Jun 05, 2026 Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee

UH, AND THEN ONE LAST STIPULATION THAT WE ADDED WAS THAT IF THEY DO NOT SECURE, UH, THEIR, UM, SORRY, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I SAY IT CORRECTLY.

THIS IS ON THEIR PROPERTY, GRANTED CITY ON GROUND LEASE, AND IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE GIVING THEM ANYTHING.

SO IF THEY DO NOT RECEIVE THEIR MASTER BUILDING PERMIT BY JULY, BY JULY 1ST, 2031, THEY DO HAVE AN OPTION AT THE CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION TO EXTEND IT BY SIX MONTH, AND THAT'LL BUY THEM AN EXTRA SIX MONTH TO GET IT.

BUT IF THEY DO NOT RECEIVE IT BY THEN, THEN THEY WILL HAVE SOME LIQUIDATED DAMAGES THAT WILL START AT $500 A DAY.

AND, AND USUALLY I, I'M VERY, UH, KEEN TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO HAVE THESE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, UH, DONE, UH, QUICKER.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, I THINK THE CITY DID VERY WELL WITH FIVE PARK DOING, PUTTING IN MILESTONES TO BE SURE THAT THE PARK WAS COMPLETED BEFORE, UM, THE, THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED, BECAUSE WE LEARNED OUR LESSON, LET'S CALL IT, UH, PERHAPS SOME OTHER PROJECTS FURTHER UP NORTH WHERE THERE WAS JUST THIS HUGE TIMEFRAME, BUT THOSE WERE PUBLIC LAND, AND IT WAS LIKE PUBLIC PROJECTS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SAME INCENTIVE AND STRUCTURE REALLY EXISTS HERE.

UH, IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE ASKING ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

[00:05:01]

WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM, UH, SOMETHING EXCEPT FOR AN EXTENSION OF A LEASE, WHICH WON'T BE EXTENDED IF THEY DON'T COMPLETE THE PROJECT.

UH, SO I'M NOT COMPLETELY, UH, AGAINST THIS.

IT JUST, IT CATCHES ME BY SURPRISE, NOT IN A BAD WAY.

UM, I, I, I KNOW YOU'RE BEING AS DILIGENT AS POSSIBLE JUST FROM, I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS GONNA BE ANY UPDATES, UH, FROM THE LAST TIME.

I'M JUST TRYING TO, ON THE FLY WORK THROUGH MY HEAD, SHOULD THAT EXIST.

LIKE I ALWAYS, OH, ALMOST ALWAYS AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE IN SANITIZING A P THREE PROJECT TO GET DONE SOONER, BUT INCREASING THEIR BASE RENT WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT GIVING ANYTHING.

UM, WE ARE, WE, IN ADDITION TO THE EXTENSIONS THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM, WE'RE ALSO GIVING CAPS TO THOSE EXTENSIONS.

THOSE EXTENSIONS ARE, ARE TYPICALLY AT MARKET RENTS.

SO THEY'RE, THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS, UH, WILL HAVE CAPS THAT TYPICALLY, THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT EXIST IN THE AGREEMENT.

BUT AGAIN, ONLY IF THE PROJECT GETS DONE, IF CORRECT, IF THEY DON'T DO THE PROJECT, NONE OF THIS HAPPENS.

IT'S NOT AS IF IN FIVE PARKS CASE, WE HAVE TWO BLOCKS OF CITY LAND THAT IS JUST SITTING THERE UNDEVELOPED, AND OUR RESIDENTS ARE LIKE, WELL, WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON? HOW DO WE GET THIS PROJECT DONE QUICKER? THERE? YOU WANT EVERY INCENTIVE AS POSSIBLE TO GET THIS PROJECT DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THIS IS SORT OF LIKE A NICE TO HAVE BECAUSE WE GET MORE MONEY FLOWING INTO THE SYSTEM.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO BE, I DON'T WANNA SAY PUNITIVE, BUT REALLY PUTTING PRESSURE TO GET THAT DONE.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING UP CITY LAND, WE'RE NOT GIVING FAR INCREASES, WE'RE NOT GIVING HEIGHT INCREASES.

IT'S LIKE, WE REALLY WANT THIS DONE BECAUSE THERE'S BETTER ECONOMICS FOR US.

BUT IF THE PROJECT DOESN'T GET DONE, WE HAVEN'T GIVEN ANYTHING.

WE DON'T HAVE BLOCKS OF CITY LAND THAT'S JUST SITTING THERE INACTIVATED.

IT'S KIND OF ON THE PROJECT OWNER.

UM, THAT'S JUST MY INITIAL TAKE.

I'LL LET MY COLLEAGUES TALK AND, UH, MAYBE IF NICK WANTS TO TALK ON BEHALF OF, UH, THE PROJECT OWNER, IF YOU GUYS ARE SAYING, HEY, THIS IS COOL, COOL WITH ME.

THROUGH THE CHAIR.

I THINK WE HAVE SOME, UH, PRESENTATION THAT WE CAN RUN THROUGH.

THE REAL GOAL HERE IS TO REALLY JUST MAKE SURE THE CITY IS WHOLE IN ALL SCENARIOS, AND THEN IT'S ALSO FAIR TO THE TENANT.

AND SO I THINK WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE.

IT'S TAKEN A FEW DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THE TERM SHEET, BUT, UM, I THINK WE, WE'VE ARRIVED THERE, UH, WITH THIS TERM SHEET THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TODAY.

AT ISSUE THAT WE'VE COME TO, TO AGREEMENT ON IS THE CAPS ON THE MARKET RATE ADJUSTMENTS.

SO, UM, I, I HAVE A PRESENTATION.

OZZY, CAN I JUST USE THE CLICKER? SURE.

SO, UM, FIRST NICHOLAS RODRIGUEZ, 200 SOUTH GAME BOULEVARD FOR THE RECORD.

AND I JUST WANNA SAY IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH OZZY AND WITH DAVID MARTINEZ.

UH, WE'VE HAD TO WORK THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOU PULL ONE LEVER AND IT AFFECTS ANOTHER LEVER, AND THERE'S AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.

SO WE'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH DIFFERENT NEGOTIATIONS.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK WHERE WE'VE ARRIVED IS SOMETHING THAT IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, WHERE WE CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ANI CAN BE SUCCESSFUL.

UM, BUT THE CITY IS ALSO GETTING THEIR REVENUE INCREASE.

SO AGAIN, WE ALL KNOW THE PROPERTY.

IT'S AT 1691 MICHIGAN BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND MICHIGAN.

UH, THIS IS THE EXISTING CONDITION.

SO THE VISION HERE FOR THE RNI ENTITY IS TO DEVELOP AN ADDITION ON THIS ROOFTOP THAT'S VERY SELDOM UTILIZED.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S KIND OF A RAMP TO NOWHERE AND ALMOST NOBODY PARKS UP HERE.

UH, THE PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS ARE A $50 MILLION INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING TO CREATE AN ADDITION ON THAT SELDOM USED ROOFTOP.

IT'S NOT GENERATING ANY REVENUE NOW BECAUSE NO ONE'S PARKING THERE.

UH, SO IT'S BETTER TO CONVERT IT INTO REVENUE GENERATING, UH, LEASEABLE OFFICE SPACE, ABOUT 36,000 SQUARE FEET AND 6,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT.

UM, AND WE JUST, WE UPDATED SOME RENDERINGS HERE.

I KNOW AT THE COMMISSION MEETING WAS REQUESTED THAT WE KIND OF TRY TO PUT THESE IN CONTEXT, SO WE'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THESE QUICKLY.

BUT THE IDEA IS, UH, AN ADDITION ON THE ROOFTOP AND KIND OF CREATE THIS CAMPUS FEEL WELLNESS ORIENTED OFFICE, UH, SPACE.

AND THEN, UH, THIS IS A VIEW FROM LINCOLN ROAD.

WE WANTED TO JUST GIVE THE BUILDING A, A, A CROWN REALLY, AND MAKE IT A LOT MORE INTERESTING AS A VISUAL FROM LINCOLN ROAD THAN WHAT YOU SEE NOW WITH THE PARKING GARAGE.

UM, SO THESE ARE THE, THE TERMS, UH, THE ONES HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ARE REALLY WHAT WE SPENT 99% OF OUR TIME NEGOTIATING SINCE THE, THIS WENT TO COMMISSION IN MAY.

UH, AND AS OZZY MENTIONED, THE BASE RENT, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, AND THOSE ARE ADDRESSING BASICALLY THREE DIFFERENT TIMELINES.

WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE THAT INCENTIVIZES ROBERT TO MOVE QUICKER, AND IT'S A BETTER DEAL IF ROBERT, UH, GETS THE PROJECT DONE FASTER.

THE CITY COLLECTS A HIGHER BASE RENT FOR A LONGER AMOUNT OF TIME, SO IT'S A LOWER AMOUNT, UH, OF AN INCREASE IN BASE RENT.

THERE'S KIND OF A MIDDLE TIER SCENARIO IN WHICH IT'S, IT'S VERY FAIR TO ROBERT, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DELAYED.

SO IT'S A SLIGHTLY HIGHER AMOUNT OF BASE RENT.

AND THEN THERE'S THE KIND OF THE OUTSIDE DATE, WORST CASE SCENARIO, IN WHICH CASE THE PROJECT TOOK LONGER.

UH, SO THERE'S A SLIGHT BUMP IN THE BASE RENT, BUT IT'S, IT'S REALLY INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY GETS THEIR REVENUE.

IT'S NOT PUNITIVE AGAINST RNI.

IT'S REALLY JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE SCALES ARE EVEN IN ALL THREE SCENARIOS.

UH, AND THEN THE OTHER TERM THAT WAS

[00:10:01]

SO WHEN THIS LEASE REACHES, ITS, ITS FINAL TERM, THERE WILL BE AN APPRAISAL PROCESS TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE BASE RENT.

UM, AND, AND WE'RE PLACING CAPS ON THE ABILITY OF THE BASE RENT TO BE, OR THE TOTAL RENT TO BE INCREASED.

UH, SO IT'S NOT LIKE A BLANK CHECK HERE.

THIS, THIS PROVISION WAS KIND OF AN ISSUE FOR LENDERS.

IT'S COMPLETELY UNKNOWN WHAT THE BASE RENT COULD BE AT THE END OF THE TERM BASED ON AN APPRAISAL.

SO WE'RE JUST PLACING, UH, REASONABLE BOUNDARIES ON HOW MUCH THAT RENT CAN INCREASE.

SO OVERALL, AND THROUGH THE END OF THE INITIAL TERM OF THE LEASE, WHICH ENDS IN 2051, UH, THE FIRST LINE IS WHAT THE CITY WOULD'VE GOTTEN IF AVNI DID NOT PURCHASE THIS BUILDING AND DO THESE PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT 20 MIL, $21 MILLION OF REVENUE.

UH, WITH THE ANI PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS, IT'S, UH, 39 MILLION IN REVENUE ESTIMATED.

UH, SO IT'S AN APPROXIMATE NET INCREASE OF $18 MILLION.

AND YOU'LL SEE HERE THE THREE SCENARIOS.

AND THE NUMBER IN GREEN IS REALLY THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS IN EACH SCENARIO, THE CITY IS BASICALLY GUARANTEED THEIR $18 MILLION OF INCREASED REVENUE.

AS YOU CAN SEE IN SCENARIO THREE, THE WORST CASE, IT'S A SLIGHTLY LOWER, UH, VALUE OF $18 MILLION.

SO IT'S NOT PUNITIVE.

THE CITY AND ANI ARE KIND OF SHARING IN THE COST OF THAT DELAY AS PARTNERS AND LANDLORD AND TENANT, BUT THE CITY STILL GETTING THE REVENUE INCREASE FROM THE PROJECT.

UM, AND SCENARIO ONE, IT'S THE MOST AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE.

UH, IF THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED IN 2032, THAT KIND OF ASSUMES THAT EVERYTHING GOES REALLY WELL, AND ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENTS HAPPEN, AND THE CONSTRUCTION HAPPENS WITH NO DELAYS.

UH, BUT AS WE KNOW, THOSE, UH, CONSTRUCTION AND ENTITLEMENT PROCESS WITHOUT DELAYS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.

SO WE THINK SCENARIO TWO IS KIND OF THE MOST REASONABLE, UH, SCENARIO TO EXPECT.

AND IF IT'S THE SCENARIO THAT'S MOST LIKELY, AND IT'S THE SCENARIO THAT LEADS TO THE MOST REVENUE TO THE CITY.

UM, BUT IT'S ALSO FAIR TO ANI, UH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUBJECTING THEM TO SUCH A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN BASE RENT, UH, SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN ABSORB AND STILL BE SUCCESSFUL.

SO, JUST SHOWING OUR WORK HERE A LITTLE BIT, HOW WE GOT TO THESE FIGURES, THE FIRST LINE IS WHAT THE BUILDING WOULD'VE GENERATED.

UH, SO IF YOU LOOK AT 2033, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WOULD'VE RECEIVED $738,000 IN 2033 AS BASE RENT IN AN ENTIRE YEAR.

UH, UNDER THE PROPOSED TERMS, IT'S ALMOST DOUBLING TO $1.4 MILLION, UH, IN THAT YEAR.

AND THEN FAST FORWARDING TO THE END OF THE LEASE, UH, WHAT THE CITY WOULD'VE BEEN GETTING AROUND A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR THE LEASE, THEY'LL BE GETTING ABOUT $2 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE LEASE.

UH, AND GIVEN SOME UNCERTAINTY, UH, WITH THE, THE FUTURE OF PROPERTY TAXES AND MUNICIPALITIES, I THINK LEVERAGING THESE TYPES OF CITY ASSETS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND SEEING THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, A MILLION, $2 MILLION A YEAR COMING IN, UH, PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEED TO THE CITY IS, UH, IS GONNA BE VERY IMPORTANT.

NICK, UH, GO BACK TO PREVIOUS YEARS LIST.

SO EVEN IN 2032, DO WE COULD BE LOOKING, LET'S CALL ANOTHER HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL RENT REVENUES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S COMING IN.

AND THEN EVERY FIVE YEARS, IT, AND IS THAT PRO FORMA, IS THAT MINIMUM BASED GUARANTEE? SO COULD BE HIGHER THAN THAT, OR IS THERE A CAP ON THAT? IS THAT FIXED? SO THE, THE BASE RENT, IT'S A TWO-PRONG RENT.

IT'S BASE RENT.

IT WOULD BE IN THIS SCENARIO, 515,000 SUBJECT TO THE 12%.

AND THEN THERE'S A PERCENTAGE RENT THAT'S INCREASED FROM 2.5% TO 3%.

THERE'S NO CAP.

IF THE BUILDING DOES BETTER, THAT 3% WILL BE HIGHER.

UM, THIS IS A, AN ESTIMATE.

SO I JUST SAW YEAH.

YESTERDAY IN BRICKLE, A $250 PER SQUARE FOOT LEASE RATE.

IF THIS BUILDING OUTPERFORMS, WE SHARE IN THAT UPSIDE, THERE'S NO CAP ON THE RENT.

RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.

BUT IF IT UNDERPERFORMS, THERE IS A FLOOR, YOU'LL GET YOUR BASE RENT AND YOU'RE GONNA GET YOUR 3% NO MATTER WHAT.

BUT IF IT UNDERPERFORMS THE ANI AND THE CITY SHARE IN THAT UNDERPERFORMANCE IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE RENT COMPONENT.

UH, LIKE PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENT ON LINCOLN ROAD.

UM, SO THEN AGAIN, THE PUBLIC BENEFITS, IT'S A MILLION DOLLAR PUBLIC BENEFIT PACKAGE.

I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THIS AT THE LAST FERC MEETING, AND THE CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS HASN'T BEEN MUCH CHANGES TO THIS.

UM, BUT IF, WHAT IS, YEAH, WHAT IS THE SECOND ONE? SO, UH, A REQUEST TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF, UH, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS IN THE PALM VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT.

I THINK THERE'S A CUBAN HEBREW SYNAGOGUE THAT IS, UH, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WAS THAT HERE LAST TIME.

UH, IT, THAT WAS MODIFIED FROM A 17TH STREET MASTER PLAN TO A REQUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONER.

FERNANDEZ REQUESTED US TO, TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC BENEFIT INSTEAD OF THE 17TH STREET MASTER PLAN.

I THINK IT'S, IT STEMS FROM COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THAT PROPERTY.

UM, HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE PUBLIC BENEFITS MORE AT, UH, IF, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'VE WORKED THROUGH WITH OTHERS, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE WORKED.

UM, SO THE, THE BIGGEST PUBLIC BENEFIT HERE IS REALLY THE LINCOLN ROAD CONTRIBUTION.

THAT'S WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO RII.

UH, WHAT, WHAT THEY WOULD LOVE TO DO IS SOME TYPE OF PARK IMPROVEMENT, UH, OR,

[00:15:01]

UM, WE HAVE SOME VERY CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AS TO WHAT THAT COULD BE.

IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN HPV PROCESS, BUT JUST SOME VERY CONCEPTUAL IDEAS OF WHERE AND WHAT IT COULD BE.

UM, JUST TWO DIFFERENT ITERATIONS.

GO BACK TO THE FIRST ONE.

THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN HPV PROCESS.

THIS IS NOT A FULL PARK DESIGN OR ANYTHING, BUT I PERSONALLY THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THE ENTIRE BUCKET INTO STUFF LIKE THIS.

BUT IT'S NOT A HILL I'LL DIE ON.

I, I JUST, I, THAT, THAT IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT RIGHT.

FROM LINCOLN ROAD AND THAT, THAT IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT.

UM, BUT THAT'S MY TAKE.

UH, AGAIN, UH, MANY COOKS IN THE KITCHEN AND, AND NOT A HILL I'LL DIE ON.

UM, BUT I, I THINK THE MORE THAT WE COULD DO LIKE THIS.

WHAT WAS THE NEXT ONE? I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT ONE.

IT'S, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT DESIGN.

I MEAN, THIS ONE, WE'D HAVE TO ENGAGE A LEGITIMATE PLAYGROUND DESIGNER AND GO THROUGH AN HPV PROCESS, BUT IT'S JUST THE RENDERER KIND OF COMING UP.

OZZY, YOU CREATE THAT IN CHAT GPT ON YOUR WAY IN, OR WHAT? FIRST TIME I'M SEEING THIS, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS.

YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE RETRO, YOU KNOW, AIM, AIM A LITTLE BETTER.

AIM HIGHER.

YOU LIKE THE BLOB BETTER? YES.

THESE ARE VERY, VERY CONCEPTUAL.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A, THE JELLYFISH.

UM, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO YOU TWO ARE ALIGNED.

WE ARE TOTALLY ALIGNED ON THIS TERM SHEET.

AND WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD.

I, I WANNA JUST REITERATE, MR. CHAIR, ON THE, ON THE RENTS, THERE IS NO, UH, MINIMUM GUARANTEE IT IS, I'M SORRY.

THERE IS A MINIMUM GUARANTEE, BUT THE PERCENTAGE RENT OF GROSS ALWAYS CONTINUES REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE, UH, WHERE THE BENCHMARK IS.

GO AHEAD.

EVEN IF THE ASSET OWNER PERFORMS THE MINIMUM BASE RENT PROTECTS US.

AND THAT INCREASES VERSUS WHAT IS IN THERE CURRENTLY? CORRECT.

SO EVEN IF THE BUILDING GOES VACANT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE GUARANTEED THE, THE BASE RENT.

PERFECT.

ALL GOOD.

AND WHAT IS THE PROCESS? THIS TRAVELS? SO THIS GETS REFERRED TO, UH, THE JUNE FULL COMMISSION, AND IT NEEDS TWO READINGS THERE.

ONE READING, CORRECT.

WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE JUNE 24TH COMMISSION MEETING, AND THEN THE JULY COMMISSION MEETING, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY REFERENDUM.

AND, AND RICK, FOR THE RECORD, IF I CAN JUST HAVE IT STATED AGAIN, HOW INSANE IT IS TO HAVE LIKE NINE HEARINGS ON THIS STUFF.

UM, IF WE JUST ADD TO ADD TO THE RECORD.

THIS WILL BE HEARD WHAT, FIVE TIMES .

IT'S EFFICIENCY FRIENDS, LET'S GO PROCESS, BUT IT'S FINE TUNED.

SO I THINK TO, TO MOVE IT OUTTA THE COMMITTEE, WE'D BE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FOR, UH, FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, RETURN TO COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE LEASE AMENDMENT, UH, AS PRESENTED.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.

JASON, ANY SMALL LITTLE ONES? DO WE WANT TO HEAR FROM OUR OIG QUICK OR ARE THERE OTHER SMALL, NOT SMALL ITEMS, BUT QUICK ITEMS WE COULD GET OUTTA THE WAY? 'CAUSE I KNOW, UH, WE'LL HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT'LL, UM, TAKE, TAKE UP THE BULK OF TIMING.

NOT THAT I WANT TO DEFER THEM ALL AFTERNOON, BUT MAYBE IF WE DO THAT AT LIKE 11 15, 11 30.

UM, I THINK MB THREE WE SHORT, BUT AS THE COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ ISN'T HERE, UM, SO I THINK THAT ONE MIGHT WANNA WAIT.

UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

UH, YEAH, IF YOU WANT, YOU WANTED TO DO THE OIG G ONE FIRST, PLEASE.

LET ME CALL THE OIG G ONE, UH, MB TWO.

[NB 2. CALL ON OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO PRESENT THEIR ANNUAL REPORT AT THE FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE AND ADOPT AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THIS PRACTICE YEARLY.]

LEMME CALL MB TWO.

UH, PAUL ON OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO PRESENT YOUR ANNUAL REPORT AT THE FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE AND ADOPT AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THIS PRACTICE YEARLY.

MB TWO.

JOE, HOW ARE YOU? HAPPY FRIDAY.

GOOD MORNING.

UH, MR. CHAIR OF COMMISSIONERS, UH, MR. GREEN, UH, CITY ATTORNEY? UM, I, UH, JOSEPH SANTINO, INSPECTOR GENERAL.

I APPRECIATE THAT WE WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND, AND, AND SPEAK TO YOU.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY, UH, WE'RE SUGGESTED BY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

WE MEET WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE PERIODICALLY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY REVIEW OUR REPORTS AND SO FORTH.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY SUGGESTED WHAT, YOU KNOW, DO YOU EVER GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION OR IN FRONT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO OCCASIONALLY, BUT, UH, NOT SPECIFICALLY TO TALK ABOUT ANY REPORT.

AND THEY, THEY REALLY, UH, STRONGLY URGE JUST TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

THE, YOU KNOW, THE CHAIR HAS, UH, YOU KNOW, AGREED TO, TO DO THIS.

UM, THE, OUR, OUR ANNUAL REPORT COMES OUT IN, USUALLY IN JANUARY, EARLY JANUARY FOR THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR.

UM, SO YOU, YOU'VE, AND YOU'VE ALL GET COPIES OF IT, AND YOU'VE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT IT AND READ IT.

SO YOU, AND, AND MOST OF THESE THINGS WE WOULD TALK ABOUT, YOU PROBABLY HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY

[00:20:01]

WITH FROM THAT.

BUT I THINK IF THERE'S SOME VALUE IN, YOU KNOW, GOING OVER SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF IT MAYBE AND, AND, UH, AND, AND, AND THE THEMES THAT WE HAVE FOUND IN THE, UH, IN THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE.

