Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2000-09-07 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI INCORW"ORATES ��`�i111 ��. CO..F•L� COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 (SPECIAL) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING September 7, 2000 SUBJECT 1 (A) DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF OFF- STREET PARKING ("DOSP") CHARTER CHANGES. (B) PROPOSE CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO AUTHORIZE COMMISSION TO TRANSFER ASSETS OF DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STRET PARKING (DOSP) TO CITY AND TO ALLOW FOR OPERATION, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF "OFF- STREET PARKING FACILITIES OF CITY" BY CITY, DOSP, OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AT DISCRETION OF COMMISSION, AS DETERMINED BY WHICHEVER IS DEEMED TO BE IN BEST INTEREST OF CITY; CALL AND PROVIDE FOR REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000. 2• PROPOSE CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2, TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2001 FOR A CHANGE IN COMPOSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING (DOSP) BOARD FROM FIVE MEMBERS APPOINTED BY BOARD ITSELF AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSION TO SEVEN MEMBERS BY ADDING MAYOR AS CHAIRPERSON OF BOARD AND BY ADDING ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY COMMISSION; CALL AND PROVIDE FOR REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000. LEGISLATION 9/7/00 R 00-714 R 00-715 1-42 9/7/00 R 00-716 R 00-717 M 00-718 43-49 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 7`h day of September 2000, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in special session. The meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m. by Commissioner Wifredo Gort (hereinafter referred to as Vice Chairman Gort), with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Mayor Joe Carollo Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort (District 1) Commissioner Johnny Winton (District 2) Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) ABSENT Commissioner E. Teele, Jr. Carlos Gimenez, City Manager ALSO PRESENT: Frank K. Rollason, Assistant City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Sylvia Lowman, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Winton, after which, Commissioner Sanchez then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Mayor Carollo: You're to get a promotion. Frank K. Rollason (Assistant City Manager): No, but I found the right place to be, right? September 7, 2000 • Mayor Carollo: The hot seat for today, huh? Mr. Rollason: For the moment. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Mayor, if we could start the meeting. Mayor Carollo: Of course. Commissioner Sanchez: I, unfortunately enough, have a plane to catch at 4:30. Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: Well, we'll start right away. Does anyone know if Commissioner Teele is on his way? Commissioner Winton: I'm pretty sure he's here. (Unidentified Speaker): He's in the back. Mayor Carollo: He's in the back? Very good. We will then begin on Item A, discussion of the proposed Department of Off -Street Parking Charter changes. Mayor Carollo: What I'd like to do is to begin by asking the Administration to go over some of the different options that you have studied, and the requests that were made from this body to the Administration. Mr. Rollason: Mr. Mayor, I'm sitting here for the Manager at the moment, and I know he's here in the building. And I'm really not prepared to discuss these options. Mayor Carollo: I apologize, Frank. Mr. Rollason: He's coming this way. Vice Chairman Gort: We need him here. Mayor Carollo: Why don't we do this, then. Why don't we just wait a couple of minutes, then. Note for the Record: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. and City Manager Carlos Gimenez entered the Commission Chamber at 2:09 p.m. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Teele got here. Good. Art, how are you? Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: There we go. OK. We got a full team now. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Mayor, I want to apologize. I held the Manager up, and he was meeting with me. Mayor Carollo: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Manager, what we'd like is for you to go over the different options for the Charter change that the Administration has gone over and has talked to the members of the 2 September 7, 2000 Commission about so that the Commissioners can have the opportunity to analyze what options are available to them right now. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): You know, Mayor, I'd like to have the City Attorney explain the different — there are two questions, one that was directed by you, Mr. Mayor and one that was directed by the Commission, and one that I directed him to draft. And if he could go through it, I think it's best for him to do it. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding, there's three options that are going to be presented to us today. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, three different questions are being presented to you. Vice Chairman Gort: But with the questions that are-- You're going to go through the whole process. I mean, he's going to discuss the legal part of it, and you will go into the other part. Mr. Gimenez: That's fine, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Mayor, briefly, the three questions that are currently on the Agenda include the first item, which was — which I received direction to prepare at the last Commission meeting, and essentially is posing the question to the residents of the City of Miami as to whether or not DOSP (Department of Off -Street Parking) or the Department of Off -Street Parking should be abolished. The second question simply provides for the nomination and appointment of all the members of the Department of Off -Street Parking Board by the City Commission, and the Mayor to sere as the Chairperson of the Department of Off -Street Parking. The third option was one that was presented at the request of the City Manager, which essentially authorizes the City— I mean the City Manager to transfer the assets of the Department of Off -Street Parking, to the extent that such transfer would be in the best interest of the citizens in terms of most efficient operation of the Department and the most financially beneficial operation of the Department to the City. And then— I'm sorry. And then Commissioner Gort has requested — and I don't know if you're going to present it today, Commissioner. Would you like me to explain your question? Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is that when we discussed it among the Commissioners, we didn't talk about all the Board Members. We talked about that we should have the majority of the Board Members. Not all of them. At least three of them should -- at least three of the existing Board Members should remain in the — as Board Members. Mr. Vilarello: If you notice the way the question was structured, because each of you had different suggestions and recommendations as to whether the majority should be appointed by the Commission or nominated by the Department of Off -Street Parking, those numbers are left blank. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mr. Vilarello: You will decide today what you think is appropriate, and we'll fill in the numbers of how many members should come nominated by the Department of Off -Street Parking and how many would be appointed by the City Commission. 3 September 7, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: And the third option, according to the way this was explained to me this morning, it was the Department would stay as it is. The Charter, what it would do is it would eliminate the monopoly of the franchise that the Department has the exclusivity that it has right now, and it would be open for competitive. Mr. Vilarello: That's correct. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. The first option, which basically abolishes the Department of Off -Street Parking, there are some questions and answers that were asked pertaining to that. And there was a package that was given to the — to yourself and the Members of the Commission pertaining to some of these questions. If the Department were abolished, basically, it would come into the City and then us, as the City, would run it for a while, I guess, and we could do whatever we want later with it. But there were some problems with that in terms of the — of what happens to the employees, what happens with the bond status, there's other outstanding debt. And Bob Nachlinger can go into those issues. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Bob. Bob Nachlinger (Assistant City Manager): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bob Nachlinger, Assistant City Manager. We went through a series of scenarios on what would be the effect of the abolishment of the Department of Off -Street Parking. The employees, themselves would then become City employees, primarily would fall under the AFSCME (American, Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees) Union. They — we've talked to the people with the AFSCME Union. They're — they would come in and have Civil Service status. And basically, the Union has agreed that they could come in with Civil Service status and an effective date of their employment with DOSP (Department of Off Street Parking). Checking or reviewing the salary structure, we found many of the departmental or employee classifications that DOSP currently uses have comparable classifications here within the City. There were some others that we would have to create. And we found three positions that would be redundant in that absorption of the employees. The benefit levels, the retirement benefits and other salaryrelated benefit that DOSP has were comparable or less than the City's. So should that occur, the employees would actually more than likely benefit from becoming City employees as opposed to the Off Street Parking employees. Talked to Bob Friedman with Holland and Knight, the bond counsel on the Off -Street Parking debt about what the status of the bonds would be if DOSP was eliminated. He has indicated that there is no reason'to have to defease the bonds at that point. There is a question from the rating agencies what the status of those bonds would be, whether they would become City debt, which they obviously really actually are now, and what their rating would be, given the fact that they are City bonds. Essentially, that is the questions that were related to the absorption of Off -Street Parking into the City's operation. If you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to try to answer. Mayor Carollo: Any questions from the Members of the Commission at this point in time? Commissioner Winton: Just a comment. It seems to me that as I remember the last Commission meeting, the thrust of this effort was designed to — wasn't designed so much to bring Off -Street Parking into the City to become another City department, but to create a mechanism whereby the City could get another third party vendor out there of our choice to manage the entire function that's currently managed by Off - Street Parking. Isn't so? 4 September 7, 2000 Mayor Carollo: Let me — Commissioner Winton: Please. Mayor Carollo: If I can, Commissioner Winton, let me correct you. The intention is to bring the maximum amount of dollars to the City of Miami that we possibly can. Whether that's done by having an open bid process that Off -Street Parking can bid, and if they're the winner, you know, they, themselves could do it. But this is a very open process. That is what I intended for it to be, where you would probably have a couple dozen firms competing, and we would be assured that we would get the top dollar. Now, if Off -Street Parking is correct in their assumption that they're giving us top dollars, then there shouldn't be any problem, because then they should win the bid easily. But if they're not correct, then the City is going to bring in more dollars. And that's the only intention that I have. What the Assistant City Manager just went over, it was never my intention to have the City be the one that would run it, because I don't believe the City of Miami would be able to bring the top dollar. But I do think that it's in the City's best interest — in fact, we have an obligation — to find out through an open bid process who could bring to us the top dollar. And I firmly believe that within at least a couple of years, if not before that, the City of Miami should be able to get somewhere in the area of three to maybe even five million dollars ($5,000,000) more per year than we're receiving now. That's my opinion, anyway. Commissioner Winton: Well, the reason I made the— that I wanted a clarification of that point is because this analysis would assume that all the employees would come to the City. And if we're going to do an open bidding process — and I, too, share your thought completely that if the City is going to take it over, you know, that — that — you know, I — Vice Chairman Gort: Doesn't work. Commissioner Winton: Isn't going to work. So that this analysis is just simply the analysis of what would happen to the employees. It would only go into effect; obviously, if— if the City took over the entire function currently provided by Off -Street Parking. Otherwise, this analysis is simply irrelevant. The question of what happens with those employees will be a function of whatever the operator that comes in decides to — whether or not they need any of those employees. Is that not correct? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir, it is. The analysis that we did is simply in relation to the elimination of DOSP as an independent authority from the City. Commissioner Winton: Good. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: OK. Vice Mayor Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: I'll save it for later on, but I think it's very important when we analyze this, we want to make the most money for the City of Miami, but at the same time, we don't want this to be a detriment to certain areas. When you look at the history of the Off Street Parking, one of the reasons it was created was because when the planners created the downtown Miami, they created it without parking. And that was one of the biggest problems that we have. Presently, we are trying to bring people into the Central Business District. We're trying to attract some new businesses into the area, and we're really working hard to do that. So we have to make sure that we look at both parts, and that we don't hurt the people that are there, also. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. September 7, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: This has never been a question of the Administration issue. It has always been a financial issue. We all believe that the introduction of competition into the process is a step in the right direction to try to bring as much money, revenues towards the City. But there's a lot of questions that we need to make sure that are answered, so we know exactly — to see if we made the right choice. One is the maintenance and the services of the meters, the parking garage, the enforcement, the administration. The labor issue continues to be a problem. We need to know what's going to happen with the 168 employees, if they come over to the issue — to the City. Right now, on these resolutions, on every one of them, it says, "by the City, DOSP or a non -City entity." Those - that's a decision that I think that we need to narrow down. I, for one, don't think that the City should take it over. That's just my opinion on this issue. Now, on the bond issue, I need to know that the bond series 1998, which are right now at A3 and A, which is the best bond, if the City takes it over, would it come down to what our bond rating is? That's a very important question that we need to answer today. Mr. Nachlinger: And it's a question -- I can't give you a definitive answer. That would really be up to the bond rating agencies. If the bonds were downgraded to the City's non -investment grade, the interest rate that the City would pay on those bonds would remain the same. The only difference would be in the market value of the bonds to the bondholder. Commissioner Sanchez: That's if the City takes it over, the City assumes the responsibility. Mr. Nachlinger: If the City assumes the debt and the rating agencies downgrade that debt to a double `B" rating, which is what the City's currently is, the market value of the bonds would decline. The interest rate would remain the same. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Now, in 1999, KGPMG (Klynveld, Peat, Marwick, Goerdeler), which does the same auditing for us audited them, and the report stated that— what? — they were — that everything was fine and dandy. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: That's what it stated. Now, what was the argument that was made here that we would not — we are not — we weren't able to audit them on a yearly basis? Now, there was an argument made. I believe the Mayor stated that we didn't have any inner control of their— accountability -wise. Now, can we as the Commission prepare an Interlocal Agreement which would allow the City to have internal — our internal auditor or the independent auditor general, which we have not hired, you know, look into the records on a yearly basis or annually to look at their numbers. We could do that. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir, if they — if they would agree to that Interlocal Agreement. Vice Chairman Gort: It's up to us. Commissioner Sanchez: That's up to us, I know. But that's — now, when I first got here two years ago, we were only getting — I think it was almost one million or one point two. Mary, you could correct me on that. Was it one million in summonses? Only the tickets, the fines. Mayor Carollo: But what we began to get for the first time from the Off -Street Parking— not going into tickets, because that's a given. I'm talking about extra dollars that we should have been getting. For the first time, in the end of '98, we started receiving dollars. It was approximately two million dollars ($2,000,000). It went up to two million, three hundred and seventy-five thousand ($2,375,000) since this ' September 7, 2000 process began. They have stated to us that I think there's another couple of hundred thousand dollars that they found that we should have been getting. So we're heading in the right direction. Commissioner Sanchez: And that's what I'm trying to get at. Mayor Carollo: Not fast enough. Commissioner Sanchez: Has the Administration sat down with them to at least negotiate before we take this step, and to — putting it out for referendum — to negotiate to see if we could get more money out of them? Mr. Gimenez: I need to answer that this way: To me, the fundamental problem with Off -Street Parking is the fact that they are the only entity that we can deal with. There is no competition in the equation. And if we, for now, would be able to renegotiate with them, and they may give us something for a period of time, there is no guarantee that in the future that a new Executive Director, a new Board would deal with the City in the same fashion. And that is the fundamental problem. They, according to the Charter, have every right to provide off-street parking in the City of Miami, they are the exclusive agents for that parking. I think that the — what we're trying to do is trying to infuse some competition into the process. Therefore, the City and Off -Street Parking get on a more level playing field. And that's— that's, you know, the best I can answer that question. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I have some other questions, but that will be later on. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: On the question of the bonds, I cannot understand exactly the bonds transfer. On one side, when I met with you, Bob, and the Manager said we could — if we were to issue an RFP (Request for Proposals) for open bids, the bonds will be assumed by the City. That is correct. Not the commercial entity, but the City; is that correct? Mr. Nachlinger: It could be either one, depending on how we structure that RFP. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Then my understanding is that there is some written language on the bonds — there is not? — that said that the Parking Authority should direct the operation of that entity. I don't know if that is the case. If that is the case, then how are we going to do it? We have to diffuse those bonds and that is the — Mr. Vilarello: There is language to the effect that the Department of Off Street Parking Board will manage the operations of the Department. However, we discussed with bond counsel that issue, and they feel that it would not affect or require the defeasance of the bonds. Remember, the bonds are issued by the City. It may affect the value of the bonds, and our financial advisor would have to address that issue. But our bond counsel has advised that it would not require the bonds to be defeased. Commissioner Regalado: And right now— and the other issue, the money that could be guaranteed in an open bid. We would have to take some of the money that we want guaranteed to pay off the interest on the bonds, which is -- Do we know? Because we didn't know the other day. But is it eight hundred thousand or a million? Mr. Nachlinger: It's approximately one point two million annually is the debt service on those bonds September 7, 2000 Commissioner Regalado: And if we were to guarantee or get a guarantee of so much money, we would -- also will be able to force the entity, whatever it is, not to raise rates? Because that's the other issue. The issue of rates, it has to do with the same City that we wantto prosper. So on one side, we want Coconut Grove, and downtown Miami and the different areas of the City to prosper. And we are trying to bring more merchants and more business. And we have done the right thing by the surcharge, which is a direct revenue for the City. But if we were to give this to a commercial entity, they would be able to say, you know, raise rates because of the operation or the money that the City is seeking. And that would affect directly the same people that we want to prosper, to have them prosper here in the City of Miami. So my question is a direct question to the City Attorney. Can a government impose a freeze on prices? Mr. Vilarello: The Charter provision, as it reads right now, requires any rate increases to be approved by the City Commission. And you can — Commissioner Regalado: I know that. Mr. Vilarello: You can establish that as a condition, as well. Commissioner Sanchez: Not only that, but the appointment of the Board, their operating budget. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioners, if I can address one issue Commissioner Regalado brought you. As you brought out at the very beginning, the obligation to pay the debt would always be the City's. You may by contract transfer that obligation to another entity. The obligation remains the City's obligation on the debt. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: Could I ask another question about the bond issue here? And I'm absolutely not an expert on bonds. You said that the obligation of the existing bonds will— the City issued the bonds. And then you said just a moment ago that the City has an obligation to service the bonds, no matter what. Does that include the existing bonds that are — that have already been issued? If Off -Street Parking, for some reason or another, all the money disappeared overnight, we have an obligation to — Mr. Vilarello: No. These are revenue bonds that — only the revenues of the Department of Off -Street Parking are pledged to that debt. Commissioner Regalado asked a question with regard to the assets in DOSP essentially being abolished, whether or not that obligation could be transferred to the third party manager of our new facilities. And I said you could transfer the — contractually transfer the obligation, but ultimately, the City would be responsible for it. Commissioner Winton: We're responsible. Now, if the value of the bonds is— would be downgraded — the interest rate isn't going to be changed, no matter whathappens here — but the value of the bonds could clearly be — well, it sounds to me like the value of the bonds could clearly be downgraded. If that happens and we have a new third party entity managing our entire parking system, and we wanted or needed to build another garage or two, what would the impact of downgraded bonds, existing downgraded bonds be on our ability to issue new bonds to build new parking facilities? Mr. Nachlinger: Commissioner, if I could answer that. The differential would be that the bonds— we could still issue those bonds. However, the interest rate would be higher, and we would have less ability to issue the bonds. September 7, 2000 Commissioner Winton: In fact, in fact, as I'm thinking about it now, we— if this process goes through and we have a new third party entity managing, and we choose, the City determines that there is a need for two new garages, our ability to build those garages — and it will be the City's ability only, not some third party management company. It will be the City's ability. And that will be driven entirely by whatever the City's entire bond rating would be at the time; isn't that correct? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: So if we're at junk bond status still, then we're not going to building any garages, if that happens to be the need. Mr. Nachlinger: No, sir. We still could issue the bonds and do them. It's simply a matter of the interest rate. The market would perceive us to be a — Commissioner Winton: I don't — Mr. Nachlinger: -- lower rated credit and the interest rate would be higher. Commissioner Winton: No change. At a junk bond status, you're not going to get the bonds issued. Mr. Gimenez: We don't anticipate we're going to — Commissioner Winton: Yeah, 15 or 16 percent, or 17 or 18 percent interest, I mean, maybe, but that's not realistic in terms of an objective. So you are answering a very technical question, and I was trying to get at the whole thing. But I now know the answer, so thanks. Mr. Gimenez: We don't anticipate to be at the status for junk bonds very much longer. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Vice Mayor. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor, I would like to give a suggestion. There's three different alternatives, and each alternative affects differently this, my understanding is. And the presentation was made to me on the 3rd or 10`h it would not affect the bonds or the -- the administration of the Board composition at all in the contract. So why don't we save our questions. Let's hear from the Administration. Gives us the three different alternatives, then we can ask all the questions. Mayor Carollo: I have no problem going that way if it's the will of the Commission. Vice Chairman Gort: We still have two other alternatives to be presented. Is that OK with the Commission? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Mr. Gimenez: The second alternative basically changes the— you know, how the Board is appointed, and may change the composition of the Board. As far as I know, that would be the only substantive change to DOSP. They would still manage the Off -Street Parking. They would go about their business doing it however they're doing it now, except they would have a new Board of Directors. So I don't really see any difference at all in the way they're operating right now. The third option is — does not eliminate 9 September 7, 2000 0 - 0 DOSP as an entity. And what it does, it infuses competition into the equation. Like I said before, I think the main problem with the way that we're dealing with the Department of Off -Street Parking now is that they are, in essence, a monopoly. The third option allows — takes away their exclusivity. They will no longer be the exclusive agents for the City in terms of Off -Street Parking; allows the City to deal either with DOSP or a non -City or non-governmental entity, or a private entity to manage facilities. And in the event that we do contract with a third party, then there is a mechanism for the transfer of the assets to go to the City. Mayor Carollo: Any further questions on any of those three suggestions that the Manager has presented to the Commission? Vice Chairman Gort: I have a few questions. On your third alternative,- this gives the opportunity to Off - Street Parking to compete the same? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: And provide all the service? And the one thing we have to look for when we put an RFP (Request for Proposal) out is not only the revenues that are being produced for the City, but also that the services that this entity can provide to certain neighborhoods where they cannot make the payments as they can in other neighborhoods. In other words, subsidizing would take place. Number two is if this is to take place, and let's say Off -Street is successful in winning some of the bids, and third parties win the other bids, the Administration would still be run by the Off Street Parking. And I imagine that the third party would have to pay their fair share of their revenue towards debt services. I mean a formula would have to be worked in, so you would not lose any of the ratings. Mr. Gimenez: Those are some questions that will be answered at -- What this alternative gives us is it gives us time to really evaluate what would be in the best interest of the City. Would it be best to piecemeal it? Would it be best to offer it up as a whole? Would it be best to negotiate with DOSP and see if we can get a better deal? This third alternative doesn't eliminate them. It leaves them in the equation, it offers competition, and it gives the City the time it needs to try to get the best return for -- you know, from Off -Street Parking. Vice Chairman Gort: So those questions would have to be answered later on. Mr. Gimenez: I believe so. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. Commissioner Regalado: Question. Vice Chairman Gort: The other thing that I need to make sure we understand, we've always confirmed the Board Members. I mean, they're appointed by them, but it has to be confirmed by the City of Miami Commission. In the past, I think we took it for granted, and we just confirmed anybody, anybody who would come in front of the Commission. So I want you all to understand that, also. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: If I may, Mr. Mayor. What you're saying is that your proposal will leave the Off -Street Parking Authority in existence? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, it does. It leaves them in existence. But what it does, it removes them as the exclusive agent for Off -Street Parking. 10 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Regalado: OK. Let's say that there is a bid and some commercial entity bids and wins all the garage. Then the Authority ceases to exist, right? Mr. Gimenez: The Authority — we are not abolishing the Authority. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. Mr. Gimenez: What we're abolishing is their exclusive right to manage those assets. And some of those assets in that case would revert back to the City, and the successful bidder would be the operator of those assets for the City. Commissioner Regalado: And then the Authority would no longer exist. So it's almost the same as abolishing the Authority. Mr. Gimenez: No. There's a fundamental difference in that the — one option says that the Authority is abolished, period. There is no ifs, ands or buts. Commissioner Regalado: Right. And the other says it may be abolished. Mr. Gimenez: It may be. But it leaves them in existence, and provides for the competition. If they are a company or the Authority provides the best services and the best return for the City, then they should remain, you know, in business and in operation, you know into the future. If it turns out that they do not, then, yes, then there is a possibility that they would no longer be in existence. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mayor Carollo: Any further questions from the Members of the Commission at this point? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I think that much of what we've done is perhaps necessary. But in many ways, I think the range of options before us is very helpful, and the Management, again, has really labored, I think, to try to provide us with the broadest array of options. I think what's really important, at least from my point of view, is that we establish on the record that Off -Street Parking has served this City with some degree of distinction, given the mandate in the Charter that it has had. And I think it's interesting that we've not really revisited this issue. I note specifically, Mr. Mayor, that ,this is an initiative that you have come forward with, with the clear purpose of trying to figure out how can we enhance the revenues. And in that regard, as I said last September when this first came out, I want to be very supportive of this. I think what has worked in the past may or may not be the roadmap as to how we should proceed in the future. I think Off -Street Parking has provided us with some very, very interesting analyses and comparisons, and I'm very grateful for that. There are two or three policy issues. Because many of the questions — and I have — I must say this publicly, Mr. Manager. I'm very pleased that The Herald has taken a different look at your management and management style, realizing no two people are the same. And I, too, commend you for the management effort that you're bringing forward, and that Mr. Nachlinger, you know, is someone who is, I think, a real breath of— I can't say "fresh air," because he's been around before, but he's a breath of air that this City needs. But having said that, I do think that the question that Commissioner Regalado and others have raised is the issue that bothers me. Number one, there — this does not need to be a hostile takeover. This does not need to be — have any degree of hostility, necessarily. As I said to you earlier in the meeting today, if I were on Off -Street Parking Board, I I September 7, 2000 0. 0 I would want the Mayor of the City, whoever the Mayor of the City is, from a very selfish point of view — from the point of view of the Option Number 3 that you're putting forward, I definitely would want the Mayor of the City, if I were an Off -Street Parking Board Member. From a policy point of view, I really think that one of the frailties of the County and the City as we move forward is the fact that we don't have an elected official who has the ability to speak with some degree of authority for the areas of jurisdiction that they are Mayors of, respectively. In the case of the Mayor of the City of Miami, there is nothing more germane to the growth of the City than parking policy. And I think it's very, very, very much essential and appropriate that the Mayor of the City, whoever and whatever circumstances that be about, as a matter of a Strong Mayor or Executive Mayor should be there. I think that benefits both the Off - Street Parking Board, it benefits the business merchants, and it has a degree of accountability. The one thing that does bother me about the Off -Street Parking Board process— and notwithstanding the process, we have five — four confirmed members, I guess, five outstanding members or persons outstanding in the community. It is, by any definition, a self-perpetuating Board. It's a Board that is in-house. It self - nominates. And I believe that that fundamental policy issue is one that we ought to have some agreement on that a Mayor, an elected Mayor of the City of Miami should be the Chairman of that Board if the Mayor chooses to be or if the Board wants him to be. But I have no intent of trying to force feed something down. I guess where I'm really going to wind up going is I really need to hear from Off -Street Parking, and to allow the public, if you will, or the Board to have us— to have an honest dialogue. But going back to the point that Commissioner Regalado and others have made and the issue that the Mayor has been trying to get at, information is just too hard to get. The Mayor of the City — the Manager shouldn't have to do freedom of information or public records request. That's just— that's not the way to win friends and influence people in this kind of process. This is not— should not be a hostile takeover. It should be something that we should be looking for a roadmap as to how we can strengthen Off Street Parking's relationship with the City, and how Off -Street Parking can assist the City in bringing more revenue to the City of Miami. I know that I'm in a minority. I know that I perhaps am more of a frees market person, a conservative, if you will, than others. But I see no reason at all why the City of Miami, with all due respect, should be involved in setting rates, I mean, of — not metered parking, with the exception of metered parking. But retail parking, that is just an acronysm of the days of old. That is not a municipal function. Nobody sets the rates in the Omni Parking Garage, and nobody sets the rates in the various parking garages. The only people that want the City to set the rates are the people who own the land, who are looking for a cheap deal for parking. So if we're looking for how we can best utilize and maximize the dollars to the City of Miami, the first thing we should do is walk away from the rate structure as it relates to the parking infrastructure. I don't know how Commissioner Winton feels about this. This is your district. I apologize. I don't mean to be— but this is sort of a Citywide kind of issue. And I believe that the policy issue here is, number one, the Mayor should be a member of the Board. Contrary to what Attorney Nachlinger/now Financial Advisor Nachlinger is saying, I respectfully disagree. I think any action that this Board takes, with the exception of changing the membership of the Board could have an effect on the rating of the agency. I really do. Because rating agencies are far more sensitive to policy directives that could, in fact, directly affect the revenue stream to which the bonds