Jul 17, 2026 Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee

321. GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO OUR FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE MEETING.

[00:00:08]

THANK YOU SO MUCH TO ALL MY COLLEAGUES, TO THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE.

I'LL JUST SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS BEFORE TURNING IT OVER TO TO COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE.

FIRST OF ALL, BIG SHOUT OUT TO OUR ENTIRE CITY, CITY STAFF, OUR RESIDENTS FOR AN INCREDIBLE WORLD CUP.

WE'RE ALL, WE'RE ALL FEELING. WE'RE ALL FEELING THE ENERGY AND THE PASSION AND THE VIBES. AND WHEN YOU'RE WALKING AROUND AND I'M GOING TO WHAT I'M HEARING, I'M SURE WE'RE ALL HEARING IT.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME THEY'RE FLYING INTO MIAMI BEACH FROM AROUND THE WORLD, FROM AROUND OUR COUNTRY, JUST TO BE HERE, NOT ONLY TO WATCH THE ACTUAL GAME, BUT ACTUALLY TO JUST BE HERE FOR A WATCH PARTY.

THAT IS INCREDIBLE. AND WE'VE REALLY SHOWCASED OUR CITY AND WE ARE A WORLD CLASS CITY.

BUT CERTAINLY THIS HAS ELEVATED US IN A BIG WAY.

SO THANK YOU FOR, FOR ALL THE THE ENTIRE CITY POLICE, FIRE, SANITATION, I MEAN, RIGHT, THAT NORTH BEACH PARTY THERE WAS, I MEAN, YOU HAD FIVE, 6000 PEOPLE. AND BY THE NEXT MORNING IT WAS IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WAS ANYTHING GOING ON THERE THE NIGHT BEFORE.

SO, SO GREAT WORK. WE THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT THIS, THIS BUDGET, WE ARE IN A UNIQUE POSITION AND WORKING FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH.

SO WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF AREAS WHERE WE CAN STREAMLINE, WHERE IT CAN BE LEANER WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT WE HAD A SURPLUS LAST YEAR.

I'M GUESSING WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE A SURPLUS THIS YEAR.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ISSUES LIKE WHETHER WE SHOULD EITHER KEEP THE MILLAGE RATE STABLE OR LOWER IT.

MANY CITIES ARE NOT IN THAT LUXURY LUXURY POSITION WHERE THEY HAVE TO RAISE TAXES.

WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY EVEN POTENTIALLY LOWERING IT OR KEEPING IT STABLE.

SO WE AS WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS THAT THIS IS A POSITION OF STRENGTH AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO MAKE OUR CITY EVEN MORE EFFICIENT.

AND FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THIS FROM JASON, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ISSUES WHERE OUR, WE HAVE ASKED FOR A BUDGET THAT HAS POTENTIAL $21 MILLION IN CUTS, BUT IN, IN ESSENTIALLY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, WE NEED 7 MILLION, WHICH IS, WHICH IS MUCH MORE ATTAINABLE.

SO AGAIN, A POSITION, A POSITION OF STRENGTH THAT WE WE ARE WORKING FROM.

I'M VERY PROUD OF OUR CITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

THE ONE THING I WILL SAY, AND I THINK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES SHARE THIS AND AND I WILL FIGHT THIS TO THE MAX.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE ARE GOING TO DO IN THIS BUDGET THAT CUTS SERVICES IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR RESIDENTS.

I MEAN, THIS IS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE, A SAFE CITY, A CLEAN CITY.

WE HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO GET TO THIS POINT WHERE WE HAVE IMPROVED OUR CITY.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT'S GOING TO HURT THAT, OR ANY RESIDENT IS GOING TO NOTICE ANY ANY CUTS IN SERVICES.

AND WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN DO ALL OF THAT. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SITTING HERE GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET.

SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU TO OUR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE.

THANK YOU TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE. I TRULY BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT AND CONSEQUENTIAL MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR CALENDAR.

THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WE'LL BE REVIEWING OUR OPERATING BUDGET HERE AND SETTING US ON THE PATH.

I'LL ECHO THE COMMENTS AND SENTIMENT THAT THE MAYOR MADE.

WE DO TACKLE THIS PROCESS. HAVE WE, AS WE HAVE IN EACH OF THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THROUGH A POSITION OF FINANCIAL STRENGTH, OUR RESERVES ARE AT RECORD LEVELS. WE HAVE FULLY FUNDED A RESERVE POSITIONS BOTH IN THE GENERAL FUND AND WITHIN OUR RESORT TAXES.

SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO HERE IS SIMILAR IN YEARS PAST WHERE WE ARE LOOKING TO RUN A MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR THAT IS SPENT BY THIS BODY.

AND I TRULY BELIEVE THAT BEING RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER MONEY IS OUR UTMOST HIGHEST PRIORITY, ALONG WITH PUBLIC SAFETY FOR OUR RESIDENTS. BEING RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THAT COMES WITH A TREMENDOUS DEAL OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND I'M VERY PROUD OF THIS COMMISSION OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS FOR REALLY BEING ONE OF THE FIRST TO TRULY TAKE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY.

THIS YEAR IS ALSO COMPOUNDED WITH THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN TALLAHASSEE THROUGH THE VOTER REFERENDUM THAT WILL OCCUR IN MARCH, THAT COULD TAKE FURTHER REVENUE AND RESOURCES AWAY FROM OUR CITIES.

WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT. WE WILL REACT BOTH PROACTIVE AND REACTIVELY AND ADDRESS THAT AS IT COMES IN.

HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE A DERELICTION OF DUTY IF WE AT LEAST DIDN'T START PLANNING FOR THAT.

AND WHAT I'M PROUD OF IS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS COMING ON THE BALLOT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, OUR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACTUALLY LEAVES US IN A BETTER POSITION THAN JUST REACTING TO THIS AS A NEW,

[00:05:07]

WE ARE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT A $7 MILLION DEFICIT.

AND WE'VE BEEN PREPARING FOR THESE MOMENTS WHERE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN SEEING DATA THAT SHOWS A DECELERATION IN THE GROWTH OF PROPERTY VALUES. AND FROM EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SEE KIND OF AROUND OUR ECOSYSTEM, I EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE.

SO WHAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING TO DO HERE IS CONTINUE MANAGING PROACTIVELY RATHER THAN REACTIVELY, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T FIND OURSELVES IN A POSITION ONE DAY WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE MASSIVE, MASSIVE CUTS BECAUSE WE HADN'T BEEN FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND PREPARING FOR THIS FOR YEARS IN ADVANCE.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JASON TAMAKI.

YOU HAVE QUITE A ROBUST PRESENTATION HERE. WHAT I'M GOING TO LOOK TO DO IS REALLY STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS HERE FOR THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE KIND OF UNANIMOUSLY OR SOMEWHAT CONSENSUS ON, LET'S NOT BEAT THOSE TO DEATH. LET'S ESSENTIALLY LOOK TO STREAMLINE THIS.

THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR EVERYBODY TO GET COMMENTS IN, BUT FOR THE THINGS THAT WE MAY NOT NEED TO DISCUSS AD NAUSEAM, LET'S AT LEAST MOVE THROUGH THOSE EFFICIENTLY.

ECHO THE MAYOR'S SENTIMENTS. THAT NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS NOT CUTTING SERVICES TO RESIDENTS, RIGHT? WHILE WE WANT TO BE AND WILL BE FISCALLY DISCIPLINED, WE ALSO LIVE IN THIS INCREDIBLY UNIQUE PLACE THAT SOME OF THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE TO RESIDENTS ARE UNIQUE TO ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, THE ARTS AND CULTURE, OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR CLEANLINESS, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HOLD IN THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES.

AND WE WILL NOT LOOK TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE CUTS WHERE THAT WOULD BE NOTICEABLE TO OUR RESIDENTS OR TO OUR CITY.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER. MR. CITY MANAGER.

SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

THANK YOU TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MEETINGS OF THE YEAR, AS YOU MENTIONED, CHAIR THIS IS OUR BUDGET DISCUSSION.

BUDGET IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POLICY DOCUMENT THAT ANY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT PUTS TOGETHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.

THIS SETS OUR PRIORITIES. IT SETS OUR SERVICE LEVEL, AND IT SETS THE SERVICES THAT WE DELIVER TO A COMMUNITY.

I AM EXTREMELY PROUD OF THE TEAM THAT PUT THIS TOGETHER, INCLUDING ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS.

THIS WAS A CHALLENGING PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THIS COMMISSION, WE HAVE PREPARED A LIST OF ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED TODAY THAT COULD DELIVER A ROLLED BACK BUDGET.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY SOME ITEMS IN THERE THAT ARE EASIER THAN OTHERS TO DISCUSS.

BUT SOME OF THEM ARE VERY CHALLENGING. AND SO I LOOK FORWARD TO A ROBUST DISCUSSION TODAY.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO DELIVER EFFICIENT SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY AND DELIVERING THE WORLD CLASS EXPECTATIONS THAT THIS COMMUNITY HAS WITH THIS WORLD CLASS TEAM OF MUNICIPAL PROFESSIONALS.

THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

SO WE WILL GET STARTED. SO PJ, IF YOU COULD BRING UP THE POWERPOINT AND WE JUST ADDED ONE SLIDE HERE JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PROPERTY VALUES,

[NB 1. FISCAL YEAR 2027 PRELIMINARY OPERATING BUDGET AND MILLAGE RATE]

SO, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED THIS PROCESS BACK IN DECEMBER.

THIS IS ALMOST A ALMOST PRETTY MUCH A 12 MONTH OR TEN MONTH PROCESS.

IN JANUARY WE HAD DEPARTMENTS SUBMIT THEIR BUDGETS.

IN DECEMBER WE WERE GIVEN THAT DIRECTION ON THE ROLLBACK, SO THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK TO GET DONE. DEPARTMENTS ARE SUBMITTING THEIR PRELIMINARY REQUESTS BACK IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY THROUGH APRIL WERE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW LEVEL REVIEWS, REVIEWS WITH THE OMB DEPARTMENT, REVIEWS WITH THE CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT. AS WE CONTINUE TO REFINE AND REFINE AND REFINE TO GET TO THE ELEMENT. WE ARE HERE BACK IN MAY.

AS YOU REMEMBER, WE HAD OUR BUDGET RETREAT WHERE WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THESE TOPICS OFF SITE AT A HIGH LEVEL POSITION.

IN JUNE, WE DEALT WITH CAPITAL. THAT WAS OUR PRELIMINARY CAPITAL.

AND HERE WE ARE TODAY, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TACKLE AN IN DEPTH ON OUR OPERATING WITH A SMALL CAPITAL UPDATE AT THE END.

AND THEN NEXT WEDNESDAY, THE COMMISSION WILL SET THAT TENTATIVE MAXIMUM.

THE FINAL MILLAGE WILL NOT BE SET UNTIL SEPTEMBER BECAUSE WE'RE STILL HERE MID-JULY.

THE BUDGET DOESN'T GO IN EFFECT UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST, SO STILL SOME TIME IN THAT AREA.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO OBVIOUSLY TRY TO GO THROUGH IS ALL THESE ELEMENTS IS THE CHAIR HAD MENTIONED, SEE WHERE WE HAVE CONSENSUS WHO DO NOT HAVE CONSENSUS AND, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET A FEELING ON WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE SET ON THAT MAXIMUM MILEAGE THAT WE WANT TO BE ON THE TRIM. NOTICE THE FINAL DECISION WILL BE DONE IN SEPTEMBER.

SO LET'S GET RIGHT A LITTLE BIT INTO THE UPDATE ON THE PROPERTY VALUES.

AS WE GO THROUGH THE HISTORY OF WHERE WE MOVE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

[00:10:03]

YOU SEE, WE'RE A LITTLE ABOVE SUNNY ISLES, BUT BELOW SOME OF OUR OUR MAINLAND COUNTERPARTS.

SO JULY 1ST WE GOT THE CERTIFIED VALUES ON JULY 1ST, AND WE STAYED ABOUT THE SAME IN 3.5% AND A LITTLE BIT IN A FEW SLIDES.

TAMEKA WILL GET INTO SOME SPECIFICS OF A LITTLE SURPRISE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ROLLBACK.

THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT UNEXPECTED, BUT OVERALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR BALANCED BUDGET, WE WERE PRETTY MUCH HELD STEADY AT THAT 3.5%.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU. I'LL TRY TO SPEAK UP.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO THIS IS ONE FOR THE CHAIR AND ASKED.

THIS IS JUST AGAIN SHOWING OUR 3.5%. AND THE PERCENTAGE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION IS A TOTAL AROUND ABOUT A 1% INCREASE RELATED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THESE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES WE'VE SEEN BEFORE, THIS IS JUST SHOWING OVER A LONG TIME SPAN HOW TRENDS AND PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES OR DECREASES KIND OF EBB AND FLOW.

AND YOU SEE, WE ARE WHAT APPEARS TO BE ON, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY TOWARDS PERHAPS A 0%.

SO WHAT WE'RE SHOWING AHEAD IS NOT NECESSARILY A RED LIGHT.

IT'S IT'S KIND OF A FLASHING YELLOW. IT'S CAUTION.

SO LET'S BE CAUTIOUS AS WE MOVE FORWARD FOR THIS YEAR AND INTO, YOU KNOW, EVEN INTO FY 28.

SO HERE'S OUR EXISTING PROPERTY VALUE CHAIN FOR OUR OUR EXISTING PROPERTIES 2.6% AGAIN, BASICALLY ALONG THE SAME TREND LINES.

AND THEN NEW CONSTRUCTION, VERY SPIKY. YOU CAN SEE WE HAD $500 MILLION IN NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MILLAGE RATES.

SO WHERE WE WERE BACK ON JUNE 1ST. THIS IS WHERE WE WERE SHOWING OUR FLAT OPERATING MILLAGE AND WE WERE HAVING A SLIGHT DECREASE IN THE VOTED BOND DEBT SERVICE BASED ON THE VALUATION INCREASE WE HAD JUNE 1ST, COME JULY 1ST, WHEN THE NEW VALUES CAME IN.

AND THIS THIS SLIDE REPRESENTS THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION STANCE ON THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE AND THE.

THE MILLAGE, EVEN IN SEPTEMBER IS RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION WITH SEVERAL CAUTION FLAGS GOING FORWARD AGAIN FOR NEXT YEAR.

THAT CONCERN WITH OUR DECREASING INCREASES IN OUR PROPERTY VALUES AND THE IMPACT OF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WILL IMPACT OUR PROPERTY VALUES AND OUR REVENUE AND OUR ABILITY TO. ON REVENUES THERE.

SO WE HAVE A LOT OF CAUTION GOING FORWARD. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO STAY THE COURSE WHEN IT COMES TO THE FLAT OPERATING.

BUT WE ARE OKAY WITH RECOMMENDING A WAIVER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL POLICY ELEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE VOTED BOND DEBT SERVICE.

AFTER THE FINAL NUMBERS CAME IN AND AFTER WE CLOSED THE BOOKS, AS IT WERE ON FY 25, THE AUDITED NUMBERS, THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL SURPLUS IN THAT VOTED DEBT SERVICE FUND.

SO WE WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO SHOW A SLIGHTLY INCREASED DECREASE TO THE MILLAGE RATE OF 0.0086.

AGAIN, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RECOMMENDATION AS BY COMMISSION POLICY IS THAT THAT INCREASE WOULD GO UP INTO OUR CAPITAL AND REPLACEMENT AS WE CONTINUE TO INVEST IN OUR CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK BASED ON THIS ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN, WE ARE AMICABLE WITH THAT CONCEPT THAT WE WOULD WAIVE THAT.

YES. SO AS JASON MENTIONED, WE WERE ASKED BY THE COMMISSION TO PRESENT OUR ROLLBACK BUDGET.

SO UNLIKE THE SLIDE THAT WE STILL SAW PREVIOUSLY.

THIS IS THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE. SO AS WE ALREADY SAW, THE DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE WOULD BE REDUCED.

AS FAR AS THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE IS CONCERNED, IT'S ONLY ON THE OPERATING BUDGET THAT THAT'S CALCULATED.

SO IF WE WERE TO DO A ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE, WE WOULD ACTUALLY GO DOWN BY 0.2798.

SO THE LITTLE SURPRISE THAT WE RECEIVED WHEN WE GOT OUR JULY 1ST VALUES IS THAT EVERY YEAR WHEN WE DO OUR BUDGET, IT'S BASED ON THE CERTIFIED VALUES THAT WE GET ON JULY 1ST.

AFTER THOSE VALUES ARE PUT OUT, ANY PROPERTY OWNER CAN GO TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND ASK TO HAVE A REVISION OF THEIR ASSESSED VALUE.

SO WHEN WE GOT OUR INCREASED RATE THIS YEAR, WE ALSO GOT A NOTICE OF WHAT OUR 2026 VALUES WERE.

AND THEY ACTUALLY WENT DOWN BY 1.1 BILLION. SO THE ROLLBACK RATE IS CALCULATED NOT BASED ON THE JULY 1ST FROM LAST YEAR IS ACTUALLY BASED ON THE REDUCED NUMBER THAT WE GOT BACK IN JULY. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WITH OUR ROLLBACK RATE, WE ACTUALLY WILL COLLECT LESS REVENUES IN FY 20 THAN 26 IN FY 27. SO THIS JUST SHOWS A HISTORY OF OUR MILLAGE RATES. LAST YEAR IN FY 26 BUDGET WE DID DO A SLIGHT REDUCTION ON THE OPERATING BUDGET.

THE SLIDE THE COLUMN RIGHT BESIDE SHOWS FY 2627 BUDGET THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING.

[00:15:03]

THE SECOND SLIDE TO THE FAR RIGHT IS THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE, THAT RATE OF 5.8455.

IT WOULD BE THE COMBINED MILLAGE RATE IF THE COMMISSION ADOPTED A ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO PUT A LITTLE NOTE OUT. NEXT WEDNESDAY AT THE A CITY COMMISSION MEETING, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADOPT THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATE.

THIS IS THE CEILING OF OUR MILLAGE RATE. WE DO HAVE, AS JASON MENTIONED, TWO MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE MILLAGE RATE IN SEPTEMBER WHEN WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUT NEXT WEEK WE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CEILING.

ANY CHANGE FROM THAT IS USUALLY DOWN. IF WE DO DO AN INCREASE OVER WHAT WE WE VOTE ON NEXT WEDNESDAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEND A MAIL, A MAILING TO EVERY PROPERTY OWNER'S HOUSE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE INCREASING ABOVE THE MAXIMUM.

SO ONE THING THAT CHANGED THIS YEAR IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS IN THE PAST, THE.

IN ORDER TO HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE AT MILLAGE ADJUSTED FOR INCOME GROWTH, WHICH IS LIKE A CPI. THIS THIS SESSION, THEY ACTUALLY CHANGED THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO MOVING FORWARD, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU'RE VOTING FOR A MILLAGE RATE THAT'S BELOW THE ROLLBACK RATE, THEN YOU'RE STILL AT MAJORITY VOTE. ANYTHING OVER OR AT THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE WILL REQUIRE AT LEAST A.

FIVE SEVEN VOTES. THAT'S NOT TERRIBLY DIFFERENT FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.

MOST YEARS WE DO REQUIRE A FIVE SEVEN VOTE. AND THEN THIS JUST SHOWS A COMPARISON THAT THIS IS A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE.

IF WE ARE GOING WITH A ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE, WE HAVE A $21 MILLION BUDGET GAP.

IF WE ARE GOING WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION OF KEEPING THE MILLAGE RATE THE SAME, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT, WE'D HAVE A GAP OF 6.5. AND THAT'S JUST BASED ON OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT THREE SLIDES THAT LIST ALL THE COMMISSION PRIORITIES THAT WERE EITHER THROUGH A RESOLUTION OR CITY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION FOR, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE FY 27 BUDGET.

ANY ITEM WITH A CHECK MARK IS WHAT WE HAVE RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING.

THERE ARE OVER $3 MILLION OF REQUESTS. WE ARE ONLY RECOMMENDING THREE ITEMS AT 221,000.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN TRYING TO REDUCE THE BUDGET BY OVER $20 MILLION.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERYTHING ON THE SLIDE.

I'LL JUST FOCUS ON THE ITEMS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED.

THE FIRST ONE IS THE MENTAL HEALTH POSITION FOR FIRE.

THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSION AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING.

AND IN THE LAST TWO ITEMS WERE THE BLOOD TRANSFUSION DOLLARS ALSO WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING, AND THEN THE BUST OF GENERAL JOSÉ DE SAN MARTIN.

THAT WAS ON THE CAPITAL BUDGET THAT WE DISCUSSED IN JUNE.

THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY REDUCED WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED, AND NOW IT'S BELOW THE THRESHOLD OF A CAPITAL PROJECT.

SO WE JUST BROUGHT THAT 17/17,000 OVER. AND NOTHING ELSE IS RECOMMENDED AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK NOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF INTERESTED PARTIES OUT THERE.

SO FOR PEOPLE THAT THINK, ESPECIALLY SOME OF OUR EMPLOYEES THAT PERHAPS, OKAY, WE'RE FEELING THE BRUNT OF THIS, WHAT THAT MEANS COMMISSION ENHANCEMENT REQUESTS.

THAT MEANS EVERY LEGISLATIVE ITEM THAT WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY PUT FORWARD AND PROPOSED, AS YOU SAW, PAVING OF PICKLEBALL COURTS, PAVING OF BASKETBALL COURTS.

IF WE WANTED SOME SORT OF ENHANCEMENT FOR NEW PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THERE'S NOT ONE SINGLE THING OF THOSE OTHER THAN PERSONNEL FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING FOR THE FIRE. AND $17,000 FOR A BUST AND $20,000 FOR $20,000 FOR A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. SO EVERY SINGLE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST YEARS, NONE OF THOSE MADE THAT INTO THIS BUDGET.

SO THIS IS ALL SHARED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE'RE ALL PUTTING FORWARD.

THANK YOU CHAIR. SO WE WANT TO TAKE YOU NOW IS TO THIS IS AN UPDATE BASED FOR OUR RESERVES.

WE CLOSED OUR BOOKS FOR 25. THE AUDITED FINANCIALS WERE ISSUED AT THE END OF JUNE.

AND BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THAT IN OUR GENERAL FUND AND RESORT TAX, WE ENDED UP WITH A SURPLUS ABOVE THE COMMISSION DIRECTED CONTINGENT CONTINGENCY AND RESERVE AMOUNTS. SO AFTER WE TOOK OUT SOME FY 26 COMMISSION APPROVED USE OF THAT FUND BALANCE, BASICALLY BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT ARE DOWN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR REDUCED THAT AMOUNT AT THE END OF THE DAY, ABOUT 11.7 IN GENERAL FUND, ABOUT 1.2 IN RESORT TAX, FOR A TOTAL OF ABOUT $13 MILLION IN ONE TIME DOLLARS ARE AVAILABLE.

[00:20:05]

BUT JUST AS A LITTLE PRECURSOR OF THAT 13, ABOUT 9.4 MILLION IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO CAPITAL, AND WE WILL TALK AT THE VERY END WHEN WE GET TO THE CAPITAL UPDATE, SPECIFICALLY THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE WOULD UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GET RIGHT INTO THE GENERAL FUND. SO HERE WE WERE BALANCED IN WELL, NOT BALANCED, BUT THIS IS WHERE WE WERE ON JUNE 1ST SHOWING THAT WE HAD A GAP OF ABOUT $7.9 MILLION ESTIMATED COME JULY 1ST.

AGAIN, JUST ON THE PROPERTY TAX PIECE, IT ENDED UP BEING $6.5 MILLION GAP.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INTERPLAY WITH THE GENERAL FUND, THAT'S WHY I'VE MENTIONED THE THE MINIMUM FLOOR IS ACTUALLY $6.85 MILLION.

AND THEN TOPEKA WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH ROLLBACK. RIGHT. AND AGAIN, WITH THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE, AS WE SAID PREVIOUSLY, OUR REVENUES ARE GOING UP BY LESS THAN 1% WHILE OUR EXPENDITURES ARE GOING UP BY 5%.

AS A RESULT, WE HAVE A $21 MILLION GAP THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW HOW WE RECOMMEND BALANCING THE BUDGET.

SO THIS SHOWS THE $20.8 MILLION GAP THAT WE HAVE, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL SLIDES THAT SHOW HOW WE RECOMMEND BALANCING THE BUDGET THROUGH REDUCTIONS IN THE BUDGETS. A FEW A HANDFUL OF ENHANCEMENTS AND SOME REFINEMENTS IN BOTH REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGEST INCREASE ON THE BUDGET IS ON THE REVENUE SIDE, THE $16.3 MILLION.

AND THAT'S BROKEN DOWN AS YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE.

THE BIGGEST PORTION OF THAT IS 11.7 MILLION THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO RECOGNIZE FROM FY 25 YEAR END SAVINGS.

AND THE THE MAJORITY OF THAT 11.7 IS GOING TO BE USED FOR CAPITAL AND SOME FOR ONE TIME ENHANCEMENTS.

THE CONTRIBUTION FOR RESORT TAX, WE ARE RECOMMENDING AN INCREASE OF $3.5 MILLION.

YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING REDUCTIONS ON THE RESORT TAX BUDGETS AND ANY NET SAVINGS ON RESORT TAX.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO TRANSFER THAT OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND.

THE THIRD ITEM IS ADMIN FEES. SO THE GENERAL FUND ACTUALLY CHARGES ADMIN FEES TO OR ENTERPRISE AND SOME OF OUR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FOR THE WORK THAT THE GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS PROVIDE ON THEIR BEHALF. SO WE ACTUALLY UPDATED THOSE NUMBERS BASED ON THEIR FY 27 PRELIMINARY BUDGETS.

WE PICKED UP $2.3 MILLION. WE DID HAVE SOME MISCELLANEOUS ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR REVENUE.

SO AS WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS, WE STARTED IN MARCH AS FAR AS FINALIZING THE NUMBERS.

BUT AS WE GO THROUGH EACH QUARTERLY PROJECTION, WE ARE ADJUSTING OUR NUMBERS.

THE LAST BULLET ON THE REVENUES IS THAT $1.3 MILLION REDUCTION.

SO SUBSEQUENT TO OUR JUNE MEETING, WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC WORKS THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY FEES THAT WE PREVIOUSLY WOULD CHARGE TO THE STATE AND THE COUNTY, WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO COLLECT REVENUES FROM THOSE ON THE STREETS THAT BELONG TO THE COUNTY AND THE STATE.

SO WE ACTUALLY REDUCED OUR REVENUES BY 1.3 MILLION.

ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, THE MAJORITY OF THAT 9.5.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING TRANSFERRING THAT TO CAPITAL.

AND AS WE GET TO THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, WE'LL SHOW YOU WHAT WE RECOMMEND FUNDING IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THOSE DOLLARS.

OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE NEXT 12 SLIDES ARE 165 LINE ITEMS OF RECOMMENDED GENERAL FUND REDUCTIONS AND EFFICIENCIES WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD. AND SPEAKING WITH THE CHAIR, I THINK HOW HE WANTED TO WORK THIS IS WE WOULD PUT UP THE SLIDE.

WE'LL GO THROUGH A HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, 1 OR 2 ONES WE WANT TO MENTION, AND WE'LL JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS OR SUCH WITH INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS. IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE ON. AND THOSE REDUCTIONS AND EFFICIENCIES WILL REMAIN UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION THROUGH CONSENSUS.

SO HERE WE ARE ON THE FIRST SLIDE. THE FIRST SLIDE HAS REDUCTIONS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DEPARTMENT, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE GENERAL FUND SECTION OF THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

JUST A FEW ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN HERE, ALL THE JUST FOR.

ALSO, EVERYONE AT HOME ON THE LINE ITEMS YOU'LL SEE THE.

HIGHLIGHT THE FIRST ONE. ELIMINATE ONE FULL TIME VACANT SIP PROJECT MANAGER.

SO IT DOES HIGHLIGHT WHETHER THE POSITION IS VACANT OR IF THE POSITION IS CURRENTLY FILLED AT THIS TIME.

SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN HERE, AND EVERYONE THAT'S ON THIS SLIDE IS CURRENTLY VACANT.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON, MR. CHAIR. MR. FERNANDEZ, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WITH THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, I WOULD HAVE A CONCERN ELIMINATING LINE ITEM 15 REDUCING OUR BUDGET FOR STATE LOBBYING SERVICES. IF THE PROPERTY TAX REFORM AT THE STATE LEVEL DOES PASS, WE'RE GOING TO BE MORE RELIANT ON SUBSIDIES FROM THE STATE.

AND THIS YEAR WE HAD GREAT SUCCESS WITH APPROPRIATIONS.

[00:25:03]

AND SO JUST UNDERSTANDING THE UNCERTAINTY THAT WE HAVE IN FUNDING AND REVENUES.

I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RETAIN THE LOBBYING SERVICES THAT WE HAVE IN TALLAHASSEE TO HELP US WITH THOSE DOLLARS.

IF I COULD CLARIFY ONE ELEMENT THAT'S BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE.

SO OF THAT 114 CUT 54 IS FROM THE STATE AND 60 IS FROM THE FEDERAL.

YES. SO IS THE OBJECTION TO BOTH OR BOTH? BECAUSE I'M ALSO WORKING WITH OUR FEDERAL LOBBYISTS, WITH SARGASSUM ISSUES AND OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN TALLAHASSEE AND IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT. LINE 15, LINE 15.

IS THERE JUST THROUGH CONSENSUS, IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THAT LINE ITEM FROM CONSIDERATION? CORRECT. AND HOW SHOULD WE DO THIS PROCESS? AND I'M COLLECTIVELY LOOKING FOR PEOPLE'S INPUT FOR THE LINE ITEMS WHERE THERE MAY BE CONCERN.

DO WE WANT TO MAKE A FINITE DECISION TODAY? DO WE WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET'S PUT THAT ON THE BACK BURNER AND WE WILL.

THAT'S ONE WHERE WE WON'T PUSH FORWARD FOR AN ELIMINATION TODAY.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S BINDING, RIGHT? WE CAN CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

DOES THAT WORK? I DEFER TO THE CHEF IN THE KITCHEN.

AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT GOOD TO HAVE SEVEN CHEFS.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH, I JUST, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A SURPRISE.

WHEN WE GOT TO THE 22ND THAT I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT WITH THAT SPECIFIC LINE ITEM.

I MEAN, THIS YEAR WE GOT $3 MILLION, I THINK WE GOT IN APPROPRIATIONS.

SO THAT THAT'S A POSITION THAT IS GENERATING DOLLARS FOR US.

I WOULDN'T. OKAY. SO HOWEVER YOU ALL FEEL IT'S BEST TO HANDLE THAT.

I JUST CAN'T AGREE THAT IT COULD BE MADE TODAY OR COULD BE MADE THE FIRST BUDGET HEARING.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE SECOND BUDGET HEARING WE USUALLY DON'T LIKE, YOU KNOW, BUT IT COULD BE TODAY OR THE FIRST BUDGET HEARING. AND I KNOW SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE BRIEFINGS, I THINK THESE THESE CATEGORIES, AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT WE WILL GO WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION ON A MILLAGE, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THINGS. IF YOU FEEL, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THEM. AND I THINK THERE'LL BE A GROUP OF THESE THAT WE WILL BE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH AND NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. YOU WILL HAVE SOME THAT TODAY.

THERE'LL BE A DISCUSSION AND MAYBE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THEM FROM CONSIDERATION IMMEDIATELY. AND THEN ANOTHER GROUP THAT PERHAPS YOU NEED SOME TIME TO DIGEST THEM AND TO THINK ABOUT THEM. SO THERE'S KIND OF THE THREE CATEGORIES. SO I GUESS THE FEEDBACK WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW IS TODAY, ARE WE GOING TO REMOVE THAT OR ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE IT FOR NOW? SO I'M FINE WITH TODAY MOVING THAT ON TO REMAIN IN THE BUDGET AND POSSIBLE FURTHER CONSIDERATION AT THE 22ND MEETING WHERE IT WOULD BE THE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, IT WOULDN'T BE NEXT WEDNESDAY.

NEXT WEDNESDAY WAS JUST SITTING WON'T GET TO THAT.

SO IF THE COMMISSION'S OKAY, WE WILL LEAVE THAT ITEM FOR NOW.

OKAY, SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THE NEXT SLIDE WE HAVE THE FIRST ITEM IS ACTUALLY A GROUP OF ITEMS. AGAIN TRYING TO BE EFFICIENT HERE. THE NUMBER OF SLIDES, THERE'S A 10 OR 11 ITEMS THAT ARE IN THERE.

THESE ARE APPROXIMATELY A 5% WITH ROUNDING UP HAIRCUT ON A NUMBER OF VARIOUS CITY WIDE RECURRING GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS.

THE ONLY TOTAL A TOTAL OF $28,000. I KNOW WE DISCUSSED IN YOUR ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT LIST OUT ALL THE INDIVIDUAL DETAIL ON THAT.

THESE ARE OTHER CITY WIDE REDUCTIONS AND THEN EDUCATIONAL REDUCTIONS KIND OF TOWARDS THE END THERE, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I THINK I THINK WE'RE MAYBE ON THE SAME PAGE.

WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS. I THINK WE'RE UNANIMOUS.

RIGHT. SO THIS ISN'T ME. I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT.

AND THAT'S JUST READING OF THE TEA LEAVES OF 3438.

NO I'M SORRY. 36, 38, 36 AND 38 YEAH. AND A COUPLE MORE.

16 THROUGH 26 AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A $1,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, TO THE JEWISH MUSEUM OF FLORIDA.

YOU KNOW, SMALL, SMALL GRANTS THAT I DO THINK FOR US, THEY'RE SMALL, BUT I DO THINK THEY MAKE IMPACT TO THESE SMALLER ORGANIZATIONS.

I WOULDN'T ELIMINATE THAT. I AGREE. 16 THROUGH 26.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. IS THERE A CONCERN I HAVE MORE.

YEAH. LET'S JUST TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME BECAUSE THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON INDIVIDUAL ONES. SO THERE SEEMS TO BE A REQUEST.

GO WITH THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT FIRST. LET'S TAKE 36.

WELL, I THINK, JASON, YOU WANT TO GET CONSENSUS.

WELL, I THINK THE EDUCATION ONES HANGING FRUIT. IF WE WERE TO DO 36 AND 30 TOGETHER, IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE TODAY 36 AND 38? YES. YES, YES. NOT HEARING AN OBJECTION. WE WILL SHOW 36 AND 38 REMOVED.

THE VERY FIRST ONE, THERE WAS AN OBJECTION TO THE $28,000 REDUCTION TO A GROUP OF ABOUT 10 OR 11 SMALL CITYWIDE GRANTS.

[00:30:07]

I DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE ORANGE BOWL.

BUT THEN THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB THAT DOES CONTRIBUTE SERVICES TO, TO OUR CITY.

AND I THINK THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY SERVE APPROXIMATELY 150 CHILDREN WITH AFTER SCHOOL SERVICES.

I WOULDN'T REDUCE THE $1,000 THAT, THAT WE GIVE THEM OR LINE.

18 THE JEWISH MUSEUM OF FLORIDA, WE HAVE DOUGLAS GARDENS FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

SO WE NEED TO PROVIDE ESPECIALLY FOR OUR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.

JCSI WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT. THE SOUTH FLORIDA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THAT'S HELPING OUR SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES.

I WOULDN'T TOUCH THAT. WE HAVE HERE $2,000 FOR THE MIAMI-DADE GAY AND LESBIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

I NEED GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I NEED GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ITEM NUMBER 22.

GIVEN THAT THE E I BILL THAT PASSED IN IN THE STATE.

ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO THE $2,000 FOR THE MIAMI-DADE GAY AND LESBIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE? IF I CAN BE IT'S A $25,000 LINE ITEM. THIS IS $2,000 DEDUCTION.

BRING IT TO 23. SO IT'S 25 TOTAL FUNDING. I'M AWARE.

THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE A A GRANT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO.

OKAY. SO SO EVEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT MIGHT WITH SOMETHING THAT IF WE NEED TO BALANCE, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE MIGHT ADDRESS THE MAJORITY OF THE $28,000 THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO, TO, TO, TO, TO SOLVE. SO I THINK WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, REALIZE THAT UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE GOING TO BE PREEMPTED IN LINE 22 AND THAT LINE 22 MIGHT COVER, YOU KNOW, THE THE AMOUNT OF EFFICIENCIES WE HAD IN 16 THROUGH 26.

I WOULDN'T CUT THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER OR THE VISITOR CENTER.

AND THESE ARE SMALL GRANTS THAT I THINK DO, DO GOOD IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I WOULD SAY PROBABLY IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS PATH, THE CONSENSUS WOULD BE REDUCING NUMBER 16, BUT LEAVING THE REST. YES. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT 22 GIVEN THE CHANGE IN STATE LAW.

I WOULD LEAVE THAT FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, MAYBE TO DISCUSS WITH THE CFO IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN KEEP IN THE BUDGET.

AND I DON'T WANT TO OPEN PANDORA'S BOX. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE. IF THAT'S THE GUY, THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHERS. UNFORTUNATELY, PERHAPS WHAT WE COULD DO IS GUIDE YOU, THE CFO AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS IN THE INTERIM ABOUT THE FUNDING OF SOME OF THESE, WHAT WE COULD DO FOR DAY TO DAY IF I'M I BELIEVE I'M HEARING CONSENSUS IS TO ACCEPT THE $1,000 REDUCTION.

NUMBER 16. ALL THE OTHER ONES FOR NOW WOULD STAY WITH ITEM 22 TO HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY COME SEPTEMBER BUDGET HEARING, AND WE'LL MAKE IT. WE'LL MAKE A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT.

SO SIX SO 16 IS REMOVED. 22 IS FOR MORE DISCUSSION.

OKAY. AND JASON TAMAKI, CAN I ASK YOUR TEAM. WE HAVE RUNNING TOTALS OF ESSENTIALLY IF WE WOULD GO WITH ALL OF THESE EFFICIENCIES, WHAT THAT NUMBER IS, CAN YOU DO A RUNNING TALLY OF WHAT WE ARE REMOVING IN.

YES, IN TOTAL IS GOING TO BE WE ARE. SO LIKE THE 22,000 IS TBD.

SO DO YOU WANT US TO INCLUDE THAT OR NOT? ITEM NUMBER 22 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT INCLUDED FOR NOW.

SO WE ARE KEEPING TRACK. SO RIGHT NOW ESSENTIALLY FOR LINE ITEM 16 THROUGH 26 WE WOULD ADD BACK IN 27,000 INTO THAT 2.303. THEN WE WOULD ALSO ADD IN 300,000 FOR THE PRE-K.

ADD IN 2.99438. YES. OKAY. IS THERE ANY MORE ON THIS SLIDE? I HAVE A FEW. 29 I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR EMPLOYEE MORALE.

SUPER IMPORTANT. SO THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE A BUNCH OF EMPLOYEES THAT LEAVE OUR CITY BECAUSE THEY FEEL UNDERAPPRECIATED.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES FEEL APPRECIATED. SO.

29 IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THAT I SUPPORT THAT? ARE WE REMOVING THAT TODAY OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN SEPTEMBER? I'M REMOVING IT TODAY. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING IT TODAY? I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER AT THE NEXT MEETING.

WELL.

LET'S DISCUSS NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SUPER SUPPORTIVE TO REMOVE THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO HEARKEN BACK TO OUR HALLOWEEN DISCUSSION.

[00:35:05]

WE LOOK AT SOME OF OUR AWARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

OR CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT 15,000? RIGHT. I'D RATHER PUT THIS TOWARDS KEEPING PERSONNEL THAN THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT'S KIND OF MY MINDSET. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE CITY WIDE FUNDS.

THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION AS PART OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR FOR EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION EVENTS. THE PARKS ITEM WAS REMOVING 80% OF THE FUNDING, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, OR I BELIEVE IT WAS $10,000 OR A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF THE FUNDING FOR EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION FOR HALLOWEEN.

BETWEEN THE 10,000 FOR PARKS AND THE 15,000 HERE, THE 25,000 IS FOR BASICALLY THE, THE, THE FACILITY, THE FOOD AND THE DECORATIONS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HALLOWEEN EVENT.

AND I GUESS HERE'S HOW I CONCEPTUALLY LOOK AT IT AND I'LL JUST SHARE MY LITMUS TEST, RIGHT? ALL OF THESE AMOUNTS, WHILE SMALL, CAN ADD UP.

WE HAVE A FINITE PIE, RIGHT? AND FULL DISCLOSURE, MY DAUGHTER GOES TO SCHOOL THERE, BUT SHE DOESN'T USE THE BASKETBALL COURTS.

BUT THE PARENTS IN SOUTH POINT ELEMENTARY HAVE BEEN ASKING ME FOR YEARS TO HAVE THEIR BASKETBALL COURT REPAVED AND A BASKETBALL HOOP PUT ON. RIGHT? IT'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT, BUT WHAT, MAYBE $150,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? AND WE'RE TELLING THEM IN FOUR YEARS. SO SOME OF THESE SMALL THINGS ADD UP.

IT'S AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE LITMUS TEST THAT I USE.

EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE SEE IN THESE EFFICIENCIES HAS SOME DEGREE OF MERIT, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY THEY GOT PUT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IT JUST BECOMES AT THE EXPENSE OF WHAT? AND THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT IT.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T VALUE OUR EMPLOYEES OR, OR WANT TO SHARE IN THESE HAPPY HOURS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT WHETHER IT'S THIS OR SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT, IT'S JUST A SIMPLE TRADE OFF.

AND MY LITMUS TEST IS, DO I WANT TO GO BACK TO OUR RESIDENTS AND SAY, I'D RATHER CHOOSE X THAN PAVING THAT BASKETBALL COURT THAT THE COMMUNITY USES AT SOUTH POINTE ELEMENTARY? THAT'S KIND OF HOW I JUST SIMPLISTICALLY LOOK AT THINGS.

SO I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE AN OGRE AND SAY, NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS.

$15,000 DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T APPRECIATE IT. BUT EVERY DOLLAR HAS TO NOW COME AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMETHING ELSE.

AND THAT'S JUST HOW I LOOK AT THINGS. I MAY IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, I THINK THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SO MANY SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, I BELIEVE, IS TO SAVE AS MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEE POSITIONS AS POSSIBLE.

GIVEN THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE FACING AND POTENTIALLY FACING THE COMING YEAR, I THINK WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE.

I THINK THE KEY THING IS, NUMBER ONE, SAVE AS MANY OF THESE POSITIONS.

