Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2010-08-31 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Marc David Sarnoff, Chairman Frank Carollo, Vice -Chairman Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Richard P. Dunn II, Commissioner District Five Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 1:00 P.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Gort, Chairman Sarnoff, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Dunn II On the 31st day ofAugust 2010, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in special session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Sarnoff at 1: 28 p.m., and adjourned at 4: 26 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Pamela L. Latimore, Assistant City Clerk Chair Sarnofff. This is a meeting to consider taking action pursuant to the Public Employees Relation [sic]Act, Section 447.4059 [sic]. This section addresses the consideration of changes to wages, benefits, and economic terms of employment in circumstances constituting a financial urgency. This is a unique process, and we proceed in the following manner. First, we will hear from the City of Miami's bargaining team and advisors to the team. Then each of the employee organizations, the FOP (Fraternal Order ofPolice), IAFF (International Association of Firefighters), AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) 1907, and AFSCME 871, will be afforded 30 minutes each to respond. There will be no time allowed for public comment, beyond the allocation of the 30 minutes per union. At the close of the responsive presentations by the employee organizations, we will take a brief recess. After the recess, the Commission will consider taking action to change wages, benefits, pursuant to the financial urgency statute. ORDINANCE -EMERGENCY SP.1 ORDINANCE Emergency Ordinance 10-01033 (4/5 THS VOTE) AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 40/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 3, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PERSONNEL/PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN/CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST," TO PROVIDE FORA LIMITED EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 40-255; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01033 Legislation.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED as an emergency measure, waiving the requirement for two separate readings PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II 13192 City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Michelle Pina (Director, Employee Relations): Yes. Chair Sarnoff All right, this is an ordinance. This is going to be a public hearing. The public is entitled to hear specifically only regarding this ordinance. Would you put it on the record, Ms. Pina? Ms. Pina: Yes. An emergency ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending Chapter 40/Article IV/Division 3 of the Code of the City ofMiami, Florida, as amended, entitled "Personnel/Pension and Retirement Plan/City ofMiami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, " to provide for a limited early retirement program; more particularly by amending Section 40-255; containing a severability clause and providing for an immediate effective date. Chair Sarnoff All right. Madam Clerk -- Is that an adequate reading, Madam City Attorney? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): That is the title to the ordinance. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Madam Clerk, this is going to require two readings. Can we waive the second reading in terms of reading it all over again? Ms. Bru: No. You only need to read the ordinance twice [sic]. Chair Sarnoff Once. Ms. Bru: You've read the title into the record. You know, you can open up the public hearing on this matter now. Chair Sarnoff Okay. So the public hearing is now opened. Anyone wishing to be heard regarding SP.1, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. It is an ordinance. Roll call. Commissioner Gort: We need a motion and a second. Chair Sarnoff Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. I apologize. Commissioner Suarez: So move. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion by Commissioner Suarez -- Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff -- second by Commissioner Dunn. Any discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion, Madam Clerk, it is an ordinance; it will require two readings. Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): First roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Latimore: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0. Second roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Latimore: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0. END OF ORDINANCE - EMERGENCY City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 SP.2 10-01036 SP.3 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), RATIFYING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AMENDING ARTICLE 52.1 (PENSION), OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1907 (AFSCME), IN EFFECT FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 447.309(1). 10-01036 Legislation. pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II R-10-0345 Chair Sarnoff For purposes of the Commission, we're going to start with SP.2. SP. 2 is a resolution of the City ofMiami Commission, with attachments, raging the memorandum of understanding, amending Article 52.1 (Pension), of the collective bargaining agreement, between the City ofMiami and the Miami General Employees, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1907 (AFSCME), in effect for the period of October 1, 2007 through October [sic] 30, 2010, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by Florida Statute 447.3091, subsection 1. Michelle Pina, you're recognized for the record. Michelle Pina: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michelle Pina, director of Employee Relations. The item before you is an agreement between AFSCME 1907 and the City ofMiami to take the eligibility requirement from a Rule of 70 to a Rule of 64 for an early retirement window. Chair Sarnoff Can you advise what the savings would be? Ms. Pina: The savings is approximately $1 million, assuming that 25 percent of eligible employees will be accepting this incentive. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Is there a motion? Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Sarnoff I have a motion by Commissioner Dunn. I have a second by Commissioner Suarez. Any discussion on the record, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff You have a unanimous vote, Madam Clerk. DISCUSSION ITEM City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 10-01034 DISCUSSION AND ACTION CONCERNING THE CITY'S FINANCIAL URGENCY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS OF: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, AFSCME 1907, AFSCME 871, PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL URGENCY UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 447.4095. 10-01034-MEMO - Special Commission Meeting August 31 2010.pdf 10-01034-Submttal-Presentation-Wage, Health, and Pension Proposal Summaries.pdf DISCUSSED Chair Sarnoff SP.3. SP.3, Mr. Manager, you'll be recognized for the record. Carlos A. Migoya (City Manager): Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Mayor. For the last several months, we've been working on two things. As the Mayor previously said, we've been trying to figure out how to balance the budget, having the fact that approximately 90 percent of our expenses -- operating expenses of the City are people -related, labor, and other -- and labor and benefits. We have nothing more to figure out than to really work through the contract negotiations as it relates to all the bargaining units. For that reason, we have hired a group of experts. We have with us here today. We would like to get our chief negotiator, Michael Mattimore, to come and present the position to you and our plan as it stands for imposition today. Chair Sarnoff All right, Mr. Mattimore, you're recognized for the record. Michael Mattimore: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I appreciate this opportunity. The City, as the Manager, has just mentioned is facing a shortfall of -- in excess of $100 million as we go into the budget process. And as he also mentioned, approximately 90 percent of our recurring costs are personnel. You'll see more information about that later. The circumstances facing the City constitutes a financial urgency under 447.4095. That is a statutory provision of the Public Employees Relations Act that will allow you to change wages and benefits and terms and conditions of employment of an economic nature in order to meet a financial urgency. The statute requires that we provide notice to the Public Employees Relations Commission, and we have done that. They have -- it requires that we satisfy a 14-day period of impact negotiations, and we have done that. It then requires that we notify the Chair of the exhaustion of the 14 days, and we have done that. So now you have the authority and the ability to make changes to wages in economic terms and conditions of employment that you deem necessary to meet this financial urgency. Today we will provide you information and recommendations in three areas, wages, heath insurance, and pension benefits. We will also make these recommendations as narrow and as focused as we can on the urgency. We're not overreaching. Before we get into the presentations -- and we're going to have presentations by subject matter experts -- I would like to say that over the last couple of months, I've had the opportunity to meet with representatives ofAFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) 871, representatives ofAFSCME 1907, the FOP (Fraternal Order ofPolice), and the IFF [sic]. They have always dealt with us professionally. They have brought ideas to our attention, which we have attempted to incorporate. They, at times, have acknowledged that we need to have changes in wages and benefits. But we have reached a point in this process where we need to consider action to change terms and conditions of employment under 4095. I would like to start with wages. And with the permission of the Chair, I'd like to call on Michael Nadol, of the PFM (Public Financial Management) Group, to provide you information about wages and recommendations as to how they can be changed. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized for the record. Michael Nadol: Good afternoon. And I'm joined by my colleague, Greg Butler, who will be City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 participating in our component of the presentation. We will outline the specific recommendations that the City's bargaining team has developed. In providing context for those recommendations, we'll also briefly summarize some of the fiscal and economic context that has led to these recommendations, as well as some of the history of the past ten years of bargaining and compensation changes for the different City bargaining units that also provide context for what's being considered today. Looking first at the economic trends that the City faces and that underlie the fiscal and labor market context for these proposals, the City today faces a 13.5 percent unemployment rate. That's roughly triple the level of unemployment that the City faced just a few years ago before the onset of the recent recession. It's the highest that the City has seen since the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, nearly two decades ago. And compounding those unemployment challenges, the City's housing market remains severely depressed, regional home values have consistently declined over the past several years. And while that angle of decent has begun to flatten, there's still no significant upturn in the housing values that underlie the City's finances and its largest revenue source of property taxes and that underlie so much of the regional economy. Linked closely to those broader economic trends, the City's revenues today and forecast for fiscal 2011 ahead are also severely depressed from the peak levels that were accompanying the real estate bubble and economic bubble before the onset of the recession. As a result of that steady downturn, the fiscal projections for the year just ahead have the City looking at resources levels consistent with where the City was in 2005. That's nearly a decade of first a peak and then a return to a very flat level over the long term, while at the same time pension pressures and healthcare costs continue to grow underneath that. And you'll hear more about that from some of the other experts to follow us. Looking at this chart, what you see -- is paralleling the City Manager's comments just a few moments ago -- how much of the City's total budget is typically normally dedicated to employees. It's people, it's City workers who patrol the streets, fight fires, pick up the trash, perform all the other services that City residents depend on. And because local government is so labor-intensive, you see that in almost every year in recent memory, two-thirds to three-quarters of the City's budget has been dedicated to those employee wages and benefits. Now -- but as a result of the combined effects of declining revenues and growing underlying personnel costs, the percentage of the City's recurring revenues, the resources available to expend in any fiscal year, now chewed up by the cost of employees, would actually be expected to exceed available resources in fiscal 2011 if no corrective action was taken. That means that you would be further drawing down upon reserves already severely depleted before the City could spend one nickel on fuel for police vehicles or fire trucks, on utilities to maintain core City facilities, on any of the materials, supplies, equipment, and ancillary services beyond those essential labor costs. With the proposals that the team will further present to you in the subsequent slides, that percentage of the budget dedicated to employee wages and benefits will remain above the levels ofjust a few years ago, but will be brought down to approximately 83 percent of total revenues, total available resources, preserving some room for those other, again, materials, supplies, equipment, and the like that are all so essential to service delivery. In the next set of slides, we're moving from this broader economic and fiscal context to look at the past decade of compensation growth for representative City employees in each of the major bargaining groups to provide, again, a context for what the changes being recommended today would look like in that broader sweep of time. The group representative titles being considered are firefighters for the IAFF (International Association of Firefighters), police officers for the FOP, Code Enforcement inspectors, and garbage collectors for AFSCME 1907 and 871, respectively. These are the largest classifications in each of these bargaining units. And what we'll be showing you is how, over the course of the past decade, the members within those titles with average tenure, have their compensation levels changed over the course of the past ten years. And any individual's experience will vary somewhat because employees may be at any point in time at different steps in their pay progression, may be reaching or passing different levels at which longevity increments are awarded; different individuals may receive different supplemental pays based on certification or assignment. We will be showing, again, the typical highest population title in each group with average tenure and how they fared over the past ten years without taking into account rising benefit costs, which again will be discussed separately. The first graphic you see here shows ten years of wage City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 growth for a garbage collector in AFSCME 871. The orange line at the bottom of the graph shows the salary for that employee at $23,000 plus in October 2000, and shows that if that salary had been adjusted at the same level -- had grown at the same level as consumer prices, a common measure of inflation, that garbage collector in today's dollars would be making just over $30,500. The actual incumbent in that position moving through their career, gaining steps in longevity, and the across-the-board increases provided by the City over that period, is today making over $39,500. Looking next at a Code Enforcement inspector, the largest population classification in AFSCME 1907, you see a similar pattern, with the orange line reflecting the starting point of $35, 000 plus, growing to $46, 000 plus, if adjusted simply by inflation. And then the actual gross pay growth of an individual in that position rising to over 60,000 and remaining at over $60,000, albeit with downward adjustment under the recommendations coming before you today. The next slide parallels the same analysis for police officers, showing growth from just over $40,000 in 2000 to over 70,000 today and remaining over 70,000 with the recommendations before you. And the final slide in the series shows the trajectory for a firefighter with a average tenure of 14 years of services, starting at over 48,000 in 2000, growing to over $90,000, somewhat faster pace due to -- primarily to the effect of supplemental pays and improvements to supplemental pays, which my colleague will outline further in just a moment, during the years when the City's economy was strong and City revenues were peaking and then declining somewhat last year and proposed to decline further in 2010 as the City now adjusts to changing economic times but remaining above an inflation -adjusted salary level. And with that, I'll now again turn it to my colleague, Greg Butler, to further outline some of the specific changes that underlie the graphics just presented. Greg Butler: As Mr. Nadol has illustrated, the period over the past ten years, from about fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2009, more or less, the City experienced increases in revenues. Over that same time period, as been illustrated as well, the percentage of revenue -- expenditure is a percentage of revenues focused exclusively on personnel and workforce costs have also increased as well. This line shows some of the details around the contract for the fiscal year 2005-2007 bargaining cycle and shows how some of these -- the transference of some of the revenues that were collected by the City filtered its way into collective bargaining agreements. Generally, you see that employees received across-the-board wage increases that ranged from approximately 6 percent for the AFSCME units, up to about 14.5 percent for the FOP. Longevity steps were added to the pay schedules. This was done for all units. Additionally, on the supplemental pay side, there was an educational attainment supplemental that was implemented for IFF [sic] and FOP. Those payments range from $1, 200 for an associate's degree up to over $4, 000 for a doctorate. And finally, there were increases to supplemental pays, particularly for the IFF [sic]. Both the special assignment pays, which range -- raised -- rose from 2 percent of base to 5 percent of base, as well as the paramedic certification supplement, which rose from 8.5 percent at base pay to 14 percent of base pay. As a result of these modifications in the 2005-2007 bargaining cycle, a number of employees experienced dramatic increases within the 2007 year, and the following slide will show some detail behind these increases. These slides show the increases received by a employee in each bargaining unit with ten years of service as of October 1, 2004. You will see that over time, the impacts of the delayed across-the-board wage increases, the retroactive longevity steps; as well as for Police and Fire, some of the impacts associated with the paramedic ALS (Advanced Life Support) supplements, as well as the educational degree supplements, had a compounding effect on wages. In this example shown here, a firefighter with ten years of service realized an approximately 37 percent increase in pay, assuming the supplements previously mentioned. By contrast, police officers with an assignment pay and a bachelor's degree saw an increase of about 18 percent. And the AFSCME units do not have the same amount of supplements that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) base. Both saw an increase around 12 percent. That's between October 1, 2006 and September 2007. So while -- when the City's coffers were receiving increased revenue, that money had gone towards increasing the compensation schedule, as well as employee costs generally. As times have started to turn and the fiscal situation deteriorated, the City's unions have also made recent concessions as well, and these figures and concessions have been included in the graphs that you've seen previously. This City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 slide provides some detail around what those concessions were as they pertain to wages in each one of the City's bargaining units. So, for example, in Fire there was -- they rescinded a schedule of 5 percent wage increase, as well as a 2 percent wage decrease. Additionally, supplemental pays formulas were altered and firefighters received reduced holiday pay for two holidays. Within the FOP there was a deferred wage increase of 3 percent, as well as suspension of holiday pay for three holidays and temporary suspension of vacation cash out. For both of the AFSCME units, you see an increase in the pension contribution, as well as furlough days, deferrals of step and longevity increases, a suspension of holiday pays, as well as a temporary wage reduction and a wage reduction of 3 percent for employees earning more than $50, 000 for AFSCME 871. So to take a step back for a moment and look at how the gross pay trended from the beginning of this period, September 30, 2004, that is, the day before the contracts and the 2005 contract cycle, to see how those differences in pay trended up until the present, including the City's wage proposals. You see that -- the results of that analysis here on this graph. This graph shows a police officer and a firefighter at the exact same step of the salary schedule, ten years of service, as of September 30, 2004. What you see here is generally firefighter pay outpaces police officer pay. And you see that along the years of 2006, 7 and 8, there's a widened differential. By the time we come back to September 30, 2010, you'll notice the differential between police off -- excuse me -- between firefighter pay and police officer pay is just about the same as it was in September 30, 2004. Now this graph provides another perspective on that same analysis. And essentially, what this is the bars are showing the space in between the two graphs on the prior page. So again, a police -- a firefighter with ten years of service September 30, 2004 was making about $10, 800 more than a police officer at the exact same step in the salary schedule, and then over time moving -- fast forwarding to September 30, 2010, you see that differential is in the general ballpark. It's a little bit lower. It's about $10, 300 as compared to $10, 800 in September 30, 2004. As we conclude our presentation on wages, we thought it would be worthwhile to put forth the details of the City's wage proposal. As the Commission can see, there is a tiered salary reduction proposed where employees with a higher base salary will receive a -- will experience a higher percentage reduction. Those employees making less than $39,999 will be -- receive no decrease to wages. However, as employees that receive higher base pay, they will receive -- or they'll experience up to a 12 percent pay cut for those employees who earn over $120, 000. Additionally, besides cuts and modifications to base pay, the City is proposing modifications to supplemental pay items for IFF [sic] and FOP. First you'll see there's the elimination of the education pay supplements which were enacted as part of the 2005 bargaining -- excuse me -- 2005 contract bargaining cycle. Additionally, there will be alterations to fire prevention pay, revenue incentive pay and most supplements that are 5 percent at base pay are higher. Those pays will be converted to $1, 500. Paramedic pay supplement, which is now about 14 percent of base pay, will be converted to a flat dollar amount of $4,825. And FOP crime prevention pay will actually increase a bit to $2, 700. Additionally, no longer will supplements be allowed to roll into base pay for the calculation of overtime and other supplemental pays, which is how the contracts are written currently. Additionally, all employees will receive step freezes and longevity freezes, perspectively. The final slide of our presentation provides a summary by bargaining unit of the total wage savings, andl will just -- in total, when you include the nonrepresented employees -- that is, unclassified employees or employees who do not belong to a union -- the savings are just south of $27 million. They are detailed there again by bargaining unit, becoming that $26, 743, 905. At this point, I'll turn it back to Mr. Mattimore. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you, Mr. Butler and Mr. Nadol. The City asserts that in the absence of being relieved of these wage obligations will not be able to balance the budget, so we ask your consideration for the recommendations that were made in those last two slides. For your information, the tiered reduction of wages did not extend to AFSCME 871. That -- up there. And just for your information, that would only affect about $200,000 in cost savings, so that item is not a part of all of this because to take that action only results in $200,000. I would like to move on to healthcare and health insurance and information about healthcare and health insurance and our recommendations for changes to that, and I'd like Mr. Jim Schafer to approach the podium and present that information, ifI may? City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Chair Sarnoff He's recognized for the record. Mr. Schafer. Jim Schafer: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity to address you all this afternoon. I have several slides prepared that will look at, well, the history of the City's plans and then also examine our proposal for modifications to those plans under the financial urgency. So to begin, the current plan designs as we look at these really reflect a design strategy from the mid 1990s during the heyday of the managed care industry when HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) were on the upswing and provider contracts reflected those benefit designs. And specific, those plans were zero deductible and no coinsurance and really didn't create much opportunity for plan members to be cognizant of the expense to the plan as they make their decisions to receive services from providers. Additionally, no significant plan modifications have really occurred to the City's plans since those plans were put into place, while conversely nationwide employers, both public and private, have abandoned this managed care approach because it's proven to be ineffective over time. By contract, City management is somewhat precluded from making these modifications to keep pace with thought leadership within the benefits industry in modernizing the plan. And in our opinion, the cost of the current plans is just not sustainable from a budgetary perspective going forward. And to illustrate that point, we've prepared this slide that shows the 2005 through 2009 plan costs. These are actual gross plan costs, claims, and administration. And you can see that from 2005 to 2009, total claim costs increased by some $15 million. Projecting that same trend line forward through 2014, we estimate that the incremental expense to the City, if the plans don't change and the population of the plan stays the same, all things remain constant, is approximately an additional $60 million over where the plans are today. In aiding the City in determining what the market is for benefits these days, we took a look at the City's current point of service plan and compared it to these other three cities you see shown here that are essentially the same size in terms of employee count and population density. The key line on this slide is really the bottom line with the red arrow to the left. If you think of the percentages as equaling a dollar's worth of benefits, the City of Anaheim, California, for example, their point of service plan pays out about 85 cents on the dollar, as compared to the City ofMiami. Similarly, Tampa is about 88 cents on the dollar, and the City of Cleveland, Ohio, this is the highest benefit level of the three plans that they currently offer to their employees. So we felt, in looking at this, that in terms of bringing the City's plan back to what we would consider a market level, there is some room to move. This slide shows the current HMO and the current POS (Point of Service) plan alongside what we're proposing for a point of service plan, andl don't intend to go through each line item here, but to say that the current HMO plan, the proposal is to dissolve that plan, migrate that population into the point of service plan, and continue the out -of -area plan that's in place now. So to highlight some of the changes on the proposed plan, we estimate that the proposed point of service plan and migrating the HMO population into that plan will yield approximately $6.9 million in savings during fiscal 2011. An additional benefit of this is that these plans are anticipated to reduce the healthcare inflation trend factor that our actuaries apply to the plan in terms of future renewals going forward. In our opinion, these plans reflect the current best practices in benefit strategy, and they really create an opportunity to modify the consumption patterns among plan members in terms of being more aware of consumer -driven sorts of initiatives, as well as an opportunity for the City to modernize both the medical and the prescription drug plan. To highlight some of the key plan changes here, we're proposing an annual individual deductible of $500; a family deductible of 1,000; out-of-pocket maximum of 3,000, individual, and 6,000 for a family; and the individual and family deductibles and co -pays accrue towards the out-of-pocket amount. The coinsurance would move to 80 percent in network from the current 100 percent, and we're proposing no changes to the employee contribution structure, with the exception of adding a 4th tier that accommodates single parents that have one child. Our analysis indicates that within the City's current population, there's approximately 200 employees that are single parents with one child and at this point, they would be covered by the family rate, so they're essentially helping to subsidize someone who has far more than just one dependent. We are lowering the co pay for utilizing an urgent care facility versus emergency room services, where services can be provided City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 on a nonemergency basis just as effectively and far more cost -efficiently. There's a $5 increase to co pays for office and to the prescription drug plan. This plan allows for direct access to specialists as opposed to the current plan, which necessitates going back through the individual's primary care physician in order to get access to a specialist. The plan will, of course, be brought into line with all of the federally mandated healthcare reform legislation that recently passed, and one of those includes preventive care at 100 percent. The City will introduce financial incentives to promote health and wellness of employees, and education will be given to how best to utilize the flexible spending account that's currently in place, as well the addition of work site benefits that help augment the current -- or the proposed plan design. That concludes my comments, and I'll return it to Michael. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you, Mr. Schafer. As Mr. Schafer said at the outset of his presentation, the current health insurance plan is not fiscally sustainable. And in its place, to relieve us of that plan, we propose that the City Commission consider changes to the contract that would allow for a plan as outlined in his last few slides. At this time, I would like to turn to our last area of information and recommendation today, which is pension, and we have Michael Tierney and Jim Linn here to present information and to talk about your options. Michael Tierney: IffI may, sir? Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chair Sarnoff Oh, I'm sorry. You're recognized for the record. Mr. Tierney: I'm Michael Tierney, the City's actuarial pension consultant, and with me is Jim Linn, the City's legal pension consultant. Over the last eight to ten years, the pension costs for both the general employees and the Police and Fire pension plans have increased way more than anybody ever anticipated, and so pensions are currently costing way more than the City bargained for. For the Police and Fire plan, the current year's City cost is 55 million on the first line, and next year it is going to be increasing to over $70 million. This includes a just under $5 million expense that the City must contribute to the employees' cost -of -living fund that requires a minimum contribution in the years where excess assets do not exist. The City cost per employee has increased from almost 34,000 to just over 43,000 per year per employee. For the general employees plan, costs have similarly increased drastically from the current year to the next year from close to $25 million on line one to over $36 million for the next fiscal year, and the City costs per employee has increased from 14,500 to almost $22, 000 per year per employee. The first line here summarizes those costs for the current year and the next fiscal year for the general employees and the Police and Fire plans together. The cost for the year we're just about to complete is $84.5 million. The cost for the next fiscal year, if nothing is done, is close to a $107 million. We've also showed the expected cost over the next several years after that. And the reason for that is that the asset shortfalls and the financial trauma that the -- our country has gone through over the last couple of years hasn't been fully reflected in the numbers yet. The 106 -- $107 million on line two for total is really only about 20 percent of that recognition, and that is because the actuarial methods phase in those adverse experience over four- to five-year periods to dampen the initial effect to be able to allow the City to have time to plan for payment of the increases, but those increases do not assume any future adverse experience. Those increases are baked into the current structure based on the losses that have already happened and that will be reflected in the contribution requirements over the next several years. So from 2010 to 2014, you can see the costs will increase from 84.5 million to almost a $146 million. If no changes are made, the unfunded liabilities will grow from close to 900 million to over $1.2 million [sic] by 2014, and -- Chair Sarnoff You saying million or billion? Mr. Tierney: One point two billion. Chair Sarnoff I thought you said that. City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Mr. Tierney: The -- and the total City contributions, which is the summary of the prior slide, goes from 84.5 to $146 million in 2014, and that $60 million is a huge increase that was going to be phased -- going forward if nothing is done. The City contributions are way more than the City bargained for. Jim. Jim Linn: I'm Jim Linn. I'm the City's pension attorney. And before we leave this slide, I'd just like to put that -- the growth figure, the difference between what the City would be paying now, the 84.5 million and the 146 million that is estimated if there are no changes made by 2014. To put that in context, that $60 million increase in the City's pension costs is what the City is currently spending on Parks and