Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1974-09-19 MinutesTY OF MIAIVl SPECIAL !SS I 0 UTES OF MEETING HELD ON 8EPTEMBER 19, 1974 - BUDGET HEARING 1* PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 11. U. SOUTUURN C.i. ty Cl enk RALPH G. ONGIE .Assiet.4iut Cita Cec6;!.: MIi4UTES OF SPECIAL MELTING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 19th day 036 September, 1974, the City Commission 06 Miami, F1 oJr i.da met at its leg uta& meeting p tce at City Hat in. said City ..n SPECIAL SESSION to cons der :the phoposed apphophc.a ion ondinanee Sat the City o f Miami on. his at yeah 1974-15. The meeting was ca ted to olden. at 11: 2 5 0' C.toek A.M. with the 6ottouti.ng members od the Con n.Laa.%on pnesent: Comni.aaione& J.L. P£ummen Comm 4.ionen (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice Mayon Mano.to Reboao Mayon Mawt,ice A. Ferre ABSENT: Con 4 Loneh Roae Gordon ALSO PRESENT: P. W. Andk.ewa , City Manag en A. R. Crouch, Assistant City Manage& John S. Ltoyd, City Atonney H. V. Southern, City C.tenk Ratph G. Ongie, Assistant City C.te&k An avocation was delivered by Reverend GLbaon who then .ted those p' esent ,in a ptedge o6 a tegiance to the i.tag. Mayor Ferre: Ladies and Gentlemen, we are gathered here in a special City Commission Meeting at 11:00 O'Clock for the 1974-75 budget review. I would like to announce to the members of the public that are here, and to the press that I intend', throughout the day, we will be here for 12 hours to try to hold the time schedules as tightly as possible, because if we don't we are going to be getting into very, very serious trouble. I will announce again at 5:00 O'Clock P.M. when we start the public hearing on the Coconut Grove Zoning Study, that we will adjourn at exactly five hours after that. -- in other words , 10:00 O'Clock sharp tonight, hopefully earlier. I doubt if it will be any earlier, now, in this morning schedule we are twenty-five minutes behind. We will break around one, it might have to be alittle bit later than that, because of the half hour that we are behind, and we will try to start again as close to 2:00 O'Clock P.M. as possible. I would like to ask the cooperation of all those involved to try to keep the schedules as tight, keep your remarks down, the members of the Commission, I know we have to ask pertinent questions, let's try to keep them.as short as possible today, so we can get through with the review of the Presentations of the Departments. .---- A11 right, Mr. Andrews, -- you got the ball. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, you will recall When we started our.first day of meetings, I suggested that among the other things that we discussed that you would hear from the Departments of Police, Fire, sanitation, and the Building Department. We reviewed three of those Departments and I would like the review of the Building Department to be completed, and then I have some information to pass on to the Commission as to the current status of the budget estimate and property taxes for 1974-75 and we will be following the agenda before you. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's take up the Building Department Budget at this time. Mr.Fereneikit Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, ve requested in our budget estimate this year $1,297,145.00 to operate the Department. This would fund and support the operation of 81 men in the field. Let me correct that, not all of them in tht field, but the Administrative support and the men in the field that does the inspection. At the time we submitted the budget,.we had several vacancies in our organization and in as much as the construction program or the evaluation of construction in the community was off, -- we propose that we hold these positions( vacant and only fill them if the construction activities picks up. The City Manager propose that we eliminate them from the budget se that there are three positions less in the City Manager's recommendation. We are satisfied with this arrangement. 1 SEP 191974 There is no question that the evaluation of the building is under construction, and the City of Miatdi is off, - and on the surfai.ce it would appear that we ought to be able to operate with less people then we have been operating in the past. However, historically when this occurs construction evaluation falls off, -- people take advantage of the fact that there are available to do work, - small kinds of jobs additions, - all sort of things that goes on and rather than build new buildings they do this sort of thing and our activities as far as inspection is concerned, really tends to remain fairly level or even goes up sometimes during"these periods in our statistic back over the years will bear. this out. An outview of the department that we took these samples during the last year approximately 64% of the activity carried on by the Building Department is revenue producing activity. About 36% of the activity that we carry on in the Building Department are non - revenue producing activities. I think the revenue producing activities are self evident and we estimate that they will produce around 937 thousand dollars next year and they will cost us about 830 thousand dollars to perform those, in other words, around a little over 100 thousand dollars, it will be recognized out of these activities or non -revenue producing activities include this list of items that I have put down here and I will be glad to discuss any one of them individually that you choose to talk about, however, in the interest of time I want to --- Mayor Ferre: Do we have a copy of this in --- Mr. Ferencik! We can make one for you. -- It will cost us about 466 thousand dollars to provide these non -revenue producing services. -- The 1973-74 budget allocation is 1.2 million, Me are requesting 1.279 million dollars in this current budget that was reduced by the City Manager to 1.22, as indicated to you this is a --- we can operate on this arrangement. We analyzed our payroll and non -payroll costs in 1972-73, 960 thousand dollars payroll, 95 thousand dollars non -payroll cost. The preponderance of that non -payroll cost is in automobiles. Mayor Ferre: That does not include fringe benefits or the 10%. Mr. Ferencik; No sir. It only includes our budget as we presented. It does not include fringe benefits, 90% or better - of that non -payroll cost is in the automobiles, for example, this year we are requesting 148 thousand dollars, 100 thousand dollars in automobiles, about 20 thousand is in our demolition program which is a recoverable type of arrangement. A balance of those things we use to operate the department - electric lights, telephones, etc. We had 82 people last year. We requested 83 as I indicated,this has been cut to 78 in your budget document. We issued 29 thousand permits in 1972-73 fiscal. In 1968, we issued 32 thousand. We are estimating that we will issue around - roughly 30 thousand permits this year. Now, there is a comparison here of the number of inspections performed verses the Building evaluation for a given year. I didn't put put down for every year, - 1964-65 you will notice our Building evaluation was around 50 million and we performed 110 thousand inspections. Let me clearify that, - so that there is no question in your minds. Any operation that we do in the field including the Zoning inspectors investigation of chicken or rooster or whatever it is. -- We count as an inspection - so that is an operation. Mayor Ferre: Now, you got to be careful about the way you say that, - you mean to say the inspector determines whether it is a chick or a rooster. Mr. Ferencik: If it crows, it's a rooster: We produced316 thousand dollars worth of revenues at that time, now I don't really have all of those operating costs with me, but you would find if you evaluated the Department over the past 14 years that I have been the Director, that up until about 2 or 3 years ago the City of Miami Building Department was not a self liquidating operation. The Department Personnel at mx urging works very diligently on the idea of getting the Department in with self liquidating basis and we accomplished this - for the past several years have self liquidated in terms that we didn't cost the general fund any money. This slow down is construction particularly large buildings has adversely effected our revenue. Very large buildings produce lots of revenue and permit fees, but they don't produce much demand in terms of inspectors time, because we do require which is authorized under the code that an engineering firm be employed on a full-time basis so that we have the benefit of these reports. 2 SEP 191974 We projected in this year that we are going to earn 917 thousand dollars. Fortunately we are going to run over that. Through August we had a little over a million dollars in revenue -- I mean through July and we will be at 1.1 to 1.2 million, before the end of the fiscal year. This ie again, an estimate revenue figure that we provided for next year, estimating that 130 million dollars worth of construction will take place, now , of course, there ate a lot of variables in that. One thing for instance that happen on the plus side of that was yesterday the State removed a sewer moratorium from Municipality,so connnections can again be made to the Sanitary System. This is already within a two day period has spurred a considerable amount of activities. This is merely a comparison or -- Mayor Ferre: Some of those jobs like the one on Brickell Avenue that came -- remember that fellow that wanted to put up an office building to • leerencik:. Well, the serious error --- Mayor Ferre: They couldn't hook up to the sewers. Mr. Ferencik Yes. Now they can hook up. The serious error that exists in this -- figure here is not 230 million dollars right there in that year, --lest the evaluation that was placed on the sailboat key construction. Mayor Ferre: Is that included in the 231? How much is that? Mr. Ferencik: Yes. My recollection is that it was around 60 million. Mayor Ferre: It does makes a difference. Mr. Ferencik: Yes, it does makes a difference. We have no prmyiaion to back up and pull that out of the evaluation figures. The revenue stayed in see, but the dollar evaluation of construction came out, at least so far. Mayor Ferre: In other words if we correct that 231 to be realistic it would really be 170. Mr. Ferencik: Around 170, -175, because they permitted -- the permits costed 66 thousand dollars so they permitted 66 thousand dollars divided by $2.00 and a quarter of a square foot, that's how much that permitted in terms of the square footage. Plaza Venetia•.. A very small amount of permits is in the current revenue. If they permit Plaza Venetia in the next fiscal year, that in itself maybe making a record year and may make us pay out see. There is a lot of undpredictables. There are several other big projects that are in the mill. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. Commissioner Plummer raised some questions with me which I promised we would bring out during this discussion in reference to the revenue projective for 1973-74 which was indicated at 1 million 800 thousand dollars which does not show up on this chart, but you can see if you take the progression of income from 1971-72-73 that we had ant- icipated that there would be a like increase which would have carries us to 1 million 800 thousand dollars. Unfortunately not long after the budget was adopted with this revenue projection in it, things begain to happen in the building industry slowed it down considerable and we are not able to meet that revenue, and more accurately stated for 1973-74 it's closer to a million dollars, as you can see from the chart there- the first ten months indicates 909 and -- we will produce about 1 million 150 so we are 650 thousand dollars off in our projection. Mayor Ferre: What you are saying is that instead of ac quiring the 400 thousand dollars in revenue it might be well Mr. Andrews: Yes, it means 400 thousand dollars less in revenue to the general fund which would have to be made up from other sources of anticipated revenue. NOTE: 11:40 A.M. Mrs. Gordon arrived in the Commission meeting. Mr. Plummer: Inaudible.-- Let me tell you that what I have is acutal figures for July, cons of you are right. Mayor Ferre: You see, I tell you what,I don't know where Plummer is going to head eventually, but I think what he is implying now is that with building permits going down I can attest to that, so I see how this business is going, if we are going to 3 SEP 191974 • have in this Community by the way, this is the side issue, but we are going to have 102 unemployment in this town by the end of this year. We will be the number one unemployment in the City of Miami and it Dade Comity Ipredict we will be number one in the nation1Mempioyment the way we are going. I think you can see it and obviously it is going to affect Building and your revenue- Building permits. Mr. Andrews: Why don't you bring out the discussion with reference to what happens when major industry goes down and the small permit holders. Mayor Ferret I touched on that - perhaps -- -- Mr. Ferencik: It costs more money to administer a program of the inspection of small permits than it does to administer a program with very large permits involved. Mr. Plummer: Any time that you recommended to the administration or to this Commission that fees being charged to the these smallinspectors are no where in line. Mr. Ferencik Mr. Plummer, I don't really believe that's true. The revenue producing part of the operation which includes all of these small permits and all of the rest of that will finance itself, there is no question about. You know , if during the year construction drops off we develop vacancies from time to tiise and we just don't feel -- I have never been an administrator, I am e bad budgeter you see- because I really ask them for what I need, I don't ask them for two men if I need one. I don't% the City of Miami, but that's traditional and government you see-- the fact of the matter is, if buildings starts dropping off we can adjust to our work force from time to time we have the opportunity and we can do this, we have done it, all the tima,,if we have leas people, less jobs, we can cut back on the number of people we have, there is no problem there. I really don't believe this is going to happen nd.I don't believe that imposing an absorbent permit fee on a guy who wants to add a bathroom onto his house, or something like that, that is really warranted. Mr. Plummer: Bob, don't let it be said that now, --- that I propose that we charge an exorbitent fee.' am proposing that the fee structure as we have looked at many other areas of this city needs revising. You yourself came here just recently and proposed before this Commission that the inspection of buildings fees be increased and we agreed to it, now how long has it been since we have had a fee revision in the inspection fees. Mr. Ferencik.: About 2 years. Mr. Plummer: Ok. Do I have to tell you what has happened to the economy in the last 2 years? Mr. Ferencik: Well, Mr. Plummer, let me say this to you, the last time we tried this - see you are going to --and you might as well just say it, there is no use in hiding it, believing it isn't really going to happen. The construction issue he is going to come up here and say that they are already financing 25% of your non -revenue activities and this is just meaning that you are wanting to finance more of it with permit revenue. The increase of small permit fees tends to generate a drop in permits in that area, not an increase, because the plumber who puts replacement water heater in is already convinced that it is a good gamble to go out and put heaters in without a permit, because it costs him, let's say five or six, seven dollars to get a permit to put a water heater in, costs him twenty dollars worth of time and if he gets caught 2. out of 10 times and gets double fee he isahead of the game, see., plus the fact that now the home owner gets his water heater put in without the benefit of permit, nobody checks it to see that the installation is made properly and I can not just in the resent past, but specifically it was seven years ago Christmas Day and we hauled three people who out of an apartment who was dead from an improperly installed water heater. Mr. Plummer: I have heard that same story when we raised the revenue in the Zoning Board that we were going to just kill,people making applications, but you know we just about doubled what we were taking in, in the Zoning Board. When I found out that one of the reasons that so much of this Commission time was being taken, because the man who was being denied at the Zoning Board level, it didn't cost him ten cents more to take an appeal before this Commision, but the city's cost was just about double, now I can see back over the 2 year period very simply at lot of people who now have to pay a fee at the Zoning Board who took a denial or just letting it go at that, because when they start to figure it going to cost el SEP191974 again what they paid before, not only has it generated revenues for this city, also it has taken a lot of ridiculous ones before us out. Mr.Ferencik May I make one statement regarding that? There is about$7,000 Of that cost in there in that 466 thousand dollars that is costing us to put those signs around the city six times a month. Mr. Plummer: Why is your department doing it? Mr. ferencik.: Because there where the ordinances rests the responsibility and it costs us $7,000 a year to do that. We have then in attendance, - at 4 board meetings a month, assuming that my time is valuable, 6 counting my time at these board hearings. We have men that attended last night. The man was at the Planning Board meeting until 11:15, well, this coats us money. Mr. Plummer: Are you telling me that this city cost $7,000 to put up those signs? Mr. Ferencik : Yes sir. This is a truck, the signs, it's takes a man essentially one day, you know, and he has got to go back around and repost them, we got to file affidavits, either that or take big photographs of them. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, we all know to give better service and do the type of things that we have to do for the public, it is going to cost us more money. We want a tree ordinance, you want to save trees, I got news for you, that's going to end up costing us a 100 thousand dollars a year. Mr. Plummer: I have said that already. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to give public notices? We have to give public notices that the ---- Mr. Plummer: Well, I am going to get into that later, wait until you find out what this city paid last yeer in just newspaper advertisement as far as advertising is concerned. Mayor Ferre: The point I want to make is, let's not go around saying how much taxes we are going to lower and how we are going to do all of these things for the tax payers and end up saying we are going to give all of these extra services - going to social programs , going to a tree ordinance, put up signs, do all of these wonderful things and not expect for it to cost more money. Mr. Plummer: Well, if we didn't expect that, we wouldn't hold these hearings, we would have just adopted this budget the first day. Mr. Mayor, just let me make my comments, I am going to make them very brief, to the point, Mr. Ferenick has not convinced me. I will tell you that based on last year's figures that this Depart- ment would generate approximately 1 million 800 thousand dollars. The figures which I was given by the budget department which obviously have been revised since they gave them to me shows that this department in revenue producing is down 48%. I then calculate that we see only with a tremendous drop in the buildings traits. One secretary to the tune of a drop of 22 thousand 554 dollars which if you compare that percentage wise means that the Building Department is down in revenues 48% , but there expenses are only coming down 1.8%. Now in my type of business or any type of business, I think we have to operate that if your revenues are down 48% your expenses have got to come down 48%. Now, in no way am I thinking or hope to accomplish that we can drop the expenses of this department by 48%, but I think we have got to go a much further route than a drop of 1.8% and I have not seen any thing here that proves to me on the contrary. I can appreciate that a lot of this is not revenue producing, but I can not appreciate the fact that if the building trade is down, that the work of this department is down, you are telling me that you are taking people and putting them to doing little jobs that didn't get caught up before and you are telling me you had too many people in the beginning. I see a drop here of 5 people which surely is not represented here in the 22 thousand dollars all I am saying to you is this, that if my favorable vote is to be made on the Building Department, the expenses of that department has got to come down a lot more than 1.8% that's my comment. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, and member of the Commission, Mr. Plummer you said thing which I want to correct until we have communicated with one another, and that is, that you said the budget office revised the figure and you are talking about two figures of - three of them really, 1 million 800 thousand dollars, 925 thousand dollars that shows in the budget. The figure that has been mentioned here of the actual revenue that we will receive for this year which is 1 million 150 thousand S EP 191974 dollars and �.. Mar. Plummer: let me correct you sir, I will tell you that I was given information about the budget department reflecting a round figure of 1 million dollars. Ok, that's the round figure that t am giving you. Mr. Andrews: That's revenue for this year. Mr. Plummer: No, no, from last year coming into this year. Mr. Andrews: I don't understand sir. Mr. Plummer: From 1973-74- 1974-75. Mr. Andrews: The revenue that we are producing this year will now and is estimated with the latest figures up through the end of last month,projected for one more month is 1 million 150 thousand dollars to go with that figure. We are estimating revenue for this coming year at 925 thousand dollars. Mr. Plummer: Correct sir, half of last year's revenue, less than half.. Mr. Andrews: Let's look at that, because that's the troublesome area, admitedly in retrospect this is a poor estimate, but it was based on 1971-72 or 1 million 183 thousand dollars in revenue. 1972-73 a 210 thousand dollar growth to nearly 1 million 400 thousand dollars and we were admittely optimistic with all of these big projects on the horizon of projecting 1 million 800 thousand dollars. Shortly after that was produced we began to have the problem we were having in the total community. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews, I have no quarrel with what you are saying but what you are not saying is where the fact of the truth lies, the fact of the truth that we are talking about 700 thousand dollars in revenue that this department did not produce that it projected, we passed last years budget based on this projection. Mr. Andrews: For the year that we are in. Mr. Plummer: That is correct, which means that some roughly some 700 thousand dollars from last year had to come out of the general funds that were not anticipated to finance the remaining portion for this year. Mr. Andrews: No sir. That's where I fear the trouble is and a misunderstanding there. I didn't want to ignore Commissioner Gibson's question. Can't it wait for just a moment? Commissioner Gibson: Yes sir. Mr. Andrews: All right. You have to look at the expenditures and the expenditures in relation to the 1 million 800 thousand dollars are some 700 thousand dollars less than that. That 800 thousand dollars would have gone in support services in the general fund beyond the total cost of the Building Department. Now, that 700 or 650 thousand dollars, because the estimate is 1 million 150 is made up from several other sources and Mr. Bailey can assist me in this. It's made up from unanticipated revenues that this city would gain after the closing ordinances after the 30th of this month, and it's made up from the fact that there are savings on the budgetary side where the expenses are not needed. Our venture to say when we close out this year I am confident that the closing statement will reflect that we spent less than the total cost projected in the 1973-74 budget. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews, do you for one minute in your crystal ball see things getting any better for the next twelve months? Mr. Andrews: You mean so far as the Building activities is concerned. Mr. Plummer: That's right. Mr. Andrews: No, I think they are going to be worse and that 's why we are down to 925. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews, it is not in proportion, now you can not tell me, that with the revenue being down, the industry being down, that you can not drop more than one secretarial position, and you can not drop the expenses more than 22 thousand dollars, I am sorry, I just can't see it. SEP191974 Commissioner Gibson: Mr. Mayor, those figures are just frustrating, but let me react - once I lived in the County while we were building a rectory and I nos/ live in the City, but my mother lives at the address I use to live at. One of the things that always use to impress me about the City is that I could call the Building Department today, and certainly by tom- orrow at the most get service. When we lived in the County it took us two three, and sometimes four days to get some response, now I am saying that because, we pride ourselves on the word, "service", but that's all we have to sell to justify our existence. I don't know about the Mayor, and Reboso, but when I ran for office, my theme song was "SERVICE", and the people -- you that caught fire man, service which was in the Police Department, service in the Fire Department, then naturally --whether I believed it or not, I said it, and I want to tell you that it is proven that way, Now, I would hope and I am always for reducing, because I just tongue lashed my diocese Sunday afternoon in a meeting about this money business, but I am relished if you are going to have this service either we are going to have tD tell the people that they are going to have to pay for it or not. Another thine. I remember one of the things we went through up here lust before election. there were certain oeoole who was saving put the garbage out in the front. You remember that? As soon as that everything broke loose, very quickly as that we took the garbage back where it has always been. I hope that we are not going to Rive up service entirely or partially for the economy. I am convinced as never before I served this congregation for 29 years coming the 1st of October. _and I have never been able to get that vestry to realistic ally look at that budget until Florida Power 6 Light - dont't tell them I told you this, they start sending me all of those high bills for electricity and the people them- selves was getting them, then when I got in the vestry they started talking about the high bills, you know that we were going to put in —.. tons of electricity, then some of the very same people who didn't want to listen to me before, said Man, you know, he is telling the truth, he is right. I said all of that to say this - just maybe we need to say to the people, you know, I remember Grace Rockefeller and the rest of them, they want these services, but baby we have to pay for some of them, you know, and I think we have to be economical, but at the sae time we must serve the people and I am not opposing as Mr. Plummer is trying to say and advocate about the reducing, but I hope , we will also say to the people, don't let us reduce the services at a danger point for the sake of having the reputation we have reduced taxes, when I realize that even Big Daddy up in Washington isn't reducing them, because they sent me a bill as late as yesterday, that said, you know, Gibson, you are about 15 days late during last year sending in that Income Tax and we want you to send us $2.00 and some cents more you know what tmean. So I am not too worried about some of it, I just want to be realistic. Mr. Plummer: Father, let me just say this,' think the realistic comes between the 1 h % in reduction in the 48 in the revenue, somewhere between that. I thought I made it quite clear that there was no way that we could reduce the expenses by 48%, but I think a good compromise would be in between the 48% and the 11.4% . Mr. Reboso: I think it's too much Mayor. I don't agree with Commissioner Plummer in that aspect, because last year - this year, the Building Department has accomplished 128 thousand inspections that means about 25 hundred inspections per week, roughly 500 days, exactly 492 inspections days. The fact that the revenues is no good. I think that maybe we should take this opportunity now that we have the first rate Fire Department in the nation who have a first rate Building Department in the nation, a -- - of those inspections to avoid the collapses in building like the D.A. building a few months ago and one of the reaoos that we have not been allowed to do that is the shortest in Manpowerthat we had in the Building Department, so now I think we should take this opportunity to increase the service in this area. I don't think we should refuse the budget I think we should accept what the City Manager is recommending. Mr. Plummer: Since I was out of town, let me just ask this for the record real quick like, and when I inquired I was given assurances is that the fact that, that building was not inspected because we didn't have the Manpower or we were forbidden to go into a general or G.S.A. type --I want that for the record, because I was given reason to believe that we were not given the right tc go into a Federal Building and inspect. '7 S EP 191974 Mr. Ferenick: We, in general do not inspect other Governmental Buildings. In the cane of the Federal Government is a clear cut probabilism by Vocal agencies of any building that is owned by the Federal Government. We can't go into a downtown Post Office or the Federal Building downtown or the Biscayne Annex, we can't go into there, they won't let you do it. In leased property, the question I don't think at this point has been clearly answered, We are at the present time asking the General Services Administration , what their policy is? Mayor Ferre: We are in the middle of a budget hearing, let's go on to the budget, because Commissioner Plummer asked the question, you have answered it. The answer is that the City of Miami has no jurisdiction over Federal Buildings. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, I want to hear what Ferenick has to say. Mr. Ferenick: I want to say one thing in reference to the budget. This is 21 budgets for me through the City of Miami. You kind of put in the Director of a Department and the City Manager dort of in a odd position when you have ,these budget..hearings. You know, last year the budget that was presented to you Mr. Andrews, is very active and it wasn't his budget really, and I am going to tell you that 1 million 800 thousand dollars revenue projection wasn't mine. I never predic.ted that the Department would take 1 million 800 thousand dollars in, and now I find myself in a kind of a defensive position over this and I never predicted this, I am going to tell you that the Department didn't miss a hundred thousand dollars of what I predicated. Mr. Plummer: Well, Bob, look this is not a personal thing. This is something that I as a Commission sat here last year and approved based on the figures that was presented to me. Now, as you are well aware we as Commissioners,don't ' know who compiles the figures, ok. All I am saying is, had I known that this! projection would be a great deal less and I don't have a crystal ball, then what is in this budget or what has been in this budget. My same objections would have been last year as they are this year, now you know your one department that this city is charged with getting a dollar and ten cents for a dollar or we are criticized, and should be, all I am saying is that I think that this Commission is charged with a responsibility to the people, and that responsibility has got to be that we cut every ounce of fat, if you want to call it that, I don't like the terminology I guess maybe because I am so heavy, but its just that when you see these things.' haven't seen one thing here proffered so far of where as where we are going to cut this budget. Mayor Ferre: The Manager is going to tell us that - in item #3, which should come up in another hour. Mr. Plummer: Ok, I have made my thoughts known Mr. Mayor, I appreciate and I accept Mr. Ferenick evaluation that you shouldn't compromise or you should not compare revenues with service. I can appreciate that, but I can not appreciate that the expenses are only down I can't accept that. Mr. Andrews: Let's approach it this way, suppose that we had ignored the growth factor that was taken place there from 1969 - 70 through the time we were making up the 1973-74 budget and let's assume for a moment that we had projected that the revenue would have been 1 million 150 thou&and dollars and now we were projecting 925 thousand, then you may still have some of the same concerns, because there is a reduction there, but I think and feel that what you are equating, that you are doing it based on the 1 million 800 thousand dollars verses the 925 thousand dollars and you shouldn't use that comparison. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I am equating that more tax dollars are going to have to be pumped into this Department to run it. Your expenses are down 22 thousand, your revenues are going to be down anticipated revenues for this year approximately 1 million dollars, that million dollars is going to have come from some other source to be pumped into this Department to meet expenses. Mr. Andrews: But, the expenses are not 1 million dollars more. You are talking about the total budget. Mr. Plummer: The pint is very simply that you have dropped your expenses from last year to this year 22 thousand - correct. Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Plummer: All right, now you are anticipating 1 million dollars less in this coming year of revenue. 8 1:1' 191974 That means that less the 22 thousand -a million dollars of revenue has got to cotae from somewhere else to make up this deficit, am I right or ate l wrong? Mr. Andrews: The way you are analyzing it is to say that things remain static and there is no shifting between budgets and revenues, well it is because you are attempting to take the million dollars and the owners on the Department and then shift that, that is not the case, the budget is re -presented, re-evaluated re-distributived, -- Mr. Plummer: Where is the additional million dollars coming from to run the Building Department this month - this year? Mr. Andrews: You don't need an additional million. Mr. Plummer: A million dollars less, their anticipated revenue last year was 1 million 8, their anticipated revenue this year is 925 thousand dollars and their expenses are down to 22, which means they are going to have to make up the million dollars somewhere, that's simple. Mr. Andrews: Not the Building Department though. The Building Department requirements are 1 million 222 thousands. Mayor Ferre: We are getting confused with numbers here, we are talking about apples, oranges and bananas here and that's where all of this confusion•comes from. Let me ask you this question Bob whythey are talking about this,90% of your Departmental expenses is people. Mr. Ferencik: 95% of it. Mayor Ferre: So we are talking about people, right. You want 83 people, you had 82 people last year. How many people did you have in 1968. Mr. Ferenick: In 1968, we had 74 people, but you got to add 5 people to that because we not have this re -inspection program, which would be like we had 79 now. Mayor Ferre: Let's say we had 40 people, all right, the question to. you is, if 1968 was our top year and we have 40 people and you have 32 thousand permits and I would imagine that the correspondences inspections if you average 3 or 4 inspections to the permit it would average to this budget. I would imagine more inspections than you have in 19 --oh you had 112 thousand inspections. Mr. Ferencikt One thing you have to figure that in -- Mayor Ferre: You know what I am adding -- I am going to ask you the question, that if 1968 was the top year with 32 thousand permits and then it was 40 people, why do you need 80 people? Mr. Ferencik: You didn't do it though. It was 79 people. 74 people, so the change in those people ignoring the special inspection of buildings is very comparable. Mayor Ferre: All right,that's where I was heading originally, and then I got cut off when I understood 34 people , I couldn't believe. Mr. Ferencik: We average during that year having 69.8 people. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. All right, the point that I am trying to make, that I started out to make was that basically you have give or take the same number of people 3 or 4 people , the same number of Reople, is that right? Mr. Ferencik: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Since 1968, now 1974-75, it's 6 years, so in 6 years, basically you have the same number of people, in the meantime your inspections hav gpne up from 112 to 137 thousands, and the only reason your budget is going up, if`-yoar budget is 95Z people, the cost of people has gone up. Mr. Ferencik: That's true, everything. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, it's even worst than that because he has one less person in this budget than he had in 1969, because we have to deduct 5 people that are used in the annual inspection program that was irritated so if you want to compare the two really, it's got one less person. 9 SEP191974 Mr. Ferre: In other words, what you are saying is that you are requesting 1 million 204 for 81 people and that's 95% payroll. Six years ago, you had close to 80 people give or take and I am sure your budget at that time was Maybe half, maybe 7 or 800 thousand dollars. Mr. Ferencik:: I don't remember. Mayor Ferre: I can guarantee you that it was around that, so the only diffference between that budget and this year's is that is how much more we have to pay for the payroll 95% payroll,it's that simple. Now, for us to cut this, means that we have to get rid of people. If this budget is 95% payroll, if you cut this budget by 20%, how else ate you going to do it unless you cut payroll? t�kr. Ferencik: Short of the motor pool expense and the demolition cost that are in the Departmentthere is about less than $5,000 budgeted in the Department for the operation in terms of buying supplies and equipment and whatever it is that has to operate the Department for the year, it's about $5,000 in the budget, so yes, based with this 5% budget cut which Mr. Andrews is going to tell you about,I recommend cutting 4 positions out of the budget. Mr. Plummer: Cut them or transfer them. Mr. Ferencik: Cut them. Rev. Gibson: Ok. Let me ask this.so I can understand. If you transfer a man from right to left all you are doing is say "right has that many more people,left has that many left",but the money factor is the thing. Is that right? Mr. Plummer: Except for the fact that there are people in this budget that are being granted new positions. I think we are being faced with , what is it called?, 31 new positions for the year. 40 some new positions they are creating, roughly h million dollars worth of new positions. Rev. Gibson: is the case, Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: them? All right J.L., let me just ask this one other question? If that I want to go on another --- Do you really need it? Really need wnat? Tue one additional man. No -- those new positions that J.L. talked about,do you really need Mr. Plummer: Well Father, this particularly man is showing in his budget(Bob Ferencik) in his particularly budget is showing three less men, now I don't know whether that takes in consideration Bob, the thing that this Commission passed about the tree ordinance and about the man in your office. I am assuming that will be a new position. Mr. Ferencik: That doesn't account for that. Mr. Plummer: I am only talking about in his budget, he has shown a decrease of two positions. Mayor Ferre: Yes, in the book, but not in this one, because he shows 83. Mr. Ferencik: Well, this is my request. That request includes the 81 positions that shows in your book, plus we submitted a expanded work program budget for the other two positions where - which were directly related to this tree ordinance or this environmental control ordinance. Mayor Ferre: How are you going handle, I assume the tree ordinance if you are going to really implement it, it's going to take a lot of effort and man hours, how are you going to deal with three less people? Mr. Ferencik: We can't. Mayor Ferre: That's what I am saying, we have got to face the reality. EVERY ONE SPEAKING AT ONE TIME. Mr. Plummer: That's what t tried to bring out the other day. We are going to try it, we said on a six month program, but let me tell you something, if this Commission for one minute thinks its going to cut out a program, that its instituted I never seen it in Municipal operation. Rev. Gibson: Then you suggest that we don't put it in there, iu S EP 191974 Mr. Plummer: Father, I thought about it the other day and I tried to raise the questions the other day in a private conversation with Mr. Feren:cik and I don't Kean to badger him in public, but we were discussion to be realistic, how many people is it going to take to properly enforce the police, that tree ordinance, and Bob told me conceititable tha: it could take up to six people. Six people represent in my estimation somewhere 80 to 90 thousand dollars. Rev► Gibson: Ok J.L., let me ask this, the people have an opportunity to speag, for this budget, don't they Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: Yes sir. Rev. Gibson: Ok, I think it's fair when they come here to speak for this budget they want they want the tree ordinance, and you know all this other business. I think we need to reason with them. Mr. Plummer: Father, you are kidding yourself, let me tell you the reason why, this is the fourth budget that I have sit on. We have set aside certain delegated hours for public to come down and voice their opinions about this budget and 1 am going to tell you right quick like that I can only remember one year, one man, and I will call him by name, Marty Fine came down here and voiced any objections about the budget. You might also recall that when this, if you want to use the tree ordinance, the example, when this was proposed, it was proposed basically by three people to this Commission, but remember the expenses are going to every tax payer. Mrs. Gordon: I have a question. Mr. Ferenick maybe you can answer it, but if this City of Miami Commission adopts a new Coconut Grove ordinance wh..ch includes the Historical Areas as will be delineated . Will those same persons who will be, less say supervising the inspection of Historical Sites, etc, also be able to handle the tree ordinances, can't that be the same personnel doing both jobs? Mr. Ferenick: Sure they can. As a matter of fact the two tends together. The people that Commission Plummer's referring to is a comprehensive ordinance and I am going to tell you the one that's going to the heat if things don't go right, if we don't have somebody with the right .expertisethen, available to us, the whole thing, you know, is going to really fail. I recognize as well as anybody else that our work load activity as far as the construction is going down and our discussions of this with the Manager, we have agreed to re -align some of our people and he is going to make available hopefully, some funds from another source, so that we can get a man on the proper expertise to handle this program. When they first passed the tree ordinance a number of years back, Father Graham was on the Commission at that time, and we agreed to undertake this thing without any expertise now we have had four or five years experience with this program. If you don't have somebody involved in it that knows what they are doing, you know I don't know that much about it, bushes and trees. I can tell pine trees from palm trees and that's about it. The people that we have, we have one man that absolutely amazes me on how much he has learned about growing things in the past four or five years, and he is our landscaping inspector, and of course we hope to get him into this program and advance from there, but we are not going to be able to handle a load on landscaping that we handle now, or plus this new program. Of course the new program is somewhat, I don't know what they are going to do, and I don't know what you are going to do in terms of creating these environ- mental insensitive areas or whatever you want to call them. I don't know what you ere going to do, if you create a wL.ole bunch of these areas it going to create a big problem. Mr. Plummer: You better believe it. That's the thing I keep yelling. Mrs. Grodon: I want to find out if a floating squad, so to speak, which would service the tree ordinance, the Historical Preservation Areas and posssibly some of the needs of the parks department might not be a conservative way of getting personnel to serve a multiple need and have you already done this Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: We are considering it; the individual that Mr. Ferencik is talking about that would need to be hired by the city who would have the confidence provided in the special programs and accounts budget at $25,000 and listed as environmental protection and was placed there purposely and not in the Department budget so that we could discuss that as a separate matter, but let me assiat the commiesion in something so that we can come to a conclusion as to your policy decision in reference to this matter, and that is I would like for you to consider the Building Department for a moment without earning any revenue and its renders a level of service to this community as does the Police Department and the Fire Department which collects very little or hardly any revenues. They are an organization as other departments render service, now the first question that you want to ask yourself before you talk about revenue is do you want to maintain a level of service that we have been rendering 11 SEP 1.91974 over the past several years. Do we want to maintain it knowing all of the other things that we are attempting to add to the Department to carry out their activ- itie*? Then when you come to a conclusion on it, then let's look at the revenue aide. When I presented the budget to you originally t nresented a budget which required no tax increase upon existing properties. We are going to go frog that to a new level when I present some more information and that's all funded in here. irrespective about the Building pepattment earns as far as revenue is concerned. You have a balance situation here so rather than get into a lengthy discussion on what the revenues are going to be , because they are going to be what they will be whether we estimate them poorly or estimate them well, so I think the thing is you should concentrate on it this moment is the level of services. You want to maintain the level of services, if you don't maintain the same level of services then we are going to have to reduce the level of services to the public 95% of this budget is made up of people. We are going to have to eliminate people from their budget, when we do so , something is got to give somewhere. Mrs. Gordon: Is this budget reflects the restructured fee schedule for the re -inspec- tions? It does reflect that. Mr. Andrew*: Well, here is - but the way I am going to present it is a little different again. That's'the reason he is projecting a little higher revenue and why I am staying to the 925, so that we have a base understanding. I will be discussing that in a few minutes when Mr. Ferenick is finished. Mr. Plummer: Ferentdk what's the normal increasing of your department at the end of the year? Mr. Ferentikt Very low. In other words, it's the lowest in the city as a general rule. However, this is Starting to catch up with us, because a lot of employees are getting older you know, and I would anticipate the next year that we will have several more people retiring. Mayor Ferre: I think we have been on this now, for about an other questions about the Building Department budget? Mr. Plummer: Are you going to take every department as what day and save them for a later time, if you drop --? Mayor Ferre: You are not through, you are not off the hook. put you back in the water for a while. hour. Are there any I understood the other We are just going to Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, before I go on for my presentation to the Commision on this next subject which was a review of the current status of the budget estimate of the property taxes. Can you make some arrangements as to what you would like to do about dinner and if you would like to have it here, I can make the arrangements now, we are going to have lunch. Mayor Ferre: I would 'AIIlr3ghE?ntu f s move hearing. Mr. Andrews, recommend that we do that, because if we break for dinner we ahead. Listen orgetltitat�dinner, let'sJustbget on wlthqtds you got this in writing also that we --- Mr. Andrews: Yes, I have these charts here and we are distributing one at a time as we put the charts up so that you can make your notes and carry this information away with you. In funding this budget we had a particular difficult problem to overcome as far as this pension, social security, and group insurance budget was concerned, and the main area of concern was the pension budget which increased some 21 million dollars over the prior year which is a substantial increase -- The Commission is very acquainted with the reasons for thatse have gotten the actuary reports and the matters that lies behind that which cost the increase, since the adoption or since the submission of the Manager's budget estimate -of the Commission, we received the year end actuary report which indicated that another 460 thousand dollars required in the pension fund to completely fund the requirements as calculated by our actuary consultants. Now, this is an addition to what was already provided in the budget, also social security , we finally received information about a week ago, on September 4th is when I received a memorandum for Mt. Bailey who had gotten official word a few days earlier that we would require $60,000 to fund our social security budget, $60,000 more than we had anticipated, because the annual earning based its increase is from 13,200 to 14,100 a 900 dollar increase, in other words, people who earn up to $14,100 now will be covered under social security where it was $13,200, this will go into effect on January 1st., social security. Pension goes into effect immediately it is either today not on October lst. SEP 1.91974 • The group insurance plan, we had presented the City Commission with a budget plan of 1 million, nearly 400 thousand dollars or 500 thousand dollars and we have recently received a premium credit of 300 thousand dollars indicating that our experience within the city as far as our Group Hospitalization is concerned would have required for the current year 300 thousand dollars less than was anticipated. We are recommending that the budget that is supplied to you_for the basic group insurance, not the 350 thousand dollars of expanded program,being reduced by 182 thousand dollars for the coming year, we feel that it is going to be that much less requirement,but then when we add on the insurance expanded program it will cost an additional 350 thousand dollars so that provided in the budget, now those figures then in the far side to your right at the end of the chart indicates that there is 337 thousand dollars more funding that's needed for this area of the budget then we had original planned in the budget esiimate, and what we proposed to do and what Mr. Bailey has advised me can be done. Two things have occurred - 1. This estimate of 400 thousand dollarsaas far as the fund balance is concerned was given to us in about June and Mr. Bailey now indicates that this can be increased by 30 some thousand dollars as far as the basic fund balance and in addition to that the 300 thousand dollars that we have received in credit will be added to the fund balance, because it's coming back to us as a credit this year and will be carried over into next year's operation so therefore with that added in , we can offset this requirement through this funding process. Mr. Plummer: And still come up with the same final figures. Mr. Andrews: Same final figures. Remember now, this has increased in terms of pension and social security so we are overcoming that increase with these adjust- ments. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews, let me ask a question that I raised before, in reference to the expenses of the pension being transferred over to the pension itself, if you speak for that. Mr. Andrews: Yes, I think that was an excellent suggestion and one that I recommend that we follow. In other words, if you turn to your budget document and Mr. Plummer I will stay here if you can find the page and then announce it. to the pension budget itself I think it's 89 or if you look at that you will see that there are some 448 thou.sand.I Jon't have the figure before me I am going by memory so I might be off some. 448 thousand dollars in expenses of various kinds and the cost of administrating the entire 71 million dollar pension, what Commissioner Plummer is suggesting is that we do not provide for that expense coming out of the tax side of the support of that budget, but we transfer that expense to the earnings from the trust fund, now it in one sense,taking money out of one spocket and putting it in the other, but its a better accounting procedure ,and it may have benefits as the years roll long and our pension systems begins to produce the kind of years that we anticipate it will through the trust fund. For this year if we do this and I recommend that we do it that we not show that budget as it before you with expenses showing that expense would be attributed to the trust, but that we add the 448 thousand or whatever the figure is in the terms of contrbition to the trust fund this year so that we are in balance, but we will have established a new procedure of operating the pension fund . Mr. Bailey has reviewed this, he sees no objection to it. The actuary has reveiwed it they see no objection to it and it will have some benefits as the years roll along in operating that way. Mr. Plummer: What I am getting at is that then will really take the Administration from under you and put it as an independent self substaining body. Mr. Andrews: Yes, thatis thelangrange object. Any other questions in this area? All right, I will --- Rev. Gibson: Since you are talking about pensions, I want to ask you a question. Maybe this isn't the place to ask you but never the less I will ask. One of the things that really bothered me last year, year before, it's going to bother me this year. You know sooner or later we are going to see those senior citizens come down here with their hat in their hand. You remember that experience? Maybe my problem is that my mother is yet alive, and I am going to through it. I think it's degrading and demeaning. Mr. Andrews: I recognized what the Commission went through last year, it was with reference to the 1% and I was confident that the Commission would approach this budget process with the last kind of problem it experienced last year and the same request made and the Commission would attempt to find a way to solve that. Provided in this budget is the 1% cost of living increase that the retirees have requested of the Commission, it is there and if we follow through with the budget 1•. SEP191974 st as presented here they will be granted a 1% cost of living increase. Rev. Gibson: 1 just want to make sure because t made a commitment. Everything also got to my very guts to see those Senior Citizens come in. Mr. Andrews: This next chart distribute the next chart in. I would like to discuss another subject before we get into more areas in the budget and that is the Federal Revenue Sharing so that we can set aside the requests of the Comd:ission as far as shifting from operating of expenses and you will note that the top portion of the chart - you will identify three items there of the four that we talked about last week and one that we have added which is expansion of school officer program. We are taking the 100 thousand dollars that's budgeted because we find that most of the money that was budgeted last year is still available and we will use those funds to carry out the total program and these funds can be utilized in a different way that will lessen the impact upon the general fund and we will be able to reduce the total requirements by that 100 thousand dollars, so the total adjustment area then is 1 million 468 thousand dollars where we are shifting those functionsback to the general fund budget and in place of those, we have substituted more suitable items over which we can maintain control and in the event to follow Commissioner Plummer's concern particularly, if by the stroke of the Presidentspen the revenue sharing were to end. I don't think it would end before this trust fund is completed, but if it is not carri.nd forth then we would be in a better position to do some adjusting with the moneys that we have shifted back over to the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in place of those items that were there and that the Fire Rescue Unit Police Expansion Program and reduced the salary portion by 688 thousand dollars brings it down to a little than 2 million dollars requirement, now the compositions of the funds transferred then are Sanitation 1 million dollars and if there are any questions on that I will answer that , we've talked about that before. The capital items, which we talked about before, the school officer ,resource officer program and salaries now are at 196612 and new items that are added in of 1 million 468 are all listed down below here and I will go through them if you wish. The special community programs. Bayfront Park Concerts, that's one. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews, what you are saying Is that these are 1 million 468, 235 is money that is being transferred from Federal Revenue Sharing to the general fund. Am I heading in the direction of that? Mr. Andrews: Well, I don't want you to lose the sense of what we are doing. This got so complicated it took all this half a morning to figure out what we were doing and we had confusion among ourselves until we got this straighten out. What we are doing is that we are not changing the amount of money that the general fund will receive from Federal Revenue Sharing that remains the same. What we are doing is taking items that were program in there that Commissioner Plummer and the rest of the Commissioners concerned with were items that would be difficult to cut off and say where are we going to find the money for the resuce unit, we have taken those kinds of items and put them back into the budget, we have taken other things out of the budget, sucti as commodities and other matters and transferred them over to the Revenue Sharing Funds and that's all we really done here. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute Paul, that doesn't --- for example, item in item A-3 you show a hundred thousand from this school resource and in B. you show 300 thousand for school resource officers now I thought that it was agreed at this last meeting that the School Board had agreed to put in a hundred thousand dollars and we were going to request more. I don't see any reduction there of at least 100 thousand dollars. Mayor Ferre: May I interrupt you. What he is saying is out of the 5 million 600 thousand dollars that we have available Federal Revenue Sharing, he is taking out of there 1 million 468 thousand and replacing it, and of that 400 thousand total 100 is coming from the general budget and 300 is coming from the Federal Revenue Sharing. Is that right? Mr. Andrews: Yes, you are correct and he's correct too, but there are two different subjects and I want to treat them very carefully. We will recall in the yellow pages of that budget that an ambition to establish a 500 thousand dollars school program and 400 thousand dollars had been budgeted in this current year and 400 thousand dollars in the coming year , we had hoped that there would be sufficient money put in by the school board that we would have 500 thousand dollars program and still be able to produce our requirement out of the 400 thousand dollars, if they had granted 250 thousands we each would have put in 250 thousand dollars and would have a program that was 100 thousand dollars more than the current year and projected 1974-75 year. 14 SEP 191974 Mr. Plummer: I congrata1att.you on the salary. Mrs . Andrews: Ok. '!Mayor Fette: To put it in it's sitnpltst content Mr. Andrews so that we don't end up getting confused here. What in effect are you doing here is that you ere. vou_got money on your left pocket and morey in your right pocket, and you took out a few bills from your left pocket and put it in your right pocket. Mr. Andrews: And when you did that each piece paper had a little piece of paper clipped to it and one said Fire Rescue and something don't come out of these over here so when you switch them you have tags on them. Mayor Ferre: So that next year if we stick our hands in our pockets and don't find those Federal dollars, then we will have to look at the paper clips with the notes and see how we put money to them, and that will'be Fire Department 181 thousands , Police Department 289 thousand. Mr. Andrews: All right this is what the 7 million 760 thousand dollars in Federal Revenue Sharing Funds will look like and we are passing out a chart so that you will look at it.and make notes on it. We still have expandedthe recreation program for 200 thousand, mechanization for 100 thousand. Mayor Ferre: The recreational program, is that the one we are carrying forward? Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mayor Ferre: How much are we carrying forward in addition to that" Mr. Andrews: How much more? We are carrying the same amount I believe that we carried last year. Correct me now, if I am wrong. It was 200 thousand dollars. This is the expanded. Recreation Program , you remember that was instituted last year with Federal Revenue Sharing Funds so that we could open up the parks, Saturdays and Sundays at odd hours;add the rest of the personnel that were needed to expand the services that we were providing the public that was 200 thousand dollars last year. We are carrying that forward again this year, if we get into trouble as far as Federal Revenue Sharing Funds that's an area then, that the Commission would have to consider as far as the rendering of services. All right, the next one is, Mechanization which is the continued purchase of equipment. State boxing has been added in as a one time item in this budget because it will occur once. Mayor Ferre: Is that the one that goes to the Coconut Grove Care? Mr. Andrews: Well, I have forgotten who the -- I think Coconut Grove Care is the sponsor. The next one is the Police Recruitment Examinations that 's one time expense in order to set up all those examinations. Mayor Ferre: Is that what we are using in the University of Chicago? Mr. Andrews: Yes. The next one is the call -in service which we instituted in this year's budget which is now going on and working successfully and would be continued this is Sanitation Call -In Service, where we have the fleet of white trucks and special service. Motor pool replacement. Mayor Ferre: Does that include the six white trucks that we have? Mr. Andrews: Yes. There was slightly more than that budgeted in this year's budget for the purchase of those. We won't be repurchasing this is mainly for operations now until we have to replace. Motor pool replacement.that's vehicles. Streetlighting the same as last year. So that's a sub total of 2 million 160 thousand and then the 5 million 600 thousand dollars that's listed in a separate grouping which I presented to you once before and then new items added on and that's the Sanitation Incinerator 1 million dollars . Any questions on that so you understand what we are doing! Mrs. Gordon: Before you leave the street lighting sir, any surplus left from last year's allocation? Mr. Andrews: Yes, I would have to go to the budget to remember what it is. See if you can find it and announce it.It's -- 15 SEP 191974 Mr. Plumber: Paul ti *bete in this is the Day Care Programs, is that figure above the 7 million 7? Mr. Andrews: No, the bay Care Programs, you will recall that the moneys that was set up was set up for Capital Improvements and Operations . The Capital Improvements had to come first, then they were budgeted in this year's budget, because we were getting the program initiated in October for Day Care, part of this month and the first days of October and frail elderly probably will follow hopefully at the latter part of October. There is sufficient money in the Federal Revenue Sharing funds in this year's budget to be carried over to carry us through the whole year. so they don't show up here. Mrs. Gordon: What about the after school care program that we initiated together with the Board of Education? Mr. Andrews: Well, someone help me out. I have lost track of how we funded that, now is that a carry over or -- ? Mrs. Gordon: Why don't we have a total analysis of the total amount of money that have come in? Mr. Andrews: Well We can do that. Mrs. Gordon: Well, we need that. This is only a partial and it's inconclusive., and leaves too much to the inagination. Mr. Andrews: Well what I am trying to do is confine what we are doing with the funds that we got for the program this year at this time. Mayor Ferre: Paul, you are right in what you are attempting to do, and I understand what you are doing and I see the logic of it, however in the long run it will create more confusion than what you are trying to avoid. You are trying to avoid rightfully so, giving us so much information that we get apples and oranges, lemons, bananas, pears; peaches all together, then we start getting confused. Now. what I am saying to you is to limit it - to just the oranges; there are going to he questions that are going to be popping up throughout this conversation;where are the pears, where are the apples, that we talked about last year. Mr. Andrews: In fact, there is another complication in that same area which will supply you separately and that's the grain funds now that we are receiving through the state which you assisted in achieving and that has to be added to it, to make it fully understood as to what the total program is about. Mrs. Gordon: Paul , we really can understand that we would like to have and it would be a service that if we understand it and have it, so we can have it to supply to the people who question us on it. Mr. Andrews: What you would have to do in that case in which I was very reluctant- ly to do is that you would take any one of these projects and you would put the different funding sources with the different amounts on it and the total program and describe it and we can do that. Mrs. Gordon: Ok. Mayor Ferre: And if you do that, do you know where you are going to end up getting all confused is when it's not going to square with the budget. One to one side you say that the budget is so much but it really isn't , because you are not counting this and this, but you got to do it anyway,Paul. Mr. Andrews: I understand. Believe me I did not want to do it here, because we would never finish the budget hearing. Mrs. Gordon: in other words, your total Federal Revenue Sharing exceeds 7760. Mr. Andrews: Yes, 8 million 800 thousand. Mayor Ferre: 8 million more if you include the carry over. Mr. Andrews: Well, that's right, but what we are talking about is budgeting money. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but that's not what Rose is talking about and that's not , SEP 191974 what eventually when somebody asks her well how about the those Senior Programs or how about Day Care And you see, you have got to be careful, now 1 know you are taking a chance and confusing everything, but you have got to say we've got 7 Million 766 here and there is another million 500 thousand in this and that add the carry over from last yearare 2 million so much. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews: programs and then you can That's not very difficult to understand , it's very simple. No, but when you do it during the budget process to try to take try bb explain their funding which are from one year to the next, Mrs. Gordon: That's ok, just explain the program this much from this year's funding and this much being carried over from last year that's all. Mayor Ferre: See what she is asking you to do is decline it on the program basics and forget the fact that it will not square off with the budget, because it won't obviously. Mr. Andrews: You have to be careful in that you don't get that confused with the budget, because you are not appropriating those funds, they have already been appropriated for that purpose -- Mrs. Gordon: Trust us, we have enough intelligence. Mayor Ferre: No, it isn't a question of intelligence, it's budgetary knowledge. It isn't that easy to do, believe me. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask this question real quick like, the difference between the 8 million 8 is that we are oing to get 7 million 7, are you then saying the 1 million 1 are going for Sociai. Services? Mr. Andrews: That's right, and that's one of the first items in your book here and I can give the City Commission a brief report on that if you wish, because I will be presenting that to you separately for consideration. You can go ahead with all your actions including the appropriations of funds and set that aside. There are 36 requests totaling 5 million 500 thousand dollars of requests and we have a million 96 thousand dollars of which 85 thousand has already been committed by the Commissiop; in round figures we got 1 million dollars for funding 5 million 500 thousand dollars for the requests. a question of Mrs. Gordon: Where did we get that information from? Mr. Andrews: You do not have that and I am not supplying you that information right now. I am supplying that to you at a later date and you will hold separate hearings on that after you have adopted this budget. Mrs. Gordon: I believe that we need to consider it before we adopt the budget or at the same time. Mr. Andrews: Well, then the Commission had better make up it's mind right now , it's going to adopt as a policy that's it's going to have more Social Services programs than is provided for in this budget, because this is all balanced out as far as the total budget is concerned. Mrs. Gordon: We don't even know what requests you have received or what makes up that 5 million, now I think that we are entitled and we should know before we adopt the budget, whether or not we feel those items supersedes some of these other items in priority and this is the reason why I don't believe we should adopt the budget and then consider what you have left over, let's see what you have to start with. Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon, I can tell you by doing that we are going to create a problem I don't think the Commission is going to overcome.You are depending on the Dade County, United Fund, and the City Manager of Dade County, Pally of United Fund, and myself to come up with some logic to this system as far as what should be funded from the funds you hav . If you leave the funds door open to consideration, you are going to have people assing this process and coming before the Commission to exercise their --- Mrs. Gordon; Are you telling me that 4 million of that 5 million was discounted by that United Way and the County. Well, if that's case it's not up for consideration at all. 11 S E P 191974 Mr. Andrews: We not discounted , we are trying to pick outthe most iidportatnt things that can be atcoinpiiehed with the 1 million dollars. • Mrs. Gordon: All right, let me get right back. May I please see a copy of the request and your recommendations for the use of the million 1. Mr. Andrews: I don't have those ready yet, and -- Mrs. Gordon: Will it ready today? Mr. Andrews: No mama. At least a week. Mrs. Gordon: I am not adopting anything until I see that. Mr. Andrews: At least a week. Mr. Plummer: Let me stop right here Mr. Mayor, because I get stopped a hundred times a day and ask one question. Paul I have feared all the way along this is not going to be adopted by the first day of October. Well you know, I know it, you know it, but we don't want to admit it maybe, that's what the problem is, but Paul I am going to tell you something and I am going on record for one year that I have set here in this budget hearing, we have had a problem with the employees and their salaries, as it relates to thhm getting their raises on the 1st day of October, now if this budget is going to be held up for any reason beyond the 1s day of October, I am going on record for one that it's going to be retroactive to the 1st day of October. My wish is that we can give our commitment to the employees that whatever your negotations are they are starting the 1st day o$ October. Mr. Andrews: I gave the city an approach to use in the event that you go into October which we have used before when we have gone as far as October 6th, was one time I remember that it occurred and their is a way of doing that; those conditions are made retroactive the 1st of October. Mr. Plummer: Well, what I am getting at is , you know, the employees say, the last two years, well, what they don't take into consideration, we didn't have any control last year, it was a Federal Wage Board that threw the monkey into the ice water. A11 I am saying is, that I am committed that whatever the negotations have brought forth is the increase of salary to these employees, if it's not given to them on the 1st day of October, that I for one am going to fight to make sure that it's retroactive. I hope that it doesn't have to happen. Mr. Andrews: There is no reason why it shouldn't have to be. I am not recommend- ing anything other than that. "COMMENTS FROM BACKGROUND" Well, I have a schedule to present to youlater that on an accelerated basis everything falling in place, the Commission being completely in agreement thereis no way to finish this until October 3rd.All right continue on then the Sanitation Incinerator, are there any question in referenceto that? Capital Items, School Resources, Salary Adjustments, you see it now, it's below 2 million dollars, Bayfront Park Concert, and now we pick up the commodities and I have indicated to the Commission , first budget hearing that Mr. Jones in the Dept. of Sanitation has particular problems, that we have to find some way of solving, as time moves along, that's the 300 thousand dollars for stand-by labor, we put it in here hoping that we will be able to eliminate coming year that is , 1975-76 budget year so it will be a one time expense because we are so fearful that those people who would come to work for the city on short duration then would receive unemployment compensation as a result of 3 or 4 weeks of work with the city then become a 6 month's burden, so we have to find a way of overcoming that. Ok, now, that the next matter, I want to discuss is this last chart. Before I discuss this last chart, I want to bring to the Commission's attention, and I will distribute copies of this. There have been a series of notices in the newspaper, maybe I should just distribute this so you can look at it. Notice of tax increase by Metro. Notice of tax increase by the City of NorthBay Village, Notice of tax increase by Miami Beach,Notice of tax increase by Bay Harbour Village, Notice of tax increase by the Town of Golden Beach, and not all of them have appeared in the paper yet, there is South Miami, Homestead,which there was an article in the paper a day or so ago in which, they were proposing to increase their property taxes by 1 dollar per thousand, that's one mill increase, and I have made up on ithe presumption that wheal finish with this chart and the final actions to the Commission ybu will still- I hope that you will Bxoceed on.the basis that we do not need to go into each department anlbegan applying some per- centage or try to find some way of reducingthese departments budgets to tear down 18 SEP 191974 the total cost of government in a way that would reduce the taxes so that we are required to meet the certified tillage we are gettilg close in what 1 am going to present, but 1 would prefer that the Commission go the route of - ,. Mayor Ferre: What is the certified tillage? Mr. Andrews: The certified tillage is 8387 and this chart would bring it down and I will go over each one of these items.875 and I want to point out when I finish with the chart that we will have reduced property taxes on existing properties in the City of Miami by 50C per thousand. Mayor Ferre: The certified as I understand it Let me ask you this Paul so I understand this, the way the Counties certifies the tillage they take the increase on the evaluation less --they work back on our basewhat the millage should be in case they keep the tax in the state, is that the way -- comes about? How do you justify your statement that it can go up to 50 mills? or .50 and yet the taxes still down. Mr. Andrews: It is down, I didn't say up, but what we art doing is --- let's start off with one thing Mr. Mayor,Members of the Commission, when a taxpayer gets -his bill and he looks at that bill he is not concerned whether you have a millages or 1 tillage, he looks at that bill and he says how much tax did I pay last year and how much taxes am I paying this year?, and we have approached this whole process in that base, it doesn't make any difference whether he has got one tillage for street lighting , one tillage for publicity, one millage for operating and another millage for debt service, that's only because the law is enforcing us to present this in a certain wayand what I am trying to tell the Commission is that with the presentation of this information on this chart, we will be reducing taxes in the City of Miami by law because operating tillages of is up and we are going to have to put a notice in the paper that says: There is a tax increase and so I designed for the Commission a total advertisement separat- ing two boxes which says: The City of Miami Proposes to„ Reduce vc,nr prnnerty Taxes" the notice below is required by state law and deals with onlya portion of the cities total taxes, it is proposed to reduce taxes in the City of Miami,Florida for fiscal year 1974-75. Mayor Ferre: Now, you got to be careful now we don't get accused of being ambitious , know Metropolitan Dade County has put back;advise that the taxes are going up and it's been in the paper. Miami Beach has done it, and I think I have seen Coral Gables, I have seen about 3 or 4 of them, I have been clipping them out and sending them to you. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews, - Mr. Andrews: Yes, you have to read what it says in their notices very carefully it says the Board of County Commissioners as a governing body of Miami Lakes Special Benefit District. Metropolitan Dade County Library Fund and Unincorporated Municipal Service Area Police Protection Fund imposes to increase you property taxes, see that's restricted to only a small portion of the -- Mrs. Gordon: I have a question Mr. Andrews that I want an answer to ,and I know that you have been able to come up with this approach because of the amount of revenue that our moneys that were produced from the sale of bonds, have produced on short term investments., and that is the reason why you have been able to juggle the figures the way you have to show a reduction of total millage to the people, now my question is that is not a sum of money that will reamin static you or us will have to be spending this money as we are moving along in the expanding of our parks people program.T.herefore the continuation of the production of revenue from this source is going to steadly decrease. Have you taken that into consideration in this budgeting? Mr. Andrews: Yes ma'am and I can assure you that not only will this condition occur in the year that you are cpnsidering,it will occur in the following year and partially in the year after that. Mrs. Gordon: You mean the decline in the revenue produced by these moneys that are suddenly being reduced because of being used. Mr. Plummer: What is going to happen to that service on the Police 20 million dollars bond? What I am saying is that we are going to sell, it looks like the best part of that 20 million dollar package this year and that's going to set up and increase debt service , is that correct? The point that Rose just spoke about , is we are going to have a decrease debt service in the bonds of the 1 SEP 191974 parka bond. Nov, we are looking conceiv blelyat this 2.295 next year is going to be a great deal more than what rJi this year. Mt. Andreae: Well, how many bonds did we sell this past year that caused the 350 thousand dollars increase Mr. Bailey this first year, because we have an increase of 250 thousand dollars in debt services from 10 million something to 101 milliont Pardon me, 12 million dollars in bonds we sold during the past year. Mrs. Gordon: We are making a net profit now Maurice and that's what I am concerned with, you know that's if we use this money the profit is not going to be there. Mr. Andrews: We are taking that into consideration if not for this budget that you ate considering but for three budgets. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you know what we are doing with the profits. Mrs. Gordon: Reducing the total millage. Mayor Ferre: No* Iatr6ergovcit8inkhisdew tate paying with yesterdays low percentage money borrowed. Good debt as I see it--- with bad debt. In other words we are paying let's say, maybe we are paying off a million dollars worth of debt in addition to what we need to pay because of this--- money we have 42 , 3h%, 5% money, on the other hand we are turning around and we are borrowing money; we are having to pay 71/2%, 8%,or whatever it is we are going to have to pay for it unless it is bond mortgage. What will we have to pay for money today, Mr. Bailey if we went out to the market today? Mr. Bailey: I would judge it would be in the Nation of 22 higher than when we sold last February, I would say around 6h or little better percent. Mrs. Gordon: What is the legal limit , Mr. Bailey? Mr. Bailey: 71%. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey, I am sure you are familiar with the bond issue that was withdrawn by Con Edison for 400 million dollars, what did that come in ut? Mr. Bailey: They withdrew it, but some of the - or about the same nature as gone over 112. Mr. Plummer: 112, ok. Mr. Andrews: All right, with reference to this chart, let me explain what we have here and how we arrived at a millage of 11170. The total millage required now if we consider and tax base erosion. I keep using that word in reference to it, I guess it is a good word. Erosion would require that we provide 500 thousand dollars, 498 thousand dollars as'a cushion against that, if we do that 11.672 mills would be required, if we eliminate that consideration which we did last year we didn't provide for it was absorbed in city total budget and it amount to 660 thousand dollars, is that the correct figure Mr. Bailey? 660 thousand dollars that was absorbed so I am saying to the Commission that we consider using the same processes that we did last year and that would enable to come down to 11.499 mills which means that if just that one item that we are going to reduce property taxes existing properties by 17.3 cents per thousand, that's .173 mills reduction in taxes. from last. Now, that's taking the entire City of Miami and treating them as one tax payer they are all part of one Corporation, they are all contributing through their assessment and the millage levied against it and that produces a certain number of dollars for this year it was 33 million, I want quote the correct figures, but 33 million and some odd sum thousand dollars with a levy of 11.499 mills it means that, if you stop there for a moment, it means that the money we will produce in next year's budget would be slightly less than that 33 million dollars so - Mr. Plummer: What you are really saying if we want to come under the certified millage , we are a million 550 thousand dollars off. Mr. Andrews: At that point when we get through with the chart - Mrs. Gordon: Ms. Andrews, on page 3 of this report that you furnished us with originally you have some different figures than what you are stating right now, because you say total spillage 11.499 produces 36 million 534, now tell me please, how yoµ have arrived at the sane total millage and a much lesser production. 20 SEP 91974 Mr. Andrei4ts: Well, I should have said if you were to apply the 11.499 to the total tax base you would produce the 36 million 534. You can't do that Vhen you are talking about taxes and whether you are increasing or decreasing their, what you have to do is separate out all the new additions, which represent 33 million dollars, and you take those new additions , first time additions, to the tax roll and you have a lesser tax roll to deal with but those of the existing properties, those are the properties that are on the tax roll this year, see- the figures that I am comparing now are this year and last year. Have I answered your question? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, you have answered my the different figures but actually what is going to be produced by this 11.499 are taking in new construction 36.534 - your book . Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon: That is correct. And it will stay the same. Yes. question as far as why you were quoting we really need to know is how much money and is this an accurate figure whea you 473 is that correct, it's on page 3 of You are not adjusting in any way, shape or form then, these figures that you have here. Mr. Andrews: NO, that 36 million dollars - Mrs. Gordon: Then, may I question you one more - you have in this analyses here a 9.204 millage but you have just verbially reiterated a reduced amount of 8.7 something, I didn't get the exact figure and I don't find it on any of these papers you have here, 8. what? Mr. Andrews: I am confused - Mrs. Gordon: You said that you were able to reduce that-, those figures are very difficult to see and they are not on the papers you handed us. Mr. Andrews: I just penciled those in before our meeting started because -- Mrs. Gordon: If you will read them out I will put them on mine, will your read it please? Mr. Andrews: It's debt servicex of 2.295 mills, you subtract that from the 11.170 and that would produce an operating millage after these deductions of 8875 and the certified millage then underneath that is 8387, when you subtract those two you then have the millage that is needed to be reduced if you go all the way to certified millage which is 4.88 and that .488 mills when weighted against the millage, one mill representing 3 million 177 thousand dollars would require 1 million 550 thousand. Without going to the departments to - some of these are effective of departments, but without going into the departments budgets and reducing the departments budgets I am recommending to you that we adopt that as the millage and that we go through the procedure of advertising, because it represents a tax reduction of 1/2 mill. Mrs. Gordon: Ok, then that doei differ from the book. Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Plummer: that the Law Condemnation Let me ask this question, Mr.Lloyd, do you concur sir, that this year Department will only spend approximately 50 thousand dollars for and the Park Program? Mr. Lloyd: That is for an attorney and his secretary and incidental expenses in handling'the capes. Mr. Plummer: 0h:, this is for in house. Mr. Lloyd: Yes. See when we took over the --- All right,the first item,498 now, I want to give you some information but it's probably going to confuse things, but you should have it. That is when you adopt the millage ordinance this year I want you to adopt it in such a way that it can be adjusted to the certified mil.l.age readjustments/hen the tax assessor is finished with our tax roll and the masters this yeariwhich substitutes for the board of equalisation SEP 19 )97,4, have coMpleted their adjuatments,this will eliminate properties and reduce Certain properties as far as their assessable value is concerned. When that occurs the law then permits us to go back and readjuRt the certified millage. As a result of that the certified millage ie going to come up, it want atay that ir►v, so that will close that gap even more. Mayor Ferre: You hope. Mr. Lloyd: It will Mr. Mayor, there is no doubt about. Mayor Terre: When the masters are finished the certified assessment goes up, t mean the certified millage will go up. Mrs. Gordon: Paul with your experience last year, what is thtw amount of differential? Mr. Andrews: Well, what happened last year is that we adopted the millage and we adopted sometime in September and the tax assessor makes his final entries mid October so the bills go out and maybe even the bills that have gone out and he goes through this last Step so we don't take advantage of that and we lost 660 thousand dollars because the certified millage wasn't adjusted. Mrs. Gordon: Mri Andrews though, what you are saying is this half mill that youare discussing now logically could be removed as a differential after the adjustments are made in the tax - Mr. Andrews: Mx. Mayor, we didn't take advantage of any of it last year and coped with 660 thousand dollars. Mayor Ferre: Well, that's what you are going to get maybe. Are you going to get more? Mr. Andrews: No, there are less this year. There are less decreases this year than last year. We have to stick with the top figure and that's the 498 thousand. Mayor Ferre: Look Paul, let's:see if we can take it down to - sometimes we get too sophisticated. Let's try to keep it in low denominators first, then complicated if you want. We have a 5% adjustment that we we -- is that what this is all about? Mr. Andrews: No, it's not . All right, let me start with another tact then, and I will try to use the figures as they exist. We have a tax base that's 3 billion 300 milliondollars and they are processes going on now of equalization through Masters rather than the County for those people who feel that their assessments are too high. Those adjustments, finally are made before you are.ready to certify your millage and before it can be taken into consideration, but when you adopt the appropriation ordinance, you fix the millage at that point and it's based on the best information that is available from the tax assessor, but the hearings are going on. Some of them might even end up court cases and we won't know about them until six months later. Those adjustments , downward adjustments might represent 30 million dollars, now , the laws are designed based on the assessments for this year ; t produces certain amount of revenues. In the following year if you were to produce exactly the same amount of revenue and you had 3 billion 300 milliou dollars worth ofassesseu value and then the certified millages figured out, its figured out at one number which will produce the same amount of revenue, but in the meantime if you remove some of the properties from the assessment role , 30, 40, or 50 million dollars and that same amount body has to produce the same revenue the certified millages has to go up a little bit more to produce those revenues. We want to take advantage of that this year. Ok. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Your question and your margin is getting thinner. Mr. Andrews: Yes air, we've got a really tight situation. What I am about to describe here is it's going to get tighter if you do this. What I am really pleading with the Commission is not to go beyond this point because I am going to be imposing some conditions on these Departments people that are more difficult to live with in the coming budget than they were in this year, but at least they have the flexibility of operating their departments. Mayor Ferre: I want to make the point here on the record to the public. Joe, you were the only one that was here 4 or 5 years ago on these budget hearings you were radio then and you may remember, in those years where - Mr. Reese every year or two years anyway I had kind of a little thing going on here about the budget and I kept saying that he had a 4 or 5 million dollar sludge fund that was a cushion from which a lot of things was going on that the City Commission was not always completely aware of or weree aware of, but not really have control of. I want to make a statement now that from what I can see of this budget, that is gone ar4 we are talking about a razor thin sharp- SEP 191974 o • I am going to demonstrate more of that as we proceed through this and I am villing to operate within this area, but when we go beyond that and 6 start getting into these departments budgets and start doing some things there, I ate afraidthat we are going to be in trouble as far as services to the public is oonberned. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask one question to see if I understand correctly. What you are proposing here will actually drop the tax payers bill .50c per thousand. Mr. Andrews: Yes sir. Now, you have to be careful Commissioner Plummer, well both of us in making sure that it is not misunderstood. The tax base has gone up 21% in the City of Miami. All right. Mr. Plummer: Paul, let me tell you something I am a taxpayer in the City of Miami, the only thing if I wasn't on this Commission that I would want to know is, am I paying more taxes or am I paying leas taxes? Mr. Andrews: This is where it gets a little complicated. Mr. Plummer: I understood my question was very pointed,that what you are proposing here that the City of Miami taxpayer's bill will go down .50c per thousand. Mr. Andrews: For the total city.; every one together, but -- Mr. Plummer: If my bill was one dollar last year; my bill is going to be .50c this year. Mr. Andrews: No sir. Mr. Plummer: You are playing games with me. Mr. Andrews: No, I am not and we better take time and understand this because it's too important. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews, isn't it a fact thaP°111 properties were assessed equally, I mean there are some that were assessed at an increase that I think our Mayor got one of them, a real walk-in one, I don't know whether he appealed it or not. Now, you know somebody else didn't get such a walk-in one. Mr. Andrews: Now, that's the whole point. You have to understand that in the balancing of the 21% some people may have gotten a 2% increase in assessments this year and some others got 40Z or 75%. If the Mayor's property went up 80% some one else has to go down to compensate for that to get an average of 21%. Have I made my point clear? Mrs. Gordon: You can't blame us, you can only blame that computer that didn't work so well. I understand. Mr. Plummer: Paul, my,house went from 26 thousand to 42 thousand; what you are telling me is, in factkven though the per thousand dollars have gone down that I am going to pay more dollars. Mr. Andrews: Yes sir, but let me use this illustration if I may? If your house was valued at 26 thousand dollars last year and you received a 21% increase in your assessment 21% of that would be about$5,000 and your house went up to 31 thousand dollarathen what you are telling that person is that his taxes are going to be less by .50c per mill of his property. Mr. Plummer: You know they don't care, they only think of one thing; they are paying more dollars. Mr. Andrews: Well, you can demonstrate who you are talking too. Mrs. Gordon: J.L. there is a problem, but is this the one we can solve; the legislature can solve it and we can add our protest to the protest that other people have about the assessment, the way it was done and all of the rest; we can't change that. Those assessments were made by the County. Mr. Andrews: I am telling you that every property that receives the exact assessment equivalent to the total role of 21% --ITWO VOICES AT THE SAME TIME.' 23 SEP191974 tip Mayor Perre: What he ie saying is this, that if your assessment went up 21% your taxes will remain the sat* or will go down. Now, in my case- for example, My assessieent went up 60%. There is no way that my taxes are going to go down no Matter what you do. Mt. Andrews: They will go down some through this action, but they will not go down lower this year. Mayor Ferre: All I can say is "THANK GOD FOR LITTLE THINGS". Mr. Andrews: All right to continue then, I propose to increase the salary surplus that is shown on page 12 of your budget book in the blue section which now is identified at a less interest for the salary surpluses of 2 million 500 thousand. I plan to increase that to 2 million 900 thousand dollars. I am justified in doing that one the basis that the average dollar in your requesting this information sometime ago;the average salary in the City of Miami; this is pure average not to mean is 12 thousand 950 dollars; that's the average salary of employees throughtout the whole city. Mrs. Gordon: Are you reading to us from something you distributived to us? Mr. Andrews: No, these are things I remembered in my head. The average in the City of Miami under this new budget proposal will be 12 thousand Mr. Plummer: Did that include the 10% increase? Did that include the fringe benefits? It other words it's 12 thousand 950 + 23%. Mr. Andrews: Not the 23%, the 10% you mean. Mr. Plummer: No sir, I talking about fringe benefits. Mr. Andrews: No it does not include fringe benefits. salary 950 dollars. 23Z Mr. Plummer: Didn't you tell us the other day that fringe benefits, roughly, now are about 23% of salaries? Mr. Andrews: Oh, yes, I misunderstood you, I thought you were including the 2,3% in this figure of the 12,950? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews: when the 10% Ok. Well, that's what I am asking? Well, let me state it again. The average salary in the new budget is granted only, will be 12,950, it *does not include any other benefits. Mayor Ferre: Is that an average of everyone. Mr. Andrews: Yes sir, that is an average of everyone. You just take the total number of employees and divide it by the total salary requirement. Now, if you take , let's use 13 thousand dollars, we have an average vacancy of 240 , 1 year 260, it will be about 250 this year when your multiply that out you arrive at a figure very close to the total 2 million 9, figures out 3million 100 thousand dollies or so. What we are doing is we are taking allof the surpluses that accumulate in the budget from vacancies and we are putting it back in the budget to fund the budget, so we are real tight there; all of the department directors knows this, we have been operating this way for several years. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Andrews, how much longer do you want to talk? It is now t:37 and my stomach is getting hungry Mr. Andrews: Well, I will stop anytime, and we can pick this up later Mayor Ferre: You stop where you think it's a logical place to stop. Mr. Andrews: I think it's logical right now. Mayor Ferre: We will convene here not later than -Is 2:15 acceptable everyone? Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, to continue then, with the information on this chart we are going to increase the salary surpluses by 400 thousand dollars which means we will be using more of the money that generate within the city budget. SEP191974 • Now, there is one important area. Mayor Ferre: You mean 400 thousand dollars in salary surpluses , is that what you are talking about? Mr. Andrews: Yes. It will probably, hopefully, if everything fell into place ideally, it would turn out to be 3 million dollars. I am courting on 2 million 900 thousand dollars, so you can see how close we are calling our estimates here. As an example, we should have the 10% unemployment that you and others are predicting in Dade County. It's going to mean that the job vac.ancies that we have available are going to be more available to that and if they come in, in greater numbers,then our number of vacancies decrease. We won't earn the 2 million 900 thousand dollars, so we are contrivance of that , at least. The next item is the additonal Federal Revenue Sharing transfer, that was that 100 thousand dollars that I was telling you about, that we are subplanting with funds that exist in this budget that we are carrying over to be continued in that school officer's resource program. Revise utility tax estimate. Mr. Bailey informs us that we can -- Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, what's the additional F.R.S. ? Mr. Andrews: That's the school Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, that was that additional 100 thousand dollars for the school program. Mayor Ferre: By the way are we scheduled to go before there- ? Mr. Andrews: I talked to Dr. Whigham personally to get on the agenda and he said he would be completely unwise and that they are getting a staff report and if the board turned to him and asked him for advice , that he would have to inform them that their staff report is in the process of being concluded, but if we wish we can reschedule on the October 2nd meeting. Mayor Ferre: With his graces, or is he asking is the staff to do that? Mr. Andrews: No, the, are going to participate as I understand it, but we want to find out conclusively to what extent. Mr. Plummer: Did you express to him one Commissioner's comments that he wanted to match dollar for dollar? Mr. Andrews: Yes, add the Mayor brought that out when he made his presentation to the Board. Mr. Plummer: I stand ready right now as I said before if they can pick up the 96 thousand - the city and myself can pick up the 96 thousand and no more. Mayor Ferre: We are realizing that we are using revenue -Federal Revenue Sharing. Mr. Andrews: Well, that is a tough policy decision to make and I realize what you are striving for, but on the other hand once again you have to evaluate really the services that are rendered through this program and then make this decision. Mr. Plummer: Paul, you know they had to make the same decision and same determin- ation when they started their own Security Patrol. Mr. Andrews: Ok. Revised utility tax estimate. Our utilities taxes run somewhere between 9 and 91 million dollars and that estimate was given to us - whatever is published in the book by Mr. Bailey in June;when we were preparing this budget we have several more months of experience and he feels that is what now known as that 100 thousand dollars of additional revenue can anticipated. Mayor Ferre: How much of that Mr. Andrews 1s going into the budget? Mr. Andrews: I want to say all of it, but in doing so, I have to tell you first how this occurs, about 7 or 8 years ago , might be 9 years ago now, when we were making improvements to the orange bowl and were constructing the Marine Stadium there was 3 million dollars and there was a revenue bond issue voted in which we pledged the debt servicing from the utility taxes, so all of the money from the utility taxes flows to that account. The amount for debt service which is about 100 or 150 thousand dollars(I forget the exact amount) a year required for the debt servicing then it's taken out of all funds and all of those funds flow back to the general fund for funding and it's about 91 million dollars. Mayor Ferre: In other words, what's left over is 91 million dollars? 25 SEP 191974 Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mayor Pert*: After we use portions of it for the debt servicing? Mr. Andrews: Which is about 200 thousand dollars, it's very minor in relation toe, but the bond ordinance was written so that the moneys would flow this way to insure the revenues and we got a real good rating as the result of that. Mr. Plummer: A transfer of the general funds was from the revenues of Orange Bowl, itself. Mr. Andrews: None. Mayor Ferre: That's a separate fund itself. Mr. Andrews: Yes, that stands on it's cwn. Yes, and any moneys that are in excess of actual cost of operation flow to an account or Capital Improvements or they flow to unallocated source and are re -allocated the following year for Capital Improvements. Mayor Ferre: How much do we have in that little kitty? I know we cat touch it that's not my intention. Mr. Andrews: Well, we have been expending from it for these various projects that we have under way and I am not sure, I haven't kept track of it within the last month or so. There might he 150 thousand dollars or so and Mr. BAiley is shaking hie head "yes", but that would be committed then to the wash rooms additions-- Final salary adjustments of 100 thousand dollars, this is a contentious and we account for this in the budget process when we go to such things as fund balance. There was about 300 thousand dollars calculated as additional moneys that would be availabe from one year's operation to the next. When it comes about from the fact that if you have a tree trimmer who is at the top of his scale, he leaves the city and we get a new tree trimmer, he starts at the bottom of the scale, the difference in the salary is in emitting of money that accummulates and we are anticipating at this late date 1G0 thousand dollars from that source. 298 thousand dollars listed in the following items: the law department( we discussed this with Mr. Bailey ) all is in accord for the purpose of condemnation which the law department is carrying on legal services for that it is appropriate to provide as a general expenditure from bond funds, 50 thousand dollars to the general fund to pay for the cost of the condemnation activities that the law department is involved in. Mayor Ferre: What you are saying is that we have eliminated that decision that we have been paying for from bond source. Correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Andrews: Yes, but we are not going - Mr. Lloyd is operating in such a way that we are not going to the outside for attorneys - specialized attorneys, such as we did in the past. Mr. Lloyd: We are not going out at all. Mr. Andrews: All right. Mrs. Gordon: Is this a good idea? Mr. Andrews: Well, I am not sure. I haven't made a judgment on all of them. There maybe some circumstances in which we may still need to use specialize assistance. Mrs. Gordon: Then you are in trouble. Mayor Ferre: How long, Mr. Lloyd have we had that department functioning(law department) condemnation? Mr. Lloyd: The condemnation has been functioning under the law department for about, I would judge an estimate of 4 months. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Mrs. Gordon: We have had good luck , haven't we though? I mean you cant tear yourself to pieces and put one part of you here and another part there, therefore you have to have some specialized personnel who has special training in condemnation even though we lost that person. 213 SEP.19,1974 Mr. Lloyd: Yes we lost Mr. Re:'holds. Well, I have interviewed two people already for the position. Mayer Fetre: Mr. Reynolds is that fellow we got from the Federal Government, ien't het How long did he last? Mr. Lloyd: Yes air. He lasted exactly one month and went into the private practice at half again as much as we were paying him. Mrs. Gordon: Wouldn't we be penny wise and pound foolish? Mr. Lloyd: No, we are not because I actually believe that we have had a relative amount of success in our negotations and continuations of all of the ---- for instance , I brought you a negotatiated figure just the last Commission Meeting where they accepted our appraised value on the property and the government center. Actually we have taken that case over from Howard Hadley when he left and we had a free trial conference this morning and we are going to trial on the rest of it. We ourselves settled out either two or three tracts envolved in that particular partial. You will also recall that in the Coconut Grove Marina case, Howard Hadley handled the attorney's fees portion of the hearing and had assessed on the attorney's fee. Our department took an appeal and saved 10 thousand dollars on the attorny's fees that was assessed against the city and Howard Hadley. Mrs. Gordon: Don't misunderstand my comments being an endorsement for any particular person. in the field of special condemnation because it is not, and certainly not the person name who you are bringing up, I don't even know the man. I do feel that the special that especially in cases such as the Riverfront Park where you have run into some problems already and on the F.E.C. property where its seem to be stalled in the Supreme Court. I think that we have to take another look at what we are facing and decide whether or not we are going to fulfill our demanding from the people with regard to the parks bond issue and I am not talking about the government center, because that's a rather unique area, it's a run down depressed area and the people's only profit there are delighted to see your money. They like to get it. Mr. Lloyd: That's not the case. We have a serious point on our hands over the property and indeed the County itself . One of the things that is hampering our negotations is that the County itself paid a fairly substantial sum. I don't have the figures in front of me, but if I remember right, it was substantially in excess of 7 or 8 dollars a square foot. Not only that, the telephone company just put up there building there and I don't know what they paid , but it was a much higher inflated sum and so that situation is not in the category of a depressed area. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Lloyd, not in defense/in Mw°6f your department, I am sure you can do that very well. I will make 7:he statement on the record which I am sure you may not be able to and that is that when we went t000utside special help we got into more trouble and I am speaking specifically of Mr. Hadley with that part, although he is a file attorney, but when we got into this question of this Latin Riverfront Park, he is the guy that did most of that, if I am not mistaken. Mr. Lloyd: Yes sit, of these cases were started by special counsel. In deed, we 6u did not take over rselves the F.E.C. case until it got into the Supreme Court. Mayor Ferre: In other words, we did have a special counsel at the appellant level and we did have special counsel on Riverfront Park in the beginning. Mr. Lloyd: Yes sir. Mrs. Gordon: The beginning of what? Mr. Lloyd: Of the condemnation. Mrs. Gordon: At what point did the special counsel leave the case? Mayor Ferre: When it was about 90% done. Mr. Lloyd: Do you remember when you had your depositions taken, it was shortly after that. Mrs. Gordon: Has it been heard in any court since that point? Mr. Lloyd: The necessity hearing has not been heard of yet. I •, SEP 191974 Mrs. Gordon: That's what I was trying to bring out, ok. Mr. Andrews: The next item is the increase fees for certificates of use. Last Comehission Meeting you adopted an ordinance ,I believe on first reading if not on second, in which the City will receive 80 thousand dollars or more of revenues.thia year then we had in this current year. The cost of that operation is about 140 thousand dollars a year and the revenue that we were eartling is 120 thousand dollars, so we will be earning an additional 80 thousand dollars in revenue as a result of adjusting all of those faes which are quite equitable. Property rental of,18 thousand dollars. this is unanticipated revenue in that it's takieg much longey to - in ourjudgment to build the Robert Building that was anticipated. As you will recall that we entered into a one year contract where the owner of the Robert's Building and the contract was to use our pro- spective future city park and we are renting that now after a flat fee arrange- ment for one year at 18 hundred dollars a month and we estimate that we will be there for another 10 months, so it will be 18 thousand dollars. Business license increase: An increase investment estimate and a debt service contribution for bond marketing are all items which adding particularly,the last one deals with the fact that the Finance Department has all these years carried on a function that other cities normally go to the outside contracts for service of developing and marketing the bonds , that activity is carried on in the Department of Finance under Mr. Bailey and he is directly involved in also we are now going to have a contribution from the bonds that we sell to the general funds in the amount of 50 thousand dollars to help off set that cost, adding all those together and you see the increments in the far left side of portions of a dollar that each one of these adjustments which do not create any kind of service problem. They are all under revenue side which would amount to .50t per thousand dollars and I would ask that the Commission really take under advisement that they limit their reduction of the tnillage to this point and really go through the trouble of advertisement that I have recommended in the paper because we are actually reducing taxes, rather than follow the route of getting into the departments and attempting to reduce the depart- ment's budget. I have a specific reason for during that. Under the Booz-Allen studies one of the very important things that they did was to recommend that we initiate a management analyses team of City employees who they would train; the training went on for several months and these management analysis have been grouped together under my office and after reviewing various departments that they would go into to make management and analyze the departments management and work with the department directors in finding ways of what is identified as cost avoidance . Don't spend money that you don't have to spend. We chose the Finance Department and the Building Department and I have two reports here well documented and I don't want to quote them to the penny as to the cost avoidance that can accrue and some of these things that we have underway already, you will note that the rurchasing Office has been vacated and they are being relocated back here in Finance and is a part of this total plan that was evolved with the department director. We alticipate within about a year that if we can put into effect all of the adjustments taat we want too, we will have a cost avoidance of 411 thousand dollars in the Department of Finance, we will have a cost avoidance of in the Building Department of 311 thousand dollars, and this is a very orally scientific approach to really pruning out the fat that you are speaking of in government and we will expand this to many more departments of the city as we become more adept in this process, rather than impose upon the departments in this short period of time a condition in which my working in saying that we can reduce an employee here and reduce a function here that we follow this process and I can assure you that if we do we are going to make some substantial savings for the city. Mrs. Gordon: Please repeat that, the process you just referred too, just repeat that please. Mr. Andrews: The process that I am referring to is by utilizing the management analyst teams to work with the department directors in finding ways of saving cost. They went in and made time studies of operations . They analyzed one area. I can tell you that I am going to coming to the City Commission with well documented information as to why we should go to a minimum of 4 thousand 500 as the ceilingof purchases made under City Manager; why we should on first phone calls make purchases of any item less than 25 dollars, in other words we are shopping for bids because our ordinance requires us too. For every item that we attempt to acquire. When you get under 25 dollars and you have the Purchasing Agent and the rest of his people shopping for bids under 25 dollars the paper work and everything that we are generating costs more than the Items that we are purchasing, so we are going to be coming to you with these recommendations well documented and there are many more than that, I only use those two as an example. We are going to show you ways that we can save an considerable amount of money, but that has to be done in an orderly process. 28 Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about existence now? Mt. Andrews: Sure , yes sir, we can make some real savings in this city. We are dorm to a point where twe would be reducing taxes on existing properties in the city of Miami in the calming year by 1/2 mill or .50c per thousand. That's all properties together, and I want to repeat once again,those properties will meet the average of the total asseament increase of 21%, Mrs. Gordon, if your home went up 21% in the City of Miami in assessments., you will be paying less taxes this coming year on this proposal then you are this year, percentage wise. Mr. Plummer: That some like the ones that you told me. The more I use the less it costs. Mr. Andrews: Rio, there is absolutely no gimmickry in this whatsoever. Mr. Plummer: It's not gimmickry, but Paul, I get back to the same thing. The only thing that a taxpayer understands is one thing, here is my bill from last year, and here is my bill this year, it's more and you can tell them until you are blue in the face, if you are reducing , that you are everything, but they are analyzing two pieces of paper , last year's bill and this year's bill. Mr. Andrews: Well, let me tell you something Commissioner Plummer if you go to certified millage and you try to find this additional 1 million and a half dollars and you arrive at certified millage you will have exactly the same condition that you are talking about right now, if you go to the individual property owner whose assessment has increased 21% or more. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I understand. Mr. Andrews: You have the same kind of problem then in response to you continuence that you have with this proposal , it's exactly the same thing. Mrs. Gordon: What J.L. is saying is, "I have heard it from other people and I concur the reassessment at the way it was done this year, the giant jumps in some of these is unbelievable., its absolutely increditible, the properties were not inspected, there are no comparables for some of these properties and some of the comparables that are used are again when you go for a re-evaluation of the master and he pulls out some supposely comparables, he compares peaches and pig feet, because that's how different one is from the other - yes, pig feet. Let me tell you something that I had the opportunity to judge the way the assessments are being re-evaluated now, and it's unbelievable, I can tell you that and I believe that this Commission has to take the forefront and make known that we are not happy with the way the assessments were done, and if that what J.L. is saying is that we are going to keep people from screaming that we are paying more taxes. It is not our fault, it's coming out of the county. Mr. Plummer: I am a little tired of a neighbor putting in a pool, because his value went up mine went up, that's exactly what part of my problem was. Mr. Andrews: All right, I want the Commission to consider this, but I don't want to delay the process. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you for a figure, I don't think I have seen here, if we were to reduce our budget so that, as I understand the overall increase was 30% of the assessment. Mr. Andrews: No. Mr. Plummer: What was it? Mr. Andrews: It was 21% of existing properties - 30% maybe overall.. Mr. Plummer: If we had to bring our budget down so that the individaul would not have to pay a penny more than what he did last year, how much more have you got to bring it below the 8.875 ? Mr. Andrews: About 7 mills., maybe 8 mills. Mrs. Gordon: It still couldn't straighten out everybody equity, it's impossible. Mr. Plummer: But if we brought in the same revenue. Mr. Andrews: When you go to look at the individual property see, some of them experienced only a very small change in assessed value, 1%, etc., some properties night even have gone down in assessed value. I am sure that there are some that have gone down below than what they were, but the majority of them have all gone up and the average id 21Z, that's the important thing. You would have to understand that you are dealing with the entire city of Miami , if you start dealing with individual cases then you would have to take all of the variations into consideration. Mr. Plummer: What you are really saying is through no fault of our own we are placed in a predicament that we can't win. Mr. Andrews: Because of the unusual high assessments, it's difficult to explain. Yes sir. Mayor Ferre: A candidate running for mayor we must think about just that. Mr. Andrews: But Mr. Mayor you have got to appreciate that what you are doing is that you've got to think of the whole City of Miami and you have got to recognize that you are going to be producing less tax dollars in the coming year than you are producing this year. You are making less demands on all of the taxpayers together. All right, the next thing on the agenda is the employee negotations: I just have only a couple of comments and then I am going to turn this over to Mr. Joe Lanken, and that is that which I want to help present it to you today is procedural, in other words to inform the Commission as to where we start procedurally on our negotations. After negotations have been completed hopefully, successfully, then those conditions under which we negotiated, the employee group then have to produee that to their organization for ratification. It has to come to the City Commission for its ratification and adoption of the Resolution which would authorize me to inter into the contracts under those conditions and I will be in the next several days ,'plying the City Commission with the specific as for the conditions under which we arrived at our discussions with each one of the organizations, so its procedures that we want to accomplish. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews, before you leave the microphone, may I ask you a question please? The Day Care Program that we have started not open, I sent you a memorandum requesting a specific amount for the enlargement of the program so we can open two new children centers this year, I have not had a reply from you on that. Mr. Andrews: I will see that you get one and this is probably my fault because I have been involved in so many things that I haven't gotten you an answer, but I'll get one to real quickly. Mrs. Gordon: But, I would like for you to know that I intend to persue this because this is a necessary, it is one of the most important programythis city is concerned with. There has been more good public relationsgenerated by these Day Care Programs, probably anything else than we are doing for people, I am sure the Mayor receives a lot of letters, because I getoe copies of the letters that he gets and let me tell you that all of them. I think that you will attest to this won't you Mr. Mayor?, are the kind of letters that you would like to receive when you are a public official. Mayor Ferre: I think that Social Service Programs are very much needed in this community, if we can afford them. Pun if we have to cut out some other programs then I certainly would give them priority. I do feel however, I have full intentions of presenting to this Commission the proposal that we fund these very important programs, or have them runned by Metropolitan Dade County. Mrs. Gordon: No, I wouldn't want that either. Mayor Ferre: Well, that's your opinion, but I am stating mine, I certainly have full intentions of bringing this to a head for this Commission to vote on that we can fund these important programs and have them run where they belong , and that is in my opinion Metropolitan Dade County, where all of the Social Services should be. Mr. Joel Lanken: Mr. Mayor, I think it's important for the City Commission to understand what has developed over the last 7 months under the direction of the City Manager I entered into the collective bargaining negotiation with 5 groups of organized labor on March lst. Over 200 issues were placed on the bargaining table. Mayor Ferre: Joel you better speak louder. 