City Commission - Regular Meeting

Test, test one, two.

Welcome one and all. Today is September 3rd, 2026. It is six o'clock and it is time for us to have our budget meeting for the 2027 fiscal year, followed by the commencement of our regular city agenda meeting. So Mr. Clerk, if you would, please call the roll.

Commissioner Goode. Vice Mayor Hernandez? Present. Commissioner Rodriguez?

Here.

Commissioner Schwartz?

Here.

Mayor Castillo?

Here.

City Manager Dodge?

Here.

City Attorney Gorin? I'm here. We have a quorum.

Thank you very, very much. And Mr. Dodge, if you would offer a presentation, and then we'll go from there.

Mr. Mayor, may I read into the record the opening? Yes, sir. With your concurrence and that of the commission. This is the budget public hearing number one. For the record, it is the first public hearing on adopting a proposed millage rate and tentative budget for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027. for the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida. For the record, the purpose is as follows. To recompute and to publicly announce proposed operating millage rate of 5.6690, which is 4.54% above the rollback millage rate of 5.4226, and the debt service millage rate of 0.2507, as well as amend and adopt tentative budget for the general fund, utility fund, and all other funds of the city of Pembroke Pines, and to invite the public to speak regarding the proposed millage and budget as required by both the city charter, the city code, and chapter 200 of the state statutes referencing millage adoption. Thank you, Mayor and Commission.

Thank you very much. And I also want to acknowledge Lisa Chong, who is our Assistant City Manager and Finance Director, who's on the dais with us today, as always, when we have a budget item on the agenda. Mr. Dodge.

Thank you, Mayor. The proposed budget for fiscal year 26-27, I'm going to go through the highlights of that budget. We're going to present to you all funds, an overview of them, the general fund highlights, the road and bridge fund highlights, and the utility fund. The overview of the 26-27 budget for all funds combined is $596,700,000. All funds are balanced as required by Florida statutes. And the proposed budget has been published online since August the 1st. The general fund, which is the operating budget of the city, is $297,207 million, $270,603. There are several other funds, such as a wetland trust fund, a road and bridge fund, which is approximately $7.9 million, a building fund, which is about $7.9 million. We have a grant fund of $21,356 for law enforcement. The opioid litigation settlement, the amount of monies that we have retained in that fund is $172,477. The community bus program for the shuttle buses, the total is $2,213,430. The Older Americans Act grant, which is for the Carl Schechter Southwest Focal Point Cedar Center that we provide services for our seniors. Our debt service fund is $24,941,929. Our utility fund is $87,832. and, excuse me, $87,832,709. The sanitation fund is $8,168,323. The public insurance fund is $41,031,919. The general pension trust fund is $14,279,759. The Fire and Police Pension Trust Fund is $77,399,441. And other post-employment benefits, $26,203,700. Mr. Dodge, before you continue, if you go back to the previous slide.

Yes, sir. So I don't want people to be confused because of subjects that are in discussion today. The $596 million that you have listed on the total for the budget, how much of that, roughly, is property tax intake by the city?

Well, the only property tax we receive goes to the general fund. And that is, I believe, $112 million, roughly.

OK. So of the $596 million, only $112 of it is property tax.

Correct.

And the rest of it comes in through a variety of other revenues or fees or so forth.

Yes.

Thank you. Go right ahead.

The taxable value as of July 1, 26, increased by 4.97%. So the total taxable value of all property in the city is $20,992,000,000. The proposed operating millage of 5.6690 will generate approximately 112,700,000 in tax revenues. The debt service millage is 0.2507, which is 0.0355 lower than the current rate, and will generate approximately 5 million for debt service payments. The aggregate proposed millage rate of 5.91 is 0.0351 lower than the combined millage rate for the current fiscal year. This rate requires three affirmative votes at the first hearing to approve a tentative millage and four affirmative votes at the second hearing to adopt. And the value of each mil that we collect is $19,875,863. If you look at a 10-year millage rate history, you'll see this is the 11th consecutive year of the aggregate millage reduction for those years. So in 2017-18, the millage rate was 5.6736, and the debt service was 0.5222. And the proposed budget is 5.6690, which is the same as the last few years. And the debt service millage is now at 0.2507, which is half what it was in 2017, 2018. The general fund aggregate millage rates and taxable value comparison to the top 10 Broward cities. And as you can see how this has been logged in, the adopted 2016-17 millage rate was 6.2381. The change in taxable value in billions is 9.99. The proposed for 2627 is 5.9197. So as you can see, we're one of the lowest in Broward County. The general fund residential taxable value as of 7-126, as I mentioned. Of the properties, 56,826 residential properties, 40,448, or 71.2%, have homestead exemptions. So over 70% of our homes in Pembroke Pines are owner with homesteads. We have 2,596 single family properties that pay absolutely no dollars to the city because their taxable value is, in fact, so low. And if you look at the graphic, you can see that the bulk of the properties are between $100,000 and $200,000. $200,000 and $300,000 is the majority of the taxable values for all of our properties. The general fund residential fire assessment rates from 2017-18 was $271.48. And then proposed is $437.63. And as you can see, it has climbed every year, some smaller than others. The results for that may be in the capital line items for equipment that needs to be replaced. So the fire assessment rate will increase by 29.49 for the year for residential property. OK, where does the money come from? Ad valorem taxes make up 38% of the money that the city receives in revenue. Charges for services makes up 16%. That's the next highest. And then we have special assessments that makes up 12%. And then all of the other percentages are much smaller amounts, which are utility taxes, franchise fees, rents of city property that we have. That is all revenue that goes into the general fund. The general fund, where the money goes in expenses, police is 38%. Fire rescue is 26%. So 62%. All of our resources and revenue that we receive goes to public safety. Public services that maintains all the properties of the city represents about 10% of the budget. Technology is about 5%. Recreation and cultural events, maintaining parks and programs that the city offers is about 9%. General government, finance, and others are a very small portion of that total budget. The personnel budget is $177.5 million. This includes negotiated increases in the next year for fire and general employees that had been approved. Net change in positions include, within the police department, we are adding one police support specialist. Fire, we're adding three lieutenants. Fire, one assistant division chief. And in engineering, we are adding one senior city engineer. The general fund capital budget is a very small portion of the 297 million. Only 10 million of that includes capital items. And they are in the area of police department for vehicles, portable radios. In the general government, it's for renovations, windows and doors to prep a building that we need for storage of surplus and auction items. The capital budget for fire is a new fire engine, tactical support unit, one ambulance, and a pavilion construction at the fire training facility. And at the Howard Foreman Park, for the widening of those roads, that's a very old structure, and that infrastructure needs to be replaced. The road and bridge fund stands at $7.9 million. The budget includes improvements needed for ADA compliance and a share of the cost for the South Broward Drainage District for pump station construction. This was an item that was approved by the commission a couple of years ago. Appropriations include managing public rights away, landscaping maintenance, pressure washing of sidewalks and medians along the city's major roads, litter control for rights-of-way areas, swales, drainage rehabilitation, and street lighting. The utility fund represents $87.8 million, which includes $14 million for capital. The balance of that are for personnel services and operating funds, but the utility capital budget represents $14 million. There's a $7.8 million expenditure for wastewater treatment plant rehabilitation. $2.4 million for water plant equipment improvements and Biscayne aquifer well replacement, $1.8 million for upgrades to our meter reading for the water, $1.1 million at the Howard C. Forman campus water and sewer utilities improvements, and $1 million for forced main pipe replacement. One item that we discussed at our workshop meeting on Monday was the amount of money the city has saved over a period of time. We made one correction in that item. We had said $72 million, but it's actually $69 million. And what we're saying is by contracting out employment rather to agencies and companies rather than hiring the traditional employees to do these jobs. We have saved a total of $69 million. That's in maintaining the rights-of-ways, operation maintenance and management of our city parks, operation maintenance of management of municipal facilities and grounds, And then we have a company that actually provides employees for us where they actually go out and advertise, they interview, and then we interview for the acceptability of those. So over that period of time, and each one is a little bit different, but we have saved, at this point, $69 million that otherwise we would have had to include in our ad valorem taxes. The fire protection assessment hearing is on Monday, September 14th at 515 at this location. And the final budget hearing is Wednesday, September 16th at 6 PM at this location. So we are open to the public for any questions or comments that you may have.

OK. I have one speaker signed up, and that's Shawna Hixley. There's my friend. There's a button there that says speak. You're on.

OK. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, Mr. Dodge, Mr. Corrin, and city manager, and others. I appreciate you all recognizing me this evening. And I'm here to speak on behalf of Juneteenth Celebration. I'm sorry.

Your name and address, for the record.

I'm sorry. Shawna Hicks Lee. My address is 9701 Southwest 11th Street, Pembroke Pines, Florida. Been a resident for over 33 years. And I'm here to speak on behalf of Juneteenth Celebration. I am a member of the Board of Diversity and Heritage, as it presently is. And I'm just concerned about the budget that I've been looking at. Just to give everyone a little background with Juneteenth. Juneteenth is celebrated on June 19. It was started because the slaves in Galveston were not notified until 2 and 1 half years later that they were freed by President Lincoln. That has been something that has been very important to most of us. Most of us didn't even know about it. I didn't even know about Juneteenth until I was an adult, probably a few years ago. But it is very important. It is a national holiday, and we have celebrated Juneteenth in the city of Pembroke Pines since 2021. My concern and what I brought up to the board, and just to let you know, this board has been in existence since 2019. Well, since I've been there, it's maybe two of us still left on the board. The commission board has helped us to bring a lot to the city with our recommendations. to show that we have diversity in this city and that it's being recognized, so we really appreciate that. One of my concerns was Juneteenth and how we were celebrating it in the city of Pembroke Pines. When I looked at it, it was that we were celebrating it by reading a book, so I brought it to the attention of our liaison, Mrs. Golding, and she advised me to give her some type of outline to say maybe what we could do later on. So I did provide that to her. And she, just to give you all a little history, she did say that she would take it back to her staff and we would go from there. From there on, I didn't really hear back from her. But once I did, I asked her if I could be a part of the planning. Because after all, this is part of my community also. Commissioner Good has been very instrumental in helping to see that it move forward. The first year, which was in 2025, we did have a wonderful celebration. Whatever I recommended, they said, if you can find the people to participate, we would be willing to do it. So we had a guest speaker. We had a panel discussion. We had dancers. We had a band, food. Over 300 people turned out. For the first year, I thought that was an excellent celebration. And then that whole year, I was met with people saying, We are so happy that the city of Pembroke Pines is recognizing this holiday by celebrating in this manner. So the second year, it was time to have it. I wasn't really informed about what was happening until it was pretty much planned. But they did ask if I had any suggestions. I gave a couple of suggestions. One was the guest speaker, and also I mentioned that maybe we should look into a different caterer. But I never knew what the budget was. And you know what? I really didn't push it that first year because things turned out well. Well, what I later found out was they told me they would let me know once everything else was done. which was in a way to me somewhat of an insult, because it was like we were getting the scraps. But anyway, I went along with it. It did turn out wonderful. We ended up with 400 people. And I asked, how will we know? And will we have a line item? And how will we know how it's going to increase? And what I was told was that we will go by the turnout and how well it does. Well, it did do well, even though it wasn't a lot of marketing, but it went very well. So I never saw what the budget was from last year either. We had a traveling museum. We did have a band, guest speaker. We didn't have the panel discussion. We did have food, and we brought in a caterer. But my concern was that they told me to go ahead and I could find a caterer. But then once I found the caterer, I was told that the caterer was too much. So I said, well, what do we normally spend? And it was kind of. implied that it was like $2,000 for 300 people. Well, I don't even think we can go to Burger King nowadays for that price. So I just said, let's work with the caterer, which we did. And the caterer was willing to work with us. So this year, in looking at the budget, I see that it's $15,000. And if it went up to 400 people last year, I'm sure it's going to be more this year. And in looking at that, I also looked at what some of the other events had budgeted. So for instance, for 2024 and 2025, we didn't have a budget. For 2025-26, we didn't have a budget. Next year, we did finally get a line item. It's $15,000. And looking at the Hispanic Heritage Festival, in 2024 and 2025, it was $26,664. In 2025-26, it was $61,000. $177,000. And next year, it did drop to $52,000. The Caribbean Heritage Festival in 24-25 was $27,306,000. 25-26, it was $45,000. Next year, it's nothing. And I know that's because of DEI or whatever. MLK was $5,512 in 2024 and 25. 2026, there was a parade. We had a speaker. I believe he was free. And there was also a ban. It was $36,720. I can't really figure that out. But next year, it does drop down to $31,600. So my point is that We have increased the people who have come. We do have food. We have a band. We have activities. I would like to be on a committee to make sure that this continues as long as we can do it. And we don't know when. But I'd like to continue to be on that committee. I'd like to have the budget increase, especially since the Caribbean heritage is dropped to nothing. that there is some money available there, in my opinion. So I'm here to ask you all to consider giving Juneteenth more of a budget than $15,000. If we have 500 people, that's $3 a person, basically. And I'm just hoping that every year it does increase. I'm in a number of organizations. And to be honest with you, one of the organizations told me they wanted me to be in there because I was fighting for something that represents part of this community. And I know this is what the city of Pembroke Pines does. That's why I still live here, because I feel comfortable with how we have grown and the diversity in this city. And I want to continue that. And I'd like to continue to participate in this because this is my passion. Thank you for everything.

