By Coral Gables Gazette staff

The budget advanced. The gloves came off—again.

Coral Gables commissioners gave preliminary approval on Sept. 12 to a $313.6 million budget that holds the tax rate flat for a 12th consecutive year. But the debate revealed a deeper divide over what fiscal “discipline” means—and who gets to define it. For Mayor Vince Lago, holding the line on millage is proof of stewardship. For Commissioner Melissa Castro, a modest tax cut is a chance to show responsiveness. And in the middle, Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson, Commissioner Richard Lara, and Commissioner Ariel Fernandez each traced different paths toward demonstrating fiscal restraint.

Lago vs. Castro: Credibility, croquettas, and control of the narrative

Mayor Vince Lago began by defending the city’s flat millage rate as a hallmark of fiscal discipline. But then he went on offense. He called up archived footage from past budget hearings and directed the clerk to play it on-screen. The video showed Commissioner Melissa Castro warning that even small tax cuts could jeopardize city services. “She said it would hurt services… and it was a meager, meager amount,” Lago told the room, arguing that she had opposed cuts when revenue was high—yet now backed them amid inflation and new obligations.

Then came the jab: “You don’t lower the millage for the price of a cup of coffee and a croquetta at Vicky’s.” He repeated the line minutes later, underscoring his point that Castro’s proposal was more political than principled.

Castro didn’t retreat. “Let’s go ahead and address those videos,” she said. “The proposal last year was very different.” She emphasized that her current four-year phase-down had been vetted by staff and designed to protect services. “They just don’t want to vote on [it] because they weren’t serious about lowering the millage the whole time”.

What remained unclear was who prepared the video. Likely, city staff assembled it at the mayor’s request. The tactic had recent precedent—last month, a similar reel was used to support the removal of Planning Board member Sue Kawalerski. This latest instance again raised questions about the use of public resources for political effect. The optics were unmistakable: a sitting commissioner portrayed as inconsistent, using municipal infrastructure meant to remain neutral.

Whether the public will see it as an inappropriate use of city staff remains to be seen. But the moment underscored how rehearsed—and politically charged—commission meetings are.

At stake was more than arithmetic. Lago positioned consistency as credibility, warning against “political sentiment” that could undermine staff morale and fiscal stability. Castro argued that responsiveness is its own form of discipline—a willingness to adapt, to listen, and to elevate affordability as a public value. The subtext was clear: Who gets to define responsible leadership?

Anderson’s case: Cash is king

Anderson skipped the theatrics but drew a sharp line: liquidity equals resilience. “Cash is king when we get our city restored,” she said, crediting the city manager’s guidance and pointing to lingering FEMA reimbursements from Hurricane Irma.

She warned that decisions made last year had created ripple effects that limit options now. Her call for “accountability” underscored a theme: cutting rates for symbolic savings could jeopardize the city’s ability to respond to crises.

Anderson’s position relied on policy math as much as caution. The city maintains reserves at 25% of its total operating budget, consistent with its formal policy—a posture she frames as preparedness. At roughly $59 million, that reserve serves as both a rainy day buffer and a signal to bond markets that AAA-rated Coral Gables remains disciplined even amid rising costs.

Lara: Against optics, for structure

While Lara rejected bloc politics—“There is no majority I belong to”—his argument aligned with Anderson and Lago. He zeroed in on what he called “optics,” warning against gestures that don’t fix underlying imbalances.

“We have to fix structure, right? That’s the key to this,” Lara said. While he didn’t mention sanitation directly, his comments echoed broader concerns about departments that still rely on general fund subsidies—such as sanitation, which receives an $8.9 million transfer covering nearly 60% of its costs.

Lara’s framing was technocratic: relief must be measurable and recurring. That made Castro’s proposed rate cut, in his view, less a plan than a talking point.

Fernandez: Seeking relief without tax cuts

Fernandez backed the budget but quickly pivoted toward relief. “The general fund is still footing 59% of the bill,” he said of sanitation. “And we have to figure out a way to get that down”.

The commissioner emphasized that approval of the budget should not end the conversation about affordability. He urged the restoration of checks for seniors and disabled veterans and asked staff to explore eliminating the fire-service fee. Fernandez noted that the sanitation fund still relies on a significant general-fund subsidy and called for structural solutions, not temporary patches. His position suggested a middle path: targeted relief paired with durable offsets, designed to ease resident burdens while preserving fiscal discipline.