Baby, you >> [music] >> baby. Baby girl. Don't make it. [music] Heat. Heat.
Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Rolling. [music] Rolling. >> [music] >> behind me behind. >> [music] >> Everybody
get it up. >> [music] >> Nana na hey la. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. [music] Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record.
Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1. >> Good morning and welcome to our finance and economic resiliency committee meeting. Looks like a commission meeting here as we have the whole body here. Thank you so much uh to all my
colleagues to the chair of the committee uh Commissioner Magazine. Um I'll just say a couple of words before turning it over to um to Commissioner Magazine. First of all, big shout out to our entire city, city staff, [snorts] our residents for an incredible World Cup.
We're all We're all feeling [applause] we're all feeling the energy and the passion and and the vibes. And I when walking around and I'm going to what I'm hearing, I'm sure we're all hearing it when people are telling me they're flying into Miami Beach from around the
world, from around our country just to be here, not only to watch the actual game, but actually to just be here for a watch party. That is incredible. And we've really showcased our city and and we are a world-class city, but certainly
this has elevated us in a big way. So, thank you for uh for all the uh the entire city, police, fire, sanitation. I mean, the right that North Beach party there was I mean, you had five 6,000 people and by the next morning it was it didn't look like there was anything
going on there the night before. So, so great work. We um the beautiful thing about this this budget, we are in a unique position and a and working from a position of strength. So, while we're talking about a lot of uh areas where we can
streamline, where we can been leaner, um we're also talking about we had a surplus last year, I'm I'm guessing we're going to actually have a surplus this year. We're talking about issues like whether we should either keep the millage rate stable or lower it. Many cities are not in that luxury luxury
position where they have to raise taxes. We're actually looking at potentially even uh potentially lowering it or keeping it stable. So we as we have these discussions I think it's very very important to keep that in mind um uh that this is a position of strength and
we're just looking to make our city uh even more efficient. Um, and for example, and and we'll hear from this from Jason, we're talking about issues where our we have asked for a budget that has potential $21 million in cuts,
but in in essentially to balance the budget, we need 7 million, which is uh which is much more uh attainable. So again, a position uh a position of strength that we we are working from. I'm very proud of uh our city to be able to do that. But one thing I will say, and I think all of my colleagues share
this, and I'll and and I will fight this to the max. There is absolutely nothing we are going to do in this budget that cuts services in any way that would impact our residents. I mean, this is about quality of life, a safe city, a clean city. We have worked so hard to
get to this point where we have improved our city. There's nothing that we're going to do that's going to hurt that or any resident is going to notice any uh any cuts in in services. And we can do that. We can do all of that and that's why we're sitting here uh going through the budget. So, I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner, the chair of the
committee, Commissioner Magazine. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you to our employees um that are here in attendance. Thank you to our community members that are here in attendance. Uh I truly believe this is one of our most important and consequential meetings that we have on our calendar throughout the year. Uh
we'll be reviewing our operating budget here and setting us on the path. I'll echo the uh comments and sentiment that the mayor made. We do tackle this process have we as we have in each of the past several years through a position of financial strength. Our
reserves are at record levels. Uh we have fully funded uh our reserve positions both in the general fund and within our resort taxes. Um so what we're looking to do here is similar in years past where we are
looking to run a more efficient government. every single dollar that is spent by this body. And I truly believe that being responsible stewards of taxpayer money is our utmost highest priority along with public safety for our residents. Being responsible
stewards of that comes with a tremendous deal of responsibility and I'm very proud of this commission over the past several years for really being one of the first to truly take fiscal responsibility seriously. This year is also compounded uh with the uncertainty of what is going to happen in
Tallahassee uh through the uh voter referendum that will occur in March that could take further uh revenue and resources away from our cities. We don't have control over that. We will uh react uh both proactive and reactively uh and
address that uh as it comes in. However, it would be a dereliction of duty if we at least didn't start planning for that. Um, and what I'm proud of is even though we had no idea that was coming on the ballot several years ago, uh, our fiscal responsibility actually leaves us in a better position than just reacting to
this, uh, as a new, uh, as the mayor, uh, pointed out. Um, I'll let Jason and his team kind of, uh, say this, but, this is highlighted where our property uh, valuations came in. We are essentially looking at a $7 million deficit. Um, and we've been preparing
for these moments where over the past several years we have been uh seeing data that shows a deceleration in the growth of property values. And from everything that we're able to see kind of around our ecosystem, I expect that to continue. So what we're essentially
looking to do here is continue managing proactively rather than reactively and making sure that we don't find ourselves in a position one day where we have to make massive massive cuts because we hadn't been fiscally responsible and preparing for this for years in advance.
So with that I'll turn it over to Jason to make you have a quite a robust um presentation here. What I'm going to look to do is really streamline this process. We have a lot of important discussions here. Um, for the things that we have kind of unanatomy or
somewhat consensus on, let's not beat those to death. Let's essentially look to streamline this. There will be plenty of time uh for everybody to get comments in. But for the things that we may not need to uh discuss adnauseum, let's at least uh move through those efficiently.
echo the mayor's sentiments that number one priority is not cutting services to residents. Right? While we want to be and will be fiscally disciplined, we also live in this incredibly unique place that some of the services that we
provide to residents are unique to anywhere else in the world. the arts and culture, our public safety, our cleanliness. Those are the things that we held in the highest priorities and we will not look to essentially uh uh make cuts where that would be noticeable to
uh our residents or to our city. So with that uh turn it over, Mr. City Manager. >> So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to all the members of the commission. Um this is one of the most important meetings of the year as
you mentioned chair. Uh this is our budget discussion. Uh a budget is the most important policy document that any municipal government puts together during the course of the year. This sets our priorities. It sets our service
level and it sets the services that we deliver to a community. Um I am extremely proud of the team that put this together including all of the department heads. Um this was a challenging process. Uh in accordance
with the direction that we received from this commission, we have prepared a list of items to be considered today that could deliver a rolled back budget. Um there are certainly some items in there that are easier than others to discuss.
Um, but some of them are very challenging. And so I look forward to a robust discussion today and I look forward to continuing to deliver efficient services for the community and delivering the worldass
um expectations that this community has with this worldclass team of municipal professionals. Thank you. >> Well, thank you uh mayor and chair and commissioners. So we will get started. So PJ if you can bring up the PowerPoint and we just added one slide here just
before we get into the property values just to kind of remember the calendar and where we did. So you know we started this process back in December. This is a almost a pretty much a 12-month or 10-month process. In January uh we had departments submit their budgets in December. We were given that direction on the roll back. So there was a lot of
work to get done. Departments were submitting their preliminary requests back in January. February through April were departmental review level reviews, reviews with the OM department, reviews with the city management department as we continue to refine and refine and refine to get to the element we are
here. Back in May, as you remember, we had our budget retreat where we discussed some of these topics offsite at a high level position. In June, we dealt with capital. It was our uh our preliminary capital. And here we are uh today where we're going to tackle the an
in-depth on our operating with a small capital update at the end. Uh and then uh next Wednesday the commission will set that tenative maximum. The final millillage will not be uh set until September because we're still here mid July. The budget doesn't go in effect
till October 1st. So there's still some time in that area. So what we're going to obviously try to go through is all these elements as the chair had mentioned see where we have consensus and do not have consensus and you know trying to get a feeling on where we're going to be set on that maximum millage that we want to be on the trim notice.
The final decision will be done in September. So let's get right a little bit into the update on the property values as we go through the history of where we move through this process. So back on June 1st when we got the the initial preliminary values uh we showed an
overall val uh increase of 3.5% in all of the the uh properties uh here in the city in comparison to some of our other peers. You see we're a little above Sunny Isles but you know below some of our our our mainland counterparts. So July 1st we got the certified values
on July 1st and we stayed about same 3.5%. In a little bit, in a few slides, Tamika will get into some specifics of a little surprise when it comes to the roll back that was a little bit unexpected. But overall, for the purposes of our balanced budget, we were
pretty much held steady at that 3.5%. >> Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. >> I'll try to speak up. Uh, sorry about that. Uh, so this is one for the chair had asked. This is just again showing our three and a half% and the percentage
of new construction as a total you know around about a 1% increase related to new construction. These next couple slides we've seen before this is just showing over you know a long time span how trends in property value increases or decreases
kind of go eb and flow and you see we are what appears to be on you know that that downward uh trajectory towards perhaps a 0%. So what we're showing ahead is not necessarily a red light. It's it's kind of a flashing yellow. It's caution. So let's be cautious as we
move forward for this year and into, you know, even into FY28. So here's our existing property value trend for our our existing properties. Uh 2.6%. Again, basically along the same trend lines and then new construction,
very spiky. You can see we had $500 million in new construction. and then we'll discuss a little bit about the uh millage rates. So where we were back on June 1st, uh this is where we were showing uh our flat operating
millage and we were having a slight decrease in the voted geo bond debt service based on the valuation increase we had June 1st. come July 1st uh when the new values came in and this this slide represents the administration's recommendation
stance on the maximum millage and the to the millillage even in September is recommen recommendation with you know several caution flags going forward again for next year that concern with our decreasing increases in our property values and the impact of that constitutional amendment that will you
know impact our uh property values and our revenue our ability to on revenues there so we have a lot of caution going forward so we're recommending to stay the course when it comes to the uh flat operating but we are uh okay with recommending a waiver of the
comprehensive financial policy element when it comes to the voted geo bond debt service after the final numbers came in and after we closed the books as it were on FY25 the audited numbers there was some additional uh surplus in that voted debt service fund so we were actually
able to show a slightly increased uh decrease to the millage rate of 086 Again, under normal circumstances, the recommendation as by commission policy is that that increase would go up into our capital replacement as we continue to invest in our capital infrastructure.
But I think based on this environment that when we are amicable uh with that concept that we would wave that >> Yes. So as Jason mentioned, we were asked by the commission to present a roll back budget. So unlike the slide that we still saw previously, this is
the roll back military. So as we already saw the debt service millage would be reduced. Uh as far as a roll back millage rate is concerned it's only on the operating budget that that's calculated. So if we were to do a roll back millage rate we would actually go
down by 2798. So the little surprise that we received when we got our July one values is that every year when we do our budget it's based on the certified values that we get on July 1st. uh after those values are put out, any property owner can go
to the value adjustment board and ask to have a revision of their assessed value. So when we got our increased rate this year, we also got a a notice of what our 2026 values were and they actually went down by 1.1 billion.
>> [laughter] >> So the roll back rate is calculated not based on the July one from last year is actually based on the reduced number that we got back in July. So because of that with our roll back rate we actually will collect less revenues in FY20 than
26 in FY27. So this just shows a history of our millage rates. Last year in FY26 budget, we did do a slight reduction on the operating budget. The slide, the column right beside shows the FY26 27 budget that we're recommending and that
recommends leaving our operating millage rate flat and doing a slight reduction on the debt service millage rates based on the calculated number. The second slide to the far right is the roll back millage rate. That rate of 5.84 84 55 it
would be the combined millage rate if the commission adopted a roll back millage rate. So we just wanted to put a little note out next Wednesday at the city commission meeting we will be required to adopt the maximum millage rate. This
is the ceiling of our millage rate. We do have, as Jason mentioned, two more opportunities to reduce the millage rate in September when we have our public hearings, but next week we will have to vote on the ceiling. Uh any change from that, you know, is usually down. If we
do do an increase over what we we vote on next Wednesday, we would have to send a mail a mailing to every property owner's house to let them know that we actually are increasing above the maximum. So one thing that changed this year in the legislative session is in
the past the in order to have a majority vote you would have to be at millage adjusted for income growth which is like a CPI. Um this this session they actually changed that requirement. So moving forward if you are if you're voting for a millig rate that's below
the roll back rate then you're still at majority vote. Anything over or at the rollback millary will require at least a 57 vote. That's not terribly different for for the city of Miami Beach. Most years we do require a 57th vote.
And then this just shows a comparison uh that you know this is a decision we have to make. If we are going with a roll back millage rate, we have a $21 million budget gap. uh if we're going with our recommendation of keeping the the millage rate the same at least at this
point we'd have a gap of 6.5 and that's just based on our property tax revenues. So we have about three slides that list all the commission priorities that were either through a resolution or uh city committee discussion for you know
discussion and consideration as part of the FY27 budget. Uh any item with a check mark is what we have recommended for funding. There are over $3 million of requests. We are only recommending three items at $221,000. And again,
that's just because of the situation that we're in trying to reduce the budget by over $20 million. So, um I'm not going to read everything on the slide. I'll just focus on the items that are recommended. Uh the first one is the mental health position for fire that was
recommended by commission at the last commission meeting. And then the last two items were the blood transfusion dollars also was recommended by the commission at the last uh commission meeting. And then the bust of General Jose de San Martin that was on the
capital budget that we discussed in June. Uh the commission actually reduced what was recommended and now it's below the threshold of a capital project. So, we just brought that 17 over 17,000 over and nothing else is recommended at this point.
>> Okay. So, we're going to talk now a little bit >> Jason can, you know, for there's a lot of interested parties out there. Um so for people that think especially some of our employees that perhaps okay [clears throat] we're feeling the brunt of this what that means commission
enhancement request that means every legislative item that we have essentially put forward and proposed as you saw paving of pickle ball courts paving of basketball courts if we wanted some sort of enhancement for new playground equipment. There's not one
single thing of those uh other than personnel for mental health and well-being for the fire um and $17,000 for a bust and >> $20,000 for the >> $2,000 for a blood transfusion. So, every single legislative initiative that
we've had over the past years, none of those made that into this budget. So, this is all shared fiscal responsibility that we're all putting forward. >> Thank you, chair. So where I want to take you now is to um this is an update
based for our reserves. We closed our our books for 25. The audited financials were issued at the end of June and based on the review of that uh in our general fund and resort tax, we ended up with a a surplus above the commission uh
directed uh conting contingency and reserve amounts. So after we took out some uh FY26 commission approved use of that fund balance basically budget amendments they're done throughout the year uh reduced that amount at the end of the day about 11.7 in general fund
about 1.2 in resort tax for a total of about $13 million in one-time dollars are available and per our uh our policy we will show through this budget how we are recommending to apply that but just as a little precursor of that 13 about
9.4 4 million is uh being transferred to capital and we will talk at the very end when we get to the capital update specifically the recommendations on how we would utilize those funds. So we're going to get right into the general fund. So here we were balanced
uh uh in well not balanced but this is where we were on June 1st showing that we had a uh a gap of about $7.9 million estimated uh come July 1st. Uh again, just on the property tax piece, it ended up being uh $6.5 million uh gap when you
look at the interplay with the uh general fund. That's why I've mentioned the uh the minimum floor is actually $685 million. And then Tico, we'll take you through roll back. >> Right. And again, with the roll back millage rate, as we said previously, uh our revenues are going up by less than
1% while our expenditures are going up by 5%. As a result, we have a $21 million gap that we're going to um show how we recommend balancing the budget. So, this shows a $20.8 million gap that we have. We're going to go through
several slides that show how we recommend balancing the budget um through reductions in the budget. Um a few a handful of enhancements and some refinements in both revenue and expenditures. So, you know, the biggest increase on
the budget is on the revenue side, $16.3 million, and that's broken down as you see on the slide. Um, the biggest portion of that is 11.7 million that we're recommending to recognize from FY25 year savings. And the the majority of that 11.7 is going to be used for
capital and some foret one-time enhancements. Uh, the contribution for resort tax, we are recommending an increase of $3.5 million. you will see that we are recommending reductions on the resort tax budgets and any net savings on resort tax, we're recommending to transfer that over to
the general fund. The third item is admin fees. So, the general fund actually charges admin fees to our enterprise and some of our special revenue funds for the work that the general fund department provide on their behalf. So, we actually updated those
numbers based on their FY27 preliminary budgets. We picked up $2.3 million. Um we did have some miscellaneous adjustments to our revenue. So as we go through the budget process, we started in March as far as finalizing the numbers, but as we go through each quarterly projection, we are adjusting
our numbers. Um the last bullet on the revenues is that 1.3 million reduction. So subsequent to our June meeting, we got feedback from public works that the rightaway fees that we previously were charged to the state and the county, we
are no longer able to collect revenues from those on the streets that belong to the county and the state. So we we actually reduced our revenues by 1.3 million. On the expenditure side, the majority of that 9.5 we are recommending
transferring that to capital. And as we get to the end of the presentation, we'll show you what we recommend uh funding in the capital budget for those dollars. [snorts] Okay. So, now we're going to go through the next 12 slides are 165 line
items of uh recommend uh general fund uh reductions and efficiencies we're putting forward. And in speaking with the chair, I think how he wanted to work this is we would put up the slide. We'll go through a highlight, you know, one or two ones we don't want to mention and we'll just see if there's any uh
concerns or or such with individual uh line items. If not, we will move on and those uh reductions and efficiencies will will remain unless uh there's an objection through consensus. So, here we're on the first slide. The first slide has reductions for the capital improvement uh department, the
city attorney's office, the general fund section of the city clerk, and the city manager's office. uh just a few of elements that are in here. Uh all the BS and just for also the everyone at home uh on the line items you'll see highlight the first one eliminate one
full-time vacant CIP project manager. So it does highlight whether the position is vacant or if the position is currently filled at this time. So there are a number of uh positions in here and everyone that's on this slide uh is currently vacant.
Hearing we're going to move on, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yep. Um, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, with the previous slide, I would have a concern eliminating line item 15. >> Um, reducing our budget for state
lobbying services if the property tax reform at the state level does pass, we're going to be more reliant on subsidies from the state. And this year, we had great success with appropriations. I think we got $3 million worth of appropriations. And so
just understanding the uncertainty that we have in funding and revenues, I would want to make sure that we retain the lobbying services that we have in Tallahassee to help us with those dollars. >> If I could clarify one element, that's both federal and state. So of that 114
cut, 54 is from the state and 60 is from the federal. Um, so is the objection to both or >> both because I'm also working with our federal lobbyists with Sarah Gasm issues and our representatives in Tallahassee in in the federal government. So I would have concerns with that
>> line 15. >> Line 15. >> Is there is that just through consent? Is there a consensus to remove that line item from consideration? >> Correct. >> How should we do this process? And I'm collectively looking for people's input for the line items where there may be
concern. Do we want to make a finite decision today? >> Do we want to say, you know what, let's put that on the back burner and we will >> that's one where we won't push forward for an elimination today, but that
doesn't mean it's binding, right? We can continue that discussion uh at our next meeting. It Does that work? >> I defer to the chef in the kitchen. Uh, and sometimes it's not good to have seven chefs. Um, but uh, yeah, I mean,
I'm I'm fine with I just I don't want it to be a surprise when we got uh to the 22nd that I would have concerns with that with that specific line item. I mean, this year we got $3 million. I think we got in appropriations. So, that that's a position that is generating dollars for us. I wouldn't Okay. So,
however you all feel is best to handle that, I just can't agree to that. >> Decision could be made today or it could be made at the first budget hearing. You know, obviously the second budget hearing you don't like, you know, but uh it could be today or the first budget hearing. And I know in speaking, you know, through the briefings, I think these these categories, again, assuming
that we will uh, you know, go with the administration's recommendation on millillage. There's an opportunity to remove things if you feel, you know, not comfortable with them. And I think there'll be a group of these that you will be very comfortable with and had not have an issue with. You will have some that uh today there'll be a discussion and maybe a consensus to remove them from consideration
immediately and then another group that perhaps uh you need some time to digest uh them and to think about them. So there's kind of the three categories. So I guess the feedback we would need to know is uh today are we going to remove that or or are we going to leave it for now? So, I'm fine with today moving that
on to remain in the budget and possible further consideration uh at the 22nd meeting. >> It would be [snorts] the meeting in September. It wouldn't be next Wednesday. Next Wednesday was just sitting max mill that. So, um if the commission's okay, we will leave that
item for now. Okay. >> So, let's move on to the next slide. So the next slide we have um the first item is actually a group of items. Again trying to be efficient here. The number of slides there's a 10 or 11 items that
are in there. These are uh approximately 5% with rounding up uh haircut on a number of various citywide recurring grants and contributions. They only total a total of $28,000. I know we discussed in your attachment a exhibit
list out all the individual detail on that. These are other citywide uh reductions uh and then uh educational uh reductions kind of towards the end there. >> Mr. Chair, >> yeah, I think [laughter] I think we're maybe all on the same page also.
>> We we spoke about this. I think we're unanimous, right? So this isn't me. I think we're all in agreement and that's just reading of the tea leaves of 34 >> 38. No, I'm sorry. >> 36 38
uh 36 and 38. >> Yeah. And >> 16 through 26. I mean, we're talking about a $1,000 contribution to the Boys and Girls Club, to the Jewish Museum of Florida.
>> Um, you know, small small grants that I do think for us, they're small, but I do think they make impact to these smaller organizations. Um, I wouldn't eliminate that. I agree. >> 16 through 26. >> We'll take them one at a time. Is there
a consistent? >> I have more. >> Yeah, let's just take them one at a because there may be differences opinion on individual ones. Uh so there seems to be a request. >> Let's go with the lowest hanging fruit first. Uh let's take 36. >> What? >> I I think Jason, you want to get consensus?
>> I think the education if we were to do 36 and 38 together, is there a consensus to remove today 36 and 38? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Not hearing an objection, we will show 36 and 38 removed. >> Uh the very first one, there was an objection to um the $28,000 reduction to
a group of about 10 or 11 uh small citywide grants. Uh >> and I'm happy to go if we want to go line item by them because like for example, >> line 16 is the Orange Bowl. I don't see why we need to be contributing to the Orange Bowl. But then the Boys and Girls
Club that does contribute services to to our city. Um and and I think they, you know, they they serve approximately 150 children uh with after school services. I wouldn't reduce the $1,000 that that we give them or Line 18, the Jewish
Museum of Florida. We have Douglas Gardens for mental health services that we need to provide especially for our vulnerable populations. JCS, I wouldn't touch that. The South Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is helping our small local businesses. I wouldn't touch that.
We have here $2,000 for the Miami date gay and lesbian Chamber of Commerce. I need guidance from the city attorney. >> From the city attorney. I need guidance from the city attorney on item number 22. Given the DEI bill that passed in in
the state, uh are we allowed to do the $2,000 for the Miami Date Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce? >> If I can be It's a $25,000 line item. Uh this is $2,000 deduction bring it to 23. So it's 25 total funding.
>> I'm aware. Thank you. >> That would be a a grant that I don't believe we would be allowed to. >> Okay. So, so even the total amount might was something that if we need to balance, you know, that there might address
the majority of the $28,000 that we were looking to to to to solve. So, I think we need to, you know, realize that unfortunately we're going to be preempted in line 22 and that line 22 might cover, you know, the the the
amount of efficiencies we had in 16 through uh 26. Uh I wouldn't cut the community health center or the visitor center. And these are small grants that I think do do good in our community. I would say probably
if we're going to go down this path, the consensus would be reducing number 16, but uh leaving the rest. >> Yes. I don't know how we feel about 22 given the change in state law. I would leave that for the city attorney maybe to discuss with the CFO if that's
something we can keep in the budget. >> And I don't want to open Pandora's box. I don't know if that would be the only one if that's the guy. >> There's going to be others unfortunately. Perhaps what we could do is guide you, the CFO and the uh city attorney to have discussions in the interim about the funding of some of these.
>> What we could do uh for day today if I'm I believe I'm hearing consensus is to accept the $1,000 reduction number 16. All the other ones for now would stay with item 22 to have some further discussion with a recommendation discussion for the city attorney come September budget hearing. We'll make a
we'll make a note to that effect. So six so 16 is removed 22 is um for more discussion. Okay. >> And Jason Tamika can I ask your team uh we have running totals of essentially
if we would go with all these uh efficiencies what that number is. Can you do a running tally of what we are removing in >> Yes. in total is going to be >> we are so like the 22,000 is TBD um so
do you want us to include that or not >> item number 22 for that included for now >> so we are keeping track >> so right now essentially for line item 16 through 26 we would add back in >> 27,000 into that 2303 then we would also
add in 300,000 for the prek add in 299 for 38 Yes. >> Okay. Is there any more on this slide? >> I have a few. [clears throat] Um 29. I think that's important for
employee morale. Um super important. So that way we don't have a bunch of employees that leave our city because they feel underappreciated. Um we want to make sure our employees feel appreciated. >> So 29. >> Is there a consensus to accept uh that?
>> I support that. Are we are we removing that today or are we going to have that discussion in September? >> Removing it today. >> Is there any objection to removing it today? >> I'd like to discuss it further at the next meeting. >> Well,
let's discuss now, right? I don't know if I'm super supportive to remove that. I don't want to hearken back to our Halloween discussion. Um, but I think we do a great amount for employee morale. We look at some of our awards and things
like that. Er, can you talk about what constitutes that 15,000? >> Right. I I'd rather put this towards keeping personnel than things like that. That's kind of my mindset. So, this is
one of the citywide um funds. There's also going to be a discussion as part of the parks and recreation department for um for employee appreciation events. Uh, the parks item was removing 80% of the
funding if I remember correctly or or >> I believe it was $10,000 >> or a significant chunk of the funding for employee appreciation for Halloween. Um, between the 10,000 for parks and the
15,000 here, the 25,000 is for basically the the the facility, the food, and the decorations to be able to have a Halloween event. >> And I guess here's how I conceptually look at it, and I'll just share my limus
test, right? All of these amounts, while small, can add up. We have a finite pie, right? And full disclosure, my daughter goes to school there, but she doesn't use the basketball courts. But the parents at South Point Elementary have been asking me for years to have
their basketball court repaved and a basketball hoop put on, right? It's not a huge amount, but what maybe $150,000 or something like that. And we're telling them in four years. So,000.
