File Number: 181317
|Printable PDF Format Legislative Analysis|
|File Number: 181317||File Type: Mayoral Veto||Status: Vetoed|
|Version: 0||Reference: 18-56||Control: Board of County Commissioners|
|Requester: NONE||Cost:||Final Action: 6/5/2018|
|Sunset Provision: No||Effective Date:||Expiration Date:|
|Registered Lobbyist:||None Listed|
|Acting Body||Date||Agenda Item||Action||Sent To||Due Date||Returned||Pass/Fail|
|Board of County Commissioners||6/5/2018||Veto sustained|
|REPORT:||It was moved by Commissioner Suarez that the ordinance be adopted and become effective notwithstanding the veto of the Mayor. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava and upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 7-5 (Chairman Bovo and Commissioners Sosa, Souto, Martinez and Diaz voted “no”). NOTE: A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT IS REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR'S VETO.|
|Board of County Commissioners||6/5/2018||2A1||Motion to override veto failed||P|
|REPORT:||County Attorney Abigail Price Williams read the foregoing Ordinance into the record. She noted the Mayor’s veto and veto message were properly before the Board and the rules provide that this item shall be the first substantive item that this Board considers. The Mayor’s veto stands unless two-thirds of the Commissioners present vote to override the veto. With regards to his veto, Mayor Gimenez noted the long term consequences of requiring living wage for leases of County property for private use, particularly relating to the potential loss of jobs and revenue greatly outweigh any potential short term gains. He pointed out many contracts were not up for renewal until the year 2024 and the preliminary review by Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) staff showed that this legislation would have a negative fiscal impact on many county projects and job opportunities associated with the projects. Mayor Gimenez explained that even Mom and Pop small businesses would be subject to paying living wages and this could hurt their small businesses; dozens of businesses would be affected and could cause a major impact, loss of jobs and revenue. He listed a number of businesses and projects that would be impacted due to this legislation, noting the potential job loss resulting from this legislation was 2,700 at a cost of $25 million. Mayor Gimenez noted that Miami-Dade County’s ability to collect revenues from future economic development projects may be jeopardized by this legislation; which put the county at a disadvantage with neighboring counties like Broward or Palm Beach. He stated the increase in wages may cause costs to rise and in turn businesses may relocate to more cost effective locations. He further stated this also directly affected Miami-Dade county residents, as higher costs would ultimately be passed down to them. Mayor Gimenez pointed out that his position had not waivered and opined this legislation was bad policy that at first glance may seem like a good idea but ultimately hurt businesses, the economy and the residents of Miami-Dade County. He urged those in favor of this legislation to reconsider their positions as this ordinance would not improve the quality of life for residents in the long term. He noted this was too far reaching and went well beyond the airport, noting he would not have been against it perhaps if it only targeted concessions at the airport. In closing, Mayor Gimenez urged the Board to sustain the veto and urged Commissioner Jordan to reconsider her position and narrow the scope of this legislation. Chairman Bovo opened the floor for discussion. Commissioner Diaz noted the last time this legislation was considered he was hesitant to vote because he had always been extremely supportive of living wages; however the proposed ordinance was far reaching and its implementation and the various levels in which the County could be impacted when competing against other counties could result in a loss of market share. He explained that he would be supportive if this legislation was limited to the airport for now; and once it was determined how successful it could be in other places, living wage for certain hourly employees of certain County lessees could be included in the proposed legislation. Commissioner Diaz urged Commissioner Jordan to reconsider limiting the scope of this ordinance to only the airport. Commissioner Sosa concurred with Commissioner Diaz’ comments, noting the proposed ordinance created economic disparity. She explained that if this type of environment was created employees would not perform at the same level which would be problematic. Commissioner Sosa pointed out living wages for all employees would not create any economic disparity or disruption. She noted she was not in support of this ordinance. Commissioner Suarez noted he respected the Mayor’s position but did not agree with it. He opined that these leases the County granted were executed because of the County’s position at the Airport and Seaport which was coveted by many in the private sector. Commissioner Suarez pointed out this was labelled as a "living wage" but was actually minimum wage that amounted to $30,000 yearly. Commissioner Suarez made a motion to override the Mayor’s veto which was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava. Commissioner Levine Cava noted the living wage only affected a small number of people in Miami-Dade County. She pointed out Miami one was one of the most unaffordable cities due to low salaries and the high cost of living, and it was the Board's obligation and opportunity to make a difference for the residents of Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Martinez noted living wage had been frequently supported; however, it was not known whether it had actually helped. He said when the living wage was set on a County contract, the cost was ultimately passed down to the consumer and that was unfair. Commissioner Martinez pointed out the intent