Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1998-03-02 MinutesCOMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON March 2, 1998 (Special) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk ITEM NO. INDEX MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING March 2,1998 SUBJECT LEGISLATION 1. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: REV. JOHN WHITE TO 3/2/98 DISCUSS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PROJECT IN DISCUSSION OVERTOWN. 1-2 2. MAYOR COMMENDS CITY MANAGER AND HIS STAFF 3/2/98 FOR BUDGET PREPARATION. DISCUSSION 2-3 3. FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN — BUDGET 3/2/98 ALTERNATIVES TO FIRE -RESCUE ASSESSMENT FEE. M 98-225 (A) RECURRING AND NON -RECURRING REVENUE R 98-226 SOLUTIONS/DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET 4-127 REDUCTIONS/TERMINATION — PRIVATIZATION/REALIGNMENT INITIATIVES — PROPERTY SALES — TRANSFER OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (GIVE PRIORITY TO POLICE AND FIRE NEEDS) — DISCUSS CONCERNS RELATED TO COST OF OUTSTANDING LEGAL FEES AND SETTLEMENTS/OPERATIONAL REDUCTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT TO SERVICE LEVELS — PROPOSED BENEFITS FOR CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY AND COMMISSIONERS — PROPOSED SEVERANCE PAY FOR CITY MANAGER — DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CHART OF HIS OFFICE — FURTHER REQUEST CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN FINANCE AND BUDGET OFFICE — ALSO REQUESTING BUDGET DOCUMENT ADDRESSING RECURRING BUDGET SHORTFALL. (B) DISCUSS SOLID WASTE FEE — FURTHER DIRECT CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE COPIES OF RECORD REFLECTING $250,000 PAID FROM SOLID WASTE FEES TO KEEP TASK FORCE TO CLEAN UP CITY. (C) CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW PILOT PROGRAM TO CREATE ZONES FOR GARBAGE PICK UP BY PRIVATE SOLID WASTE COMPANIES - FOR COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS - FURTHER CONSIDER LICENSING SUCH COMPANIES AND RETURN WITH RECOMMENDATIONS - REVIEW COMMISSIONERS' BENEFITS. (D) DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW POCKET ITEMS WITH FISCAL IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION. (E) DIRECTIVE TO APPLY FOR STATE FUNDS FOR HURRICANE AWARENESS. (F) REQUEST LEGAL OPINION RELATED TO POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS IT PERTAINS TO KENDALL COFFEY LAWSUITS. (G) MAYOR SUAREZ SCHEDULES MEETING TO DISCUSS HOMELESS ISSUE - TAX. (H) DIRECTIVE TO PROVIDE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT FIGURES. 4. REFER PROBLEM BETWEEN S.W. 8 STREET 3/2/98 MERCHANTS AND KIWANIS OF LITTLE HAVANA DISCUSSION REGARDING CARNIVAL CALLE OCHO THROUGH 127-128 LITTLE HAVANA SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 5. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE ANNOUNCES THAT THE 3/2/98 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND DISCUSSION TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE WILL 129 MEET IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM WHILE THE ZONING BOARD MEETING WILL CONVENE IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING. 6. DIRECT COMPTROLLER TO MAKE PRESENTATION ON 3/2/98 CITY'S FINANCIAL CONDITION WITH INPUT FROM DISCUSSION CITY ATTORNEY AND BUDGET OFFICE. 129 7. DISCUSS/DEFER TO SCHEDULED MEETING OF MARCH 3/2/98 10, 1998 REVIEW OF AMENDED RESOLUTION RELATED DISCUSSION TO CITY MANAGER'S BENEFITS. 130-131 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 2n" day of March, 1998, the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in special session. The meeting was called to order at 10 : 11 a.m. by Mayor Xavier L. Suarez, with the following members present: Mayor Xavier L. Suarez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur Teele, Jr. Chairman Humberto Hernandez ALSO PRESENT: Jose Garcia -Pedrosa, City Manager Joel E. Maxwell, Interim City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria Argudin, Assistant City Clerk MAYOR SUAREZ: Reverend White, would you join us for the invocation. An invocation was delivered by Reverend John White. Commissioner Plummer led those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: REV. JOHN WHITE TO DISCUSS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PROJECT IN OVERTOWN. MAYOR SUAREZ: Reverend White, as long as you're with us if you would proclaim into the record the projected starting time for your housing project? Somebody said May. Is that fair? REV. WHITE: That's a fair assessment, if we can continue to get through the bureaucracy, we hope to breaking ground, putting up some bricks and mortar by May 1. We've still got some process through the bureaucracy. We're still excited about building 40 single-family detached houses in Overtown, which have not been built any detached single-family houses in Overtown in over 15 to 20 years. So, we're excited about it. I trust that 1 March 2, 1998 the Commissioners and the City continue to be excited about it and we just hope to have it up and running soon. There's some new homes in Overtown. Thank you, sir. MAYOR SUAREZ: That's magnificent, Reverend. And like that there are 20 or 30 CBO's (Community Based Organizations) throughout the City in the process of building affordable housing and adding to our tax base, because those will be home owned ... owner occupied. So, that's what we need. 2. MAYOR COMMENDS CITY MANAGER AND HIS STAFF FOR BUDGET PREPARATION. MAYOR SUAREZ: Mr. Manager, last night and members of the Commission -- I appreciate the time you gave me this weekend, in some cases sort of indirectly by submitting a variety of documents and other cases by phone calls and visits. But in the case of the Manager and his staff, what you did over the weekend is something that merits the support and the recognition of this Commission and certainly I join the Commission in telling you, Mr. Manager, that it is above and beyond the call of duty -- to come back from New York. I know what those battles are like. I think every member of this Commission has been there at least once on meetings with the rating agencies. And then to spend all Saturday and Sunday, which to many people is the Sabbath and for many, many others, I'd say for almost all of them is time spent with their families, putting together the efforts and the very detailed program that you have put together is just a magnificent effort. I would like to read, if it is possible, into the record. I had occasion, Commissioners, to visit the administration building downtown, the MRC Building and see still 4 or 5 working at 11 something -- Dipak was leaving at 11:00, but we gave him a hard time that he was working a half day, leaving at 11 p.m. on a Sunday. But the rest of your staff that was there, I was hoping that Sira was going to provide me with the list. But if you would like the read into the record some of these folks that worked during the weekend, Mr. Manager, I think that would be most appropriate. I know that the ones that were working on the computers were busy there at 11:15 p.m. putting together a chart that I know has been made part of our package. MR. JOSE GARCIA-PEDROSA (CITY MANAGER): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before I ask Dipak Parekh to read the list, let me 2 March 2, 1998 inform you and the Commission and the public that this really has been beyond the call of duty. There were people in the building, Mayor, all through the night, not just until the midnight hour. And obviously this reflects the gravity of the situation, the short time frame which we were given in order to deal with it and I'll have more to say about that, but I want you to know that the reason that I have asked the department and office directors to be here and they are throughout the audience, is because I wanted very much for them to receive this recognition and I appreciate very much your having made it. Dipak has a list of people who were there yesterday late, but all of the departments and office directors are very much a part of this and have been very much a part of this process in the last six days. MR. DIPAK PAREKH (DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS): Thank you, Mayor, members of the Commission, Manager. We had basically all department directors and their office staff. But I would like to specially thank the following members of the budget and the Manager's staff: Lie Brennan, Aldo Staccato, computer director, Jim Holstein, Pilar Butler, Angela Johnson, Hector Ramos, Marta, Crystal Hilton, Miguel Rodriguez, Adit Chara, Jose Martes, Evert on Gravis, Sira Garcia, Jesus Noriega, Aristide Fernandez and Gabriel Garcia. And one other issue what we had other people that didn't go home and they're still there this morning. Thank you. MAYOR SUAREZ: We used to call that in college the all- nighter. Mr. Manager, as you make the report on your proposals to the Commission I wish you would emphasize -- I am sure that the media is going to ask about and I know the Oversight Board is particularly interested in the ratio of recurring revenues to expenditures for the current fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Chairman Hernandez entered the meeting at 10:16 a.m. 3 March 2, 1998 3. FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN -- BUDGET ALTERNATIVES TO FIRE -RESCUE ASSESSMENT FEE -- (A.) RECURRING AND NON -RECURRING REVENUE SOLUTIONS/ DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS/TERMINATIONS -- PRIVATIZATION/ REALIGNMENT INITIATIVES -- PROPERTY SALES -- TRANSFER OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (GIVE PRIORITY TO POLICE AND FIRE NEEDS) -- DISCUSS CONCERNS RELATED TO COST OF OUTSTANDING LEGAL FEES AND SETTLEMENTS/ OPERATIONAL REDUCTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT TO SERVICE LEVELS -- PROPOSED BENEFITS FOR CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY AND COMMISSIONERS -- PROPOSED SEVERANCE PAY FOR CITY MANAGER -- DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CHART OF HIS OFFICE -- FURTHER REQUEST CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN FINANCE AND BUDGET OFFICE -- ALSO REQUESTING BUDGET DOCUMENT ADDRESSING RECURRING BUDGET SHORTFALL. (B.) DISCUSS SOLID WASTE FEE -- FURTHER DIRECT CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE COPIES OF RECORD REFLECTING $250,000 PAID FROM SOLID WASTE FEES TO KEEP TASK FORCE TO CLEAN UP CITY. (C.) CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW PILOT PROGRAM TO CREATE ZONES FOR GARBAGE PICK UP BY PRIVATE SOLID WASTE COMPANIES -- FOR COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS -- FURTHER CONSIDER LICENSING SUCH COMPANIES AND RETURN WITH RECOMMENDATIONS -- REVIEW COMMISSIONERS' BENEFITS. (D.) DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW POCKET ITEMS WITH FISCAL IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND PRIOR TO CITY CCIrMISSION CONSIDERATION. (E.) DIRECTIVE TO APPLY FOR STATE FUNDS FOR HURRICANE AWARENESS -- (F.) REQUEST LEGAL OPINION RELATED TO POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS IT PERTAINS TO KENDALL COFFEY LAWSUITS. (G.) MAYOR SUAREZ SCHEDULES MEETING TO DISCUSS HOMELESS ISSUE -- TAX. (H.) DIRECTIVE TO NEGOTIATE THAT UTILITY COMPANIES USE LOCAL BANKS. (I.) DIRECTIVE TO PROVIDE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT FIGURES. 4 March 2, 1998 MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Do we need to lower the lights? We're going to do this, Dipak and I, in tandem with your permission. When we have distributed to you the color copies of the charts that are going to be placed up on the screen for everyone to see. Thank you, very much. Mr. Mayor, Chairman Hernandez, members of the Commission, when the Commission voted last Tuesday not to impose a fire rescue assessment and instructed us to propose to you today a budgetary solution to the resulting shortfalls in the City's budget, you presented us not only with a challenge, but also with an opportunity. The opportunity is to solve this problem promptly, return the City to compliance with the intergovernmental cooperation agreement and with the five year plan and demonstrate to you, to the Oversight Board, to Wall Street and to the citizens of Miami that we are able to confront any difficulty even on a short timetable that may arise and continue on the path of economic recovery and prosperity. I felt then, and I told my staff and the rating agencies and others with whom we met last week in New York, that if we could solve this problem we would show by our actions rather than just by our words that we could solve any problem that might arise. The true opportunity, therefore, is to increase public confidence in the City and nurture the notion that we are on a steady, reliable, institutional course of recovery that merits the support of regulators, creditors and citizens alike. Since your meeting last Tuesday my staff and I have worked every day without exception to come up with a plan that would make up the revenue falls resulting from the elimination of the fire fee. You have much reason to be proud of the staff as I am, for their hard work and ingenuity over this past week. I asked all of the departments and office directors to be here, because this plan is very much their work product. And I wanted them to be witnesses to their presentation. They have helped us allocate the pain because without pain there would be no solution to this problem and have committed to exercise the discipline required to implement the plan successfully, if you approve it. The plan -- and this is an important concept to remember -- not only balances the City's budgets without any revenues from the fire fee, but also maintains compliance with all of the tenets of the intergovernmental cooperation agreement and the five year plan as follows. Every year must stand on its own. That is to say, there cannot be an operating deficit in any year even if that deficit can be compensated for in a 5 March 2, 1998 prior or in a subsequent year. Second, every year must have as you mentioned, Mr. Mayor, recurring revenues that equal or exceed recurring expenditures, that is the use of nonrecurring revenues such as revenues from land sales is not permitted unless the recurring revenues are at least 100 percent of the recurring expenditures in that same fiscal year. And third and finally provision must be made, for each of the years in the five year plan. That is because the fire fee was projected to produce revenues not just in this year, but every year for the five year plan. We had to amend each of those five subsequent years and, in fact, the revenues in subsequent years, the out years of the plan was projected to be greater because the original plan, as you may remember, was to place the fire fee as part of the property tax bills, and it was deemed that that would yield a greater amount of money. In addition to that, the fire fee was projected to produce investment income while we were holding it. And those revenues had also been built into the five year plan and have now been lost. And finally, in addition to that there was a high impact fee, basically a projection that we would make a million dollars a year by charging people much as you would charge for false alarms after five tries, charge high intensity users, and that provision also has fallen because counsel in Tallahassee has advised us that it cannot be maintained in absence of the fire fee. So what we thought would be a 23.8 million dollar ($23,800,000) problem is really a bigger problem than that. In addition, there have been certain changes and occurrences in the last few weeks that we always knew would require us to amend the five year plan to take them into account. And as you know, we had committed to you and to the Oversight Board to come back in the middle of March with a revised five-year plan. And what we have done over the last six days is to accelerate that timetable because we could not just change the fire fee issue without doing things like computing the recurring revenues and recurring expenditures, so we needed to have those as well. I am pleased to report to you today that we have achieved compliance with each of the tenets of the five year plan and the agreement with the Governor's office. In addition, it was in my judgment that the budgetary solutions that we should present to you today should reflect adherence to the following additional principles. One, to the maximum extent possible reliance should be placed on measures that would reduce expenditures rather than on measures that would increase revenues. On the theory that the opportunity to adopt 6 March 2, 1998 budget solutions today for presentation and approval by the Oversight Board tomorrow would be enhanced if we did not come to you this morning asking you to approve new fees or new taxes or increases in existing fees or taxes, and we are not doing so. Second, it was my judgment for the same reason that reliance should be placed on measures that can be accomplished by me administratively rather than on measures that require specific Commission approval. I am pleased to report to you today that none of the budget solutions that we are presenting to you today requires Commission approval, other than your authorization and direction to amend the departmental budgets to reflect the cuts that I will make administratively. The only exception relates to a few items in the out years, not in the current fiscal year, to balance the out years for which we will need some legislative action, but even then such action involves items that are not particularly large or have particularly important financial implications. Finally, I also felt it important to provide you with other alternative initiatives to the budget cuts that I'm proposing. In the event that you do not wish for us to make all of these cuts or in the event that you may wish to substitute some of those alternatives for some of the cuts and those alternatives in addition in my judgment have independent merit and ought to be -- at least some of them do -- ought to be pursued. And, so, we are asking for your instruction to come back to you after we have analyzed them and quantified their financial significance. At this point I'd like to present to you with the help of our Budget Director, Dipak Parekh, what we would propose to be the revised five-year plan and briefly walk you through it. We first have the matter of the fire fee. The elimination of the fire fee revenues, and if you would look at the chart itself, which is page one and two of the five-year plan revised as of today, you will see the elimination of 23.8 million dollars ($23,800,000) in this fiscal year and slightly larger sums in the ensuing years. The way to resolve that shortfall and the other adjustments are as follows. First of all, the solid waste fees, $8,500,000 gets credited back in. You have two pages later a schedule which repeats what we have said before. We sent out earlier a bill for the first of the solid waste fees which will generate five and a quarter million dollars ($5,225,000). In fact, already we have collected over four million ($4,000,000) of that money. Because the five-year plan only budgeted or booked 2 million (2,000,000) there is an extra, if you will, 7 March 2, 1998 three and a quarter million dollars $3,225,000) available to be credited into this budget shortfall. In addition, you have authorized and instructed us to send the second solid waste bills out which are will also generate five and a quarter million dollars ($5,225,000). So if you add three and a quarter million dollars ($3,225,000) and five and a quarter million dollars ($5,225,000), we have eight and a half million dollars ($8,500,000) to be credited into the five-year plan as a budget solution. Second, we have a sale of the municipal justice site, $5,710,000. That is a sale that we expect will close within the next 60 days. In fact, I've met with the owners of Winn Dixie and the developers and they were even anxious to do a dry run for the working architectural drawings. That is a nonrecurring source of revenue, and we are very much aware of that. But when we get to the second page of this chart you will see that we are still in compliance with the requirement that the recurring expenditures be less than the recurring revenues. Next we have the general fund capital projects, $3,000,000. This is deferral delay non -funding of $3,000,000 worth of capital expenditures. Again, behind the solid waste fee schedule you have the schedule of specific items that we proposed not to fund at this time or in some cases to seek alternative funding sources. I will tell you that -- first of all I want to make clear that the City has $55,000,000 of capital improvements that are funded outside of the General Fund. That is to say with grants or with CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) monies. The City also has $11,000,000 in the current five year plan this year for capital improvement projects out of the General Fund. That means the total capital improvement projects budget is $66,000,000. So we're not proposing to cut that budget substantially. MAYOR SUAREZ: Quick question on that, because I have been trying to get an answer for a couple of days. If you have it now of the $55,000,000, how much of that is GO (General Obligation) bonds and how much is special obligations and what are they earmarked for? MR. DIPAK PAREKH (DIRECTOR OF BUDGET): Approximately 35 million dollars ($35,000,000) of bond funds of which 25 million dollars ($25,000,000) is the 1994 sanitary sewers. The remainder of the monies are based upon interest derived from GO bonds and CDBG bonds. MAYOR SUA.REZ: And how much in CDBG? 8 March 2, 1998 MR. PAREKH: Approximately 15 million dollars ($15, 000, 000) . MAYOR SUAREZ: From CDBG, which we obviously can't touch and from GO bonds, which have a very specific earmark, you've got 30 and 15. 45? Is that the figure you gave? MR. PAREKH: Yes. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: In essence then we are cutting $3,000,000 out of a $66,000,000 capital improvement fund. And we need to remember that because the cut is really not as nearly as substantial as it may at first blush may seem. In addition, we have operating expense reductions and here we have a chart which again is behind the other two charts solid waste fees is the first chart, the capital projects is the second chart and then you have two very small print detailed sheets of paper which detail the 7.3 million dollars ($7,300,000) this year and in the out year 6 million dollars ($6, 000, 000) that we propose to reduce. I'm going to ask Dipak to cover that quickly without going into every line item, but I point out to you on the first column you have the budget line item for each of the entries that we propose to reduce. MR. PAREKH: Thank you. Basically, we wanted to show members of the Commission and the Oversight Board as well, as well as the bond houses, that these cuts are not primarily casual, but they are made to specific line items with backing. The primary cuts are basically in the group health area where our experience over the last couple of years is now coming to fruition where the City Commission took steps towards a managed care plan and basically the results of that is showing a $2,000,000 decrease in expenses thereafter. Furthermore, last year there was also a safety committee established which has resulted in 20 percent less worker's compensation cases. Therefore, you see approximately $1,000,000 resulting in less outage from the City of Miami. Furthermore, with the help of the police chief we're able to defray approximately $600,000 of overtime from the General Fund to be funded from either Law Enforcement Trust Funds or realignment within the police department itself. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Did you say workman's comp, a million dollars ($1,000,000)? MR. PAREKH: Approximately over -- yes, there are several 9 March 2, 1998 line items, sir, in terms of worker's compensation. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I'm showing a hundred thousand dollars ( $100, 000) . MR. PAREKH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: On your blue book -- MR. PAREKH: That is true, but you have police tort which is half a million, police officer's liability and worker's compensation. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: But that's not workman's comp. MR. PAREKH: That's part of the overall risk management. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. But you said workman's comp. a million. The workman's comp. is only a hundred. MR. PAREKH: A hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Big difference. Only 900,000 difference. MR. PAREKH: Agreed. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Risk management got -- MR. PAREKH: Risk management is. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay, fine. COMMISSIONER GORT: Excuse me, so we can all be on the same page, can we go by this right here? MR. PAREKH: Yes. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, you are jumping back and forth. MR. DIPAK PAREKH: Yes. Furthermore, in terms of General Services Administration we have approximately three hundred thousand dollars ($300, 000) worth of savings in terms of taking better preventative maintenance on our fleet especially the police fleets. Other contractual services as well as replacement of existing equipment or buying equipment is being defrayed until next fiscal year. 10 March 2, 1998 As you can see, that there is a difference in the entire spread sheet. We go from a cut of $7,300,000 in this fiscal year, and that particular cut goes down to $6,000,000 thereafter. Basically what is happening is there are certain costs like maintenance costs which will probably start going up again. Therefore, we are ensuring that no city services suffer as a result of any cutbacks we are making presently. There is going to be obviously an impact this fiscal year, but starting next fiscal year that situation will be abated to a certain extent. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: How do you address the issue of the fire equipment? MR. PAREKH: There are still capital improvement monies. As you know, Commissioner, we have purchased or are in the process of purchasing some additional fire trucks as well as repairing that particular ordinance for one point three million dollars ($1,300,000) was passed last year and that is being funded. What we don't have over here is a resolution which was passed earlier from the -- basically stating that approximately 1.3 million dollars ($1,300,000) overage over land sales would be utilized to purchase new equipment. We do not have that over here and that's something which we have to deal with a little later. Now -- COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: No, no. Excuse me. I'm not dealing with that later. I'm dealing with that now. Okay? When I drove by a fire station yesterday on 2nd Avenue and I saw a green truck sitting in that fire station and I asked the question why? That we had to borrow it from Metro because ours wasn't working. I want to deal with that problem today. We've got to deal with that problem. First and foremost for this vote we're going to talk about life giving services of police and fire not because I'm chairman. Okay? But because I'm a citizen and I might need that equipment that's not available. So, as for this vote I want you to know we're going to talk about it today. COMMISSIONER GORT: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SUAREZ: Commissioner Gort. COMMISSIONER GORT: For the second time, I'd suggest to my colleagues that if we all write the questions down and let 11 March 2, 1998 the staff finish all the presentation and at the end each one of us will have an opportunity. Because I have a lot of questions myself. If we go into questions and answers right now we're going to be here all day. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: We're going to be here all day any way. COMMISSIONER GORT: I know we are going to be here all day, but I would like to have it a little more organized if possible. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. MAYOR SUAREZ: If at all possible, except for clarifications, let them go through with their presentation. MR. PAREKH: Furthermore, temporary salaries in parks and recreation, there is a shifting of the two hundred thousand dollar ($200,000) costs from the General Fund to the consolidated accounts which parks and recreation raises through donations as well as fees. As you recall, the Parks and Recreation Department basically netted one hundred thousand dollars ($100, 000) from the boat show. That will go over to offset some of the summer programs which the Parks and Recreation Department runs through the fiscal year. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Okay. The next item we had asked that you had indicated an agreement informally that the Mayor and City Commission budgets be reduced by five percent and that is being reflected in the next line item. My own budget of the City Manager's Office, which I'm told is already reduced 15 percent last September is likewise being reduced by 80 thousand dollars ($80,000) this year and 86 thousand dollars ($86,000) in each of the ensuing years. And we show the City Clerk reductions of 21 thousand dollars ($21,000) this year and 39 thousand dollars ($39,000) in each of the ensuing years. That gets us to the salary and positions reductions which Mr. Mayor, you and I have both issued memos on. And I want to say that this is the most difficult, and clearly the most painful part of this job. We are reducing extensively the salaries of 19 people in response to the memorandum that you issued, Mayor, that pointed out that the philosophy of the City is one of containment. We are reassigning a number of people, we are actually terminating a few 12 March 2, 1998 people. Because of the strictures of the collective bargaining contracts all of these changes are in the unclassified rank. That is important because when we get to negotiating new collective bargaining contracts this spring or summer, we need to remember that the unclassified are taking not the brunt, but I think the totality of the burden at this point. The amount that we are showing this year is 504 thousand dollars ($504,000) and the amount that I'm showing in the ensuing years is only a million five ($1,500,000) which is an extremely conservative number. Were we to achieve, which we hope to do with the cooperation of our unions in the out years the kinds of reductions that the Mayor's memo and mine discussed, those savings would not be a million and a half, but would be 15 million dollars ($15,000,000) plus fringe benefits. That's a considerable amount of money. Obviously we want to put forth a plan that is conservative and errs on the side of conservatism rather than wind up later with additional revisions resulting from shortfalls. The position that I have taken with my staff to look at the next line of the vacancies is that as of today there are no vacancies in the City of Miami. We had already eliminated them from the current year's budget but as you can see we're showing eliminations in each of the out years to reflect the fact that whatever vacancies used to exist in this hour of great need can no longer be included. However, I hasten to add that the does not eliminate any police positions or any fire fighter positions. All of the certifieds, even where there are vacancies, remain in place. We're talking about General Fund, administrative and other clerical type positions. The discussion we had before concerning our contributions to the pension plans are the next two items. As you can see there's no entry this year, but we're going to be saving approximately 9 million dollars ($9,000,000) as of October 1 for the following fiscal year and thereafter. That results from the fact that the pension boards have done extremely well, and we actually have the report of the actuaries indicating that there is no need for us to fund this 9 million dollars ($9,000,000) come October the 1st. Pension and administrative costs, there's no entry for this year, but in each of the out years we have put back in the pension and administrative costs. Let me address this point and perhaps, Commissioner Plummer, this is one area where in this hour of need we can do things a little differently. The Commission had voted not to expend not to contribute a million dollars ($1,000,000) to the pension administrative costs. And that was actually 13 March 2, 1998 booked for this current year. At an earlier point last year, September -- Dipak, where are you -- when did the administrative costs get put back in? MR. PAREKH: It got put back in the second public hearing in September. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: September. The Commission decided to go ahead and put that back in. That means that if that decision is carried out in the ensuing four years we need to spend a million dollars ($1,000,000) in each of those four years that we had earlier determined that we would not spend. Again, because this budget is a conservative although austere budget. We are showing that million dollars ($1,000,000) as being spent which we did not anticipate spending in the out years. Were you to decide to go back to your pre -September position then we would save those 4 million dollars in the out years. And we would hope that you would give some consideration at the time when we are making painful decisions that we're making not to make this additional expenditure. But again, because we're not seeking Commission action on this, because we're being conservative, we're showing the expenditure as being a ... Legal fees of 750 thousand dollars ($750,000). This is something that has also been discussed, and I think agreed upon, at least in principle. This is the Deloitte case and Pottinger case. The problem is, this was never funded. And we need to make sure we fund it. So, that's the amount there in each of the next two years. Professional fees is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). You have a schedule on that, that's the last of the schedules and that is the Mayor's salary which was never funded. The Peat Marwick audit fee which was never funded. The Nachlinger consulting contract which was never funded. All these are commitments made, but never funded. Again, remember what I told you at the outset, we've taken on the difficult but important task of not just solving the fire fee issue, but going ahead and revising the whole five-year plan. So, we have a comprehensive new document that takes all of these things into account. So, we're not just trying to fill. a 23.8 million dollar ($23,800,000) hole. Here's another five hundred thousand (500,000) The Rodriguez-Trueba fee which was never funded. The public works pilot project. That's the Peat Marwick strategic and operating plan for public works which was never funded, and we still owe some 14 or 15 thousand dollars to the consultants and counsel in Tallahassee in connection with the fire fee. Compensated 14 March 2, 1998 absence is a million four hundred sixty-four thousand dollars ($1,464,000). This was a sum of money that was booked in this year's budget as coming in from last year's budget. However, it got used up last year. Therefore, it is not available for this year's budget as a revenue source. This is the time to reflect that circumstance to have -- in order to have a true, solid, meaningful and accurate budget. So the 1,464,000 of compensated absences is shown as a debit in this year's budget. Undesignated reserves is 2 million dollars ($2,000,000). This, Mayor and Commissioners, is the rainy -day fund. It is our position -- I guess my position, that this is the rainy day. And we are tapping that fund for the two million dollars ($2,000,000) that are in there now. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: It's called E1 Nino. MR. GARCIA PEDROSA: The fire safety permit fee. I mentioned at the outset that the shortfall from the elimination of the fire fee went beyond the 23.8 million dollars ($23,800,000). It included investment income that had been booked based on the revenues that were anticipated from the fire fee. And it also included this high impact fee, I'm sorry, I'm skipping to the next line -- I'll come back to fire safety. The high impact fee which is 525,000 this year as a debit and a million dollars ($1,000,000) each year thereafter. This is a fee that we were going to charge as part of the fire fee for high users, people or places in which we went to more than five times I think it was. Over the weekend we have determined from our counsel and consultant in Tallahassee that in the absence of the fire fee this piece also falls because in their judgment it would not be legal to impose this fee. Therefore, the revenues that were anticipated from those fees are also being debited. I started talking about the fire safety permit fee. This is a fee that's already been authorized and approved by the Commission. It's booked for the current year so you see no entry for it. It's not been reflected in the out years so you see the 750 thousand dollars ($750,000). That's actually a million dollars ($1,000,000) of revenue, but we have an agreement with the fire fighters that they participate to the extent of 250 thousand dollars ($250,000). So what is being shown as an additional revenue is the difference of 750 thousand dollars ($750, 000) . The next item is the sale of fill and we're showing it conservatively at $500,000. Mayor, you and I have also discussed this privately and publicly. We have bids now which would 15 March 2, 1998 generate somewhere in this vicinity. We also explored the possibility and those bids are at a dollar twenty-eight ($1.28) a cubic yard. We've also explored the possibility through our remaining good contacts in Miami Beach, through Assistant City Manager Joe Pinon, to sell that, at least a portion of that fill which has the requisite quality to Miami Beach for five dollars ($5.00) a cubic yard to be used as material to repair their sand dunes, and in some respects some of the beach areas as well. Areas which were damaged by the recent tornados. The Commission in Miami Beach, I believe, is meeting later on this week and is going to consider this item. We've not booking those revenues. Again we're trying to be conservative. But obviously if we sell, and we could sell almost any amount that we wanted, but if we sold let's say 500 thousand cubic yards at five dollars ($5.00), that's two and a half million dollars ($2,500,000) instead of half -- MAYOR SUAREZ: The current amount being discussed is 390,000 cubic yards? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yes, sir. MAYOR SUAREZ: -- to the beach? Note for the record: Commissioner Teele entered the meeting at 10:37 a.m. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: And again we are not booking that additional revenue. But Miami Beach has both the DERM (Department of Environmental Resource Management) authorization and federal funding to make this purchase. So, we're hopeful that that will be an addition and again something that might give us cushion to pick up some of the deleted expenditures. Excess permit fees are basically permit fees paid by The Miami Heat in connection with the American Airlines Arenas, the expenditures from which have been deducted, and these are amounts that are available, thereafter, after deducting expenditures. Net interest income of $200,000. This I discussed earlier. This is a combination of two numbers. First, we sold the FEC (Florida East Coast) tract and are generating investment income from that 37 million dollars ($37,000,000) that is sitting in escrow for our benefit. However, because we're not getting the revenue investment income from the now defunct fire fee, we have netted out 16 March 2, 1998 that investment income from the fire fee. We have deducted it from the 37 million dollars ($37,000,000) generated investment fee -- investment income from the FEC sale. And what you have there is a conservative projection of net interest income over what we had previously projected $200,000 in each of the years. The administrative fees are simply a three dollar ($3.00) administrative charge that the Commission authorized and instructed us to the levy on bills sent out by the City. Because a disproportionate share, if you will, of the fees for this year have already been mailed, the amount this year is not prorata to the amount in future years. We're booking conservatively $25,000 in the current fiscal year for the balance of it, and $100, 000 dollars in the out years. .And, finally, we have privatization or realignment initiatives. Dipak, we have some slides on this. We worked with the very good cooperation of the Solid Waste Union and personnel and Department. We've made some changes that are set forth in terms of work hours, and so forth, and we think we're going to be realizing substantial savings in the out years, but I note for you that there is no amount booked for the current fiscal year. Now, if I can take you to the bottom line of the first page of the revised five-year plan. By doing the changes, or accomplishing the changes that we have laid out, the differences that you see are as follows: a $1,211,033 dollars operating surplus in the current fiscal year. Remember each year must stand on its own. There cannot be an operating deficit in any of the five years of the five-year plan in accordance with the requirements of the agreement with the governor's office and the five-year plan itself. So, were we to accomplish this we project an operating surplus of $1,211,000 in the current fiscal year which ends on September 30th. Likewise, in the next fiscal year, 98-99 we project a surplus of a $1,878,000. In fiscal year 2000, a surplus of $2,042,000. In fiscal year 2001, a surplus of $945, 000 and in fiscal year 2002, a surplus of $1,712,000. In the out years some of the elements change. For instance, we're projecting increased pension costs and, of course, we're projecting increased expenditures as a result of costs of living increases and the like. Now, the second page begins with the analysis that the Mayor asked me to emphasize concerning the requirement that each year stand on its on in a second way. .And that is that the recurring revenues for each year be equal to or greater than the recurring expenditures. The important line to look at is the line that says the second time that you see the words, 17 March 2, 1998 "percentage recurring." Because that is the line that contains the revenues over expenditures for each of the fiscal years, the percentage. So, you see that in the current fiscal year, were we to make the changes that we have proposed our recurring revenues would exceed our recurring expenditures. In fact, the recurring revenues would be 101.24 percent of recurring expenditures. That is less than we started the year out with. But obviously this is the most painful year. As you can see in the out years, the recurring revenues are 105.2 percent, 104.8 percent, 104.4 percent and 104.E percent of recurring expenditures. Each of those years also, therefore, complies with that tenet of the intergovernmental cooperation agreement. Those percentages in the out years, as you can see, are actually a year little better than what's projected now, which is the first line that you have where it says, "percentage recurring". So, in summary, this year we went from 104.12 percent down to 101.24 percent. But we're still in compliance. However, in the out years, as you can see, we actually increased our percentage by which our recurring revenues exceed our recurring expenditures. Then there is the group of lines having to do with reserves and this is something else that is worth noting. One of the, I think, very important methodological prescriptions of the five-year plan is the requirement that we show the buildup of reserves booked as expenditures. So if you go back and you look at what our operating surpluses are projected to be, they're really very small. And, so, at the end of the five years if you look at the bottom of page one and say well, the City is going to have 3, 5, 6, 7 about 8 million dollars ($8,000,000) in fund balance which is really a fairly small amount of fund balance. Well, that's not true. It's not true because booked as expenditures and, therefore, not a part of that fund balance are 22.2 million dollars ($22,200,000) of reserves. And those are outlined in the last group of numbers that you have on page 2 of the chart. 