>> Some of these small things add up. It's at the expense of something like that, right? So, that that's kind of the litmus test that I use. Every single thing that we see in these efficiencies has some degree of merit, right? That's why they got put here in the first
place. It just becomes at the expense of what? And that's how I look at it. It's not because I don't value our employees or or want to share in these happy hours or things like that. But whether it's this or some other things that we look at, it's just a
simple trade-off. And my litmus test is, do I want to go back to our residents and say, I'd rather choose X than paving that basketball court that the community uses at South Point Elementary. That's kind of how I just simplistically look at things. So, uh, I don't mean to sound
like an ogre and say, "No, I don't agree with this $15,000." doesn't mean I don't appreciate it, but every dollar has to now be come at the expense of something else. And that's just how I look at things. >> I may if I may, Mr. Chair, I think this
year, you know, we're going to have so many serious discussions. Um, the most important thing I believe is to save as many of our employee positions as possible. um given the challenges that we're
facing and potentially facing the coming year, I think we need to prioritize it. I think the key thing is number one, save as many of these positions. Um and so if we can if at the end I think at the end of the budget as we're going down, do we have the ability if we have
the ability to save it? I would save it. The pri the priority is, you know, keep the education funding, uh, keep things like the CAT funding, uh, keep public safety, police, fire continuing to operate at the current level of service,
uh, without sacrificing positions. And then if at the end, Mr. manager, you feel that we can balance a budget and save these positions and keep something like this? Well, of course, we should be doing that because we do uh as Commissioner Matel Selenus has
highlighted, we do want to make sure our employees feel appreciated. I think right now the biggest thing we can do to show appreciation for our employees is to save each one of their positions in our budget uh and then consider this at the end that we have that available. Can
we do that? >> Commissioner, if you're asking me if I want to save people's jobs versus have a party, my obvious answer is save people's jobs, right? >> Um, but that being said, I think we just need to look through the entirety of the
budget, see what makes sense, and see where the right landing spot is. Um, you know, I've made a commitment to all of the department heads and all of the employees that we are going to try to find a a chair for everybody to sit in
when the music stops. Um, even if there is currently a a funded uh and filled position that is being considered as part of this process. >> May I ask add one last comment? Um,
we can do both. We can save people's jobs and also make sure our employees have $15,000 to enjoy working here in a place that they spend a lot of time and they do a lot of hard work and they, you know, are happy
to meet the needs of our residents here. We can do both. I mean, it's not an and andor at this point. I don't think $15,000 is too much to ask for. And I understand, Commissioner Fernandez, I I agree with your point and and Commissioner Magazine, yours as well.
But we don't we don't have to throw the baby out with the the bathwater and have and make this experience worse for people that that work here. Let's let's make it better. Um, this is about team morale and and we're a family here.
You know, neighbors. I mean, I want every employee here to know that I've had a bunch of calls and, you know, everyone appreciates the work that you do here, no matter what department you're in. And, you know, if there's any way that we can express that through this $15,000 allocation, I hope we keep it
>> and I'll fight for it. >> Yep. Please. Um Jason or Tamika um the the um recommended reductions and efficiencies that you're proposing gets us to the $7 million shortfall or the $20 million shortfall? >> No, the the the recommendations here are
get us to the roll back. So this is the $ 21 million. So anything that we've removed now we've already removed some we're off roll back. >> Okay. So um these recommendations to reduce and maximize efficiency are totaling
slightly less now but approximately $20 million. However, as a body, we have not made a decision if that is the direction we're going to go in. So there are things that we've already hit a couple of them. I'm
sure we're going to hit a bunch more where we can come back and see what the total is and see, well, we're not [snorts] at 20 and we're not at seven, but we're at 10 and we feel pretty good about it, or we're 15 and we feel pretty good about it. I don't think to
make a decision on a $20 million cut when we haven't made the decision about whether that is the right number is the correct way to proceed. I don't want to say at this point that it has to be 20 or it has to be seven. I think we
go through this exercise. You all, all the department heads and all your staff have put in an enormous amount of work to get to this because we as a body demanded it. There's this entire lovely tone, a light reading for anybody
who would like to see it of a line by line budget. And so I don't want to devalue the work that you guys have put in and just chop willy-nilly without doing the work of us all here. Seeing where the
cuts that we feel comfortable making put us and then deciding is it enough because maybe we can do more. Is it too much because maybe we're losing stuff that we care about. So, let's put this on the pile to be considered and come back once we know what the what the
tally is and then decide where we as a city want to go. Do we want to go to austerity, which is not cute? I mean, look at what's going on with the county. They've had disastrous budgets for the last couple years. And if you just saw the Herald article either this morning or yesterday morning about cutting
transportation even further, we're not in that position. We are not in a budget crisis. Every single person up here believes that we need to do more with less. Every single person on this deis and in this room believes that we need
to be more efficient. There's no argument there. But to what at what cost, right? At at what point are we going to throw out stuff that we value? Whether it's employee 15 grand for employee appreciation, whether it's a a
crew for a fireboat that, you know, arguably could, you know, could be served by other people in the fire rescue um team. Those are conversations that we have to have, but to do that without knowing what the full tally is
is is um premature. >> Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner. I think what we're looking to do is get there. Right. If they gave us the recommendations for a fully rolled back rate, by definition,
everyone that we add or remove from a reduction, we're not going to get to that rolled back rate. So, we are going to be settling somewhere in the middle. Now, whether it's closer to uh the mandated uh millage rate or keeping it flat or the road back rate, that's what
this line item analysis does. So I think for the items where we have easy consensus to remove from the efficiencies, we do so such as the steam funding, the grants and things like that. And then where there's a little more um
disagreement, which let's get it out, none of this is personal between us colleagues, right? Because we may disagree on on what belongs or what. None of this is personal. It's all about there's a reason there's seven of us because we have differing viewpoints that I respect
every single one of yours. Right? So to the extent where we may agree or disagree on some of these items, none of it is personal. It's about doing what we all believe is best for our city, our taxpayers, and our residents. So I think where we have line items where there is um some perhaps uh differing viewpoints,
let's just take a simple vote if we're going to keep that in the efficiencies list or uh send it further uh through the budget process. Right? So essentially here there seems to be some disagreement. Let's call a vote.
Whichever is a majority it'll be two ways. Do we keep this on the efficiencies to be removed or does it travel through and remain in the budget? >> And not just this line item, every single one where there may be less than
unanimous uh consensus about what to do with it. >> But my point is is that once we know what the tally is, then we can revisit it and say, you know what, I rather cut this over here than give up that over there. to to cut it without knowing that. I like I I just want to make sure
we have another chance to revisit it. So maybe it's it's kept in but with an asterisk to be considered. >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner, thank you. Um okay, a couple things. Um, when I speak to residents of Miami
Beach, residents here who have lived here since they were born are having struggles on keeping rent, paying groceries,
basic living expenses. And to sit here and say we need parties for our employees so that they do not leave
is offensive. >> It's not offensive. We all have differing. >> I'd like to finish. >> That's fine. Let's keep this not personal. I want to I want to continue with my train of thought. We have all here minus
one commissioner who was not elected at the time voted to roll back our our military or roll have the roll back rate so that our residents don't pay more in taxes
for next year than the previous year. That didn't come from just a feel-good moment. It came from >> a discussion where we had to decide what
we were going to do with 11.5 million in surplus. And the agreement we all made up here, all six of us, was that we're going to pass the roll back rate next year,
so that we could give out a $500 check to everyone that was homesteaded in Miami Beach. So, I want to focus on what is exactly important. I certainly do not want to cut positions. I think this is this item
here number 29 is a is a is a good philosophical debate right now where we should be con we should be focusing on what is essential to Miami Beach and the taxpayers. So, I don't think it's a good look to
tell the taxpayers that we're funding this. And with all due respect, I don't think we have we can do both. We need to make a philosophical decision. Are we going to lower taxes for Miami Beach residents or is it going
to go up? I want to lower taxes. I certainly don't want to pay more than I paid last year. That's the majority of taxpaying residents of Miami Beach. So you Commissioner Bot said austerity is
painful. It will be painful. And from reading the tea leaves of what's going to happen in Tallahassee, it's going to come and it's most likely going to pass in November uh the increased homestead exe
exemption. And then we can make cuts now. that's going to be uncomfortable or we can make cuts next year after this can pass and it's going to be very very difficult. So focusing on these items
[snorts] I I and spending I think 10 minutes on this I I don't see that this is a good use of our time commissioner Dominguez and then let's bring this in. Um we're going to have much more controversial things to
discuss than this. I hope everybody kind of got their high level philosophical talking points out on this item and it's not just debate on this uh because I promise it'll get more controversial. But Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Bod, if you want to speak and then what I'd like to do, Jason, is call a vote
for this specific item and that'll kind of be the process that we we carry along. >> Thank you. Uh first, uh Jason and Tamika and the city administration, thank you for your hard work in really going through line by line and presenting
things that could be um enhanced or reduced or whatever the case may be. One thing I do want to correct the record, the commission did not vote on a roll back rate. We voted for the city to present it to us and so thank you for
presenting it to us and this exercise that we're going through of saying yes or no for the different items is so important and critical and as has been said on the days already. We all care about efficiencies. We want to make sure we're running better. I also and several
of my colleagues do as well care about our employees, the employee morale, making sure that they have recognition. It's not one or the other. It's um alto together what's going to continue to make us a great city. So thanks
>> commission commission but >> so Jason Tamika the two versions that we're looking at today 6 and 1/2 versus 20 they're both rolled back >> uh no the the 20 the >> the 20 is a significant but the the 6 and a half is still a slight decrease.
>> The 6.8 the $6.85 million required uh reduction that we need to to look at to have a balanced budget. uh we assume our flat millage on the operating side, but it still would have a reduction in our geo bond. So the overall millage rate would go down. >> Correct. So under no circumstances, unless we start adding things
willy-nilly, you know, helicopters for everybody, we're not we're not going to present a higher millage rate. It's actually going to go down than what it was already. The administration's recommendation is a lower mill rate from >> so nobody is proposing higher taxes and
one way or the other we are going to um we are going to come between six 6.8 million and $20 million which is already a significant reduction. So, I want to correct the record because it's not correct to say that we are going to
present anything less than lower taxes lower than what you paid last year. And I I might be getting the exact terms wrong from a CFO perspective, but for the net lay person, nobody's going to be paying more on our on our millage rate. >> The mil the millage would be lower in 27
versus uh 26. >> Okay? And so I want everyone who's listening to this to be clear that we are not contemplating doing anything other than rolling back. The question is just how much. >> If I could ask Jason for clarity, we at
least have to get this $6.5 million out of this. >> $6.85 million is the floor in reductions to keep our flat millage and have a balanced budget. >> So just to be clear, Jason, so >> my colleagues can understand this. You can lower the millage rate, but your
taxes still technically go up. Correct. >> Because you have a valuation increase uh in your your property. If you had a flat millage, you would uh definitely could be paying more in total dollars to get >> Can you reiterate that just one more time? >> Sure. Sure. Uh with the on the operating
side, because of that being a flat millage, if you if the value of your property go up, you could pay, you know, especially on the homestead. I think it's the cap was two wasn't 3% this year, right? It was >> 2.7%. So the max you would pay additional homestead would be uh 2.7%
but obviously partially offset by that decrease in the geo bond >> and statutoily when if we do not meet the roll back rate >> yes >> what is technically what is what does the state of Florida send out as a notice to residents >> it would it would show as a tax increase
and the reason is that >> excuse me it would show as a tax increase >> show as a tax increase so even though we lower our millillage >> but [clears throat] we don't re we don't achieve a roll back rate. It is it is by state law a tax increase. Correct.
>> Correct. State law requires the only tax that's uh like this. I mean it would be analogous that um because it's based on the value of your property would be you know if on a state sales tax let's say uh you know if a loaf of bread went from $2 to $4 uh you know you paid more in
taxes. Would the state say that they increased taxes on people? Probably not. There's not a rolled back sales tax. property tax is the only one in state law that requires that concept that if you pay more than the prior you have to to follow that village you need just one
more second and if you do not pass the roll back rate you need a supermajority vote correct >> we need no we need five excuse me 57 not a >> which is typical there's I think every municipality I've been at it's always been a 57 >> and if we pass a roll back rate
>> then it's a simple four vote So in essence, if we can still lower the military and taxes can still go up, which means people pay more. So it is a accurate statement that
if we do not pass the roll back rate, your taxes will go up. In fact, the state of Florida sends out a notice that your taxes are going up and there's a certain higher threshold for us up here to vote on the matter. So, I want to
make sure everyone is clear on that. >> Okay. So, if we >> those are not city taxes. Those are we do not control those and we are going to cut between 6 and a half and $20 million from the budget.
>> They are city taxes. property taxes. Jason, I'm my understanding was that property taxes are not city taxes, that they're county and state taxes. >> Yeah, the property tax there there's many different property taxes. We have a
the millillage that you're dealing with is your your city property tax. There's a county uh property tax and there's a few small uh state ones. Uh you know, if you look at your trim notice, there's a number of small taxing districts uh kind of at the state level, special districts and things. we get a notice that our
taxes are going up, it relates to the city, not to the county or the school board commissioner. >> But it's it's actually all >> it's a city, it's a county, it's a school board, it's a special tax initiative. >> Mr. Chair, if if I may, and I think the the point may be when we look at our tax
bill, the city of Miami Beach is a third. >> Yes. >> It's a third of the bill. The biggest portion of the pie is Miami Day County Public Schools. And then you have Miami Day County. Then you have the water management districts. You have the
library district. So you have all of these other portions of the pie that go into that property tax bill that our residents get. Miami Beach is only a small slice of that pie in reality. >> Right. Thank you.
>> Miami County and the school board are larger. Yeah. all those entities would all have to do a roll back rate technically to get you to a all the way across your property tax spectrum. >> So even if we do a rolled back rate >> Yes. And we sacrifice police positions that that are going to jeopardize then
public safety and response times. And we've sacrificed 29 lifeguard uh lifeguards and eliminate lifeguard towers and do away with 3,000 education vouchers and cut the CAT programs and not fund essential services to achieve a
rolled back rate. We could do that. But unless the other jurisdictions are also doing the same, Miami Day County Public Schools, if they don't roll back their their budget rate, our residents are truly not getting them a rolled back uh
tax bill. And if Miami Day County uh the county commission doesn't roll back their tax rate, our residents are not getting a rolled back tax bill. all that they're getting is a reduction in municipal services, but they're they still might end up with a higher tax
bill because of all the other taxes that they have to pay on that same trim notice. >> Correct. this commission basically. >> And so and so let's say if we adopt a if we if we say okay we want to move forward with a rolled back um tax rate
our residents might still get a notice in the mail saying that their taxes are going up because that would apply that notice would still apply for all those other taxing entities. Is that not correct? So when we advertise or
millillage or advertisement will say notice of tax increase. Um however when they get the bill it's all of the entities that make up their total property tax. >> But my point is that we can propose a rolled back property tax rate thinking that then our residents are not going to
get that notice on their tax bill saying that their taxes are going up. But that's not true because unless Miami Day County and unless Day County public schools and the library district and the and um the children's trust and all these other entities also roll back
their millage rate, unless they do that, our residents, they're still going to be getting that notice on their tax bill saying, "Guess what? Your property taxes are going up." Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So, I just I would like to get us back on track here. I'm not going to sit I
mean what's happening this is about how people phrase things in their you know newsletters. We're not going to spend a half hour on this. >> Okay. >> So, we can get try to get us back on track. >> Yes. And let's continue. We're going to
vote on whether we want to elimmit. >> You phrase it, but we're going to vote on that specific line item and then keep going forward. Where there's unanimous consensus to remove things from the efficiency list, we'll do so. Where there's disagreement, we'll take a vote.
Okay. So, uh one PJ, if you can put that that slide back up there. So the item that we are discussing is item 29. Again, this is a workshop, not a commission meeting. So technically technically can't be a vote, but I guess uh >> I think there's a consent list. Is there a consensus to remove this item?
>> What does that mean then? >> When you said let's get on the same page. Remove it from the removal list. Correct. So it's almost a double negative. >> Restore the funding. >> Okay. >> So we're removing this from the reduction list. I I so I'll lead I'll vote to keep this on the reduction list.
>> Okay. So let's take it that way. Is everyone again there's always an opportunity in September as I know we another element there at this point. Are we okay with leaving this item uh do we have a consensus per the chair to leave this item for now? >> I want to defer that. I want to move to
defer this vote because if at the end of this exercise we have capacity to absorb this cost. I don't want to vote to remove something that's good for employee morale. I mean, I don't know at the end of this exercise if we're going to have capacity for this. So, I rather
uh do a motion to defer this till we can make a fully informed decision on that. >> If if I if I may, what I think we can do is it doesn't need to be consensus, but it seems maybe a consensus to deal with this at the end. So, we can make a note to revisit this
>> at the very end. >> Thank you. So, at the end of of the the appropriate section, which is probably at the end of resort tax. So, all right. So, let's uh move on. >> Uh, no, I'm sorry. I have more. >> Oh, there's more. Okay.
>> 34. Um, I'd like to point out that um some of them we might not be able to fund because they are we might be preempted by the DEI grant that was mentioned earlier, but there is one in here that's a $10,000 allocation for Fineberg Fineberg Fisher after school art program. And I'd like to keep that.
>> The the Fineberg Fisher piece is $500, I believe. Um because that would be the 5% allocation there. Um there's a request to restore that $500 allocation [snorts] to the school. Is there a consensus to uh restore that $500? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I think there's a consensus. So we will show a $500 uh reallocation there. Number 35, um the common threads program that is cutting a service for our residents at 162 families that it affects and I'd like to keep that in in there too.
>> Explain what that is, please, Jason. >> The common the common threads program, we discussed this uh last year as a possible reduction which was restored by the commission. This is a basically it's a hands-on cooking and nutritional education for youth and families. So if there's a request to restore that
funding at this time, uh do we have a consensus to restore the funding or >> how many participants does this? >> Uh the cooking skills and war cuisine is 54 participants, family cooking 20, ask a chef 88. So there's it's a multiple
set of programs >> from 88 to down to 20 participants in the various programs. So again, this is one that could be restored immediately, talk about at the end or talk about in September. So, do we have there's a request to restore that funding now? >> And I have a question on this program.
Is is this for individuals experiencing food insecurity in our city? >> No, I don't believe so. I believe this is >> for everyone. I mean, yes, if they are exper, but this is I believe open for for all families at at youth. >> Okay. So, let me ask you this because going back to line item 34 again, one of
the line items that we have there are are programs. you know, when you look at the description, programs that we might not be able to fund, including a $25,000 uh grant and a $50,000 grant that we
potentially might not be able to fund uh because of the change in the state law, and that's not considered here. Could we use that to uh help then fund the common threats and not experience then a um a
deficit in our in our savings projections? >> Uh if so if the interest is to on 34 fully eliminate the 25 and $50,000 grant >> that we're preempted. Now >> if I may, I don't believe we're
preempted on the safe um >> on project safe. We're not preempted on project safe. >> Correct. >> How about safe space program? We are still evaluating that one because it's a combination of of >> so I would say so I would say you know what I want to make sure is that we have
a balance and so I would wait to see uh what is what is the finding on that because if this is and I got I want to make sure I'm fine keeping the funding if we can find an efficiency >> safe is absolutely okay to keep if you'd
like to >> let's keep it >> yeah Mr. here if you're if you're done, Commissioner. I'm not sure. >> Uh yeah. >> Okay. Um Tamika and Jason, um sorry to go back a couple of minutes, but you mentioned that even if our taxes if we
lower if we have a lower if we do the roll back rate and the county and the school board does not we still technically get a notice. >> Yeah. So we will have a notice that our taxes are kept flat if we adopt the mil the flat the roll back mill rate. So I
just and PJ if you can pull up the screen because I want everyone to see this especially my colleagues that here is a notice of proposed tax increase. Okay PJ if you could put it right here so so everyone can see
you can't really see that much but notice of proposed tax increase city of Miami Beach. So, there is a notice that goes out that says we are increasing your taxes. Even though we lower the millillage, your taxes are
going to go up. So, I just want everyone up here to know that everyone's going to get this notice in the mail and everyone's going to be informed that our taxes are going to go up. >> So, again, I I I sorry to beat a dead
horse here, but I I think there's a lot of misconceptions. unfortunately up here that that should have been thought through that we need to do everything we can not to raise taxes and simply lowering the
millage rate a few decimal points is not going to cut it. So point of information, >> okay, I am not going down this path. This is politics. This is semantics and we're not playing this game. Okay, this is ridiculous. Okay, we are all sitting
up here trying to govern for what our next social media post is our newsletter about, oh, he raised tax. No, I want to do what's best for our city. I want to do what's best for our residents. Okay, I'm not going to sit up here about what I can put on my next newsletter about, well, was this a tax raise? How much?
Okay, we need to run a more efficient government. A more efficient government. A more effective government. Okay. And where those chips fall, they fall. Whatever notice goes out, notice goes out. I'll either take the heat or I won't. I'm not going to govern on what
notice and what verbiage or what semantics are put there. We want to run a leaner, more efficient government that still provides the services for our residents that saves our taxpayers money. whatever notice or however that
is phrased, so be it. But we are not going to sit here and spend a half hour talking about the definition of something. Okay? We are not going to do that. I'm putting a stop to it now. We are going to go through this item by item and say, does this make our
city a better place or not? It is as simple as that. Okay? Every single one of these line items has merit. It boils down to at what cost does this program or does this line item
constitute the cost that it bears to our taxpayers. It is as simple as that. So, let's continue on that path forward. Thank you. If we could bring back up the slide. Uh, and just to close this out, I believe commissioner, what we would do
is make a note that on number 34, the one that the city attorney uh office uh highlighted, we can put in that review and come back in September to talk about the disposition. You can make a final decision in September on that. >> On which one, Jason? I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. On number that would be the uh Pride Lines Youth Safe Space that
will be added to the review with the city attorney. We'll come back with a recommendation uh in September >> 35. Is that something that we can review at the end of this meeting? >> Uh yes, we can put number uh 35 on the to be reviewed at the end of the section. So we're making note of that. Yeah, >> I am.
>> We are making note of that. >> Okay. So >> right, >> going to move on. >> So this is the third of 12 reductions in the general fund. Uh this is primarily um economic development department and the environment and sustainability department. As we mentioned before, we
asked every department to come with reductions at least 5% of their budget. Um, some of these are right sizing, which means that we looked at their prior actuals to their budgets and right size and some of them is act, you know, they're actually reductions in their
mostly operating expenses. So, I'll just give you guys a minute um to let us know if there's anything here to be debated. >> I'm fine with this. Okay. >> So, we'll move on. Uh so on here we have the uh facilities
management uh department division for beach maintenance and uh finance department uh elements in there. So we do have in here uh a couple of uh fil we have a filled position uh that's in there an accounts payable. We're working
on a transition plan there. we have a reduction in our grants management uh consulting as there's less uh federal opportunities then across kind of that beach maintenance area. This is not related this is really to like uh rope and pokes fixing the showers and that elements that the city is responsible
for. So we're just putting an item there. And what I'll say, and this is directed to our city leaders, our city manager, our direct reports for you, the message that you need to convey and lead and lead by example.
These are the exact types of things where because we find efficiencies, that does not mean we will accept less of a product or service to our residents. Right? to the extent where we're going to see things where
maybe the labeling says cut back of landscaping. We're talking about going from 52 times a year to 40 times a year or for beach maintenance. That doesn't mean I want to see a difference on our beach. That is what we
have all stressed for years up here that we have to get more for the same. And I've said that exact phrase for years because if we do not, then we will one day have to get more with less. And that means to keep our beaches in the
condition that we all demand and require, we can't just say, well, more resources, more resources. It means motivating the team a little more, right? having them go out and take that extra initiative whether it be this or other areas
because we can't keep adding resources for every single enhancement that we need. So while we see some things here like okay we're going to have a a slight reduction for um funding of rental of beach maintenance equipment or um beach
maintenance operations overtime. I want to be clear. We are making efficiencies and reductions across the entirety of this government for things like this. That does not mean we change our expectations for the product that we put
forward for our city out to our residents and our visitors. >> Yes. >> And with that, I will be unanimous in accepting all or I will accept unanimously all of these. >> Yes, chair. And as we as we had discussed all these elements include the ones that are be coming up related to
you know cutting back cycles of of landscaping everything they'll be done very intelligently you know by the department and they'll be monitored well you know and you know if we overshot something and there's a that the expation is still there but we're not meeting that product we can obviously have that discussion again going back to the concept of keeping a flat millage
rate to give ourselves capacity if there is some kind of restoration and if I could just highlight the you know an efficiency on 64 you know we're going to you know get rid of the contracted accounting support for invoice review for the billion invoices that come in for all the service we provide and that's going to be done in house and
using some artificial intelligence to help you know review those invoices and spot issues there. And the last 165 is an outsource play where we're going to eliminate a vacant position but uh supplement it with outside consulting support during audit season. So we find that that's an efficiency that I know you and I have discussed.
>> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner >> Jason 63 is a currently filled position. Correct. >> Does that person have another role to move into? >> We we are working on a landing spot. >> Okay. Because what I don't want to do, I'm happy to move people into other
places. I'm not okay with firing people. >> Understood. Understood. Mr. Chair, >> I have concerns. I'm fine with a lot of stuff on this slide. I would say I do have concerns with 55, 56, and 57.
um because those are specifically uh identified as critical functions such as cleaning beach showers and restrooms, addressing plumbing issues, repairing uh the rope system, installing ADA mats,
and responding to unplanned operational needs. Um and over the past few years, we've seen improvements, I believe, in the cleanliness of of our of our city. I think that providing for a safe city but
also a clean city is a priority of municipal governments. And I believe those three line items are ones that if we do not if we can find at the end ways to save them, I would rather save those three line items. >> And I hear you loud and clear. And I'd
like to get into a more robust conversation at the end. Eric, this is where I'm asking you to step up. you and your directors. We're not eliminating these. We're just eliminating some superolous funding for it. I want you or
some of your director reports who are are are well paid in the city and deservingly so. We run an incredible city. Truly, I want you or some of your directors to raise your hands and say, "Yes, we
understand the importance of cutting some of this superolous funding." And if it takes us going out there on our drive home and taking out an ADA mat and getting in a little earlier in the morning and putting that together, that's the lengths that we're going to
do to get this done. I'm not asking literally, but you know what I mean. Like >> leaders have to lead. I'll chalk that up to my friend Adonis. It >> it's about finding ways to do things more efficiently, but deliver the
service levels that have our residents have come to expect. >> Yeah. So, for these three items, let's have a more robust discussion at the end of this list. And if that doesn't work, obviously I I wasn't literally saying, you know, you stop there. But I want to hear your analysis or perhaps actually
I'm I'm lying. I actually was looking for you to say that. But uh I want to hear from you your honest assessment if we can eliminate some of that superolous funding but still maintain the quality of services that we have. But let's kick that to the end for these.
>> Happy to have that discussion at the end. Um, not sure. I would go so far as to call it superfluous funding, but certainly we can look at whether or not we can achieve some savings through efficiencies.
