City Commission - workshop

Thank you.

All right, let's go ahead and call this Pompano Beach budget workshop to order July 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m. If I could ask everyone to please silence your cell phones or put them on vibrate during the meeting so we don't get disrupted, that would be ideal. So please check those cell phones. That's great. Curvin, can we go ahead and call the roll?

Commissioner Fizik. Here. Commissioner Perkins. Here. Commissioner Sigerson-Eaton. Here. Commissioner Smith. Here. Vice Mayor Poinier.

Here.

Mayor Harton.

Here. Can we all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and 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. Very good. Can I get a motion approving the agenda as printed?

So moved. Second.

And second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. That takes us up to our presentation. Presentation of the Citywide Physical Year 2027 Recommended Operating Budget to the City Commission. Mr. Waters. Thank you. Mr. Harrison, unless you've got some prelude. Nope. Give it straight to the expert there, okay.

Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Commission. For the record, I'm Joshua Waters, the city's budget director. Before we begin, I'd like to recognize and thank our department directors and city staff. Developing a balanced budget truly is a citywide effort, and this year's budget required an extraordinary amount of collaboration across every department. I also want to thank the city manager and the executive leadership team for their guidance throughout this process. Their direction helped us navigate a challenging budget year while continuing to focus on maintaining current service levels and protecting the city's long-term fiscal position. Finally, I'd like to recognize the budget office staff, Caron Grant, Liliana Alvarez, and Alan Collar for their professionalism, dedication, and countless hours of work preparing the recommended budget documents before you and the materials being presented here today. Today's budget workshop represents the culmination of the budget development process that began early this year. Our objective is to present the recommended fiscal 2027 budget and five-year capital improvement plan. Staff is seeking consensus on the recommended operating and EMS budgets, proposed millage rates, fire assessment fees, and the five-year FY27 to 2031 capital improvement plan. While final action will occur during September's budget hearings, today's discussion provides an opportunity to answer questions, discuss policy issues, and identify any desired modifications. Today's presentation begins with the overall citywide budget before focusing on the general fund. We will then discuss the fire assessment program, proposed millage rates, the capital improvement plan, several outstanding budget issues, taxpayer impacts, and conclude with the remaining budget calendar. This year's budget was developed during one of the most challenging financial environments in recent years. Although revenues continue to grow, expenditure growth, particularly non-discretionary expenditures, continues to outpace recurring revenue growth. Our recommendations are guided by several principles. Maintain current service levels, maximize alternative revenues and cost recovery, minimize pressure on the operating millage rate, and identify operational efficiencies wherever possible. As a result, the recommended budget maintains the current operating millage rate while continuing the city's trend of reducing the aggregate millage 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. Before moving on to the budget itself, I want to briefly discuss three significant budget developments that occurred after the recommended budget was substantially completed. First, the Broward Sheriff's Office compensation study. As the Commission is aware, Broward County did not fund Phase 1 of the compensation study in the Sheriff's FY2026 budget, unlike the City. As a result, the Sheriff appealed that decision to the Governor and his Cabinet, sitting as the State Administration Commission. The appeal itself has not yet been resolved. The matter was not considered at the June meeting, and the next meeting of the State Administration Commission is currently scheduled for September 15th, after the city's first budget hearing. Although the outcome of that appeal remains uncertain, the recommended FY 2027 budget continues funding to implement phase one and phase two of the compensation study, consistent with the sheriff's proposed budget. Staff will continue to monitor the appeal and advise the commission if any action becomes necessary. The second item is House Bill 5205E, the Florida Retirement System Employer Contributions Bill. This bill increased employer contribution rates for the Florida retirement system. Because the estimated $1 million increase to the city's BSO contract was not incorporated into the published budget document, options will be presented later in this presentation. Finally, bids were recently received for the school crossing guard contract, which were higher than anticipated and are expected to increase annual operating costs for the school crossing guard contract by about $300,000. Again, options will be presented later in this presentation to pay for those increases. Next, we'll go over the citywide budget for 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 proposing a budget of approximately $498.6 million. This represents an increase of 35.8 million, or 7.7% compared to the fiscal 2026 adopted budget of 462.8 million. The increase is largely associated with planned capital improvements for the utility system. Unlike the general fund, the citywide budget includes utilities, stormwater, solid waste, parking, the air park, the capital improvement program, 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 $144.1 million, or approximately 29%, and provide the primary funding for general government operations, EMS support, and debt service on voter-approved bonds. Charges for services is the second largest source of CityRide revenue at $113 million, or 23% of the revenues. These include charges for water, wastewater, and solid waste services. 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 maintain the city's 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, our employees are the city's most important resource, delivering fire protection and emergency response, maintaining infrastructure, operating utilities, providing recreation programs, and delivering countless other services to residents and businesses. The second largest category is operating expenses, which includes contractual services, utilities, maintenance, supplies, insurance, fuel, and other day-to-day operating costs necessary to support city operations. The budget also includes approximately $70 million for Broward Sheriff's Office contract, 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, 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 shift our focus to the general fund, which is the city's primary operating fund and supports most of the municipal services residents interact with on a day-to-day basis. The proposed FY2027 general fund budget totals approximately $258.2 million. Ad valorem taxes remain the single largest source of revenue, generating approximately $122.7 million, or about 47.5% of total general fund revenues. The next largest category is licenses, permits, and assessments at $45.9 million. This includes the fire assessment fee revenues. Intergovernmental revenues include state revenue sharing, grants, and other 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. Compared to FY 2026, general fund revenues are projected to increase by about $14.5 million. Almost half of that increase comes from property tax growth associated with increasing taxable values. We also continue to experience growth in licenses, permits and assessments, transfers, and other financing sources, while charges for services are projected to decline modestly. Although this represents healthy revenue growth, it's important to remember that non-discretionary expenditure growth exceeded these additional revenues. This slide summarizes how the general fund resources are allocated among services provided to our 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, EMS support, and other public safety activities account for well over half of the general fund budget. Police services includes not only the city's contract with the Broward Sheriff's Office, but also the city's pension contributions for former Pompano Beach police officers and several related public safety support costs. Parks and recreation, cultural affairs, tourism and marketing 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 commission and city 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 upon 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 a growing community. While general fund revenues increased by about $14.5 million, staff identified roughly $18 million in additional costs that had to be addressed in developing the FY2027 budget. The largest increase continues to be the BSO contract, followed by employee compensation, CRA obligations, capital support, financing costs, pension contributions, tax collector commissions, and fuel costs. Most of these increases are non-discretionary and are driven by contractual, statutory, or operational requirements rather than policy choices. I'd also like to note that this slide does not yet include the additional $1 million impact associated with House Bill 5205E or the $300,000 associated with the crossing guard contract increase because that information was received after publication of the budget. Because expenditure growth exceeded available revenue, staff implemented a series of strategic balancing measures. These include strategic use of the law enforcement trust fund revenues, savings from the renegotiated employee health insurance contract, elimination of positions no longer needed, position freezes, operational efficiencies within parks and recreation, and targeted expenditure reductions. These actions allowed staff to maintain current service levels, preserve fiscal stability, and minimize pressure on the operating millage rate. While the budget remains balanced, we recognize that future fiscal challenges, particularly those associated with potential property tax reform, will require continued monitoring and long-term planning. This section of the presentation focuses on the fire assessment program, the proposed FY2027 assessment rates, and how the recommendation supports the city's long-standing cost recovery goals. The recommendation reflects rising fire service costs while balancing affordability for residents and businesses. As you can see on this slide, staff is recommending a modest adjustment to the fire assessment fee for FY2027. The residential assessment would increase from $361 to $391 per residential unit, while commercial, industrial, and institutional rates would increase proportionally based on the cost allocation methodology previously adopted. The primary driver of the increase continues to be growth in the cost of providing fire services, including compensation costs resulting from recently approved collective bargaining agreements, pension obligations, and other operating expenses. The proposed assessment is expected to generate approximately $34.8 million in net revenue after statutory discounts. This recommendation continues the multi-year approach adopted by the Commission last year to gradually restore cost recovery goals. This chart illustrates the relationship between eligible fire service costs and fire assessment fee revenues over time. The blue bar represents net revenues, the green bar represents total expenditures that are eligible to be paid for with the fire assessment fee, and the black line represents the coverage ratio. 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%. The FY2027 recommendation increases that ratio to approximately 82%. While this doesn't fully restore the historical policy target, it represents another incremental step that balances fiscal responsibility with affordability. This slide compares the proposed residential assessment with the FY2026 assessments charged by other Broward County municipalities. Even after the recommended increase, Pompano Beach remains well within the range of comparable jurisdictions. It's important to remember, again, that these comparisons reflect FY2026 adopted rates for other cities and many of those municipalities are also considering an increase for their assessments during the FY2027 budget process. Fort Lauderdale, for example, is proposing an increase in its residential fire assessment fee by $38. Miramar's proposed increasing its residential assessment by $95 per residence. Hollandale Beach is recommending an increase of approximately $46. Pembroke Pines is recommending an increase of $29.50 per residence, and Tamarac is proposing an increase of $59 per residence. Overall, these comparisons demonstrate that Pompano Beach's proposed $30 increase is generally consistent with actions being considered throughout Broward County and reflects broader regional cost pressures. We'll now shift from the fire assessment program to the city's ad valorem tax base and recommended millage rates for fiscal 2027. The July 1 taxable value certification provides the tax roll 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 value has allowed the city to absorb many non-discretionary cost increases that I spoke about earlier without recommending an increase to the operating millage rate. Staff recommends maintaining both the general operating millage rate and the EMS millage rate at their current levels. Because taxable values increased, the millage required to repay the city's voter-approved general obligation bonds actually decreases year over year. As a result, the aggregate citywide millage rate declines from 6.1608 mills to 6.1324 mills. This represents the fifth consecutive year in which the city's aggregate millage rate has decreased while maintaining service levels. This chart illustrates the city's operating millage rate and aggregate millage rate over the past eight fiscal years. Looking at the trend over time provides a better perspective than comparing only one budget year to the next. As you can see, the operating millage rate has remained relatively stable over this period, declining slightly since FY 2024. This recommendation for 27 maintains the operating millage rate at the FY2026 level. The aggregate millage rate, which includes operating, EMS, and voter-approved general obligation debt service millage, has generally trended downward over the past several years. The only notable increase occurred in fiscal 22, when the debt service millage associated with the voter-approved general obligation bond referendum first appeared on the tax bill. Since then, the aggregate millage rate has declined each year as growing taxable values have reduced the millage required to generate the revenue needed for that debt service. For 27, the aggregate millage rate continues to decline for the fifth year in a row. 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, Pompano Beach remains well below that statutory maximum. Staff also compared Pompano Beach's aggregate millage rate with every other municipality in Broward County. Based on currently available information for 2026, Pompano Beach would rank as the 14th lowest among the county's 31 municipalities. This comparison demonstrates that the city continues to maintain a competitive overall property tax rate while providing a full range of municipal services. When only the operating EMS millage rates are compared, Pompano Beach ranks as the 12th lowest municipality in Broward County. These comparisons provide additional perspective that the city's recommended tax rates remain competitive relative to neighboring jurisdictions. As other municipalities complete their budget processes, these rankings may change slightly, but the city's overall position remains favorable. The final section of today's presentation addresses several items that arose after publication of the recommended budget, illustrates the potential taxpayer impact of the recommended budget, and concludes with the remaining budget calendar. As discussed earlier, two significant expenditures arose after the recommended budget was published. The increased Florida retirement system contributions for BSO under House Bill 5205E and the newly bid school crossing guard contract. Combined, these items total approximately $1.3 billion and are not reflected in the published budget documents you received last week. This slide identifies several potential funding options staff has evaluated to address these costs. In developing these options, staff intentionally focused on measures that would minimize or avoid impacts to current service levels. These options presented primarily involve funding reallocations, operational efficiencies, and budget adjustments, rather than reductions in services provided to residents. The first option is to use additional ad valorem revenue generated by the higher than anticipated July taxable value certification. Those funds were intentionally placed in a non-departmental contingency account pending commission direction. Additional options include assuming a vacancy credit within the BSO contract, reducing the recommended increase to the golf program, allocating a portion of executive management costs to the CRA where appropriate, and deferring funding for engineering plat digitization. These options are presented for commission consideration. One of the questions frequently asked during the budget process is how the recommended budget affects the average homeowner. The next two slides illustrate that impact using the median taxable values for a single family home and a condominium in Pompano Beach. This example uses median taxable value for a single-family home in Pompano Beach. Although the operating and EMS millage rates remain unchanged and the aggregate millage rate declined slightly, the increase in taxable value results in slightly higher property taxes for the median home value. City property taxes increase by $115 a year, while the recommended fire assessment fee adds $30. Combined, the total increase is approximately $145, which equates to about $12 per month. The experiences for a median condo differ slightly because the median taxable value declined compared to last year. As a result, city property taxes decreased modestly for median condominium owners despite no change in the operating millage rate. When combined with the proposed fire assessment fee increase, the overall increase is approximately $19 or about $1.58 per month. For both of these examples, actual taxes will vary based on individual property values, exemptions, save our home limitations, and other taxing authorities. Today's workshop represents the final major policy discussion before statutory budget hearings begin in September. Following today's discussion, staff will incorporate any direction provided by the Commission into the tentative budget. On July 28, next week, the Commission will consider the Preliminary Fire Assessment Fee Resolution. The first public hearing is scheduled for September 14th, at which the tentative millage rates and budgets and the final fire assessment fee resolution will be considered. The second and final public hearing is scheduled for September 23rd, when the Commission will consider the adoption of final millage rates FY2027 budget and the 2027-2031 capital improvement plan. In closing, staff believes the recommended FY27 budget reflects a balanced and fiscally responsible financial plan. The recommendation addresses significant non-discretionary cost pressures while maintaining current service levels, preserving financial stability for the city, and avoiding an increase in the operating millage rate. The budget also continues the commission's long-term financial policies by strengthening cost recovery within the fire assessment program, investing in critical infrastructure, and maintaining flexibility as the city monitors potential state property tax reforms. I'd like to again thank the city manager, executive leadership team, department directors, and the budget office staff for their tremendous efforts throughout this year's budget process. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Appreciate it. Are there any questions from the commission on the presentation thus far? Vice Mayor?

Thank you. I have a couple questions. Back on page 7, when you show the initial pie chart of the wide revenue. You show ad valorem taxes of 144. So that is the general fund millage rate plus the half for the EMS district. Correct.

It's the general operating EMS and then the two debt service millage rates for the voter approved bond debt service.

Times are 24.675 million flexible value. I don't get the same numbers. So I'm just, is there something I'm missing? Is there anything else in there?

It's just those four millidrates.

It's the debt service, too?

It's the debt service, the two debt service, the EMS.

And then you take some kind of haircut to that, I assume, or is there some assumption about collection? Numbers never actually add up, right? What are your assumptions there?