UM, AND SO I, AND I'LL TRY NOT TO MAKE THIS TOO, I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS TO DEAL WITH, BUT WE'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE, WE, WE'VE DONE AND, AND, UH, WE CAN ANS ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

I HAVE WITH ME THE DISTINGUISHED, UH, CHIEF AUDITOR OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.

YOU DON'T SEE HIM TOO OFTEN.

UM, HE DOESN'T ALWAYS WEAR A, A GREEN EYE SHADE, BUT HE'S, HE'S ALWAYS, UH, HE'S ALWAYS AT WORK, AND HE'S A LOT OF WORK TO DO BECAUSE HE'S GOT MOST OF THE WORK WE DO.

IT FALLS INTO THE AUDIT, UH, THE AUDIT AREA.

UM, TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE, THE, THE MAJOR AUDITS WE DID IN THE PAST YEAR.

UM, AND, UH, UH, I, I'LL START WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE MARINA.

SOMETHING I THINK MOST OF YOU HAVE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT AND HAVE, HAVE HEARD ABOUT.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH THE MARINA, WHICH WAS A BIG AUDIT, A VERY CONTENTIOUS AUDIT, UM, WAS THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WAS A, WHAT WE PERCEIVED AS A DEFICIENCY IN WHAT THEY WERE PAYING THE CITY.

THEY, THEY, UNDER THE CONTRACT, THEY HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, TO, UH, OF A PERCENTAGE FROM THEIR, THEIR, UH, THEIR, UH, GROSS REVENUES.

WE HAD A DISAGREEMENT WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT THEIR GROSS REVENUES WERE, A SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT.

AND WE FELT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT SHORTFALL ABOUT $660,000 TO, TO THE CITY, UM, THAT LED, AS, YOU KNOW, TO SOME NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

UM, AND THERE IS A, THERE IS A PENDING, UH, ITEM REGARDING, UH, THE, THE FINAL SETTLEMENT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY.

UH, THAT GOES BEYOND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FINDINGS, BECAUSE FRANKLY, UM, THE PROBLEM THAT, THAT WE SAW HERE, AND IT'S A PROBLEM.

THIS IS A GENERAL THEME, AND WE, WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN IT IN, IN MANY, UH, MANY OF THE AUDITS WE'VE DONE, IS THIS THE TENDENCY TO KIND OF PASSIVELY ACCEPT WHAT SOME OF THE CONTRACTORS ARE DOING.

UM, AND I, I KNOW WE'VE SPOKEN TO THE, TO THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IT, AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S AN ISSUE.

UM, AND I, I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO DO WE HAVE THE, THE PERSONNEL TO, YOU KNOW, TO, TO REALLY TO MONITOR THESE O THESE THESE CONTRACTS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THAT I I, WE, WE THINK THAT SOMETHING NEEDS MORE, NEEDS TO BE DONE, GENERALLY SPEAKING IN CONTRACT, UH, MONITORING, EVEN IF IT'S SPOT CHECKING, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AUDITING.

WE ONLY GET TO AUDIT THEM EVERY SEVERAL YEARS, FIVE, SIX, WHATEVER YEARS THAT, UH, AND IN THE MEANTIME, WHAT HAPPENS, OF COURSE, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PRACTICES THAT, THAT OCCUR WHERE THE, THE CONTRACTOR IS INTERPRETING THE CONTRACT TO THEIR BENEFIT, UNLESS SOMEBODY IS, YOU KNOW, MONITORING THAT REGULARLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PAYING WHAT THE, WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PAY.

YOU KNOW, WE GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY'S ACCEPTED THAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND IS IN A DIFFICULT NEGOTIATING POSITION, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT.

AND, UH, WE WORKED A LOT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THIS, AND I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION DID A GOOD JOB IN COMING UP WITH A SETTLEMENT THAT INCLUDE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF, OF, OF, UH, OF BENEFITS THAT WERE GONNA COME TO THE CITY.

UH, THEY VALUED THEM AT ABOUT $4.6 MILLION.

THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT VALUE WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED WITHOUT, WITHOUT THE AUDIT.

BUT WE, WE COULD DO BETTER THAN THAT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FACT JUST, I, I ALWAYS POINT OUT THAT THE 2 CENT PER GALLON, THAT FOR 40 YEARS WE HAD A, WE, WE GOT 2 CENTS A GALLON FROM THE, FROM THIS, THE FUEL SALES, UH, AT THE MARINA, NOBODY EVER, AND, AND THAT, THAT CONTRACT WAS RENEWED A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT NOBODY EVER LOOKED AT THE CONTRACT TO SAY 2 CENTS.

I MEAN, IT'S TIME TO.

SO JOE, IN SUMMATION THE RECOMMENDATION THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION, I GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT, RIGHT? IS THERE KIND OF AN OVERARCHING HERE? WELL, THE OVERARCHING IS, IS IS MORE MONITORING AT THE MAN, MANAGERIAL? IS THAT, DO YOU HAVE LIKE A TANGIBLE, HERE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR? WELL, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY A, A MANAGEMENT DECISION TO MAKE.

BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NEED FOR IT.

AND I RECOGNIZE IT'S GONNA TAKE MORE TIME TO DO THAT, TO LOOK AT EACH CONTRACT, UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE CAN HELP THEM FROM TIME TO TIME MAYBE AND SAY, LOOK, WE THINK YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS OR LOOK AT THAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT IT'S, THAT'S REALLY, THAT'S A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION THAT IS NOT BEING, BEING FULFILLED, WE THINK.

RIGHT NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS, UH, WE, WE'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, THE JOE, OH, YES.

WHEN YOU MEAN MID-LEVEL MANAGERIAL, HAVE, HAS YOUR OFFICE CONSIDERED USING AI? I'M SORRY, WHEN YOU MEAN MID-LEVEL MANAGERIAL, HAS YOUR OFFICE CONSIDERED USING AI TO WE OH, YEAH.

YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMENT, HOPEFULLY BETTER THAN OZZY'S, UH, AI FOR THE PLAYGROUND, UH, PICTURE.

WELL, WE, WE DO.

I'M, UM, MAY MAYBE YOU WANNA MAKE A, WE, WE ARE NOT, WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WE WOULD LIKE TO BE, BUT WE, WE DO HAVE, UM, HAVE SOME, UH, USAGE OF AI IN, IN AUDITS.

[00:25:01]

UM, GOOD MORNING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, NORMAN LATA.

UM, THE USE OF AI, WE ARE IMPLEMENTED, UH, SOME USAGE WE HAVEN'T, UH, I MEAN, THAT'S UP TO EACH DEPARTMENT, UH, TO THE LEVEL OF, OF, OF, OF AI USE THAT THEY GOING TO, UH, IMPLEMENT.

HOWEVER, UH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, IS NEW, IS A LITTLE CONCERNING BECAUSE WE ARE ALWAYS DEALING WITH, UH, SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

SO SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES PULLING UP THAT TO THE, TO AN AI IS CONCERNING.

SO WE ARE GIVING SMALL STEPS IN ORDER TO USE AI, BUT YES, IT'S IN, IT'S IN OUR AGENDA TO, TO, UH, USE MORE AI IN THE FUTURE.

BUT STILL, UH, THERE'S A LITTLE CONCERN ON, ON THE USE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

UNDERSTOOD.

UM, I WILL SAY THAT, THAT WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING MORE AND MORE OF IS DATA ANALYTICS, WHICH IS LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, BIG PICTURE OF, OF, OF MODELS OF, OF, OF, UH, OF DATA AND, AND LOOKING AT TRENDS IN THERE TO PICK OUT ISSUES AND PROBLEMS. YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NORMAN, UH, HAS SOME, HAS A BACKGROUND IN, I THINK ONE OF OUR AUDITORS HAS ALMOST A, IF, UM, CORRECT.

ALMOST LIKE A WHAT APP PALANTIR WOULD DO.

I MEAN, YEAH, THAT'S, AND THAT, AND THAT I THINK IS A, IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO BRING INTO, INTO AUDITING.

NOW, IF WE EVER LOOKED AT THAT, BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND, ONE OF THEIR CORE PILLARS ACTUALLY IS GOVERNMENT SERVICES.

I THINK THAT WE DON'T, I DON'T, WE DON'T CONTRACT WITH ANYBODY FOR THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOME TRAINING IN THAT.

AND SO WE, AND WE'VE, I THINK IN THE BTR AREA, I KNOW NORMAN HAS DONE WORK, UH, ON, ON IT, ON FINDING PROBLEMS WITH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T RENEWED BT, RBTR IS USING, UH, USING THAT.

AND THEN BEFORE YOU GO, I THINK PART OF THEIR THANKS, UM, PUSH IS LIKE, HEY, THE MONEY YOU'RE GONNA SPEND HERE, YOU'RE MAKING BACK MULTIPLE TIMES OVER BESIDES JUST, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GOVERNANCE ANGLE.

BUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO USE FOR COST SAVINGS FOR GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, I THINK IS, UH, I'M NOT OVERLY FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPANY, BUT WHETHER IT BE THAT COMPANY OR OTHERS LIKE IT, DATA ANALYTICS CAN REALLY LEAD TO, UH, GOOD RETURN ON ROI MM-HMM .

WELL, UH, MOSTLY, UH, DATA ANALYTIC WE HAVE BEEN USING ON, ON RESORT TAX TO SELECT, UM, BUSINESSES TO BE AUDITED OR FOR EXAMPLE, FOR, UH, ANALYSIS FOR PPP LOANS.

ON, ON, ON BUSINESS, OR I'M SORRY, FOR EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTING THOSE KIND OF LOANS.

UM, YES, WE USE DATA ANALYTICS, HOWEVER, UH, THAT REQUIRES TRAINING AND NOT, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, TO BE HONEST, I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO REALLY KNOWS DATA ANALYTICS.

GET THE KIND OF OVERSIGHT THAT THEY, THAT THEY NEED.

THAT'S, YOU'RE SAYING, IS IT BETTER TO CONTRACT THAT SERVICE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY? RIGHT.

BUT SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

SURE.

UM, THE OTHER ONE, A MAJOR, UH, AUDIT WAS ON AN INSURANCE COMPLIANCE, YOU KNOW, BTR RENEWALS PEOPLE ARE BUSINESSES THAT DO BUSINESS, AND YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE INSURANCE AS PART OF, AS A, UH, UH, CONDITION OF THE BTR.

WELL, AND THEY, AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL, THEY'LL HAVE THAT INSURANCE USUALLY AT, AT THE OUTSET.

BUT DO THEY RENEW IT? I MEAN, UH, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY GO FOR THE BTR RENEWAL, ARE THEY MAINTAINING THAT INSURANCE? OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY, IF THEY'RE OPERATING UNINSURED, THAT CREATES LIABILITY FOR THEM, BUT ALSO FOR THE CITY.

AND, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE FELT NEEDED TO BE TIGHTENED UP.

'CAUSE WE FOUND THAT, THAT, UH, THE REQUIRED INSURANCE WAS NOT BEING VERIFIED BY THE RENEWAL STAGE.

UM, I THINK WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IT'S GONNA BE AUTOMATED, UM, BY JULY OF THIS YEAR.

I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE PLAN.

SO WE WE'RE, WE'LL, WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THAT'S GONNA MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT IN THAT AREA, AND WE'LL BE MONITORING THAT.

UM, BEACH FRONT MANAGEMENT, THAT'S THE, THERE'S ANOTHER BIG AUDIT THAT WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR.

AND THE REASON WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR IS THAT THE STATE REQUIRES IT.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE, THE CAPACITY TO, TO AUDIT EVERY CONTRACT EVERY YEAR, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE, WHAT WE DO LOOK AT, UH, AND THAT INVOLVES, YOU KNOW, ALL THE CONCESSIONS ON THE BEACH.

THE BEACH IS A STATE PROPERTY, AND WE, WE ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO DO THAT TO, TO, TO, TO AUDIT THEM AS WELL AS TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE PROPER SAND TAX IS BEING PAID TO THE STATE.

AND, UH, I THINK THAT'S GOT, THAT'S GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, THE LAST COUPLE YEARS HASN'T BEEN BAD.

I MEAN, THAT INVOLVED ANY BIG HOTEL OR, YOU KNOW, BOUCHER BROTHERS, AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT HAS CONCESSIONS ON THE BEACH.

UM, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO UNDER AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO PAY THE CITY REVENUE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE AUDIT.

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS FIND PROBLEMS TO SOME EXTENT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'VE BEEN BIG, BIG PROBLEMS IN THAT AREA.

MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE WE DO AUDIT THEM EVERY YEAR, UM, THAT THEY

[00:30:01]

UM, RESORT TAX AUDITS, WE HAVE FIVE RESORT TAX AUDITORS.

ONE OF WHOM IS IT, IT, IT IS A, BOTH A AUDITOR AND A SUPERVISOR OF THE OTHER RESORT TAX AUDITOR.

THAT'S A BIG, BIG REVENUE SCREEN FOR THE, FOR THE CITY.

I THINK IT'S ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

UH, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S A HUGE REVENUE STREAM.

WE'VE GOT 4,000 ACCOUNTS IN THE CITY.

UM, WE DO MAYBE 150 OR SO AUDITS, OR 160 OR 70 A YEAR.

SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A FAIRLY SMALL PERCENTAGE.

THEY INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, THE MAJOR HOTELS, WHICH ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, HUGE, UH, ARTISTS.

IT ALSO INCLUDES SMALL, SMALL RESTAURANTS AND MOM AND POP THINGS.

AND, AND IT INCLUDES, UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE OF UNITS, UH, OF SMALL SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I MEAN, AND, AND, AND SO THERE'S A RANGE OF, OF DIFFICULTY WITH THOSE.

UM, WE ASSESSED LAST YEAR, $3.9 MILLION, UM, THAT AN UNPAID RESORT TAXES.

THAT, AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T ENFORCE ANYTHING.

ALL WE DO IS WE DO THE AUDIT.

WE, WE, WE FIGURE OUT AN ASSESSMENT.

IT MAY INCLUDE IT, IT OFTEN INCLUDES PENALTIES AND INTEREST IF THAT HASN'T BEEN PAID OVER A COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

AND, UH, IT'S UP TO THEM TO, YOU KNOW, TO, THEY CAN BE AN APPEAL IF THEY, IF, AND THAT HAPPENS, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANNA PAY, AND THEY, THEY WANNA APPEAL AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE BEING FAIR.

AND, UH, IT'S UP TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO, UH, FIRST OF ALL TO, TO LOOK AT IT AND, AND, UH, DEAL WITH THAT.

AND SOMETIMES THEY REACH A SETTLEMENT.

UH, SOMETIMES THEY PAY THE WHOLE THING, SOMETIMES THEY PAY LESS.

UH, BUT THEY USUALLY ALMOST ALWAYS PAY SOMETHING.

AND THEN IF THEY WANNA APPEAL AND GET A HEARING, THEY HAVE A VERY DISTINGUISHED MAGISTRATE.

UM, JASON GREEN IS THE, HE'S THE HEARING OFFICER ON AN ON APPEALS.

AND, UH, I DON'T THINK HE IS HIS FAVORITE, UH, HIS FAVORITE THING THAT HE DOES, BUT HE DOES A GOOD JOB AT THAT, AND HE'S VERY FAIR.

AND, UH, PEOPLE GET TO GET A FAIR HEARING, AND IF THE, THEY'RE STILL UNHAPPY, THEY CAN GO TO COURT.

BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED MUCH.

IT REALLY HASN'T.

IN FACT, THE, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGEST, WE, LAST YEAR, WE HAD THE BIGGEST, UM, UH, THE RECOVERY I THINK THAT WE, THAT CITY'S EVER HAD IN THE SINGLE RESORT TAX AUDIT, THE FONT AND BLUE 670, THEY PAID $671,000 TO THE CITY.

AND I'M AWARE OF ONE THAT, UH, YOU'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW THAT IS IN A SIMILAR LEVEL.

AND, AND I COMMEND YOU IN YOUR OFFICE FOR FINDING THAT, AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE GONE.

YEAH, WE CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THAT.

BUT YES, WE THINK WE'RE GONNA BREAK THE RECORD NEXT THIS YEAR.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND JUST, AND A LOT OF THE, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S NOT THROUGH ANY TYPE OF NEFARIOUS ACCOUNTING.

I TALKED TO THE, UH, THE OWNERS THERE, AND IT WAS JUST SIMPLE.

WE GOT ADVICE FROM OUR ACCOUNTANTS YEARS AGO WHERE YOU DIDN'T, AND, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, TECHNICAL NUANCE.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO COLLECT, UH, THE RESORT TAX ON SERVICE CHARGE THAT WAS APPLIED ON TIPS, RIGHT.

FROM A LAYMAN'S PERSPECTIVE, I'D SAY, OKAY, YEAH, THAT, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE.

THAT'S OUR ADVICE.

BUT YOUR TEAM WAS THERE TO, UH, DEFINE THAT AND KIND OF YOU BRING THAT UP, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE, THE TIP AREA, OR AT LEAST THE SERVICE CHARGE CHIP, IS, IS A BONE OF CONTENTION OFTEN, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL SEE ON YOUR BILLS 20% PERCENT SERVICE CHARGE WHEN YOU AUDIT TIME AT A LOT OF RESTAURANTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO THE STAFF.

AND IF ALL OF THAT'S GOING TO THE STAFF, WELL, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT TAXABLE.

BUT IF THE, IF THE, IF THE RESTAURANT'S RETAINING SOME OF THAT, THAT THAT'S REVENUE TO THE RESTAURANT, WHICH IS TAXABLE.

AND WE HAVE FOUND SITUATIONS WHERE THE ENTIRE 20% WAS BEING KEPT BY THE RESTAURANT.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE SEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THE RESTAURANT WAS CHARGING THE 2%, BUT KEEPING THE, THE 2%, KEEPING THE CITY'S THE CITY'S TAX REVENUE, BASICALLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT HAPPENED.

WHAT HAPPENED JUST QUICKLY WITH THE, WITH THE FARM BLUE, IS THEY WERE HAVING BIG EVENTS, BIG TIME EVENTS.

YOU KNOW, YOU ENTRY, YOU PAY 400, $500 TO GO TO THIS EVENT AND THIS FOOD AND DRINK THAT INCLUDES FOOD AND DRINK.

WELL, THEY WEREN'T PAYING ANY, ANY, ANY KIND OF TAX ON THAT.

BUT OBVIOUSLY A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT MONEY IS TOWARD FOOD AND BEVERAGE, WHICH ARE TAXABLE.

SO, UH, AND I'M SURE THEY'RE GONNA BE CHANGING, ALTHOUGH WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO AUDIT THEM.

ACTUALLY, WE'VE COVERED, I THINK, THREE YEARS.

WE'RE GONNA DO SOME MORE AUDITING, UH, UH, THIS YEAR.

AND JOE, INCREDIBLE WORK.

NOT THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT IS A REVENUE GENERATING, UH, COST CENTER, BUT YOU ARE SAVING OUR TAXPAYERS, UH, MONEY, RIGHT? THAT, THAT IS RIGHTFULLY THERE'S, I WOULD SAY SO.

IN FACT, I MEAN, EVERY YEAR THE RESORT TAX AUDITORS GENERATE MORE FUNDS FOR THE CITY THAN KNOW THE COST OF THEIR YEP.

UM, OF THEIR, UH, THEIR SALARIES.

AND IT, IT IS A DETERRENT EFFECT, OF COURSE.

I MEAN, ONCE SOMEBODY'S BEEN CAUGHT, I MEAN, THEY'RE GONNA BE MORE LIKELY TO COMPLY IN THE FUTURE, AND PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT.

SO I, I TEE YOU UP TO, UH, BRING IN A HOME FOR A LANDING

[00:35:01]

ON A TREMENDOUS NOTE.

LET'S, UH, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT.

UM, THERE'S A FEW OTHER MATTERS.

I'D LIKE TO MATTER IF WE HAVE TIME TO, TO JUST BRIEFLY TALK.

HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE TALKING? I, I'LL DO IT QUICKLY.

I'LL DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.

I JUST, I JUST WANNA MENTION A FEW THINGS.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, WASTE HAULER AUDITS AND C AND D AUDITS THAT WE DO.

WE HAVE TWO FRANCHISE HAULERS THAT, UH, PAY 24% OF THEIR GROSS AND KNOW, UH, AND, AND, UH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE, MAY END UP WITH MORE HAULERS THAT MAY BE COMING.

UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, UM, THEY'RE NOT PROPERLY SEPARATING THEIR TAX EXEMPT RECYCLING FROM THEIR WASTE RECYCLING.

IT'S THE WASTE THAT'S, THAT'S TAXABLE.

BUT WHEN, WHEN THEY GET COMBINED TOGETHER, THEN THAT CREATES A PROBLEM.

IT'S UP TO THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A, A PROPER, UH, SEPARATION AND AUDITING OF THAT.

AND, UH, THAT WE FOUND THAT TO BE, UH, NOT BEING DONE PROPERLY.

AND I THINK THAT THE DOCUMENTATION IS GOING TO, IS, UH, IS GONNA BE, UH, DONE, UH, UH, BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.

I'M HOPING, WE'RE HOPING THAT THERE'S GONNA BE AN IMPROVEMENT IN THAT.

THE, UH, C AND D THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THE DE BASICALLY YOUR, YOUR DEMOLITION TYPE, UH, WORK THAT USED TO BE JUST ROLL OFFS, WHICH WERE STATIONARY, UH, UH, RECEPTACLES.

IT WAS EXTENDED BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH COMMISSIONER BOT'S ORDINANCE TO WHEELED CONTAINERS.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO EXEMPT THEM, AND THEY HAD BEEN KIND OF EXEMPTED.

SO, UH, WE'RE SEEING MORE, UH, MORE PEOPLE NOW COMING ONLINE.

WE'VE HAD TO DO SOME, SOME, SOME MONITORING OF PEOPLE THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE OPERATING, UM, WITHOUT PERMITS AND WHO ARE NOT USED TO PAYING THESE FEES.

UM, AND THAT'S MADE US INTO SOMEWHAT OF A, OF AN ENFORCEMENT.

UH, WE USED, WE GO WITH CODE, AND WE, WE GET, WE GET TIPS ALL THE TIME OF UNPERMITTED UN, BTR, UH, UH, WASTE, UH, C AND D HAULERS, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE FRANCHISE.

THEY, THIS IS ABOUT 20 OR SO PERMITTED HAULERS, BUT WE THINK THERE ARE MANY MORE UNPERMITTED ONES THAT ARE OPERATING.

SO WE'RE WORKING ON, ON IMPROVING THAT.

UM, JUST THE, THE, THE MAJOR INVEST, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE POSEIDON INVESTIGATION, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SHOWED THAT WHEN THERE'S A NO BID CONTRACT, THERE'S BEEN NO DUE DILIGENCE OF, OF THE CONTRACTOR.

AND THAT WAS, I THINK, A REAL FLAW IN THE CITY'S PROCESS.

AND, UH, THERE IS, UH, I THINK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN, UH, FIRST PASSAGE, UH, THE, UH, TO, UH, BASICALLY TO, TO FIX THAT PROBLEM.

WE APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S ACTION, UH, ON THAT.

UM, THE, UH, UH, JUST JUST TO COMMENT QUICKLY ABOUT OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN A STEADY PROBLEM IN THE CITY.

