HomeMy WebLinkAboutLTC 281-2026 Budget Advisory and Government Spending Efficiency Committee Annual ReportM IAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
LTC#
TO
FROM:
DATE
SUBJECT
LETTER TO CO M M ISSIO N
Honorable Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission
Rafael E.Granado,City Clerk~
tune 26.2026 /l
Budget Advisory and Government Spending Efficiency Committee Annual Report
The purpose of this Letter to the Commission (LTC)is to provide the Mayor and City Commission with
the Budget Advisory and Government Spending Efficiency Committee's ("Committee")annual report
detailing the Committee's findings and recommendations regarding the City's fiscal policies,
procedures,and government spending efficiency in accordance with Ordinance No.2026-4804 that
was adopted by the Mayor and City Commission on March 18,2026.
The Committee reviewed the City's budgets,programs,grants,and initiatives,with a focus on
identifying opportunities for right-sizing operations and increasing the efficiency of government
spending across all departments,divisions,and programs within the City.
The annual report is being provided in advance of the July 17,2026 Finance and Economic Resiliency
Committee (FERC) Budget Workshop to support informed discussion and allow the Mayor and City
Commission to consider the Committee's findings and recommendations as part of the Fiscal Year
2027 budget development process.
Should the Mayor and City Commission require any additional information or clarification related to
the Committee's findings and recommendations,the City Administration can provide such information
upon request.
Attachment A-BAGSEC FY 2027 Budget Review
JDGITOS/RA
281-2026
Attachment A
BAGSEC FY2027 Budget Review I City of Miami Beach FY2027
BAGSEC Budget Review Prepared for the Mayor and City
Commission June 2026
Table of Contents
Introduction and Mandate 2
Scope Statement.2
Report Disclaimer 2
Preliminary Estimates Disclaimer 2
Impediments and Staged Approach 3
Parameters for Evaluation 4
Strong Recommendation:Immediate Artificial Intelligence Adoption for Efficiency and Cost Savings
..............................................................................,6
Police and Fire Departments 7
Citywide Accounts Grants and Contributions 8
Parks and Recreation 9
Public Works 11
Tourism and Culture Resort Tax Special Events and Sponsorships 11
Office of the Mayor and Commission 13
Next Steps 15
Attachment A
Introduction and Mandate
The Budget Advisory and Government Spending Efficiency Committee submits this report to the
Mayor and City Commission pursuant to its duties under Ordinance No.2026-4804,adopted in
March 2026.That ordinance renamed and expanded the former Budget Advisory Committee,
directing it to consider and make recommendations on issues affecting fiscal policies,
procedures and efficient government spending throughout all City units and departments.The
Committee is further charged with examining proposed budgets,programs,grants and initiatives
and with providing an annual report recommending any right sizing to increase government
spending efficiency.
This is the first annual report prepared under the expanded active mandate.The review focused
on operational and fiscal efficiency rather than on the underlying policy merits or civic value of
individual programs.Determinations regarding which services the City should provide its
residents remain reserved to the Mayor and City Commission.
Scope Statem ent
The Committee conducted its work in accordance with the Scope Statement adopted as part of
its operating framework.That statement provides:
Ordinance No.2026-4804 establishes the purpose of the Budget Advisory and Government
Spending Efficiency Committee as follows:"to consider and make recommendations on all
issues affecting the fiscal policies,procedures and efficient government spending throughout all
of the units and departments within the city."The ordinance further directs the committee "to
examine,study,review and consider proposed budgets,programs,grants or initiatives and any
amendments thereto,"and to "provide the city commission with an annual report recommending
any right sizing to increase government spending efficiency."The committee's review is
therefore limited to the fiscal and operational efficiency of City spending.Decisions regarding
which programs the City should provide its residents are reserved to the Mayor and City
Commission.The committee does not assess the social or civic importance of any program.
Report Disclaim er
The findings and recommendations in this report are made within the parameters of Ordinance
No.2026-4804.The precise disclaimer adopted by the Committee reads as follows:
The findings and recommendations of the Budget Advisory and Government Spending
Efficiency Committee are made within the parameters of Ordinance No.2026-4804,which
directs the committee to recommend "right sizing to increase government spending efficiency."
The committee makes no judgment regarding the importance or necessity of any program as it
relates to the overall needs of the City of Miami Beach or its residents.Determinations regarding
the scope of services the City should provide its residents are reserved to the Mayor and the
City Commission.
Prelim inary Estim ates Disclaim er
Certain recommendations in this report include preliminary estimates of potential financial
impact,cost recovery improvements or new revenue opportunities.These estimates are based
on high level analysis of the budget information available to the Committee.They are intended
to be directional and indicative only.Actual results would depend on detailed implementation
planning,operational execution,participation levels and specific policy decisions by the Mayor
and City Commission.The Committee suggests that any such estimates be subject to further
modeling,verification and refinement by City staff and subject matter experts before final
2
Attachment A
budgetary action is taken.The inclusion of these estimates does not constitute a guarantee or
precise projection of future financial outcomes.
