HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1999-09-28 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
c 0.1m m I S's I
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL
Waller A Foeman/City Clerk
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
And
SEOPW/CRA
SEPTEMBER 28,1999
ITEM NO: SUBJECT LEGISLATION
1. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS: 9/28/99
(A) Certificate of Appreciation to Jaron Freeman, summer intern DISCUSSION
in Commissioner Sanchez's Office, recognized for his I-4
achievements as Eagle Scout and active in Epileptic Foundation
at Miami Children's Hospital;
(B) Certificate of Appreciation to Frank Lago, Orlando Alvarez,
Jr., Eduardo Vera, Mercy Health Services accepted by Ilana
Cruz, executive director of Mercy Hospital, for participation in
community events;
(C) Salute to -Gwendolyn Warren for good work in Community
Development and coordination of grants for the City.
2. CONSENT AGENDA 9/28/99
DISCUSSION
4-7
2.1 ACCEPT BID .OF OAKS WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS 9/28/99
FOR FLEX CUFFS AND EVIDENCE TAPE FOR POLICE, R-99-692
s
($43,875).
2.2 ACCEPT BID OF LOU'S GUN SHOP, FOR MODULAR 9/28/99
TACTICAL BALLISTIC VESTS WITH ACCESSORIES FOR R-99-693
POLICE ($13,235.25). S
2.3 ACCEPT BID OF SOUTH FLORIDA SPECIALTY 9/28/99
FIREARMS FOR SUB MACHINE GUNS FOR POLICE R-99-694
($15,960) S
LO Wd S3 d3S 00
2.4
ACCEPT BID OF CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE
9/28/99
RECOVERY FOR GRINDING CLEAN YARD TRASH,
R-99-695
STUMPS AND LOGS STOCKPILED AT VIRGINIA KEY
6
FOR DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE, ($52,000)
2.5
ACCEPT BID OF CHEM-TAINER INDUSTRIES FOR
9/28/99
PURCHASE OF 170 TOTE BARRELS FOR DEPARTMENT
R 99-696
OF SOLID WASTE, ($6,120)
6
2.6
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF 119
9/28/99
VENTILATED THREE-TIER LOCKERS FROM ADAPTO
R 99-697
STORAGE PRODUCTS, AWARDED PURSUANT TO
6
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONTRACT FOR DEPARTMENT
OF POLICE ($23,054.93).
2.7
AUTHORIZE PROVISION OF TIRE RETREADING AND
9/28/99
REPAIR SERVICES FROM FEDAN CORPORATION,
R 99-698
AWARDED PURSUANT TO MIAMI-DADS COUNTY
7
CONTRACT, FOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ($26,000)..
2.8
AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL
9/28/99
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOLO PRINTING, INC.,
R 99-699
TO PRINT THE 1998 POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL
7
REPORT ($7,600); ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM SPECIAL
REVENUE PARTNERSHIP FUND, COMPRISED OF
MONETARY DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS PRIVATE
ORGANIZATIONS TO EXPEND ON COMMUNITY
EVENTS.
3.
WAIVE CODE SECTION 2-612 PROHIBITING CITY
9/28/99
EMPLOYEES FROM TRANSACTING BUSINESS WITH
R 99-700
THE CITY; APPROVING EVELIN A. BARRIEL,
7-8
EMPLOYED AT THE EAST LITTLE HAVANA NET
SERVICE CENTER, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSSHIP DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM AND STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, ADMINISTERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
4.
ACCEPT BID OF MEF CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR
9/28/99
PROJECT ENTITLED "LITTLE HAVANA STORM SEWER
R 99-701
IMPACT FEE PROJECT B-5626" (SECOND BIDDING);
9-25
($44,765); ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM PROJECT
NO.352293.
I
5. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ALLOCATE FUNDING TO
9/28/99
NINE (9) SPONSORS (SERVICE PROVIDERS) FOR
R 99-702
HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND RELATED SERVICES TO
26-27
LOW INCOME PERSONS LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS,
ALLOCATING FUNDS ($2,568,113) FROM 1998 HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA)
PROGRAM GRANT.
6. EMERGENCY ORDIDANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE
9/28/99
11395, WHICH ESTABLISHED SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ORDINANCE 11836
"VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT"; TO INCREASE
27-29
APPROPRIATIONS ($48,000), CONSISTING OF GRANT
FROM STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ACCEPT
GRANT; AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES -- CORRECTING
.
SCRIVENER'S ERRORS IN ORDINANCE NOS.. 11637
AND 11697.
7. DISCUSS AND TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
9/28/99
RATIFICATION OF MANAGER'S FINDING OF
DISCUSSION
EMERGENCY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
29-30
AGREEMENT WITH HOWARD DESIGN GROUP FOR
EVALUATION OF VENDOR RESPONSES FOR
RENOVATION OF FLOORING IN VARIOUS FIRE
STATIONS -- REQUIRE OUTLINE OF SPECIFIC
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS USED FOR CAPITAL PROJECT IN FIRE
DEPARTMENT. (See section # 50)
8. RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING
9/28/99
OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
R 99-703
COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS AND APPROVE
30-31
PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTER UNIFORMS FROM JULES
BROS. UNIFORMS, INC. ($30,000) . FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE -RESCUE.
9. DISCUSS BID SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIRES FOR THE 9/28/99
FIRE -RESCUE DEPARTMENT. DISCUSSION
31-32
10. RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM CITY MANAGER'S 9/28/99
FINDING OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE REQUIREMENTS OF R 99-704
COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, APPROVE EMERGENCY 32
ROOF REPAIRS OF MAINTENANCE BUILDING FOR
DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE ($15,000) BY A.K.
ROOFING OF FLORIDA, INC. -- ALLOCATE FUNDS
FROM CIP.
m
11.
(A) APPROVE REVISED LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
9/28/99
PLANS FOR 1995-2001, PURSUANT TO STATE HOUSING
R-99-705
M-99-705.1
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP("SHIP") PROGRAM;
33-36
AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL.
(B) SCHEDULE WORKSHOP REGARDING SAME WITH
HOUSING INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, MORTGAGE
BANKERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC -ADMINISTRATION
TO PRESENT AMENDED PLAN BEFORE COMMISSION
WITHIN 60 DAYS.
12.
AMEND RESOLUTION 99-64, TO INCREASE FUNDS
9/28/99
($35,000 TO $45,000) FOR VICTIM ADVOCATE
M 99-706
SERVICES FOR DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
36-37
13.
AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR
9/28/99
QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ), FOR ELIGIBLE FIRMS/SOLE
R 99-707
PROPRIETORS TO PROVIDE TOWING AND WRECKER
39-48
SERVICES FOR DEPARTMENTS OF POLICE AND FIRE -
RESCUE, SAID SELECTION TO BE PRESENTED TO THE
CITY COMMISSION FOR CONTRACT(S) RESULTING.
FROM THE RFQ. -- ROTATE FIRMS -- EQUALIZE
DISTRICTS -- REQUEST COMPARISON OF OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES.
14
ACCEPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
9/28/99
COMPETITIVE SELECTION COMMITTEES AS TO MOST
R 99-708
QUALIFIED FIRMS, IN RANK ORDER, TO PROVIDE
48-49
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (LAND
SURVEYING AND MAPPING, LANDSCAPE,
ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL -ENGINEERING,
ENVIRONMENTAL, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING,
VALUE ANALYSIS AND COST ESTIMATE) FOR 1999-
2001 PROJECTS.
15.
ACCEPT PLAT: DONDARA RIVER.
9/28199
R 99-709
49-50
16.
AUTHORIZE ENGAGEMENT OF ATTORNEYS TEW,
9/28/99
CARDENAS, REBAK, KELLOGG, LEHMAN, DEMARIA
R 99-710
AND TAGUE, L.L.P. FOR LEGAL SERVICES RE MIAMI
50-53
BOND OFFERINGS, A-1581, AND INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO FORMAL ORDER ISSSUED BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION;
ALLOCATE FUNDS ($75,000), PLUS COSTS AS
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, FROM THE
SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND.
17.
SETTLEMENT: DIMAS AND SILVIA ROMAN ($52,250),
9/28/99
AND WILLIAM LOPEZ.
R 99-711
53-54
18.
DEFER CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO
9/28/99
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE EQUITY STUDY
DISCUSSION
COMMISSION - QUESTION IF BOARD NEEDS TO BE
55
ABOLISHED/SUNSETTED.
19.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL STATUS
9/28/99
OF THE MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY THEATER
DISCUSSION
LOCATED AT 900 SOUTHWEST I ST STREET AND THE
55-60
MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATED AT
970 SOUTHWEST 1 ST STREET - ADMINISTRATION
AND DDA TO EXPLORE FEASIBILITY OF USING
FACILITY FOR TELEVISION STUDIO.
20.
MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE
9/28/99
WHETHER MIAMI LIMITED IS IN DIRECT DEFAULT OF
M-99-712
CONTRACT RE SECTION 8 HOUSING FOR PROPERTIES
60-75
AT 1320, 1321 AND 1370 NORTHWEST 61ST STREET
FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN APARTMENTS PROPERLY
- CITY TO PROCEED TO RELOCATE RESIDENTS IF
INSPECTIONS FAIL SAFETY AND HEALTH TESTS. (See
section #52)
21.
CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
9/28/99
AMENDMENT TO SD-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL
M-99-713
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO MODIFY BONUS
75-76
PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO DELETE PROVISION FOR
COMMUNITY THEATRE BONUSES AND
GRANDFATHER EXISTING SPACES.
22. APPROVE REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT 9/28/99
BETWEEN CITY AND PERRICONE'S MARKETPLACE R-99-714
(RESTAURANT) ON MIAMI AVENUE. 76-78
23. REFER TO CODESIGNATION COMMITTEE PROPOSED 9/28/99
CODESIGNATION OF NORTHWEST 43 AVENUE IN M-99-715
HONOR OF RAFAEL ELOREGUI 78-79
24. DISCUSSION CONCERNING BAME DEVELOPMENT 9/28/99
CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA (see section #49) DISCUSSION
79-80
25. (A) APPROVE, ADOPT BUDGET FOR COMMUNITY
9/28/99
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) FOR OMNI AND
OMNI/CRA R-99-21
SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AREAS FOR
SEOPW/CRA R-99-28
SEOPW/CRA R-99-29
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000;
OMNI/CRA R-99-22
(B) APPROVE FIVE-YEAR BUDGET FOR CRA;
SEOPW/CRA R-99-30
(C) APPROVE PARKS PROGRAMS FOR GIBSON PARK,
82-90
REEVES PARK AND ATHALIE RANGE PARK WITH
SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD BONDS FUNDS.
26. APPROVE LOAN/ADVANCE FROM CRA OF PORTION
9/28/99
OF OMNI TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FUNDS FOR
OMNI/CRA R-99-23
COMPLETION OF MARGARET PACE PARK PROJECT.
90-91
27.
AUTHORIZE CRA TO REQUEST ' THAT MIAMI-DADE
9/28/99
COUNTY UTILIZE ADDITIONAL $400,000 FROM MIAMI-
OMNI/CRA RR-99-24
DADE COUNTY'S PORTION OF OMNI TAX INCREMENT
91-92
DISTRICT FUNDS FOR COMPLETION OF MARGARET
PACE PARK
28.
CRA TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH VENDORS
9/28/99
PREAPPROVED BY STATE, COUNTY, CITY AND OTHER
SEOPW/CRA R-99-31
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS/AGENCIES FOR CRA TO
OMNI/CRA R-99-25
PURCHASE TELEPHONE, COMPUTER AND OFFICE
92-93
EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL
SUPPORT SERVICES.
29.
AUTHORIZE CRA TO PURCHASE SURPLUS OFFICE
9/28/99
EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND PROPERTY FROM STATE
SEOPW/CRA R-99-32
OF FLORIDA.
OMNI/CRA R-99-26
93-94
30.
AUTHORIZE CRA TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR
9/28/99
QUALIFICATIONS TO RETAIN SERVICES OF UP TO
SEOPW/CRA R-99-33
THREE CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC
OMNI/CRA R-99-27
ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE CRA.
94-95•
31. APPROVE RETROACTIVE HIRING OF WERNER
9/28/99
KUSTER, PART-TIME TECHNICAL SERVICE BUSINESS
SEOPW/CRA R-99-34
SPECIALIST OF CRA; MARTHA CORBA, PART-TIME
OMNI/CRA R-99-28
COMPUTER DATA ASSISTANT; AND CHELSA
95-96
ARSCOTT, PART-TIME ASSISTANT TO EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN.
32. AUTHORIZE CRA TO USE BIDS RETAINED BY CITY OR
9/28/99
COUNTY FOR ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS.
SEOPW/CRA R-99-35
OMNI/CRA R-99-29
96-97
33. USE EXISTING' MIAMI-DADE WATER & SEWER
9/28/99
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT VENDORS FOR PURCHASE
SEOPW/CRA R-99-36
OF ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION
OMNI/CRA R-99-30
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO CRA.
97-98
34.
GREATER MIAMI SERVICE CORPS TO PROVIDE
9/28/99
MAINTENANCE SERVICES (INCLUDING REPAIRS AND
SEOPW/CRA R-99-37
LANDSCAPING) WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OF
OMNI/CRA R-99-31
98-99
CRA.
35.
NEGOTIATE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OF
9/28/99
COOPERATION WITH MIAMI-DARE TRANSIT
SEOPW/CRA R-99-38
AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF AIR
99-100
RIGHTS PARCEL ADJACENT TO OVERTOWN
METRORAIL STATION OWNED BY THE COUNTY.
36.
UTILIZE OR COOPERATE WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
9/28/99
USING EXISTING FEDERAL URBAN INITIATIVE
SEOPW/CRA R-99-39
GRANT FUNDS FOR COMPLETION OF 9TH STREET
100-101
MALL PROJECT FROM 2ND AVENUE TO 3RD AVENUE
TO I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TO CONNECT WITH
PARK WEST PORTION OF 9TH STREET MALL.
37.
SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR AIR RIGHTS INVOLVING
9/28/99
MIAMI-DADS TRANSIT- OVERTOWN STATIONS __
SEOPW/CRA M-99-40
MAINTAIN SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST
101-103
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT ORDER RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION
OF CULTURAL ARTS AND SPORTS ATTRACTION --
REVIEW ASSETS OWNED BY CRA AND TRANSFERRED
TO CITY.
38.
STATUS REPORT OF:
9/28/99
(A) RFQ FOR FRANCHISE IN THE 3RD AVENUE
DISCUSSION
BUSINESS CORRIDOR;
toa-tos
(B) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BAME CDC FOR
CURRENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT;
(C) HISTORIC PRIORITY CORRIDOR PARKWAY PLAN.
39.
COMMENTS REGARDING FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE
9128199
CRA-.-- MONDAY EVENINGS EVERY OTHER MONTH
DISCUSSION
ON LOCATION.
105-106
40. PUBLIC HEARING re COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE 9/28/99
HAULERS (PROPOSED FRANCHISE, REGULATIONS (see DISCUSSION
section #42) 107-157
41. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED 9/28/99
ALLAPATTAH GARDEN APARTMENTS TO BE M-99-716
LOCATED AT NORTHWEST 36TH STREET AND 12TH 157-158
AVENUE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATION AREA
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT ALLAPATTAH
METRORAIL STATION.
42.
(A) CHARGE $100 ANNUALLY TO NON-EXCLUSIVE
9/28/99
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE HAULING SERVICE
M-99-717
FRANCHISE PROVIDERS FOR EACH ACCOUNT -
M-99-718
PROHIBIT PASS -THROUGH TO CUSTOMER MORE
M-99-719
R-99-720
THAN $48 EQUALLY ON A $4 A MONTH BASIS;
ORDINANCE 11837
(B) RESTRICT HOURS OF OPERATION CONTIGUOUS
158-208
TO RESIDENTIAL BETWEEN 9 A.M. AND 10 P.M.;
(C) DEFINE RECOVERABLE/RECYCLABLE MATERIAL
SAME AS STATE LAW — MANAGER TO REPORT ON
ECONOMIC IMPACT TO CITY;
(D) APPROVE SELECTION OF QUALIFIED FIRMS TO
PROVIDE COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE HAULING
SERVICES;
(E) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND CODE
SECTIONS 22-1, 22-2, 22-5, 22-6, 22-12, 22-14, 22-18, 22-46,
22-47 THROUGH 22-51, 22-53, 22-56, 22-58 AND 22-93
"GARBAGE AND TRASH," BY PROVIDING FOR NEW
DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR NEW REGULATIONS
CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL
SOLID WASTE HAULERS; MANDATING SOLID WASTE
SERVICE TO ALL RESIDENCES CONTAINING ,THREE
(3) UNITS OR LESS; CHANGING RESIDENTIAL BULKY
WASTE COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND ESTABLISHING
RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL COLLECTION 'SERVICES;
REPLACING TERMS, REGULATORY PERMIT AND
PERMITTEE WITH NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AND
FRANCHISEE, RESPECTIVELY. (See Section #40)
43.
DISCUSS AND TABLE CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF
9/28/99
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW VALET PARKING
DISCUSSION
FOR HOTEL AT 194-218 SOUTHEAST 4TH STREET (See
208-209
Section 56)
44.
BRIEF COMMENTS RE BUDGET (See Sections #55 and
9/28/99
#57).
DISCUSSION
209
45.
COMMENTS RE BID OF BUENA VISTA BUILDING
9/28/99
MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES
DISCUSSION
FOR RIVERSIDE CENTER (See Section #47).
209-210
45.1
COMMENTS RE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL TO BRING
9/28/99
REVENUES TO CITY (See Section #44).
DISCUSSION
210
46.
CONTINUE ALL PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS (WITH
9/28/99
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS) TO OCTOBER 12 OR OCTOBER
M-99-721
26 COMMISSION MEETINGS.
210-212
47. ACCEPT BID: BUENA VISTA BUILDING 9/28/99
MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES R 99-722
FOR RIVERSIDE CENTER (See Section #45). 212 eta
48.
BUILDING PERMITS FOR NEW HOPE OVERTOWN
9/28/99
SUBDIVISION — TENTATIVE PLAT IN PROGRESS -
R 99-723
BETWEEN NORTHWEST 6th AND 8th STREETS FROM
214-215
NORTHWEST 5th TO 6th AVENUES.
49.
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH BAME
9i28/99
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA
R 99-724
AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR EXTENSION OF
215-216
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES FOR NEW
HOPE OVERTOWN SUBDIVISION (BETWEEN
NORTHWEST 6TH AND .8TH STREETS FROM 5TH TO
6TH AVENUES (See Section 24).
50.
EXECUTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
9/28/99
AGREEMENT WITH HOWARD DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
R 99-725
($18,000), FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS,
217-219
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF VENDOR RESPONSES,
AND OTHER PROFESSSIONAL SERVICES NECESSARY
FOR RENOVATING OF FLOORING IN VARIOUS FIRE
STATIONS; ALLOCATING FUNDS -- $15,500 FROM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS, APPROPRIATED IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP), AND $2,500 FROM CIP "FIRE STATION
AND BUILDING RENOVATIONS," FUNDED BY THE
FIRE ASSESSMENT (See Section 7).
51.
COMMENTS RE EXTENSION OF COMMUNITY BASED
9128/99
'ORGANIZATIONS (CBOs) — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISCUSSION
— COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
219-220
(CDBG) FUNDS.
52.
INITIATE IMMEDIATE RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS OF
9/28/99
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1501 NORTHWEST 59TH
R 99-726
STREET, 1270 NORTHWEST 60TH STREET AND 1320,
220-222
1321 AND 1370 NORTHWEST 61 ST STREET, SUBJECT
TO FINDING THAT MIAMI, LTD. II IS IN DEFAULT OF
CONTRACT; REQUEST RELOCATION PLAN —
COMMENTS RE DEMONSTRATION (See Section 20).
53.
SUPPORT CONGRESSWOMAN CARRIE _ MEEK AND
9/28/99
MIAMI POLICE CHIEF TO HAVE U.S. JUSTICE
R-99-727
DEPARTMENT AND FBI CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION TO
222-224
REVIEW 'INCIDENT RESULTING IN DEATH OF
ANTONIO BUTLER.
54. ENGAGE OUTSIDE COUNSEL RE LAWSUIT, PATRICK 9/28/99
MC GRATH, III - PARKING FACILITIES - SURCHARGE R 99-728
($75,000). 224-225
55. DISCUSS AND TABLE CITY OF MIAMI BUDGET (SEE 9/28/99
SECTIONS 44 AND 57). DISCUSSION
225-239
56. (A) WITHDRAW APPEAL BY BABYLON 9/28/99
INTERNATIONAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO R 99-729
ALLOW VALET PARKING FOR HOTEL AND TO ALLOW 239-242
BARILOUNGE AT 194-218 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET.
(B) DENY APPEAL BY BABYLON INTERNATIONAL,
APPROVE VARIANCES TO ALLOW STRUCTURE WITH
REDUCED SETBACKS AT 194-218 SOUTHEASAT 14TH
STREET. [Applicant: Key Real Estate Development II Corp.]
(See #43)
57. (A) COMMENTS RE UNSAFE STRUCTURES ALONG
NORTHWEST THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND
17TH STREETS, AND CORAL WAY AND 36TH AVENUE;
(B) COMMENTS RE REVENUES FROM BILLBOARDS
EAST OF I-95 EXPRESSWAY;
(C) EXPLORE FEASIBILITY OF USING SPECIAL TAX ON
CAR RENTALS TO RAISE REVENUES;
(D) COMMENTS/ACCEPTANCE OF MAYOR CAROLLO'S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GENERATING REVENUES;
(E) DENY ADDITIONAL FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE FOR
1999-2000;
(F) INCREASE RESIDENTIAL GARBARE FEE;
(G) DELETE PROPOSED INCREASES TO OFFICE OF
MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, MANAGER;
(H) ACCEPT MANAGER'S BUDGET REDUCTIONS:
UNCLASSIFIED SALARIES, COMMISSION OFFICES,
BAYFRONT PARK, INTERNATIONAL TRADE BOARD,
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
MANAGEMENT RECOVERY, FIRE DEPARTMENT;
(1) REDUCE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY'S
BUDGET;
(n FIRST READING ORDINANCE: INCREASE SOLID
WASTE FEE TO $234 ANNUALLY;
(K) TRANSFER MONIES FOR OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 5 PURSUANT TO ANTI -
DEFICIENCY ORDINANCE;
(L) TRANSFER UNEXPENDED PORTION OF OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 5, BUDGET FOR DADE
COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR
CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES;
(M) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: DEFINE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION
FOR CITY OF MIAMI; FIX MILLAGE, LEVY TAXES -
1999-2000 BUDGET;
(N) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: MAKE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR CITY OF MIAMI - 1999-2000
BUDGET;
(0) DEFER CONSIDERATION FOR ONE YEAR OF
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS (See Sections 44, 55, 60).
9/28/99
M-99-730
R-99-731
M-99-732
M-99-733
M-99-734
M-99-735
ORDINANCE
M-99-736
M-99-737
ORDINANCE 11838
ORDINANCE 11839
M-99-738
243-347
58. (A) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: RELATED TO 9/28/99
TAXATION, DEFINING AND DESIGNATING THE ORDINANCE 11840
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE DOWNTOWN ORDINANCE 11841
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; FIXING MILLAGE AND 347-350
LEVYING TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000;
(B) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE DOWONTOWN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AD VALOREM TAX LEVY
AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS INCOME FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET.
59. CCEPT BID OF D. E. GIDI &- ASSOCIATES CORP., FOR 9/28/99
"KINLOCH PARK ADULT DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, DISCUSSION
B-6270"; ($575,000); ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM PROJECT 350-351
NO. 332174 AS APPROPRIATED BY FISCAL YEAR 1998-
1999 APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE 11705.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 28 h day of September 1999, the City Commission of Miami, Florida met at its
regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 9:50 a.m. by Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
(hereinafter referred to as Chairman Plummer), with the following members of the Commission
found to be present:
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.(District 2)
Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3)
Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) .
ALSO PRESENT:
Donald Warshaw, Acting City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk
Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk
ABSENT:
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort (District 1)
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5)
�Ivl1?FrTI�TC-
L>eYdu.sof:q'.A(i�6a41t-�&�i�+.�tEXlN!-'. "+ac4 E.T�A°Li)?.SWtsfe�"RYP VL�1H1V}8<+F'kibnlu.YY.oi':a. Ka �}iV� O
Chairman Plummer: Ileana Cruz is here? OK. And the ceremony will start at ten minutes of 10.
For the record, Item 5 has been withdrawn by the Management. Budget will start sometime after
5:05 this afternoon. Commercial waste haulers will start at the inception of the afternoon agenda,
which is 2 o'clock. And I think that's it. Oh, I'm sorry. And also, Item 21, presentation of the
NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) from Flagami, is going to be put cancelled and put
over to the next Commission meeting. We'll start in seven minutes.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Item 5 was withdrawn by the Administration and Item 21 was
deferred to the next Commission meeting.
SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
PRESENTATIONS AND.PROCLAMA �=-"°�-_- "xis``' a=
Y.--.Certificate of Appreciation to Jaron Freeman,. summer;mtern in:.Comm�ssiorier Sanchez's
Office,- recognized'foi his achievements' as_. Eagle Scout-i-nd active' m=-Epileptic.Foun_dation at
Miami.Childreri's"Hospital:
2. Certificate of A reciati pp on to Frank .Lago;.Orlando Alvarez; Jr Eduardo Vera; _Mercy, Health
.Services. accepted 'by Ilana. Cruz,' executive director" C&.Mercy:Hosprtal; for.'pai icipation in
community events;
3: Salute to. Gwendolyn Warren for good work in Community DeveIopine t-and coordination of
grants for the City..
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Clerk, could you please call Mr. Gort and Mr. Teele? I know Mr. Gort
is in the building. I have not seen Mr. Teele.
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): He's in the building.
Chairman Plummer: Teele is in the building? All right. Mr. Sanchez, you have a presentation to
make. You want to start off.
Commissioner Sanchez: Good morning. If I could have Jaron Freeman please come up here, and
his mom, too. Come on up, here.
Chairman Plummer: Come around. Good morning.
Jaron Freeman: Good morning.
Commissioner Sanchez: It is with great honor that I present this certificate of appreciation to
Jaron Freeman, in recognition of his dedicated service to the City of Miami by volunteering for -
to work in my office this summer and to help out. We hereby convey our gratitude by issuing
you this certificate of appreciation from the City of Miami on behalf of myself, my colleagues,
and the Mayor of the City of Miami, Jaron.
Chairman Plummer: Very good.
Mr. Freeman: Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
Commissioner Sanchez: Jaron is very active with the Scouts. Also, this couple of months ago, he
received his Eagle Scout by putting a wonderful project together at the Children's Hospital,
where he donated a VCR (video cassette recorder) and about 200 and something movies for the
ward of - the epileptic ward at the hospital. So it's with great honor that he's very, also, active
with the Epileptic Foundation. So it's such an honor to have him participate not only in the City,
but also very, very active in the community. So Jaron, once again, I commend you.
(APPLAUSE)
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Gort entered the Commission Meeting at 9:53
a.m.
Chairman Plummer: At this time, I'd like to ask Ileana Cruz, Executive Director at Mercy
Hospital to come forward. Ileana, through Mercy Hospital, which have been participants in a
great number of community events, this is our way of saying thank you, on behalf of the
2 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
community. We have these, that you're going to have to take care of all four to Mercy Hospital
Health System, to Orlando Alvarez, Eduardo Vera and Frank Lago. We would ask you, please, to
make these presentations to them as you accept them on their behalf. And I'll make this one for
the purposes of the photo, and we'll take it from there.
Vice Chairman Gort: My dad is always there.
Chairman Plummer: Your dad?
Vice Chairman Gort: At Mercy.
Chairman Plummer: As a patient?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah.
Ms. Ileana Cruz (Executive Director, Mercy Hospital): Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: OK, very well. (APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: I'd like to have Gwen Warren come up. You know, sometimes; we don't
recognize those of our own who do good works. And we're going to make this presentation, and
I'm not going to bore you by reading it. Gwen is in charge of Community Development, and
she's also a part and parcel of a thing that I work on called the Consortium. And it is through that
that we are able to get monies for training, and for jobs, and for what is called the one-sto9
centers, where a person can go into a one -stop center. If you haven't seen the new one on 36
Street, it's something to behold.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's real good.
Chairman Plummer: And it is absolutely. It's a very— yes, in your district. But these are the
ways that we are being able to overcome the idea that the monies of the old welfare and some of
the aid to dependent children that was cut off and is no longer available to put these people to
work and getting them trained so that they don't have just menial jobs, they have substantial jobs
through the training. So the Mayor has decided to proclaim this as Summer Youth Employment
and Training Day. And I can tell you that in this summer, not just in the City of Miami, but just
in Dade County, alone, which the Consortium handles, there were over 5,000 youth this summer
who had jobs that without these kind of programs would not have had a job this summer. So we
salute the Consortium for the work that they do through the State of Florida and the Federal
Government. But in-house, we solute Gwen Warren for the great work that she does, taking care
of these monies in a local scenario. Gwen.
Ms. Gwendolyn C. Warren (Director, Community Development): Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: All right. By the clock, we have four minutes before we can start. So let
me go through this scenario one more time. First of all, if you're here on Item 5 — what is Item 5?
The Item 5 is withdrawn.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Announcement that the Community Redevelopment Agency
meeting would convene at 1:15 p.m.; S-5 will be heard at 2 p.m.; the budget will be considered at
5:05 P.M.
SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: I am asked to announce that there will be a CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) meeting at 1-15: The trash -Haulers, the commercial trash haulers, by the
edict of the last meeting, will commence at 2 p.m., at a time certain. By State statute, we have to
start the budget hearings sometime after 5:05. And Channel 9, that's for me. OK? That's where
we are. And we'll be starting the meeting in three minutes.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The Commission Meeting officially convened at 10 a.m. At
which point, an invocation was delivered by Commissioner Sanchez, and Commissioner
Regalado led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Chairman Plummer: This is the regular Commission meeting, with Planning and Zoning in the
afternoon of September the 28`h, 1999. The time is 10 o'clock, the time designated for this
Commission to start its deliberations. Under the first item of the Agenda, let the record reflect
that there have been no vetoes issued by the Mayor for consideration at this meeting.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: There were no items vetoed by the Mayor to be considered by the
Commission.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Clerk, do we have any meeting minutes to approve?
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Teele entered the Commission meeting at 10:02
a.m.
2COSENTAGENDA=� ",d
Chairman Plummer: We are now on the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda is Items CA-1
through CA-8. Is there anyone wishing to discuss any item on the CA Consent Agenda? Let the
record reflect that no one came forth. Does any Commissioner have any ones on the CA Consent
Agendas to be pulled? Hearing none, is there a motion?
Commissioner Regalado: Move it.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Regalado to accept the Consent Agenda..
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Commissioner Sanchez. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman. Plummer: Opposition? Show a unanimous ballot.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SEC. 2-33 (i)
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS PULLED BY A GIVEN
COMMISSIONER FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION AND/OR CLARIFICATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE
DEFERRED AND SCHEDULED AS A REGULAR ITEM ON THE NEXT
AVAILABLE AGENDA.
4 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
THEREUPON, MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER REGALADO
AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ, THE CONSENT
AGENDA ITEMS WERE PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
2.1. ACCEPT BID' OF OAKS WHOLESALE:.DLSTRIBUTORS FOR FLEX CUFFS AND:
EVIDENCE TAPE FOR POLICE, ($4$' 15):
RESOLUTION NO.99-692
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF OAKS WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE PROVISION OF
FLEX CUFFS AND EVIDENCE TAPE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $43,875, FOR ONE YEAR
WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR
PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM ACCOUNT CODE
NO. 001000.290201.6.719.
- 23 ACCEPT BID OF LOU'S GUN SHOP TOR MODULAR TACTICAL: BALLISTTC VESTS .
WITH ACCESSORIES FORPOLICE ($13,235.25).
RESOLUTION NO.99-693
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF LOU'S GUNSHOP FOR THE PROVISION OF MODULAR
TACTICAL BALLISTIC VESTS WITH ACCESSORIES FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $13,235.25;
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO.
001000.290201.6.075.
23, ACCEPT . BID ,OF SOUTH FY:ORLDA SPECIALTY FIREARMS FOR SUB •MACHINE
GUNS FOR POLICE ($15,900)
RESOLUTION NO.99-694
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF SOUTH FLORIDA 'SPECIALTY FIREARMS FOR THE PROVISION
OF SUBMACHINE GUNS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,960; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR
FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 00 1000.290201.6.840.
5 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
2.4 =ACCEPT -BID �OF CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE RECOVERYFOR GRINDING CLEAN
YARD. TRASH, --STUMPS -'AND LOGS STOCKPILED 4f_'_`VIRGINIA KEY- FOR
DEPARTMENT`OF SOLID WASTE, ($52,000)
RESOLUTION NO.99-695
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE RECOVERY FOR GRINDING
CLEAN YARD TRASH, STUMPS AND LOGS STOCKPILED AT VIRGINIA
KEY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $52,000.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 197011.320307.6.340.
2'.5 =ACCEPT. -BID' OF IBS
CHEM:TAINER�MUSTR-:FOR.PURCHASE "OF-.17.0.-TOTE
BARRELS FOR'DEPARTMENT OF S'OIID WASTE; ($6,120) ,
RESOLUTION NO.99-696
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF CHEM-TAINER INDUSTRIES FOR THE PURCHASE OF 170 TOTE
BARRELS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE, IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $6,120.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM
ACCOUNT CODE NO.422001.320102.6.840.
-2.6 AUTHORIZE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF 119 VENTZ
THREE=TIER.-
LOCKERS FROM ADAPTO STORAGE PRODUCTS, AWARbItD.PURSUANT TO NIIAMI, °I
DADE COUNTY CONTRACT FOR DEPARTMENT' OF POLICE
RESOLUTION NO.99-697
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF 119 VENTILATED THREE-
TIER LOCKERS FROM ADAPTO STORAGE PRODUCTS, AWARDED
PURSUANT TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 0245-2/01-OTR-
SW, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $23,054.93; WITH FUNDS THEREFOR HEREBY ALLOCATED
FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET,
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 00 1000.290201.6.722.
6 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
-IT -AUTHORIZE PROVISION. OF .TIRE, RETREADING AND. REPAIR, SERVICES FROM
FEDAN- CORPORATION,- AWARDED' PURSUANT. =' TO , MIAMI-DADS , COUNTY
'CONTRACT,' : FOR - DEPARTMENT,. OF:, GENERAI: SERVICES; ADMINISTRATION
t _
RESOLUTION NO.99-698
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE PROVISION OF TIRE RETREADING AND REPAIR SERVICES FROM
FEDAN CORPORATION, AWARDED PURSUANT TO MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 6164-0/01-CW, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $26,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE FROM ACCOUNT
CODE NO.509000.420901.6.721.
WITH SOLO PRINTING, INC:, TO PRINT THE 1998 POLICE DEPARTMENT78 ,ANNUAL i
REPORT ($7,600); ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM _SPECIAL REVENUE PARTNERSHIP -
FUND, -COMPRISED OF MONETARY DONATIONS; FROM VARIOUS PRIVATE -
ORGANIZATIONS TO'EXPEND ON CO EVEfVTS;
RESOLUTION NO.99-699
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY,
WITH SOLO PRINTING, INC., TO PRINT THE 1998 POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL REPORT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$7,600; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE SPECIAL
REVENUE PARTNERSHP FUND, ACCOUNT CODE NO.
142010.290479.6.680, WHICH FUNDS ARE COMPRISED OF MONETARY
DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS TO EXPEND
ON COMMUNITY EVENTS.
3. WAIVE CODE SECTION 2-61'2 PROHIBITING. CITY_ EW40YEES � . FRONT
TRANSACTING BUSINESS • WITH -THE. CITY; APPROVING „ EVELIN A, . BARRIEL,
EMPLOYED AT. THE EAST L1TI'LE' HAVANA NET-, SERVICES :CENTM. ' •TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSSHIP DEVELOPMENT' PROGRAM
.AND STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP, PROGRAM, ADMINISTERED, BY
THE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMINITY DEVELOPMF�NT, ' `:., :, .;
Chairman Plummer: We are now on Item Number 2. This is in reference to the waiver for a City
employee to qualify for affordable housing.
Mr. Jeffery B. Hepburn (Director, Housing Conservation Development): That's correct.
Chairman Plummer: Is there a motion?
Vice Chairman Gort: Move it.
7 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Gort.' Seconded by Regalado. Anyone wishing to discuss the
issue? Let the record reflect no one came forth. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-700
A RESOLUTION_ OF THE MIAMI CITY_ COMMISSION, BY A 4/5THS
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER A DULY ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING,
WAIVING THE PROHIBITION SET FORTH IN SECTION 2-612 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, WHEREBY A
CITY EMPLOYEE IS PROHIBITED. FROM TRANSACTING BUSINESS
WITH THE CITY; APPROVING EVELIN A. BARRIEL, AN EMPLOYEE OF
THE CITY EMPLOYED AT THE EAST LITTLE HAVANA NET SERVICE
CENTER, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY OF MIAMI'S AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, ADMINISTERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; SAID WAIVER
BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE CITY AND STIPULATING. THAT SAID
PARTICIPATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None. ,
8 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
4:.-ALLOCATE $37%353"OF.-25._ -YEAR,,toI IlVIUN z.]pEVELAPMENT.BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) F[INDS:...FOR`. _ECONOMIC x:bEVE_I.OPMEIJ XAND� ,HOUSINGS AGENCIES
(OCTOBER,�1;^ 1999jHROUGf1 NOVIMIE R 30,1999�; ,$7T,104: FOR COMMERCIAL
FACADE PROGRAM AND -$79 35�FR0 EMER3ENCY3: SHELTER' GRANT_ -(ESG)
FUNDS ;TiO CI�RItENTLY FUNDED AGENC=*PUBLIC HEARING: ; -�
Chairman Plummer: Item Number 3, continuing existing Economic Development and Housing
Agencies. Mr. Manager, or Gwen. This is for three hundred seventy thousand three hundred and
fifty-three dollars ($370,353).
Gwendolyn C. Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes. The item requests the
extension, based on Commission directives, of Economic Development, Housing and ESG
(Emergency Shelter Grant) agencies through November of 1999.
Chairman Plummer: Does any Commissioner have any question?
Commissioner Regalado: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: ° Gwen, we have talked before of -- for the purpose of your
reorganization, and all the regulations that we have to comply with the Federal Government to do
with the Economic Development Organizations, the same thing that you have done and we have
done with the social services. So I'm told that this is a public hearing so we can extend this today
for the coming year.
Ms. Warren: What the -- if it was your desire to extend the Economic Development Agencies,
which is what you stated at the last meeting, through September 30'h of the year 2000, what staff
would recommend is that you approve the item that's before you. We're in the process of doing -a
public ad that would then allocate additional monies to extend the Economic Development
Agencies through September. That would come back on your Commission Agenda item for the
second meeting in October, and it would be a smooth extension. But that's how we would have
to do it.
Commissioner Regalado: Then, Mr. Manager, could this be placed on the second meeting of
October to extend the Economic Development?
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: One of the reasons is -- the main reason is these individuals, they have to
sign contracts, and if they're not sure that they're going to get funding and so on, it's very
difficult for them to operate. And that's why we talked about the advance, also, to the social
service. They need it, because they don't have their money. They work with every penny they
have, and they have to raise even money through the private sector. So I think that it's very
important that we do that. But at the same time, I think the non -performing agencies, if you want
to keep them on a trial basis and set up, I think it would be very important. That would be an
incentive for them to earn their way. So I think that's maybe something you should look atand
come back to us.
9 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Warren: Well, it would -- for clarification purposes, it would be;..- staff is understanding- that
we would be,placing on a public'hdaririg.to extend those agencies that are proven performers
through September 30'h of the year 2000. Those that are on probationary or technical assistance
status would either resubmit an application,or staff would have to come back and make a
recommendation to extend them at a subsequent time.. But they would not automatically be
extended with us.
Chairman Plummer: OK. And Mary -- Mr. Teele. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like some explanation regarding the Small
Business Opportunity Center on this.
Chairman Plummer: Ms. Warren.
Commissioner Teele: Who are they serving? And do we have a list of the City of Miami
residents that are being served? Is this a part of another grant?
Ms. Warren: The Small Business Opportunity Center? Previously, they have been the designated
Economic Developmental Facade Agency for East Little Havana. During the Commission public
hearing process, they were also extended an opportunity to work in the Flagami area, particularly
on Eighth Street, to provide the same kind of facade activities. They are a long-standing
organization with a proven track record.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much. And the commercial facade category of seventy-
seven thousand dollars ($77,000) is that the set aside -- what -- ?
Ms. Warren: Those are the -- each agency, what they're being approved for is for the
administrative allocation. The seventy-seven thousand dollars ($77,000) is the match that the
City provides for businesses that contract through these agencies. It is the set -aside amount of
money that was drawn down against for the actual facades, themselves.
Commissioner Teele: So let me get this right. How much money are we providing in
administration during this period for the facade, limited to the facade program, versus how many
dollars?
Ms. Warren: All but seventy-seven thousand dollars ($77,000).
Commissioner Teele: So what is that?
Ms. Warren: It's two sixty-two ($262,000) minus seventy-seven ($77,000). One eighty five
($ 185,000).
Commissioner Teele: So let me get this straight. We're going to spend a hundred and eighty-five
thousand dollars ($185,000) to administer seventy-seven thousand dollars ($77,000) in program
funds, at, least the government portion of the program funds?
Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Again, this --
Commissioner Teele: I want to say this one more time.
Ms. Warren: Yes, sir.
10 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: See, one of the reasons I've tried to'walk away from the fagade program in
my district and take those funds -- and I don't want to hear Commissioner Plummer, especially,
start saying, well, when we get to a different. program, "Well, why are you taking all the money?"
because we're not putting a whole lot of money in there. We have basically, J.L., in District 5,
we basically have walked away from this program to a great extent. There is some carryover in
it, but most of this money is going into the other three or four districts; particularly the other three
in yours, J.L., your district.
Chairman Plummer: I hear you.
Commissioner Teele: And the reason is, is that it cost how much money-- How much money
are we going to spend for the administration?
Ms. Warren: Again, this is only for a two -month time period.
Commissioner Teele: I understand.
Ms. Warren: A hundred and eighty-five thousand ($185,000), approximately.
Commissioner Teele: And how much money for that same allocation for the two-year period --
two-month period are we going to spend on the program, itself?
Ms. Warren: Seventy-seven thousand ($77,000).
Commissioner Teele: So we're going to spend a hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars
($185,000) to administer seventy-seven thousand ($77,000) of Government money. Now, that's
not a fair statement, because it leverages --
Ms. Warren: No.
Chairman Plummer: No.
Commissioner Teele: -- it leverages private dollars, and the private -- public/private ratio is
what?
Ms. Warren: 70/30. So it's approximately a hundred and ten thousand dollars ($110,000) for the
hundred and eighty-five ($185,000).
Commissioner Teele: So it's going to leverage a hundred and thirty thousand ($130,000)?
Ms. Warren: No. Thirty thousand ($30,000). It's a 70/30 split, 30 percent by the business, and
70 percent by us.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So the full leverage is thirty thousand ($30,000). So we're going to
spend a hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) to --
Ms. Warren: Rounding up.
Commissioner Teele: To administer a hundred and ten thousand dollar ($110,000) program. And
I just want everybody to understand. The fagade program does good, 'but to see the fagade
11 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
program as a Pandora -- I mean, I support it. And for those Commissioners. and those
communities that need it, I support it.
Commissioner Regalado: If I can --
Ms. Warren: There's only one other statement I'd like to add. They also provide technical
assistance to small businesses.
Commissioner Regalado: If I can clarify something. Last week, there was a meeting of about a
hundred merchants of Southwest Eighth Street at the DOT (Department of Transportation) Office
in Southwest Eighth Street. And 46 of -those merchants signed for the fagade program in
Southwest Eighth Street. They will -- they are being visited, and they are receiving also technical
advice in terms of how to do the fagade. And I think that for those merchants who have never
experienced that relationship with the government, it was a good thing. So I would like to say,
Commissioner Teele, that in this case, in Southwest Eighth Street -- And mind you, what they are
doing is they're doing -- they're adding about 300 businesses that they have to visit with this
same Administration, the same personnel or whatever. They're going to have . to hire more,
because in a one -week period, they have received 46 requests. They figured that they would
receive more than a hundred because of the reconstruction of Southwest Eighth Street, and the
need of the people to have a better -place. So that is an explanation, but I understand your point.
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner, if I may just respond. I support the fagade program, and I
particularly support it in the area like on Eighth Street, where the DOT did so much damage to
businesses, and we're going to enhance those businesses.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah. Still doing damage.
Commissioner Teele: But I just think that we should not-- And the issue that I've been trying to
get the Manager and the Development Office to recognize is that each district is a little bit
different, and therefore, a program that works in one district may not work as well in a different
district. And the fagade program, quite frankly, has never worked, for a lot of different reasons.
And I would rather take the fagade money, as I've said before to Ms. Warren, and put it in
infrastructure improvements, like parking lots and other activities. But that's not on the Agenda
today, and the Chairman's got a heavy agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Ms. Warren: It will be on the agenda for the 24`h.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: One of the things I want to clarify in non-performance. ' Remember, there's
certain programs in certain neighborhoods that do not work. So I don't think that should be a --
Ms. Warren: We've taken all that into consideration
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Chairman Plummer: Well, let me ask, if I may, how do you come about that-- you know, if you
look at this thing, how do you come about who gets what? How do you decide that little
12 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
development -- Coconut Grove LDC (Local Development Corporation) gets "X" and Edgewater
gets "X"? How do you come about that? How do you do it?
Ms. Warren: Pretty much the geographic size, the number of businesses that are served.
Chairman Plummer: And -- OK. You know, if that's what you use as your formula because I -- I
don't think that that really follows through here, but we'll take it from there.
Ms. Warren: Again, Coconut Grove traditionally was a smaller area in terms of --
Chairman Plummer: No, I understand that. OK?
Ms. Warren: Allapattah, East Little Havana.
Chairman Plummer: You know, I guess it's like what I heard last night. You know, fair share.
Ms. Warren: I understand.
Chairman Plummer: OK. I find our in-house expert, Mary Hill, is once again at the podium for
your name and mailing address, and you have two minutes.
Mary Hill: My name is Mary Hill. I reside at 146 Northwest 67`h Street. I'm very -- my soul is
very grieved from being here many, many times, and deaf ears is falling on what's supposed to be
here in the State of Florida, especially starting from Dade County. Now, I am the founder of the
Economic Opportunity Action Amendment. First of its kind, enhancing life, creating businesses.
We have work percentages and everything under these laws that's supposed to be set up here
from my effort after we create a regional office. It has to be established here. Let me make this
clear again. We had interference of economic development in the early years which has been
dealt with legally, all the way from the Federal level. It has been taken out the hands of the State,
the City and the County in 1980. Social services has been dealt with, and economic development
has been dealt with. It's no longer affirmative action, social services, and none of this. We're
going to have to recognize me, Mary Hill, to come in after the one bringing it here, founding the
funds, and my responsibility for being in the State of Florida. It was taken out from Mr. Billy
Brown, FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 1980. And we still have economic development.
We're not adhering to extension of EOPI program, first of its kind to help poor, regardless of
race, creed or color. We have changed one of the names to low income, and all of this, but it's
still poor people. We -- And to have Economic Development to stand here and still not
recognizing what's supposed to be here in Dade County under the consideration of HR-40, HR-
6360, HR-6394 and HR-8163, which allows extensions legally from that point, taken out the hand
of FBI.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you,, ma'am.
Ms. Hill: So you 'all consider this today. And I want the Attorney, I want the Mayor, I want the
Manager and I want all of you all to consider this, call me in so we can --
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Hill: -- and cut out, because two months of this rhetoric, political rhetoric --
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. Your two minutes are up.
13 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Hill: -- is not going to do.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, if you wish to be heard, your name and mailing address, and you have
two minutes, sir.
Willie Williams: My name is Willie Williams.
Chairman Plummer: Or less.
Mr. Williams: My name is Willie Williams.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I am the owner and operator of Just Right Barbershop, 1133 Northwest Third
Avenue in Overtown. I am also the Chairman of the Merchants Alliance in Overtown. I am here
standing on the issue of the fagade program -- the fagade program. I'd like to thank you for
recommending that program in the neighborhood. But I'm here to stand to tell you that it's not
working, because it's not enough funds. I've been operating my business for 19 years, and yet, I
have not seen the facades go forth, because the contractors is complaining about the funds. And I
don't blame them, because the money, two thousand dollars ($2,000) to fix a building, I mean the
fagade of a building is not enough. You know, I don't believe there's no thrift store construction
workers out there anymore, and they are not -- It's just not enough money. And I just ask that
you just revise that amount that we'll be able to --
Chairman Plummer: Where do you recommend we get the money from?
Mr. Williams: Well, from where you have it now. I mean, we're talking about a hundred and
eighty thousand ($180,000) --
Chairman Plummer: But you understand that if we take it from some other program, the people
we take it from are going to be just as in objection as you are here today.
Mr. Williams: Well, Overtown need a break.
Chairman Plummer: OK. We only have so many dollars is what I'm trying to say.
Mr. Williams: We need a break.
Chairman Plummer: And that's -- sir, that's the reason I asked the question of how the
determination was made, because if you look here, as what is presented to us, there is significant
differences in different areas as to how the program is being applied. So that-- You know, to say
to give more money, as I understand it, it's 30/70. Is that what it is now? You put up 30 percent,
we put up the 70 percent, and where the additional monies is going to come from is the problem
that's always the problem.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. There's also -- my understanding is there's also
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) available for code compliance. Can you --
Ms. Warren: Yes, there is and --
14 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999.
Vice Chairman Gort: Can that be mixed?
Ms. Warren: Mr. Chair?
Chairman Plummer: Sure, go ahead.
Ms. Warren: Yes. I think that the gentleman is basically speaking to the issue that's been raised
by several of the Commissioners, that in some of the areas, the traditional program does not work.
This is one of the areas that it has not necessarily worked. And again, we've committed to bring
back some options to the Commission with resources that have been set aside for this purpose at
the October meeting. And we will be redesigning the program for that community.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: In other words, my understanding is the funds that are located for that
community, what you need to do is restructure the program to fit the need of that community.
Ms. -Warren: This is correct.
Vice Chairman Gort: But the funds will be allocated to them.
Ms. Warren: This is correct.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: So do you want to-- since we interrupted you, would you like to finish, Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: We interrupted you. Would you like to finish?
Mr. Williams: Yes. Again, if I'm not mistaken, from my hearing, we're talking about more
money going towards the faeade program. Am I right?
Chairman Plummer: The name of the game is between now and reallocation, again, get in there
and fight like the devil.
Mr. Williams: OK. OK, because we do need a break. OK?
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Mr. Williams: Overtown do need a break.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Mr. Williams: OK.
Chairman Plummer: I'm going to hold you, because I know you ain't going to be brief. Your
name and mailing address for the record.
15 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Rudy Lorenzo: My name is Rudy Lorenzo. Also, I'm one of the merchants in Overtown. Also,
we face the same problem that Mr. Williams is facing. In my situation, it's not enough, and we're
here so we can maybe --
Chairman Plummer: OK. Again, I think you heard what the Director said of the Department, and
the reallocation. You need to get in there and try to demonstrate to them that, in fact, it is more
needed than what has been allocated.
Mr. Lorenzo: OK.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Mr. Mason. I'm saving you for till the last.
Sam Mason: Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Commission --
Chairman Plummer: Sam Mason is the speaker, and his address is?
Commissioner Teele: Willy --
Mr. Mason: Manager, I'm speaking today for our community, and we are saying just be fair.
And we're looking for the justification of the Liberty City/Model City's area, which is the largest
black district in the City of Miami. The fagade program do not exist. Our Commissioner has told
us that he want us to clean up the neighborhood to make it look better, et cetera; but we're not
getting any kind of help in that direction. We are saying be fair. You're talking about track
records, let's look at the records. Let's go back five years ago. We had one of the best fagade
programs in the City of Miami. We had a combination with the City and the County where we
was working on Seventh Avenue, and we was doing the project for zero. We have the capacity to
do that job. We need -- that work need to be done out there. Seventh Avenue is a disgrace. 54'"
Street, disgrace, 15`s Avenue, 17`h Avenue. And why? All we're saying, give us our fair share,
not taking anything from anyone, but our fair share. We deserve a piece of the action. We are
part of the City of Miami.
Chairman Plummer: Sam, one of the problems, as I recall, that in Liberty City, they were, in fact,
getting the Economic Development money. But in one particular year that I think was two years
ago, they did not have a single fagade program, whereas we gave the same amount of money to
the Allapattah group, and they did 112 facades. So I think, really, you know, just to say that you
have the money -- you got to go out and work it.
Mr. Mason: Sir, the people -- they brought in outside folks.. They brought in folks from
Overtown coming into Model City to do a job that they couldn't do. They brought in people from
another agency into Liberty City. It's just like sending me into Little Havana and asking me to do
facades down there. I wouldn't be successful. But I'll be successful in Liberty City, because I've
been out there for 20 years. I know the people, and we know the problems out there.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: With due respect. And let me also apologize to my constituents, Mr.
Williams and others that have been up here. The Chairman made the comment, "Where is the
16 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
money going to come from?" The money is going to come from where this Commission
allocates, and I don't think it's fair for us, as Commissioners, to put you under the weight of
having to come up with the funding recommendations. You're here as a citizen to express your
views. And any citizen that I represent, as long as I'm a Commissioner, is going to be welcome
to come down. And I apologize to you, sir, for the remarks of the Chairman as it relates to
"Where is the money going to come from?" Specifically, Mr. Williams, I have asked that the
Community Development Department not-- and I underscore "not" -- continue to fund activities
in the Overtown area and in the Liberty City/Model City areas related to fagade programs,
because I reviewed the history, the actual history for the last five years, and the Chairman is
correct on the point that there has been essentially no fagade dollars expended. The funds were
allocated. And this goes back three directors ago. It goes back to Mr. Castaneda, who is not here,
and it goes back to Mr. -- Mr. --
Chairman Plummer: Waters.
Commissioner Teele: -- Mr. Waters. And most of this allocation, failure -- the funds were
allocated properly by the Commission, by the Mayor and the Commission, but most of it, during
the period that Mr. Waters was the Chairman... was the Director-- and it's certainly not his fault.
I'm not -- I'm just trying to give you a point of reference -- that there were essentially no dollars
spent in the Model Cities areas for completed projects over the last four years. And Ms. Warren,
I would ask you and challenge you, please, to provide us -- because that information is available -
- to provide this information, and let's make it public as it relates to the number of facades that
were completed in the Model Cities area and the Overtown area. I happen to believe-- let me just
.say this --
Ms. Warren: There were none.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Ms. Warren: There were none.
Commissioner Teele: I know there were none.
Chairman Plummer: Zero.
Commissioner Teele: But let's just give them a comparison of all of the others, because I think,
you know, a picture is worth a thousand words. And I -- I'm very appreciative, Mr. Williams,
especially of you and Mr. Mason that you're here, because this is the kind of discussion that .
should go on when we're -- the City is giving money out and it's not being properly utilized.
What I believe is the following: I think Little Haiti is totally different. I think the fagade program
may work in portions of Little Haiti that I represent. But I think what the next speaker is going to
be talking about, and what this Commission has already done in saying, look, we cannot do
everything at one time. Right now, this Commission has designated 17`h Avenue as the priority
business corridor in the City of Miami in District 5. One reason is that Seventh Avenue has had
that status in the past and did a tremendous job about ten years ago, eight years ago on Seventh
Avenue. Most of the monies that would otherwise be allocated in 'Overtown and throughout
District 5, those funds are going to be placed on a priority basis on 17`h Avenue, and we're going
to try to do more than just fagade improvements, but we're going to do what Commissioner Gott
just raised, which is code enforcement or code -- building improvements to meet code, et cetera.
And so I think, you know, if you come back on the 24 h, you will see how the funds in these
particular communities are going to be allocated. We are not heavy in the fagade improvement
17 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
program allocation now, because we are not putting our money there. We're taking our dollars
from here and trying to do more of a commercial revitalization. And I think the County model is
probably as good a model as any. And Mr. Jones, I think, and others want to talk about it. But
the idea here is we can throw a lot of-- a little money at a lot of projects, or we can take our few
dollars and try to put them in areas in a concentrated manner, over the nextyear or two, and then
move to another area. And that's the course of action that we're proposing, as opposed to just
trying to throw some money in Overtown, throw some money in Liberty City, put some money in
the Model Cities area. We're going to concentrate those dollars between 17`h Avenue, 36`h Street
and the City limits there at about 69`h Street for the first round.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Ma'am, your name and mailing address, please.
Donna Cutler: My name is Donna Cutler. My mailing address is 1228 West Avenue, Miami
Beach, 33139. I'm the Program Director for the Jewish Family Service Senior Crime Prevention
and Victims Assistance Program. We're included I this carryover through November 301h, and I
would urge you to pass it. We just received about 150 referrals for victims from the Police
Department. We provide installation and security screening, dead bolt door locks, door viewers,
and through access to other money, we're able to provide a case manager and counseling to the
victims throughout the City of Miami.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am.
Vice Chairman Gort: Question.
Chairman Plummer: Question.
Vice Chairman Gort: You provide the services out of which office?
Ms. Cutler: We provide our services out of our office at 1790 Southwest 271h Avenue.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Question: The crime-- My understanding is that there is a bill in --
there's funds in Tallahassee for victims of crimes where they can get up to ten thousand dollars
($10,000).
Ms. Cutler: We've used -- that's -- yeah. We've had Victims of Crime Act money. That is
different. That doesn't provide for improving the housing that we do.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. No, I understand. But you also work that part of it?
Ms. Cutler: Yes, we work with that. We provide the crimes compensation forms. We send that
through there. We probably have about ten a month, because our program is actually
Countywide.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Cutler: OK, thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Yvonne McDonald.
Yvonne McDonald: Yvonne McDonald, CEO of the Coconut Grove Local Development
Corporation. And I'm here this morning because I'd like to address the issue of the fagade
18 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
program in the Village West Coconut Grove. 1 want to emphasize that we want to continue with
the fagade program, because it is one area in our community where currently, we're undertaking
four facades. We have 21 letters of commitment from businesses. And we know the history of
the fagade program has not worked well in Coconut Grove. We know that we have not worked
over the last few years to produce facades. However, within the last five months, and as a matter
of fact, since the last Commission, we currently have received five deposits from businesses in
Coconut Grove which is -- which hasn't happened in the last five years. And we're working with
the other businesses to help them and assist them in other ways, so that they can make their
deposits in order to do their facades. I want to also emphasize that we're looking at a
comprehensive community revitalization plan for Coconut Grove. And we know that this is not
going to be something that will happen within the next 12 months, but we're looking to revitalize
five blocks of Grand Avenue. And this project is going to be a very comprehensive project. And
we know that we're going to need to look at infrastructure funding through the CDBG
(Community Development Block Grant) process. And so we want to emphasize that right now,
we're working on the fagade, but our plans are, within the next two years, is to really look at this
ten -block area in the Coconut Grove community, and we're asking that the City of Miami and the
Commission support our efforts through the LDC to revitalize Grand Avenue, and really make
that community, the area of Grand Avenue, really live up to its name. When you compare west
of 32nd to east of 32"d, you know that for far too many years, our area has gone undeveloped and
neglected. And in less than two months, we've been able to work with five businesses to help
them with their facades. And so we're urging you to support us and to continue to help us with
this, but be mindful that we are looking at a comprehensive plan to revitalize Grand Avenue.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Ms. McDonald. That's one of the best ways to do it, to
concentrate on a pilot area and do the program. Yes, sir, you're next.
Leroy Jones: My name is Leroy Jones, 180 Northwest 62"d Street. I'm going to give you a little
history of why the fagade program don't work in the black community and why the code
compliance program really actually is not fair. The fagade program is effective in other areas like
Allapattah and Overtown. It's because the businesses' corridor consist of the whole block. So
when you got a whole block of businesses, each one of those businesses can contribute the
finances that's needed for the funding that's needed for the fagade program. When you take areas
like Overtown and Liberty City, you might have only one business on that whole block. So when
you got one business on the whole block, that mean that business is solely responsible for coming
up with its fair share of the money. And everybody know fourteen hundred dollars ($1400) not --
let's not get it wrong, now. The City of Miami is not giving two thousand dollars ($2,000). The
City of Miami is only giving fourteen hundred dollars ($1400). That fourteen hundred dollars
($1400) will not make a dent in a 4500 square feet building. That's why the fagade program
don't work in the inner City. And that's why businesses in Allapattah and Overtown is able to
take advantage of that program, because it's more businesses on a block. The code compliance
program, the way it works is you have to be cited for compliance in order to be involved in the
code compliance program to get some assistance. Now, how many people in their right mind that
have violations in their business going to call the code compliance people and say, "Look, I got
violations"? So when the code compliance people come, they're going to end up finding more
violations than you thought. And if you don't have the money, the necessary money to add to the
additional funding that they're giving you, they're going to close your business down. So is that
actually fair to those businesses? No, it's not. One program that the City can take advantage of,
the County got the commercial revitalization program where it will give you up to a hundred
thousand dollars if you in the County, and will give you from 25 to 50 percent of the funding if
you're in the City or another municipality. I have yet to see the City take advantage of that
program and say, "Look, the County got a program. The County could put up this much. We
19 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
only need to do this much." Why haven't the City take advantage of that program since it's
money already available for the County? I'm very, very disappointed in the City of Miami, the
way it treat African -American and black -- people of color businesses, because those people pay
taxes, just like everybody else. And if you in the City of Miami, not only do you pay taxes in the
City, but you pay taxes in the County, too, for your business. You collect their taxes every year.
You make them pay their bills, and you do nothing for those businesses. I got some phone calls
where they wanted me to bring some of the business people that's in my organization down here
to speak about more funding. And that won't be fair for me to continue to ask them to keep
closing up their business when they're struggling every day, to come here to ask y'all or beg y'all
to help them. When you all took that vow, you didn't take the vow just to help the people in your
district. You took that vow to help everybody in the City of Miami. But it's not fair how you
keep treating the people in Liberty City and Overtown. You're not doing anything to help them,
you know. Remember, now, when you stood up there and you swore in, it wasn't just for the
people in your district. It was for the whole City of Miami. And if a program doesn't work,
create one that work. You know where the money at. If you don't know where it's at, tomorrow,
I'll bring you and I could show you where to find the money at.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is that's what staff is doing. They're taking into
consideration all the statements being made here, and they're trying to restructure the program.
OK?
Mr. Jones: Commissioner Gort, I'm not --
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me.
Mr. Jones: I'm not lashing at you, Commissioner Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no, but I want you --
Mr. Jones: But what I'm saying is what --
Vice Chairman Gort: -- I want you to understand --
Mr. Jones: I understand.
Vice Chairman Gort: -- is staff is working on it because of the recommendations you all made.
Mr. Jones: You know, though, Commissioner Gort, we hear this all the time. We always hear
this over and over, and over and over, and over and over. But when we drive through where we
look, ain't nothing happening over there, man. But everybody else community look good. You
know, I'm tired of driving through where I look at, man, and it's looking like it look. You know,
when y'all use our statistics, you use the crime in our area, you use the poverty in our area, you
use the unemployment in our area to get the money. And when the money come here, everybody
get it but us.
Chairman Plummer: OK. I --
Vice Chairman Gort: One of the things that I requested from staff is to make sure -- excuse me.
Mr. Jones: And Commissioner Gort, I'm not lashing on you, because you know how I feel about
you.
20 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand. I understand.
Mr. Jones: I got respect for all y'all. But I'm just saying, man, I love where I live at. And I want
it to look just like where it look at where y'all live at.
Chairman Plummer: OK. I would ask any of the speakers to realize that the subject --
Vice Chairman Gort: Before we go on, I want to make sure, Gwen, that -- and you've done this
before -- but I want to make sure when you put your documentation together you put down how
we receive the funds, who we receive it from, and which community did receive it, and how
they're distributed. OK? Because I think it's important.
Ms. Warren: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Right here.
Ms. Warren: OK.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mary, excuse me. We may let you speak again after everybody
has had their turn first, if you'll have a seat, please.
Ms. Hill: OK. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Sir -- again, may I ask that we remember the item before us
today is not the fagade program in general. It is nothing more than a two -month extension. OK?
So I'm going to ask you, please, to speak to the issue before us. There will be the day, November
the V, where you will have the opportunity to speak all you want about the fagade program. But
today, it is only for a two -month extension, which is what is before us today. Sir, your name --
Unidentified Speaker: I would like to get a copy of (inaudible).
Chairman Plummer: Sir, I'll be-- make some of these available, and these will show you exactly
where the money is going. OK? Sir, your name and mailing address. And I again ask all of you,
speak to the issue.
Brian Dennis: Brian Dennis. Address, 180 Northwest 62"d Street. About the fagade program and
the issue at hand, when you listen to the money that was allocated, as far as over a hundred
thousand dollars.($100,000) for administration, seventy-seven thousand dollars ($77,000) for the
actual program, you're still going to come up short. And earlier, you said you about finding the
money. Well, the money isn't that hard to find when you look at where the money is at. You got
a hundred and thirty million dollars ($130,000,000) inside the Police Department, and everybody
know the problems that they just caused inside the black community. When you look at
everybody's benefiting from this money and how they're getting their money, when you have
programs that come in and actually take out residents-- you got eleven apartment buildings gone
from 55`" Street to 619 Street, completely empty, where they done moved out half the residents
down south. One of the stores that I do -- that I applied for with this facade program is P&A
Market that sits right on 58d' Street and 17`� Avenue. That business is suffering.
Chairman Plummer: Are you the owner, sir?
21 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Dennis: No. I'm a business coordinator for NANA (Neighbors and Neighbors Association).
And what I do is I apply for the programs. I applied for the 16 businesses for the County's
program, the commercial revitalization program. That program is 100 percent better than the
fagade program for the simple fact --
Chairman Plummer: Do you do that for a fee?
Mr. Dennis: No.
Chairman Plummer: Free of charge?
Mr. Dennis: It's free of charge.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Mr. Dennis: OK. One of the things that we do with that, with that program, is we look at it.
When you take -a mass amount of people and you move them, you have taken away the income
from the businesses that sits within that little corridor. Earlier, in 1997-- and it's still done like
that now -- you have a weed and seed zone or a Federal --take anybody to jail zone from Seventh
to 27 h, from 54`h to 7151 Street. When you look in those areas, those individuals that was once in
that area are no longer there. When you got a hundred and thirty million dollars ($130,000,000)
inside the Police Department, and the Police Department has pretty much taken everybody out of
that area, now that area is no longer supported by those that were standing on the corner. It is no
longer supported by those that were living in the apartments. You have a major, major loss of
income, and those businesses are suffering. When those businesses -- those businesses -- I took
those businesses through so much just to comply with this program. As far as being late on taxes,
as far as being late on any type of fee, all those businesses came up into compliance with this
program. If the City takes and evaluates, it ain't hard to where you get the money from, because
when you got a hundred and thirty million dollars ($130,000,000) allocated to the Police
Department that really doesn't have anything to do -- the most policemen you have, the more
crime you have.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Sir, are you for the extension or against the extension?
Mr. Dennis: I'm for the extension.
Chairman Plummer: All right. That's the item before us. OK?
Mr. Dennis: I'm for the extension. But when you look at -- when you say you don't know
where to get the money from, and you got a hundred and thirty million dollars ($130,000,000), if
you take six million ($6,000,000) from a hundred and thirty million dollars ($130,000,000),
you're still going to come up with a better program, and all these businesses benefit.
Chairman Plummer: You're out of two different pots. One is Community Development. The
other is general fund. So it's two entirely different pots.
Mr. Dennis: You're taking -- you're taking money from the businesses from a particular
department that is reaping the benefits from the general fund.
22 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: No, sir. No, sir, that's not a true statement. But I respect your right. Sir,
I'd ask you, please, to speak to the issues, which is the extension of two months. Your name and
mailing address.
Roy Hardemon: Roy Hardemon, 655 Northwest 48`h Street. Any extension, I'm in agreement
with it. And I would just like to ask that Mr. Sam Mason be a part of the Little Haiti fagade
program. Therefore, we can have experience when it come up again, that he can actually do his
great work he's been doing in our neighborhood, Model City.
Chairman Plummer: Do we have any say, Gwen, on who they choose to do their work? I think
they do it from within. OK. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Guadalupe Santoyo: Good morning, Commissioner. My name is Guadalupe Santoyo. My
address is 942 Southwest 78 Place. I represent Model Housing Cooperative, Inc. Only I say
thank you for your support.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. Manny, do you wish to speak?
Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: No. I -- since she has been so nice with me in Metro -Dade, I'm
giving my two or three minutes to her, to Mary.
Chairman Plummer: You have two minutes, Mary; and that will be the last speaker. We'll close
the public hearing.
Ms. Hill: OK. Do I have to say my address and name again?
Chairman Plummer: I think we have your name almost memorized, and your address memorized,
SO.
Ms. Hill: Thank you very much. First of all, the reasons I took time to come back to the podium
is because -- and I want this recorded -- I spoke to a Mr. Frank Castaneda on 131h or 12`h Street
and Northwest 12`h Avenue.
Chairman Plummer: Ma'am, he's been gone for about a year.
Ms. Hill: OK. I heard his name come up with Ms. Warren. And I let him know that this
program was coming into this City. OK? So this is when Economic Development was really
supposed be abolished. It's supposed to be abolished. And the funds that I'm hearing that
coming from the White House, which I am the founder, and my professional position as a
national director, which is a Federal -- over the City, County and State. I am here today pleading
with you, my last plea, to please change this program and stop the piecemeal region approach.
And we need to get on with the business .what was brought in here. It is no such thing as County,
City, State. It's Federal supposed to be here. And I'm to establish this office. And anything else
come underneath that to carry out the national specifics that will get the standards and concept.
And I'm also the founder of CETA, Comprehensive Employment and Training Administration. I
want you to know that, also, that came in here. And I see a lot of circumventing, and I want it cut
out. Please adhere. That goes for the Attorney. I want the County Manager and I want it
documented that I am making it clear today, this is it. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. It wasn't a public hearing, but I'll -- it was a public
hearing, I'm sorry. I stand corrected. We'll close the public hearing. Sir, did you wish to be
23 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
heard? All right, sir, if you'd come to the microphone, please, you have two minutes after you
state your name and mailing address.
Evangelist Lee Variety: Yes, sir. I'm Evangelist Lee Variety. I'm quite sure you know who I
am. And I'm here to speak on the issue --
Chairman Plummer: Your address, sir?
Mr. Variety: 1370 61'. I'm representing the representatives for Miami Limited, the issue that we
had talked about earlier. And I just would like to make you aware of something that I think
would be in your best interest to be aware of. And also, I wanted you to know that I'm here to
work with you. I'm the authorized representative for this, and if I can just read it to you, then I'll
give you the documentation on it so you'll understand what's happening, because it's a very
serious issue going down right now, and you need to be made aware of it. And I thought that it
would only be proper for me to come here -and --
Chairman Plummer: If you would leave it with the Clerk, sir, he would provide all of us with
copies.
Mr. Variety. Yes, sir. OK. So let me just explain to you where I'm coming --
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. I'll now call for a vote on item --
Mr. Variety: No, no, excuse me. I want to --
Chairman Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were finished.
Mr. Variety: No. I want to make this --
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir. .
Commissioner Teele: This item is not the item that's here, but it's an item that I plan to bring up
at 11 o'clock today.
Mr. Variety: OK. I'll wait till 11, sir.
Chairman Plummer: OK?
Mr. Variety: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Variety: Thank you. And I just want you to know that we're here to comply with all of the
rules and regulations of the City.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. We'll now ask for a motion on Item 3.
Commissioner Teele: I would move the item, Mr. Chairman.
24 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Commissioner Teele. Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Regalado. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-701
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION, ALLOCATING $370,353 OF TWENTY-FIFTH (25h') YEAR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSING AGENCIES FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1999
THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 1999; $77,100 OF 25TH YEAR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS
PROVIDED THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM, AND
$79,335 FROM EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDS TO
CURRENTLY FUNDED AGENCIES FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1; 1999
THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 1999; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE
CITY CODE PROVISIONS, WITH THE COMMUNITY BASED
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE
ATTACHMENT TO THIS RESOLUTION IN THE AMOUNT INDICATED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
25 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
5... AUTHORIZE_ MANAGER 7O ALLOCATE FUNDING3_TO. NINE. (9) SPONSORS
(SERVICE PROVIDERS) FOR'; HOUSING ASSISTANCE: AND. RELATED SERVICES TO
LOW INCOME -.PERSONS LIVING -WITH HIV_ /AIDS,.AL 0kATIldG FUNDS ($2,568,113)
FROM 1998 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES . FOR. PERSONS =WITH, -Ail-'
PROGRAM GRANT.
Chairman Plummer: Item 4 is nine sponsors for housing -related services for persons living with
HIV/AIDS of two million five hundred sixty-eight thousand one hundred and thirteen dollars
($2,568,113). Ms. Warren.
Vice Chairman Gort: Move it.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Gort.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Sanchez. Now, let me make sure that I understand. This is for
rental. This is also for acquisition of housing?
Jeffery Hepburn (Assistant Director, Housing): Jeff Hepburn, Assistant Director. This item deals
with a number of different services: Operational funding for the agencies, along with short-term,
long-term rental housing assistance, special needs assistance.
Chairman Plummer: But any purchases that are made with this money at such time as vacated
reverts back to the City.
Mr. Hepburn: Yes. But this item does not deal with any acquisition at this point.
Chairman Plummer: OK. I'm just asking the question. OK? Item 4, all in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposed? Show it unanimous.
26 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-702
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE FUNDING TO NINE (9) SPONSORS
(SERVICE PROVIDERS) AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 2 OF THIS
RESOLUTION FOR THE PROVISION OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND
HOUSING RELATED SERVICES TO LOW INCOME PERSONS LIVING
WITH HIV/AIDS, ALLOCATING FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,568,113 FROM THE FY 1998 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) PROGRAM GRANT, ACCOUNT
NUMBER 194006.590606.6.946; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS,
ANY DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
Chairman Plummer: Item 5 -- let me stop and make an announcement, because Item 5 was
withdrawn. But let me make the following announcements: There will be a CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) meeting at 1:15 this afternoon. We will have -- the commercial trash
haulers will make their presentation at the start of the afternoon Agenda at 2 o'clock. By State
statute, budget hearings will commence sometime after 5:05 this afternoon.
v. �m�nUr;NUr_ ; -.UxlitliAtv(% -_ AMEND : ORDINANCE 11395,. - WHICHI
ESTABUSHED,SPECIAL REVENUE",EUND "VICTIMS'OF CRIME`ACr,; TO INCREASE��
APPROPRIATIONS ` ($48,000� _CONSIStW 'OF 'GRANTT' FROM . STAM-1'C FiORIDA;
a
OFFICE; OF TfiE ATTORNEY GENERAT;; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT;
,- . _ p :. -
.AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS IN ORDINANCE
NOS.11637. 7.: - _ a
Chairman Plummer: We are now on Item Number 6. And if I can turn the page, I'll tell you
what it is. Victims of Crime. Mr. Longueira, was that the one you told me about was an
increase?
27 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Major Joseph T. Longueira (Major, Police/Support Services): No, Commissioner. This is
accepting the grant. Item Number 13 is,.the actual increase.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Manager, state the emergency.
Maj. Longueira: Commissioner, we just received the grant. It starts on the lu of October. We
need to get the victim services out on the street.
Chairman Plummer: It requires a four/fifths vote. Is there a motion for the grant?
Vice Chairman Gort: Move it.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Gort. Seconded by Sanchez. Read the ordinance. You're doing
much better. First reading -- first roll call.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11395, AS AMENDED, WHICH
ESTABLISHED A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED "VICTIMS OF
CRIME ACT'; TO INCREASE SAID APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $48,000, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT, AND TO EXECUTE THE
NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, FOR THIS PURPOSE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXPEND MONIES FROM THIS FUND FOR NECESSSARY EXPENSES
TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM; FURTHER
CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS IN ORDINANCE NOS. 11637 AND
11697 TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED TO
SAID FUND BY EACH ORDINANCE INCLUDING REQUIRED IN -KIND
SERVICES, AND TO SPECIFY THE AMOUNTS OF EACH GRANT;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, for adoption as an
emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days,
was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gott
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
28 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Whereupon, the Commission on motion of Vice Chairman Gort and seconded by Commissioner
Sanchez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11836.
The City attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
Chairman Plummer: Item 7 has been put over until 2 o'clock. Item 8 is also an emergency
ordinance. That's also put over till 2 o'clock.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Regular Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 8 were deferred until 2:00 p.m.
'7.., DISCUSS AND' TABLE -CONSIDERATION _OF PROPOSED RATIFICATION OF.
MANAGER'S FINDING OF EMERGENCY FOR PROFESSIONAL- SERVICE AGREEMENT
WITH HOWARD DESIGN GROUP FOR EVALUATION OF VENDOR RESPONSES_ FOR'
RENOVATION OF FLOORING IN VARIOUS FIRE STATIONS -- REQUIRE OUTLINE;OF.I
SPECIFIC COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (COBG) FUNDS USED :FOR _
CAPITAL PROJECT IN FIRE DEPARTMENT.. (See'section # 50),
Chairman Plummer: Item 9, professional services of Howard Design Group for eighteen
thousand ($18,000) to take care of the floors in the fire station. Moved by Sanchez. Seconded by
Gort. All in favor -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Teele: Is this an emergency?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, it's an emergency.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, it is an emergency. It is a resolution. You have no further questions,
Commissioner?
Commissioner Teele: I have several questions.
Chairman Plummer: Then you're on.
Commissioner Teele: Is this appropriate for Community Development funds as it is being
outlined in this? And I would like for the Community Development Office and the legal
department to both put on the record that it is. I have some reservations about it.
29 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Item Number 9, the design for the fire station flooring. Did you hear the
question?
Gwendolyn C. Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes, I did.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, while you're researching this or pondering this, would you
create a resolution or an ordinance that in the future that the Management must outline the
specific category of Community Development funds that this is coming from? You know, just
simply stating Community Development funds-- And,I would like to know, when was the public
hearing on this allocation made? And --
Ms. Warren: It would be several years ago, a couple years ago.
Commissioner Teele: No. I want to know when, ma'am.
Ms. Warren: I would have to look it -- I --this is the first time I -- I'd have to look it up.
Commissioner Teele: Well, but the memorandum -- see -- let me tell you something. You cannot
use Community Development funds for maintenance. Now, if this is a health issue or a safety
issue, there may be an exception. But it is well established that you cannot use Community
Development funds on government buildings for maintenance. There may be a health exemption.
But I really want to know what year were these funds allocated for this purpose.
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): We'll get that for you.
Commissioner Teele: All right. Well, I'd like to defer the item until we have all the information.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Item Number 9 is deferred. Item 10 --
Commissioner Teele: Later today. Later today.
Chairman Plummer: If it is available, we'll do it.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Agenda Item 9 was tabled.
Chairman Plummer: Item 10 is also an emergency, four/fifths, is firefighters uniforms from Jules
Brothers for thirty thousand dollars ($30,000).
Commissioner Teele: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Teele,
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Sanchez. All in favor say "aye."
30 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed, like sign. Show a unanimous ballot.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-703
A RESOLUTION OF' THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A 4/5THS
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING
THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, AND APPROVING
THE PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTER UNIFORMS FROM JULES BROS.
UNIFORMS, INC., IN AN - AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000, FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE -RESCUE; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR
FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 00 1000.280601.6.075.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
-t# DISCUSS BID'SPECIFICATIONS�FORTIRES§FORFIRE=RES GUE� .xR.„.a.:.e .. mK C. DEPARTMENTk'
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to get an answer to the question in the last
Commission meeting about these Goodyear tires and this tire issue, something in writing. I don't
really want an oral discussion about it. But I cannot believe for the life of me-- and I'm going to
look at every procurement that comes through the Fire Department. If you all are specifying only
one brand of tires, you know, that's not in the community's best interest, it's not in the taxpayers'
best interest, and there was some pretty damning evidence presented that needs to be refuted on
the record.
Chief Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): We have some reasons why we do specify that and we'll -
Chairman Plummer: Sir, he said you can write him a memo.
Chief Gimenez: And we are -- we are compiling the information for you.
31 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: That's fine.
10. - RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM. CITY MANAGER'S : FINDING. OF -EMERGENCY,
WANE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS; "APPROVE=.EMERGENCY
ROOF REPAIRS`OF MAINTENANCE BUILDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF ,SOLID WASTE
.($15;000) BY A.K ROOFING OF FLORIDA, .INC� = ALLOCATE FUNDS .FROM CIP.
Chairman Plummer: Item 11 is roof repairs of a Solid Waste maintenance building for fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000). It is an emergency and requires a four/fifths.
Commissioner Sanchez: Move.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Let's try it and see if we can do it by all in favor saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: No opposition. Second -- Do we need a roll call second on a resolution,
emergency reso? No. OK.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-704
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR -
FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND
CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY,
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, AND
APPROVING EMERGENCY ROOF REPAIRS OF A MAINTENANCE
BUILDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE, IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $15,000.00 (INCLUDING CONTIGENCIES), BY A.K.
ROOFING OF FLORIDA, INC.; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM
CIP PROJECT NO.353015.329401.6.860.
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
32 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
-1 L'A)', APPROVE REVISED LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PIrANS FOR'
1995=2001; . PURSUANT TO STATE ' HOUSING INITIATIVES,`PARTNERSHIP("SH1P')
PROGRAM;`AUTH-0ALZB STJBMIItAI�:�
�r-s ;By', :*"; SCHEDULE- WORKSHOP -. REGARDING"SAME, ;WITH -HOUSING.- INDUSTRY
REPRESENTAT>LVES s: �; MORTGAGE � � BA1�TI{E1tS °'` �' AND= •` GENERAL;•- • .PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATIOIJ TO:PRESENT�AMENDIDP.LAN.BE�ORE COMMISSION WITHIN 60
Chairman Plummer: Now we go to Item 12. Item 12 is a housing initiative of the partnership
SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership). It is a resolution, and it's a revised local housing
assistance plans. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Teele: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second.
Jerry Flick: May I make a comment?
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Regalado. Mr. Flick.
Mr. Flick: OK.
Chairman Plummer: You have two minutes, sir. Anything less than two minutes would be
appreciated.
Commissioner Teele: We're not involved in loans, are we?
Chairman Plummer: For the record, sir, your name and mailing address.
Mr. Flick: My name is Jerry Flick. I'm a ex -mortgage banker, and developer of-- develop infill
projects.
Chairman Plummer: And your address is 2601 South Bayshore Drive?
Mr. Flick: OK. The resolution is very, very good. There's just some comments on it. And I
hope it passes right away. The first comment here was I don't think that the City should be in the
construction loan business. The City should give out -- give to a lender, a construction lender a
takeout commitment. After the project is finished, then the City funds. This is normal procedure
in banking procedures. The City has been taken for a ride many, many times because of faulty
construction disbursements, overruns, projects not being completed. Number two, buy down the
mortgages by not allowing buy -downs, but making a soft second. This reduces the first mortgage
to a lower loan to value. The monthly payment remains the same. However, you save on the
private mortgage insurance. This can save a buyer forty ($40) to fifty dollars ($50) a month.
Number three, we have various liens of financing for first mortgages, such as Dade County bonds
and State bonds. They should be encouraged to be used, which gives better leverage and will
spread the City's money over more houses, which will create more housing. Number four, we
have what's called BC lending. This is a decision that-- I don't know if it's been made before,
but BC lending is people with higher risk. It brings a higher interest rate. Whether this should be
allowed or not should be discussed. Rehabilitation program. There has to be a limitation of how
much rehabilitation to a house. You cannot rehabilitate a house that is not suitable for
33 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
rehabilitation, and there's plenty of them out there. There's no percentage in this of the
rehabilitation. There has to be a percentage stated in. -this resolution. If there are any questions',
I'd be glad to answer them.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: This is an intelligent presentation. I want to be on record. I don't want the
City involved in any. construction loans or disbursements. I think we have enough problems. I
would like that the matter be deferred for a workshop, and we notice it, we bring in the industry,
we bring in bankers and try to have it back before us on the 24"'. I think it's --
Chairman Plummer: There's a motion to defer.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Teele: With a workshop. With a workshop, including the mortgage bankers and
mortgage institution, as well as the overall public.
Chairman Plummer: OK. There is a motion and a second.
Vice Chairman,Gort: Discussion.
Mr. Flick: Excuse me. CanI --
Chairman Plummer: Sir, you can only speak to the item of discussion, and that is the deferment.
I'm sorry. Unless you're going to speak to the deferment --
Mr. Flick: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Gwendolyn C. Warren (Director, Community Development): I would like to speak to the
deferment.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioners take precedence. Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is this is a contract or plan that had to be sent to the
State. This is a revised plan since some changes that we have made. Do we have time to submit
another plan? Can we amend the existing plan? We can have amendments to the existing plans,
and what's the deadline to be presented?
Ms. Warren: You're correct. The City is out of compliance with its current housing plan for
SHIP programs. We've been negotiating with the State. And one of the issues is that with the --
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the motion to defer.
Chairman Plummer: Is there a -- is the seconder agreeable? All right. The motion is withdrawn.
34 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: I move the item or I join with whoever has moved the item.
Commissioner Sanchez: Can I --
Commissioner Teele: With the amendment -- with --
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Gort has the floor.
Vice Chairman Gort: I will make a motion to accept the plan. And I think I agree with you,
Teele. I think this is a very good presentation that's been made. And I think the plan could be
amended later on, and we should get the people together from the industry to form a committee to
help with it.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, you're recognized.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the motion approving this plan be amended
to require a public workshop to be held at City Hall, with Commissioners being noticed, and the
mortgage banking community, as well as the general public, and that an amended plan be
presented to this Commission within 60 days.
Chairman Plummer: Motion made. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: As understood. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed. Show it unanimous.
The following resolution and motion were introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved their
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-705
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION APPROVING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S REVISED LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLANS FOR THE PERIOD COVERING FISCAL
YEARS 1995-1998 AND 1998-2001, PURSUANT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP ("SHIP") PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT SAID LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PLANS, - ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA HOUSING
FINANCE CORPORATION, AND TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL
DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, TO CARRY OUT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SAID PROGRAM.