>> Thank you. If we're okay, we'll we'll add that to the list at the end, but we will highlight items that are right sizing and which would not impact operational ones. I know these were not specifically of that uh ilk, but we will add that to the list to discuss at the end to see if there's an interest uh at
the end. So we will move on to the next slide. >> So this these slide this slide is for fire department. Um the probably the the easiest one on the list is number one which is the 300,000 for the bunker
gears that was originally baked into the FY27 budget. However, we did a budget amendment last month to add funding using the fire training and technology funds. So that actually is already funded. So that's the easiest one. as you go down, we have a variety of um
full-time and part-time positions that are recommended um based on the roll back budget. So, I'll pause for a minute. >> Mr. Sure. As I'm looking at this list, so I look at 67. At 67, when I look at at this the
analysis that the city manager, you have given us, you say that eliminating 67 would have a direct and immediate impact on service levels, including longer response times. What does that do to our title one
certification that we have as a fire department? >> So, I think that there are a number of cuts within this department in particular that potentially could put at risk some of our accreditation facts. Um
and I do think that there are cuts that are offered here that significantly reduce our service delivery. Fire um when we look at 69 you one field fire protection analyst
and and this is a fire protection an analyst was responsible for reviewing plans submitted for new construction involving highrises and other complex issues. when we've been sitting here at this stis and saying that we want to improve plan review efficiency, have
quicker quicker response on plans and one of the areas where we get the complaints about having delays in plan reviews is fire. And now we're going to go in and eliminate positions that is going to cause delays. by the way, in
the new constructions that help that help fund and balance our our budget as we saw earlier in that slide um in that slide that um that that Jason showed us. When we look at uh line item 75,
when we look at at at line item 75 to reduce the the ocean rescue boat coverage, aren't these the individuals who showed up to the tragedy that we had outside on on Biscane Bay where
unfortunately we had even children pass away. Chief, >> yes, sir. Good morning, uh, Fire Chief Abalo. Yes, the these were the first individuals that were first arrival on the scene because our fireboat was stationed at the 69th Street Fire
Station, hence why it was adopted to fund for the fire boat to move to the Birdie Marino. >> Chief, um, would this have an immediate impact on the level of service and the response times on critical water
incidents? >> Absolutely. Because the ocean rescue is responsible for patrolling the Atlantic side of the city of Miami Beach from First Street to 87th Street and the government cut area.
>> And what are we doing a week from today? >> Um there's many things. We're opening a pretty marina. Groundbreaking. >> Groundbreaking. And what is that groundbreaking for? And this is to fund public safety for police and fire marine
patrol. >> And so we would be here, we're building a facility, but doing away with the ocean rescue boat coverage that would potentially benefit from that facility >> and the fire boat. Yes. >> Okay. Um >> Commissioner, are you in line? Which
line are you on? >> But let me finish, please. >> I just want to know which line. >> Okay. >> Um let me So line item 76. Line item 76 29 part-time lifeguard tower positions.
What is the effect of eliminating those life lifeguard tower positions? >> We would have to eliminate the physical life safety coverage for that area of 26th Street, 55th, and 62nd Street. >> Why were those Why were those uh
lifeguard towers created? Those were created because we've had several um residents and tourists that have died in that area. >> And beyond the tragedies that that that have occurred at the those towers, we
currently have legislation to create a marine park um in to support our our tourism and is the request of our residents and I think we all have unanimously supported the creation of this marine park. What impact would the
elimination of these um lifeguard positions have on the potential creation of this marine park? >> Well, prior to that, we've also um have the reef vehicles that were put in um several months ago and that's attracted
a lot of tourists for that area and this is going to attract more individuals to this area that is going to have limited coverage. And how about how about our ability to extend the swim zone, which is a another legislative item that we as a city commission are working on. How
would the elimination of these 29 positions uh affect that? Our lifeguards are currently swimming um a football field which is 350 ft 500 yards is uh
the upcoming proposed budget up to 1,200 ft um out from the sand which is approximately three football fields and I cannot stand here before you and tell you that that will be effectively
managed if we cut these positions. So for 75 and 76 after hearing that are we aligned? I don't even know if we need more robust conversation at the end. Is there anybody that felt differently or wanted
to talk about any of those two specific items? >> I'd like to >> Well, let's let's uh we'll go through that >> through the chair. >> Yeah. Let's just do 75 and 76 and then we'll discuss 77. >> I propose removing them from the cut list. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um I would say that the lifeguards on almost a daily basis save lives, >> right? And if we're going to have any bang for buck as far as saving lives to
positions and [snorts] that is probably our our best bet. So um I'm I'm okay with certainly removing that from the cut list. >> Yep. So unanimous. Let's remove that. We don't even need to hear that at the end of the meeting. >> Right. So, we have a consensus through 70
>> 75 and 76. Okay. Uh and I guess let's talk about 77. Um >> yep. Commissioner, >> I have a question on 66. Um which is the gear. >> Has uh the gear reached its lifespan? How critical is it to get that replaced?
>> Um yeah, so it's already funded through the IFFF. um we have um come to an agreement because the gear that we currently have is causing you know has carcenes in it. So we have already for
12 15 years back we've already been setting aside $150,000 of our budget. So when this date came we already had part of the funding and then we're using the rest from firetech. So yes we are um fully funded for our bunker gear for the firefighters.
>> Okay. Excellent. >> Thank you. I think the chair would talk about uh to get consensus on 77 where the commission wanted to go with that >> through the chair. I don't think this is on the cut list. This was in the beginning of the presentation, but there
[snorts] was an enhancement for a mental health counselor for the fire department and >> correct that. Well, we'll get to that enhancements, but yeah, it was mentioned during the commission. Are we getting to that? Why don't we talk about this just because it's part of the fire? I I think
we look at this comprehensively. >> So I I talked to both the the chief and the fire union president and they both agree that they would rather have this money this money [clears throat] put
toward another body who is a firefighter. and they had serious reservations about having a on staff mental health counselor given the fact that they have at at their own
health insurance plenty of mental health services available to them. Um that they would they they would they don't want that. So, I think we can say certainly save money and through the chair if if the union president can speak on this, I'd be more than happy to
hear him. >> Um, first of all, let me let me back up to uh Commissioner Bot and and the rest of you guys uh pushing for this originally. I'm very well, I'm very very thankful and we all are. Um, I think you see something of the stresses of the job that a lot of people haven't gotten to
because you guys actually come by the station and see the things that we're facing. But I will tell you, while I thank you tremendously, if it's between jobs and this, I'm going to I'm going to respectfully say that I like to revisit it maybe another time, but right now
it's not the time for it. And and and in a collective effort to try to work with you um so you don't have to make other cuts of people who aren't, you know, who are actually here. Uh we're more than willing to work with you on this and and and forego this. >> Yeah. And thank you. And what I will say
is um I don't want to get it the narrative uh twisted for lack of a better word. It's not that we're forgoing mental health services or things like that. We have an incredibly and we discussed this at length an incredibly robust resource program that is available to every single
firefighter, every single police officer, every single city employee. I believe >> if I may add to that, you guys have blessed us where we've been able to have our own health trust and we have a phenomenal uh outreach program in that sense. So I I would like to lean on that
more. Uh and you know, we've we've we've had our own internal discussions that I don't want to speak about out loud, but I feel very comfortable in saying this. >> Thank you. So >> through the chair, if I may, >> of course, >> chief, I don't mean to put you on the spot and I don't want to come between
>> you and the union president, but there are a lot of us who have had conversations with each of you and other people who are both in the audience and not. I am not willing at this point to say it's a choice of either or. And I am very eager to hear more about um how a
position could be funded through the the health trust or the fund. Um, I don't think that an EAP system is what critical extreme needs will address. It's great for ongoing stuff, but not for crisis.
And people committing suicide because the stresses of the job compounded by stresses of regular life is an unacceptable cost to me. So, I hear all the conversation about how to do less, do more with less. and I'm very open to
having a conversation about how to potentially fund it through your fund, but at this time I'm absolutely not going to take the suggestion to take it off the table. Perhaps we'll get to that in a in a month and that's fine, but one suicide is one too many, and we've had
more than that. >> We've had two in the last year and a half. Um um I will say this to work with you the health trust we will look into getting somebody and helping out with that. We will do that through our health trust if that's what it takes. Um we're more than
willing to do that. Look into some having somebody come to the station and things like that. But I don't think this is the time or the place to do that. >> Agreed. So because and I would like to have more in-depth conversations with both of you and anybody else on your >> and we can even before September, but I
I promise you that I give you the commitment from our health trust that we're I love your idea about working together on partially funding or funding it. I'm good with that. >> So for now, let's keep this in and then down the road if we can get rid of get rid of it, then let's get rid of it. But
I'm not willing to take it out right now. >> I I'd like to I'd like to clarify um two questions that were raised. one that why wasn't this put in a reduction aspect? Um, and that's because it's part of the enhancement. However, the fact of having
to speak to the 29 part-time lifeguards and the other members who are actual physical human names to positions, I would rather forego unfortunate for the purpose of this exercise. a person that
is not here versus the individuals that are sitting here worrying about if they're going to have a job come October 1st. And that was my commitment and my you know benevolence with him in the we've done a lot with our own health
trust and and we're trying to do a lot with more but if it comes to bodies that I can't >> well I don't think anybody is suggesting that and I I agree with you. I'm not, you know, a position to be filled later versus jobs and humans who are our colleagues and literally saving lives
every day now. It's not an either or choice. So, let's keep it where it is for now and then come back and figure [snorts] it out. Commissioner, if I if I could add >> Commissioner Fernandez, then Jason. >> Um, I just want to also ask since we have the chief at at the podium,
>> what I'm seeing here, you know, we have a lot of sworn positions here to be eliminated. I see them in 67 in line item 67. We have sworn positions. We have sworn positions being converted to civilian, which actually I I don't mind.
I I think that's good in ' 68. But in 69 and 70, we have um swarm positions. In 75 and 76, we have more swarm positions. In 77, we're looking at eliminating swarm positions that are currently
vacant, but those are needed um for marine response and eliminating those uh would affect the fireboat um and potentially increase overtime. But then when we go to another line
item, we're looking to decrease reliance in overtime. And [snorts] so and and so we can't you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say you're eliminating something to rely on on overtime and then and and then and then say,
well, you want to eliminate overtime. Well, if if you do that, you're then reducing the level of service that that that the public is receiving. So let me ask you this. Are there not operational cuts that we
can look at? Are there internal expenditures? Are there not staff positions? Why are we only looking here? The bulk of the reductions here, the bulks of the of of the of the reductions here are to swarm positions
that are public facing positions. the ones that show up to our homes, the ones who show up to tragedy, god forbid those occur, unfortunately. Um, but where are the staff positions? Where are the administrative positions? Where are the
operational cuts so that we can protect the positions that are out there saving lives in our community? the the exercise and direction that was given by the body was to come in with 5%
reductions. The two operating costs that are before you is line 66 and 73. Our operating budget is $3 million. So unless we start directing staff to bring
toilet paper and cleaning products effectively we're going through the vacant position as a option to reduce >> I do do operational cuts exist
>> I I can't shoot off the hip right now but I I believe that we have an approximate um 1% 2% % that we may be able to look and coordinate >> and and and if those exist, I want to
see those when we come back because I am not going to support I am not going to support eliminating any of these sworn positions. I I'm I just I'm not going to do that. In fact, even even if they're vacant, when we when we touch these
vacant positions, what are we doing? We're putting a bigger and greater burden on the firefighters that we currently have. >> And then we complain that the overtime expenditures are are high. Well, that's because we have chosen them to eliminate
vacant firefighter positions. And we can talk about hiring mental health specialists. What are we doing to the mental health of our employees when they have to work countless hours? I'm glad you're kind of asking that question out loud because the firemen
have taken a lot of heat for working basically. So, we are it's a catch 22. You know, we're short a tremendous amount of positions. We need these positions. Okay. More importantly, talking about the boat, I can't even believe that our fireboat is there. This is something that we fought so hard for
collectively as a body. We're building a brand new station in Sunset Harbor where the the boat needs to be for response times. Well, and not to interrupt, we didn't put this forward. We're just evaluating. Yeah, >> forgive me. I didn't mean it that way. What I'm saying is it's on it's on the
list. So, I have to defend it and I have to tell you my position on it. Our position is that we this this station where it's going to be right now is absolutely perfectly positioned. That's why the police marine station was there currently for responding from the s from to the south
to the north. Um, we don't want to have another tragedy like we had with the children that went in the water, but our people are the ones who pulled them out. >> And [clears throat] you know, people need to understand this is a 24-hour job. It's not 10 hours cuz as soon as
the way it's going to work out, as soon as the guys leave, something's going to happen tragic. And I think our residents, including myself, who's been a resident here for 30 years, expect this kind of service that you guys have given them. We're in a we're in a trajectory where this city is heading to
so much of a better place because of your leadership, all of you collectively. Um because at the end of the day, I don't know what this really means in dollars, but we have to ask ourselves the question, what what are we really gaining by putting everybody in
this place making them nervous, thinking about losing their jobs? I mean, this is serious things. These are people here. These are faces. And all we're asking you to do is we understand we can find efficiencies. that I think that should be all our jobs, but right now the things that are here are critical for
life safety and I just wanted you guys to be aware of that and I thank you for all the support you have given us over the years. >> I had this conversation. It seems like you have support from the body, although I know Commissioner Suarez wants to speak and if there's anybody else for line item 77, I do want to talk about
the specific dynamics of that over the next month. I would love to have those conversations >> proper staffing, but I'm fine to remove that from the reduction list right now. That doesn't mean I'm co-signing to all 1 six $5 million of that. We'll talk
about if there are more efficient staffing levels, but for right now, I'm supportive of having this program in place. We'll figure out what that right dollar amount is. >> I think this city and you guys should be proud of yourselves for the product that's been produced. If you look at our
new fireboat, it is it is a thing of beauty in the way in the way it responds. And just real quick on a technical note, it's also used as water supply on the out islands. For example, out in Star Island and all the big big homes, we're very limited on
our water sources and that boat is used as a water source. So there's many reasons behind that besides the unbelievable training these guys do on a continuous basis and again I thank you for your support >> and I would like to Okay. So can we say everybody agreement that we will remove
the 77 from the reduction list. Uh >> and we'll have more conversations between now and September about what that program should look like. Jason, >> thank you. So just to let me catch up a bit there's there's a bit of bit a few a few comments. >> Right. That's why I'm trying to like do
this one by one. >> I appreciate it, chair. Uh so just on that element, let's and I have a few more to talk about. So on 77, we have a consensus to remove that right now. I believe there is a consensus to remove that as we did with 75 and 76.
>> Can Mr. Sure. And I think from my perspective, it's easier to tell you what I feel comfortable eliminating because I feel comfortable eliminating from this section much less than what I feel keeping in the reduction list. >> Let's go one by one then because
>> Yeah, let's go one by one. Let's start with 67 because I I want to be clear about what that's saying, right? So when we say eliminate five full-time department positions, nobody is being reduced. This would be
um a field captain position and and I believe it's Adonis. So when he actually leaves, it's not replacing him. And what I told him, how could you ever start to replace him anyway? So why would we even try? [laughter] But K, you know, kidding
aside, um what this is is not refilling his position and then four unfilled uh positions. and Jason. Yes, >> I I think the G if we want to go one by one, that's fine. We could start right
at 67. Um and you know, let me know. Is this one we are keeping on? >> I'll say I will vote to keep this on the reduction list being very clear. None of this is a filled position, right? So,
nobody in this room is at risk. It means Adonis isn't filled and four positions are not backfilled. I understand the overtime versus things like that. We need to start somewhere, right? [snorts] We need to start somewhere. And if it's having less staffing at events to help
reduce that overtime, we can figure it out. But [clears throat] you get to a billion dollar budget by not doing some of these things. Commissioner Fernandez. >> Yes. I but I just want to make sure that we understand because there are four vacant positions are going to be vacant
as we go into into fiscal year 27. Two of them are vacant by tragedy. Two of them are vacant because they were individuals who we lost from this department but the department relied on them. And so while they are vacant those
positions should never have been vacant today. Those are lives that I believe all of our firefighters would cherish to have with them. And the other two are positions that they're relying on. There are two positions. It's not that they're vacant today. They're positions that
they're filled today, but going into fiscal year 27, those [snorts] are individuals who are going to be retiring. And so eliminating this is going to create a burden. And I I have to go based on what was given to me in writing and what the city manager has
given us in writing. And this is why I cannot vote to eliminate these positions is because then I'll be voting on something that is going to have a direct impact, including longer response times. I'm not going to vote for that. I'm not
going to vote for longer for eliminations of of positions that are going to delay response times. And we know from what I've seen from from working at the county and from every other jurisdiction, when you delay response times, you affect your certification as a fire department. And
when you affect your certification as a fire department, chief, what happens to your insurance rates and to the insurance rates of our residents when response times uh go go up? Your insurance rates go up. And so while on
this ledge side of of the paper for our residents, it looks good that we're creating an efficiency, we're going to cause an increase on their insurance when their response, >> Eric, how many firefighters do we have? >> I don't have the number off the top of
my head. >> While we're while we're looking that up, I'd like to I'd like to make a quick round just real quick. 235. >> 235. >> 235. >> And we're talking about two less >> right. If you're telling me
two less firefighters than we currently have now are going to lead to longer response times and you put that in writing, that is offensive. Okay. Out of 235 firefighters, if you're conveying the message, having two less
is going to lead to across the board longer response times. That is offensive. >> That line up is five >> if I may. And that line is five people. But let me just address because this is the problem with this and and I want everybody to understand, including people at home who have been watching these salary uh issues.
It's a catch 22. It's okay. We can have less people, but there's going to be more overtime. As long as you're aware of that and we're not being annihilated later on just because we're filling a position, I'm okay with that. But please understand that a cut on this side you still have out of those 235 225 75 per
shift are actually on shift every single day as long as we understand. And one more thing if I may I want to just say something >> the city of Coral Gables finish you. >> The city of Coral Gables is a is a city that's very comparable to ours in size and scope the same amount of stations.
They run 5,000 calls a year. We run over 30,000 calls. I want the public to know that they run 5,000. God bless them. We run 30,000. So, you get your money's worth out of us. And we do need staffing. >> Yeah. I don't think anybody has ever said anything unless you are so widely
>> praised and held to the highest regard possible. Um, and I say that collectively to your entire staff, whether by by this selected body, by our residents, by our tourists, the World Cup visitors had a great time and things like that. Um, >> I want to either me for a second. I want
to echo that. I hope because I I did get some calls from from folks concerned maybe thinking that we have anything but the highest of respect for our firefighters, our police department, but this is part of it's it's it's not the prettiest process legislating. Uh,
certainly the budget the bud fire and police for good reason is the largest portion of our budget and and it should be and it will always be. But I understand the the frustration because you don't know, our residents don't know what we're ultimately going to decide. So yes, we need to hear the feedback.
It's great, but also this is part of the process. We have to go through this and determine is there something is there a position or two uh or more that are redundant or what have you. And I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that's part of the process. So I think it's good that we're going through this
exercise. >> No. And I look forward to the conversations. Yes. I just I want to read her and I think I'm and I think you've heard it from all of us and I think I'm just reiterating what's already been said. We have the utmost appreciation and respect for all of our firefighters, all of our police department. And um we're just going to
go through the this process as we as part of the budget. >> I know you mean that, Mr. Mayor. You you you've led by example and we appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate you. Appreciate it. >> I appreciate it. And it's and it's mutual. >> Commissioner Schwarz. Oh, Donis, while you're still up and
you know, we're talking about not filling some very important positions, obviously, and I think you said this earlier, would you rather have another firefighter or a
mental health counselor that's sitting at the station all day? >> I think I was pretty clear with my answer and I'll reiterate it. While I still appreciate where it came from and like I said, I'm willing to look at it through our health trust and handling the whole cost or part at least most of
the cost and I look forward to that. Uh but right now it's it's too early. But I will tell you if you're if you're telling me between the two there is no question it's 100% a firefighter because they're the line people that are responding every single day and these residents deserve that. >> Right.
>> Thank you. if I could if I could add >> and then Jason >> I just want to echo what Commissioner Fernandez says and I agree 100%. I I believe we need these positions even if they're vacant because we you know the stress that those vacant positions puts
on the rest of the department when they have to work overtime and you know we are going to need those positions filled and we will in time and I don't want to scramble when we have the folks available to fill those positions. So, um, I'm going to agree on that. And, you
know, our federal government cut the CDC funding and now we have a a large, you know, health crisis on our hands that is spreading throughout the United States that we can't figure out what the cause is. There's ripple effects to things when we cut services that we need, and
this is a part of the cuts that we need. So, I'm going to support um, Commissioner Fernandez in that I don't want to cut any of these vacant positions either. Right. It's just fire. Our first responders are too valuable to not say we need the um supplementation
of these positions when we need to hire them. >> And if I may, that's the reason why, and I kind of spoke to a couple of you about it again because we're so short right now. That's what's causing these incredible numbers on the other side. I would just so you understand this
weekend alone for the FIFA World Cup, we're forcing 18 firefighters in counting. we're forcing them because we don't have staffing levels and that's what I want to work with. So, and I welcome I I would love to, right? Because maybe we analyze and sit down
and talk are they the right staffing levels, right? Like is it too much over? So, let's have that discussion uh back and forth. So, in summation, and we'll continue going the other line items, I'm fine
uh leaving this in. How about the captain position? Is that >> If I can answer that, I can think you're talking about me. um some since we're talking about me. >> Are we ever not >> This will be this will be probably one of the last times you have to deal with me. Uh but I got to tell you, it's been
a great journey and I enjoy it. But the thing is it's a union president position. I just happen to be a captain. When I leave, they can elect another captain or another firefighter. It just depends on the position. I don't know how that's going to work out because we haven't picked our new president yet. But um again, I'm willing to work with
any of you at any time. It it's a it's a I I have a great time talking to all of you individually. Okay. So, whenever you want, please reach out. >> So, let's let's remove that from the reduction list. We'll continue that conversation through uh through September.
>> Okay. So, if I may, so >> or 67. >> So, item 67, the the firefighters and the captain position, we're going to remove right now from the just like we did with 75 and 76. Is there a consensus on that? Not hearing an objection. We will do that. The one item I wanted to go back to was on that commissioner
Suarez mentioned a bot on the the mental health. I I think what we're looking because I'm trying to pencil a budget together here is the services needed but the funding source would shift and I think that's the discussion that the union president said that he would have a conversation with commissioner bond about how to deliver that um elevated
level of service but it could be funded through their trust. So, we would be able to as we are now saving positions, let's say in fire, I think we could remove that enhancement recommendation, which we haven't gotten to yet technically in a different section, but we'll remove that. So, we could save that money on the general fund side. So,
we could add those two together. So, 67 will remove and the mental health, which will be covered through a different funding source. Um, are there any other elements on here? Um, from 68 down to 74 or 778, I'm sorry, 77. That was the big that was
the next big one. The fire boat. >> So the fire boat we are removing from the reduction list. We're going to have >> there's a consensus to do that. Not hearing exemption. We will remove 77 from the reduction list. >> 69 >> 69. >> Uh 69. There's both a filled and a
vacant one. >> I would the these are positions that are needed. Again, the review of new construction in our city. These are the plan reviews. When we talk about improving the building permit process and not having delays in permitting,
this goes to the heart of it because one of the top complaints that we get is that it's not necessarily the building department that has the delays is some of the other trades including fire. And so I cannot support line it line item
69. Is there a through consensus? Is there any objection to removing line item 69 from the list? Not hearing. So, we will remove line item 69. There were a number of other uh elements there. Are there any other objections?
Should we move on to the next page? >> Well, with with with the overtime, I mean, if you like today like >> over time's not on the list >> 70 line item 70 reduce funding. >> That's not recommended. >> Yeah, >> that is not recom Okay. Sorry,
>> I have a question about 71 and 72. >> 71, is that a a sworn position or is that an IT position? >> It's an IT position. [snorts] >> Yeah, it's an IT position to offset the load of um all the computers throughout
the station, all the computers on the fire trucks, our report writing systems. Normally it would be myself or Chief Lonar is having to put a ticket in and we would have to wait for someone to um be available to fix our you know
technology issues and that is funded so we can have someone at the department readily available should we have something go down with technology. Our phone systems everything that is from ocean rescue dispatchers and the fire department um 22 vehicles. It's just an
extensive amount of technology that we would have to just absorb um the workload between a swarm position. >> And so if you lose this position then what happens? How do you get your technology fixed? >> It would be through the the IT just like every other department. The IT
department internal service fund uh you know services all the other departments. Uh fire has one dedicated IT person. >> So our emergency services will not get an emergency response when their emergency services system goes down. It it would just be a a delayed in
getting that technology up and running depending if it's one computer, two computers, um whatever our bell systems. That's >> our bell. Okay. Um and so our emergency systems will be crippled if this position is lost. Basically,
>> that's not true. If maybe we could have Frank, our IT director, >> uh speak very quickly to that. that ask any please something Frankenstein [clears throat] IT director >> uh so the position is dedicated to the fire department um in order for us to
deal with the volume of work that comes specific to them uh they're seated at the department as opposed to treating them like another city department where we have a handful of uh field technicians like the ones that visit your offices to repair issues as they come up it's a timing thing so they receive um direct support from us
without having to fall into a queue essentially >> Frank so You head our IT department, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> If this position does not sit with the fire, are the emergency services for our city crippled? >> If by emergency services, you're referring to things like the 911 system
or response times of that nature that's citywide. No. Uh what it would do is delay our ability to uh respond to individual issues on fire trucks, apparatus, uh back of house staff, firefighters that are in the field, anything that they take. not prioritized
being an emergency service through your department. >> They are prioritized uh through this funded position. >> I'm comfortable keeping this on the list understanding that this is someone that you just have in the department, but it is still going to respond, still address these issues. And you just mentioned 911
dispatch, there's a an IT issue there, that's not going to be delayed in its response >> for those core systems, correct? >> Okay. I'm I'm fine keeping this on the list. Okay. So, we'll show that. Uh, staying. Was there any other >> Can I just ask a quick question, Frank?
Is is this um is this position paid for by the IT budget or it's in the fire budget? >> It's it's funded uh there not funded through the general fund. It's on here as a list because it's comes through the general fund, but gets reimbured through the uh is the IT >> technology fund for fire.
