[0:20] . No, don't. That was my right.
[0:31] well. Where are the flags? Oh.
[0:43] oh. Let me go. Not to call anyone out.
[1:01] good. No, it's not like I'm here. They're all over you guys.
[1:06] no, no. Hmm. Good evening, everyone.
[1:13] today is tuesday, september eighth, 2026. The time is practically 5:05
[1:20] p.m.. We will now call to order this special city commission meeting
[1:24] which is our first budget hearing for fiscal year 2027. Please silence or turn off your
[1:27] cell phones. Madam clerk, if you can call the roll please.
[1:31] >> yes? Mayor fernandez. President commissioner
[1:32] rodriguez. Hear, hear. Commission here we have a
[1:38] quorum. >> thank you. Please stand for a brief moment
[1:40] of silence and we'll ask commissioner bonis to lead us in the pledge of allegiance
[1:52] . Dear mr.. Thank you.
[1:56] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which
[2:01] it stands one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[2:08] >> please be seated. So the pledge? Yeah.
[2:14] >> madam clerk, if you can please read item one on tonight's agenda.
[2:16] yes. I don't want an ordinance of the mayor and city
[2:19] commission of the city of water adopting a proposed millage rate for the fiscal year
[2:23] commencing october 1st, 2026 through september 30th, 2027 which amount may be a at their
[2:30] first or second reading and adopting the final millage one second reading.
[2:33] >> thank you period item two as well please an ordinance that the mayor city commission or
[2:39] the city of south main thought of adopting a tentative budget for this city for a fiscal year
[2:44] commencing october 1st, 2026 and in this september 30th 2027.
[2:47] and which budget may be the first or second reading of this ordinance adopting the final
[2:54] budget on second reading providing for the salaries and expenses of the city commission
[2:57] and officers as required by the city's charter. >> thank you madam clerk.
[3:02] mr. Manager will recognize you for presentation and open the public hearing.
[3:05] yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.
[3:06] I'm going to turn it over to our cfo. But just as a follow up, a
[3:11] reminder july 21st we had a budget workshop at. And also you had your set your
[3:18] preliminary millage. Since then obviously we continue to update the budget
[3:22] based on, you know, newer information or other changes. So today will highlight some
[3:27] things that may have been mentioned before and then take you through some of the changes
[3:31] to kind of close the gaps on what changed from july 2nd to now.
[3:36] first budget hearing and certainly we will take your questions and direction after
[3:40] the cfo and answer any questions that you may have. You recognize something?
[3:54] >> good evening, mayor. Vice mayor commission I have a brief presentation just to go
[3:59] over. It's I'm going to be covering some of the stuff I've already
[4:02] spoken about just touch upon certain items from the workshop, some of the revisions
[4:06] that have occurred since that workshop and then any questions you may have along the way?
[4:13] >> by all means please. So what you have before you proposed is the proposed fiscal
[4:24] year 27 budget 3.9500 millage that incorporates the existing millage for from fiscal year
[4:33] 2026 cost of living increase 2.6 based on on consumer price index.
[4:40] amendment three still on horizon everybody I think was well aware on november 3rd
[4:44] there will be a ballot question that will be determined by the voters.
[4:48] aside from that, something important I think to mention is every two years the tax and
[4:54] budget reform commission are required to to get together. They're expected to reconvene
[5:01] in 2020 7th january january is when they're supposed to meet in 2027 and then whatever
[5:06] they do every 20 years we want to clarify from the date every 20 years I apologize.
[5:10] okay. I thought I was going to say you'll see an item if they come
[5:13] to an agreement on any tax reform you'll see the november 2028 referendum.
[5:20] >> so the only reason I mention that is because if amendment three passes or doesn't pass
[5:24] they are still going to meet and they're going to be discussing for municipalities
[5:28] and the state the tax structure and revenues and make recommendations which couldn't
[5:32] be before the voters at that time in this budget there's two additional new positions.
[5:38] one is a police officer which is funded from the cops grant so that's incorporated in this
[5:44] an additional public works assistant director position in the fiscal year 27 budget.
[5:49] those are the only two new positions just on budget highlights we have in the
[5:54] budget in non-departmental we have acquired or replaced $100,000 for the celebration
[6:00] of our 100th year. That is something that will be taking place next year and
[6:04] there'll be multiple activities. We have $100,000 to fund some
[6:08] of those activities in their city attorney just giving some an increase of 47,500 in
[6:14] aggregate requested from the city attorney's office was 27,500 for sort of excluded
[6:19] services which are mentioned there and then additional 20,000 which is brought over
[6:25] from police department that we used to have for litigation on arbitration cases.
[6:30] we decided to put it in a centralized location to under the city attorney's but it's
[6:34] all we're doing is just reallocating the $20,000 from one department to the other
[6:40] within the city clerk there is an additional 41,890 that's for the public records
[6:44] management system something that we've already put in place.
[6:48] it's an expenditure that replaces our previous expenditure of closed
[6:52] captioning contractual services . So that's something new that
[6:55] is in that budget in fiscal year 27 that you'll see something that we just looked
[7:02] at in finance that we found interesting we were looking at so our expenditures our total
[7:06] expenditures in all funds is $50 million. Well how much are we throughout
[7:10] all the funds? How much are we appropriating say 2% police personnel, 18%
[7:13] all other per city personnel, 21% capital investments which are capital projects throughout
[7:20] the different funds makes up about 32% and all other expenditures about 2,929%.
[7:25] so I just thought it was something interesting to share. That's what the breakdown
[7:29] is related to the fiscal year proposed 2027 budget what are the changes the changes from
[7:37] the workshop that was conducted on july 21st to today? One that I think everybody has
[7:40] seen voted on at the last august 18th regular commission meeting.
[7:47] health insurance we received health insurance premiums. You voted on it.
[7:51] that was an increase from in the workshop from what we anticipated how we offset those
[7:56] we increased our interest revenue and in our investments our liability insurance an item
[8:03] that you have before you tonight we found some savings on the lines of general
[8:07] liability property auto and building permit inspection fund transfer, an increase of 44,329
[8:13] that they will be contributing to the general fund transferring in to offset some
[8:18] of the costs that we perform on their behalf. Other things that have changed.
[8:22] building permit again 2446 that was increased that comes from health insurance glb we have an
[8:30] appropriation of $500,000 from the state. We finally have our f dot
[8:35] preliminary agreement and we're reviewing it. It requires a 20% match.
[8:38] we're just accounting for that 20% match that at the time of the workshop we had and had
[8:42] that agreement to know that it was a 20% match requirement holiday parking late increased
[8:48] in some moneys was previously a 55 one up to 63 pukes park volleyball renovations 70,000
[8:55] we've increased it to 80,000. We went out to bid prices came in much greater than what we
[8:59] anticipated. We made some modifications to the the design going back out
[9:03] what we expect about $10,000 more in cost with this new design that we put together
[9:09] brewer park enhancements to the park, certain improvements to the park we increased it for
[9:16] safety and so on. >> so property tax just to go back I said we budget was
[9:22] prepared with a 3.95 mils 95% of that gives you 12,000,012.7 million in in property tax
[9:31] revenue and 95% which is about an increase of $1 million. Just to put it in perspective
[9:34] in the proposed fiscal year 27 budget, some just three major items so you could see the cola
[9:41] and merit excluding fringe and excluding new positions is about 384,000.
[9:45] that's just called the merit health insurance increase was a 320,000 and underlying
[9:51] maintenance one of the expenditures that's incorporated in the proposed
[9:53] fiscal year 27 budget is about 225 giving $929,000 of of expenditures that increased in
[10:02] the budget in 2027. Madam police commissioner, I it when we look at our revised
[10:10] budgets and where we may have pressure points and possibilities of fall through
[10:17] based on november election on and on and on and on I think it's irresponsible of us to pay
[10:27] $225,000 to the underlying when you look at that number in relationship to everything else
[10:31] I just think it's not fiscally sound. I think we want to continue to
[10:36] contribute. Let's give them the same $75,000 we gave them before.
[10:42] I just don't think we're in a position no matter how unattractive it may be to say
[10:52] that we can't do it. I mean when you look at health insurance revenue coming in at
[10:57] $210,000 more than we were expecting and we find ourselves pinching here, there and
[11:03] everywhere trying to find it, we've prioritized police budgets in needs versus wants.
[11:10] you know, we've we've seen this kind of across the board to then pay no attention to that
[11:14] line item and continue like if it was business as usual I think is to be sure I don't
[11:22] take any I don't take any exception what you're saying with the exception of your
[11:25] characterizing it because there's lots of conversation that we've had here that I
[11:27] could characterize as irresponsible. It's I know we can discuss if
[11:33] it's something I'd like to move out of the budget we can consider it.
[11:36] but I mean we voted to add staff in the last five years which I objected to.
[11:40] we voted to approve a cops grant which I objected to not that we don't have all those
[11:46] needs but they all add costs as well. And so and again we can we can
[11:50] debate the relative merits of all those things. I just don't I think for the
[11:54] benefit of everyone on days and so we keep a conversation to the facts let's just not
[12:01] characterize us investing in a particular way is irresponsible because there are there are
[12:06] myriad ways we can talk about investments as not being positive negative.
[12:09] I think it's an item if you want to discuss it on the table.
[12:13] happy to hear your concerns about it. Also know there's a broader
[12:17] conversation that's ongoing regarding maintenance contributions by third party
[12:21] cities. We're other cities may fall out of the funding mix and in that
[12:25] case I would certainly support pulling our money back as well. So let's have the conversation
[12:32] without ascribing sort of a negative connotation to it we can put whatever word you you
[12:39] guys feel comfortable with I'm comfortable with the word I said okay, but you guys can
[12:44] move it forward however it is that pleases the dais here. I just think we have a lot
[12:52] going on and I well I understand other cities have a lot going on too and I think
[13:01] great for them. I'm just worried about us. I know that sounds horrible
[13:06] because I don't know a nice way of saying that I don't care what anybody else is doing.
[13:13] I that's I'm saying it and I understand that's not the nicest way to say it.
[13:17] I just don't have a better way of saying it. So it's on the table.
[13:21] I don't know when is the appropriate time to have that conversation but I imagine it's
[13:26] sooner versus later because it is here. >> yeah I was I thought we
[13:32] would wait for the presentation to be done if we have questions and then we want to take up
[13:36] items after the public hearing where we can remove items. Certainly you can have a
[13:38] conversation what comes and what comes out. So we'll note that for your
[13:41] parking lot please continue transportation discussion direct transit we receive
[13:51] funding 20% must be used for direct transit direct transit being mass transit moving large
[13:55] quantities of persons or people which 20% reflects about $150,000 of revenue.
[14:04] our current existing v a program metro connect program is about 306 annually 210,000
[14:13] is being subsidized from the general fund under the proposed fiscal year 27 budget.
[14:17] it would be the first budget that we're actually using general fund money and not
[14:21] unspent or reserve monies that were specifically allocated for this type of service stormwater
[14:28] drain trust fund in this budget there are and I'll share the c ip these are the c I p capital
[14:37] projects that are embedded in the stormwater trust fund in this budget as prepared we also
[14:44] are are expecting an rate increase of your you from $54 which was adopted in 2002 and
[14:54] hasn't been updated to we're doing a rate study and it looks like it's going to be around
[14:58] $222. What's going to be recommended to make the stormwater drain
[15:02] trust fund whole? In other words self-serve efficient the system.
