HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2012-04-19 MinutesJohnny Martinez (City Manager): (INAUDIBLE) our two Commissioners for taking time out of
their busy schedule to come for the workshop. Also, I want to thank our Budget Department for
working the weekend with their staff. I want to thank the Budget Department for working over
the weekend to prepare this workshop. Danny has -- and his team have done a first -round
meeting with each department head to try to implement some operating budget reductions, and
starting next week, we're going to do a second round with -- and Danny's invited me to those and
I'll be there toe -to -toe with him with each department head to try to get the budget under control.
The purpose of this meeting -- we didn't have a budget workshop last year, and the purpose of
the workshop is to give everyone an idea of where we are today and where we need to go and to
invite for any ideas that you have `cause last year the Commission -- the Commissioners gave us
some very good ideas on -- throughout the process and we ended up with a balanced budget.
Having said that, I thank the two Commissioners for being here. And Danny, go ahead.
Daniel Alfonso (Director, Strategic Planning, Budgeting and Performance): We're looking for
ideas to get to where we need to be. The directives that we have been given as a Budget
Department from the Manager and the Mayor is basically let's try to find a way to balance our
budget for fiscal year ' 12/' 13, minimizing any impact on employees, on rates -- in other words,
no fees or fee increases -- and no service reductions, and that's not an easy task. When you have
expenses year over year that kind of grow, where do you go? So what we're looking for is to
present to you where -- like the Manager said, where we are, some of the ideas that we've gotten,
where we've been, and how we're going to get to where we want to go. So first I'm going to talk
about in the past few years, I'm going to give you an idea of where we've been and how we have
reduced expenses over the last couple of years just briefly. I want to show you something that I
call the "cost of government" to give some idea of how the City has been doing in terms of what
do we cost our residents. Then I'm going to briefly cover how we're doing this year, and then
what happens if we make no changes to where we are today, which certainly is not an option
because we need to change our direction. Then we'll talk about the revenue outlook, expenses,
and some strategies that we've been considering for the future. The first graph that we have on
page 3 of the presentation shows in terms of revenue where this City was in 2006/'7 [sic] and
how it has progressed through 2011/' 12 budget. Now if we were a for -profit organization and we
were producing something that we were selling other than the services that we provide to our
residents, the City would be in somewhat trouble because we have lost $73 million of revenue
since 2007. So if you were a for -profit, we'd have a problem. The important thing about this
graph is that if you look at the table right below, it shows what our revenues are as a percentage
of the overall. So if you notice, the property taxes by far are the largest revenue source that the
City has. And those bottom four categories, the taxes, franchise fees, intergovernmental
revenues, and the charges for services, those four categories alone make up 80 percent of the
City's revenues so that if you're talking about revenue strategies and how you can impact the
City's revenues, it is really primarily in those areas that you're going to get the most impact. Yet,
those are the areas that we have concerns with because those are areas that impact our residents.
On the expenditure side, we have also seen a significant reduction. In 2006/'7 [sic], the City
spent $578 million and we're down all the way to 479 for the budget this year. That's almost
$100 million reduction from 2007 to 2012. So, clearly, the City Administration and the
leadership has made significant reductions to get us down to the level where we are today. The
other important part of this graph, if you look at the bottom half again, where we've chartered the
expenditures of this City as a percentage of the overall budget, and you clearly see that if you
add up personnel, retirement contribution, life/health insurance, and workers' comp, those four
categories are all related to our personnel expenditures. Over the last six years, that has ranged
1 April 19, 2012
anywhere from 75 percent to 83, 84 percent of overall expenditures. So when we're looking
again at closing a gap in the coming year of possibly in the 37, $38 million range at this point,
where you're going to have to look is in the personnel costs. The operating costs of the City only
represent 15 percent of the budget. If you see this graph, the operating expenses have been gone
-- have gone from basically $91 million in 2006 to $71 million or $72 million in 2011/2012, so
already a significant amount of operating costs has been reduced and the salary also. You see the
high of the salary at 2008/'9 [sic] of $313 million has been reduced all the way to 249 and that's
personnel costs. That is a significant reduction in personnel costs over the last couple of years
and that definitely would have not been possible without the decisions that the City made. Okay,
the graph on page 5, what I'm trying to show here is how the City has done revenue versus
expense as it related to the population. What I was trying to see is has there been an increase in
population this has caused demand to skyrocket? And the fact is that it really hasn't. The
population, which is the values on the right, has grown from about 375,000 in 2003 to a little
over 400,000 in the 2010 census. So there has been about 7, 8 percent growth in population, but
certainly not something that would say the services demand has been there. And if you go back
all the way to 2003, you see that only in three of those years did the City actually end in a
positive way, and that was in 2003 by a few hundred thousand; in 2006 by a couple of million;
and now in 2011 we're estimating a surplus. But all of the other years that have the little red dots
on them basically were years where the City spent more than it took in. Now this is an
interesting graph that we worked on to try to demonstrate how the price or the cost of
government, as it relates to how much we spend in general fund, relates to inflation and where
we have been so I used 2003 as a base year. We said if 2003 is the base year and we look at then
the general fund expenditures divided by the population, we were spending $1,045 per resident
in general fund, and that number rose in nominal dollars, unadjusted, all the way to 1,464 in
2007, and then it has been reduced all the way to $1,203 in 2012. And clearly, in the last couple
of years, you see a significant decline, again, because of the reductions that were made on the
expenditure side. Now, I also took the 2003 number and said what if that number had grown by
just the inflation factor? If the City had grown its expenditures just by inflation -- and that's the
broken up line in the middle, and you see that that number would have risen all the way to 1363.
Roughly inflation over the last nine years has averaged 3 percent. There was a year in 2008 to
2009 where we had negative inflation, but there were some years where inflation was 4 and 3, et
cetera. So the average has been like 2.7 to 3 percent so that our cost would have been at 1363.
And you can see where the actual dollars per resident in budget actually crossed that line going
down in between 2010 and 2011, again, because of the decisions that were made in the
reductions in expenditures. The blue line is basically a line where I say let's take those
expenditures and adjust them for that same inflation so that if we look at what we spent per
resident today in general fund compared to 2003 dollars, it really is like $885. You know, a
dollar today buys a lot less than a dollar nine years ago, and that's sort of what that graph is
trying to show. Okay, so let's talk about where we are for 2011/2012. This year we're looking at
revenues in the area of Building and Planning and Zoning, which are significantly above where
we budgeted. There's a high demand in that area and we're seeing the effects of those revenues,
and that's a good thing. Other revenue categories that we have in the City are pretty much
performing as expected so that right now we do anticipate our revenues at the end of the year are
probably going to be a little over budget. I did speak to Florida Department of Revenue. They
have informed us that the communication service taxes for the City will be reduced because
Verizon had to give back some money to -- that they had overpaid, but because we do budgeting
at 95 percent, we'll be able to cover that within that margin of error, so to speak, so I don't see
that impacting our year-end numbers, okay. The expenses for our departments are also tracking
2 April 19, 2012
pretty much as budgeted with some justifiable exceptions, and we've talked about overtime in the
police department and we've known that they have a significant number of vacancies so we're
trying to tackle that so that the overtime that they are spending is pretty much being offset by the
nonexpenditure of personnel. Now for -- when we agreed to do the budget for fiscal year '11/'12,
there were assumptions that we made as to savings that would be realized by various areas. We
are falling short in a couple of those areas and we are definitely working to try to correct that.
One of them we can impact. The other one we really don't have a lot of impact on and that is the
anticipated savings of $2.3 million from the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) members --
actually, the police department members going from 7 to 10 percent. That was anticipated to
save 2.3 million. The actual number is going to be closer to 1.3, 1.4 so that there is about
$900,000 there that will not be realized. The other item that we're working on trying to get a
handle on is the savings that was supposed to be realized for taking the police department to Fair
Labor Standards Act rules on overtime and that has been difficult to implement and that's about
$780,000 that we're trying to capture somehow. There are other areas that are bringing in more
than we thought. We had made an estimate for how much we were going to get from take-home
cars and that has actually proven to be more than we had anticipated, so that's actually a good
thing. We continue to say, as of our last projection, that we feel we will have a surplus in '12 --
in fiscal year '12 of about $5 million, perhaps a little more. All right, so let's talk about five --
fiscal year ' 12/' 13. We know that we're going to have a challenge because right off the bat, we
had $21.7 million that we accepted in contracts that do not carry forward automatically. They
have to be negotiated. And on slide eight there, I have kind of listed them out. We've all seen
these before. There's a few that I underlined because I feel it is important to look at these as
items that may have to be offset with other savings. I've been speaking to the operation and
we're talking to GSA (General Services Administration) to look at our police fleet, but it is quite
possible that we may not be able to go another full year without buying a police car. So we
saved $3.7 million last -- this current year by not putting money into that capital investment, but
I don't know that we can do that again for another year so some of this will have to be offset
somewhere else. The same applies to the physicals and uniforms for the police officers. I'm
pretty sure that if you talked to the police department, they'll tell you that they need the uniforms,
and they're stressed so they need to get their physicals. So we've had a full year where we're not
going to do those, except for what was left over from the prior year, and I don't know that we can
do that again. As I spoke earlier, FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) implementation has proven
to be a challenge and we'll see how we can solve that problem. The $2.3 million for sure will not
be able to be achieved on the 7 to 10 percent. The actual number is about 1.3, 1.4. And the other
thing that we did was we reduced our contribution to the FOP health plan by $2 million. Now it
will depend significantly on how their health plan claims are doing and that's something that
we're work -- we're going to be working with them shortly. We're having a meeting with the
FOP health plan staff to look at that, but that's another one that I don't know that we'll be able to
take that one-time savings again. So we have to figure out how to save that $21.7 million;
otherwise, we're going to not have a balanced budget. In broad strokes -- and when I say broad
strokes, I say these numbers are going to change. And I want to stress that these numbers are
going to change, so when I come back here in a month and I say the number is 40 million, but
you told me it was 38. It was 38 a month ago; something else has happened. These numbers
change every day. As a matter of fact, I think that as I'm making this presentation, something is
different already. I just get that sense. The pension contribution where we are right now is about
an increase of 11 point [sic] million. When I first talked to you a few weeks ago or maybe a
couple of months ago, we talked about a $17 million or 11 -- $16.7 million -- yes, $17 million
increase on pension, and that was basically where the GESE (General Employees and Sanitation
3 April 19, 2012
Employees) pension board had asked us for 11.7 million and FIPO (Firefighters and Police
Officers) was at around 5 million. We had been working with them and they have looked at
different options. Where we are right now with GESE is that for sure, instead of $37 million,
contribution will be somewhere around 33.4. Yesterday they took action and voted on another
option that can get us down to about 28 million, so that's another $5.4 million that can be
worked. That will require some work and we're having to -- we're going to work with Law
Department to see if that's going to be a possibility and we'll bring that to this Commission for
approval. The -- FIPO has also come down about a million four because they readjusted their
numbers based on the police officers going to 10 percent this current year. That had not been
taken care -- taken into account in their calculation, so we have reduced that number somewhat
but there's still a healthy number that remains there to be solved. We also have the issue in the
police department where 43 officers in the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act)
grant are now coming off of the grant, effective September 30, so those 43 officers will need to
be put onto the general fund. We do have a possibility for offsetting 25 of those through a COPS
(Community Oriented Policing Services) Hiring Grant. That's something that we're looking at.