WE'VE DONE EIGHT, I THINK WE'RE WORKING ON OUR, WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT OUT OUR NINTH REPORT ON, ON, ON OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT BY CITY EMPLOYEES.

IT'S NOT BEEN WELL MONITORED IN THE PAST.

I THINK THERE, I'VE SEEN SOME CHANGES.

THE FACT, I THINK THE HR HAS BEEN PUTTING OUT SOME, UH, SOME, UH, UH, EMAILS LATELY THAT WE, WE APPRECIATE.

AND I THINK THAT MIGHT, MIGHT, HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WAS, PEOPLE HAD THEIR OWN BUSINESSES OPERATING THEIR OWN BUSINESSES, AND THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.

WELL, OF COURSE IT IS, BUT I MEAN, THEY THOUGHT, WELL, YOU KNOW, LET'S I GET A PAYCHECK SOMEPLACE ELSE.

UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I WANNA MENTION QUICKLY FIRE STATION ONE, WHICH IS A SOURCE SUBJECT FOR EVERYBODY.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS A, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, IT WAS ONE, AND THIS HAPPENED A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND IT'S PROBABLY GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN LATE IN THE PROCESS.

CHANGE IT.

LET'S CHANGE THIS.

LET'S MOVE SOMETHING HERE.

UM, AFTER THE THING'S BEEN DESIGNED, AFTER THE, YOU KNOW, COSTS HAVE BEEN INCURRED, UM, AND, UH, THAT WAS, THAT, THAT FRANKLY WILL PROBABLY, THE, THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT THAT SAT AND NOTHING HAPPENED, PROBABLY COST THE CITY SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS.

AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT, THAT, THAT CAN, THAT CAN BE STOPPED OR AT LEAST REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE FUTURE.

THERE IS AN ORDINANCE, UH, COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ'S ORDINANCE STOPPED THE PAUSE.

THERE WAS A STOP THE PAUSE ONE THAT JUST APPLIED TO MAJOR, UH, CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WHERE THEN I STOPPED THE PAUSE TWO, I THINK OUR FIRST PASSAGE.

IT'S NOW BEING REVIEWED BY THE, UH, RESILIENCY PROJECTS, UH, ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND, UH, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME MORE CHANGES, BUT, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THAT.

UM, BUT IT'S HOPEFULLY GONNA COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION VERY SHORTLY.

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GONNA MAKE FOR A HIGHER THRESHOLD IN ORDER TO, UH, TO PAUSE OR STOP, UH, A PROJECT THAT'S, UH, THAT'S BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY, UH, IMPROVED, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY, UM, UH, COMPLETED, UH, WITH A HIGHER LEVEL OF, UH, UH, OF, UH, VOTES, UH, REQUIRED TO, UH, TO HAVE THAT DONE.

UM, NOW THAT, THAT'S A REAL FRUSTRATION.

IN FACT, WE HEAR FROM MANAGEMENT ALL THE TIME, AND THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS AS ABLE AS WE ARE TO SPEAK UP ON THESE THINGS.

BUT, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE THINK THAT, THAT MORE, MORE

[00:40:01]

CARE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN WHEN THERE'S BEEN A BIG INVESTMENT IN A PROJECT.

IT'S, UH, MOST, THE, MOST OF THE WORK'S BEEN DONE.

IT'S ONLINE.

IT'S READY TO GO.

UM, AND IT, IT, IT, IT, IF THERE'S GONNA BE A CHALLENGE TO IT, IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED EARLIER.

I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS COST THE CITY, UH, A LOT OF MONEY.

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

WELL, UH, IT'S, UH, IT'S LIKE THAT JACK NECKLACE MOVIE, UH, FROM A FEW GOOD MEN, RIGHT? WHERE, UH, YOU, YOU NEED ME ON THIS WALL, .

UH, IT'S, UH, LIKE I SAID, NOT JUST THE THINGS YOU CATCH, BUT THE DETERRENT THAT IT IS.

SO I APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR TEAM'S, UH, DEDICATION TO SERVICE TO OUR CITY.

RIGHT? THANK YOU.

SO THANK YOU ALL.

THANK THIS IS AN ITEM THAT'S GONNA BE JUST HEARD ENCLOSED, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ACTION.

WE'LL, WE'LL SHOW THE ITEM HEARD AND CLOSED MB TWO.

DISCUSS FUNDING CRITICAL RESILIENCY AND NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH DEDICATED CAPITAL MILLAGE AND REDUCING RELIANCE ON WATER AND SEWER RATE IN INCREASES MD SIX.

WHY DON'T WE, UH, HEAR MB SIX JASON FUNDING FOR UTILITY PROJECTS MB SIX

[NB 6. DISCUSS FUNDING CRITICAL RESILIENCY AND NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH DEDICATED CAPITAL MILLAGE AND REDUCING RELIANCE ON WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASES.]

AND, AND JOHN, I'LL JUST KICK IT OFF HERE.

I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO, OR THE STRUCTURE FORMAT IS GOING TO TAKE.

UH, I HAVE A FEELING A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

I'LL GIVE MY OPENING SALVO.

UM, I THINK WE'RE ALL, WHEN I SAY ALL THE LEGISLATIVE BODY CITY STAFF, UH, OUR RESIDENTS ALIGNED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO THREAD A DELICATE NEEDLE, RIGHT? WE, WE HAVE A LOT OF COMPETING INTERESTS.

WE HAVE TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF, UM, WHETHER JUST BE OUR CORE WATER, WASTEWATER, SEWER STUFF THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE TO OUR MORE AMBITIOUS, YET STILL NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCY JUST THIS PAST WEEK OR 10 DAYS HAS BEEN, UH, PERHAPS NEEDED A REMINDER OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ISSUES THAT WE CONTINUOUSLY FACE THAT WILL BE COMPOUNDED.

UH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UH, RESIDENTS IN MIAMI BEACH AND, AND ELSEWHERE ACROSS THE REGION, THE COUNTY, THE COUNTRY ARE FACING, UM, AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES.

UH, SO WE HAVE TO BALANCE THAT, WEAR MANY HATS.

WE'RE AT THIS POINT WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, UH, I THINK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, WHILE WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF HOW TO GET TO THE SAME PLACE, UM, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN ANY ANYBODY'S MOUTH, BUT I, I THINK WE'RE ALL TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE OF GETTING SOME OF THESE CRITICAL PROJECTS ACROSS, PERHAPS NOT THE FULL MENU OF WHAT WOULD BE IDEAL.

UM, BECAUSE IT DOES, EVERY PROJECT THAT WE DO COMES WITH A COST, RIGHT? IT COMES WITH, UH, A CHALLENGE THAT IS GOING TO BE BORN BY THE USERS OF THE SYSTEM, WHICH ARE PRIMARILY OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR BUSINESSES.

UH, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

UM, ME PERSONALLY, I'LL JUST SAY HIGH LEVEL, I'M NOT DOGMATIC ABOUT THIS.

I, I WANT TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE OF DELIVERING OUR CORE PROJECTS, PROBABLY NOT OUR ENTIRE WISHLIST OR EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD PLANNED, UH, BUT DOING SO IN A WAY THAT IS GOING TO BE COST EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND BEARABLE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

AND THAT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE, IF WE WANT TO KEEP THOSE LEVELS LOW OR AT THE MINIMIS, OR EVEN AT ZERO, HAVE TO BE OFFSET FROM OTHER AREAS OF OUR BUDGET.

WE'LL GET INTO VARIOUS FUNDING MECHANISMS HERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE MY THOUGHT, BELIEF AND ARGUMENT THAT THESE SHOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH THE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.

AND IF WE WANT TO ESSENTIALLY KEEP THAT FLAT THROUGH, UH, OFFSETTING, UM, EXPENSE REDUCTIONS OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND, I THINK THAT IS JUST GOOD GOVERNANCE AND, AND CITY MUNICIPAL FINANCING.

UH, BUT LET ME TURN IT OVER TO YOU TO KIND OF OPEN THIS UP, THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES AND OUR CITY STAFF.

UH, LISTEN, I, WE'RE GONNA BE PULLED IN ALL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

AS CITY STAFF, YOU'RE PUBLIC WORKS.

YOU WANT EVERYTHING AS YOU SHOULD, RIGHT? AS AS YOU ABSOLUTELY SHOULD.

THAT IS YOUR JOB, RIGHT? OUR CFO, HE'S GONNA SAY, OKAY, WELL HE, HERE, HERE'S OUR BUDGET CHALLENGES, AND AS LEGISLATORS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, UH, FIND HOW TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE.

UM, IT'S, IT'S NEVER BEEN EASY, UH, WHEN AFFORDABILITY IS PROBABLY AS PRECARIOUS AS EVER.

UH, THAT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING MORE THAN EVER.

NOW, UM, I THINK WHERE THIS DISCUSSION IS GOING TO CENTER ON IS WHAT ARE WE ABLE TO TAKE ON? 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S NOTHING, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANYBODY'S, UH, THOUGHT I COULD BE WRONG.

AGAIN, NOT PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS, BUT WHAT ARE THOSE CRITICAL PROJECTS THAT ARE MISSION CRITICAL WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH? AND HOW IS THE BEST MECHANISM TO FUND THOSE? AND WHILE WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENCES IN HOW TO GET THERE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO TALK THROUGH, IS IF THAT IS OUR KIND OF OVERARCHING GOAL, WHICH LISTENING TO, UH, PEOPLE'S EVEN PRIVATE

[00:45:01]

COMMENTS OR HOW WE COLLECTIVELY, UH, TALKING COMMISSION, I, I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT, WHERE IT'S PERHAPS NOT AN APPETITE FOR EVERYTHING.

WHAT IS MISSION CRITICAL AND HOW, WHAT ARE THE PROPER FUNDING MECHANISMS TO GET THERE? SO LET, LET ME TURN IT OVER TO YOU AND THEN I'LL GIVE THE FLOOR OVER TO EVERYBODY ELSE.

GOOD MORNING, JOHN NORRIS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION.

THIS LIST THAT WE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE UTILITY INCREASE, WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS LIST MANY, MANY TIMES.

WE EXTENDED IT OUT.

WE'VE MOVED PROJECTS.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ARE A FEW ON HERE, BUT WE HAVE THEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THE 2024 ESTIMATE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WAS CLOSE TO $5 BILLION.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE NOT, THIS IS NOT EVERYTHING.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE CADILLAC.

WE ARE ASKING FOR WHAT IS CRITICAL OR HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY COMMISSION IN THE PAST TO DO SO.

THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

SOME NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TURNED IN TO CRITICAL NEEDS PROJECTS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOODS DIDN'T WANT THEM.

AND, AND THOSE PROJECTS WERE STOPPED.

SO THOSE ARE VERY CRITICAL PROJECTS TO SOLVE SOME FLOODING ISSUES.

BUT INSTEAD OF RAISING THE ROADS AND REPLACING WATER AND SEWER AND EVERYTHING, WE MIGHT BE UPGRADING THE STORM WATER SYSTEM INSTALLING A SMALLER PUMP STATION TO GET RID OF THE WATER.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THIS LIST IS THE RESULT OF MONTHS OF OUR ENGINEERING TEAM GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING.

NOT ONLY MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS A CRITICAL PROJECT TO GET DONE, OR WAS DIRECTED BY COMMISSION TO DO, BUT THAT WE COULD ALSO GET THE WORK DONE IN THE TIME PERIOD.

'CAUSE THAT IS A CONCERN.

YOU KNOW, CAN WE SPEND THAT MONEY AND GET THESE PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED? WE SEE THE CHALLENGES WITH LANE CLOSURES ALREADY THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITH THE PROJECTS WE HAVE GOING ON.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE ALL THOSE DIFFERENT DEMANDS, MAKE SURE WE CAN GET THE PROJECTS DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER.

AND THAT IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST FERC MEETING WHERE THERE WAS UNANIMOUS VOTE TO MOVE IT ON TO FULL COMMISSION.

AND, AND COLLEAGUES.

HOW, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD? DO YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT SOME OF THESE TOP PROJECTS ARE? WHAT DIRECTION DO WE WANT TO COLLECTIVELY TAKE THIS IN? I KNOW THERE'S A POWERPOINT.

I, I BET THERE IS JASON , BUT WHAT, WHERE DO WE WANT TO SEE, DO WE WANT TO SEE, WHAT DID THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMEND PREVIOUSLY THAT THERE WAS ABOUT 700, $800 MILLION IN BORROWING, I'M SORRY, BILLION.

IT WAS A LITTLE LOWER THAN THAT.

IT WAS ABOUT $650 BILLION OR A MILLION.

IF I, IF I MAY, UH, THE INITIAL ONE, WHICH IS THE, THE STANDARD WAY, YOU KNOW, THROUGH UTILITY RATES WAS APPROXIMATELY A $1 BILLION, UH, TOTAL PROGRAM AS WE'VE SPOKEN.

UM, THE FUNDS GENERATE, UH, CASH.

SO IT'S A PARTIALLY PAYGO STRUCTURE.

SO IT, USING THE REVENUE BOND MODEL, UH, IT WAS ABOUT $625 MILLION IN BORROWING WAS NEEDED.

THE REST WOULD BE GENERATED ITSELF, UM, BY THE, THE FUND ITSELF THROUGH THOSE UTILITY RATES.

UM, IT WOULD BE A HIGHER BORROWING AMOUNT, UM, WHICH WE'LL GET TO.

I THINK IT'S IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION A LITTLE BIT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO A GEO STRUCTURE.

UM, 'CAUSE THE FUNDS WOULD GENERATE LESS CASH WITH ONLY MINIMAL CPI INCREASE.

SO I THINK THE, TO DO DEVELOP THE SAME PROGRAM, DELIVER THE SAME PROGRAM, WE'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO BORROW 700 E $3 MILLION ON A GEO PERSPECTIVE.

SO, AND, AND JASON OR JOHN, FEEL FREE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT THAT ORIGINAL PROPOSED WHERE IT WAS A BILLION DO, UH, A HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS, 1 MILLION, NO, NO.

1 BILLION .

ONE, ONE, YES.

I'M GETTING MY DECIMAL PLACES WRONG.

$1,625 MILLION IN BORROWING WHAT BACK OF THE ENVELOPE RATE INCREASE DID THAT LEAD TO, LET'S CALL IT IN YEAR THREE AND HOWEVER ELSE YOU SHOW IT, MAYBE YEAR 10.

THAT WAS ABOUT, UH, YEAR ONE WAS ABOUT $15 PER THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

YEAR TWO WAS ABOUT $15 PER MONTH.

PER MONTH, YEAH.

I'M SORRY.

AND THEN BY YEAR.

AND IS THAT THE SAME FOR SINGLE FAMILIES AND CONDOS? JOHN? I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSION IT WAS LESSER, RIGHT? FOR CONDOS.

SO CONDOS ARE CHALLENGING BECAUSE A CONDO HAS A MASTER METER.

THEY'RE GETTING ONE BILL FOR ALL OF THE CONDO OWNERS, AND THEY SPLIT THAT UP, AND IT'S PAID THROUGH THE HOA, UH, ASSESSMENT USUALLY.

SO WE ESTIMATED THAT WE TOOK ABOUT 10 CONDO BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF ALL DIFFERENT SIZES, LIKE AN EIGHT UNIT BUILDING AND A HUNDRED UNIT BUILDING.

SO WE GOT A RELATIVELY GOOD SAMPLING.

IT WAS ABOUT 70%, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHICH WAS AROUND $11 A MONTH, INCREASED PER CONDO UNIT, AND WITHOUT GOING YEAR TWO, YEAR THREE, LET TELL ME WHERE THAT NUMBER WOULD BE.

LET'S CALL IT YEAR FIVE.

I THINK TWO THOU, I CAN'T

[00:50:01]

HAVE IT.

IT'S ON, IT'S SLIDE NINE.

UM, 2031, I THINK YOU WOULD ESTIMATE THE SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE ABOUT A THOUSAND DOLLARS, UH, PER YEAR.

UH, AND $735 ON A, ON A CONDO.

SO AGAIN, I THINK IT MATCHES KIND OF WHAT JOHN WAS SAYING.

CAN YOU GIVE THAT IN A PER MONTH? UH, I, I HAVE MY PHONE TOO, BUT , IT'S WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR.

I LIKE ANNUAL AMOUNTS.

IT'S WHAT, 80? AND, UH, THAT'S CALLED 50 80, ABOUT $85 ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO I HAVE THE AMOUNTS PER YEAR.

FIRST YEAR WILL BE 1177 A MONTH FOR A CONDO PER MONTH.

THEN 1351 NEXT YEAR, 1321 THE NEXT YEAR.

WHERE DO WE GET IN YEAR FIVE? YEAR FIVE WOULD BE $11 AND 51 AND YEAR SIX IT WOULD DROP DOWN TO $5 AND 16 CENTS INCREASE, IF I MAY.

ONE IMPORTANT THING IN THE UTILITY RATE MODEL WAS AFTER 2031, IT BASICALLY DROPS THE CPI.

SO WE MOVE BACK TO CPIS.

I'M SORRY.

SO FOR THAT BILLION DOLLAR BORROWING IN YEAR ONE, THAT WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF $15 A MONTH FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

$11 A MONTH FOR A CONDO.

AND IT WASN'T A BILLION DOLLARS IN BORROWING, IT WAS 625 MILLION RIGHT.

IN THE PRESENTATION.

UM, BUT IN YEAR FIVE, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT YEAR FIVE WOULD BE THE LAST SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF $11 AND 51 CENTS FOR A CONDO AND $14 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND THEN YEAR SIX IS WHERE IT DROPS DOWN TO A SMALLER INCREASE, CLOSER TO CPI.

SORRY, THE AGGREGATE THOUGH VERSUS THE DELTA FROM NOW.

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, JASON? NO, I'M SORRY.

I'M SORRY.

ABOUT $80 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY YEAH.

HOME PER MONTH OVER THAT SIX YEAR PERIOD.

THAT'S AN APPROXIMATE, APPROXIMATE CONDO WOULD BE LIKE 65.

SOMETHING.

YEAH, RIGHT AROUND THERE.

70% RULE.

THAT'S OVER SIX YEAR PERIOD THROUGH THE CHAIR.

I, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT COMPARES THE TWO, CORRECT? YES, I DO.

I THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'D LIKE, I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT PRESENTATION.

AND THOSE, THIS IS AN ANNUAL AMOUNT.

SO PJ, IF YOU COULD PUT, UH, PJ IF YOU COULD PUT THE PRESENTATION UP.

I THINK, JOHN, YOU PROBABLY HAVE IT ON THE LAPTOP.

JOE, WHILE YOU'RE QUEUING UP THE PRESENTATION, CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? SURE.

UM, JOHN AND JASON, CAN YOU ADDRESS, IF YOU, YOU'VE PLANNED THIS AS A FIVE YEAR AMORTIZATION PROCESS TO GET US TO JUST CPI INCREASES, ARE WE ABLE TO BOND OUT IF WE DO IT OVER, LET'S SAY SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS? SO THE INCREASES ARE SMALLER YEAR TO YEAR, BUT IT'S STILL A RATE INCREASE.

HAVE, HAVE YOU STUDIED THAT MODEL AS WELL? I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS, UM, 2027 THROUGH 31 HAVE ABOVE CPI, UH, COMBINED UTILITY INCREASES.

AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING SMOOTHING INSTEAD OF 11%, 9, 9, 7, 7, IF IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE FIVE A FLAT, UM, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT.

IT WOULD JUST, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO CUT SOME PROJECTS, DELAY SOME PROJECTS.

BUT IF, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSION TO EXPLORE A, IF THEY SAY, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A NUMBER OR A PERCENTAGE, I THINK THAT, UM, AND I'LL LOOK TO BRIAN MANZ IF, IF, IF, IF I'M OFF ON THIS, IS THEY COULD GO BACK AND MODEL THAT AND SEE HOW MUCH TOTAL CAPACITY IS, AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF BACKFILL WHAT PROJECTS WE CAN AFFORD, UH, THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AND I SEE BRIAN SHAKING HIS HEAD THAT HE COULD DO THAT.

SO THAT'S ONE WAY OF ATTACKING IT.

IF YOU WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HERE'S A COMFORTABLE PERCENTAGE WE HAVE, OR IF YOU WANT TO DO TWO AND A HALF, ONE OR THE OTHER, IF YOU WANNA EXPLORE WATER AND SEWER, BUT STORM WATER A DIFFERENT MODEL, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS.

THE COMMISSION COULD GO DOWN.

YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK BEFORE WE DECIDE ONE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE ADDITIONAL KINDS OF MODELS BECAUSE MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO BIFURCATE THE MOST CRITICAL PROJECTS AND GET THEM FULLY FUNDED, ASAP AND THEN HAVE A SLIGHTLY SLOWER PACE, UM, A A SLIGHTLY SLOWER PACE TO, TO, UM, PROCEED WITH THE THINGS THAT AREN'T AS MISSION CRITICAL.

I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S JUST TO SAY WHATEVER THE FIRST FOUR YEARS ARE, 27, 28, 29, AND 30, UH, WHICH, WHICH IS UP THERE ON THE PRESENTATION THERE, WHICH IS ABOUT, I THINK, UM, ALMOST HALF A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF WORK THERE.

IF THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT JUST THAT AND SAY, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK FROM A UTILITY RATE, UH, STRUCTURE, UM, AND KIND OF PUMP THE OTHER PROJECTS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON, ON DIFFERENT RATE STRUCTURE, FOUR YEARS, THAT'S A, A DIFFERENT WAY OF ATTACKING IT.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO THE CURRENT, YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BEFORE WE MAKE FINAL DECISION ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED.

SO THAT GIVES YOU THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ASSOCIATED.

THE CURRENT SLIDE SHOWS A BREAKDOWN BETWEEN THE FIRST FOUR YEARS AND THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

[00:55:01]

AND IF I CAN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, UH, ARE, UM, BASED ON A GEO BOND DEBT FINANCING.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF DEBT NEEDED IF WE RAN THROUGH A GEO BOND MODEL, A REVENUE BOND MODEL WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND WOULD BE LOWER AMOUNTS.

UM, BUT THIS IS FROM A GEO BOND, UH, MODEL PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS THE KIND OF WHERE THE DISCUSSION KIND OF WENT.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE RATE MORE TERM AND COMMISSIONER SUAREZ'S, UH, AND COMM AND CO-SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.

UH, I BELIEVE THIS ITEM TO BE SENT HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

AND WE DISCUSSED PECO WASN'T REALLY GONNA WORK.

IT WAS REALLY GONNA BE A, A REVENUE BOND THROUGH UTILITY RATES.

IT WAS JUST TYPICAL OR WE WANTED TO GO IN A GEO BOND STRUCTURE.

AGAIN, SORRY, BUT I WOULD BE CAREFUL TO SAY THAT THE ONES IN FUTURE YEARS, FFY 31 THROUGH 34 ARE LESS CRITICAL THAN FY 27 THROUGH 30.

IT, IT, THAT'S JUST WHERE THEY ARE AS FAR AS SCHEDULING WITH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

AS I SAID EARLIER, ALL OF THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN VETTED AND PUT IN A PRIORITY LIST BASED ON THEIR NEED.

THOSE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS.

THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEBT FINANCING.

THIS PRESENTATION WAS PUT OUT AS A SUPPLEMENTAL, UH, LAST NIGHT.

