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 Campbell,Commissioner Melissa P. Dunn,Commissioner

John T. Hodgson,Vice Mayor Sarai Martin, and Mayor Denise D. Grant

ALSO PRESENT:

Kennie Hobbs, Jr., Interim City Manager

Hans Ottinot, Interim 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 R.

Campbell, to ACCEPT the Revised Version of the City Commission Meeting

Agenda for April 28, 2025 and to move item 3 to be heard under Resolutions not

on the Consent Agenda. 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

Abstain:

III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG FOLLOWED BY GOOD AND WELFARE

IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES

V PROCLAMATIONS / COMMENDATIONS (10 MINUTES MAXIMUM)

PROCLAMATION

DECLARING

APRIL

2025 AS

AUTISM

AWARENESS MONTH (REQUESTED BY VICE MAYOR SARAI "RAY"

MARTIN).

VI PRESENTATIONS (15 MINUTES MAXIMUM)

A PRESENTATION OF CITY'S CAPITAL PROJECTS (REQUESTED BY

MAYOR DENISE D. GRANT).

A PRESENTATION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY FORUM (REQUESTED BY

MAYOR DENISE D. GRANT).

Attachments: Presentation B - Public Safety (As Referenced Within Minutes)

A PRESENTATION OF THE LAUDERHILL HEALTH AND PROSPERITY

PARTNERSHIP

DUNN).

(REQUESTED

COMMISSIONER

MELISSA

Attachments:

Presentation C - LHPP Presentation to commission - April 28 (As

Referenced Within Minutes)

VII QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS

RESOLUTION NO. 25R-03-75:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF LAUDERHILL, FL GRANTING 441 CLINICAL TRIALS,

LLC, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WITH

CONDITIONS, TO ALLOW AN OFFICE, MEDICAL, WITH CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCE PROVIDER USE WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL

(CG) ZONING DISTRICT ON AN APPROXIMATELY 2.3± ACRE SITE

LOCATED AT 2451 N. STATE ROAD 7, LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AS

PARTICULARLY

DESCRIBED

HEREIN;

PROVIDING

FOR

CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Attachments: 25R-03-75 Resolution special exception 441 Clinical Trials LLC

AR 25R-03-75

25-SE-002 DRR 2451 N. State Road 7 - 441 Clinical Trials

Executed affidavit (25-SE-002) 441 Clinical Trials

Item 1 - 441_Presentation (As Referenced Within Minutes)

Mayor Grant mentioned the subject item was discussed previously before the

Commission, including the applicants being present to address some of the

concerns expressed by members of the Commission, resulting in the item

being tabled for staff and the applicant to have further dialogue with individual

members of the Commission.

City Planner Molly Howson presented the proposed resolution, as detailed in the

backup, stating the subject resolution pertained to the applicant group, 441

Clinical Trials.

application two meetings ago to allow for the gathering of additional information,

so the Commission had firmer grasp of how the applicant’s business

She affirmed the Commission tabled the subject special use

operated before voting on the subject use.

Moody Dubreuze, partner, 441 Clinical Trials, stated his was a professional with

a longstanding relationship with the City, and for many years he contributed to

Lauderhill, not just as a healthcare provider, but as an educator, and advocate.

In 1992 he worked at Lauderhill Paul Turner Elementary School as a music

teacher, a position he held until 2004; during summer breaks, he worked as a

site coordinator for Lauderhill’s Parks & Recreation Department. He noted that

in 2004, he embarked on a new journey as an entrepreneur with his first mobile

medical diagnostic imaging service in partnership with Dr. Rodney as his

medical director. In 2020, during the pandemic, he seized the opportunity have

a fixed site diagnostic imaging center in Lauderhill, which was a win/win for him

in light of his familiarity with working in Lauderhill. He worked closely with local

clinics and diagnostic centers, providing X-rays, MRIs, and clinical insight to

countless patients in this area.

Mr. Dubreuze stated the subject project was

very personal to him, as he understood the needs of the Lauderhill community,

so 441 Clinical Trials was not just a business, it was a mission to bring access

to cutting edge research, dignity, care, and trustworthy medical guidance to the

Lauderhill public.

Mr. Pestana, Business Developer Manager, 441 Clinical Trials, understood

when the subject item was last discussed by the Commission at a previous

meeting, at which he was not present, there were some doubts, numerous

questions, along with issues with clarity with regard to what the applicant would

bring to Lauderhill. He gave a PowerPoint presentation to address the various

questions and concerns, as provided in the backup, highlighting the following:

• The goal was to carry out clinical studies in Lauderhill

• The site was where clinical trials would be conducted; this would take place

under supervision; the process included

protocol for the clinical trial

authorized by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) through the sponsor,

which, in this case, was the pharmaceutical company

• Pharmaceutical companies sought a variety of sites based on ethnicity and

other demographics with regard to the focus on a particular health issue(s)

• Clinical research studied people to understand health and the disease, helping

the way doctors treated people, subsequently improving patients’ lives

• Clinical trials were a critical piece of any type of medication utilized in the world

• There were four phases in clinical trials, the first focused on animal and other

testing; the applicant’s business engaged in stages two to four; that is, working

with various sample sizes of humans to determine how the medicine worked

• If a clinical study required 500 people, the applicant’s site would not work with

that number of persons, as pharmaceutical companies worked with numerous

sites in a variety of locations based on demographics, etc.; the goal was to get

a variety of sample sizes to learn how medications worked on patients

•

The focus of clinical trials included Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, gout,

rheumatoid arthritis, heart burn, obesity, psoriasis, cardiovascular, irritable

bowel syndrome, and asthma

• Informed consent was a part of the clinical research process, during which

persons considering participating in a clinical trial were provided with study

information before making their decision to participate; the documentation

provided important information about taking part in the study, describing what

would happen in the study, who could join the study, how much of the

participants time the study would take, any payments/costs, and known benefits

and risks for participating

• Other ways for potential participants in clinical trials to get information included

the website www.clinicaltrials.gov where all clinical trials were published, along

with protocols, and types of participants they sought for each trial

• Prior to giving signed consent, an individual discussed the study with staff;

anyone signing a consent could withdraw from a study at any point in time

without liability

• What took place during each trial depended on the protocol for a study

• Participating in a clinical trial was seen as a way to get free treatment for

persons without insurance, those wishing to improve their lives

• Data was collected based on the protocol; methods included via surveys,

questionnaires, bloodwork, MRIs, samples from diaries, etc.; all the time spent

on methodologies was paid for by the pharmaceutical company

•

Participants were identified by working with local physicians, as patients did

not just arrive at the facility and voice their wish to volunteer for a clinical trial

Depending on the clinical trial, participants had to meet different

•

requirements or inclusions 100 percent; once it was established that the

requirements were met for a participant, the information was submitted to the

pharmaceutical entity, who then sent the information to the International Review

Board (IRB) that was controlled by the FDA for approval

• Sponsors from the pharmaceutical companies did regular checks of clinical

trial facilities to ensure protocol were in place and guidelines were adhered to

• Every time a participant came in, the information was entered into a portal; the

information came from their doctor(s) even if they brought their medical records

• The facility worked with doctors when a trial required sub-investigators, and

doctors were notified when a patient was taking part in a trial to get their

approval prior them participating in the trial; upon getting the doctor’s approval,

the facility worked with the doctor to monitor whatever was going on to ensure

the participant was well; the health of the patient was the most important priority

•

Components of the site was comprised of: principal investigators,

sub-investigators, clinical research coordinators, nurses, pharmacists, lab

technicians, and administrative staff

• The reason for the space of 800 square feet was due to the fact that no more

than five to six patients were seen a day to ensure the quality of the service.

Mayor Grant wished to know the specific location of 411 Clinical Trials.

Mr. Pestana replied 2451 N State Road 7, Lauderhill.

Ms. Howson added that the site was located on the west side of the street,

immediately north of the Village Center in an L-shaped plaza that contained a

number of restaurants, as well as an MRI business that the applicant’s site sat

next to.

Mayor Grant recalled one of the Commission’s expressed concerns was the

fact that Dr. Rodney lived in Orlando, hence his ability to be readily onsite. She

sought an explanation as to what staffing at the facility would look like on a daily

basis.

Dr. Rodney responded that the applicant was awaiting Commission approval;

when this was secured, he would be present at the subject facility full time; he

had to be onsite for the protocols to take place; thus, without his presence, no

trials could take place. With regard to everyday staffing, there would likely be

four to five persons present each day: a doctor, nurse, medical aide, and

secretary.

Mayor Grant sought confirmation that if any participant had an adverse reaction

to one of the clinical tests, there would be sufficient medical staff present daily,

along with the appropriate equipment to address such instances.

Dr. Rodney stressed that the most important part of doing clinical trials was the

protocols, and everything was included in the protocol, including what staff

should do in the event any complications arose.

Pharmaceutical companies,

with the FDA’s approval, dictated the protocols that included any possible

complications that could arise, and how to deal with such situations.

Mayor Grant mentioned medication advertisements frequently included a list of

possible side effects, and oftentimes persons might not know if they were

allergic to certain medication(s), so her concern was that there would be

sufficient, and properly qualified staff present to deal with instances where

someone had an adverse reaction.

Dr. Rodney remarked it was the lack of treatment that usually led to

complications, not the actual treatment.

Mayor Grant felt perplexed at how the system worked with the number of

patients present daily at the facility, and the fact that they were being paid by the

applicant.

Mr. Pestana responded that with the need for them to collect extensive data

from the participants, there was a significant amount of data entry, as well as

the numerous protocols they had to comply with; thus, a lot was taking place

behind the scene. The facility would receive kits containing all the necessary

information for the particular clinical trial to ensure the facility had everything that

was needed, that it was secure, and all the controls were in place. He said the

pharmaceutical companies requested that all data be entered manually, printed

out, and filed away securely in binders.

With regard to possible adverse

reactions to trial medication, part of the protocol required the facility to keep

persons taking medication to remain onsite for the set period of time to ensure

there were no adverse reactions. Much of the testing for adverse reactions was

done during phase one, as mentioned earlier in the presentation.