35 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
MOTION 99-705.1
A MOTION DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO SCHEDULE A
WORKSHOP TO BE HELD AT.A FUTURE DATE, IN CONNECTION WITH
MIAMI REVISED LOCAL HOUSING ASSISSTANCE PLANS COVERING
FISCAL YEARS 1995 THROUGH 1998 AND 1998 THROUGH 2O01,
PURSUANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP ("SHIP PROGRAM");
FURTHER DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO INVITE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HOUSING INDUSTRIES, ALONG WITH
MORTGAGE BANKERS AND INSTITUTIONS, AS WELL AS THE
OVERALL PUBLIC; FURTHER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
PUBLISH A PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING SAID WORKSHOP; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO PRESENT AN AMENDED PLAN
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THIS
COMMISSION MEETING DATE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution and .motion were passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
Chairman Plummer: Item 13.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Clerk, that is to come back within 60 days. Please make sure that a
memorandum goes to the Manager's office on this, please.
Chairman Plummer: Item 13. Captain Longueira is, this the one you talked about, an increase in
the amount of money?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: And is this forty-five thousand ($45,000) the increase, or is it above that?
Maj. Joseph T. Longueira (Major, Police, Support Services): -No, Commissioner. It's a total of
forty-five ($45,000). Last year, we had thirty-five thousand ($35,000).
36 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right. There's a resolution to accept these monies. Moved by Gort.
Seconded by Sanchez.
Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioner?
Chairman Plummer: Sir?
Mr. Vilarello: Have you received the substitute resolution? I have not.
Maj. Longueira: Yes, yes, they have.
Chairman Plummer: We all received it.
Mr. Vilarello: So you're voting on the substitute resolution?
Chairman. Plummer: That is correct, sir. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-706
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FOUR
EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEEMENTS, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO EXTEND THE TERMS OF
SAID AGREEMENTS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR EACH AND
PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF
VICTIM ADVOCATE SERVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
VICTIM ADVOCATE PROGRAM; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR, IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $45,000, FROM THE VICTIMS OF CRIME
ACT FUND, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 142011, FOR SAID SERVICES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
37 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
13: AUTHORIZE' ISSUANCE - "OF - REQUEST`_:.FOR` QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ), FOR
ELIGIBLE. FIRMS/SOLE ,PROPRIETORS"; TO' PROVIDE =TOWING-L.D . WRECKER
SERVICES FOR DEPARTMENTS" OF,POLICE _AND FIRE -RESCUE, SAID SELECTION TO
BE PRESENTED TO" THE CITY; COMMISSION FOR CONTRACTS) RESULTING FROM
THE RFQ:. == ROTATE FIRMS `= EQUALIZG.DISTRICTS == REQUEST COMPARISON OF
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES: �.-"';`-
.:
Chairman Plummer: Item 14 is in reference to an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) providing
towing and wrecker service for the City of Miami. I think all of us have received the proposal
outlining the districts, and as far as I'm concerned -- moved by Teele. Seconded by Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion.
Commissioner Teele: Discussion.
Chairman Plummer: Discussion. Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, as it is right now, how are we doing this? By districts or
-- divided into different districts?
Maj. Joseph T. Longueira (Major, Police, Support Services): Today --
Chairman Plummer: That's how we're doing it now, yes.
Maj. Longueira: Today, we have districts. There's only one company per district. How many
districts?
Unidentified Speaker: Nine.
Maj. Longueira: Nine districts.
Chairman Plummer: But we also have a fall -back --
Maj. Longueira: There's --
Chairman Plummer: -- affect another district.
Maj. Longueira: We're recommending a change today, Commissioners.
Commissioner Sanchez: And what is that change?
Maj. Longueira: We're recommending you go to five districts with two companies in each
district. Basically, there's ten tow companies in the City, I believe.
Commissioner Sanchez: And how are you going to do those two companies per district? Are
they going to under a rotation system?
Maj. Longueira: We could rotate them either daily, a different company rotate daily, or we could
even rotate per tow, depending on what you'd recommend. The County does it -- they rotate
38 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
daily, I believe, in the County. And we could do that. We can change our computer system so
that one day, one company does all the tows; another day, another company does all the tows.
Commissioner Sanchez: How many companies have bidden to.participate in the City of Miami
towing companies?
Chairman Plummer: You don't know. This is the RFP (Request for Proposals) going out.
Maj. Longueira: We don't know. This is the RFP to go out. We .believe we'll have the ten
companies, main companies that we deal with now.
Chairman Plummer: And those companies, just for the record, have to exist in the district they're
bidding on? No.
Maj. Longueira: It's preferable, but it' not mandatory.
Chairman Plummer: All right. What about the storage facility?
Maj. Longueira: The same way, Commissioner, although they are very close. District 4 under
towing on the map doesn't have anybody. And that's that Havana/Flagami. But just north of
that, there's some companies right on the edge, and we believe they'll bid for that.
Chairman Plummer: But they do have to be in the City of Miami?
Maj. Longueira: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: And their storage facility has to be adjacent?
Maj. Longueira: Has to be within 750 feet.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Now, are we going --
Commissioner Regalado: OK. How do we -- how do --
Chairman Plummer: If I may. Are we going to address and make sure that what we did in the
last go around, that to provide the public with adequate protection of releasing vehicles, how they
will pay, and all of that, is that now going to be addressed in this RFP?
Maj. Longueira: You mean the method of payment?
Chairman Plummer: I'm saying when a person gets their car towed, and they go to get the car
back that we need to have a set of outline that 'says these are the rules and the regulations,
company. You must abide by them.
Maj. Longueira: That's in the RFP.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Just wanted to make sure. Anybody else?
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Maj. Longueira: Commissioner, there's one other issue.
39 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Yes,.sir.
Maj. Longueira: The -- if you look on Page 27 of the RFP, you may want to consider this issue.
And that was raising the amount of money we pay them for towing our own cars. Currently, for a
car towed in the City, it's seventeen dollars ($17). This recommends to go to twenty-two ($22).
For a car towed out in the County -- a City vehicle -- currently, we pay twenty ($20). The
recommendation is twenty-five ($25). This has a budget impact.
Chairman Plummer: Who recommended that?
Maj. Longueira: Internally, it was recommended, because of discussions with the tow companies.
They felt that the rate was too low. We wanted to be fair and bring the issue to you. It's your
decision. It does have a budget impact.
Chairman Plummer: What is the projected budget? What would it have been on last year?
Maj. Longueira: Probably about thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) a year. About twenty, twenty
thousand ($20,000) a year additional, we think.
Chairman Plummer: At twenty dollars ($20) per tow, it's forty thousand dollars ($40,000)?
Maj. Longueira: No. We're saying that the increase in the fee would result in a twenty thousand
dollar ($20,000) increase.
Chairman Plummer: Well, I guess my question, then, is how much did the City pay for towing
City vehicles last year?
Maj. Longueira: About sixty-six thousand ($66,000).
Chairman Plummer: Sixty-six ($66,000), and it was at basically twenty-five ($25) per tow?
Maj. Longueira: No. It was seventeen ($17) in the City, twenty ($20) in the County.
Chairman Plummer: So it's eighteen ($18), OK. Soon as I get a calculator. Seemed like to me
we towed an awful lot of cars.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I requested to be recognized at the time you recognized Mr. Sanchez. I
don't have any problem with that, but I -- at the end of that, I really would like to regain my
position.
Chairman Plummer: Whenever you're ready, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions that I've shared
with the staff privately. I'll put them on the record. This is supposed to be a fair process. And if
you're selected, the intent is, is that the nine operators that we have now, plus the tenth one --
because you have a tenth one who is a backup -- will share equally. In other words, what I don't-
40 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
- what I would not like to see is some inside baseball maneuvering that goes on. I would like the
RFP amended to require the Department to adjust the rotations at the end of the year, beginning --
this is -- what? -- a two-year contract? A three-year?
Maj. Longueira: Three-year, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me put it this way: I would like that at the end of the eleventh
month for the Management to have the authority to adjust the rotations within the various areas to
insure -- to insure that they are levelized. I know, you know, in the course of things, there's one
guy that you like, there's one guy you can't stand. That's normal. But we shouldn't let our
personal issues decide how the City tax dollars are going to be decided. I am waiting for, still, a
list by name of vendor, the amount of money that they have collected under this contract, and I
would expect to see that before this item is voted upon finally today. Just one list that has all ten
vendors, because one of the issues that everybody has whispered is that the industry plays -- that
the system plays favorites. And I don't believe it. I think the document will speak for itself. I'm
not -- shouldn't have passed that on exactly like that. I believe you. This is on the seventy
percent (70%) that I do believe you, Major. So I'd like to get that on the record. Secondly, as it
relates to the rotation, I believe that you all should come in next Commission meeting and tell us
what the rotation is. I don't think we should make that decision without your input. You need to
give us your written advice on what it is. Let me tell you what the considerations are. It's
probably going to be better for one week, and one -- and the next week, or certainly weekend
rotations, but sometimes, daily rotations mean you have to have the same, you know, work force
standing by. And I realize most of these people are on commission basis, most of the drivers.
But I think that's the kind of thing that I really would rather here, not from you and Mr. -- Officer
Moe, who's obviously the expert, but I think if we can do something to give the drivers the-- I
mean the owners the incentive, we ought to hear from them on that issue, as to would they rather
us rotate this on a daily basis, or would they rather rotate it on a weekly basis, or would they
rather rotate it on a daily plus a weekend rotation, you know, sort of like the Army KP roster, you
know. You'd be amazed at how many ways you can play those things. But I think the industry
ought to tell us what is going to be the most cost-effective way for them to do it. Because we
want to be their partners in this. We want to do it the best way that they want to do it. It doesn't
matter to me or you, really, whether it's a daily rotation or a weekly rotation, or a daily plus a
weekend rotation. That is, one -- one company has it on this weekend, and another company has
it on the next weekend. We're talking now within the four -- how many districts are you
proposing? Five district?
Maj. Longueira: Five districts.
Commissioner Teele: Which have nothing to do with the five Commission districts.
Maj. Longueira: Nothing to do with the Commission districts.
Commissioner Teele: Nothing at all to do with the five Commission districts. So I think the
rotation is -- We should approve this today, but we should ask you to come back at the next
Commission meeting and give us an amendment on this as to how the rotations would be done,
based upon what the industry would like. Based upon what the industry would like. And finally,
I am very, very interested, again, Mr. Manager, Mr. Chairman, in seeing the number of tows that
are City of Miami tows versus Unincorporated Dade County tows versus Broward County tows.
I mean, I think it would be a very, very enlightening issue to know how much of this towing
we're doing out of Broward County. Because here again, these are City cars, OK? And if my
41 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
City car gets towed one night from Broward County, you'll read about it in the Miami Herald the
next day, for whatever reason.
Chairman Plummer: No, the Sun Sentinel.
Commissioner Teele: The Sun Sentinel, too. So, I mean, the point is this: I believe that we
should work and look at creative ways to keep these cars, these City cars in the City. I believe,
quite frankly, that the industry should offer to tow for free in the City of Miami. I really do. I
mean I would like to see some incentive coming from the industry that you all would agree to free
City tows. And if we need to adjust, if we need to adjust the rates on this, I'm prepared to do that.
But, Mr. Manager, why would we have a forty thousand dollar ($40,000) budget impact, or how
could we not create a positive budget impact with this contract? And I believe-- I don't think it
would be fair for us to ask you to tow a car from Broward County for free. I don't. But I really
believe that you all should provide, or we should provide in here that the tows within the City of
Miami will be free, at no charge, and then you all come back to us and tell us what kind of
economical relationship you all need to make that happen. And I think we can turn this from a
negative into a positive. And I really would like to hear from you, ma'am.
Ms. Lorraine Lichtman: My name is Lorraine Lichtman, and I own Midtown Towing. On this
contract that we have now, it's a privilege and honor to work for this City. I tow for other police
departments. Their police vehicles break down. I do not charge. I don't think-- I'm not asking
for a rate increase. On this contract right now, there was a bid put out for police towing cars.
And not every company that tows for the City tows cars. I think Officer Moe can tell you that I
tow -- how many cars a month, when it's my month on? Two, three hundred (300) from the
overflow? I never refuse to do it. I did four this week. And I think -- I think the City is in
trouble, as it is, and I've been from day one to try to help the City get out of trouble. And I really
feel like there should be no increase or they should be towed for free. I mean, not every towing
company is even on rotation to tow them.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: When we talk about savings and reducing the budget, there's forty
thousand dollars ($40,000) right there we could reduce in the budget.
Chairman Plummer: Sixty-six.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, sixty-six thousand dollars ($66,000). Those are savings that this
Administration should be reviewing and looking into to reduce the budget.
Commissioner Teele: But the fact is, instead, what Management is doing— and I'm not beating
up on you — but what Management is doing is you're costing us more money. And if I may, Mr.
Manager --
Chairman Plummer: That's why I asked who recommended it.
Commissioner Teele: It would be very important to know how much of the sixty thousand
dollars ($60,000) we're spending now that's in our budget is tows from the City of Miami and
how much is tows from outside. But at a minimum, I'm not prepared to increase — I'm not
prepared to vote to increase the rate one dollar ($I). And as it relates to the City, I need to know
42 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
how much were City tows last year, because I would like to put a zero on that. In other words, it
would be at no charge. On the — at the same time, I'm prepared to adjust by one dollar ($1) or
two dollars ($2) the cost of towing to offset any cost, because I don't think we ought to ask you
all necessarily to eat it. But as it relates to the towing, as it relates to the towing or the storage,
when you all get people — when you all -- Yesterday I passed — Mr. Manager, yesterday, I went
by the NET office — I drove by the NET office in Little Havana— I'm sorry — in Little Haiti.
Apparently, you all were busting people, very properly so, for prostitution, picking up prostitutes.
How — do we tow those — I saw two very properly so for prostitution, picking up prostitutes.
How -- Do we tow those — I saw tow cars going in there.
Chairman Plummer: VIP (Vehicle Impoundment Program).
Commissioner Teele: We charge them, right?
Major Longueira: Yes. That's the VIP Program, probably the thousand dollar ($1,000) fee.
Chairman Plummer: We get the thousand.
Major Longueira: It comes to the .City.
Chairman Plummer: They get eighty-eight ($88), I think it is, for the towing.
Commissioner Teele: What about drug busts? The same thing?
Chairman Plummer: Felony, yes.
Major Longueira: Yes.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, felonies are treated differently. That may — we consider forfeiture
as well.
Chairman Plummer: No, on vice.
Major Longueira: Right.
Chairman Plummer: On narcotics is what he asked.
Commissioner Teele: Is there anyplace in the towing under, this contract that we tow persons for
non -criminal actions that are not City vehicles?
Chairman Plummer: Sure. DUI.
Commissioner Teele: DUI?
Chairman Plummer: Sure.
Major Longueira: Parking, parking infractions, if they're blocking something.
Commissioner Teele: So where is the rate schedule on that? What page is that on?
43 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
im
Major Longueira: That should be on like 26 or 25, somewhere around there. Twenty-three,
Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: Twenty-three?
Major Longueira: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: So the base rate for towing is eighty-eight dollars ($88) for that?
Major Longueira: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Plus storage.
Commissioner Teele: So why don't we just take that up two dollars ($2) and then not charge the
City? I mean, what's the amount, of money that we collect? And, that's what we ought to try to
figure out, the amount of money that we're paying out, and adjust it on the base rate on one of
these other areas, so that it's dollar for dollar, so that they can tow us for free and they're not
having to eat the cost.
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): And Commissioner, we're going to get to that in a
second. Ms. Lichtman has always been a partner with the City, and has been more than generous
in her feelings about City cars. But not all the other vendors feel the same way. And that's the
reason
why —
Chairman Plummer: So they don't have the bid.
Mr. Warshaw: -- you see the small increase.
Major Longueira: Commissioner, the other thing, the other issue for the Police Department's side
and —
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado, you have the floor.
Commissioner Regalado: Sure. I think it's very simple. First of all, Major, one question. In the
past, there have been problems with stealing calls, one company from another, and overlapping
districts. Do you have assurances that this is going to work as the companies want, in terms of
whoever receives the call, that's the company that is entitled to it? What— I mean, does the
industry agree with this rotation, in terms of not confusing calls?
Mr. Warshaw: Well, while they're looking for the answer, Commissioner, we still have,
unfortunately, the so-called pirate companies that go out there that jump these calls that aren't
part of our contract with the City. And we try to enforce that, and we've had some degree of
success.
Commissioner Regalado: No, but I'm talking about the companies that overlap or take calls from
other companies. Is there a remedy for that?
44 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Major Longueira: We did have a problem. We've minimized it. We think we have a handle on
it. But what we'll do is we'll talk to the industry about that and see what we can do to enforce,
you know, to minimize that happening.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. The other question is the question of the twenty percent (20%)
surcharge on the parking of the towing industry. Does the industry agree or do they have— been
told that this is something that —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney?
Mr. Vilarello: Whether the surcharge, the parking surcharge applies to storage rates?
Commissioner Regalado: Uh-huh.
Mr. Vilarello: I've advised those people who have asked the question that there are workshops,
that it would apply to the parking of the vehicle for the storage rate only.
Chairman Plummer: Unless waived by this Commission.
Mr. Vilarello: .The parking fee -- the surcharge- applies to the parking at all public parking
facilities. This would be applicable. I would recommend against specific waivers.
Commissioner Regalado: So this is something that the company has to pass on, of course.
Chairman Plummer: I don't think it's parking. OK?
Commissioner Regalado: But that's a start.
Chairman Plummer: Well, that's what they're saying, it's storage. And they're saying storage is
included. I don't agree with that, but —
Mr. Vilarello: It falls within the definition of "parking facility."
Chairman Plummer: Who created the definition?
Mr. Vilarello: State statute and our ordinance.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. The other — so my —
Chairman Plummer: All right, look, let me — look, I'm going to let everybody talk as long as they
want. I just want you to know one thing. We're averaging twenty minutes per agenda item. And
some items need that. But if we continue that course today, we're going to get out'of here about 4
o'clock tomorrow morning. So guys, speak all you want.
Commissioner Regalado: No, just I would request of the Administration that on the proposal that
the increase for City cars will be eliminated, at least until you talk to the industry, but that you
eliminate this increase.
Chairman Plummer: Include that in it; is that what you're saying?
45 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Regalado: I'm sorry?
Chairman Plummer: Include that in there.
Commissioner Regalado: Exactly.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Lori, are you finished?
Ms. Lichtman: No. I .was just going to joke about the surcharge, that we're not public. We tow
for the Police Department, so the cars are there because they're at our request, and we have the
charge added onto the consumer, which I don't do it, but I'll pay you whatever you want. I can't
do it. I'm in a poor neighborhood.
Chairman Plummer: Ted and Stan.
Stanley Mykytra: Stanley Mykytra, Ted and Stan's Towing Service. You're absolutely right.
We need to go into a workshop, and we'll be able to come up with whatever requirements
necessary. And to address the City Attorney and the Commission, the State statute says public
entities. We are not a public entity. We are non -consent impound yard by police departments.
And you're throwing back this right onto the consumer, who you're trying to protect. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Boom -Boom.
Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Final speaker.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: I fully agree that there should be a workshop to get the input from the
victims of all these pirates. And I am not accusing the tow trucking companies of being the
pirates, in practice, because I have been told many times, and you are aware of it, all of you guys.
Let me tell you something. The real pirates in my case have been the police. I tell you why.
Because by the time they pick you up, they take you to jail, you go through all the procedure —
wait a moment.
Chairman Plummer: What has this got to do with the RFP?
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: It got to do because then the arrear charges on the— how you call? — the
storage, it goes up and up. And then if it happens to be that you are picked up, like I used to be
picked up on Friday nights, the banks are closed by the time you get out. It's Sunday, and
sometimes, let me tell you, I have been treated, and this is— I am speaking from my heart — better
by the big guys on the tow trucking business than by the police. I'm talking about sensitivity.
Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. I just want a justification. My mathematics tells me you're
doing about thirty-three hundred (3,300) City tows a year. And write me a memo and tell me
why. It seemed like that is absolutely out of the question. All right. Is there anything else on
Item 14?
Major Longueira: Commissioner.
46 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Sir?
Major Longueira: If I could just address one issue. On Page 23, it looks like there were some
typographical errors on the surcharge in Class "B," "C," and "D." It shows a fifteen dollar ($15)
surcharge. It's really a twenty dollar ($20) surcharge. It's across the board. We'll make the
adjustments.
Chairman Plummer: As modified. It was moved by Sanchez, seconded by Teele. All in favor,
say "aye."
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, can I ask what the modifications were?
Chairman Plummer: Guys, you know, let's go. Go ahead, Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: I don't know what the modifications were to the RFQ. You've talked about
rotation. You've talked about additional fees.
Chairman Plummer: The modifications, as I understand, proffered by Commissioner Regalado
was that they add two dollars ($2) to the cost of the towing and eliminate in its entirety the cost of
City towing, City vehicles. In the City of Miami?
Commissioner Teele: In the City of Miami.
Chairman Plummer: In the City of Miami.
Commissioner Teele: That was by me, not Regalado.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Well, OK. He was the last one to -- Now, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-707
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ("RFQ"), IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
QUALIFYING AND SELECTING ELIGIBLE FIRMS/SOLE PROPRIETORS
TO PROVIDE TOWING AND WRECKER SERVICES FOR THE
DEPARTMENTS OF POLICE AND FIRE -RESCUE, SAID SELECTION TO
BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS REVIEW AND
APPROVAL OF ANY CONTRACT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, RESULTING FROM SAID RFQ SOLICITATION
PROCESS.
47 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: Item 15.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: They are to come back in the next Commission meeting and give us an
amendment to the RFP that's based upon how the industry wants the rotation so that we can write
it in.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
14. ACCEPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMPETITIVE SELECTION
COMMITTEES AS TO MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS, IN RANK ORDER, TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING,
LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL -ENGINEERING,
ENVIRONMENTAL, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING, VALUE ANALYSIS AND COST ESTIMATE) FOR 1999-
2001 PROJECTS.
Chairman Plummer: Item 15 is a professional and technical service, architectural. This is a
blanket for the years 1999 and up to 2001. Is there a motion?
Vice Chairman Gort: I'll move it.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Gort.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Teele. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
48 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-708
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT, OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMPETITIVE SELECTION COMMITTEES AS TO THE MOST
QUALIFIED FIRMS, IN RANK ORDER, TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL -ENGINEERING,
MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING,
ENVIRONMENTAL, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING, AND VALUE
ANALYSIS AND COST ESTIMATE) FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1999-2001
CITY OF MIAMI PROJECTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE
TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH
HEREIN, WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRMS FOR THE PROVISION OF
SAID SERVICES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being.seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
�` 5MC—GEPTDONDARALRIVE`R`"
_ tc- S' ?.-•`�ft,xAu"'.-«'is:-..
Chairman Plummer: Item 16 is a plat entitled Dondara River. Are you in opposition, sir?
Vice Chairman Gort: They're in compliance —
Unidentified Speaker: No.
Chairman Plummer: Then sit down.
Vice Chairman Gort: Are they in compliance with all their requirements?
Chairman Plummer: Has to be or wouldn't be here.
49 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Jim Kay (Director, Public Words Departmet): Yes, sir. In compliance with the Plat and
Street Committee.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Gort, second -- Moved by Teele, seconded by Gort. All in favor,
say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-709
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION, ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED DONDARA RIVER, A
SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIANE, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE
CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
RECORDATOIN OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
16: AUTHORIZE
ENGAGEMENT-; T.. R.{?-TEW . CARDENAS, TREBAK,;F{,KELLOGGSERVICES REA;,,A
RSiJTTO`MIAMI. BOND;OFFERNrANDINVESTIGATION'PU4N;FORMAL
'
ORDER ISSSUED:BY 'I��SECURTTIfiS: AND EXCHANGE COIvi1VIISSION , ALI:ACATE
FUNDS ` ($75;000);. pLT COSTS AS `APPROVED, Bx �' CTTYTATT4RNEY= -FROM THE
SELF-INSURANCE :.
SELF IN AND INSURANCE.TRUSTFUND'�'`'}
Chairman Plummer: Item 17. The engagement of the law firm of Tew, Cardenas, Rebak,
Kellogg, Lehman, Demaria and — can you get some shorter firms, at least? — this is for a bond
offering, the amount not to exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) plus cost.
50 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: This isn't for a bond offering.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): No. This is a request for a firm to represent the City in
connection with a civil investigation by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) of which
I've advised you. This is not with regard to a bond offering. This is in connection with the SEC
investigation.
Chairman Plummer: Sir --
Vice Chairman Gort: I thought it was over.
Commissioner Teele: Which was a bond offering.
Mr. Vilarello: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: It was a 3/1995 bond offering.
Chairman Plummer: All right. It's very deceiving, at best.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding was we already — didn't we engage them already?
Mr. Vilarello: I've engaged them within the level of my authority, and at this point, through the
administrative process, I'd need -- it would require more. This fee should be sufficient to take the
City's representation through the entire administrative process.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Teele: I would move the item, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: So second.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Ricker.
Daniel Ricker: Daniel Ricker, 4302 Ingraham Highway. Can we get an idea of where we're
going with this? I mean is there any advantage of us not fighting it? Is there an advantage with
us fighting it? Where —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: Certainly. We have just received officially from the SEC the charges. I have not
actually seen them. Anything prior to that have been through orders (phonetic) of the new
services. Certainly, that is going to be part of my consideration and recommendation to the City
Commission. However, first, we need to review exactly the charges that they have levied against
the City.
Mr. Ricker: But the seventy-five thousand ($75,000) is the worst case scenario, I suspect?
51 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Vilarello: Seventy-five thousand ($75,000). At the direction of the City Commission, they
have requested that when I bring an item before them that I give them the total anticipated cost of
the representation. And that's what this is. We anticipate significantly less.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Boom -Boom.
Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes. I'm being guided by what I have read in the newspapers, in the
Miami Herald. I don't know.' I believe in the Herald.
Chairman Plummer: God help you.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: OK. The issue here is that I have dealt personally with the Securities
and Exchange Commission many years ago. And my adversaries were the law firm of
Greenberg, Traurig, and I beat them up with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as a
shareholder of Popular Bank Shares Corporation. Now, let me tell you something. If the remedy
that they are asking here is a cease and desist, I think we should accept it, because there will not
be any financial liability for the citizens and for the City of Miami. And let me tell you, the --
they are tough cops. I consider the Securities and Exchange Commission better cops in the
securities business than even the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the CIA (Central
Intelligence Agency).
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Wait. Wait a moment. I think we should accept the cease and desist
order without any — if there is no financial liability— without expending this amount of money.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Your comments are well taken.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: And I hope that the Oversight Board will read them or hear them
Chairman Plummer: Yes. All in favor of Item 17, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous.
52 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-710
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE LAW FIRM OF TEW, CARDENAS, REBAK,
KELLOGG, LEHMAN, DEMARIA AND TAGUE, L.L.P. FOR LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF MIAMI BOND OFFERINGS, A-1581, AN INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO A FORMAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000.00, PLUS COSTS AS APPROVED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY, FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE
TRUST FUND, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 515001.624401.6.661 FOR SAID
SERVICES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
17. SETTLEMENT: DIMAS AND SILVIA ROMAN ($52,250), AND WILLIAM LOPEZ.
Chairman Plummer: Item 18, Mr. City Attorney, paying off a liability debt of fifty-two thousand
two hundred and fifty dollars ($52,250).
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes. This case involves-- Ramon versus Dade County and
the City of Miami case--- involves a claim alleging an illegal arrest of the plaintiff, and a loss of
consortium by the wife. While being booked into the County Jail, plaintiff received some nerve
damage injury to facial muscles as a result of action by the County and our City police officers.
They allege a Federal civil rights violation and state claims of false arrest and excessive force.
The fifty-two thousand two hundred and fifty dollar ($52,250) settlement without an admission of
liability is based on my recommendation as in the best interest of the City.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Plummer: God help us.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
53 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Sanchez. Seconded by Gort. It has to be.
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is the County involved, also?
Mr. Vilarello: The County is involved, and they have paid an amount in ekcess of what's being
recommended.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Chairman Plummer: All right. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Show it unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION' NO.99-711
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY DIMAS ROMAN AND SILVIA
ROMAN, HIS WIFE, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF
$52,250.00, .IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE
CASE DIMAS ROMAN AND SILVIA ROMAN V. DADE COUNTY, CITY
OF MIAMI, AND WILLIAM LOPEZ, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 97-1729-CIV-
SEITZ, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A GENERAL RELEASE, RELEASING
THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS
AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS;
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE AND
INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE NO.515001.624401.6.652.
(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
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
54 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
18. DEFER CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE
EQUITY STUDY COMMISSION — QUESTION IF BOARD NEEDS TO BE
ABOLISHED/SUNSETTED.
Chairman Plummer: Item 19. These are appointments to the Occupational License Equity. I'll
defer mine. Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: I'll confirm the same individual. My understanding was that board was no
longer going to be in existence.
Chairman Plummer: That's what I thought.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding was once they had made the recommendation to this
Commission, which they did, they were not going to continue to be in existence.
Chairman Plummer: City Attorney and Mr. Clerk, come back at the next meeting, if you would,
for the possibility of sunsetting this committee.
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): OK.
Chairman Plummer: Item 20 is mine on Community Relations, and I'll have a name this
afternoon.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, Agenda Item 20 was tabled until the afternoon
session.
Chairman Plummer: Item 21 is NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Centers, and that has
been deferred until the next Commission meeting.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, Agenda Item 20 was deferred until the next City
Commission meeting.
19. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE MANUEL ARTIME
COMMUNITY THEATER LOCATED AT 900 ' SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET AND THE
MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATED AT 970 SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET
— ADMINISTRATION AND DDA TO EXPLORE FEASIBILITY OF USING FACILITY FOR
.TELEVISION STUDIO.
Chairman Plummer: Item 22, the Manuel Artime Community Theater, the financial status.
Hello?
Lori Billberry (Director, Asset Managemeni): Hi. This is Lori Billberry, Director of Asset
Management.. We've asked to place this item on the Agenda, because earlier this year, the
Commission had pulled the Manuel Artime off the surplus property list. And during discussions
on the item, there was concern about the continued subsidy by the City. Presently, the City
charges a dollar ($1) a year to four -fifty ($4.50) a square foot, and this does not include charges
for the common areas. Additionally, these charges have been taking place since at least 1985 and
probably date back prior to that time.
Chairman Plummer: ,What are you recommending?
55 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Billberry: We're recommending =- We conducted a market analysis of rents in the area, and
we are recommending that we adopt the market rates of eight -fifty ($8.50) a square foot for office
space in the.office building, which is the 970 Building, and seven seventy-five ($7.75) for office
space in the theater building. Given that this building was built for a community center, we
would recommend that the nonprofits receive a twenty-five percent (25%) discount. This
additionally would only apply to new tenants, and it would apply for any expansion space for
existing tenants.
Chairman Plummer: Would this cover the operating and maintenance of the facility?
Ms. Billberry: It will continue to require a subsidy, but it is our goal to have the subsidy reduced
in the future.
Chairman Plummer: How much subsidy? If these new rates were applied, how much subsidy
would still be required? .
Ms. Billberry: Since we are not proposing that they apply to existing tenants at this time, the
subsidy is going to remain about two hundred and fifty thousand ($250,000) a year. It truly
depends on how much vacancy we can fill at the new rates. And we'd also like to recommend,
though, for the existing licensees that we work towards putting into effect increases, starting next
year, so they have time to budget for them now.
Chairman Plummer: But you're saying if these rates go into effect, we will still be subsidizing a
quarter of a million dollars?
Ms. Billberry: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, that building probably houses most of the City's
nonprofit organizations that provide a great service to our community. I mean, even the
Administration will not argue that point. One of the things that I would like to bring out is — and -I
really appreciate the City's support on not putting these charges on the tenants that are there now,
because it creates a great burden. How many organizations are there that -- I know of five that I
can just throw out — but how many organizations are in that building that provide to one of the
poorest districts in the City of Miami?
Ms. Billberry: There are presently six agencies within the 900 Building, and nine agencies within
the 970 Building.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. What has been -- How much money have we spent on fixing it up?
Ms. Billberry: I'd have to defer to Christina Abrams on that issue. -
Commissioner Sanchez: Christina, how much money has been put into -that building? Because at
one time, the City proposed selling it. That was the intent of the Administration, to do away with.
it.
56 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Christina Abrams (Director, Public Facilities): If your question is, "How much money has been
spent on the Manuel Artime?" — Christina Abrams, Director of Public Facilities. We received a
grant from the County in the amount of a hundred and forty-five thousand ($145,000) for capital
improvements in the theater. In addition to that, we have a hundred thousand ($100',000) of
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds allocated.
Commissioner Sanchez: Has that money been used?
Ms. Abrams: Not yet.
Commissioner Sanchez: Not yet. OK.
Ms. Abrams: Prior to that, we put up -- In the last two years, we've invested up to a hundred
thousand ($100,000) in repairing the windows and leaks in the roof and interior of the building.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. What is the City doing, what are you doing to promote the theater?
Ms. Abrams: We have been at a disadvantage, because the building has been up for sale. So a lot
of the tenants that we had worked with in the past did not renew their Agreements, or have not
sought to use the theater. Now that the City Commission decided to keep the theater, we have
contacted all the promoters and the people from the community who use the theater, and we
already have 42 events booked for the coming year. And the facility manager, Lilia Varas, is
confident that we can get easily another 20 performances.
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): Now that we've made a decision to take this off the
surplus property rolls and keep it, we're going to, as best we can, within the budgets we've got,
aggressively market this theater. And of course, we have two real gems in the City. We've got
the Lyric Theater in Overtown, which is really one of our great gems. The Manuel Artime
Center, I think it's next week the Florida Philharmonic on Saturday night is going to give a free
concert for people from the neighborhood. So this is the kind of energy we want to breathe in.
We're going to work very hard to insure that the theater is used and is seen as, you know, one of
Miami's treasures.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. You're raising the prices on the office complex? Is that what it
is?
Ms. Abrams: Lori Biliberry will address the rates for the rental of the office space. I'll address
the proposed rent for the theater.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. But just one second. There are people who have contracts that
have been outstanding for years. They would not be affected? I'm sorry if I missed that, but they
would not be affected?
Ms. Billberry: We are proposing that the existing licensees stay'there, as is, under their current
rates. However, we would like to look towards adopting a new rate, say, you know, fifty cents
(.50) increments in future years. So we can start working towards decreasing the subsidy. These
rates, have been in effect since prior to 1985.
57 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Manager or Christina, does the building part subsidize the
theater, or are they two separate entities?
Ms. Abrams: They are contained within one budget.
Mr. Warshaw: The theater has not been self-sufficient. We've put money in to repair it.
Commissioner Regalado: I know.
Mr. Warshaw: Now we're going to start to market it as a theater.
Commissioner Regalado: I know, I know. But what I'm saying is that I don't have a problem
with the rental, but I do have a problem with raising the fees on the theater, because the purpose
of the theater is to bring people to this area. 'The purpose is to have at least one activity, one at
least a week. And I'm sure that Lilly can do that. And I think that having the cause (phonetic) of
Dade County Auditorium, Knight Center, there are many performers, many people who do not
have the resources that would rather go to the Artime and perform. But if we keep raising the
prices, we will be defeating the purpose. And that's why I'm saying I would agree with the new
rental rates, but I would not agree with any increase in the theater. And one last thing, Mr.
Manager. The team that we have for NET-9, it's very capable, it's very capable. And I really
believe that we should film the Philharmonic Orchestra event. By the way, maybe you all haven't
noticed, but the Artime has in itself a studio. It has the lights, the sound system and the stages
that it can be a TV studio in itself.
Commissioner Sanchez: Would you yield to me?
Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sure.
Commissioner Sanchez: I believe that I did send a memo not'long ago to the City Manager
saying that the Artime would be the perfect site for NET-9 to establish a studio where they could
run programs out and perform the little documentaries that they do on NET-9. I mean, it is
perfect. They have the lighting, they have everything. And I think that even some of the staff
from NET-9 approached me on that matter. So my office directed a memo directly to you, Mr.
City Manager. And your response was that it was a great idea, and that you were looking into it,
to see how we could, you know, start using the theater more often. I mean, I had been there
personally through many of the City's programs that they have with disability parks. I mean, the
theater, itself, we should be -- See, this something that I don't quite understand. We have the
Knight Center that we're way in the hole on. I mean, God knows how much money we owe
there. But then you have a theater in the community that we're only subsidizing two hundred
thousand dollars ($200,000), and you pinpoint at it. Maybe we should subsidize it. CDBG could
give them money, or we could come up, maybe having it -- If we can't run it, have some
company that wants to come in and run it, and put together a board to raise money, nonprofit
money, raise money for a fundraiser to keep it going, because, let me tell you, although it is in a
poor area, it is a theater that is being utilized. I mean, the doors are open. The doors aren't
closed on it. And then the building, which I stated before in my argument, which was very
simple, it houses a lot of the nonprofit organizations that do a tremendous benefit to this
community, especially in a poor district.
Mr. Warshaw: All right. Commissioner Regalado had a question. On the issue of the renting of
the theater, I agree and I think -the Administration agrees that we're going to go out of our way for
nonprofits, for community people to use the theater at a very reduced rate. But are you in
58 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
agreement with us that if we can start to market the theater as a venue for concerts, where people
from outside the neighborhood will come there and pay an admission that we should start to
charge commensurate rates for the theater? The same way it would be in competition with the
Knight Center, or Gusman Hall, or the Arena, it's just a smaller venue. So there's two separate
issues: The free or the very inexpensive or community people; and then the marketing plan, to
really make it a place where we can probably bring in performers who want to perform in front of
only five or six hundred people. It's.a very intimate setting.
Commissioner Regalado: I don't agree, because I think that what you have here, is a marketing
problem. If you ask me, if I'm Enrique Iglesias, I will not go to the Artime. I will try to go to
Dade County or — but I'm not. But if I'm not Enrique Iglesias, I will have to go to the Artime.
And it would be very difficult for me to sell tickets at twenty dollars ($20) twenty-five dollars
($25) to fill the Artime. I'm telling you that there are people who deserve to have a theater to
perform, but that they do not have the capability of being a major attraction. And that is what this
theater is all about. The purpose that we eliminated the ten percent (10%) surcharge was to bring
more activities to the theater. I mean, the City will be doing a favor to all that area if we can have
that theater open three times a week. So I don't know —
Chairman Plummer: All right. Gentlemen, we need to move on.
Commissioner Regalado: Sure.
Chairman Plummer: I don't think I've heard any objection to the increase as it is proposed by.the
Administration guaranteeing those who are there presently, they will honor existing contracts, and
will come up with some method of bringing in the proposed new rate increase.
Ms. Abrams: I'd like to add that the rate that we're proposing is not necessarily a drastic
increase. Right now the City —
Commissioner Teele: What is "drastic"?
Ms. Abrams: Well, the City charges a rental rate of three hundred and fifty ($350). Then it
charges a percentage of gross ticket sales, and then it charges a ticket surcharge. That's
cumbersome for promoters to use and to work with. What we're proposing is a flat fee, just one
rental flat fee. We're proposing a range of between five hundred ($500) to seven hundred ($700).
And right now, the rate is three fifty ($350), plus all these additional charges. Just a flat fee
makes it easy for someone to use.
Commissioner Teele: Why wouldn't you propose the both of them? One is an alternative and
give you the flexibility to decide —
Ms. Abrams: Well, we can have one fee and then a discount for nonprofit.
Commissioner Teele: Why don't you just go with your recommendation as one option.
Chairman Plummer: That's what I'm trying to get done.
Commissioner Teele: And then keep the other one as a second option. And then you all have the
flexibility to determine which one you're going to impose.
Ms. Abrams. OK. That sounds good.
59 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Warshaw: We don't object to that. That's a good idea.
Commissioner Teele: OK. As amended, I would move the item, or call the question or
something.
Vice Chairman Gort: 1'd be moving to second. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: One is, my understanding is— Contact DDA (Downtown Development
Authority). My understanding is there's a lot of — I don't know if that - can be used for TV
productions, but there's a lot of low, moderate income producers that would probably, if they
could use the facility, they would use it during the daytime when it's not being utilized by the
other performers. So check with DDA and maybethat can be rented for the studio facility for
TV. Number two is, I deal a lot with the Artime, and I deal a lot with the Orange Bowl. My
understanding is — and this is questions to you, to go back — we have acting directors, I think, that
have been there for years doing a great job. How come we can't make them the directors? .
Chairman Plummer: OK. I assume, Mr. Manager, this will come back in the form of a regular
agenda item, and you'll have it before us in the near future.
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, it will.
20. MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHETHER MIAMI LIMITED' IS IN
DIRECT DEFAULT OF CONTRACT RE. SECTION 8 HOUSING FOR PROPERTIES AT
1320, 1321 AND 1370 NORTHWEST 61ST STREET FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN
APARTMENTS PROPERLY = CITY TO PROCEED TO RELOCATE RESIDENTS IF
INSPECTIONS FAIL SAFETY AND HEALTH TESTS. (See section #52)
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I would like to call the item that was set for 11 a.m.
Commissioner Teele: Can we get these other two out of the way, and then finish with yours? I
think they'll be very, very quick.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, these people are going to be here. Those other two items
involve — if they involve individuals that are here, I would be happy to.
Chairman Plummer:. I can't answer whether they are or not.
Commissioner. Teele: They, really don't.
Chairman Plummer: If you want, go ahead. I don't think —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I've given out a' memo which
essentially states that in the last Commission meeting, pursuant to my request and the
60 SEPTEMBER 28, ,1999
Commission agreement that there would be a report provided to us, and that this item would be
placed on the Agenda. The item is not on the Agenda. However, the report was passed out. Mr.
Chairman, I take exception to the fact that here, once again, we put the citizens in the position of
appearing as if they're imposing themselves on the Commission when, in fact, the Government
duly noted that they would be here today in the morning, and I asked specifically that it be placed
here. I don't want to make that an issue. The real issue is this absolutely insulting report that is
before us. And I would like to just let the people that are here speak. But this report, in summary
says we're getting ready to get ready.
Chairman Plummer: Where is the report?
Chairman Plummer: And it's a report that is entitled— it's been passed out — it's entitled "The
Status of Miami Limited and Section 8 Housing." And if you go to the bottom line, essentially
what it says is that a meeting is being scheduled to be chaired by Carey Meek and representatives
of the City and the County to discuss the Miami Limited and the overall revitalization of the
neighborhood. And, in fact, we don't have a plan to relocate these people that we're prepared to
discuss now. And I -- You know, again, the last time we were here a month ago, before we
broke for the summer, we asked that a plan be put together to provide specifically for the
relocation. We talked about the fact that the plan would include payment, up front payment of
funds so that when they move into these apartments — when they move into the apartments that
they're not going to be out of pocket on the deposit, you know, the front, first and the last, and the
security deposit. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to reflect that this matter began in March of
last year — April of last year, when we all went out there and met. Subsequent to March or April
of last year, the County, the County Government, in the same area, has gone in and relocated one
hundred percent (100%) of all of the people under Section 8 under their program. They had about
the same number as we did. They had over 100 people out there. They have gone in, and
inspected, and done all of the stuff that we're talking about here, and they've relocated every one
of the people that are there on 60`h Street, 61', 59m Street, while we've been talking about this.
We all went out there. In fact, that was Mayor Carollo. I commend him. He was out there. That
was, you know, two weeks after he had just been put back into office. And I really appreciated
the fact that the Mayor took time. You were the Police Chief at the time, Chief Warshaw. You
went out there. We all sat around in April of last year. There were huge Miami Herald reports
about this thing. Judge Peterson was there. We all sat, we talked, we talked, we talked, we
talked, we talked. And now, we want to have some more talks. And I'm going to be very honest
with you. The next picket line, the next demonstration line needs to be directed at the City of
Miami and the Federal Government for the failure to hold these people -- The conditions the
people are living in are unsanitary, they are unsafe, they're intolerable. And every one of these
people ought to rush out and get lawyer, and sue the City of Miami, and sue the Federal
Government, every one of them.
(APPLAUSE)
Commissioner Teele: Every one of them. And enough is enough. These people have lived here.
The fact that the County has come in and moved them out is enough. None of these people
should have been forced to live there. There's a shooting and a killing virtually every month.
Just — what was it? — a month ago, on Father's Day — that was more than a month ago.
Unidentified Speaker: No. That was — the recent one that we had was when that little girl got
stabbed on 6151, on the corner of that project place.
61 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: I mean, we have maintained these people in an unsafe, immoral condition
that they should not be forced to live in. This is the same area, Commissioner Gort and
Commissioner Plummer that Mr. Fair went to the Governor and called for a state of emergency.
They had the police out there; the barricades. This is not a new problem is what I'm saying.
Now, I've just been elected to office within the last two years. But the fact of the matter is, is that
I feel a sense of pure responsibility, and there is no one that they can hold accountable. They
come down here, they hear from the Manager, they hear from us, they go — they talk to the
Mayor. There's nobody who will take the action and will move this action forward. The young
boy — the young woman that was killed just the other day — the baby stabbing, that happened right
at — right in these apartments. This is within the last three weeks, the last month. You had a man
go in there and stab a woman to death with a baby, and the baby was stabbed, too.
Evangelist Variety: The baby was killed. The baby is dead.
Commissioner Teele: The baby is dead. The baby is dead. And I mean, we are responsible. At
some point, the buck has got to stop somewhere.
Evangelist Variety: Amen.
Commissioner Teele: And this is the responsibility of the City of Miami. And as far as I'm
concerned, the City of Miami is negligent, is culpable, and is literally responsible for the deaths
of these people, and responsible for the conditions that these people are living under.
Evangelist Variety: Praise the Lord.
Commissioner Teele:. This is an outrage. This is an absolute outrage.
(APPLAUSE)
Commissioner Teele: And one year is enough time to solve the problem. But for us to break to
come here and hear these people in July, and ask for a plan to relocate them, and the plan that we
have been presented is -- that we're going to have a meeting to write a plan — is an insult, not only
to these people, it's an insult to this Commission. And if it's not an insult to this Commission, it
is an insult to this Commissioner, who is elected to represent these people. I will not, Mr.
Attorney -- Mr. Attorney, I will not be, careful about my remarks, because I want to put it on the
record. Everybody who lives in these houses should go out and get a lawyer, and sue the City of
Miami for our failure to protect your lives.
(APPLAUSE)
Evangelist Variety: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, what is it you wish to do today?
Commissioner Teele: I wish that ,these people — these outstanding citizens that live in our
communiy -- We are the landlord. Let's be very clear. Miami Limited may own the buildings,
but we have a contract. We pay people. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, of budget dollars go to
the City of Miami to administer this project. This is not where we're just a casual onlooker and
observer. We are responsible for this condition. And we need to be responsible, the same way a
landlord would be responsible for what is going on in their building. We do not own the building.
Miami Limited owns the building. But Miami Limited has a contract, a HAP (Housing
62 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Assistance Program) contract, which we administer, which we getpaid, by the way, to administer
from the Federal Government. We receive dollars to insure that these people are not treated this
way. And for us to be on notice for over a year, a year and almost six months -- For the County
to come in behind us -- We're the ones who brought this matter to the forefront. And from
March to December, they literally had moved everybody out. This is an example of not being
able to respond to a problem, after we have gone through this. And the record is replete with
discussion. And I would like for the gentleman and Ms. James, who is the president of the
Association, Ms. James, if you would take the other mike. And Evangelist Variety, if you all
could tell us what you concerns are, and what you all expect.
Evangelist Variety: Yes. Good afternoon. First of all, as I told you before, I don't come here
playing no games. I don't disrespect you. But I want you to hear what I got to say, because this
has already left that area. They already are in the makings of being prepared with the proper
attorneys now. And I want to make this statement, because I'm the authorized representative. So
I have to say these things on behalf of the people. In reference to the Miami -Dade Community
Outreach Committee, which is the committee that is representing the citizens throughout Dade
County in all areas, and we're trying to do it the right way. And I'm happy that I can be the one
and that I was chosen, because I want to make sure that it's fair on both sides. And like I
explained to them, I don't mind going and saying something, but the hostility and all of the
ignorance, I don't want to be involved with, you know. I've been with the Manager. I've
explained to him that I would like to be able to do what I can to balance this as a liaison, which I
was instructed to do years back, Mr. Teele, which you know with Ms. Reno, when Ms. Reno had
me the community street coordinator for her. She is aware of what's going on now, the actions
that I've taken. I'm going to read the statement to you. And I have a document here which I
spoke to you about. I think it's only fair that you be made aware, because they're talking about
forget them, and this, that and the other. But I'm not in the "forget them" process. I don't want
to be "Evangelist" in front of my name if I'm acting like something that's not respectful to what it
represents. So if these ladies will give me a moment, and everyone please take a second to listen
to what I have to say, because you're not aware of what I'm saying, as well, and I think it's only
fair that everybody be up on what's happening. First of all, I'm representing 1370 and all of the
buildings in that community. My name is Evangelist Lee Variety, and I'm the Chairman of
Community Outreach Committee for Miami -Dade. And we're here representing the black
American poor and the needy citizens. And in behalf of the officials for the City and the County,
I do agree that if you can work to save the circle, then you -should be able to work to save human
beings, especially those human beings that live in the communities that I'm representing, because
I know that there's been enough time done in reference to making this thing right. There are
grants being received for Tallahassee for, like you say, the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra
and all these things. And I'm for that. I think that's all great. But I also feel that people come
first. And there has been major disrespect and neglect, and there is activities taking place now.
We're also here to express our resentment to the other activities that are taking place in our
community that's causing the suffering of the black children, the black mothers and the poor and
the needy that are in the black community, whether they're black or not, because they suffer
along with those who live in that community, because their pain and agony is reflected on to
them, which is unfair. And you need to keep that in regard, as well, because we don't want to
cause no major catastrophe or major problems coming into the Y2K situation, which is slowly
creeping upon us. That's something else we need to be in regard with. And if these families are
to be moved to somewhere else, they need to be moved to somewhere that's Y2K compliant, as
well, so that when it do get to that point, if there is a problem, they'll have lights and the things
that are needed in order for them to raise babies, small babies and children, because most of these
mothers, they have a lot of small babies. I also would like to express from the committee that
there is a lawsuit that has been filed. It's already filed. It's been filed since August. It's filed
63 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
against the City of Miami, and it's filed against the partners, which is Dade County, as well. And
it's filed based upon these actions and based upon other actions that made a living reality for the
people who live in these poor areas that you do not experience. So, see, you're not experienced
in going through that, because you talk about it, but you don't live it. And now, it needs to be
brought to a higher level. This information was also passed on, and there's a lot of resentment.
And we feel, also, that in regards to the problems that happened that— which is for the little baby
that was stabbed to death — that if you would have removed the people out of there as we came
here and very courteously asked you to do, then it would not have been possible for a child to be
stabbed to death in nowhere in the vicinity in those buildings, because they would not have been
there. And that should be simple mathematics for City Commissioners to be able to add up.
Secondly, we're here hoping that you will provide these mothers with the Section 8 vouchers that
are necessary. And I would be willing to work along with you, with this lawsuit, which is filed
now in Federal Court. Like I said, I'll let you see the documentation. Out there, I was told not to,
but I said if I'm the authorized representative, then I'm doing it how I see to do it for them having
me to represent them, because I want to do it right. I don't want to do it where it's like someone
is to benefit, just because of the fact that someone else is down. We're trying to solve the
problems, and correct the problems in this community, not increase or hold one or the other
down. And it's not here with any animosity, or disregard, or prejudice to anyone. It's only
dealing with facts and right. Also, I'm hoping that the City will respond in reference to our
community to the issue which was — just took place in our community. Because, see, there are
things that happened, and all of this relates to it, because if you do not give the community the
things that they need, then you cause other things to boomerang off of that effect, which is one of
the issues that we're fighting, also, that has to do with Mr. Antonio Butler, a young child that was
just killed, because of the fact that something went wrong in reference to the policies that police
officers have to abide by. And then I think that it's a disgrace that when there was a request for
you all to speak on this child's behalf, none of you showed up. No police officers was
reprimanded. And I'm hoping that you will understand, and that you'll look into this case and let
justice be served in a way to where if a person is charged with something and it's to that big of a
regard to the people who elect you that you'll remove that person. Not only that, fire that person
and charge that person, like you would charge me or anybody else until he is proven innocent.
When he's proven innocent, then you put him back. But it should be done. But -- just to make
this short. I would like to see these families taken out of here. Right now, you have a Federal
lawsuit that you're filed in. There's other people in it, as well, because we're holding everyone
accountable that's involved with this. And at this time, I'm willing to work with you any way
that I can. I've also talked to the heads of our boards, let them know that, look, we have to work
with the Commissioners, because you guys are citizens, as well. You're doing a job. It's not like
you —
Marilyn Williams: Excuse me. We have a few of us that want to speak, and we also want to let
Ms. Warren let us know what steps that we are, because —
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, ma'am. He has the floor. Out of courtesy, I would ask that you
allow him to finish. We will then recognize you. But I think we need to remember, everybody,
that we break at noon, and we do have a 1:15 meeting scheduled.
Ms. Williams: That's the point. And that's in three minutes.
Chairman Plummer: After we have to have lunch.
Evangelist Variety: OK. So what I'll do is like --
64 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Evangelist, I would ask you, please, to wrap up your comments, and then
we'll let the lady speak.
Evangelist Variety: Yes, sir. But as I was saying, someone, please, look into this issue of what's
taking place with the families on 61'. We talked about it enough. We don't need to talk about it
no more. We need to move them out. There are other incidents that are taking place, and there's
going to be more casualties. And you'll have to hold yourselves responsible if you're the ones
that's sitting there, causing them to be delayed and staying where they're at. Also, in closing, I
would just like to say that I'll show this document to someone, since they have something that is
more important than the fact of getting this settled; that this lawsuit is filed, and it also names a
lot of officials.
Chairman Plummer: You have a document that's being requested by the City Attorney, please,
sir.
Evangelist Variety: OK. The City Attorney can review the document. There's no problem. I'm
hereto, like I said, to work it out with you.
Chairman Plummer: And just for the record, he has indicated —
Commissioner Teele: But if it's a lawsuit, it's filed in court. Everybody in the world can review
it.
Evangelist Variety: That's right.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, I'm passing on the request of the City Attorney.
Evangelist Variety: No problem. OK, I'll read you the document, the front page, so you'll
understand.
Commissioner Teele: No, that's all right. You don't have to read it.
Evangelist Variety: OK, if you just want to hear it.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. I thank you very much. And we'll now-- Ladies, can one of
you be designated as a spokesman? Is that possible?
Ms. Williams: Well, my name is Marilyn Williams. I'm a resident of the 1501 on 59'h Street. I
furnished a letter here requesting —
Chairman Plummer: We have the copy here, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Williams: -- what we wanted, what we need, and what we expected from our Commission
office, if y'all supposed to be our Commission office. We comparing this with the letter we also
received from Arthur Teele on his memo. What we really concerned about is since it's the 281h of
September, and an inspection was done on the 20'h of September, where are we going now? Is we
going to prolong us to where we have'to still stay where we're staying until somebody come up
with a plan? We have plans, which is move our kids out of the area that we in, and move on to a
better life. So now we're asking, if we don't get the help from you, do we go to a higher office?
Chairman Plummer: Go where?
65 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Williams: To,a higher office. Because it's— we prolonging. We getting no answers from
the City. As we come to the Commissioner, I think, you know, Plummer be a little rude to us.
Get what you want, get out. We did that on the last meeting. So now we're back here for the
same reason and purpose. I feel we shouldn't continue running.
Commissioner Teele: I don't think Commissioner Plummer intended to be rude. That's why I
did the memo. The position you all are always put in is it makes it look like you're coming down
here without informing. You all had informed the Housing people before you were coming. It
was not put on the Agenda. I informed the Management in an open Commission meeting in the
last -- And that's — Commissioner Plummer is only doing his job. So I don't want you to put on
the record that he's being rude. If you're not on the Agenda, then, you know, he's within his
rights to say, "Say what you got to say and move on," because -- but it's not his fault. We have a
systems problem here. And so I just wanted to speak to that issue. But the point that you're
making makes a lot of sense. You've asked us for the vouchers. You've asked us for repeatedly.
You've asked us for a plan. You've asked that repeatedly. And you have a very intelligent, very
well written letter. And I want to express my public appreciation to allof you, the four of you,
Ms. James, Ms. Williams, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Cooper for writing such an intelligent and well
written letter. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Ms. Warren, see if you can help us.
Ms. Williams: Yeah, because we'd really like a time --
Chairman Plummer: Ms. Warren.
Ms. Williams: -- we can get out besides waiting till December
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, while Ms. Warren is coming, I want to correct one thing for
everybody here. We are the Commissioners. We only make policy. We don't issue vouchers.
The Manager issues vouchers. OK? And'part of the problem that this City has is that you all
continue to come here, as you should. We are the Commissioners to petition. When we give
instructions, or the Mayor gives instructions, it should be very clear that those instructions are
going to be followed out or there's going to be an explanation. Please don't feel like the
Commission doesn't care, or my colleagues, because we're sitting here through lunch, as we've
done before. We can only instruct the Manager. My view, candidly, is if you want to get some
decisions made, I will give you the Mayor's address and the Mayor's home address, and I think if
you all start demonstrating and letting the Mayor know what your concerns are, then you will get
some action. Because it's very clear that the Commission is not being able to direct the
Management to solve this problem. What is the Mayor's address, by the way?
Chairman Plummer: 3500 Pan American Drive.
Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. J.L., see, don't be cute with me. I'm very serious. I am very
serious about this.
Chairman Plummer: You asked for the Mayor's?
Commissioner Teele: No, J.L., I'm very serious about this. These people are entitled to get some
action. And if they have to -- They've been to 3500 Pan American Drive.
66 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Did you not ask the Mayor's address?
Commissioner Teele: I said, "What is the Mayor's address?" Where does the Mayor live?
Chairman Plummer: All I can tell you, it's on Natoma.
Commissioner Teele: It's a matter of public record.
Chairman Plummer: It's on Natoma. The number, I don't know.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Clerk, give us the address as to where the Mayor lives, because if these
people want to get some action, all they need to do is do like everybody does in New York City,
or Chicago, or Washington, D.C., where you have a strong Mayor. You go there, you protest.
You can protest in front of my house, too, as far as I'm concerned. I live-- No, no, no. I'live at
1000 North River Drive, right behind the Travel Lodge Hotel, right in front of where the Winn -
Dixie is being built over there, over there by Jackson. If you all want to come protest there, 1
would welcome you. OK? If you want to protest in front of the Mayor's house, I would give you
his address. It's a matter of public record. Because until this City understands that you cannot
keep shuffling people around the way we have shuffled these people around, then things are
going to be the same. And all that I'm saying is that the Mayor's residence and every
Commissioner's residence is a matter of public record.
Evangelist Variety: May I have it, sir?
Commissioner Teele: I'm going to ask the Clerk to give it to me, because it's filed there.
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, sir. We had asked —
Commissioner Teele: They have been to 3500 Pan American Drive. They have been here
enough. And they have not gotten any satisfactory action.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, I understood you to ask the Mayor's address for mailing. Now, I did
not understand you to say his residential.
Commissioner Teele: That's exactly what I said.
Chairman Plummer: And had I heard — sir, please. Sir, I gave you the courtesy. I did not
interrupt you.
Commissioner Teele: J.L., there's a difference between an Executive Mayor and a Strong Mayor.
I'm not telling you that Mayor Carollo can do anything different from us. But one thing is for
sure. The Management listens to him much more than they listen to us. OK? And somebody --
The lady wants to know where do you go higher? Technically, the Mayor is higher, because he's
the spokesperson of the City. And I would welcome and recommend that you go to the Mayor's
office, and that you go to the Federal HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
office, and you basically put up signs and denounce Secretary Como for letting you live in these
conditions. Because at the end of the day, Secretary Como and President Clinton are the two
people responsible for these contracts. It is time for you all to move this to another level. That's
what I'm telling you.
(APPLAUSE)
67 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney wishes to be recognized. Mr. City Attorney, you have
the floor.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): OK. The sunshine law, public records law exempts former
law enforcement officials in the disclosure of their home address. I don't know if the Mayor has
waived or not. But it certainly —
Commissioner Teele: The last time I checked the Charter, Mr. Attorney, every person who runs
for Mayor must be a resident of the City, and it must be filed with the Clerk, the last time I
checked the Charter. Now, do you have a different Charter?
Mr. Vilarello: There is an exemption —
Commissioner Teele: For the Mayor, there is an exemption?
Mr. Vilarello: There is an exemption for former law enforcement officials. However, if he's
registered with the City Clerk, that, independently, is a public record.
Chairman Plummer: Ms. Warren, you have the floor.
Ms. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development Department): Whoa. First thing
I'd like to say is this has probably been the best work I've ever done in my career. Obviously,
there's some misunderstanding about the nature of the report that was written, and what was its
intent. Apparently, I didn't write it clearly enough. But it is not a report to talk about doing a
report. What my intentions were was to say that the last time we all met, we informed you that
we would be doing a final inspection on September 20`h. That final inspection has been
completed. Everybody here in the audience, I think, has been provided a copy, but if you have
not, my staff will make a copy available to you. What it goes on to say is that per Commission
recommendations and our legal counsel, given that a significant number of the units failed again,
after the third inspection, we were directed as staff to get an independent contractor to come in
and to review our work. That is being done as we sit here right now. That contractor has been
selected. We also have asked Dade County to come in and do a random review of all the files to
make sure we did have an air tight case. That is being done as we sit here right now. We've also
met' with HUD, because the issue is everybody is committed to you having a clear and clean
quality of life. The problem is this: The money that currently provides your rent and the money
that we will use to relocate you in the event that we're directed to do so will come out of that
contract. It is imperative that we do something with that contract. At this point in time, what
we've done is we've met with USHUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development). What they have told us is that we will be able to provide not only vouchers, but
also, what everybody is very concerned about is relocation assistance. Because at this point in
time, even if we are able to — and we can at this point — relocate some of the families out, what
we're able to provide you is the same amount that you are receiving where you're currently
living. The issue that the Commission has directed, and rightfully so, is that we provide you
relocation assistance. Everybody knows about first, last and security deposit, a phone bill, water
bill, and utilities being cut on. We do not have those resources. We have met with the Federal
Government. What they have told us is this: You can take those monies out of your
administrative reserves. We have met with them. We met with them on two different occasions.
We now have our Finance staff, plus the US Department of HUD trying to identify how much.
money'we will have. So what we're doing right now, we're doing the final inspections. The
units again failed. We've identified a pot of money that we could use for relocation assistance.
68 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
We will be verifying that amount of money, bringing it back to the Commission at a date certain,
to be able to not only provide you a voucher, but also some relocation support. We do have a
contract with an organization that will assist us in identifying affordable housing for you. That
organization is Hope. We have contacted Dade County, the organization that has already had
experience in relocating people. They have said that they will provide us support to assist you.
We've contacted HRS (Department of Housing and Rehabilitative Services): They're going to
provide services to assist you. We contacted job placement agencies. There again, where we're
at, at this point is we're in the final stages of bringing something together. What Commissioner
Teel said is correct. This situation has gone on too long. And one year ago, it was brought to the
City's attention, to his and my Administration. And two months ago, three months ago, we
started this quest to,get you relocated.- The thing that I would like to emphasize is that this has
one on for 12 years. And in the last two months, we have done more work to identify money,
resources to do on -site inspections, to be able to deal with that contract. Again, I understand your
frustration. We're almost where we said. My commitment, the Administration's commitment,
the directions of the Commission have been followed to the letter. My last statement I would like
to make is we were directed at the last Commission meeting workshop on Saturday to place this
on the Commission Agenda. It is on the Commission's Agenda. It is a supplemental item. It is
S-2. So I did not neglect my responsibility to make sure that you were to be heard today. You
are a Commission Agenda item. And again, the van is still there. We are still working. I know
this has been difficult, but I would -- Again, there is no excuse. But we're three months into this,
and not 12 years into it. And I think that this Administration has worked diligently to solve a
problem that's taken a decade to deal with.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Warren: And we do intend to make our Christmas deadline.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, the Manager has asked to have the floor, but Commissioners
always take priority.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I want to just correct the record. The Miami Herald
reported in March and April of last year — we passed out copies — we're 18 months into this.
That's number one. Number two - I'm saying since we've acknowledged it and recognized it.
From the time I have been elected here, which is literally just less than two years, we have
basically tried to deal with this issue. The County -- My frustration -- And if this is our best
work — I mean, Ms. Warren, I have a high personal regard for you, but this is not our best work.
This is not your best work. You've done much better work that I've seen, and it's to your,
compliment that you can. The frustration that I have and that everybody has is that the County
started after the City began in March and April of last year. When -we held those meetings, we
held them at Jordan Grove Baptist Church, Ms. Warren, you were there with us, in Reverend
Cook's church. That was when Mayor Carollo had just come back into office. Don Warshaw
was the Chief of Police. And I commended him then for taking time out for being there. But this
has not been a year now. This has been 18 months, roughly. Secondly, Ms. Warren, what this
Commission instructed you to do and instructed the Management to do was in July, before we
broke, to return with a plan, in the event that they failed the contract, to relocate them— OK? — to
return with a plan. And I will get the precise wording from the Clerk's office. I want to read in
the record what your plan is. A draft of — this is as of today. A draft of a City plan should be
completed by mid -October. That's the timetable. We asked. for that plan in September, and
that's what I'm responding to. Secondly, in this document that you have put out, you said that
you have requested from Federal HUD information about the City's Section 8 Mod. Rehab.
Well, the point .is this: You're anticipating that that will be back by the end of August or
69 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
November. So we're now beginning to look in November. And finally, what you've been saying
is that the plan will be written at some point in the future. What we're looking for, and what I'm
going to ask the City Attorney for, to present a resolution tonight during the budget hearing, so
that we can pass it is for the City Commission to resolve that should the audit— and I think, you
know, we've already had an audit, we've had a re -audit, and now, we're re -auditing the re -audit.
So let's be clear about what we're doing. And I commend you, Mr. Manager and Mr. Attorney,
for having a re -audit done. I mean not a re -audit, but an audit of the re -audit, because you're
going to need expert witnesses in court, and you're going to need that. But there's no reason that
things can't be done concurrently. That's two things at once. The re -audit of the audit, or the
audit of the re -audit doesn't have to stop anything. Everything else should be able to move
forward. And so what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, if there is a will of the majority, is to
authorize the Management, should the Attorney and the Manager agree that Miami Limited is in
default of the contract that they can proceed with the relocation of all of the persons immediately,
without further coming to the Commission for approval, and that they will simply advise the
Commission in writing of the actions, et cetera. However, that they will come to the Commission
in the next Commission meeting with a full and comprehensive plan for the relocation, should the
Miami Limited fail to pass the test. Now, Ms. Warren, I'd like to know, is thatacceptable to you?
That we give the Manager the carte blanche authority, should in the opinion of the Manager and
the attorney that the gentleman is in violation or in breach of the contract? And Mr. Attorney, the
same question.
Mr. Vilarello: The first part of your question, Commissioner, you're saying if and only if we
come to the conclusion — that is the City Attorney —
Commissioner Teele: The City Manager and the City Attorney jointly agree.
Mr. Vilarello: That Miami Limited, too, is in default, then you're granting to the Manager
authority to act without further authorization by the City Commission.
Commissioner Teele: Immediately, without further coming to the Commission for authority.
Mr. Vilarello: With regard to that part, I certainly don't believe that we have a problem.
Chairman Plummer: To.act and to do what?
Commissioner Teele: To act and to implement the plan, which is to relocate the persons.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Mr. Manager, do you wish to be heard?
Commissioner Teele: And further, the second part is they come back in the first meeting in
October with a completed plan.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Manager.
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): I'd just like to address my comments to the citizens
who are here. You know, Gwen Warren, who is our Director of Community Development has
spent the better part of her adult life helping people, helping poor people. And I want to tell you,
so you hear it from me. And I understand the frustration and I certainly understand
Commissioner Teele's frustration. But I want you to know that you've got a friend and an
advocate here who is so committed to getting this done, if it was up to us 100 percent (100%),
we'd move you out of there today. Unfortunately, we're kind of locked into a process where
70 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
we've got to do certain things before we're in a position to accelerate getting those vouchers. But
I want you to hear it from me. Gwen Warren not only is a friend, but again, has spent her life
doing things like this. And we are going to get you moved out of there. 1 give you my word of
honor on that. And just bear with us a little bit longer, and it's going to happen.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Teele, I assume that which you've proffered before was in
the form of a motion.
Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir, it is, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: And I'm assuming that Commissioner Gort has no problem with the motion.
Vice Chairman Gort: But I'd like to add to it.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Now, Mr. Gort, under discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: What I would like to do — and Warren is right. This is a problem that's
been taking for years where people make their money in doing the rehab. in all these buildings,
and then they don't have any maintenance. Any contract that we do from now on, I want to make
sure that in their budget, there's enough funds in there for the maintenance of the buildings. And
I think this is something we need to do, and we need to inspect all of the buildings that are under
this situation in the City of Miami, in all the neighborhoods.
Ms. Warren: We are.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Do you wish to be heard? We got a motion on the floor. You
have two minutes.
Cassandra Jackson: OK. My name is Cassandra Jackson. I'm a resident of the 1370 Building.
I've been here several times with the other tenants. The reason why we keep coming here is
because these families, along with my family, were left in limbo. OK? We understand that it's a
process, but during that process, these families are suffering. We are suffering. The City said
they was going to bring out water. You have seven people that tested positive for lead. We still
have not received water. We have pipes in the walls that's busting, leaky floors, leaky ceilings.
And you got people that are being penalized because they go out -- The water people come out
and take out their meter, because their bill is excessive, and they don't have the money to pay it.
But they go and they get another meter, and they put it inside of that room, so that their children
or their family could have water to survive, to bathe or whatever they need it for. And then
they're being penalized, sent eviction notices because they're in the condition that they're in, and
it's not fair. It's not fair at all. We're still there. I understand that it's a process. Like you said,
Mr. Warshaw, that you came out and you seen the conditions that we live in. But have you spent
the night there? Have you been there overnight? Have you seen the families suffer?. You
haven't. Could you stay there in a week enduring that? Well, these families have, and they still
are. I ask that you expedite this right now. I ask that this be done now. I mean, we are in limbo,
and it's not fair. You have the power. You have the power. The City Commission has the power
to stop this. You are the landlords now. This man, Art Martinez, has not done his job. He's had
due process, and due process, time and time again. And these apartments still seem to fail.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am. We're about to lose a vote.
Ms. Lottie Mitchell Hines: I'll wait till you vote.
71 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Unidentified Speaker: Let me say something before you vote.
Chairman Plummer: You want to call the roll? Call the question. Call the question.
Mr. Vilarello: On the motion, I'll prepare a resolution based on the motion.
Chairman Plummer: All right.. Call the question.
Commissioner Teele: All those in favor?
Mr. Vilarello: The motion, as I understand it, is if and only if the City Manager and City
Attorney determine that there is a default under the Agreement that you are authorizing the City
Manager to take any appropriate action with ' regard to relocation without further authorization
from the City Commission.
Chairman Plummer: And it's their sole judgment.
Commissioner Teele: And to advise the Commission of any action that you take.
Mr. Vilarello: And provide for advice of the Commission in the event that he takes that action.
Chairman Plummer: Call the roll. .
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-712
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND
CITY ATTORNEY TO MEET TO' DETERMINE WHETHER MIAMI
LIMITED IS IN DEFAULT OF ITS CONTRACT IN CONNECTION WITH
SECTION 8 HOUSING FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1320, 1321
AND 1370 NORTHWEST 61ST STREET FOR FAULURE TO MAINTAIN
SAID PROPERTIES IN A STATE OF HABITABILITY; FURTHER STATING
THAT IF BOTH CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY AGREE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE REGARDING THE ABOVE CITED, THEN THE MANAGER
SHALL PROCEED TO RELOCATE RESIDENTS OF SAID LOCATIONS
AND ADVISE THE COMMISSION IN WRITING OF SAME; FURTHER
INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT THE DIRECTOR OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO COME BACK
TO THE CITY COMMISSION (AT THE FIRST MEETING OF OCTOBER
1999) WITH A FULL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDED THAT THE
INSPECTIONS FOR SAID PROPERTIES PROVE THAT MIAMI LIMITED
FAILED THE TEST.
72 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Chairman Plummer: Now, before I let you all speak, back up everything at least 30 minutes. The
CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) will now be at 1:45.
Commissioner Teele: What time was it scheduled?
Chairman Plummer: 1:15, wasn't it?
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): 1:15. It was scheduled for 1:15.
Chairman Plummer: One -one -five. So back it up a half hour, and the City Commission will
reconvene at 2:30 if we get finished in the next five minutes. If not, we'll redirect again. Yes,
ma'am. For the record, your name and mailing address, please.
Ms. Hines: I'm Lottie Mitchell Hines, a community activist, 7631 17`h Avenue. I would just like
to say that Ms. Cassandra, she said come up and speak, but they spoke what they felt, what the
needs are, and what was pertaining to them. And to them, they're the only ones who can really
explain it right. But, you know, when I look at the Commission, I see you sitting there, and I see
Commissioner Teele, who is definitely, I believe, is for his people. But when those seats get
empty, you know, we have no one to talk to.. And I really have to say this, because I resent that
fact. You have a whole room full of individuals here. And in order to get what they feel, you'll
never know if individuals just, you know, empty the seats. I commend Ms. Warren on her work,
and especially Commissioner Teele on trying to make sure that this community hear exactly
what's going on. And we need to understand that our community has — the devastation is there.
And if the Commission is here to help those individuals, we're looking forward for that help,
because those individuals, when they have to watch a mother run with a baby in her hand, and get
it stabbed in her arm to death, that's a lot to have to endure with. They're walking outside of their
doors. There are in lying on the floors, all stabbed or shot. Those kids have to go
through that constantly. I'm not holding the Commission responsible for the person who killed
somebody, but the condition those families live in, because they cannot move anywhere else,
because they don't have the funds to do so. Now, I understand you made the vote, the voucher
system. And are we saying — I want it clear in my mind — how many more weeks do I have to
turn around and have another meeting with them, and we sit and we talk, and everybody air their
concern? How many more weeks are we going to be -- I don't want to have to just keep running
down here looking at you all.
Chairman Plummer: Ma'am, ma'am, you asked your question
Ms. Hines: OK.
73 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Let's see if we can get you an answer. Ms. Warren.
Ms. Warren: Again, the answer may not be a popular one, but the current schedule that we're on,
we should probably be sitting down, having another meeting about mid -October, and at which
point, we should have some definitive — which is about three weeks — and at that point, we should
be having some firm answers on everything and what our options are _ money, financing,
relocation, the whole nine yards.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Ms. Warren: But that's about our clock.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Hines: All right. The next question is this: In the meantime, who is going to contact Mr.
Martinez and tell him of his illegal evictions that is going on? And if they just —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Atttorney, can you answer the question?
Ms. Hines: -- little of anything he's seeing -- That's none of your business?
Mr. Vilarello: We are addressing all the contract issues directly with Mr. Martinez and his
counsel, and we have been in constant contact in that regard. And that's how we have to proceed.
Ms. Warren: And again, as regards to — we've notified everybody in writing. We put fliers on
your doors. We provided you a flier to legal aid and what the legal process is for evictions.
We've given you a number. You need to call Legal Aid, and they're prepared to assist anybody
who feels that they're being improperly evicted. And that's the best that we can do. We did give
you the information. You need to make that call, and they're prepared to assist you.
Ms. Hines: So frankly speaking, we need to do a rent strike, right? And put all the monies in
legal services. Is that — is -- ?
Mr. Vilarello: I can't provide you personal legal advice on that issue. In fact, already,
individuals have come before the City Commission and advised us of a lawsuit that's been filed.
I've just been provided a copy of it. I can't give you personal legal advice. However, the
attorneys at Legal Services can.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Hines: All right, Mr. Plummer. It just seems— you know, I get devastated, and I don't even
live there.
Chairman Plummer: Well, ma'am, we're trying to get you the answers to the questions that
you're asking. That's all I can do. I can't do any more.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
74 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: I recommend that we come back at 2 o'clock, in fairness to the
Commissioners. I know that it's very difficult. And that we limit the CRA meeting to 15
minutes.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, I cannot be back if you're going to have a CRA meeting. And I
have to go to my office. It's going to be 2:30 at least, sir.
Commissioner Teele: All right. Then we come back at 2:30 and we limit the CRA activities
strictly to the budget and whatever is presented.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir, if that's what you wish. I've always acquiesced to you and the
Chairman of the CRA. This Commission stands in adjournment until 2:30.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The Commission went into recess at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened
at 2:25 p.m., with all members of the Commission found to be present, excepting Commissioner
Teele and Vice Chairman Gort.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Sanchez has asked for 15 minutes. I will give any of the
waste haulers who wish to speak or their legal counsel — I'd like to say three minutes, but I'm
going to say five, and hope they can reduce it from five. Once that is completed, we will open it
up to the public; who I will hold to the usual two minutes per person forthe public. Now, would
you tell the guy in the yellow shirt over there -- Move over, sir, because I'm going to make an
announcement right now that you're liable to get mobbed. Anybody that wishes to speak, please
register with the Clerk. If you want to be heard today in reference to waste haulers, either public
sector or as a waste hauler, I'm going to ask you to sign up with the Clerk, and you will be called
accordingly as you sign up. Again, budget will start after 5:05 this afternoon, including thefire
fee. The NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) of Flagami has been cancelled until the next
meeting.
21. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SD-2 COCONUT
GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO MODIFY BONUS PROVISIONS IN
ORDER TO DELETE PROVISION. FOR COMMUNITY THEATRE BONUSES AND
GRANDFATHER EXISTING SPACES.
Chairman Plummer: As soon as I get a third Commissioner, there is a request to defer PZ
(Planning & Zoning) Item 12, and it is a City item, and it has been agreed upon and will be put
over until November.
75 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following motion -was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-713
A MOTION CONTINUING AGENDA ITEM, PZ-12 (PROPOSED
AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6,
SECTION 602, SD-2, COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT TO MODIFY THE BONUS PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO
DELETE THE PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY THEATRE BONUSES AND
GRANDFATHER EXISTING SPACES BY ALLOWING SUCH SPACES TO
BE CONVERTED TO OTHER USES GENERALLY PERMITTED WITHIN
THE SD-2 DISTRICT) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER
23, 1999.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Clerk, do I.have any other announcements that I really need to make?
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): I don't know.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
(AUDIO INTERRUPTION IN MAGNETIC TAPE)
22. APPROVE REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT - BETWEEN CITY AND
PERRICONE'S MARKETPLACE (RESTAURANT) ON MIAMI AVENUE.
Chairman Plummer: -- furnished all of you with a Perricone's Market, which comes with the
approval of the Administration. -Does anybody have a problem? Mr. Sanchez moves it. Mr.
Regalado seconds it. It's a resolution, correct?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's a resolution for what?
Commissioner Sanchez: And the City Administration approves it?
Chairman Plummer: Yes.
Dena Bianchino (Asssistant City Manager): We're getting a very good return.
76 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Yeah. We're getting a source of income. Mr. City Attorney, do you have a
problem, sir?
Mr. Vilarello: As long as it's an authorization for a revocable license subject to the City's— my
approval.
Chairman Plummer: That's exactly what it is, sir.
Ms. Bianchino: And the City Manager is authorized to —
Chairman Plummer: And it comes with the City Manager's and Administration's approval.
Ms. Bianchino: And the City, Manager's authorizing to enter into an Agreement.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Whatever wording you need. All right. All in favor of that, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition?
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved .its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-714
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A REVOCABLE LICENSE
AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY,
WITH LA CUCINA MANAGEMENT, INC. DB/A PERRICONE'S
MARKETPLACE, INC., A FOR -PROFIT CORPORATION (THE
"LICENSEE"), FOR THE USE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,144 SQUARE FEET
OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 SOUTHEAST 10TH
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (THE "AREA"), FOR THE PURPOSE OF.
INSTALLING NEW GROUND LEVEL SEATING AND PROVIDING FOOD
AND BEVERAGE SERVICE TO LICENSEE'S PATRONS, AS WELL AS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WITH AN INITIAL
MONTHLY FEE OF $800.00, AND AT ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN THE REVOCABLE LICENSE
AGREEMENT.
77 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
23. REFER TO CODESIGNATION COMMITTEE PROPOSED CODESIGNATION OF
NORTHWEST 43 AVENUE IN HONOR OF RAFAEL ELOREGUI.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado, you have an item on the blue copy of changing the name.
Gentlemen, if you're not registering, we do ask you, please, to come in and have a seat. We also
ask you to turn off any cell phones or any beepers. But we do ask you, please, to come in and
have a seat. No extra charge. Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's approval of the Commission in order to
send it to the Street Codesignation, the naming of Northwest 43'd Avenue from Northwest
Seventh to Northwest Tenth or Ninth, according to the Administration, in honor of Mr. Rafael
Eloregui.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Has that gone before the Memorial Committee, or are you
sending it there?
Commissioner Regalado: We are sending it to the —
Chairman Plummer: All right. Moved by Regalado. Seconded by Sanchez. All in favor, say
"aye
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-715
A MOTION REFERRING TO THE MIAMI STREET CODESIGNATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE A PROPOSED CODESIGNATION OF
NORTHWEST 43RD AVENUE FROM NORTHWEST SEVENTH STREET TO
NORTHWEST TENTH STREET IN HONOR OF MR. RAFAEL ELOREGUI.
78 • I SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was . passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Gort
24. DISCUSSION CONCERNING BAME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTH
FLORIDA (see section #49)
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, if you are ready, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Why don't you go on right ahead and wait till —
Chairman Plummer: Well, I've cleaned up all of the morning matters. If you want, I'll go into
Zoning, if you want.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, if I may bring up one pocket item?
Chairman Plummer: Absolutely, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Please. This involves BAME, and the Public Works Department, and the
City Attorney's Office. Reverend White is here. And it involves a piece of land that the City
owns in which we entered into a contract long before I was elected a Commissioner for the City
with BAME, for them to build a building, housing. Would you explain, please, Reverend white,
what the problem is. Or Mr. Kay, would you explain what the solution is.
Mr. Jim Kay (Director, Public Works): I think that what is needed right now is two resolutions,
possibly this afternoon, that would come back.
Commissioner Teele: Hold on. Let me get the City Attorney, because everybody is basically
saying that the problem is in the —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, if you would, for a minute, please. Again, I'm going to ask
everybody to come in, take a seat, and please give common courtesy to the speakers, if nothing
more so that the Commissioners can hear what's being said. Mr. Teele, proceed.
Mr. Kay: What is needed, really right now, are two resolutions. One, authorize the Manager to
execute a Water and Sewer Agreement with — between the City and Miami -Dade Water and
Sewer Department. The other one is another resolution extending the terms of a certain
Agreement made between BAME and the City of Miami to allow for permits to be pulled while
platting. And we can work on those this afternoon.
Chairman Plummer: Is that anticipated to come back this afternoon before we finish?
79 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Kay: We're working on that right now, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Reverend White, would that be satisfactory?
Reverend John White: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I trust it gets back. Let me try to bring
you all the history. And I'm sure you all know the history. We've been at this project now for
over four years. We broke ground on May 1 '. We — under the assumption that all of the
necessary documents and things was in order, for us to proceed. It appears to us every time we
clear up one item, we find another one. And somehow, between and because of the shifts in
Administrations, it appears that we're in a quagmire here, rather than trying to move a project
along. We have two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of home money that needs to
be spent, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, and it's Federal HOME Loan money that we need to
spend that we've had four extensions on.
Chairman Plummer: Well, Reverend White, I don't mean to cut you short, but I think if you're
winning, you ought to quit. And if this afternoon we don't start to win, then we come back, and
we starting arguing real loud and long.
Reverend White: OK., I trust that you would help me to win this afternoon.
Chairman Plummer: All that ends well is well.
Reverend White: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Vice Chairman Gort entered the Commission Chamber at 2:30
p.m. and the Commission Meeting recessed at 2:31 p.m.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner — excuse me -- Mr. Teele, as Chairman of the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency), sir, you can convene your meeting. I will continue the
meeting of the City Commission until later on this afternoon.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, if I may. One other thing. We've asked all of the commercial
trash haulers who wish to be heard, please, make sure you register your name, so that when we go
into that item, immediately following the item of CRA, I will be calling you as you signed up.
Mr. Teele, I'm sorry. Proceed, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we could change seats: I need Mr. Judy.
Mr. Attorney, don't go too far. Mr. Bloom, if you would take the first and half chair and the
Attorney will take the first chair.
Chairman Plummer: We got one for Judy if you want to put him right here. Oh, OK, that's fine.
All right.
Commissioner Teele: All right why don't— yeah, that's good. City Attorney, you can just take
this chair right here in between.
80 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: THE REGULAR COMMISSON MEETING WAS
TEMPORARILY RECESSED AT 2:31 P.M., AND THE. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) MEETING CONVENED.
81 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
CITY OF MIAMI
COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD' ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE.OF THE. CITY CLERKICITY HALL
Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk
MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST and OMNI
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS
On the 28"' day of September 1999, the Board of Directors of the Southeast
Overtown/Park West and Omni Redevelopment Areas of the City of Miami met at City Hall,
3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida.
The meeting was called to order at 2:32 p.m. by Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. with the
following Board Members found to be present:
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
ALSO PRESENT:
Richard Judy, Executive Director
William Bloom, Esq., Board Counsel
Charlayne Thompkins, Director, Fiscal Operations
25. A) APPROVE, ADOPT BUDGET FOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) FOR OMNI AND SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AREAS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
B) APPROVE FIVE-YEAR BUDGET FOR CRA
C) APPROVE PARKS PROGRAMS FOR GIBSON PARK, REEVES PARK AND
ATHALIE RANGE PARK WITH SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD BONDS FUNDS.
Chairman Teele: The meeting of the Southeast Overtown/Park West and the Omni
Redevelopment Areas of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors meeting is
called to order at 2:32. It is the intent of the Chair to limit the discussion to 28 minutes, and those
matters that are not carried up, well, we're going to move back into the City Agenda.
Board Member Plummer: What happened to the 15?
