| |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Zorana Milton, Commission Reporter
305-375-3570
|
|
|
1A
|
INVOCATION AS PROVIDED IN RULE 5.05(H)1B
|
| |
|
1B
|
ROLL CALL
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Prior to the Roll Call, Deputy Clerk Basia Pruna announced that the Clerk of the Board had received notice that Senator Garcia would be absent from today�s (12/12) meeting.
The following staff members were present:
~County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan;
~First Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez;
~Executive Assistant County Attorney Jess McCarty;
~Carladenise Edwards, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Mayor;
~Basia Pruna, Director, Clerk of the Board
~Kerry Khunjar Breakenridge, Deputy Clerk, Clerk of the Board; and
~Zorana Milton, Deputy Clerk, Clerk of the Board
Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava was also in attendance.
Chairman Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. with an invocation led by Commissioner Gilbert III followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan advised that today�s (12/12) Special meeting was called to consider matters related to constitutional officers. She explained that the Board may take action to approve ordinances, resolutions, motions, reports, and other documents related to constitutional officer matters that were properly placed on the special meeting agenda under Board rules and applicable law. County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan confirmed that there were two (2) items listed on the agenda with no additional changes, and recommended opening the reasonable opportunity to be heard.
|
|
|
1C
|
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
| |
|
1D
|
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD AS PROVIDED IN RULE 6.06
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Chairman Rodriguez opened the reasonable opportunity to be heard; the following person appeared before the Board:
Luis Montaldo, General Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Honorable Juan Fernandez-Barquin, Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Court and Comptroller, and read a prepared statement describing the transition to constitutional offices as a significant and historic organizational change for the County and its residents. He expressed gratitude to former Board of County Commissioners� (Board) Chairman Gilbert III, current Chairman Rodriguez, Commissioners Cabrera and Regalado, union representatives, and the County administration for their collaborative efforts that were instrumental in ensuring a smooth transition with each constitutional officer.
Mr. Montaldo emphasized the Clerk's commitment to supporting County employees, assuring that their years of service, benefits, and retirement would remain uninterrupted during the transition; and acknowledged the County Attorney's Office for their efforts in finalizing the agreements.
Mr. Montaldo requested that the Board consider authorizing the Mayor to execute pending service interlocal agreements during the holiday season, noting that while today's (12/12) agreement addressed the critical employee transfer issue, other essential agreements remained necessary for complete transition implementation. He asked that these subsequent agreements be brought to the Board for ratification at the next official meeting.
Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Chairman Rodriguez closed the reasonable opportunity to be heard.
|
|
|
|
SPECIAL ITEM(S)
|
| |
|
Special Item No. 1
|
|
| |
242249
|
Resolution
 Clerk's Official Copy
|
Oliver G. Gilbert, III
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION APPROVING INDIVIDUAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND COMPTROLLER OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, AND THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAME AND EXERCISE ALL PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN; APPROVING AND RATIFYING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, A.F.L.-C.I.O., MIAMI-DADE COUNTY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 199 (AFSCME 199); AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE, IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING UPON RATIFICATION BY AFSCME 199 MEMBERSHIP; APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY LEAVE MANUAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSITION OF EMPLOYEES FROM COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER EMPLOYMENT SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A SEPARATION OR TERMINATION EVENT; RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. R-59-14 RELATING TO RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR ELECTION DAY LOCATIONS; AND AMENDING IMPLEMENTING ORDER 4-76 RELATING TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSISTING ELECTIONS AS POLL WORKERS(Office of Management and Budget)
|
Adopted
Resolution R-1108-24
Mover: Oliver G. Gilbert, III
Seconder: Raquel A. Regalado
Vote: 11 - 0
Excused: Bastien , Garc�a
|
| |
REPORT:
Hearing no questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing resolution as presented.
|
|
|
Special Item No. 2
|
|
| |
242253
|
Resolution
Clerk's Official Copy
|
Oliver G. Gilbert, III
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAME AND EXERCISE ALL PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN
|
Adopted
Resolution R-1109-24
Mover: Eileen Higgins
Seconder: Oliver G. Gilbert, III
Vote: 8 - 2
No: Hardemon , Regalado
Absent: Cohen Higgins
Excused: Bastien , Garc�a
|
| |
REPORT:
Mayor Daniella Levine Cava reported that staff worked under tight deadlines to finalize agreements with the Sheriff's office and all constitutional officers. She stated the administration's objective was ensuring seamless continuity of services provided by constitutional offices to the public and maintaining workforce stability, particularly for first responders providing public safety functions. Mayor Levine Cava noted that while the administration sought full transition of collective bargaining agreements to the new Sheriff's office, the constitutional office had declined this approach. She emphasized the necessity of finalizing today's (12/12) agreement to ensure operational continuity and stability.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins raised procedural objections regarding the agenda structure and timeline. After clarification that the Sheriff's agreement was a separate item from the other four (4) constitutional offices, she expressed concern about the insufficient time provided to review the 1,600-page document. She critiqued the practice of presenting significant legislation without adequate review time and requested a detailed summary of the document's contents, implications, and justification for urgent approval.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins highlighted the significant employee transition involved and requested clarification on workforce protections. She noted concerns regarding collective bargaining frameworks and sought assurance about maintaining employee benefits and protections during the transition process.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins announced her decision to abstain from voting, citing inadequate review time and insufficient understanding of the agreement's impact on employees and collective bargaining matters.
