Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2011-09-14 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Di • -sash. I° r • IN O9P I9 1i: Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Chairman Frank Carollo, Vice -Chairman Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner District Five Johnny Martinez, City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 2:00 P.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Chairman Gort, Commissioner Sarnoff, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Spence -Jones On the 14th day of September 2011, the City Commission of the City of Miami, 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 Gort at 3:58 p. m., recessed at 5:08 p. m. to reconvene on Monday, September 19, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., reconvened on September 19, 2011, at 2:14 p.m., recessed at 2:17 p.m. to reconvene on Monday, September 26, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., reconvened on September 26, 2011, at 3:28 p.m., recessed at 3: 57 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, September 27, 2011, at 4: 00 p.m., reconvened on September 27, 2011, at 4: 57 p.m., and adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Chair Gort: I'd like to welcome you all to the September meeting of-- 14, special meeting that we have in this historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Vice Chairman Frank Carollo, Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, and Commissioner Suarez, and myself Wifredo Gort, chairpersons [sic]. At this time, I will ask Commissioner Suarez to do the invocation and Commissioner Sarnoff, the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. [Later..] Chair Gort: (INAUDIBLE) opening of the meeting that we recess in September 14. And here on the dais we have Commissioner Sarnoff, Commissioner Suarez, Vice Chairman Carollo, myself Gort, Chairperson, and we have Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- getting together with us in a minute. At this time we also have City Manager Martinez, Johnny Martinez; City Attorney, Julie Bru; and City Clerk, Priscilla Thompsons [sic]. At this time, Ms. Thompson, can you lead us in prayers, please? Commissioner Carollo, will you lead us in the pledge. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. Chair Gort: Madam Attorney, will you go through the procedure? I'm sorry. I didn't recognize Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Good afternoon. Chair Gort: -- the City Manager is Johnny Martinez, Attorney Julie Bru, and Priscilla Thompson, the City Clerk. Ms. Bru: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, Madam City Clerk, Mr. Manager, members of the public, Mr. Mayor. This special meeting of the City Commission has been called by the Mayor pursuant to the authority granted to him for purposes of considering the status of the collective bargaining that's been going on between the City and the four unions that the City has and also to address the financial urgency that was previously declared by the City Commission -- declared by the City pursuant to Chapter 447 and take such action as the Commission deems necessary in the best interest of the public. The order of business will be first there will be a presentation of the current status of collective bargaining. That will be done by Mr. Michael Mattimore, chief labor negotiator for the City, from the firm of Allen Norton & Blue. Then there will be a presentation on the financial condition for fiscal year '12 that warrants and supports the urgency declaration under Chapter 447. After that, the Commission will take over City of Miami Paget Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 S P.1 11-00854 the discussion. And at that time, will take whatever action it deems necessary today if necessary. This is a public meeting, but not a public hearing. It would be appropriate for the Commission to hear from the representative of the affected bargaining unit, but it's at the discretion of the Chair how much time to allot. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CURRENT STATUS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH MIAMI FOP LODGE 20, AFSCME 871, AFSCME 1907 AND IAFF LOCAL 587. 11-00854 Memo - Status -Collective Bargaining Agrmt.pdf 11-008544-Supporting Documents -Addressing The FY2012 Budget Gap.pdf DISCUSSED Chair Gort: Mr. Mattimore, you're on. Michael Mattimore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the Commission. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. And I'd like to first start by advising the Commission that we have successfully negotiated collective bargaining agreements with three of the City's bargaining units, AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees) 871, Solid Waste, AFSCME 1907, the general operational services unit, and with the International Association of Firefighters. We have TA'd every article in those agreements, and they are now going through the ratification process. I anticipate that shortly you will be presented with those contracts and asked for your review and ratification. In a few minutes you'll hear, as part of a presentation on the financial urgency, that some of these contracts have -- will contain concessions, realizations of our financial circumstances, assistance for the City to meet a balanced budget as we go forward. So we're very pleased to be able to say that through the cooperation of these three organizations, we've reached a point where we have collective bargaining agreements with these organizations pending ratification. Now to take you back, on August 15, 2011, the City of Miami declared a financial urgency pursuant to 447.4095. This is much like we -- the City was required to do last summer. After the declaration of the financial urgency on August 15, the City went through 14 days of negotiations with the unions. There is one bargaining unit, the Fraternal Order of Police, number 20, that have met with us on several occasions, but we have not been able to resolve our differences with regard to the financial urgency, so the financial urgency continues with regard to that contract. Since the 14-day period of time of negotiations required by the statute has passed, it is now within the power of this Commission to take action to modifir any contractual obligations that it has with the Fraternal Order of Police, number 20, and in doing so address the financial urgency that now exists. What I would like to do at this time, if it pleases the Chair and the Commission, is to ask Mr. Nadol of the organization PFM (Public Financial Management) to begin a presentation that will provide you and the audience with information with regard to the financial urgency. We're then going to move into some financial information with regard to the current budget. At that time, we'll describe some of the savings and cost reductions and concessions that we've been able to secure through collective bargaining and we'll talk about your options with regard to modifying contractual obligations with the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). If may, Mr. Chair. Mr. Nadol. Michael Nadol: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you again. I'm Michael Nadol from City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 PFM. Our firm has been providing economic and quantitative support to the bargaining team on behalf of the City. As Mr. Mattimore indicated, I'll provide a brief overview of some of the economic and fiscal challenges not only facing Miami, but facing cities and other levels of government across the region and across the nation. It's just an overview of that set of topics. I'll note that even though the recession nominally ended or bottomed out in 2009, the major Wall Street credit rating agencies have cited this calendar year as the toughest year yet for cities nationally because of a number of structural factors facing everyone across the public sector, including the City of Miami. Further, as this year has unfolded, the signs of economic recovery that we were beginning to see from the worst recession in generations are now looking increasingly weak and uncertain, and those factors have been compounded here by a more severe regional economic downturn than that experienced by the nation as a whole. As a result of all of those factors, the City's revenues remain very weak, still below where they were five years ago, and those pressures continue to mount on the City over and above underlying structural challenges associated with rising benefit costs that would be outpacing normal revenue growth even in good times. So just to touch on some of those themes in a bit more detail, again, Moody's -- one of the Wall Street credit rating agencies -- has called this the toughest year since the downturn began. They have a negative outlook on the entire local government sector across the region. One of the reasons for that is that property taxes have fallen precipitously here and across the country as a result of the housing market collapse. And because property tax receipts tend to lag actual downturns in the market due to the assessment cycle and the delays built into the process of collecting property taxes, this is -- it's only really in the last year or two that governments across the country are feeling the kind of revenue declines in property tax receipts that Miami has been seeing for several years now. State governments are also challenged, and that puts added pressure on local governments as their difficulties trickle down. And as much as anything, governments across the country have exhausted some of their more manageable options as they've struggled with years and years now of difficult economic times. Many cities have drawn down their reserves. They've made those discretionary cuts that are less painful. Certainly, Miami has already taken a number of difficult actions here, and that leaves fewer options on the table going forward. To look now more specifically at the City's own revenues, you see here how the City's budget office projections for the end of this year and for the year ahead remain below the levels ofFY (Fiscal Year) 2006. The City's resources have not kept pace with the rising cost on the expenditure side of the budget creating that kind of diff cult pressure. And again, that picture has not brightened over the course of this year or since we shared similar economic information with you around this time last year. That economic picture has worsened in recent months. If you look again at the national economy, the forecast from the White House Office of Management and Budget for this year were for 4 percent growths in the overall economy as of last summer when we were talking about the budget that we're now wrapping up with this fiscal year. But as the months have passed and based on the continuing difficulties in the overall US (United States) economy, the current forecasts of economic growth for this year are less than half what we thought when the City's budget was being put together, 1.6 percent in the most recent forecast by, again, the federal government. That's reflected as well in the continued weakness of the housing market. And you can start to see in the next few slides how these national economic challenges have been that much more pronounced locally. Overall, we've actually seen a decline year over year in home prices in 2011; nationally down almost a third from the market highs of five years ago, locally down nearly a half because of the particular challenges in the South Florida/Miami region. Looking at job growth, again, no new jobs created nationally in the most recent August data. And here in Miami, unemployment rates that are well above the already strained levels across the US economy overall. If you look at the graphics on this slide, the graphic on the left which shows some blue lines rising up and a red line that's fairly stagnant, the blue lines are past recessions, where job growth did bounce back with a little bit of a lag, but it bounced back. The red line is the job picture from this recession where we had a much steeper loss for a much longer time and are still experiencing a much slower recovery. The graphic on the right slide -- hand side of this slide shows those same job experiences controlled for the size of the US population. And what you see is we had a significant drop in the number of jobs for every person in the country and really no bounce back City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 when you look at what we would need to take care of an expanding labor market. Again, that's the national picture. Here in Miami, those experiences have been that much sharper. As the US economy has had its unemployment nearly double; in Miami, unemployment has nearly tripled and is that much higher than in the nation as a whole. And that was on top of already challenged income levels and poverty rates relative to the overall US economy. Some of you may have seen in this morning's newspapers that the national poverty rate has increased because of these continuing difficulties in the overall economy and is now a little bit higher than the rates shown there. The city level data has not yet been released for Miami, but if anything based on what is now available for -- more recently for the US and the state of