Miami-Dade Commissioners in the Shadows: Unexplained Deficit and Salaries in 2025.

Miami-Dade Commissioners in the Shadows: Unexplained Deficit and Salaries in 2025. The context: a trillion-dollar budget with numbers that don’t add up

Miami-Dade is facing a historic $402 million deficit, just months after the official figure in May was $47,342,700. Despite managing a budget that increased from $12.7 billion in 2024-2025 to a proposed $12.9 billion for 2025-2026, the commissioners demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic administrative mechanisms, especially those related to county salaries, a topic that should be elementary in any budget discussion.

Jimmy Morales: Admitting ignorance and relying on “leftovers”

The Chief Operations Officer, Jimmy Morales, didn’t fare much better. When asked about how the budget structure was built, his responses reflected improvisation and a lack of planning:

• “How this would develop was something we truly did not know.”
• “A critical point… we lost $200 million over the next five years.”
• “At the end of each fiscal year, there is money that is not used… so there is another $33 million.”

These phrases show that the county depends on leftover funds and last-minute adjustments to cover deficits, instead of having a solid plan. Even on critical issues like public transportation, Morales acknowledged:
“Some deficits, like the one in transportation, are problems we will have to consider in the future, because they are not solved in a single year.”

Morales intervened to try to clarify some points, but ended up reinforcing the idea that commissioners have been approving year after year budgets without understanding the most basic details.

In the transcript, Morales acknowledges that the commissioners are only now asking questions they should have understood years ago, like the salary increase formula and the union’s role in negotiations.

Example of his tone:

“These are questions that perhaps had not been asked with the depth they should have before…”

In other words, Morales admitted that the ignorance came from years past and that this board meeting put them “against the wall.”

For years, the explanation of this immense budget was reduced to three slides in a PowerPoint presented by the Director of Management and Budget, David Clodfelter. But in the latest Budget Meeting, with the deficit out of control, the inconsistencies and knowledge gaps were exposed.

David Clodfelter and the numbers that are never enough

When commissioners questioned how the salary system worked, Clodfelter—the man in charge of explaining how every dollar is spent—could not offer clear answers or exact figures. On more than one occasion, he simply admitted that he “did not have the precise numbers at that moment” or that the technical details of the salary mechanism were handled “at another administrative level.”

The contrast was stark: if the very director presenting the budget cannot explain the basic mechanisms of county salaries, how do the commissioners expect to approve a financial plan of nearly $13 billion?

On multiple occasions, when commissioners asked him “how many employees does the County have and how are raises calculated?”, Clodfelter responded with generalities, without offering exact figures or a clear breakdown.

There were instances where he directly admitted not having the precise number on hand, offering only promises to send the information later.

This is particularly serious because he is the director responsible for justifying a budget of 12.9 billion dollars, with a current deficit of $402 million.

Example of the tone of his responses (according to the transcript):

“I don’t have the exact figure at this moment, but I can get it and send it…”
“The mechanism is complex, it depends on several categories…”

With these phrases, a systematic opacity was exposed: in previous meetings, everything was summarized in three slides, without a transparent breakdown of the thousands of employees and their salary scales.

Exchange Chair Anthony Rodriguez and David Clodfelter (1:14:15–1:20:00)

The Chairman introduces budget director David Clodfelter to answer about the allocation of $20,000 per employee for health insurance, which later dropped to $17,200:

Relevant excerpt (literal transcription)

1:14:02
“Thank you. Happy to take your questions. Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you for that thorough and precise presentation. It was 80 originally. I know. I know. I know.

I’ve been in all the meetings with our commission auditor, Yinka. Thank you and your team for all of the work and the late hours and all the meetings that we’ve been having back and forth.

So, I’m going to open it up now to all of us, my colleagues, commissioners, for you to kind of dive in. Obviously, we have some questions of the administration, based on both new questions that we may have, but also based on the presentation as well.”

1:14:40
“And we’re working — Yinka and I are working on the numbers now that we’ve made a change to our healthcare. There is also money there because the original budget that was proposed to us had a spend of $20,000 per employee. That was reduced in the latest one that we got to $17,200. We haven’t received a lot of backup on where those numbers come from. But just as an FYI, that is something that we’re also working on to have something to you before the first budget reading.”

1:16:09
“Through the chair: David Clodfelter, our budget director, will answer. And Commissioner Regalado, I don’t know if you dove into this at all, I’m sure you have. You’re welcome to jump in. But can we go through the per-employee allocation that we have in…”

📌 Key point:
The Chairman makes it clear that there are doubts about how the figure of $17,200 per employee was reached, and he gives the floor to David Clodfelter to answer in detail.

Response from David Clodfelter (Budget Director)

1:16:30 – onward
“Through the Chair, yes, absolutely. So, when we put together the original budget, the $20,000 per employee was essentially a placeholder. We had not yet completed the negotiations with the healthcare providers.

Since then, those negotiations have concluded, and the cost per employee came down significantly, closer to $17,200. That number reflects the updated agreements, but we are still working on the detailed breakdowns.

Part of the issue is that the plan designs have changed, and the actuarial assumptions also shifted after updated data on utilization was received. So, the $17,200 is not arbitrary, it is based on the new actuarial projections and negotiated rates.

However, I acknowledge that the documentation and backup for how that number was derived is not as clear as it should be. We are preparing that backup now, and it will be delivered to the Commission before the first budget reading, so everyone can see exactly what’s behind that reduction.”

Key points of his response

• The $20,000 was a provisional estimate: they included it in the budget as a “placeholder” before negotiating with insurance providers.
• After negotiating, the cost dropped to $17,200 per employee.
• The figure is based on actuarial calculations and changes in the medical plan design, not an arbitrary reduction.
• Lack of transparency: he acknowledges that detailed documentation explaining how those numbers were reached has not yet been delivered.
• Commitment to deliver backup before the first official budget reading.