Mayor Grant questioned if participants in clinical trials followed up with their

doctor after the trial was over, and did the applicant’s facility have a system in

place that did patient follow up.

Mr. Pestana restated, depending upon the protocol for the particular trial, their

follow up could be on a daily to weekly basis, and facility staff was in constant

communication with participants’ doctor.

Mayor Grant wondered how the protocols were affected if a participant had no

medical insurance, and no primary care doctor.

Mr. Pestana responded the review for such participants would be more

extensive, and their follow up would be daily, including giving them the 800

number they could call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to communicate

with the facility’s doctor. If a participant was experiencing issues after the fact,

they were usually instructed to go to the emergency room (ER) or call 911, and

a representative of their facility followed up to find out exactly what the situation

was. This had not yet happened, as the protocols were very strict, controlled,

and thorough.

Mayor Grant asked about measures put in place to ensure none of the

participants abused the medications being administered in the trial.

Mr. Pestana explained in the trials, the medication schedule was explained

specifically, so participants understood exactly how they were to take the

medication. He, too, would be onsite at the proposed facility.

Mayor Grant wished to know if the subject medical trials model was a new

concept.

Mr. Pestana answered no. He knew the doctor who would oversee the facility

had previous experience conducting clinical trials at hospitals and universities,

as they took place at hospitals, universities, and other areas of the private

sector.

Dr. Rodney explained as part of one’s residency program, doctors were

required to gain experience conducting clinical trials.

Since completing his

residency, he had not continued with clinical trials, but he worked in a hospital

and in a family practice environment; doctors were already licensed to conduct

clinical trials.

Commissioner Campbell recalled that one of the issues with the previous

presentation was the difficulty the Commission had in understanding how the

facility would conduct business; he believed this was due to a problem in the

communication of information to the Commission.

However, Mr. Pestana’s

presentation made it very clear, asking if the applicant was aware of the fact

that due to history, some members of the Commission were somewhat

hesitant when it came to minorities and clinical work. He said this anxiety, and

the complexity of the business made it difficult for the Commission to digest the

information at the previous meeting.

Mr. Pestana understood.

Commissioner Campbell thought it necessary for the public to understand the

applicant did not intend to only work with Lauderhill residents, rather they were

open to anyone.

Mr. Pestana concurred.

Commissioner Campbell remarked he now felt much more comfortable, as the

testing was not based on the applicant’s program, rather in doing business, they

would be following a strict protocol in which they executed the testing, but all

aspects of the process would be overseen by an external entity. Clinical trials

were not unique to the proposed business, rather there were thousands of such

trials conducted on a regular basis. He said the public, in general, took a lot for

granted, and were it not for clinical trials, many medications would not be

available, some of which were very compatible with people of color, and

conducting the trials among members of the surrounding population allowed the

field of medicine to determine the impact on people of color versus other

groups.

The presentation articulated by the applicant at the present meeting

clarified his understanding of the need for such work, and with the consent

protocols in place, people entered into such trials voluntarily.

Vice Mayor Martin sought clarification on the process of recruiting test

participants.

Mr. Pestana replied that one method was to conduct promotions to recruit test

participants, and it was possible for a patient to come to the facility to find out

more about a test trial they learned about, as every participant had to meet

certain inclusions. One such inclusion was to allow blood work to be done to

ensure participants met the requirements stipulated by the FDA and

pharmaceutical companies.

Commissioner Hodgson asked about the daily hours of operation.

Mr. Pestana responded that it depended on the trial itself, the number of patients

involved, and the complexity. Some trials required more legwork to be done, so

it could be five to eight hours a day.

Mayor Grant understood with some trials, participants were paid, asking if the

applicant would be doing this.

Mr. Pestana stated the pharmaceutical companies provided funds to

participants for volunteering to participate; the funds could be in the form of a gift

card, a check, through Zelle, etc.; it would be paid to the patient by the applicant.

Commissioner Dunn accepted that clinical trials were critical to having new

medications on the market. Her challenge with the presentation at the previous

meeting was that it did not appear to articulate a clear strategy, business plan,

and how the applicant would ensure the work being done would be in the best

interest of the community.

She read the applicant’s proposal prior to the

present meeting, and Mr. Pestana’s presentation answered her remaining

questions.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.

Varion Harris, Lauderhill resident, observed that the applicant stated in their

presentation that their protocols for clinical trials had yet to be approved for the

subject site. He claimed for this to take place, the applicant had to go through a

three-stage approval process by the FDA, the Institutional Review Board (IRB),

and the Florida Department of Regulations; thus, the applicant had yet to come

before the Commission with a clear protocol.

Ms. Howson stated the protocols for each clinical trial was provided by the

pharmaceutical companies that dictated all aspects of how trials were

conducted. The City had to rely on the doctors of the facility to enforce and

execute those steps as required. Unless trials were FDA approved, they would

not get to the applicant’s facility.

Alan Brown, Lauderhill resident, said he did not understand why everything new

came to town had to come to Lauderhill. With regard to satisfying demands, it

seemed the applicant’s daily staff of four was inadequate, considering the health

challenges people faced.

He did not like the City of Lauderhill being a

playground for experimentation; what was needed was quality healthcare,

urging the Commission to do their due diligence about this.

An unidentified female speaker mentioned being involved in clinical trials, asking

if the protocol was approved for Lauderhill in terms of looking at the medications

being used, the recruitment process, particularly if payment was involved in an

area with vulnerable people.

Mr. Pestana replied the protocol was different for each clinical trial, so the

applicant had no protocol approvals, as the subject business had yet to be

established. Once their facility became operational, they could conduct clinical

trials; the clinicaltrials.gov website showed all the approved clinical trials being

conducted, including the protocols for each trial. He said if the pharmaceutical

company awarded their facility a clinical trial, they had to follow the protocols

established via approval of the FDA, IRB, etc. for the particular clinical trial.

The speaker said regardless of the established protocols for each clinical trial,

there still needed to be a review process to ensure vulnerable populations in the

area in which the facility was situated were not at risk, particularly for trials that

paid participants, even if they signed a consent form.

Mr. Pestana explained part of the informed consent process was explaining, for

example, any possible side effects of the drug(s) the participant had to take. He

clarified that their facility did not establish protocols; the clinical trials they would

conduct had protocols that were already established through the approval

process via the FDA and IRB. Their facility would only be bringing the approved

trials to the community to offer the opportunity to participate to interested and

qualified persons who met the established criteria for the specific trial. All the

information for each trial was public, and could be found on clinicaltrials.gov.

The speaker said she was satisfied with the safeguard of the IRB being one of

the bodies granting protocol approvals.

Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, that this Resolution be approved. The motion failed by the following

vote:

3 - Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner J. Hodgson, and Vice Mayor S. Martin

Yes:

No:

2 - Commissioner M. Dunn, and Mayor D. Grant

Abstain:

RESOLUTION NO. 25R-04-86:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, GRANTING SALMOS 23 NO.

8, LLC, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WITH

CONDITIONS, TO ALLOW

SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL FACILITY

(CATEGORY 3 WITH 128 BEDS) IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY

(RM-18) ZONING DISTRICT ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.09± NET ACRE

SITE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE CALCUTTA FIRST ADDITION

PLAT, A PORTION OF TRACT B AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA IN PLAT BOOK 80

PAGE 17, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2801 NW 55 AVENUE,

LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Attachments: 25R-04-86 Resolution Special Exception ALF Salmos 23

AR 25R-04-86

Attachment A - SEU Application

Attachment B - Applicant Narrative

Attachment C - Floor Plan

Attachment D - Development Review Report (DRR) 25-SE-001 -

Salmos

Attachment E - Public Notice Affidavit (unsigned)

Attachment F - SEU Conditions Affidavit (unsigned)

SIGNED Attachment F - SEU Conditions Affidavit (SIGNED)

Ms. Howson reviewed the proposed resolution, as detailed in the backup,

stating the assisted living facility (ALF) would remain under a new owner; per

city code, this use could not change owners without the new owner applying for

a special exception approval from the City Commission. She said the footprint

of the facility would change; the current number of beds was 105, and the

applicant wished to increase that number to 128; they previously had room

choices, and the plan was to add beds to the larger rooms.

The applicant

would still meet the state requirement for the number of square feet needed per

person; their total capacity would still need approval through their state

licensure, as well as their fire capacity; city fire staff found the increase in beds

appropriate to meet fire code requirements.

Interim City Attorney Ottinot swore in persons wishing to speak on the subject

item.

Mayor Grant asked if there would be any other changes to the subject facility

with regard to infrastructure, and programming.

Magda Robelo, the applicant’s representative, stated the plan was only to

increase to the number of beds without any other changes to the facility; though

many improvements to the facility were already made, there was no plan to do

any construction to enlarge the existing structure. She translated the owner’s

introduction commentary to the Commission, stating she purchased her first

ALF in 2003, and to date they had seven ALFs with a total of 500 beds. Their

ALF was named Psalms 23, and her hope was always to give those she served

quality of life, and when she brought her business to a community, it was to help

the residents, and give them the quality of life they deserved. She distributed

photographs of the improvements they made to the subject ALF; she purchased

the facility six months ago.

Mayor Grant restated her question as to other planned changes to

programming/staff.

Ms. Robelo replied there would be education, replacement of furniture, and an

increase in cleaning staff.

Mayor Grant asked if all 105 beds were occupied.

Ms. Robelo responded 90 beds were filled, but she anticipated an increased

need at the facility; she intended to have a section focused on memory care.

Mayor Grant mentioned visiting the subject facility a number of times, and she

spoke with residents on at least two occasions via one of the City’s programs,

Teatime with Seniors. She said the facility under the previous owner did fairly

well, so she thought what the new owner planned to implement, with the

services provided was an improvement

Ms. Robelo stated when the facility was opened, she would do an open house,

and invite the members of the Commission to visit the site.

Mayor Grant wished to know more about the planned memory care

programming.

Ms. Robelo said, physically, patients receiving this care would be in a closed

section with specific access; the programming included: activities with music,

yoga, etc. that would enhance patients’ lives.

Ms. Howson noted staff recommended approval, as the previous operators ran

the facility responsibly, and the new owner continued to communicate with city

staff over the last few months, and the reports from fire staff were good; the

facility complied with all the City’s standards.