Florida in this morning's news, Miami's current poverty rate is very likely even higher than what you see here. Again, all of that difficult economic news is over and above the structural budget challenge where so much of what government spends its money on, healthcare in the form of medical assistance programs at the state level for active and retired employees, even more so at the local level, retiree benefits, those cost factors are growing much faster than the economy as a whole. As a result of that, the federal government has forecast that state and local governments across the country are facing a 12 and a half percent structural gap that the current economy has only made that much more difficult to manage. Here you see on the next slide a little bit more about how those pressures have played out locally with rising workforce costs and weak revenues, resulting in an increasing share of the City's available dollars going to employee wages and benefits. Now it takes people to patrol the streets, put out fires, deliver public services. It's typical for city governments to spend a majority of their dollars on employee wages and benefits. But in Miami, as the City's economy began to struggle in the latter part of the last decade, the City began to spend almost 90 percent of its budget on workforce costs, leaving next to nothing for utilities and rental space and other pens and pencils and materials and supplies and the rest of what it takes to deliver services. Last year at this time had no action been taken to address workforce costs, the City was projected to spend over 100 percent of that year's revenues to meet its pre-acjustment workforce cost pressures. Due to the actions that the Commission took to try to restore fiscal stability, that number came down to closer to three quarters, just under 80 percent of total revenues. But because of the rising benefit cost, and again, that continued weakness in revenues, those pressures are resurfacing, and the kinds of settlements and further gap closing actions that Mr. Mattimore referenced at the outset are necessary to keep those workforce costs at a manageable and sustainable level within the City's budget. These kind of challenges, of course, are not unique to the City. We have some examples here of literally thousands of position cuts in larger cities like Los Angeles; actions like turning out streetlights to reduce utility bills across other cities of the country. And here in different regional Florida communities, a range of concessions, reductions in headcount including layoffs of public -- even public safety personnel in some neighboring communities. Looking at the big picture of how much cushion the City has to continue to work through these difficult times, that cushion, the City's reserves and fund balance have been eroded severely over the course of this period of declining revenues. As of 2007, when the downturn really took hold, the City still had over a hundred million dollars in reserves and that number had been even higher earlier in the decade. As a result of these consistent pressures, it -- those reserves fell to just $13 million at the end of the last fiscal year, 2010, equivalent to less than two weeks of City spending available in reserves. And those levels are projected to continue to remain at that low mark through the end of the current fiscal 2011. Over the long run, of course, you want to work to rebuild those reserves. In the near term, the absence of larger reserves makes it that much more critical to work toward budgetary balance. And with that, I'll turn it to Budget Director Alfonso. Daniel Alfonso: Daniel Alfonso, director of Management and Budget for the City of Miami. I want to talk about what is the gap that we have in our budget right now, what is the shortfall, and what are the major revenues that we have looked at to try to mitigate the issues that we have in our budget, what are some of the expenses that we have looked at. Then I want to sort of outline where are we right now with the budget gap. Going back to June of this year, there were meetings held where we talked about a $54 million gap approximately. After that, other things happened, like we've heard a lot said about the communications service tax and Florida City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 franchise fees, et cetera, which have actually raised that gap to as high as $62.5 million approximately. So in a sense, that is what the City was facing when you aggregate all of the negative revenues or items that were considered. In order to close that gap, we looked at our revenues in the City and how our revenues were performing, whether they were our property tax or other revenues that are -- red-light cameras or building permits, et cetera. And wherever we saw it reasonable to increase the revenue estimates that were originally set several months ago, given the additional data that we have of actuals, we felt it safe and prudent to raise an additional $11.5 million in revenues so that that would help offset that $62.5 million gap. We also worked with our departments to look at the expenditure side of the ledger because clearly we can close the budget gap with revenues and expenditures. So we looked at the expenditure side of the budget and we looked at vacant positions. We looked at projections for the cost of insurance. We looked at all the general government sector, planning, development, et cetera. And basically, wherever we could make cuts without necessarily impacting service, we made those assumptions into our budget and we basically found $28.7 million of reductions from the budget that was originally presented back in June/July timeframe. What that basically means is that we went from a $62.5 million gap reduced by revenues and expenditure reductions to approximately $22.1 million, $22.2 million. That is in effect the gap that we need to close through bargaining agreement or other methods. I want to talk a little bit about what makes up our revenues in the City of Miami. And primarily you will note that it is property taxes by -- in large part. There are a number of other revenues, like franchise fees, interest, transfers in, intergovernmental revenues, et cetera. Those revenues, for the most part, have been set and this is the money that we have to work with, approximately $471 million is the budget for revenues that we have for fiscal year '11-'12. On the expenditure side, when you look at what are the components of the City's expenditures, we know that approximately half of the budget is made up of salary and fringe. In addition to that, pension and insurance is another 133 million, or it makes up a little more than another quarter of a percent, leaving just $77.2 million for what is operating expenses. There's $25 million in operating reserves and $11 million that get transferred to capital for the purchase of capital equipment. Looking at this, you're looking at salary, pension, and insurance making up more than three quarters of your budget. It stands to reason that if you're going to reduce expenses, this is primarily where the areas to reduce are because there's just not that much left beyond that. The -- Mr. Mattimore, when he was making his presentation, alluded to the fact that we have reached tentative agreements, subject to ratification, with a couple of our bargaining agreements [sic]. The IAFF (International Association of Firefighters), for example, has tentatively agreed to the reductions listed here up to about $8.5 million. In addition to AFSCME 1907, general and some reductions to unclassified group, I'm up to another $1.74 million, leaving a balance to close of roughly $11.9 million. To close that gap, we are looking at a list of items that are subject to imposition by the Board of County Commissioners for the Fraternal Order of Police, which is the one bargaining agreement that has not been reached. And those include options such as special pay supplements, not funding capital purchase of cars, uniforms, physicals, et cetera, totaling $ 11.9 million. That is the -- where we are right now. Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Mattimore, do you have any comments? Chair Gort: Go ahead. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you, Mr. Alfonso. You know, the story I think is clear from the presentation. Home values have fallen. Average income is less. Unemployment continues at record high. Revenues for the City continue to underperform. I'd like to make a couple points though. Last year, we faced $115 million shortfall at this point of the budget process and we needed $88 million from personnel costs and we did that through the urgency. This year, as reflected in the presentation, there's a $62 million shortfall required to balance the budget. And instead of looking at another majority of that money coming from the 80 percent of our budget City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 that's personnel costs, we're only looking for $21 million in personnel costs and trying to find the majority of that money somewhere else. So this year's reductions are approximately 25 percent of last year's reductions. And another point that I'd like to make is that there was a shortfall figure put up of $13 million and -- I mean, of fund balance figure, $13 million, which the fund balance itself would be completely wiped out if we do not do something about these personnel costs. One thing that I would want to point out, one key factor in the resolution of the contract with the Fire is that the City for a year could capture state funding for the 175 share dollars. And that initiative was brought to the attention of the Fraternal Order of Police with regard to capturing the 185 share dollars. If we were able to work out some agreement on that, that would realize $4.2 million in reduced personnel cost. That would cover that gap by $4.2 million. There was also an initiative raised to increase the FOP's contribution to pension from 7 percent to 10 percent to equal the 10 percent paid by the firefighters. AFSCME 1907 pays 13 percent. That, if it was agreed to, would have realized $2.3 million. Now instead, in all fairness, the FOP has brought to the table several initiatives, mostly having to do with either a bond arrangement with pension dollars, which in essence would be a loan. They have brought some ideas last year that were vetted and rejected and they were brought back again this year, having to do in particular with the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) fund and guaranteeing a COLA going forward. These ideas have been carefully reviewed by our actuary and our pension attorney and our budget experts. And unfortunately, they do not provide the relief that we need for the City budget. At this time, the Commission is in a period of time in which they can act to mod the contractual obligations with the FOP. You're free to do it today or you're free to do it at any time in which the Commission feels comfortable in doing so. That's -- and those options that were shown on slide, I believe, 24, where different contractual obligations were listed out with the amounts that would be realized if they were amended and modified are available to the Commission should they decide to go in that direction. Mr. Chairman, if the Commission has any questions -- if not, that's our presentation. We appreciate your time. Chair Gort: Thank you. Is there any questions of the Commission? Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: I just want to thank all the employees who are here. I see a number of them in the audience, and I want to ensure them that whatever is being presented here today, they can get a copy of for, you know, their review 'cause it's a lot of information and it's going by very, very quickly and I want to make sure that they're able to analyze it, the information that's being given to us as well. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to say that I truly appreciate the three unions that have seen the serious financial situation that the City is in and that have made the concessions in order for us to have a balanced budget. At the same time, I'd like to ask the union of FOP to please look at this and see if we could come to some agreement, some concessions. I know it's difficult and some may even think that I'm biased because I'm a former law enforcement officer. So I rather -- I really would not like to see anyone have to take any cuts. However, you know, in the financial situation that we're in, I ask that concessions be made and, you know, to work with our administration to see how we could come to some consensus. Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm assuming that we're going to definitely hear from at least FOP City of Miami Pagel Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 during this actual session, but I do -- I'm thankful that we were able to at least come to agreement with the other three unions. So I want to at least make sure that I say thank you to them. And I thank FOP as well for at least being willing to at least continue the discussion. Everyone knows already I'm a union girl, so I support the unions. I understand the importance of having a union, you know. At the end of the day, it's important to have somebody that's going to fight for you no matter what, so I understand why it's important to have it. Our jobs, however, is to really make sure that the overall city is operating. And in order for us to do that, we have to look at some serious cuts in order to at least be able to save our city. Now I do want to also add on top of that that based upon the session that we actually just got out of I was told -- I'm hoping that from the discussion from FOP today that at least we'll gain some clarity on their position because, at this point, we haven't had an opportunity to at least hear from them. So I look forward to at least hearing Armando and FOP's viewpoint at least today so that at least we can get through it. And last but not least, I do -- I think we all do understand how precious -- the precious resources we have in our City employees and whatever it takes to make sure that no one lose their jobs -- and I want to commend the Administration. I mean, a lot of cities across the country that are cutting people left and right, meaning people are actually losing their jobs. So for this Administration to at least try to find a solution that no one loses their job, period, whether or not they're in a union or not, I think needs to be commended as well. So I see what's happening in the County and people are dying at this point because they don't know what's going to happen after October 1 so hopefully, you know, we all operate with wisdom today to try to figure out some way to at least move ahead. And I do know that this is not a negotiation so -- but I'm hoping that at least we can find some, you know, ground that we can move on. Chair Gort: Thank you, Ms. Spence -Jones. Commissioner. Commissioner Sarnoff: You know, I thought we'd hear a little bit from FOP, but -- Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- it doesn't appear we will. Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Sarnoff.- Do you want to step up? Mr. Mattimore: I'll sit down now, sir. Chair Gort: Yes. Armando Aguilar: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Armando Aguilar. I'm the president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20. I was thinking long and hard last night of what I was going to say to the Commission when this moment came up. And quite frankly, I wasn't too sure because of everything that's happened with us. But all of a sudden, I received a phone call and I get goose bumps just thinking about it. It was a 27-year veteran of this police department who called me up crying. And he said, since the last imposition of the contract, the $27 million they took from us, I've been working about seven days a week to be able to pay my mortgage and keep up with my bills. I see my little girls about two hours in a whole week. If they take any more pay cuts away from me, I will lose everything that I've ever worked, my home, my credit, and everything else. I come to you here today to appeal to your sense of honor and dignity and to ask you to stop the bleeding. The City of Miami Police Department was known as the best law enforcement agency in all of South Florida. We stood tall and proud of what we represent and stand for. Last year you turned us into a mediocre police department when you cut over $20 million in pay and benefits. If you cut an additional 12 million today, we will become the department of last resort. That's $32 million from a 1, 000-man police department in two years. I mean, are you kidding me? Do you guys think that that's City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 right? Is there any way, shape, or form that you can believe that that is a fair thing to do? Our department is comprised of individuals that have chosen a career of devotion, one that only a small sector of this community will even consider given the salaries and the current conditions in a city known as the most dangerous in the state of Florida. We have protected and served this community, the very people you represent. We have lived up to our end of the bargain, but you have not lived up to yours. We should not be held liable or hostage to the City's inability to balance the budget. As you well know, for more than a year now I have negotiated in good faith with the City of Miami. We have presented numerous options that Mr. Mattimore just presented, among others, that could have saved us millions of dollars, but the City has chosen not to accept them. Not that they weren't viable, not that they weren't good. They chose not to accept them. Instead, you have chosen to continue to bleed the police officers that work in the City of Miami, and that's not acceptable. One of the things that they're asking for, which is the 185 money commonly referred by us as the 1 percent fund, is not even up to me to give away, period. It's against the law. Our plan is different from the firefighters. It's written differently. I cannot legally even give it to you if I wanted to. It would take a vote of the entire membership and it would have to be 100 percent of the members saying yes. And I can guarantee you, I, for one, will vote no. Monday, September 12, you had to make a very tough decision. You said it was all -- the toughest decision you've ever had to make in your life. Well, I can tell you this decision is about a thousand times tougher 'cause you're going to be affecting the lives of a thousand police officers. It's a very delicate police department. It's a very delicate job that we do. And when you affect the lives of a thousand officers and the welfare of a thousand officers to the point where they're in the poverty line, you're creating chaos. You're creating a disaster in the City of Miami. When you take away -- and don't think for a second when you say you're not cutting salaries. Whenever it comes out of this pocket and it goes into yours, you're taking from me. It's a pay cut. It's a pay cut because we're having to pay for it. We're having to take from other things in order to resolve it. I'm still willing to continue to meet with the City and resolve this issue, but they're hard set on the fact that they want to take away the 185 money. We cannot give it to them. We need to compromise and come up with other solutions. We have put on the table solutions that are viable. As of yesterday, they asked us for $7 million. Guess what. Yesterday, we came to a meeting in the afternoon and it turned into $12 million. I mean, how do you negotiate like that? Am I dealing with kids here? All along they have said it's 7 million from each of the unions. And now, all of a sudden, it's 12 million. You know, even ifI were to give some of the money, it's still an insurmountable amount of money that came out of nowhere. What kind of professionals are we dealing with here? I got to tell you, a lot of our officers are going to lose their home. They're going to lose their credit, as I said. I don't know if the City's ever going to bounce back from this because the morale of this department is going to be -- it is already destroyed. But how do you ask an officer now to train a new rookie that comes in when you're not even giving him the measly 1,500 that you cut last year because it used to be 5 percent of pay. Now it's $1,500. How do you get a hostage negotiator to go up to a house where somebody's being held hostage without a gun and talk to these people trying to save the life of that person? How do you pay a SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) person or not pay a SWAT person to go into a house doing a call or somebody to dismantle a bomb? I mean, where does it end? It's all part of our livelihood, our pockets that we do it devotedly, but you're taking us to the point of no return. It's unsustainable, as a word that you people like to use all the time. It's unsustainable for us. If we don't come up with another solution, I can tell you right here, right now that you're going to be responsible for destroying this entire police department. There is no going back after that because it will take decades before you can fix it and you're not going to fix it overnight. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Question. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. City of Miami Page Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Not necessarily a question of Mr. Aguilar, but a question of our Administration with regards to some of the points or the concessions that were offered by the FOP, starting with the 185. He -- Mr. Aguilar is saying that that is not up to them, that there are certain criterias [sic], that it's against the law. Can you elaborate or could you touch that point? Because it was our understanding and at least this Commissioner's understanding that it wasn't -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Option. Vice Chair Carollo: -- your purview to be able to do that. So can someone address that, please, from the Administration? Mr. Aguilar: Before he answers that, I want to say that we have absolutely no control over those monies. Those monies go directly into that fund. The union has absolutely no control over those monies. It's controlled by a separate board that has no union affiliation whatsoever. But go ahead. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you, Commissioner. We have been assured by an expert in public sector pension funds, who I've worked with were 30 years and I know to be a conservative lawyer who does not give aggressive advice, but gives advice that's safe. He has assured us repeatedly that those monies can be captured. There is a way in which it can be captured, and it has been captured. I certainly appreciate the president's concerns because we do not want to find ourselves in a situation where we do something and not be able to capture it. So we have gone back to that source repeatedly. And from what I understand, that source will gladly provide the Commission or the Fraternal Order of Police with a written legal opinion stating so. Vice Chair Carollo: Is there any precedent? Mr. Mattimore: I believe there is. I would defer to him, but I believe that there's actually municipalities, local government that's doing exactly what is happening here as we speak. Vice Chair Carollo: If that's the case, is it possible for you all to meet with the FOP and see if we could get that worked out to see if it's actually doable, and I think we should do it from different prongs. First is is it actually doable? 'Cause from what Mr. Aguilar is saying and from what I understand, it's not in your power to do that. You don't have authority, or I don't know who has authority. But from what I'm hearing you say is it cannot be done. I'm hearing from the Administration that it can be done, so maybe you all can discuss it or see how -- Mr. Mattimore: Commissioner, at our pleasure, we would meet with President Aguilar and with our pension attorney and answer any question he might have. Mr. Aguilar: Obviously, I'm not an attorney in this case, and I'm more than willing to meet with them and listen to everything they have to say. But I have read the state law on this issue, and it says you cannot -- absolutely cannot use it for anything other than what it was intended to be used for, number one. Number two, it is my understanding that the way that it's structured with the Fire Department is completely different than ours, and that we don't have constructive possession of that money at any point. That money is put into an account where it's divided into shares by all the members, so automatically, when it goes in, it would, in my opinion and in the opinion of our attorney, require a hundred percent of a vote from the membership. But nevertheless, I'm willing to sit with them, I'm willing to listen to them, and if need so, you know, we'll have an outside party decide which one is right. Chair Gort: Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. Any other questions? Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, I didn't -- Commissioner Sarnoff, you have a question? City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Commissioner Sarnoff- That's all right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. You can go ahead. Commissioner Sarnof I'll yield. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just had a quick question on the issue of -- Armando mentioned something about the board who controls it. You talk about the board of the union or is -- a separate board? Mr. Aguilar: No, no, no. This is totally autonomous from the union. It has nothing to do with us. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Who are -- I'm just curious. Like who are they? Are they like -- are they associated with the Police Department? Are they outside of the Police Department? Are they retirees? Who are they, like --? Mr. Aguilar: They are active and retired officers in the Police Department that sit on that board, but they have no affiliation with the union whatsoever, and they get elected to those positions. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Because you mentioned it would come down to you having to also -- if it came down to you having to vote on this, you would vote no on it as well. Mr. Aguilar: Well, because I'm one of the members of that fund. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- right. So that means you're saying that the board would bring it up, but the ultimate decision would actually lie in the officers to take an overall vote? Mr. Aguilar: That's my opinion. Again, I'm not an attorney. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Aguilar: But I've been told by our attorneys that it's not a feasible thing, it's not something we can do, and it's not within the purview of the FOP to make a decision one way or the other. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So is that your attorney? Can he speak on it? Mr. Aguilar: That's one of them, yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I -- we just want clarity. I mean, we're trying to resolve the issue and -- Ronald Cohen: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- really understand what is the difference between Fire. I understand they're different -- Mr. Cohen: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- things, but I still want to understand like why we were able to have Fire sit down to the table to work through it -- Mr. Cohen: Right. City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and tap into it, which, you know, helped the City get through this rough patch. I want to understand why the same thing doesn't apply. Mr. Cohen: And I can answer your question partially, not completely. I'm Ronald Cohen. I'm the long-time lodge attorney for Fraternal Order of Police, Miami, Lodge 20. I am not the lawyer for what is commonly referred to as the One Percent fund. That's Mr. Klosner (phonetic), who many of you know as well, and he's a lawyer for the One Percent fund, and that is a separate trust fund and it's not a union board. That money comes directly to that trust fund. You know, it just goes from the State directly to that trust fund. And Mr. Klosner (phonetic) told me today that the union cannot agree to that. It's a trust fund that has control of that money, and it's something that the union can't agree to. And I just want to say when we're talking about this 185 money, I just want to remind the Commissioners about a little bit of history here that may go -- that goes back, I think, probably 50 years. You know, there's two cases that went to the Florida Supreme Court, the Carter case and the Hall case, in which the City took up 175 and 185 money. The City took it, and the Florida Supreme Court said you can't do it. You can't take it. You have -- this money has to go back to the employees. That's what led to Gates. That's what led to the Gates case. The money that was taxed for pension and relief purposes was used to pay off the judgments of the money that the City had taken illegally in the first place. So you will hear -- I mean, Mr. -- we will meet with Mr. Lynn. I know Mr. Lynn for a long time. Mr. Klosner (phonetic) knows Mr. Lynn. We will meet. But Mr. Klosner's (phonetic) opinion is, as a One Percent fund attorney, that the One Percent fund, that the FOP does not have the authority to give it up. It goes into a trust fund. And just be very careful about this because this City is paying a price today for mistakes that were made with this money starting 50 years ago. Chair Gort: Right. Mr. Cohen: And I just don't -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Cohen: -- I want that on the record. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay, no problem. Mr. Cohen: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I just -- I'm glad that you offered some clarity. But I don't know if this -- our attorney wants to respond to his statement. Are you responding to that statement? Jim Lynn: Sure, I can respond, if you'd like. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. I just want -- 'cause he's basically saying we may put ourself in a liable situation. If you can at least speak to that. And then I would like to have a clearer understanding on -- from Fire, like the difference with the fund that they're -- that they were able to patch into -- Mr. Lynn: Okay. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and the difference, just so that I have clarity. Mr. Lynn: Okay. First of all, these -- what they call the One Percent plan or the Share plan, these are supplemental retirement programs that are in addition to the pension fund -- what we call FIPO (Firefighters and Police Officers), which is the City provides for police officers and firefighters. And the firefighters have this separate fund and so do the police officers . And these City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 funds -- the police fund was established by an ordinance of the City back in 1960. There is a state statute that governs how these supplemental share plans work, and the state statute makes it very clear that with the approval of a majority of the members of the supplemental plan, the monies can be placed into the main pension fund, into FIPO, if it's approved by a majority of the members. And this is the kind of thing that is happening in other places in the state that have similar funds where there's economic downturns in the -- affecting other cities. And last year this occurred in the city of Lake Worth, and the PBA (Police Benevolent Association) there agreed and the members -- a majority of the members voted to approve the transfer of the monies from the share plan to the City pension fund to offset the City's cost in the pension fund. This is exactly what -- Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Lynn: -- we have proposed -- what the City has proposed to the FOP here. Right now in Palm Beach County -- in the city of West Palm Beach there is an agreement between the City and the PBA there to do exactly the same thing. So this is not some novel idea. This is something that under state statute -- this is a benefit. It's subject to collective bargaining. But the statute makes clear that the City can't impose this type of a transfer. It has to be approved by a majority of the plan members. And you know, I'll be more than happy to meet with whatever representatives of the FOP and Mr. Cohen, Mr. Klosner (phonetic). I respect them. They're excellent attorneys. And I think where there's a will, there's a way under the law to accomplish this. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Chair Gort: Let me -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just -- I'm sorry. Let me just -- Chair Gort: Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- finish my last two things. So on -- what Armando just mentioned on the issue, Fire is different, okay. Is Fire different? Mr. Lynn: It's the same kind of plan. I've looked at both plans. I mean, clearly, there's differences in the plans, but they're both fundamentally the same -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Do they have to go in front of their board to vote for it as well? Mr. Lynn: Yes. The members -- when the firefighters vote to ratify the collective bargaining agreement that's been tentatively agreed, they will be voting on this -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: The same way that -- Mr. Lynn: -- transfer. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- Police would have to -- Mr. Lynn: That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- do as well, right? Mr. Lynn: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So there's really not any difference from that standpoint. They'll City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 be doing the same actions. Mr. Lynn: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Lynn: And it would require an amendment to their plan, but again, this is a plan that the City established by ordinance. And just like when you made changes to FIPO through the bargaining process, those changes were implemented through City ordinance. It's the same thing here. If it's agreed to and the contract is ratified, it gets implemented through an ordinance. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Aguilar: Well, I disagree. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. Mr. Aguilar: Because pension is a mandatory subject of the bargaining, and in this particular case, the state law, which I have in front of me, says those funds have to be exclusively used for extra benefits for police officers. And again, I'm not an attorney, and I'll be happy to sit with him and discuss it. I don't think our plan is the same as the firefighters' plan, but I think we're missing the picture here as far as the things we can do with ours or cannot do. This is -- if the City could have put their hands on it, they would have. So obviously, it's not the same as the pension, which they put their hands on. So it's totally different. Chair Gort: Okay. We can be arguing here all night long, and I don't think that's right. I think we should have some more time and let you guys get together and try to come up with some solutions that affects the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to everyone. Commissioners. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions for clarification, and I don't know if it's Mr. Lynn, the City Manager, or Mr. Mattimore that should be the one answering it. I just want to clarify that what has been offered by the City in terms of the 185 is only for one year. Is that correct? Mr. Mattimore: Yes, it is. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. The other thing, I just did very quick math on the numbers that were up there, and I just want to confirm and clam that of the 12 million in concessions that the City's requesting, approximately 7 million of that is kind of salary related in the sense of it will directly hit the members in their pocketbook, and I just want clarification. And I'm -- the way I'm adding it up is the supplemental pays, the take-home cars, the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) rules for overtime, the night shift, the holidays, and the -- yeah, the holidays and the other one on the bottom, which is 912. Is that correct? Mr. Mattimore: You're correct, Commissioner. There's about $5 million in concessions -- Commissioner Suarez: That are not -- Mr. Mattimore: -- that are not -- Commissioner Suarez: -- pay related. City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Mr. Mattimore: -- paycheck. They're not paycheck. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So if -- this is my question. If the -- legally, it could be worked out. And if the membership would have agreed to giving up their 185 benefits for one year, then in essence, their out-of-pocket difference, what's left, would be reduced to $2.7 million. Is that what the Administration's position is? Mr. Mattimore: Your analysis is correct. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I just wanted to clarify it, 'cause I wanted to make sure that I understood the numbers properly and that the Administration was giving us the same information that they were giving everyone else. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, I just -- Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir [sic]. Commissioner Spence -Jones: One more question. If -- and I'm just going to piggyback on you real fast, Francis, if you don't mind. Can we put that slide back up on -- for num -- page 24. Can we put that back up? Because I think it's really important just for the officers and everybody to realize kind of what the numbers are. And again, we had our briefings and want to have a clear understanding. And part of our questions, you know, to our staff and our consultants is to really understand, you know, kind of what we were not able to bend on. And I know at least -- just piggybacking on Commissioner Suarez, there were at least two items on here that I know that it would seem like the officers would be okay with, which was the purchase of the police cars, which is one -- I don't know if it's up there -- and then the uniforms. These are all numbers, to my understanding, that -- were they also the numbers that you had a issue or concern with too, Armando? Because those are not people; those are items, and I would rather see the money stay into the pockets of the people than the items. So I understand that you guys were also haggling -- I mean, can we go a year without buying new cars ifI'm going to make sure that my officers are at least going to be able to have the resources in their pockets? Mr. Aguilar: Yeah. The elimination of -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can they wear these -- can he wear this -- can you wear this uniform a couple of more -- can you wear this uniforms for a little longer, you know, at least for the rest of the year so we could keep a couple of dollars in your pocket? I mean -- Mr. Aguilar: Ma'am, you're asking the wrong person. He's a staff member. He sits in the office. He doesn't get a wrinkle. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, but my point is -- at the end of the day, it's about the people, Armando. It's about the people. Mr. Aguilar: Yeah. And I don't have -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Aguilar: -- a problem with that. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. So I just want -- Mr. Aguilar: I've always -- City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I'm just saying, could we --? Mr. Aguilar: -- been a proponent even though we do need the uniforms and the cars, you know, and I can work around those issues. But the bottom line is we're giving up almost 4.5 million in special pays and it comes -- a shift differential of 288, three holidays, 800,000; the overtime, another 79 -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. I'm -- that -- I'm trying to chip away at this -- Mr. Aguilar: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- tree at -- a little bit at a time. Mr. Aguilar: And I think the ideas we proposed -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And when I -- Mr. Aguilar: -- could get us there, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Aguilar: -- they're adamant that it has to be that 185 money or nothing. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Armando, I'm having a calm conversation with you. Mr. Aguilar: I know. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm not going to go there today, okay. I'm tired of going there for right now. But I'm just trying to get to the bottom line. The bottom line is when we got ready to get briefed on this issue, my question in the meeting was could -- I mean, can we have FOP be open to us not purchasing additional cars. We even -- let me finish. Mr. Aguilar: Absolutely. Commissioner Spence -Jones: We even talked about asking for -- I believe Commissioner Sarnoff asked for even an analysis on those cars. I don't have the analysis. I'm sure he does. We can go another year without these cars. So that means to me if I don't have to spend 4 million on that and I can make sure the people have monies in their pockets and take care of their families, I'm sure they don't mind riding a car for another year or so. I mean, that's just -- I mean, to -- we have to get to a certain point that we have to figure out a way to kind of like work through it and move on. So I just wanted to make sure -- 'cause I was shocked that you were not open to, you know, the car situation and the uniforms just so that we could keep the money in the pockets of the people. Mr. Aguilar: I never said I wasn't open to it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So you are? Mr. Aguilar: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I want you to put it on the record. So that is -- Mr. Aguilar: Yes. As a -- City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so you -- so -- Mr. Aguilar: -- as long as it doesn't come out of our officers' pocket -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Aguilar: -- I'm willing to negotiate with the City. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So we're closer. Mr. Aguilar: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: We're closer, right? Mr. Aguilar: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that those were not issues for you. Mr. Aguilar: But I'm also curious as to why their numbers jumped to $12 million from one day to the next. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Armando, I'm just trying to get clarity on -- Mr. Aguilar: I know. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- these two items because I know the hard dollar amounts are an issue 'cause there are people costs. We can't get around those. I just wanted to make sure that I was hearing correctly on the issue of us not being able to wait for a year on the cars and the clothing -- or the uniforms. That's all. Mr. Aguilar: No. My concern -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So you have -- Mr. Aguilar: -- are the members of the FOP -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: You have -- Mr. Aguilar: -- to make sure they don't get hit in their pockets. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So you have clarified -- Chair Gort: That's our concern too. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to me. No problem. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Sarnof Can I say something? Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff.- You know, first, I haven't said anything, which is probably pretty unusual for me. First -- and I don't do this enough -- I want to thank the unions who have come to an City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 agreement and have negotiated and have come to the necessary concessions. I don't know that any Commissioner up here has really enjoyed this particular year in learning the finances and how we got here. I can remember thinking we had a 16 to $19 million deficit, and there was a way we were going to bridge that gap, and it was with a refinancing of something, and I remember Commissioner Suarez taking that and, for the next two Commission meetings, confirming those numbers. So we all acted under something of a guise, understanding, thought process that we were certainly within $20 million; and having been the Commission that sat up here and had to close $105 million gap, it seemed very readily doable, especially when somebody had proposed something that didn't seem like it was going to affect anyone's pocketbook. And then we learned through the process that that number was not a real number, but in fact we were closer to $30 million. And then we learned that through a lawsuit or -- I think it was a lawsuit that we had lost approximately another almost $10 million from Communications and then some other refinements. We were pretty close to $40 million, and then finally, we ended up at around $50 million. So I don't know that any Commissioner up here really enjoyed or really understood or really cared for the way we got here, but here is where we are. And I don't think anybody up here necessarily wants to take money from anyone's pocket knowing that very likely there's very little difference between what is probably spent and what is probably earned. Most people live pretty much paycheck to paycheck regardless of what they earn. So my question is if the police officers had a choice -- if they had that choice -- and I'm just using that as a postulate, speculation. If it were possible for the police officers to literally put the 185 -- and if it's 175, I apologize, but I never get the right ones. Mr. Aguilar: One eighty-five. Commissioner Sarnoff One eighty-five, okay. -- to put the 185 toward a budget just for one year -- let me finish, 'cause I realize you're going to object. But put it out there for the one year and see where we are next year, it's really not the same burden -- and that's what Commissioner Suarez was getting at -- as them not being able to make a mortgage payment or them not being able to make some other payment that they may find, you know, obviously is living paycheck to paycheck. And I just question whether we're all pulling on the same end of the rope to get there when I think next year is going to be a significantly better year for the City of Miami, you know, if you think about some of who's interested in the City of Miami, whether it's Swire, whether it's Genting, whether it's Craig Robins at, you know -- a lot of development that's going on is going to bring significant revenues to the City of Miami. You know, bear in mind, if you were to factor in all the building that has gone on in the City of Miami from '04 to '08 -- let's call it the end -- the very bitter end -- you could factor that to be about $4.3 billion. If you just consider Swire Property and if you just consider Genting -- and ifI'm saying it wrong and it's Genting, I apologize to them -- and if you just consider Craig Robins, and if you just think about the Design District, you're talking about $6.8 billion. So in some respects, this City that -- is shouldering a 13.5 percent unemployment rate, and I would suggest to you it's probably closer to a 17 percent unemployment rate, and then probably another 4 percent underemployment rate, could really see a major turnaround in '012 [sic]. We know Swire will start the building process. We could very well see Genting start the build process towards the third or fourth quarter of 2012, and -- so I guess for the first time we're seeing light at the end of the tunnel, and when we went into the tunnel, there wasn't a light to be seen. And you know, I just question if this particular weekend, you don't -- maybe want to sit down and think about a little short -term -ism for a little long -term -ism. Just think about would you prefer to delay a retirement payment in lieu of a today payment to make sure that the milk is paid for, the mortgage paid for, the gas is paid for, and not by giving it to the City of Miami; by providing it for one year only and next year determining wherever you may find ourselves -- wherever we may find ourselves, maybe we should be back at the bargaining table a lot sooner, a lot more rapidly. I think one of the misgivings of this year -- you know, when we did have Carlos Migoya up here, we used to get -- we were $105 million away, and I never saw you as -- I never saw you really angry. Well, I guess I did towards the end, but -- but you knew it was coming and you saw it was coming, and I think you had some feeling of -- that the numbers were accurate, they were what they were, we City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 were facing the issues that we were facing. And I think this year it felt a little different. I think this year everybody was a little surprised a little, you know, shocked, a little taken back. And I don't really fault the numbers to being where they are because as much as we like to think a rescission's over, it simply isn't. I mean, as much as you like to think things are better, they're just not better yet. Is the building out there? Is the building blocks getting ready? Are the contracts being signed? Yeah, they are. And the process of healing is actually started. So I'll close with saying this to you: Would you consider -- would you provide for the possibility, would you provide for the open mindedness of thinking about --? Instead of saying what went on 30 or 40 years ago for -- I love to pick on Commissioner Gort. I can't even blame that on Commissioner Gort because he wasn't here 30 or 40 years ago. Mr. Aguilar: I was here 30 years ago. Commissioner Sarnoff- You probably were, but I don't think anybody here was up here 30 years ago. And instead of sort of -- I don't want to use the word rubbing our noses in it, but -- 'cause sometimes it feels that way. We all get like, you know, Commissioner -- and I don't even know his name -- 30 years ago made a decision that robbed us of this, this, and this, and you've been paying for it ever since, and I understand that. But no Commissioner up here was a party to that, and all the citizens paid for someone's malfeasance many, many years ago. And I mean, it does come down to two plus two equals four. I think if anybody thought there was 10 million missing dollars, we would be sort of rabid up here, and I'm not going to haggle with you. Could you have found 50 or $60, 000 differently? I think we could have. But we're not talking -- I don't think we're talking hundreds of thousands, and I know we're not talking about millions. So I -- I'll close with saying this: Could you even provide for the possibility of thinking of doing what Fire did and allowing your officers -- I'll give you the floor in two minutes -- to make it through this next year so that the following year -- and you'll know where we stand a lot earlier, because I think we should all have joint sessions together where we actually just level with each other. Very honestly, very, you know, projection wise, what does next year look like. Has Swire started to pay its fees? Is Genting on the verge of doing this? Has Craig Robins done what he's supposed to do? So that you can get a look and say, all right, I want my 185 back this year. We say we can give that back to you. And maybe we can even give you uniforms because by then, I think you would tell me they're threadbare. So what I'm going to close with -- and I will close, and I apologize for taking so long, Armando. Mr. Aguilar: I'm used to it. Commissioner Sarnoff I would like -- I'd like to move to recess the meeting until Monday, September 19 -- Commissioner Suarez: Sec -- Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Commissioner Suarez: Second for discussion. Commissioner Sarnoff And at that time we'll have the modifications of the contractual obligations pursuant to the financial urgency. The FOP, I hope you will request a bargaining meeting with the City during the recess and if you have a contractual proposal to address the urgency, you could put it out there. But let me give you a little forewarnance [sic] from my perspective and maybe other Commissioners up here. I just don't want to be the guy, win or lose this next election -- it really doesn't matter -- to kick the can down the road. I just don't want to kick the can down the road. I don't want somebody saying for the time he was up here, he put this on my back. I don't want to do that. But I'm also very well aware of the fact that since this recession started, there has not been a light at the end of the tunnel, but there is really a light, and I don't say that -- I'm probably the most conservative guy up here. City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Chair Gort: I'm surprised you said it. Commissioner Sarnoff But I actually think -- I actually can tell you put the entire building process that you witnessed in the past five years in Miami and it will not equal the next building process. Mr. Aguilar: Yeah. Can I just answer that real quickly? Chair Gort: Yes. Mr. Aguilar: One, I'm not going to go back 40 years. I'm just going to go back to 2009 when you were all here, and they told me, Armando, you help us with this -- you give us some concessions next year, we'll be okay. Next year was 115 million and 118. Nobody knows the real number. The beginning of this year, even some of the Commissioners sitting here told zero deficit. No deficit in the City of Miami. Guess what? We're sitting here now with 62 million deficit. Now, Commissioner Sarnoff, you're telling me, oh, next year is going to be rosy. We're going to have all kinds of money to give you. Why shouldl believe this? Commissioner Sarnoff.