Recreation, on Public Works, and General Services combined. I'm going to show several benefit examples here as to how the current pension plans work in practice, and these examples are based on actual recent retirements from each of the plans. And I will point out that the examples are just that, they're examples chosen. There are certainly all different kinds of people with more years of service, less years of service. You're going to find people with higher compensation levels and lower compensation levels. The purpose of these slides is just to show how the current retirement benefit formula works for both of the City's pension plans. And in example number one, this is a firefighter, age 55, with 36 years of service, average final compensation of $135, 000 a year. That -- in the -- under the current benefit formula produces a pension benefit of $133,000 per year. And in addition to that, this individual will -- also had a DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) benefit. And just to explain briefly, the DROP is a program that the City set up some years ago for all of its employees, which allows the employee to retire for purposes of the pension plan but continue working for a period of time; for firefighters, another four and a half years. And during that time, the employee's pension benefit is paid into a DROP account and they can invest it in different types of investment options. We've just assumed a 3 percent rate of return for this example, and this individual was able to accumulate $600,000 lump -sum in their DROP account. And in addition to that, for police officers and firefighters there's a separate benefit that is called the Share Plan, which is funded by insurance premium tax monies. And this individual was able to accumulate $384,000 in their Share Plan. And so the bottom line here is that under the current plan, this firefighter was able to earn a pension of 133,000 a year for life, plus a $984,000 lump -sum, which when you add those together and compute the actuarial present value, that is, the amount of money that someone would have to have set aside today to produce this lifetime benefit, the total is over $2.4 million. For -- another example of a police officer under the Fire and Police pension plan, age 52 with 30 years of service, an average final compensation of $94, 000, this individual retired with a pension of about $91,600; the DROP benefit -- police officers have a longer DROP period in the plan -- produced another $642,000 lump -sum, and the Share Plan benefit of $190,000. And so the individual left with $91,000 lifetime pension benefit, plus an $832,000 lump -sum benefit, which yields an actuarial present value of about $1.8 million. This is the City's proposal for reforming the Police and Fire pension plan. First, change the normal retirement date to a rule of 70. That means age plus years of service equals 70 or more, with a minimum age 50 and 10 years of service; would also change the benefit formula to 3 percent per year for all future service. And just want to emphasize that none of the City's proposals in any way affects the benefits that employees have already earned. This has to do with what they will be earning in the future. And so right now, under the Police and Fire plan there's a 3.5 percent formula benefit after 15 years of service. Under the City's proposal, all years of service would have a 3 percent benefit multiplier. The maximum benefit would also be revised by adding a $100,000 per year maximum applied to the normal form of benefit. The normal form of benefit would be changed. Currently under the plan, married members have a different benefit form than non -married. Married members have an automatic 40 percent joint and spouse survivor benefit that's built into the cost of the plan. Under the City's proposal, all members, married and non -married, would have the ten year certain and life benefit, and that means that the member would retire. And if the member died within ten years after retirement, the same benefit amount would be paid to the spouse or beneficiary for the remainder of the ten-year period. In essence, the City's proposal would treat married members the same as non -married members, and married members could City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 still elect a spouse survivor option to protect their spouse, but that would have to be at their cost, not at the plan's cost. And finally, the average final compensation period is proposed to be changed to the highest five years of service instead of the current highest single year of service. If the City's pension proposal for the Police and Fire plan is implemented, the City's pension contributions are estimated to decrease by almost $27 million in the coming fiscal year. Turning to the general employees' retirement plan, this is an example. Under the current plan benefit structure of an employee age 56, with 33 years of service, an average final contribution of $55,800. Under the current plan, this employee would have a lifetime pension benefit of about $4, 600 a month, about $55, 000 annually, plus the DROP benefit lump -sum of $221, 000. The actuarial present value of those combined benefits would be just a little over $800, 000 for this employee. The City's proposal for reforming the general employees' retirement plan is to change the normal retirement date to age 60 with 10 years of service or age 55 with 30 years of service. To change the benefit formula again for future service to 2.25 percent for the first 15 years, 2.5 percent for years 16 to 20, and 2.75 percent for service over 20 years. The same maximum benefit limitation would be added to the general employees' plan as was proposed for the Fire and Police plan of $100, 000 per year maximum benefit. The normal benefit form would be a life annuity. And here again, with the general employees' plan, married members can elect basically a formula benefit with that automatic 40 percent joint and survivor benefit for the spouse. Under the City's proposal, the married members would be treated the same as non -married, but the married members could elect a spouse survivor benefit at the employee's cost. Average final compensation period would be the highest five consecutive years, and that would be phased in over the next three years. And the employee contribution would continue at the current 13 percent rate, which is the rate that it is for the current fiscal year. If the City's proposals for the general employees' retirement plan are implemented, the City's pension contributions are estimated to decline by about 16.4 million in the coming fiscal year. And I'll turn it back to Mike. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you. As you've heard earlier today, if some change is not made immediately, that the pension cost will actually engulf over 100 percent of our recurring budget. It will leave no money whatsoever for a pencil, for any operation services, for any equipment and whatsoever. More than every dollar we have will be tied up in personnel costs. That's not sustainable. As Mr. Linn said, we cannot meet and sustain these contractual obligations under the pension plan. We do not have the money. We will not balance the budget unless we do something today. We will be, at the conclusion of this proceeding, providing to the Commission resolutions to change and relieve themselves of the contractual obligation under 447.4095 in the areas of wages, healthcare, and pension, as we have outlined today in our presentation. And those resolutions will specifically identf what changes we're suggesting to make. And with that, sir, and all Commissioners, thank you for your time. Chair Sarnoff Thank you, Mr. Mattimore. Mr. Manager, are you done presenting for right now? Mr. Migoya: Yes, sir, we are. Chair Sarnoff All right. At this time, I'll allow the unions, 30 minutes per union, to address the Commission. We'll start with the IAFF, will follow by FOP. You want a recess? Commissioner Gort: Two minutes. Commissioner Dunn: Let's go. Chair Sarnoff Keep going? All right, let's -- we'll start with IAFF, followed by FOP, followed by AFSCME 1907, followed by AFSCME 871. Madam City Attorney -- Madam Clerk, you will start the clock at 30 minutes. Mr. Suarez, you're recognized for the record. City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Robert Suarez: Robert Suarez, Miami, Local 587, International Association of Firefighters, 2980 Northwest South River Drive. I'm going to keep my comments relatively brief. I'm not going to need the 30 minutes. This process here that's happening today is unprecedented. I don't think you'll find it have occurred anywhere in Florida like this. I'm pretty sure this process is not going to end here today. This has been, to say the least, an experiment on not only bargaining law in the state of Florida as it comes to public employees, but to the sunshine law in the state of Florida. Very interesting that this governmental body found it appropriate to have a shade meeting, secret meeting, unrecorded, no minutes, nobody knows what's being spoken of immediately prior to you speaking about this, taking action on it, specifically about what you were about to take action on. I'm almost speechless standing here right now being a part of this process that the City claims to be consistent with Florida law. It's very easy to throw figures up there. I'm not going to go into detail about the substance of what it seems you're going to be taking action on today. What I can tell you is that these employees are loyal to the City. We expect consistency, respect, action that's consistent with the law. Andl can tell you, I feel very confident that this experiment that's being played on City ofMiami employees is neither just nor legal. And I ask you to take a look at what the Administration is proposing. From my bargaining unit in particular, the Administration is asking you to slash our wages at the lower extreme of about 18 or 19 percent of an individual's salary to over 27 percent of a member's salary. That, in light of the process that's being used today, is disheartening. And as I stated, I won't need the 30 minutes. It's unfortunate that this process is occurring like this. And as I stated, this experiment on the employees of the City ofMiami and this experiment on not only sunshine law but collective bargaining law in Florida. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff All right, all right. Applause. (OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.) Chair Sarnoff FOP. You're recognized for the record, Mr. Armando (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Armando Aguilar: Armando Aguilar, president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police, 710 Southwest 12 Avenue. I, too, will not need 30 minutes to tell you how I feel about this thing. The actions you're taking here today are going to cause irreparable damage to the City ofMiami and its residents and its employees. You're disenfranchising an entire workforce. Keep in mind that you're only as good as we make you look and the day that you make everyone -- Applause. Mr. Aguilar: The day that you make every employee your enemy is going to reflect on the City of Miami. Our family members are also losing their homes. Our spouses of our police officers are losing their jobs. We're not exempt from this. As a matter of fact, we pay probably more taxes than most people do in the City ofMiami as employees of the City ofMiami. And we're affected just like everyone else. We have to work in the most dangerous city in the state of Florida and risk our jobs and our careers daily because of the actions we take. I want to show you something. This is an officer that last week was attacked by a hoodlum that put both thumbs in his eyes and tried to gouge out his eyes. We don't know if he's going to be able to see again. That's the type of job we do for you out there. And for you to say that we're overpaid when we're not even halfway through in the range in Dade and Broward Counties with other police departments is an insult to all of us. We're not overpaid. We're not paid enough, as a matter of fact, because of the job we have to do on a daily basis. City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Applause. Mr. Aguilar: I wouldn't be able to say anything right now if, at the very least, I thought you were acting in good conscience and met us halfway through here. You wouldn't even adopt the rollover rate. You actually lowered taxes at a time when we're going to have the same problem year after year because there's only so much you can dip into the employees' pockets. There's only so much you can steal from us. Telling you that we're going to be in the same situation. I have proposed millions, millions of dollars in savings in pension. You have chosen to ignore all of it because all along what you wanted to do was attack our salaries and our benefits. The City never once contemplated any of the ideas we gave them that could have saved them just as much as you're saving now in pension costs and would have saved our salaries. But instead, they chose to look the other way and take the easy route, which is to destroy our families and our members. In my house I'm taking a double cut, my son and I. We're both getting our salaries cut and our pension benefits cut. I got to tell you, I'm going to fight to my last breath. Tomorrow, I will be filing a lawsuit to the State of Florida. I'm going to be suing the State of Florida and the City ofMiami. I'm going to be asking that this crisis, this so-called emergency be deemed unconstitutional, and I'm going to be asking the Governor, through a lawsuit, through a judge, to declare this a financial emergency in the hope, in the rare hope that somebody else could come and do the job the proper way and save the City for years to come. Thank you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff All right. You're recognized for the record. Sergeant Javier Ortiz: Thanks, guys. My name's Sergeant Javier Ortiz, vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police, 710 Southwest 12 Avenue. Officer Guas, that you can see him clearly here in the photograph, wanted to be here today and so did his wife. His wife wrote a letter and I'm just here to read it today. This photograph was taken yesterday before one of his other procedures was done. Dear Commissioners. My name is Christina Guas, and I'm the wife of Officer Orestes Guas, Jr., a City ofMiami police officer. We have been married 13 years. Seven years ago, my husband began to live out his childhood dream of being a police officer. I know the difference in being a wife to a civilian and being the wife of a police officer. It has not been easy and has come with many sacrifices. It has meant more than just spending nights home alone. In 2007, our five -year -old son woke up and couldn't walk and had to be rushed to the emergency room. My husband was on duty and had to face his diagnosis alone. Harder than that is seeing how my children are affected from having their father being a police officer. We have two children; Julian is 9 and Madison is 7. They know that their father goes out every day to help people, but the hardest part is every night when their father is putting on his uniform that we will be home alone, just the three of us. Before he walks out that door, we tell him, Bye, Dad. We love you. Be safe. "To them that has become routine, wondering if their father will come home safe the following morning. But that routine concern became a reality. On August 21, just over a week ago, my husband was injured on duty. I received a phone call that no spouse every wants to hear. Mrs. Guas, your husband has been injured and is being transported to Bascom -Palmer Hospital. I rushed to the hospital. I learned that my husband was on patrol when he responded to a typical call in Overtown of a man with a gun. During the struggle, the suspect attempted to gouge my husband's eyes out. He has problems seeing and we wonder if he will ever be able to see clearly again. Also while fighting for his life, he received several scrapes and an injury to his left leg. The injury to his left leg has left him immobilized and he has caught a massive infection which has created a large abscess. We are waiting for them to perform a procedure to repair his knee and to stop the infection. The suspect he was fighting on this typical call had an arrest warrant in Miami -Dade County for second-degree murder. The worst part was explaining this to our children and how we are going to continue to support our family. Due to their dad's injuries, I've not been able to work in order to care for him. We understand that there are economic concerns within the City ofMiami, but the rest of the community, we have City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 expenses too. Everyone wants to complain about the price of police officers and firefighters and no one appreciates their value until you are the one needing to call 911. When -- Applause. Sergeant Ortiz: -- considering voting on proposed cuts and benefits, I would ask the Commissioners to ask themselves the following questions. How much would you have to be paid in order to risk the thought of never ever seeing your children or loved ones again? And how much would you have to be paid in order to risk your life to save a complete stranger? I do know. My husband does it every day. Thank you. Mrs. Christina Guas, proud wife of a Miami police officer. Applause. Chair Sarnofff. Is that FOP? All right. Let's get AFSCME up here, 1907. Charlie Cox: Charlie Cox, Local 1907, president. There is no way that what my employees do stands up to what police and fires [sic] do, but I think that we're just as important as they are. For them to drive a car, the mechanics fix the cars. For them to be on these calls that are on is the communications operators that I represent. And I'm not comparing; I never have, I never will. But what hurts me the most is I came that close three different times to getting a contract and every time that I tried to get a contract the rules changed. Every time you had a shade meeting, those rules changed. I've been with the City 35 years, and I'm going to tell you, I was proud of most of them. But this last year I have not been proud of being a City employee. During my tenure as union president, I've also had people died. One of them got his leg cut off and he bled to death before anybody could get to him when I first started as union president 'cause we didn't have radios or cell phones back then. And the next time, because we didn't have money in the City, one of my mechanics had to take tires off of old police cars to mount on the new police cars and he blew his head off in the top of the garage. That's where his head ended. And you know, he didn't even have family in this country. And J.L. Plummer donated his gravesite and paid for his funeral, and the only people that showed up was the City employees that worked with him. So, I mean, this job is a job to most. But I will tell you, it's been a career for me and it's a career for most people that I represent. Is there respect here? There used to be. Is there respect anymore? No, I don't believe there is for anything that anybody does. Number one is this is the first time I've seen the insurance proposal. And I've told Carlos and everybody on their bargaining team how important insurance was for the members that I represent. This proposal was never there. Your actuary can tell you anything he wants to tell you. Your experts can tell you anything they want to tell you. But ask them who came up with the pension plan. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It wasn't them. It was my actuary, not them. And just because they were steep, I didn't ask to change them. I knew our pension costs and we have never had the pension cost high, but not one person stood up here and said, you know what, the market is taking a tank. Did anybody expect it to last this long? I didn't. We've had bad years one or two years. Is it going to turn around tomorrow? Probably not. Is it going to turn around the next day? I don't know, and that's why I stepped out so far. I give y'all $2.3 million more than you asked for in pension, and Carlos can verifi, that or call me a liar. I took heat for doing what I did, but my biggest concern was job security for my employees. I'm done, guys. Today's my last day. Tomorrow and Friday I'm working for free. Applause. Mr. Cox: I met with most of you Commissioners, especially some more times than others, over the contracts, the consultants that were hired here. Commissioner Suarez, I spent an hour in your office with one of my staff. Never heard a word again. Commissioner Sarnoff, I met with you, and you were going to send your guy over to my office to look at all of it. Never heard a word again. Never heard a word. City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Applause. Mr. Cox: Guys, stop, please. The -- you know what, you know, we may have wasted some money, but who makes the decisions up here? And there's two of you that sat up here on that dais and maybe, maybe you voted no on every issue, but things passed and they caused the City consequences. When you were here, how did we go from being such a rich city? Yes, I understand the tax base dropped, but somebody spent that money. And now all of a sudden you're blaming only the employees? No. Applause. Mr. Cox: You can't live with yourselves by thinking that. You can't. 'Cause I'm telling you what. I don't blame the employees. I was willing to take cuts. Everything that I was willing to do every time we came back to the table, there was a different rule, different set. I should have been done a month ago and it didn't happen. I'm the one that sat down --ask your team. I said when are we going to get on the dollar issues. Those were more important to me and it should have been more important to all of you is the dollar issues. I believe the Manager bargained in good faith. That I do. With me, he did. And he tried to get us a contract. I tried my damndest, more than I ever have in my whole career, andl can tell you how many contracts I've negotiated and this is by far the worst. But you take and you take our last contract and supposedly we broke the City. Just ask the Miami Herald. You hear what he tells them every day, that it's the employees that broke the City. Take my contract -- Applause. Mr. Cox: -- and compare the one -- maybe everybody forgets here. I think we had a guy named Joe Arriola here at some point, didn't we? Did we have a contract in three years? Did any union have a contract? He told me that I'm going to give you a proposal and it's a take -it -or -leave -it. Didl ever see that proposal? No B.S., never saw it; never expected to see it. And then we go back and we start negotiating again. Our ex Mayor, the same one that laid off 84 and rolled back 84 of my people, that same mayor tells me, Charlie, please go first. Get this going. I went first. I gave them four days. First day, your bargaining team at that time walked in 45 minutes late. You know what I did? I told my team to pick up your garbage and we're leaving. I told the Mayor, you've got three left. You know what time we finished that next day? I brought sleeping bags. If they couldn't hang with me -- I'm an old man -- then they can go to sleep. And you know what, we finished at 5: 30 that next morning. I brought breakfast that morning, brought lunch that day, bought dinner that day, and brought a 12 o'clock snack, but that contract was done in four times. I've never stood before you and lied. I've never lied to anybody that I've ever competed against in this city. But what you're doing now, what you think you have to do, get other people's numbers too, will you? 