were put out. And I think Option Number 3 is going to affect— could affect the rating stream -- I don't know, but I mean, it's being said that it won't -- as Option Number 1 will. But I don't think that's really the issue as to whether or not the ratings will or will not be affected. And I do agree with Mr. Nachlinger — good afternoon, sir. It's a pleasure to see you — that that's something none of us know. But I do think from a policy point of view, we need to have an honest and open dialogue here and now with Off -Street Parking. We ought to get Off -Street Parking to say something that rarely happens in Government. And I know that at the budget process, when my colleague, Commissioner Sanchez asked what departments could be reduced, none of them, with the exception, I think of the Fire Department and the Clerk's Office were the only two that could give up fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or two thousand dollars ($2,000) or whatever that was. And I'd about forgotten that. And I appreciate, Mr. Manager, that you were the Director at that time, the Fire Director. But the point is simply we ought to get Off -Street Parking to come up and tell us what kind of changes within the context that we're talking about we can be partners 12 September 7, 2000 in. I support the concept as advanced by the Manager enthusiastically. But I'm supporting it within the context that that does not mean rates will not be affected. I don't see how Off -Street Parking could say, "Let us show you how good we are," because the issue is not, the way the questions have continued to be framed, and that is, is this one or the other? The way I would envision it, there may be four companies out there providing some level of competition, depending on what their expertise is. Somebody's expertise may be surface lots. Somebody's expertise may be elevated lots. Somebody's expertise may be meters or whatever, or it may be none. I mean, because I can tell you right now, using the Financial Advisor's point of view, if it's going to be a push — I mean, if one company is going to give us a million dollars ($1,000,000) and Off -Street Parking is going to give us nine hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($975,000), I'm going to vote for Off -Street Parking. I mean, you know, and I think that there's got to be a substantial — and I mean, we need to say this on the table. But the point that the Manager made, which I 100 percent agree with, and the point that Mr. Nachlinger has continued to make, which I agree with, is that the fundamental issue here is that what we need to do is to grant to the City an element of a competitive spirit in which we can get the most for our bank. That's what Option Number 3 does. What Option Number 1 does is it takes it over. I think we all are adamantly opposed to that. At least I want to be on record as saying I could not support that at this point. And on Option Number 2, or some variation of it, I would like to. hear the Off -Street Parking say that you could — you would welcome the Mayor being or the Commission nominating every even member, or odd member or something like that. But I think what we need is a dialogue, because I don't want to be in a position of cramming something down the throat. And we have a problem of time. I mean we need to take this action, as I understand it, Mr. Mayor, we need to take this action today so that the issue can be placed on the ballot appropriately. All things considered, I want to just say that I will strongly support the notion as contained in Option Number 3 unless I hear something from Off -Street Parking as to why that should not. And I would like very much at least to have a modified concept that allows for the Board of Directors to be inclusive of the Mayor, or an appointee of the Board or something of that nature, because I really do think that we need to open it up a little bit more. But I would be hard pressed to say that we don't have four or five truly outstanding professionals on the Off -Street Parking Board. So Mr. Mayor, the policy issues, as far as I'm concerned, is does Off -Street Parking object to a form of competition, or at least providing— we're not — this doesn't provide competition. This merely authorizes that there could be competition as some pointing the future. And is that objectionable? And the second thing is, is it objectionable to address the concept of the Mayor or the membership of the Board? And, you know, I very much would like to encourage Off -Street Parking, its distinguished Chair -- you are the distinguished Chair, aren't you? — to come forth and give us some room to negotiate or to work out something, because I think it needs to be very clear. Off -Street Parking has served a very, very important function in the past. It has served with great distinction. No scandals to my knowledge, no this, no that, and, you know, that within itself is something that is to be said positive. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Commissioner Teele. Any further statement from any Members of the Commission at this point? Commissioner Sanchez: Do you want to start eliminating some of these resolutions, or do you want to hear from them first? Mayor Carollo: It's up to the Commission. You could hear from the public or you could eliminate anyone you want right now. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: Mm-hmm. 13 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Teele: I would really like to hear from the public. And particularly, I would like that Off - Street Parking be given at least enough time, 20, 30 minutes to make whatever presentation that they'd like. Mayor Carollo: That was my full intention, for Off -Street Parking to begin the public side of it. And they can take whatever time they want. And then afterwards, anyone else that's here from the public can address this body. So if the Executive Director of Off -Street Parking would like to begin with any kind of presentation, or statements or declarations that you would like to make. Arthur Hertz: With your permission, Mr. Mayor, may I speak first? Mayor Carollo: Mr. Chairman, of course. Mr. Hertz: I have a plane to catch. I'm not going to walk out, because I don't agree with what you're saying, it is because there's a timetable involved. Mayor Carollo: Of course, Mr. Hertz. Go ahead, sir. If you — for the record, we all know you, but — Mr. Hertz: Yeah. Arthur Hertz. Mayor Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Hertz: The — Mayor Carollo: And an address we need. I'm sorry, Art. Thank you. Mr. Hertz: Mm-hmm. The Parking Authority has had the privilege of having some of the best business minds in this community as members over the years. And my mentor, Mitchell Wolfson, was the Chairman of the Parking Authority for many, many years. And he took great pride in it, because it was being run appropriately. And even one of your members was one of our fine members of the Board, too. When your Assistant City Manager gave you the information about what would happen if they were merged into the City, the fact that we didn't have all these excess employees, the fact that we weren't overpaying these employees, the fact that they were not getting fringe benefits greater than the City is a testimony to the fact that we have always been monitoring and being responsible, to make sure that we didn't do something that wasn't appropriate in terms of the City's position. And that's the way we run the Parking Authority, and that's the way would continue to run it. There was a letter to the editor in today's paper — I don't know if you caught it or not — about the parking garage which we used to run by Bayside, where somebody was complaining, because they paid eight and a half dollars for two hours of parking. Now, that goes to what Commissioner Winton had to say before about the fact that you can't exploit people because they have no other choice. The other thing is the parking garage at Knight Center, where we were told to increase the rate substantially, which we did, because it's your garage and we follow your directives, it's reached what -- they taught us in college the point of diminishing returns. We're now making less money at higher rates. And that's what happens when you increase rates beyond what the public will accept or whether the marketplace will enjoy. And these are things that we watch very carefully, too. And I think you're not going to find a better run operation than this one in the City. Now, that may be my ego coming out, but I got to tell you, I've been involved with them for about 15 years. Maybe it's time for me to move on. But I think we're all very proud of the Parking Authority. We're very proud of the accomplishments, and we're also very proud to tell you some of the facts as opposed to some of the "misconceptions that you've had. And just to touch on one misconception, the auditing. We are audited every year by the same auditor that audits the City. And the report comes directly to you, as well as us. One time in the last several years, the City's internal auditors came in and 14 September 7, 2000 0 examined us. There was no comments. And I'm sure that the City people felt there was a duplication of expenses, as long as we're being audited by the same auditors, but so be it. OK. Now, may our Director make his presentation? Vice Chairman Gort: Arthur, I'd like to make a statement. I think the — no one questions the professionalism and the reason why the Off -Street Parking was created. And you were guided by your Executive Director, just like we were guided by our Executive Director. I think what the City looked at when we first got into finding out about the problems in the deficit we had, the Off -Street Parking at the same time — and I'm sure you were influenced by the Executive Director — did not come forward and says, "Look" — like we're stating what Commissioner Teele stated before, and what the Mayor has been saying for a long time is we are partners in this — "let's get together, let's sit down and see what we can do to continue the professionalism that we have, continue to grow and create more revenue for the City of Miami." I think that was the biggest problem that we've had in the past, and that's why we're here today. Mr. Hertz: I would welcome the dialogue, and I think it can be very productive for us. Commissioner Teele, any time you want me to come here and talk to you all, I'll be happy to cone. Commissioner Sanchez: Art — Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on that point. Art, you know, I want to hear what Mr. Noriega has to say, but the policy question, he's not going to comment on. I need to know specifically, do you object or do you have reservations, or does your Board have any resolutions regarding the notion that we ought to restructure, or we ought to restructure the Board of Directors of Off -Street Parking specifically to include an elected official on the Board? Mr. Hertz: That specific point hasn't been discussed. We have discussed the fact that we probably need seven members instead of five, because we have quorum problems from time to time, and we meet at a time when we think is convenient for our Board so people can put in a day's work. Commissioner Teele: But Art, in fairness to us, the only way you're going to get seven members— you can't do it by Robert's Rules of Order. You've got to do it by referendum. OK? If you all want seven members, I'll be happy right here today to ask that the City Attorney develop the resolution relating to the expanding of the Board to seven members. Now, do you object if one of those members is an elected official? Mr. Hertz: No, of course not. Commissioner Teele: So if we were to increase the Board from five to seven or at least to put it on the ballot, providing that one of the members would be the elected Mayor and the other, you know, being a person appointed by the Commission with a four-year term or something like that, you would not find that objectionable at this point? Mr. Hertz: I would not, except for the fact I would want to make sure that it doesn't become a oneperson Board, that there be — Commissioner Teele: Well, you know, hey, that's up to the other six people. This is America, you know. Mayor Carollo: He just gave you the same five members to stay, and you're getting two others, and he's worried about it becoming a six -person Board. Come on, Art. 15 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Teele: But I mean, what I don't want to read, you know, Art, to be very candid, is I don't want you all running down to The Herald Editorial Board or to the, you know, Miami Today, and saying, oh, you know, the Commission is doing a power play, because everything that we do winds up being, you know, -- and, you know, the media is only happy to print anything that's negative. And we're looking for ways to really work together. I'm going to be very candid with you, Art. If this Commission approves Number 3, which is competition, you're going to -- One of the reasons that we have an elected official on the MSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority) Board, on the Board related to Bayfront Trust, these Boards, the International Trade Board is so that there is an advocate or at least a person who can bring the information. And I think a part of what has been happening is a disconnect of information. So I think you're much better off having the Mayor, specifically, to sit on the Board. And I think it really does wind up making the Board a little bit more forward looking. Who can argue with a person elected by the citizens of the City of Miami? It gives the Board more strength. So what I would like to hear again is that you really don't object to the Board going to seven people and two of those Board Members, one being the elected official, Chief Official of the City of Miami and the other being a person nominated by the Commission for four-year terms. Mr. Hertz: I would have no problem with that. I would have to discuss it with the Board, and I would advocate that with the Board. So, you know, people of goodwill can compromise, and that's what we need to do. Commissioner Sanchez: Arthur. Mr. Hertz: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: We have one client in common, and that's the residents of Miami. Mr. Hertz: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Don't ever forget that. Mr. Hertz: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: And the Board, don't. We're looking out for their interests. I think when we open the doors for competition, we said it very clearly, if it does open up for competition, you have been there. You should be given preference and points, as Commissioner Teele said. If it's a— if we could come up with some type of incentive for you being there and the competition goes out and you are within a range, either — I don't think this Commission has a problem issuing it to you. Mr. Hertz: Just bear one thing in mind, and I think Commissioner Teele touched on it. There are a lot of things that are done by Off -Street Parking that have no revenue, but are for the benefit of the public. There's a dozen lots around the City which virtually produce no revenue, but they're there because it's a responsibility of us to provide that parking. We're in the process right now of talking to the people in the Design District of putting up a garage similar to what we're doing in Coconut Grove by having the businesses there contribute to a pot and use that pot for the bonds that we'll need. And will any private people do this? I don't know. Vice Chairman Gort: That's a point I stated from the beginning. There should be consideration if an RFP goes out. Mayor Carollo: Art, let me first of all thank you for coming here. We've known each other for a long, long time, and we've worked together on more positive things for this City and this community than we 16 September 7, 2000 both would want to remember. But I want to be very frank and open with you and let you know exactly where I'm coming from. No — nothing is hidden here. All that I want to see is for the City of Miami to be assured that it is truly getting the maximum dollar that it can from its parking operations. I mean, this is one of the top revenue -getters for any major City, and one of the few that the City of Miami hasn't given away. We gave the airport away. We gave the Port of Miami. We gave the water and sewer plant. Vice Chairman Gort: No, no. Mayor Carollo: Well, I'm saying the City of Miami, none of us here. This was years ago. The parking, thank God, we still can have some say-so over it. All that I want to see is competition in this process, that this would be put out in a bid so that we can get ten, fifteen, twenty— whatever the amount is of the top companies of the United States to be able to bid on this, along with the Off -Street Parking Authority. And if I'm not correct that we cannot get more money and you're correct that you're the one that's going to provide the top dollar for us, then there's not going to be any problems. We're going to shake hands. We're going to keep working together and you're going to be there. In fact, I'll say this on the record. If you're even five percent lower than the top company in a bid, I will support and lobby the Commission to go with the Off -Street Parking Authority, because for five percent difference, I'd rather stay with you. I just don't believe that's the case. I think that we're losing a considerable amount of dollars right now, that we could be getting several million dollars more each year. And all that I am asking for is that we have a vehicle so we can find out. You and I spoke many months ago in my office, and I said, Art, I want this to go out to a bid so that we can find out who can get the top dollar for us. I want to see if, indeed, we're getting top dollar from you now or not. And if we are, well, you know, we're going to see it that way. And you remember that. Mr. Hertz: Be happy to stand up to any measurement you want. Mayor Carollo: So that's all that I'm trying to accomplish. I think that the vehicle that we're discussing in the Option Number 3 is a prudent way of going about it. This one is one where, you know, the gun is not shot off. You know, we — we have it there, but we can go about it in a very civilized, democratic positive way for the Off -Street Parking, for the City of Miami, and most of all, for the residents and taxpayers of this community. See, what many people don't realize— and there's been two of us up here that have mentioned it at different times, I being one of those— that we're facing a major predicament for the City of Miami if the Courts right now rule against us in one very, very important case, that we have a judge that's heard a case. They're studying which way they're going to rule. And that's on the surcharge. The County took us to task, not only not paying their share, but cutting our legs all together so that we cannot collect that 20 percent surcharge, period, along with another private entity. But it's the County that has us before the Courts right now. If for any reason — and we're hopeful that won't be the case — but if for any reason we come out on the losing end of that and then in the appeals we do not prevail, the City of Miami is going to be in a real bind. And the millage rate that we have lowered to the lowest millage rate in over 50 -plus years is going to have to go up again. So I hope you could understand the problems that we're facing. This is one major one. There are others that we have to resolve. And this is why we need to maximize the dollars that we can bring into the City of Miami from all the assets that we have. And Off -Street Parking is certainly one of the biggest assets that we have. Mr. Hertz: I appreciate your predicament, and I understand it. And we will do our best to help you. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Art. Mr. Hertz: One last thing before I sit down. Mayor Carollo: Certainly. 17 September 7, 2000 Mr. Hertz: On the bonds, the Assistant City Manager is right, it wouldn't affect the interest rate at all. But the investors who bought it on the basis of having the Off -Street Parking dc) it, and based upon the rating at that time are going to be very, very unhappy, and you're going to have a bunch of lawsuits. Mayor Carollo: Art, look. There's nothing alive that you could go through, sometimes not even crossing the street without having the risk of being sued by somebody. I mean, you, most of all, know that, being in business for the years that you've been in that's part of life. But I think first of all that the City of Miami has to do what is in the best interest of the residents of Miami. Secondly of all, our bond rating will be going up soon. I think it's just a matter of a short time before we get the ratings up. And last but not least, there are many other unique ways that we could do financing of new garages, even to pay off the approximately fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) that we have there without having to be worrying about, you know, what the bond ratings for the City of Miami will be for Off -Street Parking. Arthur Hertz: By the way, somebody asked the question before. I'm a product of the City of Miami. I went to Miami High. I went to Kenloch Junior High. And I've been living in the City of Miami most of my life, until I moved into Coral Gables. But I still own property in Miami, and I still do a lot of brsiness in Miami. Vice Chairman Gort: Miami High... Commissioner. Sanchez: Yeah, there's two alumni from Miami High here. Mayor Carollo: No one's questioning that on you, Art. Mr. Hertz: OK. Thank you, Stingrays. Bye. Mayor Carollo: Art, how much time do you need, approximately? Art Noriega: I probably don't need more than ten minutes or so. Mayor Carollo: OK. Whatever time you need. Mr. Noriega: Thanks. I'm Art Noriega, Executive Director of Miami Parking Authority. I have sort of a formal presentation here, and I would encourage all of you to ask questions as we— as I proceed through this. I want to dispel some myths that have kind of been brought out as examples with regards to the Authority in general. And I'm going to list five points here, which are at some point during the presentation here are all going to be answered and addressed. I just want to get them out on the table so you're kind of aware sort of where I'm headed with the presentation. First and foremost, there's sort of this misconception that the Commission of the City of Miami exercises no authority at all, or has no input with regards to the Parking Authority. I want— I'm going to get to that eventually and address that. That the Parking Authority's finances are hidden and/or— or hidden from the City Commission and/or the City Manager and his staff. Mayor Carollo: Before you go into that, I apologize that I've interrupted you. Mr. Noriega: Sure. Mayor Carollo: Does this mean that the Off -Street Parking Authority is giving the full authority to our internal auditor to be able to go and audit anything he wants from the Off -Street Parking Authority? 18 September 7, 2000 Mr. Noriega: Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: OK. Mr. Noriega: And I even, in preparation of that, drafted an Interlocal Agreement with the City Attorney, which I will be more than happy to distribute if you'd so like to look at it. Gives you full access for the internal audit or the Auditor General, which I know is at the power of this City Commission. Hasn't been hired as of yet, but we would have no — we would have no opposition to that at all. Mayor Carollo: Oh, good. That's a good step. Thank you. Mr. Noriega: Fourthly, that the Miami Parking Authority is in some way, shape or form not operated efficiently, as compared to other cities across the country, specifically as it relates to a pro forma spreadsheet that was passed at the July 27`h meeting, and that there is, in essence, approximately three to five million dollars ($5,000,000) of additional revenue that could be obtained, should there be this competitive process that we put forth. I'm going to address those issues, as well. If you'll allow me, I want to kind of step over to Power Point. Mayor Carollo: Sure, go ahead. I think you could -- Do we have the movable mike in there somewhere? See if that works. Mr. Noriega: Yeah. Mayor Carollo: Great. Thank you. Mr. Noriega: First, I want to again, in more detail, talk about some myths and facts that kind of come up. We're in a lot of ways an anomaly to most people in the public as in a parking authority. Most don't know the intricacies, and kind of what the details are with regards to our operation. And I want to address more specifically the issue of our finances and our — and how often we are audited. Obviously, we've been audited annually since 1975. Our auditors are KPMG (Klynveld, Peat, Marwick, Goerdeler), which is the same auditing firm that handles the City audit on an annual basis. Our audits are forwarded to the City Manager and the Finance Department on an annual basis. And our annual audit is, of course, a public document, which can be provided to anyone that puts in a request. The City, as a matter of fact, back in 1989 did a full audit of the Parking Authority, and since then has never really requested a specific internal audit. The second issue that I would really like to address is that the City receives only two million dollars ($2,000,000) from the Parking Authority, and is not getting its fair share of revenues. The City actually receives all of our net revenues which are generated by the Parking Authority. And I'll get into the specific number later, but as a reference, this year, for our fiscal year, that return will be two point eight million dollars ($2.8 million). The total financial benefit to the City from parking operations, inclusive of net revenue, the parking surcharge and parking citations is over seven million dollars ($7,000,000). And our per space operating expense is more efficient than every other major City in the City's parking analysis, which was done on July 27`h. That we have no direct accountability to the City. The City Commission has the sole power to confirm and/or veto all of our board appointments. The City Commission also the power to approve or reject our annual operating budget. The City Commission retains the jurisdiction and authority to set all of our on- and off-street parking rates for both our facilities and our parking meters. And the City Commission must approve every issuance of revenue bonds for all new projects. In making a comparison of the Parking Authority as it relates to other municipalities and other parking operations, one of the critical components of doing that evaluation is evaluating the expenses. Large cities such as New York, Chicago and L.A. (Los Angeles) operate parking departments which absorb through either other departments, such as transportation, parking -related expenses, which drive down some of those parking expenses just right off the bat. I'm using that as a precursor to when 19 September 7, 2000 we go to — when I go to spreadsheets and explain a little further how our parking expenses relate to other municipalities across the country. A credible comparison of parking systems really needs to identify the difference between on -street and off-street. And I'll get into this a little further, also, later. But as a matter of fact and a matter of expenses, on -street operation is significantly less to maintain than an off- street operation. It costs a lot more to operate a parking garage or parking lot than it does to maintain the parking meters across -- on the on -street. So some municipalities have a greater number or a greater percentage of off-street and/or may have a greater percentage of on -street. And that affects the overall expense ratio. Typical expenses that are associated with on -street spaces are maintaining the meter, cost of collection, administrative cost, vehicles associated with that; obviously, depreciation and replacement, insurance and any offices or facilities that house that equipment and/or personnel. Off-street parking spaces, typical expenses, obviously, can — be added, and the differences between an on -street and off- street significantly are land cost, and leases, a replacement reserve, insurance is significantly more, higher, utilities are incorporated, equipment maintenance, facility maintenance, operating personnel-- it takes more personnel to operate facilities — security, the administrative expense is higher, elevator systems and structural restoration. Types of parking spaces. The average expense per parking space. The first figure, which is denoted at the top, which is on -street parking spaces, average between'a hundred and sixty-two and two hundred and twenty-six dollars ($226) per space, per year. This figure was taken directly from the City's parking analysis, the study that was done and distributed on July 27`". The next two figures which are — which relate to surface parking spaces and structured garage spaces were taken directly from the International Parking Institute, the statistical guide of operating expenses. They update them every two to three years. Surface lot parking spaces average as an expense between two hundred and two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) per space per year. And a garage averages between three hundred and ninety-four and six hundred and eighteen dollars ($618) per space per year. This is a comparison of Miami, in relation to four other municipalities. All of these figures and numbers were listed on the City of Miami's major parking system comparison dated July 27`". I used these four other municipalities because they are similar in composition as it relates to onstreet and off-street. They have - - are fairly similar or close in proximity to the mix of on -street and off-street, and it was comparable to compare them from an expense side. The City of Miami, as it relates to the other four, is just higher than the City of Philadelphia, but significantly lower than Phoenix, and very significantly lower than Miami Beach and Detroit. The City of Miami, as compared to Philadelphia, as very evident on this chart, is— has a third of the inventory of the City of Philadelphia. So they have economies of scale that-- probably more than likely built into that number. The next comparison is -- We eliminated all of. our (unintelligible) as it relates to off-street operation, and we singled out only our on -street operation, detailed the cost of our on -street and compared it to those remaining cities that were listed on the spreadsheet that were primarily on -street operations -- the City of Los Angeles, Seattle, New York City and Washington, D.C. And as you see, our costs per space are significantly lower than the other four, as compared, and all of those cities, with the exception of Seattle, have a significantly higher inventory. I highlight this particular page, because I wanted to make special representation of the 60 parking lots, which is unique to a parking operation under a municipality, and that we have a great number of parking lot operations that don't have a huge inventory, yet add a significant cost to the operation. Most operations don't. And that tends to skew somewhat, because of the significance of that number. This is a breakdown of our gross revenue operating expenses, and how the money flows currently or how it will flow for this fiscal year. Gross revenue will be twelve — roughly twelve and a half million dollars. Our operating expenses fall to about seven point four (7.4). Debt service is a million -two. Our replacement and renewal is just over a million dollars ($1,000,000). Revenue to the City is two point eight (2.8), and revenue to MPA is zero. As it's arranged now, all of our net revenue flows to the City. We retain no net revenue. Here is our total financial contribution to the City. First line is, obviously, Parking Authority parking revenue, which is two point eight for this year; parking summons fines, which is two point three million dollars ($2.3 million); and City parking surcharge, which is almost two million. Total direct revenue to the City as a result of our operation, our parking operation, is a little over seven million dollars ($7,000,000). And inclusive of that is the parking summons fine, is a share of the total summons revenue, 20 September 7, 2000 which the City shares a third of that revenue with the County. That's their cost in operating or processing the Violations Bureau. They, in turn, return two thirds of that to the City, and we bear 100 percent of the cost of that. Here are some of the challenges to increasing parking revenue, as it relates to right now. We have an inherent restriction in terms of our City, the City of Miami, in that we have very little nighttime activity within the City of Miami. Our Central Business Districts, for the most part, really might be East Downtown, Biscayne Boulevard, and Coconut Grove, are the only two areas within the entire City of Miami that have any type of continual traffic past 6 o'clock at night. Most of our other inventory, as it sits now, because there just isn't enough night life or demand, has very little activity in the evenings. We've had a problem consistently, and it's gotten a little worse, I think downtown more recently, since the opening of the new Arena, with an increase in meter theft and vandalism, and homeless interference. We've worked pretty closely with the Miami Police Department and with the State Attorney's Office. Both of those — the Police Department has been very responsive. Unfortunately, they're in a position where they are slightly restricted, because they make arrests, and the State Attorney's Office can't seem to keep these guys in jail. They're released the same day. But that has a direct impact on our total revenue potential, when you have meters that are stolen or vandalized on a pretty continuous basis. We don't in- house have our own internal police force to sort of monitor that, so it's something that we're constantly dealing with. Gross revenue comparison. When you compare a municipality like the City of Miami versus other municipalities in terms of parking potential revenue, there are some key components that have to be analyzed. One is parking rates. What are your rates, specifically, in your facilities? How— what are your hours of operation, or do you have a 24-hour operation? Do you have a lot of residential within your CDB (Central Business District) that maintains sort of a pretty good mix of commercial/residential where you're constantly having turnover in your parking spaces? What's the population density of the City? Is the City inherently creating its own demand? And what's the type of utilization with regards to on -street and off-street? I'm going to use Washington, D.C. as an example, because I know it's been referenced more than once as a comparison. And specifically because it was the only operation on that comparison of which a private operator came in and currently operates their parking operation. So I want to use that as an example. Miami Parking Authority currently has 6700 on ­ street meters. The City of Washington, D.C. has 15,000. Their total number of meters within their Central Business District that there's high volume meters is 10,500. That incorporates 70 percent of their total inventory. Our total number of metas is roughly over 2300 within our Central Business District. That accounts for roughly a third of our total inventory. Their total revenue per space is roughly eight hundred and thirty-three. Ours is four hundred and forty-two. Our expense per space, as was referenced earlier in the spreadsheet, was a hundred and twenty-two. Theirs is two twenty-six. Our revenue to expense number is roughly equal to that of Washington, D.C.'s. So from a private operator standpoint, cost of doing business and revenues, they have, in spite of the fact that they have a tremendously higher number of meters within their Central Business District, we still maintain a fairly even revenue to expense ratio. I'm going to talk a little bit about Washington, D.C. before privatization, so you kind of get a feel for it. There's been this comparison or there have been these numbers thrown out where the City of Washington, D.C. went from roughly four million to twelve million because they privatized. The rationale behind that and the reason for that sudden increase, really, you have to go back to the origin, before Lockheed/IMS came in. And we got all this information directly from Lockheed's Washington, D.C. office. They are the private operators. We got it directly from the private operator. They had no funding for their on -street meter operations. They basically bled their Parking Department dry from a revenue standpoint. They had three employees operating in their system. They had only 5500 out of 15,000 on -street meters in operation. The other 9500 were either stolen or non-functional. They had roughly at that point a little over— almost four and a half million dollars in gross revenue. They have no off-street parking facilities. Their entire inventory of parking spaces is on -street. So it's a metered system. The private operator came into the City for the City's request. The vendor, the private operator installed 15,000 new electronic meters. So he brought their inventory back to where it was years before, before the inventory, itself, started to deteriorate. So their working meters went from 5500 to 15,000. Their working meters within their Central Business District more than doubled. And their gross revenue, 21 September 7, 2000 if you go to the bottom line, went from four point four million to twelve point five million. The complete accountability for their revenue increase was solely and strictly due to an increase in inventory. It had nothing to do with a better operation. Their per meter revenue number was exactly the same. It didn't change. All they did was add inventory. They had the luxury of tripling their inventory, or really bringing it back to where it was before. And I wanted to point that out, because that's a significant and really the only example we had evidence of, of a privatization which I could compare comparably with ours. I'd like to do one last thing, and that's — I want to — I want to pass out the transcript from the last meeting and point out just a few quick points. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Clerk, did you charge them for using our transcripts? They had some-- You didn't charge them? We need to copyright these things, I mean. Mr. Noriega: We've highlighted some items that we think ought to be just discussed, because I know they were brought up specifically by either the Mayor or some individual members, Commissioner members. And I want to — I want to address some of these issues. First and foremost is the bottom of Page 1. And the Mayor, justifiably, and it's been his point of contention from the beginning, states that he wants to make sure that the City of Miami is receiving what every other City, major City receives, a fair share of its parking revenues. And that's his bottom line. And I — I want to point out — and I have another handout — yeah, that's — pass the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) out. Within this document, you'll see that the national average of revenues return by Parking Authorities or parking operations to their cities on a national average is one point five percent of the gross revenue. The year of this report, we returned 22 percent of our gross revenues to the City. The specific reference to this is on Page 5 at the bottom. It says where the money goes. So I want to — I just wanted to clarify that. The second issue I wanted to clarify is located on Page 2. And I brought this specific reference up just a few minutes ago with regards to Washington, D.C. and the difference between the revenue before it was privatized and the revenue after privatization. And directly, I wanted to account for that increase in revenue. It had nothing to do with a significantly streamlined operation. It really related to an existing operation that was in horrible disrepair, and the inventory was increased. And that is really a function of just adding numbers. Specifically relating to increasing revenues as a general principle, our City, as a whole, has some inherent disadvantages, in that we don't have available to us from a parking revenue standpoint the type of significant uses that a City like New York or Chicago have. And that specifically relates to a 24-hour operation where you have thousands of people living within the Central Business District, where you also have a tremendous commercial attraction for parking, for people to park. And that constant turnover creates that demand and then significantly challenge any municipality to want to raise rates. The increase in revenue can be really solely attributed — any increase in revenue, any potential increase in revenue really relates to either the increased inventory of what you have now — OK? Which in this City, we have — we're fairly restricted. I mean, unless we want to double park cars in the public right-of-way, it's going to be kind of difficult to do. And/or you increase rates. So it's a function of rate increases. The reality is any private operator you go to is going to tell you, well, if you want an additional two million dollars ($2,000,000), the only way you're going to get it is if you let me raise rates. That's a function that we already have now. And I said it from the beginning, from the day I came on, this is the policy you — each, individually, you're the policymakers of this City. You control the rate ordinance, the way it's laid out now. I can only propose to you and make recommendations. If this Commission felt like it wanted to significantly increase revenue, we could raise rates. But that's a policy decision. That's not a decision I directly control. But .those are the only ways to really increase revenue with our existing system, the way we're set up now. The third item, which is located on Page 4, is an item that I'm not really comfortable that this has really been addressed. The question has been asked a couple of times, which was specifically how the bonds were going to be addressed, the existing bonds, and our potential future bonding capacity. The only question I have is, I haven't been able to see, and I haven't, obviously, to this point, because I didn't know what the specifics were with regards to the resolutions, I didn't have really enough lead time, is do we have an opinion specifically related to the bonds, and what happens to 22 September 7, 2000 them in each of these individual scenarios? And two, do we have a real strong feeling with regards to the rating agencies and what may happen? At this point, most of that's an educated guess, and I'd agree with that. But I think in general, the consensus would probably lead you to believe that if— and through a number of these scenarios, that any change to our board, any change to the operation would directly affect this Authority's ability to issue new bonds. Now, I could tell you that with regards to new projects, specifically potential to bring in private developers into the City and joint venture on some of the properties we have currently now in our inventory, I've already approached developers. I have a development background. That's been the focus since I've been there, and it's a focus that, at some point, I hope to share with the City staff and — where we can partner up and really have the opportunity to say, look, I have the bonding capacity, I have the ability to issue investment grade bonds, and I have the ability to attract private developers. Because if I can finance a private parking operation at four and a half, less than five percent -- there isn't a private developer in the world that could finance parking for double that. So we have an inherent investment advantage. And aside from bringing new revenues by joint -venturing with private developers, we also will add millions of dollars worth of real estate inventory to the tax rolls. Because every time I joint venture with a private developer, a portion of that development will be taxed. It'll be placed on the tax roll. So I'm not only adding potential for parking revenue and other non -related revenue, but I'm also adding the potential for tax revenue. I'd like to distribute a letter for your benefit, which specifically relates to the bond issue, or the bond rating issue. And it's from our financial consultant, William R. Hough and Company. Commissioner Teele: Is that the guy that just got up and left? Mr. Noriega: Yeah. One of his associates is here, so if you have any questions, we can -- And I want to point out two specific — Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask Mr. Noriega: Sir? Vice Chairman Gort: From what you're stating, you shouldn't have any problem with competition, then. I mean, that's what you're saying right now. So you shouldn't have any problem with Number 3. Mr. Noriega: No. What I'm saying is with— specifically with Number 3, if it's a function of transferring assets to the City and then bidding them out, is that — am I clear on what Number 3 is? Commissioner Regalado: No. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, why don't you explain it so they can understand it and-- before we make you go through this whole presentation and this whole thing. By the way, also, I know you have your representatives in here, but my understanding is if you issue tax-exempt bonds, the private part cannot be tax-exempt bonds if it's going to be used by the private sector. Mr. Noriega: Well, that depends on the structure of the deal. We absolutely could. Sure, you could. Mr. Gimenez: The transfer of the assets doesn't happen until if and when the bids are put out and they are not the successful bidder. Then the Manager can go ahead and pull the trigger and transfer the assets. Mr. Noriega: So who controls the process of the RFP (Request for Proposals), just as a — Mr. Gimenez: The City. 23 September 7, 2000 Mr. Noriega: The City does? OK. I'll finish my presentation. Specifically, the issue of the Moody's letter, as it relates to our bonding capacity, absorption of the City Department— absorption of the Off - Street Parking Department by the City would likely cause the bonds to be reclassified as the City's debt, which would likely result in a change in the rating of the Department's bonds to a rating that more closely reflects the rating of the City, which is currently BA -1, below investment grade. If you go further down the page, it says should the bonds be downgraded to the current ratings of the City, both the Department and the City would realize an increase in cost of capital for future debt issuances. More severely, a downgrade of the bonds may limit the Department and the City's access to capital. The next page, bottom sentence says MBIA has further indicated that a ratings downgrade on those 1998 bonds, as a result of the actions taken by the City would prolong their unwillingness to provide bond insurance for any future City of Miami bonds. Item Number 4. This is a reference on Page 4 again to the issue of what the additional cost would be. And this is just as it relates to part one of the scenarios. And it says if you put it out to bid and you had to pay those bonds out, if you had to pay the bonds off that were — where we eventually came to where you had to defease the bonds, then whoever comes in within the bidding process, they would have to take into account the equation. They're going to have to pay it. Therefore, we'll make less than they would have offered otherwise, but we're still going to make more than we're making now. Any cost of issuing — of having to pay down debt by a private operator is going to impact their ability— their ability to have a creative return to the City. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Art, I think it's important to the extent you think it's important to rebut or to refute anything that may have been discussed in previous meetings. And I think, you know, perhaps your Washington, D.C. privatization story and some of this has established that on the record. But I think, you know, we've sort of gone past the point of discussing seriously at this point privatizing and the issues that flow from that. And I would hasten to urge that we don't get this thing more confusing to the public than what it is. I mean, I think, speaking solely for myself, it would be very helpful if you commented on the issue, really, that's on the table, and that's the Manager's recommendation of a Charter change by referendum in this November that simply removes the exclusivity of the City in our dealings with parking matters with Off -Street Parking. Stated another way, competition. I mean, it's the issue, and health care is the issue, and education is the issue in everything. And, I mean, you know, I think governments more and more are looking at, "How can we make it more efficient?" We've been very open. I think even the Mayor has said that if it's a flip of a coin, he's going to — you're going to always have the winning call on that. But— but do you object to the City, and do you think it would be helpful if we would have a Charter change that merely authorized the City to use other sources, if it is competitively decided? Mr. Noriega: I'll answer that in two parts. The first part being that, yes, I think I would have an issue with that, not from a competition standpoint, but from a standpoint of— twofold. One, our ability to expand the parking operation of the City, and therefore increase future revenue would be significantly limited by doing that, because you're basically creating a shell of the Authority, therefore, eliminating its ability to issue any new bonds. That's number one. Commissioner Teele: All right. I'll let you make number two. I don't understand at all what you just said about number one. The idea of allowing us to take one parking lot, one garage as an example. Let's don't think of this as a whole, because most of the questions have talked about this as sort of an alternative. You've got — we have how many spaces? 6,000? Mr. Noriega: Seventeen thousand. Well six — 15,000, just over 15,000. Commissioner Teele: OK. We've got 15,000 spaces, and we. have how many garages? Mr. Noriega: Four. 24 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Four garages. Mr. Noriega: Correct. Commissioner Teele: Let's just say if we took one garage and provided a bid on that, would you– how does that make a shell of you? That's the question. Mr. Noriega: No, but – it doesn't, but I don't know that that was the intent, to be honest with you. You're interpreting it that way, and that's fine. I don't know that that was, in essence -- Commissioner Teele: Well, I can tell you right now, I mean— Mr. Noriega: -- in essence, the intent of that. Commissioner Teele: I can tell you right now that I'm not going to support rolling everything up and putting it into a bid. I mean, you know, the concern that you're– I think you should have is the cherry - picking issue. OK? I mean, to me that -- But to say this is going to be a shell, that's something I don't think -- But, you see, this is the problem with Charter, schools and everything else. Competition makes everybody get up on their game harder. And I just don't see how, honestly, you know, being as young and as articulate as you are how you could argue against a proposal that merely authorizes competition, because right now, we're limited by the Charter and the way this thing was set up that we can only contract – we, the City, can only contract with you. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, if I could point out the best example that I can give of how accurate what you just said is. We have just gone through a very difficult –they're never easy, especially for the City of Miami as of late – budget review for next fiscal year. What we had to count on for next year's budget, beginning October I", what we gave the Oversight Board as the revenue for parking from the Off -Street Parking Authority was some two million, three hundred and seventy-five thousand. All of a sudden, because of a little competition, we're now up to two million, eight hundred thousand. I'm sure we would have liked to have known a couple of months ago that we were going to be able to get another four hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars from the operations. So that's the best example, you know, that I could point to of what you stated now, that it is extremely accurate. And this is why we have an obligation to this community to put this out to bid and find out just how much we could bring in. We might be surprised that the Off -Street Parking Authority might win the bid and might come out with a substantial amount of more dollars that they would find that they could contribute. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, after hearing both sides and gathering up all the information that we have, I believe I'm prepared to vote. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I cut off Mr. Noriega. I asked him a question. I don't mean at all to take away any of his time. But I just– I mean, I realize that you have a presentation here, and I think it's extremely helpful. But I think the issue that we've got to vote on is whether or not, you know, you object and what are the policy reasons. I don't want – as I said, I'm support – I'm prepared to support the Manager's recommendation unless I hear a policy reason from you or from Off -Street Parking as to why we shouldn't do it. I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of getting my vote if there is any policy thing that we've overlooked here. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman – Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. 25 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Winton: I have been listening to all the comments and making some notes. And from a philosophical standpoint, I believe very, very strongly in competition. I think it always helps everything. And because I'm a "downtowner," if you will, I've had a lot of dealings with Off -Street Parking over the years. And I can say that over the years, when the City of Miami, as a Government, was totally unresponsive to downtown Miami, Off -Street Parking was always responsive. You know, there was always someone we could talk to, to be there. But as we entered into this-- So emotionally, I wanted to be a supporter of Off -Street Parking. But philosophically, I'm very, very committed to competition, and I think competition helps in a lot of things. But when you get to the real meat of the matter— and Art, I told you some of this — you know, we can't sit here — I can't sit here and say, well, I can point out and point to all of the great new garages that Off -Street Parking has built over the last ten years, because they haven't built any. I can't point to all the revenue that the Off -Street Parking Authority— new revenues that they've brought to the City, because they haven't done that. I can't point to their innovative commitment to try joint venture development, using parking garages as kind of the standard to get residential developers to bring development downtown, because they wouldn't do that kind of thing. You know, we couldn't point to all of the new parking facilities, maybe, that we might have wanted or needed in some of our underprivileged neighborhoods. So I jump to the Mayor's side of this issue, which— you know, and so as I kind of graded out Off -Street Parking, I really graded out Off -Street Parking at a — maybe as a parking operator pretty good, but just in terms of the City and all the implications, I get a C - plus, B -minus. Not great, you know, nothing great, but certainly nothing bad. I get to the Mayor's idea of abolishing completely Off -Street Parking, and I have to give him some credit. I mean, he has — I couldn't disagree with his approach, particularly to some of us Commissioners. I couldn't disagree with that more. However, the point he has made, and that is, he's gotten his big hammer out and beaten Off Street Parking over the head, and the fact of the matter is he's generated a lot of ongoing revenue for the City. And that revenue is critically important to the City. And he made another good point just a few minutes ago, and that is that in our budget, we put two point three million dollars ($2.3 million) in, and now we know we can get two point eight million. And so that's a very — those are very, very powerful points that we went virtually overnight from getting no revenues from Off -Street Parking in that category to two point eight million. But there is, Commissioner Teele, some real policy implications here. And I don't have an answer, frankly. I don't know where I'm going to vote yet, because there are policy implications. And I'm going to go back to one that I listed that — where we can't point to the strength that they've brought to the community. Our Central Business District is in terrible shape. I've said it over and over and over and over again since I've been elected. And I blame not Off -Street Parking. I blame the City of Miami, because our infrastructure downtown stinks. And if it were improved; I'm sure we could get a lot of new development. But the biggest impediment to long-term success for our downtown area is lack of residential development in downtown. An entity like— and parking will be an issue, and the cost of parking will be a major issue for residential dwellers in downtown, no question about it. And so there's a major policy implication here. And if an organization over which we could have greater control, significant control, where we could say from a policy standpoint, we want you to put out an RFP (Request for Proposals), we want an RFP out, where you bring a private developer to the table, the private developer is going to build the residential component. You're going to finance the parking garage which the private developer can't get done because the economics doesn't work. He makes the economics work on a major residential component downtown. If we go to privatization, I mean, where we take — wipe this entity out and we let some third party management company come in and do this, they can't do this. They can't do this kind of thing. So there is a major policy implication here. And I didn't have this figured out when I talked to the Manager an hour and a half ago. Shame on me. Wish I would have, because the Manager makes a great point. We ought to have competition. And I said, competition is always good. The competition we've had so far has been the Mayor. He's provided the competition by beating the tar out of the Off -Street Parking Authority, and it's won. You know, it's been very effective. But the policy implications here are very serious. And the way that Off -Street Parking has historically operated within this City wouldn't allow us to have done all of these things, anyhow. So there's a governance issue here 26 September 7, 2000 at the absolute minimum. And the City of Miami and the— yes. If — if we're going to apply the policy implications to the discussion, then it would mean that we will have to change the governance of Off - Street Parking. And the City will have to have a much bigger say in how that operation works so that we can effect policy, because the way it works now, we can't effect policy. If we're going to decide, however, that we don't care about the policy implications, and that the only interest we have is strictly, "How much money can we get out of this thing?" then it does say that you— that you really have to go after the alternative which brings in new competition, or wipe out Off -Street Parking all together. I'm not in favor of wiping out Off -Street Parking at all. But I walked in here 100 percent in favor of the competitive deal. But as I began to think about the real policy implication here, I have to share with you all that I'm struggling mildly with this decision, and I'm much closer now to the idea that Commissioner Teele had originally, and that is to figure out how the City can have much greater influence over the way Off -Street Parking works from a policy standpoint to improve the overall lot of our downtown community. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor -- Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton, would you yield on that point? Just-- But I want to make one very important point that I think you may be overstating. The decision, if we make a decision today to follow the Manager's recommendation, does not do anything but authorize. And I think the time to make that argument is when the Manager comes back with a recommendation. That's where we have the brakes. But right now, we don't have the legal authority. And I think that's why I have to support the Manager's recommendation, because we don't have the legal authority. Not just us, but the Commission, as a body. The Mayor and Commission as a body don't have that. And I think that's a very, very big carrot, as opposed to a stick. But that's a very big carrot — it could be a stick, too — that we need to give to the Manager, to the Finance Department, and quite candidly, to Off -Street Parking, that it— it does mean that the City could do something else. Right now, we can't do anything but what we're doing. And that, I think, is where the Manager is coming out on this very strongly. Commissioner Sanchez: And if I Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Winton: Right. I thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: And if I may, the first step that probably is acting in good faith is once this is approved is to sit down with Off -Street Parking and negotiate for better revenue for the City. That's the first step. If that cannot be agreed, then we continue on with the next step. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Regalado: Here's the question. Question: The Manager told me the time line if we were to approve his proposal. The time line would be to put it on the ballot, and if thevoters would approve it, to immediately issue the RFP by June. You mentioned you have something — Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, that has changed. I think what is before you now is not so much that we would have to issue an RFP. I think more in line with what Commissioner Sanchez is saying, that we take these steps one at a time, negotiate with Off -Street Parking. If that's not fruitful, then start to 27 September 7, 2000 develop some RFP's with all your input. Give us time to study, and then— and then and only then, you know, move forward. Commissioner Regalado: Why has it changed? I mean, yesterday, you told me — Mr. Gimenez: In reality, we would need— we need more — after further thought on the subject, we need more time to look at all — at everything — Vice Chairman Gort: The options. Mr. Gimenez: -- in terms of all the options. And to put a date certain on there kind of puts us, you know, in a rush mode, and we really don't want to rush into anything in this. We have the time. This will give us the opportunity to really study it, gives — puts us on equal footing, and gives us the opportunity to make the right decisions in the right time. Commissioner Regalado: So this will not impact, as you told me yesterday, next year's budget? Mr. Gimenez: It may. It may not. It — if we go into negotiations with Off -Street Parking and we get additional revenue right away, yes, it will impact next year's budget for the better of the City. Mayor Carollo: Vice Mayor, go ahead. Vice Chairman Gort: Look, I think Teele stated there's been a radical change from doing away with the Off -Street Parking to the Off -Street Parking really becoming a partner with the City of Miami. This is the way you guys have got to look at it. It's not a hostile takeover. I think that it gives you an opportunity, this number three — and I'm all in favor of it, and when the Manager presented it to me, I was all in favor of it, because when you put an RFP out, not only are you talking about revenues, but you're talking about policy and the duties that need to be performed by this department or whoever in the private sector that they have to supply parking whether revenues are not in. And there's certain things that the private sector will not be able to do that you will probably be able to do. I think what this will do to you is for you to sit down with the Manager, Administration and really come up with ideas. And like Winton stated, I mean, we know we're trying to build 2,000 apartments in downtown Miami within the next five years. We already have 700 and some apartments. The biggest problem is in some of the existing buildings, there's no parking. So there's a great need for parking. The City needs to do the joint venture with you and with whoever. But I think you can be very successful in staying the way it is. What this does to you is take off the mentality that they want to wipe you out, you and the board, and this is what— come and sit down at the table, and let's work out a plan where we can, for the next five years, improve the parking facilities, not only within downtown, but the other areas and bring development. Right now, the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) is working very hard, and it's got the consultant to try to bring the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) back. We also have — we already got Brickell going. We have the northwest section, northeast section of downtown moving. We need to concentrate all our effort in the Central Business District. We're doing that right now. And the parking— and you can play a major role in this. You need to sit down with the Administrator. Take off the mentality that we're going to wipe you. We all want the same thing. We want the City to improve. And that's why I favor Number 3. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: I am prepared to move the Manager's recommendation to transfer the assets of the Department of Off -Street Parking to the City of Miami to allow for the operation, management and control of Off -Street Parking. 28 September 7, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: The public wants to speak. The public wants to speak. Mayor Carollo: Well, you'll have that opportunity. Commissioner Sanchez: You'll have an opportunity. Mayor Carollo: If you could make the motion and it could be seconded, and anyone else who would like to speak will have that opportunity. Commissioner Winton: Which motion did you make? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Sanchez: The one recommended by the City Manager, Number 3. Commissioner Winton: That's not the one you read, is it? Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Mayor, just as a technical requirement of our City Code, the first resolution needs to be a resolution directing the City Attorney to draft the question. Mayor Carollo: That would be resolution then. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Mr. Vilarello: And it is slightly different than the item that was placed on the Agenda. The Manager has changed it slightly. It reads at this point, in addition, to be a resolution of the City of Miami Commission directing the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the City Charter of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended for consideration on the election to be held on November 7, 2000, proposing, upon approval of the electorate to authority the City Manager to transfer the assets of the Department of Off -Street Parking to the City of Miami, and to allow for the operation, management and control of the off street parking facilities of the City by the City, DOSP or non -City entity at the discretion of the City, determined by whichever provides the greatest efficiency and financial return to the City. Commissioner Sanchez: So move with a friendly amendment that you scratch "the City." The City should not run it. It should be put out for an RFP. And before going out for an RFP, the City Manager must sit down with Off -Street Parking and negotiate to see if they could find ways to bring more recurring revenues to the City. Mr. Vilarello: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Mayor Carollo: That should be done. The problem is that we will never know fully if this is the maximum we could bring in unless we go out to bid. But as far as including that, that the City Manager shall get the maximum before taking the next step, I see no problems with that, because that doesn't prevent the City Manager from taking the next step. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: We need to understand — and I'll second the motion and — discussion, second the motion. We need to understand that if this passes, any RFP that will go out, it will have to come back to us. 29 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, absolutely. Vice Chairman Gort: And it has to be approved by us, and we will have to put the input into the RFP of how we want it to be going out. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that's usually how it goes. Commissioner Winton: In addition— and I would like to modify that— the language. I think the decision on pulling the trigger to move all the assets of the Off -Street Parking Authority into the City should not be the decision of the Manager, but should be the decision of this Commission. And the current language says that decision is made by the Manager. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Commissioner Winton: So I would like to offer that — Vice Chairman Gort: Friendly amendment. Commissioner Winton: -- friendly amendment to your motion. Commissioner Sanchez: What's the time frame that we're looking at? Vice Chairman Gort: Do you accept the amendment? Commissioner Sanchez: I want to know the time frame that we have. Mr. Gimenez: Excuse me. Before we go to that, I'd like to make a comment on your amendment. Any time — that is something that can be controlled by this Commission. It really doesn't need to be in the question, because before I — we put out an RFP, you control the RFP process. Commissioner Sanchez: No, I know that. That was Commissioner Gort's concern. Mr. Gimenez: Because of the time frames, if this goes to the ballot and is passed, it becomes effective, I guess what Commissioner Winton wants to do is that the Commission controls the transfer of the assets in the event that the assets need to be transferred. Commissioner Sanchez: I accept the friendly amendment. Vice Chairman Gort: I second it and I accept it. The public. Mayor Carollo: Any further statements? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, you wanted to be recognized, I think? Mr. Vilarello: When — after I read the resolution, Commissioner Sanchez mentioned he wanted to remove the City as an option. I don't understand the recommendation — the request. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, in the language, it's got the City. It's got — Mr. Vilarello: You mean — 30 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: Does "the City" have to be in the language? Mr. Vilarello: By the City, DOSP or non -City entity? Commissioner Sanchez: By. the City. I don't think– first of all, I don't agree that the City should be the one handling— Commissioner Winton: To bid. Commissioner Sanchez: Huh? No, the City's not going to bid on that. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but – Mr. Vilarello: No. It allows the option for the City to run it, for DOSP to run it, or for a non- governmental entity to run it. And I think the Commissioner wants the City not to have the option of running it. Commissioner Winton: That's right. Commissioner Sanchez: No. I do not want the City to run it. I want the City scratched off of that. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, if I may. Commissioner Teele: If I may. I'm in total agreement that I don't want the City to run it. But I'm– I think it really is very, very – it limits future Commissions from having the right. And I think if you're going to do a ballot question, you do a ballot question so that it's opeaended. In other words, the vast majority of the cities, large cities run their own system or they privatize their system. I mean, the Off Street Parking model is not the normal model. And I think none of us know what the City is going to look like 40 years from now, or 50 years from now. But you don't write Constitutions, which a Charter is, based upon the way it is today. So I mean I will never, as long as I'm a Commissioner, I will never support turning it over to the City. But I think to take away that as a platform by which the City functions and operates is unduly restrictive. The language that bothers me in that series, though, is that it says the City – read the three entities again? Mr. Vilarello: It says to allow for the operation, management and control by the City, DOSP or a non - City entity. Commissioner Teele: And I think that should be a non -Governmental entity, because I think you can get an interpretation that those are all quasi -governmental, and to go– I don't want to lawyer it at all. I asked the Manager to discuss this with you privately at 2 o'clock, so I don't know if he had an opportunity. Mr. Vilarello: I don't believe that impacts – Commissioner Teele: But do you find the word, "nor -governmental" to be – Mr. Vilarello: That's not a problem at all. Then as the motion stands right now, it directs us to prepare the question and the City is not an alternative in that equation, because that was the maker of the motion who asked for the deletion of "by the City." And to that point, my only recommendation would be is that you leave that language in. In the event of emergency, in the event that DOSP, for some reason ceases to – to exist, if the board resigns, if they are not successful in bidding on all of the projects, they may walk 31 September 7, 2000 away, and then the City would be unable to actually manage the operations. So for a worst case scenario, I would recommend that you at least keep that language in the equation. Commissioner Sanchez: I'll accept the recommendation and leave the language in. Commissioner Winton: Could I ask another question? The language, as I have come to learn in this community, ballot language seems to have funny ways of doing things. Vice Chairman Gort: When you vote "yes," that means you voted no, and "no" means yes. Commissioner Winton: Well, right. And so when do we get to— when do we get to look at the language that's going to go on the ballot? Mr. Vilarello: That would be your next item. Commissioner Winton: And you have some recommended language? OK, thank you. Commissioner Regalado: But before we do this on the— I'm reading the language of what is going to be in the ballot. Commissioner Teele: That's not the right one. Commissioner Regalado: This is not the right one? I just got this one. So this should be — Commissioner Sanchez: That's the next thing we vote on. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. But what I'm saying is that— what I'm saying is that what you have as the language of the ballot is not the spirit of what we are discussing here of the Manager talking to Off -Street, and talking to them and doing this. This is an authority for the Manager, which will be changed to the City Commission, of doing immediately whatever the Manager,or the City Commission decides. I don't know, I don't know if what you propose, Joe is to authorize the City Commission instead of the City Manager. But what this does is not — reading the language, what the people are going to vote on and what we -- If we support this, we have to go out and promote this, and market this with the voters of the City of Miami. This is — this doesn't say anything to the City of Miami. And we have to say to the people of Miami, we're going to get more money, and we are going to immediately take over the Off -Street Parking. We can say what this gives us is the authority to tell the Manager to go meet with them to see if they can give us more money. If they don't give us more money, we'll take over the -- This is not clear. I mean, this is not clear for what you guys are talking here. This is very clear, very crystal clear if you— if we want to go ahead and take over the Authority immediately. Mayor Carollo: I think you made a good point, Commissioner Regalado. Maybe the maker and the seconder of the motion would like to include something in this language to the effect that if the Manager is not satisfied with any additional dollars that they offer in negotiations, then he will bring the wording of an RFQ to the Commission so that it could — an RFP or RFQ (Request for Qualifications) could immediately be put out on this issue for this Commission to approve. In other words, what it will do is exactly what you were saying and we've been talking about, to guarantee that we will have competition and there will be bidding on it, because we all know — and we're being nice. We're being very diplomatic about it for the Manager to sit down with them. But if they know that they could get away with that, 32 September 7, 2000 0 we're never going to get the top dollar. And, you know, some of us who were here back in '98 remember what we went through to get the original two million dollars ($2,000,000). Vice Chairman Gort: That's right. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, the resolution stands. Call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: Now we have the public hearing. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize to the public. The public has the right. Commissioner Teele: Any truth to the rumor that Armando Lacasa is going to be named chief protocol officer of the City? Commissioner Regalado: He will be in the Miami Arena Friday. Mayor Carollo: Who told you this? Boom -Boom? That I see he's back. He's been hanging out with you, right? Huh? Vice Chairman Gort: They're going to change their show to the Miami Arena. That's good. Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street. And one of the reasons I am here is because I heard at the beginning that whatever is done here is done for the best of the residents of the City. Somebody managed to say that. I heard it. I put it right here, in the best interest of the residents of the City of Miami. Where are the residents of the City of Miami? I know I am from District 1, and I see Commissioner Gort from District 1, but I don't see anybody else from District 1. One thing, I come here, I don't know anybody of the Parking Authority or whatever. I came here, and maybe only one of them say hello. But I don't anybody. I used to know Clark Cook. He retired. I don't know how the new CEO (chief executive officer) was appointed, or was selected, or what. Doesn't bother me. I use Parking Authority at least a few times a year. I go to the book fair, I go to Miami -Dade College. I park at 190 Northeast Third Street. I go and visit my children that work at Metro -Dade, so I park on Southwest Second Avenue between First and Second Street. By the way, the rates there was raised recently. And I know for a fact that they react fast for phone calls. The other day, I went to a function at Casa Panza, and there was a sticker there. They were charging more from between 6 at night, parking there. I called them, and a guy by the name Shorter or something, he answered me. He called me at work and he said that the sticker will be off, but the stickers are off, because they going to promote Calle Ocho Festivals there, they better remove that parking charge between 6 and 10 at nighttime. The only thing I— the one thing I have to know is, what is the purpose of the Authority? Service or money? Money and revenue? Service? OK. We got to balance, because if it is a problem of service, remember, and then or money (unintelligible) we can put the Police Department for bids. (Unintelligible) can bid, Wells Fargo can bid, Brinks can bid. All those — Wackenhut can bid, too, for that, right? We save money then. The Fire Department can be put for bid, and Solid Waste can. (Unintelligible) can bid for that. Waste Management can bid. A lot of people can bid for that. So is the purpose of service or is the purpose— or it is that the DOSP is a cash cow that a lot of people want to milk? I remember not too long ago, there was a lady from the GSA (General Service Administration) that got sacks of coins there, thousands of dollars in her office in Metro -Dade, and nobody knew about the money. So, you know, those meters, you know, cash money coming. It's a lot of things coming. A lot of people pay cash. So I wonder whether they want to do things for the best interest of the residents. What is— what really is about this. Thank you. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: The two minute rule still stands? 33 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: Welcome back. Welcome back. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, but Mr. Castro was allowed to speak more than five minutes in the United Nations. Commissioner Sanchez: It's a shame. Commissioner Winton: We're not the United Nations. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well my name is Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga. Mayor Carollo: Welcome back. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: It has been a long, long time. And let me tell you something. I am— I saw you all in Puerto Rico and through the Spain TV, live during some elements here. Even this Miami City Commission by TV, and you know on what issue. Well, just arriving, and after seeing four resolutions and a lot of papers and presentations, the idea is to — a proposed Charter amendment. Let me tell you, I am against all of them, and I tell you why. It's only common sense. When Charter amendments have been approved by the citizens of Miami, like, for example, to appoint as of January 15`, an Inspector Cruseau, and this Commission has not appointed one, I don't think you should first comply with what the citizens have said. And let's forget about all of this. Let's follow the rule of law, the order, the mandate of the citizens of Miami to appoint Inspector Cruseau as of January I". And I volunteer to be an interim one until a national search firm is found. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else? Anyone else? We will now close the public hearing. Any other questions? This is a resolution, right? Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor, state it by saying "aye." Commissioner Sanchez: Well, can the City Attorney read the resolution? Mr. Vilarello: With all the amendments, I think it would be a good idea to re -read the resolution. A resolution of the Miami City Commission directing the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Charter of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended for consideration at an election to be held on November 7, 2000, proposing, upon approval of the electorate, to authorize the City Commission to transfer the assets of the Department of Off -Street Parking to the City of Miami, and to allow for the operation, management and control of off-street parking facilities of the City by the City, DOSP, or a non - Governmental entity at the discretion of the City Commission, determined by whichever provides the greatest efficiency and financial return to the City. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. 34 September 7, 2000 0 1 0 Vice Chairman Gort: In all the presentations, I keep hearing "off-street" and "on -street." When you talk about off-street, it takes both of them in consideration in that language? Mr. Vilarello: It includes both, both, all the parking facilities of the City. Mayor Carollo: Does this resolution include that the Manager can bring to this Commission an RFP so this Commission can vote upon it, if he feels that he's gone through all the steps that he could possibly go through? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. I would suggest that you — not in this one. This resolution simply directs the City Attorney to prepare the question. Mayor Carollo: It directs but the meat Mr. Vilarello: And in consideration of your next question — Mayor Carollo: -- the meat of the next one. Mr. Vilarello: Obviously, I can't put all the details of your questions into the question. But if you have that discussion and that's the will of the City Commission, I can put it into the text of the Charter amendment. Mayor Carollo: OK. Any further questions? Commissioner Regalado: I have a question. I still — I still think that the language is very confusing. I don't — I cannot support, I will not support this, because what Commissioner Winton says makes all the sense in the world. We are told that government has to have vision and see the whole picture. And then we are now trying to make some money, trying to see if we make some money. But I'm telling you, it is very difficult. First of all, this has to be approved by the voters of the City of Miami. And I, for one, would not lie to the people of Miami if I want to promote this. The things about the bondook ratings and how much it costs, and how much we have to pay, and the assets being transferred to the City of Miami, then we are going to wind up telling the people of Miami something that they should vote for that is not going to bring what we are promising them. And I did try to campaign two elections ago, I think or— yeah, for a Charter amendment that would let the citizens of Miami— letting the Government to sell a small piece of property without the three bids regulation. And it so happened that somebody said and it was mentioned that I or the City Commission wanted to give the land away, the land that belonged to the City away. So I'm telling you, whoever is going to promote this for the November election better have the facts straight to ask the people to vote for or vote against, because, you know, the people of Miami have been bitten by the same promises many, many times over and over, and so I'm just saying to you that looking at this, as a voter, it's very confusing, and we don't know what it does. So that's all I have to say. Commissioner Teele: Further discussion. Mayor Carollo: Further discussion. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I think we are moving in the right direction. Ithink we can get out of here in a few minutes. I want to put in the context, though of this resolution in supporting it some policy issues that have come up that have not been refuted or at least discussed, and I'll be very brief, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I am very much a supporter of the downtown DDA process. I think, you know, this Commission has not done enough over the years, and I am extremely mindful of the fact that for the .first 35 September 7, 2000 time, we have, you know, not only a DDA Chair, but we also have a downtown businessperson. I think that's helpful to the Commission. I share the concerns that Commissioner Winton has made that there are really important issues as to why we need an off-street parking, although I am very concerned that I. think a lot of the discussion, and even the driving energy behind this needs to be put in another context. Dollars are not just what we need. I think Boom -Boom or somebody said it. It's service, as well. And service in the poor'communities is something that has just totally been neglected, because Off -Street Parking— and until they remove the bond restriction, which they have, up until a year ago, their bond covenant said they could not provide service if it didn't make money. So in Liberty City, in Overtown, in— Clark Cook said that to me a hundred times. Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong. He's a great man, and I don't want to — he's not here. But the fact of the matter is Mr. Cook repeatedly said to me, both as a County Commissioner and as a City Commissioner, "I have an obligation to the bondholders. We, the DDA — the Off -Street Parking. If it doesn't make money, we can't do it." Now, I want to be very clear. I think a part of what this Commission needs is we need to see more service in the non-downtown/Coconut Grove areas, the areas like Wynwood and Overtown and Little Havana, and all of the— Liberty City, et cetera -- Little Haiti, especially, Allapattah, and on and on. And so dollars are a part of the equation, but we also need service. And having said that, I really believe that the downtown community needs even greater service. I believe that the budget of the DDA should include a line item — the budget of Off -Street Parking should include line items for the DDA. I mean, there is almost a relationship, a host/parasitic relationship that you all have. And the fact of the matter is, is that the DDA has not gotten the resources that it needs to function across the board. So to me, if the budget of the Off -Street Parking included a direct funding to DDA, I would see that the same way, assuming the Commission approved it. And .it takes five — it takes a majority of the Commission and the Mayor to approve the DDA budget. But I just don't think — the Off -Street Parking budget. I just don't think that we should communicate to Off -Street Parking — at least I don't want to — and the public that all we care about is, "How much money can we get from this thing?" because the next thing that's going to go is maintenance is going to go down, and it's going to look like the New York City transit system, which I saw what happens when a government body just got in there and shook it down for money, shook it down for money and didn't put anything back. That's why I think the comparison of expenses is so very, very helpful to what it is. I want to be in support of saying I think this is the right direction. I know this is the right direction. It does not do anything without further action. There is no self-executing provision contained in this ballot question. If it were unanimously adopted by the voters, if 95 percent approved it, it doesn't change anything, in and of itself. And Mr. Attorney, is that a fair statement? Mr. Vilarello: That's correct. It does allow — it does take away the exclusivity immediately. Commissioner Teele: But it doesn't change any of the operations of the DDA. Mr. Vilarello: That's correct. Vice Chairman Gort: Of the Off -Street Parking, no. Commissioner Teele: It doesn't change any of the concessions of the DDA. Mr. Vilarello: Not without further City Commission action. Commissioner Winton: DOSP, not DDA. Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding — Commissioner Teele: Yeah, the Department of Off -Street Parking, yes. 36 September 7, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: An RFQ has to be created, or an RFP, and within that RFP, we're going to direct, not only like they were stated before, the income, but the services. Commissioner Teele: And that's why I think so much of the dialogue about working with our Mayor and working with the Management is so very, very important, because, Art, you know and I know there are certain things that Off -Street Parking has said to me privately that we don't know if we do this as well as we want to do it, or in the context, it's a business we may not want to be in. Isthat a fair statement, Art? Mr. Noriega: Absolutely. Commissioner Teele: And so there may be businesses that you don't want to be in, but businesses or services that are needed out there. I don't know how well you all— if we were to put a sidewalk cafe out there how well you all would run that or the parking for that. But yet and still, there may be areas that the . City needs to have those kinds of services. So I think this is an opportunity to formulate a new relationship. And I don't think, you know, you all ought to walk out of here feeling like the City has— You know, I think what we've done is we've turned the page, and we're turning the page, and we're opening the door to a new level of relationships. There may be some facilities -- You talked about the facility, the one with the Knight Center where you said that the parking rates are too high or something. There may be some facilities that we ought to sell off. I'll tell you, when I first met Mr. Nachlinger, the 30 days that I had the privilege of working with him, that was one of the number one recommendations of the Management. Nothing's changed. It went forward in the Oversight Board document, that — November, December, three years ago. And the fact of the matter is, is that that facility is one that— is clearly one that we ought to all sit down and say, "Can we put this back into the public inventory? Can the City derive twenty or thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) off of this?" Or whatever the number is. But, Art, I think if you all just keep fighting everything and digging in, we're not going to move. And I'm not criticizing you, and I don't mean — I should not personalize this. I apologize to you. We need to have an open line of communication, an open dialogue. And so I'm supporting this enthusiastically and strongly, with the understanding that this only empowers the Manager to come back and to make further recommendations. And in the interim, it authorizes the Off Street Parking staff to work with the Manager and his staff to develop a better and a more formal relationship. And I think if you all would take a positive view of this and move forward, this is something that we can go to the voters with some degree of unanimity, et cetera. And on that point that the -- and my final point, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Mayor, thank you — is that I think, Mr. Mayor, you should instruct the Manager and his staff to meet with the Miami Today and The Street and the New Times and the Sun Sentinel, and the Miami Herald and the Miami Times, Garth Reeves and others, and all of the newspapers, and explain what we're doing. I think part of what always happens is we sit back and we let some crazy write a letter, and pretty soon— you know, everybody is so cynical right now that — Commissioner Regalado is right — it'll look like some power grab or some land deal or something that it's not at all. And I think that's something that we really need to do. So in voting for this, Mr. Manager, Mr. Mayor, I hope you all will have immediate meetings with the media and the public policymakers to explain what it is we're doing. And I hope Off Street Parking will stand down from the poison pen letters. Mayor Carollo: So noted, Commissioner. Thank you. Any — Art, real quick, because Commissioner Sanchez has to go. Mr. Noriega: Yeah. I just want to clarify something. My relationship with the Manager and his staff, I think since I've become Executive Director, I've worked with them on a number of issues. I don't have an issue with working with them on any issue. And I'll work as hard as we need to work to create a greater revenue source for the City. That is-- without question, I'm totally committed. My staff will be totally committed to that issue. I also want to clarify something. We actually do have the DDA as part of a line item in our budget. And we do contribute to the street sweeping and cleaning, especially in the 37 September 7, 2000 public right-of-way. And that's something we've done for the last couple of years. So we do do projects on that realm. And I can go through a whole series of projects we've developed in underprivileged or underdeveloped areas which we get zero return from. Commissioner Teele: Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Mayor Carollo: OK. Can you call the roll, Mr. Clerk? The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-714 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSIDERATION AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION TO TRANSFER ASSETS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), AND TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF "OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES OF THE CITY" BY THE CITY, DOSP, OR A NON- GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, DETERMINED BY WHICHEVER PROVIDES THE GREATEST EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURN TO THE CITY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None Mayor Carollo: It passes four to one. We need the — Commissioner Sanchez, hold on. We need the follow-up resolution. Commissioner Winton: The language. The language that will be on the ballot; is that right? Mr. Vilarello: That's correct. There is — there was distributed today a revised 1-A, yes, which has to be revised slightly based on your direction that you just gave me in that resolution. If you'd like, I can read that resolution into the record. 