Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1973-09-13 MinutesMIAMI CITY COM MISS I Old MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON SEP 131973 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL H. D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK RALPH G. QNGIE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. WAIVING READING OF MINUTES OF PREV.MEETING PROCLAMATIONS- CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION PERSONAL APPEARANCE-MRS. ATHALIE RANGE CITY MANAGER'S SEVERANCE PAY PERSONAL APPEARANCE- F. WARREN 0 REILLY RE: CHARLES IVES FESTIVAL DIRECT COMMUNICATION LINE -STATION W.I.O.D. DISCUSSION OF LEGAL OPINIONS- PROPOSED TRANSFER OF PARKS AND RECREATION TO METRO ADVISORY ARBITRATION AWARD PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT -EMPLOYEE PETITION RE: C.S.REGISTER FOR RECREATION LEADER III EXPANSION OF FACILITIES -SPORTSMAN PARK WAREHOUSE FOR ORANGE BOWL COMMITTEE REGUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 60S MIAMI - B41 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLAINT - OPERATION OF DRUG CLINIC (HALFWAY HOUSE) CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 10111112,13 BLOCK 8, WINTER GARDEN VARIANCE- 22.5 LOT 6, BLOCK 3 COPPINGERS TROPICAL GARDENS (DENIED) PASSING OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE REPORT AND DISCUSSION (RESTRUCTURING) FILL SUBMERGED LAND- TENTATIVE PLAT 875-A +THE SEAWARD+ CONDITIONAL USE - HAYNESWORTH VILLAGE CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION PORTION OF TENTATIVE PLAT - +RITALITZA+ ENTER INTO CONTRACT-AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AND CLOSING OF ALLEY 1440 S. BAYSHORE DRIVE DREDGE PERMIT -BLOCK 4 SOUTH ELMIRA CONDITIONAL USE- LOT 1, BRICKELL POINT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FLAT SIGNS ACCEPT PLAT - SAILBOAT BAY SUBDIVISION AMD. ACCEPT PLAT - SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUB. DISCUSSION 73-651 73-652 73-653 DISCUSSION 73-654 DISCUSSION 73-655 DISCUSSION 73-656 FIRST READING 73-657 DISCUSSION 73-658 DISCUSSION FIRST READING 73-659 DISCUSSION 73-660 73-661 FIRST READING 73-662 73-663 PAGE NO. 1 1 1{2 3--33 34 34 35--36 35--52 53--56 57 57--59 59 60 60--61 61--63 64 64 65 65 66 66-67 67 67--68 68 69 a • INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO, PAGE NO. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. BOXING PROGRAM - A.A.U. NATIONAL SHOW BID IMPROVEMENTS TO BOXING FACILITIES REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS ETC. MODIFIED PETITION FOR VARIANCE PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPER CLUBS- PROVIDING AS CONDITIONAL USE ESTABLISHING LICENSE & FEES DETERMINATION OF HOURS OF SALE PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLOCK 1, GRAND VIEW PARK URGE STATE OF FLORIDA TO PURCHASE FISHER ISLAND FOR PARK PURPOSES 46 WEST FLAGLER STREET - REPORT BY THE CITY MANAGER APPEARANCE OF MR. GEORGE LING ACTUARY FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI REVIEW OF AGREEMENTS FOR CHARGE ACCOUNTS HOTELS -MOTELS USING CITY GOLF COURSES APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN PERMIT FOR GAS TRANSMISSION MAIN CITY GAS COMPANY ACCEPT PLAT - BISCAYNE SHELL SUBDIVISION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY -GUIDELINES -NO PERSONS OTHER THAN ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT .APPLICANTS TO APPEAR BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY ON STATUS OF MODEL CITIES BOARD APPOINTMENTS STATUS OF AGREEMENT WITH PANCOAST AND ASSOCIATES FOR PROPOSED POLICE HEADQUARTERS REPORT BY CITY MANAGER ON MEETING WITH DR. HENRY KING STANFORD RE: IMPROVEMENTS AT THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM SIX MONTHS EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT LESLIE QUIGG, YACHT DOCKS DEPARTMENT PROPOSED REORGANIZATION -ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS BY BOOZ-ALLEN COMPANY ACCEPT PLAT- N. & C. SUBDIVISON ACCEPT PLAT - DE LA HOZ SUBDIVISION 73-664 -73-665. 73-666 73-667 FIRST READINI FIRST READING FIRST READING 73-668 FIRST READING 73-669 73-670 DISCUSSION 73-671 73-672 73-673 73-674 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 73-675 DISCUSSION 73-676 73-677 69--71 71 72--74 75 75 76-77 77--78 78--79 79 80 81 82 82--87 87--90 90 90--95 95 95 INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO. SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE NO. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. DISCONTINUE USE OF INTERLOCKING PLANT AT N. E. 11TH STREET & MIAMI AVENUE FEC RR RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 72-575 CITY HALL PROMENADE DECK ROOFING RATIFY ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER TEMP.CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT -OLD PORT OF MIAMI ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ORANGE BOWL WHEELCHAIR PLATFORM 1973 PUBLISH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE f►F COMPLETED WORK EAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMP.SR-5352-C ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK- MIAMI STADIUM FENCING 1972 EXECUTE DEED- SALE OF PROPERTY TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK MUNICIPAL SHOPS AND INCINERATOR FENCING CONVEY PROPERTY TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BY flUIT CLAIM DEED - SUMMIT PARK REaUEST METRO TO DEDICATE CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY FOR DIXIE PARK PURCHASE BY NEGOTIATION -PARCEL NO.1537.1 EATON PARK EXPANSION DECLARE POLICY -HISTORICAL MARKER COMMEMOR- ATING LANDING OF MEMENDEZ-TEMP.PLACEMENT ORDINANCE -CIVIL SERVICE RULES & REGULATIONS AMENDING RULE VIII-PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR POLICE OFFICERS ETC. DENIAL OF CLAIMS AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 73-422 - PROVIDE ALLOC- ATION MEMBERSHIP DUES -WORLD BOXING ASSN. ORDINANCE- PROVIDING PRE -PAID GOLF COURSE FEES EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR 3 MONTHS RAFAEL GARCIA. INTERPRETER CLERK ENTER INTO COVENANT WITH N.U.D. EXPANSION OF NORTH DINNER KEY PARK ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR APPRAISAL OF 46 WEST FLAGLER STREET PROPERTY CONFIRM ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER REPAIR OF 50 H.P. MOTOR 73-678 73-679 73-680 73-681 73-682 73-683 73-684 73-685 73-686 73-687 73-688 73-689 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 8182 73-690 73-691 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 8183 73-692 73-693 73-694 73-695 96 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 101 101 102 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 • • INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE NO. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. ACCEPT BID - SELF-PROPELLED HYDRAULIC POWER SUPPLY UNIT ALLOCATE $1,472,902.00 FOR LE JEUNE GARDENS SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT AWARD BID - SERVICING OF PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AWARD BID - BASE RADIO STATION RECEIVING AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT AWARD BID - HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS PROPOSED SHARING OF COSTS WITH MIAMI-DADE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY FOR PROJECT ENTITLED N. E. 10TH STREET STORM AND SANITARY OUTFALL AWARD BI'D - DOOR AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT 1972 ORDINANCE - CHANGE EXPIRATION DATE ON CHAUFFEURS LICENSE TO OCTOBER 31, 1973 DISCUSSION - REQUEST OF SISTER MIRANDA FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF PORTABLE SCHOOL BUILDING • 73-696 73-697 73-698 73-699 73-700 73-701 73-702 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE no. 8184. DISCUSSION 106 107 107 108 108 109 109 110 • MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 13th day o6 September 1973, the City Commission o6 the City o6 Miami, Flokcida met at its regular meetLrtg ptace at City Hat £n said City .in keguean session. The meeting was caned to order at 9:35 O'Clock A.M. by Mayon David T. Kennedy and the 6ollowing members o6 the Commission were bound to be present: Absent: None Mk. Reboso Mk. Plummer Mks. Gokdon Reverend Gibson Mayok Kennedy An invocation was delivered by Reverend Gibson who then led those peesent in a pledge o6 allegiance to .the gag. 1, WAIVING READHG OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The following motion was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS CITY COMMISSION MEETING Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 2, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION, PLAQUES ETC. (a) Pkoc.LamatLon deelaxing October 27, 1973 as UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY WALKATHON DAY (b) Cent.i6.icate o 6 Appnee.iation presented to Mk. Walter Et.ing .in necogn.it.ion o6 his e66orts on the Mayon's Committee to study the pnoposae o6 tnansher o6 the Department o6 Panful and Reene at.ion ,inctud.ing the Orange Bowl to Metnopotitan Dade County (c) Pnoclamat.on in neeogntt.ion o6 Constitution Week 3, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MRS. ATHALIE RANGE Mrs. Athalie Range appeared before the Commission on behalf of the citizens residing in the areas between N. W. 7th Avenue and 17th Avenue and N. W. 54th Street to N. W. 79th street concerning the sewering of this area. She reiterated the problem that will exist when the sewers are completed, persons presently using septic tanks and unable to afford the connection to the lateral and cannot obtain extended time to continue use of septic tanks. She emphasized many families in the area .are living on fixed inflexible incomes and would be unable to come up with the necessary dollars to connect to the completed sewers and requested some sort of plan to be formulated to accomodate a deferred payment plan. i SEP131973 • . Mrs. Gordon offered to become part of an investigative team to study this problem. Mr. Andrews, City Manager reminded the Commission that on July 26, 1973, one of the ordinances the Commission adopted was a charter amendment providing a `.'rmula that will exactly solve this problem and that the ordinance prov-d, ,: that ' n;; =ho►+ino of financial hardship, cost of connecting latera - the Frnperty line to the sanitary sewers Tray be paid for with ;i<,. lvai 1aie from sanitary sewer con- struction and the property owners tr.',1 he able to pay the city this cost in equal annual installments Mr. Vince Grimm, Director of public advised Mrs. Range that it included the connection for wherevc- 0 septic tank might be on the private property all the way to the ,per in the street. The City Attorney stated the language provided "House connection" so it is clear wherever it can be done the least -expensively, to make a house connection to the sewer. Charter Amendment #3. He reiterated that when the program would be started, it could then be determined how long the payment schedule would be and that this would be determined by the Commission at that time. Mrs. Range inquired who would set up the guidelines as to what would constitute a financial hardship. Mr. Rothstein informed that they would be set up by the adminis- tration and with recommendations to the Commission. Mr. Andrews stated this was in keeping with Mrs. Range's previous appearance before the Commission on the same subject. Mrs. Range requested the Commission to look into the program implemented in the city of Galveston, Texas to determine what they have done to which the Commission agreed. Mayor Kennedy suggested Mrs. Gordon head a committee to work for the passage of these charter amendments and requested the City Manager to investigate the possihility of federal funds for use in cases where persons could not afford the hookup. a • 4. CITY MANAGER'S SEVERANCE PAY APPEARANCE OF JACK R. RICE: Mayor Kennedy: Item #5, Mr. Jack Rice, with such distinction all the way from the City of Miami Police Dept. to our City Attorney, Mr. Jack R. Rice: Thank you Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, it is a pleasure for me to be here today, not only because I am back before the Commission but also has, I think one of the outstanding meii of the Community as my client, Mr. M.L. Reese, who fared with distinction — as City Manager, and whose integrity while serving in the job, I think is unquestioned. My name is Jack R. Rice, Jr. for the record, and my address is 2424 N.W. 1st Street, Miami,Florida. It is always embarrasing for someone in Mr. Reese's stature to come back to discuss something as mundane as money, but you know that is what makes the world go round, and everybody has their voice in the world and if the person is entitled to it, he ought to receive it. When Mr. Reese came to me to discuss the problem, I went through the record, and it was my opinion that he has a worthwhile and worthy case. I had discussed the matter with the City Attorney and he suggested that we present it , to you because after all, you were Mr. Reese's bosses all these years and certainly are familiar with the problem. Mr. Reese's problem is not one of do you have the money, ----the money is already budgeted . The question is what he is entitled to on vacation pay. At the time Mr. Reese was retained as City Manager in 1960, he was interviewed by Mr. B.E..Hearn, then Commissioner. and the Honorable Judge Henry Balaban, then Commissioner, and Robert King High, then Mayor of the City of Miami. At the time he was retained, they could not pay him the same salary he received while serving as the County Manager of Montgomery County, Maryland but they made a salary arrangement with him which was satisfactory, with a promise that he would have an in- crement as time went on. They also told him that he would receive the same fringe benefits that he received while being County Manager in Maryland. His fringe benefit at that time was thirty working days per year vacation. After Mr: Reese came to work for the City, the records kept by the City Finance Director, payroll section, was predicated on a 30 day per year vacation, 30 working days. This record is systematically kept by the Manager's office and is kept by the payroll section, the record of both department s , the City Manager or his section and the Dept. of Finance coincided as to thirty days vacation time per year. Every year and some- times more frequently► I don't know exactly how often there is a confirmation of the payroll records with the different departments and the City Manager's office. Every year the payroll record as to accumulated vacation of the City Manager was certified by the Finance Department, sent to the City Manager and it was certified by his office. Mr. Reese was consistent in his records and so was the finance department. No questiol occured until Mr. Reese had announced his retire- ment, and sent down the record which is a separation record on terminal pay. At that time, they were first computed on a 30 day vacation year, however they were, ---after they were first computed under that manner, the finance director then recomputed and said no, it should be done on 30 days, it should 9/13/73 3 • • done on a lesser figure as to the same vacation time as I assumed departmental directors receive. Therefore, we were at am impasse, and the City Manager had one provision and the finance Director had the other, Mr. Reese had of course announced his retirement and retired and predicated on the opinion of the City Attorney, Mr. Reese accepted his separation terminal pay as computed with the Finance Director, with the understanding that would be without prejudice of presenting the case here today, and proceeding further with the claim. Now, we all know that, ---by the way, I was a former employee for 31 years and I know the caliber of men who serve on the Commission and I know they have always been liberal, and I think we have one of the best employees -em- ployer relationships and one of the most liberal benefits of any Municipality, --probably, I know in the Southeastern United States, probably in them United States, --we have a wonderful working relationship. All employees accumulate a considerable amount of time they go through life as an employee of the City because of the benefits you have conferred on them and it is not unusual for a person to have, by the way, all time is now, ---for payroll records is computed on an hourly basis as opposed to per -day basis, and I received quite a bit of vacation time myself, sick time, ---almost a year's pay as separation pay, when I left the City after 31 years. People in responsible positions can't always get away to go on their vacation. I know and my good boss here, ex -boss here,and my good friend Alan Rothstein will tell you that you start on a vacation and something comes up, you got to come back. That was just for a lowly employee like myself, just imagine what it is like for a man in Mr. Reese's position. He constantly had to come back, and while you all were on vacation in August, he had the problem of leading with different people around the City and setting up the budget, and getting all these things done so you would have something to act on. It is very difficult for the City Manager to get away and if you go through the records of any prior City Manager you will find that none of them could get away. Although I have looked at other off cials of the City and found that a lot of them got away for more time than, under any cir- cumstances they would be entitled to, --with a man that the City officials had been appointed for a year has taken 25 days off, some of them are sick and took a whole year off,so I mean when you come to the higher officials, there has been a somewhat different standard than there has been for the regular employee, but in Mr. Reese's case, when he was interviewed and by the way, I have some distinguished gentlemen here who agreed to come down and speak in his behalf. There is no question that he was promised what we are asking for today, and you know as members of the Commission, you always come to take this time off , and take that time off, when he asks for it, but you always want him here when you've got a problem, and he has only taken the minimum time off during his term of office, and that is why he has a moderate amount of vacation built up time. Nothing like I had, or other old-timers. At this time I think the first person you should hear from is my client himself who will explain to you his initial approach on acceptance of position of City Manager back in 1960. Mr. Reese, '? Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear here this morning, ---when I was appointed County Manager in Montgomery 4 9/13/73 • County, give your Mr. Plummer: For the record, would yoty name, sir, ---- Mr. Reese: My name is Melvin L. Reese, I live at ;401 SW 4th Avenue, Miami,Florida. I can't give the zip code number, ---I don't remember. When I was appointed County Manager in Montgomery County in 1955, the leave question, annual and sick leave was negotiated with that particular, ----they were called councilmembers, and when I left the conditions that were negotiated, my severance and so on, was reconciled on that b«sis. In conversation in Washington with Judge Balaban, B.L,..Hearn and Mr. DuMond, each and every time I reaised questions because of ignorance of what was the employee benefits for the manager, and I was assured, rather than go into detail, that if I was appointed City Manager I would be given the same benefits that I had received in Montgomery County, or was receiving. Now this was the understanding and this is what I came to town with that understanding, and I feel that the severance or the accumulated leave that was un-used, I should be compensated for in the same category as other people has been compensated as well as I was compensated for my un-used leave in Montgomery County. If there are any question, I will be happy to answer. Mr. Rice: Mr. Reese, I might ask was your vacation leave 30 working days while you were employeed in Montgomery County? Mr. Reese: Thirty working days and fifteen sick days, ---- that we were allowed,--- that was what was worked out. When I left Montgomery County, they did not, and it was part of the agreement, compensate me for the un-used sick leave. This was well understood, if I didn't use them I lost them, but I was compensated for the un-used leave, which was based on 30 working days. Mr. Rice: I was in error for the records, that Mr. Reese corrected me, it was Mr. DuMOnd as opposed to Mr. High that spoke to him, in Washington. I have attempted to contact all the former Commissioners and the Mayor that served at the time of Mr. Reese's employment, of course you know Bob High is no longer here, and I was unable to contact Mr. DuMOnd, however I did contact Judge Balaban and George DuBreuil and and I talked to Steve Clark, and they are here. Mr. B.E. Hearn, our former City Commissioner, who served with such distinction over a long period of time, authorized me to make a statement in his behalf, because he could not make it. Mr. B.E..Hearn, former Commissioner of the City of Miami, and a member of the Commission at the time Mr. M. L. Reese was appointed City Manager of the City of Miami, who interviewed him in Washington D.C. for this position prior to his appointment, has authorized me to state that it was the agreement of the Commission at the time of appointment of Mr. Reese, that he was to receive no less fringe benefits than he received while acting as County Manager for Montgomery County,Maryland, the position held immediately prior to his appointment as City Manager of Miami. I Would now like to call on•the Honorable Judge henry Balaban, to let him review with you his conversation with Mr. Reese. Mr. Balaban: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I did interview Mr. Reese in Maryland at the request of the Commission. We there discussed his employment and the terms of 9/13/73 5 his employment and it is my recollection and I so attest :hat we hired Mr. Reese on the basis of his having these vacation days. I don't recall the matter of sick leave, hut I do recall the matter of his entitlement to his vacation time. I brought these facts back to the Commission, and we discussed it at that time, and as I recall it was approved, whether he has taken it or not, I don't know, More than that I can't tell you. Mayor Kennedy: Nice to see you. Mr. Rice: Judge I want to thank you for taking your time from a vary busy schedule, and you were very considerate. One of the other members of the Commission at that time who wasn't particularly enured with the appointment of Mr. Reese, but he is a very fair guy, and a very good friend, and I know that you all think a lot of him, my good friend George DuBreuil. We went to school around the same time, not at the same school, --- Mr. DuBreuil: Thank you, ----for the record my name is George DuBreuil, I live at 803 Anastasia, Coral Gables. One thing that has been brought out here this morning, the City at that time was not operating in the 'Sunshine law' or under the 'Sunshine Law.' I am not trying to be facetious, but that was one of the little quibs I had at the time, that I had not met Mr. Reese until the day that he was hired, brought in and interviewed by the City Commission at that time up- stairs. And at the time,I definitely wanted to know a little about Mr. Reese. I want to know what his salary was going to be and I can remember very emphatically that it was dis- cussed backwards and forwards, he was to receive a salary of $22,500. Ile was also to receive benefits of $2500.00 in experses, this helped him tax -wise. He was also to receive the same benefits he was receiving in Montgomery County as the County Manager at that time. There were discussions and for the record, I did ask what amount of leave he would be receiving. It was definitely understood that he would receive the same benefits that he was receiving in Montgomery County and I don't recollect at the time, because that is 13 years ago, but it was definitely the same benefits he was receiving or the equivalent thereto. It was a pleasure to appear here before you. It is a little embarrasing, a man in Mr. Reese's position has to even be represented by Mr. Jack Rice. here today. Thank you very much. Mr. Rice: I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or not. I will accept it as such. At this time, I would like to bring another gentleman you all know well, has had a very distinguished career of servi'e to the City and the County and I hope continues,our former Mayor, both of the City of Miami and of Dade County, the Honorable Stephen Clark. Mr. Clark: Mr. Mayor and members of this Commission, I would like to paint a little history for you, first of all, my name is Stephen Clark, my business address is 45 Giralda Ave. Coral Gables, and that tells you not too much. When I was elected to the City Commission in Nov. 1963 my first move after election was to meet with the Mayor of the City of Miami at his home, at 2150 S. Bayshore Drive. This was prior to the inauguration of the new Commission, 9/13/73 6 I had at that time defeated an incumbent, and I wanted to find out a few things about the operation of the City . I had been on the Planning Board for five years, had worked with the Mayor and Commission at that time for that length of time, and I wanted to find out about one of the most important jobs in the City of Miami and that was the Manager's position, not knowing Mr. Reese too well, I asked what his salary was, Mayor High responded as to what his salary would be and what the fringe benefits would be. I heard some talk this morning about some department heads were. not entitled to 30 days vacation a year, and I didn't consider Mr. Reese a department head, I considered him the administrative head of the City of Miami. It was specifically told to me by the former Mayor Robert King High that Mr. Reese was to receive 30 days vacation time a year, but he also told me he would not take it all at one time, it may be split up a week at a time, --two weeks at a time, and of course after Robert King High died ----this was my understanding in 1963, and when the Mayor died in 1967, I became the Mayor of the City of Miami by the Grace of God and the help of a lot of good, fine people, some sitting here today. I questioned Mr. Reese very closely, immediately after assuming the position of Mayor and the office up stairs that Mayor Kennedy now holds, and asked him to do one thing, he was taking about taking a vacation at the time, and Robert King High's death was untimely, you know that, and I asked him not to take his vacation at that time, because me being a new Mayor and not understanding the full capabilities of what the office may entail, or the problems, to take it a week at a time. He said, Mr. Mayor, I would like to take my vacatior possibly a week at a time or defer -it till after the first of the year. He said he woad never be more than two hours away from this City at any time if a problme arises. After working with Mr. Reese, as the Mayor of this City for three and half years, I don't believe that Mr. Reese ever took more than a week or two at a time, but I don't know exactly how much of the 30 days that I knew he was entitled to that he took in any one particular year. I can say this that many times that Mayor Kennedy and myself would ask Mr. Reese to stay around during the month of August, especially, that being the budget time of the year, he being so alert on the budget could prepare the Commission because the adoption of the budget should take place by the 30th of Sept of each year. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Reese was very cooperative in this respect so far as spacing his time out so he would be available for all questions that any member of the Commission or the Mayor or any other person that would work for the City or any person inquiring about the City, would be interested in. I am here to attest to the fact that it was my understanding some 10 years ago that Mr. Reese was entitled to 30 days vacation time each year. Thank you for inviting me. Mr. Rice: Thank you Steve. I would like to show the Commission the payroll record of the City of Miami kept by the payroll section, and Mr. Reese's record that reflects the time we are asking for. I would also like to make it a part of the record, and give it to the City Clerk. I need to make a copy, Hoot, so if you will make a copy, ----I certainly appreciate the time you have taken hearing this. I know that you are fair, and I hope that you give Mr. Reese the consideration that he deserves. He had a very hard job, it is not easy to be City Manager. He has done a lot of great things for the Cityof Miami, it is rather demeaning for him to come down here,, 9/13/73 7 but if he is entitled to it, ---I think he is entitled to it, and I think he is a man of great integrity, --I think you ought to give it real serious consideration. You have a resolution in your books, if you care to pass it, which I urge you to do, I want to thank you very much. Rev. Gibson: May I ask a question? Maybe this isn't a thing for a politician to do, especially, you know, but I want to ask a couple of questions before I can intelligently vote, if we are going to vote. I Pastor a church and I think we run pretty much on the same kind of gentlemen's agreement and understanding, an understanding we operate under, not a written contract, ---you know you get a 30 day vacation, you can take it or you don't take it, and you don't really have nobody to monitor you, you know what I mean? You pretty much run the show. I 'm not mistaken, the little time I've been here, certainly before I got here, I knew Mr. Reese ran this show, and everybody will concede that, unequivocally so, if there was any doubt. What really worries me, and this is the delimma I am in this morning, I think he is entitled to what- ever money he is justifiably, ---that you could prove, you know, not beyond a reasonable doubt. I want you to know how quickly I put that -I put that, as an attorney that is what you would say. If you are judging the man, that is if the man is before the court, ---there can be some doubt and I will go along, but what I don't understand is this, and I want you to note this question pointedly, firmly convincingly, ---Mr. Reese retired on August 17,---is that the right date? Why didn't you tell us this before now? Mr. Rice: I wasn't his attorney then. Let me answer this also, that in August the full Commission was not here, and that presented another problem to get it on the agenda in the proper way. I assume that is the case. Rev. Gibson: Lit me do it the other way. When Mr. Reese announced his retirement I was in Nassau representing the City of Miami at the celebration, Independence celebration. A11 I am saying is, you know, my bretheren, I am not opposed to nobody, I want to do the right thing, but you know, we have to face the public, and I have always faced the public. I've been here back Pastor in one church 28 years,---27 years Oct. 1 would be 28, I believe in facing the public, and I don't mind taking the heat, but I am saying that I just don't understand why we waited at the llth hour,after, the llth hour to deal with this. I am sure somebody knew Mr. Reese was going to retire. Mr. Rice: When he first announced it, he was going to get what he is asking for, it wasn't until the final time he was retiring,that, in my understanding, that he received less. Rev. Gibson: He received whz:t? Mr. Rice: It was fir -.:ompuLed that he would receive what he is asking for. it .wan't until late after he had announced his retirement and shortly before that he knew he was to receive less. Rev. Gibson: Let me say this, I've been on the Com- mission one year April, May, Jnne,July,August, one year four months? right. I never heard anybody talking about we 8 9/13/73 owed him back pay, vacation pay. All I am saying is I'm sure there must have been some comtemplation in somebody's mind, and I think we would have made, ---certainly made me feel better and I know this isn't a 'feel-better'meeting,--I would have felt better knowing that Mr. Reese was going to retire and that we owed him how much? how much do you say we owe him? Mr. Rice: Approximately 1200 hours. Rev. Gibson: Tell me how much money, --- Mr. Rice: I don't have the money computed. Mr. Andrews does. Mr. Andrews: Approximately $30,000.00. Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, there is one thing I want to remind you of, that during the month of August, and don't quote me on exact date, I have to go back to the record, it was about the 7th or 8th when we were meeting on some special matters, that the City Manager attempted to introduce this subject to indicate the problem existed, and because those meeting were called for special purposes, that subject matter was not permitted to be introduced, so my memory serves me well, that the subject matter ---there was an effort made to try to bring the subject matter to the Commission to resolve it prior to the 17th. Rev. Gibson: There was an effort? Mr. Andrews: Yes, sir. Then after the 17th, which was a Friday, by that following Wednesday, I recognized the problem that existed, that had not been resolved, I took the time to document all of the records and I wrote to the City Attorney raising the question and asking for a legal opinion, and seeking the City Attorney's advice, as to how to pursue this matter if in fact Mr. Reese was not legally entitled to it according to the findings that were available. Mayor Kennedy: What does thr City Attorney's opinion reflect? Mr. Andrews: The City Attorney has given me a memorandum which is dated Sept. 11 which I'd better read to you rather than try to interpret , "This memorandum is in response to your memorandum dated August 23, 1973. This matter has been appro- priately handled to this time following the usual administrative proceedures. If in the event there is a reason to vary from the usual administrative proceedures in this case, it would not be appropriate for a legal opinion but it is up to the City Manager to take action or recommend action to the City Com- mission." Now, the reason that the City Manager was attempting to bring this to the City Commission is that the balance of the entire executive people in the City of Miami, this is not a problem, in that the City Manager has issued dir- ectives on this subject matter so that there is no problem with them, but he cannot nor woulc9 I issue a directive that would spell out the emoluments that the City Manager is entitled to, that would be self serving. That is dependent upon the Commission's in relation to the City Manager, but all the other execut±.ves in the City enjoy this exact same privilege. 9 9/13/73 • • Rev. Gibson: Did the City Manager ever ask us to determine what were the benefits he was going to receive? Were they ever asked? Mr. Andrews: That is something you had better ask Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice: That was asked when he first came to work and it was carried through right on. He didn't ask every year, for some years he wasn't even reappointed, he just kept right on Rev. Gibson: Did he exercise any of those understandings? Mr. Rice: One year he took 29 days off. That is the only year, most of the time he only took 10 days. Rev. Gibson: So that my fellow commissioners will know that I don't want to agonize the rest of my life for not doing that which is right, I hope we, the Commission as of today will set a policy in writing so that anybody who works for us as a City Manager, will know how many sick days he will have, how many vacation days he will have, and what the other things will be, put it in writing. Man, this is big business. You don't run your own business the way we are running this, in this instance, and I hate to see us do it now. Mr. Mayor, at the appropriate time, I want to offer a,motion, a resolution, that we determine what benefits, if the Department Heads must know, the City Manager ought to know, and know in front, and the best time to do it is now, that we have a new City Manager, so that this won't happen again. Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Vice -Mayor, the Department Heads, everybody but the Manager is covered by the Civil Service. Rev. Gibson: I follow, but I want to make sure the Manager is now covered by our ruling, so that this won't happen again. Mrs. Gordon: I have a couple of questions. The thirty day vacation pay, does this apply to all department heads? Mr. Rice: No. Mr. Andrews: May I answer that please. Mrs. Gordon: Anybody can answer it. Mr. Andrews: The administrative directive that issued is that a department director is entitled to 15 paid working days vacation a year, after he has served I believe it is 3 or 4 years, I'd have to get the directive to see it, but it is three or 4 years, he then is entitled to 21 days, if a department director has been appointed from the classified service and the vacation emoluments that he would receive under Civil Service, if it is greater than that which is permitted in the directive, then he has the option to exercise which one of the two plans he would follow, but it would be unusual and maybe Mr. Demby would be one of the few who would receive 30 days or more becasue of hiI long tenure with the City, approximately 40 years. Other than that it would be less than 30 days. 10 9/13/73 • Mrs. Gordon: In other words, the maximum that you know of is 21 days? Mr. Andrews: No, the average I would think among the older department heads, 15 years, 13 years would fall in the 21 to 25 days. that five Mr. Rothstein: There is a longevity provision so someone who has worked for 10 years gets an extra days a year. Someone 15 years, Mrs. Gordon: What is that amount, how, many days does a man who worked that many years get, department heads? Mr. Rothstein: Who, Mr. Reese? Mr. Rice: I was an employee and I received I believe in excess of 30 days because I received my longevity plus I never was sick so I add 6 days to the vacation and when you added it all up I was gone, approximately 30 days give or take a day. Mr. Rothstein: Plus as an attorney he was on 7 day call, as the Asst to the Director, so the Civil Service rule allowed him 21 days, so you added that all together it put it over 30 days. Mrs. Gordon: We are getting an awful lot of round -about answers. All I want to know is, anybody else get 30 days, yes or no? Mr. Rothstein: They can if they have longevity, yes. Mr. Andrews: Bob Ferencik now receives 28 days. In another two years he would be entitled to 30 days. As Asst. City Manager I received 231 days, Mrs. Gordon: Not a precedent. Okay, -- Mr. Andrews: No, no. Mr. Rothstein: They are only talking about the City Manager. Mrs. Gordon: In other words, there are department heads who could fall in the category of 30 days. That is what you just said, right? Mr. Andrews: Or more,--- Mr. Rothstein: Through longevity. Mrs. Gordon: In computing the anount of how are they being computed. How many hours, Mr. Rice: I believe it is 1400 hours or money due, 1200 hours? thereabouts, Mrs. Gordon: How is that computed? on the basis of the year salary in the year it wasn't taken? or as of the salary at the time of resignation? Mr. Andrews: It is computed on the basis of at the time of resignation, and this is applicable to everyone who leaves the City. All the emoluments are based at the present time on the pay that the employee receives at tie time he leaves. 11 9/13/73 • • Rev. Gibson: Let me ask a question, something else in is my mind. You mean to tell me if a man of -his own volition doesn't take his vacation and he accumulates X number of hours, --if out of the generosity of our hearts we vote him a fifty thousand salary, we pay him all those hours based on the $50,000., is that what you are talking about. Mr. Andrews: That is right. Rev. Gibson: We had better get some policy. Mr. Andrews: Except you have added one ingredient that is not so, and that the voluntary aspect of it. The procedures that have been set up by the City Manager is that the Department Director must write a memo in advance of the close of the year requesting a carry over of any un-used vacation time. The Manager makes the decision whether he is in a position to take that vacation time before the end of the year so it does not accumulate. And if there is reason and justification for his not taking the balance of vacation due because of City business andthe Manager has permitted to carry over a vacation time. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Bailey can you speak to any of this please. You are directly concerned with budget, Mr. Rice: Before Mr. Bailey comes back, Mr. Plummer: I want to ask this question. Obviously this has come about that Mr. Bailey as Dir of Finance has said 'no', The one question I want to ask, is there any dispute on any one part as to the number of days he took. Mr. Rice: No, the only dispute is, to the record of the 30 days. days. Mr. Plummer: --as to whether or not he is entitled to 30 Mr. Rice:There is no other, Mr. Plummer: There is no dispute as to the amount of time he took and did not take? Mr. Rice: Not that I know of, with the exception of, Mr. Bailey, never that I know of, when it comes to officials, such as the Commission or Judges or those who serve in an official capacity, if they take a vacation, he never questions it, because I know that some officials have not always adhered to the 10 day, 15 day or 30 day rule. I know that of my own knowledge after being here all these years. Mr. Plummer: My other question is to the City Attorney. I heard some question raised to that because we hire the City Manager we, the Commission, we likewise hire the City Attorney. Now, Mr. City Attorny do you have anything in writing as to what the City Attorney receives as far as vacation is concerned and because we hire you also, so is there a policy there or is it an unwritten rule or just what is your status. Mr. Rothstein: I am covered under the Civil Service by specific ordinance. In other words, what I get, is exactly covered by Civil Service Rules. Mr. Plummer: You in the classified position,? 9/13/74 • Mr. Rothstein: No, Civil Service is both un-classified and classified for certain rules and regulations, and they name the City Attorney specifically in there along with the City Clerk and similar departments. Mr. Plummer: What is you status? Mr. Rothstein: My status would be under the provision of 7 days per week on call, of 21 days per annum. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Souther2, since you fall under the same category, sir, what is your status? Mr. Southern: I come under the Civil Service because, for most of my tenure with the City I was Civil Service so that is the higher of the two, I was in classified service, so that mine wouldn't apply here. Mr. Rothstein: He wants to know the number of days you are allowed. Mr. Southern: I would have to look it up, really. I am not sure about. I comes close to 30 days. Mr. Rothstein: How long have you worked for the City? Mr. Southern: Twenty-two years. Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Southern would be entitled to a, --the five -day -a -week whick is ten working days, plus the 20 years which would be 10 extra days, plus some other prov'sions. Mr. Southern: We have the conversion factor there on vacation. Mr. Rothstein! Right, the conversion factor. Mr. Plummer: I really didn't get a lot of answers but thank you. Mr. Southern: I am sorry. Mr. Rothstein: I think there is one thing that should be said as a foot note to what the Vice Mayor asked, when he asked about the fact of employees taking time and or, not taking time on vacation pay, or what happened, --each department head must send to the Manager about his employees who are not taking their full vacation. Let me tell you of my experience which I think Mr. Andrews who just chatted about it, will tell you, for a number of years now, because of budgetary situations, at least four years that I know about, every department has been working at an under- staffed level. In other words, there were freezes put on hirjng on the last few years, that each and every department, you are not working at full staff level, and so many times, we have to ask some personnel to stay on some period of their vacation time if they can, in order to accomplish the things we need to. In other words it is not something where, ---I think you ought to hear from Mr. Andrews about it, and he will give you the true feel of what is happening. People are just not accumulating their vacation time for purposes of making money. That is unfair to our ernfloyees. Rev. Gibson: I understand that, because I heard, you know you have certain positions, ---I remember the budget says for instance, the man in charge of Planning, Mr. Acton has some positionS,I can understand that, but let me tell you something, 9/13/73 1:i I'll tell you what really troubles me in my thinking, we had a able, competent City Manager, so much so I fought to get him appbinted.See What I mean, all I am saying to you is, man you know, I am troubled that: we didn't our business or our sit- uation was in such a bad shape, that we couldn't afford to release the City Manager to take his vacation, and pleasr understand I have nothing against Mr. Reese. We are friends, but my friendship doesn't blind me when I am handling public money. I have no friends when it comes to public mo:-tey. I want to do what the people put me up here to do, that is what my Commissioners I want to change that, it is kind of tenuous kind of thing, but the point I make is, I am troubled certainly for a year. When I wann't here, I couldn't be troubled or concerned and no reflection on my fellow Commissioners. I now must face it, the monkey is on my back, and I am disturbed, and I urge the Commission, certainly from now until November, we ought to get a policy that this doesn't reoccur. Mr. Bailey, Finance Director: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I find this an embarrasing position to be in. I hardly know how to begin except to say that prior to this incident, every City Manager had worked under the Civil Service rules and been paid under Civil Service rules just like every employee of the City. When Mr. Evans was City Manager, he left the employment of the City, he was paid for his accumulated siciF leave, in accordance t.iith Civil Ser. Rules and regulations. Now, he at that time wanted an extra month's pay and he was advised by my predecessor, that he could not get both an extra month's pay and take advantage of sick leave under Civil Ser. Rules. he therefore accepted the sick leave provision under Civil Service because it amounted to more. When,Dutch Willard was City Manager for a year or little better, he also was paid on termination based on Civil Service rules —however, the City Commission did vote one month addition pay. and he was also paid that. Now up until the time Mr. Reese wrote his memorandum, his -his dir- ective in 1965, no employee of the City was entitled to any benefits or accrued any benefits other than provided in Civil Service rules, that included Department heads and everyone else. We all had the same vacat�.on policy and privileges, same sick - leave privileges and that sort of thing. Now, when Mr. Reese was appointed, I find nothing that says by resolution that he was entitled to 30 working days per year. I have found nothing since, and in 1961 I believe it was, during a discussion there, when Mr. Reese was re -hired, in the discussion, I believe one of the Commissioners said, when Mr. Reese said he would like to take 10 days vacation, something of that nature, the remark was made to take a month or something of that nature, however there was no indication of any 30 days accumulated sick leave anywhere at any time. In computing Mr. Reese's termination pay, in all fairness, I didn't think you could be paid merely on the basis of Civil Service rules, so I thought that the• only thing I could do in all fairness to myself and him since by law I am responsible personally liable for any payment made which is not appropriated,than,----I did say to the department computing the terminal pay to compute on the same basis as if he had been a department head. That is really provided more than Civil Service benefits. Now we all know that the City Manager can take as much vacation as he wants at any time. I would never question it. If Civil Service rules said 10 days, and he took 30 days, I would pay him for thirty days, I can guarantee you. However, because there was nothing to indicate that he was entitled to 30 days annually accumulated, that is the reason for this delimma we find ourselves in. I might say that Mr. Reese also was paid for his earned ill time when he was terminated. That falls under 9/13/73 14 • Civil Service, not under a resolution or anything else, so the total time you are talking about is somewhat over 1400 hours, 1444 hours I believe to be exact. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey, what you are really saying is, that really in fact you had no formula to go under, is that correct? Mr. Bailey: That is correct because of, because of, --- the circumstances surrounding the thing. Mr. Plummer: The statement you made kind of bothered me, that as Director of Finance, that is the City Manager could take all the vacation he wanted and you would never dock him for it, --where do you establish that formula? Mr. Bailey: The City Manager is a Chief Administrative officer of the City of Miami, and if he wante to take 30 working days vacation, regardless of what Civil Services rules and regulations say, I am not going to try to dock him under ---- I will tell you that. The same thing woui.d apply to ill time, assuming that he had no ill time. Certainly he would be entitled to his salary, as I see it. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask this, you say you did make a computation, do I understand that you made him an offer of a certain settlement for his accumulated time. You made no offer? Mr. Bailey: No, sir, I tell you exactly what happened. we received from Mr. Reese's office their calculations of hours which he was entitled to, and then the question arose in the face of having nothing in writing of whether he was entitled to 30 days accumulated per year as it had been calculated in his office, so within 2 days, he had our calculation and the reasons for that and Mr. Reese called me and asked me about it. and I told him that this; was the way I saw it, and that if he would get an oppinion from the City Attorney that I was wrong I would pay him there and then, or if he would get the City Commission to adopt a resolution to the effect he was entitled to it, I would also pay it and that was the end of it. Mr. Plummer: I am trying to get down to the nitty-gritty. His contention is he has 1400 and 44 hours that is just due him, what is your calculation? Mr. Bailey: What he was paid, 202 hours from 1600 is 46 if recall correctly,-- Mr..Plummer: Are you telling me in his 13 years, he took 202 hours of vacation. Mr. Bailey: No, sir, I am saying un-used was 202. Mr. Plummer: That is what I am trying to get at, what calculation did you use. Mr. Bailey: That is based on, as I indicated a while ago, the Civil Service rules up until the time :1r. Reese issued his directive for Department heads. Subsequent to that, I give him the same benefit he had provided for department heads, which was 21 working days, or 168 hours per year. Now, in many of those years, several of them, subsequent and including 1965, Mr. Reese was, I say three years, where he took considerably more than 168 hours, however, he had accumulated time, which was zero hours, 1 9/13/73 in 1966 which meant that the 202 hours was accumulated after 1966 until termination. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey as a department head, what do you receive, sir? Mr. Bailey: 'twenty onr days, all the benefits of Civil Service and I might say I used Civil Service for a couple of years after I had the option, because I had the benafit of sick leave which provided me with six days, --- Mr. Plummer: What you are telling me is you have 27 days. Mr. Bailey: No, sir. You can't c?ouble up; it is one or the other. Either you take the 21 days and forego the conversion of sick leave, or you go under Civil Service and use the con- version factor. If you are allowed 15 days after 10 years, and you are fortunate enough not to be ill, then you can convert half of your sick leave, which is 6 days, will give you 21 days anyway. Mr. Plummer: What I am getting at, I remember Sgt was here and Sgt. Prince was speaking to increase the of benefits, -Fr. Gibson, you might want to hear this, remember it very, very well. It seems like to me last the Commission by action changed the amount of a bank 120 days to 240 days, or was it unlimited? Mr. Andrews: No,-- . Prince amount for I year from Mr. Plummer:----unlimited,----okay, now that very question Fr. Gibson you raised was brought out at that time, on what basis would the days be paid, and it was brought out at that time very clearly, that it would be paid on the basis of the salary received by the person at the time of termination. Mr. Bailey: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: Than is no dispute there, but what I was getting at was, Sgt. Prince indicated at that time that he was approaching the 12.0 days, I think he had 117 at that time, and if he went beyond, he could not add more than three days and the rest he would loee, and the rest of it he would be forced to stay out of work just bec ause he could not accumulate it, and that was the argument I recall we used to increase it. Mr. Bailey: I would say it was doubled from 120 to 240 days and also the termination pay, which an employee could receive was doubled from 60 to 120 days.. Mr. Andrews: May I assist the City Commission, when Sgt. Prince arrived to discuss this with the Commission, the annual ---- the leave time that an employee could accumulate and be paid for in severance pay was 60 days, and the City Commission had under consideration of raising it to 120 with unlimited number of sick days you could collect beyond the 120 but you would only be paid 120 at the time you went into service retirement. Sgt Prince was indicating to the Commission that he was at, or over the 120 days and he thought it was unfair that he should be penalized this way it forces him to use the ill time to take advantage of it after you had reached 120 days, because 120 days, the Commission was making a decision that the employee would be compensated for those 120 days when he went into service retirement. Mr. Plummer: That is what I thought I said, maybe I misunder- stood. Let me ask one other question. If Mr. Reese's---if we used 9/13/73 16 • • his calculation, do you have any dispute with the 1444 hours, if we use the 30 working days? Mr. Bailey: If the City Commission directs by resolution to pay it, I'll pay it. Mr. Plummer: NO, sir that is not my question. My question is according to your records, of t}e time he actually took, during his 13 years tenure, is there any dispute on you part that if in fact 30 days is what is due him, is there any dis- pute in his department that it wouldn't be 1444 hours? Mr. Bailey: No, no, it is absolutely correct there,1444 hours is correct. Mr. Plummer: That is what I was getting at. Mrs. Gordon: Another point for clarification, Mr.Bailey, I think you said that when termination took place, you paid Mr. Reese all the earned ill time, or there some ill time that you, -in the severance was. ---- Mr. Bailey: Yes, Ma'am ,-- Mrs. Gordon: -and Mr. Rice 1 think I heard you say that there was no request for that. Mr. Rice:No, we, ---may sent down one terminal pay, separation figures and he re -computed it, ---what Mr. Bailey did he re -computed his own records that they kept in payroll and Mr. Bailey will admit that the payroll records did show Mr. Reese at 30 working days from the inception of his employment until he retired, however Mr. Bailey was of the opinion the record shouldn't be followed because of his thoughts on the proper way to give Mr. Reese severance pay. Mrs. Gordon: We are talking about not vacation pay, -- we are talking about sick, Mr. Rice: No, we are talking solely about vacation pay. Mrs. Gordon: No, you said something else. Did you talk about time that wasn't taken for ill time. Mr. Bailey: Yes, Ma'am, ---- Mrs. Gordon: Did you tell me you paid that time of severance, Mr. Bailey: Yes, Ma'am. Mrs. Gordon: Did you, when you first started your discussion today say something about we are not asking for any un-paid ill time. Mr. Rice: No, that it not in the controversy. Mrs. Gordon: You didn't say that at all? Mr. Rice: If I said it, I dont know exactly my terminology, but that is not in conflict. 111 time is not in this, 9/13/73 17 Mrs. Gordon: I know it is not in conflict but I thought you said, we are not asking for this, we only asking for that, and you know, Mr. Rice: That is in context with our argument herf,-- we are not asking anything about ill time, because,that it is not in dispute. Mrs. Gordon: There was no need to ask for it because that was taken care of. Mr. Rice: That is right. Mrs. Gordon: That is what I wanted to determine and put on the record. Thank you. Mr. Rice: ; would like to ask Mr. Bailey if it isn't true that those records payroll had did not reflect that Mr. Reese accumulated on a basis of 30 working days Fer annum. Mr. Bailey: Yes, but I would like to qualify it and say that the first knowledge we had Mr. Reese thought he was entitled to 30 days was several years after he came to work, and when we changed our system to keep up the date and ask each department annually to work with us and synchronize and be certain. we had the same ill, vacation time records and conversion factors for vacation purposes and Merrit Stierheim who was the Asst. at that time signed the first 30 days, and there is a notation on our records that states that to be paid on the basis of 10 vacation days per year, and that was at my instruction to Mr. Forger who was chief accountant at that time because we had nothing to indicate otherwise. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask one other question of Mr. Bailey. Really in fact what we are talking about is, in lieu of nothing in writing, in fact he has no days, --- Mr. Bailey: Except as provided under Civil Service rules. Mr. Plummer: But he doesn't come under Civil Service rules. Mr. Bailey: He does, specifically. It says all employees and he is in the un-classified service listed in the Charter of the City of Miami, the City Manager. Mr. Plummer: I'll ask one other question and then I'll let my fellow commissioners, ---has anyone disputed, or can anyone dispute what he was receiving from Maryland. I have heard Mr. Rice stipulate that it was 30 working days, is the situation he worked under in Maryland. Has anyone, ---do you have a contract to show that's what he was receiving or is anyone disputed that that was his emoluments in Maryland? Mr. Rice: I have Mr. Reese's sworn statement. Mrs. Gordon: I don't doubt for one minute that anybody is saying anything that is not true, the way they see it. Really I don't, the only thing I would like to know, is a man as capable, Mr. Reese I address you, as you are, that you didn't provide some- thing in writing, over all these years, for the records to re- flect, what you are entitled to, ---it amazes me. Mr. Rice: Mrs. Gordon, the records do reflect that, --- the payroll records to reflect 30 days. We never knew there would be any dispute of it until the time he retired. 18 9/13/73 Mrs. Gordon: Reflected where? Mr. Rice: On those records I gave to Mrr-- (Unidentified person: Here they are here. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Bailey, will you look at these records and tell me if these records reflect that. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of this Commission the records,= ---while Mr. Bailey is looking at the records and preparing to answer, as a matter of fact, the records would arrive in the City Manager's office, the record that arrived had more than the City Manager on it. --it has the Asst City Manager, it has the clerical people,the staff people, all who are appointed and it denotes the amount of ill time, they are accumulating, what they are entitled take the coming year, the amount of vacation time, the accumulation of that vacation time, those records that arrived from the department of finance which show in any given year, in Mr. Reese's case and in my case, certain number of vacation days earned that year, and in a separate column when you look at the papers, describes carry-over of accumulated vacation time, and the impression was that there was a solid record there, and there was no reason to dispute it. Mrs. Gordon: Let me make the records clear. I am not against justice being done and I want it to be done, but I want us to be furnished complete facts and we are being furnished now with Mr. Bailey, ---will verify as Mr. Rice has stated that the records reflect those 30 days they are supposed to be given then I have no dispute. I just say there has to be some record somewhere, sometime during 13 years to show that this is a fact. Mr. Bailey: I must say as I stated a while ago, that we put 30 days on the records when it came down from Mr. Reese's office after several years, which was the first knowledge we had of it, but we did make a notation on our records to pay it on the basis of 10 per year according to Civil Service rules which everybody else had always been paid under. Mrs. Gordon: But it did come down to you on the basis of 30 and you did not make any dispute to Mr. Reese about that at the tine Mr. Bliley: I cannot say whether the Chief Accountant did, -- I know he didn't, but he might have but I cannot say, -spoken to Merrit Stierheim, who was one of Mr. Reese's right hand men, -- Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Reese was never alerted to the fact that there was a discrepancy at any time during that period. He wasn't aware of what youFnotation was. Mr. Bailey: It could very well be Mr. Reese was never aware of that. However we had nothing to indicate otherwise, as I in- dicated . Mrs. Gordon: Okay, then, we must in my opinion take testi- mony as evidence and that is what we are doing. Mr. Rice: I know you have taken a very long time on this fbut Mr. Reese's immediate predecessor was given in excess of 30 days and he took over after Ira Willard resigned as City Manager. Mr. Plummer: I was out of the room, Mr. Bailey would you repeat the answer in reference to the records that were given to you? 19 9/13/73 'Mr. Bailey: Our records indicate, several years lter, three or four years later, when this first arose from our changing of our methods of keeping this vacation -ill -earned time records. It did come down from Mr. Reese's office 30 days, Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey, let me ask this question of you sir, how much accumulated time do you personally have over your tenure of employment with the City? Mr. Bailey: What do you mean? Mr. Plummer: As of today, Mr. Bailey: I11 time, for instance'. Mr: Plummer: No vacation time, sir, ---- Mr. Bailey: Oh, I'd say 55 days or something like that, ---- As of last December 31st. Mr. Plummer: -if you resigned today, you would resign under the natural assumption that those 55 days would be paid as of your pay today. Is that correct? Mr. Bailey: I would. Yes Mr. Plummer: I wanted to getthat. straight, because Fr. Gibson raised the question. I has been raised many times before this Commission. You give a man a benefit today, if he doesn't take it and he delays it, until his termination, he is paid on different basis. He is paid on the basis of what he gets when he leaves. Mr. Bailey: Absolutely right. Mr. Plummer: I want to make sure for Fr. Gibson that that is established, ---that point, right or wrong, I can remember Mr. Reese himself bringing that point out, that you not necessarily can calculate a benefit on today's conditions because the employee might not take the benefit today. He might delay it out until his terminal time and that benefit could cost you a lot more. Mrs. Gordon: And there is no maximum number of years for the deferment, is there Mr. Bailey? Mr. Bailey: The classified service, I believe someone stated a while ago and it is true, unless they get permission to carry-over certain vacation days. lose those days. The rule requires them to take their vacation as it accrues. Mrs. Gordon: And they can't defer it for a period of time till they retire? Mr. Bailey: Not under the rule. Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Bailey, this time will be compensated on the highest paid of Mr. Reese's Mr. Bailey: I beg your pardon, ---Mr. Mayor. Mayor Kennedy: What will this pay be based upon. The highest level of pay he has obtained, Mr. Bailey: ---at the time of his retirement. 2U 9/13/73 • i Mayor Kennedy: ---the pay at time of retirement? Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir, ---- Mayor Kennedy:s so you go way back even to the first year he was here, - Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir, -- Mayor Kennedy: ---take that time at the pay he started. Mr. Bailey: All it paid at the current rate. Mayor Kennedy: Is there any precedent to that in the City of Miami? Mr. Bailey: It has always been done that way. Termination pay is based on your current rate. Mayor Kennedy: The City Manager in the past has had to approve this for department heads or others, right? when it comes up whether or not they can bring that time. forward or whether they have to take 'their vacation time. Mr. Bailey: That I cannot answer. It is still a part of the Civil Service rules. When this directive was mailed in 1965 there was some confusion about whether or not the depart- ment heads etc. could convert their sick leave, and really no policy was never established, and the Civil Service Board finally took official action and stated that Mr. Reese intended to give additional benefits over and above the civil service rules to department heads. Mayor Kennedy: Who wants to speak in behalf of the Civil Service Board. Mr. Huttoe, Chairman of Civil Ser. Board: I am not speaking in behalf of the Civil Service Board Mr. Mayor, but as Chairman of the Board, I would on the questions that have been asked of Mr. Bailey here, in regard to Civil Service Rules. Up until 1971 when the rules were amended, it provided for no carry -forward time. In 1971 when the rules were amended it provided for a carry=forward of a certain amount of time, provided the City Manager, the Department Head and the Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Board approved. Up unitl that time there was no carry forward. However, I don't want to be put in the position to oppose Mr. Rice or Mr. Reese, because he certainly was the City Manager, and the Civil Service Board'or our Executive Sec. or no department head had anything to do. He was the admin- istrator of the City, and applied. But I would like to point out one thing, because I think in all fairness to our employees and to Mr. Reese, there were people who were paid for accumulated time and I believe if you check the records , Mr. Bailey may correct me, he knowsmore about the budget that I would ever know, I think Mr. Correll got a years pay on accumulated time. I want to be fair, and I think Mr. Bailey can correct me. He has the figures, but this is imformation I was givan. However I go back sore 5 years ago or 6 years ago, I can't remember the exact time, and the Civil Ser. Board in an investigation was back in the finance on some other matter, and happened to see a check for almost $10,000. for a captain in the Fire Dept. laying on the desk, and we knew that this man was retiring. And we asked what is this $10,000. for, and it was for an accumulation of earned time that this man earned as a firefighter, as a Lieutenant and as a 9/13/73 21 Captain over a great number of years. Even when he was making only two hundred and something a month, and I do not know what he was making at the time. At the same time the Manager became aware of this because he saw this amount of money that appropria- tion had to be made for. These were single shot cases, that were coming slowly through, so at that time the Manager ordered the Chief of Dept of Fire, and this was the department which was accumulating a lot of time because they have to in the Police Dept. mainly because they work emergency hours. They work Christmas, New Years what have you. We have to man those departments, so the Manager at that time ordered that these hours Abe worked off the books and these hours were worked off the books by even one officer I can recall, I think was off for nine months in one year. He is dead now, Chief Davis, I believe he was off for a period of nine months. He went off 33 months and came back and took his vacation and when he returned from vacation he went off another three months.Now at that time, that these men were ordered to take this time off and reduce their pool to no more than 500 hours, we were short because we had not sent anyone through the fire college two and half to three, years, and we were already some 30 or 40 men short. We rode with three men on some trucks that the under- writers required to ride with five. In other words, we werein violation with the rating of the City of Miami which was as you know is the lowest of a city of its size, but we were in violation of the standards that were set and the man -power which is recommended and which we were supposed to meet, -- we were two men short on those trucks. In fact, the Chief had to take some of the trucks out of service in the downtown districts, but nobody said anything about because they didn't want the roof off. Mr. Rice: Let me correct Mr. Huttoe. No employee of the City of Miami has ever lost vacation time by an administrative action of wiping it out, and I defy him to tell me one employee and every employee has gotten all of his accumulated vacation time at the time he retired unless he had taken it prior to retirement . What Mr. Huttoe is saying is that in some classi- fication that you are required to take your vacation, and not all the time are you required to take if the City Manager lets you accumulate; but I know that I accumulated a lot of vacation time and I believe 120 days sick leave at the time I retired, and if anybody knows the employees and worked harder for the employees than myself, then if any of them ever had a problem, when I was in the law department, they called me and I know of nobody that lost that accumulated time. I'd sure been told. Mr. Huttoe: In answer to Mr. Rice there, I don't think I said that anybody had lost the time. I said until 1971 when the rules were amended, and I am speaking of Civil Ser. rules, there was no provision for the carry -forward. I didn't say they weren't paid. I said there was no provision for it, after 71, am I correct? After 71 the amendment to the rules did provide for certain carry, ----under certain guidelines, they carry forward, but let me say this being I am back up here, the Attorney General of the State of Florida has ruled, that where there is a guideline for negotiation, and so forth, that the Civil Service rules even though they may be a Civil Service rule is null and void, in otherwords if it sets forth in the guidelines and negotiations and I would assume this is contracts as well because that is what you enter into after negotiations, you are put in the position where the Manager's office is negotia- ting with employee groups, with things that may be included in Civil Ser rules such as sick time, vacation time, holiday time and etc. which are negotiable ielns set forth and that if they 9/13/73 • • agree and enter into a contract, under the Charter the only people that can change those rules must be initiated by the Civil Ser I3oard and after a hearing anri approval by the Board, then ai'proval by the Commission, so you secs they would be a clumsy position and the Atty. General has ruled where the (jui..?e line of negotiations is set forth, then those negotiations Gould be over the Civil Service rules. Rev. Gibson: Mayor, I want to make sure everybody understood what I said. I have no problem with accumulated tine and carrying over for the cm ployees. Let's get that straight. I understand that if you are short of men and you have got to ask men to work because you don't have an adequate compliment of men, you just ask other men to work. I understand that. That is not my problem. Iiy problem is, and I raise this question, how did we let this happen in the case of the City Manager and It wasn't brought to our attention all this time? That is all I am saying. I have no problem with this firefighter's suit because they ought to have 30 men and they only have 25 men anithey'vc got ask somebody out of the 25 to work longer than or more hours than that is not what 1 am addressing myself to, 'lease understand. I know how labor disputes can get. I want to make sure everybody understands that. Mr. Rice: Mr. Huttoe did help me somewhat in saying that the Atty General says negotiations are a part of the contract and certainly after hearing Mr. Balaban end the statement of Mr. Hearn and Mr. DuBreuil, I don't think there is any question that Mr. Reese negotiated compensation was that particular item and I don't know why it was never brought to you, but there isn't much need to bring these things to you until something happens like this, and I am sorry it had to happen at this late, in the career of Mr. Reese. Mayor Kennedy: Anyone else like to say anything? Mr. Andrews do you want to make a recommendation on this? Mr. Andrews: Yes, based on my knowledge of fact and my understanding of what was happening through the years, it would be my recommendation that you adoi:t the resolution that has been placed before you to provide for this severance pay. Mayor Kennedy: Let me ask you this. If it hadn't been for the agreement that the three Commissioners said that they were privy to, what would he be entitled to? Mr. Rice: I never thought of that because there are so many variables. Actually, as the Finance Dir. said that he didn't know what he was entitled to he used his best judgement which was predicated on the department heads and certainly Mr. Reese is not a department head. Mayor Kennedy: What would you be entitled to Mr. Andrews without an agreement to the fact, since I don't believe you have an agreement like that. Mr. Andrews: Not at this point, no. Father Gibson: Let me ask a question, Mr. Andrews, if • this hadn't come up, I'll do it this way, if this hadn't come up, and you know, I don't want you to tell me what would happen 9/13/73 • • now that you are the City Manager. Don't give me that. Give me what you thought would have happened, or what would have been the position if you, ---if we didn't have this dispute. You understand? Mr. Andrews: Yes, I understand, I can tell you very honestly, when the resolution was being introduced to establish the salary, I stepped over to Commissioner Plummer and said please include in the resolution that the emoluments enjoyed by the former City Manager, Mr. Reese, and so stated, including the emoluments, and I think the resolution we can get, states it that way, and it was my sincere belief that that moment,that the Manager was receiving 12 days ill time which cumulative to 120 days as far as severence pay was concerned and continued accumulation if he should need it beyond that if he became ill, that it included 30 working days, that was my understanding and that it was cumulative. This problem did not, pardon me, Mayor Kennedy: No limit on that, Mr. Andrews: The 30 working days would be vacation, ---- there would be no limit on that, ----that was my understanding and that was all before this problem occured, because it was after that July 26 date that all of this begin to develop. Mr. Reese submitted his papers to finance department many days after that and it was my understanding at that moment that these were the emoluments of the City Manager. That is why I make this recommendation to you, because in clear conscience that was my understanding at the time. Mayor Kennedy: In other words, if Mr. Reese is granted this basis then by your contract, that has been negotiated, you feel you are entitled to that also. Mr. Andrews: Rather than ride on that at this point, because of all the discussion that has taken place, I prefer to prepare a resolution of my understanding and present it to you, and you adopt that separately at another time so there is no misunderstanding henceforward. Mayor Kennedy: I am not saying Mr. Reese is entitled to it, but I have been on the Commission since '61 and I never heard of it and I must have been at the meeting Mr. Clark was at at Bob High's office,---house,because I had never heard that Steve, before. Mr. Clark: As you remember in 1963 we wern't on the same side of the fence, and I defeated an incumbent, and I was invited personally by Bob High, with no other members present to meet him at this home, and I asked, ---this was about two days before we were sworn in, and that is when the discussion became apparent to me as to what Mr. Reese, --any manager was entitled to. Mayor Kennedy: I don't doubt that Steve, I just say I wasn't privy to that. No one has ever told me that and I've been on the Commission since 1961,---- Mr. Clark: Mr. Mayor, I think you can look back in the records and find out that we have, since we have, ---since we served together, told Mr. Reese to take the time off during the year rather than specific times, or at a month at atime. It was always my understanding he had 30 days,--30 working 24 9/13/73 days vacation time a year. That was my understanding and my testimony. Rev. Gibson: I know this is•important, you know I feel, I want to express myself so nobody ever doubts where I stand or what I am thinking. What Mr. Bailey said about computing makes me kind of uncomfortable. Maybe I could justify to the public, so I'll use the rule of thumb of Civil Service and all this business, ---I question how comfortable I could be the other way. I want to put my fellow Commissioners on guard that I could be comfortable with Mr. Bailey's computation, is that what you call it, computation? the way he computed it. If you do otr9rwise, I may, I'm going to be to the action. I find it a little difficult, uncomfortable. I get excused one minute, and when you get ready for the hold out, way back, like J.L. says, I'll be right here. Mrs. Gordon: In the interim. we are all having an intermission, the past couple of comments. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, are you ready for a motion? Mayor Kennedy: I would rather Rev. Gibson get back in the room, wouldn't you? Mrs. Gordon: I want to say there is a clear cut mis- understanding somewhere up and down the line, and I don't think if we were Solomans we could solve this to satisfy everybody, but one thing is very strong influencing factor in my mind and that is that a man of the caliber, of those men, I should say caliber of the men who are here to attest to fact that this was an agreement even though it was not in fact recorded in writing anywhere, and also the fact that Judge Balaban attest to being present at the agreement time and certainly I can't find it within my imagination to doubt that Judge Balaban would come in here and attest to something that wasn't 100% true, so he attested he was there when the agreement was being made, is that right Mr. Rice? Mr. Rice: That is what he testified to and that is what Mr. B.E. Hearn told me and what Mr. George DuBreuil stated, and what Mr. Reese stated, and his immediate predecessor in office received, 30 days working less than the year in the position. Mrs. Gordon I also take into consideration Mr. Bailey's interest in the City accounts and I appreciate his concern and I appreciate his computation being based on what he believes to be a fact. What troubles me also is the fact that the memorandum coming down from the Manager's office testifying the 30 days vacation pay was not ever disputed to the Manager's office an3 that is a troubling fact, Mr. Bailey that bothers me. I am just making comments and not, motions, and I wanted my thinking to be public, and let you know how I feel. I feel we are in a delimma and when Father Gibson gets back and Mr. Plummer is going to make the motion, we will make our decision then. By the way, there is one thing in my mind and no one has said, and Judge Balaban has already left, at the time the agree- ment was made for the 30 days according to Judge Balaban's test- imony, was there also a discussion as to this 30 days being cummulative? In other words, could or would, was the contract to hire i•lr. Reese based upon 30 days per year, and if not taker, cummulative till the end of tenure? Mr. Rice: Mrs. Gordon, you know, that wasn't discussed as far as I know, however, the Commission must appoint an 2 5 9/13/73 i Actin() City M nacr'r lr lay: before. iir. Reese can leave. YO', controlwhether he can go or not. Moir. Reese can't go, or shoilc not go because the Charter says that in his absence or sickness that you shall appoint an Acting Ciiy Manager who shall not receive the compensation as City Manager during his absence or illness, that is verbatim in the Charter. Mrs. Gordon: That is not 'hat I asked,Jack. I didn't ask that. I said Judge Balaban has left and so I can't question him, ---Mr. Reese, let me ask you this question, the 30 days that we refer to which we heard Mr. Balaban attest to was a part of hiring agreement, was there also discussion of whether you could accumulate un-used portions. Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, when I stood up here previously, I told you about the arrangements I had in Montgomery County,r•Iaryland, and it was 30 working days and I told you about being paid on a cummulative basis when I left. Mrs. Gordon: How long did you work for them, may I ask? Mr. Reese: I worked for Montgomery County 5 years, 61 months, and I was to get the same benefits here. This morning is the first time I have ever heard the City Manager is under Civil Service rules and regulations. I thought he was appointed by the City Commission, and the City Commission, in the interview were the ones that negotiated it, certain conditions, and I realize you people are here with a burden because you were not the City Commission in those days. You are sitting here in their shadows, but I am quite sure what they did , they did as honorable men, and with the intent of it to be carried out. There is no document recognized in this any more than there was a document for Willard or a document for Evans, and Evans was not retired, he was terminated which then later on he made his application for ret:,.rement and that is also true right down the line and as far as any other people are concerned, so I'm not familar with all the details of the other individuals employ- ment or termination but there is a number of the items that I am familiar with. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I think we have to answer to the public, and I think we all want to do the right thing, and God knows I am the last man to want to harm a man, and I always feel that we ought to honorable and decent in anything we do. I move you Sir, that we ask or acquire or get a copy of the contract Mr. Reese had in Maryland at the time, since that was the understanding, that is the impression I got that when we hired him, he was to get the same kind of consideration. It was not a written agreement, it was verbal, I'll honor the arrangements if I see it, and it is interpreted. That's a motion. Mayor Kennedy: Let me ask you something. You had this in your contract in Montgomery? Mr. Reese: I had no contract, Mr. Mayor, the City of Miami offered me a contract one time and I flatly refused the contract, because I don't think that a person that is working professionally as a City Manager should be under contract, but there were conditions that we negotiated and talked about because, realizing that the Manager was not affected by other rules and regulations that applied to Civil Service,t^either does he have the protection of Civil Service And other benefits of Civil Service, and also Mayor 26 9/13/73 Kennedy, if you recall, at your instigating, and got the Commission to go along with it, you gave the Manager the responsibility of being the head to determine the City's action at a time of emergency, now, under the Charter and under the laws as has been interpreted by the City .Attorney over the years, the Manager can't delegate, so that if there is any emergency, he is the one that has to be here, and we discussed it the time I came here, that the Manager's job is a 24 hour and 7 day a week job, there is no doubt about it, and I think some are willing to say that I did work•24 hours a day on some occasions, but with some of the ordinances on the books, the Manager's burden couldn't he passed on, it couldn't be passed on to an assistant, so you had to stay here until a time of the year when it was less likely for any of his authority to be exercised. Now as far as being a con- tract in Montgomery County, there isn't one. There is one person that I know of that is still around as far as being a member of that Commission. I don't know of others, but it would be again,his word. Now, Judge Balaban came up to Washington, I went into the International Airport and spent 3 hours with him and met him there. B.E.Uearn, I think he stayed at the Hilton Hotel in Washington. I went in there and spent time with him and went all through it from one end to the other, as well as, ----there was a resolution passed, and in the title, and I think this is in February when they decided to offer the job to the County Manager of Maryland at that time, and that title it says that he should be en- titled to all emoluments of office, or something to that effect, but never spelled i':em out, an_ the only reason that this problem is here, is unfortunately that it has never been documented or never brought forth before, and I realize as t said before, you sitting here in the shadow of the people who did the hiring, but I recognize it is a burden, but I think we've got a fundemental principle here, and I know that you people have always been fair and greatly concerned by treating everybody on an equal basis and all I say is, if it was 30 days and it was cummulative, then I feel I am entitled to the severence and this is the basic concern, and gentlemen and ladies, I can't -- Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, they still have what would be the pclicy that existed at the time when Mr. Reese was in Maryland, don't they? Wouldn't they have that available? Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, if you will recall, when I was at Montgomery County Maryland, I was the County Manager, there has been a complete organization and a new form of governme t. I don't know who is working there anymore but they now, a`elective executive and it is a completely new and much larger and changed, so I don't know anything about the records, and I don't think anybody in this room does either. Rev. Gibson: That is not what I am saying Mr. Reese. Are Are those records of that day and time available? For me to vote intelligently I ought to make an effort, since there is a cloud over all of us, we ought to make an effort to find out if those records are available before we vote out the people's money, otherwise, you got a written record based on Civil Service status. Now, either one you want me to do, I'll do. I feel that in good conscience Theodore Gibson will have to make an effort to get Montgomery County records, find out what the policy was then, because you said, you are relying on the facts that that was the understanding under which you were employed, with all the emoluments at that time. 9/13/73 If that is what you want me to do, if you want me to go along with Montgomery record, and it is your word against no record, that I am asked to vote on that I've seen, or I'll either take a written record. Now, I think that the people of this City would certainly, even if we have to vote out all the money, whatever the money is. I think the people of this community will take it much better, knowing that we tried to get the record, and if the record reflects that we are operating with that understanding, and I think you will have no problem, you won't have any hesitation on my part, I'll vote like that. Anything short of that, I will be very, very reluctant and careful. Mr. Rice: Father Gibson, I appreciate your position, but I want to tell you that there is a record, Mr. Bailey says there is a record, that is kept by the City, from the inception of Mr. Reese's employment, and 30 days per year, this isn't something we thought up today, last week, last year,two years ago, here is the record, City of Miami, --- Rev. Gibson: I am talking about Montgomery County. You are asking me to do by Mr. Reese based on what the performance was or the arrangement was in Montgomery County. I must be satisfied if I am going to cast a vote. I hope you understand that. Mr. Rice: I understand, but I don't want the thought is that we thought this up this week. Rev. Gibson: I'm not saying that. Let me say this, when you go to court, even if you take six years, when you come you bring the facts. I feel that is pertinent to me to clear my mind and vote hcnestly. And if there are any missing facts when you go to a court, just remember I keeF telling you all that I went to law school for one day, I'm no lawyer, let's get the facts. There is some doubt in my mind. So let's get the facts. Summon Montgomery County record or send somebody up there to get it, and my brother if that is what it says when you come here to the next meeting, it will be just one,two, three votes, yes, let's follow Montgomery County. Mr. Plummer: Father Gibson has raised a point. Now I think his point in his mind is reasonable. Surely there must bo a record. Mr. Reese says that when he was terminated in Maryland, he was terminated by check computed on a certain basis. Now he has raised a point I think is legitimate, that we are going under the assumption of these people who were predecessors here this morning, say that he was hired under the same terms and conditions, and he feels he should see those terms and con- ditions. Mr. Reese, wouldn't there be some kind of record there to reflect payroll records or anything of that nature. Mr. Reese: I know that under the Maryland Archives record law you don't have to keep them after 7 years, as far as payroll. I think I am right, but I am going back 13 years to try to guess. I am not trying to be evasive. Judge Balaban stood ur here this morning and told this commission what he agreed to, as far as hiring Mel Reese is concerned. George Dubreuil also mention it and all I say is, I am not trying to falsify anything. It is getting to the pit of stomach almost beyond the point of tolerance, to think that again there is a cloud brought over something that I am trying to do, and gentlemen, this is going kind of deep. 28 9/13/73 After thirteen and half years with this Commission and get to this point, there was no contract, there was no written agreement, there was no nothing here in the City, anymore than you went to hire another professional person, and stand up and say the Civil Service rules and regulations apply to the Manager, then if one segment applies, then the whole document should apply. Mr. Bailey: Mr. Mayor, may I say that every predecessor of tir. Reese was paid on the basis of the benefits under Civil Service rules and regulations, and Sec. 62 of the Charter provide for classified and un-clissified, and the Civil Service rules provide the City Manager is "among the unclassified. Mr. Rice: He is under the unclassified, --Mr. Willard received 30 days separation pay, vacation pay which he was the immediate predecessor of Mr. Reese. Mr. Bailey: The City'Commission adopted a resolution authorizing a payment of one month's pay to Mr. Willard. Mr. Rice: He had worked less than 11 months, and that's what he got, immediate predecessor. Mayor Kennedy: we know reason for th.3t,the man was very ill, wasn't he? Mr. Rice: No, he left to go to the president of a bank in Coral Gables, at that time. He later became ill when he left the bank and went up to Carolina, he took over a big project up there, if you recall. Being a City Manager is not an easy job, it really gets to you. Mayor Kennedy:What is the action the City Commission wants to take today. Mr. Rothstein: Was Vice Mayor Gibson's motion seconded about the records. City Clerk: No, it was not. Mr. Plummer: He's got a motion on the floor, ---see if he wants to speak on his motion. Mayor Kennedy: There is no motion, no second, --- Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, are you declaring that due to the lack of a second his motion failed? Mayor Kennedy: Let's give him that opportunity. As of now it failed. Mr. Plummer: All right, sir. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, if it helps, my motion is that we seek to get the record, otherwise we are voting in a cloud, and I am not questioning the honesty of anybody. That is not my position. My position is, if there is any indication of records, we ought to make every effort, then we would be fair to all the people. If there was an indication of record, we ought to have it. If there is no record, then I think we will come back and do what we ought to do, or what we will do, knowing there is no record, but we ought to make every effort to get that 9/13/73 29 record. Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Bailey, under your computation, how much money would Mr. Reese be entitled to? Mr. Bailey: Over $30,000.00 MayarKennedy: Under your computation, Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir. Mayor Kennedy: What is he saying he, Mr. Bailey: ----that is the differencebetween what he is paid and what he is asking forr--$30,000.00 in addition to what he has already been paid. Mayor Kennedy: You are saying he is not entitled to anything other than what he has already got. Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir that is my position. Mayor Kennedy: And he says he is entitled to another $30,000.00? Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir, Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Bailey, you say you have already paid him for some cummulative vacation pay. You have already in- cluded that in the severance, or did you include any of it? Mr. Bailey: No, Ma'am, ---I show under the basis which I used to compute it, that he would be entitled to 202 hours. Mrs. Gordon: And you have already paid him that? Mr. Bailey: Yes, Ma'am. The difference is that under the way it was submitted to our office, it was 1646 hours, so the 202 from the 1646 leaves 1444 which he is asking for. Mrs. Gordon: And you have paid the 200, Mr. Bailey: Yes, Ma'am. Mrs. Gordon: Based on today's salary scale. Mr. Bailey: Yes, Ma'am. Mr. Rice: Mrs. Gordon, we accept that with the approval of the City Attorney, but that wouldn't be prejudicial to the issue today. Mayor Kennedy: On what basis did you have the your projections based on as far as the vacation pay? Mr. Bailey: How did I arrive at the 202 hours? That was based on the maximum accumulation of 80 hours, which would be 10 days under the Civil Service rules, up until 1965 when Mr. Reese issued his directive about department heads. Now, on that basis, 1965 was the first year that a department head could, or would be entitled to 168 hours or 21 working days. At that point Mr. Reese would have been in deficit for 12 hours, which I in- dicated before, I never refused to pay anybody.He was the City 9/13/73 Manager, no matter what vacation he uses, ancI in 1966 he was zero hours and the balance was accumulated between 1967 and 1973. Mayor Kennedy: And you base that on the ---- Mr. Bailey: ----on the 21 working days which the depart- ment heads were entitled to after four years, under Mr. Reese's directive, which is equivalent to one month or 30 days, gen- erally speaking. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, are you finished inquiring? Mr. Mayor, I'll wait for Father Gibson to get off the phone. Is Steve Clark back there? Steve, is this the kind of situation you used to refer to as 'everybody wants to go to heaven' but nobody wants to die?' Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, Father Gibson has made a motion. I was prepared to make another motion if that one failed, but I could not in good conscience make a motion and ask any member of this Commission to vote upon my motion, when there is a cloud as he has referred to it in his mind, or question in his mind. I don't dis- pute, and I asked that question previously, has anyone disputed as to the contract he worked in Maryland, and no one has raised any objection that there was any dispute, but there is some question in Father Gibson's mind that I feel in all honesty, that Father Gibson should have that record either made available to him or after a search has been put forth as he said, there is no record, then there is no record. The only thing in my mind is, who this Com- mission would designate, whether it would be Mr. Rice to request such a record, of the City Manager or the City attorney and I would. Father Gibson to incorporate that in his motion, who would make the search, so it could never be said there wasn't an honest search made, if the answer should come back no record, I am in the position at this time to second his motion. Rev. Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Plummer, I would designate the Civil Service Board people to get the information. They are Mr. Plummer: Father Gibson, based on that I cannot second the motion. Rev. Gibson: Well, we will name somebody else. I want to get an impartial somebody. Mayor Kennedy: It should be the City Attorney. Rev. Gibson: Let the City Manager get it. My motion is that we make a diligent effort, Mr. City Manager. I will make sure you understand my language. A diligent effort to get that record, if you have to talk with somebody, or if you go up there and you can't find it, the paper, come back and tell us that, then we can spread on the record, a diligent effort was made to get the record,we could not, then I am prepared to act. Out of fairness to Mr. Reese, if that was the understanding, I want to do the right thing, that's the motion. Mayor Kennedy: A11 right, is there a second. 3.. 9/13/73 • • Mr. Plummer: Based on a search to be made by the City Manager, on a diligent effort, I think Father Gibson has every right to ask for such a record. There is a cloud in his mind, and let's get the cloud cleared up, and then he can vote the way his conscience feels, and based on that I will second the motion. Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Rev. Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-651 A RESOLUTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY M.L. REESE FOR PAYMENT OF ACCRUED VACATION TIME UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO OBTAIN A RECORD OF THE EMOLUMENTS OF OFFICE ENJOYED BY MR. REESE DURING HIS TERM AS MANAGER OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: That Consideration of a request by M.L. Reese for payment of accrued vacation time be deferred until the next regular meeting of the Commission in order to afford an opportunity for the City Manager to make a diligent effort to obtain a record of the emoluments of office enjoyed by Mr. Reese during his term as Manager of Mont- gomery County, Maryland. Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy NOES: None. Mr. Rice: I want to thank the Commission forthe time and effort, and I further want to say, that this is an indication to the electorate, there there are very few places that you can go to where there's elected officials that will spend as much time listening to a problem as you will and we sincerely appriciate it, although we haven't won now, we are sure you will ultimately rule for it. Thank you. Mayor Kennedy: Paul, you can have that by the next meeting can't you? Mr. Andrews: Hopefully. Mayor Kennedy: There may be a problem. I understand Maryland does destroy records. I've been reading it in the newspapers. Mr. Reese: Mr. !Mayor, the Vice -President of the United States was County Manager of Baltimore County after I had left Maryland, and under the investigation he just went through, they went for the records, and according to the archives law, regulating archives in the State of Maryland they found there was no record because they were destroyed. This is the reason I brought this up on account the archives 32 9/13/73 but, -- Mayor Kennedy: We don't need to go through the presentation next time. We should be able to take care of it in ten minutes. Mr. Plummer:Mr. Mayor, Father Gibson, if you wish to do this since you raised the question, I just want to make sure that it is done. Mr. Mayor, I would like to at this time, proffer to this Commission, you know we all benefit by mistakes and I think i" any benefit is to be derived, it is the lesson that there isn't something perfectly clear cut here, and I would like to see the appropriate party, whether it be the City Manager or theCity Attorney, or the Civil Service Board, immediately instigate that all of those positions that are now in the City, with this and other problems, not just vacation, vacation sick -time, and other emoluments that are given to employees of this City, be spelled out, let's take Commission action on them, so that there can never be again a question, what a man is entitled to and what he is not. I think Mr, Mayor, that this is something that should be, I think Mr. Andrews, as he expressed today, you are traveling under one assumption, but as in his predecessor's case, there is nothing in writing, to say what his benefits are, and what they are not. I heard Mr. Southern say, and I don't mean this to be a detriment to you Mr. Southern, but your answer was to me you are not sure. Mr. Southern, City Clerk: That is correct because I haven't taken my complete vacation in so long I don't really know. Mr. Plummer:These are the things I think Mr. Mayor , should be spelled out. Mayor Kennedy: You know where you stand, you just don't know the hours, because you havent figured it out. Mr. Plummer: Well, all right, I am sorry Mr. Southern I thought there was nothing in writing when you became the Clerk, rather than the Asst. Clerk, you became another position. Mr. Southern: No, there isn't, but I've continued on under the classified, ---- Mr. Plummer: The point that I am making Mr. Mayor is, I think this thing should be spelled out. Who should be the appropriate party to clarify these points, that are supposedly un-clarified? Mr. Rothstein: The Manager should be instructed to review the situation. Mr. Andrews: I plan to anyway. I want to indicate to the City Commission that this was a plan of mine, already as a result of having gotten into this, and all the record checking we did, that I have made up my mind that we would document for all of those who are not covered under Civil Service,a plan that could be readilly identified, readilly understood, so there would be absolutely no question and get it approved so we would not need to go through this kind of --- Mrs. Gordon: Thank you, could we move on Mr. Mayor? 33 9/13/73 5. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - F. WARRE4 O'REILLY - CHARLES IVES FESTIVAL Mr. F. Warren O'Reilly appeared and outlined plans for a cele- bration of the Charles Ives Festival in 1974-75 and gave the Commission a brief history outline of this composer and that the event was closely tied to the 3rd Century Celebration and that he was in receipt of grants from the Florida Council for Fine Arts, the Tourist Development Authority, 3rd Century, Miami News, and organizational support from the University of Miami. He said the budget would be $180,000 at least half of which would be paid for by a federal grant with local matching funds and requested a donation of $10,000 from the City of Miami. The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-652 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE CONCEPT OF THE CHARLES IVES CENTENNIAL SPECTACLE AND EXPRESSING THE OPINION THAT OTHER FESTIVALS SIMILAR TO THIS SHOULD BE ENC- OURAGED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND AGREEING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A $10,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHARLES IVES CENTENNIAL FESTIVAL AT THE TIME THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE 1973-74 BUDGET (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 6, DIRECT COMMUNICATION LINE IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS FOR STATION W.I.O.D. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-653 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION FOR RADIO STATION W.I.O.D. TO INSTALL A DIRECT COMMUNICATION LINE FROM ITS STUDIOS TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING CHAMBERS; SAID INSTALLATION TO BE MADE AT THE SOLE EXPENSE OF RADIO STATION W.I.O.D. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 34 SEP 131973 7, DISCUSSION OF LEGAL OPINIONS ON THE POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TO METROPOLITAN DADS COUNTY Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Mayor, as per the request of the City Commission, Mr. Dickens of our Bond Counsel's opinion was forwarded to the County Attorney and he sent an opinion back in a letter of reply. As you recall Mr. Dickens said that in his opinion, Wade County may not assume the bonded indebtedness.unless first approved by a majority vote of the registered electors of Dade County either at a general or special referendum. The County Attorney pointed out that there was a serious argument in favor of the position of Mr. Dickens. He said there was also a serious argument in favor of the opinion that the County Commission could do it and it would be legal but in conclusion he said that he couldn't say it would prevail or wouldn't prevail if the County Commission could lawfully assume the bonded indebtedness without a vote and therefore he said the question is sufficiently close that until the matter is judicially determined by a court of appellate jurisdiction, it would be virtually impossible to predict with certainty how a court might rule. Now that means so far as I am concerned that our bond counsel has given us an opinion that it can't be done. The County Attorney has said, maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong, I don't know and the only way we will find out is in Court action and therefore in my opinion,n you cannot assume that the County can validly take over that bond obligation and you must act on a premise that there is no way to be legally sure that turning over the bonds on the parks would relieve our citizens of the responsibility so that you might find yourselves if you turned over those parks and recreation areas in a position of having the citizens of the City of Miami pay for the county parks. Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Andrews, I know that Mrs. Rocka- fellar is here and a groupfrom the Northeast section. I understand that Mr. Billy Rowe was here also but had to leave and wanted to discuss something about the parks program and the possibility of its turnover. Mr. Fannatto is here too. I would hope that we rn:. ght be able to take this up at budget time because there may be another method. The thing that concerns me is that I would like to see our parks operated at full maximum with the program is good for all of our citizens and although many people other than city residents use them, I think that these programs should be on a comparable plane with those of the better cities in the recreational field. Now that has not been true up to now. Not because we don't know how to do it but because we have had a lack of money. There may be a way that we can reduce the budget substantially and give relief to the taxpayers of this City and at the same time, keep ownership and control of the land. I would like to be given until our budget hearings and if you could tell the people who are here today when the Parks and Recreation budget will be heard during our budget hearings, I think it would be appropriate for them to be back at that time so that we could speak to the subject matter then. Mr. Andrews: I think this would be a matter best heard then in the afternoon of the second day. The first day will be devoted to a thorough discussion and understanding of the budget as it is now formulated and some of the adjustments that are necessary. The following morning, you will hear from the employee organizations or at least we will be discussing them and the afternoon has been devoted to the public and this might be an ideal time. Mayor Kennedy: Let's set it for 2 O'Clock on the 18th. Mr. Andrews: Fine. Mayor Kennedy: Grace, is that all right with you - next week on the 18th of September? Tuesday at 2 O'Clock. The problem is that I have been back a short time and we have had meetings almost the whole time. Either Interama or the City or Investment Committees. I am working on a proposal now that ilnay I think, be a solution to the problem and I do not have the material ready yet but I will have it ready by the budget hearings and since this applies very much to 35 SEP 131973 • • the budget of the City, I would like to have that opportunity to present it at that time. Mrs. ROckafellar: But even so. Even if the County did assume the bond issue, since they are within our boundary lines, we are the only people that will be taxed for their support in the City of Miami. Mayor Kennedy: I may have a new mythology for it, that's why I am asking for it. There may be another way of doing it. Mrs. Rockafellar: In other words you want to call off the public hearing today? You want to call off our talking about it today. Mayor Kennedy: I am going to ask for personal privelege of the Commission even if we talk today that no definitive action be taken because I have a proposal that I want to submit on Tuesday, before the budget hearings. I am saying, if you want to speak, you can but it might be better if you hear my plans and speak to it rather:than what we are speaking to as of now because it is changed considerably. Mrs. Rockafellar: Thats all right with me. Mayor Kennedy: Anyone else what would like to speak on it that can't be here? I will appreciate it Grace. I may come up with something you like. If not, I have heard your wrath be::ore and appreciate it. Mrs. Rockafellar: If you would al:ow me just a moment. I intended to make it before I started my presentation. On behalf of myself and a great number of concerned citizens of Miami, we want to welcome you back to your rightful place as Mayor. We have really missed you. We have not only missed your tremendous leadership but we have missed the compassion that you show for each and every one of us that come before this Commission and that means a lot to to us and we just hope that you are with us for a long time to come. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you. 8, ADVISORY ARRITRATI9N AWARD MAYOR KENNEDY: Mr. Kaplan? Mr. Kapian: Very briefly Mr. Mayor and Mrs. Gordon and Gentlemen: To recapitulate what has ,happened in the past and to focus on what we are here for today. Last year the City of Miami employees union met with the City Manager's representative for the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining and reach an agreement on the 72-3 contract. Those negotiations reached a deadlock on certain issues. The negotiator's then articulated certain issues that were in deadlock and submitted it to arbitration pursuant to this Commission's resolution of last year favoring arbitration as a substitute for more fervent action as we are now seeing in the City of Coral Gables and as an intelligent, progressive way of resolving disputes between a public employer and public employee organizations. We went to arbitration at enormous expense to the employees union and to the City. The arbitrator rendered his decision. There was 3 or 4 areas in the arbitrator's decision that required negotiation. The arbitrator's decision came out in May and I sat down with your City Manager repre- sentative, Mr. Joel Lankin to try to resolve those conflicts. We could not resolve all the conflicts but what he wanted and what I wanted was articulated in two documents. His proposals and mine. I then asked that it be submitted to you people on July 26th. His document came before you and mine came before you and I thought we were going to argue the merits of both documents but no, for the very first time on July 26 , Mr. Reese sitting there said, the City can't afford it on the issue of paying an additional 11 time which was recommended by the arbitrator. 3t� SEP 131973 • We agreed not even to go retroactively to the time when the parties deadlocked in 1972 but to start it on July 26, 1973. I was then through your kindness offered the opportunity to come back here today and I said that I would do my best between then and now to articulate the issues again for the 5th time to you people and I think all of you received a letter from me following my meeting and my being here on July 26th in which I think I clearly" pointed out what I am pointing out now, the differences between the city's views and our views. I said also that the union would employ the services of an economist in an attempt to dispute Mr. Reese's contention that the city couldn't afford to do what the arbitrator said they could do. Well I did. I went to the trouble of hiring of economics of new college in Sarasota. A Dr. Berry. 1-1e wrote a letter to Mayor Ferre and Mayor Ferre said that he would respond to it and of course in the transition, he never got any response. There was certain data that Dr. Berry required and he never got it. I was waiting for a repor': from Dr. Berry, didn't get it because the data the city was supposed to supply him with was never furnished but Dr. Berry came here yesterday and made a survey of the books and documents of the city and reported to me telephonically that there was money in the city to pay the ?Z time additional for overtime work the arbitrator recommended, I was of course interested in seeing that the, that there was no contention by Mr. Reese that the city couldn't afford to pay him $30,000. The estimate of the 12 time that was recommended, that was recommended by the arbitrator would come to approximately somewhere between $25,000 and S61,000, Those are the 2 estimates as to how much overtime would have to be paid. One estimate being Dr. Vatican's and the arbitrator's estimate of some $25,000, the other being the city's estimate to be as high.as S61,000. Somewhere between 25 & 60 thousand dollars. This is from July 26 to the end of the cu;:tract term October 1. That's not even hard dollars because most employees ta'•<e their overtime not in dollars but in compensatory time which may not b'. taken until a year or so from now. I just received `,1r. Andrew's recommendation to you. If you would like, I can articulate the issues on each one of the disputed items on the arbitration and ask you to resolve each one of the disputed items and then ask you to vote to accept the terms of a contract which would contain whatever it is, you poople wish to put into the contract on the disputed issues, Mr. Plummer: .Joe, let me have a full understanding with you. As I recall at the last metinz, anil in the material which you sent me and I thank you so that 1 coul. 1.0 ..ver it during my vacation, it was my understanding that your organ : ati on who you represent were willing to forego all the rest of The ., biti,: to d issued in deference to the resol- ving of the situation of tine and one half. Am I correct in that assumption sir? Mr. Kaplan: The letter 1 sent to you said this, that there were 3 articles in the contract which were in dispute. They were Mr. Lanken's section 4 and 10 and section 20. I sLid in my letter to you of July 28, we will accept Mr. Lanken's version of the arbitrator's award. We will accept the city's section 6 and 10. The only section which remains for discussion is section 20 which is called overtime. The overtime clause which contains the time and a half provision that apparently is in some dispute has one other factor to it that I want to bring to your attention. The only other factor is the , what the city proposed we do about compensatory time. Right now, the policy is that when . i comp time is earned, and paid out upon the employee leaving the city's employ, such as Mr. Reese, you paid the comp time to the employee based on the earnings or salary or wages that he was entitled to receive at the time of his leaving the city's employ. As a matter of fact, Mr. Andrews said that when you Mrs. Gordon asked him, what is the rate of pay? Is it the rate of pay he would have earned 5 years ago when he should have taken his vacation or now. Mr. Andrews said it has been the long consistent policy of the city first set by Mr. Reese :that money that is paid out to an employee when he leaves the city or comp time or I -time or vacation time, he is paid at the rate that is is earning at the time he leaves the city. 37 SEP 131973 Mr. Plummer: Is there any contention on that part? Mr. Kaplan: There is no contention except the city, Mr. Lanken proposal to me last July which I might point out has no 'oasis in the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator did not -that issue was never squarely faced by the arbitrator. This was a gratuitous offer by the arbitrator. This was beyond his power to arbitrate. The city and the union never talked about in in 72. We never talked about it before the arbitrator. This was something he added as a suggestion to soften the blow of time and a half but we never presented any evidence on it nor did the city. Mr. Plummer: You want it in writing what the policy of the city is and has been for a long time. Mr. Kaplan: No, what I am saying is the city proposes through Mr. Lanken and Mr. Lanken section 20 that you change the manner of paying comp time. That you pay comp time now when an employee leaves the city based upon the wage he earned when he earned the comp time so if an employee leaves the city after 20 years of employment and has so many hours of comp time, the job of the city would be to go back and find out how much the hourly rate was when he earned the first hour of comp time, what the hourly rate was the second hour of comp time and up to 20 years, accumulate the comp time and pay it to him in cash on the basis of 20 years of earnings. Mr. Andrews: If I may interrupt, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. 