Planning & Zoning Board - public_hearing

Thank you. Thank you.

Let's go ahead and call this. Pompano Beach, let's see. It's the Special City Commission EMS Taxing District Commission meeting, September 14th, 2026. Let's call this meeting to order. If I could ask everyone to please silence their cell phones, put them on vibrate, that way we don't get disrupted during the meeting. That would be great. Let's go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Alfred.

Commissioner Fessick. Here. Commissioner Perkins. Here. Commissioner Sigurdsson-Eaton.

commissioner smith here last year for the year we're hard for us for an ask us all to please stand for the implication followed by the pledge of allegiance father grant us the wisdom to consider this budget for the best of the residents of pompano beach let us do our our best to uh... follow your will it through this process and move on to bigger and better things. In your son's name we pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Mr. Harrison, any changes to our agenda? No, sir. Great. Can I get a motion approving the agenda as printed?

So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. That takes us up to our public hearing portion, presentation, staff presentation, adoption of tentative millage rates and tentative budgets for the City of Pompano Beach and the Emergency Medical Services District for physical year 2026-2027. I'll go ahead and turn it over to you, Mr. Waters.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. My name is Joshua Waters. I'm the city's budget director. It's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. Today's hearing is the first of two budget hearings required under the state's Truth in Milledge Act, or TRIM Act. We'll begin with a discussion of the information required under the state's TRIM Act, followed by a discussion of citywide revenues and expenses and general fund revenues and expenses. We'll then discuss tentative millage rates and the fire assessment program. I'll highlight the changes since the city manager's recommended budget was released in July. And then finally, the commission is scheduled to consider and vote on the tentative millage rates and budgets for the city and EMS special taxing district, as well as the final adoption of the final fire assessment fee resolution. Under the state's TRIM law, the first item to discuss at tonight's budget hearing are the tentative millage rates, the percentage increase in the millage rate over the rollback rate necessary to fund the budget, and reasons why ad valorem revenues are increasing. The city's combined operating and EMS rate totals 5.6920. This includes the general operating rate at 5.1920 and the EMS rate at 0.5. Our aggregate rollback rate is 5.4949, and the tentative millage rate represents an increase of 3.59% above the rollback rate. The tentative increase in ad valorem revenues is necessary primarily to fund significant non-discretionary cost increases in the city's general fund and EMS fund. These include increases to the Broward Sheriff's Office contract, employee salaries and benefits, pension contributions, tax increment payments, Increase in the contract for crossing guard services, the Broward County Tax Collectors Commission, and fuel costs. And I'll go over those in a little more detail later on in the presentation. Just for everyone's knowledge, the rollback rate is the millage rate that would generate the same property tax revenue as the prior year, excluding new construction and certain other changes to the tax roll. And just I want to note that the difference in revenue between the rollback rate and the tentative millage rate is $4.9 million. This year's budget was developed during one of the most challenging financial environments in recent years, with several last-minute curveballs thrown our way. Although revenues continue to grow, expenditure growth, particularly non-discretionary expenditures, continues to outpace recurring revenue growth. The development of this budget was guided by several principles. Maintain current service levels to the extent possible, maximize alternative revenues and cost recovery, minimize pressure on the operating millage rate, and identify operational efficiencies. At the direction of the commission, this budget reduces the operating millage rate by half a percent, and you will see later in this presentation with that reduction, the city's aggregate millage rate is now lower than the fiscal year 2020 rate. We're also recommending a modest adjustment to the fire assessment fee to address increasing fire service costs while continuing progress toward the commission's longstanding cost recovery goal. We'll begin by talking about the citywide budget all funds. This slide provides a high-level overview of the city's total FY2027 budget across all governmental, enterprise, internal service, and special revenue funds. In total, the city's budget is approximately $496.7 million. This represents an increase of $33.9 million or 7.3% compared to the fiscal 2026 adopted budget of $462.8 million. The increase is mostly associated with planned capital improvements for the city's utility system. Unlike the general fund, the citywide budget includes utilities, stormwater, solid waste, parking, the air park, the capital improvement plan, debt service, and other funds that operate independently from general governmental operations. Ad valorem taxes, including the operating, EMS, and debt service property taxes, remain the single largest revenue source for the city. At $143.5 million, you can see that in the dark green slice, or approximately 29%, and provide the primary funding for the general government operations, EMS support, and debt service on voter-approved bonds. Charges for services is the second largest source of citywide revenue at 113 million, or 23%. This is the blue slice in the chart here. And then the remaining revenues consist of licenses, permits, and assessments, intergovernmental revenues, other taxes, inter-fund transfers, and other financing sources. Together, these revenues provide a diversified financial structure that helps the city maintain long-term fiscal stability. This slide illustrates how the city's resources are allocated across all operations and services. The largest expenditure category continues to be salaries and benefits. As a service organization, city employees deliver fire protection, emergency response services, maintain infrastructure, operate utilities, provide recreation programs, and deliver countless other services to both residents and businesses. The second largest category is operating expenses, that's the yellow slice, which includes contractual services and utilities, maintenance, supplies, insurance, fuel, and other day-to-day operating costs needed to support city operations. The budget also includes approximately $71 million for the Broward Sheriff's Office contract, this is the dark blue slice, which is shown separately because of its size and significance within the city's overall financial plan. In addition, the budget includes capital improvements, debt service on previously approved bonds by the residents, grants and aid, transfers between funds, and other legally required expenditures. Taken together, this allocation reflects a balanced investment in personnel, infrastructure, and public services, while maintaining the city's long-term financial commitments. We'll now move on to the general fund, So in shifting our focus to the general fund, this is the city's primary operating fund and supports most of the municipal services residents interact with every day. The tentative fiscal 27 general fund budget totals approximately $257.7 million. Ad valorem revenues remain the largest single revenue source, generating $122 million or around 47.4% of total general fund revenues. This is the green slice on the left. The next largest category is licenses, permits, and assessments at $45.9 million, and includes fire assessment revenues. Intergovernmental revenues include state revenue sharing, grants, shared revenues received from federal, state, and county sources. The remaining categories consist of charges for services, non-ad valorem taxes, fines and forfeitures, and other sources. Year over year, general fund revenues increase by $14.1 million, and about half of that growth is from ad valorem taxes. This slide summarizes how general fund resources are allocated among the services provided to residents and businesses. Public safety remains the city's highest priority and represents the largest share of general fund expenditures. Combined, police services, fire services, and EMS support, and other public safety activities account for well over half of the general fund budget. And you can see that in this chart with the dark blue slice for police, the orange slice for fire, the lighter blue slice, this is transfers from the general fund to the EMS fund, and then the light green slice for other public safety, including homelessness services, code enforcement, as well as park rangers. Police services includes not only the city's contract with the Broward Sheriff's Office, but also the city's pension contribution for former Pompano Beach police officers and several other related public safety support costs. Parks and recreation, cultural affairs, tourism, and marketing, this is the dark green slice, represent another significant investment and reflect the commission's continued commitment to quality of life, recreation opportunities, and economic development. Development services and support services include the city commission and administration, planning and zoning, budget and finance, human resources, legal services, and other departments that provide essential support to the city's daily operations, as well as citywide charges such as electricity and water costs. Finally, public works, facilities, and engineering provide maintenance of streets, buildings, rights of way, and other public infrastructure that residents rely on every day. Overall, this allocation reflects the city's commitment to maintaining essential public safety services while continuing to invest in infrastructure, quality of life programs, and the administrative functions necessary to support city services. While I mentioned before that general fund revenues increase year over year by approximately $14.1 million, over the course of this budget development, staff identified over $19 million in additional costs that had to be addressed in developing this budget. The largest increase, as you see on this list, includes the BSO contract. And this includes the implementation of phase two of the salary study and also the increase we received over the summer regarding the BSO pension contribution as a result of legislation that passed in one of the special sessions and signed by the governor. Followed by that, we have employee compensation, CRA obligations, capital support and financing costs, pension contributions, crossing guard contract increase, the tax collector commissions, which is new in the budget this year, as well as fuel costs. As I stated, most of these increases are non-discretionary and are driven by contractual, statutory, or operational requirements rather than policy choices. We'll talk about millage rates now. The July 1st taxable value certification provides the tax rule used for budget development. This year, taxable value represented by the blue columns increased to approximately $24.7 billion, representing growth of approximately 1.6 billion, or 6.8% over the prior year. Growth continues to be supported by both appreciation in existing properties and continued new construction and redevelopment throughout the city. Continued growth in taxable values has allowed the city to absorb many of those non-discretionary cost increases that I presented on a few moments ago. This slide shows the millage rates, the tentative millage rates for FY27 and how they compare with the FY2026 adopted millage rates. As you can see at the commission's direction, the general operating millage rate decreases by 0.5%. The EMS millage rate remains constant at 0.5 mills. And then of course, as our taxable values have increased, the geobond millage rates related to the series 2018 and 2021 geobonds have automatically decreased. As a result, because of all these changes, the total city millage rate decreases from 6.1608 mills to 6.1063 mills, or a decrease of around 0.9%. This chart illustrates the city's