AND SO IF WE CAN, IF AT THE END, I THINK AT THE END OF THE BUDGET AS WE'RE GOING DOWN, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAVE IT, I WOULD SAVE IT. THE, THE PRIORITY IS, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE EDUCATION FUNDING, KEEP THINGS LIKE THE CAT FUNDING KEEP PUBLIC SAFETY, POLICE, FIRE CONTINUING TO OPERATE AT THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT SACRIFICING POSITIONS.

AND THEN IF AT THE END, MR. MANAGER, YOU FEEL THAT WE CAN BALANCE A BUDGET AND SAVE THESE POSITIONS AND KEEP SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WELL, OF COURSE WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT BECAUSE WE DO. AS COMMISSIONER SALINAS HAS HIGHLIGHTED, WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES FEEL APPRECIATED.

I THINK RIGHT NOW, THE BIGGEST THING WE CAN DO TO SHOW APPRECIATION FOR OUR EMPLOYEES IS TO SAVE EACH ONE OF THEIR POSITIONS IN OUR BUDGET.

AND THEN CONSIDER THIS AT THE END THAT WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE.

CAN WE DO THAT? COMMISSIONER, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME IF I WANT TO SAVE PEOPLE'S JOBS VERSUS HAVE A PARTY, MY OBVIOUS ANSWER IS SAVE PEOPLE'S JOBS. BUT THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO LOOK THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUDGET, SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE, AND SEE WHERE THE RIGHT LANDING SPOT IS YOU KNOW, I'VE MADE A COMMITMENT TO ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO FIND A, A CHAIR FOR EVERYBODY TO SIT IN WHEN THE MUSIC STOPS.

EVEN IF THERE IS CURRENTLY A, A FUNDED AND FILLED POSITION THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS,

[00:40:07]

WE CAN SAVE PEOPLE'S JOBS AND ALSO MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE $15,000 TO ENJOY WORKING HERE IN A PLACE THAT THEY SPEND A LOT OF TIME, AND THEY DO A LOT OF HARD WORK AND THEY, YOU KNOW, ARE HAPPY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS HERE.

WE CAN DO BOTH. I MEAN, IT'S NOT AND, AND, OR AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK $15,000 IS TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR.

AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT AND COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE YOURS AS WELL.

BUT. WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER AND HAVE AND MAKE THIS EXPERIENCE WORSE FOR PEOPLE THAT WORK HERE. LET'S LET'S MAKE IT BETTER. THIS IS ABOUT TEAM MORALE.

AND WE'RE A FAMILY HERE, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS.

I MEAN, I WANT EVERY EMPLOYEE HERE TO KNOW THAT I'VE HAD A BUNCH OF CALLS AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE APPRECIATES THE WORK THAT YOU DO HERE, NO MATTER WHAT DEPARTMENT YOU'RE IN. AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN EXPRESS THAT THROUGH THIS $15,000 ALLOCATION, I HOPE WE KEEP IT AND I'LL FIGHT FOR IT. SO YEAH, PLEASE.

JASON OR TAMIKA THE, THE RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS AND EFFICIENCIES THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING GETS US TO THE $7 MILLION SHORTFALL OR THE $20 MILLION SHORTFALL. SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE ARE AGAINST THE ROLLBACK.

SO THIS IS THE 21 MILLION. SO ANYTHING THAT WE REMOVED NOW WE'VE ALREADY REMOVED SOME.

WE'RE OFF ROLLBACK. OKAY. SO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE AND MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY ARE TOTALING SLIGHTLY LESS NOW, BUT APPROXIMATELY $20 MILLION.

HOWEVER, AS A BODY, WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING TO GO IN.

SO THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY HIT A COUPLE OF THEM.

I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HIT A BUNCH MORE WHERE WE CAN COME BACK AND SEE WHAT THE TOTAL IS AND SEE, WELL, WE'RE NOT AT 20 AND WE'RE NOT AT SEVEN, BUT WE'RE AT TEN AND WE FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT, OR WE'RE AT 15 AND WE FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT.

I DON'T THINK TO MAKE A DECISION ON A $20 MILLION CUT WHEN WE HAVEN'T MADE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER, IS THE CORRECT WAY TO PROCEED. I DON'T WANT TO SAY AT THIS POINT THAT IT HAS TO BE 20 OR IT HAS TO BE SEVEN.

I THINK WE GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE. YOU ALL, ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ALL YOUR STAFF HAVE PUT IN AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK TO GET TO THIS BECAUSE WE AS A BODY DEMANDED IT. THERE'S THIS ENTIRE LOVELY TOME, LIGHT READING FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT OF A LINE BY LINE BUDGET. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO DEVALUE THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT IN AND JUST CHOP WILLY NILLY WITHOUT DOING THE WORK OF US ALL HERE, SEEING WHERE THE CUTS THAT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING PUT US, AND THEN DECIDING, IS IT ENOUGH BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN DO MORE.

IS IT TOO MUCH? BECAUSE MAYBE WE'RE LOSING STUFF THAT WE CARE ABOUT.

SO LET'S PUT THIS ON THE PILE TO BE CONSIDERED AND COME BACK ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE TALLY IS, AND THEN DECIDE WHERE WE AS A CITY WANT TO GO, DO WE WANT TO GO TO AUSTERITY, WHICH IS NOT CUTE.

I MEAN, LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE COUNTY. THEY'VE HAD DISASTROUS BUDGETS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND IF YOU JUST SAW THE HERALD ARTICLE EITHER THIS MORNING OR YESTERDAY MORNING ABOUT CUTTING TRANSPORTATION EVEN FURTHER, WE'RE NOT IN THAT POSITION.

WE ARE NOT IN A BUDGET CRISIS. EVERY SINGLE PERSON UP HERE BELIEVES THAT WE NEED TO DO MORE WITH LESS.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS DAIS AND IN THIS ROOM BELIEVES THAT WE NEED TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.

THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THERE. BUT TO WHAT? AT WHAT COST? RIGHT? AT WHAT POINT ARE WE GOING TO THROW OUT STUFF THAT WE VALUE, WHETHER IT'S EMPLOYEE 15 GRAND FOR EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION, WHETHER IT'S A CREW FOR A FIREBOAT THAT, YOU KNOW, ARGUABLY COULD, YOU KNOW, COULD BE SERVED BY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE FIRE AND RESCUE TEAM.

THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE.

BUT TO DO THAT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE FULL TALLY IS, IS, IS, IS PREMATURE.

YEAH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS GET THERE.

RIGHT. IF THEY GAVE US THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A FULLY ROLLED BACK RATE, BY DEFINITION, EVERYONE THAT WE ADD OR REMOVE FROM A REDUCTION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THAT ROLLBACK RATE.

SO WE ARE GOING TO BE SETTLING SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

NOW, WHETHER IT'S CLOSER TO THE MANDATED MILLAGE RATE OR KEEPING IT FLAT OR THE ROLLBACK RATE,

[00:45:02]

AND THEN WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE DISAGREEMENT, WHICH LET'S GET IT OUT.

NONE OF THIS IS PERSONAL BETWEEN US COLLEAGUES, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE MAY DISAGREE ON ON WHAT BELONGS OR WHAT? NONE OF THIS IS PERSONAL. IT'S ALL ABOUT THERE'S A REASON THERE'S SEVEN OF US BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS THAT I RESPECT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOURS.

RIGHT? SO TO THE EXTENT WHERE WE MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS, NONE OF IT IS PERSONAL.

IT'S ABOUT DOING WHAT WE ALL BELIEVE IS BEST FOR OUR CITY, OUR TAXPAYERS, AND OUR RESIDENTS.

SO I THINK WHERE WE HAVE LINE ITEMS WHERE THERE IS SOME PERHAPS DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS, LET'S JUST TAKE A SIMPLE VOTE IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT IN THE EFFICIENCIES LIST OR SEND IT FURTHER THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS, RIGHT.

SO ESSENTIALLY HERE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME DISAGREEMENT.

LET'S CALL A VOTE, WHICHEVER IS A MAJORITY. IT'LL BE TWO WAYS.

DO WE KEEP THIS ON THE EFFICIENCIES TO BE REMOVED, OR DOES IT TRAVEL THROUGH AND REMAIN IN THE BUDGET AND NOT JUST THIS LINE ITEM, EVERY SINGLE ONE WHERE THERE MAY BE LESS THAN UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

BUT MY POINT IS, IS THAT ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THE TALLY IS, THEN WE CAN REVISIT IT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'D RATHER CUT THIS OVER HERE THAN GIVE UP THAT OVER THERE, BUT TO TO CUT IT WITHOUT KNOWING THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO REVISIT IT.

SO MAYBE IT'S, IT'S KEPT IN, BUT WITH AN ASTERISK TO BE CONSIDERED.

MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU.

A COUPLE THINGS. WHEN I SPEAK TO RESIDENTS OF MIAMI BEACH.

RESIDENTS HERE WHO HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE THEY WERE BORN ARE HAVING STRUGGLES ON KEEPING RENT, PAYING GROCERIES, BASIC LIVING EXPENSES.

AND. TO SIT HERE AND SAY WE NEED PARTIES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY DO NOT LEAVE. IS OFFENSIVE. IT'S NOT OFFENSIVE.

WE ALL HAVE DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS. I'D LIKE TO FINISH. THAT'S FINE.

LET'S KEEP THIS NOT PERSONAL. I WANT TO I WANT TO CONTINUE WITH MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.

WE HAVE ALL HERE MINUS ONE. COMMISSIONER WHO IS NOT ELECTED AT THE TIME, VOTED TO ROLL BACK OUR OUR MILITARY OR HAVE THE ROLLBACK RATE SO THAT OUR RESIDENTS DON'T PAY MORE IN TAXES FOR NEXT YEAR THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THAT DIDN'T COME FROM. JUST A FEEL GOOD MOMENT CAME FROM A DISCUSSION WHERE WE HAD TO DECIDE WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH $11.5 MILLION IN SURPLUS AND THE AGREEMENT WE ALL MADE UP HERE.

ALL SIX OF US WAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PASS THE ROLLBACK RATE NEXT YEAR.

SO THAT WE COULD GIVE OUT A $500 CHECK TO EVERYONE THAT WAS HOMESTEADED IN MIAMI BEACH.

SO I WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS EXACTLY IMPORTANT.

I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO CUT POSITIONS. I THINK THIS IS THIS ITEM HERE.

NUMBER 29 IS A IS A IS A GOOD PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE RIGHT NOW WHERE WE SHOULD BE, WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON WHAT IS ESSENTIAL TO MIAMI BEACH AND THE TAXPAYERS.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD LOOK TO TELL THE TAXPAYERS THAT.

WE'RE FUNDING THIS. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.

WE CAN DO BOTH. WE NEED TO MAKE A PHILOSOPHICAL DECISION.

ARE WE GOING TO LOWER TAXES FOR MIAMI BEACH RESIDENTS OR IS IT GOING TO GO UP? I WANT TO LOWER TAXES. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO PAY MORE THAN I PAID LAST YEAR.

THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF TAXPAYING RESIDENTS OF MIAMI BEACH.

SO COMMISSIONER BART SAID AUSTERITY IS PAINFUL.

[00:50:05]

THE INCREASED HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND THEN WE CAN MAKE CUTS.

NOW THAT'S GOING TO BE UNCOMFORTABLE, OR WE CAN MAKE CUTS NEXT YEAR AFTER THIS PASS.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. SO FOCUSING ON THESE ITEMS I AND SPENDING I THINK TEN MINUTES ON THIS, I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS A GOOD USE OF OUR TIME.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ AND THEN LET'S BRING THIS IN.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MUCH MORE CONTROVERSIAL THINGS TO DISCUSS THAN THIS.

I HOPE EVERYBODY KIND OF GOT THEIR HIGH LEVEL PHILOSOPHICAL TALKING POINTS OUT ON THIS ITEM.

AND IT'S NOT JUST DEBATE ON THIS BECAUSE I PROMISE IT WILL GET MORE CONTROVERSIAL.

BUT COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ COMMISSIONER BOARD, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK. AND THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS CALL A VOTE FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM.

AND THAT'LL KIND OF BE THE PROCESS THAT WE WE CARRY ALONG.

THANK YOU. FIRST, JASON AND TAMIKA AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND REALLY GOING THROUGH LINE BY LINE AND PRESENTING THINGS THAT COULD BE ENHANCED OR REDUCED, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. ONE THING I DO WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD.

THE COMMISSION DID NOT VOTE ON A ROLLBACK RATE.

WE VOTED FOR THE CITY TO PRESENT IT TO US. AND SO THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING IT TO US.

AND THIS EXERCISE THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH OF SAYING YES OR NO FOR THE DIFFERENT ITEMS IS SO IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL.

AND AS HAS BEEN SAID ON THE DAIS ALREADY, WE ALL CARE ABOUT EFFICIENCIES.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE RUNNING BETTER. I ALSO, AND SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES DO AS WELL CARE ABOUT OUR EMPLOYEES, THE EMPLOYEE MORALE, MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE RECOGNITION.

IT'S NOT ONE OR THE OTHER. IT'S ALL TOGETHER.

WHAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE US A GREAT CITY.

SO THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. COMMISSIONER. SO, JASON.

TAMIKA. THE TWO VERSIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY SIX AND A HALF VERSUS 20.

THEY'RE BOTH ROLLED BACK. NO THE THE 20 THE 20 IS A SIGNIFICANT.

BUT THE THE SIX AND A HALF IS STILL A SLIGHT DECREASE.

THE 6.8 THE $6.85 MILLION REQUIRED REDUCTION THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT TO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET.

WE ASSUME OUR FLAT MILLAGE ON THE OPERATING SIDE, BUT IT STILL WOULD HAVE A REDUCTION IN OUR G.O.

BOND. SO THE OVERALL MILLAGE RATE WOULD GO DOWN.

CORRECT. SO UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES UNLESS WE START ADDING THINGS WILLY NILLY, YOU KNOW HELICOPTERS FOR EVERYBODY.

WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PRESENT A HIGHER MILLAGE RATE.

IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO GO DOWN THAN WHAT IT WAS ALREADY.

THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION IS A LOWER MILLAGE RATE. CORRECT.

SO NOBODY IS PROPOSING HIGHER TAXES. AND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE ARE GOING TO WE ARE GOING TO COME BETWEEN 6 AND 6.8 MILLION AND $20 MILLION, WHICH IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION.

SO I WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD BECAUSE IT'S NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT ANYTHING LESS THAN LOWER TAXES, LOWER THAN WHAT YOU PAID LAST YEAR. AND I MIGHT BE GETTING THE EXACT TERMS WRONG FROM A CFO PERSPECTIVE, BUT FOR THE NET LAYPERSON, NOBODY'S GOING TO BE PAYING MORE ON OUR ON OUR MILLAGE RATE.

THE MILLAGE, THE MILLAGE WOULD BE LOWER IN 27 VERSUS 26.

OKAY. AND SO I WANT EVERYONE WHO'S LISTENING TO THIS TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT CONTEMPLATING DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN ROLLING BACK.

THE QUESTION IS JUST HOW MUCH? IF I COULD ASK JASON FOR CLARITY, WE AT LEAST HAVE TO GET THE $6.5 MILLION OUT OF THIS CORRECT.

$6.85 MILLION IS THE FLOOR AND REDUCTIONS TO KEEP OUR FLAT MILLAGE AND HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, JASON, SO MY COLLEAGUES CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

YOU CAN LOWER THE MILLAGE RATE, BUT YOUR TAXES STILL TECHNICALLY GO UP, CORRECT.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE A VALUATION INCREASE IN YOUR PROPERTY, IF YOU HAD A FLAT MILLAGE, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY BE PAYING MORE IN TOTAL DOLLARS.

CAN YOU CAN YOU REITERATE THAT JUST ONE MORE TIME? SURE, SURE. WITH THE ON THE OPERATING SIDE, BECAUSE OF THAT BEING A FLAT MILLAGE, IF YOU IF THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY WOULD GO UP, YOU COULD PAY, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY ON THE HOMESTEAD, I THINK IT'S THE CAP WAS TWO WASN'T 3% THIS YEAR, RIGHT? IT WAS 2.7%. SO THE MAX YOU WOULD PAY ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD WOULD BE 2.7%, BUT OBVIOUSLY PARTIALLY OFFSET BY THE DECREASE IN THE G.O.

BOND. STATUTORILY, WHEN IF WE DO NOT MEET THE ROLLBACK RATE.

YES. WHAT IS TECHNICALLY WHAT IS WHAT IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA SEND OUT AS A NOTICE TO RESIDENTS? IT WOULD SHOW AS A TAX DECREASE. AND THE REASON IS EXCUSE ME, IT WOULD SHOW AS A TAX AS A TAX INCREASE.

[00:55:02]

IT IS IT IS BY STATE LAW A TAX INCREASE, CORRECT? CORRECT. STATE LAW REQUIRES THE ONLY TAX THAT'S LIKE THIS.

I MEAN, IT WOULD BE ANALOGOUS THAT BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ON A STATE SALES TAX, LET'S SAY YOU KNOW, FOR A LOAF OF BREAD WENT FROM $2 TO $4, YOU KNOW, YOU PAID MORE IN TAXES. WOULD THE STATE SAY THAT THEY INCREASE TAXES ON PEOPLE? PROBABLY NOT. THERE'S NOT A ROLLBACK SALES TAX.

PROPERTY TAX IS THE ONLY ONE IN STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT CONCEPT THAT IF YOU PAID MORE THAN THE PRIOR, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT SPECIFIC. YOU NEED JUST ONE MORE SECOND.

AND IF YOU DO NOT PASS THE ROLLBACK RATE, YOU NEED A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE.

CORRECT. WE NEED. NO, WE NEED A 5555. EXCUSE ME.

557 NOT A UNANIMOUS WHICH IS TYPICAL, WHICH IS I THINK CORRECT.

EVERY MUNICIPALITY BEEN AT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A FIVE SEVEN. AND IF WE PASS A ROLLBACK RATE THEN IT IS IT'S A SIMPLE 4/7 VOTE.

SO IN ESSENCE IF WE CAN STILL LOWER THE MILLAGE RATE AND TAXES CAN STILL GO UP, WHICH MEANS PEOPLE PAY MORE. SO IT IS A ACCURATE STATEMENT THAT IF WE DO NOT PASS THE ROLLBACK RATE, YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP. IN FACT, THE STATE OF FLORIDA SENDS OUT A NOTICE THAT YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP AND THERE'S A CERTAIN HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR US UP HERE TO VOTE ON THE MATTER. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON THAT.

SO THOSE ARE NOT CITY TAXES. THOSE ARE WE DO NOT CONTROL THOSE.

AND WE ARE GOING TO CUT BETWEEN SIX AND A HALF AND $20 MILLION FROM THE BUDGET.

THEY ARE CITY TAXES, PROPERTY TAXES. JASON, I'M MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT PROPERTY TAXES ARE NOT CITY TAXES, THAT THEY'RE COUNTY AND STATE TAXES. YEAH. THE PROPERTY TAX.

THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT PROPERTY TAXES. WE HAVE A THE MILLAGE THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IS YOUR CITY PROPERTY TAX.

THERE'S A COUNTY PROPERTY TAX AND THERE'S A FEW SMALL STATE ONES.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR TRIM, NOTICE THERE'S A NUMBER OF SMALL TAXING DISTRICTS KIND OF AT THE STATE LEVEL, SPECIAL DISTRICTS. AND WHEN WE GET A NOTICE THAT OUR TAXES ARE GOING UP, IT RELATES TO THE CITY, NOT TO THE COUNTY OR THE SCHOOL BOARD. COMMISSIONER IT'S ACTUALLY ALL NOT IT'S A CITY, IT'S A COUNTY.

IT'S A SCHOOL BOARD. IT'S A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. AND I THINK THE POINT MAY BE, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR TAX BILL, THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH IS A THIRD.

YES, IT'S A THIRD OF THE BILL. THE BIGGEST PORTION OF THE PIE IS MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE MIAMI DADE COUNTY. THEN YOU HAVE THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

YOU HAVE THE LIBRARY DISTRICT. SO YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PIE THAT GO INTO THAT PROPERTY TAX BILL THAT OUR RESIDENTS GET. MIAMI BEACH IS ONLY A SMALL SLICE OF THAT PIE.

IN REALITY, THANK YOU FOR THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OR LARGER.

YEAH, ALL THOSE ENTITIES WOULD ALL HAVE TO DO A ROLLBACK RATE TECHNICALLY TO GET YOU TO A ALL THE WAY ACROSS YOUR PROPERTY TAX SPECTRUM.

SO EVEN IF WE DO A ROLLBACK RATE, YES. AND WE SACRIFICE POLICE POSITIONS THAT THAT ARE GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND RESPONSE TIMES.

AND WE SACRIFICE 29 LIFEGUARD LIFEGUARDS AND ELIMINATE LIFEGUARD TOWERS AND DO AWAY WITH 3000 EDUCATION VOUCHERS AND CUT THE CAT PROGRAMS AND NOT FUND ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO ACHIEVE A ROLLBACK RATE.

WE COULD DO THAT. BUT UNLESS THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE ALSO DOING THE SAME, MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, IF THEY DON'T ROLL BACK THEIR THEIR BUDGET RATE, OUR RESIDENTS ARE TRULY NOT GETTING THEN A ROLLED BACK TAX BILL.

AND IF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION DOESN'T ROLL BACK THEIR TAX RATE, OUR RESIDENTS ARE NOT GETTING A ROLL BACK TAX BILL.

ALL THAT THEY'RE GETTING IS A REDUCTION IN MUNICIPAL SERVICES, BUT THEY STILL MIGHT END UP WITH A HIGHER TAX BILL BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER TAXES THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY ON THAT SAME TRIM NOTICE.

CORRECT. THIS COMMISSION BASICALLY. AND SO AND SO LET'S SAY IF WE ADOPT A IF WE IF WE SAY, OKAY, WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A ROLLED BACK TAX RATE, OUR RESIDENTS MIGHT STILL GET A NOTICE IN THE MAIL SAYING THAT THEIR TAXES ARE GOING UP, BECAUSE THAT WOULD APPLY.

THAT NOTICE WOULD STILL APPLY FOR ALL THOSE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? SO WHEN WE ADVERTISE OUR MILLAGE OR ADVERTISEMENT WE'LL SAY NOTICE OF TAX INCREASE.

HOWEVER WHEN THEY GET THE BILL IT'S ALL OF THE ENTITIES THAT MAKE UP THEIR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX.

[01:00:01]

COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE LIBRARY DISTRICT AND THE AND THE CHILDREN'S TRUST AND ALL THESE OTHER ENTITIES ALSO ROLL BACK THEIR MILLAGE RATE.

UNLESS THEY DO THAT, OUR RESIDENTS, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE GETTING THAT NOTICE ON THEIR TAX BILL SAYING, GUESS WHAT? YOUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE GOING UP.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO I JUST YEAH. SO I WOULD LIKE TO GET US BACK ON TRACK HERE.

I'M NOT GOING TO SIT. I MEAN WHAT'S HAPPENING.

THIS IS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE PHRASE THINGS IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, NEWSLETTERS.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND A HALF HOUR ON THIS.

OKAY. SO WE CAN GET TRY TO GET US BACK ON TRACK AND LET'S CONTINUE.

WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON WHETHER WE WANT TO ELIMINATE.

YOU PHRASE IT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THAT SPECIFIC LINE ITEM AND THEN KEEP GOING FORWARD WHERE THERE'S UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THINGS FROM THE EFFICIENCY LIST.

WE'LL DO SO WHERE THERE'S DISAGREEMENT, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

OKAY. SO ONE PGA IF YOU COULD PUT THAT SLIDE BACK UP THERE.

SO THE ITEM THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS ITEM 29.

AGAIN THIS IS A WORKSHOP NOT A COMMISSION MEETING. SO TECHNICALLY TECHNICALLY CAN'T BE A VOTE. BUT I GUESS I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS.

IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THIS ITEM. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THEN WHEN YOU SAY LET'S GET ON THE SAME PAGE, REMOVE IT FROM THE REMOVAL LIST.

CORRECT. IT'S ALMOST A DOUBLE NEGATIVE. RESTORE THE FUNDING. OKAY, SO WE'RE REMOVING THIS FROM THE REDUCTION LIST.

I SO I'LL LEAVE. I'LL VOTE TO KEEP THIS ON THE REDUCTION LIST.

OKAY. SO LET'S TAKE IT THAT WAY. IS EVERYONE OKAY.

THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY IN SEPTEMBER BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE ANOTHER ELEMENT THERE AT THIS POINT. ARE WE OKAY WITH LEAVING THIS ITEM.

DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS FOR THE CHAIR TO LEAVE THIS ITEM FOR NOW? NO, I WANT TO DEFER THAT. I WANT TO MOVE TO DEFER THIS VOTE, BECAUSE IF AT THE END OF THIS EXERCISE, WE HAVE CAPACITY TO ABSORB THIS COST, I DON'T WANT TO VOTE TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD FOR EMPLOYEE MORALE.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW AT THE END OF THIS EXERCISE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CAPACITY FOR THIS.

SO I'D RATHER DO A MOTION TO DEFER THIS UNTIL WE CAN MAKE A FULLY INFORMED DECISION ON THAT.

IF I IF I MAY, WHAT I THINK WE CAN DO IS IT DOESN'T GIVE ME CONSENSUS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME MAYBE A CONSENSUS TO DEAL WITH THIS AT THE END SO WE CAN MAKE A NOTE TO REVISIT THIS AT THE VERY END. THANK YOU. SO AT THE END OF THE APPROPRIATE SECTION, WHICH IS PROBABLY AT THE END OF THE RESORT TAX.

SO. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S MOVE ON. OH NO I'M SORRY.

I HAVE MORE. OH THERE'S MORE. OKAY. 34. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, SOME OF THEM WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FUND BECAUSE THEY ARE. WE MIGHT BE PREEMPTED BY THE GRANT THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, BUT THERE IS ONE IN HERE THAT'S A $10,000 ALLOCATION FOR FEINBERG.

FEINBERG, FISHER AFTER SCHOOL ART PROGRAM. AND I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT. THE FEINBERG FISHER PIECE IS $500, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE 5% ALLOCATION THERE.

THERE'S A REQUEST TO RESTORE THAT $500 ALLOCATION TO THE SCHOOL.

YES. IS THERE A CONSENSUS CONSENSUS TO RESTORE THAT $500? YES, YES. OKAY. I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS. SO WE WILL SHOW A $500 REALLOCATION THERE.

NUMBER 35. THE COMMON THREADS PROGRAM THAT IS CUTTING A SERVICE FOR OUR RESIDENTS IS 162 FAMILIES THAT IT AFFECTS.

AND I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT IN THERE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS, PLEASE.

JASON. THE COMMON THREAD, THE COMMON THREADS PROGRAM WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST YEAR IS A POSSIBLE REDUCTION, WHICH WAS RESTORED BY THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A BASICALLY, IT'S A HANDS ON COOKING AND NUTRITIONAL EDUCATION FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES.

SO IF THERE'S A REQUEST TO RESTORE THAT FUNDING AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO RESTORE THE FUNDING? OR HOW MANY PARTICIPANTS DOES THIS? THE COOKING SKILLS AND CUISINE IS 54 PARTICIPANTS.

FAMILY COOKING 20. ASK A CHEF 88. SO IT'S A MULTIPLE SET OF PROGRAMS FROM 88 TO 50 DOWN TO 20 PARTICIPANTS ON THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS. SO AGAIN, THIS IS ONE THAT COULD BE RESTORED IMMEDIATELY.

TALK ABOUT AT THE END OR TALK ABOUT IN SEPTEMBER.

SO DO WE. THERE'S A REQUEST TO RESTORE THAT FUNDING NOW.

AND I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS PROGRAM. IS THIS FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING FOOD INSECURITY IN OUR CITY? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE THIS IS FOR EVERYONE. I MEAN, YES, IF THEY ARE EXPERIENCING, THEY COULD BE. BUT THIS IS, I BELIEVE, OPEN FOR FOR ALL FAMILIES AT YOUTH. OKAY. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE GOING BACK TO LINE ITEM 34 AGAIN, ONE OF THE LINE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE THERE ARE OUR PROGRAMS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION PROGRAMS THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FUND, INCLUDING A $25,000 GRANT AND A $50,000 GRANT THAT WE POTENTIALLY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FUND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE

[01:05:09]

IF I NOW, IF I MAY. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE PREEMPTED ON THE SAFE.

ON PROJECT SAFE. WE'RE NOT PREEMPTED ON PROJECT SAFE.

CORRECT. HOW ABOUT SAFE SPACE PROGRAM? WE ARE STILL EVALUATING THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S A COMBINATION OF OF.

SO I WOULD SAY SO I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE HAVE A BALANCE.

AND SO I WOULD WAIT TO SEE WHAT IS WHAT IS THE FINDING ON THAT? BECAUSE IF THIS IS AND I GET I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M FINE KEEPING THE FUNDING, IF WE CAN FIND AN EFFICIENCY SAFE IS ABSOLUTELY OKAY TO.

OKAY. IF YOU'D LIKE, LET'S KEEP IT. YEAH. MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE DONE. COMMISSIONER.

YEAH. OKAY. TAMIKA AND JASON SORRY TO GO BACK A COUPLE OF MINUTES, BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT EVEN IF OUR TAXES, IF WE LOWER, IF WE HAVE A LOWER, IF WE DO THE ROLLBACK RATE AND THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL BOARD DOES NOT, WE STILL TECHNICALLY GET A NOTICE. YEAH. SO WE WILL HAVE A NOTICE THAT OUR TAXES ARE KEPT FLAT IF WE ADOPT THE MILLAGE, THE FLAT, THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE. HOWEVER, I JUST IN PJ IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE SCREEN BECAUSE I WANT EVERYONE TO SEE THIS, ESPECIALLY MY COLLEAGUES THAT HERE'S A NOTICE OF PROPOSED TAX INCREASE.

OKAY, P.J., IF YOU COULD PUT IT RIGHT HERE. SO SO EVERYONE CAN SEE.

I CAN'T REALLY SEE THAT MUCH. BUT NOTICE OF PROPOSED TAX INCREASE.

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. SO THERE IS A NOTICE THAT GOES OUT THAT SAYS WE ARE INCREASING YOUR TAXES.

EVEN THOUGH WE LOWER THE MILLAGE YOUR TAXES ARE GOING TO GO UP.

SO I JUST WANT EVERYONE UP HERE TO KNOW THAT EVERYONE'S GOING TO GET THIS NOTICE IN THE MAIL, AND EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE INFORMED THAT OUR TAXES ARE GOING TO GO UP.

SO AGAIN, I I'M SORRY TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE HERE, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MISCONCEPTIONS, UNFORTUNATELY, UP HERE THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH THAT WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN NOT TO RAISE TAXES AND SIMPLY LOWERING THE MILLAGE RATE A FEW DECIMAL POINTS IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT.

SO POINT OF INFORMATION. OKAY, I AM NOT GOING DOWN THIS PATH.

THIS IS POLITICS. THIS IS SEMANTICS. AND WE'RE NOT PLAYING THIS GAME.

OKAY. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. OKAY. WE ARE ALL SITTING UP HERE TRYING TO GOVERN FOR WHAT OUR NEXT SOCIAL MEDIA POST IS OUR NEWSLETTER ABOUT.

OH, HE RAISED TAXES. NO, I WANT TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR CITY.

I WANT TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR RESIDENTS. OKAY, I'M NOT GOING TO SIT UP HERE ABOUT WHAT I CAN PUT ON MY NEXT NEWSLETTER ABOUT, WELL, WAS THIS A TAX RAISE? HOW MUCH? OKAY, WE NEED TO RUN A MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, A MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, A MORE EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT. OKAY. AND WHERE THOSE CHIPS FALL, THEY FALL.

WHATEVER NOTICE GOES OUT, NOTICE GOES OUT. I'LL EITHER TAKE THE HEAT OR I WON'T.

I'M NOT GOING TO GOVERN ON WHAT NOTICE AND WHAT VERBIAGE OR WHAT SEMANTICS ARE PUT THERE.

WE WANT TO RUN A LEANER, MORE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT THAT STILL PROVIDES THE SERVICES FOR OUR RESIDENTS, THAT SAVES OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY. WHATEVER NOTICE OR HOWEVER THAT IS PHRASED, SO BE IT.

BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND SPEND A HALF HOUR TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING.

OKAY? WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. I'M PUTTING A STOP TO IT NOW.

WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS ITEM BY ITEM AND SAY, DOES THIS MAKE OUR CITY A BETTER PLACE OR NOT? IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. OKAY. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE LINE ITEMS HAS MERIT.

IT BOILS DOWN TO WHAT COST. DOES THIS PROGRAM, OR DOES THIS LINE ITEM CONSTITUTE THE COST THAT IT BEARS TO OUR TAXPAYERS? IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

SO LET'S CONTINUE ON THAT PATH FORWARD. THANK YOU.

IF WE COULD BRING BACK UP THE SLIDE AND JUST TO CLOSE THIS OUT, I BELIEVE.

COMMISSIONER. WHAT WE WOULD DO IS MAKE A NOTE THAT ON NUMBER 34, THE ONE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE HIGHLIGHTED, WE CAN PUT IN THAT REVIEW AND COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER TO TELL YOU ABOUT A DISPOSITION.

YOU CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION IN SEPTEMBER ON THAT.

ON WHICH ONE? JASON. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. ON NUMBER. THAT WOULD BE THE PRIDE LINES YOUTH SAFE SPACE.

THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THE REVIEW WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.

[01:10:02]

35. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REVIEW AT THE END OF THIS MEETING? YES. WE COULD PUT NUMBER 35 ON THE TO BE REVIEWED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.

SO WE'RE MAKING A NOTE OF THAT. YEAH, WE ARE MAKING NOTE OF THAT.

OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON. SO THIS IS THE THIRD OF 12 REDUCTIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND.

THIS IS PRIMARILY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT.

AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, WE ASKED EVERY DEPARTMENT TO COME WITH REDUCTIONS, AT LEAST 5% OF THEIR BUDGETS.

SOME OF THESE ARE RIGHT SIZING, WHICH MEANS THAT WE LOOKED AT THEIR PRIOR ACTUALS TO THEIR BUDGETS AND RIGHT SIZE.

AND SOME OF THEM IS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ACTUALLY REDUCTIONS IN THEIR MOSTLY OPERATING EXPENSES.

SO I'LL JUST GIVE YOU GUYS A MINUTE TO LET US KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING HERE TO BE DEBATED.

I'M FINE WITH THIS. OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE ON. SO ON HERE WE HAVE THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION FOR BEACH MAINTENANCE AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT ELEMENTS IN THERE.

SO WE DO HAVE IN HERE A COUPLE OF PHIL, WE HAVE A PHIL POSITION THAT'S IN THERE AND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE.

WE'RE WORKING ON A TRANSITION PLAN THERE. WE HAVE A REDUCTION IN OUR GRANTS MANAGEMENT CONSULTING AS THERE'S LESS FEDERAL OPPORTUNITIES.

AND THEN ACROSS KIND OF THAT BEACH MAINTENANCE AREA, THIS IS NOT REALLY THIS IS REALLY TO LIKE ROPE AND FOLKS FIXING THE SHOWERS AND THAT ELEMENTS OF THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. SO WE'RE JUST PUTTING AN ITEM THERE.

AND WHAT I'LL SAY, AND THIS IS DIRECTED TO OUR CITY LEADERS, OUR CITY MANAGER, OUR DIRECT REPORTS FOR YOU, THE MESSAGE THAT YOU NEED TO CONVEY AND LEAD AND LEAD BY EXAMPLE.

THESE ARE THE EXACT TYPES OF THINGS WHERE BECAUSE WE FIND EFFICIENCIES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL ACCEPT LESS OF A PRODUCT OR SERVICE TO OUR RESIDENTS, RIGHT? TO THE EXTENT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SEE THINGS WHERE MAYBE THE LABELING SAYS CUT BACK OF LANDSCAPING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING FROM 52 TIMES A YEAR TO 40 TIMES A YEAR, OR FOR BEACH MAINTENANCE.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WANT TO SEE A DIFFERENCE ON OUR BEACH.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ALL STRESSED FOR YEARS UP HERE THAT WE HAVE TO GET MORE FOR THE SAME.

AND I'VE SAID THAT EXACT PHRASE FOR YEARS, BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT, THEN WE WILL ONE DAY HAVE TO GET MORE WITH LESS.

AND THAT MEANS TO KEEP OUR BEACHES IN THE CONDITION THAT WE ALL DEMAND AND REQUIRE.

WE CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, MORE RESOURCES, MORE RESOURCES.

IT MEANS MOTIVATING THE TEAM A LITTLE MORE, RIGHT? HAVING THEM GO OUT AND TAKE THAT EXTRA INITIATIVE, WHETHER IT BE THIS OR OTHER AREAS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T KEEP ADDING RESOURCES FOR EVERY SINGLE ENHANCEMENT THAT WE NEED. SO WHILE WE SEE SOME THINGS HERE, LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SLIGHT REDUCTION FOR FUNDING OF RENTAL OF BEACH MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT OR BEACH MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS OVER TIME.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE MAKING EFFICIENCIES AND REDUCTIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THIS GOVERNMENT FOR THINGS LIKE THIS.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE CHANGE OUR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE PRODUCT THAT WE PUT FORWARD FOR OUR CITY, OUT TO OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR VISITORS. YES. AND WITH THAT, I WILL BE UNANIMOUS IN ACCEPTING ALL OR I WILL ACCEPT UNANIMOUSLY ALL OF THESE.

YES. CHAIR. AND AS WE AS WE HAD DISCUSSED, ALL THESE ELEMENTS INCLUDE THE ONES THAT ARE COMING UP RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, CUTTING BACK CYCLES OF, OF LANDSCAPING, EVERYTHING.

THEY'LL BE DONE VERY INTELLIGENTLY BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEY'LL BE MONITORED. WELL, YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE OVERSHOT SOMETHING AND THERE'S A THAT THE EXPECTATION IS STILL THERE, BUT WE'RE NOT MEETING THAT PRODUCT. WE CAN OBVIOUSLY HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE CONCEPT OF KEEPING A FLAT MILLAGE RATE TO GIVE OURSELVES CAPACITY IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF RESTORATION, IF I CAN JUST HIGHLIGHT THE, YOU KNOW, AN EFFICIENCY ON 60 FOR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GET RID OF THE CONTRACT AND ACCOUNTING SUPPORT FOR INVOICE REVIEW FOR THE INVOICES THAT COME IN FOR ALL THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE IN-HOUSE AND USING SOME ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO HELP REVIEW THOSE INVOICES AND SPOT ISSUES THERE.

AND THE LAST ONE, 65 IS AN OUTSOURCE PLAY WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE A VACANT POSITION, BUT SUPPLEMENT IT WITH OUTSIDE CONSULTING SUPPORT DURING AUDIT SEASON.

SO WE FIND THAT THAT'S AN EFFICIENCY THAT I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED. COMMISSIONER JASON, 63 IS A CURRENTLY FILLED POSITION, CORRECT? DOES THAT PERSON HAVE ANOTHER ROLE TO MOVE INTO? WE ARE WORKING ON A LANDING SPOT. OKAY. BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE PEOPLE INTO OTHER PLACES.

I'M NOT OKAY WITH FIRING PEOPLE. UNDERSTOOD. UNDERSTOOD.

[01:15:02]

I WOULD SAY I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH 55, 56 AND 57.

BECAUSE THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS CRITICAL FUNCTIONS SUCH AS CLEANING BEACH SHOWERS AND RESTROOMS, ADDRESSING PLUMBING ISSUES, REPAIRING THE ROAD SYSTEM, INSTALLING ADA MATHS AND RESPONDING TO UNPLANNED OPERATIONAL NEEDS.

AND OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE'VE SEEN IMPROVEMENTS, I BELIEVE IN THE CLEANLINESS OF, OF OUR, OF OUR CITY. I THINK THAT PROVIDING FOR A SAFE CITY, BUT ALSO A CLEAN CITY IS A PRIORITY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS.

AND I BELIEVE THOSE THREE LINE ITEMS ARE ONES THAT IF WE DO NOT, IF WE CAN FIND AT THE END WAYS TO SAVE THEM, I WOULD RATHER SAVE THOSE THREE LINE ITEMS. AND I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR, AND I'D LIKE TO GET INTO A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION AT THE END.

ERIC, THIS IS WHERE I'M ASKING YOU TO STEP UP.

YOU AND YOUR DIRECTORS, WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING THESE.

WE'RE JUST ELIMINATING SOME SUPERFLUOUS FUNDING FOR IT.

I WANT YOU OR SOME OF YOUR DIRECT REPORTS WHO ARE WELL PAID IN THE CITY AND DESERVINGLY.

SO WE RUN AN INCREDIBLE CITY. TRULY I WANT YOU OR SOME OF YOUR DIRECTORS TO RAISE YOUR HANDS AND SAY, YES, WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF CUTTING SOME OF THIS SUPERFLUOUS FUNDING.

AND IF IT TAKES US GOING OUT THERE ON OUR DRIVE HOME AND TAKING OUT AN ADA MAT AND GETTING IN A LITTLE EARLIER IN THE MORNING AND PUTTING THAT TOGETHER, THAT'S THE LENGTHS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TO GET THIS DONE.

I'M NOT ASKING LITERALLY, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. LIKE LEADERS HAVE TO LEAD.

I'LL CHALK THAT UP TO MY FRIEND ADONIS. IT'S ABOUT FINDING WAYS TO DO THINGS MORE EFFICIENTLY, BUT DELIVER THE SERVICE LEVELS THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE COME TO EXPECT.

SO FOR THESE THREE ITEMS, LET'S HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THIS LIST.

AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, OBVIOUSLY, I WASN'T LITERALLY SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU STOP THERE, BUT I WANT TO HEAR YOUR ANALYSIS.

OR PERHAPS ACTUALLY, I'M LYING. I ACTUALLY WAS LOOKING FOR YOU TO SAY THAT BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU YOUR HONEST ASSESSMENT.

IF WE CAN ELIMINATE SOME OF THAT SUPERFLUOUS FUNDING, BUT STILL MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF SERVICES THAT WE HAVE.

BUT LET'S KICK THAT TO THE END FOR THESE. HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT THE END.

NOT SURE I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO CALL IT SUPERFLUOUS FUNDING, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ACHIEVE SOME SAVINGS THROUGH EFFICIENCIES. THANK YOU.

IF WE'RE OKAY WE'LL ADD THAT TO THE LIST AT THE END.