'The way you are stating it, you are relating it to comp time, straight time which was one kind of policy understood. We are talking about comp time now in relation to time and a half which is an entirely new matter. Mr. Kaplan: Its still comp time. Mr. Andrews: No, there is a difference now in relation.to time and a half as Mr. Lanken has presented before you the fact that it would be paid as its earned and at the rate its earned and you are mixing 2 things together. One is comp time based on straight time and comp time ba:.ed on time and a half. There is a distinct difference. We are not talking about general policy. Now in fairness Mr. Kaplan, you are asking the Commis::ion about a policy and I am going to ask them not to make any policy because that puts them in an area of negotiation and takes away from us the privelege of putting those things on the table to discuss with the unions. Mr. Kaplan: In the 73-74 negotiations. Mr. Andrews: You are talking about past comp time, are you not? Mr. Kaplan: Let me see if I can understand the city's position as it has been written by Mr. Lanken. The best way to do that it .,is to write it. This is Mr. Lanken's proposal. It is further agreed, now this is in the time and a half for overtime section of the contract proposed by Mr. Lanken. This is Mr. Lanken's language which if you can resolve is all that remains of any dispute between us and the City other than putting it into effect. "It is further agreed that the City hereby reinstitute the comp time policy in existence prior to December 12, 1972 with the following change relative to the cashing in of comp time bank" This is when an employee leaves the service like Mr. Reese. "If an employee takes comp time off, the hours in his bank would be appropriately reduced by such time off" No question about that. "If an employee leaves the service of the City and cashes in his bank, the hours therein should be evaluated on the basis of the rate of pay earned by the employee during the last pay period of the fiscal year in which the hours were banked" He goes on to say that foregoing valuation of hours concerning comp time bank shall apply only to hours banked after July 26, 1973 so he is not asking we go back for the last 50 years and do it but to start it July 26 and have the city keep records which is a total change in the policy of the city.. �� SEP 131973 Have the city keep records of the hourly rate that an employee worked overtime, earned overtime and when he retires 20 years from now, you pay him on the hourly rate he earned in 1973 or 74 etc. Now that is a change in the policy of the City. That is different than the City did prior to December 1972. They changed it in December 1972 by saying there will be no more comp time. They abolished it altogether for overtime, so again, if you can resolve the question of accepting my language and my language very simply says, reinstate the policy or if you wish to accept Mr. Lanken's version, and change the policy quite drastically by one additional word. In the interim waiting outside an d talking to city people, I have been advised that you do not have such sophisticated equipment that 20 years from now, you will be able to tell how riuch this gentleman earned working overtime on Saturday of next month. You do not have that kind of equipment. Mr. Andrews: We will worry about keeping those records accurately. I don't think it's for Mr. Kaplan to make that decision or worry the Commission that we won't be able to keep accurate records. This is a change in approach to this specifically for this particular group for this contract for 1972-73 contract only. What the conditions for 1973-74 only affecting them, no other employee group in the City of Miami may be entirely different. We may negotiate something entirely different. We are entering upon a whole new area of dealing with public employees when we begin dealing through the unions now that they have become recognized, now that there is established procedures. for negot- iations followed up with arbitration. The whole approach to managing the public employee has got to change now. The Commission is no longer going to be put in a position of, I hope, of making general policy about employees as to emoluments, holidays, other benefits they would receive, economic benefits because they are all negotiable items and all to be treated differently with each group depending on the things that management can place on the table to negotiate and barter with. Rev. Gibson: I am not so sure I hear what I think I am hearing. Are you telling me that based on that long discussion that we had here this morning. You said if a man works for us for 12 years, he accum- ulates all of that time and in 1973 that ►wen I get ready to pay him for that unused time, 1 pay him based on his 1973 wages. Is that what you are telling me? Mr. Andrews: That's right. Rev. Gibson: Then what 1 think I hear you saying is, now I want to do it a little different. I want to compute that and want to pay -him based on what he earned in, if the going rate of pay was $1,50 an hour in 70, I'll pay him S1.50 and then if the going rate of pay was $1.65 in 71 and going rate of pay is $, isn't that what I hear? Mr. Andrews: No Sir. That certainly would not be fair and that certainly is not what I am - What I am saying is that this new, call it emolument if you will, the new condition, not the old, nothing to do with the old. The practices that were established as far as any time was earned or anything in existence right now will remain but anything new and what they are proposing is new, is time and a half for a certain period of time in a contract, that's brand new. Now we want a new procedure on that which is brand new. The old procedures for everything that has been gained up to this point, those will be adhered to but this is new now. Mr. Kaplan: Mr. Andrews excuse me, Canon Gibson asked you a question and you said he is wrong. He is right. You won't do what he said in the past but beginning July 26, 1973, you will do exactly what he said for over time won't you? Mr. Andrews: That's right. Mr. Kaplan: So the answer is yes because now, 13 years from now if we have a repeat of this - Mr. Andrews: That is what employee negotiations are all about. What we will be deciding will be decided at the negotiation table arbitration and a final conclusion reached. 39 SEP131973 • Rev. Gibson: Do you pay any of the other city employees time and a half? Mr. Andrews: No, and I am not recommending that we do. Rev. Gibson: Other people just get accumulated time and they are paid at the time they leave the employment of the city, you pay them at the going rate of pay as of that year and day? Mr. Andrews: That's right. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Kaplan, you want time and a half? In other words, you want two elements apparently you want time and a half or are you asking me that time and a half be accumulated? Mr. Kaplan: Let me put it this way. An employee working - The second thing you hear Canon is not a change. We are not asking to change anything. We are asking me to keep the procedu:-e you have always followed. All we are asking you to do is to follow the arbitrator's award and the arbitrator said these employees are entitled to time and a half, that' s all. We are asking you to give us time and half and put into effect for comp time only, not dollars in the pocket, but for compensatory time only and only at such point when an employee leaves the service of the city, and only for hours worked after July 26, 1973, when we leave the service, give us time and a half which you owe us, not at the rate that we earned it but at the rate we were then making at the time we leave the city, 10 years from now, which is precisely what you now do at straight time. Rev. Gibson: Yes but the point is, the other people are not getting time and a half. Mr. Kaplan: That is not so. Every - Rev. Gibson: That's a major difference. That's the point the Manager is making. Mr. Kaplan: He's wrong. Every employee because of your charter requiring uniform treatment of employees, every city employee who would be within the classification of employees represented by this union will be affected similarly by your action. The only people not affected would he Police and Fire because they are not in the same class of employees represented by this union. Rev. Gibson: Joe, I don't want you to get off this point because this to me is a very basic point. If the other people are not getting time and ahalf but you compute their time at the point where they quit the city so as to pay them based on the then going rate of pay, 1 could understand but you can't get the cake today and eat it and get it tomorrow and eat it too. Mr. Kaplan: I don't understand that Canon. May I suggest that we are not asking you to change the policy, we are asking you to increase the rate. Instead of the rate being straight time, give us the rate of time and a half. Change nothing else, that's all we are asking. If I came before you and asked you for a $2 per hour rate, you wouldn't say wait a minute, $2 an hour rate, if I give you $2 and time and a half for overtime, you will get $3 an hour, sure because I am entitled to a $2 rate. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor y Members of the Commission, to clarify this then, its true exactly as Mr. Kaplan has stated what they are asking for is time and a half and we are saying we are at a juncture here that past policy need not adhere to this. You can now make the decision in this instance for this union, for this period of time from October 1 1972 to September 30, 1973 when this contract he is talking about ends and divert from that policy and begin at a point where they will only •be paid on the basis of what they earn. Mr. Kaplan: Yes of course, you can do anything you want because we don't have a contract. We are asking you to sign a contract with us which would include- we gave up on 2 points of the 3 arbitrated issues which in Mr. Lanken's language. Mr. Lanken's time and a half we accept. The only issue remaining open is, will you please keep in effect the 40 SEP131973 system that you have always had and don't give us the time and a half and then take it away by penalizing us in the manner that you pay us. I read Mr. Andrew's report to you and its kind of clever. He is doing his job beautifully. He is saying to you, well I think that this is great. The last time Kaplan was here, we said we couldn't afford it. You notice you don't hear that point now, we couldn't afford the $35,000 bucks its going to take. This time we aren't going to say we can't afford it but we will give them the time and a half and take it away in the manner we pay him when he leaves the city. Now the arbitrator didn't rule this way. This was not before the negotiators when we negotiated in 1972. It's according to the city's policy on all other employees, it would be a difference to us and be punitive toward us and its unfair treatment to us. We ask you only to put in effect the one item which the arbitrator ruled, the time and a half. If they want to change the policy, let them negotiate it with us the next time we are up to bat but that .is not what was at issue before the arbitrator. Rev. Gibson: My desire was to treat you equally. The other people are not getting time and a half. This is all 1 am saying. I know. If other people are not getting time and a half and they are going to compute the time based on when they leave, you know thats good. Mr. Kaplan: Wait a minute Canon, the Pblice get time and a half. The general employees organization which we did not represent, Mr. Litvak, his employees who arc, who work in the exact same job class- ifications as the unions employees work, he must get the benefit of the arbitration although I am unhappylhe didn't spend the first dime of the arbitration expenses, whatever happens from us, whatever benefits we were able to carve out for the employees, Marshall's employees will get it. Isn't that right? Mr. Andrews: Well Mr. Mayor - Mr. Kaplan: Because of the charter provision that you have to treat all employees alike. The only situation I know that is different is police and fire hut the reason its different is because they specifically negotiate it out, the time and a half. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. We are creating slowly.a rather impossible situation for the City of Miami. 1 would like to preface anything I have to say and I know that Mr. Kaplan and I have gotten into a little heated discussion here. I have a genuine interest in treating ail employees fairly and equitably to see that they get the maximum benefits and they do enjoy quite a few benefits, you can be sure of that. I am certainly willing to sit down and try to work out any given problem on a reasonable basis but we have really created a real problem for the City of Miami and let me tell you where it lies. The Charter first prevents the City Commission from getting involved in administrative matters, thats #1. Then we might have to have a definition of the various things we are talking about here today from the City Attorney to determine which one of these are administrative matters and which are policy decisions on the part of the City Commission. Secondly, the charter specifically states that the Manager shall provide equal pay for equal effort which is what Mr. Kaplan was addressing himself to. Then further, we have now 5 active unions. If we were to apply what Mr. Kaplan is suggesting, we have 5 unions. If by chance, each one of those unions selected 4 independent different economic matters to place on the bargaining table and we could not resolve those 4 for each union, we would end up in a situation now the profile of which is arbitration and you go to arbitration on 20 econimic items. Let'.us assume that some of these are worth granting and others are questionable and others should not be granted. Let's assume that the arbitrator comes back with 20 recommendations that the Commission should respond to. You would be applying every one of those accross the board so that's not right. They are going to have to go into consolidated understanding where they will appoint representatives from each union, sit down as a group and detail their demands and then we will sit down and discuss this with them but what's happening now is getting to be an impossible situation. 41 • Mr. Kaplan: Gentlemen and Mrs. Gordon, let me make one thing perfectly clear. In 1972 when this union went to the expense of hiring lawyers in negotiating with the city and reached deadlock and went to arbitration, they spent thousands and thousands of dollars. The city didn't take the position, well we will let you go to the trouble of trying to get time and a half and then we will worry about everybody else after that. They didn't do that. They fought us to knock out time and a half. They tried to prevent us from getting the time and a half so they would not have to pay it to anybody else. We were the ones that led the battle. They knew we were leading the battle for everybody else to start with. Police, Fire and Marshall Litvak's group are all waiting for the results of this arbitration. They didn't have to go to four arbitrations or sit down with 15 different arbitration or negotiation sessions on this issue. They got one union to lead the battle. We did it, we won and now unfor- tunately or fortunately depending on which side you sit on, so all the employees should get it. They should win. We are not speaking for Fire and Police and Marshall Litvak's group but we all know under the surface that all the other employees will get it too. Canon, if you give it to us, you will be giving it to everybody else as well. Mr. Andrews: What I am trying to persuade the Commission is to, and I don't want to create a problem for the Commission that you can't live with. I don't want to do that. That's why I want to make sure that the decisions that you arrive at today, whatever they are, and applicable to this union for the time period we are talking about which ends September 30 and then on September 20 or 19th, we are starting a whole new negot- iation for the coming year with this particular union group. I say that in good faith and in good faith, those negotiations are being carried on now with the other union groups for the 1973-74, we can't apply what I have just said to them because in good faith, we have to follow through with the things that have been put on the bargaining table but we are headed toward a direction in which consolidated bargaining must be taken up and as soon as we clear out all of the negotiations we have started in good faith and all of those are cleared up and if we can get signed agreements and I hope we can, we are trying real hard, once that's accomplished, then we will have to look to these unions to con- solidate, they can stay independent, but let them appoint their repres- entatives, let them consolidate their demands and then we can sit down and begin to make some sense out of this and I will predict that we will have few of these kind of discussions before the Commission in the future. Mayor Kennedy: (Brief interruption concerning the scheduling of zoning matters on today's agenda) Mr. Kanlan: For my colleagues, what Mr. Andrews hopes of the future posturing of collective bargaining negotiations will come to is something that I certainly have sympathy for. I believe that it is difficult to negotiate with so many employee groups, however, Charlie tells me about the past history of negotiations with the City and it wasn't the union's fault. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, if you will bear with me, I would like to address my comments directly to the union, if I may have that privelege, to the union representative. Let us not begin debating past history. I am trying to keep a profile of what we are doing right now and where we are going from this point forward and we are here in an effort to resolve a problem. I may see that problem a little bit differently and you certainly do and I think we ought to present our facts as they are and the Commission will have to arrive at a decision and we can do that expeditiously and get it over with. Mr. Salerno: For the record, I am Sgt. Charles Salerno, Miami Lodge Fraternal Order of Police. I want to speak to 2 points in question here. First, the Police Dept. never reached agreement in 1972 because of the overtime provision. We have been trying to get time and a half for overtime for about 5 years. We are one of the few departments in the Dade County area that do not get time and a half. We were told by the city's negotiator, Mr. Lanken, not to file an arbitration case because there was one already started by and that whatever the Commission did with that award, would apply to all of us. We held off on the faith of the city's negotiator and the reliance that what he told us was an accurate reflection of the administrator's position. 4G S E P 131973 • • We have not reached an accord for last year. Actually we haven't reached an accord for 4 years but for last year because of this one issue and I think to force every particular unit to go into arbitration is going to create undue expense to the city as well as the employee organizations. Secondly the point of crediting compensatory time at the time earned. I don't know who is going to keep those records. Mr. Plummer: Lets see if we can't try to resolve this thing. I feel like we're arbitrator s. Do I understand that really in question now is 2 points: 1 - is the time and a half issue and 2 - the way it will be computed? Mr. Kaplan: When you leave the city, exactly. Mr. Plummer: My next question is to Mr. Andrews. Mr. Kaplan: It relates specifically to my section 20 and Mr. Lanken's section 20. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews, #1, we are basically talking about 2 points. #1 time and a half and #2, the manner in which it will be computed. As I understand, that is the issue before us. As I read your report, you said that giving the time and a half to this particular group for the remainder of this contract period. Mr. Kaplan: No going back to July 26th. Mr. Plummer: For the remainder of this contract period, was with your approval, right? Mr. Andrews: That's right. Mr. Plummer: So if the Commission passes that, that is really in fact what they are asking for today, is that correct? Mr. Andrews: Yes, there is one area that should be clarified. The way I stated it was to be achieved on a compensatory time basis because the City of Miami weeks ago ran out of money insofar as over— time funds are concerned. Mr. Plummer: When you say compensatory time, you are,speaking about that an hour be paid on a hourly rate and not an hour and a half. Mr. Andrews: No I am sayini, that an hour and a half be credited in compensatory time for every hour that they worked overtime but to do it on a compensatory time basis. It's the same as pay if we had the money to pay them. You would be sitting here in judgment in paying them dollars at time and a half. Instead of having dollars to pay them, you will be paying them compensatory time at time and a half. It amounts to the same thing except one is compensatory time and the other one is dollars. Mr. Plummer: In other words, they could never cash in for money. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Kaplan: This is the first time I have heard this. This is a brand new issue. Mr. Andrews: It's in the memorandum. Mr. Kaplan: No, here is what you did Mr. Andrews. You repeated Mr. Lanken's on page 2 of your 4 page report. You repeated Mr. Lanken's proposal for overtime and that says employees performing overtime work shall at their discretion be paid time and one half at their straight time hourly rate of pay or shall be given compensatory time at time and one half. Now Mr. Lanken and the City is what they are apparently proposing. That doesn't say only comp time. It says an employee gets paid either cash at time and a half or comp time at time and a half. That's what you said. Look, we agreed to this. Mr. Andrews, Mr. Lanken and I agreed to this. It's Mr. Reese who said you couldn't afford it, that stopped this on July 26th. Now all of a sudden for the first time you are saying, let's change- 43 SEP 131973 • • Mr. Plummer: Joe wait a minute because you made 4 basic point that I had to agree with. You cannot change a city policy that has been in effect for the city and go back and tell a man w;. are operating under different rules because he has operated all hi'. tenure with the city under certain rules and he has to operate and if you cut off then but you can't make it retroactive. Now Mr. Andrews I am still trying to get down to the bottom of the disagreement. The one point that seems to be disagreement on and tt.at is time and ahalf. The point of disagreement seems to to on how it shall be paid. Is that correct? Mr. Andrews: That's as I understand it. Mr. Kaplan: Assuming Laaken's language in the first paragraph is accepted, yes. Mr. Plummer: Is it your contention that it should be paid at the same rate as it has been paid in the past? Mr. Kaplan: No, 1 am saying that when an employee works now overtime and he gets time and a half, you give him his cash which they agreed to or you give him comp time. Comp time is you give him an hour and a half off- well you know what comp time is. Mr. Plummer: I am beginning to wonder if I do. Mr. Kaplan: I don't know how you would apply the comp time but at any rate, the cash to the city wouldn't apply until a person leaves the city like Mr. Reese. The only dispute, isn't that right Mr. Andrews? The only dispute is when the employee leaves the city and he is entitled to so many accumulated comp hours at time and a half over the past 16 years of his life beginning July 1973, they want to give it to him at time and a . half but at the hourly rate he earned it at. We want a continuation of the city's old policy. Mr. Andrews: That is the disputed area. We say if they continue on a compensatory time basis that time and a at the rate that they earned it. half that it should be carried Mr. Plummer: That's what you are saying. Mr. Kaplan: It's a change from the 50 year policy of the city. Mr. Plummer: That basically then is a new precedent. Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Plummer: So what you are telling me is that you are still trying to negotiate last years contract, is really what you are telling me. Mr. Andrews: No, no, I am not trying to negotiate. I am trying to solve a financial problem acquiescing to the addition of time and a half. Mr. Plummer: But we didn't ask you to acquiesce Mr. Andrews, we asked you to come with a recommendation. Mr. Andrews: Well that's my recommendation. Mayor Kennedy: You are going to go into negotiations when next week? Mr. Andrews: We have been in continuous negotiations and we are hoping for mostof the people we are negotiating with that we will have resolved these kind of problems before we have our budget hearings. Mayor Kennedy: Joe let me _,just say this. I think that you will see a different atmosphere as far as negotiations are concerned now and I think that the employee groups who have been meeting with Mr. Andrews find that there is a different atmosphere than it was before and I think that this is good for the City and it is good for the employees. I am pleased with it myself. I think that you have to let him have a little breathing spell so he knows exactly what he can do. He has to work within the framework of a budget and I think we can go as far as he recommends today but I think the employees are getting the feeling, that 44 SEP 131973 • • its going to be a little different at city hall now. Mr. Kaplan: Mr. Mayor, we are not talking about the 73-74 contract which we are going to negotiate. I am completely confident that we will have great, as a matter of fact, I understand Mr. Andrews himself is going to sit in on the negotiations which is an excellent step forward. All I am saying is, isn't it about time? You have heardme come up here and bang my hand on the table in a harangue on last years contract. I have been before you on only one issue, trying to get your signature to a contract that we began negot- iating in the summer of 72. Now there is only one remaining issue and that is only one issue preventing this contract from being signed and that is, Mr. Andrew's recommendation that you change a 15 year policy on how you pay comp time when the guy leaves the city. That's the only issue which was never negotiated by the city in 72, never offered to the arbitrator in the spring of 73, never raised at all until 2or 3 months ago for the first time, and only raised apparently by Mr. Andrew's admission as a way of softening or cushioning the blow of the time and a half the city lost through the arbitrator. They give us the time and a half and then take it away by this change in. policy. It isn't fair. Mr. Andrews: But there is nothing wrong with it. Mr. Kaplan: I'll tell you something. In the private sector it would be an unfair labor practice because you never raised it during the negotiations. Mr. Andrews: We wouldn't have this kind of problem in a private sector. Mr. Kaplan: If an employer raised this in a private sector, it would be an unfair labor practice because it was never raised during negotiations. All of a sudden we are getting hit. Last time, if you recall, I got bombarded with the idea that you couldn't afford it. Remember how I screamed, you could afford it? We went out and hired an economist to prove you can afford it. Now, I am being bombarded with another issue, changing a 15 year policy. My goodness, everytime I come up here, I have to be very fleetfooted. Mr. Plummer: Your economist said that it would be $35,000 approximately from now until the end of this contract, is that correct? Mr. Kaplan: He estimated from 25 to 61. Mr. Plummer: Do you dispute that Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: I'll accept it. I am not really sure of those figures. Mr. Plummer: A new thing has arisen here this morning. Mr. Salerno just brought it up. Their union also has not signed the contract. It was based on the outcome of your decision so aren't we really talking Joe about a lot more money because I am sure the economist was talking about your union. Mr. Kaplan: Your city records do not budget our union employees overtime. They budget all overtime for the city, correct? Mr. Plummer: You are turning my story around. Your economist, Dr. Berry from Sarasota, claimed it would cost approximately $35,000 is the figure you are using between such and such and you are saying 35 for your group - Mr. Kaplan: No Sir. All overtime. Mr. Plummer: All overtime? 45 Mr. Kaplan: The total budget of the city for the whole year was $150,000. Mr. Andrews: Thats not right. You are wrong. Mr. Plummer: It was $750,000 I believe and this year is a million 750. Mr. Kaplan: For overtime - Mr. Andrews: We budgeted, I'll tell you what the figures are, I know them by heart. We budgeted $450,000 for overtime and we exceed that allocation about now 6=7 weeks ago and we are trying to scrounge around to find what funds we can to make up the difference. I assure you. you will have to accept this, it is a very serious problem. 'You ought to come and sit through the budget hearings and hear what is going to be said there. Mr. Kaplan: Our economist figured the city's estimate at the time of arbitration for all overtime for the half time, on overtime, is $370,500 right from the record of the arbitrator. The arbitrator's analysis of all the records the city produced was that it would cost the city $150,000. Now that is for the whole year. We are only talking. about froth June to July 26 to October 1st. That estimate is $35,000 for just those few months for every single employee in the city. Mr. Andrews: The total expenditure, we estimate through the end of the year is going to represent about $600,000 in overtime. If you were to take that figure and apply time and a half for the entire year youtare talking about $900,000. Mr. Kaplan: But we are not talking about a .whole year. We are talking about July 26th. Mr. Andrews: I understand that. Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Andrews, give us a realistic figure of what you think it would cost knowing that the Police will come under it and anyone else that doesn't have.a signed contract. What would be a realistic figure? Lets talk wi.th dollars. Mr. Andrews: From July 26th to the end of the year - Mr. Kaplan: No, to the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Andrews: Fiscal year, would represent approximately 4 months, I would think would be clost to $75 to 85 thousand dollars. But Commissioner, that's a guess on my part. Mr. Plummer: And you are likewise telling us that the City cannot afford that. Mr. Andrews: That's right. I am saying that here, we are trying to satisfy the requirement of the time and a half for this agreement by offering something that we think is reasonable in lieu of the dollars that we don't have to spend for and if we don't, what I am concerned about is that Mr. Kaplan is going to put the City Commission in a position of making a decision here that is going to set a precedent and Father Gibson pointed that out and you were so surprised to find out that the city was making payments based on the emoluments of salary in this instance of the employee as he left the city, not what he was paid way back when, when he earned it. Now maybe its time the City has to turn that around. We have always looked upon that as a nice emolument to give employees after they had left the city upon retirement, a sort of a bonus. Mr. Kaplan: Mr. Andrews, your estimate is based upon a 4 month estimate of time and a half? Mr. Andrews: We are talking about the additional - Mr, Kaplan: It's not 4 months. From July 26 to the end of the fiscal year is 2 months. 46 SEP 131973 i Mr. Andrews: You are right its a little over 2 months. Mr. Kaplan: Well its half of that, its $35,000. Rev. Gibson: Joe, this is new to me. We are not only talking about $35,000 and I couldn't in good conscience pay you time and a half and not pay the other people time and a half. Mr. Kaplan: You were out of the room when that issue was brought up. The Police came forward and explained Canon, that they had an under- standing with the city in 1972, they don't have a contract either. They asked for time and a half. The city promised them and said, well ask me to lead the fight, ask me to go into arbitration. Whatever results from arbitration that they benefit from, you police will get it. Rev. Gibson: Well you made my point. It isn't only $35.000. Mr. Kaplan: It's only $35,000 because we have been estimating it on the basis of overtime for all city employees. Rev. Gibson: Joe, let me ask you this. If you were in my position, which estimate would you take? Mr. Kaplan: His, he said $75,000 on the basis of 4 months left in the fiscal year. Since I pointed out to him that it is only 2 months, Mr. Andrews: He is probably right and I am in error in thinking it was 4 months. Rev. Gibson: After you have done this Mr. Andrews, what happens after? This is precedent setting Joe, that's all we are trying to say and all I am saying to you is we are like sitting ducks, because as soon as we do it for them, all the others will say, this is the way it is. Mr. Andrews: The Commission, prior to having the number of unions that we have and some of the law that has been written with reference to the unions in a municipal sector, treated everyone alike. When you gave something to one group, you made sure that another group got it. The way of, the profile of the union arrangements and negot- iations with the city, that is one of the things that will have to change 'if we continue the way we are. Mr. Plummer: Joe, lot me ask you this question. I am going to put you on record and let's get it flat out. Do you agree that if we approve this today that this is not automatically built into your 73-74 contract? That this will be a new point of negotiation? Mr. Kaplan: It has to be as a matter of law. Re -contract negotiations is separate, of course. P•Mr. Plummer: I don't want to come back and have it thrown at me that we - Mayor Kennedy: From a practical standpoint, you are not going to say, look, we got it last year but we know the city is in bad shape so we are not going to ask for it this year. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, isn't it also a fact that if becomes a stalemate again, i the only thing that can come hack to again would be arbitration and then the only thing you can be saying is that arbitrators would think differently then than they do now. Mr. Kaplan: In your business with your employees, if you decide to give them time and a half on a particular contract and the contract expired, and you said take away the time and a half, it would be a bargainable issue. Mr. Plummer: But the Mayor makes a damm fine point too Joe. I don't know of anything going down. 47 • Mr. Kaplan: Agreed, we would certainly hope it won't go down. Mr. Plummer: Except the value of the dollar. Mr. Kaplan: We would certainly hope it won't go down, no question about it. You have the legal right to argue it though. I want to emphasize something Mr. Mayor that I said when you were not here in July because Mayor Ferre was not here when this Commission in 1972 adopted the principle of arbitration as an intelligent, progressive way of resolving deadlock. You recall that I came before representing the firefighters where we said that under the state law we had to arbitrate a dispute and Canon Gibson said to me, well if the firefighters under state law got arbitrate, we want to give it to everybody and it was your resolution that was passed by this City Commission to adopt resolution, arbitration for all ermloyees. Well this small group of people bore the expense the last year to get this time and half. Don't take it away. I plead with you. I represent public employe; unions all over the state. I point with pride to the City of Miami on the progressive way that you people treat your public employees and your public employee groups and I point to the experience I have had with you in this arbitration case and they went ahead and said we will adopt arbitration and follow it but for 2 times in a row now, in July and now, I have come before you to accept the arbitrator's award without all of these qualifications and conditions to reduce it and to take the guts out of the award and each time, I hear something different. Mr. Plummer: All right let me ask you. You say you are a reasonable man. Reasonable men will compromise. Mr. Kaplan: Sir, I compromised. I didn't even talk about the other issues with Mr. Lanken. Mr. Plummer: Sir, I am not concerned about what you talked about with Mr. Lanken. I am concerned about what you and I are going to talk about right now. Mr. Kaplan: Well Mr. Plummer, do you agree in the letter I wrote to you Sir, I gave up on the other 2 points, did I not? Mr. Plummer: You so stipulated in your letter. Whether you did or you did not, I am not arguing but you said so in your letter. Now since there are 2 points. What would be wrong in compromising to this position since we are talking about a period of 21 months to try to get the thing resolved. Mr. Andrews will recommend this based on the time being paid as the presents hourly rate exists. If you don't like that in your 73-74 budget, argue it out there but accept it for this 21 month period. You got your time and a half which is the thrust that you argued in arbitration, except the hourly rate on what it is based now. If you don't agree with it and obviously you don't, then negotiate it in your 73-74 contract. Mr. Kaplan: I don't understand you Sir. You mean accept the hourly rate as it is now? Mr. Plummer: Accept what Mr. Andrews is saying to be paid on a basis of what you get now is what you are being paid and if you don't like that in the 73-74, then negotiate. Mr. Kaplan: That's no compromise, that is absolutely giving up. That's no compromise. Where has the City given up in any position? Mr. Plummer; Because we are going to give you time and a half. Mr. Kaplan: But Sir, he has recommended time and a half. Mr. Plummer: Only based on the premise of his quota for overtime. Mr. Kaplan: And you are suggesting exactly the same thing. 48 SEP 131973 Mr. Plummer: I'm not suggesting anything except to get off of dead center. We can sit here and argue all day long and so far we have been discussing it for an hour and I don;t see this Commission, nor you, nor the administration any further ahead, right now than we were an hour ago. I am trying to get it off of dead center. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I want to remind you that the arbitration findings are advisory to the Commission and you are free to make whatev er decision you wish. Mayor Kennedy: We have to get it off dead center. We are way behind schedule and have a lot of items to hear. Let's get on with this thing one way or the other. I think that for the commissioners, its now time for them to make a decision one way or the other. Mr.Kaplan: May I just finish by caving you all have a copy of the collective bargaining agreement that I said to you, all those items have been agreed to except section 20. I adopted Mr. Lanken's proposals all the other changes he made and on section 20, we agreed to time and a half. There is no argument there. It reduces itself to one last point and if I give up on that, then I have given up on every other point since the arbitrator's award came out. I have gotten nothing except what the arbitrator awarded me and in many respects, the arbitrator's award was changed by Mr. Lanken and I agreed to that. I ask you only to do one thing. Don't change your policy on how you pay the comp time which was not even for the arbitrator to decide. If you sign my contract, you sign what the arbitrator awarded. If you sign Mr. Lanken's version of Section 20, you have added a section by changing your policy that you have had for 15 years. It was never a part of arbitration. That is what it reduces itself to gentlemen E Mrs. Gordon. Mr. Plummer: Maybe somebody has a better idea than mine. Mr. Litvak: Mr. Mayor 8 Commissioners, I am Marshall Litvak, president of General Employees Association. I would like to clarify a matter. I keep hearing a statement that for this union. For your information and as Sgt. Salerno has stated, all of the groups, practically all of the groups, general employees, the union, the police were all at impasse with reference to overtime. The administration advised that since they were going into arbitration with the union, they would request that we withhold our arbitration on the same matter pending the results and if the results were favorable, it would be applied to all employees. How you can conceive of awarding time and a half to a man who does exactly the same job as another man who will receive straight time, is not feasible. Mr. Plummer: Did you sign a contract last year? Mr. Litvak: We signed a contract only on the basis that this award would be pending if arrived at and that was the only reason a contract was signed. We were at impasse up to that point. The contract that is being negotiated for the coming year, because of this vagueness is to contain a clause which states if a time and a half agreement is reached at any time, it is to be reopened during the year to be imple- mented into the contract. Mr. Andrews: You are not talking about the contract which exists now that is signed. Mr. Litvak: I am talking about the contract that exists now.The same reasons the Police did not sign, if you will check with Mr. Lanken, we did sign because we said rather than going into arbitration with the city on a matter which is already before them, the city stated that whatever decision came out, it would apply uniformly to all employees. Now if you are trying to tell us NO, I would like to know how you can pay two people on the same classification at a different rate. 4S SEP 131973 Mr. Andrews: Wait a minute Mr. Kaplan, that is an important matter that he brings up and that is he will have to show me the words in their contract that says that whatever any other union gets, that they are also going to get. Mr. Kaplan: 1 didn't yield the mike for Marshall to argue his organ izations rights. I thought he was going to make the point that he told me about before that you don't have the machines or the ability to do what has been suggested. Would you make that point Marshall? Mr. Andrews: Let me interrupt again. Mr. Marshall Litvak is not the Director of Finance and he is going to start if I may be presumptuous, I don't want anybody other than the Director of Finance advising the City Commission as to whether we can or cannot do certain things. Mr. Litvak: You are being presumptuous because you don't know what I am going to say. What I was going to say is that the problem here as it exists is one of whether or not the Commission is going to accept the advisory arbitration and grant time and a half and then if they are going to grant time and a half, its amatter of whether its going to be on the basis of cash or compensatory time as agreed or whether its going to be as recommended, only compensatory time. The idea of saying compensatory time only that can be paid at a future date when the employee terminates is based on existing salary at a previous year is an impractical thing. Whether or not we have the equipment to handle it, I won't get in to. Mr. Andrews prefers to have the Finance Director state it but we are talking about the practical aspect of it and unless we have very sophisticated equipment, its not very practical. Mr. Kaplan: That's not what he told me outside. He said he didn't have the equipment for it. I don't represent his organization, he has got his own lawyer. Mayor Kennedy: He told me you were representing all the city employees. Mr. Kaplan: No Sir, I wish I did but I don't. I'll just conclude by again urging that you accept my version of article 20 which is nothing more than a repetition of the arbitrator's award and I have changed all the other aspects of the arbitrator's award to conform with Mr. Lanken' s proposal. This is the only one I ask you to stick to. Mayor Kennedy: Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Andrews, let me ask you one short question. Based on the fact that you admitted making a mistake on the figure, can we assume $35,000, would you reconsider and say that we can give that to them for this time period now with the full understanding that any and all points of any new contracts for 73-74 start from a basis of an entirely new set of circumstances? Do you recommend the time and a half; on the same type of policy? Mr. Andrews: No, I can't recommend that we spend this money. We have gone over what we had programmed, way over it, and I can't recommend this. Mayor Kennedy: We are at an impasse. I think the Commission has got to face the responsibility. Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor I will make a motion. Obviously, -- I will make amotion that we pay the union that is here before us time and a half and we pay them on the present policy that exists today and has existed for 15 years or longer for their 1972-73 contract with the full understanding that this sets no precedent, nor shall it indicate to them or to the administration that this is an automatic thing in the new contract. That the new contract will be negotiated from a basis of everything is new. Under that circumstance Mr. Mayor, I will offer the motion. Mayor Kennedy: Moved by Mr. Plummer, is there a second? Mr. Reboso: °I second that motion. 5U SEP 131973 Mayor Kennedy: Any discussion on the motion? Mrs. Gordon: Just in line with the recommendation that was made that there be some joining of the various - Mr. Kaplan: You mean in negotiations - Mrs. Gordon: When particular points have to be won by individual unions, Mr. Kaplan: This union is the only one that bore the brunt of this case. Mrs. Gordon: I understand but you do understand what Mr. Andrews point was. Mayor Kennedy: Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-654 A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO PAY TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME TO THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 654 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 26, 1973 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1973 WITH THE FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ACTION IN NO WAY ESTAB- LISHES A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND SAID ORGANIZATIONS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Reverend Gibson: NOES: Mayor Kennedy In casting his NO vote, Mayor Kennedy made the following statement: Mayor Kennedy: I am going to vote NO. I think everyone knows that I have fought dilligently for better employee benefits and salary in the past and led the fight for arbitration. However, at this time, I think it is a very dangerous thing to do in that we don't know the impact its going to have on the budget. It is setting a precedent whether you know it or not. You will never go back into negotiations without this being the basis of new negotiations in the future and the employees are probably entitled to it and should have it, I'm for that but I don't want to take a new Manager who I know is going to lean over backwards in working with employee groups and have him straddled with something that he may not be able to live with until he gets into the full cost of what this is going to be -to the city in the years to come so I will vote NO but it passes by a 4 to 1 vote. Mr. Kaplan: Mr. Andrews, I think so we can straighten out some paperwork here, I think it is incumbent upon the City Commission if it pleases them to do so, to vote to order the signing of the collective bargaining agreement because all of the conditions of the contract have not been worked out. Mrs. Gordon: To set the record straight- 51 SEP 131973 Rev. Gibson: why I voted. underlined. you. Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure everybody understood I voted for this period only and I want the record to be When you come back here man, I may not be doing that for Mr. Kaplan: You may give us double time like the construction unions got. Rev. Gibson: No man, I may not be giving you any. Mr. Kaplan: Yes sir. Rev. Gibson: Wait a minute. I want to make sure you understand. I may not be giving you any. Mr. Kaplan: You will give me the right Canon to argue as strong as I can that you should give us as much as we can get. Mrs. Gordon: I want the record to reflect myself. My thinking is, as I said before, for now and it is not precedent as far as I am concerned and I might vote against it in the next time it comes up and I want it clearly understood. Mr. Kaplan: Can we straighten one thing out. Attached to the letter which I sent to every Commissioner and the Mayor, was a copy of an agreement. Mr. Andrews and Joel, did you see that agreement? Can we get Mr. Lanken's agreement? That contract with his section, with Mr. Lanken's section 4 and 10 and my section 20 is the collective bargaining agreement that the city should vote to approve and then the City Manager will sign it and attest to the City Attorney and that will be the agreement, because the document itself should be executed. We have agreed to all clauses of it. I just want to make sure we have got it. Mr. Andrews: Why don't you get together with Mr. Lanken here rather than take the Commission's time and if that is the case, I will bring it up to the COmmission to act on it rather than try to settle it here. Mayor Kennedy: It will be signed today. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Southern, did I incorporate in my motion because I think it should be, that this is retroactive back to the 26th of July 1973? Mr. Southern: You did not but you just said sign the 1972-73 contract. Mr. Plummer: Its agreed and understood by everyone that it is only retroactive to July 26, 1973. Mr.Kaplan: Yes Sir. Mr. Plummer: And for this union, that was in the motion. Mr.Kaplan: Item 9 on the agenda involved 18 employees, Rec Leader III classification. Those people have been here since 10 o'clock this morning. It will not take long and I would appreciate the opportunity to represent their interests here at that point. 52 SEP 131973 9, PARKS & RECREATION _DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, PETITION WITH REFERENCE TO CIVIL SERVICE REGISTER OF RECREAT ION_ LEADER III Mr. Kaplan: I will explain to you very briefly what the union's position is. The Rec.Leader III classification, you will recall in July, T made this issue too. The Rec.Leader III classification was carved out by the Yarger study and he recommended 18 positions for Rec-Leader III with a certain salary structure. The Civil Service Board changed it - refused to give those 18 people whose names were mentioned the promotion to Rec.Leader III. Instead wants to give all the Rec.Leader TIs a competitive examination. We came up and argued it was unfair to impose an examination on these people. Well they. gave them the examination. Now, as a result of that examination, which we opposed, some 21 people passed it. Of the 21 people that passed it, 10 were people who were named in the 18 so they will be getting their jobs. 3 of the 18 people did not pass the examination. We are asking 2 things. One is to allow the 3 who did pass the written examination but who were recommended by Yarger to get the promotion to Rec.Leader III when the next vacancy occurs and we understand this fall 10 new vacancies are going to be opened up so there will be 18 plus 10 vacancies. Give those 3 the chance to get it, thats #1. #2 is something I just learned recently and that is this classification of Rec-Leader III was the only wage recommended classification that is recommended by Yarger which the city administration cut their salary which was supposed to have been.effective last January, was cut by the administration to the point now where there is just a few dollars separating Rec.Leader II and Rec.Leader III and we ask you to reinstate the Yarger recommended salary structure for Rec.Leader III because this is the only case where these employees had their wage rates reduced. We ask that it be paid retro- actively to January as all other employees had it paid retroactively so there is only 3 issues for you to consider. One is .to give those 3 people Yarger recommended the promotion when it next opens up . Two - don't cut their wage, retain the wage structure Yarger recommended and three is to put it retroactive the same as all other employees. Mayor Kennedy: All right, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Harris Turner: Mr. Mayor, the City Attorney has ruled that there is nothing the Commission can do in this matter and that the only alternative would be to take it to court. The civil service board has ruled and there is nothing that can be done. Mayor Kennedy: There is no appeal from the civil service board. Mr. Turner: There is no appeal. Mr. Kaplan: How could the civil service board cut the salary? Mr. Andrews: Between the Civil Service and the City Manager, the salary can be reduced. Mr. Kaplan: that's not what the lawyer said. The lawyer said if the Civil Service Board, if they ruled, the City Commission can do nothing. Mr. Turner: Mr. Mayor, the City Attorney ruled that nothing can be done on the Commission level on this matter. Mr. Kaplan: I don't think the City Attorney realizes that wage reduction issue because it had not been raised before today. 53 SEP 131971 Mr. Robert Paulk: Mr. Mayor & Members of the Commission, I frankly am at a loss what he is stating insofar as the salary being cut and if I am at a loss, I am sure the Commission doesn't understand it, nor the City Manager. It is not my understanding that the salary was cut on any of the positions. The Recreation Leader II position in effect is a new title in the way of a classification to what previously existed as Playground Supervisor. That is a Recreation Leader II. Now the Recreation Leader III position is one that is a new classification that was created to bring forth a superviscry level within the various parks where that supervisory level classification was felt to be needed by the Yarger recommendation survey team and there was no salary existing for Recreation Leader III because there was no classification of such. Now if I could perhaps enlighten Mr. Kaplan and the Commission insofar as Recreation Leader II. The Recreation Leader II position, the old Recreation Supervisor classification, the salary was a few dollars higher than it is now but the people, the incumbents within that classification did not suffer a loss in salary. The people were retained at the same salary level and the position was red -circled so there was no one penalized in salary reduction. Yes, this is a very distinct example of employees who Yarger did not find that salary structure should be increased to them by his comparative analysis wherever he compared all of the employees with so there was no reduction in salary to these people. Yes, future people, unless there was a change insofar as salary is concerned, who go into the Recreation Leader II position will not make as much as the people who previously occupied the Recreation Supr. position. I think that is the answer. Mr. Kaplan: No Mr. Paulk, its not the answer because it doesn't pertain to anything I said. I didn't say anybody is getting a reduction in their current salary. What I said is that it is the only recommended salary increase that Yarger made which was reduced by the administration. Did you hear me say that? Mr. Paulk: I hear you say it, but I don't understand it. Mr. Kaplan: Well Yarger recommended a salary increase and a salary rate for Recreation Leader III, isn't that right? Mr. Paulk: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Kaplan: And has the Yarger recommended salary rate been put into effect? Mr. Paulk: It has not - Mr. Kaplan: Good, that's what I have been saying and its the only classification that Yarger talked about that was reduced. Mr. Paulk: Well it wasn't reduced because in the method of implementing the classification portion of the survey, the Civil Service Board came into prominence insofar as making a decision as to how the new class- ification was to be filled. Mr. Kaplan: The Civil Service Commission has no power to reduce, to set wages which would reduce the Yarger recommendation when this City Commission adopted the Yarger recommendations. Mr. Andrews: Yes it has. Mr. Kaplan, it certainly has. Mr. Paulk: With regard to the way you put it. This Commission under the charter has no authority to place anyone in any classification. This is under the civil service system. Mr. Kaplan: I am talking about wages. I am not talking about classification. Mr. Paulk: Mr. Kaplan, until a position is established and the salary is set and the position is filled, an individual cannot be compensated for that. 54 SEP 131973 Mr. Kaplan: Mr. Mayor, may I just complete my presentation by having Alex who is a Rec. Leader II, who took the exam and was one of those recommended by Yarger for promotion. He took the examination, passed it and he is now a Rec. Leader III. Let him tell you what Yarger recommended he get and what he got now. Unidentified Man: Well with Yarger there was 18 on the report, there was only 15 and out of the 15 one retired, actually as far as the salary, I took the promotional test as a maximum salary for me would be $17.00 raise, that's all I would get. Yarger recommended $147.00 a month raise. Mrs. Gordon: Can I make a suggestion to you? We are running late. Can you carry this over because we are going to hear budget next week and this could come in under that. Couldn't we carry it over? Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, let me stop everybody here now. Mr. Kaplan, you have heard what the City Attorney has told us•. You don't have to agree or disagree but I for one Commissioner am not going to sit here and overrule the City Attorney. Now, wait a minute. He has made a flat statement and until you present facts to him to get that statement changed, I cannot vote on this. Mr. Kaplan: I agree except I thought the Attorney would be, I thought the Attorney would change his mind when he heard - What he just said hasn't got the first thing to do with what I just said. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Kaplan, may I finish. May I suggest that you supply these documents to the City Attorney on your argument that you feel that this is a lawful matter before this Commission. Then if the City Attorney agrees with you, then bring it back before this Commission but I can tell you that J. L. Plummer for one when my City Attorney tells me that I cannot legally hear this, Mr. Kaplan, I am not going to hear it. Mr. Kaplan: Is he saying that Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Would you like him to repeat? Mr. Turner: I can assure you I will not change my mind unless I am presented with other facts. This Commission cannot legally rule on this matter at this time. Mr. Kaplan: That matter Counselor? Mr. Turner: The matter Sir, that you have brought up. Mr. Kaplan: And what did I bring up? Mr. Turner: I am not arguing with you either. Mr. Kaplan: I don't think you paid attention to what I said because it's the very first time I raised it. How in the world can you - Mr. Plummer: Mr. Kaplan, if its the first time you have _raised it, its out of order. Mr. Kaplan: No Sir, its not, its on the agenda. Mr. Plummer: Parks $ Recreation Department Employee petition with reference to civil service register - Recreation Leader III. 55 SEP 131973 If my city attorney tells me I can't vote on that legally, unless you can present arguments to him to change his mind, I can't vote on it. Mr. Kaplan: I understand your position Mr. Plummer. I will conclude and walk away right now. I want to make it perfectly clear though that in July I came before you 8 hours here and was told by Canon Gibson go along with me fella, come back in September and you can have all the time you need. I came here at 10 o'clock expecting and I heard 21 hours of the City Manager's $35,000 bonanza. My point is I am here hoping that the City Commission will give clients time. You have given me all the time you can but now we have reached the last point where the City Attorney makes an opinion on the matter that he just heard me raise Mr. Plummer: No, no Joe, please- before you ever started speaking, he put this into the record. Now he had no idea what new items you were going to raise. Mr. Paulk: Mr. Mayor, If I may to clarify something perhaps would be a cause for not having to have this matter back before this Commission, in response to the statements that Mr. Kaplan has made with regard to Recreation Leader III being the only position which received a salary reduction. This is not true. The application to that, the people when they go into the position because its a new classification, they will receive a salary increase as any other person who goes into a position from a register. There are many others Mr. Kaplan, and your people should know that who were promoted from registers, either qualifying registers or from regular promotional registers and from open registers to which as a result of the Yarger Survey, the position that they occupy was altered to a new classification and they were filled into those positions from registers. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Paulk, you are, a point of personal privelege- You are arguing the points. The man has told us we can't argue the point, it makes no difference. You are taking the time of this Commission on something we can't act on. Mr. Paulk: I apologize for that Mr. Plummer. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I would respectfully recommend to the Commission so we should not hold all these citizens up here indefinitely, that the items that you raised and is a legitimate, lawful one, be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. I understand what you are saying. A price tag for the office was a hundred and some odd dollars more than they are getting. Mr. Rothstein: ,Mr. Vice -Mayor, provided that we review and we feel it is something for the Commission to move ahead on but if I am going to make the same ruling that the Commission can't do anything, there is no sense of putting it on the agenda. Rev. Gibson: I hope that we the Commission will always want to hear the public, I hope, even if we have to be told legally we can't do nothing about it. All right, I want the item on the agenda and that will satisfy me. Because, I .always want to hear the people. How do I get it there Mr. Mayor, tell me what to do. Mr. Plummer: Make a motion. Rev. Gibson: All right I have it there. Come back here, item #1 next meeting. Mr. Kaplan: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Mrs. Gordon. Mayor Kennedy: We will be in adjournment until quarter to three and will start with item #11 and go right on through. At quarter to three, we will be hack. (NOTE: A brief recess was taken.) 5. SEP i31973 4111 10, EXPANSION OF FACILITIES PT SPORTSMAN'S PARK WAREHOUSE ORAME BOWL COMMITTEE The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-655 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE ORANGE BOWL COMM- ITTEE FOR EXPANSION OF FACILITIES AT SPORTSMAN'S PARK WAREHOUSE AND TO SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION FOR RATIFICATION A PROPOSED AGREEMENT THEREFOR (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 11, REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION -LOTS 1&2, BLOCK 60S MIAMI (B-41 Mayor Kennedy: Are there any objectors present on Item #11. The Planning Department recommended denial. Would you like to speak Sir? Mr. Patterson: It was to build about a 4 apartment building. Mayor Kennedy: George do you want to explain? Mr. Acton: Mr. Mayor, our denial is based on the fact that this property is surrounded on 2 sides by commercial development. To the north of the property is a gas station, and to the west is another commercial development and we don't believe it is in the interest of good planning to have this develop other than additional commercial for the area. Mrs. Gordon: What's on the property now? Mr. Acton: Its vacant. Mr. Reboso: C-4. Mrs. Gordon: No, I said what is on the property right now? Mr. Patterson: Right now its residential. Mr. Plummer: What do you propose Sir for a buffer between the filling station and this property? Mr. Patterson: (Reply unintelligible) Mr. Plummer: No Sir, you didn't understand my question. What do you propose for a buffer? Are you going to put a wall or are you going to put landscaping? How far are you going to be from the filling station property? Mr. Patterson: A wall there. Mr. Plummer: How high? 57 SEP 131973 Mr. Patterson: 8' Mr. Plummer: And how far will your building be from the wall? From the setback Sir, from the wall, how far will your building be? Mr. Patterson: 20' 10 and 10. Mrs. Gor_on: Wouldn't this property need to be platted since its less than '-i lot and its a portion of two lots? Mr. Simpson: It wouldn't if it was divided in that manner prior to 1946. Mrs. Gordon: Was it? Mr .Simpson: We have no way of knowing that Mrs. Gordon, this is a request for change of zoning. Mrs. Gordon: Well don't you think somebody ought to try to let us know even if we gave him the zoning whether or not he could even build on it? without platting it. Mr. Simpson: He said the existing structure was built in 1916 on this particular parcel. Mrs. Gordon: I thought somebody t,ld me it was vacant just a minute ago. Mr. Acton: Mrs. Gordon, I apologize, I thoughtit was vacant. Mr. Simpson: There is a 1-story frame house on the front of the lot. There is a 2-story frame house on the rear. Also you have to understand that this ownership even though it is not depicted on our map, also includes the other half of 19 and 20. This man owns portions of 4 lots. This is the subject of the public hearing. He also owns the N. 50' of Lot 19 and 20 so that gives him a site if it is divided, the south 50' is zoned R-4 and the north 50' is zoned C-4. It contains 3 old frame structures. He wants to tear down - Mrs. Gordon: Sitting on hoth parcels. Mr. Simpson: That is correct. What he wants to do is tear down the frame structures and put up an apartment building on a 100 X 100' tract. Mrs. Gordon: Do you have plans for the building yet? Mr. Patterson: I have plans but did not bring them with me. Mr. Plummer: Well Dave, Mrs. Gordon's question. To do what he wants, isn't he going to have to re -plat? Mr. Simpson: No sir, based upon his statement, this has been in this division of lots since 1916 so the platting laws of the City of Miami went into effect in 1946. Rev. Gibson: Do we know that the date is correct? Mr. Simpson: I did not search his abstract. Rev. Gibson: We ought to find that out. Mr. Simpson: The only problem is, if it isn't correct, why the simple thing that he has to do is submit a tentative plat before a building permit is issued. Really the platting problem has no relationship whatsoever to the application on the zoning. Mr. Plummer: Whats the outcome of the pow wow? Mr. Simpson: Two situations could exist and he would not be required to re -plat. Either refacing of the lot or if this division of property was prior to 1946 but again the size of the tract would not prohibit him from re=platting in a routine manner should it be necessary after a search of the abstract. 58 SEP 131973 Mr. Plummer: 11ow far will the back of the filling station be from the wall he will put up? Mr. Simpson: I couldn't answer that. I don't have the survey of the filling station. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will move that this item be deferred until we can go out and look at it and get these answers and also resolve the other answers, I will move for deferment. Mrs. Gordon: Second. Rev. Gibson: I hope we will get those dates before. I want to see where the building is going, Mr. Reboso: Tell him to bring the plans. The Commission unanimously agreed to defer this matter pending inspection and to resolve the questions mentioned. 12, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLAINT OF OPERATION OF DRUG CLINIC A group of neighbors from the area immediately adjacent to 3011 N. W. 13th Street appeared before the City Commission to register a complaint about the operation of a duplex owned by the Diocese of Miami and under the direction of Dr. Ben Sheppard and being occup ied by"several unrelated persons later determined to be inmates of the Stockade. They complained of this use in a residential neighborhood and said it constituted a nuisance and a threat to their children and related instances of several police calls at this address. The following persons appeared and spoke and registered essentially the same complaints: Mrs. H. Theodorides Mrs. Cruz Mrs. Lee Metzer Jasper Andre Gladys Rasmussen Dr. Ben Sheppard appeared representing the Archdiocese of Miami and stated the house was purchased in the fall of 1971 and represented that the neighborhood had been canvassed at that time and that the neighbors were in accord. He indicated some confusion existed since this is a half -way house and not a drug clinic and that there were no drugs on these premises, and complained of a harassment program since March when a city fire inspector bought the house next door from building inspectors, electrical inspectors, fire inspectors etc, and that no protest has been registered prior to that. He said the house was used to house ex -convicts in an attempt to rehabilitate them and that rent was collected after the people were able to obtain paying jobs. After considerable discussion, the following resolution was intro- duced by Mr. Reboso who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-656 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI THAT IT FIND ANOTHER SITE FOR ITS HALF -WAY HOUSE FACILITY PRESENTLY LOCATED AT 3011 N.W.13TH STREET AND REQUESTING THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA TO MEET WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION AS A COMMITTEE TO ASSIST THE ARCHDIOCESE IN LOCATING ANOTHER SITE FOR THIS FACILITY IN A MORE SUITABLE AREA (}sere follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clarks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES:• None 5�► SEP 131973 • 13, CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION- LOTS 10O11,12,i3,. BLOCK 8 WINTER GARDEN An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 10, 11,' 12 F, 13, BLOCK 8, WINTER GARDEN 1ST AHD. (5-22) , LOCATED AT 2035 N. W. 22ND COURT FROM R-3 (low density multiple) to I-1 (Light Industrial District) was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Reboso and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 14. VARIANCE- N. 22.5' OE LOT 6._BLOCKL3 COPPINGERS TROPICAL_GARDENS Mr. Rose, Attorney tor the applicant appeared at this time. Mr. Rose: We are here today since this was deferred by the Commission to look at the property that is outlined above where the applicant is asking for a variance of 4' to the south side of the boundary line. A setback of 5' is required and we are requesting that a setback of only 1' be granted and a variance of the 4' also he granted to the applicant. The purpose as I in dicated last time I was here was that the individual owner of the property has requested that he be able to construct a single family dwelling and I, showed the Commission a sort of plan or idea of what he wanted to construct on the property and I can pass it around again if the Commission desires. I have nothing further really to add. We have said everything that has to be said in regard to this. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Acton, your recommendation at the Planning Board and at the last Commission was still in the status of deferral. Do you have a recommendation now Sir? Mr. Acton: I had recommended denit.l. It was deferred to give the Commission the opportunity to go out and review the neighborhood. Unidentified Man: If the Commissioners will remember the discussion at the last meeting, Commissioner Gordon wanted to see what could be done with this property and if you would look at each lot of each block along the expressway and if you viewed the neighborhood, each lot has remained a vacant lot because there is no use that can be made of this lot except for a lot for the adjoining neighbors. The lots are too small and too close to the expressway fence to provide adequate ingress and egress for vehicles without blocking the neighbor. It would be a blight to the ,,community to allow any 16' house abutting an expressway next to an old neighborhood which has been brought down in value greatly already by the expressway going through there. I believe Mr. Acton has viewed the area and did express this opinion to the Commission the last time we were here and I believe it was Commissioner Plummer who warted to know what could be done with this property. In 1966 this was the subject of a condemnation by the State of Florida and we hope that all the citizens are property com- pensated as the constitution of Florida says that each citizen shall be compensated for the taking. .Mr. Miranda, the applicant was paid a consideration for the land, which consideration will take in the destruction of the property and so he is left with this lot and every single lot along the north side of the E-W expressway has either remained vacant or has been sold to a neighbor. 60 SEP 131973 I think it would be unfair to the neighborhood and especially to my client who is the next door neighbor to this property and has a large home next door to this property to allow a 16' house to be built which abuts the expressway which has less than the minimum size yard. Mr. Plummer: If none of the other Commissioners has discussion, I am ready with a motion. Hearing none, I made my statements very clear last time. I think that this request is just out of question and I will move to uphold the planning board and the planning staff and to recommend denial. Mr. Reboso: Second. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-657 A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DENY REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ART- ICLE V, SECTION 3(2), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON N. 22.5' OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, COPPINGER'S TROPICAL GARDENS (16-52), LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1001 N. W. 19TH AVENUE, WITH SOUTH SIDE SETBACK OF 1' (5' REQUIRED) ZONED R-1 (One -family) DISTRICT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 15, PASSING OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE - REPQRT & DISCUSSION Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Gordon has requested of our office that we inform the Commission concerning the matter of the prospective of the new Zoning Ordinance. The enabling act passed by the citizens of the City of Miami in the Charter Election required that a Zoning Ordinance be passed by not later than 1 year from the date of enactment. Mrs. Gordon is concerned over the fact that we are coming close to deadline and while it is apparent that we are going to be able to pass an ordinance before that deadline, the implementation insofar a3 getting recommendations for choosing members of boards, establishing a new depar- tment etc.etc. might take beyond that 1 year, perhaps, lets say for orderly sake, January of next year o-r it might be done sooner and the boards might be picked and go into operation immediately. In any event, so that there shall be no question. Once this Commission passes the ordinances, if its done within the year, the matter of the requirement of the charter is complied with and there will be in any ordinances enacted, a conditional section which provides that the existing procedure will continue until the new procedure becomes effective and in operation. Mrs. Gordon, is there any other question that you may have? 61 StP1, 1071 Mrs. Jordon: Thank you Mr. Rothstein for bringing this matter into public because it concerned me so greatly when I took notice of the wording in the charter change and for the public record, I want to read that part in because you are assuring me and the people who voted for restructuring the Planning Board system that we are not going to be in jeopardy in any way shape or form because you are making provision to fulfill the terms of this charter change, so that would be referring to just one paragraph labeled (f) under Charter Amendment #1 reads: Transition: The provisions of Section 72 and all administrative regulatory and legal arrangements as they existed On October 11, 1972 shall remain in full force and effect until the Commission has by ordinance pro- ceeded under the authority set forth in sub -section (c) above and accomplish the necessary changes in city ordinances as authorized by this section but in no event shall the passage of appropriate ordinances for the creation and appointment of such board or boards if any, and necessary ordinance changes required hereunder be delayed beyond 1 year beyond the date of ratification of this charter amendment. That date is October 12th, that it was canvassed and approved by this Commission of 1972, consequently my concern is that we have not yet adopted the new system formally by ordinance, that we would be closing the door upon the opportunity to do this restructuring if this was not taken care of in a legal manner and if it was not taken care of in a legal manner before October 12th, so you Mr. Rothstein have assured me and you have assured the public, that we will be able to enact this restructuring because you are making provision to avoid the cancellation of this charter amendment at the next public hearing, is that correct? Mr. Rothstein: What I have simply said is, the requirement in the charter is as it reads which requires the passage of the ordinance within the 1 year. There is no statement in there that requires imple= mentation. The control of implementation will be up to the Commission at the time they pass the ordinance so long as they pass it before the October 12th date. M rs. Gordon: Now, in the event there should be changes that would require re -drafting and delays again as there has been in the past, how will you protect this charter change at the next public hearing so that we will not fall in jeopardy of this October 12th deadline? How will you protect us? Mr. Rothstein: The history of what has happened on the timetable, what has been done is not delays but action of the Commission in their workshops to create a better ordinance. There will be an ordinance prepared for the Commission to act on within the time limit. If the Commission acts on that ordinance, it is an ordinance and it can always be later amended or revised and re -drafted, so you need not be concerned. Mrs. Gordon: Then in the event for instance that during the public hearing, changes are recommended by the public which would again require re -drafting and again require delay in writing it up etc. and so forth, this has been a continuous thing - Mr. Rothstein: At a certain point in time, what the Commission is going to have to do is say, we now have had certain suggestions which we feel should be put in. At this point in time, we cannot act upon those suggestions because we must vote upon the document to comply with the time limit. Then you will vote on it and thereafter you will have whatever -time is necessary for re -drafting and further passage. Mrs. Gordon: In other words, we must enact some ordinances relative to this charter change before October 12th. Those ordinances can be further amended later on but we will have then fulfilled the requirements of the charter, correct? Mr. Rothstein: Well not "some" ordinances. We are going to come up with a total draft the next time for public reading. Now that ordinance or some closely adopted ordinance would have to be passed. In other words, you can't just pass an ordinance and say we adopt a new zoning regulation. Mrs. Gordon: I understand very well what you are saying but in order to fulfill the requirements of the charter change, we have to do something so now I am going to ask you another question because its a necessary one. Since we are restructuring something and its involved and time has been taken more than we anticipated, in the event in order to fulfill the requirements of the charter amendment and if I am incorrect, you tell me hut isn't this a process that could be used in emergency, that we adopt the same type of system we have right now by ordinance and then we could amend that after October 12th? Mr. Rothstein: I would not recommend that. Mrs. Gordon: Well then if you cannot do that, then we are in an emergency session and I believe that we must act under an emergency to get the new system implemented, therefore, I would think that we must call for a public hearing before the September 26 date that you have now scheduled the next public hearing on this, and othewise you are playing with something that in my opinion, fire. Mayor Kennedy: Are you playing with fire Mr. Rothstein? Mr. Rothstein: I don't believe so. Mrs. Gordon: You are playing very close to it because its right underneath that deadline maybe. Mr. Rothstein: What I am trying to say to you Mrs. Gordon and I thought I said it several times already. On the 26th you are going to have an ordinance presented to you. That ordinance is what the Commission to this point of time has decided it wants as its new Zoning Ordinance. You will then hear from the public. If there are any serious changes, to be made as a result of the public discussion, you would still, as amatter of practicality and to act under the charter, still pass the draft as is, if it requires further drafting. Pass it as is because that is what the public has been noticed and than at that time, you would set a date for. the second hearing. You have the date of October the llth. In the Commission's judgment, they don't L e1 that they would wish to wait until October 11 because the other date is the 12th, they could then pick out the 27th or 28th, the first,second, etc for the second reading, and then pass it and then they would have the opportunity for the re -drafting that might come up from the publics suggestions which took place on the 26th. Mrs. Gordon: All right Mr. Rothstein, you are our legal advisor and the public is hearing what you have to say and its in the public records, that's where I wanted it. You have assured me that the mandate of the people will be obeyed, thank you. Mr. Rothstein: Yes Ma 'am. s 3 SEP I ' l°" i 16, FALL SUBMERGED LAUD TENTATIVE PLAT 875-A "THE SEAWARD" The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-658 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO FILL SUBMERGED LAND CONTIGUOUS TO TENTATIVE PLAT #875-A, "THE SEAWARD", LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 700 N. E. 35TH STREET; SUCH APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None Mr. Florentine Rosell, the applicant appeared and the conditions were explained by Mr. George Acton, Director of the Planning Department. 