It's just. Good evening everyone. It is 5.02. Today is Tuesday, September 17th. And the city of Miami, city of South Miami. City commission is now in session. This represents our second budget hearing. Madam Clerk, if you could call the roll please. Yes, Mayor Fernandez. Present. Vice-semble Nish here. Commissioner Cory. Present. Commissioner Cuyen. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you, Madame Clerk, and thank you to Commissioner Cory for letting me use his microphone. If we could please stand for a brief moment of silence and I'd ask us all to keep in our thoughts and prayers. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank If you join us in the pledge, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated and we ask you again if you can please silence or turn off your cell phones. Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you read items one and two into the record please? ask you again if you can please silence or turn off your cell phones. Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you read items one and two into the record please? Yes. Item one in the ordinance of the City Commission of the City of South Hunters for the adopting and proposed millage rate for the fiscal year, committing October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025, which amount may be amended at the first or second reading and adopting a final millage rate or second reading and adopting a final military or second reading. I am to in the ordinance of the City Commission of the City of South-Hundredth Florida, adopting a tentative budget for the city for fiscal year commission October 1, 2024, and in these September 30, 2025, and which budget may be amended at the first or second reading of this ordinance, adopting a final budget on second reading and providing for the salaries and expenses of the city commission and offices as required by the city's charter. Thank you Madam Clerk. Mr. Manager, you recognize for presentation on the budget. Thank you Mayor. Commission Mayor as you mentioned today being the final budget hearing and the second hearing. We're gonna have a CFO River all provide you the changes from your first budget hearing. So he'll outline exactly those things that have changed since the first budget. And then we can certainly entertain any questions that you may have. So, just to River all good evening, how are you? Excellent, good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, good evening. How are you? Excellent. Good evening. Mayor. Vice Mayor, commissioners. You recognize, sir. I'm just going to present a couple slides just to give you, as the manager mentioned, a couple things that have changed or a few things that have changed from what was proposed in the first hearing on September 3rd to today. We increased the budget revenue line item for school zone speed enforcement revenue. We're in the testing right now and we're sending out warnings and in that period and just evaluating we haven't gone live. However, we see a number where we believe is comfortable as a revenue source for the speed, the speed enforcement cameras revenue. I believe in at 7 o'clock today you may have a presentation on it or a discussion on it. So 250 increase, public works engineering construction, we increased that division by 250,000 for a stormwater project that we're currently in design in case we have cost overrun, we have 250,000 allocated for that stormwater project. Genetorial services were in the process of developing an RFP, we are going out to bid for new genetorial services, we estimate it's going to be a much greater increase than the contract we currently have. So with that we increase just to make sure we have $130,000 allocated for next fiscal year to cover the genitorial services of not just city hall and police but every city facility that the city operates. Grant administrators, there's a $58,922 net increase in the budget, and that increase is attributed to a $30,000 reduction from contractual services for grant administration, and then the delta is the increase for a full-time grant administrator, which will focus on not just writing grants, but seeking grants and helping in the administration of those grants. Digitizing, we set aside and we've been doing it for years, $45,000 in the City Crooks budget for digitizing. We're this year increasing the building department specifically, $50,000 for digitizing of those plans. Digitizing of building plans, which is an awkward size, very large, costs a lot of money, but in an effort to finally make a dent in all the plans that are on the back of Silver Martin, which are stored there, we're going to have to be a little more aggressive with the building departments digitizing efforts. Parking enforcement reallocation and revenue effect, we've calculated, and I'm just going over the memo, just summarizing the memo that was provided as part of this hearing. We've focused on, we have four current parking enforcement officers. And what we're trying to do is be more efficient and look at how we can save money, which in there is $24,000 of savings