Im pedim ents and Staged Approach
Ordinance No.2026-4804,sponsored by Vice-Mayor Joseph Magazine and adopted on second
reading on March 18,2026,renamed the former Budget Advisory Committee as the Budget
Advisory and Government Spending Efficiency Committee and expanded its role.The amended
Section 2-41 directs the committee to consider and make recommendations on all issues
affecting the fiscal policies,procedures and efficient government spending throughout all units
and departments of the City.It further directs the committee to examine,study,review and
consider proposed budgets,programs,grants or initiatives and to provide the Commission with
an annual report recommending any right-sizing to increase government spending efficiency.
The Office of Management and Budget delivered the detailed program listings to the committee
toward the end of April 2026.The committee had scheduled its first working session for May 19,
2026,but a power outage at City Hall prevented the meeting from taking place.The earliest
date on which all members could convene was June 16,2026.The committee set a June 30,
2026 submission deadline by unanimous agreement of its members.That date reflected two
considerations.In discussion with the committee,Tameka Otto Stewart,Director of the Office of
Management and Budget,noted that the report would have the greatest impact if the Mayor and
Commission received it before the important City meeting scheduled for July 17,2026.The
committee also weighed the prior personal and professional obligations of its members.That
compression of the available working time together with this deadline created the narrow
window within which this initial report was prepared.Florida's Sunshine Law bars members of
the committee from discussing its business with one another outside a properly noticed public
meeting.As such,work that would normally proceed through iterative discussion among
colleagues had to be conducted either by individual members working alone or through
deliberation confined to scheduled meetings.The committee respects and adheres to this legal
constraint,despite the resulting limits on the scope and depth of the review that could have
been completed.Moreover,the ordinance converted the committee from a relatively passive
body that reviewed a budget placed before it into one charged with actively examining
programs,grants and initiatives across departments for spending efficiency.A change of that
scope,from a reactive to an active function,cannot be completed in a single cycle.The
committee therefore structured its FY 2027 work as the first stage of a longer effort,focusing on
the largest departmental budgets.Those departments and functions together represent
approximately 85%of the City's total FY 2026 adopted program budget of $594 million.Given
the time constraints,this report is necessarily limited in scope and is not comprehensive.It is
structured,however,to deliver immediate value to the Mayor and Commission while also
serving as a foundation and template for more thorough reviews in future budget cycles,
including FY2028.In addition,readers should not interpret the absence of any program from
this report as committee endorsement.
Much of the information needed to evaluate whether programs deliver measurable value to
Miami Beach residents,such as the number of residents served,non-resident participation
rates,usage data or documented outcomes should be available and does not depend on how
individual programs are budgeted for the ensuing year.Requiring departments to provide this
information to the BAGSEC committee by September 1 would give the committee substantial
time to review,analyze,submit queries and receive feedback through an iterative process.This
earlier and more structured flow of information would allow the committee to develop a clearer
picture of ongoing commitments and provide more considered recommendations well in
advance of the formal budget review cycle.
The Scope Statement and Report Disclaimer adopted by the committee at the outset constitute
the process followed in reaching every determination contained in this report.Under that
3
Attachment A
process,the committee's review is limited to the fiscal and operational efficiency of City
spending.Determinations regarding which programs or services the City should provide to its
residents remain reserved to the Mayor and the City Commission.
To support systematic FY2028 planning and BAGSEC review,the Commission might request
that each department head formalize and submit to the Committee by a date aligned with formal
budget development a tiered prioritization of programs and specialty functions within their
department,organized from lowest to highest direct impact on core City services.The tiered
submission should include the FY2027 budgeted cost for each program,with particular attention
given to programs in the lowest tier so that potential savings or reductions can be identified
early.Alongside the tiering,each department head can provide,for each program,the intended
outcomes,the metrics used to measure delivery,whether those metrics capture programmatic
value and areas where targeted investment would improve service delivery,reduce operational
or liability risk or lower long term operating cost.This information would enable informed
recommendations for the FY2028 cycle while protecting core public safety capacity.
Param eters fo r Evaluation
To reduce arbitrariness and promote consistent evidence based recommendations the
Committee reaffirmed a four test framework for raising items to the Commission or City Manager.
•Test 1 addresses whether an item involves a policy or appropriation decision within the
Commission's or City Manager's authority rather than a purely operational management matter
outside the Committee's purview.
•Test 2 requires that the dollar amount be large enough to matter in the context of the City's
approximately one billion dollar all funds budget.Minor line item adjustments or rounding
errors do not warrant Committee attention.
•Test 3 looks for cases where the budget submission lacks sufficient basis for the expenditure,
revenue projection or reclassification at issue.This test remains distinct from second guessing
a policy choice that was properly disclosed and justified.
•Test 4 examines whether the program or expenditure represents a core municipal function
rather than an elective service that could be delivered through fees,private funding,
sponsorships or not at all.This test carries particular weight for free or heavily subsidized
programs where comparable services operate on a fee recovery basis elsewhere in the City's
portfolio or in peer jurisdictions.
All four tests should be satisfied before an item is raised.An item that is actionable and
financially material,but adequately justified in the budget does not meet the standard.