There are operational increases that are going to happen. The cost of fuel is not coming down.
We thought that perhaps being an election year. we might get lucky, but fuel is hovering around
$4 a gallon; and even for those of us who buy it from direct and we don't have to pay the taxes
on it for our operations, it's still higher than what we had anticipated, so we may have to add
about a million five to next year's budget just for fuel alone, pretty much. So we assume that we
have no revenues increasing and all these expenditures that we're talking about are going to come
and impact on the City's budget. Then we have a starting gap of almost $38 million. In addition
to those things that you have just heard, as we met with the departments and we went over their
numbers, we're finding some other things that are of concern. Now I haven't said this is
definitely a number that I'm going to compute yet because we haven't finished going through the
analysis on these, but these are things that I definitely want to bring to your attention because
you're probably going to hear about these again at some point if we're not able to mitigate these,
and one of them is the increase in cost to health insurance. The estimate that has been given to
us by the actuaries, the people that look at our claims experience and look into the future and say,
you know, you're probably going to have this number in future claims cost, have said that our
costs are likely to rise by as much as $4.8 million in health claims insurance costs, and we our
self -insured so that is definitely a number that concerns us. Addition to that, other insurance
plans, such as worker compensation, unemployment, building, general liability, could possibly
need another almost $3 million of allocation. We -- you have seen some of the claims that we've
had. One-time, large claims come through. Just earlier this year we had like $ 2 million in
claims. There's some other claims out there that perhaps may need to be funded in the coming
year. So these are things that, again, we're looking at and seeing what are the possibilities of
mitigating some of this, but it's a possible increase. As I told you earlier, we have increased
demand in the Building and Planning and Zoning Department and there is need for additional
staffing in those areas. Now there's been a request made, whether it's going to be at a million or
half a million or three quarters of a million, I'm not sure there yet, but that's roughly where we're
-- what we're looking at. In the Parks Department there's a couple of large parks, Gibson and
Coral Gate, which are coming into completion, and the operation of those parks will have to be
funded. Additional, in the past the summer programs have largely been funded out of the special
revenue funds. The special revenue funds for the Parks Department are under a lot of pressure.
They have to fund capital and other needs so that -- the Parks Department has stated that they
need to see the possibility of funding those summer programs out of the general fund and that's
why you see that amount there but, again, we're trying to see if we can mitigate that somehow.
4 April 19, 2012
All right, if we do nothing -- we have an ugly, ugly, ugly chart. Basically, what -- if we do
nothing, which is not a possibility or is not an option, the City of Miami, you know, could be
looking five years down the road at $220 million fund balance deficit but, clearly, we're not
going to get there because before we get there, we're going to have a problem. So what I'm
trying to say with this is basically, even if I have modest growth in general fund revenue, which
is the middle graph, you know, 1.8 to 2.4 percent growth in general fund revenues, and we don't
get our expenditures under control, then we're going to have an ever-growing fund balance issue.
So we need to make significant changes that are long-lasting in order to impact this graph and
that is the conversation that we'll be having going forward. Okay, where do you impact revenues
and expenditures. As I mentioned earlier, your biggest revenue source is property taxes. As a
policy, we don't want to raise the rates. I urge that as a policy, we don't necessarily go to
rollback going forward. Rollback, or what I call continuous rollback, is not really sustainable;
and in a sense, this is what I've tried to demonstrate with this graph or this table here. It's a little
busy and I'm going to try to walk through it. There's a lot of variables that go into the property
tax revenue collection. What is the growth on CRAs (Community Redevelopment Agencies)?
What is the growth on new building development? All those things -- what is the impact of the
Value Adjustment Board? All those things impact what the rollback rate is and how much
revenue you're going to generate. I try to keep it without moving much of those variables so that
basically what I'm saying is if you look at the top line, our current year gross taxable value -- and
in 2011/'12, the gross taxable value for properties in the City of Miami was $30.3 billion. And
when we applied our millage rate of 7.51 mills -- 5.71 mills, we generated $207 million in
revenue to the general fund budget. If we go forward with a flat millage, which is the center
row, and the roll was to grow at just one and a half percent per year, then you would see our
revenues inch up slightly from our current 207 to $220 million in 2017. but if you do rollback
each and every year, it is sort of a self-defeating prophecy. If you look at ' 11/' 12, which is the
second column, and you use scroll -- you go all the way down to the bottom graph, which is
millage rates and continuous rollback, you see where that rollback of 7.571 got us to the $207
million. Now if I go forward to the next year and I go to rollback, then my revenue goes from
207 million down to $203 million. In effect, I'm giving up a little over $4 million in revenue by
doing the rollback and that's assuming a roll that doesn't change. In other words, I'm assuming
that when the property appraiser comes in in June 1 or July 1, he's going to tell me the value of
your roll is $30.352 billion, zero loss on value on the roll. Last year we had a 3.5 loss. The year
before that was 15.3. So if we assume that that has somewhat stabilized or that there is some
new construction coming in or that the VAB (Value Adjustment Board) Adjustment Board is not
as severe as it has been in the last couple of years, then we can get that $207 million into the
general fund, again, if we hold the millage flat. But if we don't hold the millage flat and we do
the rollback, then the revenue would drop down to $202.8 million. Now the crazy thing about
the rollback is that if you continuously to do it, you're always rolling back to the previous year
revenue minus the impact of the Value Adjustment Board. The way this statute is written, you're
not really comparing apples to apples because they ask you to compute the revenue that you're
going to get not from the July number of the previous year but from the Value Adjustment Board
adjusted number, so you're always going down in a sense. I don't know about you, but I don't
know that five years from now if we did continuous rollback, we could be looking at $200
million with five years more of operating expenditures growth and support that. So that's my
plea for flat millage. Okay, the next sheet, I wanted to give the Commissioners and the
Administration a sense of what it means to change the millage by one -tenth of a mill and that
goes both ways; if you rollback every tenth of a mill or if you go forward every tenth of a mill
and how that tenth of a mill impacts the various tax of properties in the City. So what I've done
5 April 19, 2012
is the first column where the 8.501 is, that is our current total millage both operating and debt
service, all right. I looked at the property appraiser and I found that we have in 2011/'12, 39,340
homestead properties in the City of Miami. Those are residents that are registered as homestead
property owners. And the average taxable value of those properties is $114,000 so that the
estimated tax bill for the City of Miami for those residents is roughly $969. If you were to
change that plus or minus one -tenth of a mill, basically the impact is $11.40 to the homestead
property owners for the entire year, okay. If you were looking at the second highlighted portion,
the average residential property -- now when I say the average residential property, these are the
non -homestead properties. The average residential property in the City of Miami -- and there's
90,624 of them -- have a taxable value of about $160,697 and they pay the City $1,366 in taxes,
and the tenth of a mill for them would roughly be $16. If you look at the average industrial
property in the City of Miami, of which there are 1,300 and their average taxable value is
$571,000, their one -tenth of a mill would be about $57. And the average commercial property
being 7,000 of them, at a million dollars roughly, that impact would be about $103 for the year.
So every tenth of a mill to the City is about $3 million, but what we actually collect and can
budget is about 2.7 because we give about 5 percent of it to the CRA because the CRA composes
about 5 percent of the City's overall value and we have to do 95 percent budgeting so we give up
another 5 percent because people will pay early to get 4 percent discounts. The Value
Adjustment Board's going to come back and knock down some of the value. So what we can
budget on every $3 million is roughly 2.7, okay. So that's what I wanted to show with this
picture. Another area that has been talked about before in terms of possible generation of
revenue is what the solid waste fees. Now, I'm not advocating that we necessarily do this at this
point, but it's something that we can certainly look at because if you look at where we are in
relationship to other cities, we're certainly very affordable. Our City provides a very good plan
for garbage collection. We currently charge $380 a year to our residents. We make 208 trips to
the residents' home every year. So if you take the $380 and divide it by the 208 trips that we
make to that person's home, we're charging them $1.83 for every trip to pick up their garbage, to
pick up their yard waste or refrigerators, whatever it is that they need to throw away. By
comparison -- and this may not be a fair comparison -- but a neighbor city of ours, Coral Gables,
which has the same weekly trash or garbage pickup, and they do have one difference from us is
that they have a limitation on the cubic yards that you can put out there on the bulk pickup. They
charge a modest $685 a year for their service. That's a cost of about $3.29 per every trip.
