Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-08-09 MinutesLl CITY OF MIAMI * IwcaHt anar�a * �� ir CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9, 200 1 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLER UCITY HALL lValterl Foenrarr/Cih'Genk MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY CO'rIMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 9"' day of August, 2001, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 1:39 p.m. by Presiding Officer/Commissioner Wifrcdo Gort (hereinafter referred to as Vice Chairman Gort), with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton (District 2) Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) ALSO PRFSE'NT: Carlos Gimenez, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Walter J. Focrnan, City Clerk Sylvia Lowman, Assistant City Clerk ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wifrcdo Gort (District 1) Commissioner Arthur F. Teele, Jr. (District 5) I. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION OF CITY COMMISSION RELATED TO CITY'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGY ON VARIOUS CONTRACTS. Commissioner Sanchez: Meeting; called to order. We'll be going into an executive -- Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): "['his is -- I'll announce the meeting as the special meeting called for the pmj)ose of discussing collective bargaining strategy with regard to the various contracts before the City of Miami. It is an executive session, and I will -- and it will be held in Commissioner Gort's conference room. l will announce the individuals who will be pennitted to attend the meeting into the public record, and you gentlemen can go ahead and proceed into Commissioner Gort's conference room. C'OI11111isSioilel- SanCheT: Could you state those names for the record? b/9/01 (section 1) Mr. Vilarello; Yes. This is a closed executive session of the City Commission, pursuant to Florida Statute 447.605, related to the City of Miami collective bargaining strategy on various contracts. The session will be attended by the members of the City ;;ommission, Commissioner Gort, Joe Sanclicz, Tomas Regalado, Arthur Teele, Johnny Winton; the City Manager, Carlos Gimenez; Chief Martinez; Chief Bryson; Clarence Patterson, the Director of Solid Waste; Sue Weller, Labor Relations Officer; myself, the City Attorney; Maria Chiaro, from my office; Assistant City Attorney, Linda Rice Chapman and Steve Scott, Assistant City Attorney, together with Anthony Ramirez, Labor Relations Specialist. Those are the individuals that'll attend the meeting. As soon as we conclude the executive session, we'll return to the public meeting. THEREUPON, THE CITV COMMISSION WENT INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 1:40 P.M., AND RECONVENED IN OPEN PUBLIC SESSION AT 3:27 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITV COMMISSION, EXCEPTING COMMISSIONER TEELE, FOUND TO BE PRESENT. An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Sanchez, after which, Commissioner Winton led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Aiciandro Vilarcllo (City Attorney) concluded the Executive Session. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note for (lie record that we've 2 8/9/01 (section 1) • 0 2. SCHEDULE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001, FOR ELECTION OF CANDIDATE FOR DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER, AND SCHEDULE LATER SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2001, UNLESS CANDIDATE .RECEIVES MAJORITY OF VOTES AT NOVEMBER 6, 2001 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION. Vice Chairman Gort: We have it couple of meetings. What will be the first order of business to be dealing with? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, you should recess the special meeting that you started and commence the 3 o'clock -- Vice Chairman Gort: Recess the special meeting, and commence the 3 o'clock meeting. Mr. Vilarello: And you also have a 2:30 special meeting, as well. Vice Chairman Gort: A21:30 special meeting, which is? Mr. Vilarello: Related to -.-our announcement. Note for the Record: At this point, the City Commission adjourned the special meeting set for 3 p.m., immediately atter which, the special meeting set for 2:30 p.m. was commenced. Vice Chairman Gort: Mine. OK. 2:30 special meeting. I have called this special meeting this afternoon to announce that I have resigned, effective November the 6"', from my Commission seat. For the last seven years, 1 have worked with my colleagues and the Commission to solve -- tackle many of the problems that we have inherited from prior administrations. The City, after a lot of hard work and working collectively as a team with the administration, the City financially is stable. 1 have decided to become a candidate for Mayor to continue the stability that we have acquired, and to work on improving U111- municipal services. As Mayor, I will have the opportunity to meet and discuss issues of challenge Willi nny Icllou, Commissioners, which I am unable to do right now, due to the Sunshine Law. As Mayor, I will continue to work in uniting our diverse community and leading our City into an international City, which it should become the greatest City to live, work and to visit. So at this time, I want to make sure, Mr. Clerk, that in addition to the race for the Mayor and the District 4, District 1 be added to it. Mr, Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, 1 have prepared an emergency ordinance calling for that seat to be opened and an election be held on November 6"' for the balance of your term. Commissioner Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gori: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion'? ,Mr. Vilarello: It's an emergency ordinance. 3 8/9/01 (section 2) Vice Chairman Gort: Read it. Note for the Record: Commissioner Tcele entered the Commission chamber at 3:30 p.m. Vice Chairnan.Gort: Roll call 4 8/9/01 (section 2) • An ordinance entitled --- AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001, FOR TILE ELECTION OF A CANDIDATE FOR DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER, AND SCHEDI.JLING A LATER SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2001, UNLESS A CANDIDATE RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF VOTES AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2001 SPECIAL MTJNICIPAL ELEC'T'ION; ESTABLISHING SEPTEMBER 22, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE CLOSING DA'Z'E AND TIME TO QUALIFY AS A CANDIDATE FOR DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER; PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF PERSONS QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN SAID SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION(S); DESCRIBING PERSONS QLJALIFIID TO VOTE IN SAID SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION(S); DESCRIBING THh REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED CINDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF FLORIDA AND CHAPTER 16 OF THE CODE OF THF CITY OF M1AM1, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, WHICH THE CITY HAS ADOPTED AND DESIRES TO USE FOR SCHEDULING SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION(S); DESIGNATING AND APPOINTTNG THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF SUCH REGIS'T'RATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE BY PUBLICATION OF THE ADOP'T'ION OF "PHIS ORDINANCE AND THE PROVISIONS HEREOF; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSiMIT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS: CONTAINTNG A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, and seconded by Commissioner Regalado, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading saute on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E, Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None 8/9/01 (section 2) Whereupon, the Commission, on motion of Commissioner Sanchez, and seconded by Commissioner Regalado, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None SAID OKDINANC:E WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12102. The City Attorney read the ordinance by title into the public record. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. Mr. Vilarello: Adjourn that special meeting, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Gort: A motion to adjourn the session. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Goal: OK. All in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye, G 8/9/01 (section 2) • The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-836 A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING CONCERNING PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GORT'S RESIGNATION AS COMMISSIONER FROM DISTRICT 1. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following Vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr, Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gori None None 7 8/9/01 (section 2) 0 0 3. (A) CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO PRESENT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. (B) DISCUSSION CONCERNING BASEBALL STADIUM PROPOSAL. (C) CLARIFY POSITION OF COMMISSION THAT IF THERE IS NO LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED BY FLORIDA MARLINS BY FIRST MEETING OF SEPTEMBER, THEN COMMISSION SHALL NO LONGER NEGOTIATE WITH MIAMI MARLINTS ORGANIZATION FOR ANY PROPOSAL FOR BASEBALL STADIUM. (D) TEMPORARILY DEFER CONSIDERATION OF DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROPOSAL FOR FLORIDA MARLINS .BASEBALL STADIUM (See #7), Note for the Record: At this point, the City Conunission adjourned the special meeting set for 2:30p.m., immediately after which, the special meeting set for 3 p.tn. was comrtlenced. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, the next scheduled special meeting is that called by the Mayor with regard to an update on the baseball stadium. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairnzan. Vice Chairman Gorl: Yes, sir. Conlnlissloner Winton: The first special meeting that was called, was called by me at the last Commission meeting. I forget what time. 1 know we got out of here at 3 a.m. I'm not sure what time I called for the special meeting. But it was to go over the Charter changes. And we called for that Charter change committee meeting to -- I mean Commission meeting to begin at 3:30, I believe. And it is now 3:32. There are a number of the Charter Review Committee members who are present that took time off to come here. I know it's going to take sonic tinge to get through this, and we don't want to rush the Commission, but I also don't want to delay these volunteers who have come. So Pm going to pose this as a question, not as a statement yet. In order of the agenda, the next item is Marlins baseball. My question is, if the Marlins baseball discussion can be relatively short -- Mayor Carollo: It is. Commissioner Winton: -- then I think we could -- But if it's going to go more than 20 minutes, i would like the opportunity to recess the discussion on Marlins baseball, if it goes more than 20 minutes, and go into the Charter Review sluff, in deference to the volunteers who spent many, many Jong hours working on this project, to begin with. Is that all right? Mayor Carollo: Ycall. "That's fair, Conlniissioner. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. ,'Mayor Carollo: Let's say if we don't finish by 4, if we could recess it then Cominlssiuner Winton: Great. Mayor Carollo: All right. i; S/9/01 (section 3) Commissioner Winton: Committee members, your indulgence, please, and thank you very much. Mayor Carollo: Basically, what I wanted to accomplish this afternoon was to give a briefing to the members of the Commission as to some of the steps that have been taken up to now how we were proceeding in progressing, which I would like the Manager to do that. At the same time, is introduce to the members of the Commission a new site that is one that has been under discussion with the Marlins and with the County, and that there is a general opinion that it's the best site to consider. 1 am not asking the Commission to take a vote on any site today or anything other than approving in the next portion a referendum to be placed on the ballot, whiclh I hope will be in September. But I intended this to be a discussion of the Commission so that you could get more of an update, and you could see a new site that is being proposed. iso we have a mal) that we could put up, Mr. Manager? Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. We have a presentation from Tom Whitworth, from Legg Mason, that he'll take you through this site, why we started looking at a new site, and also some of the :funding issues Oil the table right now. Mayor Carollo: Tom, linw long do you think this presentation might take, approximately? Thomas Whitworth: 15 minutes Mayor Carollo: Very good. And do we have the aerials of the new site that we could put somewhere while lie's speaking? Mr. Gimenez: It's part of the presentation. Mayor Carollo: OK. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Whitworth: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, City Manager and City Attorney, i appreciate the opportunity to provide this update, i recognize you have a very full agenda and will try to do this as quickly as possible. As you are aware, following the resolution in March 15`t', we did conduct some additional analysis on the River Site. And for better or worse, it was detennined that there was sufficient site constraints that warranted at least a look at an alternative location. Some of those constraints had to do with, as we had indicated back in March, building a facility in a very constrained site, due to Metrorail and the Miami Avenue Bridge. When we went forward, there were sort of three that -- three sites that went to the top of the list. We looked at eight. They were Arena West, Park West and the north -- what we now refer to as the North River Site. You., obviously, at your action wanted us to take a close look at the North River Site, and we did. And the conclusion, when you talk to the contractors, and the designers and some of the discussions that we've had with the Marlins is while this may be achievable, there were significant constraints that impacted cost, and it points, questioned whether or not construct -ability was something that was achievable. That then resulted in identifying an additional site, which we now refer to as the South River Site. This site is bounded by the Miami River on the north, Southwest 8`r' Street on the south, Southwest 2"d Avenue on the east, and Interstate 95 on the west. Upon receiving some approval on a preliminary basis from the Marlins that this was a site that did seem to meet their program requirements, we were instructed by the City to perform some additional analysis. And those negotiations, as you've heard that have been taking place over numerous meetings with the City, County and the Marlins were all 9 8/9/01 (section 3) an the basis of your resolution back in March, and a draft memorandum of understanding has been discussed. It's being negotiated, and at this point in time is not executed. The memorandum of understanding recognizes that the date r"or opening became at risk. We are now talking about, on a best case basis, opening for April of 2005. Pant of what caused that is the unsuccessful attempt to secure the sales tax rebate really put us in a position that there was a need to develop anew finding plan, and as a result of those delays, pushed opening back a full year. We applied the same criterion to this site selection that we looked at when we looked at the other eight in the begitsning of this year, and I'll briefly state them. We looked at the functional and programmatic issues. Will the stadium fit on the site? Does the program make sense? What type of access do you have? Vehicular, mass transit, et cetera; what the impact to the neighborhood would be relative to traffic and pedestrians; timing -related for land assemblage, whether or not this was a positive economic development impact to the City; whether there were development of regional impact issues to be dealt with and then all tying back ultimately to cost, cost dealing with a bLldget, to the extent a budget exists, and then additions or deletions as we looked at various sites, similar to what we did in the pasta From a baseline standpoint, the budget has increased by 12 to 16 percent. And that depends upon whether the building opens in 2005 or 2006. As you can appreciate, it becomes more expensive to construct as time goes on. Those increases really, which are explained on the next chart, began by taking what was the initial budget that you saw in our report of March 12"', and that was about a three hundrp,A and eighty-five million dollar ($3$5,000,000) construction budget and then variorss adjustments to that. The stadium construction budget was increased by about twenty point five million dollars. That's a reflection of better numbers, because there has been time to put the opportunity together to better cost things like HVAC (]seating, ventilation and air conditioning), FF&E (furniture, fixtures and equipment) and the like. "rhe parking garage at this location increased the project fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000). The reason being a number of things. Number one, you're building this structure, as you'll see on the site plan over top of a relocated 7`h Street. 7`11 Street moves slightly to the south. It is another 500 spaces, going from 1500 to 2,000 spaces. And probably one of the more important issues is it's a complicated construction because of the fact that the fagade improvements that you would need to put on the garage are significant. This really becomes the entrance to the stadium, so this cannot look like a parking garage. ']'his has to look, in essence, like the front door of a baseball stadium. That drove cost. The next two items really deal with just delays. We inflated these numbers by three percent, which we think is fair. And every delay.just adds another twelve to thirteen million dollars ($1.3,000,000). So for our purposes this afternoon, we are using a baseline budget of four hundred and forty-five million dollars ($445,000,000). As we look at some of the site characteristics of the site that is under consideration, it is about 20 acres when you include streets. i.t's located predominantly in a commercial and industrial mixed use area. There are 25 individuals or entities that own 47 parcels within the site. We believe that this creates very significant economic development impact. We think it creates that on both sides of the river. We think there is minimal disruption to the neighborhood. I-95 serves as a great barrier. There is an issue relative to the relocation of businesses that are presently located on the site. In addition, there are l 1 apartments, and some duplexes and one single-family residence, so issues like relocation will need to be dealt with. As it relates to environmental, again, at a minimum a phase one analysis would he required. That has not begun, waiting for your authorization. As it relates to access, this again became one of the best sites relative to parking supply. At a very detailed level, we dctcrnsincd that there were 11,000 spaces within a ten-minute walk. As you'll recall, the team's requirement was about ten -- I'm sorry -- 12,000 spaces. When you extend that walk to 15 minutes, it's more than adequate. So lots of parking, we believe, in the area that would work. Good public transit with the Brickell Metro stop, the Metro Bus, and a couple of Metro Mover stops within walking distance. Again, as previously stated, we would need to reconfigure Southwest 7"' Street to the south slightly. As it relates 10 8/9/01 (section 3) to utilities and relocation, it's two to two and a half million dollars. This is not within the downtown DRi (development regional impact). We have been told by the experts in that area that we can address part of that through the development phase to the extent we move f -onward. As it relates to a few other considerations, the utility relocations were significantly lower on this parcel, as compared to the North Riverfront, particul^rly because of the FP&L (Florida Power and Light) issues. For the record, FP&i.. has been incredibly cooperative. The issue is that a lot of the electrical grid that feeds the downtown nuts through that site. And because of right-of-way and easements that would need to be maintained so that they call service those lines. It did cause some issues relative to construct -ability. We think that the river walk should be actively pursued to allow parking to the north and the cast to become more accessible. This, albeit not a very good one, is a preliminary site plan that lays the ballpark there again, with the dimension being the river on the north, Southwest 8"' Street on the south, Southwest 2``'' Avenue to the east and 1-95 to the west. You see in yellow there the jog of 7th Street slightly to the south, the orientation of home plate here being at the southwest corner, great. site lines to the downtown and what we think is a very attractive site. As it relates to schedule, we tried to show that there are two schedules. Again, we're not on any kind of a critical path as yet. We will not be on a critical path until a finance plan is adopted. And by that, we. mean that all of the public and private funding is committed. That's not the case at the present time. That's still being negotiated. But the clock doesn't start until that happens. What we have shown are sort of Iwo time tines that would allow for either it 2005 or a 2006 opening. We believe that the site acquisition will take eight to 12 months from your permission to move forward. Design and construction of the infrastructure, about 14 months. The major swing here on the time line has to do with when you begin stadium design. If you begin stadium design prior to site acquisition, there is it chance that opening in 2005 can happen. if you do a more normal development -- and that would be do not begin design until the site has been acquired -- that clearly pushes it back to 2006. The issue there is one of risk. Who's going to take risk for design? And that is something that presently is being negotiated. The following matrix was in your report, and this sort of again is how we built the numbers back then in March. We've updated those. And what you see in front of you now reflects a 2006 opening. it shows the Marlin number for the stadium at four hundred and forty-five million, and then continues to make a series of adjustments as a result of additional analyses that we have done from the time I last spoke to you in March to today. And as ,you can see, there is it range of a low of four hundred and seventy-seven million at Aretln West to a high of six hundred and thirty-seven million at the North Riverfront, and it should be noted that what drives a lot of that number are things like thirty-eight or forty million dollars ($40,000,000) for it transit stop at the Metro and things like that. The next slide shows you a preliminary source and uses of funds. And again, this is preliminary. These are potential sources. These are the best we have as it relates to the uses of cash. The stadium being four hundred and forty-five million, we believe that the land can be acquired for about thirty-three million. There's about two and a half million dollars of utility relocation, two million dollars ($2,000,000) of demolition, about ten million in infrastructure improvements, and some financing costs, predominantly on the City side, of about seven and a half million dollars, bringing lite budget to it half' a billion dollars. On the right side of that are potential sources. 'the County, although it has not committed and it's still under negotiation, has talked about community development taxes in the range of a hundred and eighteen million dollars (S 118,000,000). The City and the City Manager will discuss these at length when i finish. But the parking surcharge at a hundred and fifty million, assuming that the movement is to go fotivard, a parking tax rebate of about twenty-flu•ee milliun, the creation of a tax increment financing district on the river, which would be a City and County contribution of about thirty million, for a subtotal of three hundred and twenty-one million. And again, that creates a fairly sizable piece yet to be filled in between the County and the Marlins, and that number is a hundred and seventy-nine million, again, just to balance the budget. 8/9/01 (section 3) I mean, the one thing that's important to note, I think the City Manager has been consistent in every meeting that I've attended with the team, and has consistently said that almost -- no matter what happens with that bottom line, the City is in for what the City is in. There is no more money left. So if there is a gap that exists, it's a gap that needs to be filled by the team and the County. To conclude, and hopefully do this on a timely basis, the next steps in terms of what we would need to do is a final site selection by the City, the County and the Marlins, including a visit as to whether or not tite South Rivcr Site works. .And that would probably mean meeting with people like the Miami River Commission, given that it is on. the river, and those sorts of things. Also, to determine the extent of any environmental remediation, obviously, a phase one analysis would need to be completed. As I just mentioned, identifying that hundred and seventy-nine million dollar (S 179,000,000) gap and where those funds will come from, which is presently being negotiated between the team and the County. And then finally, the City, the County and the Marlins Finalizing an MOU (memorandum of understanding), and put fonvard and adopt a funding; plan that's consistent with whatever action you choose to take. Again, I thank you for your time, and I'll return this to the City Manager. Thank you. Mr. Gimenez: .A couple of things here that you may not have seen. While it says the City parking; surcharge at a hundred and fifty million, that does not preclude the Commission deciding they want to issue some kind of a bond issue to do the one fifty. That's basically what we said. The City would be putting; the hundred and fifty million based on a voter referendum, either on a bond issue or parking surcharge. The one thing you probably have not seen is the river tax increment. And what's envisioned here is a TIF (tax increment finding) on the river that would be controlled by the County and City Comrnission on a project -specific basis, so that if any excess revenue from the projects that were jointly approved by the City Commission and the County Commission would go back to the respective government for operations. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Mayor, if I -- :Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Manager, a question. How many meetings have you had in the last three or four weeks on this issue, the new site and meetings with the Marlins, discussions about the land, cost of the land, financing, tax increment district? Mr. Gimenez: We've had at least one meeting a week for the last, you know, two months or so with the Marlins and the County. And the last week, the County and the Marlins have been meeting by themselves, because the issues, a lot of the issues that are outstanding pertain to those two parties. As you can see, there is a hundred and seventy-nine million dollars (5179,000,000) issue here. Those deal with the County and the Marlins, and not the City. Commissioner Regalado: When was the last time that we discussed on the City Commission the Marlins issue'? Do you remember? Have any idea? Maybe two months, something like that? Mr. Gimenez: Time flies when you're working here. I really couldn't -- Commissioner Regalado: It is. Time flies. Because the only -- the only thing that I have heard from you was a phone call telling; me that you found a new site, and that you wanted to tell me befbre the press got a 12 8/9/01 (section 3) • hold of it. And you mentioned 8`' Street. That's about all the information that 1 have in this new era, after 1 think that the Commission decided that Commissioner Teele was to bring back a report. So f just want to be clear.on the record. I was not kept informed of all these meetings, nor by the Marlins, nor by you, and certainly not by the Mayor regarding all these new deals or talks on the Marlins Stadium. I just want to put that on the record. Commissioner Winton: So what's the next step? Mr. Gimenez: Well, the -- I mean, this was called for -- to give you an update of what's going on. And this is what's going oil. The next step is the Marlins and the County will either resolve the gaps or they won't. And hopefully, we will have some kind of a memorandum of understanding brought back to the Commission to either approve the memorandum of understanding between the County and the City and the Marlins, you know, sometime in the near future. That's what we hope. There's also the issue of the City and the amount of money that the City would be contributing, and what the source would be, whether it would be as part of a large bond issue that would go to the voters, in my estimation, or part of a referendum oat the parking surcharge, with an extension of that referendum for 40 years, or on that surcharge for 40 years. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Winton: A number of points. One is that from a site standpoint, I think everyone remembers that 1 pushed for the River Site. But I said from the beginning that I'm not married to the River Site, I never was married to the River Site. And so finding an alternative site, if it works for tate Marlins and the community and everyone, I've got no problem with, whatsoever. So il'we can make this site work, that's great. 1 think the site -- the public won't know anything about this yet, so there will have to be some public hearings to flush out whether or not the public is going to -- particularly the Brickell, West Brickell area, the impact that it may have. And -- but that's part of the detail that has to be worked through. And there are a lot of additional details that have to be worked through. But 1 want to approach Commissioner Regalado's point from a very different point of view. While 1 haven't been called a lot by the Manager, because he's been busy with a lot of things, I happen to know that -- and I do call him periodically and ask how the negotiations are going. And 1 know that the City administration is spending an inordinate amount of time, has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get a deal structured with the Marlins for months, and months and months. And this Commission has gone on record in favor of supporting building a baseball stadium in downtown Miami. I think what the Mayor and the Manager have done, frankly, is a phenomenal job. I think they've really worked hard to try to get us to a point where the City of Miami has been able to show that it has done everything in its power to bring baseball to downtown Miami. I cannot say the same thing, however, for the Florida Marlins. The City of Miami has put -- now has a hundred and seventy-three million dollars ($173,000,000) on the table here, not counting a river tax increment, which is another thirty million that'll be. roughly half County, half City, I guess. And when we started, when we made the commitment to go after the sites, whether it be in Park West, or on the river, or wherever, months and months ago, our commitment was roughly thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). And -- Mr. Gimenez: Twenty-six. 13 8/9/01 (section 3) Commissioner Winton: All right. So -- and we're at a hundred and seventy-three million. I think the City of Miami has done everything in its power to step to the plate, and get baseball in downtown Miami. I think that, from my viewpoint, we need to set a timetable, a deadline for completion of negotiations on a letter of understanding between the Marlins. I don't care if that letter of understanding is. site-specific or not, but it does need to be finance -specific. And obviously, our piece of the commitment is contingent on a number of things happening, including an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida legislature agreeing to change the enabling legislation that allowed the parking surcharge. You know, those kinds of things arc in the air and will have some role in ]low this ultimately gets resolved, as relates to our being able to provide the financing. But we've got to get the Marlins to step to the plate and say they want to do something. We just spent, as Commissioners, two hours in an executive session, negotiating crucial, crucial City of Miami, business, and that relates to our labor contracts. And how those labor contracts get resolved will absolutely determine how much -- the kind of services our community is going to get for the next three to five years, the amount of tax money we're going to have to get from the public for the next three to five years, and how motivated our employees are to do their job over the course of the next three to five years. I mean, the whole shooting match is right there before us. And we need to get our senior management out of negotiating with the Marlins. They need to get refocused again on the serious business of the City. And the City has been ready. This financing package has been brought to us before. We've been, in essence, ready and prepared to sign a letter of understanding with the Marlins for at least two months, maybe three months now, and maybe four months -- it's been a while -- nothing's happening on the other side of the ledger. So from my viewpoint, I almost want to introduce a resolution that says something like if there is not a letter of understanding signed between the City of Miami and the Florida Marlins by the 1" of September, or the first Commission meeting of September, then our City Managers and senior staff are no longer allowed to negotiate, to discuss, to have any other thing to do with trying to figure out how to get this baseball thing done. We've done our fair share, and we're spending way too much time on this, and we've got a lot of business to get taken care of. And 1, for one, ani not convinced that the Marlins are serious about getting baseball, a baseball stadium built in the City of 1Viiami. Arid i will be real convinced when i see something in writing from the Marlins that says they're ready to go. So, in fact, this may die from a lack of second, but 1 think 1 am going to -- Commissioner Teele: I second the motion. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Commissioner Winton: -- introduce that as a resolution. Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. Mayor Carollo: By the 1" meeting in September? Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gorr: Yes. Mayor Carollo: ml's a fair timetable. 14 8/9/01 (section 3) • 0 Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. Mr. Manager, I think you and the Mayor have done an excellent job in trying to bring this baseball to downtown Miami. And I agree with Commissioner Winton, every statement that lie's made. But at the sante time, if we're going to be partners, we all have to sit down at the table at the same time, because you and I have had the experience that we were in Tallahassee. And one of the feedbacks that I get from everybody is there was completely two different types of negotiations taking place. We would be saying something, and somebody else would be saying something else. We have to bring this whole team together if we really want to get it done. If not, we're not going to be able to get it done. Commissioner Winton: What of the deadline? Vice Chainnatt Gort: Because we can do whatever we want, but if they don't get together themselves, they're not going to do it. At the same time, these projections, they look very good. But the TIF, itself, you have thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) for the TIF. How long do you think it would take before that thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) can realistically be produced? l mean, we have had experience with TIF in other places of the City of Miami. Mr, Gimcncz: I don't hav- the answer to that question right now, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Because when we get back, we've got to have the answer to all those projections that we have here. We have to make sure it's realistic. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, I support your motion. 1 think it's a fair timetable to have an agreement of understanding brought to this Commission by the first meeting in September. At the same time, I will say that while we have gone through so much time, so much energy, so many emotions in trying to get this done, and particularly when everyone thought that this was history, after the Senate finished their session before they heard it in Tallahassee. And then it was the City of Miami that brought it back to the table. I know how many can have a difference of opinion and emotions of where the Marlins are at, but let me assure you, Commissioner, that while I've gone through many of the same stream of emotions that you've expressed, I am convinced that: the Marlins are in this to get a stadium built. There has not been any games that have been played with us. They're very serious in building a stadium. However, this is not an easy task. And there have been many, many hurdles that we had to get through. i think we're finished with the bulk of there. There are some minor ones that are left. That's why I think the timetable for the first meeting in September is a fair timetable. I think, however, that before this meeting is finished, we have to do our job, and we need to get a referendum out before the end of September. And we'll talk about that when that comes up before the agenda that we have it later on. But on that particular issue, if there is one issue that is going to help us more than any other, not just with the voters, but even more so in Tallahassee, to get the surcharge approved and passed, it's going to be the lMianii Marlins. And I think that we need to be very to the point with the voters, and when we got to Tallahassee with a referendum that's been passed in hand of what was put in the ballot and what was passed. And I think we have to spell out percentages that are going to be used from that surcharge to lower taxes and fees, and we also have to use and spell out clearly the percentage that is going to be spent from the surcharge for other purpose. And .1 am one that feels that we need to spell it out clearly of what percent of the surcharge will be used for the building of a new baseball stadium for the Miami Marlins. It has to be spelled out in my opinion. 15 8/9/01 (section 3) • 0 Commissioner reele: Call the question. Mayor Carollo: Call the question. The following mot;an was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-837 A MOTION CLARIFYING THE POSITION' OF THE CITY COMMISSION TIIAT IF THERE IS NO LETTER OF LINDERSTANDING, WHICH IS SIGNED BY THE FLORIDA MARLINS, Bl' THE FIRST MEETING OF SEPTEMBER (SEPTEMBER 13, 2001), THEN THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL NO LONGER NEGOTIATE WITH THE MIAMI MARLINS ORGANIZATION FOR ANY PROPOSAL FOR A- BASEBALL STADIUM. Upon being seconded by C-%nimissioner "reelc, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Rcgalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Tecle: Mr. Chairman, :Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, go ahead. Commissioner Teele: Now that that resolution has passed, I would like to move the repeal of Resolution 1-253. If 1 get a second, I'd like to discuss it. Commissioner Rcgalado: Second. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Teele: Mr, Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: Could I be afforded a copy of that resolution? 16 8/9/01 (section 3) 0 0 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, you'll recall in late February, April -- late February and early March, we had a number of discussions with the Marlins. These discussions were very open-ended. They Just sort of were conversation. l offered Resolution I-253 for the purpose of trying to do what Commissioner Winton is trying to do, in a way, but in a statement, to put the support of the City behind the Marlins. At the time, we hadn't filed, and to date, we still have not filed a resolution relating to any of the finances. I don't want to digress from the motion, but I want to take exception from any comments that have been made on the dais or by the staff that this Commission has supported the numbers. We have not supported the numbers. And i think it's absolutely irresponsible on the part of this Commission to allow the management to proceed down a trail without giving some dollar parameters. 1 mean, we have literally, over this six-month period of time, written a blank check. The problem is, we're writing the check on the citizens of this community. Resolution 1-253 essentially provides for the acquisition or the site acquisition cost associated with any site. It's a blank check. I made the motion. We had parameters, I'm making the motion for the purpose of basically saying to the Marlins and to the management that this igame is over, that the Marlins have struck out. The cost of this program at this point is far greater than any of us comprehended or contemplated at the time we were going forward with this process. And at the point we're at four hundred and fifty-five million dollars ($45,000,000) in a City that is the fourth poorest City in the nation, in a City that is literally spending two hours trying to figure out how to hold the cost down of employees, which I strongly support, and at the same time, not able to accommodate parks in portions of our community. We cannot continue along this path. The thing that really brinks this to my mind that we need to basically go ahead and call the game now is that we've got to keep a straight face, Johnny. You and I haven't been here. I've been here for three years. Commissioner Sanchez has been here about the same time. You just got here. The City of Miami has a long history of "Now you see it, now you don't." In fact, somebody came here once from -- I guess it was from the Haitian community and said -- I said, "What are you still here for?" He said, "Well, sir, you all have always voted something in the morning and then repealed it in the evening. And I want to make sure that we don't do that." Weil, that's sort of the name that the City has gotten. We're talking about a referendum for the parking surcharge, but what we're really talking about is the Marlins stadium referendum. That's what's driving all of this. The language that has been passed out, I heard the Mayor make reference to the fact that he would like to put some upper limits on the Marlin stadium as a part of that. And I think that's an encouraging step of honesty. But we've bot an obligation to be honest with the public. There is no way we should entertain the notion that we're going to go out with a manila resolution or a referendum brat says we're going to ask for a 40 -year extension on the parking; surcharge for the purpose of reducing taxes and some misceilancous capital expenditures, by the way. And the way I see the number now, it's about a hundred and ninety million dollars (S 190,000,000) of miscellaneous expenditures for a Marlins stadium. 1 don't think the voters are going to support that. But more fundamentally, I, as Commissioner for my district, am not going to support it. This project has become too expensive. And it's too expensive for this City. I think we need to take a very hard look at where we're going and how we're getting there. And if we are going to continue to say we're going to buy the land, then we're continuing to say that we're going; to support this, this escalating capital facility. I would publicly appeal to you, Commissioner Winton, that the museums and the park, the museums and the park, moving the Museum of Natural Science, moving the art museum will put more beds -- more heads in beds than a baseball stadium will do. People will come here from all over the Americas for art museums and art displays, and the relationship with the Smithsonian as it relates to the Museum of Natural Science, which brings all of the pre - Colombian art that the Smithsonian Institute is able to identify and catalogue, put them in a venue here, literally, again, is the kind of activity that we should be considering. This stadium is too rich for my 17 8/9/01 (section 3) district's blood. Four hundred and fifty-five million dollars ($455,000,000), and escalating, and we still -- How much is the environmental that we're reserving for this? Mr. Gimenez: We don't know yet. Commissioner '[•cele: You know, the four hundred and fifty-five million is -- what we call in poker -- that's the table stakes. It's only going to go up from there. And so I just think that it's really important that we communicate to the management of our City and to the Marlins that We've had a lot of swings at this ball, but three strikes and you're out. I can no longer support the Marlins stadium concepts as they've been presented without at least an equal participation from the ownership of What is being asked to the City. Johnny, ,You made veiled reference to it. But when this whole stadium started, the owners said there was going to be a public ownership of the stadium, and that the stadium, 40 percent, or 50 percent or some percentage was going to be dedicated to the public. That's all sort of melted away and gone back into hibernation. And things change, and people change. And I'm not holding Mr. Henry to those statements, But what I am saying is that nowhere in that -- would you put that chart back up on that four hundred and fifty-five million dollars ($455,000,000) and where the money is coming from? Nowhere on that is a line that says "The Marlins." There's a line that says "The Marlins/the County." And then if you're going to talk also about the Marlin- in the context of paying the rent or paying dollars back, there needs to be a capital upfront cost. It's easy to spend other people's money. And I'm willing to bet you that if there is a one third/one third/one third relationship, you know what's going to happen to some of those bells, and whistles and gold-plated paraphernalia as it relates to the dome? You know, it's going to get a lot more realistic. Mr. France is dead, and we're going to talk about him a little later. But one thing lie taught me - - l shouldn't, maybe I shouldn't -- but he did tell me it's a lot more cost-effective to buy 80 percent of a mink coat than 100 percent of one. And you have to figure that out. But it worked for him for many years before lie died. And I'm telling you, it's a lot better for us to pay 66 percent of this stadium, and it's going to be a lot more cost-effective. Because you know what's going to happen to the cost? It's going to go down. So l would hope that we could basically begin to get this thing in focus, l know that Commissioner Winton has asked that we defer at 4 o'clock the issue for the -- out of deference to the civilians. But i would hope that we could return to this, this evening, and have a full discussion on whether or not we really want to go forward, and give us a little time to think. I would say in spades what Commissioner Regalado said. The time has got to stop in this City where we, as Commissioners, get documents on the day of an event that basically has this kind of Financial implication. And I would just hope, Mr. ;Manager, that in the future -- And I would also note that the Miami River Commission wants to be heard on this issue as well. And I think if we're going to have a Miami River Conunission, and especially if you're talking about a river TIF, I mean, you know, that's a big assumption, because what you're assuming now is that there is a TIF, There is also the assumption that the TIN was going to be used fir greenways, if built. There was some discussion fi-om the dais that we Were going to use the TIF to pay some of our cost 11or dredging. Flow much is this TIF going to lie? 1 mean that's -- so I'd like to understand what these numbers are before we just walk away and say, well, you had these numbers presented to you, because I'm very uncomfortable with the numbers. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, if' i may. l wasn't expecting any vote today on -- You know, this is an update on where we are and, you know, a new site, and that there's -- you know, the funding sources that are on the table. And there's still, you know, some stuff to negotiate. So. 18 8/9/01 (section 3) Commissioner Tecle: If I may, Mr. Manager. There is a mutual agreement that we have to have as legislators dealing with the -- If you inform us of something, you see, and if you go back and start listening to the transcript that's being played out in Homestead right now, everybody is saying, "Well, we told you." Well, there's an -- if you tell us something, there's an obligation for us to either run from it, and get up and run and say you didn't tell us, or there's an obligation for us to intelligently review the information you're giving its. We can't just lot you give us something and sort of be potted plants about the thing, and then turn around later on and somebody said, "Well., you didn't. ask a question." And 1 think we have -- If you present the information, we have an obligation to engage into some type of dialogue, at least so that we're all satisfied that we got a correct picture. Mr. Gimenez: Oil, absolutely. Absolutely. C'oinmissioner Regalado: Could you yield just one second, Commissioner? Commissioner Teele: I'd be. happy to. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager, you just said that you're not asking for a vote. But the Mayor is asking for a special election or referendum on the surcharge which means -- Commissioner Winton: That's a separate item though. Coniniissioner Regalado: No, no, it's not a separate item. Commissioner Winton: It's not a part of this agenda. Commissioner Teele: It's a part -- it's a separate agenda item. Commissioner Regalado: It's a separate agenda item, but it's directly related to the Marlins stadium. This is what i read here. Now, we just did your resolution that tells them to come back on September. Well, I would ask the members of this board to defer any vote on any referendum until and unless we get that commitment fi•otn the Marlins, and Nye have all the numbers correct. We should not do a special referendum on the parking surcharge, especially now that we are knocking on the doors of the Supreme COUrt. And it would be imprudent to do that. So, you know, I'm just saying I know it's a separate agenda, but it has to do with this, and that's my thinking. So you are asking us, yes, to vote oil something that is related to the Marlins. I will not vote today. Well, I'll vote "no," if we have to vote. But just to be on record that l think that it's not prudent to do this when we don't have any information about the cost of this project. Mayor Carollo: Any further statements front anyone'? Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Mayor, let me just add that if it wasn't for the fuel that keeps this idea in place, which is the parking surcharge -- One of the statements that is often heard throughout the City and inany tulles said in this Commission is that Nye are the fourth poorest City in the nation. Hut what are we doing riot to be the fourth poorest City in (lie. nation? I mean, if we look at the parking surcharge, which right now it's oil its Way to the Supreme Court, and we stand a better -- 50/50 chance of getting it passed. But these are risks that, you know, cities have to take. Now, the parking surcharge, which would generate 19 8/9/01 (section 3) the City, if it's passed through Tallahassee and the Supreme Court overturns in our favor, and we go back and amend the language, I think it's doable. And very clearly, the Third District Court of Appeals stated what the problem was. It gives us an opportunity to have almost one point eight billion dollars in the City. 1 think that would help us to get rid of that statement that we are the fourth poorest City in the country. Now, 1 think that we've all talked about baseball. We want to make sure that baseball stays in Miami. But if it wasn't for this parking surcharge, I could guarantee you that 1, as a Commissioner, would not even be wasting my time. But as an investment for this City, if the City is willing to invest a hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,000,000), and in the long term, get out of it one point eight hillion dollars, 1 think it's a good investment. 1 think that later on, what's going to be asked is that we put a referendum out and let the taxpayers decide. This legislation has done that in many events, to just let the people decide. I think it's a double-edged sword, because what happens if the voters vote it down? You're clearly sending two messages. One, you're sending a clear message to the Florida legislation that the residents of :Miami don't wain a stadium built, or don't want to use the parking surcharge for a stadium. The other one is the Supreme Court, which I will argue with anyone is as much a political body as any other government entity in this great nation of ours. So I am one that may be criticized for letting the citizens decide their fate. They are the ones that live in the City, pay taxes. Let them decide whether they want to support a parking surcharge fbr a baseball stadium. 'Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor, one thing that I want to clarify. Supposedly the -- my understanding is we've seen what the thirteen million dollars (513,000,000) right now, the deficit it will bring to the budget of the City of Miami. Now, my understanding is if we're going to finance it hundred and fifty million dollars (S 150,000,000) -- and please correct me if I'm wrong; -- our commitment would have to be fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) a year for debt services for a hundred and fifty. fvlr. Gimenez: No. Vice Chairman Gort: The rules then are what? Mr. Gimenez: That's based on a 20 -year and not on a 40 -year. The schedule is somewhat different on a 40 -year deal. Vice Chairman Gort: 40 years, what would it be? About ten or eleven million dollar's ($11,000,000)7 And we are collecting thirteen and fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) in surcharge. So those are the things that people need to know. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, you could bring; that answer back when we revisit this later on in the meeting. But what I'd like fbr you to also have are the original numbers that the consultants gave us for the other riverfront site, the one that was originally approved in this Resolution 253, along with the other sites, because 1 submit to my colleagues that the numbers have not escalated, that we were always given the actual correct numbers by the consultants, that this is going to cost a lot more than what was being talked about. in particular, in the site that was chosen by this Commission back in March the 15`t', the numbers were clear what they were. So this is not a matter that the numbers have escalated. We were given the right numbers. If we wanted to read them, they were there, what each site was estimated that it was going; to cost the City. And the site that was chosen out of the three that we were looking at -- in fact, 20 S/9/0I (section 3) I think there were more than three -- was the one that had the highest cost at the time. But all the others were higher than the three hundred and eighty-five million dollar ($385,000,000) tag that was being talked about, because we also were including infrastructure cost, and the cost of the actual property. At the same time, what is in the agenda for today that was already put into the agenda by -- at the request of a majority of the members o'' the Commission is -- and that we talked about at the last meeting -- is to approve a rcfercndutn for the parking surcharge. This is not something that just came up. This was discussed at the last Commission agenda, and it was agreed by all to be placed on this agenda for discussion today. We've always known that if a stadium is going to be able to be built in Miami that a minority portion of that surcharge would have to be used so that it would be built. That's what was being discussed in Tallahassee that we all were supporting before. So that has not changed, either, whatsoever. We're talking about the same thing. And i don't think any one of us can deny that the best vehicle that we can have at our disposal to make sure that the surcharge is approved locally and in Tallahassee is by combining it with the Marlins. So I submit to my colleagues here on the Commission that nothing has truly changed, what is being discussed now, and that we shouldn't be concerned with letting the people decide. You know, this is something that if the voters feel that they don't want, that they do not want a surcharge that's paid by 83 percent of people that don't reside in the City, either tourists or others that don't live here, if the voters of Miami don't want that, then that's up to them to decide. But it's also, I think, an obligation that we have to let voters know what i+'s going to entail, and to rive them the opportunity to vote upon it. If they approve this, we are going to be able to dedicate an "X" amount to lowering taxes and fees. If we approve this, this portion will go to the construction of a new Marlins baseball stadium in Miami. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Mayor -- and my apologies for interrupting. But it seems to me that the part of the subject you're on is the part we're going to take up soon on that whole discussion. And we've let another 25 minutes go by. And so I just didn't -- Mayor Carollo: No, you're partly correct, Commissioner, but I think that it was important, after so much discussion, to set the record straight on what has happened up to this point. You know, there's nothing that has happened in the financial side as to the cost of this project that should be surprising any of this here, because we were given figures from day one. Commissioner Winton: I'm just suggesting that there is going to be ample time for us to set the record straight on any of these issues as we move forward. Mavor Carollo: And there is. There is. Commissioner Winton: Because we do have to pick some of these -- Commissioner Tcele suggested we pick this up again, also, and i concur. Vice Chairman Gort: And I think that the Mayor is correct, Mr. Manager, when you come back, I want to make sure you bring the figures, because I think the site, the new site is an excellent site. I don't have any problem with the site. We all knew about the price of the stadium. But I want to know originally what we committed to put in and what we're committed to put today, because I think there's a difference, unless I misinterpreted what I first said. OK? Mr. Gimenez: No, ,you're right, sic. 21 8/9/01 (section 3) Mayor Carollo: The amount is basically the same. Commissioner, at least in -- Vice Chairman Gort: No, the total cost is the same. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: It's Probably even better with this new portion. Mayor Carollo: Sure. You're right. Vice Chairman Gort: But how much is the City going to put in is what I'd like to know, compared to before. Mayor Carollo: Sure. Conlin issioiler Teele: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Coniniissioner. Commissioner 'fccle: I beg to take exception. But I think in deference to the public, as Commissioner Winton has said, we should defer further discussion oil this. We have a number of people from the public on both the Charter issue and on the civilian issue, these so-called, you know, big ticket issues that really relate to at this point just a few all -paid people. We should defer to the public. So 1 would respectfully request that we go to the Charter amendment, and then we take up the citizens' independent review issue. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort, you can start chairing the next part of the meeting for the special Commission electing that was called. If you could go ahead and put a motion to defer this. Vice Chairman Gort: OK, is there a motion to defer this meeting? Com missioncr 'Feel e: So move, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Winton: Second, Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor, state it by saying "aye," The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 22 8/9/01 (secticn 3) The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-838 A MOTION TO TEMPORARILY DEFER CONSIDERATION OF DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROPOSAL FOR FLORIDA MARLINS BASEBALL STADIUM TO LATER IN THE MEETING ON THIS SAME DATE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regaludo Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner.lohnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Lone Vice Chairman Gort: Charter Review meeting will begin, special meeting. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners, I think as the first— Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Before you start. Mr. Manager, since the Mayor has continued to say these numbers are there, would you get a copy of the documents that show the four ninety or the four fifty-five, please, from the last meeting. We'll be on this for the next two hours, so I'm sure that in the two hours here, we can get those numbers that -- Mr, Gimenez: You want the original report in terms of what the bottom line was? Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, sir, yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: Yeali, that's what he's asking. Yeah. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. 23 8/9/01. (section 3) • 0 4 REJECT RECOMMENDATION OF CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE TO PHASE PROPOSED INCREASE IN SALARY FOR COMMISSION TO'BECOME EFFECTIVE FOR COMMISSIONERS ELECTED IN 200.1 AND THEN FOR REMAINING COMMISSIONERS TO BECOME ELECTED IN 2003. CITY ATTORNEY; TO PREPARE THREE CHARTER' AMENDMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO ELECTORATE ON NOVEMBER 6, 200.1: ONE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR INCREASE IN COMMISSIONERS' SALARIES,ONE CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS'29A, 29B, AND 29C OF CHARTER AS PERTAINS TO PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SALE AND USE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY, AND ONE GLOBAL CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ENCOMPASS REMAINING PROPOSED CHANGES .RECOMMENDED BY -CHARTER REVIEW ANDREFORM'COMMITTEE. APPROVE, SET 'FORTH AND SUBMIT TO* ELECTORATE . PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT KNOWN' AS . CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 3,. - BY ­ AMENDING PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SALE_ AND USE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY; AMENDING POWER TO LEASE OR OTHERWISE CONTRACT WITH ENTITIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF WATERFRONT. -PROPERTY TO REQUIRE FAIR RETURN TO CITY ET CETERA. APPROVE, SET : FORTH AND SUBMIT TO .ELECTORATE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT KNOWN , AS CHARTER AMENDMENT . NO. 2; AMENDING COMPENSATION FOR COMMISSIONERS; TO ESTABLISH. SALARY INITIALLY AT 60% OF SALARY OF MAYOR TO BE EFFECTIVE ON; NOVEMBER 6, 2001, AND PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL INCREASES TER I BASED. ON; CONSUMER PRICE. INDEX AND PROVIDING SUCH ANNUAL INCREASE MAY:NOT EXCEED S% OF SALARY EXISTING ON THAT DATE. 24 8/9/01 (section 4) APPROVE, SET FORTH AND SUBMIT TO - ELECTORATE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO INSERT STATEMENT WHICH RECOGNIZES EXTRATERRITORIAL' POWERS AND, HOME RULE POWERS GRANTED TO CITY AND DELETE. ALL, POWERS OF CITY AND PROVISIONS OF CHARTER WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN SUCH HOME RULE.POWERS AND CONVERT TO ORDINANCES THOSE. DELETED PROVISIONS'. WHICH ARE 'NOT INCLUDED IN OR SUPERSEDEDBY STATE LAW; OTHER PROVISIONS` OF CHARTER OR ORDINANCES OF CITY; CLARIFY NOMENCLATURE AND PROCEDURE REGARDING ELECTIONS; AMEND INITIATIVE AND.' REFERENDUM. PROCEDURE TO CONFORM NOMENCLATURE' AND INCLUDE " REQUIREMENTS AND TIME LIMITS FOR SUBMISSION OF PETITIONS; AMEND , TIME LIMIT FOR SUBMISSION OF APPOINTMENT BY OFF-STREET PARKING BOARD ' MEMBERS AND DELETE MINIMUM .SALARY FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; AMEND. PROVISIONS REGARDING DEPARTMENT- OF FINANCE AND CONVERT='SEC"TIOIV" OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER TO ORDINANCE AND DELETE ALL .CHARTER' PROVISIONS REGARDING BONDS, FRANCHISES, FINANCE AND TAXATION WHICH ARE OBSOLETE OR SUPERSEDED BY STATE LAW; CONVERT TO ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REGARDING PUBLIC IMPRO"T_-MENTS AND CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS.AND REQUIREMENT TO. COMPLY,WITH CITY,, STATE AND FEDERAL LAW; REQUIRE INDEPENDENT.AUDITOR GENERALHAVE DEGREE OR EXPERIENCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; INCLUDE'SECTION,ON POWERS AND DUTIES OF CITY CLERK: Commissioner Winton: As a first order of business, I would like to introduce my fellow committee members who served so diligently on this committee. As you all, my fellow Commissioners remember, I think you all drafted me at least twice to chair this Charter Review Committee, and 1 said no. And the third time was certainly not my chane, but I finally agreed to it. And I can tell you that I've learned an awful lot going through this process. It was also -- this isn't one of those acts of life that I found to he just totally exhilarating. It isn't an area of expertise for me, and reading through all of this stuff, at least the first two or three times that I read through it, I'm not sure that I even understood what I was reading. So I had sonic real work to do to get up to speed. But that said, I would like to introduce some of the committee members that are here. Co -Chairman of the Charter Review Committee was Mr. Ray Goode, who is Vice President of Public Affairs for Ryder System. Mr. Goode. And thank you very much, Ray, for coming this afternoon. Is Thomasina Williams here'? Thomasina Williams is here. Regular member, also, and a local attorney. Thank you very much. Tucker Gibbs, Technical Advisor, former City Attorney, curTent civic activist and a very active attorney in the community. Rhonda Vangates was a regular member appointed by Mayor Carollo, and it's Mayor Carollo's chief of staff. I'm sure Rhonda is around somewhere. Herschel Haynes, also a regular member, and Herschel is the Chairman of the Hadley Park Homeowners Association. Herschel, thank you. I don't think Herschel missed a single committee meeting. And we had a bunch of them. Vice Chairman Cort; And he has the experience. Commissioner Winton: Yes, and lie did have the experience, Apparently, he likes to he tortured. Joe Scrota? Is Joe here? ,foe's over here? ;foe, thank you also for attending. Joe Serota is a technical advisor and managing shareholder of Weiss, Scrota, Helftnan, Pastoriza and "Guedes"? Did I get the last one 25 8/9/01 (section 4) right'? All right, thank you. And Maurice Weiner. :Maurice is Dere, also. Maurice, in the back, thank you very much. Regular member, also, and Chairman of HMG Cortland Properties, Inc., a Coconut Grove resident and also very active. We had a number of other members, but they couldn't be here today so -- Could we get some quiet in here some what or another, Mr. Chairman? Are we interrupting someone here? I hope -- Vice Chairman Gort: .hello? Can we have one meeting, please? Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Winton: Just want to make sure I'm not interrupting anyone. So fellow committee members, I know you all spent a great deal of time at this, and I thank you a lot for your assistance. I also want to welcome and introduce Alyce Whitson, who is our consultant from Municipal Code Corporation. Alyce, right licre, thank you very much. Fellow Commissioners -- and 1 beg your indulgence here, because 1 thought long and hard about clow to do the presentation. And i know that getting public input on this over time is going to be very important, because whatever you all ultimately vote on is going to have to go to the public for their vote. And so the presentation may take longer, because what I chose to do was present the Charter changes in the same format that I used to present them to the public. So I'm not treating you all as though you don't already know and understand what these issues are, because you do. But I'm reading this as th-1-gh I'm reading it to the public, not to you. So i hope you can forgive me that. But 1 think it would be helpful to us in terms of our ability to ultimately sell whatever changes we're going to make to the public, because this does go on Net 9. And 1 never cease to be amazed at how many people stay up and watch Commission proceedings as long as they may go. So with that, let me begin to talk about process and changes. This committee, the Charter Review Committee was created back in the spring of 2000 for the purpose of taking a thorough look at the City's Charter and making suggestions to tate Commission, which is today, as to how we might improve our Charter. The City Charter is really the voice of the people of the City of Miami. Quite simply, it is the same as the Constitution of the United States. It is our City's Constitution. And unless this City Charter provides otherwise, only people of the City of Miami can change our Charter. All City actions, including ordinances of the City Commission that the City Commission passes must follow the requirements of the Charter. The voters of the City of Miami first adopted this particular Charter, the one that we spent all of this time on, back in 1925. Although voters in the City of Miami have amended the Charter several tithes since then, we still have a very, very large document that's much more detailed than need be. It includes many provisions that limit the City's ability to respond to today's needs and circumstances. And as I said, because. it was adopted in 1925, many parts of the Charter simply haven't been modified since 1925. And we all know that what we do today is very different than what our parents and grandparents did, and some of us did back in 1925. So as we were -- in our very first meeting, however, we, as the volunteers, and me as the City Commission Chairman of this decided that in order to do the right job for our citizens, we really wanted to have an expert sitting at the table with us. And so we set tip a selection committee to look for consultants from around the country that could come and provide assistance to us, in terms of our analysis of this Charter. Staff consulted municipal attorneys, universities throughout the country and others who helped identify the right consultant. I introduced our consultant, Alyce Whitson, who is with Municipal Code Corporation. And her company is a company that codifies charters and ordinances for local governments throughout the country. And she became our desired expert. After our consultant completed a preliminary review of the City's current Chatter, slic made recommendations to us in terms of how the City should streamline its Charter. The committee then -- this was the really fun part. The Charter is probably a document that's about this thick. It's in very small print, fine print, and there's a lot of stuff in it. Our job was to review that Charter, literally, line by line, word by word, to make the appropriate 26 8/9/01 (section 4) • recommendations to that Charier. and we had the -- I think the balance that we tried to create is that we did bring a consultant to the table from somewhere else that could look at our Charter with a whole fresh look. And she was allowed in our committee process to bounce her ideas off of City staff, the administration, and the City Attorney's Office, so that we had a very interesting debate going on about how you might modify certain provisions of the Charter. And the debate focused on, you know, something staff might want, something the City Attorney felt was very important from a legal standpoint, or just from a historical standpoint, and an expert from somewhere else that views charters all over the United States and says, you know, you don't have to have all of that stuff, or you can take that thing out. 