from the last contract, where he's agreed or they have agreed, the company has agreed to reduce their fee so that we can reduce the hours of enforcement. Now how we allocate those, there's different schedules that we've been looking at. The best one is the one that was provided in the memo. Another alternative, which is equally as good, is reducing it on the days that were from 2am to 12 to midnight, and on the days that were at midnight to 10, which is a two hour reduction in both in those days, seven days a week, which puts us at around 1010 hours a week. We can still show those, that savings of $24,000. We can still cover the crucial portions of the city. And at those times where they are working to midnight, not enforcing tickets, we can actually focus on life safety issues like handicap, people illegally blocking the road, people blocking the sidewalk, fire hydrants, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, people, there may be a modification coming in the future when they determine what is the best process and for your decision ultimately. And the Girl Scout property, capital improvement description. Only change in description is, we named it now that $250,000 is Girl Scout invasive removal and landscaping and parking improvements. To see the overall changes, the next slide, it just provides you a summary of what I just spoke of a net change of 160 1200 722 and Based on what were requesting that the budget be amended from the first hearing the proposed hearing Increases the general fund from 26,920,484 to 27,331 206 to include the digitizing genderitorial services, things of that nature. And I just provide this newspaper that we're advertising, which provides all the expenditures for all of the funds. And with that, I'll summarize. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. OK. Colleagues, questions of Mr. Riverall? Yes, Commissioner Corrie, you are recognized. Quick question. I don't know I didn't catch this in the brief, but I was curious if there is a suggestion of reducing enforcement and it's reducing one individual. Why is that not a 25% decrease in expected citation revenue. Why is it less than 25%? So, Rev. All you recognize. So, currently we're anticipating, in last fiscal year, we received, or we obtained of actual revenues for citation of over $800,000. Yeah. This year we're forecasting 660, and the reason we forecast it $666, if we knew we were going to make some modifications to the enforcement operation. So if, just to, on that point, if I may, you're still expecting $90,000 of additional revenue. If you took, if you carried the baseline over year to year, it'd be 750. You're actually budgeting for $660, which is $150,000 less than actual receipts this year. Correct. That's the idea. We've already, our program has already, we've made modifications. Not to the enforcement hours per se, but the way we're enforcing. Your revenue expectations. Correct. So the 660, we expect to meet that revenue this year. We have exceeded it for this fiscal year, 24 to 750. We believe we're going to be at 750 one year end. Last year, we were at 800,000 and the reason we are not at 800,000 like we were last year is because we've already modified the program to a certain degree. So this is an additional modification which I believe will bring us more in line with the forecast of revenue of $660,000. That's just a point. Okay. Better advicemere you recognize Sorry if we had made a change that already took us from 813 to 750 why are we making an additional change that's taking us to 60 Next to what precipitated that Discussions You're mayor being annoying, honestly. So I mean, the reason, and I, first of all, just acknowledge I appreciate Mr. Riveralls' efforts to get to a 17% reduction. And I wanted you to share. I asked about further reductions, because I still think, even with this enforcement schedule, we are enforcing during windows where there is no demand for parking. As evidenced by the revenue that we've derived in the staff's not, the staff has provided us against the citation revenue, where the citation revenue exceeds actual revenues on the street. So I had asked about further reductions in staffing hours. And I think Mr. Riveraw is the often does come back with a very cogent and thoughtful explanation as to why this is the right balance. And I'd love if you could share that for the rest of the board, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Mayor, if I may just a clarification before I'm sorry. Just a nuance on the change. The change was the forecast? Not necessarily the budgeted. So we've had 660 FY23 and in FY24, as you expect it revenue forecasted, FY23 was 813 forecasted for this year, based on the changes is 750. But budgeted is 660 and that's remained constant. So I just want to make the distinction of the change. It was to the forecast not to budget it amount. Thank you, Senator. So we budgeted 660 every year and just kept blowing past it. We've exceeded the revenue that we forecasted as a result of enforcement was 660 and FY23 and FY24. In FY23, although we forecasted revenue 660, it ended