Finance Committee Minutes 6/18/18

1
2
3
4
5 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
6 MONDAY, JUNE 18,2018
7
8 LFT-TRANSLATIONS
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Lingua Franca Language Services
Translations | Interpretations | Transcriptions
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: If everyone prior to speaking could just

2 state your name each time you speak, that would be helpful
3 just so that the keepers of the minutes can record your
4 name. I’m going to call the meeting to order. The date is
5 Monday, the 18th of June. The time is 12:00 p.m. We’re at
6 the City of Miami, City Hall a 3500 Pan American Drive.
7 This is the Finance Committee for the City of Miami.
8
9 The first order of business would be any changes to
10 the agenda, if any of them are going to exist. Are there
11 any additional items we had to the agenda from any board
12 members or anyone else?
13
14 ELI FEINBERG: I just have a question. Mr. City Attorney,
15 are you pressed on time or can we go through the agenda or
16 something like –
17
18 KEVIN JONES: I just have to be back by 2:00.
19
20 ELI FEINBERG: Okay.
21
22 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay and you wanted to hear the legal
23 updates?
24
25 ELI FEINBERG: Yeah.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay so we’ll go ahead and if it’s okay – go
28 ahead.
29
Lingua Franca | 1111 Brickell Avenue, Ste 1140 – Miami, FL 33131 | t. 305.913.7193 | www.lftranslations.com
1 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: I have not received any answers from

2 the letter that I send to the city manager.
3
4 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay great. We will – that was Fausto
5 Alvarez, prior to that it was Eli Feinberg. I will hear
6 that as an additional item, old business, if that’s okay
7 with you.
8
9 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: Yes.
10
11 ERIC ZICHELLA: When we get to old business, if that’s okay
12 with you. All right, can I have a motion on the minutes
13 from March, April and May of 2018?
14
15 ELI FEINBERG: Move.
16
17 ERIC ZICHELLA: So moved, any objection?
18
19 ELI FEINBERG: No.
20
21 ERIC ZICHELLA: No objections? Okay shows approved without
22 objection. And we’re going to come out of order here to
23 have a legal update and an update on financial urgency and
24 contract measures, starting with the legal updates if we
25 can.
26
27 KEVIN JONES: Okay.
28
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: You want to come down here unless you need
2 your notes or something down there. Feel free to take a
3 seat over here if you like.
4
5 KEVIN JONES: Kevin Jones, City Attorney’s office. You
6 said you want to talk about financial urgency first or the
7 contracts?
8
9 ERIC ZICHELLA: What’s your preference, Mr. Feinberg?
10
11 KEVIN JONES: There are two open contracts, IFF and 1907.
12 FOP’s contract comes open September 30. The parties have
13 sat down and attempted to negotiate some sort of resolution
14 of the contracts. There is a piece relevant to that, that
15 relates to the financial urgency case management. So what
16 the parties are attempting to do is resolve those two cases
17 within – and some part within the contracts. And resolve
18 those two cases with both IFF and FOP together because
19 you’ll need to know what it’s going to cost you globally.
20 Now let’s talk about the case itself. There’s some aspects
21 of that are in remediation so I can’t really talk about
22 specifics.
23
24 ERIC ZICHELLA: Can I ask you a quick question Kevin? Your
25 expertise in legal matters is mainly in litigation or
26 employment law and that –
27
28 KEVIN JONES: Employment law.
29
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Employment law and litigation related to

2 employment law.
3
4 KEVIN JONES: I also was Chief of the tort’s agreement; so
5 civil rights cases, first amendments. I don’t do the
6 appeals, that’s up to John and Kerry. You don’t want to be
7 doing an appeal; that would be ugly. But I also ran the
8 litigation division as well; so I’ve been Chief over the
9 entire litigation department. I was exclusively employment
10 and labor. So with regard to the open cases IFF – we met
11 with IFF early June and at the court hearing, the hearing
12 was opened. They put in the paper record evidence of their
13 damages. See how far I can go to tell you what those are.
14
15 I think it’s in the paper the general assumption is
16 that I’ll tell you anything that’s private, they think
17 they’re in a 100 million dollar range.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: IFF believes they’re in the 100 million
20 dollar range?
21
22 KEVIN JONES: Yes sir, for back pay. And probably another
23 $100 million for pension. As you recall the pension board
24 unilaterally changed the pension code to pay at a higher
25 rate. We followed emergency injunction. That was originally
26 denied by the circuit court, the third district court of
27 appeal has ruled two weeks ago, said the judge was wrong,
28 we were right. The 11th Court of Appeal reversed the trial
29 judge and entered the injunction; so now they’re enjoined
30 from paying out at the higher rate. And the pension code
1 that was in effect post October 1, 2010, the one with the
2 reduced benefits is now the pension code that they must
3 follow to the end of the case.
4
5 Moving forward with our negotiations with IFF, they
6 put in their documents as I said of their damages and then
7 they closed the hearing with no prejudice to the city to
8 move from a hearing phase on the court cases to actual
9 mediation. So we went from the court hearing the same day
10 to mediation. So the parties caucus attempted to mediate
11 their differences.
12
13 ERIC ZICHELLA: Can I ask a question on that before we kind
14 of go into that?
15
16 KEVIN JONES: Yes.
17
18 ERIC ZICHELLA: Has the city’s position been articulated in
19 writing – have we taken a position on any damages if you
20 will, that we believe they’re owed?
21
22 KEVIN JONES: Yes. There’s an expert. That’s the outside
23 counsel. This case is being handled by outside counsel and
24 our counsel has put into the record that IFF case, our
25 expectation and damages and our assessment of damages.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: Which is how much?
28
29 KEVIN JONES: It’s 15 million. It’s one year and it’s 18
30 million. 16 plus 2.
1
2 ERIC ZICHELLA: Of back pay?
3
4 KEVIN JONES: Total, back pay and pension, both IFF and
5 FOP.
6
7 ERIC ZICHELLA: 18 million, so we’re separated by about 182
8 million dollars because the interest clock is running on
9 their numbers.
10
11 KEVIN JONES: Yes.
12
13 CHRISTOPHER ROSE: Their back pay was 126.
14
15 CHRISTOPHER ROSE: 107 for pensions.
16
17 KEVIN JONES: So the parties have attempted during
18 mediation to bridge that gap in the form of a collected
19 bargaining agreement moving out three years. So without
20 getting to the specifics the concept is there would be a
21 damage amount that would be given to the union and then
22 there would be some across the board and some pay
23 supplements spread out over a three year period of time. At
24 this point we are apart by 14 million?
25
26 CHRIS ROSE: We’re apart by 10 million of retroactive and
27 –
28
29 RICHARD BRODSKY: You sure you want to reveal the
30 situation?
1
2 RICHARD BRODSKY: I’m a lawyer, but I’m not trying to be
3 your lawyer. Nevertheless, I want to raise the question of
4 whether or not there may be a mediation privilege that
5 applies just if you want to drive through that, that’s fine
6 with me.
7
8 KEVIN JONES: What I’m talking about was already discussed
9 at an open bargaining session. I want to talk about the
10 mediation. What was discussed at open bargaining session in
11 relation to the – part of the negotiation that’s going to
12 end up in the labor contract. There’s already been an open
13 hearing for this.
14
15 That’s where we left with IFF. There’s a separation
16 obviously between us on the numbers. FOP is scheduled for
17 tomorrow. Initially was scheduled for a full blown hearing
18 and it was originally scheduled today for full blown
19 hearing. But FOP called and then requested to do the same
20 sort of mediation dance that IFF did. So tomorrow expect
21 the court hearing to open on the back pay case that FOP to
22 open on the back pay case and introduce their numbers. They
23 will close their case without prejudice to the city and put
24 on its case and then it will move to mediation phase.
25
26 ERIC ZICHELLA: It will move immediately to mediation then,
27 correct?
28
29 KEVIN JONES: It will move immediately to mediation. The
30 idea is that the parties will get together and resolve this
1 because I think everybody realizes that we’re all in the