'Chose are the kind of debates that we had, and they were very helpful to us as committee members. Throughout the committee's efforts, the committee focused on certain themes. I think we wanted to protect those elements of the Charter that grant or protect core rights of our City's residents. We want to improve the City's efficiencies in operations and thereby boost the City's effectiveness in serving its citizens. Obviously, we wanted to make all the grammatical changes to make the Charter easier to read. And there were. plenty of grammatical errors in the Charter. And we wanted to update the Charter to reflect 21" Century needs and realities, particularly focusing on municipal home rule powers and long- term transfers and services to the County that have occurred over the years that have not been reflected in the Charter. The committee made only minimal changes to recently enacted sections of the Charter, such as form of government. 'hire was a big discussion in -- there was a prior change to off-street or amend Charter provision that went before the public on Off -Street Parking, independent Auditor General. Those things, we made either no or rninimal changes to. Now, rather than go into each individual line item that we changed, what I'm going to try to do is give kind of an executive summary of the major changes that were made throughout the Charter and focus oil what the intent of the changes was that aren't related to major land of ticket items. Home rule power became the first real significant issue in the Charter. As I said before, this Charter, this particular Charter was created in 1925. However, in 1969, the Florida Constitution granted something called home rule powers to all municipalities in the State of Florida. Municipal home rule power allows a municipality to exercise any power for a municipal purpose, except as otherwise provided by law. And because municipal home rule power is so broad, the City -- our City, no other city -- has to spell out specifically in its Charter all of the powers that it had to spell out back in 1925 before it was granted, the very broad home rule powers. Many of the committcc's recommendations have been made to reduce the unnecessary size and complexity of the Charter and place those kinds ofd powers in ordinance with the appropriate detail, as opposed to leaving them specifically in the Charter. Let me say a comment about a couple of the things that we did not focus on in significance, but we did make a couple of changes to clarify issues. We did not take up in this Charter review process form of government. Form of government leas been really a crucial point of the Iasi couple of Charter Review Committee meetings, and we did not specifically take up form of gover7iment. We were really focused on all of the detail within the existing Charter, trying to clean it tip and bring it into modern perspective, and not focusing on form of government. Now, to the specific ineat of the detail and some of the major changes. Commissioners' salaries. And this isn't in any particular order, but this was the first one that -- on nay spreadsheet here. Commissioners' salaries. The committee has recommended that we increase Commissioners' salaries -- back up a step. Commissioners' salaries, that which all of us get paid, and we all get paid five thousand dollars ($5,000) a year. That's our pay. And 1 ani Sure that many people -- at least my constituents -- think that five thousand dollars ($5,000) a year is more than enough, and probably wouldn't want me to get Five thousand, one hundred dollars ($5,100). But there are others who probably thiilk Commissioners in general ought to be paid a livable salary. The five thousand dollar ($5,000) number was arrived at, by the way, and placed in our Charter in 1949, and hasn't changed since 1949. The Commission had a lot of debate and aid a great deal of research, and came to a recommendation that 27 5/9/01 (section 4) 0 • the proposed salary -- that we create a formula for setting the first Commission salary, and that that formula be calculated at 60 percent of the Mayor's current salary, which, in current math, is roughly sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) is what a Commissioner would be paid today if the voters vote on this, with an annual increase tied to the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed five percent. Now, there's one other provision to this, and that is that no existing City Commissioner c.ln receive -- if the Commission votes to place all of the recommended changes on the ballot this November, and this becomes one of those, what we're - the additional recommendation that we're bringing to the Commission is that no sitting Commissioner can receive that new salary if the voters approve it in November until that Commissioner has sat i'or re-election. So as an example, when i said that some of my constituents think that, you know, "When I elected that Winton guy, he might have been «north five thousand dollars ($5,000), but l don't know if lie's worth five thousand or six thousand dollars ($6,000). So 1 don't want him getting into office and enriching himself. So lie has to go sit for re-election." And if I choose to run for re-election in two years and the voters pass this, then l would get the sixty thousand dollar (S60,000) payment two years From now, after i've run for re-election again. So that's the proposal_ Commissioner Sancho: So what you're telling me is I have to go out there, promote it, and then in November when l get elected, I don't got the fruit. Commissioner Winton: No. You are up for re-election. So if it passes this November and it's on the ballot, you're going to get it. The guy that won't is me and Tomas. Those of you who are running this year -- Commissioner Teele: Commissioner, let me tell you, that sounds good, but you don't want to create two classes of Commissioners. obviously, if 1 were to run -- I'm not a candidate at this point, but if I were to run and he re-elected, I would get it. But that's not fair to the other guy who expect -- I mean, you know, at some point, we just have to say it's got to be a -- Jolulny, 1 think you're -- You know, you did this for one reason. You did this because you want to do the right thing, and you don't want anybody to say Johnny Winton is writing an -- Coniunissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Teele: --a referendum -- Commissioner Winton: To get the money. Commissioner Teele: To give it to you. Commissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Teele: So I think we ought to vote on this with you out of the room, because you chaired the thing and -- ,you know, because that's not right. And you would have two classes of Commissioners. And I can assure you that there would be all kind of innuendos. It has a totally different impact, I think, from what it is you're trying to protect. But 1 commend you, again, for being clearly of high integrity and high principle, and you're not writing something that you're going to benefit Erotn. But the majority of us have the right to vote and to amend this. 28 8/9/01 (section 4) 0 0 Commissioner Winton: And] wanted the public to feel that we were all doing that, also. So next. There were a number of departments that we eliminated -- not "we eliminatcd" -- that were in our Charter that -- functions that have gone to the County. Example, in our Charter, it says that we still have responsibility for the Department of Water and Sewer, Jackson Memorial Hospital, the Tax Assessor's Office, the Miami International Airport. You know, we don't have those kind of functions anymore. We gave them to the County a long time ago. So all of those departments that are listed in our Charter that arc currently functions that the County handles that the City gave to them years and years ago, all of that stuff has conic out of the Charter. Off -Street Parking was an issue that we did discuss. There were some -- a couple of proposed changes that . came to its from Off -Street Parking, and it relates to hoard appointments. Currently, the Board of Off -Street Parking must nominate its new board members for Commission ratification. lm the past, however, when the board -- when the Off -Street Parking Board reached a deadlock and was unable to agree on a recommendation, it just went on, and on and on. It could continue to go on, and on and on. The proposed change is to allow the Commission to decide on Off -Street Parking Board voting deadlocks. So the Commission would now have the right to break the deadlock that's; created at the Off-Strect Parking Board level. And that's a change, and that's a change that we have to put in our Charter. in addition, the committee has responded to OIf-StreetParking's concern that the limited period of ten days that the Charter grants them to transmit to the City Commission its nomination of board incinbers. And the commi+ice is -- or Off-Strcet Parking asked for that to be increased from 10 days to 20 days. And lastly, the committee is recommnending that the placement of the minimum salary for the Executive Director for Off -Street Parking -- currently, the Off-Strect Parking Executive Director's minimum salary is set in the Charter. That makes no sense, whatsoever. If it's set in the Charter that means you have to get a public referendum to ever change it. It makes no sense. That's a business decision that ought to be dealt with by that board and ratified by this Commission. And we're recommending that the minimum salary amount that currently is stated in our Charter be eliminated completely, and it becomes a real business decision, as it should be. The next issue is -- If you and the public have watched our Commission meetings, you will notice that we have item, after item, after item, after item after item that we have to take up at this Commission, approving City expenditures of four thousand, five hundred and two dollars ($4,502) or four thousand, seven hundred and twenty-five dollars ($4,725), these very, very small amounts of money. Our Charter says today that any expenditure over forty-five hundred dollars (54500) has to come before the Commission to be approved. That makes no sense. And 1 jumped ahead of myself, so my apologies here. I got carried away with what my point was, and lost my spot in my comments here. So one of the things that our consultant did was to figure out what other cities and other municipalities around the country do with this same issue. They brought documentation back to us, and what we found is that most municipalities have no set amount, bid limit in the Charter at all. It just says that certain kind of expenditures have to come before the Commission for review, but it doesn't set a specific number amount. The number amount in most municipalities is set by ordinance by the Commission. And as an example, in the City of Coral Gables, the bid limit in the City of Coral Gables is severity -five hundred dollars ($7500), and it's not in the Charter. It's in the ordinance. So the Coral Gables City Commission, at any time they want, as time changes and inflation goes up, rather than bringing every item that cost more than seventy-five hundred dollars ($7500) to the Commission, if costs arc going up and they find that everything today, because we're in 2020 and all -- you know, you can't buy anything for less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), they don't have to do a public referendum. The Commission can change it. The Coral Gables limit is seventy-five hundred. St. Petersburg is fifty thousand. Tampa's is a hundred thousand. Tallahassee is twenty-five. Fort Lauderdale is twenty-five. That's just to give you a sense of where other cities set their spending limits. And ours is at forty-five hundred dollars (54500), and it's in the Charter. So our committee is recommending that the specific 29 S/9/01 (section 4) • 9 amount betaken out of the Charter entirely, and that the bid limit be set by ordinance, like it is in most other cities. So that's a change to our Charter. Now we have a number of property issues. And the first of the property issues relates to unified development process. You know, ! got a -- at least -- you know, I was going to say I think l told everybody at the beginning that getting through this stuff is a real, real challenge, because there isn't anything glamorous about what I'm talking about. There's nothing sexy about it. There's no new ballpark. 'There's no racing, There's no fight with somebody else. 1 mean, this is just hard-core, reading document kind of Constitution stuff. And, you know, some of the -- anyway, moving right along. Unified development process. And he's been Chairman of a Charter review process at least twice, so he can read all this stuff and -- he can read all this stuff with his eyes closed. Unified development project is the City of Miami's mechanism to seek private development on City -owned properties, essentially as a joint venture real estate development opportunity. And the process allows the City to invite developer proposals who can provide a range of professional development services, including planning, design, construction, leasing management, all those kind of services to the City, and obtain those services as a package, rather than as individual items. Generally, the selected private developer is responsible for paying all costs of improvements in these kind of processes. And the City's role is to bring the land to the deal, and receives long-term rental payments or whatever the structured deal is. Under the current Charter provisions, an interested party who responds to the City's invitation to a UUP (Unified Developn1pnt Plan) process has to bear essentially all of the costs associated with the planning, the design, the financial structuring, the entire process of a development. They have to bear that cost up front, even to bet to the table. Those costs can run from -- I would bet in a major project like this, you'd be lucky if you had only a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). These costs can run in the multiple hundreds ol'thousands of dollars, just to get the developer to the table in the first place. And the problem with that process is there's no guarantee that a deal is going to get done at the end of the day. And the change that the committee is proposing, and the reason that we're making the proposed change is -- and i'll back up a step -- and historically, because this process is so burdensome financially on a developer, with absolutely no guarantee that it deal is going to get done, it's just a hope that a deal gets done, and the developer has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in hopes that something gets done, but it may not. We're proposing to change the process that we think: will encourage competition in that process. And if there's competition in the process, the ultimate deal that the. City gets, which is the taxpayers, is going to be a much better deal for all of LIS. SO we're going to propose a change in the process. The current process requires that the City receive three bids to trove one of these processes forward before going to a public referendum. And as 1 said, in this process, that developer has to spend all of the money to get to the table completely up front. And without changing the three bid or the referendum requirement, we feel that it' we can change this to a two-step process, we can encourage more people. So the two-step process is this: Step one is that we're goinn, to do an RFQ (Request for Qualifications), which essentially says that here's a conceptual joint venture development that the City wants to do with a piece of City -owned land, and we want the developers to come to -- and we will give them significant detail in this RFQ. But they then respond without designing a project. They come forward to the table essentially with a rough concept, but more importantly, they come to the table with all the qualifications they have to get the deal done. So do they have the financial wherewithal to get the deal done? Do they have the skill sets at the table to get the deal done? And by the way, are there more than -- are there three or more of those individuals at the table that can also get the deal done? And so what this process does in setting up this three-step process is the developer doesn't have to spend all the money up front. So we're asking for an RFQ process to be round one. And in that process, the signal that goes to the development community is twot'old: One, the management and staff' reviews the RFQ to determine if there are enough people qualified. If there are enough people qualified, then the development community at large knows that we 30 8/9/01 (section 4) have enough people sitting at the table, number one. And number two, as the next step, we've qualified those developers, and they know that they are qualified to make a real proposed bid on the project. Then as step two, we go to the regular RFP process, where they have to do all their design, and spend their money, and come back. And that, we think, will allow and encourage more developers to conic to the table. Enid of that piece. Sale or lease of City -owned property. Under the current Charter, the City cannot sell or lease land unless it issues a bid and received three proposals for sale or lease, and is approved by public referendum. Now, certain exceptions apply. And the exceptions are if the land is going to be used for affordable housing, or to another entity of government. And were proposing that we -- and this isn't major lands, by the way. This isn't waterfront, doesn't apply to waterfront property, and it isn't major -- this is typically smaller parcels of land, single-family, it could be a commercial piece, it could be anything, but it's not large pieces of property. And we're proposing that we make a number of changes. One is that these same requirements are not required if the land is acquired as a result of the City foreclosing on the land. Secondly, if the property is acquired from the County because of delinquent taxes, or -- and a third change is -- and again, this change does not apply to non --does not apply to waterfront property. But on certain non -waterfront properties, the City he allowed to transfer lands that are 7500 square feet or less. That land can be sold, 7500 square feet or less, or is "non -buildable." That land can be sold to an ad.loining' properly owner. And the purpose of that is because; when you have those small parcels, many of them aren't "buildable," And (hose that are, you can't get much on it. And many -- and what happens throughout most of the City in these neighborhoods is that those properties aren't -- never properly maintained. The City never does a good job of maintaining property. You know, the small stuff needs to he sold back to -- needs to get back on the tax rolls. And if we allow a sale to a joining property owner, it gets back on the tax rolls very quickly, we get revenue for it, and the City isn't responsible for maintaining it any longer. So that's the third change to that. Next change is to the leasing process on long-term leases. This next amendment would enable the City Commission to grant a one-time extension during the last five years of a long -tern lease. .And the concept here is designed to allow an extension in that last five-year period only on long -terms leases, in order to create an incentive for the lessee to make capital improvements in their properties at the end of the lease term. And what our proposed change is, is to allow an extension. The maximum would be 25 percent of the original tern or 10 years, whichever is less. Now, as an example, we may have a piece of property that a restaurateur has managed for 20 years, and they've made capital improvements over 20 years. It's an important piece of City property. You know, residents conic, tourists come. But when you get to the end of that lease term, the last five, six years on that lease term, our current Charter does not allow us to negotiate an extension with that property owner at all. The current Charter says that if that property owner has built up a really good business and has done a great job over the course of a 20 -year period, we're required by Charter to go and bid that property out again. So that lessee has zero incentive, in essence, to maintain his property for the last four, five, six ,years of the lease, because he knows at the end of the day, lie's going to have to go out and compete with everybody else and their grandmother for maintaining his leasehold interest in that property. And so what typically has happened in the City is that those folks have stopped making any improvements to their property at all. It begins to run down. It begins to look really shabby. The City begins to look really shabby. The revenue that they're getting is probably dropping some, our revenue is dropping some, and it doesn't help anybody. So we're recommending a change that would allow us to negotiate -- and it Would be at the City's discretion, but to negotiate an extension to a long-term lease, again, for a maximum of 25 percent of the original terni or 10 years, whichever is less. This next change relates to the sale or lease of certain unimproved land within the City of Miami. And as I said before, any City -owned land in the City of Miami -- and us an example, all of you that live in neighborhoods throughout the City, there may he parcels, vacant pieces of land that somebody has lost to the City for some reason or another. The 31 $/9/01 (section 4) City owns it. We're not collecting a dime in taxes on that piece of property. We're not collecting a ditne on it. The City has to spend money to maintain it, to cut the grass, to maintain the property. And there could be an improvement on it. There could be a house on it. And what the City usually ends up doing is boarding up the house, because we can't sell that property easily. In order to sell that piece of property that could be a blight in your neighborhnod, the City is required to get three bids or to go to public referendum. Now, there's not many people interested. You don't get many people interested in corning to bid on a single residence in a neighborhood out there that's really run down. So what happens many times is the City ends up holding these properties for 10 or 15 years, paying fbr the maintenance of them, not doing a good job. They're not on the tax rolls, so we're not getting the tax for them, and it's serious problem. So the committee is proposing an amendment that City -owned property which is not waterfront, but is valued at less than live hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), the Commission, by a four-fifths vote, may sell or lease the property without the necessity of going to a public referendum. And we feel confident that if we can put in place something like this, all of these scattered site lots -- and there are literally hundreds of them throughout the City -- we could get back into the private sector. People could remodel those homes. People could live in those homes. People could buy them at a good price, and they'd go back on the tax roll, and our tax base goes up. And today, it's very difficult to do that. Watson Island -- and I'm almost done. 'there's only two more issues and I'm done. Watson Island, Watson Island, which is right off �tnwntown, is a piece of land that is specifically talked about in the Charter, in our Constitution, because the citizens of this City many years ago felt that that was a very, very important asset to our City, and didn't want the wrong kinds of things to happen to it. So it's -- what the City can do and can't do is spelled out in the Charter. And although our committee recognized that Watson Island is sacred to many people in the City of Miami, the committee also recognized the value in creating sonic opportunity to use the property on a limited basis for short -teen events. As an example, during this year, we had something called Cirque du Soleil, which came to the City of Miami. It was in Bicentennial Park, and they put on a great event, brought lots of visitors to our City. Everyone who went thought it was a great.. great, great show. I think the show ran for two or three months in the City of Miami. We could not have held that event on Watson Island, because our Charter wouldn't allow us to put something like Circlue du Soleil on Watson Island. And we're proposing a change to our Charter, an annendment that would authorize the City to issue a license agreement -- no sale, no long-term lease, but simply a license agreement for a period not exceeding one year without the necessity of a referendum. That's the only change there. Civil Service. Civil Service is a major component of our Charter. We began the process of review of Civil Service, debate of Civil Service. We came to the conclusion that if our committee was to get there other changes before this Commission, so that we could get any of them on the ballot this November that we were ill equipped to deal with Civil Service. We came to the conclusion that dealing with Civil Service would have taken us months of painstaking work. And so what essentially we did is, we punted. We're passing the ball back here and recommending that the Commission -- actually do recommend that the Commission create a separate committee, soon, to examine all of the Civil Service issues in depth, and that become really a separate study group that we appoint to deal with Civil Service. So there are no recommended changes. Now, Commissioner Teele had some strong feelings about it. I had some strong feelings about it. But once we got into the practicality associated with our ability to get through the issues and still get here with any changes at all, simply couldn't happen. So that's why we are making no recommended changes. That's the end. Those are really -- that's kind of the general scope of changes, and the more specific. And the specific changes I talked about in here really are the ones that we think would create the most debate in the public. That's the reason I chose these points to discuss, because I felt that these points Would be the debate points from a public standpoint, so we wanted. to make sure that all of (lie public understood those key points. And the rest of them really are related to kind of 32 8/9/01 (section 4) cleanup and dealing with how our Charter could be amended to take into consideration home rule powers that were granted to us. And once again, I would like to thank all of the members of the committee who worked to hard to help make this -- to bring these changes forward. And my apologies to both the public and my fellow Commissioners for this taking so long, but 1 didn't laiow any other way to do it. So thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner, I want to extend my congratulations to you and your committee. I think you've done an excellent work, and this is -- these are items that we had discussed in the past that we need to put -- and the public needs to understand what we're doing, because if they don't, if people do not really understand what's in the amendment, they will vote against it automatically. So we have to make sure that they understand what each action that we're going to put in the ballot, tile), really understand what's going to happen and clow it's going to benefit the City. Commissioner Winton: And my -- Vice Chainnan Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: NTy apologies, but there is a punch line here. The punch line is that what we have, what we brought forward are options for the Commission to consider. And the first option is a resolution that in essence says, asks the Commission to adopt all of the recommended changes in here, and there's ballot language, draft ballot language that was created, and this whole thing in total go on the ballot in November. Commissioner Sanchez: Is that one of the -- Commissioner Winton: That is an option for us to consider. Commissioner Sanchez: An option. Commissioner Winton: We asked -- our committee asked the City Attorney's Office -- and by the way, this resolution and its accompanying ballot language only came to us last week in one of our public hearings. And ow• committee then had a debate about that. And we felt that we would be better off if we brought to the Commission that one resolution as an option, but to also create an opportunity for us to create three or four separate ballot questions, as opposed to only one single ballot question. And I have not had a chance -- and so we instructed the City Attorney to.put those other three together -- and i haven't had a chance to thoroughly review them. So I would appreciate it if the City Attorney would describe to you the detail associated with the different resolutions. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): There is -- Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Vilarello: Yeah. There are four items before you. If you look in the top right-hand corner of each of those four resolutions, one, as Conmlissioner Winton indicated, is a global Charter amendment, which includes all the proposed amendments that lie described in his executive summary. Then there's three separate questions. Amongst the three of those additional questions, now that encompasses everything as 33 3/9/01 (section 4) well. It cuts out the salaries for Commissioners, and it indicates in the top right-hand corner, Charter amendment to establish salaries for Commissioners as a single question. And then Charter amendment with regard to Sections 29A, 29B and 29C, which are the property issues; it carves that out as a separate question. And then the final one is all amendments that were recommended by the committee, with the exception of salaries for the Commissioners and the property issues, which i just described. So you liaye options to select the one question that encompasses all and three other questions, which deal with the specifics that I just mentioned. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: I know that Johnny has spent many, many hours, so I would think that it would be best to do the salaries thing different, because historically, the people have voted no, and they will vote no, because, you know, you can't -- 1 don't want to rain on anybody's parade or anything at ail. I wish this issue had not come up, but it's a necessary issue, I understand. But it's very difficult to go out and campaign for in issue like that, a raise for salaries in Commissioners' districts or whatever, when this board is forced to raise 1 --es and fees. So I would ask to put the Commission's salary one item apart, because we don't want to derail all the other good, great things that you have here. And I would just only ask that we have from the City Attorney sonic bullet points where we can explain, item by item, what is really -- what we're really trying to do here in terms of - you know, because people don't know mach ahout Charter and 19 -- Constitution of 1968 and all that. And the things that you explained, if we can summarize that in some bullets, we can really go out and campaign for it. So I would just request the Commissioners' salaries to be on a separate ballot. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anyone else:' Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, first of all, let me commend you and each and every one of the committee that labored so hard to go through all these documents and sort out what was not up to date. And most of the language here, it's basically cleanup. And there's some things that for many years, we've talked about, this legislative body and the ones before its, complained that the process was too -- either confusing or it was just obstacles in the way, especially when you talk about the acquisition and the disposition of City property that we've talked about. When you took at -- people need to understand that once again, this is our Constitution. 'Phis is basically the licart of the City, what the rules and regulations are. It is, you know, in the same pace almost with the Constitution of this great nation of ours. So looking through it -- and I see that the draft proposal Charter changes is a thick book -- you guys started from page I and went all the way to the end, and there's a lot of changes. But most of it -- I don't want to confuse the viewers on Channel 9 -- most of it is cleanup language. There are some changes on it. i think one of the issues that is going to be more controversial -- Commissioner Regalado, you're absolutely right -- that is the Commissioners' salary. And i, for one, think it should be by itself, and let the people vote on it however they wish. Now, one thing that I do want to talk about is that the one that puts everything together realty, it's too convoluted. There's too much stuff there. People are going to basically look at it 34 8/9/111 (section 4) and get confused, and say, "Well, there may be 20 good things and just one thing that I'm not too thrilled about." And people will vote against it. So we need to not only do a good -- maybe we should post this oil Channel 9 to let people know exactly what the process is, Mr. City Manager. Commissioner Winton: i think it's on Net 9. Commissioner Sanchez: Is it on now? Just like lie put the agenda on, we should basically put that there, and maybe put it in Spanish, also, because this, this is something that people are going to look at. And really, they're not going to say, "Well, you know, they really put a lot of hours into it." They're saying, "Well, they're changing the Constitution. And, you know, people, when it comes to changes, they're a little resistant to changes. So 1 want to commend you once again. I'm glad you took that challenge and I didn't. But you did a great job. And the people you put together did an excellent job. So I commend each and every one of you for putting it together. Now what we have to do is basically educate the public and let them know that this is going to not only simplify the process, but also, it's going to bring us up to date, because the last time that we amended this was in -- what? -- 19 what? '40 -- when did we amend -- '25, 1925? Commissioner Winton: W -II, there's probably been amendments for -- Commissioner Sanchez: I-I'uh? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Just a couple -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, three years ago. But they amended -- Commissioner Winton: Small. Commissioner Sanchez: -- it was small changes to it. But here, you basically are breaking it down to basically the home rule power, which is granted. You also took a lot of stuff that was in the Code that's already granted by the Florida government, so you down -streamed it a lot. So 1 want to coninicnd you. I'm willing to make the motion to accept the three and keep out the Commissioners' salary. I mean put it separately and put all those three together. Commissioner Winton: Well, I think you have an option here of -- because I think you hit the nail on the head, and we, as a committee discussed this. From a strategic -- Commissioner Sanchez: is it Section 29A, B and C? Mr, Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez,: QK. So i would like to move the Charter amendment, Section 29A, 29B and C to be placed -- Commissioner Winton: But the point, Commissioner Sanchez, I think 29A, B and Care the land. They're the land issues, right? 35 8/9/01 (section 4) Mr. Vilarcllo: Yes. Commissioner Winton: And so 29A, B and C -- the controversial things will be related to land, they'll be related to Commissioners' salaries, and that's probably it. So if you had three different questions on the ballot, one of the questions deals with land. 1 don't want you to do anything with land. I don't care if you ever sell another piece of land, you know. So somebody could vote "no" on that. Somebody could vote 11 no" oil, you know, you Commissioners, i don't even want you to get five thousand, never mind sixty thousand. So I can vote "no" on that. And then the rest of it, the other amendment that they could vote on is all the cleanup stuff that really cleans up the way government can do its business and all of that. So we thought that you might want to do -- Commissioner Sanchez: So being that you're the Chairman, why don't you, you know, present recommendations. Commissioner Winton: You might want to do three. Vice Chainnan Gori: Why don't you make your motion? Commissioner Sanchez: Separate then, all three? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, Conlillissioner Teele: Let ine -- Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Contmissioncr Winton, I want to apologize to you, because l made the motion while you were out of the room -- Conlnlissioner Winton: Yes, Commissioner Tecle: -- I think to -- But I really do think that the best way to really understand it is to go through it one tinge. And I was pleased to serve on the review panel for the County before 1 was elected to the Commission as a citizen. Commissioner Hawkins at that time appointed me. And I really learned a lot. And l think the lesson is that Charters are limiting documents, They don't really grant power, they take power away. And you figured that out real fast, because what you've done is eliminated a lot of the language, which literally limits the government. And sometimes, it's not so much about writing it as it relates to the minimum dollars that have to be presented. It's ,just removing it and then giving a more appropriate vehicle of doing it. So not only have you learned the lesson very well, but you've really moved us forward. And I particularly want to commend l-ierschel Haynes, who was singled out for coming to virtually every meeting. At least everybody can remember that you did, and all of the members of the committee, as well as the consultant. And I think one of the things that you did right, Johnny, seriously, is bring in an outside person with an outside perspective. And that always focuses the discussions into more meaningful ways. 1 have a slightly different view from my colleagues on how to 36 8/9/01 (section 4) package it, But I agree that the salary issue should be packaged alone. But I think one of the things that we should not do is make salaries the only question. Put the salaries and the land as one issue, and put all the controversial issues there together. The more controversial i sues you have as separate issues, the more diffbrent ways you get people to say, "Vote 'no." So you'll Il ve -- you get everybody who wants to vote "no," and let them have one target. Rut what you can have, and you had that in the 1978 Constitution revision, where you had one or two things out there, and then people just started going; down voting "no" on everything, for fear they're going to lose it. So I happen to believe if you have two questions, you know, you have a much better way to present it, a much better -- more discussion, more reason to talk about it, in packaging the land and the salaries, which obviously, as ((you've broken out of the controversial issues, I think is a far more palatable way to get a debate, a discussion, and not just .focus on either one of those items, but force people to focus on both of the items. The time line, however, is what you've not discussed at all. And 1 think Charter issues -- Mr. Attorney or I r, Chairman, if I could just have my memory refreshed on what the specific provisions are, because this also relates to the citizens independent panel. So what arc the specific Charter parameters that we a>{e constrained by relating to Charter questions, if any? Mr. Vilarello: In terms ofwltcn the legislation is adopted? Commissioner Teele: When can it be on the ballot? Let's work ba Conimissioncr Sanchez: September the 3`d is the deadline. Right? Mr. Vilarello: OK. We have prepared the documentation to he placed on the ballot, on the November 6"' ballot. Commissioner Tecle: On the November 6°1 ballot. i Mr. Vilarello: Yes. And in order for- that to be placed ori the November 6`i' ballot, we have to have the legislation approved before September 6`i', Commissioner Tecle: Before September 01'Y I Commissioner Sanchez: The 6'i' or the 3`1? j I Walter Foeman (City Clerk): No. I I`••Ir. Vilarello: The 61''. Commissioner Winton: The 6'11. That's the reason we had to have a special Commission meeting in August to deal with the issue. i I Mr. Vilarello: The City Clerk corrected me. It's September 7`i'. Commissioner Teele: All right. ComIl7issioner Winton: But It's before our next Commission meeting, 37 8/9/01 (section 4) • Mr. Vilarello: Correct. Commissioner Teele: So the question that I want to understand is this: Do we have to have it on a general election? No. Mr. Vilarello: No, Commissioner Teele: And given -- what is it? 45 (lays? Is there a -- Mr, Foeman: No less than 60 and no more than 120 days. Commissioner Teele: Say it's what? Mr. Foeman: No less than 60. Commissioner 'reel c: No less than 60 days. Mr. I,oeman: No more than 120. Mr. Vilarello: That's for Charter amendment. Mr. Foeman: For Charter amendments. Commissioner Tecle: So no less than 60 is when? Nlr. Foeman: September 7'h is the 60`h day. Commissioner Teele: For November -- Mr. Foeman: The 6`l', Commissioner Teele: So it cannot be in October? Mr. Foeman: No. Commissioner Regalado: Commissioner, let me just remind you that there is a primary, a general primary election in the State of Florida in March for the selection of gubernatorial candidates. That includes the City ol'Miami. In case that we have something left, we can always think on the March primary. Commissioner Tcele: Nov, the converse of this is not true as it relates to a referendum. Is that correct? Mr, Foeman: That is correct. Referendum is driven by the notice requirement. And we have to notice in the fifth week prior to the election. 38 8/9/01 (section 4) s 0 Commissioner Tecle: All right. So while we're not talking about the citizens independent review, that will cane up later on today in a separate discussion. But all of the rules relating to when it can be on the ballot for Charter language relate to citizens independent review, as well. All right. So the Charter questions, then, can only be on the ballot on November -- Commissioner Sanchez: The 0' Commissioner Teele: -- November 6"' or November 13,"'9 Mr. Focnlan: Well, November 6'h is the 60`' day. So November 6'h would be it if you pass legislation now. Vice Chairman Gort: You can have November 13, also. Commissioner Teele: You could also have November I3't', if what you said before is correct. Mr. Foenlan: Well, November -- no. November 13`t' would be less than the 60n1 day. Commissioner Regalado: No, it's more. But you're not sura Mr.Foernan: No. Commissioner Regalado: You know, by an act of God, a Mayor can be elected on November the 6'}'. Commissioner Tcele: Yeah, but I mean, you know, yeah. That takes two acts of God for that in Miami. So. Commissioner Sanchez: It takes a lot. /1.11 act of God -- Commissioner Tecle: OK. So 1 just want to be very, very clear, though, on the fact. We can have this rCfcrC1ldU111 Without imposing additional cost on the citizens on either November 6°i or November 13"', as it relates to this Charter amendment. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Attorney? ;Mr. Vilhrello: Yes, Commissioner Teele: Is that a fair statement, Mr. Clerk? Mr. Foeman: Yes. Commissioner Teele: OK. The one thing I want to make sure is that we don't get revenue issues on this ballot that relate to certain Charter things. In other words, all of these other issues that are floating around, we need to look at trying to separate them. In other words, what 1'd like to say is, whenever we put this on the ballot, let's try to protect the Charter questions and separate any tax issues from coming up at that time, because tax issues have a way of bringing out a different people who are looking to vote "no" for everything. And I think we have some separate questions to deal with, and those are on separate time lines. And so I ant strongly in support of putting this on the ballot in the manner that has been described. 39 s/9/01 (section 4) • 0 I would ask that we vote first on the issue that has been certified, so that Commissioner Winton can register a "no" vote, on the issue relating to the effective date of the two Commissioners whose terms have not come up for election -- actually, it's only going to be one, really, because we just approved it special election -- no. Regalado, Regalado. OK. Vice Chairman Gort: Regalado. Make a motion. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: .lust one technical requirement to comply with the City Code. The City Commission needs to direct the to prepare the Charter question and the separate resolution. And if you would consider adopting a resolution with that direction, describing the questions that you specifically want me to prepare. Obviously, I've already prepared several scenarios. But you have contemplated one that I hadn't. Vice Chairman Gort You need to make --are you making the motion? Commissioner Sanchez: Wc11, motion direct you with -- Mr. Vilarello: Directing the City Attorney to prepare the Charter questions. Commissioner Sanchez: With the salary and the land. Commissioner Winton: As one. Vice Chairman Gort: No, no. Commissioner Sanchez: Both as oiie. Put them together. Mr. Vilarello: As one question Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Tecle: Second the motion -- Vice Chairman Gort: No. Commissioner Teele: -- if the Chairman of the committee agrees. Commissioner Winton: .lust so you all know, we brought you the options because, you know, we had debate, and it's a strategic issue. And they said, you know, let's -- the Commission -- we didn't have -- we didn't know the right answer. So we're happy with -- you know, we were happy to be able to got the changes here, and hoping that you all could help us with the strategy. 40 8/9/01 (section 4) Commissioner Sanchez: There's many ways to skin the cat here. I mean, what we want to do is basically Put these two together and then put the other two together, Commissioner Winton: Yeah. And 1 think your idea makes sense to me, Commissioner Teele. This idea makes sense. Commissioner Sanchez: Or separate the other two. So, I mean, there's a motion and a second for the land and the Commissioners' salary. Commissioner Teele: Now, there's one issue that you have got to clarify, and I think we ought to have a vote. And I would ask -- Commissioner Sanchez: That you step out, Commissioner Winton. Is that the -- Commissioner Teele: No, no. What I would ask, that lie be allowed to register a "no" vote on a motion that would reject the committee's recommendation on the phasing in of the salary, and to make the salary phase-in effective upon the approval of the voters. I would so move. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and second. Discussion. Commissioner Winton: Yes. We talked about this at length. And I'll tell you, the committee really hada sense that the public would -- and I've talked about this issue to a lot of people in the public, a lot. And when I told people that we were willing to set this up so that any of those of us in office wouldn't automatically get a pay raise the next day when they voted "yes," but we would have to vote -- we would have to face you again at the polls before we could bet it. And I'll tell ,you, 95 percent of the people said, "You know, 1 kind of like that idea." Now, that doesn't mean any -- you know, people tell you all kinds of stuff like this and then go do something else. But the general reaction 1 got was that they liked that as a concept. And I'm bringing it to the table because I think it really does have potential to help its sell the concept, even if it does create two classes. You know, I've been an underclassman for a long time in a lot of things, So I mean it -- Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, Commissioner Winton: I think it might help us sell it. But it's up to you all, That's my only comment. Vice Chairman Gori: Gentlemen. Commissioner Tecle: I think you should vote "no," and explain as Chairman of the committee that you did vote "no." But really, you see, it only affects you and maybe Commissioner .Regalado, I guess. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, Commissioner Teele: But it really affects you as Chainnan of the committee. Regalado's is going to probably campaign against it anyway, see, knowing tum, 41 8/9/01 (section 4) Commissioner Rcgalado: No. but I tell you what. If I may, if you'd yield. But I'll tell you what will be a sticking point is that the amount of the raise, because it's a perception. It's psychological. If you go from five thousand to, say, sixty thousand people are going to say, "Hcy, these people" -- you know -- "are raising -- So, you know, I mean you are going to still do your thing, and we arc going to work the same hours. An increase in salary, I think is deserved because -- Commissioner Winton: But, see, we shouldn't be selling this as an increase in salary. This is a new pay scale for future Commissioners. This isn't about us. And that's the reason 1 had this other piece in there. Commissioner Teelc: It's about the institution. Commissioner Winton: It's about the institution. This is not a pay raise for us. Commissioner Teele: Hey, anybody who doesn't want it ought to say, "I'm not going to take it." Commissioner Winton: Yeah. So it isn't about us. It's not a pay raise for us. This is about the institution, about Commi-;overs in the future having ail attractive enough salary to create a much larger pool of people willing and capable of coming to the table and sitting here, taking time out and doing; this job, because there's a lot of people out there who are good citizens who can't afford to do this job for five thousand dollars (55,000) a year, because their job won't allow them to do it, and they can't feed their family fbr five thousand. Well, for sixty thousand, you can take a sabbatical from whatever business you're in and go and provide real public service for four years, or even eight years. And then you go back and do whatever you've been doing. But you can afford to do it. And that's the whole concept here. It isn't about a pay raise for any of us. Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, I disagree with all of you. 1 believe it should be separate. I don't think You should have together the salary and the -- the land issue is something that we discussed, that Section 29A, B and C, we have discussed it for the last five years. And I see it as if you put the two together, there's a danger they might not pass. And there's a great need. We've been discussing this for five years now, And the City, in order to continue and to grow, we need that amendment to pass. So 1 personally do not believe it should be together. It's up to you all. Commissioner Winton: If any one of these amendments fails, when can we put on the ballot again after doing more selling? Commissioner Tecle: In March. Commissioner Regalado: in March. Commissioner Winton: In March? OK.. Commissioner Regalado: But let me tell you, Willy's right. The land issue is very important. It failed for three percent in the '97 election. And it failed because at that time, the administration -- it wasn't you -- didn't do the campaign necessary to show the people, And it was portrayed, as the Commission wants to give away land. And that wasn't so. You know, we got -- we got stuck with many, many properties, So I 42 8/9/01 (section 4) ■m ■® • think, you know, I would campaign for those amendments, because I think it's going to bring revenues for the City, it's going to resolve many, many problems. Commissioner Winton: OK. So all the motion on that. Commissioner Sanchez: ,Johnny, before you do, let me just say something. People get exactly what they - - you know, what you get -- you get what you pay for, you know? I have to work. Most of us up here have to work. Most of the time, our constituents want to see us, and now .I'm limited to one day here at the office, because basically, it's a part-time job. My first year, 1 was putting 30 percent of my time or 70 percent of my time where 1 was making five percent of my salary. You know, you hit the nail on the head. You open up -- there isn't an elected official in this state, or County or local governmentthat should run unopposed. There should be people out there willing to serve their community and take it. But right now, they say; you got to be crazy. When people ask ine, you know, "Why do you do it?" just out of -- ,you know. I say, "t do it for the money." I definitely don't do it for the money. I do it because I care about my community, and I'd rather be doing it than letting somebody else do it. But i think the voters -- See, sometimes, we underestimate the voters in Miami. I think people are willing to pay you a salary where they're going to see you at work. They want to see you work. Arid you know what? Come election time, instead of having one permn or running unopposed, you could have ten people, retired judges, retired teachers, professionals in our comnlumty ivnning for office. So I think. that sometimes, we tend to underestimate our voters. Coninlissioncr Winton: Well I think -- Commissioner Sanchez: I ani prepared to put it -- I'm prepared to make a motion, because I believe -- you know, it may not be -- Commissioner Winton: [ think there's a motion on the table, isn't it? Vice Chairman Gort: 'There's a motion on the floor. C01111issioncl- Tcele: We've Sot a motion on -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, there's a motion to put them together, to put the salary and the land. 1 am prepared to withdraw my motion and put the salary, Commissioners' salary out alone, and separate it from the land, and then put the other two together. That's what I'm willing to do. Now, whatever is the will of this legislative body, I'll go ahead with it. But I think that we underestimate the voters. Vice Chairman Gort: ]'here's a motion on the floor. Commissioner Teele: The motion right now is whether or not to have two classes of Commissioners, if it were to pass. That is the phase-in date. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Is that the motion right now on the table? Conitnissioner Teele: That's the motion. And let's just call the roll on that. Because we're not debate -- 43 b/9/0l (section 4) Vice Chairman Gort: OK. On that, on that motion. Commissioner Teele: There's been no debate on that issue. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. On that motion, all in favor state it by saying "aye." Vice Chainnan Gorr: Ave, Commissioner Tecle: Aye. Commissioner Sanchez: Aye, Commissioner Regalado: No. Commissioner Winton: No. Commissioner Teele: Two "rocs." Commissioner Sanchez: Three "yeses." The following motion was Introduced by Coni missioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 0 1 -839 A MOTION REJECTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE TO PHASE PROPOSED INCREASE IN SALARY FOR 'rHF., COMMISSION TO 13ECOME EFFECTIVE FOR COMMISSIONERS ELECTED IN 2001 AND THEN FOR REMAINING COMMISSIONERS TO BECOME ELECTED 1N 2003; FURTHER APPROVING CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR SALARY INCREASE FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON APPROVAL OF SAID CHARTER AMENDMENT BY THE VOTERS ON NOVEMBER G, 2001. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Toole, Jr. NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Johnny L. Winton ABSENT: None 44 8/9/01 (section 4) Commissioner Teele: All right. Now you all want to move to separate out the land from the salary'? Vice Chairman Gorr. I'd really like to see it separate, yes. Commissioner Sanchez: So move to separate the salary from the land. Vice Chairman Gort: Wait, wait. What did -- Now, the vote we just took was? Commissioner Teele: Was to instruct the Attorney -- Commissioner Regalado: So you can get paid. Commissioner Teele: That was an amendment. That was an amendment -- Mr. Vilarello: Exactly. Commissioner Winton: Tn Illy -- Commissioner Teele: -- to the main motion, which has not been passed. And the main motion is to instruct the Attorney to draft two questions. Now the motion is being changed to instruct the attorney to draft three questions. Is that it, Mr. -- Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: That is the name of the game. Commissioner Winton: Well, I may have voted "no" on the wrong thing. What did l vote "no" on? Commissioner Teele: No, you voted "no" on the right thing. Vice Chairman Gort: No, you voted "no" on the right thing. Commissioner Winton: All right. Vice Chairman Gort: You voted "no" oil the right thins. You're OK. Commissioner Tccle: You voted "no" on your salary. Don't pay you yours, and the United Way is getting ready to get a bid; chunk of money if it passes. Vice Chan7nan Gort: OK. Is t hat understood, the motion that was passed? Mr. Vilarello: So it's a direction to draft three questions: One related to property, 29A, B and C; one related to salaries of the City Commissioners -- Vice Chairman Gort: With the amendment. 45 8/9/01 (section 4) Mr. Vilarello: And one, which is the catch -- with the amendment that passed -- Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Mr. Vilarcllo: -- and one which is the catchall of the balance of the issues addressed by the Charter Review Committee. Commissioner Teele: So move. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "ave." Vice Chairnian Gort: Thank you. 46 8/9/01 (section 4) Tile following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO, 01-840 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY AT'T'ORNEY TO PREPARE THREE CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO T14 ELECTORATE ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001; ONE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR INCREASE IN COMMISSIONERS' SALARIES, ONE CHARTER AMENDMENT WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 29A, 29B AND 29C OF TIME CHARTER AS IT PERTAINS TO PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMEN'T'S REGARDING THE SALE AND USE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY, AMENDING THE POWER TO LEASE OR OTHERWISE CONTRACT WITH ENTITIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY, TO REQUIRE A FAIR RETURN TD THE CITY, ETCETERA, AND ONE GLOBAL CHARTER A-%4ENDMrNT TO ENCOMPASS THE REMAINING PROPOSED CI•IANGES RECOMMENDED 13Y THE CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Winton: rwo last comments. One is that the Chatter recommendations, the executive summary and the recommendation chart that you all have is on the Internet already. So if the public wants to see it, it's on the City's web page. We hope to have all of this stuff on Net 9, as well, so that the public can read it. And lastly, 1 would like to thank City staff, as well. They really -- we had all these meetings in the evening, and there was always plenty of City staff. So I'd like to thank all the City staff who participated. And again, committee volunteers, thank you all very much I'or coming, and appreciate all the help. Good work. Mr. Vilarello: Mr, Chairman, Vice Chairman Gort: Johnny, once again, my congratulations to you and the committee for wort: well done. And to the administration in particular, it is very important that we simplify the language as simple 47 8/9/01 (section 4) as possible, and make sure the put the questions, .vc put them on Channel 9 so people understand what the changes are going to be, so people will be knowledgeable of what they're going to vote on. OK? Thank you. Do I have a -- Mr. Vilarello; The resolution was read. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: We have a number of issues. We have the Grand Prix. We have the Marlins; we've got billboards. But we're on Charter, so can we administratively or procedurally go straight to the citizens independent panel? Commissioner Winton: We have to pass three resolutions; I'm told, on Charter yet. Commissioner Tecle: You need three resolutions? Mr. Vilarello: Correct. You just passed the directing resolution, and those three questions I've prepared, and they're ready for your consideration right now. Commissioner Winton: So I would move -- what do i need to move? Mr. Vilarello: Well, you could move the one related to Sections 29A, 29B and 29C, the property issues, Which also -- Commissioner Winton: As a separate. Mr. Vilarello: -- includes 29. Commissioner Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vilarello: And it's a resolution that you adopt. And if you'd like, I would read the question that will go before the electorate. Commissioner Tccle: Read the ballot question. Mr, Vilarello: Shall the Miami Charter be amended, allowing qualification procedure, and encouraging certain public participation for unified development projects, amending requirements for sale or use of City property, including* requiring return based on fair market value, requiring a four/fifths vote of the City Commission, instead of a bid or referendum for non -waterfront property of limited size and value, and short-term special events on Watson [stand, and foreclosed or forfeited tax -delinquent property, allowing for a limited extension of certain leases for amortization of capital investments? Commissioner Sanchez: So move. 48 8/9/01 (section 4) 0 0. Vice Chairnlan Gort: There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Beim none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, ,who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-841 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SU131VIITTING TO TIIE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 3, BY AMENDING THE PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SALE AND USE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY; AMENDING THE POWER TO LEASE OR OTHERWISE CONTRArT WITH ENTITIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY TO REQUIRE A FAIR RETURN TO THE CITY AND TO REQUIRE SUCH AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE YEARS OR CONTAIN AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OR TERM Ni ATION PENALTY; AMENDING THE PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO PROVIDE FOR PARTICIPATION OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE FOR QUALIFICATIONS PROCESS REGARDING PROPOSALS; CREATING EXCEPTIONS IN THE BID AND REFERENDUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN NON - WATERFRONT CITY PROPERTY LIMITED IN SIZE AND VALUE. WITH AUTHORIZATION BY A 4/5THS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY FORECLOSURE OR TAX DELINQUENCY AND CERTAIN OT14ER NON -WATERFRONT PROPERTY WITH AUTHORIZATION BY A 4/5THS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND PERMITTING FLEXIBILITY IN THE EXTENSION OF LEASES FOR AMORTIZATTON OF CAPITAL Iakl'ENDITURES BASED ON A FORMULA WHICH EXTENSION SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN YEARS AND SHALL BE BASED ON FAIR MARKET VALUE AND WITH AUTHORIZATION BY A 4/5THS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION; CREATING EXCEPTION FROM THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL EVENTS ON WATSON ISLAND APPROVED BY A 4/5THS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION; CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT 49 8/9/0] (section 4) 11 • NO. 3 WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001; DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER, DIRECTING TIIE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAMI- DADE COI TNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOLUTION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner `Comas Regalado Coin missiotier .Toe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Tcele, Jr. Commissioner .lohnny L. Winton MAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: Second, the next. Commissioner Winton: Move. Mr. Vilarello: Would be the resolution -- Commissioner Winton: Move the resolution on salaries for City Commissioners, Vice Chairman Gort: As amended. Commissioner Winton: As amended. Mr. Vilarello: And that question would read: Shall the Miami Charter be amended to include statement Oil constitutional home rule powers, delete superseded conflicting, obsolete -- I'm sorry, 1 started reading the wrong question. This one relates to the salaries of the City Commissioners. The question would be: Shall the Miami Charier be amended to increase the salary of City Commissioners to 60 percent of the Mavor's salary in effect on Nuvember 6, 2001, providing for an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index, which increase may not exceed five percent of the salary on that date, providing; initial salary increase to Commissioners in office on November 6111, providing that the increase will -- I'll have to 50 8/9/01 (section 4) • E rewrite that question. It was written to exclude the amendment that you -- So essentially, it tivould he providing; an effective date of November F, 2001. Commissioner Teele: So move. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gorl.: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussions? It's well understood. All in favor state it by saying; "aye." "I'he Commission (Collectively): Aye. 51 8/9/01 (section 4) • 0 The: Following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-842 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMI'T'TING TO THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CIIARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF TIME CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, KNONVIN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2; AMENDING THE COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS TO ESTABLISH THE SALARY INITIALLY AT 60% OF THE SALARY OF THE MAYOR, WHICH WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER G, 2001, AND PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL INCREASES THEREAFTER BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND PROVIDING SUCH ANNUAL IN'CRFASE MAY NOT EXCEED S% OF THE SALARY EXISTING ON THAT DATE; CALLING VOR AND PROVIDING THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2 WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE SPECIAL. MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001; DESIGNA'T'ING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COINLMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE Or VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOLUTION. (Here tallows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: A)'r:S: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner "Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Tecle, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: Third resolution. 52 8/9/01 (section 4) Commissioner Winton: Move (lie global Charter changes that don't include salaries for Commissioners and Sections 29A, B and C. Mr. Vilarello: And "D." Conirnissioner,reele: Second. Vicc Chairman Gort: It's been moved and seconded. Read it. Mr. Vilarello: That question: Shall Miami Charter be -- Cammissioner TCCIe: One issue just before it. The only thing in this, the only thing in here that I have some philosophical disagreement with is the failure or the refusal of the committee to establish a date and time for swearing in. And I noted with your view that the -- that the committee noted that it's a matter of individual preference. And I think, I think -- I have not read it in the last -- Vice Chairman Gort: IngtrA of specific time, should it be a frarlle, a window? Let's say within -- Commissioner Teele: Well, YOU know, I have to tell you, i think one of the City's problems is our lack of fhnnality and lack of' decorum, which has greatly enhanced and improved. But, you know, if the Constitution of the United States could prescribe a date, time and place for tile swearing; in of the President of the United States, then why can't we? And so we have this same confusion right now. 1 nlcan, I'm thinking of the previous Chairman who was elected on November 6`", and then lie wanted to be sworn in, and people came down to be sworn in. And then the Mayor said, no, you can't swear him in. And you got the same thing with Commissioner Gort's resolUtion. Does that office -- you know, it's still not clear. You got one City Attorney who's not here, who opined one thing. You got other interpretations. I just think that there ought to be a level of formality, that people ought to have an ending date. And right now, it's not clear. Right now, it is still not clear if a person who is elected on November 6"' can be sworn in at high noon on the 7"', which is a horrible way to do business. I mean, we all have heard stories cif people being packing at midnight and -- ugh, I don't want to think, about it. Vice Chairman Gort: That's something that we discussed quite a bit, that we should give them leeway fbr- the person, if it's an incumbent and lie happens to lose, then that he at least have two or three days to bet his things together, instead of the same night, have to pack. Commissioner Tecle: Well, maybe it's one of those things we can address at a later date. We've got other issues, and so 1 just wanted to register that I think we ought to have a degree of formality. People should have two to three days to, in a dignified way, get out of town, and not have to pack at midnight and all that kind of stuff'. Commissioner Sanchez: Professional transfer of power. Commissioner Teele: And a professional, and a thoughtful, reasonable transfer of power is all we're talking about. We're not talking about _just who gets sworn in when. We're talking about the way it looks. And this City has not looked good for the last tern or 12 years that I've seen some of the transfer of 53 5/9/01 (section 4) • • power. People jeering and booing, and people moving, and police coming up. 1 mean, that's no way to run a city. So -- Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Tecic: But that's not the issue. We'll take it up at a later -- in March, I guess. Vice Chairman Gort: All right. Any further discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: Read the question. Mr. Vilarcllo: Shall the Miami Charter be amended to include statement on constitutional home rile powers, delete superseded conflicting, obsolete, duplicative provisions, including bond franchise, finance taxation procedures, and powers granted by ]ionic rule, convert to ordinance certain provisions, including public improvements, procurement of personal property and Public Works procurement officers, qualifying fee, clarificatinn of election procedures, vacancies, qualifying period, amend initiative and referendum procedure, time for Off -Street Parking Board members approval, Independent Auditor General qualifications, includes City Clerk's duties. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in i'avor state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye, The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO, 0 1 -843 A RESOLUTION OF THC MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS CBARTER AMENDMENT NO, 1, TO INSERT A STATEMENT WHICH RECOGNIZES THE EXTRATERRITORIAL POWERS AND HOME RULE POWERS GRANTED TO THE CITY BY THE 1968 CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW AND TO DELETE ALL POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY AND PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN SUCH HOME RULE POWERS AND TO CONVERT TO ORDINANCES THOSE DELETED PROVISIONS W141CH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN OR IN CONFLICT WITH OR SUPERSEDED BY STATE LAW, OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER OR ORDINANCES OF THE CITY; CLARIFY THE NOMENCLATURE AND PROCEDURE REGARDING .ELECTIONS AND FILLING OF VACANCIES AND ESTABLISH A (QUALIFYING 54 8/9/01 (section 4) PERIOD AND TO ESTABLISH THE QUALIFYING FEE BY ORDINANCE AND TO DELETE ALL OBSOLETE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE SUPERSEDED BY STATE LAW; AMEND THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCEDURE TO CONFORM NOMENCLATURE AND TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS AND THE LIMITS FOR SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONS; AMEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR SUBMISSION OF APPOINTMENT BY THE OFF-STREET PARKING BOARD MEMBERS FOR APPROVAL AND TO DELETE THE MINIMUM SALARY FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; AMEND THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TO CONVERT THE SECTION OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER TO AN ORDINANCE. AND TO DELETE ALL CHARTER PROVISIONS REGARDING BONDS, FRANCHISES, FINANCE AND TAXATION WHICH ARE OBSOLETE, SUPERSEDED BY ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW; CONVERT TO ORDINANCE THE PROVISIONS REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTRArTS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL LAW; REQUIRE THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR GENERAL HAVE A DEGREE OR EXPERIENCE IN PtiBLIC ADMINISTRATION; INCLUDE A SECTION ON THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY CLERK; PROVIDING THAT CERTAIN' PROVISIONS NOT TN'CLUDED IN' THE AMENDED CHARTER AND NOT OBSOLETE OR IN CONFLICT WITH TIIE AMENDED CHARTER, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OR STATE LAW SHALL BECOME ORDINANCES OF THE CITY AND CONTINUING IN EFFECT ALL PROVISIONS AND ORDINANCES NOT AFFECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT; PROVIDING THAT THE AMENDED CHARTER MAY BE REORGANIZED AND RENUMBERED; CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. I WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER G, 2001, DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS TIIE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAM1- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NO LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOLUTION. 55 8/9/01 (section 4 ) (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 Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: That's it? Mr. Vilarello: As the last piece of business, there are some clerical errors in the red line copy of the entire City Charter, and, of course, we'll be correcting those to accurately reflect all of the changes the committee approved. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Do I have a motion? Do I have to dismiss the special meeting? Mr. Vilarello: Pardon me'? Vice Chairman Gort: Do we have to dismiss this special meeting on the Charter Review? Commissioner Regalado: No, we don't. Commissioner Teele: Was that -- what mecting? I thought this was a series of - Vice Chairman Gort: We can go to the other meeting automatically? Mr. Vilarello: This -- You gave me the directing resolution. You just adopted the resolutions called into question. Vice Chairman Gort: No, [ understand. I'm saying, this is a special mecting. Do I have to adjourn this special meeting? Mr. Vilarello: Oh, no. No. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Gort: And we can go into the other meeting? Mr. Vilarello: I misunderstood, 56 8/9/01 (section a) Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mr, Vilarello: The balance of your mecLing is all encompassed within one call of the meeting. Vice Chairman Gort: All encompassed in the same. OK. Commissioner Teele: Except we deferred one call Vice Chairman Goin: One for the -- yes. OK. 57 8/9/01 (section a) • 0 5. APPROVE, SET FORTH AND SUBMIT TO ELECTORATE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 4, TO CREATE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL WITH AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, REVIEW SHOOTINGS, EXCESSIVE FORCE ALLEGATIONS, A_ND POLICIES OF POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND FORWARD COMPLAINTS ALLEGING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO RELEVANT AGENCIES; COMPOSED OF AT LEAST NINE MEMBERS NOMINATED BY PUBLIC AND APPOINTED BY CITY COMMISSION, WITH CITY PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES AND EMPOWERED TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS UPON CONSENT OF STATE ATTORNEY; CALLING FOR SPECIAL REFERENDUM, SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2001. Vice Chairman Gort: At this time, the independent -- Citizens Independent Panel. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Teele, Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Tccle: I note (lie presence of a very distinguished gentleman that has not been seen here in some time, and I'd like te_;::st acknowledge Mr. Goenaga for being here. Commissioner Sanchez: Where is lie'? Welcome back. Conimissioner'feele: Welcome back. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Last time we were here, Mr. Attorney, you were requested to draft an ordinance or a resolution to come in front of us. You were asked also to meet with all the different community committees that exist and come back with the language and recommendation. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioners, at the meeting of July 261h, the City Commission adopted a directing resolution, directing me to prepare a Charter amendment which would create a Civilian Investigative Panel to act as an independent citizens oversight of the Police Department. You gave me some direction in terms of the composition of civilian members to be determined and nominated by the public, and approved by the City Commission, to be staffed by professional personnel, operate on an annual approved budget, and authorized with subpoena powers that may be only used in consultation with the State Attorney's Office of Nliami-Dade County. Since the 26`', I had an opportunity to meet with, as you directed, the Coalition of Community Organizations, the Chief of Police, the State Attorney's Office and the representatives. and representatives from the Fraternal Order of Police, in attempt to draft a Charter provision, which received a consensus of all of those groups. In addition to meeting with those groups, we scheduled a public meeting on August 6"', inviting individual citizens, anyone who wanted to comment on proposed language to come before, at a public meeting, and express their concerns and views. Commissioner Regalado: Mr, City Attorney, Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may. 58 8/9/01 (Section 5) Vice Chainnan Gort: Yes. sir. Commissioner Regalado: I am a little troubled by a letter or a memo from SALAD (Spanish American League Against Discrimination). And I think it also reflects the views of UNIDOS. In this memo, thev claim that they were not invited to most of the meetings, or none of the meetings, and st the last meeting, they were invited one day before. And I just wanted to know if the Hispanic organizations were invited. 1 know that they did not participate at the beginning, because it was something that grew out of a situation. But 1 just wanted to know if you communicated with them, if you invited them, if they decided to come, not to come? Mr. Vilarello: We invited in excess of 30 other interested groups. We were provided a list from the Chief ol'Police of interested groups. There were two press releases that were issued inviting individuals to come to the August 61" meeting. Commissioner Regalado: Well, we're hear from them, because, l mean, after all, it's -- some of these representatives are here but -- And besides, I think the bottom line is not the committee, but the composition of the conurrittee. So just go ahead. Mr. Vilarello: OK. Towards that end, Commissioners, we Nvent through a series of various drafts, and ultimately prepared what is before you, and identified in the top left-hand corner as J-01-678-134. And that is the question, which at least at its minimum defines the Citizens Independent Review Panel with those powers that you directed me to prepare the Charter question on July 26`x'. A memorandum that l distributed earlier today related to our meetings, the discussions and the preparation of the language also attempts to define each of the differing opinions and concerns of the various groups that we discussed, If you refer to my memorandum, the Coalition of Community Organizations indicated that they have a series of concerns that they wish to be addressed in the Charter amendment. And one of -- starting with each of the bullet points. The panel shall be composed exclusively of civilian members to he nominated by community organizations. That the panel shall have the authority to conduct independent investigations of police misconduct. That they have the authority to review policies of the Miami Police Department. 'Chat anyone who testifies before them would have "Whistle Blower" protection. That the panel have subpoena powers to be exercised after consultation with the State Attorney. But its subpoena powers shall not confer immunity, intentionally or, unintentionally. That the panel have the authority to recommend disciplinary action to the Chief of Police, to which the Chief must timely respond in writing. And that the panel be adequately funded and staffed. As an additional comment, the Chief of Police indicated that. there was a series of issues that he would like addressed in this matter. That the City Commission did not mandate or imply Living the panel power to conduct independent investigations. That the panel should not have the power to conduct an independent investigation, as they may interfere with active and ongoing law enforcement investigations. However, the Chief did not object to the panel reviewing, investigating closed investigations. further, that the word, "consultation" needs to be more clearly defined. The language should clearly indicate that the State Attorney may deny a request for the issuance of a subpoena under certain circumstances. However, the Chief docs not object to the panel reviewing, investigating closed investigations, and under those circumstances, he no longer has a concern about the issuance of subpoenas. The Chief feels that any related to consideration to any pending or potential criminal prosecution and investigation Cloes not mean anything, and creates a false impression that the panel will not imcrfere with pending or potential criminal investigations. Also, the sentence does not address administrative disciplinary proceedings, so he's got some concerns with regard to that language. And 59 8/9/01 (Section S) finally, lie states the proposed language during discussions with the groups regarding Garrity is inaccurate and misleading. The language needs to clearly indicate that no subpoena will be issued if Garrity issue exists, or could reasonably exist. The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) has indicated in a series of letters or two letters that we received -- one to the City Commission and one to the City's Labor Department -- than the FOP feels that the Citizens Investigative Panel should not be restricted to the jurisdiction of the Police Department only. That is that it should review all employees of the City of Miami. In a second memorandum, they suggested the CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel) -- that the City Commission -- excuse me. That the creation of the CIP and the direction of the City Commission to me confer the citizens group with a violation of (lie City Code in that the actions of the CIP would -- I'm sorry. There are two concerns. One, that it was improperly forniulated and their meetings were subject to the Sunshine Law. And secondarily, that the actions of the CIP would impact the terms and conditions of employment, and therefore, require collective bargaining. And finally, the State Attorney's Office, who has met on a number of occasions with us, expressed the following concerns: That the panel not confer immunity, and must advise all City employees appearing before it that no adverse consequences will result from the valid exercise of their right to be free from self-incrimination. And that all actions of the panel shall be taken with consideration to any pending or potential criminal investigation or prosecution, and the panel will make every effort not to interfere with the same. The State Attorney's Office indicates that they support the creation of the Civilinn Investigative Panel, but cannot support the proposed language which is before you today, because it does not clearly set out that the -- that it will -- it cannot interfere with any criminal investigation or prosecution. Although the proposed Charter provides that the panel may not issue -- may issue subpoenas only after consultation with the State Attorney, the State Attorney cannot prevent the panel from issuing a subpoena, which could have a devastating effect on a pending or potential criminal investigation or prosecution. To prevent such occurrence, the State Attorney suggests language that would require the subpoena to be issued only with the approval of the State Attorney or not until the criminal investigations are concluded. The State Attorney's Office agrees with Chief Martinez that a provision requiring that subpoenas not be issued until after the criminal investigation is concluded should be added to (lie language of the Charter. And that the community groups advocating for the creation of the Civilian investigative Panel have advised them that they will oppose any limitation on the panel's subpoena powers. Aird in an effort to reach a compromise, they've suggested separate language, which would address thiel concern in the event that the City Commission wishes to consider language, which would have unbridled authority of the committee to or the panel to issue subpoenas. That pretty much addresses the concerns of the individuals that we discussed in terms of the language of (lie Charter. The question before you simply creates the Civilian Investigative Panel, and provides for an annual budget, provides for being staffed with professional personnel, and provides that they have subpoena powers, which may only be used in consultation with the State Attorney. The balance of the details of the provisions would have to be worked out in an ordinance, which the City Commission would approve with a level of detail to address some, if not all of the issues that have been brought before you by the various groulls. Vice Chaiiman Gort: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. 60 8/9/01 (Section 5) 11 • Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Attorney, 1 was here on Monday, and the selection process was not clear. First, it was said that the Mayor will be choosing a committee that would then go out and look for candidates. And now, you are here saying that the panel should have members to be nominated by community and confirmed by the City Commission. So what is it? Mr. Vilarcilo: Well, let me, if 1 can, attempt to explain that. There has been various ordinances prepared in conjunction with, for illustrative purposes, in connection with the Charter question. And with regard to that issue, there was at one discussion of the City Commission meeting to look into the nominating process that's used for the Jackson Memorial Hospital Health Trust. And that process, actually, I believe create -- the language that you're referring to in an ordinance that was circulated is that language which comes irom the health trust, which essentially provides that the Mayor nominates, and ultimately, the County Commission approves the members of the board. And as l understand it, perhaps -- and I'm not crystal clear on exactly how it works. But in that case, it's the Mayor who nominates the nominating committee or who appoints a nominating committee, which then presents the individuals for the County Commission's approval. Commissioner Regalado: But (his is not what we have today now. Mr. Vilarello: it's not what you have today. All you have today is the Charter question. That detail -- Commissioner Regalado: No, i understand. I understand that. Commissioner Sanchez: I have a question. This is a simple question. This -- first of all, to create, to create such a panel, you have to do it through an ordinance under our City Code. It has to be done through an ordinance. tMr. Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Correct. OIC. Mr. Vilarello: You could create such a patio] by an ordinance. 'Chat's not what's before you today. C_'ommissioner Sanchez: OK. And how it's going to be selected, how each panelist is going to be selected, we'll be able to discuss at a later date? Because, I mean, 1 have a lot of questions pertaining to this. This is.just basically putting out a referendum to decide. Then it will conic back to us. Mr. Vilarello: If approved by the voters of the City of Miami, then the City Commission will need to enact an ordinance. which carries out the mandate of the citizens in creating the panel. And when you create that, when you prepare, and create and consider that ordinance, you will address all of the details associated with the Civilian Investigative Panel. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. And what their roles are going to be, and conditions that you could place on, like what training they should go through and all that stuff, right? 61 5/9/01 (Section 5) Mr. Vilarello: Always -- yes. Always conditioned by what the voters approved. In other words, it would have to -- the question defines certain limitations. You would have to include such limitations ill your ultimate document. Vice Chairntan Gort: Gentlemen, let ire try to do this. This is a public hearing; so let's hear from the public. And then after the public, we'll go ahead and ask all the questions that we need to, because a lot of the questions that we might have, they might be answered during the presentations of the public. What I'd like to do, the last time, Chief, we allowed you to go first. We're going to allow PULSE (People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality) to go first. And welcome. And if we can try to limit it -- because we have still a lot of agenda to go -- to five rninutes, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. Bess McElroy: Thank- you. My name is Bess McElroy. 1 am President of PULSE. That's People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality. And since May, I have chaired the Coalition of Community Organizations, .N,Iio put together the proposal for the Civilian Investigative Panel. And today, we want to deal with the language that's been presented to you, as presented to you. And you have two documents. You have one; a draft resolution and you have another that was addressed to the Mayor and members of the Commission, a memorandum. I would like to refer you -- First of all, let me say that there's been several meetings. There's, hecn a lot of collaboration between the Coalition of Community Organizations and the State Attorney's Office, and some -- a representative from the State Attorney's Office will be speaking to you today. Just before I go into the language, I would also like to point out to you, as part of the memorandum that the City Attorney was reading to you, the very last statement from the State Attorney's Office, wherein the State Attorney says that the State Attorney respectfully urges (lie Commission adopt ltcr proposed changes to the Charter language which have been endorsed by the community groups advocating for a Civilian Investigative Panel, and which are necessary to assure that criminal investigations and prosecutions are not jeopardized. The subpoena power is an important item to us, as well as the panel composition and others. And I know that you spoke lightly in regards to the composition of the panel, which will be addressed at a later date. We, too, are working in that vein, because we know that this panel is representing the City of Miami, and therefore, the panel should -- the makeup of the panel should advocate that. But that will be addressed at a later date. And of course, that would be part of the ordinance. And regards to the subpoena power, Ms. Jeanne Baker, who is one of tine ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) attorneys is going to address that in a few moments, because she has served as a liaison person between the community organizations and the State Attorney's Office. But before she comes to talk about that, I just want to bring your attention back to the memorandum that ,you have in front of you, and to Page 3 of your resolution. Commissioner Winton: Bess, would you point out the memorandum you're talking about'? Would you show -- so I'm on the same sheet you're on. Ms. McElroy: OK. it's on the first page, a memorandum -- Commissioner Winton: OK. It's on this, you're on? Ms. McElroy: Right, Commissioner Winton: OK. 62 8/9/01 (Section 5) 9 Ms. McElroy: On that first page, you will see seven bullet points that the community organizations want included in the proposed language. And I'm going to point that out to you. So if you would just look at that memorandum, and also look at Page 3 of your resolution, I can go through this very briefly. In your resolution, under Letter "A," we would like for the word, "exclusively" to be added. In other words, under Letter "A," it would read: "Composed exclusively of a number of civilians," ct cetera, et cetera. Also, wider Letter "C," we would like at the end of that sentence, "Operating on an annual approved budget to adequately fiord CIP operations. And then, if you would look at -- OK. Look at Letter "D." I'm on Page 3 of your resolution. At the very top, where you see the paragraph with underlines, if you would look at Letter "D." Letter "D," we want added into that: "Subpoena powers shall not confer immunity intentionally or unintentionally." We are not deleting or changing any of the wording, but simply adding some words to this paragraph. We have just a few more additions that we would like added. Now we're going to refer to the memorandum with the seven bullets on the front page. If you would look at the second bullet, "The panel shall have the authority to conduct independent investigation of police misconduct." We will also want to add that, ".Authority to conduct independent investigations." That might be already there, so let's scratch that one. Cominlssloncr Sanchez: Yeah, it's already there. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Coininissioner Sanchez: It's "Conduct independent investigations ofpolice misconduct." Ms. McElroy: Yeah, right, it is. Let's scratch that. Let's go to the third bullet. Commissioner Sanchez: No, no. Do you want to scratch that or leave that there? Ms. McElroy: Well, we have -- no, we want it there. We want it to stay there. We don't want to make any changes. Commissioner Teele: Ms. McElroy, Ms. McElroy: Yes. Commissioner Tecle: May I ask one question.' Ms. McElroy: Ycs. Cornmissioner Teelc: is the intent now to limit the panel to police investigations? Ms. McElroy: Is the intent now to limit the investigations to police? Commissioner Teele: Yes. Ms. McElroy: 1 believe so, We had discussed this, because at one time it was talking about all employees. But nosy -- 63 8/9/01 (Section 5) • Comm i ssioner 'reel e: No, I -- • Ms. McElroy: But now, we're talking about. police, police investigations, alleged police misconducts. Under -- I know that it's there. OK. In the sixth bullet, which would be the one next to the last, "The panel shall have the authority to recommend disciplinary action to the Police Chief, to which the Chief must respond to the CIP Panel within 30 days." We're not saying that he has to accept our recommends. We would just litre to hear back from the Chief And in all of this, we do believe that the CIP shall be housed away from the headquarters of the Police Department or any of its substations. And with those additions, we are very satisfied. We believe that through all the meetings and through all the collaborations, we are almost on the same page. There may be some minor differences that i believe that we're going to be able to iron out. Now, in regards to subpoena power, which is a big issue of very much concern to you and to us, Jeanne Baker is going to address subpoena power. Commissioner Tecle: Before you leave -- Mr. Chairman, if I may. Vice C'hainman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Tccic: llocc, Ms. McElroy, let me thank ,you again for your patience, and the leadership that you and PULSE have provided. I'm a little slow on one -- on this point. Now, would you just take a moment and go over the Charter language that you want the changes on, because I think we need to be -- 1 can appreciate you wanting to bet the record straight, and 1 think everybody -- the TOP is going to have the same right to get the record straight, the Police Department. But i really think we're going to be a lot better off if we can just focus primarily in on the language that we're going to be voting on. We're not voting on any of the collateral documents. And Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate, it may be appropriate if at the right time, we would entertain a motion authorizing the State Attorney, the Police Department, the FOP, the citizens group and any other group that has an opinion on this to file any written comments to clarify their intent with the Clerk for up to 20 days afler this proceeding is closed, and that xvill be made a part of the: record. And I think everybody should have the right to get the record straight. And 1 don't want to have a chilling effect on that. But 1 do think we ought to focus on the Charter amendment that's at hand. Arid so if I could just take you back to that one more time, because the Charter amendment is the only thing we're going to vote on today. And quite candidly, that's the only thing the meeting was called for today. So I'm going to respectfully ask the Police, the FOP, the public, the citizens to stay focused on the Charter question that we're voting on. I know there's a lot of emotion. I know there's a lot of comments. But I'm also going to respectfully ask the Chairman and the Commission to allow the record to be remained open for ten or 20 days, and anyone can file clarifying comments, and remarks and statements or/and correct any misstatement that you believe may be made, so we have a full record as we deliberate on the ordinance. So, Ms. McElroy, would you just go back, if you would, to the resolution that we have before us. And you had, I think, three changes that you wanted made, if I got them right. If you could just state them one more time, I'd be grateful. Ms. McElroy: All right. We're on Page 3 of your resolution, tinder Letter "A." We would like for it to read: "Composed exclusively of a number of civilian," et cetera. We added the word, "exclusively" after "composed." Commissioner Teele: DK. You've added one word. Now, Mr. Attorney, what is the word limitation on a ballot question? How many words'? 64 S/9/0l (Section 5) Mr. Vilarello: Seventy-five words. If it wrote -- What you're looking at now, Commissioner, is the actual Charter language, which is behind -- Commissioner Teele: This is not the ballot question. Mr. Vilarello: The ballot question is in that resolution, but you're looking at the actual language of the Charter, and there's no limitation on that. Commissioner Teele: At the Charter language, OK. So "exclusively," all right. And what's the other one, Ms.? Ms. McElroy: Also, under Letter "A," we added that word, "composed." And when you get to the end of it, "Composed of a number of civilian members to be nominated by community organizations. We didn't have that in there. We need to put who they were going to be nominated by. Commissioner Tecle: So in other words, the language, "to be determined." Ms. McElroy: To be nominated. Commissioner 'recle: Composed exclusively of a number of members -- a number of civilian members to he nominated by the public? Ms. McElroy: TO be nominated by the public and approved by the City Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: Through what? An election or 10s. McElroy: Well, the -- Commissioner Tecle: -CommissionerTeele: So the word "determine" -- Vice Chairman Gort: We'll have to create that ourselves. We create that ourselves. Conirnissioner Teele: "Determine who shall be" is eliminated. That's the way 1 read that, Mr. Attorney. Mr. Vilarello: No. Commissioner, the words "to be determined" modify the number of civilian members. So in other words, it's composed of a number ofcivilian members, to be determined. Ms. McElroy: Right. He's correct. The number, of the members to be detennined. Mr. Vilarello: You have not come to a conclusion on how .many members will -- Commissioner Teete: OK. So what are we modifying or changing? What is Ms. McElroy modifying or changing? 65 8/9/01 (Section 5) Mr. Vilarello: I believe she is -- wants to change -- it currently reads, "Who shall be nominated by the public and approved by the City Commission." And I believe the suggestion that she's now making, which she didn't make before, was that instead of "nominated by the public," it would he "nominated by" -- Ms. McElroy? Ms. McElroy: By community organizations. Commissioner Sanchez: But which community organizations? Ms. McElroy: They will be defined in the ordinance. Commissioner Sanchez: But how do you determine -- there's so many of them. Who's going to decide -- See, that's one of the concerns that I have. Which community organizations are going to select the panelists,? Commissioner Teele: You are. Commissioner Sanchez: Nnt mc. Commissioner Teele: The Commission is. Commissioner Sanchez: No, that's not what I'm -- that's not my understanding. Vice Chairman Gort: No, no, no, we are. Yes. Cornmissioner Sanchez: No, no. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Cornmissioner Sanchez: They'll make recommendations to us. Commissioner Teele: 'They'll nominate. Commissioner Sanchez: And then -- Commissioner Teele: And you will determine. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but here is the problem. You're going to have organizations throughout the community that are going to say exactly what Commissioner Regalado said. "We're being ieft out." Commissioner Teele: But can I tell you something? The words, "community organizations" and "public," there is no legal, substantial difference between them. Anybody who stands up and says, "i represent myself and 500 other people who I don't know, but they think like I do," for that purpose, is a community organization leader. I mean, I don't see how you can interpret it any other way. Where is C.C. Reed? Fie's always standing up and says, "I represent," and he goes on. And we recognize him as a GG S/9/01 (Section 5) community leader, representative. 1 mean, I can accept the language that they're saying if the Attorney is -- can certify to me that the words "community organization" and "the public" are essentially the same. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that's where -- sec, if we -- we've got to do this right. I mean, if' we're going to do it right, let's do it right, because this is a very sensitive issue. People are going to be felt that they're going to be left out. If there are going to be recommends, I mean, we want to make sure that these people that are either recommended by these organizations to us -- and I have certain things that I'm going to bring out later on, which T asked the Chairman to reserve at least five minutes, because these people need to be qualified people, people -- community leaders have certain -- well, but I'll get to that. I mean, we can't -- Commissioner Teeie: But the devil -- Joe, the devil's into detail. The fight is going to be over the ordinance. Listen. There is no real fight -- I haven't heard one thing that's been said at. this point that's cliange anything that's already �.vrittcn. Adding the word "exclusively" changing "public" to "community organizations," I don't think that makes a substantial difference, and I don't think it limits anybody. Commissioncr Sanchez: Well, it leaves questions. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioiler, the word, "public," is a broader phrase. Commissioner Sanchez: Right. Mr. Vilarello: You're correct, though. When you get to the point of adopting the ordinance, this City Commission is going to determine whether "public" means a series of community groups, or some kind of election. Ms. McElroy: We -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, but, you know, Commissioner Sanchez has a eery good point, hecaLISe -- and I urge the members of the Commission not to do it today, but before the November 0 election, we have to have an ordinance that could be explained to the people, because if not, people are going to vote this down. And, you know, I am sorry, and you know me, I've mel with you. I have been fotward in what 1 believe. But if we don't explain and in a way sell, in a nice way this to the Cuban community, to the Hispanic community, it's going to be voted down, because it's just a matter of numbers. And a lot of people want this. A lot of people need this. But we have to be clear in the composition of the committee, because if it looks only like a black thing, it's going to be voted clown. Ms. McElroy: It is definitely not a black -- Commissioner Sanchez: Hold on, hold on. This is -- look. The only thing -- and I think it's all fair-- that we have diversified representation. 1 think the Commission will do that, because if it comes to us, for us to appoint, 1 think that as the diversity of our community, I think it'll be equally represented. The point that I'm trying to make here is that different organizations are going to cone out and say, "Well, I wasn't a part of that, Why wasn't -- who recommended the panelists?" And that's where -- because what it all boils down to, they're going to be knocking in my door with resumes and running me -- running around town, visiting my house at odd hours to try to get appointed to this panel. So listen. I have nothing 67 8/9/01 (Section :5) against this. I just want to do it right, because if we don't do it right, it's going to be misleading, and it's going to open the doors to mistakes that later on -- One of the concerns that I have, and I told, I made it very clear, was subpoena powers. If you could get subpoena powers through the State Attornsy's Office, and the State Attorney grants, you go through them and say, OK, so you don't interfere or jeopardize ongoing investigations. That was a hurdle. We got over that one. The other hurdle that i haven't been able to get by is going to be the way the panels are going to be selected which we -- I'm sure we could get over that. Well, and the other is, when you say budget it sufficiently, you've got to put some type of amount. People need to know how much is this going to cost the taxpayers to put this together. It's the question I get out there. "Well, how much is it going to cost me?" i make the same argument you do. Well, we're paying millions of dollars now its lawsuits. But people, it's got to be crystal clear when you put referendums out, because if there's any doubt, any little doubt, they're going to vote against it. And later on, l Evill make recommendations that will benefit your cause to assure that this is done right, because I've done my homework. If any of the Commissioners up here have any experience on this as a law. enforcement officer, it's me. I was a law enforcement officer. I'm not here to protect the Police Department, i think that the bad cops need to be moved out. But we can't do it in a way where an action will have a reaction. And I think that we need to talk about some other cities throughout the United States that have impicmcnted these boards, and they have had some reactions to it. Crime going up. 'We need to have a plats in place where -- because, listen. If we all don't work together on this, it's not going to work. It's not going to work. So at the end of the -- at the end, I'm going to make some rcconintendations that are going to benefit everybody here. Ms. McElroy: Commissioner Sanchez, and -- Cornmissioner'feele: Ms. McElroy -- Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me a minute. Excuse me. I got Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I was just simply going to say that I'm going to kind of echo what Commissioner Teele says. In this line here, how this panel gets made up ultimately will be decided by this Commission. So that battle has yet to be held. It isn't for tonight. It is the most -- as far as I'm concerned, it is the most crucial element of this whole thing, not subpoena power. What this panel is made tip is the most crucial clement to the success or failure of this long term. And so -- but we don't have to deal with it. We're not dealing with that tonight. And this language is fine. I mean, it just lays out a groundwork for moving a process forward. Vice Chairman Gorr But let me add -- and 1 told you this when I got together with you all. it has to be very specific. People need to understand it, because if people do not understand it, and you don't have the whole community behind it, you might be defeated. And we don't want that. We want to mate sure we have the right instrument, and the input of everyone. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Commissioner Toole: Mr. Chairman, if I may. if you could just -- I've got two changes. Now, what was (he third change? Ms. MCE11.0y: I'm not sure which ones you did not get. We do want to say that we're happy to go with "public." And if I may, on the composition, that will be coming up in the ordinance. However, when -- We do realize -- 68 8/9/01 (Section :>) Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me a minute. Could you please keep the -- tell the people outside to take the meeting outside. We just want to have one meeting here. Thank you. I'm sorry.. Go ahead, ma'am. Ms. McElroy: We are just as concerned as you are about how people are selected, the composition of the panel. However, we do know that the details of that will be worked out in the ordinance. And may I suggest that, you know, to get this process started, perhaps a steering committee will need to be put into place who will work up the criteria. And all of that can be -- we can be working on all of that in the meantime, because once the Charter is passed, we need to be able to put all of this into place. But the composition is very, very important to us. We are just as concerned as you are, and it should represent the entire City, and not any one particular group, because this group is representing all of Miami. Now, I'm trying to -- Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, if I could, i believe Commissioner Teele asked for us to go back to the Charter- language. And I did take notes, Ms. McElroy, when you were speaking. And with your permission, I can repeat those changes. Commissioner Teele: Tha?,k you. Mr. Vilarello: We talked about "exclusively" already. They conceded the issue of "public." The next one is under "C" of the Charter language, it currently reads: "Operate on an annual approved budget." The requested the insertion of the following language after "budget" to "adecluatoly fund UP operations." And finally, at the conclusion of .Item U in the Charter language, that the subpoena powers will no confer immunity, either intentionally or unintentionally. Commisslonei' Teele: But what does that mean'? I mean, if you do something unintentionally, it's done. I mean, you can't -- that's like -- you can't take it back. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, that's certainly one of the concerns that we've expressed in terms of -- Commissioner Teele: I mean, that language sounds good, but it has no legal meaning. Jeamic Baker: We are agree -- Coniniissioner Teele: As it relates to "unintentional." Ms. Baker: Let me just address that. Jeanne Baker Vice Chairinan Gort: I'm sorry. Your name and address, please. Ms. Baker: Yes, Jeanne Baker. My office is at 2937 Southwest 27t" Avenue. I'm with the Community Coalition, and I'm with the ACLU. And 1 worked extensively with Paul Mendelson for the State Attorney's Office, who is here today. And although Ms. McElroy mentioned the change we want, and the concept of it is not to confer immunity intentionally or unintentionally, we are in complete accord with the State Attorney's proposed language, which actually, Mr. Mendelson is going to speak to as soon as he bets an opportunity. And that proposed language appears in the memo that you all have in front of you, 69 8/9/01 (Section :5) • 0 addressed to the Mayor and the members of the City Commission by the City Attorney. On Page 2, going over to Page 3 of that memo -- and this is the language that the City -- that the State's Attontey's Office is comfortable with, and that our coalition is comfortable with. And it's long, and it's there for you to read. I'll read it out loud. Commissioner Winton: Would you show me the front page of the Page 2? Ms. Baker: Yes, of course. All right. This is -- the front page is the memo to you guys from Alen over there, the one that he just -- Vice Chairman Gort: I don't have that. Commissioner Winton: The memo? Oh, we're going to the memo. OK, the memo. Ms. Baker: OK. Commissioner Tecle: If I may, Mr. Chairman. INIs. Baker: And this language is written out right there. And it's really the State Attorney's proposal. And we endorse it, adopt it, and urge you to do the same. C'oinmissioner Teele: If I may, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Tcele: I know that the ACLU is doing a great job, and I commend you. But if this is the State's Attorney's language, I think it would be better for the record if the State's Attorney read it into the record. NIs. Baker: Fine. I think that's an excellent idea. Commissioner Teele: And that way, everybody's -- Ms. Baker: Excellent idea. Why don't you introduce yourself'? Paul Mendelson: OK. Commissioner Tcctc: .lust ,your name and title for the record. Mr. Mendelson: Yes, Thank you, Commissioners and members of the Commission. My name is Paul Mendelson. And I'm a Deputy Chief Assistant Slate Attorney, And I'm here today representing State Attorney (Catherine Fernandez -Rundle. 1 appreciate you giving me this opportunity to speak to you about the proposed Charter creating the Civilian Investigative Panel. The State Attorney supports the: creation -- excuse me? Did you want me just to read the language'? Or -- I was going to -- Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. 70 8/9/01 (Section S) Mr. Mendelson: OK. I was going to give a little background to how we arrived at this language. The State Attorney supports the creation of the Civilian investigative Panel. However, she cannot support the current version, which is before you today in the resolution, which is actually the fourth draft of the possible Charter, because as written currently, we feel that Charter would jeopardize criminal investigation and prosecutions arising out of acts which are the subject of review by the panel. We have worked closely with Ms. Baker and other members of coalition who support the Civilian Investigative Panel, and have agreed on language that needs to be added to the Charter. And as Ms. Baker pointed out, the language that we have worked very closely with and agreed to, which we believe would protect, or certainly should protect our prosecutions and investigations, and prevent the inadvertent or intentional granting of immunity as set out at Page 2 and Page 3 of the memo that was supplied to you today by the City Attorney. And if I may, I'll read that language provides as follows: "The panel may not confer immunity and must advise all City employees appearing before it that no adverse consequences will resul1. from the valid exercise of the right to be free from self-incrimination." I'll get to the second portion in a second. But what that does, that deals with both -- the intention. You can't intentionally grant immunity. As to unintentional grants of immunity, that's also known as Garrity immunity. And briefly -- and Garrity has a lot of complicated issues to it, but if I could try to explain it briefly. If someone is issued a subpoena or is compelled to testify its any way, and they're a City or governmental employee, and when they appear to testify, they have a belief, a reasonable belief that, hey, if I don't comply with this subpoena., I could be subject to some job consequences. I could be tired; I could he demoted. And therefore, they choose not to exercise their Fifth Amendment right, but in fact, to comply with the subpoena and provide infornnation. They have what's called Garrity immunity. So in order to protect against that, we are saying that the panel must -- and it's critical that it be in the Charter, because it must be set forthright here in the Charter, that it has to be set forth in the ordinance that the panel must advise anybody who appears before them, any City employee, that, listen, if-- you have a legitimate Fifth Amendment right, you're free to exercise that right. And if you do, no adverse consequences will occur. So knowing that, if the person chooses to speak, they clon't have immunity, because they can't say that their statements were compelled. Commissioner Sanchez: So the way that it's crafted now, the State Attorney's Office can. not support it? Mr. Mendelson: We can't without the addition of this language. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, I'm not sure that that's a complete statement. There is -- in fact, that's your compromise language, isn't it? Mr. Mendelson: That would be compromise language, yes. Mr. Vilarello: Well, what is not your compromise language? Is your first position, 1 should say? Mr. Mendelson: I'm prepared to address that issue now. Commissioner Tecle: But before you do, if the language that we have in "D" -- are you objecting to the language in "D"? Or are you saying -- listen to me, now. Are you saying you don't object to the language in "D," you want the further language that you've read into the record added to "D"? 71 8/9/01 (Section 5) • 0 Mr. Mendelson: Exactly what I'm saying. With the addition -- Commissioner Teele: But you're -- do you want the existing "D" language taken out? Mr. Mendelson: No. We could leave the existing "D" language in, as long as the sentence that I just read is added to it. Certainly, one consultation. I understand the issue of subpoena -- Commissioner Teele: But that's not what you read into the record. And I mean, I'm not trying to be nit - picky at all. But the record's not clear as to what the State's Attorney's -- You're clarifying it now, and I accept that you're here on behalf of the State's Attorney, and you're speaking with the authority of the State's Attorney. But I want to be very clear. Do you all want the existing language that is stated -- read in "D" that states: "Authorized with," quote, "subpoena power," close quote, " that may only be used in consultation," end quotes, with the State's Attorney's Office of Miami -Dade County? Mr. Mendelson: That would he -- Commissioner '1'eele: Do you want that language to stay in? Mr. Mendelson: That's fine. Commissioner Teele: You want this additional language added in. Mr. Mendelson: Added, exactly, right after it. Commissioner Teele: All right. And Mr. Attorney, do ,you have any concerns about the language that the State's Attorney's Office has read into the record? Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. I still -- notwithstanding that Mr. Mendelson is comfortable that there won't be an unintentional granting of immunity, I still have concerns that if a subpoena is issued, particularly with regard to the Police Department that has it departmental order that requires officers to respond to subpoenas that an officer may reasonably believe that his failure to comply with that subpoena could result in disciplinary actions. That action is modified by the fact that then he needs to consider whether or not he -- if* lie chooses to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination, whether hen's properly invoking his right against self-incrimination. All of those issues, i think, come to the issue of coercion, which may unintentionally invoke Garrity immunity. And that's what my concern is with regard to that language, which gets me back to the question I asked Mr. Mendelson. What is the State Attorney's first position? And I believe -- and i don't want to put Mr. MendetS011'S mouth -- that the first position of the State Attorney's Office would be that the subpoenas be issued with the consent of the State Attorney. Mr. Mendelson: Yes. And I was prepared to address that issue. In fact, that's correct.. When we first learned that this Commission had directed the City Attorney to prepare a Charter authorizing or establishing a Civilian Investigative Panel, we were obviously concerned with the subpoena issue. And our initial suggestion, and our first suggestion was that the subpoena language indicate that the subpoena can only be issued with the approval of the State Attorney's Office. And we also suggested that perhaps, it Should indicate, as Chief Martinez, l think, makes an effective argument for, that the subpoena only be 72 S/)Ki 1 (Section 5) 0 • issued after an investigation has concluded. However, i need to state our record clearly here. That is our first position, and certainly our current position would be, we would be very satisfied with a limitation of subpoena power until -- that cailnot be exercised until after the investigation is concluded. However, in the spirit of compromise, to try to work with the groups that have supported the creation of this panel, the State Attorney felt that this is something that could be worked out, as long as we were assured that subpoena power would not be abused, and immunity would not be inadvertently granted. Now, the City Attorney raises a valid point. I think it really goes to how effective will the members of the panel be? If, in fact, we have members of this panel -- and that's wily the Commission's role is so important -- that know what they're doing and follow the instructions very clearly laid out, both in the Charter and I would suggest in the ordinance, to clearly advise -- and they have to do this, because you're correct, if there's no advice, it's going to be unclear in the subjective mind of the officer or City employee. I don't know. Maybe I have to talk to thein or lose my job. But if there is clear advice -- and i would suggest there should be a script that's read before every single intervieNv by the panel of a City employee. A script would lay it out as clear as could be. You understand, regardless of what may be stated otherwise regarding ,your fractions, as it relates to this issue and this appearance before this panel, you have -- if, in fact, you have legitimate Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination -- if this information may incriminate you, you have the right to exercise that right, and nothing adverse will happen to you. Commissioner Winton: What's the recourse ifthat isn't done? Mr. Mendelson: The recourse if that isn't done is that the person that the -- the City employee will say, "This is my shot. This is my shot to avoid prosecution." If that is not done, what's going to happen is someone is going to say, "i got it. 1 got immunity. 1 got Garrity immunity, and I'm going to get away with my criminal activity. Yes, the panel may be able to do something against me, but I can't be prosecuted fora crime." So that's why it's so important, it's critical that it be done. Commissioner Winton: But it gets -- I'm son -y, Commissioner Sanchez. I think I -- But what's tlue control mechanism that assures that the panel or panelists always follow that rule or guideline? Mr. Mendelson: Well, OK. It will be in the Charter, hopefully. It will be in the ordinance. All that we could rely on -- I guess we have to do it as human beings -- on the fact that they will be efficient and they will do it properly. And that's why 1 think it's so important that the Commission appoint qualified members to this panel who will, in fact, do it right. But you're right. There is no guarantee. i can't tell you that every single time, they'll remember to read the script. People make mistakes. I could only hope that if it's set forth very clearly that you must do it on every single occasion, it will he done. Commissioner Sanchez: But this is something that I brought out and from prior discussion is if subpoena an officer in front of this body, this panel, and lie says, "I take the Fifth," that's it. There's nothing. You can't -- so that's it. So basically, what's going to happen is just about everybody that goes in front of you is going to take the Fifth. And then you have no purpose. Mr. Mendelson: Well, no. If I can, Commissioner, it has to be a legitimate, valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Obviously, if we're talking about a police shooting, and the officer who actually shot is suddenly the target of investigation -- Conlnlissioner Sanchez: But this is not just specifically shooting. .It's misconduct, whatever. 73 8/9/()1 (Section S) Mr. ,Mendelson: OK. Misconduct of any kind. But what we separate is suspect officers and witness officers. A suspect officer, if you will, you're correct, has an absolute right. They know, "What I'll say might he incriminating. I'm going to invoke my Fifth." That's the end of it. The panel can't take a statement from that officer. Obviously, the criminal investigation and prosecution will continue. However, a witness officer who just saw what happened and has no Fifth Amendment rights, because whatever answers that witness officer gives are not incriminating. So if that witness officer seeks to say, "I'm not going to talk to you. ]'in going to invoke my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination," I would suggest that the panel would have an appropriate basis to go to a trial judge, petition for an order to show cause and say, "This is a subpoena. You have to abide by this." I think Alex would agree with me on this point. Mr. Vilarello: Yes, with the exception of this: The question that the officer or the City employee will have to determine is if they incorrectly exercise their Fifth Amendment right, if they have a reason to be concerned that something they witnessed or something they participated in could lead to a criminal prosecution that a court, a judge ultimately determines was an incorrect invocation of the Fifth Amendment right. That may lead to discipline for incorrectly invoking your Fifth Amendment rights, getting you back to the. (lalrity coercion, which is exactly my concern, of an unintentional grant of ! 11117111111ty. Mr. Mendelson: Well, the only thine; is Garrity docs not apply if there's not a valid basis for invoking your Fifth Amendment right. We agree on that. Mr. Vilarello: If they reasonably believe that they are being coerced, we'll agree that it would be invoked. Mr. Mendelson: No. Only if they have a valid basis to invoke the Fifth. Mr. Vilarello: OK. Well, there is disagreement. Mr. Mendelson: And that's why we're going to have a trial judge make that determination. And perhaps I recognize that we're still dealing with any kind of Commission, with human beings who make mistakes. But we're trying to, -- and the State Attorney wants this to work, if at all possible. And certainly, we would prefer, as I said, more protective language against this Garrity problem. At least wait till after the investigation. If the Commission is inclined to reject that position -- and I don't know what the Commission's mind set is. Obviously, that would be our preference. But if this Commission is inclined to reject the proposition that the panel must wait till after the investigation is concluded, we are proposing what I believe to be as good a compromise as could possibly be drafted. I think Ms. Baker and I worked 1101- hours. 1 think Alex and 1, we worked several hours yesterday with several members of the community, and we've done the best we can. Ithink this is as close as we can to protect the investigation of prosecutions, assuming that this Commission is going to allow the panel to issue subpoenas when they N1'allt. Commissioner Sanchez: Now, I think the last thing that any one of us here wants is to, One, jeopardize an investigation, and see somebody who committed a crime walk away. That's the last thins; that -- this legislative body, the panel and the State Attorney's Office. Now, I brought that out, that concern, because I stated very -- we have to be very careful. It's it complicated process. We've been at it almost an hour 74 S/9/01 (Section 5) • 0 and still, there's a lot of confusion oil the language. So we have to be very specific on the power of subpoena. Mr. Mendelson: Absolutely. I agree with you totally. And that's why I'm suggesting as a compromise what I think the community group supporting the CTP have indicated that they support. They don't want people to escape prosecution. Nobody wants that, as you've indicated. And this, this is the language that we came to agree with. I think it's the best that we could get. Again, let nye stress, if the Commission is inclined not to require that subpoenas be delayed until after the investigation is complete, we certainly would support that. kind of proviso in the Charter. .But if not, and it's going to happen, we need to have language that protects the State Attorney's prosecution, the police investigation. And I think it's difficult, and it's -- i can't stand here and give you any guarantee. It's like anything else. I guess there's a cost benefit analysis. Is the potential problems down the road, does that offset the benefit? And that's for (lie Commission to decide, and I'm not going to speak to that. I'm just trying to give you the language that I feel is best able to protect the State Attorney's investigation and prosecution. A couple more points. 1 think I covered the immunity issue. I would note that we also propose additional language he added. And I don't think there's any real objection to this, because I think it essentially puts into the Charter what Commissioner Sanchez just said. We would like thereto be language in the Charter that says all actions of the panel shall be tak+gig with consideration to any pending or potential criminal investigation or prosecution, and the panel shall make every effort not to interfere with same. That at least makes it clear what should be obvious. I think there's no reason not to have that in the Charter. In closing, let me state the obvious that Commissioner Sanchez has already stated. Everyone here today, whether the support the creation of a Civilian Investigative Panel or whether they oppose it, they could all agree on one thing: People who commit violent crimes should be prosecuted. We believe that our proposed additions to the Charter are needed to prevent these criminals from escaping prosecution. For this reason, and because our proposals protect the independence of the panel, they -- and I think they're all here today -- will indicate, as they already have, support and have endorsed our proposal to deal with the subpoena and potential I11]Illlllllty problems, l respectfully ur>;e (lie Commission to add these proposed additions to the proposed Charter. Again, if the Commission decides that waiting after investigations is not sufficient protection, is not something that they want to do, then we would suggest that the proposed amendments be added. And I thank you for your time and attention. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Winton: No disrespect here, but I'm a little curious. You made a statement there that everyone wants all the -- what did you say? -- All the bad guys to be prosecuted, something to that effect. And the panel won't have prosecutorial ability. That still rests with your office. So if there's it bad guy that needs to be prosecuted, why don't you prosecute him? Mr. Mendelson: We certainly -- Unidentified Speaker: Oh, ,yes. Yeah. 75 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Winton: I'm not -- 1 mean -- Unidentified Speaker: He said the right thing. Vice Chairman amort: No, no. Excuse me. Mr. Mendelson: Yeah, yeah, and 1 appreciate it. We certainly will. And that's why we feel so strongly that our ability to prosecute them must be protected by the language that we have clearly set forth here that would not allow that person to escape prosecution by the inadvertent grant of immunity by the panel. The panel is not going to want that, also. Commissioner Winton: I understand the context now. Thank you. I wasn't clear on the context there. So thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Baker: If I may, I would like to just add a couple of the substantive reasons why the Community Organization Coalition PPPis so strongly that subpoena power is necessary, and why it's necessary, not on a deterred basis. I just want to make three short points of clarification. Based upon a survey of what has been happening around the country with other oversight agencies, it is our best expert -advised opinion that without subpoena power, a CIP, an oversight agency of this sort has no guts. Commissioner Sanchez: It's a waste of time. It's a waste of time. Ms. Baker: You ntcan you agree with us there? Commissioner Sanchez: On subpoena powers? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: I agree with you on subpoena powers, as long as it doesn't jeopardize an ongoing investigation. If you could come to an agreement with the State Attorney's Office, then that's fine. Ms. Baker: OK, great. All right. Well, We just want to state for the record we think -- and I did use this phrase last time -- it would be a toothless tiger. We need the subpoena power. OK. Now, the State Attorney raises it point, which lie mentioned a few times, and I suspect that the Police Chief is going to raise this as well. Well, why not ,just wait until all the criminal investigations are done, and have your subpoena power later? And the, problem with that is if we wait for all of the criminal investigations to be completed and closed, which I think is the Chief of Police's language; we will be waiting till doomsday. If it was a matter of waiting 30 days, would we be reasonable? Absolutely, in terms of what we think the panel should have. But the numbers that have been thrown out to us in discussions have been, well, couple of years, two or three -- no big deal, just two or three years. This panel may not be limited in that way and still fulfill the needs, and the aspirations and the goals of the citizens who have come before you to ask for it. Deferring the subpoena power till criminal investigations are closed is another way to literally gut the subpoena power. Now, having said that, our community organizations absolutely endorse and chime in with the State's Attorney's concern that this panel exercise its powers in ways that do not in 76 8/9/01 (Section 5) any way interfere Nvith, but in fact, enhance the prosecution of those who should be prosecuted, and arty other discipline for those who should be disciplined. One of the things that we expect to be in the ordinance is a directive that the panel would, in fact, refer to the State's Attorneys matters that came to the panel's attention that looked to the panel, because the panel is going to have legal expertise and professional staff to guide it, anything that looks to the panel like it might have a criminal overtone. Tile CiP should be directed in the ordinance to refer those matters to the prosecuting agency. Maybe there will be some instances when the CIP would make a referral to the federal agency, although I think the consultation with the State Attorney will always be (lie groundwork which everything will be based upon, so that everything will be on the up and up within our jurisdiction. The CIP wants the same thing that the State Attorney wants, and that you have expressed you want -- to make sure that there is maximum exposure of wrongdoing, maximum focus of resources, so that things are dealt with in an expedient and timely manner, and we don't have the kind of situation, which has really charged up our community, of shootings that for years are not resolved, and criminal cases and criminal investigations that stay open ad infinitum, till we never know when they close, and may stay open without any public light shed upon them at all. So we think the subpoena power is necessary so that the panel has guts. We think the subpoena power cannot be deferred, because it will be a deference till doomsday, and we think that the goal of criminal prosecutions can be completely respected and enhanced by the language which the Statc Attonley has proposed, will which we agree, Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Next. Roger Castano: Good afternoon. My name is Roger Castano. And my address, 5602 Southwest Yd Street. My district Commissioner, Mr. Regalado, is the best. Mr. Chairman, can I speak Spanish? My English is bad. Cou nlissioner Tecic: You're doing well. (COMMENTS HAD IN THE SPANISH LANGUAGE) Vice Chairalan Gort: Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it. I have to get somebody to translate for you. Mr, Manager, can you get someone to translate, please? Carlos Ginlenez (Cityy, Manager): Yes, sir. I'll be happy to. Mr. Castano (Through interpretation of the City Manager Gimenez): He'd like to thank Chief Raul Martinez for the work tic's done with the different communities in the City. He's here as the representative of a Nicaragu4111 community group. He'd like to lend support to the proposal made by the coalition, but he's got an amendment to it. That the process shouldn't subvert the work of the organizations that have already been established in the City. The City of Miami Police Department already has an Internal Affairs Unit that investigates complaints by citizens. Fie sees the creation of this Civilian Investigative Panel maybe as an appellate body to whatever findings have been reached by the Internal Affairs Unit. As a member of the community, he's been a witness to some incidents of police brutality, especially during tile Eliar -- the events surrounding the Elian incident. There were acts of brutality that were perpetrated by the Police Department during that time. And to this date, there has been no findings of fault of any of the officers that were involved in any of those acts during that time. I know that he says that Chief Martinez is a really -- 77 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Sanchez: He commended the Chief of Police. He said good things about the Chief of Police. Mr. Castano (Through interpretation of the City Manager): R;ght, that's right. He also said that if we were immortal and I guess infallible, we wouldn't need the -- Mr. Gimcnez: I'd rather not say the last part, but I will say the first. Mr. Castano (Through interpretation of City Manager): He said that we have to guard against people not like Mr. Martinez as a Police Chief. Commissioner Teele: What did he say about Carollo? Vice Chairman Gori: He says that the translator should go to the university and take a course on how to do the translation. OK? Fine. Commissioner Regalado- No, no. Look, look, look, let mc, let me, because i do this for a living sometimes. What this gentleman is saying -- and by the way, lie represents a group of Nicaraguan exile organizations that is a coalition of groups called BAUNIC (Bloque de Apoyo a la Unidad Nicaraguensc). Arid they do community work. They are very involved. They are City of Miami residents. And what he's saying is that if the humans were immortal and the Chief of Police were never removed, then we would not need a committee like this, because Chief Raul Martinez is doing a great job with the Police Department. But the Chief is not immortal, nor the Chiefs are forever. So lie wants to make sure that we have in place a mechanism to protect the residents, because we could have, according to him, another Chief of Police like Warshaw, or another Mayor like Carollo. That's what lie said. (COMMENTS MADE IN SPANISH BY MR. CASTANO) Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Chief? I mean Manager. Ml-. Girnenc-r.: He again reiterates that he proposes that this would be more of an appellate body to appeal decisions that have been made by the Internal Affairs Unit of the Miami Police Department. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, ma'am. Judith Galindo: Good afternoon. My name is Judith Galindo, and I'm here, not as an attorney, not as a police officer, not as a politician, but as a concerned citizen. And I have a few questions. And one of them is: What happens when the panel fails? Who's going to police them? And what happens when the panel makes the wrong decision? Who's going to help to con-ect that? And where is our tax money going to go? Is it going to go for the better paying jobs of the Commissioners, which is very needed, and for the better paying jobs of the Chief of Police, that's very needed, that are helping the community to grow and to maintain themselves? Vice Chairman Gori: Excuse me? 78 8/9/01 (Section 5) Ms. Galindo: And to maintain themselves, organized and civilized, to help us as citizens, to be able to do our .jobs, and carry our lives, and have our families? Or are we going to get this money and put it into picking a panel? And then again, what people are going to be in that panel? Because when a police officer becomes a policeman, he has to go through intensive training. And when Internal Affairs becomes Internal Affairs police, they have to go through a certain training. Who's going to train the panel? Who's going to educate them as far as the laws? Who's going to teach them the laws? And then again, the people that are qualified to be in this panel are people that are not really working 40, or 70, or 80 hours a week that have profession and businesses. They're going to be people that have time to spare. Now, how qualified are these people going to be? Because I'm sure that an attorney that works 80 hours a week doesn't have time to go and sit in a panel and decide, when he has ten cases in that month, for example. So what's going to happen to our community? And why arc we the only ones that have the need to do this? Why are we subdividing, instead of working together to help each other, instead of picking at each other and pointing the finger at each other? Why don't we help each other by getting together, getting stronger, working to causes that really are needed, i.e., education, health. How many children are in need of organs? Where is the money? You know, where is the people that are concerned about the kids that arc dying in Miami Children's hospital? Where are the people here that are concerned about women that are bringing up three kids by themselves? And instead, we're hereto reprimand the police officers. How many oi' you in that panel r%r how many of us in here are willing to go out there in the middle of the night, in the middle of the shooting and get in front of the bullet and save a citizen? I'm not. And yet, there's these people that are willing to do this for us. So what's next? A police that's going to police the Army? The Navy? The Marines? Are we going to rewrite the Constitution in our states? What's next? I mean, how far are we going to take this? Why are we wasting time, and money and effort to police the police that's policing the police? My god, you know, think. Everybody take two seconds out of their busy lives and analyze all this that's going on in here. You know, I'm really sorry for all those parents that have lost a child or that have lost a family member through something incorrectly done. And I hope to God it never happens again. OK? And sometimes, things are easier said than done. And I hope that i never have to experience that in my family. But I will tell you this: Focus on that one individual case. My God, don't generalize, because we have progressed so much. And you know what we're doing? We're taking ten steps back and half a step forward. You know, why are we focusing on the bad that the policemen have done? What about the good? Where is the panel to award them for their good job, for their good work? Crime has lowered. Crime has lowered. Did you not notice that? And what happened to all the other cities in the United States? Are we going to do this for all the cities? Why arc we the only ones? Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Ms. Galindo: Oh, I have one more thing to say. I have one more thing to say. Chief of Police, this gentleman has done a great job. But aside from that, if you're going to elect a Chief of Police, please, let it not be on the color of his skin, on the ethnic background, on how much lie weighs, on how tall he is, or how short, if he's a woman or a man, if he's gay or not. Let it be on how good of a ,job he's doing, because, you know, pretty soon, somebody's going to come up here and say, you know what? There hasn't been a Jewish Chief of Police in a long time. You know what? There hasn't been a gay Chief of Police. You know what? There hasn't been an Indian, or a Chinese, or a -- You know, ]low far are we going to take it'? Lel it be on the person's capability to work and do this job properly, not on what lie looks like or where he comes from. We all know where Nve conic from. Let's focus on where we are and which way we're going. Thank you. 79 S/9/O1 (Section S) Vice Chainnan Gort: That's what we're trying to do. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, ma'am. Cheryl Negrotto: Hello. My name is Cheryl Negrotto. And 1 believe that civilians should not review the police. The police should have a special department of their own to take civilian complaints and to issue any further review of officers in question by qualified department heads only, like the Army or the Navy. Civilians are not qualified to review crime, criminals or trained police officers. These are serious legal matters. Our Police Department with Chief Raul Martinez has done An outstanding job this year, 2001, of patrolling and controlling; street crime in my neighborhood. Without the police, crime here would be out of control. Criminals would be attacking people. There would be blood in the streets. Since 2001, 1 have noticed an increase of patrol in my neighborhood. It has helped to control the amount of crime committed, and to keep criminals off of the street. People should appreciate the Police Department, and give them more support. Without them, our lives would be in constant danger. Many of the neighbors in my area would sign a petition in favor and support of the Police Department's efforts to control street criminal activities. It is my belief that only criminals don't want police protection. And in my particular neighborhood, strong police protection and control is needed. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. Eladio Jose Ar nesto: Good evening, Commissioners, Chief Martinez. My name is Eladio Jose Annesto. I'm President of the Democratic League of Dade County, and publisher of EI Nuevo Patria newspaper. My address is 2301 Northwest 30'h Street. I served on the City of Miarni Professional Compliance Advisory Board at the behest of former Miami Commissioner Miriam Alonso from 1988 to 1992. I sensed on the Committee investigating the Elian Gonzalez demonstrations at the behest of Miami Commissioner Joe Sanchez. My experience as a member of these two City of Miami boards, as well as the publisher of the oldest Cuban -American newspaper in Miami and a citizen active in the political affairs of our community is that our City desperately needs a Civilian Investigative Panel, with full subpoena and disciplinary powers. This is not a black issue. It's not a Cuban issue. It's an issue that affects all of the citizens of Miami. The committee investigating the Elian Gonzalez demonstrations was mortally wounded in its investigation, because it lacked subpoena powers. This new panel needs subpoena as well as disciplinary powers, and maybe it would help to reduce the millions of dollars that we, the taxpayers, have to pay every year as a result of police brutality cases brought against the department. We cannot allow the abuses to continue. We cannot permit the whitewashes to continue. Whitewashes as was done in the final report issued under Chief Raul Martinez' signature wherein we are told -- and this is what the Chief signed off on -- it is the conclusion of the committee that the overall Police Department response to the subsequent disturbances resulting from Operation Reunion, which is their cynical and euphemistical name for Operation Deportation of Elian Gonzalez, the Chief signied off saying that it was -- quote/unquote -- it's here in black and white -- "commendable." Commendable. We cannot afford for these insults to the intelligence of our people to continue. My fellow citizens, only masochists, only masochists would oppose the Civilian Investigative Panel without the necessary powers to conduct the mission that it needs to conduct. We, as taxpayers, need to supervise our employees. They cannot be off on their own, running their own agenda and personal vendettas. We, the taxpayers, need to supervise our own. And if we're old enough to pay taxes, we're old enough to sit on a Civilian Investigative Panel. Thank you. 80 8/9/01 (Section 5) Lida Rodriguez-Taseff: Good evening, Commissioners, members of the community. My name is Lida Rodriguez-Taseff. l am the President of the American Civil Liberties Union of Dadc County. 1 am also a lawyer, a partner at the law firm of .Dwayne, Morris and Heckscher. My business address is 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34`f' Floor. 1 conic before you today to address this Commission's mandate to the community and to the City Attorney to put together a proposal for a Charter amendment that would create it Civilian Investigative Panel in the City of Miami. We have reviewed the draft of the proposal that was handed out by the City Attorney. We have addressed the issues regarding subpoena power. We have worked hand in ]land with both the community and with the State's Attorney's Office, the body that is charged with reviewing and prosecuting misconduct by officers that rises to the level of criminal activity. We have acted in good faith, We have reached out to this community. We have met with community leaders of all races and all stripes. We have sought the input of not only community leaders, but common folk and community members, and people in the City of Miami who will be and who have been, and who will continue to be affected by the policing system that is currently in the place, and by the actions of this Police Department. We have also sought to protect the interests of good police officers, and the majority of them in the City of Miami are good police officers. We have sought to protect those police officers from a process that would violate their rights and their employment. And we have put together -- because we are not satisfied, we are unhappy and we are troubled by the proposal that was put forth by the City Attornev, afier consultation with the police and other groups. Because we are troubled with that proposal, we have put together a proposal of our own that I can have distributed right now that we believe balances all of the interests that are being addressed here by the different members of this community. The members who are concerned, like Ms. Delgado, the members who are concerned with making sure that if civilians - that civilians who review police do so cautiously and with deep, deep concern of the mission and difficult task that the police has. We have also sought the input of different community groups, and have met with different community groups, including the Colombian Bar Association, the Cuban Bar, the Latin Builders, Unidad and others, to ensure that we address all of the issues and create the most balanced proposal that we can. Our proposal reads as follows: "The City Commission shall, by ordinance, create. and establish a Civilian Investigative Panel to act as an independent citizens oversight of the Police Department to be, 'A,' composed exclusively of civilian members, to be nominated by the public and approved by the City Commission." The reason that that language in "A" is set forth there, "to be composed exclusively of civilian members," is that the current draft that is circulated by the City Attorney says "composed of a number of civilian members." This would permit the empanelling of police officers and former police officers into this panel, thus taking away the concept. of an independent Civilian Investigative Panel. We are very clear that no police officers should be allowed to serve. This should be a panel made up a diverse sampling of this City's community members, not of the police. As to the next issue: Authorized to: (1) Conduct independent investigations of police misconduct; and (2) Review policies of the Police Department; (3) Recommend disciplinary action to the Police Chief, to which the Chief must timely respond in writing; And (4) Provide "Whistle Blower" protection. Now, the last concept about providing "Whistle Blower" protection is designed to give fair rights and fair process to the police officers who speak and testify, and provide information to this panel that we are seeking to have this community create. We are concerned with the rights of police officers. We are concerned with their due process rights. We are concerned with their ability to speak out without retaliation. That is why that provision is there. And -- ,yes. Commissioner Teele: Do you honestly believe that that language is dignified to the point that it should he added into the Charter of the City of Miami? I'm talking now about the -- your Item Number -- is it "D"? 81 8/9/01 (Section 5) The so-called "Whistle Blower". I mean, isn't there a more graceful way, a more -- I mean, would you really propose that we put this language in? Ms. Rodriguez-,Taseff: I wish, Commissioner Teele, i wish there was a nicer word. The Florida law codifies the protection as "Whistle Blower" protection. It is called the "Whistle Blower" Act, and it is -- Commissioner Tecle: I'm aware. But do you -- I r know. But I'm asking you, is that the language that "Whistle Blower" protection with nothing else? iean, I'm asking your legal opinion, because I don't you would proffer to us to be placed in our Charter, Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff: It is -- ""Whistle Blower"," sir, is a teen of art. And it is defined in Florida law. Il' we can, in consultation with the City Attorney, come up with a term that means the same thing and relates to the same thing, we would be glud to amend our language to reflect that. But -- Commissioner Teele: Your considered opinion, though, is that 4, as it's stated, is the language that you would like for us to lift and place in the Charter? And I'm asking you, because i really want you to think about it, but I don't know if that's your considered opinion. And I respect you as a member of the Bar, a distinguished member of the Bar, and the President of the ACLU. Is that language that is used anywhere else in other Charters? I realize that the law in Florida is generally referred to as the "Whistle Blower" law or "Whistle Blower" protection. But -- And maybe you'd like to think about it, and wait till the end, and come back. And I'd like for you to. But I have no objections to the concept. I just thought there would be I slightly more -- But think about it and let's come back to it, maybe. N,Is. Rod riguez-Taseff: 1 certainly will, sir. If there's any other words that can be used -- this is a term of art, but if there's any other word that can be used, we certainly -- we could make reference to the statute. We could do it in many different ways. But this is what the law is called. But we will absolutely consider your suggestion, Commissioner Teele. CommissionerTecle: Thank you. Nis. Rodriguez-Tascff: And then "C," staffed with professional independent personnel. I don't think there's much debate about the fact that the personnel of the CIP trust be independent from the police force, and independent from the Police Department, and must be people who are professional and trained in investigations, and also trained in police procedure. Now, Item "D," operated on an adequate annual approved budget, which is the language from the City Attorney. And "E," authorized with subpoena -- Commissioner Sanchez: Counsel, counsel, on the adequate annual approved budget, I don't want to use the word, "ball park," but, you know, is there any amount nearby'? Or what do you anticipate it will cost to fully run a panel? Ms. Rodriguez-Tascff: We believe that the cost to run such a panel would be far less than the amounts of money that this City has had to pay in settling and dealing with police misconduct lawsuits in the past. ,fudging from experience in other cities of comparable size, we are talking in terms of in excess of several hundred thousand dollars. 'That is to be, of course, determined through the normal budgeting process in this City, which is an annual budgeting process where the CIP would have to justify its existence, it would 82 8/9/01 (Section 5) • E have to justify its expenses, and this Commission would ultimately have the power to come up with the annual budget to be provided. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, butwe're talking about an Executive Director, we're talking about an office, we're talking; about investigators that will be hired. I mean are we -- five hundred thousand? A million? I mean, what are we looking at? I mean -- Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff. This City has had, and this Commission has had a lot of experience dealing; with budgeting issues with regard to other departments. And one of the most troubling thinks is that the line. item for lawsuits, settled lawsuits of police misconduct remains in the millions of dollars for this City. The proposed Civilian Investigative Panel would cost far less than what is being paid out by this City in settling; police misconduct lawsuits. Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, no. listen. All right. Go ahead. Vice Chairman Gort: Lnnk, the problem is we need to understand, We have three more items to listen to. My suggestion is, let's listen to everyone. After we've listened to the public hearing, we'll close the public hearing, and then we'll discuss among ourselves and we'll ask all the questions that we need to ask. But Jet's finish with the presentations, because if we keep going back and forth, you know, we're going; to be here all night. Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff: OK. Vice Chairman Gori: Fin ready to have breakfast tomorrow at 5. Commissioner Teele: But Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Tccic: In fairness to everybody, I think we need to limit this to the Charter language, because, i mean, everything that we're hearing, 1 don't know that -- other than the wort!, ""Whistle Blower" protection," I think that's the only new thing that we've heard in the last seven minutes. Vice Chairman Gort: That's always been there. Commissioner Tecle: Hull? Vice Chairman Gort: That's always been there. Commissioner Teele: ""Whistle Blower" protection" is not in ours. Vice Chairman Gort: But it's always been from the beginning, Commissioner Tecle: No, it's not. 83 8/9/01 (Section 5) Unidentified Speaker: It's in the proposal. Commissioner Teele: Is that in your language, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Vilarello: No, Commissioner Teele: And when everybody got up and testified -- Mr. Vilarcllo: And that issue raises a whole series of other problems. Commissioner Tecle: And when everybody got up and testified, that's why l went back to the language, 1 believe, and Ms. McElroy and other who really are thoughtful, we wctit through this. I mean, I've got all the notes. I've rewritten this thing three times here today. And the concept of whistle -- which I have no objections to, Vllt I Just think it's really important now that we focus in on where you disagree, or what language you want in, or what language you want out that's before us now, because we're not going to do the ordinance here today. And for the record, Madam Attorney, you did very well. That's a trick. if you start talking about dollars ' that's exactly what you're going to hear about on the budget, in the debate, on the referendum. And you know and I know that ,you can't put a budget on this till you write the ordinance. We don't know if we're going; to have three staff people or 40. And so you know, my colleague is doing what lie's got to do, and i just hope that you'll do what you've got to do. So, please, Iet's move on. Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff: Certianly. Thank you very much, Commissioners. And "D," operate -- well, we were there. "E," authorized with subpoena powers to be exercised in consultation with the State Attorney of Miami -Dade County, provided that the panel may not confer immunity and must advise all City employees appearing before it that no adverse consequences will result from the valid exercise of their right to be free from self-incrimination. 1 think that that is language that has been repeatedly addressed and discussed with the State's Attorney's Office, the body that is charged with ensuring that prosecutions are timely had of police officers who engage in misconduct. This is our proposed Charter amendment. Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Could I ask you a question then? Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff: Certainly. Commissioner Winton: Because the State Attorney's representative read one additional sentence at the end of that line as their recommendation for this language, which said all actions of the panel should be taken with consideration in any pending or potential criminal investigation or prosecution, and the panel shall make every effort not to interfere with same. Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff: We have no problem with that addition. Vice Chairman Goru Thank you. Next. Brad Brown: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Brad Brown. I'm President of the Miaini-Dade Branch of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Our offices are located at 7'h Avenue Northwest and 133"l Street. The NAACP is strongly supportive across the country 84 8/9/01 (Section S) 0 • of civilian investigative panels, and we strongly here support the language that has just been submitted to ,you. hi the interest of time -- I'm not going to go into it in detail, but I will take the opportunity to submit a detailed recognition in writing. But I do want to say that behind all this is our desire for strong, effective policing, and our believe that that strong, effective policing depends on a fully cooperative citizenry that is the highest level of trust in the Police Department. And that is what the Civilian Investigative Panel is designed to do, bring that level of trust to the level in which the increased citizens cooperation with the police will enhance law enforcement. We believe this is what is good for this City and what is good for this country. We've heard a lot today about subpoena powers perhaps interfering with prosecutions. I think every member of any citizens' investigative panel would certainly prefer to see an officer who deserves to be prosecuted penalized in the criminal system, rather than penalized through an administrative action. 1 don't think that is something one ought to worry about. I would say that if one walks out into the street and hears the people that 1 hear, the concern is the officer. The concern is that all too often, the investigations last too long, and that the end result is no prosecution. And therefore, it is extremely important for that trust to have the independence that is the heart of this issue, and that it moves forward in a timely fashion, and that the discipline that is -- and actions that are recommended are, in fact, responded to and in a timely fashion, if they are not going to be implemented. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thnnt- you. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Teele, I guess they're not going to take your suggestion to heart. Wasn't it your suggestion that the comments focus on the language here that we have to deal with, and not a repeat of all the things that we've already heard and we seem to have agreement on, so that we can get on with solving the final problem here? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: i mean, I thought that was your suggestion. Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, Walter Williams: We're almost finished, sir. The first -- my name is Walter Williams. The first comment I want to make is in reference to the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Williams, your address, please. Mr. Williams: Yes, Northwest 5`~ ' Court. Mr. -- The problem that we have here in writing up this language for this Charter is that it is being written by the City Attorney. The City Attorney is the lawyer for the Police Department. So when you ask an attorney to write an ordinance or language that will permit his client to be investigated, that's like asking a fox to draw up the blueprints for a chicken house. Commissioner Regalado: He's not the City Attorney for the Police Department. He's the City Attorney for the residents of Miami and the City Commission. The City Commission is the one that hires or Cres him. 85 8/9/01 (Section 5) • 1J Mr. Williams: Mr. Regalado, what I'm saying is that this gentleman has no spirit to do this job. He -- his heart ain't in it, and you know it. Can't be in it. But after having said that, my other remarks, which I want to address it to you. Commissioner Sanchez: Tell us how you really feel. Mr. Williams: I really feel, Mr. Sanchez, I really feel, Mr. Sanchez, that you've been throwing up smoke screens all night to try to kill this thing. Really, that's how 1 really feel. And I hope I'm wrong. OK. i would also like to thank Mr. John De Leon, who is not here tonight, but who has put a lot of work in this effort. And he's in another country now, trying to bring some justice to those people in another country. But earlier, Mr. Regalado, you said that you didn't know if the Cuban people would support this ordinance or not. Mr. Regalado -- Commissioner Regalado: No, I did not say that. Mr. Williams: Well, that's what 1 thought you said Commissioner Regalado- No, no, I did not say. I said that if we were not clear on the way that the members of the committee were picked, were selected, then the Hispanic community will not support this. Mr. Williams: OK. Mr. Regalado, the Cuban people are here in Miami because there is no civilian control over their Police Department in Havana. Every day, you get on the radio, and you demand civilian control in Havana, but you drat; your feet about certain controls in the City of Miami. Nobody hates the Police Department. Commissioner Sanchez: But let me correct you. We don't ask for civilian. We ask for democracy in Havana. Big difference. Vice Chairman Gor(: Excuse me. Let the gentleman finish, and then we'll answer questions, and remarks. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Wiiliarns: Well, tell me that after the show, because I don't understand what you're saying; about that. What I'm saying is, sir, is that there is no civilian review of the Police Department, at all, in Havana. OK? And that's why you are here. And the only way your country will ever be free is if civilians get some control. You know it and I know it. This measure that they're talking about, it's not against the police. We review the President of the United States. We have review of the President of the United States, and we elect him. We don't elect police officers. This is not an anti -police measure. Nobody hates the police. We know we got to have them, and by and large, we got a good force in Miami. But to suggest that, you know, that every time someone says, let's have a review of something that you got to hate somebody, that's not -- We just got through spending two years reviewing the President of the United States, and rightly so. ,lose Marti believed in civilian review. The greatest Cuban wasn't a general. It was a poet. That's what we're made out of So let's stop talking about maybe the Cubans won't support it. They should be Out in front. They should lead the way, because they have been deprived of their freedom. And the reason why they're deprived of their freedom is because they have a Police Department and a military that has no civilian control or review. Thank you, sir. 86 8/9/01 (Section 5) Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. Commissioner Regalado: Let me just say that probably you don't remember, but with the City Commission, l pushed and created the Elian Gonzalez Ad Hoc Committee. And that committee served for several months. And the reason I'm s�ipporting this committee and I'm supporting the subpoena power is because that committee heard a lot of testimony and wanted the then Chief of Police, William O'Brien, to come before the committee, and he ignored that committee several times. Didn't went before the committee to respond. And the committee ended all the sessions without any results in terms of punishing those police officers that were abusive during the Elian Gonzalez situation, which were only a few, but there were abuses. So I am supporting* that. And what I said, and what I will keep saying, and what i told them in my office is that we need to be very clear on the way that this panel is done, because it has to mirror the City of Miami. And it cannot be perceived as just a black thing, because then the Hispanic voters will not support it. That's what I said. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me clarify something, which I think is very important, and I stated from the beginning. If this goes to the polls and it's not understood by people, they're going to defeat it, because right now, I'm walking this community, and the feedback that I'm getting from a lot of people in the community is, "We're not going to go for it the way it is." So we have to make sure, just like we're doing for the other items, the issues that we're bringing to the polls. The citizens have to be sure that they know what they're going for. If they don't know, they're going to vote against it. And that's -- I want you all to understand that. Dorothy Johnson: My name is Dorothy Johnson. My address, my business address is 13250 Northwest 2811' Avenue in the City of Opa Locka. I'm the first Vice President for the NAACP in the Greater Miami- Dadc area. I do also agree that it is important to have feedback from the community, as well as for the community to know the mission. However, I think that we can conic with a panel of educated individuals that will bring knowledge, skills and abilities. I'm a federal mediator. On August 18`', 1 will become a County Court mediator. My background is in EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) and diversity. My studies was criminology and police science. With that in mind, 1 think that we can come to hold the citizens accountable, as well as the Police Department, The Civilian Investigative Panel Committee would like to ensure that it is a diverse group of people that represent the whole community, which will include people with disabilities. We are serious about it, so we have conic up with guiding principles. And our guiding principles are integrity, respect and responsibility, with the sensitivity of diversity. We thank you for listening. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next. Leroy .tones: For the first time, I actually wrote some notes down so I can be real fast and to the point. Vice Chairman Gort: And you are? Mr. Joncs: I'm Leroy .tones, 4055 Northwest 171" Avenue. Who would police the police? The citizens deserve the right to police the police. Why? Because who pay the police'? The citizens. The Independent Review Panel for the County has no subpoena power, at all. I know quite a few times where they made 87 8/9/01 (Section 5) suggestions to the Board of County Commission that certain police officers be reprimanded or fired. Guess what? Never happened. What good is it? I heard a gentleman stand up here and say -- well, the young lady, the young lady spoke first, said crime is down. Crime is down. Crime is down for people who commit crimes, you're right. But crime is up on people. What 1 mean is, the police, the crimes that are committed on the citizens by police officers are up. You need to think- about that. That's real serious. The Chief and all good police officer's should honor this and respect this. Why? When was the last time you heard an officer come forth and say, "Look, I know a bad officer, we need to get rid of him"? I bet you ever police officer that's been a police officer within six months know a police officer that shouldn't be it police officer. But would they come forward and say it? Would they actually do anything; about it? No. is we concerned? Yeah, we concerned, because it's our brothers, it's our kids, it's our grandfathers, it's our uncles, it's our nephews being killed by police officers. Unarmed. 'Think about it. Why the reason we here? Because of the police. The police is the reason why we are here now. If the crimes wasn't being committed by the police officers on citizens, we wouldn't be here today. So the Police Department have nobody to blame for this situation but the Police Department. Don't blame us, because' we ain't created this. Where I live at, when the police come around, they don't just hand pick who they lay on the ground. They Jay everybody on the ground -- women, kids, babies. They don't care. They don't care: if it's just one person in a crowd that they know commit crimes. Everybody who's standing or around that person lays on the ground. It's not fair. Somebody need to be held accountable for it. It's a lot of good police officers where 1 live at. 1 respect them. They respect me. Thcy respect the citizens. Every community, 1 don't care how rich it is, how poor it is need police protection. But isn't it unfair for us to act like nothing; happened? Isn't it unfair for us to keep turning our head when kids is getting; innocently -- I mean shot clown in the street like dogs? When is somebody go be held accountable for this? You know, it's -- it got to stop, you know. is we go move forward with this and stop it, or is we go continue to jus keep turning; blindfold, because tine people who make trp the majority aren't the people who are being killed? That's something; to think about. And I'm go close with this: I'm not against the Police Department. But when they come through my neighborhood and I'm standing on the corner, they Jay us down on the street for nothing. Somebody need to police the police, Vice Chairman Gort: Next. Herschel flaynes: Good evening. Mr. Chainnan and distinguished Commissioners, my name is I-Iersehel Haynes, and I reside at 4601 Northwest 15"' Avenue. About five months ago, I received a call from the Office of the Chief. I was hoping that he would be here, but he's not. lie is here? Yeah. Chief, would you get to the mike, please, sir? I received a call from the Chief's• office, and I have received other calls From his office, but this call was shortly after Nick Singleton had been inadvertently or rather shot in the Overtown area. And I want to pay respect and give recognition to the Chief, because he did something right. He -- 1 would like to feel that of the same list that he called me from is a list of all or most of the chairpersons and the leaders of organizations around ity of Miami. is that accurate? The list from which you had your secretary or a person call me from. On that same list, does it not include most if not all of the organizations in the City who are either activists, or leaders of organizations? Raul Martinez (Chief of Police): Included some. I can't make a statement that included ail; I have an all- inclusive list. Mr. Haynes: Nevertheless, the statement 1 want to make is that it was to come to the Police Department for the City of Miami to a meeting of citizens, to address some concerns as relates to that incident. And so 88 8/9/01 (Section 5 ) we came, and we were there. And it was, what t thought, a great turnout. And I'd like to give credit for the Chief, because it was rather -- I'd rather that meeting had been in the Police Department than a meeting outside of the Police Department, and it is so for that I give you thanks. And out of that meeting, that's to my recollection, and I do believe that all the -- all the chairpersons of the other organizations were called. And so then they had an opportunity to have been there. And if they were not there, there were other follow-up meetings, and I feel that they were called and they could have been there. And out of that meeting, I think it was probably the second meeting, our esteemed Commissioner, Commissioner Teele, after hearing -- and also Commissioner Gort was there. And after hearing the concerns of all the organizations that were there, our Commissioner charged the organizations who were there -- and the lead organization, I think, that has the greater reputation in the City and Dade County was PULSE. And he charged PULSE to go forth, and the other organizations, to work on a CIP situation. And so we who were there, we accepted the challenge and we went forth, and we worked on that. And we have worked on that fora lot of months. And I'd like you to know that we have reached out to all of the key organizations in the City of Miami. And you have to understand that there are a lot of organizations that they, you know, they don't want to come aboard and do the right thing. But at the last day, the last hour, you know, they have the audacity, some of them, to come in this kind of a forum and say things that are totally not consistent with a person who is willing to step up to plate and accept the challenge, and do whatever it is they can to make a posits.-, difference, which is all we have labored to do. We have not intentionally excluded any kind of positive orientated organization, or even those that who are not positive. Ancil think this needs to be said in this forum. And so then 1 also would just like to give credit and thanks to the Chief. 1'd like to give credit and thanks to our Commissioner, who was there, and was visionary enough to see the need to do something. And best of my recollection, nothing else has been done in terms of a calleclively coming together of organizations and people that beats this. And as you look around the nation, at the other cities that have CTP organizations and resolutions in place, you know, I'm thinking that it makes a huge difference. And also, I've heard -- Commissioner Sanchez, i've heard you say this a number of times -- make reference to our great City being the fourth poorest City in the nation. I want You to under -- 1 hopefully -- I think one of the reasons for that is the crime as it relates to Miami on the talk shows, and especially with some of the talk shows like -- that in prime time. And I'm not going to get into names. But they have poked fun at Miami; you know, I'or the kinds of crime, the criminal element, if you will, in Miami. And I would think that it's for some of the reasons like that, that perhaps Miami, you know, if the fourth poorest City in the nation, along with the fact that before now, with the kinds of organizations like ACLU, and the NAACP, Brothers of the Same Mind, and all the other organizations, of which some were and are Hispanics, and we are thankful for them. But the point 1 want to make is that at this time, wizen this is, for the best of my recollection, the first time it's been a collaborative effort from the hispanic community, from the black community, from the Anglo community, and all of those who really are ready to come forth and work together, and has worked on this particular CIP initiative, and I want to thank them, and just hope that our leaders, our Commissioners will be visionary enough to see the need to pass this resolution, because the need is truly, truly enormous. I thank you. Commissioner Teele: We're going to -- Now many more people need to speak on this matter? OK, one, two -- all right. Mr. Clerk, let's get down to business. Frani: Ondarza: OK. My name is Frank Ondarza. I live in 2216 Northwest North River Drive. And I would like to snake sonic questions to the Commissioners. Who hired the Chief of the Police? Commissioner Teele: The Manager. 89 8/9/01 (Section 5) Mr. Ondarza: Pardon me? The Manager. Who sign the check for the Chief of the Police and all the Police Department? Commissioner Teele: Technically, the payroll officer, but the Manager. Mr. Ondar7a: The Manager. OK. Then the Manager is the boss of the Police Department, because he pay the checks. That's my point of view. . And then we have a few Commissioners, different Commissioners who represent one section of the City. That's correct? Commissioner Teele: Who what? Mr. Ondarza: Each Commissioner, you represent a section of the City. That's correct? Commissioner Teele: One fifth, one fifth, one fifth, yeah. Mr. Ondarza: That's correct. Then if' there is brutality, police brutality in my section, and you are my Commissioner, that I Ivnti to do is call you; because you are responsible, "por quc" ,you are my Commissioner. Yes or [lot? Commissioner Teele: Wrong. No. Mr. Ondarza: Why? Who is responsible? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Clerk -- Mr. Attorney -- Mr. Ondarza: Who is responsible? Commissioner Tecic: Explain to him that no City Commissioner or Mayor can investigate, Mr. Ondarza: OK. Let me put it this way -- Commissioner Teele: Would you explain, Mr. Attorney'? Mr. Ondarza: OK, sir. I want a straight question. Commissioner Teele: He said all that they need to do is call us. Mr. Ondarza: if there is -- no, no, no. Sir, if there is a brutality in your arca, I live in this area, who, who is the guy I have to call with this Commission? Commissioner Tecle: Not the Commission. Mr. Ondarza: I have to call somebody. Commissioner Teele: You see, that's one of the things that people don't understand. 90 8/9/01 (Section 5) i Mr. Ondarza: Yeah. Commissioner Teele: Any Commissioner who gets involved in investigating individuals -- Mr. Ondarza: -Mr.Ondarza: Right. Commissioner Teele: -- can wind up being asked to leave their office. Commissioner Winton: Any employee in the City. Commissioner Teele: Any employee, The Manager. The same answer -- The one phone call you can make is to the Manager. Mr. Ondarza: OK. That's the point. I talk to your Director, Manager, Mr. Manager. If you are responsible, then you have to investigate how the police is performing. Yes or not? Mr. Gimenez: Yes. Mr. Ondarza: OK. Then you are responsible. Then I ask to this department, to this -- to you, through the Commissioners, why the hell we need another panel to guide people who investigate the Police Department if you are responsible for the department? I want to make another question. This point. The general attorney is looking that she made some change, and this and that, to give the power. To who? This is a good idea. l don't know -- I don't know the game of nobody. But the situation is if the general attorney has the power to do what she is doing in this moment, she can do that; there is no -- any one organization or rale of law or whatever? Mr. Gimenez: Can you repeat the question? Are you talking about the State Attorney's Office? Mr. Ondarza: Yeah. Mr. Gimenez: Do they have the power to do the investigation? Mr. Ondarza: To do that. Mr. Gimenez: As far as I know, yes, sir. Mr. Ondarza: Yes, sir. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, they do. Mr. Ondarza: OK. Then does they have -- if you are responsible, how the -- there is something, duplicity here. If you have -- if you are responsible, responsible, why another guy or another person in this government can give power to another people? You know there is something wrong. Now, if we organize this department today to, you know, to check the police and this and that, OK, beautiful. We need an office, we need cars, we need people, they need money, and then I'm going to pay more. Why the 91 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • hell they could do that? Who is going to pay for? I want to know that. Somebody is going to pay. But i have paid. I have to pay. It's my money. And I'm not going to pay for. And I am very clear concerning to the Police Department. I support the Police Department, I am going to told you in this room, there are only two people to receive gases, punches and everything for another Chief of Police, not for this fellow. For another Chief of Police -- this lady and myself. I was punched, gassed, and this and that. Nobody care about. Nobody care. OK? Even I had to go -- hospitalized. I got problems, cost from my money more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), the problems that I received from the gases with these people, of the attack at Elian house. 1 can talk about Elian, because I was there. But the problem is, I am not agree, under any circumstances, to organize another group, which is good, very nice people, to check another people. From my point of view -- I am Cuban -- this is like a commissary, checking what the other people are doing. If they have a responsibility, they have to do this responsibility, because it's their responsibility. If you pay to these people, you have the responsibility; you have the responsibility of what's doing these people. 'That I ask here is that everybody have to take part of the pie, of the responsibility, that have everyone here. Otherwise, it's prepare more bureaucracy, and that's it. There is nothing. That's it. And that's my point of view. That's what I'm talking about. Clear; Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Mr. nndarza: Welcome. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. That's what makes Miami beautiful; everybody can have their own opinion. That's what democracy is all about. Yes, sir. Kenneth 131111: Good evening. My name is Kenneth Bluh. I reside at 7755 Southwest 86`x' Street, in the County. Well, the City of Miami is the heart of our community, so l don't mind stepping into your City. I just have two quick points that I want to address in response to some of the earlier comments. One of them was the timeliness of investigation by a Civilian Review Board. And I think if you just look at the middle word, "review," you'll see that it doesn't say that investigations are done concurrently with that of the Police Department, but it's a review of the actions of die Police Department. Therefore, they shouldn't function until the police have completed their investigation. Matter of fact, I -- it almost scares me that you would have a civilian panel that would be on the street investigating at the same time, possibly contaminating evidence. But their proper place is in a timely fashion, without delay, to rc;vicw, once the police have taken their action. The other thing is the subject of the composition of a Civilian Review Board. If you look at other municipalities, you'll see that almost all of them contain one law enforcement officer from a law enforcement organization outside of the City or the County where the review is being made. Whether it was from the Florida Highway Patrol, the City of Coral Gables, or another organization, it lends knowledge of the procedure to the organization. But you have to forbid them, obviously, from being part of the police organization that's being reviewed. Subpoena powers, obviously, they need it. Punitive, no. Obviously, that's not their function. 'Their function is to review and bring to the proper authorities their findings. I hope I've contributed. It was a pleasure being with you folks. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next. Next. Anyone else? OK. Yes, Mr. Soto. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, Mr. Teele, thank you, but 1 am afraid you made the biggest error of your life by saying that I was here. 1 speak from experience. I have seen like .50 people coming through 92 8/9/01 (Section 5) here. 1 wonder if they, all together, have been arrested by the blue brothers more than 1. Yet, 1 am against this CIP or whatever you call it, this Civilian Investigative Unit, because we have to keep things simple. And if the State Attorney's Office cannot do the job, then we should go after the State Attorney's Office, not after the police. And I am -- I want you to be very clear. And if this panel is empanelled, can you imagine the amount of money, the discussions amongpeopin? How -are they going to be elected? I don't qualify, because'my rap sliect is like ten, ten feet long. And so it's very complicated. We should try to keep things simple, and ti'v to use a little bit of common sense. And besides the State Attorney's Office, we have to say that 1 think -- 1 am not sure, because I have been away for eight months -- that the Federal government has done a good job. Thank you very much. That's all. Osvaldo Soto: Mr. Chainnan, Commissioners, my name is Osvaldo Soto. I have -- I'm a lawyer with Offices up in 2151 South LeJeune Road. I am also the Chainnan of the Spanish-Ainerican League Against Discrimination for the last IS years. I'm also the coordinator elect of UNIDOS. UNIDOS is an organization that represents the Latin Builders Association, the Hispanic Educators and Administrators of Dade County, the National Association of Hispanic Public Administrators, the Cuban Accountants Association in Exile, the Enterprise Inter -American Association, Facts about Cubans in Exile, National Association of Cuban -American Women, the United States Latin Chamber of Commerce, Hialeah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Spanish-American League Against Discrimination, Confederacion Cuban University Professionals in Exile, Hispanic -American Business Association, Cuban Unity, Cuban Municipalities in Exile, Cuban Pedagogue Association, Cuban -American National Foundation, Cuban - American Certified Public Accountants and South Beacli/Greater Miami Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. And 1 am -- and I already mentioned, 1 am speaking on behalf of Mr. Sabines, who is my teacher and leader, and myself. Neither UNIDOS, nor the organizations that integrated have been invited to the ineetings organized by some non -Hispanic or -- Commissioner Sanchez: Dr. Soto, they have not been invited? Mr. Soto: They haven to been invited to the meetings that have taken place among the non -Hispanic organizations that have been working in this panel. Furthermore, I called the office of'-- Mr. Mendelson is here from the State Attorney's Office? Commissioner Sanchez: 'I is State Attorney's? Mr, Soto: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: He's right there. Chief Martinez: He's with the group. Mr. Soto: I called Kathy Fernandez -Rundle to ask her -- whom I know very closely -- to ask her that we wanted to work with herto try to resolve the difference in the problems that have been created by this proposal. I ask Mr. Mendelson if he -- can you testify? Have you ever called my office to meet with me, in spite that I called Ms. Fernandez -Rundle? Mr. Mendelson: Personally, I haven't. I don't know if Ms. Rundle has. 93 8/9/01 (Section 5) Mr. Soto: OK. I can represent here that none of the Hispanic organizations, in spite that we requested it from Ms. Rundle, were invited to any of the meetings. By the way, I am not speaking about the Attorney. The City Attorney, yes, did call my office, unfortunately, called my office one day before the meeting, and I was busy that afternoon. i am a lawyer, and I don't get paid for what 1 do in SALAD or in UNIDOS. I would like to say -- and it's important -- that the matter with the Miami Police Department is not unique. We have had problems with the Metro Police Department. We have had problems with the Hialeah Police Department. But with the time, we have been able to resolve many of these problems. When there were not black and Hispanic officers in those police forces, I took the time, with other people, to try to integrate those Police Departments, and we have achieved so much that previous to Chief Martinez, there were two Afro-American Chiefs of Police -- Calvin Ross and -- l forgot -- Chief Martinez: Three. Mr. Soto: Three, Chief Martincz: Perry Anderson and Clarence Dixon. Mr. Soto: Petry Ander;sn», with whom I used to meet practically every day in my office, trying to help with the Miami Police Department. The ordinance or the proposal, if approved, may possibly open a Pandora's box, further dividing this community. There are other ways to deal with the problems within the City of Miami Police Department without the necessity of creating additional and even more serious problems. The Independent Review Panel of Miami -Dade County has done its job, I was its Chairman for three years, and I can tell you that it worked. It was not perfect. Nothing is perfect, but we were able to do it, and we didn't have the subpoena powers. Now, we don't oppose the creation of a panel, but we have to be sure what we arc going to be approving, what we are going to submit to the voters of the City of Miami, because you have heard here today (lie many questions that there are pending that do not have these people that have been working fbr many months. And 1 recognize they have been working for many months, even if they didn't call me. There was only one call made to my office, and a letter sent by Mr. Wassman that i haven't had the pleasure to meet him yet. But anyway, he called my office. 1 am concerned that what we are doing is by approving something that we are not sure what it is, what is going to be doing, what powers it's going to have, is going to bring to the ballot something that is going: to be rejected. And once it is rejected, it's going to create more problems in this community than we have now, \What I submit to all of you is that the best way to handle this matter is to give the City Attorney more power, more time to be able to work a solution that will have the approval and consent of the people of Dade. County. And I mean all the organizations, whether Afro-Americans, Hispanics, Jewish, whatever they are. But let them have a say in this matter. I don't have any problem in doing that, and I offer my time. And let me say I have had problems with the Miami Police Department and with the Metro Police Department, and i have filed claims with the internal department when l thought it was fit to do it. So it's not a blank endorsement. But I think that within the last year, under Chief Martinez, we have done -- the Miami Police Department has done a tremendous job. And finally, may 1 say this: If we take away from the Police Department the possibility of investigating without fear of reprisals, if we take away from the judicial system the right to investigate, and indict and do a lot of things that are going to he, supposed to be done by independent panel at the same time, we are going to create chaos, and we are going to end with what is happening today in the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, where the Police Department is not working, because it's afraid of everything, and crime is rampant at this point in Cincinnati. And this is what 1 am afraid, t ani not afraid of the panel. I am afraid that we might give this panel the possibility of going at 94 8/9/01 (Section 5) the sante time with an investigation when the Police Department is going to be doing the same investigation, when tine State Department is going to be doing the same investigation, and also is going to be recommending things that might be contrary to what is in the best benefit of the City of Miami. I will be very happy to answer any questions if you have any questions. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Regalado: I have a question, Mr. Soto. Do you -- you agn-cc with the panel. The problem that you have is the way that the panel would work, or the way that the members of the panel be selected? ivir. Soto: Would be selected, yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I guess that we have said time, and time and time that this committee should and would mirror the City of Miami. Do you think that if this goes to the voters, would you and other Hispanic organizations, would you nominate people? Would you look for people who have certain qualities to be nominated among all the members of the conunittee for this Commission to select? Mr. Soto: To be honest In you -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean, would you participate in the process? Mr. Soto: Yeah. To be honest -- Commissioner Regalado: That's my question. Mr. Soto: 1 would do it. But to be honest to you, it takes a lot of time. When I worked for the Independent Review Panel, the County, it was a great amount of time that 1 give to the County to be able to do my job. And even when I was Chairman, it was even worse. It takes no less than three to four hours a day of free time, of qualified people who would like to do it and would be willing to do it. One of my big fears, my big problems is what is going to happen if you have people who are not qualified, who are not prepared, who are going to be sitting in a panel, being part of a panel and are going to be really handling problems like, you know, extremely difficult, even for lawyers and even for members of the Malice Department? Commissioner Regalado: Well that would be the City Commission's fault. Mr. Soto: I know. t know it's your program; but I -- Co linissioner Regalado: That would be the City Commission's fault, and the City Commission's problem if we don't select the people who we need. No, my question is: Would you, as the most respected leader in terms of the civil rights of the Hispanic community, would you participate in the process'? Would you nominate people? I mean, would you not stay away from the process, because you think it shouldn't be done? Mr. Soto: No, I would not stay away from the process. But I want to be honest to you. I cannot support the concept of the panel as it is today. 95 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Regalado: fine. Mr. Soto: I am very concerned. I was concerned when 1 heard the representative of the State Attorney's Office, the big holes in what is being proposed today, You gave time the other day. They had a lot of meetings here. They didn't come out with solutions. I believe in democracy, and I believe its districts. And I can tell you -- and you have Mr. Teele there, whom I am very happy to support. I'm of the lawyers who fought for districts, not only in the City of Miami, but in the County. And one of those districts, we had the pleasure to elect Commissioner Teele. So these kind of things I have done, because I believe in them. But I also can tell ,you, Commissioner, that we have a serious problem in our hands, and we have to do it very careful, so that we don't create more problems than we have now. I don't want to have this community divided. And it is voted upon -- as it is today, we are going to have a community divided. Any other questions? Commissioner Teele? Commissioner `I'ecie: I'm really distressed at your testimony, and I was distracted for some of it. But Commissioner Regalado raised if -- I think this community owes you and your organization a great debt of gratitude, because you've been working, I know of, at least 14 years to bring our community together and to maintain a dialogue and have equality. But are you -- you're not saying that you would not participate in the panel. Did I hear you correctly? Mr. Soto: I said that I would not object to participate, but not in the kind of'panel we are trying to support here today, I mean, that has been proposed to you. I have serious questions about it. Commissioner Teele: But the real issue is going to be -- We don't know what the panel looks like. We don't know what - the composition. We don't know what the disciplines of the panel are. I think the real issue is: How do we craft a panel that gets your support and gets broad community support? And I think, you know, we're sort of reading more into this than is here. 1 mean, we have before us the simple language of creating a panel, which membership will conic from the public, will be approved by the Commission, I think- one of the things that my colleagues have been saying -- and l can count to three -- one of the things that my colleagues are saying, "Well, we don't want this to be representative of just one segment of the community." Unless I count right, you know, it's mathematically impossible for that panel, being appointed by this Commission to be not representative of the community, or certainly, there is no way, to be very pointed and point blank, it's going to be a black panel. So this is a panel that clearly is going to be inclusive. Our real question is: Are we going to treat women right, given the composition of this Commission? And I mean, 1 want to say right here, right now, .i'm going to ensure that there are women appointed to the panel. But honestly, honestly, I respect you very much, but I just think we've leaped ahead, and we've really anticipated something that has not manifested itself yet. And if there is something you want to do to warn its, or help its, or certainly, the real issue is drafting tl►e ordinance. And l think one of the things we ought to agree on, right here, right now, that we're going to have at least two or three workshops with the City Attorney, with the public, with the entire public, to have drafting workshops for anybody who wants to come, because I heard the FOP talking about a private group, and a private committee, and all of that. Everything; that we're trying to do, I hope, is transparent. And so I think if you would just stay engaged in this, you can help us to avoid those things that you're concerned about. And I say that out of the tremendous respect that I have for you, not only as a lawyer, but personally. 96 b/9/Ol (Section 5) Mr. Soto: Commissioner, so there is no question -- and most of these people do not know me, OK? I have -- I am proud to say that for the last 20 years, I have been the Chairman of every black judge that has been forced to run in Dade County. Commissioner Teele: Of their electio--i committee. Mr. Soto: I have -- in the elections, right, of all of them. And I want to repeat that, because it's very easy to say, you know, you work for one judge, the other judge. No. I have been the Chairman of every single black judge who has been forced to run in election,, because they picked on him, because he was a minority. And they said, "Ah, blacks are only 20 percent of the population of Dade County. You know, let's run against him." Unidentified Speaker: And? Mr. Soto: But I want to be -- yes. And I want also to be sure that we are not here falling into a trap. And I also want to be sure that we are not going to cause more problems than we are going to resolve. I mentioned the other day perhaps to have civilians in the Internal Affairs Department of the Police would have been perhaps a soliltion. I don't know. I haven't asked to anybody, or I haven't asked the City Attorney. But what 1 am afraid, that we might be creating something that is going to be so big, so difficult that it might create a lot of problems, and then it's going to fail, and it's going to be even worse. I hasten to say that sometimes, it's better not to have something approved if we are not sure what we are going to be approving. OK? And you know how much respect I do have for you. OK. Any other questions? Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Mr. Soto: Thank you for the opportunity. Crriscl Ybatra: Good afternoon. My name is Grisel Ybarra, and lie was kind enough to hold my place. But my business address is 2320 Southwest 57t" Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33155. I believe that we should have a panel that investigates the police. I don't believe in letting the police know that we're investigating them. OK? So 1 don't believe in sending them subpoenas to come before us. 1 think that the best way -- In Spanish, there's a saying that goes: "I.a guerra avisada no tnatas soldados." If you warn people about the war, you don't kill any soldiers. And the last time 1 was here, I did exactly what I believe should he done. You gather evidence, and you gather evidence, and at the appropriate time, you hand it over, and you say, "Hey, what are you going to do with this?" OK? The moment that we start subpoenaing police officers, the moment that we start interfering, and the moment that police officers come and they know that we're investigating them, then come the whitewash, the destruction of documents, the concealing of what's going on, and then we end up nowhere. So I believe the panel should exist. I don't believe that the panel should police the police in that way. I sent a proposal to the Chief in which I suggested that the community, each community association be contacted, and we tell them, send us one delegate. I proposed a 15 -member panel made up of Cubans, Colombians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, blacks, Haitians, Anglos and gays, OK? And that everyone should have a vote. That panel should be elected by the people, not by you guys. The moment that you guys have to approve it and elect it, then we come into the corruption and -- not that you're corrupt. But, you know, we come into the doubts about why is this being done, for whom, and why is this being done. Why? Because the politics in Miami -- please, gentlemen, and I mean, with all due respect -- sucks. OK? I sat here and listened to this poor Nicaraguan who couldn't 97 8/9/01 (Section 5) speak English. The translation was horrible. Half the things he -- 1 mean, you would have been tlirown out of the United Nations. OK? It was horrible. That's not the way to do things. OK? There is -- nobody believes in anything in this town because of this. I've been. sitting here now since 4:30, listening to all that's going on, and what have we achieved? Nothing. _We're right back where we started. OK? The police have to do a job. OK? What's happening in Cincinnati cannot happen in Miami. We cannot allow the cops to turn around and say, "I'm not going to get shot over this kid. Let him steal 800 cars. Let him rape." We can't allow that. OK? And the reason that this committee has cone into existence -- OK? -- is because we don't trust the police. We don't trust the police, because it takes forever. 1 had the pleasure of sitting last night with Chief Martinez, and I told him; l said, "You know, once you're giving a video" -- you know, let nie tell you something. If I come home and I find my husband in bed with three women, I don't have to investigate anything. OK? 1 don't have to ask questions. I mean, what is lie doing? Checking their plumbing'? You know, it doesn't exist. You know, you don't have to investigate things that are obvious to everybody. The video that I gave him shows ten cops beating the crap out of a kid. What do you have to investigate? Who are they? Ask the arresting officer. He was there. He can say. That's why everybody is upset, because it takes forever. And it's a snow job that we've been given as a community. And I'll tell you something else. 1 ani tired of government not standing; up and admitting when they're wrong. OK? I am tired of that. I ani tired of the attorneys -- and I'm sure it's the attorneys - - Mr. Vilarello, with all rl>>P respect to you -- don't admit your guilt, because if you admit your guilt, then we're admitting that you really did heat him up. It's on the video. You don't have to admit anything. It's there. And that would -- if the police would come forward and the City would come forward and say, "You know what? All these people deserve to be reimbursed, deserve to be made whole because of what we did to thein," you're going to save a lot of courts costs. OK? Because in the end, I'm going to win my lawsuit. Vade) is going to win his. The other people, we're all going to win. And then you're going to end tip like jerks, because you fought us. The same way that they did to me. They dragged me through 1 I days of court, sitting there, listening to all this crap, and I knew that I was going to win, because I had a video. OK? You would have to be deaf -- I mean, what is it? -- Dumb, deaf and blind not to see what was done to inc. Nothing has happened to anyone. OK? I mean, I told the Chief last night that 1 am willing to set aside niy -- Let me tell you, last week, I was at the immigration building, and there was a police car parked right there on the sidewalk, and I had to walk around it. And you know what? I looked inside that car and they're right, OK? They're right. You may beat the rap, but you ain't never going to forget that ride, Never. Not in. a million years will I forget what they did to me inside the police car. But I'ni willing to put it aside and give them a chance, give them a chance to show me if he's not like O'Brien, if he's not like Warshaw, if he's not like everybody else. If he turns out to be like the others, I'm the first one to get up here and try to make minced meat out of him. OK? But maybe he'll do good. Maybe he'll do good. Maybe, maybe he'll he sorry that he signed this statement saying that my arrest was justified. Maybe he regrets it. OK? Anybody can make a mistake. But the point is, if we, as citizens, begin to take over the police job, we can't do that, because I am not going to walk into a shooting and save any of you. OK? I'm not. I'll save my daughter. The rest of you can go to hell. And these cops, these cops put on a badge, and go in and help us. They do. We need them. OK? We really do need them. And we catuiot aggravate them, because we can't do their job. We can't. I don't want to do his job. It's very hard to be a police officer. And it's even hard when you have -- Another thing is you cannot have -- you cannot give dynamite to a kid, OK? Regardless of, you know, how much the kid deserves it. You can't. And when you give subpoena, if you're going to give subpoena power and sanctioning power, then that panel is going to have to be made up of lawyers, because the only ones that are going to understand what the hell goes on with Garrity, and the Fifth Amendment and everybody else are lawyers. And you know what, lawyers? We're not going to make it to heaven. Not a lot of us -- OK? -- are like wonderful people. 