City Commission - Regular Meeting

Where are the flags? Where are the flags? No, it's a lot in here. They're all over.

Good evening, everyone. Today is Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. The time is approximately 5.05 p.m. We will now call to order this special city commission meeting, which is our first budget hearing for fiscal year 2027. Please silence or turn off your cell phones. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll, please.

Yes, Mayor Fernandez.

Present.

Commissioner Rodriguez.

Here.

Commissioner Boniche. Here. Commissioner Kaye.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Please stand for a brief moment of silence, and we'll ask Commissioner Boniche to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner?

Thank you. I 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.

Please be seated.

Slow with the pledge.

There you go. Madam Clerk, if you can please read item one on tonight's agenda.

Yes, item one, an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, adopting a proposed millage rate for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027, which amount may be amended at the first or second reading and adopting the final millage on second reading.

Thank you. If you can read item two as well, please.

An ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, adopting a tentative budget for the city for a fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027, and which budget may be amended at the first or second reading of this ordinance, adopting the final budget on second reading, providing for the salaries and expenses of the City Commission and officers, as required by the city's charter.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Manager, we'll recognize you for presentation and open public hearing. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

Mayor, I'm going to turn it over to our CFO. But just as a follow-up and reminder, July 21st, we had a budget workshop. And also, you set your preliminary millage. Since then, obviously, we continue to update the budget based on new information or other changes. So today, we'll highlight some things that may have been mentioned before and then take you through some of the changes to kind of close the gaps on what changed from July to now, first budget hearing. And certainly, we'll take your questions and direction after the CFO and answer your questions that you may have.

Mr. Riverhall, you're recognized.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission. I have a brief presentation just to go over. I'm going to be covering some of the stuff I've already spoken about, just touch upon certain items from the workshop, some of the revisions that have occurred since that workshop, and then any questions you may have along the way, by all means, please. So what you have before you proposed is uh the proposed fiscal year 27 budget 3.9500 millage uh that incorporates the existing millage uh for from fiscal year 2026 cost of living increase 2.6 based on uh on consumer price index Amendment three still on the horizon. Everybody, I think, is well aware on November 3rd, there'll be a ballot question that will be determined by the voters. Aside from that, something important, I think, to mention is every two years, the Tax and Budget Reform Commission are required to get together. They're expected to reconvene in 2027, January. IN JANUARY IS WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET, 2027, AND THEN WHATEVER THEY DISCUSS.

EVERY 20 YEARS. WE WANTED TO CLARIFY FROM THE DAYS.

OH, EVERY 20 YEARS. I APOLOGIZE. I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU'LL SEE AN ITEM IF THEY COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON ANY TAX REFORM, YOU'LL SEE THE NOVEMBER 2028 REFERENDUM. SO THE ONLY REASON I MENTION THAT IS BECAUSE IF AMENDMENT 3 PASSES OR DOESN'T PASS, they are still going to meet and they're going to be discussing for municipalities and the state the tax structure and revenues and make recommendations which can be before the voters at that time. In this budget, there's two additional new positions. One is a police officer which is funded from the COPS grant, so that's incorporated in this, and additional public works assistant director position in the fiscal year 27 budget. Those are the only two new positions. Just some budget highlights. We have in the budget, in non-departmental, we have acquired or replaced $100,000 for the celebration of our 100th year. That is something that will be taking place next year, and there'll be multiple activities. We have $100,000 to fund some of those activities. In there, city attorney, just giving some, an increase of $47,500 in aggregate. Requested from the city attorney's office was $27,500 for sort of excluded services, which are mentioned there. And then an additional $20,000, which is brought over from police department that we used to have for litigation on arbitration cases. We decided to put it in a centralized location under the city attorney's. But all we're doing is just reallocating the $20,000 from one department to the other. Within the city clerk, there's an additional $41,890. That's for the GOV QA public records management system, something that we've already put in place. It's an expenditure that replaces our previous expenditure of closed captioning contractual services. So that's something new that is in that budget in fiscal year 27 that you'll see. Something that we just looked at in finance that we found interesting, we were looking at, so our expenditures, our total expenditures in all funds is $50 million. How much are we, throughout all the funds, how much are we appropriating, say, police personnel, 18%, all other city personnel, 21%. Capital investments, which are capital projects throughout the different funds, makes up about 32%. And all other expenditures, about 29%. So I just thought it was something interesting to share. That's what the breakdown is related to the fiscal year proposed 2027 budget. What are the changes? The changes from the workshop that was conducted on July 21st to today, one that I think everybody has seen, they voted on at the last August 18th regular commission meeting, health insurance. We received health insurance premiums. You voted on it. That was an increase in the workshop from what we anticipated. How we offset those? We increased our interest revenue in our investments. Liability insurance, an item that you have before you tonight. We found some savings on the lines of general liability property auto and building permit inspection fund transfer, an increase of $4,329 that they will be contributing to the general fund transferring in to offset some of the costs that we perform on their behalf. Other things that have changed building permit again two thousand four hundred forty six that was increased that comes from health insurance GOB we have an appropriation of five hundred thousand dollars from the state. We finally have our F dot Preliminary agreement and we're reviewing it. It requires a 20% match We're just accounting for that 20% match that at the time of the workshop We hadn't had that agreement to know that it was a 20% match requirement holiday parking light Increased in some monies. He was previously at 55 went up to 63 Fuchs Park volleyball renovations, $70,000. We've increased it to $80,000. We went out to bid. Prices came in much greater than what we anticipated. We made some modifications to the design going back out, but we expect about $10,000 more in cost with this new design that we put together. Brewer Park and enhancements to the park, certain improvements to the park, we increased it for safety and so on. So property tax, just to go back, I said budget was prepared with 3.95 mills. 95% of that gives you $12.7 million in property tax revenue at 95%, which is about an increase of $1 million. Just to put it in perspective, in the proposed fiscal year 27 budget, just three major items. So you could see the COLA and MERIT, excluding fringe and excluding new positions, is about $384,000. That's just COLA and MERIT. Health insurance increase was $320,000. And underlying maintenance, one of the expenditures that's incorporated in the proposed fiscal year 27 budget, is about $225,000, giving $929,000.

of expenditures that increased in the budget in in 2027. madam please commissioner i when we look at our revised budgets and where we may have pressure points and possibilities of fall through based on november election honors on and on and on i think it's irresponsible of us to pay 225 000 to the underlying When you look at that number in relationship to everything else, I just think it's not fiscally sound. I think we want to continue to contribute. Let's give them the same $75,000 we gave them before. I just don't think we're in a position, no matter how unattractive it may be to say that we can't do it. I mean, when you look at health insurance renewal coming in at $210,000 more than we were expecting, and we find ourselves pinching here, there, and everywhere trying to find it. We've prioritized police budgets in needs versus wants. We've seen this kind of across the board to then pay no attention to that line item and continue Like if it was business as usual, I think is not good for us to go.

I don't take any exception to what you're saying with the exception of how you're characterizing it. Because there's lots of conversation that we've had here that I could characterize as irresponsible. It's an item we can discuss if it's something you'd like to move out of the budget. We can consider it, but I mean, we voted to add staff in the last five years, which I objected to. We voted to approve a COPS grant, which I objected to. Not that we don't have all those needs, but they all add costs as well. And so, and again, we can debate the relative merits of all those things. I just don't, I think for the benefit of everyone on this data, since we keep a conversation to the facts, let's just not characterize us investing dollars in a particular way as irresponsible because there are, There are myriad ways that we can talk about investments as not being positive, negative. I think it's an item if you want to discuss it on the table, happy to hear your concerns about it. Also note there's a broader conversation that's ongoing regarding maintenance contributions by third party cities where other cities may fall out of the funding mix. And in that case, I would certainly support pulling our money back as well. Let's have the conversation without describing sort of a negative connotation to it.

We can put whatever word you guys feel comfortable with. I'm comfortable with the word I said. Okay. But you guys can move it forward however it is that pleases the deus here. I just think we have a lot going on. And while I understand other cities have a lot going on too, And I think great for them. I'm just worried about us. I know that sounds horrible because I don't know a nice way of saying that. I don't care what anybody else is doing. I'm saying it and I understand that's not the nicest way to say it. I just don't have a better way of saying it. So it's on the table. I don't know when is the appropriate time to have that conversation, but I imagine it's sooner versus later because it is here.

Yeah, I thought we would wait for the presentation to be done if we have questions, and then we want to take up items after the public hearing where we can remove items. Certainly, we can have a conversation about what comes in and what comes out. So we'll note that for your parking lot. Please continue.

Transportation, PTP, direct transit. We receive PTP funding. 20% must be used for direct transit, direct transit being mass transit, moving large bodies of persons, of people, which 20% reflects about $150,000 of revenue. Our current existing VIA program, Metro Connect program, is about $306,000 annually. 210,000 is being subsidized from the general fund under the proposed fiscal year 27 budget It would be the first budget that we're actually using general fund monies and not unspent or reserve monies that were specifically allocated for this type of service Stormwater drain trust fund in this budget there are and I'll share the CIP these are the CIP capital projects that are embedded in the stormwater trust fund In this budget as prepared we also Are proposed or expecting an rate increase of er you? from $54 which was adopted in 2002 and hasn't been updated to We're doing a rate study, and it looks like it's going to be around 222 dollars what's going to be recommended to make the stormwater drain trust fund a Whole in other words self-sufficient the system. So in this budget we have nine hundred and nine hundred and eighty some thousand dollars of CIP projects based on October for on March 1st Adopting a rate or beginning the rate of two hundred and twenty two dollars Before you move on have a question on that we can go back.