2 same boat, and shooting holes in the bottom of the boat
3 really doesn’t work out. Any questions?
4
5 ERIC ZICHELLA: IFF is fire, 1907 is general employees?
6
7 KEVIN JONES: Yes sir and you obviously know what FOP is.
8 A 71 has a closed contract –
9
10 KEVIN JONES: Sanitation.
11
12 ERIC ZICHELLA: They reached an agreement last year. And
13 1907, have they taken a position on their back pay or
14 pension damages?
15
16 KEVIN JONES: Of course they have.
17
18 ERIC ZICHELLA: And they’re similar to the fire fighters I
19 would assume in terms of scope?
20
21 KEVIN JONES: 1907 attempted to arbitrate this financial
22 urgency thing. They did not follow UOP seven years ago or
23 when it would have been time. So attempting to sort of jump
24 in the title with everybody else, they attempted to go to
25 arbitration over the changes we made in 2010. We refused to
26 go to arbitration. Obviously anybody that practices
27 employment law knows that six months if you don’t follow –
28 you’ll be in six months you’re out of gas; so they followed
29 seven years later. They didn’t want to go to PERC because
30 that was bad news for them, so they followed deck action in
1 circuit court. We moved to dismiss the deck action. The

2 deck action asked the court to order arbitration. We moved
3 to dismiss it for every reason that makes sense. To change
4 it 10 years ago, it’s not the contract that’s at issue.
5
6 They refused to move it, that issue – they don’t want
7 to move that issue because they know its _____ [00:11:00],
8 I assume that they’re trying to work –
9
10 ERIC ZICHELLA: They’re trying to negotiate with you for the
11 next contract to get some similar benefits. What’s the
12 city’s position on that? Are we open to that?
13
14 KEVIN JONES: That would be a policy decision made by the
15 elected officials, but as far as the city attorney’s office
16 is concerned they have no case and there’s no reason to
17 consider the changes in 2010 in relation to their _____
18 [00:11:23] where they’re not a decision beyond us is made
19 to do that. That’s certainly not in our purview.
20
21 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay. Does anyone have any questions from
22 the committee? Anything else you want to hear about related
23 to that?
24
25 ELI FEINBERG: No.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: Mike, one question for you. It seems to me
28 and I’ll make a statement and a comment and a question at
29 the same time. It seems to me that if we reach a deal with
30 IFF that you feel like has some assemblance of equity and
1 fairness for the city that the employees are going to get
2 some sort of additional benefit associated with their
3 salaries, for which they took on the hit just like the city
4 did way back when? There should be some flexibility in
5 terms of negotiation with the 1907 union, with the AFSCME
6 union to try to treat the employees the right way, if it’s
7 possible for the city to do that without you know obviously
8 harming our financial position as a city. But it just seems
9 to be – and that’s just my position. It’s not the position
10 of this committee yet unless anybody wanted to take that
11 position. But I’m not sure from a standpoint of
12 updates what actual role we have until after you guys have
13 reached an agreement. Do we have any?
14
15 KEVIN JONES: Is that a question to me or –
16
17 ERIC ZICHELLA: It’s a legal question. It’s also a question
18 of for the committee whether you want to attempt to take
19 any position prior to the time an agreement is reached. I
20 think once these things are baked and once they’re cooked
21 you know we really can’t do anything about it. We’re not
22 going back to change it, unless we were to take a position
23 now and say we feel as a Finance Committee this should be
24 your negotiating position or one of your negotiating
25 positions, or recommend that to the city commission. I
26 don’t think we have much to say about it other than to
27 approve it when it comes in, essentially ratify it.
28
10
1 KEVIN JONES: Do you want me to answer the part of your

2 question dealt with 1907; do you want me to answer that
3 part?
4
5 ERIC ZICHELLA: That was more of a statement. And you guys
6 can take it under advisement I you think that’s
7 appropriate. Not my position to tell you what to do. But on
8 the second part of the question I’m interested in that and
9 I’m interested in that also as it relates to the FOP. Can
10 we provide guidance or suggestions on things that should be
11 included or not included?
12
13 KEVIN JONES: It’s a great question. It’s obviously a
14 legal matter being handled, like I said by outside counsel.
15 So to the extent that it requires legal decisions and
16 ultimate decision and the ultimate decision make obviously
17 a commission to the extent that I mean it’s going to be
18 difficult in my mind to offer advice. I’m not telling you
19 everything about the case. It will be difficult for you to
20 offer advice in the blind.
21
22 As far as resolving these issues with FOP, IFF and
23 AFSCME, the pot is only so big. There’s some critical parts
24 of this situation that I can’t talk about right now.
25
26 ERIC ZICHELLA: Sure.
27
28 KEVIN JONES: But I will say that we’re doing the best
29 that we can with what we have, as far as the numbers that’s
11
1 Mr. Rose as well. That’s sort of as far as I can go on

2 that.
3
4 ERIC ZICHELLA: Yes.
5
6 RICHARD BRODSKY: Richard Brodsky. I’m going to second
7 what counsel just said, speaking just for myself I know on
8 a scale of one to 100, on the basis of just listening and
9 understanding that the number 100 is greater than the
10 number one, etc. And the fact that labor unions are asking
11 for money, negotiating with, other than that I feel
12 uniquely unqualified to express an opinion if we had
13 substantial amount of time I might form an opinion. But
14 that’s just speaking for me.
15
16 ERIC ZICHELLA: Fair enough, I wanted to make sure that we
17 had the discussion about that because these things tend to
18 – once they get cooked we really (inaudible) about them.
19
20 ELI FEINBERG: I did invite the leadership both FOP and
21 fire and asked them to attend our meetings to either –
22 offer a statement or bring up a point. And it was usually
23 poorly attended. And at one point I even reached out to the
24 local president when we had a problem with the city’s
25 AFSCME president to try to intervene and become a little
26 bit more reasonable in his negotiation skills. That didn’t
27 fly very well but at least he – the local president took a
28 role in trying to mediate. So I think that getting these
29 reports are good for us. I agree with you that we can’t
12
1 really make the policy or help negotiate the city or

