Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the City Commission budget meeting this 14th day of September. I know, it's a Monday. I know, it's been a long day. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate it. And if you recall, tomorrow will be our regular commission meeting, which will begin at 1 o'clock. And we have a number of items to discuss. We have 10 budget items. So, Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll? Commissioner Herbst? Present. Commissioner Glossman? Here. Commissioner Beza-Pittman? Here. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Here. Mayor Chantos? Here. So, are there any preliminary remarks you'd like to make, City Manager? No, sir. Okay. So, we'll begin tonight's meeting with addressing each of the budget items. We'll begin with budget number one, which is the Central Region Wastewater Large User Rate. Would someone please introduce a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2027 Central Wastewater Region Large User Rate? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Anyone have any questions? No one who signed up to speak. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving setting a rate per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated for the Fiscal Year 2027 for all large user wastewater customers of the Central Wastewater Region and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Chantos? Yes. And that item is approved. Moving on to budget two. This is a capital improvement plan. Will someone please introduce a resolution adopting the final five-year capital improvement plan for the period beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2031? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. No one has signed up to speak. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving and adopting a final five-year capital improvement plan for the period beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2031. Appropriating the portion of the capital improvement plan for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027. Reappropriating the unspent capital improvement plan project balances at the end of fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 and ending September 30, 2026 for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027 and providing for severability and effective date. Commissioner Herbst? No. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Chantos? Yes, and that item is now approved. Working on Budget 3. So this is the public hearing on the Stormwater Management Program assessment. The purpose of the hearing is to receive questions and comments regarding the City Stormwater Management Program non-advalorem assessment for the fiscal year 2027. The public hearing is now open. The Acting City Manager will now present the Stormwater Management Program assessment report. Mr. City Manager. The Stormwater Management Program assessment funds the planning, construction, operation, maintenance, and administration of the stormwater management system. The Stormwater Management Program assessment rate will be equal to the estimated costs paid by the City to operate the Stormwater Management Program within the assessment area for fiscal year 2027. The fiscal year 2027 Stormwater Management Program assessment is estimated to generate $47,864,266 in revenue. This concludes my report. Okay. Thank you. All right. So this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask any questions about the Stormwater Management Program assessment. No one has signed up to speak. Did you sign up? I need you. What's that in your hand? Okay. Come on up. This is on Budget 3, right? And just state your name. Can you push the button at the bottom of the speaker? Great. State your name. Good evening. Aaron Gonzalez, Imperial Point, District 1. I missed the first and second because you guys speed through these hearings tonight. I came on time at 501, and I'm required to sign up a paper for every single one. Just talk. I mean, we're here to do that. I support fixing drainage and flooding problems, but this proposal tonight is a 20% increase in one single year. The city's budget shows the single-family assessment is increasing from $318 to $382 annually, along with increase in the trip component. My question is not whether stormwater improvements are necessary. They are. But why is the 20% increase applied all at once in one year? What additional projects and measurable service delivery will the residents receive? We have already discussed substantial wastewater items, which I've missed with the rate increase tonight, and now we are considering another 20%. I'd like you to evaluate the cumulative impact on residents, not simply each one individually. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You want to finish filling out that card so we have a record that you had spoken today? Great. Thank you. Mayor, is it okay if we ask the city manager just to address that? I was going to ask staff. Okay. Thanks. Because he would just say Laura. Okay. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner. Laura Reese, Director of Office of Management and Budget. The rate increase that we shared with you when we presented the long-range plan in June contemplated the 20%. It's really to support debt service on the second tranche of the projects that are planned. This is to help pay for the infrastructure for the, is it eight more neighborhoods? No, she said the second tranche. So it's an additional, I believe, seven more after the first eight, correct? Brad's coming up to speak more about the projects that are planned, and we do have them in the capital improvement plan, but the rate is necessary to fund the debt. Right. Come on up. Good evening, Brad Cain, Public Works Director. As Laura was saying, this is the continuation of Fortify Phase 2, and it's going to go fund all of those additional projects. I believe it's 12 additional neighborhoods that are included in that, and that is what all the bond money is going to go cover with the debt. So, and so every year, there's a, I think the, I think you had presented a report a number of meetings ago in which the increases were staggered over time. So this year it happens to be 20%, but it goes down in the future. Over time, it eventually goes down. Correct. But all of it is to pay for the infrastructure. Correct. Which is now being, which is now materializing in many of the neighborhoods throughout the city. Yes. Currently, we're finishing up three projects at the end of, in Phase 1. Two are underway. One is actually going to start very soon, once we bring an item for Riverland-Melrose Manor. And we are also then in the process of starting design for the first three in Phase 2 for Fortify. Okay, great. Yvette, did you want to add to that? I just wanted to add that we had planned tranches, again, in 29, 32, and 30, 35, each for $350 million, which is going to complete the Fortify Lauderdale initiative. Great. Thank you so much. Does that answer your question? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Okay. There being none, do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Second. We move and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trentals. Yes. And public hearing is now closed on this item. So the final stormwater management program assessment rate will be equal to the estimated cost paid by the city to operate the stormwater management program with the assessment area as provided in the resolution approving the stormwater management program assessment. Someone please introduce the resolution adopting the stormwater management program assessment role for fiscal year 2027. Introduced. The item has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution and city commission in the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida relating to the provision of the stormwater management program assessment in the city of Fort Lauderdale, imposing stormwater management program assessments against assessed property located in the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the assessment role, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trentals. Yes. And that item is now approved. Budget four. This is the public hearing for the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District non-advalorum assessment and budget. The purpose of this hearing is to receive questions and comments regarding the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District non-advalorum assessment and the budget for fiscal year 2027. The public hearing is now open. The acting city manager will now present the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District non-advalorum assessment and budget. Mr. City Manager. The Lauderdale Isles Water Management District assesses the residents of this special district to protect water quality of the waterways in Lauderdale Isles. At the district's June 15, 2026 meeting, the board voted to continue levying an assessment of $15 per parcel for fiscal year 2027, which will generate $8,265. The total budget for the district was adopted by the board at $127,480. This concludes my report. Thank you. This is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask any questions about the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District non-advalorum assessment and budget. No one has signed up to speak. Does anyone wish to speak on this item? There being none. No further comment. Would someone please move to close public hearing? Moved. Second. They're moved and seconded. Please call the roll to close public hearing. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mary Trentals. Yes. And public hearing is now closed. So, the final Lauderdale Isles Water Management non-advalorum assessment for fiscal year 2027 will be $15 per parcel for properties within the district. So, I will please introduce the resolution approving the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District non-advalorum assessment and the budget for fiscal year 2027. Mayor, introduced and with appreciation for everyone who serves on the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District and the success they feel like we're having and improving our waterways all over, but especially there. They're really seeing marked improvements. So, thank you all for the support. Absolutely. So, the resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, levying a non-advalorum special assessment for fiscal year 2027 on behalf of the Lauderdale Isles Water Management District and approving the budget for the district. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mary Trentals. Yes. And that item is now approved. Budget 5. This is the public hearing on the utility undergrounding non-advalorum assessment. The purpose of this hearing is to receive questions and comments regarding the City's utility undergrounding assessment for fiscal year 2027. The public hearing is now open. The acting City Manager will now present the utility undergrounding non-advalorum assessment report. Mr. City Manager. The fiscal year 2027 utility undergrounding assessment rate will be equal to the actual debt service for the undergrounding of overhead utilities project within the assessment area. The assessment amount is $1,720.04 per equivalent benefit unit. The fiscal year 2027 utility undergrounding assessment is estimated to generate $501,650 in revenue. This concludes my report. Thank you. So this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask questions about the utility undergrounding assessment. No one is signing to speak. Anyone interested to speak on this? There is nobody. So someone please move to close public hearing. Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trentals. Yes. And public hearing is now closed on Budget 5. So the final utility undergrounding assessment rate for fiscal year 2027 will be $1,720.04 per equivalent benefit unit. Can someone please introduce the resolution approving the utility undergrounding assessment rate for fiscal year 2027? Introduced. And I will also say that it has made quite a difference on those seven streets. This is Los Isles. Yes. This is Los Isles section. The neighborhood looks really very different and very improved. So I want to thank Steph. I know that was a long, arduous process. And thank you for everyone that was involved in that. But it really has made a huge difference in that neighborhood in terms of all those utility lines buried, the landscaping, the roadways. It looks really nice. Thank you. Okay. Great. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution city commissioner of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, relating to the provision of the underground utility line facilities in the Los Isles neighborhood, imposing underground utility line assessments against assessed properties located in the Los Isles neighborhood in the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the assessment roll, providing for severability, conflicts, and an effective date. Commissioner Herbst. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trantals. Yes. And that item is now approved. Budget 6. This is the public hearing on the Beach Business Improvement District non-advalorum assessment. Purpose of the hearing is to receive questions and comments regarding the city's Beach Business Improvement District assessment for fiscal year 2027. Public hearing is now open. The acting city manager will now present the Beach Business Improvement District non-advalorum assessment. Mr. City Manager. The Beach Business Improvement District imposes an assessment on certain portions of Beach property to establish funding to support services, facilities, and programs providing a special benefit to business properties in areas within the Beach business boundaries. The fiscal year 2027 Beach Business Improvement District assessment rate is recommended at 0.8525 per $1,000 of assessed property value to generate approximately $1,360,972 in revenue. This concludes my report. Thank you. So this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask any questions about the Beach Business Improvement Special District, excuse me, Beach Business Improvement District Special Assessment. No one has signed up to speak. I don't wish to speak on this item. There would be no one. There would be no further comment. Someone please move to close public hearing. Move. Second. Move and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herb. Yes. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trantals. Yes. So the final Beach Business Improvement District assessment rate will be 0.8525 per $1,000 of assessed value for each business firm used for commercial purposes as provided in the resolution approving the Beach Business Improvement District assessment. Will someone please introduce the resolution approving the Beach Business Improvement District annual rate resolution for fiscal year 2027? Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution to the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida relating to the provision of Beach Business Improvement Services in a portion of the city reimposing Beach Business Improvement Assessments against assessed property located within the assessment area for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, establishing the rate of assessment, approving the assessment role, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, and providing an effective date. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trantals. Yes. And that item is now approved. Budget four. This is the public hearing for the fire assessment. The purpose of the hearing is to receive questions and comments regarding the city's fire assessment for fiscal year 2027. The public hearing is now open. The acting city manager will now present the fire assessment report. This is the city manager. The fire assessment program provides funding for fire suppression services, facilities, and programs that will benefit the city in its entirety, such as fire facility improvements, equipment, and cost of operations to fund the city's fire services and facilities. The residential assessment rate is recommended at $444 per year. Non-residential properties are assessed based on building classification and square foot ranges. For fiscal year 2027, the proposed assessment is estimated to generate $70,032,894 in revenue to the general fund. This concludes my report. Thank you. So this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask questions about the fire assessment. Did you give me which numbers? Yep. So, Mr. Gonzalez? Yeah. Is there a Mr. Gonzalez here? Oh. You sign up to speak on this item as well, correct? This is the fire assessment. Correct. Could you push the... Oh, it's already pushed. Okay. Very good. It's already pushed. Yeah. Very good evening. Aaron Gonzalez. Carol Point, District 1. I'd like to start off by saying I strongly support fire rescue and adequate funding for public safety, but we are now considering another increase on top of another increase discussed earlier. The residential fire assessment rises from $403 to $444 per dwelling, another $41 per year. The city's budget estimates this will generate approximately $70 million for the general fund. Residents do not experience these decisions in separate government budget categories. We have one household budget. Wastewater cost increases, stormwater increases 20%, fire increases. And later tonight, the commission will consider an operating millage increase above rollback. Supporting the firefighters and demand fiscal discipline are not contradictory. Before increasing another assessment, residents deserve to know what efficiencies, offsets, spending reductions were considered first. Please consider the total financial burden being approved tonight, not merely a $41 increase. Thank you. May I also ask either the chief or Laura or someone to explain the justification for the increase and also to talk about efficiencies overall, because we just heard about looking at everything in totality. So if there's a way that we can explain and talk about the $12 million we did find inefficiencies this year, just to make sure that our budget was as lean as possible, that would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Glassman. I'm Laura Reese, Director of Office of Management and Budget. In terms of the fire budget, over the past years, the commission has supported additional facilities throughout the community to enhance response times. A large part of the assessment is the increases in wages and benefits, but also an increase in facilities. Oops, sorry. One of the new facilities that's being added in the upcoming year is at Holiday Park, and there are two other projects that are in progress. So we recover those costs over time, as well as increases in vehicle expenses. As we presented in the month of June, the city did go through a budget reduction exercise, and we identified approximately, I believe, $12 million? $12 million. $12 million in reductions and ways to reduce the budget. And so we think we're well-positioned for the next year to continue at the current millage rate. So for those that might have questions, and I certainly appreciate Mr. Gonzalez coming here with these questions, they're valid questions. I just want to make sure that when we go through the exercise of looking at the budget, we do start almost a year in advance of this. And all of those joint meetings with the Budget Advisory Board, all of the discussions that you have with staff, is it true that we do look at the total picture as opposed to, and I know what Mr. Gonzalez is saying, that it's an increase here, it's an increase there. Fire assessment's $41 over last year. But do we not, or maybe we don't, look at the total picture, look at things holistically so that we understand exactly what kind of pressures we might be exerting on the residents in terms of the overall budget and the overall taxing? Yeah, Commissioner Glassman, we absolutely look at the overall picture with both the Budget Advisory Board when they make a recommendation on the budget and with the commission. If I could pull the tentative presentation, I believe it was $15 per month per resident was the full impact that we presented. I'll have to, you know, resort to my notes. Is that what it was? So we looked at overall with all of the assessments and rates that are being approved for somebody in, for somebody who has a $640,000, which is the average single family value in the city. It was $180 a year or $15 per month is what the impact would be for the upcoming year. Over last year? Over last year. $15 a month? Yes. And that includes everything that we're dealing with in terms of the growth in our city and population and services required because of that growth in population, $15 a month? Correct. And that includes the military, voter-approved debt, stormwater assessment, and fire assessment. And then something that I find myself explaining to a lot of people when they think of their taxing situation every year, and again, I know the answers to this, but maybe if you could just explain to folks, when they get their tax bill, how many taxing agencies, like eight, ten? It depends on what part of the city you live in. Yes, throughout the county. Yeah, right. Right. But we're one portion of the bill, I believe, is what you're indicating. But I mean, we're one portion. When people get their trim notice, we're one portion of how many taxing agencies? Eight or ten? I'll have to look at the bill, but there's Broward County, there's a school board, there's hospital districts and others. And actually, out of the eight or ten taxing agencies, I'll let you get that answer. So, on the Neighbor's Guide to the Budget, we lumped some of them together, which is the water and other special districts, but the school board is 35%. Broward County is 31%. City of Fort Lauderdale, 24%. Public hospitals, seven. Children's Service Council, two. And then everything else lumped up to B1. Right. So, the number one is the school board, correct? And they've been exempt from the ballot proposal in terms of Amendment 3, even though they are the largest chunk of tax that folks will see on their bill, correct? That's my understanding. And then second is Broward County. Yes. And then third is the City of Fort Lauderdale, and roughly we are 24%, you said, of the overall tax bill. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Laura, while you're up there, so I'd like to kind of address that, too. So, the question was asked, what have we done in terms of achieving efficiencies? So, I know we've carved $12 million out of the budget. A big chunk of that was financial engineering. So, we rejigged our pension plan, and we did some other stuff. So, more power to you for doing that. How much of that $12 million savings, to answer the gentleman's question, was achieved through efficiencies and operations, as opposed to just financial budget maneuvers? So, Commissioner Herbst, $3.2 million was revenue enhancements, really, to go in closer to you. So, non-efficiency. Non-efficiency. We reduced vacant positions. Non-efficiency. Six vacant positions. Keep going. Those are empty positions, non-efficiency. Positions that... I'm going to beat you up here, so go ahead. All right. And I love you, but I'm going to do it. But we see that as, like... No, it's not. Fewer resources than... Respectfully, it's not. You carry vacant positions for years on end, and then we cut them, we redline them. Non-efficiency. Go ahead. Payroll, tritian. Non-efficiency. People leave. Non-efficiency. Keep going. So, a lot of the items, reduction in fire rescue overtime, would be in efficiency. We decided to have less for grant writing services and to do that in-house instead. Okay. That's a good one. I like that. Then budgeting, as you mentioned, budgeting for interest and shifting some of the items. Oh, and then the chief's pointing out that we apply for grants. Not efficiencies. That we have efficiencies. Okay. So, we didn't achieve a significant amount in efficiencies. I love that we're applying for grants. I love that we're finally budgeting for interest income because... And by the way, this is not a good thing that interest rates are going up. So, that affects us all in a very bad way. I love that we're doing financial engineering. I love that we're redlining vacant positions that we've kept in the budget for years. All good things. So, I call that truth in budgeting. None of that's efficiency. So, to your question, sir, we've done virtually nothing to achieve efficiencies in our budget. Well, if I might ask the question, what efficiencies should we be looking at? Or what are the ways... I always like to have solutions, not just point out issues. But what would be the solutions for us to cut in terms of fire or any other place in the budget? What should we be looking at that we have not looked at? Well, to your point, Commissioner, that's what they should have been doing for the last year. You said we've had all these meetings of the Budget Advisory Board. I know that Mr. Kale has spoken up about all kinds of ways that we could achieve more efficiencies. And I don't think that those got sufficient evaluation. So, I'm not going to do that tonight on the day. So, I'm simply agreeing with the gentleman that, you know, efficiencies have not been addressed. What we have done, and I, again, commend the budget staff for doing this, is find ways to balance our budget. But to suggest that we've done this by achieving operating efficiencies is false. Well, again, I would assume that that was the exercise that the Budget Advisory Board went through after a whole year of meeting with every department chair and every department head and every person in the city that had something to do with the budget. Correct me if I'm wrong. But what they proposed to us, and I know that you mentioned one of the Budget Advisory Board members, but that was in a – he's way in the minority on that Budget Advisory Board in terms of his approach and in terms of his suggestions and in terms of his looking at the budget. So, that was not the consensus of the Budget Advisory Board, and we did have all those meetings. So, I'm saying this is a little late to maybe be talking about it. Maybe we should have talked about it earlier. But, again, I always would ask for people to show me where are these efficiencies that you're talking about? Where are these areas that we should be cutting? Where – what are you talking about? It's one thing to just talk in generalities, but I would really like to just see specifics, so thank you. Well, as you say, a little late in the game for that. Correct. Okay. Let's move forward. So, we've closed public hearing. We have not. Someone please move to close public hearing. Moved. Do I hear second? Second. Moved and seconded. Please call the roll on closing public hearing. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes, although we did have heard from the fire chief, I think it's very important, especially in terms of talking about public safety. Why don't we close public hearing, and then we can ask him that question. Let's do. He's not a member of the public. That's right. So, please vote on closing public hearing. I will. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trent Tulles. Yes. So, public hearing is now closed. Now, do you have a question? I do. I'd like to hear from the fire chief, because this is very important, and I want to make sure that anyone's questions are answered. I also want to make sure that people feel confident and understand why the fire assessment fee is increasing $41 a year over last year. And where has perhaps... I think Laura has explained that. Well, I want to hear from the chief, if you don't mind. That's okay. I just want to hear from the chief, because he deals with the nitty-gritty maybe more than Laura on a daily basis. And I'd like to know, because we are building more facilities, that doesn't come free. And I just want people to feel that these efficiencies have been looked at, and that what is the reason for the increase in the fee? So, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. When we look at the fire assessment fee per Florida State statute, it is only able to be utilized to recover the cost of the fire side of what we do. The rescue side, as far as the ambulance side, is not cost-recoverable underneath the fire assessment fee. So, if you look over the previous years, you'll see that every single year, that number goes up and down. And it's directly associated with the costs that are associated with the fire rescue side during that time. What you'll see is during certain years, it may go up based upon a new station coming online, new equipment coming online, things of that nature. And then the next year, it may be pulled back a little bit because those same expenses aren't there. If you look at the municipalities across all of Broward County, so 31 municipalities, and 18 of them having their own fire departments, we are actually directly in the middle of that. If you look at what is proposed this year, some cities like Southwest Ranches are at $166 per household. Weston is $839 per household. Lauder Hill is $685. So, you know, when I see these other numbers, it shows the efficiency. I'd also like to point out that we strive very, very hard to make sure that our overtime is curved and that we're continuously watching it with over a half a million dollar savings this year in overtime. Through the fire assessment is also through our recovery on fire prevention, through our building inspections, and also our transport fees. We're able to contribute 73% of the cost of our annual cost of fire rescue. That's a tremendous amount. We're still not completely, totally funded. There's another portion of that that is still in the millage and having to be made up by the general fund. Thank you for that. I will tell you one question that I do get a lot. My district, I represent many condominium associations in District 2, and each one of those units gets that exact assessment that a single-family home is assessed, correct? Correct. So you might have 150, 200 apartments in a building footprint that really might not even be that much larger of a footprint than a single-family home. But yet, when you do the math and you multiply 150 times, well, now $441, that's a lot of money coming out of one building. Any thought, or is that typical in terms of how those are assessed? Are there other municipalities or other agencies where you would find that a building would not be assessed per unit to come up with an unbelievable number of what you're paying when probably the visits to a building are not that much in terms of how many visits a year you might make to a single-family home? But do you know what I'm getting at? No. No. Sorry. It's per residential unit. There's a different fee associated with commercial structures, but if it's considered a residential unit, what we're able to charge is based upon Florida statute. That's not what we're governing. Okay. I guess what I'm just trying to say is that many people always wonder why, in a building, why each individual unit owner is assessed the same rate as a single-family home. I guess because of the fact that, again, you look at the footprint of the building, you look at the footprint of a single-family home, the money that's coming out of, let's say, one condominium with, let's just say, 100 units, 200 units. You multiply that 200 times, 441, it's a very high number that's coming out of one place. I'm not sure. I know. But I'm just making that point. I get to ask that question a lot. So if you carry that logic forward, you're suggesting that we should just assess a building the same amount