SO EVERYONE AT HOME ALSO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO IT ONLINE.

UP TO 20, 30, $50 MILLION PROPERTIES.

THIS IS THE SAME SLIDE, JUST SPLIT UP INTO TWO, I'M SORRY.

THIS HAS ALL OF THE FUNDING SOURCES SHOWS THE DEBT, THE PAY GO ABOVE, ABOVE GROUND MONEY AND GRANT MONEY.

AND THIS IS BROKEN DOWN INTO THE YEARS.

AND JUST AS A NOTE FROM THE GEO BOND PERSPECTIVE, UM, IT'S SOME VERY, THE, A LOT OF THE DOLLARS ARE IN THE NIP.

SO I THINK, UM, OF THE 783 MILLION, IF YOU'RE GOING A GEO BOND MODEL, UM, MORE THAN I THINK ABOUT A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF IT ARE NPS, ABOUT 346 MILLION OF IT ARE NON NIP PS.

SO THERE WOULD BE CRITICAL NEEDS AND OTHER, OTHER NEEDS DETERMINED BY PUBLIC WORKS.

THIS IS WHERE I COME IN.

SO I, I WAS REQUESTED, UH, TO LOOK AT WHAT WOULD THIS LOOK LIKE FROM A, IF THIS WAS MODELED AS A GEO BOND.

SO AFTER WE GOT THE INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHAT THEIR, UM, WHEN THEY RAN THROUGH THEIR MODEL AFTER ABLE TO CASH FINANCE PART OF SOME OF SOME PROJECTS, DESIGNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHAT THEIR ANNUAL DEBT FINANCING NEEDS ARE.

AND ON, UH, PAGE 1 63 OF THE OVERALL AGENDA THERE WAS JUST SHOWING THEIR ANNUAL NEEDS OF 43 MILLION, 180 1 9 4.

SO SOME BIG NUMBERS.

SO WE MODELED, UH, WE HAD PFM HERE AND WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PFM IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM, BUT IT RAN THROUGH A DEBT AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE.

IF WE DID THE WHOLE EIGHT YEAR PROGRAM, THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW FOUR.

BUT IF WE RAN AS AN EIGHT YEAR MODEL, SO WHAT I TAKE YOU THROUGH HERE IS IN 27, WE WOULD DO A DECLARATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE.

I WOULD PROBABLY ISSUE THAT DEBT SOMEWHERE TOWARDS THE END OF 2028.

SO THERE WOULD BE ACTUAL NO IMPACT, UH, FROM A PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE PERSPECTIVE IN 29, UH, WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE THE FIRST DEBT SERVICE.

AND YOU, WE MODELED THIS WITH FOUR, UH, TRANCHES OF DEBT BEING ISSUED, UH, GOING IN AND, AND SO IT'S 29, 31, 33, AND 35.

THE REASON I SLID THIS SLIDE UP TO 35, THOUGH MOST YOU SEE ON 34 IS 35 WOULD BE MAX DEBT SERVICE.

UM, AND ACTUALLY MAX DEBT SERVICE IN, IN EITHER PERSPECTIVE.

SO IT WOULD CLIMB FROM ABOUT $15 MILLION FOR DEBT FINANCING UP TO 52 MILLION IN 2035.

AND THOSE ARE THE TWO YEARS I'M GONNA CONCENTRATE ON.

SO THE AREA THAT'S A LITTLE LIGHT GRAY AND AND BOLDED THERE IS IF WE LOOKED AT WHAT WOULD THE GEO BOND MILLAGE NEED TO BE IN THIS MODEL, IF WE HAD AVERAGE GROWTH OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS.

THE TAXABLE BASE, UH, FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH SINCE 2007 HAS BEEN 6.7%.

I'M AWARE THAT, UH, WE JUST GOT OUR, OUR PRELIMINARY NUMBERS AT THREE AND A HALF.

THAT'S BEEN A LITTLE LIGHT, BUT THE AVERAGE, AND THIS INCLUDES THE GREAT RECESSION AND, AND A LOT OF NEGATIVES IN THERE, IT AVERAGES OUT AT 6.7%.

THAT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION PLUS EXISTING VALUES.

SO WE JUST EXTRAPOLATE THAT OUT.

WE SEE THAT WE WOULD NEED ABOUT 0.2 MILS THE FIRST YEAR.

AND IN 2035 MAX 0.5 MILS, THAT MODEL IS BASED ON TWO, TWO ASSUMPTIONS.

THE 6.7% INCREASE IN THE TAXABLE BASE OF THE CITY, WHICH IS AROUND 60 BILLION NOW INCREASING.

AND THEN ALSO WHAT I LOOKED AT WAS THE MEDIAN HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX AND THE AVERAGE HOMES THAT HAD PROPERTY TAX.

UM, THE MEDIAN HOMESTEAD OF PROPERTY, UH, AS OF THIS LAST YEAR WAS $306,000.

SO THE MEDIAN IS THE NUMBER I LIKE TO LOOK AT.

'CAUSE THAT'S 50% ABOVE AND 50% OF PEOPLE ARE BELOW THAT.

SO THE MIDDLE IS THE AVERAGE HOME, LET'S SAY THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD OF PROPERTY IS TAKING ALL THE VALUES.

SO YOU'RE GETTING A REAL SKEWED IN VALUES, UH, FROM LOWER END PROPERTIES

[01:00:01]

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THAT DISPARATE 900, $4,000 IN AVERAGE.

SO IF I TOOK THAT, THOSE MEDIAN HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES AND I PUT IN THE 3% CAP, UH, BUT BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THAT INC YOUR TAXABLE VALUE COULD INCREASE.

I SEE THAT IN 2035, THAT 3 0 6 WOULD GO TO 3 87, AND THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD WOULD BE UP TO ABOUT 1.1 MILLION.

SO THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THE MEDIAN HOMESTEAD OF PROPERTY TAX WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $195 AND $577.

THE BOX BELOW AT OUR SET OF NUMBERS IS I WOULD CALL ULTRA WORST CASE SCENARIO IN WHICH THERE WOULD BE NO GROWTH, UH, WHICH IS NOT REASONABLE, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW IT FROM THE HIGHER END PERSPECTIVE.

SO IF THE PROPERTIES DID NOT INCREASE THE VALUE AND THE CITY DID NOT BUILD ONE NEW THING, AND THE CITY'S VALUES TODAY ARE THE SAME VALUES IN, IN ABOUT 10 YEARS.

UH, BUT THAT DOES SHOW OBVIOUSLY A HIGHER MILLAGE NEEDED 0.9 TO SUPPORT THAT SAME DEBT SERVICE IN 2035.

SO THAT'S A 2 76 AND AN EIGHT 17, LET'S CALL IT, UH, FROM AN AVERAGE PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD BE AS IF WE FINANCE THE ENTIRE EIGHT YEARS EXCLUSIVELY AS A GEO BOND.

NEXT SLIDE THREE.

THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES ARE, ARE THERE ARE, THEY'RE SIMILAR, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW IT.

SO THIS ONE I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME.

THIS IS IF YOU JUST SAID, I WANT TO GEO BOND FINANCE THE NEXT FOUR YEARS OF THE PROGRAM.

SO SAME DEAL.

I'M JUST GONNA GO RIGHT OUT TO 2035.

WE'RE AT ABOUT 0.3 MILS 117, $116, AND THEN THE AVERAGE WOULD BE 343.

WORST CASE, I'M PROJECTING ABOUT 165 AND 4 85.

AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE IS I WAS ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT BUDGET AND COORDINATION WITH THE PROPERTY TAX APPRAISER WITH SOME AVERAGES AND MEDIANS WERE ON, ON ALL RESIDENTIAL.

SO, UH, AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, HEAVILY RESIDENTIAL.

I THINK IT'S LIKE 80% RESIDENTIAL IN THE CITY.

SO THIS IS GONNA MIX BOTH YOUR HOMESTEAD AND YOUR NON-HOMESTEAD.

THE INTERESTING THING IS THEY'RE NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF 341,000 AND THE A THE MEDIAN AND THE AVERAGE AT 8 84.

UM, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR.

SO JUST RUNNING THIS, THIS IS JUST THE EIGHT YEAR MODEL GOING ALL THE WAY OUT.

WE'RE ABOUT 0.5 MIL STILL $289 AND $748 FROM AN AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL.

AND THEN NEXT, AND THEN NEXT I'LL LET JOHN TAKE THIS, BUT WHAT WE DID, THE TOP PART THAT'S IN THE LIGHTER SHADED GRAY WHITE GRAY IS JUST TAKING THOSE NUMBERS FROM THOSE EARLIER SLIDES.

THIS IS THE ASSUMED AVERAGE GROWTH ASSUMES THE EIGHT YEAR MODEL, AND IT JUST SHOWS THE MEDIAN AND AVERAGE HOMESTEADED AND THE MEDIAN AND A AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND THEN AS COMPARED TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A CONDOMINIUM TYPE BUILDING COMPARED TO, UH, AN ANNUAL COST.

BUT JOHN, DID YOU WANNA, SO JASON, IT'S JUST LOOKING AT THIS, IT LOOKS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN IF, IF WE WERE TO USE THE GO BOND WITH TAX SAVINGS OR SAVINGS ON THE, ON THE MILLAGE SWAP, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE UTILITY BILL INCREASE.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, ON THE, YES.

I THINK ON THE SURFACE, WHEN YOU DO COMPARE WHAT A MEDIAN OR AVERAGE HOMESTEAD AT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS, MORE THAN LIKELY IT WOULD SHOW, UH, IT TO BE CHEAPER.

UM, OBVIOUSLY THE RE HOLD ON, GEEZ, WALK JUST SIMPLISTICALLY, I MEAN, WITHOUT GETTING, TELL ME HOW, WHAT'S BEHIND THAT? LIKE, TELL ME HOW THERE'S COST SAVINGS, KEEP IT HIGH LEVEL BORROWING FROM A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND VERSUS AN ENTERPRISE FUND.

WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, UM, IS THAT THE STANDARD WAY THAT YOU KNOW MOST, PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE, I GET THAT.

HOW AND WHY IS IT CHEAPER? WALK ME THROUGH THE STRUCTURE OF HOW IT'S CHEAPER.

IT'S THE, UH, IT'S THE, THE, THE CONCEPT THAT THE HIGHER VALUE PROPERTIES ARE PAYING MORE OF IT.

SO IT WOULD BE THE CONCEPT OF, UH, I'LL SAY A PIZZA AS A PERSPECTIVE.

UM, I GO TO NICK'S ON SECOND STREET, I GOT A PIZZA FOR $20.

EVERYONE WHO GOES IN PAYS $20.

YOU BOUGHT A PIZZA, EVERYONE PAY PAYS.

IT'S THE FAIR AMOUNT.

UM, USING A, LET'S SAY A A GEO BOND TAX PERSPECTIVE, THE PERSON HAS THE MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSE MAY PAY $40 FOR THE PIZZA PAY 20, AND SOMEONE ELSE PAID $7 FOR THE PIZZA.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE KIND OF GETTING THAT SKEW.

UM, THE MEDIAN PROP OR HOMES THAT ARE PROPERTIES ON, ON THE MEDIAN SIDE ARE LOWER.

SO, UM, ARE MORE HIGHER, UH, COST OR, OR HIGHER VALUED PROPERTIES WILL BE TAKING MORE OF THE, IT'S A TAX SHIFT.

BUT ONE THING I WANT TO, THIS IS THE MEDIAN, CORRECT? YES.

THE COMBINED ANNUAL UTILITY BILL INCREASE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY.

SO THAT, THAT IS ALSO THAT, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A MEDIAN BECAUSE THAT'S EVERYBODY.

THE MEDIAN IS THE 50% LINE.

NO, NO.

BUT THE, THE LAST TWO ROWS, THE LAST

[01:05:01]

TWO ARE THE UTILITY.

ARE THE WHAT, THE UTILITY IT WOULD BE FOR EVERYONE.

IT DOESN'T, THERE IS NO MEDIAN.

WELL, THAT'S IT.

THIS IS IS KIND OF THE, THE BASED ON USAGE, CORRECT.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

UM, AND IT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT FROM A LONG TERM FINANCIAL, UM, RESILIENCY PERSPECTIVE ON HOW YOU FUND UTILITY PROJECTS, UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF THE COMMISSION'S HAVING A PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE ON UTILITY RATES VERSUS, UH, VERSUS DOING THIS VERSUS PROPERTY TAXES.

UM, IT IS, IT IS ALLOWED TO BE DONE BY PROPERTY TAXES.

IT IS NOT TYPICAL, ESPECIALLY WATER AND SEWER.

UH, STORM WATER'S A LITTLE BIT MORE.

CITY OF MIAMI DID A $200 MILLION MIAMI FOREVER BOND TO PARTIALLY FUND THEIR STORMWATER.

UH, JUST CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT NORTH BAY VILLAGE, UH, DID A GEO VERY RECENTLY, AND THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THAT, THAT WAS APPROVED BY THEIR VOTERS ONLY FOR STORMWATER, BUT NOT WATER AND SEWER.

UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE COULD, OR THE COMMISSION COULD, COULD EXPLORE.

BUT FROM THE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE, AS YOU BUILD THESE UTILITY RATES AND IT GENERATES REVENUES, THOSE REVENUES WILL BE THERE GOING FORWARD.

SO AS YOU ISSUE DEBT, AND THEN AS YOU PAY THAT OFF, THERE WILL BE BOUNDING CAPACITY IN THE FUTURE TO FUND THE NET PARTIALLY FUND SOME NEXT RANGE OF PROJECTS.

IF YOU DO GEO BOND, YOU GET A SLUG OF MONEY FOUR YEARS, EIGHT YEARS, AND THEN YOU'RE BACK AT SQUARE WHERE SQUARE ONE, NO ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO, FOR THE RECORD, EXPLAIN THAT.

UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE NUMBERS LOOK THAT PERSPECTIVE, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING MULTI-GENERATIONAL, YOU KNOW, THE UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE DOES HELP BETTER FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S, UH, IMPORTANT.

UM, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF, UM, MAYBE WANTED TO BRING UP THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE.

I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WITHOUT USING PIZZA , THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF.

TELL ME HOW OUR RESIDENTS PAY LESS IF WE FUND IT THROUGH A GEO BOND OR THROUGH A UTILITY REVENUE BOND THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY.

IT'S PJ IF YOU WANNA PUT THIS SLIDE BACK UP SO WE CAN, SO THE, THE TWO MIDDLE GRAY ROWS ARE THE MEDIAN, MEANING THE MEDIAN IS, IF YOU LOOK AT A GRAPH, IF YOU LOOK AT A, A SHEET, AN EXCEL SHEET, LITERALLY THE MEDIAN IS THE MIDDLE ROW, AND ANYTHING ABOVE IS 50%.

ANYTHING BELOW IS ANOTHER 50%.

SO THAT IS THE MEDIAN RANGE OF WHAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VALUE OF $306,000, I BELIEVE, UH, CORRECT.

JASON, THE BOTTOM TWO ROWS IS EVERYONE.

THAT'S THE, EVERYONE WOULD PAY.

THAT'S THE COST THAT EVERYONE WOULD PAY IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH OVER THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS.

THE MEAT, THE TWO MIDDLE ROWS IS THE MEDIAN.

NOW, SOMEONE WHO OWNS A PROPERTY ON NORTH BAY ROAD IS GONNA PAY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, NEAR 2035, MORE THAN $289.

IT'LL BE PROBABLY CLOSER TO, UH, I MEAN, NOT SEVEN 80.

THAT THAT'D BE THE AVERAGE, THE SEVEN 40, UH, 748.

BUT IT, IT'LL BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE BECAUSE THEIR PROPERTY IS WORTH MORE AND IT'S MORE COMMENSURATE WITH, WITH THEIR, THEIR PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE THAT IT'S, IT'S THE MEDIAN MEDIAN COMPARED TO ON THE BOTTOM TWO ROWS.

EVERYONE PAYS THAT.

SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOVE THAT PAYING CORRECT THAT NUMBER.

SO IT MAY LOOK $290 ON THE MEDIAN GEO BOND FOR ALL RESIDENTIALS, AND THAT'S LOW.

BUT, AND MY, MY TAKE ON THIS AND MY, UH, PERSPECTIVE IS THAT A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIGHT? SO IT SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH YOUR PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE IT'S NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S JUST WATER AND SEWER.

IT'S ALSO LANDSCAPING.

IT'S, IT'S PARKING, IT'S, IT'S, UM, AESTHETICS ON, ON THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

IT'S NOT SIMPLY JUST A A, A PIPE IN THE GROUND.

IT, IT INVOLVES A LOT MORE, LIKE WEST AVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS GONNA LOOK BEAUTIFUL AFTER THIS.

THEY'RE NOT SIMPLY GOING TO JUST REPLACE THE PIPES AND PUT EVERYTHING ABOVE GROUND BACK THE WAY IT IS.

IT'S GONNA ENHANCE THE VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH REALLY IS COMMENSURATE WITH PROPERTY TAXES.

SO, UM, IT'S A PHILOSOPHICAL, YOU KNOW, TAKE SOME CITIES LIKE TO DO IT THROUGH EVERYONE IN THE CITY PAYS THE SAME THING TO TO, TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

MY TAKE IS, I THINK IT SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW VALUABLE YOUR PROPERTY IS.

SO, AND, AND RICK, WALK ME THROUGH THE LEGAL DYNAMICS OF HOW THESE WOULD BE ISSUED.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR VOTER REFERENDUM FOR A GEO BOND, BUT NOT A UTILITY RATE REVENUE BONDS.

[01:10:01]

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE THE, UM, PROPERTY TAX INCREASE REQUIRES THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO, OR THE RESIDENTS TO VOTE TO TAX THEMSELVES.

UH, UTILITY RATE INCREASE DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSENT IN THAT WAY.

AND, AND ONE MORE THING FOR THE CHAIR.

IF WITH MY, WITH MY PROPOSAL, IF WE DO THE GEO BOND, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE A RESOLUTION, A POLICY THAT EVERY YEAR, WHATEVER THE DEBT SERVICE INCREASE IS, WE HAVE TO FIND CUTS TO MAKE UP FOR THAT.

THEREFORE, THERE IS NO TAX INCREASE.

SO WHATEVER, WHATEVER YOU FOLLOW, , CAN I, CAN I JUMP IN WITH A QUESTION? YEAH, PLEASE.

LET, LET ME JUST FINISH MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT, COMMISSIONER, BUT SO JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, WHATEVER THOSE INCREASES WERE, I WANT THEM TO NEGATE OUT.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A HOME ON NORTH BAY ROAD OR YOU HAVE A, A, A SMALL, UM, CONDO IN, IN FLAMINGO PARK, THE, THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE OPERATING FUND, WE CAN FIND EVERY YEAR, I BELIEVE IT WAS WHAT, 14, 15 MILLION? JASON? UH, YES.

IN DISCUSSION, 15, BUT IT WOULD END UP AT 52 MILLION.

AND SO EVERY YEAR, THROUGH MY, THROUGH WHAT I'M PROPOSING, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO COME EVERY YEAR AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO CUT IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE, THE DEBT SERVICE THAT WE WOULD PAY EVERY YEAR.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO TAX INCREASES.

AND THEN WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE'RE PRIORITIZING WATER SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE OVER SOME LUXURIES THAT WE MAY HAVE TO FOREGO AND HAVE THAT DECISION EVERY YEAR TO MAKE COMMISSIONER B.

ACTUALLY WANNA HEAR FROM OUR CFO, IF THAT'S OKAY.

UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

ONE IS, UM, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY AND WE DON'T HAVE FUNDS IN, IN THE BUDGET, OR WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MONEY? BECAUSE FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE BOND REFERENDUM DOESN'T PASS.

UM, ARE WE PRECLUDED FROM FINDING RESOURCES? AND AT THIS, THIS NOTION THAT WE'RE GONNA FIND, YOU KNOW, $650 MILLION IN, IN BUDGET SAVINGS TO PAY FOR OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, IS, IS A FALLACY.

I MEAN, I AM ALL FOR, UH, TRIMMING BACK THE BUDGET AND LOOKING RESPONSIBLY AT IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FACING A POTENTIAL PROPERTY TAX, UM, CUT AT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY NOT BE A TOTAL REPEAL, IT MAY BE A PARTIAL CUT, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT THIS YEAR, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA GO AWAY.

UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A, AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MAINTENANCE COSTS? I MEAN, TO ME, THIS FEELS LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'RE GETTING A, UH, YOU KNOW, TAKE TRANSFERRING MONEY FROM ONE CREDIT CARD TO ANOTHER, BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO MONEY THERE.

SO I, I VERY MUCH LIKE THIS IDEA OF THE MORE VALUABLE YOUR PROPERTY IS, THE MORE VALUABLE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE MORE YOU PAY FOR THE, THE UPGRADES.

I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S A, A PERFECTLY PLAUSIBLE WAY TO PROCEED.

I, I, I THINK IT'S HARD TO MAKE THIS DECISION AT THIS MEETING WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE OTHER OPTIONS OF BIFURCATING CRITICAL NEEDS OF WATER AND SEWER, UM, VERSUS SOME, SOME SMALLER PROJECTS.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I'VE GOTTEN A NUMBER OF EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS WHO HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT AN ENORMOUS ISSUE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT MY STREET, MY HOUSE FLOODS TWICE THIS SUMMER.

UM, AND I'VE HAD TO REPLACE MY FLOOR FOUR TIMES IN SIX YEARS SINCE I'VE LIVED HERE, OR WHATEVER THE STATISTICS ARE.

SO I, I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THIS DOESN'T PASS AT REFERENDUM, WHAT DO WE DO? THEN WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

WE'VE LOST ANOTHER YEAR AND WE'VE, THE COSTS HAVE CRACKED UP AND WE'VE HAD MORE FLOODING.

UM, CAN YOU TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, JASON, ABOUT HOW WE CAN DEAL WITH EMERGENCY? AND, AND I WILL SAY THAT I'M NOT REALLY PSYCHED ABOUT THE IDEA OF, OF TYING OUR HANDS PROSPECTIVELY ABOUT HOW WE MANAGE OUR CITY'S RESOURCES IN, IN TERMS OF, UM, WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO.

I MEAN, WE'RE ELECTED TO MAKE CHALLENGING DECISIONS WHEN WE'RE FACED WITH CHALLENGING CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND I DON'T WANT THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AUSTERITY FLAVOR TO COLOR WHAT WE ARE PERMITTED TO DO GOING FORWARD AS THE NEEDS CHANGE.

I THINK THAT'S DANGEROUS, AND IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT WHY I'M SO, UM, DISTRESSED ABOUT THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS PASSED BECAUSE IT, IT HANDCUFFS US INSTEAD OF GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO FUND THINGS.

UH, MR. SALINAS? UM, SURE.

WELL, JASON, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER THAT REAL? I DON'T, I DON'T MIND.

AND THEN, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

ALRIGHT, WELL, I THINK, I MEAN, UH, BEFORE, BEFORE JASON WENT ON, I THINK THAT'S THE, I I THINK I DID

[01:15:01]

LOOK, I'M SURE, UH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN THERE.

I'LL TRY TO, TO ANSWER THEM BEST OF MY ABILITY IF I, IF I MISS ONE COMMISSIONER, PLEASE.

UM, UH, REMIND ME AT THE END.

SO A COUPLE THINGS.