[15:05] so in this budget we have 900 and 980 some thousand dollars of cip projects based on
[15:14] october 1st on march 1st adopting a rate or beginning the rate of $222.
[15:21] before we move on, I have a question on that. We can go back yes of course we
[15:25] have some very small light items here. You in the manager the $90,000
[15:32] design improvement, the $40,000 design improvement is there a way we can kind of roll those
[15:36] up? I mean is it more economical for us to roll them out under
[15:39] one request for design proposals and have one firm handle both or I was one
[15:46] of the jobs was too small that would have any interest in doing them at that level and
[15:49] are you the manager or mr. Kulick yeah, sometimes there there could be officials
[15:57] economies of scale with it don't really know until somebody actually would bid on
[16:04] it, you know, okay, technically but we can certainly explore that.
[16:09] so there could be an opportunity potentially and beyond that I don't know that
[16:13] we'll know the answer. >> you know these are projects that are I guess under are
[16:19] what's the situation what's the name of the statute kenny pre-selected vendors is there
[16:27] irritation is design professionals available that we would offer these two or how
[16:31] are we going to procure these? >> alex munoz director of public works I was just
[16:34] looking at the list more closely so yes there is a rotation.
[16:39] we have the six firms in the pool. There's a couple of projects
[16:42] there that we could one of them is as you go which is miscellaneous drainage.
[16:46] the other one is the stormwater master plan implementation. That's going to be a whole
[16:50] separate animal base when we get back that study but there's two there that we could combine
[16:53] to your point whether that's the manager side, whether people bid out or not is a
[16:57] different story but there's definitely two and we can look at things that way.
[17:00] we actually have talked about doing that a little bit internally and then as to the
[17:04] last line item of the $240,000 what what's in that catchall and my my concern mr. Munoz and
[17:10] I expressed to mr. A rolling briefing is we are going from a $55 a unit area to 220.
[17:18] >> is that the right number? 54 to 222? Okay, 54 to 222 and we're going
[17:24] we're doing that all within one fiscal year. And so I've albeit it's being
[17:27] billed out quarterly as opposed to being assessed in one lump sum.
[17:31] so the question I had is how much the 240,000 do we anticipate expanding or
[17:38] appropriating before the end of this fiscal year? We haven't seen the projects
[17:42] yet. Okay. >> so it's hard to say.
[17:46] okay. And again all of the 200 all the $224 is required to get us
[17:51] to the $983,000 fund balance to begin those projects again. I mean just for conversation
[17:59] I'd just like to understand what if this is necessary to appropriate this year in terms
[18:03] of our fee increase as opposed to doing it over a couple of years so we can get to this
[18:08] fund balance again, I don't want to be taxing people for dollars we're not spending
[18:12] concurrently. Okay. Thank you for that.
[18:18] you may he may ask a question. Anyone else have a question on this item?
[18:20] okay. So I'll go to commissioner one each and then commissioner
[18:23] rodriguez with the stormwater management master plan. >> I'm trying to visualize it
[18:30] in my head. So what we will end up with there is similar to what we
[18:32] ended up with the roads and the sidewalks where it's a you know it's telling us green, yellow,
[18:37] red and a plan of how we're going to attack that it'll it'll identify opportunities
[18:44] for projects to do so so you know it'll give us a blueprint .
[18:48] these are the things that you should be doing to to become more resilient and have our
[18:51] infrastructure meet whatever demands are out there. So you know it'll be the cheat
[18:56] sheet if you will that then projects come from that and otherwise these projects have
[19:00] been substantially supported by general fund money property taxes okay because a stormwater
[19:04] rate fee is hasn't been realized or actualized because it's since you know 24 to 23
[19:11] years so the burden becomes a general fund property tax. You know the the concern the
[19:16] mayor has is is making up that that increase although wouldn't kick in till march and although
[19:22] it would be built on a quarterly basis they're trying to make up a long time but
[19:26] certainly the expenses in the projects are there or even project that we've done that we
[19:30] can from an accounting standpoint move from general fund to stormwater purely
[19:34] eligible we have plenty of those as well and so yeah we're trying to shift the
[19:38] model. I'm not speaking to the timing ,I'm just saying the concept
[19:42] wise we're trying to shift the model from general fund to ratepayer right to support you
[19:46] know these projects that are eligible for yeah and just to put a finer point on the
[19:50] manager's comment there's my concern is that unlike our property tax bill there's no
[19:57] with this scheme there's no protection for people on fixed income so they get they get
[20:02] passed along that cost the same as anyone else because there's not not subject to any sort
[20:05] of ad valorem exemption or any sort of save our homes protection.
[20:10] so for that person on fixed income they pay it's again relatively speaking because
[20:16] we're doing it. I think kudos to mr. Overall because we're doing the way
[20:18] we're doing where we are taking responsibility for the assessment and doing it as part
[20:22] of our water bill as opposed to on our annual assessment it comes in phased in so it's a
[20:29] much more manageable increase gradually but still I just want to make sure that when we do it
[20:33] you know we're doing it and it's not hitting the line item for more than what we need in
[20:36] 27. I do think we need to go to the to 24 and adjusted annually and
[20:43] keep to keep pace with inflation so okay and then just so that I am clear when we get
[20:47] this master plan I'm making this up the culvert on so-and-so street is read the
[20:54] you know cleaning of the canal and so and so street is yellow are out of that so that when we
[20:59] pick these things off we're not going from your city needs culvert repair like no duh
[21:06] where how badly like that yes it will provide us where we're deficient and where these
[21:14] opportunities are and then we and then we execute on that master plan.
[21:18] I mean, you know, won't be done all in one year. Obviously we'll have to
[21:21] prioritize. Thank you. So I think my answer was
[21:28] answered in little bits and pieces throughout. First these cip projects are
[21:32] already allocated on to our general fund as of right now all these stormwater these are
[21:40] proposed for fiscal year 27 if if approved these are on as part of general fund stormwater
[21:47] fund stormwater dependent on a rate change of approximately $222.
[21:51] >> correct? Correct. So okay so these are nowhere on
[21:55] our crb as of right now they're ownership funded by stormwater. So if you look at this the five
[22:01] year cip you'll see it there the project but it will say funding source stormwater drain
[22:05] trust fund okay because I just for clarification I think if we were to look maybe a year ago
[22:10] when we started planning some of these you may have found some under cap general fund
[22:17] funded, right? Correct and so and so in in right sizing the model of going
[22:21] to a ratepayer right and what should be the right rate I'm assuming that we probably
[22:25] converted some and I don't know exactly but we can look I probably assume that we
[22:28] converted some from general fund to the stormwater rate. So okay so there's been a
[22:32] reallocation that's a reallocation. So as I guess this would go
[22:39] into effect in march march 1st is what we're proposing with proposing as money start coming
[22:43] in we then start deciding on which projects to then start working on because we have for
[22:51] example I know this one just because I've been personally dealing with it like the one on
[22:54] 65th and 64th that's been already over a year that we've been working on it.
[22:58] so it says your construction in fiscal year 27 do we have the monies already allocated for
[23:02] that or is that something that we're going to wait on the stormwater for?
[23:07] >> that is a perfect example of one that will see ip funded in this fiscal year, correct?
[23:11] of which we've had issues and again public works can discuss on the design or getting back
[23:16] what's approved or not. So we decided let's move it because we're about to bid it
[23:19] or we haven't bid it yet but we're ready to 27 and put this as part of the project for the
[23:25] four stormwater. It's a stormwater project but it is dependent on a rate
[23:29] increase if it doesn't if the fund if the rate increase does not happen to the level needed
[23:36] we may not have enough monies to actually fulfill that project for a complete that
[23:39] project even though it was already on 26, correct? 100% that's correct.
[23:43] that's what I was trying to figure out. And just to add in in regards
[23:47] to what the mayor was saying, you're you're saying that we're basically have to go to the
[23:56] $217 in order to meet what we need to make these projects happen as proposed there on
[24:01] that sheet? >> yes. Okay.
[24:04] all right. Because I'm sorry. No, no, no.
[24:06] just I mean I I want to also be clear that that in fact we could go back to the c I p take
[24:13] a look at what's on that list and say, you know what? We're not going to do this and
[24:17] now free up some money. Okay. I just wanted to kind of be
[24:20] clear that that option is still available. I'm going to give the
[24:22] perception that that if the rate doesn't pass then we can't do it right?
[24:27] yeah, we could but something else is going to get sacrificed and then you're putting
[24:29] pressure on millage and property tax. Okay?
[24:32] this is the dynamic that we have, right? Okay.
[24:35] again and as the mayor would say, we also have to be sensitive.
[24:40] we spoke about it. You know, if you have $100 bill when you get to march, it's
[24:44] going to be $154 bill. So that's just something obviously you're telling us the
[24:51] importance of we need that money in order to do these projects.
[24:54] so but yeah, okay. >> that is based on the study that was done and conducted
[25:01] based on our historical projects and projects that are anticipated be the same rate
[25:03] study was done by the the individuals that are preparing the stormwater master plan.
[25:09] they're saying to have a fully functional self-sufficient stormwater drain trust fund to
[25:14] complete the needs 222 seems to be the right through rate. Okay thank you.
[25:19] good commissioner go ahead. I just had a quick question for dr. Munoz.
[25:27] what is the criteria for us to determine that these are bid ready?
[25:31] why why these particular projects like what what is the criteria for us to determine
[25:35] what's going to go forward with stormwater, you know, improvements what what are we
[25:41] using as a criteria? >> I mean this is they've been in design.
[25:45] the one in particular that was commissioner rodriguez was discussing has just been in
[25:47] design. We've gone through the design process and permitting with the
[25:50] county and it's ready to go in that regard. >> I understand I'm just asking
[25:55] like what is the criteria to get through that process? Like why why that st like what
[25:59] is it that we're using as a criteria to determine what's good good that's going to
[26:05] continue to happen when we go through the storm storage storm stormwater management planning
[26:09] right like they're going to have their own criteria. What is the differences in the
[26:12] criteria the determine that this was been based on just recurring flooding in the
[26:17] neighborhood and citizen complaints. I know that one is here before
[26:21] I got here it was just a historical area that floods all of these are based on resident
[26:27] complaints and going out and assessing making sure that you know that it's happening and
[26:30] that some type of project would fix it. Those are all responses the
[26:33] stormwater master plan is going to, you know, be a little more scientific in that regard.
[26:39] it's not going to be they do take that into consideration because they go to look but
[26:43] they're assessing those areas you know for a project specifically but these are all
[26:47] citizen complaints of the three of them. >> do you know what the
[26:48] scientific process moving forward going to look like? No.
[26:52] all right. Thank you. I was coming at me.
[26:54] yeah. Commissioner, to your point. Right.
[26:59] I mean some of these are generated by a complaint but obviously field observations
[27:02] you know, sometimes we get a heavy, heavy rain and if you drive at that moment you'll see
[27:07] a lot of standing water. But within 30 minutes it's probably gone right?
[27:11] so in those locations it just overwhelmed what was there but the system and or the swales
[27:15] did your job in some cases it does not, right? It just stands and it pools and
[27:22] some of these have been that. So when we bring in a consultant they go in, assess
[27:26] that and say hey why is this happening? And then they identify the
[27:28] deficiencies to what level of detail I can't really articulate at this point but
[27:33] the consultant will then take a look at it and say yeah, this is happening because of this.