Vice Mayor Martin asked if ALFs were part of the City’s code enforcement’s

minimum housing inspection.

Interim City Manager Hobbs replied they were not part of the City’s minimum

housing inspection, but they were subject to an annual fire inspection, and an

annual business COU license inspection.

Commissioner Campbell asked if the memory care portion of the applicant’s

service included an independent living aspect.

Ms. Robelo answered no; they only provided ALF services.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public; she received no input.

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

Abstain:

VIII CONSENT AGENDA

IX RESOLUTIONS (IF NOT ON CONSENT AGENDA)

RESOLUTION NO. 25R-04-88:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO RETAIN A FINANCIAL EXPERT OR CONSULTANT TO

CONDUCT A FORENSIC AUDIT OF GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO

THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES (“HHS”) BASED ON A REPORT ISSUED BY THE

INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENSURE

COMPLIANCE WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRANTS, POLICIES AND THE CODE OF

ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL; PROVIDING THE

INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE

AUTHORITY TO DO ALL THINGS TO EFFECTUATE THIS RESOLUTION;

AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY

COMMISSIONER RICHARD CAMPBELL).

Attachments: 25R-04-88 Grant Audit Resolution-LHPP-4-29-25.revised

AR 25R-04-88

Exhibit A to Audit Resolution Re LHPP

Commissioner Campbell mentioned on the past Monday, the Commission had

the first opportunity to hold a public discussion on the issue of the remaining

COVID funds that totaled $3.8 million; he gave a brief historic recap of the

COVID 19 pandemic, its effects on people’s lives, and the government funding

provided to help address the post-pandemic effects.

Going through the

Lauderhill community, of great importance was what government at all levels -

city, county, state, and federal - could do to help them meet their daily and

monthly expenses. He noted that since November 2024, he began tracking the

Commission meetings with regard to the $3.8 million, and what he found

frightening was what he received when he requested information on those

funds; that is, the extent to which no one knew. Since that time, he fought to get

documents to give him a peak into the matter; it was like pulling teeth, and

eventually he received a document that indicated what happened to almost $4

million that no one was able to explain, and after receiving a printout, he was

told by someone that it was a lie, which to him meant that the person was

inferring the City provided a lie. He said salaries of over half a million dollars

were paid, but it was unclear to whom the funds were paid; other amounts

included

fringe benefit of $275,000.00, and $2 million for supplies.

Commissioner Campbell stated that as the pandemic progressed, the federal

government made most things free, so he was surprised to see $2 million for

supplies for a city with a population of less than 75,000 people. He said the

worst part of the situation was that no one could say they ever saw the supplies,

or their distribution; he was a Lauderhill resident, and he received no supplies,

and he had yet to come across anyone who received any supplies from the

City. These difficult questions continued to be asked, and in addition to the

printout, he received a two-side list of city employees who should have received

some of those funds; he would not reveal the names of the employees on the

list, as it was unfair to them, particularly since they did not receive the funds.

He noted there were employees from various city departments who were paid

up to $200,000.00, based on the very extensive list he reviewed, and he recently

learned some persons were paid a second time, which caused more confusion

on the matter.

Hobbs and him a few weeks prior, and he indicated that there was a problem,

referring to the abovementioned list he received. There were those in the

Commissioner Campbell mentioned a discussion between Mr.

audience who asked him why he was keeping them in the dark, to which he

said he, too, was in the dark, and two weeks after that the Commission was told

that the grants were frozen, and a report would soon be issued, which they did

receive. He said the contents of the report made the situation worse, as what

was understood was that the Grants Division that was under the Finance

Department was moved to administration, so no one knew how the subject

funds the City received were collected and delivered. This was unacceptable

for any city to be utilizing funds through that city with no oversight, or

accountability; the Grants Division was now back under the Finance

Department; he asked if there were now protocols in place within the Grants

Division that determined how monies came in, and were disbursed.

Director Intergovernmental Affairs Zach Davis-Walker explained there were

protocols that were specific to each grant, specifying the reporting

requirements, and the City had procurement guidelines for the expenditure of all

city funds, whether they were General Fund or grant dollars.

Commissioner Campbell questioned if these protocols were followed as they

related to COVID dollars.

Mr. Davis-Walker was unable to speak to that, as in the capacity he worked with

the City at that time, he was not privy to that information.

Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Davis-Walker knew of anyone in the City

who knew the protocols that were followed.

Mr. Davis-Walker mentioned Operations Administrator Yolan Todd could

respond to the matter.

Mayor Grant commented, as the present conversation continued, she wished it

to be clear that, as it related to positions, Mr. Davis-Walker was a city attorney

with the City at the time in question.

Mr. Davis-Walker affirmed, stating at that time his main duties involved drafting

resolutions, ordinances, grant agreements, etc.

Operations Administrator Yolan Todd, Finance Department, stated she could

speak to the procurement protocols; that is, how the vendors were procured,

and how the dollars were spent. For the most part, with a few exceptions, the

protocols for disbursement were adhered to.

Commissioner Campbell noted Nova Southeastern University (NSU) received

$632,000.00, asking what NSU did to receive those funds.

Ms. Todd clarified that they received $662,491.91; the funds that were paid to

NSU were for a minority servicing institution for the scope of work sent out to

them, which included doing some reporting for the grant.

Commissioner Campbell wished to know if the City received a report for the

funds paid.

Ms. Todd explained she could not speak to that outcome, as it was no longer a

procurement matter.

Interim Finance Director Sean Henderson stated that at the time the

administration of that grant did not fall under the Finance Department, though in

December the latter was involved in submitting for reimbursements.

Commissioner Campbell observed that since the subject inquiries began, no

one from the City appeared to have contacted Nova to clarify how the funds

were spent. He asked if the job was too big to handle by the City’s Marketing

Department; at the last Commission meeting he recalled the City handled

millions of dollars to date.

Mr. Hobbs affirmed this to be the case.

Commissioner Campbell remarked that despite the City already paying

competent staff, when the City received the subject grant, the decision was

made that those staff were not capable of handling the grant, so a private

organization was given the job, paying them almost

administer the grant.

million dollars to

Mr. Henderson answered yes.

Commissioner Campbel asked if this had not bothered anyone at the City.

Mr. Hobbs commented it was important to note that the individuals handling the

subject grant were no longer working with the City; thus, the questions being

asked of current staff were matters that were neither decided nor discussed

with them.

Commissioner Campbell stated, most recently, there was a disagreement that

eventually allowed staff to research the matter that led to the discovery of some

information, and at that time, the director of the department left. What was now

left that bothered him was that there was an individual he knew personally who

owned a mom and pop business received a total of $73,794.84 for what he did

not know. Some gift cards were purchased by a company worth $256,245.75,

yet it appeared no one received the gift cards. He said staff were unable to tell

him when the gift cards came to the City, and how they were distributed; these

were just some of the items before him; Compcare Medical Center received

$169,853.16 for COVID vaccine and testing, which he found amazing, as at that

time, the federal government made free testing and vaccinations available to all

persons in the U.S., and this took place post COVID. Additionally, there were

schools, community centers, temples, synagogues, etc. where the City could

have organized testing and vaccinations; and Compcare’s work was done in

Oakland Park, not Lauderhill. He noted $57,000.00 was spent on printing and

mailing of a magazine; money went to experts at NSU hired to administer the

grant; they received $932,000.00, and salaries of $358.00 paid to no identified

person; the list went on and on. Commissioner Campbell noted that what the

report revealed was that in addition to all the abovementioned information, the

City now owed $1.6 million, and the experts explained that when a grant was

applied for, then awarded, the total funds were not disbursed at once, rather, it

was given incrementally.

After the first disbursement was given, before

subsequent ones were made, there had to be an accounting of how the first

disbursement was spent, and apparently this protocol was not followed, for

which no explanation was given. He understood the grant dollars should have

been fully awarded and utilized by 2023, but this was not done, which led to

some funds being taken from the City; Lauderhill’s taxpayers now had to pay

back the $1.6 million.

Nothing in the report indicated any group of folks in

Lauderhill benefited. Again, he was mystified as to how NSU, one of the richest

institutions in South Florida, came to received the City’s grant dollars without

providing the City any details as to how those funds were utilized.

Some

Lauderhill schools struggled to reopen after the pandemic, and some of the

City’s children went without food; despite explanations at the Commission

workshop about restrictions on how the funds could be spent, etc., nothing

indicated the funds were used in Lauderhill for any purpose for which it was

intended. He commented that no creative ways were devised to get some of

the grant funding to help Lauderhill’s children in need; none of the City’s

schools, children, or nonprofit organizations serving Lauderhill residents

received any of the grant dollars; it seemed only entities that were already rich

received the funds. If this was not upsetting to anyone in Lauderhill, they should

have their head examined, as this was unacceptable, and it should be said

loudly to the persons who did this, “Shame, shame, shame on you.”

Commissioner Campbell stated the resolution before the Commission was to

reset the clock, and ensure this never occurred again, and that all monies

coming into the City should be dealt with appropriately; the resolution called for

the hiring of a forensic auditor to determine what really happened. As the City

did not have such experts on staff, it was recommended that an outside,

independent audit be conducted to look into how the monies were spent.

Despite what was being said on social media, the Commission was not going

after any particular individuals, as the Commission did not know who was

responsible; this was the purpose of the independent audit, and the findings

would be provided to the public eventually.

He noted the City needed to

determine how to recoup the $1.6 million Lauderhill’s taxpayers were being

asked to pay to bridge the gap. He understood the City was trying to contact the

grantors, with the hope of getting back the $1.6 million.