operating millage rate and aggregate millage rate over the past eight fiscal years. The operating millage rate has remained relatively stable over this period. The tentative rate for 27, as I mentioned, represents a half percent decrease and is the third consecutive year of operating millage rate decreases. The aggregate millage rate, which includes operating, EMS, and voter-approved general obligation debt service millage, has trended downward over the past several years. The only notable increase occurred in FY22, when the debt service millage associated with the voter-approved general obligation bond referendum first appeared on the tax bill. For FY2027, the aggregate millage rate continues to decline for the fifth year in a row and is now at its lowest level since fiscal year 2020. It's also worth noting that under Florida law, municipalities may levy up to 10 mills for municipal purposes. Even when the city's debt service millage is included, the Pompano Beach millage rate remains well below that statutory maximum. So staff compared Pompano Beach's aggregate millage rate with every municipality in Broward County now that the millage rates have been released and the trim notices have gone out. We can see that for FY2027, the tentative millage rate for Pompano Beach is the 14th lowest in the county. This is compared to all the 31 municipalities. It demonstrates that the city continues to maintain an overall competitive property tax rate while still providing a full range of municipal services. The operating millage rate, we are now in 10th lowest municipality in the county. This is an improvement of two spaces. I believe for fiscal year 2026, we were the 12th lowest. So as other cities have modified their millage rates, our decreasing, our operating millage rate and the debt service millage rates have worked positively here. And of course, as other municipalities complete their budget processes, they're all in the same timeline we are right now in considering their budgets and their millage rates. These rankings may change slightly, but the city's overall position on this list remains favorable. Now we'll go on to the fire assessment program. So this section of the presentation focuses on the fire assessment program, the proposed FY2027 assessment rates, and how the recommendation supports the city's longstanding cost recovery goals. The recommendation reflects rising fire service costs while balancing affordability for residents and businesses. If you recall at the last July meeting of the commission, the commission approved the preliminary rate resolution for the fire assessment fees. This evening you'll be voting on the final fire assessment fee resolution. So the proposed fire assessment fees, as I said, we recommended and the commission preliminarily approved a modest adjustment to the fire assessment fee for fiscal year 2027. So the residential assessment would increase from $361 to $391 per residential unit. That's a $30 increase, while commercial, industrial, and institutional rates are assessed on a per foot basis and would increase proportionately. The driver of this increase continues to be growth in the cost of providing fire services, including compensation costs, pension obligations, and operating expenses. The proposed assessment is expected to generate approximately $34.8 million in net revenue after statutory discounts. And this recommendation continues the multi-year approach adopted by the commission last year to gradually restore cost recovery. This chart illustrates the relationship between eligible fire service costs, denoted by the green column, and the net revenues associated with the fire assessment fee denoted by the blue column over time. The black line represents what the coverage ratio is when comparing revenues to expenditures. Historically, the city's goal has been to recover approximately 90% of eligible costs through the fire assessment program, with the remaining costs supported by other general fund revenues. Over several years, expenditures increased faster than assessment revenues, causing the coverage ratio to decline. Last year's budget began reversing that trend by increasing the coverage ratio to approximately 81%, and the 27 recommendation increases that ratio to approximately 82%. So while this doesn't fully restore the historical policy target, it represents another incremental step that balances fiscal responsibility along with affordability. This slide compares the proposed residential assessments with the assessments charged by other Broward County municipalities. Again, they're on the same calendar as we are, so we have access to their proposed rates for fiscal year 2027. Even after the recommended increase, Pompano Beach remains well within the range of comparable jurisdictions. So of the 25 jurisdictions that have a fire assessment fee, we are the 12th lowest, and that is an improvement of one position from last year, when we were the 13th lowest. The next few slides walk through changes that have been made since the city manager's recommended budget in July. Most of these have been discussed with the commission with the exception of one. Most of these have been discussed with the commission during the course of the July workshops. However, I wanted for transparency sake to put these on one consolidated, a couple of consolidated slides just so you all know everything that changed and how we got to where we are today. So in this slide, I'm just going to walk through this. This is changes to general fund. So the first few lines on here represent changes to general fund revenue. First line represents the change to revenue associated with the half percent millage rate reduction. We initially thought it would be around $611,000, but after we finalized all the numbers, it was slightly higher at $612,000. And we were able to accommodate that with other adjustments. The net CRA revenue transfer to the general fund is a positive 129,720. This is associated with administrative charges, internal service charges, and the actions that were associated with how the commission was split funding a couple of the positions with the CRA this year. The next few lines represent some expenditure changes since the July budget. The first line on here is a million dollar increase. This was associated with the passage of House Bill 5205E, which was signed by the governor in the middle of the summer, which increased pension costs for BSO. The next line on here was increased funding for school crossing guard contracts. This was also a later item as a result of a contract that the commission approved earlier this summer for crossing guard services. In order to accommodate those increased costs, we had to find some ways to balance those. One of the ways we did it was to assume a vacancy credit within our BSO contract and looking at the number of vacant positions. We do get a credit every year, and we feel based on the number of vacancies that we should be able to at least see a $350,000 vacancy credit for BSO. We also eliminated funding in the contingency non-departmental account. This is where we put the funds on purpose between the June tax roll and the July tax roll. As a result of the tax roll in July, we did have a small amount of revenue, more than we projected in June. So we put that there purposefully in case the commission wanted to allocate those funds elsewhere, and we were able to do that in this process to kind of offset some of these cost increases. There were a couple of reductions to the golf program. One was an inadvertent increase for a professional services contract that we backed out of the budget. The other one relates to a project related to moving piles of sediment on the golf course that's just going to have to be a delayed project for future consideration. The next item on here is no additional funds to digitize plaids for engineering. And then the last item on here, and I'll talk about these in a little more detail in a moment, relates to reductions for the millage rate adjustment that we were directed to do by the commission. So this is how, the next slide here just shows, this is what we presented to you guys in July, but this just shows how we were able to get to that half percent millage rate reduction. Removing funding for the drone show. For fiscal year 2027, we know there are gonna be parking issues there anyway, and so this just made sense to perhaps skip a year for the drone show. For marketing and program reductions for parks, reduction in special legal non-departmental accounts, recalculation of the TIF distribution to the CRAs due to the lower millage rate. This is an automatic reduction to the CRAs because as our property taxes decrease, the tax increment financing going to the CRAs also decreases. reducing art program expenses, and then a reduction to other professional services in the marketing department. So while the Commission is not scheduled to vote on the CIP until the second budget hearing next week, I did want to highlight a few things for you guys since you are voting on the millage rate and the budgets this evening. The first major change relates to the transportation surtax allocation. uh... to the city so there was a memo sent to the city commission in august that kind of explained what happened there the placeholder amounts we had in the budget in the july budget assumed that we would receive at least the same amount of funding that we did in fiscal year twenty twenty six And that was based on Broward County's pool of surtax funding for municipalities being $30 million, which is what they had for 2026. We received in August the allocation from Broward County and the pool, the $30 million pool for 26 was reduced to $8.7 million for 2027. And so as a result, Pompano Beach's allocation of those funds decreased from $2 million, which is what we received in the current fiscal year, 26, to approximately $579,000 in 27, a reduction of about $5.4 million. But again, this impacts all the other cities, and Broward County are all feeling that. We did reach out to Broward County prior to the July workshop just to see if they could give us some preliminary information. We were told at that time that the numbers would be released in late July, early August, so... So given the other significant budget adjustments received late in the process, staff recommends reducing the 2027 road resurfacing project from 2.5 million to approximately 1.08 million, aligning the project with the revised county allocation and the existing general capital fund contribution. The revised funding is still expected to complete the city's five-year resurfacing plan one year ahead of its original schedule. It was originally scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 28. Enough funding with this fund allows the project to be completed in fiscal year 2027. We also recommend revisiting available funding early in fiscal year 2027. There will likely be some savings from fiscal 2026 as a result of the funding for the salary study for BSO from 2026. There was a late development on that that we heard about over the weekend where the sheriff did provide a COLA that's retroactive to October 1st, 2025, but it's a smaller amount than what we had included in our budget. It's a smaller amount than the initial salary study. So in conversation with Major Elwood, he's reaching out trying to determine with his budget staff there what that differential is. And once that amount is known and the fiscal 2026 year end results are complete, we can determine whether additional resources are available and then potentially bring back an amendment to the commission for consideration at that time. So these are the next steps in the budget development process. As you can see, we're on the next to last step on the ladder here, September 14th, first public budget hearing. Tonight, you're scheduled to consider and adopt the tentative millage rates and budgets for both the city and the EMS Special Taxing District, and the adoption of the final fire assessment fees. On September 23rd, next week, is the final public budget hearing, at which time the commission will consider and adopt the final millage rates and budgets for the city and the EMS Special Taxing District, as well as adopt the capital improvement plan. I do have a list up here just to note just what the action items are tonight. So there's six different action items for tonight in this order. And with that, I will turn it over to any questions.