Chairman Teele: Well, I had agreed, Mr. Judy, to 15 minutes, but I wanted to give enough time.
The purpose of this meeting is primarily to provide approval of the budget of the Redevelopment
Authority as outlined. And the Director is passing out the numbers. Again, these numbers were
submitted as a part of the first reading in the original budget that the Commission had before, and
then they were passed out again a week ago. So these numbers are very familiar. What we
would like to do is try to approve all of the issues relating to finance, with a further caveat that
this budget will be reaffirmed subsequent to the City of Miami and the County acting upon the
tax increment portions of the budget, as well as the Omni Advisory Board, and the Overtown
Advisory Board providing their advice to the Executive Director. Normally, as you have
instructed us, we would present the budget to the advisory boards before they come here.
However, in the interest of time, and trying to ensure that we got everything done in the time
frame, they were not presented to the Omni Board, nor have they been presented to the Overtown
Advisory Board. They will be done, and they will return back to this board for any modifications
82 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
or changes consistent with the actions of the County and the actions of the City. Mr. Judy, would
you introduce the Finacial Director, and would you proceed to explain the budget in any manner
that you would like to for the next,four, five, ten minutes. Pull the mike down, ma'am.
Ms. Charlayne Thompkins: Good afternoon. My name is Charlayne Thompkins, and I -am the
Director of Fiscal Operations for projects and programs for the Community Redevelopment
Agency.
Board Member Plummer: What do you want us to know?
Ms. Thompkins: We presented the budget. Hopefully, you all have a copy of it. There is a
summary that was passed out. Does everyone have a copy of the summary?
Chairman Teele: Divisional summary?
Ms. Thompkins: Yes.
Chairman Teele: OK. Those were passed out by Mr. Judy.
Ms. Thompkins: OK.
Chairman Teele: I think the most important issues in the budget, since no one will speak up and
we're going to be out of time, is the budget assumes the three million dollars ($3,000,000) for the
Third Avenue Business Corridor, the funds of which would come from Community
Development, which have been determined to be available. There is an assumption of the five
million dollars ($5,000,000) which is the first of the five-year plan would be available, and that is
subject to the availability of funds. The other issue that is interesting that is important in this
budget is that there is a specific request coming out of the Omni budget for four hundred
thousand dollars ($400,000). Well, let me state it this way: There is a specific budgetary item
that funds fully the Margaret Pace Park initiative that Commissioner Plummer has directed. And
the Margaret Pace Park is an initiative of the City and the CRA (Community Redevelopment
Agency), the City Parks Department, which the CRA has taken on. That program has gone from
being a one point four million dollar ($1.4 million) when I first was elected. Today, it appears to
be a two point six million ($2.6 million) project. That project has been reviewed by the
Executive Director, and by the Omni Advisory Board, and most of the changes have been added
by the Omni Advisory Board. And the Parks Department, if they are present, has directed this
with the Executive Director. I've looked at it to try,to cut money out of it. I cannot figure out
how to do it. And I think it's what it is we ought to shoot for. Now, whether or not we're able to
actually do it is a whole other issue. This budget assumes that the CRA Omni District will loan --
L-O-A-N — to the Parks Department one point — how much, Miss?
Ms. Thompkins: One point one.
Chairman Teele: One point one million dollars ($1.1 million), which is 95 percent, 90 percent of
all of the available funds in the account. So in effect, we're going to get naked and try to build
this park — that's a bad analogy, in the park — but we're going to get —
Board Member Plummer: Yes. It could be a better terminology.
Chairman Teele: Especially in that one. We're going to strip down and get —
83 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Strip? I mean, strip down and — it's going to be a hell of a park.
Chairman Teele: But this is the Margaret Pace Park, and it,is something that is a high priority of
the residents .in the community there. And I think it enjoys the support of the District
Commissioner.
Board Member Plummer: Without question. OK.
Chairman Teele: The other factor is that we're requesting, J.L., four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000) from the County from their tax increment funds for the completion of the park, as
well. So the CRA is putting up one point two (1.2), and we're requesting the County to put up
four hundred thousand ($400,000).
Board Member Plummer: Mr. Teele, let me say this. You know, budgets are just projections.
Anything in this budget, once we pass it, has to really come back before the CRA Board for final
approval under most circumstances. And more so depending on funds that are available. So I
think this budget is well in order. I think it should be approved, and I think we should proceed to
do and work it now, so that it's not projections but reality. And I'll move it whenever you wish.
Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Plummer to approve the budget. Is there a second?
Board Member Regalado: Second.
Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Regalado. Discussion.
Board Member Plummer: I would like to just make one comment. Mr. Teele,' I have enjoyed
working with Dick Judy. I'm glad he is on board. He has brought expertise to this CRA that we
really needed. And that's not any detriment to Hilda, who did a good job.
Chairman Teele: Great job.
Board Member Plummer: But Dick Judy has done an excellent job in the very brief time that he's
been there, and now I just look for him to triple in the year to come what he's already done in the
year past.
Chairman Teele: All right. And the accolades are to
Mr. Judy and his entire team. Mr. Judy, why don't you introduce Ralph, who is also here, I see.
Board Member Plummer: Your microphone is not on. It is on now.
Richard Judy (Executive Director): Obviously, Ralph worked with me as the general counsel
with Miami International Airport and did a great job. And I know that he's going to bring a lot of
talent to our organization. He's working with us on a part-time. As you well know, I'm using
rather new types of concepts for staffing that really are most efficient. And more importantly,
we're doing it with a very minimal budget. We look forward to work with Ralph. We appreciate
his taking on this job. It took a lot of effortto get him to come to work with us. Thank you.'
Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Gort is
present. On the item to approve the budget of the two districts and the— This would be 1 A, "B"
and "C," the Southeast Overtown/Park West Area Redevelopment Area budget, the Omni
Redevelopment Area budget, and the Community Redevelopment budget and priorities.
84 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: That would be two, wouldn't it?
Chairman Teele: Huh?
Board Member Plummer: Doesn't it have to be two different votes?
Chairman Teele: Two different resolutions or two different votes?
Board Member Plummer: Yeah, I think it should be two votes.
Mr. Judy: Two votes. One for Omni and one for Overtown.
Chairman Teele: Motion is on Omni first, I'm sure.
Board Member Plummer: That's fine.
Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Regalado on Omni. All those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: Those opposed have the same right.
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.OMNI/CRA R-99-21
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET
AND PROJECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(THE "CRA") WITH RESPECT TO THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AREA
(THE "OMNI/CRA") FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING OCTOBER
1, 1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FOR THE OPERATION OF
THE OMNUCRA AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECTS AND
PROGRAMS OF THE OMNI/CRA APPROVING THE FIVE-YEAR BUDGET
AND PROJECTS FOR THE OMNUCRA FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
OWYCRA AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECTS AND
PROGRAMS OF THE OMNI/CRA; APPROVING THE ANNUAL BUDGET
AND PROJECTS FOR THE CRA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING
OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FOR THE
OPERATION OF- THE CRA AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OF THE CRA; APPROVING THE. FIVE-
YEAR BUDGET FOR THE CRA FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CRA AND
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OF THE
CRA; AND APPROVAL OF THE PARKS PROGRAM.
85 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Teele: On the Southeast Overtown/Park West Area budget.
Board Member Plummer: Move it.
Commissioner Teele: Motion by Commissioner Plummer. Second by Commissioner Regalado.
Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All opposed?
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-28
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET
AND PROJECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(THE "CRA") WITH RESPECT TO THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK
WEST REDEVELOPMENT AREA (THE "SEOPW/CRA") FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SEOPW/CRA AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OF THE
SEOPW/CRA.
86 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Teele: The next item is the projects entitled the Community Development Projects.
That is a —
Mr. Judy: Five-year project, five year plan.
Chairman Teele: And it's just listed TheTrojects, "A," "B," "C," "D." I would call to note —
Board Member Plummer: Again, the same comments. It has to be approved by this Board, and
it's subject to funds availability. I don't want anybody in the area to run away thinking that this is
locked in stone and it's guaranteed. It is subject to the availability of funds, but this is, in effect, a
wish list that, hopefully, that we can come forth and do what's necessary to be done.
(Inaudible comment)
Board Member Plummer: Oh, yeah, absolutely, that sets priorities of what we intend to do until
we meet again next year, and we either change priorities or we set more, because we got so many
finished.
Chairman Teele: What Commissioner Plummer is making reference to, Mr. Attorney, is the fact
that I announced in the beginning that this is going to come back within 60 days after it has gone
before the Omni Advisory Board and the Park West — I mean and the Overtown Board, and that
we have received instructions back from the County and the City regarding the budget. The
projects — Mr. Judy, did you want to highlight any project in particular?
Mr. Judy: No.
Chairman Teele: The Camillus House continues to be the main issue related to the —
Mr. Judy: We're going to start to work on that project. It's very complex, as you know. And I
know what the will of the City is and the community is. We have to resolve some very serious
issues regarding the impact of that particular area.
Chairman Teele: I would note two items that are funded projects for historic preservation,
something we believe the City of Miami will be moving forward and making the funding
available for projects of historic significance. And the other is a project that is a request of a
87 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
number of the property owners in Park West, and that is, we're going to contract with Miami -
Dade County for at least one team of Miami Service Corps— two teams of Miami Service Corps
people that will work to help clean up the environment and maintain a clean area. Those funds
will not be Community Development funds, I would assume, because they're not eligible under
that title. Is there further discussion on the projects? If not, is there a motion?
Board Member Plummer: So move.
Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Plummer. Is there a second?
Board Member Regalado: Second, yes.
Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Regalado. Is there objection? All those in favor, say
.aye „
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: Those opposed have the same right.
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-29
OMNI/CRA R-99-22
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIVE-YEAR BUDGET AND PROJECTS
FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE CRA . AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS OF THE CRA, SUBJECT TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Teele: The Parks Program. Essentially, the Parks Program is another restatement of
Margaret Pace Park. It's also a statement of our intent and commitment to work with the Parks
Director at their request on Gibson Park, Williams Park, and what other park?
Ms. Thompkins: Reeves Park.
88 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Reeves.
Mr. Judy: Reeves, yes.
Ms. Thompkins: And Athalie Range Park
Chairman Teele: And Athalie Range. OK. And the funds for this are coming from the Safe
Neighborhood Bonds Park Funds.
Board Member Plummer: Everything of it has to come back before the CRA Board, of course.
Chairman Teele: The specific projects have to come back.
Board Member Plummer: Anything over forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500) has got to come
back.
Chairman Teele: All right. Discussion. Objection?
Mr. Judy: Well, everything is.
Board Member Plummer: Not to the Board. Not to the City Commission.
Mr. Judy: Oh.
Board Member Plummer: To the CRA Board.
Chairman Teele: Everything must come back here, as Commissioner Plummer is saying.
Mr. Judy: That's understood.
Board Member Plummer: And then maybe, I don't know whether it would have to go from there
to the Oversight or not.
Chairman Teele: No, sir.
Board Member Plummer: I don't think so.
Chairman Teele: No, sir.
Mr. Judy: No, absolutely not.
Board Member Plummer: Good.
Chairman Teele: There's an Agreement by the Oversight Board on that. On the Parks Program,
all those in favor, say "aye."
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): I need -a movant,
Mr. Chairman. I need a movant and a seconder.
Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Plummer.
89 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Right.
Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Regalado on the parks. All those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-30
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PARKS PROGRAM FOR GIBSON
PARK, REEVES PARK AND ATHALIE RANGE PARK WITH FUNDS
FROM SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD BONDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
26. APPROVE LOAN/ADVANCE FROM CRA OF PORTION OF OMNI TAX INCREMENT
DISTRICT FUNDS FOR COMPLETION OF MARGARET PACE PARK PROJECT.
Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Attorney, what's the next item you'd like for us to take up?
William Bloom (CRA Attorney): That's it.
Board Member Plummer: That's it. I move we adjourn.
Chairman Teele: Hold on J.L. There are too many — J.L. —
Board Member Plummer: He said we have no more.
Chairman Teele: That's bull. J.L., would you move the advance or loan from the CRA/Omni tax
increment for funds to complete the Margaret Pace Park, in an amount not to exceed one point
one million dollars ($1.1 million)?
Board Member Plummer: You bet I will.
90 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Teele: OK. So we do have another one for you, right? OK. Moved by Commissioner
Plummer. Is there a second?
Board Member Regalado: Second.
Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Regalado. Is there objection? All those in favor, say
"aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. ONMCRA R-99-23
A RESOLUTION APPROVING "LOAN/ADVANCE" FROM THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") OF A
PORTION OF THE OMNI TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FUNDS FOR THE
COMPLETION OF THE MARGARET PACE PARK PROJECT IN AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LESSER OF $1,100,000.00 OR NINETY
PERCENT (90%) OF THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE FROM THE
OMNI TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
27. AUTHORIZE CRA TO REQUEST THAT MIAMI-DADE COUNTY UTILIZE
ADDITIONAL $400,000 FROM MIAMI-DADS COUNTY'S PORTION OF OMNI TAX
INCREMENT DISTRICT FUNDS FOR COMPLETION OF MARGARET PACE PARK.
Chairman Teele: Would you move, please, Commissioner Plummer, approval of a request for an
additional four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) from Miami Dade County's Portion of the
Omni tax as contained in Item Number 2?
Board Member Plummer: With great —
91 SEPTEMBER, 28, 1999
Chairman Teele: This is not provided by the Interlocal Agreement, and the County does not have
to accede to this request.
Board Member Plummer: With great delight, I move it.
Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Plummer.
Board Member Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Sanchez. All.those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.OMNI-24
'A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO REQUEST THAT MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
UTILIZE AN ADDITIONAL $400,000.00 FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S
PORTION OF THE OMNI TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FUNDS TO BE
USED FOR THE COMPLETION OF MARGARET PACE PARK PROJECT.
(Here follows body of resolution,'omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
-28. CRA TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH VENDORS PREAPPROVED BY STATE,
COUNTY, CITY AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS/AGENCIES FOR CRA TO
PURCHASE TELEPHONE, COMPUTER AND OFFICE EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES AND
PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Sanchez, would you move a resolution authorizing the
Executive Director to — I'm sorry — to purchase within the FY `98/99 budget certain equipment,
computers, general office that are provided for under existing contracts with the State of Florida,
Miami -Dade County, or the City of Miami? That is to piggyback out.
92 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Move it. Move it.
Chairman Teele: Moved by Plummer. Seconded by —
Board Member Regalado: I'll second it.
Chairman Teele: -- Regalado. All those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed?
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-33
OMNI/CRA R-99-27
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO PROCEED
WITH A NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO RETAIN THE
SERVICES OF UP TO THREE CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE CRA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
31. APPROVE RETROACTIVE HIRING OF WERNER KUSTER, PART-TIME TECHNICAL
SERVICE BUSINESS SPECIALIST OF CRA; MARTHA CORBA, PART-TIME COMPUTER
DATA ASSISTANT; AND CHELSA ARSCOTT, PART-TIME ASSISTANT TO EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN.
Chairman Teele: A resolution to retroactively approve .the retaining on a part-time basis of one
Werner Kuster, a part-time consultant; Martha Corba, a part-time contract consultant; and
Chelsea Arscott, a part-time contract employee with the CRA (Community Redevelopment
Agency). They have been done. This is what we gave him before. These cannot exceed 90 days.
Motion by Plummer. Seconded by Regalado. All those in favor, say "aye."
95 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-34
OMNI/CRA R-99-28
A RESOLUTION RETROACTIVELY APPROVING THE HIRING OF
WERNER KUSTER AS PART-TIME CONTRACT EMPLOYEE OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO ACT IN
THE POSITION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIALIST;
MARTHA CORBA AS PART-TIME CONTRACT EMPLOYEE OF THE CRA
TO ACT IN THE POSITION OF COMPUTER DATA ASSISTANT; AND
CHELSA ARSCOTT AS ' PART-TIME CONTRACT EMPLOYEE OF THE
CRA TO ACT IN THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT TO THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
32. AUTHORIZE CRA TO USE BIDS RETAINED BY CITY OR COUNTY FOR
ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS.
Chairman Teele: A resolution authorizing the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to
utilize the services of architects and engineers with open bids — we just did this. This was Item 13
today — with the City of Miami or Miami -Dade County under miscellaneous provisions to provide
general consulting to the CRA.
Board Member Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Sanchez. Second by Commissioner Regalado. All
those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively) Aye.
Chairman Teele: All opposed?
96 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Sanchez: Yes, sir, I would move it.
Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All
those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-31
OMNUCRA R-99-25
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO PURCHASE
WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 BUDGET TELEPHONE
EQUIPMENT, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT, GENERAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES TO
THE CRA UNDER THE TERMS OF EXISTING CONTRACTS WITH THE
STATE OF FLORIDA, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND/OR THE CITY OF
MIAMI (COLLECTIVELY, "EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES").
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
29. AUTHORIZE CRA TO PURCHASE SURPLUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND
PROPERTY FROM STATE OF FLORIDA.
Chairman Teele: Would you move, Commissioner Sanchez, a resolution authorizing the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency) to purchase surplus equipment and supplies and property
from the State of Florida? That's their distribution center. That's from the State of Florida. It's
excess property.
Board Member Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez.
93 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Second.
Chairman Teele: Seconded by Commissioner Plummer. Is there objection? All those in favor,
say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-32
OMNUCRA R-99-26
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO PURCHASE
SURPLUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND PROPERTY FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board .Member Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gott
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
30. AUTHORIZE CRA TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO- RETAIN
SERVICES OF UP TO THREE CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
AND CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE CRA.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Plummer, would you move a resolution authorizing the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency). to issue an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for the
services of a consultant for economic analysis services to the CRA? Not CPA._
Board Member Plummer: To get information? Do we have a price not to exceed?
Chairman Teele: Is there a price not to exceed? It'll come back to the Board.
Board Member Plummer: But you want to issue an RFQ? You want a consultant to put together
the RFQ, or just the RFQ?
Chairman Teele: No. Economic analysis.
94. SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-35
OMNI/CRA R-99-29
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO UTILIZE
THE SERVICES OF ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS RETAINED BY THE CITY
OF MIAMI AND/OR MIAMI-DADS COUNTY UNDER MISCELLANEOUS
CONTRACTS TO PROVIDE GENERAL ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION
WITH PROJECTS WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
33. USE EXISTING MANE-DADE WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT CONTRACT
VENDORS FOR PURCHASE OF ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO CRA.
Chairman Teele: A resolution authorizing the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to use
existing contracts that have been bidden and awarded by Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
Department, miscellaneous for vendors of architectural engineering, construction management
and related services, in compliance with County procedures, including requirement of a payment
of not more than two percent of the contract value to Miami -Dade County. That's a simple
buying of a contract.
Board Member Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All
those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez who moved its adoption:
97 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-36
OMNI/CRA R-99-30
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO USE EXISTING MIAMI-DADE WATER &
SEWER DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACT VENDORS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING,
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RELATED SERVICES TO THE
CRA AS PROVIDED FOR AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY PROCEDURES, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF
PAYMENT OF NOT MORE THAN TWO PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT
VALUE TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
34. GREATER MIAMI SERVICE CORPS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
(INCLUDING REPAIRS AND LANDSCAPING) WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OF
CRA.
Chairman Teele: A resolution authorizing the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to
award a grant, or alternatively, to negotiate a contract with Miami Dade County's Greater Miami
Service Corps to provide maintenance services, including light maintenance, repair and
landscaping within the redevelopment area. That's an agency by Dade County.
Board Member Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Gort, would you second on
the --
Board Member Plummer: Hold it. Why would we want to use a County facility to do work in
the City?
Chairman Teele: It's not a County facility. It's --
Board Member Plummer: Having a County crew to do work in the City of Miami.
Chairman Teele: They're not a County crew. It's an at -risk children's program.
98 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Oh.
Chairman Teele: And we're going to require that the kids all come from the City of Miami.
Board Member Plummer: Fine.
Chairman Teele: OK? And they get training. They get computer training, they go to classroom
training, and it's a nice little at -risk program. Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by
Commissioner Gort. Further discussion by Commissioner Plummer? None. There being none,
all those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: Those opposed, say "no." The item is unanimously adopted.
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-37
- OMNUCRA R-99-31
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO AWARD A GRANT, OR ALTERNATIVELY,
NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THE GREATER MIAMI SERVICE
CORPS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (THE "GMSC") TO PROVIDE
MAINTENANCE SERVICES (INCLUDING LIGHT MAINTENANCE,
REPAIRS AND LANDSCAPING) WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
35. NEGOTIATE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION WITH MIAMI-DADE
TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF AIR RIGHTS PARCEL
ADJACENT TO OVERTOWN METRORAIL STATION OWNED BY THE COUNTY.
Chairman Teele: A resolution authorizing the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to
issue -- let's come back to that one, on that. A resolution authorizing the CRA to negotiate an
Interlocal Agreement or Cooperative Agreement between the CRA and MDTA (Miami -Dade
99 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Transit Authority) with respect to development rights of airparcels in the Overtown Metrorail
Station and further providing that such Agreement shall be ratified by the City Commission of
Miami. Moved by Gort. Seconded by Sanchez. Is there objection? All those in favor, say
"aye." All those opposed, say "no."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: Unanimously adopted.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-38
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO NEGOTIATE AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEEMENT OF COOPERATION ("INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT")
BETWEEN THE CRA AND THE MIAMI-DADS TRANSIT AUTHORITY
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPENT RIGHTS OF THE AIR RIGHTS
PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE OVERTOWN METRORAIL STATION
OWNED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROVIDED SUCH AGREEMENT
SHALL BE RATIFIED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
36. UTILIZE OR COOPERATE WITH MIAMI-DADS COUNTY USING EXISTING
FEDERAL URBAN INITIATIVE GRANT FUNDS FOR COMPLETION OF 9T" STREET
MALL PROJECT FROM 2ND AVENUE TO 3RD AVENUE TO I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TO
CONNECT WITH PARK WEST PORTION OF 9T" STREET MALL.
Chairman Teele: A resolution authorizing the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to
utilize, or alternatively to cooperate with Miami -Dade County in utilizing existing Federal transit
funds for the completion of the Ninth Street Mall from Second Avenue to Third Avenue to the I-
95 right-of-way, and further requiring the connection of the Park West portion of the Ninth Street
Mall, utilizing Federal funds.
Board Member Sanchez: So move.
100 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by -- Commissioner Plummer,
would you second it? It ties in yours -- by Plummer. All those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed?
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA R-99-39
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (THE "CRA") TO UTILIZE, OR ALTERNATIVELY COOPERATE
WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY IN UTILIZING EXISTING FEDERAL
URBAN INITIATIVE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE 911'
STREET MALL PROJECT FROM 2"D AVENUE TO 3RD AVENUE TO THE I-
95 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TO FURTHER CONNECT WITH THE PARK
WEST PORTION OF THE 9n STREET MALL.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Board Member Tomas Regalado
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None.
37. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR AIR RIGHTS INVOLVING MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT
OVERTOWN STATIONS -- MAINTAIN SOUTHEAST OVERTOWNIPARK WEST
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER RELATED TO
CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURAL ARTS AND SPORTS ATTRACTION -- REVIEW
ASSETS OWNED BY CRA AND TRANSFERRED TO CITY.
Chairman Teele: I would like a motion, please instructing the City Attorney to negotiate for a
special counsel regarding the air rights relating to Miami -Dade Transit Station at the Overtown
Station, to update and amend, or other curative actions, in order to maintain the SEOP, Southeast
Overtown Park West DRI (Development of Regional Impact) order, including the sponsoring of
necessary applications to construct cultural arts and sports attractions with seating not to exceed
fifteen to fifty thousand, and to further review assets owned by the CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) that were transferred to the City. The terms of such representation will
be negotiated by the City Attorney, the Chair, and will be subject to approval by this Board.
Moved by Commissioner Regalado. Is there a second?
101 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Board Member Plummer: Second it for discussion.
Chairman Teele: Second for discussion by Plummer.
Board Member Plummer: We now have what I'll refer to as the old Arena. We're going to have
the new Arena. Do I understand this is possibly a third arena, or, stadium, or facility?
Chairman Teele: Look at this way: As a possible updating, or revising, or in some way
enhancing the existing Arena.
Board Member Plummer: Well, OK.
Chairman Teele: You have an existing arena, too, you see.
Board Member Plummer: Yeah. But no way you're going to update that for 50,000 seating.
Chairman Teele: Well, maybe and maybe not, J.L. But we ought to look at it. We'll let the DRI
tell us what the restrictions are.
Board Member Plummer: All, right. Well, it's got to come back to us, so, you know, I just-- I'm
very, as you know, I'm very concerned about the old Arena and what --
Chairman Teele: Well, what are we going to do, though? I mean, you know, we've been sitting
here for three years, and they've been building it.
Board Member Plummer: Well, we got a Sports Authority who should be the ones --
Chairman Teele: I don't know one thing that we've done to protect ourselves. We haven't even
looked at the DRI yet.
Board Member Plummer: I'm just saying I'm concerned about it. I realize that there's no
taxpayers' money going to pay off the debt if it doesn't do well, but all and all, I think that we
need to be very concerned about what's going to happen in the old Arena, Miami Arena.
Chairman Teele: J.L., the first step to that is to update the DRI, to see what are the options. It
may be turned into an amusement park. Somebody's talking about a Pokino park. Somebody's
talking about an Indian village. I mean, you know, there's all kinds of ideas. But unless we get
the DRI -- and the CRA is responsible for the DRI in that area. Unless we take steps to do it,
nothing is going to happen.
Board Member Plummer: I understand, I understand. But I just, you know, I don't want to, go on
a third when we have two that I'm worried about. OK.
Chairman Teele: We have a motion and we have a second. We've had discussion. Further
discussion? Mr. Attorney, do you understand?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: OK. And let me just say this: Mr. Bloom is eminently qualified to do this.
However, so that there can be no discussion or concern, in that Mr. Bloom is involved with one of
102 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
the principal landowners in the area that is building an arena, or has built an arena, we felt that it
would be just fair to everyone to allow outside counsel to do that. And Mr. Bloom would, of
course, fully cooperate to the extent that he doesn't have a conflict, and I think his role would be
very helpful. On the motion, is there further discussion? All those in favor, say "aye."
The Board (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no."
The following motion was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. SEOPW/CRA M-9940
A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE. CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE A
CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE AIR RIGHTS
INVOLVING MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT OVERTOWN STATIONS; TO
UPDATE ANY AMENDMENTS OR OTHER CURATIVE ACTIONS IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER,
INCLUDING NECESSARY APPLICATIONS TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CULTURAL ARTS AND SPORTS ATTRACTION
WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 15,000 TO 50,000
SEATS; AND TO REVIEW THOSE ASSETS OWNED BY THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND TRANSFERRED
TO THE CITY OF MIAMI. THE TERMS OF SUCH REPRESENTATION
SHALL BE NEGOTIATED (WITH THE STIPULATION THAT SAID
NEGOTIATED AMOUNT SHALL NOT EXCEED $50,000) BY .THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CRA, SUBJECT TO FINAL
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD.
Upon being seconded by Board Member Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted b the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
103 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
38. STATUS REPORT OF:
A) RFQ FOR FRANCHISE IN THE 3RD AVENUE BUSINESS CORRIDOR;
B) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BAME CDC FOR CURRENT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT;
C) HISTORIC PRIORITY CORRIDOR PARKWAY PLAN.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, would you give us a quick update on Item Number 16 and Item
Number 17 and 19? You have six minutes to finish all of this. Sixteen is the update regarding
the RFQ (Request for Proposals).
Richard Judy (Director, CRA): Yes. Well, I just wanted to report to you that we're well into the
RFQ for the first franchise. And we really intended to put a draft of it on the Agenda, for us to
just discuss, but because of the Agenda time, we've decided not to put it. So I'll give you the
information, that we're coming along well with it. And I am working with counsel in regard to
the methodologies in regard to various public notices, which is a little bit complex in 163, so
we're going to be solving that. So I did want to put it in a more formal way than as an
information item to let you know where we are.
Chairman Teele: When can we expect the franchise to be open?
Mr. Judy: Well, there are issues that we have to resolve before we give a time frame. There's
public notices that we're working with in terms of that time, and that's the issue that I will be
working with our counsel in regard to those issues. Then we'll be able to set a realistic time for
the proposals to be received, and the negotiations, and the award, if you could bear with me on
those issues.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Judy, in the next meeting, please, Dick, we just would like to know when
we can expect to have the grand opening and work backwards, so that we have a realistic time
frame, because the public has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting. And to be very candid with
you, the biggest challenge that I see with the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) now is
that we've spent 18 months, I have spent 18 months with you and with the staff-- not you per se,
not personally, but with the Executive Director, and very little benefits have flowed to the citizens
and the businesses that are there in the district. And that's one of the things I think that the
Service Corps Project will help us address that issue, particularly in Park West, but in Overtown.
I really think we've got to figure out a way to get some benefit to the people that are businesses
there. This Commission heard this morning from any number of people from Overtown
complaining about the lack of dollars for facade, for different things. There's a high level of
frustration, and I just think we need to keep that in mind, please. Please. Other informational
item, the BAME Project.
Mr. Judy: The BAME Project. We wanted to just advise the Board that we were given them
some technical service, making an economic review of the plan, and we have a report in the
budget. But we found that the plan the business manager is using is in accordance with their
budgeted development cost. We believe that there needs to be, obviously, a more market plan
which they -- I talked with the CRA and -- excuse me -- CRD -- and they've advised that as soon
as they get the project underway and get the zoning and the permits required, they're going to
move rapidly into the marketing program, and we possibly will be able to help them in that
regard.
104 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Teele: For the record, the BAME Project is not one of the projects that's being listed
for --
Mr. Judy: It's not a CRA project. You must understand, it's outside of our area. But on the
respect of the Board, you asked us to do some overview and look at the estimated costs and so
forth. We did that, and there's a report here in the budget.
Chairman Teele: Are there any other matters to come before the Board? Commissioner
Plummer? Commissioner Gort?
Mr. Judy: Wait. We have items.
Chairman Teele: I'd like to temporary pass that one until we can coordinate and see what City is
going to do on something else, please.
Mr. Judy: OK. Well, that's fine. I didn't realize that.
Board Member Plummer: Motion to adjourn is always in order.
39. COMMENTS REGARDING FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE CRA -- MONDAY
EVENINGS EVERY OTHER MONTH ON LOCATION.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gort.
Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Gort.
Board Member Gort: Mr. Chairman, I would like in the future, if possible, I'd like to have this
meeting separate from the Commission meeting.
Chairman Teele: Yes.
Board Member Gort: Because there's too many things that we have to deal with, and too many
questions that have to come up, and we have to hurry through all this. And then I don't want the
people out there to misunderstand that. We have been going over this for a long time. These are
things that we've discussed in the past. But it seems like, you know, we're passing this just
through. So what we've done in the past, and I'd like to see it again, is to have the meeting at the
Chairman Teele: In the district.
Board Member Gort: In the neighborhood, in the district, to make sure that the people in the
district can participate, also. And if we could have it at night, so that people could participate, I'd
love to see that.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Plummer that's a -- I mean Commissioner Gort, that is
obviously what I want, and I think that's good to bring it back to our attention, and with this
explanation: This is only done primarily to deal with the budget issue, which needs to be done
before September 300'. We would like to get a bi-monthly meeting every two months. And we'd
like to get everybody a calendar, and I'm going to ask Mr. Judy if Chelsea or someone could
coordinate with each of the Commissioners' offices today to see if we can put together a calendar
105 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
of proposed meetings that would be in the evening. What day is convenient for most people?
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday? " Which one?
Board Member Gort: To me, it doesn't make any difference. Monday nights, we used to do it on
Monday nights, and Monday nights seemed like it was OK.
Board Member Plummer: Yeah, Monday nights is best for me.
Chairman Teele: Monday nights. And we'll try to schedule a meeting in November, in January,
and every other month on a Monday night. And we'll ask Chelsea and Mr. Judy to work with
your staff so we can have that circulated in draft this evening. Commissioner Sanchez,
comments, questions, criticisms?
Board Member Sanchez: No, sir. Just that I would like to stipulate what Commissioner Gort
said, that due to the amount of information and stuff, it would be best if we held this on a
different date.
Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado?
Board Member Regalado: No, thank you.
Chairman Teele: There being no further matters, the motion to adjourn by Commissioner
Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, without objection, the meeting is adjourned.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Plummer, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONER ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR.
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Walter Foeman
CITY CLERK
Maria J. Argudin
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
106 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AT THIS POINT, THE CITY COMMISSION
RECONVENED ITS REGULAR MEETING AT 3:00 P.M.
40.PUBLIC HEARING re COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE HAULERS (PROPOSED
FRANCHISE, REGULATIONS (see section #42)
Chairman Plummer: All right. Again, here will be the Agenda, unless any of my colleagues
overrule me. First and foremost, everybody is welcome to come in and sit down. This police
officer would like to remain seated, and not have to go and tell you again, please, come in and
have a seat. Officer, would you close the two doors, please, to keep down the noise. This is what
I have, and it will be the following: The first speaker will be the Chairman of the committee who
was Commissioner Joe Sanchez, who has asked for 15 minutes to make his presentation. After he
is finished, first will be Mr. Luis Sabines of CAMACOL, who is not feeling well, and I will take
him, as always, "numero uno." From that point, it is my intention to go with the haulers first,
then the public, and then the Commission. I think that we safely can say that it's going to be at
least 4:30 and maybe 5, which will carry us into budget before we ever get to the Zoning Agenda.
Again a reminder that the Zoning Item PZ-12 has been withdrawn -- I'm sorry -- has been
continued over to the November meeting.
Unidentified Speaker: First meeting?
Chairman Plummer: It makes no difference to me. All right. I now have a quorum. Again, Mr.
Manager, do we have a second officer that we can get these doors closed so that everybody has
the opportunity? All right. And we ask everyone else to please come in and have a seat. OK?
It's only common courtesy. Mr. Sanchez, do you wish to wait for the full Commission, or do you
wish to proceed?
Commissioner Sanchez: I think it's best that we wait for a full Commission.
Chairman Plummer: So be it, as you request.
Commissioner Sanchez: Being such an important item, I think it's --
Chairman Plummer: Would you have any problem if I hear from Mr. Sabines?
Commissioner Sanchez: No, sir, none at all.
Chairman Plummer: All right. I was informed earlier that Mr. Sabines-was going to provide his
own translator, and a very pretty translator. - We're going to let Mr. Sabines speak. Waiting for
Mr. Teele. It was a request of the Chairman of the committee. Mr. Toledo, sir, seats are
available up front. There's no extra charge. OK. Mr. Sabines.
Luis Sabines: Thank you, thank you.
Chairman Plummer: "Dos minutos."
Mr. Sabines: Me llamo Luis Sabines. Soy presidente de Latin Chamber of Commerce. Todo el
mundo me conoce aqui en este condado. Y cuando vengo aqui, quiero que vengo para una causa
justa. Yo nunca he venido aqui a pedir nada que sea immoral, ni nada de eso. Vengo aqui a ser
107 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
justo. Y quiero apollar a los dies y nueve (19) basureros que estan recogiendo la basura, que hoy
en dia la recogen mejor que nadie. Nunca se ha recogido mejor que ahora. Y que no se to voy a
dar un solo senor para que sea un monopolio. Ya aqui esta bueno de monopolios. Hay muchas
cosas aqui mal hechas. Hay que arreglarlas. Hay muchas personas de esta comunidad que
piensan to mismo que yo, y van a venir a hablar aqui, to mismo que he echo yo aqui. Yo les pido
a los Comisionados y el Chairman que analisen bien to que vayan ha hacer y que ayuden a las
minorias, y a esos dies y nueve gentes que se estan buscando la vida. Gracias.
Translation of Mr. Sabines by Astrid Perdomo (The Interpreter):. My name is Luis Sabines, and I
am president of the Latin .American Chamber of Commerce. And everybody here knows me.
And whenever I come here, I come here to ask for a just cause. I am here to support the 19
garbage haulers who have been picking up the garbage, and have been doing a good job. And I
don't think that it should be given to just one person, because then it would become a monopoly.
And we don't want -- nobody wants a monopoly. I think that we have to make sure that things
are done correctly, because there's a lot of things that are being done incorrectly. There's a lot of
people that feel the same way that I do, and that are going to come here to make their remarks,
just like I did. And I just ask the Commissioners, the Chairman of the Commission to support the
minorities, and to support those 19 garbage haulers who are just trying to make a living.
Chairman Plummer: OK. One clarification for the record. For the purposes of this public
hearing, even though the people who contend that they are recyclables and recovery, I'm going to
include them as a speaker with the commercial haulers. Doesn't mean that that's where you're
going to be bound, but prior to the public input. Mr. Sanchez, sir, you have the floor.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and all visitors present here
at the Commission today, this Cityhas undergone a very comprehensive effort to update and
improve the commercial waste industry. This process has included a variety of workshops, public
meetings, both with the industry and the public, and a variety of public hearings here at the City
Commission. These hearings have resulted in many improvements and changes made to the
industry. November 1998, we started the process. This Commission voted against exclusive
franchise. July the 27 h, we approved the RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for non-exclusive
franchise. And a commercial solid waste management advisory committee was put together and
created to provide recommendations, to see how we could improve the industry, and basically see
how the industry and the Commission and the City could work together. This advisory
committee reviewed the City non -Franchise Agreement and provided input throughout the
process. The RFQ was put out, and 21 companies responded. 19 of those companies qualified.
Through the whole process, guidelines, recommendations, input, we were able to put together a
fair process that would have, protected the taxpayers of Miami who are going to have to pay for
the services. There was some concern the City needed to come up with revenue. The draft
Franchise Agreement put forth by the Administration and agreed on by the 19 companies out of
20 companies provided.that 20 percent charge was going to bring four point two million dollars
($4.2 million) to the City, and estimating an additional one million dollars ($1,000,000) projected
for next year's budget. Now, one thing I have --
Chairman Plummer: Hold on, excuse me. Officer, if you could, please ask them to extend to
Commissioner Sanchez the courtesy of being able to be heard. This is a very important. issue.
And I thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The process was fair. At all times, we had
representation from 19 out of the 20 companies pertaining to this matter. I think that everybody
acted in the most fair and good faith as possible, with an understanding that the City needed to
108 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
{
put the house in order, and come together with recurring revenues for the City. Now, if we were
to put this out for an RFP (Request for Proposals), and there have been some suggestions made,
that process will be four to six weeks -- or months, four to six months. So one of the things that I
felt that we needed to do was go ahead with the RFQ that has been put out. I think that the
Commission has, expressed some concerns on some questions that need to be answered today. I
have certain questions that right now, I'm going to ask the City Attorney. One of the questions
that I have on the draft, Article V of the franchise fee, is I have a concern with the language that
basically, our concern is that we don't want that passed on to the taxpayers, the people that are
going to pay the garbage fee. So I have been informed by the Administration that some language
changes were made. And Mr. Martinez, can you elaborate on the changes made?
Raul Martinez (Assistant City Manager): Yes, Commissioner. We are recommending some
minor awarding changes on the price control issue, and I guess I can read them into the record, if
I can find my quick copy here. It's basically, the whole paragraph reads --
Chairman Plummer: I would strongly suggest that your terminology not be "price fixing."
Mr. Martinez: I guess the Law.Department will instruct me on that.
Chairman Plummer: I think you would better set the rates.
Commissioner Sanchez: J.L., let me just clarify something. In those meetings, we have never
discussed any rates pertaining to the rates charged by the industry. The only thing that we have
discussed were the franchise fees. That has been it.
Chairman Plummer: I can accept that terminology.
Commissioner Sanchez: So that's on public record. And you could depose everybody in those
meetings, and you will find out that we have never discussed any rates pertaining to what the
industry is going to charge their people. So.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez, my only objection was the terminology that I think most
people would find objectionable when you talk about price fixing.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): I think the language the Commissioner mentioned was
"price controls."
Chairman Plummer: Price controls?
Mr. Vilarello: And there's existing language in the RFQ with regard to price controls. And the
existing language of the Agreement provided for limitation on the ability of the awarded
franchisee to increase service charges, as a result in increases in operating cost, such as tipping
fees and increases due to CPI (Consumer Price Index), etcetera. The proposed language change
into the Franchise Agreement is as follows: The contractor may, however, increase service
charges as a result of increases in operating cost, such as tipping fees, and increases due to the
change in the Consumer Price Index and other increases due to extraordinary circumstances.
Commissioner Sanchez: I just wanted to clarify on the changes made on that language, because
our concern and my concern is that whatever they're going to charge, I don't want it passed on to
the taxpayers of Miami.
109 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Vilarello: The language of the Franchise Agreement that they would execute, the contractor
acknowledges that price controls will be primarily extracted through competition amongst
competitors versus increases passed on to the consumer.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
(Inaudible comment not entered into the record)
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, it is. Now, I have some questions that I want to put forward out
before I move on to my other arguments that I, want to present. Exclusive franchise is non-
responsive to the RFQ; is that correct, Mr. City Manager?
Mr. Vilarello: To me or to the Manager?
Commissioner Sanchez: Correction. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: The RFQ asked for certain qualifications to be provided, and those individuals
who could provide those qualifications fall within that. So an exclusive franchise was not
requested. The RFQ contemplated a process where all the approved of qualified franchisees
would operate throughout the City of Miami competing amongst themselves for the available
business.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Raul, all 19 companies agreed on the non-exclusive
Franchise Agreement. They agreed on it, right?
Mr. Martinez: That is correct, sir. None of them have signed the Franchise Agreement, because
all they have is a draft. So this Commission has an opportunity, or the City has an opportunity to
make tweaks in the cost or some of the other issues, like we did now on the awarding or price
controls. But they all know what was attached to the RFQ was a Franchise Agreement that
clearly stated non-exclusive, for non-exclusive franchises.
Mr. Vilarello: I'm not aware of.any objections by any of the participants to that process.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give my colleagues an opportunity, and then a
chance for rebuttal.
Chairman Plummer: All right. If you would, just for questions, because I do want to go into the
haulers having the right, and to go into the public. If you have a question you feel is necessary,
please, Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I do have a question, and it's for the City Attorney, and to Raul
and the Administration. You just said that you changed the language for the contract. Is it price
controls or is this voluntary? Is this mandatory, Mr. City Attorney? Can we say any -- without
going into the competition aspect, which we cannot, but can we say any fee, additional fee that
haulers would have to pay to the City cannot be passed on to the consumer for a duration or for
the life of the contract? Or what can we say?
Mr. Vilarello: The Franchise Agreement, the draft of which was attached to the RFQ, tried to
address the issue of increase of prices. And in that, the contractor and the franchisee agreed that
they would control their prices through a method of competition amongst each other, as opposed
to trying to pass that on to the consumer. The language that we were just talking about, I believe,
110 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
is not a material change to the franchise, but simply said, allowed for certain circumstances where
they would be allowed to increase their prices. If items beyond their control, such as the increase
in tipping fees were to go up, that they would be allowed to pass those on.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, if I may, there's another paragraph, another sentence that
we're not reading that says: Therefore, contractor agrees that none of the requirements under any
of the articles of this Agreement shall result in an increase of pricing to the customer. And that
one is very clear in this paragraph.
Commissioner Regalado: So what we're seeing, what we're riding into is that suppose that we
talk about a franchise fee to the City, which is additional revenues. This cannot be passed on to
the consumer immediately or during the life of the contract. Special circumstances, tipping fee,
or how about new contracts? Is that also included, or these are the actual contracts that you have?
Mr. Vilarello: No. The language as it contemplates here is increase in tipping fees, and what I
would -- I guess if you look at new regulations that might affect them, those might be passed on,
some change of law. But at this point, increase in tippingfees and the Consumer Price Index.
Commissioner Regalado: So it's the Consumer Price Index and tipping fees. That's the only
two?
Mr. Vilarello: There is an additional catch all increase due to extraordinary circumstances, which.
have to be analyzed on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Regalado: Would that be your ruling or the Manager?
Mr. Vilarello: The enforcer of this Franchise Agreement would be the City Manager, and the
City Manager would have to come to a conclusion that it was or was not an extraordinary
circumstance, together with my advice to the City Manager.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. That's all for now.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I need the Budget officer that is responsible for the Solid Waste budget on
this matter. Mr. Martinez, give me some examples of innovative ideas that you would have
accepted or you would have found to be innovative within the --
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, to be frank with you, when the wording was added in the July 27`"
Agenda for the RFQ, I believe I put it on the record to say that we have conducted several
workshops with the industry asking, what else can we put in this RFQ? What else can we put in
this Franchise Agreement? Give us suggestions. Give us ideas. At the time, I believe I put it on
the record that I did not believe that we had not heard -- that we had heard everything that the
industry could offer towards a non-exclusive Franchise Agreement that would be- best for the
City, best for the citizens, and best for the industry. I'm not an expert in the solid waste industry.
Maybe a better question may be to Clarance, who is the expert in this.
III SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me say this: I think you are an expert, and I accept you as an
expert. You certainly have brought some refreshing concepts and ideas to this Government. If a
proposer had said, we will provide new receptacles at our own expense, or new light weight
receptacles, or new heavy weight receptacles -- I don't know if they ought to be light or heavy --
would that have been something that you would have perhaps seen as being innovative?
Mr. Martinez: Sir, new receptacles at older accounts, you know, would be something, that would
be something we would have looked at, something we looked at, because one of the concerns by
the Commission is the quality of life in the neighborhood for some of the receptacles being down,
and so on and so forth.
Commissioner Teele: Did anybody propose anything like -- let me ask you this: How many
responses did we receive?
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, we received a total of 21 responses to the RFQ, like Commissioner
Sanchez stated. 19 were deemed responsive. We only received one proposal under the
innovative option, that being for Imperial/Republic.
Commissioner Teele: See? And let me put on the record very clearly my concerns and why I am
a free market person, and why I really do reject a lot of these socialistic ideas. It is absolutely
socialistic for everybody to think that everybody has got to move at the same pace. Now, the
Justice Department may have some other terms for it, but I'm going to tell you this, Raul. It
doesn't surprise me, if you've got a committee and everybody is at the table that you're not going
to get any new ideas, because that is the essence of socialism. The essence of socialism is that
everybody is going to do the same thing the same way. And while I strongly support committees
for some things, I categorically don't accept, and reject the notion that there should be any
committee that we should ever set up of industry, of any industry that talks about dollars and
economic issues. I think productivity, I think regulatory issues, I think inspection issues, I think
quality of life issues. But I will tell you that when you start talking about economic issues,
whether it be couched in the terms of rates, or in the terms of prices, or in the terms of fees, or in
the terms of holding the public harmless and the industry absorbing it, I think that is something
else by another name. And I would only tell you, Raul, that I think that it's very dangerous for
the Government -- and we're not exempted from laws. I'm going to tell you that. We're not
exempted from laws. I think it is dangerous. And I've had several people that I respect in the
industry to tell me that I'm full of malarkey when I raise this issue. Is that the word you use,
"malarkey"?
Chairman Plummer: That's putting it nicely.
Commissioner Teele: I just can't get the "S" syllable out with "malarkey," for some reason. But
I really do think, Raul, that this Commission should -- this City Government should be very
careful, when you start talking about economic issues, because what you're going to wind up
doing is, you're going to always have proposals, bids that are going to have very little creativity,
and very little fluency. And, you know, when the road builders used to sit together the night
before in the State headquarters, and try to have these committees, the Government called it
something a little bit different, OK? And you can call it a trade association, you can call it a
municipal committee, you can call it a State committee. But when you start talking about rates,
prices, fees and any other economic issue, I don't really want to be a part of it, and .I really don't
want the Government that I'm with to be a part of it. Anything else, as far as I'm concerned, is
fair game. And, I mean, I want the Clerk to make a copy of this, because I think this has been
totally misunderstood, what I've said. I am repeating what I said before, because I think it is
112 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
dangerous, very, very dangerous as a precedent to be in those kinds of discussions, and to have
those kinds of discussions. And I hold the City Attorney's Office responsible for any infractions
that may occur coming out of those meetings, because none of us up here are lawyers for the
purpose of being the City Attorney. I get paid six thousand ($6,000), he gets paid six thousand
($6,000), the other guys get paid six thousand ($6,000). Is it five? At the County, it was six.
Chairman Plummer: That's "Big Brother."
Commissioner Sanchez: You got a demotion.
Commissioner Teele: So Raul, we need to be very clear about that, because I really do think the
fact that you got no innovative ideas speaks to why you don't want to be in that position. That's
the first issue. The second issue is economics, is budget.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, may I respond to the first issue?
Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir, please. And I don't mean to cut you off.
Mr. Martinez: And first of all, professionally -- more than professionally -- personally, I'm very
offended by socialistic groups, you know. So nothing that has happened on this committee has to
do with socialism, because I would have played no part if anything even hinted going that way.
Second is the purpose of that committee --
Commissioner Teele: Well, do you contribute to Social Security?
Mr. Martinez: Now I do.
Commissioner Teele: Well, that's it. I mean, you know, that' a socialist-- I mean, the word,
"socialist" -- I mean, I don't mean to offend your culture, but it's not an offensive word. It's the
safety net for America. The whole bid system in architects and engineers is a socialist system.
There's no bid. And everybody gets the same amount of money.
Chairman Plummer: How in God's name did we get from socialism to garbage?
Commissioner Teele: So don't take the word "socialist" to mean some guy in an island
somewhere. It's an economic concept that I'm talking about.
Mr. Martinez: Well, maybe I took it the wrong way. But getting to the facts that you stated. The
committee that was created by this Commission, basically was used by the Administration as a
sounding board..We had a City Administration committee that was looking at what's best for the
City, and we took to that committee our recommendations. And frankly, and not to offend any of
the members of the Advisory Board, when we came with our suggestions for prices, if they would
have disagreed completely against those prices, and unless they would have convinced the
members of the City that's on the Commission, we would have brought to this Commission, we
are recommending a fifty dollar ($50) per account fee. The Advisory Board --
Commissioner Teele: These are your words, not my words, and I'm not inviting this response.
OK? You keep on. But I didn't use anything about what that committee did or didn't do. These
are your words.
113 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, I'm putting it on the record, because nowhere did this
committee set the prices. We, the City Administration, set the prices. We used the Advisory
Board as a sounding board. Luckily, they accepted, you know, those that were there. There were
conversations, of course, by the industry that they liked this, they didn't like this, so on and so
forth. But whether they would have liked it or not, we would have come forward to this
Commission with the Administration's recommendation.
Commissioner Teele: And based upon what you said,
Mr. Attorney, I stand by every word that I said, and I'm through with it. All that I'm saying is,
that I, as one Commissioner, am not comfortable with any committee, in any industry, especially
the solid waste industry, that'discuss prices or any other economic issue. And I'm going to stand
by that. And as long as I'm not in the committee meeting, I don't really care, as long as
everybody knows and everybody is alerted as to what the issue is. I'd like to just understand
economics. Because, you see, the problem that I have with what the Management is doing on this
is the same problem that I have with the towing, which is where we're going to be at 5 o'clock.
We need help. We, the five people up here, and the Mayor upstairs, we all need help in economic
issues. Did anybody agree to pick up the City waste for free as a part of this proposal?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir. As part of this proposal, it is mandated that the companies that are
selected for the RFQ, that signed the Franchise Agreements will pick up all of the Cityfacilities
free of charge to the City and free of charge to the citizens.
Commissioner Teele: So the budget implication --
Chairman Plummer: Whoa, whoa. Does that include Bayfront Park?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Martinez: It's a City facility. It's on the list.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Martinez: It will be picked up. The actual savings, Commissioner, to the budget for the
Solid Waste Department is about three hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars ($347,000) to
the City.
Commissioner Teele: But it's not from that department. It's from the-- Are you suggesting --
Well, let me ask this: I was in Overtown the other day. The County -- no, it was -- somebody
was picking up some trash. Well, let me just ask this: How much money did we pay for trash
pickup? And is it out of the individual -- is it out of the Park budget or the Solid Waste budget,
trash pickup? Is trash pickup at a park, at Virginia Key, or at Gibson Park, it is in the Parks
budget or is it in the Solid Waste budget?
Mr. Martinez: The Solid Waste budget, sir.
Commissioner Teele: See, J.L.? J.L., did you hear the answer?
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry.
114 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Did you hear the answer?
Chairman Plummer: Again.
Mr. Martinez: All trash pickups throughout the City are placed in the Solid Waste budget.
Commissioner Teele: See, that's my point, J.L. Now, we're getting back to another one of these
budget issues that we were talking about yesterday.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah, but it's also-- the deficit would be reduced greatly by the City being
involved with all their budget in Solid Waste if we did have to increase the fee.
Commissioner Teele: But it also doesn't reflect the cost of running the Parks Department, which
is my issue. I'm piggybacking your issue, J.L. So it's four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000)?
Mr. Martinez: I think it's three hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars ($347,000).
Commissioner Teele: OK, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000). Now, how is
that accounted for in our budget? Does our budget this year, FY 2000, the budget that we're
dealing with, with the Governor, does that --
Mr. Luie Brennan (Interim Director, Budget): What's your. question, Commissioner? You were
coughing. I didn't know whether you were finished with the question.
Mr. Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): And the question was, I think, was the three
hundred fifty thousand ($350,000) built into the fiscal year 2000 budget, and where is it?
Mr. Brennan: And the answer is, yes, it's built in the budget.
Mr. Warshaw: Where is it?
Mr. Brennan: It's in the Solid Waste Budget.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's billed as an expense?
Mr. Brennan: Yes, it's an expense.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's an expense in next year's budget.
Mr. Brennan: Right.
Vice Chairman Gort: In other words, it can be reduced.
Commissioner Regalado: How much is it? Three? .
Commissioner Teele: Three fifty.
Commissioner Regalado: Three fifty.
Mr. Warshaw: Three hundred and forty-seven thousand ($347,000).
115 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: So if we pick up this.budget.today, we can deduct three fifty? If we
approve the RFP, the Manager's recommendations, we're picking up three fifty.
Mr. Brennan: Yes. We could deduct that as a cost savings.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's a deduction.
Commissioner Teele: It's a deduction.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney would like to be heard. And I hope that you're not going
to go from garbage to socialism. ,
Mr. Vilarello: I might go back to that issue. And I need to do that before we get too far down on
the record.
Chairman Plummer: Sergio Paredo doesn't even -know what garbage is, you know, socialism.
Mr. Vilarello: Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, and everybody is throwing phrases around
which are not necessarily applicable. The Advisory Committee, at no time discussed the prices
which would be charged to the consumer. The only discussions with regard to prices were the
franchise fee, per account fees, which are regulatory issues that the City would deal with. Prices
with regard to what the consumer would pay, which is where I have a level of concern, were not
discussed. In fact, to my knowledge, they were specifically not discussed, nor would the industry
agree to discuss- those issues at any of those meetings. And when Raul Martinez spoke about
price controls, prices or pricing, he was talking about the regulatory franchise fee, and the per
account fees.
Mr. Martinez: That is correct,' sir.
Mr. Vilarello: And if that's incorrect, please correct me.
Mr. Martinez: No, that is exactly correct, sir.
Commissioner Teele: On the budget, please, would the Budget Director -- Is the three fifty --
three forty-seven an assumption for an expenditure in the FY 2000 budget?
Mr. Brennan: That is correct, sir.
Commissioner Teele: So if we accept the Manager's recommendation, we can deduct that
expenditure?
Mr. Brennan: Upon instruction from the Manager, yes, we can.
Chairman Plummer: Three votes on this Commission still mean --
Mr. Brennan: I would say, yes, we can.
Chairman Plummer: The father, the son and the holy ghost still.prevail.
Mr. Brennan: Yes, yes.
1- 16 SEPTEMBER 28, l 999
Commissioner Teele: Well, to me, it really has nothing to do. with the Commission or the
Manager. It has to do with the Budget Office's professional recommendation. And would you
recommend professionally that if we approve a contract in which we don't have to expend three
hundred and fifty dollars ($350) that the budget be reduced by three fifty (350).
Mr. Brennan: I would recommend so.
Commissioner Teele: That's some help. Now, Mr. Martinez, regarding the fee, itself. The fee
that you have is fifty dollars ($50) per account?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, there's actually three fees. One is the permit per account fee,
which is fifty dollars ($50) per account. That's one of the three fees.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Let's just stop right there. If that fee is adjusted, would it take effect
immediately?
Mr. Martinez: It will take effect as quickly as the company signs the Franchise Agreement, sir, as
quickly as possible.
Commissioner Teele: So what does fifty dollars ($50) yield? -
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, if I may. Is that October 1 which we're shooting for?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: But it would be for. the whole year, anyway.
Chairman Plummer: OK. But I'm saying --
Commissioner Teele: - I mean, it's a one-time fee. So whether they collect it in October or
November, or December --
Chairman Plummer: As quickly as possible --
Mr. Martinez: It's a yearlyfee,.sir. It's every year.
Commissioner Teele: It's an annual fee.
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir. Roughly, it's fifty dollars ($50), and there's around 20,000 accounts. So
it's approximately a million dollars ($1,000,000) for.every.fifty dollars ($50)."
Commissioner Teele: So one;million dollars ($1,000,000). Mr. Budget Director, is that million
dollars ($1,000,000) in the FY 2000 budget?
Mr. Brennan: Yes, it is in.the FY 2000 budget. -
Commissioner Teele:. So in other words, if we don't approve. this, we have a million dollar
($1,000,000) deficit.
117 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Brennan: That is correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: Next year's budget, yes.
Commissioner Teele: But tell me the rationale of assuming that we're going to approve it, and
you put the million dollars ($1,000,000) in, but you don't take the three fifty (350) out. Just
explain the rationale. You know, the million dollars ($1,000,000) is in. OK. I accept that. But
the three fifty (350) is not in. So why would you build a budget-- you either would assume that
we're going to approve this, or you'd assume we're not going to approve it, or you assume that
we're going to split, we're going -- just how do we get there?
Mr. Brennan: Well, I'm afraid there was no rationale behind that. We just included that there,
because —
Commissioner Teele: I accept that.
Mr. Brennan: That's the honest truth.
Commissioner Teele: I accept that. That's an honest statement. OK. So the bottom line is, we
have a three hundred and fifty thousand dollar ($350,000) -- Now, if we were to double the fee
from fifty dollars ($50) to one hundred dollars ($100), that would yield an additional million
dollars ($1,000,000); is that correct?
Mr. Martinez: That is correct, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I would like for the industry, when
they come forward, to comment on, as to whether or not the -- recognizing here that we're all
trying to figure out at 5 o'clock how to balance this budget, and we're looking for eight million
dollars ($8,000,000), so that everybody knows the number we're looking for. We're looking for
eight million dollars ($8,000,000) between now and midnight. I would like for each person that
comes forward -- We're looking for eight million dollars ($8,000,000) for this year, right now.
Not in year eight, and year seven, and all that. We're looking for eight million dollars
($8,000,000) this year, somewhere between four and eight million dollars ($8,000,000). No
question. I would like, Mr. Chairman, for everyone that is a hauler to comment on if the hundred
dollars ($100) would be feasible. Nobody is going to offer up fifty dollars ($50) voluntarily, so I
will concede for the sake of discussion that nobody wants to do it. The question is, if we did it,
would it have such a dramatic impact on your business that you wouldn't be able to operate, or it
would be something that would just be totally --
Chairman Plummer: As you're called on, please include the remark to that. All right?
Mr. Luciano Isla: Point of information, point of information.
Commissioner Teele: Point of information, and I'm going to yield.
Mr. Isla: Thank you, Commissioner Teele. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there
are three basic --
Chairman Plummer: Name, mailing address.
Mr. Isla: Luciano Isla, attorney -at -law, 1790 West 49'h Street
118 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Are you a registered lobbyist?
Mr. Isla: I am, Mr. Chairman, for the Dade Waste Haulers Council.
Chairman Plummer: Proceed.
Mr. Isla: Thank you very much. There are three basic fees. The point of information is there are
three basic fees outlining the Franchise Agreement. One is the fifty dollar ($50) per account
annual fee. It is my understanding that that, based on the language that the City Attorney just
read, that fifty dollar ($50) annual per account fee, or a hundred dollars ($100) would not be
passed through to the customer.
Mr. Vilarello: Right.
Mr. Isla: The second fee is a five thousand dollar ($5,000) annual non-exclusive franchise fee.
That fee, based on the wording of the City Attorney, would likewise be a non -pass -through item
to the customer. Correct?
Chairman Plummer: That's the understanding.
Mr. Isla: The third fee is a 20 percent fee of the gross receipts collected by the non-exclusive
franchise holder.
Chairman Plummer: Which it is now.
Mr. Isla: And that's the way it is now. The way it is now, Mr. Chairman, is that 20 percent fee,
City fee is passed through to the customer. Would that be a pass -through under the language of
the City Attorney, if the non-exclusive franchise will be passed?
Chairman Plummer: City Attorney, did you understand the question?
Mr. Vilarello: The franchise fee, the limitation in the Agreement provides that it not be detailed
as a pass -through to the customer. But the 20 percent franchise fee has to be paid by the
customer. Well, actually, I'm sorry. Actually, it is based on your gross receipts.
Mr. Isla: That's correct, Mr. Attorney. And it is passed through, as the State of Florida. When
you go buy, if you go buy a ten dollar ($10) steak or whatever it is, the State puts six and'a half
percent charge on it, and that is remitted to the State. Likewise, the 20 percent would.
Commissioner Teele: I guess the answer from the Attorney is it can be specified in the bill? It
can or it cannot be?
Mr. Vilarello: It can.
Commissioner Teele: It can be, and it can be passed through., My question, Mr. Martinez,
antisocialist, why would any of these not be able to be passed through? Why can't the
marketplace just prevail? If one guy can go get a contract fqr a hundred and fifty dollars ($150),
and another guy can sell somebody for a hundred and sixty ($160), why do we care? Why is
Government in the middle of this? And you don't have to answer. Let's --
119 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Martinez: I have to, Commissioner, because during our presentations here, we always
supported the free enterprise system.
Commissioner Teele: But why? Why?
Mr. Martinez: The Commission instructed us when we went to the RFQ to --
Commissioner Teele: So the Commission can un-instruct you.
Mr. Martinez: Yes, they can.
Commissioner Teele: So the question that I am asking is simply this: Why do we want to get
involved in regulating what these people charge? All we should be concerned about is what-- I
mean, if you've got 19 haulers, why can't you let the marketplace prevail? If somebody can sell a
Saturn for twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) and another guy can sell it for ten thousand
($10,000), and some poor sucker goes and buys it for the higher amount, you know, that's
America. That's the free marketplace. It's socialistic to try to set the rates. And actually, it's
communism.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, let me add, and I know I'm'being repetitive. There were two
things that were ordered by this Commission for the RFQ. This was one of them, and the
innovative ideas was the second one. And so we added those two to the Franchise Agreement.
Chairman Plummer: Well, let me tell you, my last sanitation bill, they broke out even the tipping
fees paid to the County.
Commissioner Teele: I think they should.
Chairman Plummer: Well, they did. All right? And I'm not going to say who my hauler is, but I
was not happy. OK.
Commissioner Teele: J.L., you're making that as a throw -away, but we're crazy for not requiring
that the tipping fee -- Let me tell you, because people get mad at the City, but they need to
understand, you and I need to understand that 50 percent -- our budget is eighteen, twenty-one
million dollars ($21,000,000) for Solid Waste, before we add in all of the other things. At twenty
million dollars ($20,000,000), how much is the tipping fee? How much is the amount of money
we pay the County?
Mr. Clarance Patterson (Director, Solid Waste Department): Eight million six hundred thousand
dollars ($8,600,000). -
Chairman Plummer: Almost half.
Commissioner Teele: Almost half of it.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah.
Commissioner Teele: So, I mean, you know, we're getting blamed for what we're paying to the
County. We ought to break it out.
120 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: And likewise, when the County started getting 15 percent, my bill reflected
it, because I got a letter telling me that I was going from— I think it was '85 -- up to at that time
fifteen dollars ($15), because the County was charging a percentage. OK. Ladies and gentlemen
of the Commission, what I would like to do is to start now. Norman, you wish to speak?
Norman Charles (President, City Independent Group [Sanitation] Union): Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: All right. I'm going to allow you, as president of the Sanitation Union to
speak. Now, Mary, Mary, you're of the public, and you're going to be after all of the others, as
we laid out in the morning, that the people of the companies are going to speak first. And then
after they're finished, then we'll open it up to the public, and then to the Commission. Would
somebody ask Mr. Sabines, since I don't speak Spanish, is he here for a reason? "Nada?" OK.
Right. Tell him to go home and take a siesta. .Norman, only because you're president of the
Sanitation Union am I allowing you as an individual to speak, and you have three minutes, sir, to
five.
Mr. Charles: That's the only reason why I came up here, sir. Mr. Chairman and honorable
members of the City Commission, I have nothing personal against the franchise. But as I walk
the streets of Miami from day to day, and seeing some of these containers removed, one thing has
always come to mind. There is garbage all over the ground, garbage on the side, garbage in the
front. Dumpsters are overloaded with garbage. These issues have not been addressed. The
Sanitation workers has got to be the one go out, clean this up after everybody already messed up.
What I would like to say to this Commission today is, whoever the franchise is given to, and
whoever responsibility it is to keep this City clean, when they remove the trash out the garbage
from where they pick it up at, they should make sure that the contents that remains is also cleaned
up. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: I totally concur. As you know, I brought that up once before. And my
suggestion at the time, Mr. Charles, was that if any given location received two notices of
violation by overflow of a bin that the owner of the property be required to take the next size up.
And that was my recommendation. Maybe that would work. You know, nobody wants to pay
more or get a bigger bin. They don't care if it overflows and you have to pick it up. So what I'm
saying is, there's got to be a provision in this thing that if they get two notices of violation by the
NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team), they do something. Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, all those concerns were addressed and discussed, and
there is language in the Agreement where .all of these matters will be addressed. That's the
reason why we put together this Agreement. This is going to bring regulation to the industry.
And I mean, every question that — we looked at it from every aspect, this Advisory Board. Our
concerns were put forth. They made recommendations to clean house. I think today, the
industry would be much better with this Agreement. We've addressed every issue on it, and I
think that, Raul, if you want to elaborate on all of them, we can— we'll be here for hours. There
were a lot of them that were addressed. And we have rules and regulations, and there's a process
established in this Agreement.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, if I may, briefly. The wording on the second paragraph under
Article IV, this was recommended by the industry. It states: The removal of all refuse spilled by
the contractor within a ten -foot radius from the center of the container will be the contractor's
121 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
responsibility to remove. Spillage due to under -service will be the responsibility of the customer
to keep clean, and increase the service level which will prevent this condition. So we added this
wording. And it was a recommendation —
Chairman Plummer: See, you're not saying anything about they be required to get- a bin adequate
for their needs.
Clarance Patterson (Director, Solid Waste): That's in Chapter 22.
Chairman Plummer: It is?
Mr. Patterson: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Why isn't it being enforced?
Commissioner Sanchez: Because we haven't passed this.
Chairman Plummer: No, no, no. He's saying Chapter 22 is already there, and it's not being
enforced. I can ride you down, and I guarantee you, I can show you bin after bin of overflowing,
onto the street or sidewalk, that is not being provided with an adequate dumpster. Now, you
know, I think we're going to address that issue before we finish. OK.
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, I'd like to just address that.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, it could be addressed right now. Raul, answer his
question.
Mr. Warshaw: I'd like to address that.
Chairman Plummer: Sure.
Mr. Warshaw: That's one of the reasons why in the budget, we're asking for thirteen new NET
inspectors, so we can do exactly that. You're 100 percent right. It basically comes down —
Chairman Plummer:. But they're not spelling it out. What I'm saying is —
Mr. Warshaw: It comes down to enforcement, though.
Chairman Plummer: OK. What I'm saying is before we leave here, I'm going to make a motion
that if anybody is cited twice within a 12-month period for overflowing of a dumpster that they be
forced and required to buy or to rent at least the next size up. OK? All right. Now, we're ready
to go. And I want you to know that if everybody speaks five minutes, based on the schedule I
have, this will run till approximately 6:30 or a quarter of 7. So I'm going to give everybody five
minutes. If you can do it in less, fine. If you can't, then maybe we'll try to do what we can. And
as I said, Alfredo L. Gonzalez, are you of a company?
Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Waste Management.
Chairman Plummer: All right. You said Waste Man.
Mr. Gonzalez: I'm sorry. It's Waste Management.
122 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. Gonzalez: My name is Al —
Chairman Plummer: Your abbreviation. Any lawyers that come up, please start off by saying if
you're a registered lobbyist, so I don't have to ask you. Remember, Commissioner Teele wanted
each one of you to answer the question that was, "Are you socialistic?" No. What was it, Teele?
Excuse me. What was it he asked?
Mr. Martinez: Whether they would object to the per account —
Chairman Plummer: Oh, yeah, going to the hundred dollars ($100) instead of the fifty ($50).
OK? So each one of you, as you come up, please answer Commissioner Teele's question. Sir,
you have five minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you. My name is Al Gonzalez. I'm an attorney with Adorno and Zeder
with offices at 2601 South Bayshore Drive. This has been a pretty lengthy process. It's almost
taken a year. And it's been very confusing. My job is to make it a little clearer for you, and I
think I can. Basically, we have on the one side, your staffs recommendation and everyone in the
industry, with the exception of one company. And on the other one, a company asking for a
monopoly. Waste Management's position is that they endorse staff's recommendation. They
support that and are willing to live with the requirements of that recommendation. There are both
business and legal reasons that are important for your consideration. Let's address the business
reasons first. If you were to take their proposal, you would put 19 companies out of business
overnight.
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry, sir, I'm sorry. I shouldn't do this to you. Yvonne McDonald,
you've been waiting to see Ms. Warren. Would you please go over and join hands with her. Sir,
I do apologize.
Mr. Gonzalez: No problem, sir. Assuming you were to accept Republic's proposal, you would
be putting 19 companies out of business overnight. Those 19 companies have a compounding
effect in terms of the economic benefit they have to the City. For example, in our case, we have. a
facility within the City of Miami, which many others, including Republic, does not have, which
spends over twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000), which employs 300 people, and which
pays nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) of franchise fees. Now, the other business point
to keep in mind is that their proposal is a bit ambiguous and unclear. And for someone holding a
monopoly, that's very dangerous. For example, if they increase the number of times they come to
a customer for services, how do they value that other service? If they have a new client, how do
they value that service? What is meant by extraordinary reasons then to increase expenses? All
of those things are bad enough when you have competition. They certainly are a problem when
you have a monopoly. And you're going to have a lot of problems curved only by the
imagination of lawyers. The proposal recommended by your staff, depending on the per account
figure, is as lucrative as Republic, but it preserves economic freedom and competition, and the
right to choose by the customers of who is supposed to provide them with this service. I'll now
address the legal issues, because I think they're dispositive of what's going on here. First of all,
your Charter does not permit for exclusive franchises. I think Luciano Isla is going to address
that issue, so I'll move on. The second issue is all contracts over forty-five hundred dollars
($4,500) have to be competitively bid. This was not competitively bid. This is an RFQ. All 19 —
18 of the 19 qualifiers did not have an option. Why didn't they have an option? Because that's
123 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
not what the RFQ called for. And for you to not have a competitive process when you're trying
to grant some company a monopoly really cheats you out of the best price possible. if you're
going to do that, you need an RFP, and you need to have criteria and parameters, so you have
competition, and you ensure yourself of the best price possible. But what's more important, I
think, is the fact that they were not responsive to your RFQ. And in this, you don't have to take
my word for it. You can ask your own staff. Your own lawyer has said they were non-
responsive. But I'll read from your own RFQ. It says you are seeking to qualify private
commercial haulers to enter into long-term non-exclusive Citywide franchises. And then it
defines the Agreement as Agreement. Well, in the optional provision, it says that you, as a City,
have the option to include any of these optional concepts or ideas as part of the Agreement, and
it's a defined term. Well, by definition, that means it's a non-exclusive Agreement, and they
were non -responsive when they bid an exclusive type of contract. I will reserve some time for
my client to address some further business issues. But, please, we stand for free competition and
for choice by the customer. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The next speaker is Lori Weems of BFI, and after that is
Mark Bingham of Florida Recyclables — I'm sorry — Raul -- You didn't answer the question, sir,
the fifty ($50) to the hundred dollars ($100). I don't know if seventy-five ($75) was ever
proffered. I didn't hear seventy-five ($75). I heard fifty ($50) to a hundred ($100).
Mr. Martinez: The question that Commissioner Teele asked the Commission to ask, wouldthey
be willing to go from fifty ($50) to a hundred ($100). That's the only question.
Chairman Plummer: That's what I understood.
Mr. Martinez: The Commission might want to ask some other options, seventy-five ($75) or a
hundred ($100).
Chairman Plummer: How about a hundred and a half?
Mr. Gonzalez: This has been going up from ten dollars ($10) to a hundred ($100) now
Chairman Plummer: Sir, it's a very simple question. You can answer yes or no.
Mr. Gonzalez: Well, the response is, if it's pass -through, we have no objection. If it's not pass -
through, then certainly, we would like something more in the eighty-five dollar ($85) or seventy-
five dollar ($75) range. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: How did he answer that question? OK. Lori Weems, BFI, and as I said,
Mark Bingham, you're the next speaker.
Mss. Lori Weems: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is
Lori Weems. I'm a lawyer with Holland and Knight, and we are counsel to Browning Farris
Industries in this matter. I'd like to primarily reserve all of my time at the conclusion to respond
to specific concerns raised by the Commission, and also, to arguments raised today by Republic
Imperial. But I would like to respond to Commissioner Teele's concern on behalf of my client.
We agree, we also would be agreeable to the hundred dollar ($100) fee on the condition that the
fifty dollars ($50) was passed through to the — passable through to the customer. If not, I think
we would be, within ring (sic), without a pass -through, we would be able to negotiate something
in the seventy-five dollar ($75) range. But we would need to analyze that a little bit further, I
124 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
think. And I respectively request to reserve the remainder of my time and state my position
strongly in favor of the Manager's recommendation at this point.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Mr. Mark Bingham. And the next speaker is David McWilliams.
Mr. Mark Bingham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Bingham. We have a
business here in Miami at 2000 North Miami Avenue. I come here today as the selected vice
chairman of the Florida Recyclers Coalition. The Florida Recyclers Coalition is a series of
independent companies Statewide with several members locally who are primarily engaged in
roll -off service and construction of demolition debris recovery and processing. We would like to
share with the Commission and we would encourage the Commission to go with the staff
recommendation, based on our feeling that the proposed monopoly would be a detriment to
recycling. My firm, Dade Recycling Disposal, operates two construction demolition recovery —
material recovery facilities, including one right here in the City of Miami. Since opening early
this year, we have diverted from the waste stream hundreds of cubic yards, several thousand tons
of wood, of clean fill and metal that would otherwise go into the landfills or to the incinerator.
And in the event that there were only one firm operating that chose not to do business with us,
none of that material would be otherwise diverted. Here in this room, on occasion, my customers,
many of whom I see here today, have been described as sham recyclers. I'd like to point out that
that's not really the case. They've made an effort in terms of bringing material to us. We have a
significant investment in terms of real estate, of employees and equipment dedicated to recycling.
And each of our customers here are hard working individuals who have made a long-term
investment here in the community, and we would appreciate their consideration and not further
considering the monopoly. I don't feel it appropriate for me, as not being a hauler and not
directly billing customers to respond to the question about the hundred dollars ($100).
Chairman Plummer: Understand, sir.
Mr. Bingham: All right. I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: You yield to whom, sir?
Mr. Bingham: To whoever needs it.
Chairman Plummer: You said you yield the remainder of your time. To whom? Whoever needs
it?
Mr. Bingham: Whoever needs it.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Let me stop for one minute. I think it's safe to say, if I'm not
mistaken, by my colleagues that we're not — if you're here for Zoning, P&Z (Planning and
Zoning) Agenda, we're not going to get here a minimum of 6 o'clock. So think if you want to go
have supper, you want to go home and watch the news or sit calm, be back somewhere around 6
o'clock, and I think you'll be safe. I'm not going to say that you'll be heard tonight, but it will be
at least 6, I think, because we'll be taking up budget at 5:05 if we're lucky. OK. David
McWilliams, Mack Pack, Inc., and after him will be Danny Michael from Radiator King.
Mr. David McWilliams: I believe Danny is one of the customers that would like to speak, so I
don't know if you want to hear him right away.
125 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right. Then the next one after that will be Bob Williams, and that is
Summit and Stone — Smurf and Stone. Whatever and stone. OK. Danny? Where's Danny?
Take a deep breath and relax. You're down the pike a way. All right, sir. We now have Mr.
David McWilliams.
David McWilliams: ' Yes, sir. David McWilliams with Mack Pack Waste and Recycling Services
at 2900 Northwest 72"d Avenue. And I'm also one of the board of directors for the Dade Waste
Haulers Council. I'd like to answer your question that you asked concerning the per account fee.
And .what we would be willing to do would be to go with a hundred dollars ($100) if we could
pass fifty ($50) of that on to the customer.
Chairman Plummer: Typical political answer. Maybe yes, maybe no. It could be a boy, it might
be a girl. I understand what you're saying.
Mr. McWilliams: You understand what I'm saying.
Chairman Plummer: I don't agree with it, but I understand what you're saying
Mr. McWilliams: What I'd like to say, sir, is this: We've worked very hard with your staff that
you put together. They've worked hard.. We got a lot of man-hours into this non-exclusive
franchise arrangement. And I think, as the gentleman that was up here before me from Waste
Management said, this is a way to keep competition in the industry. And it will regulate itself, as
has already been pointed out, too, without having to worry about price controls. So I think that
this is the way that we should go with that. Now, however, I'd like to state, though, for the
record, that all of our innovative thinking has gone into this particular arrangement. We've
worked with your staff for a year now. And now, we're coming back around to where there's one
company that's still hanging on the exclusive franchise. They want to gain all of this for
themselves. And, of course, I'm talking about Imperial/Republic. What I would like to point out
to you, that this particular company may not be the best one to choose for the job, especially
giving the whole City to them, or half the City, as they're proposing, because I don't believe that
they are staying up with the level of their service or I don't believe that they're performing well in
their stock. The Herald, on August the 3 V, put out this article, which I've had distributed to you
gentlemen. And in there, they, themselves, admit that they are not up to the level of service. For
example, their CEO (Chief Executive Officer), James E. O'Connor said — and I quote from
Paragraph 4 of that particular article. It says that he blames the longer than expected time it takes
to enhance quality and performance standards of acquired companies. Basically, they're saying
they're not performing well because they haven't got the operations up and running the way they
should. I think that they bit off more than they can chew. I think that it would be even a bigger
bite here in Miami. I think that what you should do is to work with the group of individuals that
you have at hand that have been working for a year with your staff and keep open competition in
Miami. Let it regulate itself. And we'll bid against each.other. We're not afraid to go out there
every day on the streets and bid against each other to get the work. And I don't think these
people should be afraid to do the same. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The next speaker is Bob Williams. And after Bob Williams
is Dennis Baron from Triangle Scrap Metal.
Bob Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is'Bob Williams, and I am an employee of
Smurf and Stone Container Corporation.
Chairman Plummer: Which is not a trash hauler.
126 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
s
Mr. Williams: That's correct, sir.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Mr. Williams: Sir, I'd like to defer my time to the end to Ms. Daugherty, really, until we
determine whether it's an exclusive franchise or non-exclusive franchise. I probably would be
confusing at this point in the program, so I'd appreciate to defer.
Chairman Plummer: Join the crowd.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Let me ask a question, if I may, in the middle here. Could— can we
limit it to, say, less than 20?
Mr. George Wysong (Assistant City Attorney): You're talking about haulers?
Chairman Plummer: The number of non-exclusive-- If this Commission so deemed it, could we
say we're only going to allow ten instead of 20? And conversely, if it is 20, tomorrow, another
company, can that company come in as number 2 1 ?
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, once this Franchise Agreement is signed, nobody else can come in
for the duration of the Agreemenet.
Chairman Plummer: Then all right. That's understandable. Can this Commission sign a contract
for less than 20? I mean, if we wanted 19, can we do that?
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, right now, all you have is 19 qualified companies.
Chairman Plummer: All right, excuse me. If we wanted to make it ten, can we do that?
Mr. Martinez: I don't know.
Mr. Wysong: We would encourage you to start the process over again —
Chairman Plummer: Answer my question.
Mr. Wysong: But yes. You could pick one —
Chairman Plummer: You can do it.
Mr. Wysong: -- you could pick two, five, as many as you'd like.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Now, so if what is being said here about the hundred dollars ($100) as
opposed to the fifty ($50), if we, the Commission, don't like their answer, we can exclude them
from being a part? Hey, I just look dumb. All right? Is my answer correct? Sir, I'd like to get
an answer.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
127 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Wysong: Sure.
Chairman Plummer: My question is, if we don't like the answers of given companies, regardless
of the issue or their answer, can 'we exclude that company from being a part of the overall
picture? A lot of people getting nervous out here, I see.
Mr. Vilarello: The companies that submitted a response to the Request for Qualifications and are
qualified meet the requirements of the RFQ, notwithstanding their comments today. If you
decide to increase the annual per account fee from fifty dollars ($50) to a hundred dollars ($100),
and they choose not to participate, that is their choice, and they don't need to sign a Franchise
Agreement. You don't need to exclude them. They can exclude themselves.
Chairman Plummer: Alrighty. Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Just a point. I remember that and I — you know, I agree with the
number now. But I remember that at first, we mentioned the number ten, because Administration
said that — and this was several months ago — that it would be easier to control less companies
than we had when we started talking about those pirate companies going around the City and
whatever. .
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Just for the record, I was not indicating that I wanted ten, or I
wanted 19.
Commissioner Regalado:. No, I understand what you said.
Chairman Plummer: I'm just saying that I was concerned about some of the answers, "it's a boy
or a girl," or "maybe or could be."
Commissioner Regalado: One thing that I don't understand and probably I guess that other
companies would clarify is that every company that has come before has answered the question,
"Do you agree with a hundred dollars($100)?" And most of the companies, if not all, have said,
"We agree if we are allowed to pass on fifty dollars ($50)." But then immediately, they said,
"We are OK with seventy-five ($75)." So where are the twenty-five ($25) here missing?
Mr. Martinez: Well, Commissioner, let me say fifty dollars ($50) as per the proposal produces a
million dollars ($1,000,000).
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. Raul, Raul, what I'm saying is that they are comfortable
with seventy-five ($75). But when they talk about a hundred, they said that they will be OK if
they can pass on fifty. So I'm asking why would they be comfortable with seventy-five ($75) and
they want to pass on fifty ($50)?
Mr. Martinez: I definitely can't answer that question for the industry.
Chairman Plummer: Well, they're going to, rest assured.
Mr. Martinez: But what I can tell you is whatever amount this Commission approves today, then
they have the option whether they want to service accounts in the City of Miami or not, whether
it's fifty ($50), seventy-five ($75), or a hundred ($100).
128 SEPTEMBER 28, 1.999
Chairman Plummer: That's their choice. That's it, at a hundred ($100). Mr. Bob Williams of
Summit and Stone said he was going to pass over to Lucia. Dennis Baron of Triangle Scrap
Metals and then Ed Hurley from Smurf and Stone.
Dennis Baron: Mr. Chairman, I want to pass and maybe reserve the right to speak later.
Chairman Plummer: Well, you know, that's all well and good, but we're going to have an orderly
process here, sir.
Mr. Baron: I'm going to yield to Mr. —
Chairman Plummer: Is he next in line?
Unidentified Speaker: No.
Chairman Plummer: Then he will wait his turn, sir. You're passing and you had your
opportunity. Mr. Dennis Baron is the gentleman that passed on — no, he passed his time. It's a
conflict of interest for an undertaker. All right. All right. Mr. Hurley of Smurf and Stone, and
the next speaker — Is Delta a Company? Delta is a Company? OK. Delta, Louis Divita is the
next speaker after Ed Hurley.
Ed Hurley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ed Hurley. I'm with Smurf and Stone, and
my mailing address is Saint Louis, Missouri. I don't have— I'm not answering the question that
Mr. Teele asked about, because my interest is solely on recovered materials. We are a recovered
materials dealer. We have participated, and I personally have participated in about two or three
of the meetings of this advisory group. We have, and several of my colleagues have raised the
issue about the difference between source separated recovered materials and recyclable materials
that are commingled with solid waste. The City Attorneys and his office, and other people in the
Administration here have basically .opposed and been rather unresponsive to any of our
arguments. Notwithstanding the fact that a distinction has been made and exists today in
California, Oregon; Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and in Florida State statute; and in addition,
the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) makes a distinction for recycling plants in the State
of Florida that fall under SIC Code 5093. There is a distinction in your water discharge, your
storm water permit. And that distinction is that if you operate a facility that handles mixed waste
and what we call a dirty murf, that is recyclables which are commingled with solid waste, you are
required to monitor your storm water discharge. However, if you operate a plant, which most of
my colleagues and ourselves operate, that handles only source separated recovered materials, no
monitoring is required. So there is an acknowledgement, an environmental acknowledgement
that there is a distinction. And it bothers me a great deal that we have made that argument to the
City Attorney's Office, and they have been absolutely unresponsive to it. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The next one is Delta, Louis Divita, and after that is Mike
Chavez.
Mr. Louis Divita: Good afternoon. I would have to answer the question, first of all. The
hundred dollars ($100) would be acceptable if fifty ($50) could be passed through.
Chairman Plummer: You guys don't listen, do you? OK. It's your choice, sir.
Mr. Divita: My name is Louis Divita. I'm with the Delta Companies —
129 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Looks like it's going to be less than ten.
Mr. Divita: -- at 2075 North Powerline Road, Pompano Beach, Florida, 33069. I'm a board
member of the Dade Waste Haulers Council. I'm a board member of the Florida Recyclers
Coalition. Since November 1998, every argument for and against exclusive franchising has been
discussed extensively during workshops, Commission meetings, and written communications.
Director Patterson and Assistant City Manager Martinez, together with industry representatives
workshopped the issue, and they listened. Director Patterson and Assistant City Manager
Martinez came to this Commission with their recommendations. ThisCommission voted for non-
exclusive franchising by district, based on their research and findings. After the vote, the Solid
Waste Advisory Committee, chaired by Commissioner Sanchez, agreed to issues including
insurance requirements, payment bond requirements and franchise fees. The Committee's work
was incorporated into the RFQ, and 19 applicants qualified. Nothing has changed to make
exclusive franchising more attractive or viable. The City offered a five-year franchise.