EMERGENCIES, UH, THE FUND, WATER SOURCE, STORM WATER DOES HAVE RESERVES.

SO IF SOMETHING EXPLODED TOMORROW, UH, WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME DOLLARS TO ADDRESS THAT.

THERE'S ALSO GENERAL FUND RESERVES THAT CAN BE DEPLOYED IN, UH, QUICKLY IF THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG EMERGENCY AND WE END UP WITH A MILLION GALLON, UH, SEWER, UH, ISSUE.

AND, AND, AND, AND, UH, JOHN SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED $25 MILLION TOMORROW.

SO IN AN EMERGENCY PERSPECTIVE, WE, WE COULD COVER THAT, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO BACKFILL THAT MONEY, OBVIOUSLY.

UM, I THINK THE OTHER, UH, ITEM ABOUT, AND JASON, JASON, I, I AM SORRY TO INTERRUPT AND PERHAPS THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT THIS.

I BELIEVE THAT THE MORATORIUM ALSO HAS AN EXCEPTION IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, UH, THAT THAT MORATORIUM IS LIFTED, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

UH, CORRECT.

SO JUST LIKE WE HAD IN FORT LAUDERDALE, UH, NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, AND THEY HAD A, I THINK A SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION GALLON, UH, UH, ISSUE, THEY HAD TO DO AN EMERGENCY $250 MILLION BOND ISSUANCE WITH IMMEDIATE UTILITY RATE INCREASES.

THAT'S OBVIOUSLY ON THE TABLE EVEN WITH THE MORATORIUM.

SO I THINK, WELL, WHEN THE QUESTIONS WAS WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS GOES FORWARD, THE GEO BOND, WHETHER IT'S THE WHOLE PROGRAM, PART OF THE PROGRAM OF THE STORM WATER PORTION, PERHAPS WITH THE UTILITY RATES ON THE WATER AND SEWER, UH, AND IT FAILS ON THE GEO BOND SIDE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT IS BACK TO SQUARE ONE WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO, UH, ON FUNDING THESE PROJECTS.

SO UTILITY RATES COULD BE OBVIOUSLY BACK ON THE TABLE OR WAIT A YEAR FOR ANOTHER DIFFERENT SMALLER, UH, DIFFERENT TYPE OF GEO BOND QUESTION.

UM, ONE OTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE, UM, THE NIPS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

THERE, IT IS ALREADY PARTIALLY FUNDED, STILL IT'S 10%, UH, BUT IT IS PARTIALLY FUNDED WITH PROPERTY TAXES, SOME THROUGH A PREVIOUS GEO BOND, AND SOME HAVE BEEN FUNDED, UH, LIKE WEST AVENUE WAS FUNDED, UH, WITH PEGO DOLLARS, I THINK LAST YEAR.

SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF PROPERTY TAX SUPPORT WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIG, UM, NIPS.

I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER, I DID ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS BECAUSE THERE WERE A COUPLE IN THERE.

UM, UH, ONE OTHER, UH, YES, SORT OF, UM, ONE OTHER QUESTION, WHICH HAS JUST ESCAPED ME.

UM, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T REMEMBER.

I'LL, I'LL CHIME IN IN A MINUTE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA TO BE THE POSTER CHILDREN OF HOW NOT TO HANDLE THINGS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS NOW, AND EVERY TIME WE DO, FORT LAUDERDALE IS RAISED AS, YOU KNOW, LOOK WHAT THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH.

IT WAS A DISASTER.

I, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE MODEL OF RESILIENCE AND PROACTIVE THINKING AND AND WISE URBAN PLANNING STEWARDSHIP, AND WE KNOW WE HAVE ISSUES.

SO I, AGAIN, I REALLY THINK IT'S WITHOUT SEEING THIS IDEA OF BIFURCATING, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIZING, UM, THE, THE NEEDS, THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS NOW WITH A MUCH SMALLER RATE INCREASE, AND THEN PERHAPS BONDING OUT THE, THE SMALLER PROJECTS THAT CAN BE SPREAD OUT OVER A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME IS, IS MAYBE THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION GOING FORWARD THAT COVERS EVERYBODY'S GOALS.

AND I MEAN, WE ARE COMPLETELY UNITED IN GETTING THIS STUFF DONE.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS NOTION OF, UM, HOW DO WE DO IT WITH THE LEAST PAYING POSSIBLE? THE, THE LONGER WE DELAY, YOU KNOW, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT GETS AND THE MORE PEOPLE ARE DEALING WITH FLOODING SITUATIONS AND NOBODY WANTS THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, OUR, MY COLLEAGUES AND I MAY HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND I RESPECT EVERYBODY'S POINT OF VIEW.

UM, I THINK WE ARE, AND I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THIS, THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY, UH, MISSION DRIVEN TO GET THESE PROJECTS FIXED AND RESOLVED.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT DECADE IS IT'S GONNA TAKE A DECADE TO GET THEM ALL ADDRESSED IF WE'RE LUCKY.

SO WE'RE ALL VERY EAGER TO GET THIS GOING.

WE JUST ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE, THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO IT DOESN'T SEEM PUNITIVE.

JASON, CAN WE USE ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR ANY, TO HELP SUPPLEMENT ANY OF THIS, SORRY, ENTERPRISE FUNDS? WELL, YES, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS MENTIONING.

WHETHER IT'S A GEO BOND OR A REVENUE, A REVENUE BOND THROUGH THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, UH, THE PROGRAM WILL BE PARTIALLY CASH FUNDED BY THE FUNDS ITSELF.

SO THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED THAT THE, UH, APPROXIMATE $1 BILLION CAPITAL PROGRAM OVER THIS, I BELIEVE, EIGHT YEAR WINDOW, UH, IF YOU GO THE GEO BOND MODEL, WE WOULD BE ISSUING 783 MILLION.

UH, IF YOU WENT THE REVENUE BOND MODEL, UH, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 625 MILLION.

SO THAT MEANS, UH, YOU KNOW, 375 MILLION, UM, WOULD BE CASH FUNDED WITH THESE UTILITY RATE INCREASES IF WE MOVE FORWARD THEM.

SO IT WOULD PUT A LESS OF A DEBT BURDEN, UM, ON, ON ON RATE PAYERS.

IT'S ALSO IN THE MEMO I'M REFERENCING, UM, SINCE WE'VE MOVED, UH, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS MORE GEARED TOWARDS, UH, PROPERTY TAXES.

WELL, YOU STATED THAT A LITTLE BIT TOO FAST, AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

IS THERE, CAN I LOOK AT IN THIS PACKET WHERE THAT IS REFLECTED? I'M SORRY, THE, THE TOTALS? YEAH, EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST SAID, IS THAT A PART OF OUR PACKET? IT IS, AND I THINK BELIEVE IN THE FIRST SLIDE OF THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION IS WHERE IT MENTIONS THE $783 MILLION.

[01:20:01]

I WAS REFERENCING BACK TO THE APRIL 1ST FERC, I THINK THE LAST TIME IT WAS HERE, THE WATER AND SEW A RATE ORDINANCE, APRIL 1ST, 2026, FERC MEMO, UH, WHERE THE MODEL WAS PRESENTED ON THE UTILITY RATE INCREASES, WHICH, UH, WHICH IS WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, THE $15 A MONTH, I THINK IN FIRST YEAR IMPACT WAS MENTIONED BY, UH, OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

BUT IN THAT DETAIL ON ONE OF THE PAGES, UH, IT DOES BREAK DOWN THE CASH VERSUS THE, UH, THE FINANCING PERSPECTIVE.

AND IN THAT MEMO, UH, IF YOU ADD UP THE WATER SEWER AND THE STORM WATER, IT'S ABOUT 520, I'M SORRY, UH, $625 MILLION WORTH OF, UH, DEBT FINANCING MEANS.

AND THEN, SO I GUESS TO ADDRESS, SO I, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE DOING A GEO BOND IS THE BEST WAY TO GO HERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE DETAILS, LIKE COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE, I GUESS MY ONLY HESITATION NOW IS THAT, UM, I'M JUST HEARING THAT COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, UM, WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION CAN REDUCE THE BUDGET SIDE TO OFFSET THE TAX, WHICH SOUNDS GREAT.

I MEAN, IT REALLY DOES SOUND GREAT ON PAPER, BUT THEN WE ARE GOING TO BE HURTING SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT WHERE THAT OTHER PAIN POINT WILL BE.

SO THAT IS WORRISOME TO ME.

YEAH, AND THAT'S A VALID CONCERN, COMMISSIONER MATTEO LINAS.

BUT I THINK, I PERSONALLY, OUR JOB AS LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS IS TO PRIORITIZE OUR FUNDING FOR THE BASIC TENANTS OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS PUBLIC SAFETY, SANITATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO I, I THINK WHAT THIS DOES IS IT, IT REALLY MAKES US PUT OUR THINKING CAPS ON AND PRIORITIZE WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IN, IN GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? AND IT DOING, DOING THE, THE WATER RATE INCREASE, THAT'S THE EASY WAY OUT, RIGHT? THAT'S JUST THE EASY BUTTON.

YOU PUSH IT, HEY, WE'RE TAXING EVERYONE, AND THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING ON OUR SIDE THAT WE DO TO HELP EASE THE BURDEN OF AFFORDABILITY, ESPECIALLY IN MIAMI BEACH.

SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT, IT FORCES US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION EVERY YEAR.

AND, AND I THINK, I THINK THAT'S GOOD.

I THINK THAT'S A, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT THING TO DO AS, AS PART OF OUR JOB.

I, I BELIEVE THAT IF WE GO THROUGH THIS ROUTE, IT WILL ADDRESS THE SAME THING.

IT IT WILL ADDRESS THE SAME PROJECTS THAT THE WATER RATE HIKE WOULD'VE, WOULD'VE ADDRESSED, RIGHT? MM-HMM.

EXCEPT FOR, UM, IN WHAT MY OPINION IS, IT'S MORE FAIRLY APPROACHED TO WHO PAYS WHAT, RIGHT? SO, SO LET ME ASK THOUGH, TO CLARIFY, BUT IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THIS, YOUR SUGGESTION, AND THEN WE ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO SHOW US CUTS, WOULD WE HAVE THE OPTION TO THEN NOT FULLY CUT BECAUSE YEAH, NO, IT'S, IT'S EVERY YEAR IT, IT'S, IT'S UP TO US.

IT'S, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, WE, IT'S, IT'S ILLEGAL TO TIE OUR HANDS TO DO THAT, BUT, OKAY, BECAUSE I WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT WE SAY, YOU KNOW, LET'S CUT OVER HERE AND THEN WE'RE FACING, YOU KNOW, CUTTING SOME OF OUR ART AND CULTURE STUFF OR STUFF THAT I KNOW MIGHT SEEM LIKE A LUXURY, LUXURY, BUT IT'S ALSO A PART, A HUGE PART OF OUR BRAND AND WHO WE ARE.

AND, AND WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE ALL VERY PROUD OF, YOU KNOW, SO I JUST DON'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, TIE OUR HANDS TO SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO CUT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULDN'T CUT, YOU KNOW, SO I WANNA KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS.

WELL, WE'LL, FROM WHAT I CAN UNDERSTAND, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND JASON CAN ALSO, IT'S EVERY YEAR WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY BOUND TO IT, ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO BE.

SO, BECAUSE I'M A FAN OF PRIORITIZING OUR FUNDS FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IS WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S JUST ME.

I KNOW, I KNOW TO MANY OTHERS, ARTS AND CULTURE IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND IT IS TO MIAMI BEACH.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, THE, UH, ONE ONE, UM, ONE PRIORITY OVER WEIGHS THE OTHER.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO MAKE, COME TO THE DECISION EVERY YEAR.

SO I, IF I CAN JUST ADD ON TO THAT.

SO, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, THE, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN, UM, IS, IS DIRECTED TO DELIVER A ROLLED BACK RATE

[01:25:01]

BUDGET FOR DISCUSSION, UH, THIS SUMMER.

UM, AND OUR INITIAL ESTIMATES ARE AROUND 17, 17 MILLION, $18 MILLION, LET'S SAY.

AND WE'RE STILL GETTING THESE REFINED, WE WON'T KNOW DEFINITIVELY TILL WE GET THE CERTIFIED VALUES, RIGHT? SO LET'S JUST SAY WE'RE GONNA DELIVER, YOU KNOW, SAY HI, 15, 16, $17 MILLION IN CUTS, UH, FOR THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WANNA MOVE FORWARD ON YOU.

THEN WE HAVE THE, UH, BALLOT QUESTION THAT'S GOING TO BE ON FOR PROPERTY TAX REFORM, WHICH OUR EARLY ESTIMATES ARE IN THE 15, $16 MILLION IMPACT.

SO WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS BUDGET CYCLE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT THE PROPERTY TAX HOME, THE NEW HOMESTEAD, UH, EXEMPTION INCREASES, WOULD LOOK LIKE AS THEY GET IMPACTED IN THE FUTURE.

SO IF, IF THAT PASSES, THE COMMISSION'S GONNA HAVE SOME INTERESTING THINGS TO DO.

IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DO BOTH IF THE, THE, THE PROPERTY TAX REFORM GOES THROUGH AND IT ENDS UP BEING A $16 MILLION CUT TO ALSO AFFORD ANOTHER $15 MILLION IN 2029.

BUT JUST AS A WRITER, I THINK GETTING COMMISSIONER TO YOUR POINT, THAT 15,000,002 YEAR LATER BECOMES 30,000,002 YEARS LATER, BECOMES 40,000,002 YEARS LATER, BECOMES 51 POINT, UH, 8 MILLION, UH, IN REDUCTION.

AND HERE'S THE OTHER PART OF THAT, BUT AS THE, AS, HOLD ON.

IF, IF WE PASS THIS THROUGH BEING FUNDED OUT OF GEO BONDS, AND THIS BALLOT QUESTION PASSES, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS THAT WE'RE FACING, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY THEN GOING TO BE REMOVING A LARGE SWATH OF PAYERS INTO THESE UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.

AND THERE'S TWO VERY INTERESTING POINTS THERE.

UM, ONE, ONE IS, IF THIS DECIDES, OR SOME PORTION OF IT, WHATEVER, WHATEVER IT IS, GOES OUT AND THE VOTERS VOTE ON IT, THEY VOTED.

AND WE HAVE TO LEGALLY, WE CANNOT STATE THAT, THAT WE ARE, WE CANNOT ADVOCATE FOR IT.

AND, AND WE CANNOT LEGALLY, AS THE COMMISSIONER SAID, WE HAD DISCUSSION WITH THE, THE CITY ATTORNEY, YOU CANNOT TIE THE HANDS OF A FUTURE COMMISSION.

SO YOU CAN'T SAY, GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I'M GONNA CUT YOUR TAXES LATER AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA PAY ANYTHING.

WE CAN'T STATE THAT.

YOU CAN MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THERE BEING A GOAL, AND WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION EVERY YEAR, BUT THERE'S NO PROMISE TO THAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE VOTERS, WHICH I AM, I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, DO I WANNA BUY THIS AND PAY THAT TAX, YOU KNOW, AS IT WERE.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S JASON, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SORRY.

SORRY GUYS.

I'M, IT'S REALLY LOUD HERE.

I APOLOGIZE.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME.

JASON, IF THERE'S A PROPERTY TAX ROLLBACK, HOW DOES THE GEO BOND WORK? IF IT'S PREDICATED UPON PROPERTY TAXES, DOES THAT CHANGE HOW THE FUNCTION, HOW, HOW THE MECHANICS OF A GEO BOND? UH, NOT REALLY.

UH, THE ROLLBACK RATE WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT.

IT'S ITS OWN SEPARATE MILLAGE.

ONCE THE COMMISSIONER APPROVES IT, IT GOES, THE VOTERS, THE VOTERS APPROVE IT.

AND I GO AHEAD AND ISSUE THAT ISSUE, THAT DEBT, UM, THE DE THE DETERMINED MILLAGE NEEDED TO COVER THAT SERVICE, SERVICE IS DONE BY, UH, MY, ONE OF MY OFFICES, THE BUDGET OFFICE.

WE'LL SAY THIS IS THE, THAT NEEDED MILLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVES IT, BUT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A SAY.

IT'S, THIS IS THE MILLAGE, WE NEED TO COVER THAT.

NOW, TALK ABOUT THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION CHANGE.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO SHIFT THAT MORE FROM HOMESTEAD IS NOT NON-HOMESTEAD, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WILL PICK UP EVEN MORE OF A BURDEN.

SO THIS IS GOING INTO THE FAIRNESS QUESTION, UH, REALLY, UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY IS IT IS, YOU KNOW, FROM THE UTILITY RATE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE PIZZA, IT'S COMMERCIAL, BUT RENTERS, UH, RENTERS ARE, WOULD BE IN THE RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? AND THEY WOULD BE IN THE NON-HOMESTEAD.

BUT THAT THERE IS AN INTERESTING POINT, WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT, IS REMOVING THAT FROM A 10 TO A 5% INCREASE, SO THEY'RE CLOSER TO A HOMESTEADED INCREASE.

SO THERE WILL BE SOME IMPACTS THERE, BUT THERE IS STILL A SHIFT.

EVERYONE WOULD BE PAYING MORE, UH, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO MODEL WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD BE.

THE UTILITY RATES, YOU KNOW, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT'S A, EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME.

AND AGAIN, I, I HAVEN'T SEEN REALLY, AND, AND, AND I, I DISCUSSED WITH THE TEAM, WATER AND SEWER REALLY BEING DONE AS A GEO, WE HAVE SEEN YEAH, STORM WATER.

SO LET, LET ME PULL BACK AND, AND THIS IS WHERE I'M HEADING WITH THINGS, RIGHT? AND CAN I HAVE OUR CONSULTANT, OR YEAH, I'M SORRY, BRIAN.

BRIAN MANZ, UH, FROM GOV RATES.

I JUST HOLD, HOLD ON NOT HANDING IT OVER TO YOU YET.

YEAH, BUT YOU'RE OUR FINANCIAL CONSULTANT ADVISOR, OR HE'S THE RATE CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT.

THEY'RE NUMEROUS, WHY THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY, IF NOT ENTIRELY FUNDED THROUGH REVENUE BONDS, RIGHT? AND, AND IT'S NOT LIKE, IT'S NOT, UH, UH, IT'S NOT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE, RIGHT? I, I DON'T CARE.

SO HERE'S WHERE I THINK WE SHOULD GO WITH THINGS.

AND THIS ISN'T BECAUSE I HAVE LIKE SOME DOG IN THE FIGHT OR I'M DOGMATIC ABOUT HOW TO, TO DO THINGS.

IT IS JUST GOOD GOVERNANCE, RIGHT? HOW MUNICIPAL FINANCING 1 0 1 IS DONE, RIGHT? I, I'VE, I'VE LOOKED AT MORE MUNICIPAL BUDGETS THAN 99.95% OF HUMAN BEINGS ON THIS EARTH, RIGHT? I LITERALLY MADE A CAREER ACTING AS SOMEBODY THAT ONLY MADE MONEY IF I WAS SMARTER THAN MOODY'S AND S AND P AND FOUND INEFFICIENCIES IN HOW THEY RATED THINGS AND WHERE THOSE BONDS WERE TRADING, RIGHT? AND DID WELL AT THAT.

SO I KNOW A LOT ABOUT HOW THESE GOVERNMENT FINANCINGS AND PROJECTS WORK.

IT IS JUST, AND I CAN SIT UP HERE AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ACADEMIC REASONS, AND

[01:30:01]

IT'S, UH, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA MOVE ME FROM THAT, I NEED TO KNOW WHY.

SO I DON'T THINK THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN OUR RESIDENTS WANT AN INCREASE TO THE EXTENT THAT OUR ADMINISTRATION HAD PROPOSED.

SO WHERE I'M LOOKING TO STEER THINGS IS COMING IN AT A LESSER AMOUNT, RIGHT? IF THOSE NUMBERS SAID, WELL, IF WE DO $625 MILLION OF BORROWING YEAR ONE, THAT'LL BE A $15 A MONTH INCREASE, UH, FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, $11.

WELL, IF THAT'S TOO MUCH, THEN WE NEED TO SEE WHAT IS MORE DIGESTIBLE, RIGHT? AND JOHN, I TALKED TO YOU THIS MORNING, AND I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO HAVE THIS READY, BUT IF THAT'S LINEAR, IF WE WOULD SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT IF WE BORROW A THIRD OF THAT RIGHT? THROUGH UTILITY, UH, REVENUE BONDS, THAT WOULD EQUATE TO A $5 A MONTH INCREASE AND $3 A MONTH INCREASE.

AND THEN IF WE WANTED TO TAKE IT UPON OURSELVES AND MAKE THOSE OFFSETTING ADJUSTMENTS IN OUR GENERAL FUND, THAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE, RIGHT? FUNDING $625 MILLION OR A BILLION DOLLARS OF UTILITY, STORMWATER WASTEWATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH OUR GENERAL FUND PUTS OUR GENERAL FUND AT RISK, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE OVER WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PRICING, THE MARKET PRICING OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN FLORIDA.

IF HOMESTEAD PROPERTY EXEMPTIONS ARE OUT, WE COULD VERY, LIKE, THINK ABOUT THE TIMING OF THIS, WHAT A BOND IS.

OKAY? WE, WE'LL STEP BACK TO 1 0 1.

IS INVESTORS OUT THERE? YES, IT'S THROUGH WALL STREET BANKS, BUT IT'S MADE UP OF INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, RIGHT? MUNICIPAL BONDS ARE HELD THROUGH RETAIL THROUGH EVERYDAY MOM AND POPS IN THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS.

FLORIDA IS GOING TO TAKE A STEP POSSIBLY THAT NOWHERE ELSE IS DONE, AND ESSENTIALLY SAY YOUR GENERAL BONDS, GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS GOING FORWARD NO LONGER HAVE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAXES TO RELY ON, AND WHAT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ARE, THEY'RE CALLED AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE.

THAT MEANS WE PROMISE TO PAY YOU BACK AND WE CAN TAX AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO FUND THOSE PROJECTS, RIGHT? AND THAT IS WHY YOU'RE ABLE TO BORROW A CHEAP RATE.

IF THE VOTERS VOTE TO REMOVE HOMESTEADED, UH, PROPERTY TAXES FROM BEING ACCESSIBLE TO GEO BONDS, THE MARKET'S GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE REALLY NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO TO MARKET WHEN THERE'S A TREMENDOUS DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD GOVERNANCE, RIGHT? SO I WANNA GET TO THE SAME PLACE AS MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT NOT PASSING THESE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES ONTO THE TAXPAYERS OR OUR RESIDENTS.

I JUST THINK, AND I HAVE TO BE MOVED OFF IT, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION WHY WE'RE TRYING TO RECREATE OR REINVENT THE WHEEL OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE 1 0 1, THESE ARE THE EPITOME OF PROJECTS THAT ARE TO BE FUNDED OUT OF UTILITY RATES, RIGHT? IT ACTUALLY PROTECTS OUR CITY.

IT PROTECTS OUR TAXPAYERS.

SO WE'RE NOT JUST PASSING THAT AVALOR AND POSSIBILITY TAXING ONTO OUR GENERAL FUND.

AND I THINK WE'VE ALL COLLECTIVELY HEARD, OR AT LEAST I AND THE ONES THAT VOTED FOR THE MORATORIUM, OUR RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE THE APPETITE FOR ALL OF THAT.