98 8/9/01 (Section 5) We're not. OK? So the point is, we need the common people. The lav has to be made by the people, for the people, and to be understood by the people. I read that ordinance, OK? i can't make head or tails out of that, and I have four years of law school and 25 years practicing. I mean, half of the people here don't even know what's going on with that document that's written. It's written in legal mumbo -jumbo. The best law is when people get together; they, raise their hands. All those agreeing, yes; all those opposed, bye. The "nays" have it; the "yeas" have it. Good-bye. That's it. Once we need a panel to elect tiie panel, to elect the panel that's going to police the police, that's policing the police, this is bull, man. This is like the greatest snow ,job I've heard. And right now, everybody here is wasting money and wasting time. You know, I waited until the end. 1 thought something was going to get done. And all we're going to have now is a thing put on the ballot that says that we're going to have a panel. We don't know when it's going to be instituted. We don't know who's going to be on it, because you guys have to vote on it. And from what I can see, you guys don't agree on anything. Everybody talks and asks questions, and everybody -- You spend half the time thanking each other for what you have done. I thank this committee, I thank that committee, I thank this panel, I thank that panel. Why should 1 thank you? You're doing your job. You get paid for that. OK? I mean it's -- You know, it's -- I don't understand. Maybe -- I don't know. Maybe I'm just disappointed. But I thought, 1 thought that in lbur hours, you could have agreed on something. OK? Vice Chairman Gort: Well, you need to understand, in four hours, all we've been doing is listening to the public, because we're in Miami, we're in a democracy, and everybody has a right to speak. And I'm being very nice, and I'm allowing everybody to speak as tong as they want to. That's why we've been here for four hours, because we have to listen to everyone. And we still have to listen to the Chief. Then we close the public hearing, and we discuss the matter among ourselves. And we do take decisions. Ms. Ybarra: But my point is, number one, I don't think that we should have subpoena power for the police, because I don't think they should know we're investigating them. Number two; I don't think that You guys should have anything to do in picking anybody on that panel. OK? That panel should be the people's panel, not you guys. OK? You shouldn't have anything. The Mayor should not elect anybody to elect anybody else. The people should elect their own representatives. We're smart enough to do that. OK? And number three, I believe that the panel should have -- one of those condemned buildings that you're talking about selling and getting your taxes, give us one of those buildings. We'll fix it up. We'll make that the CIP headquarters. Aren't you talking about selling? Don't you have a whole bunch of buildings? Isn't that what Mr. Winton was talking about at the begimiing of this meeting? That there's a whole bunch of properties that nobody wants? Give us one of those, OK? Give the panel one of those. 1'hey'll build it up, they'll fx it, and it'll be our home, independent from everyone else. So anyway, thank you for your time. Good-bye. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: May i just inquire? You were here -- Ms. Ybarra: Every time you've met, i've been here, since then. Commissioner Toole: And you testified in support, very dramatically in support of the panel. 99 S/9/Q 1 (Section 5) Ms. Ybarra: Of the panel, yes. I still do. I still believe that we should have a panel. I still believe we need it. If anything, just to scare the people into doing what their job is. I mean, even if it's just to say, "Boo" -- OK? -- "We're after you." Even if tor. that, we need a panel. We really do. We really, really do. Commissioner Teele: I guess the most troubling part of your testimony today for me, as a member of the Bar, is the fact that we have been here since 4:30 on this issue, and we've heard very little new. I mean, we've heard probably no more than 15 minutes of something new. But the whole essence of due process is an opportunity for the people to be heard. And trust me, I don't enjoy having to hear the same people give the same speeches. The only thing that's different is their name and their organization. But that's our system of government. And to criticize this Commission or this process for not taking a decision for four hours, which you said at least three times, really, basically, undercuts the public's right to conic here. We can't tell the people to sit down, shut up, get out. I mean a lot of times; we'd love to do it. But that's just not the form of government that we have. y1s. Ybarra: We'd love to do it to you guys, too, and we can't, you know. We'd love to do it to you guys, too, and we can't. You sit there and bicker about the most incredible things, you know. But that's O.K. Commissioner Teele: Well, the one thing that you said that I really want a straight answer on. Ms. Ybarra: Yes. Commissioner Teele: What is your husband's pharmacist's name? Ms. Ybarra: Can 1 tell you something? I've been divorced three times. I'm now single, because every time -- The Chief said last night that women should forgive. 1 don't forgive, and 1 don't forget. You do it once. The next time, I'm not there. OK? Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Than you. Nis. Ybarra: 1 am going to translate for my friend here. Luis Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra): 1 don't know how to speak English very well. Vice Chairman Gort: Name and address. Mr. Sabines: My name is Luis Sabines. And 1 am known around the world. Ms. Ybarra: But what is your address in Miami? Mr. Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra): 1417 West Flagler. I am the president of CAMACOL (Latin Chamber of Commerce) and of a lot of other organizations, which, by the way, in this communication that's written here, it says that all the organizations have been communicated to, and that's not true. I want you to know up to where you're going to take the morality of the police here. I know this man -- 100 8/9/01 (Section 5) S. Ybarra: "Peratc, peratc." Mr. Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra): -- I know this man for many years, Chief Martinez. And up to now, no one has been able to find anything on him. And don't think that it's a racial problem. Ms. Ybarra: Wait, wait, Mr. Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra: Because it's not a racial problem, because 1 remember, and there's a gentleman here named Camilo Padreda, who's sitting right over there, that we gave ourselves the task to have a Chief of Police named from the minorities. And -- Ms. Ybarra: Wait, wait. Mr. Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra): And Camilo, what's the name of that guy with the little hat? You know, the guy with the little hat? Dixon. And a black man by the name of Dixon was named to be Chief of Police, And we're the ones that named him. Ms. Ybarra: Wait, wait. Mr, Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra): And 1 want you to know that I'm defending the Chief of Police, and I will defend him till I die, because nobody knows anything on him. Ms. Ybarra: Wait, wait. Mr. Sabines (Through interpretation of Ms. Ybarra): And I am warning you, OK? I am warning, you, the Commissioners and the administrator, who is supposed to resolve things, that if you do something unjust to him, we're going to have a war. Fernando Gonzalez: OK, Commissioners, my mune is Fernando Gonzalez. I am from East Little Havana. My address is 128 Northwest 18`x' Avenue. I represent the organization, Vecinos en Accion. There is a lot of people here from there. And we are more than 2,000 members in the arca. Hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute. This is not for that. Wait a minute. This is for the other, "otra cosa." And what I'm trying to say is that about the Police Department, in our area, and all the Commissioners know about, and all the neighbors, they have doing a very, very good job in our area, you know, taking criminals to where they belong, Vice Chairman Gort: Can we have quiet, please? Hold it, hold it, hold it. Fernando, hold it. Can we have some quiet, please? Go ahead, sir. Mr. Gonzalez: But would like to have a message for the people who want to create the committee and the Police Department that if this happens, they have to doing the best link, you know, like a hand to hand, working, seeking the truth in all the cases they try to investigate, you know. And working like good neighbors and good friends. Police officers are human beings, and the human being can make a mistake sometimes, you know. This happens to -- it can happen to anybody. Or it can happen to anybody who is - - could be a family of the police officer or whatever. Sometimes, things very sad happens, you know. 101 8/9/01 (Section 5) ■-- --.- ---_ When you heard that a police officer talk to a nine ,year old boy, when the Elian problem that he -- you going to be raped when you be in the juvenile, this, that hurts, you know. Arid that hurt also the police officers, and it hurts everybody, because we are all fathers, and we are all together one family. We are proud to our police, really. And in our neighborhood, where the crimes was -- have a high level, you know, of crime in the area. The police came and cleaned the n-ighborhood, and did a very good job. We are glad to have the police, and we are glad to have the Chief Martinez as the Chief of Police now. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next. Jose Antonio Lopez: Good evening. My name is Jose Antonio Lopez. I live at 12517 Northwest 7`)' Lane. Listen, it's very unusual for me to come to this kind of public podium to discuss my feelings, and particular about the situation as sensitive as this. But there are a few points 1 would like to mention, because 1 believe this is a democracy. I really wonder how many miles I still have ahead of me in my road. And I would like to leave for the generations behind us a real full democracy, not simply written in paper, but the kind of democracy that you can feel that it exists in your heart. I know very well that we need a Police Department. And I think we should all be extremely proud -- and I am simply going to serve as an echo -- of the Chief that we have. But Chief, I'm sorry, and don't take it personal, please. But there are some things 1 have to bring up to the open air, to the public light at this time. Listen. Up to a few years ago, my faith in the Police Department, almost in anyone dressed in blue was absolute, 100 percent. Now, sir, it is not. It is not for several things which happened to me, that you have to understand at times, but it's a -- there is a limit to the amount of excuses ,you can employ for a human being not acting in the professional way, that having taken a position as difficult as you guys have taken, for which 1 admire you, but the problem is this: Either you can do it, or you cannot do it. Period. One of the elements I wanted to mention -- there are several, but still, one of them is that for sometime now -- and I don't know if you remember, Chief, our conversation last year, when you were so nice as to tell me to call you Raul. But if you don't mind, I will keep calling you Chief. I told you at that time that I had perceived a certain tendency in the Police Department, in some members of the Police Department -- incidentally, I know a lot of them personally, the most wonderful people you can imagine. But I have to say this. To call people, sir, as "papo," or "my mail, hey, man." Sir, whenever 1 address any person whom I do not know, and in particular, someone dressed in blue -- to the ones in blue, l call them, "officer, sir, ma'am." There is a way that we all should be treated. f think and I told you in that conversation -- I don't know if you remember -- that the Police Department needs to be a bit more militarized, that when they approach a citizen, they should not go there with the attitude of, "You know, 1 am the one in blue, and you are not, and 1. can treat you in this way." Not possibly being abusive, you know, by hitting or anything of the sort, but by treating people in a person that they are going to resent what they -- the kind of thing they will have against the police. We all need cacti other. We need you. Otherwise, we would live in a chaotic society. I won't like to live in a place like that. But by the same token, I am also going to expect from the police a certain amount of respect. Up to a few years ago, I think that if at 4 o'clock on a sunny day -- I hope 1 am not yelling too much here -- on a sunny day in the beach, a policeman would tell me, it's very dark, and looking at the sea, he would tell me that the hills there are lit because some of the tribes in the area have decided to open a bonfire, I would believe that immediately. I was hypnotized by the words of the police person. Sir, excuse me, but I'm going to be honest with you. If I go tomorrow morning as a jury member and they ask me, or rather 1 have to accept the version of a member of the Police Department in a certain situation, I am going to react in an extremely skeptical fashion. And i have to say that. And I was a victim uCa situation, which is what force me to talk like that. Another one, 1 don't know if you remember, 102 8/9/01 (Section 5) but let me say it publicly anyhow. I consider myself a hero for having acted like that. Do you remember, sir, when l told you about the case that I saw this lady being pulled into a door there, into a warehouse? And 1 began calling the police, and 1 called 911, and I began circling. And the police car finally approached me. I began blowing my horn. The first thing the officer told me -- excuse' -moi -- but 1 am not going to repeat the entire word-- "Hey, what are you blowing the D -A -M -N horn for?" I told him, "Listen, I was trying to get our attention, and it seems I finally did." He followed nle, We went into the warehouse or whatever the name of that kind of place could be, he and another officer. There were like four or five at that time. But I can say that we -- may I include myself in the group? -- we saved the lady. Sir, after that experience, I really wondered if i would ever see a lady in that kind of situation again, I would react possibly in the same way 1 did, because doesn't matter what that gentleman decided to talk to her like that was. Still, I would try to save a human life. But I am going to be honest with you. I atn not going to feel with the kind of openness in my heart that I felt on that day about 12 years ago. This cannot be considered anymore a black versus white issue. This is an issue of the ones, like I a n sure you -- if 1 may be allowed to talk on your behalf at this time -- like me, like the other members of the Police Department and like the citizenry gathered here today, who still believe in the principles of democracy applied on a practical basis, not simply to be written and to be repeated in a demagoguery fashion, no, no, no. To make them feel that we are part of the system, and that we all have from different angles the same level of power in the sitnitinn. 1 had a situation, which I'd rather not mention at this time. I took it to the Internal Affairs. .in Internal Affairs, sir, I was not treated in a respectful fashion at all. At all. "What was the question? "Listen, if 1 am taking too much of your time, if I elm making it too late, if you want to, i leave, and l will see you some other time. "Don't you see I am still here?" Response of mine. "I was trying to be courteous. I don't think you have to give me that kind of response now." As 1 said, we need each other. And I would like to have the blind faith, which I had in the Police Department restored. I think that all of you are wonderful guys who have chosen this vocation, not simply because it's a civil service career which offers a lot of job stability and gives you a retirement at an early age. 1 think you have chosen it because you wanted to serve the community. But 1 am going to tell you, serving the community is very difficult at times, and it may be interpreted in different ways by different people. I hope that we create here a panel that is not going to be any more divisive than the division that we already have in the community. I hope that next time I call someone for a situation like the one i described to you -- and has not been the only one -- the person will react in a different fashion. I hope that if a policeman is ever called to repeat with a sworn statement, as it happened on a case, which I personally know very intimately, to see if that police would repeat the same thing that she wrote in a police report. She. would show up there and it's going to be one out of two, under oath. Either she's lying or the defendant was lying, And not to assume just an attitude, which created that the case eventually become nolle prosequi, because I guess that the State Attorney found it so silly, they did not even wanted to prosecute. And I hope the next time they call me to the jury, I am going to accept your word as with the same blind faith that l used to do seven years ago. Thank you for your time, sir, and the rest of you. Vice Chairman Gort. OK. Thank you. Chief, I'll give ,you a chance to respond. Chief Martinez: No, not to him. Not to him. No, no, Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, (:ommissioners. Raul Martinez, Chief of Police. And I'll take a couple minutes, but I'll try to be brief. t want to say before I bring out the points that I'm not against an Oversight Board. I understand there's a 103 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • certain level of mistrust in this community, and we have to be -- work together to become more accountable to our community. But again, you pay me; they pay me as a professional, for me to give you professional advice. Afterwards, whatever you all vote, decide, i will work my darnedest to make it work, to make it be a viable plan. We can't sacrifice integrity of an investigation and lose criminal cases to make this work. 1 think that is a tradeoff that none of us are willing to make. It is very disconcerting when the gentleman from the State Attorney's Office, the top law enforcement officer in this County doesn't conk up here and say that, and has to be prodded by the City Attorney to say, "Well, my preference is after -the -fact investigations, or subpoena only after approval," you know, consultation and approval. He's got to get prodded to say that. Fin not going to tell you that. I'm not going to sugar coat something, because there may be a four to one vote in favor of this. I'm going to tell you the facts, you guys vote, and then I'm going to support whatever you vote. What this group is requesting -- and i want to make sure you hear this -- if a shooting, if a police shooting happens tonight and Homicide responds, State Attorney's Office responds, the Medical Examiner's Office responds, like they do to all police shootings, they also want to respond. They also want to take statements. They want to subpoena witnesses, police officer witnesses, shooting witnesses, the citizen across the street that saw this, and observed this, and so oil and so f'ortli. And this is a defense attorney's dream. Whenever you're taking more than one statement from a citizen that saw something, the police ask them, "Tell me, ma'am, what did you see'?" "The officer had the gun in the left hand." Now here comes the CTP, well -intended CIP, well -intended investigation, asks him the same question. The citizen is not a professional witness. Now it's just the right ]land versus the left ]land. Now, you have two conflicting statements, you know, against the-: case. You have just handed a case to the defense attorney. The only -- the one and only way -- and the gentleman from the State Attorney's Office, it should prevent this -- the only way -- it's not "it should" -- that you would prevent this are two ways. And it's the ways we're recommending. You either give them subpoena power after we finish the criminal investigation -- and I have no problem with subpoena power at that point -- or you give them subpoena power only after approval by the State Attorney's Office are the only two ways that it should become -- it will not impair criminal investigation. After, anything less than that, consultation or whatever, is watered clown language. I am sure they're going to be well intended. I'm sure there's going to he good people there. But what happens if they don't? Are we willing to pay the price as a community for a cop that should go to jail that gets immunity, gets oft, for something'? That, that shouldn't happen. Another point that i have: Our recommendation is that the CfP becomes involved after we finish our investigation, after the criminal investigation or our investigation. I am more than glad to hold off any sanctions or any clearing of the officer, send it to the CIP, let him investigate, re -investigate, subpoena witnesses, whatever it takes for them to ascertain, kick it back. You know, shame on its if we don't do a thorough investigation. The issue of the timing, the lady is right, some investigations take a long time;. But those that take a long time, typically, for the great majority are offices that got arrested. Well, that is our system. An officer got arrested, lie's going to go to trial, lie's o ng to gel found guilty or not guilty. We may like it, we may like the end result of the system, but it is the system that Nve, all of us have fought very hard to protect. So those that take a long time are those that went into the system and they are awaiting criminal prosecution. Those take a long time for me, too, because I have to pay a police officer, you know, while lie's sitting at home awaiting a criminal trial. And sometimes, those trials take a year, two years and three years. And we have to buy the police officer for a long time. So but 90 percent of those cases don't take two years, or three years or four years. They are completed, you know, pretty quickly. The issue of the makeup of the panel, to me, it doesn't matter who selects the panel members, as long as it's a fair and impartial board, I think, though -- most panels around the nation have this -- they should have a law enforcement professional sitting on the panel, not from the Miami Police )department, because there's an obvious conflict, but from whatever jurisdiction you all 104 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • select, that person's going to sit there, one of nine, one of 1 i, one of 13, so on and so forth, and give that board inside advice on how policing; happen, why it happens, when we do something wrong, and the officcr may be telling them a story that they don't catch it, no, that's not the way it is. 1 think it is important that they have that. The wording as you have right now doesn't allow that. Only civilians to do this. And only a couple seconds. What also concerns me is the possibility, the reality with non-specific language, whatever language, whether it's draft one, two, three, four, five, all the different drafts. Once you approve that language, when there is no explanation to that language, each group, two extremists groups, whomever they may be, well intended or not well intended, are going to sell it as a gift box, not looking at what's inside of the box. Some people .are going to sell it to, you know, let's corral killer cops, get rid of killer cops. Another extremist is going to sell it, such as, don't handcuff the police, call a hippie when there's a crime or so on and so forth. Both extremes are bad. Both extremes are negative. You also are putting this in the ballot at the same time there are a maior number of political elections. So it is, no matter what we say, going to be a political issue for each and every scat that is going to be in question. Let me say a couple of things before I close as to the number of Independent Review Panels that has been talked about. We have done a lot of research on a number of Independent Review Panels, and let me say this: There's four types of Independent Review Panels. The one that they're asking, which is simultaneous investigation, they can go out today, interview, subpoena witnesses, so on and so forth, as quickly as they want. Tv- is an after -the -fact; the department completes their investigation. They can subpoena, reinvestigate, and you know, either affirm or not affirm the department's investigation. That is the one that we're recommending. Three and four as such arc an appellate type of issue. Seventeen thousand police departments in the United States, there's about 90 to 100 that have Independent Review Pancl. There's only a )landfill that are the type one, type one being simultaneous investigation as, you know, as it happens. And let me go real quickly about the five that have it. Berkeley has it. But let me explain what Berkeley has. Berkeley has bout 190 sworn officers. The budget for the Independent Review .Panel is about two hundred and seventy-seven thousand dollars ($277,000). But they do not -- in those independent and simultaneous, they don't do an investigation if there's a possibility of criminal charges. So if there's criminal charges involved, and obviously, a police shooting, there's criminal charges Involved. Obviously, excessive force, there could be criminal charges involved. They don't get involved. 'They let the department do their investigation. Minneapolis: Close to our size. vine hundred and nineteen sworn police officers. The budget for the Independent Review Panel, five hundred and four thousand dollars ($504,000). Has no subpoena power and only to (Internal Affairs) investigates possible misconduct that could lead to criminal charges. They investigate all the other ones. Flint, Michigan: Thrce hundred thirty three sworn police officers, about five hundred thousand dollars ( $500,000) for their budget. And this is the way -- they have subpoena power. I don't know how long they've been in existence, but they have never used it. 'file way they question the police officer is -- and this sounds bad, but this is the way they do it -- they send a memo to the Chief of Police- "Ask Raul Martinez these questions." The Chief sends it to the officer, and the officer responds in a memo. "I shot because of this," or "This is what l did." And this is how they deal with the investigation. New York; New York as a Police Board. The. Police Commissioner appoints three officers on that board, you know, And they also do concurrent investigations. The only one in the nation that is very similar to what they're asking is San Francisco. San Francisco has about 2100 officers, about twice the size of the City of Miami Police Department. 'T'hcir budget for the Independent Review Panel is two point two million dollars (2.2 million). They do have subpoena power, and they do have simultaneous investigation. Let me say in closing a couple of other items. Mr. En Selina was here before. fie made a comment that I had approved a report, or a comment that during the Elian disturbance, the Police Department acted admirably during the issue. What Mr. En Selma (phonetic) says -- and I have clarified this to him, he chooses not to say so - 105 8/9/01 (Section 5) - is that this was as the panel of law enforcement officers from other agencies that were put together to do a finding report, and that's the report that they came up with. Whether I like the findings or not, when you pass the panel with the responsibility a;rd they conic back with their report, that is their report. It doesn't mean I agree with it. It doesn't mean I love it. This is the report. And that report was sent to the Commission. It was sent also to the Elian Ad Hoc Committee. Lastly, but not least, we are recommending -- we are not against subpoena power at the right time. The only way you're going to make sure that it does not interfere with a criminal investigation are two ways: Wait until completion of the criminal investigation and the administrative investigation, or "B" is get approval from the State Attorney's Office, not this wishy-washy language that doesn't mean a lot. You should -- it should not -- well, what 1 mean, it should not. Shamc on the State Attorney's Office that it's willing to take a chance, because thcv hear that there's four votes in favor of this, is not telling you the right thing. They should tell you the right thing, then you act whichever way you think- is the right thing for the City. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Ms. Baker: May i briefly -- Vice Chairman Gort: Ey r -se me. We've been listening to both sides. We gave ,you -- 1 think it was four hours. 1 think we've heard from both sides. We still have three more items that are going to take at least - - we're going to be here until 4 o'clock In the morning, at least. I can tell you right now. I think we've heard enough from everyone and we're ready to sit down and listen. OK? We'll now close the public hearings. Ms. Baker: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Come. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chainnan, thank you. First of all, let rile just make clear, and very crystal clear that I'm not in opposition to a Civilian Review Board. However, I do have some concerns, one, with the legality, the structure and the power. I think we've addressed some today. And I had some questions. 11Ihen both recommendations were made to this legislative body, one was presented by the Civilian Investigative Panel, and the other one was presented to us by the Chief of Police, which was prepared by the Blue Ribbon Committee. l was leaning more on the Blue Ribbon Committee for a lot of reasons. 1 knew that one of the issues was going to be how was the panel going to be selected. And you've heard concerns here that people think they're being left out, and it has to have representation of it diversified community, which I think there's absolutely a need for that, to have representation from the whole community. The other issue was, that alleviated that, was the way that the Blue Ribbon Committee established it. It said that add the three to five volunteer citizens. Well, I was going to make some amendments to this plan and add seven, to have more civilian participation in the process. One of the things that 1 like about this, and 1 made it very clear, I do not think that politics should play a part in this. I should not have the right to put anybody on this committee. It should be citizens. It should be respectable citizens in oto• community. And 1 will bet to that later on, where 1 have put some reconunendations that I wish will fall to good use. One of the concerns that 1 have was how was this panel was going to be put together. Well, one of the concepts was the appointments mechanism, similar to the one employed by the Public flealth Trust of Miami -Dade County, which I suggested would have been a good idea. If you look at -- One of the things that 1 am very puzzled with is that you don't have any representation from law 106 $/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • enforcement officers in this. And let me just tell you something. If there's one thing in this country that to be tried, trial by a jury of your own peers, it's a tradition here. If you're in the military -- and I think there's three Commissioners that were honored enough to serve in the armed forces of this great nation of ours -- if you're court-martialed, you're basically judged by your peers. If you're an attorney and you get in a situation, you're basically judged by your peers. If your^ a doctor, you're basically.judged by your peers. Well, why is that? There's a good reason. They have the experience and the perspective to help them evaluate performance. So that continues to be a concern that I have. You're going to have certain individuals that don't know anything about law enforcement, absolutely zero, and they're going to ask -- getting; some powers, and these are incredible powers that you're going to have to conduct investigations that as of now, i have not been aware if you have been able to work something out with the State Attorney's Office on that, because that continues to be a problem that I have. One is that you'll be interfering; with an ongoing investigation, and we're going to have one person get away that shouldn't have gotten away. But there are other things that really -- So far, there are too many questions that are unanswered that I sec, are not well defined, and l truly think there's some hidden dangers in the whole process as we move along at such a speed that we're traveling. But if you look at the recommendations that I would make to this panel, whether it passes through or not, I'm just stating my one fifth, my concerns as a Commissioner for (lie area, for the City. The panel members should go through -- First of all, they need to go throii(yh an application process. OK? There has to be an application process with qualifications. These individuals should complete a background check, also a polygraph test and a drub: test. We want to make sore that none of these individuals are appointed there that hold a criminal history, or have a -- or a grind to axe (sic) against the police. We want to make sure that we get these community leaders that have a community involvement history, they've been pant of the business in our community. Also, these are recommendations that 1 would like to make, and if I need to put them in the conditions when the appropriate time comes, l will. This is for you just to know. Must be a resident of the City of Miami, or have a business in the City of Miami. They must have a history of community involvement. Subpoena powers, I strongly feel that you have to have the approval by the State Attorney's Office or the U.S. Attorney's Office. You've got to have that. You cannot -- "caloot" or interfere with an ongoing investigation. Now, one of the things that I "urgely" ask you to consider is that any panelist should have a minimtun training recommendation from the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. These are individuals that have to go to certain trainings by NACOLE (National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement) to learn what the concept of law enforcement is all about. They have to have training in, you know, policies and Iaw, and they ride with the Police Department for, 1 think, 19 days throughout the year. They go out and they know what the Police Department does. 1 also have some recommendations to the Chief of Police. As a former police otficer, I can tell you this much, one recommendation. Remove SIS, Special Investigative Section, and the internal Affairs from the Police Department. Separate them from the roof they're under. Take them someplace else, because there's always that perception of possible cover-up. So it's just a recommendation I'm making. And, Chief, those two departments should be under your control. In other words, you're it. You shouldn't have a captain or major overseeing that, because you're always going to have that perception there. So separate them. Maybe take them out of the police station and put them someplace else where you separate those departments. Other thing is -- and let me just elaborate. 1 think for every action in our community, there is a reaction. And I think that, you know, we have to look at other cities throughout the United Slates that have implemented similar panels what the reaction has been. And that reaction has been a concept called de -policing;, because you have police officers going out to work, and they're saying, you know what? I got to be very careful I don't get a complaint, or I have to be very careful 1 don't got in trouble. So in a lot of cases, they're going to look the other way. And if you look at most of the cities, 107 8/.9/01 (Section S) other cities that have implemented this, such as Cincinnati, and I read from the August 8, 2001 U.S. Today. It reads: Cincinnati. After passive police work in Cincinnati, there was a decline in arrests and a corresponding increase in crime from April the 10h through the 22"d. Arrests fall by nearly half percent. In Prince George's County, where police are being investigated in connections with excessive use of fbree, there has been 61 homicides since January. That's just ten fewer than all last year, according to the Washington Post. Car jackings have doubled and robberies are up 37 percent. So there's a trend that once we go out and we really in such away put the fear of God in these cops, they're going to basically look the other way. And we don't want that. So my recommendation to you is if this goes on, Mr. Chief, it's a suggestion, it's just a suggestion to handpick a special anti -violence task force to track down some of our City's most wanted criminals. 1 think ,you've got to be prepared for what's coming, because we're going to make this decision whether it passes or not, and there's going to be a reaction, just like there's been in other cities throughout the United States. And we can never, never, never, ever, ever turn that into LIS against them, or turn this into Hispanic against blacks, because all we're going to be doing is dividing this community further. My suggestion -- I'm sure there's going to be more recommendations, and I'm prepared to make it right now -- is that we send this to a workshop to allow participation from -- we invite all community organizations to a meeting with the Chief of Police, State Attorney, and we sit down and we work at fine-tuning this. I think there are hidden dangers here if we rush through this and we put it to referendum. There's a lot of questions that are not answered, and there's a lot of concern. People are going to go, you know, how much is it going to cost? Who's going io be in the panel? What are the responsibilities? Who's going to select them? Who's going to supervise them? Because those questions need to be answered. If you leave any doubt, people will go to the polls and vote against it. 1 ask this legislative body to support me -- and I will make the motion -- to send this to a workshop, maybe have two workshops and come back, fine-tuned, with the support from as many individuals, organizations as possible, so there is never that doubt that there wasn't public input or organizational input into this. Everyone who's come up here has said the concept could work. We just have to be very careful how we craft it, so we don't jeopardize investigations and we have what we consider to be representation, a panel which should reflect the diverse leadership of our community, So if we do that, 1 think we [lave three major elements that we could get it done. But the one thing that's special here is that we're going to have to sit down with police and get their support oil this, and snake sure that it's done that way. Because if it's not done this way, it ain't going to fly. But then again, the beauty of democracy is I may not agree with you, but I will let the voters decide. i think I've done that in a lot of issues that have come here that: I am prepared, even though I don't agree with the concept, that I am prepared to let the voters decide on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort• Commissioner Regalado. Unidentified Speaker: Can I make a comment? Commissioner Regalado: I am ready to vote, and I think that we have to wake a decision, a decision today, and let the voters decide in November, and hope that this will not become an issue. But, you know, I just wanted to say that I'm also prepared to present sonic resolutions regarding the way that this committee should be formed by the community. And we shouldn't be the ones that suggest people. The 108 8/9/01 (Section 5) • 0 community should do it. We, as a .body, should approve it or select from the members of the committee. But, you know, if we were two years ago paying attention to the Community Relations Board that was sabotaged by the past administration, that was opposed and also sabotaged by the police union, that even today is being railroaded by your administration, because of finding, and not giving help to the board, we would have maybe avoided all these things, because the Community Relations Board are supposed to work, as the County and any other City, in order to avoid incidents like this. When all the riots in the City of Miami, it was the Community Relations Board of the County, the agency that came to the rescue, and walked the streets and helped the people. This Commission created a Community Relations Board, and because of political reasons, because of decisions were taken by the former Manager, and the Chief of Police, and the unions, it never worked. It couldn't meet for more than a year. Then it didn't have funds. Then when it had funds, the funds were not allocated. Then when the funds were allocated, thev cannot spend it. And this is why, you know, this is why people don't trust government and government agencies. And this is why we have to vote today to create a too] for the citizens to at least get the perception that they are represented in overseeing the work that the Police Department does. Whether this subpoena power should be after the fact, or before the fact, Mr. City Attorney, ,you've bot to tell its right away, right now, you know, your views, because 1 think that we should vote, and we cannot prolong this agony of the community. And by prolonging it, we will be more divisive., you know, letting the people in the black community, the Hispania rnmmunity debate whether or not they are represented. And we should decide soon the way that this panel should be appointed. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Rcgalado: So that is my point. I'm ready to vote. I don't have any problems in voting. But I just wanted to say that, like they say, the fact that a Community Relations Board that is a City entity was sabotaged, because that's the only word that I can use -- it probably gave cause to all these problems that we have now, Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if 1 may. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Johnny wants to speak, too. He's asked for the floor. Commissioner Sanchez.: Johnny can -- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to present a motion to, send this to two workshops, to fine-tune it, have more participation from local organizations to sit down with the State Attorney's Office and cone back with recommendations, I mean, there's no hurry. We could pttt it out in March as a referendum. And that is my recommendation. It's my motion to send it to two workshops and conic back so we can put it ori the March election. So move. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Well, only because I've been the recipient of a non -second several times in the past, and I think that debate is better than no debate, you know, for that purpose only, 1 will second it. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Discussion. Commissioner Winton: l would like to say -- and I don't, by the way, Commissioner Sanchez, I don't -- hate to say this, but I'm not going to vote for that motion, but I didn't want the motion to die for lack of an 109 8/9/41 (Section 5) opportunity to have dialogue about it. But I do want to say something, and it's in reference to the number of references people have made to the Cincinnati Police Force. 1 don't pretend to know all of our police officers in the City, but I know a decent percentage of the police officers. And I think that I've been lucky, kind of, like with City staff, because like with City staff, the ones I know are really the good ones, the outstanding ones that work their rear ends off to make everything better for our City. And I frankly think that the ones that are lousy don't get anywhere near me. I don't think they want to get close to me, because I don't know them. And i know they're here, because I've heard about them. I know who some of them arc. And they don't conic shake my hand. They don't conic looking for me. But there's really a lot of good ones. And 1 think that every time people have referenced Cincinnati, they frankly have insulted the majority of our police force, because I don't for a minute thick that our police force is going to pull a Cincinnati trick, at all. I don't, can't imagine it. I could imagine our police force, however, developing sonic potentially different tactics. if we do a lousy job of creating this panel, I think this, in my view -- and I've thought a lot about this. And I've talked to the Chief, and 1 know lie would rather us do things differently. And I'm quite sure that all the police would rather us do something differently here. But I think properly empowered and properly chosen, this panel could be a great asset to our City. However, improperly done, this panel could become nothing more than a witch-hunt that is equally as bad as the bad cops. And if this panel, once empowered, becomes a vehicle for witch hunting, then my prediction is that what will happen is that the public will get the sense of that very quickly, The Commission will certainly get the sense of it very quickly, because we're going to hear about every single problem, and this Commission will be voting again in a year or two years, if it gets off on the wrong foot, to un -empower this panel. And the public, if it votes to support at this time, there will be another referendum that we'll vote to get rid of the panel. I'm always forever the optimist, thinking that if we take the right steps, we can turn these right steps into something good for our community. And I think if we provide the appropriate leadership -- and Commissioner Sanchez, you've raised some excellent points in terms of who the players should be on this panel. And it isn't going to be a panel that's chosen by just a small group of these folks who have been working hard to make it happen. That ain't gonna happen. Commissioner Sanchez: But Johnny, i1' you could yield for just a minute. I think that all the recommendations that I have made here is to make sure that it works. We have to make sure that it's done right. So you've heard frorn. many organizations that said that they were not a part of it. They were not a part of it. So you know what's going to happen? Right there, you're going to start dividing the community. What's wrong with having a workshop, doing it right, inviting each and every organization throughout the City of Miami to public meetings to sit down? They all agree on the concept. They just want to make sure that it's done right. And if -- right now, there arc too many questions that are unanswered. It is not solidly, well defined. So if, if through these public meetings, we could come up with fine-tuning it, it'll have community support, and then when it goes out for referendum, it will pass. Commissioner Winton; I will tell you, Commissioner Sanchez, that if the original group that's worked so hard on this would do that, it would be the smart thing to do. We've done it over and over again, particularly in Planning and Zoning kind of issues. We do this all the time. Send it back to the -- you know, go back to the whole community, get the community involved, and it always ends up with a better answer. 1 am not sure they want to do that. What we're dealing with tonight is simply the ballot language. If this group has made a strategic error here, the electorate isn't going to support it. So I'm trusting; that they think they've clone the right thing here. And if they're willing to take the gamble that they've done the right thing, and it gets on the ballot in November, and it gets turned down, you know, then they're going to have to regroup. So I think that they could craft -- and not necessarily better 110 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • language than this, but certainly have garnered much wider community support had those kind of steps been taken. But they weren't. And frankly, I'm not sure that I'm going to be the one that tells theca they absolutely have to do that. But I am -- I've read this language carefully. I think 1 understand this language. And all of the power, in terms of what this group looks like rests with us as the next step after getting the electorate to decide wheth.;r or not they even want this panel. If they decide they want the panel, then it's completely, 100 percent our responsibility to figure out how that panel is structured. So that's all 1 Nvanted to say. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez, let me tell you, I agree with what you're saying. 1 believe there's a lot of questions that need to be answered, a lot of criterias and guidelines that we have to set on this. But at the same time, 1 don't think the workshop is going to do it. I think personally, I would not vote 1'or the motion, for the reason being is ••- and I have told them when 1 sat down with thein. And I've been going around this City and talking to the different communities. If you don't have the right issue, it's not going to pass. It's not going to pass. So I want ,you to he aware of that. You don't have the issues and you don't have the right input for the whole community, it's not going; to pass, because that's not what I'm hearing from the rest of the community. So I just want you to know I don't think the workshop is going to do it. l think they have to do -- I'll have some amendments that I would want to make on the language that exists here, but at the -.une time, I'd like to go ahead and get it over with, make a decision and let the Public decide. Anyone else? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Teele: On the motion. A] Cotera (President, Fratcinal Order of Police): Linder discussion, Mr. Chair? Vice Chairman Gort: Al, I know you didn't have a chance to speak on this, the motion we're discussing right now. After this motion, I'll let you speak, because 1 know you didn't have a chance to do it before. Mr. Cotera: You may want to consider what I have to say before you take a vote. Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead then. Mr. Cotcra: The FOP considers the establishment and the granting of this type of powers and (lie responsibilities of a Civilian Investigative Panel, as you're referring to -- Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorrv. You are? Mr. Cotera: Ornel N. Cotera, or Al Cotera, President, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami, 710 Southwest 12`x' Avenue. The creation, and the eimpowernent and the responsibilities being given to this panel is a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employment for people within my bargaining unit. The manner in which police officers are investigated, the manner in which statements are taken from theca are l I 1 8/9/01 (Section 5) well noted in bargaining unit contracts for over 20 years. You have the Police Officers Bill of Rights, which is a State Statute. You have (inaudible) benefits, past practices and a number of other issues that, unless we can straighten out before the creation of this panel, I assure you, people will be afraid of it. We will do --'take legal measures, if needed. Hopefully, we won't have to go that route. But I don't foresee that as not being an available way to go. The City, you know, can disagree with our position, but, you know, what will the powers of the Civilian Investigative Panel be? If a unit member is subpoenaed, a bargaining unit member, may the unit member invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, or must the unit member answer questions? If the unit member is required to answer questions, is the member [icing given immunity? Will the unit member whose actions are under investigation have the right to be represented by an attorney? Will the unit member under investigation have the right, to confront witnesses against him or her, during the course or prior to being asked questions? At what stage during the course of the investigation will the unit member have the right to confront witnesses? At the beginning or at the end? What rules will govern the unit member's confrontation with witnesses? Will the City provide for the attorney of the person being investigated by this panel? And if so, who will pay for the attorney? Will the unit member be required to attend the rrtcctings of the Civilian Investigative Panel via subpoena? How much will the unit member be paid for his attendance if he's off deity? Will the Police Department have access to the statements of the unit member? And if so, does that prohibit Internal Affairs from then requesting statements av liii? Will any other agency have access to those statements? It's my understanding that everything would be public record, anyway. Under what circumstances and in what manner will unit members be required to give testimony or statements to the panel, versus to the Civil Service Board, as an example, which is already a City panel, internal Affairs, or other investigators, or the State Attorney's Office, or the Federal Attorney's Office? These are just but a few. And we'll make this attire list part of the record. 'These are but a few of the questions that I think need to be answered before we go off and -- you know, it's like l mentioned on the other day at a meeting, is, you know, are we buying a house without even knowing what it looks like inside? Do you buy the house and put a price on it, and then say, well, let's see, I bought a house. Where's the kitchen? How many bedrooms does it have? How many bathrooms does it have? By just patting something on the ballot, you're buying a house, and you don't even know what it looks like on the inside. Again, this is a Pandora's box that you're going to open up. And all it's going to do -- and I agree with you totally, and wholeheartedly, Commissioner Winton. Our police officers will go out there and do the best work that they can, every day of this week. Some will make mistakes, but they are human, just like everyone else. I do not foresee a Cincinnati. We arc really -- and I have not opposed oversight for the sake of oversight. We got so many people looking at us now, whist's one more'? i mean, every call you go to, somebody now has a video camera, anyway. 1 mean, that's a reality, folks. You know, we got the Beds, the State Attorney, Internal Affairs, who, by the way, in all the studies that the Police Department has done and the police union has done, independently, by the way, shows that Internal Affairs has a higher substantiation rate against police officers on force abuses, on complaint abuses than any other civilian review, Because when you have non -policemen trying; to figure out what the policemen did -- it's hard enough for the policemen to figure out what the policemen did sometimes, folks. You know, you are just going to create more conflict in this City between the ethnic groups, because some automatically -- and even from today's meeting; -- have already said, "We were not involved in the process. We were not invited," or we were iuvitcd an hour before the meeting took place." You're already going to have that. And I guarantee you by tomo row, you're going to have it on all kinds of different radio stations. I think that Commissioner Teele ,just linisfied doing another draft. It's about the seventh one that's been done since I got here this morning, and probably lour others from before. If you're going to do this, do it right. Take your time. Get all the groups together. Because, like I said, our policemen are going; to go out there and do their job. There is 112 8/9/01 (Section 5) • • ai.b the legal issues that we think that it is a change in the terns and conditions of employment. And I'm suie that there is a, you know, another arena to discuss that. We think that the resolution that the Commission passed on -- 1 think it was July the 16"' -- was deficient, or was not followed to the way it w `s supposed to have been followed. That's my understanding of it. There's violation of City Code 2- 8A4, and what we consider a violation of City Code 2-888. I have sent all of you this letter, and I have fa�cd it to you, to your office. 1 will make both of these part of the public record and turn them over to the City Clerk. Thank you. Vide Chairman Gort: OK, Al. Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? Commissioner `I'eele: Mr. Chainnan. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: On the motion, the intent of the motion is something 1 support. The intent is that there needs to be more consultation. And I don't think anyone can argue about that. I think the fact that we had a very distinguished member of the community to testify eloquently two weeks ago in support of it, the panel, and to coma h, tck today and appear to testify in opposition, i think, you know, any time Mr. Soto is here on a matter of diversity, we should pause and listen carefully. And he's a member, a distinguished member of the Bar, a Cuban leader. And lie's an understated person. But the truth of the matter is there are very few elected judges in this town that are African-American that he did not endorse and support, because one of the things that it takes is it takes at least two communities to support anyone running for office. And judges, who are generally without any money to get their message out, they don't have advertisement, and they rely very heavily on word of mouth. And I think, I think the community needs to take these words of caution carefully. However, I think the workshop is at the wrong end of this process. We've come today, after some 20 years of discussion and debate. t have said publicly, as I will say again today, as a County Commissioner, I stood on the other side of the fence with PULSE. They never forgave mc. They still haven't forgiven me. But the fact of the matter is every case that they cited to me as a County Commissioner involved an action in the City of Miami. And what I told PULSE then in 1990,.and '91, and '92 -- and I know that if John Rivera were here, he would stand up and say that's con-ect -- is that the problem that they were confronted with in the early `90s were largely City of Miami problems, and virtually ever case that was cited was a City of Miami case. Of course, the argument there was the County should do it Countywide, and force all of the cities. And 1. did not agree with that, just like I don't agree with that now. The City of Miami has a problem. And we need to acknowledge that. I don't take any comfort; 1 take no delight, no pleasure in acknowledging that the City has a problem. But this is not a problem of this month or last month. This is a problem that has been festering for well over 20 years. And to ask this group of citizens now to literally defer this -- because let's be very candid. Deferring this item today in effect means that we won't be taking it tip on a ballot in November. Now, that's the practical effect of what is being asked. And so need to make sure that the record is complete with this. l have no objections to public hearings, as Commissioner Sanchez is proposing. 1 will support that, as long as we're having public hearings on what action we take today. In other words, if Commissioner Sanchez, and others and myself, certainly are willing to go out, starting tomorrow, and begin a process for public hearings right up through November, 1 think that would be very helpful. But the public hearing ought to be on the language that we are approving for the ballot; not on "Do we need to do this or not?" because this issue has already been joined. Now, one of the reasons to have a public hearing is to hear from the public. And 1'd like to say candidly, and I say it to the management that we'ro 113 8/9/01 (Section 5) not potted plants here. We're not here as machines listening. A part of what we're doing -- and the FOP is correct -- is we have been having sonic dialogue, based upon the testimony. Now, Mr. Attorney, you and I have discussed this all through this hearing today. For five hours, we've been at this. And I think there are a number of changes that have been brought about by the testimony. Some of the changes, the community is not enthusiastic about. Some of the changes, 1 think they sort of stand mute on. And sonic of the changes, maybe they adopt. So if 1 could, for the purpose of ensuring that the record is correct, the word "adequate funding" has certain connotations, based upon case law from the Fire Board; is that cor•r•ect? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. I'm concerned with regard to an obligation to fund, and a delegation of your authority as a Commission to approve an annual basis the budgets of the C1P, as you approve the budgets of each and every department of the City. Commissioner Teele: So your advice to me has been that the word, "adequate funding," which has been in at leas( four drafts that 1 -- and 1 support the concept of adequate funding. As a matter of law, it's something, that you feel the Commission �vould be better off without that language. Mr. Vilarello: Correct. The drafts, the draft that 1 -- the last draft that I reviewed talks about staffed with professional personnel, including an independent counsel and operate on an annual approved budget that adequately fiends the CIP staff and operations. And 1 would drop everything after "annual approved budget." So I'd strike the words, "that adequately fund the CITE staff and operations." Commissioner Teele: And basically, what we're saying to the public is if this languagc is accepted by a unajority of the Commission, the Attornev's recommendation, then what we're saving is, look, if we create this, you've got to trust that the Commission is going to fund a budget. We cannot delegate -- and this is what the Fire Board is saying, case is saying. i may be out of order, because the motion on the floor -- Commissioner Sanchez: 'There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Teele: -- is a motion to -- Commissioner Sanchez: Send it to a workshop, two workshops. Commissioner• `l'eele: -- to literally defer this and send it to a workshop. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Call the question. Commissioner Rcgalado: Let's vote. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Commissioner Regalado: Let's vote on it. Call the roll. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Sanchez. 114 8/9/01 (Section S) • Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: No, Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: No. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: No, sir. Mr. Focman: Vice Chairman Gort. Vice Chainnan Gort: No t think the workshop; we can have it. Commissioner Sanchez: I usually end up being the only one. • Commissioner Tecle: Mr. Chairman, I would like to advance a compromised language that has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. It's been reviewed by the State's Attorney's Office, and it -- Vice Chainnan Gort: If 1 may. A lot of the points that have been brought up by Commissioner Sanchez, a lot of the legal points that have been brought up by the contract with clic FOP, they are questions that need to be answered. And I'm going to repeat it one more time. If we don't do the right thing, if we don't have the workshop and we don't come up with the right answers, it's not going to pass. I just want to make sure everybody knows that. Commissioner Sanchez: When is it going to be answered? Commissioner Teele: Well, most of the questions that you've raised; only (lie Commission can answer in the ordinance. But that's part of why I want to get to this language, because there's one thing that I think the City Attorney may have not addressed adequately in dealing with this, and that is this: The Charter says somewhere that there is one legal advisor to the City of Miami. And where is that, Mr. Attorney? And is that you? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. It's mentioned in several places in the City Charter. And the City Attorney is the legal advisor for the City of Miami. Commissioner Teele: And is your intent to be the advisor for the Independent Review Council? Mr. Vilarello: It appears to me that in a significant number of the issues that would come before the CIP, there would be a conflict in my representation. 115 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 1 0 Commissioner Teele: OK. So one of the issues that is very, very clear to me, after hearing the discussion and the debate, aitd referring back actually to when Mayor Suarez wanted to have his own lawyer, was when this thing first got flushed out in my mind, and that is, he couldn't do that. The only person that can hire a lawyer under our Charter, under our Constitution is (lie City Attorney. And so I felt that it is important to recognize a lawyer other than the City Attorney for this purpose. But more importantly, and to the point that. Commissioner Sanchez, the point that the State's Attorney's Office has raised repeatedly, and quite frankly, the point that a number of thoughtful citizens have, and that is there is no history here. There is no infrastructure here. Everybody is nervous. It's not that we don't, quote, "trust the paneI," but there must be an infrastructure that is a part of this. And so I know there's been debate about why five years, or seven years, or whatever, but the language that I'm proposing would be that the council would be advised, the CIP would be advised by an independent counsel that is a competent member of the Florida Bar, with at least seven years before the Florida Bar, and is generally knowledgeable in municipal law. Such counsel shall be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the CIP. Now, that ensures that a member of the Bar, who, hopefully, will be a responsible, competent member of the Bar, will be there to provide the direct consultation with the State's Attorney's Office, with the City Attorney's Office, with the Legal Department, and that person will be working only for the Board of Directors. So you don't have to worry about that. The words, "serves at the pleasure" means any time a majority say good-bye, it's good-bye. The other provision that %ire're writing in that actually, some have objected to, but I feel very strongly about. No subpoena can be issued without the advice of that lawyer. OK? No subpoena may be issued without the advice of the independent counsel, which means while the CiP will select and hire the lawyer, and that lawyer will serve at the pleasure of the CLP, that lawyer, being a sworn member of the Bar, will be bound by the rules of law and the decisions of the court, as an officer of the court, and the board will be powerless to issue a subpoena without his or her approval, And I think that's very, very important Commissioner Winton: It says that in here? Commissioner Teele: Yes. Does it not say that, Mr. Attorney? Commissioner Winton: I'm -- Mr, Vilarello: Yes. it says -- Commissioner Winton: What line. Commissioner Teele: Let me read the language. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, please. Commissioner Teele: That the -- Mr. Vilarello: It's after Paragraph D. Commissioner Teele: That the CIP will be -- under `B" -- advised by an independent counsel that is a competent member of the Florida Bar, with at ]cast seven years before the Florida Bar, and is generally knowledgeable. in municipal law. Such counsel shall be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the CIP. It further states under "D" that the authorization with subpoena powers that may only be used with the 116 8/9/01 (Section 5) • approval of the independent counsel and in consultation with the State's Attorney's Office. And then we adopt the language that Kathy Rundle, our Slate's Attorney is insisting be included, and I think that language has been captured. And so what we have is literally, two circuit breakers here. First, there's a consultation with the State's Attorney's Office. And secondly, there is an approval of a member of the Bar who has had at least seven years of experience. So wren you start talking about all of these other things, which, quite candidly, Commissioner Sanchez, you're going to he surprised, I'm going to agree to most of the things related to -- Commissioner Sanchez: My recommendations? Cornmissioner Tecle: -- your recommendations about composition. The fact that someone may have been convicted should not be a bar to serving on this, the fact that someone may have an arrest record should not be a bar. But I will tell you this: Anybody who's a drug abuser or those thinks that are consistent with everything -- We cannot hire an employee of the City, not even on my staff as a temporary person, no person that can work and receive a check from the City may be a drug abuser-. OK? So those kinds of administrative things, if you write them into there, into the ordinance, I'm going to be very, very interested in trying to be supportive. But the fact that someone has a background check and the fact that they were arrested ten times, I want t- be very clear, that should not bar them. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I'm an adverse -- anyone who is a convicted felon should not have the right to sit on that panel. Commissioner Teele: Well -- Commissioner Sanchez: And 1 will disagree with you on that both day and night. Cornmissioner Teelo; OK. Well, we ain't on that one tonight. But tvc can all stake out our positions. But 1 %want to be supportive, generally, of the fact that everybody's record should be disclosed, and should be a matter -- because you're serving ori a public board, This is not a private board now. This is a public board. But the fact of the matter is, is that what we've tried to do is what the ACLU, in particular-, and Ms. McElroy have talked about, which is "E," which we really didn't get to. Personally, l think 90 percent of the time ought to be working with the Police Department and trying to establish policies. The fact of the matter is this: This Police Department has operated outside of any civilian oversight. Recruitment, training -- You know, we talk about the Marlins Stadium. Can I tell you the most important capital need in this City, which has never been discussed? The most important capital facility in this City is a first class police training range, where you go into a situation of shoot or no shoot, where it's not just going there like it used to be with the old M-1 rifle and shooting down at a bull's eye, where you have real life situations. We don't train our people properly. We don't even have that kind of facility available. And the City has a very difficult time getting access to those facilities, is that a fair statement, Chief Martinez? I mean -- Chief Martinez: Commissioner, wC use the County range. We do have something called the FATS, the Firearms 'Training Simulator that puts all officers through shoot/don't shoot, whether you bit him, how quickly you reacted, whether the person shot back at you, whether you took cover. We do have a state-of- the-art FATS, which stands for Firearms Training Simulator. We don't have a shooting range. We don't 117 8/9/01 (Section S) have an adequate training center. 