- Well, I don't want to paint a rosy picture. What I am saying -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sarnoff -- to you is that you can see the end in sight. Mr. Aguilar: Okay. Chair Gort: Commissioner Suarez. Mr. Aguilar: And I will set up a meeting to meet with the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I second the motion. And I just wanted to discuss real quick -- and I understand very, very much Armando's concerns and anger over the mismanagement, the fluctuating budgets, hiring freeze, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And they're very rare opportunities where we kind of have the ability to pat ourselves on the back. I'm not sure this is the best time to do that. But if you look at slide number 14, you'll see that the City's reserve balance before we arrived -- before most of us arrived was declining rapidly and precipitously. And in the first budget year that this Commission has been able to preside over a budget from one year to the other, it's the first year where we're actually going back into the positive. So I mean, I think this Commission has been very vigilant in trying to make sure that we manage our money in the post prudent conservative manner possible. Chair Gort: Okay, it's my opportunity right now. I have to tell you, the one thing we -- we're trying to do and we're asking the Administration to start negotiation in October 1 for next year. I'd like to see it go back the way it used to be before when we had monthly meetings so we can talk to each other. At the same time, the Administration came up with a lot of -- some solutions, but the solution was refinding -- refunding some of the programs and some of the bond issues that we had, and what we were doing is sending the debt further out to other years. We want to eliminate that. We want to make sure what happened with the Gates and what happened before does not happen again in the future. Thank you. There's a motion. Is there a second? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Chair, you really don't need a motion if you're just recessing the meeting. Chair Gort: Okay. City of Miami Page20 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Ms. Thompson: But what I do need to know is what time on Monday, please? Chair Gort: Two? Two o'clock on Monday. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Chair Gort: Recess till 2 o'clock on Monday. Thank you all for being here. [Later...) Chair Gort: Mr. Manager. Mr. Martinez: Yes. Chairman, Commissioners, the Administration's had some pretty productive discussions with the FOP regarding negotiating a contract, and I'd like to continue the momentum of the discussions we've been having, and hopefully, I'm very optimistic that we can come to an agreement if we had a little bit more time. So if we could recess or continue till Monday, I think it will give us that opportunity to build on the momentum that we have and maybe have an agreed contract. Chair Gort: Thank you, Mr. Manager. My understanding is this is working out pretty good. I mean, this is something we wanted to do for a long time, work together with the unions and ourself and try to come up with an agreement that it'll be the best for the City of Miami. At this time any comments from any of the board members -- Commissioners? Do I have a motion to continue till next Monday? Commissioner Sarnoff.- So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chair Gort: It's a motion to continue -- yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: What we're actually doing, you're going to recess your meeting again, right? Chair Gort: We're going to recess the meeting. Ms. Thompson: So you're fine. Just recess it. What time Monday? Do we know? Chair Gort: It'll be Monday, the 26th. Vice Chair Carollo: At what time? Chair Gort: At what time? Two o'clock? Two o'clock is fine with everyone? At 2 o'clock. The maker of the motion. Ms. Thompson: No. Chair -- Commissioner Sarnoff It's a recess, so -- Ms. Thompson: Yeah -- Vice Chair Carollo: Recess. Ms. Thompson: -- it's just a recess. City of Miami Page21 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Chair Gort: To recess until 2 o'clock. Ms. Thompson: And you don't need a motion. Chair Gort: You don't need a motion. Ms. Thompson: No. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you all for being here and have a good day. Mr. Martinez: Thank you. [Later..] Chair Gort: (INAUDIBLE) continue the recess we took place on 9 -- meeting on the 9/14, special meeting on 9/19, and today, 9/26. At this time I will ask the administrator [sic] to make their presentation. Administration. Mr. Martinez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Both the FOP team and the Administration team have been working around the clock to try to reach a collective bargaining agreement. Despite our best efforts and coming very close, we were unable to reach, you know, that agreement. Because we have a balanced budget to present tomorrow, we have no choice but to recommend to the Commission to impose contract terms that will generate just over $12 million. Michael Mattimore, who's on the phone, will go over the potential areas of modifications to reach that amount. Chair Gort: Okay. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, and Mr. Mayor, Michael Mattimore, our chief labor negotiator, is out of Tallahassee. He was unable to get a flight so he'll be appearing by phone. Michael. Michael Mattimore (via telephone): Thank you, City Attorney. And thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. I appreciate this opportunity to appear by telephone. As the City Attorney mentioned, I had a flight that was cancelled due to weather today and there was not an alternative, so again, I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to speak by phone. Subsequent to our last meeting -- and the Commission is reminded that they are in a 4095 process as a result of a declared financial urgency. The 14-day period of time for negotiations over the financial urgency have been satisfied and so the Commission is in a position where they can impose modifications upon any contractual obligation between the Fraternal Order of Police, Local 20, and the City. Subsequent to our last meeting of the Commission on the financial urgency in which additional time was provided by the Commission, the representatives of the City and the FOP could meet and attempt to resolve the financial urgency. We did meet on several occasions, but we were not able to conclude a resolution of concessions or modifications for the financial urgency. Primarily, what has caused our differences is the request that -- and demand actually of the Fraternal Order of Police that we enter into a three-year contract and that there be no reopeners or limited reopeners and that there would be some limitation or waiver of future use of financial urgency, the addition of a new article into the contract on promotion, and a parity clause with the International Association of Firefighters. These issues came up over the past week. They have been discussed earlier at the table at some point and time when we were talking about a contract, but these things came up in the context of a contract to resolve the financial urgency. Now I would like to again point out that where we are and what we've been negotiating over the past period of time is the financial urgency that the City's experiencing now. So these negotiations really are not intended to be resolving issues of 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. We're supposed to be focused on the urgency that's being experienced now for the purposes of City of Miami Page22 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 balancing the budget. The -- I would like to also point out that over the past couple of weeks as a result of the declaration of the financial urgency, the City has also engaged in negotiations on the impact of that urgency with AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) 1907 and the International Association of firefighters, and both of those entities have resolved the urgency and have entered into agreements that only deal with the 2011-2012 budget and do not require any obligations or concessions beyond that year. What -- when we last met on the urgency, the City Administration pointed out several possible modifications that could be implemented by the Commission that would allow the balancing of the budget and the modifications of the contract obligations so that cost savings could be realized, and they included a pay reduction, computing overtime as it is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act instead of a contractual definition of overtime, the funding of the health plan that is idiosyncratic for the Fraternal Order of Police, the funding of cars, uniforms and physicals, and the payment of holidays, the number and the benefits attached to holidays that are defined in the contract. So at this time I'm informing the Commission that our negotiations were not successful and that the urgency is now presented for a resolution by the Commission. Chair Gort: Thank you, Mike. Mr. Mattimore: Thank you. If there are any questions, I'll -- Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Mattimore: -- be glad to answer them. Chair Gort: Is there any questions of the Commissioners? Any questions? Okay. Do you have -- Administration, do you have anything else to add? Mr. Martinez: No. Mr. Aguilar: I do. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Aguilar: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Armando Aguilar, Fraternal Order of Police, president, 710 Southwest 12th Avenue. This has been probably the most frustrating negotiations I have had to go through since I've been negotiating contracts in '96. First, when you told us we had to come up with $7 million, then you changed it to $12 million overnight, we did our part. We came up with the $12 million. As a matter of fact, we came up with an additional $4 million, which the City basically stole from us with the idea of restructuring and they're going to implement soon, and it's been frustrating, totally frustrating, and especially now when I hear Mr. Mattimore say that we gave no opportunities for reopeners in the contract. There were two reopeners for pension and pay and wages, which are the two biggest items that you have out there. So in case you had another financial urgency or you had another shortfall of money, those things were up for negotiations. We did our end of the deal. We came up with our part. Today you're going to ruin this Police Department. It's already at a place where you don't want it to be. As a matter of fact, last Saturday they had to draft 15 people to come in on overtime. People are not coming in to work. You are going to be responsible for destroying this Department. We came to an agreement. We were all talking about a three-year deal since a week ago. I'm surprised that you just found out about it now. But having said that, there's no way you can implement the changes that we had agreed to in the contract in a one-year deal. If the City can guarantee me they can implement those changes this year, which I know they can't, then I don't mind a three-year deal. I don't like it, but I wouldn't mind. So suffice it to say, that you put my back against the wall. I came up with the money I was asked to come up with. And it's quite clear to me that you really don't care about the men and women of the City of Miami Police Department because you have done everything in your power to stop us from getting a contract. I don't know City of Miami Page23 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 what else to tell you. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners. Commissioner Spence -Jones: You have a comment? Armando, please come back to the mike, please. I think it's a little unfair to say that we don't support the men in blue or the women in blue. I think that's a little unfair for you to say. Mr. Aguilar: You asked me to come up with a certain amount of money. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I understand that. Mr. Aguilar: I did. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I can -- I understand that you may be disappointed in where we are. Mr. Aguilar: No. I'm angry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Well, angry. I can understand that you may be angry, but I think it's a little unfair to say that we don't care about the men in blue -- Mr. Aguilar: Well, this is -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- or women in blue. Mr. Aguilar: -- a way of caring, it's -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Aguilar: -- a very bad message to be sent. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. So I just want to at least make sure I put that on the record. Every single last one of us sitting up here care about the men in blue and the women in blue, okay. So the whole idea is to try to figure out how do we get past where we are right now. Now there are some things that you have stated on the record that maybe you could provide us with clarity on because maybe the communication is not getting to us in the right way, so this is your opportunity to clear it up. I have one question based upon the statement that you just made, okay. The one question you mentioned which was the adding of the three years -- because I'm assuming that's probably one of our concerns. We went from one year to a three-year discussion. Was that your recommendation, the three years, or was that the Administration's recommendation? Mr. Aguilar: Well, no. That was my recommendation simply because the Administration was discussing with me and had agreed to the issue of the promotional exam to -- for us to be able to bring some sanity back in this Department and have some pride back in the Department by doing these promotional exams, which is an article the firefighters have had in their contract for 15 years. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Aguilar: And the Department -- the City told me they couldn't implement this in the first year because there was no money, so it took at least a three-year contract in order to implement this, and they're going to tell you right now they cannot implement it on the first year. There was an additional article with sick time. They were trying to curtail your unfunded liability on sick City of Miami Page24 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 time. They couldn't implement that until the third year. So I would agree to the one-year contract if you would tell me you can implement those changes. If not, you're just taking $12 million from us. And for the life of me, you could still declare a financial urgency if things go bad. According to Commissioner Sarnoff, they're going to be very rosy next year, and you can -- even if you don't declare a financial urgency, you could have reopened wage and pension, which is the two most expensive item. So for you to turn around and tell me that a three-year deal is a deal breaker, I really couldn't understand it. There's no sense to it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Administration, can -- I'm sorry. I just wanted somebody -- Chair Gort: Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to at least respond to the comment. Luis Cabrera: Assistant City Manager Luis Cabrera. Regarding the negotiations, the FOP brought to the table a counteroffer of a three-year contract in order -- and also provided us information about promotional exams in order for them to be able to receive something in return so they can sell to their members. It is impossible, and I would not recommend, that in a one-year contract we add any of those articles, and they were aware of that. So they recommended a three-year contract. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. Why is it impossible to do a promotional exams? Mr. Cabrera: What they're asking for is additional captain's positions that were -- that are not currently funded, and also a guarantee -- somewhat of a parity with the Fire Department contract that -- Mr. Aguilar: And mind you, these captain's positions being -- they're not extra positions. Where there's a commander now in these positions, it's being changed with a captain, or where there was a major, they're going to put a captain. Chair Gort: Right. Mr. Aguilar: So we're not asking for money. Mr. Cabrera: Right. Chair Gort: Now, my understanding is, and correct me ifI'm wrong, the captain's position has not been taken place because they can take anyone from being a sergeant and making it a commander, not going through the chain of command like the way they should. I mean, I don't have any problem with the captains, especially if it's no cost to the City of Miami. Mr. Cabrera: That is correct. But keep in mind, several years ago -- and I'm going back several years ago -- the administration -- the Police administration made a conscience [sic] decision in order to curtail overtime and the cost that the captains and the (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) lieutenants were incurring to the City that they would restructure its command system and go to the commander's position, and that was a decision made in conjunction with the administration, and I don't know, Armando, if the FOP was involved in that or not. Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Cabrera: But that's what Armando's discussing. Chair Gort: Commissioner Carollo. City of Miami Page25 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Mr. Aguilar: I wasn't the president of the FOP back then, but this -- these captains positions are not intended to supplement or change the NET commanders. Those positions have already been reviewed. It will be for places like Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigation, Communications. I forget the other two, but in places -- well, there's one there already that there is a captain. But they should not incur any overtime costs in those positions that we're putting them in. There should be no reason for those captains to be making overtime. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Carollo. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to get a little bit more into the issue. It was my understanding from what the Administration stated to us that these concessions would be on the first year of a three-year contract, so the second year and the third year we go back to where it is right now without a concessions. And at least I have a concern because if next year we're not in a good financial state, then we're stuck with a contract and -- Mr. Aguilar: It's no different than any other that you negotiated for a year. If next year you have a financial urgency because you have another self-imposed deficit, you can still take us and declare a financial urgency, or you can reopen pension and wages and still take us to impasse and take it from there. So the three-year deal doesn't really hurt your opportunities to reopen that contract and do something with it. It doesn't hurt you whatsoever. Vice Chair Carollo: Right, but Armando -- or Mr. Aguilar. I'm sorry. I just know you -- Mr. Aguilar: Armando's fine. Vice Chair Carollo: -- I've known you for so many years, so I'm used to calling you Armando, so I apologize. See, but starting next year right of the bag [sic], we're going to be $2 million in the hole because one of concessions this year will be $2 million from insurance. Next year, if we do the three-year deal, that is not up for negotiation, and it goes back to, you know, what's the current state right now. So right after the bag [sic], right there we are $2 million in the hole, and we cannot open it because that's not one of the areas that's an opener. Mr. Aguilar: But you can open other areas where you can get revenue from -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Aguilar: -- which is wages and pension. Vice Chair Carollo: So we're -- if we get into that situation, it seems that we're going to have to cut salaries by an enormous amount that -- Mr. Aguilar: That's what you're doing now. Vice Chair Carollo: -- will hurt the employees. Well now we're cutting from different areas, and it's something that I thought we had an agreement to, so -- and again, see, I think there's a misconception. This Commission actually does not want to impose on any unions, and we're not looking to impose next year either. But it seems to me like with a three-year contract, especially if these concessions that we're getting right now will not be there for the second or third years, you're going to put us in a situation where we have to impose, and we really don't want to be in that situation. However, we also have to, you know, make sure we do the right thing so this City doesn't, you know, end up in a financial situation that it's seeing right now or that we are in a position where we have to, you know, start increasing property taxes. So you know, what I'm saying is we need some wiggle room or some lead way in order for us to, you know, negotiate in good faith. If we do a three-year contract and we start off, you know, with a deficit, then that makes it very difficult for us where the only other option that we may have is to impose, and I City of Miami Page26 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 don't think this Commission really wants to impose on Police or any union for that matter. That's why we -- Mr. Aguilar: Well, the issue is insurance. Chair Gort: Mr. President, let me ask you a question. Mr. Aguilar: Yes. Chair Gort: My understanding, you stated there that you're willing to make one-year contract if we can have the promotions. And what was the other one? Mr. Aguilar: The promotions and -- Chair Gort: The promotions -- Mr. Aguilar: -- some changes we put to sick time. Chair Gort: Okay. So some of that can be done and it's not the -- of any fiscal impact for the City, you're willing to look at that. Am I correct? Mr. Aguilar: I'm willing to look at it. I don't -- I got to have my members pass it, of course. Chair Gort: Of course. Mr. Aguilar: But what I was going to say about insurance, our insurance is ran a hundred times better than the City's and that's why we save you money every time. If we give up now $2 million of that insurance for us, which we're using out of reserves, there's no way on earth you can take any more next year even if you wanted to because you would bankrupt the plan. Chair Gort: Right. Mr. Aguilar: And by bankrupting the plan, you're making the City lose money because we would have to go to the City's plan and obviously we do a better job. So I don't think that's even an argument. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: And no, that's understood, Mr. Aguilar, and that's something that I, you know, think we kind of discussed that, you know, we're doing this negotiations, you know, on both sides in good faith. And as you saw, you know, sometime last week when we were ready for imposition, we actually, you know, offered more time to see if we could come to some negotiation, some conclusion. But we're negotiating this on a one-year contract because like you just said what we can't do this again for insurance next year. So we're trying to see how we get through this year and then start the negotiation process much earlier for the following year, let's say of -- even October of this year, November, so then we could see how we can do, you know, the concessions or we could balance the budget in a way that, you know, it's the least amount of pain to the men and women of the Police Department. But if you just -- yourself saying that hey, next year, we can't do the same thing with insurance, well, we need to look somewhere else, and I just don't want to have our hands tied where we could only have two openers, and that's what I'm looking at, so -- you know, and I don't know how else -- Mr. Aguilar: So then it's not going to be rosier next year, right? City of Miami Page27 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: I'm sorry? Mr. Aguilar: It's not going to be a rosier picture next year? We're not looking to be better off. We're going to be in another hole? Vice Chair Carollo: I have not said that statement, you know. I think you will have -- if you have ten people, even financial experts and so forth, that will opine on that, I think you may have ten different opinions. So I know for a fact I have not said that it's been -- it's going to be rosier. Mr. Aguilar: Well, like I said -- Chair Gort: Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Aguilar: -- if the City can guarantee that, I got no problem with it. I have a problem, but I'll go with it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I -- Mr. Chairman -- Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I just have a quick question. Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And Armando's statement -- I mean, you mentioned two openers, but I know that -- is it two openers, three openers? How many openers is it? Just two? Mr. Cabrera: Two openers we discussed. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So it wasn't three? Mr. Cabrera: No ma'am. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that. And then -- let me just say this. First of all, I want to commend both sides, you know, the Manager, Alice, and Luis, and your team for at least coming back together from our last meeting and at least getting up to the 11.3. We want to acknowledge you when you do good, so we're -- I want to at least be able to say that we appreciate you guys getting to that 11.3. So I don't want that to be like it fell on deaf ears 'cause that's not the case, and we do know that you made progress, so that wasn't really the issue. The concern became for me -- I can't really speak for anyone else, but you know, if we're offering -- if we're saying -- if you're saying three years and the other unions are saying, okay, look, we understand we need to get through this rough period so we'll do a one-year contract, you know, and deal with it from that point knowing that, you know, come the beginning of next year, we're already negotiating and moving ahead to make sure that we make progress so that you guys get a contract that everybody could be happy with. My concern was what kind of messages are we also sending to the other unions as well -- let me finish -- that we're saying okay, look, let's get through this one year. I'm hoping and I'm praying that it is a rosier year. So that's the only way we can start operating is saying, hey, yeah, we want to push hard so that we have a better year next year, you know, so we're moving in that direction. But when I'm hearing three years and the other unions are -- you know, have agreed to work along with us for one year, you know, I'm not -- I didn't understand why we're pushing for the three years. Mr. Aguilar: Well, because -- City of Miami Page28 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I think that we can come up to -- with a happy medium if you're willing to do the one year and figure it out, you know, the other issues that came -- that come -- you know, that are -- that fall up under that one-year agreement. I'm sure we can make something work. But no one up here wants to impose, but it's like -- almost like we're -- we have no choice, so -- Mr. Aguilar: The only reason for the three years is the issue of the implementation of the promotional article. I don't have a problem with the one-year. It's just that unlike the other unions, there is something there which one of them already has that I don't have, which is a promotional article that it's been long overdue andl wanted to get it implemented. That's more important than anything else right now. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. And I just want to add this too, and then I'm going to pass it on to my colleagues. You know, from our last meeting, things like, you know, the uniforms we brought up, you know, the cars and stuff that we brought up in that last meeting, Armando, were things that you were able to come back to the table and work on and it makes sense. For us, the men in blue and the women in blue, we definitely want to make sure that we provide, you know, support to them in whatever way we can. So the people for us is always the issue, making sure that we take care of them first, you know, but let's look at other things that we can possibly do so that we're not hurting the people at the same time. And I think that's what the Commission -- that's the will of this Commission right now. It's not to hurt any other officer on the streets at all so that we can help them and help you guys get through this issue. Mr. Aguilar: Well, if we can get through it, I'll try. I'm always willing to try. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Chair Gort: Commissioner Sarnoff. Commissioner Sarnoff.- Yes. Mr. Chair. First, you know, I want to echo what Commissioner Spence -Jones and the Vice Chair had to say, which is you know, it's been a rough round of negotiations. Cities, municipalities, counties throughout the United States are all facing the very same issues that we're facing here today. Some of them choose to lay off people, Hialeah being such a city, Sarasota doing something different. They're all dealing with what every household in America is dealing with, which is less money coming in means you can spend less money going out, and that's a hard fact of life. Math is universal. Two plus two equals four for any society anywhere. And you know, what we're trying to do is find ways really not to take it from any police officer's paycheck. We're trying to find alternate ways, other ways of doing it. Deferring maintenance, which I know is a concern to you and a very valid concern, you know, with cars, vehicles, asking people to put off getting a new uniform again. Nobody wants to see a police officer not dressed in his blues, looking sharp. But is there another year we can ask them to do that? Can we do things with the Fair Labor Standards Act? Can we find other ways of finding cost savings to the City? And you know, you've done some of that. But I think every Commissioner feel -- up here feels like they have a responsibility. And I'm the one that said I think next year it looks much better, and I do think it looks much better. If in fact Swire Property [sic] happens, if in fact other things go on, you could see a different year. Now is it going to be a rosy year, I don't know that I said rosy, Mr. Aguilar, but I do think you're -- I think you've hit the bottom and you're going to see a turn. And do you want to see some of the turn -- some of the money returned to you? I understand your position and I can accept what you're saying. But many of us up here have what I call DMI; we've deferred our maintenance issues, you know. Lots of places in the City are not getting the needs that they have, and you're being asked to defer some of your issues as well, and we'll have an accrued maintenance issue with cars, with uniforms, physicals. And what I'm going to suggest to you is what a judge does in most criminal or civil trials. It's called an Allen charge. Why don't we give you 24 hours. We'll come back this time tomorrow, 4 o'clock. Why don't we sit down -- well, not we 'cause we can't. But why don't City of Miami Page29 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 you sit down with this Administration -- I think every Commissioner here believes that they have a financial obligation to the citizens of Miami and, more specifically, their own districts -- and try to work out a situation where there is a one-year contract so that we can look at next year and decide what it is we could do. Equally, I give you this suggestion or forewarnance [sic]. I think we have to start making some structural changes to how we do this on a long-term basis. You know, we've dealt with it the immediate needs. We've dealt with issues that have crept up on us. Through no one's fault, this City has lost $80 million in revenues. Not one police officer has been laid off. Not one firefighter has been laid off. And really, nobody from, you know, any of GSAs (General Services Administrations) have really been laid off as well, and we continued to try to work and maintain, you know, our employees in the best light and best way that we can because they're all taxpayers themselves, they all have mortgages to pay. And you're right, we're getting to the point now where any further reductions and we're becoming -- we're pressuring what people's ability to pay their own needs that they have for themselves are. So what I think we should do is take one more 24-hour period, give you the chance to sit down with the City Manager and his team, Michael Mattimore, and determine your best course of action 'cause we know what we have to do. At 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, if the rest of the Commission agrees with me, we'll come back and do what we have to do under our fiduciary obligation, and it will be cuts, and it will be cuts that only we can do under the terms and conditions that we've been outlined from our labor attorneys as to what can and can't be done, some of which are right at the meat of what you don't want, and you don't any of your police officers not being able to make a credit card bill, a mortgage payment, any issue -- health care issue that's outside of their health care insurance. That's not what you want and that's not what this Commission wants. And I think we're so close, and I think you feel it, that I think a 24-hour period, you would come up with -- sharpen your pencil, the Manager will sharpen his pencil. You'll come to this Commission. We'll either have an agreement. We won't have an agreement. But we will have traveled as far as we can together as long as we can together until the law operates upon us to say, now you must have a balanced budget. So I'll make a motion to -- I guess it will be a recess until 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Aguilar: Can I answer one thing first? Chair Gort: Motion to recess. Mr. Aguilar: I just don't want it to seem from what you said that I'm not negotiating or working in good faith here to -- when you mentioned all the other departments. I've met my end of the deal. I came up with the $12 million and then some. So this is not greedy police asking for a break. We came up with the money. Commissioner Sarnoff I thought I was praise -worthy from my standpoint. Actually -- Mr. Aguilar: Yeah. But I do understand the difficulties that we're going through, so it's not like we didn't want to. We did come up with the money. Commissioner Sarnoff I do. And what I'm -- Chair Gort: I think that was a statement that was made, but you also need to understand, we are very -- Mr. Aguilar: He's a lawyer, sir. I don't understand them all the time. Chair Gort: No. I understand he's a lawyer, so you and I have a little problem on that. But we have been very conservative. We don't want the same thing that happen last year that we make some projections and they didn't come through. All our projections that we're doing today is actual. And I agree with him; I think we're going to have a better year next year. There's a lot of things are happening, but we're not putting them in a projections because we don't want to see it City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 until it really happens. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Vice Chair Carollo: I don't think we need a motion or second. We could just recess. Chair Gort: You don't need a motion. Just to recess until tomorrow at 4 o'clock. Continue. Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Ms. Bru: Thank you, Michael. Mr. Mattimore: All right, thank you, Julie. I'll see you tomorrow. Ms. Bru: All right. Mr. Mattimore: Bye. [Later...) Chair Gort: (INAUDIBLE) meeting back on. Thank you all. As you remember, this is the special Commission meeting that took place on September 14; it was referred [sic] to September 19, and then it was deferred to September 26; and this is today, September 27. My understanding, I'd like to inform that the -- we have received -- we have an agreement with the FOP, and I believe this is going to be very helpful. And I want to thank the Administration and the FOP for the -- working with us and trying to get this budget balanced. So at this time, if any comments from any board members. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I don't know if staff wants to just officially put anything on the record or our consultant, if he wants to put anything on the record. If you want to put anything on the record, Mr. Manager. Chair Gort: Mr. Mattimore, you want to --? Mr. Martinez: No. I just want to thank this Commission for giving us the extra time to continue the dialogue with the FOP. I'm very happy to say that we don't have to impose. Imposing our will on people is never a good thing. And we didn't have to do that, thanks to the advice and the -- of the Commission to stretch it out to the very last moment. We continued the dialogue early this morning right up to the last minute and it proved to be super beneficial, and I want to thank the Commission for that advice and guidance. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chair. Commissioner Suarez: Is it fair to say that the Administration has reached a tentative agreement with the FOP -- Mr. Martinez: Yes, we have. Commissioner Suarez: -- Fraternal Order of Police? Mr. Martinez: And -- City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 10/21/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Martinez: -- my understanding is that Fire already ratified earlier today. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Sarnof Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnof I want to congratulate the City Manager, who doesn't get that many congratulations and certainly has not been the recipient of too many awards up here. But you jumped into a grade four rapid midstream, half -way down, and were asked to put a paddle out and to get us somehow down the river. I want to congratulate Luis Cabrera. I want to congratulate Alice Bravo. And I think the FOP president should be equally -- where's Armando? He's back there somewhere very quietly, which means it's a good agreement. That's the art of compromise. Both sides walk around angry, it's a good agreement. So I just want to congratulate FOP. I want to congratulate everybody on coming to what is necessary to create a balanced budget. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And we want to congratulate you for your recommendation of giving it a little bit more time when we were making the decision to impose at that particular point, and you stepping up to the plate and saying take a little bit more time. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff.- Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Okay, at this time do I have a motion to adjourn this meeting? Commissioner Sarnof So moved. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved, second. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying Bye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chair Carollo, and was passed unanimously, to adjourn the September 14, 2011, Special Commission Meeting. City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 10/21/2011