SO LET'S SCALE THAT BACK INSTEAD OF $625 MILLION.

LET'S JUST DO, WE COULD HAVE THAT DEBATE MAY, MAYBE IT'S $200 MILLION OF THE MOST CRITICAL, AND THAT WOULD BE YEAR ONE INCREASE OF $5 PER MONTH AT A MAXIMUM AND ACTUALLY $3 FOR CONDOS.

AND IF WE WANT TO GO AND FIND THAT OFFSETTING AMOUNT IN OUR GENERAL FUND EACH YEAR, I SUPPORT THAT.

RIGHT? I'M FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE.

I WANNA FIND THAT OFFSETTING DOLLAR.

IT'S JUST THE MECHANICS IS, IT'S JUST MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 1 0 1 ABOUT HOW TO FUND THESE.

OUR CONSULTANT, I, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO YOU EXCEPT FOR 30 SECONDS EARLIER TODAY, SO NOT LIKE WE COULDN'T, IF I'M OFF HERE, TELL ME JUST THROUGH THE CHAIR, ONE CAVEAT IS, 'CAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS LET'S, WE SHOULDN'T USE THE FULL AMOUNT, RIGHT? YEAH.

AND TWO THINGS.

UM,

[01:35:03]

HOW MANY, HOW MANY NIPS JOHN IS THIS? IT'S, IT'S WEST AVENUE, SOUTH OF FIFTH NORTH SHORE D COUPLE, COUPLE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN FLAMINGO AND, AND A COUPLE OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT.

I I BELIEVE THERE'S 42 OUTTA 56.

THERE ARE NO 42 PROJECTS.

BUT THAT IS NOT ALL IN IPS.

THERE'S ONLY FIVE N IPS IN THIS PLAN.

BUT THE, THE CRITICAL NEEDS BULK OF THE, OF THE, THERE ARE SIGN, I WOULDN'T SAY THE BULK, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT, BUT THERE ARE ONLY FIVE OF THE 42 PROJECTS.

SO RIGHT THERE, SO THERE ARE FIVE OF 42 PROJECTS.

SO COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE, THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT I FORESEE WE ALMOST MAKE IT POLITICAL IF WE BIFURCATE AND CHERRY PICK WHAT PROJECTS GET DONE.

SO, OR POLITICIANS , I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IF IT'S GONNA GO TO A GEO BOND, THE, THE, THE VOTERS HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

AND IF YOU'RE ONLY, UH, JUST HYPOTHETICALLY, LET'S SAY WE ONLY DO SOUTH OF FIFTH AND WEST AVENUE, WHAT DOES MID BEACH GET OUT OF THIS? WHAT DOES NORTH BEACH GET OUT OF THIS? THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE, WHY WOULD I VOTE FOR THAT IF IT'S NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THAT IS, 'CAUSE ULTIMATELY THIS GOES TO REFERENDUM, PEOPLE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

AND IF THERE'S REALLY NOTHING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I'M GONNA BENEFIT FROM, WHY WOULD A RESIDENT VOTE FOR IT AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST THROWING ON THE TAX.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE, THE CURVE BALL HERE IS THAT IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE VOTED ON BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY.

WELL, WHAT I'LL SAY IS IF WE DO HOW, WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE AND WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS ALWAYS DONE IS FUNDING THESE THROUGH UTILITY REVENUE BONDS, RIGHT? THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, WE VOTE ON THAT.

AND IF WE JUST LIKE WE WERE GOING TO DO, AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE APPETITE, WHICH I DON'T FOR SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT AND PASSING ON THOSE RATE INCREASES, THEN WE VOTE ON A LESSER AMOUNT AND WE CAN REVERSE ENGINEER INTO THAT, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE TO, WELL, WE COULD DO EITHER WE COULD PICK THE MOST CRITICAL PROJECTS OR WE COULD SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, ISSUE A $200 MILLION BOND.

SO GO OUT AND FIND THE PROJECTS THAT ARE MOST IN NEED OF $200 MILLION.

RIGHT? UM, YEAH.

BUT AGAIN, THE PEOPLE, IF IT'S THROUGH A BOND AND IT'S A REFERENDUM, SO UH, IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON.

A REVENUE BOND ISN'T THROUGH REFERENDUM AND RICK, RIGHT? CORRECT.

I THOUGHT YOU MEANT GEO BOND.

SO MY ARGUMENT IS WHETHER WE ARE RAISING A DOLLAR OR A BILLION DOLLARS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE THIS, OUR WATER WASTEWATER, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS, IT IS JUST GOOD GOVERNANCE TO DO SO THROUGH REVENUE BONDS.

CAN I JUST, I'M SORRY.

UH, COMMISSIONER SALINAS.

AND WE CAN HAVE, IS THAT YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE? ARE YOU GOOD AT THAT? MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT MORE ELEMENTARY THAN I.

UM, BUT THAT IS THE WAY 95% OF MUNICIPALITIES FUND THEIR PROJECTS.

AND, AND IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES.

UH, ONE, I THINK WE BORROWED A CHEAPER LEVEL, AND JASON, YOU YOU ALLUDED TO THAT, WHERE, UH, IT ACTUALLY COST US LESS.

UM, WE'RE ABLE TO GO OUT TO MARKET QUICKER.

UH, SO WELL, IT, IT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE.

LIKE IT DOESN'T PUT YOUR GENERAL FUND AT RISK.

LET'S SAY THESE PROJECTS RUN OVER, THERE'S MORE TRANSPARENCY.

IT JUST DOESN'T GET CO-MINGLED INTO THIS LARGE BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET, RIGHT? IT IS JUST THE WAY GOVERNMENT HAS DONE AND, AND HAPPY TO HAVE THAT PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT.

SO THEN IT COMES, WELL, IF WE DON'T WANT TO PASS ON ANY INCREASES, WHICH WE CAN HAVE THAT PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE AS WELL, THEN WE GO, WELL, IF WE'RE GONNA DO A $200 MILLION BOND OVER 30 YEARS, HOW MUCH THEN SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO OFFSET OUT OF OUR BUDGET? AND THAT IS THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND, RIGHT? AND WE CAN DO THAT EVERY SINGLE BUDGET YEAR WHERE WE GO, WELL, IF WE PASSED ON $5 PER MONTH OF INCREASED BORROWING TO OUR RATE PAYERS, HOW DO WE SAVE THEM THAT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND? AND, AND I'M HAPPY TO CHAMPION THAT ISSUE WITH YOU.

SO ANOTHER THING IS, CAN I JUST ADD SOMETHING REALLY QUICK TO WHAT YOU SAID, IF I MAY, IF I MAY THE CHAIR.

HOLD ON.

BOT, UH, SUAREZ, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.

I DON'T THINK SOMEONE WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

'CAUSE IT WILL EVENTUALLY AFFECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, AND SO THEY'RE JUST GONNA BE IN THAT QUEUE.

BUT IT'S, I THINK OUR NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, ARE WANNA HELP OUT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND MIAMI BEACH AS A WHOLE, AND THEN IT

[01:40:01]

WILL END UP FUNDING, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE, A LOT OF PROJECTS OVER THE COURSE OF WHAT WE HAVE A FOUR YEAR AND AN EIGHT YEAR, UM, IN FRONT OF US.

BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO TELL FOLKS THAT THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BENEFIT EVERYONE.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ALL OVER MIAMI BEACH GO INTO DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS TO, TO DINE OR TO, YOU KNOW, DO WHATEVER THEY WANNA DO.

AND SO IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE GOOD FOR ALL OF US IF WE, IF WE WERE TO SUPPORT THIS.

SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS ON THAT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, PUSHBACK FROM CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS.

BUT I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WILL NOT WANNA HELP THEIR NEIGHBOR FOR THE GOOD OF MIAMI BEACH, MY OPINION.

YEAH, AND, AND WHAT I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION WAS COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE, YOU SAID, OR YOU WERE ALLUDING TO, MAYBE WE JUST DO A PARTIAL, BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE LONGER WE WAIT, THE MORE THE OTHER PROJECTS ARE GONNA COST.

AND THAT IS A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL ROI MATH EQUATION THAT IS INDISPUTABLE.

IN FIVE YEARS THEY COULD BE DOUBLE, RIGHT? SO I DON'T WANT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

I'D RATHER JUST DEAL WITH IT NOW IN FOR, FOR THE NEXT EIGHT 10 YEAR PLAN.

AND SO THAT IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, IT'S NOT 50% MORE, IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT MORE.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE MONEY AND WE'RE ALREADY ADDRESSING IT.

I THINK IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD DO THIS NOW, IT'LL BE GENERATIONAL AND IT'S GONNA CERTAINLY COST THE AVERAGE PERSON ON MIAMI BEACH A LOT LESS THROUGH THE OPERATING FUND GEO BOND THAN A WATER RATE UTILITY.

I MEAN, IT, IT WAS PRETTY, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR, UH, FROM, FROM FROM STAFF SLIDE THAT IT, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

SO, AND I THINK IT'S MORE FAIR, I THINK, I THINK IT'S MORE FAIR THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE WITH MORE EXPENSIVE PROPERTIES TO, TO, TO PAY MORE FOR, UM, THIS SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO A REGRESSIVE TAX WHERE EVERYONE STRUGGLING, UM, SET INCOME RESIDENTS HAVE TO COST A BEAR, SUCH AS OUR SENIORS AND OUR FIXED INCOME.

SO WHO THE CHAIR, I, I THINK I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN NEXT.

SO I'M GONNA JUMP IN IF I MAY.

UM, A A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, JASON.

UM, THE BONDS CONTEMPLATE CONSTRUCTION, THEY DON'T CONTEMPLATE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, YOU KNOW, MINOR, NORMAL COURSE OF LIFE OF PROJECT REPAIR.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S JUST BUILDING IT AND, AND THE OTHER, AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS, SO PLEASE LET ME JUST, UM, GET THIS GOING.

UM, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S JUST THE BUILD, IT'S NOT THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE.

CAN YOU CONFIRM, CLARIFY, CLARIFY THIS, THIS DOES NOT MATERIALLY, UH, IMPACT, UH, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE THE WAY WATER, SEWER AND STORM WATER PROJECTS WORK.

OKAY, PERFECT.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD IN CONVERSATION WAS THIS NOTION OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA PIT NEIGHBORHOODS AGAINST EACH OTHER BECAUSE WHO WOULD POSSIBLY VOTE AGAINST, UH, FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BENEFIT THEM, UH, IMMEDIATELY, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE.

WELL, WE'RE A SEVEN MILE SANDBAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.

I THINK WE'RE ALL IMPACTED.

AND SO I REJECT THAT NOTION, AND I THINK THAT IS ONLY SOMETHING THAT GETS STIRRED UP BY A FALSE NARRATIVE.

I THINK WE'RE ALL VERY COGNIZANT THAT IF YOU ARE WORKING IN SOUTH BEACH AND YOU LIVE IN NORTH BEACH AND MID BEACH IS FLOODED, YOU'RE AFFECTED, RIGHT? SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON, MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MEASURED IN OUR WORDS WHEN WE TALK TO OUR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT, UM, WHY THIS MATTERS.

EVEN IF YOUR PARTICULAR HOME DOESN'T FLOOD.

I MEAN, I LIVED IN BAYSHORE, WHICH HAS HISTORIC FLOODING AND HAS FOR DECADES.

MY HOUSE NEVER FLOODED.

I WAS THERE IN A 1926 HOUSE FOR 13 YEARS, AND I LOVED IT.

AND IT NEVER FLOODED ONCE I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS 10 TIMES OVER BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MY NEIGHBORS TWO BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET FLOODED ALL THE TIME.

SO I, I JUST WANNA PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.

THE OTHER THING THAT I KEEP HEARING ABOUT, WE'RE GONNA JUST FIND THE MONEY FOR THESE IN OUR EXISTING BUDGET.

YOU KNOW, I, I, I APPRECIATE THAT WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT PRIORITIES, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE JUST TURNED THE SHIP OF STATE ON THIS CITY.

WE ARE BEING VIEWED GLOBALLY AS THE, THE, UM, THE EPICENTER OF, OF ARTS AND CULTURE AND FITNESS AND FINANCE.

AND WHY WOULD WE UNDO THE WORK THAT'S TAKEN US A DECADE? WE ARE SEEING HISTORIC, UH, ACTIVATIONS AND PEOPLE TRYING TO HAVE EVENTS HERE.

WE HAVE TO BEAT THEM AWAY WITH A STICK.

NOT LITERALLY DON'T, YOU KNOW, FOR ANYBODY LISTENING UP, NOBODY'S ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, BUT I'M SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING TO SAY THANK YOU, BUT NO, THANK YOU.

WE ARE FULL RIGHT NOW.

SO WHY WOULD WE UNDO THAT? AND I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT EVERYBODY'S PRIORITY.

I GET THAT LOUD AND CLEAR, BUT EVERY DOLLAR INVESTED IN ARTS AND CULTURE GENERATES $5 IN, IN RETURN.

[01:45:01]

AND WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL THE OTHER TAX CUTS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER, WHETHER THEY COME THIS YEAR AT ALL OR PARTIALLY OR FULLY OR IN FIVE YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO INSULATE US OURSELVES FROM WHAT HAPPENS AT THE STATE LEVEL.

WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE REVENUE COMING INTO THE CITY FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ATTRACTING BUSINESSES AND NEW FAMILIES MOVING IN WHO ARE STARTING, UH, THEIR, THEIR, YOU KNOW, MOVING THEIR, THEIR HEADQUARTERS DOWN HERE, ALL THOSE THINGS.

IT, IT'S ADDITIVE.

JASON, CAN YOU GIVE ME A BALLPARK, AND I DON'T MEAN TO GIVE YOU A POP QUIZ, BUT CAN YOU GIMME A BALLPARK? UM, A COUPLE THINGS.

HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPEND ON ARTS AND CULTURE EVERY YEAR, HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPEND ON PARKS AND REC EVERY YEAR, AND HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPEND ON ALBAS? I CON YEAH, I DON'T WANNA COMPLETE I DEPARTMENTS.

I DON'T WANNA, I I THESE TWO, I I WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO JUST, THIS ISN'T LIKE NO, NO, BUT THIS IS, NO, BUT JOE, IF YOU LET ME FINISH PLEASE.

BECAUSE THIS NOTION OF THIS, UM, WE'RE GOING TO, THIS ISN'T A LINKED ANALYSIS, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER SUAREZ'S PROPOSAL ISN'T EVEN, AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME TALKING, BUT THE, BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT WE KEEPING, WE KEEP HEARING THAT WE'RE GONNA FIND THE SAVINGS FROM OTHER PLACES.

'CAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PRIORITIZE THINGS, RIGHT? BUT THAT, THAT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT ITEM, TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

IT NOT BEING DISCUSS.

WE'RE NOT GONNA GENERATE, WE'RE NOT GONNA GENERATE $650 MILLION TO PAY FOR THESE ITEMS. THEN, THEN WE ADDRESS THAT AT THAT ITEM, RIGHT? I I, BUT IT'S, IT'S A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT'S BEING PUT OUT AS PART OF THIS NARRATIVE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADDRESS COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER IF WE'RE GONNA FIND THIS COMMISSIONER BOTT.

I, I WANT TO, I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO DO A FALSE NARRATIVE.

I'M NOT SIMPLY SAYING WE'RE GONNA DEFUND ARTS AND CULTURE TO PAY FOR THIS.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

I THINK THERE, WE HAVE A BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET.

THERE'S ONLY 83,000 RESIDENTS IN MIAMI BEACH.

I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY FIND EFFICIENCIES IN OUR GOVERNMENT THROUGH PERHAPS AI, AND LETS KEEP IT AT THAT.

I DIDN'T HAVE HER, YOU KNOW, I STOPPED HER FROM GOING INTO WHERE THOSE COST SAVINGS WOULD COME FROM, RIGHT? I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I'M NOT, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR CUT TO ARTS AND CULTURE.

IT'S RIGHT, IT, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE, RIGHT? LIKE IF, IF WE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE DISCUSSION TO HAVE TODAY, THAT THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT'S OUT THERE IN THE STRATOSPHERE THAT OKAY, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO PASS ON ANY TYPE OF COST INCREASE, IT'LL COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

BUT THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DEBATES.

RIGHT? BUT I DON'T THINK THEY ARE, I THINK THEY'RE LINKED BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING.

AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE ARE WE GONNA COME UP WITH $650 MILLION FROM OUR BUDGET, BUT IT'S NOT 50 MILLION COMMISSIONER, IT'S 15 MILLION.

I'M LITERALLY, I'M LITERALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE.

AND, AND SO, OKAY, IT'S $15 MILLION THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR IT'S $30 MILLION, AND THE YEAR AFTER IT'S A BUNCH MORE.

AND SO THE QUESTION IS, WITH ALL THE OTHER STUFF GOING ON, YOU KNOW, ARE WE, ARE WE MAKING DECISIONS ON FALSE? UM, AND LOOK, I COULD BE WRONG.

MAYBE, MAYBE WE ONLY SPEND A TOTAL OF $7 MILLION ON PARTS AND REC AND ALBA'S DEPARTMENT AND, AND ARTS AND CULTURE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW WHAT, THEN WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SLAMMING ANYBODY.

I WANT THIS TO BE A CONVERSATION.

I'M NOT POINTING FINGERS AND ACCUSING, I'M SAYING I DON'T THINK, EVEN IF WE WERE SUPER AUSTERE AND CUT EVERYTHING, WE WOULDN'T FIND THE MONEY THAT WE NEEDED TO FIND TO FUND WHAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO KEEP OUR ISLAND LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY AFLOAT.

AND THEN THERE'S THE, THE SORT OF SUBJECTIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT DO WE, WHAT DO WE PUT OUT INTO THE WORLD? AND, UM, YOU KNOW, DO WE PUT A FULL STOP ON THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE COME HERE FOR? YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S A CONVERSATION, THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.

I JUST WANNA GET TO THE NUMBERS OF WHAT IT, WHAT IT WOULD BE IF WE ROLLED ALL THAT STUFF UP AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE, WITH THIS, IF I COULD THE CHAIR, BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.

IF I COULD THROW THE CHAIR, GO.

UM, AND, AND SO COMMISSIONER SCHWARZ'S PROPOSAL, IF I UNDERSTAND, WAS ON A YEARLY BASIS, THE COMMISSION WOULD DETERMINE AT ITS DISCRETION, IT WOULD, IT, IT WOULD BE ITS PREROGATIVE EVERY YEAR TO, TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER FROM THE GENERAL FUND IT CAN AND IT WILL, UH, SUBSIDIZE OR, OR, OR, OR SHIFT FUNDING TO, I GUESS CUSHION, UH, THE, THE IMPACT OF THE BOND ON THE RESIDENTS IS, WOULD THAT BE A PROPER EXPLANATION OF IT, UH, TO THE ATTORNEY OR THE CFO? UH, YES.

I THINK THAT'S THE, THE COMMISSIONER'S, UM, CONCEPT AND, AND I THINK AS IT MENTIONED.

FROM, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, FROM, FROM THE, FROM THE COMMISSIONER.

AND SO THEN, AND SO, AND SO THEN IT WOULD BE EVERY YEAR ON THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION AND THE COMMISSION'S PREROGATIVE BASED ON AVAILABLE FUNDING AND BASED ON THE, ON THE PRIORITIES.

UH, BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SAID ON STONE.

IT'S, IT DOESN'T BECOME THE POLICY.

YI FROM, FROM,

[01:50:01]

HE'S THINKING OF SOMETHING THAT, UM, THAT COULD ALMOST BE, UM, THE WORD IS, IS, IS ESCAPING ME.

ASPIRATIONAL, BUT, UH, ASPIRATIONAL.

ASPIRATIONAL.

EXACTLY.

A AS ASPIRATIONAL, I THINK, I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS, IS A DISTINCTION OF THE APPROACH THAT WE'RE TAKING THE FIRST APPROACH THROUGH A REV, THROUGH A, THROUGH A RATE INCREASE TO DO REVENUE BONDS, WE WERE POTENTIALLY IMPOSING A SIGNIFICANT YEARLY RATE INCREASE ON OUR RESIDENTS.

US IMPOSING IT ON PEOPLE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT, AS OPPOSED TO GOING OUT TO OUR RESIDENTS AND ASKING THEM, HEY, THE, THESE ARE THE NEEDS OF, OF THE COMMUNITY.

DO YOU WANNA BUY INTO THIS? DO YOU WANT TO IMPOSE THIS ON YOURSELVES? BECAUSE YOU SEE, UH, THAT THE CRITICAL NATURE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT.

AND IF THE COMMUNITY THEN SAYS, YES, WE WANNA TAKE ON THIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE WE SEE THIS, THIS PRIORITY, THEN IN THE FUTURE, THE COMMISSIONS, DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY, THE THE, DEPENDING ON THE TAX LANDSCAPE AND THE POLICIES THAT THAT ARE PASSED, CAN THEN DETERMINE, OKAY, UH, ON A YEARLY BASIS, WE'LL DETERMINE WHETHER WE SHIFT, UH, DOLLARS OR, OR NOT.

BUT THE VERY BASIC QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, ARE ARE, ARE THE RESIDENTS WILLING TO, TO TAKE THIS UPON THEMSELVES? AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION'S PREROGATIVE AFTERWARDS IF THE, IF, IF THE NUMBERS WORK OUT, WHETHER, WHETHER THEY DO THAT SHIFT TO CUSHION, THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS.

I, IF I MAY, UH, ADD AND BECOMES PURELY ASPIRATIONAL, IF I MAY ADD, JUST TO, 'CAUSE TO KIND OF PUT TWO THINGS TOGETHER HERE, IS THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS, RIGHT? THERE'S, UH, ARE WE GONNA DO THE PROJECTS? IS IT GONNA BE REVENUE BONDS, IS IT GONNA BE A GEO BOND? AND THEN DO WE WANNA HAVE A, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT ASPIRATIONAL GOAL EVERY YEAR TO OFFSET THAT? I KNOW THE CHAIR HAD BEEN, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I THINK YOURS ALSO TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AS I THINK THE CHAIR HAD MENTIONED, THAT YOU COULD HAVE THAT GOAL TO ALSO LOWER, WHETHER IT IS A REVENUE BOND OR NOT, IS TO HAVE THAT, UM, THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.

SAY, HOW MUCH IS THE INCREASE IN THE, YOU KNOW, THE OFFSET 'CAUSE OF THE REVENUE BOND OR, OR THE GEO BOND AND LOWER THAT.

SO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO WAYS OF, OF ATTACKING THAT SAME GOAL IS WHETHER IT'S, IT'S A, A GEO BOND MILLAGE, UH, THAT YOU WOULD OFFSET AND LOWER OPERATING EXPENSES TO COVER THAT, OR IT'S ON THE ENTERPRISE FUND AND YOU'RE PAYING IT THROUGH THERE AND SAYING, WHAT'S THAT IMPACT? AND I THINK THAT'S CHAIR, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING, A DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD EARLIER.

I, I JUST FEEL WE'RE ELECTED TO MAKE DECISIONS.

WE DON'T GO OUT TO OUR VOTERS ASK, SHOULD WE FUND THE POLICE? WE DON'T GO OUT TO OUR VOTERS TO SAY, SHOULD WE FUND THE PARKS? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ELECTED TO DO.

