The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1974-05-30 Minutesit 11 11 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON SPECIAL- MAY 30, 1974 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL H, D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK RALPH G. QNGIE, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE NO DISCUSSION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS CITY HALL ALTERATIONS 3, INAUGARATION OF ROBERTO CLEMENTE PARK 4, DISCUSSION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PART II 5, SWITCH NAMES OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS ON ZONING BOARD AND PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD SOLICITATION OF. FUNDS FOR CHARITY AT INTERNATIONAL FOLK FESTIVAL 7, DISCUSSION- MIAMI DADE WATER AND SEWER TRANSFER AGREEMENT 8, HUMAN RESOURCES. MANAGEMENT BOOZ-ALLEN PRESENTATION REQUEST PARTICIPATION OF STATE OF FLORIDA AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY IN THE CONDEMNATION OF THE F,E,C, PROPERTY 10, EXPRESSING COMMISSION POLICY THAT PENSION COSTS/BENEFITS BE CONSIDERED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MOT,74-439 RES, 74-440 REST 74-441 1=2 2=4 5=6 6-10 10 10=11 11=19 19=46 46=47 47=49 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 30th day o i May, 1914, the City Commission o i Miami, Ftotida, met at it4 hegutah meeting place in City Hatt in a aid City in a peeiat session a ated by the Mayon to considers bus,ine44 o i pub12 t £mpott. The meeting was catttd to ondetc at 1:04 O' Ctock P.M. by Mayon Pekke with the So Lowing membeu of the Commission Lound to be present: CommL 4Lonen J. L. Ptummers Comm,i ss ionek (Rev.) Theodohe Gibson Comm.is4.ionek Mano.Lo Reboso Mayon Maun.ice A. Fekne ABSENT: Comm.issi onen Robe Gotcdon ALSO PRESENT: P. W. Andnew4 , City Managers A. P. Cnouch,.Assistant City Managers John S. L.Loyd, City Attokney H. V . Southern, City Ct ekfi Ralph G. Ong.ie, Asst. City Ctenk An invocation was detivened by Reverend Gibson who then .Led tho4 a pne4 ent in a ptedge o 6 a.L.Legiance to the stag. 1, DISCUSSION ON LABOR NEGOTIATIONS Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer has a pocket item that he wants to take up and Commissioner Rose Gordon called and said she would be 15 minutes late so perhaps you might take it up at this time. Mr. Plummer: I will tell you how important I think this motion is and I will ask you to wait and give me an answer. My motion Mr. Mayor is simply going to be at this time that the administration be instructed to stop all labor negotiations. Mr. Mayor, I am going to give you some facts that I think have got to be the direction of this Commission has not been in the past, given to the labor negotiator and I think it's got to be and I think it's just a matter of must that this Commission has got to go on record of immediately as to the direction to the labor negotiator of putting all facts on top of the table. I will be glad to go with it right now Mr. Mayor or I will go with it when Mrs. Gordon gets here but I say to you that it is the only way that this City can operate. Mr. Mayor I have got some things together that I think has got to be presented to this Commission. In turn, in the wisdom of this Commission, direction must be given which is now not present to the Labor Negotiator who is dealing with our employees. Mayor Ferre: Now you are getting into something which of course will affect the budget procedure but I think= Mr. Plummer: I concur with you and I say that unless true pictures are starting to be drawn around here, there is not going to be any budget to worry about. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews, do you want to address yourself to that? Mr. Andrews: I don't know what the matter is that Commissioner Plummer wishes to discuss. Mr. Plummer: Well I will draw you the picture and then if no one can dispute what I am saying, then yes i am ready to ask - Mr. Reboso: I think Commissioner Gordon should be here. Mr. Andrews: And the other thing is I would like to have Mr. Lanken present. 1 MAY 1101974 Mr. Plummer: f was the one that asked you to bring Mr. tanken here so lets get the record clear. Mayor Ferre: Then why don't we come back to that? t have to catch a plane at 6 o'clock today. 2. CITY HALL ALTERATIONS Mayor Ferre: This is a special meeting, we have an agenda. It starts with acceptance and award of bid -City Hall alterations. Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: We have had plans out for the adjustments in City Hall to provide for expansion of the building and adjustments within the building and we received bids ranging from a low bid of $393,000 to a high bid of $518,000. The low bidder is Jack Yanks. The anticipated adjustments that we are contemplating making in addition to expanding the office space is the repairs to the main roof, the patio roof, adjustments in the electrical for the building, the air conditioning system, the ground floor restrooms to accomodate those requiring wheelchairs and proper fire escapes. In addition to this we have the expansion of the office space for the Commission, the Mayor and Commissioners and more particularly expansion of office space for the City Manager and his staff for the administration of the city. I want to indicate that should the City Commission proceed with this alteration work, that the work itself if we acquire a new City Hall would not be lost. The master plan for Dinner Key envisions that this building would be utilized as the neucleus for a central marine -community center for the boating public. I think, I know as a matter of fact, that should these additions be put in place, that the additions would not be lost in anyway when the City is in a position to construct its new City Hall in downtown Miami. My recommendation at this stage is that we go ahead with the adjustments. Mayor Ferre: My position is very simple. That is that if it had been $200,000, I think we could have thought about it but at $393,000, with all the needs that this City has, I personally just don't see it. But that is just a personal opinion. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, very simple, I am not going to say that $200,000 was reasonable or not reasonable. I am just going to say that I don't think the City is in a position to afford - call it $400,000 if that's the low bid, I don't think we can afford it. It's just that simple. I don't think we can afford it. I would like to have a new office, I am sure everybody else would but I can't justify $400,000. Mayor Ferre: Let me put something out for discussion. We all know that we need a new City Hall but the voters have turned it down, what is it twice? Eventually we are going to have to go back to the voters and convince them that we need a city hall. I am going to work on that and perhaps come up with something, if not for this November, then for next year. There is no question that we need it and I think there is a solution to it. The Manager undoubtedly is going to need space because he is out of room and there is no question about it. Let me ask you a question? I. have nothing personally to gain. I want to state on the record that the 100 Biscayne Building is 100% filled, okay? That I have absolutely no economic investment directly, indirectly or otherwise, in the 1-Biscayne Boulevard Building but there is an awful lot of empty space in Miami. I think somebody could make a pretty reasonable deal somewhere and lease some space on a temporary basis and perhaps that would solve the problem of the Commission. of course, we would have to have parking that would go with it. That woubd then leave you Mr. Andrews, with this office. I think you might have to leave a conference room available for the Commission and maybe some phones up there for us to be able- I certainly don't need to have a private office. I would be very happy to go along and sit in the same room with my fellow Commissioners and the Mayor doesn't need a separate office. I think that would be a simple solution. Mr. Andrews: In my judgment Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission that would be an excellent solution. It also has, it solves the space problem but it has the visual impact of the City Commission in an area closer to the center of downtown Miami. Mayor Ferre: Well we are going down there anyway. It's a matter of whether its 5 years from now or 10 years or what. Now let me make 2 last points. #1: If we spend $400,000 here, in my opinion that is going in the reverse direction. If we were going to spend $400.000 on the building that is going to eventually be City Hall, then I am for it but for us to spend $400,000 here is going in the wrong direction #1. #2: I think and this is no criticism of Ray Goode or Metro but they have been talking about solving this problem now for a year and a half or two and I haven't heard anything recently. There was a committee and everybody hassled about and as you remember, there was some problems because there were not enough women on the committee, then there were some women appointed to it and that's been 4 months and I haven't had a word from them, so I think it's important Mr. Andrews to ask them where that stands and I would like to have an official report back to the Commission as to where this government committee stands. The Downtown Government Center Committee. Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Mayor, I can tell you because I attended the last meeting. They are still trying to figure out how to get it financed. The last meeting was about 6 weeks ago or 2 months ago. At that time Mr. Mayor, of course they were trying to broach a new concept of going into municipal private financing. That's the last that I had heard that was going to get deeply involved in the situation. Mr. Mayor, are you advocating, so I understand correctly, that we the 4 Commissioners and you as Mayor would move out of this building physically and we would move into some building in the downtown area. Now are you contemplating just office space or are you contemplating a chamber and office space? Mayor Ferre: No I would be thinking about a small reception area and one conference room and 4 offices and sufficient room for 7 secretaries. Mr. Plummer: In some office building downtown? Mayor Ferre: That's'right. Mr. Plummer: I think it's a great idea. NOTE: Commissioner Gordon entered the meeting at approximately 1:15 O'Clock P.M. Mayor Ferre: Rose, to bring you up to date, the bids came in at around $400,000. We can't afford $400,000 for 3 offices and yet there is no question that we all need offices. I think the simple solution is not to spend the $400,000. If you put $400,000 in a bank and got 10% interest, that would pay for whatever it would cost for us to lease sufficient space. Mrs. Gordon: The question 1 would like to ask the Manager is what would his reaction be to this because. In other words, the Manager would remain here, is that right? Mr. Andrews: ites, and occupy those offices. Mrs. Gordon: You're tickled to death I just heard, are you really? Mr. Andrews: No, I like to josh along with the Commission as well as you do but you know that's not the case. Mrs. Gordon: What's your recommendation though? Mr. Andrews: Well my recommendation is that. My initial recommendation to the Commission is that because of the potential other uses of this building at a later date and recognizing our desire to try to get the space, to go ahead with the contract but $400,000.is a lot of money to spend and invest in this building and I recognize that. I would welcome this opportunity to search out a place for the Commission and see what arrangements could be made for the Commission in Downtown Miami. Mayor Ferre: Or anywhere else Paul because frankly if you can get $3 per square foot on Brickell Avenue or some other place as long as it's within the City of Miami, I personally don't care. I think you have to get the best deal and its got to have access- ibility and parking, that's it. Mrs. Gordon: I think that is very well spoken except that the parking portion should be a parking situation that doesn't cost the person that is visiting the Commissioners an amount of money no what amount of money it might be, for parking so therefore when you are looking for an area, perhaps you might want to look right here in the Grove or on Brickell or whatever. Mr. Andrews: We will take that into consideration. Mrs. Gordon: I think it is very important to recognize the congestion of downtown and the cost of parking downtown. Mr. Plummer: What about Triester right accross the street? That new building there? Well I mean it's right directly accross the street from City Hall. I think it would be the most practical thing you could do in reality. Mayor Ferre: Let's not decide where. The point is that we ought to look. Is everybody in agreement with that? Mrs. Gordon: No harm in looking. Why does this cost so much money Mr. Andrews? I missed the beginning, I don't want to make you repeat the whole thing but. Mr. Andrews: The alterations to an existing building, tearing out of walls and adding on to it, it just runs the cost up higher than normal. You know from your own home experience, if you were to remodel a portion of your home and attempt to add on another room or so, that it can be far more expensive than if you were to start out and build a whole new home and add that extra room to it. Mrs. Gordon: Would we still have our Commission Meetings here? Mr. Andrews: Oh yes. Mayor Ferre: I think we would have to have 1-room somewhere up there where we would have a little desk and a phone and things. We all need that here. MAY 301974 4 • 3. INAUGURATION _ OF ROBERTO CLEMENTE PARK- DISCUSSION Mayor Ferre: I see Mr. Santiago and Alfonso here. Mr. Santiago is the chairman of the inaugaration of Roberto Clemente Park Committee. Mr. Alfonso is chairman of the finance committee. Before you say anything Fred, let me make a very simple statement here. We had a very nice opening at Alice Wainwright Park. It probably didn't cost the City very much. This is a little bit different. We will have with us on that day, the Governor of the State of Florida, who will come down here 'especially for this occasion. We will also have the Governor of Puerto Rico who will fly in and be with us that weekend but specifically for the purpose of inaugarating the new park. We will also have the widow of Mr. Clemente and I think that we will have, from the looks of it and the enthusiasm, we may have well over 5000 people at that inaugaration. I think it's important for many many reasons that we do this right. Now I don't want to go out and waste the city's money. for anything other than matters that are important or have impact and this committee has worked very dilligently and they originally had a budget of $10,000 and when they told me, I said there is no way in the world you are going to get anywhere near that. I am glad to see that they have come down to $2,500. I don't know if this Commission would approve it, I haven't talked to anybody about it and I don't know if the -Manager has any money in the budget to do it but I think it's important that we put the best foot forward for the City. Mr. Santiago: Fred Santiago, 3311 N. W. 2nd Avenue, Miami. I am the Chairman of the committee for the inaugaration of the Roberto Clemente Park which will take place on July 20, on a saturday. This is the first time in the history of the United States that a park has been named in honor of a Puerto Rican citizen and we hope that the Commissioners for this whole week will declare that week of the 19th of July as Puerto Rico Week so we could have a certain number of activities concerning the Puerto Rican community in Miami. One of the main items concerning this week of Puerto Rico Week is going to be the inaugaration of the Roberto Clemente Park, formerly Wyndwood Park. This park is located in the heart of the Puerto Rican community and the park has approximately 30,000 to 40,000 puerto rican or possibly more in the immediate area or within the City of Miami but mostly concentrated within the Roberto Clemente Park area and for the inaugaration of the park, we have invited several important dignataries such as Mrs. Clemente and Governor Rueben Askew and the Honorable Governor of Puerto Rico and the Cardinal of Puerto Rico. Aldo we invited all the counselors, Senators and State Representatives and all the local Mayors and Commissioners and we would like to see this thing become a first class affair and this is the budget that we have developed for the money we need to get this thing off the ground and hopefully it will be something the Puerto Rican community can be proud of. I am hoping all of you Commissioners will approve this budget. Mayor Ferre: Paul are there any monies somewhere? Mr. Andrews; I consider this to be an important matter also. There is many things we can do to achieve a successful dedication ceremony. If it's the Commission's wish that additional funds be made available for this purpose, I think you ought to express yourself that way and then give me an opportunity to see what can be done about trying to find the money. Mayor Ferre; What is this transportation-$1,500? Why so much? 1IAY 30't974 Mr. Santiago: To take care of --- Mayor Ferret Victor, would you explain what this $1,500 is for becauseit seems a lot in relation to the others. Uliid.Man: I based it on the entire Roberto Clemente family, the children, maid and they usually have a guardian with them, that they always travel with them. Mayor Ferret I don't know if the family. I think we could pay the travels with them but I don't see family, frankly. I think you will have to get that City could pay for the whole widow and maybe the guard that how we could pay for the whole from private contributions. Mr. Andrews: I think what we better do is give us an opportunity to review their budget and what their proposal is and see if there are alternate ways that it can be achieved because in some areas in these sort of matters, the City can't expend monies in a particular way because the charter would prevent us from spending it in a certain way. We will try to get together, work it out and do the best we can and I will come back to the Commission. The following motion was introduced by Reverend gibson who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 74-439 A MOTION REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO STUDY THE MATTER OF DEDICATION CEREMONIES FOR ROBERTO CLEMENTE PARK, AND EXPRESSING THE WILLINGNESS OF THE COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE FUNDS IN A REASON- ABLE AMOUNT FOR THIS PURPOSE Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None Mayor Ferret Mr. Andrews, due to the shortness of time, could we have a report on this by the first meeting in June? 4. DISCUSSION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS- PART II Mr. Plummer: Before we get into Booz-Allen, I want to get into a subject I brought up earlier. Rose, real quick like, it's something that I feel very deeply about. I think one of the worse things the Mayor ever did was to put me on that Pension Committee, that I am finding things and finding things and Mr. Mayor I want it understood with you and my fellow Commiss- ioners and the