Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW OMNI CRA 1995-05-11 MinutesUpon being seconded by Vice Mayor Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Stephen P. Clark NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Ms. Kearson: Mayor Clark, now, what we have to do for the next resolution is to adjourn as the City Commission. Commissioner Dawkins: No, recess. Ms. Kearson: Recess. I'm sorry. Recess as the City Commission and convene as the Community Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Dawkins: I so move. Mayor Clark: Show us in recess. Vice Mayor Plummer: Second. (VOTE FOR THE RECORD: AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CONSIDERATION OF THE REGULAR AGENDA TO CONDUCT A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Mr. Dawkins: What do we do now? Ms. Linda Kearson (Assistant City Attorney): All right. The second resolution of the Community Redevelopment agency is to designate a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson for the agency. Mr. Dawkins: OK. Well... Ms. Kearson: And also authorizing an individual to execute all documents on behalf of the CRA. Mr. Dawkins: All right. I am the Chairperson, the Mayor is the Co -Chair, and Mr. Herbert Bailey is to be the Executive Director. Is that what you're saying, Madam? Mr. Clark: That's right. Ms. Kearson: Well, that's what I'm saying we have to do. This is what this resolution will do. 34 May 11, 1995 MA Mr. Dawkins: All right. Where is the resolution, so we can have it? Ms. Kearson: And the title would read: "A resolution designating Commissioner Miller Dawkins as the Chairperson, Chairman, and Mayor Steve Clark as the Vice Chairperson, respectively, of the Community Redevelopment Agency; further authorizing Herbert Bailey to execute all documents on behalf of the Community Redevelopment Agency." Mr. Plummer: Why would that not be the Chairman? Ms. Kearson: Well, this is what was proposed. I'm just... Mr. Plummer: I would feel much more comfortable with the Chairman, who is directly responsible to this Board to be in that capacity. Mr. Dawkins: OK, no problem. OK. All right. Mr. Plummer: So we'll change that, then, the authorization to Miller Dawkins. Mr. Clark: Miller Dawkins, right. Ms. ICearson: All right. Mr. Clark: OK. I move that. Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mr. Clark: Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Clark, who moved its adoption: OMNI/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 95-1 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MILLER J. DAWKINS AS THE CHAIRPERSON AND STEPHEN P. CLARK AS THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ("CRA"); FURTHER AUTHORIZING MILLER J. DAWKINS TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CRA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Mayor Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor J.L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Stephen P. Clark NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 35 May 11, 1995 Note: The aforementioned Resolution was inadvertently given a number (R-95- 364) as normally assigned to legislation where City Commission action has ensued. After concurrence with the City Attorney, it was agreed that the OMNI Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) should have its own numerical sequence for any legislative action in instances where the Commission sits in the capacity as the Board of Directors. Since the City Commission had reconvened as the OMNI/CRA, the establishment of the aforementioned numerical sequence is warranted, and said legislative action was given a beginning number of OMNI/CRA R-95-1. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. What else, Madam City Attorney? Ms. Kearson: The third resolution, what you are asked to prepare, was to authorize the execution of the interlocal agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and Metropolitan Dade County. You have included in your packet a document that had been prepared several months ago with regard to this interlocal agreement, which, of course, has to be modified. It is my understanding that the County submitted another version of this agreement, which was just brought to our attention recently, that, I guess, they would like to discuss. Chairperson Dawkins: No, wait. Mr. Mayor and my fellow Commissioners, I... And as the CRA Chairperson, take offense to the County preparing resolutions, sending them over here to be... Ms. Kearson: No, no. Chairperson Dawkins: ... as if we do not know how to prepare resolutions. Ms. Kearson: It wasn't a resolution. It was the agreement. Chairperson Dawkins: I say "me." I didn't ask you. I'm telling you, "me." OK? Now, every time something comes up, the County prepares a resolution and sends it over, Mr. Mayor, and tells us to rubber stamp it. In this resolution that we have before us today, the CRA Board, when it was started, said that the first one point five million dollars ($1.5 million), because of the taxes, has dropped to one point one seven mills (1.17). That one point one seven mills (1.17), Mr. Mayor, has the bonding capacity of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000). Vice Chairperson Clark: Right. Chairperson Dawkins: Now, the County wants us to go back on our word and tell... dictate to the County that the one point one million dollars ($1.1 million) that we gave you - and we gave it to the County - of which the County decided it would take one point - whatever the bonding capacity was - for the Performing Arts Theater, and do that, which we agreed to, which we will continue... We're going to give. We have to give. The County already has one point one seven three million dollars ($1.173 million), which has a bonding capacity of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000). OK? So therefore, it is my recommendation to this Commission that we do not amend anything. The County already has the one point one seven three million dollars ($1.173 million), they can... Vice Chairperson Clark: If they want to separate it... Chairperson Dawkins: If they want to separate it, that's right, Mr. Mayor. If they want to divide it up, they divide it up. If they're not desirous of dividing it up, they don't divide it up. But if you'll notice, ever since you have been here, Mr. Mayor, all of the discussions on homeless money has been before this Commission. Now, where is somebody from the County? 36 May 11., 1995 .— Mr. Odio: If I may. Chairperson Dawkins: Where is somebody from the County? Mr. Odio: If I may, Commissioner Penelas is upstairs. We're going to call him down. Chairperson Dawkins: Why... Mr. Plummer: Well, can I ask this question, Miller? Chairperson Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Plummer: What happens on this interlocal agreement, whether it's ours, which we want, or those which they have proffered, if they don't agree to it? Chairperson Dawkins: Well, they've already agreed to... The County has already agreed to the one point one seven three million dollars ($1.173 million). They have agreed to that. That's theirs. Mr. Plummer: That's from the CRA money or from the Omni District money? Chairperson Dawkins: That's the CRA money from the Omni District. That's the only money in discussion, J.L. Mr. Plummer: Well, no. We're going to be discussing more money this afternoon, and that's why I'm trying to get... Chairperson Dawkins: But that has nothing to do with the interlocal agreement. Mr. Plummer: Oh, no, I... No, but it does the Omni District, which is contiguous to the CRA District. Chairperson Dawkins: What is? Mr. Plummer: The Omni District... Vice Chairperson Clark: Yeah, sure it is. Mr. Plummer: ... is part and parcel of the CRA. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, that's right. Mr. Plummer: And the CRA is part and parcel of the Omni. Chairperson Dawkins: Right, mm-hmm. Mr. Plummer: OK? Now, they're going to be coming this afternoon, or this morning, and asking this Commission to allow five million dollars ($5,000,000) of the money from the Omni District to be used for the homeless. Chairperson Dawkins: No. That's what we're discussing now. That's what we're discussing now. 37 May 11, 1995 k, Mr. Plummer: I'm confused, I'm sorry. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Vice Chairperson Clark: Alex, Alex, please. Chairperson Dawkins: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. County Commissioner Alex Penelas: Good morning. Chairperson Dawkins: We're discussing the interlocal agreement, where there is the wishes to take the one point one seven three million dollars ($1.173 million) and the County bond eleven million dollars ($11,000,000), and the County put five million ($5,000,000) of that to the homeless, and five million dollars ($5,000,000) to the Performing Arts Theater. It's my understanding since I've been here, when the fund was... the Omni Redevelopment Fund was established, the one point five (1.5), which has been reduced because of the reduction in assessment tax, it has gone down to one point one seven three (1.173) mills. The City Commission and the County agreed that that first - don't leave, Mr. Bailey - that first one point seven three (1.73) would go to the County. At that time, the County decided that that one point one seven three (1.173) would be used to fund the development of the... Vice Chairperson Clark: Performing Arts. Chairperson Dawkins: ... Performing Arts Theater. And at the time, another resolution was sent requesting that the City Commission amend that interlocal agreement, and that we, the City Commission, demand that half of that money go to the housing, and half of that money go to the Performing Arts Theater. I'd like to know from you, has this been... this request been to the committees at the County? If so, what was the action? And if it left the committee and went to the Commission for a vote, how did the Commission vote, and why is it the County will not take the one point one three million dollars ($1.13 million) and divide it, itself? Why does it want the City to be the one to divide the one point three (1.3)? County Commissioner Penelas: Thank you, Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Commission, good morning. Alex Penelas, for the record, 111 Northwest 1st Street, Miami, member of the Board of County Commissioners. Let me give you a little bit of historical background first. I think it may shed some light on the issue. In July of 1993 - so we're talking about almost two years ago - the Board of County Commissioners took up the final financing package for the development of the Performing Arts Center. As you know, there's three basic pots of money. There is the convention tax, which will produce a hundred and twenty, a hundred and thirty million dollars ($120,000,000 - $130,000,000), after it's bonded out. There is a commitment from the Performing Arts Center Foundation, the private fund-raising arm, to raise approximately forty million dollars ($40,000,000), private dollars, for the development of the center. And then, there is this Omni Tax Increment District, which... And Ed Marquez is here from the Finance Department. I would ask him to help me with this. But my understanding right now, the amounts that we are projecting is one point four two million ($1.42 million) a year - one point four three ($1.43 million) a year. That's what we're projecting, in terms of our... That was all brought to the City Commission - the County