Village of Miami Shores, they provide biweekly pickup on the bulk and they're at $705 for the
year, at $3.88 per trip. So I say to you that this is, you know, something where if you were to go
$12 up on this fee, you're talking about not being able to buy a cup of coffee at McDonalds -- a
small cup of coffee, which cost you $1.07, once per month and it would bring in $830,000 of
revenue to the City of Miami. Okay, other revenue initiatives that we're looking at. If you look
at parking surcharge, parking surcharge in the City of Miami is at 15 percent and generates $14.5
million so that roughly every percent of parking surcharge is close to a million dollars in
revenue. We have the Marlins' parking garage retail space, which we're talking about renting
here shortly. That is a possibility of as much as $825,000. We are not ready to budget that
necessarily because we have to look at those leases and when they're going to be activated and
when those people are going to move in, et cetera, so -- but that is a possibility out there.
Emergency medical service transport fees, Miami -Dade County recently increased their fees.
The City of Miami has a lower fee. By and large transport fees for emergency transport are paid
by a person's insurance company, Medicaid, Medicare, et cetera. There's very few people that
are self -pay that actually have to pay their own. I don't know if the fire department's here, but
I'm sure they'll tell you it's a very small percentage, in the single digits, I'm sure, that self -pay,
6 April 19, 2012
but that would possibly generate another $700,000 in revenue to the City if we just matched the
County's rate. We would have to do some tweaking of the contractual language with the fire
department to achieve that revenue. Parks and Recreations [sic] has looked at some possible
adjusting of fees, whether we do facility rentals or what we charge for summer camps, which
right now is very, very reasonable. Tolls on Virginia Key. Of course there will always be
scholarships available for those who have difficulty increasing revenues, but with very modest
increases in fees, you could, you know, generate $190,000. Now we have other revenues that we
have looked at, but we haven't yet developed an actual firm number that we can say, yes, we're
going to put that in the budget, and that's billboards and mural revenue. There's a marina RFP
(Request for Proposals) possibly out there that we're looking at. Commissioner Gort had a
wonderful idea about rooftop horizontal advertising. I'm actually looking forward to that one
because when I fly out on vacation, I want to see some of that. That's pretty creative, I thought.
That was pretty good. That's a good one. Okay, we're also working with Solid Waste, Finance,
and the Building Department, looking at ways to improve revenues on the liens that we have out
there and the special assessments, and we're looking at how we can maybe structure the
organization so that we get better at going after those types of revenues, but we're not ready to
put a number on that and say yeah, we can collect "X" number of dollars and put that into the
budget. But anyways, those are options that we're looking at. On the expenditure side, as I said
earlier, we're still negotiating with our pension folks. There's possibilities for, you know, up to, I
think, another $5 million in reduction there from what we have already taken, even beyond the
other 5.4, which is doable. So our pension growth in terms of the requests that has been made
can be, I think, largely be undone if we're able to reach an agreement with our pension boards.
Solid Waste Department, you know, if -- we talked about the great service that we provide and
how inexpensive it is at $1.83 per trip. You know, if we reduce that service ever so slightly --
right now we pick up that trash, that yard trash or et cetera, every week from the residents in the
City. If we go to every other week, we could reduce expenditures by about a million one, okay.
You know, is it a slight service reduction? Yes, it is. But when you're trying to make all these
things happen, I mean, something's going to have to give, I think, somewhere. In the police
department, we're reviewing possibilities -- and Commissioner Gort's office has assisted actually
in this area -- at looking at possibilities of using the UASI (Urban Areas Security Initiative)
grants to cover the cost of our helicopter, our boats, security for critical infrastructure, and that's
looking like maybe $667,000. And as I mentioned earlier, we're looking at the COPS Hiring
Grant to perhaps fund 25 officers of the 43 that are coming onto the general fund, and that could
be about a million two in reduction in costs. Public Works has identified about $490,000 in
utility savings. The Information Technology Department looked at licensing costs and they
threw a number out there that we're still trying to confirm. Actually, that's what they said, but
we're working with them. It could be as much as 837,000. Again, in the Parks Department,
they're being somewhat creative, and they're talking about shifting their full-time staff around
and maybe reducing about $198,000 by doing that from their temporary personnel costs.
Another item that we looked at is right now our seasonal pools are open through late August.
Actually, we are open even though the schools open. So the schools are open, kids are back in
school, and we're open in our pools for two more weeks after the schools are already open. The
visitors at the pools -- at the seasonal pools for that area have really declined significantly and we
are proposing -- not proposing but we're looking at -- necessarily at this point that if you close
those pools to coincide with the start of school that you could save as much as $60,000 in
operating costs. The police department and some of these things are not popular, per se, but I'm
putting them out there as things that we may be looking at. Not necessarily going to be
proposed, but we have looked at the -- if you eliminated the mounted unit in the police
7 April 19, 2012
department or did away with the helicopter operations, you could conceivably save a couple of
hundred thousand dollars and have nine -- I'm sorry, eleven officers that would shift to other
duties and perhaps help with overtime, et cetera. We're looking at what vacant positions we have
across the organization. We haven't put a number on that yet because we're trying to analyze
those vacant positions and determine which ones are going to be operationally must and which
ones we'll be able to shift work to other people and perhaps put a little more load on the folks
that we have and eliminate some vacant positions. We'll determine that. And departments have
submitted a number of operations cost reductions that we're looking at. Again, I haven't put a
number on that yet because some of those may or may not be doable. But as we continue this
conversation of where we are and where we want to be, those numbers will be being fleshed out.
And like I said, we're going to meet with the Manager and all the departments starting next
Friday and it's going to go for about a week and half where the departments will talk to the
Manager and expose their ideas of what they want to do, plus or minus; we'll make decisions;
proposals will come to you for your review, and you'll get the last word in September for sure.
All right, the next set of graphs, basically what I've done is I've taken the different segments of
government and shown them individually as a component of the overall budget to show what has
happened in these segments over the last few years, and then I've kind of included some
footnotes as to what are some of the things that we're looking at for ' 12/' 13 in these areas. So if
we look at our general government segment, you see general government's pretty much
composed of the Mayor's office, Commissioner, City Clerk, Law, City Manager, NET
(Neighborhood Enhancement Team), Code, Finance, Human Resources, Budget, IT (Information
Technology), et cetera, those groups of departments that are basically the general government
operations. And back in 2008/'9 [sic], they were $46 million of the budget; now they're 39, so
that's a pretty significant reduction. If you look at -- the bulk of the reduction is in personnel
costs, from 37 million down to 31, okay. This area involves things such as CIP (Capital
Improvements Program), which is largely funded by the projects, so there's a lot of
reimbursement that goes into these numbers, and Code, which has some reimbursements from
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant). Moving right along, in the Building and
Planning and Zoning section, again, you have seen a significant decline, more than 20 percent
from'08/'09 where they were $10.8 million all the way to $8.2 million, and you'll see that come
out mostly out of salary. Basically, this is an area where in the mid -year for -- that is coming up
April 26, which I urge all of you to please take time and read it, and if you have any questions,
I'm available Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Any time you tell me, I'll be there to talk to you
about it because it's important. Everything you guys do is important, I'm sure, but this has
particular importance to us. There's a request in there for a few positions for Building because
they are really struggling with their demand. In the area of Public Works, which is the GSA,
Public Works, and Solid Waste, again you see historical reduction. Most of the budget is, you
know, personnel. The reduction's from 28 to 24 million. The operating expenses have remained
fairly flat. You know, those are your fixed costs for maintenance and repair, tipping fees on the
solid waste, utilities on the Public Works Department. I mean, those things are pretty fixed from
26 million to 26 million over that period of time. The cost reductions have largely been in
personnel costs. In the public safety sector, here's a portion of our budget that is 50 percent of
the City's budget, okay. In 2008/'9 [sic], there was $249 million of the City's budget. In
2012/'13, the base number's down to 195 and it's up from 185. Somebody's going to ask why.
Well, remember, we have some things that expire at the end of this year so in the -- what I have
put into that base budget is assuming we don't have those yet so that adds to our costs. And
when we reach some agreement, we'll be able to take some of those numbers out of there. But it
is important to note that if you look at personnel costs for public safety, it's $231 million in
8 April 19, 2012
'08/'09, and that was reduced all the way to 170 million in '11/'12 and that is 60 -- close to $60
million of reduction in personnel costs. That is significant. Public Facilities is a much smaller
segment of our budget; nonetheless, they too have seen reductions. It is possible that in the
Public Facilities Department, we may have to uptake a little bit of the utility costs, but in the
overall scheme of things, I don't think it's going to make that big a deal. Where's Public
Facilities? There you are. I don't mean to minimize your impact. Okay. Parks and Recreation,
and this is a service that's near and dear to the heart of everybody. This is something that
impacts the community at all levels. Parks are a place where people go and enjoy themselves,
take advantage of the some services that the City has, and it too has suffered significantly over
the years. You're talking about a budget that was $28 million a few years ago and they're down
to 22. That's 6 million of 28. That's a significant reduction. And if you look at personnel, $6
million reduction in personnel costs. So, again, everybody has in the City of Miami gone down
pretty much over time. Pensions is an area that is challenging. Pension cost is driven largely by
market performance of our unfunded liability that we have with the pension groups. And
basically, if the investments don't do well -- and they really haven't been doing that well the last
few years -- it impacts our ability to keep those costs down, so this just is what it is. I don't know
what else to say. We're working again with the pension boards to look at ways to change the
way the calculations are done, ways to amortize our debts over a longer period of time and other
possible options to reduce the yearly impact, but that is also something that we're looking at.