38 September 7, 2000 • Mayor Carollo: If you could. CJ Mr. Vilarello: A resolution of the Miami City Commission, with attachments, 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 Number 1, to authorize the Commission to transfer assets of the Department of Off -Street Parking to the City of Miami and to allow for the operation, management and control of the off-street parking facilities of the City by the City, DOSP or a non -Governmental entity at the discretion of the Commission, determined by whichever provides the greatest sufficiency and financial return to the City; calling and providing for a special referendum election to be held on November 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting Charter Amendment Number 1 to the electorate of said referendum; 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 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 referendum special election. Vice Chairman Gort: Question. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Gort: Is this the language that's going to be on the ballot? Mr. Vilarello: No, that's the resolution — Vice Chairman Gort: No. That's the resolution to create the language. Mr. Vilarello: In 1-A. Vice Chairman Gort: And Commissioner Regalado — oh, OK. Mr. Vilarello: In that revised 1-A, if you look at Page 6 — Commissioner Regalado: No, the language is in Page 6. Mr. Vilarello: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: The language is in Page 6. Mr. Vilarello: The specific question will read: "Shall the Miami City Charter be amended to authorize the Commission to transfer assets of the Department of Off -Street Parking to the City of Miami and further amended it to allow for the operation, management and control of off-street parking facilities of the City by the City, DOSP or a non -Governmental entity at the discretion of the Commission, determined by whichever provides the greatest efficiency and financial return to the City?" That's the question. Vice Chairman Gort: The — instead of "DOSP," because people might not understand what "DOSP" stands for, Department of Off -Street Parking. Mr. Vilarello: It's defined right above it, and the full name. Vice Chairman Gort: It's defined right above it. OK. And underneath -- 39 September 7, 2000 Mr. Vilarello: The Department of Off -Street Parking and then it's — Vice Chairman Gort: And the last paragraph, it's mentioned in there that it's for the purpose of being in the greatest benefit to the City. Mr. Vilarello: Correct. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: So move. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Mayor Carollo: Motion, it's been a seconded. Any further amendments to this question? OK. Hearing none, before we vote, could the intention of the Commission be clear that it wants the Manager to come back with an RFP at the appropriate time, if you so see fit to bring it to the Commission. Commissioner Winton: I have one question. Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Yes. Commissioner Winton: In this language, the issue that you raised in the resolution about the City, DOSP or non -City entity. Now, in here, it says non -City entity again. Commissioner Teele: Well, he changed it — Mr. Vilarello: As I read it. Non -Governmental. Commissioner Winton: Oh, he did when he read it? I was struggling— oh, OK. Thank you, thank you. Sorry. Commissioner Sanchez: In all -- the language has been changed in all the — Mr. Vilarello: OK. And Commissioner Gort, you asked — specifically, you mentioned the word "benefit." The question is not written with the word, "benefit." It's written with "whichever provides the greatest efficiency and financial return to the City." And if you all want the question differently, you need to tell me that. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, you know, this is going to the voters. And somehow, the efficiency, I would change it to — and try to use a more common word. Commissioner Winton: Well, the issue here is on this, you know, if — now, I don't know the legal parts of this piece. So — Vice Chairman Gort: Services. Services or— Mr. Vilarello: My only limitation — I'm sorry, Commissioner Winton. My only limitation is — Vice Chairman Gort: I know, the limitation is the amount of words you can put into the — I understand. 40 September 7, 2000 0 Commissioner Winton: The resolution is what's going to guide us 100 percent, right? So the fact that— because in here it says "efficiency and financial return," the fact of the matter is from a policy standpoint, we may vote on something down the road that— where the direct financial return isn't the same, and we vote on that, not the greatest financial return. It may be a lesser financial — but — Vice Chairman Gort: The efficiency — Commissioner Winton: So the efficiency gets us— we're not govern -- The real language that we will be governed by when we make our decisions in the future is the resolution that we approve prior to this language; is that correct? That's all I need to know. Thank you. Mr. Vilarello: The resolution that you passed before this one simply directed me to draft this one. That's all that did. Commissioner Sanchez: He understands that. Mr. Vilarello: This is the operative resolution. Commissioner Winton: Then I have — then my question is the same. And it goes back to the policy issue that we all, I thought, agreed on. And the policy issue is, you know, at the end of the day, we're going to have to determine whether or not we'll — you know, we may or may not put out an RFP. We may put out an RFP. We may want to be directing Off -Street Parking to put their own RFP out to find a developer to build housing downtown which could have other kinds of positive financial implications for the City, but it won't have any positive financial implication for our parking facility. So what I want to make sure that I understand before I vote in favor of this, that we're not locking ourselves into simply putting an RFP out that deals only with the dollars. Commissioner Teele: Deemed to be in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Winton: It doesn't say that. It — OK. It says right here Commissioner Teele: I'm asking the question. Commissioner Winton: OK. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, can it say, "Deemed to be in the best interest of the City"? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Commissioner Winton: There you go. I like that one. Vice Chairman Gort: That's why I wanted to change the word, "efficiency." Commissioner Winton: Well, you got to get that one out completely. Deemed. "Deemed in the best interest of the City." And you've got to get out "greatest efficiency and financial return to the City." Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Mr. Vilarello: I'm counting. I'm sorry. That's a reduction in words. That's fine. Mayor Carollo: You're set? OK. Call the roll. 41 September 7, 2000 0 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-715 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. 1, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION TO TRANSFER ASSETS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), AND TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF "OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES OF THE CITY" BY THE CITY, DOSP, OR NON- GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, AS DETERMINED BY WHICHEVER IS DEEMED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY; CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE ELECTORATE AT SAID REFERENDUM; 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 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 REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado ABSENT: None Mayor Carollo: Passes four to one. 42 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: A resolution of the City of Miami directing the City Attorney to prepare al amendment to the Charter of the City as amended for consideration at an election to be held on November 7, 2000 proposing, upon approval of the electorate, to provide for a change, effective blank, 2000, in the composition of the Department of Off -Street Parking, DOSP, from five members appointed by the Board, itself and confirmed by the City Commission to seven members by adding the Mayor as Chairperson of the Board, and by adding one member as appointed by the City Commission. So move, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Carollo: There's a motion. Seconded by Vice Mayor Gort. Commissioner Winton: Could you read just the Board composition again so I understand it? Commissioner Teele: The Board composition would stay identical to the way it is, except the Mayor would be added_ as the Chairperson, and one person appointed by the Commission would be the seventh member. Commissioner Winton: Got it. Thank you. Commissioner Teele: The other five members would continue to be self perpetuating. I don't want to mislead anybody that this is a change. If we would continue to have a five -member, five of the seven members would be elected in the same way; is that correct, Mr. Attorney? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes. Commissioner Teele: With the same qualifications. Commissioner Winton: So the number of Board members is in the Charter currently? Commissioner Teele: The number is in the Charter, unbelievably. Commissioner Winton: Got it. Got it. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: We don't have to meet at 6 in the morning, right? Vice Chairman Gort: 7:30 to 11 o'clock. Commissioner Winton: No, it's 7:30. Vice Chairman Gort: I'm starting out every day at 7:30 in the morning. 43 September 7, 2000 • Commissioner Winton: Did you get a second? Mayor Carollo: The Vice Mayor seconded that. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, there's a second. Vice Mayor Gort seconded it. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Hearing no further discussion — Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: You need to give me an effective date. If you don't give me an effective date, I'll prepare the question to be effective immediately. Commissioner Regalado: I'll amend that to December 15`, the year 2001. December 15`, the year 2001. Mayor Carollo: Is that what you want, Commissioner Teele, or is that a joke? Vice Chairman Gort: What was that again? Mayor Carollo: I think Commissioner Regalado is joking. What date do you want on that? Commissioner Teele: Whatever date the Commission wants. I'm not going to get caught up in that argument. Mayor Carollo: OK. You can make it 2007, you know, if you want to really make it an odd number. Whatever the will of the Commission is. Vice Chairman Gort: What are we doing? I'm sorry. What are we doing on this? Mayor Carollo: What -- We need an effective date. Commissioner Regalado said December 2001, which, frankly, you might as well not put it in. Vice Chairman Gort: You have it... September? Mayor Carollo: October 1S` Vice Chairman Gort: (Inaudible)... part of the budget. Commissioner Teele: Gentlemen, whatever you all want. I mean, look, it's out here. Let's try to agree on this. Vice Chairman Gort: Rumor is flying — Commissioner Winton: You know, Commissioner, Commissioner Regalado, I have to agree with what Commissioner Teele said. The fact of the matter is that if the Board, the current Board of DOSP is so 44 September 7, 2000 weak that they can't have a fair and friendly debate with our existing Mayor, then they've got a problem. We have — Commissioner Regalado: I don't — Commissioner Winton: We have— Commissioner Regalado: You know, I don't have any problem about any Mayor. I just think that these two processes are totally different. We're doing one process here. Why we are — you just did, because I didn't. But the voters of Miami can very well abolish the Board when that is effective in January or —just by doing an RFP (Request for Proposals) by — yes, Carlos. Commissioner Winton: But we can only do that. Vice Chairman Gort: We're the ones that issue the RFP. Commissioner Regalado: No. Commissioner Winton: And approve it. Commissioner Regalado: The voters of Miami, if they approve that, will give us the power to, in fact, abolish completely the Off -Street Parking. Commissioner Winton: That's correct. But it gives it to us. Commissioner Regalado: Well, but, I mean, if somebody comes with more money, if that's what we're going to do, I will do it. But what I'm saying is that why do you want to run two parallel processes that are totally different, to create a new Board that can be abolished in the next six months? Commissioner Teele: Look, Commissioner — Commissioner Regalado: I don't — I don't — look, I don't have any problem. Commissioner Teele: Commissioners, as a policy issue, there is a strong — Commissioner Regalado: This is a — Commissioner Teele: There's a strong argument that this could be something that is not self-serving, that is something that takes effect after the current Mayor and the current Commission, because there will be a new Commission on November. So this is not self-serving. On the other hand, I see no reason to delay this indefinitely. What about a compromise of January 1, 2001? And give the Board a chance to organize itself, and to meet and have a little bit of orderly transition or something like that. Or June. I mean, I— I can see a need to have an orderly transition. You know, you got to make — it's like if we added seven — two more seats up here. There would be pandemonium, et cetera. So — Vice Chairman Gort: 2001, January. Commissioner Teele: January 2001? Vice Chairman Gort: No problem with that? 45 September 7, 2000 Commissioner Teele: What's wrong with that? Mr. Attorney, Mr. Mayor, is that satisfactory? Mayor Carollo: January 1, 2001 is fine. Commissioner Teele: But I think what we want to do is want to avoid the Board going out fighting us. I'm talking about the DOSP Board going out fighting us. And it would be helpful if the DOSP Board had a view. But we have to move on. So January 1, 2001. And I think the point, though, that Commissioner Regalado is making is a valid one. And that is, by having it on November of 2001, no one could say that this Commission -- because this is a new Commission seated then. It has — yes, it is. We have our election. Mr. Vilarello: No. January 2001 is the same Commission. Commissioner Teele: No. I'm saying his recommendation was December 2001, which gets us beyond this Commission's seating. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Teele: Which one? January? Mayor Carollo: There's a motion by Commissioner Teele, January 1, 2001. Second by Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you why I'll be in favor of January the I". Because it's the same Commission, as you stated it here. And we know what we want to do, what we want to create. We want to be responsible and make sure the right thing goes on according to the discussion that we had here. And like you said, if the change is going to take place, it'll take place in November, and then it'll be a different Commission that might come up with different ideas. Mayor Carollo: OK. Call the roll, Mr. Clerk. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 00-716 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSIDERATION AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2001, IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") BOARD FROM FIVE MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE DOSP BOARD ITSELF AND CONFIRMED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO SEVEN MEMBERS, BY ADDING THE MAYOR AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND BY ADDING ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. 46 September 7, 2000 (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: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez [COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL] Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, did you have something? Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner Gort, I just wanted— it's January 2001. It's two months after the election this would change. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. [COMMENTS MADE AFTER ROLL CALL] Mayor Carollo: OK. It passes four/zero. Commissioner Teele: I would move the appropriate ballot language that's contained. Mr. Attorney, you want to read anything that — Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Let me read the entire resolution. We did distribute the question, itself. The resolution would read as follows:' Approving and 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 Number 2, to provide, effective January 1, 2001, for a change in the composition of the Department of Off -Street Parking Board from five members to seven members by adding the Mayor as the Chairperson of the Board, and by adding one member appointed by the City Commission, calling and providing for a special referendum election to be held on November 7, 2000 for the purpose of submitting Charter Amendment Number 2 to the electorate; and said referendum 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 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 t1E date of such referendum special election. Commissioner Teele: Call the question. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): I need a movant and a seconder. Commissioner Teele: I move it. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. 47 September 7, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-717 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. 2, TO PROVIDE, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2001, FOR A CHANGE IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") BOARD FROM FIVE MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD ITSELF AND CONFIRMED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO SEVEN MEMBERS, BY ADDING THE MAYOR AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND BY ADDING ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION; CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE ELECTORATE AT SAID REFERENDUM; 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 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 REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Mayor Carollo: Any further business that needs to come before this body? Vice Chairman Gort: Move to adjourn. Commissioner Winton: Second. Mayor Carollo: There's a motion to adjourn, seconded. All in favor, signify by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 48 September 7, 2000 The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 00-718 A MOTION TO ADJOURN TODAY'S MEETING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Mayor Carollo: We are now adjourned. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. ATTEST: WALTER J. FOEMAN, City Clerk SYLVIA LOWMAN, Assistant City Clerk JOE CAROLLO, PRESIDING OFFICER/MAYOR 49 September 7, 2000