2 whatever. But I do appreciate getting these updates.
3
4 ERIC ZICHELLA: Thank you. If you would like us to write to
5 the heads of the unions and invite them again, we’re happy
6 to do that. I don’t know that that will make any difference
7 or change the equation in your other discussions.
8
9 KEVIN JONES: You believe writing to the heads of the
10 union might assist in resolving the cases, is that – or you
11 just want to make your position known?
12
13 ERIC ZICHELLA: I think we could as an organization give
14 them an opportunity to be heard, just like you’re being
15 heard. And to understand both sides and see if there’s
16 anything we can do to help resolve it. In our connection to
17 various city commissioners that have pointed us and
18 whatnot.
19
20 KEVIN JONES: I don’t know your bylaws, I don’t see why
21 you couldn’t do that. Invite somebody here to make a
22 statement. I can tell you this is – Kevin Jones by the way;
23 this is 100% a numbers game. There’s no emotions or
24 feelings. Nobody is looking at anything other than how much
25 money we might get.
26
27 ELI FEINBERG: Would you like to invite them again Mr.
28 Feinberg?
29
30 ELI FEINBERG: Absolutely.
13
1
2 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay unless there’s an objection to that,
3 I’ll send each of the heads of the unions a letter inviting
4 them to appear before this committee. It’s a meeting in the
5 future, whether it be July or September. I don’t think we
6 meet in August.
7
8 ELI FEINBERG: Or even just a welcome. The public is always
9 welcome.
10
11 ERIC ZICHELLA: Richara, could you provide me with the
12 contact information for each of those? And I’ll send them a
13 very innocuous letter inviting them to appear if that’s
14 okay with the committee.
15
16 All right, on the FOP matter. Eric Zichella, there has
17 been several issues that have come up in the past several
18 months about employee discipline as it relates to officers
19 of the law, deputies. And that there were statements made
20 by the mayor, probably that there were certain limitations
21 in the collective bargaining agreements that may have
22 prevented the city from taking certain disciplinary action
23 unilaterally that it would have liked to have taken. While
24 I fully recognize that these are conversations entirely
25 about the numbers, there’s also policies embedded within
26 those collective bargaining agreements like that, that can
27 significantly limit the city. It seems to me that this is
28 an opportunity because the collective bargaining agreement
29 is up for discussion, and because there’s such a
30 significant amount of leverage on the side of the city when
14
1 it comes to negotiating these – whether you want to call

2 them back methods or additional future benefits or whatever
3 to get some flexibility on some of those policy positions
4 that exist within the collective bargaining agreements.
5
6 I would respectfully suggest to the committee I think
7 that’s something that we should impress upon the staff that
8 they should be attempting to negotiate that it’s not
9 entirely just about the money. You’re welcome to respond if
10 you like.
11
12 KEVIN JONES: Kevin Jones, City Attorney’s Office, I
13 totally agree with you as far as the negotiation of the
14 collective bargaining agreement. I have a lot to say about
15 that but not in the public setting. If you’d like to call
16 me, we can talk about it.
17
18 ERIC ZICHELLA: I just wanted to put it on the record.
19
20 KEVIN JONES: And as far as the discipline, once you know
21 – the CBA they have the right to grieve whatever discipline
22 they get up to and including termination. So despite what
23 you’ve seen clearly happening on television or whatever
24 else, that person is terminating has a right to go to
25 arbitration or a right to go to civil service, due process
26 right. The arbitration is inherently difficult- it’s almost
27 impossible. I have very strong feelings about those topics
28 but again probably not (inaudible).
29
15
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Just to be clear and just to put it on the

2 record since I have no policy position whatsoever and I
3 have no decision making authority on it and I’m a mere lay
4 person appointed to the board, I’d just like to say that it
5 seems to me that if there’s a situation where there’s clear
6 video evidence that the city is in possession of, that the
7 notion that someone is suspended with pay for extended
8 periods of time seems to me to be an egregious miscarriage
9 of the way things ought to work of the system. And you know
10 I’d have no problem if they were suspended without pay and
11 then eligible to receive back pay if they’re victorious.
12 But to me it seems that in situations where there’s clear
13 video evidence of some wrong doing by an officer to allow
14 them to be suspended with pay, essentially be on vacation –
15 paid vacation for some extended period of time is not a
16 good policy for the city to have. And if there’s an
17 opportunity to correct that in the collective bargaining
18 agreement, we should probably try to do that.
19
20 KEVIN JONES: I welcome whatever you all would like to do
21 individually or collectively to make some changes in that
22 regard. And I also point you to, if you have some time to
23 do some light reading it’s in the Miami Herald, look up
24 Adrian Rodriguez in the Miami Herald, just type his name
25 in. You’ll see the difficulties that we’re talking about.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: Very familiar with the issues that come up
28 and the difficulty that the city has. Okay. So with that
29 being said, I think we can close section 5A and B unless
30 there’s anything to be added. Okay I know you said you had
16
1 something to do. If you want to take off, you’re welcome to