Yes, of course We have some Very small line items here, you and the manager, the $90,000 design improvement, the $40,000 design improvement. Is there a way we can kind of roll those up? I mean, is it more economical for us to roll them out under one request for design proposals and have one firm handle both? Or I'm just wondering if the jobs are so small that anyone would have any interest in doing them at that level? On to you, the manager, or Mr. Kulik.

Yeah, sometimes there could be economies of scale with it. don't really know until somebody actually would bid on it, technically. But we can certainly explore that. So there could be an opportunity, potentially. And beyond that, I don't know that we'll know the answer for sure.

And are these not projects that are, I guess, under our, what's the name of the statute, CCNA, pre-selected vendors? Is there a rotation of design professionals available that we would? Offer these two or how are we gonna procure these Alex Munoz director public works?

I was just looking at the list more closely So yes, there is a rotation. We have the six firms in the pool There's a couple of projects there that we could one of them is as you go, which is miscellaneous drainage The other one is the stormwater master plan implementation That's going to be a whole separate animal based when we get back that study but there's two there that we could combine to your point and Whether, as the manager said, whether people bid out or not is a different story, but there's definitely two, and we can look at things that way. We actually have talked about doing that a little bit internally.

Okay, and then as to the last line item, the $240,000, what's in that catch-all? My concern, Mr. Munoz, that I expressed to Mr. Riverall when he briefed me, is we are going from a $55 unit ERU to $220. Is that the right number? $54 to $220. Okay, 54 to 222 and we're going, we're doing that all within one fiscal year. And so I'll be it. It's being billed out quarterly as opposed to being assessed in one lump sum. So the question I had is how much the 240,000 do we anticipate expending or appropriating before the end of this fiscal year?

We haven't seen the projects yet, so it's hard to say.

And again, all of the $224 is required to get us to the $983,000 fund balance to begin those projects. Again, just for conversation, I'd just like to understand what of this is necessary to appropriate THIS YEAR IN TERMS OF A FEE INCREASE AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS SO WE CAN GET TO THIS FUND BALANCE. AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO BE TAXING PEOPLE FOR DOLLARS WE'RE NOT SPENDING CONCURRENTLY. OKAY? THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU MAY. YOU MAY ASK A QUESTION.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ITEM?

OKAY. SO I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER BONICHE AND THEN COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ.

With the stormwater management master plan, I'm trying to visualize it in my head. So what we will end up with there is similar to what we ended up with the roads and the sidewalks, where it's telling us green, yellow, red, and a plan of how we're going to attack that.

It'll identify opportunities for projects. So it'll give us a blueprint. These are the things that you should be doing to become more resilient in how our infrastructure meet whatever demands are out there. IT WILL BE THE CHEAT SHEET, IF YOU WILL. THEN PROJECTS COME FROM THAT. OTHERWISE, THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX MONEY. BECAUSE THE STORM WATER RATE FEE HASN'T BEEN REALIZED OR ACTUALIZED. SO THE BURDEN BECOMES A GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX. THE CONCERN THE MAYOR HAS IS making up that increase, although it wouldn't kick in until March. And although it would build in our quarterly basis, they're trying to make up a long time. But certainly the expenses and the projects are there. Even projects that we've done that we can, from an accounting standpoint, move from general fund to stormwater, purely eligible. We have plenty of those as well. And so, yeah, we're trying to shift the model. I'm not speaking to the timing. I'm just saying concept-wise, we're trying to shift the model from general fund to the rate payer, right, to support these projects that are eligible for.

Yeah, and just to put a fine point on the manager's comment to my concern is that unlike our property tax bill, there's no, with this scheme, there's no protection for people on fixed income. So they get passed along that cost the same as anyone else because it's not subject to any sort of ad valorem exemption or any sort of save our homes protection. So for that person on fixed income, they pay, it's again, relatively speaking, because we're doing it, I think kudos to Mr. Riverall because we're doing it the way we're doing where we are. taking responsibility for the assessment and doing it as part of our water bill as opposed to on our annual assessment it comes in phased in so it's a much more manageable increase gradually but still I just want to make sure that when we do it you know we're doing it and it's not hitting the line item for more than what we need in 27 I do think we need to get to the 224 and adjust it annually to keep to keep pace with inflation so

And then, just so that I am clear, when we get this master plan, I'm making this up. The culvert on so-and-so street is red. The cleaning of the canal on so-and-so street is yellow, da-da-da-da-da. So that when we pick these things off, we're not going from, your city needs culvert repair. Like, no duh. Where? How badly? Like that?

Yes, it'll provide us where we're deficient and where these opportunities are, and then we execute on that master plan. It won't be done all in one year, obviously. We'll have to prioritize.

Thank you.

So I think my answer was answered in little bits and pieces throughout. First, these CIP projects are already allocated onto our general fund as of right now. All these stormwater.

These are proposed for fiscal year 27.

If approved, these are on as part of general fund.

Stormwater fund.

Stormwater fund.

Dependent on a rate change of approximately $222 beginning March 1st. Correct.

So, okay. So these are nowhere on our CIP as of right now.

They're on our CIP funded by stormwater. So if you look at the five-year CIP, you'll see it there, the project, but it'll say funding source, stormwater drain trust fund.

OK. Just for clarification, I think if we were to look maybe a year ago when we started planning some of these, you may have found some under CIP, general fund funded, right? Correct. And so in right-sizing the model of going to a rate payer and what should be the right rate, I'm assuming that we probably converted some, and I don't know exactly, but we can look. I probably assume that we converted some from GF, general fund, to the stormwater rate.

OK, so that's been a reallocation. That's a reallocation. So I guess this would go into effect in March.

March 1st is what we're proposing. It's proposing.

So as money start coming in, we then start deciding on which projects to then start working on. Because we have, for example, I know this one, just because I've been personally dealing with it, like the one on 65th and 64th. That's been already over a year that we've been working on it. So it says your construction fiscal year 27. Do we have the monies already allocated for that? Or is that something that we're going to wait on the stormwater for it?

That is a perfect example of one that was CIP funded in this fiscal year, of which we've had issues. And again, Public Works can discuss on the design or getting back what's approved or not. So we decided, let's move it, because we're about to bid it. We haven't bid it yet, but we're ready, to 27 and put this as part of the project for stormwater. It's a stormwater project. But it is dependent on a rate increase. If the rate increase does not happen, to the level needed, we may not have enough monies to actually fulfill that project or complete that project.

Even though it was already on 26?

Correct. 100%.

That is correct. That's what I was trying to figure out. And just to, in regards to what the mayor was saying, you're saying that we basically have to go to the 200 and something dollars in order to meet what we need to make these projects happen.

as proposed there on that sheet, yes.

OK.

I'm sorry, Commissioner. No, no, go, go. No, just, I mean, I want to also be clear that, in fact, we could go back to the CIP, take a look at what's on that list, and say, you know what, we're not going to do this, and now free up some money, right? So I just wanted to kind of be clear that that option is still available. I don't want to give the perception that if the rate doesn't pass, then we can't do it, right? Yeah. We could, but something else is going to get sacrificed, and then you're putting pressure on millage and property tax. This is the dynamic that we have, right?

OK. Again, and as the mayor would say, we also have to be sensitive. We spoke about it. If you have a $100 bill, when you get to March, it's going to be a $154 bill. So that's just something, obviously, you're telling us the importance of we need that money in order to do these projects. But yeah, okay, that's it.

Based on the rate study that was done and conducted, based on our historical projects and projects that are anticipated, the same rate study was done by the individuals that are preparing the stormwater master plan. They're saying to have a fully functional, self-sufficient stormwater drain trust fund to complete the needs, 222 seems to be the right ERU rate.

OK. Thank you.

Commissioner Dye, go ahead.

I just had a quick question for Director Munoz. What is the criteria for us to determine that these are bid ready? Why these particular projects? What is the criteria for us to determine what's going to go forward with stormwater improvements? What are we using as a criteria?

I mean, this is they've been in design. The one in particular that was Commissioner Rodriguez was discussing has just been in design. We've gone through the design process and permitting with the county, and it's ready to go in that regard.

I understand. I'm just asking, like, what is the criteria to get through that process? Like, why that street? Like, what is it that we're using as a criteria to determine what's good? Because it's going to continue to happen when we go do the... stormwater management plan, right? Like they're going to have their own criteria. What is the differences in the criteria to determine that?

This has been based on just recurring flooding in the neighborhood and citizen complaints. I know that one was here before I got here. It was just a historical area that floods. All of these are based on resident complaints and going out and assessing, making sure that it's happening and that some type of project would fix it. Those are all responses. The stormwater master plan is going to, you know, be a little more scientific in that regard. It's not going to be, they do take that into consideration because they go to look, but they're assessing those areas, you know, for projects specifically. But these are all citizen complaints of the three of them.

Do you know what the scientific process moving forward is going to look like by any chance? No. Okay. All right. Thank you.