So we assume a 5% discount on that, 3.5% for the discounts that people receive from paying early, and then we also assume a 1.5% uncollectible.

So that is all four of them together? Correct. Minus the discounts that you?

Yes.

Okay. On the next page, it says BSO is 70, but this is what's in the existing budget?

Correct. That would be plus the additional million dollars in the end.

So it is 71 there? Yes.

Okay.

And then the same assumptions apply when you drill down into the general fund? Correct. I have some other questions about the cost, the programs you've recommended to make up the difference, but I guess we can probably go into that when we dig into the budget. And then the difference between the $24.6 billion is about $68 million additional in value between June and July. And so that you're using to offset the $1.3 million you have to find.

Correct. Similar to last year, the July valuation provided a little extra revenue when we re-ran the numbers between the June numbers and the July numbers. Similar to last year, we put it in a contingency account on purpose and awaiting final direction from the commission.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Very good. Further commission questions? Commissioner Perkins.

Yes, thank you. The crossing guard is increased by $300,000, but it was not included in the July budget.

Correct. This was a contract that was bid later in the budget process. The commission first addressed this last week. You guys voted on an ordinance, the first reading of the ordinance to do that. But due to timing, we weren't able to include that cost increase in the budget itself. So this would include that cost increase in the budget. It was a timing issue with the contract bid.

Also, can you explain to me the page five? You were talking about the compensation study, about the appeal.

Yes.

Can you explain that to me?

Sure. So last year, if you recall, for the FY2026 budget, the sheriff requested implementation of phase one of the compensation study increase. So that was approximately $4.2 million, according to their estimates. The city commission voted to approve that for the Pompano Beach budget for BSO. However, when the county considered the budget for BSO, they didn't increase the compensation for BSO. So you can't pay police officers in Pompano Beach differently than police officers elsewhere in the county. The sheriff then appealed that to the state administration commission, the governor and his cabinet. they've yet to make a determination on that appeal. So the money still remains for FY 2026 in the city's budget. So if the governor decides in the sheriff's favor at that appeal this year, and then if he makes it retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year, the city will be fine. We already have the funding in our budget. For FY27, since that appeal has not been finalized, the sheriff did include in his consideration the implementation of Phase 2 of that compensation study. So we've included that in there as well. So depending on how the sheriff sides with that appeal and then, of course, whether the sheriff's office then requests compensation the additional compensation for fy 25 will make a determination of what the city would pay for fy 2027. unfortunately the appeals process with the governor the next scheduled meeting isn't until september the 15th which is after your first our first budget hearing all right thank you good for the commission questions uh commissioner smith um when you talked about on page 26 about um the golf program

What were you considering? You don't have to go into detail.

Sure. So the golf program received a number of increases this year. So this would back out two of those increases. So one increase would be for $150,000 to do landscaping and some remediation projects with the sediment deposits that the utilities program has placed on the golf course. So that would be about $150,000. And then working through their other contracts, we were able to reduce the remaining $180,000 without impacting golf programs. So this is a reduction to the increase. It doesn't impact current service levels.

I just want us to be cautious that we don't impact the quality of our golf course.

Correct.

Because that's an asset to Pompano, and that department's making money.

Yes. Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Very good. Other commission questions? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. All right. So on page 14. balancing measures mm-hmm is there Is there any sort of like is there any sort of way that we have any additional additional money that's somewhere in These you're so these are just coming off of what are Well make sure these are coming out of the budget back at us, correct?

Correct.

These are coming out of the budget positions Vacant positions and reductions or position freezes. I think you gave us a list of that and

Yes, ma'am. There's a handout in your binder.

Yes, can you go over just some of the top level? Those positions, were some of them, I think, remember being said that some of those were actually moved or reallocated, like for an on-fire, maybe there was a... Maybe I'm wrong, but was those reallocated to a different position or absorbed?

Certainly. Hold on one second. Do you have it?

Okay. So it was, yeah, EMS.

I've got it. Hold on. Sure. The positions, there were some reorganizations that took place this year, particularly within the fire department and positions transferring between divisions. I believe that's what you're probably remembering. So that resulted in essentially no net cost savings for the city. There were some positions that were removed. There was a program content specialist in cultural affairs, tax receipts inspector, business tax receipts inspector in code compliance. ocean rescue supervisor position in fire, assistant fire chief for training in fire, office assistant two in parks and recreation, and a service worker one in facilities. Those positions were removed from the budget. And so those are gonna be, you'll see those as savings from year over year. In addition, in the general funds, there were seven positions that were frozen, meaning the department still retains the position. However, the funding associated with those positions has been taken out of the budget. So the department does have some flexibility if we do it that way. That way later in the year if there's a position that does become vacant that's not as high of a priority as one of these frozen positions, they can use the funding that becomes available to swap out. So they could fill this position and instead hold a lower priority position vacant. So it gives the department some flexibility while recognizing some savings.

In any of these salaries or any of these employees or positions, Are any of these being reallocated to, are we hiring out consultants and are they being reallocated to a different budget?

No. These are net cost savings for the budget.

Just trying to get a handle on all of our consultants. The proposed fire assessment rates, I know I brought it up last time. You mentioned that there were other cities that were also considering an Increase you had a pretty good list. But my question is in those cities. When was the last time they had that sort of increase? For largest at 30 Hallandale 46, I think Tamarack $59

Cities, so I would have to go back and look and see when the last time these cities did increase their fire assessment fee rates. I know that Fort Lauderdale did increase theirs last year because they were one of the ones that I gave an example of when I was presenting this slide last year. So I believe Fort Lauderdale did increase theirs last year. But typically cities look at the fire assessment fee every year just to see what costs need to be recovered. and try to allocate those costs to the fire assessment fee. So it depends on the city, but I would have to go back and take a look and see if the ones that I listed actually increased it last year. I know at least one, probably two of them did.

Because I know we did ours last year at $30, and then for that, when you get to your last page about how that impacts the average homeowner as opposed to condo owner, you know, just trying to make up that, you know, it's an extra $145 or whatever as per your math, but... If we're leaving the millage rate the same, but we're increasing costs elsewhere, still, ultimately, residents only care about what they see, what they have to pay out. So if it's an increase, even though we've left it the same, it still seems like it's an increase, and there's going to be some concern there that I know we're going to have.

Understood. With the fire assessment fee, just keep in mind that we kept the fire assessment fee relatively stable for several years at the same time that fire costs were going up significantly, which is why you see the decline in the fire assessment fee cost recovery ratio over that period between 2023 and 2025.

And then on page 20, you had the historical taxable value versus new construction. Is that dollar amount... Citywide or is that dollar amount what we get citywide? What portion of that is within CRA boundaries where we don't realize the full dollar amount?

This is citywide. This represents citywide taxable value.

Okay. So I guess there's a better question. So what part of that would be? Do you know what part of that is?

Would it be fenced off with the TIF? I don't have that information readily available right now.

I'm just curious because, like, we've obviously invested in redevelopment of certain areas, and if that's an area that has, I'd like to see what that split is because if we have a lot of growth within our CRA and we're not recognizing the full value, that'll also be helpful as part of a later conversation. So if you can find that out at some point, I would appreciate that.

Probably the easiest way to answer that would be, so if you take a look at the, let me find the slide. So you see on this slide, the property taxes grow $7.7 million. Of that, the tax increment is increasing $1.3 million. So the tax increment is what we pay to the CRA. So our CRA payment is going up. So we collect, the city collects all the property tax revenues and then distributes to the CRA. Every year we'd make a single payment to the CRAs for the TIF payments.

I'll do the backwards math on that. On page 26, you had the allocate portion of city manager and assistant city manager salary to the CRA. In previous years, we haven't had that, I mean, we haven't had that happen before, but is, and I guess I've mentioned before, do we have, our city manager, do we have anything in writing, Mr. Berman, maybe, in writing that aside from the 2017 or 2018 temporary movement for the city manager to be, Area executive director anything it would allow that to be allocated or would we have to read? Figure that on the back end Sure so so there's as far as I understand the last time that we discussed the city managers Contract and everything else only thing that related to executive director for the CRA was something that was done to be temporary and when RMA fired us and then subsequently was rehired. Do we have anything else in there?

No, that's not correct assessment. It was never meant to be temporary. He was taken over as director of the CRA, and that's his authority. It deals with his duties as director of the CRA.

Okay, and to date, you've never allocated a portion of his salary to that?

So this would be new for 2027. I will say other city staff, their salaries are allocated to the CRA. For example, the city clerk, 12% of the city clerk's salary is allocated to the CRA, and this is a similar percentage for the city manager, and then 30% for an assistant city manager allocated to the CRA.

I'd love to see that. I think at one point you provided a breakdown of that. If you have that fleshed out, I would love to see that more in detail. And then the last thing I had was related to, these rates and fees, is that part of this or top of each rates and fees fiscal year 2027 that you gave us? Where is that in this packet here?

So the rates and fees is an exhibit that we put together. We put it together last year as well just to ease the, you know, to help with the commission's consideration. So that doesn't show up exactly in the budget line for line, but those assumptions for those, if there are any rate increases, those assumptions were included in our revenue assumptions in the budget.

Okay. The reason I bring that up is because I was flipping through this and there's pretty substantial changes to the development services or planning and zoning fees this year. So when I saw the $2.2 million on whatever the page, that is one of our major increases. I know that we've always said, I know that we've said multiple times, we look at the developer's side of making sure we're getting correct fees for that. But one of the ones that stood out to me was the people who perform who perform work without a permit. We left that at like $200 or something very low.

So I would defer to the development services director on specific questions regarding the development services fees. I will say one thing that happened with the development services fees this year that's unique is that a law passed at the state level earlier this year, which essentially upended how we as a city can assess development services fees. Previously, we assessed fees based on valuation of the property. We had tiers where we assessed fees at different valuation. The state now prohibits that type of fee assessment. And instead, we are forced to go to a cost recovery methodology to recover those fees. Now, development services, over the course of a month or two months, They developed an internal study to take a look at what the cost recovery would be for those particular fees. And so that's where these fee levels were assessed at that level to do the cost recovery. So that's why we had to change. The city had to change the way it's approaching development services fees this year is because there was a change at the state level.

Okay. I would love to see, I would love for all of us to see a copy of what that study was and a little bit more information about this fee increase because some of them, like, I mean, one of them, this local stuff, The comprehensive plan amendment for a local amendment was originally $4,376. Now it's up to $10,528 with one development review committee and a set of hearings. And then there's an additional $2,632 for second and each subsequent development review committee review or set of hearings. So that seems to be like I could add up pretty quickly depending on some of those. But that's just one example. There are quite a few that are in here that, to me, punish the average homeowner trying to do things the right way. Not punish them, but it significantly increases some of those costs. So I'd really like to learn more about what that is to make sure that we're not finding another way to pass on some sort of fees to residents.

So even with the fee changes, if I may, for the development services, we are still expecting a decline in the development services fees from the fiscal 2026 budget. So that's why when you look back at the revenue changes on slide... On slide 11, that's why you see the charges for services. That's one of the significant reasons you see the charges for services line decline year over year, is because of that change in the fees.

Okay. And then the other thing I sort of wanted to point out with this, and again, maybe this is, if we're paying staff to do something, and that's part of their job description, if there was one of these, I'll have to find it, I'll come back at it, but were a couple of these that basically said something along the lines of that to do their job, we were also going to charge for them an hourly rate. We're going to charge a fee, and then on top of that, an hourly rate that was subject to things. I think I highlighted one of them. So I just wanted to make sure that we're not double charging residents for basic things that should be part of a city employee's job.

So this is simply just a cost recovery. It's just to recover part of the cost associated with performing those duties. When Development Services took a look at its new fee schedule, they took a look at how many hours individual employees typically have to spend on doing a certain task, issuing a certain permit, those types of things. And that's how they arrived at the cost recovery methodology. But I would have to, you know, I can... I'll defer to Development Services Director, and he can get you more information.

That was one of those things that I would like to have more information on, because mostly there was where there was the largest cost. And then utilities, we know that we have a lot that's sort of passed through. Is that still?

In terms of?

There were costs in utilities that went up quite a bit, too.

So utility costs, so that's part of the, any utility fee costs in here are associated with the rate schedule that the utilities department has developed.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's it for now.

Very good.

Further commission discussion? Vice Mayor?

Thank you. To answer the question on CRA. So the total amount we collect, some of it goes to the CRA for TIF funding. It's $3.5 million in the east and $10.5 million in the northwest, so $14 million total. And we have a meeting tomorrow with the budget in that for the CRAs. I had some similar thoughts about the fee schedule looking through this. And I think it's probably not just the development services part of it. We have Parks and Rec. We have BTRs. There's a lot in here. And I think, pending what happens in November, if the ballot initiative passes, we might need a workshop on fees to go through all of this to really think through what we're charging and where we can, if we make changes, Can we actually generate more revenue that way? But I don't know that it's worth going through that level of detail right now when we don't know what we're going to be faced with. But I definitely think it's one of those areas we're going to have to go through in great detail in November if that passes. Are we, just from a process perspective, I have a lot of questions in the line item book. Are we doing that now? Okay, we're going to do the CIP and then we'll do what we normally do and go through.