BUT WE WILL HIGHLIGHT ITEMS THAT ARE RIGHTSIZING AND WHICH WOULD NOT IMPACT OPERATIONAL ONES.

I KNOW THESE WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY OF THAT ILK, BUT WE WILL ADD THAT TO THE LIST TO DISCUSS AT THE END TO SEE IF THERE'S AN INTEREST AT THE END. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO THIS THIS SLIDE THIS SLIDE IS FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.

PROBABLY THE THE EASIEST ONE ON THE LIST IS NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS THE 300,000 FOR THE BUNKER GEARS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BAKED INTO THE FY 2011 BUDGET. HOWEVER, WE DID A BUDGET AMENDMENT LAST MONTH TO ADD FUNDING USING THE FIRE TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDS.

SO THAT ACTUALLY IS ALREADY FUNDED. SO THAT'S THE EASIEST ONE.

AS YOU GO DOWN, WE HAVE A VARIETY OF FULL TIME AND PART TIME POSITIONS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BASED ON THE BUDGET.

SO I'LL PAUSE FOR A MINUTE. MR. CHAIR. I'M LOOKING AT THIS LIST.

SO I LOOK AT 67 AT 67. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THE ANALYSIS THAT THE CITY MANAGER YOU HAVE GIVEN US, YOU SAY THAT ELIMINATING 67 WOULD HAVE A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON SERVICE LEVELS, INCLUDING LONGER RESPONSE TIMES. WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR TITLE ONE CERTIFICATION THAT WE HAVE AS A FIRE DEPARTMENTS.

SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CUTS WITHIN THIS DEPARTMENT IN PARTICULAR THAT POTENTIALLY COULD PUT AT RISK SOME OF OUR ACCREDITATION FACTS. AND I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE CUTS THAT ARE OFFERED HERE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OUR SERVICE DELIVERY FIRE. WHEN WE LOOK AT 69, YOU KNOW, ONE FILLED FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST AND, AND THIS IS A FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING PLANS SUBMITTED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION INVOLVING HIGH RISES AND OTHER COMPLEX

[01:20:04]

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO IN AND ELIMINATE POSITIONS THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE DELAYS, BY THE WAY, IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTIONS THAT HELP THAT HELP FUND AND BALANCE OUR OUR BUDGET, AS WE SAW EARLIER IN THAT SLIDE UP IN THAT SLIDE THAT THAT, THAT JASON SHOWED US WHEN WE LOOK AT LINE ITEM 75, WHEN WE LOOK AT LINE ITEMS 75 TO REDUCE THE, THE OCEAN RESCUE BOAT COVERAGE, ARE THESE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOWED UP TO THE TRAGEDY THAT WE HAD OUTSIDE ON, ON BISCAYNE BAY, WHERE UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAD EVEN CHILDREN PASS AWAY.

CHIEF. YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING. FIRE CHIEF? YES.

THESE WERE THE FIRST INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE FIRST ARRIVAL ON THE SCENE BECAUSE OUR FIRE FIREBOAT WAS STATIONED AT THE 69TH STREET FIRE STATION, HENCE WHY IT WAS ADOPTED TO FUND FOR FIREBOAT TO MOVE TO THE MARINA.

CHIEF WOULD THIS HAVE AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND THE RESPONSE TIMES ON CRITICAL WATER INCIDENTS? ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE THE OCEAN RESCUE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PATROLLING THE ATLANTIC SIDE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FROM FIRST STREET TO 87TH STREET AND THE GOVERNMENT CUT AREA, AND WHAT ARE WE DOING A WEEK FROM TODAY? THERE'S MANY THINGS. WE'RE OPENING A PURDY MARINA.

GROUNDBREAKING, GROUNDBREAKING. AND WHAT IS THAT GROUNDBREAKING FOR? THIS IS TO FUND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR POLICE AND FIRE, MARINE PATROL.

AND SO WE WOULD BE HERE. WE'RE BUILDING A FACILITY, BUT DOING AWAY WITH THE OCEAN RESCUE BOAT COVERAGE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BENEFIT FROM THAT FACILITY. AND THE FIREBOAT? YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU IN LINE? WHICH LINE ARE YOU ON? LET ME FINISH, PLEASE. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. OKAY.

LET ME. SO. LINE ITEM 76. LINE ITEM 76. 29. PART TIME LIFEGUARD TOWER POSITIONS.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ELIMINATING THOSE LIFEGUARD LIFEGUARD TOWER POSITIONS? WE WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE THE PHYSICAL LIFE SAFETY COVERAGE FOR THAT AREA OF 26TH STREET, 55TH AND 62ND STREET. WHY WERE THOSE? WHY WERE THOSE LIFEGUARD TOWERS CREATED? THOSE WERE CREATED BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS THAT HAVE DIED IN THAT AREA.

AND BEYOND THE TRAGEDIES THAT, THAT, THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT THOSE TOWERS.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE LEGISLATION TO CREATE A MARINE PARK.

AND TO SUPPORT OUR, OUR TOURISM AND IS THE REQUEST OF OUR RESIDENTS.

AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF THIS MARINE PARK.

WHAT IMPACT WOULD THE ELIMINATION OF THESE LIFEGUARD POSITIONS HAVE ON THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF THIS MARINE PARK? WELL, PRIOR TO THAT, WE'VE ALSO HAVE THE REEF VEHICLES THAT WERE PUT IN SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND THAT'S ATTRACTED A LOT OF TOURISTS FOR THAT AREA. AND THIS IS GOING TO ATTRACT MORE INDIVIDUALS TO THIS AREA THAT IS GOING TO HAVE LIMITED COVERAGE.

AND HOW ABOUT, HOW ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO EXTEND THE SWIM ZONE, WHICH IS A ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE ITEM THAT WE AS A CITY COMMISSION ARE WORKING ON? HOW WOULD THE ELIMINATION OF THESE 29 POSITIONS AFFECT THAT? OUR LIFEGUARDS ARE CURRENTLY SWIMMING ON A FOOTBALL FIELD WHICH IS 350FT 500 YARDS, IS THE UPCOMING PROPOSED BUDGET UP TO 1200FT OUT FROM THE SAND, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS.

AND I CANNOT STAND HERE BEFORE YOU AND TELL YOU THAT THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY MANAGED IF WE CUT THESE POSITIONS.

SO FOR 75 AND 76, AFTER HEARING THAT, ARE WE ALIGNED? I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE NEED MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION AT THE END.

IS THERE ANYBODY THAT FELT DIFFERENTLY OR WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ANY OF THOSE TWO SPECIFIC ITEMS? I'D LIKE TO WELL, LET'S, LET'S WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT THROUGH THE CHAIR.

YEAH, LET'S JUST DO 75 AND 76 AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS 77.

[01:25:04]

YEAH. I WOULD SAY THAT THE LIFEGUARDS ON ALMOST A DAILY BASIS SAVE LIVES, RIGHT? AND IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY BANG FOR BUCK AS FAR AS SAVING LIVES TO POSITIONS, AND THAT IS PROBABLY OUR OUR BEST BET. SO I'M OKAY WITH CERTAINLY REMOVING THAT FROM THE CUT LIST.

SO UNANIMOUS. LET'S REMOVE THAT. WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO HEAR THAT AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE 7075 AND 76.

OKAY. AND I GUESS LET'S TALK ABOUT 77. YEP. COMMISSIONER I HAVE A QUESTION ON 66.

WHICH IS THE GEAR, HAS THE GEAR REACHED ITS LIFESPAN? HOW CRITICAL IS IT TO GET THAT REPLACED? YEAH, SO IT'S ALREADY FUNDED THROUGH THE, IF WE HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE GEAR THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS CAUSING, YOU KNOW, HAS CARCINOGENIC IN IT.

SO WE HAVE ALREADY FOR 12, 15 YEARS BACK, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN SETTING ASIDE $150,000 OF OUR BUDGET.

SO WHEN THIS DAY CAME, WE ALREADY HAD PART OF THE FUNDING.

AND THEN WE'RE USING THE REST FROM FIRE TECH. SO YES, WE ARE FULLY FUNDED FOR OUR BUNKER GEAR FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS.

OKAY, EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. I THINK THE CHAIR WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TO GET CONSENSUS ON 77 WHERE THE COMMISSION WANTED TO GO WITH THAT THROUGH THE CHAIR.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS ON THE CUT LIST. THIS WAS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION, BUT THERE WAS AN ENHANCEMENT FOR A MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CORRECT THAT WE'LL GET TO THAT ENHANCEMENT.

BUT YEAH, IT WAS MENTIONED DURING THE COMMISSION. ARE WE GETTING TO THAT? WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS JUST BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE FIRE? I THINK WE LOOK AT THIS COMPREHENSIVELY. SO I TALKED TO BOTH THE THE CHIEF AND THE FIRE UNION PRESIDENT, AND THEY BOTH AGREE THAT THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE THIS MONEY, THIS MONEY PUT TOWARD ANOTHER BODY WHO IS A FIREFIGHTER.

AND THEY HAD SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT HAVING A ON STAFF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE AT AT THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE, PLENTY OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THEM.

THAT THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

SO I THINK WE CAN SAY CERTAINLY SAVE MONEY. AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF THE UNION PRESIDENT CAN SPEAK ON THIS, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR HIM. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME LET ME BACK UP TO COMMISSIONER BOTT AND THE REST OF YOU GUYS PUSHING FOR THIS ORIGINALLY. I'M VERY WELL, I'M VERY, VERY THANKFUL.

AND WE ALL ARE. I THINK YOU SEE SOMETHING OF THE STRESSES OF THE JOB THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ACTUALLY COME BY THE STATION AND SEE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE FACING. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, WHILE I THANK YOU TREMENDOUSLY, IF IT'S BETWEEN JOBS AND THIS, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO RESPECTFULLY SAY THAT I'D LIKE TO REVISIT IT MAYBE ANOTHER TIME, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT THE TIME FOR IT. AND, AND IN A COLLECTIVE EFFORT TO TRY TO WORK WITH YOU.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE OTHER CUTS OF PEOPLE WHO AREN'T, YOU KNOW, WHO ARE ACTUALLY HERE. WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS AND FOREGO THIS. YEAH. AND THANK YOU. AND WHAT I WILL SAY IS I DON'T WANT TO GET THE NARRATIVE TWISTED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE FORGOING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLY AND WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH, AN INCREDIBLY ROBUST RESOURCE PROGRAM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO EVERY SINGLE FIREFIGHTER, EVERY SINGLE POLICE OFFICER, EVERY SINGLE CITY EMPLOYEE.

I BELIEVE, IF I MAY ADD TO THAT. YOU GUYS HAVE BLESSED US.

WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE OUR OWN HEALTH TRUST, AND WE HAVE A PHENOMENAL OUTREACH PROGRAM IN THAT SENSE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO LEAN ON THAT MORE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE WE'VE HAD OUR OWN INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS THAT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT OUT LOUD, BUT I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE IN SAYING THIS.

THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR, IF I MAY. OF COURSE, CHIEF, I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, AND I DON'T WANT TO COME BETWEEN YOU AND THE UNION PRESIDENT. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF US WHO HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OF YOU AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH IN THE AUDIENCE AND NOT I AM NOT WILLING AT THIS POINT TO SAY IT'S A CHOICE OF EITHER OR, AND I AM VERY EAGER TO HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW A POSITION COULD BE FUNDED THROUGH THE HEALTH TRUST OR THE FUND.

I DON'T THINK THAT AN EAP SYSTEM IS WHAT CRITICAL EXTREME NEEDS WILL ADDRESS.

IT'S GREAT FOR ONGOING STUFF, BUT NOT FOR CRISIS AND PEOPLE COMMITTING SUICIDE BECAUSE OF THE STRESSES OF THE JOB,

[01:30:03]

SO I HEAR ALL THE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO DO LESS, DO MORE WITH LESS.

AND I'M VERY OPEN TO HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO POTENTIALLY FUND IT THROUGH YOUR FUND.

BUT AT THIS TIME, I'M ABSOLUTELY NOT GOING TO TAKE THE SUGGESTION TO TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE.

PERHAPS WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MONTH, AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT ONE SUICIDE IS ONE TOO MANY AND WE'VE HAD MORE THAN THAT.

WE'VE HAD TWO IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. I WILL SAY THIS TO WORK WITH YOU, THE HEALTH TRUST, WE WILL LOOK INTO GETTING SOMEBODY AND HELPING OUT WITH THAT.

WE WILL DO THAT THROUGH OUR HEALTH TRUST IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES.

WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO THAT. LOOK INTO HAVING SOMEBODY COME TO THE STATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE TIME OR THE PLACE TO DO THAT.

AGREED. SO BECAUSE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE IN DEPTH CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH OF YOU AND ANYBODY ELSE ON YOUR.

AND WE CAN'T. EVEN BEFORE SEPTEMBER. BUT I PROMISE YOU THAT I GIVE YOU THE COMMITMENT FROM OUR HEALTH. TRUST THAT.

I LOVE YOUR IDEA ABOUT WORKING TOGETHER ON PARTIALLY FUNDING OR FUNDING IT.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. SO FOR NOW, LET'S KEEP THIS IN AND THEN DOWN THE ROAD, IF WE CAN GET RID OF GET RID OF IT, THEN LET'S GET RID OF IT. BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE IT OUT RIGHT NOW. I LIKE TO, I LIKE TO CLARIFY TWO QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED.

ONE, THAT WHY WASN'T THIS PUT IN A REDUCTION ASPECT? AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE ENHANCEMENT.

HOWEVER, THE FACT OF HAVING TO SPEAK TO THE 29 PART TIME LIFEGUARDS AND THE OTHER MEMBERS WHO ARE ACTUAL PHYSICAL, HUMAN NAMES TO POSITIONS, I WOULD RATHER FOREGO UNFORTUNATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE, A PERSON THAT IS NOT HERE VERSUS THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SITTING HERE WORRYING ABOUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOB COME OCTOBER 1ST.

AND THAT WAS MY COMMITMENT AND MY, YOU KNOW, BENEVOLENCE WITH HIM.

AND WE'VE DONE A LOT WITH OUR OWN HEALTH TRUST, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO A LOT WITH MORE.

BUT IF IT COMES TO BODIES THAT I CAN'T. WELL, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, A POSITION TO BE FILLED LATER VERSUS JOBS IN HUMANS WHO ARE OUR COLLEAGUES AND LITERALLY SAVING LIVES EVERY DAY.

NOW, IT'S NOT AN EITHER OR CHOICE. SO LET'S KEEP IT WHERE IT IS FOR NOW, AND THEN COME BACK AND FIGURE IT OUT.

I'M SURE IF I IF I CAN ADD COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ AND THEN JASON I JUST WANT TO ALSO ASK, SINCE WE HAVE THE CHIEF AT THE PODIUM, WHAT I'M SEEING HERE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF SWORN POSITIONS HERE TO BE ELIMINATED.

I SEE THEM IN 67 IN LINE. LINE ITEM 67. WE HAVE SWORN POSITIONS.

WE HAVE SWORN POSITIONS BEING CONVERTED TO CIVILIAN, WHICH ACTUALLY, I DON'T MIND.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD IN 68, BUT IN 69 AND 70 WE HAVE SWORN POSITIONS.

IN 75 AND 76 WE HAVE MORE SWORN POSITIONS IN 77.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ELIMINATING SWORN POSITIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.

BUT THOSE ARE NEEDED FOR MARINE RESPONSE. AND ELIMINATING THOSE WOULD AFFECT THE FIREBOAT AND POTENTIALLY INCREASE OVERTIME. BUT THEN WHEN WE GO TO ANOTHER LINE ITEM, WE'RE LOOKING TO DECREASE RELIANCE IN OVERTIME.

AND SO AND SO WE CAN'T YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

YOU CAN'T SAY YOU'RE ELIMINATING SOMETHING TO RELY ON AN OVERTIME.

AND THEN, AND THEN AND THEN SAY, WELL, YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE OVERTIME.

WELL, IF YOU DO THAT, YOU'RE THEN REDUCING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT THAT THAT THE PUBLIC IS RECEIVING.

SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE THERE NOT OPERATIONAL CUTS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT? ARE THERE INTERNAL EXPENDITURES? ARE THERE NOT STAFF POSITIONS? WHY ARE WE ONLY LOOKING HERE? THE BULK OF THE REDUCTIONS HERE, THE BULK OF THE OF THE OF THE REDUCTIONS HERE ARE TO SWORN POSITIONS THAT ARE PUBLIC FACING POSITIONS, THE ONES THAT SHOW UP TO OUR HOMES AND WANTS TO SHOW UP TO TRAGEDY.

GOD FORBID THOSE THOSE OCCUR, UNFORTUNATELY. BUT WHERE ARE THE STAFF POSITIONS? WHERE ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS? WHERE ARE THE OPERATIONAL CUTS SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE POSITIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE SAVING LIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY. THE.

THE EXERCISE AND DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE BODY WAS TO COME IN WITH 5% REDUCTIONS.

THE TWO OPERATING COSTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU IS LINE 66 AND 73.

[01:35:07]

I DO DO OPERATIONAL CUTS EXIST? I CAN'T SHOOT OFF THE HIP RIGHT NOW, BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN APPROXIMATE. 1%, 2% THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO LOOK AND COORDINATE.

AND IF THOSE EXIST, I WANT TO SEE THOSE WHEN WE COME BACK BECAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT.

I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ELIMINATING ANY OF THESE SWORN POSITIONS.

I JUST AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT. IN FACT, EVEN EVEN IF THEY'RE VACANT, WHEN WE WHEN WE TOUCH THESE VACANT POSITIONS, WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE'RE PUTTING A BIGGER AND GREATER BURDEN ON THE FIREFIGHTERS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

AND THEN WE COMPLAIN THAT THE OVERTIME EXPENDITURES ARE HIGH.

WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE CHOSEN THAN TO ELIMINATE VACANT FIREFIGHTER POSITIONS.

AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT HIRING MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALISTS.

WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THE MENTAL HEALTH OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY HAVE TO WORK COUNTLESS HOURS? I'M GLAD YOU'RE KIND OF ASKING THAT QUESTION OUT LOUD, BECAUSE THE FIREMEN HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF HEAT FOR WORKING, BASICALLY. SO WE'RE IT'S A CATCH 22. YOU KNOW, WE'RE SHORT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POSITIONS.

WE NEED THESE POSITIONS. OKAY. MORE IMPORTANTLY, TALKING ABOUT THE BOAT.

I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE THAT OUR FIRE BOAT IS THERE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE FOUGHT SO HARD FOR COLLECTIVELY AS A BODY.

WE'RE BUILDING A BRAND NEW STATION IN SUNSET HARBOR, WHERE THE BOAT NEEDS TO BE FOR RESPONSE TIMES AND NOT TO INTERRUPT.

WE DIDN'T PUT THIS FORWARD. NO, NO. WE'RE JUST EVALUATING.

YEAH. FORGIVE ME. I DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY. WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S.

IT'S ON THE LIST, SO I HAVE TO DEFEND IT. AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU MY POSITION ON IT.

OUR POSITION IS THAT WE THIS THIS STATION WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT NOW IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY POSITIONED.

THAT'S WHY THE POLICE MARINE STATION WAS THERE CURRENTLY FOR RESPONDING FROM THE FROM THE TO THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER TRAGEDY LIKE WE HAD WITH THE CHILDREN THAT WENT IN THE WATER, BUT OUR PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT PULLED THEM OUT. AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A 24 HOUR JOB.

IT'S NOT TEN HOURS BECAUSE AS SOON AS THE WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT, AS SOON AS THE GUYS LEAVE.

SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN. TRAGIC. AND I THINK OUR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING MYSELF, WHO'S BEEN A RESIDENT HERE FOR 30 YEARS, EXPECT THIS KIND OF SERVICE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE GIVEN THEM.

WE'RE IN WE'RE IN A TRAJECTORY WHERE THIS CITY IS HEADING TO SO MUCH OF A BETTER PLACE BECAUSE OF YOUR LEADERSHIP, ALL OF YOU COLLECTIVELY. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS IN DOLLARS, BUT WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES THE QUESTION, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE REALLY GAINING BY PUTTING EVERYBODY IN THIS PLACE, MAKING THEM NERVOUS, THINKING ABOUT LOSING THEIR JOBS? I MEAN, THIS IS SERIOUS THINGS. THESE ARE PEOPLE HERE. THESE ARE FACES.

AND ALL WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS WE UNDERSTAND WE CAN FIND EFFICIENCIES.

I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ALL OUR JOBS. BUT RIGHT NOW, THE THINGS THAT ARE HERE ARE CRITICAL FOR LIFE SAFETY.

AND I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO BE AWARE OF THAT. AND I THANK YOU FOR ALL THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE GIVEN US OVER THE YEARS. I HAD THIS CONVERSATION. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE BODY, ALTHOUGH I KNOW COMMISSIONER SUAREZ WANTS TO SPEAK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE FOR LINE ITEM 77.

I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC DYNAMICS OF THAT OVER THE NEXT MONTH.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. PROPER STAFFING, BUT I'M FINE TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE REDUCTION LIST RIGHT NOW.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M COSIGNING TO ALL $1.65 MILLION OF THAT.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT IF THERE ARE MORE EFFICIENT STAFFING LEVELS.

BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING THIS PROGRAM IN PLACE, WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT RIGHT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS.

I THINK THE CITY AND YOU GUYS SHOULD BE PROUD OF YOURSELVES FOR THE PRODUCT THAT'S BEEN PRODUCED.

IF YOU LOOK AT OUR NEW FIREBOAT, IT IS IT IS A THING OF BEAUTY AND THE WAY AND THE WAY IT RESPONDS.

AND JUST REAL QUICK, ON A TECHNICAL NOTE, IT'S ALSO USED AS WATER SUPPLY ON THE OUT ISLANDS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUT IN STAR ISLAND AND ALL THE BIG, BIG HOMES.

WE'RE VERY LIMITED IN OUR WATER SOURCES AND THAT BOAT IS USED AS A WATER SOURCE.

SO THERE'S MANY REASONS BEHIND THAT BESIDES THE UNBELIEVABLE TRAINING THESE GUYS DO ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS.

AND AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND I WOULD LIKE TO.

OKAY. SO CAN WE SAY EVERYBODY AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL REMOVE THE 77 FROM THE REDUCTION LIST? YES. AND WE'LL HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER ABOUT WHAT THAT PROGRAM SHOULD LOOK LIKE.

[01:40:02]

THERE'S A BIT A BIT, A FEW COMMENTS. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO THESE ONE BY ONE.

I APPRECIATE IT CHAIR. SO JUST ON THAT ELEMENT, LET'S I HAVE A FEW MORE TO TALK ABOUT.

SO ON 77 WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THAT RIGHT NOW.

I BELIEVE THERE IS A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THAT, AS WE DID WITH 75 AND 76.

CAN. MR. CHAIR AND I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S EASIER TO TELL YOU WHAT I FEEL COMFORTABLE ELIMINATING BECAUSE I FEEL COMFORTABLE ELIMINATING FROM THIS SECTION MUCH LESS THAN WHAT I FEEL KEEPING IN THE REDUCTION LIST.

LET'S GO ONE BY ONE THEN, BECAUSE YEAH, LET'S GO ONE BY ONE.

LET'S START WITH 67 BECAUSE I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT'S SAYING.

RIGHT? SO WHEN WE SAY ELIMINATE FIVE FULL TIME DEPARTMENT POSITIONS, NOBODY IS BEING REDUCED.

THIS WOULD BE A FIELD CAPTAIN POSITION. AND I BELIEVE IT'S ADONIS.

SO WHEN HE ACTUALLY LEAVES IT'S NOT REPLACING HIM.

AND WHAT I TOLD HIM, HOW COULD YOU EVER START TO REPLACE HIM ANYWAY.

SO WHY WOULD WE EVEN TRY? BUT YOU KNOW, KIDDING ASIDE WHAT THIS IS, IS NOT REFILLING HIS POSITION AND THEN FOR UNFILLED POSITIONS AND. JASON. YES, I THINK THE CHIEF, IF WE WANT TO GO ONE BY ONE, THAT'S FINE.

WE CAN START RIGHT AT 67. AND YOU KNOW, LET ME KNOW IS THIS ONE WE ARE KEEPING.

I'LL SAY I WILL VOTE TO KEEP THIS ON THE REDUCTION LIST BEING VERY CLEAR.

NONE OF THIS IS A FIELD POSITION, RIGHT? SO NOBODY IN THIS ROOM IS AT RISK.

IT MEANS ADONIS ISN'T FILLED AND FOUR POSITIONS ARE NOT BACKFILLED.

I UNDERSTAND THE OVERTIME VERSUS THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE NEED TO START SOMEWHERE, RIGHT? WE NEED TO START SOMEWHERE.

AND IF IT'S HAVING LESS STAFFING IN EVENTS TO HELP REDUCE THAT OVERTIME, WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

BUT YOU GET TO $1 BILLION BUDGET BY NOT DOING SOME OF THESE THINGS.

COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ? YES, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR VACANT POSITIONS ARE GOING TO BE VACANT AS WE GO INTO INTO FISCAL YEAR 27. TWO OF THEM ARE VACANT BY TRAGEDY. TWO OF THEM ARE VACANT BECAUSE THERE WERE INDIVIDUALS WHO WE LOST FROM THIS DEPARTMENT, BUT THE DEPARTMENT RELIED ON THEM.

AND SO WHILE THEY ARE VACANT, THOSE POSITIONS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN VACANT TODAY.

THOSE ARE LIVES THAT I BELIEVE ALL OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS WERE CHERISHED TO HAVE WITH THEM.

AND THE OTHER TWO ARE POSITIONS THAT THEY'RE RELYING ON.

THERE ARE TWO POSITIONS. IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE VACANT TODAY.

THEY'RE POSITIONS THAT THEY'RE FILLED TODAY. BUT GOING INTO FISCAL YEAR 27, THOSE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE GOING TO BE RETIRING.

AND SO ELIMINATING THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A BURDEN.

AND I HAVE TO GO BASED ON WHAT WAS GIVEN TO ME IN WRITING AND WHAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS GIVEN US IN WRITING.

AND THIS IS WHY I CANNOT VOTE TO ELIMINATE THESE POSITIONS, IS BECAUSE THEN I'LL BE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT, INCLUDING LONGER RESPONSE TIMES. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THAT.

I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR LONGER FOR ELIMINATIONS OF OF POSITIONS THAT ARE GOING TO DELAY RESPONSE TIMES.

AND WE KNOW FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM FROM WORKING AT THE COUNTY AND FROM EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION, WHEN YOU DELAY RESPONSE TIMES. YOU AFFECT YOUR CERTIFICATION AS A FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WHEN YOU AFFECT YOUR CERTIFICATION AS A FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF, WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR INSURANCE RATES AND TO THE INSURANCE RATES OF OUR RESIDENTS WHEN RESPONSE TIMES? GO, GO UP, YOUR INSURANCE RATES GO UP. AND SO WHILE ON THIS SIDE OF THE PAPER FOR OUR RESIDENTS, IT LOOKS GOOD THAT WE'RE CREATING AN EFFICIENCY.

WE'RE GOING TO CAUSE AN INCREASE ON THE INSURANCE WHEN THEIR RESPONSE TIMES.

SORRY, ERIC, HOW MANY FIREFIGHTERS DO WE HAVE? I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

WHILE WE'RE WHILE WE'RE LOOKING THAT UP, I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK JUST REAL QUICK 235 235.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO LESS. RIGHT? IF YOU'RE TELLING ME TWO LESS FIREFIGHTERS THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE NOW ARE GOING TO LEAD TO LONGER RESPONSE TIMES, AND YOU PUT THAT IN WRITING THAT IS OFFENSIVE.

OKAY, OUT OF 235 FIREFIGHTERS, IF YOU'RE CONVEYING THE MESSAGE, HAVING TWO LESS IS GOING TO LEAD TO ACROSS THE BOARD, LONGER RESPONSE TIMES. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. IF I MAY.

AND THAT LINE IS FIVE PEOPLE. BUT LET ME JUST ADDRESS BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS.

AND I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND, INCLUDING PEOPLE AT HOME WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING THESE SALARY ISSUES.

IT'S A CATCH 22. IT'S OKAY. WE CAN HAVE LESS PEOPLE, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE OVERTIME AS LONG AS YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT AND WE'RE NOT BEING

[01:45:03]

BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT A CUT ON THIS SIDE YOU STILL HAVE, OUT OF THOSE 235, 225, 75 PER SHIFT ARE ACTUALLY ON SHIFT EVERY SINGLE DAY AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND ONE MORE THING, IF I MAY, I WANT TO JUST SAY SOMETHING FOR THE CHAIR.

THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES, THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES IS A IS A CITY THAT'S VERY COMPARABLE TO OURS IN SIZE AND SCOPE.

THE SAME AMOUNT OF STATIONS. THEY RUN 5000 CALLS A YEAR.

WE RUN OVER 30,000 CALLS. I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THEY RUN 5000.

GOD BLESS THEM. WE RUN 30,000. SO YOU GET YOUR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF US.

AND WE DO NEED STAFFING. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING LESS.

YOU ARE SO WIDELY PRAISED AND HELD TO THE HIGHEST REGARD POSSIBLE, AND I SAY THAT COLLECTIVELY TO YOUR ENTIRE STAFF, WHETHER IT BE BY THIS ELECTED BODY, BY OUR RESIDENTS, BY OUR TOURISTS.

THE WORLD CUP VISITORS HAD A GREAT TIME AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I WANT TO, IF I MAY, FOR A SECOND. I WANT TO ECHO THAT.

I HOPE, BECAUSE I DID GET SOME CALLS FROM FROM FOLKS CONCERNED, MAYBE THINKING THAT WE HAVE ANYTHING BUT THE HIGHEST OF RESPECT FOR OUR FIREFIGHTERS, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. BUT THIS IS PART OF IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE PRETTIEST PROCESS.

LEGISLATING CERTAINLY THE BUDGET, THE FIRE AND POLICE FOR GOOD REASON IS THE LARGEST PORTION OF OUR BUDGET.

AND. AND IT SHOULD BE. AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW OUR RESIDENTS DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ULTIMATELY GOING TO DECIDE.

SO YES, WE NEED TO HEAR THE FEEDBACK. IT'S GREAT.

BUT ALSO THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS. WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AND DETERMINE, IS THERE SOMETHING IS THERE A POSITION OR TWO OR MORE THAT ARE REDUNDANT OR WHAT HAVE YOU? AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. SO I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE. NO. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATIONS. YES. I JUST I WANT TO READ IT.

AND I THINK I'M AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD IT FROM ALL OF US. AND I THINK I'M JUST REITERATING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID.

WE HAVE THE UTMOST APPRECIATION AND RESPECT FOR ALL OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS, ALL OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS WE AS PART OF THE BUDGET.

I KNOW YOU MEAN THAT, MR. MAYOR. YOU YOU'VE LED BY EXAMPLE, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU FOR SURE. I APPRECIATE IT. AND IT'S AND IT'S MUTUAL. COMMISSIONER SUAREZ OH, DONNA, YOU'RE STILL UP AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT FILLING SOME VERY IMPORTANT POSITIONS, OBVIOUSLY. AND I THINK YOU SAID THIS EARLIER, WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ANOTHER FIREFIGHTER OR A MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR THAT'S SITTING AT THE STATION ALL DAY? I THINK I WAS PRETTY CLEAR WITH MY ANSWER, AND I'LL REITERATE IT WHILE I STILL APPRECIATE WHERE IT CAME FROM, AND LIKE I SAID, I'M WILLING TO LOOK AT IT THROUGH OUR HEALTH, TRUST AND HANDLING THE WHOLE COST OR PART OR AT LEAST MOST OF THE COST.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW, IT'S TOO EARLY.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE TELLING ME BETWEEN THE TWO, THERE IS NO QUESTION.

IT'S A 100% A FIREFIGHTER BECAUSE THEY'RE THE LINE PEOPLE THAT ARE RESPONDING EVERY SINGLE DAY.

AND THESE RESIDENTS DESERVE THAT. RIGHT? I THANK YOU, IF I COULD IF I COULD ADD ONE.

AND THEN, JASON, I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ SAYS, AND I AGREE 100%.

I BELIEVE WE NEED THESE POSITIONS EVEN IF THEY'RE VACANT, BECAUSE WE, YOU KNOW, THE STRESS THAT THOSE VACANT POSITIONS PUTS ON THE REST OF THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY HAVE TO WORK OVERTIME. AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO NEED THOSE POSITIONS FILLED AND WE WILL IN TIME.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SCRAMBLE WHEN WE HAVE THE FOLKS AVAILABLE TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS.

SO I'M GOING TO AGREE ON THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CUT THE CDC FUNDING, AND NOW WE HAVE A A LARGE, YOU KNOW, HEALTH CRISIS ON OUR HANDS THAT IS SPREADING THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THAT WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CAUSE IS. THERE'S RIPPLE EFFECTS TO THINGS WHEN WE CUT SERVICES THAT WE NEED.

AND THIS IS A PART OF THE CUTS THAT WE NEED. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ IN THAT I DON'T WANT TO CUT ANY OF THESE VACANT POSITIONS EITHER.

IT'S JUST FIRE. OUR FIRST RESPONDERS ARE TOO VALUABLE TO NOT SAY WE NEED THE SUPPLEMENTATION OF THESE POSITIONS WHEN WE NEED TO HIRE THEM.

AND IF I MAY, THAT'S THE REASON WHY. AND I KIND OF SPOKE TO A COUPLE OF YOU ABOUT IT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE SO SHORT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THESE INCREDIBLE NUMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

I WOULD JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, THIS WEEKEND ALONE FOR THE FIFA WORLD CUP, WE'RE FORCING 18 FIREFIGHTERS AND COUNTING.

WE'RE FORCING THEM BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE STAFFING LEVELS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO WORK WITH. SO AND I WELCOME I WOULD LOVE TO WRITE BECAUSE MAYBE WE ANALYZE AND SIT DOWN AND TALK.

ARE THEY THE RIGHT STAFFING LEVELS? RIGHT. LIKE, IS IT TOO MUCH OVER? SO LET'S HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH.

SO IN SUMMATION AND WE'LL CONTINUE GOING THE OTHER LINE ITEMS.

[01:50:04]

SO SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ME, ARE WE EVER NOT? THIS WILL BE THIS WILL BE PROBABLY ONE OF THE LAST TIMES YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH ME. BUT I GOT TO TELL YOU, IT'S BEEN A GREAT JOURNEY AND I ENJOY IT. BUT THE THING IS, IT'S A UNION PRESIDENT POSITION.

I JUST HAPPEN TO BE A CAPTAIN. WHEN I LEAVE, THEY CAN ELECT ANOTHER CAPTAIN OR ANOTHER FIREFIGHTER.

IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE POSITION. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK OUT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T PICKED OUR NEW PRESIDENT YET. BUT AGAIN, I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH ANY OF YOU AT ANY TIME.

IT'S A, I HAVE A GREAT TIME TALKING TO ALL OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

SO WHENEVER YOU WANT, PLEASE REACH OUT. SO LET'S, LET'S REMOVE THAT FROM THE REDUCTION LIST.

WE'LL CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION THROUGH THROUGH SEPTEMBER.

OKAY, SO IF I MAY, SO 67, SO ITEM 67, THE FIREFIGHTERS AND THE CAPTAIN POSITION WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE RIGHT NOW FROM THE, JUST LIKE WE DID WITH 75 AND 76, IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON THAT NOT HEARING AN OBJECTION? WE WILL DO THAT. THE ONE ITEM I WANTED TO GO BACK TO WAS ON THAT.

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ MENTIONED A BOT ON THE MENTAL HEALTH.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO PENCIL A BUDGET TOGETHER HERE, IS THE SERVICES IS NEEDED, BUT THE FUNDING SOURCE WOULD SHIFT. AND I THINK THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT THE UNION PRESIDENT SAID THAT HE WOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER BART ABOUT HOW TO DELIVER THAT ELEVATED LEVEL OF SERVICE, BUT IT COULD BE FUNDED THROUGH THEIR TRUST.

SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, AS WE ARE NOW SAVING POSITIONS, LET'S SAY, IN FIRE.

I THINK WE COULD REMOVE THAT ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO YET. IT'S TECHNICALLY IN A DIFFERENT SECTION, BUT WE'LL REMOVE THAT SO THAT WE COULD SAVE THAT MONEY ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE.

SO WE COULD ADD THOSE TWO TOGETHER. SO 67 WILL REMOVE AND THE MENTAL HEALTH WHICH WILL BE COVERED THROUGH A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER ELEMENTS ON HERE. FROM 68 DOWN TO 74 OR 77, 78.

I'M SORRY. 77. THAT WAS THE BIT. THAT WAS THE NEXT BIG ONE.

THE FIREBOAT. SO THE FIREBOAT WE ARE REMOVING FROM THE REDUCTION LIST, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO DO THAT NOT HEARING EXEMPTION.

WE WILL REMOVE 77 FROM THE REDUCTION 69, 69 69.

THERE'S BOTH A FILLED AND A VACANT ONE. I WOULD THESE ARE POSITIONS THAT ARE NEEDED.

AGAIN, THE REVIEW OF NEW CONSTRUCTION IN OUR CITY.

THESE ARE THE PLAN REVIEWS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPROVING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND NOT HAVING DELAYS IN PERMITTING.

THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF IT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE TOP COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET IS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT HAS THE DELAYS IS SOME OF THE OTHER TRADES, INCLUDING FIRE. AND SO I CANNOT SUPPORT LINE ITEM, LINE ITEM 69.

IS THERE A THROUGH CONSENSUS, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING LINE ITEM 69 FROM THE LIST.

NOT HEARING. SO WE WILL REMOVE LINE ITEM 69. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER ELEMENTS THERE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS? SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE? WELL WITH WITH WITH THE OVERTIME. I MEAN IF YOU LIKE TODAY LIKE OVERTIME IS NOT ON THE 70 LINE.

ITEM 70 REDUCE FUNDING. THAT'S NOT RECOMMENDED.

YEAH, THAT IS NOT OKAY. SORRY. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT 71 AND 72.

71. IS THAT A SWORN POSITION OR IS THAT AN IT POSITION? IT POSITION. YEAH. IT'S AN IT POSITION TO OFFSET THE LOAD OF ALL THE COMPUTERS THROUGHOUT THE STATION.

ALL THE COMPUTERS ON THE FIRE TRUCKS, OUR REPORT WRITING SYSTEMS. NORMALLY IT WOULD BE MYSELF OR CHIEF LINARES HAVING TO PUT A TICKET IN AND WE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO BE AVAILABLE TO FIX OUR, YOU KNOW, TECHNOLOGY ISSUES. AND THAT IS FUNDED SO WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE AT THE DEPARTMENT READILY AVAILABLE SHOULD WE HAVE SOMETHING GO DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY.

OUR PHONE SYSTEMS, EVERYTHING THAT IS FROM OCEAN RESCUE DISPATCHERS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 22 VEHICLES.

IT'S JUST AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO JUST ABSORB THE WORKLOAD BETWEEN A SWORN POSITION.

AND SO IF YOU LOSE THIS POSITION, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? HOW DO YOU GET YOUR TECHNOLOGY FIXED? IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE IT JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT, THE IT DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, YOU KNOW, SERVICES, ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

FIRE HAS ONE DEDICATED IT PERSON. SO OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES WILL NOT GET AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE WHEN THEIR EMERGENCY SERVICES SYSTEM GOES DOWN.

IT WOULD JUST BE A DELAYED IN GETTING THAT TECHNOLOGY UP AND RUNNING DEPENDING IF IT'S ONE COMPUTER, TWO COMPUTERS WHATEVER OUR BELL SYSTEMS, THAT'S OUR BELL SYSTEM.

OKAY. AND SO OUR EMERGENCY SYSTEMS WILL BE CRIPPLED IF THIS POSITION IS LOST.

BASICALLY. THAT'S NOT TRUE. IF MAYBE WE COULD HAVE FRANK JUST SAY IT.

[01:55:01]

GOOD MORNING, FRANKENSTEIN DIRECTOR. SO THE POSITION IS DEDICATED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

IN ORDER FOR US TO DEAL WITH THE VOLUME OF WORK THAT COMES SPECIFIC TO THEM THEY'RE SEATED AT THE DEPARTMENT AS OPPOSED TO TREATING THEM LIKE ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT WHERE WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF FIELD TECHNICIANS, LIKE THE ONES THAT VISIT YOUR OFFICES TO REPAIR ISSUES AS THEY COME UP.

IT'S A TIMING THING. SO THEY RECEIVE DIRECT SUPPORT FROM US WITHOUT HAVING TO FALL INTO A QUEUE, ESSENTIALLY. FRANK. SO YOU HAD OUR IT DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. IF THIS POSITION DOES NOT SIT WITH THE FIRE OR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR OUR CITY CRIPPLED, IF BY EMERGENCY SERVICES, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THINGS LIKE THE 911 SYSTEM OR RESPONSE TIMES OF THAT NATURE, THAT'S CITY WIDE? NO. WHAT IT WOULD DO IS DELAY OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO INDIVIDUAL ISSUES ON FIRE TRUCKS, APPARATUS BACK OF HOUSE STAFF, FIREFIGHTERS THAT ARE IN THE FIELD, ANYTHING THAT THEY TAKE NOT PRIORITIZED BEING AN EMERGENCY SERVICE THROUGH YOUR DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE PRIORITIZED THROUGH THIS FUNDED POSITION.

I'M COMFORTABLE KEEPING THIS ON THE LIST. UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS SOMEONE THAT YOU JUST HAVE IN THE DEPARTMENT, BUT IT IS STILL GOING TO RESPOND, STILL ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.

AND YOU JUST MENTIONED 911 DISPATCH. THERE'S A NIGHT ISSUE THERE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE DELAYED IN ITS RESPONSE FOR THOSE CORE SYSTEMS. CORRECT. OKAY. I'M FINE KEEPING THIS ON THE LIST.

OKAY. SO WE'LL SHOW THAT STAYING. WAS THERE ANY OTHER.

CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION, FRANK? IS, IS THIS IS THIS POSITION PAID FOR BY THE IT BUDGET OR IT'S IN THE FIRE BUDGET? IT'S FUNDED. IT'S NOT FUNDED THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S ON HERE AS A LIST BECAUSE IT COMES THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND. IT GETS REIMBURSED THROUGH THE IS THE IT TECH TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY FUND FOR FIRE.

RIGHT. SO IS THERE A DIFFERENT SCALE OF PAY BECAUSE IT'S SEATED IN NO.