[27:37] okay well then we need to fix that right? And so is that field
[27:39] observation that that then the consultant finds what the deficiency is and these are
[27:45] these are have had that journey no doubt that some of them are resident based that's that's
[27:51] who rings the bell first or we see it ourselves sometimes certainly not trying to respond
[27:57] to those that got overwhelmed because the rain that was so heavy sometimes it goes away
[28:03] it's fine you know 30 40 minutes later. So stormwater master plan you
[28:07] know takes that a little bit further. >> but each of these have been
[28:10] evaluated by a consultant to say there is a deficiency here and this is the way to to fix
[28:15] it right and I think yeah I think what I just wanted to get away from is like whoever
[28:19] screams the loudest usually gets whatever they want. So as we as we move into the
[28:25] 21st century here and we start getting digital twins of our cities and understanding
[28:28] elevations of circulations across the city, those are the things scientifically we should
[28:33] be able to identify and move forward on that like what we're going to be doing the rest
[28:36] of the city. So that's what I look forward to when I look at the storage
[28:40] management plan. So make sure that we have an understanding, you know,
[28:42] digitally and technology wise on how and what gets determined as well.
[28:47] you know and as was stated, the one on their 65th floods significantly they've gone out
[28:54] they've based on the elevations based on the water flow, they've actually redesigned
[28:56] that project to address the flooding. So I believe you we get I know
[28:59] what you're saying but these were like the manager said assessed and the projects were
[29:03] needed so I'm just looking for yeah, thank you and commissioner recognize again
[29:10] can you please tell me what bio swale the drainage demonstration project is versus
[29:17] what we're doing everywhere else? It's 1234.
[29:21] >> the fourth line. Yep that's exactly what it sounds like and which would be
[29:28] a project to test out how to better manage stormwater. We would do it in an area where
[29:33] there's just very little green space so to create green space that looks good and manages
[29:40] water at the same time and then we would take that same concept and apply it somewhere else so
[29:47] that one is a demonstration project. We would pursue a grant for
[29:49] that one in addition to the funding from here and it would help us to solve problems
[29:52] elsewhere in the city esthetically and sometimes it becomes a catch basin but
[29:59] instead of just having like all concrete you see some vegetation that's part of that.
[30:03] that's why the bio aspect of it but it's it's definitely a way to to trap you know standing
[30:10] water in and but you see a lot of vegetation surrounding that infrastructure and vegetation
[30:17] that to help with that but it's like a catch basin if you will where you'll see the little
[30:22] four inch drain that's only a grill and these cases the bigger build out that and
[30:25] sometimes you see in urban areas you're walking by and you see a bunch of landscaping and
[30:30] when you look down and see almost like a excavation if you will and that's the catch basin
[30:34] thank you for the question your comments then. Okay, I'll continue please.
[30:43] >> and this is my final slide. My final slide is general fund as you know, that's our
[30:47] operating fund. That's where our day to day operations come from.
[30:53] we have a surplus of $40,000 after taking our operational revenue against our operational
[30:58] expenses and we have a unrestricted ated unreserved fund balance of 5.7 million
[31:05] estimate and with that that concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.
[31:12] questions to mr. Overall before we open up the public hearing you recognize by the way I just
[31:20] wanted to add it's going back to your initial I have I have three items so for anyone one
[31:26] wants to add them for conversation I have underlying funding I wanted to discuss
[31:30] transit funding the 210 that's in this budget for general fund support and then the 150 that's
[31:37] required for etp spending and then storm water trust fund anything else we want to add by
[31:41] way of discussion items? Yes. Yes please.
[31:45] I'd like to add a brief conversation on the lot on 80th and us one as it relates to
[31:53] fuchs and the volleyball renovation. Okay.
[32:03] for the discussion items I'm on on pcp as well. Okay.
[32:07] anyone else is it I'd also mr. Revelle if you can and if you can give us a sense we
[32:13] obviously had some informing our budget, some assumptions about costs and whether we land
[32:20] this year, whether it's health insurance being a prime example, one that came well
[32:24] above probably what we estimated. Can you tell us where were the
[32:27] biggest changes in terms of our cost estimates because we were projecting going into not this
[32:34] year but also next year I think a pretty substantial surplus which is kind of underlying our
[32:38] whole plan to possibly to market and borrow to do public improvements.
[32:42] so can you give us a sense beyond health insurance where we have large drivers and costs
[32:49] or costs that exceeded our budgeted increases or projected increases for 27?
[32:53] oh yeah, sorry. >> so health insurance comes to mind obviously and I outlined
[32:57] it in the memo. Any other expenditures that have increased or from what I
[33:07] see from the estimate yeah. Yeah. Well for example what we
[33:11] budgeted call the cost of living increase at x and it came in at what it came in at
[33:18] estimated exactly what we anticipated because at 2.6 we're looking at 3.3% annually.
[33:24] if you look at it historically that's more or less where it falls on average sometimes it's
[33:31] upwards of six where those were the years of high inflation. Right now inflation for next
[33:35] year we're trying to get a hold of what it is it seems it's going to be greater than 3% for
[33:39] next year based on how the inflation is tracking right now.
[33:43] it started off great and then somehow we've gone into higher inflation rates so we're
[33:47] looking at that. But I'll our inflation hasn't been finalized.
[33:51] it won't be finalized until after december 31st. But right now inflation is a
[33:54] concern it is going to exceed for next fiscal year higher than the 3% that we anticipate.
[33:58] okay mayor, if I could please on that specific example the timing of when we look at
[34:05] inflation kind of sets that set in stone. I mean we when we look at it
[34:09] based on labor contract whatever going into july, we already know, right?
[34:13] so the 2.6 that we were allocating for this fiscal year will be that we're not so but
[34:18] we get that information early early on unlike health care where we start in june with a
[34:24] process and go through the you know, the broker and the proposals and all that and all
[34:28] the way into august at that point we you know, we're like right up to the line if you
[34:32] will. We don't know but but our cola based on when we look at it so
[34:36] people look at it at a later date in our case when the formula was 2.6 and that's what
[34:40] it's going to be it's not going to change you know, I understand.
[34:44] I just you know, there's been a lot of conversation between now and the end of the election
[34:47] cycle about, you know, what we're doing fiscally in terms of managing our budgets.
[34:52] and so, you know, we had a conversation I think our historic expense rate had been
[34:55] under increase about under 2% correct at this very time and you know, probably shocking for
[35:03] the public to hear that since 2000. Right.
[35:05] this government has less people than it had before. We had 156 total employees on
[35:10] payroll today where at 136 is that the right number? I think our position says 136
[35:16] so and shocked me preparing to go on the read of talk about this topic the county budget
[35:24] is also it's a 13.5% reduction in workforce over 26 years. The county has had a similar
[35:30] reduction workforce of about 7.5% it would be 20% but they added about 4000 employees in
[35:36] the last 8 to 10 years. So you know again I'm where we are seeing it looks like the
[35:44] only place that we may not be managing cost and again this is not intended to be in any
[35:50] way pejorative of what our staff does which I think he has done amazing job historically
[35:54] but where we struggle with costs containment is because everything has to pass through
[35:58] costs, right? Insurance, health care, etc. Maybe unemployment but but if
[36:05] it's fine but you know like other cities I think from a from a pension perspective
[36:10] we're not writing checks into our pension fund like a lot of other cities are to hit
[36:13] their targeted investment rate because we are fully funded or in excess of fully funded.
[36:20] so mr. Overall, if we were to be self-critical of where we could do a better job managing
[36:24] our expense side of the ledger ,right since we're being criticized for taking in all
[36:29] this revenue and being grossly misappropriated apparently you know per people at the state
[36:35] level where could we do a better job as a government in managing the expense side
[36:40] of the ledger? It's difficult to ask that question.
[36:42] I mean I'll tell you why because when we prepare this budget we take that into
[36:45] account exactly. So for me to say that we should be doing better in this, I
[36:50] would have already voiced and we would have incorporated it. Okay.
[36:52] so I can't truthfully I cannot answer that question but I think the budget that you have
[36:58] is as tight and as well and efficiently managed as possible just like the last three that
[37:02] we've put together I will I will add yeah I mean certainly we had an experience where
[37:07] where it was challenging right on the cap side certain projects that that were sort
[37:13] of very summarily estimated based on the info that we had and then and then going to
[37:18] market you know was substantial more right and that we've dealt with you know over the last
[37:24] three years maybe I think that's become less and less but that that is an example I was a
[37:31] manager I put those in the in the again I think they're necessary investments because
[37:35] we don't invest in infrastructure degrades over time but they're kind of in the
[37:39] almost in the want to category but just talking about the day to day yeah nuts and bolts
[37:42] operation example is something that had a big delta from from plan to and I would say those
[37:49] are it health care always comes in you know then in august and you know difficult for your
[37:54] health care is a we were projecting what kind of an increase for this budget in
[37:58] health care yeah in this particular budget we have I believe is 26 now I don't know
[38:03] what we asking well we were forecasting 10% we came in at 30 roughly right?
[38:09] yeah. >> plus or minus a couple percent more report over the
[38:13] experience the loss ratio right came in than the yeah okay yeah so we're at that mercy of that
[38:19] loss ratio which we don't see until pretty much we're at the adoption of the budget.
[38:23] understood. And we're here and to their credit I mean it was a $200,000
[38:27] hit to the budget but we the last couple of weeks we recuperated only to a $40,000
[38:33] deficit. >> so I mean that's so on on that change.
[38:37] but to your point the 57 nine an additional interest income where's that what's that coming
[38:41] from what's the underlying assumption that you're changing there so when we were preparing
[38:45] the budget for the workshop we didn't take into account that we were because we had the line
[38:48] of credit we paid for the bridge out of general fund. We replenish money from the gop
[38:54] into the general fund hence increasing the amount of interest income because we
[38:58] had a new $3.4 million that we didn't account for in the workshop.
[39:02] so that's where it's not made up. I didn't just so you didn't
[39:05] assume that the rate all sudden when we need $50 for an increase in the no it's okay
[39:09] taking into account from that perfect right so I think I think to give some context to
[39:13] maybe what you're saying and the big picture of you know commissioner spoke about
[39:17] november you know I'll share and I think I shared it individually you know we had a
[39:23] million dollars in our growth revenue as far as growth assessment three items took
[39:28] three quarters of that pretty much cost of living health care and underlying right at the end
[39:33] of the day so so you know before we start tacking on any contractual you know
[39:36] requirements whether it's labor or cost of living, coca-cola's embedded in contract or a
[39:44] little bit over three quarters of our budget our increase was eaten up by just three items,
[39:48] right? And and then the left of the balance was to deal with
[39:52] everything else. So those are challenges we've had reductions in a number
[39:55] of other areas that we reduced it there were requests that came in at higher levels that
[39:59] we didn't fund to that level and certainly you know we've continued to invest a little
[40:03] bit on the on the police side. It's been a multiyear effort because of the training that's
[40:07] been needed and more so now with you know, our younger demographics.
[40:11] but yeah, three items made up pretty much three quarters of $1 million but just wanted
[40:16] to get some of that into the conversations for the benefit of people maybe watching.
[40:21] okay we've got we've got five items can we add pedal on to there please?
[40:28] >> sure. Yes. I actually have that as a
[40:29] special revenue item as well you said below but down below. Yeah because it's okay where
[40:40] we'd like to start we'll start our line. Yeah.