17, CONDITIONAL USE - HAYNESWORTH VILLAGE Mr. Stinson: I am Louis Stinson, an attorney here on behalf of Mr. Levine. Mr. Levine requests that the zoning on Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, be given a conditional use so that parking can be access parking off the street . I believe we have complied with all the recommendations of the zoning and planning department and have their approval. An objector appeared who is the owner of an adjacent apartment building and complained about the parking lot on the grounds of noise factors to his tenants. Mr. Plummer: This Commission has always looked favorably on conditional use for a person who wishes to provide adequate parking. Mr. Acton, please explain to the objector what the natural built-in buffers are. Mr. Acton: Under conditional use off-street parking does include that any use like this must buffer the use from adjacent residential areas so the applicant is providing a 5' high textured masonary wall around that area that is proposed for use as off-street parking. All of the cars that utilize that area will be screened from your prop- erty by landscaping and by a solid textured wall 5' high. This will reduce the amount of noise of glare of lights that might be transmitted from the lot to your property. We also require that they adequately landscape the property and as you know their existing lot is very well maintained and landscaped so when this ordinance was drafted, it was drafted with the idea that any such use would afford protection to any adjacent residential uses. After further discussion, on motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer, it was unanimously agreed to to defer consideration of the matter pending inspection by the Commission of the property and the surrounding area. 64 S EP 131973 • 18, CHAi4GE lON_ ilG CLASSIFICATION PORTION Of TENT.PLAT "RITALITZA" An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 THE COM- PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR A PORTION OF TENTATIVE PLAT #884 - "RITALITZA" LOCATED AT 2695 S. W. 8TH STREET, FROM C-4 (General Commercial) DISTRICT AND R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) DISTRICT TO C-2 (Community Commercial) DISTRICT was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Mr. Orlando Fidalgo and Mr. Glassgow, the architect appeared. 19, ENTER INTO CONTRACT- AMERICAN FEDE_RATIOi_ OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES FROM OCTOBER 1, 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30. 1973 _ The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-659 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, IN ACC- ORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN THE COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT ATTACHED HERETO, FOR THE TERM OF ONE (1) YEAR COMMENCING EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1973; FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION WITHIN SAID AGREE- MENT OF THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS: THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR OVERTIME; THE DEGREE OF RECOGNITION GIVEN A REQUESTED DUES CHECK OFF; AND THE CONTENT OF A CLAUSE CONCERNING CURRENT PREVAILING BENEFITS ENJOYED BY MEMBERS OF SAID ORG- ANIZATION (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 65 SEP131973 • —# 20, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE & CLOSING OF ALLEY - 1440 S. BAYSHORE DRIVE Mr. Glen Goldberg, Attorney at Law representing Bella Bahia Development Corporation appeared to urge consideration of the Comm- ission in the granting of side setback variances at the address as indicated above. He submitted a proposed diagram of the building and said they had complied with the requests of the building department and they agreed that a hardhip had been shown on these premises and that a side setback variance would be required because of the pie shape of the lot in question. He said requirements for the rear yard and the front yard setbacks and for the lot coverage but that the side setback required 50' and they proposed 40' setback and the reason was because of the pie shape of the lot. In addition he said meetings with the neighbors had been held and they had attempted to incorporate their desires and suggestions into the plan. Betty Sherman, President of the Board of Directors of Point View along with several other residents of the point view building appeared and objected on the grounds that the residents of Point View thought they were adequately protected by existing zoning laws and the developers of Bella Bahia must have known their lot was pie shaped when they bought it. Mrs. Gordon observed that for the most part the building required no variance and that only a small portion of the rear did require same. Mayor Kennedy inquired if the building could be built higher with less ground level bulk and was told by Mr. Acton, Director of the Planning Department that in that event the request for variance would be greater since higher buildings required additional setbacks. Mrs. Julius Alexander appeared and stated the lots to the south were all vacant and that if Point View North and Point View South got variances approved were in the past and beside the point and that if the Commission approved this variance, a precedent would be set for future owners of property in the area to request the same consideration. Mr. Acton stated because of the irregular shape of the site, that in his opinion, a hardship did exist and had recommended approval. After further discussion, upon motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, it was unanimously agreed to defer consideration of this request for 2 weeks in order that the developer confer with the Planning Director for a possible redesign of the building plans. The matter was deferred to the meeting of 9-26-73. 21, DREDGE PERMIT - BLOCK 4 SOUTH ELMIRA - 1 PALM BAY COURT The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-660 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO DREDGE LAND CONTIGUOUS TO ALL OF BLOCK 4, SOUTH ELMIRA (6-151) LOCATED AT 1 PALM BAY COURT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend 66 41 Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Mr. Richard Katz, Attorney representing the applicant appeared and urged adoption of the resolution and agreed to the compliance with all city codes. 22, CONDITIONAL USE - LOT 1, BRICKELL POINT - 444 BRLCKELL AVENUE The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-661 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE", AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XI-3 SECTION 1 (7) (e), TO PERMIT 8000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON -PORTION OF LOT 1, BRICKELL POINT (8-34), LOCATED AT 444 BRICKELL AVENUE, SUBJECT TO OFF-STREET PARKING AGREEMENT WIT 1!1.4, EUILDING DEPARTMENT; ZONED R-C-1 (RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE - COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson and Mr'-. Gordon. ABSENT: Mayor Ken nedy Mr. Jack Watson representing Mr. Tibor Hollo, the applicant appeared and urged adoption of the resolution. 23, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FLAT SIGNS Mr. George Acton, Director of the Planning Department stated this was a request of the Holiday Inn located in the Civic Center area for an adjustment to the sign ordinance to permit larger flat signs to more properly identify their structure. He said their building was reviewed the building by himself and the staff and that be agreed the signs were too small to properly identify the building. He then showed graphics to the Commission indicating percentage of sign increase as it was projected upward on the building and that his recommendation would be for a 21% increase above the 10', further stating that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended 3%. Mr. Garth Webster appeared representing the Holiday Inn to explain the reason for their request and said present restrictions on signs in the area did not permit sufficient identification to their building and that a change was needed. He also submitted graphics and color trans- parencies showing projected increase in sign areas on the Holiday Inn structure. After considerable further discussion- 6 '7 S E P 131973 • An ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY DELETING SECTION 3 (2) OF ARTICLE XXIV, AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3 (2); AND BY DELETING SECTION 3-1(2) OF ARTICLE XXIV IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3-1(2), AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH; PERTAINING TO THE ALLOWABLE SIZES OF FLAT SIGNS FACING THE STREET FRONTAGE; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. The Commission agreed that the second reading of this ordinance would be at one of the budget hearings scheduled for September 17, 18, and 19, 1973. BRIEF RECESS 24, ACCEPT PLAT - SAILBOAT BAY SUBDIVISION AMENDED The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-662 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED SAILBOAT BAY SUBDIVISION AMENDED, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Mr. Bill Colson, Attorney representing the applicant appeared. The City Manager announced this acceptance carried the rec- ommendation of the Plat Committee even though this was not stated on the agenda. 6 41 Al 25, ACCEPT PLAT - SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-663 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDIC- ATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None The City Manager announced the acceptance of this plat carried. the recommendation of the Plat Committee. 26, BQ.XING PROGRAM - A.A.U. NATIONAL SHOW BID - IMPROVEMENTS TO BOXING FACILITIES AND RELEASE OF $500.00 FROII TRUST FUND FOR PURCHASE OF BOXING EQUIPMENT The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-664 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $5,000 FROM THE PUBLICITY FUND TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF THREE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI IN TRAVELING TO YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK TO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN THE A.A.U. NATIONAL BOXING SHOW IN MIAMI IN 1974, $2,500 OF WHICH FUNDS ARE TO BE RETURNED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM TELEVISION REVENUES AND $2,500 TO BE RETURNED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM GATE REVENUES OF SAID SHOW AND RESERVING THE USE OF THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM FOR A TENTATIVE DATE IN MAY OF 1974 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None The City Manager observed that the Orange Bowl Improvements would be underway during the time period being discussed for this event and Mr. Plummer stated only approximately one half of the stadium would be required to be used for the event. ��� S EP 131973 Mr. Plummer: The other part Mr. Mayor, is that there are 2 requisitions which were put in for the use of federal funds for improvements to the Boxing Arena. Something happened and Expenditure Control put a stop because they ran over the first day of September. It is felt that by direction of this Commission, if we tell expenditure control - Mr. Andrews: The Manager - Mr. Plummer: Tell the manager to release these funds because if they are not used, they will go back to the federal government, that these funds be directed to be used for the improvement and we so authorized this to be done immediately. Rev. Gibson: I move. The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-665 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE FEDERAL FUNDS PRESENTLY BEING HELD BY EXPENDITURE CONTROL IN ORDER THAT SAID FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI'S BOXING FACILITIES AT DINNER KEY (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mr. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. Noes: None Mrs. Gordon: This is also to do with the young men in the boxing program. There is $500.00 that is being held up Mr. Andrews for some reason or other because for some reason or other, it was supposed to - expenditure control believed it was for painting and• things of that nature but the donator of the money, as we all understand it did not specify and its needed for the purpose of another ring. Mr. Andrews: I understand the problem and I thought that it had been resolved and was no longer a problem. I will look into it. Mrs. Gordon: It hadn't been resolved as of yesterday and we need an action of the Commission directing that the $500.00 be - Mr. Andrews: The trust fund - Mrs. Gordon: Right, okay, so, moved and seconded. �� SEP 131973 The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-666 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE THE SUM OF $500.00 PRESENTLY BEING HELD IN A TRUST FUND, SAID FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL BOXING RING FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ATHLETIC PROGRAM (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None 27, MODIFIED PETITION FOR VARIANCE - PAN AMERICAN W1SP I TAL Mr. Buhler: This /as an application for a variance that was before the Commission on Jne occasion before. The only purpose of the application is to permit a small addition to the Pan American Hospital out on N. W. 7th Street without , with a waiver of 28 parking spaces out of 280 required. We are requesting that we be permitted to go forward with the complete 280 minus 28. Now we have amended our petition and it has to go back to the Planning Board and all we are requesting at this point is that we be allowed to amend the petition and send it back to the Planning Board for their hearing as to whether the variance should be allowed. The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-667 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING BQARD TO ACCEPT THE MODIFIED APPLICATION OF PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL DATED JULY 9, 1973 AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIRED 6 MONTH WAITING PERIOD IN ORDER THAT SAID MODIFIED APPLICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None 71 S EP 131973 28, SUPPER CLUBS PROVIDING _AS. CONDITIONAL_ USE gSTABLLSHI G LICENSE &TEES. DETERMINATION OF HOURS OF SALE PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATIOr1 Mr. Andrews, City Manager: Approximately 1 year ago, the Commission held hearings in regard to a variety of adjustments to the liquor law as to the opening and closing times. On February 22, an item that began to move forward was the identification and understanding of "Supper Clubs". The Commission adopted a resolution asking the Manager 'and the City Attorney to conduct a study to help identify what constituted a supper club and to establish criteria. On May 18, the City Manager submitted a report to the City Commission establishing the criteria they had requested. Based on that criteria, the Commission adopted further resolutions referring this to the Planning F, Zoning Board to hold hearings on the items as they were, on the criteria as it was established. That was accomplished and Mr. Simpson can tell you what took place at those hearings and then Mr. Acton will be in* a position to give you additional information. Mr. David Simpson, Exec.Secty.P1.Bd.: The Planning Board initiated the public hearings in accord with the recommendations of the Planning Department as a modification of the ordinance. The modification of the zoning ordinance as prepared by them involved a new definition defining the use of Supper Clubs. It also placed certain restrictions upon the Supper Clubs as it related to their parking. They recommended that the parking requirements for a supper club be increased over that required by a restaurant. The proposal was 1.3 parking spaces for each 100 sq.ft. of floor area in the supper club. The proposal also amended various use regulations in the zoning ordinance. It placed the use of supper clubs as a conditional use in the C-2 districts and as a permitted use in the C-3, C-4 and C-5 and industrial zones. Each one of these uses will be subject to the increase in parking requirements and the increase in landscaping on parking lots that are used for a supper club. This was acted upon by the Planning Board after public hearing and they adopted the Planning Department's recommendation before you for consideration now. Mr.George Acton, Dir.P1.Dpt: That pretty well summarized our recommendations. After considerable study, the department did make recommendations on those standards that we felt would be appropriate for the establishment of supper clubs. They include such provisions as entertainment on a year round basis. A 400 sq.ft. area for the provision of entertainment within the supper club. A minimum of 4000 sq.ft. and 200 seats and we did find in our research that supper clubs and night clubs normally required more spaces per sq.ft. than restau= rants or saloons or bars with straight liquor licenses, consequently we recommended that in the establishment of a supper club, we up the requirements to 1.3 from 1 for 100 sq.ft. and to protect the adjacent residential areas if a supper club was recommended for establishment next to an area, we recommended that a minimum of 5' high wall plus a 5' buffer of landscaping be placed to the adjacent residential area. We have prepared for the Commission, 3 graphics which illustrate different size supper clubs plus the amount of parking space and buffering that would be required for these various sizes. We will review the minimum of sq.ft. required for a supper club which is 4000 sq.ft. We as a basis, tried to select those sizes which are commonly found within the City of Miami along arterial streets as a unit size so we selected 150 X 200' as the lot size for this particular illustration. The next one, 6000 sq.ft. would require approximate lot sizes of about 150 X 250' falling a little short of 1 acre in size. It gives you an idea of the amount of landscaping and buffering that would be required if an establishment was placed next to a residential area. 72 SEP 1319 The last would be an illustration of a fairly large supper club of 8000 sq.ft. where the site size would require almost 1 acre again illustrating the amount of landscaping and buffering that would be required if placed next to a residential area. Mr. Plummer: What about if they cannot provide parking on -site? Mr. Acton: There is a provision in our zoning ordinance which allows the establishment of sites within 300' in commercial zones- remote. If they are within a residential zone, it would require conditional use approval. It is possible to establish a club in an area where perhaps they could not meet the requirements on -site but they would have to abide by the requirement of establishing lots within the 300' radium. Mr. Plummer: Are the restrictions then placed upon the conditional use? What about setbacks in commercial districts? The site is off premises. It would be a conditional use. Aren't there requirements built in to set back landscaping, drainage, lighting? What are the setbacks on the lot on a commercial district? Mr. Acton: It just requires 5' setback from the paving on the street side in a commercial zone. It requires no setback from an adjoining commercial lot. It would require 5' buffering from a residential lot. There is no side setback required. You would have to landscape the lot in accordance with the lot. Mayor Kennedy: Is there any opposition? Mr. Phillips: My name is Dave Phillips, Commissioners, you have heard our report previously on the noise, commotion, screeching of tires and loud conversations we have been having all this time. I want to show you where the in this ordinance. We are all really talking about the Montmarte. Now this is north, I would like to show you what we are confronted with. (Illustrating traffic flow on coral way with the aid of a chart) Mr. Phillips explained to the Commission how the car jockeys have made use of remote parking facilities and cut accross the median strip on Coral Way in returning the vehicles to customers. He said he observed 22 violations of traffic laws in a period of 11 hours recently. He expressed the concern of the neighborhood over this continuing problem and said his neighborhood was being destroyed because of this condition. Mr. Cusani, owner of a lounge on S. W. 8th Street appeared and said the ordinances as proposed were not just for the one establishment that has been mentioned, is city-wide and is of interest to the owners of many establishments in the city who will be able to take advantage of the extended hours. Carlos B. Fernandez appeared and said in his opinion, the remarks of Mr. Phillip were untimely and not addressed to the matters pending before the Commission today. He reminded the Commission of the old C-4 ordinances to permit such establishments for the benefit of the tourist industry and stated the passage of this ordinance would permit the businessman in Miami to compete fairly with their counterparts in Dade County and said there were at least 18 establishments that would be affected by the ordinance. He urged favorable consideration of the ordinance by the Commission. After further discussion - An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 PROVIDING FOR THE DEFINITION OF A SUPPER CLUB; PROVIDING FOR SUPPER CLUBS TO BE PERMITTED AS A "CONDITIONAL USE" IN C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SUPPER CLUBS TO BE A PERMITTED USE IN C-3, C-4 AND C-S ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPER CLUBS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PRO- VIDING FOR THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES NECESSARY FOR A SUPPER CLUB 13 was introduced by Mr. Reboso, seconded by Mr. Plummer, and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None An 'Ordinance entitied- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 30-28 OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CODE BY ADDING A NEW CATEGORY "SUPPER CLUBS" AND ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A -SUPPER CLUB LICENSE was introduced by Mr. Reboso, seconded by Mr. Plummer and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kenned;. NOES: None An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.8, "HOURS DURING WHICH SALES PROHIBITED; SUNDAY SALES." OF CHAPTER 3, "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CODE. SECTION 3.8 IS AMENDED BY ADDING A SECTION (g), "SUPPER CLUBS", PROVIDING THAT SUPPER CLUBS BE PROHIBITED FROM SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 3:00 A.M. AND 11:00 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS, AND BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 3:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS; SETTING FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LICENSING OF SUPPER CLUBS was introduced by Mr. Reboso, seconded by Mr. Plummer and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-668 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED, SECTION 205.042 TO GIVE AT LEAST FIFTEEN (15) DAYS PUBLIC NOTICE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND LAST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. SETTING THE LICENSE FEE FOR SUPPER CLUBS BY POSING SUCH NOTICE IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AS DEFINED BY THE LAW. THE SAID PUBLIC NOTICE SHALL CONTAIN THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION AND RATE APPLICABLE AS SET OUT IN THE ORDINANCE (Here follows body of resolution., omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 74 SEp 131v ! i 29, CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION- LOTS 1 THRU 5. BLOCK 1, GRAND VIEW PARK An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMP- REHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR LOTS 1 THRU 5, BLOCK 1, GRAND VIEW PARK (5-58), LOCATED AT 1524 THRU 1532 N. W. 14TH AVENUE, FROM R-3 (Low Density Multiple) DISTRICT TO R-C (Residence - Office) DISTRICT passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of July 26, 1973 was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8181. 30, URGE STATE OF FLORIDA TO PURCHASE FISHER ISLAND FOR PARK PURPOSES The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-669 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PROPER OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO ALLOCATE SUFFICIENT FUNDS FROM THE STATE PARKS BOND MONIES FOR THE ACQUIS- ITION OF FISHER ISLAND TO BE DEVELOPED FOR PARK PURPOSES (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 75 SEP131973 • • 31. 46 WEST FLAGLER STREET - REPORT BY THE CITY MANAGER Mr. Andrews: Mr. Revitz has for a long period time hoped to arrange with the City for the use of 46 West Flagler in conjunction with the construction of his new building adjacent to the city property. Arrangements were finally made and conditions were established whereby Mr. Revitz would be permitted to use the city's property at 46 West Flagler Street after he bore the expenses of removing the structure. The city made arrangements to move to another location and the agree- ment was reached, however during the course of negotiating the final agreement, Mr. Revitz placed 2 demands upon the City which could not be met in my judgment and they were that:. 1. The $50,000 donation that he had committed to the City, that he would play a part in the naming of the park as a result of that donation. 2. He wanted to make sure that the area designated as a park would remain so for 89 years. I felt that those 2 conditions were so stringent upon the City that we had foregone the $50,000 offer and that eliminated the 89 year requirement because I don't know what the city's profile is going to be in 15 years let alone 89 years and how the government might choose to use that piece of property in the future. They might choose to build a high rise structure on it and locate the park somewhere else. We negotiated this out and the hest I could do was to poll the Commission and from my memory, I was able to reach Father Gibson by telephone, then Mayor Ferre and Commissioner Reboso and informed him of the fact that we had to close these negotiations and that I would come back to the City Commission and ask them to pass a resolution ratifying the agreement and so the agreement was entered into on that basis. I am asking now that you ratify the actions that I have taken. After the Commission had met, time was of the essence and Mr. Revitz was in a position to reject the entire deal and there was benefit to the City of Miami in doing this in that the City was looking for a place to relocate our Tax and Licensing office and we would have to bear the expense of removing the building. The building has been removed and I want to tell you something about that removal and the construction after you have considered this matter. Have you any questions? The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-670 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND "MR. REVITZ" ON AUGUST 14, 1973 RATIFYING ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 73-641 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 76 SEP 131973 Mr. Andrews: Let me t►:11 you the serious problem that has developed since then and its one involving the contractor, not Mr. Revitz directly but the contractor represents Mr. Revitz certainly as his contractor constructing the building. They have poured a particular kind of foundation system which required a concrete tore of some 9 to 10' in thickness. From what I understand, the foundation system which is approximately 9' thick throughout the major piece of property to support their building. In doing so, the contractor had not realized that the property he occupied was not owned by Mr. Revitz and his foundation system was permitted to be poured 9' into the city's property at this thickness. A day or so after we discovered this, we immediately sent notice to the contractor that we must remove the concrete that was poured on the city's property and we also informed Mr. Revitz of this con- dition and we are particularly concerned that they remove and Mr.Ferencik can give you some additional details, particularly remove the concrete before they get started with the structure because once they get started with the structure, the problem will really become acute because you well know, you start tampering with the foundation system and vibrating the building can cause other problems and I don't want Mr. Revitz to need to come before the Commission pleading a hardship case and they have been noticed and we are going to give them one additional week in order to begin making adjustments and if they do not, then we are going to be forced to stop the work on the building and I wanted in fairness to inform the Commission of this serious matter. I am confident at this point that we will secure Mr. Revitz's cooperation and that he will voluntarily begin and instruct the contractor to remove the foundation system but if he does not, we will have to take that drastic action and we will do it properly and legally. There is no action needed on the part of the Commission. Its for your information. Mr. Plummer: Over 9' down. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Ferencik could tell you but that's about it. 32, APPEARANCE OF MR. GEORGE LING, ACTUARY FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI Mr. Plummer: Mr. Ling, if you will come forward, Father Gibson, you were the one that requested it. Rev. Gibson: Since I left here, T did a little bit of homework. Supervised Investors Service on page where the typewriter skips and then it says execution. "Clients may designate the Broker or Brokers we should use or may instruct us to always seek the best markets". I saw in some notes that I read, Kruse, O'Connor and Ling, is that you Sir? Mr. Ling: Yes Sir. Rev. Gibson: January 25, 1973. The original question, will instructions brokerage of, a portion of fund assets Answer: Yes. Summary report everyone said yes. October 1, Sir, I got my own answer so that means, we the Commission at discretion when we get ready can designate who the broker is in your bidding, you said we may. In your question to the people who did business with may or we can if we wanted to. I just wanted to thank you for coming and now its up to the Commission to make sure that we carry out what you asked them for us, that we say we want to do, if that's our wish. Does that answer it? • you accept 1973. our based on us, they said we Mr. Ling: Yes, I would like to make one request of the Commission and that is that when the time _comes that you wish to discuss this particular item, that you allow us to discuss it with you because we have some very definite recommendations on the matter that we would like to express to you not only for the record but also for your benefit and the city's benefit. Rev. Gibson: As far as I am concerned, the question has been answered. 77 SEP 131973 • • We aren't ready to place the business today but at the appropriate time, I am going to be vocal because I am concerned about local people and their participation in all the profits of this community wherever humanly possible and reasonable and economically sound and wise. I hope the record would reflect thost adjectives that I used. Mr. Ling: We are available to be of assistance to you. 33, REVIEW OF AGREEMENTS FOR CHARGE, ACCOUNTS WITH HOTELS AND MOTELS FOR USE OF CITY OF MIAMI GOLF COURSES Mr. Andrews: There is only one reason this matter is on the agenda in that when the City Commission was considering granting the City Manager authority to go ahead and negotiate for these agreements, Commissioner Plummer made one stipulation and that was that the deposits be put forth by the hotels to cover certain commitments for use of the courses. I think Mr. Plummer you have since then had discussion with former City Manager Reese in this area. Agreements have been carefully drawn by the City Attorney. I am satisfied and would like ..to recommend that we pursue the matter of having agreements executed with the various hotel and motelusers on the basis of the agreement that has been prepared by the law department and this provides for ample protection as far as collection of fees but does not require an advance deposit. • I would like the Commission to remove that portion of the requirement from the negotiation process and we will go on with each one of these agreements. Each one of the agreements will come back to the City Commission for ratification anyway. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I did receive a call from Mr. Reese assuring me that the natural safeguards that will be built in each one of these contracts, he felt was sufficient and gave me the guarantee of the administration that they uould be sufficient. My only concern was that the bills would be paid. He feels that we are dealing with people of high calibre such as the Marriott, the 4-Ambassadors and people of this nature, that he can administratively build into the contract sufficient guidelines to protect the City and with that assured, I will personally move that the restriction be lifted. Mrs. Gordon: Are we going to designate certain size businesses. Hotels and Motels or? Mr. Andrews: No, that won't be the criteria. I don't think you should designate certain size. If you do it for one, you do it for all. Mr. Plummer: Each hotel would be a different negotiation. Mrs. Gordon: Still, you have to have some kind of guidelines. Mr. Plummer: Its a matter that each and every hotel would have to stand on their own and a certain guideline would be built in and assurances given by them, each individual would be negotiated individually. Mrs. Gordon: Bonding or something or posting of some kind of deposit or something. Mr. Andrews: That is the part I am asking you not to impose that because it creates a hardship. Mrs. Gordon: Its okay with me if you are willing to cope with it. Mr. Plummer: Well I think another thing should be brought out. We are trying to encourage the use of the courses. We are trying to gain business during those slack periods and this is the way to encourage it. 78 SEP 131973 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-671 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR CHARGE ACCOUNTS WITH HOTELS AND MOTELS FOR THE USE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GOLF COURSES WITHOUT REQUIRING DEPOSITS BY SAID ORGANIZATIONS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson . ABSENT: Mayor Kennedy. 34, APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE ON_THE STATUS OF WOMEN The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-672 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING 12 MEMBERS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Appointments of the following persons were made by the Commissioner's as noted: COMMISSIONER GORDON Inez A. Wilcox, 4746 N. W. loth Avenue Ada Gomez, 466 N. W. 52nd Avenue Cynthia McDougal, 3632 Stewart Avenue MAYOR DAVID T. KENNEDY Grace Rockafellar, 814 N. E. 71st Street Mrs. Lea Strahle, 3176 S. W. 22nd Terrace Mr. George DePontis, 777 N. E. 62nd Street COMMISSIONER REBOSO Mrs. Alberta Sands, 1732 N. W. 3rd Avenue Anita Cofino Ramirez, 1611 S. W. llth Terrace Mary Lichenstein, 880 N. E. 71st Street 79 SEP 131973 COMMISSIONER REVEREND GIBSCN Mrs. Monty Steele, 3083 Gifford Lane Mrs. Verneka Silver, 3587 Hibiscus Street Alicia S. Baro, 271 N.W. 64th Avenue Commissioner Plummer stated he was not ready to submit the list of candidates he will appoint to this Committee. 35, PERMIT FOR GAS TRANSMISSION MAIN - CITY GAS COMPANY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-673 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PERMIT TO CITY GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA TO CONSTRUCT A GAS TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM S. W. 3TII STREET AND S. W. 63 AVENUE TO THE CITY LIMITS AT 57 AVENUE; AND ACCEPTING THE AUGUST 3, 1973 AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY CITY GAS COM- PANY OF FLORIDA; AND DIRECTING THAT SAID AGREEMENT BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gihson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 36, ACCEPT PLAT - BISCAYNE SHELL SUBDIVISION The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-674 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED BISCAYNE SHELL SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 8 u SEP 131973 • 410 37, REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY ON. GUIDELINES - NO PERSONS OTHER THAR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING APPLICANTS TO APPEAR BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS Mr. Rothstein: As I described, at our last meeting, the Florida Bar Committee on the unathorized practice of law, has made a ruling which is now being complied with throughout the State of Florida. The County Attorney has made a ruling similar to the ruling that I gave you the last time which was that there may be no person representing another person before a governmental body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity unless he is a member of the florida bar. I also remind you that I stated to you that this does not mean that a person cannot present a case for himself which he can. He can al:;o bring down witnesses and introduce them but those witnesses can only testify as to facts and may not argue the case. The Commission asked for some kind of a definition as to what, some ground rules as to where and how these restrictions apply. Without question and definitely and clearly, in all zoning matters, the only person who can represent another person is an attorney and while the County Attorney merely said in his opinion that anybody who appeared and acts, who is not an attorney, should immediately, the states attorney office should be notified. I disagree with that. I tell you that in my opinion, this Commission or any of its quasi judicial boards can allow such a person to appear and act because then they would be participating in the act of a crime violating the laws of the State of Florida and therefore, I again repeat my opinion. Quasi -Judicial means areas other than the area of legislative and that would mean where there is a particular law or ordinance and that particular or ordinance is applied to the particular facts as opposed to something like you just had, the supper clubs where the supper clubs was requiring a passage of a new overall ordinance for the ..i.ty, that would be legislative and therefore, a lawyer would not be required. I think it would be appropriate that each person be required to advise the Commission when they are representing somebody that they are a member of the bar and if they are not a member of the bar, they not be allowed to make a presentation. This is the same for the Civil Service Board hearings because that is quasi-judicial also. The Plat Committee, I do not think they need that although it is an on the line grey area since its a technical situation and I don't think they need that before them, however, there is some question where there has to be an argument or representation made here before the Commission under the provision of plat passage and application of plat ruling, they would need an attorney. Are there any other questions? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Rothstein, this is not before this Commission but for putting people on notice that it is a new ruling, is that correct? Mr. Rothstein: Pardon me? Mr. Plummer: What I am getting at, this is not for this Commission to take into consideration, moreso for the people who will be appearing before these quasi -bodies that they must know this. Mr. Rothstein: Well I think it would be appropriate in order to not have any questions that the, that Mr. Simpson notify every applicant as he starts to proceed concerning a matter. This would be the same for objectors. Objectors can come down and object for themselves if they live in the neighborhood and theoretically an objector anywhere in the City can object about any zoning anywhere in the City but somebody from Coral Gables that couldn't appear. Mr. Simpson: Mr. Plummer, we are notifying people taking applications from our office of this new ruling and also at the beginning of each one of the Planning and Zoning Board meetings, this announcement is made. Mr. Plummer: A man that comes down here time and time again and we have heard him and is representing 40 of his neighbors who signed a petition. What you are telling me is henceforth, that will be against the law. Mr. Rothstein: No if he is representing 40 of his neighbors, he comes down and says, I am John Jones and I am representing myself as an objector and by the way, here is a petition, I have talked to all of 81 my 40 neighbors and they have signed this objection which is the same as mine. and their objections are in agreement with my objections but he can Drily present his objections, that is correct. 38, REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY ON MODEL CLTLES APPOINTMENTS Mr. Rothsteir: Back in 71 due to some confusion to us of notification by the Model Cities Administrative Board, we appointed two people where we were only supposed to have appointed one person. So therefore, I think the present posture is that you can only have one person and you must pick the one. Mr. Andrews: That is as I understand it. Right now we have two and those two were by mutual agreement after a problem had been created and it was a problem resulting from a desig- nation of the Model Cities Board under two different names in corres- pondence we received and each of those were presented to the Commission and the Commission made an appointment in each instance and found out that both people were serving on the same board. Mayor Kennedy: So we have two people and we have to choose one. Mr. Andrews: The only area I am not sure of and maybe its wise for the city not to make a choice until we can establish this and I haven't had the time to really look into it and that Is to communicate with the Board •to find out if we can have 2 representatives instead of 1 and then maybe we wouldn't have a problem. Mayor Kennedy:, Why don't you do that and report back to us at our next meeting. 39, STATUS OF AGREEMENT WITH RANCOAST & ASSOCIATES PBQPOSED CITY OF MIAMI POLICE HEADQUARTERS Mr. Andrews: Before you read or discuss the City Attorneys memo- randum, in reference to this, I want to tell the Commission that we were successful in negotiating agreement with Pancoast and Assoc- iates to the point that we have before us and available, a draft of the agreement in reasonably final form ready for the City Attorney's final review and other than what the City Attorney is about to bring out, we are, we were prepared to act almost immediately entering into contract with the Pancoast firm to begin the design. Rev. Gibson: What are you telling us Sir? Mr. Rothstein: I am telling you that you have to comply with the state law which went into effect. The law says you must have a meeting here in public with a number of architectural groups and must pick three, name an order of preference and then have the city administration negotiate with the first of the three. If he can't reach a negotiating posture satisfactory to him, he then can come to the Commission and say, I can't reach a satisfactory negotiating posture and authorize me to go on to the next one. You would then authorize him to go on to the next one and so on down the line. In other words, this new law was for this purpose: In the past, in all government agencies, the.statewide law for all government bodies including municipalities, but every governing body in the State. In the past a governing body would pick out one to negotiate with. This puts administrator's in a difficult posture because they were told to negotiate with this group and come back with a contract. Now the posture is different. The whole purpose being to allow a city to have the advantage of a negotiating base to bring costs down, to bring expenses down, to bring proper personnel in, to bring appropriate consulting groups in because the state law specifically provides for a termination of negotiation if the city can't get something satisfactorily going on to #2, #3 etc. on down the one. 82 • Rev. Gibson: Mr. Rothstein, let me ask you this. Didn't you know this when we were doing this? Mr. Rothstein: If you will notice the resolution actually was passed on May 24th and it was perfectly proper and perfectly lawful. It did not at that time, require anything under the state law. Last week a memorandum passed my desk as to the circumstances of the present negotiation posture with Pancoast. At that point, we had been in our office reviewing all of the new state laws applicable to the City when it became apparent to us, that the organization of Pancoast with the City had not signed a contract prior to the July date. 1 have no alternative but to tell you that you have to comply with the state law because the state law specifically says that contracts in existence as of the July date does not, do not come under this law but if there is no contract and everybody in the State of Florida must comply with the law. There is no choice. Nobody has any flexibility. Of course this does not prevent you from at a meeting in picking the three including Pancoast in the three or if you want, in preference, including Pancoast as #1. Mr. Andrews: As I understand it, the procedure the Commission must follow now is to select three architects and they can select them in the priority they wish. If they choose, as an example, you can select Mr. Pancoast as your first priority. You can select the second firm as the second priority and a third firm as a third priority. We, then you would instruct the manager to negotiate with the number one firm. If he is unsuccessful in arriving at a negotiated agreement, he can say, I am sorry, the fee you are charging or the conditions are too high, I am going to the second one that the Commission has authorized me to contact and begin negotiations. Mr. Rothstein: No, no, he has to come back to the Commission and say this is the posture I am at, as far as I am concerned we should be able to do better and if the Commission agrees with him, then he goes on to the next one, Rev. Gibson: Then the Legislature in this act is guilty of shopping the bid. Mr. Rothstein: Well what the Legislature did in this act was to say in all matters that the State of Florida and individual bodies of government do, they put out bids. In the past, the only thing that there have been no bids put out are certain professional services. There was a great review made in the legislature with the various professional groups listed in this law and they reached an agreement that this law would he passed to allow not quite competitive bidding but certainly to give municipalities and other governmental bodies including the State, a better position to get a lower price and better terms and better conditions for the community because the City then by law was no longer prevented by professional ethics from having bidding and the answer is yes, that is exactly what they did, they have now made it a required posture of shopping in a limited way to speak. In other words they are now putting ?rofessionals under the gun by saying, you no longer can say we can't bid about our price compared to somebody elses price because the answer is, yes they can. Your interpretation of what they did is exactly correct. They made it mandatory on every governing body in the State of Florida. Supposedly this will reduce the cost of professional fees to govern- mental bodies. Mr. Plummer: Does this apply to every professional? Mr. Rothstein: Only those enumerated as I have described in the memorandum which would be architects, engineers and surveyors. Mr. Plummer: It doesn't include attorneys. Mr.Rothstein: No Sir. SEP 131973 Mrs. Gordon: Does it include appraisers for instance? Mr. Rothstein: I will read it exactly as it says: Services performed by any architects, professional engineer or registered land surveyor. Section 2, Subsection 1 of the Act which is attached to the memorandum. Mrs. Gordon: It seems kind of strange you know. Its after the fact in fact. You said starting May 24 and it would appear that it would be the date and this would not fall within the scope even though the contract you are talking about hasn't been signed, you have some kind of - Mr. Rothstein: Ma'am, we went into section 2 on Page 56 says specifically and only - "Nothing in this act shall affect the validity or effect of any contract in existence at the effective date hereof". It says the act shall take effect July 1, 1973, so there is no question in interpretation. If in any event that you don't have a contract in effect on July 1, 1973, there is no question that you must comply with the law. If they had signed the contract on June 29, nothing would have ever been discussed, but they didn't sign a contract and the only exception from the act and its mandatory and has no flexibility and you would be violating the law if you disobeyed it, is to comply on anything that there is no contract in existence for, on the date of July 1, 1973. Mrs. Gordon: On May 24th, when we selected an architect, it didn't make any difference to me who went but there was someone selected and now its a little bit, very embarassing I think and it seems to me that, when did the legislature move this legislation, do you know? Mr. Rothstein: I don't know the exact date. Mrs. Gordon: Was it before May 24, were they working on it then? It seems to me with our representation up there in Tallahassee, we should have been alerted or should have been on guard that something like this was being considered and we would have been prepared for it. Mr. Rothstein: Ma'am, there is nothing to be on guard about. Mrs. Gordon: Well then, we wouldn't have made a selection. We wouldn't have caused this. Mr. Plummer: Let me clarify one point because I am feeling the same way you do. I think I made that point that day. We did not in effect name an architect. We couldn't do it and Mr. Reese begged us not to. He said, give me the authority to negotiate with an architect. Mrs. Gordon: Well there was a lot of discussion that day if you remember, we discussed about each of us selecting one and he picking one and a whole lot of back and forth comment. Mr. Rothstein: Mrs. Gordon, if you will look on the top of page 27, you will see, 57 I'm sorry, of the act itself, you will see at the top that it says, at the bottom. It says, passed and approved by the governor on May 2, 1973. Now I am sure aware that what happens in the legislature when you are up there and you are coming towards the close of the session and the governor has bills, he has literally thousands and thousands of bills that go through and he either lets them pass or is signed by him as the legislature closes. They physically can't dissemenate those bills until months afterwards and they distribute all over the state and we get it in our office. Mrs. Gordon: We pay a man to be up there. I want to tell you something. I am a member of the Board of Realtors and we have someone up there that looks out for legislation concerning realestate and I received this in the mail regularly during the session. I know everything that is being contemplated that concerns my profession. 84 SEP 131973 • Now here we are a city and we are paying someone to be up there and we don't find out what happens until two months after - Mr. Rothstein: We find out when its dissemenated because its not a specific law dealing only with municipalities. Its a general act dealing with all governing bodies. On May 24th if you knew about it, you could have still done the same thing and if they could have had a contract and passed it, there would have been no discussion but they didn't. Now I have also told you that you can comply with the law and if you seem to feel and that is your prerogative if you want to put Pancoast on the top of the list, you may do so. Mrs. Gordon: I am just saying we have caused a lot of people a lot of embarassment. Mr. Rothstein: You haven't caused anything Ma'am, its the State of Florida Legislature who decided that there should be a shopping of professional bids. Mrs. Gordon: I agree with the concept, I am not arguing it, I am only saying, we should have been informed. We could have been informed if our man in Tallahassee had been doing his job. Mr. Rothstein: Well I am just saying this to you. That there was no way in which you were prevented from acting properly or prudently by the time of notification, there is no way in which anybody has been harmed by requiring conformance with the new law. There is some problem about the new law that disturbs people, that is for the legislature the next time. If this Commission in its wisdom wants to have a hearing in which you choose 3 people,the first of which is Pancoast, there is no problem with that and there is no difficulty and I don't understand what the problem is. Mr. Plummer: From what I am told, its a law, we can't argue with it. Is that correct? So that answers the question. but - We might have disagreement with the law Rev. Gibson: J. L. That isn't what I am concerned about. Mr. Plummer: 1 know exactly what you are concerned about. Mr. Andrews: May I ask the attorney a question? if the Commission selects architects as first priority, another as second and a third one, and we are so anxious to get this project underway. If I can negotiate a contract which you can look at by the 19th which ib the third day of our budget hearing. Can the Commission legally act on such a contract? Mr. Rothstein: I think my memo is very clear. The Commission must have a hearing. You do not have to go through the entire process of re -notifying architects and re -notifying the avenues interested. The Commission may act at another hearing picking 3 in order of prefer- ence and designating who they want as #1 and then you can negotiate with them. I'll tell you something else. I have a copy of the minutes of the meeting. I don't know why. It wasn't because I notified it but it may have been because of Mr. Reese but Mr. Plummer asked about selecting 2 or 3 of the firms so that you could sit down and negotiate with them in a professional manner and I don't know why that came about. Rev. Gibson: What happened was that the City Manager brought to us a qualified list of people. That's what he did and he said, all of these people are qualified and when I nominated Pancoast, we weren't ready to vote. Thats the way it was, they weren't ready to vote and I said all right I am ready and I nominated them and then Pancoast was the man selected. Now let me ask you Mr. Attorney, was Pancoast notified that this is the action. 85 SEP 131973 Mr. Rothstein: I just issued this opinion late this afternoon. Rev. Gibson: Well all right Mr. Mayor, I move you Sir that this matter be delayed until Pancoast is properly notified. Mr. Rothstein: I think Mr. Vice Mayor, you are defeating the purpose of what you are disturbed about. I have given you this information and if you are disturbed and Mrs. Gordon is disturbed, because Mr. Pancoast as choice is delayed - Mrs. Gordon: I am not disturbed. You are misunderstanding me Mr. Rothstein. Mr. Rothstein: May I withdraw your name? Mrs. Gordon: Please. Mr. Rothstein: Okay, everybody is disturbed because of the nature in which this happened because the new laws came into effect half way through negotiations. The proper way to proceed and the appropriate way to proceed is to set a hearing at the next Commission Meeting or at one of the budget hearings to comply with the law and then at that time, pick 3 firms. This Commission has the prerogative of once again picking Pancoast as #1 in the negotiations. You are talking about in effect, a two week delay. Now, I don't understand what the problem is. Mrs. Gordon: I am just mad about the guy up, who is representing us in Tallahassee? Mr. Rothstein: Ron Le Face and he did an excellent job. Mrs. Gordon: Well who is he? 'tor. Rothstein: He is an attorney that does a lot of lobbying for major: cities. He did an excellent job and in this kind of circumstance you could only criticize him because you don't understand the full flow of bills that come out of there. When they come out -t the end of the session. Mrs. Gordon: i Mould ~save been happy to have had this information before we made any _election. It would have been a simple matter then. Now its an embarassing situation, that's all I can tell you. Mr. Rothstein: I don't see why it's embarassing. Mrs. Gordon: Because its embarassing because you are going to call people in and say, stand in line, you are not going to be number one. Mr. Rothstein: Well, if you feel its embarassing to comply /with the law under these circumstances, I can't help you. But, I did want to point out to the Vice -Mayor, that the terms of the ordinance are mandatory. We have no choice. There is no flexibility. I would have been derelict in my duty if 1 didn't call this to your attention and given you this opinion. Mrs. Gordon: Rev. Gibson: Mr.Plummer: Rev. Gibson: Yes, I compliment you for that. I don't want to take any action until the man is notified. Fine, is that your motion? I want the man properly notified and everybody put on guard. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question, are you making a motion that this be deferred until the next meeting? Mayor Kennedy: Why don't you just bring this up at the budget hearings? Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Grimm, why don't you deliver a copy of my resolution, my opinion to Mr. Pancoast which has the state statute attached. I am sure Mr. Pancoast is familiar with that state statute because it applies to every agency. 86 SEP 131973 • Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Pancoast just got a job at Interama under the same conditions. This is in effect for every government agency. Mr. Grimm: He doesn't know about this yet but I will deliver this to him tomorrow. Mayor Kennedy: Then we can bring it up during the budget hearings. 40, REPORT BY CITY MANAGER ON .MEETING I1LTH DR. H.K.STAi1FORD WITH REGARD TO THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED AT THE MIAMI ORANGE BOWL. Mr. Andrews: The City Commission is fully aware of a presentation the City Manager made with reference to improvements for the Orange Bowl and the.conditions under which those improvements could be funded and other conditions revolve around the fact that the users would have to sign long term agreements On July 26, the City Commission adopted a resolution which authorized the City Manager to proceed with the receipt of proposals from arch- itects and engineers to begin the implementation of the plans for the improvements. This is predicated on the users meeting with the Manager so that they could supply the Manager with their recommendations as to the type of improvements that could be provided. It could have possibly altered the plan that was submitted to the City Commission. Mr. Reese recognized and this occured on July 26 that he was in the process of leaving the City so he asked that I personally communicate with the individuals and that I conduct the meeting. I wrote to Dr. Fields, President of the Orange Bowl Committee and Mr. Seiler, Mr. Jesse Weiss, Chairman of the Board of the Tourist Development Auth- ority, Mr. Joseph Robbie of the Dolphins and Mr. Eugene of the University of Miami, inviting them to attend the meeting. I allowed for 2 choices of time to meet where we could discuss specifically the Commission's request and direction. The day before the meeting was to be held, I received a telephone call from Dr. Henry King Stanford inviting me to a luncheon to meet with the.Orange Bowl principle users explaining that they wished to discuss a particular matter with me in reference to a letter they receives. We had our meeting and they specifically wanted me to know on behalf of the City, that they were extending this courtesy to me to let me know that they have had many meetings for several months in which they have been discussing an approach to the future of the Orange Bowl and they wanted me to know that they were going to make a public announcement that Afternoon indicating that they embrace the findings of the city's committee who were reviewing the status of potential transfer of Parks and Recreation, Orange Bowl and other facilities to Metropolitan Dade County. In addition to that, they indicated that they did not wish to discuss any improvements to the Orange Bowl until such time as jurisdictional question of the Orange Bowl was resolved and that they wanted me to know that they were going on record publically that afternoon to foster the concept of transfer of the Orange Bowl to Metropolitan Dade County. When I inquired, first I explained that 1 was disappointed that they had all the meetings they had without having invited, I injected myself, to those meetings because I felt that if they had, I might have possibly influenced their final decision and then I inquired of them, how they had proposed to go about formulating a new facility through Metropolitan Dade County and their steadfast answer was that they were depending on the broad tax base of Metropolitan Dade County to construct a new facility somewhere within the County, using the Orange Bowl as a point of beginning, after it had been transferred to Metropolitan Dade County. I explained to them that through the history of the Orange Bowl, the City Commission was pretty careful in insuring that tax dollars were advalorum tax dollars were not utilized in the construction of the Orange Bowl and that this would be shifting a tax burden to the City of Miami if they formulated a plan to construct a new facility one day in the unincorporated area and then depended on the tax base since the City of Miami is an approximate 27% contributor to the tax roll of Metropolitan Dade County. 8'7 SEP 131971 • The meeting concluded on a very cordial basis. They wanted me to know that this was their plan and they later made a public announcement' that day over television and in the newspapers and the newspapers quoted almost verbatim what I have just told you both from President Henry King Stanford and from Joe Robbie that they proposed to if the Orange Bowl is transferred, that they could use the broad tax base of Dade County in order to provide a new sports facility somewhere in Dade County. Out of all this has come no information or no input on the part of the major users and I don't know how to advise the Commission at this moment precisely how-to proceed. Mr. Plummer: I don't think at this stage of the game that there is anything else to discuss. We are trying to resolve the question about the possible transfer due to the bonding and the action this morning by the City Attorney, I think that is the status of the report. Mr. City Attorney do you disagree? Mr. Rothstein: 1 think what Mr. Andrews is telling you is something additional and that is that not only if we transfer the Parks and Recreation of the City of 'Miami would our people get stuck with still paying it according to our bond counsel, he is saying something in addition. If you transferred the Orange Bowl, which is not in our tax charged to our citizens but which in effect actually brings in a profit to us, you then would be faced with the situation that once you transfer the Orange Bowl over, the plans are to phase out the Orange Bowl which is a revenue process and doesn't cost our citizens anything, but they want to build a similar structure out in the county which they arc going to charge our citizens money for upkeep, that's what he is telling you. It's a double shot. You don't save our citizens anything by turning it over and you lose some profit to our general fund and secondly, it will cost our citizens twice as much. That's what he is saying to you. Mr. Andrews: One thing Alan, and that is, the Orange Bowl does not contribute anything to our general fund. It's self-sustaining. Mr.Rothstein: But the revenue from the Restaurant Associates and some of the other - Mr. Andrews: A11 of the money earned from parking and all forms of revenue earned from the Orange Bowl are put back into the Orange Bowl, in fact one of the things that I want to follow up on is that we have plans to move ahead with the maintenance type of construction again at the end of this football season and no matter what happens and no matter what decision is made, I am recommending to the Commission that we con- tinue that. There are ramps that require reconstruction, some more needed painting and structural repair work, bench repair work that must go on. We are going ahead and doing that no matter what happens and this work is supported by the revenues from the Orange Bowl and not through tax dollars. No tax dollars flow into the Orange Bowi and no monies that are developed as a result of the revenues that the Orange Bowl earns, no matter what form they are, none of that money leaves the Orange Bowl and comes back into any other area of the operation of the city government. It's all for the Orange Bowi. Mrs. Gordon: For improving the Orange Bowl? Mr. Andrews: Por improving the Orange Bowl. Mrs. Gordon: And its held until there is a sufficient amount to do something? Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Rothstein: When your bonds get paid off, you will then have an excess flow. Mr. Andrewst We are making payments on those bonds. There was one bond issue that was the utility tax bond issue for 3 million dollars in 1967 or 68 and it was for 3 million. 1 million for use on the Orange Bowl and 2 million at the Marine Stadium. The debt service requirement is about $225,000 per year which means the 1/3 debt that went against the Orange Bowl, the 1 million dollars, represents about $75,000 of the total debt requirement. 88 SEP 131973 • There is, if you pick up the 1972-73 budget you will find the increment budgeted to satisfy that debt servicing requirement. If you look in the 1973-74 budget, you will find it again. It's there for the purpose of paying off that portion of the debt that went into the Orange Bowi. Mrs. Gordon: There is never a surplus of cash to supplement the city's needs. Mr. Andrews: No. The basic Orange Bowi structure is steel and it requires a lot of maintenance in the way of painting and structural repair wnd wherever concrete joins exposed steel, you have problems of rusting and deterioration of concrete cracking and these are s+6me of the things that are wrong with tho ramps. We are going to do 2 ramps again this year as we did last year and this money comes from funds that are earned by the Orange Bowl. Mrs. Gordon: May i suggest a recommendation asked of me with regard to the improvements and perhaps you have already considered it, but I understand that the lounge facilities for the Men and Women are all on the same floor. The restroom facilities close by and that it is a very bad situation that exists there. The recommendation was that either one or the other ought to be moved to another floor. Mr. Andrews: Well this was one of the things that was proposed. Mrs. Gordon: No we are talking about sanitary conditions. Mr. Andrews: That was a consideration in the proposed plan for modernizing and improving the Orange Bowl. There is not the 'kind of money available to do that from the funds that are generated within the Orange Bowl and hopefully this was one of the things that I had hoped to explore further with the users and I know that the University particularly when they have come before the Commission at times, this was one of their major objections was to improve the washroom facilities in the Orange Bowl. Mrs. Gordon: They are very very bad. Mr. Andrews: They are expensive. Mrs. Gordon: Well maybe we could take a look at it. Maybe they will contribute something toward the improvement but it would certainly be a very vital improvement. Mr. Andrews: 1 don't know if the Commission would prefer to do this or not but I might leave this thought, that the Commission might wish to invite the users here and discuss this aspect of the way they are formulating this matter of using taxes and tax dollars to potentially develop a new facility when we have the Orange Bowl and operate it without and sway them for the good of the community to continue on with the improvement program. Of course, the whole matter is based on the decision the Commission will make. If you decide not to transfer the Orange Bowl, I have the indication that they are ready then to sit down and start supplying us with their input as to the type of improvements they want. Mrs. Gordon: What are we waiting for? When are we going to make that decision? Mayor Kennedy: Hopefully we will make that decision on Tuesday. Mr. Rothstein:' I would like to make the Commission aware that the original contract with the Dolphins that was given out by Mayor High some 7 years ago in which the Dolphins receive an opportunity to pay a very low amount compared to the regular ordinance, will be up in a few years and there will be no opportunity because the law does not allow it for another such similar contract and therefore, there would be a large increase in income into the Orange Bowi. I would presume that being a good businessman, those who operate the Dolphins presume that if they could get into a posture where they are going to talk about long term contracts with the County, they could perhaps come out dollars and cents wise better than if the Orange Bowl 8 SEP 1.31973 remained with City and they had to now comply with the regular law now that they are a success, Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, that concludes my briefing the Commission on what has taken place. 41, SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT - LESLIE QUIGG, YACHT DOCKS The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-675 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SIX MONTHS EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH 11. LESLIE QUIGG AS YACHT DOCKS COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and ado pted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 42, PROPOSED REORGANIZATION - ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS- BOOZ ALLEN Mr. Andrews: The City received a federal H.U.D. comprehensive planning and assistance grant for S135,000 for the first year and we will receive $125,000 for the second year. The purpose of this grant was to study the city's administrative structure and organization and its evaluation of people and programming of services that they perform and the city sent proposals out to management firms to assist in this study. Booz-Allen firm was selected and on July 26, after approximately 4 months of study, Mr. Matland of Booz Allen presented an organizational structure to the City Commission for the city administration. I am re -presenting that with some further adjustments that Booz-Allen firm have made to this administrative structure and I am presenting it to you so that you will understand as the weeks go by., I will be submitting ordinances to the Commission to achieve the re- structuring of the City as is shown on this chart. You will note that there is creation of Deputy City Manager s in addition to the Assistant City Manager and that each Deputy City Manager will be responsible for a collection of departments in the first year in a way that the City has never operated before. There is a Deputy City Manager for community improvement and I won't read all the departments under neath. I will describe 1 or 2 in each grouping. When this chart was presented on July 26, the Planning Board and the Building Department and the Planning Department fell under a Deputy City Manager under community improvement. After considerable discussion and recognizing the importance of community planning in Miami at this stage in time, it was felt we needed a Deputy City Manager who would coordinate the Planning and Zoning Board administration which would be Mr. Simpson's Office. Planning as it is now carried on and the Building Department functions. 9u SEP 131973 • We would have an individual who would coordinate those 3. That individual would have to he almost next to a master planner with high qualifications. Then the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief, would serve in a role as a Deputy City Manager at the upper level, A Deputy City Manager for administrative services and you will notice that the budget activities and employee services and city physician activities which are now carried on directly;A he City Manager arc moved into that area underneath the Deputy City Manager One of the adjustments over on the Community improvement side of the chart, you will note a Public Facilities Dept. It is proposed and T would like to see this achieved with the adoption of the budget on. October 1, to provide for the Dinner Key Marina, Miamarina, the Orange Bows, the Miami Stadium, the Marine Stadium, Auditoriums and the Band - shell all to be under one departmental director. These facilities are scattered out in several departments. There is an asterisk by golf courses because we haven't concluded whether it's wise to include that in that particular department or have it remain under Parks and Rec- reation. I think when we do this, we will leave it with Parks and Recreation because it is so dependent upon the Parks and Recreation Department equipment and manpower at certain times of the year and that can be refined later on if,we find its wise to move it into Public Facilities but the Public Facilities Department would be able to operate on the basis that it's providing directly to the public. This is the public that is using our public facilities in a way diff- erent than it uses any of our other facilities throughout the city government. There -is an opportunity for economy, better handling of the public. It just makes sense to do that. The other adjustments is a potential splitting up of the department of Public Prorierties of the Garage, Motor Pool and Property Maintenance would be intimately involved where that equipment is used and it's all practically used under community imprownents. There are some minor adjustments under administrative services. Now I present this indicating to you that the Deputy City Manager the 2 new ones at hoth ends, will not cost the city any additional money because I am applying the theory that if you remove several positions from the bottom of the city's structure to gain this top quality manage- ment at the top, thcn we will be in a position to assist the Department Directors so that the service that the rest of the city organization provide are the highest quality and hopefully greater economy and I will eliminate vacancies that now exist at the bottom of the structure and take those dollars and place them at the top so there wouldn't be any tax incrrcase as a result of implementing this plan. The Deputy City Manager for Community Planning. We will go to the funds that you will consider when you consider the budget for the com- prehensive plan under the federal sharing program. This is true of the Deputy City Manager for Administrative Services. We will take vacant positions at the bottom of the structure and eliminate those to provide the funds to secure the top person that we need there. I want to indicate that in every instance, wherever possible, the promotions will come from within the City of Miami. I will only go to the outside when I have been assured myself and there is demonstration that the people we arc looking for do not exist in the City. Now I would like to add just one more thing. Its extremely important and that is, one of the things that Booz-Allen will be helping us with is the overall training of the administrative personnel, middlemanagement personnel in the city. The Police $ Fire Departments have had very fine training programs within their organizations. The Police Department is stepping that up with in-house training, on -job training program which will be provided once again with the federal revenue sharing funds so, T think I have covered all the things that I wanted to say. The Assistant City Manager position is vacant, the one I left, so the dollars are there to employ someone. The Community Relations, we are going to re -institute a good Community Relations Program under the City Manager. We had such a program about 5 or 6 years ago and we had a fine staff, mostly staffed with black people and for one reason or the other, they left the city and maybe they were too good but they left the city. We are going to restructure that community relations so that we get a black person and a latin to begin with because these are the areas that we particularly need to communicate with those minority areas. 