The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1996-12-05 MinutesCITY OF MUTING HELD ON DECEMBER 6, 1996 BUDGET' WORKSHOP PREPARED By THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK r ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. INDEX MINUTES BUDGET STRATEGY WORKSHOP MEETING December 5, 1996 SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. (A) CITY MANAGER EDWARD MARQUEZ DISCUSSION 1-17 EXPLAINS FORMAT OF WORKSHOP - MANAGER 12/5/96 INFORMS COMMISSION ABOUT CHAPTER 218 INVOKED BY STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE APPOINIVRW AND ROLE OF STATE IS FINANCIAL EMERGENCY OVERSIGHT BOARD. (B) FIRE DISTRICT FEES PILOT / DISCUSSION - IMPLANT STREET CLEANING FEE / DISCUSSION. UNION CONCESSIONS: FRATERNAL ORDER OF DISCUSSION 17-30 POLICE (FOP) CONCESSIONS TO BE RATIFIED 12/5/96 12/20/96-LIUNA REPRESENTATIVE SPEAKS ON GARBAGE FEE AND PRIVATIZATION OF SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT/DISCUSSION. ASSET MANAGEMENT: PROPOSES 11 PERCENT DISCUSSION 30-33 BUDGET CUT- DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 CITY CLERK: PROPOSES 11 PERCENT BUDGET DISCUSSION 34-35 CUT- DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 CITY MANAGER: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT- DISCUSSION 35-36 DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 COMMUNITY PLANNING & REVITALIZATION: DISCUSSION 36-40 PROPOSES 6% BUDGET CUT. 12/5/96 CIVIL SERVICE: PROPOSES 4.3% BUDGET DISCUSSION 40-41 CUT- DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY: PROPOSES DISCUSSION 41-42 4% BUDGET CUT- DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 FINANCE: PROPOSES 4.25% BUDGET CUT- DISCUSSION 42-43 DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 HEARING BOARDS: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET DISCUSSION 43-44 C[T.P- NEED TO ADDRESS CODE ENFORCEMENT 12/5/96 AS POSSIBLE FUNDS GENERATOR - DISCUSSION. li 11. LABOR RELATIONS: PROPOSES 11% BUDGET DISCUSSION 44-46 CUT— DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 12. HUMAN RESOURCES: PROPOSES 7% BUDGET DISCUSSION 46 CUT— DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 13. INTERNAL AUDITS: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET DISCUSSION 47-49 CUT — DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 14. LAW: PROPOSES 11% BUDGET CUT— NEED TO DISCUSSION 50-58 IMPROVE SAFETY PROGRAM AND COORDINATE 12/5/96 SAFETY PROCEDURE WITH LAW DEPARTMENT TO AVOID LAWSUITS —DISCUSS CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES, MERGE RISK MANAGEMENT — ESTABLISH TASK FORCE TO RECOMMEND KEY OPTIONS TO REDUCE LAWSUITS. 15. CONGRATULATE POLICE CHIEF ON SOLVING DISCUSSION 59-60 MIAMI SUBS CASE— CommEWS REGARDING 12/5/96 STATE RELEASING 400 FELONIOUS OFFENDERS FROM PRISON.— NEED TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR DAY CARE. 16. PUBLIC FACILITIES: PROVIDE LIST OF DISCUSSION 61-72 SUBSIDIES PAID FOR CITY FACILITIES — 12/5/96 DINNER KEY BOATYARD EVICTIONS POSSIBLE FUNDING OF FACILITIES FROM SPORTS AUTHORITY —DADE COUNTY IS HOLDING UP SIGNING OF MARITIME INTERLOCAL CRA INT RI-OCAL EXPANSION OF PORT OF MIAMI / MSEA MONIES DUE— CITY SHOULD PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION TO PORT OF MIAMI AND KEY BISCAYNE— DISCUSSION 17. POLICE: PROPOSES 7% BUDGET CUT — STOP DISCUSSION 72-90 HAVING SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS BY 12/5/96 1/1/97 — CONSIDER IMPS MPORTING — FOR REPORTS OF STOLEN VEHICLES — FREEZE HIRING AND PROMOTIONS. 18. PUBLIC WORKS: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT — DISCUSSION 90-92 DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 19. FIRE -RESCUE: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT — DISCUSSION 92-95 DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 20. SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS: ROUSE DISCUSSION 95-98 COMPANY CON IRA CT REVENUES SHOULD BE 12/5/96 HIGHER — DISCUSSION. r. 21. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: DISCUSSION 99 DISCUSSION. 12/5/96 i; F �-i ' 22. N.E.T.: CONSOLIDATE 5 NET OFFICES/ DISCUSSION 99-110 PROJECT SAVINGS- DIRECT COMMUNITY 12/5/96 DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD TO PRIORITIZE FUNDS/ SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO BE PAID ON AGENDA TO COST REDUCING ITEMS - DISCUSSION 23. SOLID WASTE: DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 110-117 12/5/96 24. PARKS AND RECREATION: PROPOSES A 6% DISCUSSION 117-125 REDUCTION - FIND VOLUNTEER 12/5/96 ORCIANIZATIONS THAT MAY WANT TO SPONSOR SWIMMING POOLS AT PARKS - DISCUSSION - CONTINUE WORKSHOP ON SATURDAY, 12/7/96 AT 10:00 A.M. MINUTES OF SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BUDGET STRATEGY WORKSHOP On the 5th day of December, 1996, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in special session. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Joe Carollo with the following members of the Commission found to be present: ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Joe Carollo Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Humberto Hernandez Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Edward Marquez, City Manager A. Quinn Jones, II1, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mayor Carollo who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. (A) CITY MANAGER EDWARD MARQUEZ EXPLAINS FORMAT OF WORKSHOP -- MANAGER INFORMS COMMISSION ABOUT CHAPTER 218 INVOKED BY STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE APPOINTMENT AND ROLE OF STATE'S FINANCIAL EMERGENCY OVERSIGHT BOARD. (B) FIRE DISTRICT FEES PILOT / DISCUSSION -- IMPLEMENT STREET CLEANING FEE / DISCUSSION. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, before we begin this Commission workshop today, I'd like for you to begin making the presentation to us of what we have done up to now as a body to cut costs or to find new revenues. At the same time, if - please feel free to proceed in whichever way you would like to have this Commission begin and then follow the workshop today. This is your call. You're our Manager. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to thank the Commission for allowing the Administration this time to discuss our fiscal finance... our fiscal 1 December 5, 1996 Ma E Fi situation. This is, in my opinion, this is the only vehicle that we have to handle such a complex issue as our financial situation. I will... The Administration needs your input, and we, also, as an Administration, it's important for us to put the facts on the table. Now, what I would like to do today is to go through... basically to have five of the reports, line by line, and talk about the cuts being proposed, what do they mean. If there's any question of any Commissioner or the Mayor may have, just ask. The staff is here to discuss their particular budgets and options that are available. Now, a lot has happened in the last couple of months. The - you hired - you retained the services of Merrett Stierheim. He brought in a group of prominent experts, both private sector and... private and public, to come in and develop a strategic plan, in order to address the City's financial woes. The first thing that came about through that process was an identification of the problem, which is always the first step. The task force found that the City of Miami does, indeed, have a real financial emergency. In this fiscal year's budget, there's anticipated to be a shortfall of about sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000). On a cash flow basis, the general fund will run out of cash more or less around the March time frame, March/April time frame. If we start digging into restricted cash from our capital projects fund, we may be able to extend that out to July. But these are - this is what the staff has been calling "the wall." This is what we face, without any major changes from the way things were proposed coming into this fiscal year. Now, the Commission has taken action. Like, the first thing that you've done, like I said, is retained Stierheim's services. And you've invited him to bring in the world to examine the City of Miami operations. Now, this report that he has, this strategic financial recovery plan is the final work product of that task force. And it's basically in two parts on this. There's a number five up in front, the Tab 5, which talks in detail of the... talks about the detailed actions that must... that should occur in order to address the financial recovery of the City, and it covers a two-year period of time. The balance of the report is the reports of the individual task forces sent out to the departments. And in there, there's a wealth of... you couldn't pay for this. I mean, we couldn't afford this type of consulting service. There's a wealth of managerial ideas to be implemented in order to make... to keep the City healthy out into the future. And some of those are revenue -producing ideas, but it's ideas that require a lot of work. And therefore, those revenues and future cost reductions are not incorporated in the first two years. As you all know, the State of Florida has invoked Chapter 2-18. I formally notified them a couple of days ago, because it became apparent that they were going to invoke it. It also became apparent that, you know, even though we don't have final accounting numbers, we are going to recognize a deficit for Fiscal '96, and that would have met the criteria of Chapter 2-18. Now, the bottom line on Chapter 2-18 is that the Governor is going to appoint this financial emergency board, oversight board. His due date for his appointments is December 13th. Now, that board is going to be out there. And they're going to have all sorts of subcommittees reporting to them, offering the board technical advice. Those same subcommittees are going to be offering the City technical advice, which is one of the major benefits of Chapter 2-18. 1 can't... In fact, since I've got all my staff here now, I want to instruct every department director and every division head, if there is technical advice that you need that would enhance our operations, either revenue enhancements or expenditure reductions, please outline that, and I'll incorporate that in a formal package that I'll send up to the State. I gave them a laundry list of things off the top of my head, but we need the detail. The one that comes to mind fastest is the land inventory. You know, our land records, our property holdings are in disarray, and we need technical advice to work them into something, so that we have a set of records that we can do something with, that we can either lease our property, or sell the excess properties, so we know where we're at. There's a number of such items of technical advice that we can get from the State, and they're offering it. And I'm going to, to the extent that I can, I'm going to use it. The functionings of this financial emergency oversight board - and I'm just f going to call it the oversight board from here on out - is going to be reviewing what plan this Commission puts together to solve the fiscal ills of the City. Right now, we have a plan that's been produced by a set... a task force. I personally think it's an excellent plan, because it's taken a lot of... It's based on a lot of review of the City operations. It's based on a review of what can be done quickly, what can't be done quickly. And it's attempt here was not to reduce service s 2 December 5, 1996 deliveries greatly to the public and try to share the pain amongst different groups. However, this is only one plan. Now, for sake of going forward, I'm going to ask you to think of this as the base line plan. If you want to change it, we can change it. It's totally... You know, you've got the final word on all of this. But if we take something out, we've got to put something in, because when all is said and done, we have to have the same type of total revenue and expense mixture in order to solve the fiscal crisis that we're in. During the course of today... Again, I'm going to go... Let me get back to the oversight board. The oversight board that the Governor is appointing will approve whatever plan this Commission comes up with if they... They're going to be reviewing it for fiscal sufficiency. If they feel that the plan, as adopted, will not solve the fiscal crisis, they're going to kick back the plan to us. Then we're going to have to rework it and offer an amended plan. And that goes back and forth until, hopefully, we arrive at a plan that the oversight board agrees is fiscally doable, and a plan that the City Commission is happy with. Now, when the City Commission adopts a plan, it should understand that every element in the plan, it is saying... that the Commission is saying that every element of the plan is OIL with them, that they plan on implementing each and every one of those elements. Now, let me just say that you're saying today that it's your full expectation that you're going to implement everything, but things do change. We may find... go into, when we start implementing the plan and find that aspects are not doable for any number of reasons, or we may find that there are better ways of doing things, less painful ways of doing things. We can always amend the plan with the financial oversight board. I'm sure they'll be quite amenable to better ideas. They will definitely be amenable, if we run into legal roadblocks. But however we amend the plan going forward, it has to be revenue -neutral, and it... the plan amendment must also be accepted by the oversight board. Now, the press has concentrated on... at least with their question to me, they've been concentrating on, well, what if the Commission and the oversight board can't agree on something? What happens then? Well, the Governor's Office has always had powers over elected officials, and those powers remain intact throughout this process. The... What my response to the press has been is that I figure that reasonable people can arrive at reasonable solutions to complex issues when the need arises, and the need is arising right now. So I fully expect that we collectively will be able to come up with something that will be acceptable to the oversight board. Finally... and then I'll get off of this and turn it over to you but, before we go into the detail during the course of today, as we talk about the detail - and you all ask questions about it, and we explore the options... and I hope, I fully hope this is going to be a calm and reasoned approach to the problem today. I'm going to be. more vocal than I hope that I ever will be in the future. I'm going to come in and ask staff to come up and clarify items. Because what is, to me, as the City Manager, the most important thing is that the facts get on the table, everything is discussed, and everything that's relevant to a decision is up here for your consideration. If any one of us makes, including... and let me forewarn my staff. If I say something that's not quite right, jump up and correct me, because I don't know everything. I'm still new at the City here. The important thing is to get the facts on the table. And I'm going to ask them to make sure that the Administration's perspective is stated. Now, if our perspective is incorrect, please correct us, and we'll arrive at a consensus of perspective on any given item that we're talking about. That's it for an overview, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Manager. Before we proceed, if I could get a reading from the Commission as to what time we're working with here today that all of you might have at your disposal. Commissioner Gort: I've got all morning, and all the time that's necessary to do... What I'd like, if possible, Mayor, is try to establish some procedures so we won't take all day. Mayor Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Gort: What I would like to see, if my colleagues agree with me, is let them make the presentations. Whatever questions that we have, write it down, and at the end of the 3 December 5, 1996 r presentation, ask our questions. Because a lot of times, when we interrupt, they lose their thoughts, and it takes a lot longer. So if we could do that procedure. At the same time, I would like the Manager to state what has been done so far, what actions have we taken, and how much that has saved already by the actions that we have taken. I think it's important to let the people know that we have taken action. Mayor Carollo: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think both suggestions are very key. And I think once we begin, we should begin by the Manager a going over on what we have done so far. And there has been quite a bit that's been done so far. I also agree with you, Commissioner, that the best way to proceed would be for them to go point by point, we make notes, and then we ask questions. Let me go back and check with the other side of the dais to see how your schedules will be today. Vice Mayor Regalado: Fine. Can we break at noon, if we have to come back, or around noon? Mayor Carollo: Normally, that's what we would do, Commissioner. Very good. What I would suggest we do is we try to go and try to do as much as we can today. I would suggest to the Commission that we consider coming back for some time also on Monday on this workshop, because this is too much that we have to look at. I think that even after today, we need to go back and look at other numbers ourselves, confirm, reconfirm different items that we have gone over with here today, look at even other ideas, and it would be good to extend the workshop until next week. So I will recommend, depending on how everybody's schedule will be, to also come back on Monday. Commissioner Plummer: I can tell you right now, I have a speaking engagement Monday. I cannot do it. Mayor Carollo: OK. All day, J.L., or... Commissioner Plummer: It's in the afternoon. Mayor Carollo: OK. Would it be possible Monday morning, also, to come back? Commissioner Plummer: Monday morning, I can probably make it after ten o'clock. You want to consider a Saturday meeting? And then we don't have to... Commissioner Gort: This Saturday? Yeah. Mayor Carollo: Well, we could. What I was hoping we could do, too, is to have some time in between so we could digest a lot of this. Commissioner Plummer: Well, the only reason I... Mayor Carollo: What I'm going to be suggesting later on is that... going about things a little different than maybe we have. I'm going to maybe... I'm going to ask the Commission to break up into different assignments, where each of the members of the Commission would deal directly to get as much information as they can with different departments, different department heads, and then we bring it back to the Commission as a whole, and try to accomplish a lot more that way, and try to get more information, instead of each of us trying to do the same task or get the same information from each department. Commissioner Plummer: My schedule right now, I could definitely make it on Tuesday. Mayor Carollo: On Tuesday? OK. How about the rest of the Commission? 4 December 5, 1996 ti Commissioner Plummer: I'm open on Tuesday. Commissioner Gort: I'm out. I'm going to be out Monday, Tuesday, and I'll be back Wednesday at one o'clock. I'm going on a business trip. But Saturday would be fine with me. I can come Saturday. But nevertheless, whatever meeting you have, more or less, if I know what you're going to be dealing with, I'll have some written questions, if they have any questions. Because I read this, and I've gone through this, and I'll leave it here, and I can always watch the tape later. Mayor Carollo: All right. Well, why don't we do this. Why don't we deal with that aspect but... if we come on Saturday or not, or at the beginning of next week, towards the end of today's meeting. And then we will proceed with that aspect of it. Commissioner Plummer: You're speaking this Saturday. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, exactly. Of course. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. That way, we don't stop the City, because if we look around, what we see here in the audience, it's all the City people, and we've basically, technically, stopped the City from operating today. So let's do it on a Saturday where it doesn't cost anything. Mayor Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: If we're going to do it on a Saturday, which is OK with me, we have to do it in the morning. They... The Mayor has agreed that a group of historians will commemorate Antonio Maceo's death in the afternoon. They did that here last year, and that will be at three o'clock. So it's OK with me, starting any time in the morning. Mayor Carollo: OK. The morning would be the appropriate time if we do it on Saturday. i Commissioner Regalado: Also, Mayor... Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: ... and members of the Commission, I spoke to the Manager yesterday, and that... the idea that he has about specific areas. And I told him that it would be good for each member of the Commission to... maybe using the lottery system, pick up some departments and supervise what is being done in these departments in the next 60 days, not for a longer term as they have in the County, but just for a period of time to have each Commissioner and the Mayor to supervise one or two or three departments, as many departments as we have, to give it to each Commissioner. And I'm sure that then we can concentrate in the business of that department, and understand what is going on. Mayor Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification, I believe the Commissioners were talking about review, oversight, understanding of a department. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Right. Mr. Marquez: Basically, forming a full knowledge of a department, so that one Commissioner can come back and offer policy suggestions to the Commission. 5 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: Right. Mr. Marquez: Supervision is going to stay with the administrators. Commissioner Regalado: Well, "supervision" is not the word, but just oversight. Yeah. Mayor Carollo: The other area that I would like to put in the forefront right away is that I think that the study that's been done here, the strategic recovery plan, is the best tool that we have had in a long, long time. I think that the bulk, but not all of what we would need to implement is here. There are some things here, obviously, that this Commission would disagree with, and that's normal. But at the same time, it's a tool which overall will be followed. A lot of what was placed in here was discussed with many members of the Commission, while the different task forces came to Miami to help us with it. But at the same time, as we proceed today, one thing that I think we have to keep in mind is the following: That there is no one solution to the recovery plan. It's a mix of many, many solutions. By the time we're done, we're probably putting well over 100 different solutions, some that will maybe bring in ten, twenty, thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), either in additional revenues or in cuts, and some will be multimillion dollar savings that we will have, or new revenue that will be brought in. So there is no one solution that is going to be the one thing that will bring the "manna from heaven", the so- called sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000) that we need for this fiscal year. There are, however, two main pillars to this recovery plan, the two main pillars for the recurring revenues that we need. And the key here, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of what we find has to be recurring revenue, for the simple fact that we're going to be needing, at the very least, fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) of recurring revenue. And to be on the safe side and to have some reserves, we really need to be looking at bringing in some sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) of recurring revenue a year. But fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is a must in recurring revenue. The two pillars that we have for the recurring revenue... One, obviously, we don't need to get into it now, because we'll be getting into it in enough occasions, is concessions from City unions, together with concessions from the pension funds of those unions. That's one of the main pillars. But the other main pillar is the fire fee that we have been discussing to come into effect the next fiscal year. And that's a twenty to twenty-four million dollar ($24,000,000) nut of new revenue that we will be bringing in. The way we've been working at doing this would be that we would take some millage out of the normal millage rate that we will have, and then we will create the separate fire fee, where it is our intention to include approximately a third of our overall assessment of properties that right now is not paying any taxes. We're talking about a lot of nonprofits, we're talking about many of the governmental agencies, State, Federal, County, that have many, many offices and assets in the City of Miami. The only thing that we're excluding out of that are houses of worship. Commissioner Plummer: We have another big item there, Joe. The other item that you can't eliminate is the twenty-five thousand homestead exemption. Mayor Carollo: Well, of course. No. Commissioner Plummer: That and the churches. Mayor Carollo: That's State law, J.L. I mean that... Commissioner Plummer: Well, the other point is where it's going to be definitive, is, in fact... let's use the religious aspect of it. Where it is actually a church, we would never touch it, I'm sure. Mayor Carollo: Of course. And I stated that. 6 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: But what about churches that have other things going for them? Mayor Carollo: Well, I didn't say that. That's why I only said "houses of worship." Commissioner Plummer: Well, OK. That's... That's where it's got to clear up. Mayor Carollo: That's why I've only said, "houses of worship." And if people don't... think that that was an easy decision that this Commission took the first steps on already, then you better think twice. That's probably the most difficult decision that we have had to make in this whole recovery plan. The reason I'm bringing those two main pillars out is that without both of those being in place, or being realistical in the amount of actual savings that we will have, then we really start running into major problems in moving ahead, unless we find other recurring revenues that's going to have to be major. The fire fee, if we, for any reason, fall short a significant amount of dollars, or if we're tied up in other problems with it, then that's a real problem. It's not like some of the other things that might be here that we might be able to find other solutions for it, do trade-offs, that would be a major roadblock. So in essence, what I'm saying is that we not only have to look at trying to implement as much as we possibly can that's realistical in implementing from this plan, which has been a very good plan... Merrett did an excellent job, not only in putting this together, but in bringing the quality of people, the expertise that he brought together to put this together. But at the same time, we have to be sure that whatever is approved are real numbers, solid numbers that we're going to have in true savings or in new revenues that will be coming to the City. Because the last thing that we need to do is approve a plan that conceptually, on paper, the numbers are there, but realistically, the numbers might not be there or won't be there once the bulk of this starts being implemented. So... Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, I absolutely agree with you, that we have to have realistic numbers in any plan that we adopt, especially since that plan is going to be reviewed by an oversight board who is going to look for exactly that, realistic numbers, realistic future revenues. Now, regarding the fire fee, in particular, what we have in here is an estimate. Right now, we are in the process of having a consultant work up a more firm, realistic number. We think this number is good. And I can have Carlos explain to you the overall rationale for this particular number. However, the proof is always in the pudding, when we ultimately assess it, because there's a lot of business decisions that this Commission will have to make in the process of determining how the fire district fee is going to be imposed. There's been some discussion about not having it apply to residents. There's been some discussion of excluding certain types of properties, and all that's going to have to be figured in. So whatever we come up with, with a consultant, it's only our best estimate right now. We have time to work with it, though. It doesn't have to be very con... It should be realistic. We think it should be doable. It ought to be... make sure - and the State will do this - make sure that it's legally possible before they will accept the plan. But it doesn't have to be absolutely set at this point in time, because there's going to be a lot of work. This... Mayor Carollo: Of course. I'm not... Mr. Marquez: The twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000) is next year's problem, as far as I'm concerned. Mayor Carollo: I'm not asking, you know, for us to go into that now. I'm making a statement of the policies that we will be working from, and those are the two main pillers that we will be bringing in dollars with. There will be many others, but those are two key ones that we have to deal with in moving ahead. But having said all that, why don't we go ahead and... Commissioner, go ahead. 7 December 5, 1996 [i Commissioner Plummer: Let me tell you that with Ana Proenza and Mikki Canton, and the Florida League of Cities, who suddenly like this idea about tax-exempt property, it's now spreading across the State of Florida. We worked last year, and we were successful in getting a study done by the legislature and the funding for it. I have had conversations already with Ron Silver. And what we need, of course, is a very definitive definition of what constitutes public purpose. And that's where we have had, for two years, a P.I.L.O.T. Committee, which is Payment in Lieu of Taxes, that, in fact, we are working on, and became stalemated to the fact that "public purpose" was not properly defined. You have a great number of people, companies that are tax-free today that are profit -making companies, and that's where we, of course, open the door. Some of those, by the way, it's interesting, have already come and said they would like to sit down and talk about paying a fee. And I think that that's very interesting. But more importantly, through the Florida League of Cities, with the information disseminating out, other cities are now wanting to get on the same band wagon, because they have a problem... not as much as ourselves, because about 31 percent of our assessable base is tax-exempt. And I think that that's one of the areas that we need to move. And I do plan on spending a great deal of time trying to get that wording changed this particular year, just for your information. Mayor Carollo: OK. Mr. Manager, can we proceed? Mr. Marquez: Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: OK, thank you. Mr. Marquez: Before I take you into Page 1 of Tab 5, one of the things that we have done or are in the process of doing is we've... as directed by this Commission, we're doing sweeps right now. And I just want Carlos to give you a quick update. We're going to be giving you all periodic updates as... every couple days between now and the 12th. Chief Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we established a task force, a pair of task forces that are looking into two different areas. One is the area of the certificate of use and occupational license issue with businesses, and the other one is the area of the garbage fee, and the number of accounts that we have in that area. We have better information on the CU and the OL than we do on the garbage at this time. We're still compiling that information. The information I'm giving you is up to date. On certificates of use, we have... the task forces have inspected 413 businesses. Of that, we have found 47 that were not on our records. So it's a total of about 12 to 15 percent. We have collected cash in hand on two... a little bit over two days of work, thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000). We have another fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) in collectibles. So it's fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) at this time. We're going to have this as an up to date figure, and come back next Thursday, and give you better numbers on that. As far as the garbage sweeps are concerned, we have inspectors going house by house, and we're looking for two things. We are verifying that, in fact, a particular address is in the system, and it's, in fact, getting some kind of a garbage fee, if it, in fact, is one of our customers. And also, we're verifying the number of units in that particular property. There's two different problems here. We know that we have 50,0000 properties that we bill, and approximately 62,000 units. And what I'm talking about a unit is, a property might have more than one unit. And we bill per unit. We might have a problem, and I'll give you better information on Thursday as to what... if we are not... if we're short on units, and if we're short on properties. And so far, it looks like we have a problem, but I can't give you a definite answer as to the degree of that problem at this time yet. Mayor Carollo: Well, when you're saying, Chief, "a problem," what are you referring to, as far as a problem? Chief Gimenez: There... Very preliminary indications are that there are some properties that are not in our system. That means they're not getting any bills. And also, that some of the r. r 8 December 5, 1996 r properties are not being billed the correct amount of units. And that's very preliminary, and we have to verify that. I don't want to give you any kind of figures that might not be true. But we should have a better handle on this come Thursday. And also, we are starting in certain areas of the City, and one area of the City might not be indicative of the entire scope of the City. The garbage sweeps, which we call, that started in Coconut Grove. And the CU and OL sweeps are starting in downtown. So we still need some more time for these sweeps to start spreading out over the City in order to get, you know, a percentage basis number for you that's real throughout the City. Commissioner Plummer: Wouldn't it be an easy thing to go to electric meters and water meters, to make a determination? Chief Gimenez: Right. Commissioner Plummer: All right. What about the other area, where people are using commercial haulers to take their garbage, but not their trash? Chief Gimenez: Well... Commissioner Plummer: Especially in the condominiums. Chief Gimenez: What we're doing with the commercial, on the commercial side, is on top of our inspectors that are doing the CUs and the OLs, they're also verifying that the business has, in fact, a contract with a commercial hauler, and that they have the right amount of dumpsters for that particular establishment. Commissioner Plummer: No, that's not my point. My point is, they have private dumpsters. They pick up the garbage, but we still are picking up the trash. And there was many times proposed that a fee be charged for that service that is not being charged. Mr. Marquez: Yeah. And Ron Williams will address this issue. Mr. Ron Williams (Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, that is really an issue of enforcement, because the Code requires that if a private condominium association contracts with a private hauler, that service should be provided in all phases, even up to recycling. That, in fact, we have to enforce to make sure that it happens. Commissioner Plummer: Well, it's definitely a matter, because I can tell you, there are a lot of them out there that don't. They put their trash out on the street for the City to pick up. Mr. Marquez: Commissioner Plummer, for my education, is there something that you think that we need to have a Code change on, and authorize a separate fee for this? Commissioner Plummer: I think it's a matter of enforcement, that's all it is. Mr. Williams: It's an enforcement issue. Commissioner Plummer: Strictly a matter of enforcement. Commissioner Regalado: One of the problems that we have, Chief and Ron, is that some neighbors, a lot of them, are complaining about the fact that these commercial entities drop trash in front of their houses, or maybe between their houses and the business. And then our trucks go by and they don't pick up this trash. So they feel that the trash, it's part of their residence, and they're not being served. 9 December 5, 1996 Mr. Marquez: All right. What we're touching on right now is managerial issues on how to best manage the Solid Waste Department, and we're more... We're getting into the areas of the task force reports in the back of what we can do and what we can't do, as far as stretching the department to be more efficient in nature. One of the things that the City does is we do sweeps of trash. That makes it easy for businesses to put their trash outside, in front of someone's house, and we'll pick it up, because we can't tell the difference as the trucks go by. Maybe there's another way of doing that, and that's something that we will be checking into. And I don't think we're prepared at this point in time to really get into the operational issues of the department. As your City Manager, I know... And I will be happy to get any input from the City Commission as to what you perceive as problems. I'll combine that with the problems being identified within this task force report, and then we will take sectors of the City Administration and review it. And Solid Waste happens to be one of the ones on top of my list. With time, we'll be able to address it. Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask you another question. Is there any way in what you're doing, in making a determination where the fee that presently is charged, or the fee is for a family, per family? We know, without question, there are many residences, single-family, in which there are two and three families living. Now, what are you doing about per family fee, or is there anything you can do? I'm just asking that question. Chief Gimenez: I'm not sure there's anything, really, you can do. If you have two families living in a single-family home, and it has every indication of being just a single-family home, that we can go and say, well, you have two families there. You're going to pay, you know, a two-family fee. We charge a per unit fee. Mr. Marquez: One of the things that other cities do is they charge by bag of garbage. The City sells to the public bags of garbage, and there's a fee that's paid at the time that the family buys it. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, it's a nightmare. You come from the County, and let me give you what happens, because I'm the example. They allowed me, in the County, to have two bags of garbage in front of my place of business. I suddenly started getting bills from the County for extra bags of garbage, and we did not generate more than what we were allowed. And even though residential can put as many bags out of garbage as they want, they didn't want the mess in front of their house, so they brought it over to my place of business to get it out from in front of their house. And I was getting charged for it, where if they had left it at their house, there was no charge for it. Chief Gimenez: The example that I was citing was the... In Plantation, what they do is, you buy garbage bags that have a City seal on it and you... The City will only pick up garbage bags that have a City seal on it. So somebody wants to dump a garbage on top... on your property, you wouldn't be paying any more. They'd still be paying for the garbage bag with the City seal on it. And then they determine what the disposal and a per -bag cost is, and that's how they divvy up the... Mr. Marquez: We are not recommending this. All this is right here is a discussion of other things that you can do. And that is why I think it's necessary to get into the department with a multiple set of people looking at it at one time to come up with a solution, and then bring back to the board for a policy determination at that time. Mayor Carollo: Before Commissioner speaks and then Commissioner Hernandez, they both want to speak on this issue, let me just say this. That no matter what changes we make in the procedure, changes have to be made, including we're going to have to cut back on picking up every week the trash. That's one area that we could save money by going about that. But if we 10 December 5, 1996 are going to implement anything that's going to save money, it has to go hand in hand with having real enforcement. And that's part of the problem that we have out there. We don't have the enforcement. We have the people, but we don't have the enforcement. So that's a management problem, as I see it. Commissioner Gort. ti Commissioner Gort: Definitely, I think trash is being abused. And we can see in the percentage compared to other cities. I think the department should really look into maybe one pick up a month, or maybe designated areas where people can take it, and we can verify that it was City residents. Because there is a lot of abuse in the City trash. We're too good in the trash, so we've been abused quite a bit. The second thing is, and we're all aware of it, you've got certain neighborhoods with at least 50 to 60 percent of the single-family homes, they're not longer single-family homes. They've been converted to two, and three, and so on. I think we need to... and I said it about two and -a -half years ago. We need to look at this and have the plan where we can... If we're going to allow them to stay there, if the neighborhood accepts it, they want to keep it that way, to legalize it, but let them pay for it. Mr. Marquez: That's part of the... That's one of the main tasks of this task force, yes. Commissioner Gort: That's part of what the task force can do. Thank you. Commissioner Hernandez: Chief, my question really is for Ron. Ron, a couple of years ago, the City Commission passed an ordinance on street cleaning fees, which I believe has never been implemented. Part of the problem, and I think most of the problem, when we deal with solid waste in the City of Miami, it was my experience that enforcement was a problem. And Commissioner Plummer alluded to the fact that... what's going on in the residential areas, as well as the commercial areas. I remember in downtown Miami, and I assume this is still going on, after hours, when you would drive by downtown, about eight o'clock at night, the private haulers had already gone by, picked up the containers that they... two yarders and what have you that are out there, and then the City of Miami, late that morning, two, three, four in the morning, would come by and pick up the excess that was left out on the street. And we, obviously, were not passing the cost to the commercial establishments. I was wondering, one, why hasn't that street cleaning fee been implemented? Because the ordinance does exist, and I think that's definitely a revenue maker for the City of Miami. We're talking millions of dollars. And that's my first question, if you have an answer. If not, I'd like you guys to get into that. I think we must implement this street cleaning fee. Second of all, I was... I wanted to ask, to touch off on the private waste haulers, and the franchise fee, I believe, is still six percent to the City of Miami. Mayor Carollo: No. Fifteen percent. Commissioner Hernandez: Fifteen percent? Mayor Carollo: Fifteen percent. Commissioner Hernandez: OK. At which point, I remember having to sue several of the private waste haulers, one of them which we came up with approximately three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) on a settlement of that lawsuit. We've had major problems in the past with Finance, auditing. If we don't audit, they don't pay what they're supposed to pay. And I remember that lawsuit reaped a lot of benefits, because, like in the case of towing contracts and the towing companies, the monies were not being received unless we were enforcing what they were supposed to pay by way of franchise fee or what have you. I'd like an answer to the implementation of this ordinance - the street cleaning fee, and what the department is doing about that, and what's going on with that. 11 December 5, 1996 Mr. Marquez: All right. Ron will answer to the street cleaning fee item, and then I have Elliott Preinnee from the Internal Audit group that can perhaps touch upon the audit of the private haulers. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. And if I could touch upon, once Ron talks about the sweeping of the streets, on several areas that I think that we need to clarify. Thanks to the information that I've gotten from some very dedicated employees, it's been clarified for me, and information that was erroneously given to the task force that was doing the solid waste audit for information they were 4 compiling. One of the areas... Well, you go ahead, Ron. Address the street sweeping situation, the ordinance. Mr. Williams Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Hernandez. As I understand that, and I certainly would like my colleagues who also worked on that to comment, if I don't recall it quite correctly, that fee was implemented. Certainly, there were public hearings on it. The ordinance was adopted, and I believe at that point, the Commission decided to delay or not implement enforcement of that fee. There were issues of concern about the fairness of the per square foot configuration, et cetera. So it is my understanding that, in fact, that the Commission asked that to be delayed. But I certainly will defer to any of my staff members... I mean my colleagues that remember differently. { Mr. Marquez: Commissioner Hernandez, what we can do is we'll issue... We'll come up with a { - report for the next Commission meeting, talking about what... how we can get back to enforcing this. We're dialing for dollars. We'll go for anything at this point. Commissioner Hernandez: It's never been implemented. Mr. Williams: Correct. Commissioner Hernandez: So we're talking millions of dollars there. Mr. Marquez: OK. Commissioner Plummer: I can give you a little bit of background, and that is, at the same time, there was also a sidewalk cleaning fee that was part and parcel of it. And the merchants came in here and screamed and hollered, as well as the condominium owners, and that was the reason at that time it was not implemented. { Mr. Williams: With regards to sort of the second part of your question, Commissioner, the private haulers, downtown, as you well know, you know, do monitor or have most of those contracts. Our responsibility down there, as you know, is to... is the mechanical street sweeping, which we perform every night, and it clearly is the reason downtown stays as clean as it appears. The difficulty that we continue to work through in relationship to private haulers is that we have responsibility for those litter containers. And as you know, the roving cart merchants down there sometimes use those. When we come through to do our part of that, meaning cleaning our right- of-way, emptying the litter containers, they often overflow because of stuffing from other areas. So certainly, when there is material in our right-of-way there, anywhere in proximity of our litter containers, for the beautification of our City, we... our employees appropriately clean it. Commissioner Hernandez: But the bottom line is we're not receiving anything in return, are we? Mr. Williams: Well, the... not from the merchants. I mean, not from those facilities or buildings, directly. The benefit that we receive is, as part of our litter container program, we keep the right-of-way clean. i12 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Hernandez: OK. Mayor Carollo: The area in the solid waste oddities in billing not only through private waste haulers but to residential units themselves, I need to clarify this. It's a clarification that is only fair to make. But what I would suggest is that every department head and assistant department head go over, truly go over the strategic financial recovery plan, and particularly to the area that is referring to each of your departments. Because if there is information in this report that is not accurate, you need to inform this Commission and the Manager of areas that might have been included in the report that is not accurate. Granted, we have to keep in mind that these were top notch professionals that were short on time, that they came here to do a job as quickly as time permitted it. So they... because of that, there were areas that they might have missed. But there's also many areas that they weren't given the information on, or were given the erroneous 1 information. And if that's the case, the department heads should not have let that stand, like if it was written in stone. If it's not accurate, you all should have stood up and said, this area is not accurate, and so informed all of us on there. So if each of you can look at the areas that pertain to your departments in particular, and advise us if there is anything there that is not accurate that's been put down, as far as information, and at the same time, it might give you some ideas of what additional things that you could do, based upon what they're telling you, that you might think up that is not here, or that someone else hasn't come up with. But let me go to the areas that need to be clarified. And the report basically stated that there had been no verification as to the estimate that we have of the units that we bill, as to the actual number of bills that we mail semiannually, or as to the number of bills that are actually paid. Apparently, from what I understand, this is the information they got from Solid Waste. But going through other departments, I have been able to receive the information that we do have, like we should. And it was very surprising to me, you know, what I read here. Almost unbelievable that we do have verification as to how many people we're billing, and how many people are paying. So, you lknow, I need to get that out in the open. Second of all, as far as the... Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, we welcome the opportunity. We have those numbers right now, for the record, if you want to hear them at this time before you go on. Mayor Carollo: Well, it doesn't matter to hear it or not. I mean, I think the information should be sent to each member of the Commission, so they could look at it and digest it. But the clarification needed to be made. That's why I'm making it. At the same time, I believe we have some 29 private waste haulers in the City of Miami. That's the accurate amount, I believe, 29 exactly that we have. There has been a procedure that was established, and I believe it's a procedure that was established after you left the Law Department here. And, you know, the point that you made was the one that I've been making. There was a lot of money out there. And I still believe that there is, you know. So we're in agreement on that, from private waste haulers. We have a better procedure than was there before. Like... again, the information that we received from one part of the City, as far as what we're doing with private waste haulers. They are giving the City certain information on a monthly basis, and we do, do some audits. As far as the quality of the audits and how often we do them, I think that deserves to be looked at and discussed, and tightened up a lot more, because I think we're still going to find mistakes that are going to amount to major dollars to the City in revenue. Plus, I think we need to look at the fact of possibly going back, years back. But those areas, I think, you know, needed to be clarified for the benefit of the Solid Waste Department and the benefit of the City. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, first of all, your comment about any corrections that need to be made to the report, that's an excellent comment. I request... I formally instruct all department directors to route their written comments of corrections to my office ASAP (as soon as possible), so I can put them into one report to the Commission. Commissioner Plummer: Are you indicating to me that the department heads have not had the opportunity to go over this report? Because if... if they haven't, why are we here? 13 December 5, 1996 Mr. Marquez: No, sir. That's not what I'm... Commissioner Plummer: I would assume the day we received these that all department heads received these, and they've had the opportunity to go over it. And I would assume they've also had the opportunity to say yes or no, that it's correct or not correct. Mr. Marquez: We're formalizing the last opportunity that you just mentioned. I want to make sure that everything is correct, and if it's not, that it gets reported to me, and then I forward it over to you. I don't expect that many corrections. Commissioner Plummer: Just for the record, I would have hoped the corrections would have been before today. So... I mean, just for the record. Mayor Carollo: Well, Commissioner, that's why I made the statement that I did, because it shouldn't have taken three weeks for me to have received the correct information that I did yesterday. And it didn't come from the heads of Solid Waste. So this is why I'm saying if there were some things here that, because for whatever reason, let's not put the blame anywhere, it was erroneous, then it should have been read the first day that they got the information, and we should have had the correct information immediately sent to us and everyone else. Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, for procedural purposes, this is something that I'd like to suggest. First, I would like the Manager to state what has been implemented already by the Administration by actions that we took, how much savings that has taken place already, and whatever action we have taken already. At the same time, I think we should go one by one, and let each department come in here... Mayor Carollo: Absolutely, Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: Go with the strategy and say, what has been implemented, what would not be feasibly implemented, and what would be the consequences of implementations of the plan in the community. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. And as we stated before, for all of us to make notes, and then hold questions to the end. I think we'll proceed a lot quicker that way. I think that the Manager wanted to go over these two particular areas before, and we would then begin with the rules that we discussed earlier that we would follow. Mr. Marquez: I was attempting to answer one of the questions, what have we done, and I brought in the sweep discussion, and it just kind of expanded a little bit. All right. Page 1, Tab 5. The first subtotal that you see there of five million dollars ($5,000,000) of expenditures reductions... Mayor Carollo: OK. What page are you reading from, Mr. Manager? Mr. Marquez: Tab 5 of the report, Page 1 of Tab 5. It's entitled "Strategic Financial Recovery Plan Funding Solution Matrix, Citywide Expenditure and Union -Related Reduction Recommendations." The first subtotal that you see, totalling five million-o-five-six for fiscal '97 has, in essence, been implemented, except for the item called "Eliminate stipend and health insurance for all City board members," because this needs a Code change, and we're currently working on that. Mayor Carollo: OK. It's all been implemented except? 14 December 5, 1996 Mr. Marquez: Yeah. The items just above that, eliminate four percent cost of living adjustment for nonunion employees, that says January 1st. But that... yeah, we're waiting till January 1st, because that's when it would have actually been paid out. But the policy directives have all been done. Carlos has one exception. My staff is going to come up and correct me wherever I'm wrong, so please... Mayor Carollo: Well, then that's understandable, Mr. Manager. So the estimated... Well, the four percent cost of living adjustment for nonunion employees, of course, that has not been implemented, because that would not have taken effect until January 1st. But... Mr. Marquez: Right. But there's another one. The City light fleet reductions, thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). That will take... Mayor Carollo: Which one now, Chief? Chief Gimenez: The second one down - City light fleet reductions, thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). That will taken effect once there's an option of the excess vehicles. Mr. Marquez: But we fully intend on doing that. Mayor Carollo: Right. And then you said the... Eliminate stipend and health insurance for all City board members. We need a Code change on that. Chief Rollason (Deputy Chief, FIre Rescue): There's another one, that when you drop down to the health insurance deductible, eliminate nonunion executive benefits. See that down there? About... drop down to the next... Mayor Carollo: Right, yeah. It's the third from the bottom up. Chief Rollason: Right. It shows ten dash four. with Cigna, it will become effective January 1 January 1, that will go into place. Mr. Marquez: But that dollar savings will... That has been initiated, but the contract we have We have instructed them to do that, and come Chief Rollason: The dollar savings will actually be about twenty-two thousand a year, rather than the eleven. We submitted the... Mayor Carollo: OK. So it will be a little more than anticipated here. Chief Rollason: Right. We submitted the twenty-two thousand. I think what happened, it got split, and that's what the reflection is there. Mayor Carollo: Right. All right, I see. But basically, what I'm seeing here is that with the exception of the insurance and stipends that will be eliminated, to City board members, which will need a City Code, and, of course, approval by this Commission, that the rest of that is basically just waiting for January 1st, because they would not have come into being till January 1st. So those could really be added here, already. The thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) that we would have a onetime adjustment in the City fleet reduction, that's an estimate. It might even be more than that. But, you know, that will happen, too, but we haven't sold it yet. Mr. Marquez: Angela has a comment on the City board. 15 December 5, 1996 Angela Bellamy (Assistant City Manager): Yes. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, there are six City boards that receive compensation. They are the Civil Service Board, Planning Advisory Board, Zoning Board, FICO Retirement Trust, GESE (General Employees and Sanitation Employees) Retirement Trust, and the Off -Street Parking Board. Of those six, two, by Charter, are designated to receive compensation. For Civil Service Board, it says that the salaries will be set by the Commission. That salary then could be reduced to a minimum amount of one dollar ($1) per year. And those board members also are allowed to participate in the insurance, group insurance program with the City. Currently, we pay... They pay 30 percent of the rate, and the City pays 70 percent. What we're recommending is that with the compensation reduced, they could be allowed to participate, but at 100 percent of the rate, so they'd pay all of the cost. Mayor Carollo: Sure. What would then be the real savings that we could have, if we would implement that, to the boards that we have a say-so in, that we would not be prevented from doing it by Charter? Ms. Bellamy: OK. I have calculated one hundred forty thousand eighty... I'm sorry. One hundred forty thousand eight hundred dollars ($140,800) for salaries. The insurance would be fifty-one thousand seven hundred eighty-five ($51,785). It will be a little higher. It would be a total of one hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred ninety-one dollars ($192,591). Commissioner Gort: So it's more than what is stated here. Ms. Bellamy: Yes. Commissioner Gort: OK. Good. Mayor Carollo: OK. So even so, with those two boards that we can't touch, the amounts that we're still coming to are higher than what was stated here. Ms. Bellamy: Right. Mayor Carollo: OK, in the recurrent. Commissioner Plummer: Question. Mayor Carollo: Now, this is for Fiscal Year '97, correct, Angela? Ms. Bellamy: Yes. It's for... Now, this is the total annualized cost, the one hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred ninety-one dollars ($192,591). Mayor Carollo: Right. Ms. Bellamy: So it would be one quarter of a reduction, because it would go into effect January 1st. We'd bring the ordinances to you at the next meeting, and then they... Mayor Carollo: OK. This is why, then, the figure that we have here, then, is correct. Ms. Bellamy: That's... Mayor Carollo: Because we're figuring on doing it in the next quarter, the hundred and forty- one thousand six hundred, approximately. Ms. Bellamy: Just a few thousand dollars. It's a little bit more. 16 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: Yeah, approximately. Yeah. For Fiscal Year '98, we had a hundred and eighty- eight thousand eight hundred. Actually, it's going to be a few thousand more, based on what you told me then. Ms. Bellamy: More, exactly, yes. Now, I just want to point out, with the Off -Street Parking Board. Commissioner Plummer: That's the one I was going to ask about. Ms. Bellamy: Yeah. There is... That is a Charter provision, and that specifically says how much they will receive per year. It's fifty dollars ($50) per year. So in order to change that, we would have to have a special election. That would be a hundred forty thousand. So it doesn't make sense. That... You pay two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per year for those members. Mayor Carollo: All right. Any other changes here that we have, Mr. Manager, except what we heard? Mr. Marquez: Not that I'm aware of, sir. Mayor Carollo: Thank you, Angela. I appreciate it. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 2. UNION CONCESSIONS: FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE (FOP) CONCESSIONS TO BE RATIFIED 12/20/96--LIUNA REPRESENTATIVE SPEAKS ON GARBAGE FEE AND PRIVATIZATION OF SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT/DISCUSSION Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Moving on. Getting to the union concessions items. First, Sue, if you would stand up nearby. Again, correct me wherever I'm wrong. With the LIUNA contract, we've negotiated... not negotiated. They've offered... We've discussed and they've offered, and we've agreed to concessions that total two hundred and thirty-three thousand five hundred dollars ($233,500) for Fiscal '97. Their contract terminates at the end of '97. Their attorney has, since that time... and stated reason is our discussions about privatization. Their attorney has sent us a letter basically withdrawing the concessions. We are of the opinion that the agreement has been reached and ratified by both parties, that any signatures that were... are a technicality at that point... at this point, and that LIUNA could file an unfair labor practice, but the City feels that it would prevail in this matter. In the discussions for privatization for '97, the board directed me to have staff develop an RFP (Request for Proposals) for that purpose, to see what privatization would entail, and with certain parameters set by the board. I fully intend on doing that. I fully intend on getting specific employee input, as well as union input in that process. The union and those two selected employees will know exactly what I'm up to as we're going forward in this process. Hopefully, we'll be in a position where, when we send out an RFP, the union, as an entity, could compete as well. The parameters for that RFP will come back to this board, and a policy grid at some point in the future, asking, you know, how far out in the future should we incorporate the cost to the citizens as a criteria item, putting in there for the first go around that all employees should be protected, or at least be retained by the winning firm at the current salary levels that they are, with the current benefits that they're receiving, and for what time period that will be into place, and then discussing what... how the board wants us to evaluate this particular RFP. So that's my intent on coming back to the board with this type of seeking of parameters for an RFP. And that's probably going to occur in the 17 December 5, 1996 A- 1i January/February time frame. The next items is AFSCME (American Federation of State, City and Municipal Employees). AFSCME has taken the vote, and these are the terms that we've agreed to. The City Commission has ratified this amount. Commissioner Plummer: Can I stop for one minute? Go back to the sanitation. Am I to understand at this particular point that the labor... excuse me. The lawyer for the union has withdrawn his... Where are we with that? Is that still active? You know, tell me where we are today with it. Sue Weller: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we received a letter from their attorney, as the Manager indicated, that due to the issue of privatization being brought up, or possibly pursued, that the LIUNA (Laborers' International Union of North America) bargaining unit has... or the attorney on behalf of the LIUNA bargaining unit had withdrawn their concessions. The fact is that we have... that we were informed by LIUNA that they had ratified the concessions, the City Commission ratified the concession, and the actual memorandum of understanding, which was ratified, as far as we're concerned, by both parties, although lacking a signature, we feel it's still in effect. The only thing that could possibly interfere with that, as far as we're concerned, would be the failure of the City to meet its obligations as specified under that memorandum of understanding. Now, they may try to file an unfair labor practice charge, but we feel we would prevail in that instance. Commissioner Plummer: OIL. So... A. Quinn Jones, III, Esq. (City Attorney): Well, let me... Mayor Carollo: Mr. City Attorney, can you give us your reading on that? Mr. Jones: Let me just shed something else on that, because... Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Jones: ... I mean, this is the first I'm hearing this. But I spoke directly with LIUNA's attorney, Mr. Slesnick (phonetic). And what he indicated to me as the basis for the withdrawal of the concessions was based on the fact that they were tied specifically to the City making certain concessions itself, in the nature of raising fees and the like. And because they did not feel that the City had demonstrated a good faith effort toward meeting those, that they were withdrawing the concessions. So, I mean, we can go... I don't know that. I mean, that's perhaps Labor Relations' opinion. I don't necessarily share in that opinion. I don't know that to be the case. If, in fact, it were, you know, were to happen, then we'd have to deal with it at that point. But I'm just telling you what I discussed with Mr. Slesnick, and that was the reason or that's the basis that they feel that they were within their right to withdraw the offer. Ms. Weller: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, yesterday afternoon, I discussed this issue with the City's outside labor counsel, and that's the conclusion that we had come in reviewing this issue, as I expressed. Mr. Marquez: We will bring the City Attorney's Office fully in line... I mean, not in line... fully brief... we'll brief them fully. We'll have the labor attorney talk directly to the attorney from the City Attorney's Office, and bring them up to speed. Mr. Mayor, for the purposes of discussion... Please, this is definitely a... I'm doing this as your City Manager, as my opportunity to get feedback and to discuss items. And although this is a publicly advertised hearing, I request that we don't hear from the public, unless if you choose to at a later point in time, because I really think it's important that we get through everything first, and then if you want to, you can hear from the public. 18 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: I fully agree with you, Mr. Manager. This is a Commission Workshop, that we need to go through a lot of information that we have before us that you're giving us, and it is in the best interest of moving forward that we should keep it just as a Commission workshop. Commissioner Plummer: Well, this gentleman standing here is a part of the union, so I would hope he could shed some light. Mayor Carollo: Well, Commissioner, I think we... Unidentified Speaker: Two minutes, two minutes, please? Mayor Carollo: Hold on for a minute. I think we need to establish a policy right now, if we're going to open it up to the public, whether it's union public or nonunion public. And let's set the guidelines, and, you know, let's let everybody speak that wants to speak, speak. But if it's a workshop, it's going to be a workshop for the Commission, and we need to establish guidelines. Are we going to have workshops, that we're going to get some work done and move forward, or not? I mean, this is an issue that, as I see it, it's an issue for the attorneys and their interpretation. We have to move forward, as we understand things to have been before. If they have changed, then the attorneys have to advise us what has changed there. But if we're going to be getting into a constant discussion on this issue and others from the public, from within, we're never going to get anything accomplished today. But, you know, it's up to the majority of this board on how they want to go about it. Commissioner Plummer: I'll play... I'll... excuse... Unidentified Speaker: You talking about one speaker? Mayor Carollo: Sir, excuse me. We're discussing this between ourselves. Commissioner Plummer: I'll play by any rules that we set. The only question that I had was that this gentleman is not a member of the public. I had asked a question about the union. Now, if you don't want to bring that up today, that's fine with me. We can deal with it on Saturday. But all I asked of the question was where we were at the present posture with this particular union. And I got their answer, and this gentleman can give me something in writing, or he can give me something on Saturday. But they'll have their opportunity to speak somewhere along the line. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Plummer: You want to limit it just to the Commission and that, that's fine with me, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: All right, Commissioner. If you feel that you've gotten enough so far, and that they'll have the opportunity to speak further down the line, then we'll proceed. But what we have to do is to establish some guidelines of how we want to go through this workshop. If we don't have any guidelines, if, indeed, it's not going to really be a workshop, and it's going to be a question and answer session from many others, then it's not going to be a workshop, and we're not going to get anything accomplished. So if it's the will of the Commission for us to proceed with the guidelines that were established... And again, the guidelines that we've established is the Manager is presenting to us the things that we have done so far to cut costs. We stated that we're going to hold questions until the end. We're going to be taking notes on issue by issue. So unless a majority of the Commission wishes to change the guidelines that we... or at least I thought that we had established, based upon the statements made by Commissioner Gort, unless the majority wishes to change that, then we will change it. But if not, then we will proceed with the guidelines that we said we would follow. 19 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: That's fine. Mayor Carollo: OK. Mr. Manager, go ahead, sir. Mr. Marquez: OK. Moving down to the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). We've covered AFSCME, which is basically that it's been agreed to, and it's been ratified by the City Commission. The FOP Contract. As you know, this list of items, this mix of items were brought up to the vote for the FOP membership. This FOP contract is extremely important, because it represents roughly half... a little bit more than half of the total of the union concessions that's in this plan, at a total of six point seven million out of the twelve million of union concessions. This mix of concessions were voted down by the union. Since that time, I met with the union leadership, and we renegotiated a... "renegotiated" is a bad term. We discussed. We discussed another mix of concessions of equal dollar terms that we would request that they vote on. We have a list of items. I'll have Sue read down the list with the dollar amounts. We can make you copies of these things if you don't already have them. Do you have copies? Ms. Weller: No, I don't have copies. Mr. Marquez: She'll go down the list with the items of the new mix. Now, before she does that, just to let you know that the FOP has scheduled their vote on this item on December the 20th now. Originally, it was December 13th, but they moved it back for some notification purposes. What else can I say on this thing? It's subject to a vote, and Sue will go down the list. Ms. Weller: Going through the different concessions, the first one, we still have the deferral of the four percent wage increase until September 1st of 1998. Those figures did not change from previously, one point six million the first year, and one... and two million the second year. We have the health premium waiver, which has been adjusted. That waiver will be one point three million the first year, and one point one million the second year. We also have on the take home car maintenance, that figure remained the same of six hundred thousand dollars for each year. We also retained the seven-year car rotation schedule, which was previously a five-year rotation schedule. The savings on that for the first year is two million, and the second year, two point nine million. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. According to the book I have, the seven-year rotation in the first year was a million -two, and in the second year, two point nine. Ms. Weller: That's correct. The... It was understated in the first year, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: So the first year would not be a million -two, it would be two million. Ms. Weller: That's correct. Mayor Carollo: Sue, these are the concessions that they are offering? Ms. Weller: Yes, sir. We also have a Federal forfeiture of funds in finds. These monies would be used to support projects within the Police Department that the FOP would support, and there is a change in the numbers on that. The first year is two hundred and twenty-four thousand six hundred and ninety-one dollars ($224,691). The second year is one million dollars ($1,000,000). We also have a... Mayor Carollo: This one here... Well, go ahead. I'm sorry. Ms. Weller: We have the workers' compensation supplement tax equalization, which is the same dollars, a hundred fifteen thousand three hundred for both years. We also have a deferral 20 December 5, 1996 r , on the receipt of the uniforms for 19... Fiscal Year 1996-97 for three hundred thousand. And we have added a partial issue of the uniforms for Fiscal Year '97-98 for a dollar amount of ninety thousand. They have also agreed to the deletion of the... it's actually Washington's Birthday, and that comes to a hundred and eighty-three thousand three hundred and nine dollars. That is a savings due to premium of.. of holiday premium pay that they would normally receive for working on that holiday. The union has also agreed to actually reimburse the City for the cost of the annual physicals, and that amount is worth a hundred and seventy-five thousand each year. And they have also agreed to the reduction of their earned personal leave days by four hours in Fiscal Year '96-97, and the full amount of hours, the 14 hours for '97-98. The first year savings is a hundred and six thousand seven hundred and forty-six. The second year is three hundred and seventy-three thousand six hundred and eleven dollars. The total that you reach for '96-97 is six point seven million rounded, and Fiscal Year '97-98, eight point five million. Mr. Marquez: The dollar amounts that you have here are basically the same dollar amounts as was first offered and incorporated in the strategic plan. It's a remix of... It's a remix of concessions. These concessions do represent real savings to the County (sic). There's one item, the Federal Forfeiture Fund and Fines, which is arguably a management item that... a management concession. However, the task force people negotiated that in the first go around, and the second go around, those amounts have been reduced for Fiscal '97. So I believe that... I hope that this is an item that the union membership can vote on, and pass on the 20th. Now, are there any specific questions on the police union contract before I go on? OK. The next item is fire fighters and... Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager. Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: If we can, let's not ask for questions now. Let's just proceed, explain everything to us as you need to, and we're making notes of whatever questions we have. And then at the end, we'll start going department by department, item by item, and start asking the questions. Mr. Marquez: The next set of items is the Fire Fighters Union, and those are the concessions with the dollar amounts that have been approved and ratified. We're still on page 2. Now, as you all know... As you all know, the Memorandums of Understanding are tied to the Fair Matrix that's contained within this report. It's basically tied to revenue enhancements and/or cost containment items in fairly amounts that everyone is looking at. Now, all the unions are focusing in on the solid waste fee as being the quid pro quo, the "do or die" item. I have told the union memberships, and I fully intend on doing this, is if we... if these sweeps come up with real cost savings, I mean real revenue enhancements, I will go back to the union memberships and ask them if they think it's doable, where I can substitute items. If it's... If the items are real, they should be amenable to it. Because like I... Like with the FOP here, where we renegotiated concessions, and I was Iooking for a dollar... a bottom line dollar value, I believe that they will be looking at a bottom line dollar value from us, as far as revenue enhancements go. At least that's my hope and intentions. Now, on the next... whenever we meet... Well, on December the 12th, when we meet again and you have a solid waste fee increase in front of you, to the extent that they're agreeable on taking revenue enhancements in place that we found through these sweeps, I will reduce the fee increase accordingly, and have that as an item presented to you. Anything else from the union? Ms. Weller: That's two things. Just for your information, on the FOP concessions, where they'll be voting on December 20th, assuming it passes, we would be bringing it before you on December 23rd, although I know that's a one -item Commission meeting, I believe. We would be bringing that before you, hopefully, for your ratification. And the other thing I want to point 21 December 5, 1996 r out is on the dates on AFSCME and IAFF, where it talks about the four percent cost of living adjustment, it actually states November 15th. But those four percents were not due until January, and the dollar amounts on here reflect that, as well. So just the date is on... information is wrong. Commissioner Plummer: Well, you want to wait, sir, or do you want me... Do you want me to wait or ask the question now? Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Make notes, J.L. We'll wait. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Marquez: Next item is pension contribution adjustments. We went back to the GESE (General Employees Sanitation Employees) and the FIFO (Fire Fighters and Police Officers) Retirement Boards, and we attempted to get concessions... the net concessions of... to have them reevaluate the actuarially determined contributions that the City makes into those pension plans. We were able to have them reevaluated, and where you see a total of six point nine in savings, we realize five point three million dollars worth of savings. Now, the boards, the pension boards have gotten back to us, and... to let us know that if we don't... In essence, they're letting us know that if they don't... if we don't move along on these plans, they are going to open up the reconsiderations of these items. So kind of like the union contracts. The union contracts and the pension contributions are contingent upon actions by this board. Page 3. All right. Now, we get into the assets by department by department. And I'd like to have the department... Commissioner Plummer: I'll hold my questions, but it's... My question is, if you don't... Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort, Commissioner Plummer has an area of concern with the guidelines that you have suggested, to leave all the questions for the end. Commissioner Plummer: I'll hold, Joe. I think it's critical, but I'll hold. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, if there's no real sentiment on this, I believe for my purposes, it's easier if we... once you hit an item, that you ask the questions on the topic, because I'll have the people up here. You know, this is supposed to be really a discussion format, and I'd much rather address your concerns as we go along, if it's amenable to you all. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I think we could do that, where at the end of each presentation Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, that's unions... Mayor Carollo: OK. Then let's go ahead and wait at the end of each presentation and ask questions. Mr. Marquez: We're open for questions on unions and pension contributions. Commissioner Plummer: OK. My question... My concern - not my question, my concern - we approved three of the four contracts, predicated on this Commission doing certain things. And I'm not going to go into the individual things. Yet, you're saying some of these things are being implemented in November, some of them, December 1, like the pension contribution things. If this Commission does not do those concessions, how can you start taking these things away, taking these concessions away, when they have not been, what I would call, fully implemented? That's my concern. 22 December 5, 1996 Ak Ms. Weller: Commissioner, I believe that in the discussions with the unions, and looking at the Fair Share Matrix, which this is based upon, that that Fair Share Matrix did not anticipate that the cost containment items and the revenue enhancements would all go into place at one time. It is obvious that some of those things are going to take a period of time to implement. And it's really more of a watch and see to determine if, in fact, the City does what it's supposed to do over a period of time. If the unions feel that, as we move along, that that's not being accomplished, then they will come to us and they will do whatever they feel they have to do. It may be an unfair labor practice charge, it may be going to court. I don't know. But it's all a j matter, I think, of watching and seeing how things... how we progress. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Look, I didn't want to bring it up, but I guess I got to lay it on top of the table. The garbage is a big issue, OK? It's a big issue. And I'm not going to go into it in depth. But let's assume, for whatever reason, that item does not pass. All right? You've got dates here of implementation that blow out the window if those things are not passed. That's my area of concern. November the 15th is a date, December 1st is a date, and if, for whatever reason, those are not passed, and we've already started implementing these deductions or these compromises, where are we, besides total chaos? Mr. Marquez: The Commission... The unions have, at that point in time, recourse against us for the stuff that we've deducted away from them, and we will have to... You know, there would be a liability set up, and we eventually will pay them back. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, my understanding from the conversations that we had with the unions is that they had problems in the past, and the Commission had made them certain... asked them to do certain sacrifices, and the Commission went ahead and did not follow through. I think that's why the reason I asked the City Manager to first state the things that have been done already, so the union can see that we are biting the bullet. It doesn't mean that specifically... Like the FOP, they made some changes, but they came out with the same dollar value. As I recall... And I think it's very important that everybody understands this. And Mayor, I'm going to take just one minute for this, because I think it's important we bring this on the table. A lot of people were looking at the raising of the garbage fees last month, and there really was no reason why it had to be taken last month, because it would not be implemented till January. That's why we said we'd take a decision in December. And what we stated is, let's look at the reduction of services, like the trash, that I think is excessive and we have a lot of problems with trash, and if we cut expenses, we might not have to raise that much. Now, we all have... we also have that task force going on, that if it brings revenues... The thing is, we've got to bring ten million dollars ($10,000,000) worth of revenue. And I think that if the unions see that we are doing that, they will follow through. It doesn't mean in specific. Unfortunately, because of the press and people, and Moody's, that everyone has made the trash decision into one decision. I think this Commission here has made a lot of decisions. They are telling the people, we are going to bite the bullet. But we want to make sure, before we take a decision that we are educated, that we know what the consequences are going to be, and the public out there, and the staff know what the consequences are going to be. So I don't have any problem with any of this, J.L., because if we don't do this, we're not going to be here. Commissioner Plummer: Well, my concern still remains. Let me use, just hypothetically, the garbage fee is ten million dollars ($10,000,000), is that correct? Mr. Marquez: Correct, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Huh? 23 December 5, 1996 Mr. Marquez: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Now, it doesn't preclude this Commission from coming up with some other cost containment that would equate to ten million dollars ($10,000,000). My concern is, if we don't. These things are being implemented on certain dates, as you show here, and if we do not come up with cost containment for the same amount, where are we? And if you're telling me that it's calling the horse back after he's left the barn - and I don't mean to infer that our employees are horses - I'm concerned about that, because I can see organized confusion. Ms. Weller: Commissioner, I don't see that there would be any confusion. I think there would be a challenge by the unions. And as I indicated, if we were to lose, if the City were to lose on that challenge, we would then have to, just like we do under grievances and such, we would have to pay them retroactive back. Commissioner Plummer: Sue, the problem I have second -fold is those things, then, in challenges, become legal. Legal matters take months and sometimes years. As Mr. Stierheim said from day one, time is money. And if we get into an involvement where these matters are not resolved, and you let them go to confrontation, to... what's the word I want? To a grievance procedure, becomes legal... I've seen these legal procedures draw out months, and months, and months, and we've accomplished nothing as to what we thought we had done. So I'm just giving, I guess, more a word of caution in my concern that if you implement these things on these dates that are given, and for whatever reason, these things are not in tune with the matrix, I want to tell you something. I think we're going to have a real major problem. So that's... I... What you're saying to me is you're going to implement them. If the Commission doesn't do what it's supposed to do, then we'll have to give the money back. Ms. Weller: That's correct. Mr. Marquez: Basically. Now, Commissioner Plummer, one of the things that, to avoid... Commissioner Plummer: That's a hell of a way to run an airline. i Mr. Marquez: ... to avoid the arbitration process, if the Commission feels that we have not lived up to our end of the bargain, we can immediately say, you know, cease and desist. And then there's only a little piece, amount of cash that we have to return. Commissioner Plummer: Well there's... And don't let me pick on just the garbage fee. There's a lot of things in there, I'm sure, that are going to be controversial. OK? And as far as I'm concerned, I'm just asking about the dates and the time frames involved. Mayor Carollo: Unfortunately, Commissioner, to use your expression of "It's a hell of a way to run an airline," this, in fact, is how this airline has been run, and this is why we're here today. Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. Mayor Carollo: Because of a lot of this. Now, this Commission shouldn't have to be in the situation it's here today, if things had not have been run like that airline was being run before. Commissioner Plummer: That's where we are. Mayor Carollo: But let me let Commissioner Gort ask a question or make a statement before I proceed. 24 December 5, 1996 to.. r Commissioner Gort: It's not a question. It's a statement. If we don't make a decision within the next month, we're not going to be here. So we've got to make the decisions. Mayor Carollo: Well, the bottom line is that if we run out of money, there's no concern about if they didn't get paid, if they're going to take us to court or not take us to court. They're going to threaten that they want to go to Dade County, don't care if they go to Dade County, wherever they want to go. If we run out of money, there's nothing... Commissioner Plummer: ... to argue about. Mayor Carollo: ... to discuss or argue about at that point in time. We know the next step. And I hope everybody will know the next step. So I think that's clear. Now, all the agreements that I read, the concession agreements, there's not one that I see the wording, "garbage fee increase that has to be made," not one. Now, obviously, if we deduct from the numbers that we have here from somewhere, then we have to add new numbers from somewhere else. And that's the bottom line. We have to bring a total of ten million dollars to the table. And, you know, we need to be very realistic about this, because this garbage fee increase has become some sort of a "gihad" for some. And frankly, for others, they're looking at it as being the nail that will finally close the City's coffin, for the election coming up. Now, the truth of the matter is that when we're talking about a ten million dollar ($10,000,000) increase in garbage fees, that's not something that we're going to get tomorrow. First of all, even if this was passed, the bills would be sent out in January. By the time you collect all of it, it would be March. And the bills that would be sent out in January would be for half a year. So you're talking five million dollars ($5,000,000) that will be coming in between February/March. The next five million dollar ($5,000,000) go around, the bills go out in July. They start being paid the end of July, August, September, for the next five million dollars ($5,000,000). So, you know, let's put thing in perspective. We have to look for additional fees. And the breakdown of how those monies have to come. It has got to be at least in the way that I described it, which would be the way that we would get them. Even if we were to raise the garbage fee 200 percent. It's not that we're going to get the ten million dollars ($10,000,000) all in hand, come January. We're not going to bill for the full amount come January. We'll be billing for half of it. The numbers that the Fire Chief gave today is just in one area of the task force. We started that task force the afternoon of Monday. In two -and -a -half days... And a lot of the places we've gone to, I would imagine, since we started downtown, were office buildings, which there, the percentage, I think, would not be as high as in other areas, possibly. You know, you would have less of a chance of maybe not finding people with some license or not. But even so, what I'm seeing is that if in approximately two -and -a -half -days, just in fees alone, in one of the task forces we sent out... not the garbage one. We haven't gotten back information on that, solid. If only in two -and a half days, we've gotten some fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) either already paid up, or that's going to come... and this is recurring dollars, now. That's the difference. It's not a one-shot fee that we're getting. It's recurring dollars. That's a pretty good sign to me of the kind of monies that are out there that we could be getting. So, you know, this is one fee that we had talked about. Just like the garbage area, we don't know how much is out there in garbage, you know, all the estimates that were given out. I do know, though, that one of the things that has to be brought up to the forefront is that we have approximately 50,000 tons of trash that we know is not coming from City residents that we are picking up in the streets. Where is it coming from, exactly? I mean, we could say it could be from businesses in the City that are dumping it illegally. We could say that it could be from private waste haulers that are dumping it illegally. We could say that it's from people out of the County that are bringing it here illegally. We could say that it's for many of the other reasons that we know are out there, including complaints such as I have received in my office that people have been instructed to pick up garbage from businesses that haven't been paying, trash from businesses that haven't been paying. But the bottom line is we still have 50,000 tons of trash that we're picking up every year, and have been doing this for years. You know, that's the way we really need to look at it. It's not just this year, but how 25 December 5, 1996 r many millions of dollars have we been losing every year that would have added up to major dollars? The fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)... 