For grants,contributions,and sponsorship lines the Committee worked with the information
available in the current budget materials to assess whether programs deliver measurable value
to Miami Beach residents.For future cycles,recipient organizations should be required to
provide documented evidence of the measurable value and outcomes their programs deliver
specifically to Miami Beach residents.Where a clear contractual or legal basis for the City's
obligation exists,that basis should also be identified.It should be emphasized that the
committee suggests that the burden of demonstrating value to Miami Beach residents rests with
the recipient organization.Going forward,recipient organizations should report a standardized
set of metrics when submitting programmatic information to the Committee.These metrics
should include,but are not limited to the following:
•Miami Beach resident versus non-resident participation reported both as counts and as a
percentage of total participation
•Percentage change in resident participation year over year
•Total participants served measured against capacity and against the prior year
•Total program revenue generated
4
Attachment A
•Fully loaded cost or net revenue generated to the City per Miami Beach resident served
•Percentage change in program revenue year over year
•The City contribution as a percentage of the program's total budget with the percentage
change year over year
•Earned and private revenue as a percentage of total program revenue,including ticket sales,
vendor fees,memberships and corporate sponsorships with the change year over year
•Documented outcomes tied to the program's stated goals rather than activity counts alone
Any line that cannot demonstrate measurable Miami Beach specific public benefit with clear
outputs ought not be renewed.
Professional and trade associations organized as 501 (c)(6)entities exist to advance the
interests of their paying members.Taxpayer support for such organizations raises equity
questions when the primary beneficiaries are member businesses and when similar promotion
and visitor functions are already supported through substantial contracts such as the annual
agreement with the Greater Miami Convention &Visitors Bureau (GMCVB).In such cases,
member dues or other private revenue sources represent the more appropriate funding
mechanism.
For sponsorships and special events,the guiding principle is that municipal funding serves
appropriately as seed capital for new or emerging initiatives.Once events mature and develop
independent revenue streams through corporate sponsors,ticket sales,vendor fees and
merchandise they should transition toward self sufficiency.The true cost to the City of a
sponsored event frequently exceeds the stated sponsorship line,as detailed in the Tourism and
Culture section.The Committee suggests that the City capture and allocate the fully loaded
police and fire costs,along with sanitation,public works and facility support to each sponsored
event.With that data the Committee would be able to assess the true net cost of each event
and make better informed recommendations.There was insufficient time in this cycle to request
this cost information from the relevant departments,receive it and deliberate on it as a
committee before the final report was due.It is suggested that this information be incorporated
for the FY2028 cycle and subsequent years.A structured lifecycle policy would bring
transparency and predictability to these commitments.
Before turning to specific department and program reviews,the Committee offers a forward
looking framework that the Mayor and Commissioners might consider adopting for ongoing
budget decisions.For any new program,grant,contribution or sponsorship proposed in any
department the purpose should be clearly stated along with how it benefits the City,the metrics
that will be used to measure performance and the specific indicators that would demonstrate
success.To prevent arbitrary or preferential decision making,the Committee recommends that
this framework be formally adopted as City policy and applied uniformly to all funding requests.
Establishing clear,written criteria through a formal policy or administrative procedure would help
ensure that decisions are based on merit and documented justification demonstrating direct
benefit to Miami Beach residents.By institutionalizing this process,the Mayor and Commission
would establish consistent standards that apply equally to all requests,thereby strengthening
public confidence in the City's commitment to equity,fiduciary responsibility,and transparency.
A commitment funded as one time can return in a later cycle,often as an enhancement,and
gradually settle into the base budget.The Committee suggests a uniform mechanism for any
item designated as one time.Each would be labeled and tracked as such,given a defined
sunset,and kept out of automatic rollover.If the item is proposed again,whether as an
enhancement or otherwise,it would be treated as a new request and carry the full justification
required of any new program,including purpose,demonstrated benefit to Miami Beach
residents and the metrics for measuring results.A written and uniformly applied standard
subjects these items to consistent rather than arbitrary scrutiny,while preserving the City's
ability to make a genuine one time commitment when it chooses.
5
Attachment A
Budget discipline should extend across every department and funding source.Any proposed
enhancement,whether a new or expanded program,a new position or an increased
sponsorship should be accompanied by a corresponding reduction elsewhere so that the overall
budget does not expand.This principle could be adopted immediately and would help ensure
that future decisions rest on tradeoff and evidence rather than accretion.
Tourism related programs should be funded through the Resort Tax rather than subsidized by
resident property taxes.
While the Committee's primary focus has been on expenditure efficiency and right sizing,the
Commission may also wish to consider complementary steps on the revenue and cost recovery
side.Examples already in use in some areas,such as contractor models and fee adjustments
for specialty summer camps,show that shifting appropriate costs to users or external organizers
can reduce the burden on the general and resort tax funds.Similar opportunities may exist with
special events,where requiring organizers to cover a larger share of police,fire and other
municipal support costs could improve cost recovery without reducing the number or quality of
events the City wishes to host.
To support more consistent evaluation of these opportunities,the Commission could direct staff
to develop basic cost recovery tracking for major special events and programs.Useful indicators
could include the fully loaded municipal cost of police,fire,sanitation and facility support for
each event,the percentage of total event costs covered by the organizer through ticket sales,
vendor fees and private sponsorships and the net cost to the City after those contributions.Over
time,such tracking would allow the Commission to see which events are moving toward greater
self-sufficiency and where further adjustments to cost sharing may be warranted.