I can't thank you enough for your testimony, Mr. Dodge. I know that Assistant City Manager Goulding is out of town, but when she comes back, if you could. Talk to her about the Juneteenth and the events, budgets, and where do we go from there. And I think that there should be a presentation before your board in terms of what you can expect under the new rules. And we will go from there.

I appreciate that.

I can't thank you enough for all your service and for everything that you and your fantastic advisory board do for us. Thank you. It's always my pleasure.

Thank you all. Have a happy holiday.

OK. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Yes, Mr. Barnett. Any address for the record?

Yeah, Scott Barnett, 19346 Southwest 5th Street. I just wanted to talk briefly in my personal capacity, but I am on the budget board. First of all, as always, I always want to thank not only the commission's support and the mayor's support, but also we have a remarkable situation in the city where The city manager and his staff attend every meeting and we're able to ask pointed questions about our budget every every meeting we meet with different departments and I'll be honest with you when I first joined this board of more than four years ago when it was just a commission-led board and You know, I went into it with healthy cynicism, waiting to find the fat, waiting to see where I could find holes in the budget, waiting to see where we could find some waste. To be quite honest with you, I mean, over the last four years and even going through this past year, it's very hard to find. And I know there's a lot of people who want to skim the fat. They want to find the waste. I just want to say, every meeting, I ask my fellow board members who represent every different district here in Pembroke Pines, if somebody wants to bring up a line item that they feel should not be in this budget, bring it to us. And there's really nothing that anybody's brought up. We are scheduling our next meeting. I requested that we move it up to September 9 so that we're going to be adding some new members and wanted GIVE A CHANCE FOR EVERYBODY ON THE BUDGET BOARD TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS BUDGET SO THAT WE CAN COME TO THE SECOND HEARING AND IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, I WANTED TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. BUT THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY HARD TO FIND ANYTHING. I MEAN, THIS IS A STAKE WITH NOT A LOT OF FAT ON IT. And the fact that the aggregate millage goes down every year shows that there's a steady hand. So at this point right now, we're pretty happy with what the staff has been doing. And we appreciate the commission still attending to our thoughts on what could happen with the budget. So thank you.

Well, I want to thank you for your comments and for everything that the Citizens Budget Commission does. It's more important to us now that we have citizens looking at every nickel that comes into the city and going out of the city, more important that we have that in place now than ever before. And you're a very talented group of people in terms of your financial capabilities. And we want you to continue being watchful for any opportunity that we can to do a better job in the city, not just internally, but also for the taxpayer. So thank you very much. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes, ma'am. Your name and address for the record, please. There's a button there that you have to press. You're on.

That one. Hello, everybody. My name is Lori Henriquez. My address is 600 Northwest 86th Avenue, Pembroke Pines, Florida. I am also on the board for the diversity. So I had a question for you. City manager that I just need clarification regarding if we are a city of approximately 180,000 people or less the PowerPoint indicated that the assessed value are of 56,000 residents. Yes, was that correct?

That was households.

Households. Okay. And is there any indication about the revenue that is being generated or the value that is being generated for commercial property?

Yes.

Was that shown? Because I think I might have missed it.

It wasn't in the presentation, but we certainly can break that down. The percentage of revenue that comes from Avilorum for residential, for commercial, as well as for industrial. But the total of all of those properties, as far as the taxable value of the city, is $112 million.

but that including the commercial includes a commercial and industrial yes it does okay so that's the clarification and he mentioned about being in the board for the budget I'll be willing to submit my resume and I would like to be involved in that level as well I do have a bachelor's degree in finance the one thing is that I don't know if anybody is aware that the economy we're in a bubble

We're in what?

In a bubble. I feel that we are in a bubble. Like I said, I have a bachelor's degree in finance, and I have not been able to find work in finance, commercial finance, for over a year. I came across Commissioner Good. Today I went to a job interview, and I was hired on the spot, which is a good thing. I monitor We Love Pembroke Pines closely, and I'm seeing a lot of residents asking for work. I don't know if AI is taking away the jobs or making it impossible for people like me to find work because AI is screening the year that you graduated from college, and there is age system. I can show you my resume. So when you show up budgeted, And we're talking about the tax exemption. You're taking money away from me, from my table, from my two kids.

We can't get into that subject here. I understand. So I'm going to leave it like that. Please understand that there are restrictions about what the states placed restrictions about what can be discussed in this chamber. I understand. It's my first time, so I do apologize. No, no. It's hardly your fault. It's hardly your fault. It's least of all your fault.

Right.

Americans should be able to say whatever the heck they want.

Correct.

However, that's not the law in Florida. It's at least not in city halls. So we have to stick to the budget. And you are doing so well, so please continue.

Okay. Can I start again? So I just wanted to put it out there, Commissioner Castillo, I mean Mayor Castillo, that I cannot find work. in my industry, in this city. And almost every job that I have ever had has been outside of the city. So just keep that in mind whenever you guys are thinking, because I'm pretty sure most of you also work outside of the city.

That's all I have to say. Thank you so very much for your testimony. And I'm glad, you say you did get hired today. Congratulations, I'm very happy for you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the budget? Does anyone else wish to be heard on the budget? Commissioners, any comments?

Mr. Mayor, I have comments, but I'm going to wait until we get to the item.

Anyone else? Okay, without further ado, this hearing is adjourned, and we will take a short recess and begin our city commission meeting.

Mr. Mayor, if you will, we have the ordinances to read also. Do you want it now? First reading, yes.

Okay, well. Then let's get back in business.

Go right ahead. Thank you, Mayor and Commission. Following the BPH, which is the budget public hearing number one for public input, there are two ordinances before you, one of which relates to the millage for the city's upcoming fiscal year. And the second is the budget, both of which are allowed for public hearing. And they are provided for by both state statute and chapter 200.065 of the Florida statutes and the city charter, the first of which is the millage. And with your permission, Mayor and Commission, I'll read it into the record. BPH number two is a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance number 2026-09 on first reading. Proposed ordinance number 2026-09 is an ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, establishing the operating millage rate of 5.6690 or $5.6690 per thousand dollars of taxable assessed property value, which is 4.54% above the rollback rate of 5.4226 for the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida, pursuant to the 2026-2027 city budget, in accordance with Chapter 200 of the Florida statutes, and establishing the debt service millage rate of 0.2507 for the debt service on the general obligation bonds approved by the electorate, providing for conflict, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. This is the public hearing on the first reading of the ordinance regarding the establishment of the millage in accordance with state law and the city charter.

Thank you, City Attorney. Can I have a motion, please? I move it. Moved by the Vice Mayor. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez. Any discussion? Any from the public? Mayor? Yes? We heard a yes. Did you have anything? Yes.

On the, is this, wait, sorry. Okay. I just wanted to kind of follow up on the special events in the recreation and cultural arts total. I did actually happen to have highlighted this when looking at what the impacts of the DEI restrictions that we will be having in the next year. Although I understand that Legally moving forward, we can't name these festivals or celebrate them in specific ways. My assumption is that that's why the... Caribbean Heritage Festival was brought down. I'm wondering if we can put in place a similar budget for the upcoming year for a Caribbean music festival or something of that sort. And I'm willing to move forward on this item this evening and come back on second reading to see a little bit more of a wiggle room in that for additional budgets that we may not be able to name currently, because I think it is really important to continue to celebrate music heritage or anything else for social events. And on that same line, to me, although the advertising budget in the past for these kinds of events was quite low at $5,000. I do want to put something in space for the advertising of all of our events, because while some of them do completely fill out and they've been staples in our community, like Pine State, we don't have to technically advertise because people already like come up and show up for that but for our newer events I do want to build out some kind of budget in that and it may have been my fault not to have seen that maybe it's in the communications budget but that's something I'd like to it's very small but that's something that I I think we should look forward and not simply put a zero although as always we do have a little wiggle room in our budget to maybe come up with something of similar to the Caribbean Heritage Festival amounts, but if we can kind of put in a light item of new events or something like that that we may be going on.

Commissioner, I can tell you that in, I'm looking at Mr. Dodge because he and I had a conversation about events and the activities of the of the Diversity and Heritage Board as part of our ongoing one-on-ones. And it was his impression, Charlie, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was your impression that somewhere in December, staff will be ready to discuss their review of possible recommendations on moving forward in line with what the state's new rules were. And then I thought that we had talked about that maybe what we would do when staff is ready, they're still reviewing it, is that we would probably workshop it and see if we can't come up with a schedule. It could very well be that some of the events are repackaged into legally acceptable format. It could be that some of them will require some sponsorships. It could be that some of them are pay events. It could be that some of them remain as free events. Certainly, the national holidays are available. However, while they can be acknowledged, they don't fall into core service. So we don't know what, and this is part of why I think it makes some sense Events have always been a very important part of the city of Pembroke Pines. In my conversation with the manager, he feels that sometime in December, staff will be ready. And we can probably call together a workshop to further explore and understand this. And I think it should be done together with the Heritage and Diversity Board, whose name will likely need to be changed as well. And so I think all of that is probably coming in December is what I meant to say.

And I feel comfortable with that. I just want to make sure that we are dedicating a budget at some point for the possibility that these events may need to be changed in name or in time frame and things like that, as well as adding at least a small amount of money for digital advertising of these events as well. And if that was part of the communications plan, I apologize if I didn't catch that on that end.

Thank you. Well, take it.

Commissioner Good. Yeah, I'd just like to, I mean, I have other comments about the budget itself. But like I said, I reserve that for the next item. However, on this side, it was a concern for me as well, too, the special events. For me, I think we all agree, these type of events, it's like the best connection that we could make with our residents. And I don't know why we even contemplate any removal of any event under any circumstances. The special events was reduced by about $100,000 from last year to this year. And in my opinion, I think that we should actually be doubling that special event from 500,000 to a million. And then create new programming. We have the same programming year after year after year. And I've heard constantly that there is an interest to have you know, additional type of programming for other groups of people, you know, to participate within the city. I know that we're going to have this workshop. I'm hearing that workshop, but this is the budget. And we don't establish the budget. There's no guarantee that the money will be assigned in a workshop in December. So I think that we should be making some capacity for an increase in the special events because there is a line item that's called special events. It doesn't have any particular, and it could be loaded up, and that money would be in reservation of either enhancement to existing programming or a creation of new programming. And so I'm in full support of that. That's one of the big concerns that I had in this. This is This is a half a million dollars and a $600 million total budget. I think it's really something that has a great impact with regards to how we connect with our residents, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with kind of increasing it, making it a double, going from 500 to a million.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. So there's no confusion. The adjustment to the fiscal year 26-27 budget, I believe, Commissioner, is what you're addressing. The December workshop meeting is the beginning of structuring what we're going to do for the fiscal year 27-28 and how it affects everything. But if this is a motion of yours, we would then have to go back. and look at the budget and figure out how we could increase that and decide what we might be able to reduce in order to make that happen.

Could that be done between first and second reading?

Yes, it can be. OK. If that's the desire of the commission.

Just one stipulation. The 500 cannot come from police or fire. If it does, that loses my vote.

Does anyone object to consensus moving forward with that? Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on the item?