I was, if I may, yeah, Commissioner, to your point, right, I mean, some of these are generated by a complaint, but obviously field observations, you know, sometimes we get a heavy, heavy rain, and if you drive at that moment, you'll see a lot of standing water, but within 30 minutes, it's probably gone, right, so in those locations, They just overwhelmed what was there, but the system and or the swales did their job. In some cases, it does not. It just stands and it pools. And some of these have been that. So when we bring in a consultant, they go and assess that and say, hey, why is this happening? And then they identify the deficiencies to what level of detail. I can't really articulate at this point. THE CONSULTANT WILL THEN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SAY, YEAH, THIS IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THIS. OKAY, WELL, THEN WE NEED TO FIX THAT, RIGHT? AND SO IT'S THAT FIELD OBSERVATION THAT THEN THE CONSULTANT FINDS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DEFICIENCY IS. AND THESE HAVE HAD THAT JOURNEY. NO DOUBT THAT SOME OF THEM ARE RESIDENT-BASED. THAT'S WHO RINGS THE BELL AT FIRST. OR WE SEE IT OURSELVES SOMETIMES. CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO RESPOND TO THOSE THAT GOT OVERWHELMED BECAUSE THE RAIN THAT WAS SO HEAVY, SOMETIMES IT GOES AWAY. IT'S FINE 30, 40 MINUTES LATER. SO STORM WATER MASTER PLAN TAKES THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. BUT EACH OF THESE HAVE BEEN EVALUATED BY A CONSULTANT TO SAY THERE IS A DEFICIENCY HERE AND THIS IS THE WAY TO FIX IT.

Yeah, I think what I just wanted to get away from is like whoever screams the loudest usually gets whatever they want. So as we move into the 21st century here and we start getting digital twins of our cities and understanding elevations and percolations across the city, those are the things scientifically we should be able to identify and move forward on that, like what we're going to be doing the rest of the city. That's what I look forward to when I look at the storage management plan, to make sure that we have an understanding digitally and technology-wise on how and what gets determined as a project.

As was stated, the one on there, 65th floods significantly. They've gone out. Based on the elevations, based on the water flow, they've actually redesigned that project to address the flooding. I believe you. I know what you're saying, but these were, like the manager said, assessed and the projects were needed. Okay.

Just looking forward.

Thank you. Madam Commissioner, you're recognized to come.

Can you please tell me what bioswale drainage demonstration project is versus what we're doing everywhere else? It's one, two, three, four, the fourth line. Yep.

That's exactly what it sounds like, which would be a project to test out how to better manage stormwater. We would do it in an area where there's just very little green space to create green space that looks good and manages water at the same time. And then we would take that same concept and apply it somewhere else. So that one is a demonstration project. We would pursue a grant for that one in addition to the funding from here. And it would help us to solve problems elsewhere in the city, aesthetically.

Sometimes it becomes a catch basin. But instead of just having all concrete, you see some vegetation that's part of that. That's why the bio aspect of it. But it's definitely a way to trap. you know, standing water, but you see a lot of vegetation surrounding that infrastructure and vegetation to help with, but it's like a catch basin, if you will, where you'll see the little French drain that's only a grill. In these cases, the bigger build-out that, and sometimes you see it in urban areas. You're walking by, and you see a bunch of landscaping, and when you look down, you see almost like an excavation, if you will, and that's the catch basin.

Thank you.

Further questions or comments? Done? OK. I'll continue, please.

And this is my final slide. My final slide is general fund. As you know, that's our operating fund. That's where our day-to-day operations come from. We have a surplus of $40,000 after taking our operational revenue against our operational expenses. And we have a unrestricted, unreserved fund balance of $5.7 million estimated. And with that, that concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.

Questions of Mr. Riverhold before we open up a public hearing? You're recognized. By the way, I just wanted to add, going back to your initial, I have three items so far. If anyone wants to add them for conversation, I have underlying funding. I wanted to discuss transit funding, the 210 that's in this budget for general fund support, and then the 150 that's required for PTP spending, and then stormwater trust fund. Anything else you want to add by way of discussion items? Yes. Yes, please go ahead.

I'd like to add a brief conversation on the lot on 80th and US 1. Okay. As it relates to Fuchs and the volleyball renovation.

Okay.

Further discussion, Adams? I'm on PTP as well.

Okay, anyone else? I also, Mr. Reval, if you can, I don't know if you can give us a sense. We obviously had some informing our budget, some assumptions about costs and where they would land this year, whether it's health insurance being a prime example, one that came well above probably what we estimated. Can you tell us where we had the biggest changes in terms of our cost estimates? Because we were projecting, going into not this year, but also next year, I think a pretty substantial surplus. which has kind of underlined our whole plan to possibly get a market and borrow to do public improvements. So can you give us a sense beyond health insurance where we have large drivers and costs or costs that exceeded our budgeted increases or projected increases for 27?

So health insurance comes to mind, obviously, and I outlined it in the memo. Any other expenditures that have increased or

From the estimating? Well, for example, we had budgeted a cost of living increase at x, and it came in at what?

It came in at estimated exactly where we anticipated, because at 2.6. We're looking at 3% annually. If you look at it historically, that's more or less where it falls on average. Sometimes it's upwards of 6. Those were the years of high inflation. Right now, inflation for next year, we're trying to get a hold of what it is. It seems it's going to be greater than 3% for next year. based on how the inflation is tracking right now. It started off great, and then somehow we've gone into higher inflation rates. So we're looking at that. But now our inflation hasn't been finalized. It won't be finalized until after December 31st. But right now, inflation is a concern. It is going to exceed for next fiscal year higher than the 3% that we anticipate.

Mayor, if I could. Yeah, please. On that specific example, the timing of when we look at inflation kind of sets it in stone. I mean, when we look at it based on labor contracts, whatever, going into July, we already know, right? So the 2.6 that we were allocating for this fiscal year will be that. But we get that information early, early on. Unlike health care, where we start in June with a process and go through the broker and the proposals and all that and all the way into August. At that point, we're right up to the line, if you will. We don't know. But Arcola, based on when we look at it, some people look at it at a later date. In our case, when the formula was 2.6, and that's what it's going to be, it's not going to change.

I understand. There's going to be a lot of conversation between now and the end of the election cycle about what we're doing fiscally in terms of managing our budgets. And so we had a conversation. I think our historic expense rate has been under an increase of under 2%. Correct. We kept it very tight. And probably shocking for the public to hear that since 2000, this government has less people than it had before. We had 156 total employees on payroll. Today we're at 136. Is that the right number?

I THINK OUR POSITION SAYS 136.

SO AND SHOCK TO ME PREPARING TO GO ON THE RADIO TO TALK ABOUT THIS TOPIC, THE COUNTY BUDGET IS ALSO 13.5% REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE OVER 26 YEARS. THE COUNTY HAS HAD A SIMILAR REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE OF ABOUT 7.5%. Um, it would be 20%, but they had about 4000 employees in the last 8 to 10 years. So, you know, again, I'm where we are seeing, I see it looks like the only place that we may not be. managing costs and again this is not intended to be um in any way pejorative of what our staff does i think you guys have done an amazing job historically but where we where we struggle with cost containment is because everything else is passed through costs right insurance health care etc maybe on the employee benefit side but even unlike other cities i think from from a pension perspective we're not writing checks into our pension fund like a lot of other cities are to HIT THEIR TARGETED INVESTMENT RATE BECAUSE WE ARE FULLY FUNDED OR IN EXCESS OF FULLY FUNDED. SO MR. RIVERALE, IF YOU WERE TO BE SELF-CRITICAL OF WHERE WE COULD DO A BETTER JOB MANAGING OUR EXPENSE SIDE OF THE LEDGER, RIGHT, SINCE WE'RE BEING CRITICIZED FOR TAKING IN ALL THIS REVENUE AND IT BEING GROSSLY MISAPPROPRIATED APPARENTLY PER PEOPLE AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHERE COULD WE DO A BETTER JOB AS A GOVERNMENT IN MANAGING THE EXPENSE SIDE OF THE LEDGER?

It's difficult to ask that question of me, and I'll tell you why. Because when we prepare this budget, we take that into account exactly. So for me to say that we should be doing better in this, I would have already voiced it, and we would have incorporated it. So truthfully, I cannot answer that question. But I think the budget that you have is as tight and as well and efficiently managed as possible, just like the last three that we've put together.

I will add, I mean, certainly we had an experience where it was challenging, right, on the CIP side. Certain projects that were sort of very summarily estimated based on the info that we had and then going to market was substantial more, right? And that we've dealt with over the last, three years maybe. I think that's become less and less. But that is an example. Mr.

Manager, I would put those in the, again, I think they're necessary investments because you don't invest in infrastructure, it degrades over time, but they're kind of in the, almost in the want to category. But I'm just talking about the day-to-day nuts and bolts operation.

Yeah, I was just trying to give you an example of something that had a big delta from plan to, and I would say those are it. Health care always comes in, you know, in August.

And, you know, the difficulty of health care is... We were projecting what kind of an increase for this budget. On health care?

Yeah. In this particular budget, we have, I believe, it's 26? No, I think it's... 28. 28%.

I think the mayor is asking what we had projected. What we were forecasting, 10%. And it came in at 30, roughly, right? Yeah. Plus or minus a couple percent.

When the final report over the experience, the loss ratio came in, then, yeah. Yeah.

So we're at that mercy of that loss ratio, which we don't see until pretty much we're at the option of the budget.

Understood.

And we're here.

And to their credit, I mean, it was a $200,000 hit to the budget, but in the last couple of weeks, we recuperated only to a $40,000 deficit. So I mean, that's...

So on that change memo, to your point, the $57,900 in additional interest income, what's that coming from? What's the underlying assumption that you're changing there?

So when we were preparing the budget for the workshop, we didn't take into account that we were, because we have the line of credit, we paid for the bridge at a general fund. We replenished money from the GOB into the general fund, hence increasing the amount of interest income because we had new $3.4 million that we didn't account for in the workshop. So that's where it's not made up.

I didn't just- So you didn't assume that the rate all of a sudden went up?