Obviously, Imperial felt the need for an eight -year franchise. I ask, why? Equipment needed to
service has not been listed. Route schedules, the number of accounts, containers and frequency of
service have not been established. Customer complaint resolution has not been discussed. State
mandated recycling has not been included. Keeping container areas clean has not been addressed.
What is innovative about this proposal? Please do not be enticed by a few extra dollars that are
being waved in front of you now. The exclusive franchise system does have problems. If an
exclusive franchise is granted, the City may be inundated with complaints of poor service. Thus,
the extra revenue the City hoped for will be absorbed in part by those employees that must
answer the complaints. Do not kid yourselves. Eventually, prices will have to rise to offset
additional monies being offered. The proposal calls for no increase for the customer only for the
duration of the customer's contract, not the eight years as believed. , The proposal does not
address charges for changes in services, new service, extra pick ups, et cetera. When the prices
rise, customers will look to reduce service to save money:In Miami, illegal dumping will occur,
jeopardizing health, safety and welfare. These conditions will have an adverse impact on the
City's revenue. If an exclusive franchise were granted, and in the future, the City decided to
reopen hauling, there will be fewer if any small to mid -sized haulers left to enter the solid waste
hauling arena in Miami. Gentlemen, your first vote was the right vote for all partiesconcerned.
I'm sure you'll do the right thing once again. I yield any of my remaining time to Attorney
Luciano Isla. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Luciano Isla, you have two minutes and five seconds. Do you wish to take
advantage of that time?
Mr. Isla: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm on the list to speak. I'd like to take the time at that point.
May I?
Chairman Plummer: Are you trying to accumulate time? Or what are you trying to do on me
here?
Mr. Isla: I'll just do seven minutes, Your Honor— Mr. Chairman. I'll do seven minutes right
here.
Chairman Plummer: All right. All right.
Mr. Isla: But I could — let me take it now, Mr. Chairman, if I could. I'll take the two minutes
now if I can.
130 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right. You've got it. Go ahead.
Mr. Isla: To follow up what Mr. Divita is saying, it is understood what the Commission advised
earlier regarding an increase over fifty dollars ($50) annual per account fee to one hundred dollars
($100). 1 think there are legitimate needs of the City to raise revenue within the legal framework
that you can operate being a non-exclusive basis. Some of the speakers that have preceded Mr.
Divita have indicated a suggestion that fifty dollars ($50) of the hundred ($100) be a pass -
through. As it pertains to the City, it doesn't matter. You're going to get the hundred dollars
($100) anyway. Let the marketplace dictate how much of that can be passed through. It is not a
rejection of the hundred dollar ($100) annual per account fee. It's just a consideration, because
we understand the needs of the City.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Are you saying that -- Admittedly, you'd rather pay fifty ($50), rather than
a hundred ($100.) But are you saying that if you were asked to, you could pay the hundred
($100) or your clients could pay the hundred ($100), but you all would prefer that it be able to be
passed through?
Mr. Isla: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: And when you say pass -through, does that mean that you would list it on
the bill?
Mr. Isla: You would not be able to list it on the bill, sir, if it's not a pass -through.
Commissioner Teele: So by passing it through, you'd list it on the bill?
Mr. Isla: You would, but I don't see how the marketplace rules. If it were— if it had to be put on
the bill, Commissioner Teele —
Commissioner Teele: I'd rather it not be. But I'm trying to say I would like to pass it through,
but I'd — I want you to have the right to pass it through, but I don't want our name on it.
Mr. Isla: But I was going to say, Commissioner Teele, and I concur with you, what I was going
to say is, if it had to be on the bill, if it had to be on the bill, would it not then be a matter of
negotiation between the customer and the hauler? And certainly, the customer would have notice
of that. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Regalado: But the problem is one question, Luciano. I - emember = was it
Clarance or Raul? — two years ago or almost three years ago, when we raised the fee for the
companies that immediately, they went to the customers and said, the City has increased our fees,
so we have to do this. And this is what Commissioner Teele is saying.
Mr. Isla: Fifteen seconds. Just 15 seconds, Mr. Chairman, to reply to Commissioner Regalado.
Chairman Plummer: Well, you're cheating on me all day long.
Mr. Isla: No, sir, I won't. I won't.
131 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: He's a good man.
Mr. Isla: Let me tell the following to you: Understanding that the annual per account fee is a fee
paid per account, as the account is enrolled as a customer of the hauler. Thus, you could have a
customer for six months of the year. If on the seventh month, the hauler, by choice, has gone to
another hauler or has ceased business, in effect, the account stops. So let's not stand on a dime,
or fifty dollars ($50). Make it a hundred dollars ($100), no pass through, because, after all,
there's a hundred dollars ($100) annually, per account, as long as the account is on the books of
the hauler.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah, but if you leave one hauler and go to another, we get twice
Mr. Isla: No, sir.
Chairman Plummer: What do you mean, no?
Mr. Isla: Well, you pick up the balance of the year.
Chairman Plummer: No, no, no, no. If they pay one and go to another hauler that's in our
exclusive right, they got to pay another one, because it's a new account.
Mr. Isla: But it's still — I know, sir. But if Hauler "A" has a customer for six months —
Chairman Plummer: Yeah.
Mr. Isla: The customer then switches to Hauler "B."
Chairman Plummer: Yeah. Right. That means we get a hundred ($100) from "A" and a hundred
($100) from `B."
Commissioner Teele: Right. Exactly right.
Chairman Plummer: Absolutely.
Mr. Isla: Well, how can it be, then, an annual per account fee, sir?
Chairman Plummer: No, no, no. You're not listening. You're hearing what you want to hear.
Mr. Isla: Well, then, sir, if you want a hundred dollars ($100) per account —
Chairman Plummer: Sir, before the night is out, you will learn.
Mr. Isla: If you want a hundred ($100) per account —
Chairman Plummer: You're going to learn to love it.
Mr. Isla: -- then consider letting it be a pass -through, then you get two hundred dollars ($200).
Chairman Plummer: All right. Well, hey, I'm not saying that you should have the right to go
from one to another. And I think, from what I know, even though I was not forced to sign a
132 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
contract with my hauler, under normal circumstances, most people do. And you have a year
contract, or two years, or whatever .you agree upon with the customer. So I don't think you're
really that concerned about two charges or the two cuts a year. OK?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify with the Management that I
understood, and I don't think — I think we have a real financial issue and problem if you all are
interpreting this the way this fine gentleman is. This payment of per account is a one time
payment, payable in advance. This is not an amortized payment, now.
Mr. Martinez: Correct. It's one time a year — probably October 1 every —
Commissioner Teele: October 1 '.
Chairman Plummer: It's an annual.
Commissioner Teele: Annual.
Mr. Martinez: Every October I'
Commissioner Teele: And so to use Commissioner Plummer's analogy, which is totally correct,
if somebody decides, I don't like you, you're out, and they don't have a contract, and they bring
in another person, the other person pays that fee, as well, because that's a fee associated with
keeping up with the records —
Chairman Plummer: Absolutely.
Commissioner Teele: -- as to who's got it, who's responsible for the trash, the overflow and all
of those kinds of things.
Chairman Plummer: But let me go back to your socialism, all right? No, no, no, this is not a joke
now. OK? Let me tell you, I'm also saying that if I'm going to vote on people who are going to
pay the hundred dollars ($100) without passing it through, I think it is only right that all haulers
that are into this Agreement should be on the same level. OK? I don't think the guy that says,
no, I'll passs through fifty ($50) and pay fifty ($50) should have an advantage over the one who
said: Commissioner, I want to help the City of Miami. I'm going to pay the hundred dollars
($100) without the pass -through. I think there's a big difference, and I think that I'm going to be
looking at that very seriously. Next speaker, Mike Chavez.
Miguel Chavez: Good afternoon.
Chairman Plummer: From United Environmental. And after him, I can't read it, but it's the big
apple.
Mr. Chavez: Good afternoon, Chairman. .
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Chavez, you.have five minutes, sir.
Mr. Chavez: Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Miguel
Chavez, and I represent United Environmental. Mike Chavez. 2015 Northwest 25'" Avenue,
Miami, Florida. I'm here about a minute from the allocated time. Mr. Luciano, I would like to
give you — it's only one minute, what I'm going to take. I agree that a hundred dollars ($100), but
133 SEPT-EMBER 28, 1999
I agree to pass at least half to the customer, because if you put more and more fee to us to keep it,
you know, you have to understand, so much all over that we have to go for the franchisee. I'm
here to speak to you today, express my support in favor of your approval to keep the private
collection of solid waste and recycle on a non-exclusive franchise basis, like us, and myself, and
all the haulers, a qualified company. I'm against the MiamiCity Commissioner not approving an
exclusive franchise for the private collection of solid waste and recycling in the City of Miami.
Such an exclusive franchise would be the same as your granting — no monopoly, please. Let's
keep the franchise — I mean the franchisee, and let's keep the free enterprise. Please, I'd like to
keep the freedom to choose any hauler. Like the customer, they can choose between myself or
anyone they want, you know, as long they providing a good service and on a competition. I
today, this morning, I went to the Internet, and I'd like to pass this to you, Commissioners.
Chairman Plummer: Is that the Yahoo?
Mr. Chavez: Yes. Do you have it? I'd like to pass this, and I'd like to give it to you. And this is
the company that more or less, they like to provide the monopoly in the City of Miami. That's all
I have to say. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. We will now hear from the big apple. And after the big
apple — I'm sorry?
Unidentified Speaker: I'm going to pass. I want to give the time to —
Chairman Plummer: Are you relinquishing your time to that guy again?
Mr. Isla: Mr. Chairman, Luciano Isla, attorney -at -law.
Chairman Plummer: Hey, look, let's try to come to something reasonable. Howabout if I give
you 15 minutes at the end?
Mr. Isla: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Plummer: All right? Because Republic has asked for that. I'll allow that. I'll give
each of you 15 minutes, rather than having to come up, taking a bite of the apple every turn. Big,
apple. Big apple. Small orange.
Unidentified Speaker: I want to give him my time.
Chairman Plummer: You don't have to. He's got 15 minutes.
Unidentified Speaker: OK. Then.I pass.
Chairman Plummer: All right. We're going to have fruit salad. Captain Trash, is that? Captain
Trash. After that will be Garbage Roll Off.
Douglas Ross: My name is Douglas Ross, Captain Trash, 3236 Northwest 280' Street in Miami.
Gentlemen,
Mr. Commissioners, I'm a dead man talking. I started Captain Trash one year ago in the City of
Miami. The RFQ has put me out of business. I can't afford to pay five thousand dollars ($5,000)
for my permit, which last year cost two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225). Also, the fifty
dollars ($50) per account, for my company, that fifty ($50) means another three thousand
134 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
($3,000). In addition, the expense of having to provide certified accounting to guarantee that I'm
going to pay the City monies that are owed, which is an insult to the intelligence of a, reasonable
businessperson. All my life, I have managed to pay bills that are necessary. And if you — if it's a
pass -through, and you're collecting from customers monies that are owed to the City, the money
goes to the City. I can't fathom companies that would use that as their own operating capital or
items like that.
Chairman Plummer: I wish you were correct, sir, but when we came to the realization, there was
almost a half a million dollars owed to this City by trash haulers who did not pay. And we —
Mr. Ross: I'm not saying other companies don't do that.
Chairman Plummer: I'm saying that that's the case.
Mr. Ross: I understand.
Chairman Plummer: You're honest, but some aren't.
Mr. Ross: Yes, sir. Well, the point is that I am honest, I am hard working, I've been in the City
for 35 years, and I'm extremely disappointed to lose the magnitude of the entire City of Miami
for future business for Captain Trash. The only thing that I'd like to say beyond that is that I
really do hope that you find it in your heart to vote in favor of freedom of choice, because I think
it's in the best interest of all the people in the City of Miami, and everywhere in Dade County.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. OK. After the big apple and Captain Trash is Gregg Davis,
Garbage Roll -Off.
Gregory Davis: Thank you for your time. My name is Gregory Davis. I'm the president of
Garbage Roll -Off Demolition. I've been going through this since the beginning in about
November. Unfortunately, I'm only in the roll -off industry. I do not do garbage, so it hasn't
really been addressed. I focus only on construction material and recyclables. But in the issues
that have come up, it seems that everyone is talking about money, when in reality, it's the voters
that are going to be affected by this, because the amount of money that you gentlemen are looking
for, approximately eight million dollars ($8,000,000), you're looking someplace. And I don't
understand how much money I can pull out of my pocket in order to try and help you with your
budget, but I'm willing to do what I can. I went through, last night, through the Yellow Pages,
which gave me a good idea on how many garbage companies there are. In the October '99
expiration of the Yellow Pages, there are, under rubbish haulers, there were 30 garbage
companies. And under garbage in that issue, there are another 47. I've worked for four garbage
companies. Most of them are represented here. I worked as an inside sales rep. I had a territory
in excess of 2600 customers, billing in excess of three hundred thousand ($300,000) a month.
My job with them was basically to handle it all over the phone, which is what would happen if
you go to a monopoly. My experience is that franchises don't work. And if you do go to
something like that, you gentlemen are going to be the people that have to handle all the customer
service issues, because you will not leave them choices. I know that you complain when you get
complaints from your constituents about bad service. If you look at franchising, it will all come
to you. When the choice is limited, they're going to yell at you, not me. You know, I brought in
some little letters. And any time that I have, I just — I'm not against — I'm not for franchise of any
size.
135 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: May I ask the gentleman? Sir, you're in the roll -off business. Is it your
understanding that the exclusive franchise proposal, as it has been advanced by the company that
did it — I guess it's Republic — is it your understanding that roll -offs would be excluded from that
or would be included? That is, would they have the exclusive on roll -offs, or would you continue
to function the same way with the roll -off business? What's your understanding?
Mr. Davis: My understanding is that if it goes to that, there will not be a license. You never
created a special licence at this point, specifically for roll -off only. So my understanding is that
roll -off would be cut out of the City, also.
Commissioner Teele: So your understanding is that if we were to do the exclusive franchise
Citywide, or if we were to do it in — I think they offered a proposal on the north or the south,
southern — however that's defined — that either way, you would be cut out, wherever the exclusive
franchise is.
Mr. Davis: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: Of the roll -off business.
Mr. Davis: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis: Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Tony — who? Spadaccia, Waste Management. And after him is Ben
Bush of General Hauling. Tony with a difficult last name.
Tony Spadaccia: I know. It's that funny Italian name that you talked about last time.
Chairman Plummer: I had Italian food last night, but it didn't help me a bit. Proceed, sir.
Mr. Spadaccia: You woke up on the wrong side of the bed then, right? Mr. Chairman, Vice
Chairperson, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, City Manager, City Attorney, we've been
talking hard and long over the exclusive/non-exclusive Agreement that we're about to probably
finalize, hopefully, tonight. The Request for Qualifications for the non-exclusive hauler franchise
was as the result of a lot of hard work. A lot of time was spent, a lot of effort and thought put into
it. It wasn't a casual process that brought us to this point. Not casual at all. We've looked at it
seriously. No one has taken this lightly. You voted for an Agreement that was in the best interest
of the residents and the business community. The Agreement provides for a regulated
atmosphere for the haulers to work in. You required that. You wanted regulation. You wanted
the control. You wanted the authority to direct the traffic as you saw fit, because you saw that it
wasn't working before. We've agreed to that. You asked for it. It's in the Agreement. We've
committed to it. It provided for a serious revenue enhancement. Again, you asked for it. We
worked on it. We beat it up. We were pushed. We've accommodated. We've acknowledged.
The revenue has been as serious, and it's there. It provided for services to be provided to the City
and the community without charge. We're doing that. You asked for it. We've committed to it.
There's a big, serious value in that. It provided for a commitment to service excellence by the
haulers, because you can fire the guy that doesn't perform for you. Commissioner Regalado had
136 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
concerns. He can fire his hauler now. If he doesn't want to pick up Tuesday morning because
I'm only there on Wednesday night, or Thursday, or Friday, or any other time, he could fire him.
And if he doesn't like my price, he can fire me. And if he doesn't like me, he could fire me. It's
the open market. It's the competition. It's what you asked for. It's what the citizens asked for.
It's what the community asked for. Provides for an open market for customers to choose — to
choose their hauler, to choose the level of service they require, and negotiate the best deal for
their particular property. You're all individuals. We're all individuals. You all have special
needs and specific needs. And maybe my truck won't go down your alley. Or maybe you like a
rear loader instead of a front loader, because you may be able to pile it higher. But for whatever
your reason is, because you know my father, and my grandfather, and his father, who worked side
by side next to your father, who committed their energies and money to the City of Miami, you
want to deal with them. Some would have that opportunity thrown away. The idea that a 13-year
exclusive Franchise Agreement is novel, and new, and creative is incredible. I mean, it's
incredible. How in the world could that be innovative, novel and new? How wonderful. I'll give
you money. You give me a 13-year Agreement, and we'll live happily ever after. Folks, folks,
the republic coffer is not new. It's simply a way of buying market share. It's not responsive to
the RFQ, period. That was discussed earlier. Legal issues were discussed by our team. They're
clear. The marketplace, the open marketplace is the best place to drive services and rates. You
don't come as your customer requires, you're fired.. It's simple. You're fired. There's no
comparison, folks, between a customer -friendly, non-exclusive franchise and a closed anti -
competition republic offer. The goodwill, the opportunities, the pride of ownership and service
excellence, the earned business relationships, money spent, money earned, money saved, the
recognition of this City as a City of opportunity, free enterprise and respect for its people is what
you get in this non-exclusive working Agreement. The City of Miami has everything to gain by
executing the non-exclusive hauler Agreement, and everything to lose by continuing or accepting
anything other than that. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Did you speak to the hundred dollars ($100)?
Mr. Spadaccia: We acknowledge the City Attorney's reference to that, and we're prepared to
execute the Agreement as it's written.
Chairman Plummer: That means 50.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: You know, it's such an easy thing to answer. Are you yes or no on the
hundred dollars ($100)? Now, if you want to go with goobly-gook or Chinese or —
Mr. Spadaccia: We are not going to be excluded from this process, so if a hundred dollars ($100)
is the ticket, we're going to play.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: To the gentleman.
Chairman Plummer: Tony, come back. You got a reprieve.
Commissioner Teele: That is absolutely— Mr. Gonzalez, who was speaking on your behalf prior
did an excellent job on legal issues. But that is absolutely one of the best renditions of the free
marketplace that I've ever heard. I would very much like to get a copy of your statement, if you
137 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
have it. I mean, it is absolutely a statement that the founding fathers would be proud of, and I
commend you.
Mr. Spadaccia: Thank you. I knew you would appreciate it, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: The marketplace is the best way to insure competition and customer
satisfaction.
Commissioner Teele: The marketplace is the best way — .
Mr. Spadaccia: I know it follows the ideals that you encourage and would like to see -continued.
Commissioner Teele: Right. And I think the statement is absolutely correct, that the marketplace
— say that again. The marketplace is — were you doing that extemporaneously or --? That the
marketplace is the best —
Mr. Spadaccia: This is a "one -and -done," Commissioner. I can't do it again.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I'll ask the Clerk if he would transcribe it; and I'd like very much to
get an autographed copy if you could. But I do have one question. I do have one serious
question. Coral Gables has an exclusive franchise. Do you happen to know who is the exclusive
franchise in Coral Gables?
Mr. Spadaccia: Let me —
Chairman Plummer: I think it's Jaime Lipschitz.
Mr. Spadaccia: Well, quite frankly, it's up for grabs now. It's in a competitive process of being
reconsidered.
Commissioner Teele: No, I understand it's up for grabs. But right now— well, let me put it this
way: Is it true that your company is now the exclusive provider_, in violation of all of those great
democratic principles that you just discussed, in Coral Gables?
Mr. Spadaccia: Not at all, Commissioner. That's apples and oranges. That's completely apples
and oranges. Absolutely.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much. Thank you, Tony.
Chairman Plummer: You just went from a.socialistic garbage man to a lobbyist. OK. Now, for
the last go around. This, I hope, is the last second list that I have. OK? The next speaker is Ben
Bush, of General Hauling. And after him — Mr. Rojas, are you an individual or a company?
Luis Rojas: I'm an attorney representing —
Chairman Plummer: I'm well aware you're' an attorney. I'm well aware you're a representative.
How are you speaking here today?
Mr. Rojas: I'm speaking on behalf of Waste Management.
Chairman Plummer: Of a company?
138 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Rojas: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. So then you will be after Mr. Ben Bush. Thank you.
Ben Bush: Good afternoon. I'm here to speak to you on behalf of my company, General Hauling
Service, an independent waste removal company located in the City of Miami. General Hauling
Service has been owned and operated by my family since 1945. Myself, my father, my
grandfather take an active role in daily operations. We pay property taxes on our office and our
equipment yard, both located in the City of Miami. Furthermore, a large portion of our customer
base is located within the City limits, and we would be severely harmed should the City choose to
take our livelihood away. Understand that General Hauling Service is a growing business that's
paid the City approximately a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) worth of franchise fees in
1999. As a representative of a home grown and locally owned business, I strongly request that
the Commission approve to keep the private collection of solid waste and recycling on a non-
exclusive franchise basis to those companies that it has deemed qualified. This position has been
supported by the City Manager's Office, the Solid Waste Advisory Board, and 19 out of the 20
waste removal companies that have been certified to operate within the City of Miami.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The next speaker is Luis Rojas. Now, let me make a
determination here. Republic, since you're out to the side, you asked for 15 minutes, which I'm
going to grant. The other gentleman — hold on, just a minute, now, because they're next, and
what I'm trying to get established here is how we're going to have it. And the other gentleman
wanted 15 minutes. So I'm going to be skipping Republic now. And the two of you gentlemen,
for 15 minutes each, will be at the end. Is that agreeable? Agreeable. Mr. Rojas, it's always nice
to have you here, sir.
Mr. Rojas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name
is Luis Rojas. I work for the law firm of Adorno and Zeder at 2601 South Bayshore Drive, and I
am representing Waste Management. I think you really need to look at three issues, as I see it.
The first issue is whether or not the Republic/Imperial innovative proposal really is responsive.
And I think if you follow your City Attorney, and he says it's non -responsive. So you want to do
the extraordinary step of throwing out all of these bids, throwing out this RFQ, and then giving it
to someone who says, number one, that they're offering you more money. But yet, you've
already determined that the 19 haulers are willing to match that amount of money. So if you were
to give it to one person — I do understand Commissioner Teele's remarks about Coral Gables, but
because Coral Gables does it doesn't necessarily mean its right. If you look at what this means if
you it to one particular person -- And let's just look at the garbage industry, because the garbage
industry isn't like McDonald's. You go to every single McDonald's, and a Big Mac costs you the
same thing. If I have five businesses in the City of Miami, I can negotiate a much better price to
have my garbage picked up than the guy right next to me who may have an identical business.
It's a very negotiable business. And what happens when today, I have this business, and that
business closes up, and then somebody else moves into that business? A new price has to be
negotiated. And what happens if I need my garbage picked up on Mondays, because all my
business is on a Sunday? And you give it to one guy, and the first thing they're going to do is
they're going to streamline services. They're going to figure out, hey, if we create routes and we
do this in a way that we save money, we will make more money. And all of a sudden, I say, wait
a minute. I want my garbage picked up on Sunday. Tough luck. Or Monday. Tough luck. You
got to do it on Tuesdays, because that's when we go. No choice. You're taking choice away.
Now, Waste Management has a huge facility in this City where they park hundreds of trucks,
hundreds of employees. And if you give this exclusive franchise to another company, you know
139 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
what you're going to do? People that live in Commissioner Teele's district are going to lose jobs.
They're going to be laid off. People who are paying millions of dollars in taxes to you, all of a
sudden, you've taken part of their business. And as policy makers, which is what you are, you
have to look at the entire picture. Now, as far as the hundred dollars ($100), you've heard Waste
Management's position. But what I think you need to consider is that the marketplace is going to
dictate that. It's going to dictate that. And people have put all these things into the contract. But
what happens when one business closes down and another business opens up? I'll guarantee you
that that person's trash is not going to be hauled for the same amount, because all of a sudden,
you have put a new cost on business. So my recommendation to you is consider that the
marketplace dictate that, too. I think you should follow your Manager's recommendation. I think
you should follow your City Attorney's recommendation. I think as far as bounds and the best
policy for the City of Miami, keeping 19 local people here, keeping them in business is the best
policy. Thank you very much.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, one quick question.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Rojas, as you know, the Republic proposal contains language
regarding the annexation issue, which has been a part of our five-year plan for the last three years.
Do you object to the reference that if there were to be annexation that the haulers, the solid waste
companies, and Republic in particular should not be able to work with the City in the— I think
they used the words, "the information campaign in making the voters, the potential voters aware
of the annexation issues? Of course, in exchange for the exclusive franchise in those areas?
Mr. Rojas: Can you please repeat your question?
Chairman Plummer: That's what I was scared of.
Commissioner Teele: As you are aware, the Republic proposal contains language regarding the
annexation issue, which has been a part of our strategic plan, of the five-year plan going to the
Oversight Board for the last three years. Republic has indicated thatthey will work with the City
in assisting the City in annexing areas of land that the Commission and the voters jointly agree to
be annexed. Do you have objections to that portion of their innovative proposal?
Mr. Rojas: I have no objections to that portion.
Commissioner Teele: Would you check with your client, and the gentleman, in particular, that
used to have a moustache — I mean a beard — but now doesn't?
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. If you're making a comment, we'd ask you to come to the
microphone, please.
Mr. Rojas: Can I confer with him?
Commissioner Teele: Yes. Would you confer with him, please,. before he says anything.
Mr. Ralph Velocci: I didn't hear your comments. I'm sorry, I was outside. Can I have a minute
with my attorney, please? Thank you.
140 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Well, what happened there? Mr. Teele? Oh, OK. I thought you were
asking a question, and all of a sudden, everybody disappeared. OK.
Commissioner Teele: They wanted to confer.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. Luciano Isla.
Mr. Rojas: In response to your question, Mr. Teele, no, we would not. And my client tells me
that the industry probably would not, although we're just speaking for Waste Management. We
would do the same thing.
Commissioner Teele: So we have something that's innovative, at least, that you would help us
with our five-year plan in that regard.
Mr. Rojas: We believe the free market is the most innovative process ever created, and really
can't be made better.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Luciano Isla, Dade Waste.
Mr. Isla: Mr. Chairman, I believe Ms. Lucia Dougherty is ahead of me on the list. Or she —
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry. I stand corrected. She is next. Lucia Dougherty, Everglades
Recycling. And after that is Steve Levetan of Recovery Materials. Ms. Dougherty, you have five
minutes.
Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Lucia
Dougherty with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of Everglades Recycling.
And I'm specifically speaking about your ordinance, which is Item Number 7; not whether or not
there should be an exclusive or non-exclusive franchise. We are requesting an amendment to that
ordinance, one that would reclarify that recovered articles are not subject to the franchise fee. We
agree that recyclables are covered in the franchise fee, that recoverable items are subject to the
franchise fees, but those items which have never been in the waste stream are not subject to this
franchise fee. We think this would clarify your ordinance and make it consistent with the State
law. And I just want to read to you a Department of Environmental Protection letter written to
Steve Levetan, who will describe a little bit more in detail in terms of the legal issues. But they
say recovered materials, as defined in 403.703 are not considered solid waste once they have been
source separated or removed from the solid waste system. So what we're saying to you, this is
actually a commodity. This is no longer waste. It never will be waste, because it's a commodity,
just like buying and selling any other kind of used product. And there's really a bigger issue here.
But let me just give you an example. For example, 7-Eleven, which may have a container, a
dumpster behind it, if they have recyclables, meaning cans and cardboard boxes in their container
behind their building and someone hauls it away, we clearly believe that they ought to have to
pay the franchise fee, because it's in the waste system. However, if 7-Eleven takes those
cardboard boxes and they separate them out, and somebody comes along and picks them up
separately, they have never become part of the waste system. That's a commodity. We take it
and it's a valuable commodity to us. Therefore, we don't believe this is part of your waste
management system, and should not be a part of this ordinance. And why is that important to the
City of Miami? And let me tell you something. If you regulate that kind of recover item and
141 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
charge a franchise fee, it's the only City in the country that's going to do so. This is the only City
in the country that will charge a fee for that kind of transaction. And why is this bad? It's
because the 7-Eleven guy is no longer going to separate out the cardboard anymore. He's going
to let the haulers take it away, because it's just as cheap for him to let the haulers take it away,
because they're going to have to pay, no matter what. So what we're suggesting is that you — that
you put this one little amendment, which is literally nine words. It defines the State law. It's
basically recovered items as defined by State law. It's not included in this ordinance. And that
we believe that this would be -- If you treat these recovered materials like they're waste, they
will be waste, and you won't save the landfills, the trees, and the other natural resources that now
30 percent of — that used to be waste is now -- 30 percent of that is now being recovered. So we
would suggest you be environmentally friendly, and make this small amendment. And now Steve
Levetan will describe a little bit in more detail the legal issues.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Levetan, you have five minutes, sir.
Mr. Steve Levetan: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Steve Levetan, and
I'm with the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries in Atlanta, Georgia, but I represent the
industry within the southeastern states. I'm here to speak specifically, again, about recovered
materials, not about the solid waste franchise. There are two issues that I want to raise with you
very quickly. One is some legal issues; and secondly, policy issues. The Franchise Agreement,
the RFQ that went out, every bit of this process has been dealing with commercial solid waste.
Definitions are very important. I have a handout that I believe has been passed out to you that
goes through those definitions. But quickly, there are about three terms that I want to go over
with you. One is "recyclable, recyclables." Those are materials that are capable of being
recycled. Anything, virtually anything is capable of being recycled. This podium is recyclable.
It is not a recovered material. Recovered materials are defined by Florida Statute as being those
recyclables, those materials capable of being recycled, which are either diverted and source
separated or removed from the waste stream. So again, if it's mixed with solid waste, it is solid
waste. As an example, this aluminum can is recyclable. If it's in the back of a garbage truck, it's
still recyclable, but it is solid waste. If this can is put into a recycling bin and is treated
separately, it never goes into the waste stream, it is not solid waste. It is a recovered material.
Recovered materials, under Florida Statutes, are specifically not solid waste. That is the last
sentence in the definition in Florida Statutes. Recovered materials are not solid waste. The
definition of solid waste, the last phrase in that says recovered materials are not solid waste.
Florida Statutes go on to then say that any local government— this is at 403.7031 — any local
government ordinance definitions with regards to solid waste and recovered materials must be
consistent with those definitions in Florida Statutes. So your definitions, by Florida law, must be
consistent. Commercial solid waste cannot include recovered materials. We would ask you
respectfully to please make that clarification, because there does seem to be some confusion
between recovered materials, which are only metals, paper, glass, plastic, textiles or rubber which
have been source separated, versus other recyclables that have been discarded into the waste
stream. Our notice — the notice on this was, again, dealing with commercial solid waste. That's
not us. We should not be here today. But we do ask for this clarification. Finally, I'd like to
address the policy issue. State of Florida, and indeed, the City of Miami has encouraged and
continue to encourage recycling. The concept is in State law, we want to recycle more. We want
to have less solid waste going for disposal. The effect of this ordinance and of this Agreement, if
it were applied to recovered materials'-- First of all, only solid waste haulers were qualified to
get a franchise. You had to be permitted to haul solid waste. And as Mr. Martinez said earlier,
everyone who got the franchise had to agree to haul solid waste from the City at no cost. We're
not in the solid waste business. We cannot haul solid waste. Virtually every certified recovered
materials dealer is not in the solid waste business. So therefore, what you would do is you would
142 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
prevent most legitimate recovered materials dealers in the City of Miami from engaging in
business. Here today, we've got several people from the industry-- and I'd like for you to just
raise your hands or indicate who you are — that are in the City of Miami. They represent over 250
employees, thousands of customers. Commissioners, if this were to apply to recovered materials,
the result would be, in essence, a death sentence for dozens of Miami businesses and thousands of
their suppliers. The result would be lost jobs, increased cost of recycling, where it would
continue, reduced recycling, increased amounts of garbage going for disposal. This, as Ms.
Dougherty said, would be unprecedented. This has not occurred anywhere in the United States.
It's contrary to Florida law. And one last comment.
Mr. Chairman, you did ask — last week, you asked how much material in the waste stream would
this affect? There was some confusion over the answer. I did go back and research through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection— Environmental Regulation, their figures. And
based on that, Dade County — because they only break it out at the County level — no more than
ten percent of the material would meet that definition of recovered materials.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Levetan: Again, we urge you for the clarification.
Chairman Plummer: Next speaker, Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of that committee, if we could have the
legal representation and legal counsel that we had there address that, because that is a very, very
concerned item that's been argued by them on that committee. So can the counsel explain that?
Mr. Wysong: The whole issue is one sentence in Chapter 403.7046, which says the local
government may not enact any ordinance that prevents such a dealer from entering into a contract
with a commercial establishment to purchase, collect, transport, process or receive source
separated recovered materials. Collecting a fee would not prevent recycling, notwithstanding Mr.
Levetan's statements. Requiring a franchise permit would not end recycling in the City of Miami
as we know it. 403.7046 states that a local government is hereby expressly authorized to prohibit
— I'm sorry — is expressly authorized to enter into a non-exclusive franchise or to otherwise
provide for the collection, transportation and processing of recovered materials. The statute
outright expressly states that we can create a franchise for the collection of recovered materials.
Additionally, the statute says nothing in this section shall prohibit a local government from
enacting ordinances designed to protect the public's general health, safety and welfare. The
whole idea behind regulating solid waste haulers, and I will say materials haulers in lieu of saying
recovered recyclable haulers, the whole idea is to provide for the safe transportation across our
City streets, essentially. We're giving them the right to pick up within the City, and to drive on
our City streets. We are simply regulating their trucks, their manpower, their training, et cetera.
That is the sole purpose for this regulation. As far as the definition, the --
Ms. Dougherty made a statement about 7-Eleven. Under our current Franchise Agreement, there
would be no applicable franchise fee. The fee attaches when an individual contracts with a
commercial establishment for the purpose of transporting and hauling their materials. The
majority of the larger recovered materials dealers do not enter into one-on-one arrangements with
the commercial establishments within the City. Somebody has to pick that up. And it is the
somebody that we're looking to, to be a member of the franchise. So the majority of the
individuals that have spoken regarding recovered materials would not even be subject to the
franchise fee, other than the initial one — I'm not exactly sure if it's a two thousand dollar
($2,000) franchise fee —just for the purpose of regulating, knowing who they are, so that when an
enforcement officer sees a truck at 2 o'clock in the morning or 3 o'clock in the morning, we need
143 SEPT-EMBER 28, 1999
to know who they are. Are they licensed to do business in the City? That is the purpose of the
regulation. The Code will say that any sort of materials that are picked up are subject•to the
franchise fee. And once again, it's just based simply on the transaction between the customer and
the hauler, not the end recycler. We're not prohibiting recycling as it is.
Commissioner Sanchez: And just for the record, that is the legal recommendation that you have
given this Advisory Committee.
Mr. Wysong: Correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Plummer: The next speaker is Lisa Max, Wasteco. And after Lisa will be Brett Kublin
of Simco.
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a question on that.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort has a question.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is that most of these facilities do not have their own
vehicles to go out and collect these products. The products are brought in by non -profits and
people within the community, and so on. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Wysong: I'm not an expert in recovered materials. However, what I've been told by the
larger companies is that they actually pay the companies for the purposes of picking up. They
will drive, pay for the cardboard boxes and haul it away. There is no payment for. Now, I
believe they have indicated that there are certain individuals that are retained by them to pick up
these materials. And those individuals who do the actual picking up are the ones that we would
like to be incorporated into the Franchise Agreement.
Vice Chairman Gort:. My second question is, do they buy it off the people that do pick up
recyclables? They buy from them and they buy from the general public, also?
Mr. Wysong: I'm not exactly sure how the arrangement is. I would assume that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, maybe somebody will answer that.
Mr. Wysong: Yeah.
Mr. Levetan: Mr. Chairman, could I respond?
Chairman Plummer: Well, you had your five minutes. Now, Ms. Dougherty has two minutes
left. Do you want to acquiesce to him?
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, please.
Chairman Plummer: All right. We all lie a little bit.
Mr. Levetan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To respond very quickly, the issue, again, is, first of all,
definitions. This agreement went out for commercial solid waste, for commercial solid waste
collection. Recovered materials are not solid waste, and by State law, your definitions must be
144 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
consistent with that. This is inconsistent. So that's first of all. The Assistant City Attorney read
part of the statute that says that you are permitted to have a non-exclusive franchise. But it goes
on to say provided that such franchise or provision does not prohibit a certified recovered
materials dealer from entering into a contract with a commercial establishment to purchase,
collect, or otherwise handle those recovered materials. This Agreement, by virtue of the fact that
it is only applicable to solid waste haulers, which we are not, by virtue of that, it does, in fact,
prohibit us. And again, we just ask that you clarify this issue as it relates to recovered materials.
Please understand, this is not talking about recyclables, things that are in the waste stream; only
those metals, paper, glass, plastic, textiles —
`!
Chairman Plummer: Sir, you've run out of time, twice.
Mr. Levetan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, twice.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Lisa Max and then Brett — hello?
Bob Williams: Mr. Chairman, Bob Williams with Smurfit Stone. I waived my time a few
moments ago. Could I make a.response?
Chairman Plummer: One minute?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I believe I can do it in a minute.
Chairman Plummer: You bet your bippy.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Something more basic than anything that we've heard today. We
got close to it, to property .rights. Everything — the recovered materials that we purchase from
companies have never been discarded. They are purchased and they're brought into our system.
We bought property, and we believe we have a right to go pick it up and deliver it to our plant.
Secondly, I was in the grocery store last night, and I saw a Merita Bread truck come in, delivered
fresh bread and took the stale bread out. Are you going to regulate the Merita Bread folks? Based
on your attorney's information a few moments ago, I guess you ate. How about your milk folks
who deliver fresh milk in and take the stale milk out and throw it away? Based on your
attorney's recommendations a few minutes ago, your milk trucks and your dairies are going to be
subject to your proposal. I'm telling you, gentlemen, we are in the business to make paper, and
it's — we use the urban forest of Miami as raw material. And please, don't inhibit, and impede
and take an anti -environmental stand that no other City in America has taken. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Lisa, you'll get there yet.
Lisa Max: Hi, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lisa Max. I work for Wasteco, which
is located at 7001 Northwest 36`h Avenue.
Chairman Plummer: Are you an attorney?
Ms. Max: No, I am not. I am in the industry. There are two issues being addressed today.
You've heard a lot of different sides from both. One issue is the issue of exclusivity versus non -
exclusivity. And let me state right up front that I am all about the democratic process and
people's right to choose. So I will very clearly state that I fully support and hope that you also
fully support the non -exclusivity that — and the formal process that the City of Miami has
undertaken. But I have a question to ask you, and I mean this respectfully. But what country is
145 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
the City of Miami in? I mean, to my understanding, it's in America. And we were directed, our
industry was directed by you all as Commissioners and as a City to undergo a process, a formal
process. We did as we were instructed. We went through that process. And now, in the eleventh
hour or twelfth hour, it's even being contemplated to be tossed out? Maybe I'm naive, and
maybe I don't understand political processes, but I don't understand that. There are such things
as procurement laws. I don't know. Maybe these are things that I don't understand. But it's my
understanding that there are formal processes, and that we, as an industry, went through a
process, and that process should be adhered to. There are issues of freedom of choice. I had
several of my customers come today with the hopes that they could get up to the microphone.
But given the lengthy process, it wore them out, and they went on their way in. running
businesses. But there is freedom of choice. We talked about the attempt to— that this process of
bidding and the non -exclusivity process was an attempt to regulate the marketplace. But we also
have to have respect or the marketplace to regulate itself, as Tony Spadaccia so eloquently said.
Finally, I've heard a lot about the volunteer process, that we volunteered. And I know Chairman
has asked all of us to give our input about what we feel about the fee, the fifty dollar ($50) fee,
the hundred dollar ($100) fee. And I have to say I'm going to take the Fifth on that, because I
think there's ,no way you can win. And I think for your guys to call it a voluntary process is a
guise. It's —
Vice Chairman Gort: Lisa, your five minutes are up.
Ms. Max: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Sorry about that. Was that five minutes? No?
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): It was two minutes.
Vice Chairman Gort: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Foeman: That was two minutes.
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, it should be five minutes. Go ahead. You got three more.
Ms. Max: OK. So we were talking —
Vice Chairman Gort: I thought it was kind of short.
Ms. Max: We were talking about the volunteer process. And we've heard that word used a lot
about the fees. And I don't think that there is much volunteering being done here. I think that
we're being directed, and if any business that wants to do business in the City of Miami, they
have to, quote/unquote, you know, cough up these fees. And there is no volunteer process about
it. Commissioner Teele, you brought up the issue of innovation. Well, through all these
processes and these regulations, how can innovation survive? How can it exist? I mean, prior to
my working for Wasteco, I had a recycling business, a small recycling business. And there is —
and I tried to be as innovative as I could possibly be in operating that business. But there is a
business to run, and business is based on profit. And how can a business realize a profit if cities
eat into it? And might I remind you that you are one City out of 30 in Metro -Dade County.
There are 30 in Broward County. Extrapolate those numbers. Do the math. See— is it possible
for any business to make a profit if every City such as yours adopted similar rules and
regulations, and fee structures? I don't see how. And, you know, you've heard from big
businesses — Waste Management, you've heard from BFI. Well, I'm the voice of small business.
146 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
And I am here to tell you, there is no way a small business could survive and thrive. And
furthermore, Commissioner Teele, be, innovative as you want to see in this kind of an
environment. It's ludicrous. So —
Chairman Plummer: Five.
Ms. Max: OK. I say — I trust in justice. I trust in the democratic process, and therefore, I trust in
all of you as Commissioners to do the right thing. And, you know, I commend Joe Sanchez for
all the hard work he put into that committee. Don't have it go to waste. And Commissioner
Teele, just in response to your question about socialist. I'm a democratic capitalist. So— and I
think that that's the backbone of this country and the backbone of America. The second issue is
the issue of recovered materials. I will defer to Steve Levetan. I know Steve knows the law and,
you know, will ultimately battle that out with the legal eagles. So I thank you for your time. And
again, I trust that you will do what's right. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, ma'am.
(APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: Next speaker is Brett Kublin. And after that is Morris Esquenazi. Brett is
of Simco and Morris is of Southern?
Morris Esquenazi: Southeastern.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Brett Kublin: Hi. My name is Brett Kublin from Simco Recycling Corporation. We're
located at 7311 Northeast I' Place. That is the City of Miami. Our business is located within the
City of Miami in the Little River/Little Haiti area. We employ approximately 80 people at this
location. A majority of those employees are resident of the City of Miami. We have over
100,000 square feet, and pay over seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) a year in property taxes.
We've been collecting paper and recycling for over 40 years at Simco. Simco was the first paper
recycler to go and collect paper within the Metro -Dade area and also the City of Miami. We have
trucks that pick up paper, scrap paper from printers, from businesses within the City of Miami in
the South Florida area. Your City Attorney said that material recovery dealers do not pick up
paper. We most certainly do. We have seven trucks, straight trucks that pick up paper within the
South Florida area, which includes the City of Miami. We have two rear end loaders, and we
have seven tractors that go out to pick up paper. You are telling recyclers who they can or can't
do business with, where they can conduct business. If any other group tried to do that, they
would be accused of anti-trust and racketeering charges. You are forcing me out of business by
doing that. You also would be accused of restraining of trade, because I have the right to go out
and do business with people. They have a commodity. Paper is a commodity that they are selling
or conveying to me at Simco Recycling. The material that we collect is sold throughout the
United States and throughout the world. We are one of the largest exporters from the Port of
Miami and Port Everglades. We ship over 3,000 containers a year off the east coast, which
generates a substantial amount of money for the United States, along with the City of Miami and
Dade County. Even though Simco might qualify as a waste hauler, we feel that the material
recovery paper and other items needs to be separated from the solid waste. It doesn't belong in
solid waste. It is material, recovered materials. Like I said, we are paying taxes to the City of
Miami to the tune of over seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) a year. You want to try to put us —
a great deal of our business, take it away by saying we're not allowed to pick up recovered
147 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
material within the City. If that happens, even though the City is only part of my business, I will
have to let go some employees. I would like you to tell me what I should tell my employeesthat
are doing a good job, that are residents of the City of Miami. What should I tell them, so they can
tell their children? What should I tell my children? Because a good deal of my business is going
to be taken away by your regulations. And again, I'm not a public speaker. Excuse me if I'm — .
Chairman Plummer: You haven't done bad.
Vice Chairman Gort: Pretty good.
Mr. Kublin: OK. But please take that into consideration. We are a material recovery dealer. We
go and, we pick up clean material. We are the hauler of recycled paper for Metro -Dade. The
buildings that are within the City, can I still pick it up, even though I'm their licensed, you know,
and permitted, you know, recycler? I mean, I don't know what I'm supposed to do if you enact
this law or this franchise. But I need to be able to stay in business, and I need to be able to
operate in an open environment where my prices and my payment to my customer dictates
whether I have the business; not someone putting up walls that I can't break down. And any time
that I have, I'd like to pass on to Mr. Levetan.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. If my colleagues do not object, I am going to give the
following scenario. Budget will not start until at least 6:30. And Zoning, Planning and Zoning
will not start until at least 7:30. So if you're here for either one of those issues, I think safely, I
am saying the times that I've outlined. If you want to go get a bite to eat or something, you
would have the opportunity to do such. The next speaker is Morris of -- Is it Southern?
Mr. Esquenazi: Southeastern Recycling.
Chairman Plummer: Southeastern.
Mr. Esquenazi: Southeastern Recycling.
Chairman Plummer: All right. And after that is the illustrious, well known, honorable Frank
Kratzer, ex -Miami High alumni who lives across the street from my daughter, and I use his lot to
park in, and so I have to be nice. Morris, proceed. You have five minutes.
Mr. Esquenazi: Thank you, distinguished members of the Commission, City Attorney, City
Manager. I'm going to speak on my behalf. I'm a paper recycler, mainly, as Simco, just before
me. Lisa Max, who was here before, she's out of business and trying very, very hard to stay alive
in this business, which is extremely tough. Minority owned, minority employees, holding on as
tough as we can. I don't really know how this — we don't do any hauling. We are not solid waste
people. We don't have garbage trucks. We don't come into the City. All we do is we take
material out of your garbage stream. We deal directly with the customers. We have contracts
which our customers, which I don't know, that's not what the City Attorney thought that we have,
individual contracts. We paid our customers. We don't charge our customers for any money.
We pay taxes to the City, we pay taxes for our trucks and roads. I don't know what else to do,
gentlemen. You are pushing a lot of people out of business, which are hard working people. The
rest of my time, I would give to the proper attorneys or whoever knows more than I do. I really
don't know what to do.
Chairman Plummer: We're not sure that there's any of those here, sir. All right. Who can do
this for me? Mr. Regalado, sir, would you make the announcement in Spanish for me that we
148 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
will not be considering budget till at least 6:30 and Planning and Zoning until 7:30, so if they
wish to go and come back, they can. Would you make that announcement in Spanish, please.
Commissioner Regalado: [COMMENTS IN SPANISH.)
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The honorable Frank Kratzer.
Frank Kratzer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Frank Kratzer, 3041 Northwest 7`h Street, Miami,
Florida. One of the benefits of being at the end of the Agenda is you can cross off all of the
brilliant arguments —
Chairman Plummer: No, no, you're far from the end of the Agenda. I wish you were, but you're
not.
Mr. Kratzer: I thought I was close to the end of Page 2, but whatever. Most of my great
arguments have been stressed and made very clearly. Let me just deal with three issues that have
only been either touched on or not touched on at all. Number one, the innovative idea concept
that Commissioner Teele has referred to; number two, the buying market share concept that was
mentioned; and number three, the non -responsive concept. First of all, there were at least nine
different innovative ideas that were proposed throughout this process. I was blessed with the
opportunity of hearing most of those ideas. And eight of them were incorporated in this final
product that the City Manager's Office has produced. So the industry came up with eight ideas,
including how to collect spillage off of containers, things of that nature. Only one so-called
innovative idea was not accepted or adopted. And that innovative idea was buying market share,
which was a concept which was presented by Imperial. I asked
Mr. Patterson's office a couple of days ago, pursuant to public records request to give me the
information about franchise payments this fiscal year. From that, I learned that three companies
pay 95 percent of the franchise fees in the City of Miami. Waste pays 44.7; BFI, 34.3; and
Republic, 16.2. So the concept of buying market share, which was the innovative approach that
they've set forth in their RFQ was a simple task for them to move themselves up from the number
three position to a higher position in the City of Miami. I would point out to the Commission, in
the various submissions I've sent to you that General Hauling Service, my client, is the largest
small hauler in the City of Miami out of the total 19 that have been approved. And the total
amount that we pay is 2.3 percent of the franchise fees. Below us are 15 other companies that
pay less than the remaining two and a half percent in franchise fees. This is a small hauler
problem, and we need to protect the people in the City of Miami that have occupational licenses,
and have employees. So the concept then takes us to the non -responsiveness of a concept of sole
and exclusive contracting with a sole and exclusive franchisee. Twice, this Commission has
voted against this. In November of'98 and in July of'99, the Commission had before it this very
concept, which was only fine tuned in its latest stages, and both times, by unanimous vote, this
Commission rejected that for the non-exclusive franchise concepts that the RFQ's were sent on.
I'd like to reserve the balance of two and a half minutes of my time for after I hear the Republic
proposal. The bottom line is that what we have seen is inconsistent with what the Commission
has voted. What we have seen is the only innovative idea that was not accepted. Every other
idea was put in, Mr. Teele, and some of it at a great expense to the industry, such as picking up
free trash and garbage from the City of Miami, providing containers at corners during clean up
campaigns, making sure that a five thousand dollar ($5,000) annual fee came from each of these
companies. So we have been as innovative as the entire industry can be, and as innovative as the
staff can be. The only item not adopted, not accepted, was to let someone buy the market share,
because we though that's wrong, that's not fair. What other cities may do, let them do it. Let not
149 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
the great City of Miami— I was born here, raised here, happy in my ignorance, love to stay here.
Let us not lead that fight in that direction. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: The last speaker that I have here for the companies -
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Now, is the clock right, or is
Mr. Kratzer right? The clock shows he only has 35 seconds left.
Chairman Plummer: That's what he had left, yes.
Commissioner Teele: Well, he said he balance of his two and a half minutes. Let me ask this of
Mr.. Kratzer: Would you comment, please —
Chairman Plummer: Who'd he give it to? I didn't hear him give it to anybody.
Commissioner Teele: He said that he had a balance of two and a half. Let me ask you. You
indicated on the innovative concept. Would you comment on the annexation innovative concept,
please.
Mr. Kratzer: I think that all haulers are prepared to do whatever is necessary to help the City of
Miami. If that's part of the concept, I believe the small haulers and the large haulers will be part
of that concept.
Commissioner Teele: So in other words, as it relates to the innovative concept relating to
annexation, which has been a part of our five-year plan for the last three years, you don't object to
that portion?
Mr. Kratzer: Well, the truth is, Mr. Teele, we all knew about that and didn't think that was
innovative. That's been here. We've seen it, we've read it, we've heard about it, we believe in it.
So for someone to come in and say, "Hey, it's my idea," wouldn't be true. It's the Commission's
idea. It was there. We buy in, and we believe in it.
Commissioner Teele:. Well, Frank, I have a high regard, a great respect for you, but the concept
is a little bit more than that. I mean, they said they're going to spend money to do the public.
information. They're going to have their lawyers to — I mean, this is very legal -intensive. I
mean, we've got to go before the Dade County Commission, the Planning Board. You know,
there are several firms. I saw Alex Mudso (phonetic), and when he was down there in Homestead
and the Mayor of Coral Gables probably spent as much as a year before the County Commission.
So it's not, as you're— I don't want to convey to the industry— if everybody is saying you're for
it, I mean, the real issue here _is that this is not only time-consuming, it's a very, very expensive
process. If it weren't, we would have already done it.
Mr. Kratzer: If you're the exclusive, monopolistic franchisee, it's in your best interest to do that.
And if you get a longer term —
Commissioner Teele: Well, see, that's totally different from their proposal. Their proposal that
you're talking about is different from what I'm talking about. They talked about a proposal in
150 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
which they would form a partnership with the City. I want to put a limitationon it of like two
years -- I don't want this to go on ad infinitum — but a proposal in which they would agree to
underwrite the cost associated with the annexation issues over the period of time where we would
be seeking to annex. Obviously, it has a very tremendous impact on our budget, and potentially,
it could, and a whole lot of other things. But if you have not had a full opportunity to understand
and to comprehend that proposal, it's not a fair question.
Mr. Kratzer: But Mr. Teele, we look forward to hearing Imperial's response, if they would agree
to do everything they said if they only got a two-year plan instead of the eight -year that they
requested. It would be fascinating.
Commissioner Teele: The two things aren't together. They are not. The eight -year relates to an
exclusive franchise, OK? What I'm talking about has nothing to do with their exclusive it's a
second component of what they recommended as an innovative proposal. Waste Management
said they had no objections. I was just trying to determine whether or not you had an objection.
That was a simple issue.
Mr. Kratzer: The answer is we don't. We're for it. We're prepared to come on board and do on
a pro rata share, what we've raised many times.
Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. You don't understand the proposal. The proposal is that
Republic would form a partnership with the City, that they would pay the legal cost, the public
information cost, the associated cost with annexation. And what I'm saying- is that proposal
didn't have a time period, and I wanted to put like a two-year time limit on that.
Mr. Kratzer: Do they get to pick up the garbage in that area?
Commissioner Teele: Of course, they do. I mean, what do you think they're doing?
Mr. Kratzer: That's exactly the — and we —
Commissioner Teele: But that's unrelated to the — that's unrelated to the exclusive proposal.
That's a separate proposal: Obviously, we don't control the waste stream in unincorporated Dade
County. That's controlled somewhere else. We have no control over that.
Mr. Kratzer: We'd love to be part of that process, Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Well, but you didn't propose it. See, that's the problem.
Mr. Kratzer: Because I — without trying to be argumentative, we though that the whole concept
was in the five-year plan of the City. We saw that. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Let's move on. The last speaker of the industry, with the
exception of the two who have 15 minutes each is Carlos Lopez. Mr. Lopez, all right.
Mr. Carlos Lopez: Good afternoon, Commissioner, Board Members. Carlos Lopez, and the
company is Lopefra Corporation. We're a roll -off waste hauling company, specifically
construction, demolition debris. And I'd like to address the issue of price controls, specifically
the feasibility of not being able to pass on these fees as it relates to roll -off companies. I'd like to
do this by way of a simple example on an example of, let's say a 20-yard roll -off container. The
standard charge, average to high charge on a 20-yard container is two hundred and fifty dollars
151 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
($250) service charge. If the service fees cannot be passed on to the customer, they're going to
have to be subtracted from our service. Take for example a 20 percent fee would be fifty dollars
($50) off the two hundred and fifty ($250). That leaves you two hundred dollars ($200). Take
the fifty dollar ($50) fee, which I'm told that per account fee would apply to each roll -off that we
pickup, and that's another fifty dollars ($50). That leaves us a hundred and fifty dollars ($150).
And then take a standard tipping fee for roll -offs, which is seven dollars ($7) a yard at 20 yards, is
a hundred and forty dollars ($140). Subtract that from the hundred and fifty ($150). That leaves
us with ten dollars ($10), which doesn't even pay the driver's salary. So I think that's a valid
issue to take up when you consider this price control and not having the ability to pass that on to
the customers. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Boom -Boom, you're not on the list, but we'll get
to you. I'm sure you'll be there.
Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Excuse me. I am afraid you — am I, or not on the list? I think I
am on the list.
Chairman Plummer: Well, that's immaterial. I'll hear from you eventually.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: OK. No, no, I love to hear, so both sides, when they have their 15
minutes, they will be able to answer my questions.
Chairman Plummer: I'm now going, sir, to the public to be heard.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: OK.
Chairman Plummer: All right? And the first speaker on the public side that I have is Rick— is it
Dronsky? Rick Dronsky, a property owner. It appears to me to be
D-R-O-N-S-K-Y. Not present. OK. The next person I have is Emilio Alvarez. Is he present?
Unidentified Speaker: No.
Chairman Plummer: No. All right. Danny, from Radiator King: Is he present?
Unidentified Speaker: He's present, but he's on the other side.
Chairman Plummer: On the other side of what?
Unidentified Speaker: He's supporting the non-exclusive.
Chairman Plummer: He's supporting what?
Unidentified Speaker: Non-exclusive.
Chairman Plummer: And you're speaking for him? You can't do that, sir. He's not here. All
right. Ed Hurley. No, you spoke. I'm sorry. Manuel Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: That's me, Mr. Plummer. You see? Finally.
(LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)
152 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: It's got to say "Boom -Boom," or it's not legal.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, this is a different story today. Let me tell you something. We
have been here since 2:30, and I do not know why, because the basic issue here is exclusive or
non-exclusive. It's very shameful on this Commission. I. thought originally that all these people
were coming for the budget, and I don't think anybody or very few people are interested. Too
many lawyers, too many lobbyists, too many sharks and "tintoreras" and not one .of them have
yielded my time. Now, I'm taking my five minutes now.
Chairman Plummer: No, no, no.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: No, no, no.
Chairman Plummer: The public has three minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: OK. I have to finish. In other word, to make it simple, what some
people are trying here is to impose on the commercial clients of the City of Miami one marriage
partner. They don't have any choice, whatsoever, depending on the final decision of all these
people. And you are going to tell me that they have to marry the girlfriend that you guys choose?
I think that we are in the country of freedom of speech, including for the "Van -vans," freedom of
.choice. And I just cannot understand in my mind how -- why are we discussing this issues for
three hours? Please explain to me. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: When God made him, he threw the mold away. All right. Danny got out of
the bathroom. OK, come on up here and.tell us your sad tale of woe.
Danny Michael: Mine won't be that long, I hope.
Chairman Plummer: Thank God.
Mr. Michael: Danny Michael with Radiator•King. 201 Northwest 37,' Street, Miami, Florida.
I'm just here with the 19 haulers that are here to back them up. I'm against the exclusive
franchise, and that's about all I got to say. And if you want the extra hundred dollars ($100), I'll
pay it. That's it.
Chairman Plummer: Should have stayed in the bathroom. All right. I can't make it out. Is it
Hal? Is there a Hal? And the last name starts, with a "C." Well, if you're on the list and I didn't
call you, that's your name, and we'll get you at the end. The next speaker is Mary Hill. We have
your name and address memorized, so you can proceed with your three minutes.
Mary Hill: I would like to ask a few questions concerning the Solid Waste Department here. As
a property owner, I'm very concerned.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Martinez, would you please address, the answers of her questions.
Ms. Hill: Why do we have — which is one of my greatest concerns, because this is in another area
of government. What is the Youth Services Department doing under the Solid Waste Department
here?
153 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: We didn't understand your question.
Ms. Hill: The question is, why is the Youth Services, and what relationship is it to Solid Waste
Department in your department? I heard you say something about your services coming out of
Solid Waste Department. That's you, Mr. Patterson.
Clarance Patterson (Director, Solid Waste): Are you saying "Youth Services"?
Ms. Hill: Yes. Didn't I understand you to say something about —
Chairman Plummer: "Youth," as in young people?
Ms. Hill: Yes.
Mr. Patterson: None other than me. I'm the youngest person out there.
Ms. Hill: Well —
Mr. Patterson: That's no relation to us at all.
Chairman Plummer: And he just made prearrangements with the funeral home.
Ms. Hill: Now, that was my mistake. I just was getting clarification, did I hear this. Now, all of
a sudden, it was RFP's, and all of a sudden, I heard RFQ's, which I'm really ignorant to. What —
I mean, I have an idea, but what is RFQ's?
Mr. Patterson: RFQ is a Request for Qualifications and RFP is a Request for Proposals.
Ms. Hill: OK. Now, this is my concern, again, is the changing of RFP's from RFP's to RFQ's.
This just seems to me like it is a different ball game to come in and use monies under the Solid
Waste Department.
Mr. Patterson: We haven't changed from an RFQ to an RFP that I'm aware of. It's RFQ.
Ms. Hill: "RFP," I heard first. Then I heard "RFQ's."
Mr. Patterson: No. It was an RFQ that was sent out.
Ms. Hill: So they're two different scenarios, two different things?
Mr. Patterson: No. We only sent out an RFQ, that's all. No RFP.
Ms. Hill: No RFP's? OK. Now, I hear that you're asking for money, some more money. Every
time I look, it's taxes, taxes, taxes, and trying to get money, now, for the Solid Waste
Department. And another thing I'm interested in here, too, is when was this brought before the
citizens that this money is coming from? Is this the hearing now to approve that you get these
monies?
Mr. Patterson: You are participating in a part of the public hearing right now, yes
154 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Hill: I understand that very well. But what I don't understand is all these funds all the time
that — and where is it going, and where are you putting it to? I mean, we need to take under
consideration of small people and businesses that can't afford this, and we're putting them out of
business.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Ms. Hill: We need to stop this.
Chairman Plummer: Your comments are well taken.
Ms. Hill: Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Ladies and gentlemen, because of a technicality in Channel 9, everybody sit
still with a frozen face as we change the tape. They will come and tell me when the tape is rolling
again. All of the ugly devils stay ugly. And let me compliment all of you for being very, very
professional in your presentation. These kind of things in the past— I guess I'm not supposed to
be talking, am I? Time out. We're back on? OK. We're back on.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: A number of people have come in since you made the announcement. You
might again announce —
Chairman Plummer: Again? All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if I may, the ruling of the Chair is
that at the earliest, we will start budget at 6:30, and at the earliest, we will start Zoning at 7:30,
keeping in the back of your mind that we do adjourn at 9. OK? Now, Mariano Cruz. Mariano
Cruz. He's outside. All right. Well that's -- Besides the two gentlemen that have 15 minutes
each, is there anybody else who has been denied the right to speak? You have, sir. Are you on
the list?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
Chairman Plummer: And what is your name?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
Chairman Plummer: Francis Pasquale. Well, come on up, sir. I don't see a Pasquale. All right,
Pasquale. You got three minutes.
Mr. Francis Pasquale: I got three minutes. OK. Listen, I've been in this,— my name is Frank
Pasquale. 815 Northwest 144`h Street in Miami. I've been working in the garbage business in
this town for 30 years. I worked with Mr. Patterson. And one of my first customers, in fact, was
you, Mr. Plummer, and your brother, downtown in the Design District. Now — I mean Mr.
Plummer. I'm sorry. Ain't you the same Plummer down in the Design District?
Chairman Plummer: I can't understand you.
Mr. Pasquale: All right. Never mind.
155 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: That's all right.
Mr. Pasquale: Anyway, anyway, let's put it this way: You got 19 haulers that agreed to come up
with what you guys are asking for. And you got one hauler that's coming from out of town.
Most of the guys that been here have been in this town now for at least 25, 30 years, working with
you people, working with Mr. Plummer, working with Artie Teele, working with Mr. Patterson.
We're local guys. These guys come out of nowhere and come up with a few dollars, and you
jump ship on us. And I don't think it's right. I think you should stick with us guys and —
Chairman Plummer: Are you predisposing that we're jumping ship?
Mr. Pasquale: Well, you're basically asking -- They come in with a lot of money, and you're
telling us we're out of the picture.
Chairman Plummer: Not yet, we haven't.
Mr. Pasquale: Excuse me?
Chairman Plummer: Not yet, we haven't told you that.
Mr. Pasquale: More or less. More or less, you know?
Chairman Plummer: You might be surprised.
Mr. Pasquale: Well, we'll see. I just want to let you know that us guys have been here all the
time. We've been with you all the time. I'll give you a little background into my memory.
The people that were running Waste Management years agog the same people that are running
Republic today, came into Dade County and left, because they couldn't handle competition. OK?
And they can't handle competition where they -are now, because they don't got franchises. You
guys take it from there. That's all I'll say.
Chairman Plummer: Wasn't Waste Management United?
Mr. Pasquale: Years ago, no. Waste Management_ was Waste Management. They bought
United, Lou Gunder (phonetic), then they had to give it back, because they couldn't work in the
City of Miami.
Chairman Plummer: You are talking some history now. All right. Have I overlooked any other
Italian in the crowd?
(LAUGHTER)
Chairman Plummer: All right. As I see it now, and here is the decree of the Chair: There are
two remaining speakers. They will be afforded 15 minutes each. It will then close off the public
hearing and turn it over to the City Commission for their deliberation. I have three people
showing from Republic. You split it up however you want. You want to talk all 15 minutes, or
you want to do whatever you want, the clock is running and starting by virtue of your name, and
mailing address, and who you represent. While you're setting up, again, on the record, I want to
compliment all of you for handling yourselves in a very professional way. I've seen these things
156 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
where they turn into screaming matches, and today, we were fortunate that we had professional
people. And ladies and gentlemen, we do ask you, please, to come in and take a seat. Make the
law officer's job a little bit easier. As long as there are seats available, we will ask that they be
used, and the officers will close the doors so that we won't have to put up with the noise. Thank
you, on one door. And now the second door, Mr. Jones took care of that.
41. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ALLAPATTAH GARDEN
APARTMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT NORTHWEST 36TH STREET AND 12TH AVENUE
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATION AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT
ALLAPATTAH METRORAIL STATION.
Chairman Plummer: Willy, what item do you want? Willy?
Vice Chairman Gort: PZ-10.
Chairman Plummer: Is there anyone here on PZ-10? You're here on PZ-10? Mr. Gort is asking
that it be deferred. Do you have a problem with that?
Mariano Cruz: No, I don't have no problem with my Commissioner.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Then Mr. Gort makes the motion that PZ-10 be continued to what
date, sir?
Vice Chairman Gort: I have to get together with the neighborhood.
Chairman Plummer: To a date to be determined at a later time. Seconded by Commissioner
Sanchez. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposed? Show it unanimous.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gort, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-716
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM PZ-10
(PROPOSED ALLAPATTAH GARDEN APARTMENTS TO BE LOCATED
AT APPROXIMATELY NORTHWEST 36TH STREET AND. NORTHWEST
12TH AVENUE, FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATION AREA DESIGN
AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT THE ALLAPATTAH METRORAIL
STATION)
157 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
42. A) CHARGE $100 ANNUALLY TO NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL SOLID
WASTE HAULING SERVICE FRANCHISE PROVIDERS FOR EACH ACCOUNT —
PROHIBIT PASS -THROUGH TO CUSTOMER MORE THAN $48 EQUALLY ON A $4 A
MONTH BASIS;
B) RESTRICT HOURS OF OPERATION CONTIGUOUS TO RESIDENTIAL
BETWEEN 9 A.M. AND 10 P.M.;
C) DEFINE RECOVERABLE/RECYCLABLE MATERIAL SAME AS STATE LAW
— MANAGER TO REPORT ON ECONOMIC IMPACT TO CITY;
D) APPROVE SELECTION OF QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL
SOLID WASTE HAULING SERVICES;
E) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND CODE SECTIONS 22-1, 22-2, 22-5, 22-6,
22-12, 22-14, 22-18, 22-46, 22-47 THROUGH 22-51, 22-53, 22-56, 22-58 AND 22-93
"GARBAGE AND TRASH," BY PROVIDING FOR NEW DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR
NEW REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL SOLID
WASTE HAULERS; MANDATING SOLID WASTE SERVICE TO ALL RESIDENCES
CONTAINING THREE (3) UNITS OR LESS; CHANGING RESIDENTIAL BULKY WASTE
COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL COLLECTION
SERVICES; REPLACING TERMS, REGULATORY PERMIT AND PERMITTEE WITH
NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AND FRANCHISEE, RESPECTIVELY.
(See Section #40)
Chairman Plummer: Sir.
Mr. Luciano Isla: Mr. Chairman, a point of information.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Isla: Does anyone have the Republic proposal? May I have a copy?
Chairman Plummer: If you'd give me a minute, I think I have a faxed copy of it.
Mr. Isla: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: But I'll have to find it. Well, you say the latest one. I'm not going to say
that — here, you saved me having to go look for it.
158 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
r
Mr. Isla: No, no.
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry? Go ahead, make your objection.
Mr. Isla: No. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Isla: I've asked for the Republic proposal. This says Imperial Sanitation Proposal, pursuant
to Section 11 of the RFQ (Request for Qualifications). Where is the Republic Proposal?
Chairman Plummer: Well, sir, I've not — I see at the top it says "Republic."
Mr. Isla: Well, Mr. Chairman, of the 19 or the 21 companies that submitted responses to the
RFQ, does not indicate Republic. It indicates Imperial. Now, that Section 11 is pursuant to the
Imperial response to the RFQ. That has Section 11. 1 have not seen —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, you hear what's being said?
Mr. George Wysong (Assistant City Attorney): Yes. The only problem with that is that the
proposal was submitted by Imperial Sanitation Services, Inc., as it says in the title.
Mr. Isla: Yes.
Mr. Wysong: And Imperial Sanitation Services, Inc. did sumit a proposal. And I believe Mr.
Cory will indicate that they are a, subsidiary of Republic Services. But it was Imperial Sanitation
that submitted the RFQ.
Mr. Isla: Yes, I agree. Except, Mr. Chairman, that Imperial Sanitation Services —
Chairman Plummer: Whoa, whoa. You know —
Mr. Isla: Well — -
Chairman Plummer: Time out. You're going to have your 15 minutes. All you came up to the
microphone for was to get a copy. You can agree or disagree that that's a copy, and you'll have
that opportunity in your 15 minutes.
Mr. Isla: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Teele, what company are you with, sir? The Socialistic
Garbage Company?
Jack Cory: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jack Cory. 120 East Jefferson
Street, Tallahassee, Florida. I am a lobbyist representing Republic Services, Incorporated, and
their wholly -owned subsidiary and division, Imperial Sanitation, Incorporated. With reference —
Mr. Isla: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, sir, sir, this is not —
159 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Isla: Mr. Cory is not a registered lobbyist.
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, sir. You are out of order. This —
Mr. Cory: With reference to —
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me.
Mr. Cory: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: This is not a court procedure. Objections are not a part of our procedure.
You can object in your 15 minutes until hell freezes over. But until this gentleman is finished, I'll
ask you to be -- common courtesy. I will let him interrupt you, and I'll ask you not to interrupt
him. Mr. Cory, proceed, sir.
Mr. Cory: We're passing out copies to you of the executive summary of the innovative proposal
that has been submitted by Imperial Sanitation Services, Republic Services, Incorporated,
pursuant to Section 11 of the RFQ, Number 9899090. A copy of Paragraph 11 is displayed here
for you, and it is also in the backup material that you are being distributed to you. We will
discuss that further in depth later on. First of all, we submitted to you Innovative Proposal A, in
accordance with your request. This calls for an exclusive franchise by district south of 836. It
would bring in seven point nine million dollars ($7.9 million) of new revenue to the City, nine
hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) annually, a savings of three point nine six million
dollars ($3.96 million) to the residents and the businesses in the City for free services to the
City, free services for all of your public buildings, and free bulk cleanups. As you heard from the
City staff, currently, the services for public buildings is three hundred and forty-seven thousand
dollars ($347,000) a year. We are proposing to provide you with four hundred and ninety-five
thousand dollars ($495,000) monthly — excuse me — annually, which you can use both for those
public services and for additional bulk cleanups in your own districts. The total of Proposal A is
eleven point eight million dollars ($11.8 million). None of these items would be passed on to the
customers for rate increases. The second proposal is Proposal B, in accordance with your request.
This proposal calls for an exclusive district north of the Miami River. The numbers are identical,
eleven point eight million dollars ($11.8 million) of new revenues to the City, with a guarantee,
by contract, that these numbers would not be passed on to your residents. Finally, we submit to
you Innovative Proposal C. This calls for an exclusive franchise Citywide, an additional income
to the City in excess of fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000), an additional one point eight
million dollars ($1.8 million) annually, a savings of seven point two million dollars ($7.2) to your
residents over -the life of the Agreement, with free additional services, nine hundred thousand
dollars ($900,000) annually, with free additional services to your residents. And that includes
three hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars ($347,000) of cost to your public buildings now,
and the additional monies could be used for you for bulk cleanups and special cleanup areas.
That is Option C. Innovative proposals have been discussed substantially by the orchestrated
opposition today, and will be in the future. However, Webster's Dictionary points out that
innovative proposals are a process to make changes. We feel that all three of these respond to
that. Black's Law Dictionary says it is a change of obligations. We feel that these three
proposals also fulfill that definition in that it changes the obligations from the staff s
recommendation to place the obligation for the cost on your businesses and residents and places it
on the proposal. Request for Qualifications was submitted. We have submitted that language to
you previously. Here is a detailed breakdown. It includes the six items that were included in
your request: More efficient solid waste service. Each of these proposals provides that. One
company, one district, one truck; not 19 trucks driving down Flagler Street at 7 o'clock in the
160 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
morning, which is the current staff proposal. Number two is better City regulation. We propose a
public/private partnership for joint regulation. One company, one district, one City audit. We
would provide you annually with a computerized printout of every single business that we've
dealt with in the City, thus giving you the availability under any of these proposals to be able to
audit them and be sure the funds were paid for. Number three, promote greater competition. We
provide that, also, in each of these proposals, because we provide for open roll -off competition.
So any of those orchestrated companies that you've heard from about roll -off are not involved in
any of these proposals. Roll -off would be open to all competition.
Commissioner Teele: Oh, boy, that's not what we heard earlier. Are you suggesting that roll -off,
the roll -off services would be excluded from the exclusive?
Mr. Cory: That is our proposal, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: Did you hear what the gentleman said when I asked him the question?
Mr. Cory: Yes, sir. I also looked at your staffs report, and the company that he represents is also
not registered in the City under the staffs current RFP records.
Commissioner Teele: Well, they may be registered under a different name or something.
Mr. Cory: That's possible, sir. But roll -off is open to competition in all three proposals.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Mr. Clerk, would you make sure that all of the companies that have
testified today are, in fact, on the list that's paying a fee, either in their name that they're
registered, or some other name. A lot of these companies do business— for example, Republic,
you all do business under a different name, don't you?
Mr. Cory: Imperial Sanitation. Everything —
Commissioner Teele: Imperial, OK. All right.
Mr. Cory: Everything will be under Imperial, sir. In addition to promoting greater competition,
if you chose one of the exclusive districts rather than the Citywide proposal, you obviously would
have a competition between the exclusive district and the non-exclusive district. And it would
give you an independent evaluation by yourselves to see which is more efficient, and which is
better operated; not by self-serving folks that are proposing it to you. Number 4 is innovative and
novel services. Obviously, all of the items that we proposed are innovative and novel, since no
one else proposed any. This is the only innovative proposal that was proposed. It's easy for
somebody to come up to you. now, after the numbers are on the table, and the ideas are on the
table, and say, "We'll do annexation," or "We'll do cleanup," or "We'll match the numbers,
especially if we can match the numbers with passing it through," as was testified to.
Beautification of the City. We are committed to community cleanups, new vehicles, new trucks.
Every truck would be a new one. Every dumpster would be a new one: You're not going to have
green cans, and red cans, and blue cans, and not know which is which. Your district, whether you
did the Citywide proposal or one of the districts, all would be new equipment. It would require us
90 days of start up time for one of the districts, 120 days Citywide. Finally, you requested
Number 6, health, welfare of the citizens. Responsibility for collection will be from one
company. You'll have less trucks on the road, less traffic congestion, less possibilities for
accidents, because you'll have one company responsible for that. In summary, the last page of
the handout that we gave you, the innovative proposals that we have put forth to you would call
161 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
for seven ($7,000,000) to fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) of new revenues, license fees to
this City, four million ($4,000,000) to seven million dollars ($7,000,000) of free services,
community cleanups, and solid waste for all your municipal buildings in the service area, from
three million ($3,000,000) to seven million dollars ($7,000,000) of newequipment — new trucks,
new dumpsters — new equipment; no price increase for the life of the Agreement from these
above services, and no annual — and no new annual reoccurring -- and we would add to you new
annual reoccurring revenues. We have been innovative. We have been responsive to your
proposals. However, it is unfortunate that some of the testimony today has come forth to you that
talks about competition. This battle did not take three hours because two companies controlling
78 percent of your customers want competition. They don't want competition, and they know
they won't have competition if you go with the staff proposal. They have five-year contracts
with automatic five-year roll-overs, and that's what the battle has been orchestrated about. Free
competition is great when you have it in a competitive marketplace. It would be like you and I,
Commissioner Sanchez, as an example, wanting to buy a color television set. And we go down to
a store, and one has one for three hundred ($300), and one has one for three fifty ($350), and we
choose to go to the store that has three hundred ($300). With your businesses today, 78 percent
of them that are tied to these two national companies are in indentured servitude for five to ten
years. You have a chance to change that. What's the change? The change is whether you're
going to leave the eleven ($11,000,000) to twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000) in their
pockets, where they can take it to Houston, Texas and Phoenix, Arizona, or whether you're going
to put that eleven ($11,000,000) to twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000) back in the pockets
of the residents and the businesses of the City of Miami. I am proud of my company's
presentation. I am sorry that you had to listen to all of the rantings. We have two additional
speakers, Mr. Ronny Book, our attorney and Mr. Matt Morrall, to discuss some of the legal
matters that have been raised here.
Chairman Plummer: You have six minutes remaining.
Mr. Cory: We would be honored.
Ron Book: For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is Ron Book of Ronald L. Book, P.A., 2999
Northeast 191 Street in the 31 " City of Dade County, Aventura. I want to be very brief, and I'll
respond to any other questions that may come up as this matter gets discussed. And very briefly,
it is our position that not only do you have the authority to approve this item as we have
submitted it in the RFQ, but, number one, the issue of innovation seems to be this big issue of
debate amongst people. You've heard Mr. Cory not only give you the Webster's definition of
"innovation," but you've also heard him give you the Black's Law Dictionary definition. I guess
what one sees as innovation in their eyes may not be innovation to somebody else. But to my
dear friend, Mr. Kratzer, who commented earlier, new method or custom is what it is, Frank. It's
a process of making change. And that's what the City asked for. And just because it wasn't the
City's decision to put it into the RFQ didn't mean that someone couldn't turn aroundand bid that
as a response to the provision at the end of the RFQ that said, "We request other innovative
ideas." Number two, I don't think there's any question but that under the home rule powers that
the City possesses, and under the case law that the City Attorney is well aware of, there's a litany
of Supreme Court cases, there's an Attorney General's opinion from 1980, as well, that supports
the City's ability to enter into this Agreement with Imperial and Republic. Finally, I just want to
say in closing, briefly, just because some other hauler chose not to bid this way doesn't make it
non -innovative, number one. And number two, they had the same choices. These same issues
were discussed in the same working groups. - Everybody knew what the table was. They chose
not to make the best deal for the City of Miami and its taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, members of this
Commission. And that's what this is about. And Mr. Cory hit it on the head. 78 percent of the
162 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
existing business belongs to the two haulers that are standing before you saying, "This isn't fair,
it's an exclusive deal." And I will also state very clearly that although this takes on an
appearance of an exclusive franchise, there are pieces of the business in each and every one of
these proposals that makes it something less than an exclusive franchise, and allows that
marketplace to work. I will be glad to deal with any of the other legal questions that your City
Attorney or any of you may have as you move through the discussion.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The final speaker has two minutes and 50 seconds.
Matt Morrall: Thank you. I'd like to give 30 seconds back to Jack Cory to finish up. My name
is Matt Morrall. I'm an attorney. 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I heard
a couple of things said today that gave me some pause. One was that you're going to enter into a
Franchise Agreement that would abridge the existing contracts and disallow them to pass through
existing operational cost. And there are certain Federal and State constitutional problems with
that process, because that is existing contractual agreements between the haulers and the
customers that currently exist. I'm very concerned about that, and that's an issue I think that
needs to be resolved prior to taking that step, because you heard everybody talk about passing
through the cost. They fully intend to. Their contracts provide governmental authorities and
governmental fees associated with providing the service are, in fact, obligations of thecustomer.
That's number one. Number two, a little bit of history on the solid waste companies, and their
freedom of the people to contract with them. In the last 18 months, there's been a significant
consolidation in the industry, and the companies that currently exist, sure, exist in name. But, in
fact, their management has changed. The management has changed dramatically from the time
that this whole process has been initiated. So, in fact, the people that started out with one set of
haulers now have a different set of haulers. In response to the responsiveness of our proposal,
there was a Request for Qualifications. This was— part of it requested innovative proposals. We
put something on the table that goes beyond what our obligations are, beyond what -- the
obligations of the City to approve something like this. In fact, if you wanted to, you could sit
down and negotiate directly with us under Florida law, and deal with us, and deal with us to talk
about a proposal of this nature. So those are what the obligations are. I'd like to turn it over to
Mr. Cory. Thank you.
Mr. Cory: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Republic Services and Imperial Sanitation,
we are pleased to be able to present these three innovative proposals to you. They meet the
definition of "innovation." They meet the needs of the City. I have sat here through meeting ad
infinitum listening to you talk. And again, I have to quote my friend, Mr. Sanchez, who said it
better than I could the other day, that fees are nothing more than taxes that are passed on to the
little people. We are proposing a program with new reoccurring revenues that are no fees, not
going to be passed on to your little businesspeople, not today, not for the life of the Agreement.
Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. And before we start with the last speaker, we'll give you
about a minute to get all of your paraphernalia down.
Mr. Cory: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Would you like to take those home, sir?
Unidentified Speaker: They're free.
163 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Oh, they're free. All right. Alrighty. Alrighty. And now, we came to the
speaker we've been looking for. He's not free, but he's reasonable. Yes, I hear you. Oh, my
God, by the box full. She has four minutes left? Well, all right. This lady over here sitting in the
front said that she vacated four of her minutes, and if you think I'm going to argue with that lady,
you're crazy. Tell me when we start the clock, sir. Start the clock.
Mr. Isla: We're going, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Stop the clock. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: While he's getting ready, I really am going to ask the Management, Chief
Martinez.
Chairman Plummer:, Mr. Martinez to Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: While we're getting ready, I'm going to ask you all to comment
specifically on the seven ($7,000,000) and the fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) or whatever
those numbers were. Was it eleven million ($11,000,000) or seven million ($7,000,000)? Seven
million ($7,000,000) and fourteen million ($14,000,000). Just when we get time. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Well, how'd you get sixteen? Josephine. Now he's got five. No, he gets
15. There you go. And are you ready, sir?
Mr. Isla: I am, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Proceed.
Mr. -Isla: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Luciano Isla. I'm an attorney -at -law with offices at 1790 West 49`h Street, Hialeah,
Florida. I am a registered lobbyist on behalf of the Dade Waste Haulers Council. Some of the
members you heard today. There are nine companies who are members of the' Dade Waste
Haulers Council who submitted approved responses to your RFQ. Earlier, before the presentation
by Republic Services, I challenged their first speaker. Because your laws in this City are very
specific, Section 265, 2652, lobbyist, requires anyone who wishes to lobby you to register as a
lobbyist, to indicate, as a matter of record, the principal that they're representing, and all
principals that they're representing; to indicate, as a matter of record, the board of directors of the
principal they're representing. I tender, Mr. Chairman, for the public record, certified records
from Tallahassee that will indicate that Imperial Sanitation, Inc. and Republic Services, Inc. are
two distinct corporate entities with interlocking directors. But as a matter of law, as- a matterof
law, they're two distinct corporate entities. The gentlemen that spoke in front of you, Mr. Cory,
Mr. Morrall and Mr. Book, your records will reflect in this file have all been registered lobbyists
for Republic Services. None of them have registered to lobby you on behalf of Imperial
Sanitation. The company that submitted the response to your RFQ is Imperial Sanitation, Inc.
That is a matter of your record. Furthermore, the articles of incorporation that was attached to the
RFQ response by Imperial Sanitation, Inc. showed only one individual, Mr. John Larson, Jr. And
Mr. John Larson, Jr. is not a registered lobbyist for Imperial.. Imperial may be a subsidiary of
Republic Services, but Republic Services, being the parent company, as a matter of law, is a
separate and distinct entity. Republic Services did not respond to your RFQ. The Manager
shows, as a matter of record, that the response came forth from Imperial Sanitation, Inc. None of
164 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
the three speakers you had in front of you are registered lobbyists for Imperial. And I move that
the record and all that they presented to you be stricken as a violation of your lobbyist ordinance.
Next.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, do you wish to reply to that?
Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Let us give us one moment to look at the lobbyist
ordinance while he moves to the second point, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. Isla: Those are certified records, Mr. Maxwell. And it also shows they are certified copies
from the City Clerk as to the registered list of lobbyists, and it includes Mr. Ron Book's
registration yesterday as a lobbyist for Republic, only. You have gone on video tape and
transcript since March of '98. You've also gone on audio tape, both of which I tendered for the
record. On March of'98, Commissioner Teele raises the issue of income for the City, which is a
legitimate and an important issue. Just last week, Commissioner Regalado stated for the record,
when addressing an issue under your Blue Pages, Balado Tires: Why do we have to marry one
company? Why do we beat up on our minority vendors to the City? It is the policy of your
Commission, and you've all agreed with this, to support your minority vendors. I applaud you,
Commissioner Regalado, and I concur with you on that. It is not just the waste haulers, but you
heard today from the Latin Chamber of Commerce and their president how they feel on this issue.