that a single-family home would be. No. That would mean, okay, well, I don't know where the logic is going because otherwise you'd just be covering the lobby of the building and you've got 40 floors above it. That each unit is equally at risk of catching fire and, therefore, in order to be able to respond to any particular unit, you have to have the equipment and the manpower and all the response programs in place to be able to address it. So the fact that they're in one building versus spread out over 50 houses, I don't see – I'm not understanding the logic. I understand. I'm not saying that it would be the same assessment. Like, I wouldn't say one building, $441, but I'm saying that there must be some sort of middle ground between $441 versus a half a million dollars. That's all. I'm just saying – I was just wondering if other places have different rates for, you know, apartments versus single-family homes. That's all. It would also be important to point out the fact that the buildings, based on the height of the buildings, change the cost for us to provide services. So based upon a high-rise building, it costs us a tremendous amount more to be able to provide fire protection for that building. The fire trucks are built differently. They have different size pumps in them in order to be able to get that water pressure all the way up to the top, as well as all of the gear and train that we have is completely different. Per NFPA standards, our effective response profile to a high-rise building requires more firefighters. We're also seeing, as you're putting more buildings up and the streets are becoming denser, it's creating challenges for our response times. So as those challenges are put in place, we have to put more fire stations in order to meet that NFPA standards. And it honestly begins to switch from what historically in Fort Lauderdale has been a horizontal response to a vertical response. So no longer are we worried just about the time it takes to get from door to door. We all now also now have to take into consideration from the time we arrive at the door, securing the elevators, and getting all the way up to the fire floor to provide, or the EMS floor to provide those same services. So historically, where a fire department, Fort Lauderdale Fire Rescue, has been to that six, seven-minute contact to the person calling 911, the high-rises create a significant challenge and burden requiring us to put more staffing, more expensive trucks, and more fire stations. Thank you for that information. I appreciate that. It'll be helpful for me when I get asked that question to explain that. So then just the last question. So is it true that every year, or not true, that you actually do an exercise whereby you are looking for efficiencies before that fire assessment fee is concluded? A hundred percent. Every single year, we're going through our budget, seeing where we can and can't move forward, what can be put off for later times. At times, looking at the age of equipment, if the equipment needs to be replaced this year, or it can be pushed into the next budget year, and trying to make it as balanced as we possibly can. And has new equipment been purchased this year, or anticipated in the next fiscal budget, which we're working on right now? It has. But it's also important to point out that just in the last couple of years, the cost of fire trucks has gone up. We were paying around $500,000 for a fire truck just four years ago, and now we're paying for that same piece of equipment $1.2 million. The same with our ladder trucks that used to be right around $1 million. Now we're at $2.4 million for those trucks. The other challenge that we're having is those trucks used to be able to be acquired within about 12 to 16 months, and now we're looking at almost three years before we take delivery of those trucks. That's providing more maintenance costs on the road, because we're keeping trucks on the road a lot longer than we normally would have. So not only are we having to pay higher costs for the new truck that's taking several years to get here, but we're also having to pay for the truck that we're keeping on the road a lot longer than we normally would have. Thank you. And do you attribute some of this also to the fact that the city is growing in population, and therefore there are more demands in our services, especially when it comes to public safety? A hundred percent. So this year alone, what you're seeing the increase is to help cover a new fire station that would be protecting the Flagler Village area. That station will be built in the next years, but the funding needed to be there to move forward. Excellent. Thank you for the answers. I appreciate it. Chief, thank you. Calls for service. Can you give us a sense of the delta of calls for service last year versus this year? So we've seen over the last, I don't have the exact numbers for just in the last year, but we've seen almost a 20% increase in call volume over the last four and a half years or so. So pushing over 56,000 calls for service per year. And is that one of the, in terms of call volumes for cities, how does that correspond to other municipalities? So what we do is we look at the call volume per number of firefighters and to try and have workload balance. You know, unlike most businesses out there, fire rescue is kind of unique. And it's not kind of, it's completely unique because you want unit availability. You want the truck to be available in the zone to return, respond to whatever the next 911 call may be. When we start to have workload that is starting to compress that, the units are not available to respond to the next call, which give us prolonged call response times. Those prolonged response times can result in the fire getting bigger or the person not surviving whatever that medical emergency may be. So when we look at the workload, we're always trying to make sure that the call volume is balanced out with the number of available firefighters. We've slowly been increasing our staffing over the years. But when you look at the national average, which I don't have in front of me right this minute, but we are not at that point. When you look at staffing, staffing should be three people, three personnel on all rescue trucks in the city. We currently have three of our rescues that do not have that staffing. And per NFPA standard, there should be four individuals on every suppression unit in the city. We don't run that. We run three on every suppression unit in the city. So we're not at what the NFPA standards are. So an advantage for being at those standards is being able to have availability of engines so that you don't have to have two vehicles responding to one service call. Is that right? So by having the three people on a rescue and what that does is that frees up. So the second unit does not need to respond. The importance of the three is so there's someone to drive the truck and then two people in the back to treat the patient while they're being transported. When you don't have that, the engine needs to go along with it so the third person on the engine can come off and then drive the rescue into the hospital. Unfortunately, that takes both units out of service for as long as it takes to turn that call around, which means that that area doesn't have a unit to respond in that area until one of those come back available. Inevitably, that means that if should a call hit in that area, the next station over is the one responding, and they're not going to be able to meet the same response times that we're accustomed to. Right. Thank you. Chief, as I understand, most of these calls for service, though, aren't they EMS calls, not necessarily fire suppression calls? So the individuals on the rescues are certified for both. So the rescue truck we do not use the fire assessment fee for, only 33 percent of that. So one individual. I apologize. You talked about the increase in the calls for service as a larger, as a holistic number. So I'm saying I know it historically has been roughly two-thirds of our rollouts are EMS-related. I assume that percentage hasn't changed over time. If anything, it's probably increasing for EMS versus fire response. So the majority of our calls are, in fact, EMS-related calls, with about 1 percent of our call volume being fire, about another 2 percent of those calls being hazmat, marine incidents, and different things like that. However, the number of people, in order to get an effective response on a fire, is a lot greater than what it would be for an EMS call. So just this afternoon, we had a house fire with entrapment extricating an individual from within the fire, and it will take six individuals to pull one adult male out of a fire. If a firefighter goes down, you're looking at over 20 individuals in order to successfully rescue that one firefighter out of the building. So although they may not be that often, the importance of having all of the staff on duty at any given time to be able to effectively respond to that is important. We have the luxury of having them cross-trained so that they're able to respond from EMS calls to fire calls, giving us the most efficiency we possibly can have out of our fire rescue personnel. And there's a large ongoing debate nationwide, not just here locally, about three men on a truck versus two men on a truck. Certainly, three men on a truck is a more efficient response. Two men on a truck and responding with two vehicles is a much more cost-effective response. So we know this statistically. The numbers are there. This case has been amply proven over and over and over again. So there's a difference between efficiency and economy. So we just need to recognize that as we talk about that. But I don't think the gentleman's comments were necessarily directed to fire in general. As I think he said, he was talking holistically about where all the departments are looking for efficiencies. And I'm glad you were able to articulate the ones that you did because I don't know that that's generally known. The things that you're looking at and ways to keep costs down are great, and I'm glad you're doing that, and that's part of the larger discussion. But I do think that it's helpful for the community to know what our department heads are doing and how they're trying to save money. So I thank you for sharing that with us and with the community. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Chief, just one more. I'm sorry. It's important, though. I think people really look for the education. I'd like to know, what is the total personnel this year, number of how many people in the fire rescue? 