Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW OMNI CRA 1995-06-15 MinutesCITY of: MIAMI ' OMNI AR�` f C�MUNIiY REDEVELOPMENTAGEICY .. MINUTE 0� mEETItdG HELD O� DUNE 15 , 199 TEE DITY CLERK sy TtiE OFFICE ®� PREPARED cl-Ty HA mr qi'Y CLEW- INDEX MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE OMNI AREA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY June 15, 1995 ITEM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. NO. 1. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING ON JUNE 29, DISCUSSION 1-6 1995, 7:00 P.M*, GRAND 6/15/95 CONDOMINIUM AND DOUBLETREE GRAND HOTEL, (1717 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE) -- DEFER ANY ACTION (C.R.A.) JUNE 29, 1995 MEETING -- SOLICIT INPUT FROM PUBLIC RELATIVE TO HOMELESS SHELTER AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. 2. (A) OVERVIEW OF PERFORMING ARTS DISCUSSION 7-17 CENTER PROJECT BY MICHAEL 6/15/95 SPRING -- DIRECT CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE VERBATIM MINUTES TO THE BOARD. (B) COUNTY COMMISSIONER ALEX PENELAS SUPPORTS AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER -- ADVOCATES $5 MILLION CITY COMMITMENT TO HOMELESS SHELTER -- WILL WITHDRAW HIS SUPPORT BEFORE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ENTIRE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER IF MONEY COMMITMENT IS BROKEN -- BOARD QUESTIONS LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTENCE OF MONEY COMMITMENT AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -- QUESTION WISDOM OF USING TAX MONIES TO FUND A FACILITY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING SECURITY OF DISCUSSION 17-29 AREA AS NUMBER ONE CONCERN -- USE 6/15/95 OF OMNI DISTRICT TAXES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD -- TAXPAYERS PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR TAX DOLLARS -- REQUEST LEGAL COUNSEL TO EXAMINE CHAPTER 163 OF FLORIDA STATUTES TO DETERMINE USAGE OF TAX INCREMENTAL FUNDS WITHIN THE OMNI DISTRICT -- ASK AT COMMISSION LEVEL ABOUT REDUCTION OF POLICE PRESENCE ASSIGNED TO OMNI DISTRICT. 4. FAX CONCERNS/QUESTIONS TO DISCUSSION 29-31 CHAIRPERSON'S OFFICE PRIOR TO 6/15/95 JUNE 29, 1995 MEETING -- BOARD WILL ANSTRER CONCERNS/QUESTIONS AT JUNE 29, 1995 MEETING. MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE OMNI AREA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY On the 15th day of June, 1995, the OMNI Area / Community Redevelopment Agency (C.R.A.) met at the Grand Condominium and Doubletree Grand Hotel, in the Key West and Key Biscayne Banquet Rooms (RG - Mezzanine Level), located at 1717 North Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida in a public hearing. The public hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Miller J. Dawkins with the following members of the board found to be present: Chairperson Miller J. Dawkins Board Member Victor H. De Yurre Board Member J.L. Plummer Board Member Wifredo Gort ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Stephen P. Clark ALSO PRESENT: Herbert J. Bailey, OMNI/CRA Executive Director Linda Kearson, OMNI/CRA Legal Counsel Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mr. J. L. Plummer who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. ----------------------------------- --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING ON JUNE 29, 1995, 7:00 P.M., GRAND CONDOMINIUM AND DOUBLETREE GRAND HOTEL, (1717 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE) -- DEFER ANY ACTION (C.R.A.) JUNE 29, 1995 MEETING -- SOLICIT INPUT FROM PUBLIC RELATIVE TO HOMELESS SHELTER AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Dawkins: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the first meeting in the OMNI area of the Community Redevelopment Agency. And I think we would start by having J.L. Plummer lead us in the pledge of allegiance. This is a very heartwarming meeting for us. It is going to be informative, and what have you. So, since we have a quorum rule, we will set some ground rules. It was said that there would be two meetings within 60 days. I would like for the other two members to know that ten .days from today is the 25th, and that's a Sunday, so if it's convenient... I mean, .if it's agreeable with'them, I think that the next meeting should be at 1 June 15, 1995 L' City Hall at 7 o'clock, on the 26th, which is a Monday. I say that... I say that now so that all of us can adjust our scheduling. If we wait until the first week in July, that's the first 4th of July, people go away for the July holiday. If you wait a little longer, you enter the middle of July, and then people go on vacations in August. So I think that we should try, in my opinion, now it is up to the rest of the board members... Mr. J.L. Plummer: Mr. Chairperson. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: What time of day? Chairperson Dawkins: Seven o'clock. Mr. Plummer: I'll be in Tallahassee. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. What about the 26th? Mr. Plummer: That's a Monday... No, I'll be... Chairperson Dawkins: That's a Tuesday. Mr. Plummer: No, I don't get back until Wednesday afternoon. Chairperson Dawkins: What time? Mr. Plummer: Oh, I get here... Chairperson Dawkins: All right, sir. What is Thursday? What day of the month is Thursday? Mr. Plummer: June the 28th is a Wednesday. Chairperson Dawkins: All right, so the 29th is Thursday. Mr. Plummer: I can make the 28th in the evening, at 7 O'clock. Chairperson Dawkins: No, I don't want... no, the plane may be late. Mr. Plummer: All right. Chairperson Dawkins: So let's go... let's go Thursday the 29th. Mr. Plummer: That's fine with me. Chairperson Dawkins: Is that all right with you? Mr. Wifredo Gort: That's fine with me. Mr. Plummer: Seven o'clock? Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir. Seven o'clock, City Hall, will be the continuation of this meeting. We are going to adjourn today... yes, ma'am. Ms. Trudy Skoke: May I ask why if it concerns Omni, it will be at City Hall? 2 June 15, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: Because when the suggestion was made by Commissioner Plummer, he said, "One meeting in the community, and another meeting at City Hall." Ms. Skoke: OK. Can't it be changed? You changed your... Chairperson Dawkins: No, ma'am. If I change it for you, then the people who didn't want to come down here will be angry because we came down here, so I think we are going to leave it like it is. Ms. Skoke: I don't understand people who live in the OMNI area, why they would be angry that they don't go to Coconut Grove. Mr. Plummer: Well, one of the reasons that we wanted to have it at the... at City Hall was simply because of the availability of staff, and having all the things that we need, from the visuals to everything else that we had there. And that was the reason that we said that we'd have one in the community where the people would have the opportunity, and then the second one would be at City Hall. Ms. Skoke: This hall is... Chairperson Dawkins: Miss... pardon me just a minute. Miss, we are trying... we are going to record this, and people are... wait a minute, so would you give us your name and address, please. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) I Ms. Skoke: Trudy Skoke, 1717 North Bayshore Drive. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Can you give it to us in the mike, because we are recording this, please, ma'am. Ms. Skoke: Trudy Skoke, 1717 North Bayshore Drive. I live in the Grand. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. Thank you. Just wait right there now because we are also finished with this. Ms. Skoke: Thank you. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Mr. Victor De Yurre entered the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Chairperson Dawkins: Commissioner De Yurre, we are at the stage of having the second part of this hearing, so... nobody could make it until the 29th. So we agreed to meet 7 o'clock on the 29th. This lady says that she does not understand why a point of issue like this, concerning the residents of this area, should be held at... in the Grove when it affects the people in this area. Now, anything that is legislated can be un-legislated. Unidentified Speaker: I agree with her. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, ma'am. Wait, wait now. OK. So what is the pleasure of the rest of the Board of Directors. 3 June 15, 1995 Mr. Plummer: I have no problem, I... if I got to meet, I got to meet wherever it is. The only problem is that we would just have to transport everything here, that's all. Chairperson Dawkins: Well, then we are using their tax dollars. What do you say, Commissioner? Mr. Victor H. De Yurre: Well, we don't have any Commission meeting on the 29th any way, right? Chairperson Dawkins: No, sir. No, we don't. Mr. De Yurre: So. Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. De Yurre: What time would it be? Chairperson Dawkins: Seven p.m. Mr. De Yurre: What day is the 29th? Mr. Gort: Thursday. Mr. De Yurre: Thursday. Mr. Gort: We finish... Mr. Plummer: No, Victor... excuse me, Victor, we don't have another Commission meeting till the 13th. Mr. De Yurre: That's what I'm saying, there is nothing going on. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. Mr. De Yurre: So that will be fine. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Mr. De Yurre: We can do it here. Chairperson Dawkins: All right. OK. Mr. De Yurre: All right, let me announce something because I was on my way here Tuesday for a 7 o'clock meeting... Mr. Plummer: Monday. Chairperson Dawkins: Monday. Mr. De Yurre: ...and I didn't find out until about 6 o'clock, or whatever, that there wasn't... the change to Thursday, and I have a commitment. I have to be... I have to leave at 7:45 here tonight. So whatever we can do, we can accomplish, and hopefully, quickly. 4 June 15, 1995 Ms. Skoke: Are you going to the same dinner party I am? Mr. De Yurre: No, I don't think so. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. That's why I... Commissioner De Yurre... yes, sir, let me straighten... Commissioner De Yurre, that's why I said, "Let's get a date certain now." So that everyone will know the day, and the time, and the place. Because, as you said, we all have... have different schedules, and different jobs, and I appreciate, just like of all of us have something at 9 o'clock tonight, or what have you. Commissioner Gort scheduled something tonight because he was under the impression that it was on the 15th also. Mr. Gort: I was here Monday looking for the meeting room. Chairperson Dawkins: Uh-huh. So... now, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Director Plummer. Mr. Plummer: For what? Chairperson Dawkins: Direct. You are the director. You are the CRA Director, you asked for the floor, I've given it to you. Mr. Plummer: I didn't ask for the floor. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. No problem. Mr. De Yurre: Surprising. Mr. Plummer: If you give the floor, I'll have to clean it. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. So, therefore, this board... Mr. Plummer: Let me... let me say this. I think for every one this should be... so we understand where we are coming from. We are not sitting here tonight as City Commissioners. Chairperson Dawkins: That's right. Mr. Plummer: That has to be understood. The City Commission is in fact the Board of Directors of CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). Now, do we wear the two hats, there is no question. But in effect, what we are here tonight is the director of the CRA, Community Redevelopment Agency. When we sit at City Hall, we are in fact the other side of the coin, which is the City Commission. There is a difference. Chairperson Dawkins: So it is agreed by the four of us here that the second half of this meeting will be held... will be held on the 29th at 7:00 p.m... where is Mr. Joseph? In the same hall, Mr. Joseph? Mr. Fred Joseph: Yes, your (unintelligible). Chairperson Dawkins: In the same hall. OK. Ms. Skoke: Thank you all very much. Chairperson Dawkins: You are more than welcome. Mr. Plummer: What do you mean you can't fight City Hall? 5 June 15, 1995 Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Since we are... like we are going to have a... this is just a preliminary for the second part of this. So if it is agreeable with the rest of the directors, I would like to give the Performing .Arts 15 minutes, the Homeless Housing Center 15 minutes, and then we will open it up for the public to speak. Whoever is speaking at 8:30, we will cut... that will be the last speaker until we come back here on the 29th. OK. Is that agreeable with the directors? Mr. Plummer: Fine with me. Mr. Gort: I have no problem. Mr. Chairperson. Mr. De Yurre: I'll be out at 7:45, so... Mr. Gort: I do need to see... Chairperson Dawkins: Well... hey, let me get one thing straight, OK. If you leave now, you leave now. But the minute... the fact, the mere fact that you took time to come here, I am pleased and happy. OK. Mr. De Yurre: You know how we are always with you. Chairperson Dawkins: But don't keep... don't keep telling me that you are leaving. If you are leaving, you go. OK. But these people are happy, I mean, they know that we have other things to do, Commissioner. They know that we have a number of things to do. So you've said three times that you are leaving at 7:45. Mr. De Yurre: I just want you to know. I don't want you to be left without a quorum. Chairperson Dawkins: Oh, no. Chairperson Dawkins: That's the whole thing. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. All right. Mr. Gort: Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is that today's meeting was also to listen. Chairperson Dawkins: That's right. Mr. Gort: And that were no decisions that we would make today. Chairperson Dawkins: Oh, no. Mr. Gort: My understanding also. Chairperson Dawkins: No voting today. OK. Is that agreeable? Mr. Plummer: Fine. Mr. De Yurre: Yes, sir. Z June 15, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. (A)OVERVIEW OF PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PROJECT BY MICHAEL SPRING -- DIRECT CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE VERBATIM MINUTES TO THE BOARD. (B)COUNTY COMMISSIONER ALE,X PENELAS SUPPORTS AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER -- ADVOCATES $5 MILLION CITY COMMITMENT TO HOMELESS SHELTER -- WILL WITHDRAW HIS SUPPORT BEFORE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ENTIRE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER IF MONEY COMMITMENT IS BROKEN -- BOARD QUESTIONS LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTENCE OF MONEY COMMITMENT AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -- QUESTION WISDOM OF USING TAX MONIES TO FUND A FACILITY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Who is going to speak for the Performing Arts? OK. Hearing none... hearing none... Mr. De Yurre: Just saves 15 minutes. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Now, you can do it shorter than 15 minutes, it won't help... it won't hurt. Mr. Michael Spring: Absolutely. My name is Michael Spring, I am the Executive Director of the Metro -Dade Cultural Affairs Council, and I would like to give you a brief overview on where we are with the Performing Arts Center Project. Back in 1990, the County Commission approved the formation of a financing plan for the Performing Arts Center. This financing plan consisted of two principal public sources of funds, the Convention Development Tax and the OMNI Tax Increment District Funds. In addition, the financing plan also included the private sector of fundraising goal of about $40 million, and it included some state and federal grant monies that would be attained to. Since the formation of that financing plan, the County has gone ahead and formed the Performing Arts Center Trust, which is 32 member board that is charged with helping to coordinate the planning, design, and construction of the facility; hired project consultants, which consists of theatre consultants, acoustical consultants, cost and site master planning consultants and gone through a rather exhausted public process to begin to give shape to the project. Essentially, during that time between 1990 and today, the following things were accomplished: the selection of the Omni site occurred, and the commitment of more than five and a half acres of land donated by Sears Roebuck and Company and Knight Ryder Corporation on both sides of Biscayne Boulevard, here in the Omni area. This contribution, along with the help of the private sectors that helped us secure the contribution, amounts to more than $15 million in donated land for the project. Through our consultants and through the work of our committees and the Performing Arts Center Trust and County Staff, we've developed a building program for the Performing Arts Center. And it consists of a ballet -opera house of approximately 2,480 seats, which will be located on the west side of the Boulevard, on the Sears side, and a concert hall of approximately 2,200 seats on the east side of the Boulevard. In addition to this main performance spaces, we are also planning a small black boxer studio theatre and ancillary spaces attached to education outreach activities, catering, food services and such. In addition to the actual building program, we've come up with an operating performer... that demonstrates that we can run the Center on a balance budget with no reliance on the County General Fund, and we've also come up with an existing facility's plan that dedicates 7 June 15, 1995 W approximately $8 million to the improvement of 11 existing facilities throughout Dade County. After we finish with this planning and costing phase, we moved into the architectural selection phase, which was concluded in March of this year. This consisted of a two -stage process that narrowed down a field of approximately 25 architects that responded to our request for qualifications. These architects are from all over the world. We interviewed six of those architects, lead architects. Narrowed that field down to three finalists. Those three finalists assembled teams and went through a design charrette and competition phase of the project, that culminated in the selection of Cesar Pelli & Associates. The recommendation of Cesar Pelli & Associates is scheduled to go before the Board of County Commissioner on Tuesday of next week. And that will go on the form of the County Manager asking for permission to begin negotiations with the architect. The wonderful thing about the selection process for an architect is that it involved lots of citizens. It occurred right here in the Omni area, the selection process did at the Crown Plaza Hotel. It consisted of the architects interacting with the citizens of this area and of the County, and gave the citizens an opportunity to take a look at the evolving ideas from the architects about what shape, what form, what image the new Performing Arts Center would take. So we have a wonderful design that emerged from the Pelli group that includes public plazas, terraces, gardens, and that design will continue to evolve after we sign a contract with power limits approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And it will continue to evolve in the same public spirit of involving the community in the evolution of the project. The Center is designed to serve lots of different people. There are five resident performing arts groups that will call this new facility home. They are the New World Symphony; the Florida Philharmonic Orchestra; the Florida Grand Opera; the Concert Association of Florida and the Miami City Ballet. But then in addition to these five major performing arts groups, hundreds of community groups will be able to use the Center, both performing arts groups and civic organizations as well. And it is designed to be the kind of facility that will put Miami, Greater Miami, on the map as a City having aspirations to develop first class arts' activities and a first class architectural statement that literally defines the landscape here. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Plummer: I have one question. Mr. Spring: Sure. Mr. Plummer: What has been determined, if anything, the annual operating and maintenance cost? Mr. Spring: Well, there is a rather extensive performa that was done for the facility that I will be glad to give you a copy of. But generally speaking... Mr. Plummer: Generally... Mr. Spring: ...the annual operating budget of the Center including staff, and maintenance, and utilities, and all the things that goes into operating the building was roughly about $7 million dollars a year. Mr. Plummer: And you are saying that... if I understood you correctly... Mr. Spring: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: ...no moneys will come from Dade County or from taxpayers for operating and maintenance? Mr. Spring: No, it's very specific. There will be no reliance in the County's General Fund for those dollars. 8 June 15, 1995 Mr. Plummer: Where are you going to get your money from? Mr. Spring: Well, the operating performer relies on the following sources for revenues for the project. Mr. Plummer: They are? Mr. Spring: Clearly, the facility will generate earn revenue, from rental of the facility and ticket surcharges and there are profit Centers built in the Center - everything from concessions to food services that are designed to generate some earn revenue. But in addition to the earn revenue, the entire budget relies on two principal dedicated sources of funds to make sure that the budget can be balanced. The first is a $20 million endowment that the private sector is committed to raising. Of the $40 plus million that the private sector fundraising commitment, early on we made the decision to cut that fundraising in half and so that half of it be used for the capital project; the other half will be an endowment that will spinoff interest for the operation of the Center. So that is one of the two dedicated funding sources. The second dedicated funding source was the premise to use a portion of the two-thirds share of the Convention Development Tax for operations and maintenance of the Center. So beginning with the opening year of the Center, a revenue... part of that revenue stream, the two-thirds Convention Development Tax, has been dedicated to the operations and maintenance of the Center. It begins in that first year at $1.4 million a year and over the course of the bonds, the repayment of the bonds, it goes to approximately $2 million. Mr. Plummer: My real question is because of the reason we are here. You are not anticipating any of the OMNI Redevelopment Tax to operate the regular annual ONM (sic)? Mr. Spring: You are absolutely correct. Mr. Plummer: That's on the record, now. Mr. Spring: That's on the record. The Omni Tax has been committed to this project for bonding purposes, for capital dollars. That has always been the intention of the tax and the financing plan for the Performing Arts Center. Chairperson Dawkins: Ladies and gentlemen, for clarification. Are any other persons... thank you, sir. Mr. Spring: You are welcome. Chairperson Dawkins: For clarification. There was a breakdown in communications, and the other Commissioners scheduled other events for tonight - J.L. Plummer thought we were going to come Monday, Commissioner Gort and Commissioner De Yurre. We have asked that the City Clerk record this verbatim and. provide Commissioner Gort and Commissioner De Yurre with the transcript, so that anything that is said here they will be of knowledge of it. Commissioner De Yurre has to leave now to go to a scheduled, very important meeting, just like this one is, just like Commissioner Gort. So Commissioner De Yurre will be leaving now, but he will get the minutes and the transcript of the minutes. Thank you. 9 June 15, 1995 NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Mr. Gort left the public hearing at 7: 5 p.m, The City er 1s to provide Mr. Gort and Mr. De Yurre copies of the verbatim transcript of the minutes because they were not able to stay for the whole meeting. Mr. Clark could not attend tonight because of travel schedule. Mr. De Yurre: I'll be here for another few minutes. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. All right, good. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Dawkins, let me... let me also add for the record. Mayor Clark got off from the plane I think about 4 o'clock this morning after been on that airplane for 14 hours. I told him as I saw him at City Hall this morning for an hour that I've seen more lively things at my funeral home. And he is home in bed, that's were he is. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Good. OK. Now we will hear 15 minutes or less from the Homeless Housing Center. Who is going to speak for the Homeless... Mr. Plummer: Alex is here. Chairperson Dawkins: How did you know that he was going to speak? Mr. Plummer: He was sitting there. Chairperson Dawkins: And by the way, we have the City Manager here, not as the Manager, but as a private taxpayer concerned about his tax dollars. Mr. Cesar Odio: Now I can leave. Chairperson Dawkins: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Alex Penelas: Commissioner Dawkins, and members of the City Commission, good afternoon, and good evening. I am very happy to be here. I am going to be very, very brief because I think that we certainly support amendment of the Redevelopment Plan to include the Performing Arts Center. That's a critical component for the use of the moneys. I guess the more controversial issue deals with use of the money as it relates to the Homeless Assistance Center. And, I want to be absolutely clear. Two and a half years ago when the financing package was being put together for the Performing Arts Center; when there were a lot of issues up in the air; when a lot of people felt that it may by very difficult to get the seven votes that were then needed from the Board of County Commissioners to have the Performing Arts Center approved and the financing package approved, a lot of commitments were made. And that's why I am here today. I'm here simply to have one of those commitments looked up to. And I understand you all were not there at that meeting. I fully understand and comprehend. However, a motion was made by the Board of County Commissioners that five million of this money, of this $172 million, be used to deal with homelessness in the area. We didn't have the penny then. We didn't have the Dade County Homeless Plan. We didn't have the Center. But we recognized that homelessness was a concern and an issue affecting this area. And that motion passed unanimously as did others. Other motions were made, as you will recall, that deal with usage of some of these monies to approve community centers throughout the County. Those motions also passed. And it was a combination of all those amendments and commitments that were made that I think, eventually, let to the nine to four, eight to five, entire Commission vote to approve the financing package for the Performing Arts Center and let that program move forward. We were all very 10 June 15, 1995 a supportive of the Performing Arts Center. There is nothing more that I'd like to see than this... to have that move forward. However, commitments were made, and I feel that we need to find a way, and I am a very flexible and reasonable person, and I'd love to find a way where everybody comes out winning in this thing. But I think certain commitments were made. Subsequently, when the interlocal agreement first came before you all sitting as a City Commission, there were concerns expressed by members of the community. And we saw that in the minutes, where folks did not want that money to be used to build yet another homeless facility within the district. Because the way that it was written, basically, the $5 million could have been utilized for any homeless usage within the district. We went back, and we agreed. We said the folks from the Omni area have been burdened more than enough. They have gotten the first Homeless Assistance Center site within their area and we don't think it's fair to take that money and build yet another facility within the same area. So we modified our plans, and all we are asking is to allow for five million of those monies to be utilized for the Homeless Assistance Center that is currently being constructed a few blocks from here. We've made a commitment that we will not utilize that money to build another Center. I think that allows me to save face. I think it allows the commitment to be looked up to and I think it also recognizes the concerns of the community which does not want another facility built within their area. Thank you very much. Mr. Plummer: Well... no, no, no. Chairperson Dawkins: Wait a minute. Hold it, J.L. Hold it. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, go ahead. Chairperson Dawkins: Madam City Attorney or Mr. Bailey, do either of you recall a commitment being made? Mr. Herbert Bailey: Mr. Chairperson, there was no commitment made from the City of Miami... Chairperson Dawkins: Thank you, hold it. Mr. Bailey: The commitment that is being made is in the County minutes from a County meeting. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Good. Madam City Attorney. Linda Kearson, Legal Counsel: No, sir, I am not aware of that. Chairperson Dawkins: Now... Ms. Kearson: And in fact, I have written myself a note to get a copy of the County's motion, I have not seen that, or those minutes. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: That is not the question. Chairperson Dawkins: Secondly, secondly, Madam City Attorney or Mr. Bailey, can anything be done without the signing of an interlocal agreement? Mr. Bailey: At this point, the interlocal agreement only determines who does what in regards to the City of the County. Chairperson Dawkins: Uh-huh. 11 June 15, 1995 Mr. Bailey: To answer your question, something can be done because the County technically right now is the CRA for the Omni district. In terms of what was proposed as a redevelopment plan, until that interlocal agreement is signed as it was planned and passed by both bodies, nothing can be done. Chairperson Dawkins: How long has that interlocal been at the County? - sent to the County by the City for the County to sign. Would either one of you... Mr. Bailey: It was in 1988. Chairperson Dawkins: 1988. This interlocal went to the County to be signed in 1988... Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir. Chairperson Dawkins: ... and it only came back... Mr. Bailey: Well, it hasn't been signed or approved yet by the County Commission and, for a matter of chronology, when it was submitted to the County for consideration, the Performing Arts Theater nor the Homeless Housing Center was part of the consideration. I think what has happened since the delay, events have taken place that has caused the Performing Arts Center and the Homeless Housing Center to be brought to the table as part of the entire redevelopment activity, which requires some other actions on our part depending on what happens on the next two meetings. Chairperson Dawkins: But I don't want the public not to understand, Mr. Bailey and Madam City Attorney, that the City of Miami did not drag its feet. The interlocal agreement has not been signed by the County, but yet, you are here telling us to give money. Is that a correct statement Madam City Attorney? Ms. Kearson: Yes, sir. That's correct. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Director Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Well, I don't understand it quiet that way even though the bottom line is still the same. The County is not here as the County. I think that we are looking at the Homeless Center, or whatever, Alex... whatever that group is called, is one who is asking for the money from the Redevelopment Agency, as I see it. Now, a couple of questions. I think we need to put on top of the table: is there anywhere, to your knowledge, that a possible second facility will be located in the City of Miami? Commissioner Penelas: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK. The second thing that we hear all of the time: is there any truth to the fact that the real reason that you are asking for this $5 million is in fact to take and build another facility somewhere else? - that you are not really going to use this money to operate as what you are saying? Commissioner Penelas: Our understanding is that the monies, the five million could be used in either fashion. They are for operating or for capital. In either case, Commissioner, it would free up other monies that the Trust, the Homeless Trust, currently has committed to the Homeless Assistance Center Number One. Once that money is freed up, it then allows us to move even quicker with construction of Homeless Assistance Center Number Two. So for our purposes, this Center will be, hopefully, constructed by and completed by early September of this year. 12 June 15, 1995 The... assuming then the monies are used for operational purposes, it is still... it is still monies that are going from the Trust to the partnership for operation of the Homeless Assistance Number One... Mr. Plummer: yeah... Commissioner Penelas: ...that we'll free up the monies to... Mr. Plummer: You know, whether you agree or you disagree, Alex, the problem, I think, that most people have here is that you are going to take the City of Miami money to possibly do the Homestead area. I think that is one of the areas of concern. And you know, they don't even disagree, the people mostly that are here this evening, that this money should go to the facility that is in the City. But even... one step further, that if you took this $5 million, it is going to go to Homestead, and it is not even going to work in the City of Miami. I think that's one of the areas of problem. Commissioner Penelas: Well, I think that can be looked at two ways. First of all, if the monies are going to be used to offset lets say security, a lot of folks talk about security, if those monies are used to offset and perhaps even augment the current security plan at the Homeless Assistance Center Number One, then there is a clear benefit to the folks in the City of Miami. Secondly, even assuming, in the worst case, that all the money is being used simply to help build Homeless Assistance Center Number Two in Homestead, I would... I would suggest to you