2 go.
3
4 KEVIN JONES: Thank you.
5
6 ERIC ZICHELLA: Thank you very much. Let’s go ahead and hear
7 2A right now, labor and negotiations update.
8
9 CHRIS ROSE: Chris Rose, Budget Director, thank you Mr.
10 Chair. It is much the same update, they go together. We
11 have had more movement in the last month than we have over
12 the last several months in meeting with the various labor
13 groups. We have had four mediations with IFF and one
14 negotiation, maybe two, at least one with IFF. We have had
15 one negotiation with FOP and we have had one with AFSCME
16 general. So it’s been a lot of leaving and movement and
17 talking. So, as the city attorney said, we are still a bit
18 apart in answer to Mr. Feinberg’s question. The urgency and
19 the negotiations are all somewhat wrapped together, some of
20 it in the public and some of it outside of the public; so
21 we are actively trying to reach resolution. I think we
22 would all like to mediate to a settlement that is
23 beneficial to all. I’m going to Richara if you would do me
24 a favor. Print some things on the printer over here – all
25 of it kind of hemmed in by the property tax numbers that
26 just came out for the city of Miami. So if it printed I’m
27 going to hand out the memorandum that went out from the
28 city manager a couple weeks ago.
29
30 ERIC ZICHELLA: Is this the one you emailed to us as well?
17
1
2 CHRIS ROSE: Yes sir, you got it and you get the monthly
3 reports as well; so I don’t believe the one that I emailed
4 to you from the manager was included in the package. That’s
5 why I wanted to make sure it gets out. But – so when the
6 city attorney says that there is an amount of money. That
7 is true, there is not unlimited funds. But we are, I can
8 say with clarity both sides, all sides are working towards
9 a resolution. I think that is a goal of everybody at this
10 point. But I will say we’re not in balance in next years
11 budget as we prepare and the proposed budget will be
12 released, right now the date is July 6. So there’s not much
13 time between now and then; so we are working with
14 departments to see if we can trim some fat, or perhaps more
15 than fat. And we are working on these resolutions all at
16 the same time and I will tell you with equal clarity,
17 nobody really wants my job right now. So we’re doing things
18 on multiple fronts right now. But there are two open
19 contracts. IFF open for two years, third starting this
20 October. AFSCME General has been open for a year, but the
21 second year starting this October and FOP will be open for
22 this first year this October. So there is a lot going on
23 right now.
24
25 ELI FEINBERG: Have you been briefing the mayor on your
26 proposed budget?
27
28 CHRIS ROSE: Yes, and –
29
30 [Phone ringing]
18
1
2 ELI FEINBERG: Him directly and chief of staff, both.
3
4 ELI FEINBERG: All right.
5
6 CHRIS ROSE: And all elected officials in person and the
7 chiefs of staff, some of the policy advisors as well.
8
9 ELI FEINBERG: No surprises.
10
11 CHRIS ROSE: There are not. And the monthly report that
12 you’ll see on page 34 of your package, that we can talk
13 about in a minute and this memorandum –
14
15 CHRIS ROSE: Okay, anyone it was a one page that had a
16 second page that was from the property appraiser. But I’ll
17 hold on that until we get to (inaudible)
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: Fair enough. Moving on to second order of
20 old business. In our April meeting there was a letter
21 presented to the finance committee from Fausto Alvarez
22 which he sent to I believe the mayor and members of the
23 city commission and the city manager.
24
25 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: Yes.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: Which he would like to discuss. I believe
28 he’s not received a response to.
29
19
1 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: I have not received any answer from the

2 city manager or the mayor office.
3
4 ELI FEINBERG: Any commissioners?
5
6 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: No.
7
8 XAVIER ALBAN: Is this a letter in regards to the MESA
9 audit?
10
11 ERIC ZICHELLA: That’s correct.
12
13 XAVIER ALBAN: An audit – usually those things are private,
14 even in public records there are special exemptions to the
15 information, supporting documentation until the audits are
16 released. There may be a reason why they haven’t responded,
17 it’s an ongoing kind of audit that’s going on of MESA.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: I have a question for you with regard to
20 that having dome some research into the matter since our
21 April meeting and I wasn’t at the May meeting so I wasn’t
22 able to bring this up. Are there any bonds that have been
23 floated by MESA that the city is guaranteeing or on the
24 hook for or anything like that?
25
26 XAVIER ALBAN: That I am aware of? No. I don’t believe
27 there are. Finance and Budget –
28
29 ELI FEINBERG: We don’t have the budget for that.
30
20
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: MESA is an independent agency though, right?

2 And it’s got it’s own source of revenue, correct? But it
3 takes some contractual obligations, correct?
4
5 ELI FEINBERG: Yeah.
6
7 ERIC ZICHELLA: So are there any contractual obligations
8 outside of bonds that MESA is obligated to that the city
9 would ultimately be responsible for?
10
11 [Phone ringing]
12
13 XAVIER ALBAN: I’m not aware of MESA that would be out –
14 reach out to the attorney that signs that, the other
15 individual assigned to it. But I can get you that answer if
16 you’d like that, what the contractual obligations are for
17 MESA.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: Sure, that would be helpful. I mean I just
20 think if the issue is going to be aired, that we should
21 have a frank discussion from the Finance Committee’s
22 perspective on what are the issues that can potentially
23 impact the city’s budget over the long term or that could
24 have perhaps if they were to pop up at an inopportune time
25 a negative impact on the city’s bond ratings in other areas
26 or anything to do with that.
27
28 CHRIS ROSE: I can say with clarity, there are no bonds
29 out there that MESA has that the city would have to pick
30 up. There are at least two contracts that I know of that
21
1 MESA has that could, and I – we’d want to get further

2 clarify from the city attorney’s office at another meeting
3 but that could potentially fall to the city if something
4 were to happen.
5
6 ELI FEINBERG: It’s the heliport and the sea plane.
7
8 ERIC ZICHELLA: Those aren’t obligations to the city, right?
9 There’s obligations from the entities that are contracted
10 with MESA, right. To pay the city –
11
12 CHRIS ROSE: Contracts have obligations on both sides.
13 There would be –
14
15 ERIC ZICHELLA: It’s lease though, correct? Both of them are
16 leases.
17
18 CHRIS ROSE: A lease or some –
19
20 ERIC ZICHELLA: Operating contracts.
21
22 CHRIS ROSE: Yes, I think they’re operating contracts
23 actually but similar –
24
25 ERIC ZICHELLA: All right, obviously you know if there’s
26 more to this that can impact the city’s budget or city’s
27 financial standing then it’s relevant to adhere certainly.
28 And to the extent that there’s been anyone inside whether
29 that be the city attorney’s office or any other office in
30 the city that acted improperly or did something it’s better
22
1 to make those things public sooner and hear it and discuss

2 it. Then it is to let it kind of just sit and lie there,
3 okay? So I just want to be on the record on that.
4
5 All right, moving on to the budget year to date
6 reports. I think you’ve done a portion of that already in
7 your discussion of the labor negotiations update, but if
8 you want to expand on it you’re welcome to.
9
10 CHRIS ROSE: You’ve got three copies in your package, the
11 March 22, April 24 and May 24 memorandum. The May 24 of
12 course being most recent. On page 34 is the most up to
13 date. We’ll have another one out probably early next week,
14 which would be the June version of it. But the May 24 one
15 on page 34 we are projecting a – I want to be very careful
16 how I say it, budget surplus of 25.4 million, which is a
17 surplus of 31.7 in the general fund and 6.3 million dollars
18 of deficit in the internal service fund. The health
19 insurance claims and the workers compensation claims are
20 jumping a lot on us right now and it is very concerning. So
21 we are working with Risk Management to see what we can do
22 about that and thus far the bottom line is there is not
23 much we can do about that at least in the short term, that
24 we can do in the long term. But there are a few
25 catastrophic cases that are driving the numbers up. It’s
26 not an across the board; it’s a couple of large cases
27 driving these up and down.
28
29 So all that said I want to be further careful to say
30 that does not mean that the city’s fund balance will rise
23
1 by 25.4 million dollars because we are using 24.5 million

