The meeting began with a procedural discussion to allow the mayor to participate via Zoom due to travel commitments. The commission quickly approved a motion enabling remote participation. Following this, the vice mayor requested the city attorney outline the voting requirements for a budget item related to the millage rate.

The budget director presented the current millage rate of 5.559, explaining that any reduction would require a four-fifths vote. Highlighting the urgency, the director noted that a split vote would lead to the imposition of the rollback rate, resulting in a $10 million budget cut. This set the stage for a discussion about fiscal policy and the city’s financial health.

During the meeting, a budget director elaborated on the anticipated increases in property values, estimating a 3-5% increase to cover normal city expenses. The mayor, participating via Zoom, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to contribute despite being absent. He advocated for a reduction in the millage rate, citing Coral Gables’ increased property tax revenue—nearly $24 million more compared to the previous year, totaling over 400%. The mayor argued, “This economic good fortune presents us with a wonderful opportunity to give back to our residents by reducing their tax burden.” He proposed a 2% reduction in the millage rate, later compromising to a 1% reduction, emphasizing that this would provide financial relief without compromising city services.

Concerns were raised by other commissioners about the implications of such reductions on the city’s budget and services. Some argued that the city needed careful fiscal management amidst fluctuating property values. The debate illustrated a spectrum of perspectives on fiscal policy, with some advocating for immediate tax relief and others expressing caution about potential risks to the city’s financial stability.

Senator Garcia was present and acknowledged for his contributions, particularly in securing almost $6 million in funding for the community over two years. He supported the idea of lowering the millage rate but emphasized the importance of addressing residents’ concerns, particularly regarding insurance and condo association issues. Garcia highlighted that, according to recent feedback, residents were largely against any cuts to the millage rate, emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach.

A commissioner echoed concerns about the financial complexities facing the city, citing unfunded liabilities and the need for financial prudence. The mention of aging infrastructure, including the Alhambra water tower and City Hall, illustrated the financial pressures the city faces. Another commissioner warned that cutting the millage rate could lead to future financial challenges, particularly with ongoing negotiations surrounding a contract for 360 city employees. They suggested waiting until September for a decision when more information would be available.

A motion was proposed to lower the millage rate by 1%. A commissioner expressed a desire for collaborative governance and urged fellow commissioners to support the initiative, stating, “together we can implement a policy that provides meaningful relief.” This motion received a second, prompting more discussion.

Public input was solicited, and several residents voiced their opinions. David Rena, representing the Teamsters Union for general employees, voiced strong opposition to the proposed rate reduction, stating, “this shall have a negative impact to the general employees.” He argued that essential departments were already under strain due to staffing and funding issues. Rena concluded with, “the juice is not worth the squeeze,” urging the commission to reconsider.

Another speaker raised concerns about the potential impacts of a 1% reduction on solid waste operations. The assistant director of solid waste emphasized the necessity of maintaining full-time positions, particularly for roles requiring specific qualifications, such as sanitation workers with commercial driver’s licenses.

Senator Garcia highlighted that residents were largely against any cuts to the millage rate, emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach. He acknowledged that while the commission had previously agreed unanimously on most votes, this particular issue needed more discussion and debate.

The dialogue continued with a participant emphasizing the necessity of Coral Gables maintaining its reputation as the “city beautiful.” This participant noted that Coral Gables is a desirable destination for new residents, attributing its high property value to its appeal rather than any millage rate cut.

Concerns were raised regarding the implications of reducing the millage rate, particularly in light of actions taken by Miami-Dade County, which had increased garbage fees following their own millage rate cuts. The participant contended that such reductions could lead to unanticipated costs being passed down to municipalities, further complicating the budget landscape.

Another point made was about the cultural grants that the city had lost due to decisions made at the state level, which impacted local cultural institutions significantly. The participant pointed out that these institutions, including the Coral Gables Museum and other performance venues, faced financial challenges and might seek assistance from the city in the near future.

As the discussion progressed, the mayor proposed a compromise to cut the millage rate by 1%, arguing that this would be a reasonable approach. The mayor’s proposal was met with skepticism, with one commissioner raising concerns about the legitimacy of the process. The mayor defended his position, stating that the proposal was a compromise and urged the commission to take a vote, reiterating the importance of moving forward rather than prolonging the discussion unnecessarily.

Another commissioner countered that a majority of residents had expressed their opposition to cutting the millage rate, citing that 65 out of 85 emails received were against the cut. This highlighted a significant disconnect between the commission’s discussions and the desires of the residents. The commissioner elaborated that the proposed cuts would primarily benefit developers rather than residents, who would see minimal financial relief from the cuts. The mention of the Teamsters contract also underscored the uncertainty surrounding budgetary constraints, with a call for a more comprehensive evaluation of the budget when more information was available.

Public comments revealed a variety of perspectives on the budget and staffing issues. One resident, representing the Coral Gables Neighbors Association, stated that an email endorsement sent to 16,000 residents revealed overwhelming support for maintaining the current millage rate, with only one resident expressing a desire for a reduction. This resident urged the commissioners to “do what your residents want,” suggesting that the commission should align its decisions with the expressed wishes of the community rather than pursuing cuts that could impact services.

Another speaker raised concerns about public safety, particularly in relation to the fire department’s staffing levels in light of the growing number of high-rise buildings in the city. The speaker mentioned that, despite hiring additional firefighters, the city still faced a shortage of personnel required to respond adequately to emergencies in high-rise structures. There was a stark emphasis on the city’s reliance on mutual aid from neighboring fire departments, which raises concerns about response times and the reliability of assistance during critical situations. The speaker pointed out that Coral Gables is the only city in Miami-Dade County not meeting the recommended staffing levels for high-rise emergencies, stating, “we still have another 30 projects that are coming on board in the city.”

The discussions also touched upon the implications of potential annexation, which could place additional financial burdens on the city if residents voted in favor of it. One commissioner noted that annexation might cost the city an estimated $4.3 million per year, with the potential for increased financial strain if the millage rate were reduced. The uncertainty surrounding residents’ support for annexation was highlighted, with a reminder that the upcoming vote would be a straw ballot and required further approval from county authorities.

Several speakers urged the commission to reconsider the proposed millage rate reduction, arguing that it would jeopardize essential services and create a backlog of issues. A resident questioned the rationale behind potential cuts, asking if the budget would still face reductions if revenue projections were lower. The speaker pointed to the need for clarity on which departments would be affected by budget cuts, seeking assurance that public safety and essential services would not be compromised. The notion of staffing cuts was met with skepticism, especially regarding the impact on service quality and employee morale. A speaker noted that public sector employees often sought positions elsewhere due to better compensation packages.

Discussions surrounding the possible millage rate reduction revealed deep divides among the commission members and the public, with various stakeholders advocating for different approaches to budgeting, staffing, and service delivery. The meeting concluded with a call for further deliberation as the commission navigated these issues, emphasizing the need for a careful balance between budgetary constraints and community needs.