Okay, thank you. That was the plan. Thank you. Thank you. or the Commission discussion on the presentation. Questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Waters. Appreciate that. We'll now take a 10-minute recess. Be back at 9.50. Well, let's make it 10 o'clock.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

reconvene this City Commission budget workshop all right takes us up to our regular agenda item number one discussion and consideration of the recommended five-year capital improvement plan for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 mr. waters with with the helper good morning

Good morning again, Mr. Mayor. Josh Waters, the city's budget director. I'm joined today by Dr. Tammy Good, the city's CIP manager. We'll be going over the capital improvement plan for fiscal year 2027 through 2031. It is in the budget books starting on page 209 for the capital improvement plan. I also provided the commission with the summary document. It's the legal size summary document that was in your binders, and that's what I'll be going over project by project momentarily. Before we begin on the project by project breakdown of the CIP, I wanted to provide some context of the overall CIP. So the total 2027 proposed CIP is $28.8 million. And you can see on this slide how it's broken down by fund. The largest fund on this is the general capital fund at $12.1 million. This pays for parks and recreation projects, streets and roadways and bridges improvements and all other capital projects for city facilities. The R&R utilities project is 11.3 million. This pays for the utilities infrastructure. Stormwater at 1.2 million pays for stormwater infrastructure. And then the air park at 4.2 million. I will note about the air park. Most of the air park funding is grant funding. Now looking at the general fund CIP by department, you can see streets and bridges at 4.3 million, city facilities at 1.7 million, public works 1.4, parks and recreation at 2.1, and then golf and city operating bringing up the remainder of that CIP. So with that, I'll now turn to the large document that I provided each of you. It's going to be very small on this screen, so hopefully you can see the information. If not, I can zoom in slightly, I think. So what I have on this document, going from left to right, each document has a line number. So if you have a specific project you want me to reference, just reference that line number. It'll be very easy for me to find that in your document. I also have the district on there, the commission district, whether 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or whether it's citywide. The project name, the project description, and then funding for the five year plan, fiscal 27 through 31, as well as the adopted FY 2026 amount, just for comparison purposes. I did highlight the fiscal 27 column just for ease of review, as this is what you'll be considering in the budget this year, appropriating funds for. Starting with the revenues at the top, you see that there's several revenues that directly go to the CIP, local option gas tax, electric utility tax, and gas utility tax. These revenues are updated based on our projections for fiscal year 2027. We are recommending a transfer from the general fund of $5.3 million for the general CIP. There is an inter-fund transfer. You'll see this amount is at 1.995 million. This is for the surtax money that we received from the county. We started receiving this money last year as revenue sharing from the county, and this goes toward road resurfacing. I will say we left the amount at the amount we had from last year. We have not received the updated allocation from the county regarding this. In our conversations with the county, we hope to get that by the end of this month. But we do not have that updated allocation just yet. We checked with them last week. There is a budgetary fund balance use of law enforcement trust fund money of $900,000. This is a carry forward, a funding swap in 26, so we'll carry that money forward in 27 for use of projects then. And then inter-fund transfer for park impact fees for fiscal 27. Going down, the first project on here is for bridge rehabilitation. This is for rehabilitating or placing city-owned bridges. We are recommending in 27 the amount at $250,000, which is the annual maintenance level amount for this project. Going down to the next project, road resurfacing, we are recommending $2.5 million in road resurfacing funding in FY27, and this is the amount of funding that was also recommended and approved in FY2026. Of this amount, approximately $2 million is coming from that surtax revenue. Citywide sidewalk improvements. This amount is recommended at $400,000. This is to install or repair public sidewalks. This amount is the same as recommended in FY 2026 at $400,000. Going to the next project, the railroad crossing at Northwest 33rd Street. This is for $865,000. This is a project that the commission approved several weeks ago related to the FEC railroad crossing. The next project on here is for wayfinding signage. Traditionally, this project is funded at $150,000 for maintenance level due to affordability reasons. This was reduced slightly to 100,000 for fiscal year 2027 in order to fund other projects. FPL light fixtures conversion, this is a project that will begin in 27 and is funded at $250,000 a year in 27 and in the out years. The general government buildings project at $900,000, this is a project that we fund annually for maintenance projects throughout city owned facilities. This project is funded at $900,000 in 27 and the out years. Roofing of governmental buildings, this project is funded at $500,000 in fiscal 27. This is a decrease from 1.7 million in fiscal 26. There were additional projects that needed to take place in 26. So as those projects wrap up, there's some funding in 27, additional funding in 27 for projects, but it goes back down to a maintenance level of $100,000 in 28 and for the out years. For amphitheater painting preservation, this is the second year of this project. It began last year at $150,000. This project should hopefully, this $200,000 in 27 will hopefully close out this project in 2027 to repaint the amphitheater. Charlotte-Bury Civic Center enhancements, so this project is $150,000 in design in fiscal year 27, and then $1.75 million in 28 for construction for the additional outdoor entertainment space at the Charlotte-Bury Civic Center. Fire station 63 replacement, there's funding in fiscal year 29 for design, and then $6 million in fiscal year 30 for construction of the fire station 63 replacement at the public safety complex. The next project is Bragg's Criswell Northwest BSO substation. There's funding allocated for design in fiscal 28 of $400,000 and then construction of 2.1 million in fiscal 2029. No additional funding is recommended for the LEAP grant program in fiscal 27, but you will see funding for this program begin again in fiscal year 2028 and in the out years. The next project is seawall improvement. This is to improve seawalls on city-owned property with approximately 2,000 linear feet of seawall adjacent to various canals and waterways. This project is not funded in 27. This is an out-year project, so you'll see 3.7 million funded in 28 and 3.5 million in fiscal year 2029. Athletics court resurfacing, this project was funded at a higher amount last year, the $355,000, because there were additional projects that the city needed to accommodate within the athletic courts resurfacing program. In fiscal 27, this takes it back down to the maintenance level of $30,000 a year and maintains that level for the out years. For city parking lots and bringing them up to code with the Americans with Disabilities Act, there was additional funding provided last year to do some additional projects. Beginning in 27, this takes it back down to the maintenance level of $75,000 for 27 and in the out years. The next project deals with city right of way improvements. This is a maintenance level project, which is funded every year at $75,000. Canal dredging, this is to dredge shoaled canals. It's at $25,000. This is a maintenance level project that we fund every year at $25,000. Citywide bus shelters, this project is not funded in fiscal year 2027. This is a maintenance project. Funding was taken out for 2027 for affordability reasons. It was put back in for 2028 and beyond to maintain citywide bus shelters. The next project deals with the Hillsborough Inlet Discharge Improvement Project. Again, this is an out-year project at $400,000 for design in fiscal 2028 and $5 million for construction beginning in fiscal 2029. There's a project starting in fiscal 2028 for fencing of citywide amenities and adjacent rights of way throughout the city. This is a project funded in fiscal 2028 at $350,000 and $150,000 in fiscal 2029. The next project deals with restrooms and concessions. For fiscal 2028, $350,000, fiscal 2027, $350,000 is provided. This will renovate locker room at the Houston Sworn Aquatic Center and the restroom renovation at Weaver Park. In 2028, the funding will go for community park for fields baseball restrooms and community park concessions restrooms and the bathroom. So 350 each year, 27 and 28. Going on to the next page, the senior center expansion. This project will construct a 2,500 square foot addition to the senior center in Northwest 9th Street. It's funded for design in fiscal 2027 at $350,000 and the construction will be in fiscal 28 at $3.2 million. Additional funding is provided in the next project for a columbarium at the cemetery. This will construct a columbarium. As the city commission is aware, there have been issues with running out of space at the cemetery, so this will provide additional space for them. So it's 400,027 and 500,000 in fiscal 2028. Funding is also provided for a pavilion at the Blanche Ely Museum for $125,000 for construction of this pavilion in fiscal year 2027. Going down to the citywide park amenities, this is funding that's available to rehabilitate and replace dilapidated park amenities throughout the city to bring them up to standards. So $400,000 is provided in 2027 and then $300,000 is provided each year thereafter. The next project deals with renovations at Highlands Park. In fiscal 2027, funding is included for dog park fencing. 2028, pickleball court funding. And then in 29 and 30, this is to renovate the interior of the facility. Funding is provided for lighting replacement at Community Park. This is a two-year project. Funding was initially provided last year. This is to upgrade current lighting to enhance public safety at Community Park. So this is the second year of funding for that project and would hopefully close it out in fiscal year 2027. The next project is for athletic field fencing replacement at Community Park. This is a multi-year project. Funding is provided at the $275,000 level in fiscal 2027, and then that funding increases in 2028. The next project is for Mitchell Moore Gym Acoustics. This is for sound improvement at Mitchell Moore. This is an out-year project that is funded in fiscal 2030. The next project is to design and construct an outdoor pavilion within the Pompano Beach Community Park that's adjacent to the amphitheater. This would be to support community events, including the Nautical Flea Market, Unity in the Community, Caribbean Festival, and other similar activities. Design money is slated for fiscal year 2027 and construction is slated for fiscal year 2028. The next project would upgrade amenities at the amphitheater for the ticket booth, restrooms, and the loading dock at $250,000 in fiscal year 2027. And this is consistent with the agreement that we have with the vendor that runs the amphitheater for the city. And there is a match from the vendor for additional projects. Amphitheater seating rehabilitation, this is to replace the seating in the amphitheater. This is an out-year project slated for fiscal year 2030. The next project would repair the base and resurface the parking lots at Mitchellmore Park, $200,000 is provided in fiscal 2027. The next project is to resurface the tennis court, this is the clay court, at Community Park, $172,000 in fiscal 2027. The next project is for fiscal 2028. This would be for the 12 acre parcel master plan. This would be the portion of land just north of Atlantic Boulevard, and it's in accordance with the parks and rec master plan. And then the final project under parks and recreation would be for a pavilion or a gazebo at Hunter's Manor Park. This is slated for fiscal year 2031. This is an out year project. The next several projects deal with renovations or improvements at the golf course. First project on here is to renovate and rehabilitate the golf course operations building. This is scheduled for 2031 at $2 million. Funding is provided to renovate the locker rooms at the golf course. $150,000 is being provided and is being recommended for fiscal 2027. Additional funding is being recommended to construct a new restroom at Palms Golf Course hole number eight due to termite damage. This is design funding in 2027 and construction in 2028. There's also recommended funding for fiscal year 2030 to construct open air inclement weather shelters at the golf course. And then the large project on here at the end is Palms course renovation. This would be a complete renovation of the Palms golf course with funding slated for 2029 and 2030 at about $6.9 million in each of those two years. And this is being done in an out year. There's going to be construction of a taxiway at the air park, which will impede one of the holes of the other golf course, the Pines course. And so this would prevent both courses from being taken offline simultaneously. And that concludes the general capital fund capital improvement plan. If there are any questions about this one before I move on to the utilities.

Any particular questions by the commission? Mr. Fessick?

Thank you. So I just want to point out there seems to be a lot of money allocated to design or things that we have in this, I mean, all throughout. And my only concern is there are some things that I think I saw in last year's budget that seemed to be pushed forward. I know I've heard Commissioner Perkins a couple years in a row at this point say something about Christwell being moved further out and further out. Do we have, I mean, with all this design stuff, have we previously spent any money on any of these projects in design, or is this all new allocations?

I would defer to Dr. Good to discuss the details with that.

If the line item...

Yeah, it's on.

Okay, thank you. Tammy Good, CIP Manager. If the line item budget indicates construction monies, then it's probably, it could be safely assumed that we've already allocated some design, if there's construction funding this fiscal? If not, if it's just design this fiscal, then we would budget construction later, knowing that it's going to take a year or a considerable amount of time to design. So we try not to allocate design and construction in the same year, knowing that we're not capable of spending it. So we don't like to earmark it. So if it's just design money, then construction funding would come later in a future fiscal year.

Okay, and do we have a list, maybe year over year, of some of these projects, like where we've spent, what we've allocated in previous years, what we actually spent, so that we can see, not just for what's been budgeted the year before or adopted the year before, but actually what has actually been spent on some of these projects, so we can have a running total of what it was spent on, maybe even line item detail to that effect, so we can kind of see what, if you were to take a little progress bar, essentially, from zero to 100% done, would we be able to see how much money was expended on each one of these projects so far to date? And then that way we can sort of gauge if we're budgeting or recommending the right amount.

Absolutely. We have a software that we utilize, Procore, and all of that information is collected in that software, which is what I use to generate cost estimates for future projects.

Thank you. So I can provide that, yes. Perfect, thanks. That's just, like, very helpful. One thing that stood out to me, as you mentioned, you had designed things by district. And when I was looking at through the State Drone Fund, I was looking through a lot of the things that are happening in different parks and different areas. District one, we have the cemetery. There's a lot. lot going on. We don't have parks anymore for the most part. A lot of our parks have gotten usurped by different projects. Our Northeast 16th Street Park is being redeveloped by a developer. McNabb is currently in the CRA project. Is there any... I know that we had done the master plan last year, the master parks plan. We spent some time with them. And there were a lot of adjustments and a lot of new things coming to... plan to come to some of the smaller parks in the area, in the district. Are any of those proposed plans in, I mean, aside from I think the trash cans and stuff, are any of those plans to be added to the capital improvements project at any point in time?

Commissioner Fessick, I want to correct one thing that you said about the Northeast 16th Park being developed by a developer.

Yeah.

That's incorrect. They are giving city, $300,000, and the Parks and Recreation Department, facilities, Tammy's department will be handling that project. It won't be done by the developer.

Okay, but they are the ones who created the design?

No. They worked with people that I just told you.

Right, but I've read through quite a few of those. I've seen them, and I've attended their sales center presentation.

I don't know what they're saying in the sales center, but I know what's happening with our group.

Right. Okay. So I have seen internally many of the plans associated with that park renovation, and it does not look like a standard city of Pompano Beach Park. It looks like a similar project to the adjacent properties redevelopment project. So it's okay however you want to allocate it, but even though it will be a public park, it looks very different than every other park that we have. That's all for now. I have more, but I'll start there. Oh, the golf course. That's what I'll go with. The golf course. I know that's kind of a few years out, but is any of that cost borne by some of the revenue from the golf course? Or is this just additional funds?

So golf course revenue, it's not an enterprise fund. So golf course revenue does come to the general fund. And so this would be a general capital fund. So that funding is just part of the funding that we get from the golf course is just part of the pot of funding that we use to allocate for these projects.

And then I guess I'll hit paving because I know we'll probably all talk about it again anyway. Paving and sidewalks. Is this going to be, I've asked before for a comprehensive cost analysis of what needs to be done And I know we're doing some paving projects, and I'm grateful for that. A lot of residents are also grateful for that, by the way. But do we have a comprehensive list at this point of how much the cost is going to be estimated to pave all of the city, to make sure everything is repaved? And beyond that, sidewalks in a lot of spaces There's not a conversation happening before the paving and the sidewalks kind of take place, and that was something that I know I had asked if we could look at having sidewalks installed in certain areas or continuity of sidewalks in certain areas as we were driving through District 1 with Mr. McConn and Mr. Donovan as I took them on a golf court tour January of 2025. So I've had multiple people in different neighborhoods, especially with utility projects that have been finished and the repaving projects that have been finished, have been asking for sidewalks. And they're now repaved, but there are no sidewalks. So can you explain to me maybe how? that will look in the future?

So currently we have a consultant conducting an asset study on all of our sidewalks or lack thereof. And additionally, they're doing a pavement condition assessment on all of our center lines of our roadways. So I anticipate that study to be completed in the next month or so. So we'll have a very comprehensive plan on how we can then prioritize thereafter. I'm also going to take that information and overlay it with our utility projects that are proposed and the master plans that they have to make sure that when we pave a street, we don't come in six months later, dig it up to replace a water main or a sewer main. So all of that is taking place, and I anticipate that comprehensive matrix study to be done in a few months. Okay.

Sorry, who is doing that study?

Baxter Woodman. And they're also conducting a study on all of our sidewalks or lack thereof. So we'll know where we do not have sidewalks as well as part of that study.

So with that request, because this is now much more interesting, with that request of the study to not just look at the sidewalks, have we talked about, and I know we've spoken about it related to parks, having a uniform where you know you're in Pompano Beach if certain things look like the same. So Pompano Beach Park looks like this. There's signage. There's neighborhoods. There's whatever it might be. If you go to other cities and other towns, other municipalities, you can kind of generally see that they have their own flavor, right? So they have continuity. It's a brand standard of sorts. Are they trying to apply a brand standard to the city of Pompano Beach in their assessment?