up coming in around 813. Because of the modifications being made to enforcement, already the forecast of that 813 now for this fiscal year, force casting 750. We still budgeted 660 from a revenue standpoint. With the changes that are in the memo, what result in approximately a $90,000 further decrease of the forecasted amount kind of landing on the budget amount of $660 that we've had for a few years. So I just wanted to make that distinction. It's really changes the forecasting, not the budgeted amount. Gotcha. And reducing any other hours further would put us in a bind at parking enforcement officers. There's a training and a certification that's required. If we reduce the hours any less than this, I would start to have issues with turnover on parking enforcement officers. So that's why maintaining that 110, 109 as a minimum is critical for us from a staffing level. Even if they're not here enforcing expired meters, they can be here enforcing life safety issues. Like I mentioned, handicap, you know, things blocking lanes. We have residential issues where people are parking a residential. We can focus on efforts on that which provides us a great value. Things that we've been focusing on but we can now actually really focus on it. But reducing the hours any further than that would put us, definitely that division in issues with staffing. And for the benefit of the board, the focus on that work would be during the hours of 10 and 12 weekdays, including Sundays, and then from 12 to 2 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Because that's where we see to have an imbalance in our enforcement today. At least my conclusion, I think he's agreed, but to go further would make the retention of our offers, which we all know do a great job, challenging music and guarantee them a minimum amount of full time hours. So again, thank you for the explanation. I appreciate the conversation. I thought it was a good place to land. And hopefully this begins to kind of put, I think, our enforcement and better balance. Yes, you can, Ben Weissmire. So realistically, if we didn't change the hours at all, we would still be in budget, correct? If we just kind of switched around what we wanted them to do in those hours instead of bringing down their hours, we'd still fall in budget. Right. The only difference in bringing down their hours we still fall in budget. Right the only difference if in bringing down their hours we save as a city and expenses to last parking about $24,000. Below the 660. No so the below our current operating cost for staffing. Which is the enforcement. As partying's contract which expires in 2025. The important, Mr. Rav, I think to address the vice mayor's question with a number but also another way, just to clarify, are enforcement expenditures exceed our enforcement revenue are, but below our enforcement revenues by a factor of what? So there are revenues to expenses or what, I don't know, what the ratio would be. Two, three to one, four to one. I would say it's probably four to one. Okay, so roughly we're doing $660,000 or, well, $760 in revenue and we're spending, let's just say, $4 million to be conservative. So we're in balance. We could stand to lose enforcement revenue and not exceed our enforcement costs. But what we're talking about in terms of the budget amount and the estimated revenues is just a reduction revenues overall. I'm just wondering why if we're finding alternate ways to use them and we're seeing it as beneficial, why we're doing that if we're seeing that we're saving money regardless. You know what I mean? Like, why are we doing that? If the budget of $660 isn't changing and we're under it anyway. No, so the budget, there's the budget it expents, which is their enforcement and the revenue. And the revenue for the tickets. I totally understand the two things. What I'm trying to get at is, why? Mayor, I'm guessing the intention of this is that the fewer enforcement officers out there, the fewer citations are likely to be given, which would give relief to the business, right? That is part of the motivation. I also encourage people to come to the district when they're not coming, right? So right now, again, my theory about enforcement is that what you wanna do is you wanna preserve the availability of the inventory when there's high demand, right? So people are turning over, or they're paying for the cost of using that public good. During these hours that we're talking about modifying the enforcement slightly or further right where they won't be issuing citations they'll just be issuing warnings or they'll be acting as public public service aids in a way right those are hours where we have very low demand for parking, but we still see us issuing citations in excess of our parking revenues. So I totally understand Mr. Rivera-Roll's concern about officer retention because you want to keep the caliber of employing to make sure that they're earning what they expect and that they're happy. So they do a good job for us, which is why I'm happy with a 17% cut as opposed to just cutting enforcement for those additional hours