On the Agenda for tonight’s North Miami Beach Council Conference and Council Meeting are several items of interest.  During the Council Conference, which begins at 6:30 p.m., Councilwoman Phyllis Smith is bringing up the Eastern Shores Fire and Rescue Station fiasco.  I’ve been following this story closely, but haven’t weighed in for several reasons.  First of all, I’m told that the City is still in discussions with the County about this matter and it seems to be an ongoing issue.  What I do know for a fact is that the Miami-Dade Fire Department contracted with the City of North Miami Beach to maintain a rescue station in Eastern Shores for a term of one year, which term ends in September of this year.  As of today, the Fire Department still has almost seven months remaining on this contract.  As of today, if the rescue station closes as threatened, the County will be in breach of its contract, which is a legally binding document.  Regardless of all the excuses the Fire Department is giving for breaking the contract, including the outright lie that they can’t afford it, the fact remains that THEY ARE BREAKING A CONTRACT.  Apparently, the law doesn’t apply to the County.  Just saying.

Councilwoman Barbara Kramer will be discussing JazzaPalooza.  Intrigued?  I suggest you attend or tune in.  You can watch the fun on Comcast Channel 77 or streaming online at the city’s website.

The Council Meeting is scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m.  The Agenda is jam packed with lots of exciting stuff.  Four things are worth mentioning:

1.  Ordinance 2012-4 amends the Police and Firefighters Pension plan by bringing it into compliance with Florida Law.  According to a memo from the Pension Board to the Council, the Board recommends that the Council pass this Ordinance, which also states, “WHEREAS, the police officer participants have voted overwhelmingly in favor of the optional provisions incorporated in the proposed plan amendments.”  Yeah, I bet they do!  If this Ordinance passes, Article VI, Section 6.06, Optional Forms of Retirement Income will now read, as follows (with the new language underlined and the really important stuff in BOLD):

Changes of Joint Pensioner, Beneficiary or Beneficiaries – If a participant has elected an option with a joint pensioner or beneficiary (or beneficiaries) and his or her retirement income benefits have commenced, he or she may thereafter change his or her designated joint pensioner or beneficiary (or beneficiaries) provided, he or she may do so only in the case where the designation to be changed is one involving a joint pensioner, if the joint pensioner last previously designated by him or her is alive and evidence of good health provided when he or she files with the Retirement Committee his or her request for such change. The consent of a participant’s joint pensioner or beneficiary (or beneficiaries) to any such change shall not be required. In the alternative, a participant may change his or her designated joint pensioner or beneficiary up to two times as provided in Section 175.333, and Section 185.161, Florida Statutes, without the approval of the board of trustees or the current joint survivor or designated beneficiary. The member need not provide proof of the good health of the joint survivor or beneficiary being removed, and the joint survivor or beneficiary being removed need not be living. The amount of the retirement income payable to the member upon the designation of a new joint survivor or beneficiary shall be actuarially determined taking into account the age and sex of the former joint pensioner, the new joint pensioner, and the member, with the new benefit actuarially equivalent to the original benefit. Each such designation shall be made in writing on a form prepared by the board of trustees, and the completed form must be received and accepted by the board of trustees in order to take effect.

Now, here’s the thing.  As I already explained back in October of 2011 in my column, Mexican Hat Dance, about a Pension Board meeting that I watched, I made the following observation:  “Several years ago, the State of Florida passed legislation that allowed the cop to name pretty much anyone else as the joint annuitant, and that it didn’t necessarily have to be a family member.  The State also allowed them to change beneficiaries even after they retired.  According to State Statute, these changes were supposed to be “cost neutral to the plan.”  The unintended consequence was that if a cop found out that his spouse was ill and would most likely die before him, he could then change his joint annuitant to his child, for example.  This change, in effect, increased the costs of the payouts because the child was likely to outlive the cop and the cop’s spouse.  Since this is supposed to be “cost neutral to the plan,” someone or something has to come up with the money to pay for these additional benefit payments.”

Now the Pension Board wants the Council to pass an ordinance adopting the new State legislation.  Fair enough.  But the Pension Board also wants the City, i.e., the taxpaying residents of our City, to eat the costs of this “cost neutral” plan in the event that any members of the plan decided to change his or her beneficiary.  (Yes, that was a snarky underline in case you didn’t pick up on that.)