[40:45] okay. Do you want to go? Let's go right to left since
[40:49] you gave us a preview of things to come mr. Calle go ahead. Look, I think that we made a
[40:53] commitment. You you know, I know 225,000 is a lot of money, but we never
[40:59] put any money into that parking besides the $75,000. What what else have we put in
[41:04] there? >> if you look at the historic budget and mr. Riverol can tell
[41:08] you we actually gave I believe it was $25,000 a couple of years ago to some
[41:13] development for the underline so yes, we have okay. So if you counted that you've
[41:20] given $100,000 so far but considering all the municipalities and county we've
[41:24] given very little compared to the rest of our neighbors and we have a mile of it right in
[41:28] the center of our city I don't disagree with you that we think it's a little bit of expensive
[41:33] but we haven't really done much with it at all. Right.
[41:36] so what we what my my idea was when we made that $300,000 commitment was let's try to see
[41:42] how it works, how how they're doing it and if we don't like it we pull back after one year.
[41:46] I mean that's what we've been saying. Well least I've been saying
[41:49] that since day one. Let's give it a try and I'm sure the rest of the cities and
[41:52] counties along their trail with us are saying the same thing and that's what I'm hearing.
[41:56] so that's why I'm saying let's leave it on the budget for this year.
[42:00] we've committed to it. We said we would I don't really want to get back on our word
[42:04] that we said that as a commission but that's just my thought process.
[42:10] but I do agree with you just for the record sorry. You know, I can agree with you
[42:15] that I think it's expensive. I, I can see where we could go in and committed one year like
[42:21] two things would be true at the same time. Have we actually given them the
[42:27] 75,000 year we gave it to them the one that was allocated for 26 but they submitted the
[42:34] project completion was in july the grant the ribbon cutting yeah.
[42:39] shortly thereafter the invoice came in and we processed the invoice.
[42:42] oh wow. All right. So 75 more efficient also in
[42:45] finance. So yes, we have paid the 75,000 is in their coffers.
[42:49] >> I'm in the position I think I've watched it since the beginning in the same way that
[42:56] commissioner will teach us that I just find this to be a ton of money for a city of our size
[43:01] but I don't I also agree with commissioner geier as far as that you know we made a
[43:07] commitment to give it to them but a lot of things have changed.
[43:11] this whole property tax issue you know things are coming up and I would think that maybe
[43:19] what we could do is keep it on the budget. But prior to dispersing any
[43:23] monies assess where we're at and I think bring it to the commission and have the
[43:28] commission at that point decide you know what it is that we want to do.
[43:31] finally with that monies because ultimately it's in the general fund right?
[43:37] yes. So but you know that money is is for maintenance, you
[43:41] know, of the underlying. So I'm assuming that they're going to be letting contracts
[43:47] based on, you know, the expected income. So I just say that from the
[43:50] standpoint of they're probably going to want to see if it's in or not and if it is I'm sure
[43:57] they're going to act on that. Right. And so I just agree that that's
[43:59] a good point. I I mentioned this a long time ago.
[44:03] I don't know have is there been any discussion as far as like if we can maintain our portion
[44:12] of the mile of the underlying or is that a big no no to them ?
[44:16] I don't I haven't been part of any conversation to that detail.
[44:20] has it been talked about? Yes, we've talked about it and then I would have to defer in a
[44:24] meeting that I did not attend. I don't know if that ever came up with the underlying.
[44:28] you remember? No. So formally I have not been
[44:32] part of any conversation with them that we've discussed it internally.
[44:33] yes. You know, maybe maybe what we can do is allocate the the
[44:40] labor, you know, to them to use it for for for our one mile where we are just simply paying
[44:48] for the labor portion of it. I don't know I'm just trying to come up with ideas.
[44:51] I do think that 225 is a lot of money for us right now with so many unknowns that it I have
[45:01] a related question so when you also you can come up for a second can you remind me what
[45:14] do we spend to maintain the segment of us one the median from roughly 57th avenue to the
[45:21] city limits on the south that you one one portion could could you your third party correct
[45:28] the third part I can get you the exact amount it's the third party because it's the contract
[45:32] is three phases. It's byrd sunset and this one ballpark.
[45:37] what do we spend we have to look at or not up ahead? You don't you can't give me a
[45:42] I'm going to think that portion is like 80 for the year. >> they come out twice every
[45:45] other week. What are they what do they do? The whole contract is like 100
[45:50] high high 100. Remind me one of the state what does the state give us for the
[45:53] maintenance just to run with 12,000. 13,000.
[45:55] so for that portion you know I feel the same way about the other ones they feel about that
[46:03] segment at some point we are I mean again, I don't know if we we don't use any of our labor
[46:10] against that a bad idea we don't use any of our labor to maintain those segments that
[46:13] are state owned, correct. >> it's all it's all third party conference.
[46:18] we're doing some garbage removal from there and we do the landscaping.
[46:24] we we replace the landscaping. We do it with our own with our own public works our yeah yeah
[46:28] they actually go out and do they're doing the maintenance of the trees that a certain
[46:32] height you know cutting the bushes weeds that's what they're doing on a regular
[46:36] basis they remove garbage when they're there but they don't remove garbage every week so
[46:40] we're supplementing the garbage removal. >> so I mean colleagues, I
[46:44] think we're we have to decide with the level of services that we want to maintain on that
[46:48] segment and maybe mr. Manager, I think we should we should have before we vote on this
[46:52] final budget some information from the analysis of what the intent level of services for
[46:56] the investment we're making. But you know certainly this is the hardest position has
[47:01] been to give us peanuts to maintain segments that are expensive and it becomes a
[47:07] cautious cost shifting exercise and so we don't complain about that honestly we take the
[47:12] contract every year and we just say hum, let's keep writing checks to maintain that
[47:15] segment. So I mean the irony to me of this whole conversation
[47:19] about property tax reform is that the entity that is engaged in the biggest cost
[47:24] shifting is the one that's criticizing how we're spending money, right?
[47:26] and so and that regulates all the major cost drivers rental rates have gone up 187% in 26
[47:34] years because who collects a tax and the misappropriated it every year is to be reinvesting
[47:39] in building public housing. It's the state of florida. Homeowner's insurance has gone
[47:43] up 244% over 26 years. Guess who regulates the insurance companies?
[47:49] it's the state of florida, right? So health care is tracking at
[47:55] 30%, right? All rates a year. Guess who regulates them,
[47:59] right? Same same governmental entity. But we like every other
[48:03] household experienced those costs as passed through us and I think you just want to
[48:07] highlight this one example of a pass through cost where we either choose to even though
[48:11] their assets we don't own and we're technically not responsible for but they are
[48:15] our front door, right? And so we have that roadway segment and now the underline
[48:22] that's an enhanced that's been main we did not contribute to it.
[48:26] we're going to have to choose at some point whether we want to maintain it in a way that's
[48:30] dignified and reflective of how our community wants to represent itself to third
[48:33] parties or we're going to find ourselves dealing with a condition that we deal with.
[48:38] we get off of our expressway and sunset where we see trash and chickens lining the right
[48:41] way. Right because the state of florida is not invest in
[48:45] maintaining that right away segment. So I think those are the
[48:48] choices. It's not cheap. It's not cheap and it's not
[48:51] cheap but I just highlight that is that's a reality of the world that we live in.
[48:55] right? We're getting literally it's I think it's like he said well
[48:57] again I was shocked that the contract that they gives you was what was $5,600 when I saw
[49:01] it. I mean clearly they're not marking that to inflation
[49:05] because I can't get my yard done. That's 12,500ft2 for $5,600 a
[49:08] year. So you know, I find the conversation in some ways that
[49:13] we're having and a larger policy level to be disassociated from reality.
[49:19] and this one about the underline yeah it's a ton of money let's find out the
[49:21] level of services but it's it's it's either we're going to step in and make sure it's preserved
[49:27] or the condition is going to degrade over time. That's my concern about not
[49:31] funding it. >> yes I'm ready for you I think and it's funny I actually
[49:35] have under the engineering capital and improvements and infrastructure projects two
[49:41] things highlighted I think that to say we have to spend x amount whatever x amount is and
[49:49] compare it to us one to sunset to byrd and the wrong person to have that conversation with
[49:55] because I say why are we doing it? Why are we doing it to the
[49:59] level that we're doing it? How do we maybe, you know, have a conversation, maybe it's not
[50:05] a conversation for us because apparently we're kicking the can up and that's fine.
[50:09] and and most of what you said I agree I don't agree here because if we can do byrd
[50:16] sunset and us one for less than half of what they're asking us for for this one mile there's a
[50:25] problem to say that we're going to do it just because nobody else is doing it to whatever
[50:32] level it is. I have a problem with that. And so if it comes down to a
[50:37] conversation of us having to see how our money is truly being spent because I've had
[50:43] this conversation before then that's what we need to do because then we as not only we
[50:48] I say we as a global we of residents in this city need to then truly understand how
[50:55] our money's being spent because when we look at this budget that's not the answer that
[50:59] we're getting. We're seeing a line item and we're not knowing what exactly
[51:03] that means change never happens if people don't get angry. Right?
[51:07] I think that there's a lot of decisions and conversations that are having and that we're
[51:13] having and we don't know what's happening in november. We don't know what's happening
[51:18] in january to to kind of then say well we're okay with funding it because we said we
[51:25] were okay with funding it. It's like saying my household budget is $3,000 a month.
[51:29] my husband lost his job but I'm going to still pretend that my household budget can maintain
[51:36] $3,000 a month. >> it's not realistic. And what we have lost her job.
[51:37] you know november we have to have this like you know what right now we're looking at a
[51:43] budget that has a $40,000 surplus $40,000 for a city that has a budget the size of ours
[51:51] is peanuts. I think it's equivalent to having $3 in your wallet if
[51:56] you're a regular house. So when we look at discretionary spending, look at
[52:03] paddle if paddle doesn't come online when they're imagining that it will, we're in trouble.
[52:07] I agree. And so then we're looking at what we've just heard is one
[52:12] of the three biggest drivers eating up $1 million that we just received to try to, you
[52:18] know, fill gaps not knowing what's going to happen in november or january.
[52:22] god only knows what's going to happen. I think that's out of control
[52:24] just like the rest of you think . But to then commit to a number
[52:27] simply because we said we were going to do it. Yeah.
[52:32] you know what my husband said he was going to buy me a new car three months ago.
[52:36] I'm still driving an 11 year old car. Why?
[52:38] because other expenses have deemed more of a priority than buying me a car when my car
[52:43] is fine. So I caution all of us to commit to $225,000 or whatever
[52:51] number it is that you deem I see it's 300 to be clear it's to 25 plus or 75.
[52:56] >> well 75 is in this year's budget. >> no, no, no.
[53:00] but so what you're seeing is the what the report is showing you is the change in
[53:06] above the baseline. That's the baseline for this. That's why that's even worse.
[53:11] how would you even point that out to me of all picos because I want to fight for here.
[53:15] okay. Fighting that down here we're fighting but we're going to
[53:17] discuss let's discuss it with so 300,000 dollars and you just made me want to cry on the dais
[53:20] so so I I I have no words for that. I'm turning off.
[53:27] I'm like, okay, so when you if you want to share with us to the segment yeah you said 80
[53:33] it's that segment is depending on how much we control we do it could be from 50 to 54,000 a
[53:40] year. Okay. What about me?
[53:41] no, it's just us one set us one segment. Okay?