all that that is also helping the City of Miami because it is less folks that have to be put through this Center here. And more homeless people would be processed through the Center in South Dade as opposed to here in the City of Miami. So I think it does also provide a benefit to the people in this area. Mr. De Yurre: If I may, for a second. Chairperson Dawkins: Go right ahead....from the Director. Mr. De Yurre: When we go back to July 5th, when we had the vote on building the homeless Center at this site where it's being built right now, and it fell upon me to be a deciding vote, and I decided that I though that I thought it was in the best interest to go ahead with this... Mr. Plummer: Absolutely. Mr. De Yurre: ...because of the status -quo was not something that we could afford to stay with. But it was a difficult decision. I put a number of conditions to it. One of which was that this Center would only be for City of Miami homeless. You cannot bring homeless from Homestead. You can not bring them from North Miami Beach. You cannot bring them across the causeway from Miami Beach. It was meant for strictly Miami homeless. And if that condition was violated, then we have the ability to close down the place. So another condition that we had, as we all recall, was that we will not give the CO (Certificate of Occupancy), as far as opening the place, until the second site had been identified down south. Commissioner Penelas: Correct. Mr. De Yurre: And that was in progress and things were moving along. The ground was broken and all that kind of good stuff. So there is no benefit for us giving up $5 million to go down to Homestead because one of the conditions is that we are not going to house these people. We are... we are not going to address those because it is not fair for the people who live in this part of the City of Miami. It's a burden that should not be in place. 13 June 15, 1995 Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner. Right. Mr. De Yurre: And that was one of the conditions that I had. Additionally, you know, we are talking about a $5 million pot that is available. And it's a $5 million pot that as you bond it out it becomes $5 million, really is $500,000 a year, that is available, that could be used annually for operating expenses of this Center. Phillip Yaffa was at a meeting recently when we discussed this at the City Commission, down at Coconut Grove and he made a point that I thought it was well taken. And that is, let's work on identifying how this $500,000 could be used to alleviate the situation in this area as far as additional security that the people that live in this area will be comfortable with and put some of that money towards that, and identifying in conjunction with the homeless Center how these monies were to be used. But certainly having and addressing the needs and the concerns of the people that live in this area that are impacted and have accepted, maybe reluctantly, and some understandingly, you know, this Homeless Center in this location. So I think that, you know, I have no concern about Homestead and the money going down there, I don't think that's correct. I don't have a problem either saying that if we have this pot of money, let's use it here but in a way that we can all work together as identifying how it is going to be used. Commissioner Penelas: Commissioner De Yurre, I am... like I said earlier, very flexible. I am willing to listen to all reasonable proposals. I do want you to all, if you may, for just a moment to take a step back because when this vote was taken by the Board of County Commissioners, and I agree Commissioner Dawkins, you all were not there. You were not part of that commitment, I made that very clear when I Skoke. I said that you all were not present in that meeting, by no means do I incorporate you on the part of that commitment. However... Chairperson Dawkins: But... I'm glad you said that. See, because as long as you stand up there and say a "commitment was made," it makes it sound as if the City Commission made a commitment and we are backing out on it. I'm glad to hear you correct that. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Penelas: The reason that it brings the City back into it... I'm going to be... perhaps I'm going to be very blunt, but L. Chairperson Dawkins: You can't be any blunter than I am. So go ahead and be blunt. OK. Go right ahead. Commissioner Penelas: ...but I need to be very blunt. The problem is... is that you are talking about a larger pool of money that is at stake, and that is the $11 million. Commitments were made to the Board of County Commissioners when the issue got hot and heavy and when it wasn't quite sure whether there'll be seven votes to pass this financing package back in July of '93, a lot of different commitments were made to a lot of different Commissioners. So among the community programs, the theaters, etcetera, commitments were made to others on the homeless issue, including myself. That's why many of us formed a group and we eventually supported it. What I think is going to happen is if we don't find a viable solution to this $11 million issue, which is the monies that would be available under the interlocal, I think there is a real potential that those entire $11 million would then not be available for the Performing Arts Center. Because you see, as it relates to the interlocal, there has to be a meeting of the minds between the City Commission and the County Commission. And I can tell you, Commissioner Dawkins, in all bluntness, that if we don't find some solution, we are going to have a real difficulty passing this interlocal over there. Some how I am the messenger, I'm the guy that is getting shot on both... both ends of the deal here. I'm getting shot over here, I'm getting shot over there. But what is going to happen is you are not going to have, Mr. Bailey, a signature by either side. You are not going to have a signature from you all here, and the County is not going to sign it either. So you are going to have to build... you are going to have to build the Performing Arts Center perhaps with $11 less. 14 June 15, 1995 I Chairperson Dawkins: Stop one minute. One minute, one minute, The Performing Arts Center is not a project of the City of Miami. See, you keep saying that we would have... we do not have to build the Performing Arts Theatre. That is not our budget. Commissioner Penelas: Well, I'm sure that if you'd ask the folks here, they would want it built right down the street. Chairperson Dawkins: Both of these projects... both of these... both of these projects were funded and started by Dade County. So therefore, when you start talking about fighting for the money for the Performing Arts Center and the Homeless Center, that's the County's battle. Commissioner Penelas: I understand. Mr. De Yurre: Commissioner, even though part of the money is ours, too, because part of our penny that is used to pay... Chairperson Dawkins: Sure. Mr. De Yurre: ...for the Arena... Mr. Plummer: The Convention Tax. Mr. De Yurre: ...all that, they have taken it. A part of it we gave it up to help fund this. So... Commissioner Penelas: It was the Omni money. Mr. De Yurre: Well, that also... Commissioner Penelas: And the Omni money. Mr. De Yurre: ...but as far as the penny itself that was earmarked for the Arena, we just... now we get just enough to cover the cost of paying the bonds, the thirty some million dollars that are still outstanding, and basically the balance has been earmarked for this project. But let me say... let me say something because I think it is important. You know, Alex is here today, and I believe that... you know, Alex has a monumental task that he has taken upon himself to do this homeless issue. Because it is a thankless job, really nobody wants a homeless, nobody cares about the homeless. When you think about the whole thing, he has taken it upon himself to do something, and he is right in doing what he is intending to do, and there are a lot of good people involved in this. So, you know, you come here and we may, you know, argue... Commissioner Penelas: No... Mr. De Yurre: ... back and forth, but it's all with the best intentions... Commissioner Penelas: I understand. Mr. De Yurre: ...of what the community is. And if we are talking about $500,000 being available now, and before we Skoke the other day, it was 14 million, not 11, so I'm not sure exactly what we are talking about. But whatever it is, there is a pot of $500,000 that all of a sudden is available; it has been freed up to deal with this homeless issue. And my concern is that I want to see that money used in a way that the people that live in the surrounding... they're surrounding this homeless Center, that are effected by the Center, have a say as to how the money is going to be used. And that's my main concern, I think that's why we need to be at this kind of forum... 15 June 15, 1995 Mr. Plummer: That's why we are here. Commissioner Penelas: And I am amenable. Mr. De Yurre: ...so we can have a good conversation, dialogue as to how it's going to be implemented. Commissioner Penelas: I'm amenable. I just wanted to make the point, Commissioner, though that on the basis of principle, and you know, many times, believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, we do things based on principles. Sometimes we don't. But I'm doing this based on principle. I voted for this thing. And I understand, Commissioner, that it is not a City of Miami, it's not a County project, I think it's a community project because I think that if all of us had not come together then this Performing Arts Center issue... just like the homeless piece, would never have been possible. Mr. Plummer: I agree. Commissioner Penelas: Now... you know, when my vote was needed, and when people called on me in the middle of the night not to go to the radio, not to attack the Performing Arts Center, and not to attack the fact that it was being built on lands supposedly owned by the Miami Herald, and on, and on. Now, you remember this Commissioner, I don't have to... you remember all these discussions. I held back. I had a concern as it dealt with homelessness in the area, and I expressed the concerns. And the commitments were made then that $5 million would be freed up to help homelessness in the area. I'm here simply advocating on behalf of that commitment. I would hope, and again I am trying to be very reasonable, I would hope that there is a way of solving this because if it is not then, in all good conscience, I cannot go back to the County Commission and be supportive of the interlocal, whether it would be for 11 or 14 million, and I probably won't be able to be supportive of the entire Performing Arts Center because I would have felt that a commitment was broken. So I just want to make that point clear. And I hope that in this process... Mr. De Yurre: Well... understanding that expediency is a concern, you know, and what procedures do we take? How do we establish a committee from the neighborhoods affected that we can have in a meeting, where we can get some ideas of what the needs are, and what the concerns are, so we can deal with that? You know, if that... because I will not vote for anything until I have a say from the community as what they want to do. Whether the meeting is here, or wherever, but we need to have that kind of forum. Commissioner Penelas: Well, the way I understood that the process was you all will have this public hearing here today, and then reconvene the CRA again as part of your City Commission meetings sometimes in the next... Chairperson Dawkins: No. No. Commissioner Penelas: No, I'm sorry. Chairperson Dawkins: No. We have two public meetings, and then... Commissioner Penelas: And then you go back to the City. Chairperson Dawkins: ... we go back to the City. Yes. Commissioner Penelas: I think that maybe tonight we should put some of these ideas on the table. See what folks have in mind in terms of proper usage of the money. We have our County 16 June 15, 1995 staff here, and we'll be more than happy to look at them. And again, you know, I will be backing down to a great extent on what was committed to me, but I am willing to listen as long as I feel that the homeless issue is being adequately addressed within whatever proposals are put forward, then I would be willing to go along with it. But it would be in that spirit only that I would accept something. Chairperson Dawkins: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Joseph, you have an agenda of people r who want to speak. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING SECURITY OF AREA AS NUMBER ONE CONCERN -- USE OF OMNI DISTRICT TAXES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD -- TAXPAYERS PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR TAX DOLLARS -- REQUEST LEGAL COUNSEL TO EXAMINE CHAPTER 163 OF FLORIDA STATUTES TO DETERMINE USAGE OF TAX INCREMENTAL FUNDS WITHIN THE OMNI DISTRICT -- ASK AT COMMISSION LEVEL ABOUT REDUCTION OF POLICE PRESENCE ASSIGNED TO OMNI DISTRICT. Mr. Fred Joseph: Yes. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Will you open it up for the public, please. Mr. De Yurre: I'm going to have to leave, and I hate to leave because I want to hear what has to be said. But this is being taped, and I'll get a copy of that immediately. So I appreciate that. Chairperson Dawkins: A TV tape, too. Mr. Joseph: Commissioner. Chairperson Dawkins: Uh-huh. Mr. Joseph: I was.hoping maybe you can give us a little bit of time in asking us some questions as you did the... if you give us a minute or two. Mr. De Yurre: Well, I think... you know... we Skoke with... I think the main concern here is security. Mr. Joseph: No. Mr. De Yurre: I believe that the number one concern here is security for the area. So I believe it's a matter of identifying what do we need as far as manpower, equipment, or whatever, to deal with that issue, and what the cost is going to be. I believe that that's the number one priority. There may be in some other peripheral issues... Mr. Joseph: Right, but you made... Mr. De Yurre: ... but the number one is that. Mr. Joseph: ... you made that issue at the time they voted for putting it there. 17 June 15, 1995 -144i Mr. De Yurre: As a condition. That's right. Mr. Joseph: As one condition, and you also personally made it that they had to have the funds to do it with. Mr. De Yurre: That's right. Mr. Joseph: You didn't say that you were going to come back into the Omni district and say those funds that you have already allocated for improvement, infrastructure, water, sewer, roads, our road out front has potholes, that that money would not be used to fund security for a private - and it is private - because the judges ruled that the homeless shelter they are building down the street is a private entity, and you are asking that this money, which is public money, be allocated for that private entity. Operational, now, if we were putting together the parcels, if we were being asked to do something to better the building site, that would be one thing, that money can be used by law for a lot of things, but not for operational. And that's why the people here at the Grand, and other neighbors, are very, very upset with the fact that the law and the items that were put before us, when they asked, would you pay a tax to better your area? and we said yes for the people mover, for improvement, infrastructure, for items that would help our neighborhood. Mr. Plummer: Prior. Mr. Joseph: ... and help our... I'm sorry. Mr. Plummer: No, excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but that... you know, I'm sitting here thinking back that that was prior to anything... Mr. Joseph: Right. Correct. Mr. Plummer: ... of a homeless Center. It was prior even to a performing arts. Mr. Joseph: Correct. Mr. Plummer: When we came to the people of Omni and we said, "Do you want to create this district?" And overwhelmingly that was the answer was "yes." Mr. Joseph: Absolutely. Mr. Plummer: And we took it then to the County Commission. And they approved it. I think one of the areas that you are speaking to... and Victor, I don't want to hold you up if you have to leave... you know, it's easy for me to say I voted against it, I did, if the record is clear. The area that I have one of the greatest concerns, and we are going to have to put it... the Manager leave? OK. That's... I'll get him later.. Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. He... Mr. De Yurre: You know, he is a private citizen today. Mr. Plummer: He is a private citizen, all right, fine. More so than ever. Uh. One of the areas that concern me more than anything, and it's got to be addressed eventually, and that was that there was a stipulation absolutely, clearly, about the security. Mr. Joseph: Absolutely. 18 June 15, 1995 0,„ P,i Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you, just so you are aware. That has been watered down completely. Mr. Joseph: Absolutely. Our ex -chief said millions of dollars. Millions of dollars. Mr. Plummer: OK. I think it's got to be put on the record... Mr. De Yurre: No, not millions. A lot of money. Mr. Plummer: OK. And I think that that's one of the areas. But, you know, when we talked about it, I remember Phill Yaffa coming down to the City Commission, talking about putting in a Metro Rail between the old Fincher property and Omni, I remember those days. Mr. Joseph: Uh-huh. Mr. Plummer: And that was one of the area that they wanted to talk about. They wanted to talk about Bibi's property, and putting a film studio over there. These were all of the things that at the time that this district was created that they were talking about. The others came afterwards. `. Mr. Joseph: Yes. I, Mr. Plummer: They were after -the -fact. Mr. Joseph: Correct. Mr. De Yurre: And let me make a point because when the Omni, the Tax Increment District was created it was, like you said, to improve the area, and then all of a sudden the agreement became one singular situation, that was the Performing Arts Center, because the whole pot was directed to the Performing Arts. So, there was not going to be any improvements other than directly related to the Performing Arts Center. Now, originally it was estimated there would be about $10 million available... Mr. Joseph: Correct. Mr. De Yurre: ...going back. Now, it's, from the last thing I heard, it could be up to about $14 million. So the difference, you know, from 14 take away 5, you still have nine of the 10 that originally were supposed to be there. We may want to look at this as instead of, you know, just knowing that the Performing Arts Center is going to be built, and it will be built as things are going, that now all of a sudden, there is a pot of $500,000 a year that has been freed up that is important... Mr. Joseph: Uh-huh. Mr. De Yurre: ...that is important that we identify what we want to use it for. Whether it's improving certain things in the area, whether it is allocating it to, you know, for security, or whatever. This is our chance to step forward... Mr. Joseph: Right. Mr. De Yurre: ... and say we would like to see these things done with this money. Mr. Joseph: But also the item I lay before you, it says memo at the top, it will explain very clearly what you got that you could use with those items. And that reason is the fact that when you have those funds, you can not use operational for something... and it said very clearly when 19 June 15, 1995 n7.4 they asked for this type of fund that those operational monies would not be used. You were sitting there and said to this homeless organization: "You got the money to operate?" "Yes," they said. "You won't have to come back and take tax?" "No," they said. You were very clear at asking the police chief where and how much is it going to cost. The reason I used millions was every year it's an additional... Mr. De Yurre: It adds up. Mr. Joseph: ... so they said, I believe, if I may be corrected somewhere around a million seven for the police force that would be needed annually. Well, that's another operation. You said "No." They couldn't go after public money for that. So when you put together say, like they tried to say, 500,000 if you give it to us we may take it and added up and go somewhere else with it, as they just finished saying, instead of it wasn't being used for City, water, and sewer, and roads, and other improvements. So that's where our big conflict came. So, when we asked that this items be looked at, we asked that they be looked at here in our neighborhood. I do appreciate the fact that you've come here. We all have. I have in my hand over 90 people. We don't want to have 90 people speak tonight. The 90 people wanted to fax you their vote against using this fictitious $500,000. Because if you now put it in the roads, in the sewer, in the infrastructure, you won't have 500,000 to give away for police, for clerical, or for whatever reason that you can relieve them of $5 million to go elsewhere and spend somewhere else. That's what bothered us. Now, we do have other people that wish to speak, and we have Mr. Yaffa who would like to speak as well, I'm sure. And we do appreciate you coming, and we appreciate the next meeting being here. Uh. Also, this particular area, as you speak, 10 million maybe 14, the only reason that would be is if the property value goes up. Mr. De Yurre: No, the interest rates have dropped, that's why. Mr. Joseph: Well, that too. But property value has to go up to get more tax base. That's where we are talking about. Mr. De Yurre: One question. And the point that I want to make is, I have to leave, is the fact that the... you know, we have $5 million, or $500,000 a year that is available, and I think it's... that is something that we should have a voice as to how it's used. And I think that's critical. The alternative is that the whole $5 million stay within the Performing Arts Center, and you are not going to see it because that is only five million less that they are going to have to raise from the public or from the private sector because it has already been earmarked totally for the project. Mr. Joseph: But even if you've said, 11500,000 for infrastructure for the Performing Arts," yes. We are not saying "no" to that if you go back to infrastructure. You need roads for that, fine. The Performing Arts Center said they need your five million, or whatever, for operational, if they can use it for putting together the project, and making it viable and work. The property value around here, Mr. Reboso is in, and everybody that lives in here, their property value after it's built will enhance your pot to be able to use. If you don't enhance it, the Performing Arts, just one item, I believe it was the Opera House, has gone and acquired one little lot for over $1 million, over night after the Performing Arts Trust became clear that it was going to be built here. That's one piece that used to have old tires, old cars and nobody would buy it, rent it, or even sleep in it. So there is your scenario if you allow these funds not to be used for improvement but operational, that it will hurt this community. And again, I appreciate you coming. I know that you have to leave. Mr. De Yurre: We'll continue to work together on this, and we'll make something that's palatable for all of us and something that we can all... you know, want. 20 June 15, 1995 Mr. Joseph: Well, another instrument I left with you, but... Hialeah didn't want one, and Coconut Grove didn't want one. Now, we have one. But we just don't want you to take our funds to spend to operate one. And I would like to open to other people at the Grand, and again... and the Omni district. Mr. De Yurre: OK. Mr. Joseph: Thank you. Mr. De Yurre: With your permission. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Mr. De Yurre left the public hearing at 7:49 P.M. Mr. Phillip Yaffa: Thank you. For the record, my name is Phillip Yaffa, 1717 North Bayshore Drive, Miami. I want to follow-up on Mr. Joseph's welcome, and tell you how much we appreciate, residents of the Omni area, appreciate you as the CRA coming into the district to hold these meetings. On the same hand though, the fact that this meeting is been held here at the Grand, in this relatively luxurious surroundings, I don't want that to mislead you at all. The Omni area is still an area of slum and blight. The Omni area is still the area of Miami that has the highest petty crime rate, and one of the highest violent crime rates. If you ask the people that live in this area if after this meeting it's dark outside, you will treat yourself to a walk through Margaret Pace Park immediately to the north of us here, you will see prostitution, and drug dealing, and vagrancy, even though this park is supposed to be closed after hours. Don't fool yourself in these particular surroundings, if you go one block west of Biscayne Boulevard, you will see slum and blight unmatched, I believe, in the City of Miami. Commissioner Plummer, I was very happy to hear you start this meeting off earlier by saying that you are not here tonight as a City Commission. You are here tonight under the auspices of Florida Statutes 163, which you have appointed yourself as the Community Redevelopment Agency. Your responsibility, as set forth in the Florida Statute, Chapter 163, is to implement the Omni Area Redevelopment Plan. I don't know if a lot of my neighbors are really aware that in 1988 this Commission and the County Commission formed the Tax Increment District for the purpose of implementing this Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan properly notes, the Omni Area Redevelopment Plan examined several development alternatives of varying degrees of public involvement that should be considered in order to stimulate economic development and investment activities in the area. And the Plan notes that the way to accomplish that is by the establishment of a Tax Increment District to fund needed public improvements and programmatic activities that will lead to the revitalization of this area. "The primary...," and I'm reading from the Redevelopment Plan, "The primary financing mechanism available is the establishment of a tax increment finance (unintelligible), so that new tax dollars generated through anticipated private sector improvements can be targeted for needed area improvements." That's why I think you as a CRA district have a responsibility to reexamine and look at the Plan, and clearly the Plan is for the economic revitalization of the area through tax increment dollar financing. This area is poised right now to make this tax increment district one of the most successful districts in the United States. When I was working on the formation of this district back in 1986, and 1985, I studied these districts, how they worked in other parts of the United States. And unlike the Park West Overtown district, I think we are in a situation where the Omni district has a number of projects planned, and can be planned that will generate literally tens of millions of tax increment dollars. Through the offices of Carl Smith, who independently of this CRA has been retained on contract by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), they are examining redevelopment potential of the Omni area. Well, maybe I can... 21 June 15, 1995 (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Yaffa: I say that this district is poised to take off and create literally tens of millions of dollars worth of projects, because what this map shows you is a current assemblage of 10 parcels or nine... 10 parcels that are ready to be developed. Well, let me tell you something, private developers are still not rushing into the Omni area. The Omni area is still a very risky proposition. Those developers need this tax increment dollars. They need the public involvement to make these projects a little less riskier, and little less... a little more attractive. Again I'd like to quote you from the Redevelopment Plan, "In order to foster new development, and to maximize the public benefit, a major public -private redevelopment effort will be necessary. Without such a comprehensive effort and a demonstrated commitment from the public sector, trends suggest that the decline of the area will accelerate." As Mr. Joseph was saying, we need these tax increment dollars to put in sewers; to put in streets; to build sidewalks; to improve lighting. We need these tax increment dollars to build a baywalk in Margaret Pace Park, to put sprinklers in Margaret Pace Park; to improve security in Margaret Pace Park; to landscape; to help generate this area not only here but west of the Boulevard. Those projects... and I'm in the process of talking to a number of private developers, you had mentioned... now, this plan contemplated back in 1988, for a formation of a media district, we are talking to people about the creation of that media district. When I say we, I am talking about the Downtown Development Authority, the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. One of my goals that was established at the recent Goals Conference of the Chamber, that was accepted by the New World Center Committee of the Chamber, is the formation of these post -production facilities in the West Omni area. I will tell you something, the West Omni area is very splintered. There are hundreds and hundreds of small parcels owned by individual property owners and it is going to take, like this Plan contemplated, the action of this City Commission, sitting as the Commission, to go in and do those assemblages of land, condemn and assemble land, and that's what tax increment dollars were meant to do as well. Certainly, in terms of priority, the Performing Arts Center is the number one priority, I believe, for our tax increment dollars, for the Performing Arts Center is clearly the type of catalytic project that will cause additional economic development to occur. What other kinds of things we want this tax increment dollar used for... Mr. Plummer: We are running out of chairs. Mr. Yaffa: ...these are items that we've been discussing and how tax increment dollars can be used. If we look at the issues and opportunities that are available with this money, create a clean, safe environment. Change overall perception of the area, Capitalize on existing strong downtown residential market in the Omni area. Look for spinoff development for things like the Performing Arts Center, the International Trade Board, private incentives to initiate development, and those kinds of incentives that I was talking about before, you coming in and putting in the infrastructure that these developments are going to need. And development promoting your unique (unintelligible)... and that's the kind of spinoff projects... I'm working on a Visual Arts Center, and a Visual Arts Museum to complement the Performing Arts Center. All of these dollars... when we look we say we have a pot of $500,000, it's a small pot of money. This area can generate tens of millions of dollars. I think that you might have read in last night... again, I don't want to discuss the... my company appeared before the Planning Advisory Board for a favorable recommendation to build a mega project in the Omni area, potentially a $100 million project of residential apartments and all suite hotel, and if that project comes through the process, and it's approved, and it's ultimately developed, we are looking at a potential increment of as much as $3.75 million. If you went out and bonded that, that could give the CRA 35, 37, $40 million worth of funds. And the Omni, within the next decade, will be the kind of neighborhood that it deserves to be. With all of that being said... with all of that being said, with all the dire need that this community needs to perch that money into hire cost, into infrastructure... 22 June 15, 1995 Mr. Yaffa: OK. With all of that being said... it's not the first time that they've walked out on me speaking. Chairperson Dawkins: What is your concern, they don't have a vote here. Mr. Yaffa: With all of that... with all of that being said, I appreciate what Commissioner Penelas said tonight. I was at that County Commission, and I understand how close the vote was that the Performing Arts Center not be approved, and not be funded. And this community would spend another 10 years like we spent the last 10 years looking to develop this. I'm very, very happy that after a four year struggle the Performing Arts Center Trust selected the Omni area as the site for this. In the spirit of compromise, I would propose the following: first it's not all that clear that there is $500,000 available. The City Finance Department, as you are aware, believes the increment is going to be $1.12 million. The County Finance Department believes the increment is going to be $1.4 million. And, until the recently converted Plaza Venetia Apartment Building into condominiums, until that is really assessed in the end, we are not going to know how much our increment really is. Remember we are talking 1996 dollars here. I have a (unintelligible) whether the County is prepared to go un-funded until 1996. On the assumption, that the Performing Arts Center is currently counting on the usage of $900,000, I would propose as a compromise that 50 percent of the excess over $900,000, to a maximum of $250,000, be allocated for City of Miami police services in the Omni area and in the areas surrounding the Homeless Assistance Center. The balance of that increment, whatever that might be, and it might be more than the $250,000, be utilized to begin the implementation of the projects that we are... that we have set forth in our Redevelopment Plan as that Plan will be amended by this CRA over the course of the next couple of months. I think that in a sense by allocating those monies specifically for security, at least the residents of this area whose tax dollars are directly involved will feel that they are receiving a benefit. The Homeless Assistance Center is a reality. It is going to be here. If you are just... from my apartment, I look and can see the facility. It is concrete, and stunningly it is out of the ground and will open, I believe in the next 60 days. We need now to make that facility work. We have a responsibility now in the neighborhood to make sure that that facility does not have the adverse impact that we fear it might have. And I think that by allocating dollars to the security of our neighborhood, we further assure the facility's success. That being said, I have a caveat, that before