was noble but had unintended consequences that would affect other people. Commissioner Monestime spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. He said competition was a fair practice in a market economy and the County operated on a market economy. He noted leveraging County-owned assets was good for competition and allowed for a stronger footing. Commissioner Monestime commended Commissioner Jordan for proffering this item prospectively; noting the need for employees to be able to pay for increased cost of living, including housing and transportation. Commissioner Heyman noted this issue had been discussed several times, wherein the Board tried to leverage respect for people who were working and to get them to a level where they could sustain themselves on their own efforts instead of subsidized by government payouts. She explained that some may think this is another form of government payout; however, while this addressed a wage and a specific amount, it also provided one alternative for reduced per hour wage if the person got health care. Commissioner Heyman pointed out that this was an important provision because Jackson Health was the catch-all for uninsured persons which fell on all of the tax-payers. Commissioner Heyman noted she was in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Commissioner Moss noted that he understood the Mayor’s position in making sure the economy was not impacted long term; however, in this community the County ventured into unknown territory and passed legislation and became the model for other communities. He said while the outcome was not known, the County could set an example if this moved forward and it would encourage other entities to raise the wages of workers. Commissioner Moss noted he was in support of overriding the mayor’s veto and urged Board members to support Commissioner Suarez’ motion to override the Mayor’s veto. Commissioner Edmonson spoke in support of overriding the Mayor’s veto, noting this ordinance could be the difference between having one versus two jobs and allowing workers to spend time with their families. Chairman Bovo noted that he understood both sides of the issue as he represented a community filled with labor workers and he understood having two jobs. He explained that when government involved itself in private sector issues it did not solve issues. Chairman Bovo pointed out the County should focus on jobs, noting some of these jobs were meant to be entry level jobs and noted competition generated salaries. He opined that ultimately this proposal would cause people to lose jobs. Chairman Bovo noted if no modifications were made to the ordinance he would support the Mayor’s veto. Commissioner Diaz urged Commissioner Jordan to reconsider the ordinance, as this may hurt the possibility of future jobs coming to the community. He reiterated that he would support the ordinance if Commissioner Jordan reconsidered the scope of this ordinance to only the airport. Commissioner Jordan noted initially the Board had 2 options, one was to reconsider and the other was to override; however; a third option was for the mayor to withdraw his veto. She pointed out that Broward County already required a living wage at food outlets inside the Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport. Commissioner Jordan said as local legislators had the authority and responsibility to implement policies to promote business activities and drive broad-based prosperity throughout the communities. She said it was a moral obligation to raise the quality of life for all residents by setting the standard, not being second behind Broward County. Commissioner Jordan said county property belonged to the people of Miami-Dade County and employers on county property should be required to pay a fair wage. She added that when the public sector conducted business on government land the Board was supposed to set regulations and Miami-Dade County needed to do better. With regards to comments about amending the ordinance to only extend living wage to the airport concessions, Commissioner Jordan pointed out that was a scare tactic and noted that she did not want to cripple the system. She questioned why she had not received any requests for meetings about amending her ordinance, and members were only now suggesting amending or modifying this ordinance. County Attorney Price-Williams reiterated that Commissioner Suarez’ motion was to adopt the ordinance which would become effective notwithstanding the Mayor’s veto. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava. Commissioner Diaz asked that an ordinance be prepared requiring this legislation be only extended to the airport. Chairman Bovo suggested Commissioners Jordan and Diaz discuss this issue in a sunshine meeting. Commissioner Jordan asked the County Attorney to prepare an item that would include leases and concessions at the airport. There being no further discussion, the Board proceeded to vote on the motion to override the Mayor's Veto.|
|REPORT:||Mayor Gimenez presented a Veto Message to the Clerk of the Board's Office on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:14 p.m.|
|County Attorney||5/23/2018||Assigned||David M. Murray|
|Board of County Commissioners||5/15/2018||7A AMENDED||Adopted as amended||P|
