The most significant event of the evening was the resignation of the city manager, who announced his departure just minutes before a scheduled discussion on evaluating his salary. The city manager stated, “I have resigned effective five minutes ago,” citing retaliatory actions by some council members as the reason for his decision. He argued that the proposed salary reduction was politically motivated and not reflective of his performance, noting that it would have resulted in his senior staff earning more than him. The city manager emphasized that he had been directed to terminate employees appointed by the previous city manager, which he believed violated the city charter’s prohibition on elected officials interfering in administrative matters.

His resignation prompted immediate and emotional reactions from council members. One member expressed regret for the city manager’s situation, acknowledging his integrity and hard work. Despite past differences, this member extended support for the city manager to remain in his position for the duration of his contract. Other members echoed this sentiment, with expressions of shock and disappointment over the situation.

The council members engaged in a heated exchange, revealing discrepancies in their perspectives on the management of city staff. The council ultimately voted to allow the city manager to remain for the 90-day notice period at his current salary, acknowledging the need for a transition process to appoint a new city manager.

Another topic discussed during the meeting was the ongoing budget amendments for the fiscal year 2024-25. The council addressed a resolution establishing the final millage and levy of taxes, set at 1.7166 mills, which is 9.93% greater than the rollback rate. The resolution was unanimously approved. Following this, the council discussed the ordinance adopting the budget, which included various funds such as the general fund, transportation fund, and parks and recreation fund.

Council members debated proposed budget amendments, with particular focus on cost of living adjustments (COLA) and merit increases for city employees. One member proposed increasing COLA to 4% and merit increases to 6%, along with exploring additional evaluators for a review of compensation and pay ranges, especially for frontline staff. Concerns were raised over the removal of funding for certain positions, with some members emphasizing the need to consult the city manager and directors before making such decisions.

The discussions on budgetary decisions revealed a contentious atmosphere, with members expressing concerns about the implications of proposed cuts to staff positions. One member voiced their objection to terminating positions, arguing that the city was not in a budget crisis and that such cuts were politically motivated. Another member criticized the timing and transparency of budget discussions, noting that they received a new memo just hours before the meeting, which they deemed unacceptable given the time available for previous discussions.

Community concerns regarding the incinerator and the city’s leadership also surfaced prominently during the meeting. Numerous residents expressed their views on the proposed waste management facility and the frequent changes in city leadership. One resident emphasized the necessity for the county to share the costs involved in relocating the facility, arguing that it should not be rebuilt in its current location due to its proximity to populated areas. Another resident called for a government that prioritizes residents’ needs over political ambitions, urging the council to listen to the residents’ voices and foster a collaborative environment.

The council also discussed the ongoing negotiations with the county concerning the incinerator. A council member highlighted a resolution adopted by the County Commission, which mandated that the city pay a 3.5% contribution based on incremental property values within a mile radius of the proposed plant for 40 years, initially estimated at around $46 million. However, recent discussions revealed that the county was now demanding Doral to pay a considerable “Delta” cost estimated at $400 million for the plant’s relocation and an additional $50 million for the construction of a transfer station.

The council expressed feelings of being “ransomed” by these demands and highlighted the need for a unified front in addressing the issues. The city had taken steps by hiring environmental consultants and legal experts to represent Doral’s interests in discussions with the county. The attorney explained the procedural requirements for initiating intergovernmental dispute resolution, indicating that litigation could take years, and expressed hope that negotiations could yield a favorable resolution without resorting to legal action.