4.9 million dollars ($4,900,000) in the current year, 4.37 million dollars ($4,370,000) in each of the out years. So at the conclusion of the five-year plan our fund balance would be 8 million dollars ($8,000,000), but we would have 22 million dollars ($22,000,000) of reserves, so if we were to combine the two this City with a budget of 300 million dollars ($300,000,000) would have would have 30 million dollars ($30,000,000) or ten percent of its General Fund budget, and I will tell you that that's a very healthy percentage and a very healthy number. The numbers are deceptive, conservatively 18 March 2, 1998 deceptive in a second way and that is as you can see we have not accounted for the FEC 37 million dollars ($37,000,000). And I'd like to mention that at the moment for just a moment. We have 37 million dollars ($37, 000, 000) which will decline to 34 million dollars ($34,000,000) once the expenditures that have to be made from the closing take place. We have also committed to funding to the tune of 12 million dollars ($12, 000, 000) the Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations over the over next five years. That means that at the end of five years in addition to the 8 million dollars ($8,000,000) in the General Fund balance, in addition to the 22 million dollars ($22,000,000) in reserves we will have another 22 million dollars ($22,000,000) from the FEC sale, unless in the meantime this Commission decides to expend those monies in some other way. That is not the way we have booked those revenues. We've booked the investment from those revenues but that net 22 million dollars ($22,000,000) from the FEC is there, and has not been reflected in any of these numbers. I will tell you that, in addition, as the Mayor's memo outlines, there are other land sales and nonrecurring revenues that have been discussed, some of which are actively under negotiation. For instance, we have been discussing and will continue to negotiate with Miami -Dade County the sale of Bicentennial Park. There are other possibilities that my staff and I are working on. And again although they're not recurring in nature, were we to take the monies and invest them, the investment income is a recurring source of revenue year after year and the principle itself is part of the new rainy -day fund which the investment community and the bond rating agencies in particular like so much. Unlike those of us who think that there's no such thing as being too thin or too rich, I think, what the bond rating agencies believe is that there is no such thing as too much General Fund balance. And to the extent that we put those monies in the General Fund balance, it will enure enormously to the benefit of the City. The last of the areas that I want to cover is the other alternatives, other initiatives and those are listed and I'll mention ever so briefly at the bottom of the second page of the chart. I mentioned the landfill sale already, the possibility that it might generate five times what we have booked as revenue. We have also begun to look at the possibility of closure of two fire stations. This City has 35 square miles and 12 fire stations and there may be some redundancy. And if that's the case we'd like to explore it; study it; and come back with some recommendations. Those two fire 19 March 2, 1998 stations and the police substations could also be sold if the need arose. Obviously, the first item the closure means that we save on personnel and equipment costs. This item would mean that we save because we would actually realize sales from the sale of realty and the sale of equipment. We have asked our financial advisors to look at the possibility of doing an interest rate swap. The conditions of the market are such and I will tell you that if the City's bond rating were not junk bond rating as it is today, I'm sorry to say even after our trip to Wall Street, we would be able to refinance our obligations and save a lot of money. But there are interest rate swaps that we may be able to do which would produce substantial, albeit, nonrecurring revenue to the City, and we've asked our FA's (financial advisors) to look at this and get back to us promptly. We have a solid waste union agreement that's already expired. As you know, under state law we continue with the old contract until there is a new one. And the three other collective bargaining contracts expire at the end of this fiscal year. We need to renegotiate or negotiate new contracts. Frankly we will be asking our friends and our brethren on the classified side to share in some of the pain that the unclassified work force will suffer if you approve these changes. Again, the losses or the cuts that are reflected in this year's budget do not reflect, do not reflect, diminutions in the classified ranks, of reduction in the classified ranks. All of those cuts are from the unclassified area. There are other possibilities for privatization that have been discussed from time to time. We want to explore those and come back to you with some recommendations in which we might be able to protect everybody's jobs and at the same time improve service and decrease expense. And if that's the case we will be bringing those reports and recommendations back to you. On Miami Beach while I was there, we were able to enhance revenues in the sanitation areas with two impact fees which we think you find not only palatable, but frankly, fair. One would be in the commercial account permit area and the other will be for construction projects. As you know, when construction projects remove debris a bunch of it winds up on the streets. We have to go pick that up. We did a study on Miami Beach and we were able to put in these two revenue sources. We booked nothing on that this year. Again we tried to do everything without necessity of new taxes or fees, but this is something that we'd like to explore for the City of Miami. And I will tell you that a quick estimate of this we think that these two types of permit fees would 20 March 2, 1998 bring in approximately 5 million dollars ($5,000,000) a year were they to be adopted. The next is the transfer of the Fire Department to Miami -Dade County. This is a subject that was raised at your last meeting, I personally do not support it, but we were asked to and we will review it and bring it back to you with recommendations. As you know, we have what I think is the finest Fire Department in this area. The response time of a minute to a minute and a half faster than the county. Any of you who have dealt with tragedy of that sort know that minute or a minute and a half can make a significant, indeed determinative difference between life and death and between the gravity of an injury to an individual. We want to comply with your direction and mandate that we can explore this and we will, but I don't personally feel that this is an area that I'm going to be asking you to do. If anything, as you know the trend is to have the local governments have greater control over their destiny rather than having the county do it. The matter ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, since I asked that you look at this, and I'm respectful of Commissioner Gort's concern, are you saying that you're not going to take an objective look at this? You're communicating to all of the people that work for you how you feel about it. Now, are you going to be fair in terms of looking at issues that I want to look at? Or are you just going to say, "I am going to look at it," and then do what you want to do? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I'm going to have those who are more knowledgeable than I about this particular area will be the ones that work up this report. Yes, sir, it will be a fair report. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: For the record, I don't want do it either. But when you've got a capital requirement of Fire Department right now that's almost 25 million dollars ($25,000,000) of backlog. When you've got vehicles that are parked everywhere that are not operating; when you've got roofs that are leaking everywhere, I think it's better to do something than do nothing. And I don't want to transfer the Fire Department to the County either, but if you're going to study it, I want you to be professional and be objective about the study and I don't want you to start communicating to your staff how you want the study results to come out. Otherwise don't do it. Let's just kill it right now. I think that's extremely unprofessional and disrespectful, and I'm not going to 21 March 2, 1998 tolerate it, Mr. Manager. Because let me tell you something this a serious issue and I have been in favor of giving the Fire Department more money for capital out of the fire fee. It was I who said, let's get them two million or three million a year to deal with the backlog. This is not something that's being pulled out of the sky, it's a result of our failure to approve the fire fee. So, I don't think it's a question of let's evaluate this individually on its own. The question is, is this going to be best for the citizens of the City of Miami or are we going to see a deteriorating Fire Department. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Mr. Vice Chairman, I would only urge you to judge the objectivity of the report at the time that it is rendered, and I think you will find it to be a fair objective report. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, I think you've impregnated whatever report that comes out by your staff with a very, very clear bias as the chief professional officer by your comments here today, and I'll be happy -- if the Clerk would provide you with a written copy of those comments on a sheet of paper so you can see how biased the report is going to be. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Mr. Manager, just one second. You might want to in the study what the Vice Chairman had requested. You might want to check again the fact that we discussed that issue last year, and we can use some community development money to buy fire equipment. It's under law, the federal law, and I would urge you to also look into that possibility. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I don't want to deviate from this. But let me just say that the last time the issue of five trucks being idle came up, we did look into it in some cases it has to do with the unavailability of parts not with the unavailability of money. We can get back to that in greater detail. The matter of pension costs. There is, as I mentioned before in the budget solutions for the out years, not for the current year, some 9 million dollars ($9,000,000) that the actuaries have stated we do not need to contribute. But the actuaries are still requiring us to contribute 10 million dollars ($10,000,000) to one fund and 4 million dollars ($4,000,000) to another in the current fiscal year. In the case of one of the funds, the one to which we are being asked to contribute 10 million dollars 22 March 2, 1998 ($10,000,000), that fund is fully funded. And the question has arisen whether as a legal matter we are still required to put in 10 million dollars ($10,000,000) even though that fund is fully funded. I don't have an answer to that, but we're looking into that and obviously if there is a way in which we can either diminish or eliminate that 10 million dollar ($1010001000) contribution that would immediately inject 10 million dollars ($10,000,000) into the current fiscal year. I've also discussed this with the Mayor who indicated his willingness if we have the appropriate support from actuaries and counsel if necessary to seek to arbitrate this matter which I think is the way in which these disputes, if they remain disputes, would have to be resolved. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I guess, maybe I'm on the Arthur Teele theory now, is that as you referred to discussing the matter with the Mayor, is it not the matter of this Commission who will give you that authorization? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Because you keep referring to the Mayor, the Mayor, but yet as I understand it, the bottom line, is going to be this Commission. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: You have to provide for or not all of these budget solutions. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: The reason I mentioned it, you know the Mayor had issued about three different memos which are in your materials and had discussed them with me, and we had not as a Commission discussed this particular item. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: And likewise he discussed it with me yesterday morning, and I have not had the time to analyze what he thinks is best for this City as opposed to what you think is best for this City, and in the final analysis what I think is best, and what my vote will be predicated on. But I just want to make sure we understand the terminology. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: All of these decisions are made by the Commission, yes, sir. We have received what I'm told 23 March 2, 1998 is not a new proposal, but one has been around for a while, it just never got implemented, concerning risk management group benefits. Basically it's the means of taking out insurance, if you will, and it supposedly entails some substantial savings. It's obviously something we need to explore. We don't have that analysis done, much less the financial impact of it. So, this is another initiative that we would like to pursue. Finally, there is the matter of pending litigation. As you know, this Commission retained counsel and authorized the filing of a lawsuit in connection with the City's financial statement. That lawsuit is ongoing and again we have not booked any revenue, but that is an initiative and alternative that could some day either soon or not so soon produce nothing or it could produce literally 10's or 20's of millions of dollars for the City. Let me conclude by setting or stating to you that for the most part although with less specificity, we presented these budget solutions and alternatives last week in New York to our rating agencies or institutional bond holders and to the insurers of many of our bond issues. I think it's a fair statement that going in we were received rather coldly although not personally, but financially so. I think it's also a fair statement to say that our presentations were well received. We were subjected I think to some rigorous analysis and questioning which I think was very appropriate. And each of the groups that we met with told us that they expect to hear from us immediately following your action on these recommendations. We asked them not to judge us until actions are taken and certainly not to go by what others might say in the media or elsewhere. And they are expecting to hear back from us after this meeting concludes. With that we presented what I think you had asked us to do. We hope that we have met the challenge that you gave to us and that we've done our part in giving you an acceptable course of action. These proposals I hope will receive your careful and hopefully favorable consideration. So that the judgments of the Oversight Board who is also anxious to hear from us not only tomorrow as they meet, but at the conclusion of this meeting and the investment community might likewise be favorable so that we might continue on our path of economic recovery. The last item in your packet is a resolution which we have prepared for your consideration. That resolution which recites the need for these changes to be made in light of the elimination of the fire fee and other changes. It does change two things. It authorizes and instructs us to amend the departmental 24 March 2, 1998 budgets to reflect the changes, the budget solutions that I would implement administratively if you approve this plan. And it also instructs us with respect to that list of alternatives that I just reviewed to analyze them and to render to you a report and recommendation for your consideration in the near future. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving us this opportunity to present these changes. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Manager. We're going to be opening up the floor. We'd like to start with Commissioner Plummer with any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, I think we're going to have to have somewhat of running dialogue just for informational purposes, I have been handed, Mr. Manager, further embarrassment is my concern about the equipment for the Fire Department. We have a fire truck from Miami Beach on loan at Station 5. We have a Metro truck on borrow from Station 2. And I am told that we have a Coral Gables fire truck on loan from Station 11. That kind of knocks the living ... out of the fact that we're proud of our department. When I see all these different colors it doesn't set well with me, I'll tell you that real quick like. Mr. Manager, I hear you say here how many positions are terminated? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Four. COMMISSIONER PLUMMMER: Okay. Now, prior to the falling of a fire fee, we all received a memo from you appointing a committee to eliminate ten percent of the total employees of the City by October 1 which would be approximately 350 people. And by March of '99, a year from now, 15 percent or I think roughly 540, whatever that number is. How does that memo fit into the picture which you have developed for us today? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: The positions that are not reflected in the number that I gave you are the temporary part-time and other positions that are not line item positions in the budget. What we have eliminated aside from all the vacancies are line item positions that are reflected in the actual budget. Where you have, for example, temporaries or part-timers that shows up as a dollar entry in the budget for the particular department and that, too, is being eliminated in the course of discussion 25 March 2, 1998 that Dipak gave you. So if you're asking me how many bodies are going to change, that's many more than four. The other thing ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Excuse me. You also made mention, part-timers were only a half a person? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: For our purposes we're going to count half, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: So what you're saying is if, in fact, 350 is the number it's going to be many more than that because a great number of those are part-time? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I don't know that a great many number of that are part-time. I will tell you that we ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Unless we've got a lot of "enanos" working for the City. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I think it's a fair statement as reflected in the chart that you have in front of you that the savings that I expected to be made are not going to be realized, I expect as a result of the Committee's work. They're not reflected in the chart because I don't think they're going to be realized this year. We can take care of the ... let me add one point. We have also reassigned to nongeneral fund positions another 12 people and we have reduced salaries of 19 people. When you add all those things up you come up with the numbers say you have in the presentation. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Am I to assume that on top of what you -- I guess, the point I'm trying to make on top of what you're proposing here there is a proposal still active to do another 350? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Just about. That's when we got to line item for salary and position reductions and I mentioned that we have only 540 thousand this year and a million five in each of the out years. That is a fraction of what I think the committee will come back with. The reason, Commissioner Plummer, we did not book 15 million dollars ($15,000,000) plus fringe, for example, in the out years, is that we wanted to prepare for you and for the Oversight Board if you approve it, a budget that we know within our control we can achieve. To achieve what this 26 March 2, 1998 committee is going to be proposing we need the cooperation of the unions. We need new collective bargaining contracts. For example, AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) has a no -cut provision. We need to change some of those contractual provisions, and because we don't have that and cannot say today that we can assure you or the Oversight Board that will happen, although we hope it will happen, that's why we have not booked what I think will be the real impact of that committee's work. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Mr. Chairman, if I may ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Mr. Manager, you speak about a liability. Public official's liability. I assume that is the members of this Commission. Does that meaning that we will no longer have -- we will be personally liable rather than -- explain that to me, please. Because I am about ready to quit. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Let me ask Mario Soldevilla... MR. MARIO SOLDEVILLA (RISK MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR): Mario Soldevilla with Risk Management. Public officials liability are liabilities that are incurred as a result of personnel actions as a result of contractual ... breaches of contracts. That type of thing. It is not that you are not covered. It covers the entire City and all officials in the City. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I think what Commissioner Plummer is asking we're not eliminating ... MR. SOLDEVILLA: We are not. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: ... coverage for that. What we are doing is there's a hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) entry on your chart from GSA ... MR. SOLDEVILLA: Correct. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: ... which is line item 661 which we think will be a realized savings. MR. SOLDEVILLA: We believe that's going to be a realized savings over the current budget. 27 March 2, 1998 COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay, I just wanted to know who was hanging out without any protection? MR. SOLDEVILLA: No one. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. Mr. Manager, as you said the biggest pill of pain to swallow, explain to me in more detail the people who will be receiving humongous cuts in salary. Is it all that they will be in a 96 thousand dollar level ($96,000) or lower? Is it they're taking a percentage cut? I need to know how that is occurring. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That is occurring, Commissioner, in two ways. First of all, we took 12 people and three that were reassigned to nongeneral fund positions with whatever salaries those positions entailed and in some cases those are reduced salaries. And we also had people, because of the bumping system, roll back to other positions and as a result of rolling back to a different position that has a different salary level. That too, is the part of the number. That's the first way in which this happens. The second way which frankly it's much more dramatic in terms of its financial implications arose from the Mayor's memo, I think it was last Thursday or Friday I was in New York when I received it, in which he expressed his view that no one should make more than I. And he asked me to report, if you will, I think is the word he used, as to how I was dealing with the issue of salaries. What my staff and I did, the senior staff and I did, was that take my salary which is 96 thousand dollars ($96,000), as you know, as you have fixed the Assistant City Managers are 95 thousand dollars ($95,000), and then say that from the General Fund the department directors ought to be one thousand dollars ($1,000) below at most, one thousand dollars ($1,000) below what the -- or at least I should say, what the ACM's (Assistant City Managers) make. In other words, the same gap that exists between the assistant city managers and me ought to be the minimum gap between the assistant city managers and the department directors which reports to them. That in turn brought out the question of the assistant city managers ... the assistant department directors, I beg your pardon. So if you place the City Manager at 96, the assistant city managers at 95, department directors at no more than 94. The question is what do you do with assistant department directors. And, so, we looked at the charts for various departments and so forth and so on, and for the most part, I think, we wound up with 85 as the top. 28 March 2, 1998 MS. ANGELA BELLAMY (DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES): Eighty- five. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I think -- help me out, Angela. I think we wound up with the most part, but not exclusively with 85 as the top assistant department director. MS. BELLAMY: Angela Bellamy, Department of Human Resources. The assistant police and fire chiefs would be at 90,000, the assistant directors, 85,000, and NET administrators, 80,000. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: And the reason for the fire and police 90,000 figure is that we wanted to avoid the very problem we have at the moment that is there are people that report to people that make less. So to have placed assistant police chiefs at 85 instead of 90 would have meant that there was some captains and so forth that made more. We tried to not have that circumstance develop. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: What does that do to their benefits and their pension? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Well, their benefits, other than pension or retirement related, would remain. That is to say that whatever they receive in terms of health insurance. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Refresh my memory they retire at the highest year? MS. BELLAMY: Highest one year. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: So whatever that is prior to any cuts would still be the prevailing? MS. BELLAMY: Yes. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yes. It would not effect that aspect of it. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: And then what you're actually doing is you are coming across the board rather than a percentage? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA (CITY MANAGER): That's correct. I only have one more thing. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I don't know that I agree with 29 March 2, 1998 that, but I have to think about that one. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I only have one more thing. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: My point is that you have a discrepancy right now between fire and police. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Vis-a-vis the other departments. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, yes, between the two of those there's not parity in the two departments. You have in the Police Department, for example, every one of the Police Department has a take home car. Okay? In the Fire Department you have many positions which are 24-hour call, that do not have take home cars. In the Police Department you have every one with a beeper and a cellular phone. And yet you have people in the Fire Department that don't have a cellular phone or beepers. So that's why I'm asking the fairness in a direct cut across the board rather than in percentages. Because to bring about what I consider to be parity between the two which are the major life saving support systems in this City. MR. GARCIA-PEDRO: I don't want to leave you with the impression that every assistant director or assistant police chief is going to make the same amount, we're talking about in essence caps. So, for instance, if you have an assistant department director now -- COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Do you not have today -- and I don't have it in front of me, lower than assistant chiefs or assistant whatever that are making in excess of that now without talking about? Don't you have majors that are making up near $90,000? MS. BELLAMY: No, we looked at the majors, and we looked at also the highest civil service classification. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: What's your the highest major making? MS. BELLAMY: For captain I believe it was 74,000 for police captain, and we also looked at chief fire officer. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: What is your highest major making? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: 85,447. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay, now, that in effect is above 30 March 2, 1998 that scope right now. MS. BELLAMY: Right. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: So, that person will also be cut. MS. BELLAMY: Right, they will be cut. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Is that one of the 400 dollars? MS. BELLAMY: Yes. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Hell of a big difference between $400 and some of the others. What is the most any one person is cut? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: You mean throughout or the Police Department? COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I mean, the person you are proposing to cut. Who is the one that is suffering the most? MS. BELLAMY: There are two that will receive a $12,250 cut. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. Let me ask you ... MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: May I make one other observation? COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Make all you want. MR. GARCIA-PEDRO: Aside from the obvious difficulty and again pain that all this entails, I think we need to keep this in perspective. At some point -- once assuming that you approve this proposal, and I do assume that the City comes out of this financial situation -- at some point we have to restructure this whole thing and go back to a different, I think a better and a fairer system. We're trying to deal with a financial situation that is very, very difficult. Once we recover financially, and we will, I would like for us and our work force and our department heads and their subordinates who are out there listening to know that I don't agree with this. This is a necessary temporary measure, but at some point we have to go back and pay people what they deserve. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, I guess the bottom line is what are we calling temporary? -- Five years as opposed to 31 March 2, 1998 50? That is temporary. MR. GARCIA-PEDRO: I think the outside would be at five years. My hope , Commissioner, is that if we do the things that we must do and we have that second operating surplus on September 30th and the oversight process changes dramatically and they go to quarterly meetings or whatever I hope that we can eliminate this whole thing in less than five years, and I think we will. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Mr. Manager, using your projections for this current year, you're showing a surplus of a million two (1, 200, 000) . MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Yet, I don't find that in 199's budget as a carry over. What happened? Did it disappear? We're having a party or what? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, sir, we're putting that in the fund balance. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: You don't show me a fund balance in '99. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, the notion of carrying over your operating surplus as a source of revenue in the following year is not a methodology that we're following. What we said is when we begin in 199, it stands on its own. Whatever was left over is surplus in 198, which hopefully will be a million two eleven (1,211,000) will in that rainy day ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: A contingency. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: ... fund balance account. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. Let me ask you and you use it a as a comparison for all. The Mayor's budget at the present time has never been changed. There is no way in God's green earth that he can live under the budget that, in fact, it is proposed and what has been approved, just his salary alone. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: It was never funded. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Where are those monies coming from? We're talking about what is presently approved. If I have 32 March 2, 1998 the right book -- I have many of them. MR. PAREKH: 368 ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Excuse me. MR. PAREKH: 368,000. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: 360,000 dollars, 368,109. Now, where are you going to get the additional monies to provide for that office, what is necessary to provide for that office? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: We've booked $100,000 for the Mayor's salary, which is actually $97,000. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: No, no. I can't accept that as being a side item. That's in his budget, not professional fees. We all have to keep within our own budget, but a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) is outside. Where is the rest of it coming from? It is not there, you are telling me. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, no it's in the General Fund. What you have there, Commissioner, if by that you mean the chart, is only the changes to the current year's budget. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. Then breakdown for me where the 46 thousand dollars ($46,000) that you're showing that is coming from the Mayor and Commissioner's offices, because I see the Mayor's office has got to be tremendously increased. Yet, you're showing a 46 thousand dollar six hundred and thirty-five dollars ($46,635) in our budgets are going to be given back and not be used by our offices. Tell me where the difference is. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That's coming exclusively from the Commissioners' offices. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: And nothing from the Mayor's office? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I'm asking that to be justified as fair. Because he, as I see it is going to need, at least, another 250 thousand dollars ($250,000) in his budget, and, yet, you're asking us to give up -- which I have no problem to do, but if we're going to do this in fairness 33 March 2, 1998 across the board it's going to have to be just that way to get my vote. I don't see this as fairness where you are asking each one of us to give up, and I think each one of us has agreed to do this, but, it's got to be across the board, including the Mayor. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Absolutely. I already have for you, Mr. Manager, the details of the reduction in my budget. I have no problem as the other members of the Commission do not have. I'd like also to ask you as a matter of fact that we should have a monthly financial report. It is important for us and for the Oversight Board and for the media and for the people of Miami so everybody would know that we are following on this proposal, if we were to approve them. And even our budgets and the Mayor's budget and everybody's budget. I think it's important that we get monthly financial reports like any other business will do. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Commissioner, I agree with you completely. I want you to know I am holding it -- First of all forgive me, I don't know what the practice has been, I really don't. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: We have not gotten them. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I have here, and we did provide it to the Oversight Board the January 1998 monthly budgetary status report which contains all the information up to date. It's trully a monthly reconciliation, which I think you're talking about. I think what you're saying is that we should distribute this to the Commission, obviously we will do that henceforth. I'm not sure if that the practice or not before, but we will start to do that. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Mr. Manager ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Commissioner Plummer has the floor and what I'm going do when Chairman Hernandez gets back, we need to establish at least how we're going to manage our time before the lunch break. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I'm going to yield the floor. I have other questions, but if the other Commissioners have some questions they want to ask before the break, I will yield the floor. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Is it acceptable that we agree to break at 12:307 34 March 2, 1998 COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: No, 12:00. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Well, you've taken from 11:15 to 11:40 an nobody else is going to have time before lunch. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: So instead of coming back at 2:30 come back at 3:00? That's fine with me. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: I think if we can go to 12:30. And come back at three o'clock. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: That's fine with me. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Is that satisfactory? Let's give each Commissioner a block of time. And let's just say fifteen minutes for the sake of going. Who would like to go next? COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, let me just for the record, if I may, and I will yield the floor. I have other questions, but I want the time at lunch, which I think every one of us needs to sit down and try to do some analyzation between what is really before us between the proposals and the ideas of the Mayor, the Manager and his ideas and what he proposes. And so that we can sit down and start drawing together as to what we think we should be voting for. So I just think that we all need that time. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Goenaga, just so that you know we will hear from the public after the lunch. It will be my intent to see if the unions want to be heard before we break for two minutes each. Hold it -- Let's go through each of the Commissioners. Commissioner Regalado is recognized for 15 minutes, and Chairman Hernandez we've agreed to break at 12:30 and come back at 3:00, if that is satisfactory to you. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: I think I'll take less than that. So, we are clear aside, Mr. City Manager, aside from the salary reductions, specifically in the departments that service directly our community, police, fire, solid waste, has the structure changed at all? Let's begin with the police. And the manpower? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: What do you mean by structure? COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Do we still have an assistant 35 March 2, 1998 chief? Do we still have the same structure that we had before? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yes, we have not reduced. I think the point needs to be made again. We have not reduced and do not propose to reduce the number of certified officers. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: But I'm talking about structure, no assistant chief position has been eliminated as of now? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: In the Police Department do we plan to eliminate any clerical, any unclassifed positions? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I'm told that the answer in the Police Department is no. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: So, the people of Miami can rest that we do have a Police Department that will maintain the same level of services as we're doing now? That is in the Police Department. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yeah, the only thing we're eliminating in the police, I'm told were the vacancies. People that were there, civilian vacancies. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: But that doesn't include any police officers? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Right. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: In the Fire Department is that more or less the same? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Same situation. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Solid Waste? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA (CITY MANAGER): Solid Waste is the same thing, but we're looking at some possibilities in the out years, as we explained, of changing some of the routes and so forth. That is one of the charts that you have. But yes in the current year and absent, that it's roughly the same situation, yes, sir. MS. BELLAMY: Commissioner, there was one person in the Fire Department who would be reassigned to nongeneral 36 March 2, 1998 funding, would be CD (Community Development) funding. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That's a difference in the source of funding from the standpoint of the public or the division of services to public. Commissioner Regalado, I think is the focus of your line of questioning that would not impact those. COMMISSIONER REGALA.DO: The services? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, I have more questions, but I would defer at this time. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay, before we proceed approximately at 11:15, let the record reflect that the Mayor of the City of Miami surrendered the gavel back to me as Chairman. Go ahead, Vice Chairman Teele. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, I too want to commend the Manager and his staff for working over the weekend, and I'm well aware of the fact that your assistant managers, as well as the department heads and yourself and your staffs' work. Again, this is a very difficult process when we're in this type of financial dilemma. But I certainly want to encourage you to be encouraged. Mr. Manager, you've given us, I think, about one third or maybe half of the pitch. You said that we are going to revise the five-year plan. Where are the policy documents and program documents that are associated with these numbers? I've not received one bit of information on the policy and program implications of what you're proposing and specifically I call your attention to the five-year plan that was passed on December 30th and the substantial and almost revolutionary changes that will have to be enacted by this Commission I assume today if we are to bring the program and policy implications and numbers in sync. Is there a policy and program hand-out? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, sir, the only changes that are being proposed are set forth in page one of two, which is the chart and those are numerical things and the programmatic impact of that really has to do primarily with the third of the budget solutions, the General Fund capital projects. And you do have a separate schedule for that, which lists the original allocations and the adjustments that we are making to those items. 37 March 2, 1998 VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Let me call your attention then to the five-year plan, page 5. Clean up and beautification program. The Mayor has initiated a City-wide program to make Miami the most beautiful city in the nation. Majority of the residents and business owners support it. The administration will review all funding sources and grants and so on. Has that program now been suspended? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, no. The implementation of the five-year plan in accordance with the timetable set forth within it, which as you know is Chapter Three. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, I think, if you review the records, you stated on the record and your staff stated that the funding for this initiative, which before Christmas was about 750 thousand dollars ($750,000), was coming from the anticipated five-year plan that we had approved based upon the fire fee and quite frankly holding the solid waste fee in place. Now, we've already spent that money and what I'm suggesting to you is that we no longer have the enhancements on the solid waste fee. I'm talking now about increasing the solid waste fee from your budget solution which is contained in here which had the solid waste fee at approximately 30 dollars or 40 dollars, 30 dollars bringing it back up. So, what I'm telling you is your Budget Director has a problem, because he is already misleading you. But he is not going to mislead me. We spent 750 thousand dollars ($750,000) of enhanced money based upon moving the solid waste fee from 30 dollars to 85 dollars, but now in this five-year plan you're assuming that the five year the solid waste fee goes from the 30 dollars as a part of your budget solution to 160 dollars which I accept. I won't go a penny over what we have. The problem is you spent 750 thousand dollars ($750,000) of that money already. I see no documentation that supports where that money has been charged because it was a part of an enhancement program that was spent in advance of the approval. But let me just go on, as it relates to page 6 the increased management and audit legislative objectives et cetera. Obviously, I am prepared to vote to suspend this management initiative and to withdraw it from the five year plan for the time being. As it relates to the filling of executive positions, again, you're indicating you're imposing a hiring freeze. I would be very interested in seeing an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) chart of your own office, Mr. Manager, because again we get into the last hired, first fired. In this case we 38 March 2, 1998 have the problem that again 30 percent of this community is African -American, but yet you know the story, and I don't have to say it. I mean, you know, it is same old story of America. It's particularly the same old story of Miami. It's starting in your office and it's very , very regrettable. But clearly we need to repeal the filling of executive positions as it relates to this, the creation of core mid -management. You're indicating that we're not going to have we're not going to create a mid -management core, but, in fact, we're going to further streamline. In your own statements this morning you're projecting the loss of how many exempt people, 150 over time? The point here is that the training and education policy is out. Let's be very clear. Nobody in the City is going to get trained in education policies and we're not going to help send people to school as we have said we'd like to do. And we're going to do several other things that are contained in here. I won't go through it. But what I'm trying to draw your attention, Mr. Manager, that the five-year plan is not a numerical document. It's both a numerical and a programming policy document. There are no policy documentation to support any of the numbers. If I could move, Mr. Manager, very quickly to the whole issue of how we are and where we are. What I'm seeing now is absolutely frightening in light of Miami's history. We had a run away budget office before. I don't think that's an overstatement. I think we're returning to a run away budget office. Virtually everything that is coming up now is being stated from the budget office. I want to hear from the finance office. I want to hear from the comptroller. The only way to run a government is a check and balance system. Now, if the finance office is not in the loop, we need to know and understand why. Because the first thing we've got the fix in the City as far as I'm concerned is the integrity of the Finance and Comptroller's Office as it relates to the budget process. About $3,000,000 that you outlined today are book in's and outs. You talked about a million and a half dollars ($1, 500, 000) that we expected that was going to be booked last year that, in fact, was not booked. We are going to book it this year. I don't understand that. I will be very honest with you. But that is a problem with the Comptroller's Office. And I'm not at all in any way attacking or in any way demeaning the Comptroller. The fact of the matter is the Comptroller needs to explain what's going on in the external audit. In that line, because what we're sounding now is really a lot of "golleygoop" when it gets down to the way these numbers are being switched around. This is 39 March 2, 1998 dangerous for the City of Miami. This is how this Commission got mislead for five or six years about the budget. So, I am very uncomfortable. Until the Comptroller is standing up here explaining exactly what happened on those budgets, because that's the only person who books things. And I'd like to the hear from the Comptroller through you, Mr. Manager, as to what we're talking about when we talk about the million and a half dollars ($1,500,000) that wasn't booked last year that is being booked, et cetera. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I don't have any difficulty, Commissioner, having Lourdes Reyes appearing before you and answer any questions that you might have. But I would respectfully take strong issue with the notion that this is a run away budget office or that there is anything unreliable about these numbers. To the extent that that is true, sir, it's because they were understated. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, even a fool can take note of what is happening in the City of Miami for the last five years largely attributed to a runaway budget office. I am not saying that the Budget Office is run away, but when the Comptroller is not explaining numbers related to the books of the City, I have a concern when the Budget Office is doing it. Especially in light of the history of the City of Miami, where the Budget Office ran the Comptroller's Office, ran the books, and it seems to me that we are getting right back into that right now. Now, that's just my opinion. But until the Comptroller comes up here and starts explaining how these numbers have not been entered and why those numbers weren't entered, you know, this City has a problem. The second point on that, Mr. Manager, is this, as Chairman of the Legal Committee you talk about the 750 thousand dollars ($750,000). That's the least of your worries. Okay? Because you've got somewhere between the City Commission and a bunch of law firms out there and a bunch of claimants out there at least another 750 thousand dollars ($750,000) that no one can explain to me where the numbers are. I don't hear it. And I said how much legal fees are owed. Those fees are how much, Mr. Maxwell? MR. MAXWELL (INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY): $498,000. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Okay. They weren't paid last year. I asked the question. I didn't make a big deal out of it. I just said, "Mr. Maxwell, would get with external auditor and 40 March 2, 1998 let's figure out where these numbers are because the law firms are saying they haven't been paid." And I got to tell you something, you know, once that stuff starts happening and numbers start getting lost you have a problem. And I need to know today where are we in paying all of those lawyers that did work three years ago? This stuff goes back to Perry Anderson. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Eckerd Seaman with Perry Anderson. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Perry Anderson. Okay, how many years ago was that? And the numbers are on nobody's books. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Two hundred and fifty-four thousand ($254, 000) . VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: And you see what I'm concerned about, Mr. Manager, is one thing we can solve the problem. We can solve the problem. I am encouraged by your enthusiasm and your positive can -do attitude. I want to commend you, and I want to encourage you on that. The biggest problem you got is the same problem this Commission has had, and that is getting the numbers accurate and getting the numbers timely and knowing exactly what the numbers are. Because I can tell you one thing I sat here and I saw Commissioner Regalado move to spend 250 thousand dollars ($250,000) of money that we didn't have that I voted for. And I supported. I saw those 50 kids out here that were going to be laid off, and we all voted to use the enhancement funds from -- that's exactly what we said we were using. If the Clerk will pull the record, the Budget Director is saying, "No." But if the Clerk will pull the record we said we will fund these activities from the enhancement of the solid waste fee as we move it up. Those items were not in anybody's budget. Whether they were from that fund or somewhere else. They were not in anybody's FY '98 budget. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That's absolutely correct. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Okay. We spent the money. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: You were going to use a million dollars ($1,000,000) for those initiatives. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: We spent the money. We spent a portion of the money because those people were going to be 41 March 2, 1998 laid off on December 30th and we voted to keep them on. I'm only using this, Mr. Manager, as a vignette. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I think, Commissioner, let's clarify that. The million dollars ($1,000,000) which included the legislative -- VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: I'm not worried about that. We didn't spend any of that money. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: The money that we spent was 250 thousand dollar ($250,000) to clean up the City of Miami. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: But that was from the Solid Waste Departmental budget, that's what I'm trying to tell you. That that money was ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: And it was anticipated that we would increase. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yes, and the answer to that piece ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: So, what we're going to wind up doing is impacting the Solid Waste Department at the end of the year or as we go down, because this is going to turn into musical chairs. That money was not anticipated in the FY 198 budget. I can assure you Mayor Carollo did not put in Mayor Suarez's beauty clean-up initiatives. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, sir, but the way that we are proposing to take care of that effort is not with additional monies, but rather with the programmatic changes that are part of the -- one of the presentations that you have in your colored book. To change the rules to add hours of work all of which are being discussed and has been discussed and tentatively agreed to with the union. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, the only thing that I'm asking for is when I vote on something that's outside of the budget, I want to at least see those numbers being accounted for as a reconciliation. I think this Commission is entitled to reconcile the actions that we have taken between October 1st and now. That's my main issue as it relates to my personal liability as it relates to where we are moving and how we're going. Because it is very clear to me there is going to be liability 42 March 2, 1998 everywhere. And moving to that subject I was totally not advised and unaware that the City entered into a memorandum of agreement on November 27, 1996. That memorandum of agreement with the Fire Department fire fighters, and I assume with the police required that we do certain things. Specifically, it did not require that we cut costs and cut programs and cut personnel. It required that we raise revenue. Now, I want to know just very simply does your budget initiative that is before us today address on all fours within the four corners of the various memorandums of agreement, and I would respectfully request that the City Attorney to provide us with some advice and maybe not in writing, maybe you want to do this because I can see this becoming potentially a litigation issue, as to whether or not we are in violation of the memorandum of agreement. Now, obviously the public needs to know as you and I know that what they're saying is by our failure to raise revenue, not the fire fee, but by failure to raise the revenue, we now owe them seven million additional dollars. That's the fire fighters. And I don't understand how we can first of all be voting on something or failing to vote on something and not have this before us as a very important element of what the vote should have been. And secondly, how we're going to comprehend and contemplate this seven million dollars ($7,000,000) of new expenditures, obviously we're going to sue or defend or whatever. But I mean, the real issue is, is this a valid obligation? And does your new budget contemplate providing for the additional funds that are necessary to do this? Thirdly, Mr. Manager, as it relates to the overall budget and again I commend your staff for working. I need a simple budget, standard budget document, that shows what we're doing. Because this document commingles so many unrelated activities in terms of revenue stream. We've got one time revenues spread throughout here. I need to see a document that really addresses on all four. Because, again, it's "gooleygoop." It's a lot of numbers in and a lot of numbers out, but none of the numbers make any sense from a standard budget perspective. We need to know on a recurring budget basis, what is our shortfall and how do we get it. Just that simple. What is our recurring budget shortfall, and how do we get our recurring budget into line. Either through budget revenue enhancements or through budget reductions. Now, all these credits moving forward back and forth, really I think an external auditors needs to be here this afternoon to explain exactly what we're doing. Because today I don't 43 March 2, 1998 have any liability as it relates to what we've done in the past. I'm not interested in joining the club on the liability issue. I want to be very clear. And I want the external auditor to explain all of these "gooleygoop" moves that we're making. But as it relates to a budget, we have all of these one-time revenues. And anybody, even a budget person would be confused, and the intent is obviously in my mind to put a lot of numbers out here. But I'm telling you, Mr. Manager, these are one-time numbers. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Commissioner, you have that on the second page. You have exactly what the total is both for the budget solutions and for the budget as a whole. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: The document that I have on the second page shows me page 2 of 2. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I think it's not 2 of 2, is it, that you are talking about? VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Okay. What I need, Mr. Manager, on page 2 of 2 is to show me how those numbers are built. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: You mean the 8.2 and the 7.3? VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: The 8.2 and the 7.3. I need to see how those numbers are built. Because I don't want to see any land sales or talking about land sales. I don't want to see any Winn Dixie revenues coming in. I don't want to see all of those things that quite frankly for you and are I are money in the bank issues, but as it relates to budget and state law and external auditor purposes we have a problem, and we have to ensure that our, as you know, that our revenues, our recurring revenues, meet with our recurring... MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Expenditures. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: ... expenditures. Or stated the reverse, expenditures are balanced off by real ... MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: The revenues have to be at least equal to. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: At least equal to. And then what I'm really concerned about now is all of these references to CD. Everybody now is beginning to look at CD funds. We have a problem, as you know, with the federal auditor. I 44 March 2, 1998 want to see every personnel move that is predicated on CD, because as I have indicated, I am not going to support a CD funding at 100 percent of administration. It's not prudent, it's not thoughtful. In the County we budgeted it at 92 percent. I'm willing to go to 94 percent, but to allocate 20 percent of the CD funds for administration we should be at 18.5, 18.8, 19 percent, but we cannot continue, you know, because we need a reserve. And there's no reserve built into this budget. There's no out year reserve built into this budget. Is the there a CD reserve built in here based upon the audit exceptions? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: No, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: We've said to the press, we've said to the public, we've said to HUD if there's a problem we're going to take it out of CD out of out years. That's going to directly impact ... MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: This is just General Fund. We haven't made a presentation on CD. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: But you're moving -- see that's the point now, you got it. You're now moving people from General Funds to CD, and unless you show us the CD budget now this thing is getting ready to turn right back into, you know, the 1994 and 1995 City of Miami budget. And that's what I don't want. If you're going to move anyone to CD then show us the CD budget justification and the CD impact of all of this. Because otherwise you're going to have people moving off of one line into another line. As you know and I know, there is a very large CD employment force here in the City. And as you also know, we're limited to 20 percent. As you probably are aware, we have arguably exceeded our 20 percent, which means we're going to owe money back out of the administrative budget. So, my only concern there, Mr. Manager, is that when we start the moving of people around we need to see the budgets that the people are being moved to as well. I would like to just get, at least, a response as to where we are on the City Attorney's legal fees that are outstanding. I'm not talking about the lawsuit related to Deloitte-Touche. I'm talking about the other matters that have legal fees of a half million dollars plus settlements that are undefined at this point. Mr. Attorney? MR. MAXWELL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Teele, I submitted to the Commission last week and I believe, you received it, a breakdown of all the outstanding pending 45 March 2, 1998 legal fees that have not been approved by the Commission for approval. As I indicated earlier those fees are approximately $498,000. I would have to come to this ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: The question is not that, Mr. Maxwell, with all due respect. We're talking about the budget now. Where are these numbers in the budget, are they in last year's budget? Are they in the year that they were incurred? Are they in this year's budget? MR. MAXWELL: To my knowledge they're not in the budget at all. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: There are not in any budget. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Are they in the current year budget? MR. MAXWELL: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: No, what happened in many of the cases ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Excuse me. Mr. Manager, is this new information to you? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: I was told while I was in New York last Friday we were given this information, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Is it in this budget? That's my own ... sir? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: It is not in this budget, Commissioner. We do not have this information. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, this is not your fault. But it is your problem. This is the point. This is what I'm talking about. This is the way the City operated for years. When was Perry Anderson chief? Chief Warshaw, what year was he chief? CHIEF OF POLICE WARSHAW: About eight years ago. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: This is 1990-1991, 192 kinds of problems and this is the way this City has run the budget office it's been a musical chairs. When the music stops then you write a check. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Perry Anderson, if I'm not mistaken, is still ongoing. 46 March 2, 1998 MR. MAXWELL: Commissioner Teele. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Listen, the fees are what we're talking about. We're not talking about the settlement. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: You pay when you are finished, I thought. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: No, you don't. You charge in a budget, you accrue when you incur. You accrue when you incur. And the same thing is true in a funeral home. When the body dies you want to be paid. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I only wish you were right. Pay now, die later, went out years ago. MR. MAXWELL: Commissioner, if I may. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: On the budget issue. MR. MAXWELL: On that issue -- what happens is this, most of these right fees accrued as a result of services exceeding previously approved City Commission resolutions. So I can't speak, because I wasn't in this chair at this time as to whether or not that ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: This doesn't have anything to do with you or who is in the chair. It really has to do with our methodology of maintaining a budget. I held a hearing, Mr. Chairman, a week ago beginning to just look at how the legal office is doing pursuant to the directive. And this issue came up. I specifically asked an attorney to work with the Manager and the external auditor to ensure that whatever is owed that we get it in somebody's budget. Because my fear is that the Oversight Board or someone that is not really trying to help us could go back and charge it as a back charge and then put us in a different ... MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Mr. Vice Chairman, could we address this issue when we come back, because I'm being shown our budget, and I can't tell you now whether we have a funding problem or not. Would you give us an opportunity ... VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Manager, that's a fair request. .And my concern is in response of your question properly defending your Budget Office. My concern is not your Budget Office, but it is the lack of the Comptroller's Office to be given the opportunity to explain things that 47 March 2, 1998 relate to Comptroller's Office. These are matters really that relate to a fee that should be charged on someone's book when it's incurred. If it's a fee in dispute, then it should be so noted. But from all indications the lawyers are indicating that they have been told repeatedly that they'll be paid it is just getting the right timing. But again this directly affects this budget or next year's budget or last year's budget. I'm trying to make sure that we clean it up this year. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that I have exceed my 15 minutes. I do hope that the fire union and the police union, AFSCME and the solid waste union will be afforded an opportunity, because one of the things that the City Manager said that I'm not clear on is does this budget FY 198, as presented to us, contemplate or require any cooperation from those unions in meeting the numbers? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Numerically, the answer is no. The only thing, in all fairness I want to make clear is that referencing back to your question about the beautification program. We have discussed with the union, and I'm told that there's been some agreements reached, but they haven't been crystallized to change work schedules so that we can continue the beautification program. But other than that your answer to the question is no. There is of no need in this year's budget for anything at all having to do with a labor negotiation. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Have those people been laid off then the people that were working? The funding ran out when ... the funding ran out in December ... no, it ran out the first week of January. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: We extended it until March, Mr. Vice Chairman. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Well, see here again, we extended them until March, but we got to pay for them, and they're not in anybody's budget. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: They're coming out of the budget ... there's budget for them until the end of March. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Which budget? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Solid Waste. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: And where did they get a surplus created to do that? 48 March Z, 1998 MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Remember when we discussed this before there have been some salaries savings identified that Mr. Patterson mentioned to you at the time. We did not seek a supplemental appropriation for it also. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment on this issue. It so happens that the Chairman and myself were talking to merchants at the same time, but in different areas and I think that maybe in the next day or maybe this afternoon we can point to you some ways of maintaining that service with the support of the merchants in different commercial areas. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Commissioner Gort. COMMISSIONER GORT: Commissioner, I'll gladly give up 10 percent, I'll give to, so, I will only use five minutes out of my 15, sir. First of all, I want to commend the City Manager and his staff for putting this together. And I can understand with the short time that you had, it would be very difficult to put a lot of documentation to go along with the plan. I agree with Commissioner Teele, we are going to need a lot more. I think it is important that people understand that one of the reasons that we were able to get out of the hole, one of the reasons that we were able to get out the deficiencies that we had, is that the union worked with us, and they gave up a lot of privileges. And they gave up a lot. So, we need to take that into consideration. My question is, and you can come back and answer later, on the capital improvement one of the biggest problems that we have in providing services in sanitation, providing services of the police and fire is a lack of equipment. A lot of times my understanding was the lack of parts and the amount of time it takes to get those cars fixed or the trucks or whatever equipment they needed to be supplied. I'd like to know how this budget is going to affect the services. Because if we are going to affect services, I think we've got to tell the citizens of the City of Miami, you don't want to pay more taxes, but this is what happens when you don't want to pay more taxes. We should reduce as much as we can, and get rid of all the fat that we have, but at the same time I think we've got to be truthful to us and let them know if we're going to cut here this is what's going to happen to us. On the civilian that you are going to let go, you're going to be letting go the uniforms or individuals on the fire or the police, but they do receive support services that we can have more people on the streets. How is that going to affect the service at all when that takes place? And in 49 March 2, 1998 talking to the Law Department during the audit that we were doing of it, that's one thing that we always came up. We owe money to outside firms, we need to know how much we need to make it a part of the overall budget. At the same time I'd like to suggest to the Law Department as we go on ... I hope that this doesn't happen much more ... that you put it in your budget. Whenever you have to incur today, you should use the budget. And I think you do that already, but we should have more of that. Park and Recreations, in each department I'd like to know this cut that you're doing how is it going to affect the service of each one of them: sanitation, parks, fire and police. The other thing is in the investment of 37, my understanding is that has come down to 22 million dollars ($22,000,000). I think it a little short on your projections in your investment return. I guess you maybe did if the six months rather than a whole year. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Yes, we projected it all in prorata. But it's still 37 maybe 36 because, not all dispersements have been made. COMMISSIONER GORT: Okay. And the last question is at one time we create a committee J.L. was the Chairman of that which is although they don't want to pay a fee I think somehow the federal government, the state, the county and the school system, we've got to work out an agreement with them, because we supply a lot of services. And I keep bringing the sample that's called to my attention on the way home, Jackson Memorial Hospital, they had one problem one evening, they had ten police cars in there and over 15 police officers for over two hours providing services to Jackson Memorial Hospital. And I'm sure those agencies have plenty of funding which we all also pay taxes to them that they can pay a service fee to the City of Miami. So, I would like for that to continue to take place. This afternoon if you could come back and tell us how this budget you presented to us is going to affect the services I'd appreciate it. That's it, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Commissioner Gort. Mr. Manager, I just have several issues that I'd like to actually ride the coat tails of Vice Chairman Teele and Willy Gort. I have the same concerns as to the legal fees. I've been approached by several law firms regarding past fees, that have been going on for months. One of them is obviously the Perry Anderson case. I think that is the most substantial. I think the fees at this point 50 March 2, 1998 are somewhere in the range of 254 thousand dollars ($254,000). I'd just like to bring that to light, and I believe it is going to be placed on the agenda March 24th. I've reviewed and I want to thank you and your staff for what you have given me over the weekend. It seems to me that obviously there are two goals that were met by your work. There's one that we're really not affecting the taxpayer's pocket books and two you've tried to affect our labor force, our employees as least possible even though they are obviously going to be asked to do more with less. I have several questions. I'm concerned with the reductions in the operations. I'm concerned because for the last year that I've been here and the previous years that I was around as an employee I've seen operations just continually being reduced year after year. I'm concerned with the possible erosion of city services, City Fleet Management, and I have sat down and spoken to different Directors on the issue. Taking into account these are issues that I want you to look into. Number one, I want for once and for all what benefits we've approved for you, what benefits did we not approve for the City Clerk and the City Attorney, the benefits that is unbeknownst to most of us up here that we had increased our expenditures for the Commissioner on allowance by almost nine thousand dollars ($9,000) apiece. A motion was made by Commissioner Regalado, and I think that should be clarified. Speaking of ... in your page one of two solid waste fees. The eight million five hundred thousand dollars ($8,500,000), what does that consist of? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That's the total of the two bills; the one that's already gone out and the one that's scheduled to go out for a total of one hundred and sixty- six dollars ($166) minus ... which produces ten and half million dollars ($10,500,000) minus the two million dollars ($2,000,000) that was already booked as revenue. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Where does the franchise fees that the City collect from the private haulers come into play? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: That's already in the budget, sir. These are only the changes to the budget that appear on this page. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: I haven't been able to find it yet on the five-year plan book. I'm very concerned and I've been concerned in the past, because I was very much involved in the Solid Waste Department. As you know, it's probably one of the most profitable industries in the 51 March 2, 1998 nation. The City of Miami currently has franchise fees that they charge I believe 15 percent to private waste haulers. I am not aware of what we have done in the past to improve our auditing, but I can definitely tell you that we as a city are being financially shortchanged by these solid waste companies. I can give you as an example dozens of companies that are out there collecting solid waste fees which we really do not have any in my estimation the best of supervision and management of these companies. I think they short change what they give us as a gross at the end of the month. And specifically and particularly I'd like you to look into a lawsuit that I personally filed in 1993 against one of the prominent and bigger companies which had short changed us approximately 350 thousand dollars ($350,000). I want you to look into the solid waste franchise fee. I'd like to give you a directive to look into the possibility of licensing and looking into zones or districts of the City of Miami wherein we can bring in solid waste companies specifically to take care of the commercial aspects of picking up solid waste in these different districts if by way of a pilot program. I know that Miami Beach has a small group of solid waste companies that have a license to pick up garbage in Miami Beach. And I think we should follow suit especially when we have dozens of small companies that are all over the place and are really cheating the City of monies that are due to the City to Miami. I share with most of my colleagues here on this issue and I can tell you that we do lack auditing in the City of Miami as it comes to this issue. By form of a directive I want you to look into the matter of licensing in the City of Miami and looking at the different districts, specifically Commissioner Plummer's district which is probably the most profitable of the zones, because he shares with downtown Miami all the big buildings. You spoke of construction VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes, that is a motion. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Move by the Chairman that the Manager be instructed to look into licensing of commercial only ... COMMISSIONER REGALADO: I will second that. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: ... solid waste holders on a district basis. And when you say district you're really 52 Match 2, 1998 not referring to the five districts, but an economically viable districts. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Like we've done with towing companies, more or less. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: It is moved by the Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Is there discussion for a study? Did you want to have it come back by such and such a date? CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Thirty days would be good enough. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: We will report to you in 30 days, yes. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Report to come back in 30 days. Discussion? Is there an objection? All those in favor say aye? Those opposed? It's an unanimous vote. 53 March 2, 1998 The following motion was introduced by Chairman Hernandez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 98-225 A MOTION DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW POSSIBLE PILOT PROGRAM CREATING ZONES OR DISTRICTS (SPECIALLY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER'S DISTRICT THAT INCLUDES THE DOWNTOWN AREA) SIMILAR TO CURRENT TOWING ZONES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR SOLID WASTE COMPANIES (PRIVATE HAULERS) TO HANDLE COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS ONLY FOR GARBAGE PICKUP, AS WELL AS LICENSING OF SAID COMPANIES; FURTHER DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION WITHIN 30 DAYS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Chairman Humberto Hernandez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Look into the fact or the matter of also construction demolition debris which you spoke of impact fees. In the past construction demolition debris was not considered by these companies to be part of what they had to include into the franchise fee. And I think that's something that must be looked at because honestly I don't think they are giving us their due. I'll leave it at that, at least at this point. I have further questions for the afternoon session. I'd like Commissioner Regalado just for a second to clarify his motion on the Commissioners' benefits. What his motion was all about to clarify for the overall public. What we voted on and what we really did not intend to vote on. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I think it's very important because of last 54 March 2, 1998 Tuesday and the members of the Commission and the public knows that I have been on top of the benefits for the Manager as a matter of bringing the stability to the City of Miami. And it was my intention at the end of the meeting to finalize the benefits of the Manager after we're done with the salary. It was a mistake, an oversight of not addressing the line and the Commissioners because we all knew after the fire fee that we have not only to give up whatever additional benefit it was the intent of the Commission, but also it was the will and the decision of the Commission to reduce our budgets and we have done that already. So I would like to revisit that issue and strike completely the issue of benefits for the Commissioners. And by the way, I called the Mayor on Friday to tell him that I am looking over the papers that I was checking on Thursday after the meeting on Tuesday, that I realized that we had voted on this benefit, and I for one, at least I would like to strike those benefits in light of the situation that we have when we rejected the fire fee. So, I just want to be very clear that it was not the intent of myself or the Commissioners that voted for that resolution. That we were voting and this is the way that I brought it to the table for the benefits of the Manager. I should have remembered, but it was very late, I think, at night. But the intention of this Board and myself was to finalize the situation of Manager that has been dragging for many, many weeks and I think that all of us here believe that we're lucky and fortunate to have a Manager as we have with Jose Garcia -Pedrosa. Having said that I would like to modify, I don't know, Mr. City Attorney, if we can do it. And speaking for myself and I'm sure for the members of this Commission I think that the members of this Commission are here now more than ever to give more and get less. And we all have done that in the past, and I am very proud of being a member of this Commission because all of the members of this Commission are doing a tremendous work in put putting many, many hours of work. I saw most of the members, all of the members of this Commission on Saturday as a matter of fact in two places all of the members of this Board, the five of us, we were doing things with the police department, visiting with some community and it was a Saturday. And then we went on to look over the budget and talk to the Manager. So I think the Commission is here to give more, not to get more. I want to just make that very clear and I don't know, Mr. City Attorney, what we should do about it? MR. MAXWELL: Commissioner, if you want to remove the 55 March 2, 1998 portions dealing with the Commissioners, if the Clerk can identify the resolution that was passed on the record you would then amend that resolution to strike those portions of the resolution that pertained to the City Commissioners and leave the rest of it intact. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: In that case, however, I understand that the Mayor may have vetoed that. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: If we do not take a vote today basically ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Wait, wait, wait. The Mayor vetoed what? COMMISSIONER REGALADO: It's in the package. It's in the package that you got. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: The Mayor vetoed what? COMMISSIONER REGALADO: The resolution regarding the Manager's benefits. COMMISSIONER GORT: I'll second the motion for discussion sake. The veto would not have to come in if we do this. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, no, no, excuse me. I want to know, because I'm only aware of two vetoes the Mayor has done. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: It is here. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: The first we overrode. The second one was out of improper and not acceptable. Now, is there a third veto? CITY CLERK WALTER FOEMAN: I haven't formally received the veto from the Mayor's Office as of this date. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Neither have I, and that's why I am asking the question. MR. MAXWELL: If it hasn't been clocked in by the Clerk there's no veto on the floor, and you can amend it at this time. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: So if it is not clocked in. MR. MAXWELL: It hasn't been received by the. It hasn't 56 March 2, 1998 been vetoed. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: You haven't received it? Hello. MR. FOEMAN: No, I have not. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: So, there is no veto. MR. MAXWELL: So, you can address it the way we just proposed. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Okay. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: If there was a veto we don't have to do anything. MR. MAXWELL: If there is a veto, the procedure is different. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I'm asking the question, because if he vetoes, he can't do it partial veto. He has to do a total as we found out from before. So, if, in fact, he vetoed, he vetoed the City Manager also. That's not a bad idea, but I am just asking the question. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: The Mayor's intention was to veto the item if we would not take action on it. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: His intent or he did? CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: His intent. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: That was told by him that he would veto. So, I assumed that he vetoed. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: So we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? MR. MAXWELL: Could you have the Clerk identify resolution that we are speaking of, please? MR. FOEMAN: It was resolution 98-222 specific provision says thereby directing the City Manager it says funding to cover the costs of certain benefits to be received by members of the City Commission effective October 1, 1998. MR. MAXWELL: You would only be striking that portion and 57 March 2, 1998 leaving the rest of the resolution in place. COMMISSIONER GORT: That's the motion. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: That's the intent that I tried to do. My intent was only to address the City Manager and not address the City Attorney or the City Clerk or the Commissioners. And I understand what happened. Yes, it was in the morning. MR. MAXWELL: That kind of clouds up things, because what you did, what you also did was you struck provisions that were there ... COMMISSIONER REGALADO: In the morning. Right. MR. MAXWELL: ... dealing with the City Attorney and the City Clerk and you left standing the provisions for the City Manager. It's my understanding what you just said you still want to strike the provisions as you did last week pertaining to the City Clerk and the City Attorney. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: The City Commissioners. MR. MAXWELL: And also you would like to strike ... COMMISSIONER REGALADO: The City Commissioners. MR. MAXWELL: ... the provisions dealing with the City Commissioners. And the only provisions left remaining will be the City Manager. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: The City Manager. Is the only one. That was my intent. I don't know the rest of the Board. MR. MAXWELL: That's what would happen if you follow the motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Vice Chairman Teele. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: May I inquire why you would strike the provision relating to the City Attorney and the City Clerk? COMMISSIONER REGALADO: You're asking me? VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Yes, please. 