OKAY. MEANING THAT THIS, THIS, IF THIS WAS KEPT, IT WOULD HAVE NO NET EFFECT ON THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT AGAIN, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS EXERCISE, NOT ONLY WAS ABOUT THE ROLLBACK WAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, STAFF REDUCTIONS, SMALLER BUDGETS, SMALLER GOVERNMENT. SO EFFECTIVELY THIS WAS LEFT ON IT WOULD NOT HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET BECAUSE IT GETS REIMBURSED THROUGH ITS OWN SPECIAL REVENUE SOURCE. SO ON THE FIRE SIDE, WE CAN BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN. I THINK THERE WAS STILL ONE QUESTION.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT 72. THE INFECTION CONTROL OFFICER POSITION.

CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE WERE.

SO SO THIS POSITION AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT THE DIRECTIVE WAS HE IS PART OF OUR ACCREDITATION PROCESS AS REVIEWING ANY TIME THAT SOMEONE GETS EXPOSED TO BLOOD AND WE NEED TO HAVE THEM GET A PROPHYLACTIC SO THEY DON'T GET AIDS OR AN STD OR SOMETHING. HE IS THE ONE THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THAT, AS WELL AS ISSUING OUR CERTIFICATIONS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, MAINTAINING OUR CERTIFICATIONS. NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS, BLOODBORNE THE FIELD BLOOD HE WILL BE MANAGING THAT. IT'S, HE'S A NURSE AND IT'S A NON-SWORN POSITION.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN UP BY SOMEONE IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT IS ACCREDITED AS A NURSE OR NURSE PRACTITIONER OR SOMETHING.

SO I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE REMOVE THIS FROM THE, IS THAT THE LANGUAGE WE'RE USING? WE'RE MOVING FROM THE REDUCTION LIST TO. CHIEF.

CHIEF, MAY I ASK WHY DID WHY WAS THIS ONE OF THE CUTS THAT YOU RECOMMENDED? WE DON'T HAVE SWORN POSITIONS IN OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO THE SWORN POSITIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU ARE THE LAST TEN YEAR POSITIONS THAT WERE ADDED AND THE DIRECTIVE WAS WHAT ARE THE POSITIONS THAT WE'VE ADDED? WHAT ARE THE ENHANCEMENTS WE'VE ADDED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS? SO EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU IS EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ADDED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. BUT WHY WAS THIS PARTICULAR ONE RECOMMENDED? BECAUSE THAT WAS A POSITION THAT WAS ADDED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS FOR THE PANDEMIC.

SO YOU I AM NOT RIGHT. SO THE I GUESS THE DIRECTIVE YOU GOT FROM THE CITY MANAGER WAS ANYTHING ADDED WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS.

OFFER UP AS A CUT DIRECTED WE GOT FROM THE BODY WAS PUT POSITIONS PUT REDUCTIONS, OPERATIONAL SALARY SAVINGS FOR THE CITY THAT CAN BE ABSORBED BY SOMEONE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO CAN THIS BE ABSORBED BY SOMEONE ELSE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? IT COULD BE ABSORBED BY SOMEONE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. BUT NOW WE'RE REDUCING A HEADCOUNT ON THE FLOOR, BECAUSE I WOULD BE PUTTING A SWORN FIREFIGHTER WHO IS A NURSE OR A NURSE PRACTITIONER TO FILL THIS JOB.

[02:00:01]

THERE'S A CHAIR. I WILL TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO MANY OTHER THINGS IN LIFE, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT KIND OF FALL ON THE BUBBLE. THIS ONE WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS HARDEST FOR ME TO INCLUDE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE VALUE OF THIS POSITION TO THE DEPARTMENT. AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE LAST ONES FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT THAT MADE IT ON.

SO I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT THE CHIEF AND I HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS POSITION BEFORE IT WAS INCLUDED ON THE LIST.

SO THERE WAS A REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER TO REMOVE THIS ONE FOR CONSIDERATION AND REMOVE IT FROM THE LIST.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING IT FROM THE LIST? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NOT WE WILL REMOVE NUMBER 72 FROM THE LIST IF WE BRING THE SLIDE BACK UP.

I BELIEVE WE MAY BE GOOD TO MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY. OH, SORRY. CONFIRMING WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE CHAIR.

OR ARE WE. 73 WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH 73? 73 IS GETTING RID OF A CONTRACTOR TO BRING A SERVICE IN-HOUSE. IT'S AN EFFICIENCY.

ALL RIGHT. AND WE'VE REMOVED 75 AND 76. 75. 76.

77 ARE REMOVED. REMOVED. OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON OUT OF FIRE.

OKAY. OKAY. YEAH.

OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE FIRST ON THIS SLIDE ARE FOR HOUSING.

THERE ARE SOME SURFACE IMPACTS. THE FIRST ONE IS PROBABLY THE EASIEST ONE.

THAT'S A DIGITAL SOFTWARE THAT WAS REQUESTED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

HOUSING HAS NOT FOUND A CONTRACTOR TO WORK WITH, SO THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, REMOVING THAT FROM THE BUDGET.

FOR THE MOBILE FOOD PANTRY, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THAT FROM ROUGHLY IN HALF FROM MONTHLY TO EVERY OTHER MONTH.

FOR THE SOCIAL COMMUNITY CENTER, WE ARE NOT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF MEALS, WE ARE JUST REMOVING THE DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMING.

I DON'T SUPPORT REMOVING LINE ITEM 82. OKAY. OPERATES WITH A VERY, VERY TIGHT, NEITHER DO I AND SAME FOR NUMBER 80. I'VE BEEN TO THE FOOD DISTRIBUTIONS. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE FOOD INSECURE IN OUR CITY.

COMMISSIONER. IF WE COULD TAKE THEM BOTH TOGETHER IF YOU LIKE. OKAY, SO HERE FROM THE CHAIR, HE'S GOOD WITH THAT. SO 80, 82 AND 80. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THAT FROM CONSIDERATION.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING THAT FROM CONSIDERATION? WE WILL SHOW 82 AND 80 AS REMOVED FROM THE LIST.

IS THERE ANY OTHER YOU WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT? I HAVE A QUESTION WITH 89.

I'M SORRY. YEAH. WITH 89, WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ELIMINATING NUMBER 89? YEAH. I'M NOT FOR THIS. I IT'S WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T CALL IN DURING ZOOM, SO I DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THIS.

YEAH. SO IF THERE'S A REQUEST TO REMOVE NUMBER, I WANT TO MOVE TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE LIST BECAUSE THAT IS OUR RESIDENTS ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR VOICE IN GOVERNMENT. I AM GOING TO I THINK WE AGREE.

I THINK WE ALL PROBABLY. SURE. OKAY. ANY OBJECTION? NOT HEARING ANY OBJECTION. WE WILL SHOW NUMBER 89 REMOVED.

CAN WE. TO THE CHAIR. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE IT FROM 4 TO 2 FOR LINE ITEM NUMBER 91, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT TWO ISSUES OF THE MAGAZINE WOULD COST $137,000? YES. WELL, I'D LIKE TO REMOVE ALL OF IT THEN.

AND WE CAN SEND OUT A PDF ON AN EMAIL. BUT SPENDING $137,000 ON A MAGAZINE TWICE A YEAR, I THINK COULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE. I WILL SAY, WHEN THIS CONVERSATION HAS COME UP IN THE PAST, I PROMISED NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

IT'S JUST MY LAST NAME. THE FEEDBACK HAD BEEN THIS IS OVERWHELMINGLY LOVED BY RESIDENTS.

IT IS. AM I CORRECT IN THAT? IT WAS LIKE ONE OF THE BEST GRADED THINGS.

I KNOW I'M GOING TO CATCH FLAK FOR MITCH NOVAK.

I SEE HIS POSTS ON FACEBOOK. HOPEFULLY WE CAN MEET HIM IN THE MIDDLE HERE.

BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN THE KIND OF CUSTOMER FEEDBACK SURVEYS, IF YOU WILL. THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST SCORED THINGS THAT WE GET.

[02:05:04]

AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE TO JUST REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ISSUES PER YEAR AS OPPOSED TO ELIMINATING IT ALTOGETHER.

AND I THINK OUR TEAM DOES A FANTASTIC JOB ON THAT MAGAZINE, BY THE WAY.

IT IS AN INCREDIBLE IT'S AN AWARD WINNING MAGAZINE.

AND I THINK PJ, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE, THE EMAIL THAT I JUST SENT TO YOU, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT SAME MITCH NOVAK POST TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING THE, THE MAGAZINE, YOU ALSO HAVE PEOPLE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, I GUESS I LOVE THESE MAGAZINES AND PEOPLE, RIGHT? I READ THEM AS WELL. WE ALSO READ AND ENJOY THE PUBLICATION SOMEONE ELSE WRITES.

I ALSO READ IT, PARTICULARLY THE WATER REPORT, BUT AGREE.

THEN I ENJOY READING IT AS WELL. I WAS A CEO OF A REAL ESTATE COMPANY HERE IN MIAMI BEACH, AND SOME OF OUR AGENTS PAID TO HAVE ADVERTISING IN THE PUBLICATION.

IT IS, IT'S, IT IS A, IT IS EASY TO TARGET AND IT'S EASY TO CRITICIZE.

AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU PUT IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, IT MIGHT GET A, A LOT OF ATTACK, BUT IT ALSO IS SOMETHING THAT IS WIDELY POPULAR.

PEOPLE APPRECIATE IT AND IT'S INFORMATIVE TO THEM.

WHY? BECAUSE IT'S NOT POLITICAL. NONE OF US ARE FEATURED IN IT.

AND SO AND SO RESIDENTS LIKE IT BECAUSE THEY GET FACTUAL NONPOLITICAL.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY. AND SO I'M, I'M FOR KEEPING THE MAGAZINE.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. I, I WOULD RATHER HAVE ONE MORE FIREFIGHTER THAN ANOTHER MAGAZINE.

I MEAN, IF IT'S $137, $137,000 FOR A, FOR TWO MAGAZINES A YEAR, I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A FIREFIGHTER OR SAVE A POSITION AGAIN, WHERE WE HAVE A FINITE PIE.

MONEY DOESN'T GROW ON TREES, AND HERE WE ARE PRINTING OUT SOMETHING THAT COSTS $137,000 FOR TWO MAGAZINES A YEAR.

I, I, I MEAN, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE, WE'RE, I DON'T THINK WE, WE ELIMINATED ANY SWORN POSITIONS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, DID WE? CORRECT. AFTER THAT LAST SLIDE, THERE ARE NO SWORN POSITIONS.

SO THERE'S NO SUPPORT POSITIONS FROM FIRE THAT ARE BEING ELIMINATED.

SO BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I SPEAK TO DONNA JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HERE, AND THEY'RE OVERWORKED AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEND 80, 90 HOURS A WEEK WORKING. THEY'D RATHER BE ABLE TO TAKE OFF THE SUMMER AND SPEND TIME WITH THEIR FAMILIES ON VACATION.

AND HERE WE ARE SAYING WE CAN SPEND $137,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY FOR JUST TWO MAGAZINES A YEAR.

I, I DON'T I JUST THINK THAT'S A REALLY BAD USE OF MONEY.

AND I DON'T THINK USING FACEBOOK COMMENTS FOR A, FOR ACCEPTING THIS IS, IS GOOD GOVERNANCE.

SO THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSIONER TO ON NUMBER 91 TO ACTUALLY DOUBLE IT AND FULLY ELIMINATE THE MIAMI BEACH MAGAZINE.

IS THERE A CONSENSUS? NO, I THINK WE'RE LANDING AT A HAPPY MEDIUM HERE WHERE WE'RE TRENDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH REDUCING SPENDING.

BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE WE HAVE FEEDBACK THAT SOMETHING RESIDENTS ENJOY.

SO I THINK THERE'S A HAPPY MEDIUM. I AGREE. SO WE'LL KEEP THE KEEP 91 AS IT IS.

OKAY. IF WE BRING THE PRESENTATION BACK UP AND JUST TO CLOSE OUT, I THINK WE HAVE AN ITEM 81.

DID WE TALK ABOUT 81? YES. 81 DOES NOT ELIMINATE OR REDUCE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THE THAT MEAL PROGRAM.

WHEN THE WHEN THIS THIS WAS JUST A YEAR OR TWO.

I KNOW I WORKED ON THIS ONE THE DOLLARS THAT THE COMMISSION APPROPRIATED TOWARDS THIS EFFECT WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO DELIVER ALL THE MEALS THAT WERE NEEDED WITHIN THAT APPROPRIATION. AND THE EXCESS DOLLARS WERE ACTUALLY USED TO ADD SOME PROGRAMING FOR THE SENIORS.

SO WHEN THEY MOVE FROM SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER TO, I BELIEVE, FLAMINGO PARK, THEY FOUND THE LODGE, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO COMPLETELY CONTINUE TO RUN THAT MEAL PROGRAM AS IS.

IT WOULD JUST THIS $88,000 WOULD ABLE TO JUST NOT HAVE THE THE PROGRAMING.

IT'S THERE. BUT NOW THERE'LL BE IN FLAMINGO PARK. SO WE WERE GOOD AT PUTTING THIS FORWARD.

IT SAVES THE MEAL PROGRAM, BUT IT JUST ELIMINATES SOME SOME PROGRAMING THAT WENT ALONG WITH IT.

SO WE'LL STILL HAVE 50 SENIOR MEALS. THEY WILL NOT TOUCH THE NUMBER OF MEALS BEING SERVED.

OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THEN HEARING AND WE'LL KEEP GOING.

WE HAVE A LOT TO GO. OKAY. SO HERE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

[02:10:05]

WE GET INTO THERE. SO NUMBER 97, AS WE KNOW, THE, WITH THAT FACILITY BEING CLOSED SOON, THAT WAS ONE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO BE PUT FORWARD. 101 IS AN EFFICIENCY WHERE WE'RE GOING TO NOT USE CONTRACTED LABOR TO PUT UP THAT HOLIDAY LIGHTING.

WE'RE GOING TO THAT DEPARTMENT WILL MAKE DO WITH ITS INTERNAL SERVICES, AND THE STAFF WILL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

103 IS ALSO AN EFFICIENCY. AND THAT NOW WE'VE MOVED TO AN ELECTRIC ZAMBONI PLUS SOME OTHER RIGHT SIZING WITHIN THAT ELEMENT.

SO WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE REMOVING SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS.

SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR OBJECTIONS WE WILL PAUSE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON THIS SLIDE.

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. JUST 97 THE FILLED RECREATION LEADER.

THAT'S GOING TO PUT A STRAIN ON THAT DEPARTMENT.

HOW WHAT'S WELL, THAT THAT POSITION SPECIFICALLY SUPPORT THAT PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY WITH THE FACILITY CLOSING, WOULD NOT BE NEEDED ANYMORE. BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, AS THE MANAGER SAID, ANY FILL POSITION, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF REC LEADERS ACROSS THE CITY THAT WE WILL FIND YOU KNOW, WORK TO FIND A LANDING SPOT FOR ANY OF THOSE POSITIONS THAT ARE FILLED.

AND THE SAME WITH THE FIELD POSITION 99. THAT IS THE REC ATTENDANT.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THE DEPARTMENT COULD WORK TOWARDS ALSO SEEING IF THERE'S A LANDING SPOT.

I THINK THAT INDIVIDUAL IS ALREADY AT RETIREMENT, BUT IT MIGHT BE IN THE DROP.

BUT YES, AND MR. CFO, I'D LIKE TO POST SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN HERE AS SOMETHING ADDITIONAL.

HERE IT COMES. AND IT'S ABOUT PUTTING OUR MONEY WHERE OUR MOUTH IS, RIGHT? THIS IS A SHARED SACRIFICE. WE'RE ASKING FOR EACH AND EVERY DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.

OUR WORKLOADS. I'VE. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

HOWEVER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHARED SACRIFICE AND DOING MORE WITH LESS.

AND I'LL ALWAYS PUSH THAT. WE HAVE ADDED POSITIONS WITHIN THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, ONE OF THEM BEING A SECOND AIDE. AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS.

THE PROPOSAL WOULDN'T BE TO ELIMINATE ANY CURRENT POSITION, BUT IN THE EVENT THAT FOR EACH OF OUR OFFICES ONE OF THE POSITIONS BECAME UNFILLED, ONE OF THEM WOULD LEAVE THAT THAT SECOND POSITION WOULD JUST BE FILLED IN A PART TIME CAPACITY.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE AS A COMMISSION, NEED TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE WHEN WE'RE ASKING OUR DEPARTMENTS TO LOOK AT THEIR, YOU KNOW, OPERATIONAL STAFF, THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.

I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO, TO, TO LEAD WITH THAT.

AND IT'S NOT DIFFICULT BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU, IT'S THE WORKLOAD IS NOTHING TODAY COMPARED TO THE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WHEN I WORKED IN THIS IN THIS BUILDING AS AN AIDE IN THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION OFFICE, SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE AVAILABILITY BY, BY, BY PHONE, BY TEXT MESSAGE AND THE AMOUNT OF MEETINGS AND THE DEMAND ON THIS COMMISSION OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS. AND I WOULD TELL YOU ALSO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ELECTED OFFICIALS IN OTHER CITIES, WE HAVE ONE OF THE FEWEST RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO RESPOND TO THE VERY HIGH EXPECTATIONS THAT OUR RESIDENTS RIGHTFULLY HAVE. BUT I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING GOOD TEAM PLAYERS AND BEING LEADERS IN THIS ORGANIZATION, IF THERE IS A VACANCY IN OUR OFFICE, I'M FINE WITH WITH SAYING, LET'S NOT FILL IT.

LET'S REPLACE IT WITH A PART TIME POSITION OR LOOK TO A CONTRACT POSITION TO SO THAT SO THAT WE CAN STILL ACHIEVE OUR GOALS, BUT IN A MORE LENIENT WAY. AND I SAY THAT KNOWING THAT I HAVE GREAT STAFF AND I KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

SO I KNOW I WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK WE HAVE BUDGETED FOR EACH OF THESE POSITIONS, INCLUDING BENEFITS, ABOUT $120,000. SO PERHAPS WHAT I'LL PROPOSE IS THOSE WOULDN'T BE FILLED THROUGH A FULL TIME W-2 POSITION.

IT WOULD BE A PART TIME CONTRACTED POSITION UP TO 50 OR $60,000.

SO ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD REDUCE OUR FUNDING BY ABOUT $300,000.

WELL, IF I MAY, SINCE WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING IT THROUGH ATTRITION, THE BUDGET, THE POSITIONS WOULD BE FULLY BUDGETED FOR THE YEAR. BUT WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD MARK THOSE TO BE CONVERTED TO A PART TIME POSITION.

BUT JUST BECAUSE THOSE ARE COULD BE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

AS A PART TIME OR IS IT A YEAH. UNDERSTAND IT MAY NOT.

IT WON'T TAKE EFFECT FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. BUT I THINK GOING FORWARD, WHETHER WE STOP IT THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR OR IF YOU'RE COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ,

[02:15:04]

EXACTLY. I THINK THIS WOULD JUST SHOW BUDGET SAVINGS DIVIDENDS, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE LINE.

SO SO HEARING THERE'S A, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION BY THE CHAIR TO HAVE THE SIX MAYOR MAYOR.

I'M SORRY, COMMISSION AID POSITIONS THROUGH A BACKFILL ATTRITION PROCESS TO BE CONVERTED FROM A FULL TIME TO A PART TIME.

IS THERE A BUDGET OF UP TO $50,000? SO RIGHT NOW, NO BENEFITS.

SO WE'LL, I THINK WE HAVE BUDGETED 110 OR $120,000.

SO WHEN THOSE SAVINGS ARE REALIZED COLLECTIVELY THROUGHOUT THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, IT'LL BE NORTH OF $300,000. JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND AID POSITION, NOT BOTH AID POSITION, CORRECT? YES. SO IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT RECOMMENDATION BY THE CHAIR? AND I'M I'M FINE. I JUST ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEN, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE IN THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, THE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE GEORGE AND JUAN AND ALL THAT THEY AND DAPHNE, THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US, BECAUSE WE REALLY DO HAVE A LOT OF DEMANDS. EACH OF US HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF DEMAND.

THERE IS A REASON WHY THESE POSITIONS EXIST. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OTHER POSITIONS, YOU KNOW, DO REMAIN AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT US, TO HELP US.

AND WHEN WE HAVE A REQUEST, YOU KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE TO HELP OUR OFFICES.

YEAH. AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, SO I, ONE OF THE POSITIONS THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REPORTING TO ME, THE NUMBER 92 WAS THE PUBLIC SAFETY. I AM NOT REPLACING THAT POSITION.

AND I'VE ASKED MY TEAM SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ISSUE.

DANNY SUMMER, PUBLIC POLICY ADVISOR TO TO PICK UP THE LOAD ON THAT.

BUT YEAH, AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN I STARTED THERE WAS ONLY ONE COMMISSION AIDE WHEN I STARTED AS COMMISSIONER.

NOW EACH, EACH OF US, EACH OF YOU HAVE I ACTUALLY, I HAVE DIFFERENT TITLES.

SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT CALLED AIDES, BUT EACH OF EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TWO AIDS WHEN IT USED TO BE ONE.

NOT THAT NOT THAT LONG AGO. SO WHAT WE SHOW IS I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS WE'LL SHOW, I THINK, FROM HEARING IS IT'S NOT REALLY A PART TIME POSITION. IT WILL BE AN ICA CONSULTING UP TO.

AND WE'LL SHOW A $50,000 BUDGET WHEN AND IF THAT DOES HAPPEN.

AND THAT WOULD BE. SO WE'LL FULLY BUDGET THE POSITIONS FOR NOW. BUT AGAIN, AS THEY BACKFILL, THEY'LL SHOW BUDGETARY SAVINGS IN THE FUTURE.

SO HERE IN CONSENSUS NO OBJECTION. WE'LL ADD THAT ITEM.

THANK YOU. AND WE BRING THAT BACK UP. AND IF MY AIDS ARE LISTED NOW THEY CAN'T LEAVE BECAUSE THAT MEANS I'M SHORT. SO YOU GUYS STICK AROUND, PLEASE. GOTCHA. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO MORE.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS MOSTLY PARKS. SO JUST FOR REFERENCE, ITEM 104 THROUGH 108 ARE ALL RIGHT SIZING THOUGH THEY'RE SHOWING REDUCTIONS IN THE REDUCING THE BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS. THOSE PROGRAMS 104 THROUGH 108 ARE ALL RIGHT SIZING.

SO THE HOCKEY, THE BASEBALL, THE ICE SKATING AS AN EXAMPLE, THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND PROGRAMING THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS PUTTING OUT RIGHT NOW WILL NOT BE CHANGED. THERE'S JUST SOME ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WERE ADDED IN THAT AREA.

AND THEN THE SCALED BACK PRODUCTION ON THE SUMMER SHOWCASE THEY'LL STILL HAVE THAT.

WE'LL JUST BE ABLE TO KIND OF CUT OUT SOME OF THE OUTSIDE CONTRACTED SERVICES AND STILL DELIVER A NICE PROGRAM.

109 IS THAT ONE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT? AT THE END, IF THERE'S FAIR ENOUGH MONEY LEFT OVER THAT WE CAN INCLUDE, I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK IT GOES IN THE SAME VEIN AS THAT ELEMENT THAT WAS EARLIER.

THERE. SO WE GET UNDER CITY WIDE, SO WE'LL. COMMISSIONER.

SUAREZ OH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ OH, AND NUMBER 114 IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND TO ELIMINATE IT, I THINK COULD CAUSE CONFUSION. WE'LL HAVE MORE MESS IN OUR PARKS AND SIDEWALKS.

AGREE? HOW ABOUT WE ELIMINATE THAT UNLESS ANYBODY IS THERE BY CONSENSUS? NOT EVEN THE BEE. DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING ITEM 114? HEARING NONE, WE WILL SHOW ITEM 114 REMOVED AND COMMISSIONER SUAREZ.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT. OKAY. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER.

ESPECIALLY JUST SCALING BACK COMMISSIONER SALINAS AND FERNANDEZ.

I ALSO WANT TO BRING OUR ATTENTION TO 116. RIGHT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S FULLY FUNDED AND NOT CUT AT ALL.

AND ALSO. 115 THIS IS AGAIN, CUTTING SERVICES TO RESIDENTS AND OUR RESIDENT CHILDREN.

[02:20:01]

AND 112 AS WELL. AGAIN, THIS IS ALL, YOU KNOW, SERVICE TO OUR RESIDENTS, EVEN.

110 I MEAN, I LOVE THE PLAYGROUND REVIEW. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO CUT IT.

SO I DON'T THINK WE ARE. BUT, JOHN, MAYBE YOU CAN COME UP AND SPEAK.

WELL, LET ME ANSWER A FEW OF THOSE BECAUSE I HAVE A FEW.

I KNOW THAT, I MEAN, IT'S MY DAUGHTER'S FAVORITE.

I WASN'T GOING TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE STILL GOING TO DO IT.

BUT MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK ON THAT, JOHN, IF I CAN.

JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES BEFORE JOHN SPEAKS IS ON THIS, JUST FOR CONTEXT, ON THE SUMMER CAMP REDUCTION THAT WOULD REDUCE FROM 81 TO 54 FIELD TRIPS. SO EACH CLASS OR GROUP WOULD GO FROM 3 TO 2.

SO THAT WOULD JUST BE ONE. AND THEN I WANTED TO MENTION ON THE I THINK IT WAS.

OH, THE ONE. 12 I'M SORRY, THAT ONE, IF I RECALL, THAT WAS THE PHOTOS WITH SANTA AND THAT WAS TAKING FOUR PROGRAMS AND PUTTING THEM INTO TWO WHERE YOU HAVE A SEPARATE PHOTOS WITH SANTA AND A WINTER FEST, AND YOU HAVE AN EASTER BUNNY AND A EASTER TYPE EVENT AND WAS COMBINING THEM.

SO IT WOULD BE SAVING STAFF LABOR RELATED TO THAT.

SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THOSE PROGRAMS. EASTER BUNNY IS THE SANTA CLAUS.

PERHAPS IT'S THE SAME GENTLEMAN. HE OWNS TWO SUITS. SO IT WAS JUST WE'RE LOOKING AT AS A DEFICIENCY.

YOU'RE STILL GETTING THE SAME PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. WE'RE JUST MAKING FOR EVENTS INTO TWO EVENTS. IT'S A SMALL SAVINGS.

LET ME TURN IT OVER TO YOU. AND YOU, YOU AND YOUR TEAM ACTUALLY DO INCREDIBLE ACROSS THE BOARD.

BUT YOU KNOW, FOR THE SUMMER CAMPS, WHICH MY DAUGHTER IS IN NOW I LOVE TO BE ABLE TO SEND MY DAUGHTER TO OUR OWN LOCAL CAMP FACILITY, AS I KNOW HUNDREDS OF OTHER FAMILIES ARE.

IT'S TRUE, MANY OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO THAT BEING SAID, YOU AND YOUR TEAM DO A FABULOUS JOB.

TELL US ABOUT THE THE SUMMER REVIEW, IF THAT'S REALLY SCALING THINGS BACK.

IS IT JUST KIND OF DOING THINGS IN-HOUSE? WE WOULD MOVE THAT TO AN IN-HOUSE PERFORMANCE.

IT WOULD BE AT A PARK OR INSIDE THE AUDITORIUM ON THE CAFETORIUM THAT WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT NORTH SHORE PARK YOUTH CENTER, THAT WE WOULD, INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE FILLMORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND PAYING THOSE RENTAL COSTS AND THOSE STAGING COSTS THEY CHARGE US FOR THAT.

WE DO. WE DO HAVE AN EXPENSE. LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE FILLMORE ABOUT THAT.

WE DO A LOT FOR THEM, DO WE NOT, MR. CITY MANAGER? YES, SIR. WE DO. LET'S KEEP THIS IN PLACE AND NOT KEEP IT IN PLACE FOR ELIMINATION.

LET'S NOT ELIMINATE IT. BUT LET'S. CAN I ASK YOU TO LEAD SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FILLMORE AND SAY WE HAVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS THAT DO A MUSICAL. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CHARGE US FOR THIS? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. SO IN THAT ELEMENT, IF I CAN, IT SEEMS THAT WE CAN LEAVE THIS ON THE REDUCTION BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE EITHER WAY, IT'LL BE HANDLED THROUGH THIS ALTERNATIVE VENUE THAT THE DIRECTOR MENTIONED, OR PERHAPS A.

AND IF THEY ARE NOT AMENABLE TO THAT, MAYBE WE COME BACK FOR A MID-YEAR BUDGET ENHANCEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THAT'S ON THAT ELEMENT. JOHN, YOU'RE NOT DONE.

AND THEN I HAVE JUST ON 116 THAT COMMISSIONER MENTIONED.

SO THE REDUCED PARKS AND RECREATION FUNDING FOR VETERANS DAY PARADE EVENT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A $40,000 EXPENSE.

THIS WOULD REDUCE IT BY 5000. SO THE PARADE IS STILL GOING ON.

IT'S JUST CAN YOU TELL ME. CORRECT. WE WOULD BE JUST DOING SEE WHAT WE COULD DO WITH A LESS OF A BUDGET.

IT WASN'T ELIMINATION OF PARADE. IN NO WAY. IT JUST REDUCED THE BUDGET BY A SMALL AMOUNT.

DO YOU THINK IT IMPACTS WOULD IMPACT THE PARADE IN ANY WAY? PARADE GETS BIGGER AND BETTER EVERY YEAR, SO THERE WOULD BE SOME.

WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED THE EXACT IMPACT YET, BUT THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING MISSING.

YES I WOULDN'T YEAH, I JUST WANT THANK YOU. AND ALSO THIS IS FOR WHICH THIS IS FOR VETERANS DAY.

BUT WHAT DAY WHAT YEAR FOR THIS COMING EVERY YEAR.

IT WOULD BE YES. THIS THIS NOVEMBER THIS NOVEMBER WHEN WE'RE CELEBRATING AMERICA.

250. YEAH, I YEAH, I WOULDN'T TOUCH IT. OKAY.

SO LET ME IS THERE A CONSENSUS THAT ITEM 116 WILL BE REMOVED.

I THINK IF WE WILL GO CONSENSUS TO REMOVE 114115116.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. IS THERE IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO FOR THOSE THREE.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION. HEARING NONE. OBJECTION WILL SHOW.

ADDING 115 AND 116 TO BE REMOVED. OKAY. I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT.

I WANTED TO GO BACK TO 110 REAL QUICK. SO ARE WE CLOSED OUT ON 14, 15 AND 16? YES. OKAY. SO 110. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE ABOUT HAVING THE FULL MOR HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH US ABOUT NOT CHARGING US, BUT I STILL WANT TO REMOVE IT OFF OF HERE.

SO THAT WAY, IN CASE THOSE DISCUSSIONS DON'T HAPPEN, WOULD THIS AFFECT THIS WOULDN'T AFFECT THIS THIS YEAR'S SUMMER.

NO, NO. AND AGAIN, IT EITHER, I GUESS THROUGH A WAIVER THROUGH THE FILM OR IF THAT IS.

[02:25:04]

AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO PUSH FOR THIS TO BE REMOVED ON HERE.

OKAY. THERE IS A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE ITEM 110.

MY ONLY HESITATION, RIGHT, IS REMOVING THIS. AND THEN WE GET A WAIVER OF THE FILLMORE.

AND THEN THIS JUST KIND OF STICKS IN PURGATORY, RIGHT? SO I'M 100% ALIGNED WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER SALINAS, PERHAPS.

I THINK THE JUST WAY TO RUN A KIND OF BETTER PROCESS IS ELIMINATING IT.

AND IF WE WILL GIVE TWO MONTHS TO THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FILLMORE, AND IF THEY ARE UNSUCCESSFUL, WE'LL COME BACK FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ADD IT BACK, BECAUSE I JUST FEEL AS IF WE LOSE THIS OPPORTUNITY.

I'M CONFIDENT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT SUCCESSFUL DISCUSSION WITH THE FILLMORE.

IF IT WAS FOR THIS YEAR, I WOULD AGREE. RIGHT.

BUT WE HAVE 13 MONTHS TO HAVE THAT. LET'S GIVE IT TWO MONTHS FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

IF YOU COME BACK AND SAY, NOPE, THEY COULDN'T WORK WITH US, THEN I'LL SPONSOR A MID-YEAR AMENDMENT IF I MAY.

I THINK THAT MAY BE A PRETTY GOOD APPROACH. I JUST TALKED TO THE DIRECTOR THAT THEY'LL TRY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION BETWEEN NOW AND THE SEPTEMBER 1ST BUDGET HEARING, AND WE'LL GIVE AN UPDATE THEN SO WE CAN LEAVE IT NOW. THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION, YES OR NO.

AND YOU MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION IN SEPTEMBER. PERFECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO I THINK WE CAN BRING THAT BACK UP.

I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THIS SLIDE. WAIT A MINUTE.

OH, SORRY, 109 WAS REMOVED. DID WE? OH, NO. THERE WAS NO OH.

109 WAS LISTED LIKE THE OTHER PREVIOUS ONE TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE END.

OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. I'M SORRY. SO THAT'S A TWO B TBD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE RIGHT HERE.

YEAH. SO THE NEXT SLIDE ACTUALLY CONTINUES ON PARKS PROGRAMING.

THE FIRST TWO ITEMS WE HAVE BEEN FUNDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

SO WE ARE DOING PRODUCTION ON THOSE FIRST TWO.

AND THEN FOR THE CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAMING. THAT'S A PROGRAM ACTUALLY DONE BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING A REDUCTION THE SENIOR FIELD TRIPS THAT WAS DISCUSSED LAST YEAR THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDING GOING FROM 12 FOR THE YEAR TO SIX.

OKAY. AND I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE YOU LOOK AT THE REST TO SEE IF YOU HAD ANY COMMENTS.

MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO REQUEST FOR NUMBER 128 AND 129 TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EFFICIENCIES LIST.

I'M CERTAINLY WITH YOU ON 128, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR OTHERS, BUT I THINK WE'D HAVE CONSENSUS THERE ONCE.

128 THAT IS THE FULL FIELD PARK RANGER POSITIONS.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO REMOVING IT? HEARING NONE, WE WILL SHOW ITEM ONE TWO, EIGHT REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION.

AND MY CONCERN WITH 129 IS THAT AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPEDITING THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, EXPEDITE PERMITTING THAT? THIS IS ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS THAT I BELIEVE.

MR. MANAGER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WHAT WOULD HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THAT? THIS IS THE PEER PEER REVIEW. YEAH. THIS IS THIS IS NOT A POSITION.

THIS IS ACTUALLY CONTRACTED SERVICES. WE HAVE THE DIRECTOR.

OH. AND I SEE WE HAVE OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND GOOD MORNING.

SO THIS IS FOR AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT THAT WE PAY TO REVIEW APPLICANTS PRIMARILY.

IT WOULD BE A TRAFFIC STUDY AND OR A SOUND STUDY.

THESE ARE APPLICATIONS THAT GO THROUGH TYPICALLY IT'S THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.

THEIR PROFESSIONAL SUBMITS A STUDY FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDY.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE PEER REVIEW. NOW THAT IS REIMBURSABLE BY THE APPLICANTS.

SO OKAY. SO THIS IS ALL REIMBURSABLE. YES. OKAY.

AND SO MAYBE NOT ALL OF IT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT IS, IS CHARGED BACK TO THE APPLICANT.

YES. OKAY. AND SO WE DON'T CARRY THE BURDEN, THE REAL BURDEN OF IT.

AND IF WE ELIMINATE THIS, WHERE HOW DOES THAT PEER REVIEW GET DONE? IT WOULD STILL GET DONE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE CHARGING BACK TO THE APPLICANTS. THE, THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE BUDGETING FOR IT IS JUST NOT WHAT WE SEE BEING.

OKAY. SO THIS IS A RIGHT SIZE. YES. OKAY. SO I'M FINE KEEPING THE RIGHT SIZING IN, IN THE IN THE EFFICIENCIES.

THANK YOU, MADAM DIRECTOR. SO LET'S BRING UP THE LET'S BRING THE SLIDE PRESENTATION BACK UP.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER ELEMENTS ON THIS SLIDE? YES.

OKAY. 127. MY PHONE BLEW UP. JOHN, YOU YOU RUN A PHENOMENAL PROGRAM.

THIS THIS TEEN CLUB. I MY PHONE, THIS ONE I GOT THE MOST.

THEY THEY DO NOT WANT THESE TEEN PROGRAMS TO BE COLLAPSED INTO ONE.

[02:30:04]

AND I REALLY, THIS IS AGAIN, ANOTHER SERVICE FOR OUR RESIDENTS THAT ARE, THAT'S BELOVED.

SO THANK YOU FOR RUNNING A GREAT TEAM PROGRAM AT NAUTILUS.

THERE'S TWO. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND FOLKS WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

AND I JUST REALLY WANT TO HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE THIS OFF THE CUT LIST.

I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO KEEP IT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN.

I SEE PART OF THIS IS FUNDED THROUGH STATE GRANTS.

YES, THERE'S TWO ELEMENTS. THERE'S TWO PROGRAMS THAT RUN CONCURRENTLY, I BELIEVE, AT NAUTILUS.

ONE IS THROUGH PARKS, WHICH IS DONE BY STAFF, WHICH IS THE REDUCTION THAT IS LISTED THERE, $392,000. AND THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY AND HOUSING AND HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, THROUGH ALBUS TEAM, WE HAVE A CHILDREN'S TRUST GRANT THAT RUNS THAT PROGRAM FOR FREE FOR RESIDENTS.

SO THEY DO BOTH RUN AT NAUTILUS, BOTH RELATED TO THE TEENS.

AND THE DISCUSSION WAS AGAIN LOOKING FOR REDUCTIONS IN EFFICIENCIES. HERE WAS THAT WE HAD TWO PROGRAMS AT THE SAME FACILITY.

KIND OF THE SAME CONCEPT WAS THAT WE COULD ELIMINATE THE ONE THAT WE ARE FUNDING, AND THEN KIND OF HOLD ON TO THE ONE THAT WAS BEING FULLY GRANT FUNDED.

THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR INDIVIDUAL GROUPS AND THAT THEY WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO ANY, ANY CHILDREN THAT WERE IN THE ONE PROGRAM TO MOVE TO THE OTHER PROGRAM.

MY SON IS ONE OF THEM TO MOVE THEM INTO THE OTHER ONE.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, MY EDUCATION TEAM WITH DOCTOR LESLIE ROSENFELD WOULD WORK WITH ALBERT'S TEAM TO MAKE SURE THEY GOT ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD.

AND SO WOULD THIS REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CHILDREN THAT WOULD BE SERVICED BY THE PROGRAM? GOOD AFTERNOON, ALBERT. THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES.

NOT NECESSARILY. WHAT POTENTIALLY MAY CHANGE WOULD BE THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE, BUT NOT THE CHILDREN SERVED THROUGH THE CHAIR.

I ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE'S TWO VACANT POSITIONS CURRENTLY, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE NOT IT'S NOT EVEN FILLED PART TIME FOR PARKS, RIGHT? THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE FILLED. BUT WE ALSO VACANT WITHIN THIS PROGRAM ITSELF. HOW LONG HAVE.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. SO IT'S OKAY. NO. HOW LONG HAVE THOSE POSITIONS BEEN VACANT FOR? I DON'T HAVE THAT POSITION NUMBERS WRITTEN DOWN.

AND DO YOU NEED THREE FULL TIME? JUST. IT'S FOR THE FULL TIME.

ARE ALL FILLED. THIS IS THE PART. IT'S. THE VACANT ONES ARE PART TIMERS.

SO HE'S RUNNING IT WITH THREE FULL TIMERS, RIGHT. SO FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION TEAM PROGRAM, YOU NEED THREE FULL TIME POSITIONS FOR THAT. WE COULD IS BEING RAN BY THREE FULL TIME.

WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK TO SEE IF THAT IS NECESSARY OR MORE PART TIME COULD BE.

IT MAKES SENSE TO TRANSITION THEM TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE DON'T ELIMINATE IT COMPLETELY, BUT JUST GO DOWN TO ONE. DON'T YOU THINK THE LEVEL IS REALLY.

I THINK THEY BOTH WORK. THEY WORK TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICE AND WHAT THEIR PROGRAMS ARE DELIVERING, WHERE THE PARKS IS MAYBE MORE ROBUST WITH MORE LABOR, MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE ABLE TO DELIVER THOSE SERVICES TO THOSE KIDS VERSUS THE THE ALL STARS PROGRAM THAT RUNS OUT OF THIS HOUSE. DON'T WE ALSO NEED A CERTAIN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS PER CHILD? YES. I WANT TO GO TOO DEEP OFF THE CUFF HERE, BUT WE DO HAVE ADULT TO CHILD RATIOS THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.

I COULD SIT BACK, SEE IF I CAN GET YOU A BETTER ANSWER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER PRECISELY ON THE FLOOR.

SO HOW ABOUT WE MOVE THIS TO JUST A FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M GOING TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER SALINAS AND PRESERVING THE PROGRAM.

AND SEEING SO THAT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN NOW AND MAYBE THE NEXT TIME WE SEE THESE NUMBERS AGAIN, SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER RIGHT SIZING, WHAT'S OVERLAPPING WITH THE GRANT.

HOW CAN WE, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE PROGRAM WHILE MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT? SO IT MAY SOUND LIKE THAT WE WOULD KEEP IT FOR NOW, BUT PERHAPS MAYBE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE INTEREST IN THIS, WOULD HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TWO DIRECTORS MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT THOSE PROGRAMS AND THEN MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION IN SEPTEMBER.

OR IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW? I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO TAKE THIS OFF THE LIST RIGHT NOW.

THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THEY'RE RUN COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. AND THIS IS A SERVICE TO OUR RESIDENTS THAT HAVE CHILDREN THAT ARE RAISING THEIR CHILDREN HERE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OFF RIGHT NOW.

SO THERE'S A REQUEST TO REMOVE THIS ONE. SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING THE PROGRAM.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW MUCH MORE EFFICIENT IT COULD BE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S TWO VACANT POSITIONS RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY ON THE TABLE.

HERE IS THE ELIMINATION OF THE PARKS AND REC PROGRAM.

[02:35:03]

IS THERE A IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM CONSIDERATION FOR REDUCTION? I'LL SUPPORT IT. IS THERE AN OBJECTION TO REMOVING IT? I THINK WE I THINK THIS CAN BE ANALYZED A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ONE, BUT I THINK THERE'S A.

I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE IT. NOW.

THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY, SO MAYBE IT CAN JUST BE DISCUSSED.