Back in the `20s, when the City Charter approved -- when the citizens of Miami came together to
form the Charter, they told you specifically, in Chapter 39-J of your Charter, which I've tendered
for the record, no exclusive franchises shall ever be granted, ever, in the City. Why did they say
that? Why did the founding fathers of this municipality say that? Because as long as we are with
you on a non-exclusive basis, Commissioners, you can always take back the commercial solid
waste to the City, or compete with us. In fact, you do, because your City's Solid Waste
Department picks up, up to three units. If Director Patterson tomorrow wanted to increase that to
four units, you can do so on a non-exclusive basis. But you're not going to be able to do it on an
exclusive basis. Non-exclusive, yes. So with the changes in the statute, the Home Rule Charter,
et cetera, fine. The City, let's say, you can now give franchises, but those are non-exclusive
franchises, because the minute you give an exclusive franchise, Commissioners, you are
delegating your police power to a private entity. That is a violation of law. You are franchising,
and you are entitled under the Home Rule Charter to take over, if you want, all the commercial
hauling and the multi -family hauling. That is your right as a police power, but not to delegate it
on an exclusive basis. It is also going to work against the interest of your City, because then, you
will not be able to go back in the marketplace if you want to enhance your capability. That is
your Charter. Your Charter and the Home Rule laws in Florida allow you to pass these laws,
provided it is not contravention of law. I suggest that the granting of an exclusive franchise
contrary to your Charter provisions, contrary to State laws that provide for you to execute the
police power as a municipality, as a chartered municipality will be a violation of State law. The
State also requires that your ordinances be non-discriminatory, that you not give your power
capriciously. How can you approve an exclusive franchise that, by its very terms, discriminates
against the private haulers? If you approve Option A under the Imperial proposal, you're saying,
in effect that a black -owned or an African -American business in that area is going to have to use
the services of Imperial, that a Hispanic -American business, a solid waste business, as we have in
165 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
our membership, cannot go and collect, and service that area of the City. Don't you think that is
discriminatory, that you are letting your own business community know what they can or cannot
do? Of course, it is. It's even worse if you grant the exclusive franchise. You're saying to your
Hispanic businesses, to your African -American businesses, to your non -Hispanic businesses that
you heard today, "You cannot go into certain areas of the City, because that is reserved for" —
who? Republic? I don't see Republic's name in your proposal. Imperial. What is Imperial's
financial capability to stand in front of you today and make these promises? Have they shown
you their records, their financial records? Have those been tendered for the record here today?
They have not. What about their parent company, Republic? You've heard two reports today. A
month ago, a month ago, the Herald, as Mr. McWilliams indicated, their stock was plummeting.
And today, Mr. Mike Chavez indicated to you the Yahoo report, which is a matter of record.
Republic — not Imperial — Republic has — is now a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought
about and filed in the Southern District of Florida, Federal District Court, because of
misrepresentation of their value. They give you paper that they are not even willing to put their
names to. Rather, they want to hide behind their so-called subsidiary, saying, "Look, tell you
what we're going to do. We're going to take a skunk, give it a shower, and now we're going to
call it Rightguard." Forget about it. That is what you have in front of you. You have Republic
with another company giving representations on their behalf. It is a violation of your law.
Furthermore, I never thought, I never thought that Republic and their representatives, specifically,
Mr. Jack Cory, would have the gumption to submit their so-called proposal to the State Oversight
Board. You are having a fight with the State Oversight Board, yet Republic submits their
proposal to Mr. Bob Beatty, the Chairman of the Oversight Board at the same time they're
submitting it to you? They are misrepresenting to you their corporate status. They are violating
your lobbyist laws. They don't come forward with their financial affidavit. They circumvent you
by going straight to the State Oversight Board. And all these matters are now here of record.
And now, they stand here and say, "We're going to save the City, because we're going to throw
all of this money at you." How many more misrepresentations— or let me strike that. How easy,
then, can it be for one company to do all of that, to not submit a response to the RFQ, to not even
be part of the Manager's recommendation, or to go against it, to go against 19 companies and get
your vote? How easy is that? 'Well, I think your decision here tonight will tell that. In the
decision of Carbone versus Clarktown, Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority
opinion said, you know what the value of waste is, Commissioner? The value of waste is because
people are willing to pay to dispose of it. That's value, and that's money. Now, the Supreme —
the Federal Constitution prohibits you from interfering with interstate commerce, and the free
flowing of State commerce. What is the item of interstate commerce that we're talking about
here? Is it the waste? No, because waste is produced, and there it is. According to Justice
O'Connor in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Article of Interstate Commerce is the
hauling and the transportation of waste. You have multi -national— you have State and national
companies here. Browning Ferris. The response from Browning Ferris was in the name of
Browning Ferris. You have Waste Management. The response to the RFQ was on behalf of
Waste Management. And you have Republic. Republic did not respond to your RFQ. Don't you
think that they carry their waste from Florida to other states throughout the whole nation?
Chairman Plummer: And you have three minutes.
Mr. Isla: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That then you may attempt to justify an exclusive franchise
on the basis of that we are entitled to it, based on our Charter. You will have to face that
language in the Charter if your decision is not the correct one today. You will also have to face
the State laws that require you to maintain the police powers within your entity, and not to
delegate that to one exclusive entity. And we've got Federal issues regarding impact on property
rights and contracts, as well as State issues. But, you know, Commissioners, more importantly, in
166 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
something as simple as complying with your lobbyist registration forms, they really can't even do
that, can they? Yet they want to take over your entire business. And if they can't, they want a
portion of your City. So then it will be you who will be telling your minority businessmen and
women that you are trying to protect that now, they have to deal with one company, only. I am
very proud to be a Cuban -American, and to have come here in '61. I'm very proud to have a
majority of Cuban -Americans here. How can we justify, Commissioners, how can we justify
fighting a totalitarian system when it is then us Cuban -Americans that impose a totalitarian
system on our own community? How can we fight discrimination when we, ourselves, are telling
our business community that they can no longer operate a private business, because they cannot
go into certain areas of our City, or if they want to collect garbage in our City, they have to go
outside of our City. They're all sitting here, Commissioners. The black, the African -American
waste haulers, the Hispanic waste haulers, the non -Hispanic waste haulers, they're all sitting here.
And how can we explain to the founders of this City in 1921, when they said no exclusive
franchises, ever? Non-exclusive free marketplace, we're in support of that. And the hundred
dollar ($100) annual fee, please consider. We'll pay you fifty dollars ($50) October 1. Six
months later, we'll pay you another fifty dollars ($50). As far as everything else that Republic
said to you, my motion still stands to strike them from the record, and to sanction them for
violating your laws. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: Read the top of the Agenda. You do it again, I got to throw you out. Let's
don't do that. Mr. City Attorney, there was a legal question raised, and I think that if you're
prepared to give an answer, I think you should at this time.
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, with all due respect to my
friend and colleague, Mr. Isla, we've taken a look at the proposal submitted by Mr. Cory. It
clearly does draw a nexus between Imperial Sanitation Services and Republic Services. We've
taken a look at that. I've taken a look at the lobbyist ordinance. Obviously, I have not had an
opportunity to review the voluminous documents that were submitted. But based on the
information that I have reviewed, I see no impropriety in Mr. Jack Cory's submission. Therefore,
I don't see any violation of our lobbyist law.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. The last speaker is Lori, BFI?
Lori Weems: Yeah. Lori Weems.
Chairman Plummer: You got four minutes. I don't remember, but I'm not going to argue.
Ms. Weems: I promise. Lori Weems, with the law firm of Holland and Knight, for Browning
Ferris Industries. We're legal counsel, as I mentioned earlier. I'm here to respond to Republic
directly. And what they, themselves pointed out is not the City's position. Infact, it's the City's
rejection two times, both in June and July, and it's exactly what the Manager recommended as
being non -responsive to this Request for Qualifications, not Request for Proposals, as the word
"proposal" was used by Republic over 20 times in their presentation, as was the word, "bid,"
twice. Bids, proposals, qualifications, they're all a part of procurements law, and that's what I'd
like to talk to you about a little bit, very briefly. You've heard a lot of words today. Let me end
with just a few.' Whenever a party is concerned about the _ law, or policy or procedure going
against their way, they use bad words. They use words like "taxes." They use words like
"indentured servitude," words like "Houston, Texas" -- and I'm speaking as a Texan — words like
"Phoenix." But the words that you need to remember and you need to focus on today are the
167 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
words used in your RFQ, the RFQ that you drafted and you published as being an RFQ for a non-
exclusive franchise within the City of Miami. The law you need to remember is at the heart of
procurements law. It's your duty to protect the public trust. Now, I'll quote the law for you, and
I'm going to leave you with these words to remember. And I'm quoting from Marriott
Corporation versus Metropolitan Dade County, which is actually the lead procurements law case
in the State of Florida: The contract —
Commissioner Sanchez: What year?. What year is that case?
Ms. Weems: It's 1980, sir. The contract that you award today must be awarded as a function of
the reasonable exercise of power by municipal government authorities as a matter of public policy
and fidelity to public trust. We trust — we put our trust in your today, and know that you will
honor that. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: And the motion on the floor is to defer it until
(LAUGHTER)
Chairman Plummer: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, again, let me thank all of you for being as
good as you were, and I love you dearly. And now, I am now closing the public hearing for
discussion of the Administration and the City Commission.
Commissioner Teele: Would you let the Manager give us —
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry?
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you allow the Manager to comment on
those —
Chairman Plummer: He's part of the Administration. Mr. Martinez, if that's who'you want?
Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: You're on, sir.
Raul Martinez (Assistant City Manager): Yes, Commissioner. You asked me —
Chairman Plummer: And there is no clock.
Mr. Martinez: You asked me to do an analysis of the fees as were offered by Republic/Imperial
to the other. We have done a comparison between what the RFQ Franchise Agreement will bring
forward, and what the Republic/Imperial proposals were. Under Option C, which is the simplest
one to compare, it's the whole City versus the whole City. The Franchise Agreement takes into
account 20 percent of the gross receipts. They cover in their options that they would pay 20
percent of the gross receipts. The Franchise Agreement covers right now a fifty dollar ($50)
permit per account fee. They stand mute on their proposal on the permit per account fee. The
Franchise Agreement —
Commissioner Teele: They didn't answer the question. Is that was you're saying?
Mr. Martinez: That is correct, sir. They mention —
168 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
T
Commissioner Teele: The question that I asked that everybody else answered, they did not
answer?
Mr. Martinez: Well, they were the only ones that submitted a different proposal than just a
response to the RFQ. Under three options, they say that they'll pay their 20 percent. They say
they'll pay a license fee. They say they'll do in -kind services. They attach dollar values to all
those things by the fact that they didn't attach a dollar value to theper account fee when they're
talking fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000), or twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). The
numbers are thrown around. The assumption that I reached was that that was not inclusive in
their options. Late yesterday, they made a different proposal in that topic, but that was not at the
time that they submitted it. The annual renewal fee is five thousand ($5,000) per franchise that
we award, and a thousand ($1,000) per the specialized waste handling. They do not address this
issue in their proposal. The license fee is not addressed on the RFQ Franchise Agreement. It's in
their Agreement with one point eight million dollars ($1.8 million). When you compare the two
Agreements on a yearly basis, it's about one point two million dollars ($1.2 million) for the RFQ
Franchise Agreement. It's about one point eight million dollars ($1.8 million) for the proposal
from Republic/Imperial, the difference being slightly over half a million dollars per year, their
proposal to the City's recommendation. They put additional dollars to the services to the City, so
on and so forth, but we're the ones that know the savings, what it would save us if somebody
does it for us. So we assessed a value to it of three hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars
($347,000). That was addressed before. So the difference between the two proposals per year is
five hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars ($528,000). They multiply the one point eight
times eight years, because the Franchise Agreement calls for a five-year Agreement. Their
proposals under the three options is an eight -year option. So they multiply the 1.8 times eight
years to get to their 14.4 number that they have.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: (Inaudible.)
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry? What was the question, Mr. Gort?
Vice Chairman Gort: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Martinez: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I can't hear you.
Chairman Plummer: In comparison to the franchising fees, how does it go?
Mr. Martinez: Well, total fees to total fees, because they stand mute on some of their fees, the
difference, again, is five hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars ($528,000) per year for the
duration, whether it's five years for the Franchise Agreement, or whether it's eight years for
theirs. Should you raise the per account fee from fifty ($50) to seventy-five dollars ($75), both
proposals are even. The dollars are about.the same. Should you increase it to a hundred dollars
($100), then the Franchise Agreement will bring in an additional half a million dollars, you know,
in revenues.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
169 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Let me ask the question another way. There are three elements to this.
They're agreeing to pay the 20 percent, right?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: They have to pay the fifty. dollars ($50) or the hundred dollars ($100),
depending upon what this Commission does, because that's going to be a condition to do the bid.
So those two numbers have no difference. In the franchise fee, 20 percent, it's apples to apples.
Whether it's 19 people collecting, or whether it's one collecting, it's 20 percent.
Mr. Martinez: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: There's a net zero difference there.
Mr. Martinez: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: The application per account fee they have to pay, the other 19 companies
have to pay, so there's no difference there.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, my reading the options and my talking to the Law
Department on this issue, the fact that they did not mention these items at all under Option A, B,
or C, and then went to great lengths to talk about the financial impact —
Commissioner Teele: I. really don't want — 1. mean, I hear what you're saying. But common
sense would tell me that if 19 people are agreeing to pay it, then the 20'" has got to pay it. So
those two issues. Now, what's the third element of this?
Mr. Martinez: Well, the 20 percent, the fifty dollar ($50) per account, and then —
Commissioner Teele: The five thousand, the five thousand (5,000).
Mr. Martinez: And then the five thousand dollar ($5,000), which is what we call the annual
renewal fee.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So the five thousand dollar ($5,000) fee is what's different. Now, let
me ask you this: If we award to 19 people, 19 people pay five thousand dollars ($5,000) each.
Mr. Martinez: Well, it's really 16 companies, five thousand dollars ($5,000) and three companies
a thousand dollars ($1,000), because three of the companies are only going for specialized waste
handling.
Commissioner Teele: So what does that total up?
Mr. Martinez: It's eighty — eighty thousand (80,000) plus three thousand (3,000). It's eighty-
three thousand dollars ($83,000).
Commissioner Teele: So from the industry, we get eighty-three thousand dollars ($83,000).
Mr. Martinez: Under the annual renewal fee, yes, sir.
170 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
a
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, I understand.
Commissioner Teele: To me it's very — this is a very serious --
Chairman Plummer: The lady is embarrassed that the microphone fell.
Commissioner Teele: No, no. But this —
Chairman Plummer: All right. The question to you, sir, is as I understand it, "Are you willing to
pay two and a half million if you were awarded the contract, effective October I" this year?" I
think is the question.
Commissioner Teele: That's for half. That's not for a whole.
Chairman Plummer: Well, that's the question you asked.
Commissioner Teele: The next question would be five for the whole. Just think about the half
for a second.
Mr. Cory: The answer is yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you very —
Unidentified Speaker: Why would you spend all time on the public
to —
Chairman Plummer: Sir, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cory: Thank you for your time, Commissioner.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, thank you. Other members of the Commission. I close the public
hearing.
Mr. Isla: I know you did, Mr. Chairman, but we'd like to —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort asked you a'question, sir. What is the question, Mr. Gort? Mr.
Gort says his question to you, sir, is what is it you want to say?
Mr. Isla: Thank you very much, Mr. Gort. Oh, no, I just — I — I guess by — with the same
authority that Mr. Cory has, the Dade Waste Haulers, Commissioner Teele, will match that offer,
as well.
Chairman Plummer: This reminds me of television, "Can You Top This?"
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
173 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, you know, we're laughing here, but let me tell you
something. This is Commission —
Commissioner Sanchez: Nobody's — I'm not laughing.
Commissioner Teele: This Commission is probably about five days away from having to face the
most difficult issue that any government in Florida has had to face, and that is going to be
whether or not the Governor is going to remove all of us from office, or whether or not the
Governor is going to set aside our powers, or whether or not the Governor is going to impose
some fees on the citizens of this City. And I intend to do everything that I can to prevent any of
those three things from happening, and particularly, any fees that are imposed on the people that I
represent, I want to have a say-so in it. So I'm only trying to determine how we can raise about
five ($5,000,000) to six million dollars ($6,000,000) before we finish up tonight. The question
that I want to ask the gentleman very seriously, are you serious about the proposal? Because, you
know, I'm willing to say let half go to Republic and half go to the industry on an exclusive basis.
Mr. Isla: Commissioner Teele —
Commissioner Teele: If the Association is formed in such a way that you're able to make the
payments of seven million dollars ($7,000,000) over a seven-year period of time, I'm willing to
propose that if that's a serious offer that you're.making.
Chairman Plummer: For the record, your name.
Mr. Isla: Luciano Isla, Attorney -at -law. 1790 West 49 Street.
Chairman Plummer: No, I had your address. Just your name.
Mr. Isla: Thank you. Commissioner Teele, I apologize to you, sir, and to the Commission. I was
being facetious with you, and I know that you are very concerned about the matter of money..
But, Commissioner Teele, the reason I was being facetious, although there was a point that I was
making there is because these are very dangerous grounds, and these are very much matters of
public record. And as much as the City needs the revenue, let usstay within the boundaries of
what you set up.
Commissioner Teele: But in fairness, and please, let's be fair about this, you know, I don't— I
think the greatest argument against the exclusive franchise is you can't get a more socialistic
system. I mean, that is absolutely the reverse of the free marketplace.
Mr. Isla: Totalitarian, Mr. Chairman.
Comm issioner.Teele: That's a horrible way in terms of the issue of the free marketplace, which
we've discussed today. But in terms of certain efficiencies, the lack of equipment, accidents, the
whole nine yards, the things that were discussed, there are some merits to it. But this is the
problem: Coral Gables is held out as being one of the better cities in this community. I don't
necessarily agree. I don't necessarily disagree. We've patterned our newspaper racks behind
Coral Gables. We've patterned landscaping deals behind Coral Gables. I mean, every time 1
look around, the City of Miami is talking about Coral Gables. If Coral Gables, you know, can
have one franchise, if other cities can have one — and you know, this isn't something that is
radical or new. There are a number of cities throughout the State of Florida. I dare say 20 or 30
percent of the larger municipalities have exclusives. The point for me is not — I don't —
174 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Well, that's the only issue that's open. How much is Republic proposing
to pay for the non-exclusive? In other words, Republic can pay the five thousand dollars ($5,000)
and be a non-exclusive. They'd be one of 19, or one of 20, or one of whatever.
Mr. Martinez: That's correct.
Commissioner Teele: So what are they paying — what is the value that they're offering and
tendering to us for the exclusive franchise, for the right for an exclusive franchise?
Mr. Martinez: They're offering a license fee of one point eight million dollars ($1.8 million).
But then again, I got to put this on the record. It is -- my reading of their option is that by them
paying the license fee, they're not offering the permit per account fee.
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me do something radical. Let me ask Republic. Do you all
intend to pay the five thousand dollars ($5,000)— I'm sorry — the 20 percent plus the fifty dollars
($50), slash, hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125), slash, hundred dollars ($100), whatever the
Commission agrees on for the per account fee?
Mr. Cory: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: "Yes, sir," to which one?
Mr. Cory: Yes, sir, to the fifty dollar ($50) or the hundred dollar ($100) fee.
Commissioner Teele: Or a hundred and twenty-five ($125).
Mr. Cory: Or the hundred.and twenty-five ($125) that the Commission direct, sir.
Commissioner Teele: And you do intend to pay the 20 percent?
Mr. Cory: Yes, sir. And all of this —
Commissioner Teele: And so your proposal for the exclusive franchise is how much money for
one half?
Mr. Cory: It is six —
Chairman Plummer: Wait, wait, wait, excuse me. May I inquire as to where the hundred and
twenty-five ($125) came from?
Commissioner Teele: Well, I mean, we haven't agreed on any number. I said fifty ($50) slash --
Chairman Plummer: Was that the one we were— was that the hundred ($100) we were talking
about?
Commissioner Teele: That's the fifty ($50) that's proposed now, the hundred ($100)—
Chairman Plummer: Oh, OK, all right.
Commissioner Teele: -- and the hundred and twenty-five ($125), if there is a second. I mean,
you know, look, the issue here is at 5:01, we need to raise eight million dollars ($8,000,000).
171 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: I'm back in church, wrong pew.
Mr. Cory: So in addition to every other proposal, and we qualified under the first ten provisions
of the RFQ, your Manager acknowledges that. We acknowledged all of those, so we accepted all
of those. In addition to that, we propose an additional seven point nine million dollars ($7.9
million) for a district, nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) annually, three point
nine —
Commissioner Teele: Nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) annually?
Mr. Cory: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: So in effect, you're saying that you're going to pay everything that
everybody else is going to pay annually, annually, but if you have a seven-year as opposed to the
RFQ, which is five years, you're willing to pay an additional nine hundred and what?
Mr. Cory: Nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($990,000). And that was on an eight -year
proposal, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me ask you this. Would you be willing to pay the first year in
advance?
Alfred Gonzalez: Excuse me, but I object to his being able to change his proposal.
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me, sir. You were not asked a question by Commissioner Teele.
Mr. Cory: Sir, Waste Management, Waste Management has had three speakers, sir. And we've
been real --
Chairman Plummer: Oh, oh, oh. Now,, look, you know, I compliment — Mr. Cory, please.
Mr. Cory: The answer to your question, Commissioner Teele —
Chairman Plummer: I hope I didn't make a mistake by complimenting you all on your
professional attitude. Now, as Commissioner Teele tells me, I'm going to tell you, take a deep
breath, stand back. And Mr. Cory, you have the floor.
Mr. Cory: Thank you very much, Commissioner. To answer Commissioner Teele's question,
yes, we would, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Could you pay two years in advance?
Mr. Cory: Yes, we would, sir.
Commissioner Teele: So that's— well, let me put it this way: Would you be willing to pay about
two point five million ($2.5 million) in advance?
Chairman Plummer: Bingo.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, Mr. Chairman, this is — I mean, to me --
172 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
philosophically, I think an exclusive is not in the best interest of the marketplace. OK? However,
the issue right now is, how do we raise monies before the Governor and the Oversight Board act,
and what is a reasonable approach? And that's what I'm looking for. I mean I'm not trying to be
facetious. The last thing I want to do is put any hauler out of business. And by keeping at least
half of the City_open, nobody is going to be put out of business. But the fact remains if we're
going to raise three million dollars ($3,000,000) — where is Commissioner — if we're going to
raise three and a half -- We have the potential right, now, as I see it, of raising three and a half
million dollars this year, and that is by moving the fee from fifty cent— fifty dollars ($50) per
account to one hundred dollars ($100) per account, or a hundred and a quarter, and by awarding
an exclusive franchise in part of the City, and raising an additional two point five million ($2.5
million) up front. They said they'd put up two point five. The Budget Office has said that one
million ($1,000,000) — that a hundred dollars ($100) equals an additional one million dollars
($1,000,000). Since the first fifty is already in the budget, that's three point five million dollars
($3.5 million) on one issue. And, you know, I realize we've taken a lot of time, but we're looking
to try to raise — according to the Manager's report, we're looking for four million ($4,000,000). 1
mean, I think we're looking for six ($6,000,000) or eight million ($8,000,000). But the fact of the
matter is we're halfway there if we can raise three and a half million dollars. And I'm just asking
you, do you have any other ideas that are not facetious? And you're a serious man, and you've
done an outstanding job of representing your client. And the only point that I wanted to make
also is I deeply regret, Mr. Chairman, that Phil Hammerschmidt is not here today, too, because
the one thing about Phil Hammerschmidt as a lobbyist is that he always told you the truth. He
always gave you the options. And I think not only does the industry miss him, but I can certainly
speak for this Commissioner. And I know that his wife continues to represent BFI. I can tell you
that I really wish that Phil Hammerschmidt had been here on this issue, because I think, you
know, we possibly would have gotten some additional views. And I certainly compliment
everybody who did give us their views. Thank you.
Mr. Isla: One minute to reply, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Go ahead.
Mr. Isla: Mr. Teele, my clients went to bat for the Commission several months ago, almost a year
ago, when the Commission increased the fee to 20 percent. Yes, sir, from 15 to 20 percent. They
went out in the community, into the business community and spoke on your behalf. There was an
on -call audit, a blind audit performed of the waste industry that turned out 90 percent compliance.
And you heard that the other day. Sowe cannot -- When you compare us to Coral Gables,
you're accomplishing the same thing on a non-exclusive basis, because you're seeking and
obtaining the lowest rate possible for the commercial accounts in your City. The haulers have
agreed not to pass through the hundred dollars ($100). They've agreed not to pass through the
annual fee. You are achieving the same thing as you are in Coral Gables without an exclusive
franchise. I don't know what the Charter provisions of the City of Coral Gables are, but I do
know that by continuing this process with us, you may not be able to raise from the solid waste
industry all of the money you need tonight, but you've got to be able to go to the Oversight Board
and say, "Over the next five years, we have a commitment from 19, 20 companies, and this is
what we're going to raise over the next five years with all of these haulers."
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Isla: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, we need to clarify a couple of things
175 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: One is, Coral Gables went out on an RFP, not on an RFQ. That's to
start off with, all right? The other issue is that-- I think that the City Manager should address it —
this has nothing to do with the Oversight Board.
Mr. Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): Mr. Chairman
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Manager.
Mr. Warshaw: Respectfully, this process started in approximately, November of 1998. And
often, you've talked to me about process, and I've told you I'm a person of process. What
happens here today has nothing to do with the Oversight Board, nothing to do with the deficit.
What it has to do with is a process took place, an RFQ. I'm going to ask the Mr. Martinez and
the City Attorney to talk about the responsiveness of the bids, which bids are responsive, which
aren't, and then you can make an informed decision, based upon that. But there is a process, and
there's a process. Obviously, I have some concern about the fact that the Republic bid did not
address the per account issue at all. And I'm going to defer to the City Attorney as to whether or
not at the eleventh hour now, today, they can now address that and then try, in effect, to do a
bidding war on the floor of the Commission. That's not -the way this process took place, and I
have a strong objection to that. But again, I'll defer to the Attorney and let him make a ruling as
to whether or not that actually took place.
Chairman Plummer: All right, Mr. Attorney. And don't think you're going to get off light,
because regardless of whenever all of you are finished, I got eight questions that I need answers
to. You can be last, you can be first, you can be whatever you want. Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): The options described by Republic Imperial or
Republic/Imperial Sanitation Services, Inc., are, in one particular way, very specific with regard
to what fees they're agreeing to pay. And they, in fact, detail in total each of them. Nowhere
within either Option A, B or C do they detail that they would be also contributing on a per
account fee. They pay a one point eight million dollar ($1.8 million) annual license fee and
additional free services to the City, and they detail the— in each instance, every fee and every
payment that they would be making to the City. They do not include within that the additional
discussion about paying a per account fee. I think that if we are to evaluate that fee,
notwithstanding their proposal and their submission to you today that they would be agreeable to
paying that fee. I think that on the analysis of either Option A, B or C that you have to review it
on the basis of their proposal, and their proposal does not include that amount.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Vice Chairman, just I'm a little surprised, because I don't'know
what is our role here. The Manager just said that we are in the midst of a bidding war here this
afternoon. And I don't understand, if one of the. purposes of this process is to get revenues for the
City of Miami. Is it not? Is it? Are we trying to increase the revenues for the City?
Mr. Martinez: If I may answer. That was one of the processes, but you, the Commission,
instructed us that that would not be the number one process, that that would not be the number
one criteria for going through this process. That's why —
Commissioner Regalado: The quality of life, you mean.
176 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Martinez: The quality of life was one of the number one issues that we discussed.
Additional revenues to the City was one of the processes.
Commissioner Regalado: So money is not a problem for us here.
Mr. Martinez: Well, no, I'm not saying money is not a problem. The direction from this
Commission, when we went for the last year for this process, the Commission decided on a non-
exclusive Franchise Agreement, which is what we followed.
Commissioner Regalado: I just want to say that I feel that one of the duties of this Commission is
tonight to get some additional revenues: And I think it's a valid point. I just got a question for —
Chairman Plummer. There's ways of doing it and ways not of doing it. OK? I think we can set
Commissioner Regalado: I got a question for the Manager. So regardless of what we do here,
either "A," "B," "C," or "D," or "E," the City will be saving three hundred and forty-seven
thousand dollars ($347,000) that are built in, in the 1999/2000 budget, regardless of what we do.
That's the saving. Is that correct?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: That's a saving for the budget of the Solid Waste Department?
Mr. Martinez: That is correct, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: A couple of questions. Let me— the savings from both of the proposals, all
three proposals is three hundred and forty-seven thousand ($347,000).
Mr. Martinez: That's connect, sir. When they pick up at all 30 facilities, we save tipping fees and
other costs of three hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars ($347,000).
Vice Chairman Gort: Now, the revenues, compare the revenues to me, taking it up to seventy-
five dollars ($75) per account. What would be the difference to the proposals the way they are
today?
Mr. Martinez: If you increase to seventy-five dollars ($75) per account fee, not counting that the
Republic/Imperial proposal pays the per account fee, basically, both proposals are exactly the
same, plus it would generate an additional half a million dollars from revenues.to our fiscal year
'00 projections. So it will increase. We put one million dollars ($1,000,000) because of the
Franchise Agreement. It will increase that one million dollars ($1,000,000) to one point five
million dollars ($1.5 million).
Mr. Warshaw: One million ($1,000,000) is in there already, so this would give us the additional
five hundred thousand ($500,000).
Chairman Plummer. All right. Can I ask questions now? My turn?
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead.
177 SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Oh, you came back. Oh, all right. I'm concerned about recycling recovery.
It seems like to me that they should be a separate entity. Now, that's my opinion. And I
understand that if you leave it in, and I understand the ruling, and more importantly, what
concerns me, that if they are not separate and apart, there is a possibility of a chunk of change that
we could lose coming down from Tallahassee, which is an incentive amount of money. I forgot
who told — I think this gentleman told me a hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars ($172,000)
that, you know, if we're not in the process of, in fact, trying to better our community by having
recycling recovery. Now, I want the Administration to speak to that. I realize that on the 19— it
sounds almost like a rodeo here — that other than Republic, I didn't hear anyone objecting to the
fact that they could be separate and aside from the commercial haulers. Now, I think we need to
make that determination. And unless the City Administration has a great problem with that, I'm
going to make a motion that they be set aside as far as the recyclers and the recovery that do not
get in the mainstream, but are picked up by their independent and individual people. That's
number one.
Mr. Martiner And Commissioner, if I may answer so I don't lose your'question.
Chairman Plummer. Sure. =
Mr. Martinez: Yes, we do have a problem. The Law Department has opined that we can charge a
fee for those companies that charge for pickups and haul what they pick up through our City
streets. We have been doing that throughout the years. Miami -Dade does that now. BFI, Waste
Management, they do pick up recyclables. They pay us for the 20 percent of whatever they
charge the recyclables.
Chairman Plummer. All right. "
Mr. Martinez: As far as the value of that, people in the industry have said 40 percent. I think
Commissioner asked last week Mr. Levetan. He said from ten to 30 percent. And taking a look
that we get approximately four million dollars ($4,000,000) from that 20 percent, the worst case
scenario, if we were to lose 40 percent of that four million dollars ($4,000,000), it could be one
point six million dollars ($1.6 million) that would not be coming in the 20 percent revenue. If
you take the least extreme, being ten percent, you're talking four hundred thousand dollars
($400,OOOLthat will not comc in from the four million dollars ($4,000,000).
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Martinez is right. I spent about two and a half hours with him on
Friday, and the Manager, and I'm grateful for Mr. Patterson and Ms. Henry, and I'm grateful for
the time that they and their staffs, their very professional staffs have spent. But I think the issue
is still very much misunderstood. The people that are collecting this, like BFI and others, will
continue to pay under the proposal outlined by Ms. Dougherty.
Chairman Plummer: Absolutely.
Commissioner Teele: The only issue would be those that are source separated that are separated
at the source. And right now, they are not in the waste stream, and they would continue to not be
in the waste stream. What I think that I would like to offer that is consistent with what Ms.
178 - SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Dougherty and others have said, and what the Chairman is saying is this: That we have a-- This
is an ordinance. And I'm concerned about the Management's resistance or hesitancy on this
issue. I think the way to compromise this is to have a companion resolution to this ordinance that
states exactly what Ms. Dougherty said, and that is that those source separated recyclables and
recoverables are not within the purview of this, as provided for by State law. Then what I think
we would do is give the Management an opportunity to evaluate that. If it has an economic
impact, we're going to revoke that resolution and come right back.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Teele, I'm not going to belabor the point. If, in fact, my
colleagues have a problem, I'll defer that portion to another night. I mean, we're going to make a
decision on the commercial haulers tonight, without question.
Commissioner Teele: But, Mr. Chairman, we don't want to start trying to collect a recoverable
that is not in the waste stream now under this ordinance. And I mean, I strongly would resist that.
I think we have the right to perhaps do it, and what I'm suggesting is that we should provide an
exemption right here and right now for that, reserving the right to put them in if we choose to at a
later date.
Chairman Plummer: Always. Go ahead.
Commissioner Teele: And I would just ask Ms. Dougherty, is that acceptable, or is that
consistent with what you were saying?
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, and it's even that. Recoverables and recyclables are subject to it. It's only
those items which are already recovered that we want to exempt. So.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: The ordinance which is before you charges a fee, a franchise fee for solid waste,
recyclables and recovered materials. If this City Commission wishes to exclude source separated
— I mean source separated recovered materials, I can write that in the ordinance to exclude that,
but not recycling. But that's a policy call of the City Commission.
Commissioner Teele: But not recycling.
Mr. Vilarello: And the economic impact of that, I don't know what that is.
Mr. Martinez: And let me say, Commissioner, this was discussed at the Advisory Committee,
and the industry stated all I have to do is put another bin right next to the one I have there now,
and put whatever title they got to put, and whatever goes into that bin, I don't pay the City the 20
percent. They can put bottles, they can put newspapers. And I'm not an expert in the field. I
don't know what else of those six or either items could go there. They could put it in that bin,
and whatever goes in the bin doesn't get the 20 percent.
Commissioner Teele: Is that true, Ms. Dougherty, and if not, why?
Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely not true. Absolutely not true.
Commissioner Teele: Why is it not true?
179 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Dougherty: Because it's not separated. Anything that goes into that bin — if you put cans,
bottles, everything else in the bin with waste, then the franchise fee gets —
Commissioner Teele: That's not what he said. He said put a separate bin right next to it and say
Ms. Dougherty: Container, says recyclables. It gets collected. That's an incorrect interpretation
of this code and this ordinance.
Commissioner Teele: But just answer the question.
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: If a company puts a waste bin right next to it and says it is recyclable,
newspapers only, is it covered then?
Ms. Dougherty: No.
Commissioner Teele: Why?
Ms. Dougherty: Because it's now a commodity. Somebody is going to buy those newspapers.
It's not waste.
Commissioner Teele: So it is —
Ms. Dougherty: It's a recovered material.
Commissioner Teele: So that's his point. His point is —
Ms. Dougherty: That's absolutely right.
Commissioner Teele: His point is that if you put a separate bin right next to it saying newspapers
only —
Ms. Dougherty: But that's what you want to do.
Commissioner Teele: -- and deliver it to a State -certified recovered materials dealer, and that's
the other component to it.
Ms. Dougherty: That's right.
Commissioner Teele: You can't just take it and then take it to the dump.
Ms. Dougherty: That's right, exactly right.
Commissioner Teele: OK? It's more than just putting a bin there. You've got to deliver it to a
State -certified by DEP or DE — whoever, a recyclable dealer.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, probably Waste Management and BFI are two of the largest
collectors of recyclables in Dade County. So they would benefit greatly by putting that second
bin and taking that off the top from the 20 percent.
180 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Dougherty: The point is, if you find that this is something that has a great impact on you,
just like Commissioner Teele said, you could amend it at a later date. But we're telling that to be
consistent with state law, recovered materials is not solid waste. And you are here trying to
regulate solid waste. Recovered material is a commodity. It's just like any other commodity that
you have on the streets and selling, you know, in commerce.
Chairman Plummer: All right. I think we've heard the arguments. Mr. Sanchez, I still have
questions. So I don't want you to go run off and make a motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I would yield to you.
Chairman Plummer: I'd like to know, where was the magic that we came up with for so-called
eight years? Why not five? Why not four?
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, the magic came from Republic, on their proposal. Our
proposal which was approved by the Commission was a five-year Agreement. And the reason we
selected five, the City has never gone into a Franchise Agreement. We don't have history on it.
We wanted to see how it worked. There are some other cities that have gone into this and found a
lot of problems. You know, they start with 19 companies, and two years later, they're down to
one or two. And the price control issues become a bigger issue. We wanted to try for five years.
If this works, great, we can extend it or and come out to a (unintelligible). But Republic came
with the eight.
Chairman Plummer: One of my main concerns was the time of pickup adjacent to residential?
What is written into this contract?
Mr. Patterson: That's in the ordinance and it is at the -- We have the full authority to deal with
any hauler who is picking up other than the designated times for the area
Chairman Plummer: I'm asking what is the designated times next to residential?
Mr. Patterson: Residential? It is from 6 a.m. until 11 p.m.
Chairman Plummer. That's in the residential area?
Mr. Patterson: That is correct.
Chairman Plummer: That, to me, is out of the question. 6 to 11 is just— it's too long. I don't
have any problem with that in the commercial. As far as I'm concerned, they could pick up 24
hours a day in the commercial. I got no problem with that. But if a person wants to sleep, I think
at 7 in the morning, you know, till 7 at night, I think residential— I'll go 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock,
something reasonable. But 11 o'clock, I don't think next to residential is— I'm asleep by then,
personally, so take it from there.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, if you wanted to change that, it would be a separate ordinance, and
I'd be more than happy to prepare an ordinance to that effect.
Chairman Plummer: Well, this is an ordinance, correct?
Mr. Patterson: Yes.
181 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
16
Chairman Plummer: So it can be changed on second reading. _
Mr. Vilarello: This is being considered as an emergency ordinance, so it goes into effect before
October 1 '.
Mr. Patterson: Commissioner.
Chairman Plummer: I just think — I think 1 I o'clock —
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to second or move that the hours will be
between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Chairman Plummer: I can go to 10, all right? I'll go 7 to 10.
Mr. Patterson: Commissioner.
Chairman Plummer. After that, I think'most reasonable people are —
Mr. Patterson: Could I just give you some information? - -
Chairman Plummer: Speak to the issue? Of course you can.
Mr. Patterson: Your own —
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. That only relates next to residential.
Mr. Patterson: No. I said your own City workers start at 6 o'clock in the morning.
Chairman Plummer: They'd better not be at my house.
Mr. Patterson: Maybe we rerouted the truck around you, but they start at 6 o'clock in the
morning.
Chairman Plummer: All right. I'm telling you what I think is reasonable. OK? Tell me how —
Commissioner Regalado: Yes, but Clarance, Clarance — I'm sorry Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Sir.
Commissioner Regalado: It is different when you pick up a huge bin next— a restaurant or
market next to an apartment building. You have a truck parked for at least liw many minutes?
Five, maybe ten minutes when they do all this noise, and dumping and all that. That's different
than your truck that goes by my house early,, and they just walk, get the— they don't sing or they
don't do anything, and they just move on. It's different. I mean, I know. I know what you said.
Chairman Plummer: Tomas, have you ever seen how they do these dumpsters, how they get the
last little bit out of the bottom? Ba-dam, ba-dam, ba-dam.
Commissioner Regalado: I have.
182 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: I mean, you can hear them three blocks down the street, trying to get that
last little bit out of the bottom. And it's ridiculous. Now, you know, I'm saying to you where
I'm at. I'm 7 to 10 at the outside, OK? Overflow. Tell me again how we're going to protect the
overflow problem.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, on the ordinance and on the Franchise Agreement, the companies
are agreeing to picking up — and I'm looking for the wording — ten feet from the radius.
Chairman Plummer: That's fine. They pick up within ten feet. And if they don't pick up within
ten feet, is that a breach of contract, and they're out of the system?
Mr. Martinez: Well, there's violations in the ordinance if they violate any of the issues of the
Franchise Agreement.
Chairman Plummer: You're not telling me what I want to hear. I want to hear that when I drive
down a street, and I see garbage bins, dumpsters overflow consistently that they're going to be
forcing the apartment house owner or whatever it is to get a dumpster of reasonable and adequate
size. Now, I haven't heard you tell me that. Tell me how you're going to enforce in this
ordinance that I'm not going to drive down a street and see this continuously.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, it's a dual enforcement on the Solid Waste Department and
the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Offices. If it is the garbage people, the commercial
account haulers that are dumping, you know, because there's a claim that when they empty out
their garbage can, they strew it all throughout the place, they'll be responsible for it. If it's an
issue where the account owner is under -servicing — they want a small can, because that's the
cheapest can — then we'll come in and we'll tell them through NET, through fines to the
homeowner or whomever has the contracts, tell them, "You have to get a larger bin."
Chairman Plummer: Why not do it on two violations within a certain period that they are
mandated to get it bigger, the next size up?
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, the Director is authorized to require a larger bin to satisfy it. If
they don't do that, if they don't comply, they're in violation of the ordinance, or in violation of
the franchise agreement, then they stand the —
Chairman Plummer: Does the Director have that authority now?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes.
Chairman Plummer. Guess what? It ain't being exercised, because I'll take you right now down
the street, and I'll show you dumpsters that I see continuously that are overflowing every time
you turn around. I'm saying I want something built in there that's going t6—stop this and have
some teeth in it. OK?
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir. If you wish to speak, I'm still not finished, but I'll acquiesce to
you.
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no. Go ahead, finish.
183 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: I want written in there that a company cannot transfer more than five
percent of their stock without Commission approval. You heard me.
Unidentified Speaker: That's new.
Chairman Plummer: It might be new, but it ain't old. It's something I put in every one of these
contracts.
(INAUDIBLE COMMENT NOT ENTERED INTO THE RECORD)
Chairman Plummer: What? Sure, it's legal.
Mr. Vilarello: You want —
Chairman Plummer: I'm saying that we have, right now, at best, 20 companies. All right? 20
companies. Now, I'm not up here trying to make any of these companies millionaires overnight
by getting them built in and getting out. If they transfer more than five percent of their stock, this
Commission has a right to know who that stock is going to, that it's a reputable company, that it
is a company that has no bad record, and I think we're entitled to know that. Not us. The citizens
of this City. And I'm just saying to you that I think it ought to be written in more than five
percent should — I'm not saying we're going to deny it, but I think we should have the right to
approve.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, I think you can address that by requiring the reporting
requirement, and that anybody who acquires otherwise qualifies under the Request for
Qualifications which was submitted. But to put the approval process into the City Commission, I
would recommend against that.
Chairman Plummer: Why?,
Mr. Vilarello: Because that would have a tendency to alienate free trade amongst the companies.
Chairman Plummer: You want me to tell you something, Mr. City Attorney? You'd have a cable
system worse than you have today if I did not include that in the original franchise.
Commissioner Teele: J.L.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: You know, we all have different views, and we respect —
Chairman Plummer: Of course, we do.
Commissioner Teele: -- we respect each other's views. I am a person who really believes that
government ought to get out of the marketplace. You know, we ought to not be in regulation on
the rates. We ought to not be in regulation on this, and we certainly shouldn't be in regulation on
ownership. J.L., let me just tell you why. I understand— I mean, you all have the same provision
in the tow truck. I saw that provision written in, and now I understand where it came from. And I
respect the thinking behind that. But there is another concept. All of these companies-- The
entire waste industry stock is like off by 30, 40 percent. I mean; it's no secret. Every one of
these companies that are publicly traded companies are off by 30, 40 percent. Probably, Waste
184 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Management is off more. If Waste Management decides right now to go out and do a secondary
issue, and raise forty ($40,000,000), fifty ($50,000,000), sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) by
issuing a new class of stock, basically, they've got to come to the City of Miami Commission and
get approval to raise another seventy ($70,000,000) or eighty million dollars ($80,000,000). I
mean, you know, J.L., at some point —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, that's not my concern.
Commissioner Teele: But that —
Commissioner Sanchez: That's what you're saying.
Commissioner Teele: That's what you're saying. And that —
Chairman Plummer: Then do it in a different way. What I'm trying to say —
Commissioner Teele: But J.L., if you say five percent, five percent is five percent. And if they
go out and they do a secondary issue and issue new shares of stock for more than four point nine
percent, they just met —they just triggered into this thing. These are the unintended consequences
that we get involved in when government starts sticking their nose in the marketplace: If you
want to —
Chairman Plummer: And if "X" company sells out to "Y" company —
Commissioner Teele: Why do you care, J.L.?
Chairman Plummer: Well, because I want to know that "Y" company is a reputable company.
Commissioner Teele: Then let them file a report with us. Let them file a report with us. But
why do we need to get involved in approving the transaction? That's — J.L., if you want to do it,
and there are two other Commissioners that do it, I don't mind. I mean, I'm not going— I don't
think we ought to spend time on it. But I'm just saying, I think —
Chairman Plummer: I've made my points known. OK? Take it from there. Mr. Martinez, do
you have any other items?
Mr. Martinez: Commissioners, this Administration —
Chairman Plummer. Mr. City Manager, do you have any other items?
Mr. Warshaw: No, sir.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. City Attorney, do you have any other items?
Mr. Vilarello: No, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Do any members of this Commission have any other items?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I know that Commissioner Sanchez —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, you are recognized.
185 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: City Commissioner Sanchez had led this issue in fairness, and I want to
defer to Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez, I would appeal to you to, before we get
into the tough issues — I don't know if there's three votes to entertain the franchise or not. I
mean, I really don't know where that issue is. But before we get to that, I mean, to entertain
taking it up, whether it's four votes to award, that's another issue. But if you don't have three
votes to discuss it, you know, we don't need to discuss it. But before we do any of that, I would
respectfully ask that you adjust the per account fee from fifty dollars ($50) to a hundred dollars
($100), require that it be paid in advance, and basically, give them the right to stick it on the bill,
provided they don't refer to the City of Miami in any way.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. I will deal with that when I get to my motion, .and that's
included in my motion, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez, you're recognized.
Commissioner Teele: I would ask that you break out your motion, so you don't make one
comprehensive motion. But you do it the way you want to, and I'll —
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I just— since I was the Chairman of this committee, I want to tell
you that I want to elaborate that the process that we, as the Advisory Committee put forward was
a, I believe, a very fair, comprehensive process. We had input from everyone to assure that
through the whole process, there was a standardization, and there was workmanship among
everyone. Now, let me tell you, this exclusive — this non-exclusive Franchise Agreement has
always stood for free choice, open market, competition, and that's what was led in many of the
discussions. The exclusive franchise — and we've talked about socialism. Exclusive franchise is
truly the ultimate in socialism. The marketplace— and someone made this statement that I had to
write down — that the marketplace is the best way to assure competition and customer service.
That is so true. I mean, I had to write down that statement that he made. Now, I want to
elaborate on some points. This Commission voted against the exclusive franchise in November
of 1998. We approved the RFQ for non-exclusive franchise putting out forward where this
committee got together and created. The Advisory Committee, through your approval, once
again did a fair, comprehensive — reference the Agreement. And there were rules and guidelines
that were followed. I think every concern that Commissioner has had here has been addressed
with the rules. There are rules that they must follow in order to assure that customers— we don't
have customer complaints, garbage is picked up on time, the bins aren't dirty, graffiti, they're
covered. All those items have been addressed. You know, and all 19 companies that qualified,
mostly all of them participated in the Agreement. Now, my motion is a motion to accept the
City's recommendation for non-exclusive Franchise Agreement with the amendment to set the
per account fee atone hundred dollars ($100), non -transferable, paid in advance. So move.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry. Again, would you —I'm sorry.
Commissioner Teele: Would you clarify the issue of pass -through or not pass -through, please, on
it?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. That it should not be passed through the tax to the customers of
the City of Miami.
186 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right. There is a motion that a hundred dollar ($100) fee be charged and
not passed through to the customers of the City. There was a — seconded by?
Commissioner Teele: Teele.
Chairman Plummer: -- by Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I really wish you' let them pass it through, but I don't— I mean, would.you
let them pass through fifty dollars ($50), split it, Joe?
Commissioner Regalado: Twenty -- Commissioner —
Commissioner Teele: I mean, I'm asking the Chairman of the committee. I mean, he —
Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Just a —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez, you've been asked a question.
Commissioner Sanchez: I will yield to my colleague.
Commissioner Regalado: I've heard that all of the members of the industry do not have a
problem with seventy-five dollars ($75). But when they talk about a hundred dollars ($100), they
ask that fifty ($50) of them will be a pass -through. So I don't understand why seventy-five ($75),
it's OK, and why, when we come to the hundred ($100), they need to pass on fifty ($50). So I
would suggest that you amend the motion saying let the twenty-five dollars ($25) pass through.
If they were OK with the seventy-five ($75), at best, we have to protect them, but also the
customers. And —
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. I would amend, change my motion to seventy-five dollars
($75).
Commissioner Teele: Please, come on.
Commissioner Sanchez: So the motion is to —
Commissioner Teele: No, no, no, no.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. I'm not saying that, Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: What are you trying to say?
Commissioner Regalado: What I'm trying to say is that I would— I would support the hundred
dollars ($100) that you said, but that only they will be able to pass through twenty-five ($25) of
those hundred dollars ($100), because they all said that they were comfortable with the seventy-
five dollars ($75).
Commissioner Sanchez: My motion stays as it is. Motion to accept the City's recommendation
for non-exclusive Franchise Agreement with an amendment to set the per account fee at a
hundred dollars ($100), non -transferable, paid in advance. So move.
Chairman Plummer: Motion is made. It is seconded by Teele. Is there discussion?
187 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on the issue.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I really think, you know, we need to all not lock ourselves in. You know,
the key to this government is to stay flexible, and to try to come to a compromise that's in
everybody's interest. You know, the right number probably is forty-eight dollars ($48), and let
me tell you why. Two dollars ($2) — four dollars ($4) a month times 12 is what?
Mr. Martinez: Forty-eight.
Commissioner Teele: Is it 48? OK. So a four dollar ($4) bill pass -through would be forty-eight
($48). So we would — they — we would be splitting this roughly 50/50. But you know how the
Government is. We can't get it right. So it's a 52/48 split. I mean, that way, everybody feels
good about it. Nobody has a — I mean, because the real issue is going to be over the franchise
issue, I mean, and we ought to try to, I think, meet the industry halfway. They did, in fairness to
them, Commissioner Sanchez, you weren't here, but they did suck up and take a five percent hit
last year when we moved this thing from 15 to 20 percent. Now, they passed it through, they did
pass it through, but it was a tough decision that they made at that time. And so all I would say
is, you know, I don't want to vote against your motion, because I think you've done an
outstanding job. But I do know that four dollars ($4) on a bill which represents forty-eight
dollars ($48), when, in fact, we're getting a hundred dollars ($100), is sort of splitting it. And I
would appeal to you to consider something that would meet the industry halfway on that point.
But again, we've got a long way to go. If the issue is that one hundred dollars ($100) yields one
million dollars ($1,000,000), and that's what we're all trying to get to for our budget hearing —
and as far as I'm concerned, this is just as much a part of the budget hearing as anything else
we're going to do.
Chairman Plummer: Any further discussion on the motion on the floor?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. Let me throw out one.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: We want to be innovative, and we want the competition and the free
market to take place. Why don't you let each one utilize the hundred dollars ($100) the way
they want to, because, I mean, if they — if someone wants to get the share of the market would
probably say, "I won't pass it through. If I want to get the market, I won't pass the hundred
dollars ($100) through. I'll keep it myself, and I'll pick up the clients." And just for some
thought.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, if I can, I can see that right now, I'm going to have probably two
to three votes against me, so I'll withdraw my motion.
Commissioner Teele: I'll make the motion that it's a hundred dollars ($100). However, the
industry may not — the industry is encouraged to absorb all of it, but may not pass through any
more then forty-eight ($48) equally on a four dollar ($4) a month basis. In other words, you
can't hit anybody for forty-eight ($48) on a one time deal. You can't do it over six months,
because you know the guy doesn't like you anyway and he's going to fire you in six months.
198 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
r
It's got to be — it cannot be more than four dollars ($4) a month. That's how I would make the
motion, in the spirit of Commissioner Gort has just said.
Chairman Plummer: In other words, let me understand, if I may. That means the City is still
going to get a hundred dollars ($100) per account.
Mr. Martinez: Up front.
Chairman Plummer: No more than forty-eight ($48) can be passed through?
Commissioner Teele: That's right.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Commissioner Teele: No more than forty-eight dollars ($48) or four dollars ($4) a month can be
passed through.
Chairman Plummer: 'And the remainder is absorbed by the company.
Commissioner Teele: And the remainder is absorbed by the company.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Gort's motion is on the floor. Is there a second?
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Chairman Plummer: There is a second. Are we going to discuss this one to death? Call the roll
in a hurry.
189 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
to
The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-717
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
REQUIRE AN ANNUAL CHARGE OF $100 ASSSESSED BY THE CITY TO
NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE HAULING SERVICE
FRANCHISE PROVIDERS FOR EACH ACCOUNT WITH WHICH THE
PROVISION OF COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE SERVICES IS
CONTRACTED; FURTHER ENCOURAGING SAID COMPANIES TO
ABSORB SAID FEE, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THEY MAY NOT
PASS THROUGH TO THE CUSTOMER ANY MORE THAN $48 EQUALLY
ON A $4 A MONTH BASIS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez -
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: The motion passes five to zero. Next motion.
Mr. Vilarello: On the ordinance. You want to adopt the ordinance?
Chairman Plummer: What is the ordinance?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vilarello: The ordinance is the ordinance before you with the amendments that were just
made by motion.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like —
Chairman Plummer. Wait, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. I think I maybe am confused. What
have we done, if anything, in reference to the recyclables and recovery, which I spoke to? What
have we done about the time frames of when the pickups shall occur?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the time frame be restricted to whatever
numbers you said, Mr. Chairman, and it was a great idea. I just don't remember it.
Chairman Plummer: I think you're conveniently remembering it.
Commissioner Teele: No. What is it? You said 7 am. or —
190. SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Seven to 10.
Commissioner Teele: 7 am. until 10 p.m.
Chairman Plummer. As it relates contiguous to residential.
Commissioner Teele: As it relates contiguous to residentials.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second.
Chairman Plummer. All right. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
T
MOTION NO.99-718
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO RESTRICT THE
HOURS OF OPERATION OF - THE COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE
HAULING SERVICES CONTIGUOUS TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO TAKE
PLACE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 A.M. AND 10 P.M.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: Now, let's talk to the other one of recyclables and recovery.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: With all due respect, I am afraid to put this in the ordinance. I would like
to move a separate resolution that defines "recoverables" to the language used in the State law,
and as provided by Ms. Dougherty as it relates to this, with the proviso that should this matter
have a significant economic impact— "significant" being a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)
191 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
or more — that the Management shall immediately report to the Commission a recommended
change in this resolution. Mr. Attorney?
Chairman Plummer: Then as I understand it — let me clarify so I — maybe put it on the floor —
that at any time any one of these companies operating in the City of Miami has a gross revenue
that exceeds a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), it will be brought back to this Commission.
Commissioner Teele: No, no, nothing to do with gross revenue. If the economic impact— in
other words, if we see BFI and Waste, and all these other companies start pulling out of the
waste stream and trying to do what someone said, which is put up the recyclable bin right next
door, then we're going to come back and revisit this issues.
Chairman Plummer: Well, can't we address that issue —
W
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Commissioner, that is acceptable to us.
Chairman Plummer: Wait, wait. Excuse me. Damn few prerogatives I got left as Chairman.
Why can't we say that the company, the 19 companies that now have been locked in cannot do
it?
Commissioner Teele: Well, I can tell you this: If the Attorney is willing to allow an equal
protection discussion that allows that, I'm willing to make the motion— no, I won't. I'll vote for
it. I don't want the lawyers writing articles about me.
Chairman Plummer: Equal protection, Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, if the City Commission, as a matter of policy, wishes to exclude
the franchise fee from being assessed against recovered materials, then it should do so in its
ordinance. And I can modify the ordinance to that effect. We can come back and amend the
ordinance at a future date if you want to deal with the fiscal impact of that deletion. But my
recommendation is if you want, as a matter of policy, to exclude recovered materials, then that
we do that by ordinance... ;
Commissioner Teele: But why couldn't we do it as a resolution, simply making a definition?
Mr. Vilarello: Because the ordinance — the resolution would be inconsistent with — the
resolution would be inconsistent with the ordinance. And you can't change an ordinance by
resolution.
Commissioner Teele: But you can't provide. a definition by resolution?
Mr. Vilarello: The ordinance defines the terms and provides for the franchise -fee to be collected
against —
Commissioner Teele: But all we're doing is— we're not changing any terms. All we'redoing,
as I understand it — and Ms. Dougherty, correct me — is clarifying the definition. Is that all we're
doing?
Ms. Dougherty: That's all you're doing.
Commissioner Teele: The definition.
192 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
A
Ms. Dougherty: It's the definition of "commercial solid waste" that you're clarifying, that
would exclude recoverables, recovered items.
Commissioner Teele: We're not changing the procedures.
Mr. Vilarello: Which is within the ordinance. That's the definition within the ordinance.
Chairman Plummer: And here again, Mr. City Attorney, if we find that this thing is not working
the way we want it to and the way it should be, we can always come back and readdress the
issue.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amended definition in the ordinance
with the proviso to the staff that if this thing begins to have any economic impact, you are to
request the Chairman to convene an emergency meeting of the Commission to review it again.
Don't even wait until a regular meeting.
Chairman Plummer:* Mr. Manager.
Mr. Vilarello: And the definition will be "source separated recovered" —
Chairman Plummer. That was addressed to -- Hold it, hold it, hold it. His comments were
addressed to the Manager. Now, would you repeat them now that the Manager is flee, Mr.
Teele?
Commissioner Teele: I would move the definition of "recoverable material," tie it specifically to
the State law, and further requiring that they be— as the State law requires, that the commodities
be consumed by a dealer, a registered or certified dealer by the State of Florida. , -
Chairman Plummer: OK. Now, that would then be the modification or the amendment. Are
there any other amendments to —
Commissioner Teele: Well, let's vote on that one.
Chairman Plummer: Oh, OK. You want it separately? I guess he said just change the
ordinance, is what he said. All right. We're going— all right. There is a motion to accept what
Commissioner Teele just said on the record, seconded by?
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. There is no second. Discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second for discussion.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Gort. Under discussion, Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Raul, does it have a financial impact to the City?
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioners, it could have as much as 40 percent of the flow. And some
may disagree, but Waste Management, who picks up recyclables, who is— who, under the State
criteria, they already have a facility where they can take it to, could put a bin right next to their
normal 40-yarder or 20-yarder and put recyclables. I'm not saying that they will do that, and
I'm not saying that anybody will do that. But I don't want a lie here, where people come out
193 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
a
expecting four million dollars ($4,000,000) from the 20 percent, and a million dollars
($1,000,000) from this, so on and so forth, and then we get called to the carpet a few months
from now. The money trickles in as the payments come in, and it's difficult to compare what
you were expecting, what you weren't expecting, and what — I mean, and I hope it has no
impact. I hope that what they're saying is true, that this is going to— not going to have any
impact on the revenues we expect. But I want to make sure that it's clear before you vote that it
could have an impact, because this was discussed, and the industry said it's very simple to get
that permit. It's like fifty dollars ($50) to get a permit to do it, and all I have to do is put bins
next to it, putting — saying newspapers, saying cans, saying glass, and whatever I put there.
Then it will be up to us, through strict enforcement, to make sure. Did they put cans there? Did
they put newspapers there? So on and so forth. And we're weak in enforcement. If there is
something the City is weak in, it's enforcement. That's why we're going to hire 13 more NET
inspectors to do that. It's one of our weak points. And I'm agreeing to that. It becomes more of
a burden of enforcement to make sure that everything that goes into that little can actually meets
the criteria of the State statute. I want to make sure you're aware of this before you vote.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I cannot — I mean, you know, you've put so much in the record, you
know. I mean, this is a record that's obviously going to get reviewed all the way up by the
Governor. I mean, you know, I cannot make that resolution in good conscience at this time.
However, I want to understand one thing. Mr. — I apologize, Mr. Lana
Mr. Levetan: Levetan.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Levetan. Do most of the people that you all recover from, are they
paying this waste fee, anyway, now?
Mr. Levetan: Absolutely not.
Commissioner Teele: So what you're saying, what you're proffering on the record, is that most
of your clients are -- or the sources that your clients receive waste from -- your clients are the
dealers, right?
Mr. Levetan: Correct. And they do not receive waste. They receive recovered materials.
Commissioner Teele: So most of the clients that you have that are dealers that receive recovered
material, the people they receive it from are not paying for this in the waste stream now?
Mr. Levetan: Correct. They are not waste haulers.
Commissioner Teele: Most of this is source separated.
Mr. Levetan: Source separated. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: All of it, someone is saying, is source separated.
Mr. Levetan: Yes, yes.
194 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: So your position is it has no significant economic impact.
Mr. Levetan: If there are waste haulers, commercial waste haulers who today are collecting,
legally collecting recovered materials- and there are - if they have chosen to pay the previous
20 percent on those materials, even though they were not required to, you know, they may have
been paying that. I certainly wouldn't - I can't represent -
Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this: Is your position that you're not a waste, and you're
not under this ordinance, anyway?
Mr. Levetan: Absolutely. And we merely seek that clarification.
Commissioner Teele: Well, Mr. Attorney, do you believe that the statements that have been
made by the Manager could constitute an interpretation that we've created a hole in this revenue
stream?
Mr. Vilarello: My concern is one of the things that the City Commission is trying to do is find
new revenues. And without a clear understanding of the financial impact of the removal of
recovered materials, I think that certainly creates a question as to the revenues that would be
raised.
Commissioner Teele: I tell you what I'm going to do. I am not going to move this at this time.
I'm going to ask the Management to write an ordinance just for this item, to treat it as a separate
item, because I don't want - I don't want this getting tainted over the next week with this
discussion. I apologize, gentlemen, I really do apologize. But this is a bigger issue than your
industry. It's an issues as to whether or not you're going to be dealing with us or somebody else,
like an Oversight Board that will not even entertain your discussion. At least you have a forum
here. The Oversight Board doesn't hear from lobbyists or industry, to my knowledge. So I
would like to ask that this be separated out as a separate ordinance to appear before this
Commission in the first Commission meeting that we have in October, which would be the 12t6
of October? When is Columbus Day?
Mr. Martinez: Eleventh.
Commissioner Teele: Eleventh? OK. The 12d of October.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Teele: And I would also like to ask that in this, Mr. Attorney, that there be treble
damages for any firm that knowingly couches themselves as a recovery - source of recovered
material for the purpose of taking advantage of this, and a bar on being able to collect recovered
material or waste if they use this inappropriately, and a bar for five years, -or two years, or
something.
Chairman Plummer: That's a motion. Is there a second?
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
Ms. Dougherty: Could I make a -
Chairman Plummer: The motion - excuse me.
195 SEPTEMBER 28,1999
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: There is a second by Mr. Gort. Any Commissioner wishing to discuss the
issue? Hearing none.
Commissioner Teele: I'd like to hear from Ms. Dougherty if you would, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: You have that right. Ms. Dougherty.
Ms. Dougherty: One of the things that the State law says is that solid waste does not include
recovered material. It says that in the State law. And I would like a clarification from the City
Attorney that his ordinance, this ordinance, as written, is consistent with that state law, as is
required. In other words, can he make an opinion now that would give us some comfort until
you pass that law that said recovered materials is not subject to it, or not solid waste? Because
it's not, by State law.
Commissioner Teele: Would you give him until Monday, October 4th? That's the first working
day in October, really, to write that opinion or to consider that opinion? And I would request it
on — I think he ought to be — have the opportunity to talk to DEP (Department of Environmental
Protection), to talk to whoever he wants to. You don't want him to give a snap judgment right
now, because I can tell you, you're not going to want the answer he's going to Lucia, you're
not going to want the answer he's going to give you, because I've already talked to him, and I
know what the answer is.
Chairman Plummer: Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-719
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN
ORDINANCE TO BE CONSIDERED DURING THE OCTOBER 12, 1999
COMMISSION MEETING TO DEFINE "RECOVERABLE MATERIAL"
RELATED TO SOLID WASTE WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE USED BY
STATE LAW AND REQUIRING THE COMMODITIES (RECOVERABLE
AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS) TO BE DELIVERED TO A STATE -
CERTIFIED DEALER;.. FURTHER REQUESTING OF THE ATTORNEY
THAT THERE BE TREBLE DAMAGES AND A PROHIBITION FOR 2-5
YEARS ON BEING ABLE TO COLLECT ANY RECOVERABLE
MATERIAL OR SOLID WASTE, FROM ANY FIRM THAT KNOWINGLY
COUCHES ITSELF AS A RECOVERABLE MATERIAL DEALER -FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS; FURTHER DIRECTING
THE CITY MANAGER TO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE
COMMISSION, CALLING FOR AN EMERGENCY SESSION IF THIS
MATTER WOULD HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT EXCEEDING $100,000
ON COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE HAULING ACCOUNTS.
196 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
r
Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: Now, let's talk about the ordinance. Yes, are we at that point or are we not
at that point?
Mr. Vilarello: You're at the point of adopting the ordinance with the amendments that you've
included.
Chairman Plummer: Is there a motion to adopt the ordinance?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: By adopting the ordinance, are we excluding— how do we — how do we
frame a motion that would allow for the payment of two point five million dollars ($2.5 million)
on October I?
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, you heard the question. Mr. City Manager.
Mr. Vilarello: Once you adopt this ordinance, you would pass a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to enter into 19 non-exclusive Franchise Agreements or whatever other action that you
deem appropriate.
Chairman Plummer: But that wasn't the answer— His question was: How do you get them to
pay double and pay up front?
Commissioner Teele: If we pass this ordinance, can we then pass a separate resolution
instructing the Manager? Is the ordinance adopting the RFP?
Mr. Vilarello: No, the ordinance does not adopt the RFQ. You'd have to -pass a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into the Franchise Agreement in accordance with the
RFQ.
Commissioner Teele: So fast, we pass the ordinance.
Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir.
Mr. Martinez: They did already. They did already.
197 ' SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
ti
Commissioner Sanchez: We did already.
Commissioner Teele: No, we haven't. We've not called the roll.
Chairman Plummer: We've not even read the ordinance.
Commissioner Teele: All we've done is adopted amendments to the ordinance relating to the
per account, the hours of service, and basically, we punted on the recoverable item. We didn't
even pass that.
Chairman Plummer: Right.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, maybe I'm mistaken. I thought Commissioner Sanchez had made
a motion to approve the RFQ, the Franchise Agreement, increasing the franchise fee to a
hundred dollars ($100). And maybe I misunderstood the motion.
Chairman Plummer: What? What? . . 1
Commissioner Sanchez: That was my motion. It passed already.
Chairman Plummer: Repeat the motion.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Clerk, would you repeat the motion that Mr. Sanchez read into the
record?
Chairman Plummer: Was he whispering?
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): The first motion?
Chairman Plummer: Read the motion.
Mr. Foeman: OK. To accept the City Administration's recommendation for a non-exclusive
franchise with amendment to set the per contract account fee at a hundred dollars ($100) paid in
advance.
Commissioner Teele: You slick thing, you.
(LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)
Mr. Vilarello: So, you just have the emergency ordinance before you.
Chairman Plummer: Is that what you want? 1
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Teele. `
Commissioner Teele: I would move to reconsider the portion.of the resolution that relates to
approval of the Manager's recommendation, and would allow the remaining language, which is
what I thought we were voting on. And I stand in error. And ignorance is no excuse, ever. But
it was my understanding that we were voting on the hundred dollars ($100), and he packaged it
198 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
very craftily, very well, very good legislative work, to package it beyond what I was prepared to
vote on at that time, and I would like the opportunity to cast my voter in a different manner. So I
would move to reconsider the motion as it relates not to the hundred dollars ($100), but to
accepting the Manager's recommendation.
Chairman Plummer: There's a motion to reconsider. Is there a second?
Commissioner Teele: He withdrew.
Commissioner Sanchez: And then he —
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. I'm running this meeting.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, that's correct.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Teele, you have a motion to reconsider. Is there a second?
Commissioner Teele: No, no. Mr. Chairman, he withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: I did. My motion was withdrawn. Then Willy introduced —
Chairman Plummer. Then why did you make a motion to reconsider?
Commissioner Sanchez: I didn't make a motion.
Commissioner Teele: I made it, because the Clerk advised me that the motion by Commissioner
Sanchez was what it was, but he withdrew that motion; is that correct?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: He states that he withdrew it.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So we don't have that. Commissioner Gort passed a motion which
related to the hundred dollars ($100). I seconded that motion, and it provided for a fee of a
hundred dollars ($100), not to exceed four dollars ($4) a month for a total of forty-eight dollars
($48). That's the only thing that's passed, Mr. Manager.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, Mr. Manager, motion to reconsider —
Commissioner Teele: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to accept the City's recommendation for —the non-exclusive
Franchise Agreement. So move as amended.
Chairman Plummer: My understanding — let me tell you where —
Commissioner Sanchez: No, wait, wait, J.L.. Don't complicate things. I have a motion on the
floor. Motion to accept the City's recommendation.
199 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
h
Chairman Plummer: What do you mean, don't complicate it? If you get any more complicated
right now, with 14 motions on the floor, and to reconsider something you haven't even
considered.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, there is no motion to reconsider. And Commissioner
Sanchez' motion is in order.
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion —
Chairman Plummer: I'm going to tell you where I think— Mr. Clerk, you tell me if I'm wrong.
That which has been accepted by this Commission was a motion by Commissioner Gort,
seconded by Mr. Teele, with the full understanding that it will be a one hundred dollar ($100)
fee per year, per account, and only forty-eight dollars ($48) of that can be passed throughto the
consumer, and the remaining fifty-two ($52) is to be eaten by the company. Now, that's what I
voted on. I don't know what the rest of you voted on, but that's what I voted on.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Teele: So we have not —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. — wait a minute. Excuse me. Mr. Sanchez has the —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, would you inquire of the Clerk and the Attorney, have we
approved the Manager's recommendation on this, based upon a motion, and who was it by?
Mr. Vilarello: Apparently, the City Clerk is now saying the motion that was approved was
Commissioner Gort's; is that correct?
Mr. Foeman: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez did, in fact, withdraw his motion, and we did
approve Commissioner Gort's motion.
Mr. Vilarello: Then the record reflects what actually happened.
Chairman Plummer: Are we now ready to move on the ordinance?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ten-minute break.
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no. Wait.a minute. No, no. Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. Excuse me.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele has asked for a break. Mr. Sanchez, speaking to the break.
200 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: No, you got to speak —
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Chairman Plummer: Did you make that in the form of a motion?
Commissioner Teele: No, I did not, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: You did not.
Commissioner Teele: And if they don't want a break, then fine. I mean —
Chairman Plummer: Well, we're going to take a break as soon as this is over.
Commissioner Teele: This thing is — Mr. Chairman, if we're so confused right now, I mean, we
really ought to just slow this thing down a minute. This is very serious.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized to speak.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Sanchez, take a deep breath, sit back, and you're
recognized.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, motion to accept the City's recommendation for the
non-exclusive Franchise Agreement as amended. So move.
Mr. Vilarello: And, Commissioner, with the authorization for the —
Chairman Plummer. Wait a minute, now. You're out of order. Now, is there a second to the
motion?
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. I'll second.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort. Now speak your piece.
Mr. Vilarello: The motion should also authorize the City Manager to execute the Franchise
Agreement.
Chairman Plummer: Did you hear what he said? Read the ordinance.
Vice Chairman Gort: And the additional amendments of the operation hours and so on.
Mr. Vilarello: The ordinance will be dealt with on a separate vote. This is an emergency
ordinance.
Chairman Plummer: Read the ordinance. Now, that's with the amendments.
Commissioner Teele: This is a resolution.
201 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Teele: See, we need to take a break.
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no.
Mr. Vilarello: This is a resolution accepting the Manager's recommendation and awarding the
non-exclusive Franchise Agreement, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Franchise
Agreements which are attached.
Chairman Plummer: And what about the amendments that have been made?
Mr. Vilarello: That will be dealt with in the emergency ordinance which you will consider,
hopefully, after the passage of this resolution.
Chairman Plummer: All right. So then there is a motion on the floor by Sanchez, seconded by
Gort, to accept the Manager's recommendation. And that is a resolution.
Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: But I'm still going to say call the roll. =
Mr. Foeman: Roll call. Commissioner Sanchez? . .
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: I thought it's for discussion.
Mr. Foeman: Vice Chairman Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort said for discussion. You didn't— you want us to discuss it? Do
you wish to discuss it?
Commissioner Teele: I —
Chairman Plummer: Stop the roll call. Mr. Teele, you have the floor.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman —
Chairman Plummer: We will restart the roll call.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I have no objections to this resolution. It's a question of how we want to
go.
Chairman Plummer. It's obvious.
202 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: It's 7:40 now. At 5:05, as far as I'm concerned, we started the budget
hearing. If we accept this, we will be working with 19 companies on a non-exclusive basis
annually. All of these companies, I think, are hard working companies with employees that live
in the City, largely. All of the companies are pretty much Miami companies, I suppose. But at
the same time, we have an obligation to raise four ($4,000,000) to six million dollars
($6,000,000). By voting for this proposal, we are voting no on the proposal to accept a two
point five million dollar ($2.5 million) proposal on an exclusive basis for seven years. And I just
really believe that the two things are not compatible. We either are going to accept —
Chairman Plummer: No. That's the opposite.
Commissioner Teele: We either are going to accept this proposal, which does what it does, and
the industry, I think, has been extremely courteous and gracious in accepting the hundred dollars
($100), which gives us a net of one million dollars ($1,000,000) of new money, which is great,
and I commend you. Or we can accept — we can reject this proposal and accept the proposal by
a competitor for two point five million dollars ($2.5 million), in addition to the one million
dollars ($1,000,000), for a total of three point five million dollars ($3.5 million). I believe that
we ought to attempt to do both, and that is not award an exclusive for the whole City of Miami,
but half. I would proffer the half on the northern side, since I represent the northern side,
largely. Commissioner Plummer, I think you would be the only other person affected, and
Commissioner Gort. And it would mean that our businesses would not have the choice that they
currently enjoy between 19 vendors. But it would mean that we would raise two point five
million dollars ($2.5 million) that we don't have to put on the burden of the homeowners or the
property tax owners, or fire fees, et cetera. It gets down to one simple issue: Where are we
going to raise the money when these people all go home? And if we don't raise it now, you
know, it's going to be very limited things. We've got something here from the Mayor. I haven't
had a chance to read it. I note for the record he didn't sign it. But it doesn't seem to me to
generate any new money this year, other than what we've already done. The Orange Bowl
renaming, you can't get that approved before the estimating conference. It has no effect for this
year. Privatizing off-street parking, a great idea, but it has no fiscal impact in this budget cycle
this year. That will take at least a year, including the lawsuits. And so the only thing that we've
got on the table right now is whether or not we're going to raise two point five million dollars
($2.5 million) of additional funds from commercial haulers that will not affect the citizens of this
City. It will not affect the property owner. It will limit the choices of businesses, and it will
negatively impact the 19 companies that would be affected. But I would propose that we would
only do half of it, we wouldn't do the whole, and therefore, we would only get two point five. If
we were to do the whole, we would get an impact of about sixteen million ($16,000,000), and
we would possibly be able to take down five million ($5,000,000) in the first year. So I didn't
ask that question, but I assume two point five times two is five. But for the sakeof argument, I
would urge us to consider this. Commissioner Sanchez has worked hard on it. I salute you,
Commissioner Sanchez. And it has nothing to do with the industry at this point. It has— and I
know that the recyclable people are very disappointed. It has nothing to do with you all. It
really has to do with the budget and the Oversight Board and the Commission— the position this
Commission finds itself in. And so I would only ask that we take a deep breath and take this
matter very seriously, because —
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Commissioner Teele: -- once this is over, you have no other sources, other than —
203 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
w
Vice Chairman Gort: It's a four -fifths vote, right?
Commissioner Teele: — the solid waste as it relates to the residential.
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Chairman Plummer. All right. No, no. I have one last question. Mr. Manager, predicated on
the motion on the floor, how much would that generate in revenue for this current year?
Chairman Plummer: This current year.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, you're talking about fiscal year 2000 as —
Chairman Plummer. I'm talking about starting Friday.
Mr. Warshaw: The new fiscal year.
Commissioner Teele: You're talking about revenue not anticipated in the budget already?
Chairman Plummer: I'm talking about total, whether it's new, or anticipated. How much
revenue will it —
Mr. Warshaw: We'll give you both.
Chairman Plummer. How much?
Mr. Warshaw: We're going to give it to you both.
Chairman Plummer. OK, give it to me both ways.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, anticipated for next fiscal year was five point three million
dollars ($5.3 million). With the addition, with the increase from the fifty ($50) to one hundred
dollars ($100) per account, we're saying now it's going to be six point three million dollars ($6.3
million) anticipated from the 20 percent fee, from the entrance fee, and from the per account fee.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Chairman Plummer: Call the question. Now, this is on the resolution. We still have to vote on
the ordinance, correct? OK. On the resolution as proffered.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. ,E
Chairman Plummer: Call the roll.
204 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-720
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION APPROVING THE SELECTION BY THE DIRECTOR OF
SOLID WASTE OF THE QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL
SOLID WASTE HAULING SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF NIIAMI, AS
LISTED ON EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH SAID QUALIFIED PROVIDERS FOR SAID
SERVICES UPON THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY
COMMISSION RELATING TO. THE CREATION OF FRANCHISES FOR
THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE OR
RECYCLABLE AND RECOVERABLE MATERIALS; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: Read the ordinance. I'm sorry. Is there a motion on the ordinance?
Commissioner Teele: I would move the ordinance.
Chairman Plummer: The ordinance is moved by Teele. Seconded by? Sanchez. Read the
ordinance.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, the City Attorney read the ordinance into the
public record by title only.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. Vilarello: This is an emergency ordinance.
Chairman Plummer: Emergency ordinance. Declare the emergency.
Vice Chairman Gort: It has to be done before —
205 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer:. I know what it is.
Commissioner Teele, The fiscal impact of the City.
Chairman Plummer: Put it on the record.
Mr. Vilarello: The emergency ordinance — this. ordinance has to take place before October I ' in
order to be effective throughout the fiscal year:
Chairman Plummer: I have one last question to'make sure that all of this that we've done, and
everybody isn't confused.: The recyclable and the recovery are separate, and we'll come back in
the first meeting in October.
Mr. Vilarello: / This ordinance contains.a reference to that. --I-willprepare'a;separate ordinance
excluding recovered materials for the Commission's consideration at the October 12t° meeting.
Chairman Plummer: Call the roll. -
An Ordinance Entitled - - - c ? : ; - „_ ; a ; • , _
AN. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -OF THE MIAMI `CITY COMMISSION"
AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAM1
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "GARBAGE AND TRASH," BY
PROVIDING FOR NEW DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR` -"NEW
REGULATONS CONCERNING THE - REGULATON OF COMMERCIAL =
SOLID WASTE HAULERS; MANDATING CITY- SOLID WASTE SERVICE
TO ALL RESIDENCES CONTAINING THREE (3) UNITS OR LESS;
CHANGING THE RESISDENTIAL BULKY WASTE COLLECTION
SCHEDULE AND ESTABILSHING RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL COLLECTION
SERVICES; REPLACING THE TERMS "REGULATORY PERMIT" AND
"PERMITTEE" WITH "NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE" AND
"FRANCHISEE," RESPECTIVELY; MORE . ' PARTICULARLY ' BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 22-1, 22-2,22-5, 22-6, 22-12, 22-14, 22-18, 22-46
THROUGH 22-51, 22-53, 22-56, 22-58, AND 22-93 OF' SAID' CODE; :. '4;; „•
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
was introduced by Commissioner Teele And seconded by Commissioner Sanchez for adoption
as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate
days, was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado .'.
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Whereupon, the Commission on motion of Commissioner Teele and seconded by Commissioner
Sanchez adopted said Ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11837
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL:
Chairman Plummer: Before I vote, it really doesn't make a bit of difference, but I want to say
on behalf of this Commission to' Commissioner Sanchez, you've been through hell, and you
survived.
(APPLAUSE)
Chairman Plummer: I vote yes, and this Commission is in recess for 13 minutes.
Mr. Isla: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission.
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): Commissioner Plummer, excuse me. There's two roll calls, two
roll calls.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second reading.
Chairman Plummer: Wait, wait, wait.
Mr. Foeman: Two roll calls.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second reading.
Chairman Plummer: Wait. Time, time.
Commissioner Teele: Two roll calls.
Chairman Plummer: Call the second roll call.
Mr. Foeman: Second roll call. Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir.
207 SEPTEMBER 28,1999
ti
Mr. Foeman: Vice Chairman Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Chairman Plummer.
Chairman Plummer: Yes. Go away and sin no more.
THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 7:48 P.M. AND
RECONVENED AT 8:05 P.M., WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COMMISSION ABSENT: COMMISSIONER REGALADO, COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ
AND COMMISSIONER TEELE.
Chairman Plummer: Willy, the most important thing of this day is yet to be done, and that's
budget. It is the consensus that Planning and Zoning will not be heard this evening. Budget will
take in excess of the one hour which takes us to 9 o'clock. I would suggest, Mr. City Attorney,
when I get a quorum that this matter be continued, the entire Planning and Zoning, except the
two items that have been taken out to what date, sir? Mr. City Manager? Mr. Manager, if we're
going to have a motion to continue, should we continue to the last meeting in October?
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): Say that again? Say that again. I'm song.
Chairman Plummer: If we continue Planning and Zoning, which is the consensus of the
Commission, continue it to the last meeting in October or the fir-st meeting in October?
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, what I want to do is take a quick look at that and see if there are
any items in there that might have to go before then.
Chairman Plummer: All right. That's fair.
Mr. Warshaw: So we might move them to the first meeting.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Then what you will do is when I get three Commissioners, you
will then give me an answer. �-
43. DISCUSS AND TABLE CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
TO ALLOW VALET PARKING FOR HOTEL AT 194-218 SOUTHEAST 4TH STREET (See
Section 56)
Chairman Plummer: I am told there is a settlement among the parties. 'If that is the case and it .
takes just a very simple motion, I will do it. If it is not the case, then it will be continued. I need
an answer.
208 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
V,
Tony O'Donnell: We need a continuance.
Lucia Dougherty: No. We need — we just want a continuance until the end of your meeting
because —
Chairman Plummer. No, no, no.
Ms. Dougherty: We are in the middle of discussions right now, and we think we can resolve it.
We just have to wait for the principal to come back. -
Chairman Plummer: Fine. You want to bring it up at the end of budget? If I'm not sleep, I'll do
it.
Mr. O'Donnell: OK.
Ms. Dougherty: All right.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Sanchez entered the Commission Chamber at
8:06 p.m.
44. BRIEF COMMENTS RE BUDGET (See Sections #55 and #57).
Chairman Plummer: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Manager. Well, I'm not— I'll
continue all — all right. I don't have a third party here.
Mr. Warshaw: What are you going to do with this? Are you going to read this?
Chairman Plummer: Yeah, fine. I'll read it in the record. All right. Let me read into the record
— I assume TV-9 is going — a memorandum from the Mayor. And it reads as follows: Below,
please find some possible revenues to supplement the budget for fiscal year `99/00. I submit
these sources in addition to the possible reduction you previously indicated. This is addressed to
Don Warshaw.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Teele entered the Commission Chamber at 8:08
p.m.
45. CONIlVIENTS RE BID OF BUENA VISTA BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES
FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR RIVERSIDE CENTER (See Section #47).
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, may I?
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, through all the —.
Chairman Plummer: Wait, wait, wait. Ladies and gentlemen, please. We have important work
to do. Mr. Sanchez.
209 SEPTEMBER 28,1999
6�
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, through all the commotion and our busy schedule
today, I'd forgotten a pocket item which is very crucial to the custodial service for the MRC
(Miami Riverside Center), and the Administration asked me to put it forward. I could wait for
another Commissioner, but I could do it now if you want.
45.1. COMMENTS RE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL TO BRING REVENUES TO CITY (See
Section #44).
Chairman Plummer: Sir, nothing is important as budget. And that's where we're going. Now,
let me finish reading this memo. Orange Bowl naming rights could provide six ($600,000) to
eight hundred thousand ($800,000) per year if expedited. It is possible that we could see half of
that, as much as three hundred ($300,000) to four hundred thousand ($400,000) for the last half
of the fiscal year. Additionally, up to two million ($2,000,000) LETF (Law Enforcement Trust
Fund) funds could used for police overtime, rather than general fund dollars with Chief
O'Brien's consent. Raising the suggested fee for commercial solid waste accounts from fifty
dollars ($50) per account to seventy-five ($75) per account could bring an additional five
hundred and twenty-five thousand ($525,000) per year, while raising it from fifty ($50) to a
hundred ($100) per account could raise one million five — one million fifty thousand
($1,050,000). Privatization of the Off -Street Parking Authority could provide a minimum of one
million ($1,000,000) in the fast year, in addition to the revenue stream we currently receive. A
minimum of a million and a half in additional revenue is possible forthe second year with two
million ($2,000,000) in additional revenue available in the third year. Also, upon privatization,
the City could immediately assume an additional two million ($2,000,000) in operating capital
from the Off -Street Parking Authority's operating budget. This is a memo from the Mayor to
Donald Warshaw as of this date today.
46. CONTINUE ALL PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS (WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS)
TO OCTOBER 12 OR OCTOBER 26 COMMISSION MEETINGS.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Now, there was no ruling. We are not going to handle any
zoning with possibly the exception of Item 2 and 3 if a settlement is reached. So a motion now
would be to continue all other P&Z (Planning and Zoning) items of this evening with the
exception of 2 and 3, and 10 and 12, which were withdrawn, to October the 20h.
Mr. Jose Fabregas: Mr. Plummer.
Commissioner Teele: No. This is a — he's just moving every — the Agenda.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Regalado entered the Commission Chamber at
8:10 P.M.
Chairman Plummer: We're continuing everything except 2 and 3, to be decided possibly later
on.
Commissioner Teele: To what date, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Plummer: As I see it, the 26*.
Commissioner Teele: I would so move, Mr. Chairman.
210 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
14
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Second. Sir, you wish to make a motion to— you wish to talk about the
continuance? Go to the record. Could we ask outside that you be quiet, please? Sir, do you
wish to be heard?
Mr. Fabregas: Yes. Mr. Plummer, this Item Number 6 —
Chairman Plummer: Your name?
Mr. Fabregas: Jose Fabregas, executive director of Codec, Inc. It's Item PZ Number 6. We
have a closure with USHUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) on
October 30'e. We have — we're ready for permits right now, and this is what is holding up right
now a vote. So I wish it could be — if it's not being heard tonight, then for the first meeting in
October.
Chairman Plummer. All right. That's a reasonable request. That one particular item we would
move to the first meeting in October.
Mr. Fabregas: Yes, sir. I appreciate it.
Chairman Plummer: Is that agreeable to the maker of the motion, Mr. Teele?
Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir, if it's agreeable to the Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, it is. All right.
Mr. Fabregas: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Plummer: All in favor of the changes in the continuance, say "aye".
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed?