[53:44] yeah. Okay. And that I met through the
[53:47] mare. Yes, sir. And that includes just what
[53:49] does that include cutting the bushes, cutting the trees up to ten feet for visibility
[53:57] purposes weed control, litter removal when they're out there once which I've had a lot
[54:04] of issues with this particular year that's it. We would pay to replace plants
[54:08] we would pay to replace mulch we pay we do the additional garbage removal ourselves.
[54:15] those yeah those are the main items. All right.
[54:19] so the two commissioner branches comparison apples and apples are not there.
[54:27] we don't know. First of all to my understanding I spoke to the
[54:31] chief about this the 300,000 also includes security. Right.
[54:34] our police are not supposed to go in security but we have I will tell you my husband had
[54:41] the pleasure of walking on the underlain behind first the maintenance person that was
[54:45] supposed to pick up the garbage that was on a stroll and did not pick up garbage and then
[54:52] when the security guy who was also not doing what he was supposed to be doing, I think
[54:56] we would do a much better job on the underlying than they would I don't I don't disagree
[55:01] with you that we don't but we're not comparing apples to apples.
[55:05] right. So if you want us to compare what we can do as a city, let's
[55:08] go have that conversation. What is it that we would pay with services or that maybe you
[55:12] have to dedicate to policemen or whatever the case may be on that model?
[55:16] let's compare those numbers from a landscape perspective. Let's compare those numbers
[55:20] what they're doing there and from a service perspective sorry to for the to inform the
[55:23] conversation that is once every other week they come out for like two days on that
[55:27] particular stretch. I don't this is us, right? Yes.
[55:31] I don't know what they're doing right. Let's just have that
[55:32] conversation and we're going to do apples to apples to apples, to apples and that way we can
[55:36] have the conversation in a very politically correct and you know, financially fiscally
[55:42] responsible way because I don't know what the answer is. We're here making assumptions.
[55:45] you're making an assumption that security is working or not.
[55:47] we're making assumption on what landscaping is doing. We're doing repairs through our
[55:51] things are our little playground are being constantly looked at or blown away or
[55:55] whatever the case may be or aren't being inspected with termites or whatever like all
[56:00] these different things that could happen on this one mile. I don't know what that is and
[56:06] we need to find that out but I guarantee you we don't have anything else that's going to
[56:08] do it for the city's perspective because we don't know what it is.
[56:11] so let's have that conversation . So again, I think let's you sir
[56:17] mayor this is a statement just apply generally not to any specific issue but I just want
[56:21] to kind of level set something as it relates to budget. Whatever we end up approving
[56:26] is a plan starting day one october 1st we manage this budget, take a look at revenue
[56:33] expenditures and you know not one not one revenue per say, you know, destabilizes the
[56:40] whole budget. Right. And we manage it.
[56:43] maybe we gave police x amount of dollars to do certain things.
[56:45] it happened this year I told the chief ratchet down on on training off duty which puts us
[56:51] into overtime because of the trend that we're seeing. So I just want to say that
[56:55] generally because are not it not one particular expense and our revenue destabilized the
[56:59] entire budget. I mean this is something that we have to manage throughout
[57:01] the year and this will be the same thing. Truth be told last year our
[57:05] operating net difference was only $98,000 more than what we're showing right now and
[57:10] this will change between now and the final hearing based on your input we'll go back to the
[57:14] drawing board. But yeah, I just want to give that general statement because
[57:17] a budget is a plan that gets manage every single day and we slow down or stop certain
[57:22] things depending on what happens from a trend standpoint investment rates you know the
[57:27] market goes to you know what if somehow the return is not what we anticipate it we manage
[57:33] accordingly. So that applies to anything that we're talking about.
[57:34] it's not specific to any one particular revenue and or expense.
[57:38] thank you. Your recognize go ahead. I just have a quick question.
[57:44] so the would this be a $300,000 payment due one point or is it or are we do we have the option
[57:54] basically is kind of find a happy medium where we can do what commissioner guy says
[57:59] where we can see how it's working out like basically do payments on a quarterly basis,
[58:03] see how it works out for a quarter. If the work then we pull it.
[58:07] if the work is good then we continue it you know can we find a happy medium like that
[58:13] where we're not spending all the money but yet we're still testing it out and seeing how
[58:18] it works? I look at it on me and I'm going to I'm going to jump in
[58:21] on that one because you're going back to the comment I said before I'm going to put
[58:24] myself in that situation as a city. I would not want to enter into
[58:28] a relationship that exposes me in that manner because I'm letting a contract in and
[58:32] committing myself to a contract based on a funding source that now somebody my partner then
[58:37] just pulled right in the middle of year so I as a city manager would be very careful entering
[58:43] a relationship like that. So I guess I'm speaking on behalf of the underline in this
[58:45] case I would be concerned if I were them that they let a contract.
[58:48] now they have these expense and we change our mind which this commission has a right to do so
[58:54] . But I'm just saying that operationally it definitely
[58:55] would be an impact that I would assume well I'm an entity I don't disagree with you but at
[59:02] the same time they have to also be able to work with us to we're giving them $300,000, you
[59:05] know, of city money that can go they can they can figure it out whether they do their contracts
[59:13] on the first year on a quarterly basis. There's there's ways in which
[59:17] they can work with us to that I'm just trying to again find it where we can do both sides
[59:24] you know and and meet in the middle if they're not willing to meet in the middle then we
[59:28] can just pretty much put up our hands and tell them well then if you're not going to work
[59:31] with us we're not going to work with you. I mean it's that simple.
[59:35] so mr. Manager, I think just so we can make some progress on these items let's just let's
[59:41] show this for the time being is a possible change out and can we get some clarification
[59:49] on the underline as to the timing of the payments and the scope of the work that's to be
[59:53] provided? Right. And what the ultimate what the
[59:55] what I mean if we do not participate, what the impact is to the overall meeting
[1:00:00] scheme. Okay. And then I know if we want to
[1:00:02] compare if we can do a quick comparison and if we wanted to step in and provide the
[1:00:06] maintenance on their behalf for the segment what it would cost us in terms of manpower, labor
[1:00:12] by by some sort of a comparison analysis maybe just to close the gap a little bit but and
[1:00:17] make a forward commitment of a of an amount in total or maybe that's the only commit we will
[1:00:24] make but if we can get some to compare that would be great clarification on yes basis
[1:00:27] you're talking about sweat equity like our internal staff versus you know there's well
[1:00:32] there's there's no sweat equity. >> so what equity comes at a
[1:00:33] cost and I'm assuming we don't have people lying around doing nothing right so it's come at
[1:00:37] the cost of doing or you're talking about our staff our staff doing something else
[1:00:40] right programmatically. So but I think we have to sign a value to it what it would
[1:00:44] cost us to do it on a per hour basis it's going to be it's going to be in my mind that
[1:00:50] we've got they're using as a firm I believe as their main provider for the corridor.
[1:00:54] my my understanding right. I don't I don't believe that as a firm is subject to collective
[1:00:59] bargaining agreement. So I'm going to guess at their per hourly rate per labor hour
[1:01:04] is going to be cheaper than ours. Right.
[1:01:05] because they're not subject to a you know, a cba. But I think we should clarify
[1:01:12] what that is and we've got to kind of impute a per labor our cost to doing that work if we
[1:01:17] were to do the meetings or so so we can actually compare to commission guys point apples to
[1:01:23] apples and understand how we should approach either making a grant for the full amount or a
[1:01:28] grant with conditions or you know, not making any grant and doing the work ourselves and
[1:01:34] seeing what the relative benefit is of one approach versus the other.
[1:01:38] okay. Do we want to talk about transit next?
[1:01:42] okay. Who wants to start are you going to start on the transit
[1:01:48] one? Look, I've been a proponent of trying to kind of change the
[1:01:51] mon which we deliver the service. I don't think that the service
[1:01:56] that we're getting right now warrants the continued investment.
[1:01:59] I certainly do not want to subsidize what we're doing with $210,000 of general fund
[1:02:05] support. I'd much rather honestly take the money to invest it in
[1:02:09] maintaining the underlying things. That's a capital asset that's
[1:02:13] going to make our city look better or worse given what the county's contemplating and
[1:02:17] continued service cuts. I'm not sure what we're trying to backfill for what should be
[1:02:21] a base service that they're offering. So I'd be a proponent of taking
[1:02:25] the to ten out of the budget canceling the service and then frankly I think we all saw that
[1:02:34] there was an item circulated about the manager remind me the term of the planning area that
[1:02:41] we've been discussing with you and coral gables, the term management area I rather take
[1:02:48] my understanding is that 150 that we're spending potentially could be eligible for funding
[1:02:51] that we could donate or contribute to the tme project is here how we can leverage
[1:02:56] that funding along with coral gables and allow us to deliver micro transit within a shared
[1:03:03] catchment area. And so I'd like to just bow to the pdp money of the 150 for
[1:03:07] that effort or a similar effort or just roll it over then we've got 2 to 5 years to spend that
[1:03:12] money down mr. River rolls out correct. And rather than just continue
[1:03:16] to burn money on a service that that's not really moving the needle those are my thoughts
[1:03:22] merit yes or a reminder that we also recently got a proposal that from from over at that at
[1:03:31] that rate at the 20% basically hundred 50 which we still haven't had a chance to brief
[1:03:35] you on it because we just got it I think we're trying to schedule a meeting.
[1:03:37] so does she know that that unless I changes the ball dramatically I mean I think my
[1:03:43] comments for now hold assuming we do we keep to what we're doing.
[1:03:46] yes or you recognize thank you I think and everything you said I'm very I'm not happy with
[1:03:55] using veo right now. I think that we're just wasting the money.
[1:03:59] I am interested though in to see what uber has to offer at least hear it out.
[1:04:06] but if there's another way that we can invest the money I would I just don't agree with the way
[1:04:13] that that metro connector via operates their system and there's constant you know there
[1:04:21] you know that they're crushing they're making senior citizens walk I just I don't think we're
[1:04:29] the bang for the buck is not there I think we should explore other options if for the
[1:04:36] comments yeah I've been I've been working alongside coral gables and university of miami
[1:04:41] to get the team up and going. There's an organization that's been thought about where the
[1:04:48] coral gables university of miami us and the chambers and I'm going to have a
[1:04:52] presentation for you guys the next commission meeting but the ideas that we started working
[1:04:56] collectively together understanding how we get to the last mile, how we integrate
[1:05:01] bird, how we integrate uber, how we integrate the trolley system.
[1:05:04] so the idea was to get as many kids from coral gables or from miami into work into our town
[1:05:11] center in an easier way because right now the borders are a stop for everywhere.
[1:05:18] so there is something that's being proposed. You'll get that on on in the
[1:05:22] fall and commission meeting but I don't think the number for the allocation of what we can
[1:05:27] do financially is that warrants 150,000 like you were saying mayor I think it's going to
[1:05:31] start with a smaller number so we because it's a process, right trying to get all these
[1:05:35] people together but collectively there's a lot of funds that can be allocated
[1:05:39] that we can do some pretty good things with it. So I agree with that.
[1:05:42] it's just I don't know if I would spend the whole one fifth we get to reserve it anyway.
[1:05:46] we only use it for that purpose so I would just say we reserve it for yeah I would only ship
[1:05:52] in maybe 20 to 30,000 but then you know we can allocate the rest of it but we'll see how
[1:05:56] that goes and we'll see what the presentation says in a couple of weeks.