>> Right. >> So, is there a different um scale of pay because it's seated in No. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Meaning that this this if this was kept it would have no uh net effect on the general fund but again when we went through this exercise not only was about the roll back was about you know staff
reduction smaller budget smaller government. So effectively this was left on it would not have a material effect on the general budget because it gets reimbured through its own special revenue source. >> Okay. >> Uh so uh on the fire slide we can bring it back up again. Uh I think there was
still one question left. I had a question about 72 the infection control officer position. Can you tell me a little bit about what we were? >> So, so this position again going back to
what the directive was. um he is part of our accreditation process as reviewing anytime that someone gets exposed to blood and we need to have them get a prophylactic so they don't get AIDS or
an STD or something he is the one that um is in charge of that as well as issuing our certifications for the state of Florida maintaining our certifications um now that we're going to be doing this Bloodborne
um oh the field blood uh he will be managing that it's he's a nurse and um it's a nonsworn position so that would have to be taken up by someone in the department that is accredited as a nurse
or nurse practitioner or something. >> So I'd like to suggest that we um remove this from the >> Is that the language we're using? We're removing from the production list. >> So the chief chief May I ask why did why was this one of
the cuts that you recommended? >> We don't have uh sworn positions in our fire department. So the sworn positions that are before you are the last 10-year positions that were added and the
directive was what are the positions that we've added? What are the enhancements we've added in the last 10 years? So everything before you is everything that's been added in the last 10 years. Yeah, but why was this particular one recommended? >> Because that was a position that was added in the last 10 years for the
pandemic. >> So you >> I am not >> right. So the I guess the directive you got from the city manager was anything within added within the last 10 years offer up as a cut. directive we got from the body was put positions, put
reductions, operational salary savings for the city that can be absorbed by someone in the fire department. >> So, can this be absorbed by the someone else in the fire department? >> It could be absorbed by someone in the fire department, but now we're reducing
a headcount on the floor because I would be putting a sworn firefighter who is a nurse or a nurse practitioner to fill this job. So I'm taking from Peter to pay for Paul. >> Sure. Through the chair. Um I will tell
you that you know similar to many other uh things in life there are certain things that kind of fall on the bubble. Um this one was one of the ones that was hardest for me to include because I've seen the value of this position to the
department. Um, and this was one of the last ones from my perspective that that made it on. So, um, I would just offer that, uh, the chief and I had several conversations about this position before
it was included on the list. >> So, there was a request by commissioner to remove this one for consideration, remove it from the list. Is there any objection uh to removing it from the list? All right. Hearing not, we will remove uh number 72 uh from the list.
And if we bring the slide back up, uh I believe we may be good to move to the next slide. >> Okay. Well, >> oh sorry. Confirming we're moving on to the next slide, chair or
>> are we 73? What are we doing with 73? 73 is uh getting rid of a contractor to bring a service inhouse. It's an efficiency. >> All right. And we've removed 75 and 76. >> 75, 76, 77 are removed. >> Removed. Okay.
>> Okay. We're going to move on. Out of fire. >> Okay. >> I I Okay, smart. Just >> Okay. So now we're moving on to the
first set on this slide are for housing. Uh there are some service impacts. The first one is probably the easiest one. That's a digital software that was requested a couple years ago. Housing has not found a contractor to work with. So they have recommended you know
removing that from the budget. Um for the mobile food pantry, the recommendation is to reduce that from um roughly >> in half in from monthly to every other month. Um for the short Southshore Community Center, we are not reducing
the number of meals. We are just removing the dollars that we have available for programming. >> Um >> I don't support removing line item 82. >> Okay. One of those operates with a very very tight >> Neither do I. And same for number 80.
I've been to the food distributions. We have people that are food insecure in our city. >> Commissioner, if we could take them both together if you like. Uh okay. So hear from the chair. He's good with that. So 8 82 and 80. There's a uh a recommendation to remove that from
consideration. Uh is there any objection to removing that from consideration? variant we will show 82 and 80 as removed from the list. [clears throat] Is there any other you wanted to highlight? >> Yeah. >> Um I have a question with 89. I'm sorry.
>> Yeah. >> Oh with 89. >> What is the effect of eliminating >> number 89? >> Yeah. I I'm not for this. I uh it's where people can't call in during Zoom. So I don't want to eliminate this.
>> Yeah. So if there's a request to remove but I don't number >> I want to move to remove that from the list because that is our resident's ability to have their voice in government. >> I am going to I think we I think we all probably should >> any objection not hearing any objection
we will show number 89 removed. >> Can we um >> to the chair? So, if we're going to reduce it from 4 to two for line item number 91, you're telling me that
you're telling me that two issues of the magazine would cost $137,000? >> Yes. >> Well, I'd like to remove all of it then. And we can send out a PDF and an email, but spending $137,000 on a magazine
twice a year, I I think could be used for something else. >> I I will say when this conversation has come up in the past, I promise no conflicts of interest. It's just my last name. Um the feedback had been this is
overwhelmingly loved by residents. It is, am I correct in that? It was like one of the best graded things. Uh I know I'm going to catch flack for Mitch Novak. I I see his posts on uh Facebook. Um hopefully we can meet him in the middle here. Uh but from what I
understand, correct me if I'm wrong in the kind of customer feedback surveys, uh if you will. This is one of the best scored things that we get. So, in the um the environmental scan that we do uh
every two to three years where we reach out to a statistically valid group of residents and ask them to fill out a survey to give us feedback on city services. Um consistently the highest
ranking item in how do you get information on the city services is from the Miami Beach magazine. And so from that perspective, that's why we chose to just reduce the number of issues per year as opposed to eliminating it all
together. >> And I think our team does a fantastic job on that magazine, by the way. >> It is an incredible. It's an award-winning magazine. And I think uh PJ, I don't I don't know if you have the the email that I just uh sent to you, but when you look at that same Mitch
Novik uh post uh talking about eliminating the the magazine, you also have people that for example, contrary to popular opinion, I guess I love these magazines that people write. I read them as well. We also read and enjoy the publication. Someone else writes, "I
also read it, particularly the water report, but agree." Um, then I enjoy reading it as well. I was a CEO of a real estate company here in Miami Beach and some of our agents pay to have advertising in the publication. It is it's it is a pop. It is easy to
target and it's easy to criticize and it's one of those things that you know when you put it on social media it might get a a lot of attack but it also is something that is widely popular. People appreciate it and it's informative to them. Why? Because it's not political.
None of us are featured in it. Um and so and so residents like it because they get factual non-political information about the city. And so I'm I'm for keeping the magazine >> through the chair. I I would rather have
one more firefighter than another magazine. I mean, cuz if it's $137 $137,000 for a for two magazines a year. I would much rather have a firefighter or save a position. Again, we're we have
a finite pie. Money doesn't grow on trees. And here we are printing out something that cost $137,000 for two magazines a year. I I mean, >> but I don't think we're we're I don't think we we eliminated any swarm
positions in the fire department. Did we? >> Uh correct. Uh after that last slide, there are no swarm positions. >> So there's no swarm positions from fire that are being eliminated. >> So I But they you know, I mean, I speak to Donna just like everyone else here
and they're overworked. and they don't want to spend 80, 90 hours a week working. They'd rather be able to take off the summer and spend time with their families on vacation. And here we are saying we can spend
$137,000 of taxpayer money for just two magazines a year. I I I don't I just think that's a really bad use of money. And I don't think using Facebook comments for a uh for accepting this is is good governance.
>> So there's a a recommendation uh from the commissioner to on number 91 to actually double it and fully eliminate the uh Miami Beach magazine. Is there a consensus? I'll say I think we're landing at a happy medium here where we're trending in the right direction
with reducing uh spending, but this is something where we have feedback that um >> something residents enjoy. So I I think this is a happy medium. >> I agree. >> So we'll keep the the week 91 as it is. Okay. If we can bring the the presentation back up and just to close
out, >> I think we >> I have a item at 81. Did we talk about 81? >> Uh yes. uh 81 does not uh eliminate or reduce in any way, shape or form the that meal program. When the when this this was just a year or two, I know I
worked on this one. Uh the dollars that the commission uh appropriated towards this effect were actually able to deliver all the meals that were needed within that appropriation and the excess dollars were actually used to add some programming for the seniors. Uh so when they move from Southshore Community Center to I believe Flamingo Park, they
think they found the lodge. They'll be able to completely continue to run that meal program as is. It would just this $88,000 would able to just not have the uh the programming there, but now they'll be in Flamingo Park. So we were good uh putting this forward. It saves the meal program, but it just eliminates
some some programming that went along with it. >> So we'll still have 50 senior meals. >> It will not touch the number of meals being served. >> Okay, that all right. So, uh, in hearing anything, we'll keep going. We have a lot to go.
Okay. So, here we have, uh, a couple of items from the mayor and commission, uh, the office of management and budget, and from, uh, parks and wreck. Uh, we get into there. So, number 97, as we know, the, uh, with that facility, uh, being
closed soon, that was, uh, one pretty straightforward to be, uh, put forward. Um 101 is an efficiency where uh we're going to not use contracted labor to put up that holiday lighting. We're going to uh that department will make do with its internal services and the staff will go
ahead and do that. Uh 103 uh is also an efficiency and that now we move to an electric Zamboni um plus some other uh right sizing within that element. So we we're very comfortable uh removing some of those elements. So, if
there are any uh questions or objections, uh we will pause to see if there's anything on this slide. >> I have a couple questions just um 97 the um field recreation leader
that's going to put a strain on that department. How what's >> well that that that position specifically to support that program which would be uh obviously with the facility closing would not be needed anymore but obviously you know as the manager said any filled position we have a number of wreck leaders across the
city that we will find you know work to find a landing spot for uh any of those positions that are filled >> and the same with the filled position 99 >> uh that is the wreck attendant >> and I think that that's something the department could uh work towards also
seeing if there's a landing spot. I know I think that individual is already at retirement, but he might be in the drop. But yes, >> and Mr. CFO, I'd like to post something that's not in here uh as something additional. Um here it comes. >> And it's about putting our money where
our mouth is, right? This is a shared sacrifice. We're asking it for each and every department. Um within the past several years, our our workloads I've I've never seen anything like this. Uh, [laughter] however, we're talking about shared sacrifice and
doing more with less and and I'll always push that. We have added positions within the mayor and commission's office, one of them being a second aid. And I I want to be very clear on this. The proposal wouldn't be to eliminate any current position. But in the event
that for each of our offices uh one of the eight positions became unfilled, one of them would leave that that second position would just be filled in a part-time capacity. >> I'm comfortable with that because I think we as a commission need to lead by
example when we're asking our departments to look at their, you know, operational staff, their administrative staff. I think it's on incumbent on us to to to lead with that and it's not difficult because I will tell you it's
the workload is nothing today compared to a number of years ago when I worked in this in this building as an aid uh in the the mayor commission office. social media and the availability by by by phone, by text message and the amount of
meetings and the demand on this commission over the past 5 years is completely different than what it is. And I would tell you also when you look at the resources that are available to elected officials in other cities, we
have one of the fewest resources available to us as elected officials to respond to the very high expectations that our residents rightfully have. But I think in the spirit of being good team players and being leaders in this
organization if there is a vacancy in our office, I'm fine with with saying let's not uh fill it. Let's replace it with a part-time position or look to a contract position to so that so we can still achieve our goals but in a more
lenient way. And I say that knowing that I have great staff and I know they're not going anywhere. So I know I won't have to worry about that. Um, and I think we have budgeted for each of these positions, including benefits, about $120,000. So perhaps what I'll propose is those
wouldn't be filled through a full-time W2 position. It would be a part-time contracted position up to 50 or $60,000. So essentially, it would reduce our funding by about $300,000.
Well, if I may, since we're not limiting through attrition, the budget the positions would be fully budgeted for the year, but what we would do is we would mark those to be converted to a part-time position. But, uh, just because those are kind could be two different numbers. Is it part time or is it a >> Yeah, understand it may not it won't
take effect for this year's budget, but I think going forward whether we stop it this year, next year, or if your commissioner Fernandez, you know, his aids won't leave for four years. So, uh, you know, um, but at least it gets our
mayor and commission's office trending in a more lean, efficient direction, although I do echo that the workload has never been uh larger, but we do have to lead by example. >> And then, commissioner, exactly, I think this would just show budget uh savings,
dividends, you know, down the line. So uh so hearing there's a there's a recommendation by the chair uh to have the the six mayor mayor uh I'm sorry commission aid positions through a backfill attrition process to be uh converted from a full-time to a
part-time uh is there >> with a budget of up to $50,000. So right now at no benefits so we'll I think we have budgeted 110 or $120,000. So when those savings are realized
collectively throughout the mayor and commission's office, it'll be north of $300,000. >> Just to clarify, you're talking about the second aid position, not both aid positions. >> Correct. Yes. >> So is there any objection to that recommendation by the chair >> and and and I'm I'm fine. I just also
want to make sure that then you know the other positions that we have available in the mayor and commission's office you know the you know we have the Georgie and Juan and and all that they and and Daphne that they are available to all of us is we really do have a lot of demands
each of us have a great amount of demand this there is a reason why these positions exist uh so I just want to make sure that the other positions you know do remain available to support us to help us and when we have a request
you know that they're there to help our offices. >> Yeah. And just to let you know, so I one of the positions that was specifically reporting to me the number 92 is the public safety. I am not replacing that position and I've asked uh my team uh
specifically on this issue, Danny Summer, public policy adviser, to to pick up the load uh on that. But yeah, and and obviously when I started um there was only one commission aid when I started as commissioner. Now each each
of us each of you have I actually I have different titles so they're not they're not called aids but um each of each of the commissioners have two aids when it used to be one not that not that long ago. >> So we we show I think there's a consensus we'll show I think from hearing is it's not really a part-time position. It'll be an ICA consulting up
to and we'll show a $50,000 budget uh when and if that uh does happen and that would be so we'll fully budget the positions for now but again as they backfill that'll show budgetary uh savings in the future. So hearing consensus no objection we'll add uh that item. Thank you. And we bring that back
up. >> And if my aids are listed now they can't leave because that means I'm short. So you guys stick around please. >> Gotcha. Okay. So we're going to move on to more. Uh the next slide is is mostly parks. So uh just for reference item 104
through 108 are all right sizing though they're showing uh reductions in the reducing the budget allocated for specific programs. Those programs 104 uh through 108 are all right sizing. So the hockey, the baseball, the ice skating as an example. the level of service and
programming that the parks department is putting out right now will not be changed. There's just some uh additional dollars that were added in that area. Um and then the scaleback production on the summer showcase uh they'll still have
that just to be able to kind of cut out some of the outside contract and services and still deliver a nice program. >> 109 is that one that we can look at um at the end if uh there's fair enough money left over that we can include. I think we're okay with that. I think this goes in the same vein as that element
that was earlier um there. So, we get under citywide. So, we will >> Yeah. Commissioner Suarez. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Dominguez. >> Oh, and uh number 114. Um it's something that we've had in place for a number of years and to uh eliminate it, I think
could cause confusion. Um we'll have more mess in our parks and uh sidewalks. >> Agree. How about we eliminate that unless anybody by consensus? not even to be discussed. >> Do we have any objection to removing item 114? Hearing none, we will show
item 114 removed. >> And Commissioner Suarez, >> that's what I was going to talk about. >> Okay. Uh there's any other scaling back. >> Uh Commissioner Selenus and Fernandez. >> Um I also want to bring our attention to
116, right? I want to make sure that's fully funded and not cut at all. And also 115. Um, this is again cutting services to residents and our resident children. Um, and I I do think that that needs to be fully funded.
Um, and 112 as well. Um, again, this is all, you know, service to our residents. Even 110. I mean, I love the playground review. I don't know how you're going to cut it. I >> So, I don't think we are, but John,
maybe you can come up and speak. Well, I can let me answer a few of those because I have a few. >> I know that I mean uh it's my daughter's favorite. I wasn't going to bring it up because I think we're still going to do it, but maybe you can speak on that. John, >> if I can just a couple before uh John
speaks is on this just for context on the summer camp reduction where that would reduce from 81 to 54 uh field trips. So each class or group would go from three uh to two. So that would just be one. And then I wanted to mention on the
I think it was oh the 112 I'm sorry that one if I recall that was the photos with Santa and that was taking four programs and putting them into two where you have a separate photos with Santa and a winter fest and you have a Easter bunny and a
Easter type event and was combining them. So it' be saving staff labor related to that. So you would still have those programs. Easter Bunny is the Santa Claus. Then >> perhaps it's the same gentleman. He owns two suits. Uh so it was just we're looking as an efficiency. You're still getting the same programs and services.
We're just making four events into two events. >> It's a small savings. >> Let me turn it over to you. >> And you you and your team actually do >> incredible across the board. But, you know, for the summer camps, which my
daughter is in now, um, I love to be able to send my daughter to our own local camp facility, as I know hundreds of other, uh, families are. It's a true amenity of our community. So, that being said, you and your team do a fabulous job. Tell us about the, uh, the summer
review. If that's really scaling things back, is it just kind of doing things in house? >> We would move that to an in-house performance. It would be at at a park or inside the auditori um the the cafeterium that we're going to call it Northshore youth center that we would instead of going to the Filillmore or something like that and paying those
rental costs and those those staging costs. >> They charge us for that. >> We we do we do have an expense. I I feel >> let's have a discussion with the Filmore about that. We do a lot for them, do we not, Mr. City Manager? >> Yes sir, we do.
>> Let's keep this in place. >> Okay. and in not keep it in place for elimination. Let's not eliminate it, but let's can I ask you to lead some of those conversations with the Filillmore and say we have elementary school kids that do a musical. Do you really want to
charge us for this? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. So on that element, if I can uh it seems that we can leave this on the reduction because it seems like either way it'll be handled through this alternative venue uh that the director mentioned or perhaps a >> and if they are not amendable to that
maybe we come back for a midyear budget >> enhancement or something like that. >> So that's on that element. >> John, but you're not done. [laughter] >> And then I have >> just on 116 that Commissioner Matte Senus mentioned. So the reduced parks and recreation funding for Veterans Day
parade event. My understanding is there's a $40,000 expense. This would reduce it by 5,000. So the parade is still going on. It's just Can you tell me? Cor >> correct. We would be just doing see what we could do with a less of a budget. It wasn't elimination of parade in no way.
It's just reduced the budget by a small amount. >> And do you think it impacts would impact the parade in any way? >> Parade gets bigger and better every year. So that you there would be some we haven't identified the exact impact yet but there would be something missing. Yes.
>> I wouldn't Yeah. >> I just want Thank you. And and also this is for which this is for >> Veterans Day. >> But what day? What year? For this coming >> every year. It would be Yes. >> This November. >> This November >> when we're celebrating America 250. Yes.
I >> Yeah. I wouldn't touch it. >> Okay. So let me is there a consensus that item 116 will be removed? >> I think if we we'll go consensus to remove 114 115 116. I think that's where we're at.
>> Is there is there any objection to for those three? Uh is there any objection hearing? None objection. We'll show uh adding 115 and 116 to be removed. Comm >> I'm sorry. I don't have an objection to that. I wanted to go back to 110 real
quick. So, are we closed out on 14, 15, and 16? >> Yep. Yes. >> Okay. So, 110. I [clears throat] appreciate what you said, Commissioner Magazine, about having the Fillmore have discussions with us about not charging us, but I I still want to remove it off
of here so that way in case those discussions don't happen. Would this affect this wouldn't affect this camp this year's summer? >> No. No. And and again it either I guess through a waiver through the filmor if that is and if not there's a an alternative uh facility that the uh director has uh identified that would
save $38,000 >> and also there's >> I'd like to push for this to be removed on here. I >> Okay. There is a a request to to uh eliminate uh item 110. I my only
hesitation right is removing this and then we get a waiver of the Fillmore and then this just kind of sticks in purgatory right so I'm 100% aligned with you commissioner Selenus perhaps I think the just way to run a
kind of better process is eliminating it and if we we'll give two months to the city manager to have those discussions with the film more and if they are unsuccessful we'll come back for a budget amendment data back because I just feel as if we lose this opportunity
I'm confident you're going to have that successful discussion with the Filillmore if it was for this year I would agree right but we have 13 months to have that let's give it two months for the city manager if you come back and say nope they couldn't work with us
then I'll sponsor a mid-year amendment >> if I may I think that may be a pretty good approach I just talked to the director that they'll try to have that conversation between now and the September 1st budget hearing and we'll give an update then. So we can leave it now and then we'll give you that information. Yes or no? And you make the ultimate decision in September.
>> Perfect. Okay. Thank you. So I think we can bring that back up. I think we're done with this slide. >> Wait a minute. Oh, sorry. >> And 109 was removed. Did we >> Oh, uh, no, there was no there. Oh, the 109 was listed to uh like the other previous one to be discussed at the end. >> Okay, that's right. I'm sorry.
>> So that's a 2B TBD. Okay. All right. So we're going to move on to the next slide. right here. Yeah. >> So, the next slide actually continues on parks programming. The first two items we have been funding for several years.
So, we are doing uh reduction on those first two. And then for the cultural arts programming, that's a a program actually done by the parks department. Uh we're recommending a reduction. The senior field trips that was discussed last year that would be recommending
going from um 12 for the year to six. Okay. >> I'm going to have you look at the rest to see if you had any um comments. >> Mr. Chair, I'm going to request for number 128 and 129 >> to be removed from the efficiencies
list. >> Y I'm certainly with you on 128 and I don't want to speak for others, but I think we'd have consensus there. Right. >> So on uh 128 uh that is the the full uh filled park uh park ranger positions. Is there any objection to removing it?
Hearing none, we will show item 128 uh removed from consideration. >> And my concern with uh 129 is that again when we're talking about expediting the plan review process, expedite permitting that this is one of those positions that
I believe uh Mr. Manager, correct me if I'm wrong, uh what would how does this relate to that? This is the uh peer peer review. >> Yeah, this is this is not a position. This is actually uh contracted services.
>> We have the director. >> Oh, and I see we have our planning director >> and >> um good morning. So, this is for an outside consultant um that we pay to review applicants. Uh primarily it would
be a traffic study and or a sound study. These are applications that go through typically it's the planning board but it could also be the design review board or the historic preservation board. Their professional submits a study um professional study and then we um have
the peer review. Now that is reimburseable by the applicants typically. >> So okay so this is all reimburseable. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so >> maybe not all of it but the the majority of it is is charged back to the applicant. Yes. >> And Okay. And so we don't carry the
burden the real burden of it. And if we eliminate this, we're how does that peer review get done? >> It it would still get done because again we're charging back to the applicants. The the amount that we're budgeting for it is just not what we see being. >> Okay. So this is a right sizing. Yes. >> Okay. So I'm fine keeping the right
sizing in in the in the efficiencies. Thank you, Madam Director. >> So let's bring up the let's bring the slide presentation back up. >> Are there any other elements on this slide? Yes. >> Okay. >> 127. [cough] [clears throat]
My phone blew up. Uh John, you you run a phenomenal program. Uh this this teen club. I My phone blew this one. I got the most they they do not want these teen programs to be collapsed into one.
Um I got folks that called and and were naming the people that work for this program that they do such a great job. Um, and I I really this is again another service for our residents that are that's beloved. So, thank you for running a great team program at Nautilus. There's two I understand that
and folks want to keep it that way and I just really want to highly suggest that we take this off the cut list. >> I have a question uh because I would love for us to keep it to the extent that we can. I see part of this are is funded through state grants.
>> Uh yes, there there's two elements. There's two programs that run concurrently I believe at Nautilus. One is through parks which is done by staff which is the uh reduction that is listed there at $392,000 and through our community and uh
>> housing and community >> housing and community services department through Albus team. We have a uh children's trust grant uh that runs that program for free for our residents. So they do both run uh at Nautilus uh both related to teens. And the discussion was again looking for
reductions in efficiencies here. Uh was that was we had two programs at the same facility. The kind of the same concept was that we could eliminate the one that we are funding and then kind of hold on to the one that was being fully grant funded. Uh they both have their uh
individual groups and then they would work together to uh any any children that were in the one program to move to uh the other program. my son was one of them uh to move them into the other one and that uh you know my education team with uh Dr. Leslie Lizenfeld would work uh with Albus team to make sure they got
all the required documentation with the school board >> and so would this reduce the amount of children that would be serviced um by the program. >> Good afternoon of Housing and Community Services. Not necessarily. What
potentially may change would be the program structure uh but not the children served >> through the chair. I also noticed that there's two vacant positions currently. Right. So they're not it's not even filled part time for parks.
>> Right. There are some that are filled, but we also have vacant within this program itself. >> How long have I'm sorry. >> It's okay. So it's okay. >> No. How long have those positions been vacant for? I I don't have that the position numbers written down.
>> And do you need three full-time just it's for >> the the full-time are all filled. This is the part it's the vacant ones are part- timerrs. >> So he's running it with three full-timers, >> right? So for the parks and recreation team program, you need three full-time
positions [snorts] for that. >> We could is being ran by three full-time. We could certainly look to see if that is necessary or more part time. >> It makes sense >> and then transition them to something. >> It makes sense to have you know maybe we
don't eliminate it completely but just go down to one. I think the level of service is really I think they both they work uh two different levels of service and what their programs are delivering uh where the parks is maybe more robust with more uh uh labor uh more people that are able
to deliver the services of those kids versus the uh the Allstars program uh that runs out of Alba's house. >> Don't we also need a certain number of individuals per child? >> Yes. So I I don't want to go too deep
off the cuff here, but we do have um adult to child ratios that we need to follow. You have do have different activities going on at the same time. Um I can sit back, see if I can get you a better answer, but I don't want to answer precisely on the floor. >> So how about we move this to just a
further discussion? I'm going to support Commissioner Matselinas in in preserving the program um and seeing so that you know between now and maybe the next time we see these numbers again see there's any other right sizing what's overlapping with the grant how can we
you know keep the program while making it more efficient. So it may sound like that we would keep it for now, but perhaps maybe with the the commissioners that have interest in this would have discussions with the two directors more in depth about those programs and then to make that final decision uh in
September or is there recommendation to do this right now? >> I would really like to take this off the list right now. They're two different programs are completely different. >> They're run completely differently. Um, and this is this a service to our residents that have children that are
raising their children here. You know, I I would like to take this off right now. >> Okay. So, there's a request uh to remove this. >> We're not eliminating the program. We're just trying to see how much more efficient it could be. So, for example, there's two vacant positions right now that we can save taxpayer money.