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-721
A MOTION TO CONTINUE ALL PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
EXCEPT PZ-2, PZ-3 AND PZ-6 TO THE COMMISSION MEETING
PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 26, 1999; FURTHER
CONTINUING AGENDA ITEM PZ-6 TO THE COMMISSION MEETING
PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 12, 1999.
211 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: Anyone other than Item 2 or 3 on the PZ Agenda, the only remaining item
— oh, wait a minute. I had a pocket item. Mr. City Attorney?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): We recommend that you move that over to October 12.
Chairman Plummer: Oh, no, Entrada.
Mr. Vilarello: And my recommendation is that that Entrada item be — because we're in litigation
that it be awarded and placed on the Agenda for October 12th and considered at that point.
Chairman Plummer: All right. And you'll put it on the agenda and so notify the parties
involved for October the 12' . All right?
47. ACCEPT BID: BUENA VISTA WELDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR
CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR RIVERSIDE CENTER (See Section #45).
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Pocket item. Custodial service for MRC (Miami Riverside Center).
Due to the need of custodial service for the City of Miami Riverside Center, I hereby request
accepting a recommendation of the City Manager to adopt a resolution accepting the bid of Vista
Building Maintenance. This item was discussed at the last Commission meeting, but deferred to
a later date. Questions regarding same had arose at the last Commission meeting, and the City
Manager's Office had addressed a concern in the attached memorandum. In conclusion, the
utilization of temporary employment will result in reduction of cost in the amount of sixteen
thousand nine hundred and twenty-two dollars ($16,922). Therefore, I respectfully request that
this issue be discussed at a - 1
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Sanchez. Seconded by Gort+ Any further discussion? All in
favor, say "aye."
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, how long is the contract for?
Chairman Plummer: At sixteen thousand, it can't be fore more than one year, I think.
212 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Steven Shaw: It's a three-year contract. It's on a renewal basis. One year initial, two one-year
renewals, sir.
Commissioner Teele: I certainly don't have any problem with this, but I think this needs to
come from the Manager. I mean, I think it's one of those things that —.
Chairman Plummer: It did, I believe, at the last meeting.
Commissioner Teele: I know the Manager's memo is here. And Mr. Manager, would you just
state on the record that you are encouraging or asking the Commission to adopt this resolution?
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): Yes, sir, I am.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you.
Chairman Plummer. And then it's one with two one-year option renewals?
Mr. Shaw: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer. They're not automatic, are they?
Mr. Shaw: No, sir.
Chairman Plummer: OK. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? It's so ordered.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: .
RESOLUTION NO.99-722
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF VISTA BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, FOR THE
PROVISION OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR THE MIANII RIVERSIDE
CENTER CITY OFFICE BUILDING, ON A CONTRACT BASIS FOR ONE
YEAR, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1,1999 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2000,
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $134,500.00, WITH THE OPTION TO
EXTEND FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO.504000.421901.6.340.
213 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort .
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
48. BUILDING PERMITS FOR NEW HOPE OVERTOWN SUBDMSION — TENTATIVE
PLAT IN PROGRESS — BETWEEN NORTHWEST a AND 8m STREETS FROM
NORTHWEST 5'b TO a AVENUES.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioner Teele had two items that were considered
earlier, two resolutions. One related to the issues of building permits on a site known as New
Hope Overtown Subdivision Tentative Plat, and the other one, a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney between the City
and BAME (Bethel African Methodist Episcopal) Development Corporation of South Florida
These were brought up before, and you asked that a resolution be prepared to that effect.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, would you state for the record— I mean, I am facilitating
these because this is what the City Attorney's Office has recommended as the procedures —
Mr. Vilarello: That were necessary.
Commissioner Teele: -- that were necessary. And these matters well predate me, and I just want
that on the record. I'm doing this as an accommodation, because this is what the City Attorney's
Office has recommended.
Mr. Vilarello: For your consideration, the fast resolution would be a resolution authorizing the
City to issue building permits on the site known as New Hope Overtown Subdivision, Tentative
Plat Number 1507A. While an approved tentative plat is in progress, further authorizing the
City Manager to enter into an agreement setting forth conditions therefore.
Commissioner Teele: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Moved by Teele, seconded by Gort. Any further discussion? All in favor
say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
214 SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-723
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT
THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND ZONING TO ISSUE BUILDING
PERMITS, CONTINGENT UPON CONCURRENT PROCESSING FOR
FINAL PLATTING APPROVAL AND PLAT RECORDATION, FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT AT THE SITE KNOWN AS "NEW HOPE OVERTOWN
SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE PLAT NO. 1507-A," LOCATED BETWEEN
NORTHWEST 6tH AND 8"" STREETS FROM NORTHWEST 5'H TO 6'H
AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH B.A.M.E DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. FOR SAID PURPOSE.
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
49. AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH BAME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
SOUTH FLORIDA AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR EXTENSION OF WATER AND
SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES FOR NEW HOPE OVERTOWN SUBDIVISION
(BETWEEN NORTHWEST 6m AND 8TH STREETS FROM STH TO 6TH AVENUES (See
Section 24).
Chairman Plummer: Is there one more?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): One more. A resolution of the Miami City Commission
authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney
between the City of Miami and BAME (Bethel African Methodist Episcopal) Development
Corporation of South Florida, Inc., and Miami -Dade County for the extension of water and
sanitary sewer facilities for the New Hope Overtown Subdivision located between Northwest
Sixth Street and Northwest Eighth Street from Northwest 5'h Avenue to Northwest& Avenue in
Miami, Florida.
215 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Teele: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Teele. Seconded by Gort. Any further discussion? All in favor
say "aye "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-724
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI, B.A.M.E. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA,
INC., AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR THE EXTENSION OF WATER
AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES FOR THE NEW HOPE OVERTOWN
SUBDIVISION LOCATED BETWEEN NORTHWEST 6M AND 8'H
STREETS FROM NORTHWEST 5 H TO 6TH AVENUES, MAMI, FLORIDA.
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
216 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
50. EXECUTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOWARD
DESIGN GROUP, INC., ($18,000), FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS, REVIEW
AND EVALUATION OF VENDOR RESPONSES, AND OTHER PROFESSSIONAL
SERVICES NECESSARY FOR RENOVATING OF FLOORING IN VARIOUS FIRE
STATIONS; ALLOCATING FUNDS -- $15,500 FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS, APPROPRIATED IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP), AND $2,500 FROM CIP "FIRE STATION AND BUILDING
RENOVATIONS," FUNDED BY THE FIRE ASSESSMENT (See Section 7).
Chairman Plummer: We're now into budget.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Before you move to the budget, I would like to clarify three issues that are
on the Agenda or should have been on the Agenda The first item relates to the-- How did we
deal with the fire issue, the issue of the Fire Department relating to the CDBG (Community
Development Block Grant) funds? Did we get a —
Chairman Plummer: You're speaking about the flooring design?
Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Did we get a report on that, at all?
Chairman Plummer: You deferred it.
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): No. But we were supposed to come back with —
Chairman Plummer: The question was, was it proper to get it from CDBG funds to do planning?
Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): The answer is yes.
Commissioner Teele: I would move --
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I would move the item, based upon the —
Chairman Plummer: What item number is this? Come on, Chief, you got to be quick draw.
Ms. Warren: It's Item Number 9.
Chairman Plummer: What?
Ms. Warren: Number 9.
Commissioner Teele: You were supposed to tell us —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele moves Item 9 relating to the Fire Department floor design.
217 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: And you were supposed to tell us the year that those funds were — the
public hearing was held for those funds.
Chairman Plummer. The year.
Ms. Warren: March 20, 1997.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Motion seconded by
Regalado that we give a new floor to the Fire Department. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer. Any opposition?
kH
218 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-725
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACH IENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION, BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S
FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS,
AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH
HOWARD DESIGN GROUP, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000, FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS, REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF
VENDOR RESPONSES, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
NECESSARY FOR THE RENOVATION OF FLOORING IN VARIOUS FIRE
STATIONS, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE -RESCUE; ALLOCATING
FUNDS THEREFOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,500 FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 799650,
ACCOUNT NO.459325-52, APPROPRIATED IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP), PROJECT NO. 313300 AND THE AMOUNT OF $2,500
FROM CIP PROJECT NO. 313302, "FIRE STATION AND BUILDING
RENOVATIONS," ACCOUNT NO. 289401.850, FUNDED BY THE FIRE
ASSESSMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
51.COMMENTS RE EXTENSION OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS (CBOs) —
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Gwen, on the question that— the item that you're bringing on the 20—
the last meeting of October, the extension for the CBO's (Community Based Organizations) for
one year, does that include also the housing and economic development? All of them?
219 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
h
Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): It includes economic development
only. Housing is out to bid, the RFP (Request for Proposals)
Commissioner Regalado: Well, why is that? Because we seem to have the same problem with
the two -month extension and the money and what— why? Why the difference? I mean, why do
you choose to do the social services under CBOs and the economic development and left
housing out?
Ms. Warren: The reason that we did the economic development was because it was at the
request of the Commission. Also, the service providers, the housing is a brick and mortar deal.
And again, the Request for Proposals are going out. And I would assume that those agencies
that were chosen to do building would again get administrative monies.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Let's get to budget. All right?
Commissioner Regalado: So — I'm sorry. You're bringing on the last meeting of October, the
20, economic development, the CBO's. Is that — ,
Ms. Warren: The economic development, the social agencies are already done.
Commissioner Regalado: And economic development, social agencies and CBOs?
Ms. Warren: Yes. CBOs are the economic development.
. -r
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
52. INITIATE IMMEDIATE RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED
AT 1501 NORTHWEST 59� i STREET, 1270 NORTHWEST 60TH STREET AND 1320, 1321
AND 1370 NORTHWEST 61ST STREET, SUBJECT TO FINDING THAT MIANII, LTD. II IS
IN DEFAULT OF CONTRACT; REQUEST RELOCATION PLAN — COMMENTS RE
DEMONSTRATION (See Section 20).
Chairman Plummer: OK. We're now on budget.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Before you do, this morning, we heard from some people who came here.
They have been here at least four times. They are residents of the 60t° — and I would like to read
into the record the resolution that we said we'd do. I'll be happy to take it up after the budget
hearing if you'd like.
Chairman Plummer: No, no, no. Take it up now, because when budget's over, I'm hitting that
door.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution of the City of Miami Commission -
authorizing and directing the City Manager to take all necessary steps to initiate the immediate
relocation of the residents of the properties as specified. Said authorization and direction is
220 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
contingent upon a finding of the City Attorney and the City Manager that Miami Limited is in
default of the contract; authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents necessary, in
acceptable forms to the City Attorney for the said purpose, and further, directing the City
Manager to immediately notify the City Commission of actions taken, and to present the City
Commission with the relocation plan. I would so move, Mr. Chairman, for discussion.
Chairman Plummer. You're moving for discussion or you move it?
Commissioner Teele: I would move the item, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Gort.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I want to just say this on the record, and I want to say this
to the public, and in particular, to the Manager. On Cuban radio today, there have been a
number of statements made that I instructed people to go pick on the Mayor and go to his house.
What was said was to go to the Mayor's house, to come to my house — I gave them my address —
and to go to the Federal Building, and invoke the name of Secretary Como. I would repeat that
today at this time. I also want you to know that members of the Manager's staff have called the
media, expressly asking them to move this story. And at least two different media people have
come to me and said that they were here, that they know that it was not what is being portrayed
by the Carollo — what do you call those things? Groups where you have people calling on
telephone?
Chairman Plummer: Talk show.
Commissioner Sanchez: Phone banks?
Commissioner Teele: By the Carollo phone banks that it was not simply pick on Joe; that— that
— Several media people said, "I heard them distinctly even describe where you live." And I live
at 1000 North River Drive. I live behind the Travel Lodge, in front of the new Winn -Dixie.
And I still say if people want to get results, they ought to stand in front of my house, as the
District Commissioner, and demand an action, and they ought to go to the Mayor's house and
demand an action, and they ought to go to the Federal Building and invoke the name of the
secretary of HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), Secretary Como, who is
both Italian and Irish by marriage, in that he's married to a Kennedy. This is not a black versus
Cuban thing. This is citizens of Miami, who have been shuffled and dealt around this City Hall
for the last 18 months, and it's time somebody got some results. And I would move the item.
Chairman Plummer. There is a motion that is really in order that we passed this morning,
seconded by Commissioner Gort, I believe. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
221 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-726
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL ACTION
NECESSARY TO INITIATE AND ASSIST IN THE IMMEDIATE
RELOCATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
1501 NORTHWEST 59TH STREET, 1270 NORTHWEST 60T" STREET, AND
1320, 1321 AND 1370 NORTHWEST 61ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
SAID AUTHORIZATION AND DIRECTION CONTINGENT UPON THE
FINDINGS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER THAT
MIANII LTD. II IS IN DEFAULT OF ITS CONTRACT; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY DOCUMENT(S) NECESSARY, IN A
FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE;
AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFY THE CITY COMMISSION OF ACTIONS TAKEN AND TO
PRESENT THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A RELOCATION PLAN.
(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 Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
53. SUPPORT CONGRESSWOMAN CARRIE MEEK AND MIAMI POLICE CHIEF TO
HAVE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION TO REVIEW
INCIDENT RESULTING IN DEATH OF ANTONIO BUTLER.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, finally, as you know, this is a very important issue, and'I
want this to be something that everybody thinks about before we talk about it. Chief O'Brien,
today, the City of Miami Police Chief, has made a formal request of the FBI (Federal Bureau of
Investigation) to assist in the investigation in an unfortunate shooting. There have been a lot of
criticisms of that action, both by law enforcement persons associated with the City and
municipalities, and there have been demonstrations and protests by the black community. I
would like to ask that the Commission consider the following resolution: A resolution of the
City of Miami Commission supporting and endorsing the requests of Congresswoman Carrie
Meek to the U.S. Justice Department, and supporting and endorsing the request of the City of
Miami Police Chief to the FBI Civil Rights Division to review an incident which occurred on
September 20te and resulted in the death of Antonio Butler. I think it's very important that this
222 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commission be on record as supporting an outside look. I don't think the Chief should be
criticized. I think the Chief should be commended for his courage, and I think we have nothing
to hide. Let the facts speak what they are. And I would offer, respectfully, and ask that this
Commission unanimously endorse the actions of our leaders. I would so move.
Chairman Plummer: Chief O'Brien, do you wish to be heard?
William E. O'Brien (Chief of Police): As I said at the time, I made this request with total
confidence in our process, total confidence in the Miami Police Department, and the State
Attorney's Office. And I made this request so the process would be viewed, and everyone
would be comfortable with it.
Chairman Plummer: And you feel that this is the proper thing to do?
Chief O'Brien: I do, sir.
Chairman Plummer. Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Teele: I would so move.
Chairman Plummer: There is a motion by Teele. Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Regalado. Is there further discussion? All in favor, say
"aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous. Now, can we get to budget?
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-727
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIANII CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING AND
ENDORSING THE REQUEST OF REPRESENTATIVE CARRIE MEEK TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE REQUEST OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI CHIEF OF POLICE TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESITGATION ("FBI"), DMSION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, TO REVIEW AN
INCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1999, AND
RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF ANTONIO BUTLER.
223 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
54. ENGAGE OUTSIDE COUNSEL RE LAWSUIT, PATRICK MC GRATH, III — PARKING
FACILITIES SURCHARGE ($75,000).
Chairman Plummer: All right. We're now on budget, thank God.
(INAUDIBLE COMMENT NOT ENTERED INTO THE RECORD)
Chairman Plummer: What? Wait a minute. Yes. We've got to bring up the City Attorney. Is it
a resolution? Read it in a hurry.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's a resolution. Commissioners, I'd request with regard
to the Patrick McGrath lawsuit which attacks the parking surcharge to retain a qualified tax
counselor.
Chairman Plummer: How much?
Mr. Vilarello: An amount not to exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Regalado. Seconded by Sanchez. All in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All in opposition? Show'it unanimous.
224 SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
4.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-728
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE A QUALIFIED LAW FIRM TO
PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MIAMI IN CONNECTION
WITH THE LAWSUIT, PATRICK MC GRATH, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. THE CITY OF
MIAMI, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NO.99-21456 CA-
10, CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND COLLECTION OF THE
PARKING FACILITIES SURCHARGE, AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 11813; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 FROM THE PARKING SURCHARGE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNT FOR SAID SERVICES; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ANY AND ALL
ADDITIONAL LEGAL ACTION NECEESSARY TO PROTECT AND
DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF. THE CITY OF MIAMI, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO ANY NOTICE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None -
ABSENT: None
5. DISCUSS AND TABLE CITY OF MIAMI BUDGET (See Sections 44 and 57)
Chairman Plummer: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're not taking anything else but
budget, and Maria's Restaurant, where I'm headed. Mr. City Manager.
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, CommIssioners. In. light
of the very late date in this fiscal year, and where I know we have to be within the next probably
48 hours, let me take you, mechanically, what I know as of right now. Tonight, after we leave
the Commission meeting, the staff of the City is going to go back to the MRC (Miami Riverside
Center) Building where members of PFM (Peat Marwick), who are the financial advisors to the
Oversight Board are going to be, at the behest of the Oversight Board, waiting for us to give
them whatever initiatives result from this meeting, so they can digest this through the night,
early tomorrow morning, and present it to the Oversight Board. There is; if you haven't gotten it
already — we got it late this afternoon — an Oversight Board meeting at 6 p.m. tomorrow night in
the Orange Bowl Room at the Windham Hotel. And the Oversight Board issued a press release
225 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
s
that I got early this evening or late this afternoon, 6 o'clock tomorrow night. Additionally, early
this morning, I faxed to you a copy of a letter from the Oversight Board, and the City Attorney
has it, and I'm sure he'll have the opportunity to comment on some of the legal issues. And I
know there are some differences of opinion. Let me tell you where I think we are right now,
based upon my discussions formally and informally with the Oversight Board members,
discussions today with members of PFM. When the fire fee for fiscal year 2000 was not
approved by the Commission, a couple of things happened. Number one, the Oversight Board
not only rejected the budget, but made a determination that they were going to reject the five-
year plan. I tell you this because it's important to understand that previously, when the four
point two million dollar ($4.2 million) piece of the fire fee was contemplated to be approved, we
still had some deficits in the out years, particularly in 2003/2004. Understanding that budgets
are projections and that they were four and five years out, we made an argument, successfully,
that we would work this year to address the 2003/2004 deficits. As a result of the fire fee not
being approved, now, the Oversight Board is telling us they want a fully balanced five-year
forecast. That means that in the out years, particularly 2003/2004, we're looking at deficits in
the area of six million ($6,000,000) and twelve million dollars ($12,000,000), give or take,
respectively, in those two years. What they also did, because of— and again, I'm loosely quoting
what some of the comments were.. We have in 2001 and 2002 small increases in the fire fee.
Because the Commission did not increase the fire fee for fiscal year 2000, the Oversight Board,
in effect, is saying they're going to disallow for 2001'and 2002 those small additional pieces of
the fire fee which approximate about two point four million dollars ($2.4 million). If you add
the two point four to the four point two, we're at approximately six point six million ($6.6
million). Putting aside Save Our Seniors, which I'll get back to in a minute, this evening, as a
result of the solid waste franchising, and the fact that one million dollars ($1,000,000) will now
be increased in the budget, along with approximately two hundred and fifty thousand ($250,000)
as a result of disposal fees, and another five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), which the
Police Department has said they can generate as a result of the VIP (Vehicle Impoundment
Program) Program, and we're going to talk about that, also, because I know the City Attorney
has some concerns, because there is an active lawsuit. But I think the Oversight Board will
allow that additional half million. That's one point seven five million. If you deduct that from
the six point six million, we're talking about as of right now a four point eight million dollar
($4.8 million) problem for fiscal year 2000, not including the balancing out of the five-year
forecast, particularly in years 2003/2004. If— and it's on the — we have a supplemental Agenda
that we haven't gotten to tonight. On the supplemental Agenda is an item on Save Our Seniors.
In order for that to be enacted, it has to be passed on a non -emergency basis, two readings, by
the first of December. It's scheduled for tonight. If you enact Save Our Seniors, which has
another two point two million dollar ($2.2 million) impact, you're talking about nowadding that
to the four point eight.
Commissioner Sanchez: And we're back at six.
Mr. Warshaw: You're back, exactly. Now, again, I don't know where yoff re going on Save
Our Seniors, but that also has impacts that they want resolved this year. That's pretty much
where we're at. As it relates to expenditure cuts, at the budget workshop on Saturday, I brought
you a listing of the 200 positions — well, I didn't give you a listing. I gave you a snapshot of
approximately seven million dollars ($7,000,000) worth of vacant positions. I told you then,
they're not the same 200 positions as last year. They've been in rotation. People have retired.
Other vacancies have come up. The estimating conference and PFM has basically said, and the
Oversight Board went further, that they want long-term strategic impacts of what it would mean
to eliminate these positions and have basically told us they took no action at the estimating
conference, they took no action at the Oversight Board, that they are not going to allow those
226 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
types of expenditure cuts. What that leaves on the list I gave you on Saturday were those few
other items that included ITB (International Trade Board), the Bayfront Park Trust, some
Management recovery, some positions in the Fire Department, some unclassified savings, and
numbers that came up in the area of seven hundred to nine hundred thousand dollars ($700,000
to $900,000). That pretty much capsulizes where we're at. I'll tell you again — and again, I
don't think the Oversight Board is going to accept anything less than either an increase in the
fire fee or the garbage fee. And they will not accept expenditure cut. Now, I'm going to let
Alex, the City Attorney talk a little bit to you— I think you need to hear this — about the memo
that was received this morning that spells out some of the actions that the Oversight Board is
stating they are going to enact in the event there is not an approved budget, and I'll be glad to
answer some questions.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Teele: Do we have a copy of that memo?
Chairman Plummer: What about the two million dollars ($2,000,000) that the Mayor spoke
about? -
Mr. Warshaw: OK. I'm going to go into the — I want to address all the points in the Mayor's
memo.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. —
Commissioner Regalado: Before the City Attorney addresses those issues, I was able to be
present at the Oversight Board meeting. And I. saw and heard our City Attorney disagreeing in
most of the issues with the counsel for the Oversight Board. And when I say most of the issues,
it's about the powers and the timetable. And I — guess that everybody there, everybody there
who was objective left a little confused about the powers of the Oversight Board. And this letter
that you gave us, it seems that it's just repetitious. They are saying the same thing that they said
in their meeting. And our Attorney, who works for the City, for the Mayor, the Commission and
the Manager, disagreed. I don't know why we have to go with this line. They would not do this,
they would not do that, they would not accept this. I mean, the question is, what is the
philosophy of the Governor of the State of Florida? These people serve at the pleasure of the
Governor. The Governor said in his speech, when he was sworn in, "I want to give back to the
people their tax money, and I want to reduce Government." What we're asking you, Mr.
Manager, is exactly what the Governor of the State of Florida, the person that appointed— and
those people serve at his pleasure — is saying and doing in the State of Florida. I mean, the
Governor vetoed many turkeys, including several for the City of Miami. And I wonder if we
have some turkeys in the budget, if we can come up with some reductionsfin the budget. So I
don't -- First of all, I would like to know who's right, our Attorney or the counsel for the
Oversight Board. I would like to bet that our Attorney is right. But I would like to hear.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Who's going to answer the question?
Mr. Warshaw: Before I let the City Attorney answer it, I want to tell you the answer from me is
I don't know who's right. I mean, I was there, and I've listened over the years the Oversight'
Board has been there to the arguments and dissertations between our Attorney and the Oversight
Board Attorney. And I don't know what the answer is. And, of course, neither do I know if the
227 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Oversight Board takes any actions, whether or not the City has any legal grounds. I don't know
the answer. I can only tell you what transpired and what is the very strong message coming
from the Oversight Board to us, and understanding we're at, you know, the eleventh hour.
Chairman Plummer: How do you interpret the Governor on TV this morning? And I'll try to
quote as close as I can. His comment was that the Oversight Board is right, and should not
accept cuts across the board, but be more designated from where the cuts are coming. Now, I
don't know if they cut him off with a camera after that, but that was exactly what was said on
TV this morning. So how do we understand that? I mean, you know, when we're trying to
figure out where is the Governor, I don't know how we understand.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: I believe that this legislative body directed the City Manager to come
up with a reduction of the budget. He gave us a recommendation, budget reduction alternatives
of six point eight million dollars ($6.8 million) in positions that are not — that are vacant. Now, I
never — I was never advised why that wasn't accepted, or the Oversight rejected filling those
positions. But just today, just today, we have been able today to bring in recurring revenues for
the City at just about almost two million dollars ($2,000,000) that could be cut. Now, I am very
disappointed that we have not been able to reduce a four hundred and seventy-seven million
dollar ($477,000,000) budget by one percent, five percent, three percent, whatever percent it
may... My argument has always been — and I will continue to make it. I am willing to take the
necessary steps to keep Government afloat, and keep Government going. But if I do not see the
Administration or this local Government make sacrifices — which we have not to this point.
And if I may just elaborate. Just alone, today, by the Agreement or the ordinance that we passed
on the private haulers, right there, we saved three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000)
that we would have had to pay, and we don't have to pay anymore, because those are in -kind
donations. So — plus the towing, there was money generated. I think today, we brought in close
to about two point three or two point four— two point five or four million dollars ($2.5 or $2.4
million) to the City. So, you know, the Oversight Board— and this is a statement that I continue
to make. It's very simple. Forty-four years of poor Government cannot be corrected overnight
or in three years. And I think that what this City has done in three years is exceptional. I mean,
coming out of a deficit of sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000) in three years, not too many
Governments could do that. And I think where we are today — one of the biggest things is we
had to balance our budget today. We do have a balanced budget. We do have a small surplus.
But to continue to be insensitive towards the taxpayers of Miami, who are the ones that have
basically kept this City afloat, and go back to them and tell them, hey, you know, you're going
to have to dig in your pockets and come up with more money, that's the concern that I have. I
mean, we have studied the budget. We have made recommendations. We have made demands
from the Administration. And yet, you have not reduced the budget. And I'am one to say that
this budget can be reduced by three percent, four percent, but it could be — four hundred and
seventy-seven million dollars ($477,000,000), and you can't reduce your budget? And I'm still
very upset that I had every department come up here and say they couldn't reduce their budget.
So I am going to continue to stand where I stand, as I did last year and this year, whereas if you
or this Administration and this City doesn't make any sacrifices, then I will turn down— I will
not support the budget. And I'll deal with whatever rights the Oversight Board has. But as of
now — And my message is, if you're willing to reduce your budget and come up with a
reduction of whatever it may be, but at least show that we are willing to make a commitment to
reduce the budget and do it, I think that I would be able to go back to the people I represent and
228 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
say Government has made a sacrifice. We're willing to work together and get this City back
afloat. But 44 years of poor Government and bad decisions which have led this City to where
we are today — and I basically have inherited the last 14 months — we can't correct all the
problems we had overnight, in three years. And we have constantly moved forward. We have
made progress in the City. But we cannot continue to go back and have our taxpayers dig in
their pockets again and come up with more fees. And I tell you one thing. I think that the more
we disagree with the Oversight Board, they more they're going to go back, and they're going to
continue to put pressure and coming up with more — making it harder for us to come up. So with
that, I'll leave it to my colleagues to make a —
Chairman Plummer: I'm still asking the question about the two million ($2,000,000) from the
Law Enforcement Trust Fund nobody's talking about except the Mayor.
Mr. Warshaw: I'm going to get to that.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: I sure hope so. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I realize that we're— we all want to get into this. And I
commend, again, Commissioner Sanchez, because he really has spent a lot of time on this. I
think one of the things that was perhaps omitted that Commissioner Sanchez does acknowledge,
as we all do, that the cuts and sacrifice were made largely by the employees and the unions, and
they really weren't — the burden really wasn't put on the taxpayers until recently with the fire
fee, which obviously, we have some second thoughts about. But I know that the union leaders
are here, and you all deserve a lot of the credit for getting us to this point. And we need your
continued support in helping us. And one of the things that I'd like to say now is that if you
know where you think we can cut — and Charlie, this particularly goes to you and to the General
and Sanitation Union — if you have some ideas on savings, we'd like to hear from you. I mean,
we're not interested in cutting anything across the board, because an across the board cut is not
going to help anybody. However, Mr. Chairman, it's 8:30. This budget hearing was advertised
for 5 o'clock. And before the Management starts, before we get into this, I think we are required
by law to have a public hearing, and I think we should afford the public the opportunity to speak,
and then go into our portion.
Chairman Plummer: All right. This is Item 23, a percentage increase in the millage over the
rollback rate. Response. Hello?
Mr. Luie Brennan (Interim Director, Management & Budget): Thirty-three hundredths of one
percent.
Chairman Plummer: Specific purpose for which ad valorem tax revenues are -being increased.
Mr. Brennan: To eliminate the annual structural deficits, matching recurring annual expenses
with recurring annual revenues.
Chairman Plummer: To fund annual municipal services, including but not limited to police, fire
and solid waste. The cost.
Mr. Brennan: Three hundred and ninety-seven thousand dollars, seven hundred and forty-five
($397,745).
229 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Is that 100 percent?
Mr. Brennan: That's correct.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. City Commission listens and responds to citizens'
complaints regarding the proposed millage increase. Now, Mr. City Attorney, I stopped. I
stopped, because I think that's a misnomer.
Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): No, it's not.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. Vilarello: And it's not "complaints." It's comments regarding the proposed millage
increase. It is technically a point three -three percent (.33%) increase over the rolled back
millage rate, which is the advertised rate. The nine point five rate — :
Chairman Plummer: Even if we drop it to nine point five?
Mr. Vilarello: Even if you drop it to nine point five.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir, fine. Thank you. Now, members of the public whowish to
be heard, by a show of hands first. One, two, three, four, five, six. And I'm not going to go with
a ledger. We'll go ahead. You're fast.
Reverend James Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: For the record, your name and mailing address.
Rev. Phillips: My name is James Phillips, and I reside at 1040 Sunnyb rook Road. I am the
president of People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Before Reverend Phillips speaks, Reverend Phillips, may I— may I ask
the people that are here with you to please stand? And I'm going to do that to ask that the
people that are here with Reverend Phillips, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that he be given
sufficient time, because he's saving us from having, you know —
Chairman Plummer: Sir I —
Commissioner Teele: If you would allow him five minutes as opposed to two.
Chairman Plummer: I'd be more than happy to do that, to let him do whatever he needs, what he
needs to do.
Rev. Phillips: Thank you very much. It really won't take that long. But I just -- First of all, I'd
just like to commend this Commission for taking the lead on trying to find common ground
when it comes to this budget. I realize that there must be cuts within the Department in order to
230 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
balance the budget and to come up with a five-year plan, particularly since you have an
Oversight Board that looms over you like a bad dream.
Chairman Plummer: Ha, ha. Boy, is that true.
Rev. Phillips: We have a real concern, though, when it comes to the funding or the lack of
funding for the Parks Department. I'm sure all of you remember the unfortunate drowning death
of young Otis Robins, and keeping in mind that this young man climbed over a gate after the
pool was closed. Now, it is my belief, and it is the belief of some of the people in this
community that I speak for that if the pool had been open for extended hours, maybe 8, 9
o'clock that this — this tragedy did not have to happen. And so we realize that although this
young man was wrong in climbing over the fence, and that he was wrong for trying to go
swimming when the pool was closed, we believe that the pool closing at 6 p.m. really is not a
very, very good idea. I'm sure all of you — again, keeping in mind that this young man who did
climb the fence. I believe in order for us to prevent another tragedy such as this, it is my opinion
that we must not only increase the budget of the Parks Department— I think that you mentioned
that there is no way that you can go across the board and give budget cuts. And I agree with
that. I think that each department needs to be looked at rationally, and really, we need to ask
ourselves a question. Are our young people important enough that we want to invest some kind
of funds so that we can — so that we can have a place for them to play? Commissioner Sanchez
said something last week. And Commissioner, I'm not — I'm not quoting here. But
Commissioner Sanchez said that the condition of a park is relation to — is in direct relationship to
the condition of its community. And I really believe that. And so I say to you this afternoon —
this evening that our parks really is in a desperate need of not only to be repaired. I work out at
Gibson Park, at the gym there. And Commissioners and the people in the community, I want to
challenge you to go over to Gibson Park to that gym and look at that equipment. And I'm going
to tell you something. The City did not purchase the equipment that's there. That equipment
came from donations from people in the community. Again, equipment that's broken down,
equipment that other people, you know, did not want in their homes any longer. So again, we're
asking that not only do you fund the Parks Department, but that you increase funding for the
Parks Department. And again, we're looking at extending the times in which the pool and the
park itself is open. We're talking about qualified lifeguards in these parks and at poolside. And
again, please, let us work together to ensure the safety of all of our young people and its park.
Increase funding to the Parks Department today. Thank you very much.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, Mariano.
Mr. Mariano Cruz: Oh, OK. What do I got? Two minutes?
Chairman Plummer. Go ahead and talk.
Mr. Cruz: OK. I'm going to do that, because I need more than that. Mariano Cruz, 1227
Southwest 26t° Street, Miami, District 1. First, I'd like to talk maybe like the state of the
neighborhood, in a way. This is my coming here for the budget hearing, because I pay City
taxes. And the City say, let's tax. I pay. I don't mind paying taxes. It's the way my taxes are
used. Like I like first to complain about the Oversight Board. Who are they, the Oversight
Board? They're meeting at the Windham Hotel, at the Orange Bowl Room there. Who pays for
that meeting there? We pay for the meeting. We, City of Miami, pay for the meeting. No?
Unidentified Speaker: State taxes.
231 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Cruz: Well, State taxes, we pay. Somebody pay State sale tax. Now, who are they? They
don't even live in the City of Miami. How they going to know about the City? I wrote the late
Governor Chiles about that. He say, why don't you appoint somebody who live in the City? I
said: How many of them has gone to Allapattah or Overtown, or Liberty City? No. They live
in their ivory towers there. We have the museum tower there. They don't even come down
from there. So I resent that, because I don't vote for them. I vote for you, City Commissioners,
to represent me. Now, in a way, I don't complain about my City services. The garbage is being
picked up on time. Good. Mr. Patterson is doing a good job. My wife likes it. She said before,
there was many times he get complaints about that. The only time it was not picked up was on
Labor Day, because we didn't put it out on time. We overslept that day, right. That's about the
only day. Now, I complain about the Miami Stadium in my neighborhood. What's going to be
done about that? And Dena says the check is in the back. But Winn -Dixie already built
something there. Maybe since the Metro Justice and all the lawyers and the Judges are watching
that. It recently was built. The other, Miami Stadium, 10 and 23, nothing being done there. It's
now full of vermin, rats, the whole thing there. There has to be done something, because it's in
the City of Miami, and we pay taxes for that. And they get two point two million dollars ($2.2
million) for that property. Now, I am glad to see people coming here and speaking about parks.
For years, I've been the only one here lobbying for the parks. And many times, still, we go to
the parks, and the bathrooms are closed on Sunday. - : There's 200 people in the park there,
because there is no money to pay a part-timer to be there. But they have plenty money for all
kinds of things, for a sting operation, for planners, and for more studies, and more studies, and
that, and big salaries. We need more people in the parks. We need the money to go for that,
because look at — they use the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. They could use — I (unintelligible)
you get that LETF money. Use that for some of the programs in Allapattah. No, it's been used
for Boys Town, Coconut Grove Playhouse and that. We didn't get anything. We didn't.
Nothing went to Allapattah of that Law Enforcement Trust Fund. And there is a lot of money
there, you know. And one other thing. The parks are used sometimes for the convenience of
some employees and (unintelligible), and the whole thing. Now, this here, see right here. Oh,
police. I don't complain about police protection. But something happened the other day.
Antonio Butler was killed. 17" and 14d6 in our neighborhood there.. Right. Now, Sergeant
Mendez, Juan Mendez - I
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody's name should get— I mean' —
Mr. Cruz: OK. Forget about it. OK.
Chairman Plummer: We'll ask you — we'll ask —
Mr. Cruz: I got to say that. You know why? Because my son, Teddy Cruz, was harassed by
that sergeant a few months ago just for —
Chairman Plummer: Whoa, whoa, whoa. We're not trying any cases here tonight. You want to
talk about an incident that occurred without mentioning names —
Mr. Cruz: OK. I can make any statement. OK. The person in my neighborhood, that was born
and raised in Allapattah was harassed, because his driver's license says North Miami address.
Well, his family live in Allapattah, and he was out making a phone call. And tell him, you —
why did you come here? To buy dope? That's why you come here to the neighborhood? You
don't belong here. And that's what they say. And they said: I told this person, don't get mad,.
don't get even, get him. Go to Internal Affairs. Nothing was done in Internal Affairs, because
usually, nothing is done in Internal Affairs. Nothing. 45 cases in Internal Affairs. Nothing been
232 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
x
done. Nothing. It's their word against your word. And that happened. And that was a red flag.
And now, how much money going to cost us in the budget, violation of civil rights of certain
persons? Because of that, we're still paying. Look at Mercado, Alamilla, everything. We're
still paying.
Chairman Plummer: No names. Mariano, you're approaching five minutes.
Mr. Cruz: OK. Still, like I say, I do not complain about my taxes. But still, Allapattah is a part
of the City of Miami. The Miami Stadium is a part of the City of Miami. And one thing, oh,
yeah, I can say. The way that we're handing the theme of Ralph Plaza, our tax money, I think
now that they started working again on Ralph Plaza for affordable housing. But what we need in
the neighborhood is housing for sale, for the middle class. Mr. Cox said here that he can't afford
to live in Miami. You see, you have to be either too poor or too rich. Right. So we need — right.
Then you even (unintelligible) they give you 202, Section Eight. But if you are middle class,
you can't live in Miami. They have to move to other places. So remember that middle —
affordable housing. We need it. And in a way, my neighborhood is pretty good. I like
Allapattah. It was chosen the best hidden neighborhood by the New Times this year. And still,
it's the only place you can go and eat sancocho and eat Cuban, and eat Hondureno, and eat
everything without leaving Miami. You go to a foreign country. But please, please, think of the
neighborhood. More money for the park —not money— dedicated employees and programs. We
need that. Because I've been coming here every year, sometimes only one person. I am so glad
to see people here lobbying for the parks, because you know what happened is? This is reacting
after the fact. No, I come here before things happen, before, and let you know, before things
happen. I don't wait till they step on my "en el callo," no. (Comment made in Spanish).
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cruz: Bye.
Chairman Plummer. Next speaker. For the record, your name and mailing address.
Albio Castillo: I should know this by now. My name is Albio Castillo. I live in 2386
Southwest Third Street. One Commissioner says that, "Where is the eight million dollars?" I
could tell you where it is right now. The only thing is you have to get it. You have between
eighty and ninety million dollars ($90,000,000) in code enforcement. They do aterrific job, but
I feel that the City of Miami should do more than that. You also got between eight and ten
million dollars ($10,000,000) in solid waste. Why can you not collect it when you just passed
something on solid waste?
Chairman Plummer: OK. Anything else?
Mr. Castillo: One more.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Castillo: I'd also like to know is, what about the bonds? How are we going to— the City of
Miami going to generate with a red flag on bonds?
Chairman Plummer: I think you're speaking of debt service.. We're very low. We — most
municipalities have -- 15 percent is an acceptable number. We have three or four percent. Julie,
am I in the ballpark? I think we're very good on bonds.
233 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Castillo: OK. My next question is, when is the City of Miami going to have a workable
motor pool and a special events ordinance?
Chairman Plummer: That's working on now by the Administration, and hopefully, in the
coming year.
Mr. Castillo: Can a citizen put his input? Because I have some information on special events
ordinance that could help them.
Chairman Plummer. All right, sir. That's it?
Mr. Castillo: I'd also like to know is if the City could collect more on tickets. I know that's the
County, but I think you should be more aggressive on that one.
Chairman Plummer: We get two-thirds/one-third.
Mr. Castillo: OK. That's it.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Castillo: Can the Administration answer my questions?
Chairman Plummer: I took care of it for you..
Mr. Castillo: OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: One of the things that I'm going to ask the Manager or the Finance
Director to comment on, I would like to see the five-year plan that we have in effect now, the
full book for this year and the one for last year. There's a lot of references to the money that we
could save if we went out and reissued bonds. There's been — the Herald has quoted the Finance
Director specifically on this issue.. The Manager has been quoted on this. It was my
understanding that in the five-year plan, we agreed, at least since I've been here, that this City
would not issue any new bonds for some period of time, and it was written in the five-year plan.
So I continue to fail to understand how the media could continue to quote a source that we could
save a million dollars ($1,000,000), talking about this instability, the Charter changes, and all of
that context. Did we commit to no issuance of bonds or not? And can we determine what the
five-year plan document says? And I — if you could just get me the five-year plan document that
makes reference to whether we would issue bonds or not. And if it's silent, y'ou know, that — but
I really would like to see the five-year plan.
Chairman Plummer. I would ask that that answer be forthcoming after we do what
Commissioner Teele asked and we hear from the public.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mary Hill, we know your address by memory.
234 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
,r
Mary Hill: OK. I am also the founder.
Chairman Plummer: We know that, also.
Ms. Hill: OK. I'm glad that you know that. And the responsible for being here, too, right?
Chairman Plummer: That's correct.
Ms. Hill. Now, I would like to speak. First, I would like to ask some questions. Has it been
explained what policies and laws that the economic development program under the City of
Miami is working from? I never heard this at all the meetings.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. City Attorney, can you answer the question?
Ms. Hill: What policies and laws are they —
Chairman Plummer: What set of laws is Community Development, the City of Miami operating
under? I assume Federal law.
Mr. Vilarello: Yes, they're operating under Federal regulations.
Chairman Plummer: Right. Go ahead and come to the microphone, because all of those
questions are going to be on your line. Go ahead, Mary. Second question.
Ms. Hill: OK. It cannot be on Federal regulations, according to statutory laws and guidelines.
It has to be coming from another source. Would that be under HUD (Department of Housing
and Urban Development)?
Chairman Plummer: Ms. Warren.
Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: You heard the question.
Ms. Warren: HUD, USHUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development).
Chairman Plummer: Thank you. Next questions.
Ms. Hill: Now, I would like to ask you, and I would like to ask the Commissioners here, as
being founder, the one who brought it into the State of Florida by statutory laws, it's supposed to
be here, and my duties and my position
supposed to be here. Not economic development, economic opportunities extension.
Chairman Plummer: What is the question?
Ms. Hill: Now, the question is: How could you operate anything here without my input, and put
anything together without my —
Chairman Plummer: Is the question understood?
235 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Warren: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: What is the answer?
Ms. Warren: We're getting your input today in the public hearing.
Chairman Plummer: Next question.
Ms. Hill: Now, are you trying to correct this legislative matter and bring these in compliance of
the statutory laws with my input from today?
Ms. Warren: Yes, ma'm.
Chairman Plummer. Thank you.
Ms. Hill: Now, because I do have national responsibilities, and you cannot do anything— that is
statutory laws — without the national director to direct this corruption and whatever you have
here. By working with me, you can cut out your— a lot of this out of your budget. I want you to
strip some of that out of that. It's another method, and you'll have to deal with me.
Chairman Plummer. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Hill: And how long will it take that you will contact me concerning this?
Chairman Plummer: Within the next 60 days.
Ms. Warren: Yes, sir.
Ms. Hill: No. October 1. October 1 is our statutory laws to start getting this off ground,
according to statutory laws. October 1, by statutory law, Federal law.
Chairman Plummer: Well, she's got an awful — Mary, she's got an awful lot of work to do.
Ms. Hill: No, but she has to work with me, to do it.
Chairman Plummer: Well, she will.
Ms. Hill: To establish these offices and straighten it out, you will have to work with me, Ms.
Warren.
Ms. Warren: Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Plummer. All right. All right. Well, let's revise that and say you'll contact her as
soon as possible.
Ms. Hill: That is what I'm asking.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Ms. Warren: Yes, ma'am.
236 SEPTEMBER 28,1999
Ms. Hill: Because this is a very vital matter.
Chairman Plummer: Next speaker, please.
Ms. Hill: Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: For the record, please, your name and mailing address.
Ms. Eva Nagymihaly: Yes. My name is Eva Nagymihaly, and I live at 3110 South Miami
Avenue.
Chairman Plummer: Proceed.
Ms. Nagymihaly: OK. All right. The first question I have, basically, is I'd like to know what
was done with the budget monies that you were given, the 11 percent increase? Was that
implemented or was that given back?
Chairman Plummer: Are you speaking of the City Commissioners? - -
r
Ms. Nagymihaly: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: I can't answer that. I think we've all volunteered to give it back.
Ms. Nagymihaly: But was it given back? Volunteering and doing — umm —
Chairman Plummer: The final hearing has not taken place is the answer. I think each and every
one of us has said that there would be no problem of giving it back.
Ms. Nagymihaly: Well, maybe this is the question that I have: We've been talking in this budget
hearing, all our problems in the City started— or we talked about it two years ago. And now, all
of a sudden, everyone is panicking because we've got two days to make a decision. - -
Chairman Plummer: All right. Just for the record, it might interest you, I just asked the question.
If all five Commissioners give up their 11 percent it's —
Unidentified Speaker: No. Give back six, six and a half percent (inaudible).
Chairman Plummer: Yeah. It's an item of about thirty thousand dollars ($30,000).
Ms. Nagymihaly: That's a beginning.
Chairman Plummer: That's —
Ms. Nagymihaly: I believe in saving every. penny. That's the way —
Chairman Plummer. I don't disagree.
Ms. Nagymihaly: Yeah. It's very important. It's very appreciated.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
237 SEPTEM 3ER 28, 1999
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me answer your question directly from my department. For the last
two years, I've given back out of my original budget around twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). I
didn't ask for an increase. In this projections, that increase was put by the Administration. We
did not request that. So that's the fast thing that I asked to be removed from my —
Ms. Nagymihaly: And I really do appreciate it.
Chairman Plummer: Next question.
Ms. Nagymihaly: Well, it's not really a question now.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Next statement.
Ms. Nagymihaly: It's more of a general — a general statement.. We've been working on this for a
long time, but nobody has done anything. So if we panic at the last two days and say, well, OK,
we've got the garbage or we've got the fire, that is not fair. To me, that was preplanned, if we
keep saying the same thing over and over again. The budget must be cut. And everybody knows
it needs to be cut, but nobody is willing to cut it. We go back to the taxpayer and say, taxpayer,
come on, handle the burden. But you, and I say "you" in general, because I'm talking to the
Administration, refuse to take budget cuts. And it has been shown by many people. I know I've
written letters. I've stated different ideas that I had, how you can raise recurring revenues. It's
not being done. Don't ask us to do it. Now, one other thing that never has been mentioned by the
Miami Herald, has never been mentioned by you sitting up there, and that is the fire fee and
apartment building owners. I want to know, are you — right now, you are asking apartment
owners to pay one hundred and five dollars ($105) per unit per year. Are you going to follow
through with that, or in your idea of not increasing it for homeowners, will you not increase it for
the apartment owners? Nobody has ever, ever once mentioned how much an apartment owner
pays for an efficiency that's for three hundreds ($300). or an apartment that's three thousand
dollars ($3,000) on the ocean. I need an answer.
Chairman Plummer: Who wants to address it?
Carlos Gimenez (Chief, Fire Department): On the issue of the fire fee for apartments, if— since
the Commission has basically kept last year's rates, the same rates that you paid last year for
apartments will also be the same.
Ms. Nagymihaly: Thank you. So far, so good.
Chairman Plummer. Yeah, but you know, let me tell you something. They make a very, very
good point, Chief. Whether you got a small rinky-dirk apartment or whether you got a super
deluxe penthouse apartment, the fee is the same.
Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: That, to me, is detrimental to the person who cannot afford the super deluxe
penthouse. And I'll tell you something, I think in this coming year— you know, I've said it
before and I'll say it again. I hated the year that we put that fire fee in. And I've stood my
ground to vote against it for any increase, and said that, by God, if we ever find a way to get a
balancing recurring revenue, I would be the first to eliminate it. Now, that hasn't happened. But
let me tell you something. I think we need to address that issue as to it relating to the difference
between a three hundred dollar ($300) a month rent, if I can put it in those terms, and a three
238 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
thousand dollar ($3,000) a month rent paying the same amount of fire fee. In my opinion, it's
wrong.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I'll yield to the Attorney, but as long as you're under the U.S. Constitution,
you've got to provide equal protection. You cannot treat one group of people differently in the
same class. And —
Chairman Plummer: Why can't you use it on a square footage basis?
Commissioner Teele: It is on a square footage basis.
Ms. Nagymihaly: No, it is not.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, Commissioner, the Fire -Rescue assessment is a special assessment
which is based upon —
Chairman Plummer. All right. This Commission — excuse me. I'm sorry. We do not have a
quorum.
Commissioner Teele: Everybody just take five minutes for me.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, I'll take whatever you want to get three people back here. And I will
take up as soon as we come back this item of PZ-2 and 3.
Ms. Nagymihaly: Can I make or — can I talk again or —
Chairman Plummer: Ma'am, I would prefer — you will be able to talk as soon as three
Commissioners are present. OK?
Ms. Nagymihaly: I shall talk.
THEREPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 9:05 P.M. AND
RECONVENED AT 9:07 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION
FOUND TO BE PRESENT.
56. A) WITHDRAW APPEAL BY BABYLON INTERNATIONAL OF SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW VALET PARKING FOR HOTEL AND TO ALLOW
BAR/LOUNGE AT 194-218 SOUTHEAST le STREET. 1
B) DENY APPEAL BY BABYLON INTERNATIONAL, APPROVE VARIANCES TO
ALLOW STRUCTURE WITH REDUCED SETBACKS AT 194-219 SOUTHEASAT 14rn
STREET. [Applicant: Key Real Estate Development II Corp.] (See #43)
Chairman Plummer. Prior to this two -minute break, we have, I understand a settlement, Mr. City
Attorney. Mr. City Attorney? Do I have a City Manager? It is my understanding we have a
settlement on PZ-2 and 3, which are time sensitive.
239 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): You need to open the public hearing on the P&Z
(Planning and Zoning) Agenda.
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Maxwell: Open the public hearing on the P&Z Agenda.
Chairman Plummer. On PZ-2 and 3, is anyone of the public wishing to speak on either one of the
issues? Are they an ordinance or resolution?
Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): It's an appeal so —
Chairman Plummer: All right. It is an appeal. Tell me what I need to do. Come on.
Mr. Maxwell: I think they're going to tell you what they want to do.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. Tony O'Donnell: For the record, Tony O'Donnell, representing the appellant in this matter.
PZ-2, the appeal of the special exception, we withdraw that appeal in its entirety.
Chairman Plummer. Thank you, sir. Is that 2 or 2 and 3?
Mr. O'Donnell: No. I'm getting to PZ-3. PZ —
Chairman Plummer: All right, all right. What's PZ-3? -
Mr. O'Donnell: PZ-3 is an appeal of related variances on the project. We are — have agreed with
the applicant for a modified resolution from the Planning Board. We talked to staff, and they
have no objection to it. On one issue, that is on the east side of the proposed project, the Planning
Board granted or the Zoning Board granted a variance of seven point five feet where 15 feet was
required. We're agreeing to modify that resolution so that 13 feet, a variance for 13 feet instead
of seven point five or 15 feet is required. Setback, it's a setback, a yard setback on the east side.
Chairman Plummer: Hey, guys, you said this was easy.
Mr. O'Donnell: No, it's easy. I'm just a little slow. And then —
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. O'Donnell: Wait a minute. And then as a condition for that approval, there will be a forty
thousand dollar ($40,000) improvement on the buffer area between our property, which is tothe
east, not to exceed forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for exterior painting and landscape buffering
for the property at 240 Southeast 141e Street at the time of certificate of occupancy.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Has everybody heard that?
Mr. O'Donnell: And the applicant's attorney is here to agree to agree.
Ms. Lucia Dougherty: We agree to those conditions.
240 SEPT-EMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: All right. They're both resolutions. Motion on Item PZ-2. What? Moved
by Sanchez. Seconded by? Moved by Sanchez. Seconded by?
Ms. Dougherty: Actually, no action has to be taken on 2, because they've withdrawn their
appeal.
Mr. Maxwell: Well, that's what — Chairman, you may hear from staff as to whether or not —
Chairman Plummer: Hey, look, guys. You know, it was told to me that it was going to be short,
brief and over. Now —
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but you need to hear from staff as to whether or not staff concurs with those
changes.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah. But there are people of the public here that want to be heard. And I
only did this because you told me this was brief.
Ana Gelabert (Director, Planning & Zoning): Staff concurs.
Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: What?
Mr. O'Donnell: Concurs. We have talked to them. They concur.
Chairman Plummer: They concur.
Mr. O'Donnell: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Item 2 moved by Sanchez. Seconded by?
Mr. Maxwell: You are — excuse me. You need to know what you're doing, Mr. Chairman. You
are, in fact, denying the appeal and approving the application with those conditions.
Chairman Plummer: That's on PZ-2.
Mr. Maxwell: On 3. Two was withdrawn.
Mr. O'Donnell: Two was withdrawn.
Mr. Maxwell: That's on 3.
Mr. O'Donnell: That's fine. The motion is to deny the appeal under the following conditions —
Vice Chairman Gort: Move to deny the appeal.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Mr. Maxwell: And you're approving the application with those changes.
Chairman Plummer. Moved by Gort. Seconded by Sanchez. All in favor, say "aye"
241 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: And I don't trust any of you any more on short items.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-729
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE
APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISSION OF THE ZONING BOARD,
THEREBY GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS
AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
ARTICLE 6, SECTION 605.8.1, TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH THE
FOLLOWING YARDS: (1) WEST PROPERTY LINE —PROPOSED 4'0' ; (2)
EAST PROPERTY LINE --PROPOSED 13'0" SETCBACK; (3) REAR
PROPERTY LINE —PROPOSED 0'0" + 'h OF ALLEY (ALLEY IS 10'0" IN
WIDTH) = 5'0" (REQUIRED 1510"), AND PER ARTICLE 6, SECTION
605.8.2, TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE WITH THE FOLLOWING YARDS: (1)
SOUTH ELEVATION —PROPOSED 18'0" + 5'0" ALLEY = 23'0"; (2) WEST
ELEVATION —PROPOSED 31'0", AND (3) EAST ELEVATION --PROPOSED
25'0" (REQUIRED 33.7% FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 194-218 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA; SAID APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON THE
PROPERTYOWNER EXPENDING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000
FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BUFFER AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF PROPERTY FOR INCREASED LANDSCAPE BUFFERING AND
EXTERIOR PAINTING AT THE TIME OF, BUT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
242 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
57. A) COMMENTS RE UNSAFE STRUCTURES ALONG NORTHWEST THIRD
AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREETS, AND CORAL WAY AND 36'm AVENUE;
B) COMMENTS RE REVENUES FROM BILLBOARDS EAST OF I-95
EXPRESSWAY;
C) EXPLORE FEASIBILITY OF USING SPECIAL TAX ON CAR RENTALS TO
RAISE REVENUES;
D) COMMENTS/ACCEPTANCE OF MAYOR CAROLLO'S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GENERATING REVENUES;
E) DENY ADDITIONAL FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE FOR 1999-2000;
F) INCREASE RESIDENTIAL GARBARE FEE;
G) DELETE PROPOSED INCREASES TO OFFICE OF MAYOR,
COMMISSIONERS, MANAGER;
H) ACCEPT MANAGER'S BUDGET REDUCTIONS: UNCLASSIFIED
SALARIES, COMMISSION OFFICES, BAYFRONT PARK, INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BOARD, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MANAGEMENT RECOVERY,
FIRE DEPARTMENT;
I) REDUCE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY'S BUDGET;
n FIRST READING ORDINANCE: INCREASE SOLID WASTE FEE TO $234
ANNUALLY;
K) TRANSFER MONIES FOR OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 5
PURSUANT TO ANTI -DEFICIENCY ORDINANCE;
L) TRANSFER UNEXPENDED PORTION OF OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER,
DISTRICT 5, BUDGET FOR DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR
CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES;
M) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: DEFINE TERRITORIAL LIMITS FOR
PURPOSES OF TAXATION FOR CITY OF MIAMI; FIX MMLAGE, LEVY TAXES —1999-
2000 BUDGET;
N) SECOND READING ORDINANCE: MAKE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CITY
OF NIIAMI—1999-2000 BUDGET,
O) DEFER CONSIDERATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
(See Sections 44, 55, 60).
Chairman Plummer: All right. Back to the budget. Members of the public, I'm sorry. You still
have the floor, ma'am.
Eva Nagymihaly: Yes. Well, the one item I wanted to bring' up 'yet was what the Oversight
Board had commented on or was by one of the members, and that's saying that now, we cannot
use the monies that we were going to get from the parking fee in figuring on recurring revenues,
because there is a lawsuit. Well, there has been a lawsuit going on for the fire fee for a long time.
And nobody is commenting or not saying that we cannot use these revenues. But if they want to
base it on that, then they should right away be looking for recurring revenues from otherthan the
fire fee. Have they addressed that at all?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): The Financial Oversight Board did not say we could not use
revenues from the parking surcharge. What they did say was they limited the amount that we
could assume for budgetary purposes based on a lack of collection history, and the newness of the
parking surcharge. But they did not make a statement, or at least not in my presence —
243 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Nagymihaly: I read it in the newspaper. I'm sure other people read the same.
Mr. Vilarello: Well, it was certainly not in my presence where we were not allowed to use those
revenues.
Ms. Nagymihaly: So we are able to, then, use that monies towards our balancing of our budget?
Donald Warshaw (Acting City Manager): Yes.
Ms. Nagymihaly: Very good. Good..
Chairman Plummer. Nine point two.
Ms. Nagymihaly: OK.
Chairman Plummer: Five point seven.
Ms. Nagymihaly: One other item that may not be very popular, and I hate to end it on a non -
popular item. But since we're all here, we're all trying to sacrifice, we're all trying to balance the
budget, we want our City to continue, and we want things to be better. But maybe right now,
instead of, quote, saving our seniors, maybe this year we should be saving our City so we can
save our seniors. It's not popular, but we can't save the world all of the time at one time. And
let's concentrate on an item that we've been trying to balance for the last two years. Let's get this
in order, and then move on and do something after the fact. We're trying to do too much at one
time in two days. Thank you. _
Nathaniel Wilcox: My name is Nathaniel Wilcox. My mailing address is 4746 Northwest 106
Avenue. I have a few questions. There was an investigation of the CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) started several months ago. And we want to know exactly where is this
investigation? How long is it going to take? It's been dragging along quite some time, and it's
been hampering a lot of community progress.
Chairman Plummer: Now, how does that relate to the budget?
Mr. Wilcox: Well, it has to do with the Overtown area, and monies coming into our area
Mr. Warshaw: It's not an investigation. It's an audit of the CRA. And Ms. Bianchino will tell
you exactly where we're at on that.
Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Yes. KPMG has looked through all the files.
They're going to pick one or two projects to look into. This is not an investigation, as the
Manager has stated, and it is not affecting in any way the operation of the CIA or any funding
that has currently been allocated to the CRA by the City Commission.
Mr. Wilcox: OK. Also, we'd like to know about the three million dollars ($3,000,000) that were
supposed to have been allocated or allocated for the Overtown Business Corridor. Where is that
process in terms of monies and making that process happen?
Ms. Bianchino: It was approved by the City Commission today, subject to availability.
244 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Wilcox: Subject to availability. So I mean, you know, it might happen and it might not
happen?
Chairman Plummer: But it's on the priority list that was proffered and passed today by the CRA.
Mr. Wilcox: OK. So also, the twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) that was passed by
resolution several months ago, subject to availability, it may or may not happen for the Overtown
area?
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele, he's speaking to CRA, if you want to address it. I mean, my
answer has to be that Overtown/Park West has to be to the availability of funds, without any
question.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, the question that he's raising is the same question that a number of
people have raised. I'm raising it.. The CRA is in the five-year plan for Community
Development. I'm keenly aware of the unexpended balances that we're having. I'm going to
Washington next week to meet with HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) on
our balances, and to try to understand their bookkeeping. We asked last year at the budget
meeting, we asked that the Budget Office conduct a process to de -obligate money. There's more
than adequate monies available. However, none of these funds have been de -obligated a year
later. We've got funds going back to five, six, seven years that haven't been used, won't be used,
can't be used. And so it's just really a question of at some point, the City Management doing
what the Commission directed them to do. Last year at the budget, they were supposed to submit
a listing each month or each quarter of the funds that have been de -obligated. One thing about it,
you have to have a public notice, and you have to print it in the newspaper. That hasn't been
done. The County has issued at least five different de -obligation notices over the last year, where
they were taking money. I saw they took money from, you know, different grants in Opa Locka,
different grants all over. And the fact of the matter is that it's a very good question. But it's, you
know, business as usual, as far as I know.
Mr. Wilcox: Well, that's our concern, too, because whenever it comes to the black community,
we're always hearing, "We don't have money," and it's always a shell game, because monies
have been available, haven't been spent with Community Development for some time. And now,
every time we ask for funds for our community, "Well, we got to balance the budget. Well, we
got to do this. We got to do that." And it's the same old game all the time. Commissioner had
made some directives to the Management, Manager, and these things haven't happened. And
now, we're going on down the road again. We're talking budget. We're talking funds. When
will these obligations be met, as it pertains to the black community, funds being freed up?
Because the funds are there. We received some HUD documents months ago that stated that the
money is there, it just hasn't been spent, So it's a shell game when it comes to the black
community. Y'all, we don't have no money now. Y'all got to wait a little while longer. So how
much longer do we have to wait for the shell games to continue to be' played with our
community? We all see the smiles on your faces. You're nice and you're friendly. But our
community is lacking. The money is there. Let's spend it. Let's put it where it's supposed to be.
It's just not happening. When will that happen, Commission?
Ms. Julie Weatherholtz (Director, Finance): Julie Weatherholtz, Finance Director. And one of
the main projects that I have been working on and my staffs been working on since we've been
here is to work closely with Community Development and with the Budget Department to go
through and reconcile all of the Community Development funds from their first year through the
25" year, which is going to begin in October. We have gone through. We had to go through
245 SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
several steps. One of the steps was, of course, the City changed its financial system in 1996 from
one particular computerized accounting system, FAMIS (Fund Accounting Management
Information System), over to an SCI (Systems Consultant, Inc.) computerized system. So we had
to go through that reconciliation process, which we have completed. In addition, during that
time, the Federal Government went up onto a computerized system called IDIS (Integrated
Disbursement Information Systems), which needed then to be reconciled back to our
computerized system. And we have made great progress on that. And we are at the point where
we're going to be moving forward with filing our Federal reports that need to be filed. In
addition to that, we have, last week, actually, made great progress where we identified projects
that have been completed, and we have tagged them for— to become inactive and to close them
out. And the other thing that we have done is we've been able to group all Community
Development projects together so that we can assure everybody that all of those Community
Development funds that were spent over the 24 years have all remained together, and that those
funds have not moved out of Community Development to somewhere else, nor are they going to
move to somewhere else; that these funds are staying, all, within the Community Development.
They're being reported currently with the June monthly financial report. All Community
Development funds are reported by project, and are all summarized into Community
Development. And then we do plan that our final reconciliation will be completed pretty much
by the beginning of the calendar year, January/February time frame. . .1
Mr. Wilcox: Well, I mean, our community always hear these nice, fluffy answers that we're
planning, and we're looking for this, and we're going to do that. We've been hearing this for
years. Our community look like hell. It just looks like "pure-T-hell," because of the same
answers you just gave me, and the same answers Gwen Warren getting ready to come up and say
tonight. The same sorry answers we been hearing for years. When will these shell games stop?
That's economic racism. I mean, you don't— you don't hang up no more on the tree. You play
those type of games with us and keep our community looking like the devil. Now, you go out
here on Biscayne, Brickell and some of these other areas. I mean, they come up from just barren
ground, in no time. But Overtown, we got to hear this kind of stupid— I mean — sorry — these
kind of answers that are not acceptable for our community. It's just not acceptable. This is 1999,
going to the year 2000. Overtown has been looking like that for any number of years, Liberty
City, and here they come again with the same old answers. When will it stop, Commissioners?
You all are responsible for this. I remember when our organization sued the City of Miami to
have black representation. You all were telling us, "Can't we represent you, too? We're
Hispanic. Can't we represent the black community, too?" Don't seem like you're doing it. We
have one black Commissioner, and he's trying everything he can do to help our community.
Now, we have other Hispanic Commissioners, and one white Commissioner. Why won't you
represent us now, and see that the needs — the money that's supposed to be designated go to our
community, do what it's supposed to do, and stop giving all these fluff answers to us. We're tired
of it. Commissioner Regalado, Sanchez, y'all said — Gort, y'all said y'all could represent us.
You're not doing it.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. Wilcox, I would strongly suggest, sir, that you attend, because I have
not seen you at any of the CRA meetings. The CRA meetings is where the money is going to be
coming down, with its Chairman, Commissioner Teele. And those monies will be forthcoming
through the CRA, not outside. They will be coming through that source. And I would strongly
suggest, sir, that you and your organization, and the people who you are representing do attend
the meetings of the CRA and voice your opinions there where. it will be in a limited way being
heard by direct ears and not by the community.
Mr. Wilcox: OK. Well, this Board is also the Board of the CRA; am I correct?
246 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: You're correct to the extent we wear two hats. We are not a Commissioner
when we're the CRA Board Members. We — but it is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Wilcox: But you're still the same person, right?
Chairman Plummer: Absolutely the same person.
Mr. Wilcox: OK. Thank you. Also, I have some other questions. And we will be attending —
that's why we're here tonight past our regular time. And we are attending more meetings. Thank
you. I also have a couple more questions here in terms of the Overtown Advisory Board. They
have been pressing to get a meeting room and a place to meet for quite some time. City Manager,
they requested it. Where are they with that? Because you talked about fiords and this type of
thing. We want to know, when will this duly elected body, Overtown Advisory Board, have their
own established meeting place? Or do they have it? Where are you on that?
Mr. Warshaw: I believe the Overtown Advisory Board meets as an office in the Overtown
Shopping Center. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): That's my understanding, yes, sir.
That's where their office is at.
Mr. Wilcox: Well, they've been bounced around for some time, meeting a little here and there.
So they do have their established place now?
Commissioner Teele: I believe there are some open issues with Asset Management or whichever
division is handling this with the Overtown Advisory Board. I'm not familiar, but it was my
understanding that —
Chairman Plummer: I thought they were next to the cemetery.
Commissioner Teele: No, they're — no, no, no. They're —
Chairman Plummer: Who is next to the cemetery?
Ms. Warren: PULSE (People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality).
Chairman Plummer: Oh, you're next to the cemetery.
Mr. Wilcox: Yes, we are.
Chairman Plummer: And you own that property?
Ms. Bianchino: No, sir. We do.
Chairman Plummer: City -owned property. And there's not room in there for the Overtown
Advisory Board?
Ms. Bianchino: The Overtown Advisory Board has an office in the Overtown Shopping Center.
247 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: J.L., you know, the cemetery is really not in Overtown, with all due
respect. I —
Chairman Plummer: No, I understand that.
Commissioner Teele: Well, but you wouldn't really — you don't really mean moving the
Overtown Advisory Board out of Overtown?
Chairman Plummer: Sir, if it meant getting them a place to meet, that they don't have a place and
a place to call their home, yes, sir, I would move it. I think it's that important that they should
have it.
Commissioner Teele: Well, OK. But we have government space in Overtown.
Chairman Plummer: Then use it.
Commissioner Teele: Well, that's— I think that's the question he's asking of the Management. I
understand there were some roof issues and some leaking issues, and some this, and some that,
and, you know, the building is in a very bad state of repair. I've asked repeatedly for a list of the
occupants in that building, and how much they're paying. And I'd renew that request. But what
is the particular problem that the Overtown Advisory Board has with the location that they're in?
I know that they've been talking to Asset Management, I believe? Are you all aware of anything?
Ms. Lori Billberry (Director, Asset Management): They have wanted to remodel the location of
their office, but I mean, they haven't requested anything specific from my office.
Mr. Wilcox: So what is the process? I mean, they haven't asked you to remodel the office, or
what?
Mr. Warshaw: They haven't asked to leave the office. They have an office. They have a
meeting place at the Overtown Shopping Center. I think what we're saying is, we're attempting
to remodel the fagade, as well as the interior of the Overtown Shopping Center. The City has
committed some dollars. I'm not sure how much.
Commissioner Teele: Really?
Mr. Warshaw: But I'm not aware that the Overtown Advisory Board was interested in leaving
there.
Mr. Wilcox: They didn't have a dedicated place, because they met with you. They met with
you. 1.
Ms. Bianchino: Yes, they do, sir.
Mr. Warshaw: Yes.
Ms. Bianchino: They do.
Mr. Wilcox: They presently have one now?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
248 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Wilcox: OK. One last question about the diving boards at Hadley Park. For some time,
these diving boards, high diving boards at the Hadley Park has been in disrepair. And Brother
Griffin has been telling us that they're working on it, they're working on it, they're working on it.
Over two million dollar ($2,000,000) facility. High diving boards are in disrepair. When will
this take place? When will they finally, finally fix it after any number of years?
Mr. Terry Griffin (Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation): Terry Griffin, Assistant Director,
Parks and Recreation. Mr. Wilcox, like you said, we have had conversations about that. What it
is, it's a major design. I won't say a problem, but a mechanism that needs to be put in place.
We've had our Public Works Department looking at that. What we have to do is get back to
them, because unfortunately, with other commitments to Safe Neighborhood Bond Program, and
getting some money set aside for our pools, we hopefully will be getting back to that. But
basically, it's the —
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Mr. Griffin: You know, our engineers went out physically to the pool to look atit, but obviously,
we have not resolved that problem as of yet.
Mr. Warshaw: I'm told it's not a monetary issue. It's an engineering issue. We're looking at it,
and we're going to get them fixed quickly.
Mr. Wilcox: Quickly. All right.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Rosa Green: I said I wasn't going to say anything, but when you
sit —
Chairman Plummer: Your name and address for the record.
Ms. Green: Oh, sorry. _ Very sorry. Rosa Green, 415 Northwest Sixth Street. I'm a resident of
Overtown. And when you say Overtown, that really hits a soft spot in my heart. First of all,
Commissioners, I'm very happy with the concern of Mr. Wilcox. But hear it from me, who have
been attending those Overtown Advisory Board so-called meetings for six years. I have never,
and will never accept the Board. I'm asking you, please, if you're going to call it the Overtown
Advisory Board, set up a Board. And we have been meeting in the Culmer Center Multi -Purpose
Room.
Commissioner Teele: That's a County facility.
Ms. Green: Well, we have not been in that area, that shopping center for— what? — about two
years. I do know that that's a County facility. Mayor Penelas came out and told us that that was
a County facility. Not — not in reference to the Overtown Advisory Board. But what I want to
say, another thing, to piggyback on what Mr. Wilcox said. Overtown has suffered a lot. And
maybe you are moving as fast as you can. But just recently, a lady was raped in one of those
vacant buildings that's right across the street from the Jefferson Reeves Medical Center, which is
a beautiful center. And I wish that a lot of people would visit there. But across the street is an
abandoned building. There are no windows there. And to my understanding, a lady came to my
house and told me that someone was raped there. Her leg was — her arm was broken, or
249 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
something to that. I don't know why we can't get rid of that building, and also the one that's
right across the street from the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office. It is really
deplorable to see those two buildings in Overtown. And the lots are beginning to get overgrown
again. And as —
Chairman Plummer: The lot across the street from the Reeves Health Center, and in litigation
and in foreclosure. That is where they tried to put in the basic training. And it is an absolute
legal nightmare.
Ms. Green: It is. We talking six years.
Chairman Plummer: You happen to be — I go by that thing almost every day. And it is absolutely
— Mr. Manager, that place is — you can't believe it unless you go see it. I mean, it is incredible
that that place is not cleaned and fenced in. It is atrocious.
Ms. Green: And the one on P Avenue across — right near the NET Office is just as bad. And as
someone said earlier, I know you can't do it in two days. In fact, it hasn't been done in years and
years. And I do hope that some of you will look into that and consider the people that live in the
Overtown area. I thank you very much.
Chairman Plummer: All right. I guess the final speaker is —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: On the issues that have been raised, Mr. Manager, I think the Community
Development plan is really a very good product. Ms. Warren said it's one of her best projects. I
think the five-year plan is a very good product. And one of the things that we identify in that plan
is literally the demolition of a lot of these buildings. You know, for years, there's been this great
resistance to demolish these buildings that are architecturally obsolete. They defy the Building
and Zoning regulations, the planning, prudent planning, and there's no reason to keep any of
these buildings if they are unsafe structures, or they're a nuisance, or whatever the appropriate —
And I just want to be on record that these buildings need to be destroyed and razed as soon as
they can, if there's not going to be a use for them, particularly if they don't meet the parking
requirements, or the open space requirements. And the building directly in front of the NET
office just serves as a visual reminder of how inadequate we're doing. I mean, we have a NET
Office that's supposed to be responsible. But the point I want to make is the biggest violators are
right on Third Avenue and 17'" Street. And they're owned by the County. And I mean, I just
think that we need to start talking about demolishing those buildings and putting— I mean, have
they been cited? What is our authority? Every time we have this discussion, everybody wants to
go under the table.
Mr. Warshaw: No. We have been citing aggressively. A lot of them have been demolished.
Commissioner Teele: Have we fined them? Do we have the authority to fine them, Mr.
Attorney?
Mr. Warshaw: I'm going to find out right now on these particular buildings.
250 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
N
Commissioner Teele: I mean, if the State of Florida or Dade County has a building that is not
boarded up, you've got the problems that are being described, you know. The people will take
people in these buildings, abuse them, they'll use them as drug hospitals in a negative way. All
kinds of unsavory conduct goes on. Do we have the authority to just go in there and start
bulldozing after notice some of these County -owned buildings, the same way we're talking about
buildings with private owners? Why should Government look the other way when Government
abuses the public, but we hold taxpayers and the citizens who pay our salaries to a totally
different standard?
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Teele: So can we do that, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Vilarello: If you go through the Unsafe Structures Board process at the end, and you get an
order, yes. Otherwise, you can't bulldoze a building.
Commissioner Teele: Well, have we begun that process, Mr. Manager?
Chairman Plummer: Yes, we have. And let me tell you, they —
Commissioner Teele: No, no, wait, J.L. You're the Chairman, and I respect you. But, you know,
have we begun that process of the unsafe structures as it relates to the County HUD projects that
are sitting up there on Third Avenue and between 15'h and I /Ih? Have we noticed them? And
will somebody give me a copy of the first documents that we've noticed them, that we're
beginning the unsafe structures, or the nuisance, or whatever they are? Have we, Mr. Manager?
Raul Martinez (Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, I don't think we have started the unsafe
structure process.
Commissioner Teele: Have we done the nuisance?
Mr. Martinez: We have contacted the County. We sent you a letter on it.
Commissioner Teele: Have we filed a nuisance under our nuisance ordinance?
Mr. Martinez: I believe we may have taken the first steps under the Nuisance Abatement Board
for the County. The County has promised that they were going to board up all the apartments, the
ones that the boards have been taken away. They have promised that they're going to double up
the maintenance of the grass.
Commissioner Teele: They've been promising, and promising.
Mr. Martinez: I know, sir. You're right, sir.
Commissioner Teele: You know, this is a disgrace. Why should Government be— The County's
got a four billion dollar ($4,000,000,000) budget. Most of these homeowners, most of these
people we're talking about are just barely making ends meet. Why should we penalize people
that are poor? And most of them are not black, by the way. Most of these building owners are
people who came in, and speculated, and invested, and because of the fire fee and economic
changes, it's no longer an incentive. But we need to hold the Government to the same-- A slum
251 SEPTEM 3ER 28, 1999
h
is a slum is a slum. And it doesn't help if the Government owns the slum and it's owned by the
private sector. It does the same amount of damage.
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, not only are you right, we've written some aggressive, almost
threatening letters to the County, to Merritt Stierheim, and some of the responses we got back,
believe it or not, were they can't afford to do it, because they've got budget problems. And that
includes taking care of lots, taking care of medians, taking care of under Metrorail, all the things.
We actually went out with a video camera, sent them tapes so —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, I would respectfully ask if you've gotten such letters like
that, first, you send me and the entire Commission. Secondly, you send copies of this to the
Overtown Advisory Board. Thirdly, you send copies of this to PULSE and other organizations,
because, you know, at the same time, we need to have people to go over to County Hall and talk,
the way they're talking to us, because a lot of these problems aren't ours, they're County
problems.
Mr. Warshaw: I'll make sure you get copies.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Let's get back to budget. Sir, your name and —
Commissioner Regalado: Before we do, just —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Just now that we're talking building, Frank, there's a lot of complaints
about two abandoned buildings in the construction area at Coral Way and 36'" Avenue, the old
cleaners and the old Farm Store. Homeless, drugs, and the place have been boarded up by the
NET. But people break the wood and just go in. And nobody knows why this cannot be
demolished. And so I would hope that you do.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): I'll look into them and see whether —
Chairman Plummer. Sir, your name and mailing address, please.
Gordon Nance: My name is Gordon Nance. 2645 South Bayshore Drive. And earlier this
evening, I heard Commissioner Sanchez say something very revealing. That is that the City has
been mismanaged for 44 years. And I think that's a great first start, to acknowledge it. And
gentlemen, you have a challenge before you. You can change things starting this week and
tonight, and I certainly hope that you do. I was a resident of Coral Gables for over 30 years. And
I lived in a luxury home, four -bedroom home on a deep water canal, no bridges`to the bay type of
thing. And now I live in a two -bedroom apartment here in Coconut Grove. And my taxes are
more now than they were then. So I've been here almost three years, and I've paid a lot of
attention to the Commission meetings. And I've heard all kind of excuses for spending money.
We want to have a parade. We want to have an Orange Bowl event. And I even heard some of
the Commissioners say, yeah, well, let's go ahead and challenge the Oversight Committee. And
gentlemen, it's our money you're spending. It's our money. It's the taxpayers' money.' And I
think you have a responsibility to spend it in a judicious way. And I also heard or read in the'
paper that Commissioner Teele was quoted as saying, "Yes, the citizens of Miami ought to be
mad because of the Oversight Committee intrusion." Well, Commissioner, I disagree. I think
252 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
they're our only hope. And from what I've seen for the three years I've been a citizen of Miami,
if we don't have the Oversight Committee, or unless you guys pick up the reigns and really
manage, then we're all in trouble. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. All right. And your brother-in-law is appreciated for giving
you a big hand. Sir.
Lazaro Guas: Good evening. My name is Lazaro Guas, and I live at 234 Northwest 32°d Avenue.
I been living in this City now since 1987, when I moved down here from New York. And when I
came here, I came here because I wanted to find some peace of mind, you know, have a good
home, good job. And I feel like I'm being driven out of my home here in the City of Miami with
the taxes, with all the fees for — fine fees and the increases in — that we have in public — in solid
waste and all of that. And now you got the Oversight Committee. I mean, I agree that at a certain
point, it was necessary to have the Committee. But right now, I think that actually what the
Committee is doing is stopping you guys from doing your job. So I believe that this Oversight
Committee has got to go. And this is the feeling— I mean, I work with the public. I work for
Dade County. I'm a bus driver. So I drive. up and down the City of Miami. Flagler, Eighth
Street, Northwest Seventh Street. And I know the feeling of the people, you know, in Little
Havana and places like that. I mean, you guys, you guys are trying. I really believe that you guys
are really trying to balance this budget. I mean, you got some real good professionals in this
group right here. I know some of you are. I dealt with you before, Tomas. I mean, I mean, I
think you guys are being stopped. Every time you turn around and you try to do something, this
Oversight Committee is stopping you guys. And I think it's about time the citizens of this City
begin to say something about that, that group. Thank you very much.
Chairman Plummer. All right, sir. Thank you: I guess this is the last speaker.
Manuel "Boom -Boom" Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, I'm the last of the fools.
Chairman Plummer: Of the fools?
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes, because you have to be a fool to be here at 9:30. And the time
before, it was at 3:30. You see? So when you speak, you don't hear. And if you hear, you just
put your head under the sand. Anyway, let me tell you, I was so confused last night. I was not
ready to come here today. And I called my political advisor, Walter Mercado.
Chairman Plummer: That's what I thought.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes. And he told me, give them hell. And my problem is that every
time I open my mouth in these chambers, instead of gaining friends, I'm earning enemies. I gain
enemies. So I have heard here that the budget is bare -boned, cannot be cut. Well, whose opinion
is that? Let me tell you, it's very hard to swallow that, especially in this -poor City of Miami.
And excuse me, but that's the only place I can compare, because I don't know— I don't know the
numbers of Hialeah, or Coral Gables. I know the numbers of the City of San Juan, also a poor
City. And we don't have any kinds of fees there. We just have very low taxes. And in order for
people to move and business to move, they give incentives, tax exemption, property tax
exemption. And here, you get socked with all kinds of fees, directly and indirectly. Basically,
this is a structural problem because — and I tell you the essence. The essence — and this is not the
fast time I come here. I've been coming here and telling you guys the same thing for 20 years,
and nobody have paid attention. After consulting Walter Mercado, please, (unintelligible), Mr.
Plummer. Pay attention now. The problem with the City of Miami is that this is contrary to what
253 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
San Juan is. San Juan, the City of San Juan is very paternalistic with the citizens of San Juan.
And in Miami, the City of Miami is very paternalistic with the employees of the City. So I —
because, I mean, if you tell me — and I don't want to mention names. But all this crowd, if you
show up before one minute and tell me your salary, your benefits, and your double salaries, and
how much is your retirement, then I might even cry for you people. But —
Chairman Plummer: You don't look like Evita.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Huh? Now, I would like to hear that. This is the type of things that I
want to hear. And regarding my best friends, the Police Department, I wonder in what page is the
food for the dogs and the horses. I wonder if they're well fed.
Chairman Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: OK. Thank you. And I would like to hear the answers of your salaries
of these people. I bet there are millions of dollars here in this crowd today, except us, the very
few. So remember, a paternalistic City not for the citizens, but for its employees. And I have to
clarify that point for Mr. Cox. Governments, like trees, start to fall down from the top down, not
from the bottom up. So let's start lowering the salaries from the top down, and then in the middle
or lower, maybe increase it and have some balance. You guys are not paid enough. I have to
admit that. No, no, they are not paid. No, they are not paid enough. They're supposed to get a
five hundred dollar ($500) salary. But you spend too many hours —
Chairman Plummer: Are you finished? -
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Please. The way to finish this is that the most delicious privilege— and
I'm not talking about you guys — the most delicious privilege is spending other people's money.
That, you guys know how to do. I can teach you, if you give me the opportunity, without
charging. Remember what I said the last time, that only ten percent it was— you answered me
that only ten percent of the employees live in here. Ninety percent live out of town. And I ask
for their resignation, to allow the unemployed people, including me, of the City of Miami, to
work for half the salary of those people that live outside in Kendall, and in Pembroke Pines and
all the big cities. So I hope that you get the essence. The cancer— this is a structurally cancered
City. And you should know better, Mr. Plummer, because you have been here sitting in that chair
for 28 years.
Chairman Plummer. Twenty-nine.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Looking for four more. Thank you.
Chairman Plummer. Walter Mercado gets three ninety-nine ($3.99) a minute. How much do you
get?
Mr. Don Derasz: Hi. Don Derasz. 1852 Southwest 20 Street. I came by. There was no sports
on TV, so I was watching this on Channel 9. , A lot of people watch this show. So when you
gentlemen leave and there's no quorum, I came by. I thought I'd give the young lady who spoke
earlier a little support. I used to work with the Homeowners Association, the Silver Bluff
Homeowners Association in their area, and we become active under crisis situations. Gentlemen,
this budget mismanagement, you've got no one to blame but yourselves. You vote the budget. I
understand tonight we still pay more taxes, more in property taxes than the City of Coral Gables.
That's ridiculous. We have Mr. Warshaw today. I got my three minutes. I don't know if I can
254 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
v
trust his judgment. I'm a homeowner. I'm sitting home, watching TV. I read the newspaper. 1
read about this gentleman here. He takes little kids' money and doesn't account forit, spends on
some Panthers tickets.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, sir, sir, please, I'm going to ask you not to be personal.
Mr. Derasz: No, sir, but I just want to get it on the record.
Chairman Plummer: Sir, you can question —
Mr. Derasz: Don't cut me off.
Chairman Plummer: -- the ability of the Administration.
Mr. Derasz: I'm not getting personal. Nobody's — nobody's mentioned it.
Chairman Plummer: Well, it is getting personal when you make those kind of comments, sir.
Mr. Derasz: I'll go on, sir.
Chairman Plummer. All right.
Mr. Derasz: I'll go on, sir.
Chairman Plummer: I don't think it's in order to do that.
Mr. Derasz: I'll go on, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you.
Mr. Derasz: My wife trusts your— asks about your judgment. Back when the Miami Arena was
being built, certain amounts of money were scheduled to spend on that.
Commissioner Teele: I'm leaving before you get to me.
Chairman Plummer: I'm not going anywhere.
Mr. Derasz: Mr. Plummer, you.took that money away and now, we don't have an arena that
meets up to what people would like to see. And we have the Panthers left, the Miami Heat left,
and now, we have a white elephant. I understand that today, gentlemen, you listened about
garbage disposal in commercial, and also multi -residential areas. And I ask, did anybody bring
up the fact about when you require companies to come up and have to pick up from .multi -
residential areas garbage, and they have these dipsy dumpsters in the residential area, what are
these people supposed to do with these big containers? Can't you guys come up with a — and
ladies come up with a concept where they can hide these containers so that they're not on the
street, they're not in an area where everybody coming down the street has to see these things?
Chairman Plummer: All of them in the public right-of-way are being ticketed, sir.
255 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
.,
Mr. Derasz: I mean, that doesn't take a lot of brains to come up with. That would be nice.
Finally, when Mayor Carollo was in office the last time as a Commissioner— what? — about 12,
15 years ago, we ended up —
Chairman Plummer. 1985.
Mr. Derasz: Thank you, sir. We ended up with a lot of billboards over on the west side of I-95.
And I was here to speak against them. Now, I notice we have all these billboards coming up on
the east side of I-95, by Carter Billboards.
Commissioner Teele: He's back.
Mr. Derasz: Pardon me?
Commissioner Teele: He's back.