And the other area, the last one that I'm going to talk about, and then I'm going to just let you
guys ask the questions you would like to ask, if any, is Risk Management. The Risk
Management segment has our health insurance. They're the ones that pay for the slips and falls
and the accidents of our vehicles; and in some cases when an employee acts wrongfully, we have
to answer compensation through legal means. And this is an area that has been down and up and
now we're possibly going up, but it's been fairly flat. If you look at the personnel costs, it looks
like they have $34 million. They don't actually have that many people. I know that Calvin's
looking at me over there saying, how do I have $34 million of personnel costs. There're actually
only about 13 or 14 people over there. I'm not sure. How many?
Unidentified Speaker: Twenty.
Mr. Alfonso: I'm sorry?
Unidentified Speaker: Twenty.
Mr. Alfonso: Twenty. I'm sorry, 20. And the operating budget is less than $2 million. The rest
of the 30 million -- $32 million that you see there is largely our health costs, right? Health care?
Yes, health care costs. Okay. And that's pretty much the presentation that I have for now to tell
you where we are, what are the things that we're looking at. I'll open the floor, if you have any
questions or any suggestions you would like to make for us to look at, anything that you want us
to get back to you on. We have made available to you on the Share drive where you guys look at
the agenda, there's a folder that we put in there that has for every department in the City their
proposals for budget, their detailed requests of what's in every number that they have put into the
budget, what they propose to cut, what -- these are the things that the Manager and I will be
looking at, so you can see those as well. We have also put in there two tables of organization for
each and every department, and one of them we call the "staffing table of organization," which is
basically listing all the positions in the department and their structural of reporting, and there's
another table of organization that's called a "functional table of organization," and it basically
9 April 19, 2012
takes the staffing one and puts in what are the functions of that group. Now, for some
departments, like police, we couldn't put the function of every officers [sic], but clearly, a police
officer in a certain division does fairly similar things, so what we try to do is to concise what that
division does by function so that -- we put those table of organizations out there for your review
as well and those are functional and staffing TOs (Table of Organization) are available. So is
there any questions, I'm game.
Mr. Martinez: I have -- oh. Danny, on the bottom on page 9 you have $38 million as the gap.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Mr. Martinez: And then on page 10, would the range be what's on page 9 plus what's on page
10? Would that be the range of the gap?
Chair Suarez: Yeah, he talked about --
Mr. Alfonso: Well, in a sense, yes, Mr. Manager. But the things on page 10, I haven't added
them to that gap because we're not sure that that's exactly what it's going to be.
Mr. Martinez: But --
Mr. Alfonso: We're still working on that.
Mr. Martinez: -- could we say the range is between what's on page 9 plus what's on --
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Mr. Martinez: -- page 10 --
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Mr. Martinez: -- as a range?
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Mr. Martinez: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: That is correct.
Chair Suarez: Go ahead.
Commissioner Gort: I think the -- we're talking about the projections and we don't really have
the numbers yet of the ad valorem taxes that going to be coming in. At the same time, I know
we're working and all our office are working with the different departments and coming up with
ideas to bring reoccurring revenues, which is the most important thing we're looking for,
bringing reoccurring revenues. So I just want to assure everyone that's here that we are working
towards that because to me, the most important thing is to bring reoccurring revenues, and there's
a couple of things that we're looking into, especially my office. We've been looking at a couple
10 April 19, 2012
of things and we're going to be coming up with suggestion. And as I stated before, I think we all
have to work as a team and you all, if you can come up with suggestions -- at one time I
suggested two years ago, why don't we put a suggestion box inside the different departments and
let people come up with suggestions. I think our employees are the one that can come up with
the best ideas. And I'm willing to sit down with the unions. I've talking to them and I've worked
with them and see what we can come up with. I mean, this is a team effort; can't do it by ourself.
We all have to work as a team and that's very important. We have to support each other. One of
the things I requested is the Manager -- and I think he's doing that -- should have meetings
weekly or monthly meeting with all the directors. And what you're doing, I really appreciate, I
personally. This information I think is very important. We started working on this a lot earlier
than before and I really appreciate it. This is very good information. Thank you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Good morning. First of all, I want to commend Danny and I'm
assuming your whole -- the financial team itself for working really hard on pulling this
presentation together. It appears to be very well thought out. I know there are some areas that
are still kind of gray, but at least you made it clear enough for everyone to understand. From day
one coming back, my main objective is -- I'm sure you could probably repeat it before I say it --
what, Danny?
Mr. Alfonso: Protect the employees, ma'am.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So whatever we need to do to make sure that, you know --
and I'm sure my fellow colleagues agree with the same thing because we understand that we're
nothing without the people sitting in this audience, so it seems as though we're at least moving in
that direction to try to make sure that we don't have that as an issue. I just have a quick question
about some of the things that were presented. And like my fellow colleague, Commissioner
Gort, just said on the side, which is one of the other things that I also pushed very hard in all of
our meetings, is to really look at potential revenue sources. And, Mr. Manager, this is one of the
reasons why every time I go into a meeting and we talk about a new project or a new initiative or
we talk about facilities that we own, I'm always asking what are we going to, what, get out of it.
And even though, Mr. Mayor, there are so many great ideas and, you know, concepts out here,
we have to continue to find ways that we can generate revenue and I see some of the things, but I
want to just drill down on some of it more. And I know I see our CFO (Chief Financial Officer).
I want to also say the same thing about her as well. I know that she's been pushing hard to look
at other possible revenue sources. So let me deal with the first thing, which is something that I
would like for the Administration to provide me an update with. Because I know about two and
a half -- about at least three or four years ago the revenues from the casinos, Magic City, those
dollars were to be set aside for parks, seniors -based programs, and a few other things, but I'm
only speaking in reference to parks since that was one of the issues that you brought up,
especially with the new parks being opened, Gibson and Coral -- I think it's Coral Way or Coral -
-?
Chair Suarez: Coral Gate.
11 April 19, 2012
Mr. Alfonso: Coral Gate.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Coral Gate. Coral Way or Coral Gate?
Chair Suarez: Coral Gate.
Mr. Alfonso: Coral Gate.
Chair Suarez: Coral Gate.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, Coral Gate. And how this is going to perhaps be potentially
a, you know, problem or even the summer programs for our children. Do we have that number
as of yet, Danny, of what that revenue stream is from --?
Mr. Alfonso: The casino revenue in 2011 was just under a million dollars --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: -- if I remember correctly, nine hundred and something thousand dollars.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: That money went into the general fund.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So do --
Mr. Alfonso: The --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm sorry.
Mr. Alfonso: I'm sorry. That money went into the general. We went and we checked the
available legislation, and I don't -- we didn't find anything that restricted the use of those funds to
parks operations.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right.
Mr. Alfonso: But --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: What I -- I'm sorry. I just want to make sure and I think this
should just be -- should be also just general knowledge with my colleagues and the
Administration. A lot of times things are put in the legislation but the information that's
discussed on the dais doesn't make it from the dais to the legislation. So did you guys check the
legis -- did you check the information, meaning the dialogue that took place?
Mr. Alfonso: Right. I have not read the minutes for those meetings.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. I would recommend that you do that because I think it's
important for us -- for you to see that `cause that was a big discussion on us supporting it. I
12 April 19, 2012
believe, if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't even seniors. It was really parks and police that those
dollars -- was it not police? Chime in. Which part was it for?
Commissioner Gort: My understanding is the contributions was social service agencies.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no. I'm talking -- I'm not talking about for the murals. I'm
talking about for the casinos.
Commissioner Gort: I'm talking about the casino, yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay, but --
Commissioner Gort: That was my understanding. They had a list of social service agency that
provide health assistance.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. I -- sitting on the dais, I know that the district
Commissioner that was here prior to that, there was a big -- you was sitting here too.
Chair Suarez: He's a district Commissioner.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: You want to -- yeah.
Mayor Tomas Regalado: It was social services.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. All right.
Mayor Regalado: It wasn't parks. It was --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So it was no --
Mayor Regalado: -- social --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- parks program?
Mayor Regalado: -- services and it was part of the conversation.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right.
Mayor Regalado: But it was never part of the legislation.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Realized. All right, is there any way that we can check, Madam
City Clerk, because I know the district Commissioner that was -- not district Commissioner. I
know Commissioner Angel Gonzalez was fighting for at the time, if I'm not mistaken, not just
social services, but I know that it was something in reference to police as a part of it because I
remember it distinctively `cause the conversation was around the increase of crime because of
the gambling situation that's going to take place in that area. We had a very lengthy discussion
around, well, if that's the case, then we use some of those dollars towards police, so I know I'm
not insane because that was a part of the discussion because we were having issues as to whether
13 April 19, 2012
or not gambling would increase crime, so we said that we'd take some of that revenue to at least
help offset some of the police. But, again, that's neither here nor --
Mayor Regalado: Yeah, yeah, we did have the discussion.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know we did.
Mayor Regalado: It was you, me, Angel, and --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right.
Mayor Regalado: -- Commissioner Sarnoff.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I know --
Mayor Regalado: So we did have it.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- that was one of the reasons why we voted yes. All I'm simply
asking is that can we please look at that and then see what revenue -- but regardless, what you're
saying to me is it goes back into the general fund so it's going across the board for everything
else. I just want to make sure, even beyond my tenure, that whatever we vote on or we discuss
on the Commission as a body, that it is carried all the way through to the legislation and
sometimes that gets forgotten, and I don't think it's done intentionally. I just think that there's --
we talk a lot up here, so sometimes that doesn't translate to the legislation. So I just want to
make sure that that is actually happening. Since, Mr. Mayor, you are standing up there, I just
want to -- I want to see if you recall then and maybe City -- Madam City Attorney recalls on the
casino language itself, from those dollars -- I believe it was Magic City -- what is it, Magic City
and --
Mayor Regalado: And Jai -Alai, Miami Jai -Alai.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Jai -Alai. Were -- I couldn't remember. Were we getting a
percentage of that? Was that over a certain period of time?