We need 50,000 here as an increase. No, it's taken into account from that.

Perfect. I think to give some context to, Mayor, what you're saying and the big picture of, and Commissioner spoke about November, I'll share, and I think I shared it individually. We had a million dollar in our growth revenue as far as growth assessment. Three items took three quarters of that pretty much, cost of living, health care, and underlying at the end of the day. So before we start tacking on any contractual requirements, whether it's labor or cost of living, COLA is embedded in contract. or a little bit over three quarters of our budget. Our increase was eaten up by just three items, right? And then the left of the balance was to deal with everything else. So those are the challenges. We've had reductions in a number of other areas that we reduced it. There were requests that came in at higher levels that we didn't fund to that level. And certainly, we've continued to invest a little bit on the police side. It's been a multi-year effort because of the training that's been needed and more so now with our younger demographics. But, yeah, three items ate up pretty much three-quarters of a million dollars.

I just wanted to get some of that into the conversation for the benefit of anybody who may be watching. Okay. We've got five items.

Can we add Padel on to there, please? Sure, yes.

I actually have that as a special revenue item as well. Yep.

You said Padel?

Padel, yep. I agree. Yep. Okay, where we'd like to start. Want to start on our line?

Yeah.

Okay. You want to go, let's go right to the left since you gave us a preview things to come.

Mr. Kaye, go ahead. Look, I think that we made a commitment. I know 225,000 is a lot of money, but we never put any money into that park and besides the $75,000, what else have we put in there?

If you look at the historic budget, and Mr. Riverall can tell you, we actually gave, I believe it was $25,000 a couple of years ago to some development for the underline. So yes, we have. So if you counted that, we've given $100,000 so far.

But considering all the municipalities in the county, we've given very little compared to the rest of our neighbors. And we have a mile of it right in the center of our city. I don't disagree with you that we think it's a little bit expensive, but we haven't really done much with it at all, right? So what my idea was when we made that $300,000 commitment was let's try it a year, see how it works, how they're doing it. And if we don't like it, we pull back after one year. I mean, that's what we've been saying. Well, at least I've been saying that since day one. Let's give it a try. And I'm sure the rest of the cities and the counties along that trail with us are saying the same thing. And that's what I'm hearing. So that's why I'm saying let's leave it in the budget for this year. We've committed to it. We said we would. I don't really want to get back on our word that we said that as a commission. But that's just my thought process. But I do agree with you, just for the record. Sorry. No, I can agree with you that I think it's expensive. I can say that we can go ahead and commit it one year. Two things could be true at the same time.

Have we actually given them the $75,000 yet? We gave it to them, the one that was allocated for 26 budget?

They submitted the project. Completion was in July, the ribbon cutting. Shortly thereafter, the invoice came in, and we processed the invoice.

Oh, wow. All right.

So 75, we're efficient also in finance.

So yes, we have paid. The $75,000 is in their coffers.

I'm in the position I think I've voiced it since the beginning in the same way that a commission of Onitsha's that I just find this to be a ton of money for a city of our size But I don't I also agree with Commissioner Guy as far as that, you know, we made a commitment to give it to them But a lot of things have changed this whole property tax issue you know things are coming up and I would think that maybe what we could do is keep it on the budget, but prior to dispersing any monies, assess where we're at, and I think bring it to the commission and have the commission at that point decide what it is that we want to do finally with that money. Because ultimately, it's in the general fund, right?

Yes. But that money is for maintenance of the underlying. So I'm assuming that they're going to be letting contracts based on the expected income. So I just say that from the standpoint of they're probably going to want to see if it's in or not. And if it is, I'm sure they're going to act on that. Right. And so I just agree.

That's a good point. I mentioned this a long time ago. I don't know. Have there been any discussion as far as like if we can maintain our portion of the mile of the underlying or is that a big no, no to them?

I haven't been part of any conversation to that detail. Has it been talked about? Yes, we've talked about it. And I would have to defer on a meeting that I did not attend. I don't know if that ever came up with the underlying. Do you remember? No. So formally, I have not been part of any conversation with them. That we've discussed it internally, yes.

Maybe what we can do is allocate the labor you know, to them to use it for our one mile where we are just simply paying for the labor portion of it. I don't know. I'm just trying to come up with ideas. I do think that 225 is a lot of money for us right now with so many unknowns. That's it.

I have a related question. Mr. Munoz, if you can come up for a second. Can you remind me, what do we spend to maintain the segment of U.S. 1, the median, from roughly 57th Avenue to the city limits on the south?

Just the U.N. 1 portion. Yeah.

And we do a third party, correct?

Yeah, I can get you the exact amount. It's a third party because the contract is three phases. It's Byrd, Sunset, and U.S. 1.

Ballpark, what do we spend?

We'll have to look at it off the top of my head. You can't give me a... I'm not going to... I think that portion is like 80 for the year. They come out every other week. What do they... The whole contract is like 100, high 180. Remind me, what does the state give us for the maintenance?

$12,000, $13,000 for that portion? You know... I feel the same way about the other one as I feel about that segment. At some point, we are, I mean, again, I don't know if we, we don't use any of our labor, again, it's not a bad idea, but we don't use any of our labor to maintain those segments that are state owned, correct?

It's all third-party contracts. We're doing some garbage removal in there, and we do the landscaping. We replace the landscaping.

We do it with our own public works staff.

Yeah, they actually go out and they're doing the maintenance of the trees at a certain height, cutting the bushes, weeds. That's what they're doing on a regular basis. They remove garbage when they're there, but they don't remove garbage every week, so we're supplementing the garbage removal.

So I mean, colleagues, I think we have to decide what the level of service is that we want to maintain on that segment. And maybe, Mr. Manager, I think we should have, before we vote on this final budget, some information from the analysis of what the intended level of service is for the investment we're making. But certainly the state of Florida's position has been to give us peanuts to maintain segments that are expensive. And it becomes a cost shifting exercise. And so we don't complain about that. Honestly, we take the contract every year and we just say, ho-hum, let's keep writing checks to maintain that segment. So, I mean, the irony to me of this whole conversation about property tax reform is that the entity that is engaged in the biggest cost shifting is the one that's criticizing how we're spending money, right? And so, and that regulates all the major cost drivers. Rental rates have gone up 187% in 26 years. Guess who collects the tax and then misappropriates it every year instead of reinvesting in building public housing? It's the state of Florida. Homeowner's insurance has gone up 244% over 26 years. Guess who regulates the insurance companies? It's the state of Florida, right? So health care. Tracking at 30% renewal rates a year guess who regulates them right same same dormant entity but We like every other household experienced those costs as pass-throughs and I think I just want to highlight this one example of a pass-through cost where We either choose to even though their assets we don't own and we're technically not responsible for but they are our front door right and so we have That roadway segment and now the underline, that's an enhancement that's been made. We did not contribute to it. We're going to have to choose at some point whether we want to maintain it in a way that's dignified and reflective of how our community wants to represent itself to third parties. or we're gonna find ourselves dealing with a condition that we deal with when we get off Palmetto Expressway and Sunset where we see trash and chickens lining the right-of-way, right, because the state of Florida does not invest in maintaining that right-of-way segment. So I think those are the choices. It's not cheap, it's not cheap, and it's not cheap, but I just highlight that as that's a reality. Of the world that we live in, right? We're getting literally it's I think it's like he said 12 grand. I was shocked at the contract. I think it was $5600 when I saw it. I mean, clearly they're not marking that to inflation because I can't get my yard done. That's 12,500 square feet for $5600 a year. So, you know, I find the conversation in some ways that we're having at a larger policy level to be disassociated from reality. And this one about the underlying, yeah, it's a ton of money. Let's find out what the level of service is. But it's either we're going to step in and make sure it's preserved or the condition is going to degrade over time. That's my concern about not funding it. Yes, I'm ready for you.

I think, and it's funny, I actually have under the engineering capital and improvements and infrastructure projects two things highlighted. I think that to say we have to spend x amount, whatever x amount is, and compare it to US 1 to Sunset to Bird, I'm the wrong person to have that conversation with. Because I say, why are we doing it? Why are we doing it to the level that we're doing it? How do we maybe have a conversation? Maybe it's not a conversation for us, because apparently we're kicking the can up. And that's fine. And on most of what you said, I agree. I don't agree here, because if we can do Bird, Sunset, and US-1, for less than half of what they're asking us for for this one mile, there's a problem. To say that we're going to do it just because nobody else is doing it to whatever level it is, I have a problem with that. And so if it comes down to a conversation of us having to see how our money is truly being spent, because I've had this conversation before, then that's what we need to do. Because then we as, not only we, I say we as a global we of residents in this city need to then truly understand how our money is being spent. Because when we look at this budget, that's not the answer that we're getting. We're seeing a line item, and we're not knowing what exactly that means. Change never happens if people don't get angry, right? that there's a lot of decisions and conversations that we're having. And we don't know what's happening in November. We don't know what's happening in January to kind of then say, well, we're OK with funding it because we said we were OK with funding it. It's like saying, my household budget is $3,000 a month. My husband lost his job, but I'm going to still pretend that my household budget can maintain $3,000 a month. It's not realistic.

Yeah, but we haven't lost our job yet. So maybe in November we have to have this conversation. But you know what?

Right now we're looking at a budget that has a $40,000 surplus. $40,000. For a city that has a budget the size of ours is peanuts. I think it's equivalent to having $3 in your wallet if you're a regular house. So when we look at discretionary spending, look at PEDEL. If PEDEL doesn't come online when they're imagining that it will, we're in trouble.

I agree.