Which aspect?

Well, are we going to create a brand standard for what our streetscapes look like, paving and sidewalks? Do we have a comprehensive plan standard?

I mean, it just meets FDOT standards for roadway construction and design. Okay. And that's what we follow.

Okay. Thank you.

Very good. Further commissioning. I've got Vice Mayor, then followed by Commissioner Smith.

Thank you. As I flip through it, I have a few questions. So with respect to the road resurfacing, I understand we don't know the amount we will get from surtax funding, but at some point we weren't even sure if that was going to be a one-time or an annual allocation. Are we now at least certain that there will be an annual allocation? We just don't know what the number is?

That's correct. So we reached out last week to our contact at the county. And so per the interlocal agreement, they have until the end of July to get us the number for the following fiscal year. So we hope to have that by the end of this month.

OK. But we do know that we will get another allocation Okay, because it looks like this year we're putting half a million in, and going forward we have two million in, which I assume is our assumption of approximately what we're going to get from the county, so we won't have to subsidize or we won't have to pay for the road paving ourselves going forward, hopefully.

Correct. Hopefully the amount we get for fiscal 27 is greater than the amount we received in 26. Okay.

I also have been hearing a lot about sidewalks, so I'm interested to see the plan. There's issues in Norwood and Old Pompano. There's some areas where people want sidewalks, so please share that with us. The wayfinding signage reminded me that we had the entryway signage years ago, and where are the entryway signs? Because there's supposed to be one in every district that we paid for and was in the CIP a year or two ago.

They are forthcoming. It's been a slow process getting the permits through the regulatory agencies, but we have finalized design. We're currently working on a comprehensive wayfinding plan for roadways that are more high-speed roadways all the way down to the pedestrian roads and pedestrian-friendly signage. So currently we're in for permitting for one of the entryway signs, and we do anticipate bringing in the five signs as we discussed some time back. So one welcome to City of Pompano Beach entry sign will be installed in every district, and so we're currently working on that.

Okay, I think this gets to Commissioner Fezdik's point, which is this plan moves with time. Some projects get moved out and some things happen where we're done allocating funding, but it didn't happen yet. So you can kind of wonder where things went, right? So this is additional wayfinding signage in addition to the entryway signage that we already allocated for in prior CIPs.

This will fund that project continuously. I mean, it's a multi-million dollar project, so we're going to have to continue to fund this project year over year, and that's what this is. So it's just more money through the same project.

I just was wondering what happened to the entryway signs that we funded before. Okay, got it. The Station 63 replacement, does this keep moving out, or has it always been in 2030?

From my recollection, it keeps moving out. I know we have put some money into that station, but it is overdue. It's the last station that needs to be replaced. So it's just a matter of, you know, being enough money to balance the budget.

It seems quite far out given the condition. And what about the public safety building?

So that too has been funded, spent some money that has been put forth in some projects throughout that building. It has probably reached its end of life, but we've recently put some money into the roof, hardening of the envelope, sealing it. We've done some minor renovation in the CI space and real time command center. So we're good. At some point in time, we will have to consider how we're going to fund and what we're going to do with that building.

I'm surprised it's not in here anywhere.

Well, we really need to do a master plan. You know, we were going to put the EOC on that site, and as a result of the site and the way that it's configured, it just wasn't ideal, so we found a more ideal location for the EOC. And during that whole design concept, we did do a preliminary master plan of that site, and that's really what we need to put forth. But I think we feel comfortable in the money that we've put into that building that we're okay right now. is fine. We put some money into it. But we do need to put that on the horizon and be considering what we're going to do with that in the next fiscal year budgets.

Yeah, it's like good money chasing after bad. It's not like... We know that there... need to be replaced so I don't know how much money we are investing to keep them going and obviously we have to but they're still in pretty poor condition so I would expect to see some kind of plan for the public safety building and if station 63 keeps sliding out I think we're going to be putting more money into that station to keep it operational when we know we need a new one. So think about that. And I would like some kind of idea of how much money we're spending on those two buildings annually. With respect to the seawall improvements, there is a big investment over the next, not this fiscal year, but the next two. What are we doing? What are we replacing?

So we have not yet replaced or done anything with the west side of Ellsdorf Park or the boat ramp, so some money's going to be funded for that. Indian Mound, which was part of the master plan, that seawall is not in the greatest condition as well. We had also had some ideas to put in some boat slips or moorings or different modalities of transportation. That was part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. um and then just other sea walls throughout uh city have become you know have reached their end of life as well so we want to ensure that we have adequate funding and we always try to you know secure grants as well because those are always typically available for the resiliency of for those types of projects so

Okay, but we do have two larger projects that are included in there.

That's correct. Unlike prior years, yeah, we do have some larger projects that we know are forthcoming.

Okay. We have canal dredging every year, and every year we say there's not enough to do anything. Is that the same?

Yeah, we tried to advertise that for construction. We just didn't get any interest because it's just too small of a project, so we just keep money, keep adding money to that account with hopes of getting enough money A substantial amount of money to entice the bidders, but we're okay right now. We have not really received any complaints, so I think we're in good shape. We did have a very large canal dredging project some five, eight years ago, but we know that, you know, that too is forthcoming. We'll start getting complaints again, so we want to be prepared for that.

Okay, the restroom and concession stands at Community Park. Is it both buildings? So the concession and the bathroom building by Four Fields, and what about the building adjacent to the new skate park? Was it just the... the center building with the concession stands and bathrooms at the softball fields.

So this, are you talking 27003, community park event pavilion and restrooms?

No, I'm talking 24-016, the restrooms and concessions.

Oh, that's in the out year?

Yes. What buildings?

Yeah, that would be the restrooms that are over by the pickleball courts.

But the concession building and bathrooms, is that included in here because it says?

The four fields, the baseball fields, yep. So that's all of them. That's all of them, yep.

Okay. Okay. So does this, we did a parks master plan, and I did notice that some things are fed into here, but some things aren't, and obviously we can't do everything at once, but does this, should we assume this reflects some internal prioritization based on that parks and rec master plan? So I don't see anything at Fairview or Avondale Parks, for example, and they were part of the plan. So have they just been their lower priority relative to these items that were selected to make it into the CIP this year?

I think what happened was because Community Park had, and I think it was 2010, we did an entire master plan and redevelopment of that entire 40 acres. So that is...

Still working through that?

Correct. And the other ones, we just had not done anything to them in quite some time. So there was a committee that basically looked at all of our parks and decided which ones would be part of that comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

I guess that's my question. So we did all of that, but I don't see a lot of that fed into here yet. And maybe we'll see that more next year once we've digested and prioritized that.

Either that or we already know what we need to do at those facilities and it didn't need to be part of a comprehensive master plan. Some of it's just maintenance. Some of it's standardizing trash cans and some of the other things that Commissioner Fessick had mentioned that we already anticipate doing and it wasn't like we needed it. Put it in a comprehensive master plan with things we already know that we were going to do.

Do you understand what I'm asking, too?

Mr. Moore, you wish to interject?

Yes. Scott Moore, Parks and Recreation. You are correct. We didn't get it all together for this. So you'll see more of what you adopted in the master plan moving forward.

Okay. So it's not like we've decided not to do some of them. Correct. And I just don't see a lot of that reflected in here.

Correct. You'll start seeing it next year.

Okay.

Okay.

Great, thank you. You're welcome. I don't know if you want to stay there or not, because my next question is about shade structures. I know, I'm sure they're needed at many, many parks, but I know I'm looking at the skate park already going that's going to be, like, brutally hot out there. So where do we have, and maybe there's just a general shade structure line item that needs to start being in here in the parks, and then we figure out a prioritization each year, but...

We are going to allocate some funding, some additional funding to the skate park trees, some landscaping and shade structures. We really wanted to focus on items that we couldn't do or we couldn't hire an architect to do, which was that hardscape, those skatable features. So we focused on that and put the money there. But knowing that we will need to bring online some shading at that facility, and we will.

So does it need to be in here?

No, we've got it covered in other, like, 07924, some of the general government. Because they're smaller amounts, they're not significant enough to make it to be a capital project all on its own. And then also, additionally, some of the projects that are in the Parks and Master Plan, you may not see them all at one time or next year. They'll come online as funding is, you know,

Yeah, I think that's what I'm hearing from Scott, too. We didn't work through including everything in the Parks Master Plan into a long-term CIP plan.

Yep, in priority. Yep, exactly.

Okay. So we are going to get some shade structures, and I'm sure there's other parks that need them.

Yes. Oh, yes. Yeah, all of them. Romer Park was another one that the community was very vocal about getting shade over the Escobar Court.

So is that included in here anywhere?

It isn't, again.

I just wonder if we need like a shade structure line item going forward or something and then we figure out who needs it the worst.

Yeah, I think that's gonna be part of that prioritization that we do and that we, you know.

Okay, let me see if I have anything else. The other thing I had was on the golf course. So are we losing a hole on the Pines course due to the air park work?

Yes, it's expected that this will take place in 2030 or 2031 due to a construction of a taxiway over at the the air park that one of the holes will need to be kind of shifted around and so that hole will be taken offline temporarily while the construction takes place. So with the the renovation of the Palms course the way that it's scheduled right now should dovetail with the when the construction begins and so Both courses should not be taken offline at the same time, according to the schedule that we've laid out here.

Have we done a business case for this investment in the Palms course? Obviously, it's not that playable at times now. It's kind of dirty and not in great shape. So if we can command better rates, fees, and more rounds there, some of this investment will be justified. So have we done that?

Nothing formal has been done, although we do see that there's a revenue differential between the two courses, and we are able to charge more for the renovated course versus the non-renovated course, and we do have more demand at the renovated course, but nothing formal has been undertaken for a business case study.

Will it look more like the Pines in terms of the cart paths and everything to be consistent over there?

Yeah, ultimately we will change out all the cart paths. And then minimally, I think these upgrades are necessary just so that we're not spending good money after bad, kind of like you mentioned on the buildings. And this is prime example that we really need to put some money into it so that we're not continuing to...

So this restroom investment isn't somehow redundant to redoing the Palms course, or it can't wait and be rolled into that either?

No, no. That is definitely necessary now because that building is well beyond its useful life as well.

Okay. And the bathrooms at the golf course by Gallupy's, what's the situation with that building?

I believe we're just going to do an interior renovation, and we've done some design concepts in-house to save money on that. So I think that's what's going to be coming online.

Okay. I thought I saw it in here somewhere, too, but I didn't hear it when we went through it. The golf course locker room renovation, is that it? That's it.

That's it. Okay. Yes.

So it smells moldy, and there's some issues in that building. So that's going to take care of that, and that will be done this year?

It's construction in 27, correct. Okay.

Okay, I think that's all I have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Very good. Commissioner Smith.

There were a couple requests that I had when we had our commissioner workshop. One was solar-powered signage for crosswalks at the shared use path and unsignalized intersections. And I know that they're all over the city, but I specifically know those in District 5. Also, solar speed reader digital signs. to try to control the speeding on our streets. And we've done some temporary ones out in the Palmier area, which have been successful to slow speeders down. And I'd requested looking to install more permanent signs. So are they in, I don't know that they're a capital improvement plan, but are they in the budget somewhere that we can do some reduced speeding and to have safer crossings of streets?

So that would not be a capital project. It would be in the operating budget. And when we get to that, I would defer to Director McCon to answer that question.

I don't know if it comes under operating or if it's a safety project.

Good morning, Rob McConn, Public Works Director. So those speed signs, we have purchased those. It's just a piece of equipment. It's a capital outlay. that could be taken from the operational maintenance account. If it's on a FDOT road, we have to get a permit for them to install it. Otherwise, we can install those signs wherever it seems, deems most needed.

Okay, and the crosswalk signs in areas that's not at intersections? I know we've covered it well at intersection, but at a non-intersection crossing to get to a shared use path?

Are you talking like a mid-block crossing? Right. So we have to involve Broward County Traffic Engineering. They do a warrant to see if there's enough pedestrians crossing at that location. And if so, then they'll install the crosswalk. And to provide the... If we want to provide pedestrian lighting, you know, we press the button to have the traffic stop. That also involves them to get approval to do that.

I think I was looking... at least the example that I provided at the workshop was more of the flashing lights, just not a stoplight, but a flashing light. So people are aware that there's walkers in that area. So the crosswalk signs and your speed is and the area speed is and it flashes if you're higher. Those, I think, are important to, and we did find, and Major Elwood's department found that the speeding was reduced when we had the temporary ones. So to put permanent ones in our troubled areas would be great. Maybe we need to work with BSO to identify where those areas are, but I want to make sure that They do get into the budget to be installed in this next budget year.

And, yeah, to your point, then that flashing sign you mentioned, that's also a piece of equipment. We don't need to involve Broward for that.

Super. Just want to make sure it's there. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Very good. Further commission discussion? Commissioner Fessick.

Mr. McConn, I don't want to have you sit all the way down because... I'll do that first. I want to follow up with the crosswalks that Commissioner Smith brought up. I think we were, I know we both had discussed these crosswalks potentially at, you know, especially for me during part of the A1A project, to have a temporary, temporary lit crosswalks that were solar and could be then used throughout the rest of the city at a later date. I don't, I think, if I remember correctly, Mr. Harrison, did we purchase those, you know, the ones I identified?

Oh, ma'am, we talked to our FDOT folks that would be giving us approval for that, and they thought it was a bad idea.

So they thought it was a bad idea for what? Could you please explain that a little bit more?

The temporary. We have an application in for permanent crosswalks later as the project transpires.

And the project is currently, what, 18 months to 24 months out?

Something like that. 12 to 18 months, is that right, Fernand?

So just to make sure that it's clear so nobody has to go back, this was a project, this was, we've approved and they're warranted on the south side of A1A where they're already in the ground and we paid a good amount of money to put lovely landscaped ones that are in the ground with flashing lights to help pedestrians cross the street. We have already have it in the plan for those to exist in a permanent location on the north side of Atlantic and moving up north through there. But currently between the lack of light and the increase in traffic and the curve, the curvature of the road, there's one specific, which I know that you've, I've mentioned in many an email, there's one specific, there's 10 that we've identified, but there's one specific at Northeast Fifth is a complete and total hazard to safety. It is absolutely, I've watched just, because I walk it frequently, I've watched people nearly get run over. There's a bus stop there. There's a curvature of the road. You're not sure if people are staying at the bus stop or trying to cross sometimes. Sometimes you can't see people if you're coming a different way. This is a safety hazard that has been brought up many, many, many times. And this particular piece of, I guess, just this crosswalk piece was like $3,500 for a set for one crosswalk. So... And it just attaches to an existing poll. So to me, I can't understand why you wouldn't try to push back a little bit with FDOT or whoever it was because when I spoke to it, I spoke to Cheb Lamarca and I asked him for his help with getting some FDOT approval moved along because this is something that is a safety issue. Are we going to just say that it's not and just wait for another 18 months or wait until somebody gets hit? I mean, this is a valid question.