>> What's on the the table here is the elimination of the parks and recck program, >> right? So that so we can discuss this at the pile that we're going to be discussing this the cuts at the end. >> No, the recom the I think the request
from the commissioner is for right now like the past few is it is to remove this entirely at this point. Is there a is there a consensus to remove this item uh from consideration for reduction? >> I'll support it. >> Is there an objection to rem? >> I object. I think we I think this can be
analyzed a little bit better. I don't think we need But I think there's a I think there's a consensus to remove it now. >> Um there is some ambiguity. So maybe it can just be discussed. I'm I'm not going to vote to get rid of anything that is
serving our teens, but there seems to be some ambiguity if there's a degree of overlap or things like that. So uh maybe we can >> Why does it go from 392 to 455? >> Yeah, >> seems pretty high. >> The sec the second year you'll have certain benefits like pensions and
things like that. So you have your savings and the the immediate elimination of the salaries, taxes and benefits. But then the second year because the way the actual aerial analysis on pensions happen, they always take it one year to go in. That's why you always see the difference with any position whether you're adding or subtracting is you always look that's
why we say was look at the second year when you're looking at staffing to see what your true savings or cost is. >> Yeah, Commissioner Sel, I'm not trying to kill this item. I'm just simply saying let's make it let's trim it down make it more efficient cuz clearly I mean it it's going up you quite a
significant amount from next year from one year to the next and it's just going to keep on going. >> Well, but isn't that the reduction from one year to the next because we're reducing the program? >> The item that's before you is the elimination of the parks program.
But there I I believe there's a consensus not unanimous but I believe there's a consensus at this time to remove this element for uh from consideration again it could be brought up again in September but >> the efficiencies list so this would be this would be removed for consideration
program right >> yeah I do want to talk more in September if we can you know kind of thread the needle with commissioner Suarez's points if we can make this more efficient um I don't want to do anything to remove a critical program but perhaps Perhaps we can talk about the details of having
this more efficient. >> Yeah. Again, I'm not trying to I don't I think it's a great program. I just don't think you need three full-time positions. >> I understand the point. >> So, what I think we could do for now, I think by the consensus is is to remove it from consideration now, but uh John would maybe work with the chair uh to
maybe bring back a slightly modified one to see if there's a come back to us. >> September at the first budget hearing, just like the other elements we're talking about. >> Is there going to be like a list of items that we have singled out? The only ones so far specifically that we brought back were the uh the items that with the
city attorney's office we requested to come back with a recommendation on that and this this element could come back for uh consideration on a uh scaledback reduction but for now we would show this uh show this removed for the purpose of our preliminary budget. Okay. All right.
Let's move on. So we'll show that there and we'll make a note again for the director to work with the chair. All right, bring that up. Okay, >> so the first item on this list is for the planning department. It won't have an impact on the position, the person in
that position. The person is actually funded at the lower level. So we just reclass the position position to where the person is right at right now. Um the other three items below are planning, you know, list to get to their 5% reduction. It would be reducing some of
their operating costs. Starting at 134 down is where we get to the police department. The first one is probably the easiest of all the items on the list. It's uh two detention officers that were added to the budget back in 2024. They were never filled.
>> And I'll just pause to see if there's any input. >> Mr. Chair, Um, okay. So, I have concerns with items number 137, items 139,
140, 141, these are full-time positions in our departments. And when we read the imp or the description of these when I see 137 eliminating the position will reduce traffic mitigation
and res and slow response times for non-emergency calls. I I can't support that when I see >> And can we stay on that one, Commissioner real quick? And I agree with you. Uh I has it taken a while to
fill these um positions if I'm thinking about these right. >> Uh I don't want to say it was the mayor's initiative. Um so I apologize if it was one of the other commissioners. I I know the mayor highlighted it, but this is having in a way saving money
because we're having lowerc cost personnel out performing duties that >> police officers have to perform now such as, you know, traffic mitigation duties, >> right? It's nonsworn positions performing services that hopefully free
up our sworn officers to do the more important. And when you see this, it tells you their removal will increase the workload on sworn officers and diminish overall service delivery. >> Agree wholeheartedly. I guess I'm asking why are there three unfilled? Um Chief,
I'll turn it over to you. Uh has it taken a while? Anything we can do to help with that? >> Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Commission. Uh Wayne Jones, police chief. As it relates to the public service uh specialist, um we were actually at full staffing, but we have
had a number of people that um left the position. >> Okay. >> Um we just hired one more. We graduated public service academy about 3 weeks ago. Um so we we we um we took a hard look at the positions we had available. The whole idea was and I worked with the
city manager on this. We wanted to offer up nameless faceless people other way other in other words people who are not physically here. Um and since those positions are vacant we thought uh the most feasible um sensitive to our people
that are here thing to do of these PSS despite the impact it has on our overall operational needs. and chief, maybe a discussion that uh we can have or you can give consideration to in the interim. Um I I think you're
going to see probably a lot of uh support to keep anything that has a face to it or even in this case uh is going to get in the way of operations even though it is vacant. um if there's things outside of our frontline police
officers that that we all value um there's possibilities there because I think we're going to give a lot of these uh because you know we we prioritize public safety and things like that but if there are um communic whatever it may
be right like uh >> I I want to yeah I want to I want to echo you because I'm you know similar to the question I asked of Chief Abello. I mean, what are the other vacancies that exist in the department? Operational
costs, administrative positions, nonsworn positions that may exist inside the department that are not the public facing positions. Because for me, when I get this document and I see an item like
139, 139 to eliminate one full-time robbery detective position, which is going to reduce the capacity to handle complex robberies in a timely way and with fewer specialized investigators, um, we're going we're we're going to
impact the level of service. I I'm not going to support that. I mean, you know, we've been sitting here, we've been complaining about car break-ins and uh and the and and and the issues that we have with [clears throat] with them. The same thing with, you know, the major
with the major crimes where if we eliminate that 140, we're going to see an increased risk associated with unresolved serious offenses. To me, this is not the priority that I want to see us eliminating. But what are other
vacancies that could that could exist in the department or other operational costs that aren't here uh that that that we could consider instead >> through the chair? >> Yeah, chief. Uh for for 139,
year one impact is it's 136, but year two it's you know more than double. How is that possible? Um, I'm going to defer to Jason answer that that question in terms of why the cost or the savings is much greater in
the second year. Um, but Commissioner Fernandez, to answer your question, we put a lot of thought and effort into this. Um, would would love to recommend the cutting of more administrative support, but we can't. We're as lean as
we possibly can be. We had commissioned a matrix study um on this about a year and a half ago and quite frankly their recommendations to hire more admin support staff to support the police department. When I was hired this police department is well 300 police officers about 10 years ago is 307 police
officers. Right now 437 in 2008 2007 the city because of budgetary constraints asked us to cut up to 2/3 of admin staff. That has not changed. The police department has grown in terms of sworn police personnel exponentially whereas our admin support staff has remained
flat. We cannot operate a police department without support staff. We cannot get any leaner than we are right now. >> And so can you explain how it get doubled or two? >> Yeah, I think [laughter] items 139 4041 are specific employees that were identified through their drop dates. So
that year one is only is part showing them partially funded until their retirement dates. And that's why you would see would you expect so the true cost would be 290. >> Yeah, I would look you' look at that year two number to see your your your good impact there. >> Okay. And so Chief, why why did you
think that was an appropriate cut? [snorts] >> I'm sorry. >> Why did you think that was that's an appropriate cut? >> Well, retiring person, we simply wouldn't backfill that position. And again, um uh the alternative is to reduce someone who's already here. >> How many how many robbery detectives do
we have? Uh top minute I think we have five plus origin. >> Five plus origin. >> Yeah. >> So that's so you're we're eliminating here 20% of that. >> Uh yeah. >> Okay. And and these I guess were created out of a need.
>> It was created out of a need. Uh simply put the folks that remain would have to pick up the slack if you will. Prior to work our robbery unit do in fact we compared to last year our robbies down 50%. a robbery arrest rate closure rate is well above the national average about 56% when most of the country around
mid20s do they do great work um and >> so are we going to affect the level of service that we're delivering I mean we see the stats and the stats tell us that we're you know we're we're having less crimes less of these major crimes and is it because of the work of these
detectives that we're seeing a reduction in these crime numbers and if we eliminate this Mr. manager, this came from you. Are we going to see an impact to the level of service that we're going to be able to provide in public safety? >> So, one of the things that the city of
Miami Beach does extremely well, one of many things, is we always catch our bad guys. And these detectives are instrumental in making sure that we can close cases and catch our bad guys in a timely fashion. There is no doubt that
this would impact the timing of us being able to close those cases. >> But it's not just that. It's, you know, going down this list, you know, and going looking at the ATV squads, the bike squads, the PSTs, uh, all of these other things, eliminating this, are we
going to be affecting the level of service that our residents are currently getting on public safety? >> Yes. Yeah. Okay. And I want to understand just just so that I understand because you know >> we've come a very long way.
>> We've come a very long way from the pot smoking and the robberies and the and and the criminality that used to outnumber our police and hurt our brand and destroy our residents quality of life to now you know be considering
something like this. And Jason, I I I I want to understand because these numbers are being made to achieve a rolled back budget. So I want to understand if I'm considering to sacrifice this, what is
what what is what does that rolled back rate represent to our residents in terms of savings? Because I just want to understand what I'm sacrificing here and what the residents are going to get in return. When I say I'm going to eliminate a robbery detective, a major
crimes unit detective position, the ATVs and and the officers and all these positions is to achieve what savings to our residents >> in total would be the 20.8 unless you're taking like an average or median household. >> Yeah. For directly for our residents?
>> Uh let's see. for for a median household. So for if we were doing a rolled back rate, it would be a actually a $40 per year reduction. >> $40. Okay. So for $40 to save to save $40,
we are going to consider sacrificing the safety, the progress that we have made to finally make it over the curb. when it comes to public safety. >> Are you kidding me? Are you
>> Commissioner Commissioner, >> I I it that's not what this is about. >> It look at look at the items that we these >> I'll wait I'll wait my turn to speak but >> No, but No, please. I mean, these are the these are the same items that we
have supported >> and I and at this point >> I don't want to cut you off. I'll speak after. >> Yeah. No, I want to >> No, but I think we look I I look at it like this. I agree with I I and mostly I agree with you. Um we're not we're not looking to sacrifice anything. We're not looking to sacrifice positions. I guess
there are many ways to do this. I'm not I'm I'm throwing hypotheticals out here. I'm not proposing we do this. But let's say there was a management position that through a normal retirement was filled. Now you have to make your determination. Do you need to fill that? Was that person instrumental? or could you hire a
new police officer that'll be on the street that makes significantly less but will be a visible component of our police department as opposed to replacing that with a management. Again, these are decisions that could impact in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
each time. Again, that's a hypothetical. Conferences, travel, I mean, these are all things that that all add up that we should be looking at. But >> that's not what we have here. >> I understand. But by the way, we in all fairness, we've tasked Eric and our and Jason and Tamika to come up with
proposals. Now, they're proposals and we have to make the decisions and I agree with you. I am not looking to cut our police department um at all. I'm throwing out suggestions and again that's something you can weigh in on uh chief, but I I personally think through
the chair >> that that we're probably I'm going to just say maybe a little topheavy and uh we could I I'd rather see the officers the line officers out in the street. That's my take. And there and it's and it's potentially a cost savings.
Yeah, I'm just looking at these like the cost on on year two because that's the actualized salary. I'm assuming $320,000 for one full-time sergeant for the priority
service team. $320,000. Is that correct? >> I'm going to defer to >> that. That's We haven't gotten to that slide yet. That's on a >> That's 143. >> That's Yeah, that right. We were The slide went wrong went through 141. The next slide does have that position. >> And then one full-time sergeant of
police position, ATV bike supervisor, >> $312,000. >> That's I mean, that's a that's a that's big. That's a lot. That's more than some doctors make. Full-time detective position, background,
>> that that's an all in salary, taxes, uh benefits, pensions, and everything. That's why that that number is that size. That's not their salary. >> That's but that's the that's the cost of taxpayers, correct? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I see. >> Yeah. I This these are these are very expensive numbers and I'm I think I'm
with the mayor that I would rather see more people from the police department on patrol. And I think we had this conversation, Chief. How many officers are actually out on patrol in any given at any given
time? Um, Mr. Commission, it depends on the day of week, time of the week. Uh, if it's on an overlap day, then that number is going to be doubled. On average, on a given shift, uh, anywhere from uh, 24 to uh, 30 police officers on the streets of
the city. So, that's just regular shift, not that's not including uh, any special detail we have going on or police officers working off duty details. So we have anywhere between 24 and 30 officers on on foot or out on the beat
>> on average that it goes up depending on um day times and sort of stuff. >> Yeah. >> And we have how many sworn officers? 400 >> we're budgeted for 437. >> I mean that's like less than 10%. 10% of the force is out actually
facing the public. And I'm not saying that the other 90% isn't >> isn't doing their job, but if I had to prioritize more proactive policing work as opposed to reactive, I think that's where money is better
well spent. But again, I mean, I'm looking at these salaries and it's just it's very expensive. You know, 320,000, 312, 295. It's just, you know, I I I I certainly don't want to eliminate 144, which is
full-time police officer positions, ATV squad. And those I'm assuming those guys are out there, right? They're they're on the sand. They're patrolling. The Does the supervisor of the ATV bike squad actually go out?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And if we were to eliminate the supervisor, but keep the the four full-time ATB squad, how would that work? >> Um, well, the whole idea is even though
we're offering up that squad as a whole, as a part of the reduction, we won't abandon the beach, will always be cops assigned to the sand on ATVs. He or she would would report directly to the area sergeant, area for sergeant in this particular case. But there will be
presence just have defined squad per se. >> So they so there is a world where we can keep the four full-time police officers who are on ATVs but not necessarily fill this ATV bike squad supervisor that's going to cost the taxpayers $312,000.
>> Well to be to be clear both the sergeant and the entire squad would be absorbed back into regular patrol. Um and again uh the beach won't be abandoned. Uh, police officers on ATVs will be on the beach, but assign but report directly to the air sergeant. Want to say something?
>> Yeah, I just want to say something. Good morning or afternoon everyone. Um, you know, you you say it's just a sergeant position, but there's one thing to be a sergeant of an ATV squad where you find short and long-term solutions. You meet with HOA presidents. It's not the same as just putting four bodies out there
and said report to a [snorts] zone sergeant, which is already handling a a variety of different things. The same goes for the I saw I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the problem solving team on there. These guys have made almost 800 arrests year to date 2026. The majority of the arrests homeless
arrests that are being made are being made by the problem solving team again because they have a sergeant. They get a directive. They study the problem. They take care of it and they come up with solutions. The union's position is no sworn should be absorbed either through attrition. we know we don't have layoffs
because we were here in December and I remember they brought the chief up and I believe Mayor Miner was your item and you brought him up to say congratulations you guys just made it to 437 we haven't been fully staffed in decades there was that scene from Pul Fiction I'm not going to say what it
says where Mr. Wolf comes in. He says, "Before we start celebrating too early, boys." And that's not the words he used. Let's take a break. And and this is what's happened. Here we are 8 months later and we're talking about laying off or not laying off, but getting rid of police position. Every position in there, the there two detention officers.
So it's not just the detention officer. What happens now is an officer makes an arrest. He has to leave his the city of Miami Beach, transport him to TGK, which is near the airport, and that's one less police officer on the street where he could have been. That's two hours at least. and you've seen the traffic in Miami.
>> Bobby, can I can I interject? And again, I I I don't I'm not this is not a policy discussion per se. So, I'm not I'm just giving an example, but this is a perfect example where could there be efficiencies? Could there And I think we do it to some degree where as opposed to each officer leaving the beach, you take
six arresties at once. I think we do that to some degree, but that that's I personally that's where I'm at. That's where I'm at. I'm not looking to eliminate positions, but I think it's a hard look at whether there's a more efficient way of doing things that can because I I think I I hear the same
thing from everybody from a different angle, whether it be Commissioner Fernandez, Commissioner Suarez. We're looking to maximize the amount of police officers on our streets that are visible and people see because that is the biggest deterrent to crime. And I think we've proven that as major crimes are
down year-over-year, double digits. The year before, double digits, 18%, 15%, homeless numbers, the lowest ever. I mean, we're doing a great job. You're doing a great job. We're all doing a great job. But how do we even increase that even more? That's what I'm consistently. That's what I focus on all the time.
>> Well, that that number about the 45, 40 bodies, whatever, 10%. That's just one shift. There's more than 40 people that work a day. So, it's there's a lot more officers are out there than just one particular shift. And you have to add the offduty component. And then there's the issue of the overtime. You know,
1996, Chief Perto at the time came in. I still remember like it was yesterday. And he came in and says, you know, sometimes we need 800 cops. Sometimes we only need 300, but we're going to got to have 800 officers on the payroll with a payroll and benefits package when we we can only really need 800 every three, four times a year. And uh every position
is important. And it's not the detention officer. It's it's more than that because now you have to have one in the jail. Then you have to have a transport wagon. So, it's really should be two detention officers. I know when I was a patrol sergeant, how frustrating it was to say, "Where's three of my bodies at? They're all transporting people to TGK or Day County Jail back then." So, every
spot there is is essential and it affects my members because it affects more importantly crime rates, uh, less officers on the street. So, but everything that position of of the of the electric bike sergeant and the ATV sergeant is huge because that's going to
be a long-term fix. And again, going back to the problem solving team, they are warriors. They're the ones that are out there putting a dent in this homelessness arrest and any crimes that might pop up. So, just just for consideration and the union position is that we really we worked hard to get to
437. Uh, robbery detective as a chief spoke about, we have the highest clearance rates in South Florida, if not the nation. We're up there. One of the fastest, the fastest responding police departments in the nation. So that means when you knock on when you call 911 cuz you hear somebody walking down your
hallway, just broke into your house, citizens of Miami Beach can be rest assured that they got the fastest responding police department in the nation. And you can do all your factchecking if you want. I'm telling you, that's spot on. The other day, about a year and a half ago, we had a possible active government here behind
city hall. It was a firefighter that was doing exercising and a security guard got alarmed and it created this whole chaos. Within 2 minutes, there was 60 officers surrounding city hall. Nobody responds like that. I don't care. You pull out NYPD, there's not a department that responds in that kind of manner,
both in an offduty, on duty, and undercover capacity like we did that day. And that's what that's what the citizens want. >> I just to expand on what the mayor is saying, I think we all agree response times are great, but an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. And if we just see more
proactiveness, then you're going to see a lot less calls for service where you don't have to have 60 officers show up to city hall, for example. But again, I want to I just want to get back on topic here.
Look, I I think me personally, I don't want to cut officers here that are going to be frontf facing, that are going to be out on patrol. But, you know, I mean, a a the supervisor for the ATV squad, if there
is already a possibility for them to report to a zone officer, I mean, that's going to save us $312,000 just right there. Um for the detective position
is chief is crime up is is you know is is thefts up or down recently? I mean not not the cases that are solved but overall is theft has gone down in Miami Beach or is it up? Yeah, year to date
thefts are down 15%. >> Year to date. >> Okay. And by the way, that's to the mayor's point. It's it's it's because of the proactiveness that we believe that the police department. So if thefts are down 15%, I'm okay with that
uh reduction. And if it goes up, then you know, we'll have to budget for it. I I guess. But you know, we we our revenues are going down. You saw the line graph. and our spending is going up and and we've got to
we're going to have to cut $7 million today no matter what. And I don't know if we if we're even there. So, like I said, I me personally, I think keeping officers who are on the beat is essential,
but officers behind a desk, I don't necessarily think that that should be taken off consideration. I mean again these these the cost of taxpayers it's astronomical for some of these higher
level positions here and this is just one year. So I don't know how my my colleagues think about that commission. >> Oh yeah I spoke about it so I'm clear >> and so to my point it you know and and I think we're we're all saying saying the
same thing. I have great frustration, significant frustration for me with the efficiencies that are here because to me these are the positions that are out in the streets. I want to know what are the the positions that are in in in the
department um where that might be, you know, staff positions inside the department um unfilled positions uh that may that may exist. I I just I just feel that this isn't this isn't the area
where where where we cut >> and I agree with that commissioner. I think I agree with a lot of what people are saying here, right? We've come so far as a city. I do not want to be, you know, uh, dollar short pound
foolish and take away officers that are on the front line out on the street that we all pat ourselves on the back for curing public safety or enhancing it. And it's, you know, through a lot of the efforts of the police department, um, I think what we can do is work on better
operational plans perhaps, especially, this is just through my anecdotal observations. It's kind of the same discussion with the fire as well. It's not so much how many people we have employed, but especially for some of these staff uh,
special events. Are we overstaffed? Because that's where a lot of this overtime comes from. And you know, I'll just put out different examples. The Food and Wine Fest, right? Are there more people there on that beach than on a normal Saturday? But we
have, you know, dozens of officers and firefighters and things like that. Um, can we look at better operational efficiency for things like that? the World Cup, which our city's been phenomenal for, >> being more uh kind of
uh pinpointed in where we're deploying our resources, you know, okay, for some of the more passionate fan bases, yes, having larger staff, but for a France Spain game where there's 20 people in the park, do we need 20 officers out there? Right? So, I think we can get
better in being more efficient in some of our operational efficiencies, which will reduce some of the overtime spending while still having these critical positions filled. And I do think that there's some I don't know if they're administrative positions around
the edges. And I I hate calling anybody out and it's not personal or things like that, but I I saw it with the fire and with police as well. Um, you know, we don't need like social media PR people for the police department. They show up
with a camera so sophisticated it looks like the Hubble telescope, right? That's I'd love one of those for my staff, but we don't have it. I'd rather have our frontline workers in fire, our frontline workers in police. We need your help in identifying that. I
only saw that because I see with my own two eyes at the Columbia concert. uh the concert with the Colombian artist for World Cup. It's like, you know, we don't need a social media person to show up and take pictures of the fire or the
police. Is it nice to have? Sure. Right. But I don't want it to come at the expense of our frontline men and women within the police or the fire department and things like that. So, I'm not going to be very supportive in removing many of these efficiencies. That doesn't mean
we can't do self-evaluation to see if there are other areas where I think where you hear this conversation going if there are further um so >> further interspection that we can do between now and September. So if I can
make a proposal that we should keep 1445 146 which is 13 officers who are on foot on patrol and eliminate the priority service team, the PST,
uh the sergeant there and the bike squad supervisor and the detective position. since thefts are down by 15%. And the robbery as well and that's a
million dollars. >> If I can commissioner to assist, I I believe it was 14 cuz everything right now is on the list. I believe your recommendation, >> you know, maybe we can just go from the top, right? Is that okay? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Maybe we start with 130 and we'll
just kind of make our way down the line. It would for police, uh, we'd start at 134. >> Yep. >> Uh, >> yes. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought that said, uh, police. Yep. So, is there any I guess going down the list, is there u any issues on 134?
>> How long have these been vacant for? >> I believe they were added to the budget. Uh, your >> Yeah, they were added two years ago and have never been filled. >> Okay, I'm fine with that. Yeah, couple years ago almost. >> Yeah. So, they were added and have never been filled. >> Mr. Mayor, I think this was your initiative. >> Yeah. But, um, >> it was mine.
>> Oh, yeah. Uh, and just so you know, we we worked desperately to fill those positions, but become a Miami Beach police officer, detention officer is a very difficult process. Um, dozens of applicants and just couldn't find anybody who made the cut. >> And Bobby, hear exactly what you're saying.
I'd rather give up something we haven't had for two years and make sure we're firing on all cylinders in these other areas. >> And there are a number these are vacant and we as we go through some are vacant and some are filled. Yeah. >> Um, so I think we're have a consensus
there. Uh, 35 is a vacant uh crime analyst supervisor. >> How long has this been vacant for? >> Oh, I don't know. >> Uh, >> 2024. >> Yeah. Okay, I'm fine with that. >> Yeah, >> for the next one. >> The next one also.
>> So, the real time specialists, uh, those are full-time and vacant and those are also been vacant since 24. I'm fine with that. >> I think we should I mean we've invested so much in Arctic and to not have somebody monitoring in real time. >> Chief, maybe you can staffing we have
hired um some some of them um we actually have one person on deck that depending on what happens today may not be [clears throat] hired. Uh but again uh getting hired in police department folks have to go through an extensive background check and despite the fact we get lots and lots of applicants many of
them just don't make it. So, so on it sounds like 36 we're talking about. It sounds like they're vacant, but there's one position that is ready to be filled. Yes. >> How many positions do we currently have in the real time intelligence center? >> Uh, for that position, you still have to four. >> I'm sorry. >> Four. >> Four. A total of four.
>> Two are vacant, but you have someone. >> Sorry. I'm sorry. >> Six. We got four out of six hired. >> Okay. >> And did you say that there's one that you're about to hire? >> Yeah. Yes. It's already >> So, there'll be five out of the six will be filled >> pending the disposition of today. >> Correct. was that >> pending the disposition of today.
>> So, [clears throat] why don't we eliminate one and and look, the Arctic has been incredibly successful. It reduces wear and tear on the officers because the drones can get up and and get there before anybody can get there in person and make it safer for the officers responding. So, let's get that
person on boarded, have five, eliminate one, and everyone. There's a proposal on 136 to um to restore the funding for one of the two real-time crime specialists. Any objection? No. It seems that we have
three consensus. So, we will add back one position. Okay. Uh keep going on. 137. Uh there are three vacant and one filled public safety specialists. Chief, of those we would eliminate current public
service people who are hired and now we're going to terminate them. >> Three vacant water fil. >> Yes. The whole idea is we've had a couple uh leave recently. Um I think one of them applied to go to police academy. Another one left because having a baby. Uh we had people leave and the whole
idea is to just uh through attrition not back for the ones that are vacant. Just not back full. >> What's your thoughts on that? The program has been >> widely successful. >> Been successful. Um really [clears throat] helps us help us mitigate traffic during rush hour time in the evening time. Really help us um
alleviating uh demands on police officers [clears throat] when they go to non um priority calls to service, right? When they do accident reports, when you do reports for burglary or theft. So they are a benefit to the organization. Um but again trying not to
uh negatively impact people who are here names and faces. The whole idea is to uh unfill not fill positions that are unfilled at this time. >> And how many are there in total? >> I think uh 16 initially. >> Okay. So on this one, could we just not fill the three that are vacant and keep the one who is here?