Administration, all the Employees, that I am not finding any fault or trying to place any blame but if I were to ask most of the Commissioners sitting here right now , what did the employees get last year, in increase? I think the answer would be 5%. Now Mr. Mayor if I told you that in reality, is Mr. Lanken here? Last year the city employees got an increase of 14%, you would say I was wrong wouldn't you? MAY 301974 e When I tell you what has transpired and happened, and it's something Mr. Mayor that I think has got to change. I think this Commission today, or as soon as possible has got to set the policy, the direction, for the Labor Negotiator or keep me legal Mr. Lloyd, the administrator to instruct his negotiator. In a meeting it was stated by the negotiator, that at no time would he accept nor would he place on top of the negotiating table, anything relating to pension. Now let me break it down for you. Last year the employees got a flat, accross the board raise - 5%. They also got a built-in situation of annual increase step -raises of between 3' to 4%, which now brings it up to 9%. They also got, roughly 5 to 6% in the city's increase, just the increase, of the city's contribution to the pension fund. Now what I am trying to tell you Mr. Mayor is that I don't know how any negotiator can sit at a table without having the full impact of the total dollar picture of what it is costing this city. Because, in reality with an open-end funding on a pension fund, we can't determine what is actually in -fact, employee benefits. Now I say to you Mr. Mayor and my fellow Commissioners, that this negotiator and I am not saying Mr. Lanken, but I am saying that part of negotiation, the pension contribution has got to be laid on top of the table to be the total picture and without it Mr. Mayor we are kidding ourselves and we are backing ourselves into a corner that we are now going to be able to live with. I am not talking about anything out of the picture. I am telling you very simply and let me tell you something else that I am going to expose to you in 2 weeks. I have now got 2 professional organizations fighting with each other about who is telling the truth and who is not and I am sitting back trying to draw impressions that I can't draw and I might come to this Commission in 2 weeks and ask for an outside -total independent that has no connection, to come in and audit our books. Don't let that be misunderstood but when you get 2 professionals stating 1 is not right, the other one is off, they are not using the total picture, all I am saying to you is I am making the decisions and I can't understand them. I am saying to you that Hansen and Co., documented in a book and Mr. Andrews, you correct me if I am wrong. Hansen and Co., has said last year, the total contribution to the pension fund was 26%. They said 3-things if you don't do and we have not, because 1 of them we have no control over, the Dow -Jones, the investment. If you don't return an 8 to 10% on your money, you are showing 2.2%, and if you don't eliminate 40% of your disability which we cannot do, we are going to but it's going to take 12 months and if you don't drop your contribution age from 60 to 55, you can look for an increase this year from a total contribution, that is both employees and city, from 26% which is runaway to conceivably 36%, which this City cannot finance under any circumstances. Now the one thing and I congratulate the employees, they have stated that they want this on top of the table. They want the whole picture shown, and it's got to be shown. Let me tell you for example: When we drop the contributions to the Pension Fund, from age 60 to 55, Hansen and Co., tells me which Kruse and Ling disagree with, that that one factor alone is going to make a 30% difference in the contribution but no one has taken the bull by the horns at this stage of the game, to say that the employees are going to pay a bigger contribution or the city is going to pay a bigger contribution. Nobody knows. Mrs. Gordon: You know the reason they said that or recommended that was to be realistic and that this fund is not continuosly building a so-called deficit. Mr. Plummer: Rose, I can't give you the whole ball of wax right now but let me tell you the true picture is that 55 is not sufficient. 55 is a false front but we can't afford this year, any more than 55. That's what they are telling you. If they drop it from age 60 to 55, when they know reality is 52 or 53. 52.7 is reality but we can't afford 52.7 MAY 301974 1 Mrs. Gordon: Which raises the city's contributions even more. Mr. Plummer: Rose, I am not trying to say who is going to pay the additional contributions. I am not that smart. I am telling you that I am paying that you the Commissioners are paying 2 professionals who can't agree, who is letting a labor negotiator sit out here and negotiate and he doesn't even know what he is negotiating for. Now I am telling you that it has to stop and has to stop today. Mrs. Gordon: J.L., I think it is going to take a policy decision of this Commission. Mr. Plummer: Rose - she wasn't here Mr. Mayor. I say Rose, I started this off and you weren't here and Mr. Reboso said wait and I concur. All I am saying to you is and I don't even really know how to put the wording together to say what t want to say but let me tell you what I want to say. Let's put all of the cards on top of the table. That's pension, that's fringe benefits, that's salaries, that's step -raises, everything! Because without it, we are kidding ourselves because I am going to tell you what is going to happen - In the same way that the city's contribution was not shown very clearly in the budget book, 1/10th or 10% of the budget got one paragraph that big in the budget book and went through without any- body questioning it and I am just as guilty as the rest, this same thing is going to build us into a corner Mr. Mayor that I am telling you there is no backing up. Now Mr. Andrews, I want to say to you and Mr. Lloyd you correct me if I get off on a legal tangent, I am saying to you Mr. Manager that the direction of this Commission, that immediate new negotiations with all employee groups be instituted as of today on the premise that all things that represent dollars be placed on top of the table. You give me the wording. Mr. Andrews: Well there is one area in establishing your policy and traditionally you are changing positions now. I am happy to see this occur. It is that you will have to establish some guidelines that there is going to be some new formulation in employee contributions versus the city contribution in order to make this a point to be put on the table to be discussed. Otherwise, we have no real specific reason and if you don't do that, its all going to be dependent on not funding any new provisions and absorbing the costs that are coming up. Mr. Plummer: We are going to get down to the gut issue and I am not going to finish to 2 o'clock. Mr. Andrews: No but it's important to establish - Mr. Plummer: What I am saying to you is the who sets the contributions of the employee? Do they? How? You are saying that when we approve a dollar approving the contribution? policy because you see, Not this Commission. figure, that we are Mr. Andrews: In the adoption of the ordinance, the contribution is spelled out - Mr. Plummer: Let's say that for the last 9 years, Mr. Parks am I out of kilter, there has not been an increase in the employee contribution. Except for a 6-week period of where the Police and Fire received a benefit of 211% instead of 2%. Now Mr. Andrews I readily admit to you Sir that I am not that smart. I say that it is what professionals are for but I also say that the employees contributions to their own pension fund is a point of negotiation. That's why in my recommendation to this Commission with Menolo Reboso, we said that some kind of formula must be derived. This cannot be an unlimited contribution by the City. It will be the killing of the Golden Goose. MAY 001974 Now, I say to you that if you want to incorporate in a motion. Mr. Manager, I will give you the opportunity to word the motion, f have made my intent very Clear. I am telling you that I want this Commission to set the policy that you and your labor negotiator and I am sorry to come at you at this late date, I really am, but I think it is a must- It has got to be. 2 don't know how you can sit down and figure out your budget and I don't know how you can sit down and figure out the pension or any of the other matters until these things are all laid on top of the table. Do you want to draw the motion and bring it back on 10 or 15 minutes? Mr. Andrews: I can't bring it back in 15 minutes, but I will bring it back before the day is closed. Mr. Plummer: You better believe it. Mr. Mayor, is that agreeable with everybody else that he draw the motion? Is there any questions? Mrs. Gordon: You have asked the Manager to draw some guidelines and to prepare a motion to express what you have said and what I have agreed with, we have a problem and lets go from there. Mr. Plummer: I am going to reveal more of the problem in 2 weeks. Mr. Bush: My name is Willie Bush and I work for the Street and Parks Division. I live at 1737 N.W. 55 Terrace. (Mr. Bush advocated the separation of the Police and Fire employees from the General Employees pension plans) Mr. Plummer: That is going to come up in the late summer. I think there is a need for a definite separation. No question. It's got to be. I am going to bring that up in late summer. Mr. Parks: My name is Ralph Parks, Chairman of the Retirement Board. One thing Mr. Plummer said and that was that the 2-actuaries do not agree. This is not so per se. This is because and it was stated by Mr. Ling at the last Retirement Board Meeting. Hansen was hired to do a certain job which was to check on the assumption rates, the contribution rates etc., and not audit the pension fund the way it was funded. It never has been done on a 5-year report. He did it. He did not check with Ling, Kruse as to their methods. When they say that he is right using the old methods, he was not using the methods that Kruse and Ling use today. There is no disagreement, there is just that fact and I wanted to clear that up. The other one is that at the last meeting, you decided the First Reading would be June l3th. At that time I said that we would have our recommendations in and the Commission could look at the whole thing at that time. The employees contributions will be in our recommendations and the Commission can do whatever they care to. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Let me understand. Mr. Parks, did I read that you will have recommendations about either increasing or decreasing the employees contributions? Mr. Parks: We will have recommendations on everything that was mentioned in the Hansen Report concerned with the straightening out of the situation in the pension fund. Mr. Plummer: Well No Sir, I am asking you very point blank question. Mr. Parks: I can't tell you that because our final meeting is on Monday. 9 MAY 3 01974 Mr, Plummer: Let me conclude. I don't want anything that 1 have said here today to be construed that I am pointing a finger of guilt at any one individual. I think this is a problem that we are faced with and we must face up to the problem and provide solutions so I don't want anybody going away from here that I am picking on anybody. The employees just made a very good point sand I want Phil Powers and Ken Harrison to hear this. Powers, Harrison and Williams, for the record. I did not indicate that by any stretch of the imagination that an emphatic 14% is the percentage the employees got. I said the general area. What I was indicating was meant is that it was more than 5%. Okay, well they didn't understand that and they think the press was going to read it wrong. Mayor Ferre: No, you didn't say 14%. You asked, me -would you be surprised if I told you that it was in the vicinity of 14%? Now as I understand what you are saying is that it wasn't 5%, it was a lot more than that, whether it was 10 or 11, or 12- Mr. Plummer: With the overriding fact Mr. Mayor, that I wanted that there are problems and that all matters have got to be placed on top of the table. That was the generation of my conversation. 5, SWITCH NAMES OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS ON ZONING BOARD AND PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Mayor Ferre: Alicia Baro was appointed to the Zoning Board as an alternate. Mildred Callahan was appointed to the Planning Board. After we do all of this, Alicia Baro called me and said she would rather be on the Planning Board. Mrs. Gordon: I move the reversal of the positions. It makes no difference to us. Mayor Ferre: It makes no difference to me. If she doesn't want to be on Zoning. Is there a motion? Mrs. Gordon: I move the motion to switch the boards. Rev. Gibson: Second. Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. Mr. Southern: This would be for the City Attorney to prepare a resolution? It was thereupon unanimously decided to direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution. 6, SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR CHARF Y AT INTERNATIONA-FOLK F STIVAI Mr. Plummer: Mr. Stirrup approached me last night at the Folk Festival. One of the fine traditional places of this town, the Christian Hospital is in financial bad serious problems. Mr. Andrews, he asked is it humanly possible that they can be given permission to have a cannister at the Folk Festival to try to derive funds for the Christian Hospital. I said that as far as I knew, the approval had to come from the Manager and that if its within the purview, due to this immediate need, I make a motion that they be granted the right. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and member's of the Commission, if you get into this area, you are going to have, I predict 30 to 40 requests for solicitations. In the first place, I don't know at this moment if they are qualified 10 MAY 301974 to make a solicitation on public property. We would have to go through the whole solicitation process of getting a permit and everything for them and I am fearful that you are going to get quite a few requests immediately thereafter. This puts the City in a very very awkward position by having a Folk Festival and when the people arrive there, then they are expected to make a contribution to some charitable organization. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews: with them and I understand your point. It is my recommendation that you not do it. okay, I tried, forget it. Mr. Mayor, with your permission, we will communicate let them know what the problem is. 7, DISCUSSION- MIAMI-DATE WATER AND SEWER TRANSFER AGREEMENT Mayor Ferre: I wish to recognize the presence of the following County officials: Commissioner Ed. Graham Mr. Stu. Simon Mr. Ed. Fogg John Mc Cue Garrett Sloan Dennis Carter Comm.Calhoun Comm.Bev. Phillips and several members of the Water and Sewer Board. Mr. Murphy: I am Richard Murphy, Chairman of the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer AUthority and previously chairman and very proud to have been, chairman of the Miami -Water and Sewer Board. We are here, the members of our authority and our staff in addition to other members from the Dade County government, in response to your request and we come as we always have before in the past, completely in a spirit of cooperation. We recognize the validity of the questions that have been presented to us . We have brought all the answers that we possibly can to share with you these problems that we have together and see what we can do to solve them, so I am glad to be here and I would like to ask at this time if Vice Mayor Fogg would follow me with his remarks. Mayor Ferre: Ed., before you start, do you have a copy of the manager's memorandum in outlining questions? Mr. Fogg: Yes I did but I just got it a few minutes ago. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Garrett Sloan and the County Manager received a copy. I didn't anticipate that there was time to distribute that to all involved. Mr. Fogg: We are here today to try to be helpful in reassuring or at least working out, some of these questions that have come in your mind about the three party agreement which we are endeavoring to get closed up with the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority. We also bring you good news about our lawsuit with the City of North Miami which you probably read. Mr. Stuart Simon can ellaborate and answer your questions as to how that will work. He is here today and will be happy to talk about it. I am not and I,.don't think our staff is really in a position nor do I think this is the forum to work out these little differences. I would really suggest that the 3-staffs involved , Mr. Andrews, Mr. Goode and Mr. Garrett Sloan be assigned the task of getting together and working these things out. 1 MAY 3 01974 If they cannot find a resolution that is completely satisfactory to you and to the other members of the agreement, then I assume we will have to get down to deciding them on our basis and we will be .