Commission. As you know, Commissioner Dawkins, and many - the Mayor and many of the City Commissioners - that whole issue took on a life of itself. Whether we should even site it at the Omni District, there were concerns about the ownership of the property, the Miami Herald's involvement. There were concerns among many of my colleagues regarding the failure of the capital program to address community needs, i.e. local community theaters that were totally left out of the process, whether minority groups would have access to the Performing Arts Center, and how would they have... All these issues kind of came together at the same time, and when we voted on the issue, 38 May 11, 1995 k- there was a series of amendments that were made to the entire package, one of which was to dedicate - and Michael, I don't remember what the amount was for local theaters - eight million dollars ($8,000,000) for capital improvements to local community theaters, Artime here and... Chairperson Dawkins: May I cut you off, sir? What does that have to do with the tax increment funding from the Omni District? That's what I'm... County Commissioner Penelas: I'm trying to give... Chairperson Dawkins: No, no. That's what I'm trying to discuss. OK? I need to know from you that... The City of Miami already has approved a one point... And I'm not going to argue with the figures because you and I could, you know, we could put the figures together and see where they are, whether it's one point four (1.4) or one point one (1.1). That money, the City has given to the County. It's already in the County. So now, what is it the County wants... Why can't the County take that and divide it the way it wants to divide it? Why must we be the bad fellow, and have the Performing Arts say we took five hundred thousand ($500,000) from them? County Commissioner Penelas: Because it requires an interlocal agreement. Chairperson Dawkins: Well, but you already have an interlocal agreement. You have an... You need an interlocal agreement to amend it. County Commissioner Penelas: No. We... When we passed the financing package, Commissioner Dawkins, in '93, which was what I was getting to, in addition to the other amendments that were made, there was a five million dollar ($5,000,000) amendment, and it... because I wanted to answer your question on the vote of the Commission, which was unanimously approved by the Board of County Commissioners, 13 to zero. In other words, I made a motion that I amend the entire... I amended the entire financing package to include five million dollars ($5,000,000) to deal with the homeless issue in the district. That passes 13 to zero. Subsequently, other amendments were made to the effect that, Michael Springs was indicating, of local community projects, eight million dollars ($8,000,000). That passes, I believe, also, by a unanimous vote. The entire financing package then passes, I believe, by a nine to four vote, if I remember, Michael. So those items were dealt with by the Board of County Commissioners. Then the question was, where would be the best place for that five million dollars ($5,000,000) to come from on the homeless piece? Can't from the convention tax. The language doesn't allow it. Can come from, "A," the Increment District, or "B," the private monies. In order to put some strings on it, in order to make it... in order to make the case work, the decision was made to pursue it from the Increment Tax District, because you had a housing component within the enabling legislation. So an interlocal is drafted over the next few months. It comes to this Board of City Commissioners about three months ago, and yes, you all already did pass the interlocal, you're correct, but you excluded the five million dollar ($5,000,000) appropriation to deal with the Homeless Center. The reason we're back here is because I think we have positively dealt with the concerns that were expressed by the community at that time, and that was to you all, "We don't want the five million dollars ($5,000,000) to be used to build yet another homeless facility within the Omni Taxing District," because the way the language was set out is you could have used the monies for a variety of homeless uses within the district. We went back, and have, in fact, now conceded on the point. The five million dollars ($5,000,000) will not be used for another facility. It would be used for the facility that you all already sited at the 1550 site, and that's why we're here today. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. Three questions. County Commissioner Penelas: Yes, sir. 39 May 11, 1995 V, Chairperson Dawkins: Number one. You said the money can come from the Tax Increment District. You said that. County Commissioner Penelas: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I did. Chairperson Dawkins: We've already given you one point one million dollars ($1.1 million) in the Tax Increment District. OK? And that's eleven million ($11,000,000). Now, why you not want to take five million ($5,000,000) from that, I do not know. That's number one. County Commissioner Penelas: Sir, that's a question you will have to ask the lawyers. Chairperson Dawkins: I don't have to ask anybody. I'm telling you what we're not going to do. OK? If that... We've already given you one point one million ($1.1 million), which will bond eleven million ($11,000,000). You must go back to your Commission. You must convince your Commission that they have to give you half of that. County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner Dawkins, that's already been done, sir, with all due respect... Chairperson Dawkins: Well, why are you here, then? County Commissioner Penelas: Well, if you're correct in saying that we, the County Commission has the authority to do this, we've already done it. Chairperson Dawkins: No, no, no. I said the County Commission can or cannot. I don't know what you have. We gave you... We didn't give you the... County Commissioner Penelas: You all may want to answer this. Chairperson Dawkins: Mr. Bailey, explain this, since he's got a professional. Mr. Bailey, Mr. Bailey, give us, professionally, how this... where this is before I... then he can take it over. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): Yes, Commissioner. Well, there are a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. The facility that they are talking about, the Homeless Housing Center, was not part of the original redevelopment plan. The interlocal agreement simply says how we will interface with the trust fund and do the financing for the entire area. It happens that before the interlocal was sent back to us to sign or approved by the County, there was some concern about the Performing Arts Theater, and we had no problem with that, because it is legitimate to use tax increment money for infrastructure, and we were told that the money that was going to the Performing Arts Theater was going to be used for infrastructure purposes only. So that was fairly easy for us to do, and we have made some preparation to amend the plan, just to be on the safe side, to include some consideration for the Performing Arts Center. However, when the Homeless Housing Center came into being... And both of these are public facilities, and inasmuch as the facility is almost finished, there is some concern as to the legitimacy of using tax increment money for the Homeless Housing Center. Regardless of what you do here today, this still has to go back for plan amendment, and several public hearings. The one point one seven three ($1.173 million) - and that's based on the current contribution, not the contribution that... when we set up the district. The assessments have gone down. - we have put into the interlocal agreement how the County wishes to spend this money. And I think what they're doing is just trying to make sure that we agree on the method of distribution. We may agree that it can be done, but we still have some serious concerns as to the legality of doing it that particular way. However, we will, depending on what you decide, make the necessary amendments to the redevelopment plan, take it back to the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Advisory Board, the CD Advisory Board, and all of the public hearings, to see 40 May 11, 1995 what comes out of that. I have the understanding, which I didn't have when we did the first amendment, that all of the tax increment money would be used for bonding purposes. I now understand, as I read the document that was sent to the City, that it's a combination of bonding and reimbursement. That causes us some other concerns. But it is appropriate to spell out the financing strategy in the interlocal agreement, but that doesn't mean anything, other than that we have to make some other adjustments. And it has to go through a public process that's going to take three to four months. Ms. Linda Kearson (Assistant City Attorney): And to add to that, Mr. Chairman, we have consulted with bond counsel regarding the legality of using tax increment funds, as well as issuing bonds for an existing facility. And we were advised that we were possibly subject to legal challenge, because there is no authority for doing that. So while the intent may be to assist them in the homeless shelter, we need to make sure that we can legally do that. Mr. Plummer: Can I ask a couple of questions? Chairperson Dawkins: Mr. Gort, and then you. Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, go ahead, Willy. Mr. Gort: Since I'm fairly new at this, and I was not here for the original proposal, but my understanding is when you put a CRA together, you have to put a plan, and that plan has got to be approved by the people that pay the taxes. Ain I correct? Mr. Bailey: There has to be a public hearing, yes. Mr. Gort: In other words, my understanding is when this was first put together, there was a plan that was presented to the individuals paying the taxes, and they voted on that plan. Mr. Bailey: It was started without any consideration for either one of those public facilities. Mr. Plummer: Well, that's not an answer to his question. His question was, I assume... Chairperson Dawkins: Wait, let... You don't know whether... You don't know whether it answers his question or not then. Mr. Plummer: Well, then I'll ask it in a different way. Chairperson Dawkins: But let Gort say it doesn't answer his question, and then you ask your own. Go ahead, Commissioner Gort. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think we're playing with semantics here. Mr. Gort: OK. So what we're saying is, if we change the plan, we have to go back to the people and let the people approve that. Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mr. Gort: OK. Thank you. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. My question is, do the people who pay that have the right to say yes or no? 41 May 11, 1995 k, Mr. Bailey: They have a right to approve or not approve the plan. They don't have a right to approve or not approve, but they have a right to have a public hearing and voice their concerns. That's right. Mr. Plummer: Well, you see, that's the semantics they're playing. Sure, you've got to give them a public hearing. Who makes the decision? This Commission makes the decision. Ms. Kearson: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: They, the people of the area, do not make the decision. That's the point that I was saying the semantics are being played. Mr. Bailey: But I don't think he asked that question. Mr. Plummer: Now, are you finished, Mr. Gort? Mr. Gort: No. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Bailey: He asked me did it have to go back. Mr. Gort: Let me tell you why I'm not finished. Mr. Plummer: Let's get it on the record, what's exactly clear. Mr. Gort: I understand that, but right now, we're going through the process within the downtown area where people have taxed themselves for a specific use, and before that money can be used, it's got to be approved, and we make the final decision. But I think the people paying for the taxes have got a lot to say also. Mr. Plummer: I agree with that. i Mr. Gort: Especially in a special district. Mr. Plummer: Now, are you finished? Mr. Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK. The first question. Has there been a public hearing by the people of the district to make their approval or disapproval of the plan? Mr. Bailey: The original plan, yes. Mr. Plummer: OK. Then there is a modified plan? Mr. Bailey: No. They're asking for a modification. Mr. Plummer: Who is "they"? Mr. Bailey: The County. Mr. Plummer: OK. Now, on that modified plan, has the meeting been held of the participants, which I would call the taxpayers? 42 May 11, 1995 Mr. Bailey: No. Mr. Plummer: OK. 5o according to all that's holy, I assume we are bound by, that those two hearings must take place. Mr. Bailey: Those hearings must take place, all public hearings. Mr. Plummer: Before any action can be taken by this Commission. Mr. Bailey: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: All right. Now, from that point, is it my understanding that this tax increment district will create approximately, call it for round numbers, a million dollars ($1,000,000) a year, on today's known factors? Mr. Bailey: We're currently collecting one point one seven three million ($1.173 million). Vice Chairperson Clark: That's what they're collecting today. Mr. Plummer: Per year. Mr. Bailey: Per year. Mr. Plummer: OK. It is also, then, my understanding that the Homeless Trust is asking of that, monies, from whichever till it comes, five million dollars ($5,000,000). Mr. Bailey: Correct. Vice Chairperson Clark: Half of it, yes. Mr. Plummer: OK. Now, is that per year? Is it for five years? Is it for a hundred years? How many years is that five million ($5,000,000) to be for? Is it for one year only? Mr. Bailey: They haven't made that very clear to us. We just have... Mr. Plummer: Well, you damn well better believe they're going to. Mr. Bailey: Well, let me just say that... Vice Chairperson Clark: Wait a minute. J.L., first of all, the five million ($5,000,000), this is a bond issue, now. It doesn't repeat itself. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor... Vice Chairperson Clark: You use the receipts and you pay off the issue. You can't get five million ($5,000,000) a year out of it, no. Mr. Plummer: Well, I hear you but... County Commissioner Penelas: Mr. Mayor, may I clarify that point? Mr. Plummer: Yeah. 43 May 11, 1995 County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner Plummer, it is not the intent, as far as I understand, to bond the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). A portion of the stream would be... Mr. Plummer: Five hundred thousand ($500,000) or five million ($5,000,000)? Mr. Bailey: Well, five hundred thousand ($500,000). County Commissioner Penelas: It would be five hundred ($500,000) for a period of ten years. Mr. Plummer: Oh, oh, yeah. OK. County Commissioner Penelas: So to answer your question, it's not five million ($5,000,000) a year. It's a total of five million ($5,000,000), period. The way it's been set up in the documents is it's a five... it's a stream of money, five hundred thousand ($500,000) a year of which would go to this use. The other monies, then, could be bonded. So the question or the concern raised by counsel would not apply as it relates to this part of the stream, which is an allocation of five hundred thousand ($500,000). Chairperson Dawkins: But if you have a bonding capacity of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000), you take the one point one seven three ($1.173 million), and you bond it out at eleven million ($11,000,000), and you're only taking five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) from that, what do you do with the four point five million dollars ($4.5 million)? Mr. Bailey: I think what he's saying, Commissioner, is that they intend, as I understand it as of last night, reading the revised resolution that they sent over, interlocal that they sent over, they intend to take five hundred thousand ($500,000) directly from the trust fund, without bonding it out for a period of ten years, and leave the balance there, I guess, for bonding for the Performing Arts. I was just made aware of that recently. We had always been under the impression... We were always under the impression... Chairperson Dawkins: Mr. Gort, and then Mr.... then the City Manager. Vice Chairperson Clark: Just a moment, let him... Mr. Plummer: Well, I thought I still had the floor, but I'll... Chairperson Dawkins: Well, hold it, J.L. Mr. Gort has the floor. Vice Chairperson Clark: Please, wait just a moment. Mr. Bailey: I'm... Chairperson Dawkins: Mr. Gort has the floor. Mr. Gort: The way it works, the rule of thumb is, whatever revenue you can get a year, you multiply by ten, and that's the amount of bonds that you can get out. Vice Chairperson Clark: That's for the total amount. Chairperson Dawkins: Go ahead, J.L. Vice Chairperson Clark: Let me ask this question, J.L. Hold on. 44 May 11, 1995 or Chairperson Dawkins: Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. The Mayor first. Mr. Plummer: Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Vice Chairperson Clark: Alex, did the County realize that they've got to go back through these two hearings? County Commissioner Penelas: Not only to deal with the homeless issue, but to deal with the Performing Arts Center. Your own Assistant City Manager will tell you that the redevelopment plan does not mention the Performing Arts Center. So not only do we have to go back to amend the plan for the center, the Homeless Center, if you want to use the money to build the Performing Arts Center, you've got to amend it there, too. We understand that. Chairperson Dawkins: Why? County Commissioner Penelas: But you all need to start the mechanism. That's why I think there's... this is not the final... This starts a process in place. This doesn't end the process. This simply says that the County, assuming everything else goes into place, public hearings, et cetera, that the County and the City agree on the use of eleven million dollars ($11,000,000). That's all we were talking about. Vice Chairperson Clark: I think what this Commission wants to hear from the public first, about the... before they agree to the disposition, a half and half process. I think that's the reluctance here. Mr. Plummer: Well, I'd like to get some clarification, if I could, Mr. Mayor, please. It is my understanding - or am I correct, Mr. Bailey? - that in an approximate one million dollars ($1,000,000) per year that this will generate, that there is a ten multiplier? Mr. Bailey: Ten, yes. Mr. Plummer: OK. So that means every year, that a million dollars ($1,000,000) generated, is the capacity for another ten... Mr. Bailey: No, it is not. The first time... Mr. Plummer: Well, that's what I'm trying to ask. Mr. Bailey: Yeah. That one point one seven million ($1.17 million) will pay for a bond issue of 20 to 30 years, and that money will be committed until that debt has been satisfied. Now, any new money coming in over and above the debt service coverage that we have to have can be used for additional bonding. Mr. Plummer: OK. Chairperson Dawkins: For the area, for the CRA area. Mr. Bailey: Just for the area, yes. Mr. Plummer: OK. So that bond that you're looking at is eleven million ($11,000,000). Mr. Bailey: The first one is eleven million ($11,000,000). That's what, we were under the impression, was going to be done. 45 May 11, 1995 k, Mr. Plummer: Then my next question is, Mr. Bailey, what is proposed in whatever plan at this time, for the monies that were not asked for by Mr. Penelas? Chairperson Dawkins: It would be put by the CRA back into the redevelopment of the Omni area. Mr. Bailey: For the community. Mr. Plummer: With the permission of the area residents; is that correct? Mr. Bailey: No, that has already been approved. They have already approved the use of that fund for that purpose. It's for the purpose of redevelop... Mr. Plummer: Where is the money for the Performing Arts supposedly coming from? Mr. Bailey: It's coming from that fund. Let me just explain. Chairperson Dawkins: When the area... When the fund was created, J.L.... Mr. Plummer: Yeah. Chairperson Dawkins: I mean, when the Tax Increment District was created... Mr. Plummer: Correct. Chairperson Dawkins: In that organization or creation, it was spelled out that the first... at that time, it was the first one point five million ($1.5 million) but since there has been a devaluation of property it is now the first one point one seven three million dollars ($1.173 million) would go to the County into this fund. Vice Chairperson Clark: Redeeming at bondage. Chairperson Dawkins: Yeah, revolving... And anything over that remains in the fund to be used for the redevelopment in the Omni area. Mr. Plummer: And then my question, again, is it to be understood that from those leftover funds, is where a donation would be given to or a fund given to the Performing Arts? Chairperson Dawkins: No. Vice Chairperson Clark: No. Mr. Bailey: No. Mr. Plummer: Where is that money coming from, if any? Chairperson Dawkins: That's what I'm trying to get through here, and nobody don't seem to under... That first one point one million dollars ($1.1 million), that's it. And that's to go to the Performing Arts, for them to bond out eleven million ($11,000,000) that they will pay over the years... Mr. Plummer: To them. Chairperson Dawkins: ... with that one million dollars ($1,000,000). 46 May 11, 1995 k, Mr. Plummer: OK. Chairperson Dawkins: And now, somebody wants to come in and tell me, take a half a million dollars ($500,000) from that, or take half of it, and then... Then that's not what we agreed to. Mr. Plummer: So what you're proposing, then, if I understand correctly, is to take the one million dollars ($1,000,000) or the one million four ($1,400,000), whatever that is, bond it out, which... Chairperson Dawkins: No. Give it to the County. Mr. Bailey: No... OK, give it to the County. We'll have to... The trust fund has its own integrity, and I think that's another matter we need to discuss. The trust fund has its integrity in terms of what it can do with those funds, in regards to future debt, and borrowing capacity. Mr. Plummer: OK. If we give the money, Mr. Bailey, to the County, is it with the understanding that this Commission would be looking for the County to say, "Hey, when you bond this out, that five million dollars ($5,000,000) of that money is to go for this"? Mr. Bailey: That's what they... That's the request, Commissioner. Actually... Mr. Plummer: I understand it's a request, but if the County is the one who's doing the bond issue... Mr. Bailey: No, they're not the... no... Mr. Plummer: ... don't they have more control than we do? Mr. Bailey: That is another question that has to be solved by legal brains. Mr. Plummer: Then how could we sit here this morning and make decisions? Mr. Bailey: No. The CRA is the authority who is responsible for managing the trust fund. It is not the County, it is not the City of Miami, it is the CRA. We had agreed that the County could use money from the trust fund to bond out, providing certain conditions are met, and that's all we're talking about. Now, if it's the County's desire to use it for purposes other than the Performing Arts Trust, that's all right with us. However, it has to meet certain legal tests. And as I'm told now, that it is intending not to bond out the five million dollars ($5,000,000) or the money for the Homeless Housing Center, but to take it directly from the trust fund, on a cash as received basis, that has some concerns with us, also. Mr. Plummer: Then if I understand, if that were to be the case, if they were to take the money directly from the fund, you would have no money left to bond. Mr. Bailey: We'd have half of... We'd have six hundred... the City puts in six hundred and sixty-eight thousand six hundred and forty-four dollars ($668,644). The County puts in five hundred and five thousand ($505,000). Essentially, what they're asking for is to give theirs back for ten years. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but it would... Chairperson Dawkins: And then... 47 May 11, 1995 County Commissioner Penelas: Well, if I may, Mr. Plummer. Chairperson Dawkins: I'm sorry. County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner Plummer, Mr.... Chairperson Dawkins: OK. And then that means then that... One moment, please, Mr. Commissioner. Then that means that the City of Miami would be on the hook for the one point seven (1.7) that we allowed the Performing Arts to bond out. Mr. Bailey: No, we wouldn't be on the hook for anything. The money comes in the trust fund, and according to the requests, that we disburse it, based on this modification, five million ($5,000,000) to the County over a period of time, which Commissioner has said, over a ten-year period of time, and the rest of it will be bonded out for the Performing Arts Trust. We're not... The CRA is a non -recourse type of financing agency. It's only based on the tax increment. And that depends if we get that every year. There may be some years it may go down. It may go up. We don't know. But what I am saying to you, in the worst case scenario, if nothing else happens in the district, then there will be no money for the redevelopment other than for the Performing Arts and the Homeless Housing Center. County Commissioner Penelas: Thank you, Commissioner Dawkins. First of all, I don't think it's fair to characterize what the County wants to do is simply give us back the five hundred ($500,000) we're putting into the pot. When this issue was taken up in 1993, the Board of County Commissioners recognized the dire straits of the homeless situation, and felt, as a matter of policy, Mr. Bailey, that we should deal with these issues hand in hand, not just build, you know, a beautiful hundred and seventy-two million dollar ($172,000,000) cathedral on Biscayne Boulevard, and forget about the people, who, on a daily basis, sleep on the streets. We felt that those issues should be dealt with hand in hand. If you're going to use a hundred and seventy million dollars ($170,000,000) to build this center on Biscayne Boulevard, you could use some of this money to help with capital improvements and local community theaters. You could use some of the money for the homeless. That was the idea. It wasn't that we wanted our money back, number one. Number two, let me clarify the bonding issue. And again, Ed Marquez is here, and please correct me if I'm wrong. The County is the issuer. We are the ones issuing the money. Mr. Plummer: Right. County Commissioner Penelas: My understanding is that our projections are one four three (143) a year. That's the capacity that we're going to use. The five hundred thousand ($500,000) would go towards the specific use, Homeless Assistance Center, period. The other monies, the remainder of the stream would be bonded, and our calculations are, is that it would produce about eight million dollars ($8,000,000). The original number was eleven (11). By taking away five hundred ($500,000) a year from the stream, the remainder leaves you a capacity for a... a bonding capacity of about eight million dollars ($8,000,000) a year. That is going directly to the Performing Arts Center, assuming that's what you all decide, because that's part of this interlocal, and it's part of the issue dealing with the amendment of the plan. Any excess, my understanding is that any excess over the committed stream of one point four (1.4) would then be available back to the City, is my understanding, for your allocation, consistent with the development plan. So you could then take... It doesn't have to be Performing Arts Center, doesn't have to be the Homeless Assistance Center. It could be... Chairperson Dawkins: It will not be. County Commissioner Penelas: I'm sorry? 48 May 11, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: It will not be. County Commissioner Penelas: Right. It could be a sidewalk project. It could be whatever it is that you all decide. Vice Chairperson Clark: It's the Omni area. County Commissioner Penelas: It's in... within the Omni area. That is correct. Mr. Plummer: District, yeah. Vice Chairperson Clark: Alex, I think we're all on the same page. Now, let me see if I got the right feeling of my colleagues in this Commission. This possibly could work if it's legal; is that right? Mr. Bailey: Yes. We... Vice Chairperson Clark: I don't think anybody up here is against the homeless issue. I'm not. I've already proven myself in the past. County Commissioner Penelas: Absolutely. Vice Chairperson Clark: Now, to make sure this is all legal, there are certain steps that have to be taken. County Commissioner Penelas: And we recognize that. Vice Chairperson Clark: Before :hose steps can be taken, we cannot sign this agreement. We can't prejudge the thoughts of the people exercising their right to their own opinion. County Commissioner Penelas: I think, Mayor, what we need to do now is have a discussion on what that process is. I'm going to tell you what I think, what I understand the process to be. Vice Chairperson Clark: Yeah. County Commissioner Penelas: And my understanding is, is at first, you all and us, the City Commission, and County Commission, have to agree on how the monies could be used. We've got to have a plan. We've got to amend the redevelopment plan. We've got to execute an interlocal. Then, it goes through the public hearing requirements, and the other type of... Vice Chairperson Clark: Well, that's... County Commissioner Penelas: That is my understanding of the project. Is that correct? Vice Chairperson Clark: That's expo facto. You can't do that. How are you going to have any input when you've already signed the agreement? Mr. Bailey: I would like to ask one other question. Chairperson Dawkins: Go ahead, Madam County Attorney. Vice Chairperson Clark: Yes. 49 May 11, 1995 kr Ms. Dianne S. Gaines (Assistant County Attorney): I'm Dianne Gaines, Assistant County Attorney. Any interlocal agreement that you approve or sign would have to be subject to the amendment of the plan. I mean, I agree with you. I mean, that... the plan must be amended. I think what the County is basically asking for is that you proceed with amending the plan, in conformance with the intent, as identified in the interlocal agreement. I mean, there are... there are steps that... advertisements and public hearings. But your staff needs direction from you to proceed with those so that the plan can be amended to include those two components. Mr. Plummer: The point... I'm still confused. Are we talking as Miller Dawkins is talking? Are we talking as Mr. Penelas? And let me say for, the record, what I understand the two differences are. Mr. Dawkins is saying, take the one point four three (1.43), bond out, getting approximately eleven million dollars ($11,000,000), from which five million ($5,000,000) of that could go to the homeless, if approved. Chairperson Dawkins: If the County approves. Mr. Plummer: If the County approves. What Mr. Penelas is saying is that he wants, of the one point four three (1.43) for his homeless scenario, five hundred thousand (500,000) a year for ten years. Is that the basic differences of what we're looking at? Chairperson Dawkins: No. County Commissioner Penelas: No, I don't think so. Mr. Plummer: OK. Tell me where I'm wrong. County Commissioner Penelas: I think the basic difference is that the Commissioner is saying, "We've already given you, the County, the authority to use this money. You decide." What I'm saying is, my understanding is that there has to be an interlocal. In other words, the monies are coming from City proceeds, and from County proceeds, and before we proceed collectively on how to spend the money, there's something that Mr. Odio has to sign, and there's something that Mr. Vidal has to sign. So it's not... Commissioner, if you were right, I'd rather not be here this morning. But I'm being told that we've got to be here, have a meeting of the minds on the use of the money, sign a document, and then go through the process, advertise, public hearings. Now, what will happen is, as an example, if the homeless piece is not here, then when we go... then you will send, you will transmit the interlocal to the County minus the homeless piece, only with the Performing Arts Center piece, then we're going to have this same debate over there, and we're going to go back and forth, and we're going to say, "That's not what we wanted. We wanted five million ($5,000,000) for the homeless." So a series of Commissioners are going to then say, "No, we don't want this interlocal, we reject it." And then, you don't have any money for the Performing Arts Center. You don't have... Chairperson Dawkins: Or the homeless. County Commissioner Penelas: Of the eleven. Chairperson Dawkins: Or the homeless. County Commissioner Penelas: Or the homeless. Chairperson Dawkins: Either one. County Commissioner Penelas: Right, exactly. 