Mr. Derasz: He's back. And I said, hey, we're going to have his face on there, liquor, cigarettes
and — whoa, there we go. Anyway, are we generating any money for this City that's bankrupt
from theses billboards that are suddenly coming up on the east side of I-95, that I never saw come
up before at public hearing? Because they are blocking the view of people going south on I-95,
blocking the view of our beautiful magic City, the City of Miami. Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you, sir. And for the record, the City is not bankrupt. I would like to
be bankrupt with a six million dollar ($6,000,000) surplus, but I can't do it. Is there anybody else
that wishes to speak?
Commissioner Teele: Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I really would like for the Planning Department, at the appropriate time, to
comment. I mean, is there any truth to these billboards on the east side of 95?
Chairman Plummer: Can we address that later, sir? Let's get budget finished, please.
Commissioner Teele: Well, this is budget. I mean, are we getting revenues from those
billboards? That's the question.
Mr. Derasz: The time to do it, Commissioner —
Commissioner Teele: Not now, not now. At the appropriate time.
Chairman Plummer: Thank you. All right. Anyone else wishing to make any comments? If not,
I'll close the public hearing on Item 23. Amend the budget, the tentative budget, if necessary.
Mr. Vilarello: You have to adopt the millage rate.
Chairman Plummer: All right, adopt the millage. Read the entire millage ordinance. Sir, my
Item D, Number 1, is amend the adopted tentative budget, if necessary. That's my Number 1. .
And to adopt the millage is Number 3.
256 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Vilarello: You can discuss the budget. Before you adopt the budget, you have to adopt the
final millage rate.
Chairman Plummer: All right. So.
t
Mr. Vilarello: You would be in order if you want to move on to discussion of the budget now.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Anyone wishing to discuss anything in the budget? All right.
What's the next item?
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a couple of questions..,
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: In looking at the five-year plan, and looking at;the projections that you
have for revenues, it's a lot lower than what they actually are.
Mr. Warshaw: I'm sorry, I just didn't hear the very tail of what he said.
Mr. Vilarello: Projections are lower than they actually are.
Mr. Warshaw: In which year?
Mr. Vilarello: In the five-year plan..
Vice Chairman Gort: Looking at the projection that was adopted; and passed, and approved by
the Oversight Board, in the year 2000, you had the income. of four hundred and twenty-two
million, seven forty-one, six sixty-five ($422,741,665). _ So you had expenditure for the same
amount.
Chairman Plummer: Always.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. So that was the balanced budget presented. But our budget
today is four hundred and seventy-seven million dollars ($477,000,000). So there's a difference
there between what was the five-year plan adopted by them and what we presented today., Am I
correct or
-,; :.. .. K ..-. .
Ms. Bertha Henry (Assistant City Manager): This is Bertha Henry, Assistant City Manager for
Finance Administration. I'll be happy to go through that specifically with you: --But what has,
transpired throughout the various processes, as additional revenue is derived, the expenses— and
that's probably not technically expenses — but the revenues equal expenses, and so, the budget. is
balanced by putting the money into the surplus area. And for — in that document, specifically, the
Oversight Board has traditionally delayed any real review of the Community Development- Grant .
Program, because those are all Federally funded programs. And we — that's a subsequent review
that we go through, because it's not — you know, it doesn't affect the — this tax base.
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand that, but my understanding is that this was adopted, and was
passed by them and approved by them..... z; . - �= , t, - , .... .. ;
Ms. Henry: Yes.
257 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Vice Chairman Gort: And there is a variance. And, I mean, we're not following the way it was
presented and approved by them.
Mr. Henry: There has been —
Vice Chairman Gort: There is a variance. It doesn't say anything about this variance now.
Ms. Henry: Commissioner, there has been a variety of different adjustments to those documents
as the time goes by, specifically with respect to parking surcharge.
Vice Chairman Gort: But what I'm trying to get to is— and I've stated it from the first time that I
was here — you can have your five-year budget projected. They're all projected, and there will
always be changes. We can see it right here in the year 2000.
Ms. Henry: Yes. Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: How much is the actual total budget for the coming year?
Mr. Warshaw: Well, before we answer that, I know you asked the question about what was
published in the newspaper.
Chairman Plummer: Exactly what I did.
Mr. Warshaw: And again, we talked about it being a living document. It went from 468 to 477.
The 468 was prepared back in June. By the time we went to publication this month, it was 477.
What the majority of that was, was the allowances for the parking surcharge, which, of course,
was revenue that was not anticipated. And, of course, the lowering of the millage is also a
reflection on the expense side. And I think there are some other items in there, as well.
Ms. Henry: The most significant one, Commissioners, has to do with the CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency). We, in the initial budget, we used the budget for the CRA that was the
same as last year, because the CRA had just hired this new director, and they were going through
the process of evaluating their budget. We now subsequently have a budget in the thirteen
million dollar ($13,000,000) range. So it's like eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) higher than
what was in the June number. That's by far the significant largest increase in that.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Anybody awake?
Commissioner Sanchez: Bertha, if you'd— We do have projected projects, like the J.W. Marriott,
the Ritz Carlton, and some of these projects that are going up. When would we, as a City, be
anticipating getting, recovering revenues from those? Are they projected? And in which year's
budget would that be projected in? There are — I think there's four or five off those projects that
are up?
Ms. Henry: Well this — Once again, Commissioner, the methodology that we have used with the
Estimating Conference has been to look at our historical collections on property taxes. And in the
case of those new projects, we — in FY'00, the base increased substantially. -And therefore, our
overall average was skewed. So they allowed us to use a higher average than normal, but not
significantly higher.
258 SEPTEMBER 28,1999
Mr. Warshaw: Let me just elaborate on this a little bit. When the budget is put together, there's a
lot of input included from people in the Planning Department. Every time new projects go into
the ground with anticipated completion dates where we know what year they're going to go on
the tax roll, we come up with projected numbers, and those numbers go into the five-year plan.
So what will probably happen, and hopefully, as development increases in the City, that five-year
plan going out further will show enhanced revenues, as new projects go in. And we know there
are certain. things now that are in the planning stage, but not significant enough in the planning
stage to be able to build that revenue stream into the five-year plan. But once a shovel goes into
the ground, and we have an expected completion date, we start to do revenue estimates,
particularly if it's residential, housing, if it's condominiums. And those numbers go right in. So
they're definitely part of a long-term planning process.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, have you been able to reduce the budget in any way from the last
month when we basically -- And I want to state something for the record, Mr. City Manager. I
want you to answer my question. Going back several months, I have sent you memos, and I have
been very concerned with the workmen's comp issue.: And that was a concern to the budget.
That was one of the items that I felt that there was a red flag, and we needed to address, because
the City was spending nine point three million dollars ($9.3 million)- on the workmen' comp
issue. I also sent you., some other memos concerning a . lot of the phone calls that were too
expensive...I complained about the office. supply that was— we were able to -reduce. So I have,
through the past, in many ways, have sent many memos to you pertaining to the budget and how
money was spent in the City. I have been very conscious of how money has been spent. I made
very strong arguments on revenues coming in and expenditures going out, to a point where you
received a lot of memos from my office now. One thing that I have great concern is, you know,
once again, today, we were able to, through a process which .was not easy, to come — to bring
revenue to the City of close to two point five or two point four million dollars ($2.4 million).
And correct me, ballpark figure. I don't know the exact amount, but there was money coming in. -
You know, that, again, goes to something that I have always said, that we are able to reduce the
budget. Just alone in the three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) that was included in
the garbage, now that's going to be in -kind donations, so that's money that could be reduced.
And yet, as of today, have you made any reductions to the budget?
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, I'm going to answer that in two ways. When the last budget year
started, I remember we had discussion, and there's a lot of tongue in cheek comments made about
people in Government spend every penny you give them. And I know there were some
comments made, and I fully understand them. You give someone a million, they're going to
spend a million. You give them a million and a half, they're going to spend more. When you
conducted the budget hearing and all the directors came up, in addition to them telling yowthat
they didn't have the money to give back and cut, they told you why. Every one of the directors
has not only saved money, but we're coming in this year with a' surplus of five to six million,
dollars ($6,000,000). So while the savings might not be realized here in September by taking a
cut, that surplus is enabling us to dedicate those monies to Risk Management, reserves for next
year, and built into next year's budget, although you never know for sure if it was a reserve: Of
course, it's been reduced as a result of the fire fee... But I'd like to say on behalf of the
Administration and the staff, who, one by one, came before all of you, and that night, every one
of them has been conscious and aware. And keep in mind, those 200 vacancies, although they're
different vacancies, were able to do the work of the City. And I think in a pretty good way, even
though there's a lot of comments made about the Parks Department, and the Fire Department and
NET, but you know some of the things we've been able to accomplish, and we were able to do it
without those 200 positions being filled, and that's the reason why. I- gave you as an- option.
Unfortunately -- and .I want to go into a little bit about why the Oversight Board is refusing to
259 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
accept that. It's not an across-the-board cut, because across the board would mean salary cuts for
all employees. When I proposed to the Estimating Conference of the Oversight Board that we
give back, or take, or look at the possibility of reduction of some of those positions, that's not just
the Financial Oversight Board. It's an Oversight Board that's put enormous pressure on us about
things like technology, and infrastructure, and that has given strategic blue ribbon initiative
directives. And it's really been hard on us as — maybe even harder than they are on the financial
side. So for example, if there's an inspector position, or an accountant position, they want us to
tell them what the impact is going to be by taking that position away. What they're looking for
are things like technology will now enable us to have 30, or 40 or 50 people fewer next year. But
right now, we're not in a position. And obviously, they were dissatisfied with our answers. And
we spent three hours with them on the phone, going through those vacant positions. And they
said we didn't give enough to them to convince them that the City is not going to be hurt, because
their commitment is to build them back, rebuild the infrastructure. I'm not saying that they think
we have too few employees, too many. They haven't quantified it in terms of numbers. But what
they're saying is, we don't want you to cut unless you can come back to us and say what's the
long-term strategic impact. And that's a tall order for that Board now.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, wait. We can't be living on a champagne taste on a beer budget.
That's to start off with. And that's something that I have— I have agreed on some issues with the
Oversight and I've disagreed on some issues. The 200 vacant positions that are empty now, I
mean, to get them out I -- And once again, in comparing our Goverment to a corporation, I
mean, any situation outside of Government, people would have tightened up their belts, they
would have frozen positions. They would have done everything possible to do more with less.
And to the point is that they're telling us that we have to hire these people. You know, is it really
fair? Do we need to hire all those people? Can't we just leave 100 positions vacant for now?
You know, that's —
Mr. Vilarello: I don't think the Financial Oversight Board is saying that we have to hire the 200
positions. What they're saying is that these 200 positions deal with and address some of the
structural problems that we've had in Government and management. And the Blue Ribbon
Committees and those committees are— have identified some deficiencies that we have in middle
management. And the Oversight Board is concerned that a summary freeze of those positions
may not adequately address some of the issues that the Blue Ribbon Committees described.
Commissioner Regalado: Could Commissioner Sanchez yield just a second, please? I was— I
was there. The Manager — and Bertha, you were not able to tell them, to respond to their question
— are these positions so necessary that it would endanger the safety and health of the citizens and
residents of Miami? You, Mr. Manager, said that you were not — you didn't have the time —
that's the word that you used. You need more time to assess those positions. They were not
saying, Mr. Attorney, that these positions — you were there. I was there. I, by training, I'm
supposed to remember quotes. So I remember all the quotes that you, Mr. Manager, said; you,
Bertha, you, Mr. Attorney. They did not say that these positions, if we eliminate them, were
critical. They asked, and the Management and the Administration were not able to tell them,
because they didn't have the time. Is that —
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, respectfully, the issue of the health and welfare of the City, I think
that was a quote from Commissioner Sanchez at the Saturday budget hearing. You're right.
They did ask the question about mission critical. And we were not able to quantify for them.
That was even before a three-hour phone call before the Oversight Board meeting. And what
they are basically saying, you heard Shelley Schneider long distance basically singing the same
tune as he has many times. And that is that the City got into trouble because it didn't have a build
260 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
m
up of its mid -level management people, and they were not willing to let those positions go. And
you're right, we didn't have the time to give them a quantifiable answer. I can't tell them, for
example, in those vacancies — well, I can on PSA's (Public Service Aides), for example. 'There
are 34 public service aides, reduced from some level of 70. We know, of course, that if we were
to eliminate those 34 PSA's who now have benefits what the impact is going to be in the Police
Department. What it means is sworn police officers are going to have to be answering those calls
for service, which is going to impact the infrastructure of the police. There's ten or 12 or 13 code
enforcement inspectors. There's a couple of accountants in there. And if you go through all
those positions and you look at them all, it's not that simple to be able to justify to that Board that
there's not going to be any impact on the infrastructure of the City. I understand I come here and
I — and I talk before you, you're looking at it differently than they are. And that's — and I
understand we're serving —
Commissioner Regalado: No, but Mr. Manager, that's the same Shelley Schneider that over the
phone — not this meeting, but two meetings ago, I was there, Commissioner Sanchez was there,
said that you need to get either new revenues or reduce expenses. That is the same person, isn't
it? So what we're saying, I think, is that first of all, they do not consider those positions as
critical for the health and safety of the people of Miami. They do not. They asked. Second, that
is the same Mr. Schneider that also said that either you get new revenues or reduce expenses.
And what we are trying to do here is reduce expenses. Now, if they have changed their opinion,
if Mr. Schneider has a change of heart, well, that's — you know, that's very different. But what I
heard three weeks or four weeks ago, and what I heard yesterday, that, I remember.
Ms. Henry: The other thing that was pointed out, and it's important that we point out again
today, the Oversight Board devalued those positions in the sense that we have, for the first time, a
budgeted attrition of four point two million ($4.2 million). So the value, which they quickly
pointed out to me at the Revenue Estimating Conference, as well as at the Oversight Board
meeting, you really don't have six point eight million ($6.8 million), or whatever the number ends
up being. You have to take into consideration that we have forced attrition of four point two
million ($4.2 million) as part of the budget. And the only way that occurs is if those positions
exist. And in order for those positions at this point to generate that kind of attrition, they expect a
certain level. Now, obviously, if we eliminate some positions, we begin to bring the budget in
balance. But we also have to take into consideration, which they made it very clear to me, that
you're not going to be able to take credit for that kind of attrition, which just offsets and makes
the deficit, you know.
Mr. Warshaw: And Commissioner, the Oversight Board relies heavily on PFM. We spent three
hours with them on the phone. It was an open conference call we made, and there were lots of
people on the line. We made a passionate plea on behalf of the City to look at those positions,
and at the end of the day, they said there's not enough there for them to hang their hat on. They
didn't even allow one position to go.
1
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager, if I may, just —
Commissioner Sanchez: Who didn't? Who didn't allow one position to go?
Mr. Warshaw: The Estimating Conference. And the Estimating Conference is pretty much
driven, you know, by PFM, who is the financial advisor to the Oversight Board.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager.
261 SEPTEM 3ER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Who they pay and don't listen to.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, just— just — The problem, the problem that we have is
just the lack of information, because these are very busy people, very important people. They
don't live in the City of Miami, none of them, so they can't watch the City Commission meetings.
And — because when they were talking about the fire fee, they all were talking about not buying
new equipment, and not helping the infrastructure of the Fire Department. And then the
representative from the auditing firm said, "Wait a minute, you know, you have to understand that
the City Commission meant that you leave the budget for the Fire Department, but you take the
four million point two ($4.2 million) out of other areas, so you can..."— so they were under the
impression, all of them, the 45 minutes of the discussion, they all were misinformed. Am I
correct?
Ms. Henry: Part of the — part of the discussion.,
Commissioner Regalado: Part? No. I am correct, because I'm telling you, I was there. And
until that person — I don't know what's his name —
Ms. Henry: Mr. Canary.
Commissioner Regalado: Whatever. He said, you know, the City Commission meant this, and
this, and this, and this. Ah. So they realized. So they were not informed. And I— and the point
I'm trying to make is that why, why we said yesterday and we're saying today, well they will not
accept this, they will not accept that, if they don't know? I mean, they don't have the
information. They guess. I mean, they were wrong when they were talking about us cutting the
Fire Department budget. They didn't know what they were talking about. And somebody had to
come and tell them the right thing. So my point, Mr. Manager, is that we should — I don't know —
proceed with the way that the City Commission directed you to reduce the budget. That's it.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, if I can.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Vilarello: Because in the conversation with the Oversight Board, although I asked them the
question about whether or not they would accept anything other than increased revenues, they
didn't really answer the question. In their letter to the Manager — and I believe that copies have
been furnished by the Manager — you'll see in their second item, they do indicate that they will
consider either increased recurring revenues or expenditure cuts. What they're looking for is not
only addressing the proposed budget, but also addressing the five-year forecast, and how those
expenditure cuts will be addressed over the five-year forecast, as well. So I think,
notwithstanding the comments that the Oversight Board made, I think that in their writing, they're
saying that they will certainly consider appropriate expenditure cuts in consideration of a budget.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK, let me ask a question. The last time we were here, I've asked, and I've
asked of all the directors that are here to analyze their department. Now, for the first time in a
long time, or forever, they have a comprehensive understanding of their budget, what they have
for the budget, what's being assigned to them. So they, better than anybody else, know who they
need, how they need it, and how they can use it. A lot of times, it's just misusing your resources.
A lot of times, it's maximizing on your resources, or restructuring your resources. For example,
I've asked for the last three years that Sanitation should look into the— we have four pickups a
week, two garbage, one trash, one recycling. We should look into it and see if we can make any
262 SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
changes to save it. So what we're asking of our departments is that according to today, today, we
have acquired one point two, one point three additional million dollars. Am I correct?
Mr. Warshaw: One point two five. That's without —
Vice Chairman Gort: One point two five. What will be the recurring revenues on this contract
for the next five years?
Mr. Warshaw: I'm sorry. I don't —
Vice Chairman Gort: This contract, for the next five years, will be increased, because there's
other buildings —
Mr. Warshaw: One point two five will be recurring revenues and the like.
Vice Chairman Gort: Recurring revenues, but at the same time, when you put into your
projections the building that will be coming on board, and the housing that's going to be coming
on board with the new building permits, when you bill that into the —
Mr. Warshaw: Right.
Vice Chairman Gort: -- when you bill that into those number for the five-year plan.
Mr. Warshaw: It will be a proportionate increase.
Vice Chairman Gort: Proportionate increase. OK. Now, my understanding is there's a
recommendation from the Mayor when he talked about some of the overtime from the police can
be paid from other sources, and he talked about two million dollars ($2,000,000).
Mr. Warshaw: And I'd like to go over— I'd asked Commissioner Plummer— the four items on
the Mayor's memo.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Mr. Warshaw: Starting with the first one, which were the Orange Bowl naming rights, and I'd
like to move forward on that and look into what that could be, because certainly, that has the
potential to be a continuous, you know, recurring item. I don't know if — you know, how realistic
that is for this year, but certainly, we're going to make an effort. And that's something we'll
move forward with.
Vice Chairman Gort: Maybe half of the year.
Mr. Warshaw: As far as the two million dollars ($2,000,000) in Law Enforcement Trust Funds,
I'm going to ask Chief O'Brien. My guess is on this that it would probably be acceptable as a
nonrecurring one-time expense, but probably not as a recurring, ongoing revenue stream. But I'll
have to —
Vice Chairman Gort: My question, in the past, what has been the average income that you have
received from this fund in the last past five years?
263 . SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
William E. O'Brien (Chief, Police Department): In the past five years, the average income has
been just over four million dollars ($4,000,000) a year.
Vice Chairman Gort: Over four million dollars ($4,000,000). And so it could-- say it could be a
recurring fund. Let's cut it to two million dollars ($2,000,000).
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, the Law Enforcement Trust Fund cannot be used as an anticipated
budgeted item on an annual basis. It's intended to be for unbudgeted funds. In other words, it
would not be appropriate to forecast in the five-year plan recurring revenues from the LETF (Law
Enforcement Trust Fund) Fund for that purpose.
Chairman Plummer. Let's see if we can get by one year. How much is it? What's the balance of
the fund today?
Chief O'Brien: Approximately four point nine million.
Chairman Plummer. And why did you come up with the magical number oftwo million and not
three or one? What is the reason that that number was chosen, rather than, say, deplete the whole
thing and put it towards the general fund?
Chief O'Brien: The fast time I saw this document was a couple of hours ago. I didn't comeup
with the two million dollars ($2,000,000). r.
Chairman Plummer. Oh, you didn't? Oh, I'm sorry. It says here that this was done with your
concurrence.
Chief O'Brien: I think it meant with the concurrence of the Chief, it could be done. I haven't
spoken to anyone on this issue.
Mr. Vilarello: It qualifies it. It says— I haven't seen the document until it was distributed, but it
says with Chief O'Brien's consent.
Mr. Warshaw: Right.
Mr. Vilarello: Indicating that it would require Chief O'Brien's —
Chairman Plummer: It would require your consent? Oh, OK. Then that makes a difference.
Mr. Warshaw: These were initiatives that were proffered by the Mayor. There is a chart, a
schematic that basically shows a projection of revenue based on some history for a 12-month
period. There is also, in that same chart, based upon history, the expenditures coming out of that
fund for things like the forfeiture fund, which pays salaries, protracted investigations, rental cars,
what have you. And you can see at the end of that year that there is the potential for funding
that's available. And I've asked the Chief, as a result of this, to look into this and evaluate what,
if anything can be done, and whether there are legal means he can use these monies.
Vice Chairman Gort: I have the floor.
Chairman Plummer: I'm sorry, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
264 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Proceed, but don't be so slow.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Well, I got to listen. I've got to be courteous, and I have to listen to
the Administration. OK?
Chairman Plummer: And we would expect nothing less.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. So that could be incorporated into this years -- You're
going to check with him and see how much you can utilize of this.
Mr. Warshaw: Right. But not as a recurring revenue source.
Vice Chairman Gort: Not as a recurring revenue, but —
Mr. Warshaw: It could be incorporated as a one-time non -recurring, which could certainly help
the surplus.
Vice Chairman Gort: Sure. OK. Because what they're worried about, my understanding is that
according to the budget that we passed, the surplus, instead of being six million dollars
($6,000,000) or four million dollars ($4,000,000) is going to be only two million dollars
($2,000,000) for this year.
Mr. Warshaw: That's correct.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Chief O'Brien: One thing I'd like to say. Two issues, actually, I'd like to say. One is there are
four point nine million dollars ($4.9 million). We have about four point seven ($4.7 million)
committed on a historic basis for programs. So if we did do this, we'd all have to say which of
these we're not going to do. Which of the programs that are very beneficial programs for the
community, aren't we going to do? The second item is —
Chairman Plummer. Well, then, let's ask you the question very simply. Would you consent to
two million?
Chief O'Brien: Well, the second item is, as I said, I just saw this document a couple of hours ago.
I'm all in favor of doing what the police Department can do to help this budget.
Chairman Plummer: That doesn't answer our question.
Chief, O'Brien: I don't know what legal restrictions may be on it.
Chairman Plummer. Well, we're trying to figure backwards, as I understand it.
Mr. Warshaw: But I want to again —
Chairman Plummer: And we needed "X," and we keep backing out each item. And if the Chief
can't tell us, as proposed by the Mayor, that we could have two million dollars ($2,000,000)
there, then I don't see that we can back it out.
265 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Warshaw: Well, regardless. of what we can have, whether it's a million, two million, a half a
million, what I'm saying is it will not qualify as part of— at least what the Oversight Board is
saying — as a recurring revenue stream. It will —
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand.
Mr. Warshaw: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand that. Now —
Commissioner Regalado: But still you're going to put it on it. Still —
Mr. Warshaw: We'll look at it immediately.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. We have to do it tonight.
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no.
Mr. Warshaw: It can't be done tonight.
Vice Chairman Gort: The second thing —
Commissioner Regalado: What do you mean it can't be done tonight?
Mr. Warshaw: We would have to evaluate —
Commissioner Teele: You cut yourself off. You said it will — You said it won't count for a five-
year plan, recurring.
Mr. Warshaw: It won't count for a recurring revenue source.
Commissioner Teele: But will it count for this year? That's the question right —
Commissioner Regalado: That's what he said. He said that it would count for this year. That's
what I'm saying.
Mr. Warshaw: I said it will count as a one-time non -recurring revenue source to move into the
surplus. But the Oversight Board will not accept it as a recurring revenue stream for fiscal year
2000 and beyond.
Commissioner Teele: So what you're saying is, forget the fiscal— the recurring for a minute. I
agree that it cannot count for recurring for FY 2001 and out. Can it count as a revenue source for
FY 2000, for the Oversight Board purposes?
Mr. Vilarello: I don't know if for the Oversight Board purposes, but I can answer the question.
Chairman Plummer: You know hereve — You know, you know, let me tell you something right
now. Here is the greatest fallacy of this setup. We are sitting here asking, will they or won't
they? What in God's name is their hesitation to sit on this side of the table, or I'll sit there and
they sit here, that we say to them, is this acceptable, and we don't have to wait three days to get
an answer, or two days to get an answer? This system that we are trying to operate under isn't
266 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
working. I mean, Mr. Teele, you asked to show where I asked them to meet, and I think the Clerk
sent you the proof of it. How do we know? You know, we're trying to second guess what those
five people have on their minds. It is foolhardy.
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Sanchez — Mr.
Vice Chairman Gort: I think I had the floor.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: I had the floor, and I'd like to keep it, as I speak very little. Going back to
in the private sector. You do your projections according to your historical. Now, historical, how
far back can we go with these funds?
Mr. Warshaw: Twenty years.
Chief O'Brien: Twenty years.
Vice Chairman Gort: Twenty years?
Chief O'Brien: The amount —
Vice Chairman Gort: The average has been four million dollars ($4,000,000)?
Chief O'Brien: No.
Vice Chairman Gort: No. OK.
Chief O'Brien: Only for the last five years.
Vice Chairman Gort: For the last five years.
Chief O'Brien: Actually, it's been much lower prior to that.
Vice Chairman Gort: But for the last five years, Chief, you're saying that it's been four million
dollars.
Chief O'Brien: Correct, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: So for the last five years, we've averaged four million dollars in these
revenues?
Chief O'Brien: That's correct.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. My second question to you — and this is directed to the — actually, to
the directors of the departments. You — it's been very difficult for you to justify the 200
placements that we have. But I think each department can tell you how they could reconstruct --
what they can do with employees, and see how much they really need, and what would be the key
people, so you can have an argument when you go in front of them and tell them, look, this, we
267 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
might not need now. We might need them within three years. We don't need them today. We
don't need them tomorrow. And I think it's very important that you get together with the
Director of the departments. That's all.
Chairman Plummer: All right, who's next?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Chairman Plummer: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: I'd like to ask the City Attorney to give some input, please.
Chairman Plummer. Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: With regard to the use of the LETF funds, we have to be cautious that we don't
take and put two million dollars ($2,000,000) into the budget and remove — take LETF, two
million dollars ($2,000,000) from LETF and then put it into the budget, and just remove two
million dollars ($2,000,000) from a particular line item of the Police Department budget, because
that specifically is — LETF expenditures are intended to be an enhancement to the crime fighting
ability. So dollar for dollar —
Vice Chairman Gort: That's why we're asking maybe to look at it, because the recommendation
is to utilize this money for overtime; in other words, back into the Police, not into any other
department.
Commissioner Teele: Well, Mr. Attorney, you see, I heard Commissioner Plummer's statement,
and I agree with what he's saying about the way we've done this now, at least for the last two
fiscal years, is just not working. But that doesn't really deal with the issue that is at hand. And
the issue at hand is really a legal question, based upon State law, and that is, can the Law
Enforcement Trust Fund be used for items as outlined in the Mayor's memorandum with a
positive budget impact? Now, before you answer, Chief, when I was the Chairman of the County
Commission, I proposed -- and I will admit, over the Manager's strong objection and over the
Miami Herald Editorial Board's strong objection — that we have take-home police cars in the
County. The fiscal impact of that was eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000). That was the
number. And it took us 18 months to get it done, but we finally went ahead and did it. And the
way we wound up doing it is that the Police Chief voluntary agreed — and how he and the
Manager worked it out, I don't know and don't really care to know — that the Law Enforcement
Trust Fund would pay for all of the new cars for the fast round. In other words, the capital cost
of the new cars for every police officer in Dade County was about — including radios, and
antennas, and Goodyear tires, I guess — they didn't do that. I shouldn't throw them in that soup.
But the kick was that's what it cost. That was a plan. It was a plan that was approved by the
Police Chief. It was a capital plan. It was outlayed over four years, and it had a positive impact
on the County's budget; that is, rather than the County paying for this out of its capital funds or
out of the GSA (General Services Administration) capital funds, it paid for it that way. Can you
think of any program that would be similar in the County — in the City that we could look at?
Because I understand what the City Manager is saying and the City Attorney is saying, is that we
can't just say we're — First of all, we don't have the legal authority to commit Law Enforcement
Trust Funds at this time. That's my understanding. However, if you were to go back tonight and
come back in the next 30 minutes after reviewing the budget, and look at a program that is an
enhancement program — that is, it's not — but it's a flip of the coin. You could submit to us
tonight a capital plan or a plan that would be a legitimate use of the Law Enforcement Trust
268 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Fund. But to just say we're going to put two million dollars ($2,000,000) of Law Enforcement
Trust Fund funds, I think we have a legal problem doing that, and I think that's what the City
Attorney is saying. And that has nothing to do with the Oversight Board, or will they accept it or
will they not. The State law is very clear. We cannot order you, sir, and neither can the Manager
order you, sir, to expend Law Enforcement Trust Fund monies.
Commissioner Plummer. But we do hold the approval over his recommendation.
Commissioner Teele: But we do have the right to approve the recommendations that he makes.
And if his — it is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer that has jurisdiction over that, and his solely
to make those recommendations. And respectfully, Chief O'Brien, I'm asking you to work with
our Budget Office tonight, and to see if there is any program that could be fashioned as a one
paragraph kind of memo that you believe would be appropriate. If you don't believe it won't be
appropriate, there is nothing we can do about it, and I'll still respect you, and I have a tremendous
amount of respect for you. But I don't think we can sit here now and say we're going to put two
million dollars ($2,000,000) of Law Enforcement Trust Fund in our budget and balance it. I do
think you could come to us, if there is a program that we are currently planning with general
funds that is appropriate, and that you personally believe would enhance, given our overall budget
position, that we could do that. Having said that, Mr. Manager, Mr. Director, there are a number
of documents that I requested tonight. I am waiting for those documents. It's 10:29. At 5
o'clock, we were supposed to have had them. I would hope that everyone would have gotten
those documents distributed, one of which is the five-year plan for last year, the current year, et
cetera. Do we have that document here, the full five-year plan, Ms. Henry?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: For last year and the current year. I think I have the one for the year before
that. And whether — yes, ma'am. And can you tell me in that plan, does it say that we will or we
won't issue bonds? Because I really think that the Management needs to be very, very candid.
And if we're silent on it, we're silent on it.
Mr. Warshaw: The issue —
Commissioner Teele: But you cannot have a savings on bond issues based upon the instability —
quote — instability of Government or the change in the Charter, or all those things that we said
we're not going to issue bonds. So what's the answer, ma'am, and what page is it on?
Mr. Warshaw: I'll let Julie answer that.
Commissioner Teele: I'm sorry, Mr. Manager, to you. •
Mr. Warshaw: The comment that you had made earlier that was a quote, I think, in the
newspaper had to do with refinancing some debt, and if we were able to refinance it, there was a
savings, I believe, in the area of a million dollars ($1,000,000). But I'll let Julie address the five-
year plan issue.
Julie Weatherholtz (Director, Finance): Julie Weatherholtz, Finance Director. I'll get you the
page number in the five-year plan.
Commissioner Teele: What is the page number?
269 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
1Z
Ms. Weatherholtz: I'll get that for you. We're looking it up.
Commissioner Teele: OK. That's where we'd like to start, ma'am.
Vice Chairman Gort: Julie, did you know which particular bond issues of the City could be
refinanced? And what was the interest?
Ms. Weatherholtz: Yes. We — I can't name them for you right -- without my documents. But
we have reviewed some. And we feel that if we could refinance —
Commissioner Teele: Hold on, ma'am. Hold on one minute. The issue is not— I mean, I can
give you four bonds that could be refinanced. I mean, we have that from Mayor Suarez' era, of at
least three bonds and an analysis by a financial advisor of at least three bonds that could have
been refinanced. The question is not what can be refinanced. The question is, under our plan,
can we refinance? And did we —
Ms. Weatherholtz: Absolutely, Commissioner. And it -- the page numbers are 122 and 123.
And it specifically states that currently, the City is not issuing any new debt instruments. It does
not say we cannot. It just says that currently, we are not issuing them.
Commissioner Teele: So we --
Ms. Weatherholtz: So, yes, we could move forward. We could issue new debt issuances. As far
as the comment that was in the newspaper, that comment was limited to refinancing debt issues
that we currently have outstanding.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Let me ask you this: Madam Director, do we have a financial advisor
on board?
Ms. Weatherholtz: We are currently in the process of selecting one. We do not have one on
board.
Commissioner Teele: OK. I'm going to ask the question one more time. It's 10:30. Do we have
a financial advisor on board?
Ms. Weatherholtz: We are currently in the process of selecting one. We do not have one on
board.
Commissioner Teele: OK. I'm going to ask the question one more time. It's 10:30.
Ms. Weatherholtz: We do not have one on board.
Commissioner Teele: Do we have a financial advisor on board?
Ms. Weatherholtz: We do not have one on board.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Isn't it true that in most cities, .you don't issue bonds without a
financial advisor?
Ms. Weatherholtz: That would be my recommendation.
270 SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
Commissioner Teele: OK. So my view is, until — unless and until we have a financial advisor,
we're not going to be issuing bonds, anyway. And we have been —
Ms. Weatherholtz: In conjunction with our debt rating.
Commissioner Teele: And we have been getting ready — Mayor Suarez walked in here and
announced that we were going to hire a financial advisor. We've been hiring a financial advisor
since I was elected. In fact, didn't he go to Washington or New York with a big limousine, and
was quoted with a big financial advisor firm, and they flew around New York City and all that?
So, I mean, you know, we've been getting ready to do a financial advisor for at least two and a
half years. And the point is -- and I'm not quarrelling — I think we're on the right track. But for
the media and for the Management to continue to say that if it weren't going to be for this change
in the Charter that we could save a million dollars ($1,000,000) is absolutely an incorrect
statement. It is a categorical misstatement, and I think everybody that understands that would
understand agree that there can be no bonds issued until we have ourselves and our house in
order, to be able to do that. Now, once we have a financial advisor, and once we do all these
things, then that's fair conversation and fair game. And I just think we need to put on the record
tonight that we have said that we're not doing this until we have a financial advisor. As it relates
to the Mayor's memorandum, Mr. Attorney, Mr. Manager, I would like to sponsor a resolution
that accepts the Mayor's recommendations to the extent that they can be. Can you tell us how
much these recommendations would have a positive impact as it relates to this year's budget?
Because I think we need to deal with the Mayor's recommendation seriously, and with some
deference. Can anybody — Ms. Henry, can you tell us what the financial implication of the
Mayor's recommendations are this year? With the exception of the one that we've already done,
before we even got the memo, and that was on the —
Commissioner Plummer: On the garbage.
Commissioner Teele: — on the garbage. We did that before we got the memo. The remaining
recommendations which I would move to accept as a resolution, what would be the financial
implication tonight, as it relates to the FY 2000 budget if we were to implement them?
Mr. Vilarello: Before you get to Ms. Henry, on the last item, which is privatization of Off -Street
Parking Authority, it may very well be a good proposal. I haven't had an opportunity to
understand exactly the ramifications of it. But without the consent of the Off -Street Parking
Authority, I'm not sure that we can do that on any kind of expedited basis, so that we'd have
some kind of fiscal impact this year.
Commissioner Teele: Well, if we can't do it before midnight tonight— I mean, you know, this
year's budget goes to bed tonight. So it's all about what we can do tonight. So let's start with the
first one, the Orange Bowl. Is there anything we can do to get naming rights and get a fiscal
impact this year, tonight?
Ms. Henry: No.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So that has zero —
Mr. Warshaw: We can't do it tonight, but I don't know that it can't be done at some point during
the fiscal year.
271 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: OK. But we're talking now about the fiscal year budget of 2000 that
we've got to send forward.
Mr. Warshaw: It cannot be done for submission to the Oversight Board.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So that has zero implication for our budget exercise for FY 2000.
tonight. The two million dollars ($2,000,000) from Law Enforcement Trust Fund, that's legally
impossible, as stated — as stated, OK? So that's zero.
Chairman Plummer: No, I don't agree with that.
Mr. Warshaw: It's not legally impossible. The Chief is going to —
Chairman Plummer. He can recommend it in the morning, and it's passed.
Mr. Warshaw: — evaluate whether or not there is an applicable program in the Police Department
where these funds could be used. _
Commissioner Teele: Well, I read this to say it's with Chief O'Brien's consent. The way. I read
the law is it's Chief O'Brien's recommendation.
Mr. Warshaw: That's correct.
Commissioner Teele: OK. And so once you start talking about overtime and whether or not
you're going to just swap out overtime for overtime, I mean, I think you've almost lost the
window.
Mr. Warshaw: It can't be swapped out. It has to be for a dedicated purpose.
Commissioner Teele: Exactly.
Mr. Vilarello: And Chief O'Brien is —
Commissioner Teele: So as stated, as stated, this is legally impossible, as stated.
Mr. Vilarello:. Chief O'Brien is looking into, and I've just discussed with him alternatives that
may very well raise that.
Commissioner Teele: All right. Well, let's just leave a question there. The other one, we've
already done. We got it before we got the memo. And then on the privatization of the Off -Street
Parking, that's zero tonight. So with the Mayor's recommendations, although the media will
never really deal with it, you know, I'm willing to move that the Manager be instructed to review
these recommendations, and to implement these recommendations as it relates to presenting an
option to the Commission at the soonest available time, say not less than 60 days. Is that a fair
time to come back to us on it?
Mr. Warshaw: A lot faster than that.
Commissioner Teele: All right Well, then, 30 days.
272 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Warshaw: Some of it may be tomorrow, specifically, the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.
Commissioner Teele: Well, within 30 days.
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: OK? And Mr. Chairman, I would -so move that the Manager be requested
to study these options and to come back —
Chairman Plummer: To study the options. Seconded by?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Sanchez. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Teele: And within — that is to return within 30 days. But let the record be —
Chairman Plummer: Not to exceed 30 days. -
Commissioner Teele: Not to exceed 30 days. But let the record be clear. With the exception of
the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, we're still at zero on this.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-730
A MOTION ACCEPTING MAYOR CAROLLO'S -RECOMMENDATIONS
(AS OUTLINED IN MEMORANDUM TO CITY MANAGER DATED
SEPTEMBER 28, 1999, ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK) TO THE
EXTENT THAT THEY GENERATE FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000;
FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW SAID
RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH A VIEW TOWARD THEIR
IMPLEMENTATION, AND SCHEDULE SAME FOR COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION, WITHIN 30 DAYS
Upon being seconded by commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur Teele; Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
273-SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: So the question just recurs. What type of revenues are we prepared to
take? Mr. Manager, Mr. Chairman, I have a resolution that I would like for the City Attorney to
read the title of. And basically, that resolution would determine that the fire fee is not an
appropriate fee. It's the sense of this Commission.that the fire fee is not an appropriate fee to be
imposed at this time, based upon the hearings that we have had and the adverse impact that it
would have on the ad valorem tax base, and what it would do in terms of marginal apartments, by
creating more vacancies and the like. Would you read that title into the record, please.
Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It says a resolution of the Miami City Commission
related to the advocated increase in fire assessment fee, determining the projected revenues
anticipated during fiscal year 1999/2000 from various sources to provide ample funds for all
projected expenses, determining that the City is returning to a position of financial strength and
stability by finding revenues and operating expense reductions which substitute for the increase in
the fire assessment fee advocated by the Governor's Emergency Financial Oversight Board; and
further finding that any additional fire assessment fee is unnecessary, and would place an undue
burden on the residents and the taxpayers of the City.
Commissioner Teele: And Mr. Chairman, at the right time -- what I'd like to. do is move the
discussion so that the fire fee is not on the table. And so at the right time, I would like to offer
that as a motion. I think it's important that we be on record as having a policy statement, based
upon our collective views that the fire fee is not appropriate, because I am fearful that the —
Chairman Plummer: All right. Put it.on now.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Chairman Plummer: Put it on now. It's been read.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I mean, does anybody want to move a fire fee increase? I mean,
that's the issue.
Chairman Plummer: I think that's where we've been loggerheads all the way along. No, ma'am,
you can't do it. Are you moving it?
Commissioner Teele: I would move it as amended.
Chairman Plummer: Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Now, discussion.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, the intent of this motion is to provide a legislative policy
finding that can be used in any litigation that we have considered the fire fee. It specifically
states the days that we held hearings. We've held at least— Mr. Clerk, how many hearings on the
fire fee, and taken evidence on the fire fee and the public hearings?
Mr. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): We've had four.
Commissioner Teele: We've had four hearings, one on January 13`h, '98; one on February 20,
'98; one on 3/31/98; and one on 4/28/98, as well as the budget hearings in '98 on September 8'h
274 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
and September 28`h, as well as the budget hearings this year, which were held on September 151"
and September 28h. And those public hearings, I think, clearly establish that the fire fee would
have an adverse impact on the ad valorem rate. It clearly establishes that marginal buildings right
now, apartment buildings, would be abandoned by the property owners. My personal view is that
in my district, it would directly affect Little Haiti disproportionately, and I'm sure thereare other
districts that it would affect. And for this purpose, I would like to take the fire fee off the table
for discussion from the Commission, and further endorse to the Oversight Board that this
Commission is strongly opposed to them imposing a fire fee, based upon the fact that it now only
would have an adverse impact, but it would have the effect of creating slum and blight, and
creating unsafe conditions, as described by what happens in vacant buildings, including drug use,
drug sales, the fact that people are molested and attacked in these buildings. And I think there
needs to be a very clear legislative intent on the record. And that's why I move this item, for this
purpose, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Motion is moved and duly seconded. All in favor, say "aye."
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.99-731
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RELATED TO THE
ADVOCATED INCREASE IN THE FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE;
DETERMINING THAT PROJECTED REVENUES ANTICIPATED DURING
FY 1999-2000 FROM VARIOUS SOURCES WILL PROVIDE AMPLE
FUNDS FOR ALL PROJECTED EXPENSES; DETERMINING THAT THE
CITY IS RETURNING TO A POSITION OF FINANCIAL STRENGTH AND
STABILITY BY FINDING REVENUES AND OPERATING EXPENSE
REDUCTIONS WHICH SUBSTITUTE FOR THE INCREASE IN THE FIRE
ASSESSMENT FEE ADVOCATED BY THE GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY
FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD; AND FURTHER FINDING THAT ANY
ADDITIONAL FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE IS UNNECESSARY AND WOULD
PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS OF
THE CITY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
275 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: It is now off the table. What's on the table?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: As I said before, and stated numerous times, the one issue that we have not
dealt with, we have not had the opportunity to deal with is the cost of collecting the residential
garbage in the City of Miami. And it's not a popular issue. It probably affects more voters than
the fire fee affects in terms of absolute voters. But the fact of the matter is— and we ask that the
Manager provide distribution. Do you all have that information, Ms. Henry? We asked that the
fire fee numbers be made available. Can you pass them out, or is it just going to be on the
screen?
Ms. Bertha Henry (Assistant City Manager): I'll put it on the screen. We can make some copies,
but I'll put it on the screen for discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele has the floor.
Commissioner Teele: I'll be happy to yield, but I think it's important to know that in the City of
Miami, on 19'' Avenue, that I represent, if you live on the east side of 19'h Avenue, you're in the
City. You pay $214. The people that are on the west side of 19'' Avenue are in the County.
They pay $345. And this is true throughout the City. There is no reason at all for the City of
Miami to continue to subsidize this, particularly when cities like Opa Locka, Homestead, that are
cities that don't have an affluent work force, but at the same time, have a lot of honest and hard
working people, are charging in excess of $340 a year. I believe that we should make the
recommended increases in the solid waste fee, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee,
that we've already voted to impose. In other words, we have voted to increase the fire fee
beginning next year — not this year — at a level of about twenty-eight dollars ($28) a year —
Commissioner Sanchez: No, twenty-four dollars ($24).
Commissioner Teele: Twenty-four dollars ($24) a year, for each year. The number fluctuates,
but it's approximately twenty-five to twenty-four dollars ($24)-- to use Commissioner Sanchez
as an accountant — a year for the second year, the third year, the fourth year, and the fifth year.
And I think that the way to do this is to take a figure, break it down, beginning it this year as a
supplemental in the sixth month, so that nobody gets a bill before April. And then if they don't
pay the bill, they're just charged a simple interest rate, and it rolls over to the tax notice, but there
will be no liens filed against anybody who doesn't pay this supplemental. And so my request
would be that we consider increasing the solid waste fee for residential by thirty dollars ($30) a
year — twenty-five dollars ($25) a year, whatever number that three people will agree to. But let's
do it on a "levelized" basis. We've already agreed to do it for twenty-four ($24) a year on an
average basis. And the question becomes, if we always pull back on everything we committed
on, I mean, are we serious when we pass these five-year plans? Do we have anything, Ms.
Henry?
Ms. Henry: Yes. I'm sorry. It was disconnected.
Chairman Plummer: While we're waiting, Mr. Gort, you wanted the floor.
276 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. I keep hearing this argument all the time about the subsidizing of the
— but when we do the comparison with other municipalities, I'd like to do it apples with apples
and oranges with oranges. I understand most of the municipalities pay a little bit more for solid
waste, but at the same time, their millage is a lot lower than the City of Miami. So I want you,
when you compare the cost of the sanitation, compare also to the millage in those cities.
Commissioner Teele: I think that's a fair statement, but in the City -- in Dade County, the
millage does not subsidize the -- These are a — see, this is the whole lawsuit that we're in now.
The solid waste is an enterprise account in the County. And it was treated as an enterprise
account in the City. The problem is you can't have an enterprise account if you're losing money.
And there is some accounting rule — I'm sure Ms. Finance Director can cite the chapter, the verse,
and the script of why you can't do it. But when you have an enterprise account that is losing
money for two successive years or three successive years, you must put it in the general fund. In
the County, to compare apples to apples, it is self-sufficient, and therefore, it does not involve ad
valorem tax base. But I think, you know, the real issue is, why don't we have a chart that we can
look at, as we asked for?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. I think that what we need to come up with is some type of— how
we're going to break it down and the years, and some type of chart.
Chairman Plummer: How about if we abolish the Computer Department?
Commissioner Sanchez: That's seven point seven million dollars ($7.7 million).
Commissioner Teele: Ms. Henry, how much is 30 — what does thirty dollars ($30) yield?
Ms. Henry: Commissioner, for each dollar in the Solid Waste Program it's —
Commissioner Teele: Could you just answer the question and then explain?
Ms. Henry: It's about a million -eight, a million -nine for thirty dollars ($30).
Commissioner Teele: And then each dollar — thirty dollars ($30) would yield how much?
Ms. Henry: About a million -eight or nine.
Commissioner Teele: OK. And each dollar does what?
Ms. Henry: Sixty-five thousand (65,000).
Commissioner Teele: So one dollar ($1) equals sixty-five thousand (65,000)?-
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: But thirty dollars ($30) equals?
Ms. Henry: About a million -nine.
Commissioner Teele: And what about twenty-five dollars ($25)1
277 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Henry: A million -six -twenty-five.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, Commissioners, I think we have an obligation to raise some
revenue. I mean, I think we just cannot do this on the back of the City. I think we've got to meet
the City halfway. And I — continue to support everything that Commissioner Sanchez and the
other Commissioners have said about how disappointed we are that the City has not given us
anything. But I think we first need to try to come up with all the revenue we can, and then we
need to proceed on the cuts. And I would offer thirty dollars ($30), which is a million -nine. It's
almost two million dollars ($2,000,000), and on levelized basis until it reaches the cost-- What
is the estimated cost of doing this service as it is, Mr. Martinez?
Commissioner Gort: Eighteen million ($18,000,000).
Commissioner Teele: No. The cost per household of collecting garbage. Somebody used the
figure — Commissioner Plummer used three twenty-five.
Chairman Plummer: Three twenty-two.
Vice Chairman Gort: About eighteen million sixty-five thousand ($18,065,000).
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Patterson, isn't it three twenty-two?
Mr. Raul Martinez (Assistant City Manager): No, Commissioner. I'm not sure divided by
household what it is, but I think— and Bertha may correct me on this — I think the total cost of the
Solid Waste Department is around thirty million dollars ($30,000,000)?
Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but that's not the question. The question is, how much per
household does it cost to collect the solid waste? Recognizing that about ten million dollars
($10,000,000) —.about ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of this is going straight to the County.
And I think one of the things we need to do is we need to put a notice in there as to how— you
know, we need to have a disclosure, Mr. Manager and Mr. Attorney, on what are the elements of
the cost to collect their solid waste, because people think the money is coming to the City. Half
of the money is going out of the City to the County for the tipping fee. Is that correct, Mr.
Martinez?
Mr. Martinez: Yes, Commissioner. I think Clarance said it was close to like six million dollars
($6,000,000)?
Mr. Clarance Patterson (Director, Solid Waste): Eight point six million ($8.6 million).
Mr. Martinez: I'm sorry. It was eight point six million dollars ($8.6 million) in tipping fees.
Commissioner Teele: The budget, before we allocate the indirect cost, which is about nine
million dollars ($9,000,000), is approximately twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) for Solid
Waste?
Mr. Martinez: The budget is eighteen point something for Solid Waste.
Commissioner Teele: And of the eighteen million, eight million is tipping fees?
Mr. Martinez: That is correct, sir.
278 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
I
Commissioner Teele: OK. Now, there's an additional eleven or twelve million dollars
($12,000,000) of indirect. That is the workers' comp rates, that is the insurance rates, that's the
contribution to the pension plan. That takes it up to about thirty million dollars ($30,000,000).
But the operating budget, without the indirect cost, is about eighteen million. And of that
eighteen million, eight million dollars ($8,000,000) goes to the County for tipping fees. And
when people get these supplementals, if we approve anything, we need to explain that to them,
that the tipping fee — and isn't the County talking about increasing the tipping fee this year?
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, let me correct that. You're right in all your numbers, except
according to Ms. Henry, it's thirty-two point six million dollars ($32.6 million), the total cost of
the Solid Waste Department.
Commissioner Teele: That includes capital cost?
Ms. Henry: Yes, it does.
Commissioner Teele: What would be the non -capital cost?
Ms. Henry: The non -capital cost, about twenty-nine, thirty million.
Commissioner Teele: Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). OK.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, if you divided the thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) into the
sixty-five thousand households, it's about four hundred sixty-one dollars ($461).
Commissioner Teele: What?
Commissioner Sanchez: Four hundred and sixty-one dollars ($461) a year.
Mr. Martinez: If my math is correct, if it cost the. Solid Waste Department thirty million dollars
($30,000,000) to operate, and there's sixty-five thousand residences, unless my calculator is not
working right, it's four hundred sixty-one dollars ($461).
Commissioner Sanchez: That's 461. And that would be one of the highest.
Commissioner Teele: OK. In other words, if this were a private company, if the City were a
private company and we had to put all of our cost on the table, it would cost us how much again?
Four hundred and —
Commissioner Sanchez: -- sixty-one dollars per household.
Mr. Martinez: And Commissioner, the only thing I'm presenting is a mathematical equation. If it
costs us thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) for the complete operation of the Solid Waste
Department -- and Ms. Henry may want to correct me on this — and there's sixty-five thousand
households, unless my calculator, again, went on the blink, it's four sixty-one.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Ms. Henry: Sorry about that. But we now have a substitute computer, and we'll begin. to go
through this discussion in more detail, if you'd like.
279 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Well, what I'd like to see is a comparison, the information we requested on
Saturday, which is a comparison of the cost per — so could you just read those numbers out?
Because the public — can the public see these numbers? Is this on — well, what abourfor the old
folks and the young folks like me who can't read? Can you just read those numbers?
Ms. Henry: I sure can. We looked at several cities. City of Miami is currently at two fourteen.
And this is prior to the two dollar ($2) increase that was just approved. The City of Opa Locka, at
three hundred and twenty-one dollars ($321), being closest to the City of Miami; Hialeah, three
hundred and twenty-four dollars ($324); Miami -Dade County, three hundred forty-nine dollars
($349); Homestead, three hundred fifty-five dollars ($355); Miami Springs, three hundred and
seventy-one dollars ($371); North Miami Beach, three hundred and ninety-seven dollars ($397);
North Miami, three hundred ninety-nine dollars ($399); Miami Shores, four hundred and twenty
dollars ($420); and Coral Gables, four hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($498).
Commissioner Teele: And based upon these numbers, our actual cost is approximately what?
Four hundred and twenty dollars ($420)?
Ms. Henry: Thereabouts. What I was about to explain to Raul Martinez was that the Solid Waste
Department, in addition to providing some services for the residents, there are some services that
are provided that are not residential in nature. So it would be slightly less than that, but in the
neighborhood of four hundred dollars ($400).
Commissioner Teele: So somewhere between, say, three fifty, three seventy-five and four
hundred?
Ms. Henry: Four hundred dollars ($400), yes.
Commissioner Teele: So, in effect, we're charging two fourteen, two sixteen right now, and it
cost us another two hundred dollars ($200). I mean, it's double what we're charging. I mean,
Commissioners I — colleagues, I just don't see why the City of Miami— what's wrong with that
picture?
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I'd rather, to be honest with you, I'd rather go with the fire fee.
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a question.
Chairman Plummer: Canwe.burn the garbage and eliminate both at the same time? I have to
agree with Sanchez. I can't see where the garbage fee is more acceptable to the public than the
fire fee. It doesn't make sense to me. Now —
Commissioner Teele: J.L., no fee is going to be acceptable to the public, number one. And
secondly, the solid waste fee is probably going to be less acceptable to the voters than the fire fee.
But I got to tell you something. The solid waste fee is the right thing to do from a policy point of
view. There is no reason — I mean, when you look at these numbers, the only reason that the solid
waste fee is where it is in this City is because this Commission has not had— has not dealt with
this issue. I mean, that's the only reason, J.L. There's no reason why a City like Opa Locka, God
bless them, and they're a wonderful city. And I mean I — they're all hard working, honest people.
But the median income in Opa Locka is no different from the median income in the City of
Miami or Homestead. I mean, you know, this is —
280, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Except they don't have a fire fee.
Commissioner Teele: J.L., they do have a fire — we.didn't have a fire fee a year ago and we— and
you still had those numbers. That's not a justification. There's not been any real — I mean, J.L.,
look, look at these numbers.
Chairman Plummer: I'm well aware of the numbers.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question. I have two things in here. One is 18— the Solid
Waste Old Division is eighteen nine twenty-two.
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: What is that?
Ms. Henry: The operating budget, as the Commissioner indicated, is just that, basically, the
operating budget. When you fully allocate all of the costs that are associated with, the health
benefits and the like —
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. But when you're talking about all the other costs, you're talking
about picking up on the streets, cleaning up the streets, picking up all the cans that we have
throughout the City and so on. Is that —
Ms. Henry: That eighteen million is basically the people. It's just the salary cost and the disposal
cost.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Ms. Henry: Primarily, and a few operating expenses. But most of the other expenses associated
with running the Department is not contained in that eighteen million. And so once those costs
are allocated to it, it causes the budget, overall, to go up substantially.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, and what Bertha has added to that is the cost of suspension, group
benefits, workmen's comp, insurance, the fleet, GSA (General Services Administration) charges,
and so on and so forth.
Commissioner Teele: Ms. Henry, do you have a chart, as we requested on Saturday, that shows
the five-year — OK. Solid Waste? There it is.
Commissioner Sanchez: There it is.
Commissioner Teele: Now, if you look at that— if you forget this year, we've already committed
to raise the fire fee an average of what over those four years?
Ms. Henry: In the neighborhood of twenty-five dollars ($25), thereabouts, in the latter, 2001
through 2004.
Commissioner Teele: If you take 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and divide it by five, what's that?
Ms. Henry: Four. By four. If you're going to go from 2001, you're going to go by four for your
number.
281 SEPTEMBER.28, 1999
s
Chairman Plummer: Can I try to stop spinning our wheels? Are there three votes here that want
to consider increasing the garbage fee?
Commissioner Teele: No, that's not the question. Are there three votes here to do anything?
That's the question.
Commissioner Sanchez: That's the question.
Commissioner Teele: That's the question.
Chairman Plummer: All right. That is also —
Commissioner Sanchez: It's going to take three votes to increase fees. That's —
Chairman Plummer: Excuse me. That's also a legitimate question. But I don't want to go
through this scenario here unless there are three votes.
Commissioner Teele: But J.L., people aren't going to vote for something if they don't know what
the options are.
Chairman Plummer: They know what the options are.
Commissioner Teele: But are there three votes here to raise fees on anything? I mean, you know,
J.L., I got to tell you —
Chairman Plummer: I tell you what I'm willing to vote on. All right? And it's not increasing
fees. I'm with Sanchez on making cuts to the equivalent amount that we can make the cuts.
Commissioner Teele: J.L., I'm with you on the cuts. But I think we've got to raise-- You've
heard from the Manager. You've heard from the Attorney. You know, I read the transcript. I
agree with everything that's been said. They're looking for us to raise some fees pursuant to what
we agreed to do.
Vice Chairman Gort: We got some —
Commissioner Teele: And I mean, I think if we raise— I really believe that if we raise three or
four million dollars ($4,000,000) in fees— we've already raised a million nine. Between the solid
waste, between the' wrecker charge, you know, . we've saved two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars. We've already made the cut there. And we've saved — how much money are we saving
on the wrecker, on the towing, just in the City of Miami?
Commissioner Regalado: Eighty thousand.
Commissioner Teele: Eighty thousand. So we've saved two fifty on the pickup of trash in the —
Commissioner Sanchez: No, three. Three fifty.
Commissioner Teele: No. It's not three fifty. It's two fifty, because the personnel cost doesn't
go away, see.
282 . SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
w •4
Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, yeah.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Patterson, did you all ever explain that? It's not three fifty thatwe
saved on the solid waste in the avoidance of the —
Commissioner Sanchez: The in -kind donations, it was three fifty.
Commissioner Teele: It's two fifty.
Commissioner Sanchez: I.don't know where you got the two fifty.
Commissioner Teele: Because the — you're not going to lay off any personnel.
Commissioner Sanchez: No, but it was in -kind donations.
Mr. Patterson: The total amount was three hundred and forty-one thousand dollars ($3419'000).
But the two hundred and fifty thousand is. the disposal fees that we— were in -kind services that
will be provided by the haulers. The remainder of that cost associated with personnel is what we
wanted to do to improve the street sweeping program, so that we could enhance something for
our citizens.
Commissioner Teele: So what's the net savings?
Mr.- Patterson: Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
1
Commissioner Teele: That's what I said. So you got two fifty there We're saving how much
money on the wrecker in the City of Miami? Eight -five?
Mr. Vilarello: In fairness, though, that's an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) that's going to go
out. I don't know —
Commissioner Regalado: No, but excuse me, Mr. City Attorney.
Commissioner Teele: No. Let's pass a resolution tonight that prohibits —that requires that the
wreckers provide in -kind service for the — we.can do that, can't we, Mr. Attorney?
Commissioner Regalado: Exactly.
Mr. Vilarello: You can pass such a resolution.
.Commissioner Teele: By resolution, we can do that, so that's going to save eighty. Did we ever
figure out how much is being towed out. of Broward County? What was the total amount of
wrecker towings?
Vice Chairman Gort: Outside the City.
Commissioner Teele: Wasn't it four hundred thousand — point — a hundred sixty thousand?
Chairman Plummer: Can I ask a question?
Vice Chairman Gort: You can ask anything.
283 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
•,
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Manager, I just want to ask one simple question, all right? . Mr.
Manager, in your personal opinion, if we do — if we don't do anything but raise the fire fee, do
you think there is any other source that they will accept? I'm picking up that; "That's it, baby.
Either you do the fire fee or we're going to reject it." Now, do you have a different feeling than
that?
Mr. Warshaw: Alex says he does. I'll say the fire fee or the garbage fee.
Mr. Vilarello: The Oversight Board, in conversations that I've had separately, the members that
I've talked to have indicated that they're looking for some revenue enhancements. The fire fee,
as they tell me off the record was not something that they proposed, but something that we
proposed to fill the particular need in revenues. So they will accept — I suspect from that
statement, and from their comments, and from their letter dated yesterday thatthey will accept
other revenue increases. It doesn't have to be the fire fee, but it's got to be something.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah, but we got one called the parking surcharge, and they want to play
games with it. Now, you know, I'm sorry that I had to make that comment. Unless somebody is
way off base, when that came before me on this table, they were talking fifteen to eighteen
million dollars ($18,000,000) worth of revenue. I thought it was high. I agreed with that. I
thought 80 percent of the people who lived out of town are paying it. I thought that was high.
But I thought, only to allow me to use five point seven of that to reduce taxes or to apply towards
a reduction of taxes of fees -- You know, I still go back to what I said the other day. We should
have left the millage where it was, and applied the money towards the fire fee. Millage is tax
deductible. That could have been acceptable to the people. I'll ask one other question. I don't
know who can answer it. Mr. Teele the other day spoke about the possibility— and I hate to even
consider it, but I think that we've got to ask it. If we were to drop the millage even further, in lieu
of, would that be acceptable?
Ms. Henry: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. In lieu of —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele the other day talked about that we could reduce the millage—
OK? -- even further than the nine point five, instead of the fire fee. Would that work itself out in
any way, shape or form, or just make it worse?
Ms. Henry: It makes it worse.
Chairman Plummer' OK.
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, I think it was in connection with increasing the plant-- the plant
increase for the fire fee, and then with budget cuts, perhaps reducing the millage rate further. I
think that's the way that Commissioner Teele was proposing a potential further reduction in the
millage rate.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Commissioner Teele wishes to pursue this matter with garbage.
Let's pursue it. It's 11 o'clock.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, the only point is this: We have already committed to raise
the fire free an average of about twenty-five dollars ($25), starting next year.
Mr. Patterson: Twenty-four dollars ($24).
284 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Twenty-four, dollars ($24). You know, the question is, are we serious
about doing that? Because if we're not serious about doing it-- I mean, this thing has turned into
an annual game of "Chicken. Every time that the out -year numbers roll around, then everybody
starts pushing back from the table. The last year, we went through this same ritual. And we need
to be serious about it. I personally am convinced that the fire fee is not the best fee for the long-
term development of the things that we're talking about in our five-year plan as it relates to
building homes and all of these other things that we're going to be doing. The homes that we're
going to be building are going to be near these buildings, largely. And you heard people come
here tonight and talk about the need for home ownership. And I think that's one of the big
challenges this..City has. We're becoming a City of renters. And we've got to change that
around. I think we've dealt with that. The way to deal with that, in my judgment, is to get off
this fire fee. I'll vote for the fire fee tonight, if that's the last resort, as I've said before. But it
seems to me that the prudent thing for us to do is to adjust the solid waste fee, because that's
costing us money. And when you compare it to other cities, cities that are right across the street,
it doesn't make sense. The City of Dade County, the City of Unincorporated Dade County,
which is literally all around, it's all around us, J.L. We got a portion— you got a portion of it
right there, unincorporated, between the City of Miami and the Grove. All of the area to the north
of my district is Unincorporated Dade County. All of the area of the west is Unincorporated
Dade County. All of the area to the west of Commissioner Regalado's district, all of those areas
across the street, they're paying one rate of three forty-five, and on the same street, on the other
side, they're paying two sixteen. It doesn't make sense. I think we ought to adjust the solid
waste fee. We ought to go ahead and lock in on this thing, levelize the rate, make it a twenty-
five, make it a thirty dollar ($30) rate, and put it in the out years, as we've got it there, for twenty-
five or thirty dollars ($30), and balance this budget. And then let's turn to making budget cuts at
the same amount that we're raising. So respectfully, Mr. Chairman, if anybody would second it
for purposes of discussion, I would move that we levelize the fire fee — I mean the solid waste fee
Commissioner Sanchez: Solid waste fee.
Commissioner Teele: -- from the amounts that are shown in the five-year plan to twenty-five
dollars ($25), beginning in the year 2000, with a supplemental going out after six months, and the
remaining years, to levelize that at twenty-five dollars ($25) a year, and to explain to the residents
that this increase is based primarily on the fact that eight million dollars ($8,000,000) or one third
of the Solid Waste budget goes for the tipping fee. And we ought to allocate that based upon
what it is, and put it as a notice in their bill. And I would ask that somebody at least second it so
we can get on to the next issue.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, let me get this straight. Next year, an increase of twenty-five
dollars. Correct so far?
Commissioner Teele: The next year, it would be twenty-five dollars ($25). The next year, it
would be twenty-five dollars ($25). And the next year, it would be twenty-five dollars ($25).
And in 2004, it would be twenty-five dollars ($25).
Commissioner Sanchez: And what would be the total of the bill?
Commissioner Teele: Well, Ms. Henry, what is twenty-five dollars ($25) each year —
285 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
6 .
Commissioner Sanchez: You're talking a hundred— so it's three ninety-eight. It'll be ending up
— in the year 2004, it'll be three hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($398).
Chairman Plummer: Can I stop you for a minute? The Manager has an announcement to make.
Mr. Warshaw: It's not an announcement.
Chairman Plummer: It's an announcement.
Mr. Warshaw: But I received a call. The Mayor reached out to me and wanted me to tell you on
the record that any increase in the garbage fee or the fire fee that you enact that he will endorse
and support.
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me tell you something. I appreciate the Mayor calling. And I
think that's the first courageous step that any of us have taken, and I commend the Mayor for
coming forward.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'll second for purpose -of discussion on increasing next year the
increased amount of twenty-five dollars ($25).
Ms. Henry: The increase of —
Commissioner Sanchez: For the year 2000. 2000. For 2001, I will not go twenty-five. I would
go twenty. The year 2002, I would go as far as another twenty.
Commissioner Teele: You're going to have to make it up for that year in the five-year plan.
Commissioner Sanchez: And how much am I lacking in the year 2003 for the eighty-five?
Commissioner Teele: Well, why don't you just adopt the numbers that are up there, twenty,
twenty-four, thirty-four. Thirty-four is a big number.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-four is a big number. That's what I'm trying to do, is I'm trying
to break it down so that you don't see such a big number up there.
Commissioner Teele: Well, split the— well, you got to get that in that year, though. That's why
it's there. It's used as, —
Commissioner Sanchez: No, you don't have to get it that year. You get it the following year, in
the year 2004. Mr. City Manager, I mean, as long as you end up with the same number, it doesn't
really matter, correct?
Ms. Henry: Let me make sure that I understand what's happening. The increases that are
reflected here are the increases that are currently in the five-year plan. You would increase— the
increases that you're discussing would be on top of these?
Commissioner Teele: No.
Ms. Henry: No.
286 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
..
Commissioner Teele: No. It would 1be a net increase of twenty-five dollars ($25) in the year
2000.
Commissioner Sanchez: 2000.
Commissioner Teele As opposed to two dollars ($2). It would be a net increase of twenty-five,
did you say?
Ms. Henry: So another five dollars ($5), another dollar.
Commissioner Teele: And in the year 2002, it would be twenty-five. And in the year 2003, it
would be twenty-five.
Ms. Henry: Go ahead and run —
Commissioner Teele: And in year four, it would be whatever it takes to balance it out, six dollars
($6), eight dollars ($8), or. whatever.
Commissioner Sanchez: To come to the final — the final is what? Three sixty-eight? Three
ninety-eight. Three ninety-eight is the final that you're looking for. If we could come on an
agreement with that, I'm willing to make the motion and support it.
Vice Chairman Gort: I would say twenty dollars ($20), the reason being, if you want to raise a
hundred thousand dollars, and by .doing twenty, twenty times five, it would be the hundred
thousand dollars you're looking for. The way you have it projected right now, it only about
eighty-eight something. And that way, you don't have to increase it to twenty-five. All we have
to do is increase it to twenty.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. At least now we got three people that are willing.
Commissioner Teele: J.L., are you going to say anything on this?
Chairman Plummer: I'm trying to —
Vice Chairman Gort: It's kind of late. What can I say? I'm kind of tired, and •I'm ready —
Commissioner Teele: Willy, let me tell you the problem with twenty dollars ($20) and twenty-
five. In this year coming up — oh, you don't want to hear it? All right. I'm not going to piss you
off. I'm not going to upset you.
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no, go ahead. I'm sorry. No, I.'m not.
Commissioner Teele: No, I just want you to be happy with something, I mean.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. There was"a motion. There's a second by me. I mean —
Commissioner Teele: And the bills, for this year coming up, the motion also includes that the
bills will not go out with the supplemental until after six months, and it will have an explanation.
It's for the whole year, but it will have an explanation that, if they don't pay that any interest
would be calculated, whatever it is, and that number would roll onto the trim notice for the next
year.
287 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Vice Chairman Gort: You want to achieve a total of a hundred thousand dollars. If you do
twenty, twenty, twenty and twenty, you'll achieve a hundred thousand dollars by the end of 2004.
If you will follow what they're saying right now, it would only be eight -four dollars. So you're
still increasing sixty more —
Commissioner Teele: But see, the problem is that we've got to balance the budget in those out
years.
Vice Chairman Gort: I beg your pardon?
Commissioner Teele: The problem is, is that those numbers all represent a balanced budget in the
out years. It's not just the total, when you add it up. It's that nineteen million dollars
($19,000,000) that they're looking at in that estimated revenue in 2003 that we've got to budget.
Now, there may be a way that we can come up with something else.
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand it is, but at the same time, we've got to come up with some of
the revenues, and hopefully, we're looking for some other revenues that we can —
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Gort, what is it you'll accept for 2000?
Vice Chairman Gort: Twenty. My only problem is 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, twenty dollars
($20) apiece, all across.
Commissioner Teele: You do know that in the year 2000, because that's going out by hand, the
collection rate is being calculated substantially below what it's going to be. It's calculated at 85
percent, as opposed to 95 percent. And then there is the cost of mailing it out.
Ms. Henry: Yes, there is.
Chairman Plummer: We lose the trim bill. We've already lost it on the fire.
Commissioner Teele: We've already lost the trim bill.
Chairman Plummer: Say again, Mr. Manager?
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Plummer, are you going to opine an opinion? I mean —
Ms. Henry: OK. As a point of clarification, the Solid Waste Program in the five-year forecast
assumed that there would be increases, the first being 2000 for two dollars ($2); the second being
a twenty dollar ($20) increase. So it's twenty dollars ($20) over and above where you are;
twenty-four dollars ($24) in 2002; thirty-four dollars ($34) in 2003; and four dollars ($4) in 2004.
So I want to make sure that I understand what you're saying. If you're— for 2000, you're saying
an additional eighteen dollars ($18), to bring it to twenty dollars ($20)? Is that the point you're
making?
Vice Chairman Gort: That's correct.
Ms. Henry: With no increase in 2001?
288 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
e .4
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm saying all across, twenty in the projections every year. And what
you're going to achieve right now, the way you have it, is eighty-four dollars ($84).
Mr. Warshaw: Not twenty in addition to what's there, twenty total.
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no. Twenty in `2, twenty in 2001, twenty in 2002, 2003, 2004. You're
talking about a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) — I mean a hundred dollars ($100).
Commissioner Teele: That's a better thing.
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Gort, would you yield -for me, just for a minute?
Vice Chairman Gort: Sure, go ahead.
Commissioner Sanchez: Why don't we simplify it. In the year 2000, make it twenty-six dollars
($26), and leave the rest as it is?
Commissioner Teele: I'll accept that. Because, I mean, we're going to have to visit this issue,
anyway.
Commissioner Sanchez: Would the Oversight Board accept that? The year 2000, make it
twenty-six dollars ($26), and in the year 2001, twenty; 2002, twenty-four, 2003, thirty-four. I
mean, it still balances out to the three hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($398).
Commissioner Teele: But we're going to have to revisit it next year anyway, so why fight it out
now?
Chairman Plummer: Ms. Henry?
Ms. Henry: May I take you —
Chairman Plummer: If you do what they just —
Ms. Henry: Excuse me.
Chairman Plummer: If you do what they suggested, how much will it raise?
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Gort, Commissioner Gort, can you live —Commissioner
Gort, what can you live with?
Commissioner Sanchez: What can you live with?
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you, what I'm telling you is you're going to accomplish the
same thing without going to twenty-six and just going to twenty. You can accomplish the same
thing.
Commissioner Teele: How much — what's the difference between six dollars ($6) for the budget?
What does six dollars ($6) equal?
Ms. Henry: Six dollars ($6) times —
289 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Vice Chairman Gort: Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000).
Mr. Warshaw: Three hundred ninety thousand.
Ms. Henry: Three hundred ninety thousand dollars ($390,000).
Commissioner Teele: Six dollars ($6).is three hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($390,000)?
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: It's up .to Commissioner Gort. Whatever he agrees with, I mean, you
know, we got — it's a slim three votes here.
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Henry: May I take you —
Chairman Plummer: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: If I could just address two issues. You have to take into consideration for
whatever you project out as your revenues from this increase the cost of collection, which the
Department has told me is forty thousand dollars ($40,000), which will cover the separate mailing
plus the advertisement. And you also have to take into consideration the cost or the percentage
that we will collect. Our history is 85 percent when you send a separate notice. It's likely to be
85 percent or less. The Oversight Board has advised us that on any revenue increases that we
provide that we need to take those things into consideration. So whatever number you ultimately
get to, you have to expect the Oversight Board will assume an 85 percent collection history or
less, because of the confusion of paying both on their tax bill, and separately another bill for
either fire or solid waste.
Commissioner Teele: Accepted. Madam Manager, what is twenty thousand — twenty dollars
($20) going to yield net for the budget for this year, and what is twenty-six dollars ($26) going to
yield? Just so — and let Commissioner Gort make the decision.
Vice Chairman Gort: One point two million dollars ($1.2 million).
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Vice Chairman Gort: One point two million dollars ($1.2 million).
Commissioner Teele: Twenty dollars ($20) is going to yield what?
Vice Chairman Gort: One point two million dollars ($1:2 million).
Commissioner Teele: That's so impressive to see that smart young man there. Doesn't he look
like he knows what he's doing?
Chairman Plummer: Well, excuse me. Let me ask my question again. If we raise the fire fee by
twenty-four dollars ($24) — hello? If we raise the fire fee by twenty-four dollars ($24), it raises
four point two million dollars ($4.2 million). If we raise the garbage fee by thirty, it only raises
one point eight?
290 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
.•
Ms. Henry: Because the methodology is different. The — it's completely different.
Commissioner Teele: Can we get an answer? What does twenty dollars ($20) raise and what
does twenty-six dollars ($26), or net?
Vice Chairman Gort: One point two million dollars ($1.2 million).
Ms. Henry: The fire fee is throughout the City. And the garbage is basically on residential.
Commissioner Teele: Could you answer the question?
Ms. Henry: I'm sorry. 'He was — I was trying to respond to his question.
Commissioner Teele: Oh, I thought Commissioner— he ain't going to vote for it no way, so why
are we getting all off —
Vice Chairman Gort: One point two million dollars ($1.2 million). Twenty dollars and sixty-five
thousand is —
Commissioner Teele: That guy just looks like he's smart. He ain't that smart, is he, huh?
Ms. Henry: OK, we're listening now. I'm sorry. What would you —
Commissioner Teele: What does twenty dollars ($20) net yield for this year coming up, with the
85 percent, and the cost of the collection, and the this and the that? Commissioner Gort has got a
number, one point two million. That's pretty good, Willy. That's pretty good. He's just as smart
as the smart looking guy. I got to tell you, I don't know the man's name, but he looks smart. I'll
tell you, the guy looks like he's a— he looks like a genius or something, so, I mean, looks is half
of the battle.
Ms. Henry: Commissioners, I think it's important that we — that we're looking at what the
Oversight Board is looking at when it— with respect to what we're going to be dealing with. At
the meeting, an analysis was presented by PFM that basically took where we were up until the
fire fee was stayed, and presented the Oversight Board with what, as a result of taking — the
removal of the fire fee increase and the possible inclusion of the Save Our Seniors exemption. If
you look at the bottom line, where it shows the excess and the deficit, you could see that in FY
2001, it's projected that we would have close to a five million dollar ($5,000,000) deficit. These
numbers do not take out of the forecast the other fire fee increases which you have now made
clear that they are no- longer on the table. And those — the fire fee —
Commissioner Teele: Who's talking — the fire fee is not on the table for discussion.
Ms. Henry: It's not. But what I'm trying to get back to you, we're talking about balancing the
five-year forecast. And the numbers that have been discussed at this point, I'm just trying to help
us all put in perspective when we're looking at these numbers —
Commissioner Teele: Why don't we just stay on the solid waste fee. And then once this is voted
up or down, then you can give us all that — you're getting ready to confuse everybody, ma'am.
You're too smart for us right now. Mr. Chairman.
291 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Gort has said, whatever the number is, Commissioner, just
tell us what it is. I think Commissioner Sanchez is saying, let's justchange the number for year
2000, ride with the rest of the numbers, and revisit this issue in 2001. And Commissioner, I don't
know how you feel about it. If it's twenty dollars ($20) — did you ever give us what twenty-six
was? What is it, Willy? You figured it faster than they calculated it before. .
Vice Chairman Gort: It comes out to about one point five.
Ms. Henry: One point six.
Mr. Warshaw: That's twenty-four dollars ($24).
Ms. Henry: It's twenty-four dollars ($24), because of the two dollars ($2) that's there.
Mr. Warshaw: So the twenty-four gets you one point six.
Commissioner Teele: All right. You're right on it, man.' So will you live with twenty-six or
twenty?
Vice Chairman Gort: Twenty.
Commissioner Teele: Please?
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you, let me tell you. .
Commissioner Teele: No, I'll accept it. Let's call the question.
Vice Chairman Gort: No, wait, let me tell you what my problem is. We got the Oversight Board,
sometimes, they pay attention to the financial advisors, and other times, they don't pay attention
to them, according to what's beneficial for them or their way of thinking. I think if the financial
advisor told them to go ahead and accept the nine point something, they'd say no. Now, if the
financial advisor is saying we can't do it, now they'll say yes. I think we have done a hell of a lot
in here. We've asked — and what a lot of people don't understand is we're going to put this City -
- I get a lot of phone calls from residents and from people telling me, "We're going to be taxed
out of the City." Let me tell you, we have a lot of competition. And you can see most of the
people live outside of the City of Miami, because of the cost of living within the City. You also
have the oldest buildings that pay about 33 percent of the taxes for the City of Miami. Those
people are going to be competing with Coral Gables, North Kendall, and all the other areas where
all the new buildings are being built. And we have to maintain— be competitive. If not, in the
long run, you're going to see a lot of vacancies out there.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but we have to take some things into consideration. We've been
able to lower the millage. You know, I'd rather go with the solid waste than with the fire fee.
That's just my personal opinion. And I think that, you know, the price that we're paying
compared to other cities is very, very cheap. I think that we— you know, we're subsidizing our
solid waste and I don't think any other department or any other cities are, but if they are, it's by a
very small amount. So I think if we were— and our backs are against the wall here, and we have,
to make an increase. I think that it would be well receptive or more receptive through the solid
waste. So, Willy, if you feel comfortable with the year 2000 increasing it by twenty dollars ($20)
292 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
— I wanted to raise it by twenty-six. If you think you're comfortable with twenty, you know, I'll
make the motion for the year 2000 to increase, the solid waste twenty dollars ($20). So it's
twenty-two?
Vice Chairman Gort: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: Twenty? Twenty.
Vice Chairman Gort: -Total twenty.
Commissioner Sanchez: Total of twenty. OK. My motion is to raise it by twenty.
Chairman Plummer: There is a motion on the floor to raise the garbage fee this year by eighteen
dollars ($18), making it a total — .
Commissioner Sanchez: Excuse me. With the —
Vice Chairman Gort: Twenty.
Chairman Plummer: Raising it by eighteen, making. it a total of twenty. Am I incorrect?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: And leaving the out years the same.
Chairman Plummer: What is correct?
Vice Chairman Gort: You're correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: And leaving the out years the same. And also sending out notice.
Commissioner Teele: Six months.
Commissioner Sanchez: Six months.
Commissioner Teele: For the full year.
Commissioner Sanchez: For the full year.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Chairman Plummer: Motion is made and duly seconded. Any discussion?
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Gort, are you all right with that?
Vice Chairman Gort: It's fine with me.
Commissioner Teele: Call the question
293 ' SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-732
A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCREASE THE
RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE FEE BY $20 A YEAR, BEGINNING WITH
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT THE FIRST
ANNUAL BILL BE MAILED SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINS; FURTHER STATING THAT SUBSEQUENT BILLS ARE TO BE
SENT WITH TRIM NOTICE; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE MANAGER
TO SEND AN EXPLANATION OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S TIPPING FEE
WITH THE ORIGINAL BILL.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Gort
NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL:
Chairman Plummer: No. It's not going to raise enough money. It raises a million eight, right?
COMMENTS MADE AFTER ROLL CALL:
Mr. Warshaw: A million one.
Chairman Plummer: A million one. We're looking for four point two.
Mr. Warshaw: Four point eight.
Chairman Plummer: What have you accomplished?
Commissioner Teele: Well, I'll tell you what we've accomplished, J.L. Did it pass, Mr. Clerk?
Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): Yes.
Commissioner Teele: How much money have we raised here tonight, Ms. Henry, with this?
Ms. Henry: In total —
Mr. Vilarello: You need to adopt an ordinance increasing -- Our solid waste fee is adopted by
ordinance. And if you're going to adopt it tonight, it's going to require a four/fifths vote. And I
could prepare that for you immediately. You passed a resolution of intent.
294 1 1SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Look, how much have we raised here tonight? I think we — we're
underestimating, J.L., what we've done. The way I calculated this, we've raised about three
million dollars ($3,000,000) here tonight.
Commissioner Sanchez: Three point two million dollars ($3.2 million), from my calculations.
Commissioner Teele: And as far as I'm concerned, we need to start looking now for about three
to four million dollars ($4,000,000) worth of cuts. But I think if we start with the cuts, you know,
we're going to get in the jackpot. I think it becomes really a question of philosophy. If we raise
revenue and we make cuts, it's a question of philosophy. If we just make cuts, it's a question that
we've reneged on our deal. And as long as we're not cutting more than we raise, or have some
degree of balance, I think we can win this argument. And I think the Governor is a fair person. I
mean, that's what the Legislature just did. The Legislature didn't just raise— they made cuts, they
made adjustments. And I think Jeb Bush is a very honorable person, and he'll see that this is a
philosophical issue, not just — that we're not afraid to make the hard decisions.
Commissioner Sanchez: And Mr. City Manager, I would certainly hope that you would send that
message along, that I think that we have acted —
Commissioner Teele: What message?
Commissioner Sanchez: The message that we've acted in good faith here. I mean, we've been
able to raise today — and Bertha, correct me if I'm wrong.
Ms. Henry: Two point nine million.
Commissioner Sanchez: Two point nine million in total?
Commissioner Teele: Three million dollars ($3,000,000).
Commissioner Sanchez: Almost three million dollars ($3,000,000). And this is a Commission
that wasn't going to budge at all. And here we are, we've come up with three million dollars
($3,000,000). I think now it's your turn to come up with something.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but we got to get— we got to get at least one person to vote for this.
We need four votes is what =- I think Commissioner Gort's point is also a very important point,
and I would move or second Commissioner Gort's motion that the recurring revenue from the
interest on the strategic reserve be made a part of this budget.
Vice Chairman Gort: It is.
Ms. Henry: They are.
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry. That was a line item, but I missed it.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Ms. Henry: They are.
Vice Chairman Gort: I missed it. They are.
295 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Oh, we missed, it?
Chairman Plummer: It's already accounted for.
Commissioner Teele: You can't count.it twice?' The last guys got away with it. Why can't — We
have any high yield interest? Can we put it in some high yield stuff.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's going to be a long night.
Ms. Henry: Safety, liquidity.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Ms. Henry: Safety first, then liquidity.
Commissioner Sanchez: Somebody is going to have to make some coffee.
Commissioner Teele: Really, how much are we computing as an interest rate?
Ms. Henry: We're using an average balance, I believe, of about a hundred and twenty some odd
million each —
Commissioner Teele: What is the interest we're calculating on our strategic reserves?
Ms. Henry: It's about five point one percent.
Unidentified Speaker: Five and a quarter.
Commissioner Teele: Why can't we — I mean, this is a serious question. Mr. Attorney are we
limited by law? I mean, can't we turn this thing over to some of these blue chip — like a
Prudential or a Goldman Sach? These guys all run around getting 18 percent, 19 percent, 15.
Chairman Plummer: Yeah. And what do you do when the market has done what it's done in the
last ten days, besides commit suicide?
Commissioner Teele: I'm just asking a — J.L., I'm asking a question, you know. I'm trying —
Pete Chircut (Treasurer): Commissioner, we have an investment policy that dictates what we
should be investing in.
Commissioner Teele: Even for the strategic reserves?
Mr. Chircut: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: We've never even had strategic reserves before. How do we have a policy
for it?
Chairman Plummer: We were wishing.
Commissioner Teele: Do we really have a policy for the strategic reserves that's different —
296 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Warshaw: We have a policy for all of our cash.
Ms. Henry: Investment policy for all of the cash.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I tell you what, thank God, the unions have invested, because they
were getting back returns. of — of how much?
Chairman Plummer: Eighteen.
Commissioner Teele: Eighteen, 19 percent, I mean. And that's the only reason we're safe. More
than 18 percent? Is there any other source of funds, Mr. Manager, that we can look at?
Somebody indicated to me that the Key Biscayne City contract is stated at monthly thirty-three
thousand dollars ($33,000). Is that for the fire backup? In the budget, it's stated at thirty-three
thousand, but I'm understanding that it should be closer to forty some thousand. What's the
amount?
Mr. C.A. Gimenez (Chief, Fire Department): The yearly rate is four hundred sixty thousand
dollars ($460,000), sir. Whatever — divide that by 12, and that's what the rate is.
Commissioner Teele: And what's in the budget book, Mr. Director? No, no, no. Mr. Director,
how much is in the budget book?
Chief Gimenez: I understand it's four hundred sixty thousand dollars ($460,000).
Commissioner Teele: No. It's a monthly figure.in the budget. It's expressed on a monthly term
in the budget book.
Chairman Plummer: No, it was yearly.
