HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1977-12-14 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
SPECIAL
COM;ISSI�N
INUTES
OF MEETING NEW ON December 14, 1977
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR NESTING
CITY CONF1ISSION OF MIDI I, FLORIDA
IlEkl NO,
SUBJECT
ORDINANCE OR
RESOLUTION No.
PAGE NO,
1.
2.
OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES TO FY' 77-78 BUDGET.
MOTION OF INTENT: INCREASE SALARIES PAID TO MEMBERS
OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE• ZONING BOARD.
(RETROACTIVE TO OCTOBER 1, 1977).
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FISCAL 1977-78 BUDGET
ALTERNATIVES.
DECLARE LIMA, PERU, AS SISTER CITY OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI .
CONTINUED BUDGET DISCUSSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF HOWARD
V. GARY'S MEMORANDUM ENTITLED "OVERVIEW OF
ALTERNATIVES TO FY' 77-78 BUDGET..."
ANNOUNCEMENT BY COMMISSIONER ROSE GORDON OF DONATION
OF $1,000.00 FOR MINI PARK - CULMER AREA.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR FERRE OF APPROVAL BY SECRETARY
OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM.
CONCLUSION OF BUDGET DISCUSSION - FY - 1977-1978.
DISCUSSION
M- 77-901
DISCUSSION
R- 77-902
N- 77-903
ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT
DISCUSSION
1 - 13
14 - 17
17 - 34
35
35 - 53
53 - 54
54
54-59
Drr 1 19,7
1
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
* * * * *
On the 14th day of December, 1977, the City Commission of Miami,
Florida met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan
American Drive, Miami, Florida in Special Session. -
- The meeting was called to order at 9:37 A. M. O'Clock, by Mayor
Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A Ferre
Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager
George F. Knox, City Attorney
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Natty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk
OVERVIEW OF ALTERNAT N.:S TO FY' 77-78 BUDGET,
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, we are here on a Special City of Miami Commission
Meeting for the purposes of hearing the budget, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, I believe you all have
a budget package, which includes the several alternatives that are available to
the City in order to balance the budget following the basic policy that you set
down the last time we met, which was that we would have no employee lay-offs. If
we keep in mind that there is hardly anything that the City does that does not
involve employees, you'll see that there are very few alternatives available that
would not require that we shut down a City operation, that we also lay-off some employees
So the alternatives that we have are those which will not directly effect anybody
who is currently working with the City. Now, what I would like to do is have the
budget staff--- I'm going to ask Howard Gary, to start the discussion--- talk about
the problem that we now have in terms of money because of retaining the employees
that would not be laid -off and then talk about the alternatives that you have in
front of you. So...
Mr.Gary: Good morning Commissioners, during the preparation of the 1978 budget,
the -City was'confronted with approximately a 7.4 million dollar budget problem.
The City Manager submitted a budget that would eliminate this problem; however,
that required a 167 employees to be laid -off. The City Commission, decided that
it did not want to lay-off 167 municipal employees. Now, to retain those employees
the cost would be 2.8 million dollars, however, since the submission of the budget
we have had considerable attrition in the City of Miami, and instead of the problem
being 167 employees, the problem has been reduced to 94 employees and 46 CETA
positions4 The cost to retain these employees is approximately 1.8 million dollars
a saving of approximately 1 million dollars through attrition. Now, to resolve
this prohlem,we have looked at a number of alternatives, those alternatives were
submitted to you last week in a package, which I think all you have before you.
The first alternative is to utilize $120,000, which is in the fire department
as a proposed budget to retain fire personnel, Now this $120,000 occurred as a
result of the City Manager's budget hearing, wherein the City Manager felt that
the City could not afford to reduce fire service to the extent that was recommended
by the fire department to meet its required budget reduction. Now, since these funds
1
OE C
are to retain employees,--- you know, it's logical that these funds can be used
to retain--- to minimize our problem of 94 employees. The second alternative
is to reduce the severance pay or severance appropriations by approximately $244,000.
During the preparation of the budget, it was understood or it was proposed that a
167 people would be laid —off, the cost to the City of these employees, severing the
employee with the City, is $244,000. Now, if we decide--- which we are recommending
to lav—off the employees--- these funds can be used for the purpose, namely, to retain
the employees. The third alternative considered, was to reduce the 1978 appropriation
for severance pay. Now, this alternative is not recommended and it's based on the
analysis that we have made based on last year, namels. that the average daily cost
for severance is approximately $8,900 and that we have approximately 386 people,
several of them employed with the City„ That comes up.to approximate 2.3 million
dollars. Also.we asked department heads to project what their severance requirements
are and their projections came up to approximately 2.5; so it's felt that this
appropriation cannot be reduced. The third alternative...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, what was it last year?
Mr. Gary: Last year it was approximately 2.3 million
to substitute CETA positions for vacant positions and
budget funds to retain employees. We went through an
five or six times to determine those vacant positions
proposed budget, the purpose for this is to determine
dollars. The third alternative is
utilize the portion of the
extensive analysis approximately
that exist in the City Manager's
the number of positions so
that we can determine how many of those positions can be substituted for CETA
positions in view of the fact that there are vacant positions. As of November 22,
we had 141 and 1/2 full time positions and 38 part—time positions in the City
Manager's proposed budget. However, only 101 of these were considered eligible
for CETA, mainly based on the requirements of CETA, for example, we did not include
promotional positions for the mere fact that the promotion would have to occur from
a lower range and that employee would not be eligible to fill the CETA position,
for the mere fact that he has not been unemployed for thirty days. Now, this
alternative generated approximately S757,000. Now, if you recall in the City Manager's
proposed budget in his budget message, one of the alternatives was to use CETA
positions for laid —off positions and one of the recommendations that came out of
the FIU report, was that another alternative could be to use CETA positions for
vacant positions, instead of CETA positions for filled positions, this would permit
those people who are proposed to be laid —off to retain their civil service status
and all the benefits associated with same. Now, this alternative requires
us to eliminate 101 vacant positions from the City Manager's proposed budget, these
funds will generate S757,000 and these funds will be used to retain employees.
Now, there has been a question as to whether or not this violates CETA regulations
and we have been assured that it does not. Alternative E, is to eliminate the
transfer from the general fund to the enterprise fund. During the preparation
of the budget, we assumed that those funds--- funds generated in one public facility
could not be used for the purpose of another public facility. We found that since
that time that we could use funds that are generated from one facility for the
purpose of another. Now, since the submission of the original proposed budget,
some changes have occurred in the public facility fund, namely,,we are projecting
that we would have approximately S450,000 in fund balance. Of that)we are recommending
that $200,000 be utilized to repair the joists at the Orange Bowl and the remaining
$250,000 be utilized as liquid cash to insure that the bills of the enterprise funds
are met. Now, if we decide not to do any maintenance at public facilities we would
be able to have generated approximately S706,000 worth of surplus; however, our
recommendation is that we do all of the required maintenance for this year at
the -various public facilities and the resulting savings to the general fund, would
be approximately $124,000 or $125,000. We're recommending that that $125,000 be
utilized to retain employees. The next alternative is the increase in anticipated
salary savings. This alternative is not recommended, namely for the mere fact that
this yearlas opposed to last year, the City of Miami does not have the number of
vacancies that it had at the beginning of the year for last fiscal year. Secondly,
this will require a number of departments to increase their already burdensome
budget in terms of maintaining a number vacancies. Now, we've had a number of
meetings with department heads and we have presented to them a tentative salary
savings requirement. At that meeting,a number of department heads felt that saving
1.5 million dollars would do great harm to their operation. We have asked each
department to submit to us a copy or a statement as to the effect of saving 1.5 million
dollars on the operations. Now, if we are having problems generating 1.5 million
dollars, to increase this amount would even cause even greater problems operationally
for the various departments, so this alternative is not recommended. Alternative
G, utilize Florida Power and Light franchise revenues dedicated for the Watson
Island Development. For fiscal year in 1978, we are anticipating that the City
2
DEC 14197/
rill have approximately 6.7 million dollars from FP&L. Of this amount,
$3,000,000 is presently in the City Manager's proposed budget. This leaves a balance
of 3.7 million dollars; however, as a result of the Florida East Coast. Property
purchase, the City will need an additional S600,000 for that purpose, so we are
recommending that other balance, $500,000 of this amount,be utilized to retain
employees. This will leave us with a balance for the Waston Island Development
of approximately 2.6 million dollars. It's been very difficult for us to determine
the amount of money that is need for Waston Island, for the mere fact that we
have not been able to negotiate with the underwriters to determine how much the
City has tr h-iveon reserve to guarantee those bonds. However, our best educated
guess is that we would need a minimum of approximately 1.8, so if that assumption
comes true, we would have ample funds to provide for the Watson Island Development;
as I said.1the balance would be 2.6 million dollars left in that fund. The next
alternative is to utilize the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds proposed for social program:
:his alternative was considered and we are not recommending this, The reason
we are not recommending it is that we feel that the City Commission by appropriating
temporary funds for these programs and has shown it's desire to continue these
programs, that its not logical that these funds can be used to retain employees.
The last alternative considered was to reduce the street lighting appropriation,
This will require some negotiation with the Florida Power and Light Company and
it would require also, the elimination of some street lights within the City. W'e
have estimated that approximately $50.00 could be save for every light pole, so
using that assumption, if we shut off 3,000 or we did not provide electricity
for 3,000 poles, we would save approximately $150,000. This alternative is not
recommended and the sum of all the alternatives that are recommended equals the
amount of funds necessary to retain the employees or to prevent lay-offs for
fiscal year 7S.
Mr. Grassie: The alternatives,Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, are
summarized in the first memorandum from Mr. Gary and if we could now go to those
alternatives to get some reaction from you with regard to which ones you feel are
reasonable for us to adopt and which ones are not desirable, that would allow us
to determine whether we are going to have enough money from the alternatives you
choose to meet the 1.7 million dollars that we need.
Mayor Ferre: L.e11, let's go right down the line and start with number one.
(CO?EVENT .•:ADE OUTSIDE PUBLIC RFC(Rf)
Mr. Grassie: Those should he non -controversial. Yes.
Mayor Ferre: You're talking now about 2a and b?
Mr. Grassie: 2a and b, should be--- I would think, acceptable -to everybody as
alternatives.
Mayor Ferre: Severance cost.
Mr. Grassie: In the case of severance cost, what we are saying is that there really
is not money available in our estimation in that particular line and it should not
be used.
Mayor Ferre: We're now on item 2c, which is the question of severance. Anybody
want to comment on that? Ok, then we will go on to the next one.
Grassie: The next one is the question of substituting CETA position for vacancies
You remember that this is an option which became available to us just as we presented
the budget to the City Commission, as a matter of fact we got the letter from the
labor department about two days before we presented this to the City Commission,
but this is an alternative, it does represent an operating problem for the department
it will be more difficult for them to operate,. but under the guidelines it is
worth $757,000.
Mrs. Gordon: I have a question.
Mr. Grassie: Go ahead.
Mrs. Gordon: On thatit is your idea then to utili'P that money for the current
101 vacant positions, is that what I heard Mr. Gary say before?
Mr. Grassie: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: What if there are more vacant positions that should come up, how
3
DEC 141F,
would they be filled? Would they be filled?
Mr. Grassie: Well, that would depend really on the needs of the department in question
and the monies available, we would have two things that we would be looking at,
one is, how far alongthe department was in making enough salary savings, so that
we'd have a balanced budget, this relates to the million and a half dollar
problem.
Mrs. Gordon: Question also, of those 101 positions, can you tell me which areas
of City services basically they are?
Mayor Ferre: You mean the 101 positions?
.Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mr.-Grassie: Yes, we have a list of them, if you would like We can read through
the list.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't need it specifically...
Mayor Ferre: Why not, I think that's a valid question.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, for my purposes at this moment,I want to know how many of those
101 are in the essential services--- police and fire,for instance?
Mr. Gary: Ok, I'd like to clarify one thing first, by the elimination of these
vacancies from the budget, does not mean that we would not have those positions,
that's the first thing.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, how many of them are there Gary?
Mr. Gary: Ok, there are 101, if you would turn to page A2 in you report.
Mrs. Gordon: No, but is it broken down in there as to how many are police and how
many are fire?
Mr. Gary: Yes,it is.
Mrs. Gordon: A2?
Mr. Gary: Appendix A, page 2. It's labeled A2. Now, if you'd look at the second
column--- do you have that Commissioner Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: yes)1 see it.
Mr. Gary: It gives a listlbv departments of those 101 positions. If you 'Would note
23 in police, 10 in public works, 2 in parks department and on down.
Mrs. Gordon: Now, you've answered the question that I was leading to--- supposing
that in one of those two departments the number should increase considerably, you
know by retirement or whatever, how would that be handled then?, You know ---
let's take fire for instance because it's a smaller number 4, supposed that increased
to 24, where would the dollars come to rehire those vacant positions! because I
would assume they would be necessary to refill.
W...-Grassie: Assume that the department has already taken care of the--- of its
.scare of the million and a half dollar salary savings, once that is done then the
departmentar budget should have enough money to fill vacancies, but only after the
department has met its requirements with regard to the million and half dollar
savings.
Mrs. Gordon: And how can you fill vacant fire or police positions with CETA
people who are new on board? you know, you have got vacant positions and you have
to hire a fireman and train him, how can you do that with CETA? I mean, you know,
that's not permanent. CETA monies are not permanent.
Mr. Grassie: Yes, but the civil service status of the individual need not be
mixed up with the way in which you fund the position.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but Joe, I think what Rose is getting at is the same question
I wanted to get to, the danger of that type of funding is the same thing that I
think we've all been looking at and I'm sure you have and that is 'that the so called
4
DEC 14197
big brother is going to pull the rug out. Now, when big brother pulls the rug
out and we don't have CETA money, the danger is we won't have the money to fund
those positions.
Mayor Ferre: You want have to worry about that J.L., because the day that happens
the City of Miami won't exist any more.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know Maurice you take the undertaker's approach and I'm going
to take the conservative approach.
Mayor Ferre: I'm not taking the undertaker's approach, I'm taking a very practical
approach. I guarantee you point blank, that the day that the Federal Government
in this country decides not to have countercyclical funds, decides not to have
manpower funds, not to have all these other funds that we presently have in
government --- you were at San Francisco at that meeting--- I guarantee you that
90% of the local governments of these United States today are dependent on Federal
subsidies. Now, we are not unique, that's nothing that you can say Miami,--- Miami,
how about Metro; If Metro did not receive Federal subsidies, Metro would have to
fold up.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but Maurice, here is the point I'm trying to make, you know
and I always get myself in trouble, but I've got to say what's on my mind. You know.
Maurice we are talking about with police and fire extensive training before they
are put on board, ok? These are the two services,Maurice,that are life and death
services.
Mrs. Gordon: That's what I was trying to tell you.
Mr. Plummer: Now, what I'm trying,I think and what Rose is trying to say Mr. Grassie,
is it possible that you can take and load the other side other than the two life
giving services with the CETA, but keep the police and fire life giving services
out of the CETA area, is that possible? Do you understand what we are saving?
Mr. Grassie: What you're saying is very_ simple Commissioner, of course, I understand
it.
Nr. Plummer: Is there a simple solution?
Mr. Grassie: a matter of choice, certainly. If you choose to concentrate
all of your CETA money in departments other than police and fire--- and you know that
we have not used CETA money_ in police and fire so far, except for the civilian or
support services-- that's a choice. Now, what it really means is that you're going
to have to do one of two things, either you are going to have less flexibility in
filling police and fire pnsitio::s, you know, vo.i're .simply not going to be able
to do them because you're not going to have any money other than CETA money and
you know, if there is no general fund money for them:, you simply will not he able
to fill the positions. Tlie other alternative is you will have to accelerate the
vacancies and the moving of money from other general fund departments and simply
take the money from other departments and put it into the police and fire budgets;
But you will have to do one of those two things.
Mr. Plummer: But, Joe, in fairness--- we are talking about Police and Fire ---
by the time those people get symbolically the badge pinned on them, we've got a
hell of a investment in those people, you know. I mean we've got--- I think it's
13,weeks in both police and fire academy and we've been paying their salaries
.a31 the way along. We got a tremendous investment and I would just hate to see
the -area twv, take away and diminish the services of life giving services and
diminish our investment in these people, I think what--- at least what I've
been trying to say, is to take ves, but,don't take from police and fire and use
the CETA money there, use permanent funds there or as permanent as we know them.
That would he my choice.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, that's exactly what I started to bring out. The point is we'd
rather not have to use CETA at all, but it's a heck of a lot easier to train
a secretary, to do a good job--- and she probably already has the training ---
than it is fireman or policeman, so I would recommend and I also, would like to
know why we haven't heard from our FII' people. Could we hear from them before we
make any further comments or discussion?
Mr. Plummer: 1 would like to make a comment, because in their presentation I
would like them to address it$Maurice.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, nk and in my thinkinealone--- since I brought that CETA
i"'1 AA 1
EC 14 977
condition up with regards to the essential services, I... and when they speak to us ---
Dr. 'Hendrickson and your other colleague--- I would like you, also, to address yourself
to that point. Also, to address the difference in essential needs of
$1,000,008 for Wastson Island, as opposed to the 2.6 and why we not utilize that
in item D, ok.
Mayor Ferre: The chair is going to rule that we are now on item 2C and I would
like to get through item 2I, between the Manager and the Commission and at that
point we will then open up the discussion for our consultants and the various unions
and groups that want to address the Commission on specific problems. Unless I'm
over ruled that's the way I would like for this meeting to go this morning. So,
I think you're rightlhowever, that we shouldn't vote on anything until we get the
full input of everybody. 5J, if you don't mina,ti n -hat I'6 like to do is--- I
think we've talked out item 2D, which is with relations to CETA, if we have any
further questions lets keep on going to D.
Mr, Grassie: Mr. Mayor, you may need to spend a couple more minutes in order to
attempt to answer the questions raised by Commissioner Gordon.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, well go ahead and do it.
?'r. Plummer: Alright, well let me go hack to C, since the Mayor brought that
up. ok. Mr. Mayor, you know, I have tried to say all the way along and nobody can
dispute, that all of this really, the thing call budget, is a guesstimate. Ok,
I mean it's a professional guesstimate. These Doctors have their opinion, Mr.
Grassie has his, Mr. Gary has to have Mr. Grassie's opinion and I have mine,' I'n
just going to state for the record that I feel that the severance pay that has
been proposed is high, because I feel last year's is not a good criteria, but that
remains to be seen. I'd rather be safe than sorry, so I can't dispute what you've
done. Now, Mr. Grassie, you and T have had a running battle and I'm speaking now
to D, I just made C for the record. First of all Mr. Grassie, CETA employees cost
us mono'., ok. Now, last year Mr. Grassi°, I asked you on the record what you felt
the work force efficiency percentage rating would be and you said at that time
about 60 1 don't see any major changes in this last twelve months. Now.l fail
to see indeed where this 5757,000 savings is going to occur. A bargain is only
a bargain if you need what you're buying. hat I'm asking you is this ---these are
people why, have terminated --- are you expressing to this Commission that those 101
vacancies are a area that must he filled?or when you are running on sure dollars
can you adjust? I realize that most of the people who retire--- where I assume most of
the vacancies come from--- are the top end or near the top end, more toward
end. Ivhat I'm really saving ''ir. Grassie, is do we have to fill those 101 vacancies?
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, let me answer you this way, I think that there is not
enough understanding of one aspect of this budget, ok. Maybe a lot of them, but
particular one aspect. The budget represents the best estimate on the part of
department heads as to what tht,y need by way of positions and resources next year to
run their business. Now a point that apparently has been missed by many, is that
the vacancies that were)in the original budget, were vacancies that were put in
by departments, because department heads wanted a specific kind of a position
and they wanted that specific kind of a position--- although, there was not a
person in it--- badly enough to keep that position--- although, it was a vacancy---
and propose to lay-off positions that were filled. Nov, 1 think that
we are not concentrating on the significance of that choice, which is a conscious
choice made by the people who are supposed to run the City's operations. In making
ghat choice what these department heads are telling you, is that they consider
whose positions to be very important to their operations. Now, what we are doing
now in order to try and accommodate to the City Commission's policy, is to sav
alright, we will keep the positions that would otherwise, be laid -off, but since
the department heads felt that the more important positions were the ones that
are now vacant, we are going to try and cover those with CETA. So, my answer to
you is, that in the judgement of the individual people who are running tht operation
they felt that the positions we are calling vacant, were more important than
the positions that you are saving from lay-off,
Mayor Ferre: Alright, any other questions?
Mr. Plummer: Not with me.
Mayor Ferre: Any other comments on item D? If not we will now go to item E,
reduce transfer from general fund to enterprise fund $124,811.
Mr, Plummer: I only have one question. Mr. Grassie, prior to your coming here
DEC 141977.
When we got into this so called public hearing with the people in the marinas, which
turned into the usual screening match. This Commission made a promise to the
people in the marinas, that any surplus fund beyond the operating expenses. would
go back into improvements. Now, does this figure here represent that promise or
are we having to back track?
Mr. Grassie: You are not having to back track Commissioner. If you'd turn to
attachment C in your package--- which is about 2/3 of the way back in the document ---
attachment C, will show you in the third column an amount of a $159.000, which is
your promise to the marina people. That is the trust fund being reserved and not
being touched. You will also, notice that it is the only thing that is not being touchei..
All the other operations have zeroes, but the marinas have $159.000 which
represents that fund being set aside following what you said woule be done.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, but, differentiating between normal maintenance, this normal
maintenance will be done and .this additional funds will be used for improvements.
Mr. Grassie: That is as it is listed, reserved for capital improvements, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Now, my only other concern in this particular area, vou
sent Rose... not you, the Mayor sent Rose and I to do a job Friday morning and
that is the first meeting of the combined County and City and private..• speaking
about the Orange Bowl. Now, I pick up this morning's paper and I'm going to tell
you I don't think I would go to the game on saturday based on the article, but
we know the truth. But, I would like who ever to set the record straight that
that building is not falling --- that you know, How Now Brown Cow is not coming out
of the sky--- so that when Rose and T go into this meeting on Friday morning, we are
not going to be hit between the eves--- well, hey. while are you even thinking about
redoing a stadium that's falling apart. And that's the impression given in this
article in this morning's paper. Now, what I'm saving to in article E, that there
is sufficient monies to do what needs to be done in the Orange Bowl and that in
fact the Orange Bowl is not falling. Now, would vou speak to that?
Mr. Grassie: You're entirely right, the Orange Bowl is not falling down in any
structural sense. What we are doing, is to make sure that two or three years from
now we don't have that kind of problem either. If you accept the recommendation
that's in front of you. there will be remaining in the budget, in the reserve for
improvements' and you will see this if you will turn to your attachment D2--- there
will remain $250,000 specifically to replace these concrete girders and that was
the problem that was being discussed in the news paper article. There will also,
be some small amounts for other necessary improvements. But, the big improvement
--- the big maintenance .improvement is the $250,000 for the new girders.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Any other questions with regards to E? Now. we are on item F. Any
questions with regards to the increase salary savings? Which is item F.
Mr. Grassie: We have to recognize that increasing item F, would simply be borrowing
money. It simply--- you know, gives you a little bit in the front and it means you
have to pay it before the end of the year and really is no solution.