Commissioner Fessick, we will approach FDOT again. Thank you. And see if anything has changed from their perspective about approving that as a temporary before we do the permanent construction. Thank you.

And the reason why I think this is important is because, as Commissioner Smith has mentioned, she's identified areas within District 5, and I'm sure the other commissioners will probably identify areas in their own district where the use of these, they're not necessarily temporary, they're just not built into the ground. They can be used and they have a life of about six to seven years. So for $3,500 for six to seven years to have just at least an alert to let people know that there's somebody who wants to cross the street and that can be taken down off a pole and reused on a separate pole throughout the city seems like a pretty wise investment of $3,500 a pop. So I... Since you're standing here, yes, sorry, did you go on? Go ahead.

Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners Fernandez and Tony, Coburn Director. It is very frustrating, Commissioner Fasig, The DOT, and I don't want to say anything bad about them because they are partners and they give us money, but they are very bureaucratic. To put that simple system requires a permit from them and it requires an MOA where we have to come to commission to even enter into an agreement. It's a six-month process at a minimum even if we have to do that. Now, we did tell them that we wanted to consider that. They told us we would have to remove what's already approved and start over the process. We didn't think, it sort of put us in a jam because we are working to bring that item very soon to start the full A1E project. So to have to change the plans and modify the permit and go through the same process didn't seem, as the manager explained, a good use of resources. But it's very frustrating working with them.

I know it seems like a frustrating, and I know it seems that way, but this has been a conversation that I believe we were even having last year. So if it was a six-month or a three-month, and we could have anybody from any of our state reps or Senate, like anybody help us through that process or help expedite that process, I would have hoped that we would have been closer to a solution by now. I literally, I'm telling you, I've seen many people given that we're trying to bring people to the beach through that is the top end of our beach and everybody uses it to walk in the morning. A lot of people, the condos, it's just, it is sadly an accident waiting to happen. And I really want to see some movement, whatever we need to do to make sure that pedestrian safety is at the forefront there.

We'll re-engage them again. Hopefully, again, we'll have the item very soon. It's in the queue. There's some little challenges with getting a consultant as well, but we should be very soon bringing an item to the commission for A1A.

Thank you. And since you're standing here, I wanted to find out the same thing with operations budget or... capital improvements, given that, let's talk about North Riverside Drive, given that we did not get some of the funding that we had hoped we were going to get, what is the status of that plan, and do we need to start moving it into, or at least allocating funds to ensure that we make it part of our capital improvement plan? Because I think, how much do we need now?

The project last estimate was $22 million. We currently have $6.2 million available, so it's a significant shortage, Commissioner.

Okay. What's our plan or what's the city's plan for, aside from trying to apply for grants, but what's the city's plan for that at the moment?

For now, we have $7.2 million that FEMA, we are hoping to get a response from. Everything looks positive, but then again, it's at the federal level. We have two grants that are pending. I think one, and I can confirm later on, we had a request at $1 million. We are getting $300,000. There's still a $3 million grant out. If all these things came to fruition, we would have about an extra $10 million to come to city coffers, so now it would be feasible. I mean, we would come to you with a $5 million shortage. I think that would be potable, but to come and, of course, say $15 million plus, it's a hard thing to imagine.

Yeah, it is. It's a lot. Is there any way we could see what has been, I know what has been expended so far, similar to the other projects, and where we... You know, is it even possible to apply for some of these grants and then even if we were to front the money at some point, is there a way that we could get it back on the back end?

That's the hope. We are in a great position, as you may know. We have designed the plans. They are 100% completed, literally. Permitting, we are in a very good position. The biggest challenge was the U.S. Army Corps. We got that permit. So, I mean, if we could have monies, we could be out there. And I've received the calls, and I know you've been pushing for that. The community deserves it, but it's just one of our most challenging projects to proceed with.

So if you come with us with a $5 million shortfall, where in the budget would that land? Would it come to CIP? Would it come to?

I think to general fund, but I don't want to be. Again, if we could reduce the gap to about $5 million, yes, it would have to be the general fund to supplement that shortage.

Okay. I would probably recommend that we stick some money as a pending, just in case. And maybe if it's an out year, that we just kind of make sure that at least it gets on the list. That way, just in case you need it, which you're anticipating you likely will need some money, maybe we're at least preparing for that for future years so that we can make sure it's not hanging out there for too much longer. Thank you. I wanted to also kind of come back because I had seawalls on my list. and also the Hillsborough District, so the two things. The seawalls, I was brought to my attention, I know I've talked about with Dr. Good before the living seawalls and the different projects. I've got a piece of paper here from the city Clearwater. So they actually won an award of some kind They won the grant, but they won some sort of, I'm trying to think what it, see if there was, but their funding request for $5 million for a living seawall project was approved. And it was to raise seawalls to mitigate against flood damage, transition to some living seawalls to help improve overall water quality. And so they submitted a Gulf Futures grant application, which I know that we're obviously not in the Gulf, If they were able to get for living seawalls $5 million, if we're looking at seawalls and water quality potentially, maybe we should be looking at see if there's an additional grant money that we could pick up if we were to move some of that funding. If we could get the grant, we can move some of that funding in future years to other projects and get the majority of that covered by grants entirely. I love the living seawall concept and anything that will help clean the water and or promote wildlife is probably a good option. With that, the Hillsboro Inlet, I noticed that that was pushed out again too. How long has that been pushed out?

The Hillsboro Inlet.

Discharge improvement.

Okay.

I'm going to let John speak. That's 101.

I thought you were talking about the construction project that started over there.

That's doing well. Do we know when that's going to be done while you're waiting for him? I can get that scheduled for you. Okay. Thank you.

Morning. John Swarovski, engineer. That project, the Hillsborough Inlet District is not supporting us spearheading it because it's under their purview. They are doing an inlet management plan that will include turbidity evaluation and so forth, and we may be able to partner with them in the future.

Okay. The main reason I just feel like it's, you know, putting it in 2029, it's kind of an issue is I think everybody who's been hearing stories about the inlet lately is extremely shallow. We have, you know, boats are getting stuck. There have been some, it's been affecting the usage of the inlet. Some of the sides.

Right. Well, these are two different, what you're referring to, the inlet district is concerned with navigation and dredging. This project is to potentially extend the jetty out to push the turbid waters out into the Gulf Stream, into the deeper water where there's more current.

Okay, and that would help, do you think, also with sand?

Commissioner Fessick, I can chime in here. The problem with the inlet that we had just recently, a little while back, was because of the weather. They couldn't actually get the dredge in location to actually dredge the inlet, so it had nothing to do with turbidity or any of that. It was actually an operational issue that once the weather calmed down, they were able to get the dredge out there. They pumped it onto the south side of the inlet, and the boats were able to get in and out.

Thank you for that. And then I think that's it for me.

Thank you.

All right. Very good. Further commission discussion, questions? Commissioner Perkins, I'm sorry. Yes.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor. The Blanchelli Museum Pavilion, That is projected what year?

Let me find that for you, Commissioner. I believe it's 27, but I'm going to...

It is, Josh.

It is, okay. Construction is for fiscal year 2027, so it's within this budget.

2027.

Yes, ma'am. There it is on the screen now.

Okay, and what is the... What is the projected budget for Highlands Park renovations?

So that is... So it's gonna be one point over, it's a multi-year project. So in 27 it's 70,000, in 28 it's 128,000, and then in 29 it's 275, and then 2010 it's 900,000. So all told, it's gonna be approximately 1.373 million.

Oh, the question was the projected starting time.

Oh, projected starting time for the Highlands Park renovation. So it's a multi-year project. So in 27, it would be the fencing for the dog park. So that's what's in there for 27 is $70,000 for the dog park fencing.

Great. So the Mitch Moore, the sound improvements, that's $20,000. 30?

Yes, ma'am. That's scheduled for 2030. Okay.

And the community park pavilion and restrooms, that's 2027 as well?

For design is 2027, and the construction is going to be in 2028. Okay.

So the Mitchelmore, okay, that's not what I'm talking about. The pavilions. zebo at hunter's manor that's 2031. let me find that on here i believe so yes ma'am okay right so for the restroom concession um that consists of Houston Swarm, and that consists of Weaver Park.

Weaver Park, yes, ma'am. Weaver Park, correct? Correct.

Okay, so Apollo Park is not included on that because there's funding already that aside for Apollo? Yes, okay. What about the basketball courts, the shade for the basketball courts? Is that somewhere placed on here?

There's not a specific line item just yet for any kind of shade structure. We were discussing that earlier. We're trying to get an evaluation in terms of prioritization for all the shade structures that are recommended within the Parks Master Plan.

Okay. Okay, so the Bragg's Criswell substation has been pushed back again for 2028?

Correct. The reason that was pushed out is because the city has not yet been able to acquire property for the construction of that site.

You know, every budget year we go over this over and over. We've been going over this for at least five years for the Bragg's Criswell, and it's being... push further out, further back, moving it back, moving it back, and it's just, what are we doing here? There's no movement on it. Staff doesn't seem to be interested, so I need directions on what are we gonna do with this. So I know the history, but still, there is land in District 4, but staff has not seen it or look at it as a priority as to moving in on getting this substation up and finding a location. So from what I see on this budget, which I'm not pleased with, I only have one project for 2027. Everything is pushed back. We keep pushing and pushing back, but I'm looking at other projects in other districts that are starting in 2027, and it doesn't look quite balanced to me. So I'm not really happy with the pushback on a lot of things in my district. So I'm going to go over to Mitchelmore and look at the parking lot because I don't remember seeing any holes. I think that was given by staff. I don't think that's a priority. Oh, but anyway, it seems as though the dog park is going to be 2027.

Correct. And then other projects, there's a project for the senior center. The design money is in 27 for the senior center expansion with construction in 28. This was a project that was put in last year's budget. It was adopted in 2026 for design in 27 and then construction in 28. construction and design, particularly for a project of that scale, could not incur within the same year for design and construction. So that's why it's spread out over two years with design in one year and construction in the next.

Well, I'm not pleased with a lot of the pushback and the further back projects are in my district. So I'm not in agreement with this.

Thank you. All right. Mr. Fessick.

I just wanted to kind of reiterate that. You know, we have a Hillsborough Discharge Improvement Project for District 1 and the Columbarium at the cemetery, which was a new idea for District 1. But there's really not, I mean, I know I've been coming to the meetings well before, and I've seen some of these projects that have been sitting here for a while, and then they continually just get pushed out. Depends on who you are, I guess. So, but, you know, it's funny because at our meeting earlier this year, I brought forth a couple different ideas for District 1 and to add to the CIP, whether it was not for this year or for future years, but to get it on this list because I already understand how long sometimes these things take. And I haven't seen any of them on there. So, Mr. Harrison, I really would have hoped that some of the direction would have been added so that we could look into those things. So, thank you.

All right. Further commission discussions. Seeing none, so is this the end of our?

This was just for the general capital CIP. We still have the utilities, stormwater, and air park to go through.

Let's go ahead and continue with the CIP.

Okay, so the next set of projects we'll be reviewing relate to utilities renewal and replacement. Funding for these projects increases from 4.7 million in 26 to 11.3 million in fiscal year 2027. I'll walk through these projects but would defer to the utilities director in case there are specific questions. First one here, sanitary sewer manhole rehabilitation, this is a maintenance level project at $300,000. Wastewater collection relining, this is a project that will start in 27 at $1.5 million. The next project is WTP maintenance, this is a maintenance level project at $500,000. Reuse treatment plant maintenance, this is also a maintenance level project at $300,000. Reuse distribution expansion, this is a project that will start in fiscal year 2028 and will be funded with bond funds at $3 million a year for 28, 29, 30, and 31. The next one is for water main replacement program. This is a project that will be funded in 27 at $1.3 million, escalating in the out years. Well maintenance project. This is a project that's going to be funded at $1 million in 27 with maintenance level funding in the out years. Membrane element replacement. This is a project that will be funded as $100,000 beginning in 27, escalating to $300,000 in the out years. Wastewater lift station rehabilitation. This is for upgrading and rehabilitating wastewater lift stations, 750,027, escalating to 1.55 million in the out years. Wastewater master plan update, this is an out year project beginning in fiscal year 2030. Water main testing and replacement program, this is also an out year project starting in FY 2028 at $150,000. Force main replacement, this is a project that will be funded or is recommended to be funded at $700,000 in 27 with funding escalating in the out years. Well field performance and relocation, this is a project that will be funded at 1.25 million in 2027 with funding fluctuating in each of the years depending on how many well fields are impacted in any particular year. Water treatment and reuse storage tank cleaning, this is a project for next year, fiscal year 2028, at $150,000. Reuse connection services, this is a project that begins in FY28 at $169,000. This year, it was funded in 26 at $169,000. This year, no additional funding is needed. Force main isolation valve replacement assessment design and repair, this is a maintenance project, $250,000 for 27 and the out years. Lift station emergency bypass pump, it's a $100,000 project, this is a maintenance level project. Water supply plan, this is a project that is funded in FY 29 at $150,000. The water master plan five year update, this is a project that will be funded in FY 29 at $400,000. Reuse master plan five year update, also a project funded in FY 29 at $200,000. Emerging contaminants, this is a large project that will be funded starting in FY2028 at $41.5 million with bond funds. Riverside Drive force main rehabilitation and replacement, there's $1 million for this project in FY27. Lift station 61 service area separation, this is a maintenance level project funded at 50,000 in each of the years. Fire hydrant replacement program, it's $100,000 in FY2027 with additional funding in the out years. BCWWTF flow meter bypass, this is a project that's funded at 250,027. Reuse ground storage, this is an out year project with funding at 1.5 million in FY2029 and additional funding in 2030 and 2031. This is also funded with bonds. RTP remediation, this is a project funded in FY28 at 100,000 and the out years. Asset management plan, it's $100,000 in FY27 with additional funding in the out years. WTP GST remediation, this is for ground storage tank. This is funding for FY28, 29, and 30. And that takes us through the utilities renewal and replacement projects. If there are individual questions about any of these projects, I would defer to the utilities director.

Any questions from the commission on any of those items? Vice Mayor.

Just two quick questions. The reuse distribution expansion plan starts in fiscal year 28. It says, continues with the installation of the reuse distribution system in service areas one through four. Where is reuse going over from those years with the, it's quite a big investment. It's three million a year for four years, so $12 million.

So Renuka Muhammad, the utilities director. The reuse plan, the updated reuse plan identifies Old Pompano for the next series. We have one section in Lighthouse Point, Phase 5. So that is, right now, that's what has been identified.

Is it all of Old Pompano? So south, sorry, north of Atlantic and east of Dixie? Right. So it will service that whole area?

The main trunk line. So we have the main trunk line in one phase and then the service connections coming along. But again, a lot of it depends on funding.