Very good. Thank you for that presentation. Very good. Are there any questions from the Commission for Mr. Waters at this time? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. Thanks for this, I appreciate it. I had a couple questions about, the biggest one I think for me was the reduction in our surtax, given that we have our roads in pretty much deplorable condition in a lot of areas, and I know how important that is to residents in all districts. Is this something, is there anywhere else we can can pull some of this money from? Is there anywhere else we can pull some of this money from?

So the short answer is not really. And I'll tell you this because there were a lot of late in the budget process curveballs that we received. So for example, the million dollar increase for BSO as a result of those pension changes at the state level that we had to absorb. And so we were forced to find cuts for that. Additionally, there was the $300,000 increase for the crossing guard contract. And so based on those items, there's really not much give in the budget without significant service reductions. And at this time, since everything was discussed during the budget workshops, at this time there's not enough time to have enough consideration with the commission. to really implement those. I will say we are monitoring, you know, we are continuously monitoring what our revenue income has been. And I will say the good news is, preliminarily, it looks like our ad valorem tax revenues are going to be slightly higher than budgeted. So there may be some elasticity there that we can turn to in the beginning of the fiscal year. We'll know more about that as the books for fiscal year 2026 closes to see if there are perhaps any other additional overages or if there's some expenditures that we have to make up for with those. And so we'll be able to have a better information for the commission earlier in the next fiscal year. So at this point, staff is recommending to bring down the revenues for the surtax funding as well as the expenditures for that project.

And from a real world basis, you know, Practical application, like right now, how does that work out for our scheduled, you know, how does that rate reduction, I'm probably, I see Mr. McCann here, so how does that work out for our schedule for what we have budgeted? Does it push us off? Are we, you know, does it push us off into, you know, a reduction of services, or are we going to try to spend it still trying to go as far as we can with what we have planned, and then maybe we can get grants or something? I don't know.

rama com public works director so like mister waters said that really we're we were lucky that we got them out of paving funds we did this year so it has been accelerated and our plan a five-year plan was based on a million dollars a year so now we're back to the million dollars a year so That one year remaining, we should get that accomplished. The disappointing thing, it was already said that maybe with the $2 million, we could do all those streets. Harbor Village, I mentioned that. But that's going to have to be pushed out. And that's the next priority. So to say grants, I don't know that right now there's any available option for grants.

Are there any options? I mean, I guess Mr. Waters would maybe, like he said, we could always come back at it with an amendment to the budget if we can find some money. But one of my concerns, I guess, is my next question for Mr. Waters. I mean, thank you, Mr. McCaughan. I appreciate you in having to try to make lemonade out of some lemons here. I had a question when we were at the cost of our... I'm trying to find this slide. It's where we're spending our money, and it was salary, and then there was the operating expenses. And they were almost even, it was like once, this one, yes. Great. So salary and benefits, is that just for our general employees?

Right, so the salaries and benefits, this is for city employees. Okay. One of the reasons I broke out the BSO operating expenses here, if BSO were an internal agency, most of those expenses would likely show up on the salaries and benefits slide, on the slice for salaries and benefits, because a lot of the costs associated with police services are going to be on the salaries and benefits side. Operating expenses, this is across the board operating expenses, whether it be operating Utilities plants, you know, they have to buy equipment. They have to buy, in utilities, for example, they have to buy equipment, chemicals, those types of things that are incredibly expensive. And this is also including, this is also the citywide budget, so it includes the capital budget as well. And the significant cost increase driver year over year for that was the planned capital improvements for our utility system.

Okay. Where are our firefighters? Are they in the salary and benefits, or are they in the operating expenses?

They're going to be in the salaries and benefits category. Yep.

And then you mentioned contractual as part of operating expenses. Do we have a breakdown of what that looks like from contracts and how they're spent in terms of service agreements are one thing, right? So we have a service agreement for, maybe there's the breakdown of that I think would be a little bit more helpful to understand. Because if there's anywhere we could trim something in there and try to push it, into services we may need as a city overall maybe it's time to look at some of those contracts we have and see if we're actually using them or if we're we can tighten the belt there understood understood okay um one other question have you done any so i noticed that we've gone down you know our military has gone down and we've had that consistent decline, which I'm sure is very thrilling for a lot of people. But does it help that it's because we haven't borrowed additional money yet that we don't have the top level? For example, a bond the following year.