Mayor Ferre: Any questions on item F?
14;,-Plummer :
No, I'm just glad to see us get out of that way of practice.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now we are on item G then, Utilize Florida Power and Light
Franchise on Waston Island for $506,000.
Mr. Plummer: I think a simple question here for the record. Mr. Grassie, do you
feel in anvwav that this is detrimental? You know, I'm sure you wouldn't recommend
it otherwise, but I'm just asking for the record.
Mr. Grassie: Well, Commissioner, these recommendations are in the context of a
policy direction that you have laid down and the policy direction is,that we have
to put back into the budget what started out being 2.8 million dollars and
through attrition its down to 1.8 million. if we have to put that back into the
budget, we have to get the money from some place.
Mr. Plummer: I understand.
Mr, Grassie: Now, within that context and within those limitations and not having
DEC 141977,
the option, not having the ability based on your policy of laying off people any place.
we really have very few places to go. Now, having said all of those things, if I
have virturely no good alternatives, is this an acceptable alternative
among the undesirable ones'? Yes it is, but that's what it is.
Mr. Plummer: Mel Reese, used to say if you have to buy a piece of property in
hell, buy the best piece that you can get. Mr. Grassie, the simple question that
I'm asking and I'm sure it has--- I hope--- a simple answer. In anyway by doing this.
it put the Waston Island in jeopardy?
Mr. Grassie: If you say in anyway, all I can say to you is that I don't know and
no-one will know until the underwriter tells you how much money we've got to
put up. Now, we have to make our best guess, we have to make the best estimation
possible and our hest estimation is that with what remains, we ought to be able to
squeak through, But,its getting pretty thin. its getting very thin. You know,
yoii',re talking about this City putting up as good faith money--- as far as the
underwriter is concerned=-- on a $55,000 borrowing. But, we have to offer something
in the neighborhood of $2,000,000. You know, if you were in business you'd want
more security than that.
Mr. Plummer: A hell of a lot more.
Mr. Grassie: Especially, when you're talking about the major part of that borrowing
being $35,000,000, being revenue supported with no mortgage, no guarantee.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask another question, isn't it your anticipation to make up
a difference in the FEC property from the FP&L franchise?
ir. Grassie: Well, I think you know how I have felt in the past about our financial
exposure on the FEC question. The recommendation in which you have here, contemplates
what is our lowest estimate, our lowest estimate of our potential exposure on the
7LC questionr We know--- at least we feel sure--- that the court is going to require
that we put up money not less than what our evaluations for the property are and
you remember that those were 14.5 million and 15.1 million. So, an average of
that is at least what the court is going require. And in addition to that we are going
to have to pay attorney fees. Now, if you calculate just those two things, our
minimum cost will require that we take another $600,000 out of this source. Thats
the easiest that we can get off and you know, 1 have to characterize the decision
that way.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: Anybody else got anything on G? How about H?
Mr. Plummer: I'm not the Vice -Mayor, who is the Vice -Mayor ? We're finished
with G and H and I remains.
Mayor Ferre: Alright,we are now on item H, which is Utilized Federal Revenue
Sharing funds proposed for social programs, which is not recommended, any questions
on that?
Mr. Grassie: Basically, you know that we have in new funds $1,043,000.
Mayor Ferre: You have $821,000.
gm-Grassie: Of which... in new funds Mayor--- if we bring fowarold year money.
''he new money that we are appropriating this year is $1,043,000 and we are not suggestin
that you take any of that.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, any questions on that? Then the next one is Reduce Street
Lighting Appropriation, which is item I.
Mr. Plummer: Absolutely not.
Mayor Ferre: Any questions on item I? Alright, we've gone through this list,
New, do you have anything else you want to add Mr. Manager?
Mr. Grassie: Not unless you want me to put I in context for you, I think that.
-- you know--- we should realize that...
Mayor Ferre: Make your statement for the record.
Mr. Grassie: That saving energy on I, does not relieve us from the responsibility
DEC 141977.
of paying the annual cost of the pole and the lamp and so on, so we got $137.00
pet pole annual cost for these lights, but we can only save $50.00, You would
have to continue to pay for the capital. The only thing you save is energy. It's
not recommended.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any other comments or questions with regards to item
A through I and 2? Alright, if not,then at this time I'll ask Dr. Hendrickson
to step forward if he would, First of all, why don't you make a comment if you
would Doctor and then there would be some questions from the Commission.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: That's not on there Doc.
Rev. Gibson: It's not on.
Mr, Plummer: On this side, on the microphone itself.
Dr. Hendrickson: Thank you, Mayor Ferre. We see this as a compromise, as been
indicated by Mr. Gary and also‘by Mr. Grassie, that we don't necessarily agree
on all these areas, but we have agreed to support them as a compromise approach.
We have held all along that the money is available from the general fund and
there is really a question of where it.'s to be taken. The City Manager, has
proposed this onelso we have agreed to go along with that.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, questions now--- Mrs. Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: Dr. Hendrickson, what is your feeling with regards to the item D,
as I delineated a little while ago and recommended that we eliminate central
services from the CETA funding source.
Dr. Hendrickson: Several compromises might be possible there also, one approach
might be to initially hire or even fire employees on CETA with the plan to move
them on to permanent positions bv the end of the Year or by some given future date.
In other words,you hold back any vacancies'that maybe created by attrition or
whatever, whether they be in those areas or else where, so that these an be funded
out the City funds so that you don't have the problem of possibly coming up short.
CETA as far as we can see is a legitimate way of doing it, whether in fact you
by--- in terms of policy wanted to go that way is another question.
Mrs. Gordon: Dr. Hendrickson, why would you prefer" that approach as to and I don't
know how much of the $757,000 would be need for the essential services, I'm not
sure perhaps you have that information.
Dr. Hendrickson: This is a figure that we have not checked, but document
A2 shows some 237,000 for police.and public works and fire another 40, so there
is about 300,000 there for those essential three.
Mrs. Gordon: That's including the 101--- of the 101 vacancies the portion that is
essential services, about 300,000 did you say?
Dr. Hendrickson: 0f the 757...
Mrs. Gordon: How much additional would be required to replace prospective vacant
po i.tions that would occur during this current coming year?
Dr. Hendrickson: This again is a figure that we worked on in the initial proposal,
we haven't worked on it now during the interim. But, the expected attrition based
on whams been occurring so far seem to be in the neighborhood of--- what, about 20
people a month, is that about right? So, you have about, lets say 250 people,
positions that will probably be vacated during the year at this rate.
Mrs. Gordon: Overall.
Dr. Hendrickson: Overall, for the entire City, yes.
Mrs. Gordon: And breaking that down on the precentage basis then to the two
services, what would you say?
Dr. Hendrickson: Fire and police would be in total there about 50% of the total
I guess possibly a little bit more than 50% of the total, so they would have something
in access of a hundred of those positions, possibly.
DEC 141971,
Mrs. Gordon: You see, an addition 100 positions opening up. Hr. Grassie. then would you
be planning to fill those positions or not fill those positions? The ones that would
be coming up during the coming year in those services.
Mr. Grassie: Well, it would really depend on how far along the department is with
it's salary savings plan as we got into this discussion just a minute
ago. If you are speaking from the point of the department having already achieved
it's goal, then the departmental budget itself will have enough money to fill vacancies,
but, up until the point that you have made the salary savings sufficient to cover the
million and a half dollars, then the department would have to decide which vacancies
it holds.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, could we then at the right point in time and when we are through
with Dr. Hendrickson and the other doctor's name I'm not sure I have.
Dr. Hendrickson: Dr. Remington,
Mrs. Gordon: Remington?
Dr. Hendrickson: Right.
Yrs. Gordon: I'd like to hear from you too, if you don't mind when Dr. Hendrickson
has finished. I want to know... you know, I recognize your answer, its the only
answer you can give me, the other answer has to come from the department head, right?
Mr. Grassie: No...
Mrs. Gordon: I want to hear it from the department head.
Dr. Hendrickson: And there are some other possibilites here too, that is if our
earlier estimates are corrects For example, the statement that there is
a conservative budget. Its possible that there will be some loosening up of funds
in other areas, such as you may not need to use all the 787.
Mrs, Gordon: You may not need what?
Dr. Hendrickson: You may not need to use all of the CETA proposed funds for this
purpose or you've suggested some alternatives too.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I don't want any of it for that purpose. Ok, so that's what I'm
trying to find out, how many hard dollars are needed to not have to use any CETA
for those two. That's what I'm trying to find out and I don't have an answer yet,
but I hope I'll have it.
Dr. Hendrickson: The proposal indicates about 300,000 in here.
Mrs. Gordon: Including proposed vacancies that will come up during this coming
year.
Dr. Hendrickson: It excludes those.
Mrs. Gordon: Excluding those.
Dr. Hendrickson: Because you may want to hire those again with hired fund too.
Irs. Gordon: With what?
Dr. Hendrickson: With City funds, rather than CETA funds.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'm opposed to that entirely. That approach for those services,
I think is absolutely wrong, Then, yes we can utilize CETA in other areas, but
not there. Any other questions from anyone else?
Mayor Ferre: Anybody else, with any other questions of Dr. Hendrickson? Dr.
Remington then would you make your comments.
Mrs. Gordon: Are there any other comments that you'd like to make regarding this entire'
proposal, I'd like your...
Dr. Remington: The entire proposal? I guess I have some concerns about generally
the way the whole thing was handled, partically because I'm not comfortable that
we've got the kind of information we need to make any kind of definitive recommendation
10
DEC 141977
On the llth of November, we got a summary of alternatives from the City, which is
basically identical with the December 6th, proposal and I don't see any new information
that come out or any changes that have been made since that time.
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask a question, I didn't understand your opening statements.
Dr. Remington: I beg your pardon Commissioner?
Rev. Gibson: Sir?
Dr. Remington: I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole budget proposal, basically
what this budget proposal does, is apply some bandages to the proposal that was
submitted to you last time.
Rev. Gibson: No, you said something else that caught my air. You mean to tell me
that you did not get the desired information when we instructed the Manager and his
staff to make any and all records available to you?
Dr. Remington: Well, some of that information was not available apparently.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Gary or Mr. Grassie, you want to address yourself to that?
Mr. Grassie: My impression is that the staff has been working on a daily basis
with Dr. Hendrickson, who is the chairman of the group, I believe that Mr. Remingtion,
has been present at similar meetings, although, I think that his schedule has not
allowed him to be at all of them and my impression is that they have exchanged
information and been working along with developing answers to the questions as they
came up. Now, obviously_ questions can come up for which answers are not available
when they are asked and it does require that the budget office go back and pull
together new information, really is what it amounts to.
Rev. Gibson: Ok, let me do it this way. Doctor, Hendrickson, is that right?
You heard the statement made by Dr. Remington, are you in accord with what
he said?
Dr. Hendrickson: Yes, we made some requests for information that have not been
provided. Now, the reason that we have gone along with this proposal, is that
we can see where this avoids the lay-offs and provides a way of avoiding them and
if that is accepted then we can, you know, get along probably without the information
if any of it would have been helpful in reenforcing thinking and so forth, we would
have had it. We were not able to get several bits of information.
Dr. Remington: Commissioner Gibson, I guess my point should have been--- I'm not
disagreeing with the answers they've come up with, if that's--- you know, that's the
Manager's decision and I'm, he's got a budget that will continue the positions, but
if you want to talk about the individual items, I'm pretty uncomfortable with two
or three of them.
Mrs. Gordon: Which ones sir?
Rev. Gibson: Well, let me say this for Theodore Gibson and I want you to know
that I kept quiet through all of that business. Since I'm not an economist and
I'm not a budget expert, I have to rely upon men and women whom we employ with
the taxpayers' money to give us the proper answers that we could rely upon, that
when we start burning out there on the street, we can live with it, even live with
the -burn. I don't propose and I don't intend to go through all of this jazz when I take
tyre taxpayers' money and pay competent and capable men, to tell me whether what
I'm about to'do is at least reasonable and to the best of their ability, right.
Now, I haven't said that, let me say this, I hope as long I'm on this Commission,
that if we give instructions to the administration, that the administration will
carry out that instruction and if they can't they will call us in session--- you
call us for everything else--- and say you can't carry out the instructions. I
hope--- I am only speaking for Theodore--- I don't care what nobody else thinks
and does. Now, I'm apalled, I'm apalled and I'm doggone, darn right insulted
that a man would get up to the mike and make a statement like that.
Mrs. Gordon: That's no criticism of you Dr. Remington, this is a concern that
I share with Father Gibson, because I had anticipated and I had hoped that this
would be a very joint venture between the City's administration and you two gentlemen
and that everything that you needed would be available, that you would be able to
analyze and make recommendations upon facts that we will furnish and if you--- I
read you what you said, you did not receive it and that you're accepting this
11
DEC 141971.
because this was all you could get to finally come up with any kind of conclusion
and that's sad, I'm really disappointed because that is not what we had intented.
Dr. Remington: Well, Commissioner Gordon, I would like to respond, the issues
here are policy issues and policy is not my business or Dr. Hendrickson's
business, that's the business of the Commission.
Mrs. Gordon: Right, but there are the figures that you say you find exception
with, figures that you find exception for reasons, then you must elaborate on
what you'are finding exception with.
Dr. Remington: Alright, I'll be specific and--- 0n item D, the reduced transfer
from general fund to enterprise fund. On the llth of November, we were provided
with basically the same data1the identical number. We asked for net cash balances
in the enterprises funds and this was in writing through Commissioner Plummer,
he asked for this information for us. We were provided with, as of 1130, some enterprise
fund total balances and it basically comes up with the same answer that we had as
early as November llth, now either they were right on the nose in their projections
or something happened, we haven't seen the cash balances, I was fairly critical
of the enterprise fund before, I see no reason to be any more confident in these
figures than I was in the other, I just haven't seen the details so I can't say.
I question seriously that that's the balance that does exist, I think there is more
money there. On number E, I think the severance appropriation is overstated.
Dr. Remington: On number E, 1 think that...
Mrs. Gordon: Our letters and yours differ somewhere, E we have as enterprise
funds, C we have as severance.
Dr. Remington: Alright, I guess I'm dealing with the graph and there maybe some
discrepancy between what I have and you have, I maybe doing a disservice to you.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, then would you refer to the same one we have.
Dr. Remington: Alright, I've got the one you've got.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok.
Dr. Remington: D is the CETA estimates?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Dr. Remington: That's a policy question.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Dr. Remington: My personal preference is irrelevant at that point, you could do it
either way.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, I'm really not asking you for a personal preference, I'm asking
you for--- you know, what is what you found to be either right or wrong in the proposal.
Dr. Remingtop: So far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with that, I think the
Manager is quite correct.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, in the C, severance cost.
Dr. Remington: Severance cost, that's basically a correct item as far as I am concerne
there has been no dispute about that or in number A. Now, number B, on reduced
severance appropriation 1 think that that's overstated, I think there is more money
available there. On item F, where there is no recommendation on increase in salary
savings, I don't want to bring that little argument up again, unfortunately I'm
not in agreement, I guess this is a Philosophical question, the Manager sees it as
not real dollars, I think there are real dollars there, but it depends on how you
approach the question, I think that salary savings are there, they have been
accumulating since the start of the fiscal year, because we are operating on an
old budget, think there is some money there I can't tell you how much, I haven't
the slightest idea because we haven't addressed that question directly. Finally
. 12 OEC 1419T
there is a, I guess a solution that's not been proposed and it maybe none of my
business but I guess my concern is, hasn't anyone considered retaining the status -
quo? in other words, why are we hiring new people for next year; if--- maybe that's
important, but that is an issue.
Mrs. Gordon: What do you mean hiring new people?
Dr. Remington: Well, there are new positions in the proposed budget, they have
been there all along. People that were not currently employed and have not been
employed in the past, I mean that's a policy question again.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, would you please answer that?
Mr. Grassie: Of course, commissioner. Really it is another way of putting the
question that Commissioner Plummer, asked. This project represents the best estimatl
on the part of the people that have to run City operations and that is department
directors, as to what positions they need. Now, if they determined that last year
they had two clerical positions and this year they want a carpenter, that's what
they're being paid to do, is to make that determination. Now, in the process of
readjusting their resources and their manpower complement, they may and in fact
they have, proposed positions that are not now filled. Now, that falls in the
category of a person not on board who would be hired, that's entirely right and I
suggest to you that if department directors came back witha recommendation which
represented no change in resources and no change in positions from last year, they
would not have been doing their job, that's what they are supposed to do, they are
supposed to make those judgements and make those recommendations and those recommendh
are in front of you, they include the hiring of some new people, even initially
of at the expense of doing away with some people that were already on board. Now,
you know--- I can't say that any more clearly, but that's what they're supposed to be
doing, they have to make those judgements, otherwise, you know, if he never made
those kinds of difficult choices you'd have the same kind of operation, the same
kind of employee complement presumably, that you had twenty years ago. It's simply
not realistic for a erowing and changing City.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, Mr. Mayor, let me make a comment here because of the dialogue
between Father Gibson and somewhat by Mrs. Gordon and the two professors, I was
saddled with the job, which I didn't want and that was to be the go between the
administration and this panel, let me for clarification, since Father feels very
uncomfortable, merely state where and what I did very clearly, because it's document
in writing. Dr. Hendrickson, approached me and told me that he was having in his
estimation, difficulty securing certain information which I in fact asked him to
surrender to me in writing and I would do what I could to get this information
and on the 29th of November, there were five requests in a memo from Dr. Hendricksoi
to me which I immediately forwarded to the administration and asked them to please
comply. Now, I have the assurances of administration that the first two items
were supplied by Mr. Gunderson of the finance department, items 3 and 4, were supplit
by the budget department and item 5 is still a discrepancy and still trying to
gather information; for your edification,that is a reconciliation of position vacanc
and current employment to both the 1976-77 budget estimate revised as of January
20, 1977 of the 77-78 budget estimate. Supposedly,out of the 5 requests, 4 were
forwarded and that 5th one is still up in the air, so I don't want you to feel
that any discrepancy between administration and the panel was not looked after by
that person on this Commission who you chose to do that job and any of you want
copies of this memorandum, I'll make them available.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anything else on that item?
Dr. Remington: Mr. Plummer, I'd like to respond to that question.
Mrs. Gordon: I'd like to hear you respond.
Mayor Ferre: Dr. Remington, 1'11 tell you, I wonder if you'll forgive me and
the Commission, but Mrs. Grace Rockerfeller and members of the Zoning and Planning
Board, have been here all morning and not know they have to £o and she asked me
to be heard first. Frankly, I thought that...
Mrs. Gordon: Just let him respond to this one thing, so that the response will not
be removed from the question by a period of time.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, go ahead and respond and after that then Mrs. Rockafella, .
I'd like to recognize you for a moment and then that way you can all go about your
13
DEC 141977
business,
Dr. Remington: Alright, in terms of the 4 items that are requested, Commissioner
Plummer, we've received part of one, part of two, part of three, none of four and
part of five, in no case do we have all of the complete information we asked for.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, in checking, I was told that you had the first four and five
was still up in the air, ok. I just want this Commission to know that I have stayed
on this situation and you know, because if not, then the finger is going to pointed
at you know, number one here.
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., nobody is pointing any fingers at you, you tried the best you
could. Now, I know that the information was not totally received by the consultants
and I also had heard that they could not get information they needed, it bothered
me a great deal, but there was nothing that I could do about it. You tried to do
what you could and I'm sorry Mr. Gary, I'm not pointing any fingers at you, I don't
even know if you had all the information or where it was supposed to come from,
but\ I do know that it was a frustrating task at least at best to the consultants
and in this case.
2. MOTION OF INTENT: INCREASE SALARIES PAID TO MEMBERS OF THE PLAN KG
ADVISORY BOARD AND THE ZONING BOARD, (RETROACTIVE TO
OCTOBER 11 1977),
Mayor Ferre: Alright, if you would stay tuned, we will be right back after a
small commercial break and at this time recognize Grace if you would, I know that ---
I see about seven or eight members of the Zoning and Planning Board and I recognize
you at this time.
Mrs. Rockafella: .. Mayor and members of the Commission, I'm Grace Rockafella,
I live at 814 N.E. 71 Street, I'm chairman of the Miami Planning Advisory Board,
Mr. Mayor, I want to thank you for taking us at this time. there are members of the
board here that have to be back to work, then be back here at 3:00 clock to begin
our meeting. I'm not here today to impose my will without the knowledge, consent
or permission of the other two of all the rest of the board members of the Planning
Advisory Board or the Zoning Board on this Commission. I am here with the permission?
with the consent and at the request of six members of the Planning Advisory Board,
the alternate member, Mr. Rolle and the entire membership of the Zoning Board, I
don't think it should be any other way, I don't think any one person has the right
to speak unbeknown for the rest of the board members. If you recalled the Planning
Advisory Board went through 18 long months preparing the comprehensive plan for the
City of Miami. We went into the areas, into the neighborhoods, we had most of that
eight months, one full board meeting a week. Since the City was divided into a
number of sections each member of the board was assigned to work with the citizens
in that area as to prepare them for the public hearing that came before
the board. The meetings were called to order at7:00 clock, we were there until
10, 11, 12 and even 1:00 clock in the morning, we staved as long as any citizen had
anything to say, as long as any citizen had any doubts, any questions to be answered.
We were very proud of the job that we did on that, we were very proud of the good
will we created between the citizens of Miami and the Mayor, the Commission and the
Manager of the City Miami and they were very grateful to us. In November--- at
our last meeting in November, the Planning Advisory Board had two public hearings,
tie -hearings lasted until quarter after 10 and then we went into a Session with
Dr. Bartley, at the session were members of the staff, from the planning staff, the zoni
staff and the building department. Dr. Bartley, informed us that we're in for a
long hard year in the changing of the zoning regulations. This is going to consume
a lot of time, they had suggested four meetings a month from 7 until 11, the board
members decided that we would rather come in on 3 O'Clock as we are doing today
as we did last week, break at 6 O'Clock for a sandwich, go back at 7 have our
regular planning hoard meeting and then go into the meeting again on the revision
of the zoning. In addition to those long hours we're also asked to donate one
saturday a month, in order to get through this following year. We also have
hours and hours of reading that we have to do at home to prepare ourselves for these
meetings so that we will know what we're saying when we start holding public hearings
with the public, I'm very proud of our planning advisory hoard, we try to conduct
ourselves in such a way that we are fair, we are honest and we are a credit to you
Mr. Mayor and the Commissioners that appointed us to that hoard. Knowing all the
members of the zoning board, having attended many of their meetings, I can say
the same thing for them. I think the City can be proud of the memberships,
14
D E C 141972
•
as if I am one of them myself, in saying that we have two outstanding boards. Now,
Dr. Bartley informed us at that meeting that he was being paid--- the City was
going to have to make arrangements to pay the staff members of the planning
department, the zoning department and the building department overtime, but they
would buy us a sandwich when we break at 6 O'Clock, we thought that was very good
of them without us even having to ask for it. Last year at the budget hearing,
Mr. Dean, who is chairman of the zoning board with the permission and at the
request of six members of the planning advisory hoard, the entire zoning board
came before this Commission and asked that our salaries be increased from $100
to $200 a month at the same time the civil service hoard's was raised. Now, we
understood that that was ok'd by this hoard, then unbeknown to us without our
knowledge, we were appalled that one member of the planning advisory board...