Commissioner Dunn sought to clarify some points for the record, which she

already clarified during the recent Commission workshop. First, the $3.8 million

awarded to Lauderhill was intended to do a very specific thing; it was the

Advancing Health Literacy Grant, funded through the U.S. Department of Health

& Human Services (HHS), and it was to develop, and disseminate health

information around the COVID vaccine. She stated that at the time in 2021,

there was a lot of medical distrust around the pandemic, and the federal

administration at the time issued the grant to a number of cities around the

nation, of which Lauderhill was one. In order for a city to apply, they had to have

certain things in place: work with

minority-serving educational institution

capable of doing research, of which NSU and Broward College (BC) filled that

criterion; as NSU was one of the founding cochairs of the Lauderhill Health &

Prosperity Partnership (LHPP), they were already at the table. Thus, including

them in the grant application made sense. Commissioner Dunn said there was

a procurement process that included NSU coming before the Commission to be

awarded the contract, during which she recused herself from the vote, as she

had a prior relationship from NSU; the matter passed 4-0, and two members of

the current Commission, Mayor Grant and Vice Mayor Martin, voted to approve

NSU.

Additionally, as this was a health communication contract/grant, at the

time the City lacked the capacity, and Lauderhill, like several cities in a similar

situation, went through a competitive bidding process, from which S. Nelson &

Associates was accepted. As she knew, and previously worked with S. Nelson

& Associates, out of an abundance of caution again, she abstained from the

vote. Commissioner Dunn agreed the report did reveal some challenges, and

she had questions for Mr. Hobbs, asking who administered the subject grant

funding.

Mr. Hobbs replied the grant was administered by then Grants Division staff.

Commissioner Dunn wished to know who was responsible for every check that

was cut for payment from the subject grant.

Mr. Hobbs explained the department administering the grant was responsible for

ensuring that the information received was signed off on; Finance cut checks

based on the documentation received from the grant administrator.

Commissioner Dunn noted the third paragraph of the same page where it said

grants administered by LHPP should be audited, she wished LHPP to be

removed, and the language should say that all grants received by the City from

2020 to 2025 should be subject to an independent audit. The current language

read as though only grants involving the LHPP should be audited.

She

recommended specific language as follows: Objectives: 1) the audit should

assess adherence to grant agreements, and guidelines; 2) evaluate the

accuracy of financial reporting and document; 3) analyze fund utilization in

relation to program outcome and objectives; 4) evaluate the effectiveness of

fund utilization in achieving specific program outcomes, as outlined in the grant

agreement, including assessment and performance metrics; 5) identify areas of

improvement for best practices.

In terms of deliverables: 1) a detailed audit

report summarizing findings, compliance issues, and best practices; 2)

recommendations for improving fund management, and program effectiveness;

follow-up action plan.

Commissioner Dunn said she agreed with

Commissioner Campbell that were clearly some failures, and that there should

be a forensic audit; the audit should be done, not as a punitive measure, but

from a place of discovering to where $1.6 million disappeared. She suggested

that not only should whoever the City hired be a forensic auditor, they should be

an expert in grant management with expertise in managing state, federal, local,

and private foundational dollars.

She believed that if this person had some

process improvement background, whether they came from Kaiser, etc., they

could give the City a detailed report of where the breakdown in the process took

place, looking at best practices of other cities around the nation to see where

opportunities for improvement were for Lauderhill.

Commissioner Dunn

recommended an amendment to the subject resolution, specifically page one of

two of the resolution, the language in the second paragraph was inaccurate, as

the grant was managed by the City’s Grants Division, so she wished the

inaccurate language struck out.

Mayor Grant concurred with her colleagues, stating $1.6 million was

significant amount of dollars, and she found the subject situation disheartening,

as she was very connected with the City’s seniors, religious leaders, etc., and

she was well aware of Lauderhill residents struggling to make ends meet,

paying their monthly bills, etc.

Sometimes elected officials felt powerless to

help, as there were no programs through which to help them, and now she

learned that $1.6 million was missing. As the City’s Mayor, it was difficult to be

before the Lauderhill public and not have answers; no member of the dais was

represented in a positive light in the subject situation. Another matter that came

to her attention was that Lauderhill received a letter from the Governor’s Office,

as did many other Florida cities, inquiring about funds were being spent; the City

was again notified of the Governor sending another letter of inquiry in relation to

how grant dollars were spent. She believed the subject resolution and matter of

discussion arose due to the need to find out what the exact situation was, so

she supported the need to have an independent audit. Mayor Grant noted she

did vote on the funding for NSU, and she had many questions at the time the

matter came before the Commission for consideration; she voted on the matter

because of the City’s procurement process, which usually took 15 to 30 days,

and NSU had only five days. NSU was being hired to do research, for which

she was agreeable, as it was not possible to get statistics without research and

gather data. She saw nothing about the other bidders, etc., so she would not

comment on such matters, but if the company hired did the right thing, then they

did the right thing. She concurred with the request to conduct an independent,

forensic audit, adding that it was very important to understand the organizational

chart at the time when such decisions were made, and the current city

management staff were in the Finance Department, not the Grants Division

where such decisions were made.

Commissioner Dunn asked if when a vendor received payment for services,

was Finance staff required to submit a report as to the outcome of those

services.

Mr. Hobbs explained it depended on the funder; most of the City’s federal grants

did not require the local government to provide details of how those dollars were

spent, rather it was about the total dollars spent in accordance with the

proposed budget.

Commissioner Dunn understood, but she knew goals were set as to the

number of people reached; she found it hard to believe that city staff could find

no outcome report, which she and other commissioners were asking for as to

the results of the use of the funds.

Mr. Hobbs indicated he had city staff review the existing files, and current grants

staff were asked to review the files to determine what transpired. With regard to

the government reimbursement grant, on December 9 staff filed the required

financial report for the $1.69 million to be reimbursed; there was no outcome as

yet, but receipt of the report was confirmed at the federal government level, so

city staff would continue to work with them for the City to get reimbursement.

The reporting time ended the last quarter of fiscal year 2023.

He noted,

specifically related to S. Nelson, current city staff reviewed the existing files, and

they were not able to identify any reporting that was submitted, though S.

Nelson did send city staff an email following the last Commission meeting,

providing the reports that they said they previously submitted.

S. Nelson

subsequently requested a meeting with his staff and he, so they would meet

with them in the coming weeks.

Commissioner Campbell felt the work done with the $1.6 million was extensive

enough for the City Commission and Finance to receive an extensive report on

the use of those funds.

comprehensive report being produced first on the subject issue; any concerns

about what transpired ten years prior, that was separate issue. The

He could not vote on an anything without a

Commission needed to have a specific understanding as to what happened to

$3.8 million, and the impact that had on the $1.6 million; this would likely require

a sizeable investigation; if this led to reasons to look into other areas, that was

acceptable.

Mayor Grant acknowledged Commissioner Dunn’s motion to amend, and what

that entailed, and that Commissioner Campbell preferred the resolution to

remain as is.

Commissioner Dunn restated her motion to amend as she stated earlier.

Mayor Grant noted the motion died due to the lack of a second. She opened the

discussion to the public.

Lawrence Martin, Lauderhill resident, expressed disappointment in the

Commission in general, and particularly in the comments made by

Commissioner Campbell, which he felt were disingenuous in the way they were

framed. He supported getting the City’s books right, but he disdained efforts to

try to divide the community by highlighting that the funds were not used to

purchase food, clothes, or given to the City’s schools, despite it being placed on

the record more than once that the subject grant could not be used for such

spending.

He urged Commissioner Campbell to stop trying to divide the

community, adding that Vice Mayor Martin sat on the City Commission for the

past five years, attending and participating in meetings, as did Mayor Grant.

Mayor Grant and he spoke recently, and this was a time when the Mayor should

stay firm, and the Commission should stop this foolishness.

He urged

Commissioner Dunn to stand strong. Mr. Martin felt that Mr. Hobbs had the

opportunity set the Commission on the right track; he should have meetings

with the Commission individually to acknowledge the simple facts of the subject

situation. The present City Commission kept having conversations that alluded

to the activities of the previous commission, and city manager, and grants

division staff; the subject grant started with Jane Sullivan, who clearly

demonstrated to the satisfaction of previous city commissions she served

under, that her work for the City was above board, working hard for the City to

bring millions of grant dollars that benefited all city departments and the

community. The current conversation now appeared to call her character into

question, as did other staff who worked tirelessly for Lauderhill’s benefit. With

regard to Commissioner Campbell’s question on why the City had to seek

outside help to administer the federal dollars, the answer was that between

former Mayor Thurston, Commissioner Dunn, and he, they brought in more

grant dollars for Lauderhill than had ever been seen in the City for those three

and a half years.

Outside help was needed to help manage the significant

amount of grant funds that were not taxpayers’ dollars.

Karen Grey, Lauderhill resident, recalled that the previous week Mayor Grant

referred to words having power and consequences, and it seemed that at the

meeting last week, and at the present meeting, there was a buffoonery of word

salad with words that insinuated lack of character, misconduct with the use of

such words as trickery and plots to rev up the emotions of Lauderhill’s

residents.

She claimed that at last week’s meeting the Commission knew

nothing, and at the present meeting they appeared to be doing the same thing.

She stated Commissioner Campbell should be ashamed of himself, sitting on

the dais with his smug, righteous indignation attitude; he should not think that

the Lauderhill public did not see this, as he did this more than once in everything

he did. It was not about him; it was about the City, the residents, and the

betterment of Lauderhill. She asked Commissioner Campbell not to think that

Lauderhill residents were stupid, and unaware, and uninformed as he was; they

were very much aware of what was happening in the City; the citizenry was sick

and tired of such displays. Whether Mayor Grant wished to admit it or not,

Commissioner Campbell made her look bad; the City could not afford four more

years of such dialog.

Mayor Grant remarked that members of the public should show respect and

decency when coming to speak before the Commission; she understood

speakers had their emotions and passion, but comments that took jabs at

members of the Commission were unacceptable. It did not work in 2024 and it

would not work in 2026.

Alan Brown, Lauderhill resident, echoed disappointment in the City Commission

in addressing the subject matter, acknowledging there were some serious

money concerns; this was not about behind the scenes politics, and the

members of the Commission should know better.

Everyone had challenges,

and some members of the Commission had theirs too, and they could

resurface, so the political tactics should stop, as all members of the

Commission represented all Lauderhill, and the City and its residents were

better than this; the Commission was making Lauderhill look terrible.