Yes, ma'am. Yes. I'll be brief. First, I want to thank Finance Director Chung for once again presenting to the public a very easy to understand process. I want to acknowledge that this year the budget is online with links. I've had an online agenda book now for 13 plus years. But when it comes to the budget, I actually need to have a working document. So I want to thank you for going above and beyond to produce a 450-page PDF that now residents can actually share and go through as well. So it's one of those things where you ask for technology to be helpful. And in some cases, it just doesn't work as well as it could be. A couple of things. One, I submitted a very detailed load of questions to the administration. City Manager informed me that it was going to be challenging to be able to get all those answered by first reading, and I respect that. So I narrowed down my focus, and I just want to focus on just the more material, the most material issues within the budget. One of the things, we have a $3.885 million reserve draw. We're using approximately 3.885 million of general fund reserves to balance this year's budget. How much of the 3.885 million is paying for reoccurring expenditure?

Mr. Mayor, I believe Finance Director Chung responded to this question. However, every year, maybe as far as I know, we have, what you might say, plugged a number into the budget saying saying that we're using reserves. We've never had to do that. But if I don't have that number in there, then you would have to raise your millage rate to generate that $3.8 million, which we might not need. And what that is going to do is pass on an increase to the residents. Yes, of course. I never believed in that. That's why we used it. We are very diligent during the year. We don't always spend all the money. There are reasons for it. And if there's any leftover money, that goes back into reserves. And those reserves, we've always dedicated for one-time expenditures of capital items. You do not use your reserves for expendable items operating budget, because once you do, they're gone forever. And if you've committed to that, Then what do you do the second year? Do you take another $3.8 million out of your reserves until you have nothing left? And then that becomes a problem.

So in summary, is it one-time or recurring, Mr.

Dodge? These are, well, in this budget, I don't anticipate using it, but reserves would be for one-time expenditure, not operating.

Okay, so your plan is one-time. If you had to use it this year, it would be one-time. If we had to use it, they would be designated for one-time expenditures. Perfect, okay. We have $3.7 million of increases in the general fund, and that makes mostly up of... personnel expense. Is that going to be the new bar in next year's budget, or is this a one-time increase?

Well, it's one time for this year. We can't project what it will be for future years because union contracts come up on a regular basis, and I can't tell you what that might be. Once we receive those documents, we share them with the commission, then it's decided how much money we feel we can afford to do that. And that's what we discuss with our bargaining units.

OK. In the finance department, there's $425,000 for other services. How much of that is new, reoccurring spending? Lisa, would you address that?

You answer these questions.

Good evening. Lisa Chong, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director. So the $425,000 that we have in other services is for facility contract services, so those are recurring.

OK. Good news. We found $252,000 of a decrease since the August 1 budget was published. Supervisor of Elections has reduced costs from $300,000 to $90,000. As a result of that, Mr. Dodge, are you comfortable lowering this year's budget tonight by $252,000?

I would have to look at it, Commissioner, because this has not been discussed with me prior. The best thing to do, instead of lowering it, lower the amount of money that we put in reserves.

Right.

That was my follow-up.

Correct.

But that wouldn't change anything as far as what we're proposing. It would not change the ad valorem, nor would it change the ability to reduce millage because of that, because we're already 3.8 million in the hole. So whatever we find, we'll continue to deduct from what we have budgeted from reserves.

All right, last question. It's always challenging every year. I did ask the administration, because I knew we were going to be going through a... Budget exercise for some something pending some something in a couple months So we sat at a workshop just the other day, and we went through an exercise that the manager identified a certain amount of funding My questions a couple weeks ago Was is there any is there any dollars? That can be reduced in this year's budget and or deferred without cutting frontline services? Is there anything between first and second reading that you could propose for?

whether it be deferred or reduced. If I understand your question, Commissioner, you're talking about the current budget? Yeah, this year's budget. The what?

Yeah, what's being proposed tonight.

Yeah, I can't tell you at this point. We're in September. Usually, you finalize your budget maybe a couple months after. We have commitments for open purchase orders. Those are carried over. So if I were to reduce something, if we had already committed for that, we wouldn't be able to reduce it, because we'd have to carry it over.

But you are open to?

We'll look. We certainly will look at it. We're open, certainly.

OK. Lastly, because the budget board was mentioned before, Mayor, and it's my last comment, I do anticipate a potential change as far as my appointments. So please put the application in through the clerk's office so I have the ability potentially at the next meeting to make a substitute change.

We have to follow what the ordinance says.

Yeah, yeah. I'm just saying. So I'm just asking the clerk to just post that I'm receiving applications. Also from an economic.

How many positions?

One right now. All my positions are filled at the moment within the district. But this would be potentially one. For the budget commission? On the budget side, yeah. Mr.

Clerk, do you have that? Yep.

And then also, I'm working on an economic development program in my individual capacity to look at ways that we can stimulate our immediate Pembroke Pines economy, identify the industries, that are being impacted by technology and where things are moving. So I'm sitting down with a core group of chamber members right now. And we're formulating how we can do an outreach. And I asked the manager for this year's budget to allow a budget for district town halls. And I would utilize those funds in order push out information to, at least within my district, but certainly citywide. People are hurting. We have always been a city of forward looking. And so I think the city of Pembroke Pines is in a very, very good position. We rebounded from COVID. We rebounded from the short sales back in 2008. And we have interest rates that just went up. The mortgage rates just got established at 7% today. So we know the housing market is going to be a little turbulent. in the near future. So I'm doing my part. This budget process is good. The manager is open to making adjustments when necessary. I know as a collegial body, we're going to invest the dollars that are going to have the greatest return on investment. back to the community. So that's what I'm looking forward to, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. We appreciate your efforts on economic development, and we know that you will discuss those fully with the city manager, the city attorney, and also with Mr. Stamm, before you bring your item here. And then from there, the commission will decide how to proceed with citywide town hall meetings and the like. So thank you very much. Any further discussion?

I just have a follow-up on that. I think what was alluded to was some of the lists that were provided during the Amendment 3 conversation that we had on Monday. And personally, looking at the list, while that was an exercise conducted by the administration to show us possible effects, possible items that could be cut in the future, I look at this list and I don't feel comfortable, at least for this year, if we do not have to absolutely cut down on these. Because to me, a lot of this is also essential services. So I just want to put that on the record.

I appreciate that. And this commission? Mr. Dodge, Mr. Gorin retains the ability to amend the budget at any time. Is that correct? Correct.

Legally correct.

Okay. So anything further from the commission? Hearing none. Any from the public? Seeing none. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

And now. Thank you, Mayor, for the record. The law requires that we tell the public this evening, after the approval on first reading, that the second and final budget hearing is scheduled for 6 o'clock PM on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, in these very chambers. And the notification will include the reference to the millage as proposed in the first adopted millage ordinance. Next up, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. BPH number three regarding the budget. May I read? Please. Thank you, Mayor and Commission. BPH number three is as follows. It's a motion to adopt proposed ordinance number 2026-10 on first reading. For the record, proposed ordinance number 2026-10 is an ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, adopting the budget for fiscal year 2026-2027 and adopting the five-year capital improvement program for the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, in accordance with section 5.08 of the City Charter of the City of Pembroke Pines and providing for conflicts, providing for survivability, providing for an effective date. BPH number three, references 20, 26, 10 is on the floor for consideration and for a public hearing for first reading. Mayor and Commission, the ball is yours. Thank you.

Is there a motion? Moved by the Vice Mayor. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Commissioner Good. So thank you for even making a vote in favor of this budget. So I'm going to start off real quick. Real quick, the presentation that was given tonight, Mr. Manager, can that be pulled up again for just a moment?

Yes.

And if we can go to the capital pages.

One capital page that we had, one was for general fund, and one was for utilities, and I think another one for road and bridge.

One more page here. Here it is.

The capital budget, 10.4. And go to the next page. For the following major capital items. OK. This is what's in the current budget.

OK, good. And go to page 14. On the slides there. Next slide, please. Yes. So I just want to just get clarified on, it's a simple thing. I didn't pick this up until just, again, looking at the PowerPoint. But the fire rescue, it shows $1.2 million for a fire engine.

Yes.

Is that correct?

Yes.

All right. On page 336 of the budget. Hold on. And it would be object number 664450, which is within the fire budget.

Hold on.

Page 336. Yeah, I know. I'm trying to get there. And it's a 664450 fire engine on the right-hand page. Sorry.

What number again was it, Commissioner? Six what?

6-6-4-4-5-0, titled Fire Engine.

Yes.

And the number here is $2.27 million, and the PowerPoint is $1.2 million. Just clarity, is it really supposed to be $1.2 million and it's incorrect in the budget?

I believe at one time we had two. I don't know if it's corrected. We're doing one.

But it's in the budget right now that we're approving as 2.2. So is that a million dollars that we all of a sudden found to be able to put in our events?

We can reduce our reserves.

That will help reserves. That's correct. Well, not necessarily.

Well, I don't need the explanation other than the fact of what's right.

If you're asking a question, let the chief answer it.

I didn't ask the question. I just, OK.

Good evening. Marcel Rodriguez, fire chief. Commissioner, the line item that you're looking at is a combination of both the fire engine and the tactical support unit. The tactical support unit is not a truck that we replace on a regular basis. It is not used quite as often as the engine. And there is no capital line for the tactical support unit. So instead, it's combined with the fire engine.

So that would be 2.3 million.

With that, I apologize, Mayor. City Manager, there's a $2.5 million contingency in the budget. Thank you. In the budget, right?

Yes.

But that's why I was thinking we could pull for some of the recreation events, right? But I would like to have between now and second reading, I guess, a historical perspective of that contingency fund, how much we've budgeted, how much we've worked, and how much has been a part of the carryover. I know that contingency is... storm hits, we have to clean up the streets. Generally, that's where the money's been sitting at until we get reimbursed. But I just kind of want to know where we've been with the contingency because we need to have some options to be able to move some money around to support programming that we rightfully need to have in the city.

Commissioner, we can give you a detail from prior years how the contingency is used. and there for items that were unexpected that we had to move.

Yeah, don't go crazy with it. Maybe the last five years. Don't go back to 1982 or something like that. I won't do that. OK. I just want something realistic that we can say that we do have the ability to move monies around. I know that sometimes when there's nonprofits Or political action committees that are looking for sponsorship. Money's come out of that as well, I would imagine.

I'm not aware of any political action committees that have ever been funded by the city of Pomerantz.

Political committees, maybe.

OK, can I have my floor back, please? Can I have my floor back, please? Yes, go right ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, so on page 340 of the budget, And it's a line item 546155. It's R&M land and building school major projects. So there's several billion dollars of school building projects that are being done under the general fund here. And I was of the understanding that maybe a school things are going to be done under school budgets, not under necessarily general fund. I'd like to get an explanation of why we're spending money for schools under general fund.

Mr. Dodge? Certainly. This question has come up in the past. These are city-owned buildings. The schools actually pay the debt on it, but the buildings themselves belong to the schools. If, for example, there are repairs needed for the facilities, such as re-roofing or doors, we've always paid for it out of the city fund, because they are, in fact, property of the city. If we were to use school funds, and at some time in the future, if we didn't continue with charter schools, then there may be a claim on those funds back. So that's why we've always used the general fund. And that we've done historically for the last 25 years.

OK, we'll have more conversation on that. So you're saying basically it's an authorized expense under general fund?

Yes, it is.

Using tax dollars for schools. OK. The second thing, the next thing is, you know, I'm looking at the vehicle replacements. Again, it looks like it's about a $4 or $5 million cost. Probably just like to have a general conversation on what is that replacement cycle for some of these vehicles because...

I don't know what line I'm looking for.

It's throughout.

If it's correct. Yeah, yeah.

They're just throughout. They're like replacement of vehicles and it totals about $500 million or $5 million in It's through a lot. I'd just like to understand what the replacement schedule is. Are we replacing them after four years? Are we replacing them after six years? Are we replacing them after 10 years?

Commissioner, it depends on the vehicle. It has to deal with the condition of the vehicle. Most of our vehicles last a lot longer than that. We have equipment in some areas that the equipment is 10, 15 years old. There are others where the lifespan of it, for example, in police cars is less because of the number of miles they are on the road. but they are replacements. Occasionally, there may be a new vehicle that's needed for some purpose, but this also includes trailers, dump trucks, or whatever it might be for that particular department.