'Cause anybody can paint the worst picture in the world. His numbers, I believe, are right, or else I wouldn't have went as far as I did. Andl didn't even get a chance to finish a contract, so you impose on me. And you know what, when you destroy my people's lives, I'll spend my dying breath coming back to show all of you what you could have done instead of doing it. Just like the Miami Herald -- Applause. Mr. Cox: -- printing my average salary -- and I'd love to know where they get the number from 'cause I can do a little bit of math, not much, but just a little bit. Remember, I'm nonessential, but our average salary is $53, 000. Miami Herald prints today that we make $63,000. I'd like to know who gave them that number, our average salary. Andl get the same printout that you all get because I make public records demands. (UNINTET,T IGIBT ,F) when you make a public record demand that they're so hard to get and I pay for 'em. I don't mind helping the City's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) out. But you know what, it's real fine to figure an average and apparently City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 somebody can't. Thank you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff. AFSCME 871, you're recognized for the record. Joe Simmons: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Joe Simmons, president of AFSCME Local 871. We just got this proposal, this information this morning. I think it's premature. We have a session tomorrow. I'm just trying to get an understanding of why the City would go through great lengths to play with people's lives. We sat down and we bargained in good faith, in good conscience. And what I see -- the way I see it is if the City has declared impasse, which I have some concerns about that, the way it was done, we basically received a letter back in July, and two weeks later, they declared impasse. They've given us a 14-day window to come up with an agreement. My question of the chief negotiator, this 14-day window you're talking about, the Florida Statute 447 that they were speaking of earlier set forth if there's a dispute -- in our opinion, it is not a dispute as of yet -- if the parties deadlock in negotiation, then that's something different. I think this action here is premature; that if the City wants to declare an impasse, go through a normal process. But you've already filed for PERC (Public Employees Relations Commission) in Tallahassee. Why even notify them that you're requesting special magistrate to come in to impose a contract when you're going to try to do it today? That's a waste of time. They need to do things the right way because our men and women that work in the Sanitation Department come from all different countries in the Caribbean. They come from communist countries and it just looks like that what's being done is you're doing the same thing that people accuse communist leaders of doing, imposing conditions upon people. Applause. Mr. Simmons: We live in a country where you have the power of choice, and it just seems that this process -- we're in a communist country that is hiding behind democracy. If the slaves in this country in the 1800s did not help the United States win the Civil War, we wouldn't be free today. As you well know, the US (United States) Constitution consider African American men and women three fifths of a man, less than a man. If our forefathers didn't take the chance because they believed in this country, then where would we be today? I think we -- you guys really, really need to reconsider this. You're going to cause irreparable harm for years to come. And it doesn't leave a good image for the City. Your bond rating has already taken a beating. It's going to take a further beating by imposing these conditions today. I'm hopeful that we are -- we're very hopeful with coming up with an agreement, but I think this is just really premature that you -- we should consider this action today and let the impasse process take its course. We'll still continue to negotiate in good faith. Our men and women stand ready and dedicated to doing an excellent job for the citizens ofMiami. We don't make excuses. Rain, hurricane, or whatever, our people make it work. Rubber bands, glue, whatever it takes to make the job done, to make the city look good, because if the garbage doesn't get picked up, then people have problems. When someone garbage is missed, they -- the City has a 311 system, andl wonder why do people call me. I'm not 311. They need to call 31 -- but they have enough trust and confidence in our ability, they use us at times. And we are dedicated. And we're hopeful that you guys would reconsider this proposal that's being proposed today 'cause I think in good conscience, you know, you guys have to go back to your individual families at night and live with yourselves. Just remember that with the power of pen is great power. You use care and discretion. Thank you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff. All right. Are the unions done presenting? Then we're going to stand in recess for 30 minutes and we will come back. In recess. City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 [Later... Chair Sarnoff City Commission is now back in session. Mr. Manager, you're recognized for the record. Mr. Migoya: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to have Mike Mattimore back on the podium to give our conclusions and recommendations. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- Chair Sarnoff You're recognized for the record. Mr. Mattimore: -- members of the Commission, Mr. Manager. Just to clear up any confusion, we are in the process of collective bargaining with three of the unions that spoke today. We're going to continue that process. We're going to continue to work toward a contract. That is a track that will lead to a contract, one way or the other, whether we go to impasse or not. This today is not a part of that process. This is a separate provision in the Public Employees Relations Act, 447.4095, Financial Urgency, that -- so that when a person is in contract and they have a fiscal circumstance that requires them to relieve themselves of a provision of that contract, they are able to do that, and they are able to do that in this proceeding. IffI could quote, in the event of a financial urgency required modification of a collective bargaining agreement, 447.4095 allows an employer to unilaterally change wages, hours, and terms of conditions of employment after bargaining the impact of the change for a reasonable period. That is the words of the general counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission. We are not at a contract impasse. We are continuing to bargain with these people, but legally you now have the authority with the declaration of a financial urgency under 4095 to, as the letter states, alter and amend wages and other terms of economic conditions to address a financial urgency. It's completely legal. It's not a premature impasse. We will continue to work through the other track toward a contract. Now we have resolutions for you to consider. And if -- when we heard today about some opposition to these resolutions, but we also considered on our side of this podium what the consequences would be if we do not take action, because you cannot spend money that you do not have. You cannot have a budget that does not balance, as hard as these challenges are. If you were to not take action today, the natural result would then be layoffs because that's a management right that the Commission can take to address the financial problem/shortfall. The number of layoffs of full-time positions that would be required if action as we propose is not taken today is in the neighborhood of 1,300 jobs from the City. As -- we believe that we have endeavored to fairly address each of these three areas of wages, of health care and pension so that they are fairly adjusted to meet this immediate crisis. And we have before you a first resolution, which is a resolution of the City to address the financial urgency pursuant to 447.4095 by modifying wages, health care and pension benefits, effective September 30, 2010, in the collective bargaining agreement between the City ofMiami and the Fraternal Order ofPolice. The changes in wages and pension are as reflected in what was presented earlier today. There's one change to this. There was something that was presented today that I see is not in this resolution and it has to do with the health care. Today we were told that the plan -- and it's just a typographical absence in the creation of this resolution -- is that you've heard today that there's adding a fourth tier for employee and one child, and that did not -- was not reflected in here. So with the exception of that one change for Fire and the AFSCME units, that is the reference to a fourth tier for employee and children. The resolutions reflect everything that we have recommended earlier today. Oh, I'm sorry, it's employee plus children is that tier. So let me return to the first resolution, which is a resolution that wages are reduced in a tier (UNINTELLIGIBLE) modification to supplemental pay items, that the pension reforms that were outlined today are accepted for the Fraternal Order ofPolice contract. City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 (SP.3) 10-01034a (SP.3) 10-01034b RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL URGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 447.4095, BY MODIFYING CERTAIN WAGES, HEALTHCARE AND PENSION BENEFITS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' COUNCIL 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 871, AS STATED HEREIN. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chairman Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II R-10-0347 Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Mattimore, which will be the next resolution? Michael Mattimore: The next resolution is 10-01045, a resolution to address the urgency to modify the contract for AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Council 79, Local 871. Vice Chair Carollo: Is there a motion? Commissioner Suarez: So move. Vice Chair Carollo: Motion by Commissioner Suarez. Is there a second? Chair Sarnoff Second. Vice Chair Carollo: Second by Commissioner Sam off. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: Anyone in opposition have the same right to say "nay. " Motion passes unanimously. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL URGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 447.4095, BY MODIFYING CERTAIN WAGES, HEALTHCARE AND PENSION BENEFITS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 587, AS STATED HEREIN. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chairman Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II R-10-0348 City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 (SP.3) 10-01034c Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Mattimore. Michael Mattimore: The next and last resolution is 10-01046, which is a resolution of the Miami City Commission to address the urgency and modify the contract between the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) 587 as stated therein. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Is there a motion? Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Vice Chair Carollo: Motion by Commissioner Suarez. Is there a second? Chair Sarnoff Second. Vice Chair Carollo: Seconded by Commissioner Sam off. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: Anyone in opposition have the same right to say "nay. " Motion passes unanimously. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL URGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 447.4095, BY MODIFYING CERTAIN WAGES, HEALTHCARE AND PENSION BENEFITS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1907, AFL-CIO, AS STATED HEREIN. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chairman Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II R-10-0349 Vice Chair Carollo: We will move then -- I would suspect that I should continue chairing since -- unless you want to take a chance on the mover and the seconder. Chair Sarnoff Doesn't matter. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. With that said, we have a second resolution, andl believe this resolution is for Local 587, Mr. Manager -- or I'm sorry, Mr. Mattimore. Michael Mattimore: The -- actually, the next resolution is with regard to AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 1907. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, we have a resolution. Madam City Attorney, do we need to -- Commissioner Gort: Read it. City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 (SP.3) 10-01034d Vice Chair Carollo: -- discuss the resolution or can we just obtain a motion and vote on it? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Well, that's up to the Commission. And I just want to clear the record. When you voted on the prior resolution, the one dealing with the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) agreement, that one was not amended. Mr. Mattimore: Was not amended. The other three are amended. Ms. Bru: Right. The other three are amended. That one was as presented to you. It's just for the record to be clear for the City Clerk. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you for that. Madam City Clerk. Mr. Mattimore: It's resolution file number 10-01047. Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): Okay. The record has been cleared. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Okay, so do I have a motion on resolution with regards to Local 1907? Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Vice Chair Carollo: I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez. Is there a second? Chair Sarnoff Second. Vice Chair Carollo: Seconded by Commissioner Sam off. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: Anyone in opposition have the same right to say "nay." Motion passes unanimously. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL URGENCY PURSUANT TO SECTION 447.4095, BY MODIFYING CERTAIN WAGES AND PENSION BENEFITS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WALTER E. HEADLEY, JR., MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, AS STATED HEREIN. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chairman Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II R-10-0350 Note for the Record: Please refer to file number 10-01034c for minutes referencing file number 10-01034d. Chair Sarnoff All right. Is there a motion? City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Commissioner Suarez. Is there a second? Applause. Chair Sarnoff Second. Vice Chair Carollo: I have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chairman Sarnoff. Any discussion? Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Dunn, you're recognized. Commissioner Dunn: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to preface my statement -- and I hope that everyone would at least hear us out -- at least hear me out on this. Many of you have spoken and were given at least the utmost respect in terms of being heard. I heard many of you say many things. And as I look around this room, I have the greatest and utmost respect for the men who wear the badge. I'm on record repeatedly, sometimes not in a popular position, in my particular district, District 5, in standing on several occasions with officers who have been involved, not all, but some who have been involved in police shootings. I realize that many times making split-second decisions are very difficult. Many of you have families, just like all of us here do, wives and children, andl respect that. I also respect the first responders who go to those scenes. And many times I've been there, I can say, on more than one or two occasions in the last seven or eight months, and it's a gruesome situation to see bloody bodies, lifeless bodies. I can imagine the psychological effect that this plays on many of you in Fire -Rescue. And for long times, general employees, particularly Solid Waste, but all general employees, but especially Solid Waste -- historically, the late great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lost his life because he was fighting for the rights of people who were involved in solid waste. Guess what I'm trying to say that I empathize with a lot of what was said, andl mean this genuinely. I hope that you will see my heart in this. I empathize with the police officer who's recovering now with his eyes. God bless him and his wife and family. But additionally, I want to say that every day since January 26, I especially and some of my colleagues deal with these issues every day with our constituents, especially in District 5. And please hear me on this. Please hear me on this. In District 5, in many cases, there are no jobs, and folk come to me, Mr. Commissioner, what you going to do about it? I'm not complaining because I signed up for it. They have no food to eat. They have no roofs over there. I'm not talking about being -- andl -- we all are going through this. But they have no place to stay, nowhere. I deal with this every day. District 5 is the most impoverished district in the City ofMiami, andl know many of my colleagues are faced with that. And so I understand, trust me. I live -- and I'm going to say it just like this -- in the hood. The last shooting was less than ten blocks from my house. So I understand. And sometimes I ask myself, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? What are you thinking about? However, we do it because we want to serve. We want to be there to serve our community and our constituents. Now, based on the information that I have received, we have received, we're faced with very, if no other options, few options, one or two. I'm asking that you would just hear me. Either we make a decision today or we're faced with being taken over by state oversight board. Applause. Commissioner Dunn: I can tell you right now, I cannot live with that decision because that will reflect directly on me. It's okay. Please respect me. That's all I ask. Or we're faced with losing 1,300 jobs. We've already declared, through our Manager, our Mayor, and our staff that we're in a state offinancial urgency. It would be decided, worst -case scenario, by the courts. But we City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 do have a fiduciary responsibility on this dais and it's tough. It's tough because many of you I'm close to. It's no secret. I count you as friends. I'm speaking -- it's okay, it's okay. But the bigger picture is we have a city of hundreds of thousands of people, almost a half a million people, and at the end of the day, we've got to try to do what we believe is the best decision based on the information that we've been given. And so I will be voting in support of this measure. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Any further discussion? Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had prepared remarks. I had looked at a variety of different factors in coming to my decision, obviously studied this information, and then some. And being up here today, I can tell you that this is probably the toughest decision I've ever had to make in my entire life. You know, when I was 12 years old, they -- two people committed a home invasion robbery in my house, okay. And they held my mother and my grandmother at gunpoint. And when we called the police -- my father was mayor at the time -- not only did they come quickly, but they made a human chain from the bedroom where we were to the outside of my house, and myself and my three sisters and my mother and my father walked through that human chain from my room -- or from my parents' room to the outside of our house. They put their lives at risk. They didn't know if the people were still in the house or not. So I'm intimately familiar with the value of a police officer in the City ofMiami. There is no value that you can place on that. That's not -- there's no value, no monetary value that you can place on that. That's something that I will never forget as long as I live and that I will always be indebted to the City ofMiami Police Department for. You know -- and before making this decision today, I had some conversations with some of my friends who are City ofMiami employees, people who were friends of mine before I even thought of or even considered running for Commissioner, from my high school time -- from my high school days and beyond. And those are people who are -- and who also I've been friends with before they were even contemplating being employees of the City ofMiami, before they could even -- before they even went to college. So I know they have families. I know they have kids. I've heard of their specific circumstances. In some of the cases, some are prepared and some are not for this possibility. This is something that we are facing globally, nationwide, statewide, and now it's trickling down to our city. Andl think it's simply a matter of the fact that we have a constitutional requirement to balance our budget, and as the Manager has said before, this is a zero -- what he calls a zero sum game. And what that means is to balance our budget after having made the decision not to raise taxes, what we get from one side -- or what we give to one side, we have to get from someone else. And so what I didn't want to do is get up here today and pit firefighters against police officers, general employees against firefighters or police officers. I simply can tell you that the amount of work and energy that this Manager has put into this process, this Mayor, this Administration, and these Commissioners is as exhaustive as it can possibly be, and that's why I support it. So I hope you guys can accept that. I know you're not going to be happy about it. There's nothing that I can say that will make you leave here happy. There's nothing that I can say that will make you leave here happy, but I just want you to know how I feel. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Any further discussion? Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Sua -- Sam off. Sorry. Chair Sarnoff You know, ordinarily, financial struggles are a uniquely Miami problem. Historically, we have gotten ourselves in trouble and we have misused -- City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 (OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE) Vice Chair Carollo: Keep going, Commissioner. Chair Sarnoff -- money in the past, and this goes back 20 and 15 years, but what you have today is not a uniquely Miami problem. What you have today is being experienced in California, Colorado, all across the nation. And ifI could just read to you some Commissions that didn't take any action, what the results were. San Diego, fire departments around the nation are cutting jobs, closing firehouses, and increasingly resorting to rolling brownouts in which they shut different fire companies on different days as the economic downturn forces many cities and towns to make deep cuts that are slowly [sic] their responses to fire and other emergencies. Philadelphia, another city that did not take action, began rolling brownouts this month, joining cities from Baltimore to Sacramento that now shut some units every day. San Jose, California, laid off 49 firefighters last month. And Lawrence, Massachusetts -- and for those of you that don't know that, that's just outside of Boston, north of Boston -- has laid off firefighters and shut down half of its six firehouses, forcing the city to rely upon neighboring departments each time the fire goes to a second alarm. Harold Schaitberger, who I think you guys know is the International Association of Firefighters lead, said I've never seen this type of action so widespread. The New York Times reported Hawaii, the schools across the state there close 17 Fridays a day -- a year because they did not take action. Clayton County, Georgia -- for those of you that don't know that, right outside of Atlanta -- shut down its entire public bus system. Colorado Springs, that is a city identical in size and almost very close in demographic to the City ofMiami. Because they didn't take action, the city switched off a third of its 24,512 street lights to save money on electricity while trimming its police force and auctioning off its police helicopters. It stopped collecting trash in its parks and stopped watering all forms of public right-of-ways [sic]. Its police force was 687 police officers. Now