And so then we're looking at what we've just heard is one of the three biggest drivers eating up a million dollars that we just received to try to fill gaps, not knowing what's going to happen in November or January. God only knows what's going to happen. I think that's out of control, just like the rest of you think. but to then commit to a number simply because we said we were going to do it. Yeah, you know what? My husband said he was going to buy me a new car three months ago. I'm still driving an 11-year-old car. Why? Because other expenses have deemed more of a priority than buying me a car when my car is fine. So I caution all of us. to commit to $225,000, or whatever number it is that you deem.

I say- It's 300, to be clear. It's 225 plus the 75.

Well, 75 is in this year's budget.

No, no, no. So what you're seeing is the change. What they're showing you is the change above the baseline. Oh, that's even worse. That's even worse.

How would you even point that out to me, of all people?

Because I want to fight fair here. We're fighting. I don't know if we're fighting, but if we're going to discuss, let's discuss it with what the real number is.

So $300,000, and you just made me want to cry on the dais. So I... I HAVE NO WORDS FOR THAT. I'M TURNING OFF MY MICROPHONE.

DO YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US THE SEGMENT?

YES. THAT SEGMENT IS DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH WE CONTROL WE DO, IT COULD BE FROM 50 TO 54,000 A YEAR.

NO, JUST THE U.S. ONE SEGMENT.

THE U.S. ONE SEGMENT.

THROUGH THE MAYOR? YES, SIR. WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE?

cutting the bushes, cutting the trees up to 10 feet for visibility purposes, weed control, litter removal when they're out there once, which I've had a lot of issues with this particular year. That's it. We would pay to replace plants. We would pay to replace mulch. We do the additional garbage removal ourselves.

Those yeah, those are the main items all right, so the Commissioner Bonita's Comparison apples and apples are not there. We don't know first of all to my understanding I and I spoke to the chief about this the 300,000 also includes security right our police are not supposed to go on security, but what happened?

I will tell you, my husband had the pleasure of walking on the underline behind, first, the maintenance person that was supposed to pick up the garbage that was on a stroll and did not pick up garbage, and then the security guy who was also not doing what he was supposed to be doing. I think we would do a much better job on the underline than they would

I don't I don't disagree with you that we don't but we're not comparing apples to apples right so if you want us to compare what we can do as a city let's go have that conversation what is it that we would pay with services with it maybe you have to dedicate two policemen or whatever the case may be on that mile let's compare those numbers From a landscape perspective, let's compare those numbers, what they're doing there.

From a service perspective, sorry, to inform the conversation, that is once every other week. They come out for like two days on that particular stretch.

This is us, right? I don't know what they're doing. Let's just have that conversation. If we're going to do apples to apples, let's do apples to apples. And that way we can have that conversation in a very politically correct and financially, fiscally responsible way. Because I don't know what the answer is. We're here making assumptions. You're making an assumption that security is working or not. We're making an assumption on what landscaping is doing. We're doing repairs through our things. Our little playgrounds are being constantly looked at or blown away or whatever the case may be, or ants being inspected with termites, whatever. All these different things that could happen in this one mile, I don't know what that is, and we need to find that out. But I guarantee you we don't have anything else that's going to do it for the city's perspective because we don't know what it is. So let's have that conversation.

So again, I think let's, yes, sir.

Mayor, this is a statement just that applies generally, not to any specific issue. But I just want to kind of level set something as it relates to budget. Whatever we end up approving is a plan. Starting day one, October 1, we manage this budget, take a look at revenue expenditures. And not one revenue per se. you know, destabilizes the whole budget, right? And we manage it. Maybe we gave police X amount of dollars to do certain things. It happened this year. I told the chief ratchet down on training off-duty, which puts us into overtime because of the trend that we're seeing. So I just want to say that generally because not one particular expense and or revenue destabilizes the entire budget. I mean, this is something that we have to manage throughout the year. And this will be the same thing. Truth be told, last year our operating net difference was only $98,000 more. than what we're showing right now. And this will change between now and the final hearing. Based on your input, we'll go back into the drawing board. BUT, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO GIVE THAT GENERAL STATEMENT BECAUSE A BUDGET IS A PLAN THAT GETS MANAGED EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND WE SLOW DOWN OR STOP CERTAIN THINGS DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS FROM A TREND STANDPOINT. INVESTMENT RATES, YOU KNOW, THE MARKET GOES TO YOU KNOW WHAT, SOMEHOW THE RETURN IS NOT WHAT WE ANTICIPATED, WE MANAGE ACCORDINGLY. SO THAT APPLIES TO ANYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S NOT PARTICULAR REVENUE AND OR EXPENSE. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. GO AHEAD.

I just have a quick question. So would this be a $300,000 payment due at one point? Or do we have the option basically is kind of find a happy medium where we can do what Commissioner Gaya says, where we can see how it's working out, like basically do payments on a quarterly basis, see how it works out for a quarter. If the work sucks, then we pull it. If the work is good, then we continue it. Can we find a happy medium like that, where we're not spending all the money, BUT YET WE'RE STILL TESTING IT OUT AND SEEING HOW IT WORKS.

I'M GOING TO JUMP IN ON THAT ONE BECAUSE IT GOES BACK TO THE COMMENT I SAID BEFORE. I'M GOING TO PUT MYSELF IN THAT SITUATION AS A CITY. I WOULD NOT WANT TO ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP THAT EXPOSES ME IN THAT MANNER BECAUSE I'M LETTING A CONTRACT AND COMMITTING MYSELF TO A CONTRACT BASED ON A FUNDING SOURCE THAT NOW SOMEBODY, MY PARTNER THEN JUST PULLED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR. SO I AS A CITY MANAGER WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ENTERING A RELATIONSHIP LIKE THAT. SO I GUESS I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE UNDERLYING IN THIS CASE. I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF I WERE THEM THAT THEY LET A CONTRACT NOW THEY HAVE THIS EXPENSE and we change our mind, which this commission has a right to do so, but I'm just saying that operationally it definitely would be an impact that I would assume to that entity.

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, they have to also be able to work with us too. We're giving them $300,000 of city money that can go. They can figure it out whether they do their contracts on the first year on a quarterly basis. There's ways in which they can work with us to that. I'm just trying to, again, find it where we can do both sides and meet in the middle. If they're not willing to meet in the middle, then we can just pretty much put up our hands and tell them, well, then if you're not gonna work with us, we're not gonna work with you. I mean, it's that simple.

So Mr. Manager, I think just so we can make some progress on these items. Let's show this for the time being as a possible change out. And can we get some clarification on the underlying as to the timing of the payments and the scope of the work that's to be provided? If we do not participate, what the impact is to the overall maintenance scheme? And then I don't know if we want to compare, if we can do a quick comparison, if we wanted to step in and provide the maintenance. on their behalf for the segment, what it would cost us in terms of man-hour labor by some sort of a comparison analysis. Maybe the analysis to close the gap a little bit and make a forward commitment of an amount in total, or maybe that's the only commitment we'll make. But if we can get something to compare, that would be great.

clarification on the analysis. You're talking about sweat equity, like our internal staff versus... Yeah, there's no sweat equity.

Sweat equity comes at a cost, because I'm assuming we don't have people lying around doing nothing, right? So it's going to come at the cost of doing... You're talking about our staff. Our staff doing something else, right, programmatically. But I think we have to assign a value to it, what it would cost us to do it on a per hour basis. It's going to be... In my mind, we've got... They're using SFM, I believe, as their maintenance provider for the corridor. My understanding, right? I don't believe that SFM is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. So I'm gonna guess that their per hourly rate per labor hour is gonna be cheaper than ours, right? Because they're not subject to a, you know, a CBA. But I think we should clarify what that is and we've got to kind of impute a per labor hour cost to doing that work if we were to do the maintenance ourselves. We can actually compare to Commissioner Kaya's point apples to apples and understand how we should approach either making a grant for the full amount or a grant with conditions or not making any grant and doing the work ourselves and seeing what the relative benefit is of one approach versus the other. Do we want to talk about transit next? Who wants to start? Are you going to start? On the transit dollar one, look, I've been a proponent of trying to kind of change the mode in which we deliver the service. I don't think that the service that we're getting right now warrants the continued investment. I certainly do not want to subsidize what we're doing with $210,000 of general fund support. I'd much rather honestly take that money to invest it in maintaining the underline since that's a capital asset that's going to make our city look better or worse. Uh, given what the county's contemplating and continued service cuts. I'm not sure what we're trying to backfill. For what should be a base service that they're offering. So I'd be a proponent of taking the 210 out of the budget. Uh, canceling the service. And then, uh, frankly, I think we all saw that it was an item circulated about the, um. Mr. Manager, remind me the term of the planning area that we've been discussing with UM and Coral Gables. The TMA, the transportation management area. I'd rather take, my understanding is that 150 that we're spending potentially could be eligible funding that we could donate or contribute to that TMA project and see how we can leverage that funding along with Coral Gables and UM to deliver microtransit within a shared catchment area. And so I'd like to just budget that PTP money of the 150 for that effort or similar effort or just roll it over. I think we've got up to five years to spend that money down. Mr. Riverall, is that correct? and rather than just continue to burn money on a service that's not really moving the needle. Those are my thoughts.

Mayor, just a reminder that we also recently got a proposal from Uber at that rate, at the 20%, basically $150, which we still haven't had a chance to brief you on it because we just got it. I think we're trying to schedule a meeting. So just so you know that that came in.

Unless that changes the ball dramatically, I mean, I think my comments for now hold, assuming we keep doing what we're doing. Yes, sir, you're recognized.