1 do agree with you on that. And we're trying to, in conjunction with the charter school, to build it right next to our current building. Con-imissioner Teele: What's the cost of a first class facility like that? Chief Martinez: Our guesstimation, Commissioner, off the top of my head, it's -- not counting land acquisitions -- like seven, eight million dollars ($8,000,000). But that's just off the top of my head. Commissioner Teele: Seven or eight million. And so one of (lie things that -- I'm hopeful that the CI.P will become engaged less in these investigations of police officers. That's all we're talking about, is investigatioii of police officers. The C1P should wind up being a strong advocate for the kind of recruitment and training, the thing that we all sat around in the room, Chief, with you, and we all agreed that was a problem going back to the `80s of recruitment, and the fast hiring, and all of that. And once you get people recruited, we've got to invest in training. And respectfully, any time you're using .facilities -- I've had too many police officers to come to me and tell me how their training was cancelled, because the County had another priority and those kind of things. And 1 don'tknow if a full and correct picture is being presented, based upon what you just said, but I'm going to put it on the table. You all do not have adequate access to enuipni,Pnt to train people. And if I'm wrong, then you need to say, "Commissioner, you're wrong." Chief ;Martinez: You're not wrong, Commissioner. I told ,you before, you know, as far as the shooting range -- Commissioner Teele: And it's about seven to eight million dollars ($8,000,000). And we're talking about a five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) baseball stadium, and vet, we've got -- the biggest problem in this town is police. Arid the problem is not (lie police, themselves. it is our policies of how we recruit and how we train. And we all agree, 99 percent of the police officers are good. And training will help to flush sonic of this out. So i don't see the CIP the way, unfortunately, the way the vast majority of my constituents see it, as an investigative agency investigating incidents. I think this board is going to wind up being much more of a proactive board, fighting for dollars and resources for the Police Department. Because you know what? You hear -- the only thing you're going to hear a light about -- Have you ever heaI'd, with all due respect to Al, who is a great person and 1 respect hire, but do you hear Al coming down and talking about these issues? They want better working conditions, more money, more cars, police cars, more benefits. There's nobody fighting for the real issues that you all are finding out are the problems that have created the deaths, in niy opinion. This is just my opinion as a Commissioner. And so the anion has to be a part of this. It is a mistake to say that the union cannot be a part of this. And the question that 1 am wrestling with is this word, 'exclusive civilian," because that, to me, is the most, the most dangerous, legally and practically. You need to hear from professional police officers. You don't need to have a bunch of people who read a lot of nooks and saw a lot of movies about what police do. And I'm just hopeful here that we can figure out some way to define "civilians" as being clear that that does not -- is a retired police officer a civilian, in you all's mind., Ms. McElroy, or whomever you'd like to answer the question? Is a retired police officer a civilian, in your mind? Ms. McElroy: That's quite debatable, 118 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 Ms. Baker: It's a detail that we haven't come to a consensus on. It is a detail that would be and should be addressed in the ordinance. Commissioner Tcele: OK. And, well, I just want to be on the record. I think I can see why a current police officer of the City of Miami would represent a conflict, but I could see no reason why a retired police officer from the City or anywhere else -- and to be very honest with you, I had hoped that we could have the word, "exclusively" to something like -- reduced to some numerical number. But I don't want to get into that issue and that detail, as you want to call it. ]'he City Attorney is now out conferring with sonic of his lawyers, wants to raise some more germane concerns. But I think, in my mind, the key to this whole thing in having a check and balance is, one, independence, and independence based upon the Citizens Review Board membership. And secondarily, having an attorney who is competent and a member of the bar, who can serve to alleviate and to allay a lot of the concerns that have been expressed. And so, Mr. Attorney, I want you to he able to put some of your concerns on the record. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioners, I have four concerns with regard to the draft that's before you. One of the concerns is the last issue that Commissioner Teele raised, which is the issue exclusively of a number of civilian members. It appears that in every investigatory body that I'm aware of, you always have at least some representation of il, individual who has the professional knowledge of the particular area they're investigating, including doctors and lawyers. You might want to say that it's only one of a greater nl1111ber, So at least that you have the ability of an individual to Iet the board know, the review panel know the professional issues that are addressed by whoever it is that they're regulating, be it a lawyer, doctor, a police officer. Second issue is the last item that's contained within this draft, which relates to provide protection under the Florida "Whistle Blower" laws. My suggestion to you is that you remove that language, and I think it is appropriate language for you to have in the ordinance. The reason I'm suggesting you remove it from the Charter provision and only deal with it in the ordinance is the "Whistle Blower", if this board is allowed to receive complaints in the nature of "Whistle Blower" complaints, we haven't taken care of what they do with those complaints once they receive there. There's an obligation that arises from an individual that receives the nature of those complaints. This is good language. It just shouldn't be in your City Charter. And it should -- Commissioner Teele: Your advice is to put this in the ordinance if a majority supports that language. Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Tecle: Then I won't -- I'm going to -- That bothered me. 1 mean, that's been my concern. And with due deference to the ACLU, who has offered this, I hope you will accept my word that we will work to get this language in the ordinance. 'chat is the "Whistle Blower" language. That's Number 4. Mr. Vilarello; I have two more issues, Commissioner. The issue with regard to immunity -- and this is just an observation, and it's something that I just need to bring to your attention and advise you. Rest assured, even if the subpoenas were issued under the direct supervision and with the consent and advice of the State Attorney, there are going to be circumstances where immunity is going to be inadvertently granted to someone. We have a recent case arising out of the City in 1990, where we had an Assistant State Attorney present during a questioning, where the officer indicated on at least two occasions that he was concerned that his rights were -- that 11e was being compelled to make a statement. On four or five occasions, the Assistant State Attorney said, "You're not here under any obligation or compulsion." 119 8/9/01 (Section S) Ultimately, the Federal Court concluded that that officer had been granted immunity as a result of the line of inquiry. So I'm not sure that there's anything you can do about it other than to. set up a series of safeguards, other than to know, and I just want to advise you that there's a risk associated with it any time you grant someone the right to issue a subpoena. And finally, my last point relates to the independent counsel. 1 believe that it is a dangerous precedent for you to set an independent counsel that is non- responsive to anyone other than the Civilian Investigation Panel. There are adequate safeguards in the event that you provide, for example, that that independent counsel is retained and/or terminated by the City Attorney, whoever that City Attorney may be. We have by analogy the Civil Service Board. The Civil Service Board is a Board where, in fact, my office prosecutes disciplines against police officers and every other employee, every other City employee. In that case, of course, we can't also advise the Civil Service Board, so we retain counsel for the Civil Service Board. And certainly, we do not always agree with advice given by the counsel for the Civil Service Board. But in each instance, the advice is given, which is a reasonable and appropriate advice. Now, if that lawyer starts making critical and crucial mistakes in the law that leads to the granting of immunity, or leads to continuing interference with criminal investigations, l think that you should have someone who is able to act in the removal of that particular lawyer, other than the Civilian Investigatory Panel. So my recommendation would be that, certainly, that you retain independent counsel for the panel, but that that independent counsel be subject to approval of the City Attornn.y and removal by the City Attorney. Unidentified Speaker: Can we respond? Mr. Vilarello: My statements were to the City Commission. Vice Chairman Gort: We're discussing annong ourselves right now. Commissioner Teele: 1 have no objection to language that says that they shall hire and fire hint or her, subject to the City Attorney's veto. But I have it problem with you hiring them, because that, to me, means the person works for you. I mean, if you want a veto over a person and the ability to -- Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Teele: But 1 think the whole issue of independence is vested in their ability to select the lawyer that they want. If they select the lawyer that they want, you -- 1 don't have, a problem with a check and balance of you having the right to veto it. That's no different from the President of the United States naming an Attoniey General, and the Senate saying, "No, we don't want him." Ms. Baker: Well, there is the conflictissue, though. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, ma'am. Commissioner Teeic: Say again? Mr. Vilarello; Who selects independent counsel. Commissioner Teele: Who selects independent counsel, exactly. So -- 120 8/9/01 (Section S) • 0 Mr. Vilarello: And I would agree, and I'm not trying to personalize it. I'm saying the City -- the checks and balances for the abuse of discretion by the City Attorney then falls back to you. If the City Attorney inappropriately removes independent counsel, then the City Commission is empowered to act with regard to the City Attorney. So I think there's appropriate checks and balances along the line, and I believe that that would be the more prudent way to proceed. Comrnissioner Tecle: 1 don't have an objection. I'm sure that there's going to be an objection from the -- perhaps. i'll let you speak -- Vice Chairman Gort: Let the tell you, the key to this is the selection of the panel. Who are going to be the members of the panel? And we have to make sure they're people who are responsible, people %with integrity, and a representation of this community. And we are going to make that decision. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Baker: Just briefly. Vice Chainnan Gort: Commissioner asked you a question. Yes. Ms. Baker: ]'hank you, Gtr. I appreciate it. Just very briefly, our only concern about giving the City Attorney a veto power over the independent counsel is that, that may, in fact, nm head on into the conflict that the City Attorney has actually acknowledged his office would have with respect to the independent counsel. An(] I think that the check and balance has to come elsewhere, if there is to be one. I think that the check and balance is in the composition of the OP, that this Commission will be able to -- excuse me - - you know, nominate -- actually, not nominate -- but select, and approve and appoint the CIP. Maybe we'll -- there will be built into the ordinance some procedure if a CIP panel member is acting contrary to the rules of law. That may be a check and balance. I just -- I respect the concept of check and balance, but to have the City Attorney have ultimate veto power over the hiring of the independent counsel, I think Undermines the independence. Commissioner Teele: All right. Let me tell you, you got one or two choices. Either the City Attorney or the State's Attontcy, Ms. Baker: Over the hiring of the independent counsel? Commissioner Teele: There's got to be, there has got to be a check and balance hese. Chief Martinez: We'll take him. Commissioner Teele: The City Attorney or State's Attorney. Vicc Chairman Gori: State Attorney. Mr, Vilarello: That's fine. 1 agree with that. Commissioner Regalado: If I were ,you, I'd go for the City Attorney because -- no, no. The City Attorney is supervised by the City Commission. However, the State Attorney, you know, they're independent. 121 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Teele: There's nobody. Commissioner Regalado: And there's nobody who can -- Nis. Baker: Well, we've been well advised, and we're goinS to take that advice. Just shows you we're reasonable people. A couple of -- so we'll accept that. Vice Chainnan Gort: One thing that I stated from the beginning -- and unfortunately, this thing has been turned around. And we all agreed when we first met about a month, two months ago, this cannot be looked at as anti -police, because I think there are police officers who are going beyond the call of duty in the work that they do in our parks, what they're doing with the kids, and those extra hours they spend in working with our conmiunity and working with the crime prevention that they have performed. And I've stated from the beginning, if this looks like an anti -police move, I'm telling you, it's not going to pass. At the same time, I'm telling you, I don't know what's going to happen whenever a motion is made, but if we want this to pass, we have to make sure that the ordinance is created before the election, and people arc well aware of the criteria. and the guidelines that are going to be utilized. If not, it's not going to pass. And I keep saying that. Commissioner Winton: Now, aren't there two, still two unresolved issues tied to your recommendations? is that not right? You recommended that the "Whistle Blower" -- Commissioner Teele: We're going to follow the City Attorney's advice. Commissioner Sanchez: It's being put on the ordinance. Commissioner Teele: He had said put it in the ordinance, as opposed to (lie Charter. Commissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Teele: I'm committed to putting it in the ordinance, if a majority will support it. And so it's there. I mean, it's not a question. Commissioner Winton: How about the issue on -- Ile brought up the issue. You spoke to the Issue. 1 spoke to Ms. McFlroy about the issue. And that is a professional police person from somewhere, And I wasn't in favor of City of Miami policemen at all. But 1 think the City Attorney said there should be someone who is from policing somewhere serving on this panel. Now, I don't know what we've: done Nvith that. Commissioner Teele: Well, we've not -- we've not done anything. 'There is a sense, I think, that maybe a non-voting member could serve, That was one of the early discussions, because i've raised this issue with them three or four times. And I raised it based on a fundamental issue of equal protection. I just don't like the idea of ever saying somebody can't serve because of who they are, or what they are, because once you start extending that argument, you're back into -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse mc. 122 S/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Teele: You're back into history. Unidentified Speaker: Can I get -- Commissioner Regalado: Coin missioner, maybe the Chief can. Is a former police officer considered a civilian'' Unidentified Speaker: Sure, Commissioner Regalado: Tlien what's the problem? Commissioner Winton: Well, because that -- because lie's a civilian. And 1 think what the City Attorney lvas suggesting -- and that's what I said. I was troubled by the fact that there wasn't someone from a police organization -- whether it's the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), or U.S. Attorney's Office, or, you know, a federal policing agency. I mean, sotneonc like that, not a City of Mianti police officer at all, no one tied to the City of Miami. I'm not sure that we even wanted someone from Metro - Dade, but someone who clearly was a professional police officer in sonic realm out there that could provide a clear understanding and basis for police work. And I just didn't understand how that could hurt the ultimate decision making on this committee. Now, their concern was that that person could serve in a more intimidating process to the rest of the committee, you know, and I let it go. 1 let it go. But the issue has been raised again. It's kind of set back here and festered, and bothered me. And probably, if no one would have said anything, I'd have continued to let it go. But when you force it to the front, the argument against having that kind of person isn't really very strong. If you make -- the key again is the makeup of this group. And if we've done a good job in establishing the makeup of this group, that kind of individual will be an asset, not an overpowering force. Max Ramcan: Can 1 respond real quick? Commissioner Regalado: But I thought that we were looking for expertise, not a representative. i thought that we were looking for the expertise of a former police officer, which it now is civilian, and not a representative ofthe police force. That's what I -- Commissioner Winton: no, I think those arc two separate issues. Mr. City Attorney, in your recommendation, were you recommending that a civilian, a retired police officer serve as that professional that you were describing here? Mr. Vilarello: I wasn't suggesting a retired police officer. I was just suggesting that you should have -- you should not exclude, as a matter of rule or law someone with professional police experience. Commissioner Winton: Which is the point 1 was making. And a civilian retired police officer is a civilian. He isn't a police officer. Mr. Ramean: Can I say one thing real quick about the -- Vice Chairman Gort: One more, quick, and we have to make a decision. 123 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • Mr. Ramcan: One more real quick about both -- Vice Chairman Gort: We still have three more items to go. Mr. Ramean: What I'm saying, just to explain real quick about the reason why we went after a civilian as opposed to have a police. One of the key parts of this is public perception, particularly from my organization, which is a grass roots organization. If there are police on the panel, then it will create the perception that there is a conflict of interest there, if there's not really, which I think that there is. Secondly, on "Whistle Blower", again, talking about putting things together and doing it the right rvay, so that the public can support it. Without "Whistle Blower" protection mentioned in the Charter amendment, which is what people arc going to be voting on right now -- not the ordinance, but on the Charter amendment -- having "Whistle Blower" protection in there is going to relax the mind of many people who are going to be concerned, and, quite frankly, with the charges that are going to be made that this is all anti -police effort, and this will go a long way towards calming down those fears, having that language in the Chatter amendment. That's wily we feel that it's very important to have that language included in there. Vice Chairman Gort: Th:nk you. But let me tell you something, i don't know if you've done a poll or not. but if you would do a poll, I can tell you, it would not pass. OK? And that's very important. Yes, sir. Where are we at? Commissioner Tecle: All right. .Mr. Chairman, if I could regain the floor, which I -- Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. You had the floor, sir, and let's gel it over with Commissioner Teele: I was -- i yielded to the City Attorney to put all of his concerns on the record. I wanted to go to the State's -- to the Police Chief, if I could, and then to the State's Attorney, and Then to the FOP to see if there are any concerns. Chief, maybe, if it would be all right. Al, maybe it would be good if you would come forth first. If there are any concerns that you have with this language that we can try, because I think Commissioner Gort's admonition that he continues to make is if we don't have some degree of consensus, we're getting ready to have a real problem on the -- and I think we've lost some of' the energy that we had three weeks ago toward consensus. And Al, I'm really concerned that you seem this week to be a little bit more concerned about the language than you were in the last meeting. Mr. Cotera: Well, Commissioner, Al Cotera, President, Fraternal Order of Police. One of the things that concerns me the most is, like I Said, since we arrived here today, this trust be the seventh or eighth version. And, you know, subsequently, the ideas have kept changing and changing and changing. You know, you're going to have a panel who's going to hire an independent attorney, and that's the guy who's going to approve whenever they should or should not issue subpoenas. It's just one issue that comes Might to Illy face. If I hire you, when are you going to tell me not to issue a subpoena if I'm telling you I want to issue one? Commissioner Teele: You ever hear of the Saturday Night Massacre? Mr. Cotera: I'm just -- 124 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Tccle: It was when everybody told the Attorney General that they weren't going to do what the, Attorney General was telling them to do? Mr. Cotcra: Sir, again -- Commissioner Teele: And the President. I mean lawyers -- sonic lawyers do have -- not all, but some lawyers do have integrity, and they are willing to tell their boss, "You're wrong, and I'm not going to do it." And the reason that I'm insisting on seven years of experience and not somebody who just came out of law school -- and that could be, you know, misinterpreted a lot of ways -- is we want maturity. We want someone who's not just hungry for a job, but we want someone who's willing to serve. Mr. Cotera: Sir, you asked me for my concerns. You asked me for my concerns. As i stated before, this is the seventh or eighth version. I don't want to stand here publicly complaining or making statements when I've had 30 seconds to take a look at this document. I mean, that's part of the problem right off the bat, you know? Commissioner Tecle: This document is -- Mr. Cotera: When you talk, when you talk about, you know -- and, you know, and I'm very, very concerned that, you know, Kathy Rundle's office has not come out with a stronger stance, and has been -- tried to basically negotiate, because they figure there's four votes tip here anyway, so let's just -- let's give thein a little bit, but let's protect it to the other extent. But that's neither here nor there. But as you can see again, here with go with, "I'm going to check with my counsel, with my own attorney if I can issue subpoenas, and then I'm going to consult with the State Attorney." Now, what we've gotten away from, number one, is (lie language that the State Attorney had first really wanted in there, really necessitated in there. And number two is where we're back to watering down the issuance o2' subpoenas. And don't get me wrong, the arguments -- and I'm not going to argue the legalese here about do you apply Garrity, do you not apply Garrity. You know, the City Attorney's comment did enough on that. And, guys, the more subpoenas they hand out, the more people you're going to immunize. You're going to end tip with a monster that you don't want. All right? But let's not -- you know, let's be truthful here, now. You know, I care about the organization. I'm a sworn police officer. I have been for over 22 years. All right? But I'm also the union President, and it is my job to defend the process, and Fin going to do that. And all you're doing is -- all this wording about, you know, we're going to save the money that -- the money that we're going to save because of the lawsuits. You know, we can pay for 20 of those panels with the money that you're going to save because of lawsuits. Does anybody in this room actually think that you are going to minimize one single freaking lawsuit by creating this panel? Just the opposite. Think about it. Think about it. A substantiated complaint by civilians, and according to you, one of them could even be a convicted burglar, for crying out loud, or a convicted robber, 1 mean, you know, who says, "Oh, the policeman did wrong." You just gave any civil attorney the City on a platter. So, come on, let's riot. sell this to the public like, you know, we're going to stop police corruption, and we're going to stop police abuse, and we're going to stop -- because of the creation of this panel. But, damn, sure as hell, don't be telling anybody that, you know, we're going to save lawsuit money by creating this panel. You're just making it easier, and that's a reality. You're making it easier for the bad cop to walk away. All right? You're going to make it easier for the civil process to get you better, and we'll be back here two years froni now, if there's still any money left -- all right'? -- to figure out what to do about it then. All right? Because, folks, every time the City gets sued, the Police Department gets sued, a police officer gets sued, 125 8/9/01 (Section S) . • • they're using our own records. We do such a goddamned good job of documenting that they use that. Well, what do you think this panel is going to do? Reduce them? Reduce lawsuits? I don't think so. So, you know, let's not be throwing out smoke and all this other stuff, you know. Come on. Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Al 1 take it that you don't support it. Mr. Cotera: Let me tell you how I really feel. Mr. Ramcan: 'There may have been a question at the last meeting, but there isn't at this one. Commissioner Tecle: Chief, thank you very much. My question is, are there any -- is there any area of this proposal that gives you particular trouble? I realize that there are things about the concept that give you trouble, but is there anything that you would like to highlight? Because I think- it's really important that you be afforded the opportunity to speak on the record. Chief Martinez: Thank you, Commissioner. Again, Raul Martinez, Chief of Police. And beyond repeating all of my comments all over again of what I feel should be an after -the -fact issue, I have a couple of points that still 1 -ether me about this, and you have brought it up, and the City Attorney brought it up. And it shows even though we're saying, the citizens group here are saying they are willing to cooperate and to (to this, they're not, because exclusivity and number of civilian members. How much is one law enforcement officer from wherever you choose going to impact on nine members? Commissioner `I'ecic: I'll go a step further Chief Martinez: Is he going to pull the gun and make the other vote in their favor? 1 mean, I don't think so. And they're not willing even to make that change, to allow the Commission or whomever is going to make this final selection, whatever it be, to have a law enforcement professional, because whether I like the panel or not, these law enforcement professionals are going to make the panel's job a lot eases. So that's one of my concerns. Commissioner Teele: Chief, if I -- can I assume that you all still don't want any police officers on it? .Ms. Baker: Well, staff -- well, certainly, we expect to have police officers as staff, and I think the idea has been floated as an ex -officio member of the panel being, you know, certainly something very acceptable. Commissioner 'reele: Ex -officio, meaning non-voting. Ms. Baker: Meaning not voting, non-voting, but still have a voice in all consultations. Commissioner Tecle: Well, you know, politics is the art of compromise. And I must tell you, as much as I want to have the unanimous support of the public group, 1 think the process is going to be better served by letting everybody in the door. And I don't know how my colleagues feel, but as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to put the language in here on Number 4, under "E," which is t:o review policies of the Police Department, and make recommendations to the Police Chief, then I think the Police Chief should have at least a member on this panel. And I'm willing to take out "E" or add a member to the panel. 126 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Winton: Arc you saying a City of Miami police officer? Commissioner Teele: No, I'm not. No, I'm not. I want to -- I don't want to give the impression we're talking about a City of Miami police officer. Commissioner Winton: Good. Commissioner Teele: But I think, in fairness to this process, we should say language, Mr. Attorney, that it says except for a non -City of Miami sworn officer appointed by the Chief, the composition shall be exclusively a number of civilian members to be determined by the public. And I'm willing to give the Chief of Policc the access, because i don't think -- 1 mean, we want to have this to be balanced. We don't want this to be one group dumping on the other group. And, Chief, if you can live with the fact that you could appoint a sworn person from outside of this jurisdiction, except for that one person, it will be exclusively civilians, and to the extent that retired police officers-- And let me tell you something;. It's a lot of mad retired police officers. You all are missing the point, a real important point, because I can tell you about some police officers who are not -- But I'm telling you -- and former police officers. See? So everybody with a badge isn't the crictmy. And that's a part of what the Police Department and a lot. of the people are speaking up fnr I think the gentleman with CAMACOL was very, very -- Because this thing is taking on the energy of a lynching, as in the minds of some of the people in the Police Department. So I think you've got to at least allow the Police Chief to make an appointment, because I think that gives it credibility with everybody. And so I would ask that we agree to that, Chief, as something that you could live with on that point, and you would not be able to name anybody from the City of Miami, but a non City of Miami sworn police officer. Commissioner Regalado: And increase the number from nine to eleven. Commissioner Tecle: We don't have any number here. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, we do. Commissioner Tecle: No, we don't. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, we do. Commissioner Teele: There is no number. Commissioner Sanchez: No, no. You want to start putting conditions on -- Commissioner Winton: There's no number on this. Commissioner Teele: No, no, there is no number. It says -- it says the number will be determined by the Commission. So we don't have nine or thirteen. Commissioner Regalado: OK. So that's in the ordinance? Commissioner Sanchez: All right. OK. 127 8/9/01 (Section 5) • Commissioner Tcelc: That's in the ordinance. So the Police Chief would have an -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. So we don't worry about this today. Commissioner Teele: No, we don't have to worry about that. Chief, does that go part of the distance in trying to make this something that everybody can support? Chief Martinez: Yes, sir. I would obviously accept that. The only last little concern that I have -- and I know I'm not going to get Commission approval on that -- is the statement that says: "And the panel shall make every effort not to interfere." Commissioner Sanchez: i was going to bring that up. Chief Martinez: I mean -- Commissioner Teele: What should the language say, Chiel?. Commissioner ,Sanchez.: Shall not Interfere. Chief Martinez: Shall not interfere. Making every effort to interfere is like me putting on my police cars, "We will snake every effort not to beat you up." Commissioner Teele: Well, if you can agree to the language, "shall make every effort" -- (LAUGHTER) Unidentified Speaker: That would be all right with you guys? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. C'hiel' Martinez.: And that's my concern. "Shall make every effort not to interfere." Maybe to the State Attorney's Office, that means more than it means to me. I'm not an attorney. And maybe to the lady from the ACLU, it means a lot more than it means to me. I'm not an attorney. But when somebody tells me this type of wording for it non -attorney, it means I give them my best shot. If I miss, too bad, so sad. Commissioner Sanchez: It got my attention. Commissioner Teele: Sounds to me like the minority business language, "shall make best efforts," which means YOU don't have to do anything. Unidentified Speaker: Right. Commissioner Teele: At least that's the way a lot of the contractors interpret it. Mr. Mendelson: Commissioner. 128 8/9/01 (Section 5) Coin rnissioner Teelc: I can't see why any -- Yes, sir. Mr. Mendelson: Yes. On behalf of the State Attorney, may I make a few points? Commissioner Teele: Please. Mr. Mendelson: Apparently, the Chief and Mr. Cotera felt that my position was not -- and the position of the State Attorney was not clearly made today. 1 want to make it clear so everybody understands. The State Attorney's preference, if we're going to have a Charter is that subpoenas be with the approval of the State Attorney or that they not he issued until after the investigation is complete. What we have agreed to, if this Commission is inclined to reject that and say, no, that would take away fi-om the independence of the panel and give them broader subpoena power, we have come up with what we believe to be an appropriate protection on the immunity issue. It does not protect us on all issues. The inconsistent statement issue is obviously still going to be a problem. 1 just want to make that clear, because apparently, I'm being told my position was not clear. C0111111iSSIonCr TCCIC: Bur +.%+C put your language in, word for word. Mr. Mendelson: Yes. I appreciate that, because as I understand, by doing that, the Commission has indicated that you will not go with our initial proposal that it be with the approval ofthe State Attorney or Nvilh -- or alter investigations are complete. And so -- Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but what -- the Chief's concern is not that language. It's the fact that it's -- the language is worded in such a way -- .l mean, when we say, "Tile panel shall make every effort not to interfere," if we're saying the panel shall not interfere, why don't we just say that? ,Mr. Mendelson: I certainly agree with that. There's no quarrel on that point from us. Commissioner Tecle: I mean, the panel doesn't have the intent to iiltcrfcre, do you? Ms. Baker: No. But the problem wit "not interfere," it's so vague, it could be read as if the panel takes any action, if the State's Attorney, perhaps under a new administration -- perhaps not this State Attorney, but the next one, if there ever is one -- might just say, "You're interfering," and that could just really just gut the power. Commissioner Tecle: But isn't that what a judge is going to determine? 1 mean, ultimately, isn't -- ultimately, if that happens, isn't. that going to wind up to a judge. to quash the subpoena? Ms. Baker: Well, certainly, we have built in, and I think the Slate's Attorney's Office and our coalition agrees that in the ordinance, we need to build in a procedure to make sure that any subpoena that isn't honored would be processed through the judicial system. Conimissiotler Teele: But I'm saying this is an issue between you and the independent panel, which we want to be independent, and the State's Attorney, which we want to continue; to be the agency that prosecutes cases. The State's Attorney says, "You all are interfering." You say, "We're not." You know 129 8/9/01 (Section 5) what the next step is, don't you? The States Attorney is going to go to Circuit Court and get a judge to quash that subpoena. Ms. Baker: Well, the problem is, this language, we agree to under a very different understanding from what you are envisioning now. Our coalition agreed to this language, because it was what Kathy Rundle called "aspirational language," and we share the aspiration. If it is becoming -- if it's becoming -- Commissioner Tecle: I don't understand that. That wasn't in my law book. That sounds like a -- Ms. Baker: Well, that wasn't -- that - I'm just really reflecting what was stated to me, which means it's language showing an intent, but not mandatory language. And we don't agree to it as mandatory language, because it really does through the back door what we have really insisted through the front door we don't find acceptable. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a simple question. You do your investigation, and you come up with a conclusion. What do you do when you come up with your conclusion? Nils. Baker: Make a recommendation to -- Vice Chairman Gort: To whom? Ms. Baker: Well, in this version, which we accept, to either the City Manager or to the Police Chief. And then we would certainly hope the recommendation would be accepted. But if not, the Police Chief or the City Manager will timely respond in writing, and at least there will be a public record of wily the recommendation isn't accepted, if it isn't accepted. And that's what we think it the minimum. Vice Chairman Gort: But the recommendations, if they're criminal, you find It criminal; it's a different ball game. Ms. Baker: Oh, yeah. That that would be referred to the Statc Attorney. Vice Chairman Ciort: Then what do you do? If that is the case, What do you do then? Ms. Baker: 1 think at that point, it would depend on the particular case. Vice Chairman Gort: You'd have to take it to the State Attorney's Office. Ms. Baker: if there is to be -- Vice Chainnan Gort: Because you don't have the power to do it yourself. Ms. Baker: Absolutely correct. Correct. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So there's a need -- and this is what we all need to understand, guys, we have to work as a team. If not, if we're going to be lighting, we're not going to accomplish anything, I'm telling you right now. I've been out there, and the community does not understand what's going on. They 130 8/9101 (Section 5) • 0 fear what's going on. And if we don't have this very, very clear, and we don't have anybody working as a team and agreeing, it's not going to pass, and then it's going to be Nvorse. OK'? Ms. Raker: And we agree with that. We think this language does achieve that, expresses that intent and that balance. Commissioner Sanchez: You haven't made a motion, have you? Ms. Baker: And we want to stick with this language and not have it changed to something mandatory. Vice Chairman Gon: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, it's 10 o'clock. Commissioner Tecle: I would move for the purpose of -- I would move that the following language -- that the language as amended tie -- Mr. Attorney, what's the motion? That you be instructed to draft ballot language or to draft language? Vice: Chairman Gort: Do you have a motion? Mr. Vilarcllo: As soon as you all approve the Charter language, then 1 can start working on the question itself. And we should be able to do that before the end of the meeting tonight. C'onunissioner Tecle: 1 would move the adoption of the language as amended. Com rnissioncr Regalado: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Commissioner Winton: Am I -- I'm not sure I know -- Vice Chairman God Wait. Discussion on the motion. Commissioner Winton: Right. Can I hear what that is? Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. What are the -- read the -- Commissioner Sanchez: There were six -- five changes. Mr. Vilarcllo: OK. Let's see if I picked them all up. We have the Chief of Police will be -- will have the right -- and I'm not giving you the exact language now, but just the concepts. 'The chief of Police will have the right to appoint an individual to the CIP. However, that individual cannot be a City of Miami police officer. That the independent counsel will be appointed by the City Attomey and serve at the will of the City Attorney. That the -- 131 519101 (Section S ) Commissioner Tecic: No. Mr. Vilarello: OK, Ms. Baker: No, no. That's not correct. You said "veto." We have it written down here. Commissioner Teele: That the independent counsel would be named by the board, subject to a veto by the City Attorney. Mr. Vilarello: OK. Can we say approval? Commissioner Tccle: Approval. Mr. Vilarello: And removal. Commissioner 'fecle: And removal by the City Attorney. Mr, Vilarello: And that -- Ms. Baker: Can we go back to the first one? Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry; we're talking; among ourselves right now. Mr. Vilarello: That with regard to interference with the criminal investigations that the CIP shall not inlcrfere with any pending or potential criminal investigation or prosecution. That Section 4, related to the Florida "Whistle Blower" laws would be removed from tlic Charter language. However, it would be included in any ordinance that would be prepared. Ms. Baker: I didn't understand the -- Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Commissioner Teele: The .fifth one was the adequate funding language. Commissioner Sanchez.: Discussion. I have one question pertaining to liability. Mr. Vilarello: We've already removed that from the draft, Commissioner Teele: Well, the draft that I have says Teele-3, Draft 5-A, still has it in. Mr. Vilarello: i also have Teele-3 also, but it has that language missing, So I apologize. We should have given a new number draft, 132 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • Commissioner Teele: All right. Mr. Vilarello; But it stops after "hudget." Commissioner Sanchez: Also, you scratched out the "make every effort"? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: "Shall not"? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Shall not. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Vice Chainnan Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: I have just one question on liability. Could this panel, board be stied? Mr. Vilarello: This is going to be an independent panel and aboard of the City of Miami. it's going to be an agency, it's going to be subject to potential liability. Commissioner Sanchez: So we're also adding more liability to the City. Mr. Cotera: It's State Statute 112, Paragraph 3. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, still under discussion. Listen. You know, we basically have taken the whole draft, and we have watered it down extremely. If you really -- when you start comparing; your original when you first started to what you have today, it is so similar to the Blue Ribbon Committee, in many ways, because now, you've also brought in law enforcement, which is also a part of this. And once -- well, there's a lot of similarity. This has been watered down a lot. I mean, you would agree with me that you're not getting exactly what you first started off with. 1 mean, big, big difference. Commissioner Teele: Well, you just remember, you say that on the radio stations when you're -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, I don't visit radio stations, Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: -- campaigning against me. Commissioner ,Sanchez: I'm telling you, there's no way that I could make a leap of blind faith on this. There's a lot of unanswered questions. There are too many risks in place that were identified here by the State Attorney's Office, by our City Attorney. I would have suggested to take this to a workshop. We would have had more public input and had more public organizations come together and fine tune this, 133 8/9/01 (Section S ) and I think it would have been more well received as a referendtun of the community. That's my opinion. So I cannot support this. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Further discussion. Commissioner Regalado: Call the roll. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me make a statement, and I think it's very important. I think the message has been sent here that before this can go to the voters, the criteria and the guidelines have to be very defined, they have to be expressed and they have to be sure, because if not -- and I'll keep saying it -- it will not pass. At the same time, this cannot be perceived as an anti -police move, because once again, it will not pass. And this is somcthing that has to be perceived that we have to work as a team, our police officers, the C1P, the State Attorney's Office, and our people and the Commissioners. And the bottom line, people, is we make the decision of who gets appointed to that board. And I'm going to make sure that my vote is going to go for the person that I can trust, that 1 know is going to be -- is not going to be biased and is going to make the right decision for the benefit of all of us. I just want to make that statement. Roll call. Commissioner Teele: Mr r:hairman, i want to ask the Manager one thing. A lot is being made about the budget and the financial cost of this. And I can assure my friends from the community that if there is an organized campaign against this, believe it or not, believe it or not, it's going to be the cost. Now, this is the same body that's prepared to spend ten million a year, or five million, whatever that number backs out into as we look at the funny numbers here on this Martins Stadium. Commissioner Winton: It's ten. Commissioner Tccle: Tell million a year, and never say a word. But something that's going to save lives, potentially, is going to be made an issue. So one of the things we've got to work constructively with the Manager and in the context of a public hearing process is the Blue Ribbon Committee's recommendations and the staff recommendation regarding the professional -- the Office of Professional Compliance. It's very clear that many of the recommendations and much of this language now is migrating closer and closer to that board. And what we need to look at -- and I'm asking respectively of the staff to look at -- the budgeting of that board and the necessity for that board. Let's leave the people out, because everybody immediately jumps to employees and names. But let's talk about dollars, because there's -- good people will always have a job in government, in a City goveinment. And so that -- nobody needs to fear of their job. But 1 do think we're going to have to work together to make sure that these budgets are not overlapping, and they don't present a picture that we're going to spend a million and a half dollars, now, when, in fact, you know, there may be some ways that we can share resources, or maybe even consolidate certain functions as we look at that ordinance. So I want to just alert the Commission and the public. Piease,.don't got caught up in the money game, because that's going to be the big issue to sell as to why we don't need a board. And I want to commend you for being here tonight. I'd like to call the question, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Call the question. Commissioner Teele: We have been on this item since 4:30. And Mr. Chairman, i don't think we can afford not to give this serious consideration, because this is literally something that is going to change the 134 8/9/01 (Section 5) 9 0 lives and the operations of our Police Department, if it passes by the voters, and I think we need to be able to tell the public that we've wrestled with this, and we've heard from the public, we've responded, and we've tried to address it before we certify it to the voters. Vice Chainnan Gort: Roll call. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Roll. Commissioner Teele. Mr. Vilarello: iVir. Chairman, if could read the question, the ballot question. Shall the City Commission by ordinance create an independent Civilian Investigative Panel to investigate misconduct and review policies of the Police Department; composed exclusively of civilian members and a Police Chief appointee; nominated by the public and approved by the City Commission; staff professional personnel; operated on an annual approved budget; and authorize with subpoena powers, used only upon its counsel's approval and in consultation with the State Attorney's Office? Commissioner Teele: Now, I thought before, we had to instruct you to draft that language. Mr. Vilarello: You did tbmt at the last meeting. You did that on July 26`'. Commissioner 'reele: We've already done that? Commissioner Winton: Why did you have to read that to us now when we're trying to vote on -- Mr. Vilarello: Because the resolution that you're adopting now is the resolution that has approved the Charter language changes, just like we did earlier, and the question, and calls for the November C°s election. Commissioner Winton: That's the resolution we're voting on now? Vice Chairman Cort: No. No, no. No, no, wait. Wait a minute. One more time. Mr. Vilarello: The resolution that you just approved contains the revised Charter language that you just discussed a few moments ago. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Mr. Vilarello: 'Together with the question -- Commissioner Regalado: We haven't voted yet. We haven't voted yet. Vice Chairman Gort: But how do you interpret -- how do you interpret that? Commissioner Winton: What resolution we approved? We haven't approved a resolution. Commissioner Teele: We haven't voted on the resolution. 135 8/9/01 (Section 5) Commissioner Regalado: We have not voted yet. Mr. Vilarello: It's all one document. A1r. Cotera: Yeah, but you notice how they -- again, this is just -- they're going to just investigate cops. Commissioner Regalado: Then we have to call the roll. Mr. Vilarello: The Charter language and the question are all one resolution. Commissioner Regalado: Then he has to call the roll. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Now I understand. I was slow. 1 got it. Vice Chainnan Gort: So in there, you have that the Chief gets to appoint someone. Mr. Vilarello: The Charter -- Vice Chairman Gort: The Charter, Mr. Vilarello: The Charter language that we discussed -- Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Mr: Vilarello: -- will be a part of the resolution, and this is the question that the citizens will receive when they vote, Commissioner Winton: That we approved already. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All right. Mr. Vilarello: Which is a summary, limited to 75 words. Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call. Roll call. 136 8/9/01 (Section 5) 0 • The (following resolution was introduces) by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLU'T'ION NO, 0 1 -844 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 4, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH, BY ORDINANCE, A CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL TO ACT AS INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT OF THE SWORN POLICE DEPARTMENT, TO BE (A) COMPOSED OF AN APPOINTEE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE WHO IS NOT A CITY OF MIAMI POLICE OFFICER, AND EXCLUSIVELY OF A NUMBER OF CIVILIAN MEMBERS TO BE DETERMINED WI -10 SHALL BE NOMINATED BY THE PUBLIC: AND APPOINTED BY THE C'TTY COMMISSION; (B) ADVISED BY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WIIO IS A COMPETENT MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR WITH AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS MEMBERSHIP IN THE FLORIDA BAR AND IS GENERALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE INT MUNICIPAL LAW, AND APPOINTED BY THE PANEL WITH THE APPROVAL OF "THE CITY ATTORNEY AND WITH AUTHORITY TO REMOVE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; (G) STAFFED WITH PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL INCLUDING A `INDEPENDENT COUNSEL," AND OPERATED ON AN ANNUAL APPROVED BUDGET; (D) AUTHORIZED WITH "SUBPOENA POWERS" THAT MAY ONLY BE USED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE "INDEPENDENT COUNSEL" AND IN "CONSULTATION" WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY OF .MIAMI -DADS COUNTY; FURTHER, THE CTI' MAY NOT CONFER IMMUNITY AND MUST ADVISE ALL CITY EMPLOYEES APPEARING BEFORE 1'T' THAT NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES WILL RESULT FROM THE VALID EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM SELF INCRIMINATION; FURTHER, ALL ACTIONS OF THE CII' SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH ANY PENDING OR POTENTIAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION; AND (E) AUTHORIZED TO (1) CONDUCT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT, (2) REVIEW POLICIES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND (3) MAKF. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND/OR DIRECTLY TO THE POLICE CHIEF, TO W111CI-I A TIMELY WRITTEN RESPONSE SHALL BE RECEIVED WITHIN 30 DAYS; CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER G, 2001, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE ELECTORATE: AT SAID REFERENDUM; DESIGNATING 137 8/9/01 (Section 5) AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTfON TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR TO TIfE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, (Ilene follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None THEREUPON, 771E CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 10:19 A.M. AND RECONVENED AT 10:24 A.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT. 138 8/9/01 (Section S) 6. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RACEWORKS, LLC, CITY AND BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST FOR RACE/MOTORSPORTS EVENTS AT BAYFRONT PARK AND DOWNTOWN MIAMI, FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. Vice Chairman Gort: We're ready Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Manager, hello, we're ready. Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: What's the next item'? Excuse me. 1'd like to get the meeting going. We have to get out of here. Mr. Manager, can we get the meeting going, please? Cali we all sit down, please, and get going? Commissioner Regalado: We have to sit down? Vice Chairman Gort: Nu, you can stand up, but let's get going. Mr. Manager. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Item number 3 is a resolution authorizing, you know, the Manager -- myself to execute an agreement with Raccworks, LLC (Limited Liability Company) for the holding of a race in Bayfront Park within the City of Miami. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Manager, my understanding is, the reason this meeting was Called is to give opportunity to everyone to look at the contract you have put together. Would you like to go over and discuss it, please, sir? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. It's a lengthy contract. I'll have Javier Carbonell, who is (inaudible) different aspects of it with y'all and I think you'll be proud of it; I think it's something that's in the interest of the City. It docs not put any -- City of Miami at risk. All the costs are born by the race and the promoter, and like 1 said, there's a lot of City (inaudible) and he can go over that in more detail Vice Chairman Gort: He's going to go over it? Mr, Javier Carbonell: Javier Carbonell, Assistant Director, Building Department. Basically, to recap. This contract basically follows the same outline that we proposed to you at the last Commission meeting, which is basically having Raccworks pays for everything, including the Improvements, the costs of the services, the removal of barricades, everything that potentially is objectionable to the City. It also holds the City harmless from several different types of lawsuits. It gives its the ability of checking certain parameters of the race. It encompasses the use fee and a ticket fee into it, for both us and for the Bayfront Trust. It is essentially the same as the attached, as was attached last time, which was the basic points. There are a few thinks that was added to it. We have a new indemnification clause, which is essentially holds the City a little bit more protected. We have an environmental law compliance paragraph, which talks about hazardous materials, and there is to protect the park. The other thing we've added is the approval 8/9/01 139 (section 6) 0 • of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any questions from the staff? Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Winton: What's the -- Mr. City Attorney, what's the process we're required to go through in this? And Fin particularly interested in the public hearing part of this? I sat through Two very, very long sessions on this issue already, and the opposing side has brought testimony after testimony after testimony after testimony after testimony that took hours to bet into the record, and I want to understand if we have an obligation to go through that same kind of process once again? Mr. Ralph Diaz: No. This board -- it's whatever this board decides in terms of what they have to hear. Coin missioner Winton: is this a public hearing? Mr, Diaz: It's not a public hearing, no. It has not been noticed as a public hearing. Commissioner Winton: Thank you Vice Chairman Gort: Well, my understanding is -- for the sake of everyone being fair, my understanding was the -- today we was going to go into specific of the contract. I think most of the -- we don't want to hear all over again how bad we are, how brainless we are and all that type of things. We've heard enough of that, so we want to make sure we don't have that again. We're _lust going over -- right now... Commissioner Regalado: No, no. We are -- we may he heartless, but we are not brainless hecause we rejected the first proposal that was bad. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So, yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Well, excuse me. This is the point. Are we having a public hearing here or are we getting a presentation from the staff in terms of this contract, this Commission is discussing? Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, we don't have to. What we have to do here is -- are both sides in agreement with the contract? Commissioner Winton: I'm not interested to hear if both sides are in agreement. Vice Chairman Gort: I'm not interested... 140 8/9/01 (section G) • Commissioner Winton: I've heard from both Commissioner Teele: Who's both sides'? Commissioner Sanchez: Well, the City and... Commissioner Winton: Homestead versus the other guys. Commissioner Sanchez: The City and the Raceworks LLC. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a contract that we have looked at, the draft that has been given to us, and this is the issues you all would like to address, we'd like to address that, an we want to sec if everybody's in agreement with those contracts. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chainnan? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I'm in agreement with Commissioner Winton. I don't think we need to hear presentation. We need to ask questions and satisfy ourselves. The time for talking is over and i've got a series of Questions I want to ask staff. My concern about this race, which I think is going to be a phenomenal resource to the entire community, is have you all had any conversations directly without a bunch of lobbyist and lawyers, with the City of Homestead? Mr. Gimenez: No. sir. Corrunissioner Tecle: So, there's been no -- So, there's been no dialogue since we last talked with the City of'I•lomestead as relates to this race at all, from the City officials? ,\9r. Gimenez: Not from my office, sir. Commissioner Teele: All right. Let me ask you this. Has -- who has reviewed the financials of Miami Le Mans race? Who is reviewed those financials and what assurances are we getting? Because I will tell you this -- and I didn't want to interfere because my colleague, who I try very hard to support, but i think was one hundred percent wrong, was driving the train in another direction sand I wasn't going to get in the way -- but I think Commissioner Regalado has really, really, really hurt this race, respectfully, Tomas, and the management listened to you, so you can't say they don't listen to. you. I know you like to say that they don't listen to you, but they listen to you because the way these negotiations went, I'm going to tell you something, I -- it was all I could do to ... Commissioner Regalado: It was a full board. It was a full board. Commissioner Teele: All I could do was have open mouth astonishment that Raceworks Limited would agree to at least 60 percent of what the management has done because I'm going to tell you something: I've got one big fear now. We've got such a good deal; we're going to kill this 141 8/9/01 (section 6) • • race. Now, that's my fear. We have such a good deal; we're going to kill this race. And i want to hear on the record that somebody has reviewed the financials and that they're able to do exactly what they're saying they're going to do. Because I'm going to tell you something: When Ralph Sanchez ran the race downtown, OK, they lost, as I recall, about -- was a million, million and a half, two million dollars ($2,000,000)? In the first year? Vice Chairman Gott: The first year, my. understanding, if you remember, one of the things that happened is -- Commissioner Teele: it rained. Vice Chairman Gort: -- it rained. ]'here was no race. Commissioner Teele: And you recall -- I remember reading the stories and how lie was going to bank, cup in hand, it was a very sad -- I mean, it was a very, very -- you know, we all talk about the successes, but iii many successes in America, it's a lot of hard work and a lot of sweat equity and a lot of people putting their butts on the line, their children's scholarship fund on the line, an those kind of things. Q_nd I'm going to -- that's the question I'm going to be asking everybody around here, are you all committed to this race? Because i've got to tell you something, I don't want to put the bad mouth on this race, but the kinds of dollars that are being committed for capital infrastructure and the kinds of dollars that it takes to promote a race like this, you cannot take prize money and put it in infrastructure very effectively. If you do, you're going to cannibalize the race real fast, and I need to understand that somebody has reviewed the financials. I mean, I don't -- with all due respect to the very distinguished group -- and I don't want to say Sherman Whitmore, the same sentence as anybody here because this is not what we're talking about, but. I'm going to be very candid with you gentlemen. This is a serious undertaking, and who has reviewed the financials of this organization from the City staff? And can we get some representation from the Manager that this organization is financially competent to put this race on? Because you know, I'm going to tell you something: The only thing I've heard -- and it's amazing to me that the schizophrenic behavior we have in this City, on one minute we're squeezing people for bleachers and barriers and forcing people to pave a street, which really should not be paved by the promoters, and I've got to tell you, you guys, I think, are really enthusiastic. i think you all have really bought so much into your own PR on this thing that you really have not looked at the -- that's my concern, Willy, an I'm putting it on the table right now because I've been around raising long enough to know where you all are headed, and I think you're getting ready to head into some real caution flags because the dollars that it's going to take to put this race on need to be there, and I've heard a lot of people in the community investing in this and I'm encouraging anybody who wants to do this, do what you've got to do. But has anybody in the City of Miami looked at the financials of this organization? Now, Mr. Manager I've given you enough time and 1 hope you all have got a very non Sherman Whitmore answer here. Mr. Gimcnez: We have not looked at the financial statement. However, in the contract, 60 days prior to the sues period of the promoter will be submitting a ability to put on a race, a financial statement, et cetera, which will be given to the office of the City Manager. If the City Manager does not feel -- and there is going to be a change in this particular clause in the contract. if the 142 8/9/01 (section h) • City Manager does not feel tile), have the financial wherewithal, then it will come back to this body to determine whether or not is going to go for it. Commissionct- Teele: But you know what? You've not seen looked at the financials, is that what you're telling us? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, we have not looked at their financials at this point. Commissioner Teele: 1 think that's incredible. I think that's absolutely incredible, The only thing this City is worried about how much money are we going to get and nobody's looked at the financials after the history that this City has had with promoters that want to do good. And I'm not -- Willy, Peter, I'm not trying to insult you. But I'm telling you, your enthusiasm for this race, based upon what I seen you all agreed to, unless you all have got a big juicy angel who 's going to conk in and write sonic checks, I'm telling you, this race is going to have to be capitalized properly to be nun, and I have some very real concerns, especially if I'm hearing the City hasn't even looked at -- we're just looking at -- I mean, you know, if we're just looking at what we're going to get, we're pretty sick. We, the City, are pretty sick. I mean, you know, it's like the operation wac a success, but the patient died. That's where I think we're going right now because this race is going to take a lot of money in terms of capital costs and what the City is giving up or what the City is forcing you to do, I think is totally unfair and I credit nny deer colleague, Commissioner Regalado, who was driving a very hard bargain trying to get the best deal for the City, but the best: deal for the City is for this to be a wide open race that draws sixty thousand people from Brazil an Venezuela, and Monte Carlo, an New York and around the world. That's the best deal for this City, not the twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or the ten thousand dollars ($10,000) more in barriers are costs that could be capitalized over 15 years and at the beginning of this race, trust me, this is a very dangerous thing. So, the only thing I'm going to say is, when is 10 days -- 60 days before the race? Mr. Gitnenez: It's before the use period. It's about a 105 days prior to the race. Also, sir, we... Commissioner Teele: What date, roughly on the Month would that be'? Ivlr. Gimenez: You're talking about April 71h — 4'h through 7th is the first race. Mr. Willy Bcrmello: Fifth, 6°i and 7`h are the dates an we're basically are talking about 60 days, Plus 45 days. So, it's 1 OS sonic days prior to that date. Commissioner Teele: So, roughly what date will you all he coming hack to certify your... Mr. Bcrmello: Before the end of the year, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: December. Commissioner Tccle: I tell you what; I want this race so bad... Mr. Bermello: We'll be back here before. 143 8/9/01 (section 6) • Commissioner Teele: No, no, no, no, don't conic hack before then. I want this race so bad that when you all come back in December, I'm going to be doing everything I can to ensure that this race is a first class race, that we're not, you know, saving a nickel over here, and saving a dime over here that could be capitalized out over 15 year -- this is a 15 year race`? 1 mean, l think anybody who understands the dynamics of what it is we're trying to do -- and I think the deal you all agreed to is a ridiculous deal, and I hate to say that because I'm speaking now against the City's position, but the City's position is so short sighted in my opinion, because every dollar we could -- we should have been saying, we want to see a two hundred thousand dollar ($200,00{)), three hundred thousand dollar (5300,000) budget -- TV budget in Brazil. We want to work with the visitors bureau -- what that thing, the 'Talbert and these people to look at the TV budget and to ensure that our message is going to he in those packages. 