2 dollars of prior year fund balance, so if this holds true
3 and it never does, it moves throughout the month. We would
4 increase the city’s general fund, fund balance by $900,000.
5 So it is the mix of all kinds of things that we are
6 weighing as we put next year together.
7
8 ELI FEINBERG: I had a conversation with Ann Marie and
9 discussions with CIGNA, health benefits manager and she was
10 talking to them on a daily/weekly basis to keep the costs
11 down, to keep the expenses down. And one big issue that she
12 has too, pharmaceutical costs and hospital costs are just
13 outrageous. And I want to put a figure at Baptist Hospital
14 and all their affiliate hospitals. Their room rates are
15 just off the wall and they are not negotiable.
16
17 CHRIS ROSE: And further say, Chris Rose, next year does
18 not likely see a great deal of relief, if any for all the
19 same reasons Mr. Feinberg just said, plus the state has
20 passed a law stating that all first responders are eligible
21 for post-traumatic stress disorder, which is going to drive
22 our insurance costs up as well. It may not drive it up in
23 the first year, but it is in fact, Ms. Sharpe is running
24 the numbers as we speak with her actuarial to see if or
25 when it will impact us and to what degree. It is something
26 that is hitting public and private alike. But at this point
27 it may be hitting us a little harder at a time when
28 revenues are growing at a slower pace. It’s one of the many
29 things we are reviewing as we go forward.
30
24
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay further questions? Okay just one final

2 question for you Mr. Rose is there is a category for funds
3 that can be used for anything and funds that are dedicated
4 to specific purposes and the specific term you use in the
5 budget is escaping me right this moment. Restricted and
6 unrestricted, okay.
7
8 CHRIS ROSE: Also the general fund and special revenue
9 funds.
10
11 ERIC ZICHELLA: Yeah but those are different than what I’m
12 referring to in the previous budget and when we’ve talked
13 about our reserves in the past. The restricted portion of
14 the reserves made up an outsized portion – and oversized
15 portion of the reserves that exist in the city today. And
16 the unrestricted is below the 10% threshold that we shoot
17 for, correct?
18
19 CHRIS ROSE: It will likely be that way, yes sir.
20
21 ERIC ZICHELLA: Is there anything that can be done from a
22 budget standpoint to increase the side of nerves in the
23 unrestricted fund to bring in compliance with the financial
24 integrity principles? Actual compliance not spirit of the –
25
26 CHRIS ROSE: I will add you to the long list of folks
27 that have asked me that same question and have asked is
28 there a way that we can use some of the restricted funds
29 for unrestricted uses and to that I will remain resolute
30 that if it is restricted, it is restricted. We have taken
25
1 three or more passes at trying to find a way to unrestrict

2 it or to use it for expanded use. There is a reason to
3 restrict it. So, we are looking at that. It is almost
4 exclusively the Building Department and the permanent
5 inspection revenues that are driving this right now. And I
6 will answer that we will do everything we can to do what
7 you’re talking about. We may not be able to in the short
8 term, but we will get there in the long term.
9
10 ERIC ZICHELLA: It seems to me that if there are a large
11 number of – if there is a large amount of revenue from the
12 building departments fees and otherwise that are restricted
13 funds that accounts for the reason that the restricted
14 funds are higher than the unrestricted funds doesn’t change
15 the fact that we are spending more than we should be in the
16 unrestricted funds. And more of them should be going into
17 the reserves in order to put it away for a rainy day. I
18 hope that the property appraisers report from this year is
19 not an indicator that this trend will continue in future
20 years. But if it does, that’s the reason that the reserves
21 are there to begin with. And it would be a shame if the
22 city had gone through a period of eight to nine very good
23 financial years, and it does not have the appropriate
24 levels of funds put away in the unrestricted funds to allow
25 for the reserves to be in the appropriate place. So from a
26 budget standpoint and this is one of those areas that I
27 feel very strongly about on the committee. If there’s
28 something that’s being done from a budget standpoint year
29 in and year out that’s causing us to not be able to reach
30 the 10% threshold in the financial integrity principles,
26
1 we’ve got to focus in on what that is, what specifically it

2 is. What spending is occurring, that is not allowing us to
3 get to that point. And we’ve got to make it clear in
4 communication to the city commission that if they continue
5 to spend that way then they won’t achieve the financial
6 integrity principles that they want.
7
8 They can make the policy decision on whether they want
9 to do it or not, but we need to from a standpoint of our
10 duty, fiduciary duty and this committee advise them that is
11 the case. It’s my position on it. I don’t know if the
12 committee has any other positions on it or any other
13 comments.
14
15 RICHARD BRODSKY: I second your comment and would be
16 willing to make a motion if it’s along the lines – let me
17 not make the motion but just make the statement that if
18 there is a – let me back up. I read the budget report and
19 I’m not quite sure what to make of it. I hear about
20 radically rising costs that are out of our control, largely
21 out of our control including additional costs that the
22 legislature in its wisdom has placed on the municipalities.
23
24 And I see a static year in terms of additional revenue
25 over expenditure. The general fund of $900,000; I see that
26 as being static from year to year. It’s nothing to sneeze
27 at. I’d be happy to take the $900,000 in my own pocket, but
28 for the city it’s almost a statistical abnormality – it’s
29 almost a change in the back of your couch. So I wonder
30 whether or not we should be sounding an alarm or a warning
27
1 or something like it to the commissioners in reference to

2 the budget situation generally. It’s not something that I’m
3 aware of in the six odd years that I’ve been on this
4 committee. My guess is that there’s a varied amount of
5 interest among the five commissioners in the budget. And
6 that some of them watch it like a hawk and some of them
7 regard it as something that was there, but they really
8 don’t want to know too much about it at all.
9
10 So if we feel that it would be helpful to governance
11 in the city to make a non-emotional statistical fact
12 oriented statement with the addition of some kind of
13 normative judgement saying if it’s true this is good or
14 this is not good and this is not good or this is risky and
15 here’s the reason. I think it would be a worthwhile
16 expenditure of our time and effort and commendatory for the
17 citizens.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: What I would like to do then Mr. Rose if we
20 could, when we see the budget here I would like to have a
21 breakout memo if we could that lists all the expenditures
22 in the budget that come from unrestricted funds. And I
23 think that we can provide that memorandum to the commission
24 and say to them, look here’s the amount that the reserves
25 should be at in order to be compliance with your financial
26 integrity principles. It’s your decision whether you want
27 to pass a budget that continues to place you in that
28 position or not. But here are all the items that you’re
29 spending on – in this budget that come from unrestricted
30 funds. To the extent that you wanted to divert any of these
28
1 into reserves, you could and just leave it at that. It’s

2 their decision to make, but I believe it’s our
3 responsibility to advise them of this because I think when
4 they’re told that they’re in compliance with the financial
5 integrity principles, they don’t realize that they still
6 have a set of handcuffs on even within those financial
7 integrity principles.
8
9 ELI FEINBERG: I’d feel a little bit more comfortable if we
10 ran this by the CFO and the manager as to what he would
11 like to do, just to make sure there’s no conflict within
12 their conversations with the mayor and commissioners.
13
14 ERIC ZICHELLA: Fair enough.
15
16 RICHARD BRODSKY: A second point, I agree that the
17 distinction or the differences between restrictive and
18 unrestrictive are important. But my comment is it was meant
19 to be more broad than just that subject. Sitting here it
20 occurs to me the entirety of the meeting today we’ve heard
21 a good deal of bad news or red flags or storm warnings or
22 clouds or whatever you want to call it. We haven’t heard a
23 great deal of (inaudible) saying what great situations
24 we’re contemplating. Quite to the contrary, not disastrous
25 but negative. So it occurs to me that we may want to
26 consider on a regular basis, kind of a long term. Giving
27 the commission the benefit of our views concerning budget
28 trends during the year. That’s more a long term thought
29 than it is necessarily focused on today’s situation, more
30 than half way through the year. By the time we do it, it
29
1 might be too late, but I think it’s something for us to