Okay, but so Is the way to think about your capital plan here because there's a lot here and we know there's a lot of work that needs to be done I assume what you've done is you kind of mapped the we did the bond issuances We're doing those to do all the upgrades that were part of the utility rate increases all of that So this just looks like mapping those projects out over time and how do you correct get them done?

so right so The main two projects that are identified in the master plan coming along is the old Pompano trunk line and then finishing out Lighthouse Point. For reuse? For reuse.

But just in general, sorry, in general, this appears to just be like a mapping of all of the bond proceeds and how we're going to spend them over time.

Those were the projects identified in the bond series, the future bond series.

Like the plant, all of that? Yes. So there's no, so this is all funded through the bonds? Yes.

As of right now, yes.

Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.

Okay. Further commission discussion. Commissioner Fasik.

Just a couple quick ones. So the, I know we're kind of bouncing between rate increases and approved projects. The rate increases, have we kind of put that into some sort of like one pager where It helps connect the dots between what this budget looks like and what the average consumer is going to see sort of as a pass-through if we approve this budget.

So the rate increases go through FY28, which is calendar year 29. This CIP for the utilities covers a five-year period, and we have made it a bit more comprehensive, I think, than what you guys have seen in prior years, just so we, you know, we're also looking at the planning and the execution of projects to bring everything on board. So, again, everything that has been identified in, you know, what the rate increase spoke about, what the bond spoke about, and again, putting everything in this plan to move the utility forward. But it's not that level of specificity that you're looking for. Projects are basically going to come from the master plans. So we have the water master plan where we're trying to finish up with individual CIP projects. We're working on the wastewater master plan that has initiated. and that may take up to a year. But in the meantime, we have drafted a comprehensive master plan based on the institutional knowledge of the utilities personnel on incidences or that we've had in the system, just a general condition assessment of the infrastructure that we have. So we do have a working platform for the CIP.

Okay. And I just, I noticed that there was, I mean, I know that these projects are very complex and require a level of project knowledge that is not easily found. Is this, there's a lot of these, a lot of outside design fees and consulting, et cetera, fees. Because that's one of the things that we're always trying to look and make sure that it aligns. Is there a way that we might just be kind of overshooting this, or are those in line with what you expect for the project?

I think those are planning-level costs. Some projects we go in, and we can take a look at it and decipher whether there has to be large-scale design or redesign of a project. And some projects, depending if based on the master plan and the assessments we have, It's just construction. But I think it's always prudent to put a item in there for design because we just don't know, especially for underground projects, what is going to be entailed.

You don't know what you're gonna see until you open it until you open it up. Yes So the other the only other the question I have was really sort of at the end So the very last thing it says projections for fiscal year 2028. I mean it goes from 11 million. It jumps to 57 million and kind of 23 25 28 in future years some of which would be covered by bonds. I remember that when we sat down together and And so I just want to make sure this is said, that you took on a project and you have been sort of deciphering the needs of the water system, storm water system, reuse potable water, all of the above. And due to rising costs and changes in government, what is it, regulations, I'm assuming? You have maybe, we may need a larger bond, or we may need to do something where we can try to find a creative way to, you know, you're self-sustaining, but.

So this year, the city works on a five-year CIP for utility because of the type of infrastructure and the cost of infrastructure. Internally, we are working on a 10-year CIP. Once the 10-year CIP, we have, you know, we feel very comfortable about it. then we are struggling to project out at a 15 year and a 20 year. Most of our projects will not be covered in one fiscal year. We have to create, so these accounts are, some of these are sinking accounts. We put funding every year until we get to a point where we can actually execute a project. And again, I think that is just proper planning, because we don't know necessarily what is coming down the pipeline, and we can talk about the PFAS. We've been monitoring it and all of a sudden there is a passed regulation and now we have to move. So it's a combination of once we have identified the type of projects, what is coming down the pipeline, then also identifying funding. Funding could come from the rate increases, from bonds, from loans, and grants. I mean, there's various sources as to how we can execute. But I think having the foresight to go through that process and looking at those things and planning appropriately as best as we can with the information we have available. So yes, we are within utilities. We are preparing this roadmap to move the utility into what may be coming in the future. And again, some of it we just don't know. But we also know there's price escalations coming out every single year on projects. We have projects that we go out to bid, and those prices come back beyond what we have funded for the project.

Yeah, I think when we met, you mentioned that it was fairly significant in a price jump based on the regulations that came down and then the specificity of the type of, I don't know, it was like the pipe or the modular piece that it was just in production for 18 months and you just get in line where you get in line.

Yeah, so we're seeing price escalations anywhere from 25% to 50%, depending on the type of commodity that we're bidding on. So that is the reality.

The reason I bring that up is because I know that one of the things is, yes, we could bond out a lot of money, but maybe so we don't pass on such a high rate increase to consumers, maybe we need to take a look at this, not just for this year, as I'm sure you're doing, but for future years to see what we can do to maybe – help offset that from a larger perspective or a larger piece of our fund to make sure that.

Correct. I think one of the things you would see with in this budget, and again, using the rate increases, there are a lot more cash funded projects this year. We do have the bond projects on there. And again, as priorities changes, you know, within utilities and within the industry that we're working with is to go through and really reassess those bond allocations. I think that is absolutely important at this point in time.

And finally, I just want to thank you for really doing a deep dive into this because I think I said it before, but I want to say it again. When I sat with you, I came to your department and we spent four and a half hours doing the tour and going through some very specific things. And I want to appreciate, I just want to tell you, I appreciate the work that you've put into this to try to make it very clear for everybody to understand. So thank you.

Thank you. And that offer is available to anyone out there if you want to, you know, what is going on utilities and what we have endeavored on in the past eight to ten months. You're more than welcome.

Very good. Further commission discussion on utilities? Seeing none. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Waters.

Yes, sir. The next few projects deal with stormwater, stormwater management. The first project is going to be for stormwater drainage headwall. This is a maintenance project at 50,000 in each of the years. Stormwater master plan, this is a project funded in 27 at 275,000. Stormwater backflow valves, this is also a maintenance level project at $55,000 in each of the years. Stormwater pipelining and miscellaneous projects. Funding is in 27 at 200,000 without your funding at 750,000 in each of the years. Stormwater underground exfiltration trench systems, Powerline Road and Northwest 33rd Street. This is a project funded at $2 million in fiscal year 2028. Stormwater manhole rehabilitation is a maintenance project at $50,000 in each of the years. Stormwater grass swales, also a maintenance project at $25,000 in each of the years. Northeast 3rd Avenue drainage improvement, this is $2 million in fiscal year 2028. Stormwater outfall maintenance is the final project on this list, funded at $85,000 in fiscal year 2027, with additional funding in the out years. If there are any questions regarding any of the stormwater projects, I would also defer to the utilities director.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I was going to mention you might want to stay there. So this year we have a little over a million budgeted for stormwater projects, including a master plan. There are areas of my district, and I'm sure other districts, that we all know flood. One of them is not far from actually the mayor's house on Southeast Second Terrace, Southeast Second Street. And they do not show up in the prior stormwater master plan. So, and they flooded long before that plan was done. So at what point when we do a master plan does local actual knowledge of people who live in a neighborhood get incorporated into it? Because I know I can sit here and tell you the top four or five areas in my district locally that flood, and I'm guessing most commissioners could do the same, and that doesn't necessarily translate into your plan, the consultant's plan.

So Renuka Muhammad, the Utilities Director. So the most current plan we had was over 10 years ago. Right now we're endeavoring into a new master plan. There was some funding set aside, and we were just actually, we are in the process of receiving a grant from FEMA for part of that master plan. We are going to work through with the consultant and with FEMA, again, on the flooding plane, the different categories that we have, We have some input from different areas. Again, going into staff knowledge, areas that they respond to, complaints that we receive, and working through that master plan, and then prioritizing it. I will tell you, you pointed out that this fund is just over a million dollars. That's it. These projects, everything that we have endeavored so far has been through SRF funding. We are going back again for SRF funding this year to see if we can get prioritized and put a couple more projects. There's about maybe four projects outstanding from the old plan while we build a new plan to identify that areas, but funding is very competitive. This is an area of concern because again, if this fund is only producing a million dollars fiscal year, and stormwater projects are upwards of, you know, let's say $4 or $5 million, and we don't have any more SRF funding, then a decision has to be made by the board as to how do we How do we address this? How do you assess it? Again, we're trying to be very aggressive with the SRF, with grants, the Florida Resiliency Grant. We are moving on those things, but the reality of this fund is only just 1.2 million, to be exact. That's it per year. So everything that you see on here are really maintenance projects. It is not a huge project. I mean, when we talk about the North River side, the Gobarn project, 22 million so there are some challenges that's going to become evident in this and as we go through the new master plan We will try to get some cost estimates for each of the associated projects. I

That was a good summary of exactly what I'm thinking here. Stormwater drainage is a big issue. When it rains hard, it floods all over the city. It's not getting better. It gets worse every year. There are local areas. There are bigger areas. We've got money for swales and doing some slight mitigation, but a million dollars is nothing in terms of making a dent in the stormwater issues that we have. I appreciate the funding you're trying to find, but I just want to bring this up, that this seems really light, and we are going to have to figure out how to address this going forward in a better way with hopefully the plan that we get. But I'm also concerned. I know. I'm also concerned about what is the point of the master plan if we all look at it and say, that's not where it floods in my district. Because some of it just seems to be so hyperlocal that it's not. FEMA can do whatever they do, and they have all their analysis, and you can overanalyze a problem. And if you look at us and say, hey, let's just all talk about where it floods in the city.

You know, I think it is looking at a combination of everything, of what the information we're getting for FEMA on the floodplains, and then from the institutional knowledge we have from staff on the ground, how they respond to the complaints that we get, and then building all of that in. Now, one thing I will venture to say, the master plan, once, you know, that is near in completion, that may be the impetus to go back and to take a look and see what a rate increase may look like. The last rate increase was done in union with... the water and sewer. This we may have to address depending on the findings of the master plan. We may have to come a little bit earlier based on the recommendations of the master plan and try to build a footprint into a rate increase.

I imagine this master plan is going to come out with a lot of very expensive projects.

Very expensive projects.

But I hope they're at least addressing the issues in our district. So I look forward to seeing this. $275,000 is a lot of money, and we need to do it, obviously, if the other one is 10 years old. But I'm going to be really disappointed if what comes out of it is the same result and it doesn't actually address the areas that we know flood. Thank you. Thank you.

And on that issue, that's part of the master plan is getting with individual commissioners, of course, and identifying those areas. And of course, but that in concert with the reports from the field where our forces go out, because I mean, One one person's complaint that there's a puddle in front of my house doesn't necessarily indicate consistent flooding But yeah, that's it's the consistency is the important part. But yeah, no, it's it's it's a huge huge issue going forward Yes, it really is for the Commission discussion on the the stormwater Yes, I do.

Mr. Perkins Yes, I would love to see the five-year plan. I have about eight different locations in my district that I know that have severe flooding. So I would love to see the master plan and I would love the one-on-one so that we can identify those as well.

If you have those locations, you can send them to us and we'll make sure that, you know, as we start up the project or the master planning project, we will incorporate all of those. Okay.

So the mayor said something about a one-on-one with

Yeah, as the master plan process moving forward, but if you've got a places right now send them to her so she's got a list of Can you send us the starting list you have All of us yeah, thank you very good commissioner fesak I

I just wanted to touch on one thing. So far, I'm in complete agreement. We're going to have to find some serious money. But you mentioned the North Riverside with the Goban Project and 22 million. The concern with some of this that I have on the side streets is not just now, but so right now, a lot of the side streets are flooding. So even though we'll be addressing North Riverside, the concern is that some of those low-lying side streets in a lot of places that are flooding now already pretty heavily And then, of course, there's multiple areas. It's not just there. We've had issues all over the district.

So I will tell you, one of the things we see here in Pompano is an elevation issue, right? I mean, the road level is at a certain level, and then some of the state roads may be at a different elevation. So there are some challenges. that have to be addressed, so.

Now I actually have a different question because you brought that up and it's a really good thought process. In development services, whenever we're looking at development plans and we look at what's recommended for new projects in terms of be built to a certain elevation, Are we comprehensively looking at the impacts of water flow off those properties, or are we only, I mean, this might not be your question, but are we looking at this comprehensively as a city, because if you raise something up, right, and water flows downhill, it's gonna go somewhere,

So I could defer that to development services. I know within utilities, if there's a stormwater project, the owner is responsible for keeping that discharge on site. So if you are generating X number of, let's say gallons, then you are responsible for holding that capacity on site. That should not roll over to your neighbors or anybody else.

Right, but when you add streets in, when you add streets and elevations and some things, yes, can be contained, but I think when we have flash flooding like we do or king tides, there's no way that we're going to contain it on a... I mean, that's not feasible. They can do the math, but it'll help, but it's not everything. So, no, I think it would be interesting to see if you're... if some of what you find based on what you're doing here and what the action plan is that we need to look at our overall elevations and how they're playing into other properties.

I will tell you for utilities, above ground infrastructure, we have to build to the new FEMA 500 floodplain level. I'm not sure what the other infrastructure needs are, but for utilities, working with the state and with Broward County, it is up to the new level to make sure we secure anything that we are rehabilitating or new.

Very good. All right, nothing further? Let's move forward.

The next set of projects we'll describe relate to the air park. And I will note that for each of the projects on the summary sheet, we have what percentage is air park funding versus what percentage comes from grant funding for each of those projects. As you know, most of the funding for air park projects comes from either the state or the federal government. First project on here is the air park pavement maintenance project. This is a project that is 100% funded by the air park, and it's a maintenance level project at $50,000 in each of the years of the CIP. The next project is for the new air traffic control tower. There's design funding in FY27, and that design funding is split 80-20, with grant funding paying for 80% of that. There's construction for that project, similar percentage in the out years, 2031, $9.1 million. The next project is for Runway 624 Rehabilitation and RSA Corrections. This is a project that is 95% grant funded for design, and that is funded at $1.5 million in fiscal 27. Fiscal 29 is the construction funding at $14.1 million. Runway 15 and 24 Corrections, this is an out-year project beginning in 28 and 29. This is split 95-5 for design and then 80-20 for construction. Taxiway M South realignment hotspot and HS1 mitigation. This is a project that is 97.5% grant funded for design at 1.2 million in FY27. Construction funding is for FY28 and that is split 95% grant, 5% air park. Taxiway L Rehabilitation, this is a project that is for design it's split 80-20 and then for construction it's split 95-5. Design is slated for fiscal year 28 and construction is slated for fiscal year 30. Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, this is a project that's going to be in FY28 and FY30. Construction and design for this project are split 80-20 with grant funding. Airspace obstruction mitigation, this is also split 80-20 with grant funding for FY28 and FY29. Parcel 1 airspace planning, this is a project that is 80% grant funded and this is funded in FY28. Airpark master stormwater management plan update, this is an FY28 project that is split 80% grant funding. The next project is NEPA for various projects. This is 100% funded with air park funds, and this is for FY2028. Southeast Airfield Reconfiguration, this project is split 80% grant funding. Design is an FY28, construction is an FY29. ALP Pen and Ink Update, this is split 80-20 with grant funding, and this is an FY2028 project. Taxiway M Relocation, this is a project that is 97.5% grant funded and design funding is slated for FY 2031. Runway 1533 Nav Aid, this is a project that is also 80% grant funded, design in 29, construction in 30. The next project is NEPA KTEX for taxiway B run-up area and rehabilitation. This is a project that is 100% funded by the air park and this is for FY 2030. Southwest GA ramp rehabilitation and expansion. This project is 80% grant funded and this is for FY 2030 and FY 2031. Water and sewer utility design for Northwest Quadrant, 80% grant funded. This is a 2031 project. And then the final project for the air park is airfield perimeter improvements. This is also a 2031 project, and it is also 80% grant funded.