►happy to do that. Other than that suggestion, I am really not prepared to argue any of these points. Mayor Ferret Mr. Andrews, would you state the reason why this meeting has been called. What the peramaters of our questions are and if possible what you think the possible solutions are. Mr. Andrews: Prior to March 22, understandings had been arrived at in the form of agreement as to how the transfer of the City of Miami Water and Sewer Authority would be made to Metropolitan Dade County. That agreement then was presented to the City Commission on March 22 and a resolution adopted authorizing the manager to sign the agreement and get the understanding underway. The agreement was executed in May 1973. I think the Water Department, the Board and Mr. Garrett Sloan shortly thereafter executed the agreement and the agreement was then forwarded to Metropolitan Dade County for execution and at this point we began to enter into a very difficult problem. One that reached major proportions and as far as that particular agreement and its understandings, the one area of concern was the return of properties to the City of Miami that we were transferring to Metropolitan Dade County when such properties would no longer be needed for Water or Sewer functioning. In other words if I may use as an example, along 20th Street and 12th Avenue, there is a small tank farm consisting of approximately 4 tanks on a piece of property that the City of Miami former Water and Sewer Authority is utilizing. That property is vested in the City of Miami. It was one of the properties in consideration of transfer to Metropolitan Dade County. The stipulation would be that if for some reason that piece of property is no longer needed specifically for water usage and if no longer needef -for sewer usage, that property then would be available for the City of Miami to re -plan and reutilize for whatever municipal purpose it deems, but the property would then revert back to the City of Miami. The problem came about by an interpretation of the trustees attorney, the Chase Manhattan Bank, maintained that this arrangement as provided for in the agreement was not possible. That one, either outright arrangement would have to be made to transfer the properties without the clause of the reversion and maybe Mr. Lloyd can help me but there were some other alternatives that were just not acceptable to the City of Miami insofar as protecting what was felt to be a proper investment by the people of Miami for properties transferred. Following that, other questions began to crop up as to equity. At one meeting, Commissioner Plummer raised the issue as to equity involving the $10,300,000 in outstanding general obli- gation bonds which the City of Miami will be required to con- tinue the debt servicing on which was used to construct the Virginia Key Treatment Plant. If I am expressing this cor- rectly on behalf of Commissioner Plummer, his concern was that here we were transferring from four to five hundred million and probably closer to $500,000,000 in assets to Metropolitan Dade County in order to provide for a County wide Water and Sewer Authority and that we were left with an obligation pay- ing for those bonds. On the other hand, we're going to have to be accounted for in terms of the Metro Decade of Progress Bond Issue in that the City of Miami is also going to be mak- ing a contribution toward that service there because we're part of the total County and the formulation of expanded sew- age treatment plant facilities... That has a potentiality of an increase in rates. Then another matter that came up was the equity and a clear understanding and clear illustrat- ions to be utilized to demonstrate the 129% of the water bill rate versus the 167% of the water rate that the people of Miami pay versus the County or people outside of the City 12 MAY 3 01974 • of Miami insofar as the sewage treatment costs are concerned, treatment, maintenance and some replacement. So the quest- ions are listed here, Mr. Mayor but the principle one that bogged down the moving ahead of the agreement after it was executed by the City Manager and by the Director for the Water and Sewer Authority and now awaits the signature of the County is the area of the reversion of properties trans- ferred if they're not utilized for the gurposes of Water and Sewer, transferred back to the City of Miami. This got so involved that there was absolutely no solution and the County Commission and the Water Board and the City of Miami need to come to some understanding. It was felt that a meeting of everyone involved should take place so that something could be formulated that was reasonable that protected the inter- ests of the City of Miami yet enabled the Water and Sewer Board of Dade County to move ahead. I call upon the City Attorney to make any additional contributions because he was very much involved in some of the negotiations in this area of which I was not a direct party but he kept me briefed and then I did have meetings with them. Mr. Plummer: Let me say, if I may, since as I understand the Mayor correctly, Commissioner Fogg has asked that this be sent back to the respective staffs and be thrashed out before it comes up again here and I whole heartedly concur. It is most unfortunate that it hadn't been done before today. Let me just tell you my feelings very truthfully because you've hit on one phase of it. This City has over a period of time done a lot of giving and we're still giving and we're giving. Now the Mayor brought out a point the other day in reference to the sea -port. Here the County owes us a cer- tain amount of money for the sea -port and we've never seen it. The old sea -port was supposed to be put back in the con- ditions that we gave it to the County -they took a $100,000 refrigerator and sold it out from underneath us. You know, these are all areas. Here is something that has me very startled, it is City owned property under leases subject to taxation by Metro -this is City owned property that we're now going to be assessed taxes for. Well you say no way but here it is. Mr. Fogg: We pass resolutions every week exempting Mr. Plummer: Well Ed, this is one of the things I hope that the area of discussion will include. We just lost, I under- stand, I'm told by a private individual, noone within the City, we just lost a lawsuit right over here -City leased property that's in court and the judge has ruled that taxes have to be paid on it. Now I'm hoping that I'm wrong but I think this is an area that has to be discussed. I think the whole gamut, some reality has to be brought down to thank you, we owe you and I think this has to be brought more into line so that I as a representative of my taxpayers can say "I got a dollar for a dollar". This is one person speaking. Reverend Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask a question. When we were discussing this matter I think I see the gentleman, that lawyer right there told us in no uncertain terms you know about this reverter. This reverting to us after. I learned by introduction in the bathroom, you know everytime you've got secrets you go there -there is a man there from Chase Manhattan- I'm sure he saw me sitting up here. I think we ought to deal with this thing in his presence. I don't think the staff ought to be asked to deal with this in our absence and in his absence. MAY 301974 Mt, Andrews: They're here. The Chase people.... Reverend Gibson: No. You didn't hear what I said. I said I think that whether we're going to get the land back or not get it back since you represent it to us, when you came, that's when all of it hit the fan. Do you remember that? Mr. Werley: Yes sir. I do. Reverend Gibson: Ok. As a member of the Commission and representing the people in the City of Miami I want to know how I ought to react. Let you and the gentleman respond to me. Mr. Werley: Yes, I think we should respond to that and the Chase Manhattan Bank has now modified their position complete- ly in that regard and are willing to go along with a reverter provision which Mr. Lloyd has approved in concept which in basic concept '_s the same reverter provision that was con- tained in the original three party agreement that this Com- mission signed. Reverend Gibson: All right. You see, we didn't know that. Mr. Werley: Right. This just happened yesterday. Reverend Gibson: Beautiful. So that's on the table. Now I'm prepared to send you all back and do your duties, you know what I'm talking about. But I just want to make sure I could answer to the citizens that we were not going to get that land back. Mr. Werley: Right. You're definitely getting it back now if the agreement is signed. Reverend Gibson: All right. Now the staff can get around and.... Mayor Ferre: What's to talk about if the agreement is signed? Mr. Werley: I say if it is. It hasn't been signed. Mayor Ferre: But you're just saying that everything was worked out yesterday and that the agreement is going to be signed? Mr. Werley: Not without your approval, no sir. We need your approval. Mayor Ferre: Let me, I'm sorry, do you have something else you want to say? Mr. Werley: No sir. My only point was that the only thing here preventing us from arriving at a formal three party agreement to sign was this reverter provision as I understood it. That now has been worked out but formal Commission ap- proval of the final draft of the three party agreement is necessary in my opinion and I'm sure Mr. Lloyd would concur. Mayor Ferre: All right. I would like to recognize now the presence of Commissioner Mike Calhoun and Paul, do you want to say something because I'm going to make a statement. Mr. Andrews: Yes. There are some other matters that have occured in the last year that I think needs to be worked out and adjustments made in the agreement. I might give you an 14 MAY 3 01974 era rple of... Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. Mr. Mayor, I don't mind sitting here but you're the very one that said you must walk out this door at 5 O'clock. Now if we're going to send this back to committee as Commissioner Fogg has suggested, let's send it back to committee. Mayor Ferret That's true. That's why I asked Mr. Andrews.. Is there anything else you want to add Mr. Andrews? Mr. Plummer: You make your thoughts known, I'll make mine known, let the Mayor, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Redford, all of you make your thoughts known to the committee, thrash it out then let's come back. Mr. Andrews: I just didn't want the Commission to pass a motion that with this one adjustment on the reverter clause involving the property that then that settled everything. There are some other matters that we need to Mr. Plummer: I think you heard the attorney say that this thing is not signed and is not going to be signed until it is thrashed out, so let's send it to the thrashing company. Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Commissioners, I would like to, now that the lights are out but we're still in the sunshine, I would like to say and I want to say as a preface -I hope nobody misunderstands -I'm not here in any way to create any problems, to pick any bones, to make any head- lines or anything else. I'm very sincerely concerned about the relationship and that's what I want to speak to, the main relationship between the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County and I really address myself mainly to the four Metro Commissioners that have graced us by their presence here and to the administration. I'm not saying this, this is not a cliche, I don't mean to have that kind of an impact. Mr. Robinson: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Horace Robinson.. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Mr. Robinson if you would permit me to finish my statement I would be very happy to recognize you after that. I think that there is an important relat- ionship that has to be continually established and this is not a cliche but it's a truism, the citizens of Miami were asked on more one occasion on the elimination of departments and I would assume the implication being on the City of Miami and I think the last one was 6 years ago, the consolidation .of Police and Fire services. The people of Miami as recent- ly as a year and a half ago voted for over $40,000,000 worth of bonds for parks overwhelmingly. I think that until proven otherwise, I think we have to accept the basic premise that the citizens of the City of Miami in my opinion, by vast maj-• ority want to maintain the structure called the City of Miami. Now I've had reservations about it back and forth over the years but I think the will of the people is that we keep the City of Miami. Now with that as a premise, I think it's im- portant that as we work our relationships between Metro and the City that we keep that in mind that is going to be an on -going entity and the thing that conerns me in all of these relationships is justice. Now it isn't that we don't want to cooperate. When I was on the Commission previously I was one of the ones as Garrett will remember, that strongly was for the turning over of the Water and Sewer Department to Metropolitan Dade County. This was before the Federal MAY 301974 Government said if you want more money you've got to do it. There wag no pressure on us at that time. In fact, in 1967 and 1968 I took that stand. Now, those facilities that are area wide in nature should absolutely in my opinion belong in Metro and I think we've turned over all of the so-called area services with maybe one or two possible exceptions which are really not that important to the total welfare of Metro. Now the important thing is that the people of Miami over the years have spent millions of dollars. Originally it came out of the pockets of the citizens of Miami and I recognize Garrett, the debt has been paid for by the users so -to -speak so it really didn't come from the taxpayer directly. But nevertheless this is an asset that the City of Miami over the years cultivated and through your able administration and the Board's guidance, it grew into something that was worth $500,000,000. We turned it over as we have turned over many other things as we turned over the property for the Miami International Airport, starkly as we turned over the sea port. Now some of these properties that the City of Miami has turned over have never been paid for. I understand that we when we turned some of these properties over said well we'll get paid last just like we did in Interama. And I'm not against that. That's for the general welfare of the com- munity. What I am concerned about, Bev, Ed and Mike and Rev. Graham, it's statements that I've heard every once in a while saying "Well as we expand these facilities let it be per- fectly clear that all of the citizens of Dade County are go- ing to have to pay some additional taxes or monies are going to have to be paid. My point simply is this and then I fin- ish. I hope that in these deliberations you consider the value of the asset that we've turned over and I certainly don't think that it would be justice for the people of Miami, and I'm talking just for the people of Miami, 358,000 or whatever it is, not for 1,400,000 in Metro -that's your job, that's not my job. My job is to worry about 358,000 people. I just hope that the 358,000 people that live in the City of Miami and that own homes and property and pay taxes are not taxed again to do things which we've been doing over the past 35 to 40 years. You see there's an awfully lot, and please this is not criticism. I'm not trying to create prob- lems. There is an awful of talk traditionally in this town about duplication of services but you never hear about dup- lication of taxes and don't you see that what we're saying is that for every dollar that goes into your coffer from the taxpayers of Dade County, 300 comes from the people of Miami. You know Metro is continually complaining in Tallahassee with all justice that we don't get our fair share of state funds. It's true. The State of Florida gets its fair shares, it does better than its fair share of Federal Funds but we in Dade County don't get our fair share of State Funds and the only point is that if you feel that strongly make sure that when you get around to distribute monies around this community that you don't forget that you don't forget that 30% of the people of Metro live within the City of Miami and don't say, "Well you guys have got your City of Miami to worry about you and you come up with the money for your parks and your roads and your recreational activities." Don't forget that we also are a part of Metropolitan Dade County and I hope that in these deliberations of staff that some of these concepts are kept very clearly in mind. I apologize, I don't want to lecture, I just wanted to make that point on the record. Mr. Horace Robinson: I'm a lawyer with Dewey Valentine Bush B. Palmer and Wood in New York City, council for the Chase Manhattan Bank as trustee and I just want to clarify MAY 3 01974 a couple of items in connection with this following Mr. Ater+ 1ey's statement. Point #1, as far as the reverter question` that has been cleared up between the council for the City, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Werley and the Dank so that I think that one is behind us. We finally understood what you wanted in terms of the reverter and we were able to work out the provisions of the agreement so that I don't think that that is an issue any more. Now there is two points in connection with that agree- ment. In this long list of questions there is on page 3... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, and sir I don't mean to be discourteous to you but you know if we're going to hear this thing -let's hear it. If we're going to send it back to committee which it rightfully should be -let's send it to com- mittee. Now Father Gibson, fish or cut bait. Mr. Robinson: Sir, if I may finish. Mr. Plummer: No sir, I don't want you to finish. Now if you're going to finish I'm going to take the same prerogative sir. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. I'm going to run the meeting now. Would you, you have Commissioner Plummer that has stated an objection. Would you tell me then what the pur- pose is of your speaking today and whether it's speaking to the point, taking into consideration that we're not going to decide anything today? Mr. Robinson: Right. My purpose is that the three party agreement which is what the Chase Bank is interested in, what we have been trying for over a year and was supposed to have been consumated by April 1, 1973 can be cleared up very simply because there is only one point left open on it and the other points which all these questions Mayor Ferre: Excuse me now for interrupting you but I want to explain to you.... Mr. Robinson: ....relate and I want to explain why that is and how and we are concerned because as I say at the present time, this agreement should have been entered into a long time ago.... Mayor Ferre: I think you may have missed the thread of what all of this is. Now let me see if I can put it another way. We are not in any way pressuring Metropolitan Dade County and I hope that's not taken that way but there are areas of dis- cussion that need clarification. And I hope you recognize that what in effect we're doing is clearing the air so I don't think there is anything that you can say that is going to clear the air and bring us to a point of decision today. Don't you see? Mr. Robinson: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor but I just want to point out that there is just one other question that affects the three party agreement and that's this question of the $290,000 a year for payment. If that can be resolved then. Mayor Ferree It's not going to be resolved. Mr. Robinson: I would urge that you resolve that as quickly as you can so that you can sign the agreement and we can get that situation regularized. MAY 301974 Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews, how quickly do you think you and the staff can meet this and come back to us with some recom- mendations? Mr. Andrews: I would hope that we could begin our meetings next week in an effort to resolve it but I want to assure the Commission that there is more than just this one question. Mayor Ferre: And that's the point I want to make to this gentleman. You see, there's a lot more involved in this other than the $290,000. Mr. Robinson: I realize that your honor but I'm simply pointing out that that has nothing to do with the three party agreement and the relationship with the trust indent- ure and the bond holders who were entitled to certain things happening and they haven't happened. Mayor Ferre: That's fine, that's your opinion but that's not the opinion of the City Manager or of 5 people that sit on this bench. Mr. Plummer: Yes and I'll tell you something else too. We're hearing a lot different story than we heard from the geneltman in brown, I'm sorry I don't remember his name(Werley). When he came here and told us we had no choice, no choice. Did you tell us that? Reverend Gibson: I want to witness that he sure did that's why I said let's have the Chase Manhattan. Mr. Plummer: He said that those bad people up in New York were going to come down here crashing on you. Now I heard that but you're here now and he isn't saying that. A11 I'm saying is that there are a lot of areas sir that have got to be gone into and I'm going to tell you one thing so you don't walk away from here misinformed. You're not going to resolve that $290,000 for the next five years. Only one way you're going to resolve that as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Robinson: Well let me make one point clear Commissioners, we're not involved in that. As far as the bank is concerned that is between you and the County and whatever you agree on, that is satisfactory because it's not under the indenture.. that is required. Mayor Ferre: This is a tri-party agreement and we're one of the parties. We're involved. Mr. Robinson: Yes, but whatever you decide on, you the City can waive or not waive that provision so it's not something that the bank has to enforce for the benefit of the bond holders. Do you understand that point? Mayor Ferre: I understand. Mr. Robinson: Whatever you decide to that is perfectly sat- isfactory to us. Mayor Ferre: You see, the questions that have arisen are not questions that have arisen at least from our viewpoint by actions of the City of Miami. The questions that have arisen by the actions of the Water and Sewer Board and by actions or implied actions of things to be done by Metro- politan Dade County. You see, we have the attention of Metropolitan Dade County at this juncture. I'm afraid that 16 MAY 301974 in a few Months or after all of this is done and over with we may not have quite the attention. So we want to make our points now so that we're very clearly understood. Thank you sir, and my apologies for any of you that have waisted your time here this afternoon. I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you very much, Vice -Mayor Fogg, Commissioner Phillips, Calhoun and Graham. 8, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: BOOZ-ALIEN-HAMILTON PRESENTATION Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I won't spend a great deal of time in introducing the subject matter except to emphasize to you my involvement in this matter of management improvement in the City of Miami. I have made a personal committment even when I was assistant City Manager and more so when I became the Manager and recog- nized my full responsibilities as Manager as to the improve- ment of the management system in the City of Miami. I think in the last year the Commission must fully recognize the greater involvement in, what I believe at least, is a greater involvement of the City of Miami community in the government of the City of Miami. You must sense it from the inquiries that you yourself get. I know I notice it in my own office as to the public coming forth and inquiring of their govern- ment solving problems that maybe they turned their head to in the past. They're not content to see these things go un- resolved and there's a much greater involvement, I believe on the part of the City Commission, myself and my staff and the department directors than there ever has been. I think it is absolutely necessary that we follow the recommendations of the Booz Allen firm in modernizing our City Administration. Of course this involves a reorganization of the way we used to operate. It creates the Deputy City Manager concept and above all introduces a new concept in human resource manage- ment and I think the main basis for the main area of our dis- cussion this afternoon. This whole process, I want to em- phasize was carried on in a very very open way so there would be absolutely no misunderstanding. Questionaires were sent to the employees, the consultant met with not only the City Commission independently to get their views but at several meetings here reports were issued to the Commission outlining precisely what is involved. The employees have the benefit of this information. Department directors participated, my staff did, as I indicated, employee groups did, Civil Service was certainly involved and there was over 200 personal inter- views on the part of the consultant with City employees to insure that the conceptualization of this was formulated on a sound basis. The reason that this care was exercised is the consultants and I and I'm sure the Commission, I know the Commission recognizes the sensitivity of this area, particular- ly of the human resources management and how it affects the employees. If you wish, Mr. Hanson is available to give you a capsuled digest real quickly of the pertinent areas although I feel the City Commission has received an abundant amount of information so that you can begin to react to the various pro- posals. I will be happy to answer any questions and the con- sultants will also. Mayor Ferre: Here's the way we're going to play the game today it it's all right with all of you. We'll do it the same way that we did it before. Each Commissioner will... Is 5 minutes enough to make a statement? Anybody want more than 5 minutes? All right. We've listened to Paul Andrews as he said, we've had information and information and infor- mation in writing, in the written word, in the spoken word, 19 MAY 3 01974 . we've asked questions, this is a matter that has been before tie for over a year. I think we all know exactly what's in- volved, I think we've read it. I've read the thing a couple Of tunes. We've talked to the representatives of Booz Allen. I've talked to employee groups. We've talked to all different kinds of people. I think we all know. Right? If there is a grey area that needs to be clarified then in your five min- utes speak up and we're going to listen to the people who are going to clarify it and then I hope we can bring this thing to a head once and for all today. Now so rather than hear- ing from Mr. Hanson, Mr. Andrews, I think we'll do it that way. Ok, we'll start with the Vice -Mayor. Vice -Mayor Reboso: Mr. Mayor, as you said we have had plenty of information on this matter and I concur with the City Manager. We need the re -organization inside our City and I don't think there is too much to discuss. In mu opinion everything is very clear in my mind and I am ready to vote. I don't have any questions at all. Mayor Ferre: All right, Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if you'll put a watch on me I'll try to keep it right at 5 minutes. Mr. Mayor, I read this that it breaks down into two areas, one the DCM concept which is the Deputy City Manager and the second area, that of Human Resources. In my estimation, very basically and simply, it really resolves down to the question; how much of a good thing can we afford? I think in the area first if I will speak, and it's not on the agenda so Mr. Andrews let me clarify that from the beginning. As the agenda states this is only the discussion on the Human Resources Management System. Is that correct? Mr. Andrews: That was what was intended at the April 18th meeting and it was my belief that this was a continuation of that. Mr. Plummer: Then we will not speak to the DCM concept. Mr. Andrews: We can because as you'll recall that prior to that 18th meeting when we talked about the matter of reorgan- ization which we were ready to go with I think it was speci- fically your request that that not be implemented until such time that we've had this discussion. So I'm prepared to go ahead with the discussion on the Deputy City Managers if you feel that you want to do that because I'm ready to proceed. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Mr. Mayor, I might have to take a few more minutes than 5 minutes. Mrs. Gordon: You can have mine. Mr. Plummer: Ok. Anyhow, let me first speak to the DCM con- cept. All the way along I'm sure that all of the statements that were given to me were given to the rest of the Commis- sion and basically the concept was that this new system would not cost anything to the City. That adding to the top it would be taken off of the bottom and no new positions or... But it really in fact, would cost no new dollars for the new concept of government. Now I want to give you just a little bit of history. The little bit of history tells you that taking a five years experience that in 1968, going back a full 5 years the City Manager's Office operated at an employee cost -that's dollars to employees -of $166,000 and I'll use that for a round figure, 15 employees. MAY 201974 z. Mayor Ferre: How many years ago was that? Mr. Plummer: That was in '68, five years ago. As of the last payroll, Mr. Mayor, let me come at it a different way. This particular year, it was Mrs. Gordon who discovered the fact when we saw the City Manager's Budget and found that in fact the City Manager had in fact reduced his budget and his number of personnel until we discovered the fact that a new department had been created, that of budget which had always been under the City Manager. We found out in fact that the cost of government did not go down, it went up and we didn't drop from 18 to 13 employees because the Budget Department suddenly became 9 employees for a total of 22 employees. So really what we're talking about that is you take the budget message of this year, that the City Manager was going to oper- ate both his office and that of Budget for a total cost of $376,000 employee cost, 22 people. But now let's look into the reality of what has happened. What has happened is that based on payroll for a 12 month period and I'm taking this strictly from payroll records, the Department of City Man- ager we're looking at an actual cost of employees for the City Manager's Office of $562,000. Now I'm sure there is some Federal Funding in that. I know of two people in that that don't belong in the City Manager's Office but this is the only record of which I have to go by. We're then look- ing at a total above budget_:of $185,000 more than what was budgeted. This figure does not represent two additional Deputy City Managers which are asked for. It does include one, Mr. Hays and for the record, I have it documented that Booz Alien concurs that in the reference to Police Chief and Fire Chief, that the only change is that of name -nothing else, no salary difference, no authority, no nothing. Let the record indicate that they're both shaking their heads yes. We're then talking about $562,000 to operate the Man- ager and Budget Office and if we were to allow the Manager to put on two more Deputy City Managers I think the proposed cost per manager is approximately $30,000. I think reality would make it nearer $35,000. That is an additional $60,000 to $70,000 on top of $562,000. What I mean to tell you is I think we just really have to realize how much of a good thing can we afford. Now, let me then go over to the Human Resources portion. Human Resources tell us, and let's speak first of all to that area of dollars. On page 62, I believe, using Booz Allen's figures, eliminating the director we're showing a total cost of $252,000 and 18 new employees, plus all dollar costs add 17% for the cost of the employees. By the way, let me back up for one minute. The City Manager's payroll today shows, I think either 35 or 36 people on the payroll. What I'm saying in the Human Resource Management, I think it is a fantastic program. I think it is something that this City vitally needs but I think more paramount is the question; Can the city afford? If we eliminate the cost of the director we are then talking about $222,000 using the figures of Booz Allen. Add to that the 17% which is fringe benefits would bring it up into the neighborhood of $250,000. The only discreptancy, if we get to that point, Mr. Mayor, that I would like to bring as to where the authority should lie as to the Human Resources Management. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me for interrupting you, as, but I think you're going into another subject that you're going from the cost now into Human Resources. Mr. Plummer: No, I have been speaking this last cost factor was just to Human Resources, Mr. Mayor. Please don't get con- fused now because we're talking about if we implement the 2 MAY 301974 DtM and Human Resources. We conceivably are implementing a half a million dollars. Now am I in the realm or you'd rather wait until I'm finished? Mr. Andrews: I would rather wait until you're finished. Mr. Plummer: Ok. Mayor, I prefer to definite. I don't been stated.... We're talking about in the DCM.... Mr. stop there because my thoughts are very think we can afford this concept. It has Mayor Ferre: Neither one? Mr. Plummer: No sir, neither one. Now I would like to im- plement the Human Resources on a piece meal basis as we can afford it. I think it is a must. I think it is necessary but I don't think we can accept the total concept or picture. What I mean to say is this: Booz Allen says to me; "Put the top people in and they will weed out, simplify, coordinate and eliminate a lot of departments and lower personnel." I say the concept is wrong. I say the concept is and the theory that Booz Allen was hired was to eliminate and tell me what can be eliminated and then let's put at the top the direction needed to coordinate after they have eliminated. Don't put in at the top to eliminate at the bottom because it doesn't happen that way. I think that what must be done is for Booz Allen to tell us, you can coordinate, you can put together and eliminate this. Then at the top you put your management to coordinate the whole picture. Mr. Mayor, I just get back to the same basic question. How much of a good thing can we afford? Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Andrews, do you want to answer now? Mr. Andrews: I just want to answer one area because I don't have all of the figures before me but let's talk about the nine people in Budget. Mr. Plummer: Are we going to ask questions? Mayor Ferre: I think you brought really what in my opinion is a basic. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor there's some questions I can't get answered. Mayor Ferre: Let's let Paul make his statement. Then I'll recognize you again. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask these questions and then you can address the answers, do you want to do that? Mr. Mayor, you were very emphatic at this Commission meeting, so much so that we got roasted in a certain unnamed newspaper under a concept known as a Dallas Plan. Do you recall that, sir? •Each Commissioner being into an area of responsibility, not direction but responsibility. Now I thought you were very clear and I think the unnamed newspaper thought you were very clear because they wrote an article very detrimental. But I hate to tell you Booz Allen is not very clear. They under no way at this present time, the Dallas Plan which is the concept of which you're speaking, they're not studying it and 1 was very much concerned when I asked what posture they were in at this time. Mayor Ferre: That's another realm of things. MAY 3 01974 Mr, PluMMer3 Well no, it s not. It's all in the same. I asked the Booz Alien peopie,in the Grand Jury report it stat- ed that they hope that this City would implement the areas under investigation, I'm sorry, not under investigation -the areas of programming by Booz Alien. And I said to Booz Alien what are you doing for the Police Department in particular? Their answer was "nothing". There is nothing being done by Booz Allen in particular to the Police Department. It is to the entire City. Paul the question that I have to answer right now is; the six management analysts which are being developed by Booz Allen on who's payroll are they? Mr. Andrews: On various departmental payrolls. They were taken from, and the object here is to take these people, bring them in, train them, form a nucleus of management analysts with the understanding that these people will be returned to the department, new people selected through the City on a come -in, come -out basis so they in turn can be trained. This will be a perpetuating matter, People will go back to their departments with significantly more knowledge about the City with tools that they've acquired as a result of being a part of that team and assist in their own departmental area. That illustrates a very fundamental concept here of what Booz Allen is attempting to do for the City of Miami. Now they may be answered wrong or not fully when you asked the question in relation to the Police Department. I personally think they're going to make a significant contribution to the Police Depart- ment. If this Human Resources method of operating the City Government as far as its personnel is concerned is imple- mented there's going to be a major contribution to the Police Department -in the hiring practices, the training, the over - viewing and the whole process of personnel is going to change as far as the Police Department is concerned. Mr. Plummer: Well, am I not mistaken that the Police Depart- ment at the present time has their own Human Resources pro- gram? It would in fact be a duplication? Mr. Andrews: It's true but you should speak to members of the Police Department and find out the processes that take place in the City when there are promotions, personnel matters that have to be processed between Civil Service, the Finance Depart- ment, the City Manager's Office, the Budget Office and the route that some of these papers take and get shuffled around from desk to desk and sit around and at times when someone makes a decision on a matter that's not that important to them to resolve and we in the City Manager's Office are wait- ing for papers to come through so we can solve a particular personnel problem, it gets very very difficult. It's clumsy. Employees are disappointed that actions aren't taken faster. The Departments don't function as well because of that and it's a very over simplified illustration of the kind of prob- lem that we run into as far as not having this all under one Department operating so all personnel matters are handled through one area. Now you indicated that the fact that the City Manager's budget has increased. I have been very pleased that the Commission at its last budget hearing permitted the expansion of various activities in the City Manager's Office. Can you visualize putting together, and this year our budget is going to be somewhere in the vacinity of 80 million dollars, putting together an 80 million dollar budget with two or three people - two people and a secretary? And not having any real analysis in depth and they at the same time are car- rying on all the personnel work that is required in the City Manager's Office because we don't have a Department of Human Resources. We have never made the kind of analyses that are 2 MAY 3 01974 needed to really get down to the point where the Departments are functioning at their maximum. Even if we didn't struct- ure any more people into the City Government I'm confident that with some of these moves that we'll make and the efforts of these people at the upper and middle management level, the whole purpose of the restructuring as proposed by Booz Allen, that we're going to be able to produce more significantly than we are right now. In the Department of Sanitation, I have been trying to find desperately some way of getting some additional administrative help in the Sanitation Department so that Mr. Jones can make the simplest of analysis as far as the most effective routes and the utilization of his peo- ple. He's going about his business on a day-to-day basis trying to solve problems that others below him should be solving but he doesn't have the help to do it -not at the middle management level. This runs throughout the City. If I could use my hands in gesture or make a diagram, we have had an organization that's been shaped like so, with the City Manager and the people surrounding the City Manager and there immediately thereafter you get into a whole line of Depart- ments plus other offices that number maybe 22 people report- ing to the City Manager directly and then Department Direct- ors under that with not too many people in the middle manage- ment area again to assist the Department Directors but a whole body of people underneath performing services to the City that don't get the attention and evaluation of the sim- plest things. Let me give you one observation as a measure of this and this is not to denote that we shouldn't have a management study made. In a Department of Police it takes about four officers 7 days a week to keep one vehicle oper- ating. We spend for those officers $56,000 in raw salary costs; no monies for uniforms, guns, overhead, anything else. For years we have been budgeting and allocating our funds because there hasn't been energy and the time and sometimes the knowledge, and I'm using a very simple illustration so I don't want to over dramatize it, that we buy police vehi- cles and we keep those vehicles in the Police Department for two years used in patrol. We spend $3300 per vehicle. Again I won't include all the operating costs because I'm exclud- ing the operating costs for the personnel. We keep them for two years. That means that each vehicle on an annual basis is about $1500-$1600 of input versus $56,000 worth of raw manpower. If anything happens to that vehicle you've lost the effectiveness of this $56,000 in manpower. Perhaps we should only be keeping the equipment 6 months and sell it and get a higher return. Maybe it should be 3 months. I'm exaggerating, of course. But certainly a year, no longer than a year. Now someone has to sit down and make those kind of analysis in depth and the City is just repleat with these kind of examples that need evaluation. Here we'll have the Police Department performing and you talk about morale in the Police Department, certainly this has to be a morale problem if they've got equipment and it breaks down and this is true in Sanitation, the whole operation of the garage is crises oriented now and it shouldn't be. The same way with the motor pool. We should be on the basis of preventative main- tenance and here we are fighting and putting out little prob- lems on a daily basis. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me Paul. I don't relate any of this to Human Resources. Mr. Andrews: Well, the Human Resources is a matter that's internal and we're talking about two different subjects. You're talking about and I went to Budget, you talked about the fact that there was an expansion in the budget and that 2 MAY 3 01914 was one of the principle areas that the City Manager's Office increased in cost. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I am told that using your example, the Police Department that if the Chief were to be made tomorrow the Deputy City Manager he would be doing exactly the same thing he is doing today at the same salary. Now have I been mis informed? Nr. Andrews: That's right. Will you accept that potentially there may have been an error eommitted in identifying the Fire Chief and the Police Chief as Deputy City Managers and that we remove that title if you will? Mr. Plummer: I'm only going on what these people told me. Mr. Andrews: I know. I've accepted what they have told me but I as the City Manager, perhaps it was my mistake in not saying: "Fine, you label them that way but I'm not going to identify them as Deputy City Managers." Mr. Plummer: Paul if we're not all going to play by the same rules then let's go back .... Mr. Andrews: It's not a question of a rule. It's a quest- ion of understanding. I think the fact that the Fire Chief and the Police Chief have been identified in the report as Deputy City Managers has been over dramatized. I readily admit that they have no difference in functing except this that with the three Deputy City Managers plus the Chief, plus the Police Chief and the Fire Chief, the Assistant City Man- ager and myself, there forms the nucleus for the overall management of the entire City. The Departments fall under that. The reason the Fire Chief and the Police Chief are singled out is because of their significant impact in num- bers of people and their budget and the fact that Police and Fire and Sanitation are the three major areas of our City activities. Mr. Plummer: Do we concur or do we still then go along the same line that in fact the Police Chief, if this were approved in toto that the Police Chief tomorrow would be the same man he is today doing the same job for the same amount of money? Mr. Andrews: Yes sir. Mr. Plummer: All right. My question is you keep relating to the Police Department that this is going to improve where this man is doing the same job. I don't understand. Mr. Andrews: I'll tell you how we can improve both operations and from the standpoint of Human Resources. From the stand- point of departmental operations if all the Deputy City Man- agers were in place -the three plus the Assistant City Manager and myself -we'd be in a position to better relate than we do now without the Deputy City Manager the activities of the Police Department to the rest of the City. Now I happen to believe that cleaning up the City and getting better parks is going to produce less effort on the part of the Police Department. Now how we go about achieving that and where we do thatneeds a great deal of coordination. Through this con- cept I think it is going to be easier to arrive at because as an example the Deputy City Manager who's in charge of Sanitation Public Works and Parke and Recreation will have a better feeling for what is going on in coordinating those and better relationship between those functions to the Police Department than we have now. We'll never reach that capability 25 MAY 301914 unless we do something like thin. Mr. Plummer: Paul, what would you say to me, and 1 guess this my day to pick on costs but I've been picking on it for an awfully long time. What would you say to me as a conserv- ative figure if this Commission were today to approve the ACM and the human resources, above yesterday, what more costs are going to be involved? Mr. Andrews: Beyond what exists today about a half a million dollars. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I tell you we can't afford it. Mr. Andrews: You haven't asked me though if these costs... Mayor Ferre: We're asking now. Mr. Andrews: If the shifting of these costs but I can't quite evaluate the total impact to the City budget if we were to immediately implement everything that Booz Allen is proposing because my method of implementation which I've given a great deal of thought to is slightly different than their's. They don't know how I'm going to implement. All they can say are here are costs for these positions.... Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, can I ask a favor of the TV. Are you all shooting, if you're not will you turn those off. I'm getting warm. Ok. I see why Rose has her sunglasses on. Mr. Andrews: I would attempt to formulate this. If we're just going to add costs to the City Government that can be a partially defeating process and as I told you when we im- plemented the Deputy City Manager Concept at budget time, that I was proposing not to implement these total costs to the City Government but that I was going to take positions from the bottom that were vacant by working with the Depart- ment, recognizing the new value that they would receive from this concept and eliminate those vacant positions and take that emphasis from the bottom and put it at the top of the organizations so there would be better direction to all of the people below and that not only would we overcome the loss of these positions but hopefully we'd be performing far better and more efficiently with the management properly dis- persed at the top so that the people at the bottom would be getting clear direction and proper evaluation of all the tasks they're carrying out. And that's what we did. Mr. Plummer: But you see Paul, I don't have any of that be- fore me. I don't know today. You're asking me to approve a package today of roughly a half a million dollars using your figures. I don't have one paper in front of me from Paul Andrews or from Booz Allen telling me by implementing this half million dollars you're going to eleminate 200 or 300 or nothing. You have not laid out for me the total picture and I think. Let me just say what I've got on my mind. You've done me an injustice to be able to sit back an analyze where I have only had the input of Booz Allen using the figures of a half a million dollars. I can't see anything else but that half a million dollars and I want to tell you something. I get back to my original statement: How much of a good thing can we afford? Booz Allen will tell you as they told me last night -you can't afford not to -but I haven't seen any- thing from you, the Manager telling me what you're going to eliminate if you add. And I've got to see thbt before I vote favorably on it. 26 MAY 301974 Mr. Andrews: All right. But haven't I demonstrated to the City Commission through the last budget the technique that will be empioyeed in trying to modernize the City Administrat- ion by utilizing vacant positions at the bottom? Now it's not going to be possible to eliminate all of them and say that every cost that Booz Allen has come up with that we'll be able to eliminate positions and put those people in place and then work more effectively. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I'm taking you at your word when you told me and the rest of this Commission that it would not coat this City any additional funds. I'm taking your word. Mr. Andrews: Yes sir, and I've held to that. It has not. I can bring in to you right now, and the Budget Offices are right across the hall, the exact positions and the dollar amount and you can run the total as I give them to you be- cause I've reviewed those recently and I'm acquainted with exactly the positions that we eliminated to accumulate the $96,000, hopefully to get the additional 3 Deputy City Man- agers. We only employed one. Mr. Plummer: I understand that and there's two lacking. Mr. Andrews: There's two lacking and the funds are in the budget for those people for a full year. I honored your word and your request, you didn't even have to adopt a mot- ion or anything, We did not fill those until you had got- ten through this whole process. Mr. Plummer: Ok. What I'm saying to you is that. Well, let me shut up. Other people probably want to speak. Mayor Ferre: Your 5 minutes.... I understand and I might say this is all in jest because your questions are serious questions and if it takes 5 hours to ask they're important enough for us to take that amount of time. Mr. Plummer: (Inaudible) Mayor Ferre: See JL, that's a statement that you're making but we're not sure because he's shaking his head and those two are shaking their heads. That means they disagree. Now if you disagree then speak to it. Mr. Andrews: Yes. Now I'm disagreeing because you're taking $500, what you consider new money and I'm not saying that that $500,000 of new impact upon the budget process. What we'll do is some more shifting but I can't say that we're going to be able to eliminate the whole $500,000. Mayor Ferre: What you're saying is that the team still has 11 players but somebody else might be playing quarter back and somebody else might be playing some other, full back or whatever. Mr. Andrews: Yes sir. Mr. Plumper: With your terminology might be, I would accept that. But that's not reality. Mayor Ferre: We're not talking about terminology now. We're talking to reality. You speak to the reality of it. Mr. Andrews; Yes. The reality of this whole concept it that... Let me use the illustration with a department if I 2t MAY 301974 nay and you can transport that very... Mr. Plummer: Since we're talking about your department pri- marily, let's talk in that area because I think that's where the crux of the matter is. In fact Paul, am 1 off in my fig- ures of your cost of your operating office of around $560,000? Is it within the ball park? Mr. Andrews: I'm not sure. Mr. Plummer: Well look. We're talking about very simply in this boo your budget message, not mine. You're talking about 22 people and roughly $375,000. That's documented. Ok? Now, according to payroll in the City Manager's Office, two weeks ago, your budget showed 35 people. Thirteen more people than show in the Budget Book. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Plummer: I think it is ing with me. shaking their That's not my Mr. Andrews: in that... Yes, you see.... Wait a minute. And $186,000. And you know, very important Paul, and you're not disagree - You're saying a half a million dollars, they're heads no, so they're disagreeing with you. figure. We're getting into a semantics problem here Mr. Plummer: Paul, I think we're getting into a dollar prob- lem. Mr. Andrews: No. I don't believe so. I would like to take questions one at a time if I may, Mr. Mayor because.. Mayor Ferre: Take your time and answer them one at a time. Mr. Andrews: Did you correlate the payroll to the budget positions? Did you find out if they took, as an example, the labor negotiations office? Is that all included? Is work- men's compensation included or is that in another part of the budget? That's Mr. Lanken's. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute I'll answer your question. Are you speaking of Mr. Joel Lanken at $2183.34 a month? Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Plummer: The answer is yes. Mr. Andrews: Now the question is, you stated the City Man- ager's Budget is so much but are you adding on Mr. Lanken? Mr. Plummer: I didn't say that sir. I said the City Man- ager's employee cost. Not your budget, that's way above this. This is just employee cost. Mr. Andrews: What I want to try to stress is that there is no more expenditure than the Commission has approved for the City Manager's Budget. Mr. Plummer: Then where did the additional $186,000 come from? Mr. Andrews: It's a correlating what you have in terms of payroll to the budget. There is no more, I can assure you of this. There is no more expenditure, in fact, there's less JO 2 s MAY 301974 expenditure for the City Manager function than is programmed in budget because we have for one thing I can tell you, there's two Deputy City Manager's that are not aboard and those funds are not being expended. Mr. Plummer: I concur. I said that in my statement. This list does not include 2 Deputy City Managers. It only in- cludes Days. I said that in my original statement. How many people, Paul, are in your office today? How many people on your payroll? Mr. Andrews: Well, what do you consider my office? The Budget Office, my office upstairs plus Lanken and so forth? The whole group? Mr. Plummer: Yes sir. Mr. Andrews: The figure is about 34 or 35 or thereabout. Mr. Plummer: Right. Now what I'm asking you to do is to equate, really how you can show in the initial budget of this year 22 people and you're here admitting that you've got 34? Mr. Andrews: If you, you see, the identification that may be poorly done under this kind of scrutiny... Let me finish. Mr. Lanken's office is not shown as a part of the City Man- ager Budget there. When you add them to it under payroll there then you add more bodies and I'm including it... Mr. Plummer: Where is he listed? Mr. Andrews: He's listed under a different location. Mr. Plummer: Under what area? Mr. Andrews: Under the Workmen's Compensation and Labor Negotiations. Mr. Plummer: That's a different department? Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Plummer: All right. I'll accept that. Mr. Andrews: You see, you assemble all of that and if you want to identify that as the City Manager's Office then it turns out in payroll. Mr. Plummer: Paul, my friend and I hope you are my friend, I can only go on the information that's available. I can't go on anything else. Mr. Andrews: But I'm telling you that the two can be correl- ated and I can demonstrate to you that we're spending less money in the City Manager's Budget than you provided for me to expend. Mr. Plummer: I'm willing to look. Mr. Andrews: I can demonstrate without any question. Mr. Plummer: What I see here and what I see.here,-there is no correlation. Mr. Andrews: But there is and I can assure you of that. 29 MAY 301974 $253,600 that's direetiy related as the City Manager's Office, M. Plummer: Right. Mr. Andrews: On page 13 you'll find the Budget Office with 9 employees at $123,104. Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mr. Andrews: On page 49 you'll find the Employees Services Office and it probably reflects in the payroll costs because they're identified as a City Manager function. It's 8 employ- ees for $87,250. Mr. Plummer: Who are the employees ? Mr. Andrews: The employees are Mr. Lanken.... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Lanken is on your payroll. Mr. Andrews: Right. That's what I'm telling you. That's what I'm trying to total up here, the 38. And all the other people in Workmen's Compensation are located in that office, in Employees Services, the Training and Service Officer, Marie Holiday. Mr. Plummer: She's on your budget? Mr. Andrews: Yes. She's over in his office though. Marshall Litvak, Harold Slater, so those are the 8 people that account... Now the next place that you look.... Mr. Plummer: That reduces it to 30. Mr. Andrews: Now the next place that you look is on page 19, THE City Physicians Office. Is Dr. Toto on that list? Mr. Plummer: Not on your payroll. This bothers me, Paul. You don't know who's on your payroll? Mr. Andrews: Yes I do, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Ok. Dr. Toto is not on your payroll. Mr. Andrews: All right. Maybe I should ask who is on that payroll so I can respond to it. Mr. Plummer: With the exception, the only deviation is Riley. Riley is eliminated because he is gone. Other than that, everyone else. Paul, what I'm saying to you... Let me tell you how I personally feel. I'm in opposition to the DCM con- cept. I think it dilutes your authority, I think it spreads it out and puts in one more layer of government which my per- sonal opinion is -we can't afford it. That's #1. Human Re- sources, I think is a fantastic program. I think it is some- thing that is needed. The employees, as I told you once be- fore, when I talk to employees and find out how little they know about what's going on in the City for which they're working, it bothers me. So I think this is a tremendous pro- gram. We can question under whose authority it goes later but I don't think we can even get into that area now. I think we've got to talk dollars. Dollars are using the figures of Booz Allen for the Human Resources, $222,000 plus 17% for fringe benefits-18 new employees. 