50,000 tons a year of trash amounts to three million dollars (b,000,000) a year more than we're spending that this City shouldn't be spending. And that's an area of management that we should - we should - be able to immediately jump on it and curtail that drastically, drastically. We have another half a million to a million dollars ($1,000,000) that we could be saving each year in the Solid Waste Department, in as far as how the garbage and trash is being disposed of. If you're going to a transfer station, you're going to have to pay nine dollars ($9) more a ton, instead of at least bringing half of that to the main drop off station. You're looking, just for half of your truck loads, you would save half a million dollars a year. If you go with the full amount, which might be hard to do, maybe not, that's a million dollars ($1,000,000) you save. But half is a half million dollars of real savings that we could have. And finally, you could have as much as two million dollars ($2,000,000) in garbage fees that haven't been paid. And, you know, we're still trying to find out just how much we have. The area we started looking at in Coconut Grove, I don't think it's going to be realistic at all in the numbers that we'll be getting there. We have to see when we go into other areas just how much is out there. So these are all things that we have to look at that we have to make decisions on where we could find cuts, so we know where we're going to find additional dollars that we could use in this system that we're looking at right now. Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Hernandez: I couldn't agree with you more on the statements that you've made regarding this garbage fee increase, and the whole issue that's been brought up. And if this is a true workshop... and this is how I truly believe. And the question that Commissioner Plummer brings up is, what if this fee is not increased, and what if the unions, how are they going to react? If this is a true workshop, I think we might as well lay it on the table. I don't understand why this suspense and this drama is being created on this magical 12th of December. If I read the paper today, you all know where I stand on this increase of garbage fees. I don't know why we have to wait to tell the unions that are here today, the employees that are here today, the general public what's going to happen December the 12th. Why don't we just decide today that we all know where we're at on this garbage fee increase. You know where I'm at. I think I know where Commissioner Regalado's at. And from reading the paper this morning, I know where you're at. Is anybody going to change their mind from here to December the 12th on this increase, so we know how the unions are going to react already, so the Manager knows what he has to do? What are we here for today? Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, we're here for a workshop. I don't think that... I don't think that there's anybody out there that doesn't know where each of us is at. And in fact, if people have been reading my statements, for many years, they would have known where I was at on the garbage fee increase. At no time have I said that I would be voting for the garbage fee increase. I'm not going to be bated into that game. That's clear where we're at. But it's also clear... It's also clear that we have a responsibility. If we're not going to be doing one thing, then we have to do others. We just can't leave it up in the air. If we're not including one fee, then you have to replace it with monies that you're going to find from somewhere else. And this is why we're having this workshop. This is why we're doing what we're doing. Because at the end of the day, you know, it's fine that we can say that we're not going to further tax the citizens more. It's fine for unions to say they're not going to give any more concessions. It's fine for everybody to say, we don't want to give an additional penny for anything. But if we don't find the dollars, and they don't add up, then nothing is going to work, and that's the bottom line. Commissioner Plummer: That's right. 26 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: A point of clarification. The reason we stated for the 12th is because we asked the Sanitation Department to go out and see the reductions that could be done, to see what increases could be done... Commissioner Plummer: Can't vote on it today. Commissioner Gort: ... and then what happens is they recommend to double it. But it might not be necessary to double it. It might be just 50, or 40, or 60. And some of the Commissioners might change their mind when it comes to that. Mayor Carollo: And furthermore, let's also put things on the table as they are. What we're actually, in my opinion, really discussing on the garbage fee is what we're going to be doing for this fiscal year on the garbage fee. I think it's pretty clear to me, and it's pretty clear to everyone, including Mr. Slesnick, when he sent that letter - and that's really what he was trying to do, is get some leverage on that - is the fact that come September 1st, and this Commission already voted five/zero in instructing the Manager to start sitting down with the major private waste haulers, it's pretty clear that if we can save eight, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) a year, like it certainly looks that way from everything that I've seen, this Commission is going to privatize private waste... the Solid Waste Department. And that will not be an issue for the next fiscal year beginning October 1st. So we're talking about an issue that is, number one, not the thing that's going to make or break the City in the dollars that we need, and it's an issue for one year. Commissioner Plummer: Well, my question was not to a specific item. My question was that if, in fact, we didn't meet the deadlines that are in the matrix, and we've implemented those concessions, that was my area of concern. Mayor Carollo: Well, I think I made my statement on that, J.L. You know, if we cannot put this together - and I am sure we can put it together - then, you know, that's really, you know, not a concern, because if the money is not there, what are you going to do? You know, you can't squeeze "blood out of a rock." Commissioner Plummer: That's "out of a turnip." Mr. Marquez: Let me attempt something here, a practical item. The FOP vote is after the 12th. Mayor Carollo: Well, it's a practical item. You know, we need to stop playing all these games. You know, I'm a former police officer. There hasn't been a single item in this Commission in the past relating to law enforcement key issues of increasing the force, increasing many things in the Police Department that I didn't lead the charge... In fact, it was I, back in 1986 or early '87 that, in fact, made the motion that created, and I was the one that created and brought to this Commission for a vote, the take home car program. But it was done for City of Miami police officers, where we needed the best benefit, and where the citizen would get the best benefit. We started with 50 cars. We didn't even have enough officers back then to give all 50 cars away that lived in the City in patrols. So what we need to look at is the facts as they are. When we're playing this game that... First of all, it was voted down by the police union, two to one, by a big margin. Now, it was going to be voted upon on the 13th. Now, I'm hearing, no, not on the 13th, it's going to be later on. Mr. Manager, you know, the way that I feel, if they don't want to vote upon this, if there's no way that they're going to approve this, just put it on the table so we know. Mr. Marquez: Before... We're not hearing from the public, so please, let me address the Commission. The... I brought that up as a practical matter because of several things. As you 27 December 5, 1996 4 well know, whatever... And everything you said is correct. I mean, we have our options. The City Commission has all sorts of options that it can do. But whatever you substitute for the solid waste fee is something that I think at this point in time has to be amenable to the union memberships, if we want the FOP to vote affirmatively. Now, if we decide on... If you... If we find something, these recurring revenues, if I can take that to the unions and they feel good about that, and the FOP votes in, then we've got them locked in along with the other two... with the other three unions. But if we find stuff that their membership will not lock in, I mean, will not feel good, they won't vote for it, you lose the other union concessions. Now, what that means... What that means, so that... I've got to lay things on the table here. Mayor Carollo: That's correct. - Mr. Marquez: What that means, the way I see it, is that if we don't have union concessions, the choice for this board, then, is, do we cut back on service deliveries in order to make up for that? Because I don't think we're going to be able to generate revenues fast enough for the offset, because there's a cash flow... there's the wall there in March. So one option is, do we cut back service deliveries? And frankly, the only place that you could cut back service deliveries in any big extent is the Police Department. Or do you... Or do you throw everything into collective bargaining? Now, during the course of collective bargaining... and I want Sue backing me up here, because I, you know, I'm learning as we're going over here. But when you throw everything into collective bargaining, that's a process, and you cannot... You must meet your obligations under the existing contracts, which means we'll be paying the four percent wage until such time as during the process where you get... What's the time that you can then shift on over? Ms. Weller: If you end up going into all the contracts, you're under... falling under State law, which means once you start negotiating, you have 14 days to conclude negotiations. If you don't reach a settlement, you then go into impasse. You go into impasse, you're looking at a period of time before that gets resolved, and if it does not get resolved, it comes before the City Commission. You're looking at April, March or April before you'd be reaching that scenario or the end of that scenario. Mr. Marquez: And by then, it might be too late. Now, the problem also... Mayor Carollo: That's also something... Commissioner Plummer: It's not binding. Mayor Car& o: Well, of course, it's not binding, but that's something that's been clear to all of us for some time. We've gone over that on many occasions, publicly, individually with you, with Merrett when he was here. That's clear. At the same time, it's clear that 72 percent of the general fund of the City's dollars are going to Police and Fire; 48 percent to Police, 24 to Fire. There's only so much that we can cut from other areas that we could bring into the table. Seventy-two percent of our general fund goes to Police and Fire. So these are all realities. I mean, nobody wants to pay more. Nobody wants to give up anything. But at the end, it's going to have to be where people are going to have to give up, one way or another. Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me. I did not want to put no input. This is a humanitarian request from me, please. Mayor Carollo: Ma'am, ma'am, if you would, please. Unidentified Speaker: Yes. 28 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: I apologize, but it's not a public hearing right now. Unidentified Speaker: Oh, no, that's what I want to... Mayor Carollo: It's not a public hearing. Unidentified Speaker: May I ask a question, not pertaining to this. May I? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, ma'am. Briefly, please. Unidentified Speaker: OK. May I have a commitment, because I got a lot of elderly people first time being... ever coming into City Hall, and I convinced them to work with the problem. Can I get a commitment when they can come back and talk? That's all I want to know, so I could get them out of there. Mayor Carollo: Ma'am, this is a workshop of the Commission today. Unidentified Speaker: OK. OK. Mayor Carollo: OK. Unidentified Speaker: So they cannot say anything today. Mayor Carollo: It's a workshop, and it's... you see, we have a long, long time in going today. I would imagine... Unidentified Speaker: That's what I was looking at. I was looking at the program that you had. Mayor Carollo: I would imagine if you have people today, it's got to be about asking for different programs that we're funding or not funding. Is that correct? Unidentified Speaker: I beg your pardon. I didn't hear you. Mayor Carollo: You're here for programs that you want to talk to the Commission about funding. Unidentified Speaker: Right. Mayor Carollo: OK. Unidentified Speaker: But what I'm saying is, I don't want to... Like the Commissioner said, time is money, and I have hired... I had to pay these people to bring them, and I want to get them out. That's all I want to know. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. I... Unidentified Speaker: If they can't say anything, let me take them out. Mayor Carollo: I understand that, ma'am, that you brought these people here. You know, we were not notified that you or any group was coming to talk about elderly related issues. So... Unidentified Speaker: And it's a bad communication. They didn't tell us about it was private, either. 29 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager... Unidentified Speaker: Both of us have a misunderstanding. Mayor Carollo: ... would you schedule this group or any other group... Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much. Mayor Carollo: ... for the regular Commission meeting whereas... where we normally handle these matters, for any group that's going to be coming up. And there's going to be plenty of them that don't want any cuts made, to be able to come and then address this Commission in an orderly fashion. Mr. Marquez: We can do that for December the 12th and have public input at that point in time. Unidentified Speaker: OK. That's the date? Mayor Carollo: Yes, ma'am. Unidentified Speaker: OK. May I ask one question? When will it start, convene? Mayor Carollo: Just a second. Unidentified Speaker: OK. When will it convene? What time? Mayor Carollo: The Commission will convene on the 12th beginning at nine a.m. Unidentified Speaker: OK. Thank you very much. That's all I want to know. Mayor Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Marquez: Ma'am, the City Clerk will schedule you for the proper time. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Thank you, ma'am. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. ASSET MANAGEMENT: PROPOSES 11 PERCENT BUDGET CUT -- DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Mr. Mayor, just... I'm absolutely not going to be argumentative, and I don't ever... I know you all too well. You're very intelligent, and you've probably heard this all before. And... Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, can I say this? You could be as argumentative as you'd like, sir. You know, that's part of what you were brought here to do; not to agree with everything that we might feel, but to give us your judgment whether it's good, bad or in between, your best judgment as you see things, you know. And whether we might disagree or not, the minute that we're done discussing it, you know, we're still going to have the same professional working relationship that we've been having now. And I think I speak for all of us now. 30 December 5, 1996 r Mr. Marquez: I appreciate that. And there's a lot of mutual respect here. Mayor Carollo: Likewise. Mr. Marquez: The reason why I bring up the timing and the opening of the contracts is to basically rehash that there is a wall out there. Now, one of the things that we have done, because I know that the Commission wants to evaluate options, is that all of the departments are here with their budgets in hand, and they can discuss ramifications of possible options. The reason - again, and you've heard it from Merrett Stierheim - they went the route of talking to the union membership amicably for concessions was to avoid the time line of collective bargaining. Now, I've said my piece on that. If you'd like it, we can move on to Page 3, and department by department... You've asked what we've done. This section, starting on Page 3 and ending on Page 9, goes department by department. And it comes up to a total of ten point five million dollars of expenditure cuts this fiscal year; a total of eleven point four million dollars of expenditure cuts for next fiscal year. The majority of these departmental cuts are a reduction in given line items. And what you're going to find is that I'm going to ask a department to come up, and if they're in total agreement with what's in front of you here, they're going to say so. If they're not in total agreement with what's here, they will tell you basically what... if it's a minor change in line items for the same dollar amount, or something else. The issue here is that you can consider these things as done if you all don't have any major problems with them, because most of these things is administrative in nature. All right. Asset Management. Mr. Eduardo Rodriguez (Director, Asset Management): We have a reduction in salaries, and from the first page, that is the actual elimination of two vacant positions, funded vacant positions. It's one surveyor and one administrative aide that is not in this statement in particular, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. That is eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), a little more than eighty thousand dollars ($80,000). In addition, we have forty-seven thousand here, for a total of one hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars ($128,000). Mayor Carollo: I'm sorry. You were saying on the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000)? Mr. Rodriguez: From the positions, vacant positions that we have in the department. Mr. Marquez: Well, sir, don't... For purposes of my department heads, do not count the vacancies, because we've already counted them earlier. Mr. Rodriguez: OK. So. Mr. Marquez: All right. So the... What Eduardo is saying here is that four thousand four hundred ($4,400) is a good amount for the department. Mr. Rodriguez: It is. Mr. Marquez: OK. And you're on line with it? Mr. Rodriguez: I am line. The only thing that I would like to bring into the mind of everybody, we put money this year to complete the inventory of the properties. In other words, we had to bring title attorneys to give us the deed and the actual abstracts that we require to complete the inventory. We won't be able to finish that this year. It's going to be a longer term. Mr. Maxwell: Now, one of the things that... one of the... In fact, the first item that I asked for the State for technical assistance was exactly that. Help us with definition of our property listings. 31 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: OK. So we have a total savings in your department of forty-seven thousand four hundred and thirty-two. Mr. Rodriguez: Correct. Plus the... Mr. Marquez: Plus the vacancies. They were already counted before. Mayor Carollo: Well, yeah, but that's not... Mr. Marquez: That's not here. Mr. Rodriguez: Not here. I Mayor Carollo: We discarded that already. How many employees do you have in your department now? Mr. Rodriguez: We have 11. Thirteen minus two, 11. - Mayor Carollo: Right. I want to bring that out, because when people hear forty-seven thousand four hundred and thirty-two, they might not think it's a lot of money, but when you're talking about 11 employees, it is. Thank you. Any... Excuse me. Any questions from... Commissioner Plummer: My question is, it's going to be difficult as we go through department by department. What does this represent in a percentage cut to that department? You know, what is the... I would have liked to have seen a column of what their budget was for this year, j and what these cuts actually amount to. i Mr. Marquez: We can have the department directors verbally tell you that now, or we can come back on Saturday with that listing. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Well, tell me in Asset Management, what was your budget? Mr. Rodriguez: My budget was one million one hundred and sixty-two thousand. i Commissioner Plummer: Now, where we're going to be misled is that he's getting rid of two employees. That's eighty thousand? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. That's from the... yeah. It's from the prior page. Commissioner Plummer: So you add that to the forty-seven; is that correct? Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Marquez: Correct. Mr. Rodriguez: For a total of one hundred and twenty-eight, and a little more. Commissioner Plummer: All right. So the cuts are one twenty-eight. Now, what is that in way of... Mr. Rodriguez: Eleven percent, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Eleven percent. 32 December S, 1996 Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Plummer: That's what we need to know, or at least I do. OK. Mr. Marquez: All department directors, be prepared to present that as you walk up. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: The 11 percent is including the eighty -thousand that we had taken out already. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mr. Marquez: Correct. Mayor Carollo: OK. Now, we had asked for three cutting levels, if I remember, five percent, ten percent, and 15 percent. I'm basically getting the middle one. Do you have one proposal for the 15 percent here? Mr. Rodriguez: This was done by the task force, not from... Mr. Marquez: The task force was balancing a lot of different things in arriving at their recommendations. Some departments were of more critical need. I'm sure that there is a lower percentage of hit for them. Other departments, you may see a higher percentage of hit. Commissioner Plummer: Now, my only comment is, very simply, we're being asked in our personal offices to cut 15 percent. And any department head that doesn't cut 15 percent, I don't feel is playing fair. Mr. Rodriguez: We can do it, sir. We can cut the 15 percent. Commissioner Plummer: So I'm saying to you... Mayor Carollo: Well, this is why I brought that up, J.L. We need to go the 15 percent. Commissioner Plummer: I'm saying to you that, in fact, come back and tell me where that other four percent's going to be cut. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. Definitely, yes. Yes. Commissioner Plummer: Because if not, if I have the option, I'm going to tell you where it's going to be cut, and I don't want to do that. You know better than I. Mr. Rodriguez: I heard, sir. Commissioner Plummer: So don't force me, me, the Commission, to do it. Mayor Carollo: OK. 33 December 5, 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CITY CLERK: PROPOSES 11 PERCENT BUDGET CUT-- DISCUSSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Carollo: City Clerk's Office is next in line. Correct, Mr. Manager. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Mr. Foeman. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes. Members of the Commission, we've reviewed the recommended... Commissioner Plummer: May I... Walter and Mr. Mayor, if I may. May all departments start off by telling us what is your budget presently, and the percentage that you're cutting. What is your present budget, Walter? Mr. Foeman: My present budget is six hundred and fifty-two thousand nine thirty-seven. Commissioner Plummer: Six fifty-two? OK. And the percentage of seventy-four hundred dollars ($7400) is about one percent. Mr. Foeman: I would need a calculator. I'm not really sure what that represents. Commissioner Plummer: Do we have somebody here with a... OK. Go ahead from that, but I would like to have the percentage of cut. Mr. Foeman: We have reviewed the recommendations of the task force, and we're in accord with those recommendations, which represents an amount of seven thousand four hundred. i Commissioner Plummer: Could somebody tell me what percentage of cut that is? Do you have a calculator? Six hundred and fifty-two thousand is his budget, and he's reducing it by seventy- four hundred dollars ($7400). Mr. Foeman: Additionally, Mr. Plummer, we've had two vacancies that the Commission... Commissioner Plummer: Was that in the six fifty-two? Mr. Foeman: Yeah, that was in the six fifty-two. We had two positions we didn't fill, but that's not addressed now. Commissioner Plummer: And how much is that out of the six fifty-two? Mr. Foeman: It's roughly about sixty-five thousand. Commissioner Plummer: Sixty-five? Mr. Foeman: Sixty-five nine thirty-seven. Commissioner Plummer: Sixty-five, then, would be... In effect, seventy-two thousand is what you're giving up. Am I correct in that? Mr. Foeman: I haven't added it up, but I'd have to look at the exact salary. 34 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: OK. Seventy-two thousand is what you're giving up. So what we need to know... That's, I would assume, in round figures, about nine percent. Mr. Marquez: Seventy-four hundred divided by... Commissioner Plummer: ... six fifty-two. Mr. Marquez: Eleven percent. Commissioner Plummer: Eleven? Mayor Carollo: Yeah, 11 percent. Commissioner Plummer: OK. So this is the same. He's going to have to cut four more. Mr. Foeman: OK. Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Marquez: Sir, wait a second. I'm sorry. Seventy-four hundred... Commissioner Plummer: No, seventy-two thousand, because he said he gave up two employees out of the six fifty-two. Mr. Foeman: Right. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, approximately seventy-two thousand. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Marquez: Eleven percent. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Foeman: And hopefully, we'll be looking at some revenue enhancements to... with the proposed lobbying ordinance. Commissioner Plummer: You only got four more to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CITY MANAGER: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): City Manager. Ms. Ana Proenza: The City Manager's Office budget was six hundred and seventy-nine thousand two hundred and twelve dollars ($679,212). And the Strategic Financial Recovery Plan recommends reductions of twenty-five thousand forty-two dollars ($25,042), which are not a problem. Commissioner Plummer: What... Are you giving up any employees? 35 December 5, 1996 Ms. Proenza: I don't think so. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Let's figure that one out percentage wise. You're giving up twenty-five thousand out of six seventy-nine; is that correct? Ms. Proenza: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, what percent? Mr. Marquez: Four percent. Ten percent would be 67... yeah, that's about right. So you've only got 11 percent to go. And Mr. Manager, you know, I don't mean to be cutting corners with you here, but when you... when you show me an item - not you, this is not... you're not guilty here - an item of two hundred and fifty dollars for eliminating a parking, when this so-called deficit is sixty-eight million, really doesn't impress me. OK? It really... You know, parking fees of two hundred and fifty. And one of the other ones that I highlighted over here, eliminating employee awards for three hundred dollars ($300). That really is not what I'm looking for. And I don't think... Mayor Carollo: Well, J.L., you're right, but at the same time, this was done before he came on board. Commissioner Plummer: Joe, I said I'm not blaming him. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. And I guess what I'm getting at is, you know, we have to look at every item, because if you don't want to start including the two hundred and fifty, three hundred dollar ($300) items, now you have thousands of those that will add up to real dollars. Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. Mayor Carollo: And, you know, we have to go across the line. And for them to come to that amount or deduction in their budgets, that's valid, you know. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, there's another thing. When we come back with the additional percentages, I'm sure at this next go around, we'll show some service delivery cuts. I mean, there was a balance here that I wasn't... I was not involved in generating these numbers, as you said, and I appreciate that, and... But I know the overall goal was to minimize, cutting back... the cutback on services. So if we go and if these increases in cuts generate that, I'll bring that back at the proper time. ----------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- 6. COMMUNITY PLANNING & REVITALIZATION: PROPOSES 6% BUDGET CUT. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Community Planning and Revitalization. Mr. Jack Luft (Director, CPR Dept.): Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we have a two million two hundred and seventy thousand dollar ($2,270,000) annual budget. The cost reduction plan is for one hundred and twenty-four thousand in FY'96-97 and a hundred and thirty-four thousand the following year. 36 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: What is the percentage on the first year? Mr. Luft: The first year, the hundred and twenty-four thousand is a six percent reduction on one loss of one permanent position, and the balance on fixed and variable operating costs, plus we have another one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in salary savings from frozen positions, three positions currently vacant and frozen. Commissioner Plummer: Were those positions frozen at the time of your budget of two point two? Mr. Luft: No, sir. Commissioner Plummer: So they don't count. Mr. Luft: Well... Commissioner Plummer: No, they don't count. Mr. Luft: That's why I said the reduction is a hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars, which is the six percent. Commissioner Plummer: I understand that. So I'm asking again, of what you're proposing to give up is a hundred and twenty-four thousand this year. Mr. Luft: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: What percentage is that of... Mr. Luft: Six percent. Commissioner Plummer: Six percent. So you got nine to go. All right. Go ahead. Commissioner Hernandez: Jack, what's the total budget again? Mr. Luft: The total budget is two million two hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars ($2,272,000), with the FY'96-97 budget. And then with the reduction, it's two million one forty- seven. It's 27 positions. Commissioner Plummer: One question. You've eliminated internal services charges for Public Works reproduction. Now, how's Public Works going to deal with that? I mean, are they going to show it as an increase in their cost, or a reduction in their cost? Mr. Luft: What we have gone to, sir, is a system of outputting most of our maps and our graphics on computer -generated blotters, rather than the old blueprints that we used to run, hundreds. of them, and so now we're producing our own copies of maps off of computer files so we no longer need to do the Ozlaid printings. So that's really not a cost to Public Works and it's a savings for us. Commissioner Plummer: I guess I got to ask a dumb question. What are the beverages provided to committees? Mr. Luft: When we have all day committee meetings, which we do quite regularly, selection committees we provide them coffee so that they can work for several hours for free. 37 December S, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: I think it would have looked better here if you had said coffee instead of beverages. Mr. Luft: Well, that's what it is. It's committee meetings and sometimes we provide them Sprite it they don't drink coffee. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I guess another question we ought to ask of each department head. You know that this Commission is pretty much in the neighborhood of 15 percent. I would hope by Saturday Jack, in your particular case, you would be able to come back to this Commission and tell us where your other nine percent is going to come from. Because I'm assuming... we're going across the board 15 percent. Mr. Manager, is that not the policy? Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): If that's the will of the Commission, we'll go across the board 15 percent. But at the same time that you say that, we will be coming back with the differentials with the service reductions. This was built up I already said this. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mayor Carollo: We would like to see each department present a budget for the whole 15 percent. Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: Our final determination on whether we will implement the full 15 percent on each department would be up to this Commission after discussion. I think we have to be practical. Mr. Marquez: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's why I said you know, come back on Saturday, if that's when we're coming back. And tell us what that other nine percent, we can make a decision yes or no. And you better come back really and truthfully with more than a 15 percent in some of the places where we don't agree, you'll have the extra added buffer to go with. But at least up to 15. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Gort: It's my understanding when you look at this from it gives you by the percentage that they recommend here, is what they think is feasible to achieve what we want to do. So my understanding is, that has already been done by the people that looked at this. If you want to bring back 15 percent, it's fine. But at the same time, we've got to make sure we have a commitment to the citizens that we are going to maintain the services. So, this is something we need to look at also and each department when they come, what would be difference between the addition to the 15 percent and the services provision. Mr. Luft: Commissioner, if I may. We did come in with the 15 percent number because we were asked to do that. And the review committee determined that to achieve that deduction we were going to be basically stripping out our ability to carry forward on joint development projects, a number of RFPs (Request For Proposals). We simply can't bring in the appraisal services, the survey services. We would be shutting down important functions that they felt this department needed to move forward with in order to generate revenues for this Community. 38 December 5, 1996 ON Commissioner Plummer: Jack the review committee does not vote. Mr. Luft: I understand. Commissioner Plummer: We do. I have not seen what that 15 percent represented. Mr. Luft: I will certainly... Commissioner Plummer: And I haven't seen what the rest of your budget is. And I am going to see it. Mr. Luft: I have every single line item here for you, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. We will go through this. Mr. Marquez: Commissioner, absolutely you will see it. And we will provide you the information. Commissioner Plummer: You bet. You bet. But don't stand here and tell me that you've given up frozen positions that didn't exist, because that's up in the air. So, I mean don't take credit for something you didn't have to begin with. Vice Mayor Regalado: The problem is that the perception that the public had Jack, several weeks ago, is that we ordered a cut of 15 percent in every department, including the offices of the Mayor and the Commissioners. And that is the perception that is still out there. And now we're telling the people, or you are telling us that we're talking four percent because services may be affected. Now, you know what happened is that every time that there is a bond issue, every time that there is a budget whether it being in the County, and I am sure that Ed knows about or in any City, we have public officials and we have members of the administration going to the media and say, if we do not get this bond issue passed, there is not going to be any more Fire Rescue, or there is not going to be any more Police, and this is not only in the City of Miami. I am talking Countywide, citywide, statewide, nationwide, we, governments do that. But I, in the press have seen that scenario many, many, many times. And if we come up with this thing about saying to the people, well if we cut 15 percent there ain't going to be any more department or we can't do any service at all, these people won't believe it. Because bonds issue had been defeated and life has gone on. So I think what we need to tell the people probably on Saturday is to come up with this 15 percent and see what services, if any, we are relinguishing. Mr. Marquez: Commissioners, Mr. Mayor. This is... We're totally, absolutely in the area of appropriation and that's the ultimate decision of the City Commission and we will provide every and all pieces of information to you that you request. We're also going to... I think what's also information that should be thrown in the mix of things, is that for instance, in Jack's department over the two years, his department has been taking 25 percent cuts. It becomes a point that the department does not become functional, and it may very well be that if you cut his department, it may not be. But let's say, hypothetically you cut his department 15 percent, his department won't be able to develop land holdings that we have in any form or fashion. In any speed that this Commission may want to develop land holdings that we have. So it is a balancing act and we will provide you all of the relevant information on Monday, I mean on Saturday. Mayor Carollo: Not only that, but we would also want your recommendations. Mr. Marquez: Absolutely. 39 December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: On every department. Now, I know that Jack's department is one that is going to be more active than ever in the coming months ahead. We have a tremendous amount of properties in the City, waterfront properties, non -waterfront property that I foresee that this Commission is going to be putting RFPs (Request for Proposals) out. RFPs that we should have done years ago on. Projects that we should have gone out to the private sector to come in to do years ago. Projects that will bring this City in years ahead, million of dollars of revenue. That if we would have done it five, six, seven, eight years ago, we would have them today. And have twenty, twenty-five, thirty million ($20,000,000, $25,000,000, $30,000,000) dollars more in funds coming in today. But nevertheless it hasn't been done. We have to do it and the toughest part is that we not only have a responsibility on cutting this deficit right now, but we also have to have the inner strength and vision. At the same time, that we're having to go through this horrendous, difficult time to think ahead into the future. And start doing the things right now, that won't bring us the dollars today that we need. But will bring the dollars for this City to have a sound, financial foundation for years to come. And it's a major balancing act, no doubt about it. Mr. Marquez: Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CIVIL SERVICE: PROPOSES 4.3% BUDGET CUT-- DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): OK. Next department, Civil Service. Ms. Priscilla Thompson (Executive Secretary): Good morning, Honorable Mayor and Commissioners. The Civil Service adopted budget for this year, three hundred twelve thousand eight hundred and fifty-two ($312,852) dollars. The cut of thirteen thousand three hundred... Yes. Three hundred twelve thousand eight hundred fifty-two ($312,852.00). Mayor Carollo: I'm sorry, before we go into that. The Hearing Boards, Labor Relations and Human Resources. Did... Commissioner Gort: It's after this. Mr. Marquez: That's later on in the report. Page five has Labor Relations and Human Resources. Mayor Carollo: Correct. She's doing strictly... I am looking at page five. After we're done with Jack. OK, Civil Service is where we're at in here. Mr. Marquez: Correct. Mayor Carollo: That's correct. Very good. Proceed, please. Ms. Thompson: OK. All right. The cut that you see there, that's thirteen thousand three hundred and twenty-seven ($13,327.00) represents four point three percent of our adopted budget. To let you know that the reduction for the legal services that has been taken care of. There was discussion between the City Attorney and our special counsel. He has agreed to that reduction and a new resolution has been drafted for your approval. As far as the other cuts, with the equipment there, that has also been taken care of. We've been able to get some used cabinets from one of the other departments, so we don't see that as being a problem. In all fairness, in all sincerity a 15 percent cut in our department would mean that we would lose one of the four 40 December 5, 1996 individuals that work in our department. We'd lose one full position which is the clerical position and that leaves us with no other support staff, other than myself, the assistant and secretary. We're not heavy at all as far as our expenditure go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT -- DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Equal Opportunity. Ms. Judy Carter (Chief Procurement Officer): Yes, sir. Judy Carter. First of all, let me place on the record that... Commissioner Gort: Excuse me, let me stop you... Ms. Carter: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: ... the total for Civil Service. The total discount was 13 or it more than that? Commissioner Plummer: Thirteen. Commissioner Gort: That's it. That's it, OK. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: How much was it? Commissioner Hernandez: Four point two percent. Mayor Carollo: Four point two was what I heard, right? Commissioner Gort: Right. Commissioner Plummer: Four point three. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. I am sorry Judy. Ms. Carter: Yeah. That OK. First of all, I am here representing Equal Opportunity... Commissioner Plummer: First of all, would you give us the total amount of your budget? Ms. Carter: Yes, sir. The total budget is three hundred and sixty-one thousand four hundred and eleven ($361,411.00) dollars. The amount that is proposed for a reduction is thirteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-six ($13,876.00). That represents four percent. The total operating expenses for this office budgeted was sixteen thousand eight hundred and forty-five ($16,845.00) dollars. Which means that there is a significant reduction. If we had a 15 percent reduction, we would totally eliminate operating expenses. Also do note that, most of you all know that I serve in several other capacities. The entire budget with regard to salaries for me is in Equal Opportunity and not in Finance. In addition to that, two other individuals within my office also serve part-time and serve in other roles in other departments. Yet, the entire salaries for those particular positions are in Equal Opportunity. We cannot operate with a 15 percent reduction, period. 41 December 5, 1996 �i Mr. Ed Marquez (City Manager): Finance. Commissioner Plummer: You're prepared to vote on that, right? Ms. Carter: Yes, sir we cannot operate. Commissioner Plummer: We don't want you to be surprised. Ms. Carter: Uh-huh. OK. Commissioner Plummer: You know the policy. Ms. Carter: Yes, it would mean well... You know the... Mayor Carollo: What is the total percentage deduction? Commissioner Hernandez: Four percent. Mayor Carollo: Four percent. Ms. Carter: Four percent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. FINANCE: PROPOSES 4.25% BUDGET CUT-- DISCUSSION. ------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Finance Department. Mr. Michael Lavin (Finance Department): Good morning, the total budget for the whole ` Finance Division is nine million three hundred and ninety-two thousand five hundred and eighty- nine cents ($9,392,500.89). I mean five hundred and ninety-nine ($9,392,500.99). And the expected recurring reductions is about is one hundred and thirty-three thousand eight hundred and eleven ($133,811.00) which is roughly about two point five percent. We're also transferring out of the General Fund, one hundred and eighty thousand ($180,000) back to the GOB (General Obligation Bonds) Debt Services. So, in reality we're saving about four point two five percent. Commissioner Plummer: Where would you be look at to make further cuts? Mr. Lavin: Then we're talking about the tax force that we have, which is about 16 employees now going into the Downtown area enforcing parking. But, the task force decided that we should retain at least the majority of those people because in one year, they have brought in about seven hundred thousand ($700,000.00) dollars in additional revenues. I have some statistics from the Police Department, also from the Off-street Parking and briefly the Police Department when they decided to stop enforcing the traffic tickets in three years, they came down to about three hundred and eighty thousand ($380,000.00) dollars down. While the Off- street Parking went up about two hundred and nine thousand ($209,000.00) dollars in additional revenue and the task force brought about seven hundred thousand ($700,000.00) in additional revenues. Commissioner Plummer: You didn't obviously understand my question. If you have to make. Well, all I am saying... I'm not going to ask the question now. Be prepared on Saturday, to explain to us where you're going to be able to make the further cuts. 42 December 5, 1996 f88� IX Mr. Lavin: Up to... Commissioner Plummer: Up to 15 percent, of course. That's the policy at this point. Mr. Lavin: OK, sir. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Lavin. OK, absolutely. One thing while we're waiting for... One thing I do want to say, that all these recommendations that you have before you were made by an interim City Manager with a whole bunch of help... Commissioner Plummer: I understand. Mr. Marquez: ... over a two month period of time. Commissioner Plummer: I understand. Mr. Marquez: So between now and Saturday, we will be looking at... Tomorrow we'll set up a staff meeting with the departments and I'll give you a time later on and we will go and try to do exactly what you're asking us tc do. But the thing I'm saying right now is that, a lot of reasoning went behind these numbers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. HEARING BOARDS: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT-- NEED TO ADDRESS CODE ENFORCEMENT AS POSSIBLE FUNDS GENERATOR -- DISCUSSION. Mr. Carlos Smith (Assistant City Manager): Hearings Board Division has a budget of eight hundred and eight thousand ($808,000) dollars, of which two hundred and fifty-two thousand ($252,000.00) dollars is contribution to the General Fund. There are six persons in the Division. The reduction of thirty-one thousand five hundred twenty-five ($31,525.00) dollars on the expense side is four percent of the total budget. But you need to also realize that that actually goes into an increased contribution to the General Fund because the revenue side stays the same. So the contribution instead of two fifty-two ($252,000.00) will be two eighty-three ($283,000.00). Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me. What I want you to come back on Saturday to come back with and talk to is the Code Enforcement. I think Code Enforcement is one of the areas that is vital and can be one of the biggest producers that we have. I think we need to strengthen that board. I think we need to eliminate the reductions in fines. And I think if we do that we'll no longer sit up here and hear about the fact that we have one hundred million ($100,000,000) dollars or two hundred million ($200,000,000) dollars in fines and we can't collect them. We've indicated a new policy around here as I recall, that they can only be mitigated to a certain extent. Maybe we need to raise that up and to in fact generate, and I think we can generate more money but that's not the basic thing that I'm looking for. Beside the more money I am also looking that people will be bringing things into code compliance which they are not doing today. Mr. Smith: We'll be ready to discuss that on Saturday. Commissioner Plummer: Yes, sir. 43 December 5, 1996 Vice Mayor Regalado: The hearing board was under the City Manager before, wasn't it? Directly? Mr. Smith: It was under the Assistant City Manager Christina Cuervo. Vice Mayor Regalado: Why do we now have the hearing board under Building and Zoning? Is that because we're going to use the inspectors like J.L. says for code enforcement or? Mr. Smith: The hearing boards for supervisory responsibility was under Christina Cuervo. It has always been on the budget side. A part of the Building and Zoning department. It never was taken out of the budget. And so it remains in the budget, supervisory. I think the Manager has made a decision to have Teresita report to me. Mr. Marquez: And by January, February time I'll be introducing a revamp organization plan. Organization for the City, for the administration end of the City and at that time I'll make sure that this is in the proper place. Right now it makes sense to keep it where it is until January, February at the minimum. ----------------------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. LABOR RELATIONS: PROPOSES 11% BUDGET CUT-- DISCUSSION. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Sue Weller (Labor Relations Officer): Our budget was reduced by... Commissioner Plummer: How much was your budget? Ms. Weller: It is... Adopted budget is five hundred and twenty-five thousand four hundred and eighty-one ($525,481.00) dollars. Commissioner Plummer: And that percentage of reduction? Ms. Weller: Overall, that's 11 percent decrease compared to what the budget is now. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. Thirty-five hundred dollars is 11 percent decrease of five hundred and twenty-five thousand ($525,000.00)? Ms. Weller: No. I am saying is, that from the adopted budget to what the total dollars are for now, because of what the vacant position was wiped out, is now dropped down to four hundred sixty-eight thousand one hundred and seventy-one ($468,171.00) dollars. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that should be included in your reductions. Vice Mayor Regalado: Four hundred you said? Ms. Weller: I am sorry, what? Vice Mayor Regalado: Four hundred, sixty-eight? Ms. Weller: Four hundred and sixty-eight thousand one seventy-one ($468,171.00) is our budget now. Vice Mayor Regalado: But it doesn't show there. 44 December 5, 1996 Ms. Weller: That's because the vacant position was taken and put over into the 251 vacant positions. But a budget was adopted with that vacancy in there. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I got to tell you. It's misleading the way this is presented to us. Vice Mayor Regalado: So it's still out of four thousand. Let's say four thousand. Let's say three thousand five hundred. Out of four hundred and sixty-eight thousand. We're talking, I don't know, how much percent? Here it's around one percent. Ms. Weller: Well, if you take. I have added the vacancy in, which is. With the vacancy added in that's an 11 percent decrease. Vice Mayor Regalado: Eleven percent decrease of what you had. Not... Commissioner Plummer: May I ask. I am sorry. Vice Mayor Regalado: Go ahead. Commissioner Plummer: That vacancy, was that a vacancy or a transfer out of an employee? Mr. Weller: It was a... That position was a position transferred into my office. That person left mid -October. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Out of the City or into another department? Ms. Weller: Out of the City. Commissioner Plummer: Out of the City? Ms. Weller: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: So it's a total savings. Ms. Weller: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: And that person represented eighty thousand ($80,000,00) dollars. Ms. Weller: No, that person represented fifty-two thousand ($52,000.00). Commissioner Plummer: OK. Ms. Weller: Four, five twenty-five ($525,000.00). Four sixty-eight ($468,000.00) from four twenty-five ($525,000.00) is fifty-seven thousand three hundred and ten ($57,310.00) dollars. That's a fifty-seven thousand ($57,000.00) dollar deduction. Commissioner Plummer: Your budget is under the City Manager's budget? Ms. Weller: No. Human Resources. Commissioner Plummer: Under what? Ms. Weller: It shows up under Human Resources. 45 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: Oil. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Commissioners, on Saturday we'll have one sheet of paper that shows you the budget as adopted and what the budget would look at 15 percent. And what the total cuts this plan has and their percentages. So that you can have a reference sheet as we go into the budget hearings on Saturday. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. HUMAN RESOURCES: PROPOSES 7% BUDGET CUT-- DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Human Resources. Ms. Angela Bellamy (Assistant City Manager): Yes. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the adopted budget for Human Resources is one million six hundred two thousand five hundred fourteen ($1,602,514.00) dollars. That includes a staff of... Well, it had 26 positions in the budget, 23 were funded. There were three vacancies. The total amount of the reduction reflected in the strategic financial recovery plan includes thirty thousand one hundred forty ($30,140.00) dollars. However, the additional amount of the three positions would be... that would be an additional eighty thousand ($80,000) dollars. So that would be a total of one hundred ten thousand one hundred forty thousand ($110,140.00) in reductions. Commissioner Plummer: The percentage. Ms. Bellamy: The percentage is seven percent. I might add that in my operating expenses, most of my expenses have to do with Citywide services such as drug testing, physical examinations that are provided Citywide. Commissioner Plummer: Why wouldn't it be charged to the individual budget, so it would be...? Ms. Bellamy: We tried to do that in past years. And we've had problems paying for those services, so we actually contract out for them. And then to make sure that the bills are being paid, we'd like to coordinate for administrative fees to make sure... Commissioner Plummer: What it does... The problem Angela is, it doesn't give this Commission a true picture... Ms. Bellamy: Right. Commissioner Plummer: ... of the cost of the individual budgets. Whether you pay it from one fund or pay it as a total fund. We've got to know what's the total budget for that particular... You know I was somewhat amazed here looking at the Police Department to see item of giving up the health examinations, amounts to one hundred and seventy-five thousand ($175,000.00) dollars. So you know, those are the things that we need to know. Mr. Marquez: Commissioner Plummer, one of the things in the past. One of the feelings of the past accounting system, from what I understand, is the inability to really do these internal service funds type of transfers between departments. The new accounting system whenever it comes up and running should be able to accommodate that. It maybe a little problematic for us to do that between now and Saturday. 46 December 5, 1996 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. INTERNAL AUDITS: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT -- DISCUSSION. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Internal Audit. I Mr. Elliot Prenner: Good Morning, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. My name is Elliott Prenner. I am the Acting Director of the Department of Internal Audits and Reviews. Our total budget is one million twenty-six thousand four hundred and ninety-six dollars ($1,026,496.00). And the reductions total sixty thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars ($60,115.00), which is the six percent reduction. There is one additional staff member that I am considering in addition to what's here. I have not had the opportunity to fully discuss it with the City Manager but with that, it could bring us up to 14 percent. Mr. Marquez: OK. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mr. Manager. Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. I Commissioner Plummer: He's talking about here, his total budget of one million twenty-six ($1,026,000). And Internal Audit itself is only 601. Now, is Internal Audits showing a reduction of sixty thousand ($60,000.00) dollars towards the two hundred and seven? I am sorry, the million two ($1,200,000). A million twenty-six ($1,026.000)? Or is it towards the 601? Mr. Prenner: Well, I'm speaking for the department. Commissioner Plummer: No, sir. The Internal Audits in total. Mr. Prenner: Division. The Internal Audit Department is one million twenty-six ($1,026,000). i That includes the OPC (Office of Professional Compliance). f Commissioner Plummer: I understand that. So the sixty thousand ($60,000) is against that? Mr. Prenner: Yes, sir. The sixty thousand ($60,000) is against the total. All of the cuts, I believe... Commissioner Plummer: Well, two hundred seventeen ($217,000) of that is professional compliance. Mr. Prenner: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: Is that not in the Police Department mostly? Mr. Prenner: I mean they audit. They review in the Police Department but they are included as part of our department. And that's two hundred and seventeen thousand ($217,000). That is correct. Commissioner Plummer: Why isn't it in the Police Department, if they are doing it in the Police Department? 47 December 5, 1996 Vice Mayor Gort: Well, that's one of the recommendations. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's what I am asking. Mr. Marquez: Past budgeted as adopted by the Commission as brought forward by the City Manager... Commissioner Plummer: But how do I, the Commissioners get a true picture of what is the total use in the Police Department, their budget? Without knowing that this is two hundred and i seventeen thousand ($217,000) that is not in the Police budget and it's showing here? Mr. Marquez: We will be having a staff meeting tomorrow, and we will try to do a reconciliation. Commissioner Plummer: Maybe there's an answer, I don't know. But what I need... Mr. Marquez: Our accounting. The answer is the accounting systems and budgets has not been adopted in that fashion in the past. And we don't have that information right now. We can try to do a reconciliation for you going forward and hopefully we can do this by Saturday. Mr. Prenner: May I help a little bit? May I help a little bit... Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, sure. Mr. Prenner: ... if this may clear something I am not sure, I am going to try. There's basically three divisions within Internal Audit Department. Commissioner Plummer: That's correct. Mr. Prenner: There's the director's office at two hundred and seven thousand two hundred seventy-seven dollars ($207,277.00). There is an internal audit division of six hundred and one thousand seven hundred sixty-five dollars ($601,765.00) and there is an OPC division of two hundred seventeen thousand four hundred sixty-four dollars ($217,464.00). Commissioner Plummer: Stop. Tell me how much this director makes? Vice Mayor Regalado: The six hundred thousand. Commissioner Plummer: How much does the director of the department make? And the reason I'm asking this is very simple. You show two employees at over two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars. And so I'm asking is, what is the salary and fringe cost of the director? Mr. Prenner: Mr. Commissioner, I am the acting director. Commissioner Plummer: I didn't ask that sir. I asked in your budget... Mayor Carollo: Well... Mr. Prenner: Oh, OK. I think I have that. Commissioner Plummer: One is a secretary which I would assume is a minimal amount. And I'm asking what is the cost of the director? Mr. Prenner: I believe I do have it. It's going to take me a few moments to locate it. But I believe I do have that information. 48 December 5, 1996 r e Commissioner Gort: What page are you on? Commissioner Plummer: I'm in the budget book. Commissioner Gort: What page? Commissioner Plummer: Budget book page 78. f Mr. Prenner: OK, I am looking for some detailed information that I thought I had with me. Oh, yes. One hundred. Just give me a few moments please. I have in my information one hundred eight thousand eight hundred thirty-two ($108,832.00). Commissioner Plummer: All right. And the secretary? Mr. Prenner: No, we have two. You're talking about the director's secretary? Commissioner Plummer: No, sir. You have one according to the budget book. Mr. Prenner: Well, we have... Oh, in the director's office? Commissioner Plummer: In the administration end. You have one secretary, how much does she make totally including benefits? Mr. Prenner: Oh, I don't have that information. Commissioner Plummer: And you're saying the director, including benefits is one hundred and eight thousand eight thirty-two ($108,832.00)? Mr. Prenner: No, that's just the... That's the salary I have here. Commissioner Plummer: How much are the benefits? That the question I asked. Mr. Prenner: Oh, I don't have that readily. I am sorry. Commissioner Plummer: You're the internal auditor, and you don't know. OK. Mr. Manager, you know obviously there's a lot of answers here that I think that we ought to have, that I will be looking for on Saturday, OK. Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Mr. Prenner: That's it? 49 December 5, 1996 ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. LAW: PROPOSES 11% BUDGET CUT-- NEED TO IMPROVE SAFETY PROGRAM AND COORDINATE SAFETY PROCEDURE WITH LAW DEPARTMENT TO AVOID LAWSUITS --DISCUSS CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES, MERGE RISK MANAGEMENT -- ESTABLISH TASK FORCE TO RECOMMEND KEY OPTIONS TO REDUCE LAWSUITS. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): The Law Department. Mr. A. Quinn Jones, III, Es (City Attorney): The budget for the City Attorney's office is approximately three million ($3,000,000) dollars. And let me just say for the matrix as shown here, I don't necessarily agree with it. And I guess for whatever reason, it was prepared this way. But I copied each of you with a memo back in October indicating as a result of your instructions to reduce budget cuts. And of course the only two positions that are shown here that's being eliminated are two attorney positions. One which was a senior attorney, a junior attorney position. What is not shown here is the elimination of two legal secretary positions. One law clerk position. Further what is not shown here is the elimination which was included as part of my budget, the elimination of a five percent salary increase for the Assistant City Attorneys. What I submitted to you initially was a proposed reduction of 11.7 percent which included of course the fringe benefit cost associated with those positions. Which came to a total of three hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred and thirty-two ($353,632.00). Of course what the matrix indicates is a cost of one hundred forty-two thousand ($142,000) for FY '97. And recurring in 1998, one hundred sixty-nine thousand ($169,000). Commissioner Plummer: Can I have the percentage of what you're intending to reduce? Mr. Jones: You mean in addition to the 11.7 or whatever? Commissioner Plummer: I have one hundred and forty-two thousand ($142,000) as what you're intending to reduce. Mr. Jones: No, that's... No, you weren't listening to what I said. Commissioner Plummer: Obviously. Mr. Jones: I said that's what the matrix showed. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Jones: What I submitted to you was 11.7 percent, back in October of this year. Commissioner Plummer: And how much was that in dollars? Mr. Jones: Three hundred fifty-three thousand six hundred thirty-two ($353,632.00). Commissioner Plummer: OK, Mr. Marquez: Public Facilities. 50 December 5, 1996 Vice Mayor Regalado: Excuse me. Do we... When we lose a case, do we include in the budget of the attorney's office what we have to pay for court costs or that is being paid out of General Funds or? Mr. Jones: No. Normally how it works Commissioner, there is a self-insurance and insurance trust fund that funded, or supposedly funded on a fiscal year basis from which any awards, any judgments are paid. So, any costs or anything associated with that case is normally paid from self-insurance trust fund. Commissioner Plummer: I would like to have on Saturday morning the total amount of money this City paid out in awards last year. I have been told it's sixteen ($16,000,000) to seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000). Mr. Jones: It's probably... You're probably correct when you think of, the City has a tort liability alone of forty million dollars ($40,000,000). Again, I'll be happy to provide it. As I've said to you in the past, to each of you. I have invited you to come and take a look at the operations, whatever. I mean, I don't have the luxury. A statement was made the other day that "why do you take these kinds of cases." Well, we don't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose cases which are going to be either profitable for the City. Ninety-six percent of the cases are losers. I mean the liability is totally against the City. So as I have indicated to you before, the reason why the numbers are so high, is because what we're doing is damage control. One of the things that you can do with this Commission, which is something that I've asked to be done, since I have been City Attorney, which has not been done to this day. Is for you to direct the Manager to establish a viable safety pro ram. You know when you get a sidewalk case where you may pay twelve thousand dollars (112,000) on, and then you get five recurring cases as the same sidewalk, then something is wrong. When you get the same types of accidents that are happening because you don't do effective training. You wonder why you have to pay out, that's why you have to pay out. Because you don't have anybody doing follow-up. So that's something that's sorely needed, and it will. If it's done, if it's implemented, you will see the numbers drop dramatically. But until it's done, you are going to continue to see high -pay- outs and high judgments. Mayor Carollo: Which in essence, what you're saying Mr. City Attorney, is that we have had a management problem in that area also. Mr. Jones: Absolutely. Mayor Carollo: And as I read what you're telling me is that on sidewalk slip and falls. That you know, it's become a major problem to us. And Fire Chief Rollason, in charge of Risk Management. I think has done a tremendous job under the pressures and limited ability that he has had to deal with it. But, from what you've said and you know, it's a figure of speech that you're using of course, that you've had maybe five cases on the same sidewalk... Mr. Jones: Well, I'm not, really. Really, Mr. Mayor I'm not exaggerating because I can give you specific examples. Chief Rollason can give you specific examples. The great... I mean. Of course the greatest area of liability to the City has been Police tort liability. I mean, yeah we've had some years where we've had catastrophic accidents, injuries. Perfect example is the Antonio Edwards case. You know, those... I mean you're going to have case like those. Quite frankly, I'm happy that we're really at the tail end of a cycle where we've had you know, just big claims. I mean, they're there. They can't go away, you can't sweep them under the rug. I mean so, you know... You have to think that, you know when you're litigating against the private law firms, you know we're at a disadvantage because on the other side, you've normally got four associates who are papering you to death. And a case of that magnitude is not a matter of just answering one piece of paper. The lawyer has to do his own research. We don't have law clerks, we don't 51 December 5, 1996 have you know, we don't have that luxury. We don't have the luxury of paralegals. I mean we don't have the luxury of having secretarial help after five o'clock because it's by union contract, they've got, you know, they can only work eight hours a day, they got to go at five o'clock. So I mean, these are all the variable that you have to factor in and even now with the loss as you know, Leon Firtel who was senior attorney, who handled many of the Police tort cases, that's even an added load now. So I'm really at a loss and even a greater loss, to tell you even now, even with... You noticed I haven't even brought any settlements because we don't even have any money to pay them. So I am at a loss to even tell the judges. Well, judge when I go to mediation, we can't mediate the case. I don't have the authority to settle a case because I don't have any money. So I mean, it is a... I am really operating at a tremendous disadvantage and I just hope that I can meet with you individually. And I hope when I sit down and meet with Mr. Marquez that we can discuss some of these things and come up with some viable solutions because it's almost a no win situation. Mayor Carollo: Well, I think it's very key that that's done between the City Attorney and the City Manager. In fact, having read your strategic plan again or maybe as I call a marriage Bible. There was a lot of mention to that in here. Some of the studies that we've had clearly go to the point that you've mentioned now. I know that sometime back, Chief Rollason sat down with me and one of your assistants. And they went clearly over with me the problems that we're facing in that area. There is no question that we can save millions of dollars every year, if we would indeed establish a realistical program with the right management to prevent a lot of this from recurring, like it's happening. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, the first time I came here and started looking at the different settlements that have taken place. I have gotten together the different departments, the City Managers and the Attorneys because this is one problem that we need to really work on. And there's got to be an understanding that each department has got to work very closely with the Law Department. And I think maybe if we can come up with the... Whenever we get sued, whoever is the person that originated that suit maybe it should be charged to that department. And then maybe they'll start doing more of the training. We tried to get the safety committee together and I think it is very important that we continue to train our individuals. But most important that our Law Department works very closely with all the other departments. And let me give you a little example. There is a corner that I go by, the stop sign was knocked down. I think it has been down for about four days. My understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong. The City has a responsibility for what's inside the City to notify the County within 24 hours. If we do so, we're not liable. But if we do not notify within 24 hours, the City is partially liable for it. Am I correct? Mr. Jones: Well, not so much. You know, not so much that. From a pure legal perspective Commissioner, if the sign is in the City's right-of-way, we're still liable for it. We can minimize the liability by saying that "hey, we complied with what the policy was in terms of you know, notifying Dade County whatever. And then it didn't do what it was supposed to do." So that would go basically to minimize on the liability on the City's behalf, but it doesn't make it go away completely. Commissioner Gort: No, I understand. But this is one small example of what needs to be done. The Public Works or whatever department is in charge of that, could take care of the matter immediately. So we'll not be liable for it. Mayor Carollo: See but, what we're saying here is Commissioner is what should have been done some time ago by management. In fact, that's why I asked the question if you were using a figure of speech of five times on the same sidewalk. Because just a few days ago, I received from the Manager a copy of a report from the Public Works Director that was answering some questions that we all asked some time ago, before the Manager was here of Public Works. And, 52 December 5, 1996 there it stated that within 48 hours that they would prepare in the best way that they could any sidewalks that it was reported to them had problems. Now, if we're having sidewalks that two, three, four, or five cases are happening one after another. Then, obviously the information that I was sent and all of us received, is not accurate. And you know, we have to get to the realities of why we're in the situation we're in, no matter how painful it is. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, time and time again, if you go into the back of this book with the task force reports, time and time again, amongst the different task forces what you get the sentiment of is that there is lack of managerial control. And one of the reasons why there has been lack of managerial controls, is that over time you've got departments that have been compressed and functions have been moved all around. And you don't have the people, you don't have the resources to handle the situation. Use Frank Rollason's self-insurance area. He does not have the budget of the claims management people, that should be there to create the file, to give to the Law Department, so the Law Department has ammunition to fight the case. And you know, it's a vicious circle, and we will describe the. You know when we come back on Saturday, I think we'll be a little bit better prepared to talk about some of the managerial things that should be doing in order to save cash as well as the impact of -the 15 percent cut. Commissioner Hernandez: I've got a question for the City Attorney. Quinn, I remember a couple years ago, one of the biggest problems we had over there at the Law Department. And since we're discussing stepping up enforcement, especially in code enforcement. If the department of Building and Zoning gives you the go ahead to file foreclosure lawsuits in a lot of properties, 100, 200, 300 properties, where and who is going to be flipping the bill for those foreclosure costs? Mr. Jones: OK. I don't think that's been worked up, but let me tell you what we've done in that regard. Two years ago, I hired a particular attorney who was experienced in foreclosure. And of course the difficulty that we had for the year, because I kept getting the information that we had the properties available. You know, once you bring the person on, we're ready to go. Well, it didn't happen, OK. A month passed, almost a year passed, sparse two, three properties here, whatever else. For the first time now we have a comprehensive list, as Commissioner Plummer alluded to earlier about one hundred million ($100,000,000) dollars in code enforcement. The problem with that list, is that many of those properties were homesteads. I mean you could. As you well know, you couldn't... You didn't know what type of property it was. Whether it was commercial, or whether like. For the first time now, we have a very comprehensive list. We have a system in place where we can do the title searches. Because as you know, you've got to be able to do the title search before you can do the foreclosure or whatever else. As I understand it right now, there have been something like two or 300 properties that have been targeted, identified that we're going after. As I understand it, also that the cost associated with that, I guess we'll have to find somewhere. This is one of the things I have to discuss with the Manager to see where the money is going to come from, because certainly I don't have the money here, but in terms of the work that needs to be done, we are ready to go. And the preliminary work has already been done and it's just a matter of going forth with it. Even now, this past year we brought in something like three almost four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) on foreclosures and collections we've done already. To give an example, just year before last alone, we brought in through collections almost three millions dollars ($3,000,000) which is you know, the budget of my whole department. I mean there was a whole million dollars ($1,000,000) in the old County Jail that had sitting there. The County hadn't paid us for years, years, years. We went after then and got a million dollars ($1,000,000) from them just on that alone. So I mean there is money to be made but there has to be a cooperation between the different departments which has been very difficult in the past in order for this to work. It has to be like a machine. And it can work like a machine if we get the cooperation that's necessary to do it. We can bring in the money. 53 December 5, 1996 Mr. Marquez: As far as cooperation between departments. I don't know what transpired in the past, but my... You can ask any department director in the City right now. And what I have been trying to do is develop the team methodology. Basically, bring up the problems that we've facing and trying to pull the resources from the different departments. What we're doing on the sweeps right now is an example of that. You know, in the defense of the administration, things are not going to change overnight. And it's, and I wholeheartedly agree with what Quinn is saying here, that there is things that we can do to improve our physical situation if you draw the resources at it. Such as, land development is another one. You know, there is a number of things. And again, most of that is contained in the back of this report. Commissioner Plummer: I still think it's worth consideration to solicit on the outside, attorneys to go after code enforcement violations. Because in that particular case you can make a simple arrangement with them that they get a percentage if they win and they get nothing if they lose. It makes more of an incentive... Mr. Jones: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner. There is no firm out there that would take a code enforcement case like that. I mean, we've got the resources... Commissioner Plummer: You'll never know if you don't try. Mr. Jones: We've solicited some firms, whatever. But I am telling you that we have the staff to do it. It's not that, I mean the misconception is that code enforcement is supposed to be a money maker. It is not a money maker. I mean it's supposed to bring the properties in compliance. I mean if you're able to get some money along the way to bring them into compliance, so be it. But if you know, it's nothing but a myth that's being going around that there's one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in fines. That's the biggest myth that's been out in the City of Miami circulating for years and years. It's just simply untrue. It's not there. If we can collect a million ($1,000,000) dollars, that's realistic, that's what the truth of the matter is. There is no one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) out there. I am sorry to tell you, it's just not there. And whoever is telling you that there is one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) out there. On paper it may be, but like I said for the first time, and God knows how many years we have a comprehensive, up-to-date listing of those properties that we can go after to get those fines. And it does not total. Like I said, if we're lucky, we may be able to get one million dollars. Commissioner Plummer: Well under the new scenario, as I recall. Mr. Jones: Uh-huh. Commissioner Plummer: In the first month you cannot reduce, mitigate the fine less than 15. And every month thereafter, ten percent more. Mr. Jones: It's a graduated scale. Commissioner Plummer: And in the fourth month, foreclosure. Mr. Jones: If it's a foreclosureable property, if that's the right word. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Mr. Jones: Foreclosurable property. Commissioner Plummer: We have never seen any, any papers telling us what that ordinance has done or not done. Because I think it's worth consideration that we should start the first year at 25 percent and go up fifteen percent every year and instill the foreclosure on the fourth year. 54 December 5, 1996 You see, the problem is, that one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) or even, once I heard higher than that. Turns around to be a joke and say "why aren't you collecting that money to take us out of debt." OK. So all I'm saying to you is, that if in fact fines are imposed and fines are levied that if people don't pay them, let's get you know, the liens against the property. And I think you're going to get a little respect and you get some money, which we're not getting today. Mr. Jones: May I? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Plummer: Of course. Mr. Jones: I was asking Commissioner that I answer your question. That the one thing that I wanted to point out is that a lot of those properties that have been, that have heavy fines. You may have a homestead property that's worth forty thousand dollars ($40,000)and it's got a four hundred thousand ($400,000) dollar fine. Then who in their right mind is going to pay a four hundred thousand dollar ($400,000) fine on a piece of property that's forty thousand dollars ($40,000). Further more, you can't foreclose on it anyway, because it's homestead property. So that's what I am saying that in this point in time, we have a realistic picture of what's there that we can go after and it's more in the neighborhood of one million ($1,000,OOOdollars (, little more. Maybe a little more of that but the rest of it is homestead property that you know, you just can't go after. Commissioner Plummer: Quinn is it true, Mr. Manager, that Quinn is saying that we get a million dollars ($1,000,000) if we're lucky. That the department cost us one million ($1,000,000) dollars to operate. Is that a true figure? Mr. Marquez: I don't know. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's what I've been told. Mr. Jones: Well, you know maybe... Commissioner Plummer: So hey, I'll ask for an answer on Saturday. Mr. Jones: OK. All right. I provide some numbers for you. Commissioner Plummer: OK. It's telling me, I say be didley. Mayor Carollo: Quinn, how much liability do we actually have out there now that we know we have to pay? Mr. Jones: On the tort side Mr. Mayor... Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Jones: ... it's approximately forty million dollars ($40,000,000) Mayor Carollo: Approximately. Mr. Jones: OK, that's if we had to. If the City had to write a check today for what we've estimated and of course you have to understand that the way in... And Commissioner Hernandez, you understand this because you've handled cases before yourself, and you're a lawyer. But of course when a case comes in you have to evaluate it in terms of what past cases 55 December 5, 1996 K 4v, that have been litigated. What's been paid out, what a jury has awarded, what's the potential. That's what that number is based on. If you had to go to a full blown trial on a particular case of this size or involving these facts, of all the cases we handle out there and right now, we have approximately a case. A tort, just a tort case load of approximately 900 to 1,000 cases, OK. That's just on the tort side. Chief Rollason can tell you the biggest liability for the City however, is not on the tort side. The biggest liability for the City is on the Workers' Comp. side. And that's why I have said, and I continue to emphasize that we have got to put into effect a viable safety program that would incorporate also, aspects of Workers' Compensation which we've done. I have to give Frank a great deal of credit because he's done the best he can do with the little that he has to work with. But I do think that if the expenditures were made for Risk Management because many times... And these are the things that you don't see. Many times we go to... We're up for a trial and you call or you request the investigative file, whatever. First of all, there have been no... And this is no indictment of Frank's operation, whatever. But this is just the fact of the matter. This is stuff that we're experienced along the line. You're ready to go to trial, you don't have any depositions. You don't have any statements from witnesses. Witnesses have disappeared, so I mean you... That's why I'm telling you, you're at a loss many times before you even set foot in the courtroom. So that's why I will come to you and tell you that it makes more business sense to settle this case, you know. You don't try a case for the sake of trying a case. And, but I feel very, very strongly about that but you know, Frank call follow- up to that. Commissioner Hernandez: Frank, before you say something. Quinn brings up an excellent point that I wanted to ask. If you guys can get prepared for Saturday between you and the Manager. When I first began working at the City Attorney's office, I remembered that what is now the department of Risk Management, was part of the Law Department. And it makes a lot of sense, at least to me as an attorney, the cooperation and the participation between those two departments and the possibility or the pros and cons of having this department merge back to the Law Department. So the investigators as well as the adjusters can be part of the scheme of things, with the attorneys, or the assistant City Attorneys when they are preparing cases, when they are ready to prepare demand packages and so on and so forth. And I think, at least I'd like to request an answer to that pros and cons too. Of having Risk Management merge back with the Law Department. I remember it working very well when I was there and I don't remember the reason why Risk Management became the Department of Risk Management and taken away from the Law Department. Mr. Jones: You're right, Commissioner. It worked fantastic because I guess it's self serving because I was over Risk Management at that point, and it worked quite well, and then there was a period where after it was taken from under the auspices of the City Attorney's office, then it didn't work well. And then this is where Frank came in, and had to built basically, build back up to a professional level what was basically destroyed within a period of a year. So I'll be happy to work with the Manager and Frank to come back with pros and cons. Mayor Carollo: Who, what year was that decision made? Mr. Jones: It would have been, I guess it was before I became the City Attorney. So it would have been probably '89 or '90. I became City attorney in '91. Commissioner Hernandez: It was 1990. Mr. Jones: 1990. Mayor Carollo: 1990, yeah. Do you know why it was made? Mr. Jones: Well, I guess if you... I'm not being sarcastic or whatever. Yes, I do know the reason. I mean it was purely political, it didn't have anything to do at the Commission level. f 56 December 5, 1996 ,4 But it had to do with of course, the strained relations as you will, between the former City Manager and my predecessor, who was City Attorney. I think that played a large part in, if not the reason why it reverted back to where it is now. Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager. Mr. Marquez: The fact, first of all. The fact that it shifted on over to the management side, doesn't necessarily make it unviable, if there is a good working relationship between the two because I have seen it elsewhere, that it is under the management side. Mr. Jones: Which we do have. Mr. Marquez: And there's excellent relationships between and coordination between he Law Department and the management side. The problem, what I would suspect has happened between... before 1990 to today, is that things have been pared down and resources taken away, so that they could not do the job. Now Frank's here, I just want him to touch on the Workmens' Compensation side. Deputy Fire Chief Rollason (Risk Management/Fire Rescue): Just for moment, what the City Attorney was talking about. We split it about half and half. So I'm sitting with about thirty-six ($36,000,000) to forty million ($40,000,000) dollars in liability on the Workers' Compensation side. In reference to the comments about a safety program, which the City Attorney spoke to. We have the nucleus of one. We have the structure for one that has taken us several years to get that into place. But as I have said to the City Manager and to different Department Directors when we met, it primarily is a lip service operation. And really for us to start to address the cost that continually confront the City on the liability and Workers' Compensation side, there has to be change in the tone that is set as to how the City does business. And what Quinn and I do when both our shops, whether it's combine the problem, it's not going to go away. Whether some things can run smoother, that may be a possibility. Our relationship since the two of us have been working together, the departments have worked together very well. The resources are not there on either side to put the cases together. I do not have the adjusters to work the files. Very fundamental information that you would think would be in a file to prepare him for a case that when a suit comes... because generally we'll get a claim, because there are a core of attorneys out there that know the system and look at the City as a deep pocket, as I am sure they do with the County and Hialeah and so forth and so on. And they work the system knowing that they can put us on notice, let it sit for so long. They know that the systems are not going to be worked. Then they will get put on notice that they are going to file suit and we're now two, three, four years down the road. And when you try to put these cases together, it's dismal at best to have something that's worthwhile for him to try and defend. I can tell you that within the Risk Management proper, I have like fourteen people now that are now funded out of Risk Management budget. My salary does not come out of Risk Management, I am still funded out of Fire. I have people that are temporary people and contract people that we've tried to bring in to try to shore -up and try to keep the system moving, just to keep our head above water. We've gone from 34 people to 21 people at the present time. We're losing ground, I can tell you that. And you all know that. It's not a secret. But I will say this, in November of last year the State came down and audited us for our department in Workers' Compensation, we paid twenty-six thousand ($26,000) in fines because we did not have notices sent timely and bills paid timely. They're in town now, auditing us right now. In fact at two thirty, theoretically I was supposed to have an exit interview. They came and told me yesterday that we're in 90 percent in compliance and there weren't be any fines this year, and to follow-up with that. I think that's a tremendous testament to those individuals that are there, that are working long hours. Some of them stay longer than as the contracts allude to. They do not put in for overtime. They try to get the job 57 December 5, 1996 done and they've tried to do the extra effort. But we're coming to the end of what the current Risk Management is going to be able to do for you. It is falling apart. You need to be aware of that. I've told the manager that. Quinn knows that, now everybody knows that. And we need to address it and fix it, or get rid of it. It's just that simple. Mayor Carollo: You know but this is... This is one of the areas that no matter how much we cut in other parts of the City. No matter how much anybody gives up or how many more fees we put, if we don't immediately start taking action in this area of Risk Management, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. You know, the fact that this department, Risk Management has gotten into the situation that it's in because of past mismanagement. I am not saying about you, I am not saying about the people running it. It's clear to me, I think to everyone that you've been doing the best that you can with what you have. Because of the past mismanagement, people didn't like a City Attorney, they wanted to play politics, they wanted to hurt him and play those kinds of games. You know, it's another prime example of why we're where we are at today. Mr. Manager, there were some clear recommendations given the task force that looked at Risk Management. The Chief has made some very precise statements along with the City Attorney. I would like to have you formulate a task force immediately that would include the City Attorney, the Chief of Risk Management and anyone else that you see fit, so that you could all meet, go over the recommendations that we have had here in this report. You obviously have some plans formulated and that you come back to this Commission and tell us the key options that you recommend that we handle. Should we give some of this out to the private sector. If we're going to keep it what do we need to do so that we could cut and reduce the millions of dollars that we're paying out. We can't have one third of our employee force being out on any given year on Workmens' Comp. We need to immediately take action. This is one that shouldn't have to wait any longer. And I'm sure that this Commission will fully support any recommendations that you come back to us with. But this is one that truly every day that we're not making a change on these policies that we've had and the situation has been created could cause us in the tens of thousands of dollars. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, one of the things I would like see, Mr. Manager. On Saturday when you come back, each department that certain recommendations are being made for changes that should be addressing this plan. I'd like for them to comment on those changes and the feasibility of them. The recommendations and the plans for each department, OK. Mr. Marquez: OK. With their budgetary impacts? Commissioner Gort: Right. Mr. Marquez: By Saturday? Commissioner Gort: If it's possible, OK. Mr. Marquez: OK, we'll try. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Thereupon, the City Commission went into recess at 12:01 p.m., and reconvened at 2:38 p.m. with all members of the City Commission found to be present except Vice Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Hernandez. 58 December 5, 1996 G --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. CONGRATULATE POLICE CHIEF ON SOLVING MIAMI SUBS CASE -- COMMENTS REGARDING STATE RELEASING 400 FELONIOUS OFFENDERS FROM PRISON.-- NEED TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR DAY CARE. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, first and foremost I would like to congratulate through the Chief, to the department of solving the case at Miami Subs. It took a lot of good, hard work, and it paid off in results. (APPLAUSE). Now, on the other hand. Chief, I don't know what we as a Commission can do, if anything. But I am sure that my colleagues up here are just as upset as I am in reference to 400 murders, robbers, sex offenders that are being released from prison. Now you know, we look here and we see this case that you just solved. That man got out after one year, a third of his sentence for murder and robbery, is I think what I heard. All I am saying to you Chief, if there is anything that you feel that this Commission can do to address that problem of 400 people of those calibre being back on our streets, I would hope that through the Manager that you would bring it to our attention. Donald Warshaw (Police Chief): I'll do that. Commissioner Plummer: So that we can do something because I got to tell you something. Unfortunately, most of those people only have one occupation and it's not what's going to be beneficial to this Community. Donald Warshaw (Police Chief): And Commissioner, let me just add. I am sure you know that there are 16,000 more pending an appeal to the United States Supreme Court to override the Florida Supreme Court's decision to let another 16,000 go. And these are again, hardened criminals. And you know the public is being very badly fooled into believing that when they watch sentencing taking place, that they don't understand the steps that occur between sentencing and the time these people are let out through plea bargaining processes and pardons and paroles and so we need to make a lot of noise through the legislature. Commissioner Plummer: All I am saying is, that if there is anything that you feel that this Commission can do. I guarantee you and I don't usually speak for this Commission. But I feel certain that that would be unanimous vote of anything that you bring to this Commission that we can do to address that problem which is going to be a major problem in this community, and I thank you. Chief Warshaw: Thank you. Commissioner Gort: All right Chief, don't go away. We had a good meeting the other day at Wynwood? Chief Warshaw: Edgewater. Commissioner Gort: Edgewater. Chief Warshaw: Right. Commissioner Gort: It was attended by quite a few people. And people understand the process now, and the judicial system. The problem that we have. Whenever we need citizens support, 59 December 5, 1996 they'll be there to support us, but we need to let them know. Whenever there is going to be a legislative change or anything is going to take place. I am sure we can get a telephone campaign, a letter campaign or something to really get people to face this. Chief Warshaw: OK, I will definitely get to you through the Manager. Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: Silver came here for a loan. I thought I felt much better in the paper this morning where we're sixty-eight million ($68,000,000) in debt. They are four hundred and thirty-four million ($434,000,000) in debt. Somebody had problems bigger than ours. Commissioner Gort: What are talking about, State? Commissioner Plummer: State. Senator Ron Silver: Yeah, we need four hundred and... Commissioner Plummer: Four three four. Senator Ron Silver: Four hundred million ($400,000,000) just to do what we did last year. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: ommissioner Hernandez entered the Commission meeting at 2:42 p.m. Commissioner Plummer: I, you know. We'll never get out of here otherwise. The Manager says, two to two and a half hours. I have one question that I'd like an answer to on Saturday. Mr. Manager, that's in reference to daycare, I understand some of the funding that we previously had is not there. And I would like to have from you a recommendation. My recommendation has always been the same. And that is that we charge fees commensurate with what it costs us. And you know it's... in times were good, I got voted down. Now, maybe is the time that we really look hard at whatever that cost us, it should be generated in fees. The fact that the daycare has to make a profit, so they have to charge more than what it costs them. And I realize that daycare centers are a motherhood item and you know, they are very important. But maybe we are keeping some private sector from going into the business because we're providing it at such a low cost. So I would hope that you'd be Saturday, ready to do some recommendation. Mayor Carollo: OK, Commissioners are you ready to start the afternoon session? Commissioner Plummer: Whenever you are, sir. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Plummer: Where did we drop off here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16.. PUBLIC FACILITIES: PROVIDE LIST OF SUBSIDIES PAID FOR CITY FACILITIES -- DINNER KEY BOATYARD EVICTIONS POSSIBLE FUNDING OF FACILITIES FROM SPORTS AUTHORITY --DADE COUNTY IS HOLDING UP SIGNING OF MARITIME INTERLOCAL CRA INTERLOCAL EXPANSION OF PORT OF MIAMI / MSEA MONIES DUE -- CITY SHOULD PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION TO PORT OF MIAMI AND KEY BISCAYNE -- DISCUSSION. Mayor Carollo: Public Facilities. Commissioner Plummer: OK, Public Facilities. Ms. Christina Abrams (Director, Conferences, Conventions and Public Facilities): The adopted budget of the Department Facilities is twenty-three million, five hundred and seventy-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-five ($23,579,995). The budget reductions reduced the budget to twenty-two million eight hundred and nineteen thousand four... Commissioner Plummer: Say again. Ms. Abrams: Was or is? Commissioner Plummer: Is. Mayor Carollo: Was and is. Ms. Abrams: OK. Was twenty-three million five hundred and seventy-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-five ($23,579,995) adopted. With the reductions is twenty-two million eight hundred and nineteen thousand four hundred and thirty-three ($22,819,433). And that is a twenty-six thousand six hundred dollars ($26,600.00) increase over the reductions that are proposed by the task force. Commissioner Plummer: Are you saying that what you reduced is the five forty-one? Ms. Abrams: No. We've reduced it further. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Ms. Abrams: We've reduced it to five sixty-eight three seventy-six ($568,376.00) the first year and seven thousand one hundred forty-four ($7,144.00) the second year. Commissioner Plummer: OK, question. Bobby Madura Stadium is closed? Ms. Abrams: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: There was proposed one hundred and seventy-nine thousand dollars ($179, 000)? Ms. Abrams: Yes. 61 December 5, 1996 1i N Commissioner Plummer: You're showing here, one twenty-nine ($129,000). Ms. Abrams: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: Why? Where's the other fifty thousand ($50,000)? Ms. Abrams: Because. Well on two factors. Number one is because we had to cover the operating costs for at least three months. And the second factor is the fact that the insurance which is sixty-five thousand one hundred and forty-five ($65,145.00) is effective through May of '97. So that's already been paid and we needed to reflect it on the budget. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Marine Stadium has been closed since Andrew. And the Marine Stadium is five hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($585,000.00). Now, why isn't your budget reduced by at least five hundred and eighty-five thousand ($585,000.00) on the Marine Stadium alone? Ms. Abrams: Ask the Asset Manager. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): OK, can I ask the Asset Management Director to come up? Eduardo? Commissioner Plummer: Do I need a rocket scientist, for the matter that's closed? I don't understand why it's not... Ms. Abrams: It's not under the department of Public Facilities budget. We're referring it to Asset Management. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, it's under your budget. Ms. Abrams: No sir, with all due respect. Marine Stadium is not in our budget. Commissioner Plummer: Conference, conventions, and public facilities. Ms. Abrams: Marine Stadium Marina, it is in our department. But not the stadium. Mr. Wally Lee (Assistant City Manager): I can clarify that Christina. Commissioner Plummer: All right the Marine Stadium. Oh, I am sorry, I stand corrected. Marine Stadium Marina is the difference between. I am sorry, I stand corrected. I thought it was the actual stadium. It is not. OK. Ms. Abrams: All right. Commissioner Plummer: I am only right part of the time. Ms. Abrams: Any other questions? Commissioner Gort: What is the percentage? Ms. Abrams: The percentage of reduction is four percent. And I'd like to point out something that, of our budget 40 percent of our budget is the principal and interest for the debt. And also 14 percent of our budget is for depreciation and contributions to General Funds. Our total personnel cost is 11 percent. is 62 December 5, 1996 f` r. Vice Mayor Regalado: Christina the Bobby Maduro Stadium, it's closed? Ms. Abrams: Yes, sir. It's been closed since October. Vice Mayor Regalado: But not the parking lot? Ms. Abrams: Not the parking lot. There is a flea market operation that operates out of there. Vice Mayor Regalado: Do we have a contract? Because they claim that they don't have any contract, although they pay regularly. Ms. Abrams: We have a month to month agreement. And the reason we haven't issued a long term contract is because we're working to divest ourselves of that property. ' Commissioner Plummer: What is the present debt service on the Convention Center? Ms. Abrams: Six point one million $6,100 000 . i p ( ) Commissioner Plummer: That's the subsidy required? Ms. Abrams: No, that is the actual principal and interest on the Miami Convention Center. Commissioner Plummer: How much is the subsidy from the City required? Ms. Abrams: Three point five million ($3,500,000). Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor have you given any further consideration to the Sports Authority taking that over? i Mayor Carollo: We have made a request to Dade County for approximately thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) of funds that we have to see if we can transfer them, so that they could be used on these facilities. We are waiting to hear on that, along with the bulk of the monies that we're getting every year. That was one of the reasons that we took some of the past action that we have. Commissioner Plummer: OK. So it's still a viable... It's still on the burner, it's not dead. Mayor Carollo: I think it is on the front burner. But as long as we have the threat of the election March and April, frankly I am not too hopeful of receiving too much cooperation. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mayor Carollo: You know, I keep hearing help but I don't see any real help. I see rhetoric. ` Commissioner Plummer: Christina, Artime Center. How much subsidy? Ms. Abrams: The Manuel Artime Center operates at a loss of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) a year combined. Commissioner Plummer: Roughly, a thousand dollars ($1,000) a day. Ms. Abrams: Yes, and that's both buildings. The office building and the theater. 63 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: And... Mr. Manager on Saturday I would like a breakdown of which is the auditorium and which is the center. Ms. Abrams: I can give that to you now. Commissioner Plummer: Well, give it to me Saturday, OK. Any of the others, does Miami Springs Golf Course require subsidy? Ms. Abrams: That... Although that's a service listed in my department, it is not in my department. So I am not qualified to answer that. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Manager I would like, of all of the Public Facilities that you have listed here. I would like to know what is the subsidy required by the City? Gusman Hall is now, how much? Do we have that figure? Ms. Abrams: That's Offstreet Parking. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): That's Offstreet Parking now. Commissioner Plummer: OK. But we have to subsidize it. And I would like to know what that subsidy is, OK? It was a thousand dollars ($1,000) a day, and I understand they've greatly reduced it and that's fine, but I would like to know exactly what it is? And any other of the facilities. OK. Any other of the facilities that in fact are requiring subsidy, I would like to know on Saturday. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Why is it that you have Public Facility under you, but many of our public facilities are not under this department? Ms. Abrams: Sir, I don't know why. When I took over the department a year ago, I took it over in the condition it's in today. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, you really need. And I know you're overwhelmed. You've been here two weeks, but you know we can't run the City this way. This is just you know, Byzantine. How many other facilities are out there that are not under your department, besides Miami Springs Golf Course? We know the Marine Stadium is not... Ms. Abrams: Well, as far as leases, anything. Any facility involving a lease like Monty's or so, that's under Asset Management. Facilities, public facilities are under me with the exception of... Mayor Carollo: That's what I am talking about. Public facilities. Ms. Abrams: ... both golf courses and... Mayor Carollo: Both golf course are not. Ms. Abrams: No. And also like the MRC (Miami Riverside Center) building, that's managed by Asset Management. And off hand, I can't recall any others. Mr. Marquez: There's all sorts of practices that have been going on for years, that we have not addressed. I have not addressed yet, and that's hopefully part of the reorganization coming up. Mayor Carollo: Well, that needs to be done as quickly as possible. You had mentioned before, Christina, and we had our public discussion here that one facility that you do manage and you've managed for a short time - I think for no more than two years, or a year and a half or so - the ! 64 December 5, 1996 i is Virginia Key Boatyard. That made under City management, three hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars ($338,000) profit. Ms. Abrams: That's correct. That's exact in fact. Mayor Carollo: Well, it's good that we have something making a profit. You also had mentioned that for approximately one hundred and fifty thousand ($150,000) I think, that we would put into that facility we could recoup the monies back within the first year and have a profit of four hundred plus thousand. I think it was in the highest four hundred on the first year. Then on the second year, that profit would go to six hundred and twenty-eight thousand ($628,000), if I remember. The problem obviously is, where do you get the one hundred and fifty thousand ($150,000)? What I would like to suggest is, that you call today if you can, if not tomorrow. Warren Butler the Executive Director of the Sports Authority and speak to him and to Miriam Maer counsel to the Sports Authority, to see how we could possibly find the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) from the Sports Authority and if that could be placed on the next available meeting to fund that from the Sports Authority. I may also suggest that you might want to call, he's offered to help in this, Chris Korch. He might be of assistance in numerous ways. But he's offered to help there. Ms. Abrams: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: You said that Dinner Key Boatyard generated how much money? Ms. Abrams: The Dinner Key Boatyard, including Accounts Receivable balance, is three hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($330,000). Now the accounts... Commissioner Plummer: My book says that this facility would generate revenues of two hundred thousand ($200,000). Ms. Abrams: Well, that was based on the projected performance for'95-'96 which turned out to be under. Our revenues exceeded projected budget by sixty-eight thousand ($68,000). That would be shown in the port number nine, produced by the Finance Department. And if you'd like, I can give you a copy of it. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but here again, the estimated cost is four hundred and fourteen thousand ($414,000). And you're saying that you generated three hundred and what? Ms. Abrams: I am going to pull out the exact financial report for Marine Stadium Marina. Commissioner Plummer: Well, it's not. It requires subsidy. Ms. Abrams: Pardon. Commissioner Plummer: If you're raising three hundred and some thousand dollars. What was your number, three what? Ms. Abrams: Three hundred and thirty thousand ($330,000). Commissioner Plummer: Three thirty ($330,000). And it's listed in the budget book at four fourteen ($414,000). Something don't add up. Ms. Abrams: Well, let me explain how, because we did not go anywhere near the projected expenses. We were under projected expenses by, if I am not mistaken - maybe my staff can corrected me - somewhere in the area of thirty, forty thousand ($30,000, $40,000). We exceeded 65 December 5, 1996 9-i j revenues by an equivalent amount. We went combined, we were... Our revenues. Our net 11 contribution to the City was overbudgeted by about one hundred and fifty thousand ($150,000). Commissioner Plummer: OK. The only other question I have here is, if you're planning on closing it on January the 1st, is the...? - Ms. Abrams: OK, this is Dinner Key Boatyard, that we're closing January 1st. Commissioner Plummer: Dinner Key Boatyard which is the old Merrill Stevens. 1 Ms. Abrams: OK. Right. We've been discussing Marine Stadium Marina. Unless I misunderstood you. Commissioner Plummer: No, I am talking about the Dinner Key Boatyard. Were you on a different page? Ms. Abrams: I must have been. Commissioner Plummer: OK. How much money did that raise? Ms Abrams: Dinner Key Boatyard? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Ms. Abrams: Operated at a loss. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, OK. That math in it figures out. Dinner Key Boatyard, you're effectively closing January one? Ms. Abrams: I'd like to modify that though. Because the development is scheduled to begin in March, we plan to close down... Commissioner Plummer: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. What development in March? We haven't even approved the RFPs (Request For Proposals) yet. I haven't even seen them. Ms. Abrams: OK. I withdraw that. Commissioner, if I may. Commissioner, allow me to clarify, please? Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, please do. Ms. Abrams: In order for us to evict the tenants that exist now at Dinner Key Boatyard, we need to send them a notice of eviction. In order for us to plan to that, I have asked Jack Luft to give me a projected date when he believes construction will begin, so that I can give ample time to the Law Department to notify the tenants to leave. Now, while the task force felt that we could close it January 1, they didn't consider the fact that we had to go through the process of evicting existing tenants. So that's why I am saying that. We will not be able to close it January 1st, but we are confident we can close it February 1st. Commissioner Plummer: Aren't the tenants there on a month to month basis? Ms. Abrams: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: And why do you have to give them any more than a month's notice? Well, I am saying if they're on a month to month basis. A month to me is still 30 days. And if 66 December 5, 1996 �71 they're on a month to month basis, why did they require more than 30 days eviction notice? Hello, am I calling collect? Ms. Abrams: Well, again no. If I can go ahead and answer it. And again, I am you know. I haven't been working directly with Quinn, I have been working with attorneys in his department. And what they've advised is, we need to go through process because a lot of these businesses are active businesses and we need to give them fair chance to close and relocate. And that will be to the City's best interest if we acted with enough time to allow them to do that. Now, since there is no lease agreement and they are month to month, we can technically close them down in less than 30 days. However, to minimize the City's losses and since we found that it wouldn't impact our operation expenses significantly, we are going to work within a time frame that the Legal Department has recommended. Commissioner Plummer: The reason I am doing that, I have not seen any of the bids. And I don't want to see them. It's not my point to see them. But I do pick up vibration there's going to be some hellacious lawsuits, OK. And hellacious lawsuits mean that it's going to take time. Now, all I am saying to you is, is that if they are on a month to month basis, I think they should have already been put on notice and I am sure they are, whether officially or not. That the City is going to move them out. And they should be looking now for other facilities other than where they are, so they've got more than ample notice. Ms. Abrams: We still need to give them written notice. Commissioner Plummer: Now, if these RFPs go to a lawsuit, then in effect it's going to be a while before you start collecting rent. That's my area of concern. Ms. Abrams: OK. But there are two construction projects we're referring to, and that's why Wally Lee is here. There is also the construction of the Marina, and that is going to begin in March, if I am not mistaken. But, I'll let Wally address it. Mr. Wally Lee (Assistant City Manager): Yes Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. We expect to put out for bid, the Marina part of this project which is nothing to do with it. Commissioner Plummer: Doesn't have anything to do with this. Mr. Lee: Well, what I am telling you Commissioner, is once we start construction and we would expect to start construction approximately March 1st, they will not be able to use, have access to the bay, et ecetera. So those businesses obviously won't be able to operate. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that seems a little. I started to say dumb, I'll say that it doesn't seem proper to me. It would seem like to me that you would start the construction on the seawall or the marinas at such time as you have awarded a bid, and you don't throw people out until such time. That it is going to take the new people with the RFP award time to get organized and get in. Mr. Lee: Well, again the schedule I have projected is, we put out to the contractors a plan by the end of the month. Give them approximately two to three weeks to receive bids, and God willing everything goes right and we get the proper bids, we are able to award the first Commission meeting in February. Commissioner Plummer: Just for the record, I don't agree with that. Commissioner Gort: But the individuals in there now, are the paying up-to-date in their rent payments? 67 December 5, 1996 Ms. Abrams: Yes. The thing is that they are apparently a movie production when the got the rights and the permit and the agreement to film there. The tenants that were there were given free rent until the production company ceased their activities. That stopped about a week or so ago. So they're receiving their first bill December 1st. So whether they're up-to-date or not on this, we expect them to make their payments as they have prior to the movie production company taking over. Commissioner Gort: The Marina that we're going to build, is going to be run the same as the one over here in the West. Is there going to be... j Ms. Abrams: Ah, you answer that. Mr. Jack Luft (Director Community Planning and Revitalization Department): The marina we're building is with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) dollars. And the marina will become part of the real estate offering for the entire property because it is functionally linked to the boatyard operation on the uplift. Commissioner Gort: My question is, once the marina is built. Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Gort: Who is going to run? Who is going to be the administrative body for that? Would it be the City? Mr. Luft: It will be administered by Ms. Abrams until the leasehold can be ratified and a new _ tenant can be put into the upland hangars. Then they will run it. Commissioner Gort: In other words when the new, whoever gets awarded the RFP will become the owner? Mr. Luft: They will become the operator. Commissioner Gort: The operator. Mr. Luft: We will own the marina, as we own the upland. They will operate it in conjunction with the boatyard. Commissioner Gort. OK, thank you. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, if you could make notes on this one carefully. Commissioner Plummer. Commissioner Plummer: Sir. Mayor Carollo: You've asked about the monies from the Sports Authority. Approximately thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000). We have been trying to get on the County's agenda because we need permission for that. It's our money. It's the City's monies. We've approved a request in the Sports Authority where we're asking the County to give us the OK. Give us their blessings to use our monies of the Sports Authorities to defray some of the millions of dollars of cost that we have in these facilities. Three and a half million dollars ($3,500,000) a year alone on the Convention Center, downtown. Plus much more in some of the other facilities. It was going to be placed to the committee, then it was not because the City, rather the County Manager I understand, had to approve it. He has now. You know, I am here to do what's right. 1 don't 68 December 5, 1996 care how many people are going to get mad at me, as long as we get out of this financial mess that we're in. If at the end everybody's mad at me because we did the right thing, and we found the monies to get out of this, so be it. I'll be very happy. But, let's not play any more games between the County's management people and us here. If they want to help us, truly help us, then put up or shut up. Here's the request our of monies, thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) that all they have to do is approve it. No skin off their backs. Getting thrown around with red tape, where it's not going before the Commission for approval. Thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) that we could use and we could probably use at least half of it for this fiscal year and the other half for the next fiscal year to defray our deficit. That's a big chunk that we could take off that deficit. So I would truly appreciate it if you would contact Mr. Vidal and try to set up a meeting between both of you so that this could go on the next available County Commission agenda. We're not asking them for any monies, just to OK, that monies that are ours so that we could use them to get out of the deficit that we have. Mr. Marquez: My understanding is that the item is going to go into their finance committee, which is the normal course of action for any request. Mayor Carollo: Of course, I understand that. But... Mr. Marquez: And... Mayor Carollo: ... it was going to but it's been taken out of the agenda and given to the County Manager's office so they could study it and recommend on it. Mr. Marquez: I will personally follow up on this. Commissioner Plummer: Well just for your information, during lunch when I met with the City Manager. He informed me that the interlocal agreement on the Maritime, on the expansion of the port has not been signed. Mayor Carollo: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: And I've asked him to put him on the commission agenda for the 12th, under discussion for the possibility of the City saying "no" OK. That makes three items that they're holding our hands to the fire on. CRA... Commissioner Gort: Excuse me. Commissioner Plummer: ... is over four years. Commissioner Gort: I can give you information on that one when you're finished. Commissioner Plummer: OK, that four years on the CRA, that they've not made a move. The expansion of the port, they have not moved. And now yours with the Sports Authority, they have not moved. Yet they walk in this door and expect us, to rubber stamp any request that they have. Now, that's not what my mother told me cooperation was defined as. So I think we need to take it from there. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, during the CRA meeting the other day I was given the task to meet with the staff at the County. We met with staff and after a brief... a half an hour meeting we realized a lot of the problems that was holding the agreement was our attorney and his interpretation in this agreement with the County attorney. We finally decided, we came to a conclusion that's going to be in front of the Commission for vote in January. 69 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: Willy. Commissioner Gort: So that was taken care of. I think a lot of the time the problem is... Commissioner Plummer: No, no. No, no. Commissioner Gort: ... not the director. Commissioner Plummer: A promise to pay, is a promise to pay. Money in the bank is something done. Now they've been promising to pay for an awful long time. Four years on the CRA, we're still waiting. The interlocal agreement was hammered out by the Mayor, we're still waiting. All these things are still waiting. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, but let me get something on the table J.L., on the interlocal agreement. Commissioner Plummer: Which one? Mayor Carollo: Well, the one on the Maritime Park. The port expansion. The information that I was given at the time was that the cost of the land of the FEC (Florida East Coast) track was twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). That's obviously not the case. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, just for record. We paid twenty-nine ($29,000,000). Mayor Carollo: Well, I was given the figure... Commissioner Plummer: And that was in '78 or '77, 1 think. Mayor Carollo: That's the figure I was given. It'll be nice for us to find that out. If the City Clerk could. City Clerk... Commissioner Plummer: It was a bond issue. Mayor Carollo: ... if you could get that out I would appreciate it. So we could see exactly what the amount was, what we paid for that. But the bottom line is, that whatever the cost was, I have now found out that even back then the Florida East Coast properties railroad had a figure of sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000). That was the appraisal they had made. In fact, Roger Barreto is back here. Do you remember that sixty-five million dollar ($65,000,000) appraisal that the railroad made of the FEC track back in those years? Mr. Roger Barreto: The railroad was awarded by the court, twenty-three point five million dollars ($23,500,000). Mayor Carollo: Twenty-three point five ($23,500,000). Mr. Barreto: Plus a little interest, not very much for the about, along the river. Mayor Carollo: OK. Mr. Barreto: ... That was under the... tracks that we talk Mayor Carollo: All right, so that twenty-three point five ($23,500,000). Maybe the bond issue might have been for more for other reasons, but this... 70 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: Well, Joe there were two items on that bond issue. That one and the point at the Miami River. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. And I think, yeah. And I think where the twenty-five came in that we paid like a million and a half or so in attorneys fees. So that where the twenty-five was at. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's where Ferre took us to quick take... Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer: And it dammed near broke us. Mayor Carollo: But the bottom line is, that there was an appraisal made by them at the time, that showed it was worth sixty-five million ($65,000,000). We didn't have to pay for that, thank God. Now the property obviously is worth that and more today. We need to really look at what is going to be fair to the City of Miami in getting a return for that property. I mean we're in no position, no position whatsoever to be getting anything less than market value of what that property is worth. Commissioner Plummer: Tell them to send... Mayor Carollo: It's a 99 year lease that we're talking about in that property. Now, there are some that say well, we shouldn't even consider selling that property or anything else. Well, maybe you're right. But what's the difference between selling a property and giving it up for 99 years? Commissioner Plummer: It's one of the same. Mayor Carollo: You know, it's basically the same. Not of us or our kids would probably be around to see the end of the 9.9 years. Commissioner Plummer: Speak for yourself. Mayor Carollo: Well, the other area I'd like to bring out for discussion since you will be speaking to Manager Vidal, you could bring up also. And here's one that the Fire Department could be a real champ. There's a lot of people talking about courage these days. Guys, here's one that's full of courage that you could take the lead on. The County pays approximately one million and half dollars ($1,500,000) a year for fire protection to the Port of Miami. The County pays about seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) a year. It costs the County seven hundred and fifty thousand ($750,000) a year for the fire protection they provide to Key Biscayne. That's two million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($2,250,000) a year that it's costing the County to provide fire protection to Key Biscayne and to the Port of Miami. On top of that, they were going to pay us at least, if I remember correctly, minimum, five million dollars ($5,000,000) maybe more, so that a fire station could be built on the port. This is what I remember. The, well... I am going to say two million ($2,000,000), three million ($3,000,000). What, you know what I remember is about that. Maybe my recollection is all not fully correct, but it was several million dollars. And the County can save the cost of building that fire station and a tremendous amount of more dollars every year if they will let us provide fire protection to the Port of Miami and Key Biscayne. It will be much cheaper to them. They will save money, we will make money. We will end up I think, providing better because we're closer and have more people there than they do. If it's costing them two million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($2,250,000), we could easily do it for a million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000) a year which would basically all profit to us, since we will be using the same personnel that's close by. We have a station from the Port, right across the street. Key Biscayne 71 December 5, 1996 where we're close by. We can make a million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000) a year, every year. And the County could save a million dollars ($1,000,000) every year. That's at today's prices. Every year the savings will be a little higher. And on top of that, there will be several million dollars in savings that they wouldn't have to pay for a fire station. So, if we're talking about truly being helpful, and about having courage, this is one where people could be helpful and people can show courage. Vice Mayor Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, if I may add? Mayor Carollo: Yes. Vice Mayor Regalado: The Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Board of Dade County, Bob Godoy, is totally in favor of that plan. I spoke to him and he says, he's sure that if he brings the issue to the board, the board will approve that. The problem that he sees and this is the only problem apparently if we're approved by the County Manager is that the union does not want to give up the Port of Miami services. Now, it would take he says, for the County Manager to have discussions with the union in order to have that situation resolved. Now whether or not the Fire and Rescue Board has total leverage in deciding, we don't know that because they don't know that. But they're in favor, they're willing to vote for it and they are willing also to go to the County and explain their position. So... I don't know about Key Biscayne, but I spoke to him about the Port specifically and he's willing to help and ready to go to work on that issue. Mayor Carollo: For the record too, Mr. Manager. There is no contract provisions at all between the County's Fire Fighters Union and the County that they have to do a fire protection of the port. At the same time, there would not be any loss whatsoever of one single County firefighter if we take over those facilities. Because they could just take them into other areas of the County, very easily. Through attrition they need to hire people constantly. So, that won't represent a problem either. This is a win, win for everybody if people truly want to be helpful. Mr. Marquez: We'll put that as a proposal to the County and let it format and get that out probably tomorrow. Ms. Abrams: Any other questions? Mayor Carollo: Thank you. --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17. POLICE: PROPOSES 7% BUDGET CUT -- STOP HAVING SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS BY 1/1/97 -- CONSIDER IMPLEMENT TELEREPORTING -- FOR REPORTS OF STOLEN VEHICLES -- FREEZE HIRINGS AND PROMOTIONS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Police. Police Chief Donald Warshaw: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. The total adopted budget for this fiscal year for the Police Department is one hundred and one million dollars ($101,000,000). And the cuts you see in front of you representing five point nine million, added to that from the 256 vacancies. One hundred and one of those vacancies, civilian vacancies belong to the police for another one point eight million for a total of seven point seven million, which represents about seven percent of the total budget. I might add also, that of that one hundred and one million ($101,000,000) approximately ninety-seven million ($97,000,000) of that budget covers 72 December 5, 1996 �i N«' 'A F the cost of personnel, internal services, fringe benefits, pension costs. And the remaining very small portion is for fixed and other operating costs. I'll take you through some of these line items because some of them require some detailed explanations. Starting off with the second one really, the first one is pretty self-explanatory. It's one hundred and eighty-eight thousand dollars ($188,000) from various operating costs, mostly small equipment purchases. The second item which is elimination of the aviation unit. I had made a recommendation previously to the former City Manager, Merrett Stierheim that we would eliminate this unit. And in the interim, I gave the commanding officers a chance to see if they could sell or lease some of the flying time to cut into our cost. And they came back with some success by contacting the Gables, the Beach and other places, but were unable to come up with enough. So it's basically my recommendation today to shut down the aviation function, saving approximately one hundred and eighty-eight thousand dollars ($188,000) as well as enabling us to sell two of the OH6 helicopters we have for about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) each. And I understand we've had several people call us already. The other two helicopters, the OH58 and the approximately three million dollars ($3,000,000) worth of parts and engines and propellers and what have you, we could not sell based upon our agreement with the Federal government and those would have to be returned or given to other law enforcement agencies. The next item is the closing of the North and South District Substation that shows the approximate cost for this year of about one hundred and ninety-one thousand dollars ($191,000). And that cost covers basically the maintenance and utilities. The real cost that's not, or the real savings or revenues that could be generated of course from this would be the sale of the South District Substation and the leasing of the North station which of course is on County land. I've stated before and I'll state it again, that Police service would not in any way be compromised in terms of patrol officers on the street or investigative functions, if we did all that from a main central building. So I'll be looking to you for your guidance, number one, as to if and when we're going to do this and then let the Asset Management people start taking a look at what the market would be to sell or lease, either or one of these two facilities. Do I just keep going? The next item which is the cops money, and this requires somewhat of a lengthy explanation. I'll try to keep it as basic as I can. It also triggers some other very substantial income for the Police Department. I'm sure you know about the President's 10,000 cops on the street. And we have applied and have gotten a slice of that pie, every time we've done it. But because of the fiscal crisis we're in, some six weeks ago we wrote a letter to the Justice Department, have been in very daily contact with them requesting a waiver. The way this money works is basically the Federal government pays the cost for twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) per officer. And the City, police department would pay the balance which in this case is about another nineteen thousand ($19,000) to bring it to forty-four thousand ($44,000). Because of the fiscal crisis and the fact that we were not going to be obviously hiring above our 1,015 baseline number, which is the number we gave the Justice Department when we applied for these funds. We applied under a special fiscal emergency provision for a waiver. What that waiver means, there were two types of waivers. One of them means that the Federal government could pay for our match. In effect, not only would we not have to match it, they would give us a hard cash donation for the match. But it's the second part of the waiver that's most significant and we were just granted that waiver. And that was to lower the baseline number, we were granted 102 positions at a baseline of 1,015. The request was made to lower the baseline to 913, taking the 102 off the 1,015. In effect, asking the Federal government to pay the full cost of officers we already have working in the department today. Now, the first part of that waiver has been approved. The baseline has been lowered. So that means that the twenty-five thousand ($25,000) per officer times 102 officers will be given to us in this fiscal year. And that's in this three point nine million. The second part of the waiver which comes from another branch of the Justice Department, in effect gives us the waiver of our share of the match, which is that nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000) for those same 102 officers. In effect, meaning that the Justice Department will pay for 102 police officers who are currently working today. And that waiver we expect any day. That value was three point nine million dollars ($3,900,000), and that is a hard cash contribution that the City will receive on a monthly basis. And I might add, I have been told that there is a third waiver which we could ask 73 December 5, 1996 r for, and I know, and we will, which would be to request all of that money up front, rather than to have to submit those reports on a monthly basis. And the reason I know they would approve that is, the officers are already on board. I guess the reason for the monthly pay out would be, as you're hiring you bring them on, they replenish you on a monthly basis. Now, added to the cops money in addition to that. In out budget this year, there is one million dollars set aside for the match for that cops money. So if we get the Federal government to pay that, that's one million dollars ($1,000,000) taken off the top of our budget, so that another million ($1,000,000). And over and above that, there is another part of the cops money that we applied for which was nine million dollars ($9,000,000) for technology and that technology was to pay the cost predominantly for the MDCs (Mobile Digital Computers) for all our police vehicles. We've also applied for a match for that money. We've already been granted three million ($3,000,000), six million ($6,000,000) was to be paid by the City. Now, that money was budgeted through capital expenditures that unfortunately as a result of everything that happened here, that money was never set aside. So in reality, there was no place for that money to come from. Mayor Carollo: So you mean when the Commission approved that, we approved it when there was no set asides anywhere? Police Chief Warshaw: That's correct. Mayor Carollo: And nobody could tell this Commission that we were being asked to approve something, that there was no monies to pay it? Police Chief Warshaw: Well, we had one million dollars ($1,000,000) or a little more or less than our capital account. But we now find out that that money is all part of what remained Citywide. I mean, that was... those were monies that was set aside for the Police Department exactly for these projects and I know because I was here. There were codes and funding sources given to you when we came before you for that. And of course when this whole scandal came apart, it was obvious when the Manager, Stierheim, at that time came in, found that there was no monies set aside for many of the capital programs including programs that are ongoing right now that had no funding sources. Mayor Carollo: In other words what you're saying Chief is, that all the codes that you were also given where the monies were coming from, were codes that had no money. Police Chief Warshaw: That's correct Mayor Carollo: Were empty bank accounts. Police Chief Warshaw: That's correct. Mayor Carollo: That already the monies have been siphoned of'? Police Chief Warshaw: Or were never there. I mean, I don't know. Mayor Carollo: OK, go ahead Chief. Police Chief Warshaw: And if there is any good news to that. The good news is that this other waiver, which would be under the same provisions as the officer waiver fiscal emergency which we have qualified and applied for, could conceivably bring us this additional six million dollars ($6,000,000). And it gets better from there because we have also been somewhat committed to another 50 officers per year for a total of four years, that's three years out from this year. That's another two point five ($2,500,000) to four million ($4,000,000) depending upon whether the waivers are available for the match in those years. So just taking this year alone, there's another 74 December 5, 1996 50 officers that we've applied for and as long as this fiscal emergency continues and we can keep justifying to the Justice Department that we meet that criteria. And I want to tell you we have an outstanding relationship. I know you know Joe Graham (phonetic) was down here several times. I mean he basically reports directly to the President. This is a very non - bureaucratic office of the Justice Department. They are very quick decision makers. You can reach them any day of the week and they've been more than helpful to us. They want to help us. They are going to be sending someone down there from their Auditor General's Office as a result of what's happened this past week. But we've assured them you know, about the new Manager about the commitment to the Commission. That the monies will go for the right things and I am very confident we can continue to get this stream of money. I'm sharing all this with you now in this code because number one, it certainly has an impact on the 15 percent and number twi=o, it has an impact on future police hiring in terms of whether we're going to try to use these monies to fund current positions or if we get below a certain point and have to go and hire more, we could in effect be able to fund them without any City dollars. Mayor Carollo: Don, what is your total budget in the Police Department, close to one hundred million ($100,000,000)? Ninety? Police Chief Warshaw: One hundred and one million ($101,000,000). Mayor Carollo: Yeah. One hundred and one million ($101,000,000) now Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: That's 48 percent of the general fund. Out of the monies that we have here, that were given, almost six million dollars ($6,000,000) savings, five million nine hundred and six thousand ($5,906,000) approximately, three million nine hundred and thirty thousand ($3,930,000) is coming from the Waiver of the Cops Program. Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: You of course are going to end up getting at least another two million ($2,000,000) or a little over two million ($2,000,000) from the second waiver, once it comes. Police Chief Warshaw: At least that much, plus the six million ($6,000,000) in technology money. Mayor Carollo: Well, the six million ($6,000,000) is really three million ($3,000,000), correct? Police Chief Warshaw: Well we've gotten three. There is a... Mayor Carollo: You got the three ($3,000,000) yeah, but that three ($3,000,000) was here already. Police Chief Warshaw: Correct. Mayor Carollo: We never anticipated having to spend that. Police Chief Warshaw: Right. The important reason for getting the additional six, is those projects are very far under way and the City is going to be obligated to pay for them. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, that's one that we were obligated to pay. So... Police Chief Warshaw: So we need that money desperately. VQ December 5, 1996 r Mayor Carollo: Yeah, it's three million ($3,000,000) less that we would have to worry about in the deficit. Plus if we get the three million nine hundred and thirty thousand ($3,930,000) and get the second waiver, then we're talking about at least another six million ($6,000,000) or a little over six million ($6,000,000). Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: So that's about, on this fiscal year around nine million ($9,000,000). Poloce Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. i Mayor Carollo: For next fiscal year it will be six million three hundred thousand ($6,300,000), if I remember correctly. Police Chief Warshaw: And again, the numbers are somewhat... Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Police Chief Warshaw: flexible because in addition to everything else that I've told you there were other slices of the crime bill pie that are coming open after this January, which we'll also be eligible for. Mayor Carollo: Sure, yeah. Well the other 50, you also might be able to get a waiver for those. Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. i Mayor Carollo: And as far as PSAs (Public Service Aides), you also if I remember, which you didn't remember that, can get some money for that. Police Chief Warshaw: Correct. Police Chief Warshaw: Yeah, we've applied for that as well. I think for another 50. i Mayor Carollo: OK, can we also apply for the waiver? Can we apply for the waiver on that? i Police Chief Warshaw: We have. Mr. Marquez: We have. Mayor Carollo: How many PSAs do we have now, present? Police Chief Warshaw: 65. Mayor Carollo: Sixty-five? How many did you have in the budget for this fiscal year? Police Chief Warshaw: One hundred and ten. Mayor Carollo: A hundred and ten. So if you can get a hundred more and get a waiver at least on 50 of the hundred, the 50 would mean what kind of a savings to us? Police Chief Warshaw: It's seventeen thousand ($17,000) about, each for PSA. So it's... Mayor Carollo: Seventeen ($17,000) a piece? 76 December 5, 1996 r Police Chief Warshaw: Seventeen thousand ($17,000) each. Mayor Carollo: OK. So, yeah... Police Chief Warshaw: That's another eight hundred ($800) and something. Mayor Carollo: Yeah about that, that we would have. So conceivably in here we could have a crunch of the deficit the first year of ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Right around ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Police Chief Warshaw: Yeah, there's some substantial money here. Mayor Carollo: The second year it's around seven million ($7,000,000) because we don't have but three million ($3,000,000) that was a one time monies for the computers. Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: OK, Let's... Police Chief Warshaw: And again, I... Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Police Chief Warshaw: ... and I am not saying it in a caution way, but in a positive way. Mayor Carollo: OK. Police Chief Warshaw: There are other monies and I think we're in a very good position. Mayor Carollo: Absolutely. Police Chief Warshaw: Not only because we're in financial trouble because our neighborhood policing program is winning a lot of recognition in Washington and there's a lot coming to us. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, and we complement you for that. But basically what I'm seeing here, out of the reductions that we have, we had almost four million ($4,000,000) that were monies coming from Washington, additional monies. That's not really a reduction. And everything else we're talking about is monies coming from Washington that I compliment all the work you all have been doing in that. That's the kind of action that we need to have from all our department directors and senior staff people. Nevertheless, out of the one hundred and one million dollar ($101,000,000) budget that you have, taking that three point nine million dollars ($3,900,000) it's less than two million ($2,000,000) that we're actually cutting from the one hundred and one million dollar ($101,000,000) budget. Police Chief Warshaw: Pretty much so. Commissioner Plummer: Chief may I ask you on the budget, something is radically wrong here, and I don't know what it is. It shows that your budget went from 63 people last year, to 80 this year. That's what in the books, sir. Police Chief Warshaw: Sixty-three. I am not sure what number you're number looking at. Mr. Marquez: What page? 77 December 5, 1996 ti- Commissioner Plummer: Well, I'm on page 101. Police Office of the Chief. Went from 63 positions to 80. Now, also I am concerned... Police Chief Warshaw: They are not in my office, Commissioner. Commissioner Plummer: Sir, I am just reading from the book. Police Chief Warshaw: We made some internal organizational transfer. I shut down the community relations function, created a much smaller community affairs office and had it transferred to the Office of the Chief. Commissioner Plummer: No, it's up not down. Police Chief Warshaw: Well, it shows down in the operations side. Commissioner Plummer: It's from 63 up to 80. Now, more so I am concerned, is in the 80 positions. If you take the amount of money for the Office of the Chief is eight hundred and sixty-three thousand two hundred and ninety-three ($863,293) which comes out divided by 80 to one hundred and seven thousand dollars ($107,000) per employee. Police Chief Warshaw: I am not sure where he's... Mr. Marquez: Where are you pulling the one hundred and seven thousand ($107,000) from? Commissioner Plummer: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Page 98 at the top, Office of the Chief. Eight hundred sixty-three thousand two hundred and ninety-three ($863,293). Those are not my numbers, this is the book. Now, when you come back on Saturday I would like to know where do these numbers equate themselves? Police Chief Warshaw: OK, Commissioner just off the top of my head, so you'll know. On the organization chart, there were certain organizational entity to report to the Chief. Internal Affairs, Public Information and they are all staffed with police officers and civilians. So I'll give you a full breakdown as to who is in each one of those divisions. Commissioner Plummer: I have two other questions. We talked about the PSAs and the school guards. Police Chief Warshaw: Right. Commissioner Plummer: Now, what have you done on that? Police Chief Warshaw: I had made a recommendation to the former manager and I think I sent the same one through to the new Manager, that we are going to tell the County, effective on January 1st, that we can no longer perform the school crossing guard function. Number one, we cannot find the people. We have tremendous numbers of vacancies. Number two, we have to use and have been using Public Service Aides, and sometimes police officers to man corners near schools for public safety reasons. But they now have a substantial police force. They don't give us enough money. We're about eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) in deficit for what they give us. Commissioner Plummer: You said the County, are you speaking about the School Board? Police Chief Warshaw: School Boards, right. Of the County, I am sorry. So it's a business we want to get out of. 78 December 5,1996 Commissioner Plummer: All right. So you have, in behalf I assume of this Commission, so notified them, that as of the first day of January, we will no longer be able to provide that service? Police Chief Warshaw: I don't know if we've sent the letter. But if we haven't, it's a step away from going out. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, have we sent the letter? Mr. Marquez: I don't know, but if it hasn't, it will be out tomorrow. Commissioner Plummer: Well, OK. The second area, Mr. Manager, I would like you to look into. And that is, up until about a year or so ago, we did a thing called telereporting. Telereporting was one of the best items that we had. And was deleted because of the fact of finances and not being able to hire the 15 people. I think at one time I was told that 24 percent of the reports were being done over telereporting for which you can get people sitting behind a desk with a computer for a very minimal amount of money. The county, let me say to you does not dispatch cars to the best of my knowledge on stolen vehicles. I can tell you for a fact, they do not for a break-in on a vehicle. They don't dispatch a PSA, an officer or any of that because I know at my place of business. They don't dispatch on anything that can be done over a phone. Now, not only are you saving money, but let me tell you more importantly, and this is also with the PSAs. We have people out there today that are waiting two and five hours for a police car to be dispatched or a PSA. When they can do it over a phone almost instantly. Almost instantly and it's over, they're given a case number and there's no difference. And I want you to come back to this Commission because we're also not only talking about saving money. We're talking about the level of service. And there's a lot of people when they stand out in the hot sun on Dixie Highway for three hours waiting for a police car, they are not one of our best "citizenries" after that about what they think about the City of Miami. Telereporting was extremely a good procedure. Some people said, "well, you know I don't like talking over a phone. I want to see a man out there." We can't afford it anymore. We need to go back. Police Chief Warshaw: Commissioner, if I can just add to that. I was the one who made the decision to eliminate the teleserve function and put the PSAs who were staffing it, number one, back on the street. Number two, set up a system in NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Teams) offices and encourage citizens by going out and talking in every neighborhood in the City, telling them that because we're short that I ask you when you have non -emergency calls. Now you have those 12 or 13 officers go in, there is a PSA on duty there, make the reports there. And so far in this year, 6,398 reports were made in NET offices. Eighteen thousand nine hundred were made by PSAs and 7,800 were made at the front desks of the substation. And while I agree, I'd love to have the telereporting as well as the PSAs by being out there. And I know how strongly you feel about the PSAs also being on the street. I mean it's, it's a toss up, it really is. Commissioner Plummer: No, it's not. Let me tell you why it's not a toss up. It costs you money to put a PSA in a uniform and in a car and time to send him out. It doesn't cost you anything but for a person and a telephone to do the other one, OK. So there is big difference in my estimation. Personally, I think we ought to have both and I think we can afford both. Because the level of service is important. I quit. Police Chief Warshaw: And if we could hire the 15 clerks, you know I would welcome doing that. And I don't dispute that it's a good system. Commissioner Plummer: It worked before. 79 December 5, 1996 Vice Mayor Regalado: Chief, how many PSA are we using now for the schools? Because I see everyday in Coral Way Elementary we've got two units with two PSAs. Is that the regular number that you're using in every school in the City? Police Chief Warshaw: We're using 1,200 man-hours. PSA man-hours, per month, to man the schools. We have to understand some of the history of this. How we got into this business years ago where the County and the School Board started dolling out money. Not enough money to municipalities to help pay for a function that is almost impossible to staff because the pay is so low. Most of the people who are school crossing guards don't have cars, they have to walk. The turnover is very high and then once you're in the business, the schools expect that if the school crossing guard doesn't show up, you're going to send someone in their place. And you're kind of forced into doing something that you really don't want to do. And we want to get out of that business. I know there is a big budget now in the school board police and they're going to have to take it over. We just... We can't do it any more. Commissioner Plummer: Do they pay us for the school crossing guards? Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: How much? Police Chief Warshaw: Not enough. I mean they're supposed to pay us eighty thousand ($80,000). Unidentified Speaker: We made like ninety-two thousand ($92,000). Police Chief Warshaw: Ninety-two thousand ($92,000) and it cost us... Unidentified Speaker: One hundred and sixty ($160,000). Police Chief Warshaw: ... one hundred and sixty ($160,000), so... Commissioner Plummer: Well I just, you know. I don't want to breach safety for the kids. That's not in any way even of minor involvement, all right. But let me tell you something. The school board has ten mills like we have ten mills. Dade County has ten mills. They've got their own police department. Police Chief Warshaw: I agree. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Then if they're going to do that, then I think they've got a responsibility to protect the kids in their schools and they pay out of their millage, not out of ours. Police Chief Warshaw: Would you like me to finish the last three items? Commissioner Plummer: Sure. Police Chief Warshaw: All right. The next item is the reduction of Law Enforcement Trust Fund monies to local organizations. I know we talked about that last time. Basically, we're under state mandate, state law to give 15 percent of the monies we receive to local organizations. And all those come before you. It's going to be my recommendation to the Manager, certainly until we're long out of this crisis, that those organizations that we fund are only those that are very closely involved with the Police Department, like the Police Athletic League, the Do the .E December 5, 1996 En Right Thing Program, some of the sports programs we're doing. And then whatever others we'll bring before you and it will be at your discretion based on our recommendation as to who else should get those dollars. The next item is the one million dollars ($1,000,000) in overtime dollars to be saved as a result of no longer doing basically what we used to call "IMPACT" (Intensified Mobilization of Police Against Criminal Tactics) and then it elevated into other things. The Sth day beat. We start using overtime money similar to what they're doing in the County now, to do sweeps and to do directed kinds of operations using target overtime. Having police officers who work on a four day week, work a fifth day. Having PSAs work in an additional day and basically provide additional coverage. And that million dollars ($1,000,000) which was budgeted in this year, we have cut out. And the last item is the D.U.I. (Drinking Under the Influence) court overtime pilot program which is something we've been involved with, with the Courts and with the Dade Chiefs. And it's a pilot program which I can send you a copy of which will set up some systems that will hopefully have this big impact on court overtime which is another problem for another part of this report. I might add also, on the Law Enforcement Trust Fund you asked me last time we met, that as we get these monies in, every way we can find to fund General Fund Operations that would normally have been funded through the General Fund that meet the criteria of which there are many. I will bring those before you as we get those monies and use those monies to help us, you know get out of this crisis. Mayor Carollo: Well, let's start from right below you in rank. If you could go over how many people you have at the rank of Major and above? Police Chief Warshaw: OK, there's one Deputy Chief. There are three Assistant Chiefs. There are 11 Majors. We had ten or 11 Captains but several of them have retired as recently as this past week. I think the number is down to about probably five or six. Forty-six Lieutenants, 148 or 145 Sergeants. And whatever is left is police officers. Mayor Carollo: OK. Captains... Police Chief Warshaw: It's about five or six. Mayor Carollo: ... what have you been budgeted for? Police Chief Warshaw: They're not budgeted that way Mayor. I could bring it down and give it to you. Basically the budget is done by division, by section. If you... Mayor Carollo: I understand, but how many Captains is the normal that you've had throughout the years? Police Chief Warshaw: Twelve. Mayor Carollo: Twelve Captains? Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: How many Majors has been the normal that you've always had? Police Chief Warshaw: Well, there have been at one time as high as 17 or 18. And now it's 11. Mayor Carollo: But, I believe if I remember correctly a few years ago, it was eight Majors that we had. Police Chief Warshaw: It was a long time ago that it eight. At least the 70s, very early 80s. 81 December S, 1996 1i Mayor Carollo: Assistant Chiefs, you have three right now? Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: And one Deputy Chief. Do we have any further retirements in the upper rank for Major and above that are expected? Police Chief Warshaw: Every time I turn around, I find out that someone else has left. I mean we've lost some substantial numbers of people just these last few days. And they're mostly, not all but mostly higher ranking people. I can't tell you everyone that's contemplating retirement but this whole event has caused a lot of people to put in their application to the pension board. And what they actually do with it, in terms of retiring and signing out is something that I don't have any direct control over. Mayor Carollo: Well, since I can remember, I think the vast majority of the upper rank personnel that we had in the past, throughout the last eight, nine, seven years have left the department. So, and you could see them all over the State of Florida being Chiefs, Assistant Chiefs in different departments. In fact, someone was telling me a couple of days ago how grateful they were to the City of Miami. I think it was someone who was speaking to someone from the government of Florida City. Police Chief Warshaw: Washington. Mayor Carollo: That we have quite a few officers over there that our good pension system and has been a life saver to them. Because they can afford to pay them a lot less and have them as officers there. The reason I am questioning how many people we have at the upper ranks is simply Chief that, with the crisis that we're facing and with 48 percent of the General Fund j going to Police, which is one hundred and one million dollars ($101,000,000), and only seeing that we have about one million nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) deductions. I am looking to see what other possible areas in the department we can reduce some dollars that's not going to take patrol officers out of the street. This is one area that we can't reduce in. Police Chief Warshaw: Well, Mr. Mayor, with the exception of the immediate appointed staff which are the Majors and above and a few other people in that small group, everyone else is part I of the FOP (Fraternity Order of Police) Bargaining unit and retirement is an option to them that they can exercise at any time. I mean in reality, looking for larger cuts in terms of personnel from this budget. I mean short of layoffs there's no way that you're going to get those cuts. They're not there. The budget operationally has been very, very small and very tight for the last five years. It's probably remained almost the same. The only thing that's gone up have been union contracts, cost of living and... Mayor Carollo: How many people do you have in Community Affairs and how many people do you have in PIO (Public Information Office)? Police Chief Warshaw: In Community Affairs there's a lieutenant, a sergeant and five officers and five civilians. An administrative assistant, two community involvement specialists and one... Mayor Carollo: Because see, yeah. You have lieutenant, sergeant and five officers? Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: OK, how many civilians do you have there? 82 December 5, 1996 0 Police Chief Warshaw: Five. Mayor Carollo: Five civilians. How many civilians can take the place of sworn police officers that we have here? In other words, how many sworn police officers do we have here, can we get out in the streets to be doing some other duties that civilians can handle? Police Chief Warshaw: Well, I'll answer that this way. There are in several situations, not only in community affairs, many jobs that are currently staffed with sworn people that could be filled with civilians. The problem has been over the years, is civilianization has been talked about but then there has never been the funding for the civilian positions. Now we have done as best we can is used limited duty officers, two of which are the ones who are in community affairs. Things like backgrounds, where I know we're talked about before. A vast majority of those officers, and that's a much lower number are limited or light duty. So I mean the answer to your questions is, there are many positions, probably some of these as well. Now, one or two of these are assigned to the Police Athletic League and are doing other community programs that I think are very important to our mission. Mayor Carollo: Well, they are important Chief but in a time of crisis... Police Chief Warshaw: I understand. Mayor Carollo: ... we have to see where we can cut. And the point that I am making is, and that I am trying to drive home is that a sworn police officer costs us a heck of a lot more in salaries than a civilian personnel that you can bring in there. Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: And that's one area that we need to look at cutting. And in as far as any other area that you can foresee, that we could take some cutting. For instance, we have talked about some substantial amount of dollars that will be coming piece by piece during the next 18 months. As much maybe as fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). That's from monies that the department will be getting, hard cash on confiscation of properties or cash or what have you. Police Chief Warshaw: Right. i Mayor Carollo: How can we try to find creative ways to use some of that money, within the state guidelines? And you know that we have been working on that. But how can be find creative ways to use some of that monies to relieve the deficit? Police Chief Warshaw: We can, and we will. And I have already spoken to the Manager and I think I mentioned the last time we were here and again today, that as we get these monies in, I will bring them before you and I think I've mentioned there's quite a bit of money in the pipeline but there's no definitive knowledge as to when it's going to come in but there's no question about it that we can use these monies to fund current operations. And I will do that. Mayor Carollo: Inasfar as specialized units, homicide and other specialized units that we have, and we have many. What responsibility does the County have that out of the millage that we pay to the County that they can help in some of those areas also? Police Chief Warshaw: I didn't... I missed the very.... Mayor Carollo: Well, we're paying millage. We pay taxes to the County also. 83 December 5, 1996 r Police Chief Warshaw: Correct. Mayor Carollo: Each time that any Miami homeowners, property owner pays their tax bill, besides what we pay to the City of Miami, we pay to the School Board and we pay to Dade County government. Now, what are we getting for our dollars? And I guess that's the bottom line of where I am getting at. Police Chief Warshaw: As far police service? Mayor Carollo: As far as police service. I am not talking about patrolmen in the streets, that's a separate responsibility. But, in specialized areas, what are they giving us and at the same time, have we ever looked to see what they might actually be responsible for, for the taxes that we're paying them? Police Chief Warshaw: Mayor, to the best of my knowledge, other than the court system, Corrections, the labs and ID (Identification) work and those kinds of services, we do not get anything, as far as direct, you know operational police services for those dollars. Now, I don't know if we've ever asked over the years, but that's where those monies go for. If they should go for somewhere else, and the County should be providing something else to us, I am not aware of what that is. We'll take a look at it. Commissioner Plummer: That's in the Police Department. The County provides a lot of other things. Your answer I think, Joe, about 30 cents of every dollar the County collects as an ad valorem is from the City of Miami. For that, they have all the regional services. That which have just been outlined by the Police Chief, but you have to throw into there the bridges, main arterials and all that is done by the County. Mayor Carollo: I understand that, J.L. But what I am driving at is, I am trying to find out traditionally... Commissioner Plummer: Oh, we don't get back our dollars' worth. Mayor Carollo: You know. Well, that's what I am trying to get at. Commissioner Plummer: No. Mayor Carollo: Traditionally, what has been the policy. What was the policy when Dade County government was chartered? What were they supposed to give us for the taxes we pay them? What do other County governments in other parts of the states or in other areas, give to the cities for the taxes they pay them? If we didn't have to pay the County taxes that we pay in the City, our tax rates would be much, much lower. Much, much lower. And I want to see what we're getting in return from the County. Police Chief Warshaw: I will work with the Manager certainly on the police side, and the whole picture for that matter. Mayor Carollo: I mean if we're being cut loose to swim or sink on our own. I want to know exactly what we're getting for our monies for the millions and millions and millions of dollars that we pay Dade County government every year, in particularly, in specialized units. And I don't think anybody could question that. This is a legitimate area we're talking. We're not talking about now about tourist police, patrolmen, areas that truly fall on us. We're talking about areas that are specialized, that are part of what County government is getting paid for to provide. Police Chief Warshaw: Well, Mayor it's... December 5, 1996 Mayor Carollo: To us and to all the other cities. Police Chief Warshaw: It's a good question, and I guess because we've always been a municipal police department handling our own, the question probably has never been explored and we will. Mayor Carollo: You know I won't mind if they don't want to help in this area, then to give us a rebate. I mean I'll take that, it's not problem. But we... Police Chief Warshaw: Right. We've talked about that before. Mayor Carollo: We need to find out, Chief. I mean now is the time that it's not a time to win, and I am saying this for all of us, PR (Public Relations) contest. To necessarily be out trying to make sure that everybody is our friend. Now is the time to bring home the bacon, to get the dollars that we need so that this City can be run. So that this City will get out of the deficit that it has, and that we could build a solid foundation for this City's future. If we would just find the funds as we're trying to, for the next couple of years, I tell you, there is a big, big sun at the end of the tunnel. I have personally met recently with major individuals and corporations. I've met with the two CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) of two major international corporations. One is a corporation that is all over the world, mainly Asia and Europe. They don't need to borrow money from anybody. They have it themselves. They are going to be investing here in the next seven years or so, some five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). Another CEO of another firm that I met with, there is going to be a combination of borrowed money and some of their own, have another series of projects that they're planning for the next five years. That will be approximately one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: Are they going to do it in the City? Mayor Carollo: In the City of Miami. City of Miami. Commissioner Plummer: That's what important. Mayor Carollo: City of Miami. These are corporations and individuals that are not scared. We've had very frank conversations as early as last week with them. They understand what our situation is, they're going to stick with Miami. They are going to come here and build and put their dollars in Miami. Once those projects go up and we have another billion and a half dollars ($1,500,000,000) in the tax tolls of the City, just what that's going to represent in the City of Miami alone, in our share of those taxes, forgetting about Dade County's School Board, it's going to be some eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) a year. I mean, that a major shot in the arm for this City. And these are the kinds of things that... I mean we've been hearing so much about the bad. I just had to bring that out because you know there is a lot good out there. There is a lot of promising things for this City, if we can just keep it afloat, like we can, like we will. And get over this hump that we have to now. This City has a tremendous potential. Yes, we have about a third of our people that live under poverty, but you know what, and this is a thing that gets me so mad at times. There is no reason in the world why a City like Miami, should be in the situation it's in. We might have one third of our citizens that live under poverty for many reasons that we know, but this is a rich City. There is no City in the State of Florida, and few in the whole country that have the assets that we have. That have the waterfront property that this City owns and we have had no planning throughout the past years. If in the last five, six, seven, eight years we would have taken the time to plan and had the vision to have built along our waterfront, to have brought the type of projects like Bayside, that we once brought and others, to have brought those projects here, we could be getting today 20, 25, 30 million dollars ($20,000,000, $25,000,000, $30,000,000) in recurring revenues where we won't be in the hole that we're in today. We could still do that. But unfortunately, to make those kinds of plans, to 85 December 5, 1996 put those kinds of RFPs (Request for Proposals) out, to have those investors come here that want to come here, that's going to take some time. And we're looking to three to five years down the road, maybe two years in some projects before we see that kind of money coming. You know Central Park is the park that everybody anywhere in another part of the world talks about in the United States and about New York City. That's the main park that people know that's here in the United States. Central Park, which is a great park, but you know what? We have a park that's even better than Central Park. We have a park that's about the same size of Central Park. Central Park is, I think it's about 800 acres. Virginia Key, a tropical island that we own has about 700 acres of what we own there. The thing is, they don't have the months and months of cold weather and snow that Central Park has and Central Park has no beaches, we've got them in Virginia Key. And you know what, the sights that we have in Virginia Key can't even compare with the sights that Central Park has. We have Watson Island. We have some of the best and most beautiful waterfront land right in front of downtown Miami this City owns. We have all this land here, waterfront in Coconut Grove. And we've just been letting it rot. Nothing has been done with it. We are a rich City and with that, it's the reason that I have a lot of faith in Miami's future. All that we need to do, which is to get over this, and Miami is going to have one heck of a future. Police Chief Warshaw: And Mr. Mayor, I think you know I share those same sentiments. Mayor Carollo: I know you do, Chief. Police Chief Warshaw: Next month is my twenty-fifth year with the City. And I want to say that the police department has a golden opportunity right now to receive very large amounts of revenue from the federal government where we've developed these outstanding relationships. And now when we're in trouble, we are going to put all our energies into getting these additional monies and others that are going to come on line in the next 18 to 24 months, so you have my commitment. Mayor Carollo: Well, let me ask you one more question that I forgot to ask you, to make sure that I have it in my calculations here. You've mentioned that you had a million dollars ($1,000,000) put aside that we could also take out from the budget once we get the cops money. That's not calculating the million ($1,000,000) that you have here from the LETF (Law Enforcement Trust Fund) funding, right? Police Chief Warshaw: No. Mayor Carollo: That's not it? That's... Police Chief Warshaw: That's an additional million that in the General Fund Budget. Mayor Carollo: OK. It's for this year, which will be this year and next year actually, that we will need. Police Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir. It will be recurring. Mayor Carollo: It will be recurring. So then we've up to eleven million ($11,000,000) and eight million ($8,000,000), as I see it. But I want to sit down with you and your staff and really work through those numbers with a fine tooth comb. Chief, you know I would love to be able to give the police department even more than it has. You know, I created it basically. It was my idea, my motions the take-home program for police cars. I created it for cars and officers that live in the City of Miami. You know I would love to be able to provide new vehicles for police officers. Forget about the five years, 75,000 miles. I would like to do it every three years, if we had the money. You know the Marine Patrol, if you remember correctly, that was also my 86 December 5, 1996 creation. I brought the motions up. I brought the idea up to create a marine patrol unit which I think has served the City tremendously and has paid itself year after year. In fact, it's paid for more than itself. It's been almost worth its weight in gold. You know, we down to what? Maybe two, three officers in the marine patrol? Police Chief Warshaw: We have five, right? Yeah, a sergeant and five police officers. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. But most of the time you have less than that out there. Police Chief Warshaw: Right. Based on scheduling. Mayor Carollo: How many boats do we have now, with all the confiscated ones that we've got? About 13, 12? Police Chief Warshaw: Well, I can tell you we've... I have some statistics in front of me that just this past. For this year so far, we've done 1,800 boat inspections and written tickets for 1,200 infractions. We've recovered 29 vessels, recovered 8 vehicles, recovered 55 other items and one million dollars ($1,000,000) worth of property that's in various stages of forfeiture. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. Here's an area that I would love to put more resources in even though it's an area that I know J.L. has always felt that that's a County obligation. Commissioner Plummer: And the State. Mayor Carollo: And he's right. You know that's an area that a County obligation. But, you know we've been spending our monies doubly. We pay the County for their obligation through our tax monies and we're having to also fend for ourselves for many years. Big waterways out there we get... Police Chief Warshaw: We've rescued 160 people so far this year and... Mayor Carollo: But the bottom line is Chief that we, until we get over this hump that we have to climb. This sixty-eight million dollar ($68,000,000) hump. We have to somehow either bring new revenues, like the ones that we've discussed here today. And you and I and some of your staff have been talking about for some time, or we need to try to find a way to cut some more from somewhere. It's the only way that we could go. And we've got the City budget of two hundred and seventy-five million dollars ($275,000,000) and police one hundred and one million ($101,000,000). And police is very important. And the main reason for a City to exist is for the protection of life and property. Outside of that, yes you have zoning that you do, code enforcement. But the bottom line is, protection of life and property. So we need to work on those numbers more, Chief. And I know that you have tried hard but, we have to try harder to see where else we could cut some dollars from... Police Chief Warshaw: I understand. Mayor Carollo: ... that could be recurring until you know, we get additional cash influx when many projects start going into the tax rolls. Any questions? Commissioner Hernandez: Chief, do you know the appraised property value of the north and south substations? Police Chief Warshaw: I don't have the appraised value. I think that the tax assessed value of the south was about two point three million ($2,300,000) in the south and about one point five ($1,500,000) or one point eight ($1,800,000) in the north. But that's... And don't hold me to the 87 December 5, 1996 r Ala �'R% l one in the north. I have already gotten some prospectuses from realtors who read things in the newspapers. So I don't know if that means anyone is really interested. But I'll await the direction of the Commission on how to act on that. Commissioner Hernandez: The closing of the north substation has become a very controversial issue. Police Chief Warshaw: Yes. Commissioner Hernandez: I have been getting a lot of calls from residents up in the north part of the City of Miami. Is there any way we can house another substation in the property that we have, doubling up for something else, without going to an extra expense? Police Chief Warshaw: Well, there's potential for mini stations. I mean, the substation concept in effect puts large numbers of police officers reporting to a place as there you know, place of work. That's where they report to work every day. That's pretty much almost a full service building. Mini stations and things like we did at the Omni where we were able to work with the business community and open up a, you know a mini, actually, more than a mini station, those things are possible. I know that there is a lot of passion about that building and the symbol that it represents to the community, and I appreciate and understand that. All I can tell you is, we can deliver the services without it. And it's expensive. Commissioner Hernandez: Finally, do you currently have any surplus equipment like vehicles, old vehicles, what have you, that can be auctioned off? Police Chief Warshaw: What we do with the vehicles as they get... come out of our fleet basically is that they are auctioned through the City's auction process. And right now the light fleet of the City which we have responsibility for is very old. And there are no capital funds to purchase those additional cars for that part of the fleet. So as they go out of the fleet, there are no replacements for them. So the answer to your question is, we have some. But I don't know how useful they are because I understand some of the inspectors and people who are using those cars are basically driving them into the ground and then they're useless after that. Commissioner Hernandez: One last thing. Things that are seized through forfeiture. Example, I remember a long time ago they seized hundreds of slot machines. Police Chief Warshaw: That was a famous case. Commissioner Hernandez: What do we do with those? Do we... I know it's illegal to auction that because in the State of Florida... Police Chief Warshaw: Right. Commissioner Hernandez: ... if it became legal we could... Police Chief Warshaw: Yeah. Those we would destroy. Some properties we've seized have been converted into cash, auctioned. Or where there is cash or it's been real property, there's been a sale and the monies has gone into a trust fund. It depends. And where it's properties that can be used in the City. For example, we have confiscated and seized computers and TV sets and we have used those as property that have gone, you know all over the City. It depends pretty much what the property is. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, we keep talking about certain things and let me use one example. Selling off of the south police substation. My question is, when are we going to stop talking and do something about it? 88 December 5, 1996 �i Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): If you adopt this plan, or that aspect, that element of the plan, we will start the process. Commissioner Plummer: In other words, are you going to discuss this or have it for action on December the 12th? Commissioner Gort: We can make the decision on Saturday. Commissioner Plummer: The law. Eh? Commissioner Gort: On Saturday we'll make the decision. Commissioner Plummer: No you can't. Well, you can make a decision, I guess. Can you do that in a workshop? No. Mr. A. Quinn Jones, III, Esq. (City Attorney): Not if you're going to vote on it, no. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Commissioner Gort: But you can propose it. Commissioner Plummer: Well... Mr. Jones: If you make a decision that consensus. It has to be a vote. So this is not a notice meeting where you're going to take Commission action. Commissioner Plummer: Well, OK. You know, we keep talking. It's time to fish. We've cut up all the bait. It's time to fish. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: My question is Chief, both the north and south stations have become community based organizations. A lot of the people have gotten involved with the City and the police, it's what they use to get together. That's why it has become such a symbol for both sides. What I'd like for you to do is, in your plan to do away with these two facilities, to ensure to residents of that area that they services are going to be improved. But at the same time, I think somehow you have to find a facility, be it a school system or a park where this group can continue to meet with the police. Because these individuals have been very important in the reductions of crime that you had last year. I think somehow we need to continue to do that. And I think that's really what the residents are looking for. Police Chief Warshaw: And Commissioner, we will do that. And in a City our size there are all kinds of, as you say, schools and other facilities. We will do what we can and that's something that I know we can find. Commissioner Gort: I know we have... With the new parks bonds that were approved by the voters, I know in the Hadley Park, we are going to have a facility, a community place which I think we can look into that in the future. But in the meantime if we do, when we do close, if we do close those stations I think we should find substitutes because we've got a lot of active citizens that have worked with us for a long time and we just cannot abandon them. 89 December 5, 1996 r Police Chief Warshaw: OK. Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, I have one other question. It is my understanding that all hiring is frozen as well as promotions? Mr. Marquez: That's what recommended. • Commissioner Plummer: I didn't ask whether it was recommended. I'm asking, it was my understanding that Merrett Stierheim implemented an absolute free on hiring and promotions. Now, I'd like to know the answer yes, or no. Mr. Marquez: The answer is yes. We have frozen positions, except for a case by case where all approved positions, rehirings and when I am approving those, those are revenues generating or critical positions that must be hired. Commissioner Plummer: All right. The reason I'm asking, I got two brochures from Civil Service today, for positions that are being sought after, what's the word I want? Ms. Angela Bellamy (Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, the only announcements that you have received have been the ones that the Manager has approved. We have had Communications Assistants, Communications Operators and heavy equipment mechanic and interrogation stenographers. That's it. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Marquez: We've also sent out RFPs for a Finance Director and an Internal Auditor. Commissioner Plummer: No, these are the things that I got from Civil Service, that regular i sheet. Ms. Bellamy: Right, the announcements. i Commissioner Plummer: But promotions are frozen. Is that? Ms. Bellamy: Yes, the promotions have been frozen also. We did however have some that were in route during the process, before October one, and those are the only ones that have been approved. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Marquez: Any other questions on the Police Department? Commissioner Plummer: Just want to know where his 15 percent is coming from. That's all. We'll wait. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. PUBLIC WORKS: PROPOSES 4010 BUDGET CUT --DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Public Works. Mr. Waldemar E. Lee (Assistant City Manager): Good afternoon Mayor and Commissioners. Our budget is Public Works, eight point six million ($8,600,000). We are projecting savings... 90 December 5, 1996 r Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, how much? Mr. Lee: Eight point six ($8,600,000), sir. Commissioner Plummer: Has that been modified? Because according to the budget book, you're nine million four four one ($9,441,000). Mr. Lee: Yes, sir. The problem or not the problem, the department... But there are certain, for example your electric, your light bill. For lights in the right-of-way. We receive those monies from the gas tax. What the budget does is, we have available about four million ($4,000,000). The receipts are about four point three ($4,300,000). They wash that out and move it out to another account. There are various situations like this. But what I had to address based on the Stierheim report was in Public Works a budget of two point two ($2,200,000). And that's Public Works design, inspection, operations. And six point four ($6,400,000) in property and grounds maintenance. Which totals eight point six ($8,600,000). Now the savings that we came up with totalled approximately three hundred and ninety-five thousand ($395,000). In Public Works this represents an 11 percent savings. In property and grounds maintenance a two point five percent maintenance. Again, we're limited what we can do in property and ground maintenance because the majority of the costs are labor costs and obviously we have a union contract that prohibits layoffs. Now, the savings are as follows as you can notice on your chart. We have a reduction of overtime and operating expenses under the ninety-three thousand nine hundred dollars ($93,900). Then within that amount we have forty-eight hundred dollars ($4,800 reduction in telephone expense, reduction in budget reserves of fifty thousand ($50,000). Overtime reduction of fourteen thousand ($14,100), reduction in the street light budget of one hundred and twenty- five thousand ($125,000). Eliminating one budgeted permanent position, thirty-two thousand ($32,000) and the elimination of a part-time temporary position of twenty-three thousand nine ($23,900) for total of one hundred and ninety-three thousand ($193,000). And you also have those budget reductions following that. The other big item is the closure of Virginia Key Beach which will represent a savings to the City of one hundred and twelve thousand dollars ($112,000). We also would cancel outside contracts for the maintenance of fire stations and the fire college which would total eighteen thousand two hundred and thirty dollars ($18,230). We would cancel the contract for the police building and stations. That's another nine thousand dollars and ninety ($(9,090) savings. Commissioner Plummer: That's not a savings to the City. Mr. Lee: Yes, sir because it's outside contract. Now. Commissioner Plummer: So but I mean, they are going to have to pay it from their fee, from their budget. So I don't see it as a savings. Unless you're going to make the firemen maintain their own fire stations and the police sweep their own floors. How is it a savings? Huh, I... Mr. Lee: Well. Commissioner Plummer: Explain to me where I am wrong. Mr. Lee: I would hope then that, for example in the fire. The firemen would be able to provide that service. These are outside contracts worth cash from the General Fund is going out. Commissioner Plummer: I understand that, Wally. But I am asking, the question is. If you're not doing it, somebody else has got to do it. Mr. Lee: You're correct, Commissioner. 91 December 5, 1996 M r Commissioner Plummer: And it's going to have to come out of their budget unless they do it in- house with the personnel they presently have. Mr. Marquez: OK. Sir, my understanding is that it was not provided for in the Fire Department's budget and I assume the same thing for the Police Department. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's part of their 15 percent cut, so that's no problem. Mr. Marquez: OK. Commissioner Plummer: No, I just. I am asking the question, you know that... Mr. Lee: Yeah, yeah. You're right. You're correct Commissioner Plummer: No, you know. Hey, go ahead. Mr. Lee: The last item is the reduction of the waste disposal budget. Based on our projected costs over the last three years, we feel that for the budget of '97, we can reduce that by fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) and the same for the following year. So those are the totals that we have Mayor and Commissioners. If you have any comments or questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them for you. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. FIRE -RESCUE: PROPOSES 4% BUDGET CUT -- DISCUSSION. Fire Chief Gimenez: In the Fire, we've come up with... Apparently, there is a TC II (Typist Clerk II) opening that was counted in another area. That's twenty-two thousand three hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($22,387.00) that wasn't in here. We have thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($37,500.00) in operating expense cuts. And we've modified 911 calls taking protocol, that was... estimated fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). However, the police chief and myself are going to have to discuss that issue. We're not sure that that's a true savings. That was not part of the Fire proposal. Commissioner Plummer: Why is it with the County, the dispatching of Police and Fire from 911 is done from one absolute facility and does both. But we're not that smart. Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, the reason is that we do the emergency medical dispatch training through Clawson System which is EMD (Emergency Medical Dispatch). Our call takers are EMD certified. I am not sure that even if we trained all the police department call takers to that level, that we'll be able to reduce the number of people that they think that we can through this savings. Commissioner Plummer: So now you're creating a problem saying that the firemen are smarter than the policemen? Fire Chief Gimenez: Maybe. No, I am not saying that. Commissioner Plummer: Well no, I mean you know, this is... It's getting to a point where... Fire Chief Gimenez: It's a matter of the expense that you have to take in order to train the people to be EMD certified. There is an expense involved in that. Right now, we have 21 of our 92 December 5, 1996 r :>. -;oaf) dispatchers are trained at that level. If we took the Police Department, we would have to train another 86. As part of this process, there also has to be a quality assurance component in order to be certified by the Clawson system. That means, ten percent of all the calls have to be audited. It might mean we have to have more people auditing the calls. It might be more of an expense. I need to discuss this with the Police Chief. Commissioner Plummer: So what you're saying to me is, that out of a forty-nine million dollar ($49,000,000) budget, almost fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) budget, you're going to cut the grand total of eighty-seven thousand dollars ($87,000). Fire Chief Gimenez: No, sir. When we were asked to do the five, ten and 15 percent cuts, because of the vast majority of our expenses are personnel, a lot of those cuts have to deal with contractual items that are over on the union side. So we reduced personnel. We reduced... Well, I'll give you... Let me look at what we proposed and how much of it, you know, really ended up on the other side. Commissioner Plummer: Well, isn't that the same statement that every department head could make, but didn't? I mean couldn't every department head say, hey, the union reduced by the compromises of the union we lost' X." But they didn't do that. Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, I think the... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, tell me where I am wrong? Mr. Marquez: When we come back on Saturday, I assume that we're going to include within the 15 percent cut, that portion of that union concession that's applicable to the department. Because you wanted a full department -wide look. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Manager, let me ask you a question, in order for me to understand this document that's in front of us. It is my understanding that a lot of work has gone into this. My understanding is that for us to comply with 100 percent by this document here, we'll be out of trouble within three years, more or less? Mr. Marquez: We will be on our way to being out of fiscal crisis within two to three years. Commissioner Plummer: That's not what he said. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, this is their recommendation of the reduction that should take place by department. Mr. Marquez: Correct. What they did... There was a couple of. The way that this thing is broken down, they did Citywide cuts. Now they took all the vacancies from all of the departments... Commissioner Gort: Right. Mr. Marquez: ... and rolled it up into one member and said that was Citywide. Then they took the union concessions. Now the unions affect multiple departments, most departments. Commissioner Gort: So that was considered... 93 December 5, 1996 Li Mr. Marquez: And they've rolled those into one section. Beyond the vacancies, beyond the union concession items, departments are also making additional cuts and that's what in this section right here. Commissioner Gort: OK. That was my understanding, so I want to make sure I am clear. Fire Chief Gimenez: Also, when we were asked to do the 15 percent cuts, they also said that revenue could be part of that. And if you see in the other areas of this document, there are revenues that the Fire Department is generating that will equate to some of this. Commissioner Plummer: Chief, the problem that I have. You have a fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) budget. If you cut your budget by 15 percent, that seven and a half million dollars $7,500,000). To the best of my knowledge, the union concessions were three point five ($3,500,000). Fire Chief Gimenez: That's correct. Commissioner Plummer: Now, where's the other four ($4,000,000) coming from? Fire Chief Gimenez: We have another one point four ($1,400,000) or one point five ($1,500,000) coming from the fire inspection fee. And after that, you are going to have to reduce the number of fire fighters. Commissioner Plummer: I am just asking, you know. Numbers are numbers. Mathematics are mathematics. Fire Chief Gimenez: Well, if you want. I am telling you what happens if you ask for seven and a half million dollars ($7,500,000) from the Miami Fire Department, on top of what the union has already given, it's going to have to be more firefighters. Because the... Our operating expenses are only three point one million dollars ($3,100,000). And... Commissioner Gort: How much are you producing in revenues in your rescue? Fire Chief Gimenez: We project about four million dollars ($4,000,000) in transport fees this year. Commissioner Plummer: What about the money that you received from the half. Is it the half percent or the one and a half percent on Southern Bell or on the telephone franchise...? Fire Chief Gimenez: That's the telephone franchise fee? That's another two point three million dollars ($2,300,000). Commissioner Plummer: Is that in here? Fire Chief Gimenez: No, the actual, what you saw here, our total budget is fifty-one million dollars ($51,000,000). That's including telephone franchise. Commissioner Plummer: Where is the money, because it's not shown here? You're showing with forty-five ($45,000,000), forty-nine million five hundred and fifty-one ($49,551,000). Now, where's the other two million ($2,000,000)? Fire Chief Gimenez: That's correct. But if you go back to... Commissioner Plummer: The other two million ($2,000,000) is not in the budget. 94 December 5, 1996 { i Fire Chief Gimenez: Yeah, it is. It's back in another section. What page is that? Commissioner Plummer: But is that monies not used by your department? Fire Chief Gimenez: Yes, it is. Commissioner Plummer: So why isn't it shown in your department? Fire Chief Gimenez: It's.... Mr. Marquez: What's being shown here is General Fund Expenditures. The entire budget book does not aggregate all of the revenues associated to any given department by funds. It's a presentation that is awkward at best. Fire Chief Gimenez: We have two million three hundred and sixteen thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine dollars ($2,316,799) from TFF (Telephone Franchise Fund). So our total Fire Department budget is fifty-one million eight hundred and sixty-eight thousand three hundred and ninety-six dollars ($51,868,396). i Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Marquez: Anything else for the Fire Department? Commissioner Gort: No, no. Let's go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS: ROUSE COMPANY CONTRACT REVENUES SHOULD BE HIGHER -- DISCUSSION. --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): OK. Special Programs and Accounts. Mr. Michael Lavin: Special Programs and Accounts, the budget is seventeen million seven hundred and sixty thousand nine hundred and forty-nine ($17,760,949). And we have reduced one million six hundred thousand ($1,600,000), which is roughly about 11 percent of the total. There are about two point four million dollars ($2,400,000) that could not be touched because of severance pay, unemployment compensation and the employee pool. Mayor Carollo: What is the total amount from protocol that you have in the budget? Commissioner Plummer: Twenty-five ($25,000). Twenty-five ($25,000) is in the budget. Mayor Carollo: Only twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), in the whole budget? Mr. Lavin: Yes, yes. Mayor Carollo: That can't be. r Commissioner Plummer: That's what I am reading here, page 117. Protocol... t t Mayor Carollo: No. That cannot be because I know that we have one staff person that works with the City that makes over fifty-five thousand ($55,000) for protocol. 95 December 5, 1996 M. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that might be out of somebody else budget as personnel and salaries but... Mayor Carollo: Well, his title is protocol. That's why I am trying to find out. And... Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, but there you go. You know, that why I am trying to find out and... Mr. Lavin: This is the way that the budget was prepared. And it could be possible that part of that amount might be charged to the employee pool on the other line. In other words, I perhaps... i explains what happened when... Unidentified Speaker: In the employee pool, are employees that are not charged to any particular department. They're charged to the employee pool. Mayor Carollo: Where's the employee pool that you're talking about? Mr. Marquez: On page 117 of the budget. I Mayor Carollo: Right, well. But, do you have the employee pool I am saying here, somewhere? Mr. Marquez: No. Mr. Lavin: No. It's not in the budget. Unidentified Speaker: No, it's not in the budget. We have to get it... Mayor Carollo: OK, it's not there. What is the amount? Do you have the amount...? Mr. Marquez: According to this budget, the 1997 amount was three hundred and seventy thousand one hundred and seventy-six dollars ($370,176) for the employee pool. Mayor Carollo: Well, can you give me names, full amounts of where that employee pool is going to, so that we know where those dollars are going to? Mr. Marquez: We will provide you. Yes, sir. We'll... Mayor Carollo: Because you know, this doesn't add up with protocol, the amounts we have. And reduced funding for the Miami River Center from a projected level. Where is that coming from exactly, and how...? Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, before we go into that. Can I have an important clarification? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: Because I think it's very to understand that the International Trade Board was in front of us. Mayor Carollo: That's right. Commissioner Gort: And it was my understanding that what we approved, that if they used their reserve for the funding until June or July. That it was not from the General Fund. 96 December 5, 1996 O [i Commissioner Plummer: Correct. Mr. Marquez: Correct. We... Commissioner Gort: OK. Because I want that to be understood. Because a lot of individuals misunderstood that we were beginning to bend. And that we're beginning to be flexible. So I want to make sure that everyone understands that that is not coming from the General Funds, that that comes from the reserve funds. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, what... Commissioner Plummer: First and foremost. Mr. Marquez: Yeah. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, since you're the one that has the most experience with the Off - Street Parking Authority than anyone one of us here. If I remember, you were the chairman of the Off -Street Parking Authority at one time. Can you meet with Clark Cook and the present chairman and find out what ways we can get some funding help from them. They're sitting in a quite a few million dollars that we could surely use right now, and I am sure there's got to be ways that we can use some of those funds in some way or another. Even if it's through loans or swaps or what have you. I appreciate if you could do that and give us a report. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, the Rouse money paid to us, you're showing here is only eighty-four thousand ($84,000), as a contribution. Is the Rouse Trust Fund different than what the monies that Rouse pays us? Mr. Eduardo Rodriguez (Director, Asset Management): That money is a portion of the Rouse payment that goes to the trust, for waterfront acquisition. That is a percentage. Commissioner Plummer: How much did Rouse pay us last year? Mr. Rodriguez: One million dollars ($1,000,000). Plus... Commissioner Plummer: So they've never got above minimum? Mr. Rodriguez: No. Never. Commissioner Plummer: And that's not really a true figure? Mr. Rodriguez: Well, we get money also on the garage. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but what. The problem is, we've got to provide them with Police. Mr. Rodriguez: That's right. Commissioner Plummer: And does it cost us to provide them in services? Mr. Rodriguez: It's, well. Police, I think they're putting. How many offices you have...? It's.... Commissioner Plummer: Well, it's crazy. How many policemen down there now? 97 December 5, 1996 Unidenitified Speaker: We've got five officers. Commissioner Plummer: Five officers. So, you talking, three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000)? So, three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) and you deduct the rest of it. What else do we provide them with? Mr. Rodriguez: No, that's it. The obligation that we have on Miami Marina to provide a marina also. Commissioner Gort: I am sorry J.L., the question was? Commissioner Plummer: The question was, it looks like that we get a million dollars ($1,000,000) a year from Rouse. We don't. We get a million dollars ($1,000,000) but you've got to turn around and provide them in services. If we come out with you know, six, seven hundred thousand ($600,000, $700,000), we're lucky. And I want to remind everybody sitting up here, that when we voted on that contract that over a period of time of 45 years, that would bring the City six hundred and seventy-six million dollars ($676,000,000). I remember the number well. And by this time, Rouse will be paying the City not minimum, but four, five, six, eight million dollars ($4,000,000, $5,000,000, $6,OOQ,000, $8,000,000) a year. I don't se many vacant stores down there and I am wondering why the City is still only getting minimum. Because if there projections. It was their projections that in fact showed that this City would escalate in it's contributions every year. They've never paid less, more than minimum. Mr. Rodriguez: The best answer that I can give you is that it's based on the net. Remember the percentage on the net and not on the gross. So, that's the answer and, you know... Commissioner Plummer: 1 don't care how you look at it, I don't think we're getting our fair share. Commissioner Gort: I was under the impression we were getting one point three ($1,300,000). Commissioner Plummer: He said a million ($1,000,000). Commissioner Gort: I was under the impression we were getting one point three ($1,300,000). Mr. Rodriguez: Including the garage? Commissioner Plummer: Oh, with the garage, yeah. Mr. Rodriguez: We have on the garage, close to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000). That's correct. A little more this year. Commissioner Gort: So, you're talking about one point three ($1,300,000) or more then? Mr. Rodriguez: One point four ($1,400,000) almost we're going to get, yes. Commissioner Gort: OK. Because those are the figures I've been using. So I want to make sure I am correct. Mr. Rodriguez: That's right, correct. You're right. Mr. Marquez: Any other questions on Special Programs and Accounts? All right. .• December 5, 1996 Ax r 21. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION: DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): GSA (General Services Administration). Page eight, bottom. Thank you. GSA Director. Mr. Ron Williams (Assistant City Manager): Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. The GSA budget for fiscal year '97, operating is eight million eight hundred and fifty-six thousand ($8,856,000). You will notice in you budget document there is an additional six million two seventy-three ($6,273,000) that directly related to debt service. Former purchases of vehicles, et ecetera, are assigned to this department for departmental assignment and payment from there. The ninety-seven thousand dollars ($97,000) that was identified in the strategic plan would essentially relate to a reduction in the amount of fuel that we would provide to other departments based on reduction of take home vehicles, service reductions, et ecetera. As you will notice the... As you will note the Internal Service Fund has to gauge itself in direct relationship to those services provided by other departments. The commodities accounts were tight even though it's identified as part of this '97. We've redirected that and identified it directly as it relates to fuel. Mr. Marquez: OK. Mr. Williams: Are there any questions? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. N.E.T.: CONSOLIDATE 5 NET OFFICES/ PROJECT SAVINGS-- DIRECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD TO PRIORITIZE FUNDS/ SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO BE PAID ON AGENDA TO COST REDUCING ITEMS -- DISCUSSION. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Bert Walers will come up for the reduction of the NET officers. Excuse me. Mr. Elbert Waters (Director, NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Teams/Community Development): Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The Community Development NET Department's budget administration, and I'll need to break it down for you. Community Development administration two point six million dollars ($2,600,000). Housing administration one point eight million dollars ($1,800,000), our Neighborhood Jobs Program administration one point eight million dollars ($1,800,000). Our total for the grant side is six point three million dollars ($6,300,000). On the NET side of the ledgers which encompasses of our General Fund side, that budget is three point eight million dollars ($3,800,000). Giving the total administrative budget for the department of Community Development/NET at ten point one million ($10,100,000) for administration. In addition to that we have a total breakdown as it relates to our grants, both federal and state. Under our Community Development Block Grant Program we have thirteen point three million ($13,300,000). Under Homeownership Program or Home, four point three million ($4,300,000). Our HOPWA Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids, eight point three million dollars ($8,300,000). And our emergency shelter grant, three hundred and forty-seven thousand ($347,000). Bringing the federal part of it at twenty-six point three million ($26,300,000). In addition to that, we have under our federal 99 December 5, 1996 program Section VIII - Certificate holders, at two point zero million dollars ($2,000,000). And our SHIP program which is a State of Florida grant, which encompasses one point three ($1,300,000). The total amount being twenty-nine point six ($29,600,000). That also plus our program income gives us a total of thirty-one point six ($31,600,000) relating to our grants that we administer. As it relates to the reductions that has been proposed in the Financial Recovery Program... Commissioners, what the administration is recommending, at this point is to ask that we have an opportunity to reevaluate the proposed reduction of the NET offices. We propose to come back to the Commission in the next several months, in order for us to have an opportunity to make a reaccessment of the recommendation that's reflected within the document. That's what we're asking for. The reductions which have been proposed within the strategic plan, the NET which is General Fund is approximately nine percent of the NET budget which totals three hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars ($376,000). And as it relates to our Neighborhood Jobs Program which is a reduction of approximately 18 percent of our budget, three hundred and 1 j thirty-two thousand dollars ($332,000). Bringing the amount of reductions that we've encompassed for those two aspects at 27 percent. In addition to that, I need to at least brief the Commission as to, the new Commissioners that are with us. In fiscal '96 the Department of Community Development/NET received a three percent reduction from U.S. HUD (United States Housing and Urban Development). We were at that particular time, we were under... Really we were very, very afraid that the possibility of receiving a forty-five percent reduction in our grant would have taken place. Congress saw fit to make the program nationally reduced and to reduce it by three percent, giving us approximately for our department to absorb that three { percent reduction in our administration, the total cost of that was seventy-seven thousand eight f hundred dollars ($77,800). Commissioner Plummer: Well what is your proposed reduction? I assume it's still the two forty-one ($241,000). Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir at the moment it is. Commissioner Plummer: And what is... That's for the NET offices? Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. i Commissioner Plummer: OK, and what percentage is that? Mr. Waters: A correction, it should be nine percent and that figure was three hundred and seventy-six thousand ($376,000). Commissioner Plummer: I got two forty-one ($241,000). Mr. Waters: I understand that. The information that's within the document is an error, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, I would hope on the Saturday at least you would have for us the proper numbers. And I am not finding fault here, because these numbers were established a while back. But to stand up here in front of the Commission and to say well, this is not a proper number and everybody is working from this document. I think we ought to have proper numbers and I would hope on Saturday we could get proper numbers. What is the total? Let's see what the proper number is for the total amount of money for the NET offices. Mr. Waters: The total amount of money for the NET offices Commissioner Plummer, is three million eight hundred and forty thousand five seventy-four ($3,840,574). Commissioner Plummer: See, that's not even in the budget book. See, I've got in the budget book three million eight oh four ($3,804,000), and now you're telling me it's... 100 December 5, 1996 IN [A Mr. Waters: Five fifty four. Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Waters: Three million eight hundred and four five seventy-four ($3,804,574) and now you're telling me it's... Commissioner Plummer: That's not what you just said. You said, three million eight forty ($3,840,000). Mr. Waters: I am sorry, I stand corrected. Commissioner Plummer: So it's, all right. Now, I think one of the things we've got to understand here, in cutting back at least five of the NET offices. Maybe somebody around here knows something I don't, and that's nothing unusual. But I don't know which five offices are being cut. Mr. Waters: Well... Commissioner Plummer: And I think that's important. Very important. Mr. Waters: I understand Commissioner you... What the administration again, is recommending is to allow us to do a reevaluation of the proposal that's here. Mr. Marquez: Bert, will you tell the Commissioner which five offices are being contemplated in this report to be cut? Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, two of them is consolidations in two neighborhoods. Now, in thinking... in your consolidations, I think it is very important to see where the... Commissioner Plummer: Well, but I'd like to know... Commissioner Gort: ... impact is going to be the worst. Commissioner Plummer: If you're going to consolidate two, which one of the two is being eliminated. Mr. Waters: OK. If I may. The Overtown, downtown NET office converting to one. The Northeast Coconut Grove, Southwest Coconut Grove into one. Commissioner Plummer: Woe, woe, woe, woe. What is Northeast Coconut Grove? Is that the glass house? Mr. Waters: Yes. Commissioner Gort: No. Commissioner Plummer: You're eliminating that one? Mr. Waters: No, we're consolidating. That would be the better term. Commissioner Plummer: All right, so you're eliminating West Grove? 101 December 5, 1996 ;n. Mr. Waters: Southwest. Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: South, OK. Southwest, OK. Go ahead, that's two. Commissioner Gort: Let me ask you a question then. What do we pay in the West Grove, what do we pay? Don't we get that from the state, the space in there? Mr. Waters: Approximately one dollar ($1) per year. Commissioner Gort: One dollar ($1) per year. Mr. Waters: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: Can we afford that? Commissioner Gort: Now, my understanding is... Mr. Waters: I think so, sir. I think so. Commissioner Gort: ... I heard that there are some individuals that are willing and the proposals are going to be coming to us. A non profit corporation, they're willing to take the glass house, j pay rents and maintain the park for us. So that could be a savings. And selecting the I consolidations, I think you should make sure that we go with what's going to be more feasible for the City. Commissioner Plummer: So what you're saying is, move the glass house over to... Commissioner Gort: To the West Grove. Commissioner Plummer: ... Douglas Road? Commissioner Gort: Right. Especially if we're paying one dollar ($1) a year. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, is that going to be interesting? Oh. All right, I've got two. i Mr. Waters: If I may continue. Commissioner Plummer: Which is number three? Mr. Waters: Little Haiti, Model City to be converged into one. Commissioner Plummer: Which one are you eliminating? Mr. Waters: Little Haiti. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Go ahead, number four. Commissioner Gort: Excuse me, my understanding is Model City, it's inside the police station. Little Haiti is in a fire station. Mr. Waters: Yes. What... We would have to take an assessment of at least the facilities. But again the idea has to do with the conversion, so we would look at facilities in both areas. I have to also add that the facility in the Model City's area as you well know, is much larger than the fire station, which is station six over in Little Haiti. 102 December 5, 1996 Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Plummer: Number tour. Mr. Waters: West Little Havana, East Little Havana. Commissioner Plummer: Which one is being eliminated? Mr. Waters: East Little Havana. Commissioner Plummer: You're selling the police station. iCommissioner Gort: Excuse me, you're selling the police station. Mr. Waters: I am sorry, I stand corrected, sir. West Little Havana. Commissioner Plummer: You're eliminating West Little Havana? Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Waters: And the last one would be Wynwood, Edgewater. Commissioner Gort: Edgewater. Commissioner Plummer: And which one of those is being eliminated? Mr. Waters: It will be... combining. That's a combination of Allapattah and that area converged. The Edgewater, Wynwood. i Commissioner Plummer: I understand, but which one is being eliminated? j Mr. Waters: The Edgewater. Wynwood. II Commissioner Plummer: Edgewater is being eliminated? 1 Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Well, I hope you've got good, good asbestos clothing. Mr. Waters: Again Commissioner... Commissioner Plummer: Because they're going to burn you, a new one. Mr. Waters: Again Commissioner, what the administration... Commissioner Gort: Well, let me ask you a question. i Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: It is my understanding, Wynwood and Edgewater together. 103 December 5, 1996 1i Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but one's got to be eliminated. He's eliminating five, Willie. Commissioner Gort: You're not eliminating, you're consolidating. That's. Come on J.L., don't. Let's not confuse them anymore than we are? Commissioner Plummer: OK, then which. OK, then what? Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, you're consolidating instead of eliminating. What you're doing is you're bring them together under one roof. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Waters: Bring them together. Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: Make sure you explain that. Mr. Waters: Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: OK, then which is number five? Commissioner Gort: Because we don't want the people to get the wrong message. That's it. Mr. Waters: That's it. Commissioner Plummer: What? You're combining the two, so you're eliminating one? Mr. Rodriguez: Combining Allapattah and Wynwood. Mr. Waters: Allapattah and Wynwood. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, so you're eliminating which one, Allapattah? Mr. Waters: No, Allapattah remains. The other two will be converged into the Allapattah NET service center. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, so you're actually in effect eliminating Edgewater and Wynwood, and putting them in Allapattah? Mr. Waters: Eliminating Wynwood, they're together. Listen, if I may. Wynwood, it's called as you well know Commissioner. It's Wynwood-Edgewater. Commissioner Plummer: Fine. Mr. Waters: The Wynwood portion would be merged with Allapattah, which is west of the Wynwood community. The Edgewater portion which is on the east side of the Boulevard, would be merged with upper east side. Commissioner Gort: That's not going to work. Commissioner Plummer: It's not about the work, OK. Mr. Marquez: Commissioners, as Bert has been saying. We are evaluating this one. There is a possibility that we may be able to fund this amount. The savings that we're recognizing in this report, there is a possibility that we might be able to fund this from Community Development 104 December 5, 1996 Block Grant monies. A non -General Fund sources and if that's the case then we would not do as much elimination as within this report. Commissioner Plummer: Well, if you ask this Commissioner, I will tell you that we can reduce the number, OK. I think the way you're laying them out here, I don't think it's going to work. Now, let me tell you why I am saying that, just because of your last statement. You are going to have, a mass of people in these chambers who are coming down here to tell you exactly what they think about you. Because you have said we're going to take CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money and give it to the City and not to the CBOs (Community Based Organizations). And I am sure each one of you could have had cards and letters by the bucket -fulls, all right. Now, you're talking about taking that money which they say is vital to keep them in existence and you're going to use it for the NET offices. You're going to use it for City purposes. And I am saying to you, Mr. Manager you better be prepared because they are mounting a large Trojan horse. Mr. Waters: For clarification, Commissioner Plummer. What is under consideration would be to look at what eligible activities that the City has to take on a General Fund side that could be paid for under our Community Development Block Grant. As an example, we have a debt service obligation on Southeast Overtown Park West which is approximately four hundred and fifty thousand ($450,000) under our Section 108 program. That is an expense which is right now, is an expense that is required to be paid under our ad valorem. That isn't... Commissioner Plummer: Why is that not from the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency)? They're getting all the revenues from that area. When they assumed the assets and they assumed the revenues, why aren't they assuming the obligations? Mr. Waters: That's the question that I am unable to answer Commissioner. I wanted to at least be able to give you an example of how we may be able to look at of making... Commissioner Plummer: Why, I would sure hope that you could be able to give me an answer on Saturday. Mr. Waters: Well, the... Commissioner Plummer: Because the Manager, excuse me. Manager Stierheim, I have to qualify which one around here, A, B, or C. He suggested and I not so sure that I would be opposed, to putting the CRA back under the Manager. And that in itself would create a savings. Because they're talking in the CRA that nothing has been accomplished since the CRA was established. And part of that reason is the County, who refuses to sign off on the interlocal. But if you saw the expenses that are to be incurred by the CRA, in salaries and other expenses I think that it's worth consideration of placing that back under the administration where we can keep a more active eye on that scenario. But if you're telling me that we're paying a debt service on Southeast Overtown, and we lost all of the revenue going over to the CRA, something is wrong. Very much wrong. Mr. Waters: Again, Commissioner the other examples as we would attempt to do and present this to the City Manager, would be four hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) to assist in Code Enforcement. We want to aggressively look at trying to accelerate the amount of enforcement that we have in order to generate numerous items of revenue. If I may. What I would also like to express to the Commission is the fact that we for one, we firmly believe in the NET Program. I, myself was one of the first NET administrators that was placed in the program. And we know that NET is a program which has reached national prominence. We have communities and organizations all over the country calling us to try to emulate the program. What we think that we would be able to do is show how revenues can be accelerated or collected through the NET concept, thereby assisting the City on its fiscal crisis. 105 December 5, 1996 ri Commissioner Plummer: The question is again, when? Time is money. When are we going to do it? Hello. Commissioner Gort: Well, excuse me. If we make the decision today. My understanding is that we cannot implement it 'till June of next year, '97. Am I correct? Don't we go in different... Commissioner Plummer: Oh, no. Why? Commissioenr Gort: Wait a minute. How does the grants run? The CBDG funds, how do they run? Mr. Marquez: OK, can I ask Bert to explain that pocket item that we attempted to have on last week's agenda? Because that's what I believe is causing the confusion here... Mr. Waters: Right. Mr. Marquez: ... and what... Go ahead, Bert. Mr. Waters: OK. Commissioner Gort: But then I think it's important to know. My understanding is, what's the fiscal year for the CDBGs? Mr. Waters: It begins July 1, 1997. Commissioner Gort: July one. So even if we take a decision today, we will not be able to do anything until July 1st. Am I correct? Mr. Waters: No, not... Commissioner Gort: OK, thank you. Mr. Waters: I am sorry, Commissioner. There would be an opportunity to look at reprogramming or reallocating funds that are currently in our twenty-second year. Our current program year... Commissioner Plummer: Of course you can do it. Mr. Waters: ...that could possibly be available to offset that amount. Commissioner Gort: Present? Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: OK. Mr. Waters: Let me, if I may? Commissioner Plummer: Well, wait, wait. Can I... ? I am sorry, Please. Mr. Manager, let me tell you something. The one thing that this Commissioner is going to say loud and long is that before any of that money is changed, that it is going to bring out a public hearing in this Commission chambers prior to any of that money being differentiated between where it is today, and maybe over to the City. And I might agree with you, OK. But let me tell you something, those people have only asked me for the right to be heard. 106 December 5, 1996 .