Thank you. I second everything you said. I'm very not happy with right now. I think that we're just wasting the money. I am interested, though, to see what Uber has to offer, at least hear it out. But if there's another way that we can invest the money, I would. I just don't agree with the way that MetroConnect or Via operates their system, and there's constant, you know, they're... They're crashing, they're making senior citizens walk. I don't think we're, the bang for the buck is not there. I think we should explore other options.

Okay, for the comments?

Yeah, I've been working alongside Coral Gables and University of Miami to get the TMA up and going. There's an organization that's being thought about where Coral Gables, University of Miami, us, and the chambers. And I'm gonna have a presentation for you guys in the next commission meeting. But the idea is that we start working collectively together, understanding how we get to the last mile, how we integrate Bird, how we integrate Uber, how we integrate the trolley system. So the idea was to get as many kids from Coral Gables or from the University of Miami into our town center in an easier way because right now the borders are a stop for everywhere. So there is something that's being proposed. You'll get that in the following commission meeting. But I don't think the number for the allocation of what we can do financially, it warrants $150,000, like you were saying, Mayor. I think it's going to start with a smaller number. Because it's a process, right? Trying to get all these people together. But collectively, there's a lot of funds that can be allocated that we can do some pretty good things with it. So I agree with that. It's just I don't know if I would spend the whole $150,000. We get to reserve it anyway. We only use it for that purpose.

I would just say we reserve it for...

Yeah, I would only chip in maybe $20,000 to $30,000, but then we can allocate the rest of it, but we'll see how that goes. We'll see what the presentation says in a couple of weeks. Okay.

Madam Commissioner, yeah.

I agree that I think we're throwing money into like an abyss. I know that we can use the PTP funds for different things. And if we are going to bank it, to see what's going on, by the way, you guys are saying, I keep thinking TMI. So the public at large has no idea what you guys are talking about, because I am the public at large. And so I say yes, I agree we should bank it. I agree we should sever ties. I also think that we should look at alternatives for what we may need because one pops into my mind automatically and that is this can be used to build a little top over the bus bench. I know that the seniors have been talking about the one that's in front of community newspapers. The one in front of their homes is covered. It's perfect. The other one, it's like you're sitting being tortured by the sun. So I'm sure just like that one, there are others that we could possibly use those funds for. So yes, bank it. Yes, maybe, to what you're saying, because I have no idea what you're talking about. But keep in mind other things. Yep.

Agree. Okay. So consensus is we do not want to continue the service with $210,000 of general fund support. Okay. And bank the $150,000 required spend for in a reserve for eligible expenses to be determined.

Okay. Okay.

So that's the direction to staff. Okay. Stormwater Trust Fund. Any thoughts on that item? Yes, ma'am.

I think we all probably feel the way that you mentioned earlier that it feels like a big push in all at once. I don't know how much of a difference it makes to the majority of the populace of this city. I know me personally, I probably wouldn't think much of it. But someone who is in a position like limited income or fixed income will have maybe a problem with that. So I ask the same thing. Can we phase it in? And how does that look? And what have you. So I understand that not having anything change in 24 years means we have a lot of ground to cover. I just worry a little bit about how that's going to be for, albeit it's a small population of our city that might have sticker shock, but they're still our people.

Further comments?

I would I would I would say because I was also taken aback by what I mean you're looking at 50% increase on on your bill again I use the example of 100 bucks then it'll be 154 and I think you know the difficult and you know after thinking about it after I left the meeting and all that it's just know the difficult part of our job is that we have to make difficult decisions sometimes and if putting that 50 that 54 on the water bill allows us so our city as a whole does not get flooded during storms then i think it's a well worth the investment and sometimes like maybe maybe the general public won't fully understand it but when we're in a storm and everybody can walk on their streets and there's no flood then they'll truly come to appreciate it again we have to make difficult decisions sometimes

But what do we want that difficult decision to look like? Do we want to phase it in all at once? Do we want to make it come in two chunks?

I have heartburn raising something over 400% in one full swoop. That's what we're doing. And so we had talked about doing this over time. We have needs. I want to fund those needs. We certainly should not be continuing the practice that we had here historically, which is having the GF subsidize activities that could be funded with a stormwater fee. We know what the number is based on the study that we underwrote and spent money on, so we should follow that number. My only comment to staff is I agree with the plan to get up to 222 and beyond. That number's going to have to change year to year. We're going to have to have the courage to have it keep pace with inflation so we can meet our needs. But my question is, what do we need for fiscal year 27? And let's target that number. to what we need for fiscal year 2027 for what we plan to and can do in this fiscal year right i don't know that we need all all the light ends that were identified i don't know that they're all projects that we're going to realize or expenditure we're going to realize in this year so i would say bring us back if you can mr manager a listing of the items that we are highly confident that we're going to you know design and or let this fiscal year that we need the money in the bank for to spend and if that number then translates into $200 or $150 or $80. I think that's a more prudent way to balance The need right in the fall and phase in the cost to meet that need than just collecting the 222. All at once and hoping that we get these projects on this year. I mean, my experience here in 4 years is that. As much as we try very hard, we tend to not deliver the capital improvements as quickly as we plan. Um, so it seems to me that the $580,000 project. is the most ready to go project expenditure. Again, it's probably 55% of the funding. So I'm thinking the fee is going to have to be somewhere in the realm of, you know, $120, $110 to $130 in order to kind of get us to fund that one project. Those are my first thoughts. Let's fund what we need as opposed to kind of getting the rate where it should be in one full swoop. And let's continue to ratchet it up to the target number. And maybe next year it's not 222, but for 20, it should be 230. We'll increase it to kind of meet the next tranche of capital projects and fund what we have planned and is ready to advance. Yes, sir.

I mean, I'm okay with that. I just don't know how feasible, I talked to Mr. Riverall, to increase it every year, over year. I've seen you struggle with the interlocals and legal with the county. I just don't know how feasible.

I think we passed the number on to the Water and Sewer Department, do we not? I mean, if you can clarify that, I think.

Because I know it's been a struggle.

Once we move away from the property tax, it's easier to change the fee because it's a regular resolution fee schedule change like we are doing tonight. Tonight we have a fee schedule change. It's elimination of a fee from the fee schedule. It takes a resolution. Where doing it on the property tax, it's like moving earth. You have to send first class mail to all property owners, so on and so forth. It gives us more flexibility once you go to the utility billing fee.

So to the mayor's point, then, it's a lot easier for you to, if we're with WASDE, to start at 105, to go to 180, and then 222 in a three-year span.

We can do that. And again, to piggyback on this question, if there's a need for funding that we're projecting, we can almost make that change quarterly. We're not limited to doing it in the context of the budget.

Correct. I have to read the interlocal agreement because whenever I do change any of the fees, I don't know if there's a special assessment. I'm not saying there is. I'm just saying I don't know because I'm still waiting for the county to send over the interlocal agreement, which is being reviewed in their office. So we're actively pursuing that interlocal agreement. But a subject to there is no if we change the fee.

It's no no surcharge It's as easy as a fee schedule So if you can if I think for the for our next budget hearing we can get some clarification on the process, right? So we get some clarification on the process and if I mean if it is it who's the is it the tax collector's office? No tax collectors why this was do this is was in this case county attorney's office for the last

Probably about two months.

Okay, so let's call someone Let's call someone and get them to get us an information here this week And I'm happy to help if we need to we can call I was gonna say good luck, you know and then and then I think we I would love to see Like a plan to pair revenues with expenses so we can phase this in right as we need it Right if we need it all if we know tomorrow I'm on board with Commissioner Rodriguez. I think, you know, it's better practice to do this than to what we've done for umpteen years, which is lined up the funding source with the funding need. But I don't want to just stick it to people, particularly in this context. Think about where we're talking about property tax reform and we're going to increase a fee 400 plus percent without needing the money right away. I just want to be sensitive to that environment as well.

And let me just say, I do agree with that. If we only need 180 right now, then let's just go for the 180. I'm for that 100%. I'm just saying that we make difficult decisions. We're going to have to, at some point, add to their fee no matter what. No, no, yeah.

That we've all acknowledged.

I think we all agree on that.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Okay, and Commissioner, you had a question regarding the parcel on 80th Street and the US 1 and Fuchs and volleyball court improvements. Yes.

When we were talking about the acquisition of that property, I had actually said, let's make it a dog park. And the contribution during that conversation was that the dog park would likely be better suited at Fuchs. because you're away from the US-1 noise and traffic. I think it's interesting that somebody today actually sent us an email that said, it's not good for kids, but it's going to be fine for dogs. And I don't think that means a lot of... of sense to any of us because I think they're both equally sensitive to that type of noise. So it reminded me of the conversation that we had about the volleyball area at Fuchs becoming the dog park. So when I saw this today where we're allocating $80,000 for a volleyball renovation, it prompted that whole thing in my mind. I don't want us to spend $80,000 on renovating a volleyball court that I'm not sure how much you say, because I think it would be great for you to let us know. But if we want it to be a dog park because we don't want it on 80th and US 1, then we need to move this money and make it a dog park. I know that there was a conversation that we've been able to reopen or are reopening the sliver of dog park that I can take my dog to, but you can't take your dog to because it's not big enough. So I think before we jump into a sand volleyball renovation, we need to come to a decision on what we're doing for that dog park.

I'm sorry, just a point. Did we not approve that contract last meeting? for the volleyball court renovation?