Lauderhill residents and taxpayers were the boss and the Commission worked

for them. He urged Commissioner Campbell to do his due diligence, as

The

Commissioner Dunn’s amendment was very comprehensive, and he felt sure

Mr. Hobbs and his staff were up to the task the amendment would set; he would

find the money the Commissioner was asking about, and report his findings

accordingly. Mr. Brown said the Commission needed to respect the Lauderhill

community, as anyone could be investigated at any time. He urged Mayor Grant

and the Commission to work together as a team, and if the behavior continued,

every resolution put forth by Commissioner Campbell would be thoroughly

investigated, as he was not listening to the Lauderhill public, and it appeared

that he was not doing his due diligence as to the specificities.

An unidentified female speaker expressed concern about Mr. Hobbs, who was

the finance director at the time that he stated the grant dollars in question were

managed by the Grants Division, not LHPP. After four years, she was puzzled

that he stated he did not know what happen to those grant funds, and the fact

that there were no reports with regard to the spending of the $1.6 million. When

she went to lauderhillahl.com, she found four reports, some of which showed

exactly how much money S. Nelson was paying out, so it was puzzling that the

City had no reporting to show for those funds. The checks were being written

by Finance staff, so how was it possible that there was no record of how the

funds were spent.

Commissioner Campbell kept mentioning items for which

the funds could not be expended, yet at the last Commission meeting, he took

time to mention his extensive experience in nonprofits; if this was true, he

should understand that grant applications were written for certain types of

spending, and when awarded, the funds had to be used for those specific

items, and using them otherwise would place the City in jeopardy. She said if

Commissioner Campbell was so concerned about children dying in the City of

Lauderhill due to a lack food, etc., it puzzled her that he seemed so against

LHPP that worked to end violence in Lauderhill. Again, she urged members of

the Commission to educate themselves, as she did; she preferred that

Commissioner Campbell ramble on less, and do more research to get the

facts, and make statements based on those facts.

Madeline Noel, Lauderhill resident, said various comments spoke of honesty,

yet incorrect language confirmed by Mr. Hobbs was displayed in the resolution

that the Commission refused to correct; she had asked a number of questions,

for which she desired answers other than, “I don’t know”. She hoped where

answers were unknown, staff would do the research, and come back with

answers: Did the City have ongoing audits on how all grants were managed and

distributed, and the programs that were supported by the grants? Could the

City make such results available to the public?

selected for audit?

Were programs randomly

There was

Were there other audits that were needed?

concern about whether LHPP funds could be used for residents facing

challenges during COVID, during which Commissioner Campbell went on to

remind the public of what the pandemic was.

She stated she had a clear

memory of what the COVID 19 pandemic was, and what it felt like, as her father

passed away due to COVID, so no one needed a reminder at to what the

pandemic was. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds were designated to

help residents; she asked if there was any accountability for these funds, as

she recalled in the last fiscal year, taxes could not be lowered because the City

utilized the rest of its ARPA funds in that fiscal year’s budget. She wished to

know if the ARPA funds were now fully expended, and were they used as they

should have been; she desired a reply to this inquiry. Ms. Noel found Mr. Hobbs’

and his staff’s response as to how funds were used for LHPP at the last

meeting a complete disaster. Responses of “I don’t know” made it seem that

the people responsible for managing the expenditure of the funds were

incapable of doing so, as the LHPP program existed over three years; it was a

shame that members of the Commission claimed they did not know how the

program was run.

She urged the Commission to direct staff to audit and

manage all grants as Commissioner Dunn requested.

Mae Smith, Lauderhill resident, expressed feelings of embarrassment, stating it

was a shame to hear what was being said; she was embarrassed for Mr.

Hobbs and Mr. Henderson to have to sit and take what was being said, and in

looking at them, she knew there were things they could not say; they were

caught.

With regard to the $1.6 million missing, just as she fought with the

Broward County School Board about the missing $7 million that should have

gone to Lauderhill’s schools, she was not friends with any member of the

Commission to the extent that she would not charge them to find those funds;

they were gone, and something had to be done to find out what happened. She

said during such times when programs and funding were being cut everywhere,

and the possibility of raising taxes leading to voters not wanting to put current

commissioner back in office, some seemed okay with not finding what

happened to the $1.6 million. If the money was missing, Finance staff had to

find it; they handled the City’s sizeable budget of over $200 million, so it was

puzzling that they could not handle $4 million, leading to it being sent to city

administration, only to have the latter hire an outside entity to manage it. She

said the money paid to the outside entity to manage the grant funds could have

been better used to the community’s benefit.

Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.

Vice Mayor Martin said, in response to members of the public who mentioned

his name, he spoke when he felt it was necessary. In relation to the subject

matter, he felt Ms. Smith summed the matter up clearly, and he supported what

she said, and that was to not get lost in the noise. There were multiple topics

discussed by the Commission at last week’s meeting, and at the present

meeting with regard to the processes, and now the subject funding was spent

to the point where neither Finance staff nor the Commission knew where those

dollars went. He was embarrassed to air the City’s dirty laundry, but he did not

think the subject discussion was an attack on LHPP, but all members of the

Commission agreed there were some processes that needed to be checked.

He, like his fellow Commissioners, agreed there was a problem, and they all

supported having a forensic audit; as to his position on LHPP, he supported and

voted for LHPP in the past.

Mayor Grant sought clarification that the $3.8 million was an HHS grant that was

not managed by LHPP.

Mr. Hobbs answered correct; the grant was managed by the City’s Grants

Division.

Mayor Grant wished to modify the language in the resolution, as with it being an

HHS grant, the resolution’s language should reflect this, as well as changing the

language stating that the grant was managed by LHPP to it being managed by

the City’s Grants Division. Staff should make this modification accordingly.

Commissioner Campbell commented that the reason LHPP was placed in the

resolution was due to all the documents provided to the Commission in the

backup indicating LHPP was part of the distribution of the funds. The amending

of the language did not matter to him, as the important focus should be an audit

of the grant itself.

A motion was made by Mayor D. Grant, 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

Abstain:

RESOLUTION NO. 25R-04-89:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL CONFIRMING THAT THE

FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF LAUDERHILL IS SOLELY

RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING ALL OF GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED

BY THE CITY; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO

ESTABLISH POLICIES FOR THE APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT

OF GRANT FUNDS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT

REQUIREMENTS,

POLICIES

THE

CITY,

AND

CODE

ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL; PROHIBITING THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRANT FUNDS BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR

INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING

THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY WITH

THE AUTHORITY TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE

THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

(REQUESTED BY VICE MAYOR SARAI “RAY” MARTIN).

Attachments:

25R-04-89 Finance Department Management of Grant Funds

Resolution-4-28-25

AR 25R-04-89

Exhibit A to Audit Resolution Re LHPP

Commissioner Dunn believed the subject resolution was premature; she

wished to see what came out of the audit first, as it would be a challenge to

write policies before knowing what the system failures were.

She made a

motion to table the item until after the reports from the forensic audit came back

to see if it identified areas of weakness, and opportunities to improve.

Mayor Grant indicated the motion died due to a lack of a second.

Vice Mayor Martin explained that he sponsored the subject resolution due to

things being done differently by the present administration as compared to the

previous one.

Department, and the subject resolution sought to ensure this remained as such

to prevent repeat of Finance staff having no answers in response to

Commission questions on grant fund expenditures. He expected, as he was

The Grants Division was currently under the Finance

sure all members of the Lauderhill public did, that the finance director of the City

would know what was going on with all the funds in the City; if there was any

move to change this, he wished to ensure the Commission, and the Lauderhill

public knew it before it happened.

Commissioner Dunn believed the City needed great policies, echoing her

position on the resolution being premature; she asked if any policies created

would come before the Commission for approval prior to their implementation.

Mr. Hobbs replied, traditionally, policies created at the administrative level were

not brought before the Commission for approval prior to implementation.

Commissioner Dunn approved of the City’s current checks and balances for

expenditures; as Mr. Hobbs and his staff knew, she was very particular in

ensuring all spending paperwork was complete and accurate.

She was leery

that policies would be put in place that would do what the memo did, which was

to try to freeze/stop LHPP. It was clear to her that even though her colleagues

verbally supported LHPP, it felt as though there was a movement to stop the

program.

She suggested that before expenditure policies were approved for

implementation that they be presented to the Commission to facilitate dialog;

this would ensure policies that were developed were clear and fair to prevent

what the original resolution under item five might have accomplished; that is, to

permanently pause LHPP.

Commissioner Dunn restated her concern that

policies might be implemented in the dark to accomplish what the community

did not want to happen.

Mayor Grant asked Mr. Hobbs to bring the final draft of any proposed policies

Finance wished to implement back to the Commission for review.

Commissioner Campbell felt the prior item showed that it was a best practice to

leave all financial matters under the Finance Department, so the Commission

and the public knew exactly which department dealt with grants, etc.

would eliminate misunderstandings.

This

Mayor Grant concurred, stating she supported LHPP and all the work they did in

the Lauderhill community; she supported any initiative in the City that did great

work to benefit Lauderhill and its residents.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.

Tarik Mohammad, Lauderhill resident, claimed his 33311 zip code was the most

impoverished in Lauderhill, asking where was the money, a question being

asked by other residents. He was a graduate of Lauderhill Shines cohort nine;

this was a very important program initiated by Commissioner Dunn. The City

faced the challenges of high poverty rates and unemployment; there was a

correlation between high poverty and crime, hence the importance of the LHPP

program to help create entrepreneurship, programs for youth, and allocate

funds where they were well needed in the community. He questioned why the

Commission would not choose to audit all its grant programs, so the

Commission and residents really knew what was going on, and the City could

be as transparent as possible.

Mr. Mohammad remarked that LHPP was a

wonderful program, as the program’s agenda came from the actual Lauderhill

community, based on the results of surveys conducted in all Lauderhill

communities, so why put such a program on pause if it sought to satisfy what

the community needed.

Mayor Grant agreed that, at some point, the City needed to do an audit of all its

grants, and that it was very important for the Commission to hear from the

community so the elected officials could be better leaders and ensure all city

programs were geared to satisfy the needs of the Lauderhill community.