Strong Recommendation:Immediate Artificial Intelligence Adoption for Efficiency and
Cost Savings
The Committee recommends that the City promptly evaluate and implement artificial intelligence
tools across all departments through a centrally coordinated effort.The Committee suggests
that the City Commission establish by resolution an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee to
advise all City departments on tool selection,vendor evaluation,suitable use cases and
responsible implementation.The Advisory Committee should be citizen led and expert driven,
consisting primarily of citizen members with domain expertise in technology,data privacy and
security,finance,procurement,legal and municipal operations,with the Chief Information Officer
or designee and a representative from the City Attorney's Office serving as ex officio members.
The Committee suggests the City aim to seat the Advisory Committee and define its required
domain expertise within roughly the first two to three months with the City setting the exact
schedule.
While the Advisory Committee is being established,the Committee suggests using existing
capabilities.The Information Technology Department has led a decade long effort in responsible
Al adoption emphasizing ethical use,privacy protection,human oversight,staff training before
deployment and limits on autonomous decision making.In a February 10,2026 presentation to
this committee,the Chief Information Officer outlined this work that has positioned Miami Beach
ahead of many peers.The City has been thoughtful and ahead of the curve;the Advisory
Committee would accelerate and broaden that work with expertise across departments.Scaling
these protections and capabilities across all departments exceeds what current Information
Technology staff can sustain alone.
In the interim,Information Technology staff could advance low risk preparatory steps,including
expanded training on available tools and identification of high priority use cases.Once seated,
the Advisory Committee would develop a phased implementation approach beginning with
limited pilots supported by clear metrics.It would present a citywide plan to the City Commission
for consideration and approval,addressing budgets,training and safeguards.The Committee
6
Attachment A
suggests targeting broader rollout within roughly six to twelve months after the pilots yield
meaningful results.The Advisory Committee could also consider opportunities to build on
existing successful tools such as the Al powered Agenda Chat assistant.
Police and Fire Departm ents
Police and Fire represent the two largest components of the City's operating budget and deliver
core life safety services.The Committee recognizes that any substantive changes to staffing or
operations must navigate contractual arrangements previously agreed upon in collective
bargaining agreements.These agreements create meaningful constraints,including minimum
staffing requirements and limitations on the City's ability to reduce sworn positions.The
Committee is not proposing the elimination of filled positions.Instead,the observations below
focus on opportunities to manage future headcount through attrition,civilianization where
appropriate and other efficiency measures.Future contracts could include a "no material change
of circumstances"clause to provide greater flexibility should significant external conditions
change.The Commission may wish to consider directing the City Manager to explore these
ideas in consultation with the Police Chief and Fire Chief while fully respecting existing
agreements.
The observations that follow are offered in the spirit of improving the overall efficiency and
sustainability of public safety services rather than simply reducing headcount or budgets.
Technology,regional partnerships,event cost sharing,civilianization of appropriate functions
and managed attrition can all contribute to delivering strong public safety outcomes at lower
long term cost.The Committee believes this efficiency focused framing is the most constructive
way to support the Commission and City Manager as they address fiscal pressures.
Context is important when evaluating Police and Fire budgets.Miami Beach per capita spending
in these areas,we believe,is in line with or lower than peer cities such as Fort Lauderdale and
Miami,even though Miami Beach must serve a massive visitor population that many peer cities
do not face at the same scale.This context should be kept in mind so that recommendations are
not based solely on absolute dollar amounts.
Overtime represents a significant and growing component of Police and Fire expenditures.It is
driven by both vacancies at any point in time and increased reliance on special event and detail
assignments.Simply reducing budgeted overtime without a corresponding reduction in service
demand creates a risk that actual expenditures will exceed the approved budget.To avoid this
outcome,any reduction in overtime funding should be paired with a clear decision on which
services or event support levels will be scaled back.In addition,it may be useful for the City to
study what percentage of overall Police and Fire expenditures is attributable to overtime growth
and whether structured efforts to convert appropriate overtime into regular positions could yield
savings while maintaining service levels.
Within these constraints,opportunities exist to avoid filling certain vacant or proposed positions
rather than creating new reductions.The Fire Department has suggested not filling positions
associated with its boat program,freeing resources that could be reallocated across
departments where needs are greater.For Police,the Chief has identified vacant Detective
Officer,Crime Analyst and Public Safety positions that could remain unfilled.Additional positions
that might not be filled include four in the ATV squad,five in the bike squad and six sworn
officers in other assignments.These choices would reduce headcount over time without
violating existing agreements.
A civilianization review could proceed in areas such as Records,Property and Evidence,
Business Resources and selected administrative roles in Fire Prevention,Training and
Community Affairs,provided it is structured so that it does not simply shift work into increased
overtime expenses for remaining sworn personnel.
7
Attachment A
Cross training and coordination between Code Compliance and Park Rangers could create
efficiencies that reduce the total number of positions needed in both areas.Code Compliance
staff might assist with certain fire regulation compliance tasks,generating further operational
savings for the Fire Department.