|REPORT:||County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Assistant County Dave Murray read Commissioner Jordan’s proposed amendment into the record. Commissioner Jordan requested clarification that the legislation did not impact existing leases or the renewal of those leases to which Assistant County Attorney Murray confirmed. Ms. Lilly Buck, Political Director, Union 32BJ Service Employees International Union (SEIU), 1313 NW 36 Street, Miami, applauded Commissioner Jordan’s effort to expand the living wage to County lessees; however, cautioned over unintended but harmful consequences for working families. She noted the proposal covered lessees but not contractors or subcontractors and provided a loophole to avoid paying the living wage. Ms. Buck said workers could receive poverty wages even though they worked on County owned land. She stated the policy language should specifically include the contractors and subcontractors of lessees. Ms. Buck further pointed out that the proposal excluded airlines when performing services for another airline. She said that an airline should not be exempted from their responsibility to pay a living wage for General Aeronautical Services Permittee (GASPer) related services. Ms. Buck indicated the living wage ordinance should apply to all workers operating on County land, not just some groups, noting protected workers would be at constant risk of their jobs being outsourced to other entities. She asked the Board to support this legislation only if it was amended to fix these problems, noting the amendments would protect those individuals working hard to make our airport and airlines run. Commissioner Jordan stated that Ms. Buck’s concerns were included in her proposed amendment. Commissioner Sosa questioned whether the exemption for businesses already operating were exempt from the proposal to which Assistant County Attorney Murray stated they were exempt as long as they were not currently engaged in such activity. Commissioner Sosa stated the County was trying to impose conditions on the private industry, noting a business would be paying different salaries to its employees based upon work location. She added that this would be detrimental to the tourism industry. Commissioner Sosa noted government should not be in the position of making such mandates and ultimately this could impact economic development and tourism. She said the County needed to keep major airlines at Miami International Airport and cruise lines at Port Miami to support our investments at those locations. Commissioner Diaz said that although he supported the living wage ordinance, noting a balance was needed in order to face competition. He said he wanted to be fair and issues needed to be addressed. Commissioner Diaz requested clarification as to how this ordinance would not impede existing contracts and those with the option to renew. He said it would be an unfair practice to tell employers they needed to begin paying more money before the contract was rebid. Commissioner Diaz also requested clarification as to how this legislation would impact the County’s future competitiveness and the economic impact. Commissioner Martinez questioned Assistant County Attorney Murray’ statement that the legislation would not apply to a renewal, to which Assistant County Attorney Murray stated the Item did not direct County staff to hold up a renewal unless the lessee agreed to incorporate such provisions into a lease. He said other conditions incorporated into the existing option to renew becomes a question for the County Mayor to decide, noting the Board could further amend the legislation to direct that it become a condition of renewal. Commissioner Martinez said that leaving the decision open to the Mayor would be treating our customers differently in the future with some paying a living wage and others not, based on the future administrations interpretation. He mentioned that the Board instituted a living wage and decided to use taxpayer money to benefit those people who work or contract to the County at the expense of taxpayers. Commissioner Martinez said it did not seem right to be using taxpayer money to benefit a few and believed we should not tell the private sector what they should pay its employees. He pointed out that government contracts were the exception as it costs more to work with the government and comply with its regulations than it did the private sector. Commissioner Heyman said she too supported previous living wage ordinances, noting they were specific to services under County control. She expressed concern about the legislation being retroactive and the protection of financial restrictions based upon an employee’s disabilities/abilities. Assistant County Attorney Murray responded that Commissioner Heyman was referring to Federal or State programs, noting as an employee’s wages rise, their benefits were commensurately reduced. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern over the ability to employ workers with the County outpricing non-profit organizations and other businesses budgets with additional wage increases. Commissioner Monestime inquired whether the ordinance could be waived to which Assistant County Attorney Murray advised that the Board could create additional exemptions in the future and that the provisions of this legislation would be incorporated into future leases unless the Board directed otherwise. Commissioner Monestime stated that businesses would make money one way or another, noting they would transfer the cost to someone else. He said it was not a loss for the business person but an opportunity for the County to leverage what they were offering to the entity they were contracting with. Commissioner Moss indicated that the Board always supported these initiatives with the best intention to help County residents improve their quality of life. He commented on the requirement to pay Davis-Bacon wages on County land. Commissioner Moss noted concern over competitiveness while at the same time doing the right thing for our residents. Commissioner Suarez indicated that he concurred with Commissioners Monestime and Moss. He said there was no concern over competitiveness at the airport and seaport, noting they could be asked to pay even higher wages. Commissioner Suarez stated these businesses were monopolies, and if not, questioned why government was even involved. He said that expenses could be passed through by all parties and fees could be increased. Commissioner Levine Cava pointed out that the County was preempted by State law from passing a higher minimum wage, even though we had one of the lowest prevailing wage rates in the Country and one of the highest costs of living. She