Okay. So I will just take a look and see how it compares to the industry norm, just to make sure that, because I know newer vehicles are obviously better, but Nowadays, the way we give maintenance to vehicles, the way they make them, they last a lot longer. And sometimes maybe some of these charges can be pushed further out and last a little bit longer. So we'll have that conversation again. Another item here is it's not in the budget. We had talked about having a professional solid waste manager. I see that it was not included in the additional staffing. I think we're at a position right now where we really need to have a professional solid waste person who understands this industry throughout, who has spent a career in solid waste. I mean, very simple things. I was taking a look at our code of ordinances and our solid waste codes. It is so out of date, I don't understand why it's not being brought up to current code. We are still making reference to flow control. Flow control means you have to bring your solid waste to where we tell you. And the reference in the code is to a disposal agreement with Reuter that no longer exists. And then when you look at other aspects of the code, they're just very simply outdated And what was even more surprising is one of the issues that we're trying to deal with right now is recycling. And our code does not even speak to recycling. So that's something that a professional would be able to grab a hold of and at least bring our code to current compliance with the way we operate, actually. We need somebody to actually really pay attention and monitor what's going on, because we've got the Solid Waste Authority now. Everything's starting to go in gear. Last meeting, we talked about they're going to do some composting of some vegetative material. And Mr. Mayor, that was a wonderful letter you sent out there. Really, I really appreciated that, because you made it very clear. We don't want it to stink, and we don't want the traffic. And it's a real, and that's a real statement. People think that green waste doesn't smell. The reason why Fort Lauderdale disbanded their green composting is because it smelled. But the mayor did a great job of pushing it out. But we need somebody to be paying attention to those kind of things that are happening. Because again, I got to reiterate, and because it really angers me, that we missed the opportunity to go to Broward County and protest their composting. zoning change or their zoning amendment that allowed the landfill that's in West Pines to go from 100 feet to 300 feet. If they want to do a 300-foot landfill, there's no stopping it now. And we had a chance to speak to it, and we missed the opportunity. I think having a professional that knows those kind of things, pays attention, brings it to awareness to you, Mr. City Manager, and to others who may be participating in the solid waste arena. But I'm telling you, again, to my colleagues, this is something I think we really should be giving direction to the city manager to include a solid waste manager, a professional in the industry, a position with the city of Pembroke Pines.

Well, before I'm going to chime in, I'm going to say, Mr. Manager, I agree that you should take a look at it, and it should be funded out of the trash fees. And if we need a position there because the environment has changed, that's the way it should go. I know that you have an assistant city manager who is operating as the environmental overseer. And I know that these individuals will probably answer there. But if there's a feeling here that we need to have you know one more person in order to Get these things done.

I think I think that's that should absolutely be evaluated Just one question you said director or manager, and I know that there's a difference a solid which man I mean right now like We do have a sustainable and one of the assistant city managers. He's doing a great job I'm not there's nothing I am really impressed with the growth that has occurred since taking that. But I've been in this business 25, 30 years. And I'm telling you now, I still don't know everything. You know, it's more you know, the less you know type of thing. And that's what this industry is. It shifts all the time. I think that would be a great asset to that assistant city manager that oversees that part of the operation.

Do you need a motion for this? No, I think the manager is taking note of what we're saying. I don't hear anyone objecting to it. So I think that it's pretty clear that that's something we'd like him to look at.

Mayor, I just need to ask the city attorney just for a legal question. It's my understanding that the voters of Broward County gave the county authority to do whatever they want on property that they own through the referendum back, what was it, two cycles ago or something like that? City attorney?

My recollection is that there were referendums in recent years on the ballot referencing protecting certain lands. That was a specific issue on the ballot regarding the county's inability to modify the use or land use of certain regionally significant properties, not specifically environmentally sensitive, but restricted properties. But the county has always under the county charter maintain its integrity and legal control over its own land. So that is the case, and that's been revalidated.

And this site that we don't want stinking traffic, they control that. They own that property, correct?

The BIC? That property? That's what it's called? That is correct. That is unincorporated Broward County, which they do own.

So outside of Florida DEP telling them that they can't go up, they have full control over that asset, correct?

I wouldn't, if I may, Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't use that particular phrase because there may be limitations and restrictions that are not yet in being. And I would not choose to compromise this city's right to be an objector to an issue which may occur in the future.

That's why you're asked to the attorney. I hope so. So we're not going to give up our advantage.

I don't want to stray too far from Commissioner Good's question.

So I am in agreement that we need to have an industry professional who is a day-to-day knowing of what's happening. It's no shot at anyone who's currently overseeing the process. But Commissioner Good's involvement for 25 years, he was a day-to-day guy for a very long time. And so we need somebody on the bench who can look out for our best interests to advise us when necessary. I think there's an opportunity through the professional services procurement where the manager can bring somebody in on an as-needed basis to watch these things because it could ramp up kind of quick. And so I would want to have someone brought on to look out for the interest of all of us. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Good, reclaiming your time.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the next thing that I don't quite understand, and I think I need an explanation, or maybe something is not right. But looking at employee salaries throughout this document, Every employee from, that's a city of, I appreciated the detail. I gotta say, it's spot on. It really gives a good picture about what's going on with the budget. I did notice, though, that every position is getting an increase anywhere from 10 to 20%. And what's happening is that as you are going higher up in, In management, it gets closer to the 20%. And I do recognize that there is a general employee. And let me preface this. This does not include public safety, because public safety, we manage that through a contract. And they seem to be consistent with the contracts that we agreed to. And we did agree to a general employee contract for compensation. But that contract only allows a maximum of 5%. And then there are many other employees, particularly as you go into management and above, are not in the general employee contract. So I don't even know what determines their increases. But I'm hoping that this is a mistake. Maybe there was just some double counting error or whatever. But when you have somebody that's making high six figures numbers.

Let's add. Mr. Dodge, what say you to this?

Mr. Mayor, I'll be happy to meet with Mr. Good and go over the specifics. And we'll look at them.

Yeah, it's substantial. And thank you. The other thing that I was having difficulty with is the city is using Florida Contract Staffing, which is FCS. And FCS, it's a workforce management company that does supply personnel to support our city operations. And there are no details in the budget that define what positions are being sourced out in the city. It could be the window clerk. It could be somebody in the parks and recreation. It could be somebody in finance. And the only way that these numbers are provided to us is under what they call other services FCS. And so he just comes up with just the general number of the cost. And when you look at the number, the amount it cost us for FCS employees versus our own city of Pembroke Pines employees, in some cases they are three times the amount of what we pay our own employees. So all that tells me is we just have a large number of FCS personnel working for the city of Pembroke Pines. And I don't know anything about what positions they're filling. I don't know anything about what they're being compensated at. I don't know if we're overpaying them, underpaying them, anything. So I think that we should be getting a more detailed assessment of what our contract employees are doing with the city when it's clear to me that more than 50% of the employees here at the city of Pembroke Pines are contract employees. So I'm going to need that kind of understanding, too.

Yes. Commissioner, we certainly can provide that to you, but that is... not accurate that we have employees making three times the amount of what you would consider to be, I guess, the traditional employees. If you remember the slide that I indicated, every time- Excuse me.

Excuse me. Mr. Manager, I'm just going to maybe better my statement to you. When you total up personnel service costs in a department for city employees, And then you match that to what the total amount for FCS costs are. The FCS costs double and triple what the personnel costs, total personnel costs for city employees. It just tells me that you might have one or two FCS employees for every one

City employee. That is accurate, Commissioner. That is accurate. Yeah.

So I'm just saying, I just like to see that. I'm not saying that they're making more than our people, but I don't even know what they're making any. I don't know what they're making. I don't know what position titles they are. I just know that they're working for the city, somewhere in the city, and I just don't, it's hard for me to assess that.

That's in the detail, and we can provide it to you.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Mr. Manager, a number of these questions didn't come up before then, so I'm kind of at a loss because I'm hearing this for the first time as well. What the commissioner is asking for is in order, obviously. But for next year, if we could, let's distribute these books in advance of when we distributed them this year so that commission has the opportunity to review the books earlier and these questions can be there so that we can hopefully resolve these questions and not have to bring them up on a day.

Sorry that just for clarification the online budget was provided on August 1st. The printed one I think we all requested a little bit later because it's easier to see but It had been available to the public.

Thank you, Commissioner. You clarified what I meant. I meant the printed budgets earlier so that because Commissioner Schwartz is right, a document like this is easier looked at in hard copy. So if you could just make sure that we get that out several weeks beforehand so that we don't have to go through this process now where questions are being raised very legitimately that many of us haven't heard before. Go right ahead, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And so other things that came to my attention as I was reviewing the details as well was, again, public safety has its own IT and media personnel. So police has their own IT. Fire has their own IT. They have their own media people. And then the city has IT and media people. And I don't understand why we can't consolidate all of them under one roof and maybe get a little bit of synergy out of that action. That's my opinion. I want to bring it to the attention to my colleagues, whether they find it to be of any value or not.

I can tell you that within uniformed services, they will be. they will be hard pressed to give up their PIOs. Both the fire chief and the police chief have PIOs that answer directly to them so that the information that they provide under their state authority meets their particular expectations. And it has always been that way in every city, in every jurisdiction that I've worked in. But I certainly believe that we could look at it. Okay. It differs from general communications. PIO is one thing.

Media is another.

Well, if I may add.

That's what. I got you. They have those responsibilities.

If I may add, there are certain cities that do have a communications department that includes all major organizations. However, they do have dedicated personnel per city. So the only thing I would add to that is maybe someone within the communications department that can have branding across the board. But I think our media personnel in each do pretty much as good of a job as they can with the branding of the police and fire being separate. But the structure could be different. There are plenty of cities that combine all of it, but they individually are under the same umbrella. But they are associated with each department.

Mayor, I appreciate Commissioner Good's focus. I mentioned earlier that there were some questions that I had asked the administration that they had not written back to me on. I also acknowledge, Commissioner Good, that there are technologies within, there's about five categories actually within PD now, that deserve a review of overlap if certain softwares are doing the same thing. Why would we be spending the money for duplication of tech? Some of it is like a half a million dollars worth of programming. This is something that I anticipate getting between now and second reading. So I'm with you on that one. I wanted to keep my items kind of brief tonight, knowing that the administration is probably going to get me something in about hopefully within a week. So we can follow it up and have that second reading, a little bit more clarification. While we're speaking about our first responders, who I absolutely support, I apologize if I took the floor from you, sir. Thank you.

So another thing that I'd just like for us to also have to take and reconsider the 410 work days versus a 5-8 work week. And I'd like to share with you some of my beliefs where I think that operations are efficient. are inefficient, both on a service level and as a financial impact. So I would like for us to, at some point, have that conversation where we talk about a 410 versus a 58 workweek.

Would you like to bring that back as a commission item with whatever background you wish to include? Or how would you like to proceed with that discussion?

I can do that. It could be a lengthy discussion, or it could be Quick, I don't know how my colleagues would feel.

I don't know that we can do it tonight.

No, not tonight. Because it's too complicated.

But I'm glad to hear the preview. OK.

Thank you for that.

And I thank you for bringing it up. Go right ahead.

And the other thing that I'm still having some difficulty with is understanding our attorney costs. I mean, there's a small section here for the attorney, and it speaks to what they have as a retainer. That's most of what the cost is. But I know that there's more cost than just what's under the attorney, that the attorneys get paid or outside attorneys. For instance, I can't figure out what is current hourly rate. I know that we approved an hourly rate at some point in time, which was about $2.25 an hour.

If I may respond quickly, it went from $2.25 to $2.50 about five years ago, correct?

And what is it in this budget then?

The proposed is at $2.95 an hour. At $2.95 an hour? Only for hourly billed work. That's correct. Not for the retainer.

I think that you should meet with the city attorney and go through your questions.

Because the other thing is I just can't. And maybe somebody can help me find where the cost for external legal fees are captured in the budget, because I couldn't really lock that down. And then the only other thing would be I'm still not clear about what our anticipated budget amount that has not been expended will be that we carry forward because again, we have a very large amount of encumbrances or designated dollars for projects and things of that nature. I do understand encumbrances when you talk about them being in a PO or some kind of purchase order or some kind of commitment for payment and you have to wait 30 days past your budget cycle before you can make all payments clear in order to make your financial documents correct as they need to be. But there are a number of other items that are not encumbered, that have not been committed funds for payment, but are still sitting there. I mean, we just did one just a couple weeks ago. It was $100 million. What are we anticipating for this next year? And I know that That question was answered by the chief financial officer and said, well, the budget amendment might be coming to us sometime in December, which is good. It's better than waiting. And I'm hoping that it's the budget amendment for this year, not as we've traditionally done a year from the budget approval. OK. But still, I would like to have an understanding of generally how much money we're anticipating that's going to be rolled over, that's going to be added to this budget, because it's not $600 million. If it was $100 million, it would be a $700 million budget. So I just need to understand that. Well, that's what we just did. We just approved a $100 million budget and added it to this year's budget.