[1:06:00] okay. Madam commissioner, you I, I agree that I think we're
[1:06:06] throwing money into like an abyss. I know that we can use the p t
[1:06:10] p funds for different things and if we are going to bank it to see what's going on by the
[1:06:18] way you guys are saying I keep thinking tmi but so the public at large has no idea what you
[1:06:26] guys are talking about because I am the public at large and so I say yes I agree we should
[1:06:33] bank it. I agree we should sever ties. I also think that we should
[1:06:40] look at alternatives for what we may need because one pops into my mind automatically and
[1:06:44] that is this can be used to build a little tarp over the bus bench.
[1:06:51] I know that the seniors have been talking about the one that's in front of community
[1:06:55] newspapers, the one in front of their you know, their homes is covered.
[1:06:58] it's perfect. The other one it's like you're sitting being, you know,
[1:07:02] tortured by the sun. So I'm sure just like that one there are others that we could
[1:07:09] possibly use those funds for. So yes, bank it. Yes.
[1:07:12] maybe to what you're saying because I have no idea. We're talking about but keep in
[1:07:16] mind other things you agree okay so consensus is we do not want to continue the service
[1:07:24] with $210,000 general fund support. Okay.
[1:07:28] and bank the 150 required spend for in a reserve rose ball expenses to be determined.
[1:07:34] okay okay so that's the direction to stuff okay storm water trust fund any thoughts
[1:07:41] on on that item? >> yes ma'am. I think we all probably feel
[1:07:49] the way that you mentioned earlier that it feels like a big push in all at once.
[1:07:56] I don't know how much of a difference it makes to the majority of the populace
[1:08:01] of this city. I know me personally I probably wouldn't think much of it but
[1:08:08] someone who is in a position like limited income or fixed income will have maybe a
[1:08:16] problem with that. So I ask the same thing can we phase it in and how do we how
[1:08:23] does that look and what have you? So I understand that not having
[1:08:27] anything change in 24 years means we have a lot of ground to cover.
[1:08:35] I just worry a little bit about how that's going to be for I'll be it.
[1:08:42] it's a small population of our city that you know might have sticker shock but there still
[1:08:46] are people for the comments. I would I would say because I was also taken aback by what I
[1:09:00] mean you're looking at 50% increase on on your bill. Again, I use the example of 100
[1:09:07] books then it will be 150 for and I think you know the difficult and you know after
[1:09:13] thinking about it after I left the meeting and all that it's just you know, the difficult
[1:09:16] part of our job is that we have to make difficult decisions sometimes and if putting that
[1:09:23] $5,054 on the water bill allows us so our city as a whole does not get flooded during storms
[1:09:31] then I think it's a well worth the investment and sometimes like maybe maybe the general
[1:09:35] public won't fully understand it well when we're in a storm and everybody can walk on their
[1:09:40] streets and there's no flood then they'll truly come to appreciate it again we have to
[1:09:43] make difficult decisions sometimes but what do we want that difficult decision to look
[1:09:50] like? Do we want to phase it in all at once?
[1:09:51] do we want to make it come in to I have I have heartburn raising something over 400% in
[1:09:57] one fell swoop. That's what we're doing. Right.
[1:10:00] and so we had talked about doing this over time. We have needs I want to fund
[1:10:05] those needs. We certainly should not be continue the practice that we
[1:10:08] had here historically which is, you know, having the g.f. Subsidize activities that could
[1:10:12] be funded with a stormwater fee . We know what the number
[1:10:16] is based on the study that we've been we underwrote and spent money on so we should
[1:10:20] follow that number. My only my only my only comment to staff is I agree with the
[1:10:23] plan to get up to 222 and beyond the numbers have to change year to year we're going
[1:10:29] to have to have the courage to keep it, have it keep pace with inflation so we can meet our
[1:10:34] needs. But my question is what do we need for fiscal year 27 and
[1:10:39] let's target that number to what we need for fiscal year 2027 what we plan to and can do
[1:10:47] in this fiscal year, right. I don't know that we need all all the items or identify I
[1:10:51] don't know that are all projects we're going to realize or spending we're going to
[1:10:54] realize in this year. So I would say bring it back if you can mr. Manager a listing
[1:11:00] of the items that we are highly confident that we're going to you know, design and or let
[1:11:04] this fiscal year that we need the money in the bank for to spend and if that number then
[1:11:09] translates into $200 or $150 or $80, I think that's a more prudent way to balance the need
[1:11:18] right in the past and phase in the cost to meet that need than just collecting the 222 all at
[1:11:24] once and hoping that we get these projects done this year. I mean my experience here in
[1:11:29] four years is that as much as we try very hard we tend to not deliver the improvements as
[1:11:33] quickly as we plan. So it seems to me that the $580,000 project is the most
[1:11:42] ready to go project expenditure again it's probably 55% of the funding so I'm thinking
[1:11:46] the fee is going to have to be somewhere in the realm of you know $120, 110, $230 in order
[1:11:55] to kind of get us to fund that one project. You know, those are my first
[1:11:58] thoughts. Let's fund what we need as opposed to kind of getting the
[1:12:03] rate where we where it should be in one fell swoop and we'll continue to ratcheted up to the
[1:12:09] target number and maybe next year it's out to 22 for 20 year should be 2 to 30 it will
[1:12:15] increase it to kind of meet the next tranche of capital projects and fund what we fund,
[1:12:19] what we have planned and is ready to advance. Yes, sir.
[1:12:23] I mean I'm okay with that. I just don't know how feasible and talking to mr. Riverol to
[1:12:30] increase it every year over year I I've seen you struggle with you know locals and legal
[1:12:35] with the county I just don't know how feasible I think we we passed a number on to the water
[1:12:39] sort of what we do we not I mean if you can clarify that I think because I know it's been
[1:12:44] a struggle once we move away from the property tax it's easier to change the fee
[1:12:52] because it's a it's a regular resolution fees schedule change like we're doing tonight.
[1:12:57] tonight we have a fee schedule change. It's elimination of a fee from
[1:13:01] the schedule it takes a resolution where doing it on the property tax it's like
[1:13:04] moving earth you have to send first class mail to all property owners and so forth.
[1:13:09] it gives us more flexibility once you go to the water, the fee, the utility billing so fee
[1:13:15] so to the mayor's point then it's it's a lot easier for you to work with.
[1:13:19] wazni to start at 105 the go to 181 80 and then 222 in a three year span we can do that and
[1:13:26] again to piggyback on this question if there's a need for funding that we're projecting,
[1:13:30] we can almost make that change quarterly. We're not limited to doing it
[1:13:33] in the context of the budget, correct? I have to read the interlocal
[1:13:37] agreement because whenever I do change any of the fees I don't know if there's a special
[1:13:41] assessment that's I'm not saying there is. I'm just saying I don't know
[1:13:45] because I I'm still waiting for the county to send over the interlocal agreement which
[1:13:48] is being reviewed in their office. So we're actively pursuing that
[1:13:52] interlocal agreement but subject to there is no if we change the fee it's no no
[1:13:59] surcharge it's as easy as a fee schedule. >> so if you if I think for the
[1:14:03] for our next board hearing if we can get some clarification on the process right great
[1:14:06] idea. Right. So if we get some clarification
[1:14:07] on the process I mean if it is it who's the is the tax collectors office?
[1:14:14] no, the tax collectors is what is was do this is was in this case county it's been at the
[1:14:18] county attorney's office for the last okay. >> prior probably about two
[1:14:22] months. Okay. So let's call someone let's
[1:14:23] call someone and get them to get us an information here this week and I'm happy to help if
[1:14:29] we need to we can call I was going to say good luck, you know, and then and then I think
[1:14:34] we I would love to see like a plan to pay for revenues with expenses so we can phase this
[1:14:38] in right as we need it. Right if we need it all if we're not more I'm on board
[1:14:44] with commissioner rodriguez. I think you know better practice to do this than what
[1:14:48] we've done for umpteen years which is lined up the funding source with with the funding
[1:14:53] need but I don't want to just stick it to people and particularly in this context
[1:14:57] think about where we we're talking about property tax reform and we're going to
[1:15:02] increase a fee for 100 plus percent without needing the money right away.
[1:15:05] >> just want to be sensitive to that that environment as well. And let me just say I do agree
[1:15:10] with that. Yeah, we only need 180 right now.
[1:15:13] let's just go for the 180. I'm I'm for that hundred percent.
[1:15:17] I'm just saying that we make difficult decisions. We're going to have to at some
[1:15:21] point add to their fee no matter what. No, no.
[1:15:24] yeah that we've all we've all know we all agree with that. Yeah.
[1:15:26] yeah. Okay. Thank you.
[1:15:28] okay, commissioner, you had a question regarding parcel and industry in the us one and
[1:15:34] folks in volleyball court improvements when we were talking about the acquisition
[1:15:41] of that property we said I had actually said let's make it a dog park and the the
[1:15:49] contribution during that conversation was that the dog park would likely be better
[1:15:54] suited at fuchs because you're away from the us one noise and traffic I think it's
[1:16:00] interesting that somebody today actually sent us an email that said it's not good for kids but
[1:16:05] it's going to be fine for dogs and that that it I don't think that made a lot of sense to any
[1:16:11] of us because I think they're both equally sensitive to that type of noise.
[1:16:16] so it reminded me of the conversation that we had about the volleyball area at
[1:16:22] fuchs becoming the dog park. So when I saw this today where we're allocating $80,000 for a
[1:16:29] volleyball renovation, it prompted that whole thing in my mind I don't want us to spend
[1:16:39] $80,000 on renovating a volleyball court that I'm not sure how much you think as I
[1:16:44] think it would be great for you to let us know but if we wanted to be a dog park because we
[1:16:51] don't want it on 80th and us one then we need to move this money and make it a dog park.
[1:16:57] you know I know that there was a conversation that we've been able to reopen or are reopening
[1:17:04] this sliver of dog park that I can take my dog to but you can't take your dog to because
[1:17:09] it's not big enough. So I. I think before we jump into a
[1:17:16] sand volleyball renovation we need to come to a decision on what we're doing for that dog
[1:17:23] park and I'm sorry to disappoint. >> do we not approve that
[1:17:26] contract last meeting for the for the volleyball court renovation of fuchs we rejected
[1:17:31] the bids because the pricing just was completely out of whack and we just had the
[1:17:35] experience of the dr. Parcel recent renovation. So system director and I talked
[1:17:42] about it so we rejected the bids and put it back out with some changes just clarification
[1:17:46] commissioner the the area that when we were thinking of potentially a dog park was
[1:17:50] not the volleyball area but east of the the play structure. >> so there's a space here
[1:17:55] towards the canal right closer to the canal that green space was was the area you mean the
[1:18:02] canal think where where we just had an incident five seconds ago.
[1:18:05] no but I'm saying like we I don't think that's the idea, guys.
[1:18:10] I don't think that's the best use of the space. >> no, I'm just clarifying that
[1:18:14] when we were looking at it and we went back it was a green space just on the other side
[1:18:18] of the play structure. Yeah. And then that's the original
[1:18:21] puddle where we were going to do it yesterday exactly that this is all that same
[1:18:25] conversation that we had. We were like do we do paddle? Do we do the dog park bro?
[1:18:30] and I, I can't remember exactly who said we could always do the dog park fuchs because it
[1:18:37] is more of a neighborhood. I think I said it yeah it might be so I want us to have that
[1:18:43] conversation now can we have that conversation now? >> could we?