Mayor Ferre: Grace, if you'll forgive me for interrupting you, because I think we
can cut through this very quickly, because everybody knows what the issue is here
and I'd be perfectly willing to accept a motion, if anybody wants to make a motion.
Mrs. Rockafella: Well, you haven't heard the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Well, but you can't make...
Mrs. Rockafella: They gave me two alternatives.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think the thing to do is to take it one step at a time, I
know where you're heading and I think what I'd like to do if it's alright with
You, is let's get the motion on the floor which I think is going to be easier with
regards to establishing that as a matter of policy as of today into the future,
then you want to talk about going back and that's another matter and I'd rather
take it one step at a time.
Mrs. Rockafella: Well, what they gave me, what they voted on was two proposals.
One, that you increase our salary to $200, make it retroactive from January 19, 1977,
to make up for the raise that we should have had last year and didn't get and the
planning advisory board was so involved or the second one was to make it effective
December 30 to December of this year and go to $300 and I think the cheapest one
for the City would be retroactive and $200 and we would greatly appreciate your
consideration.
Mayor Ferre: I would just expressed my opinion this way, I think that it, is certainly
reasonable with the hours that you put, the effort, the time, I think it's unfair
to ask citizens, no matter Chow well off they are, to put in the hours that you all
have to put in saturday_s and nights and the work and in this day and age and not give
you more than a $100 a month is just almost absurd to me, so I'm perfectly willing
to go along with the increase to $200, that's just one opinion here. Now,...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that their salary be increased $200 a
month.
Mrs. Rockafella:
Now, can I go...
Mayor Ferre: Well wait a minute, we need to get a second and then we need to vote
on that. Is there a second on that motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to speak to it and second it, because I think
that I take the full responsibility for the fact that there are two boards, because
L-gmpaigned and initiated the charter change that made possible the creation of the
planning hoard and the zoning board. At the time that there was one board, there
was a $200 a' month fee per board member, at that time there was a great deal of
zoning and no planning done, since then we have come a long way, we have embarked
upon a comprehensive plan, although the implementation has yet to come about, that
is what Grace is referring to by the numerous meetings that is going to have to
take place. These require an enormous amount of ordinance changes and so forth,
yesll agree you are working hard and,yes)1 agree you have proven yourselves and,yes,
you have done a good job.
Mayor Ferre:
motion...
Mr. Plummer:
the one...
Alright, there is a second on the motion, further discussion on that
Yes, all of the money comes out of Rose's expense bond, since she was
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on the motion?
15 Du 14191
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, Rose did pay for that chatter change out of her oiab fiifidss She
hired an assistance and paid for it herself.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll please.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-900
MOTION TO INCREASE SALARY PAID TO MEMBERS OF
THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ZONING BOARD
TO $200.00 PER MONTH.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice Mayor Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice Ferre
NOES: None.
Mayor Ferre: Now, with regards to the retroactive portion of it.
Mrs. Rockafella: I think its a very small amount, now the zoning board was not
involved in the comprehensive plan, but nevertheless, they did come before here
and got it approved on the first reading last year and then it was thrown out by
another member of the planning advisory board.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't know Grace, about the retroactive portion of it, I think
I would have to have a little more time to think about that we're in a real budget
crunch, you know it and everybody else knows it and when you start a retroactive
you're--- we may be opening Pandora's box, I'm not sure, I'm not...
Mrs. Rockafella: I don't think so.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I don't know, but I want to give that some more thought, I don't
know how my fellow Commissioners feel about it, but maybe they want to move a motion
and if they do, well...
Mr. Reboso: I am willing to move it retroactive to October 1.
Mrs. Rockafella:
October, we asked for January.
Mr. Plummer: We know what you asked for.
Mrs. Gordon: Grace, you're doing better than a lot of other people that come up
here, including the regular employees.
Mayor Ferre: You see the reasoning of all of this as I see it is , first
of all with regards to the motion that passed, there was a time when zoning and
planning members got $200 a month, so what in effect we're doing is just coming
balls to where we were a year and a half ago; so there, really, you know ---as a matter
of fact I think we made a mistake not to recognize it then.
Mrs. Gordon: Let me speak to you from one who really worked on setting that thing
up.
Mayor Ferre: Heys it passed and I'm not trying to delay it, but I just want to make
this statement into the record, so I'm just saying that I'm philosophical in agreement
with it. Now, the second aspect of it is that, it used to be where zoning and planning
was not as complicated a_it has become in this day and age. It requires a tremendous
amount of time and effort and 1*don't think, T think volunteers is fine, but I think
it has certain limitations that you can't ask people to volunteer beyond a reasonable
time and what you are doing, is you're putting unreasonable time into it. Now, with
regards to the retroactive I think you got a just cause, but, you know, we're faced
today as you can see with some very difficult decisions about a very difficult budget)
tomorrow we're going to be faced with social programs that are being cut hundreds of
thousands of dollars, which you're going to thank an awful lot of people, children
and older people and the indigent and needy, and I would have to concur with Rose's
10
DEC 141974
feeling on this, I think that so that we don't be late for this, that Commissioner
Reboso, makes a motion to make it retroactive to the budget year, which is October 1,
I would have no problems with that.
Mrs. Gordon: I'll second that.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, we have a motion and a second that the $200 be commencing
October 1, which is the budget year 1977-78 and there is a second. Is there further
discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Vice -Mayor Reboso, who moved.its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-901
MOTION DECLARING THAT THE SALARY INCREASE GRANTED
BY MOTION 77-900 TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY
BOARD AND ZONING BOARD BE RETROACTIVE TO OCTOBER 1, 1977.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
Commissioner Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
3, CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FISCAL 1977-78 BUDGET
ALTERiTIVES,
Mayor Ferre: I think we left it--- Mr. Manager, now I don't know whether you want
to respond at this time or what.
Mr. Grassie: You had left it Mr. Mayor, so that Mr. Gary, was going to make a statement
... information available, yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Where are we at this point, now that we are coming back to the budget?
Mr. Gary: It seem as though we have an instant replay.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, Howard, you're going to speak to this right? Ok, well
I think Dr. Hendrickson and Remington, should be in the room and I don't see them
I think it's only fair or you're going to wind up--- here they come. Doctor,
he's going to respond to this memo which you gave me on the 29th.
Mr. Gary: Well, it seems as though we have an instant replay of administration's
refusal to give information, which I find hard to believe, in view of the fact that
I think I've given them everything except my pocket book.
Mr —Plummer:
MIP
That's the problem.
Mr. Cary: Yes, probably so. We have had a pretty good relationship with Dr.
Hendrickson, in terms of working on these alternatives. Now, some of the problems
that have existed in terms of providing information, is the fact that the City,
during the time that we were developing the alternatives, had not closed its books
of 76-77, the entire finance department was working with our external auditors to
close the books, now, the net cash balances and the general fund balance related to
or was directly related to the closing of the 76-77 books. Due to the fact that
we have been accused of changing figures from time to time and due to the fact that
we didn't want that to interfere with our alternatives this time, the director
of finance felt that it would be appropriate for us to wait until the books were closed
before we provided this information, however, the books have not been closed or
they're in the process of being finalized and it was agreed upon by all, that we
would give our best estimate of what the net cash balance and the enterprise fund
and the fund balance would be. Now, this was agreed by everyone and after a period
of time we provided that information to them. We've had a number of computer reports
DEC 141977
we've given to the FIU professors and in fact we did give them the net cash balances
and the general fund balance, which I have before me, which was presented to the
FIU professors. We did have some problems in reconciling the 76-77 budget and 77-78
budget, we worked on that diligently with them we were not able to come up with
it, but the first four items, we did our hest and we gave them all the information
we had and we put our entire staff on it. so the accusation that we did not cooperate,
did not give information is not accurate.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, any other questions on the subject.
Mrs. Gordon: Then what you're saying Mr. Gary and what I want to be sure about,
is that they were given the information about who the new list of employees that
are coming on board are and which ones are being--- you know, were not going to
be filled, is that it?-- did thev get that. because it's part of their request as
I saw it here.
Mr. Gary: We gave them the computer reports...
Mrs. Gordon: Number three, yes.
Mr. Gary: Commissioner Gordon?
Mrs Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Gary: We gave them the computer reports--- all the computer reports as they
asked, that information had to be selected and analyzed to come with that answer
we gave them the data and it was very difficult for both of us to do reconciliations.
But all the data they asked for we gave it to them.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question, Mr. Gary, based on this memo of the 29th to
me.
Mr. Gary: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Is it my understanding that yes, you were not able to comply fully
with their request, but that you did give them all of the information that you had?
Mr. Gary: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask another question, did you tell them that?
Mr. Gary: Obviously, we did Commissioner.
Rev. Gibson: Say what?
Mr. Gary: We did.
Rev. Gibson: Obviously, you did, I didn't hear that statement made.
Mr. Gary: Every statement I've made here, we informed them of what I just told
you.
Rev. Gibson: Doctor, for the record, when you were not able to get the total
evidence that you wanted, were you told that this was a partial evidence, but the
other was not available or was not coming or will come later?
Dr. Hendrickson: Either explicitly or implicitly, because Howard is not responsible
for several of these items, for example, number one, would have to come from Mr.
Gunderson, this is true also of detail, now, we got the fund balance projection as
of September 30th, but we didn't get it detailed as to the adjustments, so we couldn't
reconcile, that again would come from Mr. Gunderson...
Rev. Gibson: Doctor, all I'm trying to get for the record is, that either you all ---
some of this thing is obvious, now, I don't have to be a professor, I maintain
somebody was responsible for not giving their material and to have us believe
that the material was given is not fair and to have us believe that you know, you
gave half and you didn't give the other half and you didn't tell the man, the man
is telling you that he didn't get all the material.
Mr. Gary: Let's get that man in here.
is
DEC 141977i
tits. Gordon: What I want to know, is who would have provided you with number
five in this list of items, who? Mr. Grassie, would have been the one to supply
that and that it was not supplied.
Mr. Gary: Number five, is my responsibility.
Mrs. Gordon: Why didn't you supply it?
Mr. Gary: For the mere fact Commissioner, with all the other requirements that
they had placed on us and getting other data, we set priorities, those being one
through four, plus the package that we presented to you last week, that entailed
a considerable amount of work.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I think number 5, has a lot of information--- a lot of necessary
type of information, maybe not so much to them as it does to me, and I'm very interested
and very curious about number five and if it wasn't available to them. is it available
to me?
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, let me and I don't know what Howard Gary's, position
is in terms of the availability of that information.
Mrs. Gordon: Oh, I thought he was the one that was supposed to have it.
Mr. Grassie: What I'm responding to Commissioner, is whether or not it physically
is available, whether anybody has it. One thing should be evident and that is
that its a lot easier to ask questions, than it is to answer them. Now, you know,
I spend a lot of my day asking questions and staff people have to try and come up
with answers. The difference is, that at some point I have to judge if they have
made the best effort they can within the resources and the time that we give them
and I have accepted an answer which is not all the information I could possibly
dream up, but is whit is reasonable to expect form them, given what we give them
to work with. Now, what I'm saying to you is, that any process or investigation
of any kind, I run into hundreds of things, that 1 would like to know and I could
ask many more questions than, an\'body can answer, you know, you or anybody else. But,
we have to live in the real world, the real world is that we've got to deal with the
time constraints and the resources the staff has. You know, they already have really
in my estimation, gone way beyond the call of duty to try and accomodate the desire
of the City Commission and everybody else, to investigate all of these questions.
Mrs. Gordon: You know, I find it a little incredible that you answer me that wav
Mr. Grassie, because you tell me with one breath that your departments have notified
you of certain kinds of changes of personnel and lay-offs and rehirings and at the
same time you're telling me thatthat's too complex an answer to give to me and I
don't understand that, except you don't want to give it to me.
Mr. Grassie: Well, let's try and see whether we can achieve some kind of understanding
on that.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I'm very simple about the things I do, I'm
not very complex and complicated. I maintain that if the man asked for the information
if you gave him three, one, two and three our of four, you can't find five, you
have an obligation and you know, all this and bull by lack of communication
I don't buy, because all you have to do is pick up that phone and say to him. my
brother I can't find it I can't furnish five. Now, you know, I don't want no staff
misleading me in that direction, you may not be misleading, but I resent it. I
can't intelligently and honestly make decisions, when this man whom we employed to
investigate, tell us what he told us. Now, I want to serve notice on this staff, I'm
not going to be quite as trusting now.
Mr. Plummer: You know, I made the statement before am I'm going to make it again,
I am tremendously sorry that you four were denied the exposure to the committee,
which you chose for me to do. Now, I'm not here to defend Dr. Hendrickson, I'm
not here to defend Gary or anyone else. But, I want to tell you something, you
know I met with that committee for almost four full days and I brought in to this
Commission, the remnants from that committee and it was a box about this high of
documents which were requested and it wasn't but about 80°_- of what was requested
because there was just no human way that we could have had the 100%. Now, the
only fault that I could find, if there is a fault, is that maybe today's meeting
is premature, but it's not permature when we were supposed to have adopted a budget
on October 1.
Mayor Ferre: ...?
19
DEC 141977i
M. Plummer: I'm not saving that,Mr. Mayor) and that's why we are meeting today
but what I am saying is that Mr. Gary has stated for the record, that he has complied
and Mr. Gunderson, with everything that they could humanly do in this time frame
and I think I extract from Dr. Hendrickson, that he feels that they were playing
fair. Now, if I'm not--- Doctor, speak for yourself, you know--- but I'm 'losing
something here and we're pointing fingers back and forth, are we really_ pointing
fingers that don't mean anything, that there is no way they could have complied.
Now, I'm just throwing that out, maybe this meeting was premature.
Rev. Gibson: Let me say this and I'tn going to stop Mr. Mayor, since I raised the
question, we are hat pointing fingers, man there are some things you can't do and if
you can't do them , you ought to he man enough, gentleman enough)to say look
buddy--- that's all I'm saying. That's the wav you deal, you deal open and above board
you asked me for a certain instrument I could not get it--- you're telling me that
now, why didn't you tell the man?
Mr. Plummer: Doctor did he tell you on item five...
Rev. Gibson: He said he didn't tell him.
Mr. Plummer: He said implied or...
INAUDIBLE:
Mr. Plummer: Did he say to you that there wasn't..!
Dr. Hendrickson: What he provided in item 5, was a reconciliation to the new
budget. Now, for the record I have put together my version of five and I'm willing
to make it available. I've indicated to Howard that is available, but again I've
done it from the outside and it probably would be--- have more errors than...
Mayor Ferre: Look, let's get right to the pcint of this thing Dr. Hendrickson, I ---
you know, either and this isn't only Mr. Grassie, that's involved, this is Howard
Gary and Hendrickson and the whole staff, either these people have been dealing
in good faith or they've been dealing in bad faith and in my opinion from the
information that I have heard to and listen_d and from my conversations directly
with Howard Gary and Gunderson and Mr. Grassie, it is my opinion that they dealt
in good faith. Now, if they dealt in had faith then we're dealing with a completely
different animal. Now, that they couldn't get the information, that they were not
able to supply all of the information, that there might be confusion within the
departments, that they may not know the answers themselves. Now, all of those are
variations of what possibly could have happen or--- and you know, you've got to make
a value judgement in this Comission, there is five of us here and we've got to make
a value judgement. The five of us have got to decide, since we are at one of these
crossroads again and I happen to feel that I don't think that Howard Gary, was
lying or that these people were in any way trying to be subjective to subterfuge
the proceedings or did deny, you know, I don't think that there was a conscious
meeting some place where somebody said let us deny Dr. Hendrickson this document
we have it, let's not give it to him. Now, if I were to believe that that type of
a meeting occurred and that type of a discussion ensued and that kind of conclusion
was arrived upon, then we got a completely different animal here and I don't think
we have that situation and I want to ask you, do you think that that's the case?
Dr. Hendrickson: No, I don't think either Dr. Remington or myself indicated that
there was any bad affair, we put on the record that we weren't able to get the
information.that we requested.
Mayor Ferre: Now, whether or not and I completely agree with Father Gibson's
point that perhaps--- you know, in these things you've got to have better communication,
that perhaps it should have not been by implication, it shouldn't have been implicit,
it should have been explicit, I mean explicit to the point of putting it in writing
and I think Father Gibson is right to that extent and I think beyond that I don't
know what else we can do at this point because I think we're now turning on water
or just going in circles.
Rev. Gibson: !Mr. Mayor, 1 have said 1--- 1 am not implying, that's not my position,
I'm not chastising anybody, let me tell the Commission what the Commission doesn't
see, that unless people come forth and say I cannot provide at this time, not only
will that item will not be found, but other items in the future won't be found or
will not be made available and you can't tell me nothing about communication, man
that's the excuse for this whole corrupted system in the world today, the way you
20 DEC 141971,
do that, is you say John pick up the telephone or you get up off your fanny and
go on over there and tell him or you write him a letter, that's what I'm talking
about and I hope that this administration will start right now, as long as I'm
up here, if we develop policy you either carry it out or you tell us you can't
carry it out or if we appoint a team and they ask for material and they don't
get it, that you say to them, we do not have it, don't have them come up here
because I tell you this, Mr. Grassie, I'm going to be suspicious as hell from now
on if anybody comes and says that, so they ought to know before they come. ok.
Mayor Ferre: :alright, are there any other questions on this or comments on items?
alright, at this time I would like to recognize Dr. Barry or Gene, how do you want
to handle this now? Do you want to go first or--- alright, doctor?
Dr. Barry: Thank you, I'd like to begin if I may. wit11 lust the. comments on the basis
of..based on what was just being discussed and I think it's important to note two
quotes, one was the quote by Mr. Grassie, that it's always easier to ask mare _auestions
than can be reasonably answered and the other by Nr. Gary saying we have our priorities.
Now, the important thing I think to remember in that, is that there is a written
request for five questions since October 7th, now, that's almost all of the month of
October, all of the month of November and half of the month of December to answer
five questions.
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Dr. Barry: And to believe that the information is not available on number five.
requires the assumption that the City Manager does not know how he got to the
proposed 1977-78 budget from where the night that he approved and the only approved
document where 1976-77 took us. In other words he cannot reconcile, he's saving,
and he doesn't have the time if we give him the priorities to reconcile the changes
that are envisioned in the 77-78 proposal from where the City was and the approved
76-77 document; and I find that in my opinion, a rather dubious claim, I can't
imagine a City of this size being runned with changes that involve major decisions,
political decisions be yourselves, without knowledge of the path taken to get from
one fiscal budget proposal or to one fiscal budget proposal from another, I suggest
that that information ha:- to he available. The choice of who to lay-off in order to
hire the new positions that Mr. Grassie spoke about today:, who makes that decision?.
that's a political decision to be made by the Commission. The Commission. and there
will he a recurrent theme in my presentation, has to this date not yet been given
information about the new areas of expenditure, the new programs for expansion and
the new utilization of resources envisioned by Mr. Grassie's budget. It will be the
continuing theme of me presentation today, that the real problem is not the problem
of how to find the money to keep the whatever number of employees that were not
laid -off, it is the problem of how to fund the new envisioned dreams of Mr. Grassie
and his 77-78 budget proposal; and what you should do I think, to rationalize and
to justify that the maximum use of resources,--- if I maybe so bold as to suggest ---
is that you need a list, exactly what number five calls for, what are the new areas
of expansion what types of new projects are envisioned? what types of new activities
are envisioned in 77-78 which we must approve as the citizenry of Miami in relation
to what we were already doing in 76-77. Look at each of those projects and those
new expansions and saylyes,we should find money to fund this one; no, we shouldn't
find money to fund that one, because it doesn't have sufficient priority, rather
than looking at just the simple question which gets away from what's happening that's
new this year in the proposed budget, the simple question that I think the Manager
wants us to, in a myopic wayllook at which is how do we find 1.8 million dollars
to keep the positions that were not deleted and not laid -off. Because if you
remember in the October 7th, Special Committee Hearing and it's in the minutes
of that meeting, the charge to the Manager and I have the motion number, which was
approved five to nothing, motion 77-772, it's on page 61 of the transcription of
that special me.etinf,`. The words are, a direction to work with the FIU panel and then
there is a quote ---'to further reanalyze and redevelop the 1977-78 budget estimate"
that was the charge to the City Manager, it didn't say just to. in a myopic single
minded way, find 1.8 million dollars, in fact at that time and that's October 7th,
this Commission and the citizens of this City and the employees were being told
that it wasn't just 90 some positions that had to be found--- that funds had to he
found to continue in the employment, the whole 167 positions was laid out. Now,
the new estimate that', ill the current December 8th memo is based upon an employee
count of October 12th. Now, I'd like to ask you to believe, because we looked at
the records, but there was not a reduction of employment in this City between
October 7th and October 12, of the difference between 167 positions and the now
90 some positions that are spoken of, that at the time this hard decision was
forced upon this Commission and the citizens of this community, there were far
fewer than 167 positions that were filled that had to be laid -off. The lay-off
21
DEC,
1977
slips had been sent out to employees that were slated for lay-offs in that total
number and there was no change in those or retraction of those lay-off slips that
had been sent out, there was no message to you at that October 7th Commission
meeting, that you didn't have to lay-off all the 167, that the budget problem
wasn't that servere and yet when the count comes in on October 12th, we find that
it is slightly more than 90 positions that need to be funded. Now, at that meeting
and there is a quote in the transcription of that October meeting--- it says Mr.
Grassie listed the problem with 167 positions and county support 3.3 million
dollars, not the 1.8 million dollars of today and the December 8th million which
is based upon the count of employment and positions that are currently filled that
were not proposed to be filled in the forthcoming years of proposed budget of
some only slightly more than 90 positions. 94 general funded employees and 46
CETA employees. So, the cost of that dropped--- we were,., must believe I supposed
seeing how the decision on October 7th was so important, dropped by--- from 3.3
million to only 1.8 million during the week between October 7th and October 12th
for the five days between the employee count. The fact of the matter is the
employee count of 167 was based on the budget message and the preliminary period
in which the budget was prepared early last summer and was not updated even though
the lists were sent out for termination to the employees and their families. I'd
like to point out one other thing to call attention to the size, the magnitude
of the problem in terms of resource allocation and that is the fact, excluding
board members, because they're not really in a sense the same as general funded
employees, there are 3,264-1/2 positions in all funds that are non-CETA funded
in the proposed 77-78 budget and ladies and gentlemen, I'll tell you right now
that there are fewer employees that are funded from local funds and the employment
of the City of Miami, today than are proposed in the budget for next year by Mr.
Grassie for 1977-78. In absolute numbers there were as of November 18th, 3.198
positions filled and paid for by local funds, which is far less than the 3,2641-1/2
envisioned in the budget. But just as Mr. Grassie, finally admitted shortly before
I got on the stand, there are positions that were slated for lay-offs so that other
positions could be filled. Positions that were given higher priority, in other
words the new envisioned activity level for the City of Miami. Now, where in the
budget message that you were forced to make a very painful decision on, is there that
additional alternative, which would list the new areas of activities one by one
for you to review as a political leadership of this community and to weigh each
of those in relation to closing down a rescue unit or taking police off patrol
or taking the horse out of Coconut Grove or whatever. That wa.: not one of the
alternatives listed, every one of the alternatives listed and told to you and to the
public was and dealt with tlbe determination in some way or another affecting the
employment status of 167 employees. There was no alternative of doing away with the
desires, because they're not politically affected until they're voted upon, the
desires of the City Manager, the new desires for 1977-78. And I suggest to you that
the whole focus of this so called compromise proposal is addressing a problem
which was not given to the City Manager by the motion which I have already quoted.