Both departments operate under defined benefit pension plans that contribute to substantial and
growing long term liabilities for the City.Over time,continuing this structure for all future hires
may place increasing pressure on the City's finances and raises questions of long term fiscal
sustainability that the Committee believes are worth examining.The Committee raises this as a
matter for consideration rather than as a specific design recommendation.It does not
recommend a particular plan type and does not propose to dictate how any change might be
approached.Such matters are best determined by the City and the affected bargaining units
through good faith negotiation and careful actuarial analysis.The Committee is also mindful that
competitive retirement benefits play an important role in the ability of the Police and Fire
departments to recruit and retain qualified personnel.Any approach the City considers should
preserve benefits that remain attractive relative to peer cities,so that fiscal considerations do
not come at the expense of recruitment and retention.The Committee notes that a range of
pension structures exists between a traditional defined benefit plan and a pure defined
contribution plan,and that several of these may offer strong and competitive benefits to
employees while helping to moderate the long term liability the City carries.The Committee
respectfully suggests that the Commission may wish to explore these alternatives in future
contractual negotiations.Any change would naturally apply on a prospective basis and would
fully respect the benefits already promised to current employees.
I
Citywide Accounts Grants and Contributions
Citywide Accounts Grants and Contributions total approximately $531,000 across fifteen
organizations in the most recent adopted program budget.Most lines have rolled forward
annually without affirmative re-justification by recipients and many predate the current
Commission and current budget environment.Administrative overhead for processing each
grant,including legal review,accounts payable,routing,contract execution,1099 issuance and
compliance,plausibly runs several thousand dollars per organization annually.For the smallest
lines,processing costs can approach or exceed the grant amount itself.
As outlined in the Parameters for Evaluation section,the Committee applied consistent criteria
when reviewing grants and contributions.These criteria focus on whether programs deliver
measurable value to Miami Beach residents,whether resident versus non-resident participation
is documented,and whether a clear contractual or legal basis for the City's obligation exists.
Under these parameters several grant and contribution lines raise questions.They fall into the
following categories
Programs lacking documented Miami Beach resident specific benefit or serving primarily
regional or member interests rather than the general public.
•Orange Bowl Committee (approximately $17,000):event held at Hard Rock Stadium
approximately 16 miles from the City,with county wide youth programs and no stated Miami
Beach specific service in the materials reviewed.
•League Against Cancer (approximately $25,000):regional Hispanic cancer nonprofit without
documented Miami Beach specific programming.
501 (c)(6)trade associations (Miami Beach Chamber,Gay &Lesbian Chamber,and South
Florida Hispanic Chamber)that primarily serve dues-paying member businesses rather than the
8
Attachment A
general public.The following 3 entities offer visitor and business promotion functions that
overlap significantly with the City's approximately $8,987,000 annual contract with the GMCVB.
•Miami Beach Chamber /Visitor's Center (approximately $36,000):primarily serves its
approximately 1,500 member businesses;visitor functions overlap the larger Greater Miami
Convention &Visitors Bureau destination marketing contract.
•Miami Beach Gay &Lesbian Chamber (approximately $25,000):serves a regional
membership of approximately 600 businesses with functions largely duplicated by the
GMCVB contract.
•South Florida Hispanic Chamber (approximately $24,000)
The budget provides no measurable outputs or current contractual basis for these contributions.
If the City wishes to support business community engagement,it should consolidate these into a
single Economic Development line item with clear deliverables,rather than continuing three
separate legacy payments.
Programs duplicative of larger existing City commitments or other funding streams
•Miami Design Preservation League /Art Deco Weekend (approximately $23,000):This
event already receives approximately $150,000 in total sponsorship funding from Resort Tax
and other sources.The additional Citywide grant lacks independent justification.
•Clean Miami Beach (approximately $25,000):overlaps with Public Works Sanitation and
Environment and Sustainability beach cleanup activities.
Small lines where administrative processing costs may approach or exceed the grant amount
Open Heart line (approximately $5,000).
P arks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation operates both a self funding enterprise function,including golf courses,
tennis centers and contracted youth programs and a fully subsidized programming function,with
no clear accounting or policy principle separating the two.Two golf courses together generate a
combined surplus of approximately $2.2 million.In contrast,and by way of example,the same
department runs adult yoga programs at 3.6%cost recovery.The City simultaneously runs
programming and sets prices,provides facilities and contracts out programming and provides
means tested access without an articulated rationale for which model applies to which activity.
The Commission could direct the Parks and Recreation Department to disclose the fully loaded
subsidy,including direct costs plus allocated overhead,for every program as a standard
element of the annual budget presentation.An explicit policy setting target subsidy levels for
different categories of programming and the justification required to maintain subsidies above
those targets would bring structure to these decisions.Fee schedule changes require
Commission approval under City Code,making this recommendation actionable.Contractor
revenue share models that have succeeded for youth programs,tennis centers and the golf
courses could be extended to adult programs and athletics where cost recovery currently stands
at 3.6%and 8.0%,respectively.The youth programs line already shows contractor operation
generating revenue exceeding cost for most activities.
9
Attachment A
For programs that remain directly operated,pricing could be restructured to move closer to cost
recovery or to benchmark against private venue rates,while preserving means tested access
and core public safety or equity functions such as learn to swim programs.Specific areas
include:
•Aquatics at current 6.2%recovery
•Citywide and community rentals at 42.3%recovery
•Beachfront restroom and special events janitorial at 62.4%recovery.A single-year increase of
approximately $576,000 (67 percent)with no competitive bid documentation or scope
authorization provided in the materials reviewed.
•Youth and teen athletics at 31.6%recovery.
•Identification of resident versus non resident differentials in all programs especially travel
soccer.