Mayor Regalado: One and a half percent.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: One and a half --
Chair Suarez: Gross.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Huh?
Chair Suarez: Of gross.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Of gross. Was that over a certain period of time? Do you know
how many -- did we have it over --?
Chair Suarez: I think it's on an annual basis.
14 April 19, 2012
Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's on an annual basis.
Chair Suarez: I think so.
Mayor Regalado: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. And then -- `cause I know --
Mayor Regalado: Plus the licenses and the machine or something like --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Chair Suarez: True.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- and that had to be what, like four years ago, maybe, three?
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): We can get a copy of the development agreements and just review
them and answer all your questions in writing.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Thank you. The only reason I'm asking -- and I'm bringing
that up to say -- only mention the casino thing `cause I know we use it as a potential revenue
source when we were sitting on the dais. I'm just wondering, just as we have those type of
arrangements, are we looking from an Administration standpoint other things that we can do to
kind of increase on those ends so that we can increase revenue coming in? Like I see what we're
doing, for instance, on -- as you presented, Danny, on Solid Waste, if we go from $1.83 maybe a
little -- bumping it a little higher so that we can create additional revenue. We're seeing how we
can take it from the residents, which I don't have a problem with that, but I'm just wondering if
we're doing the same thing for those that we have these type of business arrangements because
one percent, is that like the -- I would like to know if that's the standard, you know, across, you
know, the County? Like the City of Miami Gardens, are they getting 1 percent? I mean, have
we done a comparison to see --? I just think that whatever we need to do, we need to look at
additional things that we can open up to create a little bit more money coming in in our coffers.
It's not a big discussion, but it's something that I think since this is the only opportunity for me to
really talk about it amongst my colleagues with the City staffers, I just would like to see the
analysis of that -- of something like that compared to what other municipalities are doing that
have gambling. And I don't want it to even be a big -- only thought of the casino thing `cause
that was the first thing that came up in my mind when we start talking about the issue of
additional revenue. Yes, sir.
Mayor Regalado: But if you remember, at the time when we did the deal and the County --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Mayor Regalado: -- mirror the one that the City did --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
15 April 19, 2012
Mayor Regalado: -- the casino was paying 50 percent to the state of Florida.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: Since then, it had been reduced to 35 percent by state Legislature. And I -- at
the time, the people from the casino were very gracious because actually, they didn't have to do
much with the City and even the County because it was City's jurisdiction. We could have ended
with only the license fee of the machines and --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: -- yet, we did a deal. I don't know; the City Attorney will have to look at that.
And I remember that part of the deal was that we approve a future development, the hotel, a
restaurant within the compound, which will be an asset in term of property taxes. But you're
right, the conversation was about police, but mainly the focus was about social services. At the
time we were struggling with cuts from CDBG and you remember and it was. But I --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: And it's fine. I'm getting old so I don't remember everything, but
I do remember us talking about the crime and that being an issue.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. We did, we did.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: And just so that I understand, the 50 -- you said -- just on the state
side, you're saying originally there was 50 percent and then now 35?
Mayor Regalado: Thirty-five.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So that means they went down?
Mayor Regalado: They went down, the state. They went to the state and the state agreed to
reduce --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Reduce.
Mayor Regalado: -- the --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So then it may be some room in there then, so if -- they
saved almost 20 -- what, 20 percent?
Mayor Regalado: They -- well --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: They reduced by 20 percent.
Mayor Regalado: Remember, the claim was they will not be able to invest anything with that
high tax to the state.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, okay. But you -- but Mr. Mayor, that is one area that we can
maybe perhaps look at in comparison to other, you know, casinos, like I know Calder. I'm
16 April 19, 2012
almost sure Miami Gardens, their percentage, if I'm not mistaken, is a little higher than 1 percent.
And I don't know if -- I was in a meeting with one of the City employees --
Chair Suarez: I believe -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. I believe that the percentage that we get is
one and a half percent.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: Yeah, one and a half.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: Yeah, one and a half.
Mayor Regalado: One and a half.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. I think that's what he said.
Mayor Regalado: And one and a half the County.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: The reason why I mentioned that, I just want us to see if there's an
additional option because I know on one of my briefings, Mr. Mayor, I believe they were picking
up the check, one of the -- I don't know which City employee was talking about it, but was in --
was it you, Danny? No. It was someone. And they said -- the casino folks them said, well, this
is a pretty low amount, like they were glad to give us that amount. And they didn't say it in a
negative way. They just said -- so that must mean they must be making some money, so I'm just
saying -- my point is if we're trying to save City services and we're trying to make sure that
employees are saved and we can run the City effectively and efficiently, let's look at that as an
additional option in comparison to what else is happening around here. So that was it on that --
on the increase. I just have a couple of more things that I do want to add, and again, a lot of my
focus with the Administration has been about increasing revenue. The second part of this, and I
guess this is a Alice question. Is Alice here? Alice not here?
Mr. Martinez: She's here.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. I just have -- well, while they're going to get Alice. So,
Madam City Attorney, I know that when you briefed me when I got back, we went -- you know,
because we know the budget was going to be a big issue. You basically said well,
Commissioner, there's really only three ways the City makes money, correct? You said property
taxes, facilities and venues, meaning the agreements, and then the third thing was fees.
Ms. Bru: Service fees, license fees, all the --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can't hear you.
Ms. Bru: -- state revenue that we share.
17 April 19, 2012
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Your button. I can't hear you.
Ms. Bru: You know, I think Danny can answer that --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Ms. Bru: -- better than I can.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: Primarily, yes, taxes and other -- property taxes and other taxes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: Then you have permit fees, intergovernmental revenues which are basically the
revenue sharing numbers that we get from the state. We get half -penny revenue share. We get
municipal revenue share, which is a significant portion, and then licensing and permits. I mean,
those are your biggest -- you know, that makes 80 percent of your revenues.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. All right, so that -- hey, Alice. You got a minute? Okay. I
know that you and I have been talking back and forth on trying to figure out on the mural side of
it and on the billboard side of it, the -- you know, I know we get permit fees from that now,
correct? But we're now going to be looking at possible revenue sharing opportunities with the
murals and the billboards. Were we able to at least get some sort of analysis at all on what the
possible increase, you know, could do to assist us with the deficit that we have? Like is -- based
upon what you know that's already out there -- I think I've asked you to look at other cities. I
don't know if it's the city of Chicago or one of them. I think they get -- instead of them taking
just the permit fees, they get 20 -- 15, 20 -- I don't know what city it is -- percentage of the
revenue -- of the advertising from those advertising opportunities. Is there -- do we have a
current analysis on that at all?
Alice Bravo (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): Well, what we've looked at, we've
tried to identify another city that perhaps got a percentage of the revenue. What we do get a
percentage of the revenue are on signs that are on City -owned property. And as we enter into
future amendments with advertising companies, that's the opportunity that we have to add to that.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So --
Ms. Bravo: So that's what we're looking at.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- will any of those opportunities happen in this current fiscal
budget?
Ms. Bravo: We hope so.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So you're shaking no and you're saying we hope so.
18 April 19, 2012
Mr. Alfonso: Well -- no. What I'm shaking my -- I presume that your question is are any of
those revenues reflected in these numbers yet?
Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. I didn't see them here. That's why --
Mr. Alfonso: No. No, they're not there.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, right.
Mr. Alfonso: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So that's what I'm saying. I'm assuming the whole purpose --
Mr. Alfonso: That would be additional revenue.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- of a budget workshop is for --
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- me to give you my input, right?
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Ms. Bravo: Yes, yes.
Mr. Alfonso: That's exactly right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's what a budget workshop is for.
Ms. Bravo: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I just want to make sure it's a public process so I'm -- I -- even
though I've said it to you on a one-on-one, I want to make sure Danny understands it, whatever
Administration is listening to it understands it so that when we get back together again, we can
say at this point we're making -- I'm just using this as an example -- we make two million off of
it, but if we increase it, the revenue sharing part of it, we can perhaps go up to $4 million on it.
So I just want to know, you know, what the options are because, again, we're trying to close the
gap. I'm assuming that's why we're talking, right?
Ms. Bravo: Correct.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So is there any way that we can also at least -- I know you got a
lot going on -- but at least look at --
Ms. Bravo: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- making sure we have a real number that we could work with?
19 April 19, 2012
Ms. Bravo: Absolutely.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Thank you. And then the last thing that I want to talk
about with my fellow colleagues --
Commissioner Carollo: Commissioner Spence -Jones, real quick. Just --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and I probably won't be saying much in this meeting, but you
mentioned something and I just want to, you know, jump in real quick --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure, no problem.
Commissioner Carollo: -- before you go to another item. Who negotiated from the
Administration the deals or the potential deals with these LED (Light Emitting Diode) billboards
for the Miami Children's Museum and Gusman and so forth?
Mr. Martinez: We haven't negotiated any money back to the City.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: But you are, right?
Mr. Martinez: We are.
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Mr. Martinez: We are.
Commissioner Carollo: But who's negotiating that? And who negotiated it in the first place?
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Alice? Alice, right?
Commissioner Gort: No, no. Public --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, really.
Commissioner Carollo: The reason why, Commissioners, there's a large, a large profit sharing.
However, it's not with the City of Miami; it's with those entities. So I want to see who from the
Administration did all these negotiations and came up with these deals.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: If I could just chime --
Commissioner Carollo: Because --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I think it's --
Commissioner Carollo: And what I'm saying there definitely is a big opportunity in what you're
saying.