Fuchs, we rejected the bids because the pricing just was completely out of whack. And we just had the experience of the Dante Fasal recent renovation. So Assistant Director and I talked about it. So we rejected the bids and put it back out with some changes. Just clarification, Commissioner, the area that when we were thinking of potentially a dog park was not the volleyball area, but east of the play structure. So there's a space here towards the canal. right closer to the canal, that green space was the area.

You mean the canal where we just had an incident, I don't know, five seconds ago? No, but I'm saying, I don't think that's the, guys, I don't think that's the best use of the space.

No, I'm just clarifying that when we were looking at it, it was not the ballpark. It was a green space just on the other side of the play structure. That's the original Padel where we were going to do that. Yes, sir.

Exactly. This is all that same conversation that we had. We were like, do we do Padel? Do we do the dog park? Right. I can't remember exactly who said we could always do the dog park at Fuchs because it is more of a neighborhood. I think I said it, yeah. It might be. So I want us to have that conversation now. Can we have that conversation now?

Yes, sir, you're recognized.

So I don't forget the answer on that, because you had talked about opening the dog park. I'll just give you an update. Mr. Tyson is working already on relocating the fence, and we're going to reopen it. The cost analysis of the 15 feet and the insurance that may be required to satisfy the LX, which is rightly so. So we've notified them that those 15 feet, we can do without, and we're just going to move the fence, and then we're going to reopen the dog park. So I just wanted to give you that update.

Thank you. So, again, what is it you want to discuss? If you can reframe it for me. I apologize.

Sure. I'm like, do we need that volleyball there? Can't we make it? I mean, right now, if I'm not mistaken, it's sand and sticks and a net, right?

No, it's a pretty nice sand.

No, no, but I'm saying it's not like we're knocking down a building or doing any of that. So if we wanted to use that space for a dog park, It's something that would be feasible now versus spending $80,000 and then saying, oh, by the way.

Mr. Mayor. Yes. I mean, I think maybe we can have the director come up here and just explain to us what the programming, what the thought process was, because I'm not really sure either. So maybe we can just tell us what you're thinking.

Yeah, John Tyson, Assistant Director for Parks and Recreation. Yeah, as the manager mentioned, let me get this up. As the manager mentioned, the space that we believe would be more feasible for the dog park would be on the east side of the playground. The space to the west of it, which is currently a sand volleyball court, has much more limited capacity. And you would have a significantly smaller dog park. I've worked with a few contractors.

I don't think the question is whether that space should be the dog park. I think she's asking whether the dollars, the renovation of the volleyball court, are better used creating a dog park at Fuchs. Is that correct?

Or even eliminating the sand volleyball altogether and making it a bigger space. I would say stay away from the canal.

I don't know. It's not close to the canal. There's a line of trees. There's a road. There's additional green space before you get to the canal. It's not.

So, dude, I've seen a gator climb the fence at the University of Florida trying to get into the preschool. But, yeah, no, that.

Some of those on your football team.

There you go. So I would say, you know, if we don't have contracts for that sand volleyball court, how much does it really get used? And could we maybe do, you know, a dog park there? Something different.

Yeah, I mean, certainly that is absolutely an idea that can be done. I think that would require relocation or movement of the actual playground structure that exists there now. I think not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but from a safety standpoint, there has to be some separation between having a dog park right next to a playground. And I can tell you from my experience, that would definitely be a concern of mine. So I think... Could you get rid of the volleyball court? Yes, and slide the playground structure over. It just makes it significantly more, yeah, it would be a much larger project if you were to do that. And just in my opinion, the current volleyball system that exists there, it is in need of repair and some care and some love. I know personally I have aspirations for this department to go for CAPRA accreditation, and standardization is a significant part of that. We just made significant improvements over at Dante Fussell. And to have the Fuchs Volleyball be in poor condition with poor sand, I think wouldn't necessarily be right. And that's the one that we leave open to the general public. We traditionally don't rent that one out because most of our programming operates out of Dante Fussell. So to have that one, it is utilized by, there are some groups that go out there on Saturdays and Sundays that use it. And they have voice that they would like for those conditions to improve.

Okay, so then that brings me to the question of if we're keeping the sand volleyball, where's the dog park we keep talking about? Do we have Park Impact Fund money? How are we? We can't just talk about it and then never do it. And I think as a city, I mean, you look at us, there are four of us up here, six of us if you count Tony and Chip. Far as I know, I don't know if you have a dog, but so six of us, all six of us have dogs. And not all six of us play whatever, whatever, insert whatever it is there. So I think that a city the size of ours with the populance separated the way that we are, we need to be able to find the money to do this.

So two things. One is we have a parks master plan that has told us we have an LOS, level of service need of another dog park. Yes. But it's in the northern part of the city, not in the southern part. That is correct. I would tell you that the one that we have is inadequate. I think we're probably better off closing it and building a dog park at Fuchs to have a serviceable dog park that could actually accommodate more people and larger dogs, personal opinion. But if we're going to build a second one, it should be definitely north of US 1 at the very least, not south of US 1. So I think that's what our study has told us. In terms of options, I mean, if that is a concern, we just need to take the study that we... Is it finalized yet, our parks master plan?

It is finalized, and to your point, you are correct.

At this point, we just need to kind of have staff come back to us and say, of the options that we have, what's the best option that we can execute against? That's how I would like to have the conversation. Yes, sir.

I think in my humble opinion, except present company excluded, and don't mean to take a dog park away from you, but I think in Fuchs- You're not taking away what I don't have, so it's okay.

True.

I think at Fuchs, we would be servicing a lot of a residential area that isn't South Miami. I think if we move it to more of the Manor Lane location, now we service our residents. And I think that that should be you know, a priority for us. Where is it that we're servicing our residents more than just, you know, county residents that can use the park? So I would just leave Fuchs. I understand you want to do the volleyball. I do think that if you weigh a program of a dog park and volleyball, you're going to get... hundred times more usage out of the dog park um so maybe reallocating the money from from that and maybe we can start something at manor lane and see what it would be because eventually that's the interest of our city we have to do something rather than just leave it the way that it is so something's gonna have to be done there i don't i i wouldn't be against having a dog park there

Just for clarity, are you referencing the dog park at Fuchs Park or at Manor Lane? No, no, no, at Manor Lane. At Manor Lane? At Manor Lane.

Because there you'll be servicing our actual residents. And rather than at Fuchs, you're really servicing more of county residents that are there. We're limited as far as how many South Miami residents go there.

Mayor? Yes, sir, you're recognized. Just to follow up on that piggyback, what is the plan? Where are we in the process of what we want to do with the 80th Street, Manor Lane Park?

So I recently had a survey put out through door hangers to the immediate neighborhood within a 10 minute walking radius of that site. So we have gotten those results back and are currently marrying those and kind of looking at those in comparison to what has been identified in our master plan. I can tell you that a dog park has come up on there. But in reference to our master plan overall, it may not necessarily be the level one priority of what the city would need in comparison to other amenities and also what the immediate community necessarily wants in that respective area. And I get that it's for the broader community. The Manor Lane site is for South Miami as a whole. But like I said, we're currently looking at both the survey results and also the master plan and combining those efforts to figure out what's best suited at that park. Thank you.

I have one thing to ask.

Yes.

When we're looking at the park impact fund, and I don't know if this is a you or a you conversation, once these dollars that you've allotted here are spent, what do we have left? So if we wanted to say, whether we wanted to say, yes, let's do a dog park, or hey, no, let's do, I don't know, a park where we play tiddlywinks, where would that money even come from?

What I can say is there are funds allocated for Manor Lane design in the capital budget So that could be allocated to that while also still doing the Fuchs volleyball project Coat, you know at the same time So if there's an opportunity to do both would be greatly appreciated and you know by myself and then also I think the broader community as well

Thank you. Just for clarification on the existing dog park, it's not a heavy lift to open it up. I mean, we've got to redo the fence. And given that any alternate location will require a heavier investment that is not allocated at this time, I figure let's just open it up. It would provide a service, not a heavy lift, as we decide and plan where there could be a better location.

Yes, you're recognized. So I haven't seen the survey, but if the written-in option is leave it as is, that's not an option.

I agree.

I hope that's relayed to the community. Absolutely. Something has to be done there. I agree. And also, second, if you go down by lifetime under the – The underline.

In like Gables Grove area?

In the underline, there's now a dog park there.

I have seen.

Under the metro rail. Yes. So this would be kind of mirroring or mimicking what they're doing there and do it on Manor Lane. It would be pretty much the same thing.

Absolutely.

So it's not like it hasn't been done before.

Understood. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your time. No problem.

Thank you, guys.

Okay, the last thing we had a comment on, on PDEL, PDEL revenue. Right to left? Yeah. Okay.

Am I left?

You had a comment on that as well?

No, I just, obviously we need to be pushing. I mean, the revenue numbers for us are counting on that, so. Yeah, I. We need a lot of fire. Pretty simple. Cuz we were expecting, it's in the budget. So if it's not gonna happen, then it's not gonna happen. We gotta take it out and then we gotta.

I'm not sure that we, I'm not sure that I love this practice of budgeting the revenue, but I mean, just because given where we are, but let's get some clarification on their timing and the feasibility of it, because it is a substantial amount of money that if it does not come through, we're going to have a significant hole in the budget.