Needless to say, it is my opinion (not that you asked, but you are reading MY column, right?) that the cops can change their beneficiaries until they’re blue in the face…as long as we taxpayers don’t have to pick up the tab.  DUH!  I have a suspicion that there will be a very, very long discussion about this.  Be prepared.

2.  Ordinance 2012-6 is designed to reduce the interest rate paid on the employees’ DROP accounts from 6.5% to 3%.  I won’t go into a discussion about the DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Program) right now, but the interest the City (i.e., the taxpaying residents) pays to the employees’ DROP account needs to be adjusted.  This is just plain common sense.  No investment in existence today pays a 6.5% return.  In fact, the highest interest paid on certificates of deposit is currently 1.080%, while the current highest interest banks are receiving on mortgages is 4.68%.  And that’s on a 30 year fixed mortgage.  Considering that investments aren’t paying squat right now, the employees should be thankful to be getting a 3% dividend on retirement checks that are being invested on their behalf while they continue working until their DROP period is over.  In case you’re confused, I’ll explain the DROP in a future column in full detail.  But for now, you should know that in Miami-Dade County, both firefighters and teachers were earning 6.5% on their DROP until recently, when the firefighters started earning 3% and the interest teachers earned fell to 1.3% .  If firefighters and teachers need to tighten their belts, it’s time the employees of the City of North Miami Beach start living in today’s real world, too.  As they say, “IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!”

3.  Ordinance 2012-7 will give the Code Enforcement Department the ability to actually enforce the code.  What a novel idea, eh?  Makes you wonder what they’ve been doing all along.  I dunno, but a certain former mayor comes to mind…

Moving right along.

4.  Lastly, the Second and Final Reading of Ordinance 2012-2, will direct the Police and Fire Pension Board of Trustees to consider the qualifications of the fifth member of the Board (not to be confused with the two Cop Trustees and two Non-Cop Trustees), and to also clarify what constitutes a “Quorum.”  Presently, there are three Cop Trustees to two Non-Cop Trustees, thereby ensuring that the Cop Trustees will always out-vote the Non-Cop Trustees.  (Sort of like North Miami with its 3-2 Council Voting Bloc.)  Even scarier, since three Trustees constitute a Quorum, there’s nothing to stop the three Cop Trustees from holding their own “emergency” meeting and be able to pass whatever the hell they want without the benefit of the presence of the Non-Cop Trustees.  The intended purpose of this Ordinance is to ensure that a three member Quorum will be fair and balanced.  Sounds like a plan to me.

Needless to say, I’ll be watching the Council Conference and Meeting for as long as I can stand it (or in small doses after it’s posted online), and I’ll be reporting back the results of these votes as soon as I can.

Also in the news (of course) is the City of North Miami.  The Miami Herald reported over the weekend that North Miami signs off on city manager, attorney contracts.  [See NOTE below.]  As I reported in North Miami: The hits just keep on coming’, IT’S ILLEGAL for mayor Andre Pierre and his cronies to award a year’s salary to the city manager as a going away gift if they fire him within the first three years of his contract.  I quoted Florida Statutes and everything, and they STILL went ahead and did the dirty deed.  Imagine that!  The Herald reported, “But the statute apparently does not apply to North Miami’s employees: Interim City Attorney Roland Galdos assured the council that the contracts do not run afoul of state law.”

Really?  FLORIDA LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO NORTH MIAMI?  REALLY??  Did North Miami secede from Florida and not tell anyone?

If the Law doesn’t apply to the Miami-Dade County Fire Department, and it doesn’t apply to the City of North Miami, who does it apply to?

Well, I’ll leave that question for State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to ponder while she’s out on the campaign trail scaring up contributions for her re-election, so she can continue ignoring public corruption for yet another term.

Dessert, anyone?

Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”

NOTE:  On page 2NE of the Neighbors/Miami Herald dated March 11, 2012, the following was published:

A March 4 Northeast Neighbors story about North Miami’s contracts with the city manager and city attorney included incorrect information about the pending employment contracts.  The contracts will be in compliance with a Florida statute that limits severance pay to 20 weeks, and both contracts – which have not been finalized – have been amended to reflect the statute.  The terms of the severance package, however, can be changed if the statute is amended.