For items lacking clear Miami Beach specific justification or duplicative of other funding streams
the same documentation and justification requirements apply.These could be eliminated or
required to demonstrate essential service justification specific to Miami Beach residents.For
any program that serves both residents and non residents,the percentage participation from
each group should be tracked and reported so that pricing and subsidy decisions can be made
with accurate data.
Several specific items in Parks and Recreation represent meaningful efficiency or revenue
opportunities.These include:
••Scott Rakow Ice Rink concession model:The rink operates at approximately $861,695 cost
against approximately $202,000 revenue (23.4%recovery).Transitioning to a concession-
operated model,which is standard in peer markets,would reduce the General Fund subsidy
while maintaining public access.
•Summer Camps model and pricing adjustment:The Summer Camps budget line combines
two different functions.Traditional and playtime camps primarily serve as childcare and could
remain directly operated by the City with means tested subsidies.Specialty camps in sports,
arts and STEM are enrichment programs that ought to be self funded through sponsorships
or increased fees,or even a contractor revenue-share model with clear metrics established
for each program to demonstrate value and success.
Special and discretionary programs better suited for fees or sponsorships:
•Intramural Baseball:approximately $570,000 cost/approximately $293,000 revenue
Special Events (18 events):approximately $1,025,167 cost/approximately $40,000 revenue
•Teen Programs:approximately $650,843 cost/$0 revenue
•Senior Programs:approximately $514,478 cost/$0 revenue
These programs should be reviewed to determine which components should transition to user
fees,sponsorships,or reduced scope,while protecting any core supervision or socialization
functions that warrant ongoing subsidy.
•New revenue generation opportunities:Potential exists through park asset naming rights
(with quiet plaque acknowledgment),commercial fitness operator permits (estimated
10
Attachment A
approximately $180,000 annually),event title sponsorships,and corporate wellness
partnerships.Combined,these could generate between $500,000 and $1,500,000 annually
at maturity.
•Park Ranger and Park Facilities operating model review:The Park Ranger program
(approximately $5,054,000 cost,minimal revenue,48 FTE)and Park Facilities
(approximately $5,864,889 cost,zero revenue)warrant operating model and efficiency
reviews given their scale.The Park Ranger model could be compared against peer cities
that utilize contracted security.
•Administrative cost classification standardization:Parks Administration represents 11.7
percent of the department subtotal.A standardized approach to classifying administrative
costs across Police,Fire,and Parks should be completed before drawing conclusions about
relative administrative efficiency.Al supported analysis could assist with identifying
inconsistencies and opportunities for efficiency gains.
A further opportunity for cost recovery and improved stewardship lies in the conservancy model,
in which a nonprofit cares for a park while the City retains ownership.The approach is well
established.In New York the Central Park Conservancy privately raises about 75%of the park's
operating budget,Bryant Park is run by a nonprofit that accepts no public funds,and closer to
home The Underline in Miami-Dade pairs County land with nonprofits that raise money and
operate the space.
The appeal is.both quantitative and qualitative.Private philanthropy,concession revenue and
sponsorships can offset the City's operating cost,while dedicated management tends to raise
maintenance standards and accountability.The model fits a park with an identifiable
constituency that benefits from its upkeep.The Committee suggests the City consider a pilot at
a suitable park;structured to keep ownership,free public access and policy control with the City.
Public Works
Detailed recommendations were not finalized within the available materials and timeline.The
Committee offers for consideration that this department receive focused attention in a
subsequent review cycle,applying the same four test framework and documentation parameters
used elsewhere.
Tourism and Culture Resort Tax Special Events and Sponsorships
Numerous Resort Tax special events programming and sponsorships have grown by accretion
due to their structural embedding within the annual budget precluding consistent systematic
review or graduation criteria.The principle applied in this review is that municipal sponsorship
serves appropriately as seed funding for new or emerging events.Mature events with
established corporate sponsor bases,ticket revenue,vendor income and attendance should
transition toward self sufficiency.The true cost to the City frequently exceeds the stated
sponsorship amount and includes fee waivers at the Convention Center,Bandshell,
Soundscape and rights of way,in kind police,fire and sanitation services,facility and utility
usage and staff time for permitting and coordination.
The Commission could establish a formal Resort Tax Sponsorship Lifecycle Policy.Full
sponsorship would apply in years one and two as seed funding,stepping down to 50%of launch
level in year three,25%in year four and exit at full launch rate in year five.In addition,a
possible small contribution of 10 to 15 percent of launch level,capped and permitted only for
documented public benefit components such as free walking tours or lectures could be
11
Attachment A
implemented.Annual reporting would be required for any continued or new funding,covering
total event revenue,sponsor base,ticket and vendor revenue,attendance and percentage of
event cost covered by sources other than City subsidy.A sunset clause requiring affirmative
Commission renewal vote on every line every two years would prevent automatic roll forward.
Catch all discretionary pools such as Community Events and the Special Events Sponsorship
Program could be eliminated or restructured to require itemized,Commission approved
expenditures with specified events,recipients and deliverables.Every sponsorship line should
carry a memo entry quantifying true total municipal cost.