485. 523, but that also includes ocean rescue. Right, 523. And last year, what was it? 520. 520. And where does that stack up in terms of the city our size, obviously not just the residential population, but also how we balloon during season? I mean, a lot more people are here. How does that compare to, if you know that, to other municipalities of our size, or especially a city that's known for tourism where those numbers just swell like crazy during season? So I don't have those numbers readily available, and I wouldn't want to comment on something that I don't have the data in front of me. I think all of us are well aware that the city of Fort Lauderdale, although its population is only around that 200,000 mark, has a lot more people at any given time in the city than just the population. Whether it's visiting our beautiful beaches and the tourism cruise time with over 30,000 people on a weekend, Los Olos can see tens of thousands of people, visitors. So when you start to add the numbers up, it's very challenging to get to the number of personnel that it would take because our population does not have a direct correlation with that. Would you say, though, if you had to guesstimate that we are somewhere on the high end or in the middle or low in terms of numbers of personnel versus the population that's being served, including the visitors? Yeah, I can't comment on that. It would have to be based upon the NFPA standards and what those look like with the three on a rescue and the four on a suppression. Okay, but safe to say you don't feel that we're overstaffed. We do a very good job at making sure that we're balancing workload every single year. And my commitment to all of you is to make sure that we continue that. You know, at times, if we're starting to see our response times go up, is to find solutions to make sure. The challenge is, is although there are discussions in regards to two-person versus three or what those may look like, anyone that's ever done CPR before knows that if you're the one doing compressions on an individual, there's no way for you to effectively provide ventilations or medications. And to think that you also want someone in the back of that truck that is just doing the medications, that all they're doing is drawing up and making sure that they're getting the dose correct for the patient and their weight. If you start to shortcut those, that's when mistakes start to happen and the outcomes won't be successful. And in fact, if you look at survivability versus a two-person versus three-person, it's not the same. When you start to look at some of the things that we've initiated this year, such as whole blood and seeing an 83% survivability in trauma patients, and we did all of that at absolutely zero cost to the taxpayers of Fort Lauderdale. All of the equipment was purchased on the grant, all of the blood was through an agreement with Broward Health, and we have full cost recovery on that. We're the only department in the entire state of Florida, and I believe even in the country at this time, that has implemented a whole blood program, increasing survivability in traumatic patients to 83% with zero cost to the taxpayers. Thank you. I really appreciate that information. And I think you guys are doing an amazing job. Thank you to you for your work. Thank you for the entire fire rescue, as well as police. I think our first responders are outstanding, and I think that you do actually look for efficiencies, and I think that I don't see any bloat there at all. So thank you. Okay. Any other comments or questions? Can I just chime in? I gave the chief a number without grant position, so I just wanted to clarify. So in 2026, 548, including fire rescue, 2027 proposed was 551. We just added one between proposed and adopted for Wilton Manors, so that would be 552, including grant positions for 27. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Laura. So the fire assessment rate will be $444 annually for each residential property, and the final fire assessment rate for non-residential properties will be as shown on the detailed rate schedule provided in the resolution approving the fire assessment. Someone please introduce the resolution adopting the fire assessment rate and roll for fiscal year 2027. Introduced. Resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commissioner of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, relating to the provision of fire rescue services, facilities, and programs in the city, establishing the rate of assessment, imposing fire rescue assessments against assessed properties located in the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approving the assessment rule, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, and providing an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Chantals? Yes. And Budget 7 is now approved. Moving on to Budget 8, this is the second of two public hearings as required by law on the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District millage rate and budget for fiscal year 2027. Purpose of the hearing is to receive questions and comments regarding the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District's budget, and to explain the budget and any amendments thereto. So, the public hearing is now open, and the acting city manager will now present the final millage rate and final budget. Mr. City Manager. The Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District taxes the residents of this special district to provide security to their neighborhood. At its May 26, 2026 meeting, the district voted its millage at 1.0000 mill to generate a tax collection of $230,072 to support an operating budget of $230,072. This millage rate is 1.62% more than the rollback rate of 0.9841 mills and is necessary to maintain services for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood District. This concludes my report. Thank you. So, this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask any questions about the millage rate or budget concerning the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District. No one has signed up to speak. Anyone have any questions, comments, there being none? So, there are going to be two votes, one regarding the millage rate and one regarding the budget. So, do I hear a motion to close public hearing? Moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glessman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hollis? Yes. So, the final millage rate for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District will be 1.0 mill, which represents an increase of 1.62% over the rollback rate of 0.9841 mills. Will someone please introduce the resolution adopting the final millage rate for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District for fiscal year 2027? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution, City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida adopting a final millage rate of 1.0000 mill to be levied by the City of Fort Lauderdale for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District to the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027. Commissioner Herbst? Commissioner Glossman? Yes. And I want to thank the directors of that Neighborhood Association Improvement District for the incredible work they do on a volunteer basis. Just to say thank you. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hollis? Yes. And so the final millage rate has been approved. Now, will someone please introduce a resolution adopting the final budget for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District for fiscal year 2027? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida adopting a final budget of $230,072 for the Sunrise Key Neighborhood Improvement District for fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glossman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trent-Hollis? Yes. And the final budget is now approved. Moving on to Budget 9, this is the second of two public hearings as required by law on the millage rates for fiscal year 2027. Purpose of the hearing is to receive requests and comments regarding the City's millage rate and to explain any amendments thereto. The public hearing is now open and the acting City Manager will now present the final millage rate on which the fiscal year 2027 budget is based. Mr. City Manager. The fiscal year 2027 City of Fort Lauderdale final budget includes maintaining the current millage rate of 4.1193 and decreasing the combined debt service millage from 0.2306 to 0.2216 mills. The recommended millage rate of 4.1193 exceeds the rolled back rate of 3.9408 by 4.53%. The aggregate final millage rate, including the Sunrise Key dependent district, is 4.1228, which results in an increase of 4.52% above the aggregate rolled back rate of 3.9444 and is premised upon the following. Funding increases in wages and insurances, funding key commission priorities and capital improvement plan projects, and maintaining a healthy fund balance. Increases to the fiscal year 2027 general fund budget that require maintaining the millage at the same rate as the prior 19 years include $27.5 million for the transfer to the general capital projects fund, $14.4 million for the increase in salaries and wages, as well as $6.1 million for the increase in fringe benefits, including health insurance and pension contributions. This concludes my report. Thank you. So this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask any questions about the final millage rates. I have two people sign up to speak. Robert Thay is it, T-H-Y-E, and followed by Mr. Gonzalez. Good evening. You're on. No, you are on. Push it again. Oh, it's Brett. So I'm Robert Thay from the Coral Ridge Isles neighborhood of Fort Lauderdale, and I'm here to advocate for the rollback millage rate. And chat GPT tells me that the taxable value of real estate in Fort Lauderdale has increased by 75% since 2019. But the millage rate has never changed in 20 years. It's simply not believable that the city must absorb all of that revenue and spend it. So the residents deserve some sort of relief. And I'm disappointed to learn that there's basically zero efficiencies being identified in Fort Lauderdale. And frankly, you can see inefficiencies everywhere. I don't see anywhere where there's even a citizen comment space or a place to make suggestions about efficiencies. And so I just think it's unfair to the people that you represent to not do the rollback rate. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez. Good evening, Aaron Gonzalez, Imperial Point, District 1. I'm asking the commission to adopt the 3.9408 rollback rather than the 4.1193 rate. The proposed rate is 4.5% above rollback. The city's final taxable value is approximately $67 billion. And the 4.1993, the city expects approximately $267 million in operating property tax revenue, supporting the $560 million general fund. The city's detailed July budget shows taxable values increasing 7% from about $62 billion to $67 billion, including $1.7 billion in new construction. At the current millage rate, that growth was projected to generate $15 million in additional property tax revenue. And to put the rollback request in perspective, the revenue difference between the proposed rate and rollback is only about 2% of the $560 million general fund. That's the level of prioritization I'm asking for, roughly $0.02 for every dollar. I recognize the city subsequently reduced the general capital projects by approximately $2 million, but at the first hearing, the staff still identified $27 million in general capital projects. One project is the $5 million park bond funding holding account. The project ID is new 285041. It was created after the original allocations emitted project management costs and relied on estimates that were nearly a decade old. Another project, P13044, holds about $14 million in bond proceeds until individual projects' scope, costs, and timelines are defined. Before allocating and holding money, the city should define the scope of the project, define the cost, and define the schedule. I'm not asking you to cut police, fire, or essential infrastructure. I'm asking you to find approximately 2% within this general fund before taxing residents above rollback. Families prioritize, businesses prioritize, the city should prioritize too. Please adopt the 3.9408 rate, or at a minimum, move meaningfully towards it. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? There being none, someone please move to close public hearing? So moved. Second. I've been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst? Yes. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And public hearing is now closed on this item. So the recommended millage rate to be levied for all general city purposes exclusive of debt service will be 4.1193, which represents a 4.53% increase in the millage rate over the rollback rate of 3.9408 mils. The aggregate final millage rate, including dependent districts, is 4.1228, which results in an increase of 4.52% above the aggregate rollback rate of 3.9444 mils. The recommended millage rate for debt service for the 2015 general obligation refunding bonds is 0.0165. The recommended millage rate for debt service for the 2011A general obligation bonds is 0.0168. The recommended millage rate for debt service for the city's voter-approved public safety bond is 0.0745. And the recommended millage rate for debt service for the city's voter-approved parks bond is 0.1138. Will someone please introduce a resolution adopting the final millage rates for the city of Fort Lauderdale for the fiscal year 2027? Introduced. The resolution has been introduced. Please call the roll. A resolution city commissioner of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, adopting a final operating millage rate of 4.1193 and a final debt service millage rate of 0.2216 to be levied by the city of Fort Lauderdale for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027. Commissioner Herbst? I agree with the public comments that we should be doing the rollback rate, so my vote is no. Commissioner Glassman? Yes. Commissioner Beza-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen? Yes. Mayor Trentals? Yes. And Budget 9 is now approved. This is the second of two, this is now moving on to the last item, Budget 10. This is the second of two public hearings as required by law on the city of Fort Lauderdale's budget for fiscal year 2027. The purpose of the hearing is to receive requests and comments regarding the city's budget and to explain the budget and any amendments thereto. The public hearing is now open. The acting city manager will now present the final budget. Mr. City Manager? The fiscal year 2027 City of Fort Lauderdale final budget includes maintaining the same millage rate of 4.1193 and increasing the annual fire assessment rate by $41 to $444 per residential unit. The final budget is premised on the following. Funding increases in wages and insurances, funding key commission priorities and capital improvement plan projects, and maintaining a healthy fund balance. There have been no adjustments to the fiscal year 2027 budget since the approval of the tentative budget on September 9, 2026. This concludes my report on the fiscal year 2027 final budget. Thank you. So this is the time for anyone in the public to speak or ask any questions about the final budget. We have four people who sign up to speak and invite you to come up to the podium. First, we'll start with Ada Nassimi. Is Ada here? Did I pronounce that correctly? Ida. I'm sorry. Ida. Ida. Okay. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. My name is Ida Nassimi, District 1, Commissioner Herbst District. And I'm not here to particularly speak about any individual budget item. What I'm here to talk about is how the city's current budget and decision-making needs, in my professional opinion, are not correctly anticipating the future of Fort Lauderdale for the next five to ten years. As someone that is directly witnessing people between the ages of 25 to 34 years old leaving the city, unfortunately, for places like Boca Raton, New York, Fort Lauderdale is really losing its next generation, which terrifies me. Because I'm looking backwards at this to what happened in New York in the 1970s and how it's taken about 30 years for the city to really recuperate from that tragedy, frankly. I've been hearing a lot about how the city is looking for efficiencies on how to reduce the costs. I think everyone knows that, frankly, budgets, you always want to add about 10% just due to inflation and spending and whatnot. But what I'm not really hearing about is what are we doing to attract jobs to the city of Fort Lauderdale? I work in the real estate industry. I've been doing this for about 10 years, witnessing multiple market cycles occur at an expedited rate due to artificial intelligence, which frankly scares me. Because at this rate, we're going to be seeing our tax base decrease due to artificial intelligence by 2030. And I know a lot of decisions right now are being made on the basis of things staying the same or better. I'm here to sound the alarm saying that things are going in the complete opposite direction. I don't think we're really approaching things as holistically and organically as we can. But I don't come here with complaints. I come here with solutions because that's the kind of person that I am. And I think one way that we can properly address the infrastructure needs that we're dealing with is that we need to start working with the private sector, not as a counterparty, but as a partner. I'm independently underwriting the gallery district corridor infrastructure needs just due to my own professional ventures right now. And that alone right there, we're looking at about $250 million of budget of infrastructure upgrades. Now, let's look at this systemically. What is Creuson Park need? What is Flagler Village need? The Fort Lauderdale economy largely relies on the real estate industry to create taxable revenues. I'm very familiar with how that works. But to have developers building their structures on faulty infrastructure, I mean, my generation, we're going to be the ones that have to pick up the bill for this. And right now, I'm currently deciding on if I won't even want to stay in Fort Lauderdale the next two to three years. And I love this place because of what it makes to be so special. So I really think the city needs to look at things in a less myopic way and figure out how are we going to attract the next generation of youth? 49 out of 100 people in Fort Lauderdale are making less than what it costs to actually live here. They're about two paychecks away from bankruptcy, according to Roosevelt Walters. And that really concerns me, frankly, in the long-term perspective. A lot of people here in the dais, unfortunately, will probably not experience how it feels to be a member of the youth that has to be responsible for these assessments long-term. So I really think the city needs to take a more proactive approach and think less about how it can reduce costs and really be motivated by how can we attract more people, more youth to coming, moving forward. Because we're the ones that are going to have to carry the torch, unfortunately. And I say this as a 28-year-old real estate professional that I've also been actively looking for jobs. And there's no jobs here for growth, unfortunately. And I feel at the top of the market, what does that mean for people that stand beneath me? There's no growth here, and the stalemate is scaring me. So that's all I want to say today. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. Mayor, if I could, thank you. Thank you for being here. Being a small business owner myself, I'm very focused on business growth in the city. And I started my business here many years ago when I had much less gray hair. So I completely agree, very important. How do we create a Fort Lauderdale that attracts businesses, right? Attracts employers. So I think you'll be proud to hear that really for the first time ever in the city of Fort Lauderdale, we're bringing together all the key agencies and entities that seek to attract businesses. So Greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance, the Chamber, the DDA, the city, realtors, developers, business owners, for the first time ever, are coming together. And what we've done is said, how can we better brand the city? And I have a cohesive message to attract more businesses to the city of Fort Lauderdale. So we're now collectively, for the first time ever in the city's history, working together. We have a marketing SWOT analysis undergoing right now to identify what messaging resonates the most with businesses across the country and around the world to bring them here. So that's ongoing, number one. Number two. Commissioner Sorensen, can I just pause you for a second? Sure. Because I love everything you're saying, and I'm fully familiar with what the city is doing right now. But unfortunately, people don't respond to ideas. They respond to financial incentives right now. And the way I'm looking at everything financially is that the capital stack is restructuring itself. Prices need to come down. We need to start making it cheaper for businesses to come here and plant roots here. And Fortune 500 companies to fill up all this vacant office space that is directly impacting the city's ability to create taxable revenue. You know what I mean? The office crisis is real, and you feel it from the top. It takes about 10 years for the trickle-down effect to come down. But it's coming down. It's crashing. CMBS loans are having their own party right now. So I don't think it's an issue of messaging. It's my generation. We're looking at a few things. We're looking at municipal finance. We're looking at infrastructure. We're looking at density. Like, I don't, the Live Local Act is really hurting the city of Fort Lauderdale because my generation, we don't want to live in towers anymore. It is so depressing. And there's a science experiment called Universe 125 where the density that we're building at right now, you're going to see a population spike. And then people are going to start leaving because just because you can build dents, we need to have more space as well. So this is a very dynamic approach. But in regards to attracting jobs and businesses, we need to start showing that it's profitable and it's cheaper to start a business here and get an office here compared to Miami, compared to Palm Beach. I love Fort Lauderdale. I moved here six years ago before it was what it was for a very specific reason as an early gentrifier. Technically, I don't want to put my, I don't want to call myself that, but whatever. And I really think that we need to start focusing on what our weaknesses are, what our strengths are, and the private sector developers need to start being responsible for not only what they build on top of our infrastructure, but what's beneath it as well. Because by the time the city gets to it, I'm just concerned on timing. You know what I mean? I've heard, I've been sitting at this office for about six months listening to you guys talk before I even gotten the nerve to even come to the podium because I had nothing worthwhile saying. So we really need to start thinking about how we can get people to act with immediacy because the market conditions today are not going to be the same three months ago. Artificial intelligence and the Internet have made the entire global economy so fragile, and it terrifies me as a young professional. I'm speaking on behalf of not only myself, but millions of people that feel this way but don't have an opportunity to understand their thoughts and how to voice them forward. So thank you so much for hearing me out. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Hold on, I just want to keep going. Go ahead. So you can take a seat. You can take a seat. Thank you. So you'll be really happy to hear that in terms of incentives, I completely agree. So for the first time in many, many years, this city commission has approved a significant tax incentive, the Fortune 500 company, to relocate right here in Fort Lauderdale. The IT company, it is going to be a game changer for our downtown. So that's another example. When you talk about public-private partnerships, completely agree. So you're a fan of public-private partnerships, it sounds like. Absolutely. One of the things this commission did, which I'm really excited about, you talk about infrastructure and public-private partnerships. We approved one of the largest public-private partnerships for infrastructure ever in two neighborhoods that have zero stormwater infrastructure right now. We just did this. I'm really excited about where we're heading. And there's more to do. So 100% agree with you. And, you know, love to partner in any way to keep driving business here to the city of Fort Lauderdale. And then lastly, live local, atrocious. It is a horrible, horrible act and law beset upon our city. So what I do about it is I go to Tallahassee and I challenge our state representatives and state senators to say, this is not acceptable. This is ramming development down our throat without our ability, as a city commission, to do anything about it. So I will be going again this upcoming legislative session at Tallahassee. Please join me. And we'll go and we'll advocate that message to our legislatures and say, please think about us as a city and our ability to regulate growth, do it in a smart way that takes care of our infrastructure, because we need it for the city and our community deserves better. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Mayor, if I could, first of all, I want to congratulate you on your Viewpoint article that was published in the Sun Sentinel recently. I thought it was excellent. So thank you for that. And I just want to say one thing, because some of the things that you said, I'm not quite sure ring true for me. I represent Flagler Village. And when I go to the meetings there or when I even just go to events in that part of our district, I do see an influx of young people. When I go downtown and I'm along the Riverwalk, I see an influx of young people with baby strollers and their pets. And maybe I'm not seeing this correctly, but I've noticed an increase in the number of young people, not an exodus in the number of young people. This past weekend, I was with three congregations for the Jewish High Holidays. At least 200 in each congregation and the number of young people in their 20s and 30s was astounding to me. I've never seen that, especially on the Gulf Ocean Mile. Correct me, Mayor, if I'm wrong. But that typically is an area that has always been known for its elderly population, and yet that room was, I guess, predominantly 20- and 30-year-olds. So I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying and trying to see how that fits in with my experiences as I travel around my district and the city. I'm just not seeing that, and I'm seeing when I speak to these younger people, they're here exactly because they found work, or they're here and offices are here and businesses are here because we are less expensive for those spaces than Miami-Dade County or Palm Beach County. So I just am questioning. I don't know where the data is coming from that you're using, but I'm not seeing that in real time. That's all. Okay, thank you. Mayor, I would like to expound on this as well. Sure. Thank you very much for your comments. I am one who enjoys and invites and encourages young generations to come and give their viewpoint because I usually say I'm uncomfortable speaking for a generation that I'm not even going to be around to represent. So I appreciate you coming. I encourage the generations to come and be before us. Generation Z, Alpha's come and let us know what it is. I had a great concern. I said this many times when we were taking information about our new city hall, what's going to be in the city hall. My question is and continues to be, are we including the generation that's going to use this years after I am gone? So this is important. And I'm extending the invitation to who hears this conversation. This is your space. This is your time. This is the time to make it known what you also want to see us as a diets represent you because you are part of the city as well. And your voice is important. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. Um, Amy Moore. Hi there. Hi. I just wanted to thank the commission and the city manager for the constant support for the early learning coalition and our school readiness program. And I just wanted to appear in person to thank you for your consistent support, um, and serving children to ensure that they are ready for kindergarten and that they are healthy and safe. So thank you so much. You're very welcome. Uh, Mr. Gonzalez followed by Ted and Sarah. You can go ahead. All right. Good evening. Eric Gonzalez, Imperial Point district one. The city is adopting approximately $1.2 billion of budget this year, uh, including 560 million general fund. Tonight, residents have been asked to absorb multiple increases, wastewater, stormwater, fire, property tax collections above rollback. I recognize that much of this budget funds essential services, but not every dollar carries the same priority, nor is it untouchable. There's also a larger affordability warning that you shouldn't ignore. Broward County public schools say traditional enrollment is projected to decline by approximately 6,900 students this year. And its own long range analysis identifies housing affordability challenges in South Florida, uh, as one factor contributing to the enrollment decline, along with school choice, charter schools, et cetera. That does not prove taxes alone are driving families away, but it should be a warning that the cumulative cost of living matters. The city's own budget also says it's preparing for the fiscal year 2028 and the potential effects of the property tax reform. I ask you not to respond to future uncertainties, but by simply increasing today's burden. Before adopting this budget, distinguish needs from wants, immediate obligations from items that can be phased, and core services from discretionary spending. Residents are required to prioritize every single day. Their city should do the same. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello, everybody. My name is Ted and Sarah, uh, president of River Oaks. We talked about different generations. I'm from the generation, rub some dirt on it and walk it off. But, uh, you know, right now we've got the, the young professionals, very nervous. She says she's frightened. We got my older generation, really leery. We're just wondering that with all these increases, I mean, as, as a rent, as a person living today, we have to prioritize my budget. I have to cut back on things. That's just the way it is. That's just the way the world is. And a lot of times, through my eyes, that we do not see the city commission doing that until they absolutely have to. And then it's all panic. And then we hear you talk about Amendment 3. Please don't vote for Amendment 3. And, you know, we, we read your, uh, posts. We hear your speaking. We see the signs all around the, uh, city on parks. This is your taxpayer money at work. You know, we're gonna have, uh, the lifeguards are now talking about it. We're gonna be shorthanded. And so, you know, but, you know, we need a break. You know, these people need a break. You keep increasing and increasing on our bills. And, and, but you're not the only ones doing that. You know, everybody is. And there's only so much that we can take. So, uh, you know, we, it's, I got a great group of people right here, very intimidating to, uh, to, uh, speak next to. But, you know, we need a break. We need, you're, you're doing things in this city that we do not, spending money that we don't have. And then, you know, it just doesn't seem like you have the attitude of what a resident goes through. It's like it's a gravy train, just like a blank check all the time. And so right now, you know, we need a break. And, uh, and it doesn't seem like you're helping and, and you don't want us to vote for Amendment 3 because you're afraid that, uh, you know, you're going to lose all these taxes. But I'm sorry. In my opinion, we should vote for it because right now, you know, it's the residence term to get something for ourselves. Ted, thanks for being here. Who's saying don't vote for Amendment 3? The mayor. Okay. Commissioner Klassman. I mean, the city of Fort Lauderdale, you know, on their sites. Everywhere I saw you, I didn't know, I did not name you. I'd like to just know when I said that exactly, though. It was on your, your posts. I mean, you're, and I see you together with the, uh. No, I never have taken a position to tell people whether to vote for or against. All I say is be educated. So I, I need to just correct that. Facts do matter. I know what I've said. I know what I have not said. And I have never said that. Thank you. All right. I'll take your word for it, I guess. And also, Ted, the city is, and city attorney, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the city's barred from saying vote for or against Amendment 3. Am I articulating that right? And the city does not take a position on this amendment as a city. Well, I know the mayor is scheduled to speak at the CFL-CA District 1 debate. And I'm sure he's not, we can only imagine what he's going to talk about. I imagine that is going to be the, uh, the theory of his, uh, talk. And I'm sure when he comes up with this, uh, state of the city again, that that's going to be heavily played. Maybe he might not say it, but he's going to, he'll definitely bring up what's not going to be able to be paid for. What's this, what it's going to affect, what it's going to hurt. And, uh, you know, if it's wrong, what is that wrong? Yes. Cut back on your spending. Wait a minute. Let me speak. Let me speak. You had a lot of minutes now. It's, is it wrong to tell people what the pros and the cons are of a certain proposal that's now before the voters? Then, then is it just answer the question? I just started to, and you stopped me. Say a yes or a no. Do you know? Yes or a no. What are you, Judge Judy? Yes or no? Um, let me tell you that it, then it's also not wrong for you to say all the money that you have wasted. So, so you didn't, so you didn't answer my question. What was your question again, sir? I said, is it wrong for someone to state what the pros and the cons are of a certain budget amendment that's before the, the voters? I don't think you'll say any cons. I think it'll be all what we're going to miss out on if we vote for that amendment. Well, I'm glad you can predict what I can say. Oh, I've been right on most things I've predicted about your, about the spending on this thing. So thank you so much for knowing what I can say. But to correct you. Okay. I've never, I've never taken a position one way or the other. I've always pointed out the pros and the cons of the impact of what voting for amendment three will do. Well, I guess I missed just, uh. I guess you misunderstood. You know, I guess I just saw you speaking the other way. Well, I'll be at that CFLCA meeting and I'll be at the state of the city meeting and we'll just see exactly what you really say. And I think in the long run, I will be right once again. So just for a point of clarification. So Madam city attorney, you said the city cannot take a position. That doesn't mean that an individual commissioner can't take a position. That's correct. So I could advocate all I like one way or the other. Okay. Just want to make sure. Okay. The point is for the city to provide education and not a position. Got it. Okay. Good. Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? There being none, would someone please move to close public hearing? Moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Herbst. Commissioner Glossman. Yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman. Yes. Vice Mayor Sorensen. Yes. Mayor Trent Ellis. Yes. And public hearing on budget 10 is now, uh, approved. Uh, excuse me, the closing of public hearing. Is now approved. The final. So now the final total of all funds budget for the city of Fort Lauderdale is $1,283,327,106, which will fund the various operations of the city of Fort Lauderdale for the fiscal period beginning October 1st, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027. So before I ask someone to introduce the item, I just want to respond a little bit to what people have said. Um, you know, in tonight's budget, we're, uh, excuse me, tonight's agenda, we're being asked to approve, um, uh, contract, uh, contracts with our, uh, some of our employees here in the city. You know, the increases that we see in our budget are often reflected in the increases that we provide in the salaries and benefits to our employees. And I think it was, I think the city manager pointed out in the earlier budget amendment, excuse me, the earlier budget item that, um, $14.4 million increase comes from salaries and wages. $6.1 million for the increase in fringe benefits, including health, health insurance and, uh, pension contributions. $27.5 million goes to the general capital projects fund, which people are always asking us to do more improvements on sidewalks, roadways, and all the projects that we have involved, our parks and all of that. So those that are telling us to roll back to the, um, to the rollback rate of $3.9408 would mean that none of these folks would get an increase in their wages. None of them would get an increase in their benefits. None of these capital projects would, would be, uh, would take place. Truth hurts, huh? And none of these, none of these increases would be, uh, would be available at the disposal of the commission to be able to prioritize, uh, how we, how the money is spent. So I take issue with people who seem to think that we should reduce the spending when, in fact, in order to maintain and attract good people to serve in public safety, we need to be able to be competitive in what we offer and to allow people to have a working wage and a working salary and, and, and, uh, comparable benefits in order to provide for the public safety of our community. So, um, so I really, I, I really know that, you know, I'm a, I'm a homeowner, I pay taxes too, I have properties here in our, in our county and, uh, you know, I feel the pinch just like everybody else. But the bottom line is that we have a city that we have to maintain, we have a community that we have to protect, and we have a responsibility here on the commission to be able to provide. So I'm encouraging the commission to vote for this budget, and I hope that we can continue to, uh, make Fort Lauderdale the great place that it is to be, that it is today. So would someone please introduce the resolution adopting the final budget for the city of Fort Lauderdale for fiscal year 2027. Introduced. Anyone else have any comments or questions? Yes, Mayor. Go ahead. I categorically reject that the idea that, uh, we can't support a fiscally prudent and responsible government without saying that we don't support our public safety, uh, personnel. That's not true. We can support our public safety personnel. We can support our employees. And at the same time, we could also ask, are we right-sizing our staff? Are we right-sizing our government? Are we doing the things that we're supposed to be doing? Are the projects that we're undertaking with those capital investments the right ones? So I think those two things can be true at the same time, and I just want to leave it at that. Okay. Please call the roll. A resolution to the city commission of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, adopting and approving the final budget of the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, and ending September 30th, 2027, which includes the budget for the general fund, weight, water, and sewer central regional wastewater system funds, stormwater funds, self-insured health benefits funds, sanitation funds, debt service funds, central services ITS, unified customer service funds, fleet fund, building funds, parking fund, city property and casualty insurance funds, airport fund, community redevelopment agency funds, grant bond and reserve funds, cemetery system fund, project management fund, cemetery perpetual care fund, marine facilities fund, school crossing guards fund, beach business improvement district fund, transportation surtax fund, Sunrise Key neighborhood improvement district fund, and police confiscation funds, adopting and approving the final city of Fort Lauderdale personnel complement for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, and ending September 30th, 2027, providing an effective date. Commissioner Herbst? It's always a special day for me when I can find myself on the same side of an issue as 10 and Sarah. I'm sorry he left, but I vote no. Commissioner Glossman? I don't find myself on that same side. I vote yes. Commissioner Beasley-Pittman? Yes. Vice Mayor Sorenson? Yes. Mary Trentals? Yes. And Budget 10 is now approved. Mr. City Manager, is there any further business of the commission? I'd just like to thank you, Mayor and the commission, for your consideration of the budget this year, and I'd like to acknowledge our great budget, our Office of Management and Budget team, under the leadership of Laura Reese and under the guidance of Yvette Matthews. This is a year-long process, essentially, and they're about to kick off next year's budget process very soon, so there's really no rest for them. Can you give them a week off, at least? We'll give them a week. I'll give them a week, yeah. We're seeking efficiencies, so we've got to get them started right now. I'll give them until October 1st and then back to work. But, no, they do a great job every year working with our budget advisory board, who I'd also like to acknowledge and thank for all their hard work, as well as all of our department directors and their staff putting this budget together. It's a lot of work to get to this point, and I don't want that to go unnoticed. So thank you, everyone. Okay. Meetings concluded. Thank you, everybody.