any of these monies are reallocated to the Homeless Assistance Center, or for security, that I think it behooves the CRA to ask its legal counsel whether an examination of Chapter 163, and an examination of the Tax Incremental Financing District allows the use of the funds for anything other than the kind of infrastructure improvements and plans that are set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Phillip, I got a question. Mr. Yaffa: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: You keep saying that there is a compromise. Well, the compromise is, as I see it, the residents against the Homeless Center taking money. What is the compromise? I'm missing something. Mr. Yaffa: The compromise that I am suggesting is that rather than make it... either the neighborhood gets all the money, all the Homeless Center gets all the money. Mr. Plummer: No, no. You are missing my point. As I understand Commissioner Penelas, the thing that they want the money for is operation, all right. Now, they want the $5 million for that. Now, you are talking the 250 and 250, if that's what it is, or 50 percent, and one is for security and the other -goes into the area... - 23 June- 15, 1995 Mr. Yaffa: The other one... the other one goes... gets placed through... the balance of the increment, gets placed in a tax increment trust. You, as a CRA, have the ability to direct those funds to projects. What I would suggest, we as a community neighborhood, we as a community, we as a neighborhood, I know that my Chamber Committee, the DDA's Omni Area Council, want to come before you sitting as the CRA and say this is our wish list this year for this $250,000. Mr. Plummer: I understand fully what you are saying, I just don't see it as a compromise. That's all. Mr. Yaffa: I think... well, I think that Mr. Penelas would like the entire increment of $500,000 granted to the community partnership of the homeless, or the County Trust for the next 10 years. Mr. Plummer: Phillip, I don't see where any of that money that you are talking about in the compromise is going for operational purposes. Mr. Yaffa: Well, if expense... Mr. Plummer: And that's what I would understand the compromise to be. Mr. Yaffa: ...part of the operations of the facility clearly is providing security. Unidentified Speaker: Right. Mr. Yaffa: And rather than seeing this money go for food, for staff, for maintenance, for landscaping, we are earmarking these monies specifically for security. Mr. Plummer: OK. All right. Mr. Yaffa: Plus, plus... you know, you have to talk about security. I remind you Commissioners, like we said you are sitting like CRA, but if you go back to July, I to clearly remember former Police Chief Calvin Ross saying that we needed 67 officers in this area in order to adequately ensure our safety and welfare. My understanding of the current plan is one squad car and four officers. That's a far cry from where we started. Chairperson Dawkins: And I will be asking at the Commission level, not here as a CRA member, Mr. Yaffa, I'd like to know how we got from 67 to 4, when it was said at the meeting that the Center will open and when the Center opened, it will open with that security, and then we will come back and readjust to see what we needed. I do not know how we got down to four, but I will... that's not... that's not a job for the CRA... Mr. Plummer: Well... Chairperson Dawkins: I will ask that at the Commission level. Mr. Plummer: ... let's get it on the record. Chairperson Dawkins: How we got to four? Mr. Plummer: No, what we agreed upon? Chairperson Dawkins: OK. 24 June 15, 1995 ;r' N Mr. Plummer: What we agreed upon was a stipulation at the time, on the outside the recommendation is that there be a total of six police officers and a sergeant, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which would amount to 42 officers and six sergeants. That was for openers. Mr. Yaffa: That's correct. Chairperson Dawkins: That's right, for the opening. Mr. Joseph: And he quoted in the neighborhood... Chairperson Dawkins: Excuse me. Mr. Plummer: That's not my... that's from the record. Mr. Joseph: That's from the record. And now they've reduced it, as Mr. Yaffa has said, down to approximately five percent of what they said they were going to need. That made us very uncomfortable here. Because right now we can't, as the Chair had said to them, wait till budget time. In this area, when you need more, where are you going to get it? And they all went white- faced and said, "No way, we won't need any. We will go back and get it from our fund." And we have not seen any of that. Now they are asking for more of this tax increment money. So I'm glad the Chair brought that up because he was one of the ones that brought that up at that City meeting. Again, I'd like for anyone from the Grand or the Omni tax district to please come forward. Mr. Jeff Kluger: My name is Jeff Kluger, with offices at 1310 N.E. 1st Avenue. Just to let you know a little bit about how I believe the security arrangements came about... at least are in the state that they are now. We were invited to sit in on meetings, the neighborhood was, and somehow between meeting one and meeting two something was negotiated and it happened. It came down to where we ended up with four police officers instead of the 67 or so that we were promised. And I was present at meetings one and meeting two, but I did not see what happened in between those meetings. And I just wanted to make the public aware that to follow-up on what is promised and make sure that it is held up because the promises that were made are often negotiated away. And that's what I believe happened in this case. So we have to be on guard and remember what is stated here tonight. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker: Sue. Will sue. Mr. Plummer: Is there another speaker? We are not limiting speakers now to just the Omni or the Grand. It's open to the public. Anybody that wishes to speak, please feel free to do so? Nobody every had... Mr. Joseph: Sheila Anderson. Ms. Sheila Anderson: My name is Sheila Anderson, I have offices at 101 N.E. 2nd Avenue. I just want to suggest because the comments were made that there is a pot of $500,000 in the tax increment district, and that is not needed for the development of the Performing Arts Center, and that is not the case. The Performing Arts Center budget from the very first, when the financing was originally approved by the County Commission in 1990, and that was the battle - and the Commission recognized the value Countywide of that project - the budget included, and still includes, construction of the Performing Arts Center in a turnkey capacity. It considers the operational needs and the endowment needs of the project and it also includes the 11 neighborhood theaters, and the budget for that is $8 million. If you take $5 million out of construction money for the Performing Arts Center principal facility and it is not replaced, then, you have to understand that it has to be paid somehow. And the only pot of money that is excess 25 June 15, 1995 money in that project really comes out of the neighborhood facilities. Four of those facilities are in the City of Miami, and they include the World Theater and they include Gusman, Manuel Artime, and Dade County Auditorium among them. There are important elements of neighborhood vitality, and maintaining the social and cultural facilities of the community because that stimulates the audiences and the performers for the Performing Arts Center and all together make this a better place to live. And to touch any of the funding of the budget of the Performing Arts Center, particularly when it's money that is needed for bonding capacity, jeopardizes the quality of that project. And I can't believe that you sit here and buy the premise of a Commissioner that he was promised something at a Commission meeting, in horse trading, but that was not what with the authority, or the knowledge, or the concern of the Omni area. The City of Miami Commission certainly didn't go along with that. And that was prior to the penny being voted on and dedicated to homeless. When we discussed earlier, Commissioner Plummer, that dedicated penny could be bonded. And the Homeless Trust, and the Community Partnership for the Homeless would have more than enough money to do whatever they need to do any place they need to do it. If they took the money that has been given to them by the voters of this community and used it in the same way that they are trying to take the money from the Omni district. So, you know, it is sort of naive to think that all of us don't realize that they have money and that it was discovered and voted on and dedicated to the homeless cause after all this other business took place, but now it's a fact - the money is there. And it's more than adequate to fund whatever they need to fund, and there is no need to come back to this community and then say: "We are going to create a security problem here and it's going to be significant enough that we need your help to pay for it." If it's going to be that significant, then they are not planning the project very well, if they haven't covered those cost, first of all. And secondly of all, to tell you one day one thing, and come back the next day and tell you something else is really insulting to the intelligence of everybody here. And I object to it. I think you've voted twice now to preserve the tax increment district for the Omni area as it was originally intended and these people wanted it to be. And this is the third time you are repeating the question. It's like they don't want to get the message that the homeless facility.:. and maybe it's time the City of Miami stood up and protected itself like the Mayor of Hialeah has protected himself. He said that there would not be a homeless facility in Hialeah. That's why they are building one here. If he is strong enough to tell Alex Penelas, "Listen, you need to do this wherever else you want to do it, but don't do it in your own district," then why shouldn't this community take the same stand to protect itself. Chairperson Dawkins: I have to beg to differ with you. Why didn't this Commission take that, OK? Ms. Anderson: Well... Chairperson Dawkins: Wait, now, no, no, no. Ms. Anderson: I agree with you. Chairperson Dawkins: Had this Commission taken the same posture that they took in Hialeah, we had... see I can say that because I voted against it, I have no problem with that. Ms. Anderson: That's right. I agree with you. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. If we, three members of this Commission, had taken the same position that they took in Hialeah, we wouldn't have one. But three Commissioners up here decided that they were going to have it in the City of Miami, whatever... Mr. Plummer: None are up here. 26 June 15, 1995 01,11N Chairperson Dawkins: .. see. So therefore, you have to say it like it is, and not in defense of Commissioner Penelas. But Commissioner Penelas has made it perfectly clear all night long, this is my position... Ms. Anderson: That's right. Chairperson Dawkins: ...he has not said it was anybody elses, he didn't... has not said once tonight that I'm forcing this on anybody, and I'm not defending him, I'm just saying it as a fact. All night long, he has said, "I, Penelas, this is how I feel, and this is my position." And he has not force it on nobody... none of us up here, he just kept saying it. Ms. Anderson: Except for one thing, he is also telling you that the County may not continue with the Performing Arts Center if you don't approve the... and I... Chairperson Dawkins: He has one vote in the community. Ms. Anderson: Exactly. And... Chairperson Dawkins: OK. That's all. Ms. Anderson: ...I think that everybody should be aware that he is one vote. Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Ms. Anderson: And if the rest of them don't want to vote for the Performing Arts Center, and we really are talking about the architect selection, then everybody in Dade County needs to know that. And I think that it's up to them to vote. And I don't believe for a moment that they would vote against the continuation of the project at this point. And if they were to do that... Chairperson Dawkins: Whoa, whoa. You have to go to the County, and feel them out, and come back and tell me how they are going to vote. I'm not going sit here... Ms. Anderson: They are going to vote for the Performing Arts Center. You know they are going to vote for the Performing Arts Center. And you know the whole community is going to vote for the Performing Arts Center. Chairperson Dawkins: ...we are going to sit here and go through that, OK. I don't know what they are going to do. Mr. Plummer: Sheila, trying to second guess five, it's impossible; could you imagine trying to second guess 13. Ms. Anderson: Inaudible. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir. My neighbor. Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Mariano. Mr. Mariano Cruz: For the record, Mariano Cruz, 1227 N.W. 26th Street. I wasn't going to say anything but then I'd like to see Mr. Penelas here, and Mr. Alvah Chapman, they left. The only reason I'm here is that I saw a lot of people from the Omni that they went to the meeting when they wanted to move Camillus House to Allapattah, they were there at the City Commission. But concerning the homeless issue that what I saw on the homeless issue... I'm also here because I pay Federal tax, County tax, City tax, and all kind of taxes, State taxes... 27 June 15, 1995 Af, r Chairperson Dawkins: Sales tax. Mr. Cruz: Right. All the way, the sales tax, too. The restaurant too. One percent for the homeless and domestic violence, seven and a half altogether. All the reason I'm saying this is that many of these homeless programs, I've seen a lot of money being used, use a lot of money. They went there to the Allapattah, to the Santa Clara Station, they cleaned it. Oh, yeah, well, now the homeless are living outside. They don't go there anymore. Sergio Gonzalez is right at his tower there and everybody, and they don't go there any more. And we got a worse problem now in Allapattah than we got before. So many of these homeless programs I don't see any continuity. All of these is getting money, money, money, and program executive directors and more and more crime. They go there, they took them out for something, they took them downtown, whatever, and now they are right there. And you look at today's tables in the crime issue you'll see, on N.W. 22 Street, a homeless was arrested and charged with cocaine possession at 14th Avenue and 22 Street, right on the Neighbors, in the crime issue, right therein the Neighbors of the Miami Herald. So the same problem is happening and all that. Now, one... they said if they used the money properly, because that is our money, that's Federal money, { (unintelligible) and all that, the thing would resolve. But why the problem is not solved? The I problem is not solved because what they are been... a lot of people that should have been in institutions are on the street now. And they don't do anything by putting people on shelters. They are putting the crazy people out on the street now that were before in institutions. Because why, right here on 34th Street, there is CLU's (sic) right there. There is responsible (sic)... they were responsible for that because if you are not a danger to yourself or to others they can't vacate you. I mean, there is no... any more. Just you are out in the street again and again. So I don't know, if it's money or what, but the big money goes to the executive director and the assistant directors and all of them directors. And they stay right there at the 29th floor of the Dade County Building. They don't go there to 13 and 20, you know. And those... and many E people don't say that because they depend in all those programs, or they don't want to say anything to upset Mr. Chapman, or Mr. Penelas, or whatever reason. I say that. I can say that because I am a veteran, I got a check from the Federal government, I work, my check is not signed by (unintelligible) or anybody from there or whatever. You know. I say that... the only thing I think is that you have to have continuity. I remember, in the neighborhood there when Mr. Chapman is, wherever they want to put (unintelligible) a few years back, Barranco and 3 every... they didn't even want those halfway houses out, I remember that, nor the homeless j shelter. So, love thy neighbor, right, that's what the Bible says. Love thy neighbor as long as he ! is a homeless, as long as he makes a million dollar a year? No, no, no, love thy neighbor, that's all. Mr. Plummer: For those who don't know Mariano, he has never been bashful. He is a hard- working postman that comes. He is one of the few men, in the years that I've sat on this Commission, that has never failed to come to speak at budget time. He represents his community up there and he comes and he fights like crazy for his community. God bless him. Mr. Joseph: Well, that's what we are trying to do here at the Grand. Now, there is a lady behind me that asked that I speak on one other item. She is asking because of the park next door that we are not able to use because of the homeless. I know, I received a letter from Judge C. Clyde Atkins in regards to why the homeless are loose in our City. And why they are not being properly cared for. But in doing so, that shelter... we didn't want it. It's here, but they promised to fund it. Let them fund it with their own. Let us build... let us fix our park; let those funds that we allocated go back to the park, go back to the roads, and go back to the community. Not just one entity. And they've already said they are a private entity. They said they are a private entity. Any one else... yes. Chairperson Dawkins: Yes, sir. Come right up. 28 June 15, 1995 Mr. Joseph: Come on up, please. Mr. Fred Thompson: Thank you, gentlemen, for inviting me. My name is Thompson, Manager of the Dade Tire Company, 15th Street and North Miami Avenue, right straight across from where the hot spot is that we are talking about here. I'd invite you fellows someday to come down and spend the day, you can see how it works. To say it won't be no trouble but I can't buy that. There is 250 around the neighborhood now that use your toilet, which is fine; toilet paper, six to eight rolls a day, plenty of water, all that good things just happen, which is fine. But you do get tire of it, sir. And I guess I'd be a bad boy for this but if any of you went to see the show "Bad Boys," we taped it at the Dade Tire Company. So will be glad with any help we can get from you fellows, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Dawkins, I grew up with you here, and since... excuse me, since 1934, so I've been here around here a long time with the both of you. Thank you, sir. Chairperson Dawkins: One more... one more speaker and will recess until the 29th. Is there another speaker? Mr. Plummer: If there is not another speaker, Commissioner, I... do you wish to speak, sir? Mr. Roberto Oliva: Yes. Mr. Plummer: I'll hold it. I'll wait. Mr. Oliva: Just one comment. Chairperson Dawkins: Will someone inform Commissioner Penelas that we are getting ready to adjourn. He may want to have a closing statement, please. Mr. Plummer: Is he still out there? Are they still out there? Mr. Oliva: My name is Roberto Oliva, I live here in the building. I just came back from Santa Monica and they are'doing a great job with 3rd Street annex. I traveled to San Antonio, and they are doing a great job with the river. I go to Atlanta, they are doing a great job attracting major corporations to that city. Everybody agrees that this is like the last stretch of land in the City of Miami that has to be protected. Whatever you do, think as business people here. This is a big, big decision. We need to think as business people now in the City of Miami because there is really not much else for us to do. It's a great City, whatever you do, do it for the best of the City. All right. Thanks a lot. Chairperson Dawkins: Thank you, sir. We will close... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. FAX CONCERNS/QUESTIONS TO CHAIRPERSON'S OFFICE PRIOR TO JUNE 29, 1995 MEETING -- BOARD WILL ANSWER CONCERNS/QUESTIONS AT JUNE 29, 1995 MEETING. Mr. Plummer: Commissioner Dawkins, I would invite all of the people here this evening, as you have heard, the Chairperson has announced that the next meeting will be here, on the 29th, at 7 o'clock. I would invite any and all of you who have any questions, or any thoughts or ideas that have been expressed or not expressed here this evening, to fax them to us at City Hall in case we need to get answers for you, so that we don't have you at the next meeting saying, "Well, we'll 29 June 15, 1995 get you an answer at another meeting." So if you have questions, if you have ideas, you want information, you want statistics, I would ask, and I'll give you my fax number if you want to use it, and it's.., with my fax number... Mr. Joseph: I have them all. Remember? Mr. Plummer: Yeah, boy, you burn my machine up one weekend. Mr. Joseph: Thank ,you. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: I want to tell you. I came in to City Hall... i Mr. Joseph: We tried. Mr. Plummer: ... on a Monday morning, and there was a stack of paper, everyone of them... ! Mr. Joseph: We deliberately did it over the weekend because we didn't want your other business to be stopped. 4 Mr. Plummer: I want to tell you... h Mr. Joseph: But we'll fill up your floor. ' Chairperson Dawkins: OK. Mr. Plummer: What I'm saying to you is that if you want stats, you want any information, I would appreciate that you get it to the Chairperson, that's where it should go, or to Mr. Bailey, the Executive Director so that we can have answers for you at the next meeting if you have any more further questions. Mr. Joseph: Again, I'd like to say thank you very, very much on our behalf. And not only at the Grand, but also at the old tax district. I would like to make one closing thing. We had received 20 cases of tea, and we were going to dump it in the bay here... Mr. Plummer: From Boston. Mr. Joseph: ...from Boston, for taxation without representation. But instead, being as you've come here, it's out front and everybody is welcomed to it. It's all bottled -up and nice and cold. So on your way out, it's your voice and your vote. So... Mr. Plummer: In Miami, it would have to be Rum and Coke. Mr. Joseph: Well, they told me I couldn't do that. Chairperson Dawkins: Ladies and gentlemen, we are happy that you came and we look forward to seeing you on the 29th. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Thank you for having us. 30 June 15, 1995 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE OMNI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. Miller J. Dawkins Chairperson ATTEST: Walter J. Foeman CITY CLERK Maria J. Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 31 June 15, 1995