it's down to 643, and they anticipate it to be at 613. Police officers no longer respond to the scene of burglaries if they are not in progress. If this Commission takes no action, this City Manager will lay off 1,300 employees. It will be done in what will appear to be a very indiscriminate manner. Thirteen hundred of your brothers, thirteen hundred of your sisters, will be terminated. They'll be laid off. And this City will suffer the consequences of lack of rescue, lack of police, lack of parks, and it will escalate and crescendo. Coming from New York City, I was there when they didn't collect the garbage for the better part of three months. It wasn't unusual to see garbage collect to eight stories. I'm not saying that's going to be Miami, but that is a form of what we could face if we don't simply see the numbers for what they are. Because in point of truth, I believe each and every union agrees with the numbers. The question becomes is how do you articulate those numbers, what do you do with those numbers, and how do the cuts affect your respective organizations. Everybody wants to maintain their salary. Everybody wants to maintain their pension, but when you only have a $1 and you have $1.25 in expenses, somebody has to cut that expense. It is not a popular job. It is not a job that I think anybody relishes up here, but it's something that we were sworn to do. We were sworn to look at real numbers, make decisions that are the best for not only you who are a part of the City ofMiami -- Each and every one of you, whether you live in the City ofMiami or not, you're a part of the City. And for those of you that live in the City, you're a bigger part of the City 'cause you pay the taxes attendant to it. -- but equally for the taxpayers, the residents, and the businesses. That is what goes into a Commissioner's decision -making process. That is some of the decisions. It is nothing more than the balancing of competing interests, and that's what we're doing up here is balancing the competing interests of the taxpayer to that of government. This City has to function, andl don't think any of you truly want to see the City not function because it's not going to go bankrupt; it's not going to call a state of financial emergency. It's going to lay off 1,300 people on October 1, 2010. And anybody that doesn't really believe that -- You don't really believe that? (OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE) Chair Sarnoff All right. Good enough. Thank you all for listening on the TV (Television). City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Commissioner Gort: I think -- hold it. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I think a lot of you out there know me very well. I've worked with you in the past. And I just want you to know whatever decision is taken here today is no disrespect to you all. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Commissioner Gort. (OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE) Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, no comments from the audience, please. I have a question for our attorney, Mr. Mattimore, andl clearly stated it in one of our executive meetings that I would be asking this question. I have some concern with regards to the process. It was my understanding that we were at an impasse, and as far as what I've read from statute 447.4095 when it speaks about impasse, it refers you to 447.403. So since we are relying on your legal representation, at least I am, and since, according to the Manager, he asked this Commission, which we approved, to hire you to represent us, I have concerns about this process, andl wanted to ask you about it and for you to put it in record that, you know, this is legal and we are taking the correct avenue. Mr. Mattimore: Yes, sir. And just to give you a little bit of background, I've been doing public sector collective bargaining work for 28 years. I was the chairman of the Public Employees Relations Commission for four years. I am certified by the Florida Bar in labor and employment law. In two weeks, I'm going to speak to the Florida Bar on 447.4095 and what a city can do when faced with a financial urgency or other kinds of cost realizations. I thinkl have studied this and the history of this statute with no -- farther than anyone else, and the current state of the law is that what we are doing today is appropriate, that you declare a financial urgency and act, and then you go forward through the impasse process, but that's impact bargaining. That's the current state of the law. Vice Chair Carollo: A follow-up question? Mr. Mattimore: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: After whatever happens today happens, would this continue to a magistrate and do we continue the impasse process? Mr. Mattimore: Yes. The impact bargaining over the declaration of urgency will go to a magistrate, and the impacts of what you do today will be the result of a recommendation from those magistrates. Vice Chair Carollo: And then it will come to the City Commission once again? Mr. Mattimore: It will come to the City Commission once again. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Manager, I have two things, and one, I've asked in the past and I just want to confirm. I remember when we discussed the millage, I clearly asked you for a plan B. Your answer was layoffs. I just want to hear from you that, yes, the only other plan we have should we not pass this is to have layoffs. Mr. Migoya: Sir, we have projected $150 million deficit, as we've talked about before, including all the capital expenditures necessary for the City for the year 2010/'11. If we don't pass this action today, the only other solution that we have will be layoffs. City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Vice Chair Carollo: The second thing I have is hearing my colleagues, it would appear that this is going to pass, this resolution will pass, andl know for a different unions [sic], the impact's going to be outrageous, some even 27, 28 percent of their current wages. (OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE) Vice Chair Carollo: Well, I'm sorry. Just -- it will be a great amount, a great percentage, and some of our employees do have certain commitments and what I do want is because I would imagine that with that great reduction in salary, they may have problems with some of their commitments, andl really do not want to see anyone losing their homes or so forth, so I ask that as a city, just like many non -for -profit organizations has come before us, whether for rent, whether they need some type of help, that we do either set up a fund or somehow help out our own employees so they don't lose their houses or their cars or so forth. So that's one thing that I ask that, you know, we work with our own employees. Mr. Migoya: Mr. Chair, that's something that we've already been discussing, and you're absolutely right, and we are looking for every possibility. There is a liability the City has which is called one-time vacations and illnesses, and if we could make this work over the next several months, we will find a way to make some of that money available to the employees. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. 'Cause I do not want to see any of our employees losing their homes and their cars and so forth, andl think it's only fair just like in these tough times, many non -for -profits, many organizations have come before us and we have managed one way or another to help out, I think we need to help out our own too. With that said, this is actually by far the toughest vote I have had to take in this Commission. I think most of you that know me know that I'm extremely sincere when I say this, and you know, unfortunately, this financial situation and not passing this is going to throw the City into chaos, andl think the only solution, according to our management, is massive layoffs. With that, I understand this is a resolution, but I'm going to call for a roll call for the vote. And before I do, any further discussion from any members of this Commission? No? Madam City Clerk, could you please do a roll call? Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Dunn? Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Gort: Yes. Ms. Latimore: Chairman Sam off.? Chair Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Suarez? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Ms. Latimore: Vice Chair Carollo? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, as amended. Ms. Latimore: The resolution passes, 5-0, as amended. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 NA.1 10-01050 NON AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEM BRIEF COMMENTS BY MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO INVOLVING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S FY 2010-2011 BUDGET. DISCUSSED Chair Sarnoff For purposes of process, the City ofMiami Mayor will now address this Commission. Mr. Mayor, you are recognized for the record. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Commissioners. The reason that I call this meeting in August, a time where usually Commission does not meet, is that we need to create a budget. By Charter, the executive Mayor, with the Manager, have to create and present to you a budget. We respect the five-day rule. We understand that this will be one of the dcults [sic] budget season ever in the City ofMiami. And we want to have a budget, at least a draft, ready for you, for the public, for the media, for the employees, ready to revise -- be revised in a few days. This is why this meeting was called by me today. So, hopefully, you, this afternoon, will be taking action on this [sic] important matters. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you, Mr. Mayor. NA.2 RESOLUTION 10-01042 City Manager's A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Office ATTACHMENT(S), RATIFYING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AMENDING ARTICLE 42.1 (PENSION), OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 79, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 871 (AFSCME 871), IN EFFECT FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 447.309(1). 10-01042-Legislation. pdf 10-01042-Exhi bit. pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II R-10-0346 Chair Sarnoff SP (Special) -- I apologize. We also need to do an SP.2, subsection -- for AFSCME 871, early retirement. Can you put that on the record? Michelle Pina (Director, Employee Relations): Yes. A resolution of the Miami City Commission, with attachments, ratifying the memorandum of understanding, amending Article 42.1 (Pension), of the collective bargaining agreement, between the City ofMiami and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 79, AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of industrial Organizations), Local 871, in effect for the period of October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2010, subject to the conditions imposed by Florida Statute 447.309. City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 9/20/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes August 31, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Is there a motion? Commissioner Suarez: So move. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff Second by Commissioner Dunn. Any discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff You have a unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Sarnoff, and was passed unanimously, to adjourn today's meeting. Vice Chair Carollo: And Madam City Attorney, it's my understanding this will conclude our meeting, so we could adjourn? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): No other further business. Vice Chair Carollo: No other further business. Any discussion from the Commission? Hearing none, meeting adjourned. Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): Motion and a second. Commissioner Suarez: Motion to adjourn. Chair Sarnoff Second. Vice Chair Carollo: Meeting adjourned. City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 9/20/2010