91 I have had several meetings with people on the labor negotiation matter and I think we can hopefully resolve that shortly, so I am looking forward to implementing this. Some'portions of it, with the. adoption of the new budget and I will be presenting new Ordinances to the City Commission because some of this needs to be done by. Ordinance and if you have any questions, r will endeavor to answer them. Mrs. Gordon: I wanted to know if you had an Assistant yet and you said no. Also, you will be setting up 2 or 3 other executive positions as Deputies. I would recommend that you consider putting some capable women in those executive positions. The City has been criticized and rightly so because there are none in the City of Miami and in Metropolitan Dade CouAty there are people who, women who have done the most outstanding work and contributed a great deal and the time has come where we don't any more think of the sexes as being the qualification for a job. Mr. Andrews: I recognize that and I will tell you real honestly that I am going to give first preference to the people that we have here and it may turn out that none of those will be women but there are other additional subordinate positions to the Deputy City Managers and special assistants that we can look to for those appointments. Mrs. Gordon: I would like to say that you ought to consider. I have always considered those from within that should be promoted and T have always stayed with that but if someone in the vicinity, I don't mean imported from timhucktoo, but someone in the vicinity fits the bill and is a female and has experience and the background, you ought to consider that too. I think there are several applicants that you will receive who would he interested perhaps in that kind of a position that work for the county. Mr. Andrews: I will give them fair treatment but Mrs. Gordon and I want to emphasize this because it's a very strong point with me and that is that I will give fair treatment first to all the people in the City of Miami employees. They are going to get first consideration and if I can't find it there, then we will start looking and this is both men and women, within the city structure. Mrs. Gordon: And remember, men or women. Mr. Andrews: Are there any other questions the commission may have? I recognize that this Public Facilities and the Parks and Recreation are still predicated on ,the decision that the Commission is going to reach as far as the Orange Bowl and other facilities and that will all come about in your decision. Mayor Kennedy: Speaking for one, I think it looks very good. Mr. Andrews: The Deputy City Manager for Community Planning. That can be a very very significant thing. Throughout my career with the City of Miami, I have watched the City Public Works type of improvements placed in the City of Miami because it was physically the right thing to do if a district was constructed here because it was physically convenient to do so. Now I think we have arrived at a time in the City of Miami when someone like the person I am proposing for Deputy City Manager of Community Planning to give consideration as to where those public improvements are needed most in terms of people and that criteria is difficult to establish than it is on a physical basis so he will be involved in capital improvements, in community planning in a dynamic sense and therefore it is important that the whole land use plan of the City and it's implementation and the zoning aspects of it are all coordinated but has to he relatedto what the community improvements are about and what they are doing. The kind of services they are providing and the capital improvements that we arc putting in place and why we are putting them in place not just based on the physical necessity or physical convenience, Mrs. Gordon: I think it's a great idea and we can cooperate very well with Metro by having an individual doing that. 94 SEP 131973 • Mr. Andrews: Mr. Matland is here to add his comments. He is the major architect of this. I am sure it would have been very difficult for me alone without their presence, Booz-Allen and Mr. Matland who have convinced you that this was the right thing to do. I think it is their expertise, they were involved in many things for many other governmental agencies throughout the United States where they are doing the very same thing and they have already accomplished this is other cities. They have already restructured other cities of our size. Mrs. Gordon: Community Relations specifically. Explain the role of that department. Mr. Andrews: Community Relations is a function in which those people who have day to day contact with the various organizations and indiv- iduals in the City of Miami, that for instance are concerned with proper allocation of employment within the city structure as far as blacks are concerned, as far as latins are concerned, what we are doing about improving the procedures that the City uses for attracting these people into city government. They will be meeting with various groups who have particular kind of community problems that are isolated in one area of the City and they are trying to find ways to solve that par- ticular problem. They will help avert problems that could potentially come before the Commission or even become much more serious than that. Mrs. Gordon: You mean like someone who would he working with groups of people to find out their needs and to coordinate those needs into whatever we are doing? Mr. Andrews: Yes. We had such a unit in the City Manager's office 6 years ago. Mr. Ted Nichols is at the University of Miami now. Mrs. Gordon: One person or more than one person? Mr. Andrews: It will start off with 2 people immediately and will develop into a larger staff. At Dne point, 3 full time people and 2 additional part time persons associated with that group. Mrs. Gordon: Would it also have an information center where people could get their questions answered without running from one department to the next? Mr. Andrews: Yes. There was a blue booklet that was developed that was circulated in the city and had all the governmental agencies including federal agencies that should be contacted if anybody had a particular problem in housing etc., and we would act as a catalyst in learning what their problem was about and then referring them and getting them channeled into the proper agency. While we are not in the business of housing, We can assist our people in the City of Miami by making sure that we can have the right kind of information available to them and let them know where to go. Mayor Kennedy: The Civil Service Board and the City Clerk will still be separate? Mr. Andrews: Yes, this is only the administrative aspect. While we are on this, I would like to call upon Mr. Uuttoe and Bob Paulk in that we have been working very closely on another matter and then I will let Mr. Matland say a few words that I think you will find rather interesting because i think its going to be something very good for the City of Miami and we have a way of working it out and I will let them describe it because they brought the matter first to Mr. Reese and within the last few days of his departure from the city and he turned it over completely to me to work out with Mr. Paulk and we did so and he will tell you about it. 9� SEP 131973 • Mr. Bob Paulk: Recognizing what has already been said here with regard to Community Relations and recognizing the Civil Rights Act and the inclusion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission portion of the Civil Rights Act, Title Vii, every employer throughout the nation is faced with various obligations under that law and we recognize this readily ,in the civil service office and the Civil Service Board does and the Chief Examiner does and has prevailed upon us to seek some means by which we can more readily meet the obligation of the law and meet the obligation to the community at large. In effect, we have contacted Mr. Andrews and Mr. Reese prior to his retirement, to seek their assistance in helping us solve problems in the area of ethnic recruitment and ethnic barriers in regard to tests that we are now administering in seeking people to be employed in the various classifications in our classified positions within the City. We have a very serious. need to evaluate the examinations which we were giving to determine if there are any cultural biases within those examinations and we are asking that 2 people be engaged to assist the Civil Service function in making such an evaluation. One very serious problem is whether there is any cultural bias with regard to the black issue and secondly and probably just as important without any doubt because of the tremendous number of latins within our community, we have to have a determination made as to whether or not, we should in many instances, give examinations in the latin tongue and I think we have to do this under the equal employment opportunity law. It could be charged as an allegation of discrimination if we do not test one in one's own native tongue and consequently we need someone within the office of Civil Service to assist us in equating our tests within certain limitations to another native tongue, but predominantly the latin tongue is the one that we must consider. Mr. Andrews is going to assist us in securing two people to work in the civil service office. I realize that there are those who would perhaps consider that this may be an encroachment on the civil service by the city manager but this is not the intent whatsoever. The Chief Examiner and myself will be very definitely involved in the selection process and we will utilize Mr. :Andrews assistance in securing the services of these two people. We think it is very important to do so. Mr. Andrews: I want the record to reflect that it is the function that I will play in this. I don't intent to influence these people, they will come about as a result of appointment but probably and preferably there is no stignatism attached through a contract means of employing these people but nevertheless, they will be employed and utilized over in the Civil Service Office. Mr. Charles liuttoc: May I say quickly concluding because I know the day has been long. I would like to say to the Commission that City Manager Andrews has been most helpful, cooperative in trying to assist us in helping us find people who are capable to continue the fine system that we have and I certainly appreciate it and thank you Mr. Andrews because he is certainly showing the cooperation to help us. Mrs. Gordon: I want to compliment you too because you really are living up to my expectations. I speak for me. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Matland, I think wants to say a few words. Mr. Matland: Considering the lateness of the hour, I will keep it to a very few. We have presented to the Commission some weeks ago, the rationale for the structure we recommended. Mr. Andrews has explained it quite thouroughly as to content, the only thing I would add is that we as professionals working in this area are extremely comfortable with this and feel that it not only meets the general requirements of sound management planning but the very special requirements that are unique to the City of Miami and feel that you will find significant improve- ment in the management of your city government if you move in this direction and endorse it without reservation of any kind. Mrs. Gordon: I think it's a giant step forward and is really taking us into a business like posture. 9,1 SEP131973 Mr. Matland: The hard part is always left for the people who have to do it. Mr. Andrews: I plan to have this photographed for exact duplication and we will supply you a copy. 43, ACCEPT PLAT - N, & CL SUBDIVISION The 'allowing resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-676 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED N. f, C. SUB., A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND ACCEPTING A COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT, ONE STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, FILL AND MUCH REMOVAL; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City CLerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 44, ACCEPT PLAT - DE LA HOZ SUB. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer whc moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-677 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED DE LA HOZ SUB., A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messr. Plummer, Reboso, Rev. Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 95 SEP 131973 • • 45, DISCONTINUE USE OF INTERLOCKING PLANT AT N.E. 11 STREET & MIAMI AVE. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-678 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE REQUEST OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY TO DISCONTINUE THE USE OF THE INTERLOCKING PLANT AT N. E. 11 STREET AND MIAMI AVENUE AT' THE CROSSING OF THE F.E.C. RAILWAY AND THE MIAMI MUNICIPAL RAILWAY TRACKS AND AUTHORIZING PROPER CITY OFFICIALS TO JOIN IN THE EXECUTION OF ANY NECESSARY_ DOCUMENTS TO ACCOMPLISH SAME (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy . NOES: None 46, RESCIND RESOLUTION N0. 72-575- CITY HALL PROMENADE DECK ROOFING The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-679 A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 72-575 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 21, 1972, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITIH OBENOUR ROOFING SHEET METAL AND SUPPLY CO., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $6,135.00 FOR THE CITY HALL PROMENADE DECK ROOFING - 1972 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 96 S E P 131973 • 47, RATIFY ACT ION.OF CITY MANAGER- TEMP.CONST.EASMENT OLD PORT OF MIAMI The following resolution was introduced by Mr. P1umuner who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-680 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY MANAGER IN EXECUTING AND DELIVERING TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AT THE OLD PORT OF MIAMI (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 48, ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ORANGE BOWL WHEELCHAIR PLATFORM 1973 The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-681 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PER- FORMED BY C. A. DAVIS, INC., AT A TOTAL COST OF $3400 AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $3400 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ORANGE BOWL - WIiEELCHAIR PLATFORM - 1973 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 9r SEP 131973 • • 49, PUBLISH NOTLCE OF PUBLIC HAG FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED WORK - EAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-535Z C The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-682 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISII A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF EAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMP- ROVEMENT SR-5353-C (centerline sewer) IN EAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SR- 5352-C (centerline sewer) (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 50, ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - MIAMI STADIUM FENCING 1972 The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-683 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PER- FORMED BY FENCE MASTERS, INC., AT A TOTAL COST OF 2,600.00 AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $260.00 FOR THE MIAMI STADIUM- FENCING- 1972 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 9d SEP 131973 51, EXECUTE DEED -SALE OF PROPERTY TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-684 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEED TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ALLOWING METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TO PURCHASE FOR A PRICE OF $4,583.89 WHICH IS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL ACQUISITION PRICE PER ACRE, THE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF N. W. 12TH AVENUE BETWEEN N. W. 14TH STREET AND STATE ROAD 836 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 52, ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - MUNICIPAL SHOPS & INCINERATOR FENCING The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-685 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PER- FORMED BY ANCHOR POST PRODUCTS INC., OF FLORIDA AT A TOTAL COST OF $5,800.00 AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $580.00 FOR THE MUNICIPAL SIIOPS AND INCINERATOR PARKING LOTS - FENCING- 1973 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, MRs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SEP 131973 AGENDA ITEMS 53, C•AND 55 WERE DEFERRED TO T• MEETING OF 9-26-73 53, CONVEY PROPERTY TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED $UMMIT PARK The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-686 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY DEDICATED BY THE PLAT OF SUMMIT PARK IS NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PARK PURPOSES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY QUIT CLAIM DEED THE CITY'S INTEREST IN SAID LAND FOR TIIE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC DAY CARE CENTER (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon , Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 54, REQUEST METRO TO DEDICATE CERTAIN LAND TO CITY FOR DIXIE PARK The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-687' A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF MIAMI CERTAIN LAND NEEDED FOR THE EXPANSION OF D I X I E COMMUNITY PARK (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 10u • • 55. PURCHASE BY NEGOTIATION - PARCEL RO. 1537.1 EATON PARK EXPANSION The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-688 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE BY NEGOTIATION IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION PARCEL NO. 1537.1 OF THE CITY OF MIAMI EATON PARK EXPANSION PROJECT, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, FOR THE SUM OF $35,937.50 WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI ASSUMING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 1973 AD VALOREM TAXES DUE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE COST OF HAVING THE TWO BUILDINGS ON THE PARCEL DEMOLISHED; AND ALL- OCATING $40,000 FROM THE 1972 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BOND FUND TO COVER THE COST AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES PERTINENT TO THE ACQUISITION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THIS PROPERTY (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Gibson, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 56, DECLARE POLICY-i ISTORICAL_MARKER COM EMORA ING LANDI►�G OF MEi�ENDEZ $E TEMPORARILY PLACED The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-689 A RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-629; DECLARING THE POLICY OF THE COMMISSION THAT A HISTORICAL MARKER COMMEMORATING THE LANDING OF DON PEDRO MEMEMDEZ DE AVILES WHO LANDED AT THE MOUTH OF THE MIAMI RIVER IN 1567, AND WAS THE FIRST RECORDED EUROPEAN CONTACT WITH WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS MIAMI, BE TEMPORARILY PLACED IN THE PLANTER BED AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SIDEWALK PARALLEL TO AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD h'ITH THE MAIN WALKWAY ENTRANCE TO THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND PERMANENTLY LOCATED IN THE PROPOSED MEMORIAL PLAZA AS DESCRIBED IN THE ILLUSTRATIVE RECREATIONAL USE PLAN FOR BAYFRONT PARK AS PREPARED BY EDWARD STONE AND ASSOCIATES, WHEN SAID PLAZA IS COMPLETED; THAT SUCH ACTION SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON THE FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE MIAMI MEMORIAL COMMITTEE (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) 101 SEP131973 Upon being seconded y Mrs. Gordon, the takolution was passed and adopted by the llowing vote - AYES: Me . Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Rever Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 57, An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6956, PASSED AND ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 1961, APPROVING THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING RULE VIII, SECTION 6, OY REPEALING SUBSECTIONS B AND C, WHICH PROVIDE FOR TWELVE (12) MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIODS OF SERVICE FOR POLICEMEN, PRISON GUARDS, POLICE MATRONS, POLICE WOMEN, POLICE IDENTIFICATION OFFICERS AND FIREMEN; AND SIX (6) MONTHS PROBATIONARY PERIODS OF SERVICE FOR ALL OTHERS APPOINTED OR PROMOTED; SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR NEW SUBSECTIONS B AND C, WHICH PROVIDE FOR A PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS ACTUAL SERVICE IN ALL CLASSIFIED POS- ITIONS TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS PROMOTED AND IN ALL POSITIONS EXCEPTING THE POSITIONS OF POLICE OFFICER, IDENTIFICATION TECHNICIAN I, AND FIRE- FIGHTER TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS APPOINTED OR ADVANCED; PROVIDING FOR AN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF SERVICE IN POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER AND TWELVE (12) MONTH PERIOD OF PROBATIONARY SERVICE IN POSITIONS OF IDENTIFIC- ATION TECHNICIAN I OR FIREFIGHTER; FURTHER PROV- IDING THAT IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL ABSENCE FROM DUTY OR OTHER GOOD CAUSE, THE DEPARTMENT BEAD MAY REQUEST AND THE BOARD MAY ESTABLISH AN ADDITIONAL PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF SERVICE NOT TO EXCEED THE INITIAL PERIODS OF PROBATIONARY SERVICE ESTABLISHED; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF TN CONFLICR, INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION; DISPENSING WITH READING ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, and seconded by Mr. Plummer for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Messr. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Mrs. Gordon seconded by Mr. Plummer, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: MEssrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8182. 10. SEP 131973 58. DENY CLAIMS The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-690 A RESOLUTION DENYING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND ANY SUIT BROUGHT FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF SAID CLAIMS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messr. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 59. AMEND RES. 73-422- PROVIDE ALLOCATION MEMBERSHIP DUES WORLD BOX LNG ASSOCIATION The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-691 A RESOLUTION AMENDING•RESOLUTION NO. 73-422 TO PRO- VIDE FOR THE ALLOCATION OF $150.)0 FROM THE CONTINGENT FUND TO COVER MEMBERSHIP DUES IN THE WORLD BOXING ASSOCIATION, AND FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-609 TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALLOCATION OF $1,030.00 FROM THE CONTINGENT FUND TO COVER ATTENDANCE AT THE ANNUAL WORLD BOXING ASSOCIATION CONVENTION TO BE HELD IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office). Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 105 SEP 131973 • 60, ORDINANCE -PROVIDE RE -PAID GOLF COURSE FEES An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 39-13.1 OP THE MIAMI CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW SECTION 39-13.1 PROVIDING ANNUAL PRE=PAID GOLF COURSE GREEN FEES FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED GOLF COURSES; AND DAILY GREEN FEES FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED GOLF COURSES; AND PROVIDING SPECIAL TWILIGHT GREEN FEES FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED GOLF COURSES; AND PROVIDING A SPECIAL GREEN FEE FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED GOLF COURSES FOR JUNIOR PLAYERS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE; AND PROVIDING SPECIAL GREEN FEES FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED GOLF COURSES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES; AND RETIRED CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY RETIREMENT SYSTEM & PLAN; AND PROVIDING GREEN FEEc FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED GOLF COURSES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS SIXTY-TWO YEARS OF AGE OR OVER WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY; AND PRO- VIDING GREEN FEES FOR THE USE OF CITY -OWNED MIAMI SPRINGS. GOLF COURSE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS SIXTY-TWO YEARS OF AGE OR OVER WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS; AND PROVIDING HAND AND ELECTRIC CART RENTAL RATES; AND PROVIDING A FEE FOR ELECTRIC CARTS WHICH ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND UTILIZED ON CITY GOLF COURSES; AND PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION; AND DECLARING THIS TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE; AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8183. 61, EXTEND EMPLOYMENT 3 MONTHS - RAFAEL GARCCIA. INTERPRETER CLERK The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-692 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE MONTH EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT PAST THE AGE OF 70 FOR RAFAEL GARCIA, INTERPRETER CLERK, POLICE DEPARTMENT, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 29, 1973 TO JANUARY 29, 1974 WITH THE PROVISION THAT IN THE EVENT OF A ROLLBACK OR LAY- OFF, R. GARCIA, RATHER THAN A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE WOULD BE AFFECTED 10g SEP 131973 • (here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: MEssrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 62, FNTER INTO CU.D. - RE. EXPANSION OF NORTH DINNER KEY The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-693 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO A COVENANT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP- MENT PURSUANT TO TITLE VII OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1961 , PUBLIC LAW 91-609, 84 STAT. 1781, 42 U.S.C. 1500 AGREEING NOT TO SELL, LEASE, MORTGAGE OR CREATE ANY OTHER INDEBTEDNESS OR ANY OTHER TRANS- FER OF REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE EXPANSION OF NORTH DINNER KEY PARK WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT 9F HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 63, ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR APPRAISAL OF 46 WEST FLAGLER STREET PROPERTY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-694 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING THE SUM OF $1,824 FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BOND FUND TO COVER THE $1,000 COST FOR APPRAISAL OF THE 46 WEST FLAGLER STREET PROPERTY BY LEONARD DISZ, AS AUTH- ORIZED BY RESOLUTION NO. 73-546 AND THE $824.00 COST FOR SURTAX, DOCUMENTARY STAMPS AND RECORDATION OF THE DEED CONVEYING SAID PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF MIAMI (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) 105 SEP 131973 Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 64, CONFIRM ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER- REPAIR OF 50 NLP, MOTOR The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-695 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN APPROVING THE REPAIR'OF A P f H ELECTRIC 50 H.P. MOTOR FOR THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT BY WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. AT A COST OF $1,750.00 without competitive bidding, AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE (here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 65, ACCEPT BID - SELF-PROPELLED HYDRAULIC POWER SUPPLY UNIT THE FOLLOWING Resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-696 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED MAY 18, 1973 OF CUSTOM HYDRAULICS, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $3,750.00 FOR ONE SELF-PROPELLED HYDRAULIC POWER SUPPLY UNIT; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS, AS REQUIRED, AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE (here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Me,s's. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None • 66. ALLOCATE $L47L002.00 - LEUJEUNE GARDENS SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-697 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL SUM OF $1,472,902.00 FROM THE SANITARY SEWER BOND FUND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEJEUNE GARDENS SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5315 C (CENTERLINE SEWER) AND SR-5315 S (SIDELINE SEWER); ACCEPTING TIIE BID OF INTERCOUNTY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,337,412.50 SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT THEREFOR AFTER RECEIPT OF AFORESAID CONCURRENCE (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on f-le in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 67, BID AWARD - SERVICING OF PORTABLE F LRE EXTINGUISHERS The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-698 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE.BID RECEIVED AUGUST 24, 1973 OF MIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR SERVICING OF PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, AS REQUIRED, FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 1973 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1974, OF THE TYPE AND PRICES INDICATED HEREIN, AND AUTH- ORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS, AS REQUIRED, AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here ar.' on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 10i SEP131973 • • 68, AWARD BID - BASE RADIO STATION_ RECEIVING AND CONTROL. EQUIPMENT The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLU;10N NO. 73-699 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED AUGUST 13, 1973, OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND MOTOROLA C E INC., FOR FURNISHING BASE RADIO STATIrN RECE- IVING AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT. THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS, AS REQUIRED, AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 69, AWARD BID - HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-700 A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BIDS RECEIVED MAY 18, 1973 FOR PURCHASE.OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS FROM FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES CITY GARAGE REPLACEMENT RESERVE ACCOUNTS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS THEREFOR (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 106 SEP 131973 4 70, PROPOSED SHARING OF COSTS MTH MAML DADE WATERr& SEWER AUTHORITY FOR PROJECT ENTITLED LE, 10 STREET STORM & SANITARY OUTFALL The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-701 A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE PROPOSED SHARING OF COSTS WITH THE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED N. E. 10 STREET STORM AND SANITARY OUTFALL; ACCEPTIN'6 THE $154,696 BID OF CLIFTON LIGHTSEY INC., FOR SAID PROJECT, ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE STORM AND SAN- ITARY BOND FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson :d Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 71, AWARD BID - DOOR AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT 1973 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-702 A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 1973 OF HENRY DEGRAFF F4 SON INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $31,189 FOR THE CITY PARKS BUILDINGS- DOOR AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT - 1973; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $34,932 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED :CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENT FUND - UNALLOCATED FUNDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT THEREFOR (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 10J SEP 131973 72. ORDINANCE - CHANGE EXPIRATION )ATE ON CIIAU.FFEUR'S LICENSE TO OCTOBER 31, 1973 ETC. An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 56-133 OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE BY EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF CHAUFFEUR REGISTRATION LICENSES; PROVIDING THAT LICENSES ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 31, 1973 AND ON EACH OCTOBER 31 THEREAFTER; PROVIDING THAT ALL OTHER CHAUFFEUR REGISTRATION LICENSES, ORIGINAL OR RENEWAL, EXPIRE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH OF ORIGINAL ISSUANCE SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 31, 1973; DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION re was introduced by Mr. Plummer and seconded by Mr. Reboso, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8184. 73, DISCUSSION -REQUEST OF SISTER MIRANDA FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF PORTABL.E SCHOOL BUILDING Mr. Reboso: Sister Miranda from Centro Mater requests our assistance in providing transportation for the portable school building that was recently awarded to Centro Mater from the Olympia Heights Elementary School in the transportation from Bird Road at 97th Avenue to 4th Avenue S. W. at 4th Street. Mr. Andrews: Commissioner Reboso, I think it would be wise for you to invite the people here at your budget hearings in the afternoon to discuss this. I can forsee some problems. In the process of acquiring the property where this building is to go and be located, it is estimated that we will own this property or have title within the next 10 days. We have an estimate that to transport the building and set it on foun- dations on the site will cost about $1500. It is a portable school building which the City Commission authorized that a bid be made and it was purchased for $100.00 with City funds. Now, there will be a $1500 cost in transporting it, setting it on foundation but that doesn't connect up the electrical work and some other things that are needed and the long range plan of the group is to take one of the additional buildings that will come with the condemnation of the land and abandon this facility later and move into one of those buildings and alter the building so this building is for a temporary purpose and I don't know really what costs we are getting into. I am not sure and I can't make a recommendation to the Commission. I will do what you want but I think you should know the full problem before you make a decision. Mr. Reboso: Have you talked to Sister Margarita Miranda about this? Mr. Andrews: I have not, one of our staff members has, but I think it would be wise if we invited her here during the afternoon when the 110 public will appear here for the budget hearings and we can discuss this and come to a conclusion. ADJOURNMENT: THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT: ATTEST: H, D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK RALPH G. ONGIE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 9:10 O'CLOCK P.M. DAVID T. KENNEDY MAYOR ciiw OF M)AIVI1 ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. DOCUMENT MEETING DATE I NDEX- SEPTEMBER 13, 1973 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION COMMISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT.(26 pgs) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT M.L. REESE CITY MANAGER - INCLUDING VACATION. PROPOSED AGREEMENT - ORANGE BOWL - FACILITIES AT SPORTSMAN'S PARK WAREHOUSE. ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI - FIND SITE - HALF -WAY HOUSE - 3011 N.W. 13th ST. COMMISSION RETRIEVAL ACTION_ _CODE NO. VARIANCE - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 6, BLK.3 -COPPINGER'S TROPICAL GARDENS - 1001 N.W. 19th AVENUE. GRANTING PERMISSION TENTATIVE PLAT #k875-A - "THE SEAWARD" - 700 N.F. 35th ST. CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY Or MIAMI AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES. AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMEt - CHAPTER 27, SECTION 27-12 PALM BAY TOWERS CORI GRANTING PERMISSION - DREDGE LAND - BLK. 4, - SOUTH ELMIRA - 1 PALM BAY COURT. CONDITIONAL USE - RESTAURANT - LOT 1, BRICKELL POINT - 444 BRICKELL AVE. ACCEPT PLAT - SAILBOAT BAY SUBDIVISION AMENDED. ACCEPT PLAT - SO. BAYSHORE DR. SUBDIVISION. T R-73-655 R-73-656 Denied R-73-658 R-73-659 R-73-660 R-73-661 R-73-662 R-73-663 AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $5,000 - PUBLICITY FUND ATTEMPT A.A.U. NATIONAL BOXING SHOW IN MIAMI. R-73-664 >NDING SECTION 30-28 CODE - NEW CATEGORY SUPPER -CLUBS LICENSE. FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED SECTION 205.042 - LICENSE FEE FOR SUPPER CLUBS. FUNDS FROM STATE PARKS BOND MONIES - ACQUISITIO1 OF FISHER ISLAND PARK PURPOSE. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI AND MR.REVITZ APPOINT MEMBERS - STATUS OF WOMEN. ISSUE PERMIT - GAS COMPANY OF FLA.- GAS TRANSMIS SION MAIN S.W. 8 ST.AND S.W. 63 AVE. R-73-668 R-73-669 R-73-670 R-73-672 R-73-673 0074 0075 73-655 73-656 0076 73-658 73-659 0077 73-660 73-66 73-66 73-66 73-66 00 73-6 73-6 73-6 73-6 73-6 z IIII11111IiYRdilr II II OCUMENTINDEX CONTINUE ITEM NO. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION 20. •ACCEPT PLAT - BISCAYNE SHELL SUBDIVISION. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40 EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT - H. LESLIE.QUIGG AS YACHT DOCKS COORDINATOR. ACCEPT PLAT - N. & C. SUB. ACCEPT PLAT - DE LA HOZ SUB. REQUEST OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY - DISCONTINUE PLAT AT N.E. 11 ST. AND MIAMI A RESCINDING RESOLUTION 72-575 - CONTRACT WITH OBENOUR ROOFING SHEET METAL & SUPPLY COMPANY. RATIFYING ACTION - TEMPORARY EASEMENT - OLD PORT OF MIAMI. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - C.A. DAVIS , INC. - ORANGE BOWL - WHEELCHAIR PLATFORM. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - OBJECTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF EAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (CENTERLINE SEWER) ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - FENCE MASTERS, INC. - MIAMI STADIUM - FENCING. AUTHOIRZE DEED TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY - PURCHASE - N.W. 12th AVE. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ANCHOR POST PRODUCTS, INC. - MUNICIPAL SHOPS AND INCINARATORS PARKIN LOTS - FENCING. PLAT OF SUMMIT PARK IS NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PARK PURPOSES. REQUEST METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY LAND NEEDED FOR EXPANSION OF DIXIE COMMUNITY PARK PURCHASE BY NEGOTIATION IN LIEU OF COMDENATION PARCEL NO. 1537.1-EATON PARK EXPANSIOI'I • SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO.73-629-HISTORICAL MARKER OF DON PEDRO MENENDEZ DE AVILES PLACED ON EAST SIDE OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD DENYING CERTAIN CLAIMS -DIRECTING CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND ANY SUIT OF DAMAGES ARISING OF SAID CLAIMS AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-422-MEMBERSHIP DUES IN THE WORLD BOXING ASSOCIATION THREE MONTH EXTENSION EMPLOYMENT FOR RAFAEL GARCIA-CLERK POLICE DEPARTMENT COVENANT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TITLE VII-HOUSING ACT 1961- BOND FUND FROM RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO COVER COST APPRAISAL OF 46 U.FLAGLER STREET PROPERT C ACTION R-73-674 R-n-675 R-73-676 R-73-677 R-73-678 R-73-679 R-73-680 R-73-681 R-73-682 R-73-683 R-73-684 R-73-685 R-73-686 R-73-687 R-73-688 R-73-689 R-73-690 R-73-691 R-73-692 R-73-693 R-73-694 PAGE 2 _CODE 1 ff. 73-674 73-675 73-676 73-677 73-678 73-679 73-680 73-681 73-682 73-683 73-684 73-685 73-686 73-690 73-521 73-692 73-693 ti 1 1 DOCU P11 ENT4N D E X ITEM NO.! DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION _ - INUE - COMMISSION ACTION 41 • REPAIR OF A P & H ELECTRIC MOTOR -SANITATION DEPT. BY WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. 42 •ACCEPT BID -CUSTOM HYDRAULICS, INC.-HYDRAULIC POWER SUPPLY UNIT 43 ADDITIONAL SUM OF $1,472,902.00 FROM SANITARY SEWER BOND FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LEJEUNE GARDENS SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT 44 ACCEPT BID-MIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY - SERVICE OF PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 45 ACCEPT BID -GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - FURNISHING BASE RADIO STATION 46 ACCEPT BID -PURCHASE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS -FUNDS DEPT.PUBLIC PROPERTIES 47 MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY -PROJECT ENTITLED N.E. 10 STREET 1 R-73-695 R-73-696 R-73-697 R-73-698 R-73-699 R-73-700 R-73-701 PAGE # 3 RETRIEVAL _CODE_ _ 73-695 73-696 73-697 73-698 73-699 73-700 73-701