That charge that was given to you, five to nothin^, on October 7th, that motion called
for reanalyzing and redeveloping the 1977-78 budget and all we have today before us is
how to find the new figure which is suggested to be the amount needed to keep the
people on board that were not laid -off, the 94 positions that were not terminnturi as
suggested and proposed by Mr. Grassie. I suggest as a result of attempting to
focus our attention on just that one aspect, the major in effect, in terms
of resource allocations of the new ideas in programs, that are--- would be answered
by the way in number five of that request from the FIU panel, that is to reconcile
the differences in terms of the 77-78 proposals in relation to what was going on
last year. That would show us what were the new areas of emphasis, that would
show us what were the new positions that were being hired to expand certain areas
while others were being forced into contraction by the proposal and then they could
be voted on in terms of priorities that only you can set for the citizens of this
community. 'Now, the important point that hasn't been brought out in relation to
that budget request, because I was at that meeting, was that when it was made by
Dr. Hendrickson to Mr. Gary, as representative of the City Manager, there was a
quick and final. response that that information was not available, but there was a
further comment that that was in the opinion of the City Manager, because--- that
he was a spokesman for the City Manager, beyond the charge to the Committee, the
Committee's charge was to find the money necessary to keep the employees on board
who were not terminated. Now, I've been to many cities as you are aware of in the
state lookinti' at budgets and the one thing I think that's elementary, is that a
proposed budget is not etched in stone and carried down from the mountian by Moses,
a proposed budget is a working document offered to the political leadership of the
community to express the desires of that leadership and to be changed and altered
and reallocated to fit the needs of thecommunity, that can only be foreseen
by the political leadership, that's call democracy and they are not dictated, I
believeinthis country on the basis of one person's view as to what should be
22 DEC 141977
be next year. but if you'll notice the December 8th memo, it talks about the budget
problem, what is the budget problem? The budget problem is and that's what we
want everyone--- what is expected everyone to concentrate on. the budget problem
is strictly how do we find the 1.753 million dollars to fully implement Mr. Grassie's
proposed budget and at the same time pay for the unexpected burden of keeping the
people on who are proposed for lay-offsi In other words Mr. Grassie wants his
whole loaf of bread as originally proposed to the bottom line and he's willing
to find 1.753 million dollars to keep the people that he wanted laid -off on board.
He's not willing to lay out his new budget in terms of what are the new priorities
and do the political leadership want those new priorities. There is a number of
other issues I'll get into briefly and these are some items left out in the
presentation by FIIJ panel, but I know that they agree with them because I was there
when these comments were made, that the direction to the City department heads
when the calculation that Mr. Gary talks about of the 2.5 million dollars or 2.3
million dollars severance pay, each individual department was directed to estimate
severance cost with tilt. expectation that that amount that they estimated for their
department, would he an individual line item in their budget and they would have to
live within that individual line item. they could not exceed it. A, Dr. Hendrickson
said at that time that that was an open invitation to overestimate. because you're
telling them the sky is the limit. put as much as von can on it, because you want to
make sure you fall less than that amount. but to walk into you today and to say that
the mid figure is a good figure because the departments submitted estimates which
totaled up to slightly more than thnt, is only to tell you again half of the facts
that deal with that particular overestimation, because they were eliciting excessive
estimates and to give you an example of some of those excessive estimates; in the
Waste Department, the sanitation employees union under Mr. Smith, went out and
contacted each of the individuals listed by that department head as a retirement
during the current fiscal year, there were seventy one names listed as retirements
during the current year, many of which had fewer than five year service with the
City, so it raises the immediate question of how in the world can they retire unless
they were hired I supposed late in life into that rather strenuous occupation. Now,
of the 71 names listed only three definitely said they were going to retire and
there were in addition to that the only two said they would definitely retire and
there was a possible three more. Now, there were three categories; anticipated
retirements, possible retirements .and others, the other would take care of the
normal turn over in sanitation. But those first two lists were supposed to be
in terms of declining probability of actual employment, there were 71 names on those
two lists. but a 100'. of the estimate by sanitation department for both of those
lists, was included in the S668,000 contribution of that department into the 2.3
million dollar justification of the 2.3 million dollar severance pay. So here you
have a list of 71 names each of them individually contacted by Mr. Smith, only two
of them say yeslI'm coin to retire, three say possibly I will, and the rest them
totally surprised that they are listed and then in addition to those two lists of 71 nat
there is third category called other wbic lo a percentage of the total opc r:.tions
which wou'.f cover the normal turnover. So that's an example in one case of the over-
estimation. Another point is that -in the enterprise funds, in the marinas, you
know they counted everyone in the marinas as terminating as their contribution to...
including the director, because they're anticipating that the marinas are supposed
to be turnedover to private enterprise, an :n tion again not taken by you as a
political body, but nonetheless, in tliat 2.3 million dollars all existing positions
are terminated with no relocation of any of the employees to continue their employment
in the City of Miami, public service. So, these are the types of severe assumptions
that lie behind the justification of Mr. Cary of the 2.3 million dollar estimate
in the budget, a fi!rc which the FIU panel has pointed out a excessive in their
opinion, but nonetheless, I thought you should have that type of background information
that was nnt iven to you in the presentation by the Cite Manager's office. The public
employees' union contacted 14 of their employees today, only 14 on the list in the
various departments, because those are the only ones that they had time to get to
by today's meting and only two of those were retirements in their own minds, the
others again -Were surprised about the revelation that they have been listed by their
department as terminating during the year due to retirement. Also, where is the
figure given to you and to all of us here today of the expenditures on severance
2.3 million dollars requires rather large daily average expenditure on severance
pay. Why can't we have a year today figure?, because this is a day, we know we've
paid out mono; for severance,--- how much have we paid out toda.: !' arc we above or
below that estimate? That information is not given to you. And another point is the
estimates of maintenance for the various enterprises and if you'll bear with me on
this I went back to the work papers yesterday of the various enterprises and I
looked through those work papers, the original budget request, the highest request
from the departments, the enterprises involved, what was the most they wanted
before they were cut down to reach the balance in the budget and I'll tell you
23 DEC 141977;
quite frankly, that only a $185,000 worth of maintenance was listed in the original
budget request of the various enterprises which now we are to believe based upon a
Mid November statement of necessary maintenance, will require $582.000 worth of
maintenance. Now, this maintenance is so crucial..if the questions are as they are
posed in that December 8th memo, why wasn't more than S185,000 dollars in maintenance
listed by the various enterprises in their initial request for funding during
the current fiscal year, before they got the second and third and so forth review
to get it paired down? And I found no evidence of the extensive justification for
the $582,000 dollars in maintenance in these enterprise funds, these four funds
in the original budget request. Now, whv is there a necessity to have $582,000
in maintenance generated in the letters? 1 suggest to You that here we have again
and don't want to use the term, but I will Mrs. Gordon, so please excuse me, it's
sort of a shell game again. Mr. Gunderson came before von, he came before the FIU
panel, he swore that it would he illegal against the law to use enterprise surplus
funds for use in other enterprises. The reason why the Manager is now willing to admit
that the proposed tranfer into the enterprise funds from the general funds is not
necessary is because there was no such law. The CPAs on the panel from FIU quite
clearly said it can't he a one-wav street, if you take money from the general fund
and you got money to give it back, you got to give it hack. so they have agreed to
utilize the surplus in some funds to cover the surpluses in others or the deficits
in others. But then with the introduction of the maintenance crisis to the tune
of $582,000 they can make that available funds disappear once again as it did in
the original budget. Another question is, by pigeon hole S200,000 in the fund
balance, in the enterprise funds for cash flow needs when they pull their cash
for cash flow needs in the City of Miami) and there was no $200,000 in the original
budget, there was no expected fund balance in the original budget available for
transfer to the general fund and also, whv is it that Mr. Gary tells you today
that the expected fund balance in the enterprise funci is $450,000 when last
December 8th at the meeting Mr. Gunderson presented an anticipated fund balance
•
in the enterprise over $52h,000 to the FIU panel and t*�vsel!: I have a copy of that
So, why is it S450,000 today of which S200,000 has to disappear and he kept as a
cash flow need within the enterprise fund even though cash assets are pulled for
utilization for cash f1e needs. Another point is, why is--- they currently revised
in many ways the general fund balance estimate, but last December 8th again Mr.
Gunderson presented with us to that committee and myself, an estimation of
$235,000 above and beyond. the one million anticipated fund balance carry-over
in the general fund. Gut where in your alternatives of the available 'ands is that
8235,000 excess above the million dollars that's in the budget proposal? Why isn't tha
$235,000 alone, with the current estimate of the excessive--- the S52(,00n available
fund balance from the enterprise funds brought to your attention today for you to
make opinions on ? So, basically what 1 wanted to comment on and I'd like to make
this point clearly for the media and I hope they pass it on to their headline
writers, who are not the same people who write the articles, as you all are aware
of, that...
Mayor Ferre: Painfully aware of.
Dr. Barry: Painfully aware of, alright, those are your words1:4r. Mayor. I just
like to point out that Dr. Hendrickson, started his comment once again just as the
report to you from the FII' panel stated that the funds--- they've all felt all
along that the funds were available within the general fund for keeping the people
on board, but this proposal they've excepted as a compromised solution and I suggest
to you that every evaluation that come before You has said the funds are available
and I suggest that the main point that has to he looked at is what new ideas does
Mr. Grassie have,that he has admitted to partially today that still justify in
effect my analysis 1 gave you last September about how if you take the current
salary level at that time and give everybody a raise and include the merit steps,
the whole works, that there was 1.3 million in surplus budgeting under salaries
in his proposed budget for 1977-78 above and beyond what was necessary to keep
everybody_ on board in the September payrolls in this City without any lay-offs.
Now, the only way that's ever been attempted to be challenged. was when one member
of the City administration went back and took a January and February level of
salaries prior to all the subsequent attrition and then said that if you project
that fictitious salary level my analysis wasn't true, They couldn't attack my
analysis on the basis of taking existing September level of expenditures and giving
all the raises and still show that there wasn't a surplus, because there is a
surplus and the reason why the lay-offs were required and proposed was onthe basis
of what he spoke of today about the new people that had to be hired, the new position
that were wanted by the departments and what are these new positions? Shouldn't
they be brought publicly before the lected representatives of the people of this
City and clearly voted on one by one. If one of the ideas is good, then that
equals a certain number of dollars that you have to find. It's not the employees
24
DEC 141977
that were kept on board is the point I'm making and I'm shocked that they're
used as a scapegoat in this matter, it's the new ideas and the net' dreams in effect
of what is only a working document, the proposed budget for 1977-78. thank you
very much.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, are there any questions now of Dr. Barry?
Mrs. Gordon: I can't even putit into words the way I feel about the situation
since the new employees to be put on board is something that's come out now and the
cut back was heralded as a great thing that was happening to cut back the budget
when we first received this document. You know, I mean,I don't want to even put
the words in the record.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Doctor let me just ask you to comment on one thing, basically
what you have said in your presentation is that Dr. Barry was right in what he said.
Dr. Barry: No, no that's not my purpose of being here.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, I understand that's not your purpose, but you were alluded to
certain things which you had said in the past. that in fact in your estimation
now have come true or come to reality and I'm accepting what you said. Now, that's
the past Doctor, you know, everyday that passes this Commission is more uncomfortable
without a budget, a least I am, I should speak for myself. Really what I would like
your comments on,as anotheopinion, what do you find with this document dated
December 8th, in particular, notwithstanding the statements that you have already
made, what do you find if anything, that this document in your estimation would
not be voted upon tomorrow for adoption. I guess what I'm saying the reasons you
feel that this document should not he accepted?
Dr. Barry: Alright, I'll give you a short answer believe it or not. you can jump
me on that if I get too long winded.
Mr. Plummer: I only did that committee doctor.
Dr. Barry: A1v father was an immigrant from Ireland and I think I inherited certain
characteristics of verbosity perhaps. unfortunately_ I think, by the way. What I
find ohjectional about this document is basically that it addresses the wrong
question and if this document is approved and funds are allocated to let Mr. Grassie,
incorporate intact all his new plans and ideas for 77-78. unrevealed, then in effect
he has allocated the scarece resources of this City without the knowledge of the politica]
leadership of the people and what I'm objecting to is that once you pull funds to
do both what he desires and dreams about and to do what has been dictated to him
by the political action of this body, then you've taken a certain number of dollars
and they've gone. [,'hat I'm saving is that I don't believe that without revealing
what those n''.' nazis are for expenditures and evaluating then that that money should
be spent, that's what I'm saying basically.
Mr. Plummer: In other words what you're saying is in the judgement area, it's his
judgement against our judgement.
Mayor Ferre: No, he's saying a lot more than that .
Mr. Plummer: Well, I understand, but I'm trying to be briefly also.
Mayor Ferre: What he's saying is that there is within this document a hidden agenda
which of course, I frankly don't see and I guess since the issue has been brought
up and obviously it's a question taht comes up by a expression or an implication
of one of members of the Commission and I think with justification and I'm not in
any way quarreling with that hecause of the direct statement that was made, I
guess Mr. Grassie ...(end of statement did not get on the record.)
Mr. Grassie: I think that's reasonable Mayor. You know, I find it really an insult
to the City Commission's intelligence for Mr. Barry, to stand there and tell you
that there is a hidden agenda in a budget which you spent at least two full days in
review talking with every single department head about what was proposed in that
budget.
Mayor Ferre: Well, the crux of the matter, Mr. Grassie, is...
Mr. Grassie: If I can continue Mr. Mayor. The point is,you know, and I understand
Mr. Barry's job is to create confusion and you know and raise doubts, that's what
25 OE C 14197/
he's paid for. But, you know, for him to sit there and sav that this is some kind
of a secret document which the City Commission is entirely unaware of and you
know completely overlook the fact that you've talked with every department head
about what they proposed,... it's really kind of laughable, it seem to me that in fact
the City Commission has talked with department heads about these specific plans
and their changes and it's not some kind of a secret document and we tend to forget
that I guess, after all of the things that we've gone through.
Dr. Barry: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Questions from the members of the Commission to Mr. Grassie.
Dr. Barry: Might I make one comment Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Just one moment doctor and I'll recocnize you. Here we are again
when a statement is made which basically speaks to the question of the integrity of
the document and therefore, the people that are involved in it. The question is,
is it so or isn't it so, well you know and we can't keep on going around J. L.
with innuendoes and statements that there is a group that stands up, whoever the
group is and says such and such, the Manager says its simply not so and then we're
back to, you know, to the same posture where we were before. Now, the question is
this, the thrust of the statement that's been made Dr. Barry is, that what in effect
the Manager is doing is burning a fire over here because the real crux of the matter
is somewhere else and that we've all been hoodwinked, including the general public
and the Commission and that in effect what he has is a hidden agenda to promote
some kind of a series of dreams that have not been revealed in this document and
that are deeply ensconced in it and are hidden to the view and not only has he
duped the five of us, he has obviously duped all of the members of the administration
because I don't know whether the hidden agenda is in the police department and if
soy I don't know whether Chief Watkins is aware of where the hidden agenda is or if
chief--- is Don here today?
Mr. Plummer: No, Ed Proli is here,
Mayor Ferre: Alright, if Chief Proli or the different department heads, perhaps
Mr. Vincent Grimm or Eddie Cox,or Mr. Jennings. or Mr. Salman,or Charles Crumpton,
and so on,and Mr. Krause and Arauz and everybody else that's involved and Howard
Gary and--- now, if there is a hidden agenda that has not been revealed here and we
haven't seen it and the memhers.and it is a conspiracy, then it is a conspiracy
that involves more than one person and if you're not willin; to stand up and say
that there is a conspiracy going here, that the Manager has in fact conspired to
dupe the community and has a hidden agenda which he has not revealed and you're
aware of it and you don't stand up, then you're involved in the conspiracy and the
reverse then is also true and it's a question of what you choose to believe and I
just don't think that Charlie Crumpton or the various chiefs or department heads
would be apart of the parcel of something, I know Howard Gary wouldn't be a part
of the parcel on it and 1 just don't feel that Joseph Grassie, would be a part
parcel and I maybe wrong and if that's the case, then I'm going to he very very
embarrassed, but believe me I won't be the only one embarrassed,and it's that simple.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I must be part of the conspiracy because I wasn't duped.
(COMMENT MADE OUTSIDE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: You're probably true, but not on this one. Dr. Barry, I'm not trying
to.take issue with you personally. If I understand what you're saying, the Commission
was fully aware--- at least I was--- of these changes proposed by the Manager.
Now, I can't say at random because the first one I picked was the fire department
and Gene Naples would have jumped all over me, so I went to another one, I bring
to your attention and to the rest of the Commission, using the department of public
works, page 105 of this document which you have and which I have and Mr. Parks
will excuse. me. But, hey, its outlined right here on this page, condensed in one
page, those vacancies or those people who are proposed to be terminated or dumped
or what ever wording you want to use and which ones are going to be plus, their
plus and minuses, now, you know, 1 took the time to study this page on each department.
Now, surely yes there was a difference because of the 167 to he terminated, but
I fail to find this so called hidden agenda in those areas in which the Manager
proposed to make changes because to me those answers on each departmental budget
is in this first page condensed of what he was going to do, what positions were
going to be eliminated and which were going to be replaced. Now, to me that's
no hidden agenda.
DEC 141977
Mr. Plummer: Please do.
Dr. Barry: First of all Mr. Plummer, I would appreciate it if rather than the
editorial--- viewing what I say through the editorial comments of the Manager,
I'd appreciate and I'm sure you will view them from the 'erspective that I want
to give and I'd like to clarify that so that I can get hack on the tract that I
was on, that I hope I was on and perhaps I was misleading. I'd like to point
out that it was Mr. Grassie, who said today in this meeting that some new hiring
would he undertaken in certain areas to replace people that were proposed for the
lay-off. I'd like to point out on the pages that you're talking about, that there
is a redefinition of funds next year, a renaming of departments, a redefinition
of funds, there is a creation of a rather sizable interdepartmental fund
which provides services to other parts of the Cite's... and the question is mumber
5, the one that has not been answered by the City Manager, if that answer is
available to reconcile how you get to 1977-78 from where the City was in 76-77,
If that information is available from the Manager, then by gosh I'd sure like to
have it right now. All I know is that it was asked for by the FIU panel and I
was told that it wasn't available and I thought I heard Mr. Gary earlier say,
that giving the priorities. you know, they always ask for more information than
you can give them and that information was not available. Reconcile--- what I'm
saying is reconcile the path between 76-77, the last approved hudget,and the proposed
77-78 that would explain why' in September the projection of a 1.3 million dollar
overhudgeting in salaries in this proposed 77-78 budget, would have existed
even if e-ervone on board in September was retained and given all the respected
raises• That's the point, I'm trying to say is if the answer to question number 5
that was asked by FIU is available that does in fact clearly outline where the
changes are between the last year and the proposals for this year, then
have that, hut I understood from the Manager that that information was not or
from Mr. Gary that information still is not available.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Doctor I will accept your editorialising if you will accept
mine. The undercurrent of your presentation,as I understood it was, that you for
the first time were hearing today the Manager supposedly admit that these were for
reshuffling aside from the 167 and that this great conspiracy in the sky existed
about--- the Commission didn't know about this, that we were ignorant of this
I'm merely answering the one question and that one question is that I. as one
Commissioner were able to look at this one page of each department and tell exactly
what was to be deleted and what was to be added aside from the 167 proposed. So,
I don't see the conspiracy. low, ... .
Dr. Barry: Thaes not my word Mr. Plummer, that's not my word.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, I cannot deny what you are saying is correct, that it is hard
to make a judgement factor when you don't have the facts in front of you, that of
course, I cannot argue with. What I'm saying to you is that this conspiracy that
is spoken to is answered here in my estimation.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Dr. Barry do you want...
Dr. Barry: Well, I just like to make one comment and I'm not speaking from the
view that any of you have in terms of--- you know, your perception I'm sure its
quite complete. What I'm saying is that from my own perception after having worked
on the budget and it particularly as I think outlined and shown in the budget
message by the City Manager, for 77-78 proposals, there isn't any alternative
shown in there of--- well, here is some new things that we're trying to do and we
don't have to do all these new things, we can continue to run the City as it is
or change it to a third alternative.
Mr. Plummer: I agree with you.
Dr. Barry: Thats what I'm saying.
Mr, Plummer: I agree.
Dr. Barry: And I say the budget problem,as defined, whether its the 3.3 million
or the 1.8, which it really was at the time you were forced to make that decision
not just December 8th, I'm saying that is because of the new expansion in the new
areas that have activity and not because of the employees who were threatened with
lay-off back in September.
27 DEC 141977
do)
Mr. Plummer: Well, but doctor here again--- you see sir I shouldn't be speaking
somebody else, because I have been anti -creating new departments, I opposed human
resources which I feel has lust grown out of proportion. alright, but I was on the
minority vote, it passed over my negative vote, some of the other departments,
but they were policy set by this Commission and I don't think that the Manager,
even though he proposed the creation, once this Commission approved that creat-i_on---
I opposed the creation of two departments in Communications, but this Commission
by majority vote, said yes that they concurred with the Manager. Now. based upon
that and a certain number of these instances is the way he developed his budget
and I like I say I'm a had one to talk, because I was on a negative vote, but here
again I think these are things that police was set in the passed 12 months that
adopted some of these things. Now, if what You're saving there are some changes
proposed in here, for example; the first that I heard and I right stand corrected
on this, of splitting Parks and Recreation to a so-called Leisure Time Service.
Division was in this budget, you're correct to the best of my recollection, that
was proposed in this budget and only hinged on approval of this budget, that I
agree with, but what I am saying to you, a lot of these things%these new programs$
were set by policy of this Commission.
Mrs. Gordon: Is it true J. L., when the policy of the Commission majority, which
did not include me, was made that there was no coinciding reference to the fact
that there would have to be a lay-off of ex number of firemen, policemen and other
employees. I don't know that you would have had a Commission majority, if that
information had been made public at that time.
'Mr. Plummer: We should have looked at my crustal ball.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I don't have your crustal ball, you never lent it to me.
Mayor Ferre: Well, my vote remains the same •Now, I don't know about anybody else.
I've been consistent from the very beginning and I'm not about to change my posture
with regards to Civil Service. with regards Booz-Allen, with regards to the human
service, with regards to the consent decree, with regards to the Cohen Decree, or
any of the other important things that this Commission has deliberated and I accept
that it's been on a three, two vote on the majority cases. Nov
Mr. Plummer: But. Mr. Mayor, nobody is arguing the point.
Mayor Ferre: Yes. but You know, the implications are very clear as to what this
is all about and my position is absolutely the same. Now, I don't know what else
you need to talk about, right now its 12 O'Clock, Rose Gordon...
