
He said the City was abiding by, and  
ensuring Lauderhill’s Land Use Plan corresponded with the County’s Land Use  
Plan; unfortunately, the multiple rights had failing levels of service due to the  
sheer number of persons using them.  
Vice Mayor Martin restated his reason for placing the subject item on the  
agenda was to allow the current Commission to have input on the development  
of the subject parcel; if there was a consensus, he was open to tabling the item  
indefinitely, or removing it from the agenda.  
City Attorney Rosenberg commented, as this was  
a reconsideration of an  
already approved ordinance, there was no need to revote on the ordinance; the  
motion would be to remove the reconsideration of the item, the approval of  
which meant the original approval of the ordinance would remain as is.  
Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.  
Ms. Noel stated there were certain elements of the subject project that spoke to  
her, such as the education component that she looked forward to hearing more  
about; she thought the hotel component would be great in terms of attracting  
businesses, and much-needed jobs for city residents. She was motivated and  
excited to hear more about the proposed components for the project.  
Mr. Wagner mentioned the development proposed for the subject parcel was  
the kind of economic development he supported for the City; these were the  
types of elements that were discussed by residents at a past HOA meeting that  
Commissioner Dunn, and Lawrence Martin attended. If the Citys tax base was  
to expand in order to reduce the burden on Lauderhills taxpayers, this was the  
type of economic development that was needed; the subject parcel was one of  
the areas they discussed at length to achieve such goals. He remarked while it  
was easy to urge city staff and the Commission to do the right type of  
development, coming up with such a plan was difficult; the proposed project  
had many merits, and the community did not need another big box store;  
instead, more restaurants, entertainment venues, etc. were needed.  
Whatever  
uses were selected for the parcel would require significant input from the  
Lauderhill public.  
Mr. Martin believed the subject parcel went through numerous iterations of how  
the City wanted to move its development forward in an effort to create a  
Lauderhill destination.  
The subject opportunity was well researched when it  
came forward, including the examination of local communities in surrounding  
cities, where staff and the Commission found the subject process was utilized;  
they were relieved the City would not have to come up with any funding for the  
parcel’s development. The developer who submitted the unsolicited bid took the  
right steps at the beginning, going to HOAs in the surrounding area to get their  
buy in, which they achieved. He was puzzled as to the tone to revisit the  
approval of the subject ordinance with the possibility of pulling it back, as there  
was already buy in from every HOA in the area; this was smart development, a  
positive, directional change for Lauderhill.  
Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.  
A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner M.  
Dunn, that reconsideration of this Ordinance be removed. The motion carried by  
the following vote:  
5 -  
Yes:  
Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson,  
Vice Mayor S. Martin, and Mayor D. Grant  
0
Abstain:  
B.  
SCHEDULE  
A
SPECIAL  
CITY  
COMMISSION  
WORKSHOP  
(REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER SARAI "RAY" MARTIN).  
Vice Mayor Martin observed the Commission had only one more meeting for the  
year on December 9, 2024, and he wished to schedule a special workshop to  
allow his colleagues to meet and discuss other City matters before the end of  
2024. Staff could send the Commission possible dates for a workshop, then a  
decision could be made on the agenda items for that meeting.  
Commissioner Dunn indicated her schedule for December was already set  
based on the Commission’s meeting calendar, so she was not available to  
meet the first and third weeks of December,  
There was  
a
Commission consensus not to schedule  
a
workshop in  
December.  
Mayor Grant thought the very spirited meeting yielded some fantastic things  
related to development in the City; she felt sure many members of the public  
attending the meeting had a better understanding of matters of concern after the  
discussions.  
The public’s engagement was really appreciated by the City  
Commission and staff.  
XVIII  
COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY  
BEFORE ADJOURNMENT  
City Attorney Rosenberg congratulated Mayor Grant, the newly elected  
members of the Commission, and the reelected members; she looked forward  
to working with them. She wished everyone a healthy and Happy Thanksgiving.  
Commissioner Hodgson thanked the members of the public who attended the  
Commission meeting, wishing them a Happy Thanksgiving.  
Commissioner Dunn welcomed her new and returning colleagues; she looked  
forward to working with them to move Lauderhill forward. She mentioned in the  
past month she had the opportunity to attend the National League of Cities City  
Summit in Tampa, and a number of opportunities arose from that event that she  
looked forward to sharing with her colleagues at a future meeting. The waitlist  
for Lauderhill Shines cohort ten was open, so for Lauderhill business owners, or  
aspiring entrepreneurs wishing to start  
opportunities on learning how to get  
a
a
business Lauderhill Shines offered  
business license, registering their  
business in Lauderhill, government contracting, networking, etc.  
She indicated  
they would be graduating cohort nine in a few weeks, and the application for  
cohort ten would be officially opened; they usually had about 75 to 100  
applicants for 15 to 25 slots, and anyone on the waitlist had a 48-hour head start  
to  
apply;  
interested  
persons  
could  
go  
to  
the  
City’s  
website  
at  
lauderhill-fl.gov/shines to join the waitlist. There would be an upcoming Dine in  
Lauderhill at Peppa Seed on North University Drive on the second Friday in  
December; the speaker would be Ms. Marie Gill, the Florida representative for  
the U.S. Department of Commerce; she did a lot of work around helping small,  
minority businesses to access capital, and other resources. Anyone interested  
in exporting, or working with the federal government, Ms. Gill could help them  
with that.  
The Dine in Lauderhill format had attendees meet at a local  
restaurant, pay for their own lunch, and network with entrepreneurs; registration  
for the event was on the City’s website at lauderhill-fl.gov/lunchmeetup.  
Commissioner Dunn mentioned a principal round table was held, at which a few  
Lauderhill school principals stated they wished to engage residents more, so  
anyone looking for the opportunity to volunteer, or contribute or do something  
special for a young person, such as over the holidays, they could reach out to  
the school principals to see how they could contribute. She mentioned one of  
the City’s local churches held  
a
Thanksgiving dinner for teachers, doing  
something special for them to show appreciation for the amazing job they did.  
Vice Mayor Martin wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.  
Commissioner Campbell wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. He informed  
Mr. Hobbs that his phone would be turned off in the coming week, as he had not  
had a week off in quite a while. Unless there was an emergency, he could not  
be reached.  
Mr. Hobbs congratulated the entire City Commission on their election to serve  
the great residents of Lauderhill; he looked forward to working with them. There  
was  
a
toy drive, and  
a
Thanksgiving giveaway taking place the coming  
Wednesday, and before the next Commission meeting, there was a Movin &  
Groovin event on Saturday, December 7, 2024, at St. George Park, 4:00 p.m. to  
8:00 p.m.  
Mayor Grant thanked Lauderhill voters for granting her the opportunity to serve  
as City of Lauderhill Mayor. The Commission would work together, as it took a  
collective effort to move the City forward, which they would do; the publics  
support was greatly appreciated. She wished everyone an enjoyable and Happy  
Thanksgiving.  
Mr. Hobbs wish to correct his earlier announcement of the turkey giveaway,  
which would take place on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.  
at Fresco y Más.  
Mayor Grant sought clarification as to whether anyone could receive a turkey, or  
did they have to register online first.  
Mr. Hobbs affirmed people needed to register to receive a voucher to get a  
turkey.  
XIX ADJOURNMENT - 10:41 PM