I don't think we have $100 million in rollover. I think we should sit down with the manager and ask those questions directly, because I don't have that information in front of me.

That's my question.

Can you answer that, Mr. Dodge?

The current one we had, as you know, we didn't have the strategic plan in the budget. And that was quite a bit of money. So that was part of the rollover. Then there were the encumbrances, which were purchase orders that were encumbered. And before the end of the fiscal year, we did not be able to finish the project. So we carried it over. It goes in fund reserves. But then when we have to pay it, we take it from there. And yes, there are sometimes excess funds that are left over each fiscal year. They go into fund balance. And that's how we were able to accumulate all the funds that we're using for the strategic plan. We use those for capital. Because if you use them up for operating, then you never are able to secure sufficient funds to do projects that are needed for the community. There's no way you can generate the money other than to put it in a future fiscal year and raise the taxes. So we have always tried to avoid that and pay for capital out of whatever funds we had left in reserves.

And I would offer to you, Ms. Manager, but more to my colleagues as well, is to maybe we should be thinking about having a capital budget as well as an operating budget, because we don't have a capital budget. What we have is money set aside for capital projects But capital budgets typically would get approved at the same time in operating budget, which means that any monies that you have still sitting there, like you might have a five-year project, I got it. And the money needs to be there for it. But if you have a capital budget that gets submitted at the same time as your operating budget, what happens is you just automatically carry those dollars over without having to go through amended budget process that we're doing now. We can talk more about that later. But there's a more formal way of doing that. Because I don't like making approval of a budget months later that are in the numbers that we've been doing. But I understand why it's being done.

Commissioner Good, for clarification purposes, I would like to have a definition of an adopted budget, an operating budget, and a working budget. That's what I would like to have in an ordinance clearly defined by legal of what is what. We need clarification.

OK. Mr. Dodge, if you could provide that clarification. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I just want to say that with the comments that I'm making today, I'm not Asking for the reduction in the budget. That's why I went ahead and said I don't think Why I agreed to the the millage. I think it's very important. That's a very important decision that we made What I'm speaking about is just reallocations Right move money because I rather see projects like like we were talking about the events I'd like to see the events elevated because it's a direct contact to the community. That's what we need to be doing I'd like to see it go into some of our capital projects, whether they be in our facilities or in some of our transportation infrastructures. I'd like to see the monies go there because those are the things that the people constantly are talking to me about, about why is it that we're not getting some of those things. So these are the comments that I'm making. It's about reallocation. It's not about anything else other than that.

And we have that ability.

Okay. We have that ability. Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, that concludes my comments. Thank you very much. I think everybody did a great job. Again, like I said, I appreciate the detail, the work. It was good stuff.

Great set of questions.

And thank you for the time. Thank you, sir. Anyone else?

Sorry, I have a follow up that just from kind of following up to what Commissioner Good mentioned. You did mention employee salary bump. And I want to hear if Ms. Chung has anything regarding that. I think it was mentioned 10% to 20%. But that was not my interpretation, if you can clarify.

Yes, good evening. The increases that are reflected has been a result of the 26 budget being a little bit lower. So those, the collective bargaining agreement I don't think was approved until later on in the year. So it wasn't, those numbers were not reflected in the 26 budget. So it looks as if the 27, the change between 26 and 27 looks a lot bigger than it should.

So if we saw what, if later on we saw what the actual budget was from 25-26 versus what we have as the proposal, it would be more of like a tighter space between those two.

Yes. So Commissioner, may I point you to an example? So I wouldn't say it unless I could prove it.

No, I just had interpreted something different, so I wanted clarity.

Well, I just want to make sure that we have the opportunity to meet with the manager and go through the questions completely. Well, I just want to share.

I heard the answer, the response, and I think it's important for the commissioner to recognize where I'm speaking in particular to the budget. 330, and you go to item number 512451.

5-1-2. 5-4-2.

And 4-5-1. OK, I see. OK, and then you just look. You can look across here. This was 24, 25, 26, 27. Yeah, I see that. So Thomas, . Well, there's just several examples. So Commissioner Good. We can look through them together.

Commissioner Good, that page. When you calculate, what does it turn out to be? Commissioner Good, that presentation, working, adopted, actual. That's what we're looking at at the series. And this is why we need clarification, because when When we look at how the books are presented, we're not looking at our current working budget comparing next year's budget. We're still working off the adopted budget in the book presentation. Now, I know there's national guidelines on how it's presented. Now more than ever, residents, taxpayers need to know how the money is allocated. If we have a labor agreement that was ratified late September and there's a look back period, that's going to be reflected in the following years. working budget not the adopted one so um again i look forward i look forward to some clarification but really all the questions today i'm very happy with with uh with all of my colleagues and and how prepared we were tonight thank you very much anything further mr mayor just quickly to the extent that commissioner good has any questions or comments about our budget happy to meet with him at his convenience and review with him and any other commission i appreciate the opportunity very much thank you anything else on this any from the public

Seeing none, yes ma'am. Please. Your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

Hello again. Laurie Enriquez, 600 Northwest 86th Avenue, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024. I just wanted to point out regarding the subcontractors. I do know of an example that you were looking for. Sometime last year, the police department had an open position for an accounts payable, and the pay was $18. So I'm pretty sure that there would have been like a markup for management. So now that we're discussing the budget, I would like to know how much the city would be paying for something like that. So I know you were discussing, and that just popped in my mind.

Thank you very much. Anything further? Any from the public? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Joe passes unanimously.

Mr. Mayor, for the record, the law requires that we notify the public at this public hearing that the second- I'm a no on that.

You're a no?

Yeah, on the budget. You're a no on the budget. Yes. OK. Mayor, if I may quickly.

So it's quarter one. Yes, if you will, Mr. Mayor. For the record, the second and final public hearing on the budget ordinance is also scheduled at the same time for consideration on Wednesday, September 16th in these chambers at 6 PM, as well as the millage ordinance as described previously, both of which will be considered under both state law and the city charter at that time. Thank you, Mayor.

OK. Anything else on this item? OK, this budget hearing is closed and we will now open our regular City Commission meeting of September 3rd, 2026. Mr. Clerk, if you please call the roll.

Commissioner Good.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Hernandez. Present. Commissioner Rodriguez. Commissioner Schwartz?

Here.

Mayor Castillo?

Here.

City Manager Dodge?

Here.

City Attorney Gorin?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for the National Anthem?

Vice Mayor, will you lead us? In the Pledge. Yes, the National Anthem.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please be seated. Mr. Clerk, announcements of items to be pulled from the agenda?

Item number 15 has been pulled, Mayor.

Thank you very much. Any others?

No, Mayor.

OK. Under presentations today, the first will be the Fire Rescue Department will formally introduce to the commission and to the public a new sponsorship program. that allows for the hiring of non-certified individuals as city employees while they complete the required training and certifications to become sworn firefighters. Chief Rodriguez, you are recognized.

Good evening again. Marcelino Rodriguez, fire chief. So first of all, thank you very much to allow me to present to you the new sponsorship program, to first introduce it to the public as well as to the commission. So before I get on with a... One second, because I have a PowerPoint presentation that I'd like to load. Would I have access here? Do you see it on your screens, commissioners?

Yes, Mayor.

All right, good. So before I begin with the PowerPoint presentation, I think it's important to understand our current hiring process. Today, and for as long as I've been here, we've only hired certified firefighters. What does that mean? You have to have your fire certificate, as well as your EMT certificate, emergency medical technician, as well as some other certificates. The sponsorship program that I'm going to go over provides us with the opportunity to hire non-certified firefighters. That means individuals without any certifications. But I hope they have a strong desire to serve this community. So one of the primary goals or objectives or benefits of this program is going to provide us a larger pool of candidates. We're looking for military veterans, recent high school graduates, college graduates, lifeguards. Basically, perhaps someone that's seeking a career change, maybe a communication expert or a police officer. Anyone seeking a career change that may not be happy or satisfied in their current career, but have always wanted to be, the fire service has intrigued them. Those are the individuals that we're going to look for. We will search for high quality candidates whose character and values align with our standards here in Pembroke Pines. This will be a huge recruitment tool supplementing our existing 10-week program. We're not getting rid of our current program. It's only going to supplement, and we'll deploy it and utilize it as we feel fit or as that need arises. What I'm referring to here, one of the changes is going to be a 21-week program, which will incorporate both fire minimum standards as well as emergency medical technician. It's going to be 21 weeks compared to 10 weeks. So it's definitely going to be a longer program. It is going to be a cost-effective training. And again, but what's not going to change is we're going to maintain our class one professional standards throughout the entire program. In my humble opinion, I expect after 21 weeks of being exposed to our training staff, they're going to be more prepared on day one than utilizing our current 10-week process. All right, let me go over briefly how the program is going to work. It's going to first begin with a strong promotional outreach. We're going to have job fairs with the help of our HR department, as well as Mr. Rothstein. We're going to have school outreach, social media, internet-based advertisement. We've even discussed even meta ads. So we're going to try and reach as many of these candidates as possible. up to and including an employee incentive of $1,000. Should an employee of the City of Pembroke Pines recommend a candidate and that candidate is hired as a city employee for the training program and then they become a sworn firefighter EMT, that employee will receive $1,000 incentive. Second is the screening and selection process. We have standardized and validated exams, which will include CPAT, written aptitude exams, structured interviews, as well as assessment centers to ensure that we get the most qualified candidates for those positions. And then the conditional employment. The conditional job offer is going to be consistent with our current standards. It's going to include backgrounds, polygraph tests, drug screening, et cetera. It's not going to change. And last, when that firefighter completes, and if they're successful in completing the 21-week program, they obtain their certifications, they'll be eligible for a full-time firefighter EMT as a sworn firefighter and join the ranks of our current firefighters. However, they're going to have to commit to four years of employment as a firefighter. If not, if they leave, they'll have to reimburse the city for the education and their training. So a little bit of the framework on how that's going to work. We're going to onboard them as city employees. full-time, making $20 an hour. There will be at-will employees. Trainees must earn certifications in Firefighter 1, Firefighter 2, EMT, EVOC, and CPR training, which we will provide. They'll have to maintain certain standards throughout the program consistent with our current standards. At that point, as mentioned earlier, they'll have the opportunity to transition into a sworn firefighter. There are some advantages to the EMT program in-house. And not so long ago, you approved a contract allowing us to an agreement with Memorial Hospital, allowing our firefighters or our EMTs that are taking courses within our program to complete their clinicals at Memorial Hospital. That was a key agreement to help us get to where we are today. The EMTs will complete all of their field training in-house at our fire stations on our trucks. Come day one, they'll already be familiar with our system and they'll have an advantage compared to the current program where they're not exposed to our firefighters or our system, our fire stations, until they become a sworn firefighter on day one. Once they complete the program and they're onboarded as a firefighter EMT, they'll have the opportunity and be required to become a paramedic within three years. And they'll have the opportunity to participate in our in-house paramedic class.

Now we get into the financials.

As you can see, there is a savings of the 21-week training course compared to the 10 weeks. The cost of the 21-week sponsorship program is obviously less than a 10-week training, but that doesn't tell the whole story. The additional savings will come because we expect there to be an increase in retention, which has been a challenge for our fire department, as it has been for all municipal fire departments in the county and throughout other cities and counties as well. Our training facility was recently accredited by the Florida Department of Health and authorized to begin offering EMP classes, as I mentioned earlier. Soon we expect to expand on these programs to include both EMT and firefighter minimum standards training for individuals pursuing a career in the fire service. This is going to be going to come of financial benefit to the city and the fire department as well. The revenue generated from these programs, along with our other courses currently offered at the facility, will be used to offset operating costs and fund future facility improvements at the training facility. Now, I didn't get here by myself. I had the help of a lot of people, beginning with my staff that are highly trained and capable, the city manager for his support and him green lighting this program. finance department, of course, elected officials for reviewing and approving and authorizing many of these agreements, human resource department for reviewing and vetting all of this program and ensuring that it remains within certain guidelines, the legal team, of course, And again, just like I just mentioned, I'm just blessed to have the training staff that we do that put the hard work in to get us to where we are today. So thank you. And with that, I open it up for any questions.