>> Sure. I don't support the elimination of these four positions. I think, you know, they were created keeping in mind the traffic challenges that we have. Um, and um, and just realizing someone is going to have to be out there. We can
eliminate these positions and we can, you know, believe that that it's just going to go absorbed. But what's going to end up happening is that when there is a traffic congestion and we get the phone calls, a police officer is going to be the one that's going to be
deployed over there. And I think that's it's pennywise pound foolish uh because it's just gonna increase uh the workload on a sworn officer instead of that officer responding to emergency calls. Now we're going to have a police officer
playing traffic uh you know direction on an intersection >> or getting overtime >> or or getting overtime. That's the challenge. Yeah. >> What's what's the average salary for a public safety specialist? >> I'm sorry. Why can't you have top? >> I can just tell you for the four that are budgeted, it's $282,000
first year with pension 350. >> No, that's for75 for four. >> I I support keeping this, Mr. Mayor. >> I do, too. >> I I know there's proposal, but I think there's a consensus to keep uh to remove this >> remove this from the >> remove this from the consideration. Right. So, we will restore funding on
137. Okay. Uh 138 is a vacant police technical services manager. Do we know how long this has been vacant for? >> Uh, a couple years. Uh, okay sir. >> All right. So, okay. I then I support. I'm fine with that. >> Great. All right. Hear no objection. Now
we get into the next three are uh through retire uh through retirement through attrition. Uh 139. >> I don't support that. >> Okay. 140. >> Well, I'm just one person. [laughter] >> Didn't hear any object. >> You didn't hear any objections?
>> Objection. Yeah. Trying to >> I object. Are we talking about 139? >> Yeah, >> we're uh that was 139. >> Yeah, I don't support removing that uh from the budget. >> Wait, >> I think the the the the the efficiency should be removed. >> Oh, I I ap I apologize. I misunderstood.
I believe so. There's a proposal to restore funding. >> Yes. To restore position. >> Chief, I'll ask you straight out. I mean, do you think this filling this position uh is essential to continue the great work that you're doing and solving? >> What what what is 139? Robert >> or do you think
>> Yeah. Yeah. Look, you know, we've we've got we've got really amazing um impressive numbers from Robbie squad. If there's a way to take keep it, I'd love to keep it, right? Uh but again, if we have to give it up, give up a position like to give up a position that's not doesn't have a face or name to it. And
this is be one of them through attrition. >> I just one more. I assume we're I shouldn't assume, [snorts] but I'll ask you. Are we uh and obviously we're always going to need we're always going to need our our officers, but are we utilizing the latest technology and AI
and incorporating all of that into the uh our investigations? >> We are. Um and I'll tell you, you know, and thanks you, Miss May, and your entire commission. The Arctic that you guys built for us and the money you gave
us to get the technology to run it has been absolutely amazing. has been a complete not a game changer to where we do police work and so we are leveraging technology um as best we can and constantly looking u for better technology to even make us even better more efficient the way we deliver services to this community.
>> So I mean chief you you said the robberies down 15% or thefts >> 50% thefts are down 15 robberies are down 50%. >> Wait say that again. theft are down 1515% and robberies are down 50%. >> 50
>> 50. >> Okay. So guys, um you know, we're not we're not firing someone. This is out of attrition. This is what we've been talking about for a year. Robbery's down
50%. >> Theft is down 15%. And this the year to impact is going to be $290,000. I mean, we got to we got to meet somewhere on this. Like, it's it's easy to say, well, you know, I don't want to
cut this, but when the data shows that robbery and thefts are down and we're going to be incorporating more AI into detective work or robbery work, I mean, I I think we this is a position we can certainly let go. And if it ever comes
back up, then we'll have to manage accordingly through another budget process. >> I I I disagree with that. I think when when we see a decline in our robbery cases, that doesn't happen by accident. That doesn't happen by us legislating
that the criminals are still going to come into our city and they're still going to roam our streets unless they got arrested. And it's the work of these detectives that lead to those arrests. Unless unless these individuals get
arrested, they're going to commit the crime. And so, yeah, we see why are we seeing the numbers go down? Because a bad guys being taken off the street. Um I I don't want to risk the progress. And I get it and I respect the difference in in in opinion. I don't think that when
you've been making progress then that you cut what has been yielding the the progress. Um >> at what point do you you know at what point do you say if there's if if it's down 90% >> when is longterm sustained? How long have we sustained uh the current uh
numbers that we've reduced >> at the 50%? No. I'd have to go back and check. I didn't take a look. Just >> couple of years. It's been a couple of years already. Well, it's it's two years in two years in a row. But I I I'm actually more in line with with yours. We're going to where I come out is I
think >> this has all been said, but I'll encapsulate it. I think there are efficiencies that we can have that will save money. You mentioned the social media. There's there's other things taking away our the offices that we've as Bobby mentioned worked so hard to
fill. I will add and I'm going to ask a request from you because we've discussed this a lot. I bring it up again and and I say it with a positive when when when when our police have to be and and for example we've seen the crowds that we've had for FIFA. Our police are out.
They're visible. there. I I saw 6,000 Argentinian fans. First of all, they were great fans, very orderly, but that had the chance to go haywire in a split second. And the police were fantastic putting the barricades in the right place, keeping everyone moving. It was
phenomenal. The one issue I have and I've said this before and I'm sorry I'm asking you when there's just a regular day and a regular there's really no regular day in Miami Beach. If an officer could just stand outside the car, not the whole time, but just stand lean against the car, it absolutely
makes an impact. It will reduce crime even further in my opinion. It has an impact on people. Our residents love it and the bad guys don't like it. Um and I think that's something we can do more. I'm committing to you that I don't want to cut staff cuz I think we need it and I think the progress we've made. I am
not I I and I I hear Commissioner SW's point. I'm not I'm not convinced a position here or there will will move the needle, but I'm also not willing to take the chance because I that's how important public safety is, but I'm also asking to do a little bit more with what we have. And they're and that doesn't
take away I think and I'm not just saying this. I think the officers are doing a really good job. But that visibility, that standing outside the car, I can tell you even me, I'm driving, I'm driving, and if I see an officer out of car, I feel even even though I don't speed, I feel
differently. I just do. Um, and and I think it certainly that holds true for for really everybody, whether you're law-abiding, it's a positive. If you're not law abiding, it's like I'm I'm finding somewhere else to go. If I could just uh kind of convey my
line of thinking and you know I'm I'm torn. >> This is a kind of philosophical whether it be for the fire or the police as well. The best way, you know, we're facing a situation where we have declining
revenue, increasing expenses. The best way to protect the people that are here now is to be sure we are only making the most needed and efficient hires that we don't already have. Right? Because that's how you get into a budget
situation where that puts everybody at risk. Right? If I'm sitting I'm a finance guy and if I'm sitting in an office of 10 people and we know okay we have our budget of this we get paid this every year. If we know our income is
going to go down, the last thing I want my boss to do is hire more people, right? Because then I go, I'm going to be at risk if our income goes down and we've added a lot more uh pieces of that pie. So, that's what I want to be really
conscious of is the best way to protect the men and women that are with us right now is to be sure we are not overhiring for staff that we don't currently have now. Right. So when kind of uh had this philosophical discussion with uh the union president
for the fire, I go, I see me looking out for your men and women that are currently serving now as much as possible by making sure we don't overhire for people we don't already have because that's what puts everybody at risk, right? If you get past that
point of no return where your revenues come down, you've hired a a boatload of people, we have to make unnecessary or unfortunate decisions. I I want to make sure that we don't get to that point. So that's why we're kind of focusing so much on every single position,
especially the ones that aren't filled, so we never get to that point, chief, where you go, there's a name and a face associated with this now, and we have to make those uncomfortable decisions. So, I'm trying to just be thoughtful in ensuring that we don't get there. And that's where I'm kind of pulled between these two lines of thinking. Uh I I do I
think my overarching belief is though that um we don't want to go back on the progress that that's already been made. Uh and I guess I'll I'll kind of flip the script to you, Chief. With what I just said in mind, you know, I'll ask
you to kind of opine on Yes. You know what? this this is [snorts] necessary, critical. We're not, you know, we we don't want to go backwards. Um, but is it with that thought that we never want to put our current work staff in place
by hiring positions that aren't currently filled that essentially add to our budget and then put us at risk. So, I hope hope you understand that's the needle I'm trying to thread. >> Absolutely. >> So, we if we can um we bring the slide back up. So, we are on 139. I believe uh
Commissioner Fernandez, there was a recommendation to remove this. I'm not sure it's unanimous, but I believe there is a consensus to remove this. Okay. So, we're going to show 139 removed. 140. >> I'm going to propose to remove that. >> Same proposal. Uh
I think we have Is there a consensus to >> So, just just to save time, Commissioner, because I think this is where it's going. You're going to propose to remove all of these, correct? On from line 138 to 146. >> When when I'm reading from the
administration that these are proposals that will decrease investigative capacity capability for violent crimes. Yeah, I'm not going to support removing that or removing that from from a budget. That shouldn't be an efficiency.
I because then I'm seeing for example in the enhancements in the in the enhancements we have $115,000 in enhancements for community affairs. I rather see us fund violent crimes than you know community affairs like I
love community affairs but you know my priority is you know robbery positions. My priority is major crimes. My priority is detectives. To me, these Yeah, these are these are important. And by the way,
they've all come because we've all sat in here and we've all highlighted the importance of police presence in Lumis Park, which is how we ended up with a bike squad and an ATV, the priority service teams who tackle like for
example, we com we we ask our police department to take a greater focus on on issues related to homelessness. It's the priority service teams that address homelessness. Is that correct? >> Important. Yes, sir. >> All right. And so, and so, you know,
it's not without an impact. It's not without an impact to the quality and the level of service that our residents are providing. I mean, we have um Joe Manning sitting in the in the audience who was a victim who was a victim of an
in a homeless individual with mental health issues and got attacked. I'm not gonna take away >> who the court had released over and over and over and over and over again and I still have seen him out. >> It's horrible. So I'm not gonna I'm not gonna I can't support removing the these
these positions who are tackling these difficult things. I support saying where else in the department can we find ma Mr. Manager where else in the department that can we find efficiencies that are not these?
>> Okay. So again uh 138 to 146 and >> no I believe 139 was if I may commissioner was already resolved. I think what you're discussing is is there just a wholesale from 140 to 146. Yeah. >> Is there a recommendation to I think there's a recommendation to um the
commissioner is making to just have those removed from consideration. >> Okay. >> I support that. >> Okay. Probably not unanimous, but is there a >> I mean I I I don't think the 142 ATV bike squad supervisor
again they can they can report to zone area supervisor, right? Is that correct? Um, so commissioner, the idea is although we would disband the squad as it >> No, no, not disband the squad to keep
the four full-time police officer ATV squad, but we need a squad supervisor for ATVs. >> Ideally, yes, we're going to keep them as a unit. Um, but if you're going to disband them and add an officer or two
on a regular basis, daily basis to a bike squad, he he or she can report to the area sergeant. >> I I and and I I think what the commissioner is saying, we're looking to save this the squad and he's asking rather rather than having the supervisor
be one the sergeant assigned to the squad, kind of be the zone sergeant. Uh but I from what I gather uh the the sergeant assigned to the squad is the one that gives them their daily directives that are specific to the ATV squad. This sergeant gives them specific
directives and instructions related to the ATV squad that the zone sergeant might not be able to give them that level of specialized instruction. >> Um the answer is yes, but also the sergeant assigned to the A2 squad, the sergeant assigned to the PST squad,
these are working sergeants. These aren't people behind your desk pushing paper and pencil. These are guys out in the street with their officers. >> So the better question would be why why is it why is it so expensive for the sortion >> position?
So answer I guess the better question is why is it so expensive to that that line item for the supervisor because for four >> ATV squad positions it's $891,000 but for
one sergeant it's 312. Can you make five full-time ATV squad members and one of them at the same pay rate as a everyone in the squad is getting? >> Um, and far as far as the overall cost, I'm going to defer to Jason to make it,
but I imagine the numbers you see there encompasses uh the pension liabilities, encompasses insurance, and all the other things that go along French benefits as well go along with >> the pay differential between an officer and a sergeant. The step difference. >> Yeah. >> Right. Because if I just multiply four times 312, that's
>> if the commissioner is is asking maybe the question the commissioner is asking is are we able to remove a sergeant but add a police officer basically to downgrade it. I think that's >> Can we or can we ask you to to to give us an alternative because I I do see how that position that sergeant position.
Yeah. You're to $320,000. That's that is a lot of money. So you know to the extent that we're saying you know we don't want to we don't want to eliminate the position can you come back to us with a proposal of how can we how can we
moderate the cost so that we can keep the squad that is doing incred I mean these are the people who are on the streets really doing the most difficult of police work. Um, but how can we look at that sergeant position, come back to to us with a proposal of how how can we
make that 320 number lower? >> And that and that yeah, good point, Commissioner. And that brings me to another thing. Why [clears throat] >> are you the salaries for these positions for 140 to 143 for the
this the supervisorish positions, if you will? Is that the same salary that the person who is leaving for attrition going to get? >> Meaning person leaving >> Yeah. in that position is that what the salary was or
with all all in with with benefits etc. Meaning are you going out into the world and recruiting someone new where their base salary would be significantly less or are you back filling in with someone from the
department? Well, if you were removing position through attrition, that position is not going to be refilled. Right. But >> Right. What I'm saying is someone's leaving that position. Correct. And they were getting paid X amount. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Are you going into department and
saying, "Hey, we got to fill this." Or are you going out into the workforce and saying, "Hey, we need to fill this position, but you're not going to make this amount of money. You're going to make this." >> So, yeah. So, they're both, right? The person uh leaving retiring vacating that
position typically they're maxed out top of the scale salary. He or she will be replaced by a more junior officer whose pay rate is sniffly different. That trickles down to the bottom where that creates a vacancy for a brand new police officer to be hired who gets paid the base salary for police officer. So these
supervisor positions are getting filled not necessarily from your your work hiring out into the real world. You're you're you're filling it with from within. >> Correct. But the supervisor's positions
that are listed here aren't going through attrition. These are people going to be removed from the specialized units, put back into regular rotation of patrol. The detective positions are listed here. Those are through attrition. That person retires. Um, and
if things all things been equal, this is accepted the way it's written, that position would not be filled. What I'm hearing is we want to fill those positions. That position will likely be filled by a much junior officer/detective at a lower pay rate >> and it would be through a promotion
process, right? Correct. Police officer to a sergeant and such. >> So, >> is that because of a contract? >> There would be >> the promotion process. Is that >> Yeah, it's through [clears throat] promotion process and that is contractual. >> Okay. So, you can't just fill that
position with hiring an officer from another department, for example, to fill that position. >> No, no, sir. There's a pending very active promotional list and I have to go sequentially down that list. Whoever is next up, that's a person scored items
has to be tapped in to fill that position. >> Commissioner Bach, did you want to >> Yeah. [clears throat] So, the um Thank you. Um, Commissioner Magazine. So, there are 10 people currently assigned between um police officers and sergeant
for ATV bike squad roles. Um, and through attrition, we're proposing eliminating all of them, which means we would have no bike squad, no ATV at the same time that we are facing
increased challenges with micromobility. And we literally have accepted a gift um to have ebikes so that we can have an ebike squad that can handle the challenges of people trying to navigate their way through change. Um so we don't
have more deaths like we saw just a couple of months ago, weeks ago in North Beach and near misses that happen all the time. Um talk about being pennywise and pound foolish. I think this is a terrible, terrible decision to eliminate that functionality in the police
department. Um I, you know, listen, if there's a way to have a more junior person be the squad leader at a lower pay rate, I'm all for that. As you know, somebody retires and somebody else gets promoted, you know, great. Um but to get
rid of these these 10 positions is um I think a disaster waiting to happen. I mean, I don't think Julio's in the room right now, but when somebody comes barreling in and knocks out Julio Blanco, that's a tough, you know, he's a tough guy to mow down. And and um, you know, we've seen it happen far too
often. And and until we as a culture, as a community, figure out how to navigate these changes with these new very dangerous devices. I mean, they go 60 miles an hour on a sidewalk. Um, we need to have our police presence there and
fully trained, fully equipped, and fully managed to help us navigate through this. >> Yeah, Commissioner, I'll tell you this. You know, this decision didn't come lightly. A lot of internal conversation, debate about was the right right course of action to take. Uh ultimately what we agreed to do is really be true to our
core function that is respond to calls for service which can be done in the police car um almost any place throughout the city except underwater marine patrol. Um and whereas I'm a true believer like you are micro mobility. I'm passionate about it frankly. Um, at
the end of the day, a bike squad as a squad, not necessarily putting guys on bikes, but as a squad, ATV squad, not necessarily putting people on ATVs, is is icing on the cake, right? >> If I can interrupt you for a second, I I see where you're going with this, but
let me ask you a question. Does the police department view a traffic accident as a core mission call to service? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, this is no different. It's just a different vehicle. M so I hear you like crime, god forbid, violent
crime, theft, burglary, all that stuff is the traditional call to service. Um if police departments around the country did not adapt to um horseless carriages 100 years ago, nobody would be writing up speeding and and stop sign violations
and all those other things that now are a core function of the police department because at the end of the day, it's a public safety issue. I know it ain't sexy. Nobody makes TV series about, you know, crazy at, you know, ebike riders and I hope they never start. But at the end of the day, we are seeing it is a
public safety issue. People are dying or spending months in the hospital or spending hundreds of thousands of dollars because the person who mowed them down on a sidewalk with an ebike didn't stop. Nobody had a license or not a license because there isn't one. Um, but nobody got a hold of the person. And
I hear these stories constantly from residents. So sure, it hasn't historically been a core mission and I know you you and I are on the same page on this. This is for the greater community for my colleagues who are listening. It has not here to for been a
core um response that has been required by the police department because it hasn't been an issue 10 years ago. If you said we're putting together a bike squad, an ATV and an ebike squad to deal with with the increase in micromobility, people would have thought you were
insane. for you to be doing it now means that you are trying to catch up with what's going on the chaos on the roads and the sidewalks now. So I hear you hasn't here to fore been a core requirement but it is definitely now going forward and I think for the next few years it's only going to continue to
be one of the things that we you know hopefully the decrease in in burglaries and all that stuff stays low but the increase in traffic accidents caused by these devices is going to continue to get higher until we get a handle on it. >> Thank you. I I think in hearing the
discussion I think we are at a place and there was already a request for 140 through 146 and if if I may based on the conversation I think 151 which is also a pocket of six sworn officers. So this would be all the sworn officers. I believe there was I think there's a
consensus that those the funding for those would be uh restored. So I just want to confirm that there is a consensus that 140 through 46 plus 51 we would [snorts] restore the funding for that and >> 147 >> I'm sorry >> 148 you're just trying to deal with
swarm officers right now >> that's not a swarm position 147 and 148 >> no I was going to deal with that separately >> okay so those are nonsworn position >> correct so uh I think we are good with a consensus that those funding would be restored >> okay so we're going to show 140 through
146 restored I'm sorry, through 146 and then 151. And then as the commissioner mentioned, there are two fil filled police crime scene tech positions and a uh we'll keep them separately. Uh what are the uh
commission's thoughts on 147? >> I'd like to uh remove 147 from this. >> Okay, we have a recommendation to remove 147. They're filled. I think we have to discuss this at the end of the meeting like some of those others um because I
do think we need to calibrate where we're at in total cuts. >> Chief, can can you um advise for 147 which is two full-time um crime scene tax and one full-time property and ele
evidence tech. Does how many does that leave you with? Uh I think the crime scene leaves us with 10 and I have to double verify the property second. I can't say off the top of my head.
>> Okay. I mean maybe one approach and we can certainly um discuss this at the end but maybe one approach is um taking instead of letting these two people who are currently employed go is keep one where they are in the um crime scene
um department and then moving the other one over to the property and ev evidence department as a kind of a splitting the baby kind of a thing. >> Okay. If so, >> would it be okay if we discuss these two items uh at the end of the meeting when we come back and calibrate where we're
at? >> I agree, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, I want to thank you because you've been so >> 147 >> great in running this discussion. It's so important. You've been handling so >> only externally internally. >> All right. So, we will show 147 and 148 to uh discuss at the very end. And I
think the last police one was a right sizing one related to security guards uh that we discussed. I don't think there would be an issue there. All right, I think we've completed police and we're almost done with general fun. >> I on the security guards. >> Oh, yes. >> On the security guards. I just
>> I don't know. I want to be realistic >> is during during the last uh solicitation that we did for four security guard services. >> We ended up with a company that gave us a low offer
and so we hired that company. And I'm getting complaints from neighborhood associations regarding the services that they're getting from that security guard company. And now to say that we're going to further reduce, I think we ended up getting what we were paying for uh
because it's it's just very very challenging to see that we took out an incumbent vendor and then we brought someone in to save us money. saving us money has resulted in a deterioration the quality of service that the
residents who are paying an extra mileage >> are receiving because of the quality of the product and now how are we going to further reduce this by $300,000 I think if anything we need to be
realistically saying we might need to at least maintain the level of funding that we have >> and if we go back to the marketplace we might possibly realistically probably need more funding. So I don't know M the chief uh Mr. Manager I need someone to
guide me with this because it didn't come to me previously so I apologize. It just dawned on me now the challenges that we've been having with that contract. >> Would you mind if I weigh in also while >> Of course. >> Yeah. I I know we've gotten some complaints from that neighborhood.
interesting in that neighborhood there seems to be uh a split um because some neighbors reached out to me saying they disagreed with some who were complaining and actually thought they were doing a good job. So I think there's some and also that's the same company we're using in city hall. So maybe we can get an
assessment uh of of how they're doing. I I I think there think overall there there's more to the picture than just you know a couple one neighborhood association. >> Yeah. Uh there is >> or at least a representative from that
neighborhood association. >> Yeah, there is uh Mr. Mayor, I mean uh dynamic has has had some challenges um taking over the the contract this year, taking over during peak time during spring break. Um initially had challenges filling all of the positions
we had um asked [clears throat] them to fill and they had assurance that they could uh along Ocean Drive in the team district had challenges with that. Then most recently have had challenges with some neighborhood associations. Um there's a a disconnect between what the
association expects and what the delivery has been to that association in terms of service. >> If I could just add a little bit um this particular item is our best estimate on
the right sizing of the security guard contract as it's currently in place. Um, you know, we just started that contract in March, as the chief said. Um, we're at this point,
um, comfortable with moving forward with this company and utilizing those resources. If at some point we have to change direction, then we would assess that at that time and we would bring back any changes to the commission. But this is based on the
current contract. >> Okay. So, you feel comfortable with this company? >> I I feel comfortable with this company and this dollar figure at this moment. >> Okay. All right. I get I just got concerned when I hear that like during high impact periods when we're all
stretched out that we can't fill the demands of the city and but if we're feeling comfortable with it then okay, that's fine with me then. >> Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring back up the slides and we'll move on to the last uh slide
for general fund and we still have a bit to go. Uh so we have a couple of elements here uh when we get into public works and tourism and culture. So uh a couple of elements there. Uh 157 is the
decorative rack lighting. I know we've added a lot of that over the years. It's very um very expensive. Uh, this would remove the maintenance. So, what that would mean is that as we have problems with the string lights that are out there, they would just be removed and not replaced. Um,
>> yeah, I'd like to I'd like to take that off the cut list. >> Okay. >> We have a recommendation to remove 157 from uh and restore that funding. Not hearing an objection, we will restore funding for number 157. And I
want to remove the 12. Yeah. 158. >> No, that's go. >> There's a multiple recommendations to uh restore funding for 15. >> The cats. The cats. >> Any objection? >> The cats are saved.
>> When do you get that on my campaign? >> We probably received about what 400 emails. >> We will show item 158 removed and the uh funding restored. I'll second Commissioner Magazine's motion. >> Okay. Um the the landscape means we're
cutting back from just like in parks, but it'll be 36 to 32 cycles. Again, done intelligently, done monitoring wise. Will come back in that area. And we have uh area managers. Uh two are filled, one is vacant. And then we have a what is I think amounts to
approximately a 5% uh cut rounding on a few different um management fees and such in the tourism and culture department. So if there's any if there is not we do have a lot >> I have a question on 159 >> 50
>> so the landscape maintenance um services and I think it was to reduce it from 36 >> to 32 cycles per year two um >> and they they'll they'll obviously work on that where it's more in the summer uh you know less in the winter and things like that. So they'll just shift out by but by shifting out those four, you
know, we're able to save $166,000. And again, we'll monitor that closely. If we feel that we want everything to look beautiful, right? And if we feel that we're not able to maintain that, we will come back and have that discussion. >> So we can make a mid-year budget adjustment if necessary. >> If we feel that that's necessary, we have no problem coming back and having
that discussion. Okay. And if we can, we have general fund enhancements next. So, we're going to move >> when when we look um >> for a small entity like the Normandy Fountain, they're a very small entity.
Um for them, I think it's very hard to absorb that $5,000. Um I don't see them, you know, have that's just a community activity. I wouldn't I wouldn't support touching
that $5,000. That's fine. There's a recommendation on 163 to restore funding. Yes. >> As long as that doesn't open Pandora's box for like all the other stuff. I I agree with the the fountain there. >> All the other ones, they're larger organizations that have more sophisticated staffing.
>> I uh for 165 um I would like it removed to >> 163. 163. The Normandy Fountain. >> Yeah, 163 is fine. And then I'm going to submit 165. >> Okay. So 163. I think we have a consensus. So, we're going to show 163 removed. We have another recommendation
uh on the Colony Theater to restore the uh 5% uh on the Colony Theater. >> All right, we don't have an objection. We will eliminate that to 165. We'll restore funding on that. And that will
conclude the general fund reductions. We have a significant amount to continue with. >> How far? Where are we so far? We're working, if I may, we talked, we did speak about that. We think the most efficient way to go through is because we have enhancements to go through, we have resortex, all of that plays in together. We can't give you that answer
till we'll get all the way through that. We actually >> just the number, >> right? Right. We don't I I can't give you that. >> I thought you meant like you literally didn't want to. >> Oh, no. I think I believe the early number we looked at, we think we're still okay, but again, depends on what happens here with enhancements, depends on what happens with uh the general
fund, sorry, resort tax. So, >> all right. So we did have some one-time savings from FY25 budget. So anything you see here on the one-time recommendations, it would be coming from that excess dollars. So for the police high visibility overtime, this year we
have a budget of $1.8 million. PD actually asked for $5 million to continue at the current service level. Uh we recommended half of that at 2.5. Um that's the only one time item we're recommending on the public safety
section. uh for the next items primarily for these >> to make it so we're actually going up in that >> we're increasing the budget but we're actually funding less than the current service level >> right and maybe make [cough] uh suggestion that we keep that flat
>> yeah we need to continue maintaining the current level of service when it comes to public safety matters >> I don't want us seeing reducing >> the current level of service so >> yeah since the if we're doing 1.8 8. I'll suggest that >> it would be 5 million. The current
service level of uh talk with the chief is that's a $5 million item. >> Uh that is >> so the $2.5 million allocation is is half at the the the service level that's out there now.