Mm-hmm.

usually the first year you're paying mostly interest. Do we anticipate, have we looked at what future years might look like if we have, if this tax thing passes and if we're playing with the numbers and then we also have a bond on top of that or we have additional debt service?

So we've not looked at it currently. Those are going to be options, you know, as those options come forward, if the Amendment 3 passes in November and the City Commission directs staff to take a look at what room there is in the operating millage rate to perhaps make up some of that, that would be for a future discussion. But at this point, it really... There's a menu of options that's going to be available to the commission, and it just depends on what choices you make from that menu and how that impacts either services, debt, or even the military.

Okay.

Yeah, I think that that would be really interesting to me just to see kind of a worst-case scenario. I'm not saying that it's a worst-case scenario, but just saying just what we might be facing so that when we're looking at this, even if we just kind of move forward with the suggested options, we at least can anticipate where throughout the course of the year we might need to make changes or may need to make an amendment to something after that is decided. And maybe it would be good to be a little bit, have a little bit of foresight to think about some of those places where we know we could potentially make those changes right out of the gate.

Right. And just for clarification for the Commission and for the audience, if Amendment 3 passes, it will not take effect until the following fiscal year than what you're considering this evening. So what's up for consideration right now is fiscal year 2027. Amendment 3, should it pass, would impact fiscal year 2028 and beyond. So there still would be some time for the Commission to have those discussions and to make choices from those menu of options.

And I agree with you. There is time, but if we're paying X amount per month out that we might not need to be doing, then we can put that money back into the general fund, and maybe we can offset any potential shift in funding that we might miss out on by planning ahead. I think that's it for now. Thank you.

Very good. Further discussion? Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton?

Yes, can we just let the record show that I came in about 10 after six meeting? I just wanted to remind you, thank you.

Very good. Other Commission questions? Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I have a few questions also. I had the same question about the paving funds because you said that we'd still be able to complete the five-year paving plan even though we're going to have about a million less than we expected. So Mr. McConn answered that. It's the additional streets in Harbor Village that won't be done this year. Okay. With respect to the two changes for golf, one was personnel, what was the first one?

Sure, so let me go back to... There, the $330,000 reduction to golf. We discussed this with the commission during the July, I think the first July workshop. Part of that reduction relates to an inadvertent mistake in budgeting. So we had double budgeted for something. There was a misunderstanding in communicating with the golf course manager. He had assumed it was a one-time increase, but we'd already had money in the base budget for the increase to pay for professional services in that contract. So we were able to back that money out. In addition, there was about $150,000 that was initially put into the budget. to, there were sediment piles that were placed on the golf course from utilities. And so there were some funds put in the budget to do some landscaping and some retention of those sediment piles on the golf course. So this would just delay that project in the future. So it's not necessarily harming anything, it's just delaying a project to the future. So that's why that was chosen.

Are we going to continue using the golf course for sediment piles from utilities?

I will defer to the utilities director, but it's my understanding that no, we're not putting sediment on utilities. Is that correct? I may have been wrong.

Renuka Muhammad, the utilities director. So the sedimentation is a byproduct of the lime softening, which will discontinue in and around 2029. So there may be a Small portion still that's remaining, but yes, that will be discontinued.

Okay. We can still expect that in the short term until we transition away from that plan?

Depending on how much Lyme softening treatment we continue to use.

Okay. Thank you. And my other question is on the late-breaking BSO COLA. We've not heard about this. I know that this money has been sitting, and we've been waiting until the end of the fiscal year to see if deputies were going to get their raise. What is exactly the proposed COLA? And do you have any idea how many million that will be relative to what we budgeted in fiscal year 2026?

So when I say late breaking, I mean this was over the weekend that I was informed of this. So we had conversations this morning with the police chief. I believe it's a 4% COLA provided to the beginning of the fiscal year. We did ask that he speak with his budget staff, his finance staff, to kind of expedite getting us an idea of what that number actually is. Based on information we did receive from the police chief, it is less than what the what was included in the budget for the the first phase of the salary study so hopefully there's enough room to absorb some of that for the surtax revenues and then of course I would assume that that would then reset what the base budget would be for fiscal year 27 so it's just gonna have to be it's I don't want to say we have to wait and see but we're waiting on the finance team from BSO to get us those numbers to find out what what exactly the impact of that is and how that impacts the fiscal year 27 budget

I guess that's kind of what I was thinking about. So is this a one-time COLA?

It's my understanding, and the chief, I would defer to him. My question then is, are we... A coal is built into the salary level, so it would raise the base salaries. So then the next fiscal year would have a level to base that on as well. But right now, what the budget includes is the implementation of phase one from fiscal year 26 and the full implementation of phase two from 27. And the county is considering its budget at this time of year right now, but I will defer to the chief if there's anything to add.

Good evening, Vice Mayor. So to answer your question, it's not a one-time. It's a COLA. It's a cost-of-living adjustment. It's a permit at 4%. Okay.

But I mean, it's not an annual additional 4% every year.

No, ma'am.

Right. So that's what I was getting at. As we think about our contract going forward and what we have in the budget, we're comfortable with this year still. And with the salary, okay. Okay. And then I guess I have one kind of... theoretical question. So from your perspective, when we pass the budget, not the military necessarily, but the budget, so I believe that will be item two. We always hear from city management that you pass the budget, everything was approved in the budget, so it's done, right? If you ask a question later, well, you already approved it in the budget. And that's always been a frustrating response because yes, it is in the budget, but for example, we have CRA plans before us tomorrow. If we pass this today, are we effectively saying that we agree with those CRA plans that we haven't voted on yet?

I would say no. I mean, there are linkages between the city's budget and the CRA budget. So the CRA's budget, there's the split, the personnel costs that are split between the city and CRA. I believe I provided that to the commission in the follow-up questions from the July workshop. In addition to that, as any agency, we also expect revenue, we budget for revenue from the CRA for the internal service charges. So for the IT internal service charges, fleet charge, just kind of across the board, health insurance charge, risk management charges, any internal service charge that a city department pays, like for an enterprise fund, we do have those revenue assumptions built into the budget for the CRA. So there are linkages between the city's budget and the CRA's budget. So for example, if you pass the city's budget, we do have those assumptions built in. If the CRA's budget is not passed, then that inevitably creates a gap in the revenue assumptions that we made for the city's budget. That would either need to be backfilled or some other mechanism would need to be found.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Smith.

It's here to get to my mic. What would be the net if instead of lowering the rate a half a percent, if we lowered it a quarter percent, how much net would that bring in and would it make up for the surtax that we're going to lose?

So the half percent millage rate reduction was around $612,000, so half of that would be about $306,000. Unfortunately, at this point, since the trim notices have already gone out with the half percent millage rate reduction, that establishes the ceiling millage rate that the commission can consider at this time. So the commission can vote to lower the millage rate between now and the second budget hearing, but the commission can't vote to raise the millage rate above what was included in that trim notice.

Well, 300 doesn't make it, so thank you.

Very good. Further commission? Commissioner Perkins.

Just a question on page 10, where it says public safety under the green, and it has other. Yes, ma'am. 5.1, can you explain that?

Sure, that includes homelessness services, so Cassandra Rett's office. It includes code enforcement. It includes park rangers. So those are some of the other public safety services that are included in there. It doesn't necessarily fit into fire or police, so we have a separate category.

Okay, great, thank you.