Mature events that could step down or graduate off subsidy include
•MDPL Art Deco Weekend at approximately $150,000 total,approaching its 50th year since
1978 founding,with over 130 vendors,sponsorships,admissions and merchandise generating
substantial revenue.This event is institutionally mature and commercially viable,so a step
down to $25,000 to $50,000 for genuinely public benefit components such as free walking
tours,lectures and Welcome Center hours could apply,with the commercial vendor portion
required to self fund.
•SOBE Wine and Food Festival at approximately $184,000 is in year three of a five year
commitment and ranks among the most commercially successful food events in the country,
so the existing commitment could be honored while the basis for continuation beyond year five
is evaluated.
•Miami Beach Pride at approximately $250,000 is a large annual event with a major corporate
sponsor base that could be evaluated for step down.
•American Black Film Festival at approximately $200,000,established in 1997 and in Miami
Beach since 2002 with corporate sponsors,could be evaluated for step down.
•OnStage!Cultural Programming at approximately $310,000 is a recurring annual commitment
that should be self sustaining by now,so sponsor structure and graduation timeline could be
reviewed.
•Miami International Piano Festival at approximately $75,000 has ticket revenue potential that
could support step down.
•Miami Beach Air and Sea Show at approximately $350,000 could be reviewed for whether
corporate sponsor recovery has matured sufficiently to permit step down.
Several sponsorship and contribution lines in Tourism and Culture raise questions under the
parameters applied.They fall into the following categories:
Programs serving primarily non-Miami Beach populations
•Style Saves (approximately $76,710):serves primarily non-Miami Beach Title I schools
across South Florida,with Miami Beach representing under 1 percent of the addressable
population given that Miami-Dade and Broward combined have roughly 450 to 500 Title I
schools while Miami Beach has at most two.A metric demonstrating specific benefit to
underprivileged Miami Beach children could be required.
Programs whose current and future economic value to Miami Beach should be assessed
proportionate to cost
•Sister Cities (approximately $137,230):could be assessed for current and future economic
value to Miami Beach proportionate to cost,building on its historical significance since 1959
and connections to Art Basel and Dance Now.
12
Attachment A
Programs raising double-subsidy or fee waiver questions
Public School Graduation (approximately $69,970):raises a double subsidy question
because Miami Beach residents already contribute roughly one third of their property taxes
to Miami-Dade County Public Schools outside the City budget.Confirmation on whether fee
waivers at City facilities also apply would be useful.
Three sponsorship lines do not appear in the proposed FY2027 budget but have been funded
before and could resurface as enhancements in this or a future cycle.
•Women's History Month (approximately $10,000)
•Seafood Festival (approximately $25,000)
•Paraiso Miami Swim Week (approximately $75,000)
A request presented as one time becomes a recurring commitment if it returns each year
without fresh scrutiny.Should any of these be proposed as an enhancement,the Committee
suggests it be tracked as a one time item and held to the justification standard in the
Parameters for Evaluation section,rather than absorbed into the base budget by default.
GMCVB incentive structure and MBVCA pass-through issues
•For the new GMCVB contract,incentives could be structured so that payments are made
only for actions directly attributable to GMCVB efforts,such as securing new bookings for
the Convention Center,rather than for events the organization did not create or solidify for
Miami Beach.Examples of events not brought by GMCVB include the World Cup,the
Orange Bowl,the Super Bowl and other major sports or entertainment events secured
through county,state,or private channels.An incentive would be appropriate when GMCVB
actively brings a program to the Convention Center,but not when the event would have
occurred in Miami Beach regardless of their involvement.Metrics and the evaluation process
applied before any incentive payments should be requested to ensure alignment with this
principle.
•For the MBVCA approximately $3,494,000 pass through,any duplication with direct City
grants could be clarified and a spreadsheet of sub grant recipients and amounts would assist
review.While this funding carries statutory constraints,it may be worth examining what
expenditures are eligible under MBVCA dollars,as some of those costs might be redirected
to provide budgetary relief.
O ff ice of the M ayor and C om m ission
The Office of the Mayor and Commission discloses a single approximately $50,000 recurring
enhancement for Exhibition Programming.This is the smallest dollar item in the enhancement
analysis.Larger questions concern two new full time equivalent positions added to the FY2027
preliminary budget without disclosure on the enhancement slide and a structural duplication
involving communications and branding functions that already exist in the Marketing and
Communications Department.
Position count moves from 28 in the FY2026 adopted budget to 30 in the FY2027 preliminary
budget.At an estimated fully loaded cost of approximately $140,000 per FTE,the two
undisclosed positions add roughly $280,000 to the recurring base.This commitment compounds
in every future budget cycle through cost of living adjustments,step increases,benefits inflation
and any subsequent reclassification.Across a five year planning horizon,the two positions
represent a minimum $1.5 million commitment,several times the disclosed approximately
$50,000 enhancement in dollar terms.
13
Attachment A
New positions at this cost level belong on the enhancement slide in the same format used for
other departments.The Committee offers for the Commission's consideration that final action on
the preliminary budget for this office at the requested level could be informed by disclosure of
the two new positions in the standard enhancement format,including position descriptions,
justification narratives,reporting structure,grade and fully loaded cost.Once disclosed,the
positions could be evaluated on the merits against the four tests and the criteria applied to other
enhancement requests.