20 April 19, 2012
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I assume -- Alice, I assume that -- I know that when the
item -- what I was told by the Manager when we presented the item the last time, we passed it on
the first reading, but it was understood that when it came back, even though it didn't make it in
the Herald, but when we -- when it came back, that we would at least have a revenue portion of it
that would come back to the City because that's the only way we should be supporting it,
especially if we're seeing that we have perhaps a 40 million, $50 million, you know, shortfall.
I'm just using that only -- so we're -- I think the mindset of all of us sitting up here is that any
deal that's coming in front of the City of Miami at this point -- it doesn't matter what it is. It
doesn't matter who it is -- there needs to be some revenue coming back to -- from us and I -- you
made that commitment on that record, right?
Mr. Martinez: Yes. The -- at the Commission meeting we were just trying -- that was the first
reading of the ordinance.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Mr. Martinez: Between the first reading and the second reading, we're tasked with having to
negotiate money back to the City --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Mr. Martinez: -- based on the revenues.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's the only -- okay. That's not --
Mr. Martinez: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. So, Commissioner Carollo, did he answer sufficiently?
Commissioner Gort: No.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: No? Go ahead. Oh, the question was who was negotiating it?
That's what he wants to know. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Carollo: Listen --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I got you.
Commissioner Carollo: -- this is my point. This is my point. We're talking significant dollars.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, I know.
Commissioner Carollo: At least half a million dollars, okay, in profit sharing as a minimum.
Those monies are not coming to the City's general fund. They're going to other entities, which I
saw the financial statements, and they didn't seem to be doing all that bad, definitely not as bad
as the City of Miami. At least they could produce financial statements where the City of Miami
cannot produce financial statements. And as of a few weeks ago, it was let know that we didn't
21 April 19, 2012
even know when we were going to be able to produce financial statements. So all I'm saying is,
look, Commissioner Gort mentioned recurring revenues. These are recurring revenues. These
are revenues that's going to be coming every year and it's not coming to our general fund. As a
matter of fact, I'll be honest with you, I'm a little surprised that the unions haven't been up here
saying hey, wait a second, how are you going to allow LEDs and have all these revenues come in
but not go into the general fund. `Cause this isn't about $42,000.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, I know.
Commissioner Carollo: This is way more than $42,000, and it's not a one-time deal; this is
recurring, so I'm just wondering who's negotiating from the City's point of view. Who from the
Administration is carrying these negotiations? It's because -- I mean, we're talking a lot of
money that potentially come to the general fund. Thank you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: And Mr. -- and Commissioner Carollo -- I'm sorry. You want to -
- I was just finishing up my point, but go ahead.
Commissioner Gort: Question: Whoever's negotiating, that contract's got to come to us and it's
got to be approved by us and we can change it up here, right?
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to be clear because that was one of the --
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) send a message.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, right. So I think that what we're all trying to say up here in
our own way is that everything that comes up here, we need to figure out how do we get
potential revenue sources from it so that we can meet our needs. So I just wanted to make sure I
at least put those things on the record to make sure that, you know, that's included in Danny's
calculations. I want to move real fast to flat millage and you talked about the $11 increase.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Correct? Can -- I just want to be clear on it because I understand
that, you know, when we start talking about millage, everyone -- the lights start twinkling.
Mr. Alfonso: You got it. They turn out the lights on you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Turn the lights out on you.
Commissioner Carollo: That's a sign.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know. Right? Could be a good sign, though, right? I want to
understand when you say the $11 increase. What exactly are you saying that that equates to the
homeowner?
22 April 19, 2012
Mr. Alfonso: Okay.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Is it $11 per month?
Mr. Alfonso: Per year.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Per year.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: And that will provide us with an additional what?
Mr. Alfonso: Two point seven million dollars of money you can budget.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. And I just want to get the feedback from my fellow
colleagues up here.
Chair Suarez: What specifically would you like to know?
Commissioner Carollo: And from who?
Mayor Regalado: Commissioner --
Chair Suarez: And from who?
Mayor Regalado: -- I will make it easier for you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: You know, the Charter says that the Mayor has to present --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: -- the budget to you, so I would not present a budget with a property tax
increase.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: A flat increase is fine because, you know, the City is slowly going forward.
But I will not support any, any property tax increase.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. You emphasized any.
Mayor Regalado: Eleven. Any.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Any. Okay.
23 April 19, 2012
Chair Suarez: And I think -- can I just chime in with one kind of aside? I think if we were to
keep the millage flat and --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
Chair Suarez: -- you know, obviously we're not deciding that here today.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Chair Suarez: But if we were to keep it flat, I still think it may be more revenue coming in to the
City's coffers --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Chair Suarez: -- than last year.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: With keeping it flat?
Chair Suarez: Right. If we kept it flat, we would still be generating more revenue in property
tax revenue. That's my best guess being a real estate attorney and seeing, you know, the real
estate market kind of evolving.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. And the only reason why I wanted to kind of get a
gauge -- I got a gauge from you -- because the reality is I know Danny's been dancing around for
the last 60 to 90 days on this millage issue and nobody really wants to talk about it out loud, but
of course, you know, I never have a problem with talking out loud about anything. But I wanted
to just kind of get your feedback -- since I can't talk to you guys any other time. I mean, is that
like the genuine consensus that this is something -- the consensus that this is something that we
have an interest in, keeping it flat? I mean, this is the only time we could talk. Can't talk to you
any other time.
Commissioner Gort: You're talking about for projections?
Mayor Regalado: This is --
Commissioner Carollo: Listen --
Mayor Regalado: -- what we're going to propose.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mayor Regalado: This is what we're going to propose.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I know the Mayor supports it, which I'm assuming that's what's
going to be a part of your presentations, but I just want to know from my fellow colleagues
`cause we have to vote.
Mayor Regalado: Right. No, no, right. No. We propose --
24 April 19, 2012
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So at least Danny knows he's got about $2.7 million --
Mayor Regalado: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- more to work with.
Mayor Regalado: We propose. You vote.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right.
Mayor Regalado: I veto.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: We haven't vetoed yet, though, so far, right?
Mayor Regalado: No, no.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay, good.
Mayor Regalado: And hopefully no.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: You're going to have a winning record, right?
Mayor Regalado: Yeah.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So yes?
Commissioner Carollo: And we could possibly override. Anyways, with that said look,
Commissioner, it's a little difficult and I'll tell you why.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: Last year when we were going to maintain the millage flat, it was
supposedly a tax increase. The year prior to that, now rollback is a good word again. It's a nice
word, but two years ago rollback was a bad word. If we rolled back, then we were actually
increasing taxes and this and that. So realistically, I don't know what it's going to be this year.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Commissioner Carollo: So I think we're going to have to wait.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. All right. And then last but not least, I think that was my
only question on, yeah, the budget. Thank you.
Chair Suarez: Okay. Let me chime in on -- Commissioner Carollo, do you have anything else
you want to add? Okay, let me just chime in with a couple of quick points and hopefully we can
wrap this up. The Administration has given at least me the impression, and I'm assuming that
my colleagues agree, that aside from the $21 million in concessions that were given, that have to
25 April 19, 2012
be renegotiated now, the emphasis from the Administration is not -- to do everything in their
power not to hurt the employees once again. That's the message that was communicated to me.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
Chair Suarez: Having said that -- and I agree with that, by the way. I just wanted to put some
parameters in terms of how I feel, my feelings about certain things. The first is we -- the City of
Miami does three -- provides three basic and core services: fire, police, solid waste. Everything
else is nonessential. We may need some functions to operate as an entity that's a big entity, but
nothing is -- it's not -- it doesn't go to the heart, into the center of the lifeline of what we do as a
city. So I think -- first, I think we need to protect our core services. That's the most important.
Secondly, I think we need to -- on a nonessential services, we need to really do an analysis,
which I don't think that anyone has done. I know there's been kind of discussion about it and
there's been talk about meeting with department directors and all that, but an actual analysis of
where we should be in terms of the size of our organization and what we provide that are
nonessential services, okay, and I think that's something that we need to take a very, very -- you
know, a very, very deep look at. I mean, what we're -- what this presentation shows is there isn't
one -- as far as I can tell -- maybe I'm wrong, Danny, `cause I'm -- you know, obviously, I just
saw this right now -- there doesn't seem to be one expenditure reduction initiative that has to do
with reduction in personnel and nonessential services, as far as I can tell and, in fact, it's the
opposite. We have a potential increase from Building and Planning and Zoning and I think you
guys know how I feel about that in terms of how I voted for those fees and things of that nature,
and operations at parks, so you're talking about -- in essence, what I'm seeing here is a $2 million
increase in personnel costs rather than, you know, looking at ways to streamline nonessential
services. So you know, those are the things that I'm going to be looking for as the year
progresses and we are in negotiations and we are in discussions amongst ourself on the budget.
What is the Administration going to do and what are they going to present with reference to
nonessential service streamlining? We also -- there's a couple things that concern me that I'd like
a more extensive briefing on it, and I know that Danny touched upon it very briefly at some
earlier point, not just in this presentation but in other instances. Our pension obligations have
increased for some reason by $11 million, and I know that we're still working on a way to get
that number down to about six and a half. But you know, we made some very dramatic decisions
the last couple of years and reduced pension benefits to our employees tremendously, so you
know, I just have a hard time understanding why that's happening so I'd like to see the
mathematics behind that, exactly why -- a little bit more of a extensive briefing. The -- look, this
is just me talking: The reduction in the bulky trash pickup to me, to me -- I don't know how the
other Commissioners feel about it -- I'm okay with that personally. I'm okay with that. If it's
going to save a million dollars, I'm okay with that. Because I think that what we do already -- I
think what we do now is the Rolls Royce of service. I think if we did every two weeks, it would
still be the Cadillac of service, you know. And I think in other cities they don't come anywhere
close to -- they do I think monthly bulk pickups so --
Mr. Alfonso: Once a year.