Responding to Commissioner Cohen Higgins' concerns about the late timing and inadequate review period, Commissioner Gilbert III explained that the foregoing proposed resolution's late distribution resulted from complex negotiations with significant budgetary considerations.
Commissioner Gilbert III clarified that all union-covered employees would transfer to the Sheriff with guaranteed benefits and tenure, though the Sheriff would not formally recognize collective bargaining agreements or unions. He noted that an amended budget would be submitted in January to address anticipated needs, necessitating the previously established reserve fund.
Commissioner Gilbert III reviewed the County-Sheriff relationship, including procurement procedures. He noted that specific non-exempt positions would not transfer, requiring the Sheriff to notify the affected employees by December 20, 2024. Commissioner Gilbert III explained that existing service arrangements would undergo review due to the Sheriff's independent budgetary requirements.
Commissioner Gilbert III acknowledged the transition's complexity, characterizing the agreement as establishing parameters for the ongoing County-Sheriff relationship, with additional matters anticipated for future Board consideration.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins questioned the consequences for the approximately 5,000 employees transferring to the Sheriff's Office and sought clarification on ensuring these employees received expected benefits and protections.
Chief Administrative Officer Carladenise Edwards, Office of the Mayor, confirmed that all employees would transition to the Sheriff's Office with maintained benefits, longevity, status, and compensation during the transition. She noted that once transitioned, employees would no longer be County employees but would serve at the discretion of the constitutional officers, protected through terms and conditions of employment which the Sheriff agreed to adopt.
Ms. Edwards reviewed a negotiated provision which would allow employees to transfer between County and constitutional offices within 12 months without penalty. She clarified that 8-12 exempt, non-bargaining employees would not transition, requiring Sheriff notification by December 20, 2024.
Regarding collective bargaining implications, Ms. Edwards explained that employees may not be covered if unions were not certified by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). She noted that unions must file PERC applications for recognition at each constitutional office, with unions bearing responsibility for completing the certification process.
Ms. Edwards clarified the County's position that each constitutional office was a "successor employer," retaining employees, funding, full-time equivalents, and terms and conditions of employment defined in collective bargaining agreements. She stated these terms would remain as status quo until PERC determined otherwise.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins inquired about deadlines for approving the agreements.
Assistant County Attorney Valdes explained that the statute governing sheriff transition required an interlocal agreement before January 7, 2025, the transition date for the establishment of the office. He clarified that unlike the Sheriff's office, other constitutional offices had no statutory requirement for such agreements, leaving decisions at the Board's discretion.
Assistant County Attorney Marlon Moffett noted existing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with AFSCME Local 199 and GSAF Local 100 that established a January 7, 2025 deadline for constitutional officers to agree to specific terms, enabling unions to waive certain collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provisions.
Commissioner Gilbert III noted additional deadlines stemming from employee notification requirements, specifically December 17, 2024 for issuing layoff letters to inform employees about their job status, creating multiple overlapping timelines
Commissioner Cohen Higgins questioned whether December 17, 2024 was a definitive deadline, noting potential interpretation differences.
Assistant County Attorney Moffett explained that collective bargaining agreements with AFSCME and GSAF required 21-day notice periods for layoffs if the County eliminated positions. He noted different possible interpretations of CBA language regarding whether this transition constituted a layoff requiring such notices.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Cohen Higgins and Assistant County Attorney Moffett regarding varying interpretations of the CBA language.
Commissioner Bermudez acknowledged concerns about late agenda items but expressed support for the resolution after administrative briefings. He emphasized that constitutional officers, as elected officials, have the right to make independent decisions and noted the transformed relationship between County government and these newly autonomous offices. Commissioner Bermudez stressed that while protecting County jobs was important, constitutional officers must have flexibility to make decisions in the best interest of their operations.
Commissioner Regalado reviewed the differences between the Sheriff's approach and other constitutional officers. She noted that four (4) constitutional officers accepted successor employer status with collective bargaining agreements, while the Sheriff selected an alternative path. Commissioner Regalado highlighted the Sheriff's unique statutory authority to determine leadership and make personnel decisions unavailable to other constitutional officers. She referenced her four-year history of amending sheriff contracts to allow exit from agreements, demonstrating understanding of statutory sheriff rights and emphasized the importance of the three-year service agreement requirement negotiated when the statute was approved.