Mrs. Gordon: I can wait to resolve, I don't want this matter to be left hanging in
the air Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: It's not going to be left hanging in the air, as far as I'm concerned
there are one of three things that can happen here today; one, we accept this
proposal as recommended, two, we reject this proposal and if we reject the proposal,
then there are two ways of going about this. One, instructing the Manager specificall;
as to what to do, or three, going back in the nebulous run around of saying if,
but, maybe, which, how, when committees and that kind of stuff.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't think thats going to solve a darn thing Mr. Mayor and 1979-80
budget will roll around and we'll still be deliberating on the 77-78.
Mayor Ferre: I'm ready to vote.
Mrs. Gordon: I just want to tell you that I don't think we can accept this in total
I think we have to add our own input into this and I would like to add my position
that I don't want any of the essential services positions deleted, the vacant
positions that are in existence now,...
Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about item D, Rose?
Mrs. Gordon: ?'es,sir7and also those that would come up during this current coming
year.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, one at a time...
Mrs. Gordon: Well, that's all part of the same statement of facts,
28 DEC 141971
Mayor Ferre: Alright, you make that in the form of a motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes and that--- wait a minute, I want those positions to be filled
as they are vacated, if the department head feels that they need to be filled.
of course, I'm not the dc'n"-anent head and I'm not going to tell the department
head how to take care of it's job, hut not to eliminate it from the 'budget so that
if he needs them he can fill them.and then secondly and past of the same thought,
I do not want CETA dollars of the source of funding for those services. because
I know the CETA nr.ograrn and the uncertainty of it and we want to train People
to be policemen and firemeA, we don't want to invest our money, as J.L., said
beforefand then not have that money to continue. I would recommend that we---
ok, you want it in one motion or two?
Mayor Ferre: I think it's better Rose, so that we can vote--- you know, intelligently
to get...
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, and we retain...
Mr, Plummer: How about 33 motions?
Mayor Ferre: Well, lets start with one and then we'll go to ...
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, the motion is to--- in item D, eliminate those positions that
are the essential services to be funded by CETA and funds be obtained from the
balance of the monies above the 1.8 that we have in the Watson Island Franchise
dollars.
Mayor Ferre: One thing at a time, you want to get both of those things in? In the
one resolution?
Mrs. Gordon: Well, you got to get the monies, if you're going to eliminate the
CETA, you got to get the money from somewhere.
Mayor Ferre: Well, my advice to you is to take it one at a time, if you want to
take them both that's...
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, then the position is to eliminate those essential services from
the item D, from the CETA and that they not be eliminated from the budget.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. we have a motion, is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Plummer: Sure.
Mayor Ferre: That's your position Plummer, so you...
Mr. Plummer: Sothat there is no misunderstanding, Rose would you further delineate
essential service?
Mrs. Cordon: I did.
Mayor Ferre: She did.
Mrs. Gordon: I said essential services.
Mayor Ferre: Let me see if I can speak to the essence of the motion.'
Mr. Plummer: Essential service would mean police and fire.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, police and fire.
Mrs. Gordon: That's right.
Mayor Ferre: Are you seconding the motion?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I don't know.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me see if I can.repeat and... There is before us --let's see ii
can simplify it this way --there is before us in this Joseph Grassie memorandum ---
I mean from Howard V. Gary, Director of Management and Budget, December 8th on
item 2D a statement that says substitute CETA positions for vacancies proposed
in the FY'78 estimate $757,884. The statement was made that approximately $300,000
of that was for the essential services, mainly police and fire. What you're
29
DEC; 141977
saying is that you don't want CETA positions used for fire and police and that
they be put back into the budget and not be filled by CETA vacancies, is that
correct?
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not sure 300,000 is the correct number, but whatever number
it needs.
Mayor Ferre: Whatever the number is.
Y'es,sir, Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie: You have documents in front of you that will clarify this for you
if you wish, if you will turn to A2....
Mayor Ferre: 82?
Mr. Grassie: A2, you will see that if you're talking about police and fire departments,
the total of those salaries resulting savings by use of CETA, are $164,000, if you'd
put together police and fire departments.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, so the question is $164,000 in police and fire.
Mr. Grassie: Now, thats not the end of it, then I'm assuming that what you're
talking about by essential services is uniformed people.
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Grassie: Alright, then you'll have to turn the departmental list and in the
case of the police department that is page B18 and 19.
Mayor Ferre: B18 and 19.
Mr. Grassie: That will translate for you the 26 positions that you saw in the
first summary and if you will run down those positions, you will see that almost
all of those positions are what you call civilian positions, that in fact the
uniformed positions are only two sergeant and four police officers out of the
26.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think what...
Mayor Ferre: Why didn't you say that an hour ago, you saved us all..
Mr. Plummer: .'hat I think Mr. Grassie, as being said, that is assuming that these
positions will be filled--- you know, in this coming year, that you transfer and
take instead out of recreation, you have four filled by CETA, that you transfer
sufficient funds over into this area, so that you can fill the CETA in recreation
and not in the police department.
Mr. Grassie: But, what you have to be aware of and the point that I tried to make
earlier was that we have to have the vacancies in order to be able to transfer,
if we don't have the vacancies in recreation, then there is nothing to take. You
know, you have to have enough vacancies to make that million and a half, plus
enough vacancies to do this transferring that you're talking about. Does that need
clarification?
Mr. Plummer: We don't want it to be clarified.
Mrs. Gordon.: You mean to keep the outline as delineated, is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Grassie: To keep the outline as delineated, what does that mean Commissioner?
(COMMENT MADE OUT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mrs. Gordon: That's not what I'm saying.
Mr. Plummer: No, but that's what he's saying.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm saying--- let me make it a little more clearer to you then* As
vacancies come about through retirement or whatever, in the essential services,
ok, that means there are vacancies there. Now, if monies are not provided
for in the budget to fill those positions, they have to remain vacant.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mrs. Gordon: And that is what I don't want to take place.
DEC
I want those positions funded so that the department head could hire those people
if he feels he needs them and its up to him to know, I mean that's his department,
but if we don't budget for it he cannot hire a replacement for somebody who has
to leave or retires, do you understand what I'm pointing out?
?Ir. Grassie: Commissioner, what's clear to me is that we both want the same thine4
You know, we want to be able to fill all of those vacancies.
Mrs. Gordon: Right.
Mr. Grassie: You know, I want a new car for christmas,too, What we need is
enough money...
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I don't want a certain other things I'm taking in this City
that I don't think are as essential as police and fire. Ok.
Mr. Grassie: Yes, but what we have to resolve is whether or not--- as I understand
-the the technique that is being proposed, which is to take it away from all of the
departments other than police and fire,7as we have vacancies. That will work only
to the extent that we have covered the million and a half problem that's in he
budget. Once we have done that, if we have additional vacancies, then we can do
what is being talked about and I'm simply pointing out that we have to go through
that sequence in order to make sure that we have a balanced budget.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Naples, I'm not a fireman unfortunately• Would you tell me as
a fireman, what the Manager is suggesting, is that a prac,:ical of ennli ation of
what I'm trying to see happen as our full force of fireman on hand!
Mr. Naples: Yes, Ma'm I think the fire chief has already said that he would be
able to absorb the vacancies that existed as of October 1.
Mrs. Gordon: Right.
Mr. Naples: But, that he could not recommend any more vacancies and those vacancies
should be filled.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, what the Manager is saving then is that in our position to...
Mr. Naples: My understanding is that the ;Manager is saving to all departments
including the fire department, that you will make up a certain amount of revenue
and as vacancies occur those surplus salaries will he satisfied first as to what
he has asked each department to contrihute to the general fund and that then after
that you may fill vacancies.
Mrs. Gordon: Is that what you're saying Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: What I'm saying is that because of the past budget practices of the
City, we have a million and a half dollars which is treated as a revenue, that
supports positions, it pays salaries.
Mrs. Gordon: I know.
Mr. Grassie: If we don't make that money we can't pay the salaries and we have to
make those savings in order to have a balanced budget, yes, I'm savine that.
=Mrs. Gordon: Ok, what we're saying now is that you eliminate the police and fire
from that and fund that separately,,and how to get it, I told you that in my, opinion
the reserve that we have set aside for the Watson Island Development is in excess
of what Mr. Gary said we had to have in order to sell our bolds. Therefore. you have
that as a reserve, but I want you to be sure to provide a reserve so that we don't
have to look to this 1-1/2 million dollar possible vacancy in order to rehire a
fireman or a policeman as they leavcK And the chances of the numbers leaving are
very great in this coming year, if I analyze it from where I sit and what I see.
Mr. Grassie: 1 wonder if it would help you if we got two things for you. One
I think that probably it would he good to gel from our bond counsel some kind of
an estimation on that question of reserve, They will not give us a final answer
at this point because they said that they would not do that until the bonds of
the funds have been sold.
Mayor Ferre: What are you going to do, put off the budget for another month?
31
DEC 141977.
Mt. Grassie: No.
Mts. Gordon: Mr. Gary gave us a statement, a figure, he ought to know what he+s
saying.
Mr. Grassie: I don't think that's what he said to me.
Mayor Ferre: Gary?
Mr. Grassie: Why don't we ask him?
Mayor Ferre: I don't think Mr.. Gary, knows the first thing--- with all due respect
to him--- about what happens with the sale of bond issues in Wall Street, as a
matter of fact, I don't think anybody in Miami knows.
Mrs. Gordon: Gary did you sav a million and a half was the minimum reserve we
could have? I heard you say it.
Mr. Gary: I said that at this time it was very difficult for us to determine how
much would be needed to guarantee the bond, but our best educated guess without
talking to the bond counsel was approximately 1.8 or 1.9 million. That's not final,
we don't know...
Mrs. Gordon: Now, you don't need all that 800,000 to do what we're talking about.
you're talking about something much less than that.
Mr. Gary: But I can't sav right now.
Mrs. Gordon: No, I'm not talking to you now, I'm talking to Mr. Grassie. Do you
follow me Mr. Grassie? What I was trying to tell you is eliminate that from that
1-1/2 million dollars vacancy_ reserve that you're talking about, I've said it time
and time again.
Mr. Grassie: Let me see if this helps any and,Mayor, in response to the question
that you started to raise--- this need not. I don't think that Commissioner Gordon's
question need hold up or delay the adoption of the budget. As I understand what
she would need to know is two thincs, one, I think we need to get from bond counsel
a better estimation of what that i.: figure is, whether that's a good figure, or whetk
we need more or less. Now, the 1.E million estimate is a minimum, just like the
minimum that I gave you for the FEC.
Mayor Ferre: Joe, what's bond counsel? Joe, bond counsel are lawyers, up in Jacksonvi]
What you're talking about, you're talking about the underwriting house, which hasn't
been selected vet, they're the only people that know what happens in Wall Street.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct Mayor, but, you know--- again we're back to the question
of--- you can ask more questions than can be answered at some point..You know, we are
trying to get to the best information that's available. Now, what I'm suggesting
is that we get an outside view on what we ought to put aside, maybe that will give
you a little better information than what you have now and the second thing is, you kni
you really need some kind of evaluation of what the result on departmental operations
would be of doing what you're suggesting, as I understand what you're suggesting,
which is that the police and fire departments not make any contribution toward the
1-1/2 million dollar salary savings.
Mrs. Gordon: That's it.
Mr. Grassie: That basically is what you're suggesting, which means that all of
the salary savings are going to come out of the other departments.
(COMMENT ?'MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mrs. Gordon: No, because you can make up with CETA dollars, if you need to,the
difference.
Mayor Ferre: Well, that's where we're at.
Mrs. Gordon: 0r from the other departments.
Mr. Grassie: What I'm suggesting to you is that the salary savings has to be
made up. Now, as a separate question from the adoption of this budget you can
consider whether you want to adopt the policy that you just outlined--- you know,
whether that makes any sense and really whether or not it makes sense depends on
32
DEC 141977
you having enough information about the impact in the other departtnettts,
you have to know what that impact is.
Mrs Gordon: Well, you can make up--- you just said that you can make up with
CETA dollars, whatever you need apparently, because you were ready to knock
off 167 people and you were ready to fund it with CETA dollars, ok, you can make
it up.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, that's the second time, you know, we didn't say that,
no one except you has said that.
Mrs. Gordon: You said that.
Mayor Ferre: Well, he said he hasn't.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, I don't need to argue with you, but the point is you've gotten
the point, if you don't want to proceed along those lines, then just say so.
Mayor Ferre: Hey, listen, we all know where we're at on this thing.
Mrs. Gordon: We want to conclude this thing and we want to conclude it with a
policy.
Mayor Ferre: Let's bring it to a vote.
Mrs. Gordon: The policy is that we do not want the essential services7vacancies
not filled, we want them filled as the department heads needs them. Everybody in
this community has raised their arms up in protest when the thought of cutting
back on police and fire services was raised and all we're saying is we don't want
a cut back because people are retiring and we're not filling those positions, that's
it.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, I need 2000 additional fireman and 3000 additional
policeman, thats what 1 need, now you tell me how I'm going to pay for it would
you.
Mayor Ferre: Look, we're going to keep on going over and over again. In my opinion
I think everybody's mind is made and I think we ought to vote.
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor, you know, you asked me before whether Dr. Barry should go
first or I, so I suspected that you were going to give me the opportunity to speak.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, then we will convene here at 2:15 and we will continue these
discussions, because you go to got make a speech and I've go the Mayor of Lima just
walking in right now. So, we will conclude--- you know, out of fairness to you
I think we need to give you all the time and I'll be available all afternoon.
Mr. Naples: I won't be long, actually, I'm not going to get into the budget thing
as it relates to numbers, figures and everything, I'm getting a little old, my eyes
are getting bad and I can't see the fine print too, well, but I read the headlines
very well at this point. I've been around here maybe almost as many hours as you
have and I can see what's happening. Mr. Mayor, T'd just like to make a couple of
comments and some observations perhaps because they got into this before and everybody
was challenging everybody else's credibility. So, 1 want you to hear it from me
you've said in the past that you think I'd lie to you and I appreciate that because
I never have and I don't intend to because I don't have to, my wife is the only one
that I have to lie to. The fact of the matter is, that Mrs. Gordon was just stating
some of the priorities that it seems to me that this Commission unanimously gave to
the Manager before, I believe it was on Mr. Plummer's motion that you asked them to
establish priorities and come back with a budget that spoke to essential services
and whatever, so thats my first observation,as I see what his charge was and of
course, in my opinion that was not done. The same budget is being proposed to you
now with the alternatives that were suggested in the Manager's budget message before
they have been rejuggled a little bit and we're really talking about the same thing
so, we're really plying on the same ground, only we're mixing it up a little bit
more, maybe we'r, throwing a cultivator in there or something. The fire chief
had recommended, when he was brought up here before at the budget meeting, that
he would absorb the vacancies that existed at that time, that he could see no
way that we could maintain the quality of service if we had any further cuts and
I think that's what Mrs. Gordon is trying to speak to and somehow the Manager doesn't
understand that. Thousands of people signed petitions that asked that the essential
33
DEC 141977
services be kept intact and that seems to be ignored. In order to maintain
the same level of services, we are going to have to fill those vacancies. When
the department heads contrary to what was implied here, that there is going to
be something that the department heads are going to say, that whether or not they
can absorb any additional positions, I know for one, that the Fire Department
has said that they've gone about as far as they can go. So, I want to make that
point. The entire revisioning, of the budget as instructed by the Commissioners,
especially as it relates to the FIU panel, in my opinion,was a sham. If you want
to know whether information was given to everybody and that's what we were talking
about before, the information was not made available to me or to people who were
there representing our association and my only regret is that we didn't come in
at that time with a court order under chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes and made
them lay everything out on the floor, because we never got the information we
asked for and thaes the truth, ok? We went up there and,you know,I called your
office and I called Mr. Plummer's office, because we sat up there waiting for
somebody to show up after a meeting was scheduled between the budget people.
finance director, thc' FIU panel and our people and nobody showed up, we were
ignored, nobody showed up. Finally Mr. Grassie came in and we got a little bit
of information Some two weeks prior to that, by the way, information had been
promised to the panel, it was not provided at that time. So, they got a few little
bits and everybody went of`, two weeks from that date we were to be furnished the
information that was asked for again some two weeks after that. Two weeks later
we appeared there again, and again, no one from the City showed up, after an hour
and ten minutes, in which I called your office again, I realized that Mr. Grassie's
door was closed and Dr. Hendrickson was not to be found after he had left his
things on the table in the conference room. When I inquired of the Manager's
secretary if Dr. Hendrickson happened to he in the Manager's office, I was told that
he was and also. that Mr. Gary was in there and everybody else. Dr. Remington sat
there, he came a few minutes later than Dr. Hendrickson and he sat at the conference
table with us, you know, we sat there and told lies and all that until we found
out that, you know, there apparently wasn't going to be a meeting. Sc that was
the second time that we were completely ignored and information wasn't given to
us, not just to me, but to the panel and thatas the truth. I was also, told that
it was not my concern by one o: the Manager's staff because we're not going to
lay-off any people, The Manager, it was told to me, has decided that there wouldn't
be any lay-offs and I thought that that hacl been decided October 1 or at that
meeting, but anyhow that's what I was told at that time. The compromise that
has been acceptable to Dr. Hendrickson, of course, is something that I suspect
that the FIT panel would just like to get the hell out of here, ok. They've
had it, you know. They sat there and asked for certain information time and time
again, they were wasting their time, we were bringing in Dr. Barry, at our expense,
and I think the City ought to get the bill for that, on at least two occasions
and he sat there like a hump on a log because nobody showed up from the City and
that's the truth. Mr. Plummer, says this meeting was premature.
Mayor Ferre: It always has been.
Mr. Naples: That's right.
Mayor Ferre: And it always will be.
Mr. Naples: That's right, its only been two months, we started on this in October,
five points in two months and for the first five or six weeks we couldn't find
out if anything was being done on it. As I said, the list of alternatives were
just rejuggled1in my opinion,from what was in the original budget message. When
I speak to Mr. Grassie, about discussing those things that affect the people that
I represent, he keeps asking me if I'm serious, I keep trying to tell him that I
am very serious and I'll say it again, but I now have come to the conclusion that
its futile, ok, to try to work with the administration and you know, my energies
have been a waste to the people I represent as far as coming to some working
relatiomThip, with this administration, so I think that I know where my energies
must lie now and I thank you for your time and again, the fine print is not too,
visable, but 1 can read the headlines. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, we will now convene at 2:15.
Mr. Plummer: We love you Don.
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: I've seen this movie before.
Mayor Ferre: I've heard those words before too. So, we'll be back at 2:15 for
the next series in this saga of Payton Place or whatever it's called.
34
DEC 141971
DECLARE LIMA, PERU, AS SISTER CITY TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentleman, we're about to begin the afternoon session
and if you would all take your seats, I would be grateful. We have the distinguished
Mayor of Lima, Peru, with us this afternoon, General Arturo Cabero Calixto, who is
Mayor of the City of Lima, has been in Miami for a few days on official business
and at this time we have before us the following resolution. A resolution declaring
Lima, Peru, to be a Sister City of the City of Miami; whereas it is only through
mutual sharing of information and ideals that true friendships can be maintained; and
whereas the Cities of Lima, Peru and Miami, Florida, desire identity with one another
in the family of the Americas. and whereas the City Commission with desires of
establishing Lima, Peru, as a Sister City of the City of Miami, now therefore he
resolved by the Commission of this City; Number one, that Lima, Peru, is hereby
declared a Sister City of the City of Miami, Florida. Is there a motion to that
effect? Moved by Vice -Mayor, is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Seconded, further discussion on the motion. Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice -Mayor Reboso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-902
A RESOLUTION DECLARING LIMA. PERU TO BE A
SISTER CITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body_ of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Rose Cordon
5, CONTINUED BUDGET DISCUSSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF HOWARD V. G ARYLS
MEMORANDUM ENTITLED "OIERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES TO FY'77-78 BUDGET..."
Mayor Ferre: I recognize--- now, as I understand it J. L. Plummer want to make
a motion to make me mayor for life, is that what you said you were...
Mr. Plummer: That is correct Mayor, Mayor of Ojus, Florida.
Mayor Ferrel For life. I'll, tell you--- I told the Mayor that I was sorry we didn't
have the municipal band and everybody in uniform and all that. You know,
just as an aside, you go to these latin american countries and let's see Father
Gibson and Manolo and I, when we were down in Caracas, the Mayor of Caracas actually
had a ceremony for us with the municipal band of about a hundred, with the
band all this and those guys with their swords and all the salutes and the flag
and the whole bit and then we had--- then we went up to the Municipal Hall and they
gave Manolo --- didn't they give you a medal and they gave me another medal and...
Plummer has a room full of medals and I'm trying to catch up with him hut, it's
going to be almost impossible.
Mrs. Gordon: I have a room full of hard hats and every time we go to a...
Mr. Plummer: They're trying to tell you something Rose.
DEC 141977
favor Ferre: Well, back to reality--- as I remember back at the ranch. meanwhile----
let's see1how did we leave it? The cowboys were doing what and the indians were
and as I remember there was a motion on the floor which was left pending.
Mr. Plummer: No, you cut Mr. March off and he said he had been through that
soap opera before.
Mayor Ferre: I'm not saying who the cowboys and the indians are, you know these
days the indians are the good guys, they're not the had guys.
Mr. Plummer: Come up Chief March.
Mayor Ferre: Chief, what can we do for you today?
Lt. March: Did you hear that Chief?
Mrs. Gordon: Now, you can't ask for anything else.
Lt. March: For the record, my name is Don March, I'm president of the F.O.P. #f20,
speaking on behalf of the rapidly dwindling number of Miami Police Officers. When
I made the comment concerning the fact that I'd seen this movie before, it might
have been taken lightly, but L'11 reconstruct basically and I'll inform everyone
here that I'm going through this for the first time, I've never been through the
budget process before, I know we have some season campaigners here, I've learn an
awful lot in this exercise, but on each of these and we've had several hearing
now, I've seen it start off with introduction by the City Manager, a rather lenghty
presentation by Mr. Carr, question and answer period by the City Commission and
generally an immediate referral to Dr. Barry for his comments. Dr. Barry, then
has presented each time a series of carefully thought out evaluate' statements
concerning the contentions made after the existence of some sort of financial
crisis by the City Administration. The City Administration has then been asked
to respond to these criticisms or evaluated of statements made by Dr. Parry, all
categorized many instances the responses to Dr. Barry's assertions did not approach
in any way the quality of those assertions that he made. Many times we've seen
a response to Dr. Barry, that is tantamount to personal invective and almost resignation
to the existence of some of the things that he is pointing out, from my preception.