Commissioner Gort: Year.
Chair Suarez: Or twice a year.
26 April 19, 2012
Mr. Martinez: A year.
Chair Suarez: Or you have to call in and it's twice a year or whatever. I think that's how we used
to do it actually before, as well, so I think we're kind of almost a victim of our own success.
When times were good, we expanded all these services and now the times are not good, we have
to curtail and I think --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Reduce.
Chair Suarez: -- take a look at -- yeah -- and we have to take a look at the ones that are maybe,
you know, not going to, you know, tremendously negatively impact our residents. I could tell
you there are many weeks where, you know, I don't put anything on the -- you know, in the
trash, the bulky trash, you know, pickup and my neighbors as well, you know. So these things --
these trucks are running around -- driving around. I'm sure they're working every week, but you
know, it's a service that's citywide right now that we're offering on a weekly basis so --
Commissioner Gort: When you finish, I want to --
Chair Suarez: Yeah, yeah, of course. And so I want to thank you for -- that does seem to me to
be a viable option. Obviously, the COPS Hiring Grant is important. It's essential for us to get it
and I think, you know -- again, you know, we have to protect the core services and police is one
of our core services so we cannot afford to lose anymore police officers at this point, and I think
Commissioner Sarnoff has been harping on that issue and it's a good issue.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I just ask you something on one of the things that you
mentioned --
Chair Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- just so that I'm clear? You mentioned nonessential services.
Chair Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know that in his presentation he mentioned the reduction of
positions that have not been filled. So I know that all the departments have now, you know,
done away with those to reduce some costs. When you say nonessential services, can you give
me like one or two examples so I could --? Because for some reason, I'm just having --
Chair Suarez: Sure, sure.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- a mental block on it.
Chair Suarez: Sure. And not to pick on any department in particular --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay, I'm sorry.
Chair Suarez: -- but Information Technology. I mean, it's great to have an IT (Information
Technology) Department. It's fantastic.
27 April 19, 2012
Commissioner Spence -Jones: You have a love affair with IT, don't you?
Chair Suarez: It's great to have an IT Department. I don't have anything against our IT
Department, but you know, we're spending I think $11 million on IT. You know, what are we
getting in return?
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Chair Suarez: And you know, it's not a core service in the sense that like, you know, our
government would fail to survive if IT did not exist.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I think IT is extremely important, but --
Chair Suarez: I think it's important and I think it can be very useful.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- are you -- I think that what you're --
Commissioner Gort: Why is the use?
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- maybe perhaps saying you're -- I guess you're -- what you're
perhaps saying --
Commissioner Gort: Why is the use?
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- it is -- perhaps that is something that can -- a department that
can be looked at to see how it could be restructured, but we all agree that we need a IT
Department.
Chair Suarez: Yeah. I mean, I don't have a problem with having an IT Department. I just think
that if you asked me do we need an IT Department or do we need -- let's say -- let's assume it
was a zero sum game and we were picking between $11 million to spend in IT and $11 million
to spend in police.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Chair Suarez: You understand what I'm saying? That's what I mean by essential versus
nonessential.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Well, I -- that's why I'm glad we have these kind of --
Chair Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- workshops because I think -- is IT here? Is IT here anywhere?
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, yes, she is. Right in --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I don't have my glasses I'm sorry.
28 April 19, 2012
Chair Suarez: And I'm not picking on you, Cindy.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no. Okay. And the only reason I'm saying -- I think it's really
important that the department head -- Cindy, where are you? I think it's really important --
sometimes I don't know if we all the way understand what IT does all the way. We just know
when something goes wrong, like we can't get something to come out of the computer, IT's done
it, okay, so -- but my question -- my -- I think it's really important -- I think I mentioned to you
this about a month or so ago that I thought it was important for you to kind of brief all of us,
even if it's like a presentation on what the department does because, honestly, you know, I don't
think we fully understand the depth of the department as well. I don't want -- I'm not taking
anything away from what Commissioner Suarez or Chairman is saying because I'm sure what he
feels is very real, but I think that that needs -- we need to take extra step to make sure he
understands and we all understand exactly -- you know, if we are going to reduce on that, what
does that mean to not only to just City Hall, but what it means to the whole city. So I would like
to at least make sure that we get that. But now I understand what you mean by nonessential
services.
Chair Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So you're saying stuff that's not necessarily provided to the
residents?
Chair Suarez: Well, stuff that's not critical to the functioning of the City --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: City.
Chair Suarez: -- basically. That if -- God forbid --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I see.
Chair Suarez: -- you know, I mean --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Give me one more example so I know.
Mr. Martinez: Maybe --
Chair Suarez: Well, I'll --
Mr. Martinez: I mean, we had eliminating two weeks in the pools. Maybe we could eliminate
pools completely. That's not essential.
Chair Suarez: What's that? I'm sorry.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Pools?
Mr. Martinez: Eliminating --
29 April 19, 2012
Commissioner Spence -Jones: What kind of pool?
Mr. Martinez: -- manning the pools.
Commissioner Gort: Swimming pools. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Are we --
Mr. Martinez: I mean, it's not essential:
Commissioner Gort: Yes, it is.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Is that what you said, non --?
Chair Suarez: It's not essential. I --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: But it's for the residents. That's essential.
Chair Suarez: Yeah. And I think -- in the case of pools or in the case of parks, you know, I think
that's a very sensitive, you know, issue, you know. And we've tried to do that, by the way. We
basically tried to shut down the pools and we tried to -- before you were here, Commissioner,
and it was a tremendous backlash.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Really? People hated it?
Chair Suarez: Oh, yeah. I mean, they went crazy. Then we tried to impose fees. Then we said,
okay, fine, we're not going to close the pools; we're going to impose fees. They still went crazy.
So we had to kind of work with that, you know. So I think there -- you know, that's not an
essential service in the strict sense --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: But it's important to the residents.
Chair Suarez: -- right? But it's one of the ones that's super important to the residents.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Chair Suarez: I mean, if we --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Give me another department -- I mean, another service so I --
Chair Suarez: Oh, I'll --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Give me another example of a department. Maybe perhaps --
Chair Suarez: I'll give you another example. And again, I'm not picking on anybody, but -- and
I understand that we need some of these departments because all big organizations have them.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right.
30 April 19, 2012
Chair Suarez: But Human Resources.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Chair Suarez: I mean, it's an important department. You need to have -- and -- that department,
but the question is to what extent -- as it -- if I had to choose between Human Resources and
police officers, that's kind of the discussion that I'm getting at. Like we have three core
functions. We have policing and fire and solid waste and those are the ones that our citizens
depend on on a daily basis.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right.
Chair Suarez: Everything else is not essential. It's not an essential need.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay. Let me --
Chair Suarez: It's something that we --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- just use an example. Would Grants Department be considered a
nonessential service? I'm just using -- because I'm trying to understand the difference between
nonessential.
Chair Suarez: No. I mean, I think -- look, I think Grants is important because Grants give us a
revenue source that we can tap into that is not tax related, so I think our Grants Department, you
know, is very important. If we didn't have any grants, then we'd be pulling even more money out
of our general fund.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. And the only reason why I mentioned that -- and I'm going
to shut up on it because this is your item, but the whole -- I just think it's really important when
we start identifying what is nonessential and what is essential and everybody's perspective may
be a little different from --
Chair Suarez: Sure.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- what's important to the City and the residents. So I think that
before we look at identifying a department as being something nonessential, we need to have
clarity as to what those departments truly do in order for the City to survive. So that's my only --
Chair Suarez: Yeah. And that's just my perspective. I mean, I'm only one Commissioner. It's
just my perspective. I feel that the City is known for those three core functions and that's what
our residents expect on a day-to-day basis and that everything else is nice to have and, you know,
in good times it's great to gross some of these departments and to be able to provide extra things,
you know. In terms of IT, for example, to have extra web access, to have extra, you know,
interactive things, but I mean, is that something that --? I mean, computers have only existed for
a certain period of time. The City of Miami has existed for a hundred years. So, you know, it's
not like we can't survive without, you know, that. It's not an essential service. But, anyways,
that's just how I feel about it.
31 April 19, 2012
Anthony Hatten: Can I ring in? Anthony Hatten, union president, Local 1907. Without GSA,
who fixes the police cars, the fire engines -- well, they don't do the fire engines. We got fire
garage that takes care of the fire engines. We have -- as far as IT goes, we used to be all in-
house and then this new computer system that we keep spending millions of dollars on got
consultants making $136 an hour.
Chair Suarez: Right. And that's what I'm talking about.
Mr. Hatten: Okay.
Chair Suarez: And that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Mr. Hatten: I mean -- and are you going to sub it out? What do you think it's going to cost you
after that? We need to bring our people, right, train our own people; and not to mention, it helps
your bottom line for pension, okay. The people you bring in replaces the people that leave and
that'll help your bottom line too. And number three is without us -- when a hurricane hits, we got
Public Works out there; the trees are down, got Parks Department out there with their front
loaders clearing the streets so the police cars and the fire engines can get to where they need to
get to in a hurry.
Chair Suarez: Right.
Mr. Hatten: So you call us nonessential personnels. Without us --
Chair Suarez: No.
Mr. Hatten: -- solid waste cannot do their job.
Chair Suarez: No. But, Anthony, you are a separate department. You could just as easily be
part of the fire department or just as easily be part -- in other words, the people that work in that
department could just as easily be working in the fire department or working in -- and doing
those individual things that they do so -- no. I mean, I agree with you, I agree with you. And so
that would make them essential because you need to have a fire truck that gets from point A to
point B. If you don't have a fire truck that gets from point A to point B, then what's the point of
having a fire truck?