2 think about institutionally. I will probably – if I am
3 still on the committee six months or four months through
4 the next fiscal year I’ll probably forget this but if
5 somebody is and remembers it, we should in my opinion think
6 about that. Because if we are a watchdog of sorts or at
7 least a nag, then we ought to exercise our power to nag and
8 embark if it’s appropriate.
9
10 ERIC ZICHELLA: To your point, I think it’s a good point.
11 That’s sort of the report I’ve been asking for Mr. Rose.
12 He’s indicated to us in an email that he would have ready
13 for us in July along with the budget, which is sort of a
14 look ahead in terms of when certain debts may become
15 liabilities to the city. I think we should continue to
16 update that. And as long as I’m on the committee we will –
17 I will try to advocate that we continue to do that. With
18 that being said can I have a motion to accept the monthly
19 budget reports one, two and three?
20 ELI FEINBERG: Second.
21
22 ERIC ZICHELLA: Accepted without objection.
23
24 CHRIS ROSE: I just want to comment on that report. As
25 the present day things are changing on the rather quickly
26 right now, it makes the long term a little difficult. So
27 you will still get it. It just loses a bit of meaning as
28 the present day shifts. So I’m actively working on it.
29
30
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: I get it, but I think actually the meaning

2 of it becomes more important and that was the reason that I
3 asked for it a year ago, was that I said a year ago I think
4 that I saw – I don’t have a crystal ball but I anticipated
5 that certain financial storms were brewing and we need to
6 just be cognizant and aware of that in order to be prepared
7 for it. You know hindsight is always 20/20 but unless you
8 give someone the information prior to the time you take a
9 vote and actually spending some amount of money, they may
10 not have taken that vote if they knew that something was
11 coming up in the future. So, that’s our obligation to the
12 commissioners and I think we should abide by it.
13
14 ELI FEINBERG: Per my request that you run this by the CFO
15 and the city manager, if you’re able to do that by our next
16 meeting and there’s no conflict, no change in game plan I
17 would move to send that letter out.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: I think we’ve got to kind of see what we’re
20 looking at and then figure it out. With that being said I’m
21 going to put items B and C on hold for just a quick moment
22 and allow Chris to – if you have any other update on the
23 report on future debt issuance and city’s financial
24 obligations; otherwise I will consider that item finished
25 and we will take it up again in July. So we’ll add that
26 item number 3D to the July agenda. PFM monthly reports in
27 total investment outstanding report.
28
29 ERICA PASCHAL: I have both reports produced status quo from
30 April; everything is still in compliance as it relates to
31
1 our personal, our city of Miami investments. Our

2 unrealized increased a little bit to $831,000. But
3 everything is in compliance. Do you have any questions? I
4 know there was a question regarding supranationals?
5
6 RICHARD BRODSKY: I assume that’s next.
7
8 ERIC ZICHELLA: That would be future item. I just have one
9 question, at what point with rises in interest rates does
10 the city anticipate that any of these callable bonds will
11 actually be called and we could actually have a real
12 financial liability?
13
14 ERICA PASCHAL: We review everything. We have a call today
15 actually, a monthly market update with the – with PFM this
16 afternoon. So I can definitely defer that question to them
17 at that time.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay, yeah that would be helpful to know
20 obviously for future plans. Mr. Brodsky?
21
22 RICHARD BRODSKY: I lost track, who prepares the total
23 investments outstanding?
24
25 ERICA PASCHAL: That is our finance and debt supervisor.
26
27 RICHARD BRODSKY: Make a couple points about this. One
28 there is a column for call days. And I apologize for not
29 remembering, but I believe the agencies are called, am I
30 correct on that? I would ask you to talk to the preparer of
32
1 this and if there is a call date for any of the securities,

2 I know some of them aren’t but some of them are, the call
3 date ought to be filled in, that’s number one. Number two
4 we had asked that –
5
6 ERICA PASCHAL: There are some –
7
8 RICHARD BRODSKY: Some are –
9
10 [Cross talking]
11
12 RICHARD BRODSKY: Several years ago we added an issue
13 with the (inaudible) maturities and they were all raised
14 and produced on other agencies. We would like – I would
15 like to know, I think we should have the call date filled
16 in. Secondly if you wouldn’t mind looking into that and
17 seeing if that can be done. The call date doesn’t have to
18 be filled in. There is a – on the previous page 57 there is
19 a listing of the weighted average and durations for each of
20 the categories of securities. It would be – this is a
21 pretty minute point, on the previous page in recent prior
22 editions of the total investments outstanding after each
23 category of security, the weighted average maturity somehow
24 disappeared. I’d appreciate if that got put back in. I’m
25 not saying it’s not available but, this is extremely
26 important. Thank you.
27
28
29
33
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay moving on. I’m going to take up item

2 number 4B next because a vote is required on the item. This
3 is the 2018 series treats and sidewalk refunding. And if
4 someone from staff wants to introduce the item. Just
5 announce your name; you can come down here next to Erica if
6 you’re not shy.
7
8 ERICA PASCHAL: Pete Varona from PFM, our financial advisor
9 side. He has a brief summary that he prepared.
10
11 ERIC ZICHELLA: Starts on page 69 of 87 of your package I
12 believe.
13
14 ERICA PASCHAL: Yes.
15
16 ERIC ZICHELLA: Page 69 of your package.
17
18 ERICA PASCHAL: For the record we have had this discussion
19 previously.
20
21 ERIC ZICHELLA: We did hear this item and I thought we had
22 voted to approve that transaction, but for some reason it
23 never occurred, is that accurate?
24
25 ERICA PASCHAL: That is an accurate statement.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: It got pulled by a member of the commission
28 or by a member of the – by the administration?
29
34
1 ERICA PASCHAL: I want to go with administration. Priorities