[1:18:50] yeah. So you recognize that don't forget the answer on that
[1:18:53] because you had talked about opening the dog park. I I'll just give you an update
[1:18:57] . Mr. Tyson is working already on relocating the fence and we're
[1:19:01] going to reopen it. The cost analysis of the 15ft and the insurance that may be
[1:19:06] required to satisfy, you know, the arcs which you know, rightly so.
[1:19:11] so we've notified them that we're those 15ft we can do without and we're just going to
[1:19:14] move the fence and then we're going to reopen the dog park. So I just want to give you that
[1:19:19] update. Thank you. So again, if you can what is it
[1:19:24] you want to discuss if you can reframe it for me, I apologize. >> sure.
[1:19:26] I'm like do we need that volleyball there? Can't we make it?
[1:19:31] I mean right now it's if I'm not mistaken it's sand and sticks and a net, right?
[1:19:36] >> it's a pretty nice no no. But I'm saying it's not like we're knocking down a building.
[1:19:40] no, we're not doing any of that . So if we wanted to use that
[1:19:44] space for a dog park it's something that would be feasible now versus spending
[1:19:50] $80,000 and then saying oh by the way, mr. Mayor. Yes.
[1:19:54] I mean I think maybe we can have the director come up here and just like explain to us
[1:19:57] with the programing with the thought process was because I'm not really sure either.
[1:20:01] >> so okay, I'll just tell us what you're thinking. Yeah.
[1:20:03] john tyson, director for parks and recreation oh yeah. As the manager mentioned this
[1:20:06] up as the manager mentioned the space that was we believe would be more feasible for the dog
[1:20:14] park would be on the east side of the playground on the space to the west of it which
[1:20:17] is currently a sand volleyball court has much more limited capacity and you would have a
[1:20:21] significantly smaller dog park. We've I've worked with a few contractors if I can.
[1:20:27] I don't think the question is whether that space should be the dog park.
[1:20:29] I think she's asking whether the dollars the renovation of the volleyball court are
[1:20:35] better used to creating a dog park at fuchs. Is that correct or even
[1:20:39] eliminating the sand volleyball ticket altogether and making it a bigger space?
[1:20:43] I would say stay away from the canal. >> I don't know.
[1:20:47] it's not it's it's not close to but there's a like a line of trees.
[1:20:50] there's a road there's a there's there's additional greenspace before he gets the
[1:20:55] canal. It's it's not so dude I've seen a gator climb the fence at the
[1:21:02] university of florida trying to get into the preschool but yeah I know that some of those on
[1:21:06] your football team there you go so I, I would say you know if we don't have contracts for
[1:21:13] that sand volleyball court, how much does it really get used and could we maybe do you know
[1:21:20] a dog park there and something different? >> yeah, I mean I mean
[1:21:25] certainly that is absolutely an idea that can be done. I think that would require
[1:21:28] relocation or movement of the actual playground structure that exists there now
[1:21:33] I think from a not only from an esthetic standpoint but from a safety standpoint there has to
[1:21:39] be some separation between having a dog park right next to a playground and I can tell you
[1:21:43] from my experience that would definitely be a concern of mine.
[1:21:47] so I think could you could you get rid of the volleyball court?
[1:21:51] yes. And slide the the playground structure over it just makes it
[1:21:54] significantly more. Yeah, it would be a much larger project if you were to do that
[1:21:59] and you know, just in my opinion, you know, the current volleyball system that exists
[1:22:03] there it is in need of repair and some care and some love. I know personally I have
[1:22:09] aspirations for this department to to go for capra accreditation and
[1:22:14] standardization is a significant part of that and we just made significant
[1:22:18] improvements over at donte for sale and to have the fuchs volleyball be in poor condition
[1:22:24] with poor sand I think wouldn't necessarily be right and that's the one that we leave open to
[1:22:28] the general public. We we traditionally don't rent that one out because most
[1:22:31] of our programing operates out of that type of cell. So to have that one you know it
[1:22:36] is utilized by there are some groups that go out there on saturdays and sundays that use
[1:22:40] it and they have voiced that you know, they would they would like for those in those
[1:22:44] conditions to improve. Okay. So then that brings me to the
[1:22:49] question of if we're keeping the sand volleyball, where's the dog park we keep talking
[1:22:55] about do we have parking impact fund money? How are we we we can't just
[1:23:03] talk about it and then never do it and I think as a city I mean you look at us there are four
[1:23:10] 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
[1:23:14] dog but there so six of us or six of us have dogs and not all six of us play or whatever
[1:23:21] whatever insert whatever it is there. So I think that is city the
[1:23:28] size of ours with the populations separated the way that we are we need to be able
[1:23:34] to find the money to do this so so two things one is we have we have a parks master plan that
[1:23:41] has told us we have an lower level service need of an another another dog park.
[1:23:44] yes. Okay. But in the northern part
[1:23:45] of the city not in the southern part. That is correct.
[1:23:48] I would tell you that the one that we have is inadequate. I think we probably better off
[1:23:52] closing it and building a dog park and folks right to have a a serviceable dog park.
[1:23:56] right. They could actually, you know, accommodate more people and
[1:24:00] larger dogs personal opinion. But if we're going to build the second one right it should be
[1:24:06] definitely north of us one of the very least not that south of use one.
[1:24:11] so I think that's what our study has told us in terms of options I mean if that is a
[1:24:15] concern I mean we just need to take the study that we is it finalized yet our parks master
[1:24:20] plan is finalized and to your point you are correct at this point we just need to kind
[1:24:23] of have staff come back to us and say of the options that we have what's the best option
[1:24:27] that we can execute against? That's how I would like to have the conversation.
[1:24:30] yes, sir. I think in my humble opinion I kept present company excluded
[1:24:36] and I don't mean to take a dog park away from you but I think in in fuchs you know take away
[1:24:41] we don't have to you you know I think our fuchs we would be servicing a lot of a
[1:24:47] residential area that isn't is in south miami I think if we if we move it to more
[1:24:55] of the manor lane location now we service our our residents and I think that that should
[1:25:02] be, you know, a priority for us . Where is it that we're
[1:25:07] servicing our residents more than just, you know, county residents that can use the
[1:25:10] park? So I would would just leave fuchs I would really I, I
[1:25:14] understand you want to do the the volleyball. I do think that if you weigh a
[1:25:21] program of a dog park and volleyball you're going to get 100 times more usage out
[1:25:26] of the dog park group. So maybe reallocating the money from from that and maybe we can
[1:25:34] start something at manor lane and see what it would be because eventually that's the
[1:25:38] interest of our city. We have to do something rather than just leave it the way that
[1:25:43] it is. So something's going to have to be done there.
[1:25:45] I don't I wouldn't be against having a dog park there just for clarity is are you
[1:25:49] referencing the dog park at fuchs park or a no, no, no I manderley manor lane there
[1:25:56] you'll be servicing our actual resident and rather than that fuchs you're really servicing
[1:26:04] more of county residents that are there were limited as far as how many south miami
[1:26:08] residents go there mayor so is recognize just to follow up on that yeah what is the plan
[1:26:15] where are we in the process? What what we want to do with the 80 st manor lane parker so
[1:26:19] I recently had a survey put out through door hangers to the immediate neighborhood within a
[1:26:26] ten minute walking radius of that site. So we we have gotten those
[1:26:31] results back and are currently marrying those and kind of looking at those in
[1:26:35] comparison to what has been identified in our master plan. I can tell you that a dog park
[1:26:40] has come up on there but in reference to our master plan overall it may not necessarily
[1:26:46] be the level one priority of what the city would need in comparison to other amenities
[1:26:53] and also what the immediate community necessarily wants in that respective area.
[1:26:58] and I get that it's for the broader community. You know the manor lane site
[1:27:02] is for south miami as a whole but like I said, we're currently looking at both the
[1:27:06] survey results and also the the master plan and combining those efforts to figure out what's
[1:27:12] best to do at that park. >> okay. I have one thing to say.
[1:27:16] yes. When we're looking at the park impact fund and I don't know if
[1:27:21] this is a you or a you conversation once these dollars that you've allotted here are
[1:27:28] spent, what do we have left? So if we wanted to say whether we wanted to say yes, let's do
[1:27:35] a dog park or hey no let's do I don't know a park where we play tiddledywinks like where that
[1:27:44] money even come from. That's definitely that's yeah you will defer to well I do
[1:27:48] what I can say is there are funds allocated for manor lane design in the capital budget so
[1:27:55] that could be allocated to that while also still doing the future volleyball project you
[1:27:59] know at the same time. So if there's an opportunity to do both would be greatly
[1:28:04] appreciated and you know by myself and in also I think the broader community as well.
[1:28:08] thank you just for clarification on the on the existing dog park it's not a
[1:28:15] heavy lift to open it up. I mean we got to redo the fence and given that any alternate
[1:28:18] location will require a heavier investment that that it's not allocated at this time
[1:28:25] figure let's just open it up it's providing it would provide a service not a heavy lift and
[1:28:29] as we decide and plan where there could be a better location if really yes you're
[1:28:36] right nice so I haven't seen the survey but if if if the written in option is leave it
[1:28:44] as is that's not an option. I I hope I agree I hope that's relate to the community I think
[1:28:52] something has to be done there I graham and also second if you go down by my lifetime under
[1:28:59] the under the the underline in like gables girl correct okay in the underline there's now a
[1:29:07] dog park there I have seen under the metro rail yes so this would be kind of mirroring
[1:29:10] or mimicking what they're doing there and do it on manor lane it would be pretty much the
[1:29:18] same thing. Absolutely. So it's not like it hasn't been
[1:29:20] done before. Understood. Yeah.
[1:29:25] okay. Thank you. We appreciate you.
[1:29:27] no problem. Thank you guys. Okay.
[1:29:32] the last thing we had a comment on on revenue. Right?
[1:29:35] left. Yeah. Okay.
[1:29:36] am I left you had to comment on that as well? No, I just obviously we need to
[1:29:42] be pushing I mean the but the revenue numbers for us are counting on that.
[1:29:44] so yeah, we need a lot of fire pretty simple because we were expecting it in the budget so
[1:29:53] if it's not going to happen then it's not going to happen. We got to take it out and we
[1:29:56] got to yeah I don't I'm not sure that we and I'm not sure that I love this practice
[1:29:59] of budgeting the revenue but I mean just because given where we are but let's get some
[1:30:05] clarification on their timing and the feasibility of it because it is it is a
[1:30:09] substantial amount of money that does not come through. We're going to have a
[1:30:11] significant all about it. Yeah, we booked the revenue in january although originally
[1:30:16] there were some conversation about october but to be abundantly cautious it was
[1:30:21] booked in january they you know had some delays in their process as far as the
[1:30:25] structural and the calculations and wanting to use a private provider.
[1:30:31] and so I had a walk through last january before the agreement was done and you
[1:30:37] know, that took a bit I think they will say which may have been you know, they're just a
[1:30:41] business decision to hold up and not do certain things but I had to walk through purposely
[1:30:45] in january to identify some of these things because I knew structural was going to be at
[1:30:49] the top of the list of having to get that opinion. So we've had multiple emails in
[1:30:55] the last three weeks about where they're at and and they had provided they were going to
[1:31:00] come in and provide well they decided to go private provider as a as a as a project so so
[1:31:07] the revenue is booked is for for january can they still make that you know possibly we'll be
[1:31:15] getting another update I've been emailing them about every ten days just to see where
[1:31:18] things are at. This is one of the items that I reference when I say if we have
[1:31:31] an outpouring of funds and this does not come through we have a hole in our budget every month
[1:31:37] starting in january. You know let's run that out $20,000 that we then have to
[1:31:43] you know, scramble to try to find. So that's just a perfect
[1:31:49] example of what I was talking about. >> I agree.