Chief, I want to thank you for your presentation, and I want to commend your staff for their creativity in finding new ways to... to produce an even better fire department than we have now. And I really, really appreciate that. And my understanding is that Labor has reviewed this and they're on board with it as well. So we have a full labor management partnership on this item.

I have met with Labor and I've discussed, I went into details similar to what I went over with you right now. And there were no issues that I wasn't able to address. And at the very end, they seemed very supportive.

That's important, because labor management partnerships are the stuff from which great success is made. And I very much appreciate the presentation. And this, Mr. Dodge, has been incorporated into the budget we just read at first reading. Yes.

The funds will be available for this program.

OK, thank you very much. Any questions, commissioners?

Comment, not questions. But I hate that you spoke before me, because I was going to mention labor. And I appreciate, not obviously you, Chief, I can't see him, but Dan Rothstein, when I reached out, because I do think it's incredibly important, especially with our public safety departments, to work with, proactively work with our labor leaders. They represent the body that serves this community. So I appreciate very much that you met with them. And this is only fire, obviously, but I'd love to see the same over with our police department. So thank you, Chief, for what you've done.

Anyone else?

OK, thank you very much. I just want to say, everybody I talk to, all the kids that are coming up, choice between police and fire, I tell them fire, because police eat donuts and fire eat gourmet.

That is true. And I'll let you in on one secret. I went to lunch with the police chief the other day. This has been a lifelong dream of him, is to become a firefighter. So this will give him the opportunity to take advantage of that.

Thank you very much. This is a proclamation of the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida, declaring National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Is there a group here that's coming forward? Come on up. Just stand here. How are you? Good to see you again. How are you? Where September has been designated National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month to honor the children whose lives have been lost and those whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by this devastating illness, while strengthening our nation's resolve to find cures. And whereas cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease among children in the United States with approximately 15,000 children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer each year before the age of 20, and whereas childhood cancers cross all racial, ethnic, and geographic socioeconomic backgrounds, and children and their families face the challenges of this disease with incredible bravery, strength, and hope, Whereas childhood cancer affects not only child diagnosed, but also the parents, grandparents, siblings, loved ones, and the entire support network, while dedicated health care professionals, organizations, charities, and advocacy groups provide critical support and encouragement. And whereas the City of Pembroke Pines recognizes the devastating impact of childhood cancer on children and families in the community and the importance of advancing research, improving treatment options, and increasing awareness and supporting the effective, those affected by this disease. And if I could add a whereas, I would say whereas Medical science is making it possible for many of these children to live long lives. Thanks to the research and the hard work that they put into it, there has never been a time when more cancers are cured than right now. We owe it to our doctors and our nurses and our health care professionals and our scientists and researchers for working so hard on the science of this at a time when people are amazingly dismissive of medical science. This is what's saving lives, and this is what's giving hope to adults and children alike with this horrible disease. Now, therefore, I, Angelo Castillo, Mayor of the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, along with the City Commission, do hereby proclaim September 2026 is National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in the city of Pembroke Pines, and encourage all residents to join us in raising awareness, supporting effective families, honoring the courage of childhood cancer patient survivors, and remembering those whose lives have been lost and whose lives have been saved. Congratulations, and thank you so much for everything that you do.

Hi, I'm Christina. I am a part of Mystic Force Foundation. Sylvia Vanny wishes she could be here tonight, but she had some other things she had to take care of. She started this foundation 17 years ago when her son Sal passed away tragically from childhood cancer. She dedicates her entire life to making sure the children that are affected by cancer just can be kids because as a family when you go through childhood cancer everything stops and these children are in hospitals and clinics and the families are just torn apart and she works tires tirelessly to just ensure that the kids have a safe place that they can go. They can be kids. They can forget about being in the hospital. We're grateful for the city and the commission for allowing us to be here and raise awareness, because without that, the funding, the ability to know that childhood cancer is not rare when it affects your kids, when it affects your families, so we're grateful for that. And I just want to introduce, we have Jake Kaplan here today, he is a two-time cancer survivor. And we have Jake Duenas, this is my son, and he is a one-time cancer survivor, but still very impressive. And I'm Jake's mom, obviously, and then these are Jake's siblings. So that's Luke, Christian, and Danica. And childhood cancer affects the entire family. Jake, would you like to say a couple things? Yes.

So first of all, I want to thank Mayor Castillo and the City Commission for their time. And I, of course, she introduced me. I'm Jake, two-time cancer survivor. I just want to say how important it is for childhood cancer awareness to be in effect. I cannot stress enough how unnoticed it is among many people most of the population if you ask them hey how many kids a year get childhood cancer they probably won't tell you so we as a group are looking to change that and as cancer survivors and cancer parents from around the world are also looking to change that too and I think how we can start personally is via schools we can implement that into our septembers into our school and uh Kind of create a, I don't know, spirit week maybe for like, you know, wearing gold and stuff like that. But I remember we did it at our old school. My mom can confirm. Yeah, still do. But yeah, I feel like we fought really hard. And we, along with the people who didn't survive and everybody else, the parents, deserve to be recognized. So this could really help us. us raise awareness for cancer. And if we keep doing stuff like this, then maybe we can raise enough funds to create better treatments for children, because we're stuck with medicines from the 80s and the 60s, and it does more harm than good. Actually, my second cancer was from the treatment for my first cancer, which is pretty ironic, because my first cancer was a tumor, and my second one was a blood cancer from it. But yeah, I really want to thank you for what you do and for keeping the city great and all of our elected officials here for also doing the same thing, keeping our city safe, clean, and strong, strong. That's the word of the day, strong. But yeah, thank you. Thank you so very much. Let's take a photo.

We also have great, fantastic little gold ribbons, and we'll pass it out for all the commissions.

Yeah, let's take a photo, and then you can pass those out. Wonderful.

Here, you want to hold this?

Thank you very much. Thank you all so very much.

Okay. Yes. Thank you. Oh, thank you.

Thank you very, very much.

Okay, now we have... Our commission auditor, who's here to present the completed audit plan for 2026. If you would draw near, please, and your name and affiliation for the record, please. You're on.

Hello, Christy Clements, Forrest Mazar's commission auditor.

Can you pull that down just a little bit? Thank you. Thank you.

And I'm joined by Dr. Jamie Amos, who is the day-to-day engagement lead on your commission audits. I don't see the presentation up, but we are here to present on three of the audits that have been completed on the audit plan and issued. The first one is, I'm sorry, the presentation's not up, but remediation and validation. We reviewed reports, okay, thank you, from 2020 to 2024 that had observations and findings associated with them. We were able to validate that all items but one had been remediated. So that's good news. We will be following up on, that one remaining item before the end of the year. There just wasn't enough evidence to validate it because they had recently just started performing that remediation.

Okay.

The permitting process efficiency audit, So with that, we looked at the efficiency of the processes around the permitting process. And with that, there were three recommendations that we identified out of that. For the most part, The processes were efficient. The three items that were noted were very low risk items. One related to the permit technicians closing the completed permits within the system, because they were still showing open. a couple of those. The other one has to do with monitoring for permits that remain open that are requiring some type of action from the applicant. And at 180 days, they expire and they should be closed due to inactivity. And we noted one of those. And then during our audit, they had started automating the notifications to applicants. And so we see that as a process improvement. And we just recommend that they continue utilizing the system to its highest capabilities. And with that, the next one is the utility billing accuracy audit that we did. With that, there were no findings noted. We looked at how they are reading meters, how they are looking for potential errors, and looking at the billing process. And there were no exceptions noted. And with that, we would like to thank the staff who worked closely with us. They were very responsive, and we appreciate that.

Anything else?

Any questions?

Anything, commissioners? Thank you so very, very much for your presentation and for the work that you do. You are the internal audit arm of the city. Separate and apart from you, we also have the year-end audit, And I know that you're in contact with them as well. We also, as we mentioned before, have the Citizens Budget Council here in Pembroke Pines. That's not something every city has. The money in this city is looked at, as you can tell from our budget discussion, with a great deal of scrutiny and a great deal of interest. It is for that reason that the city has kept not only its finances, but its operating practices working well. And our internal control structure, I hope you will agree, is a strong and vibrant one, a robust one. And we thank you for everything that you do to help us to stay that way. So thank you very much. OK. Appeals of Board of Adjustment decisions? None?

None, Mayor.

Any announcements of board and committee appointments?

None, Mayor.

Thank you very much. Today's consent agenda consists of items 1 through 13. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? Any polls? Seeing none. Any from the public? Seeing none. Can I have a motion, please?

Motion to approve.

Moved by the Vice Mayor, seconded by... Seconded by Commissioner Good. Any discussion?

Just one. I want to, again, thank the city administration for the MOU that is being approved with the Broward Teachers Union.

Yes. And I know that they will be very, very pleased. Anything else? OK. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Show passes unanimously. Mr. City Attorney, we are on a regular agenda.

Thank you, Mayor. May I continue through the record? Yeah. If you will, the regular agenda actually begins at item number 14. And for 14, the item reads as follows. For the public consumption and for the mayor and commission and possible action to discuss the August 5, 2026 City Commission workshop regarding the draft solicitation for building department services, direction on potential revisions, and approval to advertise RFP number AD-26-01 referenced as operation and management of the building department. It's a public record item. It's a public item for the mayor and commission, and it requires your attention and guidance this evening through the administration to the mayor and commission. Thank you.

OK. I know that there was a survey that was passed around so that some sort of consensus could be gotten on what is a very long list of items. OK, Mr. Gomes, if you'll walk us through this.

Good evening, everyone. Mark Gomes, Assistant City Manager slash Director of Procurement and Sustainability. As the mayor said, we did send out a survey. Obviously, as you know, we've met many times in regards to this item, a couple of workshops and agenda items discussing the draft solicitations for the building department. So what we did recently is we sent out a survey to get, there's various items from the last workshop that we did that were still pending and we needed a direction from the city commission. So we outlined that in the agenda item and then we also sent out a survey recently to get an understanding of where the city commission LIED ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY CONSENSUS. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE ONE SHEET PAGE THAT I JUST HANDED OUT, THERE'S CERTAIN ITEMS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN WHERE FOR THE THREE COMMISSIONERS THAT RESPONDED TO THAT SURVEY, THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON. AND THEN THE ITEMS I HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, THERE'S TWO OF THE THREE COMMISSIONERS WERE ON THE SAME PAGE. And besides that, I also handed out a copy of the survey that we sent out, which is pretty much outlining the items in the agenda from last meeting on which we need direction on.

Mr. Mayor, full disclosure, the survey came in last night in the email. I was celebrating my 44th birthday with my family, so I did not complete that survey.

Also, happy birthday to you, Commissioner Good. There you go. In fact, happy birthday to all of us. Go right ahead. Don't worry about it. We don't fill out every survey. It happens. We're all very, very busy people. And we all do the best that we can. And I know all of us do.

OK. How do you want to proceed? So we'd like commission's direction on each one of the items. As you see... You want to go one at a time? I think that'd be best.

Okay. So the first item is, how much time should firms be provided to submit proposals following the advertisement of the RFP? Two people said eight weeks. I said four. Eight sounds fine to me. Anybody object to eight? I would agree with eight.

So I'm the cause for eight. And we had eight because- Eight weeks, the first time. Yeah, Mayor, I thought we were going to be done by now. I thought we were actually going to be able to be sitting here tonight selecting somebody.

No, sir. We're going to go through this list because we've had two workshops. No, we actually had three. And you didn't respond to the survey. So we're going to go one at a time, and we're going to nail this down.

I was also celebrating Vice Mayor's birthday.

OK. Well, happy birthday. The question before us is number one.

However, I did communicate with Mr. Gomes verbally, and I provided verbally All of the questions, we actually spoke two or three times today.

All right, so the question now is eight weeks. I got four people who are happy with eight weeks. You good?

I was going to go with six, but eight. If we can get it done, here's my concern. My only concern, just for... We've got a long list here. Go ahead. You good?