I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE TO GET RID OF ANYTHING THAT IS SERVING OUR TEENS.

BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME AMBIGUITY IF THERE'S A DEGREE OF OVERLAP OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO MAYBE WE CAN. WHY DOES IT GO FROM 392 TO 455? YEAH. SEEMS PRETTY HIGH. THE SECOND THE SECOND YEAR YOU'LL HAVE CERTAIN BENEFITS LIKE PENSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO YOU HAVE YOUR SAVINGS IN THE THE IMMEDIATE ELIMINATION OF THE SALARIES, TAXES AND BENEFITS. BUT THEN THE SECOND YEAR, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ACTUAL AERIAL ANALYSIS ON PENSIONS HAPPEN, THEY ALWAYS TAKE ONE YEAR TO GO IN. THAT'S WHY YOU ALWAYS SEE THE DIFFERENCE WITH ANY POSITION WHERE THEY'RE ADDING OR SUBTRACTING IS YOU ALWAYS. THAT'S WHY WE SAY ALWAYS LOOK AT THE SECOND YEAR WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT STAFFING TO SEE WHAT YOUR TRUE SAVINGS OR COST IS.

COMMISSIONER I'M NOT TRYING TO KILL THIS ITEM, I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING, LET'S MAKE IT.

LET'S TRIM IT DOWN, MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT. BECAUSE CLEARLY, I MEAN, IT'S GOING UP QUITE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT FROM NEXT YEAR, FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO KEEP ON GOING.

WELL, BUT ISN'T THAT THE REDUCTION FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT BECAUSE WE'RE REDUCING THE PROGRAM? THE ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS THE ELIMINATION OF THE PARKS PROGRAM.

BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A CONSENSUS, NOT UNANIMOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A CONSENSUS AT THIS TIME TO REMOVE THIS ELEMENT FOR FROM CONSIDERATION. AGAIN, IT COULD BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER.

BUT THE EFFICIENCIES LIST. RIGHT. SO THIS WOULD BE THIS WOULD BE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE PROGRAM.

RIGHT. YEAH. I DO WANT TO TALK MORE IN SEPTEMBER IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THREAD THE NEEDLE WITH COMMISSIONER SUAREZ'S POINTS, IF WE CAN MAKE THIS MORE EFFICIENT. I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO REMOVE CRITICAL PROGRAM, BUT PERHAPS WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS OF HAVING THIS MORE EFFICIENT.

YEAH. AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM.

I JUST DON'T THINK YOU NEED THREE FULL TIME POSITIONS. I UNDERSTAND THE POINT.

SO WHAT I THINK WE COULD DO FOR NOW, I THINK PROBABLY THE CONSENSUS IS, IS TO REMOVE IT FROM CONSIDERATION NOW.

BUT JOHN WOULD MAYBE WORK WITH THE CHAIR TO MAYBE BRING BACK A SLIGHTLY MODIFIED ONE TO SEE IF THERE'S EVEN ONE WOULD HAVE COME BACK TO US SEPTEMBER AT THE FIRST BUDGET HEARING, JUST LIKE THE OTHER ELEMENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IS THERE GOING TO BE LIKE A LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE HAVE SINGLED OUT.

THE ONLY ONE SO FAR SPECIFICALLY THAT WE BROUGHT BACK WERE THE.

THE ITEMS THAT. WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE REQUESTED TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. AND THIS THIS ELEMENT COULD COME BACK FOR CONSIDERATION ON A SCALED BACK REDUCTION.

BUT FOR NOW, WE WOULD SHOW THIS SHOW THIS REMOVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OUR PRELIMINARY BUDGET.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON. SO WE'LL SHOW THAT THERE.

AND WE'LL MAKE A NOTE AGAIN FOR THE DIRECTOR TO WORK WITH THE CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT. BRING THAT UP. OKAY. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THIS LIST IS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. IT WON'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE POSITION.

THE PERSON IN THAT POSITION, THE PERSON IS ACTUALLY FUNDED AT THE LOWER LEVEL.

SO WE'D JUST RECLASSIFY POSITION POSITION TO WHERE THE PERSON IS.

RIGHT. RIGHT NOW. THE OTHER THREE ITEMS BELOW ARE PLANNING, YOU KNOW, LIST TO GET TO THEIR 5% REDUCTION, IT WOULD BE REDUCING SOME OF THEIR OPERATING COSTS.

STARTING AT 134 DOWN IS WHERE WE GET TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THE FIRST ONE IS PROBABLY THE EASIEST OF ALL THE ITEMS ON THE LIST.

IT'S TWO DETENTION OFFICERS THAT WERE ADDED TO THE BUDGET BACK IN 2024.

THEY WERE NEVER FILLED, AND I'LL JUST PAUSE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY INPUTS.

MISTER CHAIR. OKAY. SO I HAVE CONCERNS WITH ITEMS NUMBER 137. ITEMS 13914141 THESE ARE FULL TIME POSITIONS IN OUR DEPARTMENTS. AND WHEN WE READ THE APP OR THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE, WHEN I SEE 137, ELIMINATING THE POSITION WILL REDUCE TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND AND SLOW RESPONSE TIMES FOR NON-EMERGENCY CALLS.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT WHEN I SEE. AND CAN WE STAY ON THAT ONE? COMMISSIONER. YEAH. REAL QUICK. AND I AGREE WITH YOU.

ERIC, HAS IT TAKEN A WHILE TO FILL THESE POSITIONS IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THESE.

RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT WAS THE INITIATIVE.

SO I APOLOGIZE IF IT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

[02:40:02]

AND WHEN YOU SEE THIS, IT TELLS YOU THEIR REMOVAL WILL INCREASE THE WORKLOAD ON SWORN OFFICERS AND DIMINISH OVERALL SERVICE DELIVERY.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I GUESS I'M ASKING WHY ARE THERE THREE UNFILLED? CHIEF, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. HAS IT TAKEN A WHILE? ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP WITH THAT? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSION. WAYNE JONES, POLICE CHIEF. AS IT RELATES TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE SPECIALIST, YOU ARE ACTUALLY AT FULL STAFFING, BUT WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LEFT THE POSITION.

OKAY. WE JUST HIRED ONE MORE. HE GRADUATED PUBLIC SERVICE ACADEMY ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.

SO WE, WE WE TOOK A HARD LOOK AT THE POSITIONS YOU HAD AVAILABLE.

THE WHOLE IDEA WAS AND WORKED WITH THE CITY MANAGER ON THIS.

WE WANTED TO OFFER UP NAMELESS, FACELESS PEOPLE.

OTHERWISE OTHER. IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY HERE.

AND SINCE THOSE POSITIONS ARE VACANT, WE THOUGHT THE MOST FEASIBLE SENSITIVE TO OUR PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE, THINGS TO DO OF, OF THESE SEATS, DESPITE THE IMPACT IT HAS ON OUR OVERALL OPERATIONAL NEEDS AND MAYBE A DISCUSSION THAT WE CAN HAVE OR YOU CAN GIVE CONSIDERATION TO IN THE INTERIM.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE PROBABLY A LOT OF SUPPORT TO KEEP ANYTHING THAT HAS A FACE TO IT, OR EVEN IN THIS CASE IS GOING TO GET IN THE WAY OF OPERATIONS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS VACANT.

IF THERE'S THINGS OUTSIDE OF OUR FRONT LINE POLICE OFFICERS THAT WE ALL VALUE THERE'S POSSIBILITIES THERE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GIVE A LOT OF THESE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IF THERE ARE COMMUNITY, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, RIGHT? LIKE I, I WANT TO, I WANT TO, I WANT TO ECHO YOU BECAUSE I'M, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO THE QUESTION I ASKED OF CHIEF ABELLO.

I MEAN, WHAT ARE THE OTHER VACANCIES THAT EXIST IN THE DEPARTMENT? OPERATIONAL COSTS. ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS. NON-SWORN POSITIONS THAT MAY EXIST INSIDE THE DEPARTMENT THAT ARE NOT THE PUBLIC FACING POSITIONS. BECAUSE FOR ME, WHEN I GET THESE DOCUMENTS AND I SEE AN ITEM LIKE 139139 TO ELIMINATE ONE FULL TIME ROBBERY DETECTIVE POSITION, WHICH IS GOING TO REDUCE THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE COMPLEX ROBBERIES IN A TIMELY WAY AND WITH FEWER SPECIALIZED INVESTIGATORS.

WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO IMPACT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE.

I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE, WE'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT CAR BREAK INS AND AND THE, AND THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH, WITH THAT. THE SAME THING WITH, YOU KNOW, THE MAJOR, WITH THE MAJOR CRIMES WHERE IF WE ELIMINATE THAT 140, WE'RE GOING TO SEE AN INCREASED RISK ASSOCIATED WITH UNRESOLVED SERIOUS OFFENSES.

TO ME, THIS IS NOT THE PRIORITY THAT I WANT TO SEE US ELIMINATING.

BUT WHAT ARE OTHER VACANCIES THAT COULD THAT COULD EXIST IN THE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER OPERATIONAL COSTS THAT AREN'T HERE? THAT, THAT WE COULD CONSIDER INSTEAD. THROUGH THE CHAIR.

THE CHIEF FOR 4139 YOUR ONE IMPACT IS IT'S 136 BUT YOUR TWO, IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN DOUBLE.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO JASON, ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHY THE COST IS OR THE SAVINGS IS MUCH GREATER IN THE SECOND YEAR. BUT COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT AND EFFORT INTO THIS.

WOULD LOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CUTTING OF MORE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT, BUT WE CAN'T, WHEREAS WE POSSIBLY CAN BE.

WE HAD COMMISSIONED A MAJOR STUDY ON THIS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO HIRE MORE ADMIN SUPPORT STAFF TO SUPPORT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WHEN I WAS HIRED. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS BUILDING 300 POLICE OFFICERS. ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, IT WAS 307 POLICE OFFICERS, RIGHT NOW, 437 IN 2008 2007, THE CITY, BECAUSE OF BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS, ASKED US TO CUT UP TO TWO THIRDS OF OUR ADMIN STAFF.

THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS GROWN IN TERMS OF SWORN POLICE PERSONNEL EXPONENTIALLY,

[02:45:01]

WE CANNOT OPERATE A POLICE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT SUPPORT STAFF.

WE CANNOT GET ANY LEANER THAN WE ARE RIGHT NOW. AND SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW IT DOUBLED? YES. 1 TO 2 ITEMS. 139, 40, 41 ARE SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED THROUGH THEIR DROP DATES.

SO THAT YEAR ONE IS ONLY IS PART SHOWING THEM PARTIALLY FUNDED UNTIL THEIR RETIREMENT DATES.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU WOULD SEE IT. WOULD YOU EXPECT A MUCH LARGER.

SO THE TRUE COST WOULD BE 290. YEAH, I WOULD LOOK YOU LOOK AT THAT YEAR TWO NUMBER TO SEE YOUR GOOD IMPACT THERE.

OKAY. AND SO WHY WHY DID YOU THINK THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE CUT? I'M SORRY. WHY DID YOU THINK THAT WAS. THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE CUT. WELL RETIRING PERSON, WE SIMPLY WOULDN'T BACKFILL THAT POSITION.

AND AGAIN IF THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO REDUCE SOMEONE WHO'S ALREADY HERE, HOW MANY HOW MANY ROBBERY DETECTIVES DO WE HAVE? I THINK WE HAVE FIVE PLUS SERGEANT, FIVE PLUS SERGEANT.

YEAH. SO THAT'S. SO YOU'RE WE'RE ELIMINATING HERE 20% OF THAT.

YEAH. OKAY. AND AND THESE, I GUESS, WERE CREATED OUT OF A NEED.

IT WAS CREATED OUT OF A NEED. SIMPLY PUT, THE FOLKS THAT REMAIN WOULD HAVE TO PICK UP THE SLACK IF YOU WILL TRY TO WORK OUT ROBBERY.

ARE WE GONNA DO. IN FACT, WE. COMPARED TO LAST YEAR AT ROBBERIES DOWN 50% ROBBERY ARREST RATE.

A CLOSURE RATE IS WELL ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. ABOVE 56% IN MOST OF THE COUNTRY, AROUND MID 20S.

DO THEY DO GREAT WORK? SO ARE WE GOING TO AFFECT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE'RE DELIVERING? I MEAN, WE SEE THE STATS AND THE STATS TELL US THAT WE'RE YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE HAVING LESS CRIMES, LESS OF THESE MAJOR CRIMES. AND, AND IS IT BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF THESE DETECTIVES THAT WE'RE SEEING A REDUCTION IN THESE CRIME NUMBERS? AND IF WE ELIMINATE THIS. MR. MANAGER, THIS CAME FROM YOU, ARE WE GOING TO SEE AN IMPACT TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE IN PUBLIC SAFETY? SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DOES EXTREMELY WELL, ONE OF MANY THINGS IS WE ALWAYS CATCH OUR BAD GUYS, AND THESE DETECTIVES ARE INSTRUMENTAL IN MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN CLOSE CASES AND CATCH OUR BAD GUYS IN A TIMELY FASHION. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT THE TIMING OF US BEING ABLE TO CLOSE THOSE CASES.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST THAT. IT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING DOWN THIS LIST, YOU KNOW, AND GOING LOOKING AT THE ATV SQUADS, THE BIKE SQUADS, THE STS ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS, ELIMINATING THIS, ARE WE GOING TO BE AFFECTING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE CURRENTLY GETTING ON PUBLIC SAFETY? YES. YEAH.

OKAY. AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND JUST JUST SO THAT I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE COME A VERY LONG WAY.

WE'VE COME A VERY LONG WAY FROM THE POT SMOKING AND THE ROBBERIES AND THE, AND, AND THE CRIMINALITY THAT USED TO OUTNUMBER OUR POLICE AND HURT OUR BRAND AND DESTROY OUR RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE TO NOW, YOU KNOW, BE CONSIDERING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

AND JASON, I, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE BEING MADE TO ACHIEVE A ROLLED BACK BUDGET.

SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF I'M CONSIDERING TO SACRIFICE THIS, WHAT IS WHAT, WHAT IS WHAT DOES THAT ROLLBACK RATE REPRESENT TO OUR RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF SAVINGS? BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SACRIFICING HERE AND WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO GET IN RETURN.

WHEN I SAY I'M GOING TO ELIMINATE A ROBBERY, DETECTIVE, A MAJOR CRIMES UNIT DETECTIVE POSITION, THE ATVS AND THE OFFICERS AND ALL THESE POSITIONS IS TO ACHIEVE WHAT SAVINGS TO OUR RESIDENTS IN TOTAL WILL BE THE 20.8.

UNLESS YOU'RE TAKING LIKE AN AVERAGE OR A MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD. YEAH.

FOR DIRECTLY FOR OUR RESIDENTS. LET'S SEE FOR, FOR A MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD.

SO IF FOR, IF WE WERE DOING A ROLLED BACK RATE, IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY A $40 PER YEAR REDUCTION, $40. OKAY. SO FOR $40 TO SAVE, TO SAVE $40, WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER SACRIFICING THE SAFETY, THE PROGRESS THAT WE HAVE MADE TO FINALLY MAKE IT OVER THE CURB WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? COMMISSIONER I.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. IT'S. LOOK AT.

LOOK AT THE ITEMS THAT WE. I'LL WAIT. I'LL WAIT. MY TURN TO SPEAK. NO.

BUT. NO, PLEASE. I MEAN, THESE ARE THE THESE ARE THE SAME ITEMS THAT WE HAVE SUPPORTED AND I.

AND AT THIS POINT, I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF. I'LL SPEAK. YEAH. NO, I WANT TO. NO, BUT I THINK WE LOOK I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS.

I AGREE WITH I AND MOSTLY I AGREE WITH YOU. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO SACRIFICE ANYTHING.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO SACRIFICE POSITIONS. I GUESS THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO DO THIS.

AND I'M NOT I'M THROWING HYPOTHETICALS OUT HERE. I'M NOT PROPOSING WE DO THIS, BUT LET'S SAY THERE WAS A MANAGEMENT POSITION THAT THROUGH A NORMAL RETIREMENT WAS FILLED.

[02:50:04]

AGAIN, THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT COULD IMPACT IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH TIME.

AGAIN, THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. CONFERENCES TRAVEL.

I MEAN, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT THAT ALL ADD UP THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT CAREFULLY WHEN WE HAVE HERE.

I UNDERSTAND, BUT BY THE WAY, WE IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE'VE TASKED ERIC AND OUR AND JASON AND TAMIKA TO COME UP WITH PROPOSALS.

NOW THEIR PROPOSALS, WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I AM NOT LOOKING TO CUT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AT ALL.

I'M THROWING OUT SUGGESTIONS. AND AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN WEIGH IN ON, CHIEF, BUT I, I PERSONALLY THINK THROUGH THE CHAIR THAT THAT WE'RE PROBABLY.

I'M GOING TO JUST SAY IT MAYBE A LITTLE TOP HEAVY AND WE COULD I, I'D RATHER SEE THE OFFICERS, THE LINE OFFICERS OUT IN THE STREET. THAT'S MY TAKE.

AND, AND IT'S AND IT'S POTENTIALLY A COST SAVINGS.

COMMISSIONER. YEAH. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THESE.

THE COST ON YEAR TWO, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ACTUALIZED SALARY.

I'M ASSUMING $320,000 FOR ONE FULL TIME SERGEANT FOR THE PRIORITY SERVICE TEAM.

$320,000, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO JASON.

THAT'S WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT SLIDE YET. THAT'S THAT'S JUST 143.

THAT'S YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. WE WERE THE SLIDE WE'RE ON WENT THROUGH.

1411. THE NEXT SLIDE DOES HAVE THAT POSITION ONE FULL TIME SERGEANT OF POLICE POSITION ATV BIKE SUPERVISOR $312,000.

THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S A THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S BIG THAT'S A LOT.

THAT'S MORE THAN SOME DOCTORS MAKE FULL TIME DETECTIVE POSITION BACKGROUND 295,000.

THAT'S AN ALL IN SALARY, TAXES, BENEFITS, PENSIONS AND EVERYTHING.

THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER IS THAT SIZE. THAT'S NOT THEIR SALARY. THAT'S BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE COST OF TAXPAYERS.

CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. THIS THESE ARE THESE ARE VERY EXPENSIVE NUMBERS.

AND I THINK I'M WITH THE MAYOR THAT I WOULD RATHER SEE MORE PEOPLE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON PATROL.

AND I THINK WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION. CHIEF, HOW MANY OFFICERS ARE ACTUALLY OUT ON PATROL IN ANY GIVEN AT ANY GIVEN TIME? MR. COMMISSIONER, IT DEPENDS ON THE DAY OF THE WEEK, TIME OF THE WEEK.

IF IT'S AN OVERLAP DAY, THEN THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO BE DOUBLED ON AVERAGE ON A GIVEN SHIFT, ANYWHERE FROM 24 TO 30 POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREETS OF THE CITY.

SO THAT'S JUST REGULAR SHIFT. THAT'S NOT INCLUDING ANY SPECIAL DETAIL WE HAVE GOING ON OR A POLICE OFFICERS WORKING OFF DUTY DETAILS.

SO WE HAVE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 24 AND 30 OFFICERS ON ON FOOT OR OUT ON THE BEAT.

ON AVERAGE, THAT GOES UP DEPENDING ON GIVE OR TAKE TIMES AND SORT OF STUFF.

YEAH. AND WE HAVE HOW MANY SWORN OFFICERS? 400.

AND WE'RE BUDGETED FOR 437. I MEAN THAT'S LIKE LESS THAN 10%.

10% OF THE FORCE IS OUT ACTUALLY FACING THE PUBLIC.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE OTHER 90% ISN'T ISN'T DOING THEIR JOB, BUT IF I HAD TO PRIORITIZE MORE PROACTIVE POLICING WORK AS OPPOSED TO REACTIVE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE MONEY IS BETTER, WELL SPENT.

BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THESE SALARIES AND IT'S JUST IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.

YOU KNOW, 320,000 312 295. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE 144 WHICH IS FULL TIME POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS, ATV SQUAD AND THOSE I'M ASSUMING THOSE GUYS ARE OUT THERE RIGHT THERE ON THE SAND.

THEY'RE PATROLLING THE. DOES THE SUPERVISOR OF THE ATV BIKE SQUAD ACTUALLY GO OUT? YES, SIR. OKAY. IF WE WERE TO ELIMINATE THE SUPERVISOR.

BUT KEEP THE THE FOUR FULL TIME ATV SQUAD, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? WELL, THE WHOLE IDEA IS, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE OFFERING UP THAT SQUAD AS A WHOLE, AS PART OF THE REDUCTION, WE WON'T ABANDON THE BEACH. WILL ALWAYS BE COPS ASSIGNED TO THE SAND ON ATVS.

HE OR SHE WOULD REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE AREA. SERGEANT.

AREA FOUR SERGEANT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. BUT THERE WILL BE PRESENCE. SO THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A DEFINED SQUAD PER SE. SO THEY. SO THERE IS A WORLD WHERE WE CAN KEEP THE FOUR FULL TIME POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE ON ATVS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY FILL THIS ATV BIKE SQUAD.

[02:55:02]

TO BE CLEAR, BOTH THE SERGEANT AND THE ENTIRE SQUAD WOULD BE ABSORBED BACK INTO REGULAR PATROL.

AND AGAIN THE BEACH WON'T BE ABANDONED. POLICE OFFICERS ON ATVS WILL BE ON THE BEACH, BUT.

BUT REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE SERGEANT. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

GOOD MORNING OR AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. YOU KNOW, YOU SAY IT'S JUST A SERGEANT POSITION, BUT THERE'S ONE THING TO BE A SERGEANT OF AN ATV SQUAD WHERE YOU FIND SHORT AND LONG TERM SOLUTIONS.

YOU MEET WITH HOA PRESIDENTS. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS JUST PUTTING FOUR BODIES OUT THERE AND SAY, REPORT TO A ZONE SERGEANT, WHICH IS ALREADY HANDLING A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

THE SAME THING GOES FOR THE I SAW I ALMOST FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR WHEN I SAW THE PROBLEM SOLVING TEAM ON THERE.

THESE GUYS HAVE MADE ALMOST 800 ARRESTS YEAR TO DATE 2026.

THE MAJORITY OF THE ARRESTS, HOMELESS ARRESTS THAT ARE BEING MADE ARE BEING MADE BY THE PROBLEM SOLVING TEAM.

AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SERGEANT, THEY GET A DIRECTIVE, THEY STUDY THE PROBLEM, THEY TAKE CARE OF IT, AND THEY COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. THE UNION'S POSITION IS NO SWORN SHOULD BE ABSORBED EITHER THROUGH ATTRITION.

WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE LAYOFFS BECAUSE WE WERE HERE IN DECEMBER.

AND I REMEMBER THEY BROUGHT THE CHIEF UP, AND I BELIEVE MAYOR MINER WAS YOUR ITEM, AND YOU BROUGHT HIM UP TO SAY, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU GUYS JUST MADE IT TO 437.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN FULLY STAFFED IN DECADES. THERE WAS THAT SCENE FROM PULP FICTION.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHAT IT SAYS WHERE MR. WOLFE COMES IN.

HE SAYS BEFORE WE START CELEBRATING TOO EARLY, BOYS. AND THAT'S NOT THE WORDS HE USED. LET'S TAKE A BREAK.

AND THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE WE ARE EIGHT MONTHS LATER, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAYING OFF OR NOT LAYING OFF, BUT GETTING RID OF POLICE POSITION, EVERY POSITION IN THERE, THE TWO DETENTION OFFICERS.

SO IT'S NOT JUST THE DETENTION OFFICER. WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS AN OFFICER MAKES AN ARREST.

HE HAS TO LEAVE HIS THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TRANSPORT HIM TO TGK, WHICH IS NEAR THE AIRPORT.

AND THAT'S ONE LESS POLICE OFFICER ON THE STREET WHERE HE COULD HAVE BEEN. THAT'S TWO HOURS AT LEAST. AND YOU'VE SEEN THE TRAFFIC IN MIAMI. BOBBY, CAN I CAN I INTERJECT? AND AGAIN, I DON'T I'M NOT THIS IS NOT A POLICY DISCUSSION PER SE.

SO I'M NOT I'M JUST GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

WHERE COULD THERE BE EFFICIENCIES, COULD THERE? AND I THINK WE DO IT TO SOME DEGREE WHERE AS OPPOSED TO EACH OFFICER LEAVING THE BEACH, YOU TAKE SIX ARRESTEES AT ONCE.

I THINK WE DO THAT TO SOME DEGREE. BUT THAT'S I PERSONALLY THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. I'M NOT LOOKING TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, BUT I THINK IT'S A HARD LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S A MORE EFFICIENT WAY OF DOING THINGS THAT CAN. BECAUSE I THINK I HEAR THE SAME THING FROM EVERYBODY FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE, WHETHER IT BE COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, WE'RE LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF POLICE OFFICERS ON OUR STREETS THAT ARE VISIBLE.

AND PEOPLE SEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE BIGGEST DETERRENT TO CRIME.

AND I THINK WE'VE PROVEN THAT AS MAJOR CRIMES ARE DOWN YEAR OVER YEAR, DOUBLE DIGITS THE YEAR BEFORE DOUBLE DIGITS, 18%, 15% HOMELESS NUMBERS, THE LOWEST EVER. I MEAN, WE'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.

YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. WE'RE ALL DOING A GREAT JOB. BUT HOW DO WE EVEN INCREASE THAT EVEN MORE? THAT'S WHAT I'M CONSISTENTLY THAT'S WHAT I FOCUS ON ALL THE TIME.

AND THAT NUMBER ABOUT THE 45 OR 40 BODIES, WHATEVER, 10%, THAT'S JUST ONE SHIFT.

WAS MORE THAN 40 PEOPLE THAT WORK A DAY. SO THERE'S A LOT MORE OFFICERS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAN JUST ONE PARTICULAR SHIFT.

AND YOU HAD THE OFF DUTY COMPONENT. AND THEN THERE'S THE ISSUE OF THE OVERTIME, YOU KNOW.

1996 CHIEF BARRETO AT THE TIME CAME IN, I STILL REMEMBER LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY, AND HE CAME IN AND SAID, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE NEED 800 COPS, SOMETIMES WE ONLY NEED 300, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 800 OFFICERS ON THE PAYROLL WITH THE PAYROLL AND BENEFITS PACKAGE, WHEN WE CAN ONLY REALLY NEED 800 EVERY THREE, FOUR TIMES A YEAR.

AND EVERY POSITION IS IMPORTANT. AND IT'S NOT THE DETENTION OFFICER.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE ONE IN THE JAIL.

THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TRANSPORT WAGON. SO IT REALLY SHOULD BE TWO DETENTION OFFICERS.

I KNOW WHEN I WAS A PATROL SERGEANT, HOW FRUSTRATING IT WAS TO SAY, WHERE'S THREE OF MY BUDDIES THAT ARE ALL TRANSPORTING PEOPLE TO TGK OR DADE COUNTY JAIL BACK THEN? SO EVERY SPOT THERE IS ESSENTIAL AND IT AFFECTS MY MEMBERS BECAUSE IT AFFECTS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, CRIME RATES, LESS OFFICERS ON THE STREET. SO BUT EVERYTHING THAT POSITION OF OF THE OF THE ELECTRIC BIKE SERGEANT AND THE ATV SERGEANT IS HUGE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TERM FIX. AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE PROBLEM SOLVING TEAM, THEY ARE WARRIORS. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE PUTTING A DENT IN THIS HOMELESSNESS ARREST AND ANY CRIMES THAT MIGHT POP UP.

SO JUST JUST FOR CONSIDERATION AND THE UNION POSITION IS THAT WE REALLY WE WORKED HARD TO GET THE 437 ROBBERY DETECTIVE, AS THE CHIEF SPOKE ABOUT. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST CLEARANCE RATES IN SOUTH FLORIDA, IF NOT THE NATION.

WE'RE UP THERE, ONE OF THE FASTEST, THE FASTEST RESPONDING POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE NATION.

SO THAT MEANS WHEN YOU KNOCK ON WHEN YOU CALL 911 BECAUSE YOU HEAR SOMEBODY WALKING DOWN YOUR HALLWAY JUST BROKE INTO YOUR HOUSE, CITIZENS OF MIAMI BEACH CAN BE REST ASSURED THAT THEY GOT THE FASTEST RESPONDING POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE NATION.

AND YOU CAN DO ALL YOUR FACT CHECKING IF YOU WANT. I'M TELLING YOU, THAT'S SPOT ON. THE OTHER DAY, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WE HAD A POSSIBLE ACTIVE GUNMAN HERE BEHIND CITY HALL.

IT WAS A FIREFIGHTER THAT WAS DOING EXERCISING, AND A SECURITY GUARD GOT ALARMED, AND HE CREATED THIS WHOLE CHAOS.

WITHIN TWO MINUTES THERE WERE 60 OFFICERS SURROUNDING CITY HALL.

[03:00:04]

THERE'S NOT A DEPARTMENT THAT RESPONDS IN THAT KIND OF MANNER, BOTH IN AN OFF DUTY, ON DUTY UNDERCOVER CAPACITY LIKE WE DID THAT DAY.

AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT. JUST TO EXPAND ON WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING, I THINK WE ALL AGREE THE RESPONSE TIMES ARE GREAT, BUT AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN A POUND OF CURE.

AND IF WE JUST SEE MORE PROACTIVENESS, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT LESS CALLS FOR SERVICE WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE 60 OFFICERS SHOW UP TO CITY HALL, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO I JUST WANT TO GET BACK ON TOPIC HERE.

LOOK, I THINK ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFFICERS HERE THAT ARE GOING TO BE FRONT FACING THAT ARE GOING TO BE OUT ON PATROL. BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, A THE SUPERVISOR FOR THE ATV SQUAD, IF THERE IS ALREADY A POSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO REPORT TO A ZONE OFFICER.

I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO SAVE US $312,000 JUST RIGHT THERE.

FOR THE DETECTIVE POSITION. CHIEF IS CRIME IS IS, YOU KNOW, IS IS THEFTS UP OR DOWN? RECENTLY, I MEAN, NOT, NOT THE CASES THAT ARE SOLVED, BUT OVERALL IS THEFT HAS GONE DOWN IN MIAMI BEACH OR IS IT UP? YEAH. YEAR TO DATE THEFTS ARE DOWN 15% YEAR TO DATE.

OKAY. AND BY THE WAY, THAT'S TO THE MAYOR'S POINT.

IT'S IT'S BECAUSE OF THE PROACTIVENESS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN.

SO IF THEFTS ARE DOWN 15%, I'M OKAY WITH THAT REDUCTION.

AND IF IT GOES UP, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE TO BUDGET FOR IT, I GUESS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE OUR REVENUES ARE GOING DOWN.

YOU SAW THE LINE GRAPH AND OUR SPENDING IS GOING UP AND WE'VE GOT TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT $7 MILLION TODAY NO MATTER WHAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE IF WE'RE EVEN THERE. SO LIKE I SAID, ME PERSONALLY, I THINK KEEPING OFFICERS WHO ARE ON THE BEAT IS ESSENTIAL. BUT OFFICERS BEHIND A DESK, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF CONSIDERATION. I MEAN, AGAIN, THESE THESE THE COST OF TAXPAYERS IS ASTRONOMICAL FOR SOME OF THESE HIGHER LEVEL POSITIONS HERE.

AND THIS IS JUST ONE YEAR. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MY MY COLLEAGUES THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT COMMISSIONER.

YEAH, I SPOKE ABOUT IT. SO I'M CLEAR. AND SO TO MY POINT, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK WE'RE WE'RE ALL SAYING SAYING THE SAME THING.

I HAVE GREAT FRUSTRATION, SIGNIFICANT FRUSTRATION FOR ME WITH THE EFFICIENCIES THAT ARE HERE, BECAUSE TO ME, THESE ARE THE POSITIONS THAT ARE OUT IN THE STREETS.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE THE POSITIONS THAT ARE IN, IN THE DEPARTMENT WHERE THAT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, STAFF POSITIONS INSIDE THE DEPARTMENTS UNFILLED POSITIONS THAT MAY, THAT MAY EXIST.

I JUST, I JUST FEEL THAT THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T THE AREA WHERE, WHERE, WHERE WE CUT.

AND I AGREE WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER. I THINK I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING HERE.

RIGHT. WE'VE COME SO FAR AS A CITY. I DO NOT WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW DOLLARS PER POUND FOOLISH AND TAKE AWAY OFFICERS THAT ARE ON THE FRONT LINE OUT ON THE STREET THAT WE ALL PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK FOR CURING PUBLIC SAFETY OR ENHANCING IT.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THROUGH A LOT OF THE EFFORTS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS WORK ON BETTER OPERATIONAL PLANS, PERHAPS ESPECIALLY THIS JUST THROUGH MY ANECDOTAL OBSERVATIONS, IT'S KIND OF THE SAME DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE AS WELL.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HAVE EMPLOYED, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR SOME OF THESE STAFF SPECIAL EVENTS.

ARE WE OVERSTAFFED? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THIS OVERTIME COMES FROM.

AND YEAH, I'LL JUST PUT OUT DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.

THE FOOD AND WINE FEST. RIGHT. ARE THERE MORE PEOPLE THERE ON THAT BEACH THAN ON A NORMAL SATURDAY? BUT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, DOZENS OF OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

CAN WE LOOK AT BETTER OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY FOR THINGS LIKE THAT? THE WORLD CUP, WHICH OUR CITY HAS BEEN PHENOMENAL FOR BEING MORE KIND OF PINPOINTED AND WHERE WE'RE DEPLOYING OUR RESOURCES, YOU KNOW? OKAY.

FOR SOME OF THE MORE PASSIONATE FAN BASES. YES.

HAVING LARGER STAFF. BUT FOR A FRANCE, SPAIN GAME WHERE THERE'S 20 PEOPLE IN THE PARK, DO WE NEED 20 OFFICERS OUT THERE?

[03:05:06]

AND I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS AROUND THE EDGES, AND I HATE CALLING ANYBODY OUT AND IT'S NOT PERSONAL OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT I SAW WITH THE FIRE AND WITH POLICE AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED LIKE SOCIAL MEDIA, PR PEOPLE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THEY SHOW UP WITH THE CAMERAS SO SOPHISTICATED, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE.

RIGHT? THAT'S I'D LOVE ONE OF THOSE FOR MY STAFF, BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT.

I'D RATHER HAVE OUR FRONTLINE WORKERS IN FIRE, OUR FRONTLINE WORKERS IN POLICE.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN IDENTIFYING THAT. I ONLY SAW THAT BECAUSE I SEE WITH MY OWN TWO EYES THAT THE COLUMBIA CONCERT THE CONCERT WITH THE COLOMBIAN ARTISTS FOR WORLD CUP. IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED A SOCIAL MEDIA PERSON TO SHOW UP AND TAKE PICTURES OF THE FIRE OR THE POLICE.

IS IT NICE TO HAVE. SURE. RIGHT. BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO COME AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR FRONTLINE MEN AND WOMEN WITHIN THE POLICE OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE VERY SUPPORTIVE IN REMOVING MANY OF THESE EFFICIENCIES.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DO SELF EVALUATION TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER AREAS WHERE I THINK WHERE YOU HEAR THIS CONVERSATION GOING, IF THERE ARE FURTHER SO FURTHER INTROSPECTION THAT WE CAN DO BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER.

SO IF I CAN MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT WE SHOULD KEEP.

144145146, WHICH IS 13 OFFICERS WHO WERE ON FOOT ON PATROL AND ELIMINATE THE PRIORITY SERVICE TEAM, THE ST, THE SERGEANT THERE AND THE BIKE SQUAD SUPERVISOR AND THE DETECTIVE POSITION. SINCE THEFTS ARE DOWN BY 15% AND THE ROBBERY AS WELL, AND THAT'S $1 MILLION IF I CAN COMMISSIONER TO ASSIST.

I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE FOUR BECAUSE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW IS ON THE LIST.

I BELIEVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION. YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN JUST GO FROM THE TOP RIGHT.

IS THAT OKAY? SURE. YEAH. MAYBE WE START WITH 130 AND WE'LL JUST KIND OF MAKE OUR WAY DOWN THE LINE.

IT WOULD FOR POLICE. WE'D START AT 134. YEP. OH, OKAY.

I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THAT SAID PLEASE. YEP. SO IS THERE ANY, I GUESS, GOING DOWN THE LIST? IS THERE ANY ISSUES ON 134? HOW LONG HAVE THESE BEEN VACANT FOR? I BELIEVE THEY WERE ADDED TO THE BUDGET A YEAR BEFORE.

YEAH, THEY WERE ADDED TWO YEARS AGO AND HAVE NEVER BEEN FILLED. OKAY. I'M FINE WITH THAT. YEAH. YEAH. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. ALMOST. YEAH. SO THEY WERE ADDED AND THEY'VE NEVER BEEN FILLED. MR. MAYOR, I THINK THIS WAS YOUR INITIATIVE. YEAH, BUT IT WAS MINE.

OH, YEAH. YEAH. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE WE WORKED DESPERATELY TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS, BUT BECOME A MIAMI BEACH POLICE OFFICER.

DETENTION OFFICERS ARE VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS.

DOZENS OF APPLICANTS AND JUST COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY WHO MADE THE CUT.

AND BOBBY HERE. EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'D RATHER GIVE UP SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T HAD FOR TWO YEARS.

AND MAKE SURE WE'RE FIRING ON ALL CYLINDERS IN THESE OTHER AREAS.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER. THESE ARE VACANT. AND AS WE GO THROUGH THEM, SOME ARE VACANT AND SOME ARE FILLED.

YEAH. SO I THINK WE'RE HAVE A CONSENSUS THERE.

35 IS A VACANT CRIME ANALYST. SUPERVISOR. HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN VACANT FOR? OH, I DON'T KNOW. 2024. YEAH. 24. OKAY, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

YEAH. FOR THE NEXT ONE. THE NEXT ONE ALSO. SO THE REAL TIME SPECIALISTS THOSE ARE FULL TIME AND VACANT.

AND THOSE ARE ALSO BEEN VACANT SINCE 24. I'M FINE WITH I THINK WE SHOULD.

I MEAN, WE'VE INVESTED SO MUCH IN ARCTIC AND TO NOT HAVE SOMEBODY MONITORING IN REAL TIME.

CHIEF, MAYBE YOU CAN GET YOUR STAFFING. WE HAVE HIRED SOME SOME OF THEM WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE PERSON THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, MAY NOT BE HIRED. BUT AGAIN, GETTING HIRED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, FOLKS HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK.

AND DESPITE THE FACT WE GET LOTS AND LOTS OF APPLICANTS, MANY OF THEM JUST DON'T MAKE IT.

SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE 36 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE VACANT, BUT THERE'S ONE POSITION THAT IS READY TO BE FILLED.

YES. HOW MANY POSITIONS DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE REAL TIME INTELLIGENCE CENTER FOR THAT POSITION? YOU STILL LOOK FOUR. I'M SORRY. FOUR FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR.

TWO ARE VACANT. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. SIX. WE GOT FOUR OUT OF SIX.

OKAY. AND DID YOU SAY THAT THERE'S ONE THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO HIRE? YEAH. YES. THERE'LL BE FIVE OUT OF THE SIX WILL BE FILLED PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF TODAY.

CORRECT. PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF TODAY. SO WHY DON'T WE ELIMINATE ONE AND AND LOOK, THE ARCTIC HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL.

[03:10:06]

SO LET'S GET THAT PERSON ON BOARD AND HAVE FIVE.

ELIMINATE ONE AND EVERYONE. THERE'S A PROPOSAL ON 136 TO TO RESTORE THE FUNDING FOR ONE OF THE TWO REAL TIME CRIME SPECIALISTS. ANY OBJECTION? NO. IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE THREE CONSENSUS.

SO WE WILL ADD BACK ONE POSITION. OKAY, KEEP GOING ON. 137. THERE ARE THREE VACANT AND ONE FILLED PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIALISTS.

CHIEF ARE THOSE WE WOULD ELIMINATE CURRENT PUBLIC SAFETY PEOPLE WHO ARE HIRED.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TERMINATE THEM. THREE, THREE VACANT ONE ARE FILLED.

NO ONE IS. THE WHOLE IDEA IS WE'VE HAD A COUPLE LEAVE RECENTLY.

I THINK ONE OF THEM HAD TO GO TO THE POLICE ACADEMY. ANOTHER ONE LEFT BECAUSE SHE'S HAVING A BABY. SHE HAS PEOPLE LEAVE AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO JUST THROUGH ATTRITION, NOT BACK FILL THE ONES THAT ARE VACANT, JUST NOT BACK.

WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.

IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL. IT REALLY HELPS US HELP US MITIGATE TRAFFIC DURING RUSH HOUR TIME TICKING THE EVENING TIME REALLY HELP US ALLEVIATING DEMANDS ON POLICE OFFICERS WHEN THEY GO TO NON PRIORITY CALLS OF SERVICE, RIGHT. WHEN THEY DO ACTION REPORTS AND DO REPORTS FOR BURGLARY OR THEFT.

EFFECT. SO THEY ARE A BENEFIT TO THE ORGANIZATION.

BUT AGAIN, TRYING NOT TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE.

NAMES AND FACES. THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO UNFILLED, NOT FILL POSITIONS THAT ARE UNFILLED AT THIS TIME.

HOW MANY ARE THERE IN TOTAL? I THINK 16 INITIALLY.

OKAY. SO ON THIS ONE, COULD WE JUST NOT FILL THE THREE THAT ARE VACANT AND KEEP THE ONE WHO IS HERE? SURE. I DON'T SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF THESE FOUR POSITIONS.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE CREATED KEEPING IN MIND THE TRAFFIC CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE.

AND AND JUST REALIZING SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE OUT THERE.

WE CAN ELIMINATE THESE POSITIONS AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BELIEVE THAT, THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO GO ABSORBED.

BUT WHAT'S GOING TO END UP HAPPENING IS THAT WHEN THERE IS A TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND WE GET THE PHONE CALLS, A POLICE OFFICER IS GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE DEPLOYED OVER THERE.

AND I THINK THAT'S IT'S PENNY WISE POUND FOOLISH BECAUSE IT'S JUST GOING TO INCREASE THE WORKLOAD ON A SWORN OFFICER INSTEAD OF THAT OFFICER RESPONDING TO EMERGENCY CALLS. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A POLICE OFFICER PLAYING TRAFFIC.

YOU KNOW, DIRECTION ON AN INTERSECTION OR GETTING OVERTIME OR GETTING OVERTIME.

THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. YEAH. WHAT'S WHAT'S THE AVERAGE SALARY FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIALIST? I'M SORRY, I CAN'T. I CAN JUST TELL YOU FOR THE FOR THE BUDGETED IT'S $282,000.

FIRST YEAR WITH PENSION. 357. THAT'S 4475 FOR FOUR.

I SUPPORT KEEPING THIS MR. MAYOR I DO TOO. I KNOW THERE'S PROPOSAL, BUT I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO KEEP KEEP TO REMOVE THIS REMOVE THIS FROM THE REMOVE THIS FROM THE CONSIDERATION. RIGHT. SO WE WILL RESTORE FUNDING ON.

137 OKAY. 138 IS A VACANT POLICE TECHNICAL SERVICES MANAGER.

DO WE KNOW HOW LONG THIS HAS BEEN VACANT FOR? A COUPLE OF YEARS. OKAY, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO, OKAY, I THEN I SUPPORT I'M FINE WITH THAT.

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NO OBJECTION. NOW WE GET INTO THE NEXT THREE ARE THROUGH RETIREMENT.

THROUGH RETIREMENT, THROUGH ATTRITION. 139. I DON'T SUPPORT THAT.

OKAY. 140 WELL, I'M JUST ONE PERSON. IS THERE ANY YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS? OBJECTION. YEAH. TRYING TO OBJECT. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 139? YEAH. WE'RE THAT WAS 139. YEAH. I DON'T SUPPORT REMOVING THAT FROM THE BUDGET.

I THINK THE, THE, THE, THE, THE EFFICIENCY SHOULD BE REMOVED.

I APOLOGIZE, I APOLOGIZE, I MISUNDERSTOOD. I BELIEVE SO THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR THE POSITION.

YES, CHIEF. I'LL ASK YOU STRAIGHT OUT. I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THIS FILLING THIS POSITION IS ESSENTIAL TO CONTINUE THE GREAT WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING IN SOLVING WHAT IS 139 ROBBERY? WHAT DO YOU THINK? YEAH. LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT REALLY AMAZING IMPRESSIVE NUMBERS FROM RUGBY SQUAD.

IF THERE'S A WAY TO TAKE IT, I'D LOVE TO KEEP IT RIGHT.

BUT AGAIN, IF WE HAVE TO GIVE IT UP, GIVE UP A POSITION, LIKE TO GIVE UP A POSITION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FACE OR NAME TO IT.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. THROUGH ATTRITION, I JUST ONE MORE.

I ASSUME WE'RE I SHOULDN'T ASSUME, BUT I'LL ASK YOU, ARE WE AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO NEED WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO NEED OUR OFFICERS.

BUT ARE WE UTILIZING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN AI AND INCORPORATING ALL OF THAT INTO THE OUR INVESTIGATIONS?

[03:15:06]

IT'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. IT'S BEEN A COMPLETE AND UTTER GAME CHANGER THE WAY WE DO POLICE WORK.

AND SO WE ARE LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY AS BEST WE CAN AND CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR BETTER TECHNOLOGY TO EVEN MAKE US EVEN BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT, THE WAY WE DELIVER SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO. CHIEF, YOU SAID THE NUMBER OF ROBBERIES DOWN 15% OR THEFTS 50%.

THEFTS AROUND 15. ROBBERIES ARE DOWN 50%. WAIT, SAY THAT AGAIN.

THEFT DOWN 151 5%. ROBBERIES ARE DOWN 50%. 550.

OKAY. SO, GUYS YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WE'RE WE'RE NOT FIRING SOMEONE JUST OUT OF ATTRITION.

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A YEAR. ROBBERIES DOWN 50%.

THEFT IS DOWN 15%. AND THIS THE YEAR TO IMPACT IS GOING TO BE $290,000.

I MEAN, WE GOT TO WE GOT TO MEET SOMEWHERE ON THIS.

LIKE, IT'S EASY TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO CUT THIS, BUT WHEN THE DATA SHOWS THAT ROBBERY AND THEFTS ARE DOWN AND WE'RE GOING TO BE INCORPORATING MORE AI INTO INTO DETECTIVE WORK OR ROBBERY WORK.

I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A POSITION WE CAN CERTAINLY LET GO.

AND IF IT EVER COMES BACK UP, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO MANAGE ACCORDINGLY THROUGH ANOTHER BUDGET PROCESS.

I, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I THINK WHEN WHEN WE SEE A DECLINE IN OUR ROBBERY CASES, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN BY US LEGISLATING THAT THE CRIMINALS ARE STILL GOING TO COME INTO OUR CITY, AND THEY'RE STILL GOING TO ROAM OUR STREETS UNLESS THEY GET ARRESTED.

AND IT'S THE WORK OF THESE DETECTIVES THAT LEAD TO THOSE ARRESTS.

UNLESS UNLESS THESE INDIVIDUALS GET ARRESTED, THEY'RE GOING TO COMMIT THE CRIME.

AND SO, YEAH, WE SEE WHY ARE WE SEEING THE NUMBERS GO DOWN? BECAUSE THE BAD GUYS BEING TAKEN OFF THE STREET.

I, I DON'T WANT TO RISK THE PROGRESS AND I GET IT.

AND I RESPECT THE DIFFERENCE IN OPINION. I DON'T THINK THAT WHEN YOU'VE BEEN MAKING PROGRESS THAN THAT YOU CUT WHAT HAS BEEN YIELDING TO THE PROGRESS.

AT WHAT POINT DO YOU, YOU KNOW, AT WHAT POINT DO YOU SAY IF THERE'S, IF, IF IT'S DOWN 90, WHEN IS THE LONG TERM SUSTAINED? HOW LONG HAVE WE SUSTAINED THE CURRENT NUMBERS THAT WE'VE PRODUCED AT THE 50%.

NOW I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK AND THEN TAKE A LOOK JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS. IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS ALREADY. WELL, IT'S IT'S TWO YEARS AND TWO YEARS IN A ROW, BUT I, I, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY MORE IN LINE WITH, WITH YOURS. WHERE I COME OUT IS I THINK THIS HAS ALL BEEN SAID, BUT I'LL ENCAPSULATE IT.

I THINK THERE ARE EFFICIENCIES THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT WILL SAVE MONEY.

YOU MENTIONED SOCIAL MEDIA. THERE'S THERE'S OTHER THINGS TAKING AWAY OUR THE OFFICES THAT WE, AS BOBBY MENTIONED, WORKED SO HARD TO FILL. I WILL ADD, AND I'M GOING TO ASK A REQUEST FROM YOU BECAUSE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS A LOT.

I BRING IT UP AGAIN AND I SAY IT WITH A POSITIVE WHEN, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN OUR POLICE HAVE TO BE.

AND FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE SEEN THE CROWDS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR FIFA.

OUR POLICE ARE OUT THERE VISIBLE THERE. I SAW 6000 ARGENTINIAN FANS.

FIRST OF ALL, THEY WERE GREAT FANS, VERY ORDERLY. BUT THAT HAD THE CHANCE TO GO HAYWIRE IN A SPLIT SECOND AND THE POLICE WERE FANTASTIC, PUTTING THE BARRICADES IN THE RIGHT PLACE, KEEPING EVERYONE MOVING. IT WAS PHENOMENAL.

THE ONE ISSUE I HAD, AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, I'M SORRY, I'M ASKING YOU, WHEN THERE'S JUST A REGULAR DAY AND A REGULAR, THERE'S REALLY NO REGULAR DAY IN MIAMI BEACH. IF AN OFFICER COULD JUST STAND OUTSIDE THE CAR, NOT THE WHOLE TIME, BUT JUST STAND LEAN AGAINST THE CAR, IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES AN IMPACT.

IT WILL REDUCE CRIME EVEN FURTHER. IN MY OPINION.

IT HAS AN IMPACT ON PEOPLE. OUR RESIDENTS LOVE IT AND THE BAD GUYS DON'T LIKE IT.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO MORE. SO I'M COMMITTING TO YOU THAT I DON'T WANT TO CUT STAFF BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED IT.

AND I THINK THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE, I AM NOT AND I HEAR COMMISSIONER SUAREZ'S POINT.

I'M NOT I'M NOT CONVINCED A POSITION HERE OR THERE WE'LL WE'LL MOVE THE NEEDLE.

BUT I'M ALSO NOT WILLING TO TAKE THE CHANCE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT PUBLIC SAFETY IS.

BUT I'M ALSO ASKING TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

AND AND THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY, I THINK AND I'M NOT JUST SAYING THIS, I THINK THE OFFICERS ARE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB, BUT THAT VISIBILITY THAT STANDING OUTSIDE THE CAR, I CAN TELL YOU, EVEN ME, I'M DRIVING, I'M DRIVING.

AND IF I SEE AN OFFICER OUT A CAR, I FEEL EVEN EVEN THOUGH I DON'T SPEED, I FEEL DIFFERENTLY, I JUST DO. AND, AND I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY THAT HOLDS TRUE FOR, FOR REALLY EVERYBODY, WHETHER YOU'RE LAW ABIDING, IT'S A POSITIVE. IF YOU'RE NOT LAW ABIDING, IT'S LIKE I'M FINDING SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GO.

SO IF I COULD JUST KIND OF CONVEY MY LINE OF THINKING AND, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M TORN.

[03:20:08]

THE BEST WAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FACING A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE DECLINING REVENUE, INCREASING EXPENSES.

THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE NOW IS TO BE SURE WE ARE ONLY MAKING THE MOST NEEDED AND EFFICIENT HIRES THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET INTO A BUDGET SITUATION WHERE IT PUTS EVERYBODY AT RISK, RIGHT? IF I'M SITTING, I'M A FINANCE GUY, AND IF I'M SITTING IN AN OFFICE OF TEN PEOPLE AND WE KNOW, OKAY, WE HAVE OUR BUDGET OF THIS, WE GET PAID THIS EVERY YEAR.

IF WE KNOW OUR INCOME IS GOING TO GO DOWN, THE LAST THING I WANT MY BOSS TO DO IS HIRE MORE PEOPLE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEN I GO, I'M GOING TO BE AT RISK.

IF OUR INCOME GOES DOWN AND WE'VE ADDED A LOT MORE PIECES OF THAT PIE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BE REALLY CONSCIOUS OF IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE WITH US RIGHT NOW IS TO BE SURE WE ARE NOT OVERHIRING FOR STAFF THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE NOW. RIGHT.

SO WHEN I KIND OF HAD THIS PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION WITH THE UNION PRESIDENT FOR THE FIRE, I GO, I SEE ME LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE CURRENTLY SERVING NOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY MAKING SURE WE DON'T OVERHIRE FOR PEOPLE WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PUTS EVERYBODY AT RISK, RIGHT? IF YOU GET PAST THAT POINT OF NO RETURN, WHERE YOUR REVENUES COME DOWN, YOU'VE HIRED A BOATLOAD OF PEOPLE.

WE HAVE TO MAKE UNNECESSARY OR UNFORTUNATE DECISIONS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET TO THAT POINT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE KIND OF FOCUSING SO MUCH ON EVERY SINGLE POSITION, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT AREN'T FILLED.

SO WE NEVER GET TO THAT POINT WHERE YOU GO, THERE'S A NAME AND A FACE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NOW, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THOSE UNCOMFORTABLE DECISIONS. SO I'M TRYING TO JUST BE THOUGHTFUL IN ENSURING THAT WE DON'T GET THERE.

AND THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF PULLED BETWEEN THESE TWO LINES OF THINKING I DO.

I THINK MY OVERARCHING BELIEF IS THOUGH, THAT, WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK ON THE PROGRESS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE.

AND I GUESS I'LL, I'LL KIND OF FLIP THE SCRIPT TO YOU, CHIEF, WITH WHAT I JUST SAID IN MIND, YOU KNOW, I'LL ASK YOU TO KIND OF OPINE ON. YES.

YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS THIS IS NECESSARY. CRITICAL.

WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACKWARDS.

BUT IS WITH THAT THOUGHT THAT WE NEVER WANT TO PUT OUR CURRENT WORK STAFF IN PLACE BY HIRING POSITIONS THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY FILLED, THAT ESSENTIALLY ADD TO OUR BUDGET AND THEN PUT US AT RISK.

SO I HOPE, I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE NEEDLE I'M TRYING TO THREAD.

SO IF WE CAN WE BRING THIS SLIDE BACK UP. SO WE ARE ON 139, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THIS. I'M NOT SURE IT'S UNANIMOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THIS.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO SHOW 139 REMOVED. 140.

I'M GOING TO PROPOSE TO REMOVE THAT SAME PROPOSAL.

I THINK WE HAVE. IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO. SO JUST JUST TO SAVE TIME.

COMMISSIONER. BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS WHERE IT'S GOING. YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO REMOVE ALL OF THESE.

CORRECT. FROM LINE 138 TO 146 WHEN WHEN I'M READING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THESE ARE PROPOSALS THAT WILL DECREASE INVESTIGATIVE CAPACITY, CAPABILITY FOR VIOLENT CRIMES.

YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT REMOVING THAT OR REMOVING THAT FROM FROM A BUDGET.

THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN EFFICIENCY. BECAUSE THEN I'M SEEING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE ENHANCEMENTS IN THE IN THE ENHANCEMENTS, WE HAVE $115,000 IN ENHANCEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

I'D RATHER SEE US FUND VIOLENT CRIMES THAN, YOU KNOW, COME HERE.

LIKE, I LOVE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, BUT MY PRIORITY IS, YOU KNOW, ROBBERY POSITIONS.

MY PRIORITY IS MAJOR CRIMES. MY PRIORITY IS DETECTIVES.

TO ME, THESE. YEAH. THESE ARE THESE ARE IMPORTANT.

AND BY THE WAY, THEY'VE ALL COME BECAUSE WE'VE ALL SAT IN HERE AND WE'VE ALL HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANCE OF POLICE PRESENCE IN LOOMIS PARK, WHICH IS HOW WE ENDED UP WITH A BIKE SQUAD AND AN ATV.

THE PRIORITY SERVICE TEAMS WHO TACKLE LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE COME, WE WE ASK OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A GREATER FOCUS ON ON ISSUES RELATED TO HOMELESSNESS. IT'S THE PRIORITY SERVICE TEAMS THAT ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? IN PART, YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

AND SO AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WITHOUT AN IMPACT.

[03:25:02]

AND WE HAVE JOE MANNING SITTING IN THE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WAS A VICTIM, WHO WAS A VICTIM OF AN A HOMELESS INDIVIDUAL WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND GOT ATTACKED. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE AWAY WHO THE COURT HAD RELEASED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND I STILL HAVE SEEN HIM OUT. IT'S HORRIBLE.

AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO I CAN'T SUPPORT REMOVING THE THESE THESE POSITIONS WHO ARE TACKLING THESE DIFFICULT THINGS.

I SUPPORT SEEING WHERE ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT CAN WE FIND MR. MANAGER? WHERE ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT CAN WE FIND EFFICIENCIES THAT ARE NOT THESE.

OKAY. SO AGAIN. 138 TO 146 AND I BELIEVE. 139 WAS, IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER, WAS ALREADY RESOLVED.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING IS, IS THERE JUST A WHOLESALE FROM 140 TO 146? IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION TO. I THINK THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS MAKING TO JUST HAVE THOSE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION.

OKAY. I SUPPORT THAT. OKAY. PROBABLY NOT UNANIMOUS, BUT IS THERE A I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THE 142 ATV BIKE SQUAD SUPERVISOR AGAIN, THEY CAN THEY CAN REPORT TO THE ZONE AREA SUPERVISOR.

RIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT? SO A COMMISSIONER. THE IDEA IS ALTHOUGH WE WOULD DISBAND THE SQUAD AS IT.

NO, NO, NOT THE SPANISH SQUAD. BUT KEEP THE FOUR.

FULL TIME POLICE OFFICER, ATV SQUAD. BUT DO WE NEED A SQUAD SUPERVISOR FOR ATVS? IDEALLY, YES. IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THEM AS A UNIT.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DISBAND THEM AND ADD AN OFFICER OR TWO ON A REGULAR BASIS, DAILY BASIS TO A BIKE SQUAD HERE, HE OR SHE CAN REPORT TO THE AREA. SERGEANT. I, I, I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS SAYING, WE'RE LOOKING TO SAVE THE SQUAD. AND HE'S ASKING RATHER RATHER THAN HAVING THE SUPERVISOR BE ONE SERGEANT ASSIGNED TO THE SQUAD.

CAN IT BE THE ZONE SERGEANT? BUT FROM WHAT I GATHER, THE THE SERGEANT ASSIGNED TO THE SQUAD IS THE ONE THAT GIVES THEM THEIR DAILY DIRECTIVES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE ATV SQUAD. THIS SERGEANT GIVES THEM SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES AND INSTRUCTIONS RELATED TO THE ATV SQUAD THAT THE ZONE SERGEANT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM THAT LEVEL OF SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTION.

THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT ALSO THE SERGEANT ASSIGNED TO THE ATV SQUAD SERGEANT ASSIGNED TO THE SQUAD.

THESE ARE WORKING SERGEANTS. THESE AREN'T PEOPLE BEHIND A DESK PUSHING PAPER AND PENCIL.

THESE ARE GUYS OUT IN THE STREET WITH THEIR OFFICERS.

THE BETTER QUESTION WOULD BE WHY? WHY IS IT WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE FOR THE SERGEANT? I'M SORRY. SAY AGAIN SIR. I GUESS THE BETTER QUESTION IS WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE TO THAT THAT LINE ITEM FOR THE SUPERVISOR BECAUSE FOR FOR ATV SQUAD POSITIONS, IT'S $891,000.

BUT FOR ONE SERGEANT, IT'S 312. CAN YOU MAKE FIVE FULL TIME ATV SQUAD MEMBERS AND ONE OF THEM AT THE SAME PAY RATE AS A. EVERYONE IN THE SQUAD IS GETTING. AND AS FAR AS THE OVERALL COST, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO JASON TO MAKE IT.

BUT I IMAGINE THE NUMBERS YOU SEE THERE ENCOMPASSES THE PENSION LIABILITIES, ENCOMPASSES INSURANCE AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT GO ALONG.

FRINGE BENEFITS AS WELL GO ALONG WITH THIS DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN AN OFFICER AND A SERGEANT WITH A STEP DIFFERENCE.

YEAH, RIGHT. BECAUSE IF I JUST MULTIPLY FOUR TIMES 312, THAT'S IF THE COMMISSIONERS IS ASKING MAYBE THE QUESTION THE COMMISSIONER IS ASKING IS ARE WE ABLE TO REMOVE A SERGEANT? BUT AT A POLICE OFFICER BASICALLY TO DOWNGRADE, I THINK, CAN WE OR CAN WE ASK YOU TO TO, TO GIVE US AN ALTERNATIVE? BECAUSE I, I DO SEE HOW THAT POSITION DOES.

SERGEANT. POSITION YOU KNOW, YEAR TO $320,000.

THAT'S THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY. SO, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THE POSITION, CAN YOU COME BACK TO US WITH A PROPOSAL OF HOW CAN WE HOW CAN WE MODERATE THE COST SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE SQUAD THAT IS DOING? I MEAN, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE STREETS REALLY DOING THE MOST DIFFICULT OF POLICE WORK.

BUT HOW CAN WE LOOK AT THAT SERGEANT POSITION, COME BACK TO US WITH A PROPOSAL OF HOW, HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT 320 NUMBER LOWER AND THAT AND THAT. GOOD POINT COMMISSIONER. AND THAT BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER THING. WHY ARE YOU THE SALARIES FOR THESE POSITIONS FOR 140 TO 143 FOR THE. THIS THE SUPERVISOR POSITIONS, IF YOU WILL, IS THAT THE SAME SALARY THAT THE PERSON WHO IS LEAVING FROM ATTRITION GOING TO GET MEANING.

[03:30:04]

ET CETERA. MEANING ARE YOU GOING OUT INTO THE WORLD AND RECRUITING? SOMEONE KNEW WHERE THEIR BASE SALARY WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS.

OR ARE YOU BACKFILLING IN WITH SOMEONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT? WELL, IF YOU WERE REMOVING POSITION THROUGH ATTRITION, THAT POSITION IS NOT GOING TO BE REFILLED.

RIGHT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS SOMEONE'S LEAVING THAT POSITION.

CORRECT. AND THEY WERE GETTING PAID X AMOUNT.

YES. OKAY. ARE YOU GOING INTO DEPARTMENT AND SAYING, HEY, WE GOT TO FILL THIS, OR ARE YOU GOING OUT INTO THE WORKFORCE AND SAYING, HEY, WE NEED TO FILL THIS POSITION, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY.

YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH, RIGHT? THE PERSON LEAVING, RETIRING, VACATING THAT POSITION.

TYPICALLY THEY'RE MAXED OUT TOP OF THE SCALE SALARY.

HE OR SHE WILL BE REPLACED BY A MORE JUNIOR OFFICER WHOSE PAY RATE IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

THAT TRICKLES DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, WHERE IT CREATES A VACANCY FOR BRAND NEW POLICE OFFICERS TO BE HIRED.

WHO GETS PAID THE BASE SALARY FOR A POLICE OFFICER? SO THESE SUPERVISOR POSITIONS ARE GETTING FILLED, NOT NECESSARILY FROM YOUR.

YOUR WORK HIRING OUT INTO THE REAL WORLD. YOU'RE YOU'RE FILLING IT WITH FROM WITHIN.

CORRECT. BUT THE SUPERVISOR'S POSITIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE AREN'T GOING THROUGH ATTRITION.

THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SPECIALIZED UNITS, PUT BACK INTO REGULAR ROTATION OF PATROL, THE DETECTIVE POSITIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE, THOSE ARE THROUGH ATTRITION.

THAT PERSON RETIRES. AND IF THINGS. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, THIS IS THE ACCEPTED WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

THAT POSITION WILL NOT BE FILLED. WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE WANT TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS.

THAT POSITION WILL LIKELY BE FILLED BY MUCH JUNIOR OFFICER SLASH DETECTIVE AT A LOWER PAY RATE.

IT WILL BE A THOROUGH PROMOTION PROCESS, RIGHT? CORRECT. POLICE OFFICER TO A SERGEANT AND SUCH. SO IS THAT BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT? THE WAY THE PROMOTION PROCESS IS THAT PROMOTION PROCESS AND THAT IS CONTRACTUAL.

OKAY. SO YOU CAN'T JUST FILL THAT POSITION WITH HIRING AN OFFICER FROM ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO FILL THAT POSITION. NO, SIR. THERE'S A PENDING VERY ACTIVE PROMOTION LIST, AND I HAVE TO GO SEQUENTIALLY DOWN THAT LIST.

WHOEVER'S NEXT UP, THAT'S THE PERSON WHO SCORED HIRES HAS TO BE TAPPED IN TO FILL THAT POSITION.

COMMISSIONER. WHAT DID YOU WANT TO. YEAH. SO THE THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE. SO THERE ARE TEN PEOPLE CURRENTLY ASSIGNED BETWEEN POLICE OFFICERS AND SERGEANT FOR ATV BIKE SQUAD ROLES. AND THROUGH ATTRITION, WE'RE PROPOSING ELIMINATING ALL OF THEM, WHICH MEANS WE WOULD HAVE NO BIKE SQUAD, NO ATV. AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE ARE FACING INCREASED CHALLENGES WITH MICROMOBILITY, AND WE LITERALLY HAVE ACCEPTED A GIFT TO HAVE E-BIKES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE AN E-BIKE SQUAD THAT CAN HANDLE THE CHALLENGES OF PEOPLE TRYING TO NAVIGATE THEIR WAY THROUGH CHANGE. SO WE DON'T HAVE MORE DEATHS LIKE WE SAW JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, WEEKS AGO IN NORTH BEACH, AND NEAR-MISSES THAT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. TALK ABOUT BEING PENNY WISE AND POUND FOOLISH.

I THINK THIS IS A TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE DECISION TO ELIMINATE THAT FUNCTIONALITY IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I, YOU KNOW, LISTEN, IF THERE'S A WAY TO HAVE A MORE JUNIOR PERSON BE THE SQUAD LEADER AT A LOWER PAY RATE, I'M ALL FOR THAT. AS YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY RETIRES AND SOMEBODY ELSE GETS PROMOTED, YOU KNOW? GREAT. BUT TO GET RID OF THESE, THESE TEN POSITIONS IS I THINK A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK JULIA'S IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW, BUT WHEN SOMEBODY COMES BARRELING IN AND KNOCKS OUT JULIO BLANCO, THAT'S A TOUGH YOU KNOW IT'S A TOUGH GUY TO MOW DOWN.

AND AND YOU KNOW WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN FAR TOO OFTEN.

AND UNTIL WE AS A CULTURE, AS A COMMUNITY, FIGURE OUT HOW TO NAVIGATE THESE CHANGES WITH THESE NEW, VERY DANGEROUS DEVICES. I MEAN, THEY GO 60 MILES AN HOUR ON A SIDEWALK.

WE NEED TO HAVE OUR POLICE PRESENCE THERE AND FULLY TRAINED, FULLY EQUIPPED AND FULLY MANAGED TO HELP US NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS.

YOU COMMISSIONER, I'LL TELL YOU THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS DECISION DIDN'T COME LIGHTLY. A LOT OF INTERNAL CONVERSATION, DEBATE ABOUT WHAT WAS THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE.

ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE AGREED TO DO IS REALLY BE TRUE TO OUR CORE FUNCTION, THAT IS, RESPOND TO CALLS FOR SERVICE, WHICH CAN BE DONE IN THE POLICE CAR ALMOST ANY PLACE THROUGHOUT THE CITY EXCEPT ON THE WATER AND MARINE PATROL.

AND WHEREAS I'M A TRUE BELIEVER LIKE YOU ARE MICROMOBILITY, I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.

FRANKLY AT THE END OF THE DAY, A BIKE SQUAD AS A SQUAD, NOT NECESSARILY PUTTING GUYS ON BIKES,

[03:35:05]

RIGHT? IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.

BUT LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. DOES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT VIEW A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AS A CORE MISSION CALL TO SERVICE? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. SO THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT VEHICLE.

SO I HEAR YOU LIKE CRIME, GOD FORBID, VIOLENT CRIME, THEFT, BURGLARY, ALL THAT STUFF IS THE TRADITIONAL CALL TO SERVICE.

IF POLICE DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY DID NOT ADAPT TO HORSELESS CARRIAGES A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, NOBODY WOULD BE WRITING UP SPEEDING AND STOP SIGN VIOLATIONS AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT NOW ARE A CORE FUNCTION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. I KNOW IT AIN'T SEXY.

NOBODY MAKES TV SERIES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CRAZY 80, YOU KNOW, E-BIKE RIDERS.

AND I HOPE THEY NEVER START. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE SEEING IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

PEOPLE ARE DYING OR SPENDING MONTHS IN THE HOSPITAL OR SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO MOWED THEM DOWN ON A SIDEWALK WITH AN E-BIKE DIDN'T STOP.

NOBODY GOT A LICENSE OR NOT A LICENSE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.

BUT NOBODY GOT AHOLD OF THE PERSON. AND I HEAR THESE STORIES CONSTANTLY FROM RESIDENTS.

SO, SURE, IT HASN'T HISTORICALLY BEEN A CORE MISSION.

AND I KNOW YOU, YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THIS.

THIS IS FOR THE GREATER COMMUNITY, FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE LISTENING.

IT HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN A CORE RESPONSE THAT HAS BEEN REQUIRED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE.

TEN YEARS AGO, IF YOU SAID WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A BIKE SQUAD, AN ATV AND AN E-BIKE SQUAD TO DEAL WITH.

WITH THE INCREASE IN MICROMOBILITY, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU WERE INSANE.

FOR YOU TO BE DOING IT NOW MEANS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.

THE CHAOS ON THE ROADS AND SIDEWALKS NOW, SO I HEAR YOU HASN'T HERETOFORE BEEN A CORE REQUIREMENT, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY NOW GOING FORWARD. AND I THINK FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS, IT'S ONLY GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THE DECREASE IN BURGLARIES AND ALL THAT STUFF STAYS LOW.

BUT THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY THESE DEVICES IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET HIGHER UNTIL WE GET A HANDLE ON IT.

THANK YOU. I THINK IN HEARING THE DISCUSSION, I THINK WE ARE AT A PLACE AND THERE WAS ALREADY A REQUEST FOR 143 AND 46.

AND IF I MAY, BASED ON THE CONVERSATION, I THINK.

151 WHICH IS ALSO A POCKET OF SIX SWORN OFFICERS.

SO THIS WOULD BE ALL SWORN OFFICERS, I BELIEVE THERE WAS I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT THOSE THE FUNDING FOR THOSE WOULD BE RESTORED.

SO I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THERE IS A CONSENSUS THAT 14346 PLUS 51, WE WOULD RESTORE THE FUNDING FOR THAT.

147 I'M SORRY. 140 JUST TRYING TO DEAL WITH SWORN OFFICERS, RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT A SWORN POSITION. 147 AND 148. NO, I WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT SEPARATELY.

OKAY. SO THOSE ARE NOT CORRECT. SO I THINK WE ARE GOOD WITH A CONSENSUS THAT THOSE FUNDING WOULD BE RESTORED.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO SHOW 140 THROUGH 146 RESTORED.

I'M SORRY, THROUGH 146 AND THEN 151. AND THEN AS THE COMMISSIONER MENTIONED, THERE ARE TWO FILL FILLED POLICE CRIME SCENE TECH POSITIONS AND A WE'LL KEEP THEM SEPARATELY. WHAT ARE THE COMMISSION'S THOUGHTS ON 147? I'D LIKE TO REMOVE 147 FROM THIS. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE.

147 THERE. I THINK WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THIS AT THE END OF THE MEETING LIKE SOME OF THOSE OTHERS, BECAUSE I DO THINK WE NEED TO CALIBRATE WHERE WE'RE AT IN TOTAL CUTS.

CHIEF, CAN YOU ADVISE FOR 147, WHICH IS TWO FULL TIME CRIME SCENE TEXTS AND ONE FULL TIME PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE TECH DOES. HOW MANY DOES THAT LEAVE YOU WITH? I THINK THE CRIME SCENE LEAVES US WITH TEN AND HAVE TO DOUBLE VERIFY THE PROPERTY EVIDENCE ON TOP OF MY HEAD.

I MEAN, MAYBE ONE APPROACH, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THIS AT THE END, BUT MAYBE ONE APPROACH IS TAKING INSTEAD OF LETTING THESE TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED GO IS KEEP ONE WHERE THEY ARE IN THE CRIME SCENE DEPARTMENT AND THEN MOVING THE OTHER ONE OVER TO THE PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE DEPARTMENT AS A KIND OF A SPLITTING THE BABY KIND OF A THING.

DID YOU THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WOULD IT BE OKAY IF WE DISCUSS THESE TWO ITEMS AT THE END OF THE MEETING WHEN WE COME BACK AND CALIBRATE WHERE WE'RE AT? I AGREE, MR. CHAIR.

MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN SO GREAT IN RUNNING.

THIS DISCUSSION IS SO IMPORTANT. YOU'VE BEEN HANDLING IT ONLY EXTERNALLY. ALL RIGHT.

[03:40:01]

AND I THINK THE LAST ONE WAS A RIGHT SIZING ONE RELATED TO THE SECURITY GUARDS THAT WE DISCUSSED.

I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE THERE. ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE'VE COMPLETED POLICE AND WE'RE ALMOST DONE WITH GENERAL ON THE SECURITY GUARDS.

OH YEAH. ON THE SECURITY GUARDS. I JUST I DON'T KNOW.

I WANT TO BE REALISTIC BECAUSE DURING DURING THE LAST SOLICITATION THAT WE DID FOR, FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICES, WE ENDED UP WITH A COMPANY THAT GAVE US A LOW OFFER.

AND SO WE HIRED THAT COMPANY, AND I'M GETTING COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS REGARDING THE SERVICES THAT THEY'RE GETTING FROM THAT SECURITY GUARD COMPANY. AND NOW TO SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO FURTHER REDUCE, I THINK WE ENDED UP GETTING WHAT WE WERE PAYING FOR BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S JUST VERY, VERY CHALLENGING TO SEE THAT WE TOOK OUT AN INCUMBENT VENDOR AND THEN WE BROUGHT SOMEONE IN TO SAVE US MONEY.

SAVING US MONEY HAS RESULTED IN A DETERIORATION IN THE QUALITY OF SERVICE THAT THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE PAYING AN EXTRA MILLAGE ARE RECEIVING BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT.

AND NOW HOW ARE WE GOING TO FURTHER REDUCE THIS BY $300,000? I THINK IF ANYTHING, WE NEED TO BE REALISTICALLY SAYING WE MIGHT NEED TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF FUNDING THAT WE HAVE.

AND IF WE GO BACK TO THE MARKETPLACE, WE MIGHT POSSIBLY REALISTICALLY WE PROBABLY NEED MORE FUNDING, SO I DON'T KNOW. MR.. CHIEF. MR. MANAGER, I NEED SOMEONE TO GUIDE ME WITH THIS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COME TO ME PREVIOUSLY, SO I APOLOGIZE. IT JUST DAWNED ON ME NOW THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH THAT CONTRACT.

WOULD YOU MIND IF I WEIGH IN ALSO? WELL OF COURSE.

YEAH. I, I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN SOME COMPLAINTS FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

INTERESTING. IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE SEEMS TO BE A SPLIT BECAUSE SOME NEIGHBORS REACHED OUT TO ME SAYING THEY DISAGREED WITH SOME WHO WERE COMPLAINING AND ACTUALLY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING A GOOD JOB. SO I THINK THERE'S SOME.

AND ALSO THAT'S THE SAME COMPANY WE'RE USING IN CITY HALL. SO MAYBE WE CAN GET AN ASSESSMENT.

OF HOW THEY'RE DOING, I THINK I THINK OVERALL THERE'S MORE TO THE PICTURE THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THERE IS OR AT LEAST A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

YEAH. THERE IS. MR. MAYOR, I MEAN, DYNAMIC HAS, HAS HAD SOME CHALLENGES TAKING OVER THE CONTRACT THIS YEAR, TAKING OVER DURING A PEAK TIME DURING SPRING BREAK.

INITIALLY HAD CHALLENGES FILLING ALL OF THE POSITIONS.

WE HAD ASKED THEM TO FILL, AND THEY HAD ASSURED US THAT THEY COULD ALONG OCEAN DRIVE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT HAD CHALLENGES WITH THAT.

THEN MOST RECENTLY HAVE HAD CHALLENGES WITH SOME NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.

THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT THE ASSOCIATION EXPECTS AND WHAT THE DELIVERY HAS BEEN TO THAT ASSOCIATION IN TERMS OF SERVICE.

IF I COULD JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS OUR BEST ESTIMATE ON THE RIGHT SIZING OF THE SECURITY GUARD CONTRACT AS IT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE.

YOU KNOW, WE JUST STARTED THAT CONTRACT IN MARCH AS THE CHIEF SAID WE'RE AT THIS POINT COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS COMPANY AND UTILIZING THOSE RESOURCES.

IF AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO CHANGE DIRECTION, THEN WE WOULD ASSESS THAT AT THAT TIME AND WE WOULD BRING BACK ANY CHANGES TO THE COMMISSION. BUT THIS IS BASED ON THE CURRENT CONTRACT.

OKAY. SO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS COMPANY.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS COMPANY AND THIS DOLLAR FIGURE AT THIS MOMENT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST GOT CONCERNED WHEN I HEAR THAT LIKE DURING HIGH IMPACT PERIODS WHEN WE'RE ALL STRESSED OUT THAT WE CAN'T FILL THE DEMANDS OF THE CITY AND. BUT IF WE'RE FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH IT, THEN OKAY, THAT'S FINE WITH ME THEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL BRING BACK UP THE SLIDES AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE LAST SLIDE FOR GENERAL FUND.

WE STILL HAVE A BIT TO GO. SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ELEMENTS HERE.

WHEN WE GET INTO PUBLIC WORKS AND TOURISM AND CULTURE.

SO A COUPLE OF ELEMENTS THERE. 157 IS THE DECORATIVE WRAP LIGHTING.

I KNOW WE'VE ADDED A LOT OF THAT OVER THE YEARS.

IT'S VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. THIS WOULD REMOVE THE MAINTENANCE.

SO WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS THAT AS WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE STRING LIGHTS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THEY WOULD JUST BE REMOVED AND NOT REPLACED. I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO TAKE THAT OFF THE CUT LIST.

OKAY. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE 157 FROM AND RESTORE THAT FUNDING.

[03:45:07]

AND I WANT TO REMOVE THE 12. YEAH. 158. NO. THERE IS A MULTIPLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR. ONE FIVE FOR THE CATS. THE CATS.

ANY OBJECTION? THE CATS ARE SAVED WHEN YOU BET ON MY CAMPAIGN CARD, WE PROBABLY RECEIVED ABOUT WHAT, 400 EMAILS? WE WILL SHOW ITEM 158 REMOVED IN THE FUNDING RESTORED.

A SECOND COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE'S MOTION. OKAY.

THE LANDSCAPING IS WE'RE CUTTING BACK FROM JUST LIKE IN PARKS, BUT IT'LL BE 36 TO 32 CYCLES AGAIN, DONE. INTELLIGENTLY DONE. MONITORING WISE. WE'LL COME BACK IN THAT AREA AND WE HAVE AREA MANAGERS TWO ARE FILLED, ONE IS VACANT. AND THEN WE HAVE A, I THINK AMOUNTS TO APPROXIMATELY A 5% CUT ROUNDING ON A FEW DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT FEES AND SUCH IN THE TOURISM AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT.

SO IF THERE'S ANY, IF THERE IS NOT, WE DO HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION ON.

15915. SO THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AND I THINK IT WAS TO REDUCE IT FROM 36 TO 32 CYCLE 32 AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL, THEY'LL OBVIOUSLY WORK ON THAT, WHERE IT'S MORE IN THE SUMMER, YOU KNOW, LESS IN THE WINTER AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THEY'LL JUST SHIFT OUT BY. BUT BY SHIFTING OUT THOSE FOUR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ABLE TO SAVE $166,000.

AND AGAIN, WE'LL MONITOR THAT CLOSELY. IF WE FEEL THAT WE WANT EVERYTHING TO LOOK BEAUTIFUL. RIGHT. AND IF WE FEEL THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT, WE WILL COME BACK AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION SO WE CAN MAKE A MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IF NECESSARY, IF WE FEEL THAT THAT'S NECESSARY.

WE HAVE NO PROBLEM COMING BACK AND HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. OKAY.

AND IF WE CAN, WE HAVE GENERAL FUND ENHANCEMENTS NEXT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE. I MEAN, WHEN WE LOOK FOR A SMALL ENTITY LIKE THE NORMANDY FOUNTAIN, THEY'RE A VERY SMALL ENTITY. FOR THEM, I THINK IT'S VERY HARD TO ABSORB THAT $5,000.

I DON'T SEE THEM. YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST A COMMUNITY ACTIVITY.

I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT TOUCHING THAT $5,000.

THAT'S FINE. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION ON 163 TO RESTORE FUNDING.

YES, AS LONG AS THAT DOESN'T OPEN PANDORA'S BOX FOR LIKE, ALL THE OTHER STUFF.

I AGREE WITH THE FOUNTAIN THERE. ALL THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE LARGER ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE MORE SOPHISTICATED STAFFING.

I FOR 165, I WOULD LIKE IT REMOVED TO 163. 163 THE NORMANDY FOUNTAIN.

YEAH. 163 IS FINE. AND THEN I'M GOING TO SUBMIT.

165. OKAY. SO. 163 I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS.

WE'RE GOING TO SHOW. 163 REMOVED. WE HAVE ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION ON THE COLONY THEATER TO RESTORE THE 5% ON THE COLONY THEATER.

ALL RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION. WE WILL ELIMINATE THAT.

SO 165 WILL RESTORE FUNDING ON THAT. AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND REDUCTIONS.

WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT TO CONTINUE WITH.

WELL, PLEASE LET US KNOW. WHERE ARE WE SO FAR? WE'RE WORKING ON, IF I MAY. WE TALKED WE DID SPEAK ABOUT THAT.

WE THINK THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO GO THROUGH IS BECAUSE WE HAVE ENHANCEMENTS TO GO THROUGH. WE HAVE RESORT TECHS. ALL OF THAT PLAYS IN TOGETHER. WE CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER UNTIL WE GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH THAT. WE ACTUALLY JUST A NUMBER, RIGHT? RIGHT. WE DON'T. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT. RIGHT. I THOUGHT YOU MEANT LIKE YOU LITERALLY DIDN'T WANT TO. OH, I THINK I BELIEVE THE EARLY NUMBER WE LOOKED AT, WE THINK THAT WE'RE STILL OKAY.

BUT AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS HERE WITH ENHANCEMENTS. DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE GENERAL FUND. SORRY RESORT TAX.

SO ALL RIGHT. SO WE DID HAVE SOME ONE TIME SAVINGS FROM FY 25 BUDGET.

SO ANYTHING YOU SEE HERE ON THE ONE TIME RECOMMENDATIONS IT WOULD BE COMING FROM THAT EXCESS DOLLARS.

SO FOR THE POLICE HIGH VISIBILITY OVERTIME THIS YEAR WE HAVE A BUDGET OF $1.8 MILLION.

PD ACTUALLY ASKED FOR $5 MILLION TO CONTINUE AT THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL.

WE RECOMMENDED HALF OF THAT AT 2.5. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE TIME ITEM WE'RE RECOMMENDING ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY SECTION FOR THE NEXT ITEMS, PRIMARILY FOUR OF THESE. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING UP IN THAT.

WE'RE INCREASING THE BUDGET, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY FUNDING LESS THAN THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL.

RIGHT. AND MAYBE I'LL MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE KEEP THAT FLAT.

YEAH. WE NEED TO CONTINUE MAINTAINING THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY MATTERS.

I DON'T WANT US SEEING REDUCING THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE.

SO YEAH, SINCE THE IF WE'RE DOING 1.8, I'LL SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE 5 MILLION.

THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL OF TALK WITH THE CHIEF IS.

THAT'S A $5 MILLION ITEM, RIGHT? THAT IS. SO THE $2.5 MILLION ALLOCATION IS IS HALF OF THE SERVICE LEVEL THAT WAS OUT THERE.

[03:50:04]

AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS WE'RE PUTTING IN THE $2.5 MILLION.

AND THEN IF WE NEED TO COME BACK FOR MORE MID-YEAR NEXT YEAR, WE DO THAT RATHER THAN I'M SAYING, YEAH, I'M SAYING THIS IS OVERTIME. SO OVERTIME IS ON A, I GUESS BASED ON DEMAND.