30 Mt. Lankeln: Over 200 total idsues were placed on the bargaining table, those were management iesuea and labor issues, so subsequent to March 1, negotiationleere commented individually with each of the following groups, subsequently on June 5th, I believe, ny office received notification from the City Commission Pension's Committee that certain recommendations were going to be promulgated in so fat as renovations and improvements within the pension system subsequent to receiving those guidelines. It was necessary for me to go into executive session for approximately 30 days with my principles to the City Attorney's office and to very actuarial experts in order to determine whether or not there were any back up positions that could be utilized in the event that deadlock or impact was reached on any of those recommendations foriension, it was necessary also for the city law department to engage in extensive analysis concerning case law and other areas to make certain that we are on sound legal ground when we made demands based on those pensions recommendations flowing from that pension committee. That's a procedure in so far as working out the pension problems. We entered into consolidated bargaining and that is that Police and Fire Labor Leadership became one negotiated committee in so far as that those personnel were apart of the pension system. The three civilian groups (non Police and Fire) formed their bargaining team since they were representatives of people in the pension plan, another segment. Subsequently they began the pension organization on August 19th,and subsequently to that almost one thousand hours of collective bargaining negotiationsfrom March 1st, settlement have now been reached and when the last from was reached on September 13th last Friday. Now, those settlements as the City Manager has indicated are now subject to total ratification. The labor leaders must now go back to their general membership and receive the favorable vote to ratify the County. The city administration will be in a position to recommend to the City Cotmnission on the 27th of this month that those contracts are in a position to be ratified and it's important to know that their were three significant bench marks flowing from these total negotations and so far as the history of the labor union movement is concerned in the City of Miami. The first one is that we have entered into a two year contract with a reopener on the second year contract for the cost of living increases only, now what that means is that past practices will be set aside by way of no more annual fringes and other terms and conditions of employment will come up in that second year of the contract. WE will only be negotiating the cost of living escalator depending on what the national economy looks like. For all other fringes in terms of conditions of employment will be laid to rest. The second important bench mark is that for the.first time in the city history, very sensitible and delicate tension matter went on the bargain table. I don't know too many other cities in the state of Florida where that has occurred, and the third important bench mark, that I consider very important is that under the leadership of Paul Andrews, this is the second time in the city's history that Paul major labor groups has come to terms with management, also I think its worthy to note that the leadership of the various labor unions that we have been dealing with have conducted themselves in a very professional and responsible role —Fecause they had a difficult task to represent their constituency in an in- flationary economy and at the same time recognize management's demand to deliver the the best services to the public at the lowest unit of cost. I for one am very, very proud to announce these settlements and our total subject to ratification and I am sure that each of these labor leaders would also like to take podium for the record to indicate the settlements have now been reached, "subject ratification". Mr. Andrews: I want to call upon each of these American Federation of the State 6 County Municipal Employees, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Hagan: President of the local 654. Our bargaining unit has tentatively agreed to a settlement with the city. Sgt. Salerno: President of Miami Lodge --Police. We have our contract, we had hoped to have it ratified within the next week or so, personally I am satisfied with it. I think we have come to a reasonable agreement and I would like to comment both Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Lanken, as well as Mr. Alvarez, the City Attorney 's Office, for their patience and diligence in putting up with this period. Mr. Andrews: General Employees Association. Mr. F. Williams: General Employees Association. It's been hard. I am tired but we have two problems, you people have to ratify it and I have to sell it to my people. I am very optimistic about it. Thank you. Mr. Andrews: International Association of Fire Fighters. Mr. Charles Hall: Vice President of Int. Assoc. of Fire Fighters: I acted as the Chief negotiator in the Fire Fighters bargaining and sessions and I am happy 3� to report that we have reached,an agreement and I think it is an reasonable agreement. Nobody got everything that they wanted on either side of the table and I (Nets that's the way you measure the reasonables of the negotiating process. I think it is unique for the first time in Florida we have been able to put the pension this year on the table and I think it is important to know that the employees took what I consider a very responsible position in tightening up some of the ptoblema that we had with the pension and I am sure whenever these pension ordinances cooed back to you, you will recognize what I am talking about. I think it was a very fruitful negotations fcr both parties in terns of the educational process and I am sure that everyone on the Commission notes the difference from past sessions that we had before this City Commission and the hearange that went on in the bargaining process and I think this is much different and much more professional and the one we should all look forward for in the future. Mr. Andrews: Sanitation Employees Association. Mr. W. Smith: Vice President of the Sanitation Employees Association. We have reached an tentative agreement subject to our membership ratifying the contract. Thank You. Mayor Ferre: Certainly I am almost stunned. William, Charley, Chuck, Bill, Frank, Walter, congratulations to you and to us, the Manager, certainly to Mr. Lanken, Mr. Alvarez, all of the people that have been involved. In this day and age, when strikes are so increditible. I spent a few days in Italy this summer, and it's just unbelievable that when they finish one strike that they get into another one. If it isn't the Fire Fighters, it's the Doctors and Hospital Attendants, and the Taxicabs, it's just unbelievable:what happens and I know that governments don't usually strike but in this day and age so many things happens, it's just amazing that we were able to come to an agreement, I am happy that -- normally this process would take four or five hours, even in the best years I remember back when we spent a couple of hours on these things, Walter would get up here and give us a little lecture and now it took only five minutes, "amazing". Now, for the public and for us to reiterate how much the negotiated increases amount to on food and pensions. I think its important to reiterate that figure, so we will understand what we are talking about. Mr. Andrews: I think its smarter to wait, in fairness to the Employees Organization they should have the opportunity going back to their organizations to describe this without - having all the employees read about it in the newspapers and then debate it and so forth before they have an opportunity to do it. Mayor Ferre: So somewhere along the line I think we want to make a public statement to that effect. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think it's one thing we really want to look into, and for the record Paul, I think you should state it that the negotiated terms whatever they are,which they have all concurred that they are in accord with, its just a matter of ratification does come under what you have proposed in the budget. Mr. Andrews: Oh! Yes sir. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think that's for the record. Mr. Andrews: I think you are right, that should be stated that all of the negotiations and the considerations in those negotiations had been comtemplated in this budget. Mr. Plummer: And are covered. Mr. Andrews: And are covered. Mr. Plummer: Right, and I think that's important. Mr. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to this statement, you know, one of the things that had disturbed me was - sitting on this Commission, last year budget time was - the people that worked for the city were our emenies. I made that statement then and I want to call it to all of our attention now, as I said I thought it was a disgrace that we were not even acting like civilized people, we were mad with them, they were mad with us, they were opposing us, we were opposing them and I said 1 hope we could do differently and I am so happy. I know you can't always have peace and everybody is loving, but certainly we didn't have to be like we were and "Thank God" for a change. Sven if you don't get all that you asked for, I am happy that wP are at least approx- imating from getting along and let me with this observation, you know, the people who CMOS in here daily to see you who are the administraters to find out about their city can pick up an awful lot, the face you have on your face, the antagonistic attitude .)) 0.) s.. that you present, when we are not here, send the people away, turned off- turned off, I remember seeing a woman, I don't come down here very often until Commission day, but I was here, yesterday, or day before, and there was a woman with a baby in a stroller and she was trying to get up the stairway. Mr. Andrews, you tell all of the people in this builiing, I told this at the Commission level and that woman was the most angry somebody you want to see and incidentally, I say this for another reason, she was not Black,she was not Latin, she was White Anglo- Saxon, she was trying to pull that stroller up and I just asked her,"Madam may I help you", and I took the front of the stroller and she took the back and we went on by and landed. She didnnt k't:ow who I was, I never said a word to her but evidently she had been crossed b;r the people in this tuilding, crossed by that, I mean she didn+t get very warm welcome, I want to use it•in that sense, so I make mention that when we are not here , "who must the people you are and how you treat lithe+ public will say an awful lot about how they look at us and think about us and I am glad that we - ourselves are setting the example of trying to get along and hopefully that you will try to get along with the public, the average John Doe that comes through those doors. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, I switched the agenda schedule because I wanted to have the Commission have the effect of the employees negotiations that went on coupled with my proposal that the millage be esablished at the 11.15 which represents a tax decrease prior to your considering an evaluation of the proposed 5% reduction of each department budget. I am prepared to go into that and I am prepared along with the departments directly to respond to all of your questions, but I am hopeful that you don't take the actions that would cause that to occur and that the administration be given an opportunity to demonstrate what it can do under an orderly process of - to use Commissioner Plummer's expression, which is a good one in government , "cut out the fat". Mr. Plummer: Paul, really what you are saying, the Mayor has proffered, that he has asked every department head to lowlier its expenses 5% and if they do, what's got to give, are you telling us that you concocted a plan to achieve the same end that over a orderly process rather than doing it today, that it would be done over a year period, is that what you are saying? Mr. Andrews: Yes, I am saying that, but I can't reflect that in the millages that you would have to set , we would have to go through that process now, and we would have to look at every budget and we would have to find another- million 550 thousand dollars to achieve exact certification which would reduce it another 4.88 mills' when we have already reduced it 1/2 mill. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews, would you explain a couple of things please'? You are asking for a consideration of the 11.5 millage. On this sheet number 4, you have 11.7, is that what you want it to be the 7 or the 5? Mr. Andrews: The 7, I misquoted the figure. Mrs. Gordon: I have another question. 0n the forms that you gave us on our last meeting, you have an analyses of existing properties only, taxable value- 1973-74. The 1973-74, you made your analyses on the basis of 100%. On the 1974-75, you made your analyses on the basis of 95%, can you explain to me why you took the two different positions instead of both the same? Mr. Andrews: A11 right, the 1973-74 is now 100% that's it, when you take this tax base and you multiply -- That figure actually is 3 billion 33 million dollars but the reason you reduce it at that point -5% is the early payment. Mts. Gordon: But, what you said on this form that I am holding here is your analyses of total revenues being equal. Now, was this 2 million 503,303,382, what you have in parenthesis 100X value was that a 95% figure, instead of 100% figure on the form that you received last year from the tax assessor? Mr. Andrew: No, it was not. Mrs. Gordon: Well, this is not a true analyses, is that right? Mr. Andrews: Oh, yes it is, see you are mixing two different things. Mrs. Gordon: You didn't have any reduction, there wasn't any uncollect bles,or any loss of taxable value last year? Mr. Andrews: Yes, but at that time the figure that was used from that tax base vas also reduced by 5X, but in the law that is calculated this year's tax base, the 3d • • one we are itt now that exists is 1002, it's all there. -See, you are using tax bases for the purpose of producing revenue and when you do that the new tax base has to be reduced by 52 because of uncollet:table, early payments mostly. MrR. Gordon: I know but in 1973-74, you gave us this for a reason, you gave it to us for the reason to prove to us that the amount of millage that you were requesting of us for certification at this time was going to produce the same amount of revenues as last year and yet how can you tell me that you collected on the basis of 1002 taxable value, when I know you didn't? Mr. Andrews: All right, let me explain it this way. The reason that, that tax base is used as 11.672 mills used against that was when I presented that to you rather than go through all theitrouble that we went through in the current which is a loss of 660 thousand dollars because of tax base reduction. I told you that 11.672 without a tax base reduction would provide the 1/2 million dollar hedge against tax base being reduced. Mrs. Gordon: And you didn't collect 33 million 634 , you collected 33 million 0 in other words, for round figures last year? Mr..Andrews: No, we collected -this year 33 million 136, 760 , excuse me. they are correcting me, we are intitled to collect that much. Mrs. Gordon: Well, then, if you are going to take that approach then you should take it from the 74-75 you are entitled to collect 100%. Mr. Andrews: You are entitled too, tut you don't. Mrs. Gordon: I know, but what's I am trying to say, that you didn't give us an accurate analyses here, because on one hand you are using 1002 base, and on the other you are using a 952 base and you are trying to tell us that the two things are equal but they are not. Mr. Andrews: No that was for the -- yes they are, because the end result if you look down at the third line is the total tax revenue - the city is entitled to receive and in 1973-74 it indical:ed 33 million 634,379 and on the next line 33 thousand 635, 294. Mrs. Gordon: But if you didn't do thatyou would have a different figure, wouldn't you? 1974-75 is the way you are supposed to analysis it., you are supposed to analysis it on the basis of 95%, but why didn't you do it 73-74? Mr. Andrews: We did, the year when --- this is exactly the way you calculate it you use.100% of the existing tax base, it's all here. Mrs. Gordon: But it's the name tax base that the tax assessor sent us for last year, was that the amount he sent us last year as a 952 figure or as a 1002 figure last year? Mr. Andrews: I don't follow the question, state it again. Mrs. Gordon: When you receive the same form of certification in the year of 1973-74 was it 25033 - whatever it is- 2 billion 503 thousand was that a 1002 figure or is that a 95% figure on the last year's form, I don't have a copy of it, if I did, I wouldn't have to ask you what the figure is. Mir. Andrews: I don't have a copy of it either and I would have to say from my knowledge of this that, that would have represented 1002 of the tax base at that time and as used , I am not sure. Mrs. Gordo;: Well, the reason I bring this up, very clearly is,that you are showing us a balancing of figures and they are not balancing, because they are based on two separate basis. Mr. Andrews: No they are not. We were real careful about that, in that we usedthe tax assessor's certification form to arrive at it. Mrs. Gordon: Yes sir, you did. You did that for the year of 1974-75 using a 95% base. You are actually entitled to the 100Z, you won't collect it. The same thing happened last year, you are entitled to 1002 and when you showed us this analyses shunt, you showed us the 1973-74 analyses based on 100% but on 1974-75 you didn't show us that, now if you have last year's certification of :pillage in taxable talus from the assessor, maybe we wouldn't be talking back in forth this way, I as sure you have a copy of it somewhere. 34 Mk. Andrews: Well my judgement tells me that this is your requirement of the gtatA and we follow that,prodedure in the law in that this is the amount of money we Were entitled to receive. It doesn't represent the money that we acutally received, by law we are entitled to receive the 33 million 634, 379 and that's what we are entitled too, it depends on how many people made early payments and so forth . Mrs. Gordon: I know, you are not following me, I am sorry. Ok I will take it up with you later. I don't want to waste everybody's time. Mayor Ferre: Let me see if I can focus it. Mr. Andrevs, you have been involved in helping prepare budgets for a long time for the City of Miami. Now, your experience in the past when you prepare one budget with the other, have you taught previous budgets of 95% and the proposed budget of 100% of the assessed. Mr. Andrews: We haven't had to follow this formula, except for a couple of years Mr. Mayor, but prior to to that in calculating the revenue produced for many given tax bases that supplied to us we went to 95%. In fact if -- That's not what Mrs. Gordon is getting at- but she wants to make sure that and I know what you are getting at exactly, you want to make sure that we are comparing the two tax bases, that we are dealing with in total for both and you would be surprise to discover that the longer you get into involvment with this law,this law is based on revenue the the tax base produces itself. Mrs. Gordon: were entitled Mr. Andrews: we received? Can you answer one question then? What did you receive, not what you to receive in 1973-74, what did you receive? Mr. Bradley, do you know how we can get at that figure, as to what Mr. Bailey: What you do is, use a net i gure and if you want to determine the value of a mill then you have to reducetjjm the gross figure , your homestead exemptions, widows exemptions, and etc. sort of stuff , now in addition to that, if you want to provide a reserve which you have to that's where your 95% comes in, so its 95% of that, which gives you a net yield, property levy, I don't know what you are.talking about there but I believe it is as appossed to net in both instances, that's what it is. In order to be comparable you have to get an adjusted figure, to determine what millage would produce the same as last year, this year has to be on net. Mrs. Gordon: But its not that way on this analyses sheet. I still got the point exactly what I am telling you to consider that when you are saying that you are going to reduce the amount of money to the individual taxpayer, you may not , in fact you are doing it, because you are not making your comparables on the same basis. Mr.Plummer: What this all boils down to is that what we are going to get, we are going to get, and what we aren't entitled too we aren't going to get. Isn't that really what we are talking about? Mrs. Gordon: I think if it is computerized out it maynot be any reduction as you are saying there is a reduction of .50c per thousand, I am not so sure there is. Mayor Ferre: All right. Any other question? Mr. Andrews: Well, it's the Commission's who tells me what they would like for me to do. I am prepared to respond to your inquiry for any information only, I understood that there.is to be information only at this stage as to what they proposed 5% reduction would mean in each department and I am prepared to review with the Commission if you think it's necessary to go through that. Mayor Ferre: Well, that was a request we made for starters. Now it wouldn't be 5% if you have already cut out 1 million dollars. Mr., Andrews: I know but to identify the area, I am trying to keep the same nomenclature. Mayor Ferre: All right,... so that everybody understands the game that we are playing now and we can do it for a short while but we ae now saying is to reduce an additional million 500 thousand dollars, what areas in your opinion has to dip in? In other words what I am saying so that the we and the public have full knowledge of what is now iavoived for us to cut more than what the Manager is presently recommending. In my opinion we have to get into the cutting of employees and therefore services. I think it ought to be because of the thrust of this whole situation, I think this is one thing that we ought spend maybe 15 or 20 Minutes on it then after that we can get into the general discussion of specific questions. flr. Plummer: Well, for the record, let it reveal that I have still not received Mir request of the budget department of what items were cut to arrive at the reeommended budget at this time. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews: Mayor Ferre: When can that be available, Mr. Andrews? It is available. Do you know what Mr. Plummer is talking about? Yea he knows. Yes. If more information is needed then we will supply more information. By the way, who is the other part-time person in the Mayor's office? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor., the only other budget that I deeply want to get into, I will just make this for the record. I have made the comment before so it comes as no surprise at this time. I am alarmed at the cost of the City Manager's budget and I withhold my dwelling into that budget until the will of the Commission, I.just want it on the record, that I have stated in the past and I am stating now that I am not happy with the City Manager's budget. Mayor Ferre: All right, we will recognize you Mr. Plummer for that as soon as we go through this exercise. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews: That's fine sir. Ok Mr. Andrews. Ok. Beginning with the City Clerk. Mayor Ferre: Well, let's for the purpose of clarification state that you already trimmed the budget by 1 million dollars,approximately we would be talking about Mr. Andrews: 1 million 1/2. Mayor Ferre: So, wherever you see, ... we would cut it in half to take it 1 million 1/2. Ok. Mr. Andrews: The City Clerk's Office, and I want to indicate at this stage that the departments and every unit of the Government is covered in this analyses that we are about to make were very cooperative in attempting to supply us with this kind of information. Mayor Ferre: Paul,to save time, let's skip the City Clerk, Civil Service, Budget Office, and all of the others. Mr. Andrews: I would like for you to look at 4 items of those - all of those items that you see there: one is Police, Fire, Sanitation, and Special Programs and Accounts, if you look,at those 4 items and we come to a conclusion that there is not too much that we can do in terms of reduction in those areas. You will note that the balance represents about 25% of the rest of the money, in other words, 75% of all of the honey, if we are going to make reductions would have to occur in Police, Fire, Sanitation, and Special Programs and Accounts, and if you chose not to touch those,then you have got what I consider an impossible situation in your hands as far as the rest of it goes. Mayor Ferre: In other words, you are talking on those four items- 2 million 250 thousand dollars roughly and that what you have left from the 750 thousand, what you are saying in affect is if we really wanted to cut another 1 million and 1/2 is that we can't do it without getting into either the Police, Fire, Sanitation,etc. Mr. Andrews: If you avoid those areas and make no adjustments there, and you go to the other departments, I can tell you for the record that, that would be a crippling effect upon the services of the city. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, nobody is questioning you at this point. I think the question to you is, where can you put in the simplest denominator, where does the Ls 36 other million and 1/2 dollars to be cut out of this budget? W. Andrews: The only way to do that -- Mayor Ferre: I am not asking you whether or not you recommend it,I am not asking you whether services are going to be cut? I know you don't recommend it, I know the services are going to be cut,I am asking you if you got an edict on this Commission that we are going down another million and 1/2 dollars, would you please tell us where you would recommend it? Mr. Andrews: Yea sir. If it's under an edict situation then the following could be considerated: The City Clerk's Office is to delete the file system that's proposed or reduce the advertising in the newspaper, a policy that the Commission has set where you want multiple advertising and a thorough advertising accomplish, one or the other. Mayor Ferre: How much is involved? Mr. Andrews: 55 hundred dollars. You don't want my recommendation or anything else to why we would not do this at this s:=age., this is yearly. Mayor Ferre: I am asking you where are you going to get 1 million 500 thousand dollars if this Commission tells you to go down another 1 million 500, because I think that'the decision we have to come to pretty quickly now. Mrs. Gordon: Will you answer debt service contributions for bond marketing? Is that for bond counsel or what? Mr. Andrews: No, that's the services rendered by the Department of Finance, that normally is provided through outside assistance, the contract with someone else and - many Municipalities does this, in fact most of them does ,they don't have the ex- pertise in-house to do it and they contract with professional who are capable of carrying off the entire analyses of sale of bonds, and carrying the Municiplity through all of the steps needed to get the acutual revenue. Mrs. Gordon: We are not spending that money for that reason are we, that's for our in-house isn't it? Mr. Andrews: Yes, we are doing it in-house now, we have never charged the bond funds for this service and we are doing it because we are looking for ways to reduce the impact of taxes to charge the bond funds. Mrs. Gordon: Is that a realistic amount 50 thousand or should it be more? Well, its i at this stage? It probably should, and could be more, but we are reluctently tcpre in until we have made a more thorough analyses using the two booklets that I held up as to what we are really doing, professionally. Mrs. Gordon: Let me tell you Mr. Bailey is an expert. Mr. Andrews: Well, he is an expert but he he has to have time to make these analyses too, you know. Mrs. Gordon: Well, anyway I wondered if you could raise that, because if you could raise that, that's another source for increasing and decreasing the other cut. Mr. Andrews: I want to point out one thing to the City Commission, in that listing that I gave there is no --- in that matter, everything that we drain and divert at this stage anticipate to divert means you are going to have less funds balance available next year. There is no place that this money goes that nobody controls any money that accumulate in this city from revenues that we don't anticipate are very carefully put into an account internal auditors check, external auditors check it and that money then is called upon in the following year appropriated as fund balance. This year we were able to provide with a 2k million fund balance. We may only have 1ig million next year -- Mrs. Gordon: I haven't beard any consideration or anything. I know you can't use it for general funds, but what about the Community Development money that is going to be coming in 2. some million, have you began programing for that yet? Mt. Andrews: Not yet, but you want be able to use that in the way that we are using these funds? Frankly,' am not going to make one move on any planning of those funds until I have had an opportunity to explain the significant of this program to the Commission and they understand the guidelines under which the money should be spent so some policies can be set by the Commission and give me directions 37 then I will *tart ceiling back with programs. Mts. Gordon: When do you expect to do that? Mr. Andrews: Well, hopefully in the month of October. Mre. Cordon: An I understand it, ve are suppose to have it in - the funds becomes available January 1st, it's going to be a come first base, first serve. Mr. Plum►ert What does that mean? Mrs. Gordon: That means there won't be enough to go around, all around the country. Mr. Andrews: Well, what Mrs. Gordon is referring to which is kind of a surprise to many people was the fact that this is just not automatic funds, what we have to do is design a program for Community Development and then decide how much money we want from the Federal Government within our allocation of funds with the first year which is 21 million dollars, then the Federal Government is going to review our applications and they are going to grant us moneys for specific projects to be carried out. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but is there any truth 1;o the rumor I hear that this is the start of winding down the Federal Funding? Mr. Andrews: No sir. Mrs. Gordon: No, this is entirely different J.L. Mr. Plummer: The rumor I heard was that this is going to be one of the areas of justification. Let me tell you where I think some of the problems have occured in Federal Funding, when I saw that one city unnamed took 100% of their Federal Revenue Sharing and spend it to build a new football stadium, now I am sure that did not set well with the people who dolled out the money for Federal Revenue Sharing and I don't think that at this stage in the game there have been any rigged and I mean rigged. The guidelines of how you shall spend your Federal Revenue Sharing and I have had people that I talked with that are knowing in this field that these kinds of programs - Community Betterment Program receive money is the Federal Government way of winding down Federal Revenue Sharing providing funds but putting the guidelines and the ridge control so that when they eliminate Federal Revenue Sharing they can say ,ok we took one away but we gave you another but now we are going to hold --- Mrs. Gordon: They don't have anything to do with the other-- don't listen to all of the rumors you are going to hear. Mr. Plummer: Ok. Mayor Ferre: All right then, let me tell you something that isn't a rumor and this is something which I think is grounds for serious concern on all of our parts in the City of Mimi and all governmental officials, and I am sure that - when I make this statement, obviously it is going to reflect on 15 Congressmen, and 2 U.S. Senators and I want you Mr. Manager to check out the figures and verify. this: The State of Florida is 50 out of 50 states in the amounts of pro-• portionately of Revenue Sharing - Federal Revenue Sharing Funds that we received. In other words, let tie put it to you this way: There are 49 states that receive on a per capital basis acre funds from the Federal Government on Federal Revenue Sharing than the tate of Florida. We are the last state, we are the one who has done the worst job in getting our fair share. Mr. Plummer: Well, isn't it based,as I recall,we went into this extensively that the Revenue Sharing mount delegated to a given Municipality is based on a population basis. Mayor Ferre: Well, you check this out and come back and tell us about it and I would like to know specifiically how the City of Miami is fair to the relationship to the rest of the state and let's get some kind of a bench mark as to where we stand. I am not saying sn'tthing about the city, because I think we are going to come out pretty good and I think you will see that we are probably one of the better ones in the state,to me it absolutely increditible and shameful that these figures that I have bean told are, ,..!curate, that we are the last state in the union as far our proportionate share,certainly I think it needs a better explanation from the 15 Congressmen, and .the 2 U.S. Senators that represented us. I am sorry there are many, many friends that I have that are involved in that, but I certainly would like its the clafification of that. Mr. Android: The next one is Elections, which t recommend that we eliminate. Law Department is the doe . Mrs. Gordon: Let me ask you a question, What if there should be the need for a special election, where are you going to find the money? Mr. Andrews: Well, one of the places that you would have to look is the contingency fund the other is that you would have to look to all of the sources within the city operation to determine that there is some additional funds that can be appropriated or transferred from one department to another, a third alternative is which the Commission can exercise is to go back in and adopt a new appropriate ordinance, readjusting some of the services in order to do that, so you have that authority all the time, and I want to point once again so that you are not under anyapprehsion that the City Commission is the only one under the charter that has the authority to take funds from one department and transfer them to another department. I can transfer funds within any one department between codes so they don't exceed the expenditure, but I cannot as City Manager take funds as an example, from the Fire Department and use them over in Police. Mayor Ferre: I don't know. I haven't seen any of those things happening so far since I have served here and you have been Manager, but 31 years as you will re- member there wasn't 2 months that went by wten we at 6:00 in the evening wouldn't vote on some little in adequacy thing that when you looked into it, it was a transfer of funds from one department to another one. Well, I am sure you haven't done any of that Mr. Andrews, I remember that it was done and I am not accussing Mr. Reese of doing anything that was improper because --- I an sure it was, but we we did an awful lot of transfers that the Commission voted upon and I don't think anybody ever even read or knew what was going on. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for the record and I see Mr. Saks on the telephone, I think we ought to clarify and make a part of the record, an article which appeared in Tuesday paper, either is error or Paul Andrews has got a --- lot of explaining to do where I read that this Commission was contemplating adopting the 865 million dollar budget, now either that figure is wrong or Paul, I want to know what y-,u did with the other 785 million. Mr. Andrews: All right, Law Department as indicated on this sheet- 26 thousand which would be 13 thousand. The only thing you can do there is consider the removable of one assistant City Attorney or commendation of secretaries, that's the only thing you can do. In your Civil Service, 16 thousand 700 -remove the polygraph operation. An alternative would be optimistic mark scoring system which is going to be used in the Civil Service Office which would materially help them in the whole examination process, plus some advertising that they are doing in order to track additionally people to the city plus office supplies and equipment which would be equal to the 16.7. Mr. Plummer: Paul where is the polygraph given now? Mr. Andrews: The polygraph is given at the Police Department until this budget is adopted and get set up in Civil Serive. Mr. Plummer: It is not really an additional cost, it's a transfer from one department to another. Mr. Andrews: No, it's not. We cannot do away with the polygraph operation in the Police Department, it is going to be an added cost, but it's a worth while one. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's move along. Mr. Andrews: The next one is the City Manager and this would be what I would suggest is the phasing in of the two deputy City Managers, they were funded when we presented this one a full year cycle and they could be reduced to less than that; six months. Mayor Ferre: How much would that be? Mr. Andrews: It would be 11 thousand dollars. The budget office- delayed the hiring of one vacancy to accumulate 34 hundred dollars. Employee's Services - There is no way of getting around 91 thousand, which would now be 45 thousand, you must realize that 1 million 400 thousand dollars of that is in the Medical& Hospital, Attorney, Court cost, temporary disability, 2/3 disability, permanent and tatal disability, permanent and partial disability. Special Community Programs - 39 6 thousand dollars, so it would be about 3 thousand dollars, so there you would heVe to something about reducing the park concerts, something with beautification coleittee, the flower shoe, Arbor Day, Qunitana Festival, The Community Schools Frogrea, you can consider a portion of that. Mrs. Gordon: May 1 ask you a question? You know we put something on the ballet with regard to the deputy managers, are they already on board? Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews: No, they ,are not. Is the funds in here for them? Yes ma'am they are? Mrs. Gordon: There is roughly 32 thousand dollars per position, but Mrs. Gordon, I have kept those positions vacant plus several others - six in all since the Commission is deliberating over this area and we are waiting for the results of the City Mrs. Gordon: What if it doesn't pass and the people reject it, then how much money will be loosened up? Mr. Andrews: I don't know that you are going to loose any, because if the public rejects this I am going to come to the Commission with another plan that I have formulated that will do the same thing in a different way. Mrs. Gordon: What do we put on the ballot? Mr. Andrews: To this date, right at this moment I don't know. I tried to explain this to the Commission when we did all of that, but we are there and if this doesn't work, I have .another entirely different plan that will work and that is done within the charter, but it gives people different titles, the titles may have to be explain- ed, but we can still achieve it within the scope. Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon: Commission is then how much But, you didn't ask me how much money was involved in that altogether. Over 1 hundred thousand dollars. I am sorry I didn't hear the question. How much money is there in this budget, you are assuming that this going to along with your alternative plan ,ok, supposing we didn't money would be loosened up, 1 am asking you a simple question? Mr. Andrews: Six positions. Mrs. Gordon: How much money does that amount too? Mr. Andrews: That would amount to far more than what you are looking for, if you will consider the 2 deputy city managers, special assistant(that vacant now) and others we would be talking about 100 thousand dollars. Mrs. Gordon: You are talking about 100 thousand dollars that is in here now that we don't know whether or not you are going to need or have? Mr. Andrews: Oh, we need it. Mr. Plummer: Of course, you are not being fair either Paul, because even the very issue of the deputy city managers is up for an election. Mr. Andrews: That's only method to it, so you have a purpose, there are other ways of achieving that same purpose. This is your city and we and the administration are just trying to do the very best we can to expend the dollars the most wisely and have to give us the tools to do that, if you don't we are just going to plot along as we have for year after year and not have uncovered in a very scientific way and a very good way in some of the things that we hope that we can save the city. la's. Gordon: That's a debatable scientific report. We are not going to debate it now. Mt. Andrew: All sight, Police 810 thousand dollars that will be 405, eliminate 58 sworn position and 9 civilians is one alternative. Well I have to reduce all of these numbers itt half Mr. Mayor, so you would btlt that was one alternative. Mayor Ferre: Remember there was 43 positions you wanted to fill as I remember, in the Police Department. Wag it 41 or 43? Mr. Andrews: It vas 41 positions. Mayor Ferree So, you are talking about , in other words what you are saying is instead of filling 43 spots, you would only fill 14. Mr. Andrews: Well, it's 29+ 41s , so we are talking about 33 or 34. Mayor Ferret In other words, instead of adding 41 people.you would only add 7 people. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, I know in what context you are saying that, but please don't say that I recommend it. Mayor Ferre: Recommend what? Mr. Andrews: You are saying that I recommend this. Mayor Ferre: I beg your pardon, I know you are completely against this, I am just saying that out of 40 if we were to do this, instead of increasing the Police Department's request of 41 men, we would only add 9. Mr. Andrews: There is another alternative to this, if you didn't do that you could consider the following: combination of reducing services and programs by eliminating the following: four positions in modernizing the police department police safety office, the taxicab detail, reduce the I.D. technique and property division people, that's the property division, reduce accident response to only the very serious accidents, which would remove many officers from that detail, reduce school resource program, which we are talking about The Community Inter- action, which is a very fine program, but you could reduce that, public informat- ion, which is another good program, but we could reduce that. We had an experience over the weekend between you and I Mr. Mayor, on that very area in which we are assigning a sergeant on the weekends to cover that particular area, no it's not an additional man, it's just reshifting the people we have to adiffernt work schedule, so that someone is there covering this activity on 7 days bases, and he will be productive while he is there during that time. The court license program- you would have to consider reducing that.Everyone of these things means a reduction in some kind of service and eventually affects the police officers effectiveness out on the street. In the Fire Department, 541 so that would be about 270 thousand dollars and some alternatives there or eliminate one rescue unit, eliminate one phone truck 13 and a salvage unit 11, reduction of fire inspectors, and fire prevention, and reduction of rescue personnel, is a way you could achieve that. Sanitation- 225 million, attempt to reschedule the work week which we want to do, but we want to do it on a orderly basis to reduce the overtime, reduce the white wings on the basis of those vacancies that occur, because we have gotten more modern equipment and can -- and we hope to do that as time goes on,but to force it in the budget would be hard to take. Public Works- 1 and -- thousand dollars, reduce the asphalt and don't do as much work in the public right-of-way, reduce one engineer from design, but on the other hand we have a lot of work to do, reduce right-of-way maintenance cruise including the landscaping,. We are installing more all the time but we would have to reduce it there. Parks & Recreation about 92 thousand dollars.- This one came down because our services are so essential.` You just have to reduce 13 staff positions. In the Building Department there are 30 some thousand dollars- reduce the staff by 4 positions. Finance, Internal Audit, & Communications - there is nothing you can do there. Special Programs and Accounts - you would have to turn to that page and I have gone over that very carefully and there is nothing there that.I can put on the list to recommend to you, you would have to go through and tell me, just arbitarily cut an area and I would do so. The Florida League, The Dade League, The Nations '0eitiae, License, Florida Legislature, License Man in Washington which we have initiated, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, that's 4 thousand dollars. Mrs. Gordon: How much did we may for those things together? Mr. Andrews: For that total list it's Florida League, Dade League, National etc. Now, then you get down to street: is not lightining 28Z more of the city 48 thousand dollars. The League of Cities, League of Cities, Florida Legislature, lightining , but what you could consider this year, light only 14Zor 10Z and stretch 41 s the program out for three or tour years rather than the two years we are trying to accomplish it in. Mr. Plummer: Sow much would that be? Mr. Andrews: We11, thdt would represent about 40 to 50 thousand dollars we could save. Mt. Plummer: Yes, if we didn't put any in at all we could save more. Mr. Andrews: There is a little more than that , that we could actually save. I wrote this down and I didn't collate it to carefully with the figure, but there is a substantial amount that could be saved and probably would be 150 thousand dollars that we could save if we drastically reduce the lightining of the city. Mrs. Gordon: I think you are going to find that there are people who will rebel against having these sodium vapor lights in their neighborhood and I think you are going to hear some of them this afternoon later on and you have a surplus left from last year that you haven't used yet. How much did you tell us this morning that you had? Mr. Andrews: That money that you are speaking of is for fixtures that are still in order and you are going to get a full year impact. It's been put in late in the year and have to pick up the full year impact. Mrs. Gordon: How much was it, I asked you? Mr. Andrews: The fund valve appropriation which was provided in this budget is 500 thousand dollars. Mrs. Gordon: You've got 500 thousand plus you had a million 2 additional that's a million 7, and you are going to have all of that in place by the end of this year. Mr. Andrews: It's not a question of in place Mrs. Gordon, it's a question of paying for the whole city utility bill, electricity, and the maintenance of these lights, and only a small portion of this 2 million 700 thousand dollars budget is for expansion. The total expansion would represent - I think about 300 thousand dollars. Mrs. Gordon: I am talking about the 1 million 2 that you have on the Federal Revenue Sharing portion. Is that what you are talking about? Mr. Andrews: Only a portion of that 1 million 2 is for increasing the lighting. Another portion is to pay for the basic lights that are already in place. Mrs. Gordon: From the Federal Revenue Sharing? Mr. Andrews: Yes ma'am, you have to consider the total together. There is 1 million 500 thousand dollars in the budget plus 1 million 200 thousand dollars in Federal Revenue Sharing, the two together makes up a budget of 2 million 700 thousand, of that 2 million 700 thousand approximately 600 thousand is in new lightining Mrs. Gordon: Plus the 500 you have for surplus. Mr. Andrews: No, no, they appropriated. Mrs. Gordon: You reappropriated it. Mr. Andrews: Yes, it's right here on page 6. Mrs. Gordon: I just don't think we are going to spend all of this additional for this year, that's what I am talking about. Mt. Andrews: We will unless the Commission adopts a policy- changes the policy it has about it how its going to spend it. Mts. Gordon: Well, we did discuss public hearings and that involves the people and some of the people are not going to want it. Mt. Andrews: They aaynot want it but Mrs. Gordon there are people who don't want Sanitary sewers and who don't want paving either and if you are going to treat the city in this area, you will have to struggle with the policy as to what you want to do. Mrs. Gordon: Well, I questioned the need for the entire city to be lit up in that fashion and furthhr than that I understand Mr. Howard is here and he can answer to this, that there is a differential effect upon the foliage and trees in this community from being lit all the time. Can you give me any information on that; is that true or is that just something that somebody has dreamed up? Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon, after we got this information which I forgot what the source was but it was printed; that much I remember and we started to explore our various areas including the publication that it came from. There was no foundation in this; we could find no evidence that this was true. Mr. Plummer: You know, somewhere along the line we are forgetting that the enactment of Federal Revenue Sharing was to give relief to taxpayers. Before we•start saying let's cut it down , I think we ought to seriously consider that motive that was generated by Federal Revenue Sharing to give relief to the taxpayer. I don't see a bit of relief. Mr. Andrews: There are 7 million some hundred thousand dollars. Commissioner Plummer you would have to -- the services that are being rendered through Federal Revenue Sharing Funds are part of the internal services of the city and the Federal Revenue Sharing is there to fund those services. If you don't have Federal Revenue Sharing ,you have to find some other source of funding it or eliminate the service. Mr. Plummer: No, the difference is Paul, you don't keep expanding. That's the difference. We were never into — example, school resource officer , we were never into that as deep as we are now and we are not getting out any easier , we keep treading ahead and we are deeper and deeper and deeper. No one is trying to say let's stop it and turn it around. Let's just go back to the time that Garmire came up here and asked for 756 thousand dollars. I didn't have any magic wand to find it, it was there and we pulled it. Now, this is what I am saying that this basis of Federal Revenue Sharing was given to the city for relief of the taxpayers. There is no relief. We keep charging them more and more and more. Mr. Andrews: Well, if we had not had Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and had not had a 10 mill cap put on our taxes and the Commission wanted to provide these programs we would be at this stage in life providing them probably through tax sources. Mr. Plummer: That's exactly my point. Mr. Andrews: That's right, so the services are still there. We would have been providing them with taxes, but we are providing them through Federal Revenue Sharing, the purpose for which it was intended to relieve taxes. Mr. Plummer: Paul, you know it sounds good but our budget every year has gone up, it has gone up every year. There is no restraint that I see in this budget to hold back another increase. You are taking in this budget and roughly increasing it by 10Z. Mr. Andrews: I realize that, but look, let's look at the practical side of this; where are the increases ? Mr. Plummer: Paul „you know the human cry out here is an elected official. You don't hear it. I hear -- in last Sunday, let me give you an example that will tear your heart out, Last Sunday at my Church when I hee8 eethem count the money there came a note and do you know what that not said? Ms will be my last denQ.tation to Church in Miami, I have not been priced out of the luxury of living in Miami, because of increases I can no longer live in Mimai,unquote. Let me tell you something Paul, those people who are on fixed incomes you can't just tell them ,ok your miiliage is down, but your tax bill is up, because they have no source to go too. Mr. Andrews: But if you are going to continue to render services, how in the world are we going to provide these services with the limited funds that we have? We are constantly depending less and less on the taxpayers participation in funding all of these services; the cost of services are going up, the public is demanding more, there expression through the Civil Rights Act and so forth, we are called 4�3 upon to renddr far more dervices than we ever have been. If someone has a better anilweti to this I Bute would like to hear it. MOW Ferre: Paul, we will be getting into that in a moment, but I would like now you about 10 or 15 minutes ago said that if you are forced into this you have an alternative, well my friend, looks like you are going to get forced into this, so tell us what your alternative is. Mr. Andrews: I honestly don't know what it is. If you are going to put the further restriction on me that we are not going to do anything with Police,. Fire, and Sanitation. You've got to leave the door open for me, because I have to go to those departments and reduce those departments. Mr. Plummet: Paul, the lkayor's answer that he is looking for is that you made the statement a minute ago ; rather than chopping every department 52 now, to let you show how over an orderly process of a year you could reduce it 52 to meet the same end results, but not cutting it and chopping it today; did I understand that? That's the alternative he wants to hear from you. Mr. Andrews: What I am saying is that given time and we are talking about 11/2 million, not the 52, that given time and under an orderly process and if we can get our city computerized and some other things we can demonstrate how we can reduce cost. We are going to do it in two departments here. Mr. Plummer: But you only were going to reduce 400 thousand from what I beard. Mr. Andrews: That's in one department and 300 and 1000 in another one. Mrs. Gordon: I didn't underatand that being the question. Mayor Ferre: The question was is that this Commission is not going to ask for a straw vote at this moment. This Commission says if you cut another Million and a half dollars off this budget, I am going to ask you the hard question as to where it's coming from. I understood Paul, a few minutes ago to say that rather than to go out and arbitarily cut all these departments 212 , because obviously you can't do it quite that way, that he had an alternative as to where that million and 1 is coming from. Mr. Andrews: Not an alternative, an alternative from the extent that if you adopt the millage that I am now proposing to you of the 11.157 figure that if you adopt that then the coming year we will have an opportunity to provide for some of this reduction. I can't even guarantee that we are going to find another million and La dollars in savings and I am not about to tell you that. A11 I can tell you is that we are going to make every effort to reduce and we are demonstrating it here in these two proposals and we will reduce as much of that forecast on paper of 400 thousand dollars in one department and 300 thousand in the other and through an orderly process begin to reduce cost in government for equal service, but there is no way for me right at this moment to recommend to you that if you are looking for an additional million and dollars --- Mrs. Gordon: I don't think that was the Mayor's question, but maybe it was what he questioned you but I thought he was questioning you with regard to the deputy manager portion of the ballot and your comment were if it fails I will still need it because I am going to do something else, I thought you were questioning him on that, now I would like to know what that something else is. Mt. Andrews: I have the authority for one, to appoint more Assistant City Managers two: I have the authority to appoint Special Administrative Assistants. Mr. Plummer: But if you run over you budget you have to come back before this Commission. Mr. Andrews: 0h no, I would never run over my budget and I would never do any— thing that wasn't approved in this budget. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but what you are saying now is that we are wasting our time putting that on the ballot, spending the money to let the people know about it and the rest of the bit, because what's the difference you are going to do it anyway, so why did you let us go through that exercise. Mr. Andrews: There was no extra money, this is a clear and fine way of doing this. We have reports that we have spent tax dollars to get and define 44 Mrs. Gordon: t thought that was the grant money that not taxed on. Mr. Andrewb: There is tins dollars involved in here, certainly I spent time on it,and other people in the city have spent time on it and most of you have been involved in this process. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but if we felt that was what we wanted we wouldn't have put it on the ballot I don't think. I think it was some question of whether or not that was --- top heaviness that we are looking for. Mayor Ferre: I think we have room to discuss that in the future, Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but there is 100 thousand dollars that's being budgeted now, that I have my doubts about. When we are trying to squeeze pennies whether We should allow that to remain in there. Mayor Ferre: Here is the dilemma that we are in Ladies and Gentlemen, this is like the farmer tells the fellow who is taking care of the cows that he wants to cut down on the feed on that animal, he wants that cow to get less grains, less hay because we can't afford it, but he wants the milk production to go up 10%. Now, I know that there are a lot of farmers that have been trying to do that but I have to hear of a cow that willing to go along. Mrs. Gordon: I have never milked a caw so I can't be any of, that with you. Mayor Ferre: Well, I have. You didn't know I was a farm boy did you? Well, I want to tell you that's what we are talking about, we want to feed the cow less hay, but we want more milk and it just can't be done and this is where we are, we have to get down to the nitty gritty. The one thing that I think in all fairness to the Manager we have to do is rather than to tell him all right cut down 10 people in the Police Department, that's a unilateral arbitary way of doing it, if we have to go to that extent; we will have to go there, but I would like up until the last moment to give the Manager every opportunity to look hard- er and harder at the budget to see where he can get these extra sources so that we can cut down the proposed budget by 21 million, now 11 million. It might very well be Mr. Manager, instead of spending 1 million 2 in lightning we may only be able to spend 600 thousand dollars on lightining this year. I would rather do that than take 5 policemen off of the beat or take an I.D. union off, or take the polygraph operation out of the Civil Service. Mrs. Gordon: I am not sure that you can designate some of those to -supplement the lightning program because part of the guidelines safety in it. Mr. Andrews: Well, you know Mrs. Gordon, I understand what you are you have to appreciate another area. Let me give you an example: Mrs. Gordon: One more question before you answer that one. How many of the 40 people do you already have on board of your department? Mr. Andrews: We have 40 authorized positions , 10 vacancies, and 30 filled. Mrs. Gordon: You have 10 vacancies and you are operating effectively.' Mr. Andrews: Well, I don't think so, ask the Community Relation's Board how many meetings I have missed, because I have had to stay here and do things that I can't delegate? If you want to have me participate in a greater way in this total community, find out what's going on and relate that to city government,then I have to get out of that office for a while and I can't do that without getting some additional assistance. D.B. funds I think has Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews: Mr. Plummer: saying, but Paul, do you have to go, if you want to use that particelar area? All right, let me give you an illustration. Excuse me, let me ask you another question, is Ray Goode there? Mr. Andrews: Yes, he attends far more meeting; I think than I do, or when there is an Manpower meeting or another one that I missed just recently when its called upon either the County Manager or the City Manager to attend. Look, I can operate -- we have had change in government in the last 4 or 5 years as to what is expected of us and we are getting more and more closer to the people and the people are begining to recognize what they should expect of government. There is more printed in the newspaper about government and city than it ever has been. People come out to the meetings more frequently. You are taking your meetings to the people so they can better understand it. When you get through at those meetings we get quite a few calls back and we have to be responsible . Mr. Plummer: Paul it's reflected in your budget, in three years your budget had tripled. Mrs. Gordon: t didn't know that the people are so happy with the such a top heavy city government. Some people think that we don't even need any you know. Mr. Andrews: I can supply you with like governments of this size and give you a staffing pattern of the activities that we have carried on and I will tell you what. If you will go along with it, I'll take the average of the number of people that are identified in budget, budget analysis, budget researchers, management analysis, that are in governments that are really progressing and have the kind of downtowns in the communities with the facilities available, because maybe those people have had enough time to meet with the Chamber of Commerce's in the community to get things underway. Mrs. Gordon: I am not agruing about the benefits of getting modernizing or that but I am a :uing that detriments of increasing budgets for additional personnel on this amount, you know in this year of great concern, economic concern every- where unless you think we will cut down on employment that way. Mayor Ferre: Well, what Paul is saying is you can't do somethir•.g with nothing. Mr. Plummer: Yes but that's not the point I am concern with. Mrs. Gordon: That not the point at all. Mr. Plummer: The point I am saying is that in three years his budget has tripled that what I am saying, it's not in proportion ---- Mayor Ferre: This is going to be something to be discussed, so you might as well not get into it,let's get back to where we were. Mrs. Gordon: I want to tell you another thing Paul, until you show us what you plan with some of those revenue sharing funds, the balance of them. I am not about ready to vote on this millage no way. Mr. Plummer: Well, very simple Mr. Mayor, in 1971-72, the manager's budget was 199 thousand dollars for round figures or 200 thousand if you really want to call it.He at that time had 18 employees , proposed in the 1975 budget he has gone to 602 thousand dollars and 30 employees. It just seems very simple mathematics to me. I am using the fact that in 1971 the budget department was a part of his manager's office. Mrs. Gordon: I am talking about 74-75 he has a budget of 40 . Mr. Plummer: In 1974-75 his budget reflects 21 employees in his office and 9 in the budget and just that, I am not going into employees services ok there is nothing to give there. I am saying that his budget in 3 years has trippled and he has gone up 12 employees. It just resolve5itself down how much government we can afford, that's the point I make Paul, you take it from there. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, in 1972-73 the City Manager's Office in total , labor relation, budget and all consisted of 24 people. 18 were filled and 6 were vacant. In 1973-74 those three area were increased by 10 personnel. The minutes of the Commission Meetings in which I made the presentation on adding the three deputy city manager were approved by this Commission. Mr. Plummer: Subject to, all right you call it 3 . I am going to call it 5. Mr. Andrews: And I demonstrated to Commission when Mrs. Gordon asked me, how do you propose to the fund these and I said they would be funded from existing personnel and we eliminated 6 positions and I can document them ---- Mr. Plummer: Based on the fact and let's pull the minutes that we in fact adopted the Boos -Allen report . Mr. Reese made the comment or you made the comment that if you approve the Booz-Allen there won't be money for it, put it in there and if you don't approve it we will withdraw the money. Now, contrary 46 to that point. One deputy city manager was approved. Mr. Andrews: Three was authorized Commissioner Plummer. Mtn. Plummer: if we approve the BoozwAllen report. Mr. Andrews: It was after the adoption of the budget we had an understanding that I would not fill anymore of the authorized positions until the Boot - Allen report was completed. Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mr. Andrews: What I am trying to say is that at budget time like we are at budgeting time right now, the Commission had the facts before them in total in their budget document and that called for 34 positions and those were authorized add adopted and we have filled 28 and 6 were vancant during that period of time. Mr. Plummer: Paul, I am not going to belabor the point. All I was told as a Commissioner very simply was that Mr. Reese put in the money for the deputy city manager's or you did and when it was questioned, it was said that if you adopt the Booa-Allen report, I am putting the money in there predicated that you are going to adopt it, if it is not adopted , the money will not be used. Mr. Andrews: But at the budget presentation Commissioner Plummer, whatever was said prior to that one, when we had the budget presentation with the charts and you have copies of those charts. It was well understood why we needed the positions ; Where they were going. Mt. Plummer: No, sir it was not. It was understood well, where the money would be used if the Commission adopted the deputy city manager plan. Mrs. Gordon: We never did though. Mr. Plummer: That's right but then he went ahead and that's the discussion he and I had 6 months ago, he appointed the deputy city manager , he misunderstood. My question very simple - my point that I am trying to make is the; in 3 years the City Manager's Office and Budget have gone up triple in moneys and gone up 12 employees, that's the point and I think it's too much. Are my figures wrong Paul? Mr. Andrews: I don't exactly know how Mr. Plummer: Well, let's call it in 1971- the budget shows 199,764 with 18 employees. Well 1971-72, excuse me it's four years, then we come over to this year FY74-75, you add together your budget and the budget department and you come up with just an assess of 600 million dollars and 30 employees. 600 thousands, I am sorry. Now, I just think its too much. Mr. Andrews: Well, what is the Commission's wish for me, item by item to -adjustify these positions or how do you want me to go about it? Mt. Plummer: Maybe the rest of them don't agrue with me., I am just speaking for one. Mayor Ferre: I think what we ought to do is take a straw vote, see if it's the will of this Commission to further reduce or to accept the recommendations that .is submitted today and then give the manager the opportunity, depending on what the consensus of this Commission to go back and either except if we except it and proceed or to take another harder look. Mrs. Gordon: Mt. Mayor, I would like to tell you once again that I don't intend to take a vote on mill.ags until the Manger has furnished us with the information which was the result of the consultation between the United Way , the County, and himself and I as not going to vote on the village until we have received that information. Mayor Ferret Well, I am not asking that you vote on the village at this time. Mr. Plummer: Mayor, aren't you really boiling it down that the vote that you want taken today is, do we want to cut an additional 1 million 555 thousand or we don't, isn't that what you are really saying? Mayor Ferre: 'That's right. 47 Mrs. Gordon: I am not going to make that determination straw vote or other Mite until I have got all the information to digest. ?hr. Plu Miner: Ok, that's your prerogative. Mayor Pert*: Do you have any other suggestion/ Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: I don't know what to suggest, except that time is running against us if we don't come to some decision soon, if we go to a budget estimate that requires reduction of taxes, but provides for an increase in the operating millage which succeeds certified tillage we got a problem of setting dates for bearings, I think that we should come to this conclusion because time is going to run against you, we could be going at this until the middle of October if we are not Careful and that would be --- Mayor Ferre: That's why we have to take a stand to this. Mrs. Gordon: Why don't you furnish the rest of the information that I asked you for? Mr. Andrews: I have it right here, Mrs. Gordon, we are not finished with our analysis in coming to a conclusion, but I have the 36 proposals in my office with the documentation and so forth, and I can supply that to you. I can supply that tomorrow, it just means copying what I have and I can send it to all of the Commissions. Mayor Ferre: We have got an hearing on the 23rd. Well, can you have that to us over the weekend some time and then we can meet at 2:00 p.m. and take an hour of that and then take the straw vote at that time. Mr. Andrews: I had worked up a schedule. Mayor Ferre: If not we have to go out and advertise to meet these deadlines. We are behind schedule as it is. Mr. Andrews: I can furnish the information on the Federal Revetitue Sharing to the City Commission on tomorrow as I said. Mayor Ferre: All right , that gives us over the weekend to read them and on the 23rd at 2:OOp.m. we can take our straw vote. Mr. Plummer: The only thing you are in question is that on the Federal Revenue Sharing is that item that is designated to Social Services. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews: That's not going to change this, you and I know that. Well, it is according to Mrs. Gordon. That depends on what he has got on ther. Is it 2:00 p.m. on Monday? Yea, or earlier if you want. Mayor Ferre: I would say that its not going to change it because the amounts involved are not sufficient to change anything. The only thing you could do is to ask more funds to be dedicated to Social Services. Mrs. Gordon: Let's wait until we see it Maurice, instead of making --- Mayor Ferre: flow much is involved, how much how you are breaking them down, but how much these services. Mr. Andrews: 1 million 10 thousand dollars have is for 5 million 300 thousand dollars. are you allocating, I am not saying basically will we be allocating for in round figures and the request we Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to tell you how I feel about this, I did that we have to certainly reach as far as we can. I for one, am'not for the reduction substantially Jf any of the basic services that the city renders, if however we have to slow down some of these proposed improvements, I think you are going to have to take a long hard look at that. I think we ought to come prepared here on Monday at 2:00 after we have had the opportunity over the weekend to see the information that Commissioner Gordon requested to take a position whether or not it is the intention of this Commission, hopefully I don't think it's tile yet for us to be doing this, I think it's still within the Manager's prerogative once he gets the policy and the will of this Commission to do further cutting or recommend for the cutting once we set the basic policy guidelines, now if he doesn't then, I think it does fall within our rounds to spetifically dtate and he may very well take a stand, I remember Mr. Reese doing that, saying well that's it. The rest of it you figure out where you are going to cut it from. Mr. Andrews may say that and then it will be up to us to either let it go or on our awn start deciding what is going to be cut, so I have no opinions to the contrary as to the way we will play this one. At 2:00 p.m. we have one hour between two and three to discuss this further and hopefully come up to a -- to take a straw vote on the direction and then give the Manager further time if that's the will of this Commission, Ok. Any further discussion? Well, I am going to tell you at 3:00 wt: are going to take up Claughton Island, now if you want to stay beyond Claughton Island. Whatever time that takes, that's all right with me. Does anybody else want to say anything before this Commission on the budget? All right, then we will take an half hour break and please, at 5:00 clock sharp, let's start up again. Mr. Andrews: I would like to,see all of you upstairs for just 10 minutes or so. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at: P.M. ATTEST: H. D. SOUTHERN City Clerk RALPH G. ONGIE Assistant City Clerk MAURICE A. FERRE Mayor 4:30 O'Clock