50 May 11, 1995 Mr. Bailey: May I make a statement, please? May I make a statement? I think... Chairperson Dawkins: After Mr. Bailey, we'll hear from these two citizens. Mr. Bailey: Just to set the record straight... Chairperson Dawkins: Anybody from the County wants to be heard? OK. Go ahead, sir. Vice Chairperson Clark: Go ahead, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey: Just to make... set the record straight, the only reason we're probably dealing with the interlocal is that when we completed the process for the first... for the Tax Increment District, which did not include any of the County facilities, it was normal procedure to send it over to the County to be approved. Vice Chairperson Clark: That's right. Mr. Bailey: It was held up for three or four years, and then the homeless issue got into... the homeless issue and the Performing Arts issue became a part of the process. If this were done correctly, we would not even be at the point of an interlocal. We would still be talking about plan amendment and plan development. And what we should be, instead of dealing with an interlocal agreement, which surely has little relevancy and meaning now, based on how they want the plan amended, we should be talking about amending the plan, and the legality of what should be included in the plan. Now, we need to know, before we can do anything, what are the specific uses of the money, as it relates to the housing center. We already know the specific uses of the money for the Performing Arts Theater. It's for infrastructure. But there are certain prohibitions in the statutes that you cannot use the money for, and the homeless center contains some of those prohibitions. So we need to know specifically what the homeless center will be using the money for. We should be doing an amendment to the plan, not the interlocal agreement. County Commissioner Penelas: Mr. Bailey... if I may. Mr. Dawkins, to respond. Chairperson Dawkins: Go right ahead, sir. County Commissioner Penelas: I think this is a play on semantics, because what's happening here is, the meeting of the minds could take place either in the form of an interlocal, or it could take place in the form of an amended plan. What your resolution here should be directing the Manager to do, if there's a meeting of the minds in the form of an interlocal, is addressing the Manager to amend the development plan. So if you all want to take up the amendment of the plan now, that's just as well. There's got to be a meeting of the minds, which hasn't taken place yet. Chairperson Dawkins: The Manager and then the City Attorney, and then Ms. Smith, if she wants to say something. Mr. Odio: Well, Commissioner, what I understand is we need to know what you are going to use the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) specifically for. County Commissioner Penelas: For operational purposes. Mr. Odio: And as we talk, I would like... Before I... Mr. Bailey: That is not an eligible use. 51 May 11, 1995 k,-- Mr. Odio: Excuse me. Mr. Bailey: Sorry. Mr. Odio: Before I can recommend that we do that, we had a conversation, Alvah Chapman and yourself with me. We have to come up with a plan on the Naval Reserve Center that we're providing an alternative for the homeless center that was coming there. And I was told that we could use the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for an alternative plan, to comply with the request of the Federal Government on the Naval Reserve Center. Mr. Plummer: But not from the Omni money. Mr. Odio: No... Yes, you can. Mr. Plummer: From the Omni money, you're going to put it down here? Mr. Odio: Commissioner, can I finish, please, sir? Vice Chairperson Clark: Don't get it more encumbered than it is. Mr. Odio: If they can come up with a plan of the Homeless Center, that they're going to provide the services that were going to be provided here, it will then meet the requirements of the Federal government, and we can proceed with whatever plan we come up with this property here. We must comply with the Homeless Center that was going to be put here. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the City Attorney and two people over here. Then we'll let Mr. Penelas rebut it, and then we'll go. Ms. Kearson: Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest we do is to... We can enter into an interlocal agreement without being specific as to the Homeless Center and Performing Arts Center, and proceed to amend the plan, because my concern is that the money cannot be used for operating expenses. The State statute does not allow tax increment funds to be used for that purpose. Vice Chairperson Clark: That's the whole problem. Ms. Kearson: Well, that's what we need to find out. We need to be certain that what we're doing is legal. Mr. Plummer: Why didn't we do that before we got to this point? Ms. Kearson: So we can enter into an interlocal agreement, and we can begin to amend the plan and go through the process, and make those determinations. But to request that we do that today, to approve what you're proposing, I think would be ill advised today to do that. Vice Chairperson Clark: Mr. Bailey. Mr. De Yurre: Miller, if I may. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir, go right ahead, Mr. De Yurre. Mr. De Yurre: Just for the record, you know, when I met with Commissioner Penelas and a group of people that came to see me, the understanding was that the five million dollars ($5,000,000) was going to be for capital improvement of our center, downtown, so that would 52 May 11, 1995 free up money to build the other centers throughout the County, so that we would not get the burden of people coming from other areas of the County into downtown, which, for the record, was one of the conditions that we had a year ago, that that would not be the case, but that's something that we can discuss at another time. The five hundred thousand ($500,000) coming up now to be used for operations, that's totally different from what I spoke about and what I committed to. So just for the record, you know, I'm just going to sit back and start listening to this, but whatever commitment I had was just for the five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the capital improvement of the downtown homeless center. Vice Chairperson Clark: I wouldn't mind voting for that, if it's legal. That's all we're talking about. And our attorney is advising it's not legal. County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner. De Yurre, if I may. Vice Chairperson Clark: That's the whole... County Commissioner Penelas: Our attorney is telling us that it does not specify. It says it's a reimbursement mechanism. It doesn't specify operating or capital, but for... But in any case, whether it is for either one of them, the underlying purpose of freeing up money to be able to move forward on the other projects remains. I mean, that still stays in place, irrespective of whether you're using it for capital or for operating. But I'm being told now it's a reimbursement mechanism. Mr. De Yurre: I know, but understand this. It isn't like having a five million dollar ($5,000,0000) pot, that you can build something within a year. When I see five hundred thousand ($500,000) trickling in every year for ten years, that says to me that by... If you tell me by year ten, this has not been built out, then we're in serious trouble. So the five hundred thousand ($500,000) should not be for capital improvement as the years go by. It should have been built already, just like we're building this one downtown... Mr. Plummer: I got a problem with that. Mr. De Yurre: ... like we're looking at the one down in South Dade. The one in South Dade should be built within two years. County Commissioner Penelas: It will be built before then, Commissioner. Mr. De Yurre: OK. So then, what is the need for the five hundred thousand ($500,000)? It's not going to be for capital improvement, because it's already been built. Vice Chairperson Clark: He said operating expenses. Chairperson Dawkins: He said operating expenses. Mr. Plummer: You can't... Mr. De Yurre: Well, that's not what I, you know, what I spoke to. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but Victor, let me tell you where my problem comes with that, OK? In effect, if we give them the right to take five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the downtown, which frees up money to build somewhere else, in effect, we're building somewhere else. Mr. Bailey: Right. 53 May 11, 1995 Im b Mr. Plummer: OK? Now, that's my problem. Because let me tell you something, whatever proviso, there's going to be two, whatever I vote on. The first proviso is that any funds coming from that Tax Increment District for the homeless will be only for that facility, and in no way, shape, or form, diverted to another facility. Number two - and I'm cleared, Mr. Mayor, from the City Attorney to make this comment - if this Commission is forced to designate safe areas that any monies that we have control over would immediately go to the City's financing of those areas. So those are the two provisos that I have. OK? Vice Chairperson Clark: By Federal Court, you mean. Chairperson Dawkins: OK, OK. Vice Chairperson Clark: By Federal Court. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, yeah. Chairperson Dawkins: Mr. Bailey, let me Mr. Yaffa speak, and then you wrap it up, please, sir. Mr. Phillip Yaffa: Thank you, Commissioner. A lot of new information has come out in the last 12 hours. We just learned now that part of the tax increment is going to be allocated over a ten- year period of time to the homeless shelter. Going back to 1986, and I don't think we have to educate this Commission, these funds are specific, identified taxpayer funds, taxpayers that live within the Omni area. The purpose of the Tax Increment District is to help eliminate areas of slum and blight. They, too, would be used for infrastructure improvements, for things like Margaret Pace Park, for lighting, for streets, for land acquisition. If a developer came into this City and said, "Listen, I'm interested in building a media center in the west Omni area, but there's 250 property owners and I can't assemble the land. I'm looking for the City of Miami to assemble the land and lease it to me, and I'll go ahead and build a media center there," you can then look to the tax increment and say, "Hey, we've got a pot of money here to do this." So the entire purpose of the Tax Increment District is being prostituted by taking the money away from infrastructure and land development and being applied to the operational expenses of the homeless shelter. That's objection number one. Objection number two is a more sensitive and emotional objection. I don't have to remind this Commission that less than a year ago, the community was really torn apart, especially those residents in the northeast section, and specifically those residents in the Omni area. We all recall too vividly the passion and the emotion that went forth in a marathon meeting that took place at the Knight Center that ultimately resulted in this Commission granting the zoning variance that allowed the Homeless Assistance Center to be sited in the Omni area. The Omni area will certainly have the brunt of any projected problems if that facility goes on. To now ask specific taxpayers in the Omni not only to have the burden of having the facility in the neighborhood, but now, to pay for the operation of the facility is really disregarding your taxpayers' feelings. They were expressed to you last July. Now, to take... These are not general fund monies. This tax increment comes exclusively from the Grand Condominium and Hotel. That's where... It's the only increment that has heard, which is why 1986 was the base year, because the Grand came on line on the tax rolls in 1987. So I think that's really pouring salt in the wounds. We need that money to help encourage development in the Omni area. That being said, and my opposition to the use of these funds in other... in any manner other than infrastructure development being put on record, I spent again a sleepless night last night trying to come up with a resolution of this issue. Commissioner De Yurre, you're going to be a part of this, since you put a number of conditions on the siting of the zoning last July. I would propose a compromise. We now know that from the one point four three million dollars ($1.43 million) that was projected to be garnered, nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) is going to be bonded by the CRA. Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the next ten years is not going to be pledged to those bonds. It's cash money that's coming in from the increment, that under the current plan, is saying, "Give it all to the Homeless Center." 