All right, further commission questions? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. So one of the other things when I was going through, and I guess this is more related to, I don't know if we get into it later at the budget side, but the air park, I noticed that there was, I guess it was the first, is it the first ever, I guess, general fund subsidy for the air park? because I didn't see it before, but there's a transfer fund from, I guess, $100,000 to $310,000?

I looked back several years to see when that was done. For 27, there's an air park. There's a general fund transfer in the air park for 2027 from $178,000 from the general fund to the air park. I don't know if that's the first one. I would look at... My colleagues, no. It hasn't happened in recent years, but I am told that it has happened previously.

Okay, and was there, so is there, I mean, I feel like the city needs the money, you know, for public works and for paving our roads. So maybe let's work this problem backwards. Mr. McCann, do you know if that was, money that we were missing from Broward Surtax. Is that the amount that we would have needed, or can we run it a little bit trimmer? What's the actual cost to get the roads done on schedule, even if we were to, I don't know, step it back if we have to a little bit, but what's the number we need to hit?

Again, Rob McCann, Public Works Director. I'm not sure I totally could publicly do math real quick. So with the approximately $120,000, $130,000 a mile, assuming a 24-foot wide road that we are paving in our neighborhoods. So And you say to finish up the paving, realizing we're never finished. But are you meaning to take care of all the, we mentioned Harbor Edge, Harbor Village would drop out. Is that asking what would it take to get that all accomplished?

Right, so I think that was the next in line for our plan. That's correct. So what's our number? How many miles do we have that we need to multiply that number by to get that done?

Well, I think it was roughly about another million dollars to get those roads accomplished.

Okay. So even though we lost 1.4, we could probably get it done for a million-ish. No?

Well, I also realize we're in our last year of our paving contract. We've been very fortunate to hold this amount for the cost per paving. However, we have found out we're having to mill a lot more of the roads before we pave, which is almost doubling the cost in some cases. But because asphalt is a petroleum-based product, it's hard to predict. But it's going to be more costly in the future than what we've paid in the past. So that's the only thing I could say is.

OK, thank you. The second part is, the second question I have is related to, so I'm concerned about spending another $178,000 to air park when we kind of need it for our roads and for our own infrastructure. The other portion of that is the CRA funding. I liked what Vice Mayor said was sort of on my radar in terms of if this then that because that's what we find ourselves many times hearing over the course of the following year once we do things because things have to be approved within a timeline. Question I have was about the accounts. And again, I can maybe move this. But the accounts that are being 8290 and 8291 are zeroed out, and then it moves over into one grant and aid accounts? What's the reason for that?

Oh, yeah, that was an accounting change. We had previously budgeted that under a different accounting series, and after discussions with our controller and finance director, we were told that we have to now budget it under a different accounting number. So that's why that change was made. It was based on state accounting requirements. I think previously it was budgeted as grant and aid. and now it was moved to, I forget the, what's the, so it was just moved for accounting purposes.

Okay. And, yeah, all right, thank you.

Sure. Mr. Berman?

Mayor, if I can, and with Josh's permission, just to augment or add on to his response to the Vice Mayor's question about the CRA, I just want to make it clear that state law, as you're aware, does require that you pass a CRA budget. I didn't want the response to indicate that if you don't, you must pass a CRA budget. It's really just a shift. If the CRA gets less, the city picks up the cost that the CRA is covering. It's really one pot with different responsibilities to an extent. So I just kind of wanted to add that on to Josh's response about the CRA. So thank you for the question, Vice Mayor. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor.

Very good. Further questions?

Mr. Waters. My apologies. I did leave out a couple of items on slide 24. I got distracted by the large decrease for the surtax revenues. So the other thing I just wanted to mention, one change since the July budget relates to the CIP funding. A new project was added for senior center landscaping project. and we were able to find the funds with the city-wide park amenities project. We had some additional funds to take care of some additional items in the city-wide park amenities project, but after the July workshop, we found we were able to move that around to have the city-wide for the senior center project. And then the other change, future year changes, you'll see this in the out years in the CIP, when you see this in your backup for next week, is that we did reduce the road resurfacing project. We'd assumed two and a half million uh in the future years for that project but based on those reduced revenues from the county we're going to just assume the current level recommended level about 1.1 million dollars and then we'll make adjustments to that every year but i we didn't want to create the expectation now that we have better information from the county that it would be funded at that higher level and then also there was an acceleration of a project the hunters manor pavilion gazebo from 2031 to 2028. i just wanted to say that for the record just to make sure that it was clear

Very good. Thank you for that. Further Commission questions at this point in time? Seeing none, let's go ahead and move on then to our considerations. Item number one is a resolution.

A resolution of the City Commission, the City of Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida, adopting the tentative millages for the 2026 tax roll, levying a tax on all properties, real and personal, within the corporate limits of the City of Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida, for operation and or maintenance expenses. the city of Pompano Beach using a tentative general operating millage rate of five point one nine two zero levying a tax for the payment of principal and interest for 2018 general obligation bonded indebtedness using a tentative millage rate of zero point two four six four levying a tax for the payment of principal and interest for 2021 general obligation bonded indebtedness using a tentative millage rate of zero providing that the tentative millage rate, general operating millage, 5.1920 and emergency medical services district millage 0.500 of 5.6920 represents a 3.59 increase in property taxes when compared to the rollback millage rate of 5.4949 providing an effective date

So moved. Second. Moved and second for discussion.

Mr. Waters. Just for trim requirements, Mayor, the city's combined operating and EMS millage rate totals 5.6920. The aggregate rollback rate is 5.4949. So the tentative millage rate represents an increase of 3.59% above the rollback rate. And as I stated in the presentation, the increase is necessary to fund significant non-discretionary cost increases in the city's general fund and EMS fund, including increases for the BSO contracts, employee salaries and benefits, pension contributions, tax increment payments, increases for the contract of crossing guards, Broward County Tax Collector Commission, and fuel costs.

Very good. Thank you for that. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Please come forward. Just come on forward. Just come to the podium. State your name and address for the record.

I don't know what he said.

Welcome, and thank you for being here.

Dr. William Madden, 281 Southeast Fifth Avenue, Pompano Beach. I'm afraid I might have just jumped it because it wasn't about the military. It was actually about your budget overall.

Okay, well, go ahead.

All right, sorry about that. Got a little excited. So thank you, everyone, for your time. Ms. Face, you're doing a fantastic job. I appreciate all the questions that you were asking. So when I went through the budget online, I noticed there was a lack of footnotes. So some of these are just clarifiers. I noticed that we're leasing Ford Escapes Some places it's $225,000 for five of them, $100,000 for two of them. So you have inconsistent numbers. I believe one of them was even like $47,000 later in the budget. So that could use some refinement, I'm sure. How about with your budget? But I'm trying to figure out why we're spending $50,000 leasing a vehicle that costs $30,000 to buy. And if it's so that we don't have to pay maintenance costs. Why is it that we have a vehicle service division that's gone from 4.6 million to 5.4 million? The other thing is, as I went through, $150,000 for one Ford Expedition. I don't know what this Expedition does, but that seems excessive in cost. Ford 450, you can get two of them, apparently, for $152,000 versus, later on in the budget, one of them for $133,000. Other things that seem surprising is five computers for just shy of $37,000. I'm not sure what computers we're buying. Seven grand for life jackets. There seems to be that there are places that if we actually look at the budget on the line item basis, that we can find the money that you're looking for that would be better spent in other areas, as I agree with you, and I thank you very much for for bringing that up and the one other area that I got was OpEx on parking. We're planning to double our OpEx expense on parking. That service is supposed to go up twice as much and we have $600,000 for consulting on parking. I run two consulting firms and I can tell you that I find it very hard to find that any amount of engineering would be $600,000 We built slightly more than that for building a plant in North Florida. So it seems a bit excessive. I'm not sure about your competitive bid process. But as I go through it, I'm not sure if it's just poor footnotes, and so I didn't understand it, or if it's that we actually have not put the level of thought in how you're going to spend the taxpayers' money. Again, if it's just poor footnotes, I apologize for taking your time. If it's lack of care, let's address it.