[1:31:53] and then and one other thing is yes, ma'am. Anything else I see engineering
[1:31:57] capital improvement and infrastructure projects. I know you all are going to
[1:32:03] hate me when I see page three of the budget I'm on page 345 safe streets for all we've
[1:32:10] allotted here $500,000 almost $469,000 to try to fix the problem of people getting hit
[1:32:20] on us one bird road and sunset as you made mentioned before, those are not our streets but
[1:32:28] we are responsible for them when we're doing landscaping here we are taking it another
[1:32:32] step further with a huge chunk of money you don't need to tell me we've got a problem on us
[1:32:41] one with people getting hit or accidents happening. I think the entire world knows
[1:32:46] that to make it seem like we're going to throw $470,000 at this and put up three little signs
[1:32:56] and maybe have a police officer sit there or whatever. I think that's not the best use
[1:33:03] of our money and I said it when the presentation happened we are taking on things that are
[1:33:08] the responsibility of the county or the state because those streets run
[1:33:12] through our city. It doesn't make any sense to me and I don't think we should do
[1:33:19] it. >> so manager what's the funding source for that?
[1:33:21] two 3770 345 I it has as a p yes. >> yes a safety action plan and
[1:33:34] b so unless somebody else's for all of this yeah correct it's in the c ip the reason we
[1:33:39] identified with the sap is so that you understand the project came from a safe streets study
[1:33:46] but it is being funded from three of 1301 which is the c ip which is our money general fund
[1:33:53] money. Thank you. Yes general which line amazon
[1:33:56] it's 345 is the highlight it's it's in the pretty much in the middle the page or yeah if you
[1:34:02] look at where it says engineering capital improvements and infrastructure
[1:34:05] projects there are two items if you look at the tag it says sap and green one is 269 231 is two
[1:34:14] 3770 and these are estimates that were put together by the engineer who's conducting the
[1:34:19] plan. I mean they're not hard bids. These are estimates based on,
[1:34:23] you know, the planning efforts based on what has been identified as a deficiency,
[1:34:26] what it may take to correct that. >> and then they give these
[1:34:30] estimates and we hand it to the state and let them figure it out.
[1:34:33] >> all right. And commissioner, just for the record, one of those is the us
[1:34:37] one project. The other one is localized is our streets just okay so
[1:34:41] distinction of the two numbers I think we should do our you said not the other you said it
[1:34:45] at the meeting when we reviewed I said before yes and we're totally we focused on a local
[1:34:51] project with a high priority which is that 69th one which is the larkin metro rail
[1:34:55] connection has a lot of foot traffic and no crossings and it was a high incident area.
[1:34:59] >> thank you for remembering what I said. I appreciate it.
[1:35:02] okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Rodriguez let's hopefully
[1:35:07] to close yeah, I just wanted to ask because I couldn't see this to the manager mr. River do we
[1:35:17] have because I couldn't find so regarding the city hall development do we have anywhere
[1:35:25] in the general fund there if we need any shortfall money have we allocated anything any
[1:35:29] monies for that in this budget we don't have anything allocated all right now it's
[1:35:36] still all cost recovery monies that we received from the developer that we're
[1:35:40] replenishing to get the agreement. >> at least you're talking
[1:35:43] about the financing of the construction? >> yeah.
[1:35:44] if there's any shortfalls or anything like that that we've got to put up money.
[1:35:48] >> we have nothing in this but this particular budget for fiscal year 27 we have nothing
[1:35:51] in now we kept it off the cfp as well because we have a crt that's one of the discussions.
[1:35:57] anything that's in the crt can be funded with crt money. So to in the name of precaution
[1:36:03] we left it off the p I think let's let's level set which is we're not expecting to have
[1:36:08] any capital expenditures on the year they started in 27.28. Yeah right.
[1:36:14] okay. Just really quick on this subject matter just for
[1:36:18] everybody to keep I don't know if we actually made decision I discussed this with the manager
[1:36:24] are we going to finally approve doing the fifth floor? >> can we let's let's table
[1:36:31] that conversation for okay I just wanted to bring it up. >> okay.
[1:36:35] okay. Seeing nothing else on the budget in a motion to adopt
[1:36:39] item one we need to open a public hearing. Oh, we need open public
[1:36:42] hearing. Okay. And wait.
[1:36:43] but we do. There's any member of the public would like to
[1:36:45] address this commission on either items 1 or 2 on tonight's special city
[1:36:50] commission meeting regarding the city budget. Please come forward at this
[1:36:52] time, madam clerk and also if there's anyone on line if you could recognize them as well.
[1:36:57] no one is on line see no one in the chamber coming forward and no one on line.
[1:37:02] we will close the public hearing on the budget items one and two is there a motion to
[1:37:08] adopt item one are we going to address what we just talked about about the safe street
[1:37:12] thing or are we addressing that off line and it's going to be whatever we decide will be
[1:37:16] fixed? >> do you you want to give I'm sorry what would be the
[1:37:20] direction you'd want to give the manager with respect to that item?
[1:37:22] I if we have a split between our streets and the state streets I just want to do our
[1:37:27] streets at the state worry about the state street the longer that we continue to pick
[1:37:34] up their slack the longer they're not going to do it. It's like saying I have
[1:37:38] alligator head to toe, madam commissioner. >> I mean I agree in principle
[1:37:42] but the reason the state budget has not grown to be the size of new york's because we do
[1:37:46] is they reduced services by reduced because the state investment does not keep track
[1:37:50] with inflation. I understand I was a state legislature.
[1:37:54] we played that game for many years. They they that's how they keep
[1:37:57] a cap on revenues the governor pounds is just about how fiscally conservative are what
[1:38:01] it is the service reduction and we're seeing in the fact that we pick up the costs for
[1:38:05] maintaining right away so we've now got to pick up the cost for paying to improve capital
[1:38:09] improvements on street where people are getting hit and killed.
[1:38:11] so I understand the sentiment and I agree with the sentiment but unfortunately at the local
[1:38:17] level this is where the buck stops. >> then why don't we do our
[1:38:19] streets this year and then look at us one next year and what would you prefer we do with the
[1:38:25] 230? >> well, one of them as mr. Munoz just pointed out, they
[1:38:28] separated them because those $270,000 roughly $240,000 roughly that relates to the
[1:38:34] state streets. >> so what would be your proposal for that money?
[1:38:39] I would propose that we like just like I would there's two line items 230 and 269 or
[1:38:45] something along those lines. Take the one that is our local what would we do with the money
[1:38:49] we're saving? >> you know what we can come up with any one of a million so
[1:38:52] why don't we do this? >> let's move it. Let's move it as it is.
[1:38:56] I think at the next meeting what I would ask is if you have a proposal for how to use that
[1:39:00] money right, whether it's the banking in a reserve but it's just the fund money.
[1:39:04] >> so even if we just said right now we're saving it in our rainy day fund or whatever
[1:39:08] you want to call it because we have $40,000 in discretionary funds, it's surplus folks.
[1:39:13] >> I think you know, these conversations are good conversations but we spent the
[1:39:18] money on doing a study and we're using part of it. Well, hold on.
[1:39:22] so I just wanted to follow up please. So in order to I mean I've been
[1:39:26] pretty big on safe streets here and we've been working on the traffic allocations all the
[1:39:30] different zones. What happens is that the main major artery is was one so we
[1:39:34] can't really we can't do one without the other. I'll give you an example and so
[1:39:38] I'll give you an example on 77th street going out we need to touch us one so we can
[1:39:44] change the traffic allocations throughout that whole area. So one kind of goes in the
[1:39:47] other. That's why you have these different areas all combined
[1:39:51] with the major artery. That issue is one so it's not easy to say let's just do one
[1:39:54] and not the other interconnect them in the streets. I mean one street is allocated
[1:39:58] to another street. I would just ask you to just let's go talk to the director
[1:40:04] and figure out what the differences are, how they're interconnected and if we can
[1:40:08] separate them. I would agree with you. I just don't think you can.
[1:40:10] let's just ask that question. >> okay? Okay.
[1:40:13] I would suggest the following. I would like to see that money you're not going to spend it
[1:40:17] there. I would suggest as an alternative we have I don't
[1:40:20] believe any money allocated for enterprise park and or manor manor lane park that would be
[1:40:31] $250,000 which has been I think that's a good idea but okay so fine.
[1:40:34] so you want to take 250 out but we're going to put it into parks capital improvements we
[1:40:39] can okay, fine. Let's show that as the as a change.
[1:40:42] okay. >> okay. Or we can do as as commission.
[1:40:46] okay. You just said to have the conversation and see hey, can
[1:40:49] we do this without this? If the answer is no is the answer yes or no can we do want
[1:40:53] to leave the other one for next year? >> right as the commissioner
[1:40:54] was speaking it dawned on me that some of those us one are going to help us because
[1:41:00] they're crossing related and they improve the intersections which is a separate project
[1:41:04] that hasn't been funded yet. We're still waiting so I think we need the time to just look
[1:41:08] at which ones are those and tell you that have time to come back and tell you which ones
[1:41:11] make sense of that number. It's different projects. There's like 5 or 6 listed
[1:41:15] there. I got to look at which ones they are.
[1:41:17] yes. And come back. Okay.
[1:41:18] no, just on the enterprise we're actually moving forward with this year's funds to to do
[1:41:23] signage and some benches so you may not need the money for that is what I'm saying is okay.
[1:41:30] >> that's right. So let's let's do this bring us back a proposal for an ad out
[1:41:34] right. You know strike out and then that in for a for a couple
[1:41:38] of alternatives we can discuss at the next budget hearing. Okay.
[1:41:42] thank you. Thank you so first reading is there a motion to adopt?
[1:41:46] I don't want I'm sorry which is the million if a motion to have a second okay have a
[1:41:52] motion by commissioner but each second by commissioner guy just for the record mayor that's a
[1:41:55] motion to adopt a 3.95 millage rate which is a 6.83% increase over the role that we've got
[1:42:02] adopted unanimously. >> correct me to what the unanimous there needs to be
[1:42:09] four votes given that yes, in the end for adoption you are you are.
[1:42:13] >> that's right. I apologize. Thank you.
[1:42:14] okay, madam clerk, you can call the roll, please. >> yes, commissioner.
[1:42:18] yes, commissioner rodriguez. Yes. Yes.
[1:42:21] mayor fernandez. Yes. There motion for item two which
[1:42:24] is the adoption of the budget and tentative budget. >> I'll move it with the
[1:42:28] stipulation that you just and the direction provided to the manager through her discussion.
[1:42:32] >> okay. I seconded her motion by commissioner bonita second by
[1:42:35] commissioner rodriguez. Madam clerk, if you can call the roll please.
[1:42:38] >> yes, commissioner. Money? Yes, mr. Rodriguez.
[1:42:40] yes, commissioner. Yes. Mayor fernandez.
[1:42:43] thank you. Yes. Okay with that we stand
[1:42:46] adjourned until 715 minutes