2 changed and they never followed through.
3
4 ERIC ZICHELLA: I’m sure there was something related to
5 other needs that folks wanted to discuss that we’re
6 pressing for other bond issues that were invalid and
7 whatnot. Okay do you want to go ahead and introduce the
8 item just briefly. We’ve already heard it once before, tell
9 us primarily what has changed between the last time we’ve
10 heard it and today?
11
12 PETE VARONA: Sure, so Pete Varona with PFM. As you guys
13 mentioned this has been heard before, so my review is going
14 to be a little – kind of just a summary. What we’re doing
15 right now is we’re refunding the 2007 and the 2009 street
16 sidewalk bonds. Those are both being done for present value
17 savings. If you see the table at the bottom of the one
18 pager, you can see on the ’07 we are expecting savings of
19 about 6.8 million or 10.7% as a percent of other refunded
20 bonds. And on the ’09 bonds we are expecting savings of 3.6
21 million or 6.3% funded bonds. What has changed between now
22 and when we last produced this item? We – the ’07 is now
23 currently callable as opposed to being advanced refunding
24 and the 2009 is still in advanced refunding. With the tax
25 law change that in order to do that advanced refunding for
26 the ’09 now the new bonds that are refunding the ’09 need
27 to be taxable, which we’re doing that as a taxable deal and
28 we’re still showing the savings of 6.38%. So we are
29 intending to move forward with that structure.
30
35
1 Just a brief recap on the calendar. We’re expecting to

2 go to city commission from June 28. The pricing will take
3 place in mid to late July. We have targeted June – July 24
4 and the closing will take place in mid-August. Just a brief
5 reminder on who the underwriting syndicate has – was
6 elected. We have Stifel as the senior managing underwriter
7 with Estrada and PNC as the coo-managers.
8
9 ERIC ZICHELLA: Can I ask you a question? Anyone else have
10 any other questions or were you finished?
11
12 PETE VARONA That’s about it.
13
14 ERIC ZICHELLA: Anyone else have questions? This is not
15 going to be a private placement offering?
16
17 PETE VARONA: It will be. It’s not going to be private
18 placement. It’s going to be the limited offering that the
19 city has done in the past when doing a public offering.
20
21 ERIC ZICHELLA: So you’re not going to go to the full market
22 for this then?
23
24 PETE VARONA: This is going to go to the public markets
25 but with the limited offerings.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: Sophisticated investors only as we’ve
28 discussed previously.
29
30 PETE VARONA: Correct.
36
1
2 ELI FEINBERG: So this is a rule 506?
3
4 ERIC ZICHELLA: When are the 2009 bonds callable?
5
6 PETE VARONA: They’re callable January 1, 2019.
7
8 ERIC ZICHELLA: Why are we doing it now as opposed to doing
9 non-taxable refunding in January 1 of 2019?
10
11 PETE VARONA: There was an issue with proceeds on the ’09
12 deal, which these proceeds have been sitting for a long
13 time and they – I’m not sure if Chris if you had any idea,
14 but –
15
16 ERIC ZICHELLA: So there’s some negative arbitrage
17 associated with the money or what?
18
19 PETE VARONA: I don’t know if there’s a spend down for
20 those proceeds, so I think the plan is in order to do
21 taxable refunding. If we put those proceeds into the escrow
22 for the ’09 refunding and then issue a like amount as a
23 taxable issuance, which is the 18C, that refreshes the
24 proceeds and it removes any restrictions on the taxable
25 proceeds.
26
27 ERIC ZICHELLA: I’m going to ask you another few questions
28 that I should know the answer to, but I don’t. The 2009
29 bonds are not taxable, correct?
30
37

2
3 ERIC ZICHELLA: No tax exempt?
4
6
7 ERIC ZICHELLA: The penalty in the new tax code is that you
8 cannot refinance bonds until they’re callable and if you do
9 you’ve got to put them in a taxable category, correct? How
10 much more could we save if we waited until January to
11 refund them?
12
13 PETE VARONA: Well there’s two things to consider. One is
14 the fact that if you waited until January there’s a couple
15 interest rate increases expected between now and the end of
16 the year. So it’s hard to say if the interest rate stays
17 the same today as they would in January of 2019. The other
18 thing to consider is that the spread between taxable and
19 taxes issuances right now is fairly small. It’s hard to say
20 what might happen in the future, so to answer – it’s hard
21 for me to answer your question honestly. But what we do
22 know is that we have the savings on a taxable basis today.
23
24 RICHARD BRODSKY: What you mean is with great confidence.
25
26 PETE VARONA: Correct. I can honestly say that I can’t
27 answer your question very well. Just want to make sure.
28
38
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: The – when we looked at this a year ago.

2 Prior to the time when the new tax law had kicked in, what
3 was the projected savings that we had on that transaction?
4
5 PETE VARONA: I don’t have that in front of me. From the
6 top of my head I want to say it was something – it was
7 close to double digits on the ’09 and probably around the
8 same for the ’07.
9
10 ERIC ZICHELLA: And what did that translate into in real
11 money?
12
13 PETE VARONA: For this deal if we’re talking about net
14 present value savings of 3.6 million, 6.38 – on the ’09 it
15 was probably somewhere around five million or so. I
16 wouldn’t say that’s purely just due to the change in taxes.
17
18 ERIC ZICHELLA: If we were to, so interest rates have risen
19 twice in 2018. And you think realistically they could rise
20 more in 2018?
21
22 PETE VARONA: Yeah it’s possible.
23
24 ERIC ZICHELLA: Does anyone on the committee have anything
25 to say about that? Anything that we care about? Okay do I
26 have a motion? Do I have a second?
27
28 RICHARD BRODSKY: Second.
29
39
1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Anyone oppose? Okay approved 5 to 1. All

2 right, discussion of supranationals, item number 4A.
3
4 RICHARD BRODSKY: I’m the one that raised the question. I
5 had a brief discussion at two telephone calls ago
6 concerning the fact that for the first time I noticed that
7 our investment portfolio included something called
8 supranationals, which I did not know the meaning of. I now
9 understand it’s basically World Bank – not the World Bank,
10 but international finance entities that are owned by
11 various government agencies. I was hoping that PFM would be
12 here because I’m kind of surprised they’re not here.
13
14 I have some questions if you feel – they recommended
15 them to the city, correct?
16
17 ERICA PASCHAL: Correct.
18
19 RICHARD BRODSKY: It was not initially our idea to buy
20 super nationals.
21
22 ERICA PASCHAL: They managed –
23
24 RICHARD BRODSKY: Okay I understand. So I would like them
25 to be called in and if it’s not convenient to do it, we can
26 put this meeting – we can put this item off again. I
27 apologize for the fact that I wasn’t here for the last two
28 meetings and I’m the one that raised it. My question
29 basically goes to the fact is a lot of discussion about why
30 the good investments including a rather – not an immaterial
40
1 spread to agencies. If you look at page 64 of 97 you can