Very good. Any questions or comments from the commission on these projects? Commissioner Fessick.

Thank you. Since you mentioned the price being the split project, in the recommended dollar amount. So for each project in your 2027 or in any of your projections, is that split, is that the total amount or is that our responsible amount for the split?

So the project total is the total amount. So you would have to apply the split funding percentage to that total dollar amount.

Okay. And this is just something along the lines of I know that you've talked about a couple things with the air park, but. I have to go back through the rate fees or potential any sort of, where was that sheet? Do we have any fees that are gonna help offset these costs currently? Like our hangers or what are the fees to help offset these?

So the air park projects are largely covered by the almost 100% covered, the local share, the local match is funded by the air park fees. So it's by the revenues that the air park generates through fees, leases, their entire revenue apparatus. I would have to look specifically at what's included for the air park. But the air park is an enterprise fund.

And the reason I brought that up is because it's obviously been a hot topic with a lot of folks in the area trying to find ways that we can support both, but also protect our air park as well. And the concept of landing fees for people who are non-hangered, or I guess at the same time you could always ask for a you could do landing fees and then if you're a resident or whatever, at least you could do a chargeback or some sort of I don't know what you would call it, but a uniform landing fee to kind of eliminate some of the touch-and-goes. But that would also help with our air park and help fund some of this as well. Has that been considered, Mr. Harrison?

Some sort of uniform landing fee, Mr. Harrison? No. Not to my knowledge.

Okay.

Well, I'd like to maybe make that something that we look into, and I'd be happy to send you some information based on what we've come up with.

All right. Of course, we did, as you mentioned at our last commission meeting, there's a business study going to be done out at the air park also just to look for opportunities to encourage compatible businesses with the city of Pompano Beach at the air park. All right, what else? Keep moving.

So the last part of the capital, it's not part of the capital budget, this is the capital outlay portion of the budget. This you'll see beginning on page 46 in your budget book. There was a handout that was provided back in June that listed these projects as well, but I just wanted to highlight a few of the capital outlay projects. This is for major equipment. that is slated to be purchased by the city for FY2027. You'll see the funding split between pay-as-you-go. This is cash funding that's included in the budget. Financing, this is for financing of major pieces of equipment. That's done over a five-year period. That'll come back to the commission in the fall. And then the lease column delineates which vehicles are being leased via our fleet contract. So I just wanted to point out a few of the larger items here for the commission, just to make sure you were aware. Fire operations, there's funding for a fire engine replacement for the fire department. In addition, there is funding under the EMS fund for the replacement of two ambulances, the Freightliner M2s. So that's also a big ticket item that I wanted to point out in here. And there's funding in the CIP as well, or the capital outlay for 95,000 for the replacement of the Great Lawn at the beach. It's the turf that has to be replaced. And then for utilities, all of the projects funded by the enterprise funds are funded under the pay-as-you-go category. And if you have any individual questions, we can answer them. But I just wanted to highlight under the capital outlay plan the major items that you'll see for fiscal 2027.

Very good. That's it?

Yes, sir.

Okay, that's it. Any further questions from the commission at this point? Seeing none, let's go ahead and open up to the public. This is a public hearing. Is there any input from the public at this point in time on the matters that have been discussed? Seeing none, public input closed. All right. Any final comments on the CIP? Commissioner Fessick?

Yeah, just one question. This has been the second time that the cost of the study at the air park related to business has been brought up now. Once Mr. Harrison's reported our commission meeting, and now, Mr. Mayor, you just brought this up. I would like to make sure that I request that we... are all informed of exactly what is asked, and we all are kept abreast of what that study is, what the cost is, who's doing it, what it's asking, et cetera. I'd like to know all of the details related to that and make sure that we're all kept aware of that moving forward. Thank you.

Certainly. I'm sure that's not a problem. Vice Mayor?

I have a couple questions on the capital outlay plan. Sorry. Is the total $6.8 million, so that's the total pay-as-you-go financing lease?

Correct. That's the grand total.

Okay.

And under the lease category, that's just the value of the vehicle being leased, not the lease payment.

Right. So, for example, there's five Ford Escapes for code compliance. Correct. We're leasing those. And so the value of the vehicles is $225,000. Correct. We can talk more about this when we go through the budget, I guess. But we have a lot of vehicles. And we have a lot of nice new vehicles. So when we did this capital outlay plan, how much work was done to determine what we really need, if we can share vehicles? And code compliance is probably a bad example, because they probably actually use their vehicles more than most. But is there a plan to be more efficient with our fleet?

So when we requested the budget submissions from the departments this year, we requested them to also provide a vehicle inventory, an updated vehicle inventory with the mileage for each of the vehicles, the age of the vehicles. As we were going through the requests from the departments, we certainly looked at that information and had those conversations with the departments to determine whether a vehicle needed to be replaced. I don't believe there are any new vehicles on this list. All the vehicles listed on here are for replacement. As part of the onboarding, the city has a new fleet manager. And so when the new fleet manager came on board, we turned over the vehicle inventory to the new fleet manager so he could go and do boots on the ground validation of the vehicle inventory with the mileage. The finance director and I met with him last week to go over that and go over his information. And so I believe we'll be working, I'll turn it over to the finance director. Yes, she's in the audience.

I guess I'm curious what threshold is met that triggers the need for replacement.

So it would have to depend on the vehicle itself. So if the vehicle is old enough where it's costing more money to maintain or reliability, then we would go ahead and replace it. I know some of these vehicles on the list are in excess of nine, ten years old, the ones that we've owned, and now we're replacing them with leased vehicles. But I'll turn it over to our finance director to kind of walk through the fleet management policy. Okay.

Good morning, Alison Furtado, Finance Director. As just mentioned, we just hired a fleet manager and he's in the process of doing an inventory of all our vehicles per policy. So we have moved on to step one of identifying every single vehicle that the city owns. which includes the mileage and the year of the vehicle. That's step one. Step two, in that process, he has also, in the entire process, we have sold, auctioned four vehicles so far and a couple of equipments. So we're moving progressively in identifying vehicles that are not in use. Yes, we are also in the planning stage of identifying vehicles that we can use as pool. That is one of our strategies moving forward is to do have pool vehicles. We are also looking into software that can also monitor the mileage instead of doing it physically when the fleet, when the, employees go to the gas station and do their own mileage, we are looking into software to help us to better manage the mileage and the usage of our vehicles. So we are in the process of doing things, and we think that we'll be able to accomplish that within the next year. So we have completed step one of doing a physical inventory of our vehicles, and now we're moving to step two to identify a better way of using our fleets.

Okay, I appreciate that. I just wonder if separate, maybe like a fire truck and an ambulance, which have a very long lead time and long life, if we just said no to everything that was a vehicle on this list for a year, would we survive?

And that's what we're looking at. And would we actually save money? Yes, and we are looking strategically into that matter, yes. Beforehand, we didn't have that. We are looking into it. We're diving into it, and we're definitely looking into being more. People do this all the time, right? They want a new vehicle, but can I use it for a year? Yeah. And that's the purpose of doing this entire exercise.

Okay. And then some of these just seem like it's a golf cart for $15,000. That seems really excessive to me.

There's nothing sitting around the golf course.

I mean, it just seems like we're not real creative either sometimes. And maybe it's a very specific vehicle. But we could talk more about this when we go through the details of the budget.

We are working. We are working. I know you are. And I appreciate that because I know we've been talking about this for a while.

I just look at this and I know there's opportunity here, right? And we are looking to be difficult. And it's opportunity without impacting salaries and personnel and services. And really, I think there's probably efficiencies to be gained.

And I do agree on that. I totally agree. And again, we... hired a new fleet manager and he's doing the recommendations that Josh and I have recommended him to do. And the first thing was to do a total inventory of all our vehicles, leased and owned, and see where we can maximize the usage of those vehicles. Just give us a year.

know can we say we we just put things on hold until we have that so if i if i may just not with the visa there's a lot of big videos there's a lot of big purchases here you know what and if we at least something that we analyze over the next year for the fire vehicles um i'm not talking about i said excluding those oh sorry i mean there's a lot of other replacement vehicles in here um i do

did dive into reducing the amount of vehicle requests for this year. I honestly did eliminate some of the vehicles. So those vehicles that they are requiring, we do need them. But again, we're diving deeper into using a pool system. So until I can get a full inventory based off on what departments are having and what we physically do see, we are going forward in doing a pool. pooled kind of using our VCLS in a pool factor.

So if I may, just to provide a year-over-year comparison between FY26 and FY27, the general fund total for 26 was around $5.4 million. This year you can see that the general fund total is around $3.8 million. So there is a decrease year-over-year in what we were asking for the general fund capital outlay, and that's because of the processes that the finance director spoke about.

Okay. Work with us. We're getting there.

I appreciate it. Nothing happens fast enough, right? I look at this list, and I know if I were to drive around and look at these vehicles, I'm sure they can survive another year with that. Maybe not that.

And that is why we're doing the inventory, the physical inventory.

I will let this go for the moment, but I appreciate it.

All right. Thank you. Bye.

Okay. Commissioner Fessick.

I want to stay there. So I actually had a question related to some of these as well. I think so. So the question is, in here it says, like, financing and the leases for the total amount. In future documentation or in future outlays, so if I remember correctly, we talked about this at some point last year, the

the overall cost when you're leasing it there's the monthly cost but then there was like at the end of the lease if you either buy out costs where in some instances it seemed like there might have been so it depends um again with my new fleet policy i can buy the vehicles depending on the usage of that vehicle or we can return that return the vehicle for the sale of the vehicle and they um get a new vehicle So we look at different options. There are so many different options that we're going to be looking at in regards to the leased vehicles with the useful of the vehicle. Because not all vehicles will require us to return it in five years. Some vehicles, we can hold those vehicles until seven to eight years, depending on the usage of the vehicles.

Yeah, so I remember there was the purchase. I think there was a piggyback agreement out of Sebring, Florida, and they offered a dollar. Like, if you were purchasing the vehicle outright, they did year over year. Basically, they put you on an annual plan. But then when you paid off the vehicle, you could basically buy the vehicle for a dollar, a dollar buyout program, whereas if you're leasing it, and there's a lease, and it's comparable in terms of?

The maintenance, the value of it, yes. We're looking into it. We're restructuring the entire fleet policy, so we are working with the new fleet manager to tell him exactly what we're looking for based off on you guys' also recommendations, because I do take those into consideration, and we're just working with this new manager.

Right, and I will obviously give you some room to work and get settled there. I just like to see more of a, you know, if we purchased it, it would be this much. If the car costs this much, you know, is it cheaper for us to outright buy it if we were planning on keeping it seven or eight years based on a history of mileage or low mileage? Or does leasing it, even though we could turn it back in, or if we decided to keep it, would we have to pay for that car again?

Well, there's one, I think one vehicle, it's worth like $140,000. Do we have $140,000 today when I can get it cheaper and pay only like $700 per month for that vehicle for the next five, seven years? So when you look at those dollar value, it's cheaper on the city to do leasing versus buying it outright for $140,000. I'm not sure.

We're going to finance the car, can you not? Huh? We finance the cars?

So that's what I'm trying to say.

But not lease, but I mean a purchase, a finance...

So it would probably cost me more financing the vehicle at one point at 140 versus $700.

I look forward to your study. Thanks. That's it.

Okay. Nothing further on the capital outlay. What else we got? That's it? That's it for the first part?

Yes, sir. That is it for the first part of walking through the operating budget and the CIP.

Okay. Next will be item two, discussion and consideration of recommended operating budget for fiscal year 2027, including the proposed millage rates and fire assessment fee.

Go ahead and dive right in. So, Mr. Mayor, this was part of my presentation this morning. I would defer to the commission to provide any additional input for the operating budget or the CAP.

Okay. Let's just open it up to commission discussion. Who wants to go?

Are we taking a break at some point?

Sure.

No, I'm just wondering in terms of timing. You want to take a 10-minute break? No. Are we stopping at noon or 1230? No.

Okay, what's the schedule with food? I'm sorry.

It depends on what the commission wants to do. We could just keep on going and get through with it.

I have a lot of items. That's what I'm trying to do.

Okay, let's just get started.

Okay.

Keep going. Go ahead, Commissioner. Vice Mayor.

Okay. So I want to walk through the line item detail. I've got a lot of questions on different budgets here, so... Just so everyone knows what book I'm looking at. Wait. Consistently, two changes to all of the budgets here. One of them seemed to be a reduction in health insurance. I'm assuming that's due to our new plan with Aetna. There were massive changes to IT, which I assume is a shared service allocation. I don't know if you want to go over high level, and then some of them didn't seem to make much sense which direction they went even. But what happened high level with IT allocations in this budget?

Sure, so in addition to direct operational charges for departments, for example, personnel costs or contract costs, et cetera, the city also has internal service charges. And these are charges, rather than the cost be completely borne by the general fund, the cost is allocated amongst all the departments and all the different enterprise funds and special revenue funds so that the general fund doesn't bear the full cost of that. And so for the health insurance charges you mentioned, the decreases were driven largely because of the renegotiated health insurance contract. And so then since the city's paying less for the health insurance contract, the allocation to those different departments for health insurance costs is going down. The other thing that we're doing as a budget office over the next several years is taking a look at all the individual internal service charges that we allocate to different departments to make sure that the methodology that we're using is the most up to date methodology. So we're taking at least one internal service charge each year over the next several years and revisiting the methodology for that. And so for the internal service charge for the IT, for example, IT costs aren't going up. I mean, they are going up, but they're not going up as astronomically as you see between the departments. What we did was we took a look at the individual components of the IT budget, for example, the cost of the city's phone system. And we allocated the cost of the phone system based on where the phones are. Another example is for internet usage. We took a look at internet usage and divvied up the cost for internet usage based on where the users are who use the internet. So it's those types of things that we're taking a look at doing. So it's been several years since the IT internal service charge, the underlying methodology has been looked at. And so what we did this year was take a look at that, We have additional plans in the out years to take a look at the different methodologies. So you'll see some departments going up with that charge and other departments going down with that charge based on where the end users are.