Yeah, go ahead.

We've got a long list. Go ahead. Okay. So we go eight weeks. That puts us at the beginning of November. Mr. Gomes, anticipating potentially for dates, give us the forecast of when this comes back to the commission after you do through all your reviews and all the stuff that you do on procurement. You were able to do that. I prepped you in advance for the possibility, right?

Yeah, so attached to the backup for the agenda item is an estimated timeline. Based on this eight-week solicitation process, we would anticipate coming back to the City Commission on March 3rd with the item to approve the negotiated contract to begin the transition process.

Honestly, I put down four weeks because I feel if they can't do it in four weeks, they don't know what they're doing. But if we want to go to eight weeks, I'm not going to object.

OK. So Mr. Gomes mentioned March 3, and that's also a deadline that this commission imposed on our current vendor. So Mr. Gomes, anticipating the possibility of an eight week, what would be the implications of a transition period if we wait that long?

As you mentioned, the current contract that we have ends around March of 2026. 27. Yes, I'm sorry, 27. So therefore, we may have to extend that agreement to have the transition process take place.

And there's no guarantee that that would be agreeable by both parties? It's an assumption.

Which both parties?

Well, that would be the city and the current vendor.

No, they don't get a say in this. This is our RFP. Let's focus.

I want you to focus, Mayor. It's about the transition period on March the 3rd of 2027.

It doesn't matter. If we say it's eight weeks, they'll figure out a way to do it. We've already asked these questions. The question before us is eight weeks. We good? All right. Let's move on to the next item. The next item is You'll have to forgive me, but I'm having a little difficulty reading this. Is there a way you can bring it up on the screen?

Mr. Mayor, as you proceed, just a comment for the record. As you go through this list, you're accepting consensus with your colleagues as opposed to motion. OK, I got it. So the record reflects your consensus on the item. So the staff can be guided accordingly.

OK. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. So should the RFP retain a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting? Everyone said yes. Any objection? It will be included. The next one is, should city staff document all verbal questions? Everyone said yes. Any objection? So noted. The next question was, should the city clerk be required to attend the meeting? Everyone said yes. Any objection? We're good there. The next one was, should the RFP remain the proposed minimum required roles and staffing levels? I'm reading this to say everyone said yes. Any objection to that? All right, that's good.

One second. So in that one, I did find a little bit confusing. Should the RFP retain the proposed minimum? But right above it, it provides option A and option B. So I thought that that one was supposed to say option A or option B. Which one was the preference? No.

Just to clarify, if I may. Yes. So C1, as you know, there's option A and option B. Both of those have minimum requirements. So there's minimum role assignments for option A, which is 18 role assignments filled by at least 17 individuals. That's because the assistant building official can serve as one of the trade chiefs. Similarly, option B would be the city providing those two staff members, which would be the chief building official and the building department. So this is just, C1 is really just asking, is the city commission fine with retaining those minimum requirements for both options?

For both options. Either option. Okay, so then I change mine to yes then on that one.

Yes. Okay, so those two are done. We're on C3 now, correct? C2. I thought we just did that one.

No, we did C1.

OK. Should the RFP retain the ability for assistant building official to also serve as one of the four required trade chiefs? I'm reading this to be yes. Anyone object? I just need a little.

I objected, but I'm not going to die on this one.

Anyone else? So then that one's good. The next one is C3 now. Should the RFP maintain the restrictions that the minimum required dedicated personnel shall be prohibited from simultaneously providing building department services to other jurisdictions? I'm saying yes, adapt it as necessary, and yes. So that sounds like three yeses to me. Anyone object?

Yes. I'm saying yes to retain the restriction, but only while they're clocked in.

Mike, please. Mike, Mike.

When they're not clocked in, I think they should be.

Mike, please. Commissioner. Yes, thank you.

So my My answer was yes, but only during their clocked work hours, not during their off time.

Does anyone object to that change?

Is a break, because one of the mentions was of a break, is a break clocked hours or is a break unclocked?

No. A break is not a clocked hour. Lunch hour is not a clocked hour, because otherwise you run into mischief. If they're on their own time, out of the office.

I'm just saying, if they're on their own time, they shouldn't be subject to this restriction.

Yeah, but my thought is during a lunch break. No.

They're on salary during lunch. They get paid lunch.

So is the breaks mentioned in the questionnaire, would that be on the clock or off the clock?

So in the solicitation, we stated the current language states that they can't provide services while they're doing their scheduled working hour, including breaks. So if they start at, let's say, 7 a.m. and go to 6 p.m., the lunch break would also be included that they cannot provide those private providers.

There was an IG report on this very thing.

So if they call out sick that day, what happens? They're still scheduled, but they just didn't show up, so they wouldn't be able to do it.

If they are collecting, I read this to mean if they're collecting, which is a paid six-day, that's PTO, they can't use that day.

And vacation would be also paid.

After hours, they can go.

Yeah, like a Saturday, Sunday.

That's correct. If they're off on a day, they can do whatever they want.

Okay, thank you. I still think that's just too restrictive.

Okay, well, let's put it to a vote.

I understand the concept of a lunch, if they go out for lunch, but if they choose to take a half day, a full day, whatever that may be.

If it's on their time or our time.

Yeah, and if they take the time off, that's their time. If we're paying them.

If we're paying them, it's not their time.

We're not paying them.

If they take time without pay? If they take PTO, they're on our time. There was just an IG report on this.

No, it doesn't make sense. The IG report was they were doing it while they were still on the clock.

That's correct.

This is not on the clock. Mr. City Attorney. If you put in for time off, you are time off.

Well, but if it's vacation time or if it's sick time, And it's part of your own time. That's one thing. But if it's city time and you're collecting a benefit, you're working on city time.

I think I am coming to understand where Commissioner Good's coming from. Like when I worked at, let's say, the county, I took time off to go do things that I couldn't do on county time. And so you would take the time off to be able to do those things, even though, in theory, you're taking the time off and the agency is paying you.

Well, that's the mayor's point. If you're being paid for it, that means that you've accrued a benefit. That's right.

But you're taking time off.

Yes, but you're being paid for that time.

But you earn that benefit to take it off, just like a four-day worker.

So he's paying you that time. That's part of your compensation. You get to get some time off.

So if, let's say, and not to pick on home. So they can't go on vacation.

No, they can go on vacation.

Not to pick on police or anything, but if, let's say, our police officer takes time off, and then, and I don't know if this is true, but then does private security, and they're not allowed to do private security during their time off?

Not unless it's an approved detail. That's correct.

Okay. Any other example? Because PD obviously has specific rules and regulations, but...

The whole point of this was not to have Pembroke Pines implicated by association with the part-time work. If you're going to work part-time, it should be on your time. It should have nothing to do with city compensated time, whether you're on the clock or off the clock on PTO, if you're being compensated, you shouldn't use that time for part-time work. You're already being compensated.

So could they ask for unpaid time off?

They can.

But this is still also, again, we're not paying the employee. We're paying the service provider to provide a staff person there to do a job. And if it's person A, B, or C, it doesn't matter so long as they have it filled. That's the whole point behind having all these positions filled and no dual roles and all this other good stuff.

Exactly. So somebody could come in. Let's say the vendor gives the time off, but they fill the position as they should because we have minimum staffing requirements. We are not paying that person who took that time off. We're paying then the person who's at the window or doing the inspection or whatever.

We're paying the company.

Somebody want to make a motion on this one? I'll move to, well, actually, Mayor, I want to let you make the motion.

No, I don't make motions.

Give me the language that you would support.

I make a motion that we only have the restriction when they're clocked in and it does not include the break or lunch hour.

I'll second for discussion, but I'd really like to hear from the manager on this. I do not know how I'm going to vote on it, or assistant manager.

OK. There's a second. You can ask your question.

Well, define it. So Mike Stamm is the city manager. The context that comes along with this, and when this was first discussed, is that staff was concerned that a person would serve as one of our trade chiefs, but also could be a building official in another city. Therefore, the staff here at the city of Pembroke Pines would not have the dedicated time that we need to serve. There's a second question that will come up later in your survey where I really believe that the lunch break type issue could happen. We've asked the commission.

So I just exempted that so it's not a lunch break issue. conversation. He took it out. It's exempted. They can't do it on a lunch break.

Okay. So what I was going to suggest to you is that the dual role issue is also a, we've given you another question here where it's Monday through Friday during regular business hours. Right. So again, I don't want you to put yourself in a situation where you say yes here, but then contradict yourself on the second vote, if that makes sense, Mayor.

Okay. Okay. But to Commissioner Rodriguez's point, which maybe you need to restate it, Commissioner, but it's I think, who are you paying? Are you paying an individual, or are you paying a company? If Mike Hernandez, PA, is the building department, and Angelo Castillo is one of my employees, wouldn't that be amazing? I'd work for you. So let's just say he's one of my employees. He's not reporting to work that day. So Tom Good fills the slot. They meet the minimum requirements. Angelo is not being paid or is being paid at that moment by the city of Pembroke Pines. Because my question is, are you paying the entity, the company that is doing the work, or the individual? Are we actually paying individuals?

We are paying the entity.

OK.

But it's very important, Vice Mayor. The context of this question was about serving in required positions in two locations at the same time. Staff's concerned. And I know this migrated into a different place. But staff's concern is that our chief structural, whomever that person may be in the future, cannot be in the ability, could not serve as a building official or a chief structural in another location. What staff needed as part of this situation with dedicated positions is people that are here to serve the city of Pembroke Pines.

That's all I'm interested in.

And from staff's perspective, That's the clarity we were looking for, and that's why the second question comes up in the future.

So with that clarification, is there any objection to what the assistant city managers just said, that those officials will only serve the city of Pembroke Pines? Does anyone object to that? So I'm not hearing an objection.

Well, I mean, I'm still missing that point of just serving the city. All these providers have they have a requirement to fill the position with a qualified staff person, right? Whether that qualified staff person is person A, B, or C, so long as they're there on that day, I don't think that we should be meddling with those kind of details within that organization.

I got to tell you, Commissioner Good, and this rarely happens, I 150% disagree. I want to know who they are proposing, and I don't want bait and switch down the road. And we should hire our own staff to do this. No, no. We don't have to hire our own staff. Because that's what we're talking about. No, no.

That's not what we're talking about. We're managing. We're direct managing personnel.

No, no, no. We're getting our money's worth out of a contract. We have that now. We have that now. And there are other companies that may want to engage in other practices. But in my opinion, that doesn't work for us. If you want to work for Pembroke Pines, you have to propose dedicated people in your proposal who we know are going to be there, not an apparent all-star list. And then when the first day the contract shows up, it's the B squad. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in them delivering the people who they said they want, the quality people who we rank them on, and nobody else. And they should hold on to them. Of course, people die. They move away. They take other jobs. All that's understandable. But just a company moving this guy from here to there without the approval of the contract manager, I'm not involved in that. That's not what I'm looking for. That's not what the company is rated on. And that's not something I'm interested in. I have to just tell you, on that one, it's a bridge too far for me. It's up to you guys.

I could probably agree for sure if we were still operating off of traditional models, but the model has been substantially changed this past legislative session when they gave private providers the right to do the work that our staff or our contractor would otherwise do. And it's going to create an incredible shift in this industry. And this is something that I'm not going to listen to. I don't care. To me, it's about what we buy.

I don't care about the rest of the world. It'll be a conversation later on when that happens.

It sounds, and I could be wrong, it sounds like I could be the deciding vote. I've listened to both sides. I have spoken to administration extensively on this. And I've been with administration on almost every point. On this point, I'm going to be with Commissioner Good, because I do think there are changing dynamics in the industry.

OK. So let's vote. So if I may, Mayor, I don't know if I forecasted how I was voting. I just asked what the mayor wanted to do. And so what concerns me about private provider, I said in A101, and I said it back before, and I said it back in June, is that if we're going to go down this path, we cannot have a chief building official in-house. Because then we're going to have an ethics conflict.

There is no ethics conflicts, and you're off subject. So please, let's just stay on this matter.

Well, let's please stay on the motion that we have here. It can be managed in any way that we say.

I guess if this were the past, the way this is, it's going to fundamentally change the way that Pembroke Pines has been doing Building services.

It's changing already. And for no good reason, in my opinion.

