Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1997-04-14 MinutesOF MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14, 1997 (Regul-ar} PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK c I TY HALL WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April 14, 1997 ITEM SUBJECT NO. 1. (A) CITY MANAGER EXPLAINS PROPOSED EXPENDITURE CUTS AND ADDITIONS TO FIVE YEAR - PLAN. (B) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY / UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI / JAMES L. KNIGHT CENTER FOR MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT. (C) COMMENTS REGARDING UNFUNDED LIABILITIES / CLAIMS FILED AGAINST SELF- INSURANCE TRUST FUND. j (D) DISCUSS PROPOSED FIRE FEE REIMBURSEMENT TO CONDO OWNERS -- DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC WITH PROPER INFORMATION RELATED TO FIRE FEE DEVELOPMENT & ASSESSMENT APPLICATION -- STRESS NEED TO WORK WITH PRIVATE SECTOR TO DEVELOP IDEAS FOR RECURRING REVENUES -- EXPLAIN APPLICABILITY OF FIRE FEE TO NON- PROFIT GROUPS -- DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH 1969 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY PROHIBITING COLLECTIONS/ASSESSMENTS ON PUBLIC HOUSING, (E) RESEARCH CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ASSESSMENT FEE -- DISCUSS ESTIMATED COST TO IMPLEMENT/ADMINISTER COLLECTIONS PROGRAM. (F) DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE IDEAS TO FIRE FEE -- PLEA TO PROPERTY OWNERS NOT TO RAISE RENT UNTIL NEXT YEAR -- STRESS NEED FOR AGGRESSIVE PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN -- FURTHER COLLABORATE WITH PRIVATE SECTOR TO FIND RECURRING REVENUES. (G) DISCUSS AREAS OF COMPROMISE / LETTER INVOLVING DEPARTMENTAL REDUCTIONS, (H) RESTRUCTURE OFF-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT CONTRACT TO BRING RECURRING REVENUES. (1) DISCUSS OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO REDUCE FIRE FEE -- SEE LABEL 2A. (J) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO RESEARCH "BUSINESS PLEASURE" CONCEPT. (K) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES IN PROCUREMENT BID PROCESS. (L) AGREE TO RECONVENE AT 5 P.M. -- BRIEFLY DISCUSS LETTER FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE OF DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS, LEGISLATION PAGE NO. DISCUSSION 2-38 4/14/97 2. (A) OVERVIEW BY CITY MANAGER -- PRESENT R 97-297 39-70 CONTINUATION OF ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS. 4/14/97 A DISCUSS IMPACT OF PROPOSED REDUCTIONS ON DIFFERENT CLASSES OF PROPERTIES -- (1) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER CHARGING FOR RESCUE SERVICES TO NON RESIDENTS & RESIDENTS WITH INSURANCE -- (2) EXCLUDE CHARGING CITIZENS FOR FALSE ALARMS CAUSED BY ACTS OF GOD --(3) CONTINUE TO SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES TO FIRE FEE -- REDUCE FEE BY SIX MILLION DOLLARS, (C) DISCUSS ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING PERMITS. (D) DISCUSS REDUCTION OF MULTI FAMILY FEE V.S, SINGLE FAMILY. (E) CLARIFY NUMBERS PROPOSED IN MODIFIED PLAN -- REALIZED SAVINGS GO TO PAY FOR GARBAGE FEE -- DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE PRIORITY TO SOLID WASTE WORKERS WHEN PRIVATIZING IF THEY MATCH BEST PRIVATE SECTOR OFFER. (F) PUBLIC INPUT -- DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIONS / PRIVATE SECTOR TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR RECURRING REVENUES -- FURTHER DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO INFORM PUBLIC OF ASSESSMENT FEES. (G) CLARIFY PROPOSED SEVERANCE PAY & INSURANCE POLICY FOR EXECUTIVES UPON SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT -- FURTHER, DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT ON MONIES COLLECTED BY MARINE PATROL PROGRAM. (H) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT ON STATUS OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY FUND ESTABLISHED TO COPE WITH IMPACT OF WELFARE REFORM. (1) DISCUSS DISCONTENT OF SOLID WASTE EMPLOYEES. W) APPROVE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR PLAN AS MODIFIED. (K) DESIGNATE DEPARTMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY COMMISSIONERS. 3, (A) SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS R 97-298 70-72 POTTINGER V.S. CITY FOR MAY 8, 1997 AT 8:3o A.M. -- 4/14/97 BEGIN REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:30 A.M. (B) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CITY FENCING MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 14th day of April, 1997, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 9:19 a.m. by Mayor Joe Carollo with the following members of the Commission found to be present: ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Joe Carollo Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Humberto Hernandez Edward Marquez, City Manager A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mayor Carollo who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1 April 14, 1997 ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. (A) CITY MANAGER EXPLAINS PROPOSED EXPENDITURE CUTS AND ADDITIONS TO FIVE YEAR -PLAN. (B) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY / UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI / JAMES L. KNIGHT CENTER FOR MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT. (C) COMMENTS REGARDING UNFUNDED LIABILITIES / CLAIMS FILED AGAINST SELF-INSURANCE TRUST FUND. (D) DISCUSS PROPOSED FIRE FEE REIMBURSEMENT TO CONDO OWNERS -- DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC WITH PROPER INFORMATION RELATED TO FIRE FEE DEVELOPMENT & ASSESSMENT APPLICATION -- STRESS NEED TO WORK WITH PRIVATE SECTOR TO DEVELOP IDEAS FOR RECURRING REVENUES -- EXPLAIN APPLICABILITY OF FIRE FEE TO NON- PROFIT GROUPS -- DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH 1969 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY PROHIBITING COLLECTIONS/ASSESSMENTS ON PUBLIC HOUSING. (E) RESEARCH CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ASSESSMENT FEE -- DISCUSS ESTIMATED COST TO IMPLEMENT / ADMINISTER COLLECTIONS PROGRAM. (F) DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE IDEAS TO FIRE FEE -- PLEA TO PROPERTY OWNERS NOT TO RAISE RENT UNTIL NEXT YEAR -- STRESS NEED FOR AGGRESSIVE PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN -- FURTHER COLLABORATE WITH PRIVATE SECTOR TO FIND RECURRING REVENUES. (G) DISCUSS AREAS OF COMPROMISE / LETTER INVOLVING DEPARTMENTAL REDUCTIONS. (H) RESTRUCTURE OFF-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT CONTRACT TO BRING RECURRING REVENUES. (I) DISCUSS OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO REDUCE FIRE FEE -- SEE LABEL 2A. (J) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO RESEARCH "BUSINESS PLEASURE" CONCEPT. (K) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES IN PROCUREMENT BID PROCESS. (L) AGREE TO RECONVENE AT 5 P.M. -- BRIEFLY DISCUSS LETTER FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE OF DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, whenever you're ready, if you would like to proceed with some of the additional suggestions that you have for the Commission. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Good morning, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. Before you, you have two packets of information. First of all, in response to Commissioner Plummer's request for a breakdown of expenditure cuts that will equal the net difference between the proposed special assessment fee and the solid waste fee, totalling twelve point eight nine five million dollars. There's a listing of those items there. The second package of information that you have is what we call the additions to the five-year plan. There's a section here dealing with fiscal year 1999 and beyond. As you would note, on page 103 and 104... 2 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Gort: What's that envelope? Commissioner Plummer: I got it this morning, here at City Hall. Mr. Marquez: As you will note that on pages 103 and 104 of the financial plan, itself, the City is... continues showing deficits out in the out years. Now the reason why we're comfortable with that presentation is that it was our understanding during the process here that we were to balance out 1997 with 60 percent of recurring revenues, balance out 1998 with 100 percent recent of recurring revenues, and then as we roll into each and every year, the balancing out of that year's revenues and expenses by 100 percent would be done for that year and the year following. However, the Oversight Board is going to want to know... We need to explain this a little hit further, because the contract language, you can read it differently, that we had to balance all five years. And that was clearly not the intent on the City, because it would be very difficult for a City to balance out five years worth of revenues at a point in time today, especially since so many things need to occur and will occur over the upcoming year. So we left out a... In fact, the entire plan is geared towards talking about things that we will do to enhance our operations, to lower our cost, to bring in more revenues. If all else fails, you know, there are things that we can do in 1998 for fiscal 1999 to extend the shortfalls, should they exist at that point in time. But the main thrust of the plan is to maximize the return on our assets, both physical assets, such as our land holdings, and our employee assets. There's a section here... The next section deals with unfunded liabilities. There are substantial self-insurance claims out there, to the tune of about seventy-seven million dollars ($77,000,000). The plan talks in terms of how we're going to create a reserve to cushion ourselves for any time in any given year, should self-insurance claims exceed what is budgeted. We also talk in terms of the GESE (General Employees and Sanitation Employees) Pension Plan and the Gates case, because the members of the Financial Oversight Board, who are of a private sector in nature don't understand that governments fund these things on a recurrent basis. So this memo is purely for clarification purposes. On the section dealing with privatization on a rational basis, this is clarifying a couple of things. First of all, clarifying the fact that we did have other letters besides Lockheed Martin, and I've thrown in the other letters in the package from other people that are interested in working with the City for either sale, lease, or entering into a management agreement regarding with the Off -Street Parking. I'm also clarifying in here that this will he done in a competitive process, and we're suggesting that it be done in conjunction with the Off -Street Parking, with the Department of Off -Street Parking. Also, we listed here the... We're going to investigate either the sale or lease of the Miami Convention... James L. Knight Center as a package item with other properties, because there is a substantial debt service amount that's associated with that. We have our utility taxes that pays debt service to the tune of about four and a half million dollars, if I remember the number correctly. If we can get that property onto our tax rolls in one form or fashion, we can alleviate ourselves of that debt service payment going forward. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, if I may ask a question. The reason we're paying that four and a half million in subsidy a year is simply because the University of Miami did not live up to their commitment at such time as the original concept was put together. They gave three and a half million dollars to be included in the James L. Knight Center with a proviso that they would, on an ongoing basis, annually, have approximately 100,000 professional people in that facility for continuing education. Now, my question is, at this date, they have never, ever done what they were supposed to do. Can this City sue them for not providing what they said that they would do? In other words, that facet would have, in fact, produced room rates, which we... room occupancy, which never exceeded the twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). It would have been for the banquet facilities, the food facilities, the Knight Center, which was not used. And I'm just questioning where they made a promise, and the financial projections of this City to build that facility were predicated on that continuing education of professionals, does this City have any leg to stand on to pursue either legally or otherwise? 3 April 14, 1997 A. Quinn .Jones, 1I1, Esq. (City Attorney): Commissioner Plummer, I'd have to look at the agreement to determine whether, in fact, those were material provisions in the contract, and only then could I tell you what the remedies might be. Commissioner Plummer: I would ask that you do such. Mayor Carollo: For the record, the deficit that we're carrying there is three and a million, not tour and a half million. Commissioner Plummer: Well, it does, in fact, vary, Joe, because part of the hotel, as we know, we just renegotiated with them where they're pumping nine million dollars ($9,000,000) in. After Andrew, there were two floors that they were not even occupying because or damage. And so to renegotiate the nine million dollars ($9,000,000) so that they could start getting a source of revenue back in, we lowered the 20 mill cap when our percentage kicks in. So the percentage of the subsidy is greatly dependent upon the hotel room rates, the beverage, and all of the other activities there. Mayor Carollo: But still, it's presently three and a half million in those projections. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, well, this year, it might be, yeah. It's run as high as five. Mr. Marquez: Those were the items of new information for the Commission. Commissioner Plummer: The only other question I have is when you speak of the unfunded liability, to be more clear, that liability is not anything other than claims that have been filed. It does not in any way mean that these are pay -outs that will occur. Mr. Marquez: They are the actuarily determined guesstimate of what those pay -outs will ultimately cost us. Commissioner Plummer: I'm not talking about the pension, or the GESE, or the Gates. We know what the Gates is. That's definite. But in reference to claims filed against the self- insurance program, those are nothing more than claims that have been put in that somebody's asking for eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000), when he knows he's going to get, at best, twenty-five thousand. Am I correct in that? Mr. Jones: Commissioner, what this figure represents... and you have to correct me if I'm wrong. I think it includes both. Does this include both workers' comp. and tort liability? Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Jones: OK. If the City had to write a check today for all outstanding claims, be they workers' comp. claims or tort liability claims, this would be, in our best guesstimation, the worst case scenario, what we would have to pay out. Certainly, this goes hand in hand - what the Manager has explained - later on, in terms of having adequate reserves to fund this on a yearly basis. But that would include all outstanding liability and workers' comp. claims as of this date. Commissioner Plummer: But it's demands, not necessarily reality. Mr. Marquez: No. It is what we figure that the pay -out will be versus the demands. Commissioner Plummer: OK. I have some documentation from two years ago - I'll show you - that makes a different scenario than what you're drawing. 4 April 14, 1997 I Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, before we proceed, I'd like to have something clarified for the public here and at home. The fact that we have to make a very difficult decision today does not mean that we cannot, between now and any time before any mailings would go out in January, not come back and meet, if we find new recurring revenue, or areas where we could actually cut without hurting the function of the City. It does not mean that if we approve this in any concept that the Commission so goes with, that we cannot meet at some point before January of next year to reconsider adding or reducing any items. Am I correct on that? Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir, you are. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, the ICA between the City and the State allows for amendments to plans. But I've got to say, for the record, once we're adopting a plan, we're saying that we're committed to this plan. However, it's not written in stone. We can go ahead and offer amendments to it. However, those amendments must be approved by the Oversight Board in the future. Mayor Carollo: I just want to get that into the record, that this Commission can always come back, if we find the recurring revenues, and make adjustments. Commissioner Plummer: Can I ask for a clarification? Mr. Manager, one of the most pressing questions that I have, you've given me the answer, but I'd like for you to put it on the record. The question comes in the fire fee, in reference to the condo owners are going to be getting money back when they paid no money. In other words, you're going to be writing them a check - I assume a check - for a hundred and sixty-six dollars ($166), when they never paid the City any amount of money for garbage. So the question continuously asked of me is, "Why are they getting something when we got nothing?" Would you put it on your record... your answer on the record, please. Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. The concept behind either a voucher -or a credit to the condo owners is simply to make those individuals on an equal... to put those individuals on the same footing as the single-family homeowners who are now going to receive a solid waste service then... who are not going to be paying for those services. Commissioner Plummer: It makes no sense to me, but... Mr. Marquez: Well, it's... basically, we're putting them on an equal footing with the single- family homeowners who are going to he receiving the garbage fee service in 1998, and who are not going to he charged for it. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, I hear your answer. I thank you for putting it on the record. I disagree with it, but people are asking, and I couldn't answer it. So thank you for putting it on the record. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner, go ahead. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Manager, I have a... Based on that answer, how do we justify giving a credit or a waiver to condominium unit owners versus apartment unit owners, or apartment unit tenants, which are basically in the same footing as a tenant in a condominium unit? I would assume there's more calls to a condominium. Mr. Marquez: The differential is... The differences between the two classes is the owners of a multi -family unit is... it's a money making... it's a business. Commissioner Hernandez: What if... April 14, 1997 Mr. Marquez: Whereas a condo, people are owners of residences. Commissioner Hernandez: What if those unit owners' landlord would turn over that building into a condominium? What would happen then? They wouldn't pay? Commissioner Plummer: No. They get a rebate. They get money back. Commissioner Hernandez: Let's say I have an eight -unit apartment building in Little Havana, and I decide to make those apartments into condominiums, because I'm at a loss. Basically, I can't take this fee, so basically, I turn over those apartment unit, and turn them into a condominium. Does that mean we are going to waive the fee as we do to Brickell condominium unit owners? Commissioner Plummer: No. They get money back. Commissioner Hernandez: Well, but we're counting on that money right now. We're talking about 38,000, more or less, right? Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Hernandez: I mean, have we looked into that? I'm just asking the question. Mr. Marquez: No. We haven't followed that logic through, the way that you're laying it out right now. The... When you take a given multi -family housing unit and convert it as such, you're going to have multi... you're going to have individual owners now, as opposed to a single money -making venture. You're no longer in the money -making scenario, and therefore, you know, logic would dictate that we go ahead and treat them like other condo owners. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: Let me tell you, I've received a lot of calls. There's a lot of misunderstanding. And I think even myself, I'm included. When you go through this fire fee, I'd like for you to go step by step, make sure we understand the procedure, how it goes, and so on, because I've got a lot of calls from different people, and there's a lot of misunderstanding out there, what the fee is all about. I read The Miami Herald today. My understanding is that we should go after the nonprofit. Originally, that was my intention, that we provide something so those people that are receiving... Commissioner Plummer: That's out. Commissioner Gort: ... City of Miami services would pay for them. They don't pay any taxes. So when you go into the detail and explain all this, I want you to explain the logic, and what are we doing to get those nonprofits. Mr. Marquez: I'm going to turn it over to Carlos Gimenez, the Fire Chief, who is working with the consultants throughout the bulk of this, for the detail on our logic. Chief Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): Is there a specific question that you'd like answered on the fire fee, or do you just want me to go through the... how it was developed and the methodology? 6 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Gort: I think you should explain how it was developed, how we came about it, because, Mr. Mayor, I think it's very important that we take a few minutes so people will understand, basically, what the study did, what's being done in the City, what we expect from this, because there's a lot of misunderstanding out there. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, I think that's a very good idea. I think that particularly, you need to address the concept of how we will be bringing the nonprofits into this. Chief Gimenez: OK. The fire assessment fee has been implemented in numerous other cities, basically, in Broward County and some other counties around the State. We brought in the consultants. And the first things they do is, they take a look at our... at the Fire Department budget, and they also take a look at the Fire Department calls for the last two years. What they did is, they took 1995 data and 1996 data and they found that there was basically no difference, and used 1996 data to proportion the calls. And what that means is they look at the data, and then they find out when they can link a certain call to a certain property. And then they have different categories. Categories are residential, multi -family, public housing, commercial, industrial/warehouse, and institutional. Once all the data has been categorized, then a percentage is given to each category. And there's differences in how this is treated. They... what's called living units are proportioned. There is a percentage that is given to the residentials. And it turns out that the residential units, which include single-family homes, duplexes and condominiums, they were attributable for 34.61 percent of fire calls. So 34.61 percent of the Fire Department budget is going to be distributed among the 80,000 units that constitute residential, as that is identified. Multi -family units were attributable for 25.80 percent of the calls. Public housing was 6.13. And it's simply a matter of taking the percentage of the budget that is going to he funded through this method. And in terms of residential, you're taking 34 percent. I believe on a thirty-eight point five million gross budget, that's thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000). You divide that by 80,000, and you come up with a rate of one sixty-five sixty-seven. Mayor Carollo: Chief, what percent of calls were going to the commercial properties in the City, commercial/industrial? Chief Gimenez: According to our data, 19.85 percent of calls were going to commercial properties. Mayor Carollo: Nineteen point eight? Chief Gimenez: Nineteen point eight -five percent. Mayor Carollo: And 25.8 to multi -apartments. Chief Gimenez: Twenty-five point eight were going to multi -family. Multi -family is anything which is a... apartment building, three or greater units. Public housing is... public housing is run by Metro -Dade. Vice Mayor Regalado: You're talking Fire -Rescue, are you? Chief Gimenez: Fire -Rescue, yes. Fire and Rescue. Vice Mayor Regalado: Fire and Rescue? Chief Gimenez: Fire and Rescue, both. Vice Mayor Regalado: Would you describe that we have more fire/ rescue than fire/fire? 7 April 14, 1997 Chief Gimenez: Well, the way the runs have historically come down is 80 percent... somewhere in the vicinity of between 75 and 80 percent is EMS (Emergency Management Services), and the other 20, 25 percent is non -EMS or fire. Commissioner Plummer: And what percent of your Rescue runs are you now collecting for? Chief Gimenez: We collect a transport fee for people that we transport. This is not... We don't collect anything if we go to a particular locale and we don't transport. There's no collection on that. Commissioner Plummer: And how much is that bringing in? Chief Gimenez: The transport fee is bringing in somewhere in the vicinity of three point five million. When you figure in your fire assessment fee, any revenue that comes from the Fire Department is deducted along with the TFF franchise. Those things are looked at. What they do is, they take the gross amount that's needed for Fire Department operations, they add on the capital needs, and they subtract whatever revenue the Fire Department brings in. And according... There was approximately a fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) budget needed to run the Fire Department on a 100 percent basis. If I can continue, the public housing constituted 6.13 percent of all the calls; commercial was 19.85 percent; industrial/warehouse was 1.42 percent, a very low figure; and institutional was 12.18. Now, what you do is, on a thirty-eight point five dollar... thirty-eight point five million dollar ($38.5 million) budget for the Fire - Rescue to be funded through this mechanism, single-family residential, on that percentage basis, is thirteen million three hundred and twenty-three thousand seven hundred and seventy-three dollars ($13,323,773). When you divide that by the 80,000 units, that's how you get your one hundred and sixty-five dollar ($165) rate. The same thing for multi -family. They're attributable for nine million nine hundred and thirty-four thousand. Again, when you divide it by the number of multi -family units, you get the one hundred and ninety-eight dollar ($198) figure. And for public housing, they're attributable for two million three hundred and sixty thousand ($2,360,000), And their rate is somewhat higher because they've got a lot less units that... in that category. They only have 3,998 units. That's why their rate is so high, five hundred and ninety dollars ($590) per unit. When it comes to the commercial, and institutional, and the industrial/warehouse, it is a proportion through a square footage methodology. And there is given a basic square footage rate for each category. And in terms of the commercial, the square footage rate is 1.3 cents per square foot. And what you do is when you divide all the categories up... and I'll take an example, for commercial. If you go to the commercial tier, there's 2,012 commercial buildings which are less than 1,999 square feet. Well, taking the 1,000 square foot, at 1,000 square feet at 13 cents a square foot, you have a hundred thirty dollars ($130). That's how those rates are determined in each individual category. Commissioner Plummer: You have about four percent or five percent of vacant land. Does that mean the people who have property, who have vacant property, raw land, don't pay anything? Chief Gimenez: That's correct. And the reason that that's the case is because the way that this fee is assessed is that there is a direct relationship between benefit and the property. Fire -Rescue does not benefit vacant land. It could have a fire, and it's not going to increase its value or it's going to decrease its value. But when it's improved land and there's a building on it, obviously, Fire -Rescue will increase the value, you know. The service increases the value or provides a benefit to that particular piece of property. And that's basically how the fee is structured and what's the methodology of all the rates. When you look at... When you go to the commercial, and the industrial, and the institutional categories, when you look at the different tiers, and based on the rate per square foot, which on the commercial is 13 cents per square foot. On industrial warehouse, it's four cents per square foot. Again, that's tied directly to that 1.42 percent usage. And on the institutional, it's point one six cents per square foot. You go to the lower number of 8 April 14, 1997 the tier, and you multiply that times the square footage, and that's how you get the rate for that particular property. Now, our consultants indicated that with this, you have the ability to assess everybody. And we are, you know... The Administration is recommending that we do assess everybody, except for the service agencies, institutional... institutional service agencies. But once that happens, you can no longer assess the institutional health care. And the reason that we're recommending the exclusion of the institutional service agencies is because they provide a service that the City of Miami may otherwise have to provide, and that's how you can exempt them. But once you do that, then the health care agencies also go. We're looking at a different methodology of assessing the tax exempts on possibly passing some type of a usage fee for those institutions, and that could be an option that we're working with our consultants on. Commissioner Hernandez: Chief, we have not found a legal basis in which we can separate the churches from the hospitals, still? Chief Gimenez: At this point, no, sir. Commissioner Hernandez: So we either charge them all or we can't... Chief Gimenez: You can't charge the tax-exempt health agencies, if you exempt the tax-exempt service agencies. Commissioner Plummer: What about the School Board? Chief Gimenez: School Board, you can assess. Commissioner Plummer: Well, you're showing it here as an exemption. Mr. Marquez: We're showing it as a... Commissioner Plummer: Seven hundred and eighty-three thousand. Mr. Marquez: We're showing it as a budgetary exemption. We can assess them. It's going to be difficult to collect. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I mean, if you're not going to collect, what the hell are you going to... Mr. Marquez: We're going to assess them. We're going to try to collect. With the School Board, it takes... From our understanding, it takes some sort of State action in order to actually be paid the cash. Commissioner Plummer: Now, in the other one, in reference to public housing, I heard you about the County paid us a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), when, in fact, it should be 30 times that amount of money. Chief Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: What are we doing on that? Chief Gimenez: Well, there's a problem. We've found a 1969 Interlocal Agreement that says that their payment... they're having a payment in lieu of taxes, and that once that was signed, in the agreement, it says that we can't either tax them or... we can't give them a special assessment, either. So we're kind of stuck with that 1969 Interlocal Agreement. 9 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Gort: How long was the agreement for? Chief Gimenez: Perpetuity, just about. Unless... If they somehow give the land up, they're no longer responsible for... If the U.S. government or Metro -Dade is no longer responsible, then they can go on the tax rolls. But right now... Mayor Carollo: Have you looked at that agreement, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Jones: Yes. We looked at it and we advised the Administration. Mayor Carollo: Is there any way that that agreement could he changed? Mr. Jones: Well, there are some documents that we requested to look at, because a lot depends on... basically, it's based on bonds that were used to finance the projects. The problem with the agreement is that it was... not only is it in perpetuity... I mean, that's the bottom line. We'll continue to look at it and see how we can, you know, perhaps minimize the effect on the City or whatever else but... Mayor Carollo: What year was that agreement now? Mr. Jones: 1969. Mayor Carollo: Nineteen...? Mr. Jones: 1969. Commissioner Plummer: '69. Mayor Carollo: 1969. Commissioner Plummer: No, I wasn't here in '69. I came the following year to straighten them out. Mayor Carollo: The... Commissioner Plummer: The Federal... I'm sorry. The Federal is what I'm asking. What do you think the chances are that the Feds are going to pay the City two hundred and twenty-two thousand dollars ($222,000)? I mean, have you talked to them? Mr. Marquez: We're in discussions with the Federal government for... with their GSA (General Services Administration) department on entering into an agreement with us for some sort of service payments. Commissioner Plummer: Has it been favorable? Negative? Mr. Marquez: It's ongoing. We've listed it as a budgetary exclusion because we don't anticipate having those revenues in for next fiscal year. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Well, what about in... Forget about public health... public housing. The County has many facilities in the City, other than public housing. Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: I don't see any fee here attributable to them under your governmental. Positive, you're talking eight thirty-one? 10 April 14, 1997 Chief Gimenez: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: And you think the County is going to pay you that? Chief Gimenez: Our consultants feel that we have a very good chance that the County will pay us on that. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Chief Gimenez: Or we can get the money from the County. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Now, let me go one step further. And I hate to bring this up, but I think it's got to be brought up. This is assessable for next year, starting October L Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. If somebody files a lawsuit, we know lawsuits take a year, two years, three years. And there are going to be lawsuits on this to test the constitutionality. I don't think there's any question about it. I mean, people are a little upset. OK? Mr. City Attorney and Mr. Manager, where does that place us with the Oversight Board? Mr. Marquez: This methodology that we're employing here has been tested within the State Court System. This methodology is in place in multiple cities over in Broward County and elsewhere within the State. Our consultants believe that the method... the way that we're approaching it is quite defensible, and they feel comfortable that we will succeed. Commissioner Plummer: Now, give me an answer... For example, a private school owned by a religious order. Fee or no fee? Chief Gimenez: Depends on how it's classified. Commissioner Plummer: It's a school. Chief Gimenez: Well, it depends on how it's classified, and that's why we have to do field work. If it's one parcel and somehow it's classified as a service agency, for right now, it's not going to be assessed. But we are going to do field work and make sure that when we look at parcels that we actually allocate correctly. It's our intention that a private school, even though it's owned by a church, should be assessed, because there are some that are just schools, and they're shown as just private schools, and they wilt be assessed. So there's got to be... There's still some field work to be done on this, to make sure that when we do the assessment, that the parcels are allocated correctly. The data, the way it is today, sometimes is not conducive to this, because it's really meant for an assessment. We use the property tax appraiser's rolls, and they're not doing this. OK? So a lot of times, they just clump things together and put it away in a particular category, even though it might be more than one use. We need to go out and do field work, and start divvying up those uses. Commissioner Plummer: What is the estimated cost to implement this program on behalf of the City? I'm talking computerization, mailing. We already know - I think we know, and I think I'm in the ball park - that eliminating the garbage fee for single-family homeowners is going to run the City in the neighborhood of eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000). What I'm asking now, to administer this program for the purposes of the computerization, the staff, mailings, the collections, what is the estimated cost to the City on that aspect? 11 April 14, 1997 Chief Gimenez: Commissioner, let me answer it this way. Commissioner Plummer: It's very simple. Give me a number. Mr. Dipak Parekh (Director, Budget and Management Analysis): Basically, it's going to mean no extra cost than what's already involved. Commissioner Plummer: No extra. Mr. Parekh: Right. And you will have some incremental cost in postage, but... about that, that's it. Commissioner Plummer: OK. I'll be around to remind you. Mr. Parekh: OK. Mayor Carollo: Are there any questions of the Fire Chief from members of the Commission? Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, I think we should... Vice Mayor Regalado: I don't have any question. Commissioner Gort: ... we should allow him to finish the structure of the fee, itself. I think he went to explanation, how did we come to the numbers. I'd like for him to explain the... Mayor Carollo: Well, I agree, Commissioner.- I thought he had broken in time to allow for some questions before he would proceed, but... Commissioner Gort: Well, OK. Chief Gimenez: I thought that I explained how the structure came about, and how it's all divvied up. There are some... You know, some people call me and say, "Well, how come this particular building is more than others?" et cetera. A lot of it has to do with... Even though the percentage might be lower and the cost allocations lower, there are not as many units to divvy up the cost. That's why some of those have a higher rate. Commissioner Gort: No. Chief, my understanding is... How is your proposal to be structured? Like, are we going to give vouchers here, are we not going to give vouchers here, do these people have to pay the total fee, these people are not going to pay the total fee? Chief Gimenez: OK. Commissioner Gort: Because I think that's where a lot of the questions are coming from. Chief Gimenez: Well, the... If you're talking about the Administration's proposal to give back... Commissioner Gort: Right. Chief Gimenez: Basically, this fire fee will substitute for the garbage fee that's currently in place, and the City will provide garbage service to all the single-family homes, all the duplexes. In addition, we'll continue to provide service to the three- and four -unit apartment buildings that we currently provide service to, and pick up an additional eleven... 7,000 units that we are not currently providing service to. And there's also either a voucher or some kind of service given back to condominium units. So basically... in order to offset their cost for garbage service, so you treat them like you treat the residential people in the City of Miami. 12 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Chief Gimenez: OK. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. Vice Mayor Regalado: For the record, I'd like to say a few things. First of all, I'm really disappointed that the Oversight Board did not grant the extension. Yes, we all know that 45 days or 15 days, or five hours would not make a difference, but I thought that as a symbolic gesture from the Oversight Board. So today, we have to make a decision, and we cannot and will not let the Oversight Board make the decisions that we have to make to them. So for the record, I believe that we are going to approve this two pounds of pain... pain for the unions, pain for the citizens, and I will be voting yes for the fire fee for the recovery plan, because there is no option. But having said that, I think that we need to go on the record... And I was told by the Manager that we need to have a resolution very soon in order to implement the fire fee. But maybe in another motion, maybe in another resolution, we should tell the people of Miami officially... not promise, but tell them officially, as you said, and as we all have said, that this Commission is committed to try to bring new ideas to substitute the fire fee. And we should do that before it goes into effect. We should also tell the people of Miami officially that if we think or we are going to go ahead and privatize solid waste, then the fire fee would have to go away, because, you know, the perception that people have is that once you get a tax, you get stuck with the tax, and this is a tax. Let's don't kid ourselves. There's no way to explain it. There is no way to justify it other than we need to do this two pounds of pain to save the City and comply with the statutes of the State of Florida. So I think that we should be on the record officially saying to the people of Miami that, first of all, we are committed to bring new ideas. Well, crazy as they might be, maybe the Oversight Board will reject ten, but maybe they would approve one. And if that means that we could substitute part or all of the fire fee, I think that we have fulfilled the commitment that we should make to the people of Miami. Also, that the people should know that if we were to privatize the solid waste, they will not get stuck with a fire fee and with a bill from a private company, that we should do something about it, and do it officially. And the other thing is that I would insist... and if this Commission doesn't do it officially, I would do it myself, because I have checked and it's my... not only my right, but my duty to go and see the different departments. What we have this morning here, it's a very interesting document, and in detail, we have some things about the parks. And all I've read, is close this park, close another park, close this summer camp, or close another summer camp. Well, it's the same thing all over and over, that we, in the press, see every time that there is a budget cut, that people who would have their budget cut by any government will come to the media to say that if we cut this budget, there ain't going to be police, or fire, or emergency services. And that's the story that we seem to have here. So I would insist to go... not to look for cuts in personnel, but to see, just to see, to talk to the people. Our employees, most of them have very good ideas, and I don't believe that we have listened to their ideas. Like last week, there was a guy with a garbage truck that stopped me in the street and showed me... And, you know, maybe we cannot do something about that, but he showed me a ton of paper that he picked up in the Riverside Center, and he said that he does that all the time, that he considers that a waste. I don't know whether that is only pennies, or it's dollars, but we should look into that. I believe, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, that we also should start an aggressive campaign to inform the people of Miami, not to justify the fire fee, because you can't - I said that before - justify a tax. But we should tell the people of Miami first that this Commission is committed to look for ways, to work the time that we need to work, to look for any alternatives. And second, and more important, to tell the people of Miami, and plead with the apartment building owners not to raise the rent just now, right now, because this Commission today has passed a new tax that would not be implemented 13 April 14, 1997 not until next year, because apartment building owners should be upset, and they have all the right to be. But, please, do not start passing on a non -existing tax just right away, because what they're going to say, some of them, is that the Commission of Miami just approved a tax, so I have to raise your rent starting the month of May, and that would be unfair for the people. That would be unfair for the workers in the City of Miami who are the ones that rent apartments. So Mr. Mayor, I would really ask this Commission to go on record ordering all the City departments to open their doors to members of this Commission who would want to go and see what we can do, working with them, not against them, to see if we can save more money, to go and tell the people of Miami that there are alternatives, and that we are committed officially - this is not a promise - to go look for these alternatives to substitute this fire fee. Other than that, like I said at the beginning, and I wanted to just make this clear, I will be voting yes on this recovery plan, because I believe that there is no other alternative today. But that doesn't mean that we don't have other alternatives tomorrow. So Mr. Mayor, I'm... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Carollo: Before we open it up to the public, the Commission needs to finish discussions. Then we will open it up to the public for two minutes for each person that would like to address the Commission. Commissioner Plummer: Am I correct in my assumption, Carlos, the highest fee paid is a hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars ($173,000), and the lowest fee would be forty-three dollars ($43)? Am I correct in that assumption? Chief Gimenez: The highest parcel that we have is a hundred and thirty-three thousand. Commissioner Plummer: I had a hundred and seventy... Chief Gimenez: That's probably by... might be by owner. They may he two different parcels. Commissioner Plummer: Huh? Chief Gimenez: One seventy-three is by owner. They may have two... you know, if there's two parcels. Commissioner Plummer: More than one parcel? Chief Gimenez: There's more than one parcel. Commissioner Plummer: But he would be pay... that owner would be paying the one seventy- three. Chief Gimenez: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Commissioner Plummer: OK. And the least amount would be the 43. Chief Gimenez: For a warehouse, industrial type property less than 1,999 square feet. Commissioner Plummer: OK. If I can make a point, Mr. Mayor. I have, all the way along, tried to find some combination to where we can reduce the amount of the fire fee, and... by virtue of coming up with something that would he a balancing act. And first of all, I want to thank the Manager for getting this document together, which we all received this morning, if, in fact, we were to cut and tighten the City belt in the amount necessary to cover the deficit. And I know the feeling up here is that this will not be implemented. But I'll tell you what it does. In my 14 April 14, 1997 estimation, it does give us a format of areas where we can start, as Commissioner Regalado said, in different departments, to go through this document. For example, the simplest thing there, just using one example, the Artime Center is a hundred and eighty-three thousand dollars ($183,000) in deficit. Well, you know, there again, we're trying to get rid of it. As far as I know, we're trying to sell it, and this is something that should be done immediately, so I don't understand here. Other things in here... Mr. Manager, you keep talking about giving the Fire Department to Metro. At best, I think that's scare tactics. This Commission went on record some time ago that under no circumstances - none - would this Commission even consider giving the Fire Department to Metro, unless I'm mistaken, but I think that was pretty clear. Mayor Carollo: You are correct on that, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: As I look through this thing, there are many areas in here that I feel that you can still cut. Still cut. You have chosen, and I told you to do such, what you felt was best in the way, if it had to he cut. You don't vote. I do. I have different feelings. OK? When you talk about Police Department, six hundred and seventy-seven thousand dollars ($677,000), you're going to cut the PSAs (Public Service Aides). I'm going to cut the fat, because there's fat in the Police Department, there's no question. There's fat in every department. The hardest one to be would be the Fire Department. I think, without question, the Fire Department is at bare bones. And I'm not saying that for any other reason than... They don't have booklets that they i put out, the don't have other awards and all of the rest of the stuff. I still feel that there's got to be some area of compromise. There's just too many things here that are going to kill people. I think that, you know, that the downtown people are going to hurt because they're 40 percent of our revenue. And there's no "ifs, ands or buts," you're going to lose tenants in the downtown area. If Metro were to take and implement their fire fee at the same time, you might have a chance of saving them, if they, in fact, do such. And I know they're looking at it. You're going to lose tenants. You're going to lose possibly new construction. The people are going to say, "Well, here is one thing and here is another. I don't have to pay that in Coral Gables," or "I don't have to pay that in Miami Shores. I'll go to Coral Gables, and I'll build there, rather than build in the City of Miami." I think you're going to see a lot of people tearing down buildings, now that they are aware that vacant land doesn't pay anything. And, I mean, we've had people that have done that before, just to reduce their tax assessment. Now, they're going to do it not only to do away with their tax assessment or reduce it, but they're doing away with a fire fee, regardless of what they had on there. I just feel that the way this fire fee is proposed is detrimental. I received from... I guess one of our good friends, Mr. Capustin... I guess he's still a good friend. I question that, but he's a personal friend, not business friend. And I think he makes an excellent point. And that is, the amount of... north of the Miami River, the amount of multiple family apartments, that those people are paying two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) a month, and that's all they can afford. And you're going to hit them now with a fire fee of however... how much it is. I don't know. A couple of thousand dollars. And you know and I know the theory of business has never changed. The consumer pays. And they're going to pass it on to their tenants, and their tenants are going to have to pay an increase in rent. And I think that... In this fire fee, to me, that is the greatest inequity that will he imposed. I also disagree with the fact that the condo owners, they're going to get something when they never gave us anything. I think that's absolutely wrong. I don't know how you can even justify that. But you have your opinion, and I respect that. OK? Mine is different. I really don't have any more to say. I've said before, as it is proposed here today, I can't vote for it. I thought that this was going to be, as my friend, I think, the Mayor said, that how we originally came about this was all of those tax assessed properties that are tax exempt, one third of our assessable tax base. And this was a way that we were going to be able, and now, we're finding out in a great number of those, we're not going to be able to collect from them. And I think that's wrong. When you look at the fact that in the City of Miami, we have properties that are companies that are profit - making and are tax exempt, I think that is absolutely horrible. But those are the things that are not going to be corrected by this. You know, I made the example of a cemetery. Cemetery's got 15 April 14, 1997 property that they value at some thirty million dollars ($30,000,000), and yet, in a fire fee, they're going to pay it based on their office, the square footage of their office. Is that not inequitable? To me, it is, absolutely. I think it would have been a lot fairer, in my estimation, that you would have had a combination kind of formula, one of "X" number for the building and "X" number for the vacant land that they occupy. For example, I wonder if in Omni - OK? - Omni, if you're going to charge them for the building, are you charging them for that garage? Because that garage is "humungus", and I don't think they're paying the fee, as my under... They are? OK. If they are, thank God. But these are the kind of things that I find that are inequitable. And the only other question that I have, and, really, I'm concerned about a lawsuit is, in fact, the others where this has stood the constitutional test, is it exactly, exactly as this one that is proposed to us? No deviation at all, because deviations are what lawyers take to court. And if we don't have this, then we're in serious trouble, or if this gets into a lawsuit and is delayed for a year, we're in double trouble. So all I'm asking is, to the hest of your knowledge, is this exactly, to verbatim, the others that have stood the so-called constitutional test? Chief Gimenez: Basically, the language, the legal sufficiency is... I can't say it's verbatim, because one talks about Hallandale, and one talks about Miami. So... But the legal sufficiency is basically the same. The methodology is basically the same. A lot of the cities in Broward County exempted the institutional service. Commissioner Plummer: Can you tell me how long, in either one of those cities that you mentioned that this fee has been imposed? Chief Gimenez: From what I understand, it was imposed last year. It's currently in place right now. There are counties in the State that have been using this for some time, and I can't really tell you how long... more than one year. Commissioner Plummer: Do you know which city was used as a constitutional test? Chief Gimenez: Well, there's lawsuits all the time on this particular issue. And there are things going through right now. We've just got... the consultants got a report back on an assessment with solid waste which was favorable to assessment, special assessments. And we're waiting for another... a final one on fire -rescue, although we've had favorable opinions on fire -rescue in the past, also. That's in the legal sufficiency portion of this report. You know, people can challenge anything, and it just has to go through the system. But every challenge so far has been sustained. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, as a deduction from the single-family residence garbage fee, what is your estimation... I mean, it's ball park, and I understand that. What is your estimation of what a private hauler would charge us per household? It's critical. I mean, it's... because we're going to he paying that out of the general fund now. Correct? Mr. Marquez: We are paying the cost of our solid waste services... Commissioner Plummer: ... will he out of the general fund. Mr. Marquez: ... will be out of the general fund. Commissioner Plummer: What have you estimated the cost per household... we know it's eighty thousand... am I correct? Chief Gimenez: There's 80,000 units. Commissioner Plummer: For rounds unit. 16 April 14, 1997 Chief Gimenez: Included in that, there's 18,000 condos included in the 80,000. Commissioner Plummer: All right. So that's even... the other part. But what have you estimated that the cost per household would be with a private hauler? Mr. Marquez: The preliminary information that we received back from the private haulers... let me... it's the only way I can answer the question. Commissioner Plummer: Roughly. Mr. Marquez: ... was indicating to us that they would charge us between one to two million dollars ($2,000,000) less than the cost of the services we're providing today to do the same type of services for the pick up of garbage at single-family residences. Commissioner Plummer: And what are we paying today? I'll ask it the other way. Mr. Marquez: We're paying... I'll let Dipak answer with the specifics here. Mr. Dipak Parekh (Director, Budget and Management Analysis): Commissioner, the total budget for the Solid Waste Department is around twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: But that's everything. Mr. Parekh: That's everything. Commissioner Plummer: So do you know what portion of that is residential? Mr. Dennis Carter: I'm Dennis Carter, consultant to Miami. The response we got from the waste companies varied. There was Waste Management, BFI, and Kimmins. Those were the three companies that responded. The City's comparative cost, but what we were asking them, the privates, to do is nineteen million four one eight. Waste Management came in with an estimate of sixteen million six eighty-one, which is two million seven lower. BFI came in... Commissioner Plummer: OK. Dennis, I really didn't want to get into that now. But what I'm just merely asking is, on the aspect of single-family residences, do we know how much per household... They usually base it on that. The recycling fee is so much per household. The trash and garbage is usually lumped together. Do you have that number? Because my estimation is that it's going to be out of the general fund budget. It's going to be somewhere between eighteen to twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), predicated on 80,000 single-family homes. You don't have that number? Mr. Carter: The estimate we got was two hundred and twenty-five ($225) per home. Commissioner Plummer: How much? Mr. Carter: Two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225) per home. Commissioner Plummer: Per year. Mr. Carter: Per year. Commissioner Plummer: So I've got to divide that by 12. Two two five divided by 12 is... OK. I hope that that's the figure that 17 April 14, 1997 you're saying, because the numbers I have is about two dollars ($2) higher. So it's in the ball park. Mr. Carter: OK. Commissioner Plummer: And I think, for the record, we ought to go and fully state right now that you're looking at two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225), and this City is charging for garbage one sixty. We're paying sixty-five dollars ($65) less than what we're actually paying to provide the service. I'm finished, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: If I may, I'd just like to, before we move on, ask Commissioner Plummer the following question. If this Commission would go along with his no vote for the plan as is, what recommendations might you be bringing forth to us today to take a vote on then? Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, as I said to you before, I'm looking for a combination to spread the hurt across the board. I would hope that we could look at the fact... Well, now, you've taken the garbage fee out and turned that over into the fire fee. But to increase a garbage fee, as you know, two of us voted, and I respect the other three who did not, to double the garbage fee. That would have raised an instant amount, because it would have been equating to the fire fee. Yet, I fully understand that would have let, basically, the business community off, because, in fact, they use private haulers. As I look through this document here that was... unfortunately, we were only able to get this morning, I think there's areas in here that could raise revenue without really a whole lot of trying, and reduce the fire fee. And so, you know, I'm not totally opposed to a fire fee, but I think that we've got to find a balance. And that's what I've tried to do all the way along, to find this balance so that we spread the hurt across the board. So... Mayor Carollo: We all have tried that. But my direct question, Commissioner, is do you have a direct proposal for us today, since tomorrow, we have to hand in the Oversight Board a plan? Commissioner Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, unfortunately, I only got this document this morning, as all of us did. Now, how much of this could be implemented... let's say that if half of this could be implemented, that's six million dollars ($6,000,000). Then we could reduce the fire fee proportionately by six million dollars ($6,000,000). Mayor Carollo: Well, would you like for this Commission to reconvene again tonight to have the opportunity for you to go over it? Commissioner Plummer: Sir, that's up to this Commission. I mean, if the feeling of this Commission is they don't want to do that, I don't want to waste their time or mine. Now, if they're interested in doing it, that's a different story. I would be glad to sit with... I think we can do it as... we don't have to convene tonight. Let's just go through it right now. Mayor Carollo: I'm just trying to find the best consensus that we can, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: And I agree with that, sir. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, if I... Mayor Carollo: Just one second, Commissioner. The one thing that I'm sure of is that before anything is implemented comes January of next year, because that's when it would be sent out in the mail, there would be quite a bit of changes that would come. Between now and then, we would have the opportunity to find real recurring revenue. And that's the key. The key is in finding the recurring revenue. But we have to make some decision today, a decision that is not 18 Apri1 14, 1997 I going to be pleasant, is not going to be easy, but nevertheless, a decision that has to be made today in one form or another, because if we don't make it, it's going to be made for us. And at the same time, we will make it a decision that we know that we're going to be looking to change between now and the time that any fees would he mailed out in January of next year. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think Tomas made the statement. It has proven true around this City for a long time, and it's not going to change. There's nothing more permanent than something temporary. And it's unfortunate. It would be my feeling that if this fire fee was to be imposed, as it has been in other cities, it's not going to be eliminated in the future. It's not going to be substituted in the future. It is a fee that is going to be there, and it's going to stay there. Now, you might supplement with other things, because as we know, Mr. Mayor, we're safe into effect in this year and next year. Where we're really going to be in serious, serious problems is in '99... '98 or '99, Mr.... the fiscal year. So... Mayor Carollo: Well, you're partly right. We're safe in this fiscal year, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: That's correct. Mayor Carollo: But come the next fiscal year, we're some sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) off. Commissioner Plummer: And we're going to be the following year, estimated somewhere around forty million. And in my estimation or in my judgment, Mr. Mayor, there's no way that that fire fee is going to be taken back because of those kind of deficits that are projected. We've got to look at the big picture. The big picture next year, is sixteen. The year after that, Mr. Manager, is thirty-four... twenty-four. The year after that, thirty-seven. I don't know where you're going to make recurring revenues to make that kind of money and say that there's a chance, a possibility that we're going to pull back from the fire fee. Mayor Carollo: Well, Commissioner, there are quite a few possibilities where the fire fee can be cut back drastically. Can it be cut back totally in the next year or two? I don't think anybody could answer that. It's going to be difficult; not impossible, but difficult to do. There are many things in the future year projections that might not necessarily be as they're being projected. Those are projections. There's a lot of things that could change. For instance, we could bring in certain revenue, long-term revenue producing activities that could bring in a substantial amount of recurring revenue every year. There are some that I know about that are real possibilities. But the bottom line is that between today and tomorrow, none of that is going to happen. There's only two things that we could do. Try to make some additional cuts where we can, and there's been plenty of cuts made; approve something - something has to be approved today - and then proceed forward with the outlook on making as many changes as we can to reduce whatever the total number is on that fee. But... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you asked me where my vote would change, and I'll give it to you, and I'll vote for the fire fee. You take 50 percent of what has been proffered to us here today as cuts, that's in-house, that's... we're biting our own bullet, and reduce the fire fee by 50 percent. You got my vote. Mayor Carollo: Well, Commissioner,... Commissioner Plummer: You know, as I said before, and I'll say it again... Mayor Carollo: I hear you. And it's great to hear that. I mean, I would like to say that if we reduce it by 75 percent, you gat my vote. But it's up to us to find where the cuts are going to be made at. So, you know... 19 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: I agree with that, absolutely, because I don't agree with where the Manager is talking about. For example, the Police Department. He's talking there of reducing six hundred and seventy-seven thousand dollars ($677,000). I think there's a lot of areas in the Police Department that you can cut without cutting personnel. He's proposing to cut personnel. I would not cut the first person there. OK? But I would be eliminating some of the things that are being done there today that we've talked about for years. We're still doing prisoner processing. We're the only City in Dade County that double -processes prisoners. Now, you can justify it and say, "Well, we do a better job than the County," and I'm sure the County will have a dispute over that. You've got boxing programs. Now, you know, we're coming down to a bottom line, but we're going to allow the Police Department to have a boxing program and put somebody out of their apartment, because they can't pay the increase in rent. I mean, these are the kind of things that I think we've got to go at. Do we need to go with an eighteen thousand dollar annual book to tell us how the Police Department is being run? Mayor Carollo: Commissioner... Commissioner Plummer: Well, these are all of the things that I'm talking about. Mayor Carollo: I am willing to stay here all day and go department by department, and we could start with the Police, and you could tell the Chief where you feel the cuts could be made, and we could figure out how much we could cut from there, and we could do it for every department. But before we get into that, I'd just like to read this into the record so that the people that are here and at home can really put things in perspective, to see what we've done up to now. The Citywide expenditure reduction has been in the following ways: The elimination of all funded vacancies. In this fiscal year, we have saved three million five hundred and seventy-nine thousand six hundred dollars ($3,579,600). The elimination of the non -union executive benefits, three hundred and seventy-two thousand three hundred. Other related employee cutbacks, one million seventy-one thousand nine hundred and thirteen dollars ($,1,071,913). Union concessions. The Solid Waste Union, their concessions for this year was two hundred and thirty- three thousand five hundred dollars ($233,500). The General Employees' Union, their concessions for this fiscal year was one million six hundred and sixty-eight thousand nine hundred and eighteen dollars ($1,668,918). The Police Union, the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), the concessions for this year was five million six dollars - excuse me - five million six thousand one hundred and forty-six dollars ($5,006,146). The Fire Fighters' Union, their concessions for this year was two million eight hundred and thirty-three thousand eight hundred dollars ($2,833,800), for a total in union concessions of nine million seven hundred and forty- two thousand three hundred and sixty-four dollars ($9,742,364) for this year. The pension contributions and concessions: General Employees and Sanitation Employees Union, one million three hundred thousand; the Fire Fighters and Police Officers Union, three million eight hundred and seventy-two thousand, for a total of five million, one hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars ($5,172,000). Other departmental reductions, ten million four hundred four thousand nine hundred and forty-seven dollars ($10,404,947), for a total reduction in expenditures, including the concessions, of thirty million three hundred and forty-three thousand one hundred and twenty-four dollars ($30,343,124). That's out of a budget of approximately two hundred and seventy-five million dollars ($275,000,000) that we have. That comes to approximately 11-plus percent of our total budget, closer to 12 percent. So for those that might think that there is a huge amount that we could still be cutting, that we could cut sixteen million, twenty million out of the budget, it's not there, not unless we're going to hurt the services drastically that this City provides; not unless we're going to be laying employees off, which we're not going to. It's just not there, ladies and gentlemen. We can't make miracles. It's been a small miracle in itself that this fiscal year, we've been able to accomplish what we have without really putting any pain out there, any pain out to the general public. The employees of this City have suffered. They have given concessions. You can't ask the employees to give 20 April 14, 1997 more than they have. Yes, we could rind ether areas that we can make some cuts within the City's budget, but we're not going to be able to cut another sixteen to twenty million dollars. It's not there. We have a small budget. We don't have some of the luxury items that other governmental bodies that are larger than ours have to spend that. We don't spend some of the monies that other governmental bodies do. We're down to a... really to the bone type of budget. And the bottom line is that we're suffering today, we're having to make the harsh and very difficult decisions today because others that were in a position in the last decade, that could have done things the right way, either through their actions or inactions, this City is in the situation it's in. We can take a variety of actions today. One could be the decision that one individual, in particular, has decided to have taken, and that is to say there is no deficit. I mean, put a happy face on and say, "There's no deficit, everything is fine, the City Manager can give the concessions back to the employees, to the pension hoards, we can give the Sports Authority nineteen million dollars ($19,000,000) in cash back, and we can say there is no deficit, and this has all been a bad dream, a nightmare. That's one of the positions that we could take. But then also, this City is going to fall flat on its face, and that's going to be the end of Miami. The second decision that we could take is, we could just throw our hands up in the air, or do like the ostriches do, stick our heads in the ground and say, "Hey, you know, it's not our problem. We didn't cause this. Let the Oversight Board take the heat." And I assure you that the Oversight Board is going to come back with a lot more pain than anything that we can discuss here today. That's another position that we could take. I don't think that it's a courageous decision. I think it's the cowardly way out of it, and frankly, if that's the position that this Commission would take, none of us would deserve to be up here. Third, we can do what is right and make the tough decision that we have to do today, knowing that we're going to he looking on a weekly basis at ways of reducing whatever the final numbers are today in a fire fee between now and next year January, when it would be implemented. Fourth, which is one that I think that we should look at, is go through the budget that we have, see what other areas we might have in full agreement on the Commission that we can reduce, look for others, and for the members of the Commission to let me know here publicly what departments they would like to be named to so that I could name at least one Commissioner - in some cases, maybe two - to look at City departments, so that they could be responsible for those departments, in looking at them, in coming back to the Commission as a whole, and making recommendations as to how maybe we could improve our services, where we could then be more efficient and cut back, or if, indeed, there are areas that we can reduce in some departments, how we can reduce the budget in the departments, and at the same time, to have the responsibilities of seeing how we could bring in new revenue to the City of Miami for whichever departments they have chosen to look over. There might be other possibilities here. Maybe there might be someone out here in the public that might be willing to offer some ideas and point them out, line item, of where we can bring in new revenue. I've been asking that every time we have met. But the easy part for some would be that they just sit back, not do anything to help this City, knowing that whatever decision we make is going to have one group or another mad, because nobody likes to pay more, and then attack, attack, attack. But for those that plan on doing that, I again offer them the opportunity to let us know, come up here and point to us, line item, where the dollars can come from to run this City. So we will get to that in a minute. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, would you look at the document - if I may? - the document, "Expenditure Cuts," which was given to us this morning. If I did nothing more than hold up capital improvements, it's three million dollars ($3,000,000). And we talk about finding other revenues that could reinstitute these cuts of capital improvement over the period of a year, and we can reduce the fire fee by 25 percent. I'm talking about - and I'll make an enemy with the clerk - record archives, floating docks, redoing the dock master's office, Watson Island renovations - I don't know what they are - automated time and attendance, new computers in headquarters building. That's three million dollars ($3,000,000) in just capital improvements. Now, if, in fact, we're going to be honest and we're going to look for new revenues, every time we find one, we can reinstate one of these programs. But if we decide right now that we're 21 April 14, 1997 going to hold these out, that would reduce the twelve million dollar ($12,000,000), as he said, deficit, by 25 percent. We could then take and turn around and reduce the fire fee by 25 percent. And that's the point I'm trying to make, that that could be a reality. You could... I'm amazed at why they haven't stopped the subsidy of Artime of a hundred and eighty-three thousand dollars ($183,000). Closing the door, you save the subsidy. You get a little bit of maintenance. But these are the kind of things that I'm talking about, and I have talked about, Mr. Mayor, that I think are possible. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, I believe that there might be somewhere in the neighborhood of four to six million dollars ($6,000,000) that we could find now that between now and January of next year, before we would send the bills out, that we can find in other ways. But if we don't, or if we fall short of that, that's where the danger lies. For instance, one that is the easiest one to point out here is the residential recycling program. That would save, right off the bat, eight hundred and seventeen thousand dollars ($817,000). Commissioner Plummer: That's one of them. We talked about going... trash pickup. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. That's the easiest. But what you're looking at here, Commissioner, are some items that, you know, we have to decide if we're going to move with them this year, or if not, they're going to be hitting us next year in the fiscal year. Some of these might be able to wait another year, at best, but some of them, they cannot. In fact, some of them are items that by approving these dollars, they're going to bring even more to us within a short while. You know, the floating dock, that's one that will bring additional dollars to us. Commissioner Plummer: And if we find revenues, then we do it. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: We need to make a decision. Are we going to come back later on and go through this? I personally, like my colleague, am very disappointed that they didn't give us any additional time, because I don't think anybody is happy with the way this fire fee has been put together. Mayor Carollo: No one is. Commissioner Gort: I think it could have been restructured a little bit more if we would have had a little more time. Unfortunately, we have the restriction of time. I agree with J.L. and Regalado, what they stated before. There's certain departments we can go into. I know I met with the Sanitation and with the union of Sanitation. They're looking at different options to come back, where they can reduce it for quite a bit. But I don't think we can do it overnight. I don't think we can do it here today. We have to realize that whatever decision we make, there are consequences, and we've got to analyze what the consequences are going to be. I don't think we can make a decision today, just by sitting here, we're going to cut here, there and there. We're all going to he hurt, because whatever tax is put together, it's going to pass onto everybody. We're all going to be paying for it. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor... Commissioner Gort: I think there's a commitment... Vice Mayor Regalado: Oh, sorry. 22 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Gort: I think there's a commitment from this Commission that, if possible, not to implement this fee. My suggestion is, we've got to work like mad. And one of the biggest I problems that I had, I had a group of individuals from the downtown that were willing to meet with us, work with us, and come up with different alternatives... We still have that possibility. I think it's everyone's job, not only the Mayor's, to get together, look at how we can reduce the cost, and at the same time, how we can improve recurring revenues. I've got a group of people that are willing to work with us, and I will continue to work with them, and I'm sure they're going to come up with some good ideas. I think people now realize this is a serious problem. I think many, many people out there did not realize that we did have a problem. We also have to realize we have done quite a bit. This is the problem. You saw that agreement with the County. It was signed in 1969. According to what I've read, this problem began back in 1955, and I think that's been stated once more and again in here. We intended to fix a problem that had taken years to develop. They want us to do it in one year. I think this Commission and this staff have done a hell of a job with what they have come up to so far. Commissioner Plummer: Agreed. Commissioner Gort: And I don't think today we can sit here and judge where we're going to cut, because we don't know what the consequences are going to he. I think we have to move on this, and all of us work with whatever ideas we have, and bring it to the Manager. And let me tell you, every time somebody comes to me, an employee with a suggestion, or anyone, I pass it on to the Manager. Let them work. We've got a new team in here. We have to give them time. I think what I'm hearing from the rest of the Commissioners here, nobody wants to implement this fee. And the only way we're going to do it is work with the private sector, with our staff and ourselves, reduce costs where it can be reduced, where the consequences will not be affecting the people; and number two, bring ideas to increase our revenues. And I think that's where we're at. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Precisely because of this document that we got this morning, it's because I asked the other day for a 45-day extension. The three million dollars ($3,000,000) that J.L. spoke about... may be the one million dollars ($1,000,000), may be the one dollar ($1) that we can save. But it will be unfair for us and for the departments to sit here and look through this and say, "We're going to do this and we're going to do that. I think that we should go to the departments, that we should spend time going desk by desk and talking to the people. I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to spend all my mornings going to the departments that you will assign to me, whatever department it is, talking to the people, and come back to this Commission and to the Manager with the ideas. 1, like Willy said, I do not know the consequences of every one of these cuts, but I am sure, I am positive that if we would have time from the Oversight Board, we could have come hack with maybe half a million, but that half a million would be implemented to offset the cost of the fire fee. We all know the fire fee is wrong. It's the wrong way to go about this, but it's the only option that we have. I said that I would be willing to vote yes and take whatever heat is necessary. But I also... I also request from this Commission an official commitment, if we can make it, of passing a resolution, passing a motion saying we're going to do this, but we don't promise. We are committed to come back to this auditorium and bring back some ideas and discuss it with the people, and with the employees. So I am ready to vote. But I guess that we need to hear from you, Mr. Mayor, and the Manager, what or how we're going to do this, looking into departments, because I think that we can save some money without cutting services to the people of Miami. And if we do that... And if we do that, then we can tell the people of Miami, "Look, we did what we can. We saved you this." We are not going to hide what we saved from the people. Give the people a full report, because after all, the people are the casualty here, not us. So I am willing to vote, Mr. Mayor, but I would, if I may, if I have to do it in a motion, to make a commitment to come back not only with recurring revenues, but with reasonable savings - let's not call it cuts - savings in the different departments, and report to this Commission, to the Manager, but especially to the people, who, at the end of the day, are the ones that are going to pay for this, what we have done. 23 April 14, 1997 I'm ready to vote, Mr. Mayor, and I'm also ready to come back here with - not cuts - savings, and also try to bring ideas that would be approved or not by the Oversight Board. And I just hope that the Oversight Board would understand what we're trying to do here. I know that Lieutenant Governor Buddy McKay, when I spoke to him, I asked him point blank, "What is it that you want? Do you want a fee, do you want a tax or do you want some cuts in the government? Do you want some savings?" "I don't care," he said. "We just want a balanced budget." So this is my position. I am ready to vote. But I am also ready to present a motion to commit, even if we paint ourselves into a corner, to commit this Commission to bring back savings, however small they may be, and also new revenues, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: We could incorporate, I think, a motion like that and whatever we pass today, in fact, I think it would be appropriate that we would include within the motion that we make today what our intentions and goals are. And maybe Commissioner Plummer might even find it sufficient if a majority of the Commission want to vote upon this today to vote for it, if we would include that 50 percent minimum, that 50 percent goal within the motion that we approve. Commissioner Plummer: Well, Joe, let me... let me ask a couple of questions, if I may. Mayor Carollo: If I may, J.L.? I'm sorry... Commissioner Plummer: Proceed. Mayor Carollo: I feel that Commissioner Hernandez has been trying to say a word Commissioner Plummer: I can wait, sir. I can wait. Mayor Carollo: And then we'll go right to you. Thank you. Commissioner Hernandez: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have... I came this morning to discuss alternatives and proposals. If not, we should just go ahead and vote. I... I have several questions for the Manager, and then I want to talk about two proposals that we should consider this morning, and see what the Commission thinks about it. Number one, just to clarify, Mr. Manager, this year, if we would... when we... if we pass on this fee, we will be directly collecting this fee. Correct? It's not going to go through a Dade County tax hill. Mr. Marquez: For the first year, that is correct. The bills will go out in probably the January time frame, similar to the solid waste bills in the past. Commissioner Hernandez: The second question is as to School Board, collecting the fee from the School Board. In those Dade County... In those Broward County cities where this fee is impacting that area, have they been collecting the fee from the School Board in that area? Chief Gimenez: I don't believe they assess the School Board in those areas. Commissioner Hernandez: They decided not to. Chief Gimenez: They decided as a policy measure not to do it. Commissioner Hernandez: OK. Comes the proposal that I wanted to bring before the Commission... two proposals, actually. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Manager, on this. The majority of the residents of the City of Miami will not be impacted by this fire assessment fee. We're talking about approximately 38,000 units which come about from apartment units over four units. Correct? Four and over... five and over. 24 April 14, 1997 Chief Gimenez: That's correct. That's right. There's a total of 49,000 three and over, of which 11,000, approximately 11,000 are three- and four -unit buildings. Those, we will be picking up the garbage for them. Mayor Carollo: What basically it comes down to is, you're going to have approximately 92,000 units that will not be impacted, and 38,000 units that, at some point in the future, will have the potential to be impacted. Chief Gimenez: That's correct, sir. Commissioner Hernandez: Chief, follow me on this. Then the brunt of this fee, besides the commercial landowners, is going to be on these apartment units. Correct? Chief Gimenez: You have a percentage that will be on the apartment units, and then, obviously, on the other, commercial, industrial and institutional, yes, sir. Commissioner Hernandez: Two proposals I have. One proposal... I spoke to the Manager this morning. It's his opinion that we would not be able to justify it. The issue is, in the proposal, the following: Since we're giving a credit to those three- to four -unit apartment buildings, would we be able to pass on that four -unit credit to those buildings where we have five, six, seven, eight -unit buildings? For example, if I have a five -unit apartment building, we would charge them, instead of for five units times one hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($198), could we charge them only for one unit? If there's six units, then two units. If there's three... If there's seven units, then three, and if there's eight, then four, passing on the same credit that you're passing on to the three- and four -unit apartment buildings? 1 asked that question to the Manager this morning, and he basically stated that fie -did not think we could justify that. Chief Gimenez: No, sir. The fee has to be passed on equitably, and you can't... If it's a four - unit apartment building, you have to charge 198 times four. What the Administration is doing is we will be providing service for the three- and four -unit apartment buildings, because we are currently providing some of that service right now. So in order to treat everybody, you know, the same in that particular category or subcategory, the threes and fours, the Administration felt it was fair to go ahead and provide the garbage service to those units that were not being provided for by the City at this time. Commissioner Hernandez: And on the flip side, then, to provide garbage services to those units would be... The answer would be -what? - too expensive, or we don't have the actual machinery for it? Mr. Marquez: It would be too capital intensive at this point in time, because it's bins, and it's a different type of system. Commissioner Hernandez: The second proposal and the second thing I would like to bring up, if we would... We're looking at the expenditure cuts that you gave me this morning, items 5, 6, and 7, which is to reduce trash collection, modify residential recycling, and eliminate the night mechanical sweeping. You're looking at about two million one hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars ($2,147,000). If we were to pass on those savings to the 38,000 or what have you - the exact number I had was 38,000 units - it brings a savings of about fifty-six dollars and fifty cents ($56.50) to each unit that we're discussing, which would lower the fee from a hundred and ninety-eight to a hundred and forty-one fifty. Chief Gimenez: Once you make any lowering of... Let's say you come up with three million dollars ($3,000,000) in savings, and you want to reduce the entire fire fee by three million dollars ($3,000,000). You cannot target one particular building group. In other words, the three 25 April 14, 1997 million dollars ($3,000,000) savings will be... 34 percent will go to residential - excuse me - 25 percent will go to multi -family, et cetera, et cetera, on down the line. So each category will be reduced proportionately. Commissioner Hernandez: Why have we been able, then, to target the three- to four -unit apartment buildings? That's the problem that we're having, an inequitable distribution, and it's the question that I've continuously asked. And I know that it's... this is just something that we're tackling for the first time, the Administration as well as us. But that's... Those are the equitable issues that I'm having a problem with. Mr. Marquez: We're able to benefit the three- to four -unit property owners because we're providing a service to similar type of people in the same category. Half of the three- to four -unit property owners, we're already providing solid waste services to. So we're expanding that to the remaining three- to four- property... unit people. Commissioner Hernandez: In the proposals that I brought about - and I know that this is really shooting from the hip for both of you - have you looked into this, or is this something that you are... it's your opinion, at this point in time, based on what you've learned, or have you received an opinion from our consultants on these particular issues? Mr. Marquez: On the issue of being able to send hack a credit to a selected group, we know, for sure, by talking to the consultants that you have to do it proportionately. Commissioner Plummer: If I may? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Plummer: How many condo units are involved? Chief Gimenez: Approximately 18,000. Commissioner Plummer: Eighteen thousand. So I've got to multiply that by one sixty-six. Chief Gimenez: Correct. One sixty-five sixty-seven was the fee. Commissioner Plummer: Would you... Who's got a calculator? Would somebody calculate that? Commissioner Gort: Two point nine. Commissioner Plummer: That's two point nine. And we've reduced... we've reduced the trash fee to 80,000 for a hundred and sixty-six dollars ($166), and we collect, that is how much money? Chief Gimenez: Remember, now, the condo units are... the 80,000 includes 18,000 condo units. Commissioner Plummer: OK. So then take out that. We're still talking about roughly... It's going to be eighteen to twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) out of the general fund to supplement and to cover the amount of dollars that we presently are paying the Sanitation. Am I correct? It's ball park. Now... Are you finished, Humberto? Commissioner Hernandez: I have a question, one more. Commissioner Plummer: I'm sorry. 26 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Hernandez: Chief, would it be fair to say or would it be correct to say that the apartment units, apartment buildings, five to ten, five to 12-unit buildings in the City of Miami, the tenants that reside there and where they're located are a lot poorer than those that live in the Brickell area? Chief Gimenez: I don't have... Commissioner Hernandez: Is that fair to say? I'm just ask... Mayor Carollo: No, no. Commissioner Hernandez: Do you think... That's pretty much common sense, isn't it? Mayor Carollo: No. You have a lot of condominiums in many other parts of the City, Commissioner. Commissioner Hernandez: Yeah, but... Mayor Carollo: But right off the bat, the perception would be that's the case. But you have a lot of condominiums in many other areas. Commissioner Hernandez: Yeah. The biggest problem I have as it comes to that issue is I just don't find it equitably correct to give a credit to these condominium unit owners in Brickell when we're going to be hitting what I perceive, whether it's perception or not, in Little Havana, Wynwood and Allapattah, the bulk of these apartment units, again, five units and over, are there, where we have the poorest sector of the City of Miami being affected in a very strong nature, and then, we're going to give a credit to the condominium unit owners in Brickell. That's a lot of money. And I think it's unfair that the richer side of the City of Miami is going to be benefiting from this, and the poorer side of the City of Miami is not going to be benefiting. And I was ready to vote for this last Thursday. I told you this. There is no question that the benefits here outweigh the detriment to the City of Miami. We understand it's not a perfect plan, and this is the best of the worst alternatives. But why... How much money would we benefit if we would hit the independent condominium unit owners in Brickell? Do we have that number? Chief Gimenez: It would he a hundred and sixty-five sixty-seven times 18,000 units. Commissioner Gort: You're talking about two point nine million dollars ($2.9 million). Commissioner Plummer: Mm-hmm. Commissioner Hernandez: That's two point nine million dollars ($2.9 million). Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, if you would like to make it part of any motion, then throw them into the pot. Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. Commissioner Hernandez: I don't see why they should not be in the pot to begin with. I know that we thought about what kind of credit could we give them to make it more palatable, could we give them solid waste services, could we... Commissioner Plummer: Humberto? 27 April 14, 1997 ,j Commissioner Hernandez: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. You're saying one sixty-six times 18,000, or is it double? Chief Gimenez: No, sir. Commissioner Plummer: They never paid in the first place. Mr. Marquez: Well, they're using... Commissioner Plummer: You know, that's the point I was trying... I'm sorry to interrupt you, but they never paid before. You're planning on giving it back to them. So is it 18,000 once sixty-six or twice? I think it's twice. Mayor Carollo: No, sir. No. Once. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Let me. Mayor Carollo: Once. Let's go on the record with that. Commissioner Plummer: If... The motion is to enforce the one sixty-six against them? I'm asking the question. Commissioner Hernandez: Chief, the difference between a condominium unit, for example, on Brickell and a condominium - I'm sorry - and an apartment unit owner in that classification of five and over, the difference between the one sixty-five and pennies and one ninety-eight is because there's a -lot less calls? Is that correct? Chief Gimenez: No, sir. It's because... Actually, there are more calls to residentials, but you have 80,000 of them. So when you divvy up the money that's allocated to that category and divide it by 80, you get a certain rate, one sixty-five sixty-seven. But when you divvy up the 25 percent... Remember now, you have 80,000 units versus 49,000 units. So your cost per unit is going to be higher, even though they have... they might have a lower percentage on the cost. Commissioner Hernandez: Well, Mr. Mayor, if we're to really help the City as we want to, and if we're really going to spread the pain, then if you are to get my vote today, and if 1 am going to vote in favor of this fire assessment fee, then we spread the pain equally, and then we put everybody in the pot and mix it up, and we get the number, the real number that we should get. If my proposal to spread the money between... we cannot spread the money or give credit to these units owners, and I'm talking about now the five -plus unit apartment buildings, then Brickell must be included in this pot... Mayor Carollo: Condominiums. Commissioner Hernandez: The condominiums. Mayor Carollo: Wherever they're at. Commissioner Hernandez: Right, wherever they're at. ... as we.. as these unit... apartment buildings from five and over. And that's my belief on this point. Mayor Carollo: I would go along with that in the meantime, Commissioner, until we can look at other ways in the future of how to change that. 28 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to clarity certain things in here. Out of 18,000 unit, I would say maybe maximum, and I will try to get the number from somewhere, and I think I'm being very modest in this, it's about 5,000 that come out of Brickell. The next come out of the rest of the City of Miami. There's a lot of condominiums throughout the City of Miami. I want you to understand that. So let's not single out Brickell alone, because Brickell alone... Commissioner Plummer: No, no, it's condos. Commissioner Gort: ... if we're going to single out Brickell alone, you're talking about the Brickell buildings, the businesses there that are paying a lot of the taxes there also. Commissioner Hernandez: Right. Commissioner Plummer: I have a question of the Manager. Commissioner Gort: Let's make sure when we say this, it's all through the City. Commissioner Hernandez: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, if I'm not mistaken, the proposal that has been made to me, and I'm sure to other members of this Commission in reference to Off -Street Parking Authority, the only proposal I heard had the following terms and conditions: Number one, they would wipe clean the seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000) indebtedness; number two, they would give to this Commission in a lump sum eight million dollars ($8,000,000) in the surplus monies; and number three, an undetermined of reoccurring money out of the management fee to -be negotiated. The point that I'm interested in is the eight million dollars ($8,000,000) that they would give in a lump sum, which is the surpluses of the Off -Street Parking, Now, I understand that's got to be bid, but if that's their hid alone, it's either going to be that or higher. As I looked through and I listened to my colleagues, if we were to take out the capital improvements, it's three million dollars ($3,000,000). Now, that's three million dollars ($3,000,000) on the front page. It doesn't include the capital improvements on the hack page of additional half a million... Fire Department capital and miscellaneous capital reserves. So that's another half a million. If we modify in the trash collection and the recycling, that's two point one. That, within itself, is, in fact, what I've been asking for of a 50 percent reduction. Now, as we all have agreed, and I fully concur, that we work like the devil to make up the additional revenues this year to implement these programs back into existence, if we find the money. Yet, we are guaranteed that money from the Off -Street Parking of eight million dollars ($8,000,000) in surplus that we would be getting overnight to assure that these programs would be put back in. If, in fact, that were the case, and we were to reduce by six million dollars ($6,000,000), in my estimation, we could reduce the fire fee by 50 percent. Then I could vote for it. But all I'm saying to you is that these are things that are not life and death. I mean, redoing the marina dock master's office to the amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000). The floating dock, yes, it will create revenue, but we're going to get money from the Off -Street Parking and other sources. These are not things, in my estimation, that's going to make this City fail. It might not be as pretty, it might not be whatever we want until we find the revenues to do it. Mayor Carollo: But the problem, J.L., is, it's not as simple as that. We have to show that whatever we are going to reduce the fire fee by is going to have to be recurring revenue. That's the problem. Commissioner Plummer: No, no, I understand that. Joe. There's no question about it. But in nowhere... Mayor Carollo: In other words, I would prefer in the concept that we're talking about with the Off -Street Parking Authority, instead of them retiring the seventeen million dollar ($17,000,000) 29 April 14, 1997 bonds that are there and us getting the eight million that we're not going to be able to use for recurring revenue, we're going to be able to use as a one time, I would much rather prefer that they don't pay up the bonds, and we work out a structure of how much we're going to be getting on a yearly basis from them... Commissioner Plummer: That's negotiable. Mayor Carollo: ... where they can throw... Well, of course. But what I'm saying is that that's the way to go to be able to reduce the amounts here. We have to structure the Off -Street Parking management contract in a way that it will bring in recurring revenue that can be counted towards our budget. Commissioner Plummer: And I fully concur with that. What I'm saying to this Commission... And I, like every one of the members of this Commission, am committed to going forth to find additional revenues, and they're there, whether they're cuts or revenues. Eliminate these things that are not life or death. That drops this fire fee by six million dollars ($6,000,000) or 50 percent. And as we find these revenues and we find cuts, reimplement these programs that we have cut on a priority basis. That's all I'm saying. Mayor Carollo: The way that the fire fee is presently presented, how much more dollars, for the record, will it bring in the way that it is being presented right now, without including the suggestions that have been made by members of the Commission on condominiums, et cetera? Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, not my numbers, but let me give you the Manager's numbers, because I asked him to give me cuts in... proportionate to what the fire fee would raise. Mayor Carollo: Twelve million eight hundred and ninety-five thousand. Commissioner Plummer: Twelve million eight ninety-five. Mayor Carollo: But I want to get that in the record from the Manager. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Excuse me. By the way, I disagree with that number of what this fire fee is going to raise, simply because of the garbage fee out of the general fund. But that's... Mayor Carollo: So the number of twelve million eight hundred and ninety-five thousand, is that correct, Mr. Manager, approximately? Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: It's in the ball park. Mayor Carollo: Now, if we throw the condominiums into the equation, that would generate approximately another two million eight hundred and eighty-eight thousand dollars ($2,888,000). Commissioner Plummer: Call it three. Mr. Marquez: Approximately. Mayor Carollo: Approximately that. Now... Commissioner Plummer: And then all you've got to do, Mr. Mayor, is another three million, and you got my vote. And drop the fire fee by 50 percent. You got my vote. 30 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: What... Commissioner Plummer: And it doesn't mean... excuse me. Mayor Carollo: J.L.... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'll tell you right now, I would vote for that. And I would also vote for this: If, after I have considered that we have found every source of revenue that we cannot, we have gotten to the bare bone, I'll vote for an increase in the fire fee. But I believe, I truthfully believe that we can find more cuts. And all I'm saying to you is... Mayor Carollo: Well, we all believe in that. But we've got to make a decision by tomorrow. Now... Commissioner Plummer: No, I can make a decision today. I'm ready to do it now. Mayor Carollo: My question to you is, Commissioner... Let me see if I understood what you said. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mayor Carollo: Out of the six million that we're talking about now in reductions, are you willing to count the approximately three million of the condominiums towards this? Commissioner Plummer: I'll... Mr. Mayor, my bottom line is simple. Cut the fire fee by 50 percent across the board. Mayor Carollo: The fire fee, as you've had now, of twelve million... Commissioner Plummer: ... would be six million dollars ($6,000,000). Mayor Carollo: ... of twelve million eight hundred and ninety-five thousand, you're saying approximately six million. And by us bringing the condominiums into it, the two million eight hundred and eighty-eight thousand... Commissioner Plummer: We got another three to cut. Mayor Carollo: ... then we could look for another three million dollars ($3,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: Yes, sir, and you got my vote. Mayor Carollo: OK. Let's see if we can do this today, in one form or another. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor... Commissioner Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor... excuse me. Mayor Carollo: And then we will come back. Commissioner Plummer: I'm ready right now to make a motion, if you want it, to cut out the capital improvements, which come to three million seventy thousand dollars ($3,070,000), to implement the condominium, which would bring in three million... whatever, reduce the fire fee by 50 percent, and move the item as then presented... amended. I would... I'm ready to make that motion. 31 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: Well, there's other things that could be done here. But that's within the scope of this. But let's hear the other members of the Commission. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, sir. Mr. Marquez: Excuse me. So that we don't get too far down on this conversation without making sure we're on the same page. The fire fee itself is slated to bring in thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) in total. So if you cut... If you're talking in terms of cutting the gross fire fee, you're talking about cutting in excess of fifteen million. Mayor Carollo: No no, no. Commissioner Plummer: No. I'm talking about... Mr. Marquez: If you're talking about the net increase... Commissioner Plummer: What I'm talking about... You know what I'm talking about. The amount of money that that money would actually net - not gross - net. There's a big, big difference there, and there's even a lot of discrepancies there. The point I'm simply trying to make, if this Commission - and I feel without question - is honest with ourselves, that we're going in the next six months to find additional revenues, then let's cut these things out now, implement them as we find these additional revenues, and cut this fee in half. That's all I'm saying. I think it is... absolutely can be done, and I think that that's where you have my vote, without question. Now, as far as Nick Bogart having an eleven o'clock news broadcast that he's not going to make for the final notice, the other TV stations will get it. Nick, next time, more luck. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: He's been going nuts over there. Commissioner Hernandez: We have my proposal. We brought in the condominiums. I've put that one on the table. Commissioner Plummer is talking about the capital improvements. How much do we have there, approximately? Mayor Carollo: We got three million seventy thousand ($3,070,000). That... some, we got to do this year, but... Commissioner Plummer: OK. But Joe... Mayor Carollo: ... I'm not concerned about taking some out, because we will be able to replace them during this year. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: My problem is this, Commissioners... Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, if I may? 32 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: ... that we knew... Commissioner Plummer: You have two more on the back. Mayor Carollo: Excuse me? Commissioner Plummer: You have more on the back of the second page Mayor Carollo: Yeah, yeah. My problem is this, and my concerns are this: That we know we can bring in some additional recurring revenues. And when I'm talking about recurring revenues, I'm not talking only in new monies, but I'm talking about potential additional savings that we could have in-house. That's what the real definition is to recurring revenue. We all know that. But the problem is that we have to be careful in what we present to the Oversight Board, because unless we give them the actual proof that by us eliminating these capital improvements or parts of them, we're going to be able to replace this with recurring revenues from another source. They might come back to us and say, "Uh-uh, we're not going to take this." Now, this is where the Manager that has dealt with them the most can, I think, give us some guidance on how to approach that. And I think we're there to reach a consensus of five votes in this Commission today. We have been voting united up to now, and there is no reason why we can't keep going on this way. It hasn't been an easy process for anybody. It's been tough all along. We all know that, and particularly us five up here, the City Manager, and some of his key staff, know more than anybody just how tough it's been. The next group in line are the union presidents sitting over there, because they have been the ones that have had to answer to the employees of the City, too, that have given a tremendous amount up. So, I mean, it hasn't -been an easy process, by any means. But gentlemen, we started this fiscal year in the right track, when we found out the problems that we had. We have been able to accomplish, as I've said before, what no other major city in the country was able to do in the first fiscal year that any of them had a financial crisis. Somehow, we've been able to do away with the deficit this year. We've stuck together throughout it all. I'd like for us to finish this by getting ourselves out of the City's financial nightmare that we've had together. There are almost three million dollars ($3,000,000) from the condominiums that we're going to throw in. Commissioner Hernandez: Right. Mayor Carollo: We're looking for approximately three million more dollars ($3,000,000) Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor you're... Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort had made a good point before, and I think we should heed his words. We shouldn't just jump into this and taking from the expenditure cuts without discussing the effects that it might have. But we're not that far now. We're approximately halfway. Now, we need guidance, Mr. Manager, from you, of how we can go about accomplishing what we want to - and I think you've understood us - in a way that would be acceptable to the Oversight Board on the recurring revenue side. For instance, if... let's do the easy ones. We do away with the recycling program beginning October 1st. It's eight hundred and seventeen thousand. The reduced trash collections, let's go to Exhibit A. This one is a Iittle tricky. We're talking about collecting trash once... well, residential trash collection will be accomplished by requiring residents to place small trash containerized bags or bundles with twice per week garbage. Large bulky items and tree cuttings will be placed separate at curb site for scheduled monthly collection. Special collections to be provided at a cost to residents. What are we doing to have these savings of six hundred and fifty thousand a year? What are we doing to make sure that we're going to have the enforcement side of it? In other words, once we change this... And maybe you have some people that are not going to like it that are going to 33 April 14, 1997 want to just dump their trash in the streets. What are we going to do on the enforcement side to make sure that we're not going to have a free for all in our City streets? Mr. Marquez: Right off the bat, we've already programmed enforcement personnel to be hired, because that was an issue, regardless of which path we went down. Mayor Carollo: OK. That's included, then, in what we're discussing today in the new budget, and I want to get that on the record, also. But, now, my... I will be willing to go along with this reduction. However, I would not be willing to start implementing a new policy like this until January 1st. In other words, get by the first quarter. Let me explain why. To implement a new program like this, if you start doing it in November during Thanksgiving, then December during Christmas, these are worst times of the year for trash collecting, where people are going to be throwing trash out in the streets, and this would be the worst time for us to implement... begin to implement, rather, such a program. I would be willing to start implementing this on January 1st in the second quarter. That would bring, then, a savings of four hundred and eighty-eight thousand. So then we have eight hundred and seventeen thousand in the recycling, four hundred and eighty-eight thousand in the savings of the reduced trash collection, beginning January 1st. So we have another savings of a million three hundred and five thousand, if that's acceptable. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor, why couldn't we have even an extra saving? Instead of trash collection as a whole, why couldn't we collect it once a month, instead of going to this small bag or bundle with twice per week garbage? Mayor Carollo: Well, I think, Commissioner, you have a good point, but I think that we need to ease in the implementation of a plan. Once you get residents accustomed to the change, then it will be easier to implement additional measures. Commissioner Plummer: Gradually, Commissioner Gort: I think I could explain that one. In talking to residents in the different areas, I, myself, I cut my own grass. I cut it at least twice a week. Commissioner Hernandez: Right. i Commissioner Gort: That grass you take up, a lot of the people use trash to do that. The one thing about eliminating the one trash a month... and hopefully, we can do something very similar to what the County does. When the individual really needs to do away with trash, we can give him full service if... You will eliminate the illegal dumping that takes place in the City of Miami. My understanding is we got about 22,000 tons, at forty-five or fifty dollars ($50) a ton that we pick up because of illegal dumping, because we do such a great job in here that everybody is dumping in the City of Miami. Commissioner Plummer: I have a question. Commissioner Gort: This is one of the savings. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, we all know that this Commission is committed to Bedminster. When is the final drop -dead date for Bedminster to be in operation? Mr. Marquez: October '98. Commissioner Plummer: October '98, we're going into a system... And the reason I voted for Bedminster was they will send one truck down the street, and they will pick up everything in that 34 April 14, 1997 A lk one truck, because in their facility, they can separate what today takes three trips down the street. They can separate out recycling, they can separate out trash, and they can separate out edible garbage. Am I correct? OK. So when we're talking about the collection aspect, that's still there, but greatly reduced in cost, offsetting... What we're paying them is about five dollars ($5) more a ton. They... We don't have those long runs up to Broward County. So what I'm saying i to you is, if you look right now, I don't think that the people in the County are happy. They're paying - what is it? - five hundred dollars ($500) for trash and garbage in the County? How much? Chief Gimenez: I think it's three forty. Commissioner Plummer: No, they pay more than that. The Gables is paying four ninety-five. OK. What's the County paying? Mr. Ron Williams (Director, Solid Waste): I believe it's three forty-nine. Commissioner Plummer: OK, three forty-nine they're paying in the County. And guess what? They have to take their trash to a central dump to get rid of it. And they're paying three hundred and forty-nine dollars ($349). We're going to say in the City of Miami, they're not paying anything, and we're going to pick it up, still, as we have, but on the smaller stuff you put in a bag and put out at the curbside. I mean, we're still way ahead of the County. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Manager, we're down to having to find a million eight hundred and seven thousand dollars ($1,807,000) out of what we have here. Now, you better get all your top management people that are here together and be very alert and listening, because we want to get -right to the bottom of it. Even though we might come back and say, "OK, maybe we're going to replace this cut with one that we made today," but we need to take another million eight hundred and seven thousand dollars ($1,807,000) out. So either you tell us the ones that are least painful or we will tell you the ones that we're going to start choosing; from here on. Commissioner Plummer: Do I understand you correctly that basically, we're coming to a bottom line of cutting the fire fee by 50 percent? Mayor Carollo: No, sir. We're cutting six million dollars ($6,000,000), as you said... Commissioner Plummer: Oh. OK. Mayor Carollo: ... from the fire fee. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's... unless I'm misunderstanding, that was what that number was. What time are we coming back, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Carollo: Well, would you all like some time when we come back? Mr. Marquez: Yes, I would love some time, sir. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Carollo: When would you like for this Commission to convene so that we could finalize this today? Mr. Marquez: Twelve -thirty? Mayor Carollo: Twelve -thirty? 35 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Oh, no, no. That's too soon. Come back at two. Mayor Carollo: Two o'clock? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. I got a major problem, Joe. Mayor Carollo: OK. Well, OK. The only problem that I have is I've got to get my daughter at three. Commissioner Plummer: What time? Well, let's come back at four. Mayor Carollo: OK. Let's came back at four. Commissioner Plummer: That gives us eight hours till midnight. Vice Mayor Regalado: Can't do. I cannot do it. I cannot do it. Mr. Mayor, my understanding was that we were the ones that were to look into the departments, and not listen... Commissioner Plummer: That's fine... He's got a problem. What time is your program? Vice Mayor Regalado: Four o'clock. Commissioner Plummer: Till? Vice Mayor Regalado: Six. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's... Mayor Carollo: We... Commissioner, the proposal that we're making is that... and you're correct. Each member of the Commission is going to be responsible for at least one main department. However, what we are trying to accomplish today is to have a unanimous vote where we are going to present our first proposal to the Oversight Board of our budget of recurring revenues, where we will still have the opportunity, as it was discussed here, to revisit any changes or additions that need to be made between now and January of next year, when this would be implemented. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor the problem that I have is that we are saying here that we are going to try to do a 50 percent cut on the fire fee. Mayor Carollo: No. We're saying six million dollars ($6,000,000). Vice Mayor Regalado: That's right. That would be probably less than 50 percent. Mayor Carollo: Well, it's approximately 50 percent of the original twelve million eight hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars ($12,895,000) that was presented to us. Commissioner Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, let's not make any... You know, I'm not going to cut jelly beans with you. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: I said 50 percent for my vote. I estimated six was 50 percent. Now, if that's not 50 percent, you know, tell me what is the difference right now, and then I'll know. I mean, if we're talking about six five... 36 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: Four hundred and forty plus thousand dollars, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: I can be had. Commissioner Gort: That's one of your problems. Vice Mayor Regalado: Yeah. But what I'm... Mayor Carollo: I hate to ruin your day, but no matter how we vote today, there are not going to be any happy faces. You know, maybe there's only one guy in town that goes around with a happy face, but it's still going to be a tough decision. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, let me ask a question, if I may. Mayor Carollo: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, you know, we brought that Mayor down from Philadelphia, and I tried to listen as close as possible. Mr. City Attorney and Mr. Manager, he made a proposal that I think that is absolutely necessary in this community, as far as recurring revenue. He spoke about business pleasure. Is that what he called it? If you're out in Hialeah, and you're doing business in the City of Miami, you pay a tax. Now, predicated on what I got for this City from the Florida League of Cities on insurance companies who were selling policies in the City of Miami, the first year, this City was the recipient of three hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars. And I'm wondering why we haven't pursued... if it... if we can. He told us of the millions of dollars that were being raised by Philadelphia because of all of these companies who were outside of the City limits who came in the city limits of Philadelphia to do business. They charge them a tax percentage on gross of their revenue. All I'm saying is, if it's legal, I think it is absolutely... As you know, I've been chastised many times for doing business with home folks. Charity starts at home. These people who choose to do business in the City of Miami and pay their taxes, God bless them. I love them. But these people who choose to do business out of the City of Miami, but want to take tax dollars out of my City out to some other city, I think, should pay for the privilege. I would hope, Mr. Manager, that you would get more details on that provision, because he indicated, as I understood it, that that was a very big chunk of change. Commissioner Gort: What you're saying is, first, they do not have offices in the City of Miami. They're outside of the City of Miami, and they do business in the City of Miami. Commissioner Plummer: That's what I'm saying. That's what he said. Commissioner Gort: Not the residents but... Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. It has nothing to do with the residents. If you're selling trucks out there and you sell one in the City of Miami, you pay. The predicated is on the fact that the insurance companies, who were... not even Florida, insurance companies out of the State of Florida who were writing policies in the City of Miami, we got three hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars ($376,000) the first year. I think it was through occupational licenses of some sort. Check with the Florida League of Cities. There's a company in Atlanta, Georgia that goes out and finds the money for you. They charge you two percent. That's the only thing the first year, is the two percent. But the Florida League of Cities can tell you that very, very quickly. The second thing that I wanted to ask, Mr. Manager, on workmen's comp. and other insurance, Florida League of Cities tells me that they have had no inquiry from the City of Miami. They basically save on workmen's comp. 25 percent of premium. And I thought that I had asked that 37 April 14, 1997 at least they be consulted or asked to make a bid on the City, because they are now, just so you know they're not any "schlock" outfit, they are writing this year a hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) in premiums, only to governments. They can't write outside of governments. So I'm just hoping that you will pursue with them and take it from there. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, can we reconvene at five p.m.? Commissioner Plummer: Sir, I can basically reconvene... If I have a couple of hours, I'll reconvene whenever you want. Five o'clock is fine with me. Mayor Carollo: OK. Five p.m. This Commission will then reconvene at five p.m. Commissioner Plummer: Just before Bogart's six o'clock news. Mayor Carollo: And this... Commissioner Gort: By the way, I think we all received a copy of the ad hoc committee from the property owners in downtown Miami. I'd like for you all to look at it, so you can see the type of tax that's being paid by these properties. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 11:33 A.M. AND RECONVENED AT 5:06 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT. 38 April 14, 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. (A) OVERVIEW BY CITY MANAGER -- PRESENT CONTINUATION OF ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS. (B) DISCUSS IMPACT OF PROPOSED REDUCTIONS ON DIFFERENT CLASSES OF PROPERTIES -- (1) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER CHARGING FOR RESCUE SERVICES TO NON RESIDENTS & RESIDENTS WITH INSURANCE -- (2) EXCLUDE CHARGING CITIZENS FOR FALSE ALARMS CAUSED BY ACTS OF GOD --(3) CONTINUE TO SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES TO FIRE FEE -- REDUCE FEE BY SIX MILLION DOLLARS. (C) DISCUSS ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING PERMITS. (D) DISCUSS REDUCTION OF MULTI FAMILY FEE V.S. SINGLE FAMILY. (E) CLARIFY NUMBERS PROPOSED IN MODIFIED PLAN -- REALIZED SAVINGS GO TO PAY FOR GARBAGE FEE -- DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE PRIORITY TO SOLID WASTE WORKERS WHEN PRIVATIZING IF THEY MATCH BEST PRIVATE SECTOR OFFER. (F) PUBLIC INPUT -- DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO COLLABORATE WITH UNIONS / PRIVATE SECTOR TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR RECURRING REVENUES -- FURTHER DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO INFORM PUBLIC OF ASSESSMENT FEES. (G) CLARIFY PROPOSED SEVERANCE PAY & INSURANCE POLICY FOR EXECUTIVES UPON SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT -- FURTHER, DIRECTING ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT ON MONIES COLLECTED BY MARINE PATROL PROGRAM. (H) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT ON STATUS OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY FUND ESTABLISHED TO COPE WITH IMPACT OF WELFARE REFORM. (I) DISCUSS DISCONTENT OF SOLID WASTE EMPLOYEES. (J) APPROVE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR PLAN AS MODIFIED. (K) DESIGNATE DEPARTMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY COMMISSIONERS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Plummer: Have you got the new document he put out? Mayor Carollo: Good afternoon. The afternoon session has now begun. Mr. Manager, where we left it at in the morning session was that you were to go back and look where we could find... for the additional dollars that we agreed that we would reduce. We had agreed that we would reduce the full amount by six million dollars ($6,000,000). And after we indicated where two- thirds of the cuts would be coming from, actually a little over two-thirds, we asked you to give us your preference where the other cuts would come from before we would indicate to you where we would cut the rest from. In other words, we gave you the opportunity to indicate to us your preference. Otherwise, we would tell you where we were going to cut the amounts that we indicated from. So if we could begin on that note, then, on your final recommendations. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): The total amount of reduction that was discussed this morning was six million dollars ($6,000,000). And as you had said, the City Commission had indicated that the elimination of the credit for the condos would be included in that. Same thing with the elimination of curbside recycling. And we would also attempt to modify the trash 39 April 14, 1997 j pickup, effective January 1st of '98. We went back and we reviewed the other expense items that we could reduce. And we would suggest that we reduce the management recovery items. That's the hiring of mid -management and training, by five hundred seventy-six thousand. We would defer one-half of the computer acquisitions that are scheduled for '98. That amounts to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of deferral. We would defer an acquisition of a time and attendance computer system. That's four hundred and seventy -thousand. And we would defer police headquarters renovations. That's four hundred thousand. All these cuts amount to the six hundred thousand, which balances off with the reduction of the net fire assessment. Now, we would ask that the City Commission, at the same time that we suggest these cuts to the Oversight Board, that the City Commission adopt as part of the plan that we commit to continued negotiations with major league soccer for use of the Orange Bowl facilities on a ten-year lease, to be brought back to the City Commission at a future point in time. That we commit to a high use impact tee ordinance for non -assessed properties regarding fire service. This is to get to those tax-exempt properties of high use of Fire -Rescue, such as the hospitals, that we can charge them through a separate ordinance. Now, we don't have a dollar figure for that, because it's going to be based on experience. But if we do that by a separate ordinance, we can pick up those revenues in the next fiscal year. And then for... we also commit... We would suggest that you commit to use the revenues from these two items to the extent that they come in to fund those items that we're eliminating. Now, on the second page of the handout is the impact of the reduction of six million dollar ($6,000,000) on different classes of properties related to the fire assessment fee. The rate impact for a single-family home drops from a hundred and sixty- five dollars and sixty-seven cents ($165.67) down to a hundred and thirty-two dollars and sixty- one cents ($132.61). Multi -family units dropped from a hundred and ninety-eight dollars and ninety-three cents ($198.93) down to a hundred and fifty-nine dollars and twenty -tour cents ($159.24). Public housing units, if we were able to charge them, and we're still going to be investigating that, drops from five hundred and ninety dollars and thirty-five cents ($590.35) down to four hundred and seventy-two dollars and fifty-six cents ($472.56) per unit. And you can see there's listings for commercial, industrial and institutional down below, both on a square footage basis, and that's maximum rate per square foot, as well as the range from the smallest square toot building to the largest square foot building. And I believe this accomplishes what the City Commission had asked for this morning. Commissioner Plummer: I have one question, related to a subject this morning, if I could ask from the Fire Chief. Chief, you indicated this morning that on rescue, you only charge for transporting. Chief Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): On a call, yes, when we transport the patient. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Most accidents, people are covered by insurance. It would seem logical to me, for those people that we respond, that we provide a rescue service, especially those that are City residents. Our out -of -City residents should be charged a fee. If you go to the hospital, you pay a tee. OK? And I would think that it would be only proper that, in tact, that if you provide a rescue service to a non-resident of the City of Miami, that we should collect for it. I mean, they don't pay our taxes. And I would like consideration to he given that in the future, immediate future, that we start a consideration of charging for rescue services for at least non- residents. If residents have insurance, then I think we ought to collect it. But if they don't, then, you know, we'll deal with it accordingly. I think the day has got to come, Mr. Mayor... Other cities do it, and we're going to have to do it, and that is that there are certain privileges of people who live in the City and pay taxes in the City should have special breaks, as opposed to people who come into the City, utilize our services, and don't pay any taxes in the City of Miami. I think it's got to be. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner... 40 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: As a child, I remember, if I went to Venetian Pool, I paid to go into the swimming facility. If I was a resident of the City of Coral Gables, I didn't pay for it. And I'm not talking about how you and I used to sneak in the hack door. That's a different story. I just... huh? Commissioner Gort: But you helped build it. Commissioner Plummer: Well, yeah, I helped build it, right. I just think that it's got to come to that, because we just can't be the beneficiary to all people of this community. And I think that where we have a downtown Miami that swells in the daytime to a hundred... million and a half people, and we only have four hundred thousand residents who are paying the bills, then we've got to to find a way of other sources of income, especially from those people who we're providing the service for who pay no taxes in the City of Miami. So I'm giving you one person's opinion. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, you're bringing up a very good point that the Fire Chief and 1 have discussed in the past. I think your point is very well taken, very appropriate. This is what I'm talking about, about examples that are clear-cut. This is one example that if we had a little more time, we could fine-tune it with real estimates of how much additional dollars it could bring. And this is why I'm saying that whatever the final fee that is passed today, you could be sure that there are going to he revisions before it is implemented in January of next year. Approximately, Chief, how many calls... I don't know if you might have any numbers here with you, or if you can give us an estimate. Approximately how many calls do we have for rescue where we have to send someone out? Not transport an individual, but give them some kind of rescue assistance, where we clean up a wound, helping in different ways, do you have any idea how many of those calls we have? Chief Gimenez: The only thing I could tell you is that we probably transport anywhere between thirty-five and forty thousand patients, and that we have approximately 57,000 EMS (Emergency Medical Services) calls. So, you know, anywhere around 15,000, you know, to 20,000 people we actually see without transporting. That's a rough guesstimate right now. Mayor Carollo: I see. Commissioner Plummer: I have one other question. Mr. Manager, yesterday was a classic example, Saturday and Sunday. On false alarms in the Police Department, did we exclude acts of God? In other words, we had tremendous storms Saturday and Sunday, and listening to the police radio, we must have had pages and pages of burglar alarm calls that were caused by either the power outage or the electrical storm. Is there a determination made that in those particular cases that we're not charging the people? Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Plummer, the amount of six million dollars ($6,000,000) that we have here in reductions, is that to your satisfaction, as you stated this morning? Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready to make a motion any time that you're willing, or I'll let Mr. Regalado make it, who was impatient to do it this morning. This meets my criteria. I said this morning that I would vote for it with a 50 percent reduction and what... it was necessary, and this meets that criteria, sir. Mayor Carollo: OK. 41 April 14, 1997 Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, I... Yes, I was this morning, and I think that I'm also ready to make a motion. But the six million dollar ($6,000,000) figure doesn't have to be the exact of the future of the definite figure. Mayor Carollo: Of course not. Of course not. Vice Mayor Regalado: So we make clear this to the people of Miami, that we are not satisfied with six million dollars ($6,000,000; that we will be satisfied with the whole fire fee going away, and this is what this Commission is committed to do, to bring... not to say to the people of Miami, we are going to do away with so much of the fire fee, but to say to say to the people of Miami, we are committed to substitute, if not all, most of this fire fee. And I think that if I will make a motion, the motion will not say the six million dollars ($6,000,000), but it will say that this Commission is committed to try to look for alternatives to substitute part, most, or all the fire fee. Mayor Carollo: The motion, then, Commissioner, is that... Commissioner Plummer: That's not acceptable to me. Mayor Carollo: Well... Commissioner Plummer: To say, without stipulating, 50 percent of the money that's needed, or 50 percent reduction in the twelve... Vice Mayor Regalado: Oh, no, no. J.L., J.L., I was... I was saying that 50 percent is what we have now, that this... that we are committed to get more than 50 percent. Mayor Carollo: Let me see if I could clarify it. The motion that we're going to be voting upon is a motion that will approve the proposed five-year plan with the changes made that we have before us here now that will decrease the fees amount by six million dollars ($6,000,000), with the provision that this Commission will keep working and will meet no later than the first week of December of this year to try to finalize any final reductions that we can within this plan, where we would bring in recurring revenue into the City of Miami. Commissioner Plummer: It's acceptable to me. And the only thing Mr. Mayor, I think that... I don't want to be back in a position as to what we are today, at the eleven o'clock hour. Mayor Carollo: Well, no. I... Commissioner Plummer: I would not want to wait until December. I think we need to start... Mayor Carollo: That's the latest. That's the latest. Of course, we need to start now. Commissioner Plummer: OK. I think we need to start now. If, in fact... If the consensus up here is that we're each going to take a department, it's going to take a month or two months to start getting into that. Mayor Carollo: Absolutely. And before... Commissioner Plummer: So I don't want to wait out until December. Mayor Carollo: Before the end... 42 April 14, 1997 11, A E A Commissioner Plummer: Our fiscal year starts October 1. Mayor Carollo: Before the end of this meeting, you know, we will have that discussion and we'll make assignments for different departments the Commissioners will be responsible for. But I think, based upon everything that I've heard from the members of the Commission, the intent of the motion is how I explained it. The seconder of the motion accepts it. Is that in concurrence with what you've expressed, Commissioner? Vice Mayor Regalado: Yes, absolutely. A. Quinn Jones, III, Esq. (City Attorney): Mr. Mayor, if I might. I just want to offer you something. I mean, it's... Certainly, it's up to you. Given the language in the Intergovernmental Agreement, and the specificity, and definiteness that it has, and in light of what you wanted to achieve, I might offer to you that it may be best if you approved the plan that's been presented here as modified, and secondarily, you pass a motion that would encompass what the Vice Mayor wants to accomplish in terms of the City working toward reducing it, and coming up with recurring revenues that would further reduce that amount. Mayor Carollo: I see nothing wrong with that. We could pass one before with the modification of the six million dollars ($6,000,000) here, and once we pass it, then we could pass a separate resolution stating that. That would make it cleaner in our presentation to the Oversight Board. I don't see any problems with that. Mr. Jones: Yeah. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Carollo: Is that agreeable to the maker and seconder of the motion? Vice Mayor Regalado: Yes. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, in passing to accept the five-year plan with the six million dollar ($6,000,000) modification, would you also include the additions to the five-year plan that were submitted this morning? Commissioner Plummer: As modified. Mr. Marquez: Oh, as modified. Commissioner Plummer: That's what he said. Mr. Marquez: OK. Mayor Carollo: Very good. Commissioner. Commissioner Hernandez: Yes. Mayor Carollo: Any further statements? Commissioner Hernandez: I have one question to ask. Mr. Manager, the fire inspection fee waivers still go, right? The fire inspection fees as we had discussed prior still applies to every other property where we were going to waive them? Mr. Marquez: That is a not a component of the changes as of this point in time. 43 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Hernandez: But I'm saying prior to this, when we were talking about what credits could be given to the different owners, the fire inspection tee was being waived. Is it still being waived? Mr. Marquez: If the City Commission wants to do that, the answer is yes. But it has not been enacted as part of the plan today, because we did not take a vote on a plan prior to this point in time. Commissioner Plummer: Who... Commissioner Hernandez: Well, then, we have to discuss that, because that was part of the idea. That's always brought to me. Commissioner Plummer: Well, when, clue me in. Who are the waivers going to be given to? Vice Mayor Regalado: Everybody. Commissioner Hernandez: The Fire Chief. Vice Mayor Regalado: Yeah. The Fire Chief came to us and said that they're going to waive... Commissioner Hernandez: Yeah, the fire inspection fee. Vice Mayor Regalado: ... the fire inspection, which is fifty-three dollars ($53), and that will... Mayor Carollo: That would be... Commissioner Plummer: Oh, oh, oh. That's the second fee. OK. Yeah. Commissioner Hernandez: Right. Mayor Carollo: That would be beginning October 1st. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Commissioner Hernandez: Right. Mayor Carollo: That's what we're talking about. Commissioner Hernandez: Well, that fee is waived. Mayor Carollo: That came to approximately a million dollars... one million dollars ($1,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mayor Carollo: And we have a cushion there that we can put that in. Mr. Marquez: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Plummer: For the record, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask... You know, Mr. Manager, we made a lot of noise about this task force, that it was out collecting delinquent monies. And at 44 April 14, 1997 the time, they were telling us they were collecting fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) a day, I think, or some figure like that. I'd like to know... Does anybody know, as of today, how much of delinquent fees we have collected, and how that stacks up with what was projected? Chief Gimenez: As of... about a week ago were the last figures I got. We had collected... cash in hand and also receivables, over one point five million, and I think we projected somewhere in the vicinity of about one point one for the State. Commissioner Plummer: So you will, then, you feel, make the one point five? Chief Gimenez: Yeah. We definitely will make that. That's notices of violations, and also cash in hand, and the bulk of it is cash in hand. Commissioner Plummer: And the one for the ivory tower on the bay, that was a twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) violation? Chief Gimenez: Which one? The ivory tower on the bay? Vice Mayor Regalado: The Herald. Chief Gimenez: Oh. I'm sure we'll collect on that, too, sir. Commissioner Plummer: No, I'm asking, did you collect on it? Chief Gimenez: I couldn't tell you. We've collected so far... I don't think they were balking at the price, so... Commissioner Plummer: What were they derelict in doing that amounted to twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000)? Chief Gimenez: I think that... and this is not for sure. I think there were some CUs (Certificates of Use) that were not up to date, and I also believe there were some occupational licenses that hadn't been paid. Commissioner Plummer: Any reason maybe that didn't appear in the paper? Chief Gimenez: I don't want to speculate on that, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. Vice Mayor Regalado: Just for the record, Chief, are we sending back the rebate to the people that were charged seven hundred and some dollars for four years, and then we decided that it's going to be two years? Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. We're doing the calculations... excuse me. We're doing the calculations now, and they will be receiving a rebate from the four-year back -billing to two-year back -billing to those that got billed for four years. Mayor Carollo: Now, Commissioner, part of the problem that a lot of these monies for CUs were not collected from a lot of major corporations in town could have been the fact that inspectors were concerned with stepping on people's toes. And I think that as everybody could see, that's not the case anymore in Miami. Everybody will pay. I'm not faulting some that haven't paid if they weren't sent a hill, but everyone is going to get a bill now, and everyone is going to pay. 45 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Mayor, my concern is the fact that we have a rule, and let me just give you one rule that we have. Anyone who is doing construction in excess of a five hundred dollar ($500) amount - and I don't think you can do anything today to your house without a five hundred ($500) amount - has to have a building permit visible from the street. I look, and look, and look. I can't find one. And that's supposedly a hundred dollar ($100) fine. Is that correct? Hello? I'm calling collect. Mr. Marquez: I'm not sure, sir. Commissioner Plummer: No. I'm saying that... Mr. Santiago Jorge -Ventura: We are enforcing that... Commissioner Plummer: Sir... Mr. Jorge -Ventura: ... that they have to stamp over there. Commissioner Plummer: Sir, you haven't got enough paper to enforce it. I'm telling you, when I ride down the street, the first thing I look for is a large dumpster. That's the first thing I look for. The second thing I look for is a building permit. I have yet to see one. If they're a hundred dollar ($100) fine, you got a big source of money coming in there. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner, go ahead. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Manager, in looking at your new proposal... and I'm trying to make this fire assessment fee as palatable to everyone here in the City as possible. Answer, if you can, this question, and see if this is possible. We were making whole at one point in time, it was a total wash, the single-family units were paying a hundred and sixty-six dollars ($166) for solid waste. Correct? And then we were going to charge them a hundred and sixty-five sixty- seven for this fire assessment fee, which would bring them a savings of thirty-three cents a year. Correct? Mayor Carollo: Mm-hmm. Commissioner Hernandez: If now they will be saving a hundred and thirty - I'm sorry - they will be paying a hundred and thirty-two point sixty-one, that means they have a savings of thirty- three dollars and thirty-nine cents ($33.39). Instead of giving them that savings, can we keep them whole at the one sixty-five sixty-seven or one sixty-six, so they are at a complete wash, and pass that thirty-three dollars and thirty-nine cents ($33.39) on to the multi -family units, and further lowering the multi -family unit fee? Mr. Marquez: No, sir, we can't, because everything proportional to one another, based on the number of calls. If you were to do something like you're suggesting right now, it would make the overall fire assessment fee invalid. Commissioner Plummer: I'm not sure I agree with that, and let me tell you why. The fee was determined on service rendered and square footage formula. Why, I can't... I think we have the right to set our formula. And if you did set the formula, you just increase it by what he has just said. Chief Gimenez: No, no. I beg to differ with you. Commissioner Hernandez: My point is... and I understand what you're telling me. There's got to be a rational justification for this. ... is I can guarantee... and again, it could be up to legal 46 April 14, 1997 muster. We have to, obviously, look into that. But if a single-family resident owner is not affected, whatsoever, by this fee, basically, he's at the same point that... before this whole issue started. And we can further lower this multi -family fee and make people in this City less stressed out over this fire assessment fee. I think we should consider it, now. We're talking thirty-three dollars and thirty-nine cents ($33.39) of further reduction. And I understand what you're telling me. I'm just saying, maybe we should put this up and consider it. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, that's one of the questions that I asked before... Commissioner Gort: You're talking about two point six million dollars ($2.6 million). Mayor Carollo: No. Two million fifty thousand, out of which a million or so already is out... is out of the equation, because that's what we're using to not charge, replace the fire fee, that beginning October 1st, we're not going to charge. Therefore, we had to supplement it with something else in recurring revenue. So what we're basically looking at is a million dollars ($1,000,000) that's left there. I asked the same question and basically got the same answer you did. I think this is something that is one of the areas that we have to revisit. We have to sit with our consultants on this and try to find a way that we could bring that number down on the multi- family units. Now, again, there are going to be a lot of other ideas that we will have, a lot of other cuts of recurring revenues that are going to be coming between now and before this is implemented. So we're going to be revisiting this again. Commissioner Hernandez: For the record, Mr. Mayor, then it's fair to say that single-family units will be saving thirty-three dollars and thirty-nine cents ($33.39) a year. Mayor Carollo: -No. It's going to be the same amount, basically. It's going to be a wash. Whatever we are going to charge them for the fire fee... Commissioner Hernandez: ... is what we're going to charge them for solid waste? Mayor Carollo: ... is what is going to be taken out of the solid waste. So that difference of thirty-three dollars and thirty-nine cents ($33.39) is what they're going to have to pay in the solid waste. Otherwise, the balance would he tremendously uneven on the rest of the City, where we're actually then going to be charging others, and we're going to be giving single-family residents a rebate beyond what they're paying now in a garbage fee. Commissioner Plummer: Well, we're talking about ten cents a day. You can't convince me that anybody, as destitute as they might be, are going to be greatly and seriously affected by ten cents a day. You're talking multi -dollars, I agree. Mayor Carollo: But what... You don't understand, Commissioner. What we're doing is, instead, then, of them paying a hundred and sixty-six dollars ($166) a year... Commissioner Plummer: I understand. Mayor Carollo: ... they're going to... Commissioner Plummer: Still pay the amount, but split. Mayor Carollo: ... be paying a hundred and thirty-two dollars ($132) a year only. Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. Mayor Carollo: So that's where the difference is. 47 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Let's move on. Call the roll. Mayor Carollo: Well, we... Commissioner Gort: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Mayor Carollo: We have to listen to the public. Vice Mayor Regalado: Before we do call the roll or/and listen to the public, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to go back to something that I said this morning, and I think that we need to clarify that, and we need to be on the record, that in case this Commission will consider the privatization of the Solid Waste Department, there... then we're going to have to take steps to get this fire tee off some of the residences, because what is going to happen, whether it's a small or big fire fee that we will have next year, is that if we decide to go ahead and privatize any service, then we are going to have the people get stuck with the fire fee and a charge by a private company. Mayor Carollo: And I think we can make this clear, that if for any reason this Commission, at any time in the future, would go the privatization route on solid waste, that as long as the fire fee is implemented, then we would have to pay for the implementation, minus whatever difference there is right now of paying a private waste hauler, where the single-family homeowner would again be paying the same and not paying more. Vice Mayor Regalado: Do we need to make that in the way of a motion? Commissioner Plummer: It's included. No. We've already said it. It was in the five-year plan. Mayor Carollo: We've said it. I mean, unless any one of us up here feels any different. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd like to go over the numbers once again, to make sure that we get them all correct. Mayor Carollo: Sure. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is in residential, it would be a hundred and thirty-two sixty-one, and the difference of sixty-six will be going over to garbage and sanitation. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, the difference of thirty-three thirty-nine. Commissioner Gort: Multi -family, we're talking about one fifty-nine twenty-four. Mayor Carollo: Right. Commissioner Gort: Public housing, four seventy-two point five six. Mayor Carollo: Right. Commissioner Gort: Commercial, point ten, one-o. Mayor Carollo: Right. Commissioner Gort: Industrial warehouse, point o-three, and institutional, point one three. 48 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: Institutional is... yeah. A maximum of paint one two seven. Industrial, maximum of point three four. And commercial, maximum of point one zero four per square foot. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Mayor Carollo: OK. Any further statements at this point from the Commission? Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I want to go on record... and it's not here direct, but indirect. If we go privatization, there's 300 employees out there in that Sanitation Union that are constantly asking me every day, "Where are we?" And I'm going to go, for one... I'm not speaking for anybody but J.L. Plummer. To me, Sanitation employees have to have the offer that if they can match whatever offer is given by the highest... no, the lowest bidder, that they have priority. Now, I just... You know, these are 300 people that are family. And I wouldn't mind going privatization if you're saving 50, 60, 70 percent. I've got to say, "hey." But if they can match the best offer that we have, this one vote is going to keep the family together. So I just want to be on the record with that. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, we're in agreement with that, Commissioner. I always have been. All of us have been. OK. Tom, we're now in the public hearing part of this Commission meeting. Anybody that would like to address the Commission will have two minutes. Mr. Tom Gabriel: Tom Gabriel, Miami Association of Fire Fighters. First, a comment. It's been a long haul since September. I think this one's going to do it. The pain has been shared all the way across from everybody involved, and hopefully, we can make it through the next five years in the same way. I have two items that I'd like to bring up, neither one of them being monetary. One is on the blue ribbon panel. As a group, the union group, having been hammered pretty hard by Mr. Stierheim's report about how we have run the show around here, and that they need to take back management rights, I would appreciate if the Commissioners could do whatever they could to assure that at least one union appointee, whether it be from FIU (Florida International University) School of Labor or one of the presidents, be able to sit on that blue ribbon panel so that we can have a hand in the fox house, so that we are not surprised by all these things that come up, that we don't see. I think that would be a fair thing to do, to allow us to be part of the process in that blue ribbon panel. It's funded partly, at least, by the City, and I am sure you guys probably have some... Mayor Carollo: Tom, if you could put that request for me in a letter and make it formal, I will send it to the three co-chairmen. Mr. Gabriel: Thank you. Secondly, an item that I pointed out previously, page 36 and 37 of the five-year plan, the original five-year plan, talking about management rights and certain things. I don't really see a point of proving that in writing. Obviously, you guys are aware of it. I just want to go on to say that that is not going to be an easy battle. I don't see why the Commissioners want to sign on to that and block yourselves into a corner. You're already spending five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for an attorney to do something that we have both on staff, in labor relations and legal department that can very easily handle the negotiation sessions. So that's the only two comments that I have. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Thank you very much. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I was asked a question I couldn't answer. Mr. Marquez, there's three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) in this proposal for FIU. 49 April 14, 1997 Mr. Marquez: That was... It's perhaps mislabelled. It's three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) of funds set aside for consultant work as directed or as suggested by the blue ribbon committee. Commissioner Plummer: But is that every year? Mayor Carollo: No. Commissioner Plummer: Yes, it is. Mr. Marquez: It's three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for at least the five-year period of time. Commissioner Plummer: Yes, sir. That's... Mayor Carollo: But not including this fiscal year, Commissioner. Mr. Marquez: Starting... Commissioner Plummer: No, but it's for five years. It's a million and a half dollars. And I'm wondering, do we need... Mayor Carollo: Yeah, but this would be beginning next fiscal year, is what I'm saying. Commissioner Plummer: I understand. It's still a million and a half dollars. Five times three hundred thousand is a million and a half dollars. And I'm seriously questioning why we need five years of three hundred thousand dollars worth of studies. Mayor Carollo: If we don't need it, we won't spend it, Commissioner. You can he sure of that. Mr. Marquez: Well, we can modify future years as we get into them. Commissioner Plummer: This Commission will approve each and every year? Yes or no? Mr. Marquez: This Commission approves the budget every year, yes. That's absolutely correct. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Because I seriously question that that million and a half has to be spent. Mayor Carollo: Might not be. Hopefully not. Yes, sir. Mr. Angelo Sippio: Good morning. Mr. Mayor, my name is Angelo Sippio, and I'm a representative of Solid Waste. Solid Waste would like to be able to match private, when the time comes, if it ever comes up, but I have a couple of problems with... You got here, eliminate curbside, and you got here modified trash pickup. As for the last six, eight months, all I been hearing in the news, or on the news, or in the paper is that you had a problem with trash all over this town. And all of a sudden now, trash is all right, and you want to cut jobs. To me, that's... you're playing games. People in recycling want to be able to keep their jobs, and the people in trash want to be able to keep their jobs, and I don't know how... If you're going to modify trash now, and if you're having problems picking up trash the last six months or the last eight months, all of a sudden, it's going to be all right to keep up with trash. And the problem with trash right now, you don't have enough employees to pick up trash on time. And that's why you... You're talking about going to once a month instead of twice a month. You've got 18 cranes out there, 50 April 14, 1997 18 drivers driving cranes, and you got two trucks to a crane. Now, if two or three of the employees don't come in on that crane or the truck drivers, you cannot pick up that trash every day on time. We went from the thirty-two million budget two years ago when we first came here down to sixteen million. This is what the budget is supposed to be. Now, you're projecting it around twenty-one with all the overtime and all that kind of stuff. To me, we want to be able to keep our jobs. If the privates come in, we want them to hire every one of them employees. To put the trash and recycle on a cut -down in the whole City of Miami... You got ten trucks that are doing recycle in the whole City of Miami. Ten trucks going from one end of this town to the other end of this town. You got one driver on that truck, and you got one employee on that truck. And now, now, that ain't good enough. You're talking about eliminating that all together. And that ain't right, and that ain't fair. And now, you want to put all of it in garbage, and if you put trash and recycle all in garbage, the garbage route becomes bigger. Now, how can... You got 23 routes, garbage trucks, every morning going out. How can 23 trucks... And if you're going to put all the garbage... I mean all the garbage, and all trash, and all recycle, now that's what you're saying you're doing. You're going to eliminate trash and cut... you'll cut down on trash and you're going to eliminate recycle, and you're going to put everything in one spot. Now, that's on the garbage man. Now, you're going to burn him out. And in six months time, when it gets hot, men come out there in August, that guy be burnt up, and he'll be filing workmen's claim. You cannot continue working these guys like this here, and you need to do better. You need to do better with management from the top to the bottom, and you need to start right here. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Angelo. This is why we have to leave a cushion within the budget, so that in case the trash projections are not what we anticipate them to be, then we still have enough of a cushion within the budget to be able to handle it. Mr. Tony Rodriguez: My'name is Tony Rodriguez. - I'm the president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police. Honorable Mayor, Commissioners, you know, several months ago, I stood before you. Actually, I was on that podium. I think it was after our first concession vote. And 1 pointed at all of you, and I told you that you would soon have to he making some tough political decisions. Remember that? In fact, I think Commissioner Regalado said, "Well, it's not politics, not this." But I said that to you. And today, at least as it appears to me, you're going to make one of those tough political decisions that I was talking about. And I feel I can come up here, and have in the past, and have dished it out when I don't agree with something, and have argued my points, but I feel that it's my duty to also mention it when you do make some of those tough political decisions, and you're making some of the right decisions, and I commend you for that. You've shown today, or you will show very shortly, some leadership, some character. It's a tough decision, and I wanted to make a note of that. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Tony. Mr. Rodriguez: So we thank you for that. Now, having said that, I would like to... Commissioner Plummer: Uh-oh. Mr. Rodriguez: ... I would like... Commissioner Plummer: Uh-oh. There used to he a Mayor around here would give you a five minute spiel, "but." And watch out. Mr. Rodriguez: It's funny you would be the one to note that, Commissioner Plummer. But I would like to get back to a point that was brought earlier today by Commissioner Plummer, in terms of the Police Department and some of the cuts that he mentioned. And in keeping with my continued commitment to make sure that the proper information is brought to all of you and to 51 April 14, 1997 the public, I'd like to point out some things that Commissioner Plummer touched on. And perhaps I'm doing the Chief's job, but I think it's certainly something that needs to be said and addressed. And I won't be long, I promise. But, you know, Commissioner Plummer said that we need to look at the Police Department and see where else we could cut, and there's plenty of room to cut, or at least some room to cut. And he mentioned some areas, and of course, him and I have had some discussions about this in the past, and I'd like to point them out. And I'd like to show the truth. Now, he said, for example, prisoner processing. We're the only City or whatever that has a prisoner processing area. Forget for a moment that the function that they do is vital. Forget that for a moment, if you will. But the fact is, you're not going to save any money if you close down prisoner processing, because the salaries are still there. Commissioner Plummer: The... what is still there? Mr. Rodriguez: The salaries are still there. You're not going to save any money, are you? Commissioner Plummer: Except those personnel that are there presently would be out, hopefully, fighting crime on the street, rather than sitting behind a desk processing papers. Mr. Rodriguez: That's true, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: The City of Coral Gables and other cities, when they make an arrest, they go straight to DCJ (Dade County Jail). Mr. Rodriguez: Well, let's talk about that. Commissioner Plummer: Straight to DCJ. Now, we take them to our prisoner processing. We process them there, and then we've got to transport them again from our place over to DCJ, where they're processed again. That cost money, and that's the point I was trying to make. Mr. Rodriguez: Well, the point that I'm trying to make, Commissioner, is first of all, the processing is done by I.D. techs., civilians, number one. Number two is the officers that are usually sitting behind the desk there are in some way of fashion... sometimes, most of the times, are limited, or light duty, or some kind of health problem. But the real fact is, you're not going to save any dollars. You still have got to pay those salaries. You may have officers, perhaps, on the street, two or one officer, because I think there's one officer that's actually behind that desk in the prisoner processing. So the reality is that you're not going to save that much money. Now, let's talk about when you and I spoke about Marine Patrol. You mentioned you'd do away with Marine Patrol. Commissioner Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Rodriguez: See, the fact is if you do away with Marine Patrol... and that's the facts that I want the public to hear, because those are the realities. You're not going to save any money by doing away with Marine Patrol, at all. In fact, the nine vessels they have now only cost the City one dollar ($1). Yet, Marine Patrol brings in, in forfeitures, in seizures and things of that nature... By the way, their budget is in the area... They've brought it down, because you all have asked them to. They brought it down to somewhere in the area of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), which is minimal. Minimal. Yet, they bring in... They've brought in already this year over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Commissioner Plummer: But you're not speaking to duplication of services, which is mandated by Florida Marine Patrol and Dade County Marine Patrol. They are the ones who are in charge, and we are doing nothing but duplication. 52 April 14, 1997 Mr. Rodriguez: Well, it's funny you should mention that. Commissioner Plummer: Whatever the men... I don't know how many are assigned in that category. Mr. Rodriguez: I do. Commissioner Plummer: But what we could do is turn around and put those men back out on the street, or relieve some of the other men where they're not taken by civilian jobs. Mr. Rodriguez: See, but Commissioner, you know, let's look... let's look at the facts. Commissioner Plummer: We can argue this all... Mr. Rodriguez: Let's tell the public the truth. Let's tell... You know, what I did in the break that we took, because I knew that I was going to speak about this and you and I had discussed this, I called and I met with some people from Florida Marine Patrol, and from Metro -Dade Marine Patrol. And they all, without exception, say there isn't enough Marine Patrol people out there in all our collective departments to handle the load. That Miami River is a cesspool of violations. There's money that can be made there. Our Marine Patrol people can train other officers and offer training courses in the area of boating and all that kind of stuff. I'm no, you know, boating expert, but that's money to be made. If you really want to start generating some money, you could use the Marine Patrol unit to bring money in and make money, instead of do away with them. But yet, you want to take a valuable service away from the public. That isn't going to save you any of your money. None of these things that you've mentioned is going to save any money. Those are the realities. Mounted. You want to take away the horses from downtown Miami. You want to do more harm to the business people in downtown Miami, at a savings of what? Whatever it cost to feed the horses? That, you know... Commissioner Plummer: You know, it's nice... Mr. Rodriguez: The boxing program. You mentioned the boxing program. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Rodriguez: The fact is that the boxing program, most of the monies they get... and it's a valuable service, you know. We've already closed down two pools. We want to do more, to put more youth out on the street instead of helping our youth? The boxing program, most of the money they get is from grants. You're not going to save the salaries. You're not going to fire those cops, or are we? Commissioner Plummer: No, but we're going to put them to work fighting crime. Mr. Rodriguez: They are... Commissioner Plummer: That's what I hope we're going to be able to do. OK? Mr. Rodriguez: Well, Commissioner Plummer, I would hope... I would hope... Commissioner Plummer: Tony, I'll be glad to sit down, as I have before, in a very reasonable way and debate with you. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 53 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Not today. All right? Mr. Rodriguez: No, I'm not here to debate with you. I just want the public to know the truth Commissioner Plummer: But what I'm saying is, the people of this community want better police protection. They are not concerned about a boxing program. Mr. Rodriguez: Well, let me tell you... Commissioner Plummer: They're worried about safe streets. Mr. Rodriguez: Well, Commissioner... Commissioner Plummer: And they are calling our offices every day saying the streets are far from safe. Mr. Rodriguez: And the fact is that they are getting safer streets. In fact, the Mayor just quite... Commissioner Plummer: You're going to have to convince Jack Luft's wife that you're right and others are wrong. OK? Mr. Rodriguez: Well, the statistics clearly show, and the Mayor brought that out last week in his press conference, that the statistics have gone down, that crime has gone down in the City of Miami. That's a direct attribute to the men and women of the Miami Police Department. That's what you need to look at. And you want to cut more from them? Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. I'm not cutting from them. Mr. Rodriguez: Oh, yes, you are. Commissioner Plummer: What I'm cutting out is the fat, not people. I've said that before. I made that statement before. Mr. Rodriguez: I've made my point, and I appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Tony. Just one last statement on the Marine Patrol, since I was the creator of the Marine Patrol in the City of Miami in the early '80s. That is one program that more than pays for itself, as he said. In the first quarter of this year, it's brought in half a million dollars in confiscated dollars to the City. If we keep going at that rate this year, it will bring two million dollars ($2,000,000) that will be two million more dollars that we have in the City's coffers. Commissioner Plummer: I'd like to see... Mayor Carollo: At the same time... And I understand what you're saying, J.L. No one is questioning your good intentions in this. But at the same time, any shipment of drugs that we can stop from coming ashore is going to save this community hundreds of thousands of dollars in less headaches and problems that we have. Every boat that we can have out there... and we only have... I believe it's... what, six officers left in the Marine Patrol? Five officers left. The service that they're providing out there cannot be measured in their weight in gold. As Officer Rodriguez stated, whether we have the Florida Marine Patrol out there, whether we have the U.S. Coast Guard, Dade County Marine Patrol, we cannot put enough units out there in the water 54 April 14, 1997 to control the crime that we have out there, that we need to stop it before it reaches shore, or before it goes out with a lot of our valuables. Commissioner Plummer: All I'll ask for is the Manager to send me a copy of the actual dollars brought in and put in the general fund in the last 12 months from the Marine Patrol. OK? Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, that's why I made the statement a little earlier. There's no way we can sit here and make a decision, because whatever decision we make here, there's consequences to it. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, absolutely. Commissioner Gort: And we have to make the decision and analyze what the consequences are. And I think all of us have got to work together on this, and that's the only way we're going to do it. Mayor Carollo: You're right. Commissioner Gort: I think what you're saying is, each one of us who want to go into a department, we'll go into that department, we'll sit down, we'll get people within that industry to come in and let us know also, and we can come up with some solutions. And I'm sure there are some cuts that can be made. But let's make sure we make the effective cuts and the cuts that are necessary, because part of fighting crime is crime prevention. And some of those crime prevention programs, you can't take them away. So those are the things you need to analyze. Commissioner Plummer: That's absolutely true. Mayor Carollo: You're absolutely correct, Commissioner. Ma'am. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor, before we proceed... Commissioner Plummer: I'm sorry. Commissioner Hernandez: ... I do not know if she is interested in addressing this Commission, but I think it would be correct of us, before we proceed, to recognize a County Commissioner that's here present before us today. Mayor Carollo: Certainly. Commissioner Hernandez: Commissioner Miriam Alonso... Mayor Carollo: Of course. Commissioner Hernandez: ... who has been here since early in the morning. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. I had asked her earlier if she wanted to address us, and she declined. Commissioner Hernandez: OK. Mayor Carollo: That's very nice of you to bring it up. Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: She came in this morning with fire in her eyes, and she's going out with a smile. So something we did must have been right. 55 April 14, 1997 County Commissioner Miriam Alonso: I'm smiling, but not wide. Commissioner Gort: Not yet. It's not a wide smile yet. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask the Manager, now that we are talking about things that work and things that don't work, about his severance policy issued and signed by the Manager on March 24th that is before the deadline for the executive. And I was wondering, Mr. Manager, if this is different than what we had before to... if it says that if an unclassified employee who is appointed by the City Manager as an executive is separated from the City services, the Manager will have the power to give him or her a salary for up to a hundred years... I'm sorry. Commissioner Plummer: A hundred years? Vice Mayor Regalado: No. ... days. It's just that a hundred days looked, to me, a lot. Commissioner Plummer: Wow. Vice Mayor Regalado: So I figure... I was thinking on Garcia -Marquez. Mayor Carollo: Only Plummer would qualify for that. Vice Mayor Regalado: Yeah, that's true. Commissioner Plummer: Even in my business, that's a long time. Vice Mayor Regalado: Well, you know, this... a hundred days severance policy and insurance. And, I was just wondering if this is different than what we had before or you... Mr. Marquez: It's slightly different in that it gives the City Manager the right to lower the amount, to pay less than was previously authorized. Mayor Carollo: OK. All right, go ahead now ma'am. Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: That's in an unclassified position. Mayor Carollo: Correct. All right. Go ahead now, ma'am. Thank you. Ms. Eva Nagymihaly: OK, thank you. My name is Eva Nagymihaly, and I am an apartment building owner in Miami, and I have been for the last 40 years, so I do know the business. My question really starts first with the fire assessment fee. And the way I understood it today, I was told that this fee was really set up to collect monies from people who were not paying within the tax base. And I guess that meant the institutions, public housing, or the hospitals and these... which in the end, we heard they will not pay. Mayor Carollo: Not necessarily, no. We are going to address that before we are finished here, ma'am. Ms. Nagymihaly: OK, because I understood there was a ruling in 1969 that said they will never, ever have to pay. Was that for the schools? Mayor Carollo: That's in public housing, that there was a contract that was made in 1969 between the City and HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), but we are looking at that to see if there is a way that that could he changed also. 56 April 14, 1997 Ms. Nagymihaly: Well, I hope so, because according to what I read in The Herald, it said most of the Fire -Rescue services have gone to the public housing buildings. So I guess the purpose of what I am saying is that I understand that fees need to be raised. I am not saying do not raise them. I understand that I will pay my share. But what I am noticing is that the apartment building owner is paying much more than his share. When I look at this, and this modified plan showing that the single-family person, the single-family homeowner is going to pay less by thirty dollars ($30), well, that's good, because I am a homeowner, too. But if we are trying to increase revenues, if we are trying to make money, I don't understand how, if you can reduce it by thirty-three dollars ($33), you are going to make money, because, no matter what, you call it whatever fee you want to, if you are going to pick up garbage, you are going to have to pay for it. You can take it out of any pocket you want to, but you are going to have to pay, unless our garbage service people do not want to get paid, or we don't want our garbage picked up. We have two choices, so we are paying. So it should he equitable. People at home should be paying whatever fee they need to and can possibly afford. The same four units that are one through four, same as condo people. But you see, there, they have to pay their own service, because the City does not offer it. And, that's for apartment owners of five or more units. I already pay... I had to pay a private company to haul it. So I pay that, I pay my tax base, and now, you want me and all the other apartment owners... I hear it's 38,000 units out there that should be paying garbage for everybody else's home. And that's really what it comes down to. And I can't pass it on to my tenants. My tenants live in Allapattah, they live in Wynwood, they live in Little Havana. My rents are not what The Herald once printed, something like six hundred and fifty is the average price of one bedroom or seven hundred. My tenants are paying four hundred, OK? They are paying four hundred dollars ($400) a month, and that is hard enough to collect. I sometimes even let them pay in two parts, because their paycheck comes at two different times in the month. So if you are going to try to increase revenues, do not forget that the money that you are getting to support all of these things are coming from the property taxes. And the homeowner pays, but the apartment building owner pays over, and over, and over again. And you are asking me to pay more and to get less services. Nobody is going to pick up my trash. I have to do that with adding more revenues. So if you are going to make everybody bite this bullet that I keep hearing about, why in the world do you want the apartment owner to eat it. And that's basically it. You know, you can't do business without making a profit. And you can't pass it on to the tenant because lie can't afford it. Well, I guess, that's about it. [APPLAUSE] Mr. Andy Parrish: Good evening. My name is Andy Parrish, I live at 1774 Old Peachtree Drive. I am the president of Wind and Rain, which is a home builder in the West Grove. And this morning, I heard the Fire Chief state that as part of the revenue plan that you were not going to tax vacant lots or impose the fee on vacant lots, because there was no benefit conferred on the vacant lots. Well, I would like to tell you that there is a benefit. It just happens to be a negative benefit in having these vacant lots around the City, especially in areas where the City wants to encourage in -fill. They attract trash by the ton. They also house people who are just... not house people, but people go there to loiter and to create more trash. And they absolutely are terrible for these neighborhoods, at least in the West Grove. I can't speak about other neighborhoods. But in the West Grove, it is a detriment. It is a negative benefit to those communities. And I, for one - and I own two of them that I am going to be building houses on - would like to see them added to the fire fee to add more revenue. There are a whole bunch of them. And this isn't just my idea. There is a... this is out of the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C., called In -fill Housing Opportunities and Strategies for Inner City Neighborhoods. And one of their recommendations is that governments can discourage... and I am quoting. "Governments can discourage land speculation by taxing vacant land at higher rates." And I think if you will do that, then you will not only increase the revenues for the City, you will avoid this negative benefit or help to ameliorate it, and also, eventually light a fire under some of the homeowners... 57 April 14, 1997 not homeowners, but some of the speculators who are just waiting in these neighborhoods for this to... for whatever they are waiting for. So I would like to recommend that. Maybe you could carve out an exception for lots that are adjacent to homeowners' houses that... so you have the same ownership. But there is so much speculation going on in some of these neighborhoods, and I don't know what they are waiting for. You can make your own guess. Thank you very much. Mayor Carollo: Andy, that's a good recommendation. But let me clarify something the Chief said. The reason that we are not charging the vacant lots is that this fire fee assessment was based upon square footage. In other words, construction. And that's why we are not charging them. If we could find another way, we will certainly bring that back, along with many other things we are going to bring back to try to further reduce this fire fee. Mr. Parrish: Thank you. I do think there is a concept in the law - maybe the City Attorney can speak to that - about negative benefit. And maybe these restrictions... Mayor Carollo: Get motivated, Quinn. Why don't you look at it? Mr. Parrish: Thank you very much. Mayor Carollo: Can you leave a copy of that in my office? Mr. Parrish: I definitely will. You will like it. It's very good. Mayor Carollo: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: By the way, I gave a copy of that to the DDA (Downtown Development Authority). Mayor Carollo: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Monique Taylor: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Monique, and I am an unfortunate member of the people who are on your hit list today. I am a small apartment owner. And I would like to ask a few questions, one of them being, why is the fire fee lower for a single- family home than it is for an apartment unit? Most of my apartments are efficiencies. They are less than 300 square feet. You could put six or eight of them inside of a single-family home. Why is the fee twenty-seven dollars ($27), approximately, more per month than for a single- family home? Mayor Carollo: That's a very good question. It was answered this morning, but nevertheless, let's have the Fire Chief answer again. I think it's a good enough question that it should be answered again. Fire Chief Gimenez: If you recall, in the morning, I said that the methodology employed is a review of the runs that we have had throughout the last year. And then there was a certain percentage of the budget as allocated to property class. The reason why the multi -family home is... or the apartment is... has a higher rate than a single-family home is basically that 25 percent of the calls went to multi -family housing. Thirty-four percent of the calls went to residential. But when you divide that, you had 80,000 residential units to divide that allocation into, whereas you had only had 49,000 multi -family units to divide that allocation. That's why the rate per unit for an apartment unit is higher than a single-family or residential. Ms. Taylor: Well, I suppose this answered this question, although, I am not sure it's equitable, because in my own apartments, I don't think we have had a fire call in years. I believe we had 58 April 14, 1997 one EMS (Emergency Medical Service) call in the past two years. And I do own 37 units that fall into this category. And what we have here... What I see is a very inequitable division of the... The burden is simply not shared equally. We have forty-nine nine hundred and forty multi -family units. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we have... each apartment owner owns an average of ten units. This is probably a fair assessment. So we have approximately 5,000 owners who are going to have to carry probably 80 percent or so of the financial burden associated with the recovery of the City of Miami. Well, all the single-family owners are just not paying a nickel more. And, quite frankly, gentlemen, we, the small apartment owners, cannot afford to reach in our pocket at the tune of a hundred and fifty-nine dollars ($159), approximately twelve or thirteen dollars ($13) per month, per unit, for the recovery of the City. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot pass it on. As this lady said, most of our units have moderate income family units. A large number of my tenants are on limited income, Social Security, whatever. I have several people living with AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) receiving four hundred and seventy dollars ($470) a month. And I, oftentimes, after they pay the rent that I have to account for, now reach in my pocket and give them twenty or thirty dollars ($30), so they can put food in their refrigerator. I cannot afford to raise those rents. Neither can I afford to reach in my pocket and pay several thousand dollars. And the result we are going to have is that... and some of the apartment owners have already told me they are going to abandon buildings. They will no longer maintain them, because they will not be able to afford to do so. Neighborhoods are going to further decay, and your tax base is going to further erode. You may now tax people out of existence. And this is basically what you are doing. A friend of mine, who, unfortunately, is not here today, who works at... has a very good job at Bascomb Palmer told me that last year she had to put nine thousand dollars ($9,000) out of her own pocket to keep her building afloat. And she said, "Monique, I cannot afford to reach for another two thousand and put eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) of my money. I have to leave that building." And will you tell me, gentlemen, what fool is going to come along and be willing to purchase a building or any business venture that is a losing proposition? Not many. What is going to become of these buildings? And believe me, gentlemen, in most cases, this increase cannot be passed on to the poorest people in our community, the ones who are renters. They simply can't afford it. And this issue needs to he revisited. I understand you are under the gun, whatever that is. I understand that this happened to you. You didn't know it was going to happen in the past few months, and you must vote today. But this issue, there must be an amendment or a... you must revisit this issue. This burden cannot be shared in this fashion. Mayor Carollo: Monique, we have stated that this issue will he revisited, and in the next months that we have more time to look for new recurring revenue in the form of new dollars coming into the City, and some other cuts that we could make. Through that form, we will revisit this issue, and further reduce this fee. We don't like doing this. Ms. Taylor: No, I am sure you don't. Mayor Carollo: The majority of us weren't here when this whole deficit was getting out of hand, like it was, and the public was being lied to, year in, year out. The majority of us weren't here. You think we like to do this? I mean, we are hurting too. You can't imagine the hours that some of us are putting into this each day, how badly we feel, also. But we have no choice now but to pass this in this form, to meet the deadline that we have before us, and then bring it back with more time, revisit it, and hopefully, find sufficient recurring revenues through the two means that I described, where then we could bring this down to a more acceptable level. And my ultimate goal is for this City, in several years from now, to he able to have sufficient revenues coming from the properties that we own in the waterfront, and others, so that we, on the contrary, instead of raising fees, raising taxes, we could be lowering them. Ms. Taylor: Well, Mr. Mayor, this is wonderful to hear, of course. 59 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: But we can't do it overnight Mr. Taylor: However, what do we do in the meantime? Once we, the small business owners are out of business, what do we do? Mayor Carollo: Well, I... Mr. Taylor: Who is going to come along and replace us? You're going to have more vacant buildings to deal with, you're going to have more crime, you're going to have more, more neighborhoods decaying, you're going to have more of the problems that I have been past... spending the past five years of my life fighting. This is what you're going to have by passing this tax, if it's implemented, because believe me, the small business owners cannot afford it. We have been hit by insurance, we've been rehit by insurance. Right now, three of my buildings do not have neither floor, nor wind storm, because I can't afford it. The money is just not there. I have to have liability, I have to have fire, but the other insurance, I can't. Mayor Carollo: We will keep trying to do our best, Monique. That's all we could do. Mr. Taylor: Well, how are we... Are we going to work together? Are you going to allow some of us to participate? Mayor Carollo: Well, I think that by you coming up here and being able to speak to us, you're participating in a big way. And I certainly will be happy to meet with you and others again throughout the months to come, like I have already. You know, my doors will be open. And I certainly will be more than happy to listen to any new ideas. I mean, there are several that I can't discuss here, but that we're very actively pursuing, with real possibilities that can bring sufficient recurring revenues to get this City out of the mess that it's in real quick, and that could us in a position where, hopefully, we could do away w"h the whole fire fee all together. But I can't, I cannot go forward in voting on this as the State is requiring of us without having something concrete in hand. We have to have that concrete. Once we have it in hand, then we could deal with this. But I assure you that in one form or another, between now and before this would be implemented, we will be revisiting this again. And between now and then, there will be a lot more funds that we will be bringing into the City to lessen this burden. Mr. Taylor: And Mr. Mayor, a very candid question. Why are the single-family homeowners totally spared? Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager? Commissioner Plummer: They aren't being spared. They're paying the same amount. Mr. Marquez: Single-family homeowners are being charged a hundred and thirty-two dollars and sixty-one cents ($132.61) of a fire fee. Mr. Taylor: However, you will forget the present garbage fee they're paying. Mr. Marquez: Well... Mr. Taylor: We're not paying any garbage fee. We're paying private haulers. They're not going to forget to get paid. They will expect to get paid every month, as they always have. Mr. Marquez: There's still... Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. The private... the single-family residents are still paying the same amount of dollars. 60 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: In fire fees. Commissioner Plummer: They're paying one hundred and sixty-six. A part of that is the fire fee, and the other part will be charged to sanitation. They'll still be paying the same amount of money. Mr. Taylor: But they're totally spared. They have absolutely no increase in their taxation or fee, whatever you choose to call it. Commissioner Plummer: It is the same amount of money that they paid the previous year. Mr. Taylor: That's a Mexican standoff. Commissioner Plummer: It's a wash. Mr. Taylor: It's a wash, exactly. But is it a wash for us? Then you need fifteen hundred ninety- two dollars and forty cents ($1,592.40) additional? This is not a wash for us. Commissioner Plummer: No, it's not. Mr. Taylor: This is far too much. So why are 80,426 units allowed to be... to have a wash, and the other forty-nine nine hundred and forty are paying the entire rate? Mayor Carollo: Monique... Mr. Taylor: Where is the equity in this? Commissioner Plummer: It's not the entire. Mayor Carollo: There is no perfect system that we could come up with. There is none. Mr. Taylor: Well, this is... Not only is it imperfect, it's totally flawed. Mayor Carollo: No, I... Mr. Taylor: It's not... it's invalid. It's absolutely... You're expecting... Mayor Carollo: I don't think it's invalid, because for many years, the homeowners have been carrying the extra burden of paying the garbage fee to the City. Mr. Taylor: So have the apartment building owners, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Well, I... I think... Mr. Taylor: Believe me, we've always paid. We don't have twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) of homestead exemption. We don't have any breaks at all. We're paying for every iota, and every little bit of service we get, and we're paying for a lot we don't get. Mayor Carollo: But the difference is, Monique... And, you know, I don't like it. I mean, I wish that we weren't in this situation. None of us asked for this. None of us like to do this. We have no choice. But the difference is that the average homeowner that lives in their home, that's their home. That's not a business for them. The commercial apartment buildings are a business. And that's... that's the difference. But I understand how you feel, and we... 61 April 14, 1997 Mr. Taylor: But Mr. Mayor, yes, the apartment homes are a business, but they're not all a profitable business. There are many people over there losing... losing their butts, if you'll forgive the expression, now. Mayor Carollo: We will keep... Mr. Taylor: What's going to happen to them now? Mayor Carollo: We will keep trying to work at it. Mr. Taylor: I can bring you 20 people in your office that will say, "I am going to abandon my building, because I can't carry it." Mayor Carollo: Monique, we will keep trying to work at it. And what I would suggest to you is that any concrete ideas that you have that could bring the City new revenues, recurring revenues, please bring them to us. But we'll keep working at it. Mr. Taylor: Right now, what I'd like to do is share the burden equally. Mayor Carollo: Well, this will not come into effect until January of next year. We have a lot of time between now and then to review it again. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Well, thank you. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, what... Monique, what you said about your tenants, it's ,important that we remember. And I have been addressing that issue, and all the members of this Commission are aware that there is something that is going to happen that doesn't have to do anything at all with the crisis in the City of Miami, or the Oversight Board, or the Governor, or whatever we have to do tomorrow, and that is something that we cannot avoid. That is something that is going to hit us. There is not a bullet. It will be a cruise missile. And this is the welfare reform. And I'm sure that in your building, Monique, there are people who will be affected, and so... as in her building, and in everybody's building. And I... You know, I would ask the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Florida and the Oversight Board also to look at this reality that we are going to have in the City of Miami. As you know, Monique, we have a (gecial emergency fund in the City of Miami, which I think it only has now one thousand dollars 1,000) donated by Anthony Abraham Chevrolet and... because we have not been informed of... if that fund has been opened, or it has been getting some money out of the program income, as we said several months ago. So I wish that you'd help us in trying to do something for people like your tenants, and, you know, I think that this Commission understands that on top of the misery, you have pain, because you're going to have people in your apartment building that are going to run out of food stamps and the checks. Mr. Taylor: They always... They do, as it is. I have one of my tenants, 15 year old tenant, or 16 years, she's lived there forever, has been on dialysis for the past year and a half. Well, she owes me twenty-six hundred dollars ($2,600). And every time when she pays me, she pays me far less than she owes, because she never quite has enough. Am I going to throw her out in the street? No, I'm not. I don't have the heart to do that. She has total kidney failure. She's going three times a week to be dialyzed. She's getting four hundred and seventy dollars ($470) a month disability. Is she going to live on it? Of course not. She can't. And she has to pay for her own transportation on top of it. Vice Mayor Regalado: I was wondering, Mr. Manager, if you could give us a report of 62 April 14, 1997 Mr. Taylor: These are the people... These are the people you're giving that fee to. And I think this is morally wrong. I'm not sure about the legality, but this is wrong. This is absolutely, totally and... I can't say how wrong it is. And please do think about it. Vice Mayor Regalado: Before, Mr. Mayor, I was going to ask the Manager to see if we can get a report on the special emergency fund that was approved by the Commission, and if we are getting any program income, the famous 15 percent, which, by the way, is not the exact figure, but anyway, if we have any monies available. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayshack Lane: My name is Mayshack Lane. I live at 247 Northwest 58th Street, employed with the City of Miami. I'm a waste collector, and I'm the chief steward of LIUNA (Laborers' International Union of North America). And I wanted to address the Commission this afternoon, the Mayor and the Commissioners concerning the employees of the City of Miami. Every day, our employees is not... is not happy, because they don't know what to expect tomorrow, and they asked me to come before this, and let you know that they want their jobs. And looking at the cuts, I heard Plummer, Commissioner Plummer said that it was 300 employees calling him. It's not 300 employees no more. They have reduced our department all the way down to 200 employees. And what had happened, we don't even have 200 employed bodies there to render the service to the citizens. And we continue to work understaffed, because out of the 200 employees that we have, you got about 185, 185 doing the work, and the rest on disabled or they not able enough... they're on light duty, they're permanent injury. So they talk about modify to cut trash, put it one day. But if we had the bodies, trash would be up, just like garbage is today. Recycling doing it. They cut recycling down from 15 rounds to 11 rounds, and they are doing the job in recycling. So what we are saying, we need our jobs. They have families to feed, and they keep hearing the words, "privatize Solid Waste," you know, and we doing everything. Even though the word, "privatization" comes up, we out there doing... we out there working in the rain. We doing everything that we know how to do to keep Miami clean. And that's what... this is what we thought was the principle, to keep Miami clean. And that mean... that's going in the rain, or we go when it's hot. When nobody else do not want to go out there, Solid Waste is there. So what I'm saying is... And we give the citizens the best service than any other City in the County give to their citizens. You know, I'm a taxpayer. But what I'm saying is that, hey, we need our job to he able enough to pay our taxes, so they don't reduce our department down to where it is today. It's beyond 200 employees out to the City of Miami, and we're still rendering you the service. So, you know, I have Tomas had came down, the Commissioner... Vice Mayor Tomas had came down there, Commissioner Hernandez have came down there, and they see how the workers are concerned about their family, and they have promised them that they're going to do something. But every day they read in the paper, it's about privatization. And they still going out there trying to show you that they can do the job, if you just would give them a chance, with less people, not 300. It's down to 180 bodies out there trying to function to keep the City of Miami clean. And we need to address... We been trying to address this with each Commissioner that right today, our guys out there, don't have work gloves to go out there and to get this done. We don't even have the equipment out there. But we still go out there, without gloves, or raincoat, whatever it is, to try to protect our job, and to give the citizens a... you know, give the citizens the best job that we can do. And when they come and give numbers, they're not giving the citizens the facts. They're giving you one number, but really, if they go out there, they see a whole different story. So what I'm saying to you tonight, as you... you know, as you all consider privatization, let us... give our employees something to have for sure what they can expect in the next few months, where they can go out and they can be satisfied that they can have their jobs, to protect their families. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, my understanding, in the meeting that we've had together, you, the union, were going to come back to us with a plan that you were going to put yourselves together to be able to compete. Now, my understanding is, in listening to the City Manager, nobody is going to be fired for the next... there is no reason for that. Is my understanding correct? 63 April 14, 1997 Mr. Marquez: We hope... All right. There's a couple of things happening at the same time. First of all, we are in conversations with the union, and hopefully, they will be able to package together an alternative to privatization. But they're working on it, and they're going to be coming back to us. That's number one. Number two is that on this concept of doing away with recycling, we plan on hiring Solid Waste inspectors for enforcement purposes. We'll also have vacancies on the other side. So, hopefully, there will be... I can't say an absolute, no layoff section... no layoff, but we're going to try to assimilate as many people as possible. Mr. Morton Kopio: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Mort Koplo. I am a private... small apartment house owner in Northeast Miami, and I understand the bind that the City is in. All I'd like to say is that what you need to do between now and the first of the year is give a lot of thought to raising the money that is needed. Rather than just hit one or two sectors of the community, and putting the bite on us to come up with this money, that's not fair to the businessman, apartment owner and his tenants. There is a shortfall in your budget. When there's a shortfall in a budget, that is the responsibility of everybody that lives in the City of Miami, and everybody that works in the City of Miami, not just a small sector of the people in the City of Miami. Just for an analogy, I live in a townhouse/condominium type community, and we have a dock, and we have a seawall, and we have a swimming pool, and our building has to be painted. We've got to come up with a budget this coming year. We're short about twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Now, my home doesn't have to be painted, because I had flagstone put on it. I don't have a boat, so I don't use the dock and the seawall. I also don't use the swimming pool. And I would say about 50 percent of the people in our community are in about the same position. But we all have to come up with an equal share to meet the budget for our little community. Now, the same thing should be... should take place in the City of Miami. Everybody - every businessman, every private homeowner, every apartment owner - every body should come up with a fair share to meet the needs of the City, and- not just one small sector. Thank you. Goad evening. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would like to make any statements? Commissioner Plummer: Call the question. Mayor Carollo: Anyone else that's here that might have any suggestions of where else this City can get the money between today and tomorrow? Well, as I stated before... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, nobody owns a mask and a gun up here, nor sitting in the audience, and that's the only place I know, because there's no... As you said the other day, no pot of gold is going to drop out of the clouds, head-on to this... Flagler Street. Mayor Carollo: No manna is going to fall on Miami, Commissioner. Every foot forward that we have placed, we've done it on our own. No one has given us a penny of money that wasn't coming to us from the beginning. We've had to dig ourselves out of this financial mess on our own. So any further discussion from the Commission? Call the roll. 64 April 14, 1997 The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Regalado, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 97-297 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE "CITY OF MIAMI FIVE-YEAR PLAN," DATED APRIL 15, 1997, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Humberto Hernandez Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado Mayor Joe Carollo NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Carollo: Very reluctantly, very reluctantly, I vote yes. None of us have liked to have done what we did here today, but if the City of Miami is going to survive, this is a step that we had to make. There is no question in my mind that within minutes, there will be those out there that haven't given us one inch of help in helping the City get out of this mess. In fact, some out there were the cause of it, a major cause of it. But they will be the first to attack. But nevertheless, all five of us have done what we know is the right thing to do for the City of Miami. What we've done here today is what we had to do, nothing more than what we had to do. Between now and before this fire fee is implemented in January, we will be revisiting it, and we've very, very hopeful, and are committed to find new revenues, new areas that we could bring savings to the City so that we could further reduce it, and, hopefully, be able to eliminate it completely down the road. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor... Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor... Commissioner Hernandez: ... I think it's important that we explain, and I think that part of the reason, not the whole of the reason that I voted in this way, is that we control our own destiny. We can revisit this plan from now to January. We were risking control of our destiny if we left it up to the Oversight Board and we left it up to the Governor. Obviously, we did not know what they were going to do. Our gut feeling and my gut feeling is that the pain was going to be double or triple what we were going to be experiencing in the coming months. It's very simple, and we know where they stand in doubling the garbage fee. We know that they intended to maybe pass this fire assessment fee on top of doubling the garbage fee. We would not control our destiny. We would not control where this City Commission and this City of Miami would be after tomorrow, if we had not passed this fire assessment fee. I think it's important that we took this step today. I think we send a message to them that we're serious about putting the City on the right path to recovery. And as you said, we have till January to revisit this item. There are many other alternatives that we can look, but right now, this is the only solution. It is the best of 65 April 14, 1997 the worst alternatives, and I think that when we look back at our decision, none of us will regret the way we have voted today. Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, I, for one... everybody knew how I felt about this. And I wish I could have voted no, but it was my duty to vote yes for many reasons. But I was elected to represent the people of Miami, and I, once again, am telling the people of Miami that this Commissioner, that this Commission is committed to go into ourselves and find what we have wrong. I think that that's the least that the people of Miami deserve, that we go into the different departments, that we seek something that we think can be fixed, and that we can save. And I have said that many times, if we can save a penny, or a dollar ($1), or ten dollars ($10), or a hundred dollars ($100), these are the monies that will be taken off of the backs of people like Monique, and her tenants, because this is important, the human factor. Yes, you may have said that this was a political decision. For me, it wasn't, because I believe that the human factor counted more than whatever political decision one has to make. And I only wish that the people of Miami would understand that this technicality had to be done because we're trying to be responsible, but we are not forgetting that you are going to be hurt, that the business people in Overtown, Allapattah, Wynwood, Little Havana, Flagami, the Roads, people are going to be hurt. And I wish that they understand that this is not the end, that this fire fee is going to go into the books as a technicality. But we are trying, not only to bring recurring revenues, but also to look within ourselves. And that has been the idea that, Mr. Mayor, I had expressed in several meetings of this Commission. I think that the people of Miami, although you said it very well when you read all the list of things that the City had given up, but still, still, the perception is there. And I believe that not only should we go into the departments, but go out and tell the people what we are trying to do, and what we are trying to achieve, and what we have achieved, in looking inside our City. And this is why I voted, also, reluctantly, yes, for this fire fee. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor; you know, my dad used to tell me all the time that necessity is the mother of ideas. And I want you to know that as of Friday, I received different calls from different groups that have different ideas that can be implemented. At the same time, I'd like to say no one of us likes this revenue that we're trying to get here. I think what we're doing is we're buying time. We requested from the Lieutenant Governor to give us some more time so we can do the things that we did today within a few hours. We were able to reduce it quite a bit, just in a few hours. I think if we would have had 45 days, we would have done a lot more. There's a lot of things that you have been working on, and staff has been working on, and we, as individuals, have been working on what will be coming up in the future. And the commitment that I think all of us are making here today, this is not something that's going to buy us time to work on the other plans that we're working on, to make sure that we bring them in. And hopefully, by the time of implementation, it will not be as bad as it is today. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to thank the Manager. When I came in here today, I was dead set on voting against the fire fee. He turned me into the six million dollar ($6,000,000) man, and turned me around, and got me to vote for it. I think it's the kind of thing that if we work together, as we were speaking, as the Mayor was so emphatic today that we go down speaking in one voice, that when we can, we do. We're not always going to be 100 percent, to be 100 percent together, but whenever humanly possible, and everybody is willing to give a little bit, I think that you can achieve what the Mayor was talking about today in unanimity. Now it's dinnertime. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Commissioner. And in finalizing today, I'd just like to thank the Manager, thank staff for the many, many, many long hours that they have put into this plan, and for the many more that they're going to keep on putting, so that we could find additional revenues and additional savings, and lastly, so that at least those here and at home could see that we mean what we stated here today, that we're looking for new revenues, new savings, to bring this fire fee to a minimum. One of the things that we have in hand is the savings... actually 66 April 14, 1997 recurring revenue of between eight hundred and fifty thousand to maybe as much as a million dollars ($1,000,000) every year. It's a small item, compared to the total figure, but it's serious dollars. Eight hundred and fifty thousand to a million dollars ($1,000,000) every year that I think before the end of the month... in fact, I'm sure before the end of the month, I will be able to announce it officially, once the contract is signed. However, since it's not signed, and we're finalizing some of the last areas of negotiations, we can't include it in the plan. And what I'm talking about is a ten-year franchise in professional soccer that we're bringing to the Orange Bowl. This is one example of the things that we will be able to look at in the near future and bring into our budget. There are going to be many more like that. So at least I'd like to finish this off in a positive way, and letting you know this ahead of time, so that you can know that we're sincere in working even harder than we have, if that's possible, to lessen the pain upon our City. But we had no other alternative than to do this. Unfortunately, the ones that were the most responsible for this aren't here to face the music. We are, and we had to do what was right for the future of this City today. Commissioner Plummer: Can I make a suggestion to you, Mr. Mayor? Joe? Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: If you are negotiating for a ten-year soccer lease, I think that you should go back to the University of Miami. We only have another five years on their lease, and they've been talking about wanting an additional five years. Mayor Carollo: We're doing that. Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: So talk to both of them so that they'll run concurrently. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Christina Abrams is working on that already. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mayor Carollo: Lastly, if I may ask each and every one of you, and I'll start on my right, if you could give me at least two departments, beginning with the one that you would like to be involved with the most, and I'll name one or two Commissioners to each department for you to look at them. Commissioner Plummer: I think you're going to have a problem with two Commissioners to any department whatsoever. Then you're under sunshine. Mayor Carollo: No. You would do it independently, except if you meet, then it will be a public meeting. Commissioner Plummer: I'm thinking about taking up the time... Mayor Carollo: I will try to limit it to one, depending on how many departments individuals want. Commissioners, do you have any ideas of which you want? Vice Mayor Regalado: I would like to examine the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) and the Fire. Mayor Carollo: NET is your number one priority, and secondly? Vice Mayor Regalado: The Fire Department. 67 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: Fire. Commissioner Hernandez? Commissioner Hernandez: Solid Waste. Mayor Carollo: Solid Waste. And your second priority? Commissioner Hernandez: Solid Waste and GSA (General Services Administration). Mayor Carollo: GSA. OK, Solid Waste and GSA. Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Gort: Building and Zoning. Mayor Carollo: Building and Zoning is your number one priority. And your second priority? Commissioner Gort: Who's in charge of the City of Miami Fleet now? Is that GSA? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Commissioner Gort: That's GSA. OK. I'll take one of the other ones. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Gort: I'll take... who's left? Parks. Mayor Carollo: Parks. Commissioner Plummer? Commissioner Plummer: Police, number one. I'll take GSA or Fire, either one. Mayor Carollo: OK. Police is pretty large in itself. What I'd like to do is to assign Commissioner Regalado on his first and second request, NET and Fire; assign to Commissioner Hernandez his first and second request, Solid Waste and GSA; to Commissioner Gort, his first and second request, Building and Zoning and Parks; and to Commissioner Plummer, I assign Police. I'll sit down with the Manager and go over what's left, and we'll try to pass those departments out at the next meeting, also. Commissioner Plummer: I think you have some others. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, we do, but we have the... Commissioner Plummer: And I think it would be appropriate that Humberto be involved with the Law Department. He's very, very cognizant of the Law Department, and I think that's a must, that he be involved in that one. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: He will have a third but... actually, not a third, because Solid Waste and GSA were working together before. But they are separated now. So he will have the Law Department. Commissioner Plummer: I'll take Police and GSA, if you want. Mayor Carollo: Well, you want to switch GSA for... 68 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: It's up to you all, whatever you want. Mayor Carollo: OK. What Commissioner Plummer is suggesting is you take the Law Department and he'll take GSA. Commissioner Hernandez: And I'll take the... Mayor Carollo: Law. You take Solid Waste and the Law Department. OK. Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Police and the Fleets got to do... work together. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mayor Carollo: All right. Let's start out with these, and the other departments that are left that are the smallest, we'll discuss them at the next meeting, and I'll make assignments for the rest of them at the next meeting. But these are the key departments. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, why don't you just... The others are small departments, as I remember. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: And from that point, why don't you just assign one to each of us. I mean, you know, we'll just accept whatever you assign. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine with me. Mayor Carollo: OK. All right. I will send a memo to the Manager and he can bring it up at the next meeting so that Quinn doesn't have a heart attack. A. Quinn Jones, III, Esq. (City Attorney): Don't worry, I won't. Mayor Carollo: Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: Who's got Fire? You've got Fire? All right. One of the things that I wanted to bring up and that I've talked with the Chief about, and I'll bring to you, Tomas, is elimination of the Fire College, where people are going to school today and getting their degree, just like anybody... if you want to be a lawyer, you go to school, and you pay for your schooling, and you take and you get your people in. And you can eliminate a lot of dollars there. So we've talked about it. You might want to explore it. I think it's a good deal. If you eliminated the operation of the Fire College, you're... a lot of dollars. And that's what they're doing. Mayor Carollo: That's one of the additional things we need to look at. Commissioner Plummer: Hey, I got a lot of friends that are going and taking paramedic training and all of that so they can get a fireman's job. Mayor Carollo: Sure. Anything else? Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Mayor, do we have a timetable to come back to this Commission? Mayor Carollo: No, sir. I think that if anything, the timetable has to be, I would say, before the end of November. Hopefully, before then, but before the end of November of this year. 69 April 14, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Motion to adjourn is always in order. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. (A) SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POTTINGER V.S. CITY FOR MAY 8, 1997 AT 8:30 A.M. -- BEGIN REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:30 A.M. (B) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CITY FENCING MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioners, I apologize. The City Attorney has a request that we have to listen to. Commissioner Plummer? Commissioner Plummer: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: The City Attorney has a request that we have to listen to. Mr. Jones: Yeah. Very quickly. We've been in ongoing mediation on the Pottinger case. Our outside special counsel has asked that we have a special session, an executive session on the morning of May the 8th at eight o'clock to discuss settlement negotiations and the progress thereof. And pursuant to the statute, I'm asking you that we convene at eight o'clock for that purpose. Mayor Carollo: Mr. City Attorney, I can't be there that day until eight -thirty in the morning, at least. Mr. Jones: OK. You want to do it at eight -thirty? Mayor Carollo: If we could do it at eight -thirty, and then we could begin the meeting at nine - thirty instead. Mr. Jones: OK. Mayor Carollo: If that would he all right. Commissioner Plummer: On the... Mayor Carollo: On the 8th. Commissioner Plummer: Which case? Mr. Jones: Pottinger. The homeless case. The homeless case. Mayor Carollo: OK. Is there a motion for eight -thirty in the morning... Commissioner Plummer: Why not eight o'clock? Mayor Carollo: I can't make it at eight. I've got to... Vice Mayor Regalado: What? What day is that? Commissioner Plummer: Eight -thirty is fine with me, Mr. Mayor. Now, let me... 70 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: And the meeting then will be scheduled for nine -thirty to make sure that we have time... the regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Gort: Wait a minute. It's in motion. Move it. Commissioner Plummer: No, no. Hold on. Let me speak to the City Attorney for one second. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Plummer: OK. I have no objection, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Mayor Carollo: Moved by Commissioner Plummer. Second by Commissioner Gort that we meet on May the 8th for the executive session for the Pottinger case at eight -thirty a.m., and that the regular City Commission meeting will then begin at nine -thirty a.m. All in favor, signify by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 97-298 A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY, TO TAKE PLACE ON MAY 8, 1997 AT 8:30 A.M. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gort, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Humberto Hernandez Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado Mayor Joe Carollo NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Plummer: And at that meeting, I would like an answer. Mr. Manager, I brought this to you before, and I want an answer at that meeting. The Federal Courts have mandated what we can do and what we can't do with the homeless scenario. I want to know why the Feds have the ability to put fences around their places, why they have the ability to put fences around their post offices and keep the homeless from invading their territory, but we can't do it. So I'd like that answered. I really would like to know why, do as they say, not as they do, when we make that decision. 71 April 14, 1997 Mayor Carollo: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:49 P.M. JOE CAROLLO MAYOR ATTEST: Walter Foeman CITY CLERK Maria J. Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 72 April 14, 1997