58 March 2, 1998 COMMISSIONER REGALADO: I did not, Mr. Vice Chairman, when we were discussing we were told that we were discussing that we need to address since we're going to have a new City Attorney that we need to address that separately. And, so, since I wanted to bring the motion of the City Manager's benefits then I would I'd proceed with the asking the City Attorney to do a separate thing for the City Attorney and the City Clerk. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Is your intent to revoke any benefits that have previously been awarded to the City Attorney and the City Clerk? COMMISSIONER REGALADO: No, it's not, absolutely not. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Hold it. Mr. Attorney, Mr. Clerk, can you make sure that is clear in the record. Can you make sure that it is clear and give us the language and not a speech. What would be necessary? MR. MAXWELL: The motion would have to also rescind the portions of that resolution that struck. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Could you give us the language please? MR. MAXWELL: You would be reinstating provisions of the resolution that the Clerk read that were struck regarding the City Attorney and the City Clerk's benefit package, but striking provisions that pertain to the City Commission, leaving the City Managers in place. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: In other words, what you're going to do something is unintentional, why don't you state the motion this way? To retain all benefits that have currently been authorized by the Commission prior to October 1 of 1997. Except as it relates to the City Manager and except -- in other words, everything that has gone on before October 1, would stay in effect except as it relates to the City Manager. Because what you may be doing is revoking all benefits related to the Manager and the Attorney the way this motion is written, because you haven't substituted any schedule in there. MR. MAXWELL: The first resolution and the resolution that you're acting on now did contain schedules. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Exactly and he is rescinding that 59 March 2, 1998 now, but he's not putting anything in its place. MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Can I make a suggestion, Mr. Vice Chairman, since we've been through this twice before? Maybe since we're about to break the City Attorney can come back with a written resolution that captures all of this. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: The City Attorney and the City Clerk. My only question is, is a severance package for the Manager in this resolution? COMMISSIONER REGALADO: I think it is. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: May I inquire what was the severance package for the previous Manager? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: What was it? VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: What is it? MR. GARCIA-PEDROSA: Two years, three years. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: A huge amount. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Three years. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Okay, while we're writing this up I need to know when we come back where the severance package is for the previous Manager, is it going to be paid this year? Is it in the budget? Is it not in the budget, because I got to tell you something, guys, with all due respect, I don't agree that we ought to do packages for people. We ought to do packages for positions. What is wrong with this City is that everything is so personalized, everything is around who you are and who you know and who you're connected to. We need to have a structure that is color blind; that is gender blind; that is ethnic blind. I am telling you this is wrong. It is wrong to give this Manager a severance package, and not give the City Attorney a severance package. It's wrong to give the Attorney a package without the Clerk. Those are the three officers that work for us. This Commission voted to give this extraordinary previous Manager this package. I didn't vote for it, but we have an obligation. Now, the current Manager came before us just a few months ago and said I will not require a severance package. He negotiated a deal in good faith with the Mayor. Why we're adding a severance package I don't know. But the only 60 March 2, 1998 thing that I am saying is, if you're going to give him a severance package then pay the last Manager the severance package that you also voted for him. And that's about what, 300 thousand dollars ($300,000)package, 200 thousand dollar ($200, 000) package? COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: No, it's more. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: So, it's easy to pass these motions. It's easy to talk that talk, but when he comes back let's see if we're going to walk the walk. Because this is the problem, we're making these packages because everybody wants a brownie point, or a pat on the head from the Manager. That's a problem. A little trick here and a little deal there. And what I'm saying is the last Manager had a package. It was voted. And we are playing around now with that issue and before we vote on this let's bring that issue to some conclusion so you can begin to understand what the pain associated with these motions are. Because we're going to layoff people, four people, but with the 300 thousand dollars ($300,000) we're just about to vote and approve, we could keep those people. All that I'm saying is I don't understand where we're going at as a city. I really don't. On one hand we say we don't want a fire fee and we don't want revenues and we don't want this, and all we do is spend our time voting away money. So, we can write a resolution up, but I'm going to call the question on the previous Manager's budget on the previous Manager's severance package, because we cannot continue to play these games with people's money. If we're going to put a severance package in here, which I am against, it will be a four to one vote. I'm against it not because he's not entitled to it, he's entitled to this and a lot more, but he negotiated in good faith. He came right here on the record and said, "I don't require that. I'm willing to come. I realize it is a hardship." I worked day and night with the City labor relations to give him everything that he and the Mayor agreed on. Everything that he and the Mayor agreed on is in package number 1. I wrote package number 1, not to take care of the Manager, but to live up to the agreement that the Manager and the Mayor made and the Manager and this Commission made. The package gentlemen, is 170 thousand dollars ($170,000). The package without severance pay is 170 thousand dollars ($170,000). I wrote it. The press wants to know where did it come from. I wrote it. I wrote it based upon what was agreed to in public 61 March 2, 1998 view with the Manager and the Attorney ... I, the Manager, the Attorney and the Commission. I further wrote in the provisions that the Commission asked related to Mayor's office that the Commission be treated the same way as the Mayor. That's where that came from. This was not something done in the dark of night. We said when we approved the Mayor's benefit package, that we wanted the Commission and the Mayor to be treated alike. The Manager, the Commission, the Mayor, the Attorney, the Clerk are all on the same level. And that's how the package got put together. The package is no more than what was agreed to, but when we then start adding stuff on top of it and then taking people out, it's no longer a package. It's the same kind of deal. With all due respect the Manager is getting 170 thousand dollar ($170,000), and now you're proposing to give him an additional hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) and I'm just saying that I can't vote for that. Not when we're going to lower 30--some people's salaries, not when we're getting ready to lay off people. We can't have it both ways. If we pass the revenue, we can have it that way. But we can't have it both ways. So, I would like for the motion to be written and recorded so that we're clear on what we're voting for that it be very clear that the value the of the Manager's package is stated in the motion, so it is very, very clear, and if there's three votes here as there will be, then we'll approve it. But I am also going to want to know what are we doing with Mr. Marquez's 250 thousand dollar ($250,000), 300 thousand dollar ($300,000) package that this same Commission so generously gave him when he was patting us on the head? COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Whoa! Four to one vote. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: All right, well, it is the Commission. It's all of all us. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: For the record. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: It's all of us. I voted for it too. Even though I wasn't here. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I don't want to be reminded the next time I run for office. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, Mr. Vice Chairman, there's a difference between the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the City Manager. The City Attorney serves at the pleasure of this Commission. The City Clerk 62 March 2, 1998 serves at the pleasure of the Commission. However, the City Manager is exposed to being fired or being hired by the Mayor, any Mayor. And the reason that I insisted on the severance pay is because we need to establish a buffer between the City Manager, any City Manager, and you're right in saying that we need to do that for the position, and not the person, but we need to establish a buffer between the political issue and the administration. And this is why I brought the issue of the severance pay, Mr. Vice Chairman. And I would insist on it for one reason. If what we want is the stability of this City, we know that we have it with this member of this Commission because we to a decision on the City Attorney. We have to decide on a City Clerk, but we don't directly decide on the City Manager. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Oh, yes, we do. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Well, I mean, we have to go through a process. But say ... COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: No, no. We hold veto power over the Manager. COMMISSIONER REGALADO: Well, you know, J.L., J.L., well, what happened when the new Mayor came in? Did we do anything? Did we veto anything? We didn't. Because maybe we didn't want the other Manager. But what I am saying is, we don't want to have this situation over and over and over, and this is why I would build a buffer between any political changes that could happen or political will on the same mayor. And protect the Manager. Remember that this is not if the Manager is fired without cause. And only for that. So Mr. Vice Chairman, I just wanted to the clarify that. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: I'd like you to take back your motion until we are further informed later on this afternoon on the issues of severance and benefits. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: I'd also like when we reconvene the presidents of all the unions be present and make a presentation to us. We'd like to hear from you. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: Commissioner Plummer. 63 March 2, 1998 COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Before we break, Mr. Manager, I will be looking for the following when we return. Of the recommendations by the Mayor out of 23 million (23, 000, 000) , 17 million (17, 000, 000) has not really been addressed. There are 9 million (9,000,000) in which don't have anything to do, and I'm wondering if these can be additional savings. I will not go into it, but items 2, 5, and 7 of his memorandum totaled 9 million dollars ($9,000,000), and none of that is in your documents. I also wish to see, since I'm not willing to give you the right of carte blanche to do what you want without this Commission's approval, I want to see a detailed breakdown of the capital funds that will be suffering a 3 million dollar ($3,000,000) loss. I want to see, in general, the 7 million dollar ($7,000,000) operating expenses where they're going to be. I want to see the salary reductions. And that's what I'm looking for there. I also think that we need to complement the comments of Chairman. And I want to know that I was told that there are sanitation companies picking up commercial accounts that in effect owe the City in excess of 200 thousand dollars ($200,000) and I want to know how that happened and why we're allowing it to continue to happen if it's a true statement. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: It much more than that. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay? I mean, this is crazy. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: It is much more than that. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: I think we better address the issue, and I don't mean to harp on the Mayor's office, but my computation here tells me that he had 368 thousand (368,000), he needs another 90,000 to supplement his salary. That gives him a budget of 458. Ten percent off of that which we are all giving up is 46. And that will give him a total budget of 412. Again I need to know if, in fact, that is his total budget. Where are the additional funds coming from? I'll ask for the answers when we come back. COMMISSIONER GORT: Mr. Chairman. Wait a minute, J.L. One of this things I'd like to do you're aware most of the time we bring the pocket items at the end of the meeting. When we have been going through hours of meetings. And I'd like to request, and I don't know if it's just a request of the Manager, or you need a resolution for this or you need a motion, but any pocket item that would come 64 March 2, 1998 to us that would affect the General Funds or any funds of the City of Miami first be seen by the City Manager and have his recommendation. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Well, Mr. Gort, for your information, I can't tell you how others operate, but I have never, ever presented a pocket motion that did not have the City Manager's initials on it. COMMISSIONER GORT: J.L, I'm not talking about any one individual. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: Okay. COMMISSIONER GORT: I think this City since I first was elected, I told the administration and I'll tell always you set up standards, you go by those standards and you will never have problems. That's all I'm trying to do, set up standards. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER: My own personal standards have prevailed exactly as you are saying ever since I have sat in this chair. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: Mr. Chairman, I also want to compliment you in terms of the solid waste issue. And urge the Manager to take that matter very seriously. I agree with Commissioner Gort. I would ask the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that requires that all pocket items that have a fiscal impact must have a written recommendation by the Manager prior to going forward or a fiscal impact, recommendation or fiscal impact. I note the presence of Mr. Godoy who is with the Fire Board and, specifically, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the union representatives would be allowed to speak immediately before we open it up to the public. And I would also ask the Manager to give us a report on the CRA staff issues that were voted on in December that have not been acted upon, and further the usual EEO break down of the manager's office please. CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ: We will reconvene at 3:15. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE: The CD meeting that was previously scheduled and publicized for 3 o'clock will take place immediately following the Commission meeting. 65 March 2, 1998 NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, the Commission recessed at 12:50 p.m. and reconvened at 3:29 p.m. with Commissioners Plummer, Gort and Regalado presnet and Chairman Hernandez and Vice -Chairman Teele absent. Commissioner Plummer: ... that is for heavy equipment, and sir, I am looking for another one point three to replace the rescues. So... Mr. Jose Garcia -Pedrosa (City Manager): Well, Commissioner, we are... We are already reallocating one point one. Commissioner Plummer: One point three, I was told. Mr. Dipak. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: There are two figures. Commissioner Plummer: For the department equipment, Fire Department. One point three is for the heavy equipment that's being ordered this year. Mr. Dipakray Parekh (Director/Budget Office): Right. Commissioner Plummer: One point three. Mr. Parekh: It's one point three. Commissioner Plummer: OK. The Chief has indicated that we need another one point three to replace the rescue trucks. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We found one point one of it, sir. Commissioner Plummer: You have one... That's a second allocation? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: So, we are only missing two hundred thousand? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, we are trying to figure out if we need the other two hundred thousand in this fiscal year, or not. Yes, sir, that's correct. Commissioner Plummer: You are getting close. Thank you, sir. OK. Can I give a partial vote? What are you going to...? I can talk to you, out of the Sunshine. What are you going to do on your items that are not are not included in this? Unidentified Speaker: Such as the ITB (International Trade Board), MA... Commissioner Plummer: No, the... these. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The way we left it was, there were, I believe we listed 20 questions. They are being typed as I speak, and will be presented to the Commission, shortly, and to you, Mr. Mayor. In the meantime, ,if I may, I would like to begin discussing the answer so we gain a little time. The first question, at least in my notes, was the equipment for the Fire Department. There 66 March 2, 1998 is already in the current budget, current year's budget, one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000) for that purpose. And, Fire Chief Gimenez tells us that he needs another one million three hundred thousand dollars. What we are doing is, we are taking from the one million four hundred thousand dollars ($1,400,000) that is available from the Police take-home account. We are taking one million and one, and adding it to the Fire Department equipment budget for this purpose. The other two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), we propose to take from next year's budget. We can't get that many trucks that quickly anyway. I mean, you know, as a realistic, practical matter. So, we will take that two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), and use the general fund contribution to capital projects, which is four point seven million dollars ($4,700,000), we will debit two hundred thousand. To be clear from that budget, we must also take, and we are not talking about next year's budget, just to be comprehensive and thorough. The Police Department Take -Home Vehicle Program needs two million dollars ($2,000,000), unless there is a change, which we have not - let's go ahead and distribute these - which we have not negotiated, so we are not counting on, but we realize that's there. And, the Fire Chief needs another one point three million for equipment. So, that means, that out of the four point seven million, we will still have one million two available from that account, next year. Again, that's next year's budget. But, we are trying to be careful that we look at things with a five-year time line, so that we don't get ourselves caught short. Commissioner Plummer: Now, let me make sure. One million three and the million one, is from this year. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's two point four million. And, frankly... Commissioner Plummer: And, we are also going to be making sure that the first million three is for heavy equipment, and the one million one is for the rescue? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I'll leave that up to the Chief, I think, and the order of priorities. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, as a practical matter, Commissioner Plummer is doubtful that we can get trucks and things like that in, that quickly. But, yes, we will appropriate... Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but, you are also when you are ordering volume, you usually get a better price. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have a question, if I may? Or, did you want to proceed? You want to...? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I just have one more point on that same matter, if I might, sir? The matter of parts. Even after deducting two thousand dollars from the parts budget for this year, that still leaves almost fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) there, in addition to the million, two million four that we have just discussed. Commissioner Plummer: And, Mr. Manager, and Mr. Mayor, and my colleagues. I think all of us need to take a very strong position, as I have had to do in reference to Virrick Park. People are now seeing the bonds, park bond money, coming from the bond of the County. And, I think 67 March 2, 1998 as I recall, in that particular park, the amount of money is one point seven that was available, or one point six. One point... OK. They came in with a plan talking about two point eight, and became very upset when I told them, woe, you better be aware that if I tried to go and get the additional money for you in Virrick Park, not only would all of the rest of the parks in my district want the same accommodation, but every Commissioner's parks are going to want the same. I have been steadfast in telling all of these people, as the area committee, your got ' X." You can do a plan A, B and C. But, A is only the amount of money that has been allocated that this Commission has agreed upon. You know what I am taking, because they came to see you. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. They are on your agenda for March 10th. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Treister, is presenting some proposals to you then. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I have been very, very... I want to say, stern. I have been very, very rigid with Mr. Treister, and the rest that pay. Here is what we have got to spend, if you can get some grants from some private sources or grants from somewhere else, then we will implement Plan B, C, and D. Commissioner Regalado: J. L. Commissioner Plummer: But, Plan A, cannot be beyond what we have. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I think that in this case, Virrick, it's a unique case, because what we are doing in all the other parks is the administration to the neighbors, "Look, we have this amount of money and these are the plans. Do you want to modify within that budget?" But, these people were working on these ideas a long time ago, and they have a really grandiose plan, and it's very beautiful, but... I was with the Manager, the afternoon that they presented it to him, the project, and I... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: Well, it will be presented to you, it probably will be the first owned City gymnasium that we have. I didn't even realize the City doesn't own a gymnasium. And, the gymnasium is in Plan A. So... Yeah, well, let's don't talk about that one. OK, Mister... Mayor Suarez: I have challenged grants in connection with the twenty-three million dollars ($23,000,000) allocation, right. We do have a shot at getting some more County money on that. Commissioner Plummer: That's fine. That's a shot. The others is money in the hand. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Mayor, if I may? Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: There is also another possibility that Community Development, Department of the State of Florida, will be giving the County about twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) for hurricane awareness. And, I think that the City of Miami is entitled to a part of those funds, because, first, we have a lot of coastal areas in the City of Miami, and second, we 68 March 2, 1998 have a lot of facilities, of City facilities in the coastal areas of the City of Miami. I have seen the press release, that they have sent. It's twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) that will be given to the County, and I think that we should direct the administration to, as soon as possible apply for certain amount of money. And, this money can be used, not only in programs to train officials, but also to prepare, to guard for a possible hurricane. So, we can use that money to even build new sea walls around here, in the different parks in the City of Miami. So, i would ask the administration to look into it. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, in your page one of two, you show salary reduction, salary/positions reductions, in the first year of five hundred and four thousand nine ten. Yet, I have, maybe not a complete copy of all of the salaries... Hold on, hold on. I stand corrected. I didn't have the second page involved. Thank you. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: All right, if I may address the second... Mayor Suarez: Proceed, Mr. Manager. Mr. Pedrosa -Garcia: The second item that you inquired about, which is the Mayor's budget. The budget currently is three hundred and sixty-eight thousand one hundred and nine dollars ($368,109).. That doesn't include the salary line of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), which means that the total is four hundred and sixty-eight thousand one oh nine. Were you to apply a debit to that, it would be, to be consistent with the Commission, a five percent debit, we look to, not to ten, but for five. Commissioner Plummer: That's whatever we do, he should do. Mayor Suarez: I have described to my colleagues, the process of changing from a legislative Mayor's budget to an executive Mayor's, and I will put that in writing to that they can review that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, I think, there was a memo that, at least I received, in the next... in the last few minutes on that subject, yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK, we don't need to go into that, I don't think right now. I got a copy of the memo, I don't agree with it, but that's besides the point. We'll argue that one later. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: All right, sir. Point number three, is the cleanup and beautification program. We have funded it as previously stated through March 31st. Initially, through CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds. And, subsequently from identified salary savings in the Solid Waste Department. For the period of April 1st to September 30th, we propose to do two things that will permit that program to go forward. First, is to use the remaining three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), from the one point four million dollars ($1,400,000), look at your second line of the Police Take Home Vehicles Account. And, secondly to implement the changes in work hours and so forth that were presented to you this morning as part of the presentation. So, we think between the three hundred thousand and those changes, we will be able... It's says "charges", bear with me, it should be "changes" in work hours. We obviously did this report over lunch. Mayor Suarez: And, that will take us through when? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: September 30th. Mayor Suarez: April 30th? 69 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: April 1st through September 30th, the end of the fiscal year. Mayor Suarez: And, then, I think it is the consensus of this Commission, is it not? That, for subsequent fiscal years, we would like to see that program made into a fixture in our Solid Waste Department. I think we just need to have people out there cleaning the streets, in addition to the regular garbage pickup. And, this department is barely funded to the level of the needs of our City. I, for myself, will make sure I put that in my budget presentation to the Commission, as previously discussed by various Commissioners, including the Vice Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: I... I have a list of merchants from the Coral Way area who signed a petition, a hand written petition, a very simple one, congratulating the City for the streetsweepers in Coral Way and the different commercial avenues of that area. Those merchants are willing to pay a small amount every month to support and maintain this service. I think it's worth looking into to, because they really have been, not only that, they are really proud of these people. Coral Way, according to, and I am talking about, I have a list of 49 businesses that are so happy, that will be willing to help defray the cost of the street sweeping project. It's not a task, it's not a fee. These people want to do it voluntarily, and... Mayor Suarez: To volunteer a contribution. Commissioner Regalado: And, I know that the Chairman also has spoken to several merchants in his area, in East Little Havana, they are also happy, because I was told by a merchant in East Little Havana that they have told the Chairman that they will be willing to participate in this program. So, I mean, we got, and I am sure that every other member of the Commission has heard, somehow, something good about this program, that it's really worth keeping it. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At 3:40 p.m., Vice Chairman Teele entered the ommission Tambers. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At 3:42 p.m., Chairman Hernandez entered the Commission hambers. Mayor Suarez: In addition, I wish, Mr. Manager, I believe, I am not sure today we are going to hear a presentation. But, certainly, very soon. I believe, today. On the possibility of the City extending its breech over the commercial accounts, and extracting a much greater contribution. Commissioner Plummer: No, that was already discussed this morning. Mayor Suarez: OK. And, in connection with that, I think one thing we can do with those folks is, direct them, if we implement that program to hire first from the people that are in our Solid Waste Department as temporary employees, because I think that they would be more than willing to do that. Commissioner Plummer: There are no layoffs. There are no layoffs. That's what we understood. 70 March 2, 1998 Mayor Suarez: I know, I know. But, down the road, I would like to see them looking at that workforce. There actually, there was some layoffs, I think, Commissioner Plummer. I think, at one point, there were like 60 of them. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: And, I think we are down to 36. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just so there is no running off of, Mr. Charles having a heart attack. The understanding that I had was, is that it would only be addressing commercial accounts and dumpsters. Mayor Suarez: In excess of four units, right. Commissioner Plummer: Well, now, I am sorry, that was not said to me, and... Mayor Suarez: That's the definition of commercial accounts in our code. If there is anything in excess... Commissioner Plummer: Dumpsters. OK, OK. Mayor Suarez: Mostly with dumpsters, yes. Commissioner Plummer: But, it would not affect our workforce at all? Mayor Suarez: It does not affect our workforce at all. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: All rightee. Mr. Manager. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, the filling of executive positions was the next item. And, I wanted to clarify that the position of Special Assistant to the City Manager is being funded, sixty thousand, the balance of this year, and one hundred and twenty thousand for the ensuing years on the City Manager's Office budget. The Finance Director and the Internal Auditor, and three mid -level managers are positions that we propose to fund as well. We haven't allocated the three middle level manage... But, departments that come to mind are Public Works and Building and Zoning, where as you know, we have limited midlevel managerial management personnel. The source of funds for these positions is already in your budget. This is not... does not require additional funding. There is a line item for one million dollars ($1,000,000) in the Management Recovery budget line of Special Programs and Accounts. The purpose of which, is precisely this kind of expenditure together with training for which we have already earmarked as is stated in the next item, two hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars ($224,000) for employee training. So, let me get to that. The employee training question was also raised. There are two sources of funds already in the budget. Again, no action by this Commission is necessary, but we would not want there to be the impression that we have depleted the training funds. One is two hundred and twenty-four thousand, as I just mentioned in the Management Recovery Budget line. Earmarked for training, and in the various departmental budgets, there is approximately three hundred thousand. Added together, of course, that gives you a balance of five hundred and twenty-four thousand for the balance of '97, '98. And, the Human Resources Director tells me that in her view that's an adequate amount of money for the balance of this fiscal year. We next considered the four hundred ninety-eight thousand dollars ($498,000) in unpaid legal fees that were presented to us last week, and are therefore not a part of any budget, and apparently haven't been 71 March 2, 1998 a part of any budget for several years. And, under the theory they were here to solve problems, regardless of when they originated, we asked Risk Management to take a look at their budget for this type of expenditure. There is an availability of six million dollars ($6,000,000), from Public Official Liability which would permit payment of these fees. I want to stress, we don't have from the City Attorney, a definition, which we will need, obviously, as to how much exactly or whether it's overlap. For example, we noticed, and we just haven't had a chance to pin this down, that some of those fees are Deloitte and Pottinger. And, as you know, we have a separate line item for those raising the question of whether there is any duplication. I don't know the answer, but, even if the full amount of four hundred and ninety-eight thousand dollars ($498,000) is payable, we could pay that from that Risk Management budget line item and still leave three million seven hundred and sixty-six thousand dollars ($3,766,000), for the balance of the fiscal year. As you know, the City is on a pay as you go basis for Risk Management. Something we are going to change as we build up our reserves. We think, we hope, that three million seven sixty-six would be an appropriate balance for the balance of the fiscal year, but we will just have to see. Again, we need to get direction whenever it's available from the City Attorney, and ultimately from you as to who to pay how much money, and why, and when. Mayor Suarez: Mr. City Attorney, do you want to...? Mr. Joel E. Maxwell, Esq. (Interim City Attorney): Fifty thousand two hundred and eighty-four dollars ($50,284) of the figure I gave you, is for Tew Cardenas & Rebak, which is for the Deloitte and Touche case. Mayor Suarez: How much was that, I am sorry? Mr. Maxwell: Fifty-eight thousand two and eighty-four dollars ($58,284) that I... of the four ninety-four. Four ninety-eight, excuse me, is for that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, we have a line item for that in the budget solutions that are presented this morning, so there would be an overlap to that extent. Mr. Maxwell: I did not include in this figure the Pottinger case, which I think you are carrying under a different line item. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Right. So, basically, the four ninety-eight becomes four forty for something like that. Chairman Hernandez: Does that include...? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, the Concession Agreement with the International Association of fire fighters. First of all, I want to note... Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, excuse... Mr. Manager, excuse me a sec. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am sorry. Chairman Hernandez: Does that include the. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. We are talking about attorney fees, correct? Chairman Hernandez: Does that include... that's the total amount of money allocated including the monies owed to Eckert Seamans? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. 72 March 2, 1998 Chairman Hernandez: Well... Mr. Maxwell: For the monies we owe Eckert Seamans to date... Chairman Hernandez: OK. Mr. Maxwell: ... it does not include any expenses we may incur in the future for this case which is ongoing. Chairman Hernandez: Now that we are under directives and stuff, I would like a legal opinion. I want to ask you this question, because it's come up in the course of this trial that, referencing the elections fraud case, and it's something that I have been thinking about, and it's kind of bothering me, and I want a legal opinion on that. How can someone that is representing, legally representing the City under outside counsel purposes, the Pottinger case, for example, and also serving as outside legal counsel for title policy purposes, be in fact, representing the opposite side against the City of Miami? He... Let me put it this way, Mr. Kendall Coffey, to be specific. His firm represents us in the Pottinger case, and also represents us for title policy purposes. How can he, in fact, be representing the plaintiff in a lawsuit that is trying to overthrow the same government that he is representing? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Mr. Maxwell: I am not prepared to give you an answer right now, and I would have to look into that. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I think we have... Chairman Hernandez: Can I get a legal opinion on that? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, we would look into that for you. Commissioner Plummer: I think we have to remember one thing, and I am not defending him in any way, shape or form. But, we did have as you recall, Mr. Tom Scott. Chairman Hernandez: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: He was in fact, the outside counsel for the City, who was very fortunate to become a judge, and so appointed. And, as you also remember, we were grasping immediately for anyone who had any knowledge in that area, and that may or may not be the reason it occurred as it did. Chairman Hernandez: But, prior to that, Mr. Coffey was representing the City as a potential title agent, number one. Number two, he was representing a portion of the MSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority) contract negotiations, and he was involved in other negotiations for this same government. Now, he is on the flip side. Actually, he is wearing both hats. He represents the City, and he is trying to overthrow the same government that he represents. Commissioner Plummer: But is one white, and one black? Or, they both white, or they both black? Chairman Hernandez: Well, they are both black. Commissioner Plummer: Hats. Chairman Hernandez: I want a legal opinion as to that because I think we have to draw a line here on who represents us, and who should be on the list of legal counsel, which I am working 73 March 2, 1998 on a presentation which I will be bringing before this Commission, prior to the selection of a new City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: And, we will prepare it for you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, if I may on that point? Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Chairman Hernandez, perhaps you don't recall that Mr. Coffey resigned as counsel to the City, in both the MSEA matter, and on the Pottinger matter. This Commission asked him to continue in that the case was literally at the llth point, on the Pottinger case. So, if there... And, I appreciate very much the concern on ethical considerations, but I think he... discharged his duties. That doesn't go to the issue as to whether or not fraud if it occurred, or didn't occur, is meritorious of being defended. And, if fraud did occur, then clearly he would not have a conflict, because the government's interests are the same as the people. And, that is, to ensure justice is done. So, in any event, I don't think he would have a conflict. Mayor Suarez: Does that mean, basically, that Eckert Seamans, no longer includes in the other matter, the involvement of Mr. Kendall Coffey? Or is he with Kendall...? Is he with Eckert Seamans or not? Chairman Hernandez: No. No, no, no. Commissioner Gort: No. Mr. Maxwell: No, he has his own firm now. Mayor Suarez: You know, more to the quantitative concern that we have up here, although I am equally interested in the answer to the question that Chairman Hernandez asked, but how are doing in claims this year? Do we have any report in the first five months of the year? I know that last year was an extremely good year, in terms of reduction of claims against the City, and I know we budgeted some amount for this year. Do we have any...? Mr. Maxwell: Maybe, someone from Risk can answer that question for you. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, let me ask, Mario Soldevilla to give us whatever information we have on... Commissioner Plummer: And, Mr. Mayor, I would hope that they would give us the potential liability of what is outstanding, because it is something that we need to absolutely be prepared for. Mayor Suarez: Mario, and Mr. City Attorney. I have submitted, and I believe that it is still under consideration by both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman in his capacity as head of the legal committee, a whole structure, a whole mechanism of answering claims against the City. While we come up with a plan to have outside counsel be involved in that, if the Commission ultimately chooses to go that way, and I choose to recommend it. And, I think, all of that again, is being considered by Vice Chairman Teele. The very least we can do is implement some of the things that are contained in there. Have you seen that memorandum, Mr. Maxwell? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir, I haven't personally seen it. 74 March 2, 1998 Mayor Suarez: Among other things, the moment we get a demand letter, I would like to answer the demand letter. I would like to not simply send it, you know, over to your way. The demand letters are directed at me. I would like to answer the demand letter, and I would like to put in there, "if you sue the City of Miami, you are going to have a long way to go before you reach any relief." I am going to be in court representing the City. And, I do want you to know that in the Pottinger case, as you know, I was present as a representative of the City, and I was a weak Mayor at that time. I am willing to sit through trials when people are trying to take us for a ride, and to let that jury, when there is a jury present, be aware of the fact, that a judgment is a judgment against the people of Miami, and that's a judgment in some cases against themselves. I am also interested in telling them that, if they have a frivolous lawsuit, we will hit them with 57105 fees on their Florida Statutes. That we will look to have counterclaims against them, et cetera, et cetera. And, that, you know, as much of that as makes sense to put in the initial response we should. Mr. Maxwell: Well... Mayor Suarez: Let them know that they are in for a tough fight against the City, and of course they have sovereign immunity limits, and so on. Mr. Maxwell: We do something similar... Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Maxwell: ... in a different way, of course. Under 768.28, Florida Statutes, the City in, tort action is given six months to investigate the claim. So, when you send it over from your office to the City Attorney's Office, we take a look at it, and then we assign it to the Risk Management Department. The Risk Management Department has six months to investigate that and then they submit information to us, to our tort review committee, and then we make recommendations similar to the ones that you... Mayor Suarez: Before you answer any of those letters, let me see the tenor, let me see the tone, so that I can put in my two bits, while we get all of this reviewed. I would like to make some people aware of the fact that we are going to vigorously defend, and possibly counterclaim and possibly, if the matter is resolved favorably to us, hit them for attorney's fees under 57105. Mario, how are we doing with the claims? Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if you may? You know, I wish someone, somewhere along the line, would sit me down, and tell me about this glorious thing called sovereign immunity. Mayor Suarez: Sovereign immunity. They get around... Commissioner Plummer: Because, as long as I have sat here, there is supposed to a sovereign immunity of two hundred thousand, isn't it? Mayor Suarez: Two hundred thousand per person, two hundred thousand per incident. Commissioner Plummer: And, then it goes up to the legislature. I have yet, unless I am mistaken, ever remember where sovereign immunity was paid out by the State of Florida on behalf of the City of Miami. It don't happen. Mayor Suarez: When was the last time we had a special claims bill? Do you remember when? I think they settled typically within that. And, we settled one, of course, when they have a federal claim under civil rights, and so on... 75 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: With sovereign immunity? Mayor Suarez: Much beyond the limit of sovereign immunity. Commissioner Plummer: Well, all I am saying to you is, you know, people keep saying, well, we got sovereign immunity. And, since we never got any money out of it, I want to know what it means. Because, tome... Mayor Suarez: No, the money goes to the claimant, not to the City. Commissioner Plummer: But, they don't pay it to the claimant. Mr. Maxwell: Well, the problems, too, Mr. Mayor, as you well know, is that they are often now, attorneys sidetrack sovereign immunity by filing 1983 claims... Commissioner Plummer: Hey... Mr. Maxwell: ... civil rights claims, and they are not subject to sovereign immunity. Commissioner Plummer: So, you know, this idea of sovereign immunity is a great magic wand. I think we ought to put it to bed, and forget about it, because it don't exist. Mayor Suarez: It is. No, it is. It causes a lot of settlements, less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Please don't spread on the record that it doesn't work, because that just makes it worse. It does work, thank God. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all those settlements under twenty-five, and under fifty, and under seventy-five, and under one hundred. Mario. Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. Mr. Mario Soldervilla: Well, overall, if you are comparing 1996 and 1997, we go by area of liability. Mayor Suarez: Roughly, the figures for '97, we know to be about one third reduction in almost all the categories, right? Mr. Soldervilla: About... Mayor Suarez: Twenty-five to thirty-three percent? Mr. Soldervilla: Correct. Mayor Suarez: How about fiscal year, '98, do you have any...? Mr. Soldervilla: So far, comparing last year, this time, to right now, we are down approximately 60 claims. You know, overall, we have approximately 800 claims in Workers' Compensation. A similar amount in the other areas of liability. Mayor Suarez: Various tort actions? Mr. Soldervilla: Correct. As of right now, we have got 265 claims in Workers' Compensation which is down. We have in auto claims, 90. In general liability claims, 62, and police forty... police tort, 41, and in public officials liability, 18. So... 76 March 2, 1998 Mayor Suarez: If in tact, as you are indicating for the second successive year, from what we have in the first five months of this year, we are getting a better track record, and if the various departments are doing a good job in reducing their exposure, and I hear you say that claims... Mr. Soldervilla: Are down. Mayor Suarez: Right. And, particularly, the auto claims which I... Mr. Soldervilla: The auto claims are down. Mayor Suarez: ... think a lot of them might involve police cars, we ought to reflect that. Could you get us something in writing, Mr. Manager, on that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: Forecasting, based on five months. That will help us. How much do we have set aside under the current fiscal year for claims? Mr. Soldervilla: Total claims? Fourteen point four million. Mayor Suarez: That sounds to me, like a very, very, very conservative figure, in view of the drop off the year before. It's never, I don't think... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: By that you mean, there is a lot of money? Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: All rightee. Mr. Soldervilla: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: But, what is our total of all inventory of potential? Mayor Suarez: Again, Commissioner Plummer, may I do that privately with you at some point today. Remember, we are involved in a lawsuit against Deloitte Touche. You have been deposed. Commissioner Gort has been deposed. I have been deposed. The treatment of the claims against the City, whether as a refundable trust account, or as a present liability, unreserved fund balance, or as a long-term debt, is a big part of that lawsuit. Whether the amounts are high, or low, affects a lot the way people will see their claims. Could we just not spread that over the record. I think the figure, we know what it is. It's listed as a long term debt in the present financial statement, end of fiscal year '97, as about eighty, eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000). The less we mention those kinds of figures, the less we give people the impression they can sue us and collect. Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, my comments are really directed more to you, and to the legal office, and the Manager. One of the areas that I think the City has really been taken for a ride is, in this whole area of homeless. Now, the biggest problem that we have, and I think even the Manager will agree that, no one has really been empowered to sit around and think long-term around here, and look strategically out where we are going and sort of be the big thinker. And, Mr. Mayor, with all due respect. I think your office is in a better position to look at where we are going than anyone else. In addition, it's an external issue. I sat on the other side of the table, just three years ago, four years ago, when we passed the legislation 77 March 2, 1998 that created the Homeless Trust. And, I hope what I am saying will not be misinterpreted either by the City or the County. But, when I represented the County, I did as well as I could to advance and advocate for the County. I am here at the City now, and so in a lot of ways, what we all in government are trying to do the public good, we also have the good of the agency that we represent. Mayor Suarez: A certain special allegiance to our particular municipality. Vice Chairman Teele: That's correct. The County covenant to be responsible for homeless issue as a part of the ordinance. If you back and look at the findings, if you go back and look at the legislative debate. The County said, that one of the reasons we are going to pass this tax on food, and by the way, disproportional ly, that tax falls on the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach. The two of them together, are well over 50 percent of the tax. Yet, the two cities represent about one-third, well... Mayor Suarez: Population wise? Vice Chairman Teele: Population wise, about one-fourth. A little more than a fourth, a little less that one-third, of the entire County. But, disproportionately, the residents of the City of Miami and the visitors to the City of Miami, are paying for the homeless tax. Now, the whole idea was, that local government, that the County would take the premier role of the, or the preemptive role. It is my view, and I have shared this with the attorneys, that if you go back and read the ordinance that created the Homeless Trust, that the County covenant, and through Interlocal Agreement agreed with the City to be responsible. And, it's my view that in doing so, the County is also responsible for the settlement coming out of Pottinger. Now, we sort of danced around this, and had very veiled words about it. But, I think it needs to be put on the record. Because, what we are talking about is a substantial sum of money, for the City to pay it, in effect, we are taxing our citizens twice. We are taxing our citizens to pay for the underlying Homeless Trust, disproportionate to any other citizen, with the exception of the people, say on South Beach, because of the nature to the tax. A restaurant, food, beverage type of tax. I really believe, Mr. Mayor, that your office, along with the attorney's office, and the Manager's office and Risk Management, should really go to school, if you will, with respectfully, Mr. Mayor, and consider this because it is not right to ask the citizens to pay twice for a problem literally that is being exported into the City of Miami. Mayor Suarez: You know, I hadn't thought of that. And, I have to admit that when I... when I went ahead and signed the resolution passed by the Commission, it never struck me that the responsibility really should be shared by Metropolitan Dade County. Commissioner Plummer has always said that, the bed tax proceeds constitute from the City of Miami hotels, as much as 47 percent of the totals that does not go to Bal Harbor and directly, and to Miami Beach. And, if that's the case, as you are pointing out, Mr. Vice Chairman, there should probably be a figure, maybe even higher than you are suggesting of what the food and beverage tax produces from City facilities. Because, they also have to in excess of a certain number of seats. And, I think some of the ones in Miami Beach are actually smaller than that. We may... Do we have any such calculations, number one, Mr. Manager? Number two, could we get the City Attorney, yourself, and myself together on that issue? Let's see if we can't pressure the County. I think that's a very, very good point. I really hadn't even thought about it. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Mayor, it really isn't about pressuring them. It really is about... Mayor Suarez: Well take... Well having them take a fair share. Vice Chairman Teele: It's really about the fact that when the Homeless Trust was passed, the underlying legislation provided for a preemption by the County. In effect, these numbers were 78 March 2, 1998 well circulated. Stierheim has the numbers. We pay Stierheim under the Interlocal Agreement. So, getting the numbers aren't going to be a big problem. Commissioner Plummer: No more. No more. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, we still contribute, don't we? Mayor Suarez: Well, indirectly as you were saying, 47 percent of the bed tax comes from City hotels. So, we are obviously subsidizing. Commissioner Plummer: No. The Interlocal is out. The Interlocal Agreement is out. Mayor Suarez: Well, maybe then, somebody will give us the 47 percent of the funds. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, but the... the fact... He is talking about with the Greater Miami Visitors... The numbers are very easy to determine... Commissioner Plummer: We have them. Vice Chairman Teele: ... Mr. Mayor. The real issue here is, what does the ordinance and the underlying resolutions that relate to that, and my recollection is very, very clear. The County said they would be responsible from that day on for the matters relating to homeless issues and the financing of homeless issues. Because, the idea was, that we were taking the money and putting it in one pot. Well, you know, that's fine when things are going great. We have got... What's the Pottinger case to us, this year? What does the financial imply? Commissioner Plummer: One million five. Mr. Maxwell: Nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) in fees. Nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000)... Mayor Suarez: That is three payments of three hundred thousand each. Mr. Maxwell: Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) each year, for three years. Vice Chairman Teele: Plus legal fees. Mayor Suarez: Let's cut through this and say, tomorrow, nine a.m., Mr. City Attorney, Mr. City Manager. Tomorrow at nine a.m., let's meet, the three of us on that. I agree with the Vice Chairman's suggestion. I think we have to take the lead in my office. But, I need the two of you, and Mr. Manager, if you would get, secure those figures. Maybe, have one of your staff get those figures today from Stireheim or from Commissioner Plummer, whoever has them more handy. And, let's have them ready for tomorrow's meeting. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I have the figures, Mayor. I do have the Oversight Board meeting at nine. Mayor Suarez: OK, Wednesday morning at nine. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I have them already, the figures. Mayor Suarez: All right. Because, I think we ought to move on that right away before... By the way, what is the timing on that, Mr. Maxwell, and Mr. City Manager, on the signing of the judge of the settlement? Have you checked on that, Commissioner...? 79 March 2, 1998 Mr. Maxwell: Yes, but we don't have a date to judge. And, I was going to sign it when he wants to sign it. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. I want to tell you for the record, OK. And, I have got my problems. I haven't seen that much improvement. I have not seen... Mayor Suarez: But, we haven't been able to implement the settlement, yet. Commissioner Plummer: They are implementing it, Mr. Mayor. And, I want to tell you, my Police Department is expending on an unbelievable amount of hours dedicated to that. And, I really don't see an deficit in the number of people involved. I keep waiting, but I will be here to remind you. Mayor Suarez: Well, that's why we are hoping to have the settlements signed and implemented. Commissioner Gort: We don't have the settlement yet, do we? Mayor Suarez: We don't... We don't... Mr. Maxwell: They aren't implemented, yet. Mayor Suarez: ... have the judge's order yet. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: Mr. Manager, next item. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Mayor, along that line, just... Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: You were talking about the restaurant tax, how about the bed tax that the Greater Miami Visitors and Convention Bureau gets? Miami is one of the biggest providers. I don't know if the MSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority) Mission Statement calls for the possibility of MSEA, and we have two members of the board here, the Chairman and you. Using some of those monies to either... We have an office to promote tourism or to use that money in the promotion of tourism within the City of Miami. Commissioner Plummer: Well, wait a minute. Which bed tax are you talking about? Commissioner Regalado: The one that goes to the County, and the Greater Miami Convention Bureau. Commissioner Plummer: No, excuse me. I'll give you a briefing on it, very quickly. Of that money, 50 percent goes automatically to the Convention of Bureau. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Plummer: Twenty percent of the money goes to cultural arts and science. Twenty percent goes to TDC (Tourist Development Council), of which I sit as your member on the TDC, and ten percent is for administration. That's exactly where the dollars go. Commissioner Regalado: Right, OK. But, what I am saying is, that through the Convention and Visitors Bureau... 80 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: Right. Commissioner Regalado: ... the City of Miami can promote its different facilities which it is not doing. The City of Miami is not being promoted... Commissioner Plummer: Oh, OK. Commissioner Regalado: ... nor in the different pamphlets, nor in the programs. The City does not have a direct input in the promotion, in that... Commissioner Plummer: Why do you think they changed the name? Commissioner Regalado: Well, why do you think they changed...? Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Regalado, in my legislative package, you are going to love this one. I have once again, reiterated the proposal that the County should take over the James L. Knight Convention Center, or if not, the streams of losses adding up to three to four million dollars ($4,000,000) a year. If, we see the negotiations breaking down, sometime in the month of March, before... certainly before the end of April, I have fully intended to ask, and I have that in the package, I am not hiding anything from anyone, to ask the state legislative committee in charge of the law that was enacted, that the Commissioner has just described, how it get split. Headed by State Representative Bruno Barreiro, to allow us to levy and collect our own portion of that tax. If Commissioner Plummer's figures, traditionally are correct, of 47 percent coming from City hotels, you are going to see some major, major hustling around on the part of the County, and of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau. I have to tell you, that the report of today, no matter how many times I have discussed this, and I have discussed it three or four times with the Mayor, staff, people from the bureau. It has been yes, yes, yes. But, no action. If there is no action, maybe we will see some action when we start talking to the state legislative committee. And, Representative Barreiro is ready to introduce our legislation. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse... Mayor Suarez: Miami Beach collects it's own. Commissioner Plummer: That's right, VCA. Mayor Suarez: I don't see why we are any... Commissioner Regalado: Well, I am sorry, Miami Beach just got nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000). Commissioner Plummer: And, they get five percent instead of two. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so, this is what I am saying. That we should have at least direct input into... Commissioner Plummer: And, plus, they also get money from the TDC for different events which take place in the City of Miami Beach. Mayor Suarez: When we do meet with the state, with the Dade Delegation, I would like, Commissioner, if you could accompany me to that little battle, because I want to see if get the full Dade Delegation to support us on this, until we get our fair share of the TDC monies. I think this Commission is on full consensus on that. 81 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: May I proceed, sir? Mayor Suarez: Yes, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, the next item is the concession agreement with the fire fighters union. First, let me read to you in the fairness matrix, which is what was really being addressed. Interim City Manager Merritt Stierheim's note: "this fairness matrix has been prepared on a very preliminary basis." Those three words are underlined. "After we determined, the total City deficit, sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000), which must be covered" - and here is the other point of importance - "through increased revenue, reduced expenses, loans or onetime revenues, if the City is to balance the 1996-97 budget. I strongly emphasize that these allocations are preliminary, and are subject to substantial change. The matrix represents our initial effort to design a fiscally conservative plan, by which the City will achieve fiscal solvency." Now, obviously, from a legal standpoint, we need to ask or obtain a guidance as to whether we are in breech of the fairness matrix, but factually speaking, I wanted you to have three elements to consider. Number one, the language that I have just read. Number two, the fact that the fire fee is not, is not in the composition of deficit recurring versus one time, or in the potential allocation of funding solutions. Rather, the fire fee shows up in the very bottom box where it says, "Fall backs/Options to boost Cash." Underneath that, there is another item called "Long-term Solutions" and the first item of that is "Non Ad Valorem Fire Assessment." So, to say that we are in breech of this agreement, by virtue of not having passed the fire fee, is something that the council will have to give us in light of those two facts. The third fact, and it's obviously relevant, is everything we are doing here today to raise revenues, and more importantly, to reduce expenditures. Commissioner Plummer: You know, I said for the television the other day. When the fire fighters sent us a letter of filing a grievance, you know, and my answer was very simple. If this City Commission doesn't do its part in balancing this budget, I think they did exactly what they should have done. I do feel that it was a little premature, they didn't give us the time to say, we are going to do it, and we said we are going to do it, and I think when we walk out here today, it's going to be done. Maybe, not today, but tomorrow. But, it's going to be done within the next short period of time. So, all I got to say to you is, is that I think the fire union was very much... There was a lot of people very upset about their letter. I just think it was premature. If we don't balance, they are right. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The next item is Community Development. We were asked to provide a list of the personnel being pulled in, and the numbers of the Community Development budget, I am told that that has been provided. Commissioner Plummer: Is that...? Was that in reference to the salary cuts? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, I think in all fairness, you got to explain to me and some other people around, to a briefly, but tell me. I notice that, those we rely on the most, the upper echelon. And, I understand that you are talking about cuts, but when I go beyond the top, top people, which we really are the ones who we rely on. You go down below that and the people really below that, did not suffer any cuts at all. And, I am speaking about in the unclassified positions. Now, how do I say to a Chief, or the head of a department, that you are taking a ten percent cut, or that, and yet, the people that are also unclassified are not getting any cuts at all. Why should he have to suffer or she have to suffer a cut, and yet, people that work for them, also 82 March 2, 1998 unclassified, don't have to take any cut at all? Tell me, in you opinion, because I find it hard to understand, what formula you used. What thinking you used to come about for that bottom line. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: All right. First of all, let's clarify as we did this morning, that there are two types of personnel cuts. One is the one we are talking about, which shows up as specific job line items in the budget. Commissioner Plummer: Right. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The other one does not show up in that fashion. It shows up as a dollar amount for temporaries and provisional fulltimers and things of that sort. And, those are dollar entries which have been cut as part of the operating expenses. Commissioner Plummer: I am speaking to this item of five hundred. Well, actually... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Right, those are the line item positions. Commissioner Plummer: OK, I am speaking also to the 114,000 that is the unclassified aspect of it. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Two documents are operative in that respect, and one directive. The two documents are my own memo and the Mayor's memo concerning positions that we would like to have reduced in the departments. And, the directive was, my directive following your meeting last Tuesday, that each department director identify a ten percent departmental dollar cut in his or her department or office. The two documents relate to positions. The directives relate to dollars. And, I left it up to the individual department directors, and office directors to identify those people in those areas in which the cuts could be made. Mayor Suarez: Now, the predominant impact so far, is the nonclassified. Is it not? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Sir, the exclusive impact is the nonclassified... Commissioner Plummer: Well, but that's... Mayor Suarez: So, what is your concern, Commissioner? Commissioner Plummer: My concern, Mr. Mayor, is in the fact, that you take, let's say, just anyone of the departments. And, you take the two top people in that budget. In that thing. In that department. And, I understand that there is a cut implied. But, using, without naming anybody, and I don't want to do that. You go into the other parts of their staff who are also unclassified, and they took no cuts at all. You see... You understand what I am saying, Mr. Manager? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, are you talking about, position cuts or are you talking about salary reductions? Commissioner Plummer: Well, I am talking about salary reductions, of course. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK. Mayor Suarez: At the unclassified levels, do you propose at some point in the next six months to give some sort of proportional reduction in salaries? Or, do you propose to do the efficiencies of your ten percent streamlining more by elimination of positions? 83 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Both. But, let me put it in this context. Mayor Suarez: OK, I guess, Commissioner Plummer, if he says, both, it means that there will be quite of few that will have salary adjustments. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We have a million five budgeted for next year and the year after. Mayor Suarez: But, that's collective, he is looking at the individual needs. By the way, Commissioner, it's really kind of his task and his department heads task, and to some extent my task, to look at individual names and individual positions. But, it's really the Commission's task more to look at it in a global sense. I would not get too involved in the individual. Commissioner Plummer: Sir, I am not... I am not naming any individuals. I have tried to avoid that, OK. Let me just use, in the Police Department. Major positions, OK. In the Major positions, one, two, three, four are receiving cuts, and one, two, three, four, five, six are receiving no cuts. Mayor Suarez: What are the basis for the distinction? Commissioner Plummer: That's exactly my point. Here the department head... Here the department head is taking a serious cut, right under him is taking a serious cut. But, yet, under them, still in an unclassified position, five out of the nine of the thirteen, whatever it is, no cuts at all. And, I don't understand how and why some people got the cut and other don't. 1, so, Mr. Manager, I am asking you, did you use a formula? Did you use a criteria? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's what I tried to explain this morning. And, obviously, I didn't do well. Commissioner Plummer: Well, obviously, I didn't understand what you tried to explain. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, I didn't explain it well, I am sure. Commissioner Plummer: I thank you, for taking me off that hook. But, go ahead. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The Mayor makes ninety-seven thousand dollars ($97,000) a year. The City Manager makes ninety-six thousand dollars ($96,0000) a year. The Assistant City Managers make ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000) a year. In order to bring the department directors below ACMs (Assistant City Managers), I determined that it would be... the appropriate spread would be, at least as a cap, if you will, the same spread as between the ACMs and me and the Mayor and me on the other end. That is one thousand dollars ($1,000). So, that reduced the department directors, those who were over... making more than I, to ninety-four thousand dollars ($94,000). That in turn, triggered the question of what do you do with assistant directors. And, there, as we went over this morning, after the Human Resources Director looked at the list of salaries, in all but, Fire and Police, we felt that eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000) was the proper number as a cap. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse, is that on the list, because we don't have it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The rest were eighty-five. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Manager. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes. 84 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Regalado: We don't have the list. I just got one copy. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no. I... We have not distributed this list. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, what the Human Resources Director explained to you this morning was, that except for Fire and Police, the cap, if you will, was fixed at eighty-five. Those who made less than eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000), Commissioner Plummer... Mayor Suarez: Were not affected by the cap. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: ... were not affected by the cap. Those who made more, were. Mayor Suarez: Let me interrupt you for a second. Before, we give the impression that the Commissioner is advocating a larger number of people in the position of Major in the Police Department, let me clarify. His statements to me, as I have tried to consult all of you, individually. And, I am... would guess to you also, is he does not see a need for that many people at that level on the Police Department. So, let's not spread on the record the implication that we are trying to protect the number of people at that level. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, no, no. Absolutely. My only question was... Mayor Suarez: You are just looking at fairness within the... Commissioner Plummer: The justification... mayor Suarez: Right. Commissioner Plummer: ... of how he came about with these numbers. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We did it by virtue of the application of these caps, if you... Commissioner Plummer: Well, you know, I... Mayor Suarez: There has to be some gradations going down, Mr. Manager. And, I think, I think looking to the next fiscal year, Mister... Commissioner Plummer, we can expect those gradations. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Exactly, and I made that point this morning too. That at some point, you know, we have to get away from this, but at the time, for the time being, we need to work within those parameters, and adjust them as we go forward. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, I want to tell you, and I'll tell the Mayor. One of the problems I have had in the City, as along as I have been here, is this idea that you pay everybody according to a class. And, you give rewards, equal across the board. And, you have two people sitting behind two desks, one bust his hump for the City, works his butt off, and the other one sits over there and punches in from eight to five. They both, according to our tradition of raises, get the same amount, and let me tell you what it does. The guy that busts his hump says, "why should I? That guy sitting over there, next to me, get the same damn thing that I get." And, Mr. Manager, I want to tell you something, this is exactly what I am speaking to here. The idea we have got everybody now at eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000). I want to tell you that I 85 March 2, 1998 disagree with the Mayor, respect him, but disagree. I think you have got to pay a person what they are worth, OK? And, I think that likewise goes for the people who don't perform, I don't want to give them eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000). I don't want to give them the money of money that they are not entitled to. I think that this... We need to come with incentives for people to do a better job. I think we need to be fair, and equitable across the board. You know, many times, if it was the private sector, we just say, thank you, good-bye. You are out of a job. But, we have got civil service and other things we have to worry about. So, I am just giving it to you from one person's personal opinion, that I think we have got a long way to go. Mayor Suarez: But, that doesn't mean that, that logic of yours, which I think makes a lot of sense, and I think within the discretion of the department heads, and the Manager, and the Mayor, there is going to be some discussion of salary levels and performance at the discretionary levels. But, below the rank of Captain in the Police Department, and at the rank of Captain, those are civil service employees. They go by a variety of norms that we are not at this point, I think, suggesting that we change. And, that constrict the ability to say, you are doing a little better job than this, or a lot better than this other person, and we are going to pay you more or less. I mean, that's precisely what the collective bargaining agreement reflects. And, that's what civil service does. I mean, at the level of discretionary employees, yes, there is going to some discretion for the department head to reward people. And, that's what they are supposed to... Then, decide on that basis whether to make assistant directors, deputies, et cetera. Or even to elevate to the rank of Major, in the case of the Police Department. So, I mean, the public... the civil service portion of it is a lot more presumably objective after that level, it's more subjective and I don't know... There is no society that I know of, that has come up with a better system. I am sure we can find all kinds of better systems to implement ourselves, but, I don't think you are suggesting that we change that. All right, Mr. Manager. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: All right, without deviating or prolonging a thing, let me just say that the correlary to performance based budgeting which we are slowly, hopefully moving into is paid for performance. Commissioner Plummer: Long overdue. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, the correlary of it, which is, I think what you are talking about, Commissioner Plummer, is something... I think it is very exciting if it can be done well. And, it's difficult to do well. Paid for performance. And, there are performance measures that can be obtained. Ultimately, I agree with you that the ability to pay people, not just what they are worth, but what they earn on a given year is critical to efficient operations. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The next item was a series of questions. Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Chairman. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am sorry. OK, the next item was a series of questions raised on the effect of the resolution of the capital improvements.... Mayor Suarez: Mr. Manager, excuse me, for a second. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, do you have the charts that I have requested, available? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: For? Vice Chairman Teele: The charts I requested this morning on the reoccurring...? Could I get them, please? 86 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I think the Budget Director was unable to meet with you over lunch to go over them with you. Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: All right, you are going to get those to him? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The capital improvements effect on services was requested by several members of the Commission. We listed the items, and I'll go through them quickly, one by one. The archives storage, record storage facility. The fact that we would do that, obviously is... has no operational service impact. It just doesn't let us do our business easily, but it doesn't impact the public. The integrated voice response system is an improvement that will be foregone. Again, the level of service would not be lowered. It just wouldn't be raised. The same thing is true for the upgrade to PC (Personal Computer) software and hardware. That's an improvement that we will not be making, but there will be no diminution in the level of service to the public. Same thing is true with the Citywide document management system. These are enhancements, improvements in the way that we handle documentation internally that make our lives a little easier. Make us a little bit more productive. But, there is direct, at least, impact on public service. The underground cleanup is a different matter. That has to do with contamination. Frankly, that's an issue that has been hanging around, I am told by my staff, for at least ten years, probably longer. We need to get to that. Again, it is not a direct service matter, but it is something that clearly would not be done now. The car wash replacement. First of all, please note that we are doing about half a million dollars ($500,000) in this line item. And, the balance is simply again, the foregoing of what we had hoped would be an improvement in the way that we clean vehicles and make it easier for our staff. The security control for fleet is an enhancement of the way we keep track of fleet. This is not a direct service to the public. This is an internal service, and the improvement there would have to foregone. The same thing is true for the Fire Department computer enhancement. This is internal operations within the department. By definition, it's an enhancement and we would have to forego that. The Watson Island marina renovation. I am told that these are improvements to the docks. There is some, I suppose, some relationship between that and service to the public in the sense that, you know, nicer, better docks are better. But, it is not a large operational item, if you will. Mayor Suarez: Let me interrupt for a second, if I may, to tell the Commissioners, an initiative that I discussed with one of your assistants, Mr. Pinon, and I am sure he has reported to you on. As I saw the Bayside Marina the other day, it looked fairly empty and I discussed with him the possibility of looking at using Bayside Marina in the same way, with the possible exception of one finger, one of the piers, as we use the other marinas and deriving substantial revenues, particularly thinking of people who live in the Omni area, and they might want to keep their boats there on a permanent year round basis. As we do better and better in the marinas, I can see extracting some surplus funds. That's the one enterprise that we have always operated on, on a profitable basis for improvements to Watson Island Marina, et cetera, etcetera. Commissioners, there is almost no way that this City cannot operate marinas profitably. We have a monopoly, we have almost the only thing that's going, and we should be able to do that and, you know, generate more income. We also, have not taken into account in this analysis other renewals of leases. I know during the Mayoral campaign, there was discussion by my opponent of millions of dollars that we were going to generate in various leases. It is true that some of the leases that we are going to put in place down the road are going to generate substantial amounts of money, and others are going to save us money for maintenance. And, none of that has been included. And, then I have a few more items at the end that I want to throw in. I am sorry, I just wanted to mention that about the marina. 87 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The last item of capital improvements is... Commissioner Regalado: If I may? Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Briefly. On the Watson Island renovation, it's part of your plan, but I think that the administration should look into talking to the vendors there. The vendors in Watson Island, they want to spend their own money to have a better place. Commissioner Plummer: The place is a junkyard. Commissioner Regalado: I know that they are... I think on a provisional basis, they are on a month -to -month lease, I don't know exactly the way that works. Mayor Suarez: Why don't we test that and offer them a matching program where we match whatever they raise, I don't know, one or two to one, from our marina funds? Commissioner Regalado: I... You know, Mr. Mayor, I... Mayor Suarez: Would you explore that and get back to us? I would like to see we take advantage of that, of that possibility. That they would actually contribute. I am a little skeptical of it, but... Commissioner Regalado: And, I think... And, I think we can. I have been there with Christina, and she knows that the people in that area, especially the vendors, the people that sell fish. They are willing to spend their money. In fact, these people are paying advertising in TV, which is really expensive to try to sell their merchandise, and I would think that if we are not going to do this, right away, then we should at least consider the possibility of letting these people do something with their places. I mean, they want to plant some trees, they want to do a enhancement of their places. So, I would figure that if we cannot do it, why can't we let them do it, and share in their benefit, you know. Mayor Suarez: Absolutely. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK... Mayor Suarez: You will report back to us on the initiative? Commissioner Regalado: Absolutely. Mayor Suarez: Excuse me, for a second. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga, would you please have a seat, sir? Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga, would you please have a seat, sir? Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: But, when will I... the public will be able to...? Mayor Suarez: I gather today, we are not going to hear from the public. The hearing... We are having an internal discussion. I'll figure out if there is any need or any obligation to let you speak, in which case we will. In the meantime... Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Because, you... Mayor Suarez: In the meantime... 88 March 2, 1998 Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: ... might save a lot of time if you hear me. Mayor Suarez: Sir, would you sit down? Thank you. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The last item of the capital improvements is the Convention Center roof renovation. We need to do that. We just either need to do it at a different time, and identify the funding for it. Or, we need to find an alternative source of funding. We don't need to do it in the next seven months. We were asked for the effective civilian layoffs and transfers on services in the Fire and Police Departments. And, I thought that we should clarify that no one, no civilian is being laid off or transferred in the Police Department, and only one civilian is being transferred in the Fire Department. So, we don't think there is going to be any impact there. We were asked to look into the, or look into the Law Department budget. The only reductions booked for the Law Department budget, I think this is you, Commissioner Gort, that asked this question. It's approximately, actually a little bit less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). I would be remiss if I didn't tell my friend, Joel Maxwell that that doesn't compare favorably with the other departments, but, that's what he gave us, that's what we have booked. And, that's not in personnel cuts either, Commissioner, if you were concerned. That had to do with some operational expenses that they are prepared to forego. Mr. Maxwell: Well, there was one cut, one personnel cut. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: One person? Well, one non filled position. Mr. Maxwell: It's filled. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, I had understood that there was no personnel reduction. But, that's how.. Well, it's twenty-four thousand and change, so that one person must not be a lawyer, then. Mr. Maxwell: A legal secretary. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: A secretary? Mr. Maxwell: It wasn't an attorney. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Or else, it was a very inexpensive attorney. Item 12, on our list is the effective cuts in the Solid Waste Department. The total there is eighty-nine thousand dollars ($89,000). Forty thousand is road tows, and those are anticipated savings that the department has indicated they expect to realize. The five thousand dollars ($5,000) for postage results from the fact that the Finance Department actually sends out the bills, and will... what we will do is attempt to piggy back on other bills instead of expending the monies on postage out of this department's budget. The outside repair and maintenance savings of five thousand dollars are projected savings based on experience so far in this fiscal year. Two thousand dollars ($2,000) for housekeeping supplies. Five thousand dollars ($5,000) for tool shop supplies, and six thousand dollars ($6,000) for miscellaneous supplies. Candidly that's simply a matter of depleting inventories. And, again, should have no impact, at least directly on the provision of services this year. Eventually, those supplies obviously have to be restocked, perhaps we can keep fewer around, but generally that's not a long-term way of saving money. And, finally, there is twenty-six thousand dollars in new equipment which is not Solid Waste trucks. I repeat, not. And, these are... the equipment is office equipment primarily, computers and things like that. These are projected savings of what the department... in what the department is going to spend in-house or office type equipment. Frankly, by not getting it, what really happens is that what we hoped would have been improvements in administrative productivity will not be realized or will not be realized to the same extent. But, there is a difference between our ability 89 March 2, 1998 to do work more efficiently in offices and the direct provision of, you know, citizens services such as the pickup of the solid waste. Commissioner Plummer: Question. Mister... through you or to the Fire Chief. I am concerned of an item here that shows thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) of less drugs and medicine. I am assuming that's for rescue, not for internal use? Not the... I am not even, please, I am not talking about the drugs, the bad kind. How do you anticipate eliminating thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) worth of drugs and medicine, if that's what you use in the activity of rescue? Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, we always were able to carry a certain stock pile of goods. And, part of the things that we discussed with the Manager on Saturday was that, if it got to be to the point where we actually needed the money, some money would be transferred in. But, we feel that with the thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) less, we can go ahead and make the year with adequate supplies for all the rescues. Commissioner Gort: That's inventory. You don't carry an inventory. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Again, Commissioner, eventually these things have to be replaced. It depends on how much you carry. Commissioner Plummer: OK, I hear you. Mr. Garica-Pedrosa: You are basically hitting your inventory. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I was talking about the... I am sorry. I had gotten over the 12. Thirteen is the same question with respect to parks. And, I am glad this was asked because the two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) being cut in temporary personnel in the Parks Department will be substituted for money that is already there in the consolidated account. The consolidated account is not a part of the general fund. We are earmarking that same amount of money so that our parks programs and our parks services will not be hurt. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Can we use some of the park bond money for operations, and L. J.L., I understand that we can use a little of that money, I don't know if - Park Director Ruder can answer that, but... My understanding is that at least we can use either for promotion or for administration or for planning within the department. Mr. Albert Ruder (Director/Parks & Recreation Department): You can use up to 17 percent for administrative costs, which is going to be eaten up by planning and design cost for a lot of these projects in which we are going to be funding Public Works for those services. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Ruder: So, up to 17 percent, not for operations, though. Commissioner Plummer: Not for operations, at all. One of things we have come about... Commissioner Regalado: And, excuse me, J.L.. Are we...? We are paying Public Works for the planning, right? Mr. Ruder: Right. 90 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Regalado: Do these people from Public Works, are also being paid by the budget of Public Works while they work for you? Mr. Ruder: We are supplementing. In essence, we are paying Public Works and we're helping fund their operation by charging a percentage of these costs to them, and that way we are helping the City. Commissioner Regalado: Well, that's fine with me, as long as we are getting paid twice. Commissioner Plummer: Well, one of the things... Mr. Ruder: We are relieving the General Fund. Commissioner Plummer: ... is... You know, the idea of fixing up the park is a great idea, but just bricks and mortar is not a good park. If you don't have supervision in these parks, you don't have programs in these parks, the money for bricks and mortar in my estimation, was a total waste. I have asked that the people in Virrick Park, and Al is very much aware, that they consider doing like they do in Tacolcy. The City gives them an allocation of money every year to run the operation of that park. And, they are providing the supervision, the programs and things of that nature. And, so, I have asked that we go to the Boys Club, YMCA (Young Mens' Christian Association). Mr. Ruder: And, the... Commissioner Plummer: There was another one, a third one. Mr. Ruder: I can't remember it now. Commissioner Plummer: Anyhow, to ask them if they would be interested in making a proposal to the City for the purposes of just that kind of a concept to run the parks with programs and the supervision and all of that. Virrick Park, I can tell you, as proposed in Section "A" is going to need quite a bit of supervision. I mean, you are talking about lunch counters, you are talking about computers, teaching computers. You are talking about a lot of supervision in there. So, I think that if we could get a group... And, I think this applies to every park, OK. Now, I am not talking about the parks that are the size of a postage stamps. But, I am talking about parks that are activity parks. Not passive parks. Commissioner Regalado: Well, let me say, and we have to congratulate, Mr. Ruder. Because, he implemented a tennis program in Shenandoah. And, I think that that program is self- supporting. Mr. Ruder: It's more than self-supporting. It's making money for the City. Commissioner Regalado: It's making money for the City. And, that, and you are paying your employee and that employee is giving you more than you spend on him and the program, and so it serves the park. And, we can mirror that project in other parks. We can make a lot of money. Commissioner Plummer: Al, let me tell you. We have got to around... As you know, I have made this comment before about Grapeland. Grapeland Heights have all these softball leagues in there. They are using our parks, private people are doing these programs and they are making considerable amounts of money, using our parks and we get nothing back, even money for maintenance. There is... 91 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Regalado: Well, we do. Commissioner Plummer: There is another park over here, I won't mention any names, I'll tell the Manager privately. We have tennis pros teaching tennis on our public facilities that are making money and the City doesn't get dime, even for maintenance of the facility. So, you know, these are the kind of things that I think we need to come into, and I think we need to look into City people, first and foremost. And, I am going to be going in, in this coming year. I want to tell all of you, I think that we have got to protect City people. If you are a City resident, you are going to get benefits for being a City resident. If you are not a City resident, you are going to pay a fee. If I go to Coral Gables and I go to Venetian pool, if I am a City resident, I walk in and say, thank you. If I am not a City resident of Coral Gables, they will say "sir, you pay at the gate." Mr. Ruder: Yeah, and if you recall, when we changed the park fees recently, we gave... Commissioner Plummer: Al... Mr. Ruder: ... City residents a break. Commissioner Plummer: ... in my opinion, we are going to come to more and more of that. I don't know why the City of Miami people have to supply Dade County tennis court for everybody to come in and play on the tennis courts, and when my City people go there, there is nothing available, OK. If this is a City taxpayer, he has rights because he provided it. Mr. Manager, one of the other things I would like for you to look into. I got a phone call from Macu. Do you realize...? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, I really got to look into it. Commissioner Plummer: Oye. Do you realize, we paid our Bellsouth bill today, do you know where it goes? Not to a local bank. It goes to Orlando. The AT&T bill, you know where it goes? Not to a Miami bank, it goes up, I think to Jacksonville. Miami Cable, doesn't go to a Miami bank. It goes, I think to Tennessee, somewhere. Unidentified Speaker: Tampa. Commissioner Plummer: Tampa? OK. I am saying, Mr. Manager, we need to negotiate that when we are doing business in franchises in the City of Miami, that those monies should go to a Miami bank. I am not talking Dade County, I am talking, Miami. And, let my banks here, locally benefit from it. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, can you proceed, please? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. The seventy-two thousand in contractual services and the twenty- five thousand in Dade County scale fees are anticipated savings on the Parks Department based on expenditures to date. The forty thousand in rent buildings... Where is Al? Can you explain that one to us, because I don't know if I... Mr. Ruder: Yeah. We were supposed to move when the Winn -Dixie... the property that sold to Winn -Dixie, we were supposed to move to a new location, and we are now sharing space with property maintenance, where property maintenance is. Therefore, we were able to save this forty thousand that was put in our budget, you know, in case we needed to rent an outside... another building. So... Commissioner Plummer: What's happening with the old cable office, still sitting vacant? 92 March 2, 1998 Mr. Ruder: The old... Commissioner Plummer: Seventh Street 14th Avenue, across from Robert King High Towers. Commissioner Gort: That's Parks Department. Commissioner Plummer: Is that being used by Parks? Hello? Nobody knows what it's being used for? Ms. Dena Bianchino (Asst. Director/Asset Management Department): Yes, sir, we do. It's being rented. The first floor is rented to an organization called "Grasp" for six fifty a square foot plus utilities. The building is on the "for sale" list, this fiscal year. Commissioner Plummer: And, what about the second floor? Ms. Bianchino: It's vacant. Commissioner Plummer: It's vacant. OK. What's being done, for example, with the old fire station on Miami Avenue and 14th Street? Ms. Bianchino: That will... Chairman Hernandez: How long do you have... We... Vice Chairman Teele: I mean... Come on. Chairman Hernandez: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: You don't want to bring that up? Chairman Hernandez: Let's wait, let's wait 'till later on. Commissioner Plummer: OK, just asking. Chairman Hernandez: We are never going to finish this. Mr. Manager. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Briefly, the chemicals, building supplies, electrical supplies, and plumbing supplies, again, it's a matter of debiting inventory. And, there is an item for some five and a half, fifty-six hundred dollars ($5,600) aid to prior orgainization that frankly we don't think we are in any position to provide. We were asked to explore additional resources, revenues rather from the state, from the federal government and from the Miami -Dade County, and of course, we will do so and report to you. Mr. Chairman, I think it was you that raised a question of, I guess, this is the "pay me now, or pay me later" question concerning fleet management. Obviously, we don't have an answer right now. I want you to know that we are sensitive to that, and we need to make sure that by virtue of the reductions there, we are not simply postponing or even making greater the expenditures in future years, and we will have to look into that further. We were asked to review the debts that are owed to the City by commercial haulers. We will do that and we will present that report to you. As we were asked to review the possible licensing of commercial accounts by districts, we will do that as well. And, I will personally review your 1993 lawsuit, Mr. Chairman, and asked the City Attorney to assist us in accessing how that might help us in our current situation. Three items, Commissioner Plummer you asked with respect to the Mayor's, February 27th memo. Item number two is the discussion of our 200 retirements. That's based, I am told on the possible three percent multiplier. We obviously, 93 March 2, 1998 need to look at that with the actuary. We need to figure out the... do the cost benefit analysis. We will explore that further, both with the union and with the actuary and report to you accordingly. Item five, makes reference to excess vehicles. I need to discuss with the Mayor exactly what he means by that. I know we have a contractual obligation. That we are quite sensitive to, with respect to the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) take home vehicles. I am not sure if that's the reference or not, but we will explore that and report to you if there is any opportunity to realize savings there. Commissioner Plummer: May I stop you, sir? As you know, that was deferred from the last Commission meeting to spend in buying 96 more cars for a total package of over three million dollars ($3,000,00). So, please report before the next Commission, or before you put it on another agenda again. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: All right, sir. Commissioner Plummer: If you don't come back with an answer, then don't put it on the agenda. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, that's really also item seven then, which is specifically targeted at take home vehicles. Apparently, there have been discussions, not apparently, I know there have been discussions while I was in New York between the Mayor and the president of the FOP. We need to, my staff and I need to catch up with those discussions and, see what the... what exactly the possibilities are in this area. We were asked to show you the list of people with the salary reductions and we have done that. The Vice Chairman asked for the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) staffing issues. Mr. Vice Chairman, the registrars... Vice Chairman Teele: I am fully satisfied with the... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. The only two eligible turned out to be two of the five, I am told. The other three, one is being reassigned to CD. We are trying very hard to save the other two jobs as well. And, I am told that we have provided to you the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) breakdown of my office that you requested. My benefits, is not on this list. I just got it handwritten, and I ask that you forgive me for that. We had 20 questions, so far, this is number 21. And, the lunch break really wasn't long enough for that, but, you have provided me with vacation, sick leave and personal holidays, to the tune of three thousand ninety-two dollars ($3,092). Health benefits, assuming family coverage, eight thousand three hundred and thirty-four dollars ($8,334) which according to our Labor Relations Officer, is what all executives receive. A Universal Life policy for fifteen thousand. Four fifty-seven for... Deferred compensation, eight thousand. I have a vehicle and a telephone, I think I am entitled to two, but I can't imagine that I would want that second one. I have enough problems with one. An expense allowance of eighteen thousand and a 401A contribution of thirty thousand. I think that adds up to, with my salary, to a little bit less than the one hundred and seventy something that was mentioned, but it was close enough. The only other comment that I would make is that, in order to realize that volume, I would never be able to be sick on any day or take a single day's vacation, because what that assumes is, a sell back of days to the City. The other item was being provided to you, Mr. Vice Chairman, with respect to the recurring versus nonrecurring expenditures. Vice Chairman Teele: And, that's really... I mean, you know. That's really, to me, one of the issues that I need to understand. I mean it's... I guess it's nice to know how much money people are making. But, when you spend 20 minutes talking about a savings of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). You know, I am really trying to figure out where we are going here. I mean... I want to hear from the unions, Mr. Chairman. I really, you know, we... This City is putting itself, again, in the position where we are going further and further away from sound 94 March 2, 1998 management principles in terms of ratio of the total budget of a City to its personnel, or its personnel fringe benefits, wages, relationship to the total budget. I understand that the proper ratio is about 65 to 75, or 72 percent, I am not sure, Mr. Manager. I didn't go to management... Manager... City Manager's school. But, it seems now like we are moving closer and closer toward 90 percent or 100 percent. And, what that really means is, is that as we build this budget, we are eroding the kinds of infrastructure, computer technology training. We eroding the kinds of capital, and I know you have been very, very careful to point out that the capital budget hit this year, is not that heavy. And, I respect the position that you have advanced. It's a professional position. Having gone through the CD (Community Development) process, and having gone to streets in Commissioner Gort's area, and Commissioner Regalado's area, and in areas... I mean, Commissioner Hernandez and my own area that I represent. I can tell you that the backlog of capital in just infrastructure is well over fifty... fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). We have streets in Commissioner Gort's district, I won't even talk about Little Haiti and some of the areas that I represent that are just a criminal disgrace for anyone to say we are representing the City of Miami, where streets literally look like something that you have gone through in the back woods of Nicaragua. Right here, in Miami. And, so, I am not at all challenging your perspective on the capital, but what I am asking you, Mr. Manager, to recognize is that reducing the historical funding of capital, what are we reducing it, about three million dollars ($3,000,000)? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Is a small number. But, when we look at what needs to be done. I mean, just to be... just to provide services that someone doesn't sue us for violation of equal protection or civil rights. And, I think there are all sorts of claims out there that people can make. So, in that regard, Mr. Manager, I am very interested in understanding how we build the reoccurring income... the reoccurring expensory reductions first, at seven million dollars ($7,000,000). Seven point three million. Could you just help me again, by walking me through the seven point three million dollars ($7,300,000) of reoccurring expenses that we are going to reduce and then we could talk about the capital for just one moment. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, that's the schedule that we attached to the... I guess, it's two pages after page two. Three pages after page two of two. And, what we have done is, we have broken out GSA (General Services Administration) Police, Fire, General Fund and Special Funds. Solid Waste, Parks, Building and Zoning, Public Works, Information Technology, and other. And, on a line item basis, budget item by budget item. Showing you the diminution. Let me just comment... Vice Chairman Teele: What page is that on, again? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's a very small print document that consists of two pages. The biggest numbers, if I may do it that way, the Group Health Insurance Benefits. I... show repeatedly, which is two million dollars ($2,000,000). Vice Chairman Teele: OK, let's just stop it with two million dollars ($2,000,000), because that's the biggest number in here. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: I have had a private discussion with you about that number. And, can you tell me why the Comptroller's Office... Commissioner Plummer: Oh, we do have a - or why the Budget Office has not identified this number before now? When did we discover the two million dollars ($2,000,000)? Because, in 95 March 2, 1998 all actuality, this is not anything that we have done now. This is refiguring the numbers. This is a refiguring of the health benefits based upon the plan that this Commission put in action, I guess about two years ago, and so now, I mean, you know, we all want to take credit, and I commend you, and everybody. But, the question is, why isn't this a part of our normal budget processing? Why wasn't this determined in October, September? I just need to understand where we are in the budget process, because I really am confused when we start coming up with numbers like this, that are historical numbers. Mr. Jose Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Vice Chairman, I don't know the answer to your question. I will only tell you that normally, you are right. Budgets need to be prepared, if fact, we are little bit behind schedule, I think for the next year's budget, and items like this need to be identified because I believe this implemented last year, and the savings should have been foreseen. But, I am not sure why they are marked. Vice Chairman Teele: I bet it was two years ago. Is this one year or two years? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: One year. Vice Chairman Teele: Do we have a Comptroller's Office that maintains monthly postings? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We do a budget reconciliation monthly that posts all of the ledger entries, yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Could you at a later date just track with me this line item over the last two years, so we can see just how the Finance Office has built this number. Because, this is a new number, and basically it represents savings from last year, and projecting them into this year, based on the management health care contract. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's correct. That's exactly what it is. And, I will do so. Vice Chairman Teele: So, our budget... OK. So, the next number after that... So, that takes us to five point three. The next number is what? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I guess the next biggest number is the one million dollars ($1,000,000) in Risk Management. You want to explain that? Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Dipakray Parekh (Director/Budget Office): The next big ticket item is the salary overtime in the Police Department where the Chief is looking into the use of the Law Enforcement Training Trust Fund, to offset that five hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars ($563,000) expenses which would have been incurred in the General Fund. Vice Chairman Teele: Five hundred and sixty-three thousand? Mr. Parekh: Five sixty-three five hundred. Vice Chairman Teele: And, so, is that what I read in the papers sometime ago that the Chief was looking to determine whether or not some of that was eligible for a federal grant reimbursement and the lag time on the federal grants and all of that? That's five hundred and sixty-three thousand? Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mr. Vice Chairman, in my meetings on Saturday with the Assistant City Manager and the Budget Director, we looked at some of the deficits and what I said, that's based upon anticipated revenues from Law Enforcement Trust Funds which I anticipate before the end of this fiscal end will come in. That, we will find a way to use those monies to fund some special tactical and task force oriented operations that would have been funded out of the General Fund. 96 March 2, 1998 Vice Chairman Teele: So, that's... But, that's about five hundred thousand? Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: What about the number? Thank you, Mr. Director. Thank you, Mister... What about the number that the Mayor was discussing today which sort of falls in the same category as the managed health care, and that is the Risk Management number? I thought that was one million dollars ($1,000,000). Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yeah, that's the million dollars ($1,000,000) I made reference to earlier. Mr. Parekh: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: So, is that...? Mr. Parekh: Commissioner, they are in different line items. If you look at line items 661, 652, 666. Vice Chairman Teele: Where is the million dollars ($1,000,000) there? Mr. Parekh: Yeah, basically, you take one million dollars ($1,000,000), one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in Public Officials Liability, half a million in Workers' Compensation, another one hundred thousand dollars in Workers' Compensation. Vice Chairman Teele: That totals about one million dollars ($1,000,000)? Mr. Parekh: No, that total is seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000). In that particular line items. Plus, within that particular office, there are other costs which have been defrayed in terms of insurance liability of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Vice Chairman Teele: OK, so round... Let's round that at eight. But, again, what we are talking about now is, eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) of money that is not really a savings, but a budget adjustment based upon the Finance Department, and the Budget Office's failures to properly track where we are on a percentage basis of the budget, in building this budget. Or any way you want to characterize it. This is not a savings, this is a budget computer adjustment based upon the fact that the historical savings... The historical expense over the last year are substantially below the budget estimates that we use to construct this budget. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I think I want to take a little bit of quarrel with this one. Because, I think here, unlike in the other item where I certainly could not quarrel with you, there is an element of experience. There was a change made, and the savings were not booked earlier, but then we really didn't know, really how much that would bring and there is a little bit of both. I think we knew that there will be savings back when the change was made. I think the quantify those then, might have been a little premature. Vice Chairman Teele: When were these changes made, Mr. Manager? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: When were the...? Mr. Parekh: The two million dollar ($2,000,000) issue in terms of Group Health... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, he's talking about the Risk Management. 97 March 2, 1998 Mr. Parekh: The Risk Management. We have been taking a look over the last month and a halt since the books have been closed of last fiscal year. And, we got better information as of December -January. So, this is an ongoing effort. Vice Chairman Teele: So, this is not a part of Mayor Suarez's initiatives that he outlined in his memo about three months ago, or two months ago, when we were looking at the December budget? OK, so what are the other changes? How do we build the remainder of the four point seven million dollars ($4,700,000)? Mr. Parekh: OK. In buying either new equipment or replacement of existing equipment, we have got three hundred and fifty-one thousand nine fifty. So, we will not buy that new equipment. And, four hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars ($426,000) worth of either replacement of existing equipment... Vice Chairman Teele: So, in effect, we are not buying new equipment? Mr. Parekh: We are not buying new equipment. Vice Chairman Teele: But, there will be no deterioration of services as a result of this? Mr. Parekh: As a result of that. Correct. We... Vice Chairman Teele: You really believe that? Mr. Parekh: Huh? These are basically office equipment and computers and so on. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yeah, this is what I referred to, earlier, Vice Chairman. We are talking about enhancements to the administrative side rather than the operational side. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. Mr. Parekh: Under temporaries, we have two hundred twenty-seven thousand dollars ($227,000). Primarily, two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) is with reference to the parks. Temporary help during the summer... Vice Chairman Teele: Right. But, we are... Mr. Parekh: ... which we have defrayed to the consolidated account. Vice Chairman Teele: The Manager briefed me on all that. Now, will the parks be opened this year, and will the swimming pools be filled, under this budget? Let me ask the Manager. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me ask, Mr. Ruder. Mr. Albert Ruder (Director/Parks Department): Yes, this budget does not affect services. What we are doing is, transferring from one account, relieving the General Fund of two hundred thousand and we plan to have the pools open for the summer, and our regular summer program. Vice Chairman Teele: All right. And, so the operational expenses really related to salaries, et cetera... As I read this chart, is there...? Is this one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)? Is that what we are talking about, or is it more? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The number that Mr. Ruder just referred to is two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). 98 March 2, 1998 Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but that's in his Parks budget. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: OK, I'm... Thank you. I am looking now at, when you go through all of this, what we are really doing, is we are bringing forward bookkeeping savings... We are bringing forward the savings on the Managed Care, the Risk Management, the Capital. And, then, the other issue is personnel. And, what is the impact on personnel? Again, as I read the chart that you all put out, it shows one hundred and one thousand two hundred and seven dollars ($101,207). So, is this the total salary savings that we are talking about? Or, are there others? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am not sure what you have in front of you. But, the total salary savings... OK, let me... Do you have...? Let me give you a sheet that captures, not just... I think you salary reductions. Let me give you the sheet that captures the... the salary reductions and reassignments, and the... Vice Chairman Teele: Could you just? I don't need to see any of that personnel stuff. Can you just give me a number? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Four hundred and eighty-four thousand for the balance of the fiscal year. Dipak? Mr. Parekh: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Roughly, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The current year's salary savings or maybe... Ah, that's what I am looking for. Current year, four hundred and eighty-seven thousand four hundred and fourteen. And... Vice Chairman Teele: Is that based on seven annualizes? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Annualized eight hundred and sixty-one thousand four hundred and ninety. Vice Chairman Teele: So, in effect, the full seven point three million dollars ($7,300,000) of reoccurring expenses that we are cutting, of that, about ten percent is salaries? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, it's a separate line item? Well, the seven point three million is the foot of that very fine print document that I referred you to, a moment ago. Vice Chairman Teele: Right. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Actually, the numbers are a little bit different because we broke out the Mayor and Commission, and the City Manager line items. But, it's seven point three versus seven point five. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. Seven point... But, is the full salary savings that we are talking about, roughly the eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) that you just laid out, for the remainder...? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is the annualized salary savings. Yes, sir. Not in this fiscal year, annualized. Vice Chairman Teele: Five hundred thousand in this year. 99 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Right Vice Chairman Teele: Eight hundred thousand total. So, the truth is, is that the impact to the individual employees in terms of layoffs or anything based upon this budget is negligible? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, if by that you mean, is the relationship between seven point three million and four hundred and eighty-seven thousand dollars ($487,000) a small relationship? The answer is, yes. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, you see the... What I am trying to establish really on the record is, where are we going as a City? I mean, we... One day the Mayor is announcing there is going to 150 people hitting the street. The next day someone else is saying it's going to be half of that. One hundred and seventy-five. I mean, we owe it to the public also, and I know the unions. I am not trying to... They'll do their thing. But, I just need to know, where are going in personnel? Are we really looking at a four... a net of four people reduction? Or, are we looking at something like the Mayor has been talking about? Is this the full budget deal? I mean, I don't we ought to do the Chinese water torture here. I don't mean to malign the Chinese community. But, but, let's just say the water torture. But, but, I mean, is this the... Commissioner Plummer: They are all in my district. Vice Chairman Teele: ... end of this for this year, in terms of what we are talking about in personnel? Or, is there going to be some new announcement next month that we...? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me do it this way. It is my view, Mr. Vice Chairman, that worse than doing this thing, this thing once, is doing it twice. And, that what we are presenting to you, and hope that you will approve at the end of the day, should be the last. Certainly, meaningful revision of the five-year plan until the next year where we will have to deal with that in light of the budget... Commissioner Plummer: That's not the... That's not you... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I... Hold on, hold on. Commissioner Plummer: Go ahead. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now, in terms of the personnel component of that, I cannot tell you in good conscience that we are going to realize savings beyond what I have just told you. The reason for that, and remember these numbers do not include the non -line item dollar amounted positions such as the two hundred thousand in Parks alone. We have found an alternative source on the temporaries and all of that. But, having said that, I don't know that under the current union contracts, we are able to achieve at this moment and for the balance of the fiscal year, meaningful reductions beyond these. I have appointed a committee. I have charged them with the responsibility of coming up with those proposals, but those have to be done in conjunction with the negotiation of new collective bargaining agreements that have to be negotiated anyway. Because, one of them has expired and the other is about to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, how many exempt people are there in the City, approximately? One hundred and seventy, one hundred and eighty? Commissioner Plummer: Unclassified? Vice Chairman Teele: Unclassified. 100 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We have 150 that don't have rollback rights. And, that includes your offices. Commissioner Plummer: That's not your answer. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, the Law Department. Commissioner Plummer: His answer is... Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but it's closer to 200 people, or so, that are exempt persons... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: But, they don't have rollbacks. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, I... Commissioner Plummer: That's the difference. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Because, if you take an exempt person who goes to a classified position, we haven't had anybody walk out the door. Vice Chairman Teele: I understand, but my question is, how many exempt people are there? Let's just assume that there are more than 150, and less than 250. Are there plans to layoff people in the City of Miami? And, I hope the answer is no, especially, at it relates to anybody that lives in the City of Miami. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I think at this moment, the answer is no. I have appointed a committee. I hope that we will be able to come up with a meaningful and correct and proper workforce reductions. But, we don't have the plans formulated. No, sir. And, we don't have the ability, given the very small number of people that we are talking about, to carry that out without the assistance of the unions. Vice Chairman Teele: Secondly, Mr. Manager, as it relates to the capital needs of this City, and quite frankly, of the government to sustain itself, do we have a plan to expedite the funds that have been made available? The one thing that is... I have only been here four months, but the one thing that's becoming more and more clear to me, is that this City has a real problem executing and implementing once a decision has been made, and the funds have been put there. Which is sort of unbelievable, because that's not the way government usually works. Today, someone from Commissioner Plummer's Office called me, district called, to say that they have taxed themselves for barricades, as an example, in Morningside. And, yet, they can't get the project moved forward. So, it's... Commissioner Plummer: It was on the last agenda. Vice Chairman Teele: Say again? Commissioner Plummer: It was on the last agenda. We approved it, and... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: One of the problems we have... Vice Chairman Teele: As it relates to the fire, the Fire Department. As it relates to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office in Little Haiti. The funds have been made available. The budget has been approved, but yet, we are unable to correct, for example, in the roof leaking issues. Are we going to be able to move those projects forward. The Capital projects forward, 101 March 2, 1998 because I really do think a part of what's going on is we are building a backlog, you know, and do we have a plan to deal with that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Commissioner, there is no question, but that the premium in the past has not been placed on quick response and delivery of these types of services. Do we have a plan? Well, beyond the operational directives that things like this not happen, I don't know that we have a more specific plan than that. But, let me tell you, that one of priorities is to make sure that we implement Commission policy promptly. I do want to say that a legal matter that you identified in a recent meeting, that I am very much aware of is, that we do appropriations here by ordinance. We also have a Charter, unlike for example, the City of Miami Beach, in which ordinances take effect ten days after second reading. Here it's 30 days after second reading. I have asked the City Attorney, as I think you did, on the floor the last time, to figure out a way, if not this year, at least next year where we can do this in a more expeditious manner. And, that's part of the problem. That's the Morningside problem, that you eluded to a moment ago. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, I think it's important that the public understand. Relating to the Mayor's budget, Mr. Manager, you know. The Mayor's budget, in my judgment, for a City of Miami's size is a very, very modest budget. And, I for one, want to be on record as saying, I am not interested in nickel dimeing the Mayor, or the budget. I mean, he has given us a new memo that says that in Miami -Dade County the Mayor's budget has gone from eight... five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), five hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($585,000) to two point two million dollars ($2,200,000). The change from the previous Mayor office to the current Mayor. Obviously, we can't support that, nor do we need it. But, I really do think that, the Mayor should have the resources to do the job. And, I would trust that your office and the Mayor's office will work cooperatively together to address that issue, and that the Mayor's office will not be penalized in any way, at this point, for the budget problem. Similarly, as it relates to the Clerk's Office. I notice that capital expenditure item is a modest amount, in terms of the reduction. I think, it's one hundred and thirty-five thousand? I don't... Three hundred and fifty thousand. And, my question is, is the Clerk's Office in violation of the State Law now, regarding records management? Let me put it a more genteel way? Would eliminating this capital item, put you in jeopardy of continuing to be in violation of the state law? Mr. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): There is a state law requirement that requires agencies to maintain sound and economical records management programs. But, we can actually work through the liaison officer, in the interim until the organization decides whether or not we are going to have a facility, with respect to monitoring the commercial storage that quite a few departments have. Vice Chairman Teele: I am not sure what that means, but, if it's all right with you, it's all right with me in terms of that. But, we have a problem with records management. The City Attorney's Office is always, always, having a difficult time to find important legal documents, as are some of the other departments, Community Development. And, I know that it's a systemwide problem, but I really... And, I am sure the financial people have a similar problem. But, if you, after conferring with the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Clerk, feel that it's appropriate, I will support you. But, I am very concerned about where we are going with our records management on the capital side. And, finally, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Manager. I want to be very clear, what you are asking for in terms of new revenues, is for the Commission to do nothing and allow the full one hundred and eighty-five, one hundred and sixty-five dollar ($165) Solid Waste bill to go into effect. Or, whatever that number is. Is it one sixty seven? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: One sixty-six. Vice Chairman Teele: One sixty-six? 102 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Sir, I am asking that you be as... follow-through with your earlier decision on that, which is to allow those bills to go out in due force. Vice Chairman Teele: So, in effect, what we would do is, do nothing because the... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Totally authorize. Commissioner Plummer: The ordinance mandates it. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Right. Vice Chairman Teele: The ordinance is in effect? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: The pronouncements have been that we were going to reduce it, or roll it back to zero. The public discussion. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: If the fire fee was adopted. Commissioner Plummer: That's correct. Vice Chairman Teele: I understand. And, I want to be very clear, that you are asking us, simply to do nothing on that ordinance as it is currently in place? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is correct. In fact, I am asking you to do nothing on all these things, except, permit me to amend the departmental budgets to implement these cuts, and get us out of this financial mess. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, you could... you would be authorized based upon a resolution to amend the budget. But, the actual budget amendment itself, is a budget ordinance... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Ordinance. Vice Chairman Teele: ... and it would have to come back. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. On two readings, and it's effective 30 after. Unless, we do it as an emergency, which frankly, subject to the City Attorney's view, we obviously have a real need for because of the Oversight Board and the rating agencies and everybody else. Commissioner Plummer: Well, any change in budget would require Commission approval. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. What the Vice Chairman is saying is, if you adopt the resolution allowing me to make these changes, I have to bring these changes back, department by department in the form of an ordinance. Commissioner Plummer: But, in just using the Mayor's office, that is a line item budget. Any changes in that, would have to come back before this City Commission. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: OK, so, Mr. Manager, I support the budget as it's been presented in the context of where we find ourselves. One final question. On the interest income which you are projecting, that's a net new interest income? 103 March 2, 1998 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. That is a composit of two figures. The positive figure is the interest income or investment income from the 37, eventually to be thirty-four million dollars ($34,000,000) on the FEC (Florida East Coast) sale. Against that, we must debit the investment income that I learned recently had been booked as of January, for the fire fee revenues. In other words, it was assumed that the fire fee would be adopted, that monies would be sitting around for a while and you can generate revenue, and those revenues were booked. So, we now have to backed those out. The net is the two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) that you see in the schedule. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, the net new income is two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). And, this is going to be a reoccurring income? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: And, for accounting purposes, the state will recognize this as a reoccurring income. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: As long as we don't plan to spend the underlying...? See, my concern is... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, no, no. Good question. Because, you are planning to spend twelve million over the next five years on the technological improvements laid out by the Blue Ribbon Committee. But, we will only book the portion that's left over. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. Well, the concern that I have is a fundamental concern, and... I really want to hear from the unions on their issues. Their issues, because what really troubles me, is that there letter, if you read it literally says, that we owe them seven million dollars ($7,000,000) in give backs. And, obviously, you know, I know negotiations, everybody sort of puts their best case forward and then adds a little more. But, it really would bother me if we have abrogated or violated a memorandum of understanding with the unions. And, I will tell you now, I will support the union position, if we have violated out agreement. Because, the one thing government must be, is we must be credible and we must have a sensitive... People do business with us, they know they are doing business with us. I was not advised, even of the existence of the memorandum of agreement in the meeting before when we voted. I am not sure it would have made a difference. It would not have made a difference in my vote, but I think it should have been at least respectfully presented. But, the concern that I have, Mr. Manager, is a very real concern and that is, we are sort of like a ship in the ocean - and the motor is cut off. I mean, you know, if we are not careful, we are going to have all these people... And, I commend you for working to keep our workforce together. But, we are not going to have the equipment to do the job. I am particularly, and I want to lay on the record, concerned about Solid Waste. Because, I see too much activity going on in Solid Waste that doesn't relate to Solid Waste now. And, I have heard all of the numbers. I know the justification, but come July and August and September. I want to have an assurance, Mr. Manager, when the Solid Waste budget comes up, that there is going to be adequate funds to fund that department through September 30th, without having to cut back on a route, without having to cut back on this. Because, right now, there are problems out there in just meeting the routes and levels of service that we have committed to. You and I have discussed publicly and privately, the concern that we have for capital for equipment that is sitting there in the building, in the yard, not being able to be repaired, and you are making progress on that. But, what are we going to do, if we continue to eliminate our capital funds, and we bring the people here and they don't have the equipment to do the job? Having said all of that, the area that I have the most concern in, is in Information and 104 March 2, 1998 Technology. And, we are not dealing at all with that in a dramatic way, and I would, on a separate track like to understand where we are for the year 2000, and what that whole conversion is doing. And, where we are with our computer technology enhancements, particularly as it relates to training. I know that you said that the Human Resources Director feels that five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) is adequate. But, Mr. Manager, in all due respect, I don't agree. I think, if we are going to maintain this workforce, we need to train this workforce. As far as I am concerned, every employee of the City should have their own internet address, or certainly be able to access an internet. The information is flowing. There are grants, there is technical assistance, there is all sorts of ways we can communicate more efficiently. And, that's just not going to be done, if we begin to train people with five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). I am particularly concerned, Mr. Manager, to know, who and how every one of those five hundred and eighty-seven thousand dollars ($587,000) are being spent. Because, what I want to make sure, is that the money is being spent for training, is more than just exempt people, and the department heads. I want to ensure that we are training some of these secretaries. Mr. Manager, I cannot, I will admit, I cannot transfer a phone. I cannot conference a phone. But, darn, every department head that I talked to in your government, can't do it, either. And, the fact is, is three department heads need to be on the same phone line, everybody has to go call for a secretary or an assistant. And, that means the secretary... and a lot of heads... And, the fact is this, Mr. Manager, we really need to train our people. We need to train ourselves, and we... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's because, Gwen hasn't been around all this time. Vice Chairman Teele: And, we need to do that. And, I really hope that you will take that under advisement. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We will report back to you, Commissioner, on the year 2000 problem where I am told the news is good, and on the spending of the money for training. I just want to say, because it is important to this budget, that we are not touching one penny of the twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) that you committed to expend over the next five years on the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Vice Chairman Teele: Task Force. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, again, I am very interested in hearing what the union has to say, but, you know, absent the fact that we are in violation of the memorandum agreement, I really want to support you and your staff in what you are doing. I am very interested in hearing again, from the Finance Department, and especially on a historical point of view of these things. But, I really think that the hour is getting late, and I want to be on record as encouraging you to continue, and your staff to continue the good work that you are doing. Chairman Hernandez: We will be taking a five minute break, and then when we come back we will be listening to the presentations by the union presidents. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. Question. Does the revenues from the vehicle impoundment program, it goes directly into the police budget or to the General Fund? Chief? Police Chief Warshaw: It goes into the General Fund as regular General Fund revenue. Commissioner Plummer: Are we going to break? 105 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Regalado: It seems... No, J.L., I am just asking about the vehicle impoundment program. You know, it's been a success, and I think that everybody is paying. Police Chief Warshaw: Quickly. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, you directed us to consider and report back on increasing the fee. Commissioner Regalado: Increasing the fee... Police Chief Warshaw: To one thousand dollars ($1,000). Commissioner Regalado: ... that's right. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 5:32 P.M., AND RECONVENED AT 5:45 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT. Mr. Tony Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. You know I really wasn't going to say much today, for a number of reasons. I think, in part, I know that my colleagues have quite a bit to say, and I am sure you will hear from them in a moment about a lot of these things. Additionally, some of these things don't impact them more than it does me. The only thing I was going to say is, and I'll say it now, is that I wanted it put on the record that I request the backup materials and the work materials that led to some of these figures so that we may research them more. So, I wasn't going to say much, right until the point in which the Manager mentioned the employee contracts, the union contracts. And, I must tell you, Mr. Manager, with all due respect, that I am personally insulted by your suggestion, and I am sure all the men and women I represent, are personally insulted by your suggestion that we should... that you would ask the employees to yet give more. And, I am also insulted, as you stated, your suggestion that our brethren in the... the employees of the unions bare or share some of this pain. And, I would only like to point out to you, Mr. Manager, that I think the employees have a clear definition of the definition of pain. I would remind you that, when all this started, and we did our concessions, those concessions took place immediately. We did not have the luxury of nine months later to posture and move back and forth. When we gave up our raise, which was the first one in several years... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You didn't give it up, you postponed it, 11 months. Mr. Rodriguez: That's correct, I deferred, it. And, you know what, I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Manager. But, the fact is, when we didn't get it, we didn't get it immediately. When we deferred or gave up for the time being a holiday, one less day that our officers can spend with their families, we gave it up immediately. When we decided that we would do the oil changes and the maintenances on our cars, that took place immediately, and so on, and so on, and so on. So, I would only tell you that, as you said share the pain. If you look up the definition of pain in the dictionary, Mr. Manager, I think you would see a Miami policeman, a Miami Fire Fighter, a general employee, and Solid Waste employee. Their picture right next to that definition. I would only ask, well, let me just say this, in light of not taking too much time. Insofar as, and this brings me to the next point that I wanted to touch on, the share.. the fair share matrix, which Vice Chair Teele spoke about. That concession agreement that was talked about with the Fire Department. I would tell you, Commissioner Teele that, there is a very similar agreement or the same agreement with all the unions. And, the figure is not seven million dollars ($7,000,000), it is in fact, more in the area, when you take all the unions into account, of above twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). I will tell you that, as I told my membership in a letter the next day after the last Commission meeting. I have met with our 106 March 2, 1998 lodge attorneys and I have instructed our lodge attorneys to research and initiate the appropriate legal action against the City for breech of that agreement with us. Now, of course, I heard the Manager's statement and advice in that regard, but I will tell you that we will, we have not yet, basically waiting for today, and of course the next developments in terms of this, of this. But, I will tell you that, we feel very strongly that we did our part, and we did our part immediately. Mr. Manager, with all due respect, sir, until we see some good faith and some sharing of pain on the side of the City, sir, you have gotten all the blood that you can get, at least from this president, and from this union, that you are about... that you can get. We just, it is just, we just cannot give any more. Thank you, that's all I have to say. You have a question? Chairman Hernandez: I have a question also, Tony. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Tony, I appreciate you being here, and I guess, in some ways, you know, it's always difficult and I want you to know the Manager is in the same boat I am in, to some extent. He just got here, too. And, so, I don't think it should be... it can be professional, but it really shouldn't be personal at this point. I have professional disagreements with the Manager, but I really like him as a person, and he hasn't invited me to have dinner with him, but I am looking forward to it. And, I hope he'll invite you... you all will have dinner. Because, we really will not be able to work through this if we can't get along personally. Now, professionally, we may disagree, but I would hope that we could keep everybody working together, because there wouldn't be a City of Miami if it weren't for you and the other men and women that are stand behind you because it unions who went out and took the leadership, and took the heat. All of the unions, to keep this City alive, when quite frankly, some of the same people that were down here the other day, were out trying to shut the City down. And, that's what hurts me. But, Tony what is it you believe we have done as a Commission that violates the memorandum of understanding. Because, I honestly did not know of the existence of the memorandum of understanding. I was not briefed. I was not advised. And, it would not have changed my vote, and maybe my colleagues knew about the existence, but I am very concerned that we don't violate agreements and contracts as it relates to the union. Mr. Rodriguez: Well, I would tell you, Commissioner, and I would agree with the Manager when he says that in the fair share matrix, there is nothing that says specifically that the fire fee must be passed. There is nothing that says specifically a garbage fee must be passed. But, clearly it says that there must be revenue enhancement as well as cost cutting measures. We have done our part. Now, I am not convinced... Vice Chairman Teele: So, from a revenue enhancement point of view, if I may? We have not... And, I am going to... I am not going to build you case for you, but I will say on the record, we have not passed any revenue enhancements. Mr. Rodriguez: No, and I'll tell you why. Vice Chairman Teele: The eight million dollars ($8,000,000) that's on here, today, is not an enhancement. Mr. Rodriguez: That was there before. Exactly. Vice Chairman Teele: That was there before. That's why I asked the Manager the question. So, your basic view is, unless and until we pass revenue enhancements, we have violated the agreement? Mr. Rodriguez: Right, because all we are doing is, coming back again, and taking more, and taking more, and taking more from the employees. Now, of course, we have heard, and I agree, 107 March 2, 1998 as it is here, yeah, OK, we are not taking... We are not getting rid of any police officers, and as the Manager said, and I would hope that that holds still in the future, that there weren't be any civilian employees taken from the Police Department. And, that's good, because as you have heard me say, we are doing enough clerical duties right now instead of what we are supposed to be doing, which is serving our community out in the street. So, but, in the totality of the big picture, it affects us. And, don't kid yourselves, it affects us. And, it is going to affect us. And, what I see that's... Vice Chairman Teele: Tony, have we done anything to violate the agreement? Mr. Rodriguez: I believe so, yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: And, could you just tell me what we...? Mr. Rodriguez: Well, I am telling you. I don't think that there is enough revenue enhancements. I see a lot of cost cutting. But, where is the revenue enhancement? Commissioner Plummer: It's there. Mr. Rodriguez: Not enough, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: Woe, woe, now. Let's put it on the table. Chief, get up here. Give me the figures you gave me this afternoon on just the one phase of the confiscated cars? Police Chief Warshaw: The vehicle impoundments? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. How much did that raise? Police Chief Warshaw: It's about three hundred fifty thousand, as of today. Commissioner Plummer: That's one item, OK. Tell me how much has the new burglar alarm ordinance raised? Police Chief Warshaw: Close to three-quarters of a million. Commissioner Plummer: There's another one. OK, so I mean, to walk away and say, we have done nothing. You can say, maybe, and I would concur, we maybe haven't done enough, but we have done some things. Mr. Rodriguez: I think the fair share matrix included for about fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) worth of enhancements. This is pennies, drops in the bucket. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, Tony, that's important. Was there an agreement or matrix? I have never seen it. Commissioner Plummer: It was never a dollar figure involved. Vice Chairman Teele: Was there a matrix? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, also the matrix says... Mr. Rodriguez: Well, perhaps, we will review it, and... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: ... that it will increase revenue, reduce expenses, loans, or onetime revenues. 108 March 2, 1998 Vice Chairman Teele: There was a matrix? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's what the matrix says. Vice Chairman Teele: May I get a copy of it, please? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: That's not all there is to it. Chairman Hernandez: Tony. Mr. Rodriguez: I would submit to you, respectfully, that that's not all there is to the fair share matrix. So, listen, I am not going to sit here, or stand here and argue the point that my attorneys are being paid to argue. You know, if you all don't think that you violated the fair share, then we will let someone make that decision for us. But, I'll tell you, it is my opinion and the opinion of our counsel that there is quite possibly there was a violation of the agreement. And, I'll you that, right now, from what... all this is happening, it is going to impact on employees, again. Again. See, because the employees are the ones that immediately from the start, gave like that, see. And, that's important. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Tony, in a memorandum to the Mayor to the Manager referenced twenty- four million dollars ($24,000,000) in reductions, he lists item number seven in his memorandum. "FOP president's proposal regarding take home vehicles, three million dollars ($3,000,000), in reductions." Can you explain that to me? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. Well, and I don't know if in this arena would be the right time to discuss this, for obvious reasons, quite possibly per violations or concerns for negotiations. But, I will tell you that the three million dollars that you had in two items at the last Commission meeting with take-home cars. The fact is, and that is something I was trying to say at the last Commission meeting. Only one point six or about was the... for our contractual obligations, 96 police cars. I don't know where the rest was. But, clearly, I offered or I spoke to the Mayor, and must say, I commend the Mayor for, we have now established a rapport that at least for this organization, it wasn't as forthcoming as it now is, but certainly we came up with a suggestion, as we do quite commonly, quite often, that we would save on not only that one point six million dollars ($1,600,00), but the other money which, I don't know if it was going to be used for other cars in the City of Miami. It's a viable option, and one that I think warrants for the exploration. Chairman Hernandez: OK, thank you. Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. Chairman Hernandez: Charlie. Mr. Charlie Cox: Two minutes, Charlie. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Manager. This Commission has asked me and the General Employees to help with the City's financial problem since 1990. Every time, you asked me for my employees to take concessions and do more with less, we have responded positively to the Commissioners, citizens and Manager of this City. I have been a union leader that has asked the employees to take it on their chin because I felt it was the right thing to do. Now, I will tell you, that I can longer support anything that your Manager has proposed here today. In my presentation, I will show you how these are the magic carpet numbers as before, maybe worse. Your Manager has not asked you to be fair. He's declared war on the general employees. In my presentation, I have with me all the backup 109 March 2, 1998 information, and too, my numbers. It may not have the fancy slides and all the hand... it is all handwritten with you own numbers and reports. Let me start out with point one, on page one of two, on... Go under GESE (General Employees and Sanitation Employees) pension. Commissioner Plummer: Is that, this page, Charlie? Mr. Cox: No. Not mine, that will get later. On the Manager's report. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, I am sorry. OK. Mr. Cox: And, I don't know about the rest of you, but on the small numbers, what I had to do to be able to see it, is blow it up, because I couldn't... And, I realize my eyes are bad, but that, I don't know how anybody can read. Under GESE pension, let me explain to you, where he is showing you a five point five million savings, next year, what this City owes, and for any of you that weren't here, and don't understand. Is this City of Miami stole hundreds of millions of dollars from our pension plans. They defrayed it. They put it in banks. They returned less than two percent, and that came about a Gates case. From that Gates case, there was a settlement reached where this City would pay back the employees pension on a yearly base that stretches through the year 2007. Now, when you look at five point five million dollars, number one is, for years we have been hearing how much these pensions costs and how much the pensions, the cities have to pay for this pension. I could tell you, under the GESE plan for the last ten years, the City has had to contribute two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) in one year. The rest of it, they have had a savings from the excess earnings in every year. The only ones that contribute to that pension plan are the employees that I represent, myself and anybody else that's in that plan. This City has not paid one penny to that plan. And, I dare anybody to stand up here and dispute that. Now, next year, because our plan did so well this year, we returned almost 30 percent. We made one hundred and five million dollars ($105,000,000), off of our money, not this City's money, our money, OK? And, now they are going to sit here and take credit for it, in that next year. And, the true number is probably higher than five and half million dollars ($5,500,000) that they are going save next year, OK? But, then, you look at the year 2000, the year 2001, the year 2002. Now, can anybody stand before you and tell you that that fund is going to return 30 percent the following year, or the following year after that? Or, the following year after that. Now, this Manager sat there and told you that he hopes, we are at the bargaining table, he can give my no layoff costs. Well, now, how is he going to do that when he's taking credit for these numbers that are as fake as fake can be. These are numbers that are ridiculous, unless you can have a crystal ball and all of you ought to have that same crystal ball, because you will be rich tomorrow. It tells you whatever money you put in, you will return 30 percent on, OK? And, that's the numbers in this plan. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Yes. Mr. Cox: Now the following year... Vice Chairman Teele: Hold. Mr. Chairman, please. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Is there, I mean, is there any ounce of truth in what he's saying? I mean, is this... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Vice Chairman Teele.. 110 March 2, 1998 Vice Chairman Teele: Are we projecting a 30 percent return? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. I don't understand what he's talking about. And, I am trying to see if Sue can make it out. There is an actuary on the pension board, and these are the numbers he has always given us. Vice Chairman Teele: These are the actuaries numbers. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Whose paid for by you all? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: By the pension board, I think. Mr. Cox: Wrong. The actuaries can only project numbers ahead for one year. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's right. Mr. Cox: OK. Now, they are projecting numbers ahead for the next three years on this year's returns that he sat there and told you that we can't use that money this year, because it is for next years. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no. no. Mr. Cox: OK. Last year they had to pay Gates. Your Gates payments for the year '99-2000, your Gates, that this City stole from us is thirteen point three million dollars ($13,300,000). Now, unless we return 30 percent again next year, you are obligated to pay that, OK. And, that's for the year 2000. Vice Chairman Teele: But, Charlie, before you go... Before... Mr. Cox: The year 2001, is fourteen million. Vice Chairman Teele: It can't be that big. Commissioner Plummer: It is. It's bigger. Mr. Cox: It is that big. Commissioner Plummer: It's bigger, Mr. Teele. And, it is a scale that continues to go up, up, up... Mr. Cox: It's an inverted pyramid. Commissioner Plummer: ... and that was a consent decree on the Gates suit. Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, I understand the history of Gates. But, I am just trying to deal with the actual numbers. I mean, the history of Gates is really inconsequential. Are you saying that our... the budget projections we have are assuming that there is going to continue to be a bull market? And, you all are obviously heavy in equities. Mr. Cox: Absolutely. Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: The only way you can have those kind of numbers, you have got to be in equities. The bull market has just run... Wall Street has gone right through the roof. 111 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: What he's saying is, is that you can't... Mr. Cox: What happens if it collapses? Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, just assume a normal. If there is a normal interest rate, Mr. Manager... Mr. Manager, are these numbers based upon a 30 percent or a 25 percent return? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me ask Dipak Parekh to explain exactly what the out years are. Do you mean beyond 1999 because...? Vice Chairman Teele: Are we assuming in '99 that there will be a... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, no. Vice Chairman Teele: Let me ask this. What is the assumption? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: There is no assumption for '99. Mr. Cox: None. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Ninety-nine is already in. Mr. Cox: Yes. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, so he's talking about 2000, 2001, and 2002. Vice Chairman Teele: If there are Gates obligation in the year 2000? Commissioner Plummer: Yes, 2007, I believe. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: At what point, at what interest rate does that kick in? Mr. Cox: There is no interest rate. It's a set figure that you have to pay. Vice Chairman Teele: It's a set figure, but if you all exceed... Commissioner Plummer: Offset by the interest. Vice Chairman Teele: And, I am just trying to understand, where is the break even point? Is the break even point a 12 percent? Mr. Cox: No, our assumption for our fund, I believe is eight percent right now. So, do they do not make anything over eight percent, so you understand this. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's the answer to your question. Mr. Cox: First, first. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Not 30 percent. Mr. Cox: Wait, wait. That is not the answer, and you are speaking out when you don't know, sir. After eight percent, we have a normal cost, every year, OK. And, that's what we picked up 112 March 2, 1998 with the excess earnings in the back, what the normal cost is. That's why I say to you that they have not paid one penny to our fund because the normal cost has been covered by excess earnings. Last year we returned 19 percent, but we weren't able to cut into the Gates agreement. This year, we cut into the Gates agreement, because we returned 29.5 percent. So, it not only took care of the normal costs, then he goes in and cuts into the Gates agreement. Commissioner Plummer: Charlie, if you could provide this Commission, I know, and remember very well the sliding scale of what is the pay out over the period of years. It goes up, and up, and up, until I think the last two or three years when it takes a tremendous nose dive. That's it. Mr. Cox: No, it quits. After it's done, then you only pay normal cost for City use... Commissioner Plummer: The last two years or the last three years is where it... Vice Chairman Teele: Willy Gort is the only guy up here can understand that. Mr. Cox: There it is. Now, I am real bright, OK. But, I am sorry, that's the way it is. There is your first one. Commissioner Plummer: I think. If I understand what Charlie is saying, and let me see if I understand. What he is saying is, you cannot predicate on what they did this year, on the return for next year, the year after and the year after. And, that there is a possibility that if something radically happened that this City could be obligated for the year 1999, if they went defunct for thirteen million three hundred dollars ($13,000,300) that you are not talking about. Vice Chairman Teele: Not defunct. No, it's not defunct. Mr. Cox: No, no. Commissioner Gort: No. Mr. Cox: J. L., if we only returned eight percent, which is the assumption value, this City owes, owes in the year 2000, thirteen point three million dollars ($13,300,000), plus normal costs. Commissioner Plummer: OK. But, you are saying also, that if do the hire, it is a less contribution that the City has to go to. Mr. Cox: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Mr. Cox: Last year, we returned seven point nine percent. Commissioner Plummer: You might want to make a copy of this. You might want to make a copy of this for the Manager. Mr. Cox: It did not cut into Gates, but it more than covered normal costs. OK? So, these projections again are, you know what, I hope we return 50 percent next year. I hope we return 80 percent the year after. But, if you think I could stand before you and based budget on it, when your Manager says, that we have got to get the no layoff clause out of my contract that I paid dearly since 1994, then where is it going to come from? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, he going to take it out of my butt, OK. Now, we are going to go farther. If you look at the very next item on his page here, he goes to pension administrative cost. Now, I came here when they tried to take it out of the budget before, now he's asking you to put it back in. Now, 113 March 2, 1998 you are going to kick that office that can run more efficiently than anything in this City, and take money away. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Charlie, can I interrupt you? Can I interrupt you? Mr. Cox: Yes, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Please, so we can save time. You have got it exactly backwards. OK. What those numbers are, are charging the City for those costs. Mr. Cox: Absolutely. And, you asked this Commission that you would prefer that they would go back, because that would give you one million dollars ($1,000,000) more a year. And, you did that this morning, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I, 1... What I told the Commission is, I hope they will reconsider that. But, this budget, this budget does exactly what you would like for the City Commission to do. It pays full cost. Mr. Cox: This year's budget? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. Every year. You are to look at a million dollars ($1,000,000) every year. Mr. Cox: And, what was your...? You want me to quote your exact words on this, sir? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I just admitted to you, that I would like the Commission to revisit its decision on this. What you are complaining, not about me, you are complaining about this budget, I hope. Mr. Cox: You would like the Commission to put it back... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, what I am saying to you is, this budget accomplished what you would like the Commission to do which is to pay the million dollars ($1,000,000) in each of the out years. So, we have put the expense back in. Mr. Cox: Yeah, but you sat here, and put it on their lap. And, Mr. Teele sat here just before, saying that he was going to support what you have asked for today. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, no. The Vice Chairman has not... Mr. Cox: And, you have asked the Commission... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The Vice Chairman said that he would support the budget. Mr. Cox: ... to please take it back away. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The Vice Chairman said that he would support the budget. The budget has the payment of that million dollars ($1,000,000). Mr. Cox: OK, well, let me please put you five on notice, I will be real unhappy if this million surplus goes away and doesn't stay in there as the way it is. And, if you take money away from that pension board, that they run this pension, our employees, that this City is not paying for now, and you cut money from them. I am going to tell you, I went before that pension board... 114 March 2, 1998 Vice Chairman Teele: Charlie... Mr. Cox: ... on behalf of this City... Vice Chairman Teele: ... why would we take away a pension board that is doing twenty-nine percent? Mr. Cox: Ask your Manager. He made the statement this morning. Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, well, everybody has got one vote. But, you know, no one is going to take away a pension fund that is earning twenty-nine percent. Mr. Cox: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: I don't think that's... Mr. Cox: OK. OK. Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, what is 29 percent? Mr. Cox: One hundred and five million dollars ($105,000,000) off of 40, four hundred million last year. OK. Maybe, if the City could do something like that, we wouldn't be in the same problem, would we? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We would love to do it, but we can't invest in equities. Vice Chairman Teele: We'll... You got any money you could let him manage for us? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I would love to have the investment policy changed, but state law and City ordinances prohibits us from making investment of the kind that can generate more than five and three-quarters, six percent, at very best. Commissioner Plummer: We are talking about in-house investments. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: In-house investments. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, my God. You just about had a beautiful liability then. Mr. Cox: My next... My next is, I sat here a couple Commissions ago, and told you that these fake numbers for salaries were going to come back and bite everybody. I sat here and said it. I said if this Manager is worth two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), by Lord, pay him, two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). If our Mayor is worth two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), then pay him two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Now, you know what? The roll down effect is exactly what he said. It started at, the unclassified. It starting out, your bosses. Well, I want to know, and I hope he could tell me, when is he going to get to the electrical line supervisor? Because, I am going to stand here before you and tell you, I don't want these fake numbers, I want my salary that I deserve, that I have worked hard for, for 23 years. Because, after the unclassified, and after they get their guaranteed, no red circling and no rollbacks, and my contract's out, they are coming after the people that I represent. Let there be no doubt in anybody's mind here, that they are coming after me. They said they won't touch Police, they won't touch Fire, but they are coming after me. And, that's over again, fake salaries. Because, they are going to come down to me, and I hope... That man is probably worth two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) because he's got to sit here and take my wrath and your wrath when he's wrong, OK. But, if that's what you are going to pay him, don't play the game that we are playing. Pay him that. 115 March 2, 1998 Vice Chairman Teele: Charlie, the Mayor also mentioned a buyout for early retirement. Would you comment on that? Mr. Cox: OK, I am going to get... Yes, I will. I am sorry, I am taking a little more than two minutes, here. You know, it amazes me that the Manager can sit here this morning and tell you that the unclassifieds have taken all the cuts. You know this City was here way before he was, and I was here way before he was too. And, the employees have been through a whole hell of a lot of cuts way before he got here, the employees that I represent and the other unions represent. Now, I want to go over some things that are in your package. Your numbers are here, and I can guarantee you they are not estimates in the millions or whatever, they are by the penny. And, anybody wants to question them, the numbers are right here. If you look at this report, it says provided from the Florida League of Cities. If you look at the report on your first page from the Florida League of Cities, it tells you what the top ten cities, populations are OK. And, the interesting number is, that they say that Miami is number two in population, and number three for the amount of employees we have. But, yet, I took and played agian with some real numbers. If you look then at Miami, you take the population, and you divide per 1,000 employees. We have nine point two one employees per 1,000. Now, Mr. Pedrosa got a lot of notoriety from Miami Beach. And, Miami Beach is now raved upon. And, Mr. Pedrosa has 16.67 employees per thousand, OK. And, if you look at the rest of these cities, Miami ranks the lowest of the amount of employees per thousand per residents. Then, what I did, now there is a mistake on your package, and hopefully it's been corrected. As I took out Police and Fire employees, out of this, and then gave you the same for every other employee. Now, this includes every Manager in this City, every Solid Waste person, every general employee. Every person that works in Police that is non -sworn, every person that works in Fire that is non -sworn. And, if you divide that by the number of residents, we have four point seven employees per resident to take care of everything else in this City. All the nonessential functions, as our Manager thinks we are. And, if you go down to Miami Beach, he had 11.2 nonessential employees per resident. Now, he is going to sit here and Commissioner Teele, you asked him about these numbers he was coming up with, where he is going to get it from and we are not going to affect services. Now, you tell me how services can't be cut when you don't have the employees to do the job, now. The same thing I have been saying for years. Now, I am going to go farther. I am going to address one department, and I would hope that by next week, I will have... I will have Parks Department done, Police Department done, all these other departments done. But, on your sheet that you have, let's take GSA (General Services Administration), which again, I can't see real well, but you are going to need to go back to your breakdowns in his pages of the... of his list. If you take the Department of General Service on my sheet, 1984-1985 we had ten employees; 1994-1995, we had 11; '97-'98 which is present, right now, we only have eight, which is a decrease of twenty-seven point three. Now, they have already told you that they are Xing out every vacant position for the savings in his plan. The next one I want to go to is a real dear department to me because that's where I used to work at, OK. And, this is the department which is the Department of General Services Building Maintenance. This is the department that's responsible for taking care of this whole City, maintaining the whole City. In 1984, we had 63 employees in that department. In 1994, we had 51. Now, in 1978 (sic), we have 28, which in fact is 27, because I am the union president and I don't go out there and do electrical line work anymore. And, if you go down this, just for an example. We have two line workers, when I started with this City, we had 11, OK. We have two electricians. We have one electrician supervisor, we have one line supervisor. We have one maintenance mechanic, three maintenance mechanic helpers. We have one material specialist. We have two painters for the whole City, OK. We have one painter supervisor. We have one pipe fitter for the City. We have one plumber. So, let's hope our toilets don't get backed up in the City. We have one sign painter. And, we have one air - conditioner man who spends a majority of his time down here to keep the air -conditioners going. Now, if you think we can't do it cheaper than the private, you need to have Procurement come up here and tell you, what the bids are, because they have them, and what it cost them every time 116 March 2, 1998 they bring in an outside contractor. And, then I'll be happy to share with you my salaries of everyone of these positions. Now, if you don't think this is ridiculous, with the cuts, and then you wonder why we can't maintain this City, there is something wrong. Let's go to the heavy equipment garage. You had 54 in '84-'85. You now have 36 that maintains all your garbage trucks, all these big trucks, all of the trucks that took care of when the tornado ripped through here cutting down the trees and clearing up the streets. But, you don't have the employees to man them anymore, OK. This is the good one. Department of General Services Administration the light fleet. We have in April '85 we had 53 people in that department. In '94-'95, we had 63. Now, in '97, we have 30. Now, in '97 we have 30. Now, I want to ask you, if you had 1,500 vehicles to maintain in '84 and '85, you know you didn't. And, now all of a sudden we have 1,500 vehicles to maintain with 21 mechanics. That equals out 75 cars per person. And, yet, we kicked this department to death. We sit here and say, that we could privatize it. That we can cut back. And, yet, instead of going out there, the Manager gave a praise to all these people that worked this weekend. Has anyone went out there and praised those guys, that..? These people kick their butts every day, in and out. And, nobody is out there saying, thanks guys, we know you are doing more with less. Instead, everything we read in the papers, we are going to cut 500 more positions. Or we are going to privatize GSA. Another good part of that department there... It's going to get everybody in trouble. I was going to save this for last. We have a Communications Division. We have exactly two technicians. Now, they are responsible for maintaining all these radios that everybody carries. They are maintaining for the life support of everybody in this City, and two people can do it. We had 24 in '84-'85. We now have nine people in that department. But, we haven't bled, we haven't given enough of our share. He is going to come back and tell you for us to give more, and to take away what we got. And, I am supposed to stand here and thank him for it, I don't think so. And, it goes on and on. Let me tell you about the Parks Department. Al Ruder is a guy that works around the clock, OK. And, he's got a lot of people in that department that work around the clock. And, you know what, this Manager came from a department in Parks on Miami Beach that is a great department. Why? Because, they have money to spend. We had our people leave here to go over there, and I have talked to them. I have seen some of the programs they put on. And, it isn't Al Ruder's fault. It isn't the people that work in the Parks Department fault. It's because we don't fund things in this City. And, then you ask us to take it. You ask us to take the wrath from the public. You ask us to save the City, and it's all you want to do is come back and cut us. There is something wrong with this picture. And, at some point in time, all of you are going to have to wake up and see it. Now, what you have got here, is no revenue enhancements, OK. And, let there be no doubt, when I stood here and good booed by the citizens and told you that we no longer are going to maintain the City... Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, you got me in a lot of trouble, too. You are on your own from now on when you say stuff like that. Mr. Cox: No problem. I have had it... I have had trouble all my life. It doesn't matter now. When I tell you that we can't maintain this City guys, contract's up in October, and if you think these numbers are bad now, you wait and watch what the numbers are going to be in October. And, when nothing gets done here, then I am going to come back and bring all my people with green T-shirts and let you know what they have been through. Now, there either needs to be some revenue raising or other ways to find money coming in this City, because you are not going to be able to maintain this City. You are not doing it now, and you are not going to be able to do it later. I got one question that I would like to ask the manager. There is a committee remember to make up, that he's got made up for job cuts that he wants us to be on. And, I would like to know who is going to be on that committee to, and if it's who I think it is, I have got a question for that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I have asked the heads of the two largest departments, the Police Chief and the Fire Chief to serve. Sue Weller, who is the Labor Relations Officer and Angela Bellamy 117 March 2, 1998 who is the Human Resources Director and Gwen Warren to... whose office, the Workforce Development to serve, and Dipak Parekh who is the Budget Director. Am I missing someone? Mr. Cox: Let me... Let me ask... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I also... While I have got the floor just Charlie, for one second. Mr. Cox: Oh, I am sorry, you are right. I am sorry. I am sorry. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You are absolutely right. I wasn't here when all that happened. But, I think Mr. Chairman, that I would be remissed without engaging any kind of rebuttal if I didn't to, I was told by my staff that while I wasn't here, we bought a lot more cars on longer warranties than we ever had before. And, we have also hired outside entities to do a lot of the work that used to be done in-house. Mr. Cox: If that's the best that his staff can come up with to counter what I have told you, you know what? I feel real good. I'll sleep real good tonight. Now, what I would like to ask is. Mr. Cox: If we have got a committee, if we have got a committee made up, why, that now Mr. Pedrosa is here that his two top people aren't on this committee? I mean... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, the Chair is Joe Pinon, I am sorry. But, the operating people are the ones that I laid out. Mr. Cox: OK, all right. But, I mean, I would think that his two top administrators... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, I have asked him to deal with you constantly. Mr. Cox: ... to please sit on these panels. I would think that would be proper. They can meet with me. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, no, no... What is... Mr. Cox: I mean, nobody has heard me in the last year. So... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Charlie, I didn't want to put you, or the other union chiefs in the position, which I think would be difficult for you of being full pledge members of the committee. What I have asked the committee to do, is to be constantly in touch with you, to consult you on every turn, to keep you advised. But, I felt, but I would be happy to have you serve on the committee. I didn't want to put you in that position because I didn't want to put you in a position of being on a committee that recommends personnel cuts. Mr. Cox: I did not ask to be on that committee. I asked that your two top people, serve on that committee. If they are going to look at it, because I know that you have asked Christina to call me and stay in touch with me. Well, I would rather hear from her, she on that committee that's first hand instead of getting everything second had. And, I would love to give you the number of the little shot you gave me on how many cars that are under lease, because you are going to be amazed, it ain't going to lower the number that much. Now, the other thing I would like to do now, is I would like to thank my staff my staff that worked all weekend long. Because, we had no idea which way this was going. Because, we didn't get it till one a.m. this morning. And, I would like to thank the employees that volunteered, because you know why? They are scared to death to lose their jobs. And, everything you read in this paper and his memo talk about job cuts, job cuts, job cuts. Well, as you can see, the unclassifieds are not... he can't get that many of them. And, when you look at the numbers of what this City is being run by, we have a whole less, a whole lot less employees than every City in this state. Thank you. 118 March 2, 1998 Chairman Hernandez: Thank you, Charlie. Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Two things. My understanding is, the Manager made the statement that this is a one time that he would like to do the reduction, this is it. At the same time, Mr. Manager, you are new in here, but, and most of us are fairly new too, but at one time, we used to have a Labor Management Committee that worked on the problems in the City and you would be surprised how many of the problems that were able to be resolved by having that type of input from the unions also. I think they are a great part of this and have done a lot of sacrifices. And, I think they should be involved in the process all the way. Chairman Hernandez: Tom. Mr. Tom Gabriel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any charts, sir, or pretty women to hand them out or anything. And, I would like to apologize to the Chairman, I don't have his fax number right, and I tried to fax over that letter that I sent over to the Oversight Board to everybody to be informed. And, Commissioner Plummer, I would like to mention that in that letter we specifically state, we haven't done anything, but that we would be forced if there was no revenue incentives coming forward and on the bottom line it says, "... if no other actions are forthcoming by the State Oversight Board to address that issue." So, I am just trying to touch on that, that... Commissioner Plummer: Just for the record, when the TV cameras descended upon me on 8th Street, it was, "Did you hear, the unions are asking for their money back." That was the only comment. I had not seen in your letter. Mr. Gabriel: And, we'll try to be a little bit more timely on some of those letters. Now, I would like to go down the list of a few things that are on page one of two of the Manager's revised, revised, revised budget to handle the five-year plan. Some of the comments that I have besides that it was a plan that seems to come up with a lot of good ideas. Some of them have been reharshed. But, I would just like to mention, on the pension plans, I want to reiterate a little bit of what Charlie said. This is a very dangerous take back, if you will, for the budget side to take between the two pension funds in the year of 1999, a total of nine point two million dollars ($9,200,000). And, as Charlie had mentioned, and I wouldn't go into a big map lesson, or anything. But, just on the FIPO (Fire Fighters' and Police Officers') side alone, we are a billion dollar fund. We are expected to make seven and three-quarters each year. That's seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000). If we do not make that, and let's just say for ease of numbers in my mind, a ten percent loss occurs. Ten percent loss is one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) that that board loses that day or that year. On top of that, the City assumes that they are going to make, or the pension board assumes that they are going to make seven and three-quarters, that's another seventy-five million. So, you are at one hundred and seventy-five, and because of the COLA (Cost of Living Allowances) and the Gates resettlement, at that point, a three million dollar ($3,000,000) straight out cash to the City goes to the pension board. That's a bad year, and that's possible. Everybody agrees, that's possible. And, so, what I would suggest even though these are good numbers for next year, and we know that, that in the outer years you somehow take a average of these and try to put some of that money in reserves because nothing is worse than having your budget set per year, have a bad year on the stock market and now both pension boards around twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) total. So, that's just a word of caution. Obviously, the Manager and 99, that's a legitimate take but in the year 2000, 2001, you may want to review those. The pension administrative costs, I agree with the Manager, it shows here that they are giving the million back, and I would caution, as Charlie did, of taking that money away. Not only are you making nine point two million dollars ($9,200,000) in savings for that 99, but you are also heard under other alternatives that the City wants to go back in court and make it nothing and take another ten million dollars ($10,000,00). 119 March 2, 1998 So, in reality you are looking for nineteen million dollars ($19,000,000) of savings. And, it really doesn't make a whole bunch of sense to take one million dollars ($1,000,000) out of there. And, right now, they currently are not. And, I hope that they do not, in the future. Another issue that I wanted to bring up was, the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) dollars that Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Teele had both talked about. And, I can say that in the Fire Department, I don't know what happened but, this year we were scheduled for five hundred thousand, next year, without the Manager's help we were down to zero. It went up to two hundred and fifty thousand. Those monies are being moved away again, and that is a big concern to us in the Fire service. Hopefully, we can get those things funded, and move on. Now, I want to say on an overall issue. Those are my only direct issues to that budget. Now, I haven't said what my problems were with those issues, I have to say that there is no way that, as far as the fire fighters are concerned that we can consider this in conformity, or in agreement with the concession agreement that this Commission, and I'll say this Commission as an entity, signed or agreed to, as part of the concession agreement. That agreement specifically spelled out fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) of revenues to be, to be generated. We can work the semantics and I know for a fact that, then City Manager Merritt Stierheim had the foresight and was instrumental in getting put in there a section on the concession agreement that's entitled "City Obligations." And, I won't read just part of it, I'll try to read the important part. "... in recognition of the IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters) cooperation in assisting the City of Miami to address its fiscal crisis, the City agrees to adopt necessary revenue enhancement measures and cost containment measures as set forth in the City Manager's fair share matrix." Dated October 7, 1996. It didn't matter that they said that they were temporary. It really doesn't matter what they said when it was issued. What matters is, you signed into a legal document that states that you would meet those revenue enhancements. And, what I have to say is, Merrett Stierheim put those in there to try to take some of the political pressure off of the Commission to be able to say, you are obligated to raise the revenues. And, it's unfortunate, and I understand, as I spoke the other day that there was a lot of political pressure the other day, but you have to understand, we have a contract, and so far, what we have heard... We don't know what's going to come of the end, maybe we will raise some revenue through the sanitation fee, maybe we won't, some other way. But, right now as it currently stands, the City is not meeting, as the proposed budget and I will put that to the Manager, at the proposed budget, does not meet that. We know, that we will see this somewhere else, and we can argue the semantics of what it says. But, at this point, unless there is revenue enhancements, which saves everybody in the long run. Because, in this whole process, we have been told to act like a business. And, everybody has told the unions, I have joined the Chamber of Commerce, I have gone to their meetings. I have gone to the State Oversight Board meetings. I have gone to the Blue Ribbon panels, the ones they would invite me to. And, I listened to all what they had to say. And, everything came to this. There is two ways to turn a business that's in trouble around. One of them, is to raise revenues. We haven't done that part. The other, is to cut expenses and we sure have done that. And, we are down to the bottom as far as cuts. So, if we want to do... be like a big business, we have done our part, it's time now for the City to do its part, and we ask that somehow you amend this budget to either raise the revenue for garbage fee or some other fee to meet your agreement. Thank you. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Gort. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I would like to request, I know we weren't enhance revenues, but at the same time, I think for the last year and a half we have made... taken some decisions where we had done some of that. I would like to get the total figures of that. Of revenue enhancements that we have done on reoccurring revenues. I would like to get that number. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Charles. 120 March 2, 1998 Mr. Norman Charles: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, other Honorable member of the City Commission. My name is Norman Charles, president of City Independent Group Union. My main concern here today, is not the money, because my colleagues have already discussed the money part of it. I have seen a paper this morning from the Manager which is saying to me, that sooner or later sanitation workers will go on a five-day work week. You are not speaking about ordinary people. You are speaking about people who work in the rain, in the sun, and throughout the hot summer. And, they only way I would categorize them, I would have to say that they have cleaned streets like Michelangelo carved marble. They have cleaned streets like Raphael painted pictures. They have cleaned streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry, and, Beethoven composed music. And, the only thanks that they have ever received was when Pope John Paul came here, he said, "Miami was the cleanest City in the world that he has ever seen." Mr. Manager, we do intend to keep it that way. But, I want you to understand two things. First, we are short of staff. Second, the 40 hours a week, I can't see how you are going to make that work. Because, the garbage man only figure one thing, the first catch and the last catch. And, he is going to finish Monday and Tuesday before completing eight hours whether you like it or not. My thing to you is, on Wednesday, yes you can work them eight hours. But, the question is, since they work an incentive program, when they finish on Monday at one o'clock; or on Tuesday at 12 o'clock; or on Thursday at 11:30; or on Friday at 11 o'clock. Do they still have that right under the incentive plan to go home? Because, if they are not, this is a disagreement between the City government and the former union that was here. They work on incentive plan. Forty hours, yes, I agree with you, you can work them 40 hours. But, my thing and my question to you, Mr. Manager, is when they complete Monday, Tuesday... When they complete Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday route, Wednesday, I know you are going to work them eight hours. I have no control over that. Because you can work them for 40 hours. My question to you is, since they work an incentive program, whatever time they finish on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, do they have that right to go home? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: May I, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Hernandez: Yes, please. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Charles, I will be very honest with you. As a philosophical, not to speak of a financial matter, I would hope that we would get away as soon as possible from the notion that we pay people for eight hours without having them work eight hours. Having said that, I thought this matter was discussed between you and Mr. Pinon and the reason that I stated to the Commission as I have stated and I just turned around and asked them is, that I thought that there had been an agreement between the two of you to, you say, extend. Without quarrelling semantically, to make sure that if we pay an employee for eight hours, we are entitled to ask that employee to work eight hours. And, I am not embarrassed to say that. I think that's the right thing to do, but I thought that's what you and, Mr. Pinon had agree to also. Mr. Charles: I did spoke with, Mr. Pinon, and I did agree with Mr. Pinon on certain subjects and certain matters. The thing that I am trying to say to you is that a sanitation worker is not your average worker. These people jump fence, they run behind the trucks, they doesn't park for breaks or whatever. They have only one thing in the back of the head, the first and the last catch and that is the end of the day. I know that you are guaranteeing them to work them for 40 hours. I don't have a problem with you working them on Wednesday. The only question that I am asking you, what happens on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, when they finish that section? Do you send them back to another section? This is all I want to know, so I can get it real clear and clarified, because I have got to take it back to them. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me do it this way, Mr. Charles, if I might. Because, I don't want us to be in a position on this issue to become unneccesarily adversarial. May we have the opportunity, myself included. I have never discussed this with you, you and Joe Pinon and I to confer on this 121 March 2, 1998 later after the meeting and see if we cannot agree? I think that will be a better solution, particularly since we are not building into this budget, which is what we are really all about, any additional revenues from that. So, if you will give me that opportunity, I would appreciate it very much. Mr. Charles: You can consider it granted. Thanks a lot. Chairman Hernandez: Thank you, Mr. Charles. Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, good evening Commissioners and the new City Manager. And, basically, I am addressing to the citizens, because I am one of them. We are the citizens of Miami inside the Bermuda triangle from what I have seen here. I see my board of directors discussing with the fire fighters, with the police with all kinds of unions, and the citizens are left hanging. Why? For many reasons. And, I cannot blame anyone of you people, or distinguished and Honorable Commissioners, except my baby, Mr. Plummer. Because, these goes from way, way back. It's a pattern of conduct that has been used and I said it here many times, and I was the crazy one. I have always said that I might be crazy, but that I am not dumb. And, now I would like to ask the new City Manager which I have a great respect for him. I think he is a man for all seasons, he can be City Manager, City Attorney and State Attorney also. And, now I would like to have one question that I would have loved to have included... I would like Mr. Manager, if possible, to give me a list of "botelleros" from Cesar's empire, because according to the City Charter, only the employees are supposed to be hired according to merit and fitness. And, maybe the old administration thought that it was physical fitness and political merit, anti - Castro. We are in the United States of America and I would like a list of all those "botelleros." And, regarding all these numbers that we have been hearing here, I look up in the dictionary what does budget... budgets mean. Is the art practiced by bureaucratic magicians. That's the definition of budgeting. And, also, another... I found another definition of a budget, that said that any fool, any fool, and I am not saying that you are a fool. Some of these people are. But, anyway, any fool including me, can draw up a balanced budget on paper. But, one thing is a long distance between a paper and reality. Don't fool yourself. Don't fool the citizens, and no more pocket items to your pockets, please. To our pockets, the citizens pockets. Chairman Hernandez: Thank you, very much. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Boom -Boom, you are consistent. You were crazy then, and you are crazy now. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, is there any further presentation by your staff or you? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. Only to remind you that you do have a proposed resolution in your pocket. Chairman Hernandez: OK. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, if you are asking me to vote on the resolution, I am going to ask you, sir, as I look through these documents. I see none of these documents marked as "Attachment A." Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You are right, sir. We thought we would save a little paper on "Attachment A." Is the... Commissioner Plummer: Well, I want to know which one of these... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. 122 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: ... volume of papers you have given is what I am voting on, is "Attachment A." Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And, I need to amend that in light of the questions asked at this morning's meetings, and the answers that I gave you now in writing. "Attachment A" would be, if you will permit me. Page one of two, page two of two. Commissioner Plummer: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The attached schedule which are as follows: The Solid Waste Fees Schedule; the three million dollar ($3,000,000) adjustment to capital projects for FY-98 schedule; the pending savings and other details line item by line item budget reductions and the Professional Fee schedule. In addition, I would ask with your permission, Mr. Chairman... Commissioner Plummer: Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: ... to add the paper that I circulated to you after the lunch break, to the extent that it contains amendments in response to your comments and questions. And, that is a two -page document called "Budget Inquiries." Actually, a three -page document called "Budget Inquiries." So, the resolution... Commissioner Plummer: I don't have that. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: This is what we handed out at lunch time. The resolution would have that as composite Exhibit A. Commissioner Plummer: What about the document that you gave us called "Recurring Revenues and Expenses." This document, is that part of "A" or not? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. That's a restatement of the same information that's available elsewhere. And, of course, you understand... And, I know you understand, because you made the point this morning. We still have to come back to you by ordinance to achieve that which you would authorize and instruct us to do today. Commissioner Plummer: For the record, I am showing "Attachment A" as a total of ten pages. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That would be correct, sir. Commissioner Plummer: And, I would appreciate, so that the record is clear, that you will provide to us, each one of us, just a document that is "Attachment A" and to the Clerk, so we will all know what ouija board we are working on. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We will do so, sir. Chairman Hernandez: There is a resolution, the resolution that's attached to your package. Correct, Mr. Manager? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. As amended. If you will, with the "Attachment A" that Commissioner Plummer has described. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Vice... Mr. Chairman, if nobody has got any further questions... Chairman Hernandez: No further discussion by the Commission. 123 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: Then, sir. I, with pleasure move the resolution. I so move. [AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONER PLUMMER READ THE RESOLUTION INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.] Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Hernandez: There is a motion on the floor by Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Any further discussion by the Commission? Commissioner Plummer: Are you calling the roll? Chairman Hernandez: Yes, I am. Any further discussion from the Manager? City Attorney? Roll call. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-226 A RESOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING AND ADOPTING CERTAIN "BUDGET SOLUTIONS." AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN THE TEN (10) PAGE COMPOSITE EXHIBIT, "ATTACHMENT A," ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 TO REFLECT SAID "BUDGET SOLUTIONS"; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DEVELOP AND EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVE INITIATIVES SET FORTH ON "ATTACHMENT A" AND TO RENDER A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THEREON. (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 Wifredo Gort Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Chairman Humberto Hernandez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Chairman, I said all along, I was criticized all along when I continued to say that there were other alternatives besides a fire fee. Today, I think is the vindication that we have found other alternatives other than a fire fee. I am very pleased and compliment all people involved in bringing about this as we have it here today. And, my answer is, I vote "yes." 124 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Gort: One of the things we talked in the past is, and I would like to see during your research and look at the budget and to look at other revenue enhancements that I think we have committed to do so. And,, I think one of the reasons that I have asked you to give me what we have done so far, because I wanted to see in reoccurring revenue what we have agreed to. And I think we should look at the possibility of looking at other revenue enhancements. And, at the same time, I have been stating, I have been told by you there would be no diminishing in City services and maintenance. Although, you are taking some of the capital improvement away, there is still sufficient funding for the maintenance of the service vehicles that we need to support our staff. For those reasons, I vote "yes." Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Commissioner Gort, at this point. I am deeply concerned about the issues that the unions have raised the terms of the memorandum of understanding. I was not here, but, I am not certain that the union does not have a colorable claim. I certainly think that if we ask the union to give up, as they say, almost twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), or more, of benefits to get... or salary and benefits to get through FY '97, and we made an agreement in ninety-eight... to do certain things in '97 and in the future. We should honor them. I firmly believe that the future of Miami to be a major City. That is, to be a population of 500,000, is imperiled by the decision we are taking today. This City needs to provide property relief. We need to lower property taxes to the people who live in Miami. The action today, ensures that the property taxes will remain high, and it hurts old people more than anyone. The decision that we are taking today, is a decision really to raise taxes or to raise fees based upon what has been said. Mr. Manger, again, I would ask that you would take whatever steps you can to ensure that people in housing apartments know that the action that this Commission took the other day, or did not take, did not increase property apartment rentals. Because, people are already beginning to raise rentals based upon what the City Commission did. I wish that we had another solution. I particularly wish we had a solution for property owners, single family home owners. Because, Commissioners, you don't have to like it, but it's the fact. People who live in single family homes in the City of Miami are the people that we are putting this burden on by not reducing the Solid Waste fee. It is people who live in single family homes. Having said that, most scholars agree that Rome did not fall. It was not the barbarians that destroyed Rome. Rome was eroded from within: the senators, the emperors, modern-day version of Mayors or Managers. Commissioner Plummer: Boy, are you in trouble. Vice Chairman Teele: This is what happened to Rome. Rome was a great City. Miami is a great City. The action we are taking today is eroding the ability of this City to provide services and to manage its workforce. I only hope that as we move forward we can find ways to prevent the fall of a great City. And it is in that spirit, holding my nose, I vote "yes." Commissioner Regalado: Well, I just want to make a comment regarding what has been said here. You know, we had a choice, whether to spread the pain throughout the City of Miami, the population, the people in the apartment buildings, condominiums. And, yes, even those in residences, because those are the people that have little businesses in the City of Miami, or to look within ourselves, and spread the pain within the City. The problem that we were facing, is that throughout the years, members of this Commission, you all know this. Every time that there was a bond issue on the ballot, you will hear, see and read elected officials and especially from the administration, be it from the County or the City or the state telling the people of Miami and the State of Florida of the County, that if those bonds were not approved, there is not going to be any more 911. No more police. And, you know, this made the people skeptical. And, there was no way that we could tell the people of Miami that they have to suffer for a while to build a great City. So, I am very happy that we defeated the fire fee. I am very happy that we looked for alternatives. Yes, we might not fix one street next month, but we did not inflict pain on the 125 March 2, 1998 people of Miami. And, Miami is not going to fall. Miami has a tremendous potential. These are the people sitting here and watching us on TV that saved the City of Miami. And, the employees, the administration, and the citizens. I am sure that we all are going to work together for a better City. This is why I very happily vote "yes" for this project. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, thank you for a job well done. I vote "yes." COMMENTS MADE AFTER ROLL CALL: Commissioner Plummer: Just a question, if I may? Mr. Manager, give us an opinion. I am sure that when you put this together, you did it with the fact that you felt that it would be acceptable to the Oversight Board. The next question happens to be, when will we know for sure? Commissioner Gort: Tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Commissioner Plummer, the Oversight Board meets in the morning. The estimating conference of the Oversight Board meets in the afternoon. I can tell you that repeatedly, members of the Oversight Board made it clear to me that the decisions a to whether to have a fire fee or a Solid Waste fee or what... are decisions for this body to make, and that that's not their focus. What they want... Commissioner Plummer: Well, excuse me. I am saying, I don't mean to interrect.. interject here, except for the fact, that they kept saying, reoccurring revenue, also. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Absolutely. Commissioner Plummer: And, enhanced revenues. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Absolutely. Commissioner Plummer: So, I think that's where my area of concern is. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I think, Mr. Chairman, that if... Commissioner Plummer, that if the... once we make the presentation as we will make it tomorrow, if the board and the estimating conference are in agreement, as I am certain they will be, that we have met all of the tenants of the five-year plan and of the intergovernmental corporation agreement. Each year stands on its own. There is no deficit in any year. And, in each year, the reoccurring revenues are equal to, or greater than the reoccurring expenditures. I think that we will know as soon as that determination is made by them that we are back in their views, in compliance and ready to move forward, and... If I may add, just one thought. I think this is going to put us, your action here this evening, is going to put us in a stronger position than we were a week ago, because as I have also discussed with the Oversight Board, some individual members of the Oversight Board, and with the rating agencies. If the City is able to resolve this problem,. I think the view is going to be that the City is able to resolve any problem. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manger, you had indicated to this Commission prior to the downfall of the fire fee, that there were going to be a number of amendments to the plan of the five-year plan, in March. Are there still other amendments that you anticipate to that five-year plan besides what we have done here today to supplement the non -income of the fire fee? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. We do not propose to come back to you later on this month. It is possible that later on in the year, because the budget is obviously a living thing, that there may be some additional adjustments and reconciliations. 126 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: Hell? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, no. We need to implement things. For example, the Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations. We want... we will ask you to authorize the expenditure of a portion of the FEC (Florida East Coast) proceeds to implement them. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: But, that's always been the plan. Commissioner Plummer: I merely asked, are there other... as you indicated before, amendments to take back to the Oversight Board in March, is what your terminology was, besides what we have done here, today? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. REFER PROBLEM BETWEEN S.W. 8 STREET MERCHANTS AND KIWANIS OF LITTLE HAVANA REGARDING CARNAVAL CALLE OCHO THROUGH LITTLE HAVANA SPECIAL EVENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Just a very brief comment to the administration. This doesn't regard the fire fee or the five-year plan. But, it has to do with something that is going on right now, and the administration needs to take action. We have Carnaval Calle Ocho, and it seems that we are having problems between the merchants in Southwest 8th Street and the Kiwanis. What is happening is, is that the Kiwanis are not letting merchants sell their merchandise or use their parking lot. They have resolved one situation with a particular vendor, but, we are having a lot of complaints. I am having a lot of complaints from merchants who are having difficulty in getting through the Kiwanis. I could tell you, that I have a lot of ideas in terms of next year, but this is this Sunday, and I urge you to get in touch with the people organizing that, and have them get in touch with the committee that we appointed here, presided by Mr. Luis Sabines, because they need to know the needs of the merchants and these are the people that are supporting the City of Miami 364 days a year, and we have one year (sic) for Carnaval Calle Ocho. So, I wish that the administration will move swiftly on this issue and get in touch with the Kiwanis. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Plummer: I... Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I would like to add a little bit to this, because, I myself, I am one of the Kiwanis. And, let me tell you, we walk 8th Street, we go door to door, we talk to each merchant. We send them a copy of the things that they can do, and the resolution and they are welcome to have the booths in front of the stores, and they can have it, and so on. Commissioner Regalado: Commissioner, it wasn't done this year. 127 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Gort: It's done every year. Commissioner Regalado: I can bring to... I will give you, your office, and you know, you have done tremendous work with the Kiwanis. But, it's just that we had had several situations this past weekend, and I will tell you that we have several situations now with some of the merchants. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, the only reason the committee has not been able to get together is because staff has not called a meeting. My understanding is, in talking to the members of the committee, one of the closing of the streets, that they didn't have any problem with it, was out in 8th Street, and the Kiwanis event. And, that's my understanding from talking to the people in the committee. Commissioner Regalado: Well... Commissioner Plummer: I don't recall this City Commission officially closing the street for the 8K race. Commissioner Regalado: No, it did not, and I think we should. Commissioner Plummer: Well, they cannot close the street without Commission approval. Commissioner Regalado: Twice. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but for this year, I am talking about. Commissioner Regalado: This year, it's going to be closed twice. Commissioner Plummer: Well, look, nobody wants to put Calle Ocho and the Kiwanis out of business. Commissioner Regalado: Nobody. Commissioner Plummer: But cooperation is a two-way street. And, I am saying is, that the merchants have to depend on their salaries and their monies, maybe the race should have been on Sunday when it wouldn't have affected the merchants like it did on a Saturday afternoon or evening. There are many avenues. We have shown that in the Coconut Grove Festival Committee. We are establishing one in the Downtown area. So, maybe a compromise is the area that they need to talk about. END OF DISCUSSION -- NO ACTION TAKEN 128 March 2, 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE ANNOUNCES THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE WILL MEET IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM WHILE THE ZONING BOARD MEETING WILL CONVENE IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Oversight meeting which was scheduled for three o'clock today, will be held immediately following this meeting in the COW (Committee of the Whole) room. The Zoning Board has this room and these people are here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. DIRECT COMPTROLLER TO MAKE PRESENTATION ON CITY'S FINANCIAL CONDITION WITH INPUT FROM CITY ATTORNEY AND BUDGET OFFICE. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I don't want the Manager, please, to lose sight. There was never a satisfactory response relating to the Comptroller and the Finance. I certainly want to be very clear on the record about the Budget Office and the Finance Office. One of the fundamental shortcomings that this City faced was a failure to separate and maintain a check and balance between the Finance function and the Budget function. Those functions are normally separate. I realize that for some reason, budget reason purportedly, apparently those functions were placed under the same office, and therefore, we got into the issues, that I believe led rise to a number of other factors. Mr. Manager, I would respectfully as that the Finance Department be empowered to be able to make presentations on the financial condition of the City based upon the accruals and the expenditures as we go. For projections, for historical... I expect the Budget Office to similarly be able to function. But, it is my hope that we will have a Comptroller's Office, and a Finance Office that can function the way any other corporate Finance Office can function. That bills and payables are booked through that office, and they are concurred with by the Budget Office and the Legal Office, and all of the others. But, the driving force in a corporation such as ours should be the Finance, the Comptroller's Office. And, to date, even though I requested it earlier, there was no response coming forth. The Finance Director did come up and made some statements in terms of looking for the historical, which would be helpful. But, I think it's very important, Mr. Manager, if you agree, that we really look at the role of the Budget Office and we get the Budget Office out of Finance, and we get the Finance Office out of Budget. And, let the Budget Office be a Budget Office, and the Finance Office or the Comptroller's Office be a Finance Office. I think it's very important to the health and well being of this City in the future. END OF DISCUSSION -- NO ACTION TAKEN 129 March 2, 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. DISCUSS / DEFER TO SCHEDULED MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1998 REVIEW OF AMENDED RESOLUTION RELATED TO CITY MANAGER'S BENEFITS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Hernandez: Any further discussion from the Commission? Commissioner Plummer: The only discussion, I invite the Manager and Art Teele to have dinner with me at Maria's Greek Restaurant... Mr. Joel E. Maxwell, Esq. (Interim City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Plummer: ... as long as Tomas pays the bill. Commissioner Regalado: He always invites. Never pays. Chairman Hernandez: This meeting is... Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: We were instructed... I was instructed to come back to you with a resolution regarding the Manager's and the Commission's... Chairman Hernandez: We are going to take that up on Tuesday. Mr. Maxwell: Well, if you do, you force the Mayor into a veto position. I don't know if you want to do that. Commissioner Regalado: Do you want to take it now? Commissioner Plummer: Sir, you can't take this up at a later time? Mr. Maxwell: No. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Chairman Hernandez: We have decided to forego on the issue until the next Commission meeting on Tuesday. If the Mayor decides to veto it, then, sobeit. And, we will deal with it next time. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Chairman Hernandez: OK? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. 130 March 2, 1998 Commissioner Plummer: You can't defer. Chairman Hernandez: We are not deferring. We are not deferring. END OF DISCUSSION -- NO ACTION TAKEN THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. ATTEST: Walter Foeman CITY CLERK Maria J. Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK COMMISSIONER HUMBERTO HERNANDEZ PRESIDING OFFICER/CHAIRMAN 131 March 2, 1998