Yes, there are dynamics that are changing. But Vice Mayor and colleagues, this is not the direction. If we go down this path, you're not going to get it back. Mayor, can I? Mayor and I have, I mean, the mayor was a part of the original.

Mr. Mayor, can we call the question, please?

I mean, please, this is a big deal. If there's anything on this list, this is the one item that really is a game changer. Mayor, can I provide some clarification?

Because I think there's something being misunderstood. What staff is suggesting on this item is that it's for another jurisdiction. I'm not suggesting for any moment that on Saturday and Sunday, if our building official works as a private provider for another company or for a company, that he can't go do that work. And what we are asking for is that our building officials are building officials, that our structural chief is our structural chief. That's right.

That's the way we've always operated here. I see absolutely no good public policy changing that.

But I want to make that clarification because I know private provider was coming up. If one of the people that work for the companies that are coming forward, on the side does private provider work, for that company, because both the companies that we've been discussing so far have private provider entities, and they want to go do that work on a Saturday or Sunday, that's not for me to say it's during their time off. It's not the same. But what we're saying here is that we have dedicated staff in this city If our structural chief needs to go to Century Village to go do reviews, we need that.

Imagine managing a staff, and you don't know who's going to show up.

Now the one that confuses me.

So I'm going to clarify, because I think we're all I think we all agree on that point. I think there is consensus, because I agree on that point as well. My question was simply on off time, because there is a difference. Because my train of thought is like, yes, on Monday to Friday, whatever. It's not like these companies have unlimited PTO. They have, I assume so, and most companies have limited PTO. So if you ask for vacation time, if you ask for off time, it's not like we're going to have this bait and switch 100% of the time because there's a limit to the amount of time off that you take.

I'm telling you that the IG has had investigations where they have held cities in gross mismanagement for allowing employees to do unauthorized work during paid time off which they're compensated for. And we open the door. We're inviting an IG complaint. And in this industry, there has been a history, without pointing fingers, because, you know, but there has been a history of all kinds of shenanigans, unless the rein is very tightly pulled. I cannot go down that path. I just can't.

But I've read that OIG report, too, and they were on time. They were doing this simultaneously.

I see no distinction between the two. What about the other OIG report where we were actually a part of the assistance in double payment? Remember, Mayor? Yep. I mean, we were a part of that process.

it's happened to us already okay so my question to you assistant city manager stam if i were to support here's what i want bottom line yes the chief building official like mr pozillo who's in the back is specific to pembroke pines i don't want to change that now tell me what i'm voting on so c3 specifically was about them serving in yeah but i'm not on c3

We are in C3, right? We're still in C3.

So just to clarify, right now we're on C3, and a lot of the conversation I think is more focused on E, correct?

Right. So C3 is yes on everything.

C3 is specifically that our required positions cannot serve in that same role in another jurisdiction. Everyone said yes, so what's the issue?

The other topic of E was brought up.

All right. Let's just focus on C3. All of our officials can only serve in that capacity in this city.

The answer was yes by everybody.

I don't know who's objecting. Does anyone object? No. So then that's a yes.

Let's get to the... Let's just dispense with the motion that was made.

Okay. Motion's gone. So the next one is C4.

Should the RF... Mr. Mayor, we didn't... Did we vote on that motion? I motioned it.

It was seconded. I seconded it. It's removed. It's gone.

It can't be removed. You can pull it off. I didn't pull it off. I just want it to be record.

What would you like to do? Would you like to vote?

Vote it down.

OK. All right. There's a motion and a second on C3. So yes would allow. them to work in other jurisdictions and know what we're doing.

No, it's the other way.

Time off being not on the clock, not being paid time off.

Mayor.

While they are on leave on whatever it may be.

OK. Commissioner, if I may, I believe the other.

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. OK. All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed to the motion, indicate by saying no. No. The ayes have it. So by that motion, we will allow employees of the vendor to work in other jurisdictions. Do you understand what vote was just taken?

Only on timeout, that was the motion.

Did you understand your vote?

One second. Hold on. We were, so as long as my motion, which I seconded the motion. Yes, you don't have to vote just because you second. No, no, no. Follow me.

I'm not talking you out of it.

No, no one talks me out of my votes anyways. So the point here is, and I understand when we went to C3 and what we were discussing, why I have confusion, okay, C3 says yes, yes, yes, all of them. And I have indicated, I don't want a chief building official that does not work exclusively for the city. What I understood from my conversations, and this is why I also voted in the majority, because I can bring it right back up for reconsideration, Robert's Rules of Order. Therefore, what I am asking is, was I not just voting on anyone but the chief building official?

Mr. Stamm, with great Reduction in the number of words. Please answer Vice Mayor's question as directly as you can. What is this item mean?

Mayor, to provide the utmost clarity, the Commissioner's motion brought in items from E1 into C. What I described to the Commission was that we would have dedicated staff in our city, our trade chiefs, our building officials, the 18 positions and or 15 positions that are outlined here would be dedicated to our city. That is what this question asked. And when you referenced the three yes votes, it was having dedicated positions. What happened in the motion was that items from lunch breaks and everything else, which is discussed later in question E, was brought into

It was blended. That's my confusion. I'm not referring to E. I wanted to vote on C. I looked at C and it said yes.

But the thing is that we weren't technically voting on C. We were voting on the motion.

Correct. Because the motion was blended. It wasn't just on C. Here's what I want, and you have to explain it to me because I'm getting dizzy. I want the chief building official on these individuals to be specific to the city of Pembroke Pines. However, I am also sympathetic to what Commissioner Good has said because there are changes coming, whether we like it or not. regarding private provider and how we provide this service and with all due respect to everyone who's been here pembroke pines cannot continue to operate the way it has for the last several decades because outside of our control laws are changing and society is changing i do however agree that mr pozillo not him specifically but his position should be for the city of pembroke pines because i do not want a chief building official saying i'm going to go work in weston today i don't want that however I'm a semi-intelligent individual. The way that this was explained and how it got to where it got to, I voted yes to bring it up for reconsideration if what I want is not actually what I voted on. Does that make sense now?

So then let's vote explicitly on what is written in C3, and let's tackle E1 afterwards.

Is that a motion for reconsideration, Commissioner Rodriguez?

That would be a motion for reconsideration.

And I'll second that motion.

Any discussion on reconsideration? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes unanimously. Commissioner Rodriguez is recognized for a motion on C3.

So I motion that the RFP maintain the restrictions that the minimum required dedicated slash dedicated personnel shall be prohibited from simultaneously providing building department services to other jurisdictions.

Is there a second to that motion? I'm seconding the motion. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. OK. That passes. C4. Mr. Stamm, walk us through C4.

Should the RFP maintain the requirement that each minimum position, with the exception of the assistant building officials, shall be filled by separate dedicated individuals unless otherwise expressly approved in writing to the city's contract manager?

Two said yes. One said adapt is necessary.

This falls along the same line. The only difference with the assistant city manager position is depending on which- Official. Official, excuse me.

Okay. We're not talking about Mr. Gomes or you.

Absolutely. Okay. So depending on the option that is selected, either option A or option B, our assistant building official could also serve as a trade chief. That's a flexible position. In another jurisdiction or in our jurisdiction? This is dedicated to just the city. But it matters based on which option gets picked in the future, A or B.

What is your recommendation?

Again, this is something we put in there. The commission's asked for options here.

What is your recommendation?

Yes.

Yes.

Well, and he should, because they do a great job. The auditor's just told us.

Again, this is another one of these things where it's... Mike, please. I mean, I personally believe that the reason why I put adapt is necessary because you're going to wind up having to change. My biggest concern is the restrictions that you continue to put on here is that we're going to hold staff that's not necessary. And those staff hours are going to be built into the permit fees. And my residents are going to have to pay those permit fees at an elevated level.

But Commissioner, it says unless otherwise expressly approved, in writing by the city's contract manager. So if there's someone who isn't necessary, the contract manager should be able to deal with that.

I'm just making it very clear that my opposition to this is I believe that some of these issues are going to be a cost driver that's not necessary for my residents to have to pay for permits.

I totally agree.

And we're going to find that to be true once the private providers come in. And we take a substantial amount of work off of the building services.

Well, you would be the contract manager, right?

As of today, I'm the contract manager.

OK, so I would encourage you to heed what Commissioner Goode is saying. Nobody wants to. And I can't imagine that you would want to incur any more expense on anything than we absolutely have to.

Mayor, I think it's extremely important to understand We currently have approximately 50 personnel in the building department. The flexibility that a private company serving as our building department provides is that that person, that company, can make adjustments to those personnel. What we've identified in this proposal is that a certain amount of staff, minimum staff, is required. And these are the professional staff. They can shift clerks in and out. They can shift additional inspectors in and out. This is the minimum amount of staff with certain credentials that we need to operate the building department considering changes in private provider, et cetera. We have not put in here that I need to have the same 40 staff.

OK.

And I know that gets missed, and I completely understand where the commission is going. This is a change. And I know this is difficult to grasp because you don't touch it every day, and I apologize for my passion when it comes to this. But we see the ebbs and flows of plus or minus 4,000 permits. If those permits go down, there's still work to be done on private provider. But this is the minimum. And I hope that's clear.

And I apologize for my- I have to tell you, even in baseball, tie goes to the runner. So C4, will somebody make a motion consistent with the language in C4? I'll make the motion. OK, so that's moved by Commissioner Rodriguez. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Seconded by the Vice Mayor. Any further discussion on C4? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. C5. Let's walk through C5. Should the RFP maintain the requirements that staff filling minimum positions shall remain assigned to their designated disciplines while allowing an appropriately qualified and certified employee to provide limited and temporary Who keeps moving this? I can't read it if you move it. OK. Temporary assistance in another discipline with the written approval of the city's contract matter. Explain what that means.

This came up during the workshop. Again, it was to allow flexibility. Commissioner Good, I believe you kind of alluded to this, that if somebody were to have different credentials, could they fill those roles on a temporary basis and fill in? Again, the reason we're here is because we heard a bunch of different things. We're trying to hone in. We're in agreement on this end.

Does anyone want to make the motion as written?

I don't think we need to make motions. I think there would be consensus for some of these.

So I just want to make sure that we're not jumping over. There seems to be consensus. Does anyone object?

I have a question. If the saying, yes, keep this, but I'm trying to land these planes here. So I'm sympathetic to what Commissioner Good is saying. I also understand what it is that you are trying to get at. However, there may need to be adaptation. And that's what we're trying to do.

And there's flexibility in the context.

That's why it says. That's what this does. So it will explicitly say that.

It literally says, while allowing for appropriately qualified and certified employee to provide limited and temporary assistance in another discipline with the written approval of the city's contract manager. So the flexibility is in the link.

As long as it's also in the RFP and also followed and not just here for us.

Okay, so does anyone object to C5? That gets done. OK, now we are on C6. Mr. City Attorney, is that Mr. City Manager?

Should the RFP maintain the requirement that cross-disciplinary assistance may not be used to count one individual as filling two or more minimum required positions, eliminate a required position, or otherwise reduce applicable minimum staffing levels?

OK, and why does this make sense?

Mayor, so I'm going to use you as my reference. If you have the credentials to be the chief building official, excuse me, check that. If you have the credentials to be a chief structural and a chief plumbing, you can't serve in those two roles at the same time except for a temporary situation where we're transitioning or something like that. Although it's very rare that someone has all of these credentials, again, staff's preference is that this is on a temporary basis, not on a permanent basis, so that we fill our minimum capacity, our minimum roles.

Anybody have an objection to that?

My question would be if private providers come in and our work gets slashed in half, which, I mean, that would be an exaggeration or something like that, but our work gets slashed in half, would we still all agree that only one person per role?

Commissioner, if I could clarify, again, I don't know how these companies that are going to bid on this are going to run their business, but if private provider comes in, then they're no longer going to be providing the extra inspectors, the extra plan reviewers. Chiefs and the dedicated roles that we're requesting, again, are the minimum. So they will make cuts as necessary. That's what they do. That's why we have this.

Of the extras, but you're saying here it wouldn't be of the minimum staffing? Correct. OK, that makes sense.

If I can just provide just, OK, so we have four disciplines, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. Of those four, your mechanical and plumbing would generally be the closest that would actually bind together. But to have a structural and plumbing, those are two different trade schools. It just doesn't generally happen in the industry. So you can see mechanical and plumbing go together, but that's about the extent of it.

Can I ask a question?