noted the Board was not doing its job if it could not create better standard of living opportunities. Commissioner Levine Cava said that Airport concessionaires were exempted from wage guarantees because of the Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG), noting the County allowed businesses to pay its workers lower amounts because they wanted to generate more revenue from its concessions. She indicated that this legislation helped address that wrong and that people on County property should not be paid poverty wages. Commissioner Sosa said she previously supported the living wage for contractors working for the County; however, noted she believed this was a different situation. She questioned whether the County could establish its own rules for concessions when leasing property. Assistant County Attorney Murray responded that the proposed ordinance related to situations where private companies were coming to the County and seeking to lease County property. He noted the County had discretion to set the rules as to the use of that property when the County was the property owner. Commissioner Sosa indicated that a living wage was being imposed on the private industry if they leased from the County, not just when they contracted with the County. Assistant County Attorney Murray clarified that the living wage would be a condition on the lease only when the private industry leased from the County. Commissioner Jordan stated that the Federal government continually dictated conditions that the County must follow, noting the County was another level of government with the ability to look out for the public and set conditions. She said the County put certain programs into place because there would not be a consistent minimum wage if left up to the Federal government. Commissioner Jordan addressed the need to encourage the private sector to grow, noting legislation was established to encourage local preference. She said small business development programs were created to bring back small businesses and to obtain County contracts. Commissioner Jordan said that government sets laws and rules to equalize the system so larger companies do not take advantage of smaller ones. She mentioned the County spends more money to obtain things than did the private sector. Commissioner Jordan stated that government was here for the people and to establish guidelines to ensure they earned a fair wage. She mentioned that businesses wanted leases with the County and the chances of them leaving were slim. Commissioner Jordan said there was no difference telling a company leasing property that they must pay living wage than a construction company. She indicated that there was nothing open to interpretation and the legislation was not retroactive; therefore, existing leases were not affected until renewed. Commissioner Jordan said businesses wanted to be on County owned land because they made more money. Commissioner Jordan stated government puts conditions in place to make sure they happen for the people who do not have the voice, noting the County Commissioners were elected to be their voice. She said she believed the Commission did the right thing over the years to equalize wages in the County, noting she will continue to do the right thing and fight for what was fair and equitable. Commissioner Jordan said private enterprises making a substantial amount of money leasing and building on County property should pass some of that along to the people who work for them as a fair wage. She pointed out that this legislation only asked to be treated fairly. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote to adopt the foregoing proposed ordinance, as amended. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted with the following amendments: 1) to add the language “or any contractor or subcontractor of such lessee,” immediately following “Services of hourly employees of any lessee,” to the first sentence of Section (3); and 2) to add the language “A lessee who is otherwise exempt under this subsection may still be required to provide a living wage to its employees if it engages in activities covered in Sections 2-8.9(F)(1) and 2-8.9(F)(2)” to the end of Section 3. Commissioners Levine Cava and Monestime asked to be listed as co-sponsors.|
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO LEASES OF COUNTY PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE USE; AMENDING SECTION 2-8.9 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF LIVING WAGE TO CERTAIN HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF CERTAIN COUNTY LESSEES; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEMS UNDER FILE NOS. 180300, 181054]
WHEREAS, the County often leases valuable County owned land or property to private developers for private economic activity; and
WHEREAS, employees making the State minimum wage are under tremendous financial pressure in Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, employees making the state minimum wage are likely unable to afford to own a home, and are likely to spend a disproportionate share of their income on rent; and
WHEREAS, employees who make the state minimum wage are more likely to need governmental assistance and to make use of government services; and
WHEREAS, County owned land and property should be used to promote business activities that drive broad based prosperity throughout all communities of the County; and
WHEREAS, the decision to lease property is a discretionary function of the County which the County exercises in its proprietary capacity; and
WHEREAS, a lease is a written agreement between the County and a lessee supported by valuable consideration, and for the mutual benefit of both parties,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The above whereas clauses are deemed findings of fact and are incorporated herein.
Section 2. Section 2-8.9 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 2-8.9. Living Wage Ordinance for County service contracts and County employees.