1 don't think until you demonstrate to me, I'm sorry, to this Commission where you are going to eliminate positions to put this program into i 3 r MAY 3 01974 Mayor Ferre: All right, Father Gibson. Reverend Gibson: I wanted to hear from those men out there, those experts, whenever you get to that. Mayor Ferret If there's nothing you want to ask now Rose is next in order of seniority. Mrs. Gordon: I'll question whenever I feel like it. Mayor Ferret All right. Do you want to make a statement at this time? Mrs. Gordon: No, I don't want to make a statement at this time. Reverend Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I realize that nothing remains the same and with that in mind I'm aware that there must be change. As I hear the Manager answering Commissioner Plummer I'm moved to the point that I think the Manager ought to be given an opportunity to look at this budget business and the positions and I know how I run our institution. I rob Peter to pay Paul everyday and hope the Lord's going to forgive me. What he says makes sense to me because if you have 22 people listed at top dollar or at a figure and you only have employed 10, you have 12 salaries and what I hear him saying is that he is going to push that 12 salaries over in (b) where it is listed in (a). Now I don't want to upstage the Manager, I want to reserve whatever comment I have after I hear those experts out there and then I think I will be in business. Mr. Plummer: Let me just bring out to your attention one thing. The experts in their proposal claim under the title of New.Staff in Human Resources, 18 new people. That's their figure, not mine, 18. Reverend Gibson: JL, we would admit, however, that it is high time for the City to go about its business of develop- ing Human Resources. You know I see this everyday and I'm very sensitive to that phase because I don't want the City to come and give me that jazz later on that the reason that they don't have any upward mobility is because, and you see I don't want to get into that bag. Mr. Plummer: Father, let me tell you something. I started my remark by saying that I think the Human Resources Program is well needed. I think it is a fine proposal but I want the Manager to demonstrate to me first where he is going to cut the cost to provide for the new program. Reverend Gibson: But JL, he said he hasn't filled -this is between you and me -I think the Manager is going to have to do the same thing for me but the Manager said, now I don't know how you ,do in the Funeral business but I'll tell you what happens with the budget at the Church. You list all those items and if you have to pay the water bill over against some other things the sensible thing is to pay that water bill because nobody will know those other things are not done but they darn sure will know that the water is cut off, or the lights are cut off. That's what I'm saying. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr. Plummer we've just gotten a break down of the 38 employees as budgeted-38 positions -we may not have all of those posit- ions filled. Listen, I don't deviate from that budget process. There's 13 employees on page 11 of the budget document at MAY 301974 implementation I can't vote for it, Paul. And that's no new position for 31.. t voted against my own backyard, all the new ideas up there. Mr. Andrews: The City Commission has to participate in the modernization of this City Government otherwise you're going to get government the same as it has been in the past. Over all the years you're going to get greater community involve- ment and not going to be able to respond as effectively in the future because of this greater involvement. There is no reason why government can't be operated on a more business- like basis and I will gamble at this stage that if you put this size government to the test with the government that's operating in a modern fashion with data processing, proper personnel, safety, all the other things thatmake it a very viable type of government you're going to find out that we're way under staffed at the top management level. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I'm going to tell you something, friend. I don't think as a representative of the taxpayers I can gam- ble a half a million dollars of their money. I've got to deal from facts. The facts are that you've got to present to me a document which justified what your request which I today have not seen. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now cause we're not repeatint the same thing over and over again, at this point then, Mr. And- rews request perhaps that the people from Booz Allen make a statement and answer the questions if they can or any other questions that are now coming up and then I'm going to recog- nize the representatives of the Civil Service Board. Who wants to speak on this item for the Civil Service Board? Bob, are you? Mr. Steve Matlin: I will limit myself only to try to clar- ify some of the issues raised by the questions. The number of half a million dollars has been thrown out several times. I don't know where that number comes from... Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute because Rose was asking this specific question that she wanted an answer so let's wait for her. The Booz Allen people were going to explain and answer some questions. I thought that it was important that you be present to hear. Mr. Andrews, we're about ready to begin. Go ahead. Mr. Markin: As I started to say, I will limit myself to the questions that have already been raised and in this confusion of numbers let me at least deal with the numbers that I have put in our report. The cost of two hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars that has been talked about here is not the cost of implementing the Human Resource Services Concept next year. It is the total incremental cost three years from now. The additional cost over the current approved operating bud- get for implementing the Deputy City Manager Concept and the Human Resource Concept totally, three years is only $282,000 over the current approved operating budget -not half a million but more like a quarter of a million. Now in structuring our recommendations we have also taken pains to set it up on a pay as you go basis and the total incremental cost of imple- menting Human Resource Management for the first full year of operation is only $82,000. So by suggestion in that area is, rather than looking out and saying well what are you going to do for me three years from now on a quarter of a million, what you can look at is; what are you going to do for me next year on $82,000 because we're only talking about $82,000 to implement MAY 301974 Human Resource Management for its first full year and those numbers are laid out. 1 know you have them there. The total incremental cost of implementing the Deputy City Man- ager concept over the current approved operating budget is about 25 or 30 thousand dollars. So we're talking a total first year cost then of about $107,000. That's the whole thing over the current approved operating budget because the current approved operating budget has within it funding for the 3 Deputy City Manager positions. Mr. Plummer: That is not taking into reality that over last year's budget.... But that's facts. That's dollars. Mr. Matlin: That's true but let's all talk about the same data and the same data base. If you want to talk about over last year's budget Mr. Plummer: Then if you want to talk all the same level you come to mine which I have been operating on for four years as a Commissioner. Ok. Let's talk from reality, let's talk from dollars. Now we didn't have 3 or even proposed Deputy City Managers last year. Ok? Fine. Now we did not have, using your figures $107,000 worth of Human Resources last year. Now let's talk from that base, not from what was bud- geted, what is proposed, what can be. Mr. Matlin: Well then, to get the numbers all you have to do is add the cost of the Deputy City Managers which would be estimated at 90 to $100,000 and you still only get up to $207,000 not a half of a million. Mr. Plummer: (Inaudible) Mr. Matlin: I'm just trying to deal with the figures that I'm familiar with. The other point that I would make is that we have talked here today about a total budget of eighty million dollars and of our concern about the increase in that budget. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Matlin sir, I'm going to have to ask you again to talk on my level. I'm talking about a budget of less than $60,000,000. Ok? Mr. Matlin: I thought your number was a total budget of $80,000,000. Mr. Plummer: He's thinking that it might be this year at $80,000,000 and I want to tell him something and I'm telling you. If he thinks he is going to get a budget through of $80,000,000 he's going to do it for some other city. Mr. Matlin: Give me the number you would like me to work with. Mr. Plummer: I'm saying $62,000,000. That's what I have to go on. Not a pig in the poke, a pig in the pin. Mr. Matlin: If you take a budget of... what number am I working with? (Inaudible comments) Mr. Matlin: I've got to do it over again. Mr. Plummer: No you don't. Just stick on the $62,000,000. 3S. MAY 301974 M. Matlins This may be somewhat interesting. If you take your total budget of $62,000,000 and you take the current approved operating budget which is a higher number because it already includes the 3 Deputy City Manager positions for the office of the City Manager and if you add to that the Budget Office what you're saying is that you currently spend .8 of 1% to run your $62,000,000. Now what we're suggesting to you is that you is that you increase that in the first year from .8 of 1% to .9 of 1% to run the $62,000,000. Mr. Plummer: I disagree. Mr. Matlin: With the percentages? Mr. Plummer: Yes sir. I disagree. I disagree on that if you're taking and I have to talk in my realm, $562,000 of operating employee salaries in the City Manager's Budget to- day and I have to use the figures that are there, add to that $70,000 for the two more Deputy City Managers you're talking about $630,000,000. To that you have to add, using your fig- ures $82,000 for first year's implementation of Human Resources, You're talking about roughly $900,000. You're approaching a million dollars full of administration. I say that makes us too top heavy. Now show me where the City Manager is going to cut out down at the bottom level and I will then sit down with you and realistically say fine, Mr. Manager you want to add some to the top -show me where you're cutting it at the bottom. That's all I'm saying. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Com- missioner Plummer, excuse me for saying so but you're start- ing to make vegetable soup out of this because you can't take the $565,000, or whatever it is and start comparing by adding in a Human Resources Department to it because then you have to go back in and add a good portion of Civil Service into that figure before you start comparing it. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I didn't make the vegetable soup. I didn't put these books together. You put this one together, these people put these two books together. Now I will grant you that there is no question that what you have proferred to me is not an apple and not an orange but fruit salad. Mr. Andrews: But then may we have the copy of the information that you have so that we can analyze it and at least give you a proper answer? Mr. Plummer: Paul, I was hoping that we could get a proper answer today but you come before me without showing me a thing where you're going to cut out something to add some- thing else and Paul I can't vote for it and I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: JL, you've stated your opinion and I think it's a valid opinion. Mr. Plummer: Yes but Mr. Mayor, everytime I state my opinion they start playing with a different set of figures. Mayor Ferre: Let me state my position now, if I might. I think that you brought up a series of questions which talked to whether or not the City of Miami can afford this and I think those are important questions. But I think, in my op- inion, this is a matter that we have to get into the budget process. Because, and the main impact of it, I think what is important is -is this a good plan, will it work, will it improve the City, will we have a better City after its all 34 MAY 301974 olo LP- done and over with. will it be more efficient, will it render a better service to the people of Miami, will it be what we invision it to be, and can it do the job? Will this do what they say it will do? That's the main decision. Now I'm not saying that $100.000 or a half a million dollars is not import- ant to the citizens of Miami but I am saying that in the full context of $80,000,000 or $70,000,000 or whatever the budget is that the distribution or redistribution of $100,000 or $500,000 is not as important as the main impact. And I think what we really have to address ourselves to, I recognize the validity of your point -can we afford it, or can we afford all of it, or should we afford only part of it -I think the main thing that we really have to address ourselves to is; will this do the job or is it just a lot of theory, with all due respects to Booz Allen & Hamilton, or is it just a lot of theoretical talk on what perfection should be without really getting down to the essence of the problem. I think we have a theory here in government throughout the United States but I've seen it here in the City of Miami where we get wrapped up in an awful lot of theory and then when you get down to the real nitty-gritty reality of the situation it's somewhat different. You know it's not a question of the theory it's a question of the reality of what we're deal- ing with. In the business world we have to deal with it a lot more dramatically because at the end of the year we have to have a profit and loss statement and if you're loosing and you do that for a long time then you don't have a bus- iness anymore. With the City it's not quite as definable. It's a little bit more elusive and sometimes some of these things are perpetrated for a longer time but it's neverthe- less real and exists. Now the question is are we really rendering the best possible service for the dollar that we use, the taxpayer's dollar or is there a better way of do- ing it. That's really what we have to address ourselves to today in my opinion. Rose, do you want to ask some quest- ions? Mr. Gordon: We've hashed and rehashed, we've made vegetable soup and fruit salad -we've really had a full course meal. I think it's time for us to do something. Mayor Ferre: I think so too. Mr. Plummer: (inaudible) I think you broached on it in your words that this is a two faced problem. #1, will it do the job that it's said that will be done and how much is it going to cost -if I interpreted your words correctly. I think that maybe the best approach that this be interwoven in the thinking of budget that during that time that the Manager show to this Commission, #1, the justification as he feels that it is necessary and #2, what he feels can and will be eliminated for the implementation at the top of the other if it were adopted. And I think this is realistic. I think it addresses both problems. It justifies the need and it says that we will, we will eliminate somewhere else to justify this top end of the line and I think that that being brought up and included with the budget is a realistic type of thing. If I can be so bold to suggest the best of two worlds. Mayor Ferre: JL, I hope you don't take this in any way as any kind of a personal criticism or anything but I think that for us to do that, in my opinion, is just putting off some- thing that we have been wrestling with now. Either let's get on with it or forget about the darn thing and not have it pending over us.... 35 MAY 30 1974 Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Mayor, you're entitled to your opin- ion. I have made mine very clear. I think that parts of this Human Resources Program are just without question, are needed. I think the Manager has to justify if, I really do. I said I think parts of the Human Resources Program are just absolutely necessary but I don't think we can sit here and gamble. Reverend Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion. I make a motion that we proceed to put into execution wherever monies can be found and are possible to carry out the reco- mmendations of Booz Allen Report. Now I make that motion with the following, with these two comments: #1, we got one hell of a criticism last week from the Grand Jury. Either we're going to ship up or ship out or either we're going to fish or cut bait -so I want to make that clear. #2, the City Manager,and I have every reason to believe him -I trust him thus far -the City Manager says there are some monies around for salaries that have not been used. So I move you sir, the sense of my motion that we proceed to implement the Booz Allen Report meaning spending that money to do it. Now we can only spend money where we have money and then the third thing. I said two, but there are three. The beautiful thing about this report as I've heard from time to time is that you don't have to do it all at one time that you can do it based on the money you have and take the most important part first. Haven't I heard that beford? All right. That's my motion. Mr. Plummer: Father, do we understand each other that your motion addresses itself only to the Human Resources Program, not the Deputy City Manager? Reverend Gibson: Let me make sure, no, no, no. My position is: I want to move that we proceed to implement the Booz Allen Report. In other words, if you have money you work. If you don't have no money -no mun no fun. That's what that means. This is all I'm saying. If Human Resources.... Well let me put it the other way, JL. If all you have is money to implement the Human Resources portion that's all you can do and if you don't have money to do anything else. Man, I'm not about to have you put a lien against that that is in my name, you know. Mr. Plummer: Father, if there is a second to your motion I will vote against your motion. I want it understood why. Vice -Mayor Reboso: I am going to second Commissioner Gibson's motion because I think even though Commissioner Plummer had a good question, I think the answer of the City Manager was one that satisfied me and I second the motion. Mayor Ferre: All right. There's a motion and there's a second to the motion. So we understand the full impact of the motion. The motion is the full implementation of the Booz Alien Reports, correct me if I'm wrong now, the full implementation of the Booz Allen Reports if we have the funds to do so. Did I hear that right? Reverend Gibson: That's correct. Mrs. Gordon: May I hear Mr. Paulk's comments. I think you called on him before but I didn't hear him speak because I was out of the room. Mayor Ferre: I asked him did he want to say something and he said depending on how it developed. I assume he wants to speak now. 30 MAY 30'974 Mr. Baulks Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr. Manager, t think it is very important that what I have to say be said. The thought of implementing the Booz Alien program with all of its refinements is fine. The thought of implementing something that hangs on a shoestring as to whether there is funds to adequately function and implement something is not so fine. There are some serious things within regard to the Booz Allen report insofar as Civil Service and the Charter are concerned and I don't think you can approach it on an if come, what if, maybe proposition. I don't believe that you can consider just on the basis of a budgetary matter something that is very firmly imbedded in the charger of the City of Miami and that is the relieving of specific require- ments and charges of responsibility outlined in the Charter delegating those authorities to the Civil Service Board, to the Chief Examiner on the basis of maybe we've got enough money to proceed and maybe we can not. I simply say to you that if you are in total support of the Booz Allen report move ahead with it. Propose the Charter changes that are re- quired to implement this program. That's what is necessary and you can't approach it on maybe we've got enough money and maybe we don't, maybe it's good but we can't afford it. Mrs. Gordon: Maybe we should hear from Mr. Lloyd because now you're talking about legal points. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Bob, now as I understand the sense of the motion, what Father Gibson is saying is that we are going ahead with this. The only thing that he qualified it with is if we have the money. Now what that does is that puts the burden on that man right over there to come back and say we've got the money in this budget to do it with which goes back to what Plummer was really saying in the beginning, which was that it has to be a part of the budget process. So we're really back where he started. Mrs. Gordon: No. We really have to have an answer from our Law Department. Can we in fact do this now if it's in conflict with the charter? Mr. Plummer: Let me bring up one point, Mr. Mayor that Bobby Paulk is saying to you. We have an opinion from our Legal Department that legally we can not institute the Deputy City Manager program without the Charter change. Mrs. Gordon: I want to hear Mr. Lloyd say that, Mr. Plummer. Mayor Ferre: What are you shaking your head about? Mr. Andrews: Because the Deputy City Manager concept was one in title and one of position. I approached this very straight forward and in the beginning I could have announced to the City Commission recognizing the problem with a title of Deputy City Manager. The City Manager now has the author- ity to appoint assistants to the City Manager. If I want to give them a functional title of Deputy City Manager I could do so. I preferred not to use that approach. As far as the good of the City, as far as implementing a program, I didn't use the fact that they had a title of Deputy City Manager as something that would impare the processes of developing this and I deft it in a way that permitted the concept of the Dep- uty City Manager to move ahead. Now I don't think it takes a Charter change to achieve that. If you, the Commission are interested in developing this as a concept of administration for the City and believe in it then there are ways of achiev- ing this without needin g to go to a Charter change. MAY 301974 Mrs. Gordon: How about that, Mr. Lloyd? Mr. Lloyd: If you were just changing the title from assist.. ant to deputy and not changing the functions, obviously you're just calling a horse a dog so it doesn't make any difference. However, the way I look at this development of the Deputy City Manager Concept, it appears to me that it would require a Charter change, that you are changing the functions of the assistants to the City Manager and therefore you would re- quire a Charter change. That is my opinion. Mrs. Gordon: We're putting the cart before the horse then. Mr. Andrews: May I ask a question then, if we're at a very critical stage? Can the City Manager appoint more than one assistant City Manager and give him a functional title of Deputy City Manager? Mr. Lloyd: Yes. Providing he doesn't change the function. If you keep his duties the same.. as an assistant City Man- ager, if you just change the name, that's another story. If you're just changing a functional title then you're creating, if you're making a function, if you're making it into a title you're making it into a function to perform which is below the level of what is under the concept of the Assistant City Manager according to my interpretation of the Charter. Mr. Andrews: The City of Miami functioned with more than one Assistant City Manager and that hasn't been too long ago. I was a part of the City Manager's Office where I was one of two assistant City Manager's. My duties were in charge of operations and agenda preparation and Mr. Stierheim and Mr. Dodd Southern who followed him were Assistant City Managers and they were in charge of budget, personnel and special pro- jects. Mrs. Gordon: I'm not a lawyer but when I want an answer on Law I ask a lawyer. So now Mr. Lloyd, you're going to be the one who makes the decision. Can we move forward now or must we wait for Charter changes? Mr. Lloyd: I'll restudy the matter but I already have an opinion that it requires a Charter change. I'm not going to change it now. I can tell you what you can do now. You can, if you wish to pass this motion you may pass it as far as that goes because all that is is a policy directing people to implement it. A process of the implementation would be the charter change if required. If that's what you want we can do it. Mayor Ferre: I think we have to go in that direction. Clear- ly this is a legal matter, you stated a legal opinion. I think this City Commission, it's incumbent upon us, if noth- ing else to state out opinion as to what direction the City should take. I can't think of anything more important that I've been deliberating on for the 6 months that I've served as Mayor more important than this and I certainly think it's essential... Mrs. Gordon: From what I've heard and from everything I've evaluated, Mr. Mayor, I believe that all we can do is pass a principle motion and I don't see how in the world it could be implemented in this next budget year because there will be no opportunity for Charter changes prior to that. Mayor Ferre: Well you see, tint only speaks to part of the 3s MAY 3 01974 Boos Allen Report. There are Other parts which would be iin- plemented without Charter change and in Father Gibson's motion he didn't start breaking down which would and which wouldn't. He said the Booz Allen reports. He didn't say page 1, 2 and 3 and not page 4 , 5, and 6. Mrs, Gordon: Mr. Lloyd, the motion that we're about to act on does that meet with your favor legally? Mr. Lloyd: Oh yes. There's nothing wrong with the motion and I might also add that as far as the human resources pro- gram is concerned that would be the development of a depart- ment which can be done by ordinance. Mayor Ferre: You see, what in effect we're back to is that if this Commission goes on record as stating in principle what we believe and assuming that this were to pass, what this does is, this orders the Manager to proceed with the implementation of the Booz Allen Report. It also would mean that in those portions that would be in conflict with the Charter that we would then have to go for a Charter change but there are other portions that are not in conflict and would therefore be implemented. With regards to the question of the departments perse, I don't care what you call them, you're not just going to call them Deputy City Managers, you may call them something else for the time be- ing but you can certainly, I think you can certainly start in the creation of departments that speak to basic problems that the Booz Allen report talks about. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, in giving your direction to the City Attorney to begin review- ing this may I suggest that you imbody in that, if you will, a way that this concept can operate within the scope of the City Charter and if that's not possible then go to a Charter change. Mr. Lloyd: I can tell you what to do on that if you want to hear it. Reverend Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want you to know that the motion I made is made believing that I've offered the best thing for the City of Miami and if that is what it takes that also is in that motion. Mayor Ferre: I think the sense of the motion is what is im- portant and I think you've made that abundantly clear. Now the legal aspects of the motion are things that you, Mr. Attorney are going to have to work on to specify in the proper and couchet and the proper legal language so that it is not in violation of the Charter. Mr. Lloyd: I understood from the concept of the motion just what Commissioner Gibson said that I would be directed to take appropriate legal actions to implement his desires under the motion. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now, do you want to say something else, Mr. Faulk? Mr. Faulk: Yes, Mr. Mayor. With regard to the Charter and with regard to the creation of another department whatever that department might be called -yes, it's obvious -new depart- ments can be created. I think it is section 19 if I'm not mistaken. But in the creation of a department where that de- partment is going to assume responsibilities that are delegated 3�► MAY 301974 by alCharter enactment to the Civil Service Board and to the Chief Examiner then it is going to likewise require Charter changes. Now 1 understand that Commissioner Gibson is in favor of that and this is encompassed in reality in his in- tent of his motion. But the issues have been skirted by Booz Allen, by the City Manager and by many people who have been involved in conversations and discussions relative to the Booz Allen report. You can call a personnel department a Human Resources Department or anything else but when you are working with the City of Miami's Charter there are cer- tain specific things that have to be identified, reckoned with and if need be, changed to proceed in an orderly fashion. I'm simply saying that there are more than just the fact that the Deputy City Managers have to be faced. You have to face the Charter with respect to section 65 of the Charter within which the Civil Service Board is created and follow- ing sections there. Reverend Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I pride myself on not double talking and not speaking in tongues. Now any objections you have based upon what you've said, if it can't be done, if it's contrary to the Charter, I of all the Commissioners, I have advocated to orderly process and I'll die with that be- cause I learned early in my life the law that works for you will work against you and I have no problem with it. With that in mind, Mr. Mayor, I call for the vote. Mrs. Gordon: Will the Clerk please repeat the motion that we're going to vote on? Mr. Southern: That we proceed to put into execution where the monies can be found to carry out the recommendation of the Booz Allen Report, that we proceed to implement the Booz Allen Report in spending that money to do it that we proceed to implement the Booz Allen Report provided funds are avail- able. Mrs. Gordon: And Father wanted something, I think where legally possible because Charter changes can predicted.... If they're needed they'll be put on and then the people will decide. included, not be the ballot Mayor Ferre: With all due respects, it seems to me that that would weaken the motion because obviously everything we do is if legally possible and as you well know it will be the City Attorney who will be drafting it and therefore he has to speak to the question of legality and eventually, Mr. Lloyd has to give us a complete legal definition of how far we can go and where we cannot go and what has to be done should the will of this Commission be to implement it in its totality where we've got to go, how and when. That means you've got to outline what goes on to the ballot and what has to be outlined for the people to decide on. I think every- body knows exactly what we're talking about... Mrs. Gordon: We're in affect doing a principle. Mayor Ferre: There isn't any question about it but I think that's what's essential. Mr. Lloyd: Yes. It's not necessary to put if legally pos- sible on that. That is inherent, understood. Sergeant Ken Harrison, Vice -President of the FOP: If I might point out some things, some of our concerns to you specifically with areas that may not require Charter changes 4 i; MAY 3 01974 • and are an obvious concern not only to the Police Department but to other employee groups through the City. Our first concern is that throughout the whole document which t have also in fact, read twice and our President has read several times, we did formulate a letter to Mr. Plummer. I don't know if you've been afforded a copy of that. We raised specific concerns in these areas. The report makes a spec- ific point of itemizing the responsibilities of the Civil Service Board and stating that the Board should be able to concentrate its energies in a primary mission to recommend policy and hear and judicate disputes. I submit to you that this is a radical change from the existing system. What this report does, it recommends taking those very powers from Civil Service that it criticizes for being there and placing them under the control of the City Manager, not a board of 5 people, gentlemen, one man. It would in affect give the City Manager the authority over, much more and an excessive amount of authority over the employees. He would have the power to perform all the functions from recruitment through dismissal and it relegates the Civil Service Board to a pos- ition merely of advising the Manager and reviewing discplin- ary actions. Mayor Ferre: Ken, he has that right right now. Am I wrong? Paul, you don't have the right to hire and fire? Mr. Andrews: Yes sir. Mr. Plummer: No. You're playing on words, Mr. Mayor. Yes, he has certain rights of hiring and firing. He holds for example, not the individual who is to be hired but whether or not there are sufficient funds to hire that individual and whether it's needed -not whether who or what the individual. He doesn't have the right to go out and say sir, you're fired without the individual having the right of Civil Service hearings and things of that normal procedure. That's what he's getting to. Mrs. Gordon: Isn't that a part that requires a Charter change? Sergeant Harrison: It definitely would have to be addressed in that area but I would like to point out some other areas. This is just one. That is one portion of that. There are areas here that will not require Charter change. One speci- fically being the recommendations of permitting a rule of three for promotional registers. In our eyes this is totally undesirable at this time. Mayor Ferre: Wait. What are you shaking your head about? Mr. Marlin: That's not a recommendation. Mayor Ferre: Then say so on the record. Mr. Matlin: We do not recommend that the City Manager be given the authority to hire and fire of the Civil Service Board's current authority in that area is not recommended to be changed in any way. What you have said sir, is fact- ually incorrect. Sergeant Harrison: Let me read, if I may interject here, if I can read to you from to you from their report on page 28. This may not be a specific recommendation but by making the motion to implement, you certainly are going to be chosing the alternatives that are provided and by not selecting those alternatives you leave that option to the City Manager 4A. MAY 3 01974 and his departttent heads, "It says sufficient flexibility must be introduced in the Miami system of managing Human Resources to attract, develop and retain most appropriately qualified personnel." An excellent statement, you couldn't disagree with that, "The following measures are illustrative of the various alternatives which exist for insuring such flexability in the system. (1) adopt rule of the register for entry level positions, increase the array and..goes on. (2) Adopt rule of three groups for promotional positions. This will increase the alternatives within which management can exercise its prerogatives while somewhat restricting sel- ection commensurate with the validity available of ranking instruments." and then it goes on with three other recom- mendations. Now what you call it gentlemen, whether it is an alternative, it is a recommendation clearly stated and listed in their report. Mrs. Gordon: It would seem to me that at some point this Commission would have to set the policy on which alternat- ive would be.... Mr. Plummer: I say to you that this Commission by what I've heard here today assuming Father's motion is going to pass, you are setting the policy today. You're implementing this in toto. Father was very clear. That's why I can't vote withthe motion. I've made my thoughts reduntantly clear. Mrs. Gordon: There are three or four alternate proposals under the same item. May I ask you, Mr. Andrews, how you would select the appropriate one? Mr. Andrews: I apologize, I was editing a resolution here.. Mrs. Gordon: All right. The question was and Mr. Plummer's objection was that in this report adopted in toto, even though it requires certain charter changes to make it legally possible there are certain portions as on page 28 which has three or four alternate proposals. How would you, Mr. Manager, select the one that you would wish or want to take place? How would this happen? Will you select it or will you come to the Commission and request the Commission's policy on it, or what? Mr. Matlin: If I might just clarify the issue, the report is quite precise in its use of the word recommendation. This is not a recommendation. It is an illustration and the things laid out here are not alternative ways of doing precisely the same thing. They are illustrations of different ways that the City can do a variety of things. So it is not a matter of here's the recommendation and do one of these three. They're not choices of one of three things. You might do all of them, you might do none of them. Mrs. Gordon: O&, but whose decision will it be? Sergeant Harrison: I have to differ to that statement. They do not even relate to that same thing. These are, one is the roll of register for entrance hiring. If that's illustrative of several alternatives why isn't there another illustration for another alternative on entrance hiring? Mayor Ferre: Let me stop this process for a moment now and turn to the Manager because the question that Commissioner Gordon is asking speaks directly to you. So will you answer it? 42 Mr, Andrews: I'M reading them, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: The question is very Clear. The question is there are in this report alternate recommendations. Now you say that they're not. Mr. Matlin: What he said is right. There are not alternate recommendations. We do not give you, they are not alternate suggestions, they're not alternate illustrations. They are separate and different things that might be done. Mayor Ferre: Are your recommendations specific and clear or'are they ambiguous? Mr. Matlin: They are specific, clear and totally unambig- uous. Mayor Ferre: Do you understand it that way, Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: Yes. For instance the first one, adopt the rule of the register for entry level positions -that's only one choice. This doesn't have anything to do with all the rest of the positions. It's the entry level of..family positions.... Mayor Ferre: Is there a contradictory recommendation that might make that ambiguous? Mr. Andrews: I don't see one. Mr. Matlin: There is no contradictory recommendation. Mrs. Gordon: May I interrupt you all to read two words in the next to the last sentence it says "various alternatives" and I don't know how you could say that doesn't relate. Al- ternatives to me means relating items. Mr. Matlin: The sentence is "Alternatives for insuring flex - ability". Now we want to insure flexability in the City's ability to attract secondly to develop and thirdly to re- tain and these alternatives relate to those separate areas. These again are illustrations not recommendations. Sgt. Harrison: And again if I may reiterate, they are one illustration in a specific area. One addresses to the in - hiring exam and offers no other alternatives so in effect it is a recommendation. Call it what you might, there are no alternatives presented by the motion that was presented here today, what you are saying as I understand it, you're telling the Manager to adopt these listed things and if you read each and everyone of them they address to a separate part of in -hiring, promoting, it even has one here that per- mits lateral entry at the bottom of that page which talks about it, but they talk about specific sections and they only offer one illustration. They don't offer alternatives to choose from. They only offer the one. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, the preceding it says various alternatives and that's what you pointed out. Sgt. Harrison: Right but there none offered. Mrs. Gordon: But there aren't any offered. Ok. Now the Manager can answer the question. How would you proceed, would you adopt them as they're outlined here on page 28 or would you seek alternatives in each of the categories, or what? 2S 43 MAY 3 01974 • Mt4 Afdtewst I probably in reviewing this would accept, and 1 don't mean to be side-stepping your question, would accept some of them and certainly give others review in terms of what the past practices have been and what future practice should be to attract the most desirable people to the City and in as far as promotability, certainly to give fiexab- ility to promotability. But I can't sit here and tell you precisely the way that each one of these areas will be handled. Mr. Plummer: Then how can you ask us to vote on and approve? That's what I'm saying. You see, maybe I'm not communicating. What I'm trying to say Paul, is how can you come to me and say to me, Mr. Commissioner put your stamp of approval when you yourself can't tell me, Paul, what is coming off to pro- vide for this(dollars) what people, what departments, what areas? Yotx're not telling me any of that. Father Gibson is making a motion right now that doesn't delegate what areas are first even going to be implemented of this program. Now I think that the people elected us to do a job. That job is to be the safeguard of their funds and their City and I think that when you give a carte blanche approval, there's no quest- ion in my mind. That's why I will vote against the motion. Reverend Gibson: JL, I'll tell you one thing. If that Grand Jury report didn't do nothing else it set this City on fire and the Manager made his position crystal clear when he had the meeting and he said, and even Mel Reese, you know a lot of us had a lot of about Mel Reese but Mel Reese came right here and said to us, I'll never forget that and that's why I put him on the record. I said Mr. Reese, are you say- ing to me that Gibson was right about that last paragraph on the Grand Jury report? Do you remember what he said? All I'm saying to you all man, I have some faith. One thing I discovered, if I demonstrate some faith in that Manager and he doesn't produce, you see, I can come back here without any prick of conscience and fire him if that's what needs to be done but if I don't give him the tools that he could ex- ecute I've got to really worry if I was fair and just by the man. Now you know, all this sweet talking, I hear you. That's fine. Now I'm going to say again, Mr. Paulk what I said. I hope everybody around here will take that motion who will vote for it, in the sense in which I offered it. I want the best for the City of Miami. That's what I want. And let me say the other thing that none of you don't know about me - I'm going to tell you now. If I discover that I've made an error I will come right back here and say I've made an error and I want to offer a motion to change. And one thing I pro- mise all of you, I'm not going to sit up here and let the Manager or nobody else mistreat or illtreat anybody that worlssfor the City. Mr. Paulk: Mr. Mayor, Sergeant Harrison has brought this page to your attention. I would just like to briefly give you some understanding as to what affect has been on these particular things. The (1), adopt rule of the register was a proposed rule change by the Civil Service Board and through consultation with the City Attorney's Office we found that we could not do this by way of the enabling statute of the State Law that permitted the Civil Service System to be creat- ed because it just isn't permissable under the state law as we understand but we did address ourselves to that in the year of '73 and we did not get a successful venture in the area of being able to accomplish this and it was not a rend- ered written opinion. Mr. Lloyd may hot be aware of it. It was through consultation with Mr. Weston. Under the adopted rule of three, we've never approached that. Under consider 44 MAY 301974 installing selective certification for appropriate position Classes such as Planner. This is done. Not only with plan- ners but with other positions. It is already available in certain types of professional positions they are set up on rule of the register. Not rule of the register perse, it's an unassembled non-competative examination and there are num- erous classifications that are filled on that basis profes- sional by nature. The training is needed. The lateral entry is also done currently. For instance, Planners III are brought in from any place in the country because of the need for it and there are other classifications that are brought in on that basis so this is not something that is already being phased and I simply want the Commission to be aware of it, that the Civil Service Board has faced some of these issues and they are being done presently and they haven't just been done since Booz Alien has made recommendations. It has been this way for years. Sgt. Harrison: If I might continue, Mr. Mayor, there is another area in the area of promotion especially for police. You're all aware of the recent court order that we are going through some changes. In this report they speak specifically of a testing procedure which initiates the usage of an oral interview board. We have an outside agency already in the City's employ that's going to make those determinations and yet some of the recommendations in here fly in face of that already. I am concerned particularly about the lateral entry thing. If we allow later entry to occur, this would in affect in relating to Mr. Gibson's comments, would in affect reduce promotional opportunities for those people, those police officers currently in the system. It could and would. What we're saying is to allow the top administrator to bring in his top aides. It in affect, closes the door to some promot- ional opportunities for those people who are already existing within the system. If you think the Grand Jury report was valid on the morale issue, I submit to you that morale is high compared to what it will be if lateral entry is allowed to occur in the Police Department. Now if I have to say this, that if we believe the Grand Jury Report gentlemen, then as Mr. Reese said here that day, this is the answer. But some of you expressed at that time some questions on validity on that. As the Chamber of Commerce asked you to do that day in relation to that report. I say gentlemen, don't rush into this. Evaluate it. There are several points in here that are going to have a demoralizing effect on the employees of this City -not just the Police Department. Do not approve it in toto. Please look at it, break it down, approve portions of it. Portions of it are excellent and needed by the City - excellent document but some are going to cause us problems. Please do not approve it in toto. Look at it, evaluate it point by point, proceed from there. Do not rash into this because of urging from whatever agency, be it a Grand Jury or other agent but please evaluate this at your leisure and take the action then. Mrs. Gordon: What harm would there be in deferring this, Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews; I think that we, the Commission, and understand- ably have deferred this now for 6 months... Mrs. Gordon: I know but things come out everytime we hear this that we didn't hear before. Mr. Andrews: I don't think that in 6 months from now condit- ions will change that you'll have the same matters before you MAY301974 again and you'll find yourselves 6 months from now in the same position. l think the Commission should make a decis- ion today one way or the other and we get on with this and begin implementing it and find out what we can legally do and what we cannot and put it into affect. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Manager, I'm asking you what about a 2 week deferment? I want to personally give this more thought. I have heard things today, pros and cons that have caused me concern. I don't want to vote yea or nay until I have had more time to think about the things I have heard today and I've heard a considerable amount of discussion which had an effect upon me. The next meeting is when? The 13th of June. If I may offer a substitute motion? I would offer a substitute motion to defer this until June 13th for action then. Mayor Ferre: All right. Is there a second to the substi- tute motion? Thereupon a motion to defer was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Reboso,Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre. NOES: Reverend Gibson ON ROLL CALL/Reverend Gibson: Mr. Mayor and members of the commission, we have had 6 months to go through this business. We've had critiques from the Civil Service, we've had Booz Alien to give theirs, we've had ours and I want to say this: We aren't going to be any different when we come back here. We aren't going to have any more enlightenment when we come back here than we have now. Now Rose, you know, I can not speak for you but I'm going to vote against the motion. I feel like we ought to make a decision. Mrs. Gordon: I appreciate that, Father. REQUEST PARTICIPATION OF STATE OF FLORIDA 6 METROPOLITAN 9. DAVE COUNTY 1N CONDEMNATION OF F.E.C. PROPERTY Mrs Gordon:..--This---was a resolution which was based upon the current condemnation suit of the FEC property next to the old port site. This resolution asks the State Department of Transportation to join with us in this condemnation suit be- cause in their report that they put out in September of '73 they designated the need to widen Biscayne Boulevard at the point where the FEC property is located and other points fur- ther north. So I would like to read the resolution into the record. I bring this to you with the sincere request that it be acted upon right away for the very specific reason being that the City will receive some financial assistance if we are successful in the condemnation and certainly this is a very important point to be considered. I so move. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just so we don't mix anything here, let me understand Rose and Mr. Mayor. What this is saying, Mr. Mayor, you proposed a swap which is... Mrs. Gordon: It has nothing to do with this. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: has not been given us the Nothing to do with it all? I second it. That has nothing to do with it. That matter finalized because the Metro Commission has not time. 4b MAY 3 01974 Mre. Gordon: That is a separate issue. Mayor Perre: If we go to condemnation and if we go are going to do this... Mrs, Gordon: We are in the condemnation process now. If we're successful we hope to have some financial relief from the State and the County. The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 74-440 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE EMINENT DOMAIN PRO- CEEDING AGAINST THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE ACQUIS- ITION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED FOR THE WIDEN- ING OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FROM A POINT BEGIN- NING AT N. E. 6TH STREET AND PROCEEDING NORTH- WARD, PROVIDED THAT THE CITY OF MIAMI IS SUC- CESSFUL IN ESTABLISHING ITS RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO CONTACT THE APPROPRI- ATE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TO PRESENT THE ABOVE REQUEST; AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE PROPER OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote -AYES: Rev. Gibson, Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. 10. EXPRESSING COMMISSION POLICY THAT PENSION COSTS BENEFITS BE CONSIDERED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Mr. Plummer: So that the record will be very very clear, I once again want to re -state my position in reference to this Board action that will be taken as soon as the City Attorney comes in with it and that is that the Labor Negotiator and the City Administrator of this City will be able and will lay all items of dollars on top of the negotiating table. That's exactly what this motion says. Now I want everybody to under- stand that. There's a lot of legal language here which I have no objection to that we because of this new direction will give them, we won't hold them tight to the August 1... That a thing that I had personally stopped before about the additional outside legal help that we will give it to them if they need it. Can I get on the record, Mr. Williams, yourself, do you represent GEA? All right sir, you have read this document? I would like you on record that you have no objection to it. Would you step up to the mike, I would also like to have a representative of Fire and Sanit- ation, Who else is here? 1 want it on the record now. Who 4'i MAY 3 01974 else is here? Mr. Powers from fire, is there anyone here representing the Fird Oepartment? You haven't seen him. Sanitation, have you seen this document? Ok. For the record, Mr. Williams, you have no objections to this document? Mr. Williams: The General Employees have no objections to this. Mr. Plummer: All right. Representing Police, Mr. Harrison? Mr. Harrison: No objections. Mr. Plummer: Sanitation? All right sir, look at it and I want you on record that you have no objections to it. Is there any other employee representatives here? 10 a. Phone Call -from Senator?Dick Pincher Mayor ?erre: While we're waiting for this, Mr. Andrews. On the record, I just got a phone call from Senator Dick Pincher. Me says that they chose another date, they called up, followed the procedure the day was penciled and now they're getting another story and he's saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I said you'd better believe it. He said they called him back after they had penciled the date in and said it was all right and they're now trying to wiggle out of it. If somebody else makes a mistake that's just too bad. You'd better find out and have somebody call Senator Pincher. (10) Mr. Plummer: Mr. Hagan, representing the Water Department sir, you have no objections to this document? Mr. Hagan: ASFME local 654, City Employees, not the Water Department. Mr. Plummer: You have no objections to this document? Mr. Hagan: No. Mr.Plummer: Representing Sanitation, your name sir? Pete Geoffrey: No lbjections. Mr. Plummer: For the record, the City Manager has no object- ions nor his labor negotiator, they are in concurrence with this document? Mr. Lanken, did you shake your head yes, sir? Mr. Lloyd: By the way, in the essence of saving time Mr. P Plummer, through the Mayor, if you wish to offer this in the form of a resolution we can prepare it later if you want to get the Commission out of here if we haven't gotten it quite finished. Mr. Plummer: (Inaudible) Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps we can get the title if you will give us just one second. Mr. Plummer( Inaudible) Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer, all parties are in agreement? Mr. Plummer: I have asked everybody here that's present and no one has any objections. 48 MAY 3 01974 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 74-441 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE POLICY OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PENSION SYSTEM AND PLAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE COMPEN- SATION PACKAGE; THAT CONSOLIDATED BARGAINING POSITIONS ON PENSION ISSUES BE FORMED WITH POLICE AND FIRE ORGANIZATIONS FORMING ONE UNIT AND ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES FORMING THE OTHER UNIT; THAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY COMMISSION'S PENSION COMMITTEE BE SUBJECT TO COLLECTIVE BAR- GAINING NEGOTIATIONS AND NO POSITION BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION UNTIL A TERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING PROCESS; THAT ACTION ON THE RECOM- MENDATIONS OF THE PENSION BOARD BE WITHHELD PENDING THE TERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING PROCESS; THAT THE ADMINISTRATION BE PROVIDED WITH FLEXI- BILITY BY RETAINING SPECIALIZED MANAGEMENT LABOR LAW SERVICES SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY AND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION NOT HOLD THE ADMIN- ISTRATION TO THE AUGUST 1ST DEADLINE FOR SETTLING ALL LABOR CONTRACTS BUT RETAINING THAT DATE AS A TARGET DATE. (Here follows body of resolution omitted here and on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote -AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Reboso, Rev. Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ADJOURNMENT: THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:43 O'CLOCK P.M. THIS DATE. ATTEST: H.D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK RALPH G. ONGIE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MAURICE A. FERRE MAYOR 4 : MAY 30 1974 CITY OF IVIAIVH DOCUMENT INDEX MEETING DATE: May 30, 1974 ITEM NO 1 2 3 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION DEDICATION CEREMONIES FOR ROBERTO CLEMENTLY PARK REQUEST DEPT. TRANSPORTATION FLORIDA STATE AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PARTICIPATION - WIDENING OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PENSION SYSTEM BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE COMMISSION ACTION M-74-439 R-74-440 R-74-441 RETRIEVAL CODE NO. 74-439 74-440 74-441