Today after Dr. Barry_ gave his presentation, we again saw something similar. The
City Manager, in his responses,hasically indicated that Dr. Barry -or intimated -
that Dr. Barry was some sort of mercenary that7s flown in here to act in an irresponsible
manner and I don't think that that is the case and personally in that--- the
Fraternal Order Police in conjunction with other employee groups, most notably
the fire fighters, local 587, have joined in bringing Dr. Barry, down here. The
understanding that 1 had with the fire fighters and with Dr. Barry was--- we come
down here, you go in there, you have a very objective approach, you find out what's
going on with the money and you tell us and you bring anything to light that you
can and he did. Ve didn't bring someone in here to say make it look like this,
categorize their efford as such and such. We said you bring to light everything
that's going on in that budget, you evaluate it objectively and I think that he
has. Today the City Manager in his response indicated that Dr. Barry's approach
today was tantamount to an insult to the intelligence of this City Commission, I
found that to be very uncomfortable wording, very distressing to me, because I
don't think we're here to insult anyone's intelligence. l want to go through
briefly, some of the preceptions and observations that I've made in this whole
effort here. Today we heard the statement by Mr. Grassie that the budget estimate
that was brought forth here by the department heads, was the best estimate by them,
that what they were asking for was needed to accomplish the various jobs for which
they are responsible. I don't think that that is exactly my understanding and I
don't think thats exactly what occurred. I think that prior to asking for a budget
estimate the department heads were in fact given very significant restraints, 7.65%
reduction is the one figure that comes to mind. So, then the statement is not
exactly,Chief Watkins?and I'm just using that as an example, I could use Chief
Hickman, but those are two of my favorite people, but -department head come forth
and give us your budget to do the job as best you can with this amount of money
from the get go, don't come forth with a budget estimate and say we need 758
sworn police officers, we need 692 fire fighters and these are figures that are
not meant to attract what is actually needed, these are examples. }3e says tell
us how mangy: people you want with this stipulation that you're cutting back 7.65%.
Then in the presentation that were made we heard the department heads come forth and
the questions were asked, can you do the job with what has been given you? Commissioner
Plummer, I think was as careful as he could be in asking a series of three or four
questions of each department head and trying to assess whether or not they could
provide the service. In Chief Watkins presentation I think that in saying'yes,I
36
DEC 1.41977.
1) e�
think I can, he wasn't exactly saving yes,we can give the kind of service that
history has shown we should give We've got some programs that have been developed
over a series of years in the police department, that are now risking discontinuation
we're going to risk not seeing these things done and these things were all developed
out of some very serious problems we had hack in 1969 and 1970, you know, in my
presentation that I made before you I brought to mind that we're returning if the
no hire policy is maintained, we're returning to police staffing levels of 1967.
ten years ago. Police staffing' levels have increased based upon the need for
police officers in certain viable,efficient,meaningful programs such as the
community relation effort Police officers are the first line of defense that
a community has when the community turns to the Commission and says we're unhappy
or turns to the governmental structure and says we are tired of this, we are going
to loot the grocery store across the street, we're going to raise hell. Well who
do they turn to and say go out there and appease the people and we'11 think of
something;` They send police officers out there. We lost three police officers
during that time, 69, 70, 71, All three of these police officers were lost in the
line of duty in areas in which we have these kind of problems come to bare. Now,
I'm not saying that the budget cuts here today, that you're faced with or we've
been faced with in this whole discussion.--- arc going to bring us immediately to
that kind of state of affairs again, but I think it's a great big step backwards
especially as it regards to provision of essential services. In research in t}rse
budget hearings and researching and trying to assess the public sentiment, you 11
recall all the petitions that came in. Ve're talking about over a month from that
period, but 1 don't want you to lose site o` that, thousands of people took the
time to sign a thing that said -don't cut back notice, don't cut back fire, don't cut bay_
sanitation; hey didn't sav,we want to compromise with you, we want to take our
garbage out to the street, they didn't say that. Now, if you talk about cutting
back sanitation, you're talking about cutting back,basically,an organization, a
group of people who are staffed by minority members, the kind of people that police
officers generally see first when discontent and wears it's ugly in the community.
I think that to make such a significant gesture here, the City Commission really
has to give some thought .as to it's responsibility to maintain employment levels
in it's community which it serves with the concern of the community. In talking
about whether or not it was important to cut back police, fire and sanitation.
Pr.Barry, in the hearings that we had in the back back there, came forth and said
very convincingly, if you don't lay-off anyone (167 lay-offs) if you don't lay-off
anyone and you keep them hired on hoard, you keep them all the way through, the
money is there, the money_ c:•:ista. The responses that we got after persistent
questioning from Dr. Hen'.rickson, the FIU crew--- the response that we got was
from Mr. Grassie. there is one assumption that you're making. that wo are not going to
hire people in other areas. Now, when that first came to light, Charlie Half
distinguished representative of the fire fighters, very forcefully said aha, now
we're seeing it and he asked about it, he brought it on the table and it was there
for the first time that we got a commitment from the City Manager, a statement
from the City Manager that it's necessary to lay-off police, fire and sanitation
people, because there are other things that we want to do with that money. What
are those things that we want to do with the money? Now, in the memorandum that
you referred to Mr. Plummer, I think item number five, the reconciliation of
vacant positions, the reconciliation of people that are going to be leaving as
opposed to who's coming on, that's the kind of information that would be revealed
with an answer with a response to that question. What do we have to do with the
money that we save when we cut back police, fire and sanitation? We still haven't
got that answer, 1 don't think satisfactorily and we heard this question again
raised today by Commissioner Gordon. The alternatives that were proposed ---there
is one other comment that I want to make, throughout this the Miami Herald hasfor
one reason or another been very timely,generally in his editorial policy, sometimes
in his reporting, has dove -tailed very nicely with some of the things that we've
heard from Mr. Grassie. One of the thoughts that--- one of the bandwagons that
I've seen the Miami Herald jump on and it was interesting to see that we had some
comments about that as of yesterdayvwas this question concerning productivity, this
question concerning efficiency and I heard today the fact that youlCommissioner
Plummer, got an estimate from Mr. Grassie after the fact that we're operating
at a 60i' productivity thing, Well, we've got people from the University of Chicago,
that have been meeting toda;, and yesterday at our police station, trying to
develop an instrument to measure _just that thing called productivity. I really
I'm fascinated by the fact that we can get a figure like 60 and assign that to the
City wort. force, I don't think that that can be supported, I know that it can't
be supported in the Police Uepartment. Performance evaluation is something that
has confronted our police department for years. Performance evaluation to be implementi
into promotional policies is something we're looking into now, hut not with
us yet. As far as efficiency and productivity, I've seen some very distrubing
thing here that 1 think have to go back to the seat over here (Mr. Grassie's
seat), it you wanted to question efficiency and productivity, for example; we had
37
DEC 141977
a concert in Bicentennial Park, I came forth and said are you going to pay for
that thing? Is there a commitment from this fellow to pay for all the police
overtime that's involved to offset this? Well. it's my understanding now that
the City paid for that, the City paid the bulk of that. the police overtime.
Now, I just wonder if that isn't--- with whoever the next police chief is, if
that isn't going; to be held against him next year when it comes budget time and
you sav look what you did, look at your nolice overtime , you got to cut it back.
I think Chief Watkins, I think Chief Elimkowski. I think Major Knight, I think
all the high level police administrators told this City that that was going to
be a problem, told this city that that was going to be a high expense item and
told them that there were serious concerns about whether or not that was not in
fact a risk and they were not listening to me, when you talk about efficiency and von
talk about productivity don't point fingers at public employees and don't point
fingers at the Police Department. There is a statement that was made in the
Herald today concerning the alternative that we see, now, this is the second
time that we've seen it, we saw it in the budget message concerning the CETA
funds. The editorial comment today and if you haven't seen it I have it with
me. I find myself somewhat uncomfortably agreeing with the Miami Herald. I
will go home and sav a number of prayers and figure nut why that is, but they
really raised a very serious question here about not only advisability. but the
morality and the permissibility of funding essential services with federal monies.
Now, we got into this issue and this predates Andrews, predates Mr. Grassie, I
think when Mr. Reese was here concerning revenue sharing, limitations on what You
can do with the money and if I recall correctly, the statement was don't use
this money for salaries, don't use this money to inflate your payroll, because
that money may never be there again.
Mrs. Gordon: Thats right.
Lt. March: You're going to find yourself increasing your work force, you're
going to find yourself then faced with the fact that you're accustomed to that and
you can't foot the bill if something happens to the federal moniestor I see an
extention of an abuse of what I understandtand I may have a limited understanding
or demented understanding or whatever, but I think it's pretty clear that the federal
government is not in the Imsinesq of running the City of Miami I don't think it should
be. To do this takes a great step forward, if this is going on in other cities, then ou
cities are in a awful lot of trouble and they need to sit down and do something
about federal control over the decision making process on the local level. This
is a big philosophical argurment. hut it's with us. and it should he addressed and
it should be considered. If you take federal monies and you fund essential
police services. why then have a city, I think that thatswhy we have a city
government, the city people come and they pay for police, they pay for fire and
they pay sanitation and other essential services. If there's some luxury item,
then they pass it if the money is there, they take a referendum on the issue
and say_ yes we'll put the bond issue, we'll do that, that's a great idea, lets
do it. Well, what I see here now is, well let's turn to the federal government
and lets get them to help us pay for the Police Department, because there are something
(these are alternatives) that we can't get done through the federal
government, they won't fund a project here, but if they'll pay for our policeman,
then the money that we got we'll use to pay for that thing that the federal
government won't pay for. Watson Island, and I'm not here to gore anybody's
ox, everybody cautious me, I'm not as politically astute as some of my cohorts
and maybe I will be next week.,and even more so the week after that, but you know,
Watson Island, if you turn around and say people you got a choice, you know,
do you want to cut back your police services or do you want to keep hiring
police officers or do you want a park (amusement park) and then do you want to
pay for it? You know, put it on the ballot, I think we all know how the public
would rule on that.
(COMMENT MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Lt. March: Well, ok, I'll just say
(CONVENT MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
what I have as an indicator.
Miami
Lt. March: No,sir, wait, I don't think its just my opinion7Mr. Ferre.
Mayor Ferre: City of Miami, Captain and I'll tell you...
Lt.. March: I'm not a captain.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I thought you were.
3$
DEC 141977
t£x Match: I'm a Lieutenant right now.
Mrs. Gordon: Y0u just got promoted.
Lt. March: Mr. Ferre, no I'm a Lieutenant. but right now, I'm president of F.O.P.
Mayor Ferre: And I think right now, the point is you know, we all presume to
speak for an awful lot of people and you had the opportunity and you took it very
advisably, because I ran for office just a scarce month ago and you expressed your
opinion and evidently, your opinion wasn't shared by an awful lot of other people.
Lt. March: Now, Mr. Ferre, I can appreciate that comment, I think everybody else
can here and I wouldn't say that it's that simple, we can talk about that some other
time or we can talk about it here. The comment that I'm making now concerning
Watson Island, the Miami News ran a survey. I got the whole page and I'm going to
bring it in.
Mayor Ferre: Of which most of the people that answered don't live in the City of
Miami and I don't think that surveys or opinion polls, o11 people writing letters
to the newspaper, is exactly the same indication--- the way you go through this is
the electoral process. I got some letters saying that people were--- that I should
stop Watson Island because the fact that I got 23,000 votes was an indication that
I didn't have a mandate on that and my answer to that was, that in the last eight
elections of the City of Miami, the average for all Mayors that have runned in the
last eight years has been 21,000. So, based on that premise and the fact that I've
sent the literature out on the Watson Island, I find that it is a mandate, so you
know, its a matter of opinion, you feel that it isn't and I feel that it is.
Lt. March: Yes sir, but you know, bond issues and you've been around, you know
bond issues haven't passed, all the bond issues haven't...
Mayor Ferre: They haven't, the housing bond issue didn't pass?
Lt. March: I said not all bond issues, how about the one when we got the police
issue, how many bond issues were on that and how many passed?
Mayor Ferre: They all passed but one.
Lt. March: Which one?
Mayor Ferre: The City Hall. All of them passed but one.
Lt. March: I'll check that out, you maybe right and I apologize if you are and I
don't want to get in a position to apologize in front of all these people. But,
well then put it on there, alright. I know,Mr. Ferre,and I've talked to an awful
lot of people, I may never be mayor of the City of Miami, I may never be mayor of
anything, but I've talked to an awful lot of people here and I know where their
priorities are and I know if you turned to the people and you gave them the choice
if or what you'd get,and I believe that.
Mayor Ferre: Lieutenant, the people you talked to and the people I talked to are
different.
Lt. March: Well, I'll tell you who I talked to, I talked to the little people.
Mayor Ferre: And I talked to the voters of Miami, who voted on November 8th.
Lt. March: And I talked to the little people who also voted,sir. I talked to the
people in the little residential areas, I didn't talk to the people maybe in some
other places that I probably never will ascend to, but I did talk to an awful lot
of little people and they count, I think. You know, as a police officer that's
who I deal with on a regular basis, are little people. That's who I represent the
little people, I represent the middle class,and I thin': that that's a very important
group of people in this community. Now, I hope that and I'll finish, I just hope
that maybe this last exchange hasn't served your purpose to lose sight of all the
other things that we've heard in all these budget hearings. I think we heard a
awful lot of communication towards the desire on the part of the people to maintain
police, fire and sanitation levels and attendant to that, you know, we have an
awful lot of support people that are involved in that too, and all they're saying
is maintain employment level, provide the service and I think that's very important.
I'm very much dismayed by the whole process, but in visiting George Knox recently
39 CiEC 141917
I saw a quotetGeorge,and it's on your wall and I can't quote it exactly, it's from
, you know the one I'm talking about and it just basically said that
"Never for the sake of peace and quiet, something to the tune of a band in your
convictions or sacrifice your convictions" and it is my conviction, based upon
talking to a lot of people, that they want to see police, fire and sanitation
and support levels at least the same as they are now and you have a no hire policy
that's bringing police services below levels of 1967, now you may have two more
years on election, you may not have any significant competition then or whatever
all that notwithstanding, I think that I have accurately depicted what the people
have asked us for throughout this whole process of six months, and it's- what
my people ask for too.
Mayor Ferre: Lieutenant let me ask you just one question. If the City. of Miami,
in consolidated with Metropolitan -Dade County and if the people of Miami on a
square mile basis and on a percapita basis were to receive the same service on dollars
or people, or policeman or fireman on a percapita basis, would the services of the
people of Miami increase of decrease in your opinion?
Lt. March: Really I'm not quite sure I understand the question.
Mayor Ferre: If Metro and Miami emerged into one government and if the level
service that is rendered to the people of Metropolitan -Dade County for police and
for fire , the basic services, were rendered at the same level that Metro renders
their service to the people that they serve, would the quality of police and fire
increase or decrease in the City of Miami?
Lt. March: Currently,' think we have the best service in this county, in the City
of Miami, police, fire and sanitation. I live in the county, I carry my garbage
out to the street and it may seem a little thing to some people, it's a biggie with
me Tuesday morning racing the garbage truck. Now, the--- I don't stand before you
and assert that I know all the answers, Mr. Mayor, but I do assert this, that this
man,Dr. Marshall Barry, in conjunction with one other man Larry Jessup, his associate,
have come down here and have gone through this entire budget time and time aL:ain
and have raised questions and questions and questions and not have not had them
and they're still unanswered today and you're talking about hidden agendas and
conspiracy and things like that, I'm saving I don't have enough to say that now,
I really_ don't, I can't pinpoint who's involved in any kind of conspiracy or if
in fact one exists. I know that there is a lot of orchestration going on is this
whole thing, there is that.
Mayor Ferre: Further questions?
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, let me ask, I want to ask the professionals a question.
No, no where is Dr. Barry and Dr. Hendrickson and Doctor--- the three of you, I'd
like for you all to come to the mike. 1 want to ask a question, only because I
think we have an obligation and a way of commitment that I think we have to live
with. Now, gentlem n,listen to what I'm saying, I'm afraid that we can stay here
all day and argue about the budget and what will happen to us, we got to pay the
people who work for the City of Miami, and what will happen is each time we come
to a impasse you know wha 5 going to happen, we're going to vote 1/12 of whatever it
is so the Manager can pay these people. Ok, let's start off with that, the second
thing is we promised other than the fire and police, that by christmas we are going
to give them a sum of money. Now, on thing I learned about the average guy, he
knows only one thing, what he gets in his pocket. Now, all that idealism and all
that philosophy I go through, I find it in the church (they say Father, that isn't
going to get me into heaven) you know, don't want to go anywhere, ok?
Ok, right. Now, 1 am wondering, you are the professionals, you are the economists,
I'm not, is there a way we could stop the chipping off of this money by one month,
two months, pass this budget,and then come back here in three months and demand a
review in three months, keep you as the watch dog, make sure that there is no
firing of fire, police and sanitation, because they are the major service. Now,
any other Commissioner up here who tells you to the contrary when we ran, all we
had to say to the people was say man you know--- people said no, we don't want to
go take our garbage out co the front, ok. The other people said we got to have
us a fire department to give us the services--- I was to their affair last night
man and those people were beautiful, then the people said you know all this crime
in this town we are sick and tired of it. I wouldn't tell you that I've had them
--- they did me in twice within thy last 60 days, Mr: Mayor,you can't believe that
so I'm not going to escape the wrath of the gods. Now, what I want to make is rather the
permit this money to continually be reduced, because that's what's going to happen you kr
they're not going to have but so much in the pot and rather than deny the people ---
I see that gentleman there, he was here the other time pleading passionately for
40 DEC 14187/4
that Money, that increase ---what is that 3-1/2 percent or something like that?
Is there anyway we could do this thing, pass that budget, keep you watching over
because I can't come, I don't know. I want an answer or suggestion so we could
not stay here all day and end up leaving out here, nothing is done and yet
chissel off on that money. Now you all are the professionals I'm not. I know
that a hard question or let me put it the other way, let me make it more simple.
Theodore Gibson, if it can be done is not adverse to offering a motion to pass
the budget with the understanding that nobody is going to be fired. ':umber one,
that we're going to retain the same level of services. Number two, that every
90 days and before the Manager even thinks about a program other than what we
know about, that he had better come back here and tell us and we're going to
have to vote to tell him to do because of what you have said. You know what I
mean, that's where I am and if wo don't get to that point, let me tell you what
I envision. We're going to end up not passing this budget and they Manager is
going to get--- automatically we're going to have to put up a 1/10 or a 1/3 or
a 1/12, whatever that number is and we're going to he chisseling away on that
money and then do you know what's sad? He's going to go on and do some of those things
wants to do anyway, you follow me: I'm a practical politician., I'm not a theorist
on this, that's the way the church operates, do you understand? Ok, tell me.
Dr. Remington: To start with Rev. Gibson, I'm not interested in serving as a
budget watch dog, that's what they pay Mr. Gary to do.
Rev. Gibson: I didn't hear that sir.
Dr. Remington: I'm not interested as serving as a watch dog, that's what Mr. Gary
is paid to do, that's his job, and I think you've got 3 competent staff of people
that can do that. Let me answer your question this way, when we first appeared
before you we said that there was then money in the budget to retain all employees
without lay-offs, we stand there, at least I do, the money is still there. Today
the Manager has come back with a proposal that will keep all employees on board
that's correctlhe will keep all employees on board, that is one way to do it. I
can't sit here and tell you what other ways might be, I think thats the Manager's
job.
Rev. Gibson: No, no that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if we passed this
budget--- see,I'm concerned about what Dr. Barry has said. you know, that there
are somethings I don't really know because you didn't get that other paper. you
understand; I'm concerned at how we can p ";sed this budget, keep faith with those
employees who were promised and due that 3-1/2 or whatever that percentage is and
yet make sure that the Manager doesn't do what he--- well,not what he implied,
but that fifth thing that was not brought up, do you understand what I'm talking
about? Now, maybe I want the best of two worlds and that isn't possible, but that
means that you won't fire any police, you won't fire any fireman, you're not going
to reduce that number, you're not going to do it to the sanitation people and at
the same time before the Manager could go up or down he has got to come back here
and you're going to be here when he comes back here, you follow me? Otherwise,
what's going to happen is we are going to be chisseling and chipping away on that
money. That's the way we do in the church, chip away and chip away and then when
you come back, man .,you know...
Mayor Ferre: Father, I don't mean to interrupt you but I think I sense where you're
going, but the problem is that we got a motion and unless the maker of the motion
wants to withdraw the motion--- seconded by, you didn't second it? Oh, I'm sorry,
I understood you to second it but 1--- you're right, now that I remember you were
asking some questions about it, so in effect we don't have any motion , so you know
to get off 'the dime somebody is going to have to make a motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Are you discussing the item marked D?
Mayor Ferre: I'll do it any way you want it.
Mrs. Gordon: I mean, are you talking about that? J. L. didn't you second that
before? You did not, ok.
Rev. Gibson: Well, let me say.the sense of what I'm trying to say is, take into
consideration that you're not going to hire police and sanitation at this point
in time with CETA business. I men I just thought that we would--- you see what
I'm talking about?
Mayor Ferre: You mean police and fire.
41 DEC 141977
Reim Gibson: Yes, police and fire.
Mayor Ferre: Not sanitation...
Rev. Gibson: Look man, otherwise,--- I'm not a economist.
Mrs. Gordon: Father are you speaking now to the idea of the motion that tas
preferred and not seconded before lunch?
Rev. Gibson: I'm not talking about no motion, I put my thing out in the open on
the table and what I'm saying is I wanted to know if that could be done, if these
economists will be comfortable, if you see that that is reasonable--- I'm concerned
that they're looking on December, that something for that money because this budget
is not going to be passed.
Mayor Ferre: Look I think I see the sense--- because we got to get off the dime
somehow on this, so I'm going to pass the gavel to the Vice -Mayor and I will make
the following motion, I move you that this memorandum in essence dated December 8th,
be accepted with the proviso,however, that the C t —;;,.pager be asked to report to.
this City_ Commission on a quarterly basis h.'„ the budget is proceeding, what
funds or extras are available, if any7and what positrons can be filled and how.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, you don't have a second anyway but,...
Mayor Ferre: Well, I may not have the second so you know,--- I just moved that
trying to see if I could get this thing moving.
Mrs. ':ordon: You did not address yourself to the key problem in this entire situation,
that's number D and that is the police and fire...
Mayor Ferre: I addressed myself to it.
Mrs. Gordon: You addressed it as it is written here, which is CETA positions and I
object to that procedure.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you this, Maurice is it you intension through your motion
that CETA funds will not be used or what;,thats what I don't understand.
Iayor Ferre: I don't see how we can distinguish and begin to distinguish and as
far as I'm concerned in my motion is backing the statement of the Manager or Mr.
Howard Gary_ as it was stated this morning which basically says that you can't
eliminated the police and fire and therefore restrict what you're going to be
doing to the sanitation, finance, planning and so on in other departments, because
the fact is that I think that you've got to have a latitude of the Manager functioning
as best he can and I think he understands the feeling of this Commission and I think
he understands the importance of the life saving units and I think he understands ---
if he doesn't man I'll tell you he's got bad, bad problems and I don't mean later,
I mean soon and I don't think--- I mean, you know, we live in a fish bowl and what
happens around here is reported in the newspapers every single day and I don't
think that we can--- the way I sense this thing, my motion is in recognition of this
memorandum as presented with the following exception that I want to review it every
90 days and I want this Manager to come and I would like very much Doctor for you
to come back when we review these things and if questions arise then perhaps we
might ask for you assistance in it. If problems arise, there may not be any problems
arising out of this. Now, I make no bones as to what my motion means, I'm addressing
item D.
Rev. Gibson: Let's see what...
Mr. Reboso: We have a motion on the floor,Father.
Mrs. Gordon: You don't have a second.
W. Plummer: Well, he can make the motion again, because I want to hear what he
has to say.
Rev. Gibson; I want to hear what he says.