Brent Lewis, Lauderhill resident, commended the Commission for amending

the language of the resolution under item five. With regard to item six, he felt

there was a breakdown in policy, as internal controls were not tight enough. He

agreed with Commissioner Dunn that the results of the forensic audit would

yield more information as to where the breakdown(s) in the system was, so

adjustments could be made. Mr. Hobbs should be commended for the positive

change of moving the Grants Division from administration back to Finance; as a

member of the public, he, too, wished to see the proposed policies brought

before the Commission prior to their implementation, so the Commission and

the public could give input.

Pastor Kyle Henry, City of Grace Florida, Lauderhill, supported the audit, but he

was confused, as it appeared some members of the Commission supported

the audit, while others seemed they did not.

Mayor Grant replied that item five was already approved.

Lawrence Martin, Lauderhill resident, remarked if a grant’s guidelines permitted

the hiring of an outside entity to administer the grant, that cost was covered in

the grant; this meant the City received funding to cover the cost of hiring the two

persons that appear to be the cause of this whole commotion, including being

tagged with the LHPP.

This should be taken into consideration when the

subject audit was conducted; that is, whatever the grant called for should be a

part of what was expected. He noted the City received grants to aid in the costs

for such city departments as fire, police, water and sewer, etc., and all the

dollars went to Finance, but the persons working on acquiring and receiving the

grants were not under Finance.

entities to administer the subject grant, and they did the work and submitted the

required reporting, and they were paid accordingly from the grant dollars. He

In the subject scenario, HHS identified two

urged complete transparency in the existing information and whatever else was

found from the audit; the language of the subject resolution was acceptable, as

it required the audit to follow whatever the writing of the grant stated.

Mayor Grant received no further input from the public.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, that this Resolution be approved. The motion carried by the following

vote:

4 -

Yes:

Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner J. Hodgson, Vice Mayor S. Martin, and

Mayor D. Grant

Abstain:

No Vote:

1 - Commissioner M. Dunn

Commissioner Dunn objected to not being allowed to comment prior to the vote,

after public comments were closed.

Mayor Grant urged Commissioner Dunn to adhere to the City’s policies and

procedures for conducting Commission meetings, as she had when former

Mayor Ken Thurston chaired commission meetings.

Interim City Attorney Ottinot affirmed Mayor Grant was correct that proper

meeting protocol was followed.

RESOLUTION NO. 25R-04-87:

COMMISSION OF THE CITY

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

OF LAUDERHILL AMENDING

RESOLUTION NOS. 16R-03-54 AND 13R-09-214 TO CONSENT TO THE

TRANSFER OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE DEVELOPMENT ORDER

FROM GREEN LIGHT CAR WASH, INC. TO NATIONAL EXPRESS CAR

WASH D/B/A EL CAR WASH OR ASSIGNEE; PROVIDING THE CITY

MANAGER OR DESIGNEE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DO ALL THINGS

TO EFFECTUATE THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN

EFFECTIVE DATE (REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER SARAI “RAY”

MARTIN).

Attachments: 25R-04-87 Green Light Transfer Resolution

AR 25R-04-87

RES.16R-03-54_Special_Exception_Green_Light_Car_Wash_Expand

_Add_Vacuum_Area

RES.13R-09-214_Grant_Green_Light_Car_Wash_Special_Exception_

Use

A presentation was given on the subject resolution, as detailed in the backup,

noting the present owner of GreenLight Car Wash planned to sell the business,

and they hoped the City would approve of the new ownership.

The parties

would do their due diligence to ensure the special exception use could be

transferred. He stated one of the things the new owners would be looking for

was the closing out of existing city permits, which the parties anticipated taking

one to two months, and the actual closing, going through the usual process,

would be anywhere from a two to four-month period.

The present owner’s

request was for this to remain open until the end of the year, after which it could

expire.

Interim City Attorney Ottinot indicated the language of the subject resolution was

fine as drafted, granting the requested extended time period.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public; she received no input.

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:

4 -

Yes:

Commissioner M. Dunn, Commissioner J. Hodgson, Vice Mayor S. Martin, and

Mayor D. Grant

Abstain:

Off Dais:

1 - Commissioner R. Campbell

ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS - FIRST READING (AS ADVERTISED IN THE

SUN-SENTINEL)

ORDINANCE NO. 25O-02-107:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AMENDING

THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY AMENDING

ARTICLE III, ENTITLED “ZONING DISTRICTS,” SECTION 5.30A

ENTITLED “PHARMACY” BY MODIFYING STANDARDS; AMENDING

SECTION 5.50, ENTITLED “MEDICAL MARIJUANA HEALTH CARE

ESTABLISHMENT”

ESTABLISHMENTS”

AND

RENAMING

ESTABLISHING

DISPENSING

“MEDICAL

STANDARDS

CENTERS;

CLASSIFICATIONS”

MEDICAL

CENTERS;

MARIJUANA

FOR

AMENDING

MEDICAL

MARIJUANA

A, ENTITLED

DEFINITIONS

AND DISPENSING

SCHEDULE

CLARIFYING

“LAND

USE

FOR

MARIJUANA

AMENDING

ESTABLISHMENTS

SCHEDULE B, ENTITLED “ALLOWABLE USES,” SCHEDULE B-2,

ENTITLED “USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS” TO PROVIDE

ZONING

DISPENSING

DISTRICT

REGULATIONS

FOR

MEDICAL

FOR

MARIJUANA

CONFLICTS,

CENTERS;

PROVIDING

SEVERABILITY, AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN

EFFECTIVE DATE.

Attachments: 25O-02-107 - Amendment to LDR Medical Marijuana Dispensary

AR 25O-02-107

Attachment A - Application

Attachment B - Development Review Report (24-TA-005)

Attachment C - Narrative

Item 6 - Curaleaf Text Amendment CC Presentation 2.24.25

Item 10 - Curaleaf Text Amendment CC Presentation

Development Services Director Daniel Keester-O’Mills stated this was the

second time the Commission was being presented the proposed ordinance for

consideration, as it was tabled when it was first presented. Since that time, the

ordinance was amended to add additional separation requirements between

medical marijuana dispensaries, and from any schools.

Hope Calhoun, the applicant’s representative, said the applicant’s team

reviewed the language revision proposed by city staff and they had no

objections.

Despite concerns expressed by municipalities about a proliferation

of such facilities if one was allowed, her experience representing other entities

throughout the State showed no evidence of that. She noted the language in the

proposed ordinance was similar to that seen in other cities.

Commissioner Dunn restated the concerns she mentioned at the previous

presentation of the proposed ordinance; specifically, the distance separation

and access by young persons.

Mr. Keester-O’Mills said staff looked at other surrounding cities and the

proposed ordinance was consistent with what other cities implemented; in the

previous meeting’s dialog with the Commission, it was stated that other cities

had additional restrictions that did not apply to pharmacies, but state statute

required pharmacies and the subject use be treated equally. He indicated that

in cities with unique rules applying to the subject use, those rules were put into

effect prior to the State passing the law that pharmacies and the subject use

should be treated the same. Fort Lauderdale was one such city, restricting the

number of such uses that would be allowed in each county commissioner’s

district.

He spoke with a representative in the Fort Lauderdale Planning &

Zoning Department, and they informed him that their rule was adopted prior to

the State statute, so they were not changing their practice; their position was

that they were grandfathered in prior to that state statute. Mr. Keester-O’Mills

recommended that the City not adopt any rules that went against the

recommendations of the State statute, knowing that they would be adopted

subsequently.

Commissioner Dunn questioned if the distance separation staff proposed in the

amended language opened Lauderhill to having several of such facilities in the

City.

Mr. Keester-O’Mills replied there were numerous factors that went into whether

or not a business would be allowed into the City, and staff would evaluate each

one on their own merit, particularly with regard to satisfying the distance

separation from schools and other facilities. Once such a facility was permitted

in the City, staff would evaluate where another could be located. He remarked,

with regard to the concern about a proliferation of such uses in the City, as the

Land Development Regulation (LDR) was

a living document, the City had

numerous tools by which to make changes if it was found that there was an

increased number of applications for a particular use the City did not wish to

see more of in Lauderhill. City staff would keep the Commission updated if

there appeared to be an increased interest in opening such facilities in

Lauderhill.

Commissioner Dunn asked if the language staff proposed meant that any new

requests for the subject use would come before the Commission for review.

Mr. Keester-O’Mills explained the way the proposed ordinance was now written,

there were some uses that would be permitted by right, while others required a

special exception, which he said mirrored the pharmacy regulations. A medical

marijuana dispensary was a “permitted by right” use in some of the City’s

zoning districts; if the businessowner planned to have a drive-thru component,

this would require a special exception. Thus, if no drive-thru was planned, the

business owner just had to go through the City’s regular permit application

process in order to be issued a COU if they met all conditions and criteria, as

laid out in the ordinance. His staff and he would report to the City Manager and

Commission when such requests were made.

Commissioner Dunn questioned if the applicant’s team met with the

surrounding community.

Ms. Calhoun affirmed the applicant held

public meeting before the

Commission was first presented with the subject ordinance, and no member of

the public attended; the applicant held no further public meetings since that

time. She asked that the same information the applicant gave at the previous

meeting be placed into the record of the present meeting.

Mayor Grant mentioned doing her due diligence regarding the myriad of uses for

medical marijuana, and she learned there were a host of ailments for which it

appeared people used medical marijuana; essentially, it served as medicine for

them.

The ailments included: arthritis, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s

disease, traumatic stress disorders, anxiety disorders, depression, nausea, etc.

She had no wish to deny any type of medical services to anyone in Lauderhill,

but for her there needed to be measures put in place with regard to proper

management by such facilities. The Commission and residents had concerns,

and they went back and had those discussions with the applicant’s team; she

believed the proposed amendments to the subject ordinance sought to address

those concerns.

She did not like the fact that after the discussions at the

previous meeting no member of the applicant’s team reached out to the

residents to try to get input from them; it was imperative for the Commission to

make such decisions based on the community’s needs, how they felt about

such uses, and their desire to see them in Lauderhill. She hoped that in the

future, applicants, city staff, and/or whoever was responsible for outreach,

made serious efforts to engage the community for their input prior to any

presentation to the City Commission, and not to just wait for the residents to

come to them. In the future, applicants of applications that sought approval with

no evidence of reaching out to the surrounding community prior to coming

before the Commission would be voted down.