2 see depending on the period in question, you can see not an
3 immaterial difference between the yield on agencies and the
4 yield on super nationals. And in terms of the spread. So
5 these aren’t the yields. What these are – the third column
6 is yield, but the other columns are spread to U.S.
7 Treasuries. But there’s not a significant amount of
8 additional yield based – which makes them attractive, with
9 increased yield comes increased risk. There is no mention
10 of what the risks are. I see one risk that is the
11 possibility that as the major shareholder of these entities
12 I’m not certain that there’s not a risk that this kind
13 ofAdministration may want to do something to our financial
14 support to the extent there is any of these agencies. Who
15 knows what’s next?
16
17 Whether or not one is favorable or unfavorable or has
18 a favorable attitude towards present or not, there’s no
19 question that he’s coming up with unusual positions which
20 challenge. So I want to hear something about risk. Whenever
21 I get a better yield on one investment than another, I know
22 I’m paying for that. I want to know what the risk is. And
23 there’s no mention here of a risk.
24
25 ERIC ZICHELLA: I’d like to commend you for bringing this
26 forward Mr. Brodsky, especially in the climate that we’re
27 in. And since I think this item was first brought up you
28 know there’s been an increasingly large number of
29 announcements from Washington, announcing various trade
30 tariffs and other things like that, which while they don’t
41
1 specifically apply to the bonds in question, can cause

2 significant economic risks in those countries, which can
3 lead to them potentially defaulting on their debts or
4 otherwise. And I tend to agree with you that these things
5 can snowball out of control pretty quickly. So I do believe
6 it’s probably a wise thing to do to get our arms around
7 what the risks are associated with it. And you know the
8 confluence of factors you know, budgetary pressures and
9 everything else like that can become an issue. And so I
10 just – I tend to agree with you that I think it’s a wise
11 conversation for us to be having.
12
13 RICHARD BRODSKY: I also would say that – I would say
14 this to PFM, are you trying to get – I think that I am
15 generally very, very supportive of the job that PFM was
16 doing. I think the reports are well written, they’re easy
17 for me to understand. And they take their responsibility
18 seriously. I would say that when they came in with – the
19 first – if I recall correctly it was something like 18
20 million dollars’ worth of supranationals. If it was not 18,
21 it was 16. Again, that’s an appreciable amount and it was
22 the first time, as far as I know that the city has ever
23 invested in that. I think that they should have notified
24 simply to say by the way this new item because I don’t know
25 if anybody else knows this but I read this stuff very
26 carefully. And maybe somebody else did, maybe somebody else
27 didn’t. I read it. I don’t think it takes – it should take
28 some nerd like me to be reading it and inspecting it
29 carefully to have this brought collectively to the
42
1 committees attention. It should have been brought to our

2 attention. Where the line is to be drawn.
3
4 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay I would like to make a motion to defer
5 this item to the next committee meeting; so that we can
6 discuss it in more thorough detail if that’s okay with you.
7 And I commend you for bringing it forward. I think it’s a
8 good conversation for us to have. It’s exactly the kind of
9 thing we should be discussing as part of our charge that
10 nobody really thinks about until something happens.
11
12 RICHARD BRODSKY: Can we invite somebody who was part of
13 the selection process, recommendation process at PFM? In
14 other words somebody who is actually partly responsible for
15 making these investments to come to the meeting?
16
17 ERIC ZICHELLA: By acclimation Richara or Chris or someone
18 or maybe Erica if you’re available to do it, can you just
19 PFM that we’d like to have someone from the investment team
20 here? And they can –
21
22 RICHARD BRODSKY: Is there a financial burden from our
23 point of view if we ask them to come down.
24
25 ERICA PASCHAL: I can certainly ask; he’s here quite often.
26 He comes every other month or so.
27
28
29
30 [Cross talking]
43
1
2 RICHARD BRODSKY: I have to agree with you. I want to
3 first eliminate the possibility that it’s on the city’s
4 back, so we’re talking about $1,200 dollars or so of travel
5 expenses. I’d like to avoid having to make that expense. I
6 personally think sitting eye to eye is a lot better than
7 having them on the telephone.
8
9 ERIC ZICHELLA: Why don’t we go ahead and invite them to
10 come in, in person if we can and then see where that goes
11 and maybe they’ll just say yes, no problem and we’ll deal
12 with it. If there’s a cost associated with it, it probably
13 pales in comparison to the benefit that could come from it.
14 So let’s just leave it at that and go from there if that’s
15 okay. I want to just add a couple quick things. I want to
16 commend Richara on the package you’re putting together. I
17 think it’s very high quality, very well organized. And
18 you’re doing a very good job with it; I appreciate the page
19 numbers on everything going together to make it clear where
20 we are. I also want to commend Erica on the supplemental
21 report to the bond holders on the record. I think it’s
22 great. We haven’t seen one of those in paper since I’ve
23 been on the committee and I really appreciate it. I think
24 it’s very good. Very well done.
25
26 The last thing I wanted to mention is our next meeting
27 date is scheduled for when?
28
29
30 RICHARA BROWN: July 16.
44
1
2 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay, July 16. Is everyone okay with July 16
3 timeframe? That’s perfect for me. I was concerned it was
4 the following week. I just wanted to make sure.
5
6 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: I won’t be here.
7
8 ERIC ZICHELLA: You won’t be here. I know July is a very
9 difficult meeting to get people to the budget comes out on
10 the sixth though and the 16th we’ll hear it 10 days later.
11 We’ll also hear our report, our long term report and we’ll
12 have the discussion on supranationals at the same time. So
13 I just want to make sure that everybody is available.
14 That’s it, that’s all I had. If we could have a motion to
15 adjourn.
16
17 ELI FEINBERG: So moved.
18
19 ERIC ZICHELLA: All right.
20
45

Finance Committee Minutes 6/18/18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finance Committee Minutes 6/18/18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

6 MONDAY, JUNE 18,2018

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: If everyone prior to speaking could just

1 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: I have not received any answers from

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Employment law and litigation related to

1 because I think everybody realizes that we’re all in the

1 circuit court. We moved to dismiss the deck action. The

1 KEVIN JONES: Do you want me to answer the part of your

1 Mr. Rose as well. That’s sort of as far as I can go on

1 really make the policy or help negotiate the city or

1 it comes to negotiating these – whether you want to call

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Just to be clear and just to put it on the

1 something to do. If you want to take off, you’re welcome to

1 FAUSTO ALVAREZ: I have not received any answer from the

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: MESA is an independent agency though, right?

1 MESA has that could, and I – we’d want to get further

1 to make those things public sooner and hear it and discuss

1 by 25.4 million dollars because we are using 24.5 million

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay further questions? Okay just one final

1 three or more passes at trying to find a way to unrestrict

1 we’ve got to focus in on what that is, what specifically it

1 or something like it to the commissioners in reference to

1 into reserves, you could and just leave it at that. It’s

1 might be too late, but I think it’s something for us to

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: I get it, but I think actually the meaning

1 our personal, our city of Miami investments. Our

1 this and if there is a call date for any of the securities,

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Okay moving on. I’m going to take up item

1 ERICA PASCHAL: I want to go with administration. Priorities

1 Just a brief recap on the calendar. We’re expecting to

1 PETE VARONA: Correct.

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: The – when we looked at this a year ago.

1 ERIC ZICHELLA: Anyone oppose? Okay approved 5 to 1. All

1 spread to agencies. If you look at page 64 of 97 you can

1 specifically apply to the bonds in question, can cause

1 committees attention. It should have been brought to our

You might also like