THIS IS PART OF THAT, RIGHT? SO WE SAY, WHAT DO WE FEEL AS IF THAT APPROPRIATE NUMBER IS? IF IT'S ALL OF IT, THEN WE DO ALL OF IT.

IF THERE'S NONE OF IT, WE DO NONE OF IT.

IF IT'S PART OF THE WAY THERE, WE DO, PART OF THE WAY THERE.

I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO COME UP AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG AND, AND I AM HOPING TO BEING WRONG, BUT I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO RAISE THEIR HAND AND SAY, I'M THE EXPERT IN THE ROOM AND TALK ABOUT HERE'S THE BENEFITS AND HERE'S THE DRAWBACKS OF FUNDING, EITHER THROUGH A REVENUE BOND OR A, UM, GEO BOND.

WHO, WHO, AND, AND IF I CAN BUILD ON THAT, JOE, HOLD ON, PLEASE.

HOLD ON.

WHO IS THAT EXPERT IN THE ROOM? OKAY.

BECAUSE IF I'M WRONG, THEN I WILL FALL INTO PLACE AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE SHOULD DO A GEO BOND, BUT I ALSO WANT ALL OF US TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

RIGHT? FOR ME, I'M NOT DOG MAD.

I DON'T NEED CREDIT.

I, I ACTUALLY DON'T LIKE BE THIS, I I RATHER TAKE A VOTE AND, AND NOT HAVE A BOND HANG OVER OUR HEAD FOR THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS.

RIGHT? SO FOR ME, IT'S NOT ABOUT, I'M NOT LIKE, OH, THIS IS JOE REVENUE BOND MAGAZINE, IT TO ME.

IT'S JUST ABOUT WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO GOOD GOVERNMENT? WHAT IS THE BEST WAY? AND IF I'M WRONG, TELL ME I AM WRONG AND I WILL GLADLY SHIFT.

RIGHT? I'M JUST COMING DOWN ON THAT SIDE OF, I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR REVENUE BOND.

'CAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

NOT 'CAUSE I HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT OR, OR THAT'S MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE OR THAT'S MY MIDDLE NAME.

IT'S JUST HOW I'VE BEEN BROUGHT UP TO UNDERSTAND GOOD GOVERNMENT HAS DONE.

IF, IF IT'S BETTER TO DO A GEO BOND, THEN TELL ME THOSE REASONS AND I WILL FALL IN LINE.

UM, BUT LET'S START WITH THAT.

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FUND THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS? AND THAT'S, I KNOW YOU'RE THE EXPERT IN THE ROOM 'CAUSE YOU RAISED YOUR HAND, BUT I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME.

SO TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND TELL US WHY YOU'RE THE EXPERT WE SHOULD LISTEN TO.

[01:55:01]

SURE.

SO GOOD AFTERNOON.

UH, MY NAME IS PETE VERONA AND I'M WITH PFM.

SO PFM IS THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO THE CITY.

UH, SO THIS IS WHAT WE SPECIALIZE IN, IS DOING THESE MUNICIPAL BONDS DAY IN, DAY OUT.

UH, WE DO A LOT OF UTILITY BONDS AND THAT IS THE TYPICAL METHOD THAT MUNICIPALITIES USE TO ISSUE THESE PROJECTS.

AND I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY TWO MAJOR REASONS FOR THAT.

ONE IS THE, IS THE WAY THAT THEY ARE PAID.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A USER FEE.

YOU PAY FOR HOW MUCH YOU USE THAT.

THAT'S A TYPICAL THING THAT IT'S DONE FOR UTILITIES.

AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY VIEWED AS A, A FAIR WAY OF DOING THINGS IS YOU PAY FOR WHAT YOU USE.

UH, THE SECOND MAJOR THING IS I, I DO THINK THAT THESE UTILITY PROJECTS THAT WE DISCUSS ARE SO CRITICAL THAT THEY HAVE TO BE DONE ESSENTIALLY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

THERE, THERE THERE'S NOT REALLY A CHOICE A LOT.

A LOT OF TIMES THESE PROJECTS, IF THEY'RE NOT DONE, THEN YOU, YOU GO INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR AND THINGS JUST COMPOUND AND GET WORSE.

SO YOU TYPICALLY WOULDN'T GO TO THE VOTERS TO ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE, AND, AND THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL, WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT VOTE FAILS, THEN YOU'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE PROBABLY RAISING UTILITY RATES ANYWAY.

SO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THE PROJECT ALMOST DEMANDS TO BE DONE.

SO I THINK THAT A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES, AND PROBABLY THE REASON WHY THESE ARE DONE 99% UTILITY REVENUE BONDS IS BECAUSE YOU ALL, AS THE COMMISSION, HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAISE THOSE RATES BASED ON YOUR DISCRETION.

AND THE QUESTION DOESN'T GO TO VOTERS WHERE IT THEN BECOMES A RISK, DO, DO THESE PROJECTS GET APPROVED? IF I COULD ADD ON TO THAT, I MEAN, I CAN, LET ME CHIME IN ALSO BEFORE IT GETS LOST IN CONFUSION.

'CAUSE I HAVE A COUPLE THOUGHTS.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO GET DONE MM-HMM .

RIGHT? IT'S HOW DO WE PAY FOR THEM? THAT'S AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT'S A POLICY DECISION.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

HOW, HOW, HOW DO WE GET TO, TO THE GOAL OF, OF FUNDING THEM? WE CERTAINLY CAN JUST VOTE AND SAY, WE KNOW WHAT, WE'RE GONNA DOUBLE EVERYONE'S RATES IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND WE'RE REALLY SORRY IF YOU'RE ON A FIXED INCOME OR YOU'RE A SENIOR AND YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, BUT YOU'RE OUTTA HERE.

OR WE COULD DO IT THE MORE FAIR WAY OR IT'S COMMENSURATE WITH YOUR PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S, IN MY OPINION, IN MIAMI BEACH SPECIFICALLY, I THINK A MUCH MORE FAIR WAY TO, TO FUND THIS.

WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA FUND IT EITHER WAY.

AND SURE IF IT DOESN'T PASS IN NOVEMBER, IF WE, IF MY COLLEAGUES CAN SIGN ON AND, AND GO TO THE VOTERS FOR THIS, THEN WE'RE RIGHT, WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE.

BUT AT LEAST WE GAVE THE VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY INTO IT INSTEAD OF FORCING IT DOWN THEIR THROATS.

SO I BELIEVE WE JUST PASSED A MORATORIUM.

IT'S A, IT'S GONNA TAKE A FIVE SEVEN VOTE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S GONNA BE ENOUGH VOTES FOR THAT.

SO AT, AT THIS CURRENT STATE WHERE WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO, TO FUND THAT PROJECT THROUGH A WATER RATE HIKE.

SO THIS IS ONE AVENUE.

AND CHAIR, THE CHAIR, IF I MAY, IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I I ALSO THINK, UH, ABOUT THIS IS THAT IN MIAMI BEACH, I THINK THESE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TIE DIRECTLY TO, TO THE VALUE OF YOUR, OF YOUR PROPERTY.

THEY, THEY INCREASE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN MIAMI BEACH.

UH, IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS A USER IN THE TRADITION, IN THE TRADITIONAL WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IN WITH, WITH RATES THAT THE, THAT THE USER PAYS A RATE FOR THE SERVICE THAT THEY'RE GETTING.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE PROPERTIES THAT SIT EMPTY.

UH, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT SIT EMPTY IN OUR CITY THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, YET THEY'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING A SINGLE DOLLAR TOWARDS IT.

UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT USING, UH, THE UTILITY YET.

THEIR PROPERTY VALUE IS GOING TO GO UP BY THE IMPROVEMENT TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE CONTRIBUTING, UH, TOWARDS, TOWARDS A, A SIGNIFICANT, UH, A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT THAT'S GONNA INCREASE THEIR, THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE LEVEL AND PLAYING FIELDS THAT I SEE WITH, UM, WITH THIS GOING, GOING THE, UH, GENERAL OBLIGATION ROUTE.

UM, IT'S, IS THAT, IS THAT THE, THE BURDEN DOESN'T FALL COMPLETELY ON THE, ON THE USER.

UH, AND IT SPREADS IT OUT, I BELIEVE MORE, MORE FAIRLY AND EVENLY ON, ON, ON DIFFERENT VALUED PROPERTIES WHERE THEY WILL NOW BE CONTRIBUTING, UM, TOWARDS, TOWARDS PROJECTS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE THEIR OWN PROPERTY VALUES.

UH, IF I, IF I THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY, I, I JUST WANTED TO JUMP IN, JOE, ON WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU.

UM, AND I WOULD ACTUALLY, LIKE, IN ADDITION TO THE EXPERT IN THE ROOM WHO ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAD, UM,

[02:00:01]

I, I, I WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH, AND I, I, I DON'T THINK WE ARE READY TO VOTE ON THIS RIGHT NOW, AND CERTAINLY NOT AT THE COMMISSION.

AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE HASHED OUT FURTHER.

I WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, HERE ARE THE SIX THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE WE HAVE GRANTS AND, AND OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT ARE AT RISK IF WE DON'T START THE PROJECT WITHIN 18 MONTHS.

I, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THAT IS, WE, NOBODY'S TALKED ABOUT THAT.

WE HAVE, I KNOW IN NOR, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL THE PROJECTS, BUT I KNOW IN NORTH SHORE D UM, AND I THINK WEST AVENUE HAS FUNDING THAT IS ATTACHED TO IT, THAT IS NOT THROUGH THE CITY.

UM, BUT THAT MIGHT BE JEOPARDIZED IF THIS DOESN'T GO FORWARD IN, IN A TIMELY MANNER.

AND I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT'S AT RISK IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD.

AND WHAT IF THE, THE VOTERS DO NOT CHOOSE TO TAX THEMSELVES FOR INCREASED INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE I WANNA SEE FROM THE CITY.

AND NUMBER TWO, WHAT I WANNA SEE FROM THE CITY IS, I, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR MOST URGENT PROJECTS ARE BECAUSE THEY ARE, WHETHER IT'S THERE, THEY, IT'S GOT FUNDING ATTACHED TO IT THAT IS AT RISK OR BECAUSE WE HAVE A HISTORY OF MAJOR FAILURES THERE, OR IT'S AT RISK OF MAJOR FAILURE OR WHATEVER IT IS.

LIKE YOU COME BACK TO US AND SAY, IN THE IDEAL WORLD, WE WOULD PUSH PLAY ON THESE, LET'S SAY FIVE PROJECTS OR 10 PROJECTS AND THEN BACK OUT.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO DO A RATE INCREASE TO COVER JUST THOSE? AND THEN WE COULD DO EVERYTHING ELSE THROUGH, UM, THROUGH A, A, UH, A BOND QUESTION OR WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO FUND THOSE IMMEDIATELY AND THEN SPREAD OUT THE ADDITIONAL COST FOR THE REST OF THOSE THINGS OVER SEVEN YEARS INSTEAD OF FIVE YEARS? I WANT OPTIONS.

I'M NOT SEEING OPTIONS NOW.

I, NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE THIS HARD FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT THE COMMISSION FOR THE LAST 30 FREAKING YEARS KICKED THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE CPI INCREASES, WHICH IS A DERELICTION OF DUTY.

IT IS AN ABROGATION OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.

AND THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

OKAY, SO I JUST, I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE.

OKAY, SO HERE'S WHERE I CAN COME DOWN, RIGHT? WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT FUNDING FOR ARE AT THE ONE YARD LINE.

I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FIRST STREET FOR YEARS, OKAY? WE ARE AT THE ONE YARD LINE ON THAT.

WE HAVE FUNDING WE'RE GOING TO LOSE.

WE NEED TO DO THAT ASAP, RIGHT? WE HAVE TRACTOR TRAILERS OUT ON WEST AVENUE READY TO START THAT, AND WE NEED $7 MILLION, RIGHT? SO I WANT THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO COME BACK AND SAY, HERE'S THE PROJECTS THAT ARE LITERALLY AT THE ONE YARD LINE THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR YEARS, AND THESE NEED TO GO FORWARD.

AND THEN I WILL BRING IT TO A VOTE.

I KNOW WE HAVE THE MORATORIUM IN PLACE.

BRING IT TO A VOTE FOR OUR COLLEAGUES.

THESE THREE TO FOUR PROJECTS, LET'S CALL IT TOTAL A HUNDRED OR $150 MILLION.

WE CAN VOTE TO, UH, ISSUE REVENUE BONDS FOR THOSE THAT WOULD BE $5 PER MONTH.

AND I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD SAY, HERE'S THE OFFSETTING SAVINGS IN OUR GENERAL FUND IF WE WANT TO ESSENTIALLY KEEP EXPENSES FLAT AND THEN FOR THE MORE PROJECTS THAT ARE CRITICAL, BUT NOT AT THE ONE YARD LINE THAT WE NEED TO DO RIGHT NOW WITH EXPEDIENCY.

IF WE WANNA PUT THAT OUT TO THE VOTERS.

I DON'T AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THAT.

AND I'D LIKE TO DRILL DOWN WITH OUR EXPERT MORE ABOUT HOW WE GET THERE, BUT WE CAN FURTHER THAT DISCUSSION.

AND IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY TO THROW THE BULK OF THAT REMAINING $600 MILLION TO THE VOTERS FOR YOUR GEO BOND, I THINK WE DO SO, BUT WE CAN'T SIT UP HERE AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TO DO FIRST STREET.

WE HAVE PROMISED THAT PROJECT AND IT IS AT THE ONE YARD LINE.

WE'RE GOING TO LOSE FUNDING IF WE DON'T DO THAT.

RIGHT? WE HAVE THE BULLDOZERS AND THE PLANS AND WE'VE PAID TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DESIGN AND WE ONLY NEED ANOTHER $5 MILLION FOR WEST AVENUE, RIGHT? SO WE COULD VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE PROJECTS LITERALLY TODAY AND ISSUE BONDS THAT'LL ONLY COST THE AVERAGE RESIDENT $5 A MONTH AND THE AVERAGE CONDO TO DOLLAR $3 PER MONTH.

AND IF WE WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S FIND THAT COST SAVINGS EVERY SINGLE YEAR IN OUR GENERAL FUND, LET'S DO THAT.

AND THEN FOR THE REST OF THESE PROJECTS, WE CAN PUT THAT OUT TO THE VOTERS.

I, I THINK THAT'S COMPROMISE.

AND, AND I WOULD BEGRUDGINGLY MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, MR. CHAIR, BUT I HEAR YOU.

UM, BUT DON'T YOU THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN THIS PREDICAMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE THE COMMISSION OVER THE YEARS HAVE BEEN CHERRY PICKING WHAT TO FUND, WHAT TO RAISE TO FUND A CERTAIN PROJECT

[02:05:01]

OVER THE YEARS.

UH, YOU KNOW, I, AND, AND BY THE WAY, I DON'T, I I'M CERTAINLY AGAINST DELAYING THIS BECAUSE I THINK BY SEPTEMBER 5TH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE DEADLINE THAT WE NEED TO SUBMIT FOR A, UH, REFERENDUM QUESTION.

I DON'T, WE CAN'T WAIT.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE TODAY THROUGH THE JURY.

IT'S JULY 24TH.

OH, JULY 24TH.

SO IT'S EVEN MORE OF A, RIGHT.

'CAUSE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR OWN INTERNAL PROCEDURES.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY APPETITE, AT LEAST FOR ME TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH.

WE CAN'T IF WE WANNA MAKE THIS HAPPEN THIS YEAR.

THE COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO HAVE TWO HEARINGS IN ORDER TO ISSUE A GEO BOND.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE JUNE AND JULY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.

SO WE HAVE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TODAY.

NOW, THE DETAILS OF, OF WHAT WE FUND OBVIOUSLY CAN, IS, CAN HAPPEN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE EVERY COMMISSION IN, IN YEARS PAST, NOT US, NOT BLAMING US, IS THAT THEY, THERE'S A CRITICAL NEEDS PROJECT AND WE RAISE IT JUST FOR THAT PROJECT.

I DON'T WANT TO EVER HAVE TO VISIT THIS AGAIN, AT LEAST IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

AND CAN I SAY SOMETHING? AND WE'RE, IT'S GONNA GET, LIKE I SAID, IT'S GOING TO GET FUNDED.

IT'S EITHER GONNA GET FUNDED THROUGH A GEO BOND OR WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TELL THE RESIDENTS, LISTEN, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO, YOU DIDN'T WANNA DO THIS.

WE HAVE CRITICAL NEED INFRASTRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE TO FUND.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO EITHER DO IT THROUGH A WATER RATE AND, AND SURPASS THE FIVE SEVENS VOTE OR NOT.

BUT AT LEAST, AGAIN, I, I REALLY WANT TO SEE BUY-IN FROM THE RESIDENTS TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THEIR APPETITE IS ON THIS.

AND I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I THINK I WAS AT A COMMUNITY MEETING AND, AND SOMEONE SAID, WELL, THE REASON IT'S NOT GONNA PASS IS BECAUSE YOU, YOU'RE NOT SELLING KITTENS AND PUPPIES, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAST GEO BOND WAS.

I DON'T THINK SO.

I I HAVE A, I HAVE VERY GOOD FAITH IN OUR, IN OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR TAXPAYERS TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND THEY'RE GONNA DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING AND, AND, AND WANT TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

SO I, I THINK THAT'S A MUCH BETTER APPROACH.

I MEAN, IF YOU START BI BIFURCATING SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY GONNA BE FIVE, $10 A MONTH EXTRA.

YOU, YOU, YOU'RE PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, RIGHT? I, I DON'T, I WANT TO, I WANT THE WHOLE CITY TO BE A WINNER IN THIS THROUGH THE CHAIR.

AND MR. CHAIR, IF, IF THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER SALINAS AND THEN COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION HERE.

UM, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD, AND, AND I WANNA ADD BY THE WAY, THAT I ALSO ADVOCATED FOR THIS TO GO TO THE VOTERS BECAUSE I THINK OUR VOTERS ARE SMART AND I THINK THEY WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING.

AND AGAIN, IT, THIS IMPACTS AND AFFECTS AND IT HELPS THE WHOLE CITY.

SO I, I, I FEEL FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT THIS WOULD PASS.

I MEAN, WHO KNOWS? I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL, BUT I DO THINK OUR VOTERS ARE VERY, VERY SMART AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WE WOULD HAVE THEIR BUY-IN VERSUS NOT.

BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE WHAT IF WE, WHAT IF WE DID A REVENUE BOND FOR WATER SEWER RATE AND THEN DID THE GO BOND FOR STORM WATER? COULD WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JASON? UM, YEAH.

AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE RATES THERE WOULD BE, OKAY, LET ME, UM, YOU DID, YOU DID ASK ME THAT.

AND I'M TRYING TO DO A LITTLE BACK OF THE COCKTAIL NAPKIN, BUT YES, AND I THINK, 'CAUSE THERE'S PARTIES ON BOTH SIDES, RIGHT? UTILITY RATES AND, AND GEO.

AND THAT KIND OF SPLITS THE, THE MODEL A BIT.

BUT YES, THAT ABSOLUTELY COULD BE DONE.

THE STORMWATER COMPONENT, UM, IF IT WAS GEO, UH, WHICH IS ANTI FLOODING.

AND I THINK THAT'S ONE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE THE REVENUE BOND IS WATER AND SEWER.

THAT IS TRULY YOU.

YOU USE WHAT YOU PAY FOR, WHAT YOU USE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT CONCEPT.

I THINK THAT THAT PASSES SOME GOOD MUST.

UM, SO ON THE GEO SIDE, IT WE 337 MILLION ISH, UH, FOR STORM WATER.

AND IF I LOOKED AT, I JUST TRIED TO DO VERY BACK OF THE COCKTAIL NAPKIN FOR MY MODEL HERE AND TAKING THAT 3 37 INTO THE 7 83, WHICH IS THE TOTAL AND SPLITTING, THAT'S AROUND 43%.

SO IF I JUST TOOK THE, UM, TAX IMPACT, UH, TO THE MEDIAN OUT IN 2035, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST, IT WOULD BE ABOUT $84 A YEAR.

UM, AND IN 2029, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE AROUND $25 PER YEAR TO COVER THE STORM WATER COMPONENT BACK IN THE COCKTAIL NAPKIN, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND REFINE AND GET VERY SPECIFIC NUMBERS, WHICH WE COULD DO IF THIS COMES OUTTA COMMITTEE THIS WAY, UH, FOR, FOR FOR A COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

AND THEN ON THE UTILITY RATE SIDE, I THINK IN TALKING TO THE TEAM BEFOREHAND, AGAIN, BACK TO THE COCKTAIL NAPKIN, INSTEAD OF THAT AROUND $15 A MONTH, LET'S SAY, UM, IT WOULD BE CLOSER

[02:10:01]

TO HALF OF THAT AMOUNT, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE LIKE AT A SEVEN TO $8 PER MONTH RANGE IF YOU JUST COVERED WATER SEWER.

SO YOU CAN CUT THE UTILITY RATE INCREASES IN HALF BY DELIVERING THAT THROUGH REVENUE BONDS ON THE WATER SEWER SIDE AND ON THE STORM WATER SIDE, IF YOU ISSUED THAT AS GEO BOND, I, I THINK THAT'S A WAY OF HAVING MUCH LOWER RATE INCREASES THAN WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED.

UM, IT'S KIND OF SPLITS THE DIFFERENCE A LITTLE BIT.

IT, IT, IT SHARES ON THE PROPERTY TAX SIDE.

UM, AND IT GETS TO THAT MUTUAL BENEFIT KIND KIND OF SITUATION WHERE I, I THINK MAYBE FROM A VOTER'S PERSPECTIVE, FLOODING, THEY CAN REALLY, ESPECIALLY NOW, AND, AND THOSE OF US THAT LIVED HERE A LONG TIME, WHEREVER IT WAS DRY AND IT'S A LOT MORE WET, UM, MAYBE CAN GET BEHIND THAT PERSPECTIVE AND SAY, THIS IS GONNA TACKLE FLOODING CITYWIDE.

'CAUSE YOU GO FROM FIRST STREET TO NORTH SHORE D BUT WATER AND SEWER, IT'S, IT IS WHAT YOU USE.

YOU, YOU KNOW, I I TURN THE WATER OFF WHEN I'M BRUSHING MY TEETH.

YOU KNOW, LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT.

YOU HAD KINDA THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO MITIGATE THOSE COSTS.

SO THOSE ARE THE BACK OF THE COCKTAIL NAPKIN.

ABOUT HALF OF THE UTILITY RATES INCREASES WOULD BE CUT IN HALF BEFORE IT GETS TO CPI OUT IN 32.

AND MY VERY BACK OF THE COCKTAIL NAPKIN NUMBERS ARE, LET'S CALL IT AN $85 MAX, UH, MILLAGE FOR A MEDIAN HOMESTEADED, UH, PROPERTY VALUE.

SO YES, THAT IS A DEFINITE.

SO LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION JUMP ON, I'D LIKE MAKE A, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

COMMISSIONER BOT, UH, IT'S COMMISSIONER SALINAS, THEN FERNANDEZ THE BOT.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO BRING THAT TO THE FULL COMMISSION TO EXPLORE THAT MODEL.

YEAH, I'M FINE TO EXPLORE A LOT OF THINGS.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF STUFF AT THE END.