'That's what I would have thought this City would have been mature to do, and that's why I start talking about the worldwide potential of this race. When -- I heard the discussions was going on -- all I could do to just stay mute I wasn't going to interfere with what the Manager was doing with you all, but I'm saying on the record right here and now, I think you've got a terrible deal for yourself and I think is the City is going to have a terrible deal for itself, because the worst thing that can happen for this event is ['or it to be a less than, 713ectacular event because we squeeze you all on capital items that could be capitalized over 7 to 15 years. The amount of money that we're asking you to put upfront, which is roughly -- how many money are we asking for capital items upfront? Mr. Gimenez: We figure -- our initial estimate was somewhere in the city of 740, but it could go a range up to 850 -- up to nine hundred and fifty thousand in terms of (inaudible) infrastructure improvements in order to create the race. Commissioner Teele: Is that your estimate of the numbers? Mr. Bcrmello: That's correct. Eight hundred and fifty was our estimate. Commissioner Tcele: Well, 1 hope that this Commission will keep an open mind about the potential of this race, and I would hope that you all would sit down with the convention and visitors bureau -- what's his name, Talbert'? Mr. Berniello: Bill "Talbert. Commissioner Regalado: We have to do that. At least us. Commissioner "Teele: I understand that. But I hope you all will sit down with him an talk about a. marketing plan, because I can tell you right now: If the question for me is do we bring in an extra 10,000 people or do we get an extra sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) for a barrier, I'm going to be for the marketing budget in the world wide market. I'm going the to tell you that right now. We don't need a race to bring folks from Naples and Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale down here, and I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. Tile capital costs that are on you are substantially greater than were on Mr. Sanchez when he started because most of the barriers and all that stuff -- you know, there was legislation, there was a loan, this was this, this was that. i don't know where you're going to get it, and I want to he very encouraging to you. I'm going to 8/9/01 144 (section 6) support it but I'm going to tell you right here an now, Mr. Bermello, I look forward to seeing a revised plan in December because I think the real question is, do we want a world class race or do we want to just try to make, you know, an extra twenty-five, forty thousand dollars (540,000)? And I'm not diminishing the money, but what 1. am diminishing is the fact that eight hundred t'.iousand dollars ($800,000) for capital costs over something we suppose to be partners that we can invest in, there's no reason in my judgment, why that money has got to be expended out of the promotional activities Is for the first year, when you know, in raising, what happens in the first year determines somewhat happens in the 71h year, if you have a bad race the first year, it takes five to seven years to overcome that. So, 1 just wanted to say that on the record because I've had open mouth astonishment. Mr. Bermello: Coin inissioner, we totally agree with you. And if you recall, our original... Commissioner Teele: You don't agree with me, that's -- you all have a different deal from what I'm saying. Mr. Benricllo: As you may recall, our original deal was, in fact, for the City to finance the permanent infrastructnrc: improvements as discussions and dialogue proceeded, it became evident that the agreement that would be acceptable to this body be one where all improvements would have to be paid by the promoter and then, subsequently, the method of payment of what's in it for the City varied. Commissioner Teele: That was never agreed to. That was one Commissioner saying that. Commissioner Sanchez even had open mouth astonislim ent, and lie is a very -- lie's the most conservative person up here; and he had open mouth astonishment, with some of the things that you all had agreed to. And, so, i just want to be very clear about that. That was something you Lill did on your own. That was not something this Commission directed you to do. That was between you and the Manager. Mr. Bermello: I how we said that... Commissioner Tcele: You know your mistake. You listened to Mr. Lopez. You spent half the evening responding to Mr. Lopez.. Mr, Lopez doesn't have a vote up here. Now, if this were County government, maybe you would have been doing right, but this is City Hall. OK. This is City liall. And Mr. Lopez doesn't have a vote up here, with all due respect. I le's a line person. I respect him. But City Hall isn't run that way yet, OK? Comrnissioner Winton; And it isn't going to be while we're here. Vice Chairman Gort: 'That's right, Commissioner- Teele: And it ain't going to be as long as I'm here, an that's the point I'm trying to get to you. You all spent the whole evening responding to the wrong people, OK, so that's why we don't want to hear from you today. I'm telling you, you're going to be back in December, if you're very realistic, sand I'm going to try to be supportive of making sure that we have a good marketing budget, and if we have to spent money, independently of you, with our friends over. 8/9/01 145 (section. 6) there at the convention and visitors bureau, which we don't get enough of the money from any way, then we're going to be out here partners for real trying; to get people in here from Venezuela, and Brazil and Monte Carlo, and the markets where this type of raising should be going on. Mr. Bermello: We appreciate that, Commissioner. I think one of the reasons -- and you see Ms. Dawn White from American Airlines here and she's been here since five o'clock, is the fact that they realize, like you realize, that when you have an event that brings over 6,000 people fi-om out of town, it -- Commissioner Teele: How many! Mr. Bermello: Over 6,000 and -- six zero zero zero -- 20 percent of which will be staying seven nights and seven days, coming; internationally, flying first class. It fills riot only room nights, but it fills airplane seats. And you've all been reading the business pages, which shows that Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport has been increasing in growth by I I percent, while Miami International Airport over the last three years has had negative growth. And so, that's why they're here. T 1110c why she's here supporting this. And, Commissioner, you're correct in your statements, but I think we have it good... Commissioner Teele: Who is Dawn White. 1 know Dawn in the capacity of... Mr. Bermello: She's right here. Commissioner Teele: In the capacity of being with the Jackson Public health Trust, and in the capacity of being one of the top legislative aides, but I don't know her in the capacity that you're introducing her now. Mr. Bennello: Ms, Dawn White works with out- good friend, Peter Dolara. She heads our Community Relations floor. Commissioner Teele: And who is Mr. Dolara? Mr. Bermello: Mr. Dolara is our senior vice president of Americans Airlines. Mr. Bermello: She's been here. 1'd like maybe to ask her to come and say a few words, since you're touching on a subject that's so important. Commissioner Teele: Well, I realize the time is late, but 1 really want to get on the record the impact, and, Ms. White, if you would come just for a moment and just tell us -- Dawn, if you would just come and tell us who you are and what you all's commitment is going to be, that would be very helpful, .l think. Ms. Dawn white: Well, at this point... Commissioner Teele: Your name and address and title for the record, and it's a pleasure to see 146 8/9/01 (section 6 ) you. Ms. White: I'm Dawn White and I am -- it's a pleasure to see ,you. I am managing director of corporate affairs for American Airlines, and my office address is 999 Ponce de Leon. I'm in Coral Gables. We're very excited about the opportunity Ilial. we feel this race brings obviously to the City of Miami, to Miami -Dade County, and certainly to American Airlines. As has been suggested, we believe it will have a tremendous impact on the growth of our international traffic into Miami, which translates into hotel stays, restaurant meals, and we're just happy to be a pant of this, and we certainly intend to he here toward the end of the year and certainly would like to be a pant of the dialogue. Commissioner creel e: All right. When you get some statistics, would you please pass them over to us, in terns of what you all actually anticipating in flights corning in based on this vent? Ms. White: Be happy to. Connnissioner Teele: Dawn, good to sec you. Ms. White: It's good to see you. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Sanchez, you're recognized. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank. you, Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele, I, too, am praying for a beautiful day, all three days of the event and hopefully the whole week. I'm not so worried about their deal. That's their problem. But I am very happy about the deal we have in the City, compared to past deals that the City has worked out, I think that the City will not only benefit money wise, but it also will benefit in other aspects, such as capital -- economic impact and stuff. But, you know, this is not finalized. This's been a lot of negotiations. There's been a lot of back and forth between the opposition and the Raceworks LLC, and I think that we're not out of the rain ,yet. In other words, we still try to do everything would keep the race in Miami, and try to make it happen, be productive. One of the things that I'm concerned with, the opposition has spent a lot of money, a lot of money and, of course, I know that they're resources are unlimited, but one of the concerns is that they can still tie this up in legality, if they wanted to, and when I look at -- and you say that we want to make sure that we do everything we can to make the race happen, we look at -- we see that all the legal fees, if they're sued, would have to be paid by Raceworks LLC, which is fine with me. But, you know, you start looking around and we're making money here. The City's making money. If we weren't making money, then I'd say, well, we can't protect their interest. But the City's making money on this, and I think that the City should protect, not only the Trust, but the City itself from liability, not pass all the burden on the event itself that has basically come to Miami. We're almost at the verge of making it happen; we're hoping to be a successful year and take it for as many years down the future that we can, but if ,you look at it, when it comes to Bayside and the arena, we don't require them to defend the City challenges, and negotiations. In othor words, what I'm maybe asking here is that we have the City protect Bayfront Park and the City's interest in that case, you know, we take a little burden off of the event because I think that the process itself, millions of dollars could be put in, where this will tie it up and, you know, whose going to come and bring major promoters 147 8/9/01 (section G) or major events, major TV and -- and what we want to bring here is first class, the best, nobody's willing to invest when they know that they will be in a drawn out litigation process. So, I mean, we have to step up to the plate and protect our interests, just as much as this do. It's just -- you know, like to putout oil the table and see what the legislative body wants to say about it, Commissioner Teele: All right. Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: You know, we instructed staff to go back, sit down, and try to bring the best deal is for the City of Miami. I've been asked here for the last three months to give me the information, the room occupancy, the revenues, and so on. I haven't received any of that yet. And let me tell you: I think it's a great deal for the City of Miami. Un the marketing, I can tell you, we at DDA (Downtown Development Authority) -- Patty Allen is not here today because she's on vacation. I can tell you, we at DDA are committed to this. We approved it. And on the marketing, I can tell you that our hotel -- we have a hotel committee, which is composed of all the hotels within downtown Miami. They're going to be utilizing this and they're going to be in the marketing -- and all of their marketing, they're going to put this event to make sure they bring a lot of people here. But also I have some questions that I need to ask about the availability of the park to be used. We }»d a press conference here (inaudible) day, but, unfortunately, because it was not negative and there was nobody that showed up, but we have a bicycle race that's coming in -- international race. It's going to cone in in October. I want to make sure there's no conflict with that bicycle race. We've been working with the staff and this teams that come from all over the world also. They bring people from South America, and Europe, and so on. So, we have to make sure that whatever event we have here and whatever right we give you, it does not conflict with any other of the events taking place in Bayfront Park. So, that's one thing I want to make sure. At the same time, I want to make sure that all the perception and all the innuendos that go around, that we clarify all those things, like people saying we're not going to be able to use the park for a hundred and some days. I want to make sure we put that on the record, the availability of people to go into the park and for how many days, in reality, it's going to take place. All right. Commissioner Teele: All right. Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Winton: I think the last question that Commissioner Gort asked, we didn't get an answer- to, and that is park accessibility. Just so that we have that on the record, because we don't have it on the record, what are the specific timeframes in 4vhich the public won't he able to access the park? Mr. Jay Constantz: .lay Constantz, Bayfront Park Management Trust. The contract calls for Raceworks to have access to the: park to set up their VIP (Very Important Person) village and other concession set ups, beginning seven days prior to the race event, and they must tear down and remove all of that equipment within two days after the race. So, a total of, when you count the three days ofthe race, we're talking a total of 12 days. Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. But the question is, as they are setting up the VIP, that's not going to be closed to the public. I mean, people will still be able to use the park. So, let's make sure that... 148 8/9/01 (section 6) Commissioner Winton: Anti you don't say that. I mean, Jay, you've got to ... Vice Chairman Gort: Right. The only days those will be closed will be the days of the race, is my understanding, three days? Mr. Constantz: The park actually, technically, by contract, can be closed for those seven days prior to the race, the three days of the race, an up to two days after the race. When a promoter comes in and puts in that kind of an investment in terms of equipment, generally, we fence the park off and we provide 24-hour security to make sure that product, which is brought in, vending product, whether it's soft drinks or food or alcohol, is not touched. So, technically, the park docs get fenced off for that entire period of time, those 12 days, seven days prior, three days of race an up to two days after, while they remove all of that equipment and product. hn addition to that, in answer to your first question, regarding the bicycle race and other events that will be taking place in Bayfront Park, we are working with the promoters, Raceworks, and with the City in terms of the planning for the modi fications that need to be made along the course to make sure that non of the events that are booked into Bayfront Park or will be booked into Bayfront Park, whether it's the Bayfront Miami Cycle Classic, or the stride for cure the breast cancer walk, or the AIDS (Acquired immuno D,-ficiency Syndrome) walk or any of this other events are negatively impacted from any of the work that will be going on the streets or on the bay walk to prepare the site for the race course. Vice Chairnan Gort: 'thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry. One more. And this is something we discussed before, which is something that really -- the retailers worry a lot about, is the closing of the streets. That's something you're going to have to work real close with DDA, the traffic Glow, the closing streets and the parking that will take place. Mr. Bermello: We have -- Commissioner, we've already prepared a traffic maintenance, a traffic plan, that has been presented to DDA and to the partnership business partnership, an we'll continue to work with staff and the City's Police Department to make sure that not only traffic, but deliveries are made to all of the properties lining around Biscayne Boulevard. I'd like to take a minute to address a couple of points that maybe I should answer and I think Commissioner Teele pointed a couple areas that I think are quite important. And one of these was last time. We had received information from the Miami -Dade County Finance Department that shows the City of' Miami hotels -- and, by the way, Commissioners, earlier today, at five o'clock, we had the representatives from Intercontinental, from Hyatt and we have the full support of JW Marriott to work with us -- but City of Miami hotels, on an atvival basis, generate in bed tax money, six million seventy thousand dollars ($6,070,000) to Dade County. That's every year. And to date, in excess of four million dollars ($4,000,000), from those City funds that are generated have gone to pay off the debt service and the bonds for the Homestead Motor Speedway. So, I think that's an important issue. Second is, Raceworks LLC (Limited Liability Company) is a single asset entity that was created for this specific purpose. When we present our financing plan towards the end of this year, all of the information that will show the equity and financing that will be in place, in addition it will show the principals in Raceworks have a net worth in excess of thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000). Those principals include yours 149 8/9/01 (section 6) 0 9 truly, Peter Yanowitch, Jack Peeples, and our recent and most recent addition to that is Emerson Fittipaldi, who was here at our last meeting, and I don't need to tell you who he is. He serves as, I would say, Miami's Ambassador to Brazil. In addition to that, and I think is very important, is that Dr. Donald Panoz, the owner of American Le Mans has taken a personal interest to make sure, wo.king with us, that this event succeeds, just like Commissioner Teele has made. Commissioner Tecle: Mr. Bermello, what is a reasonable budget for you to have by December? Mr. Bermello: The budget -- we've already prepared the budget. Commissioner Teele: I mean, all these net worths are fine, but the one thing I learned about rich people, is the reason they stay rich is they are real hard to depart from the money. So, these net worths statements are not -- they hit a very sour note. How much money do you think is reasonable for you all to have by December? Mr. Bermello: Our budget is -- by December; we'll have in excess of two and a half million dollars (52,500,000). Commissioner Teele: Two and a half million? Mr. Bermello: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Excluding our including— Mr. Bermello: That excludes any of the funds that we'll be received from -- sponsorships. Commissioner Teele: -- sponsorship. Excluding sponsorships. Is that nutnher the number that you all are looking at, Mr. Manager'? Because I'd like to get everybody at least on the record on .what it is we're doing here. Mr. Bennello: And that will all be spelled out in the plan that will be presented to the Manager, administration. It will come back to you for your review. Along side with a schedule that will show all the activities, because one thing is to say, you know, we have this money, but the idea is, the money has to be in so that we meet our commitments in terms of all the activities and a time line. Commissioner Teele: And time lines. Mr. Berincilo: And the timelines, And it's also (inaudible) time lines. Commissioner Teele: And the time lines to get the -- so, that's what you're going to have by December, is two and a half million dollars ($2,500,000) of liquidity for this project. Mr. Bermello: Correct. C'ommissioner'Ceele: And a timeline that will show that you can meet the construction schedule 150 8/9/01 (section 6) for this race in April? Mr. Bermello: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I mean, th^ worst thing for the City is for this thing to fizz. I mean, I just want to say that. That's the worst thing that could happen to us after the hype. So, was there any point that you wanted to make, in particular, in response to any question that any of the Commissioners have raised? Commissioner Winton: Otherwise, I want to move on. Commissioner Teele: Yes. All right. Commissioner Sanchez is recognized for a motion. Excuse me. Mr. Lopez, you're here. You want to put your name on the record? Mr. George Lopez: That will be fine. Vice Chairman Gort: Are we conducting the meeting now or... Commissioner Teele: I'll be happy to yield back. You want to put your name on the record? Vice Chairman Gorr. No, no, that's all right. You're doing all right. Mr. Lopez: Yes. Mr. Chairman, George Lopez, partner Steel, Hector & Davis, representing Miami Homestead -Miami Speedway. I want to thank you for your endorsement and if I may, the City Attorney did receive a settlement proposal from us regarding our extending; litigation. ,lust_ recognize... Commissioner ,reelc: well instruct the Clerk to make it a part of the record. 'thank you, sir. �h. Lopez: Thank you very much. Commissioner Teele: 'Thank you very much. Commissioner, you want to recognize -- Commissioner Gort, you want to recognize Commissioner Sanchez for a motion? Vice Chairman Gort: That's all right. You're doing OK. Ms. Frances `lac Intyre: Excuse me, As a citizen of Miami... Commissioner Teele: It's not a public hearing;, but you're always welcome. What's your name and address for the record? Ms. Mae Intyre: M.y name is Frances Mac Intyre. I live at 1835 South Bayshore Drive, just a half a mile down the street. I have no... Commissioner Thele: It's not a public hearing;, but you're recognized. 15 t 8/9/01 (section G) Ms. Mac Intvre: 1 have no financial interest in this at all, accept as a taxpayer. I have read the 38 -page contract carefully, and there are a number of questions that I'm concerned with. I think the race is going to take place and i think it's probably going to be wonderful for Miami, but I feel like I read a different contract than you did. I think Raceworks has got a real cream puff here and I think the City of Miami is going to take a lick:.ng. When I say the City of Miami, i'111 talking about the government, the hotel, the restaurants they're going to do well; Florida state sales tax is going to do well, but I Ccar that City of Miami is going to get stuck. And I have a list of my questions, which I'll pass to you to read. Commissioner Teele: We'll instruct the Manager to answer each of your questions in writing to you. Thank YOU for being here. Nls. Mac Intyre: 'Thank you. Commissioner T eele: All right. Motion by Commissione-.r. Sanchez. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Winton wanted to talk. Commissioner Winton: No. i was just going to move this motion in, but if Commissioner Sanchez is going to... Commissioner Sanchez: What motion? Commissioner Winton: A resolution to approve the -- a resolution that's been prepared by the City Attorney's Office to move this thing forward. Commissioner Sanchez: Which is the amendment? Commissioner Winton: Which is the amendment? Vice Chairman Gort: There's no amendment. C'omimissioner Sanchez: There's no amendment? Commissioner Regalado: There's no amendment. Commissioner Winton: "There is an amendment on the one 1 had. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I just want to make one amendment to the contract, and it's... Commissioner Winton: To the contract? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. The indemnification paragraph, 37. You look at notwithstanding provision, the City Attorney shall vigorously defend, within its budget, the City of Miami's interest, the Trust, regarding any litigation arising from this agreement by any party. 152 8/9/01 (section G) Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Commissioner Sancho: When it pertains to the City and the 'frust. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? You accept the amendment, the maker of the motion. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir Commissioner Winton: He made the motion. Commissioner Sanchez: No. I made the motion. Then you're going to make the motion on -- to approve it. You have it here. Commissioner Winton: So Vice Chairman Gort: Guys, it's late. it's 11:02. Commissioncr Winton: All right. Vice Chairman Gort: We have two more items to go. Commissioncr Winton: We're going to start with a motion here and then we're going to have an amendment to the contract, is that how I'm understanding this'? So, I'm going to read the -- this is -- his motion Nvas an amendment to the resolution or to the contract? Commissioner Sanchez: To the contract. Unidentified Speaker: I'm sorry. It is an amendment to the contract. Coin in i ssioner Winton: That's what i thought he said. Unidentified Speaker: I apologize. Commissioncr Winton: OK. So, the resolution is a resolution of the City of Miami Commission, with attachments, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement in substantially the attached form between Raceworks, LLC, licensee, City of Miami and Bayfront Park Management Trust., for race motorsports events at Bayfront Park and downtown Miami for an initial period of 15 years, with the option of extending the tenn of the agreement for a period of 10 years, providing licensee gives the City and the Trust written notice of its intention to exercise its option at least 60 days prior to the expiration of this agreement in accordance with other terms and conditions set forth in this agreement, subject to a lease between the City of Miami and the United States of America, dated August 81h, 1990, and subject to the approval of the district engineer of the United States Department of the Army, prior to the City of Miami 153 8/9/01 (section 6) executing this agreement. So, 1 move that resolution. Commissioner Regaiado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any discussion? Commissioner Winton: Now, do we have to have in this resolution the proposed amendment to the contract that Commissioner Sanchez was recommending? Commissioner Sanchez: No. You already approved it. Vicc Chaimian Gort: You already approved that. Commissioner Winton: OK.. Thanks. Vice Chairman Goal: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice; Chairman Gorr: Thank you. 154 8/9/01 (section 6) The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-845 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, 13ETWEEN RACEWORKS, LLC ("LICENSEE"), CITY OF MIAMI AND BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST ("TRUST") FOR RACE/MOTORSPORTS EVENTS AT BAYFRONT PARK AND DOWNTOWN MIAMI, FOR AN TNITIAL PERIOD OF FIFTEEN YEARS, WITH THE OPTION OF EXTENDING THE TERM OF AGREEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS, PROVIDED LICENSEE GIVES THE CITY AND THE TRUST WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO EXERCISE ITS OPTION AT LEAST SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE AGREEMENT, IN ACCORDANCE, WITH OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT, SUBJECT TO THE LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAN1I AND THE UNI'T'ED STATES OF AMERICA, DATED AUGUST S, 1990, AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER OF THE UNITED SPATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PRIOR TO THE CITY OF MIAMI EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT. (I lere follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None, ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Thant: you. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. 155 8/9/01 (section G) 7. DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO IMPOSE PARKING SURCHARGE UNTIL STATE SUPREME, COURT AND STATE LEGISLATURE RULE ON ISSUE; STIPULATE THAT COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER TWO PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR (1) PARKING SURCHARGE AND (2) MARLINS STADIUM TO BE SCHEDULED FOR SPECIAL ELECTION ON MARCH 2002 (See #3). Vice Chairman (Dort: Next item. Commissioner 1tegalado: Mr. Chairman, we go back to the surcharge thing? OK? Let's go back to the surcharge. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): The next item is Item Number 4. Commissioner Sanchez: What item are we on now, Mr. Chainnan? Vice Chairman Gort: The Charter. Commissioner Sanchez: C':Aarter? Commissioner Winton: What's the issue? Vice Chairman Gort: Surcharge. Commissioner Regalado: Are we ready? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: What are we doing here? Commissioner Sanchez: 4. Vice Chairman Gort: 4. Commissioner Sanchez: It's .for holding a special election on November the 6"', and this is the one reference, the parking surcharge. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Attorney, %vc have a question here that you just provide. Shall the City of Miami impose a 20 percent surcharge for 40 years on the sale, lease or rental of space and parking facilities in the City to be used for the development of public facilities and infrastructure, reducing taxes or fees and paying debt service? Do Nye need to have some kind of numbers, percentage attached to this question? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): In terms of revenues generated? No. This is simply a resolution calling fora referendum question, which would allow the question as stated to be placed on the ballot. It's conditioned on the Legislature adopting a State statute. 156 8/9/01 (Section 7) Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Vilarello: And the City Commission adopting subsequent ordinances. Commissioner Regalado: We all remember what happene(r in the last days of the State legislative session this year, I think, or last year, or this year. And we saw how quickly they change. Suppose, Mr. City Attorney, suppose that the house or the Senate decided to delete -- to be used, instead of development of public facilities, or infrastructure, they decide to say only to reduce taxes or fees, and mirror the first. 'then what would happen to this, voted by the public? Mr. Vilarello: This question is no more than a straw ballot. Commissioner Regalado: It's a straw ballot. Mr. Vilarello: if the Legislature were to pass a statute with language you just said, which is different than what's encompassed in this question, it wouldn't make any difference at all, except if it's part of the State statute which was adopted, it required that the City hold a referendum authorizing the imposition of the surcharge. C,ommissioncr Regalado: Then we have to call another referendum, which will be binding. Mr. Vilarello: Cetlainly. That would be another question on different issues. Commissioner Regalado: Do you think that or do you believe that holding a referendum on the surcharge, implying that part or some of this money will be used to build a public facility; a public facility, being a stadium? Would that help the cost of the City in the State Supreme Court appeal? Mr. Vilarello: Well, first, we need to note that we're talking about two different issues. One is an existing State statute, which, as we know, the Third District Court has indicated there's some technical deficiencies in the statute. As we go fotvtard before the Florida Supreme Court, a referendum question on a similar issue would at best be neutral as to our position in front of the Florida Supreme Court. And at worst, it would send an ex parte message to the Supreme Court that the citizens had disapproved of the imposition of a surcharge. There's a second step in terms of the existing statute that we're in court on now, and that would be to go back to the Legislature and ask the Legislature to cure the technical deficiency that is -- that t11e 'third District indicated that they had a problem with. And there's case law which supports the Legislature's ability to cure the technical deficiency and authorize retroactively the innppsition of that tax. And I think that the best course of action to win the existing litigation on the surcharge that we have in place right now is to take that two-step approach. Vigorously pursue the issue before the Florida Supreme, Court. We feel that we have a very good case to overturn the 'Third District's opinion. And as a second step, to make sure that we address the issue in front of the Legislature to re -impose the same surcharge that we have, under the same terms and conditions with the exception of a modification to remove the deficiency that the Third District Court of Appeals feels is important, and the reason why they ruled the way they did. Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry, 1 wasn't here when you -- because l understand the question you asked, and l was Just getting part of the answer. Would you repeat again, though, if the public referendum were 157 8/9/01 (Section 7) held, which is what you don't ti+ant to do, you don't want -- you don't want the public referendum before we --- before we follow the two paths that you've outlined. And why, again, is that? What's our risk there? Mr. Vilarello: Well, if you follow the two steps that I'm suggesting that we proceed under, and you have a referendum on a totally different question, which is an extension of the surcharge for an additional 40 years, the use of the dollars for public facilities and infrastructure improvements, which is significantly different than the statute that we have now. The statute we have now authorizes a short-term parking surcharge for a municipality which has been declared in a financial emergency .for the purpose, specific purpose of reducing ad valorem taxes and reducing fees, in an attempt to support a financially troubled municipality. The question before you is a totally different issue. And unfortunately, I'm concerned that with regard to our litigation itself, at best, we're looking at a neutral situation. At worst, we have the citizens decline to impose this different issue, and the court getting a message indirectly that the citizens are not interested in having a surgcharge in place. And secondarily, step two to my recommendation of going back to the Legislature, if you have the citizens vote "no" on this question, it makes it a much more difficult. mountain to climb to convince the Legislature to give us back a parking surcharge, when the citizens just voted against one. Commissioner Sanchez: So basically, it's a double-edged sword. Commissioner Winton: Well, but the -- but a goodly number of the representatives in Tallahassee, at least when I was talking to them about that issue, were adamant that if there were an extension to the parking surcharge that it is going to go before the voters, anyhow. So we're going to have to face that music, most likely, no matter what? Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Sooner or later. But you know what they say about a straw ballot, right, or a straw voter It'sjust to dctcrnline which wit), the hot air is blowing. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Mayor, if I could just -- 1 don't mean to address the long-term policy issues associated with the extension of the surcharge. ('m trying to address the very real litigation that we have today with the very real exposure of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), potentially. And the best way to address the existing litigation and the existing surcharge -- I'm not addressing the issue of an extended surcharge for the purposes of improvement of our public facilities or even building a stadium. But I believe that this referendum question could severely impact our success in court, and ultimately, in front of the Legislature if we have a curative statute for a short period of time, which is different from what you just suggested, Mr. Winton. You just suggested that the Legislature demanded if there was an extension of the surcharge that they wouldn't approve it without a referendum being approved. So it's two different questions. And I'nl trying to keep Illy eye on the issue of the litigation that we have in place. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm struggling to understand, then, where the dividing line is for you here. I can't -- f have not figured out how you've separated the two issues. 1 know you're telling me you're doing that, but I don't see from a practical standpoint how you're accomplishing that, given your advice. It seems to me that or at least what I've interpreted so far is that you've said that as it relates to the -- to a public referendum that you're recommending against that, even though the public referendum is dealing with a different subject matter. 158 8/9/01 (Section 7) Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Winton: And so you are recommending against the public referendum that's dealing with this different -- Mr. Vilarello: At a time prior to the Florida Supreme Court ruling, and at a time prior to the Legislature's consideration of a curative statute, of the statute that we have in place today, which has a sunset provision, is lii itcd in time, is based on the financial emergency needs of the municipality and financial emergency versus a long-term surcharge or tax that's used for other purposes. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chainnan. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: You know, we go back to what we were discussing during the Oversight Committee. We have the President -- or our gubernatorial primary in March, I think, March the 7"'. The timetable of the Marlins, it's already over for the year 2004. So for them, it's noting to wait a few months more. Besides, this year; the Legislature convenes earlier. Committees will begin in December, and the session will begin early in the year. We will know by the first of the year the way that, hopefully, the Supreme Court went and the way that the committees are dealing with the issue of the surcharge. So I -- I am very uncomfortable in voting today to place that on the ballot. 1 think that we should wait for the step, the two steps, the Supreme Court and the State Legislature, and just, you know, work to restore what we had, and to win the Supreme Court case, and then do the referendum in March, if we see the Legislature going; that way. But 1 am -- I could not vote today, tonight, in favor of a referendum in November or before November, as it was suggested. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, 1 have one more question. I didn't get to finish. Mayor Carollo: Sure. Commissioner Winton: As it relates to the language before us, this says the City of Miami shall impose a 20 percent surcharge for 40 years on the sale, lease or rental. What does it mean? The sale, lease or rental of space at parking; facilities. What does it mean, "sale"? Where did the sale come from? Mr. Vilarello: That's existing language of the State statute with regard to the imposition of the surcharge on the user of the parking space at a parking facility. Commissioner Winton: This language is in the current enabling legislation? What does "sale" mean? So if somebody sells their parking garage for ten million dollars ($10,000,000), the City gets a 20 percent tax oil that? Mr. Vilarello: No. For the space. For the use of -- paid by the user of such space. We get the surcharge based on fees paid by the user of such space. Commissioner Winton: So if it's a condo parking:; garage, then -- if it's a condo parking garage, then they will pay that fee. 1$9 8/9/01 (Section 7) A Mr. Vilarello: You mean condo residential or -- Commissioner Winton: When -- what other time is there a sale? You don't sell the space. You rent the space or ye:i lease the space. You don't sell it unless it's a condo garage where you buy your space, like a condo rental building. That's what "sale" is. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): I don't believe -- I don't believe the condo residents pay, pay the surcharge unless they are actually getting sonic kind of fee for it. Vice Chairnian Gort: My understanding -- I've asked that question before and the answer was in the negative. Commissioner Winton: The tern, "sale," when does "sale," the terni, "sale" apply? Mayor Carollo: If Hank Sofer sells all his parking lots. Mr. Vilarello: it's exactly -- Commissioner Winton: That's my point. Mr. Vilarello: it exactly traces the language of the existing statute, which refers to revenue generated From the sale, lease or rental of space at parking facilities within a municipality. That's exactly the language of the statute. Commissioner Winton: Well, just so everybody -- Mr. Vilarello: Which is unchallenged by anyone. Commissioner Winton: -- is on notice here, I won't support this language in Tallahassee in the future, this language tonight, and I will lobby vigorously to modify this language in Tallahassee next go around, because this opens the door, frankly, for us imposing a whole new set of fees on people with parking garages. So it says "sale." And "sale" is different than "lease" or "rental." Mayor Carollo: I agree with that. Commissioner Winton: And 1 don't think it's something we were really looking for, nor did we want. But we don't want to -- you know, over a six-year period is one thing. When this becomes institutionalized and somebody else comes along, that's a whole new cup of lea. Mayor Carollo: Right. Commissioner Winton: And I think we ought to fix this defect. Mayor Carollo: Well, Commissioner, if we have three votes to approve this language and put it on the ballot for a referendum, we don't have to use the word, "sale." That could be taken out. So i don't think 160 8/9/01 (Section 7) • 0 there's any problem. And I basically agree with you. It's -- that possibility could he there. So the best thing to do is to take it out now, and then we'll deal with the State as that comes up in January. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, would you explain the nuance that Commissioner Winton is raising, so 1 ftilly understand it, please? Mr. Vilarello: I believe Commissioner Winton is concerned that if an owner of a parking facility sells the space that the City would be entitled to collect a 20 percent surcharge on that, on the revenues generated from that sale. And I believe the language is intended to -- to capture those funds, in the event that someone wishes to sell, as opposed to lease that parking space. So this is existing language of the statute, and it is designed to pick up the 20 percent of the gross revenues fi-om the sale, lease or rental of space at a parking facility. So it may very well already do what Commissioner Winton is concerned about. Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah. And that's what I said. 'Chat's why I made it clear that when we go back to 'Tallahassee, I will tight vigorously to modify the language so that this doesn't -- when we institutionalize this -- to see to it that, that doesn't stay in there. And one of the risks, Commissioner T'eelc, is -- and I understand why one might put it in there, because one of the ways to get around the rental of spaces is for all file owners of parking garages to condo them, so that their tenants become owners of the spaces as opposed to renters of the spaces, so condo it. And I know there are condo parking garages in New York. So it's probably a mechanism designed to prevent people from getting around it. But condo'ing garages isn't -- there's a lot of complications associated with that, as well. And at the end of the day, generally speaking, unless the owner is going to park there forever, he's going to end up ►-crating that space to someone anyhow. So it isn't so easy to use the condo mechanism as a vehicle for getting around payment of the rental tax. it's not impossible, but it isn't -- it isn't nearly as easy as it might sound. So there's a lot more risk in allowing this to stay in the language in tenns of government beginning to really grab your wallet later oil, new interpretations of what it might clean. And I just want to make sure that we can prevent that risk. It's bad enough the way it is. Mayor Carollo: That's an easy one. I think we could all agree to that. But Mr. City Attorney, let me ask you something directly to the point of what you were talking about, Your concern is that if a referendum doesn't pass that we will be in jeopardy with the maybe 30, 40 percent possibility of that, that we have in winning before the Supreme Court and the State Legislature might not then approve rewarding the surcharge statute that we have now for at least the next five or so years we have lett. That's your concern, if it doesn't pass. Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. That's exactly my concern. It's a policy consideration which has a direct impact on a legal question that I'm handling. Mayor Carollo: I'll say this to you: That if the voters of Miami do not want to pass this, then you know what? Then we shouldn't have it anyway. We should not have it anyway. Mr. Vilarello: Then, Mr. Mayor, then I'd have another suggestion. Instead of going to Tallahassee and have a curative statute that extends the surcharge through 2006, or keeps the surcharge in place through 2006, then ]lave a curative statute which simply allows it to lapse at the end of the legislative session, cures the deficiency the Third District Court of Appeals has indicated, and retroactively approve what we've already collected, simply for the purpose of avoiding the liability, potential liability in the case. 161 8/9/01 (Section 7) And that -- and that would get you to a consequence where the citizens would be -- rightfully voice their opinion with regard to not continuing the surcharge. And 1 understand that this is a policy consideration, but it does have a direct legal -- Mayor Carollo; You could do -- the same thing -- Mr. Vilarello: -- impact on something that we have in place. Mayor Carollo: The same thing you're asking; us, the same thing you're asking us could be worded into one where we include the extension for the 40 years, and include the provision that you just said. It could all be molded into one, where the citizens are the ones that are deciding if they want to have that risk or not, and if they want the extension or not. Both. Could it be done where you could put both into one question? Mr. Vilarello: We're not limited by a single subject rule. I'm not sure 1 understand how you're suggesting 1 draft it. Mayor Carollo: Well, this +c being done, frankly, because the State Legislature has indicated to us clearly, number one, they will not. approve anything unless we have a referendum. So either way, if they would extend it up there, it's going to be with a referendum. Even the changing of the wording for the next five years that we have left on the original Legislature. So it doesn't inntter. If this is not going to pass now, it's not going to pass alter the State Legislature approves it where we have to put it fbr a referendum. So either way, it's either going to pass or it's not going to pass. We can't avoid a referendum and get away from that. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Mayor, I don't -- Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. Let me ask a question, because I understand where the Mayor is coming from, but at the same time, I understand that -- what will be our liability if the Third Court of Appeal rules against us? Mr. Vilarello: There is the potential exposure of all the dollars that we've already collected. Now, we feel we have significant arguments to get the Florida Supreme Court to rule in our favor. And we feel that we have significant arguments to not require a refund. However, a curative statute resolves the liability absolutely. Mayor Carollo: Well, I wouldn't expect you to say anything other than what you just said, that we feel we have sufficient arguments to get the Florida Supreme Court to reverse the Third DCA. I mean, that's what you get paid to do, and 1 fully agree with you on that. But the reality is what I've stated before, that in order for the State to change the wording to what the Third DCA suggested that we need to have for the next five years and/or to got an extension for an additional 40 years, we're going to have to have a referendum, if not now, afterwards. And it's not going to matter whether we have it now or afterwards for it to pass. The difference is that it's going to help us tremendously for the State Legislature to approve it when they meet in January, if they already know that we had a referendum that was passed by the voters, because the biggest risk that I see that we have is that the State would not approve to give us the -- not only the additional 40 years extension, but in changing; of the words, the wording; for the next five years. 162 8/9/01 (Section 7) 0 And if they have already a referendum from the voters of Miami, that makes a big difference in us going up there and asking for that. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Mayor, of course, the reason 1 suggest a two -prong approach to this problem is simply to make sure that we address all of the potential exposure and my -- Mayor Carollo: And I understand. Mr. Vilarello: My problem with the argument in terms of going to Tallahassee is the request would be simply to ask them to give you what they've already given you. Alternatively, they could be giving you a twenty million dollar (520,000,000) liability, based on language that they inserted in the State statute in the first instance. Or they could resolve that issue for a financially troubled City with the surcharge that assisted tite City in getting out of its financial trouble. And it just doesn't make -- it's not -- and 1 understand it, that in Tallahassee, it's not necessarily logic that rules the day. But logically, if they're giving you back what they've already given you, but without the deficiency, I don't understand that. And I know that the Legislature has indicated in terms of an extension that they absolutely would not consider an extension without a referendum. Mayor Carollo: But because of that, you know, we're not living in a perfect world. You know how we got this through the last time when we went up there. Now, you're going to have every lobbyist that the parking industry can buy up there, so it's going to be a whole different ball game. And you have a different Legislature than we had when this was originally passed. So that's the big difference, that logic is not going to rule. So we have to be attuned to the reality of the situation that we're facing up there. And this is why I -- i mean, I respect what you're telling us, and I think you're doing your job by advising LIS of those potential areas of concern that you have. But I don't see them with concern because of the reasons that I've stated. Either way, we're going to have to have a referendum. And if it doesn't pass, we'll be dead in the water anyway. So it doesn't matter whether we do it now or we do it later, as far as the passing of the referendum. But it gives us a much better opportunity with the State Legislature to get something passed by them in January, if we go up there already with a referendum in hand. Commissioner Sanchez: It's sink or swim. Vice Chairman Gort: Question. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Gort: You know what we're trying to do in here. We want to make sure that if the Marlins stay in downtown, it would stay here. When -- how long do you think, or do you know in time that a decision will be made? Mr. Vilarello: By the court? Before the Florida Supreme Court? 1 don't -- I don't-- I can't give you a clear indication. it's likely that they will not rule before the end of the calendar year. But that's -- you know, that's speculation. 163 8/9/01 (Section 7) Vice Chairman Gort: OK. If we -- There's a resolution here accepting the -- i mean instructing the Manager to look at the new site that you all looked at. If that was to pass tonight, would that help the Marlins then to -- Mr. Gimcnez: I don't want to speak for the Marlins, but they've indicated to nye that, you know, time is running out. The more time, the more that we delay this, you know, the higher the costs go. 1 guess obviously, we've already seen that in the other costs that have escalated from the 2004 to 2005 to 2006 opening. They've indicated to me -- and they're here, they can stand up and talk for themselves. But that, you know, any more delays will basically-- and I don't Nvish to put a gun to anybody's head, but this is what they said -- this basically then will -- it will basically kill the project in Miami. So I mean -- Commissioner- Winton: Well, i remember .lohn Henry giving its a 60 -day deadline after the -- after he told the Governor he was an idiot, and the President of the Senate that he was an idiot, and that he'd never go back to 'Tallahassee again. And we all got a 60 -day deadline, and that deadline ended at least 60 days ago, maybe 90 days ago. So -- Mr. Gimenez: Well, the timeline is -- Commissioner Winton: How do I know? How do I know when the real time lines are'? Mr. Gimene : The time lines that we have issued now call for, we assume, some kind of a referendum, a positive vote frorn the citizens, therefore, and going to the Legislature and getting something passed in January that extended the surcharge, and the Governor sighing it, you know, right away. And that's when the clock started. And even with that, our consultants have said the 2005 opening is highly optimistic, and we're looking at more like a2006. So any time that you add to that just pushes that time line back. That's not a conjecture. That's a reality. Now, I can't speak for the Marlins. I don't know what tlteir position is. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gimcnez: 2007, 2008, I don't know. OK? But I kno%k, what they've toil mc, and l'm.just relating to you what they told me. Coin inissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman -- are you done, Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez-: The City Attorney has made some valid arguments. I could see his position where he thinks that we have zero to win and a lot to lose, pertaining to not only the Supreme Court, but also Tallahassee, But the Legislators and Senators that I have spoken to pertaining to this -- because whether we like it or not, this is a prudent issue for the City of Miami, which -- the extension of the parking surcharge for 40 years. The feedback that I've gotten back from most of the Legislators that I've spoken to has been no matter what, whether at the beginning or the end, it's going to have to go to a referendum. So we are in a situation where we either have to punt or kick, fish or cut bait, sink or swim, whatever you want to say. And I think that we've got to make a decision whether we're going to go for it or not. But the lesser of two evils is that we put it out for a vote and let the people decide whether they're 164 8/9/01 (Section 7) going to support it or not. I know that is not your recommendation, Mr. City Attorney. You have every right. 'That's why you bet (lie big bucks and we get the five thousand dollars (55,000) a year. Commissioner Winton: There may be a way -- if there's a twenty million dollar (520,000,000) risk for the City here, and the twenty million dollar ($20,0010,000) risk is that we do something that sets in motion a process whereby the City is required to refund the money we've collected. That's the twenty million dollar ($20.000,000) risk that the City Manager is terribly concerned about. And so if we're pushing hard to get this referendum done, not because it's in the best interest of the City, but because it's in the best interest of the Marlins, then maybe what we ought to do, if we're going to take that risk, is get the Marlins to indemnify us against that risk. And if that eventuality occurs, the Marlins pick up another twenty million dollar (520.000,000) price tag if we end up losing, because we won't -- we don't have to lose. I mean, the City Attorney has outlined a process here that doesn't create that risk for us. And it's not an insignificant -- I mean, that's -- I would hate to be sitting at the dais if the City Attorney told me that we could lose twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) by taking the wrong step, we blow him off, and we have to pay the twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) back, because of some action we take. I mean, I'm -- 1 wouldn't be too thrilled about sitting here, and -- and I don't know another way to get at that. I'm not -- I'm completely in favor of hiving a referendum and letting the public decide this issue. I've bot zero problem with that. I don't -- I wouldn't have minded when this issue first came up, whether we do it in September, or November, or December, or January, or Marc}-,, whatever strategically made the most sense. :.tui that's what I was interested in doing. It has to he strategically the right thing to do. And when I say .,strategically," I mean the time -- the best timing in order to get the will. And the win is the voters saying "yes." That's what the strategy would be. But I'm nervous about just ignoring what the City Attorney is saying about that potential risk here. And if we could figure out a way to mitigate that risk, then -- then, you know, I'm a whole lot more comfortable pushing; this to any time frame we need to push it to in order to get the xvin. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: If 1 recall -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- the Legislators said they would approve it, subject to being approved -- in other words, they will make the legislation subject to us taking it to referendum and approving it at referendum. So what we're discussing is if the Marlins, if they cannot wait until March? Mayor Carollo: What we're talking about is that if that happens, they're going to lose another whole year. If there's a referendum that's approved late September, at least they have the time to -- and the County will come through, because I spoke to Mayor Penelas in that, so they could have the seed dollars to lay the Foundation, do the planning that needs to be done so that they could be ready to roll on this the minute the State Legislature approves it. 13ut if they don't even have that in hand, that's not going to happen. And by the time the Legislature approves it, another year has been lost. So it's not going to be 2005 now that we're going to be opening up a stadium. It'll be 2006. And you're talking about substantial losses into the millions of dollars that they're going to have in addition to what they have already. Commissioner Itegalado: So ifwe really want to help the Marlins, we approve the referendum today. 165 5/9/01 (Section 7) Mavor Carollo: Well, I think, gentlemen, that the time has come to decide if we really want to be part of letting the people decide if they want a Marlins stadium or not. This is simply what it's coming down to as 1 see it. Commissioner Regalado: No, Mx, Mayor, I don't think that that is the decision. The decision is the Marlins need this right now. And we say that we can wait a prudent time to see what's going on in the Legislature and in the State Supreme Court for March. It's a matter of two dates. One that the Marlins need today, and one that is prudent and that we-- we have our agenda. The Marlins have their agenda. And the question is, whose agenda are we going to support, the Marlins or the City of Miami? And, you know, the easiest thing is to say let the people decide. But the people placed us here for us to make decisions. So 1, for one, i say let's wait until March. And that is -- but, you know, there are five persons here. Mavor Carollo: Well, the reality of the situation is this -- and let me spell it out clearly, so that anyone that hasn't taken their smart pills today can understand it. If the Marlins arc not there to help finattcially to get a referendum and surcharge approved, I'd like to hear from those that are going to be willing to come through and help finance a surcharge the City of Miami badly needs to pass for its future, in helping to firiance a campaign to let t1in public know what is there to vote on. If we don't have that, then it's going to be a one-sided election, where you're going to have the parking garage owners putting in substantial amount of dollars, and all that the public is going to get is going to be one side of the issue. And you know what? Then what we're doing is setting the voters of Miami up to fail, because the parking surcharge people, they're going to put plenty of money out there. And we don't have too many other places to go to raise dollars. i mean, I remember when even the question of whether the City of Miami should survive as an entity or not back in '97 came up. You know, I got stuck being the only one to go out there and tundraise, where 1 had to raise 99 percent of the dollars for the campaign that we launched to inform the public. Commissioner Winton: And I was raising; money against you, if you remember. Mayor Carollo: Well, i don't want to get into that, Commissioner. Commissioner %N,inton: Before I got here. Mayor Carollo: I'd rather let bygones by bygones. Vice Chairman Gort: If you remember, I cut that in half. Mayor Carollo: But sec, at least you've seen it my way now. So that's a plus. So the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that, you know, tliis is reality. And what I'm trying to do is place the City of Miami and its future in the best possible scenario to not only win a referendum, but to get it approved by the Slate. And as I've always said, the Marlins are secondary to rne. What's the primary motor that I'm looking; at is the City's future by getting this surcharge approved. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, Mayor Carollo: Yes, sit-. 166 8/9/01 (Section 7) Commissioner Winton: I wish that -- although 1 can't do anything about it, that when you started off that little pitch, it may have started a little differently. However, the point you make is really a very good point, because when I said strategic timing of the initiative, there's a lot of pieces that go into determining the strategic time. And I don't think there's any mistake. that -- that the -- well, Hank Sofer -- I don't know about the rest of the parking people, but certainly, Hank Softer will put an awful lot of money into trying to defeat any referendum that extends this parking surcharge. And -- Mayor Carollo: But you know what, ,Johnny? Let's not lay it just on Hank Sofer. He'll put money into it, but there's going to be other major parking entities that will, too, at least three or four of them. Commissioner Winton: Where was I? The point is that without real dollars on the flip side of this coin, and those dollars would presumably be coming from the Marlins, because I don't know anyone else that's going to be out there promoting the extension of this surcharge thing. Charlie, you're going to -- you're going to -- there you go. But I don't think that they're going to have real money behind them -- Mayor Carollo: I'm sorry -- Commissioncr Winton: -- and so it's going to be a real challenge. Mayor Carollo: Did Charlie say that they're on, on board? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Charlie said -- right. Mayor Carollo: OK, Good. Commissioncr Winton: So -- but they're not going to have the kind of resources -- Mayor Carollo: 'Thank you. Commissioner Winton: -- that real dollars are going to have, and real dollars are going to make a big difference. And i think from a strategic standpoint, timing and where you get the money to support our side of this position is an important issue. So -- and if we -- if we end up losing the whole shebang because we picked the wrong timing, we've got another new problem. So I'm not sure. You know, this is. a -- this isn't an easy call here. There's not -- this isn't a clean, just a nice, clean, black and white easy, "Well, here's the right answer." Vice Chairman Gort: No, it's not. Commissioner Teele: Would you yield? Mayor Carollo: Of course. Commissioner, go ahead. Commissioncr Tecle: On that point, I'm -- I started out saying first and foremost, we just went through a Citizens Independent Review Panel discussion. At every turn, I deferred to the City Attorney. My view is very strongly, on these important issues, if you don't like the advice the City Attorney is giving you, then 167 8/9/01 (Section 7) you should fire him. And 1 say that without any direct reference to this City Attorney, but the whole essence of having a City Attorney, or for that matter, a surgeon or a doctor that you're paying for professional advice is you should use -- you should follow it, unless there is a clear reason not to, or you should get a new one. I mean, this is, to mc, not that hard, given the fact that we don't have to do anything at this point. I mean, what we're really saying -- and, you know, for a minute, I thought you were getting ready to speak, as they say up in North Florida, a cracker, you know, you broke the code. I mean, what's wrong with this whole discussion-- and we need to just put it on the table -- is that we're not really talking about the parking surcharge. We're talking about the Marlins Stadium. That's number one. Number two, the whole discussion and debate that we hear all the time from the public -- they don't trust us -- is because we're being slick. Where in this referendum does it say anything about the Marlins Stadium:' Well, it doesn't. It's one of these cloaked kinds of things that we're supposed to basically endorse, and rubber stamp, and nobody knows. And then we'll all act very shocked when, all of a sudden, the Marlins organization starts campaigning for this. Now, I think, you know, the code trot broken when we talked about when, I guess, our Mayor said this is about to raise the dollars. Who are we going to get to raise the dollars? Well, raise the dollars for what? Are we talking; about putting this on the ballot -- When will we be putting this on the ballot, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Vilarello: The questio» before you is for November 6`h, I believe. Commissioner Teele: is when? Mayor Carollo: I don't think we -- Mr. Vilarello: We didn't identify a date. Mayor Carollo: There was none -identified. Commissioner Teele: What are the possible dates that we can put this on the ballot? 4Ir. Vilarello: Remember, this is a referendum question -- Commissioner Teele: 1 understand. Mr. Vilarello: -- as opposed to a Charter amendment. So 1 Believe we have until September -- 45 -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Tecle. Your question is how soon can you do it. 45 days, Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Notice requirement drives referendum issues. So you need at least five weeks out. You need live weeks prior to the election to provide for public notice. Nlayor Carollo: But 35 days. Mr. Foeman: But in addition to that, we need probably an extra five clays for administrative issues. Mayor Carollo: 40 days then. Mr. Foeman: 40, 168 8/9/01 (Section 7) Mayor Carollo: Approximately. You're in the ballpark. 40. Commissioner Teelc: So is the intent now to have a ballot before November? Mayor Carollo: Well, when we put the question for discussion, Commissioner Teele, on the agenda for this meeting, we all agreed to have the City Attorney draft. language. He was supposed to meet with each member of the Commission to go over the language and then come back with something. The only discussion that we had on the record at the time that I remember was that you talked about not mixing this with other items, either Charter changes or referendums on the November ballot, and you would prefer to Put this in a late September ballot. But outside of that, there was no other discussions. There was no vote on any timetable. So. Commissioner Teele: So we would realistically be talking about doing this for October, given the fact that the Clerk doesn't even have enough money to finish the ads for the schedule unless there's going to be some reprogramming of money. And apparently, you were told that they couldn't reprogram money for your -- Mr. Foeman: Yeah. And -- Commissioner Teelc: I mean.. we have an item on to reimburse you tonight, whenever we get onto it. Mr. Foeman: For elections, I currently have about a hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) in my -- Commissioner Teele: Well, yeah. Well, I mean, if you can't get fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) reprogrammed, how are you going to get a hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000)? Mr. Foornan: No. I currently have an available balance in my 270, I'm talking about for elections, of u hundred and twenty thousand. Commissioner Teele: For the current year'? Mr. Foeman: Yeah, in my Account Code 270. 287, advertising, that's another issue. Commissioner Winton: is that English? I mean what -- is there some sort of code down there? The something or other, 270? Mr. Foeman: Well, I have a code for an election account, and I have currently a balance -- Commissioner Teele: Well, you need to read anti -deficiency, because, let file tell you something. All those -- it' you're carrying a hundred and fifty thousand dollars (S 150,000) or that kind of number, in September, and there's no election scheduled, you need to be scrambling right now, trying to reprogram that money. 