A structural duplication exists in communications and branding.The organizational chart
identifies three positions dedicated to these functions within the Office of the Mayor and
Commission:the Mayor and Commission Communications Officer,the Senior Branding
Manager and the Multimedia Specialist.The City operates a full Marketing and Communications
Department with professional staff,established workflows and supervisory structure for exactly
these functions of brand management and multimedia production.Constituent communications,
policy messaging and elected official correspondence are core to the legislative branch and
appropriately reside in the Mayor and Commission office.Branding and multimedia production,
however,are standard centralized functions in municipalities of comparable size.When these
functions are run separately inside the Mayor and Commission office,the cost is not only the
duplicated headcount.The arrangement also splits the domain knowledge and supervisory
expertise that a single professional department concentrates.It further creates the risk that the
City speaks with more than one voice.Brand standards,visual identity and public messaging
managed in two places can drift out of alignment and reach residents and visitors as
inconsistent or conflicting communications.Routing this work through one department keeps the
City's external messaging coordinated and consistent.
The Mayor serves as the face of the City and requires dedicated support to ensure the Mayor's
vision is properly advanced and communicated.A liaison role within the Mayor and Commission
office is essential to coordinate with the Marketing and Communications Department and to
ensure the Mayor's priorities are clearly understood and executed.At the same time,the actual
public relations,marketing and branding work should be performed by the Marketing and
Communications Department,which already has the highly respected professional staff,
established workflows and supervisory structure to deliver this work at the highest level.
Channeling public relations,marketing and branding through one department also ensures that
every public facing message passes through a single point of professional review,which keeps
tone,branding and policy emphasis aligned across departments rather than managed in
parallel.The Commission might request that the City Manager consolidate the Senior Branding
Manager and Multimedia Specialist work output into the Marketing and Communications
Department for the FY2028 budget cycle (no additional FTE's),while retaining a single liaison
position within the Mayor and Commission office.This structure would reduce three full time
positions to one FTE overall,with no additional fees charged to the Marketing and
Communications Department.This recommendation is therefore both quantitative and
qualitative.It captures a measurable efficiency by reducing three positions to a single liaison.It
also improves the quality and consistency of the City's communications by concentrating
professional expertise and message control in one department.A suitable title for the remaining
liaison role could be Communications and Branding Coordinator or Mayoral and Commission
Liaison.
For the approximately $50,000 Exhibition Programming enhancement in the Mayor and
Commission cost center,the Office has no curatorial expertise,no exhibition infrastructure,no
professional cultural review process and no statutory cultural mandate.The City operates
Cultural Affairs and Tourism and Culture functions specifically to curate,manage and fund
exhibitions and cultural programming.These departments are staffed with professionals whose
responsibility includes evaluating cultural programming against competing priorities and
established curatorial standards.Placing exhibition programming in the legislative branch cost
14
Attachment A
center isolates the spending from professional cultural review and is inconsistent with the
principle that programmatic spending should be administered by the department possessing
subject matter expertise.
The Commission could reject the approximately $50,000 Exhibition Programming enhancement
in the Office of the Mayor and Commission cost center.If the programming has value to the City,
the department could be invited to resubmit the proposal through Cultural Affairs or Tourism and
Culture,where it would receive professional evaluation against other cultural programming
priorities.The cost center redirection would preserve the option of funding the programming
while ensuring appropriate departmental ownership.If the department declines to redirect,
rejection without redirection could be considered.
Each Commissioner office should be reduced from two assistants to one primary assistant per
office.This adjustment would demonstrate leadership by example,consistent with the broader
effort across City government to identify meaningful efficiencies.Real world experience already
supports the feasibility of this change:one Commissioner has operated effectively with a single
assistant until recently,and another Commissioner voluntarily relinquished one assistant
position for a full year to support a City initiative that commissioner considered important.With
the significant improvements in Al tools now available,the transition to one assistant per office
should be readily achievable while maintaining strong support for each Commissioner.
The reductions outlined above would require the Mayor and Commission to operate with
meaningfully fewer staff resources than they currently have.By taking these steps in their own
offices,the Mayor and Commission would be demonstrating through their own actions how
important these fiscal adjustments are.This approach reflects leadership by example rather
than directing other departments to identify savings while leaving their own operations
unchanged.
Next Steps
Because this is the first report under the expanded active mandate and time was limited,the
aforementioned suggestions represent an initial tranche focused on the largest and most readily
analyzed areas.The Committee invites Commission discussion and direction on these
suggestions at the earliest opportunity.Additional departments,including a full review of
remaining functions and further refinement of the Police and Fire prioritization framework,
warrant attention in subsequent cycles or a dedicated FY2028 efficiency review.
The Committee remains available to provide further analysis,clarification,or supporting
documentation as the Commission deliberates the FY2027 budget and considers these
suggestions.
This report is the product of several working sessions held by the Committee and reflects the
collective input of all members.It has been unanimously approved by the full Committee.
15
Attachment A
Respectfully submitted,
The Budget Advisory and Govern ment Spending Efficiency Committee
City of Miami Beach,Florida
C o m m ittee M em bers
Benveniste,Jack
Desyatnikov,Igor
Echarte,Terri
Gringarten,Hagai (Vice-Chair)
Jobanputra,Jalak
Madan,Vikas
Roedy,William
Slipman,Curtis (Chair)
W eithorn ,Deede,CPA
16