�Gmy, 4l•�Y'�� Mr. Waters: Commissioner Plummer, that will happen. That is a part of the process. Those items, for any type of reallocation of those current dollars, would have to have final decision that will rest upon this City Commission. Commissioner Gort: There are a few changes that I would like to see in making selections and determination is; we were funded about four CBOs two years ago, for nonproduction. I think it's important that if we have someone out there receiving revenues and they're not producing, we should eliminate it. Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: And we should monitor that, because we've got a lot of people that are out to getting houses. And are creating houses and creating tax monies that come into the City. Mr. Waters: We are doing that Commissioner Gort. And if I may, the proposed usage of our 23rd year CBDG funds would be the following: one, 15 percent of the funds for public services which basically are transportation, food and services. That cap would remain in place, the 15 percent. An allocation of 20 percent for City administration in order for us to monitor and run the 170 plus programs that we have. In addition to that allocation, one point two million dollars ($1,200,000) of that amount are indirect cost that we pay to the City's General Fund, in order to continue those operations. The remaining 65 percent, would be utilized to look at eligible City projects within our eight City targeted areas. Those projects that would be prioritized by this Commission as it relates to expenditure of those funds. And so that's what we're looking at. In addition to those agencies that provide us with our partnership as it relates to housing development would be a part of the process of continual funding because we have ongoing projects, as you all are aware, that will facilitate us in developing affordable housing throughout this community. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Mr. Marquez: Bert, can you answer a question for me? The pocket item was a guidance director. Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Mr. Marquez: ... Was it not? Mr. Waters: It was just a guidance to give this Commission an opportunity to at least think along the lines of trying to prioritize again, City related projects that are eligible for expenditures. Mr. Marquez: The pocket item was a request to the Commission to give guidance to the allocating... Mr. Waters: Yes. Mr. Marquez: ... see I am not familiar with the terminology. Mr. Waters: The pocket item, if I may Mr. Manager. The pocket item was proffered for this Commission to direct the community, Citywide Community Development Advisory Board to look at prioritizing those City projects as it relates to assisting us in this crisis. Mr. Marquez: Was the item at all directing this funding of any CBO? 107 December 5, 1996 Li ,ry•� v.� Mr. Waters: There is a possibility in that regard. And that would be again, as it relates to prioritizing those programs or those agencies as it would come before this particular Commission. Mr. Marquez: All right, thank you. Commissioner Plummer: Well, you know what has stirred the mess is the fact of a memo put out, about transferring funds. Yes, this Commission would have the right to do such but without a public hearing. Mr. Waters: No, sir. I am sorry, I beg to differ Commissioner. Any reallocation of any of our funds must first be formalized and approved by this City Commission. We cannot do anything without that, sir. Commissioner Plummer: I didn't say... You're not listening to me Bert. I said that was the case but it didn't bring out a... what we refer to normally as a public hearing. Notification of all the people involved to come in here as it is when you first allocate the funds, OK. No question it takes this Commission's approval. But they were not going to be invited to be here and to make their presentations. Mr. Waters: Yeah. Commissioner Plummer, again. The program requires the citizen participation process. It requires public hearings. If the policy would be implemented those projects would come before this Commission sometime late in February or March as it relates to the process of CBDG. Commissioner Plummer: You're on the record, sir. Mr. Waters: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Now, when are we going to start implementing some of this stuff? Mayor Carollo: That's the number one question... Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, when? Mr. Waters: The process, if I may. The process of our Community Development Block Grant Program is under way. You, this Commission, will in all likelihood receive those recommendations from the Citywide board sometime in February or March, sir. Commissioner Plummer: That's not my point. When are we going to cut? If we are going to cut the NET offices, when are we going to do it? We're almost now into a quarter of our year gone. And we're still talking. Now, when are we going to do something? Mr. Marquez: We can start doing immediately. What I was looking forward to was guidance from this Commission that these things are acceptable. Because I didn't... Commissioner Plummer: Are you putting it on the agenda for the 12th? Is that what you're planning on doing? I would like to know where we are? Mr. Marquez: Some of the items are on the agenda for the 12th. We will work on putting more items on the agenda for the 12th. I don't know whether we can turn around before the 12th, between no and the 12th. But we will attempt to put as many of these items as possible. 108 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me tell you something. I don't know what else you might have for the 12th, but I don't know anything more important than starting to implement some of these cuts that have got to be, the sooner the better. Now, you know we're talking about all of these things here and... Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, all the administrative costs we have talked about have taken place. Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: OK. So what we're talking now is the legislative. Do you need us to make a decision? Mr. Marquez: Those items that we need Commission action cannot be done until we've run the item before the Commission. Commissioner Gort: OK. Commissioner Plummer: And do you anticipate most of those being on the 12th? Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: OK. And you will also make the recommendations such as the Coconut Grove NET as Commissioner Gort talked about, moving the one on Grand Avenue over to Douglas Road. Mr. Marquez: For that we will not have the time and the cuts for that place. Later on in the year what we... in February is when the target date for that was to occur in order to effect those savings. And I hope to talk with staff and meet with them to see if there is another way of doing this. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, we need to move as quickly as we can on some of these that our time clock ticking, that everyday is less that we save. This is not like the garbage fee, the famous "jihad" of a garbage fee. You know, that doesn't take effect until we decide to mail whatever fees people have to pay in January, that's half of it. These others that the clock will be ticking, now my concern is the following. I don't know how heavy of an agenda we're going to have and so many items. But by Charter, your office and mine need to meet and decide what goes on. I want to give priorities to all the items that are going to be reducing the cost. That deserves priority. Because I don't want it to get so heavy on the agenda that we can't finish the agenda, because we have so many items. And then the most important ones are the ones that we don't do. So the... All the cost reducing items, are the ones that I want to schedule on the agenda and in that order. Commissioner Gort: We need to start eight o'clock in the morning? Commissioner Plummer: Well, you know the longer we wait the deeper the cuts. And I think that, not only... I would hope that nobody is under the impression that these cuts which will be first and foremost implemented that's it for the year. That's only the start. That is only the start. Because if we can't cut the average of 15 percent which is what we need to do, the only other area to cut is in salaries and layoffs. There is no other way. There is no other way as far as I can see, that if we don't implement programs enough to meet the sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000), there is only one other area. People and dollars. Boy it got awful quiet in here awful quick. The truth prevailed. 109 December 5, 1996 [i �Z Mr. Waters: Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23. SOLID WASTE: DISCUSSION. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Solid Waste Department. Commissioner Plummer: You want to come work at the funeral home, Mr. Jones? I'm sure I'll be glad to accommodate you, whether you're a customer or a whether you're an employee. Mr. Ron E. Williams (Assistant City Manager): Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the fiscal year '97 budget for the Solid Waste Division is sixteen million five hundred seventy thousand. Mayor Carollo: How many employees to you have Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Are we're budgeted 223. Mayor Carollo: Two twenty-three. Is that including part-timers or temporaries? Mr. Williams: We don't have any of those anymore. Mayor Carollo: You don't have none whatsoever? Mr. Williams: No, we got rid of the "99" I believe Mr. Mayor, as they used to be called over two years ago. Mayor Carollo: And you haven't used any of those this time around? j Mr. Williams: No, we have not. Mayor Carollo: You pay overtime? Mr. Williams: Right. We have been trying to fill in for absences as best we could. And on occasion, we had to use overtime to compensate for the loss. Mayor Carollo: How much overtime have you used this past fiscal year? Was it like? I've heard somewhere the figure of four hundred thousand ($400,000), is that accurate or is that wrong? Mr. Williams: That's a little high. I think it was in the neighborhood last fiscal year of about three fifty ($350,000), Mr. Mayor. And a lot of that also I would add, was reimbursable over a time because it had to do with the many, many events that we... Mayor Carollo: Right. Mr. Williams: ... we support. And a lot of them do pay. We would also ask the Commission to continue to support us in the area of not allowing waivers and making sure those programs or those street activities that we do support that they would pay the full share. And therefore there would be zero cost to the City. The nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) that's identified in the strategic plan had to do with the redirection of our waste stream disposal away from the 110 December 5, 1996 4 - transfer facility which has a nine dollar ($9) premium to the, what we call Resource Recovery out at the Montenay Plant. As you know, previous years we disposed in multiple locations. We entered into an agreement with Metropolitan Dade County on October 1, to dispose at all Dade County facilities. We're doing that forty-five dollars ($45) at the Montenay Plant and again fifty-four ($54) at transfer facilities. We are also trying to use as much as possible and as part of this nine hundred dollar ($900) reduction and other changes in the program, that certainly we want to present to you after getting the Manager's concurrence, we think will further address the issue of the trash program. As we've said many times, that's a very intense, high level service program, higher than anybody else provides. We will maintain intact what we think is an excellent garbage, recycling, street -sweeping and other peripheral kinds of programs. But the nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) could be achieved if we're able to divert or transfer, divert some loads away from the transport facility. Mayor Carollo: That's one hundred thousand tons you would have to divert to achieve those savings, correct? Mr. Williams: That's the way it's computed, Mr. Mayor. There are some things that went into the plan, the strategic plan that don't quite fit. But the net effect is that nine dollars ($9) times every ton we divert. Now, and by way of explanation, and I'll be brief. All of the City's garbage waste stream, which is approximately 65,000 tons, has been delivered either to in the past Broward County, at thirty-two dollars ($32) a ton or Dade County landfill or our Resource Recovery facility. The environment of material that's available to be diverted from the transfer station is that 110,000. So if we are able to divert all of it, certainly you're talking the nine hundred thousand (900,000), any portion of it certainly reduces it proportionally. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, but what I want to be sure of is. If we're putting down nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) for fiscal year '97 and one point two million ($1,200,000) for fiscal year '98. I want to be sure that we are going to be able to make these numbers be real. Mr. Williams: As do I, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, not just to put them down in paper, if they are not real. Mr. Williams: As do I. We had a lot of discussion with that because of the underfunding of the department in previous years. And this nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) was projected by the strategic team by going in and identifying the real cost associated with that. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. The total funding for the department, as best as you could figure out is sixteen million ($16,000,000) what, Ron exactly? Mr. William: Five seventy. Mayor Carollo: Five seventy. Sixteen and a half million dollars ($16,500,000) rounded off. How much of that cost is nonresidential? In other words, that goes to paying the street sweeping that is done in the City. Do we have that broken down too? Because no other City lumps that with solid waste for residential. Mr. Williams: That is correct. And most of the cities are not doing it any more Mr. Mayor. But that approximately a million dollar ($1,000,000) program. Mayor Carollo: OK, so a million dollars ($1,000,000)? Mr. Williams: Uh-huh. 111 December 5, 1996 1i Mayor Carollo: So it's really a million dollars ($1,000,000) that we should not include in this and it should be in the General Fund, so that we could compare truly what garbage and trash collection to our residents is costing us. Mr. Williams: I would agree with you. Mayor Carollo: These are two different items. Mr. Williams: That supports essentially the commercial corridors throughout the City, downtown, the Grove, Northwest 7th Avenue, Southwest 8th Street. Mayor Carollo: Out of the sixteen million five hundred and seventy thousand ($16,570,000), this is the full amount that it is costing us to dispose of the garbage, to collect it, to pay salaries? Commissioner Plummer: Plus overtime. Mayor Carollo: Well, my question is, the full amount that you're paying, with the sixteen million five hundred and seventy thousand ($16,570,000), you could pay everything that we have to, related to trash and garbage collections in the City right now? Mr. Williams: As we're presently operating, Mr. Mayor? I Mayor Carollo: Yes. Mr. Williams: No. And I'll just be brief on the explanation here. You've heard us talk for many years about the underfunding particularly in the area of disposal cost. That number I think, identified by the strategic team was approximately one point nine million ($1,900,000). In another section of the document, they identified those areas of underfunding as "add backs" as they did with some of the capital projects. Mayor Carollo: Correct. Mr. Williams: If you take into consideration the total cost of the operation, you are going to be up slightly over twenty million ($20,000,000) because you certainly have to put in the real f numbers. What has happened here in the past, we put that sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) in there and then fund it some place else. I think one of the much talked about areas was through the Storm Sewer Fund. You funded some of these activities kind of in another way. Mayor Carollo: You know this is... I guess they get a lot of practice in moving all these funds around the City so they.... Mr. Williams: Right. Let me read the note that was just handed to me. It's essentially, twenty- two million seventy thousand ($22,070,000) because of the three million five hundred thousand ($3,500,000) for Storm Water Sewer and the one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) that was underfunded on scale fees, and the five hundred thousand ($500,000) which is the NET cost of the recycling effort. So... Mayor Carollo: OK. The full cost then is twenty-two million ($22,000,000)? Mr. Williams: OK, that the twenty-two million seventy thousand dollars ($22,070,000). Mayor Carollo: Twenty-two ($22,000,000). Yeah twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000) is the full cost to us. That's including the monies that are being siphoned out from the Storm Sewer Project? 112 December 5, 1996 a, P Mr. Williams: Correct. Mayor Carollo: Out of the twenty-two million ($22,000,000), you have at least one million ($1,000,000) that's for the Street Sweeping Program? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mayor Carollo: So then you're down to twenty-one million ($21,000,000). That's the actual cost. i Mr. Williams: Let me add one that we don't talk about much, Mr. Mayor but I would like for the Commission to know about it. There is probably another four hundred and fifty thousand ($450,000) of City service cost. Mayor Carollo: That was going to be my next question. Mr. Williams: Yes. That, that... Mayor Carollo: We don't charge anything back to any of the departments. And we don't know how much in tonnage we're picking... Mr. Williams: Well... Mayor Carollo: ... up either garbage or trash from our own City departments. Mr. Williams: We have a good estimate and that estimate is approximately, I think it is... Yeah, we did some work on it. It's approximately 10,000 tons. And just to give you just a sampling of those facilities, Dinner Key Marina, Dinner Key Boatyard, Marine Stadium Boatyard, Bayside Dock Master, Virginia Key, Orange Bowl, on and on and on. And, of course, that's a real cost for us that does not get offset. So when we talk about the real dollars we have not one number here, but we wanted the Commission to know the real numbers. Mayor Carollo: OK, so... Mr. Williams: It's approximately 10,000 tons annually. Mayor Carollo: So it's approximately 10,000 tons. Well, I am glad we found 10,000 out of the 55,000 tons of trash that we can't find where it's coming from. Mr. Williams: Well, we've got some ideas too, Mr. Mayor that we want to certainly discuss with the Manager in detail as to how to resolve that. And just, we think that because of our unique method of trash collection, it certainly has given an unfavorable view of our overall very good service, and we want to recommend to you and hopefully you will take action on some of the ideas we've got about doing two things. One, making our City cleaner and look cleaner. And reduce the possibility of the unlawful dumping by those people who don't want to pay their fair share in the City. Commissioner Plummer: Huh, forget it. You can't catch 'em. They're middle of the night bandits. Can I ask you, what are we paying a ton for disposal of waste? Mr. Williams: Forty-five dollars ($45) at Resource Recovery and fifty-four dollars ($54) at a transfer station. 113 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: And what have they indicated to you that we'll be paying next near? Mr. Williams: Forty-five dollars ($45). We have a long term contract at this point, with Metropolitan Dade County that has a CPI attached to it. Commissioner Plummer: Is there any truth to the statement that the actual cost to Dade County is twenty-four dollars ($24) a ton? Mr. Williams: I don't know what the actual numbers are. But clearly it has to be less than what they charge, what they call contract cities and private haulers. Contract cities would be Miami, Hialeah, etcetera, cetera. Commissioner Plummer: Well, the question I was really getting at, why is... if those numbers are anywhere near correct, why are we having to pay a profit to them? Mr. Williams: Because, Commissioner, appropriately they are real cost associated with the environmental issues, landfill closure, landfill maintenance, transportation, managing of the landfill. The disposal process is not just a dump it off and go kind of program. It's a major, major effort. And Dade County appropriately in my opinion has tried to identify a total cost charge that they assess to the users of their facilities. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Commissioner Hernandez: Ron, where is the transfer station? Virginia Key? Mr. Williams: No. The central transfer which is most convenient to us is on 20th Street between 12th Avenue and 14th. There is another transfer station when we're in the Flagami area out off Coral Way, 72nd. Commissioner Hernandez: Are we taking any trash presently to Virginia Key? Mr. Williams: We are taking, Commissioner, organic yard and garden material, and not enough of it, I might add. Because every ounce that we take there diverts away from either forty-five ($45) or fifty-four ($54). And one of the proposals that we certainly are making is, that we have a source separated collection program reduced from once a week, wherein we can with good, good strong enforcement allow for clean, non -contaminated materials to be placed at curb side. All of that material can be transported to Virginia Key for composting and the City will have literally zero disposal cost. The only cost will be operation and collection. Commissioner Hernandez: How much tonnage is being taken right now to Virginia Key? Mr. Williams: We, last year approximately 7,000 tons which again could be more if it were not contaminated. The particular point with our permit there both monitored by Dade County and the State of Florida is that any minor contamination. Meaning if we get a good pile of clean organic material and mix it in with almost anything, upon inspection we could place our permit in jeopardy. And we think we've got a program to increase that through the source separation. It has to be enforced. It will work. It will take this pressure off all of us to maintain this intensive trash program and I think will be supported by our residents. Commissioner Hernandez: Let me ask you something. You said that the more tonnage we take to Virginia Key we'd save a lot more money? Mr. Williams: We would save a lot of money. 114 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Hernandez: Why did you say it would hurt our... I didn't follow earlier you said the more we take it would hurt something else... Mr. Williams: OK. I may have misspoken, Commissioner. Commissioner Hernandez: Yeah. Mr. Williams: But the more we take... Commissioner Hernandez: The more we save. Mr. Williams: ... the more we save. Commissioner Hernandez: But if you don't take... Mr. Williams: For every ounce that we take there... Commissioner Hernandez: Right. Mr. Williams: ... is one ounce we don't have to pay for at Dade County. Commissioner Hernandez: And we get a five dollar ($5) credit right, on the first 340,000 tons? Mr. Williams: That's correct. As part of the formal arrangements we made that resulted in this present contract. Commissioner Hernandez: But it could only be organic material, you say? Mr. Williams: Only organic. Commissioner Hernandez: So it cannot be obviously trash, we speak of yard clippings and stuff like that. Mr. Williams: That's correct. And there is a lot of it. A lot of residents want to get the big claw out of, from digging the holes in front of their neighborhoods. They want to do things again, that we'll talk to the Manager about deal with containerization. They want to have their yard clippings separated. We want them to have their yard men and gardeners and landscapers not dump loads from the County in front of their house so that we have to pick it up. We've got some ideas as to how to correct that. So we... Commissioner Hernandez: What do you think is a real... If you're telling me, that's kind of shocking there is only 7,000 tons. What is a real number that we can estimate that we can be taking to Virginia Ivey? Mr. Williams: Commissioner, I think we could go as high as 30 to 40,000 tons. But let met say this, that it has to be enforced and it has to be source separated. And I want to be specific here. Source separation means that the residents can only put yard and garden material in front of their homes on collection day and we have to be prepared to enforce it. Commissioner Hernandez: I was playing with numbers and I got... you kind of exceed my numbers. I wanted 125,000 tons more or less at forty dollars ($40) we'll be saving about one million dollars ($1,000,000) a year. So I think it's worth starting this enforcement. Mr. Williams: Yeah, in gardening. I think that's reachable Commissioner and I think you're numbers are going back to your historic understanding of the composting... 115 December 5, 1996 IN Commissioner Hernandez: Right. Mr. Williams: ... program that we worked on in the past. Commissioner Hernandez: All right. Thank you. Mayor Carollo: Ron, how many thousands of tons is the contract that we have with the County for that we've got to provide every year? j Mr. Williams: We do not have a "put or pay" with the County, Mr. Mayor. Our agreement with Metropolitan Dade County is that we would provide them our waste stream. Mayor Carollo: All of it? Mr. Williams: All of our waste stream at this point. Whatever our non -organic waste stream is, that's our agreement. Garbage and trash. That was part of the agreement to bring us, as you know we were in Broward and in other sites, quite frankly, saving money. But our agreement was to bring the waste stream back into Dade County, which they need for their "put or pay" agreement at Montenay. Mayor Carollo: True. Because they made a bad deal, that's the bottom line. Commissioner Hernnadez: Terrible. Mayor Carollo: Why in the world did we enter into this deal with them? Does anybody here know, that was here at the time? You were here? Mr. Williams: With... Mayor Carollo: With the County? If we were paying less money in Broward? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don't know that I can speak for the total picture. Mr. Manager, do you want... Mr. Marquez: From my days at the County, my past life. Mayor Carollo: You don't qualify to give us an answer on that, you... Obviously, you have.. Go ahead. Mr. Marquez: Some of the County's perspectives were that under the State mandates of the County was required for those municipalities that were under long term contracts with them to provide long term disposal care. They took the position that... The County took the position that if a municipality was not under contract with them, they would report up to the State that they, the County would no longer be responsible for the long term care nor the disposal needs of that municipality. I Mr. Williams: Concurrence issues. Concurrence issues. Mr. Marquez: Concurrency, thank you. And that's why the County came back and started talking about entering into long term contracts with each and every municipality. Commissioner Gort: From my understanding, the original charge was a lot more. They were going to charge a lot more than forty-five ($45). 116 December 5, 1996 { Lo-• r Commissioner Plummer: It was sixty ($60). Commissioner Gort: We're talking in 1945. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but... Commissioner Gort: They were going to charge sixty dollars ($60). Commissioner Plummer: There was also another scenario in there that somebody had to pay for the bonds of the school up for that plant out there. And it was going to generate electricity. And so if everybody kept pulling away, pulling away, the County was going to have to take 100 percent of the gap to pay in off those bonds. Commissioner: Mr. Mayor, I'd like if possible for Saturday, and I don't know if he has enough time to do so. If not for the 12th, your recommendations in separating some of the trash and the savings, the elimination of weekly trash. And then look at the options of having sites that trash could be taken to. And that will help us in making a better decision when it comes to solid waste. Mr. Williams: Commissioner Gort, we certainly will be able to present to you a program that we think is thought out. We will of course, get the Manager's thoughts on it. That essentially allows us to separate the material, save the money at Virginia Key and also reduce the trash that's on our streets. The mini dump concept is one that's been discussed. We've got some ideas about it. It's a longer term idea but we probably would not be able to respond on Saturday to the mini dump issue but we will work on it vigorously and get our thoughts to the Manager on it. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. PARKS AND RECREATION: PROPOSES A 6% REDUCTION -- FIND VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAY WANT TO SPONSOR SWIMMIMG POOLS AT PARKS -- DISCUSSION -- CONTINUE WORKSHOP ON SATURDAY, 12/7/96 AT 10:00 A.M. Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Parks Department. Mr. Alberto Ruder (Director, Parks & Recreation Dept.): Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, good afternoon. With me is the Assistant Director, Terry Griffin. Our budget for this year is four million nine hundred and twenty-four thousand oh eight two ($4,924,092), which is about two percent of the City's budget. Commissioner Hernandez: Four million ($4,000,000)? Mr. Ruder: Four million nine hundred and twenty-four thousand oh eight two ($4,924,082). The numbers that you see in this plan, the two oh eight nine fifteen ($208,915), if you add the vacancies and the fringe benefits, you come up to three sixteen two ninety-five ($316,295), which is approximately six percent cut. If you go through each of the line items, they are all pretty straight forward, The last two were already accomplished a couple of months ago, the cutting Tacolcy and cutting Little Havana. The biggest line item is reducing the two year round 117 December 5, 1996 pools to eight week programs and those would be Hadley and Jose Marti Park pools. If we don't do that then the other options will be to further cut our staffing in the parks which is already very limited. Commissioner Gort: I would like to give you a suggestion in the pool opening. Mr. Ruder: OK. Commissioner Gort: You'd probably find individuals within the private sector that might be willing to sponsor the additional two to three weeks. If you could put a price to it and the program to it. Mr. Ruder: OK. Commissioner Gort: Because a lot of these major corporations are involved in sports, sporting goods. That are probably willing to sponsor several weeks every year according to the market. Mr. Ruder: OK, we're also talking to the School Board to see if they can contribute more. Commissioner Gort: Right. OK. You know if one program we need to work on is the Parks Department. We're talking about crime prevention. And this is the best way that we can prevent crime. And I want you to know that our Parks Department get together with the School System and established an after school program, but we didn't have the money for education. But we asked for recreation so we get the two together. The school system and the Parks Department, we started eight programs already and from my understanding, they're being very successful. Mr. Ruder: Yes, they are. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Mr. Ruder: Thank you. Commissioner Plummer: What is the percentage of your cuts? Mr. Ruder: I think it was 6 percent. Let me just... Commissioner Plummer: Six percent? Mr. Ruder: Yes. Commissioner Plummer: So you've got nine to go. OK. Mr. Ruder: Right. Six percent with the vacancies, yeah. Mr. Marquez: That brings us down to the end of the expenditure reduction totals. Come Saturday we will be prepared to talk about the 15 percent cut. The impacts associated with that and the rest of the... the number of items that you had requested... Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me ask this question. Of that which we've just gone over, and I have not heard any major exception. Is this going to come to us as a package for implementation, or can you do it without Commission approval? My question, I go back again. When is this going to start? Mr. Marquez: I'll ask staff to correct me if I am wrong. Let's go right through the pages here. Everything on page three, will be done administratively. 118 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: Why what's wrong with two? Oh, that's part of the... No two, I understand. OK. All of three. Mr. Marquez: Staff again, one more time. If I am wrong, please come up and correct me. Commissioner Plummer: All of four? Mr. Marquez: All of four, administratively. Commissioner Plummer: OK, five? Mr. Marquez: All of five, administratively. Commissioner Plummer: OK. i ! Commissioner Gort: Six and seven? Mr. Marquez: We can do six administratively, closing north and south substations. We plan on getting a report to you as far as the sale of the one and the possible leasing of the other. But we can do that administratively and we will do it. Commissioner Plummer: Do you want me to buy you the "for sale" sign? Mr. Marquez: I'll spring for that, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Just the one in the north end. The other one we can't do anything with anyhow, until something is done. Mr. Marquez: Right. OK, page seven is dual doable except for the cancel of the grounds maintenance, as he pointed out. That's... I want to check into that. It sounds like that is not a savings. The grounds maintenance savings are the fire stations and the police stations. Commissioner Gort: That's a chip. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, that a... Mr. Marquez: That's not even a chip. It's not provided for in the other budgets from what I understand. Mr. Ruder: Correct. Commissioner Plummer: All right, then... Mr. Marquez: OK, then we get to page eight. Commissioner Plummer: All of eight. Mr. Marquez: All of eight is doable. Commissioner Plummer: Well, no. Excuse me. Except for the International Trade, which has been modified by the Commission. Commissioner Gort: But it's not General Fund. 119 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: He said that it would probably come from Community Development funds... Commissioner Gort: But my understanding... Commissioner Plummer: ... after the first reserves run out. Commissioner Gort: Right. But my understanding is, it is not from General Funds. This... Commissioner Plummer: Wherever. We didn't specify it. Mr. Marquez: We hope that we don't have to use General Fund money when they come back, but we will take a look at the situation at that point in time. Commissioner Plummer: OK, all right. That's page eight. Mr. Marquez: Hang on, we're not... There's an item on page eight. Carlos. Fire Chief Carlos Gimenez: Yes, as stated previously, the modification of the 911 call taken. The Police Chief and I are going to have to discuss that and see if that's really a true cost savings. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Well, you all talk about it, and we'll do it. OK? Mr. Marquez: OK. Page... Commissioner Plummer: On page nine... Mr. Marquez: Page nine. Commissioner Plummer: ... you can do Solid Waste and you can do Parks. And you got to ` come back to us on that. Mr. Ron E. Williams (Assistant City Manager): Right. On Solid Waste we would ask you at some point to change provisions of Chapter 22, so that we would be in strict adherence to the code on our collection schedule with regard to trash. Commissioner Plummer: Well, that's not here. The only thing here that we're talking about is the nine hundred thousand ($900,000). Mr. Williams: Yeah, but we think that as we go into the meat of this and also into the next fiscal year, that this reduction and change will certainly allow us to accomplish this much more effectively. Commissioner Plummer: But there is nothing, excuse me. I said before, maybe I was misunderstood. This is only the beginning. This is not the final cuts for the year. This is where we're starting. Mr. Marquez: OK. Page nine is doable. Except like you said, we will come back with a report on the NET offices... Commissioner Plummer: Right. 120 December 5, 1996 Af Mr. Marquez: ... and to accommodate Commissioner Gort's comments about checking in with the School Board and private corporations. Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Marquez: We'll check it out and do a separate report on that. Commissioner Plummer: OK, so basically... All right. Commissioner Gort: That's something that can be done afterwards. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Now, but that page ten. On page nine, you're showing that that is ten and a half million dollars ($10,500,000) with the exception of the NET offices. Mr. Marquez: Yes. And if I recall, with the exception of the Law offices also. Commissioner Plummer: What do you mean? He's kicking in. Mr. Marquez: I know. I thought he was kicking in more than what was shown here. Mr. A. Quinn Jones, III, Esq. (City Attorney): Yeah, yeah. Commissioner Plummer: Well, he's kicking in... what was it, three hundred and fifty-three thousand ($353,000)? Well, that's only the beginning for him also. OK. Now, on the union contracts you expect to find a total of what, for the first year, thirteen million ($13,000,000)? All of the contracts, if they are all successful? Mr. Marquez: If they're all successful, twelve million dollars ($12,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: Well, then in the next year is thirteen ($13,000,000)? Mr. Marquez: Correct. Almost fourteen ($14,000,000). Commissioner Plummer: And six million on pension? Mr. Marquez: Five point three million on pension ($5,300,000). Commissioner Plummer: And that is for both years or one? Mr. Marquez: For both years, if... Commissioner Plummer: So what is it the first year? Mr. Marquez: Five point three ($5,300,000). Commissioner Plummer: For the first year? Mr. Marquez: Right. Commissioner Plummer: OK. So that's a total then of seventeen correct? Mr. Marquez: Correct. 121 December 5, 1996 Commissioner Plummer: For round numbers, OK. OK, just so we know. So we're then to be... We're to be understood that you are kicking in all of these proposals with the exception of the NET offices? Mr. Marquez: Unless if there are major arguments from the Commission, that's the intent. Commissioner Plummer: i haven't heard any. Commissioner Gort: I think we all agree. Commissioner Plummer: Now we start on revenues. Commissioner Gort: Let's go. Leave that for Saturday. Commissioner Plummer: You want to leave that for Saturday? Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Hernandez cannot make it Saturday until approximately ten in the morning. Commissioner Plummer: That's fine. So we start at ten. Mayor Carollo: So let's plan then on doing it at ten in the morning. Commissioner Plummer: Good. Mayor Carollo: We found today probably that we discussed if we get some approvals from our administrators in the County, that I know want to help us. And some of the monies that the Police Chief has been working down with his people, that we've been talking for some time about and we're going to do some other things that I'll be speaking to the Chief on to make sure that the Feds move on it quickly. It's about twenty-three ($23,000,000), twenty-four million dollars. Commissioner Plummer: That's good for openers. Mayor Carollo: Yeah. That's not including the approximately eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) that we already had put in the works to reduce from the budget. The one that we went over this morning. If we can get some ten, eleven million dollars through the Feds in the way that we discussed today, plus over thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) from the Sports Authority. That's approximately the amount that we can reduce the budget by, in addition to the ten and a half ($10,500,000), eleven million dollars ($11,000,000), that we already have cut from the budget. So it's... Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me go on the record if I may. One of the things that has absolutely done great harm is the word that has been banging around recklessly called "bankruptcy." Mr. Manager, I want you to express on the record as you did to me, and as I expressed to you. I'll die and go to hell before I'll vote for bankruptcy. Now, I want you to know that what's happened it started at Bayfront Park. We've got creditors calling saying that they're thinking about putting us on C.O.D. (Cash on Delivery). Because they're not going to stand in line, if this City's goes bankrupt. And I've tried to explain to them as far as I know, that is nowhere in the cards at the present time. So Mr. Manager, you had a comment to me the other day, but I ask you to put that same comment on the record so they didn't here it from a politician, they heard it from the professional Manager, your opinion about bankruptcy. 122 December 5, 1996 71 Mayor Carollo: If... Before the Manager begins, let me say this for the record to clarify that issue 100 percent. This City Commission even if it wanted to, which it does not - There is not one of us up here that wants to go into that - cannot, cannot take any steps to put this City into Chapter IX, which is federal bankruptcy for municipalities, unless the Governor approves it. In my conversations with the Governor it was clear to me that that's the last thing that he wants to do. I think it is clear to him that that's the last thing that I want to do, or that this Commission wants to do. So the question of bankruptcy is really a very mute question right now as long as we are moving ahead in the way that we are. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, what I... Commissioner Plummer: I'd like to see the Manager put his... Commissioner Gort: ... go in the record, but I'd like to see... According to my understanding you've talked to the County... If we have memos written that can go directly from Commissioners to Mayor because I'd like to see our communication being improved. Commissioner Plummer: I don't understand. I don't understand what you're saying. Mr. Marquez: That's... legal interpretation? Commissioner Gort: Well, my understanding is. We were stated that we are not allowed to send memo from one Commissioner to another Commissioner although it is public record, that we have to go through the City Manager. Mr. Jones: That's is correct. Commissioner Gort: And then the City Manager has to distribute it. Mayor Carollo: Well... Commissioner Gort: But I think in the past, we've done that in the past. Mayor Carollo: What I would recommend, Commissioner, is that we instruct the City Attorney to confer with the State Attorney's office on that issue so that he can get a legal opinion from them on that. Mr. Jones: I'll be happy to confer with the Attorney General's Office but, I think it's quite clear to me that. You know, it's a black letter of law. Whether the County does it whatever else... As I've said to you many times before, that many of the provisions of the State statutes that apply to us as a municipality, does not apply to Dade County because they are a Home Rule Charter County. It's quite clear to me that the public records law says what it says in terms of any communications that you have must be in the "Sunshine." Commissioner Plummer: But what is... I don't understand the big deal. I write a memo that I want Gort to see. So I write it, I take it upstairs and the Manager turns around and takes it down to Gort. It takes ten minutes. Mr. Jones: Well, any memo that you do should go as the Charter says, you should do anything through the Manager, that way you don't have the "Sunshine" problem. Commissioner Gort: Let me give you an example. That might take ten, fifteen, twenty minutes If they're very busy upstairs, it might take a whole day. 123 December 5, 1996 Mr. Jones: Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: I can have my staff sent it to the Manager upstairs and to each one of you. Mr. Jones: Commissioner, I understand the inconvenience... Commissioner Gort: That takes five minutes. Mr. Jones: I understand the inconvenience it may cause you whatever. But the law clearly prohibits any communication between two or more Commissioners, OK. So it means whether it's written communication or oral communication, whatever the case may be. I am only telling you what the law says, the law is very clear on that. Commissioner Plummer: Well, you know in today's wonderful world of machines. If I take a memo up there to the Manager, and he sticks it in his fax machine and hits the button that sends it to the five Commissioners immediately, does it take that long? Is it, doesn't that comply? Mr. Jones: Well, that's a different story. That's a memo, a communication from your Manager to each of the Commissioners. It's not the... The law is designed for you as elected officials, communications between you. The presumption being that any communication that you have between yourselves, whether it's written or oral there is presumption that it may be something that you may take legislative action on. That's what the whole purpose of the open government law is. That everything that goes on should be done in the open. Commissioner Gort: Not if we need to take action on. Mr. Jones: Well, it pertains to any communication. Any communication. What we can do Commissioner, is have our lobbyists look into perhaps changing it. Provide you more flexibility. That's the only way I see it's going to be changed. Mayor Carollo: Let's move on and... Commissioner Plummer: I've asked that the Manager go on the record about this City possibly filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Marquez: For the record, I will not... Mayor Carollo: Again for the record. Mr. Marquez: Again for the record, bankruptcy as a recommendation coming from myself is an extremely remote possibility. I will only recommend bankruptcy if everything else fails. Commissioner Plummer: OK, fine. Mayor Carollo: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Commissioner Gort: We'll be ..... ten o'clock. Commissioner Plummer: Ten o'clock Saturday. Mayor Carollo: Ten o'clock Saturday. And again that will be a Commission Workshop. 124 December 5, 1996 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:37 P.M. JOE CAROLLO MAYOR ATTEST: Walter J. Foeman CITY CLERK Josephine M. Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK ILNEwbige 125 December 5, 1996