SO I GUESS IF THE DEMAND IS THERE THEN IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU CAN COME BACK BECAUSE WE MIGHT NOT USE ALL THE 2.8 MILLION.

I'M HOPING THAT WE DON'T. BUT I SEE YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD CALL THE CHIEF UP BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THIS IS A CITY WIDE NUMBER, THE 5 MILLION. AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WAYNE JONES, POLICE CHIEF. YES, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. MR. MAYOR. IN ADDITION TO THE HIGH VIZ LONDON 44TH STREET CORRIDOR WE ALSO HAVE, WE CALL HIGH RISK DIRECTED PATROLS THAT'S COVERED UNDER THAT AS WELL.

THOSE PATROLS, THOSE PATROLS CITYWIDE PATROL OUR, OUR SCHOOLS.

THEY PATROL OUR TEMPLES AND OUR SYNAGOGUES AND CHURCHES IN THE CITY.

THEY PATROL OUR KEY AND IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL.

IT'S ALL CAPTURED IN THAT DURING ANY MAJOR INCIDENT, WHETHER NATIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY, WE SPOOL UP THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES WE ASSIGN TO THOSE, THOSE DETAILS.

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE SHOOTING IN AUSTRALIA.

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE TWO YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WERE KILLED OUTSIDE THE MUSEUM IN DC.

THE CONCERN IS IF IT HAPPENS SOMEPLACE ELSE, THERE MAY BE COPYCAT.

FOLKS MAY WANT TO DO THE VERY SAME THING HERE.

AND OUR GOAL IS TO PREVENT THAT AT ALL COSTS.

AND DESPITE THE EXPENSE OF IT. DO WE GET ANY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FROM STATE OR FEDERAL FOR THAT, FOR THIS SIR. NO, SIR. AFTER THIS. SO MAYBE SINCE.

SO YOU'RE REQUESTING 2.5. AND THEN IF YOU IF YOU DEPLETE THAT TWO POINT, BECAUSE I GUESS IT'S OVER TIME.

SO IT'S BASED ON DEMAND. SO IF IF THE DEMAND IS THERE, IF YOU DEPLETE THAT AND YOU NEED MORE FUNDING, I GUESS MID-YEAR, WE CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER A MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IF THE DEMAND AND THE NEED IS THERE FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

YES, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WE'RE HEDGING OUR BET THAT, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, THERE WON'T BE ANOTHER MAJOR INCIDENT NATIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY THAT WE'D HAVE TO SPOOL UP AND WE'LL JUST THINK, KEEP THINGS FLAT.

AND TAMIKA, WE'RE THIS PAST YEAR AT 1.8, THE BUDGET IS 1.8 THIS YEAR.

SO I THINK WHAT WE DO IS WE KEEP IT FLAT. AND IF IT'S AN ON DEMAND SERVICE, THEN WE REACT ACCORDINGLY.

BUT JUST ADDING $700,000 IS, IS A LOT, IF I MAY.

HE'S, I DON'T THINK HE'S ADDING ACTUALLY. I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE CUTTING IN HALF BECAUSE IT WAS 5 MILLION REQUESTS AND, AND THEY'RE SAYING 2.5 MILLION. BUT WHAT WE DID THIS PAST YEAR WAS 1.8 MILLION.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I THOUGHT. WHAT WE DID THIS TO CLARIFY.

SO WHAT WE BUDGETED IS 1.8. WE BUDGETED 1.8. YES WE EXPENDED HOW MUCH THIS YEAR WE ARE UNTRAINED TO SPEND 5 MILLION.

OKAY. AND SO YOU'RE SAYING HOPEFULLY NEXT YEAR THE RISKS THE SAFETY RISKS ARE REDUCED.

AND SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BUDGET $5 MILLION. WE SHOULD ONLY BUDGET THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $2.5 MILLION.

AND WE MIGHT NOT USE ALL OF THAT $2.5 MILLION.

BUT IF THERE IS A GREATER NEED FOR MORE MONEY, IF THE SAFETY RISKS ARE THERE, OBVIOUSLY LIKE SAFETY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THESE THREATS TO DOMINATE US.

THEN WE'LL ALLOCATE MORE DOLLARS TO IT. CORRECT.

SO I SUPPORT KEEPING THE 2.5 AS IT IS. TAMEKA HOW DOES THAT WORK? DOES THAT MAKE OUR BUDGET GO UP OR DOWN WHERE WE HAD SOMETHING BUDGETED AT 1.8, BUT THE ACTUAL ITEMIZED NUMBER COMES IN $5 MILLION INCREASES.

BUT THERE'S A LITTLE NUANCE TO THAT BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ONE TIME FUNDING, RIGHT? SO THIS IS NOT INCREASING OUR TOTAL RECURRING BUDGET.

I GET THAT I WAS JUST SAYING, WHEN WE LOOK AT VERSUS LAST YEAR, IT'S AN INCREASE FROM OUR BUDGET, BUT A DECREASE FROM WHAT WAS ACTUALLY REALIZED.

CORRECT. CORRECT. THE OVERALL BUDGET AT ONE TIME MONEY, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, WOULD BE INCREASING.

BUT YEAH, AS YOU SAID, AND WHERE IT'S USUALLY MOST VISIBLY REALIZED IS IN THE END OF THE YEAR SURPLUS.

OKAY. SO LET'S BRING IT BACK UP. SO THE REST OF THE ITEMS ON THIS SLIDE ARE RECURRING RECOMMENDATIONS.

[03:55:01]

THE POSITION THAT WAS OFFERED UP FOR MENTAL HEALTH FOR FIRE, AND THEN ALSO THE $20,000 FOR THE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS.

AND THE LAST ITEM IS AMMUNITION FOR POLICE. SO POLICE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY BUDGETS FOR AMMUNITION, BUT THIS IS AN INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE COST OF AMMUNITION AND ALSO INCREASED NEEDS FOR TRAINING.

IF I CAN BRING UP ONE MORE THAT'S NOT IN HERE.

I HATE TO DO THAT. SO ABOUT A YEAR OR SO AGO, I BROUGHT AN ITEM THAT WAS GOING TO BUDGET TWO LAB TECHNICIANS TO COVER THE EXPENSE BECAUSE CERTAIN OF OUR ARRESTS THAT ARE MADE BY OUR POLICE FOR DRUG OFFENSES WERE NOT BEING TIMELY TESTED BY THE WHAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE COUNTY'S DRUG TESTING LAB? THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS.

IT'S A LONG IT'S A LONG STORY. I'M NOT GOING TO USE IT, UTILIZE IT NOW. BUT WE WEREN'T READY TO UTILIZE THOSE TWO POSITIONS.

SO WE REMOVED IT FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, EVEN THOUGH OUR COMMISSION HAD APPROVED THE BUDGETING FOR IT.

THE TIME IS RIPE NOW FOR ONE TECHNICIAN NOT TO EXCEED A SALARY OF $100,000.

AND ACTUALLY, I BROUGHT AN ITEM TO OUR COMMISSION MEETING THAT WE'LL DISCUSS WEDNESDAY. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO DISCUSS POLICY, BUT I MET WITH OUR MUNICIPAL PROSECUTORS, AND THEY'LL EXPLAIN IT IN MORE DETAIL NEXT WEEK.

BUT THEY'RE SEEING SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE BRINGING CASES FOR DRUG SALES, OFTEN THEIR MARIJUANA SALES.

THESE ARE NOT POSSESSION. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GOING AFTER PEOPLE FOR MARIJUANA POSSESSION.

BUT THESE ARE THESE ARE DRUG DEALERS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE CASES ARE NOT GETTING TESTED.

AND THEN WE CANNOT ULTIMATELY PROSECUTE THOSE CASES.

SO, MAYOR, YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT THERE WAS ORIGINALLY TWO.

AND DUE TO THAT, DUE TO THE BUDGET AND THE THINGS THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN ABOUT, ONE WAS REMOVED.

SO THERE IS STILL ONE THAT IS FULLY FUNDED AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME.

OH, GREAT. SO I GOT THE SO THERE IS AT LEAST I TEED IT UP FOR WEDNESDAY'S MEETING.

OKAY. SO YEAH, SO THE ONE IS THE ONE IS ALREADY COVERED.

SO WE CAN BRING IT BACK UP. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO SOME CLEANLINESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS.

SO KIND OF THE THEME, AND I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS IN OUR BRIEFINGS IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME REDUCTIONS AND SOME DIFFICULT DECISIONS THERE.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO AREAS TO REPRIORITIZE THAT WE FEEL, WHICH IS ABOUT KEEPING KIND OF KEEPING THE ELEMENTS AND THE ITEMS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE CLEAN AND FIXED AND BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, AS WE WANT TO DELIVER THOSE EXCELLENT SERVICES FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

SO WE HAVE NEW AT BAYSHORE PARK AND POLO PARK.

WE HAVE NEW RESTROOM FACILITIES. SO WE NEED TO FUND THE DOLLARS TO FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES AND TO CLEAN THEM.

ITEM 17 WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE HAVE THE NEW BEAUTIFUL LAKE AT BAYSHORE PARK AND UP IN NORTH BEACH AT OCEAN TERRACE.

SO, BUT THERE AREN'T DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO DO THE MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING OF THOSE FACILITIES.

SO WE WANT TO DO THAT. SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS WERE ORIGINALLY IN OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM IN PRIOR YEARS WITH AN ANNUAL ALLOCATION.

BUT BASED ON MY REVIEW AS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, REALLY LOOKING AT THE ELEMENTS THERE AND DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. SO WE'RE SHOWING THEM IN THE OPERATING HERE.

THIS IS PARK LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, KEEPING YOUR LANDSCAPING BEDS AND LOOKING OUR PARKS LOOK BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING PERSPECTIVE. AND NOW THEY'LL BE WE'RE RECOMMENDING AN ALLOCATION FOR OUR COURTS AND OUR FITNESS COURSES TO HAVE AN ALLOCATION.

SO THEY ARE ABLE TO DO ON AN ANNUAL BASIS REPAIRS AS THEY COME ALONG.

SO IT ISN'T WHEN A WHOLE BIG CAPITAL PROJECT FOR 3 OR $400,000 REPLACE THE ENTIRE PLAYGROUND IS NEEDED.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE WILL BE MONEY.

SO IF ONE PARTICULAR PIECE GETS BROKEN, THERE'S MONEY NOW DEDICATED TO ACTUALLY FIXING THOSE AND FIXING THOSE COURTS.

WE HAVE A NEW RIGHT OF WAY AREA IN THE MID BEACH AREA.

AND THEN WE COULDN'T FIND THE RECURRING DOLLARS TO REALLY GET THIS BUDGET BALANCED, BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING A ONE TIME $220,000 ALLOCATION FROM THE ONE TIME MONEY TOWARDS OUR GENERAL RIGHT OF WAY AREAS FOR LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS.

AND WE'LL REVISIT THAT IN THE YEARS TO COME, TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT AT SOME POINT TO A RECURRING LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS AREA.

AND THEN HERE, FINALLY, IN THE GENERAL FUND USE OF ONE TIME MONIES, AS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE BUST AND THEN THE RESIDENT COLLEGE, THE MIAMI DADE COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, THAT BRINGS EXTRA DOLLARS AS A TWO FOR ONE MATCH. WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF GOING.

AND THEN ON THE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE IN THAT CASE, WHEN IT'S TIME TO REPLACE THEM THIS WOULD BE DOLLARS WE FINALLY HAVE AVAILABLE SO THAT WE CAN REPLACE THOSE SIGNS WHEN APPROPRIATE. JASON, I'M GOING TO ASK TO HOLD THIS BACK BECAUSE I HAVE LEGISLATION COMING TO FOR STAFF TO ACTUALLY DO A BROAD ANALYSIS OF ALL THE SIGN NOISE AND POLLUTION ACROSS THE CITY.

IT HAS GOTTEN RIDICULOUS. LIKE YOU DRIVE DOWN ALTON ROAD AND YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH AND YOU PASS 16TH STREET, AND THERE'S TWO SIGNS THAT SAY 17TH STREET. THAT WAY WE DO NOT NEED 90% OF THE SIGNS THAT EXIST IN THE CITY.

[04:00:07]

SO IF WE NEED A MID-YEAR BUDGET ENHANCEMENT, BUT I WANT TO DO AN ANALYSIS, I'LL BRING A LEGISLATIVE ITEM TO REMOVE ALL THE EXCESS SIGN POLLUTION THAT WE HAVE ALL OVER OUR ROADWAYS.

IT'S GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. IT'S RIDICULOUS. I GET THAT WE MAY HAVE LIKE LIVED IN AN AIR WITHOUT GPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THESE ARE JUST THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THE SIGNS.

THEY JUST CLUTTER THIS BEAUTIFUL LIVED ENVIRONMENT THAT WE HAVE AND IT'S UNNECESSARY.

OKAY, SO I THINK THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THIS ENHANCEMENT AT THIS TIME.

YES. IS THERE A CONSENSUS THAT THERE'S NOT AN OBJECTION TO THAT? WHICH ONE ARE WE REMOVING? ITEM 29 IS A RECURRING FUNDING TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REPLACEMENT AS NEEDED THROUGH FOR WAYFINDING SIGNS.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE WON'T DO THAT COMMISSIONER, BUT I WANT TO BRING A LEGISLATIVE ITEM FOR SOME GROUP TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT SIGNS CAN BE REMOVED FROM OUR CITY RIGHTS OF WAY. AND THEN WE COULD GO BACK AND FIX SOME OF OUR WAYFINDING, BUT I DON'T WANT TO REPLACE SIGNS, SPEND MONEY REPLACING SIGNS THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE THERE.

WOULD YOU WOULD YOU WANT TO PERHAPS LEAVE THE FUNDING THERE, BUT REQUEST THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NOT SPEND ANY OF THOSE FUNDS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT ITEM IS DISPOSED? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NUMBER 22, IT STAYED AS AN ENHANCEMENT, RIGHT? I 22 WE DON'T. YES. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THAT'S A FEW PAGES. YES. YES. I'M SORRY. I WAS LOST.

OKAY. SO. ALL RIGHT. SO. BUT WE WILL ADD THAT NOTE PER THE CHAIR'S REQUEST.

PUBLIC WORKS IS HERE AND HAS HEARD THAT. SO WE'RE GOING TO JUST WRAP UP REAL QUICK ON THE GENERAL FUND.

YEAH. SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY WHERE WE STARTED. IF EVERYTHING WE HAD RECOMMENDED WERE APPROVED, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A BALANCED BUDGET WITH THE ENTIRE ROLLBACK. OBVIOUSLY WE TOOK QUITE A FEW ITEMS OFF.

SO WE'LL COME BACK AND REBALANCE WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S GET INTO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS MOVING ALONG.

RESORT TAX JUST THE GENERAL STORY. I THINK IN CONSENSUS, WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND HAVE SEEN THROUGH THE MONTHLY REPORTS COMING OUT THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE FINALLY KIND OF BROKEN THAT TREND OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF KIND OF TRENDING OVER THE, OR A LITTLE BIT BELOW THE PRIOR YEAR. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE FINALLY BROKEN OUT. WE'RE GETTING SOME RECORDS AGAIN, WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT.

SO WE'RE KIND OF HAPPY ABOUT THAT. ALL THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE BALANCED OUR BUDGET, AND THIS IS HOW WE PROPOSE TO REBALANCE THE RESORT TAX FUND.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. YEAH. SO WE DID PICK UP $1.2 MILLION EXCESS YEAR END DOLLARS FOR RESORT TAX.

SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO RECOGNIZE IT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO WALK THROUGH SOME REDUCTIONS ON RESORT TAX.

AND THAT 3.5 THAT YOU SEE THERE. WE'RE RECOMMENDING TRANSFERRING THAT OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S INCLUDED IN THE BALANCING. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE NEXT TWO SLIDES WE HAVE.

WE'RE BACK TO REDUCTIONS AGAIN. AND ALL OF THIS INTERPLAYS WITH THE GENERAL FUND.

SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT 166, 169, 171 AND 175 ARE ALL THE SAME ELEMENT BASICALLY IS HIGH IMPACT PERIODS. YOU KNOW, MEMORIAL DAY AT THIS POINT, I THINK HAS BEEN ONE OR IS IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT FOR MANY YEARS NOW. AND THEN SPRING BREAK, WE'RE NOT MAYBE NECESSARILY ALL THE WAY THERE, BUT WE FEEL THAT JUST LIKE LAST YEAR, I THINK WE REDUCED SOME FUNDING AS WE CONTINUE TO REDUCE A LOT OF ITS OVERTIME IN OUR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS, AND WE CAN BEGIN TO REDUCE SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS.

SO WE THINK WE'RE ABLE TO PUT THAT FORWARD. AND THEN THE GAMECUBE.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN FINANCE. THAT'S STILL BE DISCUSSED. I THINK THAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT READJUSTMENT IN THAT AREA.

AND THEN THE 176 IS THAT POOL THAT WAS SET ASIDE FOR TO BE DETERMINED EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK THAT WE'RE IN THAT FISCAL ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW THAT WE'LL HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC IN THAT AREA.

AND THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE, AND THEN WE GET INTO SOME KIND OF TCDD TYPE AREAS.

WE HAVE MORE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ON 173.

SURE. WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THE WITH THE DEPUTY CHIEF AUDITOR? THIS IS A POSITION PUT FORWARD OUT OF THE OIG OFFICE TO MAKE HIS, YOU KNOW, 5% FOR PUTTING FORWARD.

THIS IS A SPLIT FUNDED. SO SOME OF THE FUNDS ARE HERE.

SOME OF YOU WILL SEE IN THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUND OF THE OIG.

AND THIS WAS A VACANT POSITION FROM THE OIG. IS THAT HOW LONG HAS THIS POSITION BEEN VACANT FOR.

DO WE KNOW HOW LONG THE OIG. WITHIN I THINK THE PAST YEAR.

YEAH. I THINK WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, WITHIN ABOUT 2 TO 3 MONTHS.

[04:05:01]

I THINK THIS IS THE VOTERS CREATED THIS POSITION, THIS, THIS OFFICE.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE FUNDING AWAY FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS IT IS.

I THINK THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE OVERLOADED WITH WITH WORK.

AND IT I THINK THEY NEED THE SUPPORT IN ORDER TO, TO GET REPORTS TIMELY TO US.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO RESTORE FUNDING AND WE HERE IN THE RESORT TAX.

AND WE'LL ALSO REFLECT THAT WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING IS IN HIS INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, WHICH DOES FEED A LOT BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.

SO THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSIONER TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR ONE 173.

ALL RIGHT. NOT HEARING ANY OBJECTION. WE WILL SHOW 173.

FUNDING RESTORED AND THE RECIPROCAL. AND WHEN WE GET TO THE FUND AND.

177 I WOULD ALSO LIKE REMOVE. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO RESTORE.

THIS IS THE ART DECO WEEKEND SPONSORSHIP TO MD.

PL FOR $8,000. I AGREE WITH THAT. AND JASON, WHEN ARE YOU REDUCING.

IS THIS A FULL REDUCTION OR IS THIS JUST LIKE A SMALL PERCENTAGE FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS? MD. IS GOING FROM 150 TO 142. IT'S 5% LIKE WE DID WITH MOST OF OUR CULTURAL PARTNERS.

CORRECT? YEAH. THERE IS A, THERE'S A REQUEST TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR 177.

I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS THEN TO RESTORE THAT FUNDING.

177 THIS IS THE ART DECO WEEKEND SPONSORSHIP TO MD.

PLA 5% REDUCTION. A LEADERSHIP TRANSITION THERE.

THEY WORK REALLY HARD. LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST TIME THE NEW PERSON CAME IN, AND IT WAS WITHIN WEEKS OF THE EVENT.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM WITH FULL FUNDING FOR THE UPCOMING EVENT.

AND WE CAN LOOK IN FUTURE YEARS IF IT MERITS CUTTING.

OKAY. SO EVERY DEPARTMENT HERE JUST REDUCED IT BY 5% OR EVERY PROGRAM.

NO, NOT EVERY ONE. BUT GENERALLY WE LOOKED A LOT OF THE SPONSORSHIPS AND A LOT OF THE GRANTS.

THAT WAS KIND OF THE APPROACH THAT WE TOOK THERE.

BUT I THINK THERE'S MAYBE NOT UNANIMOUS, BUT I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR 177.

WE'LL SHOW 177 RESTORED. WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

NO I'M SORRY. 178. THAT'S THE AIR AND SEA SHOW.

I'D LIKE TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR THAT PLEASE. I HAVE TO SAY WITH THE AIR AND SEA SHOW THAT.

I. I HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE, WITH THEIR FOOTPRINT.

I FEEL LIKE THE FOOTPRINTS OVER TIME HAS GOTTEN SMALLER.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER FOR AT ONE POINT THEY WERE GETTING MONEY FROM, FROM THE COUNTY BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PARTNERSHIP AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COUNTY IS PARTICIPATING AS WELL.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO CARRY THE FULL BURDEN OF THIS.

AND, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, FOR THEM, IT SHOULD ALSO BE A PRIVILEGE THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE HERE IN, IN MIAMI BEACH. FRANKLY, SOMETIMES I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY APPRECIATE THE PARTNERSHIP.

I'M JUST GOING TO BE VERY HONEST ABOUT IT. SO I, I, I'M GOING TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

BUT I WANT TO RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE ALL EQUALS HERE, BUT JUST BEING UP FRONT ABOUT HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.

OKAY. WE KIND OF HAVE AN OPPOSING HERE. SO. BUT THERE WAS AN INITIAL RECOMMENDATION TO RESTORE THAT FUNDING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S UNANIMOUS, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, I RESPECT THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE RESPECT EACH OTHER HERE, BUT THAT'S KIND OF AN INTERNAL ISSUE.

AND I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT ANY TYPE OF CUT FUNDING CUT TO SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTS OUR SERVICE MEMBERS, OUR VETERANS, OUR OUR MILITARY. I CAN'T, SO MAYBE IN THE NEXT YEAR WE CAN WORK THAT OUT WITH THAT PARTNERSHIP.

BUT I'M JUST I WANT THIS RESTORED TO FULL FUNDING.

THANK YOU. YEAH. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT? DOES THAT ACTUALLY GO TO SERVICE MEMBERS OR IS THAT THE EVENT PRODUCER? AND MAYBE THAT'S ONE WAY TO PUT IT ON THE EVENT.

IT WOULD BE TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEAN IS JUST THAT WE HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, OUR IT IS THE EVENT PRODUCER, BUT WE'RE HIGHLIGHTING. WE HAVE AN EVENT THAT HIGHLIGHTS OUR SERVICE MEMBERS AND OUR MILITARY, AND IT'S A FANTASTIC EVENT. AND SO WE HAVE A YEAR TO WORK ON THAT RELATIONSHIP AND TO MAKE IT BETTER AND TO TALK TO HIM, BUT I JUST WOULD APPRECIATE THE FULL FUNDING.

YEAH. AND COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THAT.

I, I HADN'T SEEN THAT. I WASN'T I KIND OF, BUT I CERTAINLY RESPECT THAT YOU'RE RAISING THESE ISSUES AND WE SHOULD CERTAINLY WORK THEM OUT.

[04:10:07]

I'M A FAN AS WELL. I THINK THE RELATIONSHIP NEEDS, NEEDS WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REALLY IS FAIR TO THE CITY.

AND THE CITY ISN'T CARRYING THE BURDEN. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK LAST YEAR THERE WAS $100,000 FROM THE COUNTY.

THEY DIDN'T GET THE $100,000 FROM FROM, FROM THE COUNTY.

YET THE COUNTY PARTICIPATES IN THIS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, SO WHY ARE WE WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO RESTORE THAT, THAT FUNDING? AND WHY SHOULD WE CARRY THE FULL BURDEN FOR IT? YEAH. AND I, AND I'M TAKING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SERIOUSLY AND I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, BUT YEAH. OKAY. HEARING THAT, I'M HEARING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE, COMMISSIONER.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE'S CONSENSUS TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR 178 AT THIS POINT.

SO WE'LL SHOW 178 RESTORED, AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO THE SECOND AND LAST SLIDE FOR THE RESORT TAX EFFICIENCIES.

SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THESE AGAIN THIS RESORT TAX.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A NUMBER OF SPONSORSHIPS ELEMENTS.

I THINK ACROSS THE BOARD WE'RE LOOKING AT THE 5% REDUCTIONS.

SO HEARING NOTHING WE CAN MOVE ON. WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO GO.

I I'M SORRY. I I ACTUALLY I DON'T. I PARK ON OCEAN DRIVE. I WANT TO. YEAH, I WANT TO.

I ACTUALLY WANT TO SAVE ALL OF THESE. I JUST.

YEAH. WITH THESE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ELIMINATING THEM.

THEY'RE JUST. RIGHT. BUT I WANT TO RESTORE TO FULL FUNDING ALL OF THEM IS WHAT I MEAN.

I GET IT. WE'RE JUST REDUCING THEM. BUT I THINK AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT MAKES MIAMI BEACH SPECIAL OR ALL THESE EVENTS AND PEOPLE LOVE THESE EVENTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE REDUCE TO MICKEY MOUSE LEVELS, WE'LL HAVE MICKEY MOUSE EVENTS.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

BUT I'M TRYING TO ALSO BE EFFICIENT. I GET IT.

I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD AND THEN YOU CAN'T JUST PICK ONE, RIGHT? I MEAN, I, SO I JUST, I WOULD SAY WITH COLLINS PARK, YOU KNOW, COLLINS PARK IS SMALL FOR THEM. A $4,000 IMPACT IS HARD FOR THEM TO ABSORB.

AND THEY DO PRODUCE GOOD, GOOD QUALITY PROGRAMING JUST SIMILARLY, EVEN WITH WITH THE OCEAN DRIVE PROMENADE.

THEY DO A LOT WITH A SMALL BUDGET AND I THINK FOR THEM IT'S HARDER TO ABSORB.

TO US, I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SOUTH BEACH WINE AND FOOD FESTIVAL, I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

THEY'VE GOT HUGE CORPORATE SPONSORSHIPS. THEY'RE TIED TO FIU.

FOR THEM, IT'S EASY TO ABSORB THIS. UNFORTUNATELY.

PRIDE, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE PREEMPTED THERE.

SO THERE'S NOT EVEN COMMISSIONER. IF I CAN, WE CAN PROBABLY ADD THAT PRI ONE TO THE OTHER TWO THAT YOU WANTED DISCUSSION.

SO WE'LL MAKE A NOTE ON 182. WE'LL LEAVE IT THE REDUCTION THERE FOR NOW JUST LIKE THE OTHER ONES.

AND WE'LL DISCUSS THAT IN SEPTEMBER WHEN WE GET A DEFINITIVE.

AND MAYBE ONCE WE GET THAT DEFINITIVE ANSWER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON HOW THE PREEMPTION IS GOING TO AFFECT THE FULL FUNDING FOR 180, MAYBE THAT HELPS OFFSET A LITTLE BIT WITH SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONER RIGHTFULLY IS LOOKING TO SAVE, BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPORTANT CULTURAL ACTIVITIES THAT SET US APART.

IT'S WHY OUR RESORT TAXES, IN PART, ARE GOING UP.

WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE OFFERINGS IN AND THE RESIDENTS LOVE THEM TOO.

AND I ALSO WANT TO ADD TO THAT THE LINCOLN ROAD BID AND THE PIANO FESTIVAL, SMALL AMOUNTS THAT MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

SORRY, THERE'S A COUPLE PIECES GOING ON HERE.

COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ WAS THE WAS THE RECOMMENDATION HERE TO TO KEEP ALL OF THESE HERE FOR NOW.

THEN IN SEPTEMBER, WHEN WE DISCUSS THE WHEN WE DISCUSS 180 TO SEE IF IT MIGHT BE A FULL RULE.

AND THEN ALL THESE CAN COME OFF. SO THESE ALL OF THESE SHOULD STAY FOR NOW AND TO BE DISCUSSED IN SEPTEMBER, I THINK. I THINK BECAUSE IN SEPTEMBER YOU MIGHT FIND 250 TO FUND A.

THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ABSORB, YOU KNOW, THE FUNDING OF THE BALANCE.

SO SO THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSIONER THAT EVERYTHING ON THIS PAGE REMAINS FOR NOW.

AND THEN IN SEPTEMBER AND SEPTEMBER, WHEN WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THE THREE ELEMENTS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THE ABILITY TO FUND THOSE.

IF THE FULL MAYBE THERE'S A FULL REMOVAL OF THOSE THREE ELEMENTS, WHICH THEN COULD RESTORE ALL OF THIS FUNDING.

EXACTLY. JASON, CAN YOU CONFIRM OR CLARIFY IF THIS ISN'T ACROSS THE BOARD, 5% REDUCTION?

[04:15:02]

SO THIS IS EQUITABLE. NOBODY'S GETTING DEFUNDED.

YES. IT'S EQUITABLE. EVERYONE'S TAKING A SMALL HAIRCUT.

CORRECT. EVERYTHING'S ON 5%. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS IN SEPTEMBER.

THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATION IS, WHICH IS TO SEE IF WE CAN RESTORE ALL OF THIS FUNDING COME SEPTEMBER, WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE FULLY REMOVED BECAUSE OF PREEMPTION.

AND THEN THESE COULD ALL BE FULLY RESTORED. SO I THINK WE'LL SHOW A CONSENSUS OF THAT, AND WE WILL FLAG THOSE TO BE DISCUSSED AND LINKED TOGETHER DURING THAT DISCUSSION. BUT FOR NOW WE WILL SHOW THOSE BEING LEFT.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S BRING UP IS ALREADY UP. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT IS THE RESORT TAX AND THEN ENHANCEMENTS.

WE HAVE ONE. IT WAS THE USE OF ONE TIME MONEY A ONE TIME A ONE TIME $1 MILLION ALLOCATION TO CONTINUE WITH THE MARCH FITNESS FESTIVAL.

I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING WE DID LAST YEAR. I DON'T THINK A $1.35 MILLION, ONE TIME ALLOCATION, AND THIS WOULD BE A $1 MILLION ALLOCATION FOR OUR MARCH FITNESS FESTIVAL.

SO TO CLARIFY, THIS WILL JUST BE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH.

IT'LL BE ONE FITNESS FESTIVAL FOR $1 MILLION.

ARE WE LOOKING AT MULTIPLE OR. THAT'S TO BE THIS IS A BUDGETING.

FROM THE BUDGETING PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS $1 MILLION EXERCISE TO HAVE.

MARCH FITNESS FESTIVAL. AND THAT WAS 1.35, I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE.

IT WAS 1.4. IT GOT REDUCED BY 50 TO 1.35. IT WAS A $1 MILLION ALLOCATION TO HAVE A FITNESS FESTIVAL.

I THINK MARCH IS COMPLETELY TRANSFORMED OUR RESORT TAXES MORE THAN PAID FOR THIS.

BUT I DO THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, REDUCING WHAT FUNDING WAS ALREADY THERE.

SAME DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, I THINK, HAD SOME GREAT POINTS ON WITH SOME OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT'S LIKE, WELL, IF YOU'VE MADE SO MUCH PROGRESS IN SOME WAY, DO YOU KEEP PUTTING INTO THAT? SO I THINK WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN MARCH.

AND THIS JUST REFLECTS US MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION MAINTAINING A HEALTHY BUDGET, BUT REDUCING FROM WHAT IT WAS.

OKAY. AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO MOVE RIGHT INTO NOW WE'RE INTO OTHER FUNDS.

THESE ARE GOING TO BE OUR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, OUR INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS AND SUCH.

AND WE HAVE MORE REDUCTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH HERE.

SO THE REASON WE WENT THROUGH THIS EXERCISE WITH EVERYONE IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS IMPACT THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET AS WELL.

SO THESE NUMBERS HERE ARE FOLDED IN PORTIONS OF THESE INTO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

THIS IS FOR FACILITIES AND FLEET MANAGEMENT. WE DID GO THROUGH THEIR BUDGET.

THE DEPARTMENT DID DO THEIR 5% REDUCTION. A LOT OF THESE HERE ARE RIGHT SIZING.

ONE ITEM THAT WE'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO IS THE FUEL FOR FLEET MANAGEMENT.

WE KNOW THAT THE PRICE OF FUEL HAS INCREASED.

SO WE WILL BE WATCHING THAT ONE. THE LAST ONE ON THE PAGE IS FOR BERKELEY APARTMENTS INSURANCE.

WE PLAN TO KEEP IT INSURED UNTIL WE TRANSITION TO A PRIVATE ENTITY.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON 192. IT SAYS CONTRACTED SERVICES FOR REPAIRS.

OUR ELEVATORS SEEM TO BE BREAKING ALL THE TIME.

DOES THIS COVER REPAIRS FOR ELEVATORS? THE ELEVATORS ARE MANAGED BY FACILITIES.

THIS IS FOR FLEET OF VEHICLES. YEAH. ON THAT POINT.

COMMISSIONERS TOTALLY CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW WHO NEEDS TO DO THIS OR HEAR THIS.

CAN WE GET THIS ELEVATOR CLEANED? THE CENTRAL BANK ELEVATOR HERE.

I DON'T MEAN TO GET OFF TOPIC, BUT NOT JUST THE ELEVATOR, BUT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT THAT'S VISIBLE FROM THE FLOORS OF CITY HALL.

IT'S TEAM. WE GOT TO PUT A BETTER FOOT FORWARD.

I'M NOT GOING TO BEAT THAT TO DEATH. ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD BE. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.

OKAY. IT'S GOING BACK AND WE'LL MOVE ON. AND THIS IS IT.

INSPECTOR GENERAL CONVENTION CENTER AND PARKING.

WE 209. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OFF THE LIST. THAT'S THE OTHER HALF.

WELL, THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING FOR THE IG'S POSITION, THAT WAS ALREADY ADDED BACK TO OUR FUNDING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. KEEP MOVING ON. SO WE MOVE INTO HERE.

THIS IS PARKING FUND. AND THEN WE THESE ARE ALL OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

SO WE HAVE REDUCTION ON PARKING WITH THREE OF THE VACANT POSITIONS AND A RECLASS FROM SUPERVISOR TO MANAGER SIGN MAKER POSITION. I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M SORRY. YES. 215 ARE THESE DEMOTIONS FOR THESE PEOPLE, PROMOTIONS, DEMOTIONS AS WE RECLASSIFY PROMOTIONS, DEMOTIONS, PRE MOTIONS? NO. HE'S SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT DEMOTIONS. THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROMOTIONS.

BUT WE'RE TAKING THEM FROM CLASSIFIED TO UNCLASSIFIED OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

[04:20:04]

TO THE CHAIR. THE, THE LINE ITEM WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE ONE CLASSIFICATION AND TO CREATE A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION.

ARE THEY THE SAME GRADE LEVEL? NO. ONE POSITION IS A SUPERVISOR LEVEL POSITION IN GSA AND ANOTHER POSITION AS A HIGHER LEVEL MANAGER POSITION, WHICH WOULD BE UNCLASSIFIED. SO IT'S A PROMOTION.

IT IS AN ELIMINATION OF SIX POSITIONS, THREE OF WHICH ARE VACANT, AND A CREATION OF A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION, A DIFFERENT POSITION WHICH IS A CLASSIFICATION THAT EXISTS.

SO THE THREE FILLED ONES WILL BE RECLASSIFIED.

SO THE THREE FILLED PERSONS, JUST LIKE THE CITY MANAGER HAS SAID, WOULD WORK TO WITH HR AND WITH OUR ENTIRE TEAM TO BE. INTRODUCED INTO A ROLE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR EACH OF THEM.

BUT WOULD CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO COMPETE FOR THE THREE, OF COURSE OPENINGS.

BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING GUARANTEED, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY JUST WOULD HAVE TO APPLY LIKE ANYONE ELSE.

AGAIN, WE WOULD BE GIVEN ALL OF ANY EMPLOYEE IN THIS ROOM WHO WOULD BE CAUGHT UP IN A REDUCTION OF FORCE, ANY EMPLOYEE THAT WOULD BE THEIR POSITION WOULD BE ELIMINATED.

WE WOULD BE WORKING INDIVIDUALLY WITH EACH EMPLOYEE TO TRY TO LAND THEM IN THE BEST POSSIBLE ROLE FOR THEM, AND THEY WOULD HAVE PRIORITY OVER ANY OUTSIDE CANDIDATE.

OKAY. I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF RECLASSIFYING THE THREE FILLED POSITIONS.

OKAY. IS THERE BECAUSE WHAT THERE IS, IS GOING ALSO FROM 6 TO 3 POSITIONS.

SO THERE'S TWO ELEMENTS TO THERE. SO SO THERE'S THREE VACANT.

YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THREE VACANT POSITIONS. BUT THE THREE ONES THAT ARE FILLED TO LEAVE AT THEIR EXISTING CLASSIFICATION.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSIONER ON 215 IS TO PROCEED WITH THE ELIMINATION ON THE THREE VACANT POSITIONS, BUT THE THREE FILLED TO LEAVE THEM AS IS. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING.

WHAT IS THE BUDGET FOR THAT? I THINK THAT WOULD COME WE WOULD HAVE THIS EVENING BECAUSE THE THREE POSITIONS.

YEAH. SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE SAVINGS BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE POSITIONS BEING BEING ELIMINATED MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THAT NUMBER. WE COULD RECALCULATE THAT, BUT THERE WOULD BE SAVINGS BECAUSE THERE'D BE THREE VACANT POSITIONS BEING ELIMINATED. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO GOOD AFTERNOON. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS FREDERICA GREEN. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF GSF LOCAL 100, WHICH OVERSEE THESE POSITIONS.

SO THE DEPARTMENT IS DECLARING THAT THE POSITIONS ARE VACANT.

I'M SURE EVERYONE KNOW THAT ON JULY 5TH, ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS PASSED AWAY UNEXPECTEDLY.

THAT VACATED ONE POSITION. THEY HAVE PROMOTED ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS OUT OF THIS POSITION TO A MANAGER, IN WHICH THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING NOW TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL MANAGERS, WHICH MEANS ALL OF THE POSITIONS IN THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS SPECIALIST WILL BE DEPLETED.

THEY WILL BE GONE IF WE ALREADY HAVE THREE MANAGERS.

WHAT IS THE NEED TO ADD THREE MORE? WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT BUDGET AND MONEY, THE MANAGERS ARE THE ONES THAT STAY IN THE OFFICE IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

THEY LOOK AT PEOPLE IN UNIFORMS. UNIFORMS IS WHAT CAPTURES THE EYES.

WE ARE REMOVING THAT AND THEN WE'RE CONSIDERING TO RECLASSIFY ANOTHER POSITION TO DO THE WORK THAT THE EXISTING PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISORS ALREADY DO.

SO I'M ASKING THE DEPARTMENT, IS IT ANY OTHER AREAS OR POSITIONS THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT OTHER THAN REMOVING THIS POSITION TOTALLY AND HAVING TO RETRAIN AND RECLASSIFY ANOTHER POSITION TO DO THE WORK THEY'RE ALREADY DOING? I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. WELL, HOW MANY MANAGERS THAT AREN'T OUT IN THE FIELD DO WE HAVE WITHIN THE PARKING DEPARTMENT? SO CURRENTLY THE PARKING DEPARTMENT HAS THREE PARKING OPERATIONS MANAGERS. ONE IS DEDICATED TO OUR OFF STREET OPERATION, OUR GARAGE OPERATIONS, AND RIGHT NOW TWO ARE DEDICATED TO OUR ON STREET OPERATIONS.

[04:25:02]

HOW MANY TOTAL EMPLOYEES DO WE HAVE? PLUS OR -110.

115. OKAY. 111. AND WE ONLY. OKAY. SO WE ONLY HAVE FOUR MANAGERS THOUGH, CORRECT? THERE WAS AND THE HISTORY BEHIND THE, THE, THE PROCESS ALONG THIS WAS CREATING EFFICIENCIES AND EFFECTIVENESS.

SO THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS ON OUR ON OUR, I'LL SAY EFFICIENCIES AS WELL AS ENHANCEMENTS.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A POSITION THAT WAS ABANDONED IN PARKING SEVERAL YEARS AGO BEFORE MY ARRIVAL CALLED A PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST TO THAT WE ARE REQUESTING ENHANCEMENTS TO THAT TO PROVIDE SOME MORE VERTICAL GROWTH TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A, I'LL SAY, FIELD APPROACH FROM LEADERSHIP BECAUSE RIGHT NOW OUR SUPERVISORS DO SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE OFFICE AND I'M NOT, IT'S NOT A KNOCK ON THEIR ABILITIES. THEY HAVE A LOT OF TASKS TO DO.

SO WHAT WE ARE HOPING TO DO WITH THIS EXPANSION OF MANAGERS, IT WOULD NOW GIVE US SIX TOTAL MANAGERS, NOT COUNTING MAINTENANCE, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO CROSS TRAIN AND CREATE MORE SYNERGIES WITH OUR PARKING ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS OUR GARAGE OPERATIONS.

SO NOW WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT CAN BE MANAGEMENT LEVEL INDIVIDUALS ON STAFF 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK THAT CAN HANDLE ENFORCEMENT CALLS, THAT CAN HANDLE GARAGE OPERATIONS CALLS. AND THIS DOESN'T AFFECT OUR PARKING OPERATIONS SUPERVISORS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR GARAGE OPERATIONS AS WELL AS OUR MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS.

BECAUSE AND I THANK THIS LADY FOR COMING UP. I DO AGREE, WE WANT AS MANY OF THOSE 111 OUT IN THE FIELD AS POSSIBLE.

AND KUDOS TO YOU BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES YOU'RE YOU'RE ONE OF THEM.

BUT THE MORE THAT WE CAN DO TO GET THE HARD WORKERS OUT THERE, THE FRONTLINE SUPPORT IS NEEDED.

I THINK THAT'S WITHOUT GETTING DOWN INTO THE MINUTIA OPERATIONS OF YOUR TEAM.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD OVERARCHING GOAL TO HAVE.

YEAH. SO THE POINT OF THIS IS NOT TO PULL HUMAN BEINGS OUT OF THE FIELD.

I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR. THE POINT OF THIS IS MORE TO, YOU KNOW, OUR FOCUS IS TO BECOME LEAN, EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE. AND SO THE POINT OF THIS IS TO, YOU KNOW, ALL THE BUZZWORDS ABSOLUTELY.

TO CREATE A MORE SYNERGIZED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR ON AND OUR OFF STREET OPERATIONS.

AND SO NOW ALL SIX, SHOULD THIS GO THROUGH, ALL SIX OF OUR PARKING OPERATIONS MANAGERS WOULD BE BOTH ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS GARAGE OPERATIONS MANAGERS. OKAY. SO THEY'LL BE UNCLASSIFIED ONCE THEY'RE.