Mr. Plummer: I want to hear what Dr. Barry has to say.
Dr, Barry: I think that what you suggested, Father Gibson, and I think it
ties in with Mrs. Gordon's comment earlier, in motion and thoughts on the subject
earlier. lts quite possible and to incorporate it with the Major's suggestion about
42 DEC 14197&,
December 8th memorandum--- if I think there is cognizance taken of the points'
I raised this morning and I think this documentation here is quite ample. for
example from Mr. Smith and the waste employees about the supposed $600,000 in
severance pay, that/s an important part of that, that 2.3 million dollars. The
failure to report the latest estimate by Mr. Gunderson of the available fund
balance above the million dollars in the general fund as stated in the budget,
the extra $300,000. These are monies that are available that would allow the
exemption of police, fire and sanitation or the basic services from the use of CETA
employees, that would find the money to accomplish what I think is the intent of
the permanency of those operations.
Rev. Gibson: Doctor, that's what we want you to tell us, you.see if you tell
us how to do what we ought to do rather than let this money keep being chipped off.
If you'd give me the amendment, I'm ready to offer it 'because let me tell you, as
I look at those men out there and as I look at, you know, the continuing chipping
away of this money, I'm disturbed because what will happen is, in 90 days--- you
know, everybody will say well we don't have the money and I don't want to hear that.
You tell me, lets do what the intent is, tell us how to stop--- you know, close up
'the loop holes. You understand? Right.
Dr. Barry: "eslsir,and the way I think that I would suggest doing that, if
I may be so bold, is the reduction to a more reasonable and I think this is also
the FIU Committee's consideration, that the estimate of severance pay is quite over-
stated and they were solicited to he overstated in the way that it was presented
to the departments and it is overstated and the people that interviewed the
individuals who are on the list of the various departments are here today and they can
tell you that they talked to people.,and you can reduce the appropriation for
severance pay and use that money to put into the slot to keep the police and the
basic services without CETA employees.
Mrs. Gordon: In other words the $757,000 could be moved up to C, rather than...
Dr. Barry:
I haven't got that in front of me.
Dr. Hendrickson: Probably not that much Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, you would need that much.
Dr. Hendrickson: But, you don't need that much for those three services, based on the
CETA estimates, I was incorrect this morning, for the fire, police and sanitation
it adds up to about a $185,000.
Mrs. Gordon: That's all?
Dr. Hendrickson: There is probably that much overstatement of the severance appropriatio,
Mrs. Gordon: $185,000tis that all it would take?
Dr. Hendrickson: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Now, would that cover another condition that I'm concerned with, tell
me if I'm covered or not. If there are retirements after ther first of the year
in either of the departments and there will be vacancies, will they be restricted
from hiring replacements under the conditions of it as it is set up?
Rev. Gibson: But, Rose--- my intent is that the Manager will not have that discretionary
power, that in order to do that the Manager would have to come back here, that's the
point, thats why we're together, that the Manager cannot, arbitrarily make that decision.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, there is a million and a half set aside to be accumulated through
vacant positions, correct?, in order to balance out that factor in the budget, correct?
Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie: No, that is entirely correct.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, since you cannot fill vacancies until you overcome that budgeted
item, my question is that someone will tell me that the police and fire, will not
be kept vacant until that million and a half is caught up, then I'll go a long with
the procedure as you have outlined it, but otherwise, then I'm not satisfied.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, your statement is not quite correct.
43 DEC 141977
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, then correct me.
Mr. Grassie: The way that works and that has worked you know, it worked last year so we
have experience with exactly how it will work, is that a department-- let's assume a
department has responsibility for makine uD $400.00 every quarter they have to have aP-
proximately $100,000 of that salary savings that they have accumulated, so if they are o
schedule, if their expectation of the department director is that he will he able
to make the salary savings that he has to make in order to have a balanced budget,
then he can fill vacancies that don't conflict with his ability to make that goal.
So, what I'm saying to you is that you don't have to make up that million and a half
dollars in the first 3 months or the first 6 months of the year. That is spread
out over the year and it is possible to fill vacancies, assuming that you're on
schedule.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, except that we are and I heard Lt. March say that we're operating
with a force that is equivalent to 1967, is that correct? And if we're operating
with a force .that's equivalent to 10 rears ago and we are operatine in a crime
situation which is way beyond whatever we faced in the year of 1967, I don't want
to have even one officer less than we can have. I'm very serious and very concerned
as you all are, but even more so, because of many personal reasons.
Rev. Gibson: You were a victim, I've been a victim twice.
Mrs. Gordon: I just don't want us to be penny wise and dollar foolish and I want
us to recognize that if we have to do without then we have to do without some
other things that are not as basic to the safety and to the welfare of the people
who live in this City as police and fire and of course sanitation. So, that's my
major concern, police, fire and sanitation, nrimarily the uniformed services because
they directly involve my safety and'I meaning all of us, everybody.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but Rose you see--- let me tell you where I have a problem
ok, and what 1 wanted to do is pretty obvious you can't do, ok. Rose, if I
understand this document.and somebody tell me if I'm wrong, it is proposed in here
to bring police and fire back up to strength, yes it is, but funding through CETA.
Now, that's where I. have the Problem, because I have no guarantee of fundinc thrnurih
CETA.
Mrs. Gordon: J. L. that isn't true, because the 101 positions are only including
four positions for fire, if I remember it correctly and not any anticipated vacancies
that will take place after the first of the year,and correct me if I'm wrong.
Mayor Ferre: I would like to respectfully request the chair, that I think we've
been debating this thing all day, we all know exactly where we are and we know
exactly how we're going to vote and let's just get on with this thing and vote
one way or the other and I would like to--- if I have a second, fine and if I
don't have a second, that's fine too, and then somebody else make the motion ---
let's move what are we going around in circles for?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think we're going around in circles Mayor, so that we
all have a better understanding and we come out with a better budget.
Mayor Ferre: We all understand very clear, I'll tell you in a few minutes, if
nothing happens, I'm going to--- you know. this meeting is eoine to be over in a few
minutes and we can reconvene on Friday and stay here all day Friday until we
get it done, because you know, all of us have commitments and all kinds of problems
and things you have been here all day, we keen rehashing and retreading, everybody
wants to..go to heaven and nobody wants to die, let's go.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, Mr. Mayor, that's what might happen if we adopt this.
Mayor Ferre: Well, that's fine we are not going to go to heaven, we are
already theca
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, would it help if we point out that of the 101 positions
that are proposed for CETA funding, six of them are uniformed police positions
and four are fire uniformed positions, in other words a total of ten positions
out of a 101 are uniformed positions.
Mayor Ferre: Fine) I'll accept that.
Mr. Grassie: The chiefs are going to be, the respective chiefs of nonce and
fire are going to be the last to want to go that route, if there is any alternative,
you know, we'll try and find an alternative.
Mayor Ferre: I'll accept that as an amendmmt to my motion.
44
DEC 141977
Mr. Reboso; We have a motion on the floor, any second to the motion.
Mr. Plumper: Alright, so then let me have an understanding and then I might,
alright. If I understand you correctly you are talking about six positions in
police and four positions in fire with the administration and the chief's assurances
that if anyway possible they will fund them through the regular budget and not
through CETA, is that what I have assurances of?
Mr. Grassie: Right, that's what we are saying.
Mayor Ferre: And I put as part of the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, are we in a posture now...
Mr. Plummer: I'll second the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Wait a minute, are we in a posture now for adoption► of the budget or is
that something that's scheduled for tomorrow.
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: It's scheduled for tomorrow.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok.
Mr. Grassie: This motion, whatever motion you adopt will indicate to us what
ordinance we bring back to you, tomorrow you would simply act on the ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: Yes sir, this sets the wheels in motion unless somebody changes
his mind between now and tomorrow.
Rev. Gibson: before I want to vote--- Dr. Barry, you're the economist, Dr. Hendrickson,
and Dr....
Mr. Grassie: Remington.
Rev. Gibson: Remington, you heard what we said and now remember, I don't plan
to let you all go, ok 9
Mrs. Gordon: Now, wait a minute, I want a clearer understanding than just that.
You're shaking your head, Dr. Barry, what are you shaking your head for?
Dr. Barry: Well, the major issue is still unresolved...
Mrs. Gordon: I know that and it's being jammed down my throat just like...
Dr. Barry: It's the salary savings figure, will they replace to pull up to full
manning the essential services or will they wait the generation of the salary savings?
Mr. Plummer: Oh no.
Rev. Gibson: No, essential service is what we're talking about, thats what I'm
voting on.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'll guarantee you that's not the way I understood it when I
heard it, so if you intend it that way Mr. Mayor, said so. Then word your motion
so that we all understand it.
Rev. Gibson: ... that's what I told the people.
Mr. Plummer: Right there in black and white.
Mrs. Gordon: Say it.
Mayor Ferre: The only change that has been made in this motion, as I understand
it is that there are ten uniformed police and fire personnel and that what in
effect, which is 6 police and 4 fire and what Plummer added which I accepted
is that the Manager, the police chief and the fire chief, use every single possible
method not to have to rely on going to the CETA, is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: That's correct Mayor.
DEC 141977
45
Mr. Reboso: Well, we have a motion and a second...
Mayor Ferre: Is that right Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: That's the way that I understand it.
Mrs. Gordon: There is nothing in there about future vacancies.
Mr. Teems: Mr. Vice -Mayor, the issue you're not addressing is the vacant positions
that we're supposed to pick up through salary savings. Now, in the fire department
we're talking, you know, we got four vacancies now, after January we're looking
at 20 to 25 more.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, how do you address that?
Mr. Teems: Now,...
Mr. Plummer: Good question.
Mr. Teems: That's right and you're not speaking to those people and that's what
we're speaking to now.
Mrs. Gordon: And that's what I've been speaking to for about 2 hours, but I've
been ignored and shoved aside and push away.
Mr. Teems: Exactly, he's telling us that we can't fill those positions until we
reach our salary savings, which in our case is $380,000.
Mr. Plummer: Good question, let's get an answer.
Mr. Grassie: I think we've said it about 4 times, but...
Mayor Ferre: Say it again.
Mr. Grassie: It is true that if we are going to treat a million and a half dollars
as a revenue which supports positions, we have to generate the revenue. Now, the
only way we generate that million and a half dollars, is through salary savings,
that means we can't fill vacancies until we have that salary savings. that is
absolutely true, I've said it four times already this morning and it's still true.
Mrs. Gordon: I know you did and you're saying it again and I'm saving again that
I'm not ready to vote on any motion that is going to put the police and fire departments
in the position of waiting until that takes place, because I believe that you have
the money, that you can find it, either of two places, the one referring to Watson
Island and the one referring to the severance cost which I have heard has a sum
that you can reallocate if you want to.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask this question, assuming we vote on the motion on the
floor, would not another motion--- it's not .yen needed as so far as the motion is
concerned, that we continue a process of trying to find additional dollars, trying
to find additional dollars so that we--- but, you see, I see Rose's point, ok.
That before...
Mr. Teems: Can I say one thing Mr. Plummer,--- Mr. Mayor, I sorry.
Mayor Ferre: He's chairing it.
Mr. Teems:. Mr. Reboso?
Mr. Reboso: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Teems: To me, you know, this Commission directed the Manager to go back ---
no one else--- go back and redefine the budget without the lay-offs in it. To me
what he is doing is he's coming in the back door, he's saying ok, we're not going
to lay-off, but as they accrue we're not going to hire back. :No matter how you
look at it, whether you lay them off or don't hire them back, you got a reduction
in service, no matter how you look at it and that's what those 10's of thousands of
people were trying to tell you in those petitions, that they don't want a reduction
in the service.
Speaker Unknown: Mr. Mayor, may I say something ?
46
Drr 14197Z
ur'iy _-4F'Yf.tT
Mayor Ferre: Could I get the police chief and the fire chief here?
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: At the same time the City Manager is filling positions. are
the same time they're creating positions, because we got positions in sanitation
that have been created since the new administration has come here.
Mr. Grassie: Whom do you want Mr. Mayor?
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: And they make over $19.000 a year.
Mr. Reboso: Mr. Watkins?
Mr. Teems: I might point out one more thing, in that memo the manning on the
fire department is wrong, we have 662 employees in the fire service now and they've
got 627, so the figures are wrong on the manning now, on the new memo you just
received.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now I would like to ask the police chief and then I'd like
to ask the fire chief, whether or not in your opinion, what is about to happen here
--- if it passes--- is it going to substantially jeopardize the level of service
that your respected departments can render?
Chief Proli: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the point raised was that
we do presently have 4 vacant fire fighter positions that have occurred since
October 1 and it is a reality that the Fire Department will be required to commit
the salary savings, an additional $362,000 during this fiscal year. It also is a
reality between January and February and early March, we'll have an additional
approximate 20 more vacant fire fighter positions. So, in reality with the four
present vacancies, with the possible 20 more vacancies, we'll have approximate
24 vacant fire fighter positions. This has been brought to the attention of the
City Manager and Mr. Howard Gary, we have discussed this at length. There will
be--- if we were not premitted to hire, there will be a service reduction, it will
come about in terms of placing an engine company out of service and perhaps then
a rescue company out of service and as the year continues, perhaps a ladder
company out of service. But, in our discussions with the City 'Manager and Mr. Howard Gar
most recently, I think and I'm assured that the City Manager and Mr. Gary, in our
discussions don't want to see this occur, because in reality it would be in long
terms an adoption of the second budget .;herein three companies would have
to go. Last year we were required to accrue S300,000 in vacant salary rate fund
and we were successful in accruing $360,000 last year, this year it is $362,000. It
took 35 fire fighter positions to accumulate $360,000 the last fiscal period
and if the retirees take place somewhat in the same time frame, if would take
approximately 35 fire fighter positions to accrue $362,000.
Mrs. Gordon: How many would it take?
Chief Proli: Some where in the vicinity of 35 additional positions, four that
we have current and an additional perhaps 30 to 31 more, butit's all predicated
at what point the retirees occur and the salary savings requirements as presented
to us just most recently, we just discussed with the City Manager and I feel
certain that adjustments will be made during the year in regards to that, establishing
priorities for the -Fire Department that essential services will not be reduced,
narticularly in terms of engin matters and rescues. I guess the decision lies
in your hands.
Chief Watkins: I'm not quite sure that I understand at this point the officers
that were to,.be laid -off, I'm not sure how that would affect the department coming
back, but it's my understanding now, that positions wouldn't become vacant,
would not be filled to meet the salary surplus in the district and like I said
when I was here before, we cannot, there is just no way we can maintain the same
level of service, by the end of this budget year, if we don't fill vacancies we'll
be down about roughly 117 sworn officers, from what we were at the highest we
were ever budget for was 807 in 75..Something has to give and I realize the
predicament that everyone is about to budget, but I think the expectation -and no
matter whether they are filled are they or not filled, you're still going to have
some reduction of services of what you had a year ago, so it's happening now, I'm
not projecting anything other than it will be worse at the end of the year. The
expectations in this budget year from what's happening between your parades. I
realize the advantages of Bicentennial Park, but I also know very realistically what
it costs. We can't maintain it, we can't maintain those additional services that
are being requested and not have three delegations of people from various parts of
47
DEC 141977.
of the community that are demanding that they be provided this additional police
services and I simply had to tell them that we can't and the only thing that I
could tell them is and I'm telling you, if it gets worse we not only will not
be able maintain 'the main service but we are going to have to reduce it and T'm
not using this as a budget wage, I'm just trying to be realistic for the next
person who is going to have a lot of expectations heaped on him, a lot of turmoil
a lot of frustrations and it's going to have to be said. if we are going to reduce
people are going to have to be told, you're going to not get the same response
that you've gotten before, I think we've reached the critical point, but it's up
to where the priorities are.
Mr. Plummer: What is your Department charged with for anticipated savings for
this year?
Chief Watkins: Roughly $480,000.
INAUDIBLE:
Mrs. Gordon: How much was that chief?
INAUDIBLE:
Mrs. Gordon: There is two places Mr. Plummer and the Manager can decide which is
more important to him.
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
cost.
INAUDIBLE:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Grassie:
opinion that
Where are the two places Mrs. Gordon?
One is the Watson Island overage and the other one
is the severance
I know, but its overbudgeted and that you do know.
Now, that's a statement Commissioner, it is not a fact. it is not our
it is overbudgeted.
Mrs. Gordon: itie11. you know, you can have a lot more saving in some of those
positions you haven't filled Mr. Grassie, that you're planning to fill. that
maybe we can do without.
Mr. Grassie: Well, someone has suggested a review after three months, maybe it's
reasonable to look at this.
Mayor Ferre: That was Father Gibson's idea and I think it.is a part of the motion
that I made.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, if you will accept the policy in it Mr. Mayor, that we are
just reiterated and what you have heard emphasized by both chiefs, if you'll
take that as a policy and then let the Manager decide where he is going to get
if from besides CETA, then I can go along with your motion.
Mayor Ferre: Thats fine, but that's not my motion, you make that motion.
Mrs. Gordon: I'll make that motion.
Mrs. Gordon: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but Manolo, either the Mayor is going to have to accept ---
because I seconded the motion--- an amendment to his motion or then I have to
immediately make another motion if that one passes and I would hope that the
Mayor, would concede...
Mayor Ferre: Tell me what your motion is.
Mr. Plummer: Not my motion, but my amendment to your motion Mr. Mayor, would
be, assuming that your motion passes, that the administration together with the
FIU panel, immediately begin a search to find the $850,000 from some other source
than CETA and that in 90 days we would be presented with those alternatives and
then we could weigh...
Mayor Ferre: But, that's a iffy.
48
DEC 141977
Plummer: Well, it's iffy, sut it's iffy. The whole dam budget is iffy,
INAUDIBLE:
Mrs. Gordon: Listen it's not iffy, because the acceptance of the budget is predicated
upon it and, J. L., if you don't do it that way it won't come to pass.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, Rose, every day that we sit here and don't adopt a budget we
have less to work with and our problems are more serious.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not saying that we don't adopt it, but, we adopt it with a policy
statement in it, that we direct the Manager to do this and not if and, and but.
Mayor Ferre: No, there is a difference between what you said and what Plummer
said. Now, you say direct the Manager to do, now, Plummer says direct the Manager
to search and come back and report, is a big difference.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, if you're adopting it the way you're doing it, then you can
forget it because it will never be done,
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
Ok, I'm still open to better suggestions.
Well, I accept your amendment.
Your amendment Mr. Plummer, as much as it is in good faith, is not
going to accomplish the end results.
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Reboso:
Mr. Naples:
INAUDIBLE:
Mr. Reboso: Yes, repeat the motion please, and let's move.
Rose, the whole thing is in good faith.
You're in good faith, but it won't happen.
Well, anyway for whatever it's worth, Plummer I accept.
Well, we have a motion and a second with an amendment.
Can we hear the motion?
Mayor Ferre: The motion is, that this City of Miami, on a motion basis go on
record accepting the summary for FY'78 budget alternatives to prevent lay-offs,
dated December 8th, Memorandum Howard V. Gary and Joseph R. Grassie, with two
provisos; one, that the Manager is instructed to come back before this Commission
on a 90 day bases from October 1,(that is every quarter, the first day of each
quarter) and review with the Commission, where the budgetary situation stands
with regards to the actual, in other words, to review with this Commission what
funds are available, what la•; -offs have not occurred,.... I mean, what severance cost hav
not been incurred, what additional monies might be available, the whole process
on a 90 day basis, that's number one and number two, that the Manager be instructed
to in conjunction with Dr. Hendrickson, to review the possible sources of money
available to make up the $800 and some odd thousand dollars that we are short of
so that we can fill supposed vacancies as they arrive, is that correct?
Mr. Plummer: Out of permanent dollars other than CETA.
Mayor Ferre: Out of permanent dollars other than CETA, period, that's my motion.
Mr. Reboso: Ok, do you second that motion?
Mr. Plummer: I did seconded the motion, the only thing that I think in fairness,
is that we do not exclude Dr. Barry or anyone in that process.
INAUDIBLE:
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I understand Mr. Grassie, I understand very well, but I don't
think that we should have--- look here is what we're doing if we deny them ---
if we deny them access we're going to be back here at the same dam stumbling
block where we are today.
INAUDIBLE:
49
DEC 141977
Mr. Plummer: I did not say that Dr. Barry, would come in and direct the situation,
I'm merely stating that he not be denied access to this ongoing situation and
I see nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Naples: Mr. Vice -Mayor, may I make a comment?
Mr. Reboso: Go ahead.
Mr. Naples: Members of the Commission, it seems to me that there is one thing
that's continually being over -looked, the fact of the matter is when Dr. Barry
came out and said the money was there and the FIU panel came along and said that
he was conservative and they thought there was more money there than he had said
there was, and everybody seems to he over -looking that and if vou think that you're
going to go back to the Manager without some more explicit instructions, because
what he has attempted to do is not to find money, but, how not to find the money,
because that's exactly what I think he has done and I think you're going to get
right back to that same box, because every 90 days you're going to come hack with
the same thing you've come back with now.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, that's a simplified version and 1 don't see any simple
answers to this damn thing, I see it becoming more complicated by everyday that
runs on.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Vice -Mayor, we have a list of 71 people that are slated probable
and possible for retirement in 78. I've gone and asked each one of these people
--- two of them are ready to leave--- there are three possible, there are five out
of 71 people scheduled to go, yet this money is in the budget for severance cost.
Now, what we're saying is, that if they're not going, what is this money doing
there. These people are listed by names and some of these people have been with
the less than 7 and 8 years.
Mr. Plummer: That's arguing exactly what I'm trying to say, if that money is not
being used and is not going to be used, that will be money available in 90 days
that we can make a decision that you don't have to go to CETA. That's exactly
what I'm trying to say.
Mr. Sherman: Mr. Vice-Mavor and members of the Commission, may I have the floor?
My name is A. G. Sherman and I'm president of the General Employees Association,
I'd like to apologize to this Commission if I bring up an issue which Mr.
Smith has just brought up, if it was earlier brought up while I was gone, I had
to attend a funeral today and 1 understand that possibly this issue was brought
before the Commission. 1 have received only this morning a list that is a recorder
from City documents, which is on a severance estimate foi 197�. On this list there
are only approximately 50 names, but there are classifications and titles listed.
We have gone out for our membership because we are concerned with their welfare
and asked at a random count, 15 people, of these one person has stated he has
retired, he is on his way, which conforms with the list. 14 of the people were
in dire shock that their names were appearing on this list, they had no idea
whatsoever, that they were going out. Now, I'd like to know, are you trying to
tell these people something or exactly_ how they stand, because right now, they're
little upset and I'm sure they're are as concerned as we're concerned and I don't
know how these facts and figures were derived, but, I feel once again it backs up
what Mr. Plummer said this morning, that the estimate for severance is highly over-
estimated.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, how was that list compiled? If people don't know they're
going to retire, who makes the decision for them?
Mr. Grassie: Each department head Commissioner, prepared that list for his own
department.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, let me ask this question and I don't know how, so, but isn't
this a basic list of potentials who is eligible?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, and you know, the fact that we need to remind ourselves of is
that with the process that vou are talking about, we're going to be able to review
actual performance rather than talking about speculation, we are going to review
actually what is going to happen every three months, which seems to me much more
reasonable than speculating about what might happen.