Well, sir, I mean, you've got valid questions, absolutely, but we're not going to pull things apart at this point in time. But if you want to get with Mr. Waters, he'd be happy to go through all those questions with you and explain every detail. I mean, it is your budget. It's our budget. So, absolutely, we want people to understand it. So, like I said, not tonight. We're not going to pull everything apart, but Absolutely give this with mr.

Waters and he can explain all of it all your questions answer him and hopefully to your satisfaction Mr. Fessick you and if you wouldn't mind, please just get in touch with me I don't know if you'll stay for the whole thing I hope you will but I just like to see some of the things I was scribbling but I'd like to see some of the things you found Oh, I'd be more than happy to work with your office and actually have some of my team go through the entire thing and say Inconsistencies for you. Thank you. I appreciate that. No worries.

Thank you

VERY GOOD. FURTHER INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. COMMISSION DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER PERKINS, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER PFEZEN? YES. COMMISSIONER PERKINS?

YES.

COMMISSIONER SIGERSEN-EATON?

YES.

Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Mayor Poitier? Yes.

Mayor Hardin? Yes. Item number two is a resolution.

A resolution adopting the tentative annual budget of estimated expenditures and expenses, receipts, and revenues for the City of Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida for fiscal year 2026 through 2027, totaling $464,536,890, providing an effective date. So moved. Second. Moved and second for discussion.

Mr. Waters? Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, this is the full city budget with the exception of the EMS special taxing district budget, which is why you see a difference between this number and the full budget number I presented earlier. But this would be for the adoption of the full city budget minus the EMS taxing district.

Very good. Thank you for that. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Anyone? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission questions? Vice Mayor?

Thank you. I want to comment on what was said as it relates to the budget and going through this, because we bring this up all the time, that it is a very dense document with a lot of details and not much of an explanation. And we did go through some level of detail in our July session. I mean, I had gone through it line by line and kind of dragged us through that for a few hours. But to someone who just opens it and tries to understand the budget, it's nearly impossible. And maybe that's just the nature of how this is created and how it has to be reported. But with respect to some of your comments, we talked about fleet decisions. quite a bit, and we have over the last year, and at our budget workshop, and we were told, because I share your concerns on even the size of our fleet, and when you're looking at vehicles, it's hard for you to compare because you don't know how that vehicle's configured, if that's being used by environmental services with some kind of special configuration so that it can pick up trash versus just a regular truck. So some of them, as we've gone through it, we've learned, OK, this is a specialized vehicle. And I've sat here and went line by line through them and said, OK, we have these specialized vehicles, and we're putting almost no miles on some of them. So why are we leasing these things? If we buy this, it will probably last forever. So I have a lot of fleet questions that got punted this year because we were told that we had a new fleet manager come on board and we needed to give that person some time to dig in. But certainly one of my expectations over this next fiscal year is that we spend a lot more time talking about and rationalizing our vehicle fleet here. Whether tax reform passes or not, I don't care. It's the right thing to do and our fleet is, I think, too big and we spend way too much on it. Everyone doesn't need a vehicle. And then, Consulting we've also talked about our city manager has a two hundred thousand dollars of a spending authority that doesn't require our approval and that means that contracts can get signed up to that amount without us even being told about them until they're done and And that can add up quickly, a couple of those contracts. So whether tax reform passes or not, I continue to believe that our city manager spending authority is out of line with other similar sized cities and even high relative to much larger cities. to rein things in and give us better oversight and control of what's going on here, we need to address that over the next fiscal year also. My colleagues don't agree with me, but I will not stop saying that. So, thank you very much.

Very good. Further, Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. Vice Mayor, I agree with you. I think it's a little bit too high of a spending authority for where we are. I'm still a little bit needing more clarification about the operational expenses versus salaries, because I know consultants and contracts are in there, and I'd like more of a line-by-line detail of how much is where and what it's for. That's imperative. My bigger issue is that we have to vote on this tonight, and There's still a lot of things that I have questions about related to the air park. So I don't know if you're aware, but over the weekend, after we had a very spirited conversation, I believe, at our last commission meeting about the air park, and we have plans to have discussions about the air park again and a presentation about lead testing on the 22nd, There's been a long conversation about the environmental impact, things along those lines. So this is a big deal. And what I'm seeing is that news outlets are reporting that the city is moving full steam ahead with this air park expansion situation. And I kind of feel like, again, If we start going in this direction, we're taking $178,000 of the general fund subsidy to the air park capital, and then fund transfer from another area. I'm just concerned that that is, by saying yes to this, we're approving the go ahead for some of those things. And I don't know that I want to approve those yet. I don't know where I stand on that yet. I still feel like we need more information related to what's going on at the air park, because that has not been very clear to us despite asking many, many times over. So that's one. And we need the money for other things. Second part is related to the CRA. So it's my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong. If we do approve this, and if we do approve this, then we are essentially moving some of these funds into this other fund that would allow us, because it's very clearly stated that They plan to take another bond out for additional money to develop McNab Park into a botanical garden. And that would also force us into extending the CRA without being able to sunset it in 2031 or change the sunset date. or change the plan. So my concern is one begets the other. And if we approve this with the CRA exposure and the way that it's written, I'm concerned that that pretty much gives CRA the ability to have that fund ready to go for a bond when bond approval is literally our only way to essentially, or disapproval, is literally our only mechanism where we can stop the bleeding and actually claw back some of that tax revenue from the district ideally once the CRA sunsets or we're able to sunset it when we meet those obligations. So I have a big feeling about that and I know that I have made that very public and I have a big feeling about our park being used for further development when it should just be a neighborhood park. There's some, yeah, again, more air park exposure from the stuff I was going down, different funds. I would really like to be, if those items could be pulled out of this, I feel like I would be, or, you know, sort of set to a fund where we can decide later, or they're not allocated to those things yet. I would like to see that where the CRA section is per, or, you know, whatever happens in our meeting tomorrow, and the air park is per whatever happens, you know, just set in a fund that's not dedicated to that

So if I might, and then I'll, I think Mr. Berman had something to say, but Mr. Mayor, with regard to the air park, as an enterprise fund, it does not impact necessarily the general fund with the exception of those internal service charges that are charged to the air park, as well as there was a small general fund transfer for the air park capital fund this year for 27. So those are the linkages really between the general funds and the air park fund. With regard to the CRA, as I mentioned earlier, there are those internal service charges as well as the linkages with regard to the salaries. Regardless, the city does have to make its TIF contribution by law every year. That's the other kind of large linkage between the city's budget and the CRA budget is that CRA is the TIF distribution that we have to pay to the CRA by the end of December, I believe, every year. With regard to the budget as a whole, I don't believe it's legally permissible to carve out pieces of the budget and decide them separately for the city's budget. The city's budget is a consolidated budget, with the exception of the EMS Special Taxing District, which was a voter-approved taxing district that's a separate entity. And then, as you said, the CRA budget itself will be considered by the CRA board, coincidentally, the commission, tomorrow. But with regard to the CRA and the air park linkages between the enterprise fund, the CRA funds, and the rest of the city's budget, that's how those linkages work.