>> And and the concept here is you know the need from the community has been voiced many times. Um, we want to make sure that we are keeping the budget um, consistent with what the commission has
authorized us to do. And so what we want to make sure is we're putting in the $2.5 million and then if we need to come back for more midyear next year, we do that rather than >> I'm seeing Yeah, I'm seeing this is
overtime. So overtime is on I guess at based on demand. So, I guess if the demand is there then is why you're saying you could come back because we might not use all the 2.8 million. I >> I'm hoping that we don't. But >> I see. >> Yeah, I think we should call the chief
up because I think this is uh this is a citywide number of 5 million and I think we need to get some clarification. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Wayne Jones, please chief. Uh yes, that is absolutely correct, Mr. Mayor. In addition to the high viz London 4th Street corridor, um we also have what we call high-risk uh
directed patrols that's covered under that as well. Uh those patrols those patrols citywide um patrol our our schools. They patrol our temples and our synagogues and churches in the city. patrol are key and important
infrastructure as well is all captured in that. Um during any major incident whether nationally or internationally we spool up the amount of resources we assign to those those details. A classic example would be the shooting in
Australia. Classic example would be the two young people that were killed outside museum in DC. The concern is if it happens someplace else, uh there may be copycat um folks may want to do the very same thing here. And our goal is to prevent that at all costs and um despite
the expense of it. >> Do we get any supplemental funding from state or federal for >> Not for this, sir? No, sir. >> Not for this. >> So maybe since So you're requesting 2.5 and then if you if you deplete that 2
because I guess it's overtime. So it's based on demand. So if if the demand is there, if you deplete that and you need more funding, I guess midyear, we can always consider a mid-year budget adjustment. If the demand and the need is there for additional funding is what
I'm hearing. >> Yes. So that's absolutely correct. We're hedging our bet that all things being equal, there won't be another major incident nationally or internationally that we don't spool up and we'll just think keep things flat. >> And Tamika, we're this past year at 1.8. 8
>> the budget is 1.8 this year. >> So I I think what we do is we keep it flat and if it's a ondemand service then we react accordingly. Um but just adding $700,000
is is a lot. >> I don't think he's >> I don't think he's adding actually. I mean I think we're cutting in half because there was 5 million requests and they're and they're saying two and a half million. >> Yes. But what we did this past year was 1.8 million. That's not what I'm I thought what we did this year >> just to clarify. So what we budgeted is
1.8. >> We budgeted 1.8. We expended how much this year? >> We are on train to spend 5 million. >> Okay. And so you're saying hopefully next year the risks, the safety risks are reduced. And so we don't have to
budget $5 million. We should only budget the reduced amount of $2.5 million. And we might not use all of that $2.5 million, but if there is a greater need for more money, if the safety risks are there, obviously like safety is our top
priority. We're not going to allow these threats to dominate us, then we'll allocate more dollars to it. >> Correct. >> So, I support keeping the 2.5 as it is. >> Tika, how does that work? Does that make our budget go up or down where we had
something budgeted at 1.8, But the actual itemized number comes in at $5 million. >> It increases. >> But there's a little nuance to that because this is all onetime funding, right? >> So this is not increasing our total
recurring budget. >> I I get that. I was just saying when we look at versus last year, >> it's an increase from our budget, but a decrease from what was actually realized. >> Correct. Correct. the overall budget and
onetime money uh which is very important uh would be increasing but yeah I think as you said here >> and where it's usually most visibly realized is in the end of the year surplus >> okay so let's bring it back up
>> so the rest of items on this slide are recurring recommendations and uh three of these are technology enhancements the maintenance of some of our equipment and fire department. Uh the position that was offered up for mental health for
fire and then also the $20,000 for the blood transfusions. And the last item is ammunition for police. So police already, you know, obviously budgets for ammunition, but this is an increase because of the cost of the ammunition and also increased needs for training.
>> If I can bring up one more that's not in here. Hate to do that. So about a year or so ago, I brought an item that was going to budget two lab technicians to cover the expense because certain of
our arrests that are made by our police for drug offenses were not being timely tested by the what has to go through the county's drug testing lab. It there's a whole process. It's a long it's a long story. I'm not going to use it utilize it now, but we weren't ready
to utilize those two positions. So, we removed it from last year's budget, even though our commission had approved the budgeting for it. The time is ripe now for one technician, not to exceed a salary of $100,000. And actually, I brought an item to our commission meeting that we'll discuss
Wednesday. This is not the time to discuss policy, but I met with our municipal prosecutors that and they'll explain it in more detail next week, but they're seeing situations where they're bringing cases for drug sales. often they're marijuana sales. These are not
possession. We're not we're not going after people for marijuana possession, but these are these are drug dealers and [snorts] unfortunately the cases are are not getting tested and then we cannot ultimately prosecute those cases. So yeah, Mayor, you you're you're correct
in that there was originally two and due to that due to you know the budget and and the things that you had spoken about, one was removed. So there is still one uh that is fully funded. um at this particular time. >> Oh, great. So, I got the uh >> so there is >> at least I teed it up for Wednesday's
meeting. >> Okay. So, yeah. So, the one is the one is already covered. So, we can bring it back up and then we're going to move to some cleanliness and infrastructure elements. So kind of the theme and I know we spoke about this in our briefings is you know obviously we're looking at some
reductions and some difficult decisions there but there also areas to rep prioritize that we feel which is about keeping kind of keeping the elements and the items that we already have uh clean and fixed and beautiful you know as we want to deliver those you know excellent
services for our residents. So, we have new at at uh Beayshore Park and Polo Park. We have new restroom facilities. So, we need to fund the dollars to uh for janitorial services and to to clean them. Uh item 17, we're looking at we have the new beautiful lake at uh
Beayshore Park and up in North Beach at Ocean Terrace. Uh so, but there aren't dollars allocated to do the maintenance and cleaning of those facilities. So, we want to uh do that. Some of these elements were were originally in our capital program in prior years were an annual allocation, but based on my review as the chief financial officer,
really looking at the elements there don't meet the the the definition of a capital expenditure. So, we're showing them in the operating here. This is park landscaping improvements. This is, you know, keeping your landscaping beds and looking our parks look beautiful from a landscaping perspective. And now they'll be we're recommending an allocation for
our courts and our fitness courses uh to have an allocation so they're able to do on annual basis repairs as they come along. So, it isn't when a whole big capital project for $3 $400,000 replace an entire playground is needed. In this particular case, uh there'll be money. So, if one particular piece gets broken,
there's money now dedicated to actually fixing those and fixing those courts. Um we have a new rightaway area in the Mid Beach area. And then we we couldn't fund the the recurring dollars to really get this budget balanced, but we are recommending a onetime $220,000
allocation uh from the one-time money towards our general rightway areas uh for landscaping improvements. And we'll we'll revisit that in the years to come to see if we can get that at some point to a recurring landscaping improvements area. And then here finally in in the general
fund uh use of one-time monies as we talked about with the bust and then the uh resident um college the Miami date college scholarship program that brings extra dollars as a two for one match. We think that's a a good way of going. And then on the way finding signage uh in
that case when it's time to replace them uh this week dollars we finally have available so that we can replace those signs uh when appropriate. Jason, I'm going to ask to hold this back because I have legislation coming to for staff to
actually do a broad analysis of all the sign noise and pollution across the city. It has gotten ridiculous. Like you drive down Alton Road and you're driving north and you pass 16th Street and there there's two signs that say 17th Street
that way. We do not need 90% of the signs that exist in the city. And what I don't want to do is spending money replacing them for things that we don't need. So, if we need a mid-year budget enhancement, uh, but I want to do an
analysis, uh, I'll bring a legislative item to remove all the excess sign pollution that we have all over our roadways. It's gotten out of hand. It's ridiculous. I get that we may have like lived in an
without um GPS and things like that, but these are just the large majority of the signs. They they just clutter this beautiful lived environment that we have and it's unnecessary. >> Okay. So, I think there's a recommendation to remove this enhancement at this time.
>> Yes. >> Is there seeing a consensus that there's not an objection to that? >> Which one are we removing? Uh item 29 is a recurring funding to the public works department for uh replacement uh as needed uh through for wayfinding signs.
>> Okay. >> And I'm not saying that we won't do that commissioner, but I want to bring a legislative item for some group to do an analysis of what signs can be removed from our city rights of way. Um, and then we could go
back and fix some of our wayf finding, but I don't want to replace signs, spend money replacing signs that really shouldn't be there. >> Would you uh would you want to perhaps leave the funding there, but request the public works department not expend any
of those funds until such time as that item's disposed? >> I just want to make sure number 22 it stayed as an enhancement, right? >> I 22. We don't have >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> It's a few pages back.
>> Yes. Yes. Sorry. Back up. I was lost. Okay. So, all right. So, but we will add that note. Uh per the chair's request, public works is here and has heard that. So, we're going to just wrap up real quick on the general fund. I know. >> Yeah. So, this was actually where we started. Uh if everything we had
recommended were approved, we would have had a balanced budget with the entire roll back. Obviously, we took quite a few items off. So we'll come back and rebalance when we get to the end of this presentation. >> All right. So let's get into we're going to keep this moving along. Uh resort tax
just the general story I think and consensus we all understand and have seen through the monthly reports coming out that it looks like we finally kind of broken that trend over the past couple years of kind of uh trending over the or a little bit below the prior year. It looks like we finally broken out. We're getting some records again
which we would expect. So we're kind of happy about that. All that was taken into account uh when we balanced our budget >> and uh this is how we proposed to rebalance the resort tax fund. If you go to the next slide. >> So we did pick up $1.2 million excess
year-end dollars for resort tax. So we are recommending to recognize it and then we're going to walk through some reductions on resort tax and that 3.5 that you see there, we're recommending transferring that over to the general fund. it's included in a balancing.
>> Okay. So, I'm going to go through the next two slides. We have we're back to reductions again. And all this interplays with the general fund. So, I wanted to highlight 166, 169, 171, and 175 are all the same element
basically is high impact periods. You know, Memorial Day at this point I I think has been one or is is is in a different light for many years now. and then spring break. Uh we're not maybe necessarily all the way there, but we feel that just like last year, I think we reduced some funding is that we
continue to reduce a lot of its overtime in our public safety departments and we can begin to reduce some of those elements. So, we think we're able to put in that forward. Uh and then the GMCB, we've talked about that in finance, that's still to be discussed. I think that they're comfortable with that uh
readjustment in that area. And then the 176 is that pool that was set aside for to be determined events in the future. I think think that we're in that fiscal environment right now that we'll have to be more specific uh in that area. And then we have a couple and then uh we get
into some kind of TCD uh type areas. We have more on the next slide. >> I have a question on 173. >> Sure. >> What what are we doing with a with a deputy chief auditor? uh this is a position put forward uh out of the IG's office to make his you know
5% for uh putting forward this is a split funded so some of the funds are here some of you will see in the internal service fund of the IG and this was a vacant position uh from the OIG >> is it how long has this position been vacant for do we know how long I think
>> within I think the past year >> yeah I think within the past year within about uh two to three months. >> Yeah. >> Over the past two or three months. >> I don't I believe in the mission of the like
with everything. I think this is the voters created this position this this office. I don't want to take funding away from the office of the inspector general as it is. I think they're they're they're overloaded with with work and it I think they need the
support in order to to get reports timely to us. >> Okay. So, we have a recommendation to restore funding and and we uh here in the resort tax and we'll also reflect that which majority of the funding is in his internal service fund which does feed a lot back to the general fund. So, there's a recommendation by the
commissioner to restore funding for one uh 173. Uh all right, not hearing an objection. We will show 173's funding restored and the reciprocal uh and when we get to the uh the fund
>> and 177 I would also like uh remove >> there's a recommendation to restore this is the art deco weekend sponsorship to MDPL for $8,000. >> I agree with that. And Jason, when are you reducing? Is this a full reduction or is this just like a a small
percentage for some of these things? >> Um, MDPL is going from 150 to 142. >> It's 5%. >> Yeah. >> Like we did with most of our um cultural partners. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> There is a there's a request to restore
funding 4177. I think we have a consensus then to restore that funding. >> Which one? >> 177. This is the art deco weekend sponsorship to MDPL. 5% reduction >> a leadership transition there. They work
really hard. Um last year was the first time the new person came in and it was within weeks of the event and I'd like to see them with full funding for the upcoming event and we can look in future years if it merits cutting. Okay.
>> So, every department here just reduced it by 5%. Or every program. >> No, not everyone, but we generally we looked at a lot of the sponsorships and a lot of the grants. That was kind of the approach that we took there. >> But I think there's maybe not unanimous, but I think there's a consensus to
restore funding for 177. Okay, we'll show 177 restored. We're going to go on to the next slide. >> No, I'm sorry. >> 178. Uh that's the air and sea show. >> I'd like to restore funding for that please. >> I I have to say with the air and sea
show that I I haven't been completely satisfied with their performance with their footprint. I feel like the footprints over time has gotten smaller. Um I don't know whether for at one point they were
getting money from from the county because th this is this has always been a partnership and I don't know that the county is participating as well. So I you know I don't want to carry the full burden of this um
and and and at the end of the day for them it should also be a privilege that they you know they're they're here in in Miami Beach. Um, frankly, sometimes I don't know that they appreciate the partnership. I'm just going to be very honest about it.
Um, so I I'm going to put that out there. Um, but I want to respect my colleagues because we're we're all equals here. But just being upfront about how I feel about it. >> Okay. We kind of have an opposing here. So, but there was an initial
recommendation to restore that funding. Um, I don't think it's unanimous, but >> I just want to say that Commissioner Fernandez, I respect that and I understand that, you know, and we respect each other here, but that's kind of an internal issue and I just can't support any type of cut, funding cut to
something that supports our service members, our veterans, our our military. I can't. So maybe in the next year we can work that out with that partnership, but I I'm just I want this restored to full funding. >> So, thank you. >> Can I ask a question on that? Does that
actually go to service members or is that the event producer >> and maybe that's one of the >> to put on the event >> to clarify what I mean is just that we highlight you know our it it is the event producer but we're highlight we
have an event that highlights our service members and our military and it's a fantastic event and so we have a year to work on that relationship and to make it better and to talk to him But I just would appreciate the full funding. >> Yeah. And Commissioner Fernandez, thank
you for flagging that. I I hadn't seen that. I wasn't I kind of But I certainly respect that you're raising these issues and we should certainly work them out. But uh >> All right. >> I I'm I'm a big fan of the uh the Aaron Sea. So hopefully we can work out whatever
>> I'm I'm a fan as well. I think the relationship needs needs work to make sure that it really is fair to the city and the city isn't carrying the burden. Like for example, I think last year there was $100,000 from the county. They didn't get the $100,000 from from from
the county yet the county participates in this as as well, you know. So why are we what are they doing to restore that that funding? Um and why should we carry the full burden forward? >> Yeah. And I and and I'm taking what you're saying seriously and I think we
should address those issues. But >> yeah. >> Okay. Hearing that. I I'm hearing what you're saying there, commissioner, but I do believe there's consensus to restore funding for 178 at this point. So, we'll show 178 uh restored and then we'll go on to the second and last slide for uh
the resort tax efficiencies. So, we have a number of these. Again, it's resort tax. So, you're going to see a number of sponsorship elements. I think across the board we're looking at uh the 5% uh reductions. All right. So, hearing nothing, we can
move on. We have a lot more to go. >> I um I'm sorry. I um I actually um I don't I >> Holland's Park and Ocean Drive. I >> I want to Yeah, I want to I actually
want to save all of these. Um I just >> Yeah, >> with these I don't I don't think we're eliminating them. They're just >> Right. But full funding, I want to restore to full funding all of them is what I mean. I get it. we're just reducing them. But I think again, this is what makes Miami Beach special are
all these events and people love these events. And you know, if we reduce to Mickey Mouse levels, we'll have Mickey Mouse events. And that's something that I'm concerned about. Um, but I'm trying to also be efficient. I get it. Um, I guess, you know, it's hard. And then you
can't just pick one, right? I mean I So I just >> I would say with Collins Park, you know, Collins Park is small. For them, a $4,000 impact is hard for them to absorb
and they do produce good good quality programming. Just similarly even with with the Ocean Drive prominade they do a lot with a small budget and I think for them it's harder to absorb um to absor I
think for example the South Beach Wine and Food Festival. I think that's completely different. They've got huge corporate sponsorships. They're tied to FIU. For them it's easy to absorb this. Unfortunately Pride, you know, unfortunately we're preempted there. So there's not even
>> Commissioner if I can. we can probably add that pry one to the other two that you wanted uh discussion. So, we'll make a note on 180 to to um we'll leave it the reduction there for now just like the other ones and we'll discuss that in September when we get a definitive >> and maybe once we get that definitive
answer from the city attorney on how the preeemption is going to affect the full funding for 180. Maybe that helps offset a little bit with some of these other items that Commissioner Matel Selena's rightfully is looking to save because
they are important uh cultural activities that set us apart is why our resort taxes in part are going up. Why? Because we have these offerings >> is >> and the residents love them too. And I also want to add to that the Lincoln Road bid and the piano festival. small
amounts that make a big difference. >> Is sorry there's a couple pieces going on here. Commissioner Fernandez, was the re was the recommendation here to to keep all of these here for now. Then in September when we uh discuss um the
when we discuss 180 to see if it might be a full rule and then all these can come off. So these all these should stay for now and be discussed in September. I think is I think >> because in September you might find 250 >> to fund all of these >> that might help you absorb you know the
funding of the balance. Okay. So, so there is a recommendation from the commissioner that everything on this page uh remains for now and then in September in September when we have the discussion on the three uh elements with the city attorney's office on the
ability to fund those if the full maybe there's a full uh uh removal of those three elements which then could restore all of this funding. >> Exactly. Jason, can you um confirm or clarify if this is an across the board 5% um reduction?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Rounded. I mean, it might be all $500, but yes. >> So, this is equitable. Nobody's getting defunded. >> And yes, >> it's equitable. Everyone's taking a small haircut. >> Correct. Everything's 5%. >> Okay. So, we're going to come back and
revisit this in September. That's what the commissioner's uh recommendation is, which is to see if we can restore all of this funding come September with a possibility that there's a couple of elements that might have to be fully removed >> because of preeemption and then these could all be fully uh restored.
>> So, I think we'll show a consensus of that and we'll we will flag those to be discussed and linked together during that discussion. But for now, we will show those being left. All right, let's bring Oh, it is already up. All right. So, that is the resort tax
and then enhancements. We have one it was a use of one-time money, a one time a one time $1 million allocation to continue with the March uh fitness festival. I think that was um something we did last year. I don't think 1.35
million onetime allocation. And this will be a $1 million allocation for our March Fitness Festival. So to clarify, this will just be for the month of March, it'll be one fitness festival for a million dollars or are we looking at multiple or >> that's to be this is a budgeting from
the budgeting perspective. This is a million dollar exercise uh to have March fitness festival >> and that was 1.35 last year. >> I believe it was one it was 1.4 got reduced by 50 to 1.35. So it was a $1 million allocation to have a fitness festival. I think March
has completely transformed our resort taxes more than paid for this, but I I do think it's good that we're heading in the right direction reducing what funding was already there. Same discussion commissioner Suarez I think
had some great points on with uh some of our public safety is like well if you've made so much progress in some way you keep uh putting into that. So I think we've made tremendous progress in March and this just reflects us moving in the right direction. Uh maintaining a
healthy budget but reducing from what it was. Okay. Uh and then we are going to move right into now we're into other funds. These are going to be our special revenue funds, our internal service funds and such. And we have more reductions that we're going to go through here.
So the reason we uh went through this exercise with everyone is that for example the internal service funds impact the general fund budget as well. So these numbers here are folded in portions of these into the general fund budget. Uh this is for facilities and
fleet management. Uh we did go through their budget. The department did do their 5% reduction. A lot of these here are right sizing. Uh, one item that we're paying attention to is the fuel for fleet management. We know that the price of fuel has increased, so we will
be watching that one. Um, the last one in the page is for Barkley Apartments uh insurance. Uh, we plan to keep it insured until we transition to a private entity. >> A question on 192. Um, it says, uh,
contracted services for repairs. Our elevators seem to be breaking all the time. Does this cover repairs for elevators? >> So the elevators are managed by facilities. This is for fleets. >> These are the vehicles. Yeah. >> Yep. >> On that point,
commissioner's totally correct. I don't know who needs to do this or hear this. Can we get this elevator cleaned? Uh the central bank elevator here. I I don't mean to get off topic, but not just the internal elevator, but the elevator shaft that's visible from the floors of
city hall. team. We We got to put a better foot forward. I'm not going to beat that to death, although it should be. >> We'll take care of it. >> Okay. So, going back and we'll we'll move on. >> And this is uh it inspector general,
convention center, and parking. Uh we 209 we're going to take off the list. That's the other half. Well, the majority of the funding for the IG's position that was already added back to for funding. >> All right, keep moving on.
>> So, we move into here. Uh this is parking fund and then we these are all our our enterprise funds. So we have um reduction on parking with uh three of the vacant positions and a recclass uh from supervisor to manager a sign maker
position. >> I have a question. I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> 215. Are these demotions for these people? >> Promotions. >> Demotions as we reclassify >> promotions. >> Demotions. >> Premotions. >> No, he he's saying that they are not
demotions. They are actually promotions. But we're taking them from classified to unclassified or the other way around. >> Um, operations manager positions I would imagine are supervisor classified, but
I'm not certain about that. >> To the chair. >> Um, the the line item would be to eliminate one classification and to create a different classification. Are they the same grade level?
>> No. One position is um a supervisor level position in GSA and another position that's a higher level manager position which would be unclassified. >> So it's a promotion. Mhm. >> It is an elimination of six positions,
three of which are vacant and a creation of a different classification, a different position which is a classification that exists. >> So the three filled ones will be reclassified. So the three filled persons just like
the city manager has said would work to with HR and with our entire team to be uh re uh introduced into a role that would be appropriate for each of them >> but would certainly be able to compete
for the three >> of course >> openings >> but they wouldn't have anything guaranteed right that I mean that they just would have to apply like anyone house. Again, we would be given all of any employee in this um who would be caught
up in a reduction of force. Any employee that would be um their position would be eliminated, we would be working individually with each employee to try to land them in the best possible role for them and they would have priority over any outside candidate.
Okay. I wouldn't be supportive of reclassifying the three filled positions. >> Okay. I is there because there what there is is going also from six to three positions. So there's two elements to there. So
>> So there's three vacant. >> You're okay with the elimination of the three vacant positions, >> but the three ones that are filled >> to leave at their existing classification. So the recommendation from the commissioner on 215 is to uh proceed with the elimination on the uh
three vacant positions but the three filled to leave them as is. I believe that's what you're recommending. >> Where's the budget? >> I think that would come uh well we would have the savings because the three positions Yeah. So we would still have savings because there were three positions being being eliminated. May not be exactly that number. Uh we can
recalculate that but there would be savings because there' be three vacant positions being eliminated. Okay. All right. So, >> good afternoon. >> Okay. Good afternoon to the commissioners. My name is Frederria Green. I am the president of GSAF Local
100 which oversee these positions. So, the department is declaring that the positions are vacant. I'm sure everyone know that on July 5th, one of the supervisors passed away unexpectedly. that vacated one position. They have
promoted one of the supervisors out of this position to a manager in which they are also requesting now to add three additional managers which means all of the positions in the parking enforcement
operations specialist will be depleted. They will be gone. If we already have three managers, what is the need to add three more? When we're looking at budget and money, the managers are the ones
that stay in the office in order to encounter the public, which is our number one priority. They look at people in uniforms. Uniforms is what captures the eyes. We are removing that. And then
we're considering to reclassify another position to do the work that the existing parking enforcement supervisors already do. So, I'm asking the department, is it any
other areas or positions that they can look at other than removing this position totally and having to retrain and reclassify another position to do the work they're already doing?
>> I appreciate the comments. Um, Will, how many managers that aren't out in the field do we have within the parking department? So currently the parking department has three parking operations managers. One is dedicated to uh our off- streetet operation, our garage operations and
right now two are dedicated to our on street operations. And then we also have a senior operations manager who is dedicated to our maintenance division. >> How uh within your department, how many total employees do we have? >> Plus or minus 110 115.
>> Okay. 111. Um and we only Okay. So we only have four managers though, >> correct? Uh there was and the history behind the the the process along this was creating efficiencies and
effectiveness. So there are other items on ours uh on our I'll say efficiencies as well as enhancements. So, for example, there was a position that was abandoned in parking uh several years ago before my arrival called a parking enforcement specialist 2 uh that we are
requesting uh enhancements to that to provide some more vertical growth to have a little bit more of a I'll say field approach from leadership because right now um our supervisors do spend a lot of time in the office and
I'm not it's not a knock on their abilities. They have a lot of tasks to do. So what we are hoping to do with this expansion of managers, it would now give us uh six total managers not counting maintenance that would be able to cross trainin and create more synergies with our parking enforcement
as well as our uh garage operations. So now we have individuals that can be uh management level individuals on staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that can handle enforcement calls, that can handle garage operations calls. Um, and this doesn't affect our parking
operations supervisors that we currently have in our garage operations as well as our maintenance operations >> cuz I and I thank this lady for coming up. I I do agree. We want as many of those 111 out in the field as possible.
