Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1997-12-23 Minutesi * INCUiiitUN1TLI) ltl 96 S P ECIAL c 0 M M IS S 10 N ..IA I N U T E. S Cp.,FLO OF MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 23, 1997. PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL WALTER FOEMAN CITY CLERK INDEX MINUTES OF WORKSHOP December 23, 1997 ITEM SUBJECT NO. LEGISLATION PAGE NO. 1. CONDOLENCE: - TO THE FAMILY OF THE M 97-922 2-3 LATE ESTHER MAE ARMBRISTER ON HER a 2/23/97 UNTIMELY PASSING; REQUEST PROTOCOL OFFICE TO PREPARE A PROCLAMATION TO COMMEMORATE HER LOSS. 2. ESTABLISH ORDER FOR THE DAY AND DISCUSSION 3-4 PROCEDURE FOR WORKSHOP 12/23/97 CONCERNING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO FIVE YEAR PLAN. 3. 3(A). DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAFT HUD AUDIT AND RESPONSE BY CITY TO HUD REGARDING SAME; (A-i) DIRECT CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO HOLD COMMISSION WORKSHOP, AFTER FIRST OF THE YEAR, DELINEATING POWERS OF MAYOR AND THE COMMISSION; ALSO CITY MANAGER SUGGESTS WORKSHOP REGARDING RULES AND INTERPRETATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL (COOPERATION) AGREEMENT, AS WELL AS CLARIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND OVERSIGHT BOARD; (A-ii) BRIEF COMMENTS BY VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE REGARDING NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE BUDGET OFFICER ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITY COMMISSION; (B) BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE ATTORNEY AND MAYOR PERTAINING TO THOSE PAST AND PRESENT CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, DEMOTED OR REASSIGNED; (C) GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO FIVE YEAR PLAN, DEFICIENCIES BETWEEN THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED PLAN AND INCLUSION OF MAYOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES; FURTHER DEFINING INPUT TO BE RECEIVED BY MAYORAL APPOINTEE FOR CITY MANAGER JOSE GARCIA PEDROSA PRIOR TO SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 30TH; (C-i) PRESENTATION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF CHAPTERS IN THE REVISED FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN BOOKLET; (D) DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGES TO THE REVISED FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN AND HOW CHANGES CAN BE EFFECTUATED; (D-i) CLARIFICATION REGARDING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS BY THE MAYOR INCLUDING DEFICIENCIES IN THE OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT PORTION OF SAID PLAN AS WELL AS COMMENTS BY THE INTERIM MANAGER IN CONNECTION WITH REQUEST FROM OVERSIGHT BOARD TO EARMARK $26 MILLION OF REVENUES FROM THE SALE OF FEC PROPERTY AND THE MUNICIPAL JUSTICE BUILDING; (E) DISCUSSION CONCERNING FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE -- (E-i) COMMENTS BY CITY ATTORNEY, REITERATED BY VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE, CONCERNING DISCUSSION OF FIRE FEE BEING INDEPENDENT FROM ANY OTHER FEES; (E-ii) ADDITIONAL CHANGES PROFFERED BY THE COMMISSION REGARDING REVISED FIVE YEAR PLAN INCLUDING: (F) DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT FIRE AND POLICE CHIEFS TO PROVIDE A LIST OF ADEQUATE AND INADEQUATE EQUIPMENT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN ORDER THAT THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD CAN BE INFORMED OF THEIR DEPARTMENTAL NEEDS; (F-i) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION IF PUBLIC HOUSING OWNED BY CHURCHES IS SUBJECT TO THE FIRE ASSESSMENT; (F-ii) CONTINGENCY FUNDS RESTRICTIONS REGARDING WHAT THE FUND CAN BE USED FOR, USAGE OF SAME MUST BE DONE THROUGH A DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY; (F-iii) ACTION PLANS - FOLLOWING APPROVAL BY COMMISSION OF INITIAL PLAN (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS) EVERY DEPARTMENT SHALL PRESENT AN ACTION PLAN; (F-iv) SALE OF PROPERTY ALL PROJECTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY SALES MUST BE FINALIZED BY DECEMBER 30TH; (F-v) LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT: DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT (NO EXEMPTION / FULL COLLECTION POLICY) INCLUDING VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, HEARING OFFICER PROVIDING, OPTION AVAILABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES FOR NOT PAYING FIRE ASSESSMENT, RESERVING TO CITY MANAGER AND FIRE CHIEF TO EVALUATE THOSE INSTITUTIONS REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM SAME; (F-vi) REDUCTION OF REOCCURRING COSTS - STRESS NEED TO UTILIZE CDBG FUNDS IN REDUCING REOCCURRING COSTS; URGE COMMISSION TO REVIEW CORE INITIATIVES IN REVISED PLAN BOOKLET; CONVENE A CHAPTER REVIEW AND BOUNDARIES COMMITTEE FOR MORE EFFICIENT SERVICES AND REVENUES; (F-vii) DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING - CONSIDER ISSUE OF RESTRUCTURING CITY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH DOSP; (F-viii) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)- CONSIDER RETURNING $5.5 MILLION TO THE CRA; URGE CITY'S FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO BE INVOLVED WITH SAID EFFORT; (F-ix) UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL MONIES FOR CLEANUP; (F-x) INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS - FOR FEES SHALL CONTAIN A PROVISION CALLING FOR A DEDICATED REVENUE STREAM FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES. MINUTES OF WORKSHOP OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 23rd day of December, 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 10:30 a.m. by Presiding Officer/Commissioner Humberto Hernandez (hereinafter referred to as Chairman Hernandez), with the following members of the Commission found to be present: ALSO PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. (District 2) Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5) Mr. Frank Rollason, Interim City Manager A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk Chairman Humberto Hernandez (District 3) Commissioner Wifredo Gort (District 1) Commissioner Plummer: Oh, here is the Manager of the week. Vice Chairman Teele: ... inquire of the Chair, how the chair would like for us to proceed. The Chair's office is not available at this time, but we are going to be trying to beep him. In recognition of Commissioner Plummer's comments and in deference to Commissioner Plummer, we will begin this meeting and, why don't we ask our Manager to lead us in a brief invocation, followed by the pledge of allegiance to the flag. An invocation was delivered by Frank Rollason, after which Commissioner Plummer, then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. CONDOLENCE: - TO THE FAMILY OF THE LATE ESTHER MAE ARMBRISTER ON HER UNTIMELY PASSING; REQUEST PROTOCOL OFFICE TO PREPARE A PROCLAMATION TO COMMEMORATE HER LOSS. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Commissioner Plummer. Commissioner Plummer: If I may? We are all saddened at a loss of a person who was at these Commission meetings almost every time the gavel was rung, who passed away very peaceful in her sleep, Sunday morning. And, I would want the records to reflect that the passing of Esther Armbrister, is the passing of an era in this community. She was a lady who was here, who didn't mind telling you exactly the way she thought. She was very persistent in the things that she did for her community and her City. We will all miss her, and I would hope the records would be spread that in fact, this Commission recognizes with sadness, the passing of Mrs. Armbrister. I so move. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Teele: Moved and properly seconded. And, further that the protocol office prepare a proclamation to be signed by all, the Mayor and all Commissioners to commemorate her loss. Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Teele: All those opposed. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, 10:18 a.m. Chairman Hernandez entered the workshop. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, all we have done was to call the meeting to order to have a prayer by the City Manager, the pledge and the action just taken by Commissioner Plummer. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 97-922 A MOTION A MOTION FROM THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY OF THE LATE ESTHER M. ARMBRISTER ON HER UNTIMELY DEATH; FURTHER DIRECTING THE PROTOCOL OFFICE TO PREPARE A PROCLAMATION TO COMMEMORATE MS. ARMBRISTER'S LOSS. 2 December 23, 1997 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Chairman Humberto Hernandez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ESTABLISH ORDER FOR THE DAY AND PROCEDURE FOR WORKSHOP CONCERNING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO FIVE YEAR PLAN. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Vice Chairman, we are here today to talk about modifications to the five-year plan, any revised issues that we want to take before the Commission and the Manager. At this point, I would like the Manager to address the issues at hand, so we can proceed with the modifications if there are any. Mr. Frank Rollason (Interim City Manager): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Hold on, Mr. Manager. Vice Chairman Teele: May I inquire? Could we establish a sort of, an order of the day, so that we can plan our time. And, what I would recommend, is that we determine how long the management is going to take, and then set what we are going to do for lunch, or maybe we can work through a lunch and be through by one to 2 o'clock, or whatever the majority would like to do. But, I think we ought to just plan our schedules, if we can. Chairman Hernandez: How long is your presentation, Frank? Mr. Rollason: I think just a few minutes to give an overview of what we intend how to structure this today, and then we can get into the specific issues, either going through the actual items of the plan, the budgetary items, the operational items. When I was here the last time, at the last meeting, we discussed a couple of issues that... I was concerned about the organizational chart, and then the issue came up with the operational plan and what that was going to be and entail. And, we have some better information on that at this time, so, you know, I think ten, fifteen minutes, I think we will be where we are at the point that we can then get into the meat of the program itself. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, may I recommend that we plan on going to one o'clock, and then, if we can finish, say, in another half an hour to an hour, we will be through by two, if necessary. If not, then we go to say, twelve thirty, and then we break, and we will make that decision. I know we all have plans and schedules, and this is a workshop. And, I know, Commissioner Plummer always has some ideas on these things. 3 December 23, 1997 Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: The only ideas that I have, that I think all of us would like to go to CAMACOL and to Wynwood. And, both of those are scheduled for noon. So, I would say, if I had my way, we would work until noon and break if necessary, until two, and come back, but with a little bit of luck, we might be finished by noon. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Regalado. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. (A) DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAFT HUD AUDIT AND RESPONSE BY CITY TO HUD REGARDING SAME; (A-i) DIRECT CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO HOLD COMMISSION WORKSHOP, AFTER FIRST OF THE YEAR, DELINEATING POWERS OF MAYOR AND THE COMMISSION; ALSO CITY MANAGER SUGGESTS WORKSHOP REGARDING RULES AND INTERPRETATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL (COOPERATION) AGREEMENT, AS WELL AS CLARIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND OVERSIGHT BOARD; (A-ii) BRIEF COMMENTS BY VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE REGARDING NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE BUDGET OFFICER ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITY COMMISSION; (B) BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE ATTORNEY AND MAYOR PERTAINING TO THOSE PAST AND PRESENT CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, DEMOTED OR REASSIGNED; (C) GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO FIVE YEAR PLAN, DEFICIENCIES BETWEEN THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED PLAN AND INCLUSION OF MAYOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES; FURTHER DEFINING INPUT TO BE RECEIVED BY MAYORAL APPOINTEE FOR CITY MANAGER JOSE GARCIA PEDROSA PRIOR TO SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 30TH; (C-i) PRESENTATION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF CHAPTERS IN THE REVISED FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN BOOKLET; (D) DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGES TO THE REVISED FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN AND HOW CHANGES CAN BE EFFECTUATED; (D-i) CLARIFICATION REGARDING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS BY THE MAYOR INCLUDING DEFICIENCIES IN THE OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT PORTION OF SAID PLAN, AS WELL AS COMMENTS BY INTERIM MANAGER FRANK ROLLASON IN CONNECTION WITH REQUEST FROM OVERSIGHT BOARD TO EARMARK $26 MILLION OF REVENUES FROM THE SALE OF FEC PROPERTY AND THE MUNICIPAL JUSTICE BUILDING; 4 December 23, 1997 (E) DISCUSSION CONCERNING FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE -- (E-i) COMMENTS BY CITY ATTORNEY, REITERATED BY VICE CHAIRMAN TEELE, CONCERNING DISCUSSION OF FIRE FEE BEING INDEPENDENT FROM ANY OTHER FEES; (E-ii) ADDITIONAL CHANGES PROFFERED BY THE COMMISSION REGARDING REVISED FIVE YEAR PLAN INCLUDING: (F) DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT FIRE AND POLICE CHIEFS TO PROVIDE A LIST OF ADEQUATE AND INADEQUATE EQUIPMENT EXISTING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN ORDER THAT THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT BOARD CAN BE INFORMED OF THEIR DEPARTMENTAL NEEDS; (F-i) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION IF PUBLIC HOUSING OWNED BY CHURCHES IS SUBJECT TO THE FIRE ASSESSMENT; (F-ii) CONTINGENCY FUNDS: RESTRICTIONS REGARDING WHAT THE FUND CAN BE USED FOR, USAGE OF SAME MUST BE DONE THROUGH A DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY; (F-iii) ACTION PLANS - FOLLOWING APPROVAL BY COMMISSION OF ACTION PLAN (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS) EVERY DEPARTMENT SHALL PRESENT AN ACTION PLAN; (F-iv) SALE OF PROPERTY ALL PROJECTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY SALES MUST BE FINALIZED BY DECEMBER 30TH; (F-v) LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT: ATTORNEY TO PREPARE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT (NO EXEMPTION / FULL COLLECTION POLICY) INCLUDING VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, HEARING OFFICER, PROVIDING OPTION AVAILABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES FOR NOT PAYING FIRE ASSESSMENT, RESERVING TO CITY MANAGER AND FIRE CHIEF TO EVALUATE THOSE INSTITUTIONS REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM SAME; (F-vi) REDUCTION OF REOCCURRING COSTS - STRESS NEED TO UTILIZE CDBG FUNDS IN REDUCING REOCCURRING COSTS; URGE COMMISSION TO REVIEW CORE INITIATIVES IN REVISED PLAN BOOKLET; CONVENE A CHARTER REVIEW AND BOUNDARIES COMMITTEE FOR MORE EFFICIENT SERVICES AND REVENUES; (F-vii) DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING - CONSIDER ISSUE OF RESTRUCTURING CITY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH DOSP; (F-viii) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)- CONSIDER RETURNING $5.5 MILLION TO THE CRA; URGE CITY'S FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO BE INVOLVED WITH SAID EFFORT; (F-ix) UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL MONIES FOR CLEANUP; (F-x) INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS - FOR FEES SHALL CONTAIN A PROVISION CALLING FOR A DEDICATED REVENUE STREAM FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES. 5 December 23, 1997' Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. I have no problem. And, like Commissioner Plummer, I think that we have places to go at noon. So, I don't have any problems, Mr. Chairman, coming back. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, although it's not on the agenda. But, the HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) audit is something that we should discuss here, because it may affect the budget and the five-year plan. And, it's very disturbing, and the people of Miami, of course, have learned about that, through the paper. Although, by the way, we have... I have not received the response from the City to HUD. I know that there were three copies, one to the Manager, another to the Mayor, and another one, I think to Frank Castaneda and the City Commission did not get any copies of the response of the City of Miami to the allegations. Chairman Hernandez: Who hasn't received the response to? Commissioner Regalado: I have not. Chairman Hernandez: I have not, either. No one has, up here. Mr. Rollason: I mean, I can follow-up on that, and you certainly can get a copy of that response. Commissioner Regalado: But, I know there were three copies, that only were distributed to the Mayor, to you, and to Mr. Castaneda, and the response from the federal government. Of course, I learned of the existence of the copy from the federal government and not from the City. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman. This is very important as it relates to the five- year plan. But, I do think we should limit our discussion today on the five-year plan. But, I think Commissioner Regalado's inquiries is most appropriate. In direct response to that, as Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, and as chair the Public Works. This Commissioner has brought to this Commission's attention on two separate occasions, the existence of an audit. And, specifically asked that the City Manager and the City Attorney brief each Commissioner on the audit. That was done two Commission meetings ago, and it was done in the last Commission meeting. In fact, if the Clerk would be so kind as to get the minutes, I mean the agenda of the last meeting, it was placed on the agenda, probably improperly, but it was on the agenda of this Commission meeting. So, this Commission has been fully apprised of the existence of the audit. The difficulty has been, that the audit came down to the Mayor, and that is, a draft audit. There is no audit findings in existence today. Contrary to what you may have read in the Miami Herald. Let me say that, again. There is no audit in existence today, a formal audit finding from HUD on this matter. Mr. Clerk, are you all going to be able to get that out here, please. Mr. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): We are making the call to the office, now. Vice Chairman Teele: What we have right now, is a draft or preliminary findings, which under federal law are embargoed from being released, or being disseminated, and give us an opportunity to comment on those findings, pursuant to federal law. The Oversight Board expressed outrage, what is it? What do you say? extreme distress about not being informed, and we told them yesterday, the Manager and myself, that if they get an opinion from a HUD lawyer, we will be happy to release it to them, as well. At this point, it's not a big deal, because the Mayor did sign a letter which went forward, I assume on Saturday... Chairman Hernandez: Friday. Friday, right. Vice Chairman Teele: Friday. And, that letter basically gives the City's official response. I assume that the City's official response are covered under the Sunshine Law and therefore are released. But, I would assume that. However, the audit itself relates to the City of Miami going 6 December 23, 1997 back eight years. Virtually, none of the activities relate to last year or the period of the federal emergency, except, one of the ones which is always a problem, which is the amount of City employees that we are booking off, if you will, that we are charging to federal grants, to CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and HUD is raising a question about that. But, they always do. We are limited by 20 percent. We submitted a memo to this Commission, which this Commission ratified, that specifically again, for the third time, addressed the HUD audit. And, Frank, if you can get a copy of that memo, please. I think my office has one. We will pass that out, again. You know, the memo where we established the timetable? Mr. Rollason: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: We have it, Mr. Vice Chairman. I have it. Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, yeah. And, that memo basically talks about the need, to ensure that we conform with the basic underlying issues in the audit. Mr. Rollason: On the draft audit. Vice Chairman Teele: Versus... On the draft audit. Mr. Rollason: And, we... That memo has been distributed, because I believe everybody received that. If it hasn't, we can get it distributed. Vice Chairman Teele: And, I will say this, in the open meeting. The thing that I think that has created a lot of the management tiptoeing around on this properly, is that the audit makes certain, raises certain concerns about the Commission and individual Commissioners. That, quite frankly, I told the Manager, I didn't think should be discussed in an open meeting. And, that the Manager and the attorneys should seek to brief each Commissioner. And, the record will reflect that, Commissioner Regalado, that this Commission has been informed. I take responsibility, only as the Chairman of the Economic Development Committee that has interfaced with the Manager and the Mayor. I will say for the record, that my comments to be placed in the letter were rejected by the Mayor. And, that's his right, and I support the Mayor's right to respond in the manner that he did. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Vice Chairman, the reason... Mr. Chairman, if I may? The reason I raised that issue is because in the past Mayor, we were given several committees and I was assigned the Community Development, and several months ago, I knew this audit. So, this is why I was concerned in terms of how the audit results. I understand that by the end of the year, we will have the final audit from HUD, that's my understanding. But, I have not ever been briefed by any member of the administration on this audit. And, I just want the record to clearly state that. I don't know about the other members, but I have never, ever been briefed by any members of the administration regarding this audit. I do know about the audit because since, Mr. Vice Chairman, I told you I was assigned Community Development several months ago. I did went there and met with the auditors. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Plummer. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, 10:31 a.m., Commissioner Gort entere t e workshop session. Commissioner Plummer: The only question I have is, you know, here again, we are going to have to come some time up to the delineation of the Mayor and the Commission, that a response 7 December 23, 1997 would go out by the Mayor without this Commission's approval or knowledge. Now, it would seem like to me, that any response from the City would be jointly between the Commission and the Mayor. And, yet, I am hearing that a response from the Mayor went out and we are not even informed of it. So, you know, somewhere along the line, somebody is going to have to sit down... As I said the other day, in a meeting that we had, Frank. I think it is beyond time that this Commission needs a workshop to understand what is the powers of the Mayor and the powers of this Commission and who does what, because we are into a new ball game. You know, I asked the question the other day, if for whatever reason the Mayor's seat was vacant tomorrow, does this Commission appoint a new Mayor? Is there an interim? And, nobody says, we don't know. So, you know, these are the things that I think we have got to understand. Mr. Rollason: And, I think you are right. I think a workshop will be in order, and I also think that we are going to need a workshop, and we have suggested that yesterday, in dealing with the Oversight Board. If we are going to have new people in place, and that we think it would be a good idea. And, the Chairman of the Oversight Board was very receptive to it, as were the other members, that we have a workshop shortly after the first of the year, that we can sit down with the Mayor's representative or the Mayor, the Commission, staff and get the rules and interpretation of what the inter -governmental agreement says, how it's being interpreted to be used, so we can all get on the same page. And, I think we need to do the same thing with... Commissioner Plummer: Well, I said before and I will say again. You know, we pattern our Executive Mayor and new form of government identical to Dade County. And, after a year, I have got to tell you, Dade County is still arguing as to who is doing what, how, why and where. For example, one of the big arguments, or one of the big areas, the Budget Director. Is he only answerable to the Mayor? Does the Commission have its own separate Budget Director? And, these, nobody has an answer for. Vice Chairman Teele: Commissioner, there is a clear answer. I will give you the ordinance. The legisla... There is a Legislative Budget Director in the County, it was approved two years ago, three years ago. The Legislative Budget Director is of the same statute as the Manager. The legislative... Commissioner Plummer: But, does he answer only to the Mayor? Vice Chairman Teele: He answers... No, sir. He answers only to the Chairman of the Board. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's what I need to know. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, we will get you a copy. If someone could bring out a copy of the Legislative Budget Officer Ordinance in the County, I mean, we can solve that. That's one of the issues that I want to raise here today. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: Because, what's happened here is, and the Mayor has a very strong view on this, Mayor Suarez. Is that we supposedly patterned ourselves after the County, in the Charter, but we did none of the legislative things that the County did. And, that's why there is so much confusion over here. Because, on one end, we have no ability to do anything as a Commission, but to be a rubber stamp. Because, you don't have any Budget Analyst, you don't have any Legislative Director. The audit and management team which has always been accountable to the Commission, but under the Manager, in the County, doesn't exist here. We don't even have a management. We have an audit, but we have never had a management component. So, what we have here is, the symbolism of a Commission, you know, but we have none of the realities that a legislative body has. And, if we don't fix it between now June 30th, 8 December 23, 1997 we are going to be this way for another year. And, it's my intent to try to raise some issues today and fix it. Commissioner Plummer: OK, Mr. Chairman, I have one other question. And, maybe, I shouldn't ask it, but I have got to ask it. Mr. City Manager, Mr. City Attorney, we all read in the paper in reference to the State Attorney and the Mayor. My question is today, is in fact, all of the people who were terminated, fired, resigned or whatever, are they back, now working for the City, they are not working for? In other words, Community Development, do I talk to Frank or do I talk to Bert Waters? Mr. Rollason: Let me give you... Let me give you... Mr. Jones: You talk to Rollason. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I don't know. I mean, you know, it's... Mr. Rollason: Talk to me today. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I am not sure of that, either. I got your memo of resignation, so I am not sure I talk to you, either. You are not even a minister, today. Ministerial. Mr. Rollason: Well, we have a new memo of resignation, that I will have to get distributed to you, that modified the previous memo of resignation. Commissioner Plummer: Maybe, I won't accept either one, but go ahead. Mr. Rollason: All right. Here is where we are with what action that was taken at this point, in reference to that stipulated settlement. The City Attorney is working on a document for me that will give me the comfort that ministerially with the authority that I feel that I have, I can implement those items that have to be done. I have had the letters prepared at this point, waiting for my signature to go to those individuals that were, most of them on administrative leave, some have been terminated. But, the letter is to all of them, giving them a job offer to come back to the position that they previously held to that action taking place. For them to respond by December 30th as to what their intentions are. And, if their intentions are to come back, for them to be back to work, at eight o'clock on the 31st, in the Office of Labor Relations with R. Sue Weller, so that we can have a handle on who is coming back, and people just aren't showing up, and I don't know who is out there. So, I said, you come back to this point, and we go forward. They will go back to their positions. If some individuals desire that they don't want to come back until after the holiday, they will work that out with Sue, so they are taking their vacation time, or whatever it is that they want to do, until January 5th or when they want to come back. That's not a problem. What we need to do is, get a decision from them, are they coming or are they not coming. The people that are still on board, that were removed from positions and have been reassigned are going to receive the same letter and they will say, yes, I want to go back to that director position or not. So, the answer to your specific question is, is that if, Elbert Waters accepts that position to return as a Director of Community Development, he will return to that position. Now, at that point, we have some duplicity, and some people that have been put in place since that time, that I have taken action on, that now, I don't have that authority to take action to change. Because, they are judgmental decisions on somebody going back, and there is bumping thing that has to happen, and the Manager has to make some decisions on that. So, my course of action at this point, is to sit down with those individuals that are specifically impacted. In the case of what you speak about, it will be very clear that Elbert Waters is the Director of that. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. Quit using the name, I have just used that... 9 December 23, 1997 Mr. Rollason: OK. Commissioner Plummer: ... for purposes of... Mr. Rollason: All right. All right. That, those individuals will be those directors. The other ones, I will hold in abeyance for those personnel decisions until the new City Manager is on board, and then he will have to make those decisions as to how he wants to make the adjustments. So, that's the intent. On the other individuals that were affected, that are leaving, I have accepted the resignation from one of them, yesterday. The other individual I spoke to, yesterday, and I said to him that, you may resign if you so decide, by tomorrow. And, if you do not, then I will issue a termination letter. Commissioner Plummer: So, just give me a simple answer. Today, if I were to call Community Development, I talk to Frank? Mr. Rollason: You talk to Frank, because... Commissioner Plummer: And, he is empowered to give decisions as the department head. Mr. Rollason: That is correct. That is correct. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort, do you have anything to say? Commissioner Gort: Just to add to what, J.L., stated. Anyone, that had resigned or retired before then, will not be contemplated. Mr. Rollason: You are talking before the change, the... Commissioner Gort: Right. Mr. Rollason: Absolutely. Commissioner Gort: OK. Mr. Rollason: I mean, this is specific to that stipulated statement. Those are identified individuals, that is not a... anything else. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. My understanding was, that it was everyone with the exception of Marquez. That he had the right as an Executive Mayor to terminate him, but any and all of the rest, had to be given back to where they were previously. Mr. Rollason: That's correct. And, I didn't know whether the Commission was referring to something previous to that time, it doesn't cover that. It's from that 17th forward, is what we are talking about. November 17th forward. Commissioner Plummer: OK, thank you. Chairman Hernandez: OK, we are going to be meeting 'till 12. We will be back at two o'clock. Commissioner Plummer: One thirty. 10 December 23, 1997 Chairman Hernandez: One thirty? Who do you have? Commissioner Gort: Excuse me. Are we going to be dealing with? Chairman Hernandez: That's what we are going to be dealing with. Commissioner Gort: This is all we are going to be dealing. Chairman Hernandez: That's all we are going to be dealing with. Commissioner Plummer: But, it was... Commissioner Gort: Are we going to be meeting to 12 then, and then we are going to come back at one thirty, again? Chairman Hernandez: Well, there could be a possibility that we are finished by 12, but I doubt it. I'll try. Commissioner Gort: I've got a problem. Commissioner Plummer: But, it was my understanding that we were going to go... It was my understanding we were going to go through this plan page by page. Is that not the case, or where are we? Commissioner Gort: Let me ask a question. I have spent a long time reading this one, and reading this one my understanding, the only differences between these two is that you contemplated, you have put a deadline on a lot of the things that before was not placed a deadline on it. My understanding is, the only difference in the budget, and correct me, if I am wrong, is the fire fee. Is there many other differences? Mr. Rollason: Well, the difference that we had with, in the blue plan that you have there, is the removal by the Mayor's initiative to take the thirty-three dollars ($33) left on the garbage fee out, completely. And, then when we talk about the fire fee issue, it is to discuss and finalize exactly how this Commission would like to see the final product that would come before the Commission on the 30th for the first reading of the enabling ordinance to put the fire in place. So, it will be discussed, and also any other changes that the Commission may want to add or or make recommendations to. Budgetarily, I know, Vice Chair Teele has some issues and that's why, the purpose of the workshop. Run through the items and see what you all got. Commissioner Gort: My understanding, for the sake of time, because I think it will be ridiculous to go page by page. I mean, we will be here for three days, if we do that. I think that you were going to come back to us, and you are going to tell us, or you are going to give us a memo, tell us what the differences is, between this plan and the other plan. Mr. Rollason: And, we... Commissioner Gort: Because, I spent many hours reading this one, and... Mr. Rollason: Commissioner, we are prepared to do that. We felt that if we hit each one of the chapters, if not page by page, with what the general overview of the chapter was, and if there was some input from the Commission, we would address it. If not, we will press on to the next chapter, and hit those items as we discussed at the last meeting. Commissioner Gort: OK, yeah. 11 December 23, 1997 Mr. Rollason: It sometimes work. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we let him go through the summary and go through each chapter in some form before we start asking questions. And, then we come back. Otherwise, we can get stopped on one chapter... Commissioner Gort: We will be here all night. Chairman Hernandez: That's... Vice Chairman Teele: ... and never get through it. And, at least we ought to... As I see it, there is two goals here. Is to know what the Manager and the Mayor... Chairman Hernandez: Uh-huh. Vice Chairman Teele: ... and the Mayor. The Manager and the Mayor have got in this plan. This plan includes the Mayor's changes, is that right? Mr. Rollason: That's correct. Vice Chairman Teele: So, we need to go through this plan, and understand what's in it, and then we need to look to the Commission and see if we have any changes or any thoughts that we would like them to study, and that's why we have the consultants, the accountants who basically will be staffed to us in implementing any changes that you have. But, the most important thing, Mr. Manager, according to the Oversight Board, which I agree with and you agree with, that we need to tell this Commission, all of us, is that this is the plan. And, the plan will not, the Oversight Board is not going to entertain a lot of changes to the plan once we approve it on December 30th. Mr. Rollason: That's my understanding. And, also I think as we go through, if there are areas that I feel should have some consideration for the new administration coming in, that some adjustments may be made after the fact, that do not have, or we can allow for the budgetary considerations at December 30th, and that would leave the flexibility for a new City Manager to make changes within that, I think that would be prudent that that individual's hands aren't tied at that point. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, of course. But... Commissioner Plummer: That's not the way I understand it. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, but, let me just deal with the Commission, because... Commissioner Plummer: Sure. Vice Chairman Teele: ... you know, you all have had this plan, and I am sure that you all can figure out how to accommodate the incoming Manager, who for the record, is sitting here. This is the Commission's time to deal with the plan. The things that Commissioner Plummer just raised, are any of those things in this plan, the Legislative Budget Officer? Mr. Rollason: No, the Legislative Budget Officer... Vice Chairman Teele: OK, none of that is in the... 12 December 23, 1997 Mr. Rollason: And, that needs to be addressed today. Vice Chairman Teele: And, that is something, if we don't add it, we can't expect the Manager to add it. Mr. Rollason: That is correct. Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, the Manager is working for the executive. Commissioner Plummer: Well, my further problem is... Jose, I read in the paper, you are coming on board, effectively January 5, is that correct. Mr. Jose Garcia -Pedrosa: OK, if you confirm it, yes, it is. Commissioner Plummer: OK, no. My question is, if we have got to surrender this plan on the 30th of December, you are not on board until January 5, whatever is done on January, December the 30th, you have got to live with. Vice Chairman Teele: No, that's not true. Commissioner Plummer: OK, well then, tell me... Vice Chairman Teele: That's absolutely, not true. Commissioner Plummer: Tell me why. Vice Chairman Teele: He's the, a Mayor's appointee. The Mayor has appointed him. Not the Commission... Chairman Hernandez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: ... not this Manager. Any changes, the person who has been designated by the Mayor wants to make, he can make through the Office of the Mayor. And, on December 30th, if he's got changes, those changes will be presented through the Office of the Mayor. If the Mayor has got confidence enough to name him as Manager and I think it's a great nomination, the Mayor certainly has confidence enough to take his recommendations and formulate them as a change so that we can act on it on December 30th. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Not only that, this Commission gave the Mayor, through the contract, the resources to operate independently a quasi -independently of the Manager, for the purpose of this plan, so that the Manager doesn't have to be burdened down taking calls from the Mayor or from Commissioner Plummer or Commissioner Teele or Commissioner anyone, that we have the resources of the consultant to do that. And, the Mayor has a separate consultant to do that. But, on December 30th, there has got to be one plan and only one person or one entity can approve that plan. And, that's... Chairman Hernandez: The Commission. Vice Chairman Teele: ... this Commission. Commissioner Plummer: OK. My point very simply was time frame, OK. That we are going to surrender on December the 30th a plan, which basically is in concrete. Now, I am assuming 13 December 23, 1997 from what you are saying is, that you are expecting, and I guess we will expect, that Jose will in fact, prior to the 30th, give any and all input that he wishes on behalf of his Mayor to this Commission for its consideration of the final plan on the 30th. Vice Chairman Teele: No, sir. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Tell me... Vice Chairman Teele: The Mayor will submit.... Commissioner Plummer: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: ... any and all input. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, I am not interested in getting this... I think we need to read the Charter. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa has no authority at all, as it relates, other than that of a distinguished and exemplary citizen, to this Commission and this Manager, at this time. He has the total confidence of the Mayor, the Mayor can name him as his special advisor for this process or anything else. And, he has the resources. Any changes that he has will be submitted or should be submitted through the Office of the Mayor. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: And, what we will have on December 30th, in effect will be, three series of changes for which we will have to vote up or down and approve or ratify. And, that would be the Managers, the Mayors... Chairman Hernandez: And, the Commissioners. Vice Chairman Teele: ... and the individual Commission recommendations for which this meeting is called specifically for that purpose. And, I mean, I think, with all due respect, it's great that you are looking out for the Office of the Mayor, right now we spent 15 minutes on this. But, this meeting is to try to get the legislative concerns on the table. The Mayor controls the process from the time we adjourned until we come back, because the Manager is accountable to the Mayor. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: OK. Could I just reiterate what Commissioner Teele has said, Mr. Plummer? I will provide whatever input I have through the Mayor's office. And, one of the things, I think Commissioner Teele is concerned about, which follows from that. Please rest assured that the notion that, were you to ratify me as City Manager, and I were to come in on January 5th, and I would disavow this document, I think that's a concern that Commissioner Teele has raised, and it is a very proper one. That's not going to happen. And, I think one of the things he's concerned about, is that I have the opportunity through the Mayor's office now, to establish ownership of this document... Vice Chairman Teele: Right. Mr. Pedrosa: ... so when you look to me in the future, I won't say, oh, that's not my plan. 14 December 23, 1997 Chairman Hernandez: I know. All right. Mr. Pedrosa: I think, Commissioner Teele, that was one of the things that you and I have talked about. Vice Chairman Teele: At length. Mr. Pedrosa: And, we are perfectly in agreement, and I intend to do that, sir. And, this will be a plan that I will not look to distance myself from in any way, at any time and through that process is the best way to do it. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, and to the point. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: And, to that point, to that precise point. I think it is important that Mr. Garcia-Pedrosa's confirmation hearing be taken up, immediately following the approval and action of the five year plan. And, I think the first question that the Chairman should ask him is, can you live with and execute a five-year plan that we have just approved? Chairman Hernandez: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: Because, if he can't, I think that should color everybody's judgement as to what we do. And, I will tell you right now, that the table of organization, and Mr. Manager designee, I hope you will listen to this. That the table of organization which Frank Rollason spent the better part of one entire full day with the staff on, is something that quite frankly, we could wind up discussing for two days if we choose to. I am sure we won't, but that's a very important decision. And, that's a decision, because there are four tables of organizations, right now. There is the pre -Marquez table of organization, there is the Marquez table of organization, there is the... Chairman Hernandez: Albert Ruder. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The Ruder plan. Vice Chairman Teele: ... Ruder table of organization. There is the Rollason table of organization, and then there is a table of organization that we are going to have to approve on December 30th. And, we have got to get into that now, so that we are informed and understand this. And, then, once we do that, there is an entire budget adjustment that has to be made to reflect the table of organization. And, I will just add, there are changes to the table of organization that must come from this Commission if we are going to embrace the recommendations of Commissioner Plummer and common sense. Commissioner Plummer: So be it. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, can you proceed with your presentation, please? Mr. Rollason: Thank you. What I would like to do is have Bob Nachlinger start, and start to run through the chapters in the book and hit the highlights on them and what our position is, how we are moving forward with them, what have been the areas of controversy or whatever. I will sort of interject and add my two cents worth as we go, and then any... I guess what we ought to do, if there is an issue that you want to revisit, Mr. Chairman, you just want to note that to us, and then we will mark that down and we will come back to those? OK, so we will do it that way 15 December 23, 1997 and then we will know the ones that we are going to come back with and we will have a better idea of what timeframe we are looking at. So, Bob... Commissioner Gort: Before you go, why don't you suggest any questions that we have, we write it down at the end of the whole presentation, and we will answer questions. Chairman Hernandez: And, we will revisit your presentation. Mr. Robert Nachlinger (Asst. City Manager): Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The plan you have before you is basically organized into two main parts. The operational plan of the City covers, or is explained and covered in chapters one, two, three and five through nine. And, also is included in the appendices A, B, and C. The financial plan of the City is chapter four of this document and also is included in your appendices D, E, and F. Under the operational plan, chapter one, is the Executive Summary, contains the overview of the plan, the issues within chapter one, which deserve discussion, is the reaffirmation of the guiding principles, those "motherhood and apple pie" issues that were approved previously in the April 15th plan, and are being reaffirmed in this document. Chapter two, which is new from the October 29th plan to this plan, lists out at this point 12 core initiatives that management believes must be undertaken this year to start the direction of the City to bring, move forward in correcting the operational deficiencies the City currently has. Chapter three is the management direction, the operational initiatives of the City. This basically takes the, a summary of the blue ribbon task force recommendations, gives the, any initiatives that they recommend, any benefits associated with it, the time line for implementation and any cost associated with those initiatives. Chapter five in the operational plan is the City workforce. It really discusses the quality of the City employees, the work ethic if you will, of the City. This is the area that contains the organizational chart of the City which would be under discussion later today. The... chapter six deals with the economic development plans of the City, those plans that we have moving forward to bring the City back into a correct financial posture. The, one additional issue which has come up, we might want to look at a Boundaries Commission and potentially adjust the City's boundaries through this plan or establish the mechanism for that to occur. But, that would be in relation to Chapter six. Chapter seven is the capital planning of the City, that capital improvements document that is annually prepared and passed on by this Commission discussing the ramifications of the various capital plans of this City. Chapter eight is the debt management of the City, lists all of the current outstanding obligations of the City, how the City plans to make those repayments and any future debt obligations and needs of the City for capital. The last chapter in the plan is chapter nine, dealing with cash management. It discuses the current parameters of the available investments for the City and the policies that those are operated under and basically lays out a blueprint for the future for those particular initiatives. Appendix A, and quite frankly, both Appendix A, B and C, if we could squeeze them all into a single document would be better. But, Appendix A takes all, at this point, in your document there are 612 recommendations emanating from the Stierheim plan, the KPMG Management letter, the staff reports from the governments, Governor's work product and the Blue Ribbon Task Force. All of those recommendations that have been made and essentially puts them out in a numbering sequence and gives you the source of those documents. Appendix B, takes that same initiative and number sequence, lays out a time line for implementation of these initiatives and any cost associated with them. And, Appendix C, again takes the same initiatives in the same order, the same numbers and gives the staff assigned to implementation and any management comments from those departments. The second section which, in spite of the emphasis on the first plan, is now really relegated to a back seat in this plan is, the financial plan of the City. Essentially, that's chapter four, which deals with all the revenue initiatives that the City will be undertaking including the fire assessment fee, and deals with all the long term and five year budget of the City. The changes between the October 29th plan and this plan, are really contained on page 59 of your document, that's the... dealing with the... recognizing the revenue from both the FEC (Florida East Coast) land sale and the Municipal Justice land sale. The reduction in revenues related to the Mayor's initiative to 16 December 23, 1997 eliminate the garbage fee and how we are going to recover those dollars, plus about thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) which will be used to implement the capital items in the five year, or the Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations. And, there is also a twenty-six million dollar ($26,000,000) amount left over which is being held at this point as a reserve for strategic investments for those priorities that the City can have to invest these dollars to either eliminate recurring expenses or to create recurring revenue streams for the City. I went through this hurriedly, if there are any questions, we are prepared to answer and discuss. Commissioner Plummer: Tell me, where in the document is the Gates settlement? Mr. Nachlinger: The Gates settlement would be in the City workforce and that's... Commissioner Plummer: But, I am swaying, where is it in the cost factors of the City... Mr. Nachlinger: It's within... Commissioner Plummer: ... in this plan? Mr. Nachlinger: It's within the budget itself. Both summarized in the sections in chapter four and in detail in appendix, I believe "D." But, those costs have been included. Commissioner Plummer: They have been? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. What about the recycling fee? As you know, we brought up some extra monies to put it back in. Is the five year plan show for five years, the recycling fee?. Or the recycling of recyclable? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: For the full five years? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. I guess I have to ask a basic, and Frank you can address this better than anyone. As we were all aware, one of the major problems in the Fire Department is equipment. We cannot go five years without buying equipment. I mean, we have got fire trucks over there today, as I am told, that in fact, can't carry water or don't carry water, and it's a major problem. Now, is there anything in this five year plan addressing the purchase of equipment for the Fire Department? Mr. Rollason: I believe there is. But, first on the trucks that can't carry the water, I think it is a wheel problem, and I think that is, those are on newer trucks and the Fire Chief explained at the moment, that's being addressed to try to correct that problem on the Quint if I am not mistaken. But, Chief Gimenez can come up and speak to... I know there is a 1.3 in... Commissioner Plummer: In this plan... Fire Chief Gimenez: There is... In this plan there is money for capital. I am not exactly sure how much was allocated in the five year plan. I know that in this year there is an additional 1.3 million that was given to the Fire Department by the Commission on excess sale of property for this year. And, we are preparing the resolution for that. 17 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: OK, are you comfortable that knowing the full problem that exist, that you have read this plan and there are sufficient funds to address, to keep our Fire Department a number one department? Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, I would like to know what the amount is, right now. Commissioner Plummer: If you don't know, I sure don't. Mr. Tom Gabriel: I do. Commissioner Plummer: I didn't ask you. Mr. Gabriel: Oh, darn. Commissioner Plummer: I can't hold your feet to the fire, I can hold his feet to the fire. Mr. Dipak Parekh (Dir. Office of Budget & Management Analysis): Commission, we have for the five year period... Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. I don't need to know how much. I need to know from the Fire Chief that those amounts that are designated are adequate to cover the problem that exists with equipment. Now, if they are not adequate then I think we need to know that. Mr. Rollason: Let me comment on that for a second, because sitting in this seat, I have got a little bit of knowledge of what's going on in dealing with Chief Gimenez, too. I think that what's in that five year plan in many areas is, is a compromise document that allows us to operate certainly within a safe and truthful manner to get us to this five year point. It is a program, it is a plan. If you were to say to me, is it going to put us up to snuff, where I think we ought to be with fire apparatus? The answer to that is, no. And, it's not going to put us up to where we should be with our Solid Waste vehicles or our light fleet, and it's not going to put us up with many areas that we can address. We are balancing these in trying to come to a point that we can operate, operate safely, provide the service that we have to the citizens, and stay within the budget constraints that we are obviously facing. The Fire Chief can speak however he desires, but if you are asking, does this solve the problems of fire apparatus? The answer is, no. Commissioner Plummer: Well, at no detriment to the Sanitation Department. The don't provide life giving support. And, to me, I would not compare the two. The people of this City look to that Fire Rescue and that Fire Department to provide a service. And, my only question again, is, what's in this five-year plan, is it adequate to maintain the level of service that the people of this City expect and demand. And, if it's not, then let's address the problem. Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, I am going to answer it this way. I have always... I have always... Commissioner Plummer: Ah, Chief, excuse me. It's a simple yes, or now. Fire Chief Gimenez: The answer is, no. Commissioner Plummer: No. Then, I think we need to address it. Chairman Hernandez: OK, Mr. Manager. This is what we want to know, up here. OK, we lived through this already. And, I agree with what Commissioner Gort said. Except for Vice Chairman Teele, he was not here. He did not have the benefit to live through this whole process. What are the changes, and besides legislative? OK, besides legislative, and we are going to get into that. What are the changes to the five-year plan? We want to know that. What modifications has the Mayor requested? What revisions? So, we can put... 18 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: The Oversight Board. Chairman Hernandez: Exactly, the Oversight Board. Whatever other modifications were requested. Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: That's the question. I mean, we have a budget that we approved, we have to live by it, we have to see what differences or what changes that we make on that budget. And, we all read the paper today, and we know of some of the liability we might have, what are we doing to provide for those liabilities? That's what I would like to know. Mr. Rollason: And, that will be the financial side that we have to address and we have to address. But, between what we can do operationally, what we need to actually have in place to provide the level of service, and is it going to be the optimum? It's not going to be the optimum in just about any area that we are dealing with. We need to get a strategic plan in place. We need to get these initiatives in place to deal with individual departments, so that we can get on a plan to recovery. This is going to be a living document. It is a process we are going to have to go through. It's going to be modified as we go, and I think we need to have that mind set that here is where we are going, here is where we start. This gets our foot in the door. Commissioner Plummer: Can it be modified? Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Go ahead, Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Let me quere the Manager, if he meant what he just said. Do you mean other than the annual amendments? Do we plan to amend this document, sort of as we go, as you just said? Or do we plan to submit this and to agree with the Oversight Board, to live within it, to substantially and to make amendments annually to this plan? Mr. Rollason: I think there is two elements that we have to deal with in dealing with this plan. There is an element that is tied into the financials that very clearly I would hope would be a annual event that we say, this is what we have done, this is what the budget reflects, this is what we passed and we are pressing on. It is so difficult to get these, get this inertia going with a plan to be changing it every time we turn around is certainly going to be counter productive. However, in some of the requirements that the board has put on us as we addressed them through our consultants, we need to make those kinds of amendments and additions to the plan that will not have the budgetarily, but operationally begin to show that we are getting our house in order operationally. I think those are the amendments that need to go forward as we, as they become available. Commissioner Plummer: But what? Let me ask another question. And, here again, you know, is this rhetoric or what? The Mayor has said, he is going to reduce taxes by 18 percent. Now, 18 percent, you said, represented how much money? Mr. Nachlinger: It's about 20, how many? Yeah, about 20. Commissioner Plummer: OK, now, I have heard that that's this year or five years. Is that in any way taken into consideration in this document? Mr. Nachlinger: No, sir. 19 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Well, you see. I mean, we are talking, unless I am mistaken, the Oversight Board is asking us for a document which basically is going to be locked in for five years. Cash flow as well as operational. Now... Mr. Nachlinger: Which is updated annually. Commissioner Plummer: But, we do that in budget. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: OK, I mean, our budget will be, I am sure, subject to review. But, I am saying is, that if we are going to reduce this budget, let's say over five years, that's four million dollars a year. Now, the question is, if we reduced our revenue, which is ad valorem taxation by four million dollars ($4,000,000) a year, what does that do to this plan? It blows it all to hell, as far as I see it. Mr. Nachlinger: Commissioner. Mr. Rollason: Well, Commissioner, let me respond to that for a minute. I think that it's just like, or similar to be me sitting here saying that where we would like to be in the end, with the fire apparatus or with something else. There are initiatives that the Mayor would like to see happen, and that's obvious. However, the direction that we get from the Mayor to include in the plan, at this point, has not included that 18 percent reduction at this point. Now, he has indicated very clearly that down the line he would like to head towards that, and I think when we sit down here the next year to look at it, we... that will be addressed in some fashion whether it's phased in or whatever. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Mr. Rollason: But, it is not included at this time. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, and correct me, if I am wrong. Once we approve a budget here, we have to live with it because it's approved by the Commissioners. Mr. Rollason: That's correct and we're looking at a third budget amendment to be to you on December 30th... Commissioner Gort: If there are any changes, I am sure to make any amendments or changes, it has to make sense to us first of all, before we can say, yes or no. So... Commissioner Plummer: I see two different things, here. Commissioner Gort:... this... Commissioner Plummer: I see a five-year plan which is a document. Then, I see budgets annually as we have always done, as a different document. But, primarily, I am looking at the five-year document as being the overall umbrella of the five years. Now, you keep talking about this is going to change and that is going to change. Is that going to be approved under the umbrella of the five-year plan. Vice Chairman Teele: If you put it on the table, I'll vote for it. I don't know why we keep assuming that there is some force out here that's going to do this. It's up to us, J.L. Commissioner Plummer: OK. 20 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: It's nobody, else. And, if you want a 20-year reduction, and you put it on the table, I'll second the motion. Commissioner Plummer: OK. I hear you, but I want it for clarification so that I don't come back in two and half years and say, what about that question I asked before. It's on the table, the question has been asked, the answer is given and now I'll live with it. Chairman Hernandez: Frank. Mr. Rollason: And, those items that you give us direction for today, we are going to fashion it to this, to bring back to you on the 30th, and then you will vote it up or down. Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, what modifications, what requests from the Mayor, what deficiencies by the Oversight Board have been found? That's what we want to hear. Mr. Rollason: All right. What has come from the Mayor, Bob, you can jump in here. My understanding is, the change to the garbage fee to remove that thirty-three dollars. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Our directions so far from the Mayor is to remove the balance of the garbage fee from the plan. Additionally, there has been a, suggestions if you will, from the Oversight Board, for their recommended improvements in the plan. Those are both operational and in the budgetary area. Commissioner Plummer: Reduce the garbage fee completely. Mr. Nachlinger: The changes to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, basically they are summarizing the first page of your Appendix B, where we put a time line for implementation and a cost associated with the implementations of each of those recommendations. That thirteen and three quarter million dollars ($13,750,000) worth of capital items is being brought forward to page 59 of your document and shown on an annual basis when those costs will occur. Other than bringing the, and recognizing the money from the sale of the FEC property, and the Municipal Justice property, those are the essentially the major change to the financial area of the plan. Operationally, the... Commissioner Plummer: Wait, wait, wait. Can we stop you there? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Please. It is my understanding that there is another major change in that plan in reference to the square footage of buildings. Now, is that in the Mayor's plan or not? Mr. Rollason: It was discussed... Vice Chairman Teele: Mister, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: We are not going to ever get through this plan, if we just start picking items out of the air and focussing in on. I will recommend, if you want to... If we want to talk about the fire fee, then why don't we just recess where we are now, because that really is the... 21 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: The crunch. Vice Chairman Teele: ... biggest financial number. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, I want to do this in a way that I can follow what we are doing. And, why don't we just, J.L., before we just start picking it apart, why don't we ask the Manager to bring the Fire Chief up, let him give us a briefing for ten minutes, five minutes, and then ask questions on it, otherwise we are just going to be diving into the middle of it and we may miss all the edges. Commissioner Plummer: No, the question I was asking Art, is the fact that I had heard, and maybe wrongfully so, that they were going to change the structure of the fire fee, which to me is a major change in this document which I am going to tell you, I will vote against, simply because it is going to kill businesses in this community, in my interpretation. Mr. Rollason: You are correct. There has been some discussion on that front on many different items... Commissioner Plummer: So, I mean, to me that's a big... Art, if you are not aware, I think it is a major change. Vice Chairman Teele: I understand that. But, I think the way to do this, is to discuss, rather than the changes, let's discuss what it is and then let the changes be a part of that as opposed to just focussing in and assuming a way to the problem, or maybe creating a problem. Mr. Rollason: Yes, staff agrees with that direction. In other words, we will... There are some primary issues as the Chair was asking about. The fire fee is the one we need to discuss. We need to discuss the organizational chart and we need to get passed that. So, if there aren't any other specific areas, there is another issue dealing with a request from the Oversight Board that they want some earmarking on that twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000). They want that included in the plan. So, that's something we need to address. And, the Mayor is putting a position together on that, and we certainly want the input from the Commission and we need to talk about that twenty-six million, because they have highlighted us. The areas that they are going to look at when this document gets back and says, these are things that we want answered. The action plans that we need dealing with the various departments. We have got, KPMG is here, they are going to discuss that, and so we can deal with these, an issue at a time. So, if there are no other additional issues, we can jump to the fire fee. If you want to start there, that's good with me. Chairman Hernandez: Well, that's the main difference here, right? That's the main, and all difference. Commissioner Gort: That's it. That the only difference. Mr. Rollason: That's the main issue, difference and then our decision on what we are going to do with this organizational plan. The twenty-six million that, Commissioner, is the revenues on the sale with the property FEC, and the property on llth Street. Vice Chairman Teele: And, Mr. Manager, for the record, it's not... I maintain, and I am minority of one, that it's not twenty 26, it's 20. Mr. Rollason: I understand your position. 22 December 23, 1997 Chairman Hernandez: Carlos, can you explain to us the old fire assessment fee that we approved, and the changes to that? Explain to us what we approved and then the difference. Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, the only difference in what's been talked about, a rate change, would be in the upper echelon of the square footage. And, it's hard to explain. You, a fire fee for commercial and for industrial warehousing and institutional is based on a square footage basis. Now, the square footage can... has some caps, OK. And, it could be a one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, three hundred thousand, it's really based on the abilities of the Fire Department. And, what we can feel comfortable saying that after a certain point in time, it doesn't matter how big a building is, we cannot provide for the fire protection to that and therefore, there is no increased benefit. At this point in time we feel that that's somewhere in the vicinity of the 200,000 square foot range. I believe you all should be given a fire fee fact sheet. They have that? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Fire Chief Gimenez: OK. What it says, the probable rates, the probable rates right now are based on a $31.8 million dollar assessment. For residentials, it's one hundred thirty-two dollars ($132) per unit. For multifamily it's one hundred and sixty-two dollars ($162) per unit, for public housing, it's five hundred and eighty-five dollars ($585) per unit. Now, those rates are set no matter what you do with the square footage cap because those are on a per unit basis. So, even if you raise your square footage caps up and down on the commercials and the industrials and institutionals, it does nothing to that individual rate per unit. The residentials includes single-family dwellings, duplexes and your condominiums. Your multifamily are basically your rentals and your public housing is, HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) housing, federal type housing. Commercial properties, obviously the big buildings in downtown, those kinds of buildings. Industrials are the warehousing, and institutional are things like hospitals, could be churches and government buildings. The... what I have shown... When you look at the commercial aspect, it says, 124 to twenty-four thousand eight hundred dollars ($24,800). That is, the range of the lowest assessment and that's a square footage less than either 1999 square feet or less and the amount of 24,885 is a commercial building of 200,000 square feet or greater. The same thing for industrial, their rate is thirty-six dollars ($36) on the low side to 63. Six thousand three hundred. Institutional is 184 to thirty-six thousand. Commissioner Plummer: How has that changed from before, is the question? Chairman Hernandez: Chief, before you answer that, which is what we are all interested in. What we agreed upon, back a couple months ago, for example the residential. We were going to charge them the fire assessment fee and we were going to waive their solid waste fee. Fire Chief Gimenez: That is... It's got nothing to do with the fire fee. The fire fee stands on its own two feet. What the board does, what the Commission does with the solid waste fee, is apart from the fire fee. Commissioner Plummer: My, my... Chairman Hernandez: That's right. But, it was supposed to be... Commissioner Plummer: My understanding at the time, is that the same fee charged for garbage would be eliminated and that the fee for the fire fee would be the same as the garbage fee. Chairman Hernandez: That's what we approved. We were just swapping... 23 December 23, 1997 Mr. Rollason: And, that's an action that this Commission could take. However, staff is suggesting... Commissioner Plummer: We did take. Chairman Hernandez: But, we did take that action. That's what we approved. And, the idea was, where we were going to make was, is there was going to be a lot more people charged the fire assessment fee than those people that obviously never participated in our solid waste program. Mr. Rollason: And, I think that initiative could still go forward as you all decided. What I am suggesting is, is that the ordinances should stand on their individually, and they not be tied together. In other words, policy wise, if you want to consider them that way, that's fine. But, I think we need to separate the issues for any future action. And, therefore, I would advise or I am suggesting that we handle the fire fee as an item and we handle the garbage fees as an item, as a separate item... Commissioner Gort: OK. Mr. Rollason: ... and there will be separate enabling ordinances and we will handle it in that matter. Commissioner Plummer: Who changed the damn, thing? Commissioner Gort: OK, we will do it that way. My understanding is, what we approved was 160. What you are saying now, you are going to reduce it to 132. Am I correct? Mr. Rollason: No, the original, the original plan call for... Commissioner Gort: Was for 132. Mr. Rollason: One thirty-two. Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: OK. All right. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: The Manager has just raised perhaps the most important issue that's going to be raised as we go forward. And, that is, our conduct in what we say and do. What I don't want the Manager doing, and I am saying this primarily for the benefit of one person in the audience, is that, I think the Manager should be the Manager. And, I think the lawyer should be the lawyer. And, I realize that we are blessed in having the potential of two in one, but for my money, I want to just buy a Manager. Now, Mr. Attorney. Mr. A. Quinn Jones, III, Esq. (City Attorney): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Would you please, please, please, discuss in some clear language why we should not discuss these two things together? Mr. Jones: Well. For the same reasons, and I will echo with not repeating myself. The garbage fee is a fee that is provided for ordinances that stands on its own basis. Irrespective of whether you implement a fire fee or not. Secondly, if you adopt, which this Commission has intended to 24 December 23, 1997 do is to implement a fire fee, the fire fee would stand separate and apart from both. That to commingle the two is very dangerous, you play right into the hands of those very individuals who want to invalidate what you are attempting to do. But, it's very important that you realize that the two are separate and distinct. If you don't want a garbage fee, certainly this Commission can take action separate and apart from implementing a fire fee. But, by no means should you implement the two or confuse the public, that it's one fee rolled into one, that they are getting charged for both in the one fee. That is not the case. They are two separate fees and they have to be viewed as two separate fees because they stand separate and apart as to separate fees. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, if I may? I don't know if this is for the Manager on the fire fee. But, what happened to the good neighbor policy that we were trying to sign with the federal government? Because, what I see here is that you are saying properties to be built, but excluded for budgetary reasons. I thought that we were about to sign the good neighbor agreement with the federal government and that we will be getting the money this year, or at least next year. Mr. Nachlinger: Sir, the federal properties, if you wish to exclude them, that's certainly an option that you can, that the Commission can do. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. But, I know what you are saying. But, what I am asking is, did we finalize the agreement? Fire Chief Gimenez: I'm not sure. I wasn't dealing with that, it was probably a Manager question. Commissioner Regalado: We did not. Mr. Rollason: I am not sure that that was ever even initiated. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, it was. Mr. Rollason: I mean, it was initiated, at this level, I don't know if staff carried if forward. Let me say this, what this enables us to do, is the option to build. I think what we need to do is talk about the pilot program, or a good neighborhood type program and see exactly what position we are in, where these services are being delivered. However, if it passes this way, it will allow us to do a billing, but we are not counting that revenue in the budget, is what we are saying. We have the option... Commissioner Regalado: But we would, we would, if we had the agreement signed. Mr. Rollason: That is correct, that is correct. Commissioner Regalado: Several months ago, I was told that we were talking to the federal government to sign the agreement, that's why I am asking. Mr. Rollason: I, L. Commissioner Regalado: I think, Arlene was... Mr. Rollason: I will check into it. I will have an answer for you before the 30th, so you would know. And, I think that, what we are saying is, the position that we are posing to you at the present, will reflect that if this billing does go forward and revenues do come in, it will be a plus rather than counting on at this point before the Oversight Board. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, if I may? I want to go back to what the lawyer was trying to say, or was saying before Commissioner Plummer left. I think it's important that the attorney 25 December 23, 1997 brief, Commissioner Plummer and everybody else, because L. you weren't heard, and this is very important. Because, if this fee is challenged legally, by very significant economic forces such as the condos in Brickell, and other developers, in all probability the entire fee would be underchallenged. And, certainly the section that relates to them, which would be what, commercial? Fire Chief Gimenez: You mean, the condominiums? Vice Chairman Teele: Yes. Fire Chief Gimenez: Those are under residential. Vice Chairman Teele: Under the multifamily? Fire Chief Gimenez: No, residential. Condominiums that are owned by individuals are residential and the other apartment buildings is multifamily. The rentals are multifamily. Vice Chairman Teele: What's the economic impact of that challenge, if they were successful? Fire Chief Gimenez: On the residential aspect? Vice Chairman Teele: On condos? Well, I withdraw the question, if you don't have the answer. Fire Chief Gimenez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: ... if you don't have the answer. The important point here is this, this Commission needs to deal with the fire fee independent of any other fees, independent of a discussion of any other fees, and we need to deal with the fire fee on the merit of the ordinance that will be before us on December 30th relating to the fire fee. Of the fees, such as solid waste and any others will be coming up in a separate Commission meeting in January. Is that right? Mr. Rollason: That will be our intent, second meeting in January, we will bring forward the fire fee issue. And, in that, you also need to be advised, and it is our intent from staff that we will hold the bills in abeyance from being sent out in January until a decision is made by this Commission. In other words, billing is due in January. Our intent is, to hold those bills, have a decision made by Commission, sometime in January, and then we will press forward with that and the garbage issue, whether it's up and down then. Chairman Hernandez: But, the importance is, to issue this by the 30th, so that we have the intent, on the fire fee. Mr. Rollason: The fire fee we have to have in place on the 30th. Chairman Hernandez: OK. Chief, I... Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, what actually what we have to have in place on the 30th is the intent to place the fire fee on the trim notice. Mr. Jones: Term notice. Chairman Hernandez: Chief, one question. Fire Chief Gimenez: Also, I have the answer to your question, if you want it, sir. 26 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: No, let me say, this. Chairman Hernandez: Yeah. Fire Chief Gimenez: Oh, OK. Vice Chairman Teele: For the purpose of the Oversight Board, this document must be done by December 3rd, that's number one. Separate and apart from that, is a State requirement that this document be done by December 30th for the purpose of placing the notice on the trim bill with the court, with the tax collector's office. Chairman Hernandez: Ad valorem taxes. Fire Chief Gimenez: That's correct, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Well... Chairman Hernandez: Chief, Commissioner, one second. Commissioner Plummer: Go ahead. Chairman Hernandez: The biggest concern I always had with implementing the fire assessment fee to condominiums is, is they currently do not participate and pay solid waste fees to the City of Miami. Now, we discussed what kind of benefits we could give them in turn, because obviously single family residents, were going to get their solid waste fees waived and was substituted by a fire assessment fee. Have we come up with a plan, if we do decide to implement the fire assessment fee to the condominiums? Fire Chief Gimenez: That's for the Commission to decide and something for the Manager to answer. Vice Chairman Teele: But, Mr. Chairman, if I may beg your indulgence? We are just doing now, what the City Attorney just asked us, respectfully, not to do. That the fire fee must be taken up separate and distinct from the other document because someone is going to get the transcript, someone is going to file a lawsuit and someone is going to say exactly what you just said. And, if we are not careful, we are going to put on the record, the reason that the fire fee goes down. So, I just reiterate what the City Attorney has said, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that we not tie the fire fee to any considerations other than the fire fee, and then on the solid waste, we look at that. And, maybe we need to look at something altogether different. Chairman Hernandez: I understand the legal implications, Vice Chairman, and the thing was, that when you weren't around here, this was openly discussed, openly negotiated and we, approved this fire assessment fee based on certain compromises that we reached. Now, do we want to change... Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, there is no fire assessment fee being approved or ever been approved. There has only been a discussion relating to a budget policy to move to that. And, I recognize that history, Mr. Chairman, and I am respectful of that, and I do give deference to that. But, what I am saying is, we move to another level, and that is, the ordinance by which we are considering, and I want my view to be based, and the Commission view to be based only on the fire fee for the record. Chairman Hernandez: OK. 27 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: For the ordinance. Chairman Hernandez: Did we approve a fire assessment fee, or not? Did we? Fire Chief Gimenez: No, sir. You approved something in concept for your five-year plan. Commissioner Plummer: And, how much. Fire Chief Gimenez: It was basically the same thing it's been allocated, now 31.87. Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. Is it... for an individual house like mine? Fire Chief Gimenez: One hundred and thirty-two dollars ($132). Commissioner Plummer: One thirty-two? Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: So, it's less than the present fee for garbage? Fire Chief Gimenez: The present fee for garbage, from my understanding is 156. Commissioner Plummer: One fifty-six. Fire Chief Gimenez: So, it will be less. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Plummer: Hell of a way to run an airline. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, what you are saying is, this fire fee that we did not approve, but we recommend or whatever, at the public hearings and so on, because I was under the impression we did pass it to implement, to be implemented now, has that changed at all, from what you are telling me? Fire Chief Gimenez: There are certain aspects of that original fee that may have changed, but the gross amount and the amount to be billed, well there is the square footage caps that may change, but as far as the residentials, etcetera, that really has not changed. Commissioner Gort: What are the major changes, because I know it took a lot of dealing, a lot of negotiations between businesses and property owners and ourselves to come up to the numbers that we came out to. What I would like to know is, basically what... Mr. Rollason: I think the issue is, that we are dealing with on the square footage that had some concern of that increasing up to five thousand and so forth, that has a... Fire Chief Gimenez: Five hundred thousand. Mr. Rollason: Five hundred thousand. Fire Chief Gimenez: The issue was, could we raise the cap to 500,000, and at this point, we are a lot more comfortable... 28 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Gort: With 200. Fire Chief Gimenez: ... on 200,000. Commissioner Gort: Which is the way it was done originally, the way we agreed to it. Fire Chief Gimenez: I believe so. I believe the original in the five-year plan may have been 500,000. Mr. Rollason: The answer to your question is, yes. Commissioner Gort: OK. Fire Chief Rollason: Yes it was. Mr. Rollason: It's a fact, at 200,000. Commissioner Gort: What are the differences that we have from what we discussed before? Commissioner Plummer: Have we seen the ordinance? Commissioner Gort: What are the differences that we have from what we discussed before? Commissioner Plummer: Have we seen the ordinance for December the 30th that we are voting on? Mr. Jones: It's coming forth. It will be coming forth soon. Fire Chief Gimenez: For single family, multifamily, it is all the same. Commissioner Gort: It's all the same. OK. Fire Chief Gimenez: The only differences are, the individual rates within the institutional, commercial and the industrial may have changed slightly. Because of the lower cap, the square footage cap, the highest amount that any, you know, category will get, or any one of those will get, is lower. Commissioner Gort: What you are saying is, the highest amount have been reduced? OK. Fire Chief Gimenez: Has been reduced. Yes, yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: Those being the major changes? OK. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's not what I looked at. What I looked at is, that fee which is now proposed is different and that's what we have the right to vote on December 30th, because we haven't seen the ordinance. You haven't seen the ordinance and neither have I. Mr. Jones: Yeah, but the ordinance will come to you for first reading, so... Commissioner Gort: The ordinance will come in first reading and we will have to address... Mr. Jones: Yeah. 29 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Gort: ... what we have here, the probable rates, which instead of probable will be the... Commissioner Plummer: Fixed rates. Mr. Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Gort: And, my understanding is, what has taken place is that the, in commercial, industrial and institutional, your highers will be lower from before. Fire Chief Gimenez: The higher fee is lower than the highest fee before, yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: So, that will be a benefit to the people out there. OK. Mr. Jones: Yeah, the important to keep, and let me just interject this, Commissioner Gort and the rest of the Commission. The important thing to keep in mind as we move forward today and whether you are going to include this and how it's going to affect different types of properties or whatever, that decision needs to be made before the 30th or by the 30th. Commissioner Gort: Right. Mr. Jones: Because in between second, first and second reading, you know, you can't make substantial changes going into second reading. So, we need for you to be focussing in on that, so that we can have a definitive stance as to how you are going to apply it by first reading. Commissioner Gort: I understand. But, I also understand this is part of the five-year plan. Mr. Jones: Absolutely. Commissioner Gort: '97-'98 budget. Mr. Rollason: That's correct. Mr. Jones: That's correct. Commissioner Gort: So, we need to approve this. Mr. Rollason: In other words, what the Oversight Board is going to say, if you are not going with this, show me what your alternative is... Commissioner Gort: Right, I understand that, OK. Mr. Rollason: ... by December 30th. So, I mean, we are coming to that defining moment. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more questions about the fire fee. And, I think, I don't know... Commissioner Plummer: I voted against it before, I will vote against it again. Chairman Hernandez: Does anybody else have a question on the fire fee? Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the firm of Government Services or Nabor, Giblin here? 30 December 23, 1997 Fire Chief Gimenez: No, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Will they be present on December 30th? Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Is the ordinance available for our review at this time? Fire Chief Gimenez: The ordinance is at the Law Department at this time. I think they are putting the final touches on it and it will be available to you, prior to the 30th. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the ordinance in great detail. I have specific concerns that I have raised with the Attorney and the Manager, and I want to put them on the record. But, I would very much like for that ordinance to contain an administrative hearing process, citizens complaints. Number one, I think it's important that the board of City Commissioners not become a venue and a forum for literally innumerable citizens who will get this bill and obviously complain, not only about the bill itself, but particularly about the underlying evaluations. And, I think it's important that we provide them with a remedy for procedural and substantive due process that has a quasi-judicial forum. I think it is imperative that the ordinance adopt something similar to the system under the State ad valorem board review that's applicable in Dade County where there is a hearing officer, at least, one, two or three that we would appoint, that they would render an opinion, and that opinion would be reviewed by the Management and that they would have a final appeal to us on that board. I am well aware of the fact that if we put this on the trim notice, basically the issues relating to valuation should be addressed under the underlying ad valorem. But, I am also very cognizant, particularly in Commissioner Gort's district and my district, there are a number of homes that would be within the threshold of the homestead exemption for evaluation purposes, or just insignificantly above it, and those people may not have ever even worried about it. I think once this hits, which doesn't have a ad valorem, I mean, a homestead exemption clause in it, because remember, the ad valorem tax that we are putting this on the trim notice has got a twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) exemption built in. This document has no exemption built in and therefore, all of these homes that are thirty-five, forty thousand, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of value are going to be taxed, I am sorry, are going to pay a fee at the full value for fire services. And, that's why I think it's important. I know Chief Gimenez and I have had this discussion. I am not sure we are in full agreement, but I do know, as having served as a Chairman of the Value Adjustment Board for the entire County for the last four years, if we don't have a process, this Commission is going to get filled and stampeded and we would not be in a position to handle that. So, my request distinctly, is that the City Attorney please prepare an amendment, if you don't agree, or if the Manager and the Attorney, it won't be necessary if I have an amendment that includes a hearing officer provision, that the hearing officers will be appointed by the Commission subject to the veto of the Mayor, of course. And, that they would have the responsibility of hearing and that, of course, the Manager would have the right to review those and to adjust them and that a final, within some limits, and that the final decision would be with the City Commission. And, that they would also obviously have an appeal, directly to the County Court or the Circuit or whatever the appropriate judicial review is. I think that's important to safeguard, Commissioner Gort, particularly the areas that we represent. Mr. Rollason: I concur with that too. We will include that in the enabling ordinance not as an amendment, but in the body of the ordinance itself. [Inaudible] Vice Chairman Teele: The other issue relates to properties to be exempt are not for profits churches, synagogues, temples, just so that's clear and on the record. They will be paying the full fee, is that correct? 31 December 23, 1997 Fire Chief Gimenez: No, sir. We believe that those properties will be exempted from the fire fee, and that's a policy direction from the Commission, because they provide a service that would otherwise... government may have to provide. Vice Chairman Teele: All right. So, the policy direction that the Manager proposes, which I have raised in the past is, it's not for profits? What would the? Would the standard be, not for profits, would the standard be IRS (Internal Revenue Service) tax exempt not for profits? It's two different standards. What's in the ordinance? Mr. Jones: I believe it's not for profits. Fire Chief Gimenez: Tax exempt. Right. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, oh. I would respect... I would respectfully recommend that it not be not for profits and that it be tax exempt. Fire Chief Gimenez: It's tax exempt, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Well, we did also discuss at the time, those church owned properties that were not for religious purposes. Fire Chief Gimenez: If they are in another category such as a commercial or multifamily, they will also be assessed. Commissioner Plummer: All right. So, in other words, it is only the religious aspect of the churches that will be exempt? Fire Chief Gimenez: Those... Commissioner Plummer: Let me give you... Fire Chief Gimenez: Any religious, any religious, I mean, any tax exempt institution... Vice Chairman Teele: With all due respect, with all... Mr. Manager, with all due respect. I think that is a legal question that the lawyer should answer. Fire Chief Gimenez: That's fine. Vice Chairman Teele: Because, obviously there are a lot of "for profit" activities that churches are involved in that are tax exempt by the IRS. Commissioner Gort: That's right. Commissioner Plummer: Well, for example... Fire Chief Gimenez: It is our intent though with this... Vice Chairman Teele: I want to know. Fire Chief Gimenez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: ... what the ordinance says. That's what Commissioner Plummer is asking. 32 December 23, 1997 Mr. Jones: I don't have the ordinance before me. The ordinance, if I am not... I don't have it before me, but L. my recollection is that it exempts religious organizations. You expressed some concern early on about parochial_ schools or religious schools and the like. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Jones: And, I think, under the scheme that those would be... Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager... Mr. Jones: Would they not? Vice Chairman Teele: ... if a church owns a 200-unit building that is a residential building... Commissioner Gort: And, they do. And, they do. Vice Chairman Teele: ... and it is tax exempted by the IRS, is it, in this ordinance or out of this ordinance? Mr. Jones: It's in. Fire Chief Gimenez: It's in. Mr. Rollason: It would be my intent, I don't know what it is at the present time... Mr. Jones: It's in. Mr. Rollason: ... but my position is, is that it would be in. Mr. Jones: It will be covered. Mr. Rollason: I will review it and we will see, and whatever the desires of the Commission... Commissioner Plummer: It means, it will be taxed? Fire Chief Gimenez: Mister... Mr. Rollason: ... as far as policy goes, we will incorporate it into the final draft. Fire Chief Gimenez: Mr. Vice Chairman. Commissioner Plummer: Does it mean it will be taxed? Mr. Jones: Yes, it's covered. Fire Chief Gimenez: Maybe I can clarify that. The only properties that are geared now to be exempted from the fire fee are tax exempt institutional properties. That means, if... Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. Excuse me. Commissioner Gort: They are all tax exempted. Vice Chairman Teele: They are all tax exempt. 33 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. Wait a minute, now. Hold on. Fire Chief Gimenez: No, they are not. No, no, no. You have to understand, it's a category. Commissioner Plummer: This is why I have got to fight with the legislature. Fire Chief Gimenez: It is a category, OK. This is a category called Institutional Properties. If there is a tax exempt organization that has a commercial property that will not be exempt from this fire fee. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Fire Chief Gimenez: If there is a tax exempt organization that has a residential property this will not be exempt from the fire fee. Commissioner Plummer: There is a State statute, and this is the thing I have been fighting, that says that if they provide a public service, they are tax exempt. For example a parochial school. Commissioner Gort: Cemeteries. Commissioner Plummer: Schools are providing a public service and are tax exempt. My question to you, are they going to be tax exempt under the fire fee? Mr. Jones: Yeah. That's the... Well, you are talking about two separate things. Whether they are exempt from the fee or whether they are exempt from the tax. Commissioner Plummer: My questions... Mr. Jones: But, let me do this, Commissioner Plummer, so that we can clarify this. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mr. Jones: Let us go back and discuss this with Nabors, Giblin and come back to you with a definitive answer, OK? Commissioner Regalado: You have to tell us, if, for instance, a Catholic School which could be in grounds owned by a church. Would that be included? Mr. Jones: That's what we need... Now, it was my understanding from this Commission, there was a directive from this Commission that you did not want those parochial schools or religious institutions that owned schools, for that property to be taxed. Commissioner Gort: Can you also respond to us... Vice Chairman Teele: Are we talking about a tax or are we talking about a fee? Mr. Jones: Or should I say a fee assessed. I am sorry. Commissioner Plummer: Fee. Mr. Jones: A fee assessed. I am sorry. Commissioner Regalado: The fee. Can you also find out, Mr. City Attorney... 34 December 23, 1997 Mr. Jones: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: ... whether housing units owned by the church, and I know of two big buildings that are part of the public housing system in Dade County that could fall into that category. Would that also be included in the fee? Mr. Jones: Or would they be subject to assessment? Commissioner Regalado: That's right. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, you know, there is a simple answer here to all this. What's in the budget assumption, you know, because you all can't have it both ways, Mr. Manager. You know, we are coming here now, this is supposed to be a workshop and you are telling us what we are going to do, and I am very, I deeply regret, Mr. Attorney, that Nabors, Giblin isn't here now with us. We are paying them, I assume. Chairman Hernandez: Oh, yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: And, yet, they are not here and that always happens. And, that's a very good firm, that's a great firm. It has one of the best reputations in the country for what they do, but they should be here. Now, what's the budget assumption? Let's cut through all of this. Commissioner Plummer: Has no bearing on it. Fire Chief Gimenez: The budget assumptions. Commissioner Plummer: Has no bearing on it. And, let me tell you why. Vice Chairman Teele: It does have a bearing on it. Commissioner Plummer: Let's go back in history a little bit before you got here. The budget... Vice Chairman Teele: Well, I am really interested in going forward and not backwards, Commissioner Plummer. Commissioner Plummer: Well, but let me tell you how we got to... Vice Chairman Teele: If we go backwards, we are going to be with another executive Governor's Oversight Board. Let's just go forward. Commissioner Plummer: Let's understand why we got where we are. This all came about because Sanitation was going to go to the private sector and it didn't. OK? Vice Chairman Teele: Here we go. And, see, and you got up and walked out when the City Attorney told you not to say that kind of stuff. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I went out... Vice Chairman Teele: And, that's why we are where we are. It is because everybody does what they want to do, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we got to have one set of rules here. If we are going to commingle this thing with Sanitation, then let's all agree that we are going to come up with a new revenue stream, because I am telling you, you are going to get sued, the City is going to get sued and this whole thirty-two million dollars ($32,000,000) that we are predicating this budget 35 December 23, 1997 on, is going to get thrown out based upon the words that are spoken from this dais. And, we need to stop doing that, Mr. Chairman. And, the only question that I have that Commissioner Plummer appears to be ready to answer, based on some historical precedent, is what is in the budget document as it relates to the thirty-two million dollar ($32,000,000) assumption? Are churches being taxed, I mean, being feed or not? Fire Chief Gimenez: No... Vice Chairman Teele: Are there properties, such as old folks homes, young folks homes, drug rehabilitation centers, housing, are all those facilities being collected a fee? Because the more of these things we cut out, the more we basically wind up getting this thing thrown back in our faces. Because, a fee, unlike a tax is supposed to be paid by everyone in equal shares. And, I think you can carve our churches and synagogues. But, once you start carving out everything else, you are going to have a hard time defending this thing, legally. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman Chairman Hernandez: Vice... Commissioner Gort, please. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, guys. I mean, when you came in front of us and you had a budget projection, you had specifically who was going to pay for this. Commissioner Plummer: That's right. Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes. Yes, we did. Commissioner Gort: So, let us know, my understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong. When that was in front of us, school property was exempt and that was part of your budget. And, what Commissioner Teele is saying is, we have a budget. We should budget, you figure it out, because you knew what you were going to have in there. Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: So, you can answer that question very easily. My understanding was, that the churches were not there, the public housing were not there... Fire Chief Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Gort: ... the... and so on. Mr. Rollason: I think what we would like to do is, have the Fire Chief go down the list, what assumptions were made, what properties we are talking about, what the bottom line dollar, it's right there in the document. Fire Chief Gimenez: We are going to be distributing something, what I have is called Exhibit 3, which will explain what is in and what is out. Now, one of these... some of these things are in because of policy decision or out because of policy decision and some of the things are out because of budgetary. And, I will go line by line, OK. Commissioner Gort: I agree with Commissioner Teele. Forget about the past, just let us know how you get your budget. Fire Chief Gimenez: OK, fair enough. 36 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Gort: And, that's what he is saying. Fire Chief Gimenez: Single family residential, it's all in, OK. There is no exempts. And, you have to understand this is by category, and I can't really tell you if a, how, you know, this particular parcel is in or out. I am going to tell you by categories, all right. Multifamily residential is in, these are all the apartment buildings. Public housing, multifamily, is for budgetary reasons, excluded because we have a 1969 Interlocal Agreement. Vice Chairman Teele: And, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, my position is going to be on the 30th, that they are in. That they are absolutely in. Public housing is going to generate more calls, prorata that single family housing. Chairman Hernandez: Definitely. Vice Chairman Teele: And, just like, just like the owners of public housing pay Florida Power... Our test should be, does Florida Power and Light and Southern Bell provide an exemption? That should be our test. If Florida Power and Light doesn't provide an exemption, if Southern Bell doesn't provide an exemption and we are in a financial emergency and we don't have money to keep this City going, and we are cutting people's salaries, and we are cutting people's benefits, then why should we be providing exemptions? Churches, synagogues, religious are exempt, schools pay. Schools pay. Dade County schools pays light bills, they pay telephone bills, they pay garbage bills, and they should pay for fire bills. Dade County schools, my Presbyterian schools, your Catholic schools, his Episcopal school, all of them should pay. Chairman Hernandez: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: It's just that simple. And, I don't know why we are creating this legislative nightmare. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may? That's the comment that Vice Chairman Teele is making now, it is precisely the one I made when we talked about public housing, when we were debating. I said that 70 percent of public housing units are within the City of Miami. Seventy percent. Chairman Hernandez: And, they are the number one user. Number one user. Vice Chairman Teele: Right. Mr. Rollason: Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can bring this to some perspective as I understand it. What the Chief is saying is, that we have a bottom line dollar amount that we have to present to the Oversight Board that we can count on as revenues without getting into the posture of, are we going to get it or not get it. Fire Chief Gimenez: Right. Mr. Rollason: That can we count, that we feel is on the plate. And, that when he says that it is out for budgetary concerns, they are going to get billed. And, then we are off to the races. Whether we got problems with some kind of Interlocal Agreement or whatever, we will get concerned with that dragon when we get there. You are exactly right. Who is out that we are not going to bill, I think that's what we need to go down the list and say, who is out, who is in. The budget count of what we are saying to the Oversight Board, and as you get that document you will see the columns across is to where we came to a comfortable figure, and we said, we can count on these dollars over here. 37 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: Then I'm through, and all I'll ask is that we change the terminology, out of budgetary considerations, and say not calculated. Mr. Rollason: No, I agree. I think what we can do is go right there in the center column and say... Vice Chairman Teele: But it's in, it's in. Mr. Rollason: ... that's what we're counting on, they're in. And they're going to get... Vice Chairman Teele: They all are in, but some are not in for budget calculations. Chief Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: But not out. Mr. Rollason: OK. We will... Vice Chairman Teele: They all are in. Chief Gimenez: They're all in but... we understand the terminology now. The only things that are out, due to policy decision, is the institutional... and not calculated in the budget, and also due to policy decision is the institution... the service agencies, tax exempt, health... and once you do that, then along with that goes health care, tax-exempt, and other... and that's it. Vice Chairman Teele: So what is health care? Is Jackson... Chief Gimenez: Health care, that... Mr. Rollason: That puts us in at Jackson Hospital, and I think we ought to consider... Vice Chairman Teele: Is Jackson Hospital in or out? Commissioner Regalado: It's out, it's out. Chief Gimenez: Jackson Hospital is... because the service agencies, institutionals are not going to be... and the... are not going to be assessed, then along with that goes the health care. Vice Chairman Teele: But who's making the decisions they're not going to be assessed? Chief Gimenez: That is the opinion from our consultants that... and we have gone back and forth with them as why we can't do this and why we can't do that. They stated very clearly, if you exempt institutional service agencies, along with that exemption will come along the institutional health care. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. But what are the... what is institutional services? Chief Gimenez: Institutional could be a halfway house, tax-exempt, it could be a church, the church property itself, could be... you know, those things which are a tax-exempt institutional property. Vice Chairman Teele: The only thing that I'm asking, mister consultant and Mr. Manager, is there... a resolution that an amendment be drafted for my sponsorship, if the Manager doesn't 38 December 23, 1997 agree, that doesn't exempt anything or anybody but churches, synagogues and religious places of worship. And then we'll let Nabors, Giblin and them come in and explain why that amendment is a bad amendment. But as far as we're... As far as I'm concerned, Jackson Hospital, which is the greatest hospital in the world, which does the best job of providing health care in the world, and on, and on, and on, should pay the fee that it costs to provide fire services to them. They pay Florida Power and Light, they pay Southern Bell, they pay the solid waste companies that pick up their trash, and their medical waste, and they should pay for fire services. And it's that simple. Mr. Rollason: I agree, and we'll proffer that amendment in with the ordinance. And I think that the point is, is that if we don't include it at this point, we're never going to get it included. And then we can fight that battle at that point, whether we prevail or not. And the consultant will be here to discuss their position. That's why we're doing an amendment, and not as a part of the body of the enabling ordinance. Chief Gimenez: Right. I'm sure the consultants will come back and explain why this was done this way. But it was done in accordance to their advice. Mr. Jones: Well, we're prepare... Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Mr. Jones: We'll prepare an ordinance with... the way that it's already prepared, and one that would contain the amendment that Commissioner Teele has spoken about. So then the Commission can decide how they want to vote on it. Mr. Rollason: Chief, are there any others that are... that you have right now that are exempt that we're not aware of? In other words, we've talked about those issues. Are there any others to add? Chief Gimenez: No, sir. The Fire Fact Sheet speaks for itself, those things that are policy based and those things that are budgetary reasons. Commissioner Plummer: I have one other... Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort, please. Commissioner Plummer: Go ahead. Commissioner Gort: I have a question. My understanding is, Art, the only reason we passed this is because we had to comply with the five-year plan, and we had to balance our budget. But we also made a commitment as we voted on this fee, that if somehow, at some time, we could lower it, we would do it, if there was a formula for it. Now, what Commissioner Teele is stating is, if we get those individuals to pay their fees, then we'll be able to reduce the other type, the maximum in institution, and the other ones, we'll be able to reduce it. Chief Gimenez: That you may do the following year. Commissioner Gort: The following year. But, I mean, that's a commitment that we made. 39 December 23, 1997 Chief Gimenez: You can reduce it because your overall budgetary... your overall income is greater than you thought, you can reduce the entire fee the next year. Commissioner Gort: Right. OK. Chief Gimenez: Then that, in effect, has an effect of lowering the rates for everybody. Commissioner Gort: But I just wanted to keep people informed, that's a commitment that we made when we structured this. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, before anybody starts talking about reducing - and I'm all for reducing the fee - let's agree that all we're collecting is about... all we're assessing is about 58 percent of the total cost of providing fire service. This is not 100 percent of the fire service. It only represents about 58 percent. And based upon the budget assumptions, he's only collecting about 42 percent, as I recall, or maybe 31 percent. What's the right number? Chief Gimenez: Well, I told... the budget we're working is fifty-six million, and I believe it's twenty-four million which we are assuming we're going to be able... net collections. Vice Chairman Teele: So about... less than half. Now, is anybody else exempt under the... Chief Gimenez: No, sir. The only ones that are exempted are on this fact sheet. Vice Chairman Teele: Does the Federal government get hit with this fee? Chief Gimenez: They can be billed. They will be billed. Vice Chairman Teele: They will be billed? Chief Gimenez: They will be billed. Vice Chairman Teele: Will the State government be billed? Chief Gimenez: They will be billed, also. Vice Chairman Teele: Will the County government be billed? Chief Gimenez: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: Will the School Board be billed? Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Mr. Rollason: Let me add... Commissioner Plummer: My... I have one simple question. Is your... outside of the residential, is it predicated on square footage of building, or square footage of property? Chief Gimenez: It's the building itself. Commissioner Plummer: In other words - this is going to sound ridiculous, and it is - a cemetery. One of the major problems that I have is that they are profit making, they own 40 December 23, 1997 beaucoups amount of property, and with the exception of one building, they will pay no fire fee; is that correct? Chief Gimenez: They will pay the fire fee for the building. We do not assess a fire fee for vacant land. Commissioner Plummer: In other words, they've got four blocks -by -eight blocks, 32 square blocks of this City. They pay no ad valorem taxes presently, and they will only receive a fire fee for... Chief Gimenez: ... a mausoleum. Commissioner Plummer: ... a small building. Chief Gimenez: Right. Mr. Rollason: Well, I would assume they would receive a fire fee based on the structures that are above the ground... Chief Gimenez: That's correct. Mr. Rollason: ... that they may have to respond to. So I would think mausoleums, the square footage would be included in that. Chief Gimenez: Yes, it is. The mausoleum or any properties on it will be included in the fire fee. However, the entire cemetery is not used for the calculation. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Rollason: Another issue in response to Commissioner Regalado, staff has provided me with an update as to where we are with the good neighbor program, and just let me put that on the record. After the letter of understanding was adopted by the City Commission in August, and it has been signed by the Federal government, Planning and Development is now negotiating an agreement with the Federal GSA (General Services Administration) for payment of City services. They expect to have it back before this City Commission in February, and they hope to negotiate a fee based on square footage, the same as what we have in the plan. So it has gone forward. Commissioner Regalado: So let me ask you, do we have any talks now with the State? Mr. Rollason: I don't know the answer to that, but I'll find out. (INAUDIBLE COMMENT NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) Commissioner Regalado: I know, I know. But I mean... Mr. Rollason: And up at the County, I don't know if we've had any discussions with the County. Chief Gimenez: I don't believe so. Commissioner Regalado: I know... and we discussed this, and I told the staff several months ago that I have read wire stories saying that Federal buildings do pay in other cities in the State of Florida, and in the United States. And this is why my question regarding the status of these good 41 December 23, 1997 neighbors. And I know that there are also good neighbors agreements with the State from several cities, especially the City of Jacksonville has one, I think. Mr. Rollason: I'm sure the Administration will pursue that. Chairman Hernandez: Are these, then, the requested changes to the fire assessment fee by the Mayor? Mr. Rollason: Well, the... no. In other words, the only issue that we're dealing with where we didn't have discussions with the Mayor is on the square footage. He agreed that the two hundred thousand was... that he could live with that, and... Chairman Hernandez: Fantastic. OK. What deficiencies did the Oversight Board find in the five-year plan? Mr. Rollason: All right. Do you want to get into the issue of the organizational chart? I mean, it's going to take some time to get our deficiencies so I'll... Chairman Hernandez: Go ahead. Mr. Rollason: Go ahead? Chairman Hernandez: Go ahead. Commissioner Plummer: You want to do that now? It's two minutes to twelve. Vice Chairman Teele: Why don't we let him introduce it, and then recess... Chairman Hernandez: Yeah, we'll do that. Mr. Rollason: OK. There are... At the last Oversight Board meeting, the issue came up of were we operating in line with the organizational chart that had been submitted to the Board in the previous plan, which would be the October 29th plan, which we refer to as the Marquez plan. And... excuse me. We informed them that there had been some changes to the table of organization since the new Mayor had come into office. And they expressed their concern and stated that if we were not operating under that previously submitted plan that we were in violation. And they encouraged us to get back to... Commissioner Plummer: Which plan is that? Mr. Rollason: And that is the plan... would you look at your book. There's one that says the Marquez plan, which would be the... that is what was in place... Commissioner Plummer: The old or Marquez? Mr. Rollason: No, the Marquez. The Marquez plan is what is in the plan that was submitted on October 29th, and at this point is the submitted plan until... or if and when we make a change on December 30th, so that this plan is amended. Now, there are several other issues that need to be addressed when we talk about what plan we leave and what modifications we make to it. Vice Chair Teele is correct that we had a workshop last Friday with staff, and we developed another plan. And then in conjunction with that, I met with the Mayor's staff, and we formulated the plan which you see there as the Rollason plan. Now, it was my intent at the last meeting to, as I informed you, was to put this organizational plan together and bring it forward at the workshop, and bring it forward on December 30th to submit it as an amendment to this plan... for the 42 December 23, 1997 Marquez plan. However, with the events that have taken place within the last few days, I would proffer from staff that we reconsider that position, and my recommendation at this point is to go with the Marquez plan, as has been submitted, and as has been before the estimating committee, and has been approved, and that any modifications you wish to make, we make to the Marquez plan. And I say that for several reasons. First of all, to get us back in alignment with what the Oversight Board perceives as, "You're operating differently than what we have approved, and you haven't come to us." We need to make those kinds of issues to start to go away. There has to be a better unison between... a synergy between us and them so that we don't get into these kinds of fights or misunderstandings. So that would be a very clear signal. In fact, I've already told them that we're... right now, I have put us back to where we're operating under that, and we'll consider this or another plan at December 30th. So at this point, they're satisfied we're back on track. The next issue that has to be taken into consideration is the stipulated agreement that was just entered into by the Mayor and the State Attorney's Office. That also has an impact on... when you start looking at an organizational chart. We're certainly under mandates to do certain things, and put people back to certain positions. And I had those positions available to put them in. And when you start looking at the Rollason plan, or the Ruder plan, some of those have gone away. And now, we're going to have to do something that is just on paper, and I'm going to have a problem with somebody saying that, in essence, "You brought somebody back, but it's a hollow change or compliance, because there's no place for them to be." The other issue to take into consideration is that, quite candidly, the Administration here is certainly going to change. That's what I anticipate. It's certainly up to this Board to make that decision, but hopefully, come next month, there will be a City Manager sitting here that is the City Manager. And in my discussions briefly yesterday with one of his aides or assistants, there was just some concern about the Rollason plan, what I had put together. And my thinking is, is that we can make whatever modifications we have to make to the Marquez plan that you all desire, let that go forward. It would certainly give them a better level of comfort. It gives me a level of comfort and helps me with complying with the stipulated agreement. And it also gives the incoming Manager the opportunity to develop an organizational chart and submit it with only one amendment, instead of having an amendment there with my chart, and then having him come forward with another chart. It would start to show some kind of unity of purpose, of trying to make this thing come together right. So what I'm saying this time is that I'd like to... for you to consider keeping the Marquez chart in place, and pressing forward with any decisions or any changes you would like to modify. Chairman Hernandez: Thank you, Mr. Manager. We're going to be recessing now till two o'clock. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 12:04 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:13 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, EXCEPTING CHAIRMAN HERNANDEZ AND COMMISSIONER GORT, FOUND TO BE PRESENT. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Chairman Hernandez enters the Commission Chamber at 2:23 p.m. Vice Chairman Teele: Ladies and gentlemen, the time is two -fifteen. At the risk of being fired by the Chair, as Vice Chair, I'm going to ask that we resume, in that this is a workshop. I'm going to particularly request that the Manager not go over any matters that cannot be briefed to Commissioner Gort and Chairman Hernandez. You were in the process of discussing organizational charts, and I think you should proceed. Before you do I have... I will ask the Clerk if they will pass out some previous ordinances that were adopted by the County that 43 December 23, 1997 established the Legislative Budget Officer, and the role, and the policy framework that established that role, so that we can bring closure to the discussion that Commissioner Plummer had early on in the Commission meeting, which I think was... in this workshop, which I think is very important and germane. Mr. Manager? Mr. Frank Rollason (Interim City Manager): Mr. Vice Chair, I think that I had concluded the three points that I wanted to make, but just to briefly review those issues that I brought to the forefront is that I am recommending that we stay with the... what we will call the Marquez Table of Organization, with any modifications that may come from the Commission for us to incorporate, to bring back on the 30th. I think that that will satisfy the concerns of the Oversight Board at this point, and at this point in time, it will help me facilitate the stipulated agreement between the Mayor and the State Attorney's Office, and it will also allow for not having another change until the City Manager is in place, and he is allowed to put together what his recommended TO (Table of Organization) is. Now, the existing TO has, in my opinion, enough flexibility, budget -wise, that if we're talking about streamlining, and if that's what the Manager has intended, I think there's some areas in there of savings that can be attained. However, if there are any additional positions added, if we talk about a Legislative Budget Office and that type of thing, we have to keep in mind that this is going to have to go back before the Estimating Committee. I don't see that as a major problem. It's just notifying them, because that needs to be done. It's also my understanding - and again, Mr. Vice Chair, you can correct me if I'm wrong - that it has to go back before the Estimating Committee before it comes here to the Commission to be approved. Does that... Vice Chairman Teele: No, no. It would have to go to the Estimating Conference before January 6th. And Ms. Curry has indicated her willingness to cooperate and hold - as Chair of that committee - and hold a meeting prior to that. But again, we're sort of under the obligation to begin documents flowing to them on the 30th. And all documents should be to them before the 4th. Because the window that they must act is the 6th. And they have said they will not extend that window. Mr. Rollason: And in all fairness to them, in deference to their concerns, they need to get this document ahead of time so they can spend a little time with it, within that 20-day window, so we don't have them bumped right up against a meeting, and haven't had a chance to review it. Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me ask this question, if I may. Vice Chairman Teele: Commissioner Plummer, would you give me another set of the document that we're working off of at this moment? Commissioner Plummer: The organizational? Here. My question is, I would assume, Frank, that if, in fact, anything were to be a reduction, it would absolutely be no problem to the Oversight Committee. Mr. Rollason: I'm not convinced of that. They're looking at the operational sides also. They're concerned where certain people report. They're concerned about issues that have developed in the past with the City that may have helped precipitate the problems that we're in. So as some of these issues have been moved around, they are concerned that procurement and finance, and budget, that there's checks and balances, that there's a right place for the internal auditor to be so that that function can report to the right places. So they are very concerned operationally, besides what the dollar amounts are. Commissioner Plummer: OK. You remember that recently, an agenda - I don't know if it's the last or the one before that - there was to be a discussion on salaries. And it was my understanding that there were to be some major changes in salaries. And that was by the 44 December 23, 1997 Commission, not the Mayor. Now, assume for a minute, if you would, that we were going to make changes in reducing... let's just say hypothetically ten percent of salaries. I would assume that they would have no problem with that, in any effect in the five-year plan. Vice Chairman Teele: Let me answer that by saying this, Commissioner Plummer. First of all, I think it's really important that we keep the Oversight Board in the background, that we not let our decisions be driven by what the Oversight Board will approve or not approve. And I say that really with great deference to them, but at the same time, they expect us to make an independent... our best independent judgment within the context of the policies that we and they have enunciated. All of those were before I got here. For example, no fee waivers... and let me just use that as a very quick example. Commissioner Plummer: Which was embarrassing. Vice Chairman Teele: They said, "We're not saying you can't have fee waivers. We're saying it's your policy not to have fee waivers. Now, if you want to go back and review the underlying policy, you send us up a new policy, and you send us up a budget to support that new policy. But you're not going to go out and start doing fee waivers when you, the Commission, and the Board have agreed there will be no policy. So theoretically, if someone wants to write a policy - and I'm not suggesting this - that says there will be the following fee waivers under the following conditions, and there is a budget of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) set aside for those fee waivers, the Oversight Board will consider that. But the point is this: The Oversight Board is saying repeatedly, don't... Make your best independent judgment within the framework of the agreement that you signed, the underlying intergovernmental agreement. If you want to review salaries, which is the... which is nobody's... No one can review... No one can approve or disapprove of salaries but you, Commissioner, in the context of this Commission. Not the Mayor, not the Manager, not anybody other than the Oversight Board, because you all gave them... we gave them the authority to basically review what we do, reject it, approve it, or they can substitute their own findings. They can pass their own laws under the agreement we've signed. So that's a long way around of saying if you and this Commission want to review salaries... And quite frankly, with what the Mayor has done and the de facto salary limit that the Mayor has imposed on government... because the Mayor can, unilaterally, through the Manager... Through the Manager, the Mayor can unilaterally put a limit on what salaries everybody makes through the Manager, because once he says to Mr. ... Let's just say hypothetically he says to Mr. Pedrosa, hypothetically, "I would like for you to be my Manager," hypothetically, "and I want you to come here, but I don't want you to have anybody that makes more money than you. Is that agreeable?" And he has a right to do that, under the Charter. And if Mr. Pedrosa were to say, "Well, I think, Mr. Mayor, I'd have a big problem paying somebody more than I make, because I think I'm as good as anybody that's at the City." And the Mayor says, "Well," hypothetically, "your salary is going to be limited to ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000). Can you live with that?" And hypothetically, let's just say... Commissioner Plummer: He lies. Vice Chairman Teele: Let's just hypothetically say that he says, "Well, Mr. Mayor, I'd rather have ninety-six, but let's split the difference. I can't come for less than ninety -five -five." The Mayor, at that point, and the Manager have de facto established a ceiling for everybody that works for the Mayor, which is everybody in the City of Miami, with the exception of the Office of the Clerk, the Office of the City Attorney, and the office of... the Commission staff. Everybody in this City is at that limit, because the first thing Mr. Pedrosa would do, hypothetically, would be... or one of the things he'd do is to enforce a salary cap. So I don't think there's any question that the Mayor has the right, whether we agree with him or not - and quite frankly, I don't agree with the Mayor- but the Mayor has the right to establish a salary cap. 45 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Then why was it on our agenda a meeting or two ago to discuss the issue, if we don't have any control over it? That's... I guess that's... Vice Chairman Teele: Because the Mayor can't appropriate money. We can appropriate the salary of the Manager to be a hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) right now, in this budget, if we choose to. But the Mayor can say to the Manager, "You can only draw... you can only draw ninety-five thousand because that's all I'm going to approve," because the Mayor, and only the Mayor - and only the Mayor - has the authority to hire and fire the Manager. And pursuant to that, implicit in that is he has the authority to establish the terms of his hiring. Commissioner Plummer: Art, I'm told that the Chairman, Humberto put it on the agenda. And the only question I'm really trying to resolve in my mind is, if it was on a City Commission agenda, was it there for informative purposes, or was it there for the City Commission to do something? From what you're saying, we can't. Vice Chairman Teele: We can ratify the action of the Mayor. Commissioner Plummer: Or we can override it. Vice Chairman Teele: Or we can... No, we can't override it at this point. We can ratify the actions of the Mayor, or we could actually appropriate less money. If we don't... If we don't like the Manager, whoever he or she may be... In all fairness to Mr. Pedrosa, if we don't like some element of this, we could say that we're approving the budget of the Office of the Manager, provided, however, that the Manager's salary shall be no more than ninety-three thousand dollars ($93,000). You have that right, legislatively, to write that kind of legislation. Now, the Mayor could obviously veto it. And if four Commissioners chose to override, it would be a different story. Now, all of this, of course, is subject to the review of the Oversight Board. And this is only hypothetical, and I'm not sure it's that constructed in this context, except to say this: I strongly believe that if one of our basic principles in looking at this chart is to live up to the agreement that we have made with the Oversight Board, one of which is to strengthen middle management, I believe the salary cap is contradictory, or works contrary to that policy. I don't know how you find a finance director, I don't know how you find an internal auditor that's a CPA, that has the right kind of qualifications with a salary that is dramatically below that of the Manager. And by the way, the Manager... And I should say this: The Manager can, of course, pay people, department heads substantially more than he makes. And in the City of Miami... in Dade County, there have always been department heads that made substantially more than the Manager, always been. Commissioner Plummer: And the Mayor. OK. Mr. Rollason: I think as we go forward, the only comment I would like to add to that is that... and again, I'm not 100 percent sure of the complete statements that the Vice Chair has made. But I would think that the bargaining units with contracts, there may be direction from the Mayor that he wishes to head that way. But I think certainly, there would be some consideration to the collective bargaining. I don't think unilaterally we could change the salaries without getting into that. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may. We're working on the Marquez plan, right? That's the one you feel... Mr. Rollason: The organizational plan, the Marquez plan. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Now, on this plan... and when he did it, I made a comment that I objected. I believe that Community Information, Net-9 and Film Permitting should be under 46 December 23, 1997 the City Manager, not on the bottom of the chart, for one reason. Community Information has to work directly with the City Manager and serve the Mayor and the members of the City Commission to disseminate information. Now, Net-9, who now is under the Fire Department, should be under Community Information, and directly, of course, under the City Manager, or directly under the Assistant City Manager for operations. And the reason is that everything that is going on in the City in terms of - and we should do this - in terms of projects, in terms of announcements, in terms of even police information, has to go from the City Manager to Community Information to Net-9. So, Mr. Manager, I think that it's important that we consider moving up Community Information and Net-9, including Film Permitting, which is the same, up to... Mr. Rollason: Commissioner, I think part of the problem is, is we don't have enough paper. That's the way... Commissioner Regalado: No, I... Well, you know... Mr. Rollason: If you look at that, you'll see that those... all those boxes on the left, they're not one under the other. They come off, and they come across the top, and they go directly to the City Manager. So... Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Rollason: It's confusing in looking at it, but the Equal Opportunity, the Federal/State Liaison, Labor Relations, Budget and all that under this plan, including Community Information and Net-9, are really a straight line up and over, and to the City Manager. That's the same as Police and Fire Rescue, that line represents the same. They're independent... Commissioner Regalado: No, but what I'm saying is that it has to be clearly stated on the five- year plan, the Oversight Board or whoever wants to know, should know that this City is in the business of informing the people of Miami that the Police is, of course, our main department, plus the Fire Department. And next to these two, we need to have the way to inform the people of Miami of everything that is going on in the City of Miami. So, yes, it may go directly to the City Manager, but, you know... Mr. Rollason: It doesn't look that way. I think I can clean that up. I think I can make some moves for that position, to move it up higher there, whereas it appears the position that it is with the others. I think we can make that change without any conflict with the old plan, just a better layout. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I think this is a very important phase that we are in now. And I want to go back to Commissioner Plummer's point, and that is, this is a very awkward process we're in, and it's going to be awkward from now until January the 4th, 5th, and 6th. The Manager is the Manager, and he works for the Mayor. This plan is... and Mr. Bob Nachlinger, I think you need to make sure that we're all on the same script, because this goes back one Manager ago. This plan is whose plan? Is this the Mayor's plan, the Manager's plan, or the Commission plan at this point? Mr. Rollason: This plan... Are you talking about the total five-year plan? Vice Chairman Teele: Five-year plan... Mr. Rollason: It's the Mayor's plan. 47 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: It's the Mayor's plan. Mr. Rollason: That is correct. Vice Chairman Teele: Now, the Manager is basically taking the Mayor's changes and processing them into the plan. Normally, there would be a Legislative Budget Officer, or someone working directly with the Mayor and the Manager, keeping up with that, so when we get to this point, your queries and your concerns would be to the Manager. But the Legislative Budget Officer would be basically... have prepared a document that embodies your views. What we did two weeks ago, with the Oversight Board's concurrence, I believe, is that we made available to the Manager our auditors to provide augmentation and support. At this time, Mr. Manager, with your permission, I'd like to ask Mr. Jose Garcia, who is a... Jose R. Rodriguez - I apologize - Mr. Rodriguez, who is a partner, to come forth and introduce the other persons that are here that are at the disposal of the Commission to work in incorporating the kinds of changes that you want, so that on the 30th, when we come back, we're not arguing back and forth, but we have, in effect, the Regalado changes to the table of organization, or anything else, so that this Commission can expeditiously vote them up or down. Mr. Rodriguez, I apologize again. Chairman Hernandez: I have a question. The organizational chart that exists today, was that the same organizational chart that we approved as a Commission months ago? Mr. Rollason: This plan right here, which I refer to as the Marquez plan, is the one that was in place prior to the change in the Administration or the Mayors. So this is the one that's in the plan for the... that's in the plan that was submitted for the 29th of October. This is the same plan that exists right now inside the modification at this time. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Rodriguez, please. Mr. Jose Rodriguez: Sure. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I just would like Mr. Rodriguez... because Mr. Rodriguez is working with our staff, and the Manager, and the Commission, and they have worked overtime, I mean around the clock, to make people available over this Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza period, so that on the 30th, we can come here with finished documents on everybody's part, and the Manager will know exactly what each Commissioner will individually be proposing. Chairman Hernandez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Rodriguez. Commissioner Plummer: Have they been around to see us? Chairman Hernandez: No. Vice Chairman Teele: They're available. The Manager made them available. Mr. Rollason: And he will speak to that, but we're looking to assign a liaison from them directly to you during these last few days, so that we've got constant communication. But we've got to get this thing wrapped up so we've got a package that they can buy into by the 30th. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. As Commissioner Teele said, I am Jose Rodriguez. I'm the partner from Peat Marwick. With me today, I also have Aaron Estes, who is a senior manager, and one of our 48 December 23, 1997 senior consultants, especially in the area of strategic planning and operational matters with respect to governments. Also, I have Donnovan Maginley, which is another Manager with our firm. Also working with us, representing the Mayor's office, is Carlos Trueba, with Rodriguez and Trueba, and they're advisors to the Mayor. Between this team, we will be visiting and available to each of the Commissioners to get their input with respect to the five-year plan, and to work with the Manager and his staff, and being able to provide additional support to them, in order to try to accommodate and bring your recommendations and your concerns to the Manager, and work them into the five-year plan. And like I gave my commitment to Commissioner Teele, we'll be here through the process, regardless. Commissioner Plummer: Let me, if I may, ask you, are you on the auditing firm? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: You're not on Prudential? Mr. Rodriguez: No, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Are the Prudential people here? Vice Chairman Teele: Yes, the Prudential people are here, and we'll ask them to come out. They're working with some of the staff, but if you'd give them three or four minutes... Commissioner Plummer: No problem. Vice Chairman Teele: ... we can deal with this. But I think it's also important that Mr.... Mr. Rodriguez? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: No.... let Mr. Trueba introduce himself, because actually, he's with a different firm, but his firm has been made available to the office of the Mayor, and hopefully, to the Manager designee, to work through all of their issues as they want to put them forward. And that was going back again to the very important point that you raised. It's really important that Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, who is here in the audience, again, for the record, and taking, you know, making note of this, that his office or he be availed of the same kinds of resources to make changes. Otherwise, we'll wind up, you know, just going sequentially. Please. Mr. Carlos Trueba: Hi. I'm Carlos Trueba. I'm with Rodriguez, Trueba and Company. We're CPAs here in Miami, and we've been advisors to the Mayor since the first Commission meeting that you appointed us and gave us a contract to that effect. Vice Chairman Teele: And you all will be available fully to Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa throughout this process. Mr. Trueba: Yes, sir, we will. Vice Chairman Teele: I assume the Mayor would want to make you available. Mr. Trueba: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. Commissioner Plummer: So I assume that the individual Commissioners, we are going to be contacted next week. 49 December 23, 1997 Mr. Rodriguez: Today if you... starting today. I will give you the names of each of the people from Peat Marwick responsible to assist you, and at your convenience, we will make ourselves available to meet with you. Commissioner Plummer: The earliest for me would be Friday. Mr. Rodriguez: Friday it will be for you. Commissioner Plummer: (Inaudible, speaking off microphone.) Mr. Rodriguez: Friday will be fine, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Teele: I think it's really important. If each Commissioner could give them two minutes today before you leave, so that there is at least a bonding, and, you know, phone numbers and all of that. And I bring this up at this time because Commissioner Regalado is making a series of queries about the table of organization. The reason we're doing this, Commissioners, is so that the Manager's office is not so overwhelmed with individual requests that they can't stay focused on getting the plan up on the 30th. Otherwise, we'll wind up... and then, he's got to make decisions as to which ones to include and which ones not to include. There will be no changes to the Mayor's plan coming up on the 30th other than the ones that are pretty much directed by three or four people, and that would depend on whether or not the Manager intends to... would have the discretion as to whether or not he and the Mayor would include them. And so these would... The changes that Commissioner Regalado is talking about now, which I fully embrace, and adopt, and support, for the record, Mr. Rodriguez, is that the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) offices, or the NET Coordinator, at a minimum, should be accountable to the Mayor - I mean the Manager - and report directly to the Manager. And as far as I'm concerned, the NET Coordinator should be on the Manager's staff, for budget purposes. Mr. Rollason: Well, it was also... Commissioner Regalado: And you're right, Vice Chairman. Also, I mentioned the fact that the Community Information Office, which is a new office that we didn't have before, but it was... it was on the budget that we approved several months ago, that would also be under the Manager, and work with the NET Coordination Office, because that's the way to disseminate information. And as you all know, we have said here, Vice Chairman, Net-9 is underutilized. We have, I think, 570 hours a week, and we don't... we don't use more than 30, 34 hours a week. Vice Chairman Teele: Really? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Yes. And it's one of the best channels in the system, because it's 9. And when you surf channels, you have to go past Channel 9. So we need to do something with that service for the people of Miami. And this is why I feel, I believe strongly that Community Information, Net-9, Film Permitting, and NET Coordination should be directly under the Manager's office. Commissioner Plummer: If I'm not mistaken, this which is surrendered to us today, the indication was there will be nothing else coming from the Mayor's office, in any changes. Vice Chairman Teele: That's right. But, of course, the Mayor has the right, just like any... Commissioner Plummer: Oh, I understand, but that... 50 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: ... anyone else has the right and... Commissioner Plummer: As it stands, that's the way it was. Vice Chairman Teele: ... and the way Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa is looking now, I would imagine there may be some additional changes. Commissioner Plummer: Well, we can always make him swim back to the Beach. Mr. Rollason: I would think as... Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, for the... In all seriousness, for the record, the Mayor's office is fully free to make any changes up until and including on the 30th. Mr. Rollason: And I was going to say that... Commissioner Plummer: And we may or may not approve them. Vice Chairman Teele: Which we may or may not approve. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Gort enters the ommission hamberat 2:40 p.m. Mr. Rollason: Right. But between the two outfits here we've incorporated to get them into the plan, to get them here before you, so a decision can be made as to... Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you, but I do want Commissioner Gort to know that the gentleman standing at the dais is Mr. Jose Rodriguez, a partner... Commissioner Gort: Right. I'm familiar with him, yes. Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. And that they will make resources available to you and your staff, if you would meet with them a minute or two today, and get a time so as to accommodate any changes or requests, or deviations or whatever you'd like to put in the five-year plan, so that we can vote it up or down on the 30th. Commissioner Gort: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Plummer. Commissioner Plummer: If I could have the man from Prudential on the record, because it was called to my office this morning, and I've spoken with the gentleman, but to relieve some people who are concerned. There was a very large settlement yesterday against Prudential, but it was not this, the financial services. It was against their parent company for some fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) worth of fraud. And just for the record, I want you to put on the record what you told me, that your parent company is totally separated from you, and you do not advise your parent company. 51 December 23, 1997 Mr. David Kaplan: Commissioner Plummer, that's absolutely right. Commissioner Plummer: For the record, your name. Vice Chairman Teele: For the record, your name. Mr. Kaplan: My name is David Kaplan. I'm a managing director with Prudential Securities. Prudential Insurance entered into a settlement with the State of Florida. It was in today's newspaper. That's the first that I had read about it. I talked to you about it. I advised you that there was a Chinese wall between Prudential Securities and Prudential Insurance. Although we are a wholly -owned subsidiary of that company, we do not advise them on their financial matters, and we're not involved in the settlement or in the matter that caused the settlement. Commissioner Plummer: OK. It was just the idea that Prudential's name was there, and if it was your parent company, and they were involved in fraud, that was an area of concern. Mr. Kaplan: Right. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Kaplan: Yes, sir. Mr. Rollason: I think at this time, it would be appropriate, if there are any additions or changes that would like to come from the Commission to the organizational plan, including a legislative office or something of that sort... Commissioner Plummer: I have one other question. Mr. Rollason: ... to crank that in. Commissioner Plummer: Through you, Mr. Manager, to the Police Chief. I asked the question this morning of the Fire Chief. As he sees what is proposed in the five-year plan, does he feel that it was adequate when the Fire Chief immediately... well, not immediately. He hedged and hawed, and finally said no. And I'm asking the same question of the Police Chief. And I guess basically, I'm asking if his answer is no, that this Commission... not just me, but this Commission be furnished with a document prior to the 30th of December telling us what is inadequate, and what is it going to take in those two very key departments to say to the Oversight Board, "Hey, guys, this ain't going to work"? So, Chief, if you're ready to speak to the issue... You can editorialize if you'd like, like the Fire Chief did, but the bottom line is, I want a simple yes or no. If it's a "yes," you can enjoy your weekend. If it's a "no," I'm looking to you, as well as the Fire Chief - well, I'm looking to the Manager - to say to this Commission that the following items are not incorporated in the five-year plan, and these are the items brought forth by the two Chiefs. I do not want, Mr. Manager, for you to decide what is going to be and what is not. I would like to see the full list, if it exists, and this Commission will make that decision as to whether or not we feel that the inadequate... that they feel is what we feel should be put in it. So I'm asking the Chief to make the same, as I did the others. Chief Donald Warshaw (Chief of Police): It's a "yes," with a short explanation. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Chief Warshaw: The five-year plan contemplates a sworn staffing level of 1,065, through the entire five-year period. There are certain assumptions, particularly based on the fact that we 52 December 23, 1997 have grants that take us out to the year 2001 right now. Approximately 150 to 160 of the police officers right now working are being funded using Federal dollars. The plan provides for the fact that in the event those Federal funds were to be depleted, that revenues would be sufficient to once again cover that sworn staffing level out of the general fund of 1,065. And we have a very intricate attrition plan that in the event that's not the case, and we get above that 1,065 level, that through natural attrition, without any kind of layoffs or any kinds of removal of personnel, that through natural attrition, we'll get back down to that 1,065 level. So the contemplation is that we'll have these monies. The Federal government is going to release in the spring another round of cops, more money, which, of course, is technology money, another round of universal hiring money. And the potential to get all the way out to the end of the five- year plan with Federal dollars still exists, and we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, is there an asterisk in the five-year plan stating just that; that as long as the Federal funds are available that the Police Department is comfortable? Mr. Rollason: Well, I think the plan... and again, Bob can or Dipak can come up and speak to it. But it identifies what the source of funding is, with the assumption that that funding is going to be there, no different than, let's say if we were to, God forbid, have a hurricane through here, and the ad valorem taxes were to be adjusted downward, as they did in South Dade, we would certainly take a hit. Commissioner Plummer: Well, he was talking to Federal funds. Mr. Rollason: Well, I understand. But I'm saying that we are going with the assumption that these are replaced, and that's what we're counting on. Chief Warshaw: Right. The agreement we made with the Oversight Board, under previous City Manager Marquez, was that we would do straight-line funding for 1,065. We actually have monies to get our numbers up to about eleven -fifty. But again, those additional hundred or so are absolutely with Federal funding. So the commitment out of the general fund is 1,065 for the five years. However... And the "however" is there is a potential savings to the City in the event that the Federal funding continues, and we can continue to supplement 100, 150, 200, whatever that number might be with Federal dollars, for as long as that program is in existence. And I have no reason to believe that it won't be in existence. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Another question. And it's not directly to you. It's indirectly to you, but speaking to a so-called contingency plan. Do we have any reserve in a contingency plan at all? The reason I'm bringing it up, I remember back - and I'm really going back - to Mel Reese. He always had a million dollars ($1,000,000) in contingency fund for a hurricane. There was also a contingency fund, and I hate to bring it up, but it was for disturbances. Disturbances cost this City, at the last I heard, of a million dollars ($1,000,000) a day. I'm asking the question, do we have contingency funds, and if so, how much? And I would assume the Manager should answer that, rather than you, or the Manager's staff. Mr. Rollason: I have somebody to answer it for you. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I think these are... Mr. Rollason: No, I... listen... Commissioner Plummer: These are things that have got to be taken into consideration. Mr. Rollason: You're right. And I don't... 53 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Andrew, God knows what Andrew cost this City. Mr. Rollason: You're right. I know in the five-year plan, there are contingencies built in. I know there are reserves that we're starting to put in, into different areas. I don't know the details of them, and certainly, I'll let Bob... Bob Nachlinger (Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, the Oversight Board has mandated that the City last year create a four million dollar ($4,000,000) cash flow reserve, which will increase by two point eight million this year, and two point two seven million every year thereafter. At this point, the cash flow reserve contemplated at the end of the fifth year, in 2002, will be almost sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: If not used. Mr. Nachlinger: If not used. Commissioner Plummer: Now, the next question. Mr. Nachlinger: No, I haven't quite finished yet. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mr. Nachlinger: The City is also building a one million dollar ($1,000,000) a year contingency fund, which will accrue and be added to annually, so at the end of the five years, there would be five million in contingency dollars. Additionally, we're also establishing a one point one million dollar ($1.1 million) annual reserve for Risk Management claims, so at the end of the five years, there will be five point five million there. We're going to have about twenty-six, twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) in reserves at the end of this... 2002. Commissioner Plummer: All right. That's fine. With the exception of Risk Management, I think it's inadequate. OK? Mr. Rollason: We agree on that. Commissioner Plummer: Now, that remains to be seen. Now, more importantly, tell me and tell my colleagues, what are the restrictions imposed by either us, the Oversight Committee, about what those funds can be used for, and who has to approve them to be used? Mr. Nachlinger: Commissioner, the City Commission always has to... or has the budget authority. You have to approve them to be used. Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me tell you... Mr. Nachlinger: The Oversight Board has to concur with that use. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Let me tell you that previously, when we had a cash reserve fund, you could not get it out without a five/zero vote, as I recall. It took a unanimous vote to take any funds out of that. My problem is, as long as the Oversight Board holds approval, that's fine. OK? But there were times when some of that money was taken out for other purposes, legitimate purposes but... went into a park or something of that nature. But I'm just concerned about there is contingency fund and that it is restricted. Mr. Nachlinger: I will offer up to you something that your incoming Manager has done on Miami Beach, which is to establish a reserve at a percentage of the subsequent year's budget, 54 December 23, 1997 which may only be tapped into by the declaration of an emergency by the Commission. And there is a mechanism on how those funds are to be restored to that contingency in the event of their use. Commissioner Plummer: I have no problem with that. Sounds good. Mr. Rollason: Let me add another item, too, that I'm concerned about when we talk about Police and we talk about Fire on the capital side. We've got two important areas dealing with technology that are going to have to be addressed. And they are included in the plan. But I want to point out to you that sometimes, when we talk about Police and Fire, we talk about fire trucks and we talk about police cars, and those things that are very apparent to us. But we are certainly facing some... an issue with the computer system. The A-17s are going to have to be replaced, and we've included that in the plan. And that's a technology item. That's a big ticket item, six to eight million dollars ($6,000,000 to $8,000,000). And we also have the issue of the handy talking radio system that is now coming to the end of its life, the end of its support from Motorola from the standpoint of parts being manufactured. We're talking about a system that was... originally, when we started, I think it was something like seven million dollars ($7,000,000), and we just did an initial PO (purchase order) on that. And we are way down the road with that system. It is a system that once you get so far, it's difficult to turn back, as you can realize what the County is facing now with the problems they're having with their radio system. So there is another area, when we talk about technology, and funneling money, and where this goes. And certainly, the new Manager is going to have to look at this very, very hard, and make sure that the very basic things that we provide, while it's nice to have the computers on board, and that type of thing, the basic items of dealing with being able to have an officer out there that has a radio that's reliable and can get help and assistance when they need it is going to have to be addressed. It is not something we can gloss over and move to the next dimension of technology when we're back to where we have some very basic things that we're going to have to address. And I just want to point that out. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, a small comment. Not that I'm suggesting that we should tap into Community Development, but I think that we all know that we can use or any City can use Community Development money, Federal funds, to buy fire trucks, to buy any kind of Fire and Police equipment. And... I don't know. I know that there are... Vice Chairman Teele has very good ideas about the money, but I think that it would be wise to pursue maybe getting some grants, or applying for some grants, apart from the money that we are going to get from the Federal government. Just today, the White House released, and the Justice Department, more money for police officers. I don't know, Chief, if we are reaching the hundred thousand mark of cops promised by the Clinton Administration, or we're still far from that. Chief Warshaw: We're far enough away that I think for the balance of the Clinton Administration, there are going to be several more rounds of that money. Commissioner Regalado: That's what I... Chief Warshaw: And we're gotten money on every one of the rounds so far. Commissioner Regalado: That's what I think. Chief Warshaw: I'd just like to add, Commissioner Plummer, on the issue of contingency, and computers, in particular, one of the arrangements I had made with Mr. Marquez, and I'll discuss with the new Manager, because we made a big commitment to bring in revenue through the trust fund, particularly as it relates to putting officers in Federal task forces, particularly Customs, where we're bringing in an enormous amount of money, the commitment we made is that we would start to cycle those dollars into equipment purchases, and reduce the general fund, so that 55 December 23, 1997 the general fund would have some of those contingencies. We started doing that, particularly in the area of technology. That's not the MDCs (mobile data computers), which was strictly a nine and a half million dollar, fully Federally funded for the MDCs in the cars. But if we continue along that track, hopefully, sometime within the next year, we can really be well into the computer purchase, using strictly non -general fund dollars, and that's really my hope. Chairman Hernandez: Mr. Manager, can you wrap up your presentation, so each individual Commissioner can basically give you some insight? Mr. Rollason: I'm at that point on the organization chart. If there's any issues that the Commission wants to add, I think that with the liaison that you have with KPMG, we can put that in and we'll incorporate it, if there's any changes. Chairman Hernandez: All righty. Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Rollason: Now, I've got... There is another issue that I think you need to be made at least aware of the status of where we are, and that is the action plans, which was the other issue that became a sticking point with the Oversight Board in getting this plan approved. And we sat here the last time, and we talked about we weren't really sure what an operational plan was, or what they were looking for. And in our conversations with the Chairman of the Board, he outlined for us that he would like to have one department laid out for them in this package, is what would be his desire. It's just not feasibly possible for us to put something together of that magnitude and have it before them by the 30th that would be meaningful, and not just a bunch of rubbish that we put together to put it in. We need something that we can live with. So we've identified a department - Public Works - to work with. And if Jose would come back up again and just sort of give us a thumbnail sketch quickly of how they're going to assist us to put this together. And then once that first plan... The objective is once the first plan is approved, once this action plan goes back to the Commission and it's approved by the Commission, then we send it to the Oversight Board, and we've got that model in place, then we will start to do every department in the City. We will put these plans together, and as we presented it to the Chairman, our objective was to, I think, to be finished by the end of the fiscal year, September 30th, to have all the departments done. So why don't you just briefly bring us up to speed. Mr. Rodriguez: What I think the Manager agreed with the Chairman of the Oversight Board to include in the five-year plan is a framework of what the operational reviews would cover, picking one department up front, and setting a timetable not only for the completion of that one department, but also a timetable for the completion of other departments, including possibly a strategic plan for the City. But laid out within the five-year plan, or at least framed within the five-year plan, was the specificity as to dates and deliverables. Mr. Rollason: And therefore, our objective is that when we get this plan back to you, there will be another section in there, or at least an addendum, probably, to Section 2 that talks about this process, so that when we talk about amendments that may happen, although this would not be a budgetary amendment that would go back, it would be an amendment that the Commission has bought into what the plan is for Public Works, how they're going to proceed, what their action plan is, what their objectives are, what their benchmarks and goals are, so we can see what we're trying to do, come back and improve it. We go over to the Oversight Board, we get it in a plan. And at the same time, with the authority that we've had from the last Commission meeting, we will press forward with both of the outfits that have been hired to get these plans in place for all the departments. And I think that that will satisfy the intent of what the Chairperson is looking for from the Oversight Board. That concludes our presentation. The only other item I have is at the end, when we've had the input at this point, is to advise you as to what items will be coming forward to you on the 30th, so you know what type of legislation that we're planning on putting before at this point, unless there's any changes between now and then that we add. 56 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: Question. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Plummer. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, have you gone over, and do you feel comfortable with the sale of property? What page is that on, Bob? I've lost it. I had it here. As I look at that, I don't think some of the numbers are realistic. Page 52. You know, I would like to believe that they are. I guess my concern happens to be not only are you comfortable with them, but is the Oversight Board comfortable with them? Mr. Rollason: committee and Well, these numbers have gone through, as they have... I mean, Dipak is here. I off on our numbers at this point, right? part of the package, the estimating may as well... Bob, they have Mr. Nachlinger: Yes. Commissioner, the Oversight Board is comfortable that these numbers are achievable, and have blessed them, if you will, into the plan. Commissioner Plummer: OK. My next question in the same area is the talk of selling the MRC (Miami Riverside Center) Building, which I personally am opposed to. Now, that's just my personal opinion, which I am entitled to. Mr. Rollason: At this point, that has not been submitted as an element in the five-year plan from the Commission or from the Mayor's... or from the Mayor. Commissioner Plummer: I understand that, OK? For example, I don't think the Artime Center is going to bring a million -three. We only paid a million for it, and it's falling apart. Dena Bianchino (Assistant Director, Asset Management): Commissioner, we have concerns about that building, as well. We are coming to you on the 13th with revised recommendations on property sales. That would not reduce this number in any way. Commissioner Plummer: Coming to us when? Vice Chairman Teele: Well, here we go, Mr. Chairman. I mean, with all due respect, ma'am, I mean, we've been saying all day one thing. Please, if you've got a thought, it's got to be in this document. I mean, we're going to look like the laughing stock of this town if we come back a week later and start talking about changing the numbers. And, ma'am, with all due respect, I apologize. But it's imperative, Mr. Manager, that if there is something that is bubbling... working its way up, let's help it get up a little faster so that on December 30th, or the 29th, hopefully, so that we have at least a day's notice, we know what we're talking about. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's the reason I'm bringing it up. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I know... Commissioner Plummer: I didn't yield, but go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Now, just a comment, because the Vice Chairman was saying something that is important. We should know. I think that... For instance, I've been sending memos regarding the Watson Building. And everybody knows, I think... I don't know anything about real estate, but everybody knows that we ain't getting half a million dollars for that building. So... 57 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: No way. Ms. Bianchino: We are currently in negotiations with the Federal government to buy this property. I expect to receive from them within the next three weeks their bid price for the property. Commissioner Regalado: But do you think that it's worth half a million? Ms. Bianchino: No, I do not. Commissioner Regalado: OK. That's all I want to make... Commissioner Plummer: But see, that's the very reason I brought up the question as to whether or not the Manager had reviewed and felt comfortable. You know, there's a lot of properties in here that are not even on this list. And I guess my next question is, why not? Mr. Rollason: Well, here's where I think we are. I think Vice Chair Teele hits the nail right on the head. We're at the eleventh hour. We are at... items that are in here that staff at some point has felt some level of comfort with, or hopefully, it hasn't been put into this package. And secondly, we have gotten some buy -off at this point through the Oversight Board. This is a living document, and changes can take place. They may have to take place at the time when we do budget annually. But I think that as we go forward with this, we see what our sales are, and we see what happens with the real estate market, what's soft, what are we able to do well on, and then we adjust and we put that together with new buildings, or new opportunities. And this has been a good cut at putting something in here and saying, this is what we're going to go into, people are buying into it. And I think we ought to let it rest, unless there's something that really sticks with somebody that causes a problem. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman... Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort has got the floor now. Vice Chairman Teele: With all due respect, Mr. Manager, I fully support you. You've worked very hard. But your own staff is saying they've got another cut they want to present to us on the 13th of January. And all that I'm suggesting is that maybe between now and the 29th... Mr. Rollason: We'll certainly look into it. Vice Chairman Teele: ... that staff can get to you, and you make the decision. Mr. Rollason: You're right. We'll certainly look at it. Vice Chairman Teele: But please don't bring it up on the 13th. Mr. Rollason: No. Vice Chairman Teele: The 13th of July or August, yes. The 13th of January, February, March, no. Mr. Rollason: No, no. Listen, come the 30th, we need a document. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. 58 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Gort: Question. My understanding is we have the '97/98 budget that has to be presented. Is this amount that you have here of five point eight part of that budget? It is part of the budget? Mr. Rollason: Yes. Commissioner Gort: So that means if you cannot sell this land, you've got to look for other places, other things to get five point eight. Mr. Rollason: Mr. Commissioner, all the revenues that are in here are contemplated for when we get to page 59. That's the bottom line. Commissioner Gort: Right. OK. Mr. Rollason: Now, if we don't do this, we have to have something else. If we don't do the fire fee, we've got to do something else... Commissioner Gort: It means we have a commitment... What you're saying is we have a commitment, a one-time revenue of five point eight million dollars ($5.8 million), be it these lands that you have here, or this property that you have here, or any other property. Question. The property on 11th and 12th Avenue, which budget is that in? What year budget is that in? Mr. Rollason: I believe it's in the fiscal '99 budget, anticipated to be sales. So... Commissioner Gort: To be sold in '99. In other words, if we sell that property and we close within this year, that's a six million dollar ($6,000,000) profit; am I correct? Commissioner Plummer: Five. Ms. Bianchino: Are you talking about Winn -Dixie? Commissioner Gort: The Winn -Dixie. Mr. Nachlinger: Oh, no, no, sir. That's right below the Municipal Justice site. Mr. Rollason: But what's not in there is the FEC (Florida East Coast); is that correct? Commissioner Plummer: Yes, it is. Mr. Nachlinger: No, that is in there, also. What I was wanting to mention to you, sir, if you look... You have total anticipated land sales of approximately seven and a half million. We did, in anticipation of a more rosy outlook on our property than may be realized, a reserve in there of one point seven million dollars ($1.7 million), in the event that our sales don't come in at these levels. So if, in fact, the numbers you see there are under -realized by a million -seven or less, we still will make our budget projections. Commissioner Gort: No, I understand. But I think we... There's a good that's been brought up in here, that we need to have the actual value on this land. I think it would be very important for all of us. Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: I have another question. Mr. Manager, overtime. My understanding in overtime, what has been already set aside has been far exceeded this year. Mr. Rollason: Are you speaking specifically to the item with the Police budget? 59 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: No, sir, I'm speaking to overtime in general, on page 81. Mr. Rollason: Let me get Dipak up here. Commissioner Plummer: As I see it here, you... Mr. Rollason: I know there was an issue with some overtime in Police, and I've been satisfied with their answer to that from the Police Chief that we brought that to a stop. But let me... Commissioner Plummer: As I see it, you've put aside seven point three; is that correct? Mr. Dipak Parekh (Director, Budget and Management Analysis): That's what we spent. Commissioner Plummer: And what is it as of today? Mr. Parekh: One moment. Commissioner Plummer: Because we're only... Mr. Rollason: You're looking for the actuals to date, where are we today? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Are we at the seven point three, more than the seven point three? October, November, December. We're in the first... We're coming to the end of the first quarter. Mr. Rollason: Right. He's got to get the report now. Mr. Parekh: We have budgeted for the entire City approximately eight million dollars ($8,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: It says here seven point three, but I'll accept that. Mr. Parekh: Yes. Because there's special event overtime which has not been budgeted. Commissioner Plummer: It's all on page 81. Mr. Parekh: I understand, but there are different types of overtime, Commissioner. One is... Commissioner Plummer: It's dollars. Mr. Parekh: I agree. One is overtime for officers. There is special event overtime, which we get reimbursed, which does not cost the City money. Commissioner Plummer: Allocated of City dollars is what I'm looking for. Mr. Parekh: Approximately eight million dollars ($8,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: And how much have we spent this year, to this date? Mr. Parekh: Roughly one point seven million dollars ($1.7 million). Commissioner Plummer: Call it two million. So we are then in proportion? 60 December 23, 1997 Mr. Parekh: We are on target. Commissioner Plummer: We are on target. Mr. Parekh: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: You are comfortable with what's in this plan? Mr. Parekh: Yes. We had an issue which we brought out at the last Oversight Board in special event. Since then, the Police Chief has informed us that that particular type of overtime will cease as of January 1. The negative impact of that particular overtime is going to be roughly of a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), which the City would be able to find within the budget. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you, sir. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I don't... Whatever changes I need, I'll tell the people. Chairman Hernandez: OK. Before I cease to Vice Chairman Teele, who has a lot of questions and issues on legislative process... Commissioner Plummer: Then I'll be right back. Chairman Hernandez: I want to be... Commissioner Plummer: I'm going to go do something nobody else can do for me. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman, you've got the floor. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the Manager of the day, Frank Rollason... Mr. Rollason: Manager "du jour." Vice Chairman Teele: ... Frank Rollason for really stepping in at a very critical time and working - I mean, literally - around the clock this entire weekend, and has been dedicated. And we owe him and we owe the employees of this City a tremendous debt of gratitude. I won't be specific about Bob Nachlinger, who really is the hero of this process, because he clearly has the confidence of the Oversight Board, and his presence tends to quell a lot of the troubled waters from time to time. Obviously, the Board... this Commission has acknowledged that. And I hope that that final contract will be available on the 30th, to insure the continuity. The Oversight Board views our actions very positively in keeping Mr. Nachlinger on, on a consultant basis, as a transition, because to be very honest, other than Mr. Nachlinger and the budget officer, and the Fire Chief, and the unique role that the Fire Chief is doing an outstanding job, the finance, the Assistant Manager, the Manager, none of those people are there for a purpose of continuity, the Finance Director, et cetera. And I'm not sure how all that comes out. I do think it is imperative that we stay in contact with Mr. Nachlinger, and I hope that the task order will include the availability to call him by any Commissioner, as well as the financial advisor, and as well as the accountants, as well as the Manager, and the Mayor, and those other persons. Mr. Chairman... thank you. Turning to the City Attorney, I think, again, as far as this Commissioner is concerned, the City Attorney has done a very, very outstanding job in writing opinions relating to this and some other matters. And I particularly take note of the recent opinion that he has issued regarding... and to be honest with you, the person... somebody has got to be on the line on 61 December 23, 1997 this, because the agreement that was entered into with the State Attorney's Office, the Manager was not privy to that agreement, unfortunately. And given the current status that we have with the interim Manager, who can only take ministerial actions, if he's doing anything wrong now, it's going to be the City Attorney who gets sued, because the opinion that he issued today, which I think, you know, is a good opinion, it clearly establishes and moves this City forward, in the context of getting this whole matter behind us. And so I think those things should be noted. In that spirit, Mr. Attorney, I would like to ask that you make sure that the Nabors firm provides us with an opinion letter on the fire fee. Now, the most important single item in this plan for this annual year, in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, is the Fire and Rescue assessment, because if, for whatever reason, that's not implemented, if, for whatever reason, that's knocked out, I understand that there may be a group of distinguished citizens who have formed... have come together for the sole purpose of opposing this fee who may be well financed. And I think it behooves us to look at this fee very carefully, and make sure that all of our "I's" are dotted and our "T's" are crossed. To that extent, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the opinion letter, I am specifically requesting that the Manager... and I'm talking now to Mr. Rodriguez, I guess, with the consulting firm, would work to insure that the ordinance does establish a Value Adjustment Board type of process, hearing process; that there be Hearing Officers and qualifications established; and that the Hearing Officers must provide written opinions to the Manager; and that the Manager will review and make recommendations and findings; and that the City Commission may choose to hear a case, or we we may choose not to hear the case, and send it to the Court. I think, you know, obviously, it will depend on what comes up. If we don't have a lot, we may choose to hear. If we get a lot, we may choose to send them to the Court. But I think we should preserve that right for ourselves. Similarly, I think it is important that we prepare an amendment, a legislative amendment that establishes a no exemption/full collection policy that requires that all buildings that receive the Fire Rescue service, other than churches and synagogues, religious, provided that they are tax-exempt, will pay the fee. I believe that it is important that it's specifically excluded... that this should specifically exclude those ancillary facilities such as homes, nursing homes or apartment buildings which would otherwise fly under the flag of a church, because our goal here is not... this is not a tax. We don't intend to tax anyone. But our goal should be to insure that everyone that is getting the service is paying the fee. I think it's particularly important that this provision will not exempt State, local and Federal governmental institutions. Mr. Manager, included in those institutions that are not exempt should be the City of Miami and all of the City of Miami's instrumentalities, including MSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority), the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), and Off -Street Parking. I would only suggest we've already gone over the institutions which we believe should be included, and I do think that we should provide for a very important opt out, that any governmental body may opt out of this fee by providing the service, providing the services comparably, and the service is provided with a switching facility that insures that they are actually going to provide it. In other words, if the County doesn't want to pay the fee, they ought to have the right to opt out. Commissioner Plummer: And in lieu of? Commissioner Teele: And in lieu of... they're out. But they must be able to certify to us that they're going to provide a comparable service, and that there will be a switching system in place before they opt out so... Commissioner Plummer: So there is "in lieu of." Vice Chairman Teele: "In lieu of." So if public housing is not going to be in, then, when someone in public housing picks up the phone to call 911, it's going to switch over to the County 911 system, as opposed to the City, if that's feasible, or if that's possible. These are the things that I think that the management team must evaluate with the Fire Director... with the Fire Director, with Mr. Nachlinger, and, of course, with the law firm. What we're talking about, 62 December 23, 1997 however, is the fact that the Federal government, the State government, and the County should pay the fee. Commissioner Plummer: Agreed. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Vice Chairman, if I may, just a question. The problem with what you're saying is the response time of the emergency services. And we still are responsible for the lives of people on 7th Street Northwest. Vice Chairman Teele: Under an interlocal agreement, we can agree on anything, and it can only be done by interlocal agreement. And that's important, because it means that a warehouse company or a printing company who may have a facility right next to a County facility can't opt out. Only a governmental entity through interlocal agreement. I believe that this is important. I don't think that anybody is going to want to opt out when they really look at the numbers. But I think it's important to prevent the County from turning into a plaintiff saying we're hitting them for money that they don't want to pay. If they don't want to pay it, they don't have to pay it. All they have to do is provide the service. But I think this is the kind of thing that the Nabors firm should look at. We should look at it. And just so that you know it, the range of dollars that we're talking about in reoccurring income would be somewhere between three point five and five million dollars ($5,000,000), which is big, big numbers when you're operating now with a budget margin of like two million to three million dollars ($2,000,000 to $3,000,000). So I think this is an important thing. I think it's an important statement. But I think it's going to require some courage, because I think our favorite newspaper is here. They're going to probably write something that... Commissioner Plummer: Your favorite newspaper. Vice Chairman Teele: No. Well, they didn't endorse me. But the fact of the matter is, is that you're going to be called by people saying, "Do I pay the fee? Well, take me out." And we may as well get that on the front end and deal with it, as opposed to hearing it on the back end and then winding up without the courage. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask for at least a straw vote or a statement by each Commissioner, so that the Manager knows how far to go in this approach, or if somebody has a different approach and doesn't agree, then I think the Manager ought to be able to do it. But this is the heart of the five-year plan for this annual year. The Fire Rescue assessment is the heart. We have not discussed what happens in a worst case scenario, if, for whatever reason, the fee is knocked out, for whatever reason. And I think at some point, after the five-year plan has been adopted, we need to immediately begin to focus on that. Mr. Chairman, I would ask respectfully if you would allow each of my colleagues to be able to express... and I really would like to hear from you first, if you would. Commissioner Plummer: I don't mind going first. Commissioner Gort: We know that. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Let... Commissioner Plummer: I'll go... I think that as far... You know, it's a nice idea to think that they could call a fire truck in the County. It takes the County now forever to get there anyhow, so it really wouldn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. But the life-giving service, no way. I can't agree with that. But let me tell you... and let me give you an example of what you're trying to say that I do agree with. That if the County wants to opt out on paying whatever fee they're entitled to, or what we're entitled to... We're just, for example, being billed by Jackson Hospital, two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000)? One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), because they provide us with a Medical Director for our Rescue. These are the kind 63 December 23, 1997 of things that I think that we could take as in lieu of the kind of fees that you're talking about. I don't think... I don't know that we would want to go into a hearing board, if you have the ability of that hearing board to adjust fees, because I can tell you, the minute you give one break, you're going to be flooded with everybody and their brother coming in, saying if they gave an inch, they'll give a mile. I think that we've got to establish a fee - even though I'm opposed to it - we've got to establish a fee, and you've got to stick to it, because other than that, you're just going to be playing "he saw/he saw," back and forth. And I don't think that you're really going to accomplish... I do concur with you to your statement that says that the fire fee is in sum and substance... And you won't let me talk to the other side of the issue, but that, to me, is just as important. So under these circumstances of not being able to talk to the other side, I agree with you that the sum and substance of the key factor in this coming year is that fire fee. Chairman Hernandez: Vice Chairman Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: If I may. Obviously, I didn't make myself clear at all. Number one, the administrative hearing is merely - it can't adjust the fee - to provide a remedy for someone whose building may have been torn down, half down during the hurricane, and we've got the wrong... we've got the wrong assessment on it. In other words, we're drawing these numbers from another document. Commissioner Gort: From your tax assessment then. Vice Chairman Teele: From the tax assessment. There are going to be people who have never, in fact, paid taxes, particularly on the low end... Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. I'm asking the question. The fire fee is not based on an assumption of taxation. It's based on square feet. Vice Chairman Teele: Right. Commissioner Plummer: So you don't take a genius to go in, if a building is demolished... Vice Chairman Teele: J.L., hold on, just hold on. J.L., don't make yourself... Look, a house that has a value of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)... Commissioner Plummer: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: ... has that value because of an assessment that is made based upon the square footage; is that correct? Commissioner Plummer: Not necessarily. Commissioner Gort: No, uh-uh. Chairman Hernandez: Flat fee. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, among other things... among other things, it's based upon square footage. I'm talking about for property tax purposes. Commissioner Plummer: But the fire fee is not based on that. Mr. Rollason: But the fire fee on single-family homes is a set fee. Chairman Hernandez: Flat fee. 64 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: Is a set... Mr. Rollason: But when we get into the other occupancies, it is square footage, and it will be... Commissioner Plummer: Strictly on square footage. Vice Chairman Teele: So what about a quad-plex? Is that based on... Chief Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): It's per unit also, sir. Chairman Hernandez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Teele: Per unit? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Chief Gimenez: Per unit, also. Commissioner Plummer: The only... Chief Gimenez: Any living type facility is a per unit. The square footage only applies to commercial, industrial warehouse... Vice Chairman Teele: Well, the hearing officer would obviously only apply to the square footage basis. Mr. Rollason: Well, there may be an issue that comes up that it's no longer a quad-plex, it's a triplex. And therefore, somebody comes and says, "I've combined it, and I want to adjust it," and they have a mechanism... Vice Chairman Teele: But that would be the only issue, J.L., where there is a question of fact, a legitimate question of fact as to whether or not it's a two -unit, three -unit, a 2,000 foot or a 20,000 foot facility. Commissioner Plummer: All right. I have no qualm or problem with the hearing board. OK? I'm just trying to establish, what are we trying to accomplish by the hearing board? Vice Chairman Teele: Well, that's what I was trying to respond to. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Only as it relates to provide a remedy for people to adjust the facts, the underlying facts. They cannot adjust the rate or the... The rate stays the same. But if a facility has 40,000 square feet, it's taxed... the fee is assessed at 40,000, and they come in and demonstrate with an architect that it's only 32,000, they're entitled to an adjustment. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Chairman Hernandez: And/or what if... Commissioner Plummer: But I would assume... Chairman Hernandez: What if the building is completely vacant, it's been boarded up? 65 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: Or what if the building is completely torn down? Commissioner Plummer: Down is one thing. Vacant has nothing to do with it. Vice Chairman Teele: Vacancy has nothing to do... Chairman Hernandez: Well, if it's completely vacant because it's boarded up... Commissioner Plummer: Vacant has nothing to do with it. It's still square footage. Vice Chairman Teele: But it still has to pay the fee, because those are the buildings that burn more than most. Commissioner Plummer: I'll show you down on North Miami Avenue right now, about a 12- story hotel that's not occupied. Vice Chairman Teele: But J.L., the only point that I'm making is that the board hearing officer is just a remedy so that we don't have to wind up hearing that here. If you don't like it, we'll take it out. Commissioner Plummer: No, no. Chairman Hernandez: I think... Commissioner Plummer: I would only assume that prior to going to a hearing board, that the department would have the availability of assessing the request of an individual, is to say that I don't feel that I have been justly fee'd. Mr. Rollason: Right, that would be a resolution, an administrative resolution that would clearly... Commissioner Plummer: And, then if they don't take care of it administratively, then the hearing board. Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but I am trying to keep them from coming here for this. Commissioner Plummer: We would be the third. Chairman Hernandez: Right. Vice Chairman Teele: We are third down the line. Commissioner Plummer: Or fourth. Vice Chairman Teele: And, the only other issue is this. There is no intent that the County would opted out. But, legally, if the County doesn't want to... Look, the State is going to pay, the federal government is going to pay. Commissioner Plummer: I hope you are right. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, we just heard from the Manager that said that the federal government has already agreed to pay a fee. And, yet, our budget calculations don't assume anything from the federal government. Is that right? 66 December 23, 1997 Mr. Rollason: That is correct. We... Vice Chairman Teele: So, all that we are trying to do now is treat everybody that's similarly situated in the same way. If you collect from the feds, you can collect from the State. If you collect from the State, you can collect from the County. If you can collect from the County and the State, you can collect from the City. If you can collect from the City, you can collect from MESA and Off-street Parking. You know who is going to be in here moaning and groaning and scratching the most? Commissioner Plummer: Who? Vice Chairman Teele: MESA and Off-street Parking. But... Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me ask you a question. Vice Chairman Teele: But, the fact is, as long as we do this in a way that it treats everybody... Chairman Hernandez: Fairly. Vice Chairman Teele: ... that is similarly situated in a fair and equitable manner, no one has the right to complain. The net of all of this is four to six to seven million dollars ($7,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: What are you accomplishing if you charge my Bayfront Park a fire fee? All you are actually doing is, increasing my subsidy. What have you accomplished? Vice Chairman Teele: Well, that's why we got in this mess, in this City before. Because everybody is trying, has tried to do all off budget credits. You charge... First of all, Bayfront is just like the cemetery, OK. They ain't going to pay it on the assessed... Commissioner Plummer: I resent that remark. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, I apologize. Commissioner Gort: It should have got an undertaker taking care of it. Vice Chairman Teele: Let me, and let me apologize to the members of the Bay... Commissioner Plummer: I am now in a... I am in a conflict of interest. Go ahead. Vice Chairman Teele: Let me apologize to the members of the Bayfront Trust, especially one member. Commissioner Plummer: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: But, the fact of the matter... Commissioner Plummer: You better. Vice Chairman Teele: But the fact is this, they are not going to pay a fee anymore than the building, the improvement of the building on it. How much can a, would a fountain pay, for a fire fee? Commissioner Plummer: A what? 67 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: A fountain. Commissioner Gort: It's got water in it. Vice Chairman Teele: A water fountain. Fire Chief Gimenez: Sir, we probably have to give a rebate on that one. Vice Chairman Teele: So, the point is this. It's not as bad as it seemed. Even if the County doesn't react to all of this, and says on public... Commissioner Plummer: You are setting a predicate (sic). I... Vice Chairman Teele: ... housing. Commissioner Plummer: OK. All right. Vice Chairman Teele: Who is going to wind up paying for it? The federal government. Commissioner Plummer: The taxpayers. Vice Chairman Teele: Because, it's going to wind... Who is going to wind up paying for Jackson? - the federal government. Commissioner Plummer: The taxpayers. Vice Chairman Teele: Because, Jackson is going to bill that fee in their overhead. When they submit their bills to the federal government for reimbursement for Medicare, for health care... Commissioner Plummer: They had five million surplus, this year. Vice Chairman Teele: ... and all of those things that they get reimbursed hundreds of millions of dollars, eh? It's going to be built in their overhead. And, they are going to get reimbursed for all of that. Mr. Rollason: And, I think in fairness, just dealing with that one issue, you are looking at an institution that our fire apparatus and rescues live at those places and not only are they there, but that... then we have to shift trucks around and people around to have them available for the single family homes in surrounding area, that just as much need to have the rescue and the fire trucks, probably more. Commissioner Plummer: Jackson had a five million dollar ($5,000,000) surplus which was immediately taken by Dade County to balance their budget. So, I don't think they are poor boys. Chairman Hernandez: We have... Vice Chairman Teele: If I could finish, Mr. Chairman? Oh, you had... Chairman Hernandez: Go ahead. No, I was just going to respond to your question, but go ahead, and finish. On the issue of the hearing boards, we presently have a hearing board for the Code Enforcement process for the ticketing ordinance that was established a couple of years ago. There is no question, I think that we need, when you have any type of fee of this kind, some kind of appellant process. It doesn't have to come before the Commission, and drag us into that, but 68 December 23, 1997 pass it on to some retired judge or a hearing officer, that can deal with this kind of appeal. Secondly, I still have a lot of questions with the fire assessment fee. I thought I had it clear when I left here and I came back, and I don't think it's going to be a clear cut, it's not just, it's not fair. And, some people are going to be treated differently than others. And if that's the case and that's how we are going to pass it, we are definitely going to need a hearing board examiner. We are definitely going to need someone that's going to act as a referee between us and the City. So, that's how I feel, that's... We already have one in place, I don't see why we cannot have one just to deal specifically with the fire assessment fee. Vice Chairman Teele: But, will you support the fire assessment fee, as it's been proposed? I mean, because I think we got to figure out where we are on this, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: I do. But, I would like to sit down with the Fire Chief again, because it seems to me that some things have changed again. I voted in favor of it. I voted in favor of it, last time. But, I am somewhat confused again, about the fire assessment fee. Fire Chief Gimenez: Commissioner, the only thing that... Chairman Hernandez: And, we had an issue yesterday, you and I, up in my office. Fire Chief Gimenez: That is separate from the fire fee. Commissioner Plummer: I got to ask that question. Fire Chief Gimenez: The fire fee itself, the only issue that has changed, may have been or been a reduction in the square footage cap for those three categories, basically commercial type buildings. Outside of that, everything is basically the same. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner, Vice Chairman Teele, or... Commissioner Gort: I think... Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I think you have to give an opportunity to those individuals coming from the board and speak out especially if there is a mistake being made. From the first time the Chief came to talk to me, I told him, this has got to be across the board with everybody and it's got to be fair to everyone. I don't have any problem with that. The County opted out. If we do that, Teele, the one thing that I want to make sure, if we do an Interlocal Agreement, we got to make sure it's not a fee for services type of thing. Because, although they might want to go into fee for services, and although the service might not be there, we have to maintain our fire fighters and our stations close to them in order to provide the service. So, the cost and overhead will be the same. So, this is something that in an Interlocal Agreement, we got to make sure that we put a flat fee on it. I don't think they will opted out, because there is no way they can provide the services. They were not going to create special units to provide services to their own facilities. So, I agree with you. I think it's a good clause. I don't think they would take it. I think we can come to an agreement with them and they will pay a fee for it. My understanding is, from the original one that was presented in front of us, Mr. Chairman, it's reduced the cost to the major buildings. To the... some of the largest buildings, to commercial, industrials, that they were complaining. And, they had some good complaints. When they first came here, is that you make taxes out of a competition. You have got a lot of new buildings going up in Coral Gables. You have got a lot of new buildings going up in West Dade, and this fee, if you don't do it correctly, might put us out of the market. And, we have enough problems in this City to... So, I see this new, the new change is in benefit, because the maximum that can be applied has been 69 December 23, 1997 reduced. The maximum cap has been reduced. So, I presently don't have any problem with it. I do agree with Commissioner Teele, I should see across all the board, and everybody pay for it. I have said that from the beginning. Chairman Hernandez: My concern is, and we don't want to talk about this again. Commissioner Plummer: No, that's not... Chairman Hernandez: When we speak of solid waste and fire assessment. Commissioner Gort: That's another issue that comes later, we can discuss that later. Chairman Hernandez: But, later we will separate that, and we need to talk about that because that issue did pop up between you and I, yesterday. Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. And, I relayed that issue to the Manager, and he knows about it. Chairman Hernandez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele. Commissioner Gort: I just want to say that, when we discussed, four us here, Commissioner Plummer, Commissioner, no, you did not. Commissioner Plummer: I'm listening. Commissioner Gort: No, I... Commissioner Plummer, Gort, Commissioner Hernandez and myself, when we voted for the fire fee and we were not... Commissioner Plummer: No, I did not. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I said that, that you did not. But, and we voted complaining and we knew the hardship on the citizens. I am not going to talk about what we said that time, because I am following the advice of the City Attorney... Commissioner Plummer: That's my concern. Commissioner Regalado: ... and Vice Chairman Teele. I just want to say, I just want to say that, no, first of all, I am ready to vote because I am not going to... On the 30th, I am not going to come up and say to you, I am not going to vote for the fire fee, and then have you work 12 hours or 24 hours to come back with another plan. That's... That would not be fair, so publicly, I am saying, I am going to vote for that process. Although, I think that we should be prepared for a lot of complaints and legal actions. I talked to the people in the County, and I know that they will be very uncomfortable with a fire fee on the public housing units. I know that for a fact. However, these people live in the City of Miami. If you go to Smathers (phonetic) in 8th, 9th Street and 29th Avenue, you see the fire rescue truck there twice or three times a week. If you see, if you go to Tree Towers in 28th Street and 18th Avenue, you see the police there, two or three times a day. If you go to King High, if you go to Claude Pepper in 18th Terrace and 7th Avenue, you see the fire truck there. So, we can, first of all we cannot relinquish our responsibility. We have to service, these are the residents of Miami, these are the people that are the ones that elected us and we cannot relinquish our responsibility with these people. So, we are going to have to just keep doing what we are doing, and we are doing a good job at it. And, I just hope, I just hope that when we are dealing with the County, we are firm enough to say what Vice Chairman Teele said. Well, you go and ask the federal government for the money. I would just hope that this would not mean a raise of five dollars ($5) or six dollars ($6) to a retired person that lives on a public housing units, because for you and me, five dollars ($5) 70 December 23, 1997 is nothing, but for a retired person, five dollars ($5) is the borderline between having dinner twice a week and not eating. So, I will support the fire fee. I am sure that we are going to have to fight it out in the legal way. I would not support, however, relinquishing our responsibility in terms of police and fire in those buildings. And, I... I think that we are going to have to deal with that very forcefully with the County. And, on the record, I will on the 30th support the fire fee. So, there is not going to be any mistake of counting votes from here to the end of the year. Mr. Rollason: Commissioner, if I could for just a moment. I think the issue as I see it, brought forward by Vice Mayor Teele, is one that there is some option for the County to try to exercise and whether the service they provide is equal to what we say, or comparable is our decision to make. Also, take in mind that there exists now a Mutual Aid Agreement with the... all the municipalities in the County dealing with fire service. What happens is, we in the City get somewhat abused because of our locality to things. There is also another system called Automatic Aid, and Automatic Aid is a charge system as opposed to Mutual Aid. And, maybe the County would want to opt into something, and that's where our units automatically respond first in, as they do, and there is a charge for that as opposed to wanting to do a fire fee. And, they might want to negotiate something that way. I think what the Vice Mayor is saying is, don't make it to where it's locked in, if there is some other way that they can opt out and then we would be the ones to decide whether or not that service that we worked out was... Commissioner Regalado: No, I don't have any problem. I agree with him. Vice Chairman Teele: And, to that point, Mr. Chairman, the intent is not to encourage or induce the County to opt out. The intent is to ensure that the County doesn't file a suit and winds up joinin condo owners and others who may be, because they have no remedy. We must legally provife them with a remedy, and through the Interlocal Agreement process tilere is a lot of room to negotiate. It may even wind up in in -kind services. They may decide... Chairman Hernandez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: ... to do the Martin Luther King Parade, for example, for us. Because, while we are trying... I mean, there is a whole range of things. But, it's important that we don't try to legislate the Interlocal Agreement, the trust, the Manager and the Mayor and that we have the final approval of that. And, if it's not fair, we are not going to approve it. If it's fair, we will. And, hopefully, it won't be an issue, that they will just say, you know, we are going to stay with it, like it is. We all know that public housing generates a disproportionate number of the rescue calls. Is that right, Chief? Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: And, under this agreement, the way it's structured now, they would pay nothing. And, yet, they are generating the disproportionate cost. And, they ought to be required to pay. And, to the point that it's going to cost them more, it would not cost anyone in public housing more, because their contracts are fixed and set by the federal government. They are not on these triple net kinds of arrangements where the County gets to pass it on to them. And, in fact, most of those funds are paid for by the federal government under a process very similar to the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) process. On the other issue, Mr. Chairman, if I may? There are a series of issues which we really didn't get to. But, I think it's very important that the amended the five-year plan reflects this Commission's discussion and agreement regarding the CDBG, prioritizing to reduce recurring cost. And, we can work through that with some specificity. I know it's going to require Commissioner Gort and Commissioner Regalado, in particular who have some specific ideas about things, that are capital improvement that need to be done. But, I think at least for the next year, or two, it should clearly reflect that. I also think, Mr. Chairman, the most important issue is recurring revenues. In that regard, there 71 December 23, 1997 are a number of actions that I think we need to at least put on notice and I think the consultants have suggested, for example, that as we look at the core initiative, which is pretty much the annual element and probably the most important thing that the Manager will be doing over the next year, at least according to this plan, which is contained on page four, five, six. And, these are the bullets. Obviously, we are going to have to restructure some of this, but one of the issues is, for example, and I know the Mayor is very strong on this, is to convene a Charter Review Committee. I think that that should be adjusted to reflect to convene a Charter, and I think this is very important to Commissioner Gort, and myself again as well as others, to reflect a convening of a Charter and Boundaries Review Committee. I believe that we should begin to look in cooperation with the County, pursuant to all of the County changes in policy, that we should look at rounding out our boundaries with a view toward both providing more efficient service as well as a view toward revenues. Now, the County is smart enough to know that every smart City in this County has already done the cherry picking. Coral Gables was the first. They extended their boundaries and picked up a lot of money, recurring revenue. Homestead was right after them. Both cases were represented by the same law firm, I might add. And, they picked up a lot of money. And, then the County said, "no more." If you are going to expand your boundaries, in fact, Pinecrest and some other places were ready to just extend themselves and pick up Dadeland, which is about a net of about, fourteen or fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) a year. The County said, "If you are going to expand your boundaries, it's got to be on a relatively revenue neutral way." And, there are some standards in there. But, I believe, particularly as we look at the area related to the areas that Commissioner Gort and I have, particularly in the areas that are contiguous to Hialeah and some of the other areas, we should look very seriously at that, and I support the Mayor's initiative and the Manager's initiative that we should review... convene a Charter and Boundaries Review and we really should look at boundaries with a view toward a more efficient delivery of services and a revenue positive long term results. 1, for example, 19th Avenue is a boundary in the district. It makes no sense. Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, what's 19th Avenue? Commissioner Gort: Commissioner... Vice Chairman Teele: It should be a section line. Commissioner Gort: Right. Vice Chairman Teele: Twenty second, 27th, 32nd, 37th. It should be one of those. Now, I will tell you this, if you look at the boundary going to 37th, which would be adjacent to Hialeah, north of 112, between 36th Street and 54th is going to be all residential. It's going to be a negative big time loss. But, if you go up to 79th, it's all industrial, it's all warehouse. It's going to be net revenue big time positive. You put the two together, you probably have something that meets within the County framework of what you can do. The only thing that I am saying is, that this is the only major City... Commissioner Plummer: Hialeah. Vice Chairman Teele: This is the only... Hialeah is in the process of expanding their boundaries. Commissioner Plummer: Hialeah Jai -Alai, the parking lot is in the City, the Jai -Alai Fronton is in the County... Commissioner Gort: The County. 72 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Plummer: ... directly across the street. Vice Chairman Teele: But, see those are the kinds... and, it makes no sense because there is the Miami... Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: ... River should be the boundary, if nothing else. I mean, that's just... Who is going to deliver the services in there? And, the Chief is shaking his head. But, we really need to look at this boundary process, and I really do think, Commissioner Gort, with all due respect. Because, you have really been in the leadership in some of these areas, that we really ought to take a strong look at that and I would urge... Commissioner Gort: We need to. The biggest problem you have in your district, in my district, where the County does not provide a service, they don't provide the code enforcement, and that's where we have a lot of problems, 36th Street. We have a corridor in there that has got a problem for the City of Miami. You have the same in your district. Vice Chairman Teele: And, Mayor Mishcon was very eloquent and he wound up expanding his borders because of the same problem. There were areas where, because the County wasn't doing code enforcement, wasn't doing this, it was actually pulling down the values. I think that's very important. The other issue that I think that we should also highlight as one of our management priorities and I really do think that the Mayor should be the person that we look to, is that the City should desire to maximize all opportunities to avail itself of State and Federal grant monies. Look, when you are in a financial bind the way we are, we have got to go out here and hustle grant money. Hustle grant money to save in recurring cost. Hustle grant money for the capital, the same thing you are talking about Commissioner Plummer, regarding fire trucks. There is grant money out there for that. We don't even have a representative in Washington that's... to my knowledge that has an active contract. I mean, you can't be in this business... You can't be in this business, and it must be a high priority in my judgment that we really are aggressively involved with the State legislature who could really provide us with a lot of relief. We got the Governor's Oversight Board. I believe that all the action between now and the end of January, really should be in the Governor's office working with the Governor's budget officer. The Governor can solve the financial emergency for the City of Miami in one good legislative session, if he chooses to. With the stroke of a pen and a little help in the House and the Senate. And, rather than moaning and groaning about this thing, we ought to go up there with our bundle and say, Governor, if you would just give us some money to solve these housing problems over here, if you would give us some money to solve these road problems that you have identified over here, if you would give us some money to solve these community redevelopment problems over here, you know, Governor, I know it's going to cost forty-two million or sixty-eight million, but you our partner in this deal. See, I think we got to stop arguing with the Governor and make him our partner because all we are getting is, sort of like a bad marriage. All we are getting is the bad side of this deal and somebody else on the outside, we used to call it in the army, Joey, is getting the good side of this deal. So, we really need to take another view, I think, of how we relate to the Governor, and invite the Governor to be are our partner. We need the Governor's budget officer down here, now, as he is preparing for next year's budget to write us in and help us resolve this problem. And, Mayor Suarez can look good, the Governor and Buddy McKay can look great and we Commissioners could get the monkey off our back. So, those are some of the things that I think that are very important. I also think that the conversion of delinquent tax property to the City rolls is very, very, important, into for -profit activities. In that regard, I believe that this Commission should adopt some policy in the five-year plan of not converting additional City money for nontaxable purposes. The problem that we have as a City government is that we are just like Washington, D.C. in this regard. We are the seat of the County 73 December 23, 1997 government and we are also the seat of the Federal government in this community. We don't want to encourage any more government buildings, government conversion of land at our expense. Because, once you convert land, you take it out of the tax rolls forever. And our goal should be, unless there is a revenue stream associated with that forever. I mean, a payment in lieu of taxes, forever. But our goal should be to try to increase the long term revenue stream. Finally, the Board is expecting us to make a very, very real decision or recommendation or prioritizing of the - help me, Mr. Nachlinger - of prioritizing the one-time revenues that are being projected at twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000). Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir, that's... Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah. Mr. Nachlinger: ... on page 59, of your report. Vice Chairman Teele: On page 59. We have not discussed that. I think we are out of time, but I would like to be on record as saying, I believe that we should look first at our restructuring of our relationship with Off-street Parking with those revenues. If we are able to restructure our relationship with Off-street Parking, we could probably free up at least four to five million dollars ($5,000,000) of recurring dollars at no expense to us. Right now, the way the bond indenture is written, Off-street Parking is basically withholding anywhere from two to four million dollars ($4,000,000) a year from the City which should be a part of our revenue stream. In fact, the ordinance that creates them requires that they transfer those excess funds to the City. To date, they have not transferred anything. To date, they have gauged, they have quite frankly, required that the poorest of the poor, Overtown, pay for the activities that they should be paying for, namely the Gusman activity. And, I think we should look at that and free those monies up. That will give us the twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000) right... I mean, the twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) right back. I would like to be on the record as saying, that I believe that the Fire Department has been promised in good faith, one million and a half dollars ($1,500,000), and that we should honor that commitment as we go forward with or without the fire fee. And, I also think that we should return the five and a half million dollars ($5,500,000) that was wrongfully converted by this Commission, from the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) in the paper transaction that took five point five million dollars ($5,500,000) from the CRA, because the CRA is bankrupt, and CRA, quite frankly, goes revenue red in two years, based upon the outstanding debt service. And, if that six million dollars ($6,000,000) were returned, and I am talking now, Commissioner Plummer, I am sure you recall, of the requirement that the CRA transferred for no money, no consideration, this is just like what we did to the Indians years ago, for no money, six million dollars ($6,000,000) of assets, which was the land that the MESA facility is on. That money was given to the City of Miami by the Urban Mass Transportation Administrator at that time, who was Arthur Teele, for the sole purpose of assisting in the redevelopment of Overtown, and the document shows that. To take that six million dollars ($6,000,000) and then sell it to MESA, and have MESA to give the City six million dollars ($6,000,000) back was just unfair. And, I am asking that the first priority be to return the status quo, and there is a draft memo from the Manager, that documents all of this. And, shows that the money was done only because of the financial emergency. And, Mr. Manager, I would hope that you would make those documents available, especially to Commissioner Plummer and Commissioner Gort, because I think it really is unconscionable that was done to that area. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: OK, thank you, very much. I'll... 74 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Gort: I yield to the press. Commissioner Regalado: I will be very brief. Commissioner Gort: Always yield to the press. Commissioner Regalado: I agree with Vice Chairman Teele that we have to be aggressive in looking for loans. And, I would like to remind the Manager and now that we have the possibility of having the next Manager listening that... Several months ago, I kept saying that we could use some federal fund money for cleanup, for solid waste operation. I was told then by our Manager, Mr. Marquez, that that was not possible. But, then the administration did look into, and we could use a quarter of a million dollars to... for emergency cleanup operation of the City of Miami. And, I think that the people have been very happy with this, the street sweepers, they were sidewalk cleaning. But, I would like to remind the Chairman that he brought that issue, the other Commission, and all the members of the Commission that we are running out of money on January the 9th. And, this is a service that the people of Miami deserve and I would hope that this Commission, Mr. Chairman, will take up that issue. I don't know if we can do it on the 13th, but we should do it, we should make a decision as to, we should continue the service. This service has been great and this service, members of the Commission, should be expanded to all areas of the City. This should be Citywide. We now have on the different commercial area but the people that are working in that service are really happy, are very enthusiastic but, are concerned that they are going to be terminated. Commissioner Gort: Commissioner... Chairman Hernandez: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Commissioner Teele, for your information, I was appointed about four or five months ago to start negotiations with the Off-street Parking. That has been taking place. We have had several meetings, and hopefully we talked to some of the board members and hopefully we can come to a conclusion real soon on that one. And, I agree with you on the six million dollars ($6,000,000). Vice Chairman Teele: But, can we? But, we have got to move forward on the 30th. And, all that I am saying is, that for my money, and I think we ought to get the Financial Advisor involved in this. And, the Financial Advisor ought to be involved in that because we can front the money from the twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), defease the bond over at Off-street Parking, because the problem is, the way the bonds are written. Commissioner Gort: Right now the... my firm pro bono is looking at the documents. One of the guys who works for me is the one who used to be the Financial Advisor before. And, they are going to come up with an opinion and we will present that to the Financial Advisor. Commissioner Plummer: I would like to correct the record. The Off-street Parking over my period of years, have given money to the City of Miami. Five million, they gave to us for the Little Havana and the Tower Theater in that area there, there was a five million dollar ($5,000,000) grant, and there has been other grants that have been forthcoming from Off-street Parking. Not, easily, they came begrudgingly, but they got it, we got it. Vice Chairman Teele: But, Commissioner, my statement is, they do not give us... Grants is one thing. They do not give us a revenue stream. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, no, no. A recurring. 75 December 23, 1997 Vice Chairman Teele: And, that's what we have... Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: This is about revenue streams, right now. Commissioner Plummer: Well, you know, Arthur, in the same way that you were upset about the fact that there wasn't a first priority in the FEC property with the County, I tried to pass, establish here a year ago, that any property that was City given to another governmental agency, they had to agree to give us the ad valorem taxation of the assessment. Vice Chairman Teele: The revenues... Absolutely. Commissioner Plummer: You know what? It never reached second reading here, because some people backed down. Vice Chairman Teele: Well... Commissioner Plummer: Now, I am saying to you, that if we give them a thirty-seven million dollars ($37,000,000) piece of property, that we should be getting the taxes equivalent to the thirty-seven million dollars ($37,000,000). Vice Chairman Teele: And, Commissioner, that's what I just said. And, I fully agree with you. Commissioner Plummer: Put it back on the ballot. Vice Chairman Teele: And, if you make the motion... Commissioner Plummer: Put it back on. Vice Chairman Teele: If you have the Clerk... If you have the attorney to draft a resolution for the 30th, you will have a second. We may not pass, but the fact is, is that should be our policy. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: That there will be no governmental transfers... Commissioner Plummer: It doesn't have to... Excuse me. Vice Chairman Teele: ... even for a fee, that does not contain a provision that there is a dedicated revenue stream... Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: ... that is a payment in lieu of taxes. Commissioner Plummer: Arthur, he doesn't have to look it up. He doesn't have to rewrite it, he just has to go back and pull it out. Chairman Hernandez: Have you guys done your Christmas shopping? I... It's 4 o'clock. I have got two days. 76 December 23, 1997 Commissioner Gort: Move to adjourn. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you, Scrooge. Chairman Hernandez: All right, let's go. Commissioner Plummer: I would like to wish all of you a very cool yule and a frantic first. Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Chairman Hernandez: Thank you, everybody. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:59 P.M. COMMISSIONER HUMBERTO HERNANDEZ PRESIDING OFFICER/CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Walter Foeman CITY CLERK Maria J. Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK * '• fNCORNORATEG 1 Ib 96 77 December 23, 1997