THAT IS CORRECT. ALL SIX. CORRECT. WELL, THE YES, THE AND THE ELEMENT THAT'S HERE BEFORE YOU ON 215 AGAIN WAS FOR THE THREE VACANT, THERE WERE THREE FILLED TO CONVERT THAT SUPERVISOR TO 3 TO 3 OPERATIONS MANAGERS, BUT COMMISSIONER. YEAH, I DON'T SUPPORT. MR. DOMINGUEZ HAS A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE REDUCTION OF THE THREE HEAD COUNT, BUT NOT ALLOW THE RECLASSIFICATION FROM SUPERVISOR TO MANAGER.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATION IS.

SO I'LL JUST ASK IF. SO THAT'S ALONG WITH KEEPING PEOPLE OUT IN THE FIELD MORE.

SO YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT GETTING MANAGER. SO WHATEVER DIRECTION WE GO IN, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO REDUCE OUR HEAD COUNT IN THE FIELD.

WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN RIGHT NOW. PRIMARILY, I'LL SAY FROM OUR PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST POSITIONS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE MORE BODIES IN THE FIELD. WE JUST WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S DIRECTION TO CREATE THE 247 POSITIONS IN BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH BEACH, WE HAVE STREAMLINED OUR SCHEDULING TO ENSURE WE HAVE A SET AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE FIELD 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. SO WHATEVER THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION GIVES US, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENSURE OR WE ARE NOT GOING TO REMOVE HUMAN BEINGS FROM.

AND FROM A BUDGETARY STANDPOINT, WHICH POSITION IS PAID MORE? OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR OR PARKING OPERATIONS MANAGER.

SO PARKING OPERATIONS MANAGER IS PAID MORE ON BASE PAY.

THEY ARE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS. SO THEREFORE THE SAVINGS COMES IN A FEW THINGS.

ONE, THE SAVINGS COME IN OVER TIME BECAUSE THERE IS NO OVERTIME FOR THAT POSITION.

AND THEN TWO BY PAIRING THE THREE POSITIONS WITH THE OTHER THREE THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING, WE NOW HAVE SIX MANAGERS THAT WE CAN SCHEDULE AROUND 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.

SO NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR GARAGES OR IN OUR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, THERE IS A MANAGER ON 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK THAT CAN RESPOND AS AN EXPERT IN BOTH FIELDS.

SO JUST GETTING BACK TO IT SO WE CAN CONTINUE THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THERE AGAIN TO ACCEPT THE THREE THE THREE VACANT POSITIONS BEING REDUCED, BUT TO LEAVE THE THREE SUPERVISORS AT THEIR EXISTING CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSIONER.

[04:30:06]

OKAY. OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE AGAIN SO WE CAN GET INTO MOSTLY RECLASSIFYING.

WE SAW IN SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS. SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TROLLEY.

SO YOU KNOW, AS WE TALKED ABOUT BACK IN AT THE MAY RETREAT, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IS MOVING 50% OF THE FUNDING.

I'M VERY COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SOUTH BEACH LOOP HERE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION FUND AS WE BEGIN TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH TRYING TO GET THAT TRANSPORTATION FUND INTO, INTO A STRUCTURAL BALANCE, WHICH IT IS NOT CURRENTLY OUTSIDE OF THE, OVER THE LONG TERM, ASSUMING THESE REDUCTIONS ARE NOT ALL ACCEPTED.

SO WE WILL KEEP MOVING. AND THEN ON TO. HERE WE ARE AT.

WE HAVE A FEW WATER POSITIONS SUSTAINABILITY, TREE PRESERVATION AND TRANSPORTATION.

SO I THINK THE MAJOR ELEMENTS THAT I WANT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THERE AT THE BOTTOM IS TRANSPORTATION.

WE WENT THROUGH THESE AND THERE'S MORE, THE TRANSPORTATION FEEDS INTO THE NEXT SET OF SLIDES.

YEAH. YEAH. 236 I'D LIKE TO, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET WE DISCUSSED THIS.

YES. WE WOULD JUST GO RIGHT THERE. ITEM ITEM 236.

THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR THE REBECCA TOWER FREEBIE.

AND YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING OVER WATER AND PUBLIC WORKS POSITIONS.

YES. LET ME THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE PAGE, BUT LET ME SINCE WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, LET ME JUST DEAL WITH THE DISPOSITION ITEM. 236.

SO THAT ITEM IS OUT THERE. I THINK THROUGH WE HAVE A CONSENSUS TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR TWO, THREE, SIX. OBVIOUSLY, AS WE TALKED ABOUT BACK AT THE RETREAT, ALSO WAS OUR CONCERN OVER THE LONG TERM OF THAT.

AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT WE DO HAVE ONE RECURRING ENHANCEMENT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT.

MAYBE WE CAN GET THAT TO A ONE TIME AND JUST CONTINUE THAT PROGRAM BACK, BACK FOR THE WATER.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SEEING THERE'S A REALLOCATION OF SOME POSITIONS IN MY HOUSE, WHICH SAVED SOME MONEY.

SO WE LOOKED AT A POINT BY POINT AND MANAGED CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, WHAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON PARKING, WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO SOME REALLOCATION.

AND THEN WE HAVE SOME OTHER REDUCTIONS HERE IN SUSTAINABILITY AND TREE PRESERVATION, INCLUDING THE REALLOCATION OF SOME GENERAL FUND, PARTIAL FUNDING ON SOME OF THE URBAN FORESTER TYPE POSITIONS INTO THE TREE PRESERVATION FUND, WHICH WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. BUT LET'S GET INTO THE NEXT ON TRANSPORTATION.

AND THIS IS THE REST OF THE TRANSPORTATION REDUCTIONS. AGAIN, NOTHING SHOULD BE A SURPRISE HERE.

THESE ARE ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN DEPTH BACK AT THE MAY BUDGET RETREAT.

AND THE REDUCTION AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE PUBLIC ITEM TWO FOR THREE IS NOT A REDUCTION IN THE SERVICE OF OUR TROLLEY SYSTEM.

THIS IS JUST A REALLOCATION OF FUNDING TO ANOTHER ELEMENT IN OUR BUDGET.

SAME THING WITH 244, WHICH IS MOVING THAT TO THE CONVENTION CENTER.

AND AS WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT A NUMBER OF THESE ELEMENTS, WE'LL MOVE TO ONE TIME ALLOCATIONS AS THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO A FEW ENHANCEMENTS IN OTHER QUICKLY BRING UP TWO, FOUR, FIVE.

I KNOW THAT IT'S A POSITION THAT HASN'T BEEN FILLED FOR A COUPLE YEARS.

AND I DID GET SOME TEXT MESSAGES. MAYBE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES DID AS WELL ABOUT ELIMINATING THAT POSITION ALTOGETHER BECAUSE WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND MOBILITY PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR NOT TO HAVE AN ALLOCATION FOR THIS.

YES. AND I'M GOING TO JUST ECHO YOUR YOUR POINT.

MOVING IT TO A CONTRACT POSITION. THIS COMMISSION YOU TOOK THE POSITION OF, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIZING IT AS A FULL TIME POSITION.

WHEN YOU SEE THE DEATHS THAT ARE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WE CLEARLY NEED TO GO BACK, FOCUS ON PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE.

AND WE ALL DID WHAT WE HAD TO DO. WE ALL PUT AND PRIORITIZE THE DOLLARS TO HAVE AN IN-HOUSE PERSON FOCUSED ON BICYCLIST SAFETY, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ELIMINATION GIVEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY.

IT'S RECURRING JUST TO THAT ELEMENT. THIS WAS LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS, EVEN IN MY HOUSE, WHEN I ELIMINATED A POSITION AND MOVED IT TO AN OUTSIDE OUTSOURCE.

THIS DOES HAVE FUNDING TO CONTINUE THAT, JUST AS THE CITY HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY, WHICH IS THROUGH AN OUTSIDE CONSULTING WITH BRINGING IN ENGINEER ENGINEERING FIRMS ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS SO THAT THOSE SERVICES CAN BE PROVIDED.

AND JUST TO POINT AHEAD, WE DO HAVE A ONE TIME ALLOCATION THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR $255,000 TO COMPLETE THE UPDATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN. WE BELIEVE, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH A STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND,

[04:35:06]

WE BELIEVE THIS IS A MORE EFFICIENT FINANCIAL WAY TO DELIVER THAT SERVICE, AND THE DEPARTMENT WOULD GET ALL THE RESOURCES IT NEEDS TO DEPLOY THOSE SERVICES RELATED TO ANYTHING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN RELATED. SO.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? CAN WE KEEP IT? IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.

AT THE END OF THE DAY AGAIN I'LL I'LL. SO WE'VE HAD THIS AS A CONTRACTOR POSITION.

YOU'RE SAYING. RIGHT. IN THE PAST THERE'S BEEN A ONE TIME ALLOCATIONS FOR IT TO BE CONTINUED. BUT THEN BUT THEN YOU SEE THE WORK THAT COMMISSIONER BOARD IS, IS DOING IS, IS LEADING AS IT RELATES TO, FOR OR, OR COMMISSIONER DOMINGUEZ I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE OF MY TWO COLLEAGUES IS LEADING THIS WORK OF GOING, YOU KNOW, INTERSECTION BY INTERSECTION AND SEEING THE CONDITIONS OF CROSSWALKS AND SEEING THE LACK OF SIGNAGE, THE LACK OF SIGNAGE AND THE LACK OF PROPER MARKINGS CLOSE TO SCHOOLS AND ALL THAT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT A CONTRACTOR POSITION IS NOT GOING TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO DO.

AND I THINK IT'S PART OF BEING A SAFE CITY IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAFETY OF OUR PROACTIVELY, NOT ON A CONTRACT BASIS THAT, OH, WE WANT TO ASSIGN THIS TO YOU BECAUSE THE COMMISSION IS GIVING YOU THIS ASSIGNMENT, OR THE ADMINISTRATION IS GIVING YOU THIS ASSIGNMENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO SEND YOU OUT THERE. NO, WE NEED SOMEONE FOCUSED PROACTIVELY ON HOW TO MAKE OUR CITY SAFER FOR PEDESTRIANS, FOR BICYCLISTS, AND FOR MICROMOBILITY USERS AS WELL.

SO I, I TRULY CANNOT SUPPORT ELIMINATING THIS.

SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO RESTORE FUNDING. I'M SORRY.

CAN JOSE, IS JOSE HERE SOMEPLACE? COME HERE. SORRY, JOSIE.

LISTEN, I AM ALL FOR GETTING MORE BRAINS ON THE PROBLEMS FACING US WITH OUR INTERSECTIONS AND OUR CHAOTIC PEDESTRIANIZATION IN SOME AREAS AND OUR MICROMOBILITY. BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILL THIS POSITION.

CAN YOU, CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHAT'S GOING ON? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU COULD USE ANOTHER SET OF HANDS ON DECK.

SURE. WE WE RECRUITED FOR THIS POSITION IN THE PAST, WE HAD SELECTED AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT AT THE LAST MINUTE, THE INDIVIDUAL DECIDED, OPTED NOT TO JOIN THE CITY.

AND THEN SINCE THEN, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT YOU KNOW, TO, TO, TO HIRE THE POSITION WAS ACTUALLY PLACED ON PAUSE AND FROZEN, IF YOU WILL. SO CURRENTLY IT'S NOT IT'S NOT, NO ONE CAN, CAN APPLY FOR IT, BUT WHEN IT WAS OPEN WE, WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL IN RECRUITING THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.

SO IF WE, IF WE KEEP THIS FUNDING HERE, IS THE POSITION STILL GOING TO BE PAUSED OR, AND CAN WE START RECRUITING OR ARE WE BETTER SERVED BY GETTING HANDS ON, ON DECK BY HAVING THIS MONEY GOING TOWARDS CONTRACTORS, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE WORK NEEDS TO GET DONE.

SO HOW'S THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED WITH THAT? WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S BENEFITS TO BOTH ENGAGING CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS HAVING IN-HOUSE STAFF ULTIMATELY IN THE LONG RUN. WHAT I FOUND IS THAT CONSULTANTS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE.

IF YOU, IF YOU WANT SOMEONE FULL TIME ENGAGED, ULTIMATELY IN THE LONG RUN, IT MAY COST MORE THAN THAN HAVING A CITY EMPLOYEE ON STAFF. IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW THE LEVEL OF ACTIVATION THAT WE GIVE TO THE TO THE CONSULTANTS.

BUT USUALLY THEIR RATES ARE HIGHER. SO. BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT FREEZING OR UNFREEZING THIS POSITION? I MEAN, IT'S SILLY TO HAVE SOMETHING BUDGETED AND ALSO AT THE SAME TIME HAVE THE POSITION FROZEN.

SO YOU CAN'T HIRE. SO IF I MAY, THROUGH THE CHAIR.

YOU KNOW, MY FEELING IS IF, IF YOU ALL DON'T ACCEPT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON REDUCING FULL TIME POSITIONS, THEN I'M GOING TO SEE THAT AS AN ENDORSEMENT TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD ONCE THE BUDGET PASSES.

SO IF I COULD CHIME IN WHAT I'LL SAY, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS SPECIFIC DIVISION AS AN ENTERPRISE FUND FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, AND THE FINANCE TEAM HAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT WE WILL BE IN A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT FOR THIS FUND.

AND IT'S WHY WE'VE EXPLORED MEASURES SUCH AS FULL ADVERTISING RAPS OF TROLLEYS, WHICH COME WITH PUSHBACK FROM RESIDENTS.

AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY EXPLORED THROUGH VARIOUS COMMITTEES WAS REDUCING SERVICE HOURS FOR OUR TROLLEYS BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURAL FISCAL DEFICITS THAT THIS ENTERPRISE FUND IS GOING TO BE FACING.

AND WE DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A GREAT WAY HOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THAT,

[04:40:04]

SO IF OUR ONE OF OUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES IS ENSURING THAT WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN FULLY FUNCTIONING TROLLEYS, WE NEED MONEY FROM SOMEWHERE, RIGHT? AND PERHAPS THIS THAT WE'VE LIVED WITHOUT CAN BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS VERY TANGIBLE SERVICE RESTORATIONS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS. JUST JUST GOING DOWN THAT ROUTE AND UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION FUND WOULD BE EXPERIENCING, YOU KNOW, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER WAYS AS WELL THAT WE CAN SAVE THERE.

HOW MUCH EXTRA MONEY DID WE SPEND ON THE RETROFIT OF THE TROLLEYS FOR? JUST TO PUT A DECORATIVE PACKAGE ON THEM. IT CAME OUT TO ABOUT $500,000 A YEAR BASED ON THE OPERATING COST, BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND THEM ALL TOGETHER OR INDIVIDUALLY PER PER TROLLEY.

NO, JUST ANNUALLY FOR THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $500,000 MORE EVERY YEAR TO OPERATE THE TROLLEY LOOKING VEHICLES RATHER THAN THE BUSSES TO AND FROM AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.

AND IF WE. AND DO WE SOLD BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN WE MADE THAT DECISION, I DON'T THINK WE WERE FACING THE CHANGES IN THE STATE LAWS AND THE POTENTIAL REFORM AND PROPERTY TAXES.

SO SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ABOUT THE DEFICIT IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND, IS IT TOO LATE TO GO BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN STILL PRESERVE TROLLEY SERVICES? BUT WITHOUT HAVING THIS DECORATIVE PACKAGE THAT'S COSTING US HALF $1 MILLION FOR DECORATION.

DO WE DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT? SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT IN A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT WITH THIS ENTERPRISE FUND BECAUSE OF THE TALLAHASSEE MEASURE.

THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE COSTS FOR THESE. IT'S KIND OF MANAGED ALONE AND THE REVENUE THAT THIS BRINGS IN AS AN ENTERPRISE FUND.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FUNDED THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES.

OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW, THE COLLECTIVE DECISION OF THIS COMMISSION WAS, OKAY, WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT.

BUT WE DO HIGHLY PRIORITIZE THE LOOK AND APPEAL OF THIS HIGHER END MODEL AND ALSO MAINTAINING THESE MORE ROBUST SERVICE ROUTES. IN FACT, I THINK AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE LOWER COST MODEL AND SCALE BACK SOME OF THE ROUTES WHICH THE FULL COMMISSION DECIDED TO GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

FINE. BUT WE NEED TO START FIGURING OUT HOW TO FUND THAT.

AND PERHAPS ALLOCATING MONEY THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOCATED TO AN UNFILLED POSITION IS HOW WE CAN BEGIN TACKLING THAT.

I'D LOVE MONEY FOR ALL OF THIS STUFF. RIGHT. BUT IN THIS ENTERPRISE FUND, IT IS A VERY TANGIBLE.

IF YOU TAKE. FROM HERE, YOU DON'T HAVE FOR. THERE.

SO IF WE WANT TO HAVE RESTORED SERVICES RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO PAY FOR THEM.

PERHAPS ALLOCATING MONEY FROM THIS TO THOSE SERVICES IS A WAY TO DO SO.

MR. CHAIR, I AGREE WITH YOU. I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO SAVE THE POSITION. I UNDERSTAND IF IF JOSE, IF YOU SAY YOU'VE TRIED TO FILL THIS POSITION AND YOU CAN'T FILL THE POSITION, THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN THEN SAVING THE POSITION, KEEPING IT VACANT ON PAPER, HAVING THE DOLLARS OCCUPIED AND DESIGNATED TO THIS ON PAPER, AND THEN NOT BE ABLE TO FILL AND MEET SOME OF THE OTHER ESSENTIAL NEEDS OF OF THE TRANSPORTATION SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE THAT ASKED IF IT COULD BE SAVED, CAN WE REVIEW IT IN SEPTEMBER RATHER THAN JUST ELIMINATING US DOING IT BECAUSE IT WAS ALMOST FILLED? IF I MAY, ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE THAT ARE ON HERE, WE WON'T GO THROUGH THIS, OBVIOUSLY THIS THIS BECAUSE IT'S DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING, DURING THE HEARING, WE WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT ARE WERE. BUT ANY REDUCTION THAT'S ON HERE OR ANY ENHANCEMENT IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

SO WE CAN STAY ON NOW AND THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION COME SEPTEMBER, BUT WE CAN MOVE ON.

OKAY, GREAT. LET'S BRING UP THE POWERPOINT. WE ARE GETTING CLOSE ON THE END OF OPERATING.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FEW RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENTS IN OTHER FUNDS.

SO. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING MAKING SOME IMPROVEMENTS FOR CLEANLINESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

[04:45:07]

WE ARE RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR WATER TESTING AT PARK VIEW CANAL.

AND THAT'S A ONE TIME BASIS. THE OTHER ITEMS ARE ON A RECURRING BASIS.

WE DO HAVE LITTER CANS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT WE DO SPEND MONEY FOR TO REPLACE AND REPAIR AS NEEDED, AND WE'RE JUST INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION BASED ON THE COST OF THOSE SERVICES, THE NANOBUBBLES, WE HAVE A $1 MILLION APPROPRIATION IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

SO THIS WOULD BE THE RECURRING OPERATING COST THAT GOES WITH THAT.

AND WE HAVE THE METER SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE RECENTLY, AND WE'RE ADDING A MAINTENANCE COST.

AND THE LAST ITEM IS FOR A BRICK PAVER AND STREET MAINTENANCE.

SO WE ADDED A NEW FUND LAST YEAR, AND WE'RE NOW APPROPRIATING THE DOLLARS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE AS NEEDED.

LET ME ASK A QUESTION ON THIS. DO WE HAVE THE FUNDING IN PLACE FOR THE HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATORS THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO INSTALL IN THE PARK VIEW CANAL FOR WATER EFFICIENCY? I BELIEVE WE DO. I'M HEARING.

YES. IS THAT INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS YEAR'S BUDGET THAT'S ROLLING OVER TO NEXT YEAR, OR IS IT PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET? THAT IS PART OF THE CAPITAL BUDGET. I BELIEVE IT'S FY 26 CAPITAL BUDGET.

OKAY. BUT AND THAT MONEY WOULD ROLL OVER. I'M NOT POSITIVE WHETHER IT'S IT'LL BE ROLLED OVER FROM THIS YEAR TO NEXT YEAR.

YEP. OKAY. YES, SIR. PERFECT. THANK YOU. THANKS.

WE'LL CONTINUE ON. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS FOR THE PARKING FUND.

I'M SURE PARKING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND ADDING NEW TECHNOLOGY TO HELP THEM TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.

THE SECOND ITEM IS ACTUALLY A PROMOTION OF OUR POSITIONS IN THE PARKING DEPARTMENT.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS FOR THE RADIO MAINTENANCE THAT YOU SAW IT ALREADY ON FIRESIDE.

AND THIS IS FOR THE RADIOS ON PARKING SIDE. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MOBILITY ITEMS HERE AS WE TALKED ABOUT TRANSITIONING SOME TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR ART WEEK OVER TO THE CONVENTION CENTER AND THEN THE WATER TAXI. WE WERE LOOKING AT RECURRING, BUT I THINK AFTER WE'VE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE BRIEFINGS, WE WANT TO MAYBE MOVE THAT, KEEP THAT AS A ONE TIME LEVEL MATCH UP WITH OUR GRANTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, AS WE WORK FOR IT, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT WATER TAXI SHOWN AS A, AS A ONE TIME ALLOCATION, JUST LIKE WE HAD HERE. AS WE CONTINUE TO GET GRANTS AND TRY TO FIND OUR PARTNERS SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.

AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR LAST OPERATING.

THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK CAPITAL, AND THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THE REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS MADE.

SO ON THESE OTHER ENHANCEMENTS, JUST VERY QUICKLY, A FEW VEHICLES FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FUNDED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE CONVENTION CENTER, THE BIG ELEMENT THAT'S THERE IS IT'S THE FINS THAT ARE ON THE EXTERIOR THERE REFURBISHING OF THEM.

IT'S ITS OWN SEPARATE ENTERPRISE FUND. SO THEY'RE ABLE TO FUND THAT.

THE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING A ONE TIME ALLOCATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FUND BALANCE TO COMPLETE THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE, WHICH IS IN PLACE. AND THEN FINALLY, ART AND PUBLIC PLACES A RECURRING ALLOCATION FROM ITS OWN FUND TO MAINTAIN THE ART THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, WHICH WE THINK IS A GOOD, GOOD APPROACH. AND WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT INTO A QUICK CAPITAL UPDATE.

YES. SO THIS IS AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE SLIDE THAT YOU SAW BACK IN JUNE.

WE DID ADD ONE MAJOR PROJECT, AND JASON'S GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT IN DETAILS.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING SPENDING MORE ON CAPITAL.

WE ARE TRANSFERRING MORE DOLLARS FROM THE EXCESS DOLLARS FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.

AND THIS NEXT SLIDE ACTUALLY SHOWS YOU WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT CHANGE IN THE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL.

SO THE FIRST TWO ITEMS REMAIN THE SAME. THREE, FOUR AND FIVE ARE WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING TRANSFERRING OVER FROM LAST YEAR'S YEAR END SURPLUSES, $9.3 MILLION TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN CR, PAYGO AND CAPITAL RESERVE.

AND THEN I'LL JUST GET INTO THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE UTILIZATION OF THOSE FUNDS, AS WE MENTIONED BACK IN JUNE. A FEW PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ONLY ABLE TO PARTIALLY FUND TO GET THEM ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

THE FIRE STATION THREE DOOR REPLACEMENT AND NUMBER ONE, 74 CITYWIDE BRIDGES.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING. WE NOW IDENTIFIED THOSE DOLLARS. SO THAT WILL COMPLETE A BIG ELEMENT THAT IS IMPORTANT TO US FOR OUR BRIDGES.

AND THEN A COUPLE OF PARKS AND REC ITEMS. WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE WITH THESE DOLLARS WE WERE ABLE TO LOCATE, WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NORM OF THE AISLE PLAYGROUND AND THE MUST PARK PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT THIS YEAR OR 27.

WE ARE OBVIOUSLY, WE KNOW LAST TIME IN JUNE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FLAMINGO PARK FOOTBALL FIELD WAS BEING REDONE.

WE'VE IDENTIFIED THERE'S ALSO A FENCE PROJECT.

SO WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ALLOCATION TO GET THOSE DONE AT THE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND THE MUST I'M SORRY THE DIAMOND BRIGHT FOR.

SO THE POOL REFURBISHMENT AT THE SCOTT RAKOW YOUTH CENTER.

THOSE WERE PRIORITY PROJECTS. PRIDE PARK IS JUST A FUNDING SWAP FOR THE COMMISSION.

YOU'LL SEE THE OTHER ELEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THEN THE BANDSHELL.

THERE'S EIGHT 60 FROM CAPITAL RESERVE THERE. DO WE HAVE THE MONEY FOR THE POLO PARK LIGHTS?

[04:50:03]

YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH ALL THE CAPITAL.

NO, NO. JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON THE COUPLE ELEMENTS THAT WE'VE ADDED.

SO AGAIN, THE BANDSHELL FROM THE ARTS AND CULTURE FUNDING AND THE REST IS JUST REALLOCATION REALLY FOR THE NORTH SHORE FITNESS WAS REMOVED AND WE TOOK IT TO THE BEACH WALK, BOLLARD SECURITY BOLLARDS. AND AGAIN, THE BIG ONE THERE WITH I GUESS 42 TO 900,000.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING REMOVING THE APPROPRIATION WE ORIGINALLY HAD RECOMMENDED FOR THE ALLEN ROAD UTILITY RELOCATIONS BECAUSE WE RECEIVED A STATE APPROPRIATION.

AND JUST TO WRAP UP BEFORE WE GET THERE IS JUST OUR NEXT STEPS AND JUST OUR CALENDAR JUST AS A REMINDER.

SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CONTINUING WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP A FLAT OPERATING MILLAGE WITH A REDUCTION IN OUR GEO BOND MILLAGE, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT FOR OUR TRIM NOTICES.

SO NEXT WEDNESDAY, YOU HAVE RESOLUTIONS TO BE ON THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE.

SO WE HOPE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD. AND THEN SEPTEMBER.

SO THE IN AUGUST, OMB FINALIZES ALL EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE TODAY.

THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE IN THE BACKGROUND AND THE ACTUAL PRELIMINARY BUDGET, THE BIG DOCUMENTS THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED OUT.

SO YOU GUYS WILL HAVE ALL OF THAT TO GO THROUGH.

AND WE HAVE OUR FIRST TWO HEARINGS ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, WHICH IS DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING AT 5501.

AND THEN SEPTEMBER 23RD IS THE SECOND BUDGET HEARING.

AND OCTOBER 1ST STARTS THE BUDGET. I THINK NOW WE CAN.

OH, THANK YOU, BUT LET'S TAKE DOWN THE PRESENTATION.

AND THEN JASON, CAN YOU IDENTIFY HOW MUCH IN CUTS WE HAVE? YEAH, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE NOW. YEAH. SO WE STARTED OFF WITH $21 MILLION.

WE HAVE ELIMINATED 10 MILLION FROM THAT LIST.

SO WE'RE DOWN TO 11.3. THE TARGET IS 6.85. SO WE HAVE CUT STILL MORE THAN WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A STABLE OPERATING MILLAGE RATE. AND THEN WE IDENTIFIED THERE WAS A, THERE WERE HOW MANY WAS THE VALUE OF THE ELEMENTS 358,000 THAT WE SAID WE'D COME BACK TO TAKE A LOOK AT. AND WHICH ELEMENTS WERE THOSE? SO THE FIRST ONE WAS ITEM NUMBER 29.

SO I THINK WHERE THAT LEAVES US IS WE'RE ABLE TO VOTE TODAY THAT OUR CURRENT MILLAGE RATE IS THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATE THAT WE CAN HAVE, AS LONG AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED CUTS THAT WE'VE ALL AGREED TO, WHICH I THINK IS A TREMENDOUS PLACE TO BE IN.

IN FACT, WE HAVE $4 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL CUTS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHERE WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN OUR BUDGET AND FURTHER ITEMS TO DISCUSS THAT COULD EITHER GET OUR MILLAGE RATE EVEN LOWER.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION NOW OR AT A FURTHER POINT, BUT GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN TALLAHASSEE, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD ALL CONSIDER IS. WHERE I'M GOING TO BE AT IS DO ANOTHER MILLAGE CUT EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR IN OUR OPERATING BUDGET. EVEN IF WE SAVE MORE MONEY, WHICH I PLAN TO DO THEN THAT TRANSLATES TO A MILLAGE RATE INCREASE. I AGREE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A DERELICTION OF DUTY TAKING OUR MILLAGE DOWN TOO MUCH.

I WOULD RATHER DISCUSS WHAT WE DO WITH THOSE ENHANCED CUTS THAT WE HAVE, WHETHER IT'S ANOTHER SURPLUS CHECK, WHETHER IT'S PUTTING IT INTO AN INFRASTRUCTURE OR CAPITAL RESILIENCY FUND, WHETHER IT'S PUTTING IT INTO RESERVES.

WITH THE UNCERTAINTY HAPPENING IN TALLAHASSEE, AND ALSO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE SEE THE DATA WITH OUR EYES, A DECELERATING PROPERTY TAX GROWTH, I DO NOT WANT TO CUT OUR MILLAGE RATE TO AN EXTENT THAT COMES BACK IN THE BEHIND FOR YEARS TO COME.

THE COUNTY DID THAT, AND IT'S JUST NOT A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY TO MANAGE FUTURE BUDGETS.

SO I THINK WHAT WE CAN ESSENTIALLY TAKE AWAY FROM HERE IS, GIVEN THOSE $11 MILLION, $10 MILLION IN CUTS THAT WE'VE ACHIEVED HERE, THAT IS WELL IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO KEEP OUR MILLAGE RATE FLAT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE DID ANOTHER MILLAGE RATE CUT THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE DID FOR THIS PAST YEAR, WHERE THAT PUTS US BACK OF THE ENVELOPE. MATH IS ANOTHER $750,000.

AND THEN WHATEVER CUTS THAT WE MAKE ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, WE ESSENTIALLY FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT MONEY GOES IN INSTEAD OF LOCKING US INTO FURTHER MILLAGE RATE CUTS, WHETHER THAT COULD BE THROUGH SURPLUS INFRASTRUCTURE, FUND RESILIENCY, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. I THINK THAT'S THE THE PATH I AT LEAST PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO STEER THINGS.

YEAH. THE CHAIR I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS AND I THINK IN SEPTEMBER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DEFINITELY ENTERTAIN.

WE'LL WORK THROUGH THOSE CALCULATIONS FOR YOU AND HAVE THAT READY TO BE PROPOSED AGAIN.

[04:55:03]

WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A, YOU KNOW, A RED FLASHING LIGHT.

IT'S YELLOW. IT'S A CAUTION. I THINK THE TWO ELEMENTS WE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT DECREASING INCREASE IN OUR PROPERTY VALUES THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT OUR EXISTING SERVICE LEVEL, PLUS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

SO KIND OF WE'RE RECOMMENDING, YOU KNOW, LET'S PUNT THAT DECISION TO NEXT YEAR WHEN WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GROUND AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO LIVE IN, AND ANYTHING ABOVE THE MINIMUM CUT LEVEL THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET HERE, WE KIND OF RECOMMEND THAT MAYBE THAT BE PUT ASIDE FOR ON A BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND, BASICALLY TO GIVE YOU GUYS AMMUNITION, SOME DRY POWDER THAT EITHER THROUGH THE YEAR, IF SOMETHING COMES UP THAT YOU NEED OR HAVE SOME ONE TIME MONEY THAT PERHAPS IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET WHERE THERE'S A REDUCTION, LET'S SAY TO A PROGRAM OR SERVICE, YOU MIGHT MOVE IT FROM RECURRING TO A ONE TIME AND SAY, I WAS ABLE TO SAVE THAT PROGRAM FOR THIS YEAR, BUT WE GOT TO SEE HOW IT GOES FORWARD.

SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THAT TO HAVE THAT THAT KIND OF A BUDGET STABILIZATION PIECE, ANYTHING ABOVE THAT MINIMUM CUT. BUT WE'D LIKE TO DO NOW BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, IS. TAMIKA HAS HAS LABELED ABOUT 350,000 ADDITIONAL THAT THE COMMISSION THEY WANTED TO COULD REMOVE ALL OF THEM.

BUT SHE WILL GO LET'S GO ELEMENT BY ELEMENT AND SEE THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION.

IF IT'S SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO REMOVE NOW OR AGAIN TO DISCUSS MORE IN SEPTEMBER.

BUT LET'S I'LL JUST SAY COMMISSIONER MAGAZINE SUMMED UP MY SENTIMENTS PRETTY WELL.

YEAH. OKAY. IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO ITEM 29 AND THAT'S THE EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION FOR THE HALLOWEEN THAT WAS 15,000.

WE HAD IT TO COME BACK TO THAT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE KEPT.

I MEAN, IN THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN, I THINK WE CAN AGREE.

SO REMOVE IT FROM THE CUT LIST. SO WE WOULD PROBABLY ADD THAT LIST FOR SAKE OF BREVITY.

CAN WE START OVER AGAIN. SURE. NUMBER 29 WAS THE HALLOWEEN ONE.

YES. THERE WAS TWO IN CITYWIDE. THERE WAS THE CITYWIDE EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION WAS NUMBER 29 AND 15.

I THINK THE NEXT ONE WAS 109 FOR 10,000. YEAH.

THEY'RE BOTH IN THE SAME ELEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION EVENTS.

AND SO LINE 29 AND LINE 109. I'LL MAKE A MOTION, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, TO KEEP THIS ON THE REDUCTION LIST.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP BOTH OF THOSE ELEMENTS ON THE REDUCTION LIST.

I'M GOING TO REMOVE. YEAH. ME TOO. OKAY. SO JUST THE VOTE EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T VOTE.

BUT WHAT IS THE TOTAL OF THE TWO AMOUNTS. 20 WOULD BE $25,000 IN TOTAL.

WHY DON'T WE SPLIT THE BABY AND JUST KEEP TEN GRAND AND FIND A WAY TO DO SOMETHING WARM AND FUZZY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES, AND STILL SAVE A MAJORITY OF THE MONEY? IS THIS NOT WARM AND FUZZY TO YOU? IT'S NEITHER WARM NOR FUZZY. WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE ONE.

WE HAVE FULL FUNDING. WE HAVE PARTIAL AT TEN.

ARE WE? ARE WE VOTING NO? JUST THE SAME. JUST.

I'M TRYING TO GET A CONSENSUS WHETHER THERE'S NOT A THERE'S A LACK OF CONSENSUS FOR ALL OF THESE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONSENSUS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO COURT. WHAT? YOU WANT A STRAW VOTE? KEEP FULL FUNDING. FULL FUNDING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOLIDAY PARTY.

I MEAN, THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER. YEAH. ALL EMPLOYERS, LARGE EMPLOYERS USUALLY HAVE HOLIDAY PARTY.

THIS IS FOR HALLOWEEN. THOUGH WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THE HOLIDAY.

REGULAR HOLIDAY PARTY. AND IT'S NOT SAYING WE CAN'T HAVE A HALLOWEEN PARTY.

BUT WHEN I HAVE A HALLOWEEN GATHERING AT MY OFFICE, WE BRING IN OUR OWN CANDY.

WE VERY SIMPLE AS OPPOSED TO OUR TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR CANDY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

I THINK, CHAIR, I THINK TO YOUR EFFECT, I THINK ON THIS ONE, IT'S VERY SPLIT.

SO I THINK MAYBE I'LL TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO KIND OF STRAW BALLOT THAT IF THAT'S OKAY.

I KNOW WE HAD TWO FOR FULL FUNDING. WE HAVE THREE FOR FULL FUNDING.

WE HAVE A FOURTH OR FIFTH. ALL RIGHT. NOT HEARING, NOT HEARING, HAVING FOUR.

I WILL SAY THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO A DIFFERENT TACT ON THIS.

SO AS OF RIGHT NOW THE ELEMENTS ARE REMOVED UNLESS THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION.

THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO FUND THESE AT A LEVEL OF $10,000.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SUPPORT THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE FUND THESE AT AT 20. IT'S SUCH A SMALL GESTURE. I JUST I CAN'T BELIEVE THERE'S NOT SUPPORT.

I. IT'S SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT THAT THAT OUR EMPLOYEES.

MIND YOU, SOME OF THEM LIVE HERE TOO AND PAY OUR TAXES TOO.

I JUST REALLY WOULD, YOU KNOW, WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO APPRECIATE OUR EMPLOYEES.

I APPRECIATE THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY. EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I APPRECIATE OUR EMPLOYEES. OUR RESIDENTS. APPRECIATE THEM EVERY DAY.

HOW I AM APPRECIATED AT WORK IS WHEN I AM GIVEN A PAYCHECK.

SO LET'S PLEASE STOP THE NONSENSE THAT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT FUNDING HALLOWEEN CANDY WITH TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WE DON'T APPRECIATE OUR EMPLOYEES,

[05:00:08]

WE CAN APPRECIATE OUR EMPLOYEES THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.

BUYING HALLOWEEN CANDY WITH TAXPAYER MONEY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ONE OF THEM.

APPRECIATING OUR EMPLOYEES AND NOT BUYING HALLOWEEN CANDY WITH TAXPAYER MONEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

I THINK I THINK AT THIS POINT THERE'S KIND OF A LACK OF CONSENSUS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT HALLOWEEN CANDY. IT'S EITHER LUNCH. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S NOT SOMETHING FRIVOLOUS AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE REVISITED AND DISCUSSED IN SEPTEMBER. BUT I THINK WITH A KIND OF A LACK OF CONSENSUS, WE WOULD JUST SHOW THIS ITEM KEPT ON THE LIST FOR NOW, AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT IN SEPTEMBER. SO. SO THE NEXT ONE IS ITEM 35, WHICH IS A COMMON COMMON THREADS.

AND THAT'S THE THE COOKING PROGRAM THROUGH PARKS.

LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. THE ELIMINATION OF THIS, IS THIS INCLUDED IN THE $11 MILLION? YES. YES. YES. SO THIS WOULD BE REDUCING YOUR YOUR LET'S CALL AT THIS POINT YOUR BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND FOR NEXT YEAR.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ELEMENT.

NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 55. I GOT TO TELL YOU I'D RATHER DISCUSS THIS IN SEPTEMBER.

I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION ON ANY OF THESE RIGHT NOW FOR COMMON THREADS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE AN IMPORTANT THING. I'D RATHER I'D RATHER DISCUSS IT IN SEPTEMBER BECAUSE, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT COMMON THREADS TO SAY TODAY, YOU KNOW, A PROGRAM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED YEARS AGO THAT RELATES, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR STUDENTS AND FEEDING PEOPLE AND FAMILIES AND ALL THAT.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION ON, ON THE FLY.

AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, STARTING WITH ITEM 29 THAT WE STARTED DISCUSSING IN 109 AND COMMON THREADS AND ALL THAT, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE MAKING A DECISION RIGHT NOW.

I THINK LET'S LET'S GIVE IT SOME TIME. WE'VE MADE, MR. CHAIR, YOU'VE BEEN GUIDING US, YOU GUIDING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

YOU HAVE GOTTEN US TO SUCH A GOOD PLACE OF FINDING MORE THAN WHAT WE NEEDED IN EFFICIENCIES.

WE ALL DID. WE ALL DID. AND BUT BUT BUT BUT YOU LEAD THIS PROCESS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK YOU FOR GETTING US TO, TO THIS POINT, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE BEING INCREDIBLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE TAXPAYERS DOLLARS AND GETTING THEM MORE EFFICIENCIES THAN WHAT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATION, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION HAD RECOMMENDED TO US.

SO, MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO PUBLICLY THANK YOU FOR GUIDING US THROUGH THIS EXERCISE TODAY.

THANK YOU ALL. AND THANK YOU TO OUR CITY STAFF, NOT JUST OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

I KNOW THIS IS AN ALL HANDS ON DECK EFFORT. THAT IS IT'S A TOUGH PROCESS, RIGHT? AND WHILE WE ULTIMATELY MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS AS EMPLOYEES, WE ARE ALL STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER MONEY, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S ROLE IN PART IN PLAYING THIS, ESPECIALLY OUR FINANCE TEAM PREPARING IT.

AND FOR ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES UP HERE. YEAH, I'LL REITERATE THAT THESE ARE ALWAYS TOUGH DECISIONS.

NONE OF THIS IS PERSONAL. IT'S ABOUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S SEVEN OF US FOR A REASON.

THERE'S NOT ONE OF US. THERE'S SEVEN OF US FOR A REASON BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE VARYING VIEWPOINTS THAT I THINK WE ALL HERE ACCEPT AND, AND DISCUSS. SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY FOR THIS PROCESS.

WELL PUT. AND EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ITEMS WE MAY HAVE HAD SOME POLICY I WON'T EVEN SAY DISAGREEMENTS, DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN TOTALITY, WE WERE UNANIMOUSLY ON CONSENT ON ALMOST EVERY ON MOST OF THE ITEMS. APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK. THIS TAKES A LOT OF WORK THAT IT'S SORT OF LIKE YOU WATCH LIKE THE WORLD CUP, YOU WATCH A WORLD CUP, BUT YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE IS, IS THE FOUR YEARS OF PRACTICE THAT THEY PUT IN TO GET INTO THAT GAME AND THAT'S, A CRUDE ANALOGY, BUT SOMEWHAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU SPEND HOURS AND HOURS ALONG WITH THE REST OF OUR CITY THAT GOES INTO MAKING OUR CITY LOOK CLEAN, BE SAFE, RUN FUNCTIONALLY. AND SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK.

AS I SEE SOME OF US PACKING UP, I THINK WE STILL DO NEED A VOTE TODAY.

RIGHT ON. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON OUR MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATE THAT WE'RE SETTING.

THAT'LL BE ON WEDNESDAY. BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, MAYOR, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, JUST WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

YOU'LL VOTE ON THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE. AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATION, AT LEAST FOR THIS TRIM NOTICE. AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE CHAIR FOR SEPTEMBER ON A CALCULATION FOR HIM TO KEEP THAT AS A FLAT. THESE ELEMENTS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'LL HAVE IT HIGHLIGHTED FOR SEPTEMBER.

AND I JUST WANTED TO REAL QUICK JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THE OMB TEAM, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT BUDGET TEAM THAT REALLY WORKED WITH ALL OF THE DIRECTORS, AND THEY'VE DONE AN AMAZING JOB. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CALCULATIONS RECALCULATIONS, AND THEY'VE REALLY DONE AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF WORK.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.