And kudos to you because I know sometimes you're you're one of them. Um, but the more that we can do to get the hard workers out there, the frontline support that's needed, I I think that's uh without getting down into the minutia operations of of your team. I I think
that's a good overarching goal to have. >> Yeah. So, the the point of this is not to pull human beings out of the field. I want to make that very very clear. Uh the point of this is more to uh you know, our our focus is to become lean, efficient, and effective. And so, the point of this is to create,
>> you know, all the buzzwords, huh? Absolutely. Uh to create a more synergized uh relationship between our on and our off streetet operations. And so now all six should this go through all six of our parking operations managers would be both um enforcement as
well as garage operations managers. >> Okay. >> They'll be unclassified once they're >> That is correct. >> All six. >> Correct. Well, the Yes. the and the element that's here before you on uh 215
again was uh for the three vacant there were three filled to convert that supervisor to three to three um operations managers but commissioner I don't support that commissioner Dominguez has a recommendation to accept the reduction of the three headcount but
not allow the reclassification from supervisor to manager. So that's that's what the commissioner's recommendation is. So I'll just ask if >> So that's along with keeping people out in the field more.
>> So you're you're not getting mad. >> So whatever direction we go in, we're never going to reduce our headcount in the field. We're doing everything we can right now. Um primarily I'll say from our parking enforcement specialist positions to make sure we have more
bodies in the field. We just uh with the commission's direction to create the uh 24/7 positions in both North and South Beach, we have streamlined our scheduling to ensure we have a set amount of individuals in the field 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So whatever
the direction the commission gives us, we are not going to ensure or we are not going to remove human beings from. >> And from a budgetary standpoint, which position is paid more, operations supervisor or uh parking operations manager? So, parking operations manager
is paid more on base pay. They are unclassified positions. So, therefore, the savings comes in a few things. One, the savings come in overtime uh because there is no overtime for that position. And then two, by pairing the three positions with the other three that are
already existing, we now have six managers that we can schedule around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So no matter what happens in our garages or in our enforcement division, there is a manager on 24 hours a day, seven days a week that can respond as an expert in both
fields. So just getting back to it so we can continue. Uh there's a recommendation there again to accept the three uh the three vacant positions uh being reduced but to leave the three supervisors at their existing classification, which is
the recommendation of the commissioner. Um >> support that. Do we have an objection to that tact? Okay, hearing no, we will we will make that modification to that uh reduction in efficiency. [clears throat] >> Okay, we Okay, we'll bring it back up
here again so we can get into uh mostly reclass uh we solided some of those other elements. So, I want to talk about the the trolley. So, uh you know, as we talked about back in uh at the May retreat, one of the elements is moving 50% of the funding. I'm very comfortable
making that recommendation for the South Beach Loop uh here from the transportation fund as we begin to try to work through uh trying to get that transportation fund into into a structural balance which uh it is not currently uh outside of the uh over the
long term assuming these reductions are not all uh accepted. So we will keep moving and then on to here we are at we have a few water positions sustainability tree preservation and
transportation. So I think the major elements that I want to just uh highlight there um at the bottom is transportation. Um we went through these and there's more the transportation feeds into the next set
of slides. We have Yeah. 236. I'd like to >> I think you're going to get We discussed this. >> Yes. Uh we just go right there. Uh item uh item 236. There's a recommendation to restore funding uh for the uh Rebecca
Tower freebie. >> And you said you were going over water and public works positions. >> Yes. Let me uh that was the the beginning of the page, but let me since we have a recommendation, let me just uh deal with the disposition on item 236.
Uh so that item is out there. I think through we have a consensus to restore funding for 236. Uh obviously, as we talked about back at the retreat also is our concern over the long term of that and we'll talk about we do have one recurring uh enhancement we'll talk about in a little bit. Maybe we can get
that to one time and just continue that program. uh back uh back for the water, you know, you seeing the there was a reallocation of some positions in my house uh which saved some money utility. We looked at a point by point in Manny's customer service center what people are working on parking, water and sewer, utilities
and things like that. So some reallocation and then we have um some other reductions here on sustainability and tree preservation including the the reallocation of some general fund partial funding on some of the urban forester type positions uh into the tree
preservation fund which we are comfortable with. But let's get into the next on transportation and this is the rest of the transportation reductions. Again nothing should be a surprise here. These are all the elements that we discussed in depth uh back at the May
budget retreat. Um and the reduction again I just want to to know for the public item 243 is not a reduction in the service of our trolley system. This is just a reallocation of funding to another element uh in our budget. Same thing with uh 244 which is uh moving
that to the convention center. uh and as we had spoken about a number of these elements, we'll move to one-time allocations as the department uh needs. So, we're going to move into a few uh enhancements in other >> I just want [laughter] to quickly um bring up uh 245.
Um [snorts] I know that it's a position that hasn't been filled for a couple years and um I did get some text messages maybe some of my colleagues did as well uh about eliminating the position alto together because with the master plan um and mobility plan that we
have in place for not to have an allocation for this. Um >> yes and and I'm going to just echo your your point moving it to a contract position. this commission took the position of, you know, prioritizing it as a full-time position.
When you see the deaths that are happening, you know, we clearly need to go back focus on pedestrianism and bicycle. And we all did what we had to do. We all put and prioritize the dollars to have an in-house person
focused on bicyclist safety, pedestrian safety. I don't feel comfortable with this elimination given what we've seen recently. >> It's recurring. >> Uh just to that element, this was a like some of the other elements even in my house when I eliminated the position and
moved it to an outside outsource. This does have uh funding to continue that just as the city had done uh previously uh which is through an outside consulting with bringing in engineering firms on an as needed basis so that those services can be provided. And just to point ahead, uh we do have a onetime
allocation that we're recommending in the transportation fund uh for $255,000 to complete the update to the transportation master plan. We believe again we're trying to work through a structural imbalance in the transportation fund but still deliver the expectation of level of service. We
believe this is a more efficient financial way to deliver that service and the department would get all the resources it needs to deploy those services related to anything bicycle and pedestrian related. So >> So does [clears throat] that mean can we
keep it? >> It's up to the commission at the end of the day again. >> So I'll I'll so we've had this as a contractor position you're saying right? In the past, there's been one-time allocations for it to be continued, >> but then but then you see the work that
Commissioner Ba is is doing is is leading as as it relates to for or or Commissioner Dominguez. I'm not sure um which one of my two colleagues is leading this work of going, you know, intersection by intersection and seeing the conditions of crosswalks and seeing
the lack of signage, the lack of signage and the lack of proper markings close to schools and all that. That's something that a contractor position is not going to take the initiative to do. And I think it's part of being a safe city is
making sure that we're looking at the safety of our proactively, not on a contract basis that, oh, we want to assign this to you because the commission is giving you this assignment or the administration is giving you this assignment, so you know, we're going to send you out there. No, we need someone
focused proactively on how to make our city safer for pedestrians, for bicyclists, and for microobility users as well. So I I truly cannot support eliminating this. >> We have a recommendation to restore fun. >> I'm sorry. Can Jose is Jose here some
place? >> Come here. >> Sorry, Jose. Listen, I am all for getting more brains on the problems facing us with our intersections and our um chaotic pedestrianization in some
areas and our micro mobility. But my recollection is that um you have not been able to fill this position. Can you can you just tell us what's going on because I I know you could use another set of hands on deck. >> Sure. We um we recruited for this
position in the past. We had selected an individual but at the last minute the individual um decided opted not to uh join the city. And then since then it's been it's been extremely difficult um you know to to to hire. The position was
actually placed on pause and and frozen if you will. So currently it's not uh it's not no one can can apply for it. But when it was open um we we weren't successful in recruiting the right candidate.
So, if we if we keep this funding here, is the position still going to be paused or and can we start recruiting or are we better served by getting hands on on deck by having this money going towards um contractors because ultimately the
work needs to get done. So, how's the best way to proceed with that? Well, there's there's benefits to both um engaging consultants as well as having in-house staff. Uh ultimately, in the long run, uh what I found is that
consultants are more expensive if if you if you want someone full-time engaged. Ultimately, in the long run, it may cost more than than having a city employee on staff. It all depends on how uh the level of activation that we give to the
uh to the consultants, but usually their rates are higher. >> So, but what are we going to do about freezing or unfreezing this position? I mean, it's silly to have something budgeted and also at the same time have the position frozen so you can't hire. So, if I may through the chair, um, you
know, my feeling is if if you all don't accept our recommendations on reducing full-time positions, then I'm going to see that as an endorsement to fill those positions. Um, and then we're going to
move forward once the budget passes. And if I could chime in, what I'll say, we've been discussing this specific division as an enterprise fund for several years now. And the finance team has highlighted that we will be in a
structural deficit for this fund. And it's why we've explored measures such as full advertising wraps of trolleys, which come with push back from residents. And in fact, one of the things that we actually explored through various committees was reducing service
hours for our trolleys because of the structural fiscal deficits that this enterprise fund is going to be facing. And we decided not to do that. But we don't have a great way how we're not going to pay for that. How we're going to pay for
that. >> [snorts] >> So this truly is one of those situations in an enterprise fund where it is okay if we don't fill this we can put it towards that. So if our one of our highest priorities is ensuring that we
have transportation services and fully functioning trolleys. We need money from somewhere, right? And perhaps this that we've lived without can be allocated towards very tangible
service restorations. And I think that's what my suggestion would be. >> Let me ask you this. Um just just going that down that route and understanding the structural deficit that the transportation fund would be experiencing. You know, it's obvious
that, you know, then we need to look at other ways as well that we can save there. How much extra money did we spend on the retrofit of the trolleys for just to put a decorative package on them?
>> Um, it came out to about $500,000 a year based on the operating costs cuz keep in mind >> them all together or individually per per trolley? No, just annually for the entire program, >> it would be approximately $500,000 more
every year [clears throat and snorts] to operate the trolley uh looking vehicles rather than the buses and >> from an operational perspective. >> And if we and do do we still because again when we made that decision I don't
think we were facing the changes in the uh state laws and the potential reform in property taxes. So, since we're talking about the about the deficit in the transportation fund, is it too late to go back and say, you
know, we can still preserve trolley services um but without having this decorative package that's costing us half a million dollars for decoration. Um can do we do we have the ability to go back and look
at that? So just to clarify um that we're we're not in a structural deficit with this enterprise fund because of the Tallahassee measure. This is because of the costs for these >> um that's kind of managed alone and the revenue that this brings in as an
enterprise fund. So it's not necessarily funded through uh property taxes. Okay. And you know the collective decision of this commission was okay we'll figure that out but we do
highly prioritize the look and appeal of this higherend model and also maintaining these more robust uh service routes. In fact, I think at the finance committee, we made recommendations to
actually have the lower cost model and scale back some of the routes, which the full commission decided to go in another direction. Fine. But we need to start figuring out how to fund that. And perhaps allocating money that's currently allocated to an unfilled
position is how we can begin tackling that. I'd love money for all of this stuff, right? But in this enterprise fund it is a very tangible if you take from here you don't have for there. So if we want to have restored services right now we don't have a way to pay for
them. Perhaps allocating money from this to those services is a way to do so. >> Mr. Chair I agree with you. I mean I would love to save the position. I understand if if Jose if you say you've tried to fill this position and you can't fill the position then there's no point in then saving the position
keeping it vacant on paper having the dollars occupied and designated to this on paper and then not be able to fill and meet some of the other uh essential needs of of the transportation service
>> so that we can move on to the next one because I was the one that asked if it could uh be saved. Can we review it in September rather than just eliminating us doing it because it was almost filled? Um, if I may, all the elements that are that
are on here, you know, we won't go through this. Obviously, this this uh because it's during the commission meeting during our first hearing, we won't go through all of the different elements that were, but any reduction that's on here or any enhancement is always subject to uh change. So, we have the we can stay on now and the commission can make a different decision
come September, but we can move on. Okay, great. Let's uh bring up the power Power PowerPoint. We are getting close on the end of operating. We actually have a few recommended uh enhancements in other funds. >> All right. So,
right. So, we are recommending making some improvements for cleanliness and infrastructure. The first item is for mechanical sweepers. That's in the sanitation fund. Uh we are recommending additional funding for water testing at part B canal and that's a one-time
basis. The other items are on a recurring basis. We do have litter cans throughout the city that we do spend money for to replace and repair as needed and we're just increasing the approp appropriation based on the cost of those services. Uh the nanobs we have a $1 million appropriation in next
year's budget. So this would be the recurring operating cost that goes with that. And uh we have the meter system that we have in place recently and we're adding the maintenance cost. And the last item is for uh brick pa and street maintenance. So we added a new fund last
year and we're now appropriating the dollars that will be available as needed. >> Let me ask a question on this. Um do we have the funding in place for the hydrodnamic separators that we're seeking to install in uh the Park View Canal for water efficiency? >> I believe we do. Yes, I'm hearing yes.
Is that included as part of this year's budget that's rolling over to next year or is it part of the fiscal year 27 budget? >> Uh that is part of the capital budget. I believe it's FY26 capital budget. >> Okay. >> But uh and that money would roll over. I'm not positive whether it's
>> it'll be rolled over from this year to next year. >> Yep. >> Okay. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. >> Thanks. We'll continue on. >> Right. So this is for the parking fund. Um, sure parking has been discussing adding new technology to help them to be more efficient. Um, the second item is
actually a promotion of five positions in the parking department. And then the last one is for the radio maintenance that you saw it already on fire side and this is for the radios on parking side. >> Thank you. We have a couple of mobility
uh items here as we talked about uh transitioning some transportation costs for art week over to the convention center and then the water taxi. Uh we were looking at recurring but I think after and we've discussed in some of the briefings we want to maybe move that keep that as a one-time level uh match
up with our grants. Um so you know as we work for it. So, we're going to have that water taxi shown as a as a one-time allocation just like we had here as we continue to get grants and try to find our partners uh so we can move forward on that. And we're I think this is going to be our last operating then we have a
couple of quick capital and then we'll circle back to the requests that you guys made. So, on these other enhancements just very quickly a few vehicles for the building department uh funded by the building department. uh the convention center, the big element that's there is it's uh the fins that are on the exterior there, refurbishing
of them. It's its own separate uh enterprise fund. So, they're able to fund that. The trans we are recommending a onetime allocation for the transportation fund fund balance uh to complete the transportation master plan update which is in place. And then finally, art and public places, a
recurring uh allocation from its own fund to maintain the art that we already have, which we think is a good good approach. and we're going to go right into a quick capital update. >> Yes. So, this is an updated version of
the slide that you saw back in June. We did add one major project and Jason's going to go through that in details. We are recommending spending more on capital. We are transferring more dollars from the excess dollars from last year's budget.
And this next slide actually shows you what we're recommending that change in the funding for capital. So the first two items remain the same. Three, four, and five are what we're recommending transferring over from last year's year end surpluses. $9.3 million to be
divided between CR PO and Capital Reserve. >> And then I'll just get into the next two slides. Our recommendation on the utilization of those funds, as we mentioned back in June, a few projects that we're only able to partially fund to get them across the finish line. uh the fire station three uh door b uh
replacement and number 174 citywide bridges. We didn't have enough funding. We now identified those dollars. So that'll complete a a big element uh that is important to us uh for our bridges. And then a couple of um uh parks and wreck items uh we're able to move with
these dollars we were able to locate. We are able to move forward with the norm of the aisle playground and the Mus Park playground replacement this year or 27. We are obviously we know last time in June we talked about the Flingo Park football field was being redone. We've identified there's also a fence project.
Uh so we thought that would be a good allocation to get those done at the simultaneously and the MS I'm sorry the Diamond Brite for so the pool refurbishment at the Scott Raal youth center. Those were uh priority projects. Uh PR parks just a funding swap for the commission. Uh you'll see the other
element on the other side. And then the band shell there's 860 from capital reserve there. Do we have the money for the polo park lights? >> Polo Park lights. Uh >> I believe those were included in the June >> Okay. All right.
>> So, we're not going through all the capital. Just a quick update on the couple elements that we've added. >> Um so, again, the the band shell from the arts and culture funding and the rest is just reallocation really uh for the Northshore fitness was removed. Then we take it to the uh beachwalk ballard
security ballards and again uh the big one there with I guess 42 the 900,000 we're recommending removing the appropriation we originally recommended uh for the altro road utility relocations because we received the state appropriation and just to wrap up before we get there
is just our next steps and just our calendar just as a reminder. Uh so I think at this point obviously uh we're you know we are continuing with our recommendation to keep a flat operating millage with a reduction in our geo bond millage at least at this point for our
trim notices. So uh next Wednesday uh you have resolutions that'll be on the commission to approve. Uh so we would hope that that would be the recommendation going forward and then September uh so the in August uh OM finalizes all everything we've done today. There's still a lot of work to be done in the background and the actual
preliminary budget, the big documents that will be uh published out. So, you guys will have all of that to go through and we have our first two hearings on September 10th, which is during the commission meeting at 550 5:01. And then September 23rd is the second budget hearing and October 1st starts the uh
budget. Uh I think now we can Oh, we're thanking you, but let's take down the presentation and then we can >> Can you identify how much in cuts we have? That's where we're now. >> Yep. So, we started off with $21 million. Um, we have eliminated 10
million from that list. So, we're down to 11.3. Um, the target is 6.85. So, we have cut still more than what we would need to have a stable operating mill rate. >> And then we identified there was a
number of elements. How many was the value of the elements? >> 358,000 that we said we'd come back to take a look at. >> And which elements were those? So the first one was item number 29. >> So I think where that leaves us is we're
able to vote today that our current millage rate is the maximum millage rate that we can have as long as we move forward with the proposed cuts that we've all agreed to, which I I think is a tremendous place to be in. In fact, we
have $4 million in additional cuts above and beyond where we have to maintain our budget and further items to discuss that could either get our millage rate even lower. Um, I don't know if we want to have this discussion now or at a further
point, but given what's happened in Tallahassee, I I think what we should all consider is where I'm going to be at is do another millage cut equivalent to what we did last year in our operating budget. Even
if we save more money, which I plan to do, then that translates to a millage rate increase. >> I agree. >> I think it would be a duriction of duty, taking our millage down too much. I would rather discuss what we do with
those enhanced cuts that we have. Whether it's another surplus check, whether it's putting it into an infrastructure or a capital resiliency fund, whether it's putting it into reserves. with the uncertainty happening in Tallahassee and also
an environment where we see the data with our eyes a decelerating property tax growth. I do not want to cut our millage rate to an extent that comes back and really bites us in the behind for years to come. The county did that and it's just not a fiscally responsible
way to manage future budgets. So, I think what we can essentially take away from here is given those $11 million, $10 million in cuts that we've achieved here, that is well in excess of what we needed to do to keep our millage rate
flat. I'd like to see if we did another millage rate cut that is equivalent to what we did for this past year. Where that puts us, back of the envelope math, is another $750,000. Um and then whatever cuts that we make
above and beyond that, we essentially figure out where that money goes in instead of locking us into further mill rate uh cuts, whether that could be through surplus, infrastructure fund, resiliency, whatever that may be. Um
I think that's the the path I at least personally would like to steer things. >> Yeah, the chair. I think um you know we've had these discussions and I think in September that's something that we could definitely entertain. We'll work through those calculations uh for you and have that ready to be proposed. Uh
again obviously we're we're going to recommend the the flat but I understand that concept again for next year. We're not looking at a you know a red flashing light. It's it's yellow. It's a caution. And I think the two elements we talked about is that decreasing increase in our property values that are not going to be
enough to support our existing service level plus that constitutional amendment. So kind of we're we're recommending, you know, let's pump that decision to next year when that we understand with the ground and the environment that we're going to live in. And anything above the minimum cut level that was required to balance our budget
here, we kind of recommend that maybe that be put aside for on a budget stabilization fund basically to give you guys ammunition, some dry powder that either through the year if something comes up that you need or have some one-time money that perhaps in next year's budget where there's a reduction, let's say, to a program or service, you
might move it from recurring to a one-time and say, I was able to to to save that program for this year, but we got to see how it goes forward. So, I think that's a good um I know we discussed that to have that that kind of a budget stabilization piece. Anything above that minimum cut, but we'd like to
do now uh because obviously we've been here a long time is uh Tama has has labeled as about 350,000 additional that the commission if they wanted to could remove all of them. Uh but she will go let's go element by element and see the perview of the commission if it's something they wanted to remove now or
again to discuss more in September. But let's >> I'll just say Commissioner Magazine summed up my sentiments pretty well. [snorts] >> Okay. Um if we could go back to item 29 and that's the employee appreciation for the Halloween that was 15,000. We had it um to come back to that.
>> I think it should be kept I mean in the position that we're in. I think we can agree. >> So remove it from the cut list. >> So we would probably add that list for sake of brevity. Um >> sorry. Can we start over again? >> Sure. Number 29. And what's the Halloween one? >> Yep.
There was two in citywide. There was uh the citywide employee appreciation was number 29 and 50. >> And I think the next one was 109 for 10,000. >> Yeah, they're both in the same element of the employee appreciation events part. >> So line 29 and line >> 109.
>> I'll make a motion or for lack of a better term to >> keep this on the reduction list. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, we have a recommendation to keep the both of those elements on the reduction list. >> Recommendation to remove. >> Yeah. Me, too.
>> Okay. >> So, just the vote. >> What? >> Even though we can't vote, >> but what is the total of the two amounts? >> 20. It would be $25,000 in total. >> Why don't we split the baby and just keep 10 grand and find a way to do something warm and fuzzy for our employees and still save a majority of
the money? >> Is this not warm and fuzzy to you? >> It's neither warm nor fuzzy. We have an alternative one. We have fulls funding. We have partial attend. >> Are we are we voting? >> No, just what are we doing? >> Yeah, I'm trying to get a consensus.
There's not there's a lack of consensus on >> for all of these. I don't think we're going to have a consensus. So, we're going to have to do call what you want a straw vote. >> Keep full funding. >> Full funding. >> How many more for full? >> We're talking about the holiday part. I
mean, all >> two of them together. Yeah. The holiday. All all employers, large employers usually have a holiday party. >> This is for Halloween though. We are not touching the holiday regular holiday party. >> And it's not saying we can't have a Halloween party, but when I have a
Halloween gathering at my office, we bring in our own candy, right? Very simple. As opposed to our taxpayers paying for candy for our employees. >> I think to chair, I think to to your effect, I think on this one, it's very split. So, I think maybe I'll take your recommendation to kind of straw ballot
that if that's okay. I I I I know we had two for full funding. We have three for full funding. Um we have a fourth or a fifth. >> All right. Not hearing not hearing uh having four that we'll say that we'll move on to a different tact on this. So
as of right now, the the elements are removed unless there's an alternative recommendation. >> There is an alternative recommendation to >> We have an alternative recommendation to fund these at a level of $10,000. Do we have anyone to support that? I uh would like to recommend that we
fund these at at 20. It's such a small gesture. I just I can't believe I there's not support. I It's such a small amount that that our employees, mind you, some of them live
here, too, and pay our taxes, too. Um, I just really would, you know, would like to be able to appreciate our employees. I >> I appreciate them every single day. Every single day, I appreciate our employees. Our residents appreciate them
every day. How I am appreciated at work is when I am given a paycheck. So, let's please stop the nonsense that because we are not funding Halloween candy with taxpayer money that we don't appreciate our employees. I refuse to accept that.
Okay. I do categorically deny that we can appreciate our employees through many different ways. Buying Halloween candy with taxpayer money does not have to be one of them. Appreciating our employees and not buying Halloween candy with taxpayer money are [clears throat]
not mutually exclusive. >> I think I think at this point there's kind of a lack of consensus. So, >> right. It's not Halloween candy. It's to buy their lunch. I mean, it's it's not something frivolous and they love it. that could be revisited and discussed in September, but I think with kind of a
lack of consensus, we will just show this item kept on the list for now >> and we'll deal with that in September. So, let's >> So, the next one is item 35, which is a common common threads and that's the the cooking program through parks.
>> Let me ask you something. The elimination of this, is this included in the 11 million? >> Yes. >> Um, yes. >> Yes. So this will be reducing your your let's call at this point a your budget stabilization fund for next year. >> All right, we'll we'll move on to the
next element. >> Next is item number 55. >> I I got to tell you, I'd rather discuss these in September. I don't want to make a decision on any of these right now for common threads. It sounds like an important >> I'd rather I'd rather discuss it in
September. uh because like I don't know enough about common threads to say today you a program that was established years ago that relates you know with our students and feeding people and families and all that I I just don't want to make
a decision on on the fly. Um and so I think you know starting with item 29 that we started discussing and 109 and common threats and all that I don't think we should be making a decision right now. I think let's let's give it some time. We've made Mr. you've you
guiding us you guiding us through this process you have gotten us to such a good place of finding more than what we needed in efficiencies um >> we all did we all did >> and but but but but you lead this process and so I just want to publicly
thank you for getting us to to this point because at the end of the day we are being incredibly responsible with the taxpayers's dollars and getting them more efficiencies than what even the administration the city administration had recommended
to us. Uh so Mr. Chair, just wanted to publicly thank you for guiding us through this exercise today. >> Now, thank you all and thank you to our city staff, not just our finance department. I know this is an all hands-on deck effort that is it's a tough process, right? And while we
ultimately make the legislative decisions as employees, we are all stewards of taxpayer money. So, I appreciate everybody's role in part in playing this, especially our finance team preparing it and for uh all of our colleagues up here. Um, you know, I'll
reiterate that these are always tough decisions. None of this is personal. It's about uh you know, there's seven of us for a reason. There's not one of us. Uh there's seven of us for a reason because we all have varying viewpoints that I think uh we we all hear, accept,
and uh and discuss. So, thank you for everybody for this process. >> Well put. And even though there were a couple of items, we may have had some uh policy uh I wouldn't even say disagreements, different viewpoints, if you look at it in totality, we were unanimously on on consent on almost
every on most of the items. Appreciate the hard work. This takes a lot of work that um it's sort of like you watch uh like the World Cup. You watch a World Cup, what you don't recognize is is the four years of practice that they put in to get into that game. And that's uh a
crude analogy, but somewhat what you're doing. You spend hours and hours along with the rest of our city that goes into making our city look clean, be safe, run functionally, and uh so we really appreciate the hard work. >> As I see some of us packing up, I think we still do need a vote today, right? On
we don't need to vote on our maximum mill rate that we're setting. >> That'll be on Wednesday. But just uh you know, mayor, chair, commissioners, just want to thank you very much through this process. um you'll vote on the maximum millage. Again, our recommendation at least for this trim notice and we will work with the chair for September on a calculation
for him uh is to keep that as a flat. These elements we're not going to work we will have it highlighted for September. And I just wanted to real quick just to highlight the OM team, the office management budget team that really worked with all the directors and they've done an amazing [applause] job. It's been a lot of calculations,
recalculations and they've really done an amazing amount of work. So, thank you all very much. journey.