Mr. Plummer: I happen to share some beliefs and I've said it before and I'll
50
DEC 14197,
say it again, you know, that the over -estimation of severance is extremely high,
but, therein is where I find the buffer for the potential $850,000. Now, I
could be wrong, they could be wrong, you could be wrong, but. only time is going
to tell us and I think that if we go about it in this particular way and in 90
days--- let me tell you something, as I have sit on pension boards around here
your big, big amount of retirement basically comes about in January and February.
Now, if we review 90 days from today and is fourth of what you projected is not
in fact the case, then I would say as one, I'm going to take a hard damn look
at what severance pay is projected in this becoming budget and I think the time
go back five years will show that I'm correct--- let me tell you something, when
I came to this City 8 years ago, City employees were second class citizens and
they didn't have to worry today which what they worried about then and that is
today I find City employees having to worry about a tax situation as to when they
can retire and how many of them announced their intension in late November and
early_ December, but, have to go over to January because they're into a tax bind.
Now, you know that can't be denied and I would sav to you that when Garland announced
he announced that he was leaving in January and the other two top men in that
department so announced and others that I know of who are proposing to leave
would be so in January. I'm going to tell you, I'm voting for this motion, but
I personally believe that there is ample bufferage, (if there is such a word) in
that over -estimation of severance and as far as I'rn concerned, I'm going to watch
it and that money in my desire is going to be used to keep essential services
police and fire.
Mayor Ferre: Chairman, I call the question.
Mr. Plummer: You got my word and that's better than the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, you put it in the motion because in the public records the
only thing that counts is what gets passed by the body, not what statements are
made by individuals.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, what I'm saying to you is this, as far as I'm concerned...
Mrs. Gordon: Add it as an amendment and I'll go with the thing, otherwise, ---
I mean this thing is too loose.
Mr. Plummer: What you're asking me is to put part of the amendment, that any
difference in what is projected and what is reality of the severance pay will go
to funding the permanent positions, Yes Ma'am, you got it as an amendment. I don't
think even the Mayor would go against that.
Mr. Reboso: City Clerk will you please call the roll.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, does the maker of the motion accept it?
INAUDIBLE:
Mr. Plummer: I knew I was talking for no reason. The amendment that I'm offering
at this time--- this is the second amendment I've offered--- that any difference
between what is projected severance and what is actual, most go toward permanent
funding, yes...
Mayor Ferre: I accept that, sure.
Mr. Reboso: Call the roll please.
Mrs. Gordon: For the essential services.
Mr. Plummer:
That's right.
Mayor Ferre: I accept that.
Mr. 0ngie: Roll call Mayor Ferre...
Rev. Gibson: Wait a minute, as essential service now.
Mr. Plummer: That's right.
Rev. Gibson: Ok, the people in the union and the economists, do you understand what
is being said? Can you all live with that? See because I happen to know, you know.
51
DEC 14197Z,
I want to make sure everybody understands this,
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: We can live with that.
Rev. Gibson: Ok, essential service--- we mean what's necessary to run the City,
because you went to the people and you said--- I remember Mr. Mayor, you and
Reboso and I ran, I'll never forget it, those people said we don't want to bring
our garbage out to the front, you remember that, that's a part of the essential
services.
Mr. Reboso: Ok, call the question please.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I got to get one little, little. Ok, I'm sorry, I've
got to go home and live with myself. Excluding the mounted patrol in the Grove,
that you shall not abolish the mounted patrol in the Grove.
Mayor Ferre: He's already committed to that, right?
Mr. Plummer: Did you commit to that?
Mayor Ferre: Yes. That's already...
Mrs. Gordon: He's not abolishing it.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, he's not saying anything.
Mayor Ferre: The Mayor of Miami made a commitment to the people. Didn't I
make a commitment Joe? You remember that.
Rev. Gibson: He sure did.
Mayor Ferre: Said as long as I'm Mayor, we're going to have those...
Mr. Plummer: But you're not pulling the purse strings, he is. I want to hear
him say it.
Rev. Gibson: For one thing is sure in the 90 day period, it we find out they aren't
there...
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but they'll be soaked by then.
Rev. Gibson: No they won't man, before he could alter that department, herd have
to come back here.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, what do you understand sir?
Mr. Grassie: The basic policy of the City Commission has been that we would
have no lay-offs.
Mr. Plummer: And that includes horses as well...
Mr. Grassie: And that includes the horse riders, as well as other people.
Mr. Plummer: And the horses.
Mr. Grassie: Well, we're not going to keep the riders and do away with the horses.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, let me understand too, because you didn't say it, Plummer
did, other people did. The vacancies as they occur in the essential services
will not be held up, they could be filled as soon as the department heads requires
them to be filled, correct?
Mr. Grassie: No, that is not correct, for the fifth time Commissioner, that is
not correct until...
Mr. Plummer: We have a review.
Mr. Grassie: We have a review and until we meet the requirement of that three
month period on the part of the department and salary savings.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Chairman call the question.
52
DEC 141977
$aboso :
40
Call the question.
The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption:
MOTION N0: 77-903
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING A MEMORANDUM
FROM HOWARD GARY TO JOSEPH GRASSIE, DATED DECEMBER 8, 1977,
AND IDENTIFIED AS "SUMMARY OF FY' 78 BUDGET ALTERNATIVES TO
PREVENT LAYOFFS", WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITY MANAGER
BE ASKED TO REPORT TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON A QUARTERLY
BASIS FROM OCTOBER 1, 1977 AND ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH
QUARTER AS TO THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE BUDGET; FURTHER
STIPULATING THAT THE 6 UNIFORM POSITIONS OUT OF A TOTAL
OF 101 POSITIONS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE
FOR SUBSTITUTION WITE CETA BE KEPT AND FUNDED THROUGH
REGULAR CITY FUNDING SOURCES AND NOT THROUGH CETA FUNDING;
FURTHER STIPULATING THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE INSTRUCTED
TO, IN CONJUNCTION WITS DR. HENDRICKSON, OF THE FIU PANEL,
REVIEW POSSIBLE SOURCES OF MONIES AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE
FOR THE $850,000 THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED IN ORDER THAT
ESSENTIAL SERVICES VACANCIES IN POLICE AND FIRE BE FILLED
AS THEY OCCUR WITE MONIES OTHER THAN CETA MONIES; AND
FURTHER STIPULATING THAT ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS
"PROJECTED SEVERANCE" TODAY AND WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE
"ACTUAL SEVERANCE" COSTS SHALL GO TOWARDS THE PERMANENT
FUNDING OF THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES POSITION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
motion was passed and
Commissioner Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Manolo Rebose
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
ON ROLL CALL:
Mrs. Gordon: This is a motion, not a resolution. This will come to us
tomorrow, if I'm correct, in a resolution. When that comes to us it better
be clear in all its delineations, and if it isn't I'm going to vote no at
that time. Today I'll vote yes.
6, ANNOUNCEMENT BY COMMISSIONER ROSE u ORDON OF DONATION OF $1,000,00 FOR
fMINI PARK - CJIMER AREA,
Mrs. Gordon:
that the City
I just wanted to tell you that in this critical financial crunch
is having, the South Dade Women Council of Realtors, donated
$1,000 to the City of Miami, today at lunch
was addressing at lunch and they turned the
for the creation of a mini park in Culmer.
to the fact that one of his representatives
check, the real one will follow later.
. That was
check over
Mr. Howard
was there
the organization that I
to our Park Department
is there and he'll attest
and received the mocked
Mayor Ferre: I make a motion that all future speaking engagements for the City of
Miami, be given to Rose Gordon and that all the monies that she gets be turned over
to the severance, along with the severance cost so that J. L. Plummer, can have
his horseg'.-
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre:
What you mentioned my name, but I didn't hear you.
One last thing, Mr. Grassie...
Can I ask Mr. Howard one thing before you go up on another subject?
Alright, but hurry up because we got to go.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Howard, we have a ground breaking, which I'm sure you're going
to advise everybody to come to on saturday. When will the actual construction
take place in that mini park that the City has acquired by lease for one dollar
a year from Mr. William Sawyer, who is the brother of Gwen Cherry? Now, everybody
has got their plug.
DEC 141977
53
Mt. toward: Immediately after the first of the year.
Mts. Gordon: Immediately after the first of the year, Means its the first toeek
after the first of the year. Thank you.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR FERRE OF APPROVAL BY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
OF THE DO MTc I PEOPLE MO 'ER SYSTEI
Mayor Ferre: I'd like to announce, Mr. Manager. this concerns you. I'm happy
to inform this Commission, that Secretary of Transportation Brock and Administrator
Richard Page, has today approved the prelimenary engineering for the Downtown
People Mover, as well as the Hialeah Lake. I think this is a major break through
for this community, I know its a major break through for the City and I just wanted
to share with you that good news.
8, CONCLUSION OF BUDGET DISCUSSION - FY - 1977-1978,
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, I want to get one thing on the record, Dr. Barry...
Mayor Ferre: Charlie Hall wants to address this Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask just one question and I'll be glad to sit here and
listen to Charlie Hall. Dr. Barry. I'm going to put you on the spot, but you've
never hesitated to be there before. At this present time with 2.5 million dollars
for severances projected, is that correct?
Dr. Barry: 2.3 in the budget.
Mr. Plummer: Doctor what is your best estimation as to how high that figure is?
What do you think realistically that figure is?
Dr. Barry: I think that figure is, I would say $800,000 high.
Mr. Gary: Is that the miracle 8?
Mrs. Gordon: Of course, he said it a dozen times.
Mr. Plummer: Lets don't make light of $800,000 Mr. Gary, let me tell you something
Dr. Hendrickson, is concurred with me that the he feels that there is a surplus, Dr. Barr
is now on record that he feels it's $800,00 and I'm going to tell you something
I'm going to walk out of here a little bit more satisfied that there is going to
be a surplus and you know, the figures don't lie. At the end of the year the
severance pay is going to be able to be--- Plummer is wrong, Barry is wrong, Hendrickson
is wrong or Gary is wrong.
Mrs. Gordon: Or Gary and even Grassie.
Dr. Barry: Let'sask for Dr. Hendrickson to go on the record also, as to what he
thinks it is.
Dr. Hendrickson: The $800,000 figure was our minimum estimate, but let me...
Mrs. Gordon: Minimum estimate?
Dr. Hendrickson: The minimum saving would be $800,000.
Mrs. Gordon: My god, isn't that incredible.
Mr. Plummer: The minimum would be how much?
Mrs. Gordon: The minimum is $800,000.
54
DEC 141977
Dr. Hendrickson: The minimum savings, so the total expenses as a maximum is
$1,000,005, ok. The minimum savings on that appropriation---- but, let me
put one more thing on the table to muddy the waters and that is I hate to see
you looking a gift horse in the mouth since we were using that, and that is is there sor
way that you could make use of those CETA funds and bank them for resources in
the future, you can make use of them now and still plan to fund these positions
on a full-time basis just as soon as you need to. Something to think about.
Mr. Plummer: Well, doc, one of the things that I wanted to talk about, but
everybody is in a hurry. Look, at the present time I think Chief Proli--- what
did you tell me? 600 or 500 hours a person is in school: ok. Now, I personally
would have no objection to using CETA money to put new firemen and new policemen
through school, but the minute they come out of school, they go on permanent payroll,
ok? Now, I have no objections to that, to put them through school, because all
of them that you put through school, don't make it.
Mayor Ferre: Do you agree with that statement Mr. Grassie?
Mrs. Gordon: That was a good statement.
Mr. Grassie: I was not listening to the statement Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: My statement was--- Dr. Hendrickson had stated for the record, that
he felt that there should be some way that we could utilize some of these CETA
funds to our advantage to the future. I stated for the record, that I am told
that a policeman and a fireman basically are in school for 500 hours and that I
personally would have no objections to using CETA monies to put these people
through school, but the minute they are graduated they would go on permanent payroll
and to me that's away_ for 500 hours of money you can get CETA to pay, because that
at best is a temporary situation.
Mrs. Gordon: That's exactly what CETA is intended for, CETA is intended to be used
for training, it's a comprehensive educational training act and that fits the bill,
:hat's beautiful J. L.
INAUDIBLE:
Mrs. Gordon: Just for training.
INAUDIBLE:
Mr. Grassie: No its not particularly beautifulsMr. Mayor, but on the other hand
there is no reason why you can't do it. You know, we seem to be thrashing around
about the use of CETA as if this were some kind of tainted money, the fact is that
we're all worried because of something that might happen to us five years from
now.
Mayor Ferre: Listen, excuse the interruption, but the only people that are worried
about that are the people that read editorials in the Miami Herald. Those of us
that don't read editorials in the Miami Herald, but get told about them don't
worry.
Mrs. Gordon: I got news for you Mr. Mayor, I don't worry because I read the Herald...
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I didn't know I was talking about you, I mean...
Mrs. Gordon: I happen to be very well acquainted, having worked as you know on
the National E':ployment and Income Security Policy Committe for the National
League and consequently I am very familiar with what is good and what is bad in
the CETA program and there are cities who are living on CETA and believe me they're
sweating, they are sweating.
Mayor Ferre: Aren't we all.
Mr. Plummer: Maurice, if you don't read the editorials in the Herald, how do you
take so much exception with them?
Mayor Ferre: I said that very clearly, I said those who read and pay attention
and those of us who get told what the Herald editorials say, somebody told me about
it, I didn't read it.
Mr. Plummer: They don't even know my number.
n1 11111 1 11I11111I I 1 1 11 1111111 1111 I1111111111111111111111111.1111111111
I1 III I•1111EN MI 111E11111E01111
55
DEC 141977
Mt: Hall: Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I want to make my comment very
brief, but, I've sat here all afternoon and morning and watched what's unfolded
here and I have to admit to you that I'm quite concerned about--- having been a
fire fighter for 25 years and I think I've worked in one of the areas of the
city that's probably more prone to fire than anv other area 24 out of those 25
years and as I understood the policy that you established here today, the Manager
now has the authority to hire newly created prositions within the budget, that
he has an option as to whether or not he can fill those position which are vacated
in police and fire and I can't get that story any clearer than that in my own
mind.
Mrs. Gordon: No sir.
Mr. Hall: Well, that's my understanding of the policy that was adopted here, that
once this budget is adopted, he has the right to fill the newly created positions.
but he has an option of whether or not to fill police and fire positions which are
vacated based on some other criteria that you've established. hut as soon as this
budget is approved those new positions will be filled and that's my understanding.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, is that your understanding Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: This makes six, I guess... Commissioner, every department...
Mayor Ferre: Makes five, not six.
Mr. Grassie: I'm sorry, maybe it makes five. Every department director Commissioner,
--- seriously, every department director has the responsibility for making judgements
with the regards to whether or not that person wants to fill a vacant position or
a position that is vacant at the time that the budget is adopted or a position
which becomes vacant through a person leaving employment. You know, I can't say it am.:
clearer than that.
Mrs. Gordon: I know, we're just hoping you'll realize what we are truing to tell you
and go along with what we're trying tell you, but you have a one track mind,Mr.
Grassie,and when you get on that track there ain't nothing that's 'Dino to get you off.
Mr. Hall: As I understand his answer to my question , the answer is yes and you
know, thats the way I understood it, but the point that I'm really truing to make
is that I've watched this Fire Department decline in terms of manning, since, I
guess for the last 7 or 8 years and I think we're at the point now where we're
at a crossroad. At the same time the Miami Fire Department has been declining
the Metro Fire Department has been improving there fire defenses and they established
cne master plan for manning and they're up to the same level of manning that we are
and as far as that master plan, in my feeling. it will be established as a minimum
requirement for Dade County and those people who fall below that minimum are in
danger of having their Fire Department taken over whether they like it or not
and I think we're approaching that area in the standard where we'll be faced with
that kind of a decision and I'm...
Mayor Ferre: But, Charlie, Metro doesn't render the service we render it on
a per person or.per dollar or per square mile basis, so how could they take us over?
Mr. Hall: Mayor, every....
Ir. Grassie: They are not even half as good.
Mr. Hall: I'll be happy to deal with that question because it has come up numerous
times as though the fire departments have been taken over by the County and they
contract with the cities to provide the same level of service that the cities
have now and all they do is on your line out in the fire department, you got an
X and the cost of that fire department is distributed to a billion and a half
taxpayers rather than$$$300,000, so all you have to do is deduct the difference
in the millage produced by one mill in the city and one mill in the county and
you get what some people could term as a ten to one return on your money, so...
.Mr. Plummer: But Charlie, you know, the one thing I...
Mr. Hall: I understand I'm exciting you a little bit and that's the reason I'm
telling you, I think that's where we are coming to.
Mr. Plummer: Let me tell youy fully understand, but I also know the way
Metropolitan Dade -County works, they're going to set the standards that they can
56
DEC 141977
meet and they're going to be so damn low, that we won't have any problems,
Well, let me say this to you.
Mr. Hall: That's not true.
Mr. Plummer: Well, hey,...
Mr. Hall: That's not true, they're coming right up to our manning level tight now, they —
just hired 114 people, not this coming budget, but in the budget year passed, 116.
Mr. Plummer: You are talking about number of people.
Mr. Hall: I'm talking about manning for equipment.
Mr. Plummer: I understand, but you're not talking about the territory to be rrvered,
big difference. Ok, no, Charlie let me give you just the basic overall and it's
very simple. We are faced, like it or not and it's true, with fabulous inflation
and decreasing revenues, now, something has got to give and dispute it, dispute it,
nobody can stand here and say_ that that'statement is wrong, we are in rapid inflation
and decreasing revenues.
Mr. Hall: Well, I guess the point that I'm really trying to make in view of what
you just said is that you shouldn't close your mind to the idea of consolidation
it's another alternative that has been discussed.
Mr. Plummer: And do you know my statement to that?... I'll make it again.
Mr. Hall: We want it to come in any orderly way, so that the rights and benefits
of the employees that we represent are protected in any kind of a situation like
that, we don't want it to come in a crisis situation like we've been goin,: through
this budget Year, we want it to come in an orderly manner that we :an address
the protection of the rights and benefits of the employees that are transferred
and ciiat's what I'm telling you, I think we are getting to that point and I strongly
suggest that if we are let's starting talking to some people in Metro, lets start
some discussions so that some of these problems can be solved in advance.
Mayor Ferre: Charlie, you started those discussions well over a year ago, there's
nothing new about that, but let me tell you something that's very simple and basic
and this is something that we've talked about and I've talked about it with Chief
Hickman, the City of Miami, pays 50c per person for the fire protection they get.
get and the people of Metro pay 20ti per person for the fire protection they get.
There is no way in the world that paying half you're going to get more service. It's
that simple.
Mr. Hall: That's not the point Mayor, I think you can get the same service ---
not saying you're going to get more--- and I think you can contract with them
to get the same service, there.is a number of examples of where they've gotten
more service, regardless of what your statement is, I can show you examples of
where there has actually gotten an increase in the service because of the availability
of such things as ladder companies and peripheral areas that weren't available
before, so you know, I don't think in terms of total fire defense that it's something
that should be completely discounted, there has been a number of meetings and
studies going on and so called multijurisdictional master fire planning and these
things can be worked out. If we're coming to the point where we can't afford
a fire department then I think we ought to start examining some other alternatives.
That's really all I wanted to say, thank you.
Mr. Duggarf Mr. Mayor, may I say one thing? If we're so short on manpower
and so short on money, then how can tIe administration turn around and hire and
create positions is other departmen:s In sanitation they've created four positions
which make over $19,000 a year. Bu'., yet at the same time there are 23 truck
driver jobs vacant, 12 garbage toters vacant, we're also sure he's got and
we're short one for foreman, we're working five foremans and so you know, at the
same time that they are talking about inflation and the cost of money this and the
cost of money that, at the same time the administration is going in the back
door and creating these new positions. So, if we're going to save, let's save on
all ends, not bring in people from out of town from different places for these
positions. They make $6,000 more than what a truck driver makes.
Mrs. Gordon: Duggar, those four new people, are they from out of town?
Mr. Duggar: I don't know, one of them was supposed to be, but I don't know where the
57
DEC 141971
, others are coming from, they got them in the budget, but you know, you never know.
Mrs. Gordon: I'd like to know.
Ms. Brown: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners and Mr. Grassie, I'm Hazel Brown, Secretary
Treasurer of the City of Miami, Retired Employees Association and I'm here today
on their behalf. Two years ago a resolution was passed and the City Manager
was instructed to come up with a plan whereby the retirees would benefit and would
not (as Father Gibson said) have to come down here begging ever: year for a hand
out, as you well know these people, the majority of them worked for the City when
the wages were low, they retired when the benefits were very low and I'd like to
beg you today to consider doing something for these retirees.
Mrs. Gordon: This discussion came up before you arrived in MiamijMr. Grassie, and
I would like to simply say that there is a serious problem for a segment of cur
retirees, this does not include all retirees, some of them are better off after
they retired, than they were before they retired. We're not talking about those
people, but those people who are living on small fixed incomes, those who have been
retired for a number of years are really in the poverty level right now and those
are the people that I would hope that we could find a mechanism to be able to
relieve their stress and I don't know the mechanism and I would hope that you
would have compassion and develop some ideas that would be able to allow those
who are in that poor and near poor class, because believe me if you're not making
$10,000 a year you're in the poor and near poor class today. So, I don't know
what more we can do at this time Hazel, but I tell you that's how I feel.
Ms. Brown: Well, actually the formula that was used in the last couple of increases
they received, I feel is the most equitable, whatever the percentage was decided
on it was given to them for the number years--- like I think one time it was 17.---
they have been retired and that way the people with the lowest incomes benefited
most. Whereas if it's a straight across-the-board increase it's only the people with
the high pension that will be helped.
Mrs. Gordon: And get a lot of extra money they don't need.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I would hope, of course you know this is a pet
of mine. I would hope that the Manager would be instructed to go find out what
policy was that was developed and come back--- I don't know how many days he
needs, but at the very next Commission meetinz and tell us. I feel embarrassed
that the elderly who have no muscle, no one to help to, you know,-- they have to come
here with their hat in their hands, I said that then and I sav it now, if Lindsey
taught me nothing else, Lindsey taught me_ when he was testin' the waters, running
trying to become president of the United States--- he saidsou could tell what
a country is like by the way it treats it's elderly" and I think you could tell what
a city is like by the way it treats its retirees and I hope that every Manager who
coues here from now on, will take that policy seriously. Man you and I are going
to retire one day and I'd hate being a retiree going to the governing body and asking
them, because they aren't going to pay me no mind, I would hope that we would have
enough compassion to set a policy and it just goes automatically every year.
Mr. Grassie: Let's try and get you that Commissioner for the next Commission Meeting.
Rev. Gibson: At the next meeting so that we could at least face these people.
I feel embarrassed.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anything else to come before this Commission? If not
we stand adjourned and we'll see you tomorrow morning. What time do we start
tomorrow?
INAUDIBLE:
Mayor Ferre: 9:00 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Grassie: 9;00 tomorrow.
58
ore 141977
•
ADJOURNMENT;
There
being no further business to come before the City Commission the
meeting was adjourned at 4;30 P.M.
ATTEST: Ralph G. Ongie
City Clerk
Matty Hirai
Assistant City Clerk
MAURICE A. FERRE
Mayor
59
DEC 141971