Regarding labor agreements specifically, Commissioner Regalado questioned the approach of accepting employees and maintaining their compensation while not accepting the collective bargaining agreement terms, arguing this provided insufficient employee certainty. She noted the Sheriff had instead committed to maintaining existing employment terms and conditions until PERC determined union validity and successor employer status.
Commissioner Regalado requested clarification on when the Sheriff could reopen and renegotiate labor agreements if they were accepted as a successor employer.
Ms. Edwards clarified that while the Sheriff would accept all employees except 8-12 exempt positions, the agreement did not acknowledge collective bargaining agreements. Instead, the Sheriff agreed to maintain existing employment terms and conditions until PERC determined union validity and successor employer status.
Ms. Edwards confirmed that constitutional officers could initiate union negotiations beginning January 7, 2025, without restriction.
Commissioner Gilbert III clarified that there was no re-opening because no labor agreement had been finalized. He explained that while the Sheriff had acknowledged the terms outlined in the agreement, she had not formally accepted the agreement itself. Commissioner Gilbert III further noted that any re-opening would only occur once the agreements were reestablished through PERC.
Commissioner Gilbert III emphasized that labor and services were interconnected since labor provides the services, making budgets and deadlines inherently tied to labor agreements. He noted that separating these elements would be impractical.
Commissioner Gilbert III noted that the Sheriff, as an elected official, was not legally bound by the County's previous agreements and had authority to evaluate and adjust these agreements as needed, despite policies initially being based on shared values. He addressed financial implications, noting that the County had entered agreements that could incur substantial separation fees from the General Fund, emphasizing the importance of County-Sheriff collaboration to avoid such costs.
Commissioner Regalado requested to hear from unions impacted by the Sheriff's decision.
Mr. Andrew Axelrod, General Counsel for the South Florida Police Benevolent Association (PBA), advised that the PBA opposed the agreement due to insufficient review time and the Sheriff's different approach compared to other constitutional officers. He emphasized the need to protect all employees covered by collective bargaining agreements and noted that the 8-12 employees not transferring were likely PBA members though not covered by collective bargaining. Mr. Axelrod expressed willingness to negotiate with the Sheriff following PERC certification while describing the current situation as not ideal.
Mr. Mark Richard, attorney representing the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spoke about collective bargaining's historical significance, describing contracts as representing decades of negotiations between County administrators and union leadership. He noted that union leadership was elected by rank-and-file members and confirmed successful agreements with all constitutional officers except the Sheriff.
Mr. Richard expressed his disagreement with the Sheriff's legal interpretation and raised concerns about arbitration processes, attorney fees, and union recognition under the Sheriff's approach. He highlighted employee concerns about job security and continuity while requesting Board assistance in ensuring proper treatment. Mr. Richard noted upcoming 2026 contract expirations and expressed a willingness to negotiate.
Commissioner Regalado proposed amending the resolution to provide the Sheriff additional time for negotiations, suggesting the Board meet on January 6, 2025 to address the Sheriff's agreement specifically. She argued against finalizing the current terms, stating that accepting employees and compensation while rejecting collective bargaining agreement terms was inappropriate and provided insufficient employee protections
Commissioner Gilbert III rejected the proffered amendment arguing that not approving the agreement would harm employees more than accepting an imperfect agreement. He emphasized the Sheriff's independence as an elected official and the need to avoid substantial General Fund separation fees.
Commissioner Steinberg inquired about consequences of not approving the resolution and whether the administration supported the agreement.
County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan explained that without approval, there would be no contractual assurance for seamless employee transition.
Commissioner Gilbert III clarified not approving the item could require issuing employee layoff notices with potential Sheriff rehiring, creating $180 million in consequences.
Responding to Commissioner Gonzalez�s question as to whether failing to pass the agreement would result in police officers receiving layoff notices, County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan confirmed that it would.
Commissioner Gonzalez inquired about the 8-12 individuals the Sheriff would not accept, asking whether these were appointed positions currently selected by the Mayor that would now be chosen by the Sheriff.
County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan clarified these were non-bargaining positions that would be considered for employment offers by the Sheriff.
Commissioner Regalado inquired about bifurcating the agreement to address employee transfer and compensation while allowing additional time for final terms. She asked whether agreeing to employee transfers and pay continuation would prevent December 17, 2024 layoffs while requiring final agreement completion by January 6, 2025.
County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan responded that the current agreement addressed transition elements including leave balances and compensatory time. She noted that if bifurcated to accept employee transfers and pay maintenance, final approval would be required by January 6, 2025, as the current deadline pressure stemmed from employee acceptance and terms.
Ms. Edwards clarified that the labor provisions comprised the primary substance of the agreement under consideration, making bifurcation of the item impractical.
Hearing no further questions or comments the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing resolution as presented.
|
|
|
2A
|
ADJOURNMENT
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Seeing no further business come before the Board of County Commissioners, the Special meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
|
|
|
3A
|
CONSENT AGENDA
|
| |
|
| 8/7/2026 |
|
|
|
Agenda Key: 5188 |