Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2002-03-27 MinutesLl f CITY OF MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27, 2002 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIQCITY HALL Priscilla A. ThompsotVActing City Clerk 0 i CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 7k3i day of March 2002, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in special session. The meeting was called to order at 2:20 p.m. by Chairman Tomas Regalado, with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez (District 1) Vice Chainnan Johnny L. Winton (District 2) (2:27 p.m.) Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Chairman Tomas Regalado (District 4) Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5) (2;26 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Manuel A. Diaz Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Joel Maxwell, Deput City Attorney Maria Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney Frank Rollason, Assistant City Manager Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning Sue Weller, Labor Relations Officer, City of Miami Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk March 27, 2002 ! 0 1. ORDER OF DAY BRIEF COMMENTS ON LITIGATION BETWEEN CITY AND HOMESTEAD -MIAMI SPEEDWAY, LLC (See #3). Chairman Regalado: Start the special meeting of the City Commission and first we're going to have a moment of silent prayer, then Commissioner Sanchez will do the pledge of allegiance and then we'll make some announcement as of the agenda this afternoon. If you'll please stand. A moment of silent prayer. An invocation was delivered by Chairman Regalado, followed by Commissioner Sanchez leading those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Chairman Regalado: OK. Let me just make some announcements. We have an item that we need to discuss immediately. It's a report from the City Attorney regarding Raceworks and auto race in downtown Miami. Then we have one PZ (Planning and Zoning) item, which is time sensitive for the administration, and then we'll go into the main item of this special City Commission meeting. Commissioners Teele and Vice Chair Winton are in the building. I think they were meeting with the Mayor, and they will be here in a few minutes. Also, Mayor Diaz will be coming down in a few minutes, too, for the item that we will be addressing in terms of the union contracts. Madam City -- Maria Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, just so that the record correctly reflects the comment that you just made, Commissioner Teele and Commissioner Winton are not meeting with the Mayor at the same time. Chairman Regalado: Of course. We all know that. Commissioner Sanchez: Different rooms. Chairman Regalado: Different rooms, just like a doctor. Madam City Attorney, we have a report from your office regarding litigation between the City of Miami and Homestead Miami Speedway. Could you give us a report? Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if 1-- will we be taking any action on this? Chairman Regalado: We -- if we are taking action -- and probably ... Commissioner Sanchez: May I suggest that we would have a full board when we (INAUDIBLE) the item (INAUDIBLE). Chairman Regalado: Oh, yes. Yes. We're just -- just to expedite the agenda, we are going to just listen to the City Attorney on the report. I understand that Commissioner had been briefed on this items? 2 March 27, 2002 r • Commissioner Sanchez: Mr, Chairman, I would feel comfortable if we had a full Commission when we discuss this item or any updates because it is a -- of course, we see the court reporter here. It is an item that's under litigation. Chairman Regalado: Absolutely. Commissioner Sanchez: I would feel very comfortable if we could probably take a recess for the next five minutes to ten minutes. Chairman Regalado: Let's do this -- Commissioner, let's do this. We have a PZ item that is being brought by the administration. It's in your district. So, let's deal with that and then, hopefully, when we're done -- so, if we can have Ana Gelabert, Planning Director, here. It's a first -- Lourdes, go ahead. i I 3 March 27, 2002 2. TABLED: PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE ON CHANGE OF ZONING FOR PROPERTIES AT 1245-1271 NW 2ND STREET; 1227, 1231, 1232, 1244, 1251, 1252, 1257, 1258, 1267, 1268 AND 1276 NW 3"D STREET; 1228, 1229, 1230, 1234, 1235, 1259, 1260, 1267, 1268 AND 1269 NW 41H STREET; 1228, 1229, 1236, 1244, 1245, 1252, 1253, 1268 AND 1269 NW 5TH STREET; 1228, 1236, 1246, 1254, 1258 AND 1274 NW 6" STREET; 420 NW 12TH AVENUE AND; 219, 227, 303, 321, 327, 335, 421, 429, 443, 519 AND 527 NW 13TH AVENUE (See #4). Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ -1 is an amendment to the Zoning ordinance in order to add an SD -19 overlay. If you look in your package, this particular area of the City is just north of the Little Havana Latin Quarter Special District and just east of the Orange Bowl. What we're trying to do in this particular area is increase the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) on an R-3 zoning in order to promote a different type of urban infill housing. What an FAR increase does is, it would allow a developer not to do anymore units, but to do bigger units, to be able to get some more two and three-bedroom units in this area and attract families. We're doing a citywide study in order to implement this citywide. When we examined the zoning regulations for number of units per acre and FAR, there was a huge jump when you go from R-2 to R-3 in density, but the FAR only jumps by point one zero. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Excuse me. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: I have a procedural problem. This item was specifically advertised for after 3:00. I would suggest that you table this item until the 3:00 time. Commissioner Sanchez: So move to table the item. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Regalado: But I thought that these items were advertised after two. Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. We just checked. This item -- the Clerk just showed me was at -- the Hearings Board Office has just showed me it was advertised after three. Chairman Regalado: No problem. We'll listen to it after three. Note for the Record: At this point, Commissioner Teele entered the Commission chambers at 2:26 p.m. THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 2:27 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:27 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT. 4 March 27, 2002 0 0 3. SUPPORT, IN PRINCIPLE, GRAND PRIX AMERICAS' CAR RACE IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI, SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 4-6, 2002; SUBJECT TO FURTHER COMMISSION ACTION. Chairman Regalado: We have Commissioner Teele here and we just need Vice Chairman Winton so we can proceed with the Raceworks report. Sergeant at Arms, could you check about Commissioner Winton? Note for the Record: Vice Chairman Winton entered the Commission Chambers at 2:27 p.m. Chairman Regalado: OK. We have a full board now, so we can proceed with the report from the City Attorney regarding Raceworks and the City of Miami litigation. Mr. City Attorney. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioners, last week the City fled a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the circuit court judge, which declared the license agreement between the City of Miami and Raceworks void. The Notice of Appeal has, by operation of Florida law, creates a stay in the imposition of the circuit court judge's order. In that case, we proceed under the agreement as we have in place. Notwithstanding that procedural issue, we are exploring and are close to an agreement that modifies or reforms the contract to conform with Judge Genden's order, where he felt that some of the provisions of that agreement made it look more like a lease than a license. We're addressing those issues. The negotiations and discussions have been fruitful. We're close but we're not ready to present to you a reformed contract for your consideration today. However, I don't anticipate any impediments to reaching a license agreement, which will comply with the judge's order and allow us to proceed with races -- proceed with the agreement with Raceworks. At this point, that's pretty much the status of the situation. What I'd like to do is hopefully have a contract agreed to, in principal, by the Manager and Raceworks printed, prepared, and distributed to you well in advance of any opportunity for you all to have vote on it. Commissioner Sanchez: When do you anticipate that contract being in front of us? Mr. Vilarello: Commissioners, I wouldn't do it at any other time other than April 11"', unless the -- which is your next regularly scheduled meeting, unless the Commission has an alternative thought on that. Chairman Regalado: No. 1 think April 1 lt� is fine. Question for the administration. What is the status of the permit, Frank? Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): We have been discussing the permit as late as this morning, and we were in a position with the April race dates to issue the permit. We were at that point waiting just for the delivery of the insurance documents, was the only thing that was in waiting. The judge then made the ruling and everything came to a halt. If the situation is that the race that is proposed in October will be the same -- basically the same as what we're talking about running in April -- and that's what we've been lead to believe at this point -- then we're ready to go with the permit for that race, as soon as we receive the insurance documents for that. Again, any changes that come, operationally, to that race will have to be adjusted at that time, as 5 March 27, 2002 it would with the race on five, six and seven. I mean, there may be changes that come at the last minute or whatever. But as far as the race permit that's required by statute, we would be able to go forward with that. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioners, that would be, of course, conditioned upon reaching a license agreement, which now complies with the court's order. Chairman Regalado: Do you need, Mr. City Attorney, any action from the Commission in terrns of approving the date -- the October date? Is that a sign -- could that be a sign of support for the race or do you want just a commitment from the City Commission of continuing the support that this board has given the race? Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, I have no items that I need you to act on today. If this City Commission wishes to approve a resolution, in principal, that it would support a race on that October date, I have no objection to your adopting such a resolution. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: It's -- Commissioner Sanchez: Resolution supporting the race on those dates. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Regalado: We have a motion and a second. For discussion. Mr. Lopez. George Lopez: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name is George Lopez. I'm an attorney with law firm of Steel Hector & Davis, and we represent Homestead Miami Speedway, the plaintiff in the litigation that was previously discussed by your City Attorney. I simply rise before any action is taken on this or any other matter that may come before you today and raise just two points for your record. Number one is that it is clear, from your agenda and including public records requests response that we received just today, that it is intended that this Commission meeting will only do discussions, and therefore I would humbly request that any actions that will be taken would properly be noticed and the public given an opportunity to participate. And the reason I raise that point is because, although I think your County Attorney has properly described to you the current status of the case, the -- Vice Chairman Winton: Our attorney is a City Attorney. Mr, Lopez: I'm sorry. Your City Attorney has properly characterized the status of the case in not only recognizing that the existing Raceworks agreement is null and void, both on the principal of being a lease or not even being a lease, but a contract to put on a race activity and based on what I've heard here today, it is no change to the race course. So, therefore, on waterfront property. The court very specifically directs the City that we, at the speedway, have a right to have a bid considered fully and equally before any action is further taken, and I would quote the court's order in saying that a bid not only fully and equally considered before entering 6 March 27, 2002 into any lease or any contract. And I heard here today that there's a possibility of a license or some form of contract would be entered for the use of the City's waterfront property for motor sports races. We, therefore, would respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you would seriously consider the rights that the speedway has, vested rights as acknowledged by a court of competent jurisdiction in this litigation, and that you would either give us an opportunity to bid, whether in an informal or a formal process or, at minimum, allow us an opportunity to participate in any other processes that you deem to be legally correct in determining whether you will have sports racing on any waterfront property in the City of Miami. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being gracious enough in allowing me to speak this time. Chairman Regalado: Thank you, sir. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Mr. Vilarello: In response, Commissioner Sanchez's motion is appropriate before this body. Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, what is the effect -- legal effect of the motion? Mr. Vilarello: It's a motion of support -- support in principal and it is -- Commissioner Teele: i understand what it is. What is -- Mr. Vilarello: And it means, subject to further Commission action. In other words, there is no legal effect of it without further Commission action. Commissioner Teele: OK. So, that's what I think I want to hear on the record, that this motion has no legal effect, and I would assume the maker of the motion is designed to -- is making a motion to show a sense of the Commission, that we would like to see the long lead time kind of items and those entities that would be involved in long lead time know that they're a strong and substantial support for this race. But I am voting yes for this motion solely on the basis that this motion has no legal effect. And I want to be able to say, on the advice of counsel, that this motion has no legal effect, except to indicate, as a statement of support to the public, that there is substantial support for this race to go forward. Obviously, there's a huge cloud. There's doubt. There are seeds that are being sowed of doubt, and I think we do owe it to the public and the people that are interested, both those who would like to bid or be a participant, as Mr. Lopez has said, and to those that are seeking to go forward. A clear statement that we'd like to see you have an opportunity to express your point of view in the future on this. And, so, I'm voting for it. But I do want to join with Mr. Lopez, and I've thought about this, Mr. Lopez. I'm comfortable 7 March 27, 2002 • 9 saying this. I'm uncomfortable saying this. 1 do want to join with you on one point. This Commissioner has taken the position, from the time I've gotten here until now, that anything that relates to land -- and, Mr. Attorney, I'm going to renew my requests, as I've done three times, relating to building -- the names of buildings, changing the names on a park. Anything that grants or impacts the public land, in my judgment, should be under an ordinance subject to public notice, and I just think -- we are not here on our own rights. We're here as trustees and stewards of the public's land, and anything that impacts land that we're taking an action on -- and I don't think we're taking an action on the land today, 4K. I'm malting a big distinction. But I would say something as bland as changing the name of a playground should have a public notice on it. I think the public should never be ambushed by their trustees. They should know what we're doing with their land, and the distinction to my colleague, Commissioner Sanchez; we're not doing that today. We're simply saying to the world, the advertisers, the promoters, the people who plan their vacations and their trips and to the hoteliers and restaurants, we plan to have a race and if Mr. Lopez is sincere, we plan to have two races. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chair? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: Since this is on the public record and George Lopez has put a statement on the public record, I would like to put out to the public the significant inconsistency that's been brought forward by the folks from Homestead Motor Speedway and George Lopez. And would like to remind the public that when the Homestead folks and George Lopez and his group came to the City for those public hearings the last two times, we sat through hours, hours of testimony regarding how unprofitable this race was going to be, both for the race promoter and the City, and how impractical it was and how it couldn't succeed, and therefore we shouldn't be doing something like this. And I find it really curious that they now want to bid on this race that they said had no chance to succeed financially. And I just want to put that on the record for the public to understand. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there a response to that? Mr. Lopez: If I may, with all due respect to the Commissioner. I certainly do -- I think - Commissioner Sanchez: He gets paid by the hour. Mr. Lopez: I think that -- among other things, yes. I think that the issue that is before you, beyond George Lopez and any position that I may continue to take before this body is the following. It is your laws that tell you that you must bid this opportunity to race on your waterfront property, and it is the position that the City has taken in litigation that is consistently supported by a court of law and, accordingly, has given us this right. I am here to tell you, Commissioner, as well as this entire Commission and the City and the public we've set, we felt strongly -- and I think the best evidence for our argument is that you didn't have a race in April, and the reason for it was not just the court because if you are deciding that you would like to March 27, 2002 0 • appeal a court order that was issued in the 4"' of March and these folks at Raceworks felt that financially -- and all the support they received from the Downtown Development Authority, a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) sponsorship or three point two million dollar ($3,200,000) potential loan from MSEA (Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority), which was discussed in this same arena at the same time for hours we debated the issue. If we believe that financially that wasn't correct, we stand by it, and the best evidence is already in the books. There's no race going to be taking place this weekend. But I will tell you, Commissioner, with all due respect, that it is the position of my client that given an opportunity to participate and compete, they will, They're ready, willing and able. But we will also remind you here today and in the future that actions that this board may be taking with continued existence of permits, predicated on an agreement that is null and void in a court of law, continuation of sponsorship build-up, a continuation of commitment of dollars, as we've read today in the Miami Today, there's already negotiations for a three point two million dollar ($3,200,000) loan -- reformed three point two million dollar ($3,200,000) loan. Those factors do impact our competitive advantage and we do not have one. These folks do. There is an unfair competitive advantage being created that, if you ultimately put this out to bid, we're going to have to deal with that issue and, hopefully, we'll be before you not only to explain what that means, but hopefully to encourage you that if you do want racing in the streets of Miami, maybe the dates you're choosing are wrong and maybe that's why this resolution should be tabled and further considered because it does compete with other races that are existing in our community. If you're going to have a successful street race, festival continuation -- and we've said this publicly all along, including when we stood before you and tried to explain to you with the dynamics of this business didn't work. Regrettably, the folks at Raceworks are now coming back with other partners that may be able to make it work. Same folks that used to race at our speedway. But the dates are going to be critical; the structure of the race course is going to be critical, the sponsorship, public and private, is going to be critical, and all those are factors that we're happy to consider and discuss and debate with you in going forward. Our point is, we're ready, willing and able to bid. The court has said that we should be given an opportunity to do so, and, Commissioner, we'll continue to come back and explain what we've said in the past, reaffirm what we're saying now, and happy to bring any future information that you'll consider relevant to make a decision here in this body. Thank you, sir. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. The City Attorney -- Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: -- has said that the motion is in order. So -- Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: -- he maker of the motion -- do you want to proceed, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I need to address several of the issues that Mr. Lopez raised, just for your information and for your comfort level. Commissioner Sanchez: And also to have on the record. 9 March 27, 2002 0 • Mr. Vilarello: Yes. With regard to the order of the circuit court judge, that order is, by operation of law, stayed. So, it is incorrect to say, as we sit here today, that the agreement is null and void and that you're acting outside of the scopes of the agreement with regard to permits or any other items. In fact, we're well aware of the judge's order; with all due respect to the judge, we're addressing many of the judge's concerns, and we disagree with some of the judge's concerns. Our process is not to debate and argue that issue certainly here before you or before the public. The appropriate method of arguing those issues is before the court. I brought this up for the purposes of just letting you know exactly what the status of it was and I'm not going to argue Mr. Lopez point by point. We will do that in the courtroom, which is the appropriate place to address those issues. But for your edification and for your knowledge, the court order that's been put in place has, by operation of law, is temporarily stayed stayed until the appeal period and the appeal is addressed by the circuit court and we'll proceed with that. And moreover, to correct a factual statement with regard to any loan from -- with regard to MSEA that it has or has not been considered. From the record, the MSEA loan was never considered by this body. That is a matter of a different, separate, independent agency of the City and not considered by this City Commission. Chairman Regalado: OK. So, we have a motion -- yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: As the maker of the motion, my resolution is just based on the principal that this legislative body, including the Mayor, has supported the race to come down in Miami. That's -- you know, it's harmless. But in a way, I want to put on the record that everything is critical. The dates are going to be critical to your clients. The races downtown are going to be critical to your clients. Anything that's moved forward in this process has been either objected by your clients. We welcome you, as we stated about a month or two ago that if, you know, you guys want to come race in Miami, let's have other races in Miami. But, you know, you can't object to everything that's being done by this Commission. So, the resolution is harmless and it's just based on principal that we support that race in Miami. Chairman Regalado: OK. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It passes five to zero. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 02-342 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE GRAND PRIX AMERICAS' CAR RACE TO BE HELD IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI ON OCTOBER 4 - 6, 2002, SAID SUPPORT CONTINGENT UPON FURTHER ACTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION. 10 March 27, 2002 • 0 Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzdlez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Chainnan Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: On the point, Mr. Attorney, I would appreciate if you would prepare, for my sponsorship, a motion that invites ISC (International Speedway Corporation) or any other entity in the nation to make an unsolicited offer, and we should publish it and invite anyone to make an offer, and we should block out the days that we've got, like the Orange Bowl Parade. Contrary to what you may have read in the paper, we've not given up on the Orange Bowl Parade. We may have five Commissioners making up the parade, but we ain't giving up on that. And there are a few other things that we have going on downtown. But I do think that we should extend formally -- maybe at the next Commission meeting, Mr. Attonley, you'd maybe like to consider that and talk to Mr. Lopez and get his lettered opinion on the matter, but I would like to sponsor an invitation to ISC and any other entity that is involved in racing. There was once -- they used to have it over in Grand Bahamas. They used to have those -- what do they call them? Those old cars that used to -- classic car races over in -- classic car races in the Grand Bahamas. That was a big draw. People would go over to Freeport to see that. So, there's a lot of opportunity and, you know, it's wide open. This is America. Mr. Chairman, in that regard, I note the presence of a number of people that are helping us to pay for our arena and our facilities; they're staying in our hotels. Hopefully, they're staying in Miami. Hopefully, they didn't fly their leer jets down here and going to leave today. But I would ask the privilege of asking at least two of the race sponsors, Mr. Bermello, if you would introduce them -- I think we just can't rush through the process of giving our guests an opportunity to know that we appreciate you coming, we appreciate you bringing large staffs with you, hopefully, and that you will spend the night in our hotels. Willy Bermello: Thank you, Mr. Teele. Willy Bermello, with address of 2601 South Bayshore Drive. First, I'd like to thank you for your resolution today and for the attorneys and Assistant City Manager's presentation. We have with us Dr. Donald Panoz, owner of Motorsports, and Scott Atherton, President of the American Le Mans Series. We also have Mr. Dennis Huth, who is President of IMSA (International Motor Sports Association) and President of the TransAm Series. And we have Mr. Chris Pook, who is President of CART (Championship Auto Racing Team), and also joining Chris today is one of the champion drivers who makes Miami his home, 1 I March 27, 2002 Max Papis. All of them are here. I would like to ask for just a few minutes to have Don Panoz and Chris Pook address this body. Chairman Regalado: Go ahead. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Bermello: Dr. P. Commissioner Teele: Willy, I keep telling you, the most important thing about Mr. Panoz is not all that racing stuff for us in Miami. It's those hotels that are chained -- the hotels that he's envisioning -- Mr. Bermello; Chateau Elan. Commissioner Teele: -- and opening up in Atlanta, and we're just a little offended that he's not found some property in Miami to build a nice hotel. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm working on him. I'm working on him. Donald Panoz: Donald Panoz, founder of American Le Mans Series, 1394 Broadway, Braselton, Georgia. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I have an architect in town, Mr. Commissioner, for when we can find the right position to build a facility in Miami. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Panoz is it true you all built a hotel in Sebring, Florida? Mr. Panoz: Yes, we did. Commissioner Teele: How many rooms? Mr. Panoz: That is a race hotel. It's eighty rooms. It accommodates driving schools and that sort of activity. Commissioner Teele: In Sebring. Mr. Panoz: In Sebring. Commissioner Teele: And you can't find adequate space in Miami? Mr. Panoz: Well, we happen to own that track, sir. We have no opposition to it. No suits, et cetera, et cetera. So, we're able to get it done very quickly. I might also add, sir, that in Sebring, as opposed to Daytona, the home of ISC, which is exempt from all taxes, we pay three hundred and fifty thousand a year in taxes there. Commissioner Teele: That ain't a nice subject. Mr. Panoz: I know, sir, but just to make the record clear, that we're not ones with our hands out. Sir and, Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to talk today. I'm like -- I'm kind of in a 12 March 27, 2002 0 fog like you. I'm not a legal man. I don't have all the training a lot of people have. I find it almost overwhelming and embarrassing sometimes to address this issue because it's obvious to us that what's going to happen in Miami has nothing to do with Homestead or the ISC or the races there. Miami historically is a City race. The people that draw us have no competition with them, I know that there are tax structures here that support those activities in Homestead, I find that -- and just as a person bringing a race to a great City with a great history of racing in a City, I just find it overwhelming that the tourism industry, the hotels, the people that could benefit here are being challenged for a reason, which is not competitive to what goes on in Homestead, and I think all of you know what I mean. I think the public knows what I mean. There was other agendas here. It cant be business. It can't be on the basis that it affects their bottom line and they said that in testimony here, of what a Miami race would be. So, I'm at a lost to try to figure out what their motives are. I suspect what they are, but I don't know for sure. But I just find it incomprehensible that we could be listening to this rhetoric time after time that I've been here. I support the race here. We want to bring good race in the City. We want to support tourism. We want to give.the fans a look at good fast cars in a City environment, along Biscayne Bay, which will be broadcast to the world, with a good television production and a good image of Miami, and that's what we intend to do. We're not interested in taking a penny, from our side, away from Homestead or what goes on out there. Thank you very much. Chairman Regalado: Thank you, sir. Chris Pook; Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Christopher Pook, 755 West Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan. I would like just to reiterate what Dr. Panoz just stated to you. It's a little odd. For us it's even more odd as championship auto racing teams because the owners of Homestead Speedway, International Speedway Corporation, are clients of ours at Fontana in California. But what is even more reassuring to us today is to hear Mr. Lopez's comments on the issue of concern over the closeness of dates at Homestead with this proposed race. I find it curious because at Fontana, International Speedway Corporation just landed right on top of a 28 - year old event in Long Beach, California, with a three-week difference between an Indy racing league event of Fontana and a traditional date of Long Beach. So, maybe this is a change of heart by International Speedway I'm hearing or maybe this is just something that Mr. Lopez didn't realize was going out in the west coast and he is stating a contrary position to you today. But it's interesting and hopefully it's very reassuring that have changed your mind about landing dates and other venues around the nation, But be that as it may, we would be very proud to come back to Miami, championship auto racing teams, as you heard we have drivers that live in your city and, yes, we do, indeed stay in your hotels, Commissioner Teele, and thank you very much for the hospitality. We enjoy it. I can just tell you, you know what street racing does. It doesn't compete with permanent circuits at all, It creates huge economic value. It creates large number of jobs. It does fill hotels and restaurants and it does help the City market itself around the world, and Miami is a very high profile destination and is well-known around the world, but no matter how profile you are or how well you're known, a little more reinforcement of the brands never hurts one. So, we would like to be a part with the American Le Mans Series and TransAm in being part of that reinforcing of the Miami brand around the world and we would urge you, in your deliberations, to find a way where all the parties involved can have a day in the sun and by that I mean, we find a way, on our -side, to work with Homestead to see if we can help them in their business as we go forward. It's much too small a world for us to be throwing pot shots at 13 March 27, 2002 each other; particularly hypocritical pot shots. It doesn't make any sense to the public or to ourselves. So, I thank you for this opportunity to address you and I thank you for your deliberations. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Chris, let me try to get two or three quick things on the record. Your corporation is a publicly traded company, is that correct? Mr. Pook: Yeah. We're in the New York Stock Exchange company, yes. Commissioner Teele: And you all trade under what symbol? Mr. Pook: MPH, Miles Per Hour. Commissioner Teele: Miles Per Hour. Are you all relatively liquid at this time? Mr. Pook: I would hope so, yes. We have a hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) plus sitting in the bank. Yes. Commissioner Teele: All right. Chris, the Long Beach Grand Prix, which is well established, that's where you sort of became famous or known in a lot of racing circles. Did you create that or were you the promoter or the operator of that facility -- of that venue that -- over what period of time? Mr. Pook: I started that race -- formed the company in 1974. We had our first race in 1975 and I was employed by the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach until December the 18"' of last year. Commissioner Teele: So, was that an association -- was that a for-profit or not-for-profit? Mr. Pook: That was a for-profit company that became a NASDAQ stock exchange company in 1996 and was merged into a New York Stock Exchange company, Dover Downs Entertainment in 1998. Commissioner Teele: Now, Chris, Long Beach is well-known for its Grand Prix and I was really pleased that the president had asked me to serve in transportation, and I happened to come out there once. We were going -- we built a mall -- a pedestrian mall. We built it -- sort of like we have in Overtown now on 9th Street, the Long Beach Mall, which is a pedestrian mall. But that facility, that race is something that I think would be very helpful, Mr. Manager, for your staff, for our staff, the appropriate staff, and I see a lot of firefighters out here. A lot of people smiling, hands going up volunteering already. But we need to get -- we really do need to have the appropriate compliment of Police representatives, Fire representatives, Solid Waste representative, Public Works representatives and whoever you all think, but we need to go out and let our people see that because these street races are a one of a kind thing. I mean, the street 14 March 27, 2002 is there and you can go see the street, but if you go see the street when there's no race, you don't really understand what's really going on, and, so I wanted to encourage you. I know that we've had a long tradition with Mr. Sanchez in the great job he did in breaking Miami into this, but I do think this is a different kind of racing venue. Yeah, lawyers need to go, too, Mr. Vilarello, I would assume. When is your race in Long Beach, the big race? Mr. Pook: April 12''', 13th and 1411' Commissioner Tecle: April 12`x', 13t", and 101. That's your birthday. Maybe we need to have one Commissioner -- I don't recommend any elected officials to go, but that will be something that Oscar would have a field day with. But I do want to ask you to work with our Manager. We don't want any gratuities or benefits. If anybody goes, we want to pay our own way and we want to pay our own way into the venue. But I would ask -- recommend to the Manager that you all consider whether or not to send a unit out there to look at it. Because I think it would be very, very helpful in understanding, as we move forward. We need to also -- there are a lot of ways to send a signal that we're serious about having this race. The resolution today is one way, but I think having some people prominently displayed as City of Miami officials or with City of Miami official logos -- by the way, we've had several people to talk about logos and all that stuff, and I hope you all will give our businesses here in Miami an opportunity to participate in some of the marketing and all that. I hope you all won't just bring your whole Long Beach or Detroit operation down here, but I hope you will provide an opportunity for our business leaders to participate in the marketing and the branding of this venue. But would you be willing to receive, without any benefits or gratuities, any representatives from the City of Miami to observe this race? Mr. Pook: Mr. Commissioner, absolutely. We have hosted in Long Beach, the city of Houston, the city of Denver, the District of Columbia, who sent us officials out and to talk to our City officials about the relationship between the private sector promoter and the public sector portions of the community that need to be involved in operating a race. The second thing, Mr. Commissioner, I would say to you, that these temporary circuit events only become successful when there is -- and I'll put this in quotes "a private sector/public sector partnership" between -- within the City and the promoter. We need to work with your Convention Bureau. We need to work with your Redevelopment Agency. We need to work with your Community Development. We need to work with the charities of the whole community and forge a relationship here that allows everybody in the community to participate and receive the benefits from the operation. 1 think that if you look at the models today, where this is successful across this country, you will find this is the type of model that works. It's a participation; it's a public/private partnership where the -- all the parties work together for the benefit of the host city, and indeed the host city needs to give us the guidelines of the branding and the positioning and the image that the host city wishes to take because then it becomes our job to project that branding for you, not only throughout North America, but throughout the rest of the world. Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Chris. The final thing that I'm going to say about this is this. There are a lot of us with ideas; there are a lot of us -- there's our Mayor, we've got a communications division. We've got an organization called MSEA that you've become familiar with, but I would -- as one Commissioner, who has a lot of March 27, 2002 ideas, I would urge you to listen last to the district Commissioner where the race is being run and who happens to be the Commissioner that will be most impacted by any mistakes that we make. That's the downtown business community. So, I would urge you to work closely with the Chairman of the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), as well as all the other chairmans, the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), Bayfront Trust, dah, dah, dah, dah, but I think the DDA and especially in charity events, we really need to have a better linkage with our downtown business community, and you know, of course, I'm referring to my colleague Commissioner Winton. Mr. Pook: Mr. Commissioner, your advice is well taken. Thank you, sir. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Before you go, Willy, Commissioner Teele, do you want to frame that thought in terms of a motion for the administration to have a present -- the reason I'm saying this is because this is on the 13`x' day of April, and the next Commission meeting will be on the 11 "'. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would rather put the management on notice. Let them consider it. If they're going to do it, they'll come to us on the IIt" and they'll have their resolution and the budget code and all of that and let it come that way. But I'm sure, if they're going to do it, they will have sorted out to the two hundred fire fighters that are volunteering to go and the four hundred police officers, and get it down to like one or two. But the only thing I would ask, if you all come forward with a plan, that the dress of the day not be, you know, Guccis or, you know, Armani suits or blue jeans, but the dress of the day be something that clearly brands the City of Miami and our interest, consistent with what Commissioner Sanchez is doing in his resolution, which is signaling that we're very serious about this. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Bermello: I just want to make four very quick points. One is, I'd like to thank Chris Pook and CART -- and I think some of you know this, but maybe the people in the public may not be aware of this. We were in serious competition with Brazil for the next CART race, and the fact that I -- CART and their board of directors selected Miami as their venue, I think it's of, you know, significant proportions and makes our original racing venue two to three times the value that it originally had. We, right now, have a triple header with TransAm, American Le Mans, and CART that is really something that has never been seen before, and -- the difficulty here is, if you follow other sports, like for example, boxing, you will never have a heavy weight championship bout and a middle weight or a light heavy weight in the same boxing cart because one would tend to overshadow the other. The fact that we have these three championship series agreeing to make Miami a major spectacle can only mean dollars to our economy, hotel rooms to hoteliers, airline seats to our airlines, taxis to our taxicab drivers, and that is one of the reasons why the hoteliers in downtown Miami embraced not only the triple header but the moving of the race to October, which is a much slower month for us. We have, from day one, made a commitment that we're willing to work with Homestead. There's nothing that keeps anybody else from working at any one of the other 51 weeks in the year. We have made an unsolicited proposal that lead to where we are today. I thank Commissioner Teele for his earlier motion or suggestion to the Manager. We will embrace that. And sitting in the audience I saw Richard 16 March 27, 2002 9 9 Berkowitz and probably in a few weeks will be visiting with him and with MSEA, and they'll be nothing better that I would like to do than to take the thousands of lineal feet of concrete barriers or three bridges of fencing and tire walls and offer them to George Lopez and ISC at a very fair price because that's another source of revenue and we can work together in this and you have our commitment, as we said from day one, back last summer, that we're committed to working with the entire community, and that includes Homestead, in making this a reality. And thank you very much. And if there are any other comments or questions, we're mere to respond to them. Thank you very much. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. No, we have none. Yeah, we did vote. It was a five/zero resolution in support of the October date. So, I guess that with this, we conclude this item and we hope to have a new report on the 1 It" -- on the regular Commission meeting of the 11'''. 17 March 27, 2002 0 0 4. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 "MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO R-3 "MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" WITH AN "SD -19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY OF 1.00 FOR PROPERTIES AT 1245-1271 NW 2" STREET; 1227, 1231, 1232, 1244, 1251, 1252, 1257, 1258, 1267, 1268 AND 1276 NW 3RD STREET; 1228, 1229, 1230, 1234, 1235, 1259, 1260, 1267, 1268 AND 1269 NW 43H STREET; 1228, 1229, 1236, 1244, 1245, 1252, 1253, 1268 AND 1269 NW 5TH STREET; 1228, 1236, 1246, 1254, 1258 AND 1274 NW 6TH STREET; 420 NW 12TH AVENUE AND; 219, 227, 303, 321, 327, 335, 421, 429, 443, 519 AND 527 NW 13TH AVENUE (Applicant(s): City of Miami) (See #2). Chairman Regalado: It's 3:05 now. We can go to the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items and, Mr. Vice Chair, could you chair the meeting for a few minutes on this PZ item? I have to go see the Mayor and come back -- Vice Chairman Winton: Sure, you bet. Chairman Regalado: -- in ten minutes. Vice Chairman Winton: Lourdes. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you. For the record, again, Lourdes Slazyk, Department of Planning and Zoning. PZ -1 is -- I started to present it before, before we found out we had the to wait until three. PZ -1 is an amendment to the zoning atlas to add an SD -19 overlay to the subject properties. If you look in your package, you'll see that these properties are located just east of the Orange Bowl, between 2nd and 6th Streets. The property -- the area just to the south of it is all commercial zoning, SD -14. It's the Latin Quarter. This particular piece of these blocks are a good area for us to put this SD -19 overlay, in order to increase the FAR (Floor Area Ration) to 1.0. The reason we're doing this. This is a study -- we're going to do this citywide and this is going to be a test case in this area. In our zoning, R-2 allows 18 units per acre. When you jump to R-3, it goes to 65 units per acre. But the FAR between R-2 and R-3 is only a .10 difference. So, in R-3 you have a .75 FAR and you're allowed to do 65 units per acre. You can't get to 65 units per acre with a .75 FAR, unless you amass a lot of land. So, what that's actually doing is, developers in an R-3, trying to maximize their property, are doing lots of tiny units, little one bedrooms and studios. By reducing the amount of units per acre and bumping up the FAR a little, we're trying to encourage a different type of infill housing with more two and three bedroom units. This isn't going to allow any more units per acre. It's going to allow a little extra FAR so we can get type the housing that will bring families back to the City. Vice Chairman Winton: Smart. Ms. Slazyk: So, we're going to be amending the comp pian to reduce the number of units per acre in R-3 down to about 40, and bump the FAR up. And I think that's going to get us the right FAR and units per acre mix to get R-3 to really be the urban infill, middle density type of Is March 27, 2002 0 housing we want it to be. So, this is a good area, because there are a lot of families here. There's a need for this housing. And we think that this is going to give us now the information we need to go do the full-blown citywide amendment. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there any opposition? No? Vice Chairman Winton: Lourdes. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): It's a public hearing. Commissioner Sanchez: I know. Vice Chairman Winton: Lourdes, one of the other issues in this whole, whether it's East Little Havana or West Little Havana area is parking. Many, many, many properties don't have parking. And are we looking at ways where the City can step to the plate and -- because it seems to be the only way we're going to solve the parking problem, short of creating lower density, which is total opposite of what we're trying to do, is for government to step to the plate and buy certain lots in some of these neighborhoods, kind of centrally located, and create public parking. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. The Coconut Grove example is a very good example. The Oak Avenue Garage, but that was done through a trust fund, where development that was short in parking paid into a trust fund in order -- Vice Chairman Winton: Which isn't going to happen in these neighborhoods. Ms. Slazyk: It isn't going to happen here. So, that's something we have to meet with DOSP (Department of Off -Street Parking) and see how they can fund either little surface lots or garages with ground floor retail, so we don't break the character of the area. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: But it comes down to money. Who's going to pay for it. Vice Chairman Winton: This is a public hearing. Do we have anybody that wants to speak for or against this item? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a wish of this Commission on this item? Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Gonzalez: This is Commissioner Sanchez' district. Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez. Do we have a wish on this item? The public hearing being closed. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. It's a public hearing. There's no opposition here. It's been approved by the -- Ms. Slazyk: The Planning Advisory Board recommended -- 19 March 27, 2002 Commissioner Sanchez: -- Planning Advisory Board. So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Any further -- oh, is this an ordinance? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. An ordinance amending page -- Vice Chairman Winton: Please. There will be a test on the addresses. Mr. Maxwell: Well, you can grade me already with a big "F." Vice Chairman Winton: Madam Cleric, would you call the roll, please? An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PAGE NO. 35 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "R-3 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD -19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH AN F.A.R. OF 1.0", FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1245-1271 NORTHWEST 2ND STREET, 1227, 1231, 1232, 1244, 1251, 1252, 1257, 1258, 1267, 1268 AND 1276 NORTHWEST 3RD STREET, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1234, 1235, 1259, 1260, 1267, 1268 AND 1269 NORTHWEST 4TH STREET, 1228, 1229, 1236, 1244, 1245, 1252, 1253, 1268 AND 1269 NORTHWEST 5TH STREET, 1228, 1236, 1246, 1254, 1258 AND 1274 NORTHWEST 6TH STREET, 420 NORTHWEST 12TH AVENUE, AND 219, 227, 303, 321, 327, 335, 421, 429, 443, 519 AND 527 NORTHWEST 13"' AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 20 March 27, 2002 0 Was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Chairman Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 21 March 27, 2002 0 5. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1907, AFL-CIO, OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WALTER E. HEADLEY, JR., MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL NO. 587, OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. (See 46) Commissioner Sanchez: All righty. Let's -- all right. As J.L. used to say, it's time to fish or cut bait. Chairman Regalado: We are ready to start the public hearing. This is a special Commission meeting called mainly for the report of the Manager on the contracts with different unions of the City of Miami. I believe the Mayor has spoken to all members of the Commission and I guess that all of you have a pretty good idea of where the Mayor stands and -- so we're going to start the public hearing and everyone, of course, will have time to put on the record whatever they feel. And, so, Mr. Manager, go ahead, sir. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sue Weller, our Labor Relations Officer, will be making the presentation. And then we'll be answering any questions you may have. Sue Weller (Labor Relations Officer): Good afternoon, Commissioners. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I am very -- Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: -- uncomfortable going forward on this matter, without the Mayor's presence. I think, you know, there are few things that come about, as Commissioners I mean, I'm not trying to give the Mayor the responsibility of anything, but the role that he has as Mayor. But I would appreciate if your office would inquire as to whether or not he would like to be a part before we start. Because I think it would be fair to wait two or three minutes or 10 minutes if he wants us to wait, but I think the Mayor should hear everything we're hearing. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Let me just say, I guess that the Mayor felt that he has spoken to all the members of the Commission, and the unions, but I think that the Mayor is, of course, willing to come down and hear what is going to be said. So, Commissioner Teele, I would -- I just would call the office of the Mayor to see if he's available to come down and sit with us for the meeting. 22 March 27, 2002 0 I'm sure that he will do that, because he's been -- and I know that for a fact. He's been very involved in this issue for several days. And I had the opportunity of meeting with him yesterday and the Manager and the City Attorney and all of you met with him, but let me just call the office of the Mayor to see if he's available to come down and seek to -- that he -- Mr. Gimenez: Mr. Chairman, we have been told that the Mayor is on his way. Chairman Regalado: So, we'll just wait and -- to start the public hearing. THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 3:22 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 3:23, WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT. Chairman Regalado: Mr. Manager, go ahead, sir. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Ms. Weller: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, City Commissioners. Sue Weller, Labor Relations Officer. The City, after almost a year of negotiating with its labor unions, have reached agreement with three of the labor unions, Police, Fire and General Employees. In your packet that was given to you for today's meeting, you have three resolutions, one for each of those labor agreements. You also have a cover memo that goes into the specifics of the provisions that were agreed upon between the City and the labor unions. But just briefly, I wanted to reiterate what those provisions are. This will be a three-year agreement for the across-the-board increases that will be due to the employees covered by these labor agreements. The employees will be receiving a 4.5 percent increase in April of this year, a 3.6 percent increase in October of this year, fiscal year 2003. And then in fiscal year 2004, they will be receiving a 2 percent in October of 2003 and a 2 percent increase in April of 2004. The employees in the Fire union and the Police union will receive an increase in their 21 -year longevity step from 2 and a half percent to 5 percent. They will also receive a 22 -year longevity step of 2 and a half percent. The general employees will receive a 2 and a half percent on the 22 -year longevity. There were several plus items or pay supplements that were agreed to in each of those agreements, some of those go into effect immediately, upon ratification of the labor agreement. Some of those pay supplements go into effect in October of 2000 and October of 2003. The Fire union and the General Employees union also agreed to an increase in their health insurance premiums, 20 percent increase this year, 10 percent the second year of the contract, and 10 percent the third year of the contract. The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) Health Trust will receive an additional five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) towards their FOP Health Trust. However, they have agreed to a cap that, in the labor agreement, that if their health trust reserves go above four million, then the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) would be reduced accordingly in the City's contributions. The FOP has also agreed to a max of purchase of 150 cars a year in the labor agreement, where previously we've had to replace all the cars that were at a certain age of seven years. We were scheduled to, in fact, replace 105 cars this year and 55 cars next year, which we will not have to replace for a savings. There are also other provisions in the labor agreements that give flexibility to management. I would also like to make a small presentation to you, which goes into the history of the across-the-board increases, a comparable presentation with other 23 March 27, 2002 cities in the southern Florida, and then also the impact of this on the five-year budget. Up on the screen and in the hand out, there's a history of across-the-board increases for all four of the labor unions, going back 10 years, compared with the CPIU (Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers) for Miami and the CPIU for the United States. As you can see from looking at this, that the CPN for Miami, over 10 years, was a total of 27.2 percent and for the United States, 26.0 percent or an average of 2.7 percent and 2.6 percent. If you look at the actual across-the- board raises that the unions have received, you can see that they are below the CPIUs. Basically, the Fire union has received a total of 18.5 percent or 1.85 percent average increase. The Police union, total of 14 percent or 1.4 percent average. AFSCME (American Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees) 16.5 percent or 1.65 percent. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: (INAUDIBLE). Why don't we get an external auditor (INAUDIBLE). Ms. Weller: This is -- Commissioner Teele: (INAUDIBLE) one point is Police, one point is AFSCME, one point is Fire, and one is the -- Mr. Gimenez: Sanitation. Commissioner Teele: And one is (INAUDIBLE). Note for the Record: Due the technical difficulties, some of discussion has been omitted. Commissioner Teele: One picture is worth a thousand words. Ms. Weller: Yes, sir. You're talking about a graph, as opposed to numbers. Commissioner Teele: A graph. Ms. Weller: Yes, sir. We can do that. Commissioner Teele: I mean, is the message here that -- (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Gimenez: The message is that -- Commissioner Teele: (INAUDIBLE) CPT (Consumer Price Index). Mr. Gimenez: The CPI is over on the right hand side. The CPIU for Miami is 27.2 over the 10 - year period. Commissioner Sanchez: The message that the CPI is greater than -- 24 March 27, 2002 Mr. Gimenez: Across-the-board living and -- the cost of living adjustments that these unions have received over the last 10 years. Commissioner Teele: (INAUDIBLE) eight percent for AFSCME (INAUDIBLE) Ms. Weller: That is for the Sanitation union, Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: You know what, I want it clear that I'm in shock and I just want -- this is not about that. This is not about politics. This is about America. This union is about 80 percent black. That is the -- 80 percent African American union, is that correct? Ms. Weiler: Yes. Commissioner Teele: It's something wrong with that picture. I mean, this isn't about you, Sue Weller. And, Mr. Manager, this is certainly not about you. But, i mean, I just want to call everybody's attention to the fact that all the unions are grouped within two points of each other, except the union that is the solid waste workers, which probably has the greatest concentration of City of Miami residents of all of the other unions, and this is how we treat them, 8 percent. Mr. Mayor, something's wrong with that. Something's wrong with that picture. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, during negotiations with all four unions, we had noted that and we have tried to -- well, we're still in negotiations with Sanitation, but believe me, we're trying to treat them equitably, as equitably as everybody else. Commissioner Teele: Well, if I was Sanitation, I'd wait and see what everybody else gets and I would demand to be brought up -to -par with everybody else. And I may be just one vote, but I'm going to be -- that vote is going to be to treat them equally, based upon the same 10 -year -- starting with 1992, bring them up or move them in the direction so that they can be treated like first-class citizens, like everybody else. That is a shocking -- that is a shocking statistic. That is literally one third -- what's three times eight, 24? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: It's literally one third of the CPI and literally half of what everybody else is getting. That's not right. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the -- Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: That is exactly the same argument that I had used throughout the different discussions that I had, that it's shocking to see the way that the Solid Waste Department employees have been treated in the past. And I also don't feel comfortable with it, and something needs to be done, Mr. Mayor, to make sure that justice is done with the people that works in this department, too. Because this is incredible. I mean, they've been screaming, all of 25 March 27, 2002 0 the Hispanic radio stations with the argument, but I wasn't sure that what they were saying was so real, until I was confronted with the numbers and the issues. So, I have to agree with Commissioner Teele, that something needs to be done in order to bring justice to the employees of the Solid Waste Department, in order to make sure that they're treated equal, as any other employee in the City of Miami that we represent. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Have they taken upfront bonuses? Ms. Weller: Excuse me, Commissioner? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, they have. Commissioner Sanchez: They have? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, they have. Commissioner Sanchez: What's the amount, the five hundred and seven hundred? Mr. Gimenez: Yeah, those numbers are there. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: I was going to save this part for later, but since Commissioner Teele and Commissioner Gonzalez brought this up, this document, all by itself, is virtually useless because -- and it's the argument that I've made to every single one of the bargaining units that came and talked to me. Because you can't tell from this document what the total compensation is to any of our employees. This is one piece of a much bigger puzzle that has a million component parts to it, and it has a lot of history to those component parts. And I wasn't -- I argued this when I met with the administration, that this kind of analysis is as misleading as anything we can put on the table. And I'll give you an example. And I don't even know the history of what else is behind here. And clearly, when you look at this document, it says, we're really treating them awful. That's what this document absolutely says. I don't know that as a fact because we don't know the history and we don't know all the other remuneration pieces that go into the total package that says what an employee gets. And the argument that I've had with all the different bargaining units for the last week is that, as Commissioners, we are in a terrible, terrible bind here. Oh, there's nothing we can do about it now, but we're not going to be here ever again. Because we're not armed with all of the information that we need and they have information, the bargaining units, that's different than the information that we have. And, ultimately, we need to get to a position where we all have the same information, we're all singing from the same sheet of music, and then, when we disagree, we know that we're disagreeing over the same set of facts. Today, when we disagree, we don't even know -- certainly from our side, I absolutely never know what the real facts are. And, so, we've got -- next round, we've got to make sure that we're really up to speed. But I just wanted to point out that this is far from, far from the whole picture. 26 March 27, 2002 Chairman Regalado: Continue. Ms. Weller: The next presentation is a comparable presentation with the City of Miami, with several other cities, Ft. Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Hollywood, Miami Beach, Hialeah and Miami -Dade County. And what this first sheet shows are the wages of the 4.5 percent that is scheduled to go into effect in April, incorporated into the current beginning salary and ending salary of the various classifications for police officer, sergeant, lieutenant and captain. Basically, what you have before you, where it shows that an officer will now start at step 1 at thirty-three thousand five hundred seventy-five dollars ($33,575). In going across, you can see how it compares to the other cities at step one. The next step shows the max step for our pay range, which is step 7, without the longevities. The max step for a police officer will be 45,070. And, again, going across, that compares to what would be step 7 with the other cities. And then, if there are additional steps that those other cities have that we don't have, those are included as well. And that is the same for officer, sergeant and lieutenant and captain. The next section shows longevities, where I indicated to you before that the longevities -- there is now a 21 longevity step that's been increased, and a new 22 -year longevity step of 2 and a half percent that has been added. This -- and these annual salaries show what our officers are making at year 20, compared to other cities with their longevity steps. Our 20 and our max longevity step of 22. The next section shows across-the-board increases. These are the across-the-board increases that are scheduled in the new labor agreements, if they're ratified. And what the other labor agreements with the other cities will be given as across-the-board raises. This next screen shows -- the first section shows the Take Home Vehicle Program. Shows again the cities that have take-home vehicles and what the employee pays towards that Take Home Vehicle Program. And the next section shows pay supplements that the employees receive. And this includes current pay supplements and the new pay supplements that they will be receiving under this labor agreement, what the percentages are and compared to the other cities going across. This is a continuation -- this next screen is continuation of those pay supplements. Next you have fire, which is set up the same way as Police. First screen shows their annual wages, with a four and a half percent roll; again, compared to other cities. Next section shows longevities. And the next section shows the across-the-board increases that they will be receiving compared to other cities. And the next two screens show pay supplements; again, comparing them to the other cities, and what those percentages are. And we have AFSCME, which -- because AFSCME has so many classifications, because it's the general employees, we had -- we picked four classifications at random and compared them to other cities. Now, these rates, for a step 1, in order for us to compare them to the other cities, we show step 1 compared to step 1 of the other cities. However, if you remember, we rolled -- what was Tier 2 at one point into Tier -- I mean, Tier 2 into Tier 1. And so we do have pre -steps that employees do come in on those pre -steps. So, those people coming in could have a lower rate than what this shows. And we also have the longevity increases. And, again, the across-the-board increases. And pay supplements on the next screen. The next set -- the next presentation I'm going to show you will be the effect of these increases on the five-year plan. On the screen it shows fiscal year 2002, 2003 and 2004. The first section shows the salary adjustments, which would also include the additional firefighters. I believe it's 26 firefighters that will be added in in 2003 and 2004. So, that has been incorporated into the salary increases. You also have before you on that screen the plus items for Fire, what those individual costs are for each year, with a total at the bottom of that section of what that total for the plus items are. On this next screen, we show the Police plus 27 March 27, 2002 0 . items, what those totals are. The plus items for AFSCME. And then we have the -- that is added up, a sub total. On the next screen, we show the impact of the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) being paid to the FOP Health Trust, safety shoes that would be increased, and tuition reimbursement that would be increased from six hundred to a thousand for the employees. We also show the impact of our wages plus item and longevity on the pension contribution for fiscal year 2003 and 2004. And we also show the savings of the insurance premiums of one point two million from Fire and AFSCME. The next screen shows what we would call Non Budgeted Savings for the -- for not having to purchase the police cars, that we would be required to purchase, which is three point four million this year and one point seven the second year. And then you have a forecasted surplus in deficit over the five-year plan for adjustments. And you have adjustments for the police cars and adjustments for added Fire and Rescue. When you take the parking surcharge adjustment into account, you come down to a bottom line of ten point two million this year. Two point one million -- well, actually, a surplus of ten point two million this year, two point one the second year, and a deficit of three point six the third year. Vice Chairman Winton; Could you tell me what would happen to our budget if we had no parking surcharge? You just read these numbers, parking surcharge, thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) a year is built in there. If there's no parking surcharge, these numbers change -- Commissioner Sanchez: There may be more. At this time, Johnny, there may be 15. It's not 13. Vice Chairman Winton: Do these numbers change? And let's go to year two, that has a two million -- two point one million dollar ($2,100,000) projected budget surplus and if you take the thirteen million out of there, are we then at a ten point eight million dollar ($10,800,000) loss? Mr. Gimenez: If you make no adjustments, obviously, if you've lost -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, if you make no -- let's talk about your documents here. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: You just brought it up. Mr. Gimenez: If you make no adjustments at all for the next fiscal year, yes, that's exactly what would happen. Vice Chairman Winton: Thank you. And meaning, then, in the third year there would be a sixteen, seventeen million dollar ($17,000,000) budget deficit? Mr. Gimenez: Again, if you make no adjustments -- Vice Chairman Winton: No adjustments. Mr. Gimenez: -- for the next two years, that's exactly what would happen. But you can't -- by state law, we can't go into a year in a deficit position. 28 March 27, 2002 i 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I think we've been there. Mr. Gimenez: These are -- Vice Chairman Winton: Maybe in the state law. Mr. Gimenez: Remember now, these are, you know, outlooks that we can use to make sure that we, you know -- that we plan ahead and we know what we're looking at in the future. We cannot, you know, have a deficit budget. We can't do it by state law. Vice Chairman Winton: Thanks. Commissioner Sanchez: But this report shows that in the year 2004, we will finish with a three point six million dollar ($3,600,000) deficit. Mr. Gimenez: That's -- I can show you a chart that was drafted in 19 -- the first year we did five- year plans, and it will show you, you know, estimates for revenues, it will show you estimates for deficits, and it will show you that it was forecast: "The City of Miami's going to be in a twenty-one million dollar ($21,000,000) deficit in year five." Well, we know that that's not true. So, these are just -- these are forecasting tools. These are tools that you use to plan and to make sure that you don't get that. Because we cannot have a deficit budget. Commissioner Sanchez: But that's not the report that we're referring to. It's this one here in front of us. Mr. Gimenez: This is -- Commissioner Sanchez: And it's got a three point six deficit. Mr. Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Sanchez: Forecasted. Everything here is forecasted. Mr. Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Sanchez: Because you're projecting on the last year, which is the year that I have great concern with -- Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: -- is the forecast of the recurring revenue of the taxes, property taxes that are going up, that will be coming in the City. You're forecasting that on a conservative -- Mr. Gimenez: Extremely conservative. We feel very conservatively. And that's one of the reasons why, when you really look at the forecast five years ago, why we were at twenty-one million dollar ($21,000,000) deficit and we actually having a ten million dollars ($10,000,000) 29 March 27, 2002 • 9 surplus, OK? So, that means -- the way that this is done -- and our forecasting is done conservatively on expenses and revenue. And it's a tool to help us to make sure that we don't get to that point. Commissioner Sanchez: But we end up with a deficit and then the next year, we have contract negotiations again. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, we do. And if you find yourself in that -- you know much clearer where you're going to be in 2004. The closer you get to that budget year, the clearer the picture gets. The further out you are, the fuzzier that picture is. Commissioners, we're -- you know, we're open to any questions that you may have about the contract. I'll say this, this has been a long and arduous process. This is the -- it's negotiations. It's the best deal that I could come up with. I can tell you that neither the unions aren't entirely happy and the administration is not entirely happy. So, to me, it seems like to be a fair deal and I believe that it's a fair deal. I think we have the funding to fund the contracts and I will recommend that we approve it. Chairman Regalado: Does any Commissioners want any -- to ask any questions to the Manager? Would rather listen to the union leaders, if they want to make a presentation? So, I guess that that's the will of the Commission. So, let's hear from the unions, then we'll proceed with the comments from members of the Commission. Ed Pidermann: My name is Ed Pidermann. I'm the president of the International Association Of Firefighters, Local 587. I just wanted to -- most of the information was outlined there by the City and we agree with a lot of those numbers, and I know that they don't completely paint the picture, like Commissioner Winton said, and we just wanted to come up here to -- first of all, some of it was outlined by that chart -- is look back a little bit at history. And the members of all the Locals, all of the unions, all four unions in this City, have always been partners with the City, partners in bad times and partners, hopefully, now in better times. We're not all there yet, but we're a lot better off today than we were a few years ago. But when the times weren't so good, in '95, '96, when those times were not very good, the unions, the employees of this City didn't abandon the partnership. Didn't say, "Hey, tough luck. That's the contract." Fund the contract we had, at that point, staring us in the face of four percent race that was coming up, that was -- it was deferred. The employees did their part. We know that the 95196 time frame was a tremendous burden on the citizens of this City, but it was also a tremendous burden on the employees of this City. And we were able to solve the problems of that time frame by working together. It was a cooperative spirit and it was a lot of pain. There was a lot of pain on the citizens' part and there was a lot of pain on the part of the members of my union, as well as the members of the other unions. We didn't want to lose sight of that. Also, when, for instance, the parking surcharge was abolished by the court ruling and was being -- was reintroduced in the Florida legislature, the members of the City went up there to try and make sure that it got passed, but also members of this union, this union went -- traveled to Tallahassee and we, you know, we tried to talk to our friends in Tallahassee and ensure that that parking surcharge was reinstated. So, you know, it's not a one-way street. You know, we recognize that the City is the basis. It's the core. The City is the reason why we're able to bring food home to our families, we're able to ensure that we have a retirement, that we're able to care for the health of our families. So, we do not want to put the City in a position where they will be destroyed through bankruptcy, through 30 March 27, 2002 improper budgeting. We recognize that the viability, the financial strength of the City is paramount to us accomplishing what we want to do as employees. What we -- we recognize that many of you Commissioners are troubled by the negative number that's shown there in the third year, OK. It troubles us. But I think the City Manager laid it out very well, that a lot of the estimates are ultra conservative. I don't -- I'm going from memory. But if I recall correctly, the forecast of the growth in the tax base this year, I think, was around four percent. It ended up being, I think, more than double that. So, when they look at their budgeting, they're forecasting. They are using ultra conservative estimations on both the revenue side and the expenditure side, OK? And that's -- you know, that's not an entirely wrong way to do it because, as you see, it keeps us from getting into those deficit modes by letting it sneak up on us. What we are, us, as employees, willing to commit. There used to be a process here in the City, which was a citywide labor management process. After the `95/'96 time frame, it kind of went by the wayside. But the employees used to take a very active role in ensuring that the long-term forecasting, the long- term budgeting looking at expenditures trends, looking at revenue streams, all of those items, the employees played a prominent role in that function and we are willing to even, to the point of establishing through MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding, and formalize the process where we would establish a citywide labor management process, where we would partner with the City, look at the forecast, look at the problem areas, be willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure that this City doesn't go under. When there were