Can you reference the page number that you're on?

I was just asking generally. It moves around in every department, so I can point them out as we go. I'm going to start on page 28. So I assume our health insurance is the insurance service charges health line?

I'm sorry, you're on page 28.

City Commission.

Yes. So the health insurance service charges health, that's for the health insurance.

Okay, so why is the commission's health insurance so expensive? So when I look at the city manager, the personnel total is about $2.2 million, and the health insurance is $125,000. We're only $456,000, and... And 104.

It's just we're looking at the health insurance methodology. We're scheduled to look at that next year to revisit. So it's just the methodology that's been used to allocate those charges between the different clients.

Something doesn't seem correct as you look at that. OK. So that's the next one that we're going to look at.

Yes.

OK. Page 29. So I also want to map a couple of things here. There's two things. The change in positions, and then you also provided this consulting contracts and service agreements and the department they're in, but I couldn't find a lot of them. So as we go through, maybe we can map some of these to where they actually are in the budget. So in terms of marketing, personnel went up. And that, I assume, is because we transferred someone from cultural affairs to marketing.

Correct.

But it went up by more than the salary here.

There's also the increased cost associated with the negotiated agreement. Okay. I will say that we do have in the budget book itself, not the line item, but the larger budget book, there's a crosswalk for each department that lays out the changes year over year. I was focused on this book. Okay.

So on page 29 also, the other professional line item, the $135,000 in marketing, what is that?

So these are for contracts that marketing has to do its job, professional services. We were able to take a small reduction to that, the $10,000 reduction that you see there. I would defer to the marketing director to speak specifically.

Which contracts of these are in there, if any?

Oh. Is anyone here to speak on it? I'll have to get you that information.

OK. So yeah, I'm wondering what, because it jumped from $100,000 to $135,000 from fiscal year 2025. And I just was wondering which contracts were in there. So page 30, the city manager's office. You had mentioned that this was going to go up to expect an increase, but this doesn't reflect your proposed allocation of salary to the CRAs, or does it?

So it does not. So the way we do the salaries, so the salaries will be budgeted here, but the revenue, we'll get revenue from the CRA to offset the salary cost. So you'll still see the cost of the city manager's office staff here, but you'll see under the, there's an administrative charge that we will charge to the CRA that will bring in the money to offset that cost. So it doesn't bring down the cost, it just offsets it with revenue.

Okay, and how do you explain the increase in the executive line from fiscal year 26 to fiscal year 27?

Correct. So this was the issue that we brought up in the one-on-one meetings when we were taking a look at last year we allocated certain costs for the city manager staff to various funds. One assistant city manager, part of his salary was allocated to the city the solid waste services fund, for example, we actually decrease the salary in the line budget instead of increasing the revenue. So this is just a correction for that. So the cost is actually where the cost should be. We're bringing in the revenue with the administrative charge to make up for that instead. So this is an accounting move.

Okay. And I noticed in the city manager budget here, I don't see any other professional services line item. So where are all of the consultant contracts that are listed as city manager here?

So those are largely funded out of the non-departmental accounts, since the city manager's office serves citywide. The non-departmental accounts, you'll start on page 103. 103. 103 of the line item book. And so the professional services contracts of the line item book, correct.

Is that the 2.4? On page 103, the 2.4 million other professional? I have that circled also.

Correct, 2.468.

So that is, we talk a lot about these consulting contracts and these agreements, right? And then you tell us every year they're approved in the budget, but no one really knows where they're at. So a lot of them are in this 2.468 in the non-departmental.

So it's also for service contracts as well. So the 2.4 million for the non-departmental, you'll see it goes up by $438,000 this year, and that's to pay for the water taxi, the city's match for the water taxi services. We get the additional match from the, we get the additional funding for this from DOT, from FDOT, but this is the city's match for the water taxi. Other contracts funded out of this include the contract for the school crossing guards. So this is $840,000 for the school crossing guards is in this line item right now. And then I discussed during the presentation this morning the additional $300,000 for the school crossing guards contract because that was the bidder for the school crossing guards. So this is not just consultant contracts, it's service contracts and consultant contracts.

Okay, but as an example, when I look at this list, the legious group, they're a lobbyist, are they in this line?

Yes, yes.

Okay, Pompano United, where is that? Here it's listed as city manager's office.

So it's the city manager's office is the one who manages the contracts.

So is that in here also?

It's funded out of this other professional line.

Okay, so let me go back to my list. page 32 and we can talk more about this tomorrow but there's a reduction in northwest salary and east um personnel services is that the elimination of the position uh there was also a frozen position on the list for the cra right okay and so that was split between the east and the northwest why is there uh there was money for elected appointed for the northwest What is, who is that?

The city clerk is funded partially.

That is still there.

Yeah, that is, the city clerk is funded out of that budget.

Okay, so when you said 12%, but it shows up here instead of the revenue, instead of the way you described it would be only putting his salary in the city clerk line and then doing a revenue adjustment.

Yeah, given where we were with the budget development, we just left the expenditure. The expenditure would just stay in that particular account and we would do the revenue split with the CRA.

So it's going to change going forward? Yeah. OK. But that's what that is. I didn't know who that was. Thank you. OK, page 34. There was a 9% increase here in just the exempt line. That seems like a lot. Did we hire someone? Page 34, the personal services.

I'll get you the specifics for that particular line. Okay. We're looking it up now.

And other professional also. What's in that? 78,000.

So this is funding that's used by the strategic communications department to support their operations. I would have to get you the exact. I don't have the exact.

They're strategically communicating against some of us. Sorry. OK. I'd like to know what's in that line item.

OK.

Okay, page 36, economic development. I thought we had a consultant for economic development. Do we bring someone in?

That position was converted last year in the FY2026 budget from contractor to merit employee.

Okay, so that's why we don't see the contract anymore. It's this line item. Correct. Okay, thank you. Page 37. So this one was interesting because most of them had a pretty big decrease in health insurance, and this one had a, I mean, I guess it had a decrease, but I don't know. I'm not gonna focus on the health insurance line since you said that you're gonna be working on that one. And it did seem to be all over the place. Okay, cultural affairs, page 39. So we have a reduction here also. So is this the, was a position transition that was transferred to marketing so this is where we see the reduction of that position but there's there's an additional reduction here beyond the position correct so one of the budget balancing measures if you'll go to page 40 um are there two positions that were that were moved there was one that was moved and there was one that was eliminated i believe okay so that's this is both of them yes The other thing I was noticing in here too is that FICA doesn't seem to move how it should either. So we've eliminated a lot of salary here, but year-over-year FICA taxes are going up. And that happens a lot in the budget.

So this is based on, we just have a calculation based on our payroll. So when we do the payroll budget, we take a snapshot of payroll at a particular time. And this year, I think it was February or March, and we took the snapshot of payroll, and we used that as our baseline for projections. So in using that, we just take a look at the, we do the percentage for FICA, which is 7.65% of payroll.

And you didn't adjust if you were eliminating 140,000?

I believe it was.

It went up, but 140,000 came out. Maybe.

Yes, confirmed. As we freeze the positions or eliminate the positions, the FICA is adjusted.

But why is it going up year over year when personal services is going down by 130,000?

I would have to look at the underlying computation of that. You see what I'm looking at?

I see what you're looking at. OK. And what is the 302,000 of other professional in cultural affairs? Is it mapped to this list of consultants? There were a couple on here. So I would defer to... Is that Karen who does the green market and untapped? And what else? Because 302 is a lot.

Mr. Tabing.

Good afternoon, Ty Tabing, Cultural Affairs Director. In addition to Karen's contract, Karen does the vendor management for Green Market and Old Town Untapped. Additionally, we have Colossic Services Corporation. That's to fund a contract for art handling, hanging all the art for our exhibits for the Artists in Residence program. That's been ongoing for the last year, that contract, and it's a continuation of the same amount.

Where does it show up in here? How much is it?

That is for $50,000.

And who is it with?

Kolosick, K-O-L-O-S-I-C-K.

So the contracts on the list that were provided to the commission were the contracts that had a consulting component. And so there are service contracts, like the contract that we'll have with the water taxi, which is not included on the list. And then there's consulting contracts for professional services, for advice, expertise, etc. And then some of the service contracts also have a consulting component. So the information in response to your requests, we provided the solely consulting contracts and then the service contracts that have a consulting component to it, but the service contracts

ones that are purely service don't show up, but they show up in the same line item of other professional here. Correct. Some of this I know that we've talked about how looking at this can be challenging for an outsider to read through what each line item is, and we do this each year and we all get a little better at it, but is there a better way to organize some of this information and break things down better in future budgets?

So for the line item book, we have to go by what the state chart of accounts mandates that we go by for how we account for our funds. That way it's uniform across all local governments. If there's additional information that you need, I can certainly, I'm happy to talk to you about that, about information that you would like to see in the budget publications moving forward. But the information provided in the line item book is based on the chart of accounts by the state of Florida.

So they all roll up into there, even though some are what we call consulting and service agreements.

Yes.

So what is the rest of the $300,000? That only gets us to about $130,000.

And also, too, Mr. Donovan just reminded me, when you look through the crosswalks in the larger binder, you'll see where the increases are. We do flag where the contracts are going up.

I think it's the same as the prior year. I'm just wondering what's in it. There's 302,000 in this line item of other professional and cultural affairs. I was just trying to understand what was in it.

There's also a cleaning contract that is currently at 30,000. That's supplemental cleaning primarily related to events when there might be two shows and it's cleaning between shows and things like that. That's the contracts that I have to report.

OK, so there's something else. Can we find out what else is in that line item then? Thank you.

That's the contract with cleaning.

So cleaning after events, and then the art hanging, and then Karen are the ones that- Correct.

Those are the three.

You're aware. But those don't add up to $300,000.

Who does the cleaning?

Well, we have a staff that does it. Sometimes we need supplemental cleanings. When we have multiple events going on, we need to bring in additional cleaning power. And that's the firm that we use for that. Who's the firm? S&D is the name of the firm. We've been working with this gentleman for several years. S&D Pro Cleaning Services, LLC.

that's a different cleaning contract than any of the other cleaning contracts we have here in the city for like buildings correct that's specific to our department okay i've never heard of them before s and d s n as a nancy d as a dog oh s n yeah i haven't seen that name in anything okay all right thank you i appreciate that day on page 42 The city clerk. What happened with that position?

Looks like there's a decrease in non-exempt pay and an increase in... Funding for that position was previously shared with the Central Stores Fund, I believe. I didn't see it on here.

It's 42.

Correct, 42. So... I'll take a look at that one, but I know that funding was shifted between the general fund and the central stores fund for that position, I believe. That's correct. Yes, that's correct.

practice like what actually happened so if someone is doing more work for the clerk and they were the clerk was paying for it it's just looking where so the clerk oversees the central stores a portion of the central stores fund related to the print shop and so it's just where the the employees duties were allocated okay and this is another one where IT yeah I'm not gonna talk about IT but I mean they're just massive swings in it all over the place okay

Okay, 45.

45. 45. What are special services? It looks like, I mean, there was a budgeted for $25,000, but we only spent $700. What is that? This is...

So this is $705, $705 has been spent to date. So you're on track to, this is as of July 1. So you're on track to spend approximately what you spent, what the department spent last year.

But why are we budgeting 25?

So the adopted budget in 26 was $25,000. The adopted budget in 27 goes down to $8,000. So this was a reduction from the HR department. Obviously, I'm looking at variances here. I would have to defer to them for exactly what contracts or what services are funded out of this. Special services, I believe this is where the medical testing services are provided. Is that correct, Bobby? Yeah, so this is where the medical testing services are somewhat provided when employees are onboarded. I believe that's where this is. I would have to get you the specifics of this particular line. I don't.

I mean, it's a small number. I'm looking at variances, obviously, to understand what's happening.

But it was one of the reductions that we took a look at year over year when we're going through the budget to determine what's been spent year to date, take a look at previous year's spending patterns and making reductions where necessary.

Yeah, I do that a lot, too, looking at the budget for things, like whether it's supplies and clothing and travel and a lot of times it's the same number every year, but that's not what we actually spend. So if we're not spending it or we cannot spend it, maybe we can take it out.

We also work with departments as we're going through the budget to see where funds can be reallocated between the lines. So if they're, for example, if we're seeing an increase in spending in one particular line because of a reason and we see this as a consistent amount spent year over year and we have a rationale for it, we do allow the departments to reallocate funds from one line to another.

Okay.

And the budget.

Okay. Page 49. What is the other professional line here? Does it map to something on this list or?

So for the $70,000 for the finance department. Yes. Did she step out?

And here in finance department, there were a couple that added up to more than that. So I don't know where those are at in the budget.

Some of the finance department's contracts are also, since it serves a citywide purpose, they're allocated, certain contracts are allocated to other funds. But I'd have to get you the specific detail on what that $70,000 is for.

So the asset manager is allocated to different funds? Okay, page 50.

Vice Mayor, I wanted to address the massive IT swing that you were mentioning earlier. Yeah. At one time, the Ledger Star Program or the Granicus Program was being paid by my office, but then that was switched over to IT. That may be one of the, just to address that, because it was being paid by my office, but that was transferred over to IT to manage.

Okay, and maybe they're charging you back now or something because it's a big allocation. Okay, page 50. What, was there a position eliminated here? The finance, is this the moving someone to treasury?

There was a position transferred between divisions in finance from treasury to administration.

OK, but this is only half of the salaries.

Is there something else going on?

Looks like it was $120,000, but there's only a reduction of $67,000. The rest just increases? Yes. OK. Page 52. Here's another example. There's literally zero IT allocated to this department.

52. Just ignore it. So it just depends on how many individuals. For example, for the Treasury Department. Zero, though, right? Oh, so for departments, the IT charge is going to be booked to the, either the, if there's only one division in the department, say for the budget office, we only have one division. If there are multiple divisions within a department, it's going to be all booked to the administration division of that department. So that's why you see some of the smaller divisions or other divisions where there's not an IT charge to it because we're consolidating it as we go through to the administration.

Okay, so it's in the page before.

It's on page 50 where it rolls up.

Okay, page 53. What's the increase? It looks like there's a decrease in part-time.

Correct. We're requesting the conversion of a part-time position to a full-time position, and this is in response to all of the various legislation coming from the state that requires additional duties for a budget office in addition to the additional Tasks that the budget office will need to undertake as part of the tax reform strategy and some of the best practices that we'll be implementing over the coming years so we're the the the position itself We're offsetting part of that cost by eliminating those those costs.

So here it says conversion of part-time to full-time And what is the other professional here?

The other professional here is for strategic philanthropy. This is the the group that runs the The community partnership program is that here?

Sorry, I'm just surprised by that.

The budget office administers the contract for the city.

You administer, that's the only contract you administer?