Commissioner Campbell wondered if a pharmacy request were to come to the

City for a location in the area of 441 and Sunrise Boulevard it meant that

applicant had to come before the Commission for approval.

Mr. Keester-O’Mills replied if the requested was to locate in a new building, the

applicant had to go through the usual site plan process; if the proposed location

was in an existing building with no drive-thru component, they would be

permitted by right. In that area, he was not aware of any schools that would be

a part of the consideration for the separation requirement.

Commissioner Campbell wondered about the old K-Mart site located next to the

Lauderhill Performing Arts Center (LPAC).

Mr. Keester-O’Mills said that site was not a CG zoning district, so a pharmacy

use would not be permitted there.

Commissioner Campbell sought confirmation that any business wishing to

locate in Lauderhill had to apply to the City’s Planning Department, at which

time the relevant staff would review the possibility of such a business locating in

Lauderhill at the location chosen to determine whether or not it was possible.

Mr. Keester-O’Mills answered yes.

Commissioner Campbell heard at the previous meeting, and the present

meeting’s discussion, the effect such uses might have on the City’s youth, but

he understood that medical marijuana was dispensed to individuals with chronic

conditions, for which they received a prescription from their doctor. Thus, most

young people would not suffer from chronic conditions that warranted them

using medical marijuana; the latter had nothing to do with youths, or smoking

marijuana, rather it was for persons with specific, chronic conditions whose use

was determined by their treating physician.

He commented that such a use

was similar to that found at pain management clinics that existed in society for

decades; while he might not support much of what they did, access to such

medications allowed people in chronic pain to get some relief.

Medical

marijuana was legal, and the dispensaries were not places people went to

smoke marijuana, rather, people had to have a prescription in order to gain

access. Commissioner Campbell observed it seemed expensive, so it was not

something people would likely go with cash in hand to such a facility to make a

purchase; it was prescribed, and its dispensing was regulated by the State.

While it was new to Lauderhill, it was not new to the United States, and it was

not an illegal practice.

Commissioner Dunn mentioned doing a Google search to find out where other

medical marijuana dispensaries were located, and she found Miracle Leaf at

4942 N University Drive, another was located 4.7 miles away from the City in

Fort Lauderdale, and Certified Marijuana Doctors was 2.2 miles away from

Lauderhill. In an earlier meeting with Mr. Ottinot prior to the present meeting he

notified her there were some medical marijuana dispensaries in Coral Springs;

thus, it was a short drive for anyone wishing to fill their medical marijuana

prescription.

Ms. Howson stated Miracle Leaf in Lauderhill was a doctor with the ability to

prescribe medical marijuana; the location was not

medical marijuana

dispensary, as he was not allowed to distribute medical marijuana from his site.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.

Mr. Harris, Lauderhill resident, asked Mr. Ottinot if the applicant was vetted.

Interim City Attorney Ottinot explained that the City’s code allowed any property

owner to apply for a text amendment to a city ordinance.

Mr. Keester-O’Mills added that

a public-initiated text amendment to a city

ordinance applied citywide, thus it would not apply to one specific property only.

Applicants were not vetted for any future use, as the matter before the

Commission for consideration was an amendment to the LDR.

Interim City Attorney Ottinot indicated that if the proposed ordinance were

adopted, and later an application was submitted, a different process would go

into effect by which city staff would assess an applicant’s ability to satisfy the

LDR requirements.

For example, staff would verify that the applicant was

licensed to operate in the State of Florida, and that the corporation was

authorized to do business in Florida. He said there was a more detailed vetting

process for actual applications if the proposed ordinance took effect.

Mr. Harris questioned if a convicted felon could be a manager or have oversight

of such a facility.

Ms. Calhoun restated the proposed application was only for a text amendment

to an existing city ordinance to permit medical marijuana facilities by right in

Lauderhill. If adopted at second reading, and an application was submitted to

operate in Lauderhill, those questions could be answered. She was more than

willing to discuss outside the meeting who her client was.

Ms. Noel indicated she was the secretary for the United Lauderhill Community

Association, and she spoke on the association’s behalf, as she presented the

subject matter to them and they voiced strong disapproval. Some of their

concerns they wished addressed included: why medical marijuana

dispensaries were not being allowed by surrounding cities; the presence of

such facilities could increase crime rates, traffic congestion, and a decline in

property

values;

long-term

social

and

economic

impacts

such

establishments on the community remained uncertain; there were existing,

alternate locations outside of Lauderhill where individuals could fill their

prescriptions for medical marijuana; the potential misuse and diversion of

medical marijuana raised concerns for public safety, and youth exposure.

Ms.

Noel stated many residents, including her, and their community association

expressed strong opposition to the establishment of such dispensaries in

Lauderhill. It appeared to them that the 441 corridor was turning into a free for

all, and they looked to Vice Mayor Martin to speak up for them, but it seemed to

them he had gone silent. She said he held various events in their community to

bring them together, so he was versed in the challenges they faced.

The

Commission needed to think more about the activities along the 441 corridor,

including loitering, crime, etc. She wondered if any member of the Commission

lived in that area, so they could observe such activities. The residents of their

community were unaware of any public meeting where the applicant tried to

communicate with area residents.

Willie Mae Cooper stated she represented the West Ken Lark Homeowners’

Association, expressing concern about the LHPP, as well as the City’s approval

of the medical marijuana dispensaries in Lauderhill. Even if there were those

who desired such facilities in the City; she knew there were restrictions on

youths purchasing alcohol and cigarettes, yet there were adults willing to go into

stores to buy alcohol and cigarettes for youths.

This was something the

Commission needed to consider; children would find a way to get access. She

pointed out the same entity requesting the text amendment was the same entity

that received approval to build

residential development; she urged the

Commission to think about the residents.

Mayor Grant reiterated doing due diligence, in the subject instance, researching

medical marijuana to find out more about its purpose, along with polling the

residents she represented.

There were many residents in Lauderhill who

depended on medical marijuana to treat their illnesses, including Mr. Ottinot’s

daughter who suffers from sickle cell anemia; this was the reason she was

comfortable with her decision to support the subject amendment. Members of

the Commission met with staff to ensure various safeguards were put in place,

including amendments to existing language to make the use more palatable to

the community. She would not approve anything she knew would cause harm

to the community, as she too was a resident with a 17-year-old son.

received no further input from the public.

She

Commissioner Hodgson echoed disappointment at the applicant’s not making

additional efforts to engage with the public after the item was tabled at an earlier

meeting; they should have had dialog with the surrounding homeowners’

associations (HOAs) to see where they stood on the matter. Initially, he was

not against the amendment, as he supported medicine that helped people, but

he was concerned the constituents had no dialog with the applicant’s team.

Ms. Calhoun restated the subject amendment was a language change citywide,

and not for a specific use application. Notwithstanding, the applicant did host a

public meeting, for which notice was published, and posted.

Before the site

plan for the specific dispensary was submitted to the City, she would

communicate to her client, who was not the property owner, on the need to

meet with the surrounding areas’ HOAs; the proposed text amendment was

being forward by the property owner.

Vice Mayor Martin stressed that he did his due diligence on the subject facilities,

visiting one to see how they operated; immediately, upon visiting, he noticed that

it was very clean, and they would not let him in. He eventually convinced them

to let him take a quick look, as no one was allowed to enter without a medical

marijuana card; these facilities could be found in affluent neighborhoods; of the

eight or ten in Broward County, some were in Fort Lauderdale. After speaking

with Mr. Ottinot, he felt confident the City had tools at its disposal to prevent bad

actors in the City.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, that this Ordinance be approved on first reading to the City

Commission Meeting, due back on 5/12/2025. The motion carried by the following

vote:

4 -

Yes:

Commissioner R. Campbell, Commissioner J. Hodgson, Vice Mayor S. Martin, and

Mayor D. Grant

1 - Commissioner M. Dunn

No:

Abstain:

ORDINANCE NO. 25O-04-113: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AMENDING

THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY AMENDING

ARTICLE IV, ENTITLED “DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIREMENTS”,

SECTION

SUBSECTION

1.9 ENTITLED

“PUBLIC

NOTICE

REQUIREMENTS”,

MEETINGS” BY

1.9.6 ENTITLED

“NEIGHBORHOOD

MODIFYING APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SCHEDULE

B - ALLOWABLE USES TABLE B-1 “USES ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICTS”, BY MODIFYING THE ZONING DISTRICTS “PRIMARY AND

SECONDARY, CHARTER AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS” AS PERMITTED

USES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH “PRIMARY AND SECONDARY,

PUBLIC SCHOOLS”, AND B-2 “USES ALLOWED IN NONRESIDENTIAL

DISTRICTS” BY MODIFYING THE ZONING DISTRICTS “PRIMARY AND

SECONDARY, CHARTER AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS” AS PERMITTED

USES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH “PRIMARY AND SECONDARY,

PUBLIC SCHOOLS”; AMENDING SCHEDULE I, ENTITLED “SIGN

REQUIREMENTS”

MODIFYING

THE

DIMENSIONAL

REQUIREMENTS OF ADDRESS SIGNS AND REQUIRING ADDITIONAL

STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY BUILDINGS AND COMMERCIAL

SWIMMING POOLS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY,

AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Attachments: 25O-04-113 text amendments for 4.28.25 meeting

AR 25O-04-113

Attachment A - 25-TA-SwimmingPool-Charter-NeighborhoodMtg -

February 2025

Attachment B - Excerpt of P&Z Meeting Minutes - 2-25-2025

Mr. Keester-O’Mills presented the proposed ordinance, as detailed in the

legislation.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public; she received no input.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, that this Ordinance be approved on first reading to the City

Commission Meeting, due back on 5/12/2025. 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

Abstain:

ORDINANCE NO. 25O-04-114: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AMENDING

THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY AMENDING

ARTICLE III, ENTITLED “ZONING DISTRICTS,” BY CREATING SECTION

5.58 ENTITLED “EVENT VENUE”; BY ESTABLISHING USE MINIMUM

STANDARDS

INCLUDING

HOURS

OPERATION,

SITE

ACCESSIBILITY, MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE, MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE,

AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SCHEDULE A - LAND

USE

CLASSIFICATIONS

MODIFYING

THE

DEFINITION

“BANQUET HALL” AND CREATING “EVENT VENUE”; AMENDING

SCHEDULE B - ALLOWABLE USES TABLE B-2 “USES ALLOWED IN

NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS” BY INCLUDING “EVENT VENUE”;

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND CODIFICATION;

AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Attachments: 25O-04-114 event venue text amendment for 4.28.25 meeting

AR 25O-04-114

Attachment A - Development Review Report (DRR)

Attachment B - Application

Attachment C - Narrative

Item 8 - CC Item 8 TA Event Venues (As Referenced Within Minutes)

Ms. Howson gave a summary of the proposed ordinance, as detailed in the

backup, stating the location of the proposed wedding venue was 6650 W

Commercial Blvd., the five wooded vacant lots sitting immediately next to the

Children Services building on Commercial Blvd. The applicant showed her the

beautiful, successfully run venue in Arizona, and when she told him that it was

not an allowed use by right in Lauderhill, and that he had to apply for a special

exception, he quickly showed a willingness to do so, giving staff suggestions on

how to have the use reinstated. Planning staff and the applicant work together,

and they concluded

new category would be appropriate, specifically,

wedding event venue; it would be for more formal events on a larger scale than

those held at a typical banquet hall in a plaza. The proposed ordinance was the

result of their working together; it included supplemental regulations the

applicant and staff believed would address negative impacts such a use could

have on

witnessed.

surrounding neighborhood based on previous negative impacts

She said the subject amendment proposed language for the use

citywide as one that was permitted by right in all general commercial zoning

districts providing that applicants met all criteria shown on the list in the backup.

Commissioner Dunn remarked on speaking with the president of the Cypress

Hollow HOA who expressed concerns he heard from residents, asking what the

responses were to those concerns, specifically noise after hours, and the

measures to be put in place to mitigate them; this would likely be a citywide

concern.

Ms. Howson responded that one of the key factors to mitigating a noise

nuisance concern was restricting hours of operation; the applicant proposed

hours of operation similar to those practiced at his other wedding venues, which

was to operate until 11:00 p.m. Though city staff thought this was a little early,

this was evidence that this would distinguish the proposed use from the typical

restaurant bar, adding that at the location the applicant was considering, a

restaurant use could be located there by right. If a developer chose to purchase

the site to build

establishment could remain open until 2:00 a.m.

enhanced buffer wall requirements, along with the text amendment prohibiting

outdoor music past 8:00 p.m. helped negate noise nuisances. Additionally, a

restaurant bar, they could do so by right, and the

Ms. Howson added that

site plan required for a new building allowed city staff the opportunity to influence

where outdoor music was setup in relation to surrounding residential properties,

and to encourage buffering.

The applicant’s proposed design for the venue

showed a building wrapping around the area designated for an outdoor wedding,

placing the building between the outdoor portion and the buffering to the rear of

the site between residential and commercial.

Commissioner Dunn wished to know if the proposed use was consistent with

the City’s recommended uses from the Urban Land Institute (ULI).

Mr. Keester-O’Mills answered yes; he looked up the portion of the ULI study for

Commercial Blvd., and he believed the proposed use was consistent with their

recommendations for uses in that area.

Ms. Howson mentioned there was discussion with the applicant and staff about

11:00 p.m. being too early, and the fact that the applicant could have a client

wishing to host an event until midnight.

Mayor Grant opened the discussion to the public.

Harjun Williams, Lauderhill resident, stated he resided next to the subject

property. He was concerned with the fact that residents within a certain radius

of the site were to be notified, which he was not.

Ms. Howson explained the proposed ordinance was a text amendment to the

City’s LDR, so the effect of the approval would be citywide. When an applicant

proposed a text amendment to the LDR with a specific site in mind, it was

staff’s job to determine how that change affected every other potential site in

Lauderhill if the code was amended to allow a particular use.

For a text

amendment, there was no specific 500-foot radius in which letters could be

sent. If this was a special exception use, then residents within the 500-foot

radius of the applicant’s site would be notified. She noted that if the subject text

amendment were approved, allowing the proposed use by right, and an

applicant came in to initiate an event venue use, and they met all criteria, the

use would be allowed by right. In the subject instance, the Commission would

see another application from the applicant, as he was starting with a new

building, so he had to develop a site plan, and the Commission required that

staff bring all site plans for new development to the Commission for review

before a developer went to building permit, so the community would see the

proposed development again. It was possible for a businessowner to move into

an existing building where the desired use was permitted by right, in which case

it would not go before the Commission.

Mr. Hobbs stated he knew the area Mr. Williams was speaking about, and in the

past there were noise complaints from residents coming from businesses

abutting residential uses to the rear of the commercial property all along

Commercial Boulevard.

Commissioner Campbell made

a motion to Approve extending the meeting

beyond 11:00 p.m., seconded by Vice Mayor Martin. The vote was as follows:

Commissioner Campbell

Commissioner Dunn

Commissioner Hodgson

Vice Mayor Martin

Mayor Grant

Yes

Mr. Hobbs asked if planning staff could add language that required a higher

buffer wall, or other treatments to mitigated noise. Many of the uses were

automotive in nature, so some of the complaints were related to the noise

caused by bay doors opening and closing; he was unsure what the City could

do to address those concerns.

Ms. Howson showed a mapped illustration of the site provided in the backup,

adding that there were a variety of uses that were permitted by right on the

subject site that could have negative impacts, including noise.

Staff would

remain mindful of whatever businesses sought to locate along Commercial

Boulevard, requiring them to have adequate buffering between abutting

residential uses.

She showed the applicant’s proposed layout of the site,

adding that a code change was required to change the buffer wall from eight to

ten feet; staff could request that the applicant provide enhanced landscaped

buffering. That site plan would be completely open to the public, so residents

were encouraged to attend to learn how staff and the applicant went back and

forth on such site plans in order to protect residential neighborhoods. Per the

applicant’s design shown, staff would ensure there was no outdoor music after

8:00 p.m., and outdoor activities would take place within the confines of the

buffering.

Mr. Hobbs urged Planning staff to ensure adequate buffering was put in place,

as along Commercial Boulevard was one of the communities that abutted

commercial uses without any buffer, canal, or much distance between the

actual commercial properties and the residential community.

Ms. Howson understood, adding that the applicant was very eager to keep as

many of the existing trees as possible, as he wanted the brides not to be aware

of Commercial Boulevard.

Mr. Hobbs asked that the HOA president of the community be kept apprised

ahead of time of the progress of the proposed development, as he expressed

his community’s concerns regarding adequate buffering.

Ms. Howson affirmed she would.

Commissioner Campbell recalled in 2018 a school was proposed for the same

site, and noise was a major concern of the abutting residents; those concerns

resulted in a denial of the application. While he understood residents’ concerns

with regard to noise, there was now so much technology that allowed the City to

prevent, and address many of the residents’ concerns, including basic steps of

retaining, and maintaining existing trees, and having a buffer wall above the

required eight feet. He noted that in constructing a new building, there were

design elements that could be incorporated to prevent some of the issues being

discussed, and there were steps the City could take, such as limiting hours of

operation, etc.

Commissioner Campbell said he was not comfortable with

situations where someone owned a property and they were prevented from

doing anything with it, as opposed to looking at how some uses were possible,

while addressing concerns voiced by residents. When there was a proposal to

locate a specific use at a site, it was reasonable for the City to look at the

proposal, possibly recommending

a shift of the location of a building, or

intended uses in a particular area of the site to help mitigate noise nuisances, or

any other anticipated negative impacts, including construction that kept noise

internal rather than external to the building. There were many ways to make

both the residents, and the developer happy.

Commissioner Grant received no further input from the public.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, that this Ordinance be approved on first reading to the City

Commission Meeting, due back on 5/12/2025. 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

Abstain:

XI ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READING (AS ADVERTISED IN

THE SUN-SENTINEL)

ORDINANCE NO. 25O-04-111: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, AMENDING

THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 6, “BUILDINGS AND

BUILDING REGULATIONS”, BY CREATING A NEW ARTICLE V, “NEW

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES” BY ADOPTING AND IMPOSING

IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE RESCUE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND

PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT; BY

ADOPTING AN IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR FIRE RESCUE, LAW

ENFORCEMENT,

AND

PARKS

AND

RECREATION

INFRASTRUCTURE; BY ADOPTING A TECHNICAL STUDY OF SAID

IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATE STATUTE SECTION

163.31801; BY ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT, ACCOUNTING, CREDITS

AND COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES TO INCLUDE REVIEW

HEARINGS; PROVIDING FOR SAVINGS, CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY,

AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

(REQUESTED BY INTERIM CITY MANAGER KENNIE HOBBS, JR.).

Attachments: ORD 25O-04-111 impact fee fire police parks

AR 25O-04-111

Final_Impact Fee Study_Lauderhill_BusinessFlare_March2025

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, 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

Abstain:

10.

ORDINANCE NO. 25O-04-112: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, APPROVING

THE

EXPENDITURE AMENDMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 IN THE

TOTAL ADJUSTMENT AMOUNT OF $14,197,292; APPROVING

SIX

MONTH

BUDGET

REVIEW

REVENUE

AND

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,934,292,

AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT

OF $9,919,700, AND

CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT OF $343,000;

REFLECTING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT TO VARIOUS REVENUE

AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS AS SPECIALLY INDICATED IN THE

BREAKDOWN; PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS BUDGET CODES; AND

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (REQUESTED BY INTERIM

CITY MANAGER, KENNIE HOBBS, JR.).

Attachments: ORD 25O-04-112 approving 6 Month Budget 4.14.25

AR 25O-04-112

BA Supplemental Sean

A motion was made by Vice Mayor S. Martin, seconded by Commissioner R.

Campbell, 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

Abstain:

XII UNFINISHED BUSINESS

XIII OLD BUSINESS