Mr. Hatten: Well, that's what I'm saying. We're -- if you -- you know, you take it to -- if you
have to get these cars fixed in a hurry, we can get it done, okay. That's the bottom line. And
we're well understaffed at the fire -- at the GSA garage and the fire garage. We need mechanics
too.
Chair Suarez: The point that I'm making is that we're going to -- if we keep the millage flat and
if we see a slight uptake in revenue, we're going to have to make some tough choices.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah.
Chair Suarez: We're going to have to make some tough choices, and I don't want to give the
32 April 19, 2012
impression to the public or to our employees, to be completely frank with you, that we're not
going to have to make tough choices, you know. Assuming that we get the $21 million in
concessions again, which is not, you know, given by any stretch of the imagination, we still have
$16 million that we have to find so, you know --
Mr. Hatten: I just want to let you know --
Chair Suarez: No.
Mr. Hatten: -- our people are working --
Chair Suarez: I hear you.
Mr. Hatten: -- with short staffs, okay --
Chair Suarez: I know.
Mr. Hatten: -- tempers are, you know --
Chair Suarez: I know, I know. Listen --
Mr. Hatten: Everybody's, you know --
Chair Suarez: -- it's not a happy time.
Mr. Hatten: Insurance on the houses --
Chair Suarez: It's not a happy time right now. I know.
Mr. Hatten: -- have -- insurance on people's houses went up. Gasoline's gone up.
Chair Suarez: Yep.
Mr. Hatten: Food's gone up.
Chair Suarez: Health insurance.
Mr. Hatten: And the salaries have gone down.
Chair Suarez: Yeah. And health insurance has gone up too.
Mr. Hatten: So -- and health insurance --
Chair Suarez: Yeah. No, I agree.
Mr. Hatten: -- same thing.
Chair Suarez: I agree.
33 April 19, 2012
Mr. Hatten: So we are --
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chair.
Chair Suarez: Anthony Hatten.
Mr. Hatten: -- like I said, we're there for you. We're willing to work with you and we'll -- you
know we'll do what we have to do --
Chair Suarez: And you have. You've --
Mr. Hatten: But we get the job done.
Chair Suarez: You've always been a very positive and active participant and someone that's
always been easy to talk to and I really appreciate that and I appreciate the relationship that we
have so thank you.
Mr. Hatten: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So if I could just add in this --
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- `cause I know that -- you know, you could feel the change of
atmosphere in the chambers for a minute and I go, am I nonessential. I think that we all agree up
here that everybody's essential, okay. I think the point that the Chairman was trying to make is
that we need to probably perhaps look at some of the departments to see if there are some things
that need to be adjusted in order for us all to survive. I think that, you know, every single person
in here has a family that they have to take care of, so I know that all of the Commissioners
understand how important it is for you guys to be able to live and survive and take care of your
families and I think that that should be our mandate, period, is to make sure that all of our
employees -- and to the best of our abilities, we make sure that that does not become an issue.
Mr. Hatten: That's all I ask.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So I just want to make sure people don't walk out of the chambers
saying I'm nonessential and I'm essential. I don't think that that's what he meant. I think that he's
saying that we need to look at -- and I can't put words in your mouth, but I'm assuming you're
saying --
Chair Suarez: Yeah. I know. I mean, we have to prioritize, you know. We have to prioritize. I
mean, you know, there is -- we're going to have to make tough choices. And as Danny said, you
know, a large percentage of our revenue or expenses, I should say, are in our employees because
what we do is provide service so that -- I mean, that makes sense. But that also means that any
time we have to cut, we have to look inward, you know.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. And all I'm saying to you, Francis -- and I just want us to
34 April 19, 2012
be on the same page. This is the reason why I started with the murals and the facilities and --
Chair Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: It just seems a lot of times when we have discussions about
finding money or how we're going to reduce costs -- I'm just telling you -- just the history has
always -- that it comes on the backs of the employees.
Chair Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm just telling you that.
Chair Suarez: No, I hear you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So --
Chair Suarez: I hear you.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- but yet and still, you got to remember every two weeks City
employees sit here and they look at us make decisions about projects, about programs, about
potential revenue sources and we're not fighting hard for those issues. So we have to make sure
there's a balance in this, and I think that that's what you feel from the employees sometimes is
that, you know, we need to fight just as hard on that end to make sure that we get 25 percent of
that revenue from billboards and from murals because these people are making money and
leaving this City. They don't live here and that's fine. That's not a problem. They need to eat
too. But we need to also make sure that we do whatever it takes to take care of the employees
`cause they take care of the City.
Chair Suarez: Yeah. And I'm --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: So that's -- I think --
Chair Suarez: -- supportive of that.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- that should just be the mandate.
Chair Suarez: Yeah, I know. And I'm supportive of that. I think, you know, we obviously have
to be creative. That's one of the reasons why I sponsored the I Can initiative, you know, `cause
we have to look for revenue sources as we can find them and as they come up, you know. I think
that -- you know, that's a duty that we have and we have that duty so that we can, first of all, not
be so dependent on property taxes --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
Chair Suarez: -- because they fluctuate --
Mr. Hatten: Correct.
35 April 19, 2012
Chair Suarez: -- you know, and that would help have a -- create a more stable government for us
where we don't have to constantly be making these tough choices. But I just don't want to
minimize the fact that we have to make some tough choices and I wanted to provide -- part of the
reason for this workshop --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
Chair Suarez: -- is I think for all of us to put in our two cents, you know, and provide a
framework for how the Manager should do his analysis and present, you know, his budget
because at the end of the day, we're going to have to vote on it.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
Chair Suarez: So if what he -- I'm not saying if what he does is not in complete, you know,
agreement with my philosophy I'm going to vote against it, but you know, it's -- I'm trying to
give him as much guidance as I can as --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I got you.
Chair Suarez: -- as to how -- where I'm at.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Okay.
Mr. Hatten: And I've lived in the City of Miami all my life. I grew up here and I want to keep
the City of Miami, bottom line. And we are team players. Anything you guys need --
Chair Suarez: I know you are.
Mr. Hatten: -- we're up for the task.
Chair Suarez: I know you are. I know you are. Go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Hatten: Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) once again, you all aware I served here before and I
can tell you I'm proud to be part of this Commission. This is the best Commission the City of
Miami has ever had. You got individuals here that really dedicated to work for the City and who
work for you all. We have the main people for the City of Miami sitting right here, which is very
important. When I talked about corporation and team work, my office -- and I'm going to bring
you a report of conversation that we've had with different departments, different suggestions that
we have made, and working as a group, we have been able to save over $10 million.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Wow.
Commissioner Gort: We're going to continue to work on that and I'm going to bring in that
report specific how we do it. That's why I asked you all, the Commissioners, you sit down with
the different departments. You be aware -- you be amazed ideas you can come up with and
suggestion that can save money and improve the performance of the divisions of the
36 April 19, 2012
departments. That's why it's important we talk to each other.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: Lot of times we don't talk to each other. We -- different department can
support each other and come up with ideas to make things easier or even better and this is what
we're trying to do. At the same time, you need to realize we have a lot of contracts and -- Public
Facilities, we have the greatest facility that anyone can have, especially with investors and
people that coming into the South Florida. We're looking like the place where people want to be.
We lot of -- have a lot of new RFPs coming up and there's some new RFPs I think that could
produce a lot more than what had produced in the past and we need to look at the contracts. And
Commissioners, you're right, and Commissioner Carollo, you're right. Every contract that comes
in front of us we got to make sure we maximize the reoccurring revenues and that's what we need
to work in -- continue to work in that. That's about all I want to say.
Chair Suarez: Okay. That's it.
Mr. Martinez: Thank you everybody.
Chair Suarez: Okay.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: When is our next meeting?
Chair Suarez: Our next Commission meeting is next Thursday.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, I know that. But I mean budget. Is there going to be another
budget?
Mr. Alfonso: We will -- at the -- I -- what I -- the goal is to have a proposed budget, actually a
book for Commissioners to be able to review, by July 1. We will meet again --
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair, Chair.
Mr. Alfonso: -- when we set the millage at the end of July.
Chair Suarez: Guys, can we just hold on one second. Mr. Alfonso --
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Just so we know the time frames to come back to us. That's all I
wanted to know.
Mr. Alfonso: We have -- we intend to have a proposed budget that is balanced and there'll
probably have some caveats, reference labor or whatnot, by July 1. At the end of July, the
Commission will vote on a millage. And between July and August, we'll continue to have this
conversation as to what's in the proposed, what the Commissioners would like to see changed, et
cetera, so that when we go to September, we have changes that you have incorporated into the
budget.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman --
37 April 19, 2012
Chair Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- do you mind --? I mean, I know that since we did something
innovative by starting this early and I think it's helpful because we were able to hammer out
something, I really would not want us to wait until July. Is there any way that --
Chair Suarez: I agree.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- we can do another one of these meetings maybe in -- I think we
need to be very tight, you know, in these time frames to make sure that we stay on top of these
issues. Can we do it in May, late May maybe?
Chair Suarez: And wait one second `cause we had an executive session that we had scheduled
and then it was canceled, so I don't know if maybe you want to do like an executive session and
then have another budget workshop.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's fine.
Chair Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm cool with that.
Chair Suarez: I think that might be best.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay.
Chair Suarez: I know.
Mr. Alfonso: We'll work it out.
Chair Suarez: Sorry.
Mr. Alfonso: I know the --
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get the actual numbers of ad valorem taxes?
Mr. Alfonso: June 1. So perhaps if you want to have a workshop after the millage -- I'm sorry,
the June 1 property tax estimate comes out --
Chair Suarez: Right.
Mr. Alfonso: -- that also gives us time to start crafting the budget proposals --
Chair Suarez: Cool.
Mr. Alfonso: -- a little tighter.
38 April 19, 2012
Chair Suarez: Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioners.
39 April 19, 2012