Okay, is it possible to perhaps say then that we would make, let's say if I were to make a motion that we maintain the air park, let's just focus on the air park, maintain the air park budget at the same one as it was in fiscal year 2026, which basically has it at that same level, which is lower, essentially saving us the budget several hundred thousand dollars or 178 plus reducing the transfer from 310 to 100,000. Would that be something that would be able to be done logistically?

I've got Mr. Berman. He wants to chime in. I think that may be a legal question as well.

I think so, but Josh is doing a good job with them, though. I'm listening. I'm learning. First of all, existing contracts, especially with the airport, they must be funded. They're obligations, unless they're terminated, and then they're not funded. But you can't decline to fund them unless they're terminated. The CRA, based on a comment you had made earlier, has already been extended. I wanted to point that out. And that will be, again, dealt with tomorrow. But you can't pull the CRA out, and you can't start pulling pieces out of the budget at this time. Again, it's part of the city's funding process. The air park, now, as far as development, that you can deal with at a later time. But there are existing contracts at the air park, and they have to be funded. They have to be honored unless...

take other action later okay thank you mayor thank you so i yeah so i just want to go on record as saying that i don't i don't support um some of the spending money i'd like more clarification also i guess on exactly what that contractual obligation obligation is for that air park where that money is going and what what it's applied to specifically um as for the cra stuff yes i understand that it was approved but through a plan approval that was done in 2024. And that was basically where it was, I think on page eight, it was like, or somewhere buried in the document. It basically said to do these lovely things, we recommend that we're going to extend the CRA by a period of 30 years. So one line in a plan has been forcing this thing through essentially when, and I wasn't even on the board at the time, but I remember asking the question from right there, saying, does that contractually obligate us as a city to move forward with certain things? And the answer was very clear. It was supposed to say, no, we can always choose to sunset it whenever. But the reality is, the second that we approve a bond, we're stuck in that position, and we cannot sunset anything until that bond is paid for and taken care of. So if we do approve, I just want to make sure that it's clear for now and for tomorrow that if we approve any bond, the CRA, then we are locked into not sunsetting the CRA earlier, even if we might really need the money based on what may or may not happen in November with the amendment change. So I just, I want to go on record as saying I have a lot of big concerns about spending extra money that we are borrowing extra money in a lot of veins for vanity projects, which may be lovely, but I think there's ways we can get projects done and have them done for a lot less money that we already have in the bank. So those are my concerns about our budget here and our budget we'll discuss tomorrow, but it's time that residents started getting heard and not just being told, all right, well, it's in the budget and we've already approved it, we're contractually moving ahead, and then we're steamrollered into some of these things that we have to, pay the piper, essentially. So I really would like, I would agree with the gentleman that spoke, that basically I would really like us to, if not as soon as possible for this one, but moving forward, have a very, very drill down, clear as, just clear as anything, definition of exactly where these money and these contracts linked down to invoice and who's paid and what, If we need to, then we can find out more detail. I feel like this, in today's age, this should be relatively easy to maneuver. I just wonder if it's not on purpose sometimes. Thank you.

Mr. Waters, the questions that Commissioner Fessick has about the air park, you could answer those, what those monies are for, you could answer that between now and next reading, hearing, budget hearing, couldn't you? Yeah, of course. And any other, but we're not voting on any bonds in our budget documents, correct? We're not approving any bonds. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear for the record. Commissioner Perkins.

Yes, thank you. I'm looking through my notes as far as cutting back, and I see where we are cutting back in several positions. Some of the positions are frozen. We're cutting back on the Yuletide, the drum show, those kind of things. But are we cutting back on any consultants do you know of, Josh?

So there were some reductions this year. Yuletide, I know it was floated toward the beginning of the budget cycle, but Yuletide is still in the budget. The drone show is out of the budget. With regard to specific consulting contracts, I know that we have made professional services reductions to a number of departments. There was the marketing department where professional services budget was cut. I believe the strategic communications department Department also saw a reduction to some of the professional services operating budget, which is where you would see those contracts placed. So I know there have been. I don't have necessarily a list in front of me of the consultant contracts that were reduced.

Can you give me a list of those consultants that have been reduced? the positions have changed or cut from the budget. You can get that to me before.

Sure. I'll get a list of any consultant contracts that were reduced. With regard to the position reductions, there were... Of the positions, there were seven frozen positions within the general fund, two within the other fund, so nine total. There was five positions that were eliminated from the budget. None of those were filled positions. They were either already vacant or they were going to be vacant at the end of fiscal year 2026, the current fiscal year. So just putting that out there as well.

Okay. So I do have a copy of all of the positions, of course, that were eliminated or reclassified, but I don't see anything for consultants. So if you can get me any information on that.

Sure.

Happy to.

The next budget meeting. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Very good. Further commission. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. So the CRA plan that we will be dealing with tomorrow will show a proposed bond in it. That's not approving the bond. It's approving a plan that has a bond in it. I'm certain that the city CRA is waiting until November, December to actually put the bond on the agenda in the hopes that it passes. But that's what you're getting at. It's in the plan. It's troubling to some of us. I know what we're passing today, but I have issues with the CRA budget or plan still. And I'm going to circle back to the consultants because we've talked about this so much over the last year or more. And it's not just that we have these consulting contracts. It's we don't – they're not competitively bid. They're not – they're just given – In a way that we find out later and we don't understand the process or to say the qualifications or why like I as an example had been asking for. The golf pro position at the golf course to be put out to bid, because I think we invested so much money in the pines and I think we should be prime making more money there, and I think. It's time to see if the current golf pro and other people could put in contracts or bids and make more money for us. So we're leaving stuff on the table also sometimes by just perpetuating these contracts that have gone on for years. So I am actually going to make the motion that we, for the next fiscal year, reduce the city manager's spending authority to $100,000 for these contracts. Second. I think even if Amendment 1 or 3 doesn't pass, it is time for us to have forced competitive bidding and get rid of the favoritism in the contracts and to have this commission actually have a say in them.

Mayor. Excuse me. Excuse me. I wouldn't think that motion would be appropriate for these proceedings. It's a special meeting for the budget next week. Motion time. Got a meeting on Tuesday, but we need to stick to the approvals and the documented everything that's been put on the notice. OK, no problem. Action should be taken today.

But I want my colleagues who just sit here and talk about compromise or talk about frustration with a smile on their face and to actually spend some time over the next week thinking about it and thinking about how we're going to continue operating as a commission and as a city. And I will make that motion next week. And I would like, like I said, everyone to think about that. Because we do have another budget hearing that we have to get through. So I'm going to pass our budget, or I'm going to vote to pass it today. But I want people to realize that we have one more hearing of this. And this is a tentative yes, based on the CRA board meeting we have tomorrow, and some kind of compromise with how we're going to put structurally more fiscal discipline in our city for the next year. Thank you.

Mayor? Commissioner Perkins. So, Vice Mayor, you're saying you want to cut the city manager's spending authority to how much? $100,000. Do you remember when it used to be $75,000? It was $75,000, and now it's $200,000, yes. I think we need to consider $75,000.

Giving him a cost-of-living increase.

I'm done. Thank you.