📌 In summary: Clodfelter admits that the Commission approved numbers without technical backup delivered on time. In other words, they were spending or budgeting blindly, and the information is only being produced now.

The commissioners: approving without understanding

The real reality check was that the commissioners, who have been approving these budgets for years, do not know how the county’s salary mechanism works. This is a fundamental issue: payroll spending represents one of the highest components of any government budget.

However, in the session, the commissioners were exposed for being unable to explain—and not receiving a convincing explanation—of something so elementary. The conclusion is clear: they have been voting blindly for years, relying on simplified presentations that hide the magnitude of the problem.

The uncomfortable question: who is held accountable?

If the director of Budget and Management admits not having figures on hand, if the COO acknowledges that they did not know how key processes developed, and if the commissioners ignore the basic mechanisms they have been approving, then the problem is deeper than a simple deficit:

• It is a system of opacity.
• It is a deliberate lack of transparency.
• It is a political structure designed to approve without questioning.

The big exposure of the Budget Meeting: salaries without a compass and a $402M gap

In the special budget meeting on August 20, 2025, with a proposed budget of $12.9 billion and a deficit that the budget director himself has put at $402 million, Miami-Dade commissioners exposed more than just red numbers: years without mastering the basics of how many employees the county has, how salary increases work, and what mechanisms they have been approving.

What they said… and what it reveals

Jimmy Morales (Chief Operations Officer) acknowledged that the Administration did not anticipate how the institutional redesign or the carryover of costs would work: “Moving from a single administration to six constitutional offices… and the fact that for years the county used the 2% rate to fund services… how this would develop was something we truly did not know.”
He added that “at the end of each fiscal year there is money that is not used… another $33 million” and that, with adjustments, they barely scraped together ~$66 million to plug the hole.

• Minute 1:14:00–1:22:10 (Chair ↔ David Clodfelter, OMB): the exchange reveals information gaps about payroll and the real cost of personnel. The Chair points out that the Board itself “has already cut positions and vacancies,” but no one offers exact figures for employees or the salary impact; it is promised to “keep looking at it in September.”
• Minute 1:55:10–1:56:05 (discussion of FTX funds): uncertainty is confessed about how extraordinary resources were allocated, and the Mayor’s office confirms they were “swept” (reprogrammed) without detailing the breakdown at that moment.
• Transportation (MetroConnect): a commissioner asks in the middle of the session to be explained “how the service works”; the director clarifies that it is not door-to-door. Years funding it and there was no operational clarity.

The pattern is consistent: not knowing the basics, already with the deficit looming.

Where the budget dissipates: the case of the Legal Department

With data on the legal department’s salary from 2012 -2025 (sample of 33 lawyers from the “County Attorney’s Office”), the annual salary cost went from $7,735,612.56 (2021) to $11,402,263.76 (2025):

• $3,666,651 in 4 years

+47.4% accumulated

Totals per year (sample of 33 legal positions)

• 2021: $7,735,612.56
• 2022: $8,565,998.22 (+10.7% y/y)
• 2023: $9,481,360.86 (+10.7% y/y)
• 2024: $10,270,773.25 (+8.3% y/y)
• 2025: $11,402,263.76 (+11.0% y/y)

Average salary 2025 (sample): $345,523.
Approximate range 2025: $308,837 to $417,163.

Who got the biggest raises in 2025 vs 2024 (percentage)

• Valdés, Michael (Ast. County Attorney 2): +22.76%
• Villano, Suzanne (Ast. County Attorney 2): +17.84%
• Moffett, Marlon (Ast. County Attorney 3): +16.30%
• Angell, Christopher (Ast. County Attorney 2): +15.55%
• Zaron, Erica (Ast. County Attorney 2): +15.54%
  (very close: Cruz-Bongini 15.51%, Simon 15.38%, Kirtley 15.34%, González M. 15.03%)

Key fact: 19 out of 33 lawyers in the sample (≈58%) received raises exceeding 10% in 2025 vs 2024.

Legal leadership (variations 25→24)

• Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan (County Attorney): +6.09% → $417,162.68
• Jess McCarty (Exec. Asst. County Attorney): +6.09% → $405,984.40
• Gerald Sánchez (First Asst. County Attorney): +6.09% → $405,984.28

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: salary

From 2021–2025, most of these positions show annual increases combining COLA, merit, and career step increases. The problem exposed in the meeting is that the commissioners did not know the “how” or the “how much” of these mechanisms, even though they have been voting for budgets that contain them for years.

Why this matters

• Structural deficit vs. payroll mass: With a $402M hole, the county acknowledges that it does not have the growth of the payroll mapped out in detail –and the meeting makes that clear–.
• Expensive automatisms: A good part of the increases come from collective bargaining agreements (COLA + merit) and progressions that are not discussed in session at the level of detail the crisis demands.
• Late transparency: If the leaders themselves are “just finding out now” about the basics (workforce, raise rules, unspent funds), oversight has failed.

Conclusion: the price of ignorance

Today, Miami-Dade is not only facing a $402 million deficit, but also a credibility crisis in its political and administrative class. The community sees clearly that those who handle public money do not master the mechanisms they themselves approve, nor do they offer the transparency taxpayers deserve.

The county lives on patches, leftovers, and excuses, while residents face higher taxes, deficient services, and an uncertain financial future. And worst of all: the admission of ignorance by the highest authorities can no longer be hidden.

Are you interested in this topic? Read the next article and stay informed about everything that affects our community. Visit our main page: newsmiamidade.com/

Don’t miss the next article. More information at: newsmiamidade.com/

Full video of the commissioners meeting