Yeah, we booked the revenue in January, although originally there were some conversations about October. But to be abundantly cautious, it was booked in January. They had some delays in their process as far as the structural and the calculations. WANTING TO USE A PRIVATE PROVIDER AND SO I HAD A WALK THROUGH LAST JANUARY BEFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS DONE AND THAT TOOK A BIT, I THINK THEY WILL SAY, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN THEIR BUSINESS DECISION TO HOLD UP AND NOT DO CERTAIN THINGS BUT I HAD A WALK THROUGH PURPOSELY IN JANUARY TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE I KNEW STRUCTURAL WAS GOING TO BE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST OF HAVING TO get that opinion. So we've had multiple emails in the last three weeks about where they're at, and they had provided, they were going to come in and provide, well, they decided to go private provider as a project. So the revenue is booked for January. Can they still make that? Possibly. We'll be getting another update. I've been emailing them about every 10 days just to see where things are at.

This is one of the items that I reference when I say if we have an outpouring of funds and this does not come through, we have a hole in our budget every month starting in January of, let's round it up, $20,000 that we then have to scramble to try to find. So that's just a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Agreed.

And then I have one other thing, if we don't have anything else. I see engineering capital improvement and infrastructure projects. I know y'all are going to hate me when I say this. What page are you referring to? I'm on page 345, safe streets for all. We've allotted here $500,000 almost, $469,000. to try to fix the problem of people getting hit on US 1, Bird Road, and Sunset. As you made mention before, those are not our streets, but we are responsible for them when we're doing landscaping. Here we are taking it another step further with a huge chunk of money. You don't need to tell me we've got a problem on US 1 with people getting hit or accidents happening. I think the entire world knows that. To make it seem like we're going to throw $470,000 at this and put up three little signs and maybe have a police officer sit there or whatever, I think that's... not the best use of our money. And I said it when the presentation happened, we are taking on things that are the responsibility of the county or the state because those streets run through our city. It doesn't make any sense to me and I don't think we should do it.

Senator, what's the funding source for that 230, 770? 345.

It says SAP, which is Safety Action Plan.

So unless somebody else is paying for all of this.

Correct. It's in the CIP. The reason we identified it with the SAP is so that you understand the project came from a Safe Streets study. But it is being funded from Fund 301, which is the CIP.

which is our money. General fund monies. Thank you.

Yes, general fund monies. Which line item is it? It's 345 is the highlight. It's pretty much in the middle of the page.

Yeah, if you look at where it says engineering capital improvements and infrastructure projects, there are two items. If you look at the tag, it says SAP in green. One is 269, 230. One is 23770.

And these are estimates that were put together by the engineer who's conducting the plan. I mean, they're not hard bids. These are estimates based on the planning effort, based on what has been identified as a deficiency, what it may take to correct that, and then they give these estimates.

I say we hand it to the state and let them figure it out.

And, Commissioner, just for the record, one of those is the US 1 project. The other one is localized, is our streets, just for the distinction of the two numbers.

I think we should do our streets and not the others.

You said it at the meeting when we reviewed it the first time.

I said it before. Yes.

And so we focused on a local project with a high priority, which is that 69th one, which is the Larkin Metro Rail connection. It has a lot of foot traffic and no crossings, and it was a high incident area.

Thank you for remembering what I said. I appreciate it. Okay.

Thank you for that. Okay. Commissioner Rodriguez, let's hopefully to close.

Yeah.

Um, I just wanted to ask because I couldn't see this to the manager, um, Mr Rivero. Do we have, because I couldn't find, so regarding the City Hall development, do we have anywhere in the general fund there if we need any shortfall money? Have we allocated anything, any monies for that?

In this budget, we don't have anything allocated. Right now, it's still all cost recovery, monies that we receive from the developer that we're replenishing to get the agreement to lease.

You're talking about the financing of the construction?

Yeah, if there's any shortfalls or anything like that, we've got to put up money.

We have nothing in this, but this particular budget for fiscal year 27, we have nothing in. Now, we kept it off the CIP as well because we have a CRA. That's one of the discussions. Anything that's in the CRA can't be funded with CRA money. So in the name of precaution, we left it off the CIP.

I think let's level set, which is we're not expecting to have any capital expenditures on the project started in 27. It's more likely FY28. We hope not, no. Yeah, correct.

OK. Just really quick on this subject matter, just for everybody to keep. I don't know if we actually made a decision. I discussed this with the manager. Are we going to finally approve doing the fifth floor?

Let's table that conversation for the next meeting. I just wanted to bring it up. Okay, seeing nothing else on the budget, I need a motion to adopt item one.

We need to open a public hearing.

Oh, we need to open a public hearing. Okay. There's any member of the public who would like to address this commission on either items one or two on tonight's Specialty Commission meeting regarding the city budget. Please come forward at this time. Madam Clerk, also, if there's anyone online, if you could recognize them as well.

No one's online.

Okay. Seeing no one in the chamber coming forward and no one online, we will close the public hearing on the budget items one and two. Is there a motion to adopt item one?

Are we going to address what we just talked about, about the safe street thing, or are we addressing that offline and it's going to be whatever we decide will be fixed?

Do you want to give, I'm sorry, what would be the direction you'd want to give the manager with respect to that item?

If we have it split between our streets and the state streets, I just want to do our streets. Let the state worry about the state street. The longer that we continue to pick up their slack, the longer they're not going to do it. It's like saying, I have alligator hands only for dinner.

Madam Commissioner, I mean, I agree in principle, but the reason the state budget has not grown to be the size of New York's because what they do is they reduce services because the state investment does not keep track with inflation. I understand. I was a state legislator. We played that game for many years. That's how they keep a cap on revenues. The governor pounds his chest about how fiscally conservative they are. What it is is a service reduction, and we're seeing in the fact that we pick up the costs for maintaining right-of-ways, and we've now got to pick up the costs for paying to improve capital improvements on streets where people are getting hit and killed. So I understand the sentiment, and I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately, at the local level, this is where the buck stops.

Well, then why don't we do our streets this year and then look at US 1 next year?

And what would you prefer we do with the 230?

Well, one of them, as Mr. Muñoz just pointed out, they separated them because one is our local.

I understand, but there's still $270,000 roughly, $250,000 roughly, that relates to the state streets. So what would be your proposal for that money?

I would propose that we, just like I said, there's two line items, 230 and 269 or something along those lines. Take the one that is our localized street.

What would we do with the money that we're saving?

You know what? We can come up with any one of a million.

So why don't we do this? Let's move it as it is. I think at the next meeting what I would ask is if you have a proposal for how to use that money, whether it's to bank it in a reserve. But it's general fund money.

So even if we just said right now we're saving it in our rainy day fund or whatever we want to call it because we have $40,000 in discretionary funds, let's surplus it.

Folks, I think these conversations are good conversations, but we spent the money on doing a study.

And we're using part of it.

Well, hold on. So I just wanted to follow up on this. So in order, I mean, I've been pretty big on safe streets here. And we've been working on the traffic allocations in all the different zones. What happens is that the major artery is US 1. So we can't really, we can't do one without the other. I'll give you an example. I'll give you an example. On 77th Street going out, we need to touch US 1 so we can change the traffic allocations throughout that whole area. So one kind of goes in the other. That's why you have these different areas all combined with the major artery that is US 1. So it's not easy to say, let's just do one and not the other.

They're all interconnected.

They're all safe streets. I mean, one street is allocated to another street. I would just ask you to just let's go talk to the director and figure out what the differences are, how they're interconnected. If we can separate them, I would agree with you. I just don't think you can. Let's just ask that question.

OK.

I would suggest the following. I would like to see that money. If you're not going to spend it there, I would suggest as an alternative. I don't believe any money allocated for... and a Price Park and or Manor Lane Park. That should be $250,000 we should spend on those two. I think that's a great idea. Okay, so fine. So we want to take $250,000 out, but we're going to put it into parks capital improvements.

We can.

Okay, fine. Let's show that as the change then, okay?

Or we can do, as Commissioner Calla just said, have the conversation and see, hey, can we do this without this? If the answer is no, is the answer yes or no? Can we do one and leave the other one for next year?

Right. As the commissioner was speaking, it dawned on me that some of those US-1 are going to help us because they're crossing related. And they improve the intersections, which is a separate project that hasn't been funded yet. We're still waiting. So I think we need the time to just look at which ones are those and tell you that. Have time to come back and tell you which ones make sense of that number. It's different projects. There's like five or six listed there. I've got to look at which ones they are and come back.

Okay.

No, just on the enterprise, we're actually moving forward with this year's funds to do signage and some benches. So you may not need the money for that is what I'm saying. Okay, that's fine.

So let's do this. Bring us back a proposal for an add-out, right? You know, strike out and then add in for a couple of alternatives we can discuss at the next budget hearing. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So first reading. Is there a motion to adopt item one on first reading, which is the miller? I'll move it. We have a motion. Do we have a second? OK. We have a motion by Commissioner Bonnich, a second by Commissioner Kaye.

Just for the record, Mayor, that's a motion to adopt a 3.95 millage rate, which is a 6.83% increase over the rollback rate.

And we've got to adopt it unanimously, correct?

You need to, what, the unanimous, there needs to be four votes. Given, yes. In the end, for adoption. You are, you are. That's right.

I apologize. Thank you. OK. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll, please.

Yes. Commissioner Bonish? Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez? Yes. Commissioner Kaye? Yes. Mayor Fernandez? Yes. Item passes.

Is there a motion for item two, which is the adoption of the tentative budget?

I'll move it with the stipulation that you just made.

And the direction provided to the manager during our discussion? Okay. I second it. A motion by Commissioner Bonish, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll, please.

Yes. Commissioner Bonish? Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez? Yes. Commissioner Kaye? Yes. Mayor Fernandez? Thank you. Yes. Item passes. Okay.

With that, we stand adjourned until 7 p.m.

For 15 minutes.