UM, COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ AND THEN COMMISSIONER BOT.

AND JUST, UM, JUST, JUST TWO POINTS.

UM, MR. CHAIR, I THINK, I THINK YOU, YOU BROUGHT FORWARD, UH, A CONCEPT WHERE, WHERE, WHERE YOU'RE BEING VERY, VERY RESPONSIBLE AND TAKING GREAT LEADERSHIP AND THINKING OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT, THAT TRULY ARE SHOVEL READY.

UH, IF, IF I COULD ASK THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR THE CFO, HOW MANY IPS DO WE ACTUALLY, UH, HAVE, UH, IN, IN THIS PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD TODAY FOR, FOR THE BOND, HOW MANY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WERE CONTEMPLATED IN IT? THERE WERE FIVE TOTAL.

IT'S FOUR, BUT TWO PHASES ON ONE OF THEM.

I THINK IT'S, YEAH, FIRST STREET, WEST, FIRST STREET, WEST AVENUE, UH, NORTH SHORE, D NORMANDY.

AND I THINK, AND THEN JUST SO YOU KNOW, ON THE CASH SIDE, IT'S NOT IN THE DEBT MODEL, BUT THERE IS DESIGN WORK FOR ONE OR TWO OTHER ONES.

THIS HANDFUL OF PROJECTS, THESE ARE TRULY READY, SHOVEL READY, AND WE ACTUALLY, UH, MAY PUT OURSELVES IN A WORSE, IN A WORSE FISCAL POSITION BECAUSE WE'LL LOSE STATE FUNDING IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD ON THOSE NOW AND LOOK AT WHAT THE RATE INCREASE WOULD BE ON THAT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WORK ON EVERYTHING ELSE THROUGH A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND THAT WOULD ALSO BE, UM, OF A LESSER IMPACT TO THE RESIDENTS.

UH, FLAMINGO AND NAUTILUS, AND I MAY HAVE SOME OF THEM OFF, BUT, UH, SO THERE IS DESIGN WORK 'CAUSE WE CAN'T, WE DON'T WANNA, UH, ISSUE GEO BOND.

'CAUSE THAT WAS THAT MODEL FOR, FOR DESIGN NOT CONSTRUCTION.

SO THEREFORE, AND BEFORE COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ MAKES HIS COMMENTS, I'LL PUT ANOTHER THING IN THAT I THINK HE'LL ALLUDE TO AS WELL THAT WENT INTO MY THINKING WHEN LOOKING AT THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECTS IS WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF STATE FUNDING FOR THOSE TWO PROJECTS.

FIRST STREET AND WEST AVENUE, WHERE IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD, WE LOSE THOSE, THOSE TOTAL $55 MILLION, RIGHT? MM-HMM .

SO IF WE DON'T DO THOSE PROJECTS IMMEDIATELY, WE WE'RE IN DANGER OF LOSING THAT STATE FUNDING.

SO IT'S NOT JUST SHOVEL READY, BUT THOSE TWO PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY, WE HAVE $55 MILLION OF STATE FUNDING THAT COULD DRY UP IF THIS GETS VOTED DOWN AND WE, UH, DON'T HAVE A PATHWAY FORWARD.

SO BEGRUDGINGLY, I'D BE FINE SENDING THIS BROADER SWATH TO THE ELECTORATE, BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO NOT MAKE A HARD DECISION AND RISK $55 MILLION IN STATE FUNDING.

SO COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU WITH JUST ADDING THAT, UH, ADDITIONAL COMPONENT AS WELL.

YEAH, I, I MEAN I THINK I, I I THINK YOU ARE, YOU'RE BEING VERY REASONABLE.

WHERE, WHERE PERHAPS WE IDENTIFY, OKAY, WHICH ARE THE, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE HANDFUL OR YOU KNOW, THESE VERY FEW LOW HANGING, UH, FRUIT PROJECTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, READY TO, TO SHOVEL READY, SHOVEL READY TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND WE'RE, WE MAY EVEN HAVE, UH, FUNDING THAT WE MAY LOSE AND IDENTIFY THOSE SEGREGATE THOSE, YOU KNOW, PROCEED, UH, WITH A REVENUE, UH, BOND ON THOSE BECAUSE THE IMPACT ON THE, ON THE CUSTOMER, ON OUR USERS, UH, WOULDN'T BE AS SIGNIFICANT.

BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM IS THE RATE INCREASE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US.

THE, THE, THE, THE SHEER SIGNIFICANCE OF IT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A THOUSAND DOLLARS, YOU KNOW, WITHIN A FEW YEARS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS TO, TO, TO OUR RESIDENTS ON SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THE LUXURY WATER AND SEWER IS A BARE NECESSITY AND THEY CAN'T DO WITHOUT IT.

AND SO, SO WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A THOUSAND DOLLARS, THAT IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT.

NOW, IF WE GO BACK AND WE SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE

[02:15:01]

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

I'LL BE OPEN-MINDED, UM, BE BECAUSE I SEE, I, I SEE THE MERIT IN THAT MR. CHAIR, UH, AND I'M, AND I'M WILLING TO, TO, TO, TO BE OPEN-MINDED ON IT.

UH, I ALSO LIKED THE IDEA, UM, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MATTEL SALINAS WAS JUST PUTTING OUT THERE.

UH, I WANNA HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS IDEA ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, FOCUSING STORM WATER ON, ON, ON THE BOND.

I, I KNOW THAT'S INCLUDED NOW.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I LIKE DOING STORM WATER THROUGH THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND IS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS, THIS ERU SYSTEM FOR, FOR, FOR STORM WATER WHERE WE RELY ON THESE CLASSIFICATIONS AND FORMULAS THAT MIGHT NOT REALLY CAPTURE THE DIFFERENCE IN HOW DIFFERENT HOMES AND DIFFERENT PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT LOG COVERAGES USE, UH, THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

AND EVERYONE'S PRETTY MUCH PAYING THE SAME, UH, TOWARDS IT NO MATTER HOW MORE SIGNIFICANT THEIR IMPACT IS.

UH, AND SO I ALWAYS LIKED THE IDEA OF THE STORM WATER, UH, SYSTEM BEING THROUGH A BOND BECAUSE IT'LL BE MORE EQUITABLE IN ITS DISTRIBUTION OF THE, OF THE, OF THE IMPACT.

BUT MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO PUT IN THERE, I KIND OF LIKE WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH THAT, BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAINLY, NOT ALL PROJECTS ARE THE SAME AND THEY'RE NOT ALL IN IN THE SAME PHASES.

AND I DO THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE THAT MIGHT BE MORE URGENT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.

JOHN, WE HAVE JOHN .

I'M SORRY, I THINK, I THINK I WAS GONNA BE UP NEXT.

COMMISSIONER B AND COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.

THANK YOU JOE.

UM, I, I, UM, JUST WANNA ADD TO YOUR LIST OF $55 MILLION AT RISK.

UM, IT'S ANOTHER $10 MILLION FOR NORTH SHORE DEEP, SO, UM, JUST SO WE'RE ALL OPERATING.

YEAH, THAT WAS AN EXHAUST OF THO THOSE ARE, UH, NO, NO, I KNOW.

YEAH, I'M FINE.

THAT'S, THAT'S, YEAH.

SO, UM, THE OTHER THING IS, I WANTED TO ECHO MONICA'S, I KNOW I CAN'T VOTE ON THIS, BUT I ABSOLUTELY CO-SIGN HER IDEA OF COMING BACK AND BIFURCATING THESE, WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT BIFURCATING THINGS, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT CHOOSING PROJECTS AND WINNERS AND LOSERS, BUT TYPES OF PROJECTS WHICH ARE MORE URGENT.

AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, BIFURCATING THE WAY MONICA HAS SUGGESTED IT'S FEELS EXACTLY RIGHT TO ME.

SO I REALLY ENCOURAGED THE VOTING MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO, TO TAKE THAT UP AND BRING THAT BACK.

COMMISSIONER SCHWARZ.

JOHN, JUST , JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, SORRY, WE'RE TRYING TO, THE, THE GRANT FUNDING PORTION ARE, ARE WE AT RISK OR IS IT STILL OKAY? AS LONG AS WE'RE WORKING? SO FOR NORTH SHORE D IN PARTICULAR, THAT GRANT FUNDING IS FOR DESIGN.

CURRENTLY WE ARE LOOKING AT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION, BUT FROM THE DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, WE SHOULD BE OKAY AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS FINISHED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD, WHICH IT'S ON TRACK FIFTH, FOR EXAMPLE.

I'M SORRY, ALL OF THE PROJECTS, WELL, WELL FOR NO, FOR, UH, FIRST STREET, THAT DOES HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

WE WILL RUN OUT OF TIME IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.

WHAT IS THE TIMELINE? I, WELL, I THINK, I THINK WHAT HE'S ASKING IS WE WOULD BE AT RISK ON THE WEST AVENUE AND THE FIRST STREET IF WE'RE JUST NOT GONNA BUILD IT BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE FINANCING MECHANISM AS FOR, UH, DELIVERANCE, UH, OF THAT I BELIEVE, UH, FIRST STREET, UH, IS IN DESIGN AND PERMITTING.

UM, AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT YOU WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO BE MAYBE IN CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS.

I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN 9 18 20 OH, 2029.

SO THIS PERMIT FEES WE HAVE TIME, WE'RE NOT GONNA LOSE GRANT FUNDING IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.

IF WE, FOR, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, WE WANT TO GO TO A GEO BOND TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS FUNDED THROUGH THROUGH THE OPERATING.

IT, IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA LOSE IT IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, CORRECT? NO, NO.

NOT THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.

NO.

YEAH, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT.

SO, SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, AT LEAST UNTIL 2029, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE OKAY BECAUSE IT'S IN THAT PROJECT'S IN, IN PER IN PERMITTING, UH, NORTH SHORE D IS OUT OF, IS OUT OF, UH, PRETTY MUCH OUT OF FUNDS.

SO STARTING JULY 1ST, THAT PROJECT WILL BE PUT ON PAUSE UNTIL WE, UH, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFY.

'CAUSE IT'S A BIG NUMBER, IT'S LIKE $135 MILLION FOR THE NEXT PIECE.

UM, AND THEN, UH, WEST AVENUE IS THERE.

I I SOLELY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE DEFERRING THIS TO NEXT MONTH.

SO LOOK, WE, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

UM,

[02:20:01]

'CAUSE WE'RE, WE, WE WILL, WE WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT.

WE CAN DISCUSS IT BETWEEN NOW AND THERE IS A MOTION, WELL, MY MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS TO BRING THIS TO THE COMMISSION.

AND IT, BUT IT WAS BI BIFURCATING THE STORM WATER.

WELL, HOW ABOUT WE THAT BE A BOND? HOW ABOUT WE, HOW ABOUT WE HAVE STAFF BRING ALL THE OPTIONS AND WE DECIDE AT THE COMMISSION OKAY.

BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, FOR BE A LIVE OPTION.

WHEN I SEE THOSE FACES, I KNOW TO LET THIS GUY TALK.

NO, I'VE, I'VE, A LOT OF OPTIONS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.

THERE'S BEEN SUGGESTED DIRECTION AS FAR AS US RANKING WHAT'S CRITICAL.

AND THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, DOING THOSE, THAT'S THE BULK OF THE ASK.

WATER AND SEWER IS PRIORITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE OBLIGATED AS A UTILITY TO DELIVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

SO IF ANYBODY ASKS ME WHAT'S CRITICAL IN HERE, SO, SO CAN YOU SEND A LETTER TO COMMISSION BREAKING THOSE OUT, BREAKING OUT THE WATER AND SEWER CRITICAL NEEDS? YES.

JUST THOSE.

YEAH, WE CAN, IF WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE THOSE PROJECTS, UH, AND BREAK THOSE COSTS INTO THE WATER SOURCE.

STORM WATER.

SOME PROJECTS INCLUDE BOTH, CORRECT.

THE N THE NIP SPECIFICALLY, YOU HAVE TO DO BOTH.

AND THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT ON, ON THE SIDE.

AND IF I CAN, TRYING TO, I THINK WE HAVE A PATH TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION A BIT AT THE COMMISSION, BUT TRY TO REFINE THIS DOWN INTO A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FORWARD TO THAT IS I, I KNOW THERE WAS A MOTION THAT WAS SECOND TO TECH THAT WAS, WAS RETURN TO COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION REPAIR GEO BOMB BALLOT QUESTION FOR STORM WATER, UH, AND TO INCREASE UTILITY RATES FOR WATER AND SEWER.

THAT BEING SAID, UH, AS PART OF THE ITEM, THE OTHER OPTIONS CAN BE, I THINK WITH COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE, UH, WAS SPEAKING ABOUT, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ AND BOT WERE WEIGHING IN ALSO, IS WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF WE JUST, UH, RAN A MODEL TO, IF I CAN, NOT EVEN WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

UH, MY, MY MOTION, UM, WILL BE CARVING OUT FIRST STREET, WEST AVENUE BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE ONE YARD LINE AND WE HAVE $55 MILLION IN GRANT MONEY FOR THAT.

SO EVEN IF VOTER SAID NO, I'D SAY WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT ANYWAY.

BECAUSE WE'LL LOSE $55 MILLION.

IT MAY NOT BE FOR SIX MONTHS, BUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY SAID NO TO THE BROADER, UH, MENU, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN, WE WOULD NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT.

SO LET'S JUST DO THAT NOW THROUGH THE UTILITY.

THAT'LL BE DE MINIMIS.

$3, $4 PER MONTH.

WE CAN FIND OFFSETTING OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND.

WE'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THAT NO MATTER WHAT.

SO LET'S CARVE THAT OUT AND START THAT PROCESS.

RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR 10 YEARS.

LET'S JUST DO THAT.

RIGHT? WE, WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.

NOT ONLY ARE WE AT THE ONE YARD LINE, BUT WE HAVE $55 MILLION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP.

SO LET'S JUST ADMIT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

COME HELL OR HIGH WATER, SORRY FOR THE PUN.

UM, IF THERE'S OTHER PROJECTS LIKE THAT, I'M HAPPY TO SEE THE ADMINISTRATION GIVEN THOSE, YOU KNOW, UH, KIND OF DIRECTIONS THAT I PUT IN PLACE WHERE WE'RE AT THE ONE YARD LINE, VERY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STATE FUNDING THAT COULD BE AT RISK.

HIGHLIGHT THOSE IF THEY EXIST AND WE COULD CONSIDER THEM.

BUT AT LEAST FOR THOSE TWO PROJECTS, FIRST STREET AND WEST AVENUE, I WANT TO CALL THAT.

AND NORMANDY NORTH SHORE D PLEASE.

WELL, I, I WILL LEAVE THAT TO JASON UP BECAUSE THERE, THERE'S A DIFFERENT COMPONENT WHERE IT'S LIKE, THAT'S A DESIGN, BUT I WANNA LEAVE THAT TO THE EXPERTS TO EXPLAIN, NOT ME.

UM, BUT FOR THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE TWO WHERE WE'RE AT THE ONE YARD LINE WHERE WEST AVENUE'S GONNA HAPPEN NEXT WEEK, , RIGHT? WELL, NEXT MONTH HOPEFULLY.

UH, UM, BUT FOR THOSE TWO, THAT'LL BE MY MOTION OKAY.

TO SEND THOSE THAT WE VOTE TO MOVE THOSE, UH, PROJECTS FORWARD WITH FUNDING THROUGH, UM, UTILITY BONDS.

AND THEN SEND THE BROADER PACKAGE AS AN OPTION.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

AS AN OPTION.

AS AN OPTION AND AS AN, YEAH.

ANY OTHER OPTION? IS THE HOLY SHEBANG ON A YES.

IF I, IF I MAY.

UH, YES.

SO WE'LL, WE'LL DO, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER SALINAS, UH, ATE SALINAS'S, UH, MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUAREZ WITH THE ADD-ON TO PREPARE OTHER OPTIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO.

UH, AND ALL UTILITY RATE, UH, UTILITY RATE INCREASE, UH, COST TO ENSURE FIRST STREET AND WEST AVENUE, UH, WOULD BE CA UH, PAID FOR AND, AND UM, PERHAPS AN OPTION THAT FUNDS OTHER IMPORTANT SHOVEL, UH, SHOVEL READY OR DESIGN READY PROJECTS AS A TERM OF PUBLIC WORKS.

SO YOU HAVE SOME OPTION, YOU HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY PERHAPS TO LOOK THROUGH THAT CRITICAL NEEDS OF ULTRA CRITICAL NEEDS.

UM, 'CAUSE THERE'S SOME DOT WORK THAT WE ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED YES.

TO FIND MONEY FOR.

SO LET'S HAVE A, WE'LL CALL IT A PUBLIC WORK SLIMED DOWN, VERY SLIMED DOWN MODEL TO SEE WHAT UTILITY RATE, NOT EVEN OZEMPIC.

I MEAN LIKE REDDIT, TRU TIDE, SLIM DOWN .

OKAY, SO CAN I CLARIFY WEST AVENUE PHASE THREE, JUST FOR THE RECORD AND FIRST STREET, PHASE

[02:25:01]

ONE AND TWO.

YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

IS IT WEST AVENUE PHASE? 'CAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS DESIGNED, I BELIEVE ALL FOUR PHASES ARE IN ARE.

SO TELL ME ONE, ARE THERE ONLY TWO FOR FIRST STREET OR ARE THERE THREE? THERE'S FOUR PHASES.

THREE AND FOUR ONE.

AND TOGETHER.

TOGETHER THE ONES THAT ARE MISSION CRITICAL, RIGHT? ONE AND TWO, NOT THE THREE AND FOUR.

AND THAT WILL GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO LEAVE HERE AND GO START PAVING WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM FIFTH STREET TO FIRST STREET.

OKAY? 'CAUSE THREE AND FOUR ARE NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

OKAY? THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO LET'S JUST ADMIT THAT.

NOW LET'S FUND ONE AND TWO.

MM-HMM LET'S PAVE WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM FIFTH, UH, SECOND, WHICH I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA DO 'CAUSE THERE WAS A COMMISSION, UH, ITEM.

AND, BUT IT'S THINGS LIKE THAT WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE INCLUDING FOR THIS REVENUE BLOCK.

'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT $5 BILLION AND IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT WE CAN GET 95% OF THE WAY THERE BY BEING REALISTIC AND FUNDING THINGS LIKE PHASE ONE AND TWO.

AND THEN WE CAN ALSO MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY.

DOES ANYBODY SEE WHAT A DIFFERENCE PAVING 17TH STREET MAKE IT? IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE LIVE IN AMERICA.

IT, IT IS BEAUTIFUL, RIGHT? BUT THE BANG FOR OUR BUCK THAT WE GOT FROM THAT, JOHN, THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM.

INCREDIBLE WORK.

YOU DID LET, LET'S SEE THAT ON, ON WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM FIFTH TO, I GUESS CALL IT FIRST STREET, RIGHT THERE.

IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT, RIGHT? SO DOING THIS HIGHLIGHTING THE CRITICAL PROJECTS THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ALSO ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY.

GOTCHA.

AND SO, SO WE WILL, WE'LL SHOW THAT MOTION.

THE GEO AND STORMWATER UTILITY RATES ARE WATER AND SEWER IS OPTION ONE.

OPTION TWO WILL BE THE ONE WE SPOKE ABOUT.

FIRST STREET, PHASE ONE AND TWO AND WEST AVENUE, UH, AS A UTILITY RATE.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A THIRD OPTION, WHICH WE'LL CALL THE PUBLIC WORKS SUPER SLIM DOWN OPTION.

I'LL COME UP WITH A MORE, UH, FOR NATALIE ON THE MINUTES.

WE'LL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FINE TERM.

ALSO CORE.

NOTHING BESIDES THE, UH, WASTEWATER, WELL THE WATER SEWER, BUT PROBABLY NOT STORM WATER, BUT WE'LL WE WILL, IT'LL GIVE PUBLIC WORKS FLEXIBILITY.

WHAT STORM WATER, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO GO, CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE, IT'LL BE, THAT'LL BE A PUBLIC WORKS WILL DELIVER A THIRD OR FOURTH OPTION.

UH, AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM UTILITIES.

AND JASON, ARE YOU JA, JASON, CAN YOU, CAN YOU MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT HAS PUBLIC FUNDING THAT IS NOT COMING FROM THE CITY IS INCLUDED IN ONE OF YOUR CRITICAL OPTIONS.

YOU KNOW, SLIM DOWN, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT.

BUT I WANNA SEE EVERYTHING THAT IS HAS MONEY AT RISK THAT WE YES, COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CHAIR'S INTENT WAS THAT HIS OPTION OR ANY OTHER OPTION WOULD INCLUDE THAT WE WE'RE NOT LOSING MONEY THROUGH A GRANT.

SO ANYTHING THAT'S GRANT FUNDED, WE'LL MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE MODEL.

ALRIGHT.

JASON, DO YOU HAVE AN $80 MILLION REVENUE BOND THAT YOU'RE ALSO WISHING FOR WATER AND SEWER? UH, THERE, THERE IS A, THERE'S ALREADY A STANDING, A DECLARATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE FOR, UH, $85 MILLION, WHICH WAS ABOUT A YEAR OR SO AGO, WHICH I WILL BE ISSUING.

BUT THE EXISTING MODEL HAD THE CAPACITY FOR THAT.

THESE RATE INCREASES WOULD NOT BE, UH, WHAT IS THAT FOR? THE, THERE WAS A, A A, I THINK IT FUNDED ALL OF 2020 FIVES OR 20 SIXES, UM, UH, WATER SEWER NEEDS AT THAT TIME.

IT WAS A LAUNDRY LIST OF, OF PROJECTS.

SO I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER, UH, MONICA SALINAS, UH, AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, SUAREZ.

MAY I CALL THE FINAL VOTE, UH, CHAIR? YES.

UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

ITEM PASSES THREE TO NOTHING.

SO WE'RE GONNA HEAR THIS IN JIM.

GREAT.

OH, YIPE.

THIS WILL BE FUN HAVING THIS WITH SEVEN PEOPLE.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU ALL.

UM, IF WE WRAP THIS UP EARLY, JOHN, CAN WE, UH, MEAN YOU'LL GO OUT TO WASHINGTON AVENUE AND GET THIS STARTED OR WHAT? WE'RE GETTING THERE.

THEY'RE FINISHING UP 17TH.

TRULY APPRECIATE, APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THEN ALTON COURT HAS ANOTHER, UH, ANOTHER REQUEST.

AND THEN WASHINGTON.

I KNOW YOU ARE BEING PULLED IN A MILLION DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

IT LITERALLY NOW AS YOU'RE WALKING AWAY FROM THE PODIUM AND BEING PULLED BACK, LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY BEING PULLED IN A MILLION DIRECTIONS.

I DON'T PASS THAT ALL.

THERE'S PROBABLY NOBODY IN MORE OF A POLITICAL WORLD STORM THAN YOU AND YOUR DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW.

STICK WITH US.

WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS AS CRITICAL TO OUR CITY AS POSSIBLE.

YOU ARE A RESIDENT THAT IS IN THE THICK OF THIS AS BOTH AN EMPLOYEE AND A RESIDENT.

AND WE THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR THE SERVICE.

CHAIR.

ARE WE DONE? NO, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THE SAME ABOUT YOU JASON.

MY GOODNESS.