Very good. Further commission discussion, questions, concerns on this? On the budget, yes, Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I do think it is, Mr. Berman, respectfully, I do think it is kind of, I would have to agree, I'll wait the week as well and I'll probably second it again, but I do think it is important because it is something we're talking about. We're talking about money and how we're watching the money and how we're spending the money that is the taxpayer's money. And it's really important that we are careful with how that is being spent. And given that there are still so many questions, as we're sitting here at the first approval, still, and Mr. Waters, you've done a great job. I want to say thank you for jumping in, literally, and doing a lot. And you've provided plenty of information very quickly, I will add. there's still questions about why we're spending the money. So you're able to provide the numbers, but you're not able to provide the why to us, and that falls on Mr. Harrison. So I do think it is really important that we have these discussions. We have, again, a CRA board meeting and a city commission meeting where there's likely going to be a lot of discussion about these things before we have our final budget meeting. So what I would also ask is that any resident who has complained about how much they're paying, who has had issues with how we're spending the money, or issues about the fact that their roads aren't paved or whatever else, please pay attention in the next couple of weeks because this is really important. And please come out and send us an email or share something with us. We need your input so that we are not up here making decisions without your input. I know we hear, I've heard it from social media, I've heard it from emails, I've heard it in person, but this is your time to basically put it on the record and make sure your voice is heard in front of everybody. Thank you.

All right. Further commission discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik?

Yes.

Commissioner Perkins?

Yes.

Commissioner Sigurdsson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes.

Vice Mayor Poitier?

Yes.

Mayor Hart? Yes. Item 3 is a resolution.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES, FACILITIES, AND PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS, CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY RATE RESOLUTION IMPOSING FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ASSESSED PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF POMPANO BEACH FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2026, APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLE IN PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION. providing for application of assessment proceeds, providing for effect, conflicts, and severability, and providing an effective date. So moved. Second.

Moved and second for discussion. Mr. Waters, once again. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Josh Waters, City's Budget Director. This resolution would implement the fire assessment fees for fiscal year 2027. The Commission approved these preliminarily back in July, and this is the final rate resolution. It's consistent with what we discussed in the presentation earlier this evening.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. COMMISSION, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? ANY? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER FAZIT.

YES.

COMMISSIONER PERKINS. COMMISSIONER SINGERSON.

YES.

Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Mayor Fournier? Yes.

Mayor Hartman? Yes. Item 4 is the first reading of an ordinance.

An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Pompano Beach, Florida, amending Chapter 34, City Policy of the City of Pompano Beach Code of Ordinances, by amending Section 34.107, Position Classification Plan, by reclassifying certain positions, by creating new positions, by retitling certain positions, and by retitling and reclassifying certain positions, providing for severability, providing an effective date.

So moved. Second.

Moved and second for discussion.

Good evening, Ms. Sonego.

Hi, Lisa Sonego, Human Resources Director. This item lists any of the titles, upgrades, downgrades reflected in the proposed budget. And it places them in an ordinance format. So these are all in the budget, and this lists them out specifically. There are no new full-time equivalencies this year in the proposed budget. So what you see listed are title changes to address more industry-related titles. an upgrade, a few upgrades in there to reflect changes for those roles. And again, some of the title changes, et cetera. So this is the first hearing, so there will be a second hearing on these.

Very good. Thank you for that. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion. Questions? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. I just had one question. I just noticed that the budget assistant went to budget analyst, but the pay grade jumped like eight points. So that was the only one that I saw that stood out that was not like one or two. What was the reason for that, and what does that equate to in dollars? Because it's Josh's position. Oh, it's Josh. Oh, good. All right. That's good. Well, you know what? I would say that you're more of an analyst than an assistant then, huh?

So this was a part-time position in my office, was the budget assistant position. Given the complexities as a result of the forthcoming amendment, as well as best practices that we have to put into place in the city, I am requesting that the position be upgraded from a budget assistant position to a budget analyst position. It's a part-time to full-time position. Currently, there are two analysts in the budget office, along with myself. This would make for a third analyst.

Okay, and does this change, though? Because I know that previously we had contracted as like a transition period. Was Urjeta still on the contract? She was contracted, right, to help?

The previous budget director was contracted for a transition period, and that contract expired in December of last year.

Okay, so basically, now that you could be full-time and take over the role fully.

Well, no, this isn't for my position itself. This is for a position within my office.

Within your office, okay.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Good, for the Vice Mayor.

So technically, there is one more additional FTE?

There were offsets elsewhere in the budget, so the total FTE count in the general fund, as well as the other funds, did decrease by, I believe... Six positions. So the number of FTEs citywide did go down.

Yeah, I remember we talked about you needing this person to go from part-time to full-time at our budget workshop. So is it the same person?

It's going to be competitively advertised. So with any full-time position, it has to be competitively advertised and open for application.

Thank you. Further commission discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Mayor Poitier? Yes. Mayor Hardin?

Yes. Okay, that adjourns that meeting. Now let's commence the meeting as EMS Taxing District, Monday, September 14, 2026 at 723. This is a public hearing, adoption of tentative millage and tentative budget for the Emergency Medical Services District for physical year 2026-2027. Under considerations, item one is a resolution.

Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Pompano Beach Emergency Medical Services District, Broward County, Florida, adopting the tentative millage for the 2026 tax roll, levying a tax on all properties, real and personal, within the corporate limits of the Pompano Beach Emergency Medical Services District for operation and or maintenance expenses related of the Pompano Beach Emergency Medical Services District using a tentative millage of 0.5000, providing that the tentative millage rate represents a 5.69% increase in property taxes when compared to the rollback rate of 0.4731, providing an effective date.

So moved.

Second.

Moved and second for discussion. Good evening again, Mr. Waters.

Again, Joshua Waters, the city's budget director. For trim purposes, the tentative EMS millage rate is 0.5000. Our EMS rollback rate is 0.4731. The tentative millage rate represents an increase of 5.69% above the rollback rate. The tentative increase in ad valorem revenues is necessarily is necessary primarily to fund cost increases for the EMS fund related to compensation increases for EMS personnel, pension contribution increases, and operating increases, including the operating increases related to the acquisition of two ambulances and other equipment under the capital replacement plan.

All right. Thank you for that. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion, questions, concerns? Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the roll.

Commissioner Fezzik? Yes. Commissioner Perkins? Yes. Commissioner Seegerson-Eaton? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Vice Mayor Poitier? Yes. Mayor Hart?

Yes. Item two is a resolution.

A resolution adopting the tentative annual budget of estimated expenditures and receipts of the Pompano Beach Emergency Medical Services District, Broward County, Florida for the fiscal year 2026 through 2027, totaling $32,182,519, providing an effective date.

So moved.

Second. Moved and second for discussion. Once again, Mr.

Waters. Joshua Waters, City's Budget Director. Mr. Mayor, this is just the EMS budget for fiscal year 2027 and was reflected in the presentation I gave earlier this evening.

All right. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public on this item? Seeing none, public input closed. Commission discussion, questions, concerns? Seeing none, let's call the roll.

Commissioner Perkins. Sorry about that.

You like Perkins. I know it. I know it. I know it.

Commissioner Fezzik. Yes. Commissioner Perkins. Yes. Commissioner Sieges and Eaton. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Vice Mayor Fournier. Yes. Mayor Hart.

Yes. Mr. Waters, thank you and your staff for everything you guys do throughout the year. And Mr. Harrison, good job. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.