54 May 11, 1995 k _- The Performing Arts Center Trust has agreed to the reduction, because the five million dollars ($5,000,000) was initially pledged to the Performing Arts Center. Well, they sat down and did their numbers and said, "You know what? We can give up five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) worth of bonding capacity." So the Performing Arts Center gets something out of the pot. The Homeless Assistance Center is asking for everything else, so they're taking something out of our taxpayers' pot. The only people that aren't getting anything is the taxpayers, the real specific tax dollars that I pay every year. So I propose this compromise. Let nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) go as currently planned, as currently proposed to the Performing Arts Center Trust. Take that existing five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) that's left over and allocate two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) a year for the next ten years to the Homeless Assistance Center, with the following two caveats. One, the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) can only be spent on security. And when I say security, I'm not talking about putting a homeless person in a T-shirt with the word "guard" on it. I'm talking about eight additional police officers, or the number of police officers that are required. For your information, Commissioner Plummer and Commissioner De Yurre, last July, former Police Chief Calvin Ross stood before us and said that he thought you needed 67 officers to secure the neighborhood. My understanding... I could be... I stand to be corrected. My understanding of the most recent security plan is one squad car and four policemen, a far cry from the 67 that our former Police Chief thought we needed. So let's take two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), give it to them. One, make it only used for security, And two, Commissioner De Yurre, you set a condition that every year, the Homeless Assistance Center has to come before this body and we would review whether they're being the good neighbors we want them to be. If they're not being good neighbors, your alternative is just to close the facility down, and that's a relatively severe remedy. But by having an annual review of how the facility is functioning, and whether they are keeping their word to this community, you now have a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar ($250,000) hammer. The remaining two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) should be allocated to infrastructure improvements for the next ten years, in the Omni area. Currently, the interlocal agreement provides that the Omni/Venetian Action Committee of the Chamber of Commerce will act as a citizens advisory group to the CRA. I would propose that every year, after a series of neighborhood public hearings, that I will commit the Omni Venetian... As chairman of the Omni Venetian Committee, I will commit that we will have those meetings, that we meet with the Omni Area Council, the Downtown Development Authority, that we have public neighborhood townhall meetings, and we say, we've got a pot of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to allocate to area improvements. Those improvements can go anywhere from fixing up Margaret Pace Park, additional lighting, streeting, the implementation of the Burle Marx plan, from the northern boundaries of the district to the Performing Arts Center, the improvements of 2nd Avenue, planting trees, maybe land acquisition, if a developer comes in and says, "Listen, I want to build, and I need you to condemn for me." We have two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) being spent immediately on direct neighborhood improvements that might help and assist us in overcoming any detriment that the Homeless Assistance Center might cause. Now, how does this plan affect everybody? The Performing Arts Center has sufficient money to build a facility. The Homeless Assistance Center picks up an additional two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) a year, so they get a piece of the pie, and that money is being spent on a benefit that I perceive as beneficial to the taxpayers of the area. And finally, the taxpayers get to invest, reinvest their own dollars in their neighborhood, which was the whole purpose of the Tax Increment District, to begin with. And although I would love to be able to walk away with the total piece of the pie, in the spirit of compromise with our new neighbors, I'm willing to split that pie up three ways. Thank you. Vice Chairperson Clark: Thank you, sir. Mr. Fred Joseph: Good morning. Fred Joseph, president of the Grand Condominium Association, 1717 North Bayshore Drive. I realize in the past couple of days, you might have 55 May 11, 1995 received some faxes from the taxpaying district and the residents of that area. They are totally in agreement with you not taking action on this, because, as you said, if you take action before you hear from the taxpaying public, you're putting the cart before the horse. I think you've taken action in regards to this homeless issue in the proper manner. We didn't like it. You did it. You put certain check points in it. Now, the tax people don't want you passing something that's going to say, you're now going to pay for something you didn't want through the operation of it, and that's the language that's in it. When you go back to the State statute, it says that the funds that were allocated in this Omni District, when you call it for housing, the housing that it called for was for either temporary, which would be rental or permanent housing, not homeless shelter housing. They're asking for these funds for operational funds, which means their clinics, their shortfall, because they don't have the funds to do it with. We feel like that you put a burden on our area. Now, don't make the burden worse by taking the money from our area, which was to be for the improvement of the streets, the parks, the lighting, and development coming into the area. The ironic part that Commissioner Dawkins brought up was the numbers depleted. It went from one -seven down to one -one -seven. The reason was the area got so badly hurt before that your tax base got hurt. Now, we're a hundred and eighty million dollar project that's viable, that's selling units. If you want to stop it again from growing, then that's what these type of agreements would do, stop more growth. Vice Chairperson Clark: All right. Mr. Joseph: Thank you. Chairperson Dawkins: Thank you. Three... Vice Chairperson Clark: Thank you, Mr. Joseph. Yes, ma'am. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Just a minute. Three minutes, sir. Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: No, much less than that. Chairperson Dawkins: OK, sir. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Good morning, Commissioners. This proves, Mr. Chairman or the Mayor, the rest of the Commission and the citizens, that the citizens are more creative than you people. So from now on, make sure that you hear the citizens. Mr. Gort: Name and address for the record. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: My hat, the American flag. Mr. Gort: Name and address. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Oh. My name is Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga. I reside on 2469 Southwest 14th Street, a humble candidate in November. Vice Chairperson Clark: All right. Thank you, Mr. Goenaga. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: And I don't need your help, Mr. Mayor, because you already... Vice Chairperson Clark: I will help you... Mr. Gort: You are already... 56 May 11, 1995 k_ K Vice Chairperson Clark: I will help you out of here, if you want me to. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: You already gave five hundred dollars ($500) to Mr. De Yurre. Vice Chairperson Clark: That's all right. That's outside, do your politicking outside. Chairperson Dawkins: Mm-hmm. OK. Last... After this, we'll close the public hearing. Ms. Sheila Anderson: All right. Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Sheila Anderson. I have offices at 901 Northeast 2nd Avenue, and I am here speaking today on my own behalf, not to lobby for another group. I'd like to bring up several points that I think you're all aware of, but to remind you. Number one, with all due respect to Mr. Yaffa's good intentions, and his hard work in this district, the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce doesn't have legal authority to represent any taxpayers in any neighborhood. If you're going to form a citizens group or add a component of responsibility to the Tax Increment District oversight, it needs to be people who pay taxes in the neighborhood, and who are accountable to each other in the neighborhood, not a for -profit corporation that has nothing to do with a legal authority in the district. Another point to remind you. When the permit for construction was issued, the issue of security came up, and the Chief of Police stood here and gave you his estimate on cost, and concerns about security in the area. We were told by the people representing the homeless shelter that they were responsible, and had the money, and had a plan that would work. And basically, they're coming back and saying to you today, or Mr. Yaffa is proposing that the community pay for the security that this project is going to... or the security problems this project is going to create. Again, if there is a need for security and the project is creating that need for security, I don't think it's fair to ask the people who are impacted to pay for the problem. You need to go back to the people who are causing the problem and let them handle the concern. The third thing is that no matter what you do, if you give two pennies to this budget for operations, or management, or capital improvements of this homeless shelter, which was supposed to be fully funded by the penny tax that was adopted for homeless needs and from private contributions that were going to be raised, you're going into taxpayer pockets to fund it, which I think is a breach of promise for the whole community, which was told from the beginning this wouldn't happen. The other thing that you're doing is you're setting a precedent that affects Overtown, it affects Brickell, it affects every place there is a tax increment in place or that might be formed. Basically, you're saying that the County can come in with special interest groups, and they can come before you, and they can have meetings with you that none of the rest of us knew about or were invited to attend, and they can convince you to divert Tax Increment District money for other uses, regardless of whether or not the original voters in the Tax Increment [District] are fully informed and agree to it. And I don't think you want to open up the City to that kind of effort. I think it's very dangerous, and I think you're creating a situation where you're pitting taxpayer against taxpayer, property owner against property owner, neighborhood against neighborhood. And you're not helping build the City, you're not attracting business to the City, you're not building economic development in the City, which is what the tax increment is meant to stimulate. You're solving social problems that the County, and the Homeless Trust, and the Homeless Partnership told us they were taking care of, so that we didn't have to use City money for it. Chairperson Dawkins: Thank you. We've heard from everybody that was pro... I mean anti. Mr. Chapman, would you have a few words to say to close it out, sir? You don't care to have anything to say, Mr. Chapman? Alvah? Come on and say something, if it's wrong. Come on. Mr. Alvah Chapman: I have nothing. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner Dawkins... 57 May 11, 1995 t� Mr. Plummer: Can I ask one other question? County Commissioner Penelas: May I... May I... Chairperson Dawkins: Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Penelas... Chairperson Dawkins: Let Commissioner... Mr. Plummer: OK. I... Chairperson Dawkins: He wants to... Mr. Plummer: Well, he can answer this question later. It's... I would like to know and see a total budget of operational year. In other words, what is it you hope to derive, with or without this money that you're asking for here today, and what that money is going to be used for, and I'd like to see it for at least a five-year projection. Mr. Penelas: OK. Absolutely, Commissioner. Vice Chairperson Clark: All right. You're the Chairman, now. Mr. Penelas: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, let me take a step back and try to put this in perspective, because a lot of things have been said about there not being perhaps enough money to fund the facility with current dollars. There's been talk about who's causing the problem there. The reason we're here, and the reason why you probably only see three people objecting, as opposed to the dozens you had here the last time the interlocal came up was because the main concern of the community was that they did not want to spend, or have this money spent for another facility, or for another homeless use in the district. That was the main concern. We went back and we took the concerns of the community, the concerns that you all expressed as a Board of City Commissioners, and we've amended the use of the money. We are complying with your concerns of two or three months ago. It was not the original intent of the Board of County Commissioners when the five million dollars ($5,000,000) was set aside to go towards the Homeless Assistance Center, for one simple reason. There was no Homeless Assistance Center two years ago. The plan was developed subsequently. So now, we've said, OK, we agree that the Omni area is, obviously, putting in a lot to deal with this problem, and we will not burden them with yet another facility or we will not fund another facility. That's why we're trying to reach a compromise here and say that the money will be used to go into an existing facility that you all have already sited. The other part of this, which I think, you know, now I'm speaking to you as a fellow elected official, and as a matter of policy, that just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, the people from the Omni district are saying, you know, that's not what we voted to spend the monies for, that it's not their problem, it's somebody else's problem. Mr. Yaffa, who I respect and, you know, there's nothing more that I would like than to find an amicable solution to this problem, is indicated that the only people who aren't getting anything from this are the Omni residents. The Omni residents are getting the Performing Arts Center. Let's not lose sight of that. Chairperson Dawkins: No, they're not. Dade County is getting... I can't let you put that in the record. Dade County is getting the Performing Arts Center, not the Omni people. County Commissioner Penelas: You're correct, Commissioner Dawkins. 58 May 11, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Say that, then, Mr. Penelas. County Commissioner Penelas: But the Board of County Commissioners could have sited this facility somewhere else. Chairperson Dawkins: And it wouldn't have made me unhappy. OK? County Commissioner Penelas: OK. And it would not have have made you unhappy. Chairperson Dawkins: Thank you. OK, go ahead. County Commissioner Penelas: So the point... The point being here is that if you're going to look at who is specifically and directly going to benefit by increased property values, increased economic opportunities, and so many other benefits that are going to be obtained by siting this in this area, it's going to be the people in the Omni area. All of Dade County will benefit. You are absolutely correct, Commissioner Dawkins. But as you well know, the property values in the City of Hialeah are not going to increase by... Chairperson Dawkins: No, because you aren't going... Yes, they will. You're not going to put a Homeless Center in Hialeah. The properties are going to go way up. County Commissioner Penelas: The City of Hialeah, I think, has dealt... Chairperson Dawkins: No Homeless Center, no Homeless Center. County Commissioner Penelas: ... very, very progressively with the issue of the homeless in the past. Chairperson Dawkins: But you're not... You're not putting a Homeless Center out there, though. And you... And if I was living out there, I'd vote for you because of that. Vice Chairperson Clark: All right. I'm not running this meeting. This is your meeting. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. All right. I'm sorry, go right ahead, sir. County Commissioner Penelas: If I may finish. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir, go right... Please continue, sir. County Commissioner Penelas: OK. The point is, again, I just want to put in perspective, Commissioner, why we're here. We're here because you all and the community did not want us to spend this money for another facility in the district. We've given in on that issue. I would be more than happy if you... Because there's two ways of proceeding with this. One is through the interlocal, and one is through the plan. Both things need to occur. And I hope, Commissioner, at this point, you're satisfied with that, because I think we've explained that. The reason why the County can't simply use the money is because on the eleven million dollar ($11,000,000) piece, you and I, the City and the County, have to agree. We have to agree on how to spend the money. I would be satisfied either way. If you all would give your Manager instructions to proceed with amending the plan - I'm not talking about the interlocal at this time - amending the plan, which you have to do anyway, to put the Performing Arts Center there, because you can't spend this money, and I'm being told by our staff that we've got to make an allocation of - what? - fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) in the next couple of weeks to deal with the... with the what? For the what, I'm sorry? 59 May 11, 1995 k.- (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) County Commissioner Penelas: For the architectural plans. I mean, we've already got to make a substantial commitment of money to deal with the plans, and we haven't concluded... Chairperson Dawkins: Which plans? County Commissioner Penelas: For the architectural plans. Chairperson Dawkins: Architectural plans for what? County Commissioner Penelas: For the Performing Arts Center. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Well, say... County Commissioner Penelas: Yeah, for the Performing Arts Center. That... If the interlocal isn't agreed to by then, that it may cause further delay. So I would be satisfied either way, Mr. Mayor, if you all could give instructions to the Manager to start dealing with the plan, amend the plan, let's include all the necessary language, and you start the process. We would be happy with that. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. All right. The City is no longer over this, it's the CRA. So the CRA would have... I mean, I'm just telling you that it would be the CRA that would be dealing with this, not the Manager. So don't spend time going to the Manager's Office. It's the CRA. County Commissioner Penelas: OK. Well, can you... All right, let me ask you a question, then. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes. County Commissioner Penelas: Because I want this process to start. I don't want us to... Would you all be the ones giving instructions to the CRA to amend the plan? Chairperson Dawkins: Yes. County Commissioner Penelas: OK. Would you... Chairperson Dawkins: Or whatever. Go ahead, Mr. Bailey. And after Mr. Bailey, we're going to bring this to closure. We've been on it an hour and a half. Mr. Bailey: Well, I'm going to yield to Ms. Anderson. She's been... Chairperson Dawkins: No, no, no. You will close this out. Ms. Anderson has talked. She can't talk all morning. OK, let's go. Mr. Bailey: We will do whatever this board determines that we should be doing. We have already started the process some time ago on the amendment to the redevelopment plan. We would need some participation from the County, because we have no idea at all what the parameters of the Homeless Housing Center will be involved, and we have to have our legal counsel determine whether or not those components they are suggesting that the money be used for fit within the statutes. So back to Commissioner Penelas and directing, perhaps, the County Staff, that they should designate someone to work with us from the program end, so we can determine how we redesign or amend the redevelopment plan and take us through this plan process. 60 May 11, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Mr. Plummer: Would it be not... Chairperson Dawkins: Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Wouldn't it be somewhere along the line where people are telling me from this ear over here that they cannot use it for operational, that that determination be made first? Mr. Bailey: We'll make that determination when we do the amendment to the plan, because it's very complicated and we need to have... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Why do you go through spinning your wheels, if you find out that that is not a possibility of going through amending the plan? First... Mr. Bailey: There are some possibilities. There are some possibilities. The Performing Arts, for infrastructure, I don't think we even have to amend the plan for the Performing Arts Theater, because they have already indicated it's for infrastructure. That is an eligible activity. I do not know what the activity is with the homeless center. Mr. Plummer: All right. Let me... Mr. Mayor, may I? I'd like to make a motion... I'm sorry. Chairperson Dawkins: That's all right. I don't mind. I don't mind. Mr. Plummer: I was going to make a motion, as a member of the CRA Board, that we instruct the board to commence hearings with the people of the district, within 60 days. Mr. Bailey: Commissioner, now, the process is a little different. Once we do the planned amendment, it has to go before the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Advisory Board of the County, and then from the County, it has to go to the Planning Advisory Board of the City, and from there, it comes to the CRA... Mr. Plummer: Whoa, whoa, whoal Mr. Bailey, you know, maybe you like this bureaucracy. I don't. Mr. Bailey: Well, that's the law. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. If we go through that process, that this Commission may deny after public hearings, don't go through that process, sir. OK? What I'm saying to you, you have the proposal of an amended plan. Start having the hearings with the CRA and the public. This Commission will then make a determination as to whether we will modify, whether we will amend, or we will do nothing. Mr. Bailey: OK. I like that. Mr. Plummer: Then, if, in fact, you run with it to the HRS (Housing and Rehabilitative Services), and the HRT, and the ABC, and all the rest of it, but don't do it until this CRA Board has acted. Mr. Bailey: OK. Chairperson Dawkins: What is your motion, Commissioner? Mr. Plummer: My motion is that this CRA Board commence hearings with the public that are directly involved with the Omni redistrict within 60 days. 61 May 11, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: And report back. Mr. Plummer: No. We have the... We are the CRA Board, and we'll have the hearings right here, I assume. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Beautiful, wonderful. Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Plummer: OK? We don't have to report back. We will be the report. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. Is there a... Mr. Gort: Second. Chairperson Dawkins: Under discussion. Is there a proposed date of the maker of the motion, by... Mr. Plummer: Sir, I said within 60 days. I would assume the sooner, the better. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. All right. Well, then... Mr. Plummer: I would hope it could be. Chairperson Dawkins: We will notice it in the newspaper and over the radio that the meeting is there, so there will be a public notice. Mr. Plummer: I would ask the Manager if he has within the next 60 days, either the meeting of the 25th or the meeting of June the 22nd, if it's going to be a half a day meeting for zoning, that we consider a morning item for either one of those days. The 21st would probably be too quick. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. We'll hold one in the community first, J.L., and then bring the second one back here. Mr. Plummer: If that's what you want. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. Mm-hmm. OK. Is there any further discussion on the motion? County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner Dawkins. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir. County Commissioner Penelas: Could I please understand, just so I can take this back to my board what the process is? Because I think that's what's delaying this whole thing. And I want to understand what the... Chairperson Dawkins: J.L., explain the motion. Mr. Plummer: Alex, very simply, as we're told, we've got to have two public hearings of the people, of the district. County Commissioner Penelas: To amend the plan. Mr. Plummer: To amend the plan. 62 May 11, 1995 County Commissioner Penelas: OK. Mr. Plummer: OK? We will hear that from the public. Chairperson Dawkins: Input, input from the public. Mr. Plummer: They will either convince this Commission to take action to do either of the following. One, amend the plan; if so, how it will be modified; or, if, in fact, they will deny any modifications to the plan. But that would be... You're asking to don't let this thing drag out. County Commissioner Penelas: Right. Mr. Plummer: So I'm saying that hearing will take place within 60 days. County Commissioner Penelas: OK. Mr. Plummer: You've got to have a hearing... the first one. OK? And at that time, we will set the hearing for the second one. You want it in 30 days? I don't care. I'm just trying to say, listen, as you said, Commissioner, let's get this one more big item behind us. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Mr. Plummer: OK? Chairperson Dawkins: All right. Mr. Plummer: My saying is no more than 60 days. It could be 30, it could be whatever. Chairperson Dawkins: Call the roll, Madam Clerk. Is the motion understood? County Commissioner Penelas: If I may, Commissioner. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir, Mr. Penelas. County Commissioner Penelas: OK. I agree with the fact that the process should begin. I'm just trying to make sure we know what we have to do. The County, via a 13/0 vote of the Board of County Commissioners, in July of '93, have already indicated that five million dollars ($5,000,000) are being requested for homeless. I assume that's already in the record, and you all are aware of that. Does the County then make a presentation at these hearings? Do we prepare that in writing, ahead of time? For example, Mr. Yaffa has a series of amendments I'm sure he'll be presenting to the plan. Vice Chairperson Clark: I think that you must have your Law Department look into this. As our Law Department has advised us at the present time, you can't do it for operating expenses. Now, I'd have to have an answer back... You better have some ground to stand on there, Alex. Chairperson Dawkins: I will notice... County Commissioner Penelas: And the County... Chairperson Dawkins: I will notice you of the meeting, and I would suggest that you bring everybody there who could help convince us of your point. County Commissioner Penelas: We would also be, then, the authority requesting that you amend the plan to include the Performing Arts Center; is that correct? 63 May 11, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: You've already done that, and I'm not going to... County Commissioner Penelas: Is that... Chairperson Dawkins: No, no, no. You've done that here. OK? Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me. County Commissioner Penelas: No, I've done... Mr. Plummer: My understanding is, the plan must be amended. Chairperson Dawkins: Yeah. County Commissioner Penelas: To include the Performing Arts Center. Mr. Plummer: It's got to be... Just for the Performing Arts alone, it has to be amended. County Commissioner Penelas: And what I'm... I'm just confirming that we would be the ones coming forth and asking you to do that, as well, at this public hearing. Mr. Plummer: It can be self -initiated. Mr. Gort: Right, yeah. County Commissioner Penelas: OK. Vice Chairperson Clark: All right. Chairperson Dawkins: OK? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mr. Plummer, who moved its adoption: OMNI/CRA MOTION NO. 95-2 A MOTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO SCHEDULE TWO (2) PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD WITHIN THE NEXT 60 DAYS IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OMNI AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED HOMELESS HOUSING COMPONENT AND THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, ONE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE AFFECTED DISTRICT, AND THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS; FURTHER REQUESTING THE CHAIRMAN OF SAID AGENCY TO AGREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO ACCEPTABLE DATES FOR SAID HEARINGS, AS WELL AS ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE ADVERTISING OF SAME IS PLACED IN LOCAL MEDIA SOURCES (INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO.) 64 May 11, 1995 1r Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gort, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Wifredo Gort Mr. Victor De Yurre Mr. J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Chairperson Stephen P. Clark Chairperson MillerJ. Dawkins NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Note: The aforementioned Motion was inadvertently given a number (M-95-365) as normally assigned to legislation where City Commission action has ensued. After concurrence with the City Attorney, it was agreed that the OMNI Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) should have its own numerical sequence for any legislative action in instances where the Commission sits in the capacity as the Board of Directors. Since the City Commission had reconvened as the OMNI/CRA, the establishment of the aforementioned numerical sequence is warranted, and said legislative action was given a beginning number of OMNI/CRA M-95-2. Mr. Plummer: I might make a suggestion to you, Mr. Penelas, since there's been a lot of things that have been said that were not nice, in a way, shape or form, that you make public anything in any meetings that you have regardless to this matter. I think the thing that was... Some of the problems we've had is the so-called secret meetings that people of the area didn't know about. I can tell you that I was accused of attending a meeting that I didn't even know about, nor did I attend, and I think if we can try to keep down some rumors by saying, hey, if there are going to be meetings, let's let it be known, let it all hang out, and let's try to do it from that point, that standpoint, and I would ask my Administration to do the same. County Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner, I think that's very well taken. I would only ask, though, that you expand your comments to go beyond myself, and everybody that's been involved in the issue, elected or otherwise, because... Mr. Plummer: Absolutely. County Commissioner Penelas: ... all of our hearings are required to be in the sunshine. We do not conduct business outside of the sunshine. Mr. Plummer: Well, we operate in the moonshine, but that's all right. County Commissioner Penelas: Unlike private parties, who can meet in private. Chairperson Dawkins: You know, and I have to agree with Commissioner Penelas. It's not the County Commission, it's not meeting in the sunshine, it's not the City Commission. It's Mr. Alvah Chapman's group, who, a Judge told him that he did not have to meet in the sunshine. So, now, J.L. Plummer can yell and scream all he wants. There's just certain homeless meetings that will not be in the open. Vice Chairperson Clark: All right. Next case. 65 May 11, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: And there's nothing we can do about it. Vice Chairperson Clark: Next case. Next item. Thank you. Chairperson Dawkins: First we have to go... I move that we adjourn the CRA meeting. Mr. Gort: Second. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. Now, we'll go back into the regular agenda. Vice Chairperson Clark: Yes. All right. Thank you. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: There being no further business to come before the CRA Board, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:20 a.m., after which the meeting of the City Commission was resumed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. DISCUSS AND DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH MONTE CARLO CASINO CRUISES FOR DOCK SPACE AT CITY -OWNED MIAMARINA TO VERIFY LEGALITY. Mayor Clark: Mr. Manager. Mr. Cesar Odio (City Manager): Yes, sir. Mayor Clark: We have one of our colleagues who is very kind to us, Mr. Casden, from Miami Beach, where is he? Commissioner Gort: He's here. Mayor Clark: On item number 56. Mr. Odio: Commissioner... Mr. Mayor, on item 56, what I'd like to do... Mayor Clark: Is withdraw it. Mr. Odio: No, sir. I would like to ask you to authorize us to go out on an RFP (Request for Proposals) for that particular site. I want you to put on the record that these people came to us, they offered us an annual rent of a hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) guaranteed. Vice Mayor Plummer: Which site, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Clark: Without a doubt, it's... Mr. Odio: Now, since then, we have had offers of more. What I'd like to do, when we bring back the RFP, Mr. Mayor, is that we put all the commercial slips out for RFPs also, since... 66 May 11, 1995