and deploying them in a different and thoughtful and creative way to add some value to the district. So that was my goal in proposing the modifications. I'm just wondering if we have an alternate use for them. Would it be beneficial to keep that difference in an alternate use? I would prefer keeping them. I'm just wondering if I say, are we cutting off our... You're in a realized savings, so that's... But are we cutting off our noses despite our faces when it comes to an alternate use as a public service aid? If we've got it in the budget, is it worth, but it's... It's $25,000 when we're using them as a public service aid? That is at the end of the day. That is the question I'm asking. Yes, Mr. Manjaro. So we've had a, we'll call it, adjustment 1.0, right? Not necessarily by a formative design of reduction of ours, but by the virtue of them providing more warnings. So because of the forecasts of 813 and FY23, and these actions of sort of ramping down a little bit, you see a difference of 63,000 in the forecast at revenue. So now forecasting 750. With a program, if you will, of reducing hours, but keeping them doing other things, but reducing more enforcement hours, that would result in an additional estimated $90,000 in reduction to the citation revenue. Hitting the line that we budgeted the last two years of $660. So the citation revenue in essence will stay the same as the budget at a amount. So in a two year period you've reduced, let's say, from a forecast at 8.13 to 7.50. And now our forecast will be 6.60 if this is implemented as proposed. Right, and that it'll be right at the forecast at a amount. So I think she, I think she, my understanding for the vice-president's explanation she understands all that I think she has and highlights an excellent point Honestly, which is I would I would say should we recast the role of the people not just as enforcement officers But almost as good will ambassadors for the district right they will during those hours that really would I think she's asking me first We don't we don't have there's not a fiscal need to necessarily buy down those savings. So for those other hours. But it's 25,000. So she's saying, let's keep them on contract for the same amount of time at the same expense with the mandate to write less tickets or no tickets during that hour, right? No expired meter tickets. But what serve as ambassadors to help troubleshoot, maybe work with the least, to keep four eyes and ears on the street during those windows of time. You're saying keep the same staff hours. Is what you're saying? Yes, sir. Got it. Yes. Do you guys know this last, provide those type of services? Is that something that we can expand on? Oh, absolutely. Of course. Absolutely. Customer service is our first priority. priority well before expired me or so but is it want to be clear that that's not their core competency like we have a part time we modeled the town center ambassador part time individual after other programs that are goodwill ambassadors right so I don't know that that's your core competency necessarily but they can certainly do that by being available if we kind of reprogram what they do but I just want to be clear that to my knowledge last doesn't necessarily do that by being available if we kind of reprogram what they do. But I just want to be clear that to my knowledge last doesn't necessarily do that. There are other companies that do that. Corgables has a company that does that, the downtown authority has them, and they are ambassadors or cleaning. But we would be repurposing last employees in that fashion, but I just want to be clear that I don't know that that's their core competence in the industry. That's fair. It would be able to help and provide support at the parking garage a lot of individuals don't like because it's dark or that would be able to be more visible at the parking garage as providing not only in battered or helping individuals in the parking, but helping also feel secure. So, it's not anything that they couldn't be able to do. You need some special training, whatever. It's a matter of a structuring a program and saying this would be the expectation during these hours. As you mentioned, if the hours don't change during these hours, you would turn to this type of sort of proactive help, visibility. Can it help you or you lost? That type of which is what the town center and center ambassador is supposed to fill that gap a little bit So it would enhance that Thank you for your guy wanted to follow up your guy your recognizer. No, I think what I wanted to do is follow over the vice mayor's Right now we're not We do make these cuts To last we're not necessarily cutting that serviceable Time period we're still having that available We're not necessarily cutting that serviceable time period. We're still having that available. So no, so I want to be clear there is a proposed reduction in their service contract of about $25,000, right? There was another window of time that the CFO and I discussed where again, I thought there was an imbalance in enforcement and revenues, which is beyond 10 