169 8/9/01 (Section 7) Mr. Focman: But even with the hundred and twenty, I'm going to be short another twenty-five, because the stand-alone election, if we have it in September or October -- Commissioner Teele: Well, we haven't called an election. Mr. Foeman: I know. Commissioner Tcele: Nobody is going to call the election if you don't have the money. Mr. Focman: No, I don't have -- I don't have a hundred and forty-five thousand dollars ($145,000), which is what it's going to cost. Mayor Carollo: What do you have?. Mr. Foeman: I have in my balance, I have right now a hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000), more or less. And then in addition to that, i need advertising for the fifth week, the third week, and the Sunday prior. Mayor Carollo: So you're short, what? About twenty, twenty-five thousand.' Mr. Foeman: I'm short now another twenty thousand, plus twelve thousand for advertising, more or less. Mayor Carollo: OK. About thirty-two thousand. Mr. Foeman: Yes. Commissioner'feele: Well, the point, the point is this, is that, number one, it doesn't make sense, 1 think, to hold an election until after we finish our budget. I mean, you know, that would be extremely messy, I think, to have an election in the middle of budget hearings, which are State mandated by the Florida Constitution. So that would be October. But it -- but whether it's September, or October or November, I think the real question is, arc we dealing with the City's agenda, or arc we dealing with the Marlins' agenda'? When the -- when the City Attorney has given the opinion that lie's given, the question then becomes, what's the overriding public policy that give us the right or gives its the comfort level of overriding the City Attorney on the issue, particular when you have at stake almost twenty million dollars (520,000,000) of potential rebate, or somehow making whole previous collections? I mean, you put that at risk unnecessarily. I strongly support the parking surcharge, and I strongly support the kind of language that we're talking about, except any language that I would like to see, the Attorney has not covered it. And I think the language that 1 would like to see would be the language that says that this facility -- that these funds will be available for such facilities. And let me read just some language that I've been looking at for the last three or four days: Would be used for the reduction of the fire fee and other fees, comma, reducing property taxes, comma, paying debt service, comma, for the purchase, construction and maintenance of open spaces, parks and recreational facilities, museums, historic preservation projects and such other public infrastructure and public facilities that are not primarily used by a professions) sports franchise, except by approval by a referendum of the voters of the City of Miami, and further provided that at least 20 percent of all such surcharge funds shall be available and expended far capital projects within the boundaries where at least 70 percent of the funds are collected. Now, that kind of language 170 b/9/01 (Section 7) gives everybody what everybody wants, if we were to go with it. I think that language, which could obviously he reviewed, is premature. But if we're going to do something, let's do something and let's don't cloak a half a billion dollar facility under the guise of a 40 -year parking surcharge, because these two things are sever -able. They clearly can be divided. And the fact of the matter is, if the Marlins want to vote, this language gives them t'_ic vote. This doesn't take anything away from them. But 1 think we've got. to be able to meet the straight test face. And there's nobody in this town believes that the parking surcharge for public facilities is not a five hundred million dollar ($00,000,000) facility coming out of the ground. And I would be a lot more willing to play ball if i had not read what happened in Tallahassee. And t call your attention, Commissioners, to the chronology of what happened in Tallahassee, where you literally had the Marlins and whoever else, whether it be our lobbyists, their lobbyists, the County's lobbyists or all of our -- basically, we're going to snatch one third -- is that the language, Mr. Attorney, that was in the final bill? -- one third of the parking surcharge? One third was going to just be snatched away from us. Now, that's not being cricket. Now, why should we spend our time here now trying to figure out how to give them a modern day Trojan horse? That makes no sense. This is a Trojan horse. And what we need to say is what it is. If we want to extend the parking surcharge, I got to tell you something. I believe if you put enough language in here about historic preservation projects, about open space, about museums, about greenways and green space -- What's that thing that they keep talking about on the -- yeah, greenways Did we say open space and greenways? If we put the right kind of language in here, we don't have to go out here like a bunch of tin can beggars, looking for whoever is going to pay the highest amount of at the poll dollars for a referendum. I mean, trust the public. The public approved the - - the park-- Safe Neighborhood Parks dollars. The public's not stupid. I think we underestimate what it is the public wants. But Pm going to tell you what the public wants. In my district, if there is no money for a park in Little Haiti, you know, 1 can tell you right now, it's not going to go well in Little Haiti. I don't care what anybody says. In my district, if there is no money for soccer fields, you know, something that everybody keeps talking about that we need to have in this town, and we don't have one soccer field. Look at Tampa. All we're hearing about now is Tampa's Olympic bid. And the fact of the matter is, is that soccer fields are what the Americas are about. OK? That's -- Isn't that the number one sport in the Americas is soccer? Or foot -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, in the world? Commissioner Teele: In the world? And yet, we're supposed to be a world class City. So my position is, let's give something for everybody. And you'd be surprised. If the people feel like they're going to get something, we don't have to try to raise a million dollars ($1,000,000) and suck up to everybody who wants their special little deal, especially if their deal is going to cost one third of -- What did you say? A billion -- what was your number? Commissioner Sanchez: I.S. Commissioner Tcelc: If this is 1.8 billion dollars Where is the smart guy with the horn -rimmed glasses? What's one third of 1.8 billion dollars? Mayor Carollo: Six hundred million. Carlos Gimenez (Ci(y Manager): Six hundred million. 171 8/9/01 (Section 7) # 1 0 Commissioner Teele: So if that's what, you know, the Marlins' gift and the County's gift to this City Nvas, in the last day of the last hour of the last 30 minutes of the session, the City of Miami was getting one third of the parking surcharge being taken out and made -- and made available for -- Well, if it's not correct, Mr. Manager, you need to correct it on the record here. Mr. Gimenez: No, you're correct in terms of what the final language was. But -- but a lot of that was through a lot of negotiation that was happening. But it went on to the last minute. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but it well exceeds everything that this Commission, which the last time I checked -- Mr. Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: -- is the governing body of the City. Mr. Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: And they were literally going to self-help themselves to one third of the money. I mean, not one third of it for the downtown -- I still say that if somebody will sit down and talk to Hank Sofer, and talk to the people who are waging all of this devil and give them something that -- that gives them a reason to want to support it, like a first class downtown infrastructure program, a program that 4ve're going to spend -- One -- no. 80 percent, 78 percent of all of the parking surcharge dollars are collected within the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) area and the Southeast Overtown/Otani Redevelopment Districts. 80 percent of all of (lie money is collected within those three jurisdictions. Now, and that's where Sofer is. He's in the Omni, lie's in Southeast Overtown, and that's where the parking, all of them, whetter it be central or whatever. If we were to conic up and say, we're going to commit six hundred or seven hundred million dollars ($700,000,000) to a first class capital program in downtown, I think the opposition gets muted, because what you're saying is you're going to invest -- The problem, Johnny, and you know this better than anyone else does up here -- nobody wants to pay money and just see it going out. If something is corning back, at least you have something to discuss and negotiate about. And -- and building a stadium is great for the Marlins, but fill not sure what that does for our downtown Gore. fill not sure what it does for the Omni. Anil quite candidly, if the Marlins were talking about putting up one third or 20 percent of the money, you know, 1'd be here fighting their case with them. But this is all about, "How do you get money from the City of Miami?" And what they did, whoever did it, what they did was the most shameful act of rape, pillaging and plundering that has ever taken place in this City. I nlearl, you can talk about all of the swcetheart deals that almost happened from Sliermon Whitmore right on through to any of the others that you wain to talk about. But, thank God, the session ran out, because the bill that had been loaded and cocked to be passed was one third of the parking surcharge of the City of Miami going to the Marlins. And that's what nobody wants to talk about. That's what the discussion -- I want to say on the record, Mr, Book is a personal friend of aline. I hope he will be file lobbyist or representative fbr the City as long as fill a Commissioner, But what happened in Tallahassee was wrong. It was wrong. And nobody wants to say that. Everybody is tipping around. So why are we out here now trying to figure out how to sneak some hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,000,000), using these numbers, or what is more like six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) to the Marlins? My position is, if they want to vote, let's give them a vote. But let them be a vote next to this issue; not for this issue. So if they want to help it, they got to pass this and theirs. OIC? There's a. 172 81,9/01 (Section 7) • 9 way to cut this thing in half. But we don't have to be in a position where they're holding us hostage. And rill willing to give them a vote. I'm willing to right here, right now, say that 100 percent of all of the money that the Marlins collect shall be rebated to them, and furthermor:, that the Commission will consider, based upon the negotiations with the Mayors and whomever else, assuming that the County drops their lawsuits against the City, and that there is -- pursuant to all these othe,- things that you all were supposed to be negotiating. The last resolution says that the Miarni-Dade will resolve financial issues pending between the City and the County. 1 haven't heard any report on that. But that's in the resolution that says we're going to pay for the land. 1 mean, if we spent as much time jetting back and forth trying to do the deal for the Marlins as we would do trying to get our finances straight and getting the County to pay us, we'd be farther down the road. So I'm willing to give the Marlins a vote. .But let's deal with the City first. And let's put them both on the ballot, if that's what the Mayor wants to do, at the time that the City Attorney gives us the word that the coast is clear. And -- and if that's in March, Iet's do it in March. Or if it's a point before then, .I'm willing to have a special election and not charge the Marlins, because, I mean, I think they have a right to be heard. But 1 think we put the two issues on the ballot at the sz�rne time, and we don't basically put one issue on the ballot that's a Trojan horse that's going to wind up losing and destroying the credibility of this Coirtmission in how we deal with the public. Mayor Carollo: Well, let mo give my opinion on what you've offered, Comrriissioner. I have no problem, whatsoever in presenting two issues to the public. As you know, and I stated this to you before this issue carne up, 1 wanted the language to be very clear, so that the voters knew exactly what they were voting for, and no hidden agendas. So I have no problems in dividing two issues on both questions. One would be strictly surcharge. The other would be building the Marlins stadium and using surcharge monies for that. What I don't believe we should do, though, is to get into areas of specifying what part of the surcharge for what area. I think- if we have a secondary question that it talks about using surcharge dollars, tip or down, for the Marlins Stadium should be sufficient enough. And then this Commission can decide on that as -- once it's approved and it's approved by the Legislature. But if we start putting linlitations on that, I think we will be hampering the process and hurting ourselves as we go along in this. Commissioner Winton: I think -- But the only percentage he put in there -- Excuse me. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, but tile, only percentage he put in there was the one that identified 20, specifically 20 percent for infrastructure improvements for the arca that principally collects. Mayor Carollo: No, no, no. We're talking about tile secondary question. C0111 In Wilton: Oh, fill sorry. OK. Mayor Carollo: That's the primary question. Commissioner Winton: I was -- OK. Mayor Carollo: We're talking about the secondary question of the Marlins. What I heard Commissioner Teele mention was to limit it only to the two million dollars ($2,000,000) that they would generate in parking surcharge dollars. What I am saying is, just a general question that would say that surcharge dollars can lie used for the building of a Marlins Stadium, just up and down. Voters will approve that or not. And I think that would put us in a much stronger position to get it approved and to get the Legislature to also approve it. OK. And as far -- and this is the only other area I want to talk about and it's not 173 5/9/O1 (Section 7) important. What's important is to get something on the ballot as quickly as possible. It's -- and I can understand strongly how many feel -- I certainly felt the same way -- on having to give one third of the surcharge for any good project or any good reason in order to get two thirds of it for the City. The truth is that the main force that has been behind us getting the surcharge extended for the 40 years were the Miami Marlins. If it weren't for the Marlins, most of those Legislators that were up there would not have been helping us or talking to us about extending it for 40 years. That was our ticket to get past the gate to try to get the surcharge extended for 40 years. And if that's what it took to get two thirds of it, I would rather get two thirds of it than none. Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor, let me tell you, we've always -- I think the City's gone beyond the call of duty in trying to get. the -- keep the Marlins here. But at the same time, I think if we can go to the Legislature and let them know that 40 percent of our property within the City of Miami is tax-exempt and that we are providing the service at any one time to over a million people in the City of Miami, that could be another reason wily the surcharge could be extended. I'm telling you right now, the problem with the -- and what happened with the Court, I think that might help us in the long run to pass the surcharge, the reason being is when we were putting our budget together, we're going to lower our millagc from 8.95 to 5.27. 1Nle were still going to have a five million dollar reserve. And when tine Court tool: that away, that decision, people realized hew important the surcharge is for us. I think there's different ways that it could be passed. And definitely, we do want to help the Marlins. We do want the Marlins to stay here. But at the same time, I agree, we have to -- and you stated it when you first said it -- we have to make sure the people know what they're voting for. And that's very important. Mayor Carollo: If I could make a statement, Commissioner, on something you said. It's not 40 percent of the City's property that's tax-exempt. It's approximately 28 percent. That includes a big chunk of land that belongs to the City of Miami, itself, within that 28 percent that would be lower. What -- one of the areas [flat i think we're going to need to look at is, if you want the Legislature to buy into that argument at all, is on the fire fee. Right now, we're exempting all those properties from the fire fee. And with the exception of houses of worship, that's one area that we might want to look over, because it's going to be eery hard for the Legislature to approve something, and for us to ask them to bite the bullet in approving something that we're not willing to do ourselves. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, no. I'm saying that we -- we have to lake it to the voters first. I'm all in favor of taking it to the voters. I don't have any problem with that. Commissioner Regalado: Are we going to tell the legislature that we're going to use part of the fire fee to build the stadium or -- ? Mayor Carollo: No one is talking about using the fire fee for that. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Mayor, why is it that we need to do this right away? I mean, we -- we have the City Attorney telling us what he feels, what he knows. I have talked to State Legislators I know. Not all of them, of course, not many of them, but at least two that represent part of the City of Miami feel that if they ever want to do the fire -- the surcharge, they will be very precise in requesting that this -- most of it will be used to reduce taxes and fees, which was the main purpose and the original purpose. So how about if-- let them do that first, and then bring it to a vote, to the residents of the City of Miami. I don't -- I don't see why the rush of defying the odds with the Supreme Court, even with the State Legislature and 174 8/9/01 (Section 7) do it in three weeks, and four weeks, instead of doing that in March, the two votes or whatever vote the Legislature requires. I still don't understand why your -- Your argument is that if (lie Marlins don't get that approval now, it's going to be another year, and that we need that for the Legislature. So it's a part of Marlins' agenda, pan of the City agenda. But I'm -- I have been told by two Legislators that if they can pass that bill, they would require a public vote, but after the fact. So maybe they are wrong, or maybe I'm talking to the wrong people. But no one has said that we have to do it before. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Winton: Could I ask the City Attorney a question on timing'? You suggest that we not do it before, but I'm not sore I heard when you're suggesting we do this public referendum. What's the -- what's the outside date here that we would have to wait? Give ine your scenario. Mr. Vilarello: The -- My suggestion is with regard to an extension that you simply listen to what the Legislature told us last year, which is once they authorize the statute, that before we can implement it, it must first be approved by the citizens in a referendum question. So it could be as early as March, or as early as the conclusion of the legislative session, as soon as we can call a referendum question after that. Commissioner Winton: So -- And the session ends when? End of March? Beginning of March? Commissioner Sanchez: First week of March. Commissioner Winton: First week of March? And the math on the Marlins side, if we did the referendum in September or October, the distance between October and March -- October, November, December, January, February, March. So the distance is five or six months. It isn't a year. So I'm not sure understand how that five or six months gets into a one-year delay. I can sere how it gets to be a five- or six-month delay, but I can't figure out how the math gets to be a year. Mayor Carollo: On the seasons. On the seasons. Commissioner Teele: Ycah, but Johnny, the point is, is that the Legislature -- i mean, I don't agree with the characterization that this is a straw vote. I think it's much more than a straw vote. But the fact of the matter is the Legislature is not going to act on it before January, or February, or March, no matter what. So you don't have a -- you know -- Commissioner Winton: So you don't have anything. You don't have any -- The only thing you got is the public saying that we might like it. But the Legislature still is going to have to act for us to really have it. And they may not vote "yes," anyhow. So -- so that's why I was -- that's exactly why 1 was on that line of questioning. I was trying to understand the other end here, and how that becomes -- why that has become such a crucial issue now for the Marlins, given the fact that no matter whet, we're going to have to go back before Tallahassee. And, you know, this straw vote doesn't do anything other than create a straw vote. Legislature still has to act. Don't have any money available until they do. So what are our options here? I think we've talked this through, so we might as well make some sort of decision and move to the next subject. 175 S/9/01 (Section 7) • Commissioner Regalado: I would -- l would move to wait for the outcome of the State Supreme Court and the State Legislature, and show the intent to hold a special election on both issues in the early -- that if we can set an election with so many months ahead now, it has to be 120 days. So with the intent of setting a special election on the Marlins Stadium and the surcharge, both items, in the early part of next year, either the gubernatorial primary in March, or a special election. I would move that as pant of the resoluton. Commissioner Winton: And as that resolution, you're suggesting that the City Commission is committed to -- Commissioner Regalado: Of course. Commissioner Winton: -- .fighting for the extension, not only for -- the City Commission is going to fight vigorously for a modification of tate existing language to -- to maintain the parking surcharge through 2006. And in addition to that, we're going to be supportive of institutionalizing the parking surcharge for 40 years. So that goes -- becomes a part of your resolution. Commissioner Regalado: Olt, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeali. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I'll second that. Mayor Carollo: There's a motion. There's a second. Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Mayor Carollo: Discussion. Commissioner Sanchez: What -- Commissioner Tecle: Turn your mike on. Commissioner Sanchez: When do you anticipate this being heard by the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court making a final decision? ,Mr. Vilarello: The briefing period is relatively quick. However, I can't say with any great degree of certainty when it will be heard. Sometimes, the Supreme Court sits on cases for a long period of time, and sometimes they respond quickly. But 1 don't anticipate .a response or an answer before the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Mayor Carollo: And that is correct. You probably won't fret that before the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Tecle: On the debate on the motion, I think it's really incumbent that we also send a signal that we're not adverse to the Marlins having a vote oil the stadium. I am very, very, very much adverse to 176 8/9/01 (Section 7) the notion that the only way we can pass our extension is by using or riding the Marlins resources and their horsepower, if you will, with either the voters of this City or in Tallahassee. I've seen any number of polls, and 1 can tell you that the Marlins Stadium issue is not a slam dunk by any standard. I mean it's -- there is -- there may be dollars and resources on a referendum issue, but the fact of the matter is the issue, itself, is not something that the voters are chomping at P -e bit for an opportunity to say, I want to pay for a four hundred million or three hundred fifty million dollar ($350,000,000) stadium, which is what it was represented at, for -- out of a parking surcharge. It's real clear that the voters want to reduce the fire fee, the voters want more tax relict, and i believe that if we trust the voters, and we mean what we say, and that is, we're going; to give the voters some meaningful relief, and not just use this as a Trojan horse for more govenument, either, and that we have to have a meaningfid plan to reduce taxes and to reduce fees if we really want the voters to support it. And that's going to be the most persuasive thing that we can put over to the voters on this. So 1 also think -- and I will be urging, and fighting, and cajoling and pushing that we list sonic of the things that the voters can expect us to do over and above that, because we're not going to not -- we are going to try to address the infrastructure needs and capital projects in this community. And while we do have this elasticity in the general obligation bond, which has been discussed before, I think a part of how you get public support, particularly in the downtown/Onuni and redevelopment areas is we've got to make a commitment to put sonic of that money back into the community, to reinvest it And, i mean, with two members of the DDA or former members of the DDA on this board, 1 think that's sort of the no-brainer, if you will, the "smart pill" comments notwithstanding, that we really should be focused on. And so this cloaking language about capital projects, I want to go in tlue other direction. I want to say it will be capital projects, but not sports facilities, except if the voters approve it. And so, it's not a question that this is a "now you see it, now you don't." And I'm willing to vote to put the parking surcharge revenues available, particularly for the dollars that they generate, as it separate ballot question that can go up together. I'm not at all adverse to sone parking surcharge dollars be used for the Marlins Stadium, providing there is a commitment from the owners and a commitment from the County. But the way this thing; developed in 'Tallahassee clearly gives me the impression that we need to deterniine the future destiny of this City and our resources, and not trust the Marlins or the County to help us spend our money, because 1 think that's something we need to retain over here. And if nothing else, we need to put a breaker in the ballot question to prevent sone well intended legislative sneak attack that requires that we have to spend the money in a way that we don't agree with. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Teele, it's interesting. You've made this point several times in different ways. This whole issue of how much money the City is putting; forward for this, the amount of money that the City is Proposing at this moment, that you pointed out the Commission has not voted on, but that has been part of the negotiation, which has escalated from -- I don't know --twenty-six, twenty- eight, thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to a hundred and seventy-three million or something like that. The problem that is -- that exists currently rests with the Marlins. And the problem is that we haven't negotiated the rest of the deal. And the deal, at the end of the day, it' there's going to got -- if they're going to get my support here, in order for tis to put that kind of City money into this venture is that we will own a significant percentage of the Florida Marlins Baseball Team. I'm not going to vote for a minute that we're just going to come up with an extra hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,00,000) and hand it over and say, you know, 1 think that you all are sweet guys, and I hope you have fun playing; baseball. I'm not about to do that. So -- 177 S/9/01 (Section 7) • Commissioner Teele: Would you yield on that point? Because -- because 1 know the answer is going to be, well, the Baseball Commissioner doesn't want public ownership and, oh, you can't have a -- But let me just say this. Commissioner Winton: He doesn't have to have -- Commissioner Teele: When you say `ownership," does that include upon the sale or the conveyance where there is an equity participation? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Absolutely right. Commissioner Teele: OK. Commissioner Winton: Upon refinance or sale of the Marlins, if the Marlins take money out, we, as their .joint venture partner get money out. And that's the way joint venture deals work. And we haven't seen that part. The public, the only thing the public has seen so far is the City o1' Miami rolling over and giving them more money. But the reason we can't bring the other part to the table is because the Marlins won't sit clown and negotiate a deal with us. And that's a point I've been trying to make over, and over, and over again. If the Marlins would sit down and negotiate this darned deal that we could have negotiated two or three months ago, we would have that other piece of inforniation on the table, and then you'd have something good to sell the community. And the community would begin to think, this isn't just the Mayor and the Manager -- because they haven't been doing it -- this isn't the Mayor and the Manager trying to give away money. They haven't been trying to give away money. They've been trying to negotiate a deal. But they can't get it negotiated if the other partner -- other party won't sit at the table and negotiate the deal. .So I'm still waiting on the rest of those pieces to land here. And we voted this morning to put a deadline of September 13`" to see this deal structure on the table;, so we can talk to the public about the whole deal, not jus! about our part of the deal. So hopefully -- anxious to see it. Mayor Carollo: Any further discussion so we could have a vote'' OK. Cali the roll. 178 8/9/01 (Section 7) • 0 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: MO'T'ION NO. 01-846 A MOTION DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO IMPOSE A PARKING SURCHARGE UNTIL THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE RULE ON THIS ISSUE; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER TWO PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR (1) THE PARKING SURCHARGE AND (2) THE MARLINS STADIUM TO BE SCHEDULED FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION IN MARCH 2002. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by tltc following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner. Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: Commissioner Joe Sanchez ABSENT: None Mayor Carollo: It passes four/ono. Conunissioner Teele: Did you say it passes? Mayor Carollo: Yes, of course. Commissioner Winton: You voted "yes," I voted "yes" -- Commissioner Tccie: What was the motion? Comniissioner Regalado: It was my motion. Commissioner- Teele: Oh. Commissioner Regalado; To wait until after the -- Mr. Vilarello: The motion was to wart for the Supreme Court and the Legislature to hold a special election on both issues -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. 179 8/9/01 (Section 7) Commissioner Winton: The motion supported the City Attorney's recommendation. Commissioner Tcelc: She was talking in my ear on something. Mr. Chairman, on one, one issue -- because we keep saying this, and 1 want to correct this for the record. Commissioner Winton, you said it, the Manager said it, you know, and it's real clear to me that nobody is either reading the City resolutions or taking them seriously. We have made a very definitive statement on what we're going to do. Now, unless this has been rescinded, Resolution 1-150, a resolution that restates the endorsement in principle on the concept of the construction of the stadium, it says that the -- that the endorsement in principle of the concept of the constriction of a state of the art baseball stadium for the Marlins in the City of Mianli on real property to be provided by the City as restated, conditioned upon the City being exempt from environmental remediation responsibilities of any real estate provided for this purpose. And further, the City restates its intent to accept the funding sources outlined by Mayor Yenelas and the Marlins to assist them in the funding for this purpose. Now, Johrmy, I want you to listen to this, Mr. Manager. Further, the City restates that: One, the City will not participate in the financing of the construction of the stadium except as it relates to the use of parking surcharge ftuids; two, that the City will be provided a revenue stream for real property to be provided by the City; and three, that Miami -Dade County will resolve all financial issues pending between the City and Miami -Dade to the satisfaction to the City. Now, those etre the. Ibur conditions that w- voted on. And I'm just -- 1 want to put all of this into context, because the Mayor said earlier that these numbers we all know, and that these numbers were there. But I've looked at them, and these numbers are way different. The difference is 12.5 million dollars. And if you add 12.5 to three eighty-five, it does not cone up to four forty-five, because 12.5 million dollars is the per year cost increase, based upon delays. 12 and a half million dollars, according to the City Manager's staff. So I just want to be real clear that -- everybody says, well the numbers were there, and everybody knew it. I read the numbers before. I read the numbers this time. The numbers have gone up dramatically. OK? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, they have. Commissioner Teele: All right. Well, I mean, you know -- Commissioner Winton: I hope I didn't say anything differently than that. Commissioner Teele: Well, no, no, no. "El jefe" was, you know, saying that if everybody read them, the nrunbers are there, and the Manager disclosed those numbers. And I'm saving here is the original document, and these numbers are substantially different now. This project is going up. I'v1r, Gimenez: Yes, sir. There is no doubt that the project is going up. But you're right. There is an increase on a per year basis. But there was also further discussion between (unintelligible) and the Marlins, in tertius of the real cost of that facility. And what you see now is what we consider to be a more accurate cost of what that facility is going to actually be. 180 8/9/01 (Section 7) 8. (A) DIRECT MANAGER TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING FOR PROVISION OF BUS BENCHES; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL PROVIDERS OF BUS BENCHES IN MIAMI AND COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATION. (B) AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXTEND FOR 60 DAYS CURRENT CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF BUS BENCHES. _ Comrissioner Winton: Do we have another subject? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, we do. Commissioner Winton: Commission agenda item? Vice Chairman Gort: We have a couple of more. Commissioner Tecle: We got three more, two or so. Commissioner Winton: 'vt',,at are they'? What do we have? What's left? Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Item Number 5 is a discussion on the bus bench agreement with the City of Miami, Commissioner Winton: Bus bench. NvIr. Gimenez: And we have outdoor advertising also to discuss. Commissioner Winton: Bus bench. Commissioner Sanchez: You know, we've got to do something about these late meetings. It's beginning to be it habit. Commissioner Winton: Any ideas? Vice Chairman Gort: Well, if we -- Connnissioner Winton: I'm all in favor, but any ideas? Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion concerning the City Attorney's recommendation related to the bus benches. Is that where we're at? Commissioner Winton: Yeah. So start discussing, whoever is going to discuss. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): After the last City Commission meeting, the City Manager and 1 sat down with 13us Bench Ad -- what's the nanlc of the company? Commissioner Winton: is that our current -- 181 8/9/01 (section b) Nlr. Vilarello: .Bench Ad, Incorporated, which is our current contractor for bus benches in the City. We sat down and had a discussion with than, had a very interesting discussion. They put some favorable terms on the -- forward. However, the City Manager has come to the conclusion that Ile wishes to recommend to the City Commission that all proposals which are currently pending be rejected, as being in the best interest of the City and authorize the City Manager to enter into competitive negotiations with all individuals Nvho may be interested in entering into such an agreement with the City. Vice Chairman Gort: Come again? Commissioner Winton: You mean all the -- So he wants to enter into competitive negotiations with the companies that provide bus bench service kind of stuff out there. Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Mr. Ginienez: In other words, I think competition is a good -- Commissioner Winton: Ri«ht. Me. too. So move. Vice Chairman Gori: There's a motion. is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: What was the motion? Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Mr. Vilarello: The motion rejects all proposals which are currcnlly outstanding, and authorizes the City Manager to enter into negotiations with bus bench providers and conk back to the City Commission with a recommendation as to an award. Vice Chairman Gort: With all of them. Wait a minute. Commissioner 'Feel c: 13ut let me ask you this. Commissioner Sanchez: With the best deal. Commissioner Tec1c: State this again, Mr. Attorney? Mr, Vilarello: That the City Manager has requested that the City Commission reject all proposals which are outstanding and to authorize him to enter into competitive negotiations with any and all providers of bus bench ad services, and to conte back to the City Commission with a recommendation of an award by the City Commission. Commissioner Winton: (Inaudible, speaking off microphone.) 182 8/9/01 (section 8) Commissioner Tecle: Yeah, but this is the same process that you had a negotiation going on. 1 mean, can we be assured that everybody is going to get a fair shot on this thing, and that nobody has been pre- selected and -- I mean, isn't this the same situation where we had a meeting going on in the Mayor's office'? Mr. Vilarello: No. Competitive negotiations, as defined by the City Code, requires the Manager to certify to you that he has contacted and discussed with at least three vendors of the service before he makes a recommendation to you. So that assures -- Commissioner Teele: What was the company that was the -- was it a bus bench or bus shelter company? Mr. Vilarello: These are all bus benches right nov we're talking about. Commissioner Teele: That was delinquent, and then they went up and met with the Mayor, and everybody was up there, and they paid a lot of money? Mr. Vilarello: This is the current -- the cun•ent vendor that we are in litigation with. Commissioner Sanchez: And that's the one we - And we terminated their contract twice. Mr. Gimenez: We were directed at the last Commission meeting to meet with the current vendor. And they came, and we met with the current vendor. They had a new proposal. i listened to that proposal, and my recommendation is that I reject all the -- the RFP (Request for Proposals) and i enter into negotiations, connhetitivc negotiations with all the bus bench providers in the area. There were I think at least-- what? - - three or four. There were four. There are four that we kno,, of We will, you know, be conducting competitive negotiations with the four and come back to you with a recommendation as to what 1 consider to be the best deal for the City. Commissioner Regalado: How long? How long is that'? Mr. Gimencz: I want to fast-track this and have this no later than the second meeting in September. Hopefully, by the first meeting in September, I'll have it wrapped up. Commissioner Teele: All right. Commissioner Winton: Call the question, Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor, state it by saying "aya." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 183 8/9/01 (section 8) The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 0 1 -847 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS CURRENTLY OU'T'STANDING FOR PROVISION OF BUS BENCHES, FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO COMPF_.TITIVF. NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL PROVIDES OF BUS BENCHES IN MIAMI AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following.; vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Roe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Tcele, Jr. Commissioncr Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: What else do we have? Commissioner Winton: One more item. Vice Chairman Gort: The City Clerk, do you have an item? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Winton: Mr. Knox, welcome to the City Commission meeting;. Right? Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, there is one pending issue with regard to bus benches. The termination letter required -- that the City Manager sent out to Best -- to the company that we're currently under contract with requires them to remove the bus benches within the next ten days. Given that the Manager is going; to come back to the City Commission at the second meeting in September, there was a request lrom the vendor to extend that to at least that long a period of time, until the end of September. Commissioner Tecle: Motion that the vendor -- Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a motion? Conimissioner Tecle: 60 days. 8/9/01 (section 8) • Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Teele: Wait, wait. 90 days. Commissioner Sanchez: 90 days. 0 Coniinissloner 'Feele: 90 days. It doesn't -- 1 mean by the -- If you award it even to somebody new. you're going to have to have a transition, and a start up and all that. I'm sorry, what did you -- what? 60? Commissioner Sanchez: You want to make it 120? Commissioner Teele: No. I don't. I mean, 1 just think it ought to be a reasonable business commercial issue here. Mr. Vilarello: We've directed -- Vice Chairman Gort: Well. you said you have to listen to your Attorney. Mr. Vilarello: We directed -- this Manager has directed the vendor to remove all bus benches within 60 days. 'Thai. 60 days runs out in ten days. I think Commissioner Teele's motion was to allow that vendor to stay in place for the next 90 days. Commissioner Teele: Whatever time -- Conunissioner Winton: Is he paying us anything? Mr. Vilarello: Yes, lie's haying. Commissioner Tecle: Whatever time the management is recommending. I mean, but let's assume that you award to the existing vendor or you don't award. You've got to have some kind of transition period. All ot' a sudden, you know, you've got to work through something. So you're going to need at least 60 days. Vice Chairman Gort: 'They already leave 60 days. Mr. Gimenc7: 1 agree, sir. And 60 days seems reasonable. Like I said, I want to conic back to you at the first meeting, if possible, in September with a new vendor, and 60 days will give plenty oT time for the current vendor, if lie's not successful, to remove the benches. Commissioner Winton: OK. So 60 days is the motion? Commissioner Teele: If that's acceptable to -- Mr. Vilarello: Yes. 185 8/9/01 (section 8) Commissioner Winton: Call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. All in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-848 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND FOR 60 DAYS CURRENT CONTRACT FOR THE PROVISION OF BUS BENCHES. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted icy the Iollowing vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner .foe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gott NAYS: None ABSENT: None 186 8/9/01 (section 8) • 0 9. DEFER CONSIDERATION RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF BILLBOARD COMPANIES TO MORNING SESSION OF MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 2001; MANAGER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, IF THERE IS NO ORDINANCE ACCEPTABLE TO .MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY, AND NO STATEMENT IN AFFIDAVIT FORM SIGNED BY APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTING DILLBOARD COMPANIES WHO ARE IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE AS TO WHAT SAID COMPANY IS GOING TO DO TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND BY WHEN; CITY CLERK TO COORDINATE WITH CITY ATTORNEY AND OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS FOR ADVERTISING OF BILLBOARD VIOLATIONS, UTILIZING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED FOR SPF.CTAI. F.i.FrTiON Vice Chairman Gort: Anything else'? Commissioner "recle: Federal case. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Discussion on the outdoor advertising industry. Commissioner Sanchez-: And I have a pocket item. Commissioner Winton: A pocket item? Commisslonei- Tecle: Not on a special meeting. Commissioner Regalado: No pocket items. Commissioner Teele: Not on a special meeting. Commissioner Regalado: Why -- Mr. Manager, remember the two illegals or what have you, billboards in Southwest 81" Street'? Mr. Gimencz: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: This person keeps getting letters from the City saying that he is in violation, and that if he wants to terminate the violation, lie has to file suit, he has to defend himself, lie has to demolish those -- So who's sending those letters? Francisco Garcia: As pertains to those particular billboards, Commissioner Regalado, the City of Miami sent the original notice of violation, and we've left it at that, as well as the official notification. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. He has another letter. I've seen it. You're still in violation. If you want to you -- you should -- Commissioner Winton: Do you have a copy of it so they could see it'? Commissioner Regalado: 1 don't have it here, but I can get it and send it to your office. 187 8/9/01 (section 9) C Commissioner Winton: Yeah, get it so they can at least respond, because now, they're trot even going to know. Mr. Ginlcnez; We'll follow it up and try to get a copy and see what's going on, sir. Commissioner Winton: OK. What's the subject? Mr. Garcia: In terms of the outdoor advertising facilities, 1 wanted to provide the following status report: At this point in time, all billboards in the City of Miami identified as being non -co tforniing, rton- contpliant or illegal have been cited. And what I mean by being cited is we have sent notices of violation to each and every one of those. And in addition, those in C-1 Zoning Districts, outside of the 660 feet frons the hnlited access highways have been sent summons to appear at a Code Enlbreement Board hearing to be ]teld on August 30'x' of this year. And that's where we stand at the moment. Mr. Ginlenez: Also, sir, we -- I've had a meeting with representatives of the industry, and they are meeting on a regular basis with our Planning Department to see if we can come to some kind of resolution of the entire issue, some kind of it middle ground. Some of the things that we've asked is -- is that we have some kind of redurtimi in the number of outdoor billboards, and that also, that the billboards that do remain in place are brought to a certain standard so that there is a consistent look to the billboards throughout the City. We have a lot of billboards that are mismatched or not in very good condition, and those are some of the things that we broached with them. They've also, the industry, themselves, have offered some type o1 funds for improvement, donations to the City, et cetera, and we are in discussion with them. So we're taking a two -prong approach. We're discussing a compromise with thein, but we're also -- we're continuing with our Code Enforcement efforts. Commissioner Winton: Except, though, that 1 hope that whatever compromise we're talking about reaching that we have a clear understanding of the original law, both Federal and local that was put in place many years ago, and that that becomes the baseline negotiation point, not that plus a whole bunch of stuff that they've done subsequently, so that we create a new false baseline that's generated by the industry, as opposed by original law. So i hope that that's how we're approaching this when we're talking about reaching some compromised position. Mr. Ginlenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado; But, Mr. Manager, is there any plans to take down at least one? Because, you know, if we don't do that, people won't believe that we are trying to right the wrong, because we keep reading in all the papers that there are illegal billboards, and there was this conitnittec, the other committee, and the Commission, undecided. But -- but we have not seen any action at all. Mr. Ginlcner-: The -- well, it's not -- because our process doesn't allow us to bo and start taking down billboards right away. We have to -- there has to be -- we have to follow our process. And like .Francisco said, the first -- we cited them, and there is a special Code Fnforcenlent Board hearing to hear a number of cases on some of these illegal billboards set for August 301x'. That is part of the process. So we are -- and that's a special meeting set just for that purpose. So we are fast -tracking that process. There are questions that have yet to be answered. A lot of those billboards really have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, because there are difierent jurisdictional issues. Some are protected -- could be protected by US, law, and 188 8/9/01 (section 9) some are not. And so we have to look at cacti billboard, look at the situation on each one. And it really has to be looked at as a separate case. They all will be looked at as a separate case. But there are a number of different issues. It is not -- not a very easy -- this issue is not one that's going to be easily resolved. Commissioner Teele: Mr, Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I think the question continues to reoccur. And again, it's late, and I don't really want to spend any time on this. Has Eller removed any billboards voluntarily? Mr. Gimencz: Not to my knowledge, sir. Commissioner 'i'cele: OK. The notice, this proposed notice for the -- for national publication says that Eller describes itself as a recognized leader with approximately 83 percent of the identified local billboards and has the overwhelming majority of violations. Is that -- is that believed to be a correct statement, Mr. Attorney? Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney); Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: And yet, Eller has -- has hired lawyers, and lobbyists, and Guceis, and this, and they haven't done one thing but collected the money as this process goes on. See, what we have to understand is the more they talk, the more money they collect, And this process didn't start in May. This process started in November -- I'm sorry October, when 1 passed a resolution and created this panel. You know, that's when the talking started. So they've talked -- they have successfully talked to us for one year with not one billboard coming down. Mr. Rojas, if we could, is there any - Are ,you all prepared to take billboards down voluntarily? And is Asset Management or Community Development here? Because I'm going to ask about one billboard that I believe the City owns -- is on City land. Luis Rojas: Commissioner Teele, since the last meeting that you instructed tis to meet with inanageplent and the Attorney, we inet with the Manager. The City Attorney was present. We've mel with the. Planning Department twice. We've offered a proposal to the City that would approximately reduce the square footage of signage; -- Commissioner Teele: I -low many billboards have you all taken down? Sounds to me like you're doing a lot of talking. How -- that was the question. How many billboards have you voluntarily taken down:? Mr. Rojas: To my knowledge, we have not taken any down. But again, there are; issues, Mr. Tecle, as to - Commissioner Tecle: You know what? I think Eller is just being -- Do you know if the word, "massive resistance," does that term have any legal connotation to vou? Mr. Rojas: No. 189 8/9/01 (section 9) Commissioner Teele: Mr. Knox, does that term have any connotation to you? Would you mind taking; the dias and say who you are, very quickly, please, sir? George Knox: My name is George F. Knox. I'm an Attorney with offices at 150 -- magnificent offices at 150 Southeast 2"" Avenue. My understanding of the definition of "massive resistance" is in contra- distinction to passive resistance, massive resistance implies that there is an array of forces which are bound together for the purpose of mounting what could be characterized as an insurmountable resistance to it matter ora measure. Commissioner Teele: Well, the architect of massive resistance was Judge Griffin Bell, who later became Attorney General. And it was clone as a way of addressing the Brown versus the Board of Education. And in those cases, what file southern great legal minds -- and 1 have the highest respect for Judge Bell. who was Attorney General under Jimmy Carter. They all sat together, and they decided, rather than saying we're not going to enforce Brown versus the Board of Education, we're going to go before the courts and say, yes, sir, Your Honor. We're going; to get right on it, Your Honor, we're going to do it right away, Your Flonor. And, of course, the result was 20 years later, nothing had been done. So 1 just think, you know, you all need to come clean with this. There are so many trashy billboards that you have that it almost constitutes gr%nie type of fraud on the people who are advertising;, You haven't had -- I can tell you 20 billboards that you have nothing; on it but old bagged up signs. 1 mean, if you all were interested in really cleaning this thing; up, at least you take the unprofitable, non-profitable, 11011 - performing billboards out of the inventory. Mr. Rojas: Commissioner Teele, if I could make a recommendation to this body, I think if you come up \with a date certain, whether that's September 15t" or a reasonable date and say we either want an ordinance that solves this problem or we're just going; to litigate this. I think what we need to do is we sort of have to have that deadline. We have done everything humanly possible. We've met with your staff. We've offered things that give the City a revenue source. It eliminates signs. It makes signs have -- Commissioner Teele: Why won't you voluntarily remove signs? Mr. Rojas: And 1 will recommend that to my client that by the next time we're here that signs have corne do%vn. Commissioner Sanchez.: Mr. City -- Mr. Rojas: 1 can't, 1 can't, 1 can't make that proffer to you. Commissioner Tecle: Well, I will move that the matter be deferred -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Teele, would you yield? Mr. City Attorney, how strong; is our legal position, in your opinion? Mr. Maxwell: Well, in my opinion, I -- The common rule is that all ordinances are valid, presumptively valid until determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction. So we would have to take the position that our Zoning Code, right now, is valid, and it requires the removal of the signs. 190 8/9/01 (section 9) Commissioner Sanchez: All right. One of the things that I think that both sides need to stay away from is along, drawn out litigation, for years, because the longer they keep us in court, they're going to continue to have the billboards up. And the only enforcement we're going to have is -- the only thing that we're going to be able to do is continue to enforce and cite them through Code Enforcement. Now, on the issue of compensation, I think if -- It's I I years they've had. There's 1990, you had five years, and 2001. That's I 1 years that they've -- 1 feel -- that they've been fully compensated to take the illegal signs down. So that -- that, I think that we have a strong argument in court pertaining to that. So what we need to basically do -- And I think that we should continue, and I'm prepared to make a motion to have -- continue the enforcement, and direct the administration to continue to negotiate an acceptable agreement. I mean, this is the first proposal put forth. Normally, you don't accept the first or the second, Maybe we won't accept the third, because I know what's going to happen here. Quickly, going to jump the gun and go into litigation, which we are prepared to go. I mean, I think that what our City Attorney is telling us is that we have a good case if we were to go to court. But the litigation process may take years. And as long as we are litigating this, they are making money, the signs are still up, the bad signs are still up. So 1 think in the process -- and that is the ail of compromising, the beauty of the nature of litigation -- that we come to a compromise, if we get to a compromise. But I'm here to tell you, the illegal signs should come down as quickly as possible. But we can't bring them down. And if we bring them down, we might have to end up paying, and that's a concern that 1 have. If -- Commissioner Winton: Well, but we've already directed all of the things you're suggesting. Vice Chairman Cort: Look, we've been at this six months now. Commissioner Teele: And we're already in litigation. So I mean -- Vice C=hairman Gort: They have come to me, and they have sat down with me, and they have sat down with each one. of us, and they have said that they want to do it, volunteer. They have not done any of that, at all. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, my motion sticks. We continue the enforcement, and we direct the administration to continue to negotiate. So move. Commissioner Teele: Well, I -- Commissioner Winton: We don't need that motion. We already -- Vice Chairman Gorr: You don't need that motion. Commissioner Sanchez: (inaudible, speaking off microphone.) Commissioner Teele: No, because there's no time line. There's no -- Commissioner Winton: They already have that Vice Chairman Cort: They already have that motion. 191 b/9/01 (section 9) Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chainnan. Commissioner Winton: They have all of those. They have all the -- Management has all those directives already. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I would move that this matter be deferred until September 13`x', the morning of September 13`x', so we're still fresh, because we -- you know, they are so pleased to just wear us down. And you know what? The lawyers are all happy, too, because they're here by the hour, So, you know, they don't care. So they're all laughing. You know, I'm going to break the Code, brothers. So -- Commissioner Winton: Well, maybe there's something in that for us. Maybe we do it that way over, and over, and over again, so that they keep paying these lawyers. Vice Chairman Gort: Son - Commissioner Winton: And one of these days, they're going to wake up and say, maybe I better tear sonic of these things down so I don't have to pay all these lawyers to be in a Commission meeting for -- Vice Chairman Gort: 1 mean, their profits are going to start coming down. Commissioner Winton: -- 14 hours a day. Con1iiii.s loner Sanchez; I hate to break this news to you, but they got plenty of money. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, 1 would move -- Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's all right, but their profits will start coming down. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the matter be deferred -- Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: -- to the morning of September 13`t', for an -- Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and seconded. Commissioner Teele: -- with the understanding that if there is no ordinance that is acceptable to the Manager and the Attorney, and that there is not a statement, an affidavit signed by an appropriate person as to what they're going to do, and by when, in an affidavit, that the City take action and further require the Clerk to coordinate with the Attorney and (lie Office of Media Relations for the distribution of the -- for the advertisement of the notice of billboard violations to -- from the budget that was previously allocated for the special election. I would so move. 192 8/9/01 (section 9) Commissioner Winton: And are you going to suspend further negotiations? Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. is there a second? Commissioner Winton: At that point -- Commissioner Teele: On September 13'x', if they don't. i mean -- Coininissioner Winton: There will be -- so pant of your motion -- Commissioner Teele: There will be no further negotiations, right. Commissioner Winton: -- is that the. negotiations will end on September 13`t'. Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: 0k. Second. Vice Chainnan Gort: There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Maxwell: Could I have a clarification, Mr. Manager -- I'rri sorry -- Mr. Chainnan. Commissioner 'reele? Commissioner Teele: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: 'this motion directs its to -- to publish this notice now'? Commissioner Tcele: No, this -- no, it doesn't. It directs you to work with the City Clerk and the Media Office in determining the best way to advertise it «ith the budget, utilizing the budget of the City Clerk's Office that was previously set aside for elections in national publications that would get the most notice to our fellow municipalities that may be under the same curse or plague. Commissioner Winton: And will go out alter the 13'x'; isn't that what you said? Commissioner Teele: Will go out after the 131h Mr. Maxwell: OK. So -- thank you. Commissioner Teele: For those that don't file an affidavit that's acceptable to the Attorney -- to the Manager and the Attorney. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and it's been seconded. Commissioner Sanchez: it's been seconded. 193 8/9/01 (section 9) Vice Chainnan Gort: Any further discussion`. Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 0l -849 A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF BILLBOARD COMPANIES TO THE MORNING SESSION OF THE MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEN4BER 13, 2001; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, IF THERE IS NO ORDINANCE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TETE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN AFFIDAVIT FORM SIGNED BY APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTING BILLBOARD COMPANIES WHO ARI? IN VIOLATMN OF CITY CODE AS TO WHAT SAID COMPANY IS GOING TO DO TO COME, INTO COMPLIANCE AND BY WHEN; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO COORDINATE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS FOR THE ADVLR`I'ISING OF BILLBOARD VIOLATIONS, UTILIZING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCA'T'ED FOR THE SPECIAL F.'LECTION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner.lohnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Rojas: ,lust for clarification. The motion, as I understand it is that we try to -- to continue to work with the Manager and tate Attorney to bring hack an ordinance that's acceptable, plus an affidavit, and September 13`x' is our deadline, in the morning. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Rojas: OK. Thank you very much. 194 8/9/01 (section 9) Vice Chaimian Gort: And you have volunteered, taken down a hundred suns or something like that. Mr. Rojas: OK. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 195 8/9/01 (section 9) 10 `BRLEF COMMENTS REGARDING MANAGER TO ADDRESS PENSION BOARD. Commissioner Tcele: All right. Any further matters, Mr. Chaimian? Vice Chairman Gort: No, sir. Commissioner Teele: We did not finish the Marlin issues, but I hope we are through with it for tonight. That was deferred from the previous agenda, the discussion item. Commissioner Winton: I hope we're done tonight, too. Vice Chairman Gori: Which one'? Commissioner Winton: I don't know -- Commissioner 'Keele: Motion to adjourn. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Winton: Can -- 1 don't know if we're allowed to say anything about this at all or not, Mr. City Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): If it's not a call of this meeting, at a special meeting, and I don't know Vw}nat the subject is. But if it's not a subject of this meeting -- Commissioner Teele: Well, you got to know what he's going to say first. 1VIr. Maxwell: Well Commissioner Winton: It was -- it was -- I'll let you tell me then. It's -- it's about -- I read in the newspaper today that the City Manager was going to bo before the Pension Board to oppose a pension going to -- Commissioner Sanchez_: We can't talk about that. Commissioner Winton: Can't discuss it? Mr. Maxwell: No, not that. Commissioner Teele: Can't discuss it. Commissioner Winton: Well, that's too bad. "That's such it great idea. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Connnissioncr Teele: All right. Mr. Chairman, is there a motion to adjourn in order? 196 8/9/01 (section 10) 0 0 Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: All those in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 0 1 -850 A MOTION TO ADJOURN TODAY'S SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Tecle, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Tt1ERE:UPON, THE CITY COMMISSION ADJOURNED THE SPECIAL MEETING, AhTER WHICH, THE: CITY COMMISSION, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 163.01, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PART 111, C11AP'17:R 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, CONSTITUTE]) ITSELF AS THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST/OMNI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE: CITY OF MIAMI, IN ORDER TO CONSIDER VARIOUS CRA -RELATED ISSUES. 197 8/9/01 (section 10) 11. AUTHORIZE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH ATC ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CRA'S ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS, $200,000. I Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, for 30 seconds, this is a call meeting of the Overtown -- I'm sorry -- of the Southeast Overtown/Park West/Omni Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors to take up three items. The first item is the item related to -- identified as Item B, a matter to approve the piggybacking of a City -approved and advertised contract with the company, ATC Associates, for environmental services, engineering and environmental services with the amount awarded by the City of four hundred thousand dollars (5400,000), not -- an expiration date of July 22"d. I'm reading from the memorandum from the Acting Director to the Board, and not from the agenda. I would ask for a motion on that. And this is piggybacking; a City contract. Vice Chairman Winton: So move. Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Tecle: Moved by Commissioner Winton. Second by Commissioner Regalado. Is there objection'? All those inf4;.)r, say "aye." The Board (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those opposed say "no." 198 8/9/01 (section 11) The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA 01-114 OMNI/CRA 01-2G A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH ATC ASSOCIATES INC. ("ATC") FOR THE CRA'S ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded hx, Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vole: AYES: Board Member Wifredo Gort Board Manber Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Chainnan Arthur Teele NAYS: None ABSENT: None 199 8/9/01 (section 11) • 0 12. DEFER PROPOSED RESOLUTIONAUTHORIZING CRA TO TRANSFER $15,000.00 FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 TO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO COVER INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION FOR SAID FISCAL YEAR. Chairman Teele: Item Number 3. Vice Chairman Winton: 2. Chairman Teele: Item Number 2 is deferred. And given the fact that we did not -- This was needed in case we called an election in September. And (lie CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) does owe the City Attorney's Office and the City Clerk's Office, consistent with the resolution, I think, that Commissioner Winton and Commissioner Gort talked about, about making everybody pay their own costs from now on. 200 8/9/01 (section 12) • 1 0 13. APPROVE FDOT (FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. Board Member Sanchez: So move, Number 3. Chainnan Teele: Motion. 1\untber 3 is the item relating to the h:lorida DOT (Department of Transportation), in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Board Member Sanchez: No, no, that's 4. 3 is -- Cthairman 'Keele: No, Item 3A is a joint -- no, no. Board Member Sanchez: Oh, I'm sorry. Chairman Teele: Item 3A is a joint participation agreement by the Department of Transportation and the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). The DOT has moved very quickly. They're very excited UbMlt this. And they have -- this is basically the start. The PD&E (Planning, Designing and Engineering), we've a]read v approved it. The budgeting, we approved the budgeting of this. Vice Chainnan Winton: So move Chairman Teele: :Moved by Commissioner Winton. Board Member Gort: Second. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Gort. All those in favor -- The Board (Collectively): Ave. Chairman 'feele: -- say -aye." 201 8/9/01 (section 13) Tlic following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-01-115 A RESOLUT10N OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/ PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") APPROVING FDOT (FLORIDA DEPARTMrNT OF TRANSPORTATION) INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO TIIE CITY A'r'I'ORNEY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSEN'r: Board Member Wifredo Gort Board Member Tornas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Chairman Arthur Tecle None None 202 8/9/01 (section 13) 14. AUTHORIZE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO .ENTER INTO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT MECHANICAL DESIGNERS AND CONSULTANTS, INC. (IMDC) FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, EQUIPMENT COORDINATION AND FIRE PROTECTION IN CRA'S ONGOING PROTECTS AND PROGRAMS, $250,000. Board Member Sanchez: Move Number 4. Chairman Teele: And move -- Number 4 is the item related to the mechanical design, and this is a lighting consultant, primarily. And this activity is going to be largely in the Omni areas first, Commissioner Winton, and it's pursuant to the activities that we've directed relating to the Omni areas that we're beginning to move with the bib time area to put lighting in there, and to start some of that mechanical work. Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Tecic: By Com;;;issioner Winton. Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." The Board (Collectively): Aye. 203 b/9/01 (section 14) The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. SEOP W/CRA R-01-116 OMNI/CRA R-01-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT MECHANICAL DESIGNERS AND CONSULTANTS, INC. ("IMDC") FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL. ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, EQUIPMENT COORDINATION AND FIRE PROTECTION IN THE CRA'S ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED '050,000. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Chainnan Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vole: AYES: Board Member Wifi•edo Gort Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Chairman Arthur Teele NAYS: None ABSENT: None 204 $/9/01 (section 14) 0 - 6 f 15. BRIEF UPDATE ON PARK PLACE LEASE AMENDMENT ISSUE. Chairman Teele: And Ms. Lewis, just for the record -- We made an effort to reach an agreement with Park Place, Johnny, and Park Place asked that they not be taken up. Now, this is the -- because there's substantial problems with their position. Vice Chairman Winton: They have -- they have come to realize that maybe there's some reasonable exchange due? Chairman Teele: Exactly. Vice Chairman Winton: Wonderful. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lewis. 'THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ADJOURNED CONSIDERATION OF THE HEREINABOVE ISSUES. There being no further business to come before the City Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:1 C, a.m. ATTEST: WALTER J. FOE.MAN City Clerk SYLVIA LOWMA.N Assistant City Clerk WIFREDO GORT, Vice Chairman 205 08/9/01 (section 15)