* * *
(F) Covered services are any one (1) of the following:
(1) County service contracts. Contracts awarded by the County that involve a total contract value of over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per year for the following services:
(i) Food preparation and/or distribution;
(ii) Security services;
(iii) Routine maintenance services such as custodial, cleaning, refuse removal, repair, refinishing, and recycling;
(iv) Clerical or other non-supervisory office work, whether temporary or permanent;
(v) Transportation and parking services including airport and seaport services;
(vi) Printing and reproduction services; and,
(vii) Landscaping, lawn, and/or agricultural services.
(2) Service Contractors at Aviation Department Facilities. Any service that is provided by a Service Contractor at a Miami-Dade County Aviation Department Facility is a covered service without reference to any contract value:
(A) Ramp Service: Guiding aircraft in and out of Airport; aircraft loading and unloading positions, designated by the Aviation Department; placing in position and operating passenger, baggage and cargo loading and unloading devices, as required for the safe and efficient loading and unloading of passengers, baggage and cargo to and from aircraft; performing such loading and unloading; providing aircraft utility services, such as air start and cabin air; fueling; catering; towing aircraft; cleaning of aircraft; delivering cargo, baggage and mail to and from aircraft to and from locations at any Miami-Dade County Aviation Department facility; and providing such other ramp services approved in writing by the Aviation Department;
(B) Porter Assistance Services: Handling and transportation through the use of porters, or other means, of baggage and other articles of the passengers of contracting air carriers or aircraft operators, upon request of the passenger, in public access areas of the Airport Terminal Complex. The Living Wage shall not apply to employees performing tiprelated porter assistance services, including curbside check-in;
(C) Passenger Services: Preparing such clearance documents for the baggage and cargo of aircraft passengers, as may be required by all governmental agencies; furnishing linguists for the assistance of foreign-speaking passengers; passenger information assistance; arranging in-flight meals for departing aircraft with persons or companies authorized by the Department to provide such meals; and providing assistance to handicapped passengers;
(D) Dispatching and Communications Services: Providing ground to aircraft radio communication service; issuing flight clearances; sending and receiving standard arrival, departure and flight plan messages with appropriate distribution of received messages; providing standby radio flight watch for aircraft in flight; and calculation of fuel loads and take-off and landing weights for aircraft;
(E) Meteorological Navigation Services: Providing information based on the analysis and interpretation of weather charts; planning aircraft flights in accordance with the latest accepted techniques; providing appropriate prognostic weather charts; and generally providing information appropriate for enroute aerial navigation;
(F) Ticket Counter and Operations Space Service: The operation of ticket counter and airlines' operations space; ticket checking, sales and processing; weighing of baggage; operation of an information, general traffic operations and communications office for air carriers and aircraft operators with whom the Service Contractor has contracted to supply such services;
(G) Janitorial Services;
(H) Delayed Baggage Services;
(I) Security Services unless provided by federal government or pursuant to a federal government contract; and,
(J) Any other type of service that a GASP permittee is authorized to perform at any Miami-Dade County Aviation Department Facility will be considered a Covered Service, regardless of whether the service is performed by a GASP permittee or other Service Contractor.
(K) In-warehouse cargo handling.
>>(3) Services Performed by Employees of County Lessees on County Property
Services of hourly employees of any lessee, or any contractor or subcontractor of such lessee offering goods or services for sale to the public pursuant to any lease of County owned property, but only to the extent such employees are actually employed at the location of such lease. For purposes of this section, an employee shall be considered “actually employed” at such location if that employee spends more than half of their working hours onsite at the location of the lease, or if the employee must physically report to the location of the lease at the beginning or end of the working day or both. This sub-section does not apply to leases between the County and (1) any airline offering passenger or cargo transportation services, (2) any maritime passenger cruise line, (2) any maritime cargo line, (3) any lease appurtenant to any contract with a contractor providing goods and services to the County; (4) any lease to an architect/engineer appurtenant to any ongoing County construction project, (5) any lease to a construction contractor pursuant to any ongoing County construction contract, (6) any lease to a state or federal entity, (7) a lessee leasing any property owned or operated by the Public Health Trust, (8) a Community Based Organization, or (9) lessee who is exempt from this requirement pursuant to federal or Florida law. A lessee who is otherwise exempt under this subsection may still be required to provide a living wage to its employees if it engages in activities covered in sections 2-8.9(F)(1) and 2-8.9(F)(2)
(4)<< Services performed by county employees. Should any services that are being performed by County employees at the time the ordinance from which this section derives was enacted be solicited in the future by the County to be performed by a service contractor, such services shall be covered services subject to this section regardless of the value of the contract.
* * *
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.
1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to