o'clock during the week and on Sundays and beyond 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. That if we adopted that, that would be another $25,000 of savings. Because of the staffing issues, we agreed the better course would be to deploy them to serve you know these other alternative functions so we could retain them, retain our quality staff and not lose, or have to go through the hassle of hiring and rehiring and getting people recertified. But I think you know there is the possibility of doing one of buyback that $25,000 not an enforcement time but to provide some sort of other direct assistance to visitors to the district as ambassadors or troubleshooters homeless workers public safety aids in the district. I think it's an excellent point by the vice mayor and I think you know there I I could see a lot of value in that and I again I don't think I'm not doing this for the operational savings I'm doing it just to kind of make sure that we're helping the district succeed and thrive. So anyhow, thoughts on whether we, one thing we can do is just buy that money back into the contract and leave it, leave the scope open and leave it to our staff to have a conversation with last. As to how they can spend that extra $50,000, not in direct enforcement. Well, it's 25 extra 25 correct 25 in save. Sorry. Thank you for the correction in savings For some sort of expanded scope to the work assuming it meets their competency and assuming we're not violating The scope of our negotiated contract or whatever other procurement rules we have so So is there is there a direction that reincorporate the $25,000 in savings? It gives staff that direction. How that conversation see if it works. If it doesn't work, if it doesn't work based on the comment that you made of the downtown ambassador, if that timing doesn't work for whatever reason, then maybe we want to maybe want to take that $25,000 in savings and repurpose it. I'll spend the budget for the same focus. Okay, so let's put a pin in that as an item to follow up once we hear from the public. Any further questions, Mr. Rivearl? I do have one. And I give it to you in advance, so I hope you pass the test. So can you explain the reference to the dynamic scoring on page two of your change battle. So for the benefit of the board, you may not read this. It was a very sophisticated explanation here. Finance estimates a loss of approximately $90,000 of parking enforcement revenue annually using dynamic scoring with parking enforcement staff in reduction of these hours. So I don't know what dynamic scoring is. I'd love to hear an explanation of it. Thank you. We Google it a second. I think I think I think it could be an AI assistant answer. It makes Mr. Rive Rolf the work of the work. Thank you. You really want another thing to do? I want work of the law. Thank you. You really want to know that? I want to know. Yeah, I really want to know. So requiring minds want to know. When we're doing cost analysis, forecasting on economic, what a policy, what the cost of a true policy is, there's the dynamic aesthetic. Static is just mathematically what you lose. So if you were to cut parking from 10 to 12, you would say, okay, for expired meters, that is the loss is exactly what you, your revenue is for that period. But there is a dynamic, dynamic means behavior. There is a behavior component to it, and that's when we use dynamic. Dynamic is more accurate because it takes behavior into account. In other words, we wouldn't be not writing just any takes, but we would be doing other stuff that would generate some Sultation revenue. That's dynamic. Wow. Any questions about that? I'm exploring. I didn't get it. I mean you said thank you. It's a very dynamic presentation. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Riverall. Okay. Having heard says presentation will open up this item Item one on the millage for public hearing. Is there any member of the public would like to address his commission with respect to item one, which is the adoption of a final millage rate of 3.95? Mr. Mrs. Attorney, are there any statutory disclosures that have to be run to the record before we either hear from the public or take final action on this item Yes, hi good evening mayor vice mayor commission We're just going to announce publicly that the city of South Miami tonight is here by adopting the final Millage rate which is 3.9500, levied upon real property within the town. And the final millage rate exceeds the rollback rate by 3.6351, which is 8.66% increase, which is statutorily characterized as a property tax increase. Mr. Attorney, do we have the requisite number of board members here to vote? Yes, we have four votes. Four votes. Thank you for that. So with that explanation, is there any member of the public would like to come forward and address us with respect to item one, which is the setting of the millage? Seeing no one in the chamber, Madam Clerk, is there anyone online? No one's online. Okay. Seeing no one in the chamber or no one online, we will close the public hearing. Is there a motion on item one colleagues, or is there any discussion regarding the budget? Yes, Madam Vice-Mirror? I know that we mentioned this before, but I just wanted to go on record that though that conversation, that whole statement that was just read, states an increase are milledrate here in the city is static so the increase does not come from us. Thank you Madam Vice Chair for the explanation again. I'll love to entertain a motion to adopt with the modification with respect to the parking enforcement item. I'll move the motion. Okay. Second. The motion by Commissioner Caillet. A second by Commissioner Cory. Mayor, if I may. You're going to take the vote on the millage first. Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. So there's a vote on the millage without modification. Thank you. I'll move the motion on the millage. Great. It's actually going to get. So the motion by Commissioner Coye again, and a second by Commissioner Cory. Yes, Vice-Nembered Neige. Yes, Mayor Fernandez. Yes, item passes for zero. Thank you We need a public hearing on item two Is there any member of the public who would like to address this commission item two which is the adoption of the FY 25 budget Please come forward at this time Seeing no one in the chamber is there anyone online Madam Clerk? There's no one online. No therefore closed the public hearing is there any discussion on the budget before we have a motion? Madam Vice-Pierre you're recognized. I just want one thing to go on the record regarding the Girl Scout property that we have I've had the discussion with the city manager. I just want noted that I appreciate very much that the change was made and that when we are going to be releasing funds, it will be based on agreements with the Girl Scouts on how the land will be used going forward. Thank you for the clarification. Further comments or statements? Seeing none, is there a motion to adopt item 2 with modification that we reserve or reincorporate the $25,000 on parking enforcement for Ancillary Services, I'm going to call it. I moved the item. That would be as proposed for second reading. As with that one more. As proposed with the modification that's correct. So the motion by Commissioner Cory is there a second? Yeah. The last second. I'll second it. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Cory is second by the vice mayor. Pardon me, Mr. Mayor. I'll for you to do you have the number? It is, I think I can read the number in the presentation here, which is a savings of $25,116. Is the reduction? I didn't. But if you turn to, I think it's page three of your memo. Okay. And it'll say proposed first has to be modified. The general fund number has to be modified. Do you see it in a second? Yes. So we've got to add $25,116 to The 25 is already incorporated in okay, so it would be as adopted on first reading, which is 26,900 and no, that's not correct Because we added positions into that budget. So we need to reduce the general fund number by 25116. So what's being adopted today is 27,331,000. We've had $25,160. No, not needed. It's already built in. The last contract is not reduced in this agreement. In this appropriation, we never reduced it from the actual appropriated amount. Okay, so it's reflected in the general fund number as proposed for second hearing. Okay, so we can adopt the item two without modification. The only modification is from the first hearing what you have in front of you. The ordinance has 26,920,484. What's going to be adopted tonight, assuming you approve all of the changes that we recommended, 27,331,206 from General Fund for a total of 44. 9.09, 978. That's what we should be adopted today. But I want to be clear, so everyone understands we do not have to reincorporate the $25,116 of proposed enforcement savings to the general fund number. Correct. Correct. So can we have a motion to approve item two as presented without modification? We're good. We're good. Who moved it again? I did. Commissioner Cory, a second by the vice mayor. Madam Clerk, if you can call the role please. Yes. Commissioner Coyote. Yes. Commissioner Cory. Yes. Commissioner Coring. Yes. Yes. Vice-Able Neat. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. I'm on passments for zero. Thank you, everyone. With that, we say adjourned. Mayor, if I may, I'm sorry, I just want to want to thank obviously this commission for your input throughout this budget process and certainly staff, finance and all the department heads, you know, takes many months to get to this point and the budget is addressing a lot of needs, a lot of investments and still holding the rate of military as the vice mayor said. So I want to thank all of you and certainly attorneys and getting us to what we need to legally. So I appreciate all your... And I wanted to say echo your things and I think the short nature of today's conversation is really positive reflection on staff and your response to all of our concerns and comments. Certainly I had a few and certainly the one with the public with the idea that we didn't have plenty of questions of staff after first reading but thank you all for your work. Thank you.