factions in the City that were trying to abolish the City, the unions, the unions were out front making sure that this City's still here, OK, together with Commissioner Gort, at that time. There were several other people involved. We were at the forefront of making sure that this City didn't get abolished. Cost us a lot of hard work, a lot of money, a lot of time from our members, but here we are today. The City is stronger. It's viable. It's here survived because of the work of these City employees. In addition, if any, you know, significant revenue streams -- let's say, you know, the parking surcharge, the supplemental waste fee, anything that is a substantial interruption in any of the revenue streams, you know, occurs for whatever reason, we've always been willing to come back to the table, look at the problems, see what needs to be done to correct and overcome those obstacles. We've always done it. We did it in '95. We've done it when the parking surcharge went away. We've always been willing to come back to the table and do whatever's necessary to overcome the obstacles of any interruption, significant interruption like that. I think that we could avoid any, you ]snow -- avoid any of those problems sneaking up on us by that labor management committee, if we establish that and work it together, not three years from now when we're about to go back to the table to renegotiate a contract, but do it on an ongoing basis. Do it on monthly basis. Establish it, set it up next month. Work on it on a monthly basis. Look at -- participate in the process of revenue estimating conference, whatever is necessary. Look at expenditures, loos{ at where the problem areas are. Put everything on the table, both sides. Put all of our concerns on the table. Put all of the City's concerns on the table. Deal with it perpetually, as opposed to only letting everything lie in limbo and then, once every three years, looking at it and trying to attack it in a short time frame, which is contract negotiations. So, I think that -- I commend the City Manager and the Labor Relations Officer. They -- I tell you, they definitely stuck up for the City because they didn't give us everything we wanted, but that's the nature of the beast. In negotiations, everything is give and take. They were able to get some things back from the employees. The employees were able to make up for some past deficiencies in trying to keep up with the CPI. But I think this deal is a very equitable deal. Although, it doesn't paint the complete picture. The chart that was placed up there does give you an indication. And it's very obvious that over 31 March 27, 2002 0 41 the last 10 to 12 years, we have been behind the CPI. And really, all that does is keeps us up with the rate of inflation, OK. The raises that are contained in this contract, they're tied to the CPI. So, it's not like we're getting exorbitant adjustments. They're the same types of adjustments that the retirees get in their Social Security checks. They're not exorbitant. They are fair. They're equitable. They bring the City of Miami employees up to a level where they compete in the market place with the other local governments in South Florida. I commend the City Manager and the Labor Relations Officer. It was a long -- many long nights and a lot of struggling back and forth. There was a lot of effort on both sides. It's been a long process. I commend them. I congratulate them. I think that you should all consider that this is a fair and equitable contract. I ask that you consider everything that's been laid out for you and that you ratify these contracts today. Thank you. Chainnan Regalado: Thank you. A comment only for (INAUDIBLE) purposes. I was the only one that was here when an emergency was declared in the City of Miami by the Governor of the State of Florida, Lawton Chiles, and that declaration gave the City the power to break all the contracts, but the City -- the City Commission at that time didn't. And so it was a two-way street at that time. And the brunt of the crisis and the pain was taken, not only by the employees but by the residents of the City of Miami, who had to endure the highest raise in taxes and fees ever done in two-year period, in the history of any City in the state of Florida. So, that's for historical purposes. Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Before Mr, Cox go. The mention of the MOU, Mr. City Attorney, what legal grounds would we have on the MOU, which is Mutual Agreement of Understanding, between the City and the unions? Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): A ratified Memorandum of Understanding would be as effective as an agreed to contract. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but -- Mr. Vilarello: If it wasn't ratified, it would not have -- Commissioner Sanchez: If it was ratified -- Mr. Vilarello: -- the force and effect of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Commissioner Sanchez: But if it was ratified and they agreed to an MOU. Mr. Vilarello: If the contract -- if you were to vote -- Commissioner Sanchez: Not to say that, you know -- come on. We could be gentlemen's deal or it could be something on the table. I just, you know, to protect the City -- Mr. Vilarello: If you were to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreements that are presented to you today, and the unions would proffer, as they appeared to have proffered, a Memorandum Of Understanding, that would address labor management meetings and address the consequences 32 March 27, 2002 • of a material impact in our financial condition, until that Memorandum Of Understanding is ratified -- Commissioner Sanchez: The contract would not take place, Mr. Vilarello: -- it would not be enforceable, an enforceable contract provision. Commissioner Sanchez: So, as a safeguard, it won't be -- it won't take effect until they ratify it? Mr. Vilarello; It's a commitment from the union leadership to take it for ratification, but it is exactly that. It's a commitment for them to take it forward. Until the members of the union approve it, ratify it, it does not have the force and effect of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Commissioner Sanchez: Also, on the mention of how would we -- in an emergency, how would we define an emergency and what would be the boundaries? Would it be specific numbers? Would it be -- I mean, the parking surcharge, that would be a heck of an emergency. Al Catera (President, Fraternal Order of Police): What I think that there are some parameters similar to what happened in '95 or '96, when you declare an official true fiscal emergency, according to the definition in State Statutes. But I think what's going to happen is that labor management process is going to cut everything off way before we ever get to that point. We're not going the to wait until we get to that third year and we're staring at some kind of deficiency in the face. It's going to hit way early and we're going to be able to make adjustments early on. We're not going to wait until the third year. Adjustments may be made, cost savings efficiencies can be established in the second year, so we don't wait until we get to that third year. .And we don't necessarily have to get to that, you know, dramatic point where it's a true fiscal emergency, where it's so catastrophic like it was the last time, sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000). I don't ever want to get to that point. If there's a revenue stream that's interrupted, similar to the parking surcharge, that's 10, 11, 12, 13, fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), I think that's pretty substantial and anything that the City administration brings to us and say, hey, this was un -- you know, unforecasts, this was -- you know, there's a legal challenge and the parking surcharge goes away and they say, hey, boom, this all -- hit all of a sudden. It was something that was impossible to have been forecasted. Then they bring it to us and we're going to be at the table with them. Historically, you've seen that we've always been there, whenever, no matter how big or how small. Whenever they've come to us, we have always been there. We don't want to kill the City. We don't want to destroy the City. And with regard to the MOU, we establish memorandums of understanding with the City administration all the time. Their agreements, labor management agreement, we establish them for all sorts of things, for smaller things, internal things, like how people bid for fire stations, or they're greater things on different items. All of those items, although they don't affect the contract, they're still enforceable through the grievance process, and the grievance could be forwarded by the City or the union. That grievance process is always there and can have a remedy process, where you do have -- the City administration and the City government does have a remedy and a course of action that they can take to solve any discrepancies, if one side or the other is not willing to live up to their side of the agreement. 33 March 27, 2002 • Commissioner Sanchez: But this MOU would be designed to create savings for the City to -- Mr. Cotera: This MOU, you know, it's conceptual at this point. So, obviously, to say -- I'd be willing to put in there anything, whether it's to look at new revenue streams, you know, growth of the tax base. I wouldn't limit it to anything. I would have it as broad as possible, any solution that can be achieved, whether it's efficiencies in the operations of the City, whether it's restructuring. I wouldn't limit it. I would say that the broader the base of that -- of the scope for that committee, the more impact that it could have. Because if you limit it to one little thing, one little scope of work, I think you're limiting yourself. And I think that that's going to make that committee less effective. Commissioner Sanchez: But the purpose here -- I think we need to well -define -- and we need to know -- the Commission needs to know exactly what this MOU is going to accomplish before we commit ourselves to it. And I'll tell you the reason, before I wait until the end. If it was to vote on year one and year two, I don't have a problem with it, because I have been assured by the City Manager that we do have the funds, and there's a lot of things that we need to take into consideration here. The problem that I have is the final year. Because not only do we end up in a deficit, but we have the parking surcharge. We have -- what is that? PIFO (sic), the Police and Fire pension. Mr. Gimenez: FIPO (Firefighters and Police Officers). Commissioner Sanchez: FIPO. That we have -- Mr. Cotera: That's an annual cost that's always there. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, it's an annual cost, but -- I mean, we have to find ways to put revenue aside in everything. I mean, you have to look at the whole picture, is what I'm looking at. Mr. Cotera: I understand. And I just want to demonstrate one other point -- and I glad that you mentioned FIPO. Because through the re -settlement of the Gates suit that everybody -- those of us that have been in City administration for a long time, we have an idea of what the Gates settlement was. It dealt with the City pension funds. The employees have a pretty dominant presence on the Board of Trustees, and that's what has brought that pension trust from being underfunded to being funded correctly. But we've also done whatever we can to speak to the members on the board to do -- make whatever adjustments are necessary. As a matter of fact, as we all know, with the September Ill" attacks and the stock market being closed for nine or 10 days, when the stock market reopened, it took a crash. It crashed. The low point in the market, I think, was September 25th. Well, the snapshot that the actuary for the Fire and Police pension trust takes is on September 30th. They couldn't have picked a worse time, but that's the annual event. They take that snapshot at the end of the fiscal year. And they say, what's the value of the assets? How much needs to be in there to pay out all these long-term liabilities in there? And the City's cost to the pension trust last year was around five or six million dollars ($6,000,000) for the Fire and Police Trust. The initial estimate from the actuary was quadrupled this year. And we knew that was going to be a significant impact on the City. Had we had an 34 March 27, 2002 0 i adversarial non -partner relationship, we would have exercised our influence over the members of that board and said, leave it alone. Let them pay whatever they're supposed to pay, but we didn't do that. We understood that a twenty-four million dollar ($24,000,000) payment to the pension trust was going to to be very damaging to the budget of the City. So, we exercised our influence. We spoke to the members that listened to us on the pension trust. We spoke to them. We said, as long as you don't violate or weaken the health, the financial stability of that trust, make what adjustments are reasonable and acceptable to soften, to do what's possible to alleviate that burden on the City. And we did that. They haven't taken the final vote yet. The -- they're waiting on the final report from the actuary. But it looks like we may be able to knock off maybe ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Significant savings to the City. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Strictly on the will of the City employees. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000). That's a significant amount. And that's the spirit of cooperation. When you look at, you know, legalese, and getting attorneys, and saying, well, if it's not dotted, and the T's aren't crossed, you know, I'm sitting here giving you my personal word -- and I understand that next time around, I may not be here, but in'95, there was a union president that did what I said we've done. Between that, there was a union president that's always come to the table. Prior to '90 -- the union -- it's a culture. It's a paradigm. We understand. It's not like something that's lost. We understand that the viability of the City is crucial to us having long-term careers, to us having security in retirement. All of those things are important to us. So, it's not like we're going to walk away from here and say, oh, we snookered them. OK. We're here. We're partners. We're in for the long haul. All right. I know that there are many residents, you know, that are important, that they've been here many years, but, you know, you're looking at a work force here that is very common. Twenty-five, 30 years they spend, you know, a third or half of their lives here in the City, all right. So, they are very concerned about the City. They're not about to walk away. And a total evidence points to, they have always stood firm, They've always been there. I think the labor management process conceptualize -- and we could expand it to include whatever you want, because I think the broader the scope, the better that committee will work, the more flexibility it has to look at anything. Nothing will be sacred. There won't be any sacred cows. Everything will be on the table from both sides. We'll move forward. That committee will look at expenditure forecast, at revenue streams, look at what are the things -- the problem areas that the City identifies, the problem areas that the employees identify. Work to solve those problems way before they occur. Look at the future and we will have a crystal ball. We'll be able to look out there and solve those problems before we get to them. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, let's not talk about the crystal balls because that's what's confusing me on this, you know. The City Manager, when I asked him, said he didn't have a crystal ball. That concerned me when he can make that prediction on the last year. Now, the last situation that we want to find ourselves here, and you want to find yourself is, we'll be back here again three years in a financial crisis, figuring ways how to raise our fire fee or garbage fee or the millage, which is something that I am not prepared to do, to allow you to have a raise -- and I said it very clear. You've got to be crazy to go in a burning field -- in a burning building -- and, you know, I was a law enforcement officer. I know there's no money in the world that can pay you. And we do have financial responsibility to the City. We have it to our taxpayers, but we also have it to our employees. But the situation that I want to be -- and I have an open mind. And I told you since day one that I have an open mind. I want to be convinced that come the third year, this City does not find itself in that situation where one, we have to do three of the 35 March 27, 2002 things that I mentioned. Because I don't think it will be appropriate for us to do that. Now, the MOU that you're suggesting, if I could comprehend it and understand it to a point and maybe the Mayor accepts it, and I think that we could work it out and find ways -- savings. I've got no problems with the contract. But I'm telling you, that last year scares me because we are basically going with -- whether it's conservative or not. Where I come from, if it's not in your pocket, you don't have it. And that's -- and I'm just -- you know, this is just, you know, 20 percent up here that votes. That last year continues to scare me, when we find ourself in a deficit right off the bat, three point six million dollars ($3,600,000) -- heck, we don't even know if the Supreme Court is going to throw out the parking surcharge and we find ourselves next week -- other than the year 2006 -- and then we find ourselves back here again negotiating for three other years. Now, the point on the CPI -- Ed, listen. Come on. The CPI, you guys have been left behind. You've got to catch up. Everybody who's looking -- anybody who's getting a Social Security check will get that three percent. I get it at the firm that I work for. Everybody gets a three percent COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) or two point nine or whatever it may be. But the concern that I have, once again, Ed, if you think that we all have to work together to assure that we don't find ourselves here seven or eight months down the line or maybe two years from now saying, hey, you know, City Manager there, you know, he's -- can't say lie's got gray hair because the hair's white and continues to get white. But, you know, finding ourselves making the situation that we have to vote to raise taxes or find ways to create revenue. Mr. Cotera: We don't want to put you in a position where you're going to have to raise taxes, because that's the destructive. We understand the condition and the income level of the residents of the City. We that we -- any payment or any money that's needed to cover these contracts can be use -- can -- they're in this -- already established revenue streams. The Manager's already outlined -- if you take a retrospective look and if you put yourself back two or three years, this year probably that we're in, probably called for a deficit. So, the numbers are so exaggerated. It actually -- I think the forecast called for a declining tax base or -- the rate of growth of the tax base actually gets smaller and smaller. I mean, I look downtown and all I can see is cranes and I see a lot of construction. I think that's the move that we're moving in, is to expand the tax base, to improve the City. Some of the initiatives that the Commission's undertaken is ensuring that. We're going to -- we're committing to be partners in that, in looking at ways of expanding the tax base and not have to resort to the direct raising of taxes. We don't want that. Because I think the citizens can't handle that. But we do think that the current revenue streams will be there to cover the costs of this contract. If you look at -- if your look at the worst case scenario and you look at probabilities -- I think probabilities, if you looked at that, it would dictate that the revenue streams and there would not be a deficit. I know -- I understand that the Commissioner -- the City Manager's looking at worst case scenario, ultra exaggerated on the overstating of expenses and understating of revenues, but I think we'll be OIC. And the streams will be there. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, if I may. When I said I didn't have a crystal ball, it was probably beyond 2004, I'm very confident that we're going to be able to meet our obligations through fiscal year 2004 without a raise of taxes or fees, unless you have a significant revenue loss. Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, that's not what you told me in my office. Mr. Gimenez: I said I -- hold on. 36 March 27, 2002 0 s Commissioner Sanchez: OIC. Mr. Gimenez: I don't have a crystal ball. However, however -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's not what you told me in the office. Mr. Gimenez: Well, then, let me correct myself, sir, OK? I can tell you that I'm fairly confident, extremely confident that we'll be able to deal with the three million dollar ($3,000,000) issue in 2004. Beyond that, I don't have a crystal ball. So, maybe I misstated what I was trying to say. That three million dollars ($3,000,000) is a one percent issue, in terms of our budget, and, you know, we should be able to handle one percent issue within three years. After that, I don't have a crystal ball. However, by then, there's a reopening for the contracts. And we're also a lot clearer as to what our condition is. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, nobody said anything on the record about a reopening clause. mean, has anybody stated it? Mr. Gimenez: No. The contracts expire, so you are back in negotiations by then. Commissioner Sanchez: But I think that in the contract, when the MOU, there should be significant language there where it's acceptable to both sides. I still think there are some things that we need to come to a better understanding. Let me tell you. Commissioner Teele says it best with the violation of the sunshine law, and I think that, you know, you guys, the unions, you guys sat down with the administration. Yeah, it was tough. And then you're six months behind the hole, but I -- I felt like, in ways, you're left out. You're not informed. Then, at the last minute, you know, all the information, it's just -- you know, you get on a high -- get on a speed rail and you just takeoff. And that -- it concerns me. Mr. Cotera: Commissioner Sanchez, Al Cotera, President, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20 -- yes, sir. Chairman Regalado: Al, excuse me. Can I -- Mr. Cotera: Go ahead, sir. Chairman Regalado: Can I interrupt? Mr. City Attorney, the Manager said -- Mr. Manager, did you say that you're confident that you have the money, unless we suffer or take a hit on a major revenue? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, that's what I said. And that's why it's very important that they put very strongly on the record that should that happen, that we're going back to the table because that changes, you know, everything. Chairman Regalado: Mr. City Attorney, can we guarantee the people of Miami that we are going to have, according to -- we expected the revenue stream frojn the parking surcharge? 37 March 27, 2002 Mr. Vilarello: As I've advised the City Commission before, we've presented good arguments before the Supreme Court, which would uphold the statute as originally established. Since November 30" of 2001, amended statutes have gone into place, which now clear up or correct any of the deficiencies that the Third District Court of Appeals identified. Those statutes go further. They go further in ratifying and express in legislative intent and in the body of the law that it was the legislature's intent to pass a general law, which would be in compliance with the constitution and therefore validate the parking surcharge. The issue of the refund, I've expressed to the City Commission, the case law that exist in the state is very strong in support of the fact that we would not be obligated to refund any of those taxes collected. Having said that, Commissioner, of course, I have a high level of confidence in potential results of this. I certainly cannot guarantee that the Supreme Court will not overturn or declare the statute unconstitutional, and that the new statute, which has been adopted, will not also be challenged. Chairman Regalado: So, the Supreme Court can rule against both? Mr. Vilarello: The Supreme Court does not have before it the new amended statutes. But those new statutes, just like any statute, can be challenged. Chairman Regalado: So, it is your legal opinion that we could continue to have the parking surcharge, but that we could lose it? That's the best case scenario or the worst case scenario -- and the worst case scenario. Mr. Vilarello: Those are the extremes, yes. The best and worst case scenario. Chairman Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Cotera: Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. Al Cotera, President Fraternal Order of Police. It was December the 28th of 1996 that I signed off on the concessions for the Miami Police Department or for the Fraternal Order of Police. Between ourselves -- and I even have the letter still. I just read it this morning from Edward Marquez. It was between the Police, Sanitation, the General Employees and the Firefighters that we came up with 14.7 million dollars ($14,700,000). The police officers paid for their own annual physicals for two years. As a matter of fact, I even had to suck up and give away President's Day. Presidents Day, a holiday, we gave that one up, too. All right. We have always been there for you. I have put people in jail for 20 years on my signature, on my word, and I'm insulted and embarrassed that we're talking about MOUS, this and that. You have the word of the union leadership here. These are guys who have been around for a long time, the same way that you guys give your word to your constituents. How would you feel if you were at the receiving end right now? You give your word to your constituents, Mr. Regalado, the same way that you gave your word to me yesterday, and you said, "I'm going to vote no." And I understand that. And what did I tell you? I said, I appreciate your frankness. I appreciate you putting the cards on the table, the same way that I've met with each one of these Commissioners, the same way that I had to deal with that gentleman over there who defended this City. We're not here to kill the goose. We want the goose to lay more eggs. That's what we're here all about. We are here to make sure that the citizens of Miami get their fair shake. I -- my parents live in this City. I don't want to see their taxes raised, 38 March 27, 2002 not at my behest. You know what I'm talking about, Joe. All right. We don't want that. We are here to work, but you've got to remember something. You guys pride yourself going in the media, crime is down, lower than ever. It may be because of the economy. It may be a national wide thing. We didn't argue against CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel). Did we argue against that? Did the police go to court? Did we go anywhere? Just the opposite. I stood here on more than one occasion, at every public hearing and said, we're not against you looking over our shoulders. Do we have our hands full? What profession doesn't? But what about the 99.9 percent of the people that have seen nothing but goose eggs, goose eggs. Those numbers will show it. I mean, I'm not here to argue numbers. I never went into any of your offices and argued numbers. I said, what concerns do you have? What complaints do you have? We are here to work together. We are here to work with you. For many years we, the employees of the City, not just the cops, the employees of this City have worked with this Commission. And we have a fairly new Commission here. You know, I keep hearing about historical. I keep hearing all of that. Well, you guys want to know history? In 1985, you had the Gates lawsuit. Started really in 1977, by the way. Got settled in 1985. That's why the employees took over the pension, because it used to be run by the City and they were stashing the money. Two percent -- and it's still in your ordinance by the way -- two percent of the monies that were collected from ad- valorem taxes, somebody was spending and not telling anybody about it, all right. When we took over, Police and Fire took over the pension in 1985, May of 1985, it had three hundred and sixty-eight million dollars ($368,000,000), and it has been in existence since 1946. Right now it has over a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and it wasn't because anybody on any of this dais -- I don't care what year it was -- did it. We did it ourselves. We did it ourselves. I know the City's numbers better than the City does half the darnn time. I know how much he pays for his car. Ani I right or wrong? I know how much he pays for his car. Commissioner Teele: You've made your point and you do know. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Cotera: And what I'm here to tell you is that, you know, listen, the same way that I enjoy -- really, I enjoy -- I enjoy his frankness because I'm so tired of the wishy washy. Well, I don't know, but the third year, the fourth year, the fifth year. Listen, I'm here and I'm not going to go away. And if my word is not good to the five of you, then I'm sorry. I must be six of you. Sorry, sir -- then I must be in the wrong place. And it's going to be up to you all to tell me if I'm in the wrong place. I learned something a long time ago: You sell yourself first. Credibility. My credibility is what I sell. Commissioner Teele: I move approval of -- (APPLAUSE) Mr. Cotera: That's exactly what you should be doing, sir. And we'll have pizza one more time. But I want to -- listen, I'm not going to grandstand, but I will say one thing. I commend the Manager and Sue Weller for their job. They have been outstanding. Linda Chapman did an outstanding job on behalf of the City. I can tell you that everybody has really worked hard. This is my fourth contract. I've negotiated four contracts, two buyouts and a renegotiation of Gates, 39 March 27, 2002 and this has been the bitch. This has been the bad one. This has been tough. It's been tough for them. It's been tough for us. This is the first time I've sat there Saturday and Sunday in the MRC (Miami Riverside Center) -- by the way, he did it on purpose. He turned the air conditioner off, all right. Two days, no AC (air conditioner), long hours. Mr. Gimenez: Thanks for the doughnuts. Mr. Cotera: We couldn't eat them. They got hot. But I will say that I think that the Manager's done an outstanding job. I think that our members have done an outstanding job on waiting for six months. Six months without a contract. If you have any questions about our integrity, not just the Police, but the Fire Department, Charlie Cox, we've been around here for a long time. You want to talk history, I can go way back. We can go wherever you want to go. Gentlemen, I appreciate your effort. I know that you're concerned. Five years ago, 1997, you were sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000) in the hole. I think that now you're, what, a hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) surplus? And you're worried about the three million bucks ($3,000,000) three years from now? Tell Ms. Haskins not to use those conservative numbers. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Cotera: Thank you very much for your time. Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, Al, you're sure about those hundred millions? Are you sure about those hundred millions, since you're so good with the numbers? Mr. Cotera: Yes, I am. Yes, I am, sir. (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, Al, do me a favor, just sit down. Mr. Cotera: Sir, I remember when you bought your house, right there on 7th Avenue. Commissioner Sanchez: Do you know how much I paid for it? Do you know how much I paid for it? Mr. Cotera: I think -- I remember when -- Commissioner Sanchez: Al, sit down. You've done a good job. Al -- Mr. Cotera: I like the efficiency -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- you've done a good job, Al. Sit down. (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager. 40 March 27, 2002 Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Would you instruct the Sergeant At Arms to get his briefcase and let's inspect it right here, right now? I want to know what else he knows. Mr. Cotera: Seventeen thousand, eight hundred eighty-eight. Charlie Cox: Charlie Cox, President Of Local 1907, AFSCME, 4011 West Flagler Street, Suite 405. I'm not going to go into a long presentation. I think my history speaks for itself. I've been here 14 years and because of the will of the people, I'll be here two more. And if it's the will of the people, I'll be here for the next contract, too. I will tell you this, that, you know, we could talk about people's words and everybody may think I'm the worst son of a gun under this earth, but nobody will ever tell you that I won't tell you the truth and I won't give you the right numbers. I've met with Johnny and Johnny's worried about the personnel issues and this and that. And you know what? I welcome those things because the last time we did a study on personnel was back when (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I believe that was almost 20 years ago. And the City's the one that's always said they haven't had the money. Well, hopefully, they do have the money to do issues like that. Because you know what? That makes my job easier. Yes, the taxpayers have paid the brunt of this. And you know what? I hate to see that happening. But over the years, these employees that I represent and the other unions represent have paid a big blunt of this also, and we've stepped forward time and time again, without being made to step forward. Gates saved this City one hundred and fifty-six point eight million dollars ($156,800,000). And that was OK because the City was stealing our money. And, yet, we still came back and settled. You talked about pension costs and worried about pension costs. Well, you know what? And I came to all of your offices and shared this with you. The employees, the City in the year 2002 was going to have to contribute six million .._ I mean, three million six hundred and two thousand dollars ($3,602,000). You know what the employees are going to put in? The employees are going to put in six million three hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars ($6,382,000). So, you tell me where the costs are? We're paying for our benefits. And you know what? I'd love to see a day when it gets where the City pays zero and we start decreasing ours because the pension funds are doing so well. And, again, it's not what you all did. It's what we did. And that's what everybody sitting here did. Let's go back for the year 2001, this year. City had to pay two million ninety thousand. The employees put in five million nine hundred and six thousand. So, to sit here and pretend like we're not doing our part, we have been doing our part. And book after book, tells you the same thing. I could tell you that I have been a part of quite a few labor management. The City is the one that went away from it, not me. I could tell you, if I tell you that if we have a problem, major problem with the City, that I will be the first one to step forward. I mean it. Without the golden goose, we're no place. They all go home without paychecks. That's me included. And I've been around here 27 years and I intend to stay six more. But without a paycheck, I can't do that. So, I would urge all of you to please ratify our contracts and whatever it takes to keep this City afloat, you can damn well bet that we'll be there for you. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) 41 March 27, 2002 Joe Simmons, Jr.: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Simmons, Jr., Vice president, AFSCME 871, Solid Waste employees. I just want the Commission to know and the elected officials, we have been -- we've been working without a contract since October of 2000. We've been in negotiations for one year and we can't seem to come to common ground on a few issues. Our employees have -- over the last 10 years, our department has been downsized. We have not been offered the same benefit as other employees. We're way behind, as you saw the charts up there earlier, as far as salaries, benefits, and as far as manpower. Every three years I hear that we have a budget crisis, and we have always answered the call to agree to the cuts. It's time for the City to give us something back because we've been always giving and giving, and we haven't had the proper representation as we should have. We recognize that fact. But I think that, you know, we've been in negotiations for a year and you just can't come to agreement on certain core issues, issues of benefits that other City employees have enjoyed for so many years. And I think that it's only fair. You know, if you receive a Cadillac, you pay for a Cadillac. But if you're receiving -- if you're paying for a Cadillac and receive a bicycle, that's a problem. And we make sure that we fight for the best benefits for our employees of the City of Miami. When the hurricanes come, we answer the call. When there are always garbage misses, because it's basically garbage department of the City of Miami -- we keep the City clean. When in '92, the hurricane came, we were there. Irene came in'99, we were there. All we ask for is fair game. And we ask for equal treatment that's fair and equitable for all employees of the City of Miami Solid Waste Department. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Regalado: OK. Anymore comments from the audience before we close and start questions and comments from the members of the Commission? Anybody from the Commission has a question or comment? Question for the Manager? Commissioner Gonzalez: I do have a comment. My comment is the same comment that has been made here this afternoon over and over and over, and it refers to the third year, where it shows that we're going to be raving -- that we could have a deficit of three million dollars ($3,000,000). And when I spoke to the Manager, that -- the first question I asked the Manager was, do we have the money to cover these contracts for the three years? And the Manager responded, "The first year we're OK. The second year we're OK. The third year, we are not sure." If we lose the parking surcharge, then we're going to be in problems. I believe that it is irresponsible, in a way, after what this City has been going through, after all the fees that had to be imposed in the residents of the City of Miami, to bring the City out of the hole it went. We had to increase -- taxes were increased. I was not there. I was not here, I'm sorry. Fees were put into place. And the people of Miami had to suffer the consequences. I also realize that the employees -- even though I was not a Commissioner, I have always been very aware and very involved in the City matters. I know that the employees made many sacrifices in order to assist the City in coming out of the financial problem that we had. But, honestly, I believe we're sending a real, real bad, a negative message to the community when we say that we're going to approve a contract where we know, in advance, that we're going to be ending up in a deficit. I mean, if the Manager said -- now the Manager says that he feels comfortable that the three years is going to be covered. But that is not what the paper reflect. That's not what the press is going to reflect. The press is going to reflect that a contract has been approved for three years for this 42 March 27, 2002 0 amount of money and that the City knows that we're going to have a deficit. And that's the way it's going to be put out there to the public. So, I really -- and one question that I would like to ask you, Mr. Manager, in these figures that we have, we are not taking into consideration whatever could happen with the Solid Waste union because nothing has been negotiated, right? Their numbers are not included in here. Mr. Gimenez: That's correct. The Solid Waste, though, the number of employees is significantly lower than the other three unions. It will have an impact, but at a much lower rate than what you see now. Commissioner Gonzalez: I -- and I -- let me tell the union representative that I agree with their point of view. I agree with their -- you know, the way that they -- it's ridiculous that they have been under the CPI for the last 10 years and I'm well aware of the entire situation, but I'll tell you. This is going to be -- this is going to look very bad. We need to make sure that whatever -- this is my point of view -- that whatever decision that we make here today, that we have a compromise that the people of Miami understand that if we have any financial problems, that the unions would be willing to say, wait a minute. You know, we were entitled to this, but we didn't expect that we were going to have a crisis. Now we have a crisis. We're willing to step back and help the City once again and we're not going to permit that taxes be increased and fees be increased in order to recuperate from this temporary crisis or whatever problem we might have. The Manager says he doesn't have a crystal ball. We don't have a crystal ball either. We're trying to bring more development into the City. We're trying to increase the tax base. We're trying to do a lot of things. The Mayor, under the leadership of our new Mayor, I think we're moving forward and I believe that we have a bright future ahead of us. But we have to work together. We have to concentrate in saving money. There are many, many areas that we could save money. One of the areas that we could save money is overtime. Last year the amount of money that we paid in overtime was incredible. So, you know, there are ways -- there's always ways that we can cut expenses and make savings, and that is something that we're going to need to do if this is going to be approved, under these conditions -- Mr. Giminez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- knowing that we might have a deficit in three years and we definitely need a compromise from the unions that they -- that the citizens of Miami, the taxpayers of Miami know that these unions are willing, once again, if it's needed, to step back and take a cut and do whatever kind of sacrifices they need to do in order not to affect the taxpayers of the City of Miami. Thank you. Chairman Regalado: Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. As with all my colleagues, I've met with each of the Bargaining Units. I think we've had very open discussions about my concerns. There's a part of me that -- half of me wants to say yes and half of me wants to say no. It's a complex -- it's a complex dynamic, the kind of position that we're in. I think if you look at any business out there in this country today, in this economy that we're in today, except for a few governments, a few governments, no one is getting average, four percent increases for four years. That is simply not 43 March 27, 2002 0 • happening out there, period. Secondly, from a competitive standpoint, our City, we are at a significant competitive disadvantage from all the other municipalities out there, because we have one of the highest millage rates in the County. Not the highest any longer because it came down. But one of the highest in the County. But we also have a fire fee, a parking surcharge, a supplemental waste fee, a construction debris removal fee, and probably a few other something or other fees that I don't even know about that our citizens and our businesses have to pay that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. You all, I'm sure, have read in the paper that thanks to the efforts of our Mayor and our Manager, we became a finalist in the recruitment effort to bring the world headquarters of Ryder Corporation back to the City of Miami. We haven't brought a world headquarters to the City of Miami in probably 40 years. We've seen plenty of them go out of business or move, but certainly none of them come to the City. And we moved in a very short period of time, from not being on the radar screen to being one of three finalists. I got a call, as did the Mayor, just before I came to this Commission meeting, from Ryder executives, where we were informed that we didn't make the cut because we're simply -- the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rate structure doesn't have a lot to do with specifically with wages and all that jazz. It's just our competitive structure. It is related to things, like parking surcharge and fire fee and supplemental waste fee and construction debris. Those -- and our millage rate. Those kinds of real costs go into determining what kind of rental rate and cost of land and a lot of other things. But all of these things go into a big pool, which determines what you can ultimately charge for rent, whether you're renting an apartment, whether you're renting an office building, whether you're renting a warehouse building, or you're buying a new one. All of those things are a part of that formula. As it relates to the parking surcharge, specifically, I'm sure you have all heard that there was a point in time where I was battling absolutely against keeping the parking surcharge. Against it. Because that 20 percent parking surcharge that goes straight to the business community is leading -- is leading a goodly number -- and it's principally paid by office tenants - - but a goodly number of office tenants that are in downtown and on Brickell, causing them, when their leases are up, to move to Coral Gables and Blue Lagoon, where there is no parking surcharge. And that 20 percent fee is very significant. We, as a Commission, some time ago began to talk about extending the parking surcharge for a whole host of different reasons, and one of those that made me consider strongly coming in support of the parking surcharge was not so that we could use it in the general fund -- I was radically opposed to using it in the general fund -- but so that we could use it as a revenue stream that we could bond out and pay for infrastructure improvements, particularly in those districts from which that fee was generated so that we could be more competitive and build more product that would expand our tax base dramatically and allow us to pay y'all the kind of wages that you deserve and need. That's the negative side of all of this that bothers me significantly. The flip side. Each of us, as Commissioners, have very, very significant agendas that we're moving forward to snake our City a better place for people to live and work and play in, the same kinds of things that y'all want for the City that you work in, the same things we want. The City of Miami, for the first time probably since World War II, is in a position like all other major urban arenas around the country are in, and that is people are moving back to our cities because the suburbs are a mess. And, so, we have a demand quotient today that we never, never had before. But if we remain noncompetitive in that demand quotient, we will ultimately lose again. However, as it relates to all of our employees, I, in pushing my agenda forward, which is about better neighborhood improvements and all that stuff, I've got four people that work for me in that office. I can't pick up the garbage in the neighborhoods where I want the garbage picked up and picked up right. I 44 March 27, 2002 9 9 can't go out and arrest the drug dealers that are running crack cocaine houses in the neighborhoods, that are destroying the neighborhoods. I can't go out and post a notice on the home that you better pick the trash up or haul that abandoned car in your yard out of here or refrigerator out of here. I can't do any of those things. I can't plan Biscayne Boulevard expansion. I can't plan anything. The folks who do and implement all of the policies and make the initiatives that we're talking about work are you guys. So, the flip side that I'm talking about here is, I'm looking at this very, very carefully, because I can't get my job done as a policymaker if all of you are totally demoralized. My job is to figure out how I can play a part in creating a well-paid motivated work force that's willing to go out there and bust through brick walls to make our policies reality in this City. If you're not doing those ]rinds of things, we can't get anything done. So, we also have to -- and, so, as it relates to this contract -- and this is the point that I made to each of the bargaining units -- I can't tell from any of this stuff that anybody's put in front of me -- and I believe Al when he says he knows the numbers better than anybody. I really believe that the bargaining units know all the numbers better than anybody. This sheet that talks about CPI increases, which is the focal point of this whole discussion, as I said earlier - - and IT give you the example to my fellow Commissioners, as you all know. This is CPI. This doesn't have anything to do, as an example, in most of the -- of our bargaining units. There's a five percent annual increase for every single step bump, for every single employee in the City for the first five or seven years. And then that step increase averages roughly one percent a year from then on. Roughly. And that all goes into part of the package that you have to consider in terms of what people are paid. I believe strongly that we have to have a top-notch work force and in order to have a top-notch work force, they have to be paid well and competitively and have a competitive -- sorry. A competitive set of benefits. But the problem that I have, as an elected official, is I can't figure out the whole package. I don't know what the whole package is. And what I told the Manager -- and I told the Mayor that -- and this is my fault -- I knew that these negotiations were going on. I've known it for almost a year. And if I would have been a better elected official, I would have forced us to do something a year ago that we really should have done so that I could be totally informed at this point. What we really have to do, fellow Commissioners, is -- and I'm going to introduce a resolution at some point down the road here this afternoon -- we have to direct -- and I think that may be wrong. I think what we have to do is encourage the Mayor -- because I think this needs to be done out of the Mayor's office, as opposed to out of the management office -- to hire a set of consultants, whose job it will be to look at the entire cost associated with keeping employees in the City of Miami. And the added costs relative to maintaining pensioners, once they leave the City, so that we have -- and I want to do that in conjunction with the bargaining units. I want them sitting at the table and us sitting at the table. So that at the end of the day the consultants and the bargaining units all are looking at exactly the same piece of paper and everybody knows for every single job classification what it cost us for employees in the City and what our liabilities are going to be as we move to the next 10 or 15 years. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Vice Chairman Winton: And if we then do that, the position that we will be in, from a policy malting standpoint, is when I'm sitting here today and we're focused on CPI, I can look you straight in the eye and say, I know what your entire compensation package is and I know that you're underpaid and we need to put more money in that group. Or I can look you in the eye 45 March 27, 2002 0 i and I can say, I know that we simply aren't competitive and we ain't going to pay that. But I can't do that today because I don't know. So, we're in a tough spot here, where my gut sense is that 12 percent over three years is one hell of a lot of -- not a gut sense. That's a reality. That soaks up the parking surcharge which gives me great heart burn, but I'm balancing that against what I know is the opportunity we have in front of us right now today, if we pull together as one mean working machine of folks, the opportunity to bring more business into our City, with your help. And, so, I'm not -- if I was making this decision today, I would be making the decision to - - which isn't the decision that I could make. It's not the decision in front of us -- but I would be pushing for a 12 or 18 month contract that would give us time to go do these other things so that we could understand everything that's going on. That opportunity isn't in front of us. So, I'm going to, at the end of the day, have to vote yes or no on what's in front of us. But I just want you all to know -- and I don't know where I'm going yet -- but I want everybody here, including my colleagues, to understand where I'm coming from. And when I vote, either yes or no, when we get ready to vote pretty soon, it's going to be on the basis of how -- on weighing these two various things. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Teele, do you want -- Commissioner Teele, you want to make any comments? Commissioner Teele: You don't know which way you're going to vote? Did you just say -- Vice Chairman Winton: That is what I said. I'm waiting for the final -- waiting to hear everybody's thoughts on this and then I'm going to vote. And, by the way, that's exactly the same thing that I told everyone when they came to visit me. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Again, if I may. I'm not certain where the Mayor is on this, and I'll tell you why I say this. Because I've said to each of the union representatives that have taken their time from their schedules, I had a very enlightening meeting yesterday evening for the better part of two and a half hours with a number of the representatives and certainly with AFSCME representatives, Mr. Cox, old landslide Charlie was -- the ink had not dried on the vote tabulation that night when he called me in the middle of the night to tell me that 1}e wanted to get a commitment from me that we would give him full access and to explain the issues. And I appreciate, Charlie, what you've done. I want to express my appreciation to the FOP and to the firefighters and your representatives that have visited with me and taken so much time to explain. I also would like to thank each of you that are here and your colleagues, your brothers and sisters that are not here, but are yet here in the spirit, because this is a very important issue to each of you and we want to be respectful of that. This is about your lives. It's more than your life. It's your family. It's your future. It's your retirement. And so, I take the matter extremely serious. In fact, one of the shocking things that I came to understand was just how very little the City of Miami has set aside for capital programs -- I think Commissioner Winton was -- just left -- and how, in fact, the Fire and Police unions are becoming larger and larger in terms of the percentage of the work force, in terms of the percentage of the total expenditures of the budget. And that 46 March 27, 2002 really, Charlie, gives me a lot of concerns, because I think there are some areas where the rubber meets the road, where the City meets the people, so to speak, Parks, Solid Waste, and others that really, quite frankly, we need to make sure that we're responding to the law abiding citizens who pay taxes, live in our community, they don't use our fire services, but God knows they want it when it's needed, and they don't have the occasion to use our police services. And that's always a blessing. But those, too, want it when they need it. But they do have the opportunity to see their grandchildren or their children in our parks. They do have the opportunity to drive down our streets. Public Works. They do have the opportunity to have the garbage -- trash put out every week and they're entitled to the same quality of services that other communities have. And, so, we've got a balance between Fire and Police, which represents about 70 percent, I believe, Mr. Manager, of the total budgeted work force. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: And all the others combined. And I've given that a lot of time. But I think we need to understand that Fire and Police represent about 70 percent of the total personnel and labor personnel and labor budgeted costs and I -- I'm going to tell you where I'm going to come out. I'm going to come out with one thing. The Civilian Independent Panel. I'm going to say a few things, but I'm going to end with the Civilian Independent Panel. First and foremost, Mr. Manager, colleagues, I'm going to request -- and I'm saying this very seriously, because none of us on this dais and no one, Mr. Manager, not you, nor the Attorney, neither you, Madam Clerk -- this is your -- one of your first meetings. It's good to see you here, Madam Clerk -- none of us are responsible for this. But I tell you what, we will be just as irresponsible as a sworn police officer that knows something's gone wrong and doesn't report it. At the next regular Commission meeting, I'm going to prepare a resolution asking for the State's Attorney, State of Florida to conduct an investigation on the City of Miami as it relates to the union and labor relations and negotiations with the sanitation workers. I believe -- I'm not asking for a criminal investigation. But I don't think any of us can hold our heads high and see the record and know that for 10 years -- and God only knows what happened before that -- but for 10 years you've got a union being treated statistically like a second-class citizen, statistically. It's unfortunate. This has racial implications. But, folks, if we don't put the skunk on the table, we're not going to ever get rid of the odor. And something, Mr. Manager, is wrong with the way the negotiations are being handled or have been handled with the Solid Waste workers. And I want to know. And I want everybody under oath. I want everybody being sworn -- and if we can't get the State's Attorney to do it, then I'll ask the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) to do it. But I want to see people go under oath and explain what's wrong, because we need to resolve that we're never going to let this happen to any union again. And I certainly will tell you, as long as I am here on this dais, I'm going to raise the question -- and I'm going to tell you something else. I want you to look at the City of Miami residents by department, because I think, you know, what you've got, Mr. Manager, is you've got a bunch of -- I don't want to use inflammatory language, but people who can be very insulting to my intelligence and to my intellect. And I was not an honor student. I think -- I didn't graduate cum laude. I didn't graduate summa cum laude. I graduated Thank you, Laude. But I know one thing. Commissioner Gort is not on this dais. Commissioner Teele doesn't have 11 employees, as compared to all of the other Commissioners, who have five. I have never had I 1 employees at one time, even with summer temporary help, even with casual help. And you see, somebody 47 March 27, 2002 i 0 wants to make it look like Commissioner Sanchez has 80 percent City residents working for him. Commissioner Regalado has 60 percent residents working for him. Commissioner Winton has 40 percent working for him. Commissioner Gort has 60 percent working for him. And Commissioner Teele has 18 percent City employees working for him. Now, I will confess -- and I was quoted in "The Miami Herald" extensively that there is a major black professional flight -- and there's a long story about this, two stories. In fact, a series. Virtually every African- American I know that makes sixty-five to seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) a year or more is living in Pembroke Pines and Miramar and Plantation and Weston or making plans to do so, unfortunately. That's one of the reasons I'm so geeked up in trying to get this homeownership design so we can compete in the heart of the inner City for professionals to have a place to live. Sort of a gated community, if you will. If we don't do something to stem the black intellectual professional flight, we're going to have a problem here. And the numbers are what they are. But just know this. Every time I come out here and talk about we need more residents, I still believe it. All of us live in the City. You -- the Manager lives in the City. The Mayor lives in the City. The six of us have to. I'm not going to hire people based on whether or not they live in the City or not, but I am prepared to continue to recommend to incentivize (sic) the employees that do live in the City. I'm not somebody who's trying to make a distinction between whether you live in the City, you're a better person, or you're not. That's not the point. The point is that we need to try to get more and more of our employees, not by trying to punish anybody for living outside the City. That's your God given right, and nobody should feel ashamed if you live outside this City. But we should try to encourage people. What does that have to do with the Solid Waste workers? Parks Department and Solid Waste are among the two highest, according to this -- but this number doesn't mean anything. Because I'm going to tell you, this number's wrong. So, if it's wrong about me -- it has no credibility with me. Mr. Manager, I'm specifically requesting to see, department by department, a snapshot, of any day of the week, any month in the year, of all of the departments, including the Mayor, et cetera, but it's got to be one snapshot, by department, exempt personnel or -- what do you all use in local government? Mr. Gimenez: It's unclassified. Commissioner Teele: Unclassified personnel by classified personnel, OK? So, let's look at the un-- everybody here is classified, right? Mr. Gimenez: Bargaining units, yes, they're classified. Commissioner Teele: OK. So let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, so each department -- let's just break out the unclassified City versus not City and the classified City versus not. That's going to give you a realistic picture of what we're talking about. But, again, what I'm saying on the Solid Waste union, I believe that we've got a real problem there. I want to say here -- speaking as one Commissioner, I think those employees that live in the City, we ought to step up and help them with the medical issue. This appears to be the big issue. And I think we can make a distinction between those who do and those who don't. It's our right to provide incentives to people that live in the City. The federal government gives the right of public housing agencies and housing agencies the right to let police officers have discounts, et cetera. That's a part of the federal rule. And, so, I want the Solid Waste workers to know that I want to stand with you through the management process. Do not come to my office. Do not 48 March 27, 2002 call me at home, please. That's not the way the process works. It's got to go through the Manager's office. But as it relates to those Solid Waste workers that live in the City, I see no reason why we cannot step up additionally on the medical costs. But I think there's going to have to be a major reconciliation as it relates to the Solid Waste workers in this. Mr. Manager, there have been a number of discussions. They've been alluding to it. The thing that I'm most encouraged about is that the unions appear to be willing to go back into the process of citywide labor management meetings. I would recommend very strongly that those meetings be quarterly, but for the first six months, I think they should be held annually. I told Al last night about an experience I had as the Under Secretary of Transportation, when the labor president up in New York, in Mike Quill's old union, Local -- TW, Local 100 couldn't reach an agreement. He asked me to come up. And I went up, of course, with cameras in tow. And he showed me supply rooms all over the New York City Transit Authority that management had lost control of. They didn't even know they existed. And as a result, most of them didn't have roofs and there was water coming down. And you saw -- I saw hundreds of traction motors worth fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) each just rusted. Never been opened. Never come out. But they were totally destroyed. That's a classic example of what a management labor relations process could bring about. We don't have traction motors around here. But I tell you what? I bet you we've got people that are assigned places or there are jobs being done that could be more efficiently done. I am strongly supporting moving forward. If we can change the culture and begin to plant the seeds to change the culture, where the members of the unions are working with management for more productivity, more efficiency and more waste and fraud and abuse. Joe Sanchez, every year, performs a ritual, a ritual during the budget hearings, when he asks the department heads, "Are there any budget cuts that you can offer up to prevent us from raising the fees, to raising this?" Every one of them come up, "I can't save a dollar. I can't save a dime." Old Walter Foeman was the only one, I think, that threw himself on the sword. I guess that's why he's out of here now. And he says, "Well, maybe because we're -- we had a surge with the processing of passports. I may be able to do some" -- but the fact of the matter is, at the budget hearing, we ought to reserve time for the unions to come up -- and you all need to not be so shy and don't get into "Wall of Blue," to use that quote, and let's sit up here and all work together on how we can make some cuts. And, so, Mr. Manager, one of the things I'm going to be asking the Attorney to do is at the budget hearings each year, to ask the labor unions and put it on the agenda for their list of productivity and efficiency and waste and fraud and abuse that you all can come up with. And I tell you what, Solid Waste probably can help us a lot, too, in some of these areas. Ladies and gentlemen, Miami is truly basking in its moment. We have a great possibility of bringing forth a Democratic National Convention in this City. We also have the potential of being a candidate for the Republican National Convention. You have done your part and we've just passed a bond issue, the Safe Neighborhood Bond issue, which I will say to you, Mr. Manager, was greatly enhanced by the cooperation, the teamwork and the spirit of oneness that we shared with our labor union partners. Is that a fair statement, Mr, Manager? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, it is. Commissioner Teele: And I mean, the Firefighters, the Police, AFSCME, everybody was out there trying to do it because this is all about all of us. But we've got the parking surcharge issue, and, folks, in four more years, it's over. And Commissioner Winton is making the point that I made a year -- two years ago when we went into this. If we're not careful -- I said to 49 March 27, 2002 0 Commissioner Gort -- the parking surcharge is going to wind up in the pockets of our workers and it's unfair to the people who are paying that parking surcharge, who want to see capital improvements. Now, the law talks about reducing taxes, and the law talks about credit worthiness and helping to pay down debt and all of that. But the people who are paying the taxes, those parking lot people, those hotel owners, those condominium dwellers, they're the ones paying the taxes. They have a right to want to see their money come back to them in some kind of benefits. And, you know, we're being foolish. If we spend any of the money associated with the parking surcharge now, when we're trying to get a 40 -year extension. And, so, we need to look at this -- and, Mr. Manager, I want to ask you a question or two on that. But before I go to that, I just want to say this: There's the potential that we may need to go out with some environmental bonds to clean up some of these environmental things that are all over or several major spots, and we're going to need your help again if we go out for something of a 25 to forty million dollar ($40,000,000) kind of bond issue to clean up environmental areas, like the Bicentennial Park, that will be for everyone. And there are several others in other parts of our community. But the thing that bothers me most about this whole thing of the Democratic National Convention, the Republican National Convention, the relocation -- God bless you, Commissioner Winton -- of Ryder Headquarters, and the things that a lot of us -- lead by our Mayor -- are trying to do is, we've got a human relations problem in this City. Now, I didn't talk to you about this, but it's something I want to know, Al. And if you'd come up, I really believe that both you and the Fire need to deal with this. We have a problem with your union and with Fire in terms of the representation of African Americans who, for whatever reason, have left the table, as it relates to the FOP, in large numbers. There may be some small significant present, but by and large, many of the African-Americans are not on your board, don't participate in many of these things. I would like very much, Al, if you would agree, outside or as a part of, as a part of a Memorandum of Understanding, both you and Fire, that within the union process, under management supervision, that we could agree to a volunteer program over the next three years of human relation symposiums and workshops, among the members to improve the relationship among the whites, the blacks, women, gender, lifestyle issues, those who may prefer a different lifestyle. We need to really move our unions, both Fire and Police, in a more positive way. And, Al, one thing that really bothers me is that you all filed a lawsuit against the City on some promotions. I think it was about 22, 23 people. There was an intervention -- there were some interveners in that lawsuit. And I really wish you all would commit publicly to taking this lawsuit under advisement and sitting down with everybody and trying one more time, with the management, to work out an amicable solution that is reflective of the entire community, please. Mr. Cotera: Al Cotera, President, Fraternal Order of Police. Mr. Commissioner, I wish you would have brought this up last night. But I will tell you right now, on the record, there are 1,038 policemen in this department, I think, right now. Nine hundred and seventy-one or 941 -- I'd have to ask my treasurer -- are members of the Fraternal Order of Police. There has not been, at least in the last 14 months that I've been president, and during my first six years as president from 1991 to 1996, a black flight from our union. There are a few people -- I think you're referring to the 1994 lawsuit, if I remember correctly, all right. Lawsuits against the City, 1994, and those are testing and promotional lawsuits. We had been trying to correct that. I think that with the help of the City Attorney, we just settled a 1992 lawsuit, that this Commission even approved Attorney's fees on already. Nineteen ninety-four, there are a number of segments both people, both Mr. -- 50 March 27, 2002 0 E Commissioner Teele: Is that the one in which you have at least six interveners in? Mr. Cotera: I lost track of how many interveners are in that one. We have agreed to disagree and go to court, for lack of a better word. We have agreed to disagree, because I can't get six of them to agree. Commissioner Teele: Al, I'm not asking you about the City -- Mr. Cotera: You have our commitment, sir. Commissioner Teele: All that I'm asking you is, do you really think that the human relations, among and within the union, is the level that you would like to see it among -- Mr. Cotera: Sir -- Commissioner Teele: And would you be willing to work -- Mr. Cotera: Sir, listen, I am willing to work with anyone. I'm also willing to disagree with a number of people, if I have to. This is not a racial issue. We have -- I don't know who's been whispering in your ear, but we have the best relations now, I think, in my 22 and a half years. You should have been here after 1980. Commissioner Teele: Al -- Mr. Cotera: I think that we're really getting along now. Commissioner Teele: And I'm sure we've come along way and we have a long way to go. But, A], all I'm asking you is one thing and I really would like a straight answer. Would you be willing to work among the various races and gender and their lifestyle issues to continue to improve the human relations within the union, the collective bargaining process that you represent? Mr. Cotera: Absolutely, Commissioner Teele: OK. Mr. Cotera: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, we had a black female on our negotiating team. Commissioner Teele: And you had a black female on the Screening Committee. Mr. Cotera: There's one on our board, too. Commissioner Teele: But let's don't talk about that. Let's just talk about going forward. Mr. Pidermann, would you be willing to work with us in that area, as well? 51 March 27, 2002 Mr. Pidermann: Absolutely. Commissioner Teele: And with professionals being brought in, you know, facilitators and all of that, and something that the management could work with you on, in giving you professional time off to work to improve those relationships. Mr. Cotera: Absolutely. Commissioner Teele: And this is not directed at you, and you don't have to go back and -- look, if you live in Dade County, you need to understand that there are issues going on right now that may not be happening in the City, but we don't need to wait and react. We need to continue to be in the vanguard of trying to promote better relationships. And I'm talking about this in the context that we could very well wind up winning a convention or losing a convention based upon whether or not there are good relationships with people in this City. Mr. Cotera: Sir, if 1 can just comment briefly. This is not about a white contract. This is not about a Hispanic contract. This is about a contract for police officers, sir. Commissioner Teele: I certainly didn't mean to imply that, if that's what you got. Mr. Cotera: I am more than willing -- and you have my total commitment, as everyone on the dais has -- and the Manager -- to work through whatever ends we need to make this a better work place for all of us. Commissioner Teele: All right. Mr. Cotera: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Teele: The other issue, then, becomes a whole parking surcharge issue. Commissioner Winton has raised it. I -- when the Manager returns, I would like to ask him a few questions, because I'm not satisfied, at all, with this contract in the context of what do we do with any fund balances? I want to say to the Manager, very clearly, and I want to hear from him, that he will follow the recommendations and the statements that Commissioner Winton has been malting, that I've been making, I'm sure that others have been saying, that we need to get a program, we need to go out with some public hearings, we need to agree that whatever fund balances we have that are available, that we will develop a process whereby the business owners that are collecting these taxes for us and those that are paying these taxes will have a shot at some capital improvement this year, this year, based upon fund balances that are anticipated. Because you cannot carry fund balances over. And, Johnny, if we don't do it, then those monies are going to get stuck into reserves for employees. And, so, it becornes -- this is what we're doing for salary. This is what we're doing for benefits. And, by the way, we also need to build up the reserves. Yes, we do. But before we start building up reserves more, Mr. Manager -- and I respect you. We had this discussion. You said you would like to put a pretty good hefty number into fund reserves. I'm willing to concede that there needs to be some of the fund balances that are anticipated placed in a reserve. But can we agree that there will be a dynamic process that will be lead by management and not politicians that will include public hearings in 52 March 27, 2002 0 0 neighborhoods like Coconut Grove, Johnny, where we heard from those folks so long, in Brickell, in downtown, and maybe, to some extent, in the Omni areas, because they're not really generating it yet, OK. I mean, there's two or three buildings and they're being taken care of through the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) on that. But in those three areas, downtown especially, and Brickell and especially the Grove, can -- would you be willing to commit that we will be -- commence a process, a dynamic process that will involve public hearings with our professional staff to let the business owners come to this City and say what the kind of projects they are, give the Commission a chance to develop some policy and then have some recommendations so when we get to September 30th, you know, we're not saying what do we do now? On September 30th, at the budget hearing, I would like to approve about 10 or 12 or three or four projects based upon a process that has been opened to everyone. Is that something you could agree to? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Like, at least, you know, four or five, six million dollars ($6,000,000) of anticipated, 12 to fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) of the fund balance this year? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: OK. And the final thing in this regard. I met with the unions last night. I think there's a very important principal that we've got to touch base with. We're in a technology age. We're in the age where everybody's got cellular phones, or trying to get them, beepers, pagers, and yet there are technologies available that, I think, the City should make available to any City employee that has worked this City for "X" number of years, whether it be five years or seven years. But I'll say this, Mr. Manager, I think we ought to provide a break for those people who live in the City. In other words, if we say five years in the City, people who live in the City for less than three years, but something, we ought to provide an incentive, again, for people that live in the City. You and I have discussed this. The union has discussed it and 1, once again, would like to get an agreement that there would be support for using from the 9/11 surcharge and the other surcharges that would be available -- and, please, I need you to just put this on the record, please, both of the Fire and Police union, that we can begin a program whereby every employee of the City will be afforded a technology interactive kind of system where they can receive information from home or from their office, and that under no circumstances will this technology be a part of the union contract on one hand or part of a disciplinary process for the failure to answer a beeper or a pager or something like that. There are a lot of governments that have done this already. In fact, the County has done this for all of the Manager's top staff, and all the department heads. But you know what? I think the Solid Waste workers and I think the secretaries and the telephone operators and the professionals in our GSA (General Services Administration) and our maintenance department -- we've got a great GSA Department, too, I should say. And it's good to have you all here -- should have the same right. Because you know what? The more you use interactive technology, the more technology literate you're going to be. The more we're going to be able to upgrade our technology because more and more, those old check off cards that you used to have, "Did you change the oil?", that's being replaced. That's being replaced by software that's driven. And I just want to get on the record and ask the Manager if we can begin a substantial change in the culture of this community, of a technology 53 March 27, 2002 innovation that will cost less than a million dollars {$1,000,000} a year, that will not cost the taxpayers anything that we can invest in our employees. Al, I'd appreciate if you would indicate your -- Mr. Cotera: Al Cotera, President, Fraternal Order of Police. Commissioner Teele, we are more than welcome to work with you and this Commission -- Commissioner Teele: And the Manager. Mr. Catera: -- and the Manager on any project that will improve our employees. Any project. And, by the way, sir, you now have the highest number of police officers living in the City than you have had in the last 15 years. All you have to do is go -- if I have any more police officers living in the Roads, Joe Sanchez is going to think we're following him around. There's still one right down his block, as a matter of fact. Commissioner Teele: And that's encouraging to hear. Mr. Catera: You go down 16th Street, between 17th Avenue and 12 Avenue, there's five of them. Pretty soon we'll be moving next to Tomas, Chairman Regalado: That's really good news, because we had four break-ins in the house area, in the last two weeks. Mr. Cotera: They must have been off duty. Thank you, sir. Obviously, any -- Commissioner Teele: I'll wind up. Mr. Cotera: Anything that improves communication between the City and its employees, we'd be in favor of it. Obviously, the control of the 9111 funds is between the Fire Chief and the Police Chief, We can't direct that money. Commissioner Teele: I understand that. Mr. Pidermann: But we'd be in support of any technological advances that would improve the communication between the employees and the City. Commissioner Teele: We want to certainly make it very clear that we're not talking about the taxpayers paying for something, first and foremost. We're talking about utilizing funds that come in that are designed -- let me tell you something. If there's a hurricane having interactive beepers, having the Manager being able to push two buttons, and mobilize the entire work force - - again, if they don't respond, you can't use it as a disciplinary action. I want to be real clear about that, because this should not be used in lieu of proper management principals and proper management skills. But, again, there's a lot of ways to make a person more effective in the work place. Guy working on his job worried about the baby that's sick. Somebody can send him a message saying, Jill's OK. Henry's doing fine. The temperature's down now. That is the kind of stuff we need to do to make it work. Mr. Manager, I think the unsung hero in a lot of this is you. 54 March 27, 2002 6 0 You have -- I have learned to understand you and to respect you more and more. I think that the bond issue was directly a reflection of you and your staff mobilizing. We mobilized like never before on that. I think, you know, the way you have handled yourself in terms of morality and integrity as it relates to the City's finances, your conservative approach almost caused us to have a shoot out up here on the bond distribution of funds, but, again, you're willingness to be flexible and yet be professional, I respect. And I want to say here and now, publicly, that I think you are the Manager for this City, at this moment, and I'm very pleased that the Mayor and you have reached an accommodation Two final points, and I want to make this clear to my colleagues. Mr. Gimenez: Thank you very much, sir. Commissioner Teele: Thank you. I didn't go into the seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) dollars that I really think we ought to swap out right away and put that money from the parking surcharge or somewhere, but that's neither here nor there. Dollars are dollars. And I think it's really important that we don't get ourselves in that federal issue as we continue to try to build this downtown. But I want to make two points. Mayor Manny Diaz, in my opinion, clearly has the potential to be one of the greatest mayors that this City has ever had, and his success and the success of this City is going to rely very heavily on how we handle a lot of things. Having a work force that feels that you've got a Commission and a Mayor and management team that's willing to respect you, given the CPI issues -- even though I can't understand the way it's presented -- and I think there's a lot that's not presented that Commissioner Winton has said, but I'm willing to swallow it, and to use Al's words, to trust Al and to trust Charlie and to trust Pidermann, because I really do think that we've come a long way. And I think we stand on the threshold of greatness. This City stands on the threshold of greatness. And one of the things that I think separates the sheep from the goat, the City from the County, is something that I'm going to say that weighs very heavily in my mind, and that is the Civilian Independent Panel. When we were going through these very difficult issues, Johnny, Tomas, we had a Police Department. We had professional staff, as well as our Chief -- in Britain, they say they kept a stiff upper lip. That means, they didn't like it particularly, but they didn't complain. They didn't create confusion. They didn't have threats. And we are in a position, I believe, as a City, to be the leader in this entire region of the state of Florida, because we have shown that we can work together. The voters approved our CIP overwhelmingly, and that's the best evidence that we do have a good management relationship with our union. But I think this Commission owes it to our workers to give you the chance to help us make Miami great, without spending the next six months going back and forth, hack and forth and you know what's going to happen in the interim period? The Democratic Party Search Committee will start looking and walking around. Democrats, everybody knows, they're very much labor union. The Republicans are going to start walking around and they're going to hear Al Cotera's big mouth running up and down the road. And everybody knows that Republicans like police, and we listen to police. I'm a Republican. That's why I get along with them so well. And the fact of the matter is, is that I love the police officers and the firefighters, people in uniform, because I was honored to serve this country for nine years in combat and I know what a police officer and what a firefighter goes through. And, so, I want my colleagues to know that I am not happy with this agreement. I wish it were two. I want to say this finally and clearly and publicly. If Mayor Manny Diaz had instructed me to vote no, I would have voted no, because I believe we've got a great Mayor who has the right to be able to set the stage in his first year in 55 March 27, 2002 0 office. And I will say here publicly, I was not a supporter of Manny Diaz, but I will tell you this. If he runs for Governor of the State of Florida, you will see that black guy behind him carrying his bag. That'll be Arthur Teele. And so, I want you to know, I believe in him and I think -- (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Teele: And I think it's in the best interest of this City that we get this matter behind us. I wish this were a two years agreement. I wish the rates were not as steep. I wish we had a clear opt out provision, if the parking surcharge is throw out in court. I wish there were a commitment, And I would ask, Mr. Manager, at some point in this process, that we get some statement on the record from the representatives of the union, because I wish there were a commitment that if we lose our revenue stream, that we have the right to immediately enter into negotiations to figure out how we're going to solve the problem. Because, folks, lot me tell you, you can't raise taxes in the middle of the year. You can only do that one time in the year, by the state constitution and state law. If we get hit with a court action, you know, it's not enough wiggle room here. And, so, I want to support this agreement because I want to support this City. I want to support our Mayor. And I most of all, I want to support the workers, you, the working people, in giving us a chance to make Miami the greatest City in this hemisphere. And, so, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would be voting -- unless the Mayor gives me a signal to the contrary -- and I'm not ashamed to say that. It's not that I'm sucking up to him, but it really is the fact that he's the Mayor. The people elected him and he should be the one that guides this process in his first year in office. Unless the Mayor indicates otherwise, I will be moving or seconding any motion to approve the three agreements with instructions further to the Manager -- I understand each one has to be separate motions -- to instruct the Manager to come back immediately with an agreement for the sanitation workers and if we needed to keep everybody in union negotiations all night, then we need to do that. But we need to stop this injustice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: I've said that I didn't know which way I was going to vote, because there's still some things that I had to get through this little thick head of mine and get sorted through, and I've sorted. And I know where I am now. And like you, Commissioner Tecle, this percentage increase is in terms of a percent number that you put out to the public, is huge, no question about it. It would be better if this wasn't 12, 18, 24 -month contract so we could get at these other things that we've talked about. But at the moment, they are what they are. And if you look at our total cost for personnel in the City of Miami, it's in the range of two hundred and thirty to two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000). That's total personnel costs. The parking surcharge is thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000). We have a lot of really good employees in the City of Miami, but we also have a reasonable number of people who don't do squat working for this City. Nothing. And so you think about that. If you were able to cut our total personnel costs by 10 percent, that's twenty-three million. Five percent is sixteen and a half million dollars ($16,500,000). No, no. Twelve and a half million dollars ($12,500,000). Eleven 56 March 27, 2002 ! 0 and a half million dollars ($11,500,000). That's almost the amount of the surcharge. Just a five percent increase in productivity or decrease in total costs. I'm going to look at each of these bargaining units. This is management's fault, too. This is not just bargaining. I've been through this with all of you. We don't have the skill sets or the proper tools in place yet -- and I'm not blaming our Manager, at all, because he's new and we all have a lot of -- we have a lot of priorities in this City and everyday there's a new one, a new major priority. And most of these new major priorities are good things coming our way that we've got to respond to. Couldn't ask for a better situation. But we also have to get the internal skill sets in place today to train our senior management people to understand what progressive discipline means and we've got to get rid of the lousy employees who are holding you guys down. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Winton: If we do that and you go to -- get a 10 percent efficiency factor going here, we could be affording to pay twenty-three million dollars ($23,000,000) in new costs here instead of -- what's our number per year? Eleven is the biggest year. Or is it nine the biggest year? Mr. Gimenez: Thirteen. Vice Chairman Winton: We could afford to pay twenty-three million dollars ($23,000,000) and have the same costs. So, I know where I am now. Each of these bargaining unit representatives has looked me in the eye and said, "If we have a major hiccup in this City, we will be back to the table. We will reopen negotiations and we're going to fix the problem." And the other commitment I want from them is that they are going to work -- and I know it's not your job and my apologies for putting you in this position, because your job is to protect all your employees, but damn it, we need management and you guys working together to increase productivity so we have more money to pay the people that are doing the job. And if that commitment is there, I'm going to vote yes to support this contract for the -- (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Winton: But it is because -- as Commissioner Teele said, this City is on the verge of greatness and as I said a moment ago, we have a new major event that takes the Manager's time, his senior staffs time, the Mayor's time, some of our time, everyday there's some new major thing. Those are opportunities in front of us and we need you guys to make those opportunities a reality. So, you're going to be able to count on me tomorrow. I'm going to beat the holy tar out of everybody that I can find, starting with the Manager and going to all you guys, if we don't, in fact, drive productivity in this City up by getting rid of the people who don't want to do their damn job, so we can afford -- look at the salaries. We're not -- you know, these salary comparisons -- this four and a half percent isn't bankrupting anything. It isn't making anybody in this City terribly overpaid. What is bankrupting us is the stuff that we have going on in our City that we shouldn't have to pay for, and that's personnel related. And personnel costs represent 70, 75 -- what's the number? -- 80 percent of our total operating budget. That, ladies and gentlemen, is bad. That is not a good number. So, you know, inherently, that we have some problems in the system, because I'm not looking at these sheets and seeing that you guys are 57 March 27, 2002 0. 0 overpaid by the hour. It's because we have too many people in this City who are hanging out in the back waiting on all of you to get the job done. And I'm going to be after -- I'm going to be after everybody, in the course of the next two years, pounding on everybody to get that problem fixed, so that we can realize all the great potential in front of us, and I'm going to count on your support to do it, which is the reason why I'm willing to vote yes on this whole issue today, so that we can run as an army to fix our internal problems and run as an army to take advantage of every single opportunity that comes our way. And I will guarantee you, when we announce, if this passes -- I don't know if it will pass or not -- but if we announce to the public there's a 12 percent pay raise going to City employees over three years, rest assured, the press ain't going to treat it very nicely, because that's a big number in the global economy out there today. But I'm willing to deal with -- I'm a business guy. I'm supposed to be saying no to this stuff. But businessmen don't always say no to all of this stuff. It's all -- it isn't just the salary. It's all the component parts put in this. And what my colleagues have already agreed, that we're going to have another resolution shortly that's going to allow us to hire the consulting resources we need to get at a clear understanding what our total costs are and then we're going to start negotiating again, in six months, instead of three years from now, and have all the cards out on the table. Thank you. Chairman Regalado: Thank you, sir. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Regalado: Anybody else? Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the opinion of our Mayor. Chairman Regalado: Of course. Before I do that, I just have some comments. About two weeks ago, Commissioner Sanchez and myself were in banquet hall in our Lady of Lebanon, with a group of residents from the Roads and the Shenandoah area. And we had Chief Raul Martinez, who gave us -- gave the residents a report on the way that the City has advanced in fighting crime and how our Police Department has been able to reduce the crime level. And I remember that Chief Martinez said -- and this was late at night. And we had all the NRO (Neighborhood Resource Officer) and the commanders from the area -- Chief Martinez said, they don't do it for the money, because you have to like what you do to be it police officer. You have to like what you do to be a firefighter. You have to like what you do to be a Solid Waste employee. You have to like what you to do to be a radio announcer and a journalist. Because on January the 1st, as I was corning back from the radio station, I had to go on the air -- on January the Ist of the year 2002, at 5 a.m., but when I was coming back, I saw the Solid Waste people picking garbage in my neighborhood, and I saw a rescue went by on 27th Avenue. So, I sort of understand that there is a need to be competitive. But I think it's important also to understand that the residents of the City of Miami does not have the edge that the unions have, because -- and I was here. As a matter of fact, I was the only one in this Commission. I was the only one elected official -- when the unions gave all that they gave, they went to each of their members, talked to them, and the members gave and gave a lot. But they had an edge over the residents, because we did not ask the residents if they wanted their garbage fee raised. We did not ask the residents if they wanted to pay a fire fee. We did not ask the residents if they want their taxes raised. So, I had a lot of conflicting thoughts in my mind and I understand that although they don't do it for the 58 March 27, 2002 0 0 money, they do need the money. Because everything is going up. Because insurance for the houses are going up. Because the phone bills are going up. And it's important to maintain a reasonable quality of life. There is no wealthy employee in the City of Miami. All of them are workers -- I know a lot of them and I'm very proud about what they do on daily, but I had many concerns, and I still do. I don't know what's going to happen with the parking surcharge. No one can tell me and they're right. They cannot say which way the court is going to rule. I have a very serious concern because I've seen what the Solid Waste workers have gone through so many months. I -- as a matter of fact, the only union that have ever invited me and I have attended four or five times to their meetings by the hotel down the bridge on 12th Avenue is the Solid Waste union. I've been there. And, you know, these people are really in need of help. And, you know, they don't have probably big time attorneys. They don't have the resources to have computers and find all the information that they need and probably they don't even have leaders or have the ability of convincing people, like Al Catera or Pidermann. But they are workers. They have family and they deserve to be treated as equal. So, those things are troubling me. But, you know, Al Cotera was right. I said to him yesterday, I'm going to vote no. And when he asked me is this because of the money or political -- 1 think that he deserve an answer because he was very straight on giving the numbers that the unions and the inforination that I did not have. And I told him, "No. It's political." And the reason I said it's political is because I have to confess. Those concerns that I have, maybe I could overcome. But I have to confess that I don't have the ability to explain to the people that I represent what we're doing here. I just cannot do it. I don't have the ability to do it. I can go on and on about the need to excel, the need to be competitive, but we have not been able, not just yet, even of building a sidewalk with the bond money; that the people trusted us and voted for, and there is nothing we can show just yet to the people of Miami. So, these are things that made up my mind. I'd like to say something. Yesterday I had the opportunity of meeting with the Mayor and the Manager, and I have a -- I had a short, very healthy debate with the Manager, and he said something that he's right, you know. You're thinking like that because you're a Commissioner. I'm thinking like that because I am a Manager. I administer. Because he has a vision, and we should be thankful that he does, of the City that we want and the quality of life that we want. But we disagree on one thing, very small, not that important, about how the assessment on the houses are being raised. He says, that's good, because it means that the property values are going up. And I said that's bad, because there's some retired couple that cannot and will not be able to pay their taxes come next year, because they don't want to sell. They want to die in the house that they bought, where their children were raised. But having said that, I have to say something. I know that the Mayor has concerns and I know that we are going to hear from him. I know that probably some of those concerns have been addressed by the union and by the Manager. I trust this Mayor. I will follow his lead. I think that this Commission will work with him in the next four years and I think Manny Diaz is going to be one of the greatest mayors that this City is going to have. Regardless of what he says, I am going to vote in a way that may not be the way he thinks, but that doesn't -- Commissioner Teele: (INAUDIBLE). Vice Chainnan Winton: Yeah. Chairman Regalado: Not now -- 59 March 27, 2002 Vice Chainnan Winton: Because my eyebrows went right up. Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, not that far. Vice Chairman Winton: I said, oh, there's the answer. Chairman Regalado: I said in the future. And I want to say something else. I had my difference with the Manager and I had good days and bad days with the Manager, but I have to say, Mr. Manager, that my vote do not reflect on the work that you have done, because I really, I really believe you when you said, "I've done my best." And for that, I thank you. Because I remember the first day that we discussed these contracts and what you were able to get for the City in terms of money. I think that you did an extraordinary work and I really thank you, as a representative of the people of Miami. So, I guess that now we hear from the Mayor and then we'll see what members of the Commission decide. Mr. Gimenez: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your kind words. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Mayor Diaz: Good evening. It's a little unfair to come here at the end and try to remember everything that you all have said. I guess I'll start off by saying that I will not be announcing for Governor any time soon, Commissioner Tecle, but thanks for the endorsement. I'll make sure that Governor Bush is aware of it. Vice Chairman Winton: Does that mean some time in the future, if it's not any time soon? Mayor Diaz: Let me -- I guess, let me start with a simple one. And the simple one is that I've heard all of you talk in terms of the Solid Waste Department and you have my commitment to work with you to get that resolved. With regard to the overall issue, there is so much history here, and first of all, let me congratulate all of you, because I think the discussion today for anybody that's sitting here, hopefully anybody who's watching on Channel 9, has been a spectacular lesson in civics and government. Because I don't know if you've realized this, but in the course of the last few hours that you've been discussing one issue in particular, you have touched upon a whole series of issues, which talk about the agenda of this City, where we're going as a City, and I just think it's fascinating, and I congratulate you for that. I hope that all of you who are here today and the leadership, in particular, as I think I have, and not just today, in my case, and probably in your cases, because you've been talking to all of us individually over the last few hours -- last few days, but I think the message that I hear that comes through very clearly from them -- and I can echo that sentiment -- is that there's a general uncomfortableness with the deal that's on the table. I think, if they had their druthers, they'd so indicate it on the record, that they would prefer to have this be a one-year deal, an 18 -month deal or even a two- year deal and not a three-year deal. And in that difference of time, go back and work on a lot of issues that are bothering them, that bother me, and that, I'm sure, bother the administration. Because over the long-term, we need to concern ourselves not just with your wages, but we need to concern ourselves with infrastructure and streets, and parks, and housing, and so many other issues that you all have talked about. And there's a real fear here that by locking ourselves in for 60 March 27, 2002 i • an extended period of time, with this type of an agreement, we're basically closing the door on doing a lot of other things that need to be done and a lot of other things that the people of the City of Miami need and that's what we're all here for. Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, we've seen in this City a lot of abuses and a lot of excesses, some coming from the side of management, some coming from the side of labor. A lot of those excesses, I think, contributed greatly to the kinds of problems, the financial problems that we had over the last few years, and we're fortunate enough that with the work of this Commission and the administration and all of you, and so many others, that we've come out of that, but we've just recently come out of that. We've just recently come out of the Oversight Board. We've just recently started to get bump ups in our credit ratings from Wall Street. Yesterday we were able to refinance a series of bonds that we had outstanding at a savings. All those things are extremely positive. But, folks, what I'm saying, and I think what you heard them say, is that we have a long way to go. So, all of us today are suffering from the sins of the past from our predecessors in elected office and from others, and we're struggling in terms of what we do. Because I think it is also true -- and I can tell you for a fact that it's true -- that all five people who are sitting up there, regardless of how they vote today, care about you, and want to do right by you and want your salaries to be competitive with every other municipality in this area that's comparable, and want you to be the best employees that this City could possibly have. That is -- there's no question. Let that never be a question in your mind with regard to that. But at the same time, they have to be worried about where we're going as a City and where we're going in terms of all the agendas that we have. And, regrettably, we find ourselves in a position today, where we have to make a decision regarding these things of the past. The other thing that I think has been extremely clear from everything that you all have said, and I agree with, is the fact that this process has to change. These kinds of decisions -- and I'm sure you'll agree -- these kinds of decisions cannot be thrust upon the elected officials in three or four days to make decisions. In three or four days, during which time you're getting new information and new information and new information. It is totally unfair because it puts one in a position where one has to choose between doing something that you might otherwise do and not do, and you make the decision based on the fact that you either didn't have enough time or didn't have enough information. And this process is such that unlike the private sector. We can't just calla couple of you guys and say, "Hey, wait a minute. I haven't bad enough time. Can we have another couple of weeks and talk about these six other things that I just found out about?" That's not the way the process works. Regrettably, the process works that today they have to vote yea or nay, period, end of story, and that puts everyone in a very uncomfortable position. So, over the course of the last two or three days, I had struggled with this whole issue, as they had struggled with this whole issue. And, yes, I agree with the statements that were said, four percent annually for three years is certainly higher than what the private sector is doing. And, yes, because of the cut backs of prior years, we're probably not competitive with other municipalities and we have to do something to bring that up. And I guess I end up where a couple of my colleagues, I heard them say, Commissioners Teele and Winton, when they said that we need to start thinking big and we need to start thinking about building the best damn City in the United States and the only way we're going to do that is with your cooperation. And the only way we're going to get your cooperation is if you're happy to be a part of this family and the only way you're going to be happy if you're a part of this family is if you believe that you're being compensated at a level at least equal to, what your colleagues around this County or other comparable cities are making. And all of us have very, very extensive agendas that we want to accomplish over the next few years. And all of that involves 61 March 27, 2002 the Police Department being able to make sure that crime is being taken care of in the neighborhoods that we need to redevelop. And that encompasses picking up garbage in so many of our neighborhoods and fixing our parks and doing a whole series of things that we have to do to build the kind of infrastructure that is going to allow people to say, I want to move back into the City of Miami or I want to do business in the City of Miami. So, we're faced with a situation here today of we have a choice to say, we don't like what's happened in the past. This is not the kind of system that we'd like to use in the future. But we've got to move forward as a City. We've got to move this City forward, and we need an array of people to do that. Another factor that gave me comfort this morning is when I talked to the union leadership in any office, and I said to them, you know, all of us have a concern and we have a concern because through the -- particularly the last few years, we have created all kinds of fees that are being assessed against the people in this community. They're hurting our residents. They're hurting our ability to develop business. And we really need to start looking at getting rid of some of these fees. And, so, I asked you, I asked all of you, and you all agreed and you put it on the record today to the Commission, if you would begin to work with the administration, with my office and with all the Commissioners, to begin identifying savings, efficiencies, cost savings in the City of Miami, because I'll tell you what. I don't know if they said it, but I'll say it. All of us believe that there is a whole lot of money being wasted in the City of Miami, and you need to help us identify that. You need to help the administration identify that. Let's get rid of that waste because that waste is the money that should be going in your pocket. Our problem is that we can't go out there and tell the voters, yeah, we acknowledge that there's a waste. Yeah, we acknowledge that we're not cutting that waste, and yet, at the same time, on top of all that, we're going to give all these folks a raise. That's where the difficulty comes in in the kinds of decisions we have to make. So, you have indicated to me that you will work with all of us, together, in that citywide council, labor management council, over the next few years to identify savings to wash against the additional -- I think it's fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) or so that this is going to cost us, and that is persuasive to me. You have also indicated the fact that if there is any -- I think somebody used the term "hiccup" earlier -- that if there's any hiccup, that you will sit down and work with us and that is persuasive to me. And, finally, again, just to conclude, to echo the sentiments of the two Commissioners I mentioned earlier, the fact that we have an agenda, the fact that we want to move forward and the fact that we need you in the process is also persuasive to me and that's why I would recommend to my colleagues that this agreement be ratified. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Regalado; OK. Commissioner Teele: Oh, what a change. Chairman Regalado; It's called refreshing. We have heard from the Mayor and members of the Commission. We are expected to vote on what is in front of us. The first item is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Miami General Employees American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 1907, for the period of October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2004. Do we have a motion? Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. 62 March 27, 2002 Commissioner Teele: Second, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: It's been moved and -- Commissioner Teele: AFSCME. Commissioner Sanchez: Is this -- Chairman Regalado: AFSCME. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, it's not the FOP? Chairman Regalado: No. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I would like for the AFSCME representative, Mr. Cox, to at least put on the record their willingness, if there is a substantial fall in revenues that are projected during the period of the contract, specifically if a court were to rule that there's a problem with the parking surcharge, will you agree to -- what -- Mr. Manager, why don't you help me? What is the terminology that we want to use? Mr. Gimenez: Well, if he would agree to come back to the table and reopen the -- Commissioner Sanchez: And reopen the -- Mr. Gimenez: -- reopen the finance terms. Mr. Cox: I have no problems with coming back to the table whatsoever, at any point in time. I never have. I never will. And if it means talking about the financial terms, I absolutely will. Commissioner Sanchez: So you accept the reopen clause? Mr. Cox: Well, I can't accept -- I cannot -- Commissioner Teele: But wait a minute. There is no -- hold it, hold it, hold it. Vice Chairman Winton: Clause, clause. Commissioner Teele: There is no reopen clause in this contract. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Just -- 63 March 27, 2002 0 0 Mr, Gimenez: But they will come back to the table and they'll discuss -- Commissioner Sanchez: You know, hey, relax. I know what I'm saying, Mr. Cox: Yes, sir, absolutely. Vice Chairman Winton: And that's the strongest statement as you can get. Commissioner Sanchez: I accept. Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. -- (APPLAUSE) Chairman Regalado: OK, There is a motion and a second. Madam City Clerk, roll call, (APPLAUSE) The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 02-343 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1907, AFL-CIO, FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None. 64 March 27, 2002 0 0 Commissioner Sanchez: Second roll call. Chairman Regalado: Item 2 is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Teele: Second. Chairman Regalado: It's been moved and second. Roll call. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I would propose the same question to -- Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Teele: -- distinguished president of FOP. Mr. Cotcra: Al Catera, President, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20. Absolutely, sir. You have my commitment, my union's commitment, my members' commitment. Commissioner Teele: That if the -- Mr. Catera: We'll always work with you. Commissioner Teele: That if the City has a, unexpected shortfall in revenues, specifically if the judge were to discontinue the availability of the parking surcharge or any other such major revenue stream, you would agree -- that's what you're saying yes -- Mr. Cotera: Absolutely, absolutely. As a matter of fact, we want to make sure that we keep that goose with lots of feathers, all right. We want to make sure that the goose got lots of feathers and lays lots of eggs. Commissioner Sanchez: Keep that goose healthy. Keep that goose healthy. Mr. Cotera: I'm glad that you made that motion, by the way. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Quit following me around. Chairman Regalado: Madam City Clerk, roll call. (APPLAUSE) 65 March 27, 2002 Cl i The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 02-344 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WALTER E. HEADLEY, JR., MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None. Chairman Regalado: Item 3, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the International Association of Firefighters. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Chairman Regalado: It's been moved and second. You want the same commitment? Commissioner Teele: I would, Mr. Pidermann. Mr. Pidermann: Yeah, I'll reiterate what I mentioned earlier, which is, you have our full support and commitment that in the event of disruption or interruption in any revenue stream, we'll be back trying to solve the problem and trying to do whatever we can to make sure that interruption -- that challenge is met. Chairman Regalado: Roll call. (APPLAUSE) 66 March 27, 2002 0 0 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 02-345 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL NO. 587, FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Cleric.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yeah, we need to -- we have an emergency ordinance that needs a four- fifths vote. 67 March 27, 2002 0 0 6, AUTHORIZE MANAGER, WORKING WITH MAYOR AND HIS STAFF, TO HIRE CONSULTANTS TO DO INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF TOTAL COST TO CITY ASSOCIATED WITH HIRING AND MAINTAINING EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS, LOOK AT EACH LINE ITEM OF COST FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPARE TOTAL COSTS TO COMPETITORS IN MARKET PLACE; $100,000. (See Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: Tied to this particular subject, I have two resolutions I would like to introduce. I don't know what -- Chairman Regalado: Absolutely. Go ahead, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: My first resolution is a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the Mayor's office to work with the administration to hire whatever appropriate consultants they deem necessary to do an independent analysis of the total cost to this City associated with hiring, maintaining employees and pensioners; and further to look at each line item of costs for every single classification and compare those costs, total cost -- I'm not talking about one item. I'm talking about the whole package -- to the competitors in the market place who may be buying for our employees, And I would authorize -- I'd like to authorize an expenditure of up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to complete this analysis. Commissioner Teele: I would second the motion, with -- Commissioner Sanchez: A hundred thousand? Vice Chairman Winton: I don't know how much it's going to cost. I'm saying up to -- but this may not be inexpensive. So, it's -- this is not a cheap thing. It isn't an inexpensive thing and it's going to require a number of different disciplines. Now, it may be at seventy-five thousand, maybe it's sixty-five thousand, but it could be a hundred and twenty-five thousand. I just don't know. But further, as a part of this effort, I want to encourage the Mayor and the City's consultants to bring the leadership of the bargaining units to the table so that, as a team, they're putting together the grid that identifies completely all the costs associated with maintaining employees in the City of Miami, Commissioner Tecle: I would second the motion, but I would ask for a proviso. I think this is meaningless if we don't go back at least 10 years, possibly 15 years, but we need to go back at some common point -- because it's not so much how much it cost now. Vice Chairman Winton. That's right. This says -- absolutely says back and forward. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but we need to mandate that they go back at least 12 years, I would think. 68 March 27, 2002 • E Vice Chairman Winton: Fine, fine. And they need to go forward as far as they need to go forward in the actuary analysis, to determine what the long-term costs are to the City. Commissioner Teele: And to go forward at least five years, which is the requirement -- at least five years -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Teele: -- which is the requirement of our budget -- Vice Chairman Winton: We need to look at this on a 10 or 15 -year segment out to have any real impact and to see the real impact of what these costs are all going to be. Commissioner Teele: I would second the motion. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and a second. OK. Commissioner Sanchez is here. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It passes five to zero. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 02-346 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH AN INDIVIDUAL TO PROVIDE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL PENSIONERS AND CURRENT PERSONNEL, SAID ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE A CLASSIFICATION BY CLASSIFICATION REVIEW OF (1) ALL COSTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1989 TO PRESENT, (2) ALL COSTS FOR PROJECTED FISCAL YEARS TO THE YEAR 2007, AND (3) COMPARATIVE REPRESENT MARKET PLACE COSTS; FURTHER REQUESTING THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FOUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ORGANIZATIONS ASSIST IN SAID ANALYSIS; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000, FROM AN ACCOUNT TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE ANALYSIS; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED INDIVIDUALS. 69 March 27, 2002 0 • (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 70 March 27, 2002 0 • 7. DIRECT MANAGER TO HIRE CONSULTANT OR CONSULTANT/EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEE WHO CAN TRAIN MANAGEMENT STAFF IN PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE AND/OR INDIVIDUAL WHO CAN HANDLE CASES INVOLVING PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE. Vice Chairman Winton: And I have another -- I have another resolution. Chairman Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: -- where I would like to direct the City Manager to hire either consultants or consultant/employee or employee and that -- and it may be one and then the next - - but a serious shortcoming we have in this City because I've talked to many department heads about this issue. Our management staff does not know how to fire an employee. It's the reason that we get all these things overturned by Civil Service all the time. We don't have -- our senior management people and middle level management people, who have that kind of responsibility, don't know how to do progressive discipline, and in many corporations out there, there is an individual actually responsible for, on the management team, if there's a troubled -- if there's a trouble employee in the ranks, in order to do anything with them, the management, whatever department that is, had to go to that person or persons and they walk through every single step that you need to do to either get the deficiencies of that person corrected, retrained or fired. And that's the kind of thing we need. And, so, I would like to direct the Manager -- and this needs to happen now because this goes right to the heart of this sufficiency thing that I'm talking about. We need to direct the Manager to move forward immediately in hiring a consultant that can help us figure out how we organize that piece of our Human Resources Department, and put it in place in the next four to six months, if we can get it in place. Commissioner Teele: I second the motion, but let me say this. I think that's a part of it, and I think that's a very important part. But I think we have to invest also in training and counseling, and I just -- I would hope that the Manager will take this resolution and come back with a comprehensive for a personnel management, both in terns of counseling and discipline, as well as training, because in some cases, you know, the person may just need psychological or psychiatric or family assistance and all of those kinds of things, and I would hate for this just to be on -- Vice Chairman Winton: And it's not. And I agree with you a hundred percent. Chairman Regalado: We have a motion and a second. Vice Chairman Winton: Do we need dollars tied to this or could you figure it out and bring the dollar -- Mr. Vilarello: Both of these resolutions were resolutions where you're directing him to do something. He's going to have to identify the funding source and the funds of the dollars and come back. Vice Chairman Winton: Eine. OK. Thank you. 71 March 27, 2002 i 0 Chairman Regalado: OK. We have a motion. All in favor say -- Commissioner Tecle: (INAUDIBLE) but within -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Teele: By the meeting of the 25th for both of them. Not later than the meeting of the 25th. Vice Chainnan Winton: Right. Mr, Gimcnez: April 25th? Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Within 30 days. The 25th, yes. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: Thank you. Chairman Regalado: All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It passes five to zero. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 02-347 A RESOLUTION OF THE MY MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH AN INDIVIDUAL TO ASSIST WITH THE PREPARATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING FOR CITY OF MIAMI PERSONNEL AND TO PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE OF PERSONNEL BY MANAGEMENT; DIRECTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER PRESENT THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THE PLAN AT THE APRIL 25, 2002 CITY COMMISSION MEETING. 72 March 27, 2002 0 0 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Toole, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Toole, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 73 March 27, 2002 8. DIRECT MANAGER TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 9, 2002 IN CONNECTION WITH STATUS OF REQUISITE PROTOCOL OF SANITATION WORKERS UNION AGREEMENT, Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: We have two emergency ordinances. Commissioner Teele: I would -- but I would request that there be a public hearing or, Mr. Attorney, for us to consider wherever we are with the solid -- sanitation workers on April 25"'. And if you would help me frame the motion -- Chairman Regalado: Arthur. Commissioner Teele: What? Chairman Regalado: Can I say something? Remember that on April 25th, we have a public hearing. Commissioner Teele: May the 9th. Yes. Chairman Regalado: We have a public hearing to (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Teele: That is, management -- that the management come back to us by May the 9th with the requisite labor union protocols being adhered to, and give us a full report -- status report on the meeting of May 9th -- not later than the meeting -- Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, could I get an executive session with you all on the 11th to discuss the contract? Chairman Regalado: No. Because there's so many things. We have -- Carlos, we have -- Mr. Gimenez: OK. Chairman Regalado: Unless you take some items off the agenda, but we have promised the people from the Roads a time certain public hearing. We have another public hearing on the 11th. It's going to be long, long, long. Mr. Gimenez: OK. Well, then, I'll be coming around to each one of you to discuss it and try to get some direction from you. Chairman Regalado: OK. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 74 March 27, 2002 0 0 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 02-348 A MOTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 9, 2002 1N CONNECTION WITH STATUS OF THE REQUISITE PROTOCOL OF THE SANITATION WORKERS UNION AGREEMENT. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 75 March 27, 2002 9. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTIONS 40-241, 40.255, AND 40-256 OF CITY CODE ENTITLED "PERSONNEL/PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN/CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST," TO PROVIDE THAT PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE ARE CONSISTENT WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. Chairman Regalado: We have two emergency ordinances. Commissioner Teele: Move the first emergency ordinance, Item Number 4. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Regalado: It's been moved and second. Mr. City Attorney, explain. Mr. Vilarello: This simply is an ordinance which amends the personnel and pension retirement plan to conform with the Collective Bargaining Agreements that you just approved. Chairman Regalado: Read the ordinance. Roll call. Four-fifths. It passes. We have another emergency -- second roll call. I'm sorry. An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 40/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 3, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PERSONNEL/PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLANXITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST," TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A CERTAIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS 40-241, 40-255, AND 40-256 OF SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Teele and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Tecle, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None. 76 March 27, 2002 Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Teele and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12202. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 77 March 27, 2002 10. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: DELETE SECTION 42-7 AND AMEND SECTIONS 40-202(6), 40-203(8), 40-203(p), AND 40-203(q) OF CITY CODE ENTITLED "PERSONNEL/PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN/CITY OF MIAMI FIREFIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST" AND POLICE/IN GENERAL, TO PROVIDE THAT PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE ARE CONSISTENT WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, Chairman Regalado: OK. Emergency ordinance. Read the -- Mr. City Attorney. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Commissioner Teele: Second. Chairman Regalado: Oh, it's been moved and second. I'm sorry. Roll call. An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 40/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 2 AND CHAPTER 42/ARTICLE I OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PERSONNEL/PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLANXITY OF MIAMI FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT TRUST" AND POLICE/IN GENERAL, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 40- 202(6), 40-203(g), 40-203(p), AND 40-203(q) AND DELETING SECTION 42-7, IN ITS ENTIRETY, OF SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton and seconded by Commissioner Teele, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None. 78 March 27, 2002 Whereupon the Commission on motion of Vice Chairman Winton and seconded by Commissioner Teele, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: Chairman Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None, SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12203. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Regalado: OK. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Regalado: It's been moved and second. Thank you very much, all. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 02-349 A MOTION TO ADJOURN TODAY'S COMMISSION MEETING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 79 March 27, 2002 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M. ATTEST: Priscilla A, Thompson CITY CLERK Sylvia Scheider ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MANUEL A. DIAZ MAYOR 80 March 27, 2002