Chief Gimenez: It's yearly. And the revenues is expressed as four hundred sixty thousand
dollars ($460,000) per year.
Commissioner Teele: What is in our budget? What are we showing for the Key Biscayne in the
budget? Mr. Fire Director, what does your budget have for that? Ms. Henry, do you all know?
Ms. Henry: Yes. We're going to pull that record.
Commissioner Teele: Luie, do you know?
Luie Brennan (Director, Budget): I'm trying to find it, sir. Four hundred and sixty thousand.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Chief Gimenez: Four hundred and sixty thousand. It's right here.
Commissioner Teele: It's in our budget as what?
Ms. Henry: Four hundred and sixty thousand.
297
SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: What is the TV franchise? We've been talking about this TV franchise.
All these cable swaps, and AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph). I mean, where were we
last year, and where are we this year, and why isn't that number increasing? Cable TV franchise.
Commissioner Regalado: If I may. The cable TV franchise, Commissioner Teele, will give the
City, as soon as it's signed, I would think, that almost double of what we're getting, because of
the new technology, the new services that they have. I don't know why we have not been told,
but if you look at other cities — and we are looking at other cities — the TV cable franchise has
doubled in all the cities throughout the United States. Whenever there is a new contract, you
have to understand that they're going to use the TV for every kind of service that companies can
offer, like, you know, internet, interaction in buying, and all that. So I would think that— I would
think that the Administration has to have an idea of how much more we are going to get, because
certainly, we are going to get more. It's not less that we're getting. . So I would ask the
Administration to see if they can tell us, if they know what Mr. Liebowitz is talking to Media One
and AT&T.
Mr. Aldo Stancato (Interim Director, Information Technology): Right now, we are getting one
million dollars ($1,600,000) a year. from the cable franchise. We're projecting it at about the
same level. It's based on the number of subscribers. Until we have a new contract, we really
don't — we really don't have a clear picture. I can double check and get back with you tomorrow.
Commissioner Teele: So even though we did a — didn't we just do a transfer? Didn't we approve
one transfer?
Mr. Brennan: Of course we did.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Mr. Stancato: But it's not a new franchise, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: I'm only asking a question.
Mr. Stancato: Right, yes.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, didn't we approve a new franchise?
Mr. Stancato: We approved a transfer. We didn't approve a new franchise.
Commissioner Teele: But we didn't get any new revenues as a result of that transfer? They
didn't proffer anything?
Mr. Stancato: It's the same franchise. The franchise hasn't changed.
Commissioner Teele: I understand. But you heard how the solid waste haulers came here
tonight, and they proffered new dollars, even though it's the same franchise. I mean, did we get
any new money from the transfer?
Mr. Stancato: No, we did not.
Commissioner Regalado: I think it's really unfair that you came here unprepared about the cable
TV franchise, I really do. And, you know, what do want from us? I mean, you guys are
298 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
i
supposed to be in touch with Liebowitz, and the meetings that he's having. I've never attended a
meeting, but I'll tell you that you can't — it's not possible to think that we're going to get the same
amount. First of all, the projection of customers, it's more than — we have 69,000 now in the
City, right?
Mr. Stancato: The penetration, if I remember correctly, is at about 60 percent.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no. We have 69 —
Commissioner Teele: He asked a simple question. We have 69,000? The answer is yes or no.
Mr. Stancato: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Now, with the new hotels and the new condominiums, the
projection that I heard here several months agowas almost way— almost to 100,000 in the next
three years. Is that — what I heard, is it correct, Aldo?
Mr. Stancato: I'm not positive about that, so I don't know.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, I did -- Mr. Liebowitz said it. And, you know, so I think it
would be very unfair to say that we are going to get the same amount. A bad deal, it was a bad
deal from- the beginning, 14 years ago. I mean, to think that we are going to get now what we
were getting 14 years ago is not something that people would really believe. So, you know, I'll
leave it at one million. But —
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me ask the question a different way. How much money did we
adopt in our '99 budget for cable TV franchises? What's our adopted for '99?
Ms. Henry: A million dollars.
Commissioner Teele: And what are we projecting for 2000?
Ms. Henry: A million one-o-four.
Vice Chairman Gort: Where does it show?
Commissioner Teele: What page is that on? Page 4?
Ms. Henry: Page 4.
Commissioner Teele: So in effect, you all are projecting a one hundred thousand— a ten percent
increase. Well, see, I mean, you know, why can't.-- The Commissioner is making a very good
point. We got all these hotels being built. In Commissioner Plummer's district alone, we've got
— we've got a new high rise at Tibor Hollo's building. I can tell you, he's going to connect all
those people up. I mean, what you're saying is that we've projected a ten percent increase.
Mr. Stancato: Correct.
Chairman Plummer: Don't wake me up.
Commissioner Teele: Is that right?
299 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Stancato: Correct.
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: And a ten percent, and a ten percent, and a ten percent, because the
number of customers will grow, because you have to understand that again, ATT — ATT is going
to the County now. AT&T is going to the County now to get access to — for internet, for
interaction, for all kinds of things that you can think about. And they're going to go through the
City, too. So I'm telling you that the projection is more than 100,000 customers in the next three
years. And I cannot even begin to understand why they would think that we're going to get the
same royalty that we got 14 years ago.next year. So I still think that we're under. And the
Oversight Board, probably, they only know about cable TV when they switch the TV. But if they
do a little homework, they would understand that cable TV is the thing of the future. And they
going to get — we're going to get more than a million dollars ($1,000,000), if we do the right
thing. So.
Chairman Plummer: Do we have a copy of what the Manager has recommended for the cuts? Do
we have a copy of that?
Commissioner Teele: Before we move to cuts,are there any other revenues that the Manager can
offer to help us? I mean, please, is there anything you all can think of in a cold reflection that we
may have understated that can be defended and justified, that isn't pie in the sky? 'Ms. Henry, do
you all know anything?
Ms. Henry: Included in the two point nine that I shared, there was a half,a million dollars for the
VIP (Vehicle Impoundment Program) Program, of additional revenue from the VIP Program.
Commissioner Teele: But that's within the two point nine?
Ms. Henry.: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: And you're saying, according to the Police Department, there's no way they
can cut the overtime? The overtime is like seven million dollars ($7,000,000).
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me a minute.
Ms. Henry: Right now, their overtime budget is right up there with — I mean their overtime
expenses is right there with their budget.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, before you do— Ms. Henry, Mr. Manager, Mr. Budget
Director, Mr. Audit —'where is the Audit Director? Where is the Audit — Mr. Audit Director, is
there anything that you all can come up with that will help this Commission that we may have
missed? Is there any audit that you've done that is waiting on a Commission action that if we
were to act on it tonight could yield a few more dollars, Mr. Audit Director?
Victor Igwe (Director, Internal Audit): So far, this year —
Commissioner Teele: State your name and address or whatever for the record, please.
Mr. Igwe: My name is Victor Igwe. I'm the Director of Internal Audit.
300 SEPT-EMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Did you say "doctor"?
Mr. Igwe: Victor Igwe. I also have a Ph.D. You are right. So far this year, we've identified one
point one million dollars ($1.1 million) in additional revenues to the City. And as of this
particular time, we're not working on any specific audit that would generate additional revenue.
Commissioner Teele: Do you have anything that you could offer us that we have missed? A
church, maybe, that we could put a toll bell tax on or something?
Mr. Igwe: No, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Anything?
Mr. Igwe: No, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Ms. Henry?
Ms. Henry: Well, at this point, we are constantly looking for revenue opportunities. But it's very
difficult at this point to say with any certainty, especially and have the Oversight Board agree, or
the Revenue Estimating Conference agree that these numbers would make — are valid.
Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this: Does our union contract— we have everybody take a
drug test, right?
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: How much does the drug test cost? Well, that's going to savings.
Ms. Henry: Thirteen fifty.
Commissioner Teele: How much?
Ms. Henry: Thirteen fifty:
Commissioner Teele: What does that mean? Oh, it's thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000)?
Vice Chairman Gort: No. Thirteen fifty per people — per person.
Commissioner Teele: No. What's the amount, the total —
Mr. Warshaw: Thirteen dollars and fifty cents ($13.50) per person.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Well, it's not.revenue. I was going to see if we could agree to— I
mean, look, they're not employees of the City. Why can't they pay for it? And —
Unidentified Speaker: No, no, no, they pay for it.
Commissioner Teele: But I'm talking about new employees. They're not City employees yet. If
they fail the test, they're not going to be City, employees. So why can't we charge them?
301 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Angela Bellamy (Director, Human Resources): Commissioner, we do that now. If they
don't pass the test, then they pay for it. If they pass it, then we give them their money back. But
they give us the money up front.
Chairman Plummer: I haven't seen Angela Bellamy.move that fast in the last 20 years.
Commissioner Teele: My final issue would be, Mr. Attorney, is there any flexibility on the Save
Our Citizens? Would you consider — and this is not a revenue, and I don't want to bring it up
now, but would you consider what options we may take in terms of that for one year? But let's
stay on the revenue side. Nobody's got anything?
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm about to reconvene this meeting.
Chairman Plummer: Hello? Let me ask again, if I may, how much have we actually added
today? I know we added two million from Police.
Ms. Henry: - Well —
Chairman Plummer: Yeah, OK, go ahead. What else?
Ms. Henry: The two million from Police is not in the numbers just yet. But what --
Chairman Plummer: It's in the numbers. Now, what'did we get from the garbage?
Ms. Henry: An additional million dollars ($1,000,000), over and above what's already there.
Chairman Plummer: OK. And from what other source did we get money?
Dean Warshaw: Two hundred and fifty thousand from the disposal fee as part of the —
Chairman Plummer: That's two fifty. And there was another three fifty?
Ms. Henry: No.
Mr. Warshaw: No. That's two fifty. It was reduced to —
Chairman Plummer: OK. Now, what we're actually looking for is four point two; is that correct?
Warshaw: Four point eight.
Chairman Plummer: Four point. eight. Now, if we take — let's just say three million dollars
($3,000,000), because that, I think I'm comfortable with — and we take the deductions that the
Manager has recommended, which brings out seven point eight, and we deduct three million
dollars ($3,000,000) from that, we got four point three.
Commissioner Sanchez: That's if they buy it, right?
Warshaw: Right, that's correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, well, I'm willing to take that avenue.
302 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
nu
Mr. Warshaw: What he's saying is — let me just repeat it. What he's saying is the difference
between the three million and the four point eight, basically, if we can use some of the positions,
if they'll accept it. But they haven't accepted it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well I — you know —
Vice Chairman Gort: Don, I'm a salesman. It all depends how you make the presentation. It all
depends if you want to do it or if you don't want to do it. If you want to do it, you'll find a
thousand ways why it should be accepted. If you don't want to do it, then you'll find another
thousand ways why it should not be accepted.
Mr. Warshaw: Let me — if I could —
Vice Chairman Gort: And that's why I'm saying you need to go back to your department
Directors and talk to them.
Mr. Warshaw: Let me say, just to reiterate something, go back so —
Chairman Plummer: Don, let me add one thing to that. Let me add that if additional revenues are
found during the year that we could reinstate personnel as needed. I mean, you know, you don't
work on budget once a year. It's an ongoing process.
Mr. Warshaw: I think it's important I go back and repeat something I said earlier.
Chairman Plummer: Go ahead.
Mr. Warshaw: The problem we start with was six point eight million. It's four point two million
for the piece of the fire fee for this year. And again, based upon the fact that you didn't pass the
fire fee for this year, the Oversight Board is taking out the credit for the years 2001 and 2002.
And they're doing it based upon the fact that they're saying if you didn't do the fire fee for 2000,
you're not going to do it for 2001, 2002 — an assumption, whether it's right or wrong.
Commissioner Regalado: But — but —
Mr. Warshaw: Let me just back up for one minute. I'm sorry. Please. Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: But I'm sorry, Don. They are —
Mr. Warshaw: No, I understand.
Commissioner Regalado: I mean, they are canceling a City because they assume something?
Mr. Warshaw: But let me — here's what I'm suggesting.
Commissioner Regalado: I thought they deal with numbers.
Mr. Warshaw: Here's what I'm saying to you: If there was a revenue enhancement, either with
the fire fee and/or the garbage fee that equaled the four point two million, you wouldn't need the
other two point four million, because I think that would be enough for the Oversight Board to say
there's revenue in the four point two. So in reality, by passing four point two million dollars
($4.2 million) worth of revenue, you in effect are getting the credit for six point six. And that's
303 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
the piece that's for those two out years. You know, I think it's important you understand that.
Those two out years which you've made a commitment to do — and I understand they're just
hypothetically saying — they're assuming you're not going to do it. If you say on the record
you're going to do it in 2001, 2002 and we meet the four point two million, my guess is that that
would be sufficient.
Vice Chairman Gort: They're also assuming there would not be an increase in recurring revenues
and some other kinds of revenues, other kinds of revenues. Like I came up with the parking
surcharge.
Mr. Warshaw: You're right. That between now and 2000 —
Vice Chairman Gort: By that time, we'll have a year of the surcharge, and we'll know what it's
going to produce.
Mr. Warshaw: It's a good point, because in the event that the parking surcharge revenue
exceeded the five point seven million that they've allowed for this year, you're right. There could
be offsets there, but that's something that we have to wait and see. And it is very possible. I
guess what I'm telling you is six point six is really four point two, if you find recurring revenue
on that side.
Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding, their biggest worry, also, is that the— we have a
population of over 400,000 people, and — but at any one time, because of the tourists and people
that work within the City, we have to take care of and provide service to one point two million
individuals, citizens. My understanding is that some of the thoughts going around is they want to
finance the baseball stadium with a special tax on car rentals. You know, that's something we
could look at, too.
Commissioner Regalado: You have not — I think, Don, that, you know — and I am not present at
all the Oversight Board meetings, so I can't speak for all of them. But I think that yesterday, the
Administration didn't fight as it did in the other meeting that I was present. You know,
everything that the Administration did was to agree with the Oversight Board, "We agree with
you this, we agree with you this." And you know, this budget that we're giving you, you're going
to have to defend it. And you're going to have to tell them that, you know, if- if we have so
much of a good Administration we can come up with immediate revenues, because we have the
Marine Stadium, we have Virginia Beach, Virginia Key, we have Watson Island. I mean, the
possibilities are incredible. We have leases that we can do in properties. But, you know, I— I
don't know. It's maybe that I . was frustrated yesterday; but I didn't see — I didn't see Bertha
defend the budget yesterday as I saw you the other time. I don't know. Maybe —
Mr. Warshaw: The times change, and you're right, and there's different kinds of pressure. But I
want to --
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, sure, time change, and so you get mellow and all that.
Mr. Warshaw: No, I'm not getting mellow. But let me just say this. And I'm not getting
mellow. I stated at the Oversight Board, and I'd like to state it again here. We have an anti -
deficiency ordinance, effective this January. Some piece of it changes, which, in effect, means
that department Directors can be in violation of civil law. And there's a piece in there that I had
stated some objection to when it passed last year. I know right now, for a fact, over and above
some of the litigation we have facing us that we're looking at a million dollars ($1,000,000),
304 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
possibly, to have to fund the Fraternal Order of Police Health Trust, because they've gone below
a certain level to pay out their claim's. And there are some other items that we're looking at that
when -- when the surplus went below two million dollars ($2,000,000), from six million. I want
to be able to look you all straight in the eye and tell you, I know that I can be in accordance with
anti -deficiency, and be balanced at the end of next fiscal year. And if any one or two of these
events -- not to mention some of the lawsuits we've got on the parking surcharge and on the VIP
Program — should come true, I mean, those revenue numbers just go down. And right away,
they're going to have to be charged against some department. Someone is going to be in default,
and the budget will be in deficit. So, yes, there is some truth to the fact that we're being a little
bit, you know, on the prudent side, to ask for a surplus of five or six million. Which, by the way,
that was a self-imposed surplus. No one directed us to have a surplus in these budgets. In past
years, the budget was balanced with no surplus. So this is a surplus that is there, but it makes
good sense to have it, because you know that there are some things that are coming forward, and
they're already right now on the table, including some of those lawsuits.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, Chairman Gort, may I?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, what is the lowest surplus or reserves that you think would
be prudent? Let me ask you this: What did our five-year plan and what has been the discussion
with the Oversight Board of the reserves that they would like to see us have?
Mr. Warshaw: That's a good question. Last year, we built in a one percent cushion or surplus in
the budget of three million dollars ($3,000,000).
Ms. Henry: Right.
Mr. Warshaw: And then built on that to this year, between five and six million dollars
($6,000,000). We've taken that money when this budget year ends, and the majority of that
money is dedicated to, I believe, Risk Management. Is that where it's going mostly?
Ms. Henry: Risk Management and some capital.
Mr. Warshaw: Risk Management reserves where, of course, we really need it. I would say for a
three hundred and four million dollar ($304,000,000) general fund budget, somewhere between
four and six million dollars ($6,000,000) would be a comfortable surplus, particularly this year, in
light of some of the things we know that are hanging out there. That's not even taking into
account unanticipated emergencies that could occur, that always do occur.
Commissioner Teele: So you would say between four and six million dollars ($6,000,000)?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: How much money did we show as a reserve in the current fiscal year that
we're in?
Mr. Warshaw: At the beginning of this year?
Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir. What was our budgeted number?
305 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
8• a
Mr. Warshaw: I'll get you the number.
Commissioner Teele: Wasn't it about three million dollars ($3,000,000)?
Mr. Warshaw: I think so. We exceeded it.
Commissioner Teele: So in other words —.say?
Mr. Warshaw: We exceeded it.
Commissioner Teele: So in other words, we're moving the reserves figure from three million
dollars ($3,000,000) to four million dollars ($4,000,000), four to six million dollars ($6,000,000)
for planning purposes. Now, based upon where we are right now, what is the reserve figure that
we're reflecting in our budget right now?
Chairman Plummer: This current year?
Commissioner Teele: No, in FY 2000.
Mr. Warshaw: Well, it was — it was between five and six million. But when the fire fee wasn't
passed, it's now under two million.
Commissioner Teele: So without the fire fee, they had to reject something. What is the number
that you took to the Oversight Board for our reserves for the FY 2000 year? Two million?
Ms. Henry: Two million. The operating surplus of two million.
Commissioner'Teele: So in effect, if you take the two million dollars ($2,000,000) that we have
just come up with and place that in reserves, our reserve figures are now four million dollars
($4,000,000); is that right?
Ms. Henry: I think it's important that we have some terminology here.
Commissioner Teele: OK.
Ms. Henry: There are required reserves — and I want to make sure we're talking reserve versus an
operating surplus, because our required reserves are in excess of seven and a half million. These
are the reserves that, per the agreement with the Oversight Board, we set aside to deal with those
issues. So we're not talking —
Commissioner Teele: OK. We're not talking about that.
Ms. Henry: We're talking surplus.
Commissioner Teele: We're talking about the operational surplus. OK?
Ms. Henry: Two million.
Commissioner Teele: Two million. Last year, how much was it?
Mr. Warshaw: This current year?
306 ' SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: Yes.
Mr. Warshaw: It's right now probably at about —
Commissioner Teele: No, budgeted. I'm not talking about how much is the actual. What was
our budget for last year that the Oversight Board approved?
Ms. Henry: He's checking.
Mr. Warshaw: I think it's three million. Three point one.\
Ms. Henry: Three point one million.
Mr. Warshaw: That is the one percent we built in.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So last year, it was three point one. And what you're saying right
now is that you recommend that it be at four million?
Mr. Warshaw: At least.
Commissioner Teele: At least. Even though last year it was at three?
Mr. Warshaw: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: So if we take all of the revenues that we have just raised and move them
into the reserves or, to use the terminology, surplus, that would be an adequate surplus; is that
right?
Mr. Warshaw: I would say yes.
Commissioner Teele: So that would be four million dollars ($4,000,000), right?
Mr. Warshaw: Give or take.
Commissioner Teele: Is that right, Ms. Henry? About four million?
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: So based upon that —.so you presented two million dollars ($2,000,000) to
the Oversight Board in that category. Now, we will adjust that to four million dollars
($4,000,000). So what is the shortfall now that we have to make up?
Ms. Henry: In FY 2000, we — recurring revenues meet recurring expenses. If you're — if — I'm
not sure what we're trying to make up at this point.
Mr. Warshaw: Well, the issue is that the money goes into the operating surplus, but the operating
surplus is not the issue. The issue is the recurring revenue to take you into the out years. It's a
five-year plan issue.
307 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Question: If what-- we're eliminating the fire fee. It equates to four point
two.
Mr. Warshaw: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Why did you have to come up with a thing that says cuts would be seven
point eight?
Mr. Warshaw: Well, that would be part of basically what was a laundry list of possibilities.
Chairman Plummer: What would equate of this laundry list to four point two, in your opinion?
Because that's where we are. Correct?
Commissioner Sanchez: Right.
Mr. Warshaw: No. Now you're at a leser number, based upon what's happened tonight.
Chairman Plummer: All right. So four point two. Now you're down to one point two.
Mr. Warshaw: No. But it was four point two, plus the two point two for the two out years of the
fire fee. So you're basically starting with a number that's in excess of six million. That's why I
told you —
Chairman Plummer: All right, six million, and we made three here tonight. So that means we're
down to three million.
Mr. Warshaw: That's correct.
Chairman Plummer: Now, why can't you give us reductions equating to three million dollars
($3,000,000)?
Mr. Warshaw: I'm not saying that I can't. I'm telling you that —
Chairman Plummer: Well, I think that's the answer.
Mr. Warshaw: But I'm telling you that the Oversight Board rejected us. And while
Commissioner Regalado was present as the Oversight Board meeting, I'll tell you again, we made
a passionate plea with PFM in the Estimating Conference to allow some of those position
reductions, and they refused to do it, and then the Oversight Board refused to.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman let's --
Vice Chairman Gort: Don — never mind.
Chairman Plummer: Go ahead.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, let's just find out exactly where we're at. OK? We've
raised one point two generated from the private haulers today; two hundred and fifty thousand in
in -kind donations, a quarter of a mil; one point one in the solid waste increase we just approved
about maybe 20 minutes ago; eighty-five thousand from the towing companies.
308 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
..
Ms. Henry: It's my understanding that it's not eighty-five from the towing company; that it is
substantially less. That we spent sixty-seven thousand, that that was for everything. So it's —
Commissioner Sanchez: Sixty-five? You want to make it sixty-five?
Dean De Jong: Dean De Jong, acting Director of GSA (General Services Administration). The
figure we spent this year was sixty-seven thousand. What the Commission talked about was a no
charge for tows within the City. Now, I can't tell you right now exactly how much that is, but it's
substantially less than the sixty-seven thousand. I'm guessing or estimating something in the
range of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
Commissioner Sanchez: So we're in the neighborhood of three point one million dollars ($3.1
million), give or take. That's the numbers that I have, Bertha, three point one.
Mr. Vilarello: The solid waste increase that you all have discussed is really about nine hundred
and fifty thousand dollars ($950,000), when you take into consideration the collection history and
our cost —
Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, OK, but let me — excuse me. Would you yield for me a minute?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: You're talking about the collection history. That might have been the
collection history, but my understanding, when we first got into this spot here, we hadthe NET
(Neighborhood Enhancement Team) people going, too, and we collected over two million dollars
($2,000,000) that had never been collected before. I think that 85 percent could be increased, and
I think you have enough argument there through the NETS, what you have done in the past to
increase that and to make sure you can bring that to ninety something percent.
Commissioner Sanchez: NowJet me just elaborate on something. Let's just throw a thought out.
Any extra revenue come in, assets from the cable fee, water and sewer, is there anything coming
in that —
Mr. Warshaw: Well, Commissioner, on the issue of excess revenues.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Warshaw: There are some categories where there were excess revenues. There were some
categories where we had, you know, negative revenue. So all of our revenue projections have
been dissected and estimated, based upon .where in some cases, we were below and others we
were above. So we might be above on some of those, but that's all been taken into consideration
by the Estimating Conference, by PFM, by the Oversight Board.
Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, I am willing to reconvene this meeting on the 30''. I think that
we have acted in good faith. We've done just about everything that we can. We can't do any
more.
Commissioner Teele: Well, we have a legal problem, in that — well
Mr. Vilarello: My recommendation is that you adopt the final millage rate and adopt a budget,
and instead of adjourning the meeting, continue the meeting until the 30�'. You have that right.
309 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
( .
Vice Chairman Gort: I can't be here on the 30'h
Chairman Plummer: There's a recommendation by the City Attorney. Is there a motion to that
effect?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I really think that Commissioner Sanchez is right where we
ought to be about — but I think we cannot not give the Manager specific directions on cuts. If we
raise three million dollars ($3,000,000), and I think we've raised three million— is that -- Do we
all agree that we raised three million?
Commissioner Sanchez: Three point one.
Commissioner Teele: Then I think we need to look at cutting three million dollars ($3,000,000)..
And I think we need to give him some direction. I don't have a copy of your memo. Could I get
another copy of the memo that you have? But I think, you know, we need to start by making the
motion to reduce the -- Did we ever get an adjusted and revised budget by the various
departments that included the inclusive that we requested for the City Manager, and the Mayor,
and the Commission, as we requested?
Ms. Henry: Yes. I'll put that up.
Commissioner Teele: Did you pass that out?
Ms. Henry: No. It's here.
Commissioner Teele: Well, you know, with all due respect, Ms. Henry, that machine is not
available to any of us. And I mean, I think, you know, that that's almost an arrogant position to
take, when we ask for a document, and it's on a machine, which the public can't see, we can't
see. I mean, you talk about spoon feeding, you talk about hording information, you talk about-1
mean, we asked that the Manager's budget, the Mayor's budget, our budgets be reconciled to
reflect the actual cost. Specifically as it related to the Manager, none of the Assistant Managers
are in his budget, and their staffs. And we've asked that those budgets be adjusted to reflect what
they actually cost.
As related to our budgets, we said that the travel for the Commissioners and any other expenses.
that the Commission has needs to be put in a pool budget and let us basically work off of that, so
that there's total disclosure on this thing. I mean, you know, we look at the Solid Waste budget.
We see eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000). We start adding it up. 'It went'to thirty. We
looked at the Police budget. It started at what number, J.L., and went to what number?
Chairman Plummer: On the Police budget?
Commissioner Teele: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Oh, we got it up around a hundred and thirty million
Commissioner Teele: But it showed — but on the paper, it shows what?
Chairman Plummer: Eighty-six.
310 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
1E
Commissioner Teele: So, I mean, you know, we need to have a little bit more candor here in
what these. budgets are, because I would like to move that the budgets related to increases for the
Mayor, the Commission and the Manager be zeroed out, so that there is no increase other than the
cost of living increase directly related to the union contracts, or the cost of living, cost of living
adjustment.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is that a motion?
Commissioner Teele: What's the cost of living adjustment? Three percent?
Commissioner Regalado: Three percent.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Mr. Warshaw: Two percent.
Commissioner Teele: Two percent?
Commissioner Teele: Two percent? What about the City Attorney's and the Clerk's budget? Do
you.all have adjustments?
Mr. Vilarello: My budget is — yes, I do have an adjustment for my non —
Commissioner Teele: Is it more than two percent?
Mr. Vilarello: No. It's exactly what it is for everybody else.
Commissioner Teele: It's two percent over last year's budget?
Mr. Vilarello: Two percent. The amount budgeted for cost of living increases is two percent.
Commissioner Teele: No, no. That ain't the question. The question is, does your budget for this
year have increases greater than the cost of living?
Mr. Vilarello: My budget increase is approximately six point five percent, which takes into
consideration people — pay increases to people over the last year and this year. It was six point
five over last year's budget.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I would move that the Mayor's budget, the Manager's budget, and
the Commission budget be held to a two percent increase, based upon personnel cost, cost of
living, and all other increases be identified, all other increases be identified for a further action by
this Commission in those three budgets. And let's start with ourselves so that from that point on,
everybody knows it's fair game.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. I'll second the motion.
Chairman Plummer: All right. All in favor say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
311 SEPT-EMBER 28, 1999
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-733
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BY DELETING ANY
INCREASES TO THE OFFICES OF THE MAYOR, THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION, AND THE CITY MANAGER, EXCEPT FOR COST OF
LIVING INCREASE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE UNION CONTRACT
(TWO PERCENT); FURTHER STIPULATING THAT ALL OTHER
PROPOSED INCREASES BE IDENTIFIED FOR A FURTHER ACTION BY
THE CITY COMMISSION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Sanchez: How much does that cut?
Chairman Plummer: Three dollars and eighty-four cents ($3.84).
Mr. Warshaw: We'll have to bring that back to you.
Commissioner Teele: Now, that's going to be a little bit complicated, because you've got to add
in numbers that have not been in there. For example, none of the Assistant Managers— they're
somewhere in the budget.
Mr. Warshaw: You're right. It's all about movement of people, based upon things we've
discussed here.
Commissioner Teele: OK. And Mr. Attorney, did you prepare a resolution where we're
approving positions and organization charts, as well, as we asked in the last meeting, by
department?
Mr. Vilarello: There is an ordinance that's coming at the first meeting in October which will deal
with that specifically.
Commissioner Teele: Well, when we approve the budget, that's the time to do that. So if we're
going to recess, could we make sure that this budget ordinance be adjusted, so that we're not just
approving the budget, but we're approving an organization chart and personnel ceilings for each
of the departments?
312 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Vilarello: Can you give me that?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, I can give it to you.
Mr. Vilarello: _ OK.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, now, once we have done that, do you have any idea what
range that is? How much increase did the Commission budgets have?
Mr. Warshaw: I think it was eleven percent.
Commissioner Teele: So that — .
Vice Chairman Gort: It was a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
Commissioner Teele: So that two percent — from six percent to two percent saves how much
money?
Mr. Warshaw: We'll have to calculate it. It went from eleven percent, and then I think we
brought it down last time to
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. My understanding was it went from one seventy-six to one
ninety-six. That's twenty, thousand dollars per Commissioner times five. That's a hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000).
Mr. Warshaw: Then that was further reduced --
Chairman Plummer: Yeah, but you're including two percent COLA (Cost of Living Allowance)
in there.
Mr. Warshaw: That was further reduced, based upon a discussion, I think, to sixty-five thousand.
A hundred thousand, reduced to sixty-five. But you didn't act on it at that point. I'll get you the
updated numbers.
Ms. Henry: Commissioner, I apologize that this was not given you in hard copy. I
misunderstood what you were asking for. At the meeting, you had asked us to prepare an
analysis that shows it, and that's what we did. And I apologize for that. I can print this out and
give it to you. But the information that you've asked for is on the screen:
Commissioner Regalado: So you raised the Commissioners' budget eighty-four thousand dollars
($84,000), more or less, right?
Ms. Henry: Well, right — let me — if I can just go through this real quickly. The amended budget
obviously speaks for itself. And the `99/2000 is where we are prior to the adjustments that were
discussed. We were asked that —
Commissioner Teele: Madam, go all the way. Use that— take that — no, no. Take that little
cursor all the way out to the difference as it relates to Commissioners. You're up to forty-eight.
Now, go straight out there. What's that 'number? No, come back. Look at it there. Yeah. No.
Difference, difference.
313 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
rw
Chairman Plummer: The forty-eight.
Commissioner Teele: No.
Ms..Henry: Oh, I'm sorry. That really isn't difference. That's the total. That should be --
Commissioner Teele: Go all the way out to difference.
Ms. Henry: That should be total. I'm sorry'. That shouldn't be difference.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Ms. Henry: That should be total, with the adjustments.
Commissioner Teele: So it's not difference.
Ms. Henry: No. With the adjustments, it's the total. So you had asked that we take a look at the
non -departmental accounts and redistribute the cost of those items.
Commissioner Teele: Well, let's just start with the Commission. Let's just finish that. Our
budget this year is at?
Ms. Henry: Eight seventy-nine three sixty-three or eight sixty-eight. And for 2000, initially, we
proposed nine seventy-five six ninety-five. In non -departmental, there is one employee that I
believe is in one of the Commission offices -- I don't remember which one it is -- that's in the
non -departmental account that, pursuant to your request, has been moved back to theCommission
office. So that brings the overall Commission budget to a million two-o-two four.
Commissioner Teele: It could be in a pool — I mean, whatever it is, whoever the person is, it
could be in a pool, you know. But what I'm saying is that the — the same way you do the
Manager. If it was already there, if the person was already there, then treat it as a- pool expense,
carry it forward. I mean, you're not going to do that— do the Commission offices the same way
you're doing the Manager's office. In other words, if you've got people that you're going to put
in that office, just treat them as a pool cost, and then you calculate the increase based upon that.
Ms. Henry: OK. If you look at the Manager's office, you asked that we put the ACM's
(Assistant City Managers) and their respective staffs into the Manager's office. That's being
done. And the negatives below that, with the exception of media relations, you asked that two
positions —
Commissioner Teele: What is the cost —
Ms. Henry: You wanted to look at that.
Commissioner Teele: What is the cost of the Assistant Managers and their staffs?
Ms. Henry: Five sixty-nine five fifteen.
314 . . SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: So what you're saying is that the Manager's actual staff budget is nine
hundred thousand plus five hundred thousand, for a total of one point four million? One point
five?
Vice Chairman Gort: One point five.
Ms. Henry: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: How many Assistant Managers do we have?
Ms. Henry: Three. And their respective staffs.
Commissioner Teele: Plus executive assistants, plus special assistants, plus —
Mr. Warshaw: Assistant secretary, clerical, three ACM's.
Commissioner Teele: And they need a staff.
Mr. Warshaw: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: Do they have special assistants, as well?
Mr. Warshaw: Not now. They have a secretary. There are some clerical people. And I'll get
you the whole breakdown of all the people.
Commissioner Teele: And the Mayor?
Ms. Henry: The Mayor, you asked that we put Sister Cities and Protocol into the Mayor's
budget, those two.
Commissioner Teele: How many staff people are associated with Sister Cities?
Ms. Henry: Two.
Commissioner Teele: Do we have any reports on Sister Cities? I mean what are we doing on
Sister Cities, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Warshaw: I don't know the answer. I mean, Sister Cities is a program that's been around the
City as long as I've been here.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I mean, that's part of why we ought to look at it.
Mr. Warshaw: I'm not sure what you're asking me. I mean, do I know Sister Cities exists? Yes,
I do: Do I know we have Sister City relationships? Yes. The people from Sister Cities come to
the Administration —
Commissioner Teele: Are there any reports on the Sister City Program? I mean —
Mr. Warshaw: I don't generate any reports, but certainly, we've interacted with people who have
visited here from Sister Cities, and visited the Administration.
315 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Regalado: But when was the last time that we had a visit from the Sister Cities?
Mr. Warshaw: Several times this year from Japan, one of the countries in South America.
Chairman Plummer: How much is there?
Commissioner Teele: What is the Sister Cities budget?
Chairman Plummer: How much is Sister Cities for?
Commissioner Regalado: A hundred and sixty thousand.
Ms. Henry: A hundred sixty thousand.
Chairman Plummer: I think you ought to leave it. Till you know for sure exactly what it is, I say
leave it alone.
Commissioner Teele: You say what?
Chairman Plummer: I say until you know exactly what's happening in Sister Cities Program —
Commissioner Regalado: Nothing is happening.
Chairman Plummer: Well, if you know that for certain, that's one thing.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I'll tell you what, J.L., why don't you come up with some cuts?
Everybody wants to start defending everything, but I mean, you know, the point here is —
Chairman Plummer: Sir, I came up and said let's talk about adopting the Manager's
recommended cuts. OK?
Commissioner Teele: Pass them out. Let —
Chairman Plummer: Here they are. I passed it down to you.
Commissioner Regalado: But that's the same thing that they rejected.
Commissioner Teele: They've already rejected it.
Chairman Plummer: And all you got to do is take away three million dollars ($3,000,000), and
you're there, as far as I can see. Now, if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. But I — this here, his
proposed alternative cuts raised seven point eight.
Commissioner Teele: How much money does he cut? Cut.
Chairman Plummer: He cut seven point eight.
Commissioner Teele: Seven point eight million dollars ($7.8 million)?
Chairman Plummer: Yes.
316 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Regalado: No. That's vacant. That's vacant.
Mr. Warshaw: Seven point eight is the — let me get a copy of it.
Commissioner Regalado: Vacant positions.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, I got it.
Commissioner Teele: But how much of that is vacant positions?
Commissioner Regalado: All of them.
Vice Chairman Gort: All of them.
Mr. Warshaw: No.
Chairman Plummer: No. Seven point two.
Mr. Warshaw: Well, let me go through it all. The six point eight is the positions. And then if
you see further down where it says other reductions, there's another one point two million. And
we've — I've listed those things and read them into the record the last time, but we never really
made any decisions on any of those. So in addition to the potential for salary cuts, you've got the
categories listed under other reductions.
ChairmanPlummer: So what are you saying?
Mr. Warshaw: What I'm saying is that the whole page represents seven point eight. If you're
asking me to take this entire page, and look, and make further recommendations, I'll be glad to do
that.
Chairman Plummer: No. I'm saying if you take this whole page and deduct the three million,
which we know we've raised today and are comfortable with, you're at four point eight. We only
needed four point two.
Commissioner Teele: What? What? No, that's not right. If you add three million dollars
($3,000,000), and you take these reductions, you have a positive budget impact of ten million
dollars ($10,000,000).
Chairman Plummer: No, that's not what we're told.
Commissioner Teele: Are you certain about these vacant positions?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir. But again, as we stated earlier, four point two of the six point eight has
been taken out for attrition. So in effect, we have two point six remaining, and another one point
two under the other reductions, and five hundred thousand -- Have we taken the five -hundred
thousand for VIP already?
Chairman Plummer: It's in there.
Ms. Henry: We show that.
317 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Warshaw: We show that. OK. So we're talking about one point two plus two point eight
potentially.
Commissioner Teele: So it's not seven anymore.
Mr. Warshaw: That's correct.
Commissioner Teele: So what's the total number?
Mr. Warshaw: Two point eight plus one point two.
Ms. Henry: There's —
Commissioner Teele: That's four.
Mr. Warshaw: Correct. There's a potential for four.
Commissioner Teele: How much money are we cutting the Metro Action Plan by?
Mr. Warshaw: Right now, we're not cutting it anything.
Commissioner Teele: It says other reductions, a hundred and twenty-seven thousand three
hundred and thirty-eight dollars ($127,338).
Mr. Warshaw: Right. This was — these were some recommended other reductions. We haven't
done this.
Commissioner Teele: Well, that's what we're talking about now, right?
Mr. Warshaw: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: So how much does that cut MMAP (Metro -Miami Action Plan) by?
Ms. Henry: That's it. That's the total budget for MMAP.
Commissioner Sanchez: ,They're all the total budgets.
Mr. Warshaw: That would eliminate it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Commissioner Teele: So here we are in the middle of a five — crisis relating to our human
relations issues, and we want to eliminate MMAP?
Mr. Warshaw: I'm not saying we want to eliminate it, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: But that's what this — the one twenty-seven does eliminate it, right?
Mr. Warshaw: That's correct. And when we prepared this, we prepared a laundry list. At one
point, we had a million two coming out of Bayfront Park. We revised it to four fourteen.
318 SEPTEMBER 28,.1999
Commissioner Regalado: On the reductions, there is no — I don't — there is no Sister Cities or
Protocol.
Commissioner Teele: So I just want to get this straight. The Sister Cities Program is how much
money?
Commissioner Regalado: A hundred and sixty thousand.
Commissioner Teele: A hundred and sixty thousand. But on MMAP, at a hundred and twenty-
seven, we eliminate it. I just want to hear —
Mr. Warshaw: I'm not recommending to eliminate it.
Commissioner Teele: But these —
Mr. Warshaw: But this was not my recommendation. It was a list of options, and I specified that
in the memo that was attached to this, that these were just some options to look at.
Commissioner Teele: How much of this is program dollars for MAP, and how much of this is
personnel?
Ms. Henry: From MMAP those —
Chairman Plummer: You know, I'm about ready to recommend —
Ms. Henry: All personnel.
Mr. Warshaw: It's all personnel. The balance of it is funded by the County. So this is our
contribution.
Commissioner Teele: This would be -- So, in effect, the City of Miami would be eliminating our
involvement with MMAP?
Mr. Warshaw: If we were to eliminate this hundred and twenty-seven thousand dollars, our
contribution —
Commissioner Teele: But we would continue a hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars
($155,000) for Sister Cities?
Commissioner Regalado: A hundred and sixty.
Mr. Warshaw: Well, I don't know if there's a relationship between the two.
Commissioner Regalado: Plus fifty thousand for Protocol.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, we're looking at all kinds of investigations. We're looking at all
kinds of human relations challenges. We have people out creating issues that don't exist on radio.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, Commissioner I— like you said, we do the budget. So I move to
restore Metro -Miami Action Plan, and eliminate —
319 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Henry: It's not cut.
Mr. Warshaw: It wasn't taken out, Commissioner.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, I move to leave it as it is and eliminate Sister Cities and Protocol
for two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000).
Commissioner Teele: Well, what's the total amount? We don't want to eliminate Protocol, do
we?
Commissioner Regalado: Two hundred 'and sixty thousand dollars ($260,000).
Commissioner Teele: Of how much money? How much is Protocol and how much is Sister
Cities?
Ms. Henry: Protocol is sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) and Sister Cities is a hundred and sixty.
Commissioner Regalado: So you cut it in half, both.
Commissioner Sanchez: Listen, would you yield for me?
Chairman Plummer: Guys, we're going in circles.
Commissioner Teele: No, we're not.
Commissioner Regalado: No, we are not. No, we are not. We're cutting.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Commissioner Sanchez: Protocol —
Commissioner Regalado: They just need to take some notes of what we're going. That's it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Protocol is where you get your proclamations, your certificates and
every other thing pertaining to the City. So I ask you —
Commissioner Regalado: But that's the Mayor's office, Joe.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, I think there is a legitimate need for Protocol. And I think, you
know, again —
Commissioner Sanchez: I do, too.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, I would support reducing the Sister Cities Program in half, and
requiring that over the next 180 days that there be no funds expended for Sister Cities, and that
over the next 180 days, we get a full report and plan for the Sister Cities Program. And I think
that's the way to do it. Let's — it would be at 100 percent of the funding that it is at now, but we
would suspend the program for six months until we have a plan on Sister Cities that we can
adopt.
Ms. Henry: Commissioner, there are people in the Sister Cities Program.
320 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
m
Commissioner Teele: Then they would just be moved to another department somewhere till we
can get a full plan.
Commissioner Regalado: But what people? Excuse me.
Ms. Henry: There's staff in the Sister Cities Program.
Commissioner Regalado: Where is that program? Where is it located? I mean, where is the
staff? Where do they work?
Ms. Henry: Physically located, I'm not sure.
Mr. Warshaw: It's located in the Mayor's office. And I don't know who the people are, and I'd
like to find out who they are.
Commissioner Teele: I don't think we should put people's names on the record, either.
Mr. Warshaw: And I don't know who they are.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. But I'm just asking because I thought that Sister Cities
used to be here some time ago, but it disappeared. And now you say that it is in the Mayor's
office. I don't know. I'm just asking.
Ms. Henry: I don't know exactly where it is. But --
Commissioner Regalado: And do you know how many employees?
Ms. Henry: Two employees.
Commissioner Regalado: But do they work.for the Mayor or for Sister Cities?
Mr. Warshaw: It's my understanding that the Sister Cities Program is assigned to the office of
the Mayor. I could be wrong about the —
Ms. Henry: Right.
Mr. Warshaw: -- how long it's —
Commissioner Regalado: No. What I'm saying is, do they do work for the office? I mean, they
do clerical work?
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, I can only tell you what I know about Sister Cities. Having been
the Police Chief and the Manager, I've interacted with people who have come here from our
Sister Cities for many, many years.
Commissioner Regalado: Don, I know.
Mr. Warshaw: But I don't know the exact answer to your question.
321 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
11,
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would continue to say that we have an obligation not to
fund any program that we don't know what they're doing. I would recommend that the Sister
Cities Program employees be transferred to an office like the Management Department, or the
Budget and Management, that they do a plan under supervision, a comprehensive plan, that they
submit it here. We'll give them 180 days to do that. And once they have completed a plan that's
acceptable to the Mayor and this Commission, they would have the 100 percent funding. And
what I'm saying is that we would take their salaries, whatever that is, and move it to the
Management Budget Office, and under them, let them prepare an intelligent plan, and then return
it here. That would say roughly 50 percent of the funds from that office. I think we should leave
the Protocol Office as it is, because as Commissioner Sanchez ' has said, there is a need for
protocol in the City, particularly like Miami. And I think the Mayor, as our chief elected official,
should control those assets, but he should control them fairly. And so I would ask that the Metro
Action Miami Plan budget be restored.
Vice Chairman Gort: It was never cut.
Commissioner Teele: Well, if we— you heard Commissioner Plummer say three times, let's take
this paper, OK? This paper is a good starting point. That's what we're talking about. And we're
accepting all of the Manager's recommendations above the line that he says comes to two point —
what did you say, before we get to the increased revenue?
Mr. Warshaw: About another four million on that page.
Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. I'm saying —
Vice Chairman Gort: No, not the whole page.
Commissioner Teele: Not the whole page. The vacant positions, the sworn positions, the
positions to be deleted, the FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act), the add -backs, and all of
that equal what in savings?
Mr. Warshaw: I'll give it to you in a second.
Commissioner Teele: I thought you said two point —
Mr. -Warshaw: Two point six, I think.
Commissioner Teele: Two point six. Then you add the Vehicle Empowerment Program.
Mr. Warshaw: That we've taken already.
Commissioner Teele: That's already taken. OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: That's half a mill,.right?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: From the local Law Enforcement Trust Fund?
Mr. Warshaw: That's from the VIP Program.
322 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: No, that's a different source.
Mr. Warshaw: That's an enhanced revenue stream.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I believe the local Law Enforcement Trust Fund is going to do
something.
Mr. Warshaw: That's something else. Right.
Commissioner Sanchez: So that's another half a mill.
Commissioner Teele: ' That the Commission office budgets be reduced by —'is the sixty-five
thousand dollars the — does that include the two percent or is that the full eleven percent?
Mr. Warshaw: That was the eleven percent that was brought down to about five or— we'll have
to get the exact percentage.
Ms. Henry: It was brought down to three point four percent.
Mr. Warshaw: That means that represents a three point four percent increase for each office.
Sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000).
Commissioner Teele: All right. Bayfront Trust, Mr. Chairman, what level of cuts would you be
willing to live with on that?
Chairman Plummer: I thought we would suffer the same as everybody else at three percent.
Commissioner Teele: This says four hundred and fourteen.
Chairman Plummer: It's the biggest cut that's proposed in there besides salary savings.
Commissioner Teele: But J.L., what's a reasonable number? Because we ought to go —
Chairman Plummer: I'd have to ask Ira. You know, we have all of the maintenance of the
program. You know, you want me to turn around and turn maintenance back over to the City, I
can take the four hundred thousand dollar ($400,000) cut. But if I've got to continue to do the
maintenance there,' I'm doing the maintenance of Bicentennial —
Commissioner Teele: But J.L., just give us a number. Just give us a number. We're going to
support whatever number is reasonable and fair in your mind.
Chairman Plummer: I think —'cut that in half, I think, is what we can live with in the way of cuts.
Commissioner Teele: Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for Bayfront Trust.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Commissioner Teele: We agree to that. International Trade Board. Mr. Chairman?
Commissioner Sanchez: Fifty thousand.
323 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
f v
Commissioner Teele: A cut? A cut of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) there. Metro -Miami
Action Plan, zero. Reducing the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) by one hundred and
twenty-seven thousand dollars ($127,000).
Commissioner Sanchez: What?
Commissioner Teele: Substitute the Metro Action Miami Action Plan for the CRA for half of
that, sixty thousand dollars ($60,000).
Commissioner Sanchez: So sixty more? All right.
Chairman Plummer: What did the VIP bring in this year? Seemed like to me it was a lot more
than a half a million.
Commissioner Teele: The Management recovery — what is Management recovery? J.L., let's
just go down this list. What is Management recovery?
Ms. Henry: He's going to get the,Police Chief to give you that. '
Commissioner Teele: What is Management recovery?
Ms. Henry: Management recovery are expenses in the non -departmental account that deals with
training for the managerial group and it's for various sundry things.
Commissioner Teele: All right. So let's accept the hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000)
there. Training — you know, I'm going to tell you, the first thing that everybody cuts in
Government is training, which should be the last thing that we should cut, in my judgment. And
on reductions in the Fire Department, are those reductions from the Fire Department— do they in
any way impact the safety, the operations of the Fire Board, the Fire Department? Is the Fire.
Marshall here or the Fire Chief here? Would the smart guy add this stuff up for us, please? Ms.
Henry?
Commissioner Sanchez: Six point three so far.
Commissioner Teele: Could you have the smart young man add these numbers up, the savings
that we're making here?
Mr. Warshaw: They want to know what the savings is.
Commissioner Teele: Just under this other reduction, just that section. Mr. Chief?
Mr. Carlos Gimenez (Chief, Fire Department): Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Can you live with the hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars ($168,000)
reductions that are outlined in this? And would those reductions in any way impact the safety and
the smooth operation of the Department? We recognize that they would be uncomfortable. But
can you live with those cuts?
Chief Gimenez: We could live with those cuts, yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Excellent.
324 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: You know what? You're the first person in the Department, other than the
Commission Office to say, "I can live with any cuts." And the next office is the Clerk's Office
and the City Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Regalado: One thing. The Manager did —
Commissioner Sanchez: Wait, wait, wait.
Commissioner Teele: Let's just go through this. Mr. —
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but it has to do with this that we're— that you're doing. The
Manager —
Commissioner Teele: But let's just summarize this, and then we get it. Unclassified salary
reductions, Ms. Henry, we're agreeing at a hundred and fifty thousand. Commission office
reductions, we're agreeing at sixty-five thousand. Bayfront Trust, we're agreeing— is somebody
adding this up?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Two hundred and fifty thousand.
Chairman Plummer: Two hundred.
Vice Chairman Gort: Two hundred thousand.
Commissioner Teele: I'm sorry. Two hundred thousand. The International Trade Board is a cut
of fifty thousand. Metro Action Miami Plan is zero. And the CRA cut is sixty thousand.
Management recovery is one fifty. Reductions in the Fire Department is one sixty-eight. What
did those cuts add up to?
t
Mr. Warshaw: Seven hundred and eighty-three thousand.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So seven hundred and eighty-three thousand. Mr. Chairman, before —
I mean, we can discuss .this. I would move the reduction of seven hundred and eighty-three
thousand as read into the record.
Commissioner Regalado: I second..
Chairman Plummer: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Show it as unanimous.
325 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-734
A MOTION ACCEPTING THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED
BUDGET REDUCTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2004, AS FOLLOWS:
Unclassified salary:
$150,000;
Commission Office:
$ 65,000;
Bayfront Park:
$200,000;
International Trade Board:
$ 50,000;
Community Redevelopment Agency:
$ 60,000;
Management Recovery:
$150,000;
Fire Department —Reduce by:
$168,000
TOTAL REDUCTION:
$783,000
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
[Note for the Record: Although absent during roll call, Vice Chairman Gort requested of the
Clerk to show him in agreement with the motion.]
Commissioner Teele: All right. I would ask the Clerk. Do you have any cuts that you can offer
us?
Mr. Foeman: I propose to not fill one position that I asked for in the amount of $30,000.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So the Clerk's Office is saying that they will reduce by one their
personnel level and cut thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). Does that include the FICA, and the
fringe benefits, and the health insurance, and all of that?
Mr. Foeman: Well, we had projected the base salary, and I'd have to get with Budget to find out
what total that represents.
Ms. Henry: The only applicable at this point would be the FICA.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So let's agree at thirty thousand. Mr. Chairman, I would move that
the —
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Clerk, I agreed to the last vote.
326 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
f 6'01
Commissioner Teele: I would move that the Clerk's Department be reduced by thirty thousand
dollars ($30,000), bringing this to a total of eight hundred and ten— eight hundred and thirteen
dollars in savings ($813) in savings. Is that correct, mister smart guy? What's your name, sir?
Marcelo Penha: Marcelo Penha.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Penha. And you're a graduate of where?
Mr. Penha: Florida International.
Commissioner Teele: And how long have you been with the City?
Mr. Penha: Approximately ten months now.
Commissioner Teele: It's a pleasure to have you here. You really look the part. Appreciate it.
Mr. Penha: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: What is the total so far?
Mr. Penha: Under other reductions, eight hundred and seventy-three thousand.
Commissioner Teele: Are you sure? I got eight thirteen.
Mr. Warshaw: It's the sixty thousand for the CRA we didn't add in. So that's the difference
between —
Commissioner Teele: OK. Eight seventy?
Mr. Warshaw: -- eight thirteen and eight seventy-three.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Vilarello: I currently have one vacant Assistant City Attorney position. What I would
propose is that I not fill that position for six months, and that should result in a savings of
between twenty-five and thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). I don't have the exact number, which
is — can anybody help in Budget with — I believe it's funded at fifty-eight thousand dollars,
Assistant City Attorney.
Mr. Warshaw: That's twenty-eight thousand.
Commissioner Teele: Is that fully loaded, fifty-eight.
Mr. Vilarello: No.
Mr. Warshaw: Forty-eight.
Mr. Vilarello: It's forty-eight, and it's as salary only.
Commissioner Teele: So what's the fully loaded number? At 30 percent — don't we have a
scale? Don't we have a number that we agree on as a fully loaded number?
327 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
., ,
Ms. Henry: But we will — I mean, we can include that, but it wouldn't be — it wouldn't be
considered recurring. It would be non -recurring.
Commissioner Teele: I would move the reduction of the City Attorney's budget by twenty-eight
thousand dollars ($28,000), to reflect the —
Commissioner Sanchez: Make it thirty.
Commissioner Teele: -- thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to reflect the delay in hiring by six
months of the position. The position would be filled, but it would be filled 180 days from hence.
Mr. Vilarello: I'm keeping the position. You're reducing my budget by thirty thousand dollars
($30,000).
Commissioner Teele: By thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). I would so move, Mr. Chairman.
For a total of what, Mr. —
Chairman Plummer: Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: All opposed? Show it unanimous.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-735
A MOTION MAKING THE FOLLOWING REDUCTIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1999-2000:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REDUCED BY $30,000;
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REDUCED BY $30,000 (VACANT POSITION
FOR SIX MONTHS).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
328 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: All right. Mr. Manager, now, we've done — other than — we've got the
Clerk under us, we have the Attorney under us, and we have ourselves. Now, other than that,
everybody else is yours. So, you know, that represents about ten percent of the total budget. So
can you come up with another 90 percent on the other side?
Mr. Warshaw: I could work on it.
Chairman Plummer: Well, you know, let me ask you. I once had a secretary that made a
proposal. Let me ask you if it has any merit. Most every office has more than one person.
Consider working a seven -hour day.
Mr. Warshaw: If it comes to it, we'll look at that.
Chairman Plummer: Well, I'm saying if you work a seven -hour day, then you're talking about
five hours a week off. Hey, I don't know. I'm just trying— I'm grasping for straws. I admit the
truth.
Mr. Warshaw: I think what we need to do is kind of digest everything we've done here and cost
it out, you know, to the, penny, and come up with some justifications on it. First thing in the
morning, we can —
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. City Manager, with —just on the record, with all the reductions put
forth today, and what we have been able to bring in, I have a total of seven point one now. Seven
point one.
Commissioner Teele: Why don't we ask Mr. - what was your last name again, sir?
Ms. Henry: Penha.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Paine?
Ms. Henry: Penha. Penha.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. — what?
Ms. Henry: P-E-N-H-A.
Commissioner Teele: P-E what?
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm going to tell you how I got that number.
Ms. Henry: P-E-N-H-A.
Vice Chairman Gort: Penha.
Commissioner Sanchez: Are we ready?
Commissioner Teele: Pina. Mr. Penha. Is it Pina or Penha?
Mr. Penha: Penha.
329 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Be careful.
Commissioner Sanchez: Marcelo, are we ready? Start.
Commissioner Teele: The guy is getting two-timed. I mean, you know, he —
Chairman Plummer: Be careful.
Commissioner Sanchez: Hold on. Are you ready? One point two five from the garbage revenue;
two hundred and fifty thousand, in -kind donation; sixty-five thousand, towing.
Mr. Warshaw: Wait. Let's back up for a minute. It's not one point two. It's one million and
then two hundred and fifty thousand. It's two separate.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. One million.
Mr. Warshaw: It's one million on the increase from fifty to a hundred --
Vice Chairman Gort: Ira says that you can stretch to a hundred.
Mr. Warshaw: -- and two hundred fifty on the disposal.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Sixty-five, towing; one point one, solid waste increase.
Ms. Henry: Thirty in towing.
Commissioner Sanchez: What do you mean thirty in towing? That's not what I was told. Thirty
in towing now? All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: It keeps coming down.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Thirty in towing; five— half a mil in VIPs; another half a mil,
Law Enforcement Trust Fund. Hey, there's the Chief. He agreed to it.
Chief O'Brien: We're trying to work that out to see.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Chief O'Brien: There's some legal complications.
Vice Chairman Gort: More or less.
Chief O'Brien: Well, the half a million we're hoping to get, but we still have to make sure that
that falls within the guidelines.
Chairman Plummer: A half a million on what?
Chief O'Brien: On overtime that basically would supplement.the VIP additional program.
Chairman Plummer: Oh. So in other words, it would be two million from Law Enforcement, and
a half a million from overtime?
330 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chief O'Brien: No. A half a million from LETF. But the down side —
Mr. Warshaw: There's a half a million of enhanced revenue from the VIP Program.
Chairman Plummer: It's more than that.
Mr. Warshaw: No. It's a half a million.
Chairman Plummer: What did it raise last year?
Mr. Warshaw: Whatever it raised, there's a -- we're increasing it on the projection side by a half
million. And were doing —
Chairman Plummer: A half a million more?
Mr. Warshaw: More.
Chairman Plummer: Aha. OK.
Chief O'Brien: Exactly. Exactly.
Mr. Warshaw: Now, Chief O'Brien is working on a half a million right now, .tonight, Law
Enforcement Trust Fund, and that's so we can come within this deadline. That's a non -recurring
piece.
Chairman Plummer: I think the Mayor is going to be disappointed.
Mr. Warshaw: We're.not finished with it yet.
Chairman Plummer: Oh. I mean, when he recommended two million, and you're down now to
half a million —
Mr. Warshaw: We're not saying it won't be more. We're saying that for right now, immediately,
so tonight, he's working on a half a million.
Chairman Plummer: All right. All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a question.
Chairman Plummer: If you got Mr. —
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a question.
Chairman Plummer: Question.
Vice Chairman Gort: Did the sanitation pass?
Mr. Vilarello: No. You, passed a motion — a resolution— a motion of intent, but you'd have to.
adopt an ordinance with that increase.
331 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: It was three to two. Well, it did pass.
Mr. Vilarello: The motion had passed.
Chairman Plummer: The resolution passed, yes, to answer the question.
Commissioner Teele: But we need an ordinance —
Chairman Plummer: You'd have to have an ordinance to make it effective.
Commissioner Teele: -- tonight.
Chairman Plummer: Tonight?
Commissioner Teele: If you want to have any budget —
Mr. Vilarello: And we're prepared to have an ordinance ready for your consideration tonight.
Commissioner Teele: And it needs four votes.
Mr. Vilarello: If it's going to pass on an emergency basis, it. needs four votes. If it's going to —
Commissioner Teele: Well, the only way it's going to be in the budget this year for 2000 —
Mr. Vilarello: Well, three votes passes it on first reading.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Mr. Vilarello: Three votes passes it on first reading, and three votes passes it on second reading
at the next Commission meeting.
Commissioner Teele: Would the Oversight Board accept that?
Mr. Vilarello: I don't know, Commissioner. But it —
Commissioner Teele: All right. Well, let's pass it on first reading. Let's take it up on first
reading.
Chairman Plummer: You want to do it tonight or tomorrow?
Vice Chairman Gort: Tonight.
Commissioner Teele: Tonight.
Chairman Plummer: OK.
Commissioner Teele: Thanks.
Vice Chairman Gort: This is a morning — the morning meeting. Good morning, everybody.
Wake up. See, I got the second wind now. Here we go.
332 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Good. Then go home.
Vice Chairman Gort: Uh-uh. What happened to Maria?
Chairman Plummer: They close — I don't know — a long time ago. We ain't getting no Greek
grub tonight.
Commissioner Gort: Can we get breakfast?
Chairman Plummer: No. Maria's doesn't have breakfast. Have you ever had grape leaves for
breakfast? I don't think it's too appealing.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, I'm just thinking out loud. We just approved the contract
for the Federal lobbyist. Don't we have a budget allocation for a Federal lobbyist coordinator?
Commissioner Regalado: It's vacant. It's vacant in the office of the City Manager.
Ms. Henry: No.
Commissioner Regalado: The Federal and State liaison, it's vacant. Or was it — it's eighty
thousand dollars.
Ms. Henry: We had a position that's no longer there.
Commissioner Regalado: You mean to tell me that that position was never in the office of the
City Manager, the Federal and State liaison, eighty -thousand dollars?
Commissioner Teele: Y'all better talk to the Personnel Director.
Mr. Martinez: Commissioner, I'm being told that that position was cut before.
Commissioner Regalado: When was it cut?
Mr. Martinez: Hold on a second, sir. We're trying to find out.
Commissioner Regalado: Can Angela tell us if that position ever existed?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, it did.
Ms. Bellamy: Yes, Commissioner. I can tell you it did exist, and Frank Castaneda filled that
position.
Vice Chairman Gort: He filled it?
Ms. Bellamy: Excuse me?
Mr. Warshaw: That was the position he held.
333 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Ms. Bellamy: He filled that one after he left Director of Community Development or NET
Coordinator.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but you paid Frank how many months when he left? Several
months.
Mr. Warshaw: He had a severance package. I'm not sure what it was. I can find out for you.
Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean, it's irrelevant. But —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, can we read this ordinance for first reading now?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes, Commissioner. I'm trying to get the right number,in place. As I have it, it
would increase — it's already been included in the tax bill, an increase to two sixteen. The motion
was to increase it an additional eighteen dollars ($18), which would make it a total of two
hundred thirty-four, but that eighteen dollars ($18) wouldn't be billed until six months into the
fiscal year. Does the Commission wish to consider anything in the out years with regard to the
solid waste fee, or just to leave it as it currently exists in the ordinance?
Commissioner Sanchez: As it currently exists in the ordinance.
Mr. Vilarello: OK. I've prepared it as an emergency ordinance.
Commissioner Teele: Let's do it for first reading, please.
Mr. Vilarello: An ordinance of the City Commission — well, you need a motion and a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Read the ordinance. Call the roll.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
SECTION 22-12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED, THEREBY INCREASING THE SOLID WASTE FEE FROM
$216.00 TO $234.00 FOR FY 1999-2000, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2000;
CONTAINING A REPEALER .PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
334 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Teele, and was passed on
first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
Chairman Plummer: Next item.
Commissioner Teele: It passed first reading.
Mr. Vilarello: It passed on first reading. It comes back on the 121h.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire whether or not under the Anti -
Deficiency Act there have been any notifications of budgets that have been adjusted, as required
by the Anti -Deficiency Act.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Manager?
Commissioner Teele: The adjustment would go to you.
Chairman Plummer: There have been — I have signed approximately six or seven. I refused to
sign one, which was for travel, and I've asked for more information. The rest of them that had
exceeded — what was it? The ten percent or the ten thousand dollars ($10,000)? — that the
Manager had indicated to me, without question that they`were all justified and with justification
for my signature and —
Commissioner Teele: And you approved them?
Chairman Plummer: And I did approve all but one, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that you provide the Commission
that in writing, or at least a copy of that with a transmittal. The intent of this was that you would
basically exercise your responsibilities as you deemed appropriate, but we would at least be
advised.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Manager, then, please, if you would — for some reason, I
thought that the rest of you had received them. And if you didn't I — I guess I apologize.
335 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
4 i.
Commissioner Teele: Well, in the future, Mr. Manager, would you please copy all of us on
those?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move, pursuant to the Anti -Deficiency Act, Section
Number 2-114, Paragraph 9, that the Office of District 5, my office, advise the Chairman and the
Commission that the budget is— that the expenditures are within the budget; however, requesting
permission to adjust from the Salary Line 010 to move a figure not to exceed ten thousand dollars
($10,000) from that line for the purpose of office supplies, books and new equipment,
respectfully, Budget Line 700, 760 and 840. And further, to — I would move that at this time,
which is just the notification that it's more than ten percent.
Chairman Plummer: All right, sir. Is there a second to the Commissioner cutting his own
budget?
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
Commissioner Sanchez: I don't understand.
Chairman Plummer: He is cutting his own budget by more than the ten percent.
Commissioner Teele: I'm adjusting within the budget lines in the fourth quarter. In other words,
I'm moving —
Vice Chairman Gort: But are you within your budget?
Commissioner Teele: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: Then there's no need for that.
Commissioner Teele: Yes, it is, under the Anti -Deficiency. In the fourth quarter, if you move
numbers around, you're supposed to inform the Commission, and allow the Commission to
approve it, which is automatic, because you're within the budget.
Chairman Plummer: Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Plummer: All right. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous.
336 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
A ,
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-736
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER,
PURSUANT TO THE ANTI -DEFICIENCY ORDINANCE, TO TRANSFER
MONIES BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING MINOR OBJECT ACCOUNT
CODES
(1) from: 010 Salaries/unclassified
700/office supplies
760/books and publications
(2) to: 840/new equipment/other,
FOR THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT V; FURTHER
STIPULATING THAT SAID TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS DO NOT
EXCEED 10% OF THE TOTAL BUDGET ALLOCATED, TO COVER
CERTAIN EQUIPMENT PURCHASES.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, further, I would move that the unexpended portion of the
budget of District V be allocated to the Dade County Foundation — what is it? — Dade County
Community Foundation for charitable activities in the district.
Chairman Plummer: And the amount?.
Commissioner Teele: Whatever the balance is.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: I second.
Chairman Plummer: Any further discussion? All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposition? Show it unanimous.
337 ° SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-737
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
TRANSFER THE UNEXPENDED PORTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER FROM DISTRICT V BUDGET, FOR ALLOCATION INTO
THE DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR CHARITABLE
ACTIVITIES.
Upon being seconded by Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vilarello: What is this? What is this? They didn't give money away.
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a question.
Mr. Vilarello: They just did.
Chairman Plummer: Mr. Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: What I have is a surplus in my budget. It's going to be — I think it's
eighteen, twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Vice Chairman Gort: Do I need to go through this?
Commissioner Teele: Well, you can do one of three or four things: You can leave it alone, like
you've always done. I'm talk — you know, I'm going to buy a laptop computer. I mean, I don't
think you'll ever get technology if you don't take it out of your budget. And I would recommend
that everybody try to upgrade your offices for technological purposes. Of course, the purchase
order dates closed at noon — at 5 o'clock today, but the Manager has indicated some willingness
to support activities up until the 30'h.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. I'll leave it as it is. Question: Just as we're going through this
exercise, and some of our departments have been able to find certain savings, I'm asking you,
please, to ask all your Directors if they can do something similar.
Commissioner Teele: I can't hear you, Commissioner.
338 . SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
rP
Chairman Plummer: Ask the —
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm saying is, just as we did through our budget, I'm asking the Manager to
ask the Directors to go through their budget through their departments and see if they can make
any additional reductions.
Chairman Plummer: As did the Fire Chief. As did the Fire Chief.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. And every little bit helps.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Mr. Manager, where are we?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, if I could? Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is there any
department head that would like to come up and discuss with the Manager any budget cuts they
would like to proffer?
Chairman Plummer: Don't all rush at once.
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, what I'd like to do at this point is kind of disseminate what we've
got so far, look at the vacancies, which, of course, cross the spectrum of all the departments, and
see what it is that we're missing. We have an Estimating Conference meeting at I o'clock
tomorrow prior to the 6 p.m. Oversight Board meeting. I think we'll have a better idea in the
morning. It is the morning. Yeah, we need a budget tonight. Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: So what are — Mr. Manager, what -- are you saying that what we gave
you in terms of revenues and cuts, you're going to take it to the Estimating Committee tomorrow?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes; sir.
Commissioner Regalado: That's the only thing?
Mr. Warshaw: No. I'm going to take that along with the vacancies that we really haven't
touched, which are the upper portion of the page, and see if we can now, because we have some
recurring revenue and some other substance in the cuts, see if we can combine it together and
come up with a package that they'll accept.
Chairman Plummer: Is there anything else to come before this Commission?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, I just would like to be very clear. The cuts that have been
made tonight total generally how much money, and what are the big categories? We cut two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) from the Solid Waste budget. Right? We cut
thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) from the GSA budget on the towing.
Mr. Warshaw: Correct.
Commissioner Teele: Is that right? So that's —
Mr. Warshaw: It's about nine hundred thousand.
Commissioner Teele: No. We cut how much tonight from— in these departmental cuts or these
cuts that we just did?
339 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Sanchez: Three point three.
Mr. Warshaw: In the group, under other reductions, it's about nine hundred and three thousand
dollars ($903,000).
Commissioner TeeW So nine hundred thousand plus three hundred thousand is one point two.
The two fifty from Solid Waste earlier today.
Mr. Warshaw: OK. I didn't consider that in the cuts. I understand.
Commissioner Teele: But those were cuts or savings.
Mr. Warshaw: By the disposal numbers. I understand.
Commissioner Teele: Cuts or savings. So we're at one point two. Is there any other cuts that
we've made? What about the VIP? Is that already included?
Commissioner Sanchez: Half a mil.
Ms. Henry: That's revenue.
Commissioner Teele: That's revenue? What about the — did we hear anything from the Law
Enforcement Trust Fund?
Commissioner Sanchez: Half a mil.
Vice Chairman Gort: Ninety eight.
Chairman Plummer: Two million dollars ($2,000,000).
Mr. Warshaw: So far, we've put down five hundred thousand: The Chief is still working on this.
Commissioner Teele: That's different from the VIP?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Mr. Warshaw: Correct.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's another million.
Mr. Warshaw: That's different from the VIP revenue enhancement assessment.
Commissioner Teele: So if we assume that we're at one point two now, and if we assume the
Chief is able to come up with five, that's one point seven.
Mr. Warshaw: Correct. The total, the total of all those things, including the five hundred
thousand is four point three.
340 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
.4
Commissioner Sanchez: A smart guy.
Vice Chairman Gort: Three point three.
Chairman Plummer: I still don't understand where you're coming up with Law Enforcement
Trust Fund of only five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).
Mr. Warshaw: Commissioner, we're not saying that's all we've come up with, but what we're
saying is to conform with the law, the Chief has got to identify a program that is not in any way
supplanting general fund dollars. He's been working on doing that. And so far, we think we've
identified a half a million dollars. We're not finished yet.
Chairman Plummer: Then I'd like to see in the morning a complete breakdown of the four and a
half million that is restricted. OK?
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Penha, what is the final calculation that you have there? Three
point five?
Mr. Warshaw: With everything, including the five hundred thousand in the trust fund, it's four
point three.
Commissioner Sanchez: Four point three?
Mr. Warshaw: Correct. Right. Where is Raul?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, what is the soonest date we could have a second reading on
the ordinance?
Mr. Vilarello: On the —
Commissioner Teele: That we just passed by a three to two vote.
Mr. Vilarello: At your next Commission meeting. We could advertise it. We could have a
special meeting in between. After ten days, I think is the — ten days.
Commissioner Teele: What is the soonest possible date we could have a meeting?
Chairman Plummer: Ten days is his answer.
Mr. Vilarello: Ten days, starting tomorrow.
Commissioner Teele: So ten days is how many days, is what? What's ten days?
Vice Chairman Gort: October 12'h.
Mr. Vilarello: Twelve days, because I need two days for advertising, and then ten days of— two
days lead time to place the ad, and then ten days. So it's actually 12.
Commissioner Teele: So the 12'h would be the soonest, realistically, with Monday— because is
Monday a holiday? Is that Columbus Day?
341 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
• a�
Mr. Martinez: Monday is a holiday, yeah.
Mr. Vilarello: The I Vh, yeah.
Commissioner Teele: So the 12'h, realistically. Mr. Chairman— Mr. Manager, could you please
convey to the Fire Board the very fragile situation that we have here relating to this? We have
three votes. And I think the three of us should commit on the record that we intend to vote for
this on the 12'h on second reading, and communicate. that.
Mr. Warshaw: I will.
Commissioner Teele: And we do have a statement,.I would hope, from the Mayor that he would
not veto this, this revenue stream, based upon what he's already said.
Mr. Warshaw: The statement was that he would endorse any increases in the fire fee or the
garbage fee, yes.
Chairman Plummer: All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: We have a couple of things to go.
Chairman Plummer: We have a couple of things yet to do.
Mr. Vilarello: Yeah.
Chairman Plummer: And what are they?
Mr. Vilarello: You have to adopt the millage rate.
Vice Chairman Gort: The millage.
Chairman Plummer: Oh, oh,'yeah, OK. All right. The millage rate is nine point five.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Sanchez. Seconded by?'
Vice Chairman Gort: Gort.
Chairman Plummer: Gort.
Mr. Vilarello: OK. Just— although it was announced on the record at the beginning of the public
hearing, let me announce it again. The proposed millage rate is 33/100ths of one percent in
excess of the rollback rate.
Chairman Plummer: All right. Now we're up to item number —
Mr. Vilarello: The ordinance — you want me to read the ordinance?
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir. What is the ordinance? That's in Number 24, or "A"?
342 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
:.►
Mr. Vilarello: It's 23-A.
Chairman Plummer: OK. Moved by Sanchez.. Seconded by Regalado. Call the roll
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI. CITY COMMISSION DEFINING AND
DESIGNATING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION, FIXING THE MILLAGE AND
LEVYING TAXES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2000; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
passed on its first reading; by title, at the meeting of September 15, 1999, was taken up for its
second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded
by Vice Chairman Gort, the ordinance was thereupon' given its second and final reading by title,
and was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11838.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and.to the public.
Chairman Plummer: 23-B, appropriations and budgetary requirements. Read the ordinance.
Mr. Vilarello: Before I read the ordinance, in addition to the amendments that have been made
by motion tonight by the City Commission, I believe staff has some scrivener's errors they'd like
to correct, if they could do that•for the record.
Chairman Plummer: -Proceed.
Mr. Brennan: On'Page 3, under Debt Service, the number should read eighteen million, two one
eight, eight eight four. On Page 4, under Special Revenue, we revised CRA. Under Section
14.286 of the City Code for CRA, it states that CRA approve the budget by the 'Board of
Directors should not require approval of any offices or body of the City. We therefore move the
twenty-two million, one three one, o-seven five to other agencies. Then special revenue, we'll
have on the Tax Increment District, five hundred and seventeen thousand, three three five;
Southeast Overtown/Park West, one million, seven eighty-four, six-o-four. This will be under
Special Revenue. On Page 11, Item 4, the underscore should read two one five nine point three. .
The strike through should be two one three four point three. Page 17, 18-B should be three point
eight. Page 18, Item 7-A, should be one six eight two point six. And MRC (Miami Riverside
343 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
?, k"
Center) budget, they would like to transfer from Line Item 340 a hundred and eighty thousand,
four seventy-eight to o-thirteen, because of contractual obligations.
Chairman Plummer: Such as? What are the contractual obligations?
Mr. Brennan: I think they're entering into a contract for the cleaning of the building, and they are
using temporary employees to do that, rather than using outside contracting service.
Chairman Plummer: That's not the amount of money we heard.
Mr. Brennan: Go ahead.
Lori Bilberry: Sir, we are proposing — Lori Bilberry, Asset Management. We are proposing to
use temporary for security and janitorial daytime personnel services. This will result in an overall
savings in the janitorial and security services in the next fiscal year. By doing this, we were able
to reduce the overall MRC budget by six percent.
Chairman Plummer: OK. All right. Mr. City Attorney, 23-13, and its 8,000 scrivener errors.
Moved by Teele. Seconded by Gort. Call the roll.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY
REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000;
REVISING ONGOING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR NEW PROJECTS SCHEDULED TO
BEGIN IN FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of September 15, 1999, was taken up for its
second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Teele, seconded by
Vice Chairman Gort, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and
was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11839.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
Chairman Plummer: You want to bypass 24? Let's go to —
344 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, before you get off of this particular item, you've dealt with the
millage rate, you've dealt with the appropriations ordinance, but we haven't dealt with the five-
year forecast, which the Oversight Board has made a specific reference with regard to the out
years. And I'm trying to determine where exactly the five-year forecast for presentation to you is.
Vice Chairman Gort: We haven't had — we have 30 days to do it.
Commissioner Teele: I agree. Mr. Chairman, before you do, also, on the current year -- Mr.
Manager, what are you saying, and what is your advice on the Save Our Seniors Plan? And can
we codify or ratify some recommendation that you're giving us?
Mr. Warshaw: Well, my advice is that unless we're prepared to fund it, we need to say on the
record that we're going to put off the Save Our Seniors until 2001.
Commissioner Teele: Is that your recommendation?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: Or sooner, if funds become available.
Commissioner Teele: What does that mean?
Chairman Plummer: That means if we, get parking revenue, more than what we anticipate, and
we can afford it, we'll —
Commissioner Teele: Can you legally do that, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Vilarello: In order to use it in the following year, it has to be adopted before December 1'
You won't have a sufficient history on collections on the parking surcharge before then to —
Commissioner Teele: Then my recommendation would be to pass a resolution now deferring it
for one fiscal year. If between now and December, we come up with money, we can always
suspend that and impose it. Would that be fair?
Chairman Plummer: Motion made. Is there a second?
Mr. Vilarello: That's an adequate condition. .
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
Chairman Plummer: Seconded by Gort. All in favor, say. aye. "
Commissioner Teele: Aye.
Vice Chairman Gort: Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Aye.
Chairman Plummer: Opposed?
345 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Sanchez: One "nay."
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Commissioner Teele: Two nays. All right.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO.99-738
A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION FOR ONE ' FISCAL YEAR
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT IF BETWEEN NOW AND
DECEMBER 1, 1999, THE CITY IDENTIFIES MONIES FOR SAID
EXEMPTION, THEN THE CITY COMMISSION MAY RESCIND THIS
RESOLUTION AND MAY IMPOSE THE AFOREMENTIONED
EXEMPTION.
Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
ABSENT: None
Chairman Plummer: Next item.
Mr. Warshaw: The answer on the five — let's talk about the five-year plan for a minute. What I
had told you previously is that when there was a fire fee, we did have some deficits for 2003,
2004 that were acceptable. I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. We need to really
disseminate all this information, go back-- I think we've made a lot of progress here— and make
a strong case that we are now making progress with the five-year plan. I mean I don't know what
else we could do tonight without— we don't -- We can't give you a five-year plan estimate right
now, based upon what's happened tonight. We just can't do it.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is in the past is we passed the present budget, and then
we had 30 days to come up with a five-year plan. Now, the five year plan as you showed me is
completely different to what we have today.
Ms. Henry: At the last meeting, the Commission approved the five-year forecast. That forecast
will be modified, given the actions taken today.
Vice Chairman Gort: This is the latest, right?
Ms. Henry: The one that says "supplement." And it's —
346 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
+1J
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Ms. Henry: Right. So it's going to —
Vice Chairman Gort: And it's completely different from all the numbers that we have today.
Ms. Henry: Absolutely. So we're now going to have to update the forecast, based on the actions
that were taken today. And the — and I just want to make sure that we're— there are no — there are
no additional fire fee increases in the forecast. Is that what I'm hearing?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Ms. Henry: OK.
Chairman Plummer: We've been saying that for days.
Mr. Warshaw: Let me just — let's go back on that. I want to make sure on that. You have not
increased this year's fire fee.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Chairman Plummer: That's correct.
Mr. Warshaw: But the five-year plan still contains small increases of the fire fee in 2001 and
2002. Now, what I'm suggesting is that you leave those two increases that are in the five-year
plan that are small in nature in the fire fee. And I think thatbased upon the fact that we've raised
other revenue on the garbage fee side and the other things that you've done that maybe it would
be more acceptable to the Oversight Board to accept. That represents over two million dollars
($2,000,000) over those two years in the years 2001, 2002. 1 don't know what your feelings are,
but if you take those out, that has a big impact on the five-year plan. That's what I was telling
you before. If you came up with four point two million, you wouldn't need the other two point
four.
Vice Chairman Gort: Don't take it out. I think the commitment that we have made is if we can
find additional revenues to do away with the fire, we will do it. And that's what we've done in
this exercise.
Chairman Plummer: All right. 25-A. Downtown Development Authority, percentage increase in
millage over rollback rate. Patty Allen. It's got to be read. Read it.
Mr. Vilarello: Percentage increase in the millage over the rollback rate is 13 percent.
347 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Chairman Plummer: Specific purpose for which ad valorem tax revenues are being increased?
Mr. Vilarello: Downtown economic development programs.
Chairman Plummer: The cost factor?
Mr. Vilarello: One hundred ninety-three thousand, one hundred thirty-four dollars ($193,134).
Chairman Plummer: That's 100 percent?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes.
Chairman Plummer: City Commission listens and responds to citizens' comments regarding the
proposed millage increase and explains the reason for the increase over the rollback rate. Is there
anyone .from the public who wishes to speak on the DDA (Downtown Development Authority)?
We then amend the — adopt the tentative budget, which we do not do. Read the entire millage
ordinance, Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: You got a motion and a second on that ordinance?
Vice Chairman Gort: Move it.
Chairman Plummer: Moved by Mr. Gort. Seconded by Mr. Sanchez. Call the roll.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION RELATED TO TAXATION, DEFINING AND
DESIGNATING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; FIXING
THE MILLAGE AND LEVYING TAXES IN SAID DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
OCTOBER 1, 1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AT FIVE -TENTHS
(.5) MILLS ON THE DOLLAR OF NONEXEMPT ASSESSED VALUE OF
ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN SAID DISTRICT; PROVIDING
THAT SAID MILLAGE AND THE LEVYING OF TAXES WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AS REFLECTED IN THE
CITY'S MILLAGE LEVY ORDINANCE FOR THE AFORESAID FISCAL
YEAR WHICH IS REQUIRED BY CITY CHARTER, SECTION 27;
PROVIDING THAT THE FIXING OF THE MILLAGE AND THE LEVYING'
OF TAXES HEREIN SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS; RPOVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED AS REPEALING OR AMENDING ANY OTHER ORDINANCE
FIXING MILLAGE OR LEVYING TAXES, BUT SHALL BE DEEMED
SUPPLEMENTAL AND IN ADDITION THERETO; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE. DATE.
348 ' SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
4�i
passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of September 15, 1999, was taken up for its
second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Vice Chairman Gort, seconded by
Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title,
and was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11840
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
Chairman Plummer: The ad valorem tax levy for the Downtown Development Authority.
Moved by Gort. • Seconded by Teele. Read the ordinance.
Mr. Vilarello: An ordinance of the Miami City Commission making a appropriations from the
Downtown Development District ad valorem tax —
Chairman Plummer: That's it.
Mr. Vilarello: Did you have — did you open the public hearing on this item?
Chairman Plummer: Yes. I did back here on 23, and there was no one who came forward. Call
the roll.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AD VALOREM TAX LEVY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1,
1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000; AUTHORIZING THE
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO INVITE AND
ADVERTISE REQUIRED BIDS; PROVIDING FOR BUDGETARY
FLEXIBILITY; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE DEEMED
SUPPLEMENTAL AND IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1,
1999 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FOR THE OPERATIONS FOR
THE CITY OF MIAMI; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION,
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
349 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of September 15, 1999, was taken up for its
second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Vice Chairman Gort, seconded by
Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and
was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Chairman J.L. Plummer, Jr.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11841
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were
available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
Chairman Plummer: Any other matters to come before this Commission? Mr. Manager,
anything else?
Mr. Donald Warshaw (Interim City Manager): No, sir.
Chairman Plummer: Wouldn't.it be nice if the Oversight Board was sitting over there and saying,
"Guys, you tried, you did it, and we approve it," or "Guys, you're crazy. We didn't do it"?
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, I would suggest, instead of adjourning the meeting, that you
continue the meeting to a time certain.
Chairman Plummer: The meeting is continued until —
Mr. V ilarello: It has to be scheduled after 5 p.m., either tomorrow or —
Chairman Plummer: On Friday — on Thursday.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, two questions.
Chairman Plummer: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: The Agenda Coordinator's Office, who is that? What— is that a separate
department or is that in the Manager's office or, what?
Mr. Warshaw: Reports to the Manager.
350 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
Commissioner Teele: So, that's in your office. That's a part of your budget now?
Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir.
Chairman Plummer: This meeting is continued until Friday — I'm sorry — Thursday —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that the Winn -Dixie matter be
placed on the Agenda for October 12te. The explanation that we received needs to be clarified,
including the opening date. When are you going to set the date, Mr. Chairman, to continue?
Chairman Plummer: Well, Mr. Gort's got a problem.
Mr. Vilarello: The Financial Oversight Board is meeting tomorrow evening at 6 o'clock.
Chairman Plummer: That's Wednesday.
Mr. Vilarello: That's Wednesday.
Chairman Plummer: And I've also got them here listed as Thursday at 8 to 9.
Mr. Warshaw: They made a change.
Commissioner Teele: When are you going to continue this meeting, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Plummer: I'm trying to find a date. Mr. Gort can't make Thursday after 5:05.
Commissioner Teele: Friday?
Mr. Vilarello: Friday is October 1', and —
Chairman Plummer: That's beyond the deadline.
Commissioner Teele: That's beyond the statutory period, isn't it?
Vice Chairman Gort: I can meet at 5:05 if we can get out of here by 5:30.
Commissioner Regalado: So do it tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Chairman Plummer: All right. This meeting is now called for 5:05 on Thursday. Mr. Gort has to
be out by 5:30. I don't see where we can do anything else. I mean, if there was a —
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Clerk for providing a transcript.
That transcript was extremely helpful, and I would hope that you would work to see if there is a
transcript that could be made available based upon tomorrow. And I think it is extremely helpful.
It gives a lot of insight. And I want to join with those that have commended the City Attorney in
the way he explained the position of the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
351 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
i . .ik:. :r.
THE COMMISSION MEETING RECESSED AT 1:10 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1999.
THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AT 5:10 P.M